Jack-Up Leg Hydrodynamic Load Prediction - a Comparative Study of Industry Practice with

CFD and Model Test Results

Sing-Kwan Lee
1
, Deguang Yan
2
,Baili Zhang
3
, Chang-Wei Kang
3


1
American Bureau of Shipping
Houston, Texas, USA
2
American Bureau of Shipping, Pacific Division
Singapore
3
Institute of High Performance Computing
Singapore


ABSTRACT

In jack-up structure and foundation designs, the accurate prediction of
drag and wave forces is important but difficult. For the assessment of
hydrodynamic forces SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5A provide a useful
empirical approach. This approach was developed largely based on
wind tunnel measurement data in 90s of last century. However, in
some cases reported, drag forces calculated by the SNAME
recommended practice differ appreciably from those obtained from
wind tunnel tests. To investigate this puzzle, it is worth having a
comprehensive comparative study among SANME practices, CFD
(Computational Fluid Dynamic) and wind tunnel measurement. In this
paper, a typical jack up leg configuration is selected. The
hydrodynamic forces on its leg due to solely current, solely waves and
combined wave and current are calculated using the aforementioned
SNAME, CFD and wind tunnel test approaches. Through the
comparison of the calculated drag and wave forces from different
approaches, this paper tries to confirm the conservativeness adhered in
the SNAME approach compared to the CFD and model test results.

KEY WORDS: Jack-up, Hydrodynamic forces, CFD, SNAME 5-5A,
Wind tunnel test

BACKGROND AND MOTIVATION

Historically, hydrodynamic loads on jack-up legs have been estimated
based solely on wind tunnel measurements. While recognizing that
wind tunnel tests can only account for steady current situations and not
wave oscillatory flow situations, wave tank tests should have been
conducted to assess their relative magnitude. Unfortunately, such
studies do not seem to have been conducted thoroughly thus far, nor do
they seem to have been very well reported in published literature for
reasonably large KC (Keulegan-Carpenter) number. Perhaps this
situation is due to high costs and the model scale restriction. With the
advent of CFD (Computation Fluid Dynamics) simulation techniques, it
has become possible, at a relatively modest cost, to revisit this issue
with a view to understand the magnitude of wave loads on jack-up legs
due to large wave oscillatory flow.

Hitherto, SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5A provides established guidelines
for the assessment of hydrodynamic loads on jack-up units. These
guidelines are based largely on wind tunnel measurements. However,
as reported in some cases, drag forces calculated by the SNAME
approach differ appreciably from those obtained from wind tunnel tests.
According to ABS experience, SNAME-based drag forces can be 10-
15% higher than those based on wind tunnel tests. Since there are still
an insufficient number of studies available, it may be too early to draw
any conclusion as to whether or not the conservatism in the SNAME
approach is enough to account for the wave effect. This paper describes
a study performed to systematically compare the current engineering
practices with wind tunnel test data and CFD simulations for a typical
jack-up design. Environmental load cases considered in this study
include solely currents, solely waves and combined wave and current.
It has found that CFD simulation has a good agreement with the wind
tunnel test results and provides valuable insights on the physics of
hydrodynamic load vis--vis flow interference between structural
members. It also reaffirms the view that the SNAME-based approach,
compared to CFD and model test results, predicts more conservative
loads in most of the cases. More systematic comparisons will be
presented in the paper.

HYDRODYNAMIC LOAD PREDICTION

Due to the complicated configuration of jack-up structure, the physics
behind the environmental flows (current, waves and combined wave
and current) around a jack up structure are complicated also. In CFD
simulation for the flow passing jack-up leg the complex vortex
shedding behind chords, blockage effect due to upstream bracing, and
Re number dependence phenomena always appear. This causes the load
prediction really a challenge. Before presenting our CFD results and
load prediction approach comparison, a brief introduction for typical
jack up configuration and hydrodynamic load prediction approaches
could be helpful for readers to understand the background of this load
prediction comparative study.
Proceedings of the Nineteenth (2009) I nternational Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Osaka, J apan, J une 21-26, 2009
Copyright 2009 by The I nternational Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (I SOPE)
I SBN 978-1-880653-53-1 (Set); I SSN 1098-618
541

Typical Jack-up Configuration
As is well-known, typical jack-up units consist of a buoyant triangular
platform (hull) resting on three/four independent truss-work legs, with
the weight of the deck and equipment more or less equally distributed.
The foundation types for jack-up structures are many, for example,
mat-supported type, individual footings (spudcans) supported type, and
skirted gravity based supported type. Among them, individual footing
type (Fig. 1) is the most popular application because of its easy
installation. The jack-up leg component is usually designed with three
cylindrical shape chords or four triangular shape chords, which are
connected through bracing members. Mainly, there are three truss-
work configurations for the bracing members, namely, X type, K type
and diamond shape type (Fig. 2). In this comparative study, a three-
cylindrical-shaped chord leg with diamond shape bracing configuration
is selected. The bay unit of the leg is shown in Figure 3.


Fig. 1 Typical tripod jack-up (after Le Triant, 1979)


Leg with 3 cylindrical shape chord Leg with 4 triangular shape chord

X type bracing leg K type bracing leg Diamond shape bracing leg
Fig. 2 Different chord and bracing configurations

Fig. 3 Jack-up bay unit configuration selected for comparative study
Drag and wave forces prediction
In determining the hydrodynamic forces, model test, CFD simulation
and engineering calculation based on Morison formula are three
common approaches used. Compared to model test and engineering
calculation, CFD simulation is relatively new but has the advantages to
provide more insights for the load generated mechanisms through
visualizing detailed CFD simulation flow and to be the most cost-
effective approach compared to the other two approaches. For model
test, although it is considered as the most reliable approach in the past,
the scale effect problem is still a major uncertainty in load prediction
for prototype jack-ups. Engineering calculation approaches in the
SNAME guidelines are basically developed based on wind tunnel test
results by adding certain experience-based safety factor for
conservative design. The accuracy of them is somehow relied on wind
tunnel test accuracy and the soundness of pervious design experiences.
Also, as mentioned earlier, wind tunnel experiment can not simulate the
wave oscillatory flow; therefore, higher uncertainty exists in wave force
calculation in the SNAME approache. As is well known, for jack up
survival condition design, wave force will dominate the hydrodynamic
force. To accurately predict the loads under waves becomes a critical
issue in design.

Theoretically, hydrodynamic loads on jack up legs induced by current
and waves consist of two different components, namely they are drag
force and inertia force. For steady current condition, only drag force
will exist, while for wave condition, both drag and inertia force will be
generated. In fact, this aspect is reflected in Morison equation used in
the SNAME approache as follows.
n M n n D inertia drag
u A C v v DC F F F & + = + = 5 . 0
(1)
where the first term in the right hand side of equation (1) is drag force
term
drag
F
and the second term is for inertia force
inertia
F
. It should
be noted that the total force F in the equation (1) actually is force per
unit length. The definitions of the other symbols in the equation are as
follows.

= mass density of sea water (normally 1025 kg/m3).

C
D
= drag coefficient.
v
n
= fluid velocity normal to the member axis.
D = the reference dimension in a plane normal to the fluid velocity
n
v
.
C
M
= inertia coefficient.
A = Cross sectional area of member axis.
n
u&
= fluid acceleration normal to member.


One rack tooth unit on chord Bay unit
Fig. 4 Reference lengths used for non-dimensional forces
To establish a common base for the later comparative study,
hydrodynamic forces should be normalized based on a common set of
reference lengths. In this paper, the reference lengths used for chord
member are tube diameter D and rack tooth height h (Fig. 4) while, for
bay unit, the reference lengths used are bay width W and height H (Fig.
4). In mathematical expressions, the normalized (dimensionless) forces
542

for chord and bay are written as
2
5 . 0 DhV
F

and
2
5 . 0 WHV
F

, where
V is a reference velocity which can be current velocity for constant
current case; amplitude of wave induced velocity for solely wave case;
and the sum of current and amplitude of wave induced velocity for
combined wave and current case.

CFD VALIDATION

CFD simulations based on commercial software FLUENT were
performed. To validate the accuracy of the simulations, the
computational results are compared with wind tunnel measurement
data. Details of mathematical equations, turbulent models (standard k-
model and Reynolds stress model), CFD mesh resolution,
computational domain and boundary conditions setting in the CFD
computations can be referred to Zhang et al (2009) and Zhang et al
(2008). For the sake of briefness, only the comparison results between
CFD simulation and measurement will be reported in this paper.

Model tests were done in Texas A&M University with a 1:2.8 scale
chord model and 1:12.7 scale leg model. Wind speeds used in the tests
were 60 knot, 110 knot, and 160 knot which are corresponding to
Reynolds numbers 5.7710
5
, 1.0610
6
, and 1.5410
6
for chord model;
and 1.2710
5
, 2.3310
5
and 3.3910
5
for bay model. Here, Reynolds
number is calculated based on the chord diameter for both single chord
and bay unit cases. For each wind speed, drag forces under different
incident angles are also measured. The definitions of the incident
angles for chord and leg are shown in Figure 5.

for chord for leg
Fig. 5 Current flow incident angle definitions

Uniform flow passing single chord
To validate the CFD simulation for chord, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the
comparison of the normalized drag forces between model test and CFD
results. For Re = 5.7710
5
case, the average error of CFD computation
is 3.79% compared to the model test measurement. For Re = 1.0610
6

case, the average error is improved to -1.44%. This improvement may
attribute to the fact that the flow becomes fully turbulence at that Re
and turbulent model used works better than the lower Re (5.7710
5
)
case. There are some incomplete measured drag data for Re = 1.5410
6

(just three measured drag at = 0
o
, 15
o
, and 30
o
). However, it is
probably not appropriate to use them to evaluate the CFD accuracy as
the average error obtained is just based on 3 data points instead of 7
points averaging in Re = 5.7710
5
and 1.5410
6
cases.

For CFD computation drag, it should also be pointed out that except at
incident angle = 0
o
obvious vortex shedding is observed in CFD
results. The drag, which the chord is subjected, actually is unsteady
although the fluctuation is small compared to mean drag (only few % of
mean value). In Fig. 6 and 7, the drags shown actually are mean. To
have a general idea of the vortex shedding, Fig. 8 shows the pressure
contour plot for the case with Re = 1.0610
6
and = 90
o
. Pressure unit
in Fig. 8 is in Pa (N/m
2
).


Fig. 6 Normalized drag force on single chord, Re = 5.7710
5



Fig. 7 Normalized drag force on single chord, Re = 1.0610
6



Fig. 8 Pressure contour (Pa) for chord; Re = 1.0610
6


Uniform flow passing bay unit
In CFD simulation for bay model scale, the difficulty and uncertainty
are more. In this 1:12.7 scale leg model, the Re numbers under wind
speeds 60 knot, 110 knot and 160 knot conditions for drag
measurement are 1.2710
5
, 2.3310
5
and 3.3910
5
(based on chord
diameter). These Re numbers will be much smaller when considering
the diameter of bracing members. The corresponding Re numbers
based on the bracing member diameter for wind speeds 60 knot, 110
knot and 160 knot are 5.3710
4
9.8610
4
and 1.4310
5
. This implies
the flow around the different members of the bay unit can be laminar,
transitional, and turbulent situations. However, it should be noted that
due to the sharp corners of the rack at upstream chord, turbulent flow
543

will be easy to stimulate and flow downstream to bracing members.
Therefore, based on this reason, although the Re is not high enough for
fully turbulent flow for the bay model scale, we still expect turbulent
flow could be the major flow situation. In our CFD simulation, fully
turbulent flow situation is assumed.

To validate the CFD computation, comparisons of the drag forces
between CFD computations and measurements are plotted in Fig. 9, 10
and 11 for wind tunnel speeds 60 knot, 110 knot and 160 knot for
different incident flow angles (see the definition in Fig. 5). The
average errors of CFD computations compared to wind tunnel test
measurement are -7.7% (under-predicted) for Re = 1.2710
5
(V
s
= 60
knots), -4.82% (under-predicted) for Re = 2.3310
5
(Vs = 110 knot)
and 1.86% (over-predicted) for Re = 3.3910
5
(V
s
= 160 knot). This
confirms the CFD computation based on fully turbulent flow
assumption still works reasonably well for this bay model scale.

Fig. 9 Normalized drag force on bay unit, Re = 1.2710
5



Fig. 10 Normalized drag force on bay unit, Re = 2.3310
5


Fig. 11 Normalized drag force on bay unit, Re = 3.3910
5


In addition to CFD computation errors, it should also be pointed out
that wind tunnel measurements also have their uncertainty and error.
For instance, the measurement curve in Fig. 10 shows it is obviously
not mirror symmetric to flow angle = 60
o
and not exactly repeats its
pattern with a 120
o
period. These mirror symmetry and repeating
period features should appear if the model is fabricated in accuracy.

In Figs. 9 and 10, it is found that CFD computations show drag forces
are under predicted. This can be explained as follows. In the wind
tunnel speeds 60 and 110 knot, the Re numbers are still too low to
stimulate the turbulent flow for most of bracing members. Due to the
use of turbulent model in CFD computations, most of the bracing
members will be treated as fully turbulent situation. This causes the
drag computed will be lower than the measured results which most of
bracing members are still in laminar flow situation.

In Figs. 10 and 11, it is noted that the drag forces computed at = 0
o
is
more accurate than at = 60
o
. This may attribute to the reason that
turbulent wake generated in upstream chord at = 0
o
condition
stimulate more turbulent flow to downstream bracing region. This
makes the CFD computation based on fully turbulent flow to have
better results. For = 60
o
condition, as seen in Fig. 12 - the schematic
plot for downstream turbulent wake region, it shows the turbulent flows
stimulated by upstream chords are very limited. Most of the bracing
members are still in laminar or transitional flow situation.


Fig. 12 Schematic plot of wake extension behind upstream chord; =
0
o
and = 60
o


COMPARATIVE STUDY
SNAME APPROACH VS. MODEL TEST

To investigate the performance of industry practices (SNAME
approach) on hydrodynamic load prediction for jack up leg, a
comparative study is preformed first using the wind tunnel
measurement data which include the single chord and the bay unit
under three constant wind flow speeds. The cases considered in this
first set of comparative study are summarized in the following table.

Chord
1:2.8 scale model
Bay unit
1:12.7 scale model Wind tunnel
speeds - knot Re based on
chord diameter
Re based on
chord diameter
Re based on
bracing diameter
60 5.7710
5
1.2710
5
5.3710
4

110 1.0610
6
2.3310
5
9.8610
4

160 *1.5410
6
3.3910
5
1.4310
5

* for Re 1.5410
6
, CFD result is used instead of measurement data
Table 1 Summary of cases for comparative study SNAME approach
vs. model test

Uniform flow passing single chord
For the comparative study of single chord case, the range of Re are
from 5.7710
5
to 1.5410
6
. As seen in Fig. 13, scale effect (Re number
effect) for drag force still can be recognized although it is not
significant. Basically, the model test results show when Re becomes
higher, the drag force becomes larger. In Figure 13, SNAME
544

calculation results are also plotted (the red solid line). Compared to the
model tests, SNAME predictions are always in conservative side as the
upper bound of the model test data.

Fig. 13 SNAME calculation vs. wind tunnel data single chord

Uniform flow passing bay unit
For bay unit cases, the Re ranges are from 1.2710
5
to 3.3910
5
for
chord member and 5.3710
4
to 1.4310
5
for bracing member. It is
expected these Re numbers are somewhat not high enough to model the
actual full scale situation. As seen in Fig. 14, the scale effect is still
obvious (see the circle, cross and triangle symbols) and not really
convergent. Unlike the single chord results, drag force on bay unit
decreases when Re increases. This could be mainly due to the reason
that flow is transitioned from laminar state to turbulent state when Re
increases. In SNAME load predictions (red line in Fig. 14), when Re is
high enough, the calculated drag is conservative. Also included in our
results, the SANME prediction based on blockage effect calculation
(Taylor, 1991) is also plotted (the orange line). The result shows
somewhat under-predicted compared with the wind tunnel data. In
addition to the magnitude of drag force, the tendency of change on drag
force for different incident angle between SNAME approach and model
test is different. As seen, model test shows minimum magnitude at 30
o

but SNAME predicts maximum at 30
o
. In fact, at 30
o
incident angle,
one of the three chord is blocked by upstream chord causing the drop of
drag force (see Fig. 18). It also should point out that SNAME
calculation cannot distinguish the different flows at 0
o
and 60
o
(see Fig.
12) as the approach itself neglects the interaction among the members.

Fig. 14 SNAME calculation vs. wind tunnel data bay unit

COMPARATIVE STUDY
SNAME APPROACH VS. FULL SCALE CFD RESULTS

After the first set comparison by model test data, the second set
comparison will performed based on full scale CFD simulation results.
The cases considered are included current speeds 1 knot and 3 knot;
wave heights 10m, 20m and 30m; and incident flow (either current or
waves) angles 0
o
, 45
o
and 60
o
. Table 1 below summarizes the case
matrix considered in this section.

Current Wave Current & wave
Current speed 1, 3 knot 1, 3 knot
Wave height 10, 20, 30 m 10, 20, 30 m
Incident angle 0
o
, 45
o
, 90
o
0
o
, 45
o
, 90
o
0
o
, 45
o
, 90
o
Structure
Single Chord
Bay
Single Chord
Bay
Single Chord
Bay
Total case # 12 18 36
Table 2 Case matrix for full scale case comparative study

Uniform current

Single chord
For single chord under 1 and 3 knot current, the CFD simulations show
not much scale effect in the drag force (Fig. 15). Also, as before,
SNAME prediction is in conservative side.

Fig. 15 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation single chord

Bay unit
Similar to the chord cases, scale effect is not strong in the bay unit case
for 1 and 3 knots current conditions (Fig. 16). In CFD simulations, the
method captures that the min. force occurs at flow angle 30
o
(due to the
blockage effect as shown in Fig. 17) as indicated in the model test.
Also, the difference of the drag force magnitude at 0
o
and 60
o
incident
angles is predicted (see Fig. 17 and Fig. 18), however, in SNAME
method this characteristic cannot be reproduced. As expected, SNAME
approach shows its conservativeness on load prediction for high Re
numbers for full scale structure. It is also interesting to learn that
SNAME blockage calculation do match the 30
o
flow angle situation.

Fig. 16 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation bay unit
545


Fig. 17 Velocity contour for 3 knots speed current = 0
o


Fig. 18 Velocity contour for 3 knots speed current = 30
o



Fig. 19 Velocity contour for 3 knots speed current = 60
o


Member interaction
In addition to single chord and bay unit cases, CFD and SNAME
calculations are also preformed for 3 chords as a whole and bracing
members only cases. Detailed results for the drag force magnitudes and
% of drag force for 3 chords, bracing, and bay unit are summarized in
Table 3 and 4. Fig. 20 and 21 plot the drag force results for 3 chords
and bracing. As seen, scale effect is not strong for the two different
speeds. Compared to the CFD results, SNAME approach over-predicts
the chords force (Fig. 20), especially the force under blockage effect at
30
o
inflow angle. For bracing force (Fig. 21), SNAME calculation
under-predicts the drag force compared to the CFD results. This is
mainly because SNAME approach doesnt consider the friction force
along the member axis direction while CFD calculation does include it.
However, this part is not significant.

In general, drag force on chords and bracing member are roughly 60%
and 40% of the total force on bay unit. According to CFD calculation,
the interaction force between chords and bracing members is always
minus which means the interaction is mainly from the blockage effect.
It also noted that the interaction effect becomes more significant when
the flow angle increases from 0
o
to 60
o
.

Angle Component 1 knot 3 knot SNAME
3 chords 0.2124 0.2127 0.2226
Bracings 0.1512 0.1479 0.1388 0
Bay unit 0.3602 0.3541 0.3616
3 chords 0.2098 0.2097 0.2301
Bracings 0.1497 0.146 0.1398 15
Bay unit 0.3569 0.3513 0.3701
3 chords 0.1721 0.1704 0.2349
Bracings 0.1441 0.1408 0.1413 30
Bay unit 0.3088 0.3039 0.3762
3 chords 0.2033 0.2039 0.2301
Bracings 0.1552 0.1513 0.1398 45
Bay unit 0.3445 0.3385 0.3701
3 chords 0.2056 0.2059 0.2226
Bracings 0.1592 0.1548 0.1388 60
Bay unit 0.3313 0.3269 0.3616
Table 3 SNAME calculation and CFD results - normalized drag force
on 3 chords, bracing and bay unit

Fig. 20 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation three chords

Fig. 21 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation bracing members

Angle Component 1 knot 3 knot SNAME
3 chords 59.0 % 60.1 % 61.6 %
Bracings 42.0 % 41.8 % 38.4 % 0
Interaction -1.0 % -1.9 % -
3 chords 58.9 % 59.7 % 62.2 %
Bracings 41.9 % 41.6 % 37.8 % 15
Interaction -0.8 % -1.3 % -
3 chords 55.7 % 56.1 % 62.4 %
Bracings 46.7 % 46.3 % 37.6 % 30
Interaction -2.4 % -2.4 % -
3 chords 59.0 % 60.2 % 62.2 %
Bracings 45.1 % 44.7 % 37.8 % 45
Interaction -4.1 % -4.9 % -
60
3 chords 62.1 % 63.0 % 61.6 %
546

Bracings 48.1 % 47.4 % 38.4 %
Interaction - 10.2 % -10.4 % -
Table 4 SNAME calculation and CFD results - % of normalized drag
force on 3 chords, bracing and bay unit

Purely wave
In purely wave simulation, due to the limitation of CFD software
FLUENT (wave generator is not included in its public released
version), simplification of wave flow using uniform oscillating flow is
adopted in this study (Zhang et al., 2009). In fact, it should be noted
that wave-induced velocity is a function of water depth. This
simplification is more suitable to shallow water condition.

Also, it is found reverse flow can create numerical stability problem in
FLUENT. Hence, in this study, only inflow to computation domain
with sine function is applied as the upstream boundary condition (see
Fig. 22). The results based on this simplification seem fine for the drag
before reserve flow occurs. This is confirmed by comparing the
SNAME calculation with the CFD results (see Fig.23 for purely waves
and Fig. 26 for combined wave and current).

time
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-4
-2
0
2
4
6

Inflow of actual combined wave and current Inflow used in FLUENT CFD
Fig. 22 Schematic plot for inflow conditions

Single chord

Fig. 23 Normalized force time history on chord wave height = 30m
at incident angle 45
o


For single chord purely wave cases, wave heights with 10, 20 and 30m
are considered (see Table 2). Due to the limitation of the paper length,
here, only for the wave height Hw = 30m case, the detailed drag force
time history comparison between CFD and SNAME predictions are
shown (Fig. 23). As mentioned earlier, although a simplification
upstream boundary condition is used in CFD simulation, the CFD
simulation results still can match the SNAME prediction reasonably.
To have a comprehensive comparison between SNAME and CFD
results, Fig. 24 shows the peak wave forces calculated in CFD
calculations and SNAME predictions for wave heights 10, 20 and 30m,
which are corresponding to Kc number 45.79, 88.92, and 131.58 (Fig.
27). As seen, KC number effect is not significant in SNAME results
but it does become important in CFD results. It can be seen in the plot,
for Hw =20m, CFD result matches with SNAME prediction. However,
when wave height gets higher (30m) or lower, obvious difference
between the SNAME prediction and the CFD result occurs.

Fig. 24 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation single chord

Bay unit
In bay unit cases, again wave heights 10m, 20m and 30m are
considered. Fig. 25 shows the comparison of drag forces (peak value)
between SNAME and CFD calculations. Unlike the chord case, drag
forces obtained in SNAME calculation show its conservativeness when
wave height is over 10m. This is believed mainly from the bracing
members contribution.

Fig. 25 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation bay unit

Combined wave and current

Single chord
For single chord combined wave and current cases, wave heights with
10, 20 and 30m and current speed 1 and 3 knots are considered (see
Table 2). Due to the limitation of the paper length, here only for the
case of 3 knot current combined with wave height Hw = 30m, the
detailed drag force time history comparison between CFD and SNAME
predictions are plotted (Fig. 26). Quite similar result as the purely
wave cases can be seen. In comparison of the peak drag force values
for combined current and wave cases with 3 knot current speed, the
peak drag force for wave height equal to 20m, the CFD result matches
well with the SNAME calculation (Fig. 27). However, when wave
height gets higher (30m) or lower (10m) the difference between
SNAME approach and CFD result becomes obvious. This is similar to
547

the purely wave cases shown previously.

Fig. 26 Normalized force time history on chord wave height = 20m at
incident angle 45
o



Fig. 27 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation single chord

Bay unit
For combined current and wave bay unit cases, comparison plot is
shown here only for the current speed 3 knot cases. Unlike the purely
wave cases, SNAME calculation always shows it conservativeness in
predicting the peak force on the bay unit (Fig. 28).

Fig. 28 SNAME calculation vs. CFD simulation bay unit



CONCLUDING REMARKS

A comparative study for SNAME approach, CFD simulation and model
test is conducted. In this study, a typical jack up leg configuration is
selected to calculate the hydrodynamic forces on the leg due to solely
current, solely waves and combined wave and current situation.

In this paper CFD results have been validated with the wind tunnel test
data. In general, CFD simulation is in good agreement with the wind
tunnel test data. In our CFD simulation for bay unit structure, it is
found due to the existing of different flow conditions (laminar,
transitional and turbulent) in chord and bracing members, accurate CFD
simulation is really a challenge. However, compared with the model
test data, our CFD simulations still show reasonable good results.

In this study, the comprehensive comparisons for the scale effect,
blockage effect, Kc number effect and member interaction effect
among model test, CFD simulation and SNAME approach show that
the combined effect on bay unit hydrodynamic force in SNAME
hydrodynamic load prediction provides conservative loads on jack up
leg design. For a three circular shaped chord leg jack up, the most
conservative prediction of the hydrodynamic load happens at inflow
angle 30
o
.

REFERENCES

ABS Technical Report (2009), A comparative study for jack up leg
hydrodynamic load assessment .

Le, Tirant, R. (1979), Seabed reconnaissance and offshore soil
mechanics for the installation of petroleum structure, Paris.

Lee, S.K., and Seah, A.K. (2007), Simulation technology for offshore
and marine hydrodynamics: status review and emerging capabilities,
2
nd
International Maritime-Port Technology and Development
Conference (MTEC 2007), Singapore.

SNAME, (2002), Guidelines for site specific assessment of mobile
jack-up units, Technical & Research Bulletin 5-5A.

Taylor, P., (1991), Current blockage reduced forces on steel
platforms in regular and irregular waves with mean current, Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 6519, Houston, 1991.

Zhang, B, Kang, C.W., Lou, J., Lee, S.K., and Yan, D. (2009), Jack-up
leg hydrodynamic load study by CFD simulation, ISOPE 2009, Osaka,
Japan, June 21-26, 2009.

Zhang, B, Kang, C.W., and Lou, J (2008), CFD Virtual Lab for
Offshore Applications, Phase 1: Evaluation of CFD tools Jack-up leg
hydrodynamic load study, IHPC technical report, IHPC/07-301822.














548