See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282710787

Jack-up spudcan penetration analysis: Review of semi-

analytical and numerical methods

Conference Paper · May 2015

DOI: 10.1201/b18442-204

CITATIONS READS

0 1,120

4 authors, including:

Youhu Zhang Dat Vu Khoa Huynh

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
24 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   324 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Monotonic and cyclic p-y curves View project

NGI strategic project SP9: Behaviour of Sand under Partial Drainage and Offshore Foundation Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Youhu Zhang on 05 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III – Meyer (Ed.)
© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7

Jack-up spudcan penetration analysis: Review of semi-analytical and

numerical methods

Y. Zhang, H.D.V. Khoa & V. Meyer

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)

M.J. Cassidy
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS), University of Western Australia

ABSTRACT: Spudcan penetration analyses for offshore jack-up units are commonly performed in accordance
with methods described in industry guidelines. However, accurate prediction of spudcan penetration resistance is
challenging in layered soils. The topic has thus attracted considerable research efforts in recent years, especially
in “strong over weak” punch-through type soil profiles and more recently in multi-layer alternating sand/clay
profiles. This paper evaluates the performance of the current guideline methods by comparing predictions with
measurements from selected well-controlled centrifuge experiments. Large Deformation Finite Element (LDFE)
analyses are also performed and results are compared with the experimental results. The motivation is to examine
when the guideline methods provide good predictions and when more advanced analysis, for example, LDFE
analyses may be needed.

1 INTRODUCTION in recent years utilizing both large deformation finite

element (LDFE) analysis and centrifuge modelling
Jack-up units equipped with circular saucer shaped (Hossain et al. 2011; Hossain 2014, Zheng et al. 2014).
footings known as spudcans have been widely used for The results from these studies are centered around
offshore drilling activities. Before each mobilization, revealing the soil failure mechanism during spud-
an evaluation of the spudcan penetration and potential can penetration through the different layers. Design
failure risks during preloading is performed. Normal approaches are yet to be developed.
industry practice applies the methods described in At NGI, a computer program (SPLAT) has recently
the ISO (2012) or SNAME (2008) guidelines to per- been developed in collaboration with COFS to per-
form the spudcan load-penetration calculations. Those form spudcan load-penetration calculations following
methods are primarily for single sand or clay layers and the current industry guidelines. Selected newer meth-
for two soil layer conditions where a punch-through ods developed in recent years for single and two layer
or squeezing mechanism is involved. For more gen- conditions are also implemented.
eral multi-layer conditions, a “bottom-up” approach Large deformation analyses based on the Coupled
is briefly described in the industry guidelines. The Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) method in the finite ele-
idea is to calculate the spudcan penetration resistance ment program Abaqus (2011) have gained increasing
in a selected bottom layer. The capacity in the layer acceptance and application in geotechnical problems
above is then calculated, treating the soils below as a involving large deformation e.g. Qiu & Grabe (2012),
single layer. The two-layer punch-through or squeez- Tho et al. (2012), Khoa (2013) and Hu et al. (2014b).
ing mechanism is applied accordingly. The procedure In this paper, SPLAT and CEL predictions are
is repeated until the capacity in the surface layer is compared against selected well-controlled centrifuge
calculated. experiments with various soil conditions. The purpose
Over the past two decades, a great amount of of this paper is to objectively evaluate the performance
research has been dedicated to develop methods to of the guideline methods for different soil conditions
calculate spudcan penetration resistance in clay (e.g. and identify when advanced analysis, for example
Houlsby & Martin 2003; Hossain & Randolph 2009a, LDFE, may be beneficial.
b), sand (e.g. Cassidy & Houlsby 2002, White et al.
2008) and especially in two-layer soil conditions eval-
2 SPLAT
uating punch-through mechanisms and capacities in
sand over clay (e.g. Teh 2007, Qiu & Grabe 2012,
2.1 General
Lee et al. 2013, Hu et al. 2014a, b) and strong over
weak clays (e.g. Hossain & Randolph 2010a, b). For SPLAT (SPudcan Leg Analysis Tool) is a com-
three and more soil layers, research has been reported puter program for predicting the leg penetration of

1341
Table 1. Summary of calculation methods in SPLAT.

Soil condition Method Note

Single clay layer Skempton (1951) ISO (2012), average su over 0.5D below footing base is used,
dc = 1 + 0.2d/D ≤ 1.5
Brinch Hansen (1970) SNAME (2008), average su over 0.25D below the footing
base is used, dc = 1 + 0.4arctan(d/D)
Houlsby & Martin (2003) SNAME (2008) commentary, ISO (2012) main text and
INSAFE (2011), su at the spudcan base, soil heterogeneity,
conical shape, roughness, embedment explicitly considered
Hossain & Randolph (2009a, b) su at footing base, relevant mechanisms at various stages of
penetration explicitly considered
Single sand layer Brinch Hansen (1970) ϕ reduced by 5◦ from lab triaxial results for input
Vesic (1975) ϕ reduced by 5◦ from lab triaxial results for input
Martin ABC Nγ , Nq factors based on results from Martin’s ABC program,
consideration should be given to choose the appropriate ϕ
InSafeJIP (2011) Use Cassidy & Houlsby (2002) Nγ factors, unreduced ϕ as
input, a reduction factor Fmob = 0.25 − 0.5 and a
roughness = 0.5 are recommended
Two or more soil layers Pre Run Apply general shear to all layers, no treatment of conical
shape at layer interface
First Run Apply general shear to all layers, with treatment of conical
shape at layer interface
Second Run “Bottom up” approach considering layer interaction.
Squeezing: Meyerhof & Chaplin (1953). Punch-though sand
over clay: “load-spread” method. Punch-through strong over
weak clay: Brown & Meyerhof (1968).
Additional methods Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) ISO (2012)/SNAME (2008), Sand over clay

for two layers Hu et al. (2014a, b) Sand over clay, constant volume friction angle ϕcv and relative
density are inputs

jack-up units in accordance with industry guide- which analyses the interaction between the layers (i.e.
lines. It is developed for multi-layer soil conditions punch-though and squeezing) using the results from
and covers a comprehensive suite of analysis meth- the First Run. The inclusion of the Pre Run and First
ods recommended in industry guidelines ISO (2012), Run phases allows the user to identify what mecha-
SNAME (2008), and InSafeJIP (2011). The program nisms are involved in different stages of penetration.
also includes some newer methods that are developed Each layer is defined as either sand or clay and the user
from recent research using advanced centrifuge and can select the single layer methods to be used with the
numerical modelling. Table 1 provides a summary of Pre Run or the First Run phases.
available methods in the program.

2.3 Additional methods for two-layer soil profiles

2.2 General calculation procedure for multi-layer
soil profile Two additional methods are implemented for specific
two-layer soil profiles:
For multi-layer soil conditions, the bearing capacity
is generally calculated in two steps: step 1) calcu- • Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) method, known as the
late the bearing resistance from top to bottom, using punching shear method in ISO (2012) and SNAME
the selected methods for sand and clay, neglecting (2008), for sand over clay.
interaction between layers; step 2) work out the capac- • Hu et al. (2014a, b), new method proposed for
ity from a selected bottom depth to the soil surface, punch-through in sand over clay, based on model
applying punch-through, squeezing or general shear initially proposed by Lee et al. (2013) and further
mechanisms, as appropriate, according to results from improved by Hu et al. (2014a, b).
step 1). The implementation of the algorithm follows
the procedures proposed by Xie et al. (2010).
Three methods, namely Pre Run, First Run and Sec- 3 LDFE ANALYSIS USING CEL IN ABAQUS
ond Run are available for a multi-layer soil profile.
The Pre Run corresponds to calculation step 1) above. The finite element program Abaqus/Explicit includes
The First Run is the same as Pre Run, but models the the Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) method. This
conical underside of the spudcan at layer interfaces, can be used to solve large deformation problems by
resulting in a smoother transition between the soil lay- allowing Eulerian and Lagrangian bodies within the
ers. The Second Run is used for the final prediction same FE-model to interact with each other through an

1342
enhanced immersed boundary method. In this method,
the Lagrangian elements can occupy voids inside the
Eulerian mesh, with the “general contact” algorithm
computing and tracking the interface between the
Lagrangian and the Eulerian bodies.
In the three-dimensional CEL FE analysis of a spud-
can penetrating through layered soils, the spudcan is
discretised using Lagrangian elements while the soil
is modelled with Eulerian elements. Herein, a modi-
fied Mohr-Coulomb model which assumes softening
of mobilized friction angle (ϕ ) and “cohesion” (c)
from peak to residual values according to a hyperbolic
relationship with equivalent plastic strain, was used
to described the soil behaviour. The material model
is implemented in the Abaqus/Explicit program and
described in more details in Khoa (2013). Each CEL
penetration analysis typically needs about 7 hours run Figure 1. Comparison of predicted and experimental bear-
time using 6 processors. ing pressures for case of sand over clay.

Table 2. Soil parameters for case of sand over clay.

4 ANALYSIS OF CENTRIFUGE
EXPERIENETS Thickness γ su,intact 
ϕcv
Layer (m) (kN/m3 ) (kPa) Dr (%) (◦ )
This section presents comparison of the SPLAT and
CEL predictions against results from selected well- Sand 5 10.8 – 77 32
controlled centrifuge measurements. Focus is given to Clay 7 6.5 17.3 + 1.2z
multi-layer soil conditions; general observations from
previous studies on single soil layer scenarios are sum-
marised. Numerical results are presented in terms of
bearing pressure (i.e. applied load, Q, divided by the
spudcan area, A) and a normalized penetration depth 4.2 Sand over clay
(i.e. penetration depth of the maximum bearing area, A centrifuge test (Half_SP2) of a spudcan penetra-
d, divided by the spudcan diameter, D). tion in a dense sand over clay profile reported by Teh
(2007) is compared with SPLAT and CEL predictions
in Figure 1. The soil profile and parameters used in
the SPLAT calculations are detailed in Table 2. Using
the load spread approach described in the guidelines,
the peak capacity in the sand layer is independent of
4.1 Single layer clay or sand
the sand properties, except for the load spread fac-
Menzies & Roper (2008) present a comprehensive tor (ns ), which is recommended to be between 3 and 5.
comparison of predictions by the Brinch Hansen The result using ns = 3 is shown to considerably under-
(1970), Hossain & Randolph (2009a), Houlsby & predict the peak capacity and the post-peak capacity.
Martin (2003) and Skempton (1951) methods against By reducing ns to 2, a larger peak capacity in sand
field records in normally consolidated and lightly is calculated, but still smaller than the experimental
over-consolidated clays in the Gulf of Mexico. The measurements.
general conclusion from the work is that the guide- The prediction using the method proposed by Hu
line methods, Brinch Hansen (1970) and Skempton et al. (2014) shows an improved match with the cen-
(1951), provide good match with field records for most trifuge test result. The peak capacity is well predicted,
cases. The Houlsby & Martin (2003) method gener- and as the method also accounts for a sand plug below
ally provides lower bound capacity predictions, while the spudcan, the capacity in the clay layer is much
the Hossain & Randolph (2009a) method results in closer (somewhat lower) than the measurements.
upper bound capacity predictions. Hossain & Ran- The LDFE analysis result using the CEL method
dolph (2009b) point out that when strain softening and published by Khoa (2013) is also plotted in Figure 1.
rate effects are accounted for, the method results in In addition to the main soil parameters given in Table 2,
good match with the guideline methods. the material parameters for modified Mohr-Coulomb
In thick sand deposits, spudcan penetration is typ- model in CEL analysis are summarized in Table 3. It
ically shallow, making it difficult to obtain reliable is seen that the CEL FE-model predicts very well the
field records to calibrate predicting models. InSafeJIP onset of punch-through failure as well as the post-peak
(2011) provides a comprehensive discussion on the penetration resistance. Note that below a penetration
performance of various methods in sand and thus this of d/D ∼ = 1.1, it is believed the centrifuge results may
scenario is not considered further in this paper. be influenced by the proximity of the strongbox base.

1343
Table 3. Additional material parameters used in CEL Table 5. Soil parameters for multi-layer scenario FS5.
analysis.
Thickness γ su,intact Dr ϕ
  
ϕpeak ψpeak ψresidual su,residual Bp or Layer (m) (kN/m3 ) (kPa) (%) (◦ )
Layer (◦ ) (◦ ) (◦ ) (kPa) B∗c
1. Soft clay 5.2 6.5 8.5 – –
Sand 42.3 11.0 0 – 0.1 2. Stiff clay 4.4 7.0 35.5 – –
Clay – – – 0.85su,intact 0.1 3. Clay 5.2 6.5 21 – –
4. Sand 11.2 9 – 44 30∗
*: Bp and Bc : equivalent plastic strains at which half of
∗
the softening on mobilized friction angle and “cohesion” : The friction angle is after reduction of 5◦ for SPLAT input.
respectively occurs.

Table 6. Additional material parameters used in CEL

Table 4. Soil parameters for case of strong over weak clay. analysis.
  
Layer Thickness (m) γ  (kN/m3 ) su,intact (kPa) ϕpeak ψpeak ψresidual su,residual Bp or
Soil (◦ ) (◦ ) (◦ ) (kPa) Bc
Stiff clay 4.5 8 38.3
Soft clay 7.0 7.4 11 Sand 40 7.5 0 – 3.0
All clays – – – 0.85su,intact 0.1

Figure 2, increasing the bearing capacity in the lower

layer. The soil plugging phenomenon is captured by
the CEL FE-model, resulting in a better match in the
lower layer.
Note that the soil domain in the CEL FE-model has
the same prototype height of 11.5 m as in the centrifuge
test in order to capture the potential boundary effect
from the strongbox.

4.4 General multi-layer conditions

SPLAT and CEL predictions are compared with
two centrifuge tests in multi-layer soils reported in
Hossain (2014). The tests are denoted FS5 and FS6
Figure 2. Comparison of predicted and experimental bear- in the original paper.
ing pressures for case of strong over weak clay.
4.4.1 Test FS5
4.3 Strong over weak clays The soil conditions are summarized in Table 5. Addi-
tional soil parameters used in the CEL analysis are
For strong-over-weak clay, SPLAT and CEL predic- given in Table 6. Note that, in general, for denser
tions are compared with a centrifuge test (E2UU- sand the softening behaviour can occur earlier and
II-T5) reported in Hossain and Randolph (2010a). the softening rate can also be faster. Therefore, the
Table 4 summaries the soil properties. The intact soil coefficient Bp in Table 3 is smaller compared to Bp
strengths were reduced by 15% in the CEL analysis in Table 6. Comparison of bearing pressure predic-
in order to approximately account for effects of strain tions with the experimental results for the prototype
rate and strain softening (su,residual = 0.85su,intact and spudcan is given in Figure 3. It can be seen that the
Bc = 0.001). bottom-up approach implemented in SPLAT provides
It can be seen from Figure 2 that both the Brown & a reasonable prediction to the experimental results.The
Meyerhof (1968) method (as used by SPLAT) and the capacity in the top soft clay is well predicted as is the
CEL FE-model predict reasonably well the peak capac- peak capacity predicted using the Brown & Meyerhof
ity in the “stiff ” clay (upper layer). Good agreement (1968) punch-through methodology between layers 2
of the soil failure pattern obtained from the centrifuge and 3. However, as with the previous punch-through
test and the CEL analysis at the onset of punch-through scenarios considered, the post punch-through capacity
failure is illustrated in the figure. The capacity in the is underestimated by this method, since the contri-
soft clay (lower layer) is, however, under-predicted by bution from the soil plug underneath the spudcan is
the Brown & Meyerhof (1968) method. This is because neglected. As the spudcan penetrates through the third
as the spudcan penetrates through the upper layer, a layer, the curves merge quickly as the squeezing effect
soil plug is pushed in front of the spudcan as shown in kicks in.

1344
Figure 3. (a) Comparison of predicted and experimental
Figure 4. (a) Comparison of predicted and experimental
bearing pressures, (b) soil failure mechanisms for multi-layer
bearing pressures, (b) soil failure mechanisms for multi-layer
scenario FS5.
scenario FS6 (ns = 3 in SPLAT prediction).
Table 7. Soil parameters for multi-layer scenario FS6.

Thickness γ su,intact Dr ϕ again be attributed to the plug of soil that is carried

Layer (m) (kN/m3 ) (kPa) (%) (◦ ) down underneath the spudcan.The soil plug essentially
forms a composite footing with the spudcan. This is
1. Soft clay 5 6.5 8.5 – – reflected in the experimental results by the much shal-
2. Sand 3 9.0 – 44 30∗
lower depth at which squeezing initiates in the third
3. Soft clay 7 6.5 8.5 – –
4. Stiff clay 11 7 35.5 – – layer, and that squeezing stops well before the interface
with the fourth layer.
∗
: Includes a 5◦ reduction, as recommended in the guidelines. Figure 4 also shows that the CEL analysis predicts
the overall penetration behavior well, though under-
estimates the capacity in the sand layer slightly. This
Figure 3(a) shows the CEL analysis gives a very may be explained by comparing the soil failure mech-
good prediction of the experimental results. The soil anisms shown in Figure 4(b). At d/D = 0.63, the soft
failure mechanisms obtained from both the centrifuge clay plugged beneath the spudcan base forms a much
test and the CEL FE analysis are compared at two larger effective area in the centrifuge compared to the
penetration depths of d/D = 0.52 and d/D = 0.93, as CEL FE-model, resulting in the observed higher soil
shown in Figure 3(b). Although backflow is calculated resistance in the sand layer. The soil failure patterns at
to be different, the CEL analysis is able to capture rea- d/D = 0.88 (Figure 4(b)) illustrate the squeezing effect
sonably well the overall soil failure patterns occurring as the spudcan approaches the stiff clay (fourth layer).
during spudcan penetration. The results confirm the
effect of the stiff clay being plugged below the spudcan
base.
5 CONCLUSIONS
4.4.2 Test FS6
Comparison of the performance of the current guide-
Table 7 summarizes the soil conditions for centrifuge
line methods with measurements from selected well-
test FE6. In the CEL simulation, the same set of soften-
controlled centrifuge experiments has highlighted the
ing parameters as those presented in Table 6 were used.
following points:
The predicted and experimental bearing pressures are
compared in Figure 4(a). 1. For two-layer sand over clay, the load-spread
Significant difference is observed between the pre- method is observed to under-predict the punch-
diction from the bottom-up approach (SPLAT) and the through capacity, even for a load spread factor of
centrifuge test results. 1:3. The Hu et al. (2014a, b) method provides a
Working from the bottom up, general shear, squeez- better prediction, though further comparisons, par-
ing, punch-though (load spread) and squeezing are ticularly to offshore field installations, are required
used to estimate the capacity in the bottom (fourth) to confirm general applicability of this conclusion.
to top (first) soil layers respectively. It can be seen that 2. The Brown & Meyerhof (1968) method is observed
a good match is obtained in the top layer. However, to provide a reasonable prediction of the punch-
the punch-through capacity is significantly underesti- through capacity in two-layer clay over clay. How-
mated in the second (sand) layer. This divergence can ever, the post-peak capacity is under-estimated.

1345
3. A limitation with the guideline methods is the gen- International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotech-
eral lack of consideration of the plug of soil trapped nics, 11(3), pp. 100–115.
beneath the spudcan during penetration in layer Hossain, M.S. 2014. Experimental investigation of spudcan
soils. This can lead to significant underestimation penetration in multi-layer clays with interbedded sand
layers. Geìotechnique, 64(4), pp. 258–277.
of the bearing capacity. This effect may be greatest Houlsby, G.T. & Martin, C.M. 2003. Undrained bearing
where alternating sand and clay layers are present. capacity factors for conical footings on clay. Géotech-
This study highlights the need to develop meth- nique, 53(5), pp. 513–520.
ods that take the actual penetration process into Hu, P., Stanier, S.A., Cassidy, M.J. & Wang D. 2014a. Pre-
account, for example the punch-through method dicting peak resistance of spudcan penetrating sand over-
proposed by Hu et al. (2014) which demonstrated lying clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental
a much improved prediction for the sand over clay Engineering (ASCE), 04013009.
scenario. Hu, P., Wang, D., Cassidy, M.J. & Stanier, S.A. 2014. Predict-
4. The CEL FE method presents very good prediction ing the resistance profile of a spudcan penetrating sand
overlying clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51(10),
of the reported experimental responses, highlight- pp. 1151–1164.
ing the potential benefit of using this method with ISO 2012. Petroleum and natural gas industries – Site-
complex soil profiles. It is essential to account for specific assessment of mobile offshore units – Part 1:
potential effects of strain softening and strain rate Jack-ups, 19905-1. International Organization for Stan-
in the soil during large penetration of spudcan. dardization.
Khoa, H.D.V. 2013. Large deformation finite element anal-
ysis of spudcan penetration in layered soils. Proc., Third
International Symposium on Computational Geomechan-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ics. pp. 570–585.
InSafeJIP. 2011 Improved guidelines for the prediction of
The development of SPLAT has been a joint collab- geotechnical performance of spudcan foundations during
oration between NGI and the Centre for Offshore installation and removal of jack-up units.
Foundation Systems (COFS). COFS is supported as Lee, K.K., Randolph, M.F. & Cassidy, M.J. 2013. Bear-
a node of the Australian Research Council Centre of ing capacity on sand overlying clay soils: a simplified
Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering. conceptual model. Géotechnique, 63(15), pp. 1285–1297.
Menzies, D. & Roper, R. 2008. Comparison of Jackup rig
spudcan penetration methods in clay. Proc., Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 19545.
REFERENCES Meyerhof, G.G. & Chaplin, T.K. 1953. The compression and
bearing capacity of cohesive layers, Br. J. Appl. Phys.
Abaqus 2011. User’s Manual – version 6.11-2. Dassault 4(20).
Systèmes Simulia Corp. Qiu, G. & Grabe, J. 2012. Numerical investigation of bearing
Brinch Hansen, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for capacity due to spudcan penetration in sand overlaying
bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute. clay. Can. Geotech. J., 49, pp. 1393–1407.
Brown, J.D. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1969. Experimental study of Skempton, A.W. 1951. The bearing capacity of clays. In
bearing capacity in layered clays. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Building Research Congress, London.
Soil Mech. and Found. Eng, 2, pp. 45–51. SNAME. 2008. Recommended practice for site specific
Cassidy, M.J. & Houlsby, G.T. 2002. Vertical bearing capacity assessment of mobile jack-up units. T&R Bulletin 5-5A,
factors for conical footings on sand. Géotechnique, 52(9), 1st Ed., 3rd Rev., Society of Naval Architects and Marine
pp. 987–697. Engineers, N.J.
Hanna, A.M. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1980. Design chart for ulti- Teh, K.L. 2007. Punch-through of spudcan foundation in
mate bearing capacity of foundation on sand overlying soft sand overlaying clay. Doctor of Philosophy PhD thesis,
clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17(2), pp. 300–303. National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2009a. New mechanism- Tho, K.K., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. & Swaddiwudhipong,
based design approach for spudcan foundations on single S. 2012. Eulerian finite-element technique for analysis
layer clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental of jack-up spudcan penetration. International Journal of
Engineering, 135(9), pp. 1264–1274. Geomechanics, 12(1), pp. 64–73.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2009b. Effect of strain Vesic, A.S. 1975. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
rate and strain softening on the penetration resistance In Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand.
of spudcan foundations on clay. International Journal of White, D.J., Teh, K.L., Leung, C.F. & Chow, Y.K. 2008.
Geomechanics, 9(3), pp. 122–132. A comparison of the bearing capacity of flat and coni-
Houlsby, G.T. & Martin, C.M. (2003). Undrained bearing cal circular foundations on sand. Géotechnique, 58(10),
capacity factors for conical footings on clay. Géotech- pp. 781–792.
nique, 53(5), 513–520. Xie, Y., Falepin, H. & Jaeck, C. 2010, Prediction of spud-
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2010a. Deep-penetrating can penetration resistance in multiple soil layers. Proc.,
spudcan foundations on layered clays: centrifuge tests. Twentieth International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Geìotechnique, 60(3), pp. 157–170. Conference, pp. 369–376.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2010b. Deep-penetrating Zheng, J., Hossain, M.S. & Wang, D. 2014. Numerical mod-
spudcan foundations on layered clays: numerical analysis. elling of spudcan deep penetration in three-layer clays.
Geìotechnique, 60(3), pp. 171–184. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2014, in press.
Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F. & Saunier, Y.N. 2011. Spud-
can deep penetration in multilayered fine-grained soils.

1346

View publication stats