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

net/publication/293816832

New Frontiers in the Offshore Geotechnics and Foundation Design

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
4 8,100

2 authors:

Morteza (Mori) Sheshpari Saman Khalilzad

University of Ottawa University of Ottawa
22 PUBLICATIONS 183 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Morteza (Mori) Sheshpari on 25 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 New Frontiers in the Offshore
Geotechnics and Foundation Design

Morteza Sheshpari *, Saman Khalilzad

University of Ottawa, Department of Civil Engineering, CBY Building, 161 Louis-
Pasteur, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5.
*e-mail: mshes064@uottawa.ca

ABSTRACT
Construction and development of the offshore structures are growing because of the demand for the
offshore oil and gas and developing interest in the offshore wind farms. The offshore geotechnical
engineering is an applied science that covers related problems in the offshore environment. Generally,
the offshore industry is very innovative with well-funded research that its results are rapidly and
cautiously used in the practice. Different site investigation and design methods are required for each
sea; for example highly overconsolidated clays and compacted sands in the North Sea, carbonate
sediments in Australian the offshore, and in Brazil and India; ultra-high plasticity soft clays in West
Africa, each requires individual approach for field investigation and foundation design. Geophysical
explorations for the offshore projects can obtain some essential data for site investigations, foundation
design, and construction process. Therefore, some geophysical methods in the offshore site
investigations are discussed within this paper. Two modes for the geotechnical investigations in the
offshore environments are predictable, including the seabed mode, and drilling mode, which more
details about them are presented in the paper. There are different types of offshore oil and gas, and
wind turbine structures, which are used based on project type, water depth, and economical factors.
Different foundation types and design methods for the jackup, jacket, gravity base, and floated oil and
gas structures, and the offshore wind turbines are discussed further. It was concluded that appropriate
foundation from the available types considering the depth of water, site conditions, applied loads,
purpose of the structure and the potential geohazards should be selected and designed for the offshore
structures. It can be inferred that application of in-situ data and design principles of traditional offshore
foundation should be adjusted for new types of foundation regarding the geometry, applied load,
geohazards, and used cautiously. Different approach and criteria should be considered for the offshore
wind turbine foundations than the oil and gas platform foundations due to the difference in the applied
load and the foundation geometry. The application of numerical analyses combined with the analytical
methods for better and accurate results and understanding in the foundation design and geohazard
assessment should be considered as a necessary approach.
KEYWORDS: Offshore, Geotechnics, Foundation Design

INTRODUCTION
After second half of the 20th century, the oceans and their sediments are recognized to be a great
source of mineral assets in the form of hard minerals, petroleum, and gas (Gerwick, 2007). The
offshore structures construction and development are growing because of demand for the offshore oil

-1-
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 2
and gas and developing interest in the offshore wind farms. All of the offshore structures have chance
to experience geohazards. Hence, their foundations should tolerate structural weight and applied loads
from the surrounding environment (Dean 2010). The need for more oil and gas increased hydrocarbon
exploration, production, in new regions such as Texas and the Middle East shallow offshore waters,
the North Sea, and the offshore of Australasia and the Far East, South America, India and newly West
Africa (Randolph et al., 2005). The offshore oil and gas now provide approximately one third of the
world’s energy demand (Gerwick, 2007). The types of the offshore structures changed from fixed
steel or concrete platforms, to floating structures. New developments have resulted in different
innovative anchoring systems, each developing under the influence of variable loading regimes
applied on them. The increase in the depth of waters where oil and gas platforms should be installed
from under 200 m in the 1980s to 2000 m and more now, has triggered great investment deep water
anchoring and mooring system for floated plat forms (Randolph et al., 2005). Designing the offshore
geotechnical engineering structures evolved from onshore practice, with areas of the foundation scale
and installation methods separated from the original onshore principles during the last 30 years
(Randolph et al., 2005). Generally, the offshore industry is very innovative with well funded research
that its results are rapidly and cautiously used in practice (Dean 2010). The offshore geotechnical
engineering is an applied science that covers related problems in the offshore environment. The
offshore industry progresses in the geotechnical aspects can be described as a few very large diameter
piles groups are being used instead of many moderate-sized piles; deep skirts are used instead of the
excavation of shallow soft sediments. They can change the effective foundation depth to the skirts tip
levels penetrated several diameters into the seabed. Underwater embedment has increased the
application of suction (or underpressure) skirted or caisson foundation installations. Special attention
to the effects of cyclic loading on the offshore structures has been taken. Special design codes have
been developed for proper design of the offshore structures (Randolph et al., 2005).
The offshore wind energy is getting a more popular source of renewable energy, and it has been
forecasted 16 GW of the offshore wind turbines to be installed by the end of 2014, and global total of
75 GW by 2020 (Madsen et al., 2012). The offshore wind turbines foundation approximately cost
for 1/3 of the total cost of the offshore wind farm budget and in deep water (>25m), its cost accounts
for 50% of the total project (Madsen et al., 2012). Almost, 75% of all wind parks today, use
monopiles as their foundation. Monopiles are simply made structure with welded steel pile, and
require no preparations in the seabed. Negative aspects of the monopiles are their requirement for
heavy duty piling-drilling equipment, and not being appropriate for the seabeds with many large
boulders (Madsen et al., 2012). Jackets and tripod which are appropriate for deeper waters, require
minimum preparation in the installation site before embedment. Another type of the offshore wind
turbines foundation is the bucket foundation made from thin shell structure. At waters with more
depth, the diameter of the bucket should increase, but large aspect ratio between caisson diameter and
wall thickness cause critical buckling instability in them during installation (Madsen et al., 2012).
In this paper, site investigation methods for the offshore structures especially, oil and gas
platforms, and wind turbines are reviewed and discussed. Then different foundation types, including
traditional and new ones for different oil and gas platforms and wind turbines are presented and
discussed in more detail. Foundation design methods for different types of foundation in the offshore
structures are reviewed and discussed. At the end a general conclusion comparing new trends with
traditional ones in the geotechnical engineering aspects of the offshore structures is presented.

Site investigation methods in the offshore environments

and their new trends
Development of oil platforms and wind turbines for energy needs in the offshore environment
in recent years proved that different site investigation methods are required for each sea. For example,
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 3
highly overconsolidated clays and compacted sands in the North Sea, carbonate sediments in
Australian offshore, and in Brazil and India; ultra-high plasticity soft clays in West Africa, each
requires individual approach for field investigation and design (Randolph et al. 2005). Costs of the
site investigation for using special vessels which can be typically $250,000 to $500,000 per day, in
addition to similar costs for investigation operations are most important factors in the offshore site
investigation (Randolph et al. 2005). Site investigation procedure for the offshore environments,
generally such as other projects include desk study, geophysical exploration, geotechnical
investigation, taking samples to the laboratory or performing in-situ tests.

Geophysical surveys and explorations in the offshore

environments
Geophysical explorations for the offshore projects can obtain some essential data for the
geotechnical investigations and foundation design and construction. Usually, the information is
collected by the combination of different techniques. For example, the seabed bathymetry and
topography can be detected by echosounding or swath echosounding (especially in locations with
uneven seabed, outcrops, corals, pockmarks, sand waves, etc.), using acoustic (sound) energy and its
reflection from the seabed or geological layer (Danson 2005; Dean 2010). Bathymetric surveys
should be performed over an area of approximately 1 km square around the proposed structure
location. Spacing of survey lines should not be usually more than 100 metres by 250 metres (Jardine
2009). The seabed features and obstructions can be studied by sidescan sonar (in traditional method)
(Danson 2005; Jardine 2009; Dean 2010), or by modern mosaicing systems, which create an acoustic
photograph of the seabed (Danson 2005). For detection of stratification and layering status of soils
under the seabed, sub-bottom profilers such as, pingers, boomers are used (Danson 2005; Jardine
2009). Pingers are good in the detecting shallow geological features such as gas accumulations, relict
channels and faults in the depths of less than 50 meters in the seabed while boomers with higher
frequency can penetrate to a depth of 100 m in the seabed with resolution of 0.3 to 1 m. New
technology, which is designed to replace pingers and boomers, is CHIRP that can operate around
central frequency (3 kHz-40kHZ) and provide better resolution from sediments close to the seabed
(Danson 2005). LiDAR which is an air-borne laser scanning system is a new technology which is
used in shallow (Usually less than 30 m to 50 m deep) and clear waters (waters containing low
concentrations of suspended particles) to measure the depth of water and location of the seabed. Two
laser frequencies are used that their difference shows water depth. The first one is a red-light laser and
is reflected from the sea surface, and second one is green light laser that is used for penetration to the
seabed. For vast area, LiDAR provides measurements in the lower cost with same accuracy compared
to the multi-beam (Danson 2005). The seabed surface surveys and mapping become out-of-date due
to construction and drilling activity or sediments mobilization and should be redone after six months
(Jardine 2009). For detection of metallic items, such as pipeline and cable crossings, metallic debris
and ammunition located on the seabed or beneath it, magnetometers are used (Danson 2005; Jardine
2009). To find information about geological data, reflection seismic systems by digital data and
penetration to 50 m for geotechnical determinations are used. In shallow soil layers (<10 m depth),
and shallow-water depths (<15 m) seismic refraction methods are used, due to limitations that low
frequency seismic reflection methods encounter at these depths (Danson 2005; Dean 2010). For the
detection of hard layers relative to the soft layers (sand, silt, clay) electrical resistivity surveys are
used in the offshore geophysical explorations (Danson 2005). Traditional sledge-based seismic
systems apply pressure waves (P-Waves) to the seabed, but the new system presented by Puech et al.
(2004) which applies surface waves to the seabed, and another new system described at Vanneste et
al. (2007) produce and detect the sledgemounted shear waves. Application of ground-penetrating
radar survey (GPR) a radar system which sends electromagnetic waves into the seabed and measures
reflection for creating a picture of sub-bottom layers has been described by Eyles and Meulendyk
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 4
(2008) as a new technology in the offshore environments. Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV), and a
newer technology called Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) for sub-bottom investigation are
geophysical devices or platforms (Fig. 1) that can be controlled remotely for exploration purposes
(Danson 2005; Dean 2010).

Figure 1: Sea Demon ROV (Left), and AUV on a survey vessel (Right) (Danson 2005)

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION IN THE OFFSHORE

ENVIRONMENT
General information about the in-situ sampling and testing in
the offshore environments
Two modes for the geotechnical investigations in the offshore environments are predictable,
including the seabed mode, and the drilling mode. In the seabed mode where the sampler or in-situ
testing device is positioned directly from the seabed, penetration depths are usually between 20 m and
60 m. In the drilling mode where the device is launched from the bottom of a borehole, penetration
can be performed in greater depths using platforms or vessels (Danson 2005; Randolph et al. 2005).
Piston samplers are used in the soft to stiff clays, and if impractical thin walled push-samplers should
be used. In the dense sand, hammer samplers, and in the stiffer environments such as boulder clays
and cemented soils, rock coring methods can be employed (Danson 2005). Most common in-situ
testing techniques are piezo cone penetration tests P-CPT) with measurement of the cone and sleeve
resistance and pore water pressure in addition to the methods such as field vane shear test (VST), T-
bar and ball probe tests in soft clays (Fig. 2) (Danson 2005; Randolph et al. 2005; White et al. 2010).
Various drillings, sampling and coring systems can reach to the various depths of water for sampling,
and more information can be found in table 1,2, and table 3 showing sample quality and recovery in
the seabed and down-hole sampling devices (Danson 2005).
Table 1: Penetration depths of the drilling, sampling, and coring systems and water depths
(Danson 2005)
Grab Sampler Unlimited** 0.1 m to 0.5 m
(mechanical)
Equipment Maximum Penetration
Description Water Depth (m)*
(m)*
Drill mode Unlimited** Unlimited**
borings from
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 5
vessels

Rock corer 200 m 2 m to 6 m

(the seabed unit)
PROD™ the 20 m to 2,000 2 m to 100 m
seabed m
drilling/coring
Basic gravity Unlimited** 1 m to 8 m
corer
Piston corer Unlimited** 3 m to 30 m
Vibrocorer 1000 m 3 m to 8 m
Box Corer Unlimited** 0.3 m to 0.5 m
the seabed Push- 250 m 1 m to 2 m
in Sampler
Grab Sampler Unlimited** 0.1 m to 0.5 m
(mechanical)
Grab Sampler 200 m 0.3 m to 0.5 m
(hydraulic)
These figures should be used for general guidance only. ** Water depth is limited by the
deployment winch and handling depths of drilling, sampling, and coring systems capabilities and
water depths (Danson 2005).
Table 2: In-situ testing penetration depth in different equipment and associated with various
types of equipment and water depth (Danson 2005).
Equipment Description Water Depth (m)* Penetration (m)*

Deck- or frame-operated penetration 20 m 2 m to 60 m

tests
the seabed wheeldrive penetration 500 m to 3000 m 2 m to 60 m
tests
Drilling mode downhole penetration Unlimited** Unlimited**
tests
PROD™ the seabed penetration tests 20 m to 2,000 m 2 m to 100 m
Light weight wheeldrive penetration 2000 m 2 m to 5 m
tests
ROV penetration tests 300 m to 2000 m 1 m to 2 m
Minicone penetration tests 250 m to 2500 m 5 m to 6 m
the seabed vane test 250 m to 2500 m 5 m to 25 m
* These figures should be used for general guidance only.
** Water depth is limited by the deployment winch and
handling capabilities.

Table 3: Sample quality and recovery in different equipment (Danson 2005).

the seabed sampling equipment

Type of Equipment Sample Quality Recovery

(relative to length of sample tube)
sand clay rock sand clay rock
Gravity / Piston corer 2 3 1 1 3 to 4 1
Vibrocorer 2 to 3 2 to 3 1 3 to 4 2 to 3 1
Grab sampler 1 to 2 1 1 1 to 2 2 1
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 6
Box corer 1 to 2 5 1 1 5 1
Rotary corer 1 2 3 to 4 1 3 3 to 4
DOWN-HOLE SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Type of equipment Sample quality Recovery
(relative to length of sample tube
sand clay rock sand clay rock
Hydraulic piston sampler 3 to 4 5 1 3 5 1
Hydraulic push sampler 3 to 4 4 to 5 1 3 5 1
Hammer sampler 2 to 3 2 to 3 1 3 to 4 3 to 4 1
Rotary coring 1 2 3 to 4 1 3 3 to 4
1: Poor or inappropriate 2: Acceptable for non- 3: Moderately good 4: Good 5: Very good
critical analyses

In-situ testing in the offshore environment (VST), T-bar and ball probe tests in the
soft clays are used in the offshore environments (Danson 2005; Dean 2010; As explained above
common in-situ testing techniques such as Randolph et al. 2005; White et al. 2010). the piezo cone
penetration tests (P-CPT), vane shear test

Figure 2: Different penetrometers at the top left (from Randolph et al. 2005); Wheel-drive
penetration test unit at the top middle; ROV mounted CPT unit at the top right; SEASCOUT
with minicone system at the bottom left; Stand-alone vane test system at the bottom middle;
Halibut vane test rig during recovery at the bottom right (from Danson 2005) .

CPT: The most common test in marine engineering investigations is Cone Penetration
Test (CPT) with a history of 4 decades. Primary objectives are set to find soil type, layering,
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 7
undrained shear strength in clayey soils, and relative density and internal friction angle of
sandy layers, which are required parameters for foundation design (Danson 2005; Dean
2010; Jardine 2009; Lunne 2012; Randolph et al. 2005). CPT can be applied in many
different offshore projects such as described by Danson (2005): a-Investigation for the
offshore oil & gas pipeline route, submarine cable route studies and burial evaluation,
trenching activity and the slope stability studies.
b- Geotechnical research of the seabed structures and anchors, or nearshore
structures, or inshore structures.
Pre-dredge studies and finding ground truth in geophysical exploration and
morphological mapping. Wheel-drive penetration test unit made from a the seabed reaction
frame, the wheel-drive mechanism, electronic control and data acquisition systems are
suitable for the seabed in-situ testing. When a CPT should be done at an accurate spot in
deep water, or when a series of uninterrupted in-situ tests in the linear format are required,
such as a cable route or pipeline trench investigations, the ROV (Remotely operated
vehicle) penetration test unit should be employed (Danson 2005).
Minicones were developed for better stratigraphic outlining and soil parameter detection
from vessels. They were primarily used in pipeline and cable route investigations but have
been developed to the small subsea structures, anchors and dredging investigations (Danson
2005).
Geotechnical investigation is necessary for the foundation design of offshore wind
turbines. According to Gavin et al. (2012), almost up to 50% of the cost for development of
the offshore wind farm belongs to the foundation cost, and Madsen et al. (2012) estimated
that 46% of the cost in deep water projects belongs to the foundations and installation. CPT
test is used as an in-situ test for site investigation in the wind turbine pile foundations. There
are different corellations between CPT data and design requirement for the offshore pile
foundation design. The non-easy procedure for the determination of the operational earth
pressure coefficient K, and natural change in the seabed sand deposits, which create a
problem in the estimation of shaft resistance have led to the development and application of
correlations between design and in-situ tests parameters. Similarity between the (CPT)
penetrometer installation and pile installation increased the usage of correlated parameters
between CPT testing and pile foundation design in the offshore wind turbines (Gavin et al.
2011).
Other sensors that can be accompanied with CPT device and detect other parameters are
thermal conductivity probe, Electrical conductivity cone, Seismic cone, natural gamma, and
dilatometer.

VST
The vane shear test can be implemented in the boreholes, from wheel-drive machines
or standalone tested rigs. VST is a fast and precise device for detecting the in-situ undrained
shear strength of cohesive soils, such as soft clays (Danson 2005; Lune et al. 2011;
Randolph et al. 2005).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 8

T-bar and ball penetration test

The T-bar and ball penetration tests can be compared with the CPT but they differ in
giving more accurate evaluation of the shear strength in very soft soils. The T-bar should be
used only by the seabed penetration system, while the ball penetrometer can be used from
the seabed or borehole based systems. An empirical evaluation from the resistance of the
seabed soils during the T-bar or ball probe penetration into the seabed by pushing can be
obtained. The T-bar made from a short rod-shaped bar attached vertically to the
penetrometer main rods. While it is pushed into the seabed, a load cell located behind the
bar measures the resistance. It gives greater confidence in the determining shear strength
compared to (P)CPTs. The ball penetration device has same mechanism of the T-bar, but a
ball replaces the bar (Danson 2005; Lune et al. 2011; Randolph et al. 2005).

The cyclic test of penetration

Usually, it is common to monitor the extraction resistance of the T-bar or ball
penetrometers, which can be developed to standard cone penetration tests too. By
measurement of the extraction resistance, after correction applied to the overburden stress, a
net negative extraction resistance is calculated (Randolph et al. 2005). Figure 3, shows
common ratios of Tbar extraction resistance relative to the penetration resistance. A cycle of
single penetration and extraction reduces the strength considerably, and softening to a total
remoulded state needs 5 to 10 more cycles.

Figure 3: Variation in ratio of extraction to the penetration resistance of T-bar

(Randolph et al. 2005).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 9

Discussion about in-situ sampling and testing in the

offshore environment and new technologies for in-situ
testing
As it was presented, two main modern in-situ testing systems in the offshore
geotechnical investigations are downhole system, and the seabed system. In the modern
downhole testing systems, the instrument (CPT, VST) falls down freely along the drill pipe
and reach to the base, and then is jacked into the soil hydraulically. Test data are saved in
the vicinity and then recovered when the whole system is taken out by the wireline attached
to the top of the device later (Randolph et al. 2005). Similar downhole system is used by
Fugro, which is called XP system (Hawkins & Markus, 1998). The seabed systems are
being used increasingly in the deep water hydrocarbon projects, where anchored-floating
facilities are constructed and the seabed sediments are soft. Penetration into the sea bed,
while penetrometer bars are submerged under the tension load above the seabed, is done by
a continuous push through wheel drive unit in the modern seabed systems (Peuchen 2000).
Comparison of the downhole systems and the seabed systems show that the seabed
systems despite having lower depth penetration power of 30-40 m, which is enough for
anchoring platforms, has better quality in acquired data compared to the downhole systems
that can penetrate into deeper layers (150 m or more). The sampling depth of the seabed
systems is limited to the first 2-3 m depth of the seabed due to limitation in the drilling
power (Randolph et al. 2005). To overcome this obstacle, another device, Remotely
Operated Drill (PROD) (Fig. 3), was developed by Benthic Geotech, which combines
properties of the penetration and taking samples in deeper layers (Carter et al. 1999). It can
operate up to 2000 m water depth, and can drill and take samples down to 125 m into the
seabed, and its CPT device can penetrate to depth of 100 m in the seabed as a robotic system
(Carter et al. 1999). Two other types of the remote seabed sampler e.g. (Jumbo Piston Corer
or JPC), and (STACOR sampler) have been presented by Young et al. (2000), and Borel et
al. (2002 ) respectively, which can produce 20-30 m long samples. A database from
historical development of the seabed rigs, including the recent ones presented by Lunne.

Laboratory testing
In the offshore projects, obtained soil samples can be tested in the laboratories on the
vessel or on-shore. The laboratory tests can be just a simple grain size analysis to more
complicated standard tests according to the project needs and design parameters.
Explanation of laboratory tests is out of this paper length and purpose.

FOUNDATION TYPES FOR THE OFFSHORE OIL &

GAS PLATFORMS AND WIND TURBINES AND
THEIR NEW TRENDS
There are different types of offshore structure for oil and gas, and wind turbine projects,
which are used based on the project type, water depth, and economic factors. Figure 5 and 6
shows different oil and gas offshore structures, and figure 7 shows different types of wind
turbine structures.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 10

Figure 4: Development of the seabed rigs including the recent ones (Lunne 2012).
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 11

Figure 5: Different types of oil and gas offshore structures (Image from Oil and Gas
Journal).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 12

Figure 6: The offshore oil and gas structure types including: 1, 2) conventional fixed
platforms; 3) compliant tower; 4, 5) vertically moored tension leg and mini-tension leg
platform; 6) spar; 7,8) semi-submersibles; 9) floating production, storage, and off-loading
facility; 10) sub-sea completion and tie-back to host facility (NOAA: Ocean Explorer, 2010).

Figure 7: Foundation types used in the offshore to support wind turbine structures (Gavin et
al. 2011).

As it can be seen from Figures of 5, 6, and 7, some of the offshore structures in less deep waters
are fixed to the seabed with foundation structure, while other ones float over sea and are fixed to the
seabed by anchors. In this paper due to size limitation and purpose of the paper, fixed offshore
structures with foundation are discussed with details while short descriptions are provided for
anchored structures.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 13

JACKUP PLATFORMS
A jackup is a mobile offshore platform that moves to the required location and made from a hull
that holds drilling and other equipment on the top section, and three or more telescopic legs passing
through the hull (McClelland et al., 1982; Young et al., 1984; Vazquez et al., 2005). A unit moves
onto the location, sets its legs onto the seabed, and raises its hull out of the water. A large jackup
(Figure 8) can be used in up to about 150m sea water depth. This unit has legs composed of a frame
structure 10m2 or similar in plan view, installed on independent foundations, which are called
spudcans, with the possible 20m diameter (Dean 2010). When some soft soils are present and large
foundation is required, a mat foundation which also can be used on sandy seabed is employed
(Turner et al. 1987; Murff and Young 2008; Templeton 2008). Different types of foundation that
can be used with the independent legged jackups are shown in figure 9.

Figure 8: Large jackup platform and its footing (Dean 2010).

Light jackups may have legs made from simple tubular H section steel, which is installed into
the seabed by penetration as long as the required bearing capacity is obtained. It is also possible to
use a flat bearing plate (Dean 2010). In new and modern types of large jackups, usually a double-
cone arrangement, consisting of a smaller central cone to assist the unit installation in the seabed is
used. The double-cone arrangement has hexagonal or octagonal plans, and can be considered
circular for the geotechnical analysis. Recently, skirted spudcans as a new footing type are used
(Svanø and Tjelta 1993; Eide et al. 1996; Jostad and Andersen 2006; Andersen et al. 2008).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 14

Figure 9: Different types of foundations used for different jackups

(Image from Dean 2010, in which modified and collected from Young et al., 1984;
McNeilan and Bugno, 1985; Hambly et al., 1990; Hayward et al., 2003).

Jackup is a mobile structure and before establishment in the new location, following site
assessment should be performed according to SNAME (2002): a) a geohazard assessment b)
assessment of the foundation for installation, e.g. a preload check. c) assessment of the foundation
for remote operations, e.g. a sliding check, and an overturning check d) assesmemt of jackup effects
on nearby structures e) assessment of leg extraction when the jackup is moved to the another
location. SNAME recommends that if the preloading a jackup to two times of the working vertical
load is safe; it highly would be safe to use the jackup at that location. If it does not show a safe
jackup preloading step or if there is no ballast tank capability for performing the test, following tests
should be performed: a) bearing capacity and sliding check b) displacements check (Dean 2010).
In-situ geotechnical investigation at the location of jackup platform should consist of drilling one
borehole below the seafloor to a depth of 30 m, or to 1.5 spudcan diameters below the bottom line of
spudcan, wichever is the greater. Also it should include one cone penetration test (CPT) with the
distance of few metres from the main borehole to a depth of at least 20m. More boreholes would be
necessary if some potential problems found in the main borehole or some information is missing.
Sea floor hazard assessment is necessary to find problems in the sea floor (fig. 10) and prevents local
overstress in the steel, and excessive bending moments in the legs.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 15

Figure 10: Types of seafloor hazards in spudcan installation location. (a) Rock outcrop or
stiff seafloor sediments. (b) Footprints, or softened remoulded soils, from former jackup
installation. (c) Punch-through failure: a stiff soil layer covers a soft layer. (d) Sloping hard
layer or the seabed strata (Dean 2010).

JACKET PLATFORMS
Jacket platforms are most common platforms in the offshore industry. The jacket made from
an open-framed steel edifice built from tube-shaped leg chords, horizontal bracing, and diagonal
bracing (Figure 11). It tolerates loads of a deck and other structures on the top such as helideck,
drilling rig, and or office and accommodation set up (Dean 2010). Jackets are used in twine or triple
format in some sites for drilling, production and accommodation. Jackets are stabilized against
lateral loading by the seabed driven piles which may pass through leg chords, or inside of peripheral
pile sleeves (Dean 2010). Suction caissons are employed as a replacement for the piles in the
Europipe 16/11-E jacket, as an exception (Tjelta, 1994, 1995). The jackets design life is usually 20
years, but can be shorter or longer depending on the project. The main environmental forces during
work life of jackets originate from wind, waves, and currents, and sometimes ice forces (Dean
2010). Loads that can act on the jacket foundations are shown schematically in figure 11.

.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 16

Figure 11: Types of load on 4-legged jacket foundation (Dean 2010)

The net horizontal load (Hnet) is from wind, wave, and current loads, and changes with time. The
net vertical load (Wnet) is sum of the buoyant weight of the edifice, the weight topside modules, and
vertical loads of the wind, wave, and current. Reaction forces of foundation at the left and right side
of jacket can be shown by VA or B for vertical reaction, HA or B for vertical reaction MA or B for
moments. Vertical and horizontal loads can be written by the following equation in an equilibrium
status.

Wnet = 2VA+2VB (1)

Hnet = 2HA+2HB (2)

Calculating moments regarding to the intersection of the centreline with the seafloor resulted in:

Wnet yw+HnetL = 2MA+2MB+(VB-VA)S (3)

S is the space between legs at the seabed. If it is assumed that horizontal components of A and B
are equal, and moment of A and B points are equal to M in simplified form; vertical components of
the points A and B can be calculated from the following equations (Dean 2010):

Wnet 2y H L − 4M
VA = (1 − w ) − ( net ) (4)
4 S 2S

Wnet 2y H L − 4M
VB = (1 − w ) − ( net ) (5)
4 S 2S
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 17

HA= HB = (Hnet)/4. It can be seen that the horizontal loads impact the vertical, and the lateral
loads on the piles. Moment forces are relatively small compared to HnetL. The conventions that HA=
HB , and MA = MB are not usually accurate due to the change of the foundation stiffness with
different values of the A and B loads. Nevertheless, the above equations are rational for early
estimates (Dean 2010).
There are different types of hazards (fig. 12) arising from the seabed for jacket platforms. Scours
that form as a result of soft sediments that washed away in the sea floor by stormy or cyclic waves.
Lateral stress conditions can be changed by the installation of jackup footing close to the jacket
structure and destabilize the jacket. Also, seafloor slope failures can happen as a consequence of the
liquefaction, flowslide, or turbidity at or close to the jacket foundation location (Dean 2010). The
hydrocarbon wells, usually below some level are uncased and extreme fluid pressures applied for
well drilling can create a hydraulic fracture. These fractures can decrease the mechanical integrity of
the foundation soil mass (Schotman and Hospers 1992; Andersen and Lunne 1994). Drilling
operations can cause other hazards such as cyclic settlements, predominantly in silts due to
vibrations. Shallow gas and gas hydrates are other hazard potentials that can be collected in large
spaces close to the foundation, or piles and decrease the lateral and vertical pile capacity (Dean
2010).

Figure 12: The seabed hazards for jackets. (a) Main and local scour by (Souls 1998;
Whitehouse 1998). (b) Soil pressed toward the piles in neighbour jackup installation. (c)
The seabed instability, from slope failure or flowslide or debris flow or turbidity current. (d)
Shallow gas and hydrocarbon accumulation from fracturing or gashydrates and their
problems due to drilling (Dean 2010).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 18

GRAVITY PLATFORMS
Gravity platform that is also called gravity-base structure (GBS), (fig. 13) employs its weight to
keep its stability against the environmental forces, and has been built for up to 300m water depth
(Dean 2010). In the Condeep and Seatank forms of platform, one or several concrete legs are used to
support the deck and topsides, transmitting loads to a cellular caisson base (Young et al. 1975; Mo
1976; Andersen 1991). A typical platform of this form, mounted in 100m water depth, usually
includes a caisson (100m width by 20-40 m height). Usually, concrete legs in the hollow form can
have 20m diameter, such a way that oil wells and gas wells pass through them to the base of the
caisson and reach into the seabed.

Figure 13: Different forms of gravity structure (GBS) (Dean, 2010) (a) Condeep and
Seatank form (adapted from Poulos 1988). (b) Concept of the Maureen platform built over a
preinstalled template (adapted from Berthin et al. 1985). (c) GBS form for wind turbine
structure (adapted from Staf, 2003). (d) GBS form for LNG facility (adapted from Raine et
al. 2007).

The caisson that can store oil and provide weight for stability may be equipped with dowels,
which are short vertical steel piles or concrete piles at the base. Also, vertical walls termed skirted
can be used by penetration to the soft seabed and resting in the stronger layers transmitting load
below. Skirts can stop ground loss in the platform peripheral by acting as shear keys (Dean, 2010).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 19

One of the world’s tallest concrete structures is Troll East Gas Platform, mounted in over 300m of
water, using skirts penetrated 36m into the soft clay seabed. (Andenæs et al. 1996; Huslid 2001). The
geotechnical engineering problems that should be addressed in designing GBS foundation are:
Required foundation width; required skirt depth and spacing; installation step; scour potential;
effects of accumulative cyclic loading; dynamics of water and earth i.e seismic events; bearing
capacity and sliding capacity in dangerous loading events such as the seabed slope failure;
liquefaction potential; consolidation potential; immediate and long-term settlements rates;
subsidence potential (Young et al. 1975; Eide and Andersen 1984; Andersen 1991; Dean 2010).
Site investigation procedure for the GBS platforms includes failure mechanisms examination in
the seabed to a depth equal to the caisson width, and laterally in area about one caisson diameter
distance from the edge of the caisson in clayey soil and several diameters of the caisson if the soil is
mainly in sand size.
For a small GBS being installed in the shallow water, one borehole for taking sample with a
good geophysical survey may be sufficient. A larger GBS, one deep borehole, 100m below the
seabed, 4-8 shallow borings down to 30m below the seabed, and 13 cone penetration tests (CPTs) in
the upper few metres of the seabed are required (Hitchings et al. 1976). The impact of consolidation
of clays, in settlement analysis, and in the approximation of pore water pressures and the
development of strengths necessitate the understanding of the compressibility properties,
permeability, and consolidation parameters in the clay layers in the GBS geotechnical investigation.
The required knowledge can be obtained by extensive oedometer testing, by applying comparatively
high values of the vertical effective stress, in-situ CPT dissipation tests, laboratory tests, including
triaxial extension, compression tests, direct shear in normal and cyclic mode, and possibly simple
shear, hollow cylinder, and even true triaxial tests (Dean 2010).

THE OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES FOUNDATION

Types of foundations that mostly are used in the offshore wind farms are gravity bases,
monopiles, jacket structures built on the piles or caissons, and floating turbines tied to the seafloor
by tension anchors as a newer type of foundation (Fig. 7) (Gavin et al. 2011).
Where the soil near the seabed level shows suitable bearing capacity, and water is shallow (<25
m) gravity based structures are employed. If near surface soil is not strong enough and water depth is
less than 35m, monopiles are used. Monopiles are formed from large-diameter steel tubes that have
very high moment resistance, and experience has shown that monopiles are good for the offshore
wind turbine farms. Most of the projects done till now are located in the relative shallow water
depths (<30m), (20%) employing gravity base foundation, and (75%) monopile foundation (Gavin et
al. 2011; Madsen et al. 2012). Most of the developments that are planned for the next decades will
be implemented in the water depths of 30 to 70 m. Great amount of research has been carried out on
the gravity base structures, and research on monopiles (Fig. 14), and suction caisson-type
foundations is in the progress. It is predicted that many of the new, deeper water structures will be
established on the jacket structures (Fig. 15) (Gavin et al. 2011). Also, jacket and tripod structures
are suitable for deeper waters and require minimum preparation for the installation at the site
(Madsen et al. 2012). Since the critical loading phenomena in a single pile under tension for the
foundation of the offshore wind turbine differs greatly from current developed and calibrated design
methods, Gavin et al. (2011) investigated the accuracy of estimation of the shaft tension capacity for
the offshore piles by the current design methods. Madsen et al. (2012) discussed strong and weak
point of bucket foundation for the offshore wind turbines. The bucket foundation (Fig. 16) consists
of a thin shell structure, that with an increase in depth of water, the diameter of the bucket increases,
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 20

and it has a large aspect ratio between caisson diameter and the wall thickness. Instability in the form
of buckling is an important issue for the bucket at installation time (Madsen et al. 2012).

Figure 14: Monopile foundations for the offshore wind turbines (Madsen et al. 2012).

Figure 15: Jacket and tripod foundation structure for the offshore wind turbines (Madsen et
al. 2012).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 21

Figure 16: Bucket foundation structures for the offshore wind turbines (Madsen et al.
2012).

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHODS IN

THE OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS DESIGN METHOD
FOR THE JACKUP PLATFORMS
Preloading calculations for the jackup platforms are necessary to find spudcan penetration
relative to the leg load (consisting of the static jackup weight and added water ballast), and for the
safety checkup especially for punch-through phenomena. The required information for this
calculation is the spudcan geometry, jackup properties, and soil layers type, unit weights, and
strength properties. In practice, common bearing capacity relations are used to find spudcan tip
penetration in different scenarios. It is supposed that the spudcan reaches the seafloor without
disturbing it, and then some failure modes happen at the correspond penetration level and the most
critical failure is selected as the limiting value (Dean 2010). For the offshore jackup foundations, the
situation is different. In the offshore projects the spudcan displaces some soil when it is pressed into
the seafloor. Hossain et al. (2003, 2005a, 2006) performed some experimental and finite element
modeling about the spudcan penetration in the clay seabed (Fig. 17). By advancing the penetration,
an open hole is created, and the soil particles are moved around from the beneath of spudcan. After
that, more soil particles move and then flow onto the top of the spudcan; this prevents the wall
collapse. Figure 17c depicts the wall failure development in an open hole as a result of the seabed
softening resulting in infill material (Dean 2010). Backflow and infill loads on the bearing section,
decreases total value that the bearing area can tolerate and can be calculated from the following
relation, which is used by SNAME (2002).

Wmax ≈ qA − γ 'V (6)

where Wmax is the maximum buoyant weight of the material on the top of a spudcan. q is the in-situ
vertical effective stress at the surface of the bearing location area (A). ᵧ’ is the immersed unit weight
of the soil, and V is the volume of soil moved by the spudcan (Dean 2010).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 22

Figure 17: Steps of spudcan penetration, failure types, backflow, and infill mode. (a)
Failure in surface in early penetration into the soft clay (b) Flow failure resulting in
backflow in the following more penetration into the soft clay (c) Wall failure producing the
infill in next steps of operations (a,b,c: after Hossain et al., 2006). (d) Failure modes in clay
with uniform shear strength are compared (Dean 2010).

Detection of the occurrence of backflow can be done using Meyerhof ’s (1972) method for the
stability analysis of an unsupported slurry-field trench in clay as recommended by SNAME (2002).
As it can be seen from Fig. 17-c, wall failure will occur if the hole depth, D, satisfies the equation
(7):

D S
> N 'u (7)
B γB
In which su is the mean undrained shear strength over the depth D, and ᵧ’ is the immersed unit
weight of the soil averaged, and N is a stability number plotted in SNAME’s (2002) in Fig. 17d as a
function of D/B. Hossain et al. (2006) after experimental and modeling research concluded that flow
failure happens if the equation (8) get satisfied and can be used for different modes of the backflow
in the preloading time:

D S 0.55 S
> ( uD ) − 0.25( uD ) (8)
B γB
'
γ 'B

In which suD is the undrained shear strength of the clay located at the depth of spudcan bearing
area plan, D is the penetration depth, and B is the diameter of bearing area in the spudcan. Fig 17-d,
comparably shows two discussed mechanisms for the wall failure (Dean 2010).
If a sand layer is present, the penetration will not cause backflow or infill, unless in the loose
sands that backflow or infill may happen in unusual cases, in which spudcan is emplaced in a hollow
inside the moving sandbanks. In layered soils, the backflow and inflow may happen if the sand
layers collapse, while dragging clay layers (Dean 2010).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 23

Leg penetration design

Leg penetration designs are done by plotting a graph of the leg load versus spudcan tip
penetration. Leg load can be calculated as the soil resistance minus the weight of the backflow
(Figure 18).
Figure 18.a. indicates that the vertical load on the spudcan rises with penetration, and no failure
is possible during loading upto the design preload. Also, the ultimate capacity of the spudcan will
rise if an extra load is used. Figure 18.b shows a punch-through at point A, before the design
achieves. By an increase in the load slightly above A, the foundation cannot tolerate the load, and a
quick penetration happens until point B, where the bearing pressure equals to the bearing capacity.
This danger should be considered by taking into account the values of the leg load and the leg
penetration at the point, and the punch-through distance from A to B. If the distance between A and
B is small, the rig movers may control the ballast systems to perfom the penetration without danger
or damage (Dean 2010). Figure 18.c shows a small punch-through between C and D indicating a
quick penetration due to small changes in soil characteristics. Figure 18d shows no punch-through
till design preload, but indicates its occurrence at E if the spudcan was slightly overloaded. Also a
potential will exist due to detection of engineering parameters or soil layers with error. Consider a
dashed graph with the mentioned conditions, which for that a punch-through will happen at F. To
determine factor of safety following relation can be used:
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 24

Figure 18: The leg preloading curves and their interpretation. (a) Curves showing no problems,
except if a significant lateral variation exists. (b) Curve showing punch-through in the preloading. (c)
Curve showing small controllable punchthrough (d) & (e) The curve showing low factor of safety
against punch-through in and after preloading period (f) The curve showing fast penetration and
possible P−∆ failure during preloading (Dean 2010).
FS=(Leg load at punch-through (E)) / (Maximum planned leg load)
Usually, the factor of safety for punch-through failure is low at the maximum preload and should
be considered by caution (Dean 2010). Figure 18-e shows a punch-through after the planned preload
at the point G. Furthermore, at point H the leg load is lower than design preload, and possibly lower
than the working load of the jackup. The graph pattern up to the G is possibly due to the presence of
a strong soil layer. Fig 8-f does not show a punch-through whereas the rate of the rise in the
ultimate leg load by penetration is minor from I to J hinting three potential problems. The first
problem is from possible difference of actual soil characteristics or layering from those applied to
the calculations. Hence, the real penetration in the preloading will differ from the predicted values.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 25

In the second case, a quick penetration is not possible if the rig movers cannot control the rate of
ballasting accurately. In third problem, there is a potential for a Pfailure (Dean 2010).

BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION

Bearing capacity calculation in the jackup platforms considers different types of failure for a
spudcan penetrating into the layers of soil profiles. Soil can consist of clay, siliceous sand, and/or
siliceous gravel, calcareous and carbonate layers (Dean 2010 ). In the design procedure sands and
gravels are considered in a drained status. The effective internal friction angle, obtained from triaxial
or direct shear test or predicted by in-situ test data are used for the soil strength detection. The clays
are considered in the undrained status, and soil strength is detected from the undrained shear strength
su, obtained from triaxial or vane tests. In silts, calculation should be performed in both undrained
and drained status, and conservative results should be used. The mentioned procedure usually
assumes one or two soil layers. If more than two soil layers exist, calculation is done from the
deepest penetration level. Top first two-layers are combined to an equivalent single layer with same
bearing capacity such a way that spudcan is penetrating these two layers and resting on third layer.
This technique is repeated as if it is required. Figure 19 adapted from Dean (2010) and changed,
presents different bearing capacity failures from penetration of the spudcan into clay using
conventional plane strain failure mechanism.
In a status where a spudcan placed on a clay underlaid by a softer soil layer, a punching failure
can develop. Failure mode observed by Hossain et al. (2005b) using centrifuge test models is shown
in Fig. 19-b. SNAME (2002) employes Brown and Meyerhof (1969) method based on a simple
model of a vertical soil column under the footing which is punched down toward the weaker soil
below. A revised equation by Dean (2008) was introduced as follows:

qu,net= qu,net,b+4αSu H (9)

B

where qu,net,b is the net total bearing capacity that can be assumed if the spudcan placed on the surface
of the lower layer, and su is the mean undrained shearing strength over the height of H. The next
part of the equation is related to the shearing stress on the curved exterior of a vertical column which
is pushed down under spudcan assumedly. The α parameter, is 1 if the full undrained shear strength
of the top clay layer is organised on the surface, but usually for uniformity with SNAME (2002), it
will be considered as 3/4.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 26

Figure 19: The bearing capacity failure modes. (a) Uniform clay layer failure as it was
assumed in the common bearing capacity formula. Its mechanism changes from the surface
failure to flow failure. (b) Failure mode for a clay over weaker clay: this mode
experimentally and numerically confirmed by Hossain et al. (2005a). (c) Failure mode for
clay over stronger clay; used solution borrowed from Meyerhof and Chaplin (1953). (d)
Failure mode in uniform sand and the general bearing capacity formula was used. (e) Failure
mode in sand over clay; as it was reported by Teh et al. (2008) in a model spudcan which
penetrates a dense sand layer at the top and then penetrates an underlying soft clay layer
(Figures modified after Dean 2010).

In status where a spudcan is placed on a clay layer underlaid with a harder soil layer, the stiffer
layer stops the general shear mechanism to penetrate into it and a squeezing mode will initiate.
SNAME (2002) employs the method of Meyerhof and Chaplin (1953) that a revised form of its
calculation was proposed by Dean (2008) as follows:

(10) qu,net= ( NcFcsFcd +(B/3H) -1)Su (10)

Factors can be found in table 4.

 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 27

In the status where a spudcan is placed over a uniform sand layer, the conical tip of a spudcan
creates pre-shearing while the spudcan penetrates into the soil, which impacts the bearing capacity
greatly as experimented by White et al. (2008). SNAME (2002) employs the common bearing
capacity formula, taking into account the failure type shown in Fig. 19d, as written below:

1 '
qu ,net= γ BNγ Fγ s Fγ d + q( N q Fqs Fqd − 1) (11)
2
Factors can be found in Table 4.

Table 4: Bearing capacity factors (Dean 2010)

SNAME (2002) employs both relations for Nᵧ in the flat footings which should be used with
caution due to overpredictions for bearing capacity in the previous projects. In calculation of large
spudcans, the friction angle should be considered 5 degrees less than the value obtained in triaxial
testing. Cassidy and Houlsby (2002) suggested some bearing capacity factors for the conical
footings, though, White et al. (2008) by experimental tests showed that Nᵧ is about 1/2 of the factor
for the flat footings, because of pre-shearing effect.
In status where a spudcan is placed on the sand layer overlying a clay layer as it was observed
in centrifuge model test by Teh et al. (2008) in figure 19-e. For calculation of bearing capacity in this
mode the SNAME (2002) equation in a revised form can be written as:
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 28

H '
qu ,net =
qu ,net ,b + 2 (γ H + 2q) K s tan φ ' (12)
B
where qu,net,b is the net ultimate bearing capacity at the surface of the lower layer. In the second
factor, a coefficient of punching shear, Ks, is used and can be obtained from a graph in the original
reference. It should be noted that the graphs did not give the full range of relevant friction angles.
SNAME (2002) recommended Ks.tanØ 3su as lower bound value when punch-through initiates. su
is the undrained shear strength value for the lower layer. SNAME (2002) recommends application of
the load-spreading method as a replacement for the status of sand layer over clay layer. A supposed
foundation at the depth H under the spudcan bearing surface, with the diameter of (B+2H/n), is
reflected to tolerate the leg load and the weight of soil above the supposed foundation. The formula
for calculating bearing capacity in this mode is as follows:

2H 2
qu ,net= (1 + ) qu ,net ,b (13)
nB

SNAME (2002) supposed n=3 to 5, and if n=5 is considered, a lower-bound approximation of

the foundation load at the failure is required.

Design method for the Jacket platforms

Mudmat design factors
At first step, geotechnical calculation for mudmat in the jacket platform is required. Mudmat is a
flat hardened plate that rests straight on the seabed and holds the jacket during piling (Fig. 20) (Dean
2010).

Figure 20: Elevated and plan views of different mudmats and jacket leg extensions. (a)
Triangular mudmats on a two-bay Jacket at the lowest braces. (b) Square mudmats on a
single-bay jacket installed below the lowest bracing (Dean 2010).

For mudmats, it is required to obtain curves of ultimate mudmat capacity versus mudmat
dimension, considering different penetration levels into the seabed. More than one graph may be
required for various mudmat configurations and likely lateral loading during the piling. The mudmat
dimension design is done using the curves and other factors (Stockard, 1981). If the seabed
contains uniform soil strata to a depth that is equal or larger than the longest dimension of proposed
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 29

mudmat, just shallow foundation bearing capacity is required. Then the mudmat capacity Q that is
tolerating the pure perpendicular load can be obtained from well-known equation of (Dean 2010):

= {
Q A su N c Fcs Fcd + γ ' z  −γ ' z  For clays } (14)

1 
Q A  γ ' BNγ Fγ s Fγ d + γ ' zN q Fqs Fqd  −γ ' z   For sands
= (15)
2 

In which, A is the mudmat bearing area, su is the undrained shear strength of clays, z is the
mudmat penetration height beneath the mudline, and the other are general bearing capacity factors.
The term - ᵞ’Z shows the effect of soil flow to the top of the mudmat. Helfrich et al. (1980) consider
this term related to the Nq component for granular soils calculations. It will be taken into account if
backflow happens during the period of temporary support. Where there is right angle triangular
mudmats shape factors are obtained for the following corresponding foundations (Fig. 21) (Helfrich
et al 1980). In clay (undrained) soils, calculate L=B by applying L as the length of the hypotenuse
and B as the smallest height, e.g. B/L=0.5 in a 90-45-90 degrees triangle. In granular (drained) soils,
suppose the triangle equal to a circle with same area, so B/L=1. In the layered soil profiles, the
bearing capacity calculations of jackups with shape factors of the mudmat can be employed.

Figure 21: Calculations for mudmats. (a) L and B for the shape factors of mudmat in the plan view (Helfrich et al., 1980). (b) A
typical size selection from site-specific design chart (after Helfrich et al., 1980). (c) Soil reaction mechanism for the jacket leg
extension showing Soil displacement when the leg pushed down vertically into the seabed. (d) Components of the soil reaction
(Dean 2010). (Dean 2010).

The jacket leg extension factors

The jacket leg extension is another part that requires geotechnical calculation. The soil
displacement and resulting resistance around a jacket leg extension in the pushed status into the sea
floor can be seen in Fig. 21. Some soil in the passive wedge moves upward, and some soil falls
creating an active wedge as a result of vertical penetration of the leg extension. When the extension
penetrates the soil vertically, some soil in the deeper soil movements due to penetration create a
complicated group of reaction forces that can be determined by ultimate axial pile capacity
calculations. These calculations are applied to the shaft friction resistance, QS which is active on the
outside of the leg extension, and is applied to the end bearing pressure of QP. Also, ultimate lateral
pile capacity calculation is employed for the lateral resistance QL.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 30

In the practice, the real ultimate shaft resistances are under influence of the lateral load, and the
ultimate lateral load is under influence of the shaft load. The QS and QL both have an impact on the
QP in short piles and extensions. It is better to calculate each resistance force separately and
combine with engineering judgement (Dean 2010).

Pile design factors

Pipe pile (Fig. 22a), driven into the seabed by a hammer, is used frequently in the offshore
projects. Its dimensions include D or D0, or the outside diameter, and a pipe wall thickness, t or w.
The internal diameter is determined by Di =D - 2t, and pipes diameters are multiples of 6 inches,
with wall thickness of 1/4 inch intervals. Common D/t ratios are found between 20 and 60. Low
ultimate capacity and low friction between piles and carbonate sands or rocky seabed exist. These
factors and driving difficulty in the rocks make the drilled and grouted piles (Fig. 22b) better options
in these seabed materials (Dean 2010). Full displacement piles, reinforced concrete piles, and belled
piles are other options (Fig. 22c).

Figure 22: Different types of the offshore piles: (a) Pipe pile, (b) Drilled and grouted pile,
(c) Belled pipe (Dean 2010).

A pile installed in some level below the seabed has a buoyant weight W’ which is the weight of
the pile under influence of buoyancy in water for section above the seabed and section in soil below
it. A vertical load V at the head of the pile is applied to drive pile into the seabed. The total buoyant
load from the equation: Q = V+W’ if is plotted against pile settlement, s, produces a peak in the
graph which represents ultimate axial pile capacity. Ultimate axial capacity and soil reaction
schematically are shown in (Fig. 23) for coring and plugged situations, and related calculation can be
found in the figure title.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 31

Figure 23: Presentation of the ultimate axial capacity and soil reaction mechanism in the
coring and plugged states. (a) Pile status as installed before loading. (b) Coring in which pile
cuts by penetrating into the soil and Total resistance = Qsx+Qsi+Qa. (c) Plugged status in
which soil plug is pulled down by the pile, and Total resistance = Qsx+Qe+Qa. (d) Failure
mechanisms in the soil (Dean 2010).

CPT-BASED DESIGN
Increasing demand for large-diameter open-ended driven piles in the offshore projects fueled
some research projects to investigate the relationship between qc and the pile base and shaft with
differentiation between open and closed ended piles. Methods such as Fugro (Fugro-05), Imperial
College (ICP-05), and Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI-05), the University of Western
Australia (UWA-05), were developed that have been described in Kolk et al. (2005), Jardine et al.
(2005), and Clausen et al. (2005), Xu et al. (2005; 2008), respectively. The ultimate base resistance,
qb0.1, is determined as the resistant in the pile head which displaced almost 10% of the pile diameter
(D) in above mentioned methods. CPT-based design, methods are obligatory in loose sands, because
API method for loose sand is not conservative according to ISO 19902. The four CPT-based
methods as mentioned above in the ISO 19902 report are modified to equivalent full methods which
can be found in the literature. Comparisons between the API and simplified methods in ISO 19902
for a 60 by 2 inches pile driven in the medium-dense siliceous sand are shown in Fig. 24a. The first
graph on the left depicts the supposed cone penetration resistance, obtained from equation A.17.4-21
of ISO 19902, originally derived from Ticino sand data (Baldi et al. 1986; Jamiolkowski et al. 1988).
The second graph depicts the unit shaft friction. The installed length of the pile does not influence
the unit skin friction value in the API calculation while they have an impact in the CPT-based
methods. Stress history impact was considered to plot values of 100m length of the installed pile.
Unit end bearing values were compared at the third graph. In the ICP-05 method, the unit end-
bearing only was considered over the pile end. The variations between the ultimate axial pile
capacity and the length of installed pile are shown in the fourth graph. The API method yields the
highest value for 100m installed length, and the UWA-05 (plugged) method produce a capacity
almost one-half of the API value.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 32

Comparisons for the same pile in the dense sand, attributing a relative density of 80% was
presented in Fig.24b. Unit end bearings conform well in all methods except for the ICP-05 method.
There is a good agreement between methods for the ultimate axial pile capacities. At the 100m pile
penetration, the values obtained from the NGI-05 method are about 50% larger than the API method.

PRACTICAL P-Y CURVES

The relation between lateral load and displacement of the pile head is an important factor in
designing piles. API RP2A and ISO 19902 provide shapes for the p—y curves which can be
employed for the piles driven into layered soils composed of the soft clays or siliceous sand in the
design step. The symbol ‘p’ used by API to show a stress in the recommendations for clay, but
employed the same symbol to show the force per unit length in the sand. Also in ISO 19902, ‘p’ is
used as the force per unit length for both sand and clay. The recommendations for the soft clays have
been shown in Fig.25a. The ratio of the lateral soil resistance to the ultimate lateral resistance pult is
plotted on vertical axes. The ratio of the lateral deflection y is divided by a reference deflection yc =
2.5 cD, and is shown on the horizontal axis. D represents the pile diameter and c represents the axial
strain obtained in the undrained triaxial compression test. D is obtained at the time that the deviator
stress during the test has achieved 50% of the ultimate deviator stress. Values listed in Fig. 25e were
recommended by Rees and Van Impe (2001) for normally consolidated clays, considering shear
strength. API RP2A and ISO 19902 made several p—y curves available. In short-term static loading,
the full reaction changes at the greater lateral deflections. In equilibrium conditions of cyclic
loading, the form of curve changes regarding whether the clay is inside the zone of decreased
resistance, or not (Dean 2010). Typical shapes suggested by Reese and Van Impe (2001) for the soft
clay after cyclic loading is shown in Fig. 25b. Zero resistance is considered until a lateral deflection
is achieved during cyclic loading, and after that the curve proceeds to the API curve for cyclic
loading. In the stiff clay, which is a clay showing undrained shear strength more than 96 kPa, it can
be observed that stiff clays may be more brittle than soft ones, and may show greater cyclic
degradation. The recommendations for the siliceous sands are shown in Fig. 25c which illustrates
curves based on a hyperbolic tangent function. The constant k represents the rate of an increase in
the beginning subgrade reaction modulus versus depth in the sand. The constant k changes with the
angle of internal friction of the soil (see Fig. 25e). The parameter A can be obtained from
= A max {3 − 0.8( x / D),0.9} for static conditions, or as A=0.9 in an equilibrium cyclic conditions, in which x
is the depth below the seafloor. The p—y curves suggested by Williams et al. (1988) and Wesselink
et al. (1988) for calcareous and carbonate sands are shown in Fig. 25d.

ULTIMATE LATERAL PILE CAPACITY

The maximum horizontal load that a pile can tolerate at a specific point is called ultimate lateral
pile capacity. In the jacket platforms, the specific point can be the level of connection between the
pile and the jacket, or the connection of the lowest horizontal bracing level on the jacket. Plastic
failure mechanism in the soil and the pile are taken into account in the calculation of ultimate lateral
pile capacity. A shallow failure mechanism in the soil just below the seafloor as can be seen from
Fig. 26a happens when the pile moves from left to right, and pushes a passive wedge of soil upward.
Ground may heave close to the laterally loaded pile up to several times of its diameter (Reese and
Van Impe, 2001). A gap or an active failure zone or a gap builds up behind the pile.
Different failure mechanism may happen at the deeper level where the overburden pressure
prevents vertical movement of the pile. At this situation, the soil moves around the pile when the pile
moves, however remains in the same horizontal level during the movement. The ultimate lateral
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 33

resistances pult determination for the two failure mechanisms has been explained in API RP2A and
ISO 19902, and is summarised below. A representative plot from the results of uniform soil profile is
shown in Fig. 26c. In the shallow failure mechanism, reduced resistance, deep failure mechanism
happens. In the layered soils, the graph shows several intersections, in which ISO 19902
recommends the first intersection should be the depth of the reduced resistance. As mentioned the
term ‘p’ is used for clays and sands in API, and ISO 19902 methods. Calculation of the ultimate
force per unit length, pult, at a depth x in soft clay soils under static loading for shallow and deep
failure can be written by equations of (16) and (17), respectively:

pult = 3suD +σ’vD+Jxsu (16)

pult = 9suD (17)

where su is the undrained shear strength at depth x, D is the pile diameter, σ’v is the vertical effective
stress at depth x, and J is an experimental parameter varying between 0.25-0.5. J is typically
considered 0.5 if no representative data exist (Dean 2010).
For underconsolidated soils, σ’v derivation should consider actual pore pressures in the soil.
usually, the depth of reduced resistance (xR) can be obtained from:
(18) 6suD = σ’vD+JxR su
In normally consolidated soils, su is roughly 0.2 σ’v (Semple and Gemeinhardt, 1981), so the
reduced resistance zone depth would be about 6D=J, or almost 12 times of pile diameters if J= 0.5.
In over-consolidated soils, su is greater, producing smaller depths xR (Dean 2010).
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 34

b
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 35

Figure 25: Different practical p—y curves. (a) For soft clay (API RP2A and ISO 19902).
(b) For soft clay after cyclic loading (Matlock, 1970; Reese and Van Impe, 2001). (c) For
siliceous sand (API RP2A and ISO 19902). (d) For carbonate sands, static loading, shown
for pult/pref= 0.9, obtained by Novello’s (2000) equation. (Image from Dean 2010).
In the siliceous sands under static loading, the API and ISO formulas for determining the
ultimate force per unit length, pult, at a depth x for shallow and deep failure mechanisms can be
written as equations (19) and (20), respectively:

pult = C1x + C2D σ’v (19)

pult = C3D σ’v (20)

In which C coefficients can be obtained from a graph, presented in the first, two graphs of Fig.
26c. They are the C coefficients, changing with the angle of internal friction φ’ of the soil. The
depth of the reduced resistance zone can be obtained from the equation 21:

xR = [(C3-C2)/C1]∙D (21)
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 36

The third diagram in the Fig. 26c illustrates the inferred depth ratios xR=D. The depth of reduced
resistance changes from about 10 times of the pile diameters if φ’=20°, to almost 22 times of the
pile diameters, if φ’=40° (Dean 2010).

Figure 26: Different soil failure mechanisms in the lateral loading. (a) Shallow soil failure
mode shown in elevation (top) and plan view (bottom). (b) Deep soil failure mode shown in
elevation (top) and plan view (bottom) (after Fleming et al., 1992). (c) Calculation graph for
the depth of the reduced resistance zone. (d) Coefficients for siliceous sand (after API RP2A
and ISO 19902) and H=D ratios for the depth of the reduced resistance zone (Dean 2010).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 37

DESIGN METHOD FOR THE GRAVITY PLATFORMS

The gravity platforms are usually retained in level status when they are lowered to the seabed.
By this way, the dowels and the skirts can start to penetrate the seabed almost concurrently.
Similarly, Fig. 27 shows the major design issues for parallel mode.

Figure 27: The major design aspects of the parallel descent installation. (a) Dowel
penetration. (b) Penetrated dowel and skirt with dome contact stress in the grouted mode
and protected scour (Dean 2010).

The dowels can be defined as the vertical steel piles with the diameter up to about 2m (Gerwick
2007). Vertical resistance calculation for these dowels can be found precisely in the Section 6 of
DNV (1992). Two types of calculations are suggested, one for the most common soil resistance, the
other one for the highest probable resistance. The dowels follow pile design procedure, with special
considerations if reducer for the friction is applied. Skirts and ribs also follow the pile design
procedure. A general equation for these three elements can be written as:

R= Rs + Rp (22)

where R is the net soil resistance against the penetration, Rs is the skin friction at the either side of a
dowel, or the wall of a skirt, and Rp is the toe bearing pressure of the dowel or skirt. The lateral
resistance calculations for the dowels are similar to the lateral pile capacity (Dean 2010). Skirted
foundations and anchors are appropriate solutions for the different types of fixed offshore platforms,
and possible alternative for the offshore wind turbines (Ibsen and Thilsted, 2011). An important
consideration during the design of these structures is the design for cyclic and dynamic loading. The
cyclic loading induces excess pore pressures in clays, silts, and even sandy soils under a wide
caisson. The pore pressure along with strain—history effects, can affect the stiffness and strength of
a soil. In less permeable soils, these effects can last for several weeks or months, and add up with
each successive storm. In stress path analysis for the above problem, a number of key locations
based on calculation in the soil are selected at the first step.
Fig. 28a illustrates six locations A-F that can be a potential failure surface in the soil. Each key
point should show the initial soil state prior to the platform installation plotted on both diagrams, and
will be updated with the design effects. An average effective stress versus a shear or deviator stress
can be seen in the first diagram. Here, in Fig. 28, the triaxial parameters p0, q are used, but it can be
more suitable to use the vertical effective stress versus the shear stress on a horizontal plane, or a
Mohr’s circle diagram for some key points. The Fig. 28c shows second diagram at a key point that
represents the volume value change. The mean normal effective stress is plotted versus the void
ratio. In clays, (NCL) the onedimensional asymptotic compression line and elastic swelling or
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 38

recompression lines (EL) can be plotted by the oedometer test data. The critical states line (CSL) can
be plotted as a line or curve geometry by mimicing the shape of the onedimensional compression
curve on the diagram. Its points can be obtained from the critical states of the triaxial test data.

Figure 28: The stress-path approach (a) Finding key points. (b) Stress space and path plot
(NTL, no tension line; FL, failure line; CSL, critical state line; YL, yield locus; V, in-situ
state; P, pre-consolidated state). (c) Stress versus volume plot, volume is same as the void
ratio here (NCL, one-dimensional compression line; EL, elastic line). (d) Interactive
Stress—path analysis and laboratory testing (Dean 2010).

A major design challenge for the skirted foundations in sand is to push the skirted in required
depth for desired capacity. To ease the high penetration resistance in the sands, suction assisted
method is selected. Suction installation method may create the piping channels that break the
hydraulic seal and halt further penetration. A numerical modeling by (Ibsen and Thilsted 2011)
investigated the failure limits during suction installation in both homogenous and layered soil
profile. They performed a numerical flow analysis to obtain the hydraulic gradients produced in the
reaction to the suction applied, and showed the results in a closed form solutions. These solutions
compared with the large scale tests, implemented in a natural seabed at a test site in Frederikshavn,
Denmark, can be used to evaluate the suction thresholds against piping. These closed form solutions
are valid for other the offshore skirted foundations and anchors in homogeneous or layered sand
(Ibsen and Thilsted 2011). Figs. 29 and 30 illustrate applied suction, and the results of numerical
modeling respectively. As it can be seen from Fig. 29 the suction required for the installation of
bucket 5 is higher than the suction resulting in the piping.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 39

Figure 29: The applied suction “p” that was required for the installation of the buckets.

Figure 30: The results of the numerical modeling (FLAC) plotted as the normalized seepage
length in exit gradient versus relative penetration. a) Installation condition in homogenous
sand. b) Installation condition in sand over a flow boundary (Ibsen and Thilsted 2011).

Ibsen and Thilsted (2011) compared the numerical studies with the installation tests and
concluded that, the exit gradient beside the skirt control time of the piping occurrence. In the
installation mode for the homogeneous sand, the internal hydraulic gradients numerical studies by
different researchers have produced different formulations. Nevertheless, the empirical relations give
similar critical suctions for the skirt penetrations in a practical depth (Ibsen and Thilsted 2011).
Andersen et al., (2008) suggested a method for calculating the penetration resistance and required
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 40

underpressure for skirts getting penetrated in the dense sand with or without overlaying or
underlying clay layers. These suggestions used data from prototypes, field tests, and laboratory
modeling in the dense sand. The results and their comparison demonstrated that both inducing extra
penetration force and reducing penetration resistance from the under-pressure (suction) eases the
skirt penetration in the sand significantly. It was also observed that interbedded clay layers can stop
water flows from the sand and eradicate the positive drop in the penetration resistance (Andersen et
al., 2008).
Shallow sliding failure modes (Fig. 31) are analysed considering that the skirts can tolerate the
implied loads. Each mode will need to be tested in design procedure, typically by using a sliding
block analysis, plasticity method, or slope stability analysis using limit equilibrium (Chen and Liu,
1990). In all deep seated cases (Fig. 32), the three-dimensional nature of the failure surface should
be considered.
These failure modes can be analysed by the plasticity theory, or adapting the method of slices
used in the slope stability problems depending on the soil properties. Variety of slip surface depth,
centres and radii for the curved parts should be tried until the lowest factor of safety is determined.
Additionally, a finite element analysis by an elasto-plastic constitutive model for the soil coupled
with a realistic failure criterion can be employed (Dean 2010).

Figure 31: Different types of shallow sliding failure (adapted from Young et al., 1975). (a)
Passive wedge failure. (b) Deep passive failure. (c) Sliding base failure. (d) Sliding failure
occurred in a shallow weak layer along with largely spaced skirts, can be prevented by
decreasing the skirt spacing adequately. (e) Sliding failure in a deeper weak zone that can be
prevented by increasing the skirt length adequately (Dean 2010).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 41

Figure 32: Deep seated failure analysis. (a) Slip surface for the joint vertical, horizontal,
and moment loading (adapted from Lauritzen and Schjetne, 1976). (b) CARL and CARV
failure surfaces (after Andersen, 1991). (c) Generalised failure surface through a weak zone,
analysed using the method of slices (adapted from Young et al. 1975). (d) Sliding block
analysis (adapted from Georgiadis and Michalopoulos, 1985) (Dean 2010).

Mana et al., (2012) investigated the kinematic soil failure mechanisms close to the offshore
skirted foundations, placed in a little over-consolidated clay, under undrained compression and
tension. They conducted digital image examination of the drum centrifuge tests and compared to the
results of a finiteelement analyses. It was observed through analysis of images taken in the
centrifuge tests (Fig. 33) that different kinematic mechanisms control the soil failure in the tension
and compression modes.

Figure 33: The particle image velocimetry (PIV) analysis example for d/D = 0.5 under
compression loading in a centrifuge at 200g (Mana et al., 2012).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 42

During the tension mode, a reverse end bearing mechanism with a bulb of soil under the
foundation with continuous mobilization in low ratio of 0.1 for the skirt depth to the foundation
exists. Results of the full model centrifuge test showed that the bearing capacity factor is not
influenced by the different types of failure mechanisms in the compression and uplift modes. Some
noticeable difference beside good agreement (Fig. 34) was observed between the failure mechanisms
happened in the centrifuge tests and those predicted by the finite-element analyses (Mana et al.,
2012).
Settlement problem in the gravity structures can be an immediate settlement, a gradual
settlements from the cyclic loading and variation of the load condition during the project, and long-
term settlements due to the primary and secondary consolidation and regional subsidence (Dean
2010). Immediate settlements happen at the time of load application, and can be elastic or elasto-
plastic. They can be found by a finite element program using an appropriate elasto-plastic
constitutive model, or by settlement calculation for shallow foundation (e.g. Bowles, 1996; Das,
2005).
For the primary consolidation, an example is shown in Fig. 35. A gravity base emplaced on a
relatively thin layer of clay with height of H, which is overlying a sand layer acting as a drain path is
shown.
Due to the small H compared to the caisson breadth B, the water will flow vertically into the
sand layer.
Fig. 35.b. illustrates a different situation where the radial consolidation equation is more
applicable. The gravity base is shown, emplaced on a thin compressible layer covering
comparatively impermeable soil or rock. Water flows radially in this case as a primary option (Dean
2010).

Figure 34: The comparative evaluation of the velocity contours observed in PIV and
predicted by FEA in (a) compression mode and (b) uplift mode (Mana et al. 2012).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 43

Figure 35: The basic models of consolidation under a gravity platform emplaced on a thin
layer of relatively compressible clay. (a) Almost one-dimensional consolidation of a thin
clay layer over a comparatively permeable layer. (b) Almost radial consolidation of a thin
clay layer over a comparatively impermeable layer. (c) Initial vertical total stress under the
caisson base. (d) The degree of consolidation Uv versus the time factor Tv (Dean 2010).

DESIGN METHOD FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND

TURBINES FOUNDATION
Monopiles are widely used for the offshore wind turbine foundation. Pile design methods used
for the oil and gas rigs and evolved to API-RP2A code during time are adapted for this sector too. In
the American Petroleum Institute (API) first edition (API 1969), the local shear resistance (τf) was
approximated by a usual earth pressure approach:

t f = Kσ V ' tan δ f (23)

where σ’v is the vertical effective stress, K is an earth pressure, and δf the interface friction angle.
K values of 0.7 and 0.5 related to the compression and tension loading correspondingly is considered
empirically. δf changes with the soil type, evidently (Gavin et al. 2011). Lings (1985), discussed an
important density bias using the API method. This method overpredicts the capacity of the piles in
loose sand and considerably underpredicts the capacity of piles in dense sand. Van Weele (1989)
which approved these findings mentioned the impact of the bias results on the economical design of
foundations in the North Sea sand, which is heavily overconsolidated, and in very dense sand. The
problematic estimation of the working earth pressure coefficient K, and variation in the sand
deposits naturally, causes the techniques that use average of the shaft resistance or soil properties
along the pile shaft seem questionable. This doubtful estimation increased the application of the
correlations between δf and insitu test parameters, primarily obtained by CPT tests (Gavin et al.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 44

2011). The tensional loads applied vertically to the foundations of wind turbines are much more than
those obtained during the calibration of the offshore design methods. When the design techniques
optimized and based on CPT methods were used to determine the required pile length for supporting
the usual wind turbine loads, contradictory results (Fig. 36) were observed by Gavin et al. (2011).
Radial effective stresses detected in the instrumented open-ended piles show that (Fig. 37) the semi-
empirical factors do not correctly represent the differences in the radial stress governing around
closed- and open-ended piles (Gavin et al. 2011). These values exposed that the piles installed in
loose sand tolerated much greater rates of radial stress degradation in the cyclic loading than the
piles installed in dense sand. However, the piles installed in loose sand show much greater values of
friction fatigue during the cyclic loading (Gavin et al. 2011).

Figure 36: Approximation for a pile length necessary to support a 5 MW wind turbine with
D = 1.5 m Gavin et al. 2011).

Seidel and Coronel (2011) developed a new method, combining accredited methods of static
(ICP) and cyclic (RATZ software) performance to evaluate cyclic loading effect on the axially
loaded piles of offshore wind turbines. Accurate predictions were obtained for the deflections, cyclic
failure mechanisms and capacity reductions by this method. This method can predict the pile failure
under cyclic loading with RATZ software if the input values for the peak skin friction are realistic
like ICP method (Fig. 38). The methodology developed further by using the degraded profile from
one test as input for the next (Fig. 39). The reduction based on the overall reduction was selected and
peak shaft friction relative to the entire length of the pile was reduced (Seidel and Coronel, 2011).
The major hypothesis for the defining pile capacity after the failure was the selection of the
maximum reduction due to cyclic loading. This reduction is recognized by the post-peak residual
value of skin friction, which was selected as the 70% of the peak value in research of Seidel and
Coronel (2011).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 45

Figure 37: Assessment of the measured radial stress on the open and closed-ended piles: (a)
closed end; (b) OE1; (c) OE2; (d) An incremental filling ratio (Gavin et al. 2011).

Figure 38: Evaluation of results from RATZ with the tests pile R3 (cyclic test 2.R3.CY2) in
compared mode (Seidel and Coronel, 2011)
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 46

Figure 39: Comparison of Skin friction profiles over depth after test 2.R3.CY2 (Seidel and
Coronel, 2011).

Figure 40: The comparison of deflection lines of monopiles (D = 5.0m and 7.5m) calculated
using p-y (Lpile software, 2000) and FEM (Achmus et al., 2009).

Achmus et al. (2008) performed 3D finite element analysis to study the behavior of monotonic and
cyclic loading considering the interaction between the pile and the subsoil. In their study, a particular
numerical approach was used to consider the effect of cyclic loading. Achmus et al. (2008) noticed that
the common p-y method according to API is not appropriate to determine the behavior of 5m and 7.5m-
diameter piles (Fig. 40).
The degradation stiffness model was developed by Achmus et al., (2009) in the form of a numerical
modeling to investigate the cyclic lateral loading and pile deformations in a practical manner (Fig. 41). A
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 47

comparison between the results from this model and the existing test results for piles in the sand presented
good agreement. Achmus et al., (2009) observed that the displacement accumulation rate in the
monopiles, considerably depends on the loading level. The loading level is the relative amount of actual
load to ultimate load. The ultimate load of a horizontally loaded pile depends mainly on the installed pile
length. Hence, the accumulation rate of any level, is principally controlled by the installed length of a
monopile (Figs. 41 and 42). The pile diameter has less impact on the ultimate load, comparatively
(Achmus et al., 2009). Using the results of the parametric study, Achmus et al., (2009) developed some
design charts for both static and cyclic loading. Using these charts, displacement of a monopile in sand at
the level of seafloor, and at the level where the load is applied, depending on load cycles can be
determined in the static and cyclic loading modes.

Figure 41: Change in the stiffness in two pile–soil systems versus the number of load cycles
(Achmus et al., 2009).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 48

Figure 42: Evaluation of the lateral deflection Figure 43: Design chart for the lateral
of the piles using the degradation stiffness displacement of monopiles tolerating static
model (Achmus et al., 2009). lateral load versus normalized load
(Achmus et al., 2009).

Figure 44: Incremental rate of the displacement versus normalized load under cyclic loading
(Achmus et al. 2009)

Bucket foundation is getting considerable attention in the offshore wind turbines industry. Ibsen et al.
(2005) performed five years R & D project that showed bucket foundation (Fig. 45), is a suitable and
feasible option for the wind turbines in an appropriate soils, and water depths approximately up to 40
meters. Its cost effectiveness because of the reduced steel weight by half compared to monopile, and
easiness of the installation are main favourable aspects of the bucket foundations (Ibsen et al., 2005). A
bucket foundation design method emphasizing the service performance was suggested in Ibsen et al.
(2005) research. The bucket dimensions were determined using the load combination and Limit State
(ULS, SLS, ALS or FLS) leading to the appropriate largest dimensions. In the offshore wind turbines, the
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 49
design load value is usually emergency stopping of the wind turbine, ice load or fatigue (Ibsen et al.
2005). Investigation of the penetrability of the bucket to reach overcoming status of the driving force
(combination of the load on the bucket and the applied suction, not more than the critical suction),
against the resistance force of the soil is necessary (Ibsen et al., 2005).
Houlsby et al., (2005) using data obtained from the pilot test in Frederikshavn, Denmark,
investigated the application of the suction caisson foundation type to the offshore wind turbines. They
concluded that: I) suction caissons in monopod or tripod or tetrapod forms can be used in the offshore
wind turbines. II) The mixed effect of low vertical load and high horizontal load and the moment is the
major point in designing these foundations for the wind turbines (Fig. 46). III) Ultimate capacity in the
wind turbines are approached from the stiffness and fatigue perspectives. IV) Monopod foundation
designs are mainly influenced by the moment loading. V) Tripod or tetrapod foundation designs are
mainly influenced by the tensile loading. VI) The moment-rotation response of caissons in sand was
studied by different methods, including the physical model tests and the numerical modeling tests. VII)
By increasing the amplitude of the moment, the stiffness reduces and the hysteresis increases.

Figure 45: Embedding a prototype bucket foundation at the test site in Frederikshavn, Denmark
: (a) during embedding, (b) at the end of embedment (Achmus et al., 2009).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 50

Figure 46: A caisson foundation shows loading, and (exaggerated) displacement conventions
(Houlsby et al. 2005).

Anchored off shore structures

The steady termination of the hydrocarbon reserves in shallow waters has caused the offshore oil and
gas industry target water depths now close to 2000 m (Aubeny et al. 2001; Ehlers et al. 2004). The
progress toward deep water and ultradeep water demands the substitution of fixed platforms by the
floating facilities anchored to the seabed. They need an anchoring systems design to tolerate great vertical
components of the load.
The offshore floated structures are used in deep water installations. Vertically loaded plate anchors
(VLAs) are used in the deepwater (up to about 1500m) temporary or permanent mooring systems for
exploration drilling rigs (Colliat 2002). Application of the VLAs in up to 3000m of the water depth in
ultra-deepwater moorings can be developed using current methods. Field load tests to enhance the
applicability of the suction piles and VLAs in the permanent moorings in the soft deepwater clays were
conducted by Colliat (2002). The freefalling torpedo anchor, according to the R&D activity was
recognized as the most capable anchor concept, especially for application in the temporary Moored
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) at more than 3000m water depth limit (Colliat 2002).
Torpedo anchors (Fig. 47) follow a design scheme that after releasing from a particular height above
the seabed, they are embedded well by penetration into the seabed. This penetration happens after getting
velocities up to 100 km/h in free-fall drop inside the water. The anchors are usually made from metal with
the dry weight of 50 - 100 tonnes and an elevation of 10-15 m (NGI website).
Another anchoring system is called the Suction Embedded Plate Anchor (SEPLA) (Fig. 48). It
usually provides the positive aspects of the suction caissons such as the penetration depth and the
geographical location, along with the geotechnical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the vertically
loaded plate anchors (Wilde et al., 2001).
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 51

Figure 47: The deep penetrating anchor (DPA) anchor for the installation at the Gjøafeltet,
Norway (left), and DPA installation set up (right) (Photo: Gemini 2009-04 , Figure: after
Lieng et. al, 1999) adapted from NGI website.

Figure 48: a) A schematic SEPLA installation: 1) suction installation; 2) caisson retrieval; 3)

anchor keying; 4) mobilised anchor (Gaudin et al., 2005) , b) A real SEPLA (Image credit
intermoor.com)
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 52
The ultimate capacity of plate anchors in vertical monotonic mode in the undrained clay, Fu, is
usually written in terms of the projected area of anchor or A, undrained shear strength of the soil Su
located at the mid-level of the anchor, and a dimensionless factor N, by following equation (Gaudin et al.
2006):

Fu=NASu (24)

A series of centrifuge tests was performed by Gaudin et al. (2006) to study how the suction
installation of caisson, its retrieval and locking plate anchor, influence the performance of the suction
installed plate anchors. They concluded that the installation of the combined caisson–anchor system can
be calculated by former caisson embedment theory with considering the other bearing and frictional
resistance from the existence of the plate anchor. Appropriate agreement (Fig. 49) with the experimental
data occurred by applying a bearing capacity factor of 7.5 for the caisson and anchor edges, and similar
equal internal and external frictional coefficients of 0.4 (Gaudin et al., 2006).

Figure 49: The comparison of the penetration and extraction resistance and related coefficients
(Gaudin et al., 2006).
However a great advancement has happened in the offshore geotechnical engineering, some failures
happen in the offshore structures. More details about them can be found in the mentioned references,
especially at Dean (2010).

CONCLUSION
From the different topics covered in this review paper, following conclusive points are summarized.
The demand for the offshore structures including the oil and gas platforms, wind turbines is increasing
rapidly. This increase is due to need for more offshore energy reservoirs, even in the ultra-deep waters
and more shares from renewable offshore wind energy. The geophysical techniques including the
traditional seismic methods and new methods greatly increase the accuracy of site investigation and
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 53
reduce its costs. New methods in the geophysical exploration including application of the surface waves
and ground penetration radar (GPR) in the seabed exploration have become common, recently. CHIRP a
new technology, designed to replace pingers and boomers, can operate around central frequency (3 kHz –
40 kHZ) and provide better resolution from sediments close to the seabed. LiDAR, an air-borne laser
scanning system started to be used in shallow (Usually less than 30 m to 50 m deep) and clear waters to
measure the depth of water and location of the seabed. The most common in-situ testing techniques used
in the offshore environments are the piezo cone penetration tests (P-CPT), vane shear test (VST), T-bar
and ball probe tests to find soil properties and design appropriate type of foundation. When a CPT should
be done at an accurate spot in deep water, or when a series of uninterrupted in-situ tests in the linear
format are required, the ROV penetration test unit should be employed. Minicones developed for better
stratigraphic outlining and soil parameter detection from vessels, are used in the pipeline and cable route
investigations, and small subsea structures, anchors and dredging investigations. Different types of
offshore structure, and foundation for the oil and gas plat forms and wind turbines are selected depending
on the depth of water, site properties and the purpose of the structure. For the Jackup platform following
site assessment should be performed according to SNAME: a) a geohazard assessment b) assessment of
the foundation for installation, e.g. a preload check. c) assessment of the foundation for remote
operations, e.g. a sliding check, and an overturning check d) assesmemt of jackup effects on nearby
structures e) assessment of leg extraction when the jackup is moved to the another location. Jackets, the
most common offshore platforms, are used in twine or triple format in some sites for drilling, production
and accommodation. The jackets are stabilized against the lateral loading by the seabed driven piles or by
suction caissons. Different types of hazards from the seabed can affect the jacket platforms. Scours that
form as a result of soft sediments washed away in the sea floor by stormy or cyclic waves, and seafloor
slope failures as a consequence of the liquefaction, flowslide, or turbidity at or close to the jacket
foundation location are some types of those hazard. Hydraulic fracture that can decrease the mechanical
integrity of the foundation soil mass and shallow gas and gas hydrates are other hazard potentials. The
gravity base platforms with typical concrete legs in the hollow form with 20m diameter are necessary to
be checked for all types of settlement potential using laboratory or in-situ tests. Monopiles, gravity base,
and bucket structures are most common type of foundation for offshore wind turbines, respectively, and
currently. It can be inferred that application of in-situ data and design principles of traditional offshore
foundation should be adjusted for new types of foundation regarding the geometry, applied load,
geohazards, and used cautiously. Different approach and criteria should be considered for the offshore
wind turbine foundations than the oil and gas platform foundations due to the difference in the applied
load and the foundation geometry. The application of numerical analyses combined with the analytical
methods for better and accurate results and understanding in the foundation design and geohazard
assessment should be considered as a necessary approach.

REFERENCES
Achmus M., Abdel-Rahman K., Kuo Y.S, 2008. Design of Monopile Foundations for The
offshore Wind Energy Converters, 11th Baltic sea geotechnical conference, Gdansk, Poland.
Achmus M., Kuo Y.S, 2009. Abdel-Rahman K., Behavior of monopile foundations under
cyclic lateral load, Computers and Geotechnics, 36, 725– 735.
Andenæs, E., Skomedal, E. and Lindseth, S., 1996. Installation of the Troll Phase I Gravity Base
Platform. Paper OTC 8122, The offshore Technology Conference.
Andersen, K.H., 1991. Foundation design of the offshore gravity structures. Chapter 4 of Cyclic
Loading of Soils, eds M.P. O’Reilly and S.F. Brown, Blackie, 122—173.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 54
Andersen, K. H., Lunne, T. A., 1994. Method to determine conductor setting depth in silt-clay,
Publikasjon - Norges Geotekniske Institutt, n 191, 173186.
Andersen, K.H., Jostad, H.P., Dyvik, R., 2008. Penetration Resistance of
The offshore Skirted Foundations and Anchors in Dense Sand. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(1), 106116.
API, 2000. RP2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Installing Fixed The
offshore Platforms — Working Stress Design, 21st edition, and subsequent updates,
American Petroleum Institute.
Aubeny, C. P., Murff, D. J., Roesset, J. M., 2001. Geotechnical issues in deep and ultra-deep
waters. Int. J. Geomech. 1, No 2, 225–247.
Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Pasqualini, E., 1986.
Interpretation of CPTs and CPTU’s: 2nd Part: Drained penetration of sands. Proc. 4th Int.
Geotechnical Seminar, Singapore, 143—156.
Berthin, J.C., Hudson, W.L., Myrabo, D.O., 1985. Installation of the Maureen Gravity Platform
Over a Template. Paper OTC 4876, The offshore Technology Conference.
Borel, D., Puech, A., de Ruijter, M., 2002. High quality sampling for deep water geotechnical
engineering: the STACOR experience.
Colliat J.L., 2002. Anchors for Deepwater to Ultradeepwater Moorings, OTC 14306, The
offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas U.S.A... Proc. Conf. on Ultra Deep
Engineering and Technology, Brest.
Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill.
Brown, J.D. and Meyerhof, G.G., 1969. Experimental study of bearing capacity in layered clays.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering (ICSMFE), Mexico City, 2, 45—51.
Carter, J.P., Davies, P.J., Krasnostein, P. 1999. The future of the offshore site investigation –
robotic drilling on the sea-bed. Australian Geomechanics, 34(3), 77-84.
Clausen, C. J. F., Aas, P. M., Karlsrud, K., 2005. Bearing capacity of driven piles in sand, the
NGI approach. In Frontiers in the offshore geotechnics (eds S. Gourvenec & M. Cassidy),
pp.677–681. London: Taylor & Francis.
Chen, W-F., Liu, X.L., 1990. Limit Analysis in Soil Mechanics, Elsevier.
Danson E., 2005. Geotechnical and geophysical investigations for the offshore and nearshore
developments, Technical Committee 1, International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, September 2005.
Das, B.M., 2005. Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering, Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Dean, E.T.R., Gay, D., Ibrahim, J. and Shrivastava, G.S., 2008. Oceanographic and civil
engineering aspects of an the offshore island in Otaheite Bay. Chapter 13 of Aluminum
Smelting: Health, Environmental and Engineering Perspectives, edited by M. Khare, C.K.
Sankat, G.S. Shrivastava, and C. Venkobachar, Ian Randle Publishers, 191—215.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 55
Dean E.T.R., 2010. The offshore geotechnical engineering, Principles and practice, Thomas
Telford Limited, London, UK.
DNV, 1992. Classification Notes 30.4, Foundations. Det Norske Veritas.
Eide,O., Andersen, K.H., 1984. Foundation Engineering for Gravity Structures in the northern
North Sea, Publication No. 154, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Eide, A., Tuen, K.A., Baerheim, M., 1996., The Yme jack-up with skirt foundation, Conference:
28. the offshore technology conference, Houston, TX (United States), 6-9 May 1996.
Ehlers, C. J., Young, A. G., Chen, J. H., 2004. Technology assessment of deepwater anchors.
Proc. 2004 The offshore Technology Conf., Houston, paper no. 16840.
Eyles, N. & Meulendyk, Th., 2008. Groundpenetrating radar study of Pleistocene ice scours on a
glaciolacustrine sequence boundary. Boreas 37, 226–233.
Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., Elson, W.K., 1992. Piling Engineering,
Blackie Academic and Professional.
Gaudin C., O’Loughlin C.D., Randolph M.F., Lowmass A.C., 2006. Ge´otechnique 56, No. 6,
381–391.
Gavin K., Igoe D., Doherty P., 2011. Piles for the offshore wind turbines: a state-of-the-art
review, Proceedings of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering, 164 (4): 245-256.

Gerwick, B.C., 2007. Construction of Marine and The offshore Structures, CRC Press.

Georgiadis, M. and Michalopoulos, P., 1985. Bearing Capacity of Gravity Bases on Layered
Soils. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(6),
712—729.

Hambly E.C., Imm, G.R. and Stahl, B., 1990. Jackup performance and foundation fixity under
developing storm conditions, Paper OTC 6466, The offshore Technology Conference.

Hawkins, R.A. and Markus, A. 1998. New developments in the offshore geotechnical
investigations. Proc Int. Conf. The offshore Site Investigations and Foundation Behaviour,
SUT, London. 259-276.
Hayward, M., Hoyle, M.J.R. and Smith, N.P., 2003. Determining Acceptable Rack Phase
Difference for Jack-up Legs. 9th Int. Conf. The Jackup Platform, City University.
Helfrich, S.C., Young, A.G. and Ehlers, C.J., 1980. Temporary seafloor support of jacket
structures. Paper 3750, The offshore Technology Conference.
Hitchings, G.A., Bradshaw, T.D. and Labiosa, T.D., 1976. The Planning and Execution of The
offshore Site Investigations for a North Sea Gravity Platform. Paper OTC 2430, The
offshore Technology Conference.
Hossain, M.S., Hu, Y. and Randolph, MHossain M.S.., 2003. Spudcan Foundation Penetration
into Uniform Clay. Proc. 13th Int. The offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 647—
652.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 56
Hossain, M.S., Hu, Y., Randolph, M.F. and White, D.J., 2005a. Limiting cavity depth for
spudcan foundations penetrating clay. Géotechnique, 55(9), 679—690.
Hossain, M.S., Hu, Y., Randolph, M.F. and White, D.J., 2005b. Punchthrough of spudcan
foundations in two-layer clay. Proc. Int. Conf. Frontiers in The offshore Geotechnics, eds S.
Gourvenec and M. Cassidy, Taylor and Francis, 535—541.
Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F., Hu, Y. and White, D.J., 2006. Cavity Stability and Bearing
Capacity of Spudcan Foundations on Clay. Paper OTC 17770, The offshore Technology
Conference.
Houlsby G.T., Ibsen L.B., Byrne B.W., 2005. Suction caissons for wind turbines, Frontiers in
The offshore Geotechnics: ISFOG 2005 – Gourvenec & Cassidy (eds) © 2005 Taylor &
Francis Group, London, ISBN 0 415 39063 X.
Huslid, C., 2001. Full-Scale Monitoring of Troll A Concrete Platform: A Huge Gravity Based
Structure on Soft Clay. Proc. Int. Conf. The offshore and Polar Engineering, 647—655.
Ibsen L. B., Liingaard M., Nielsen S., 2005. Bucket Foundation, a status, Conference
Proceedings Copenhagen The offshore Wind 2005, 26-28 October 2005, Copenhagen DK.
Ibsen L.B., Thilsted C.L., 2011. Numerical study of piping limits for suction installation of the
offshore skirted foundations and anchors in layered sand, Frontiers in The offshore
Geotechnics II – Gourvenec & White (eds) , Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-
415-58480-7
ISO, 2007. International Standard ISO 19902. Petroleum and natural gas industries: Fixed steel
the offshore structures, International Standards Organization.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ghionna, V.N., Lancellotta, R., Pasqualini, E., 1988. New Correlations of
Penetration Tests for Design Practice, in De Ruiter, J. (ed.), Penetration Testing 1988:
Proceedings First Intl. Symp. on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando, Balkema, 1, 263—
296.
Jardine, R. J., Chow, F. C., Overy, R., and Standing, J., 2005. ICP design methods for driven
piles in sands and clays, Thomas Telford, London.
Jardine R.J., 2009. Review of technical issues relating to foundations and geotechnics for the
offshore installations in the UKCS, Research report RR676, Prepared by Imperial College
London for the Health and Safety Executive 2009.
Jostad, H.P., Andersen, K.H., 2006. Potential benefits of Using Skirted Foundations for Jackup
Platforms. Paper OTC 18016, The offshore Technology Conference.
Kolk, H. J., Baaijens, A. E., Senders, M., 2005. Design criteria for pipe piles in silica sands. In
Frontiers in the offshore geotechnics (eds S. Gourvenec & M. Cassidy), pp. 711–716.
London:
Lauritzen, R., Schjetne, K., 1976. Stability calculations for the offshore gravity structures. Paper
OTC 2431B, The offshore Technology Conference. Taylor & Francis
Lunne T., 2012. The CPT in the offshore soil investigations- a historic perspective,
Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An international Journal, Volume 1, pp. 1-27.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 57
Lieng J.T., Hove F., Tjelta T.I., 1999. Deep Penetrating Anchor: Sub the seabed deepwater
anchor concept for floaters and other installations, Proc. 9th Int. The offshore and Polar
Engr. Conf. , pp. 613-619.
Lunne T., Andersen K.H., Low H E., Randolph M.F., Sjursen M., 2011. Guidelines for the
offshore in-situ testing and interpretation in deepwater soft clays, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal Can. Vol. 48, 2011.
Mana D.S.K., Gourvenec S.M., Randolph M.F., Shazzad Hossain M., 2012. Failure mechanisms
of skirted foundations in uplift and compression, International Journal of Physical Modeling
in Geotechnics, 12(2), 47–62.

Madsen S., Andersen L.V., Ibsen L.B., 2012. Instability during Installation of Foundations for
The offshore Structures, Nordic geotechnical meeting , NGM Copenhagen, 9-12 May .
Matlock, H., 1970. Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. Paper OTC
1204, The offshore Technology Conference.
McClelland, B., Young, A.G., Remmes, B.D., 1982. Avoiding jackup rig foundation failures.
Geotechnical Engineering, 13(2), 151—188.
McNeilan, T.W., Bugno, W.T., 1985. Jackup Rig Performance in Predominantly Silty Soils, The
offshore California. Paper OTC 5082, The offshore Technology Conference.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1972. Stability of Slurry Trench Cuts in Saturated Clay. Proc. ASCE Speciality
Conf. on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, 1451—1466.
Meyerhof, G.G., Chaplin, T.K., 1953. The compression and bearing capacity of cohesive layers.
British Journal of Applied Physics, No. 4.
Murff, J.D., Young, A.G., 2008. Overturning Analysis of Maleo Jackup Mat Foundation on Soft
Clay. Paper OTC 19553, The offshore Technology Conference.
NOAA Ocean Explorer: Expedition to the Deep Slope., 2010 , Types of The offshore Oil and
Gas Structures. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, May 2010.
NGI- http://www.ngi.no/no/Innholdsbokser/Referansjeprosjekter-
LISTER/Referanser/Torpedo-Anchors---A-new-anchor-technology/
Novello, E.A., 2000. From static to cyclic p—y data in calcareous sediments. Proc. Int. Conf.
Engineering for Calcareous Sediments, ed. K.A. Al-Shafei, Balkema, 17—27.
Peuchen, J. 2000. Deepwater cone penetration tests. Proc. Annual The offshore Technology
Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 12094.
Poulos, H.G., 1988. Marine Geotechnics, Unwin.
Puech, A, Rivoallan, X. and Cherel, L., 2004. The Use of Surface Waves in the Characterisation
of the seabed Sediments: Development of a MASW System for The offshore Applications.
Seatech Week, Brest, France, Colloque Caracterisation In-situ des Fonds Marins, 21 et 22
October 2004.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 58
Raine, B., Powell, J., Jackson, G., Thomas, G., 2007. The offshore LNG Storage in Concrete
Gravity Caissons: Project Development and Procurement. Paper OTC 18981, The offshore
Technology Conference.
Randolph M., Cassidy M.J., Gourvenec S., 2005. Challenges of The offshore Geotechnical
Engineering. In : Proceedings of the 16th international conference of soil mechanics and
geotechnology engineering, Vol. 1, Osaka, Japan, pp. 123-176.
Reese, L.C. and Van Impe, W.F., 2001. Single Piles and Pile Groups under Lateral Loading,
Balkema.
Schotman, G.J.M. and Hospers, B., 1992. An improved method for conductor setting depths in
sand. Proc. Int. Conf. BOSS 92, Behaviour of the offshore structures, 543—554.
Semple, R.M. and Gemeinhardt, J.P., 1981. Stress History Approach to Analysis of Soil
Resistance to Pile Driving. Paper OTC 3969, The Offshore Technology Conference.
Seidel M., Coronel M., 2011. A new approach for assessing the offshore piles subjected to cyclic
axial loading, geotechnik 34 (2011).
SNAME, 2002. Guidelines for Site-Specific Assessment of Mobile Jackup Units, Rev. 2,
Technical and Research Bulletin 5-5A. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Soulsby, R., 1998. Dynamics of Marine Sands, Thomas Telford.
Stockard, D.M., 1981. Structural design considerations for temporary seafloor support of jacket
structures. Paper OTC 3972, The offshore Technology Conference.
Svanø, G., Tjelta, T.-I., 1993. Skirted Spudcans — Extending Operational Depth and Improving
Performance. 4th City University Jack up Platform Conference, London.
Teh, K.L., Cassidy, M.J., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K., Randolph M.F.,Quah, C.K., 2008.
Revealing the bearing capacity mechanisms of a penetrating spudcan through sand overlying
clay. Geotechnique, 58(10), 793—804.
Templeton, J.S. III., 2008. Time Domain FE Seismic Analysis of MatSupported Jackup
Structure on Soft Clay. Paper OTC 19645, The offshore Technology Conference.
Tjelta, T.I., 1994. Geotechnical Aspects of Bucket Foundations Replacing Piles for the Europipe
16/11-E Jacket. Paper OTC 7379, The offshore Technology Conference.
Tjelta, T.I., 1995. Geotechnical Experience from the Installation of the Europipe Jacket with
Bucket Foundations. Paper OTC 7795, The offshore Technology Conference.
Turner, E.L., Chevallier, J., Rapaport, V., 1987. Placement of MatSupported Jackup Rig on Very
Weak Soil. Paper OTC 5358, The offshore Technology Conference.
Vanneste, M., Westerdahl, H., Sparrevik, P., Madshus, C., Lecomte, I. & Zuhlsdorff, L., 2007.
Shear-wave source for the offshore geohazard studies: a pilot project to improve seismic
resolution and better constrain the shear strength of marine sediments, in The offshore
Technology Conference, OTC-18756, ed. OTC. OTC, Houston, TX
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 1 59
Vazquez, J.H., Michel, R.P., Alford, J.H., Quah, M. and Foo, K.S., 2005. Jackup Units. A
Technical Primer for the offshore Industry Professional, www.bbengr.com and
www.keppelfels.com.sg.
Wesselink, B.D., Murff, J.D., Randolph, M.F., Nunez, I.L., Hyden, A.M., 1988. Analysis of
centrifuge model test data from laterally loaded piles in calcareous sand. Engineering for
Calcareous Sediments, Proc. Int. Conf., eds. Jewell, R.J. and Andrews, D.C., Vol. 1, pp.
261—270, Perth.
Whitehouse, R.J.S., 1998. Scour at Marine Structures, A Manual for Practical Applications,
Thomas Telford.
White, D.J., Teh, K.L., Leung, C.F. and Chow, Y.K., 2008b. A comparison of the bearing
capacity of flat and conical circular foundations on sand. Geotechnique, 58(10), 781—792.
White D.J., Gaudin C., Boylan N., Zhou H., 2010. Interpretation of T- bar penetrometer tests at
shallow embedment and in very soft soils, Canadian geotechnical journal, Vol. 47, 2010.
Wilde, B., Treu, H. & Fulton, T., 2001. Field testing of suction embedded plate anchors. Proc.
11th International The offshore and Polar Engng Conf., Stavanger, 544–551.
Williams, A.F., Dunnavant, T.W., Anderson, S., Equid, D.W., Hyden, A.M., 1988. The
Performance and Analysis of Lateral Load tests on 356mm dia piles in reconstituted
calcareous sand. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering for Calcareous Sediments, Perth, 271—282.
Xu, X., Schneider, J., Lehane, B., 2005. Evaluation of end-bearing capacity of open-ended piles
driven in sand from cpt data. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Frontiers
in The offshore Geotechnics, Perth, Australia, pp. 19–21.
Xu, X., Schneider, J. A., Lehane, B. M., 2008. Cone penetration test (CPT) methods for end-
bearing assessment of open- and closed-ended driven piles in siliceous sand. Can. Geotech.
J., 45(8), 1130–1141.
Young, A.G., Honganen, C.D., Silva, A.J., Bryant, W.R. 2000. Comparison of geotechnical
properties from large diameter long cores and borings in deep water Gulf of Mexico. Proc.
Annual The offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 12089.
Young, A.G., Kraft, L.M. and Focht, J.A., 1975. Geotechnical Considerations in Foundation
Design of The offshore Gravity Structures. Paper OTC 2371, The offshore Technology
Conference.
Young, A.G., Remmes, B.D. and Meyer, B.J., 1984. Foundation performance of the offshore
jackup drilling rigs. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110(7), 841—859.

© 2015 ejge

View publication stats