You are on page 1of 55

Guidance Notes on Geotechnical Performance of Spudcan Foundations

GUIDANCE NOTES ON

GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN


FOUNDATIONS

JANUARY 2017

American Bureau of Shipping


Incorporated by Act of Legislature of
the State of New York 1862

 2016 American Bureau of Shipping. All rights reserved.


ABS Plaza
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060 USA
Foreword

Foreword
For the last decade, ABS has been involved in numerous joint industry projects on jackup spudcan foundations.
ABS has outlined this knowledge herein to provide guidance covering the design and installation of jackup
spudcan foundations addressing the following topics:
• Site assessment
• Spudcan penetration prediction in a single layer of soil, such as clay or sandy soil
• Punch-through prediction and mitigation
• Foundation stability assessment
• Foundation fixity
• Spudcan-jacket pile interaction
• Spudcan footprint interaction
These Guidance Notes become effective on the first day of the month of publication.
Users are advised to check periodically on the ABS website www.eagle.org to verify that this version of
these Guidance Notes is the most current.
We welcome your feedback. Comments or suggestions can be sent electronically by email to rsd@eagle.org.

Terms of Use
The information presented herein is intended solely to assist the reader in the methodologies and/or techniques
discussed. These Guidance Notes do not and cannot replace the analysis and/or advice of a qualified
professional. It is the responsibility of the reader to perform their own assessment and obtain professional
advice. Information contained herein is considered to be pertinent at the time of publication, but may be
invalidated as a result of subsequent legislations, regulations, standards, methods, and/or more updated
information and the reader assumes full responsibility for compliance. This publication may not be copied
or redistributed in part or in whole without prior written consent from ABS.

ii ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Table of Contents

GUIDANCE NOTES ON

GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN


FOUNDATIONS
CONTENTS
SECTION 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
1 General Comments ............................................................................. 1
3 Scope and Application ........................................................................ 1
5 Terms and Definitions ......................................................................... 1
7 Symbols and Abbreviations ................................................................ 2
7.1 Symbols........................................................................................... 2
7.3 Abbreviations................................................................................... 5

SECTION 2 Site Assessment .................................................................................... 6


1 General ............................................................................................... 6
3 Geotechnical Site Investigation .......................................................... 6
5 Sampling and Field Testing ................................................................ 7
7 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................. 8
9 Soil Engineering Parameter Selection ................................................ 9
9.1 Identification of Soil Type and Layers .............................................. 9
9.3 Clay ............................................................................................... 10
9.5 Sand .............................................................................................. 10
9.7 Derivation of Soil Strength Profile .................................................. 12

TABLE 1 Relative Reliability of Tests Measuring the Strength of Clay


Soils .......................................................................................... 8
TABLE 2 Index Properties for Jackup Foundation Site Specific
Assessment............................................................................... 9
TABLE 3 Values of φcv and Qcrushing Derived from Triaxial Compression
Tests ....................................................................................... 12

SECTION 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil ......................................... 14


1 Background ....................................................................................... 14
3 Numerical Simulations ...................................................................... 14
5 Simplified Prediction Methods .......................................................... 15
5.1 General.......................................................................................... 15
5.3 Spudcan Penetration in Clay ......................................................... 15
5.5 Spudcan Penetration in Sand ........................................................ 18
5.7 Lattice Leg Effect on Cavity Depth and Spudcan Penetration ....... 20

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 iii


7 Alternative Approach: Direct Correlation with Penetrometer
Tests .................................................................................................22
9 Consequences for Observation ........................................................23

TABLE 1 Bearing Capacity Factors Nc for Conical Shaped Footings ....18


TABLE 2 Bearing Capacity factors Nγ ....................................................20

FIGURE 1 Embedded Spudcan with Open Soil Cavity ............................16


FIGURE 2 Definition of Equivalent Cone..................................................17
FIGURE 3 Backflow in Sand.....................................................................19
FIGURE 4 Lattice Leg View ......................................................................21
FIGURE 5 Top Mounted Skirt on Spudcan ..............................................22

SECTION 4 Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil............................. 24


1 General .............................................................................................24
3 Prediction Methods ...........................................................................24
3.1 Sand over Clay .............................................................................. 24
3.3 Strong Clay over Soft Clay ............................................................ 27
5 Mitigation Method – Perforation Drilling ............................................28
7 Remedial Action during Punch-through ............................................29

FIGURE 1 Nomenclature for Spudcan Penetration in Sand over Clay ....24


FIGURE 2 Values for Spudcan Bearing Capacity Calculation when
h ≥ hlayer [Ref.18] ......................................................................26
FIGURE 3 Nomenclature of Spudcan Penetration in Sand over Clay
when h ≥ hlayer ..........................................................................27
FIGURE 4 Nomenclature of Spudcan Penetration in Strong Clay over
Soft Clay ..................................................................................28

SECTION 5 Foundation Stability Assessment ....................................................... 30


1 Approach ...........................................................................................30
3 Acceptance Criteria ...........................................................................30

FIGURE 1 Foundation Stability Checks ...................................................31

SECTION 6 Foundation Fixity.................................................................................. 32


1 Introduction .......................................................................................32
3 Foundation Fixity ...............................................................................32
3.1 Initial Stiffness ............................................................................... 32
3.3 Yield Surface under Combined Loadings ...................................... 35
3.5 Calculation Procedures.................................................................. 36
5 Consolidation Effect ..........................................................................37
7 Lattice Leg Effect on Foundation Fixity .............................................37

iv ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


FIGURE 1 Spudcan Soil Rotational Stiffness ........................................... 32
FIGURE 2 Depth Factors kd1 for Vertical Spring Stiffness ........................ 34
FIGURE 3 Depth Factors kd2 for Horizontal Spring Stiffness .................... 34
FIGURE 4 Depth Factors kd1 for Rotational Spring Stiffness .................... 34
FIGURE 5 Yield Envelopes for Conical Footings ..................................... 36

SECTION 7 Spudcan-Pile Interaction ..................................................................... 38


1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 38
3 Soil Flow Mechanism for Spudcan in Soft Clay ................................ 40
3.1 Spudcan Penetration ..................................................................... 40
3.3 Spudcan Operation and Extraction ................................................ 40
5 Dimensionless Charts ....................................................................... 41

FIGURE 1 Potential Soil Loading Effects on Jacket Platform


(after [Ref.29]) ......................................................................... 39
FIGURE 2 Spudcan-Pile Interaction ......................................................... 39
FIGURE 3 Incremental Soil Movement Trajectories at Different
Distances from Spudcan ......................................................... 40
FIGURE 4 Nomenclature for a Socketed Pile .......................................... 42

SECTION 8 Spudcan-Footprint Interaction ........................................................... 43


1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 43
3 Footprint Characteristics and Its Influence on Spudcan-Footprint
Interaction ......................................................................................... 44
5 Mitigation Methods ............................................................................ 46

FIGURE 1 Bathymetry of an Established Site .......................................... 43


FIGURE 2 Generalized Soil Condition of a Footprint
(for τ1 < 0.002; τ2 < 0.2) ........................................................... 45
FIGURE 3 Simplified Diagram of Probable Soil Failure Mechanisms
During Penetration at 0.5D from Footprint Center .................. 46
FIGURE 4 Stomping Process ................................................................... 47

APPENDIX 1 References ............................................................................................ 48

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 v


This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Section 1: Introduction

SECTION 1 Introduction

1 General Comments
For the last decade, ABS has been involved in numerous joint industry and government sponsored projects
on jackup spudcan foundations. The current state of the art in spudcan design and installation represents
worldwide contributions by a large number of investigators from government agencies, marine warranty
survey groups, classification societies, contractors, shipyards, universities and petroleum companies.
ABS has gathered this body of knowledge to provide a guideline on geotechnical performance of spudcan
foundations, including site assessment, spudcan penetration prediction, punch-through problem, foundation
stability assessment, foundation fixity, spudcan-jacket pile interaction and spudcan footprint interaction.

3 Scope and Application


The Guidance Notes apply to the geotechnical design, installation and operation of jack up spudcan foundations.
These recommendations are to be used in conjunction with Part 3 of the ABS Rules for Building and Classing
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU Rules). As MODU Classification is not site-specific in nature, the
Owner specifies conditions for which the unit is to be installed.
Guidance for site assessment of jackup operability is given in Section 2, followed by spudcan penetration
prediction in single layer soil, such as clay and sand in Section 3. In strong over soft soil where punch-
through failure is a major concern on design of jackup spudcan foundation, the recommended prediction
methods to calculate spudcan bearing capacity in layered soils are introduced in Section 4, as well as the
mitigation method for reducing punch-through failure. Three steps are suggested in the order of increasing
complexity and reducing conservatism for the overall foundation stability assessment in Section 5. The
procedure for calculating foundation fixity is presented in Section 6. If the proximity of the spudcan to the
pile is less than one spudcan diameter, detailed analysis is recommended to estimate the severity of
spudcan-pile interaction problems as given in Section 7. The footprint characteristics and its influence on
spudcan-footprint interaction are presented in Section 8 as well as possible effective mitigation methods in
various field conditions.
These Guidance Notes are applicable to self-elevating units which undertake drilling, construction, support,
wind turbine installation or other offshore activities.

5 Terms and Definitions


Backfill: Soil material used to refill the cavity above the spudcan due to spudcan penetration.
Backflow: Soil flows from bottom of spudcan back into the cavity on the exposed top of the spudcan.
Breakout Force: The maximum uplift force during spudcan extraction.
Cavity Depth: The depth of an open cavity forms above the spudcan after penetration.
Consolidation: The process in which soil reduction in volume takes place by expulsion of water under long
term static loads.
Footprint: After a jackup unit is removed from a site, depressions are left in the seabed where the spudcans
were located. The soil in way of the footprints has modified physical profiles of the seabed and soil properties.
Foundation Fixity: Also called spudcan-soil rotational stiffness, is the rotational restraint offered by the
soil supporting the foundation.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 1


Section 1 Introduction

Mobile Jackup Platform: A self-elevating unit with movable legs capable of raising its hull above the
surface of the sea.
Perforation Drilling: A technique performed to perforate the stiff layer with drill holes and remove the soil
as one of the mitigation methods to reduce the punch-through failure.
Prescriptive Preloading: During preloading, the hull is kept at, in or close to water level, with each individual
leg preloaded by sequential filling and discharge of selected preload ballast tanks.
Punch-Through Failure: Unexpected sudden and rapid penetration of the spudcan through soil occurs
when strong soil is over soft soil and is a major risk for the stability and equilibrium of the jackup
structure.
Rack Phase Difference (RPD): The difference in elevations between the chords of any one leg.
Reaming: A technique that involves forcing a leg into position by incremental vertical reciprocation to penetrate
the spudcan into the soil at the required position. Reaming is one of the mitigation methods for reducing
spudcan footprint interaction.
Remoulded Undrained Shear Strength: The magnitude of the shear stress that a disturbed soil can sustain
in an undrained condition.
Simultaneous Preloading: During preloading the hull is held with minimal draft or air gap and the preload
is incrementally increased on all the legs simultaneously.
Soil Sampling: A suitably stored, small amount of soil for visual inspection and laboratory testing for the
determination of the soil unit geological provenance, characteristics and geotechnical engineering design
parameters.
Spudcan: A large inverted cone that is roughly circular in-plan with a shallow conical underside and a
sharp protruding spigot. It is mounted at the base of a jackup’s leg, and is primarily considered to provide
sliding and bearing resistance to the jackup rig when deployed into the sea bed.
Stomping: A process where a spudcan is initially emplaced away from the center of an old footprint and then
the spudcan is used to displace soil towards the old footprint at desired positions to widen the disturbed
region. In soft to stiff clay, stomping is very effective in mitigating spudcan footprint interaction.
Triaxial Test: A common laboratory testing method widely used for obtaining shear strength parameters
for a variety of soil types under drained or undrained condition.

7 Symbols and Abbreviations

7.1 Symbols
A = spudcan maximum cross sectional area
Aa = area ratio
Ae = spudcan effective bearing area based on cross-section taken at uppermost part of bearing area
in contact with soil
As = spudcan laterally projected embedded area
cul = undrained cohesive shear strength at spudcan tip
cu0 = undrained cohesive shear strength at lowest maximum bearing area
cv = coefficient of consolidation of clay
D = maximum spudcan diameter below mudline
Deff = equivalent spudcan diameter at mudline
Df = diameter of the spudcan which forms the footprint
e = opening ratio

2 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 1 Introduction

Eu = Young’s modulus of clay in undrained condition


FH = leg horizontal reaction associated with FV
FM = leg moment reaction associated with FV
Fmob = mobilization factor to reduce the calculated bearing capacity of spudcan foundation
fr = reduction factor
FV = leg vertical reaction
G = soil shear modulus
hc = soil back flow depth
hlayer = sand layer thickness
HL0 = horizontal foundation capacity
hplug = height of sand plug
ht = height of spudcan widest diameter
I = second moment of area
ID = relative density
IRD = relative dilatancy
k0 = coefficient of earth pressure at-rest
K1 = vertical stiffness
K2 = horizontal stiffness
K3 = rotational stiffness
Ks = punching shear coefficient
m = 3 for failure under triaxial or general loading conditions and 5 under plane-strain conditions
ML0 = moment capacity of foundation
Nc = bearing capacity factor at shallow spudcan penetration prior to any backflow
Nkt = cone factor
Nγ, Nq = bearing capacity factors
p' = mean effective stress
pr = 100 kPa (0.010197 kgf/mm2, 14.5 lbf/in2)
qc = cone resistance
qnet = net cone resistance, which is the measured cone resistance being corrected for the pore pressure
effects and the total in-situ vertical stress
Qcrushing = particle crushing strength on a natural log scale
Qv = ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the spudcan foundation
R = radius of the circular footing
Rd = radial distance from spudcan center to footprint center
r = shear strength ratio

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 3


Section 1 Introduction

rf = failure ratio
Sua = undrained shear strength averaged from (h – ht) to (h + hplug)
Subs = shear strength intercept at the clay layer’s surface in strong overlying soft soil
Su_footprint = footprint undrained shear strength
SuH = shear strength at the back flow depth hc
Sum = shear strength intercept at the layer’s surface
Su,plugbase = undrained shear strength corresponding to the level of the sand plug base
Sutop = undrained shear strength of the top strong clay
Su_undisturbed = undisturbed undrained shear strength
Su0 = undrained shear strength at the lowest depth of the maximum plan area of spudcan

Su = mean value of undrained shear strength


t = consolidation time
V = volume of the conical spudcan below mudline when z = ym
Vc = volume of the conical spudcan below mudline
VL0 = maximum vertical foundation load during preloading
Vsoil = volume of the backfill soil that rests on the spudcan
z = soil depth
z = mean values of soil depth
γ' = submerged soil unit weight
ν = Poisson’s ratio
ξsq, ξhγ = empirical shape factors

ξhq = empirical depth factor

ρ = shear strength gradient with soil depth


σ = standard deviation
σ v′ = effective stress at the level of the sand plug base

σ v′ 0 = effective overburden stress

τ1 = adjusted time factor for soil consolidation during the operational period

τ2 = adjusted time factor for soil consolidation during the elapsed time after a footprint is formed

φ' = friction angle


φcv = critical state friction angle

4 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 1 Introduction

7.3 Abbreviations
CAUC Anisotropically consolidated undrained triaxial compression test
CAUE Anisotropically consolidated undrained triaxial extension test
CID Isotropically consolidated drained test
CoV Coefficient of variation
DS Direct shear test
DSS Direct simple shear test
MinV Miniature vane
MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit
MV Motor vane
PP Pocket penetrometer
RPD Rack phase difference
SI Site investigation
TV Torvane
UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 5


Section 2: Site Assessment

SECTION 2 Site Assessment

1 General
A clear understanding of the seabed and sub-seabed conditions is critical for the site specific assessment of
a jackup’s suitability during installation, elevated operations and leg extraction. The jackup foundation site
assessment procedure usually comprises:
• Acquisition of regional and local geological and geotechnical data (to include previous jackup foundation
performance if available)
• Geological data review to develop the ground model
• Geophysical site survey to refine the ground model
• Geotechnical Site Investigation (SI) to further refine the ground model
• Generation of geotechnical design profiles with engineering parameters
• Performance of jackup foundation site-specific assessment using the design profiles.
The Geophysical Site Survey report should describe the interpreted ground model; include an explanation
of the geological setting, depositional environment and history together with descriptions of any potential
geohazards which could influence jackup operations.
Intrusive geotechnical SIs are conducted in order to ground-truth the geophysical data and to obtain the required
geotechnical index and strength measurements. The geotechnical SI allows confirmation or further refinement
of the interpreted ground model. Adequate data are required to facilitate detailed engineering characterization
of each soil layer and to provide understanding of the spatial variation of these parameters.
Preferably the geophysical and geotechnical components are planned together as integrated parts of the same
investigation. The soil design profiles with associated engineering strength parameters are then developed
for use in the predictive bearing capacity analyses. The actual scope of work developed will depend upon
the vertical and lateral variability of the soil as well as the presence of any geohazards.
The main requirements of site investigation are to be in accordance with 3/6.3 of the ABS Rules for Building
and Classing Offshore Installations.

3 Geotechnical Site Investigation


Ideally, the geotechnical SI should be conducted well in advance of the jackup deployment to the field in
order to allow time for adequate data interpretation and site specific assessment. The scope of in-situ tests,
soil sampling, soil index, strength and advanced laboratory test data required for analytical purposes will
depend on the ground conditions. For a continuous layer of homogeneous soil, limited data acquisition will
be necessary. However for highly variable and complex ground conditions where advanced foundation
performance modeling is to be conducted, a considerably greater amount of information may be required.
The SI scope of work should be planned according to the expected circumstances with the provision for
amendment should the actual ground conditions differ from that expected during the investigation.
The geotechnical report should include borehole logs and soil laboratory test procedures and results. If
piezocone or other in-situ penetrometer tests are performed, the test records should be documented together
with descriptions of test procedures, tool calibration certificates, field offsets and processing information, as
applicable. All reports should contain water depth data and geographic coordinates of the location with the
measurement datum clearly stated.

6 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 2 Site Assessment

5 Sampling and Field Testing


Sampling and in-situ testing tools can be deployed through a drill string supported by a drilling derrick
mounted on a floating vessel, and these are referred to as “down hole operations”. For marine operations, the
drilling system should be heave compensated to minimize sample disturbance resulting from vessel movement.
Alternatively, in-situ testing and sampling operations can be conducted using remotely operated systems
deployed at the mudline in the “seabed mode” which do not require heave compensation. These systems
may provide improved depth control. However, due to their limited thrust, the borehole may not be able to
advance to the required depth.
Details of the field investigation and subsequent testing program depend on soil variability, environmental
design conditions, structure type and geometry, presence of geo-hazards, etc. At least one borehole with
sampling and laboratory testing, or in-situ testing is provided at each platform location. If the foundation
area shows significant variation, it may be necessary to perform more than one boring/in-situ testing to
verify the irregular soil conditions.
Soil sampling provides material for visual inspection and laboratory testing for the determination of the
soil’s geological provenance, characteristics and geotechnical engineering design parameters. Additionally,
such parameters can be evaluated from in-situ field testing. Continuous in-situ test profiling may also be
used to more accurately determine layer boundaries and material variation.
As the quality of the SI significantly affects the quality of the spudcan penetration prediction, sampling and
field testing should be planned accordingly. Jackup SI may be conducted from the jackup itself where there is
reliable knowledge of the ground conditions and local jackup operating experience, otherwise relying only
on such cursory data should only be considered where it is certain that this data will be adequate for the
intended purpose.
During soil sampling material disturbance should be minimized since the greater the soil disturbance the
less representative the laboratory test results will be of the in-situ condition. Jackup spudcan penetration
performance can be significantly influenced by minor variations in the soil properties and the acquisition
of continuous vertical soil profiles is recommended. When continuous profiling is not possible, the aim
should be to minimize the gap between data points. The target data gaps should not exceed 0.2 m, although
it is noted that for some geotechnical systems this may be unachievable, in which case the maximum allowable
gap may have to be increased to 0.5 m. Due consideration should be given to the consequence of data gaps
in terms of their location and size, and how this may influence interpretation of the ground model and the
necessity to acquire additional data.
Cone penetration tests provide measurements of tip penetration resistance, sleeve friction and pore pressure
and are conducted either continuously in the seabed mode or in up to 4.5 m strokes in the down hole mode.
Unlike soil sampling and testing data the continuous cone penetration test plots allow for the identification
of stratigraphic boundaries and soil strength trends, and the data are usually compared with the laboratory
strength test data. The cone penetration tests can be further extended to incorporate dissipation tests to
estimate the consolidation coefficient of soils.
Where site specific borehole data are required for a jackup’s operating site assessment, the borehole or
piezocone penetration target depth is the greater of either 30 m or 1.5 × spudcan diameter beneath the calculated
spudcan tip penetration depth at the maximum preload, with all relevant soil properties being sufficiently
investigated. Where appropriate, the target depth may be extended deeper to account for future jackup
installation operations where a different rig subjected to a higher preload level may be employed.
A full-flow penetrometer; such as the cylindrical T-bar and spherical ball penetrometer, offer some advantages
over the conventional cone in accurate strength interpretation, measurement of remoulded strength and hence
soil sensitivity in soft soils. They are not commonly employed in geotechnical SI for jackup assessment and
the understanding of the penetration behaviors of these penetrometers is restricted to clay soil conditions.
In-situ vane tests provide only discrete measurements of the intact and remoulded undrained shear strength
of clays, and thereby soil sensitivity. The vane testing procedure is important and the strength measured
may be sensitive to drainage effects, material heterogeneity and in-situ stress anisotropy. Note that the in-situ
vane tests may not be suitable for soil conditions which are heterogeneous due to the test nature of providing
only discrete measurement. In comparison, the various penetrometer systems are more versatile than the
vane testing systems, and as such, their use is favored.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 7


Section 2 Site Assessment

7 Laboratory Testing
Soil samples are extruded from the sample tubes on the SI vessel, (in the same direction which they were
taken to minimize disturbance by stress reversal), where they are carefully separated from drill cuttings and
any heavily disturbed material. The samples are described, photographed and catalogued in accordance
with recommended industry practice. Selected undisturbed samples are stored in sealed containers, which
are usually wax-filled, to preserve the moisture content and limit further disturbance.
A range of different soil tests are available from simple laboratory index tests to advanced stress path tests
conducted in specialist onshore soil testing laboratories. Typically offshore tests include moisture content
and density determination, carbonate content, particle size distribution together with simple strength tests such
as pocket penetrometer, torvane, laboratory vane, fall cone, unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests (UU).
Index tests are conducted to assist with the soil type classification and also to provide preliminary parameters
for initial jackup foundation assessment.
While these undrained soil strength tests are comparatively quick and relatively easily conducted in the offshore
laboratory they measure shear strength by different failure mechanisms, and may provide significant strength
data scatter and may not provide an accurate indication of sample quality. Some offshore soil laboratory
tests, such as the fall cone and the motor vane, can be used to provide an indication of the soil sensitivity.
Advanced onshore soil laboratory testing is encouraged as these strength tests [e.g., anisotropically consolidated
undrained triaxial compression test (CAUC), anisotropically consolidated undrained triaxial extension test
(CAUE), direct simple shear (DSS) test] provide data for calibration of the in-situ penetrometer results.
Oedometer tests provide information about the stiffness and drainage behavior of the soil. Simple offshore
laboratory strength tests may provide adequate information for relatively simple soil conditions which lend
themselves to modeling by simple bearing capacity formulations. However, for more complex soil conditions,
simple soil test results with the application of simple models become less reliable and advanced soil testing
is advisable. The relative reliability of various tests in measuring the undrained strength of clay is presented
by [Ref.1] in Section 2, Table 1.

TABLE 1
Relative Reliability of Tests Measuring the Strength of Clay Soils
Intact Su(1)
Test Type Soil Profiling Remoulded Su(1)
<40 kPa 41-80 kPa >80 kPa
Piezocone 1 2 2 2 4-5
T-bar & ball 1 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2
penetrometers (with pore pressure
measurement)
In-situ vane --- 1-2 1-2 1-2 3
UU(2) --- 4-5 3-5 2-5 2-3
Motor vane(2) --- 3-5 3-5 4-5 2-3
Torvane(2) --- 3-5 3-5 4-5 ---
Pocket penetrometers(2) --- 4-5 4-5 4-5 ---
CIU/CAU/DSS --- 1-2 1-2 1-2 2
Notes:
1 Rating ~ 1 High reliability; 2 High to moderate reliability; 3 Moderate reliability; 4 Moderate to low reliability;
5 Low reliability.
2 The test result reliability is dependent on the sample quality (or degree of sample disturbance) and soil homogeneity.

8 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 2 Site Assessment

9 Soil Engineering Parameter Selection


Section 2, Table 2 lists the basic soil properties which should be obtained for jackup foundation assessment
purposes for homogeneous clay or sand. For silty material, the properties defined for clay may be applicable but
with consideration of partial drainage characteristics. For a highly variable and complex ground where advanced
foundation performance modeling is to be conducted more soil properties may be obtained.

TABLE 2
Index Properties for Jackup Foundation Site Specific Assessment
Index Properties and Additional
Soil Type Strength Properties
Parameters
Clay Undrained shear strength Su Water content
Remoulded shear strength and soil Plastic limit
sensitivity St Liquid limit
Submerged unit weight of clay
Coefficient of consolidation
Over consolidated ratio
Sand Critical state angle of friction Particle size distribution curve
Crushing strength Relative density
Submerged unit weight of sand
Over consolidated ratio

9.1 Identification of Soil Type and Layers


In order to determine the soil stratification, the desk study, geophysical site survey report and geotechnical
testing results should be viewed in a holistic and integrated manner. As part of this process, variation of the
subsoil conditions across the planned jackup spudcan locations should be assessed. Soil classification charts
are empirical correlations which should be verified against the site geotechnical data (i.e., borehole logs and
laboratory test data). For offshore conditions, pore pressure data may be generally considered more reliable
than friction sleeve data for soil classification.
Continuous penetrometer profiling is suggested in order to provide a full profile for site characterization.
Where intermittent piezocone, penetrometer and soil sampling is used in an alternating manner, data gaps are
introduced and precise identification of layer boundaries may not be possible. Furthermore, where intermittent
penetrometer profiling is used, portions of test data may be of reduced quality and reliability due to soil
disturbance from the drilling and soil sampling operations. Discrepancies in the penetrometer resistance profiles
between two sequential penetrometer test strokes may be difficult to resolve, and this may introduce uncertainty
in the soil layer interpretation. If intermittent profiling is unavoidable, the interval between strokes should be
kept as small as practicable and drilling disturbance should be minimized.
It is also suggested that penetrometer tests be conducted adjacent to continuous sampling borehole(s) with a
separation on the order of 5 m to avoid interference. Also obtaining pore pressure can aid in the identification
of soil type and layering.
The following paragraphs consider strength measurement in:
• Clay, where undrained conditions are assumed for both testing and spudcan penetration;
• Sand, where drained conditions are assumed for both testing and spudcan penetration.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 9


Section 2 Site Assessment

9.3 Clay
The undrained shear strength, Su, can be established from a number of commonly conducted strength tests
as follows.
• In-situ testing: field penetrometers (cone), vane shear
• High quality laboratory testing: CAUC, CAUE, DSS
• Simple laboratory testing: unconsolidated undrained triaxial test (UU), miniature vane (MinV), motor
vane (MV), torvane (TV), pocket penetrometer (PP)
The reliability of the interpreted strength parameters relies heavily on the quality of test and sample conditions.
The simple laboratory tests typically should be conducted immediately after the samples are extruded in
the laboratory. However, the test results may tend to show significant variability both within a given type
of test and between different tests, and are ‘operator dependent’. Tests of this type may be sufficient where
reasonable knowledge of the ground conditions and knowledge of successful jackup operations in the
locality are available; the data may also be used to extend or interpolate between results from previous
high quality laboratory tests. As samples are not reconsolidated prior to testing, the reliability of these tests
suffers from unquantifiable sample quality.
The knowledge of remoulded shear strength and sensitivity is necessary for consideration of strain softening
effects, particularly for highly sensitive clays. Strain softening reduces the average operational strength
during spudcan penetration, thus increasing the penetration. Partial remoulding of the soil will also affect
the magnitude of strength recovery or enhancement with time and this is relevant for spudcan breakout
force assessment and bearing capacity evaluation for jackup revisits.
In-situ cyclic full-flow penetrometer tests (using T-bar or Ball) with 10 cycles of penetration and extraction,
will generally show a well-defined remoulded penetration resistance. The ratio by which the penetration
resistance decreases between initial and post-cyclic penetration resistance will be less than the actual sensitivity
at the elemental test level, largely due to the partial remoulding that occurs during initial penetration. Such
tests do, however, provide an appropriate measure of remoulded shear strength that is directly applicable to
spudcan performance.
Where the sediments may be susceptible to significant strength loss during cyclic loading under environmental
or seismic loading conditions, cyclic shearing tests should be undertaken in the laboratory in addition to
monotonic tests. In the depth range of expected spudcan penetration, sufficient cyclic tests should be
undertaken to establish a “cyclic fatigue” curve, showing how the normalized shear stress to cause a given
magnitude of strain varies with the number of cycles. This information may then be used to assess an
appropriate cyclic shear strength for use in quantifying the jackup’s performance during installation and
under ultimate cyclic loading conditions.

9.5 Sand
The most common laboratory tests for determining effective strength parameters in sand are CID and DS
tests, which represents triaxial and plane strain condition, respectively. Sample disturbance is inevitable
when sampling cohesionless material from the seabed. The samples are reconstituted to their approximate
in-situ state, with the relative density generally estimated from the cone resistance. Appropriate effective
stresses are then applied before the shearing stage. During shearing, it is important to verify that the shearing
rate applied is slow enough to prevent the development of excess pore pressure. Theoretically, under a given
stress level, it is expected that the friction angle φ' from DS tests will be greater than that from CID tests.
To better account for the stress level effect on φ', the design value may be estimated from the value of the
relative density, ID, and the critical state friction angle, φcv, using an appropriate strength-dilatancy
relationship that takes account of the mean effective stress p' during bearing failure.
Since the value of critical state friction angle φcv lies within a small range, at least for silica sand, it is possible
to estimate the in-situ directly from the cone resistance, qc. The following expression has been applied
widely to sandy sites in the North Sea by [Ref.2].

10 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 2 Site Assessment

qc σ ′ (1 + 2k0 )
ID = a1ln – a2ln v 0 – a3
pr 3 pr
where
a1 = 0.336
a2 = 0.154
a3 = 1.91

σ v′ 0 = effective overburden stress, in kPa (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)

qc = cone resistance, in kPa (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)

pr = 100 kPa (0.010197 kgf/mm2, 14.5 lbf/in2)


k0 = coefficient of earth pressure at-rest, normally taken as 0.5 and 1.0 in order to generate
upper and lower bounds of ID, respectively
For a given ID, the design value of φ' can be determined using the general strength-dilatancy framework
established by [Ref.3] which makes allowance for different sand types and loading conditions as follows.
φ' = φcv + mIRD

IRD = ID[Qcrushing – ln(p')] – 1 0 ≤ IRD ≤ 4


where
m = constant
= 3 for failure under triaxial or general loading conditions
= 5 under plane-strain conditions
IRD = relative dilatancy

Qcrushing = particle crushing strength on a natural log scale, in kPa (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
p' = mean effective stress which in turn depends on the value of φ', in kPa (kgf/mm2,
lbf/in2).
As an approximation, the recommendation is to treat p' as the maximum preload pressure.
The value of φcv may be obtained from direct shear tests on disturbed sand, from the “steady state” friction
angle in the later stages of the test. Some of the reported values for φcv and Qcrushing by [Ref.4] are given in
Section 2, Table 3. The above procedures provide an estimate of the peak angle of friction, including the
effect of the average stress level in the soil. It is important to note, however, that as a spudcan continuously
penetrates the soil, the peak strength is not mobilized simultaneously throughout the deforming soil. As a
result, calculations of spudcan resistance based solely on peak strength of a rigid-plastic soil can result in
overestimates of resistance. [Ref.5] addresses this issue by employing reduced friction angles. An alternative
approach is suggested in Section 3 where a mobilization factor is applied to the calculated resistance.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 11


Section 2 Site Assessment

TABLE 3
Values of φcv and Qcrushing Derived from Triaxial Compression Tests
Sand Mineralogy Qcrushing φcv (°)
Ticino Siliceous (containing comparable amounts of 10.8 33.5
quartz and feldspar grains)
Toyoura Quartz 9.8 32
Hokksund Siliceous 9.2 34
Mol Quartz 10 31.6
Ottawa Quartz (with varying fine content from 0 to 20%) 9.8 to 10.9 30 to 33.5
Antwerpian Quartz & Glauconite 7.8 to 8.5 31.5
Kenya Calcareous 8.5 40.2
Quiou Calcareous 7.5 41.7

9.7 Derivation of Soil Strength Profile


Statistical methods can be used to more objectively derive a mean undrained shear strength profile as a function
of depth in an extent of homogeneous soil. Assuming a linear variation with depth, the profile can be described
by:
Su = Sum + ρz
where
Sum = strength intercept at the layer’s surface, in Pa (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)

ρ = shear strength gradient with soil depth z, in Pa/m (kgf/mm3, lbf/in3)


z = soil depth, in m (mm, in.)
For a set of n data points in a homogeneous layer, the parameters Sum and ρ can be evaluated as:

∑ (zi − z )(Su ,i − Su )
n

ρ= i =1

∑i=1(zi − z )2
n

Sum = S u – ρ z

where the mean values of depth , z , and undrained shear strength, S u , are calculated as:
n

∑z
1
z = i
n i =1

∑S
1
Su = u ,i
n i =1

These formulations simply fit a straight line through n data points with all the raw data points assumed to
be correlated and each data point in the layer assumed to be of equal importance.
Detailed knowledge of the local soil characteristics can be incorporated into the soil strength derivation process
if the data can be presented in a quantitative form such as by test reliability (see, for example, Section 2,
Table 1). This can then be incorporated into the statistical method used to determine the strength profile
and be achieved with the use of weighting factors to modify discrete data values. However, manipulation of
raw data in this fashion has to be justifiable and conducted with caution.

12 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 2 Site Assessment

Further information provided by the discrete set of strength points includes an estimate of the variation of
the undrained shear strength measurements. This is commonly expressed in terms of standard deviation σ
and coefficient of variation (CoV) as follows.

∑ [S ]2
n
− (S um + ρz i )
1
σ= u ,i
n i =1

σ
CoV =
Su

The approach of adopting a conservative estimate of the shear strength profile, as is common practice in
other assessments of bearing capacity, is not appropriate for the jackup installation calculation, where an
accurate estimate of the actual penetration is required. However, the use of confidence bands on soil strength
profiles, making reasonable allowance for uncertainties in soil strength measurement, is beneficial for
assessment purposes.
Confidence bands placed on the strength profile should reflect the consequence of the final bearing capacity
analysis. For instance, in situations of soft clay where final penetration depth is critical so that the jackup does
not run out of leg length, it is essential that the strength profile is lower than the best estimate. However,
worst case scenarios, for cases with punch-through potential, may be to consider upper bound strengths in one
layer and lower bound strengths in the next. It is indeed possible that many different profiles may require
analysis, each reflecting bounds on the problem and consequence.
Consideration of uncertainty in parameters other than strength may also be required. For example, the depth
of a layer interface may be a critical factor for punch-through calculations. If there is uncertainty in its
depth (or in the thickness of a layer), this should be accounted for in the final bearing capacity analysis.
Uncertainties may arise due to spatial variability or uncertainty in interpretation of the test data.
For relatively homogeneous soil layers confidence bands can be determined in a meaningful way by a
proportion of the standard deviation of the measurements above and below the mean profile, where the
chosen proportion should reflect the uncertainty and severity of consequences. Calculating at ±1 standard
deviation from the mean undrained shear strength is often employed in industry practice.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 13


Section 3: Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

SECTION 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

1 Background
Before a jackup is installed at a site, a prediction of the spudcans’ penetrations into the seabed as a function of
the imposed loads should be made. The actual load-penetration response is recommended to be monitored on
site, and this response should be compared with the predictions.
The purposes of this load-penetration prediction are to:
• Evaluate whether the rig may be able to operate at the site (e.g., whether the leg length available is
sufficient).
• Identify any potentially hazardous conditions (e.g., the possibility of punch-through), so that plans can
be made to mitigate risks.
• Provide a benchmark against which the actual load-penetration performance can be compared. Deviations
from the predictions may indicate an inadequate understanding of ground conditions. In this latter case
the consequences depend critically on the nature of the deviations, and whether there are possible
implications of hazards.
To make prediction the following information is required:
• Geometry of the spudcans
• A ground model and design soil profile
• Expected light-ship load and maximum preload on each spudcan
Recommended best practice is that a complete load penetration curve should be developed, normally extending
to a depth at least, the greater of:
• The predicted penetration at 1.5 times the maximum preload value
• 0.5 times the spudcan diameter below the predicted penetration at the preload value
Analysis and design tools to determine the spudcan penetration and resistance curve can be classified as
two general methods (e.g., advanced numerical analysis and simplified prediction methods).

3 Numerical Simulations
Lagrangian finite element analysis of large deformation problems such as spudcan penetration often
encounters numerical problems arising from excessive element distortion causing degradation of accuracy
and convergence difficulty. The Eulerian formulation does not face this problem as it permits the mesh to
deform independently of the material. It is widely used in fluid mechanics applications, and has also been
applied to other problems like deep penetration analysis involving geological media. A numerical simulation
method is convenient for simulating single layer or double layer soil with complete soil parameters. The
simulation should be assessed and verified by centrifuge test result or field data.
The spudcan is normally simulated as a rigid body using Lagrangian element, which means that the deformation
of the spudcan during penetration is neglected. A void mesh layer allows the soil to heave and flow into the
initially empty Eulerian elements. The soil domain is simulated as Eulerian elements because of severe soil
distortion. Typically, commercially available software employs explicit Eulerian analysis, which uses a total
stress approach and provides no information on excess pore water pressure.

14 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

The undrained, effective stress Eulerian finite element analysis of spudcan penetration in clay was
developed, which allows excess pore pressure to be computed [Ref.6]. Three elastic–plastic soil models, namely
the modified Cam-Clay, Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager models, are implemented in ABAQUS and
applied to the spudcan penetration problem. Comparisons with centrifuge model data indicate that provided the
undrained shear strength profile of the ground is well-replicated, so will the penetration resistance and pore
pressure response. Both measurement and computation show significant levels of excess pore pressure being
generated during preload. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that the subsequent dissipation of this excess pore
pressure will lead to significant changes in the strength of the soil around the embedded spudcan. Hence,
computing pore pressure build-up is an essential step in assessing the long-term performance of spudcan
foundations.

5 Simplified Prediction Methods

5.1 General
The following Subsection deals with the calculation of the load-penetration curve for a deposit that can be
treated as a single layer of clay or sand. Multi-layers of soil will be discussed separately in the next
Section.
Penetrations in carbonate sands are highly unpredictable, and they may be small in strongly cemented materials,
or large, in un-cemented materials. Extreme care should be exercised when operating in these materials.
For silts, it is recommended that upper and lower bound analyses for drained and undrained conditions are
performed to determine the range of expected penetrations. The upper bound solution is modeled as loose
sand and the lower bound solution as soft clay.

5.3 Spudcan Penetration in Clay


Load-penetration predictions for spudcans can be based on the application, at each depth of penetration of
a bearing capacity calculation. The penetration of a spudcan into the seabed is conventionally defined as the
distance of the tip (lowest point on the spudcan) beneath the mudline; see Section 3, Figure 1. In bearing
capacity analysis it is often more convenient to use the lowest depth of the maximum plan area instead. Careful
distinction between the two variables z and h is essential. The soil undrained shear strength is assumed to
increase linearly as follows. The case that strength decreases with depth and hence negative ρ needs special
treatment.
Su = Sum + ρz
where
Sum = undrained shear strength at the soil’s surface, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)

ρ = shear strength gradient with soil depth z, in Pa/m (kgf/mm3, lbf/in3)


Most spudcans are polygonal in plan. For the purposes of bearing capacity calculations each plan section
should be converted to an equivalent circle of diameter, D, enclosing the same area as the polygon.
An important difference, by comparison with more conventional foundations, is that a spudcan is continuously
pushed into the seabed, displacing soil as it goes, resulting in differences in the displacement mechanisms
in the soil. An important feature is that after a certain penetration depth, the soil flows back into the hole
above the spudcan. A relationship of normalized cavity depth hc/D, with SuH/γ'D was proposed [Ref.7],
where SuH is the shear strength at the back flow depth hc, see Section 3, Figure 1.
0.55
hc S  1 SuH
=  uH  –
D  γ ′D  4 γ′D

This does not give hc/D directly in terms of Sum, and some iteration is needed, making use of:

SuH = Sum + ρhc

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 15


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

FIGURE 1
Embedded Spudcan with Open Soil Cavity

mudline
Sum SuH Su0
Su

hc

h
z ρ

ym
Su avg

D z

The ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the spudcan foundation Qv in clay can be expressed as follows.

• If z ≤ ym, then there is partial penetration and no backfill can occur:

Qv = Su0NcAeff + γ'Vc
where
Su0 = undrained shear strength at the lowest depth of the maximum plan area of
spudcan, see Section 3, Figure 1
Nc = bearing capacity factor at shallow spudcan penetration prior to any backflow

γ' = submerged soil unit weight, in N/m3 (kgf/mm3, lbf/in3)


Deff = equivalent spudcan diameter at mudline, in m (mm, in.), see Section 3, Figure 2

πDeff
2
Aeff = , in m2 (mm2, in2)
4
Vc = volume of the conical spudcan below mudline, in m3 (mm3, in3)

• If z ≥ ym and h ≤ hc, then:

Qv = Su0NcA + γ'(V + Ah)


where
A = spudcan maximum cross sectional area, in m2 (mm2, in2)
V = volume of the conical spudcan below mudline when z = ym, in m3 (mm3, in3)

16 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

• If z ≥ ym and h > hc, then:

Qv = Su0NcA + γ'(V + Ahc)

FIGURE 2
Definition of Equivalent Cone

Mudline

ym
z

Volume Vc

Deff

The above calculations make the approximations that, until the critical depth, there is no backflow; but
after the critical depth, there is full incremental backflow around the spudcan. This is clearly an idealization,
as in reality a more gradual transition will occur.
Nc is estimated using the tabulated values suggested [Ref.8], see Section 3, Table 1. The bearing capacity
factor is a function of the cone angle β, the dimensionless embedment depth h/D, the roughness factor α,
(0 ≤ α ≤ 1, a value of 0.5 is recommended in the absence of evidence that supports any other value), and
the dimensionless measure of the rate of increase of strength with depth ρD/Sum. Alternative published
values of bearing capacity factors may be used if they can be justified.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 17


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

TABLE 1
Bearing Capacity Factors Nc for Conical Shaped Footings
ρD/ β = 30 β = 60 β = 90 β = 120 β = 150
Sum
h/D α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0
0.0 0.0 8.79 4.61 6.68 4.45 6.17 4.64 6.05 4.95 6.06 5.32
0.1 8.95 4.80 6.89 4.68 6.40 4.90 6.29 5.22 6.31 5.59
0.25 9.18 5.05 7.17 4.98 6.71 5.22 6.61 5.57 6.61 5.94
0.5 9.50 5.41 7.56 5.41 7.13 5.68 7.04 6.03 7.05 6.41
1.0 10.03 5.98 8.18 6.07 7.78 6.37 7.71 6.73 7.72 7.12
2.5 11.10 7.12 9.39 7.33 9.04 7.64 8.98 8.06 9.00 8.46
1.0 0.0 14.47 7.53 8.87 5.81 7.53 5.56 7.09 5.68 6.96 5.93
0.1 14.13 7.45 8.88 5.92 7.65 5.74 7.25 5.88 7.15 6.16
0.25 13.72 7.38 8.91 6.04 7.79 5.93 7.45 6.11 7.35 6.40
0.5 13.24 7.28 8.94 6.2 7.97 6.16 7.65 6.39 7.59 6.70
1.0 12.68 7.21 9.03 6.43 8.20 6.49 7.97 6.79 7.94 7.12
2.5 12.19 7.34 9.38 6.97 8.77 7.24 8.61 7.52 8.60 7.90
2.0 0.0 20.10 10.45 10.98 7.14 8.82 6.46 8.03 6.37 7.73 6.50
0.1 18.40 9.65 10.50 6.92 8.64 6.41 7.97 6.41 7.74 6.59
0.25 16.72 8.89 10.02 6.74 8.64 6.40 7.93 6.46 7.76 6.68
0.5 15.08 8.20 9.60 6.59 8.34 6.40 7.91 6.56 7.81 6.83
1.0 13.54 7.60 9.29 6.55 8.32 6.53 8.03 6.80 7.98 7.10
2.5 12.35 7.37 9.37 6.99 8.71 7.15 8.53 7.42 8.52 7.80
3.0 0.0 25.71 13.36 13.09 8.49 10.08 7.35 8.93 7.04 8.43 7.03
0.1 22.00 11.51 11.84 7.77 9.44 6.99 8.57 6.83 8.20 6.93
0.25 18.85 9.98 10.81 7.24 8.93 6.69 8.27 6.71 8.03 6.87
0.5 16.18 8.75 10.00 6.82 8.56 6.54 8.07 6.65 7.93 6.90
1.0 13.98 7.79 9.42 6.61 8.38 6.55 8.06 6.80 7.99 7.23
2.5 12.42 7.40 9.36 6.99 8.68 7.11 8.50 7.38 8.49 7.76
4.0 0.0 31.32 16.27 15.18 9.83 11.33 8.22 9.81 7.69 9.09 7.54
0.1 25.08 13.10 12.99 8.51 10.13 7.48 9.03 7.20 8.58 7.22
0.25 20.44 10.83 11.41 7.61 9.29 6.94 8.52 6.87 8.22 7.01
0.5 16.91 9.11 10.26 6.97 8.71 6.63 8.17 6.72 8.01 6.95
1.0 14.23 7.91 9.50 6.64 8.42 6.56 8.07 6.80 8.00 7.09
2.5 12.46 7.40 9.35 6.86 8.67 7.04 8.48 7.38 8.47 7.71
5.0 0.0 36.92 19.18 17.26 11.17 12.56 9.11 10.66 8.34 9.73 8.04
0.1 27.75 14.48 13.99 9.14 10.74 7.87 9.45 7.52 8.90 7.46
0.25 21.68 11.46 11.86 7.90 9.56 7.12 8.71 7.01 8.37 7.12
0.5 17.43 9.37 10.44 7.08 8.81 6.69 8.25 6.76 8.06 6.98
1.0 14.40 7.98 9.55 6.66 8.44 6.57 8.08 6.80 8.00 7.08
2.5 12.48 7.40 9.35 6.85 8.66 7.03 8.47 7.34 8.45 7.70

5.5 Spudcan Penetration in Sand


Normally soil backflow starts immediately after the widest cross-section of the spudcan is below the ground
surface, and any unsupported sand above the level of the spudcan flows freely into the hole above the
spudcan. The backfill sand would usually be assumed to rest at the “angle of repose”, which may be taken
as approximately the critical state friction angle φcv, see Section 3, Figure 3. However, predicted penetrations
in sand will often be sufficiently small that only partial penetration occurs and backflow is not relevant.

18 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

• If z ≤ ym, then there is partial penetration and no backfill can occur and the following bearing capacity
expression should be used:
1
Qv = γ'DeffNγFmobAeff + γ'Vc
2
• If z > ym, then the following bearing capacity expression should be used:

1 
Qv = Fmob  γ′DN γξ hγ + γ′hN qξ sqξ hq  A + γ'(V – Vsoil)
2 
where
Vsoil = volume of the backfill soil that rests on the spudcan, in m3 (mm3, in3), see
Section 3, Figure 3
Nγ, Nq = bearing capacity factors

ξsq, ξhγ = empirical shape factors

ξhq = empirical depth factor


Fmob = mobilization factor

FIGURE 3
Backflow in Sand

Mudline

φcv

Volume Vsoil

The bearing capacity factor, Nγ, is obtained in Section 3, Table 2 [Ref.9]. These are calculated directly for
conical shaped footings, and are presented in terms of the cone apex angle, β, the roughness factor, α, (0 ≤
α ≤1, a value of 0.5 is recommended in the absence of evidence that supports any other value), and the
friction angle, φ'. The values [9] are only presented for surface footings (h = 0). For h > 0, the value ξhγ =
1.0 is recommended [Ref.10] (i.e., no adjustment should be made to this term to account for depth of
embedment).
The bearing capacity factor, Nq, is only relevant once the lowest maximum bearing area is below the mudline
(h > 0). The following equation was suggested for a plane strain surface footing [Ref.10]:
π φ′ 
Nq = eπtanφ'tan2  + 
4 2
The empirical shape factor ξsq = 1 + tan φ' is applied to convert the plane strain condition to a value
appropriate for axial symmetry.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 19


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

A depth factor ξhq = 1 + 2tanφ'(1 – sinφ')2tan-1(h/D) allows for an increase in the contribution of this factor
with depth. However, no account is taken of the influence of cone angle or roughness on the Nq factor.
If a calculation is based on realistic values of the peak angle of friction, for a penetration process such as
that of an approximately conical spudcan, the soil resistance will be significantly overestimated since the
peak strength is not mobilized simultaneously through the deforming soil. In the SNAME 5-5A, this issue
is addressed by artificially reducing the angle of friction used in the bearing capacity calculation. This
procedure involves the use of unrealistically low angles of friction that may bear little resemblance to
measured values. Here a mobilization factor, Fmob, is used to the calculated resistance. Based on back
analysis of 10 case records [Ref.1], of which eight are from the North Sea Region, and the others from the
Gulf of Mexico and offshore Australia, a value of the reduction factor of 0.25 to 0.5 is suggested. It would
be expected that lower values of Fmob would be applicable to more compressible materials (e.g., carbonate
sands) and higher values for stiffer materials, but little quantitative evidence exists. If alternative values of
the mobilization factor are better established they should be used. It is arguable that, for consistency, a similar
procedure should be used in clays, but experience shows that for clays a calculation that does not employ any
such factors provides sufficient accuracy, so that the added complication is not justified.
Note that the above procedures are intended solely for the estimation of the load-penetration response of
the spudcan during preloading. Calculation procedures are set out in SNAME 5-5A and ISO 19905-1 for
determining fixity of spudcans under combined horizontal and moment loading, and these require selection
of appropriate bearing capacity factors. However, calculation procedures in SNAME 5-5A and ISO 19905-1
are not consistent with the above procedure, and the different modeling methods should not be combined.

TABLE 2
Bearing Capacity factors Nγ
Cone Apex Angle
β = 30 β = 60 β = 90 β = 120 β = 150
Friction Roughness
Angle φ' Factor
(degrees) α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0 α=1 α=0
5 2.63 1.87 1.07 0.86 0.62 0.52 0.39 0.33 0.22 0.19
10 5.29 2.83 2 1.3 1.17 0.82 0.78 0.56 0.55 0.37
20 20.86 6.62 7.33 3.08 4.54 2.11 3.37 1.69 2.73 1.43
30 89.8 16.26 31.99 7.95 21.12 6.22 17.58 5.77 15.93 6.27
40 504.1 45.24 209.2 23.75 142.8 22.13 129.4 25.84 128.1 34.36
50 6504.3 145 2650 108.8 1923.3 115.2 1905.4 180.2 1981.3 347.2

5.7 Lattice Leg Effect on Cavity Depth and Spudcan Penetration


In current design, the effects of the lattice legs are often ignored. The authors of [Ref.12] presented their
findings on monotonic lateral load on a spudcan with lattice leg, and concluded that almost all the lateral
load is transferred to the clay by the lattice leg, with minimal moment transfer at the spudcan. The effects
of lattice legs on penetration resistance were ignored by previous depth-resistance calculation methods
[Ref.13].
The lattice leg effect on spudcan penetration resistance was studied using centrifuge tests and numerical
simulations [Ref.14]. The main parameters of the lattice legs studied are the opening ratio e of 0, 0.25, 0.75
and 1 and the area ratio of 0.61 and 1. Section 3, Figure 4 shows that the opening ratio, e, which is defined as
the ratio of the total area of the openings on the lattice to the total surface area of the lattice. The area ratio,
Aa, is defined as the area enclosed by the sleeve or truss relative to the spudcan bearing area.

20 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

In comparison to spudcan penetration without a lattice leg, backflow is found to be partially inhibited; and
a lattice leg with a smaller opening ratio tends to induce a deeper cavity formation and yield larger transient
vertical bearing capacity. The cavity induced by spudcan penetration is more likely to develop in stiff clay
than in soft clay. However, cavity formation appears to account for only a part of the bearing capacity
improvement. The other part of the increase is likely to be due to the change in the back flow pattern due to
the presence of the leg itself. Moreover, the simulated leg displaying the same radius with the spudcan footing
(Aa = 1) is shown to yield the largest vertical bearing capacity compared to one with smaller leg radius
(Aa = 0.61). A transient vertical bearing capacity improvement of approximately 30% can be inferred compared
to the spudcan without the leg effect considered.
Usually the opening ratio, e, of a lattice leg is about 0.8 to 0.9. To reduce the opening ratio one possible
way is to employ a top-mounted skirt on a spudcan. In this arrangement, the spaces between chords of a
conventional lattice leg are closed by installing a plate between each of two adjacent chords. The plates
extend upward from the top of the spudcan to the soil surface, see Section 3, Figure 5. The area ratio is
about 0.5. In comparison with conventional spudcans without skirts and spudcans with downward skirts
extending to the cone tip, a top-mounted skirted spudcan has improved global bearing capacity, spudcan
fixity, and resistance against punch-through, without compromising hydrodynamic performance [Ref.15].
If the top-mounted skirted spudcan also has downward skirts, the effect of the above three benefits will be
amplified.

FIGURE 4
Lattice Leg View
83

83
Spudcan
Lattice
Opening
leg
83 60
Lattice
R60

leg

(a) Plan View in Relation with Spudcan (b) Elevation View

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 21


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

FIGURE 5
Top Mounted Skirt on Spudcan

(a) Plan View (b) Elevation View

7 Alternative Approach: Direct Correlation with Penetrometer Tests


If high quality, almost continuous, penetration testing data are available, which are typically from piezocone
penetration test, using a T-bar or ball penetrometer, then an alternative is available. It leads to a quick and
simple means of estimating spudcan resistance in clay soils. This method should be used with great caution
and it is not recommended in the layered soils.
The Nc value for a typical deeply penetrated spudcan is approximately 9.0, and the Nkt value recommended
for cone interpretation is approximately 13.5 (if calibrated against average strength of CAUC, CAUE and
DSS) or 18.6 (if converted to equivalent UU strength using average conversion factor of 1.38). Combination
of the bearing capacity expressions for the spudcan and for the piezocone leads to:
Nc
Qv = q A + γ'(hA + V – Vsoil)
N kt net
where
qnet = net cone resistance, which is the measured cone resistance being corrected for the pore
pressure effects and the total in-situ vertical stress, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
The Nc/Nkt ratio may range between 0.48 and 0.67.
The self-weight and buoyancy terms in the spudcan analysis have been included as γ'(hA + V – Vsoil), in N
(kgf, lbf).
In the cases where the soil is sufficiently coarse partial drainage will occur during the penetrometer test, even
though the spudcan penetration will be undrained. The Nc/Nkt ratio needs to be reduced to account for this
effect.

22 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 3 Spudcan Penetration in Single Layer Soil

9 Consequences for Observation


The penetration at lightship load is highly recommended to always be measured as well as the penetration
at full preload; and ideally, continuous measurements should be taken throughout the installation process.
The observed spudcan penetration response should be compared with the predictions particularly at still
water and full preload conditions.
If the trend of the measurements follows that predicted then it may be assumed that the analytical model
may reasonably represent the actual soil failure mechanisms. If the model and actual mechanism correspond
then any discrepancy between prediction and measurement is best explained by a systematic offset, such as
the soil strengths being consistently over-estimated. Depending on the magnitude of the difference, further
investigation may be appropriate to explain the discrepancy.
If the observed spudcan load penetration path does not follow predictions, then this would provide an
immediate warning to use extreme caution. Even if the final penetration is within the expected range, if the
trend is not predicted correctly then the model may not be capturing the appropriate mechanisms, and the
agreement may be no more than coincidental. If the measurements are far from the prediction and the trend
is incorrect, further investigation should be pursued.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 23


Section 4: Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil

SECTION 4 Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil

1 General
Punch-through potentially occurs in ground exhibiting post-peak reduction in bearing resistance, in which
exceeding the peak bearing resistance results in excessive and uncontrollable spudcan settlement and loss of
hull trim. Punch-through failure is possibly the most hazardous of all the geohazards for jackup foundations,
and is responsible for more than half the events accounting for loss of life, injury, structural damage, etc.
Prediction methods, as indicated below, may be used to evaluate such risk. Other methods can be used if
they are justified.

3 Prediction Methods

3.1 Sand over Clay


For a thin top sand layer of hlayer/D ≤ 0.5, punch-through failure would not occur for a spudcan on loose
sand overlying normally consolidated clay (Section 4, Figure 1) [Ref.16]. With a thicker top sand layer of
hlayer/D > 0.5, a significant peak value can be experienced in the penetration resistance response of a
spudcan.
In the calculation the sand is treated as drained with strength represented by friction angle φ' or relative
density ID, and critical state friction angle, φcv; and the clay is treated as undrained with strength Sub, see
Section 4, Figure 1. The resistance in the two-layer system is bounded by the resistance in the lower clay
(as lower bound) and uniform sand (as upper bound) at all times. Backflow will occur for a foundation in
sand. Formation and subsequent progression of the sand plug trapped below a penetrating spudcan into the
underlying clay should be considered.

FIGURE 1
Nomenclature for Spudcan Penetration in Sand over Clay

24 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 4 Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil

3.1.1 Bearing Capacity Calculation when h < hlayer


For loose to medium dense sand (ID < 0.65 or φ' < 36°), the punching shear method is proposed to
calculate the bearing capacity Qv in spite of the fact that it suffers from the limitation of not being
able to model the progressive change of failure mechanism or to model the plug progression
[Ref.17]. Qv is the upper bound value in uniform sand.

Qv = NcSubsA +
2
(
γ ′sand 2
)
hlayer − h 2 πDKstanφ' + γ ′sand (hA + V – Vsoil)

where
Ks = punching shear coefficient. For cases with 25° < φ' < 35° and
0.6
Su  Su 
0.05 < < 0.5, Kstanφ' ≈ 2.5  
γ ′sand D  γ ′sand D 
Su = undrained shear strength at h + D/4 below mudline, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2,
lbf/in2)
Vsoil = volume of the backfill soil that rests on the spudcan, in m3 (mm3, in3), see
Section 3, Figure 3
Other parameters are as defined in Section 4, Figure 1. For determination of bearing capacity
factor, see Section 4, Figure 2 and for the selection of φ', see 2/9.5 [Ref.8].
For dense sand overlying soft clay, back-analysis of centrifuge test results indicates that the above
method underestimates peak resistance. Calculation for such soil profiles can be improved by using
methods in [Ref.18] and [Ref.19]. These methods provide estimates of bearing capacity when the
spudcan is at different depths, taking into consideration the change in shear strength of sand, and
accounting for the progressive change of failure mechanism.

3.1.2 Bearing Capacity Calculation when h ≥ hlayer


Beyond the sand-clay interface, the resistance is assessed as a foundation in the clay, and the methods
in 3/5.3 may be used, with the upper sand layer contributing to the overburden stress. However,
sand from the upper layer may be trapped below the penetrating spudcan (see Section 4, Figure 3).
Allowance for the trapped sand plug increases the predicted bearing capacity for h ≥ hlayer. The
increase is mainly due to the side friction on the sand plug and the depth effect on the bearing
capacity factor.
The following is a possible method for assessment of spudcan bearing capacity with inclusion of
sand plug [Ref.18 & 20].

• For h = hlayer

 4S ua h plug 
Qv =  N c S u , plugbase + σ v′ +  A – γ'Vsoil

 D 
• For h ≥ hlayer +ht

 4S ua (h plug + ht ) 
Qv =  N c S u , plugbase + σ v′ +  A – γ'Vsoil

 D 
where
Nc = bearing capacity factor
Su,plugbase = undrained shear strength corresponding to the level of the sand plug base, in
N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 25


Section 4 Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil

= effective stress at the level of the sand plug base, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
Sua = undrained shear strength averaged from (h – ht) to (h + hplug), in N/m2
(kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
hplug = height of the sand plug, in m (mm, in)
ht = height of the spudcan widest diameter, in m (mm, in)

A = spudcan widest area, in m2 (mm2, in2)


γ' = unit weight of backfill soils, in N/m3 (kgf/mm3, lbf/in3)
Vsoil = volume of backfill soils above spudcan, m3 (mm3, in3)
For dense sand overlying soft clay with hlayer/D < 1, hplug was measured to range between 0.6 to
1.0hlayer [Ref.18,19&20]. A smaller hplug is expected for loose to medium dense sand over clay.
The values back-analyzed from centrifuge data generally fall between the values in Section 4,
Figure 2 [Ref. 7&8]. Applying the former set of Nc values in [Ref.8] in the calculation gives lower
bound predictions of Qv, and hence these values should be preferred.

FIGURE 2
Values for Spudcan Bearing Capacity Calculation when h ≥ hlayer [Ref.18]

26 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 4 Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil

FIGURE 3
Nomenclature of Spudcan Penetration in Sand over Clay when h ≥ hlayer
φcv

SAND
hlayer Qv [γ′sand, φ′ or (ID, φcv)]
h
Subs
Sub

CLAY 1
[Sub or (Subs, ρ), γ′clay] ρ
Trapped soil
plug
z

3.3 Strong Clay over Soft Clay


For strong clay overlying soft clay, the resistance in the two-layered system is bounded by resistance in the
lower clay as lower bound and upper clay as upper bound. The possibility of soil backflow in the upper layer
may be assessed using the procedures for a single layer as in 3/5.3. Soil backflow may occur in the lower
layer when hc determined following procedure is greater than hlayer. In this case, hc should be determined
using the following equation [Ref.21]:
0 .5
 Sutop hlayer 
 ′ × 
γ clay ,b D D
≈ 1.4 
hc
D  ρD 
 1+ 
 S ubs 
where the parameters are as defined in Section 4, Figure 4.
Formation and progression of the clay plug trapped below a penetrating spudcan into the underlying clay
should be considered. The method for calculating resistance in strong clay over soft clay includes three
stages [Ref. 21&22]:
• Stage 1 – Calculation of initial to peak bearing capacity
• Stage 2 – Calculation of post-peak bearing capacity
• Stage 3 – Calculation of bearing capacity when h ≥ hlayer

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 27


Section 4 Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil

FIGURE 4
Nomenclature of Spudcan Penetration in Strong Clay over Soft Clay
Qv

h
Strong CLAY
hlayer [γ′clay,top, Sutop]
h′layer
D
Subs
Sub

Soft CLAY 1
[γ′clay,b, Sub or (Subs, ρ)] ρ

5 Mitigation Method – Perforation Drilling


Spudcan skirts conventionally project downward from the rim of the footing. Such skirts can increase the
jackup’s penetration resistance against punch-through and spudcan-soil rotational stiffness. However,
skirts should be sufficiently long to be effective, but a skirt extending appreciably beneath the tip of a
spudcan cone can increase hydrodynamic drag, making towing of the unit difficult [Ref.16]. Thus, a skirt’s
benefits need to be considered against problems arising from its length.
Perforation drilling has been performed to perforate the stiff layer with drill holes and remove the soil. It
has had varying degrees of success for predominantly clay conditions rather than sand ground conditions.
In clean sand, it is difficult that the drilled holes will remain open and that the sand is not mixed with the
underlying clay. The ability to reduce the punch-through risk by perforation drilling depends on the percentage
reduction in the ratio of the reduced peak to the minimum post-peak bearing resistances. A reduced ratio of
unity or less means that the punch-through potential has been completely eliminated, although this may not
be either achievable or necessarily required.
The perforation drill hole distribution commonly used is an equilateral triangular grid within the spudcan
footprint. A greater reduction in the punch-through resistance ratio may be achievable with an increased
density of perforations located within and outside the spudcan periphery. The actual hole pattern may not
be as regular as planned due to drill bit positioning control, hole collapse, hydraulic fracturing and linkage
between adjacent perforations due to excess drilling (water or air) pressure, etc. The expected reduction in
the punch-through resistance ratio should be re-evaluated on completion of the drilling operation.
The drill hole “perforations” are typically constructed by open flush rotary drilling methods using a 26-inch
bit sometimes coupled with a 36-inch hole opener, which forms a hole of the bit diameter (or hole opener
diameter if it is used) or perhaps a hole slightly greater due to drill string flexibility and soil wash-out.
The drill hole spacing (center-to-center) determines the efficiency of the perforation drilling scheme.
Experience suggests that the efficacy of perforation drilling reduces once the spacing falls below about 2.3
hole diameters. However, increasing the hole separation results in fewer perforations and less total soil
removal. If an inadequate number of perforation holes are drilled then the process will not succeed in
removing the punch-through risk.

28 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 4 Punch-through in Strong Soil Overlying Soft Soil

To date, perforation drilling has been achieved using the rotary open hole water flush method. If insufficient
flush rates are used then the disturbed soil may not be removed from the hole. On the other hand, if excess
drilling pressures are applied then this may lead to hydraulic fracturing and linkage between adjacent
perforations. Both scenarios significantly reduce the effectiveness of the operation.
By using reverse circulation (i.e., using an airlift to remove cuttings from the base of the hole up through
the center of the drill string to surface) the effectiveness of the excavation, and hence overall process, may
be increased as the material removal efficiency will improve. Since there is little experience with this
method for perforation drilling, it is not possible to confirm its efficiency and reliability on vessels so far
used for this operation. Experimental data suggest that factors such as perforation distribution pattern in
particular, perforation depth, drilling methods, etc., may significantly affect the reduction of peak bearing
resistances.

7 Remedial Action during Punch-through


Leg runs and punch-through usually occur on a single leg at any one time, although occasionally more than
one leg may simultaneously suffer such an event. On completion of the punch-through and leg settlement,
the hull may be partially in the water, listing with the legs inclined. The legs may be resisting large bending
moments at the hull interaction points (i.e., the guide wear plates and jacking pinions).
The implementation of recovery procedures, following a punch-through, should be carefully planned and
executed with expert advice sought where damage may have occurred, or may occur during the recovery
process. If inappropriate action is taken during the recovery operation then greater structural damage than
caused by the punch-through may result. The recovery plan will depend on the post punch-through situation,
the particular jackup design and possibly other factors.
Where a punch-through has occurred and not all the legs have been forced through the strong layer at the
end of the preloading operations then unless the unequal spudcan load vs. penetration behavior can be
adequately accounted for by the geological model and installation method, the safety of the installation
should be reconsidered.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 29


Section 5: Foundation Stability Assessment

SECTION 5 Foundation Stability Assessment

1 Approach
The overall foundation stability assessment may follow SNAME 5-5A and ISO 19905-1. There are three
steps recommended in the order of increasing complexity and reducing conservatism (See Section 5,
Figure 1):
i) Step 1
a) Preload check of leeward leg for pinned spudcan
b) Sliding check of the windward leg for pinned spudcan
ii) Step 2
a) Foundation capacity and sliding check for pinned spudcan
b) Foundation capacity and sliding check for spudcan with moment fixity and vertical and
horizontal stiffness
c) Foundation capacity and sliding check for spudcan assuming non-linear foundation stiffness
iii) Step 3
Foundation displacement check

3 Acceptance Criteria
The adequacy of a foundation to resist bearing and sliding loads, and when considered rotational stiffness,
should be verified using the criteria specified in SNAME 5-5A, ISO 19905-1 or the ABS Rules for Building
and Classing Offshore Installations.

30 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 5 Foundation Stability Assessment

FIGURE 1
Foundation Stability Checks
Perform structural analysis

Step 1a
Preload check OK
Step 1b
Sliding check

Not OK

Step 2a OK
Foundation capacity and
sliding check (pin)

Not OK

Structural analysis assuming fixity with elastic


vertical and horizontal springs

Step 2b OK
Foundation capacity and
sliding check

Not OK

Structural analysis assuming full


non-linear stiffness

Step 2c
Foundation capacity and
sliding check

Not OK

Step 3 OK
Displacement check
on all legs

Not OK
Foundation NOT acceptable Foundation acceptable

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 31


Section 6: Foundation Fixity

SECTION 6 Foundation Fixity

1 Introduction
Foundation fixity, so called spudcan soil rotational stiffness, is the rotational restraint offered by the soil
supporting the foundation. Traditional self-elevating unit (SEU) design usually assumes a pinned condition
to represent spudcan and soil interaction, this being equivalent to zero foundation fixity as shown in
Section 6, Figure 1. Since 2003, the MODU Rules permit consideration of foundation fixity for cases
involving dynamic response. ABS Rules allow consideration of a range of fixity values up to the “fully
fixed” condition. An SEU Owner is to verify that the conditions for which the SEU has been approved are
satisfied. Actually, the spudcan/soil rotational supports are partially fixed, see Section 6, Figure 1.

FIGURE 1
Spudcan Soil Rotational Stiffness

1 2 = 0 3 < 1

Pinned Fully Fixed Partially Fixed

At present, to assess the suitability of an SEU for installation at a specific site, and hence the adequacy of its
spudcan foundation, the industry relies extensively on SNAME 5-5A. The value of SNAME defined rotational
stiffness is approximately 20%-40% of the “fully fixed” value, while the measured dynamic fixity ranges
from 30% to 80% of the “fully fixed” value [Ref.24]. The key parameters affecting spudcan fixity include
soil permeability, footing embedment, lattice legs, spudcan skirt, time lag between installation and
operation, etc.

3 Foundation Fixity

3.1 Initial Stiffness


The guidelines provided in SNAME 5-5A and ISO 19905-1 are probably the most widely used in the
offshore industry for spudcan analysis and design. The spudcan is typically analyzed as a structural entity
which interacts with the soil through vertical, horizontal and rotational springs. The effect of fixity is
accounted for by the stiffness of the rotational spring.

32 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 6 Foundation Fixity

For a rigid circular footing resting on an elastic half-space, the vertical, horizontal and rotational spring
constants K1, K2, and K3, are given by:
2GD
Vertical stiffness K1 = k d1 in N/m (kgf/mm, lbf/in)
1 −ν
16GD(1 − ν )
Horizontal stiffness K2 = k d 2 in N/m (kgf/mm, lbf/in)
7 − 8ν

GD 3
Rotational stiffness K3 = kd3 in N-m/rad (kgf-mm/rad, lbf-in/rad)
3(1 − ν )
where
G = soil shear modulus, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
ν = Poisson’s ratio of the half space medium
D = footing diameter, in m (mm, in.)
kd1, kd2, kd3 = depth factors for the vertical, horizontal and rotational spring stiffness respectively, as
shown in Section 6 Figures 2, 3 and 4. Case (a) in the Figures represent an open hole
above the spudcan, case (b) in the Figures represent a back filled hole [Ref.25].
h = spudcan embedment depth from mudline to spudcan maximum lowest bearing area,
in m (mm, in.) see Section 3, Figure 1
3.1.1 Selection of Shear Modulus G for Clay
The value of initial, small strain shear modulus G for clay may be calculated as follows.
I rNC
G = Gmax = Su in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2) with G < SuIrNC
OCR 2.25
where
Su = undrained shear strength measured at the depth of spudcan lowest maximum
bearing area plus 0.15 times spudcan diameter, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
OCR = over consolidation ratio
IrNC = rigidity index for normally consolidated clay. For extreme loading
conditions, and in absence of other data, IrNC should be conservatively
limited to 400 based on over-consolidated clay sites with plasticity index of
up to 40% [Ref. 26]. For regions with low OCR and plasticity index less than
40% like the Gulf of Mexico, IrNC could be up to 600.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 33


Section 6 Foundation Fixity

FIGURE 2
Depth Factors kd1 for Vertical Spring Stiffness

(a) Open hole above spudcan (b) Back filled hole

FIGURE 3
Depth Factors kd2 for Horizontal Spring Stiffness

(a) Open hole above spudcan (b) Back filled hole

FIGURE 4
Depth Factors kd1 for Rotational Spring Stiffness

(a) Open hole above spudcan (b) Back filled hole

34 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 6 Foundation Fixity

3.1.2 Selection of Shear Modulus G for Sand


The value of initial, small strain shear modulus G for sand may be calculated from
0.5
G V 
= j  swl 
pa  Apa 
where
pa = atmospheric pressure, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
j = dimensionless stiffness factor
 D 
= 230  0.9 + r 
 500 
Dr = relative density of sand, in percent

A = spudcan effective bearing area, in m2 (mm2, in2)


Vswl = seabed vertical reaction under still water conditions, in N (kgf, lbf)

3.3 Yield Surface under Combined Loadings


For shallow embedment in both sand and clay, the yield interaction is defined by the following expression:
2 2
 FH   FM   FV   FV 
  +  − 4  1 −  = 0 .............................................................................. (1)
 H L0   M L0  V L 0   V L 0 
where
FV = leg vertical reaction, in N (kgf, lbf)
FH = leg horizontal reaction associated with FV, in N (kgf, lbf)
FM = leg moment reaction associated with FV, in N*m (kgf*mm, lbf*in)
VL0 = maximum vertical foundation load during preloading, in N (kgf, lbf)
HL0 and ML0 are defined as follows:

• For sand:
HL0 = 0.12 VL0
ML0 = 0.075VL0 D

• For clay:
HL0 = cu0 A + (cu0 + cul)As
ML0 = 0.1VL0 D
where
As = spudcan laterally projected embedded area, in m2 (mm2, in2)
cul = undrained cohesive shear strength at spudcan tip, in N/m2 (kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
cu0 = undrained cohesive shear strength at lowest maximum bearing area, in N/m2
(kgf/mm2, lbf/in2)
The yield envelopes for a spudcan in soil are illustrated in Section 6, Figure 5(a) & (b).

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 35


Section 6 Foundation Fixity

FIGURE 5
Yield Envelopes for Conical Footings
–1 0 FH/HL0 1
0 FM/ML0
2
FV/VL0 = 0.5

FV/VL0 = 0.25

1 1 FH/HL0
0.5 0.5 0
–2 0 2

FM/(FHB) = 0

1 –2
FV/VL0

(a) Elevation View (b) Cross Sections at Constant FVHM /VL0

3.5 Calculation Procedures


K3 is an initial estimate of the rotational spring constant, see Section 6/3.1. SNAME 5-5A contains
guidelines on how the value of K3 should be adjusted based on whether the initial load combination FV, FH,
and FM fall within, on or outside the yield surface. A general description of the procedure is given below.
1. Determine yield surface based on preload using Section 6, Equation (1).
2. The vertical, horizontal and initial rotational stiffness are first evaluated and included in the analytical
model, together with the applied gravity, metocean and inertial loadings. Based on these stiffness
and the applied loadings, the yield interaction function value is calculated. For extreme wave analysis,
it is likely that the force combination will fall outside the yield surface, in which case the initial
rotational stiffness is arbitrarily reduced and the analysis is repeated.
3. Continue with Step 2 until the force combination acting on the spudcan lies on the yield surface.
4. If the load combination of (FV, FH, FM) lies inside the yield surface, the initial estimate of
rotational stiffness should be reduced by a factor, fr. The reduction factor is equal to unity when
the moment and horizontal forces are zero. It is given by the following expression:
1 − nr f 
fr = (1 – n)rf/ln  
 1 − r f 
where
rf = failure ratio
0.5
 F  2  F  2 
 +
H M
  
 L 0 
H  L 0  
M
= ≤ 1.0
 F  F 
4 V  1 − V 
V L 0   V L 0 
n = parameter to adjust spudcan moment-rotation curves with various degrees of
curvature change, and -1 ≤ n ≤ 1

36 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 6 Foundation Fixity

When site specific or regionally applicable information is sufficient to establish a value of n, then
that value should be used. Finite element analysis for Gulf of Mexico clay indicates the range of n
is between –0.25 to –1.0, with n = –0.5 providing the best overall representation [Ref.27]. When
no such information is available, a default value of n = 0 could be used. In special cases where an
extremely conservative stiffness reduction is desired a value of n = 1.0 could be used, which leads to:
fr = 1 – rf

5 Consolidation Effect
The zone of clay being remoulded during spudcan penetration will reconsolidate after completion of the
spudcan installation. The extent of consolidation depends on the period between spudcan installation and
operation, soil consolidation characteristics, penetration depth, spudcan geometry etc. The effect of the
consolidation on excess pore pressure response and settlement of spudcan was studied, as well as foundation
fixity by means of centrifuge tests and numerical simulations in Kaolin clay [Ref.28].
In “no dissipation” tests spudcan rocking commenced immediately after installation, since there is no
consolidation. In “full dissipation” tests the excess pore pressure was completely dissipated before
commencement of rocking, which is full consolidation. Compared with the settlements in all the “no
dissipation” tests that show a non-linear increase, the settlements in all the “full dissipation” tests show
much smaller settlements.
The yield envelope, Section 6, Equation (1), is considered to be relatively conservative which cannot
accommodate a long-term combined force locus in “full dissipation” test [Ref.28]. Actually, the penetration
resistance at a specific depth is changing with the excess pore pressure due to pressure dissipation. A ratio
of 1.7 between the long-term and short-term resistance is obtained from the test results. The yield envelop
based on long-term penetration resistance is found to accommodate the entire force locus.
The initial foundation fixity for the “full dissipation” tests is about double that from the “no dissipation”
test since consolidation of the surrounding soil leads to a significant increase of bending moment resistance in
“full dissipation” tests. With an increase in the number of cyclic loadings, foundation fixity in “full dissipation”
tests shows an approximately constant value, while the “no dissipation” tests show an increasing tendency.
This increase is partially caused by the dissipation of excess pore pressure in the soil surrounding the
foundation, and also arises because of the relatively large settlement deeper into the soil specimens. After
one thousand loading cycles the magnitude of the foundation fixity in the “no dissipation” tests is gradually
close to that in the “full dissipation” tests. Hence the post-installation, long-term consolidation can substantially
enhance the loading capacity and rotational fixity of spudcan footing. If such beneficial effects can be
reliably obtained and accounted for, they can benefit the design.

7 Lattice Leg Effect on Foundation Fixity


For the spudcans with lattice, studies show that the lateral resistance at the top section of lattice is small,
this being consistent with the softer soil near the ground surface [Ref.28]. However, large lateral resistance
on the middle and bottom sections is implied by the measured moments from the strain gauges. Furthermore,
the bending moments next to spudcan are not necessary the largest. This indicates that lattice can help to
reduce the footing moment at the connection of spudcan and lattice, and the point of maximum moment is
up-shifted. Lattice helps to reduce the settlement of spudcan. With a high opening ratio, the effects of
lattice on settlements are not significant. However, with a lower opening ratio and higher area ratio, the
lattice can largely and efficiently reduce the settlements. A significant increase in foundation fixity, of the
order of 50%, is conferred by the presence of the lattice leg.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 37


Section 7: Spudcan-Pile Interaction

SECTION 7 Spudcan-Pile Interaction

1 Introduction
A jackup rig is often used to do drilling or work-overs adjacent to existing pile supported platforms. Also
the jackup may be sited adjacent to a pile supported structure to provide additional accommodations, power
generation or fabrication space. Furthermore, some modular packages, such as those for drilling apparatus
or construction cranes, are sometimes transferred from a jackup rig to a fixed platform for construction,
drilling or reworking of an existing well. Prior to these works, the jackup should first be positioned
adjacent to the fixed platform. Depending on the platform’s footprint and the location of the jackup rig, the
spudcan foundation of the jackup rig may be close to the permanent pile foundations of the fixed platform, as
shown in Section 7, Figure 1. The proximity of the spudcan to the existing piled platform would induce
stresses, and may affect the performance of the pile foundations, and subsequently causes distress to the
superstructure, see Section 7, Figure 2. If the piles have not been designed to withstand these stresses, the
structural integrity of the piles may be threatened.
According to SNAME 5-5A, if the foundation materials comprise either a deep layer of homogeneous firm
to stiff clay or sand, and if the proximity of the spudcan to the pile is greater than one spudcan diameter, no
significant pile loading is expected. When the proximity is closer than one spudcan diameter, then analysis
by the platform owner is recommended to determine the consequences of the induced pile loading.
The induced loading on the pile is the function of:
• Spudcan-pile clearance
• Spudcan and pile diameters
• Spudcan penetration depth
• Pile length for a floating pile
• Pile socket length for a socketed pile
• Upper clay thickness for a dual layered soil profile
• Soil rigidity index
• Pile bending stiffness

38 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 7 Spudcan-Pile Interaction

FIGURE 1
Potential Soil Loading Effects on Jacket Platform (after [Ref.29])

Jacket
Translation

Shear Forces and


Deformations in
Conductors
Deformation
in Leg
Seafloor
Forces
in
Bracing
Gap
Jack-up
Spud Can

Remolded Displaced
Zone Pile
Pile

NOT TO SCALE
Conductors

FIGURE 2
Spudcan-Pile Interaction

Spudcan Activity Installation

Operation
Induced Soil Movement
Removal

Lateral Movement Vertical Movement

Pile Response
Bending Deflection Axial Settlement
Moment Force

Distress to Superstructure

Assessment Improvement

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 39


Section 7 Spudcan-Pile Interaction

3 Soil Flow Mechanism for Spudcan in Soft Clay

3.1 Spudcan Penetration


Two distinct forms of soil behavior are typically observed during spudcan penetration [Ref.30]. At shallow
spudcan penetration, the soil movements are governed by the general bearing capacity failure mechanism.
In contrast, localized deep plastic flow mechanism is dominant at deep penetration depths.
The incremental soil movement trajectories at various distances away from the spudcan edge (i.e., 0.25D,
0.5D, 0.75D and 1D, where D is maximum spudcan diameter) at selected spudcan penetration depths of 3 m
and 12 m are shown in Section 7, Figure 3. In general, the magnitudes of both lateral and vertical soil
movements decrease with increasing spudcan-pile clearance and the zone with significant soil backflow is
confined to an area approximately 0.25 diameters away from the spudcan edge. The influence zone at shallow
penetration depths is about 0.83D away from spudcan edge and nearly 1D below the spudcan base; while
at deep penetration depths, the influence zone is found to be within about 0.42D away from spudcan edge
and 0.75D below spudcan.

3.3 Spudcan Operation and Extraction


During the jackup’s operation the soil moves laterally inwards and vertically downwards due to cavity collapse
and soil reconsolidation. Both the maximum lateral and vertical soil movements occur at the soil surface
and gradually decrease with soil depth. For a longer operating period, the magnitude of soil movement
becomes larger and gradually stabilizes.
During initial extraction, the soil being dragged underneath the spudcan is primarily caused by suction.
After the breakout, suction becomes less prominent and the soil flow is triggered by the cavity below the
spudcan with the soil mainly from above the spudcan. The soil flows towards the spudcan base to fill the cavity.
Compared to the operating and extraction stages, the penetration stage is identified as the most critical in
terms of adverse impact on adjacent piles.

FIGURE 3
Incremental Soil Movement Trajectories at Different Distances from Spudcan
0.25D 0.5D 0.75D 1D 0.25D 0.5D 0.75D 1D

(a) 3 m Penetration Depth (b) 12 m Penetration Depth

40 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 7 Spudcan-Pile Interaction

5 Dimensionless Charts
Systematic, dimensionless charts may be used to perform preliminary estimates on the severity of spudcan-
pile interaction problems in various field conditions [Ref.31]. However, a detailed three-dimensional finite
element analysis should be performed in situation where higher accuracy is required.
The maximum bending moment is estimated by multiplying the bending moment for a case of a socketed
pile having spudcan-pile clearance of 1D with correction factors to account for the effects of spudcan-pile
clearance, pile socket length and thickness of upper clay layer for a socketed pile, clay rigidity index and
pile bending stiffness, where appropriate, see Section 7, Figure 4. Each of the above parameter is represented by
an adjustment factor.
The bending moments in the charts are for a fixed-headed pile. It is postulated that this would result in a larger
induced pile head bending moment when compared to the actual situation where the pile head’s rotational
degrees of freedom are considered but the translational degrees of freedom are partially fixed due to the
fact that the pile head can deflect together with the platform leg. As such, the measured induced pile bending
moments should generally be on the conservative side. The bending moment responses of piles were
compared with free head and totally fixed head, which represents for the two extreme cases [Ref.32].
Different from the fixed headed pile, the elevation of maximum bending moment for free-headed pile is
located around the center of the pile rather than at the pile head. This is because the free restraint at both ends
causes the maximum moment to be focused at the center. However, the magnitude of the maximum
bending moment for a free-headed pile is about one third that for a fixed-headed pile. Therefore, the
dimensionless charts lead to a conservative estimation of pile bending moment due to spudcan installation.
On the other hand, as the soil moves continuously upward, the fixed-headed pile is found to be in
compression due to the restraint at the pile top; while the free-headed pile is in tension. However, the
magnitude of axial force is comparable for the two kinds of piles.
The charts are derived from specific soil conditions consisting of normally consolidated kaolin clay with
typical strength gradient of 1.6 kPa/m depth overlying a layer of sand which represents a hard soil. In cases
where multiple soil layers or soil with irregular shear strength are present, additional care should be exercised
to evaluate the validity of the procedure and to decide whether a detailed analysis should be conducted.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 41


Section 7 Spudcan-Pile Interaction

FIGURE 4
Nomenclature for a Socketed Pile

Clay
Spudcan
Penetration
Depth
Clay
Thickness
Pile
Spudcan-Pile Length
Clearance

Pile Socket
Length

Sand Sand
Thickness

42 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 8: Spudcan-Footprint Interaction

SECTION 8 Spudcan-Footprint Interaction

1 Introduction
After a jackup is removed from a site, spudcan footprints are left in the seabed, as shown in Section 8,
Figure 1. The spudcan footprints are ground conditions that experience:
• Changes in physical profile of the seabed (existence of depression); and
• Changes in soil properties.
The soil beneath a depression may be highly non-uniform due to back flow of remoulded soils during and after
spudcan penetration and extraction, and reconsolidation of the soil. If the subsequent positioning of another
jackup is very close to or partially overlapping the footprints, the slope of the footprint and the varying soil
strength inside and around the footprint results in an eccentric/inclined soil reaction on the spudcan. This can
cause a spudcan to slide towards the footprint and hence leads to overloading the leg. Thus pre-loading of
jackups near existing footprints can result in uncontrolled penetration, slewing of the rig and even excessive
structural stresses in the legs, which might even lead to catastrophic failure. The footprint feature is dependent
on various factors such as footing shape and size, soil types and strength, previous spudcan size and penetration,
and the elapsed time of previous spudcan operation and after extraction.

FIGURE 1
Bathymetry of an Established Site

(a) Plan View (b) Section View 1-1

SNAME 5-5A suggests that a jackup identical in footing geometry is installed and located in exactly the
same position as that of previously installed unit. It is important to verify that the footing geometry and
position of the rig are exactly similar to the previous jackup. If it is not possible to locate exactly in the
previous location, a minimum distance of one spudcan diameter from the edge of bearing area to the edge
of the footprint is recommended.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 43


Section 8 Spudcan-Footprint Interaction

3 Footprint Characteristics and Its Influence on Spudcan-Footprint


Interaction
The soils within a footprint can be heavily remoulded with highly variable shear strength and physical profile.
The spudcan penetration depth and the subsequent spudcan extraction significantly affect the physical profile
of the footprint. In softer clay with relatively deep spudcan penetration, a bowl-shaped spudcan imprint is
more likely to be formed after spudcan extraction. In firmer clays with a relatively shallow spudcan penetration,
a nearly vertically sided cylinder with a fairly firm base indentation is more likely to be formed. The undrained
shear strength beneath the footprint immediately after its formation is lower than that of the undisturbed
soil and the reduction in undrained shear strength decreases with increasing radial distance from the footprint
center. The critical center to center spacing between the initial penetration and re-penetration is found to be
0.5 to 1.0 times spudcan diameter, inducing the peak lateral load and significant bending moment in the leg
[Ref.33&34].
Section 8, Figure 2 shows the generalized short-term soil condition of a footprint formed in soft to firm
clays for τ1 < 0.002 and τ2 < 0.2, where τ1 and τ2 are the adjusted time factors for soil consolidation during
the operational period and during the elapsed time after a footprint is formed, respectively [Ref.33].
t
τ = cv
R2
where
cv = coefficient of consolidation of clay, in m2/s (mm2/s, in2/s)
t = consolidation time, in sec
R = radius of the circular footing, in m (mm, in.)
The footprint generally consists of a crater with the lowest point at a depth of about 0.2D, and a highly
non-uniform soil beneath the crater surface, see Section 8, Figure 2. The degree of soil disturbance is classified
by the shear strength ratio r, which is the ratio of the footprint undrained shear strength, Su_footprint, to the
undisturbed undrained shear strength, Su_undisturbed, at the same elevation.
Su _ footprint
r=
Su _ undisturbed

A strength ratio of less than 0.5 is categorized as heavily remoulded, which is basically confined within the
spudcan area Rd/Df ≤ 0.5 (Rd is the radial distance from spudcan center to footprint center and Df is the
diameter of the spudcan which forms the footprint). The soil with strength ratio of 0.5 to 0.7 is classified as
moderately remoulded, whereas a ratio range of 0.7 to 0.9 is less remoulded. The extent of radial soil
disturbance varies with depth. At depths of up to 0.5Df, the radial disturbance is found to extend an Rd/Df
ratio of 1.5. Below this depth, the major radial disturbance (r < 0.7) is found to be confined within Rd/Df of
0.75. In terms of vertical extent, it is found that the soil is heavily remoulded to a depth of up to 0.9de and
moderately remoulded from 0.9 to 1.1de, where de is the penetration depth to spudcan base level. Below
this depth, a minor soil strength reduction (0.7< r <0.9) extending up to 0.3Df is observed.
Based on the observations from centrifuge tests, a simplified soil failure mechanism at different penetration
depths is postulated [Ref.33]. For the penetration depth above the crater depth, the horizontal forces and
moments are caused by the non-uniform soil bearing resistance where the resultant soil reaction inclines at
an angle of θ to vertical and an eccentricity of e from the spudcan center, as indicated in Section 8, Figure 3(a).
This inclined eccentric soil reaction tends to push and rotate the spudcan from the stronger soil side towards
the weaker side. On the other hand, when the spudcan penetrates further below the crater, the soil bearing
capacity failure along the sliding surface is initiated that drives the spudcan towards the footprint center. At
the same time, the resistance from the soil outside the sliding plane tends to push the spudcan towards the
footprint center, as shown in Section 8, Figure 3(b). If the horizontal and rotational movements are restricted,
the tendency of horizontal movement and rotation are then transmitted as horizontal forces and rotational
moments acting at the spudcan. A combination of these two forces has the effect of magnifying the magnitude
of induced horizontal force (as both forces tend to move the spudcan towards the footprint center) while
diminishing the magnitude of induced rotational moment (caused by rotation in opposite direction).

44 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 8 Spudcan-Footprint Interaction

FIGURE 2
Generalized Soil Condition of a Footprint
(for τ1 < 0.002; τ2 < 0.2)
Rd/Df
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

~0.2D Crater

0.4~0.5D

0.8~0.9de
1~1.1de

0.2~0.3D

Legends Where
r < 0.5 Su_footprint
r=
(Heavily remoulded zone) Su_undisturbed
0.5 < r < 0.7 de = penetration depth to spudcan
(Moderately disturbed zone) base level
Df = diameter of spudcan used
0.7 < r < 0.9 to create footprint
(Less disturbed zone)
Rd = radial distance

In normally consolidated clay the soil strength variation is the key factor influencing spudcan footprint
interaction. The spudcan will experience relatively high horizontal and moment loadings below the previous
rig’s penetration depth. Hence one may consider a rig with lower required preload pressure where the rig
installation can be terminated at a sufficient distance above the previous penetration depth.
In over consolidated clay the physical profile of the depression can be the dominant factor in spudcan-
footprint interaction. Hence the spudcan will likely experience high horizontal and moment loadings above
the previous penetration depth. If these forces are found to be hazardous to the new rig installation,
avoiding the footprints should be considered or use an identical rig to re-install at the same position of the
previous rig as recommended in SNAME 5-5A. If the spudcan-footprint interaction is unavoidable due to
site constraints, one may consider to carefully position the new rig in such a way that the critical center to
center spacing between the initial penetration and re-penetration of 0.5 to 1.0 times spudcan diameter can
be avoided. If that fails an effective mitigation measure to overcome the spudcan-footprint interaction
should be pursued.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 45


Section 8 Spudcan-Footprint Interaction

FIGURE 3
Simplified Diagram of Probable Soil Failure Mechanisms
During Penetration at 0.5D from Footprint Center
CL Footprint

Model Ground Mbearing


Hbearing

θ
e
Rs

(a) Shallow Penetration

CL Footprint
Model Ground

Mbearing
Hbearing
Mslide Hslide

Sliding Soil Mass Sliding


Failure
Rs1 Plane
e1

(b) Deep Penetration

5 Mitigation Methods
The Rack Phase Difference (RPD) system is an effective way to monitor the sliding of a spudcan into an
old footprint and hence prevent the leg damage [Ref.35]. RPD is the difference in elevation between the
chords of any one leg, and it is a direct measure of the inclination of the leg with respect to the hull. RPD
monitoring during the jacking process enables the operator to monitor that the RPD limits are not exceeded,
and to take necessary steps otherwise by stopping the jacking operation. Thus monitoring gives real time control
of the operation.
Infilling of old footprints formed in a coarse grained sea bed with the granular material has been carried
out successfully, and it is well understood that infilling will not pose problems if the material characteristics
are similar. The studies confirmed that the difference in the stiffness between the footprint and the infill
material greatly affects the effectiveness of infilling and the infilling of footprints in layered cohesive
materials, and therefore is not an advisable solution for the footprint interaction problem [Ref.36].
In firm to stiff clay, the physical profile of the depression whose profile is steep and deep is significant in
influencing spudcan footprint interaction. To minimize the effect of a footprint, evening out the depression
by excavation might be done. Leveling the seabed profile is unlikely to be effective in soft clay as the critical
horizontal and moment loadings are due to the variation of soil strength well below the crater depth.

46 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Section 8 Spudcan-Footprint Interaction

In soft to stiff clay, “stomping” is reportedly very effective in mitigating spudcan footprint interaction. It is
a process where the footings are initially emplaced further away from the old footprint center and then used
to displace soil towards the old footprint at desired positions to widen the disturbed regions by controlled
additional disturbance (Section 8, Figure 4). Reaming, also known as leg working or leg reciprocation is
another possible mitigation method, although its effectiveness is not as good as stomping. To be effective,
reaming should be executed with small penetration-extraction increments [Ref.37]. The major limitations
for these options are the significant rig time involved, and careful planning is also needed for the program.
This may only be possible under mild environmental conditions, and the operation also depends on the
clearance between the jackup and the adjacent fixed structure.

FIGURE 4
Stomping Process

After First Stomp Before Second


Stomp

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 47


Appendix 1: References

APPENDIX 1 References
1. Osborne, J.J., Teh, K.L., Houlsby, G.T., Cassidy, M.J., Bienen, B. and Leung, C.F. (2010). “InSafeJIP"-
Improved Guidelines for the Prediction of Geotechnical Performance of Spudcan Foundations During
Installation and Removal of Jack-up Units, Joint Industry-Funded Project. http://insafe.woking.rpsplc.co.uk/
2. Jamiolkowski, M.B., Lo Presti, D.C.F. and Manassero, M. (2003) Evaluation of relative density and shear
strength of sands from cone penetration test (CPT) and flat dilatometer (DMT), Soil Behaviour and Soft
Ground Construction, Eds. J.T. Germain, T.C. Sheahan and R.V. Whitman, ASCE, GSP 119, 201-238.
3. Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique, 36 (1), 65-78.
4. Randolph, M.F., Jamiolkowski, M.B. and Zdravkovi, L. (2004). Load carrying capacity of foundations.
Proc. Skempton Memorial Conf., London, Vol. 1, 207-240.
5. SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers). (2008). Recommended practice for site specific
assessment of mobile jack-up units, SNAME Technical and Research Bulletin 5-5A, Rev. 3, New Jersey.
6. Yi J.T., Lee F.H., Goh S.H., Zhang X.Y. and Wu J.F. (2011). Eulerian Finite Element Analysis of Excess
Pore Pressure Generated by Spudcan Installation into Soft Clay. Computers and Geotechnics.
7. Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F., Hu, Y., White, D.J. (2006). Cavity Stability and Bearing Capacity of Spudcan
Foundations on Clay. OTC 17770.
8. Houlsby, G.T and Martin, C.M. (2003). Undrained bearing capacity factors for conical footings on clay.
Géotechnique, 53 (5), 513-520.
9. Cassidy, M. J. & Houlsby, G. T. (2002). Vertical bearing capacity factors for conical footings on sand.
Geotechnique 52, No. 9, 687–692.
10. Vesic, A. S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In “Foundation Engineering Handbook” (ed.
H. F. Winterkorn and H. Y. Fang), 121-147. New York: Van Nostrand.
11. ISO 19905-1:2012. Petroleum and natural gas industries – Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore unit.
Part 1: Jack-ups. International Organization for Standardization (2012).
12. Springman S.M. & Schofield A.N. Monotonic lateral load transfer from a jack-up platform lattice leg to a
soft clay deposit. Proc. Conf. Centrifuge, 1998.
13. Menzies, D., and R. Roper, (2008), Comparison of Jackup Rig Spudcan penetration Methods in Clay, Offshore
technology conference, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
14. Li Y.P., Zhang XY, Lee F H, Goh SH, Wu JF & Yi JT&. (2013). Effect of lattice leg on penetration
resistance of spudcan foundation-Physical and Numerical modeling. The 8th International Conference on
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics (ICPMG2014), Perth, Australia.
15. Zhang X.Y., Li Y.P., Yi J.T., Lee F. H., Tan P.L., Wu J.F. & Wang S. Q., (2015). A Novel Spudcan Design
to Enhance Foundation Performance. ISFOG 2015, Norway.
16. Yu, L., Kumar A., Hossain M. S. and Hu Y.X. (2012). Mitigation of Punch-through Failure of Spudcan
using Skirted Footing on Sand over Clay Soils. Proceedings of the Twentieth (2010) International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, Beijing, China, June 20-25.
17. Hanna, A.M. and Meyerhof, G.G. (1980). Design chart for ultimate bearing capacity of foundation on sand
overlying soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 17(2), 300–303.
18. Teh K. L. (2007). Punch-through of spudcan foundation in sand overlying clay. Ph.D thesis, National University
of Singapore, Singapore.

48 ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017


Appendix 1 References

19. Lee, K. K. (2009). Investigation of potential spudcan punch-through failure on sand overlying clay soils.
PhD. Thesis, The University of Western Australia, Perth.
20. Craig, W.H. and Chua, K. (1990). Deep penetration of spudcan foundations on sand and clay. Géotechnique,
40(4), 541-556.
21. Hossain, M.S. and Randolph, M.F. (2009). New mechanism-based design approach for spudcan foundations
on stiff-over-soft clay. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC19907.
22. Hossain, M.S. and Randolph, M.F. (2010). Deep-penetrating spudcan foundations on layered clays: numerical
analysis. Géotechnique, 60(3), 171-184.
23. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (2014). Part 3 Hull Construction and
Equipment.
24. Temperton I, Stonor RWP & Springett CN. (1999). Measured spudcan fixity: analysis of instrumentation
data from three North Sea jack-up units and correlation to site assessment procedures, Marine Structure 12:
277-309.
25. Bell R.W. (1991). The Analysis of Offshore Foundations Subjected to Combined Loading. MSc. Thesis
presented to the University of Oxford.
26. Noble Denton Europe and Oxford University (2005). The Calibration of SNAME Spudcan Footing
Equations with Field Data. Report No L19073/NDE/mjrh, Rev.4, dated 21st Nov. 2005.
27. Templeton, J.S. (2009). Spudcan Fixity in Clay, Further Results from a Study for IADC. Proc. 12th
International Conference, The Jack-Up Platform, City University, London. 2009.

28. Lee F.H., (2013). Final Report for Research Project: Spudcan Fixity for Realistic Design of jack-Up Units.
Project No. 082 135 0042. National University of Singapore.
29. Mirza, U.A., Sweeney, M. and Dean A.R. (1988). Potential effects of jack-up spud can penetration on jacket
piles. Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 5762, 147-157.
30. Leung C.F., Chow Y.K., Somsak, S., Tho K.K. & Xie Y. (2009). Spudcan-Pile Interaction Joint Industry
Project. National University of Singapore.
31. Leung C.F., Tho K.K., Chow Y.K., Xie Y, Wong P.C. & Purwana O.A. (2012). Experimental and Numerical
Studies of Spudcan-Pile Interaction. OTC 23053.Houston, Texas, USA.
32. Xie Y. (2009). Centrifuge Model Study on Spudcan-Pile Interaction. Ph.D Thesis. National University of
Singapore.
33. Gan C.T. (2009). Centrifuge Model Study on Spudcan-Footprint Interaction. Ph.D Thesis. National University
of Singapore.
34. Stewart, D.P. and Finnie, I.M.S. (2001). Spudcan-footprint interaction during jack-up workovers. International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE), Cupertino, California. Vol. 1. pp. 61-65.
35. Foo, K.S., Quah, M.C.K., Wildberger, P. and Vazquez, J.H. (2003). Spudcan footprint interaction and rack
phase difference. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Jackup Platform Design, Construction and Operation, City University,
London, UK
36. Jardine, R.J., Kovacevic, N., Hoyle, M.J.R., Sidhu, H.K. and Letty, A. (2001). A study of eccentric jack-up
penetration into infilled footprint craters. Proc. 8th International Conference the Jack-up Platform, eds:
C.D’Mello and L. Boswell, City University, London.
37. Hartono, C.F. Leung, K.K. Tho and Y.K. Chow. (2013). Reaming as a mitigation measure for jackup
reinstallation close to existing footprint. International Conference on the Jack-up Platform, City University,
London, UK. 17th & 18th Sep. 2013.

ABS GUIDANCE NOTES ON GEOTECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF SPUDCAN FOUNDATIONS . 2017 49

You might also like