DNV CN 30-4 Foundations - 1992

CODES, FOUNDATIONS, CLASSIFICATION NOTES. se x ‘O114082 NO. 30.4 id DET NORSKE VERITAS FOUNDATIONS FEBRUARY 1992 INTEC LIBRARY Dot Norske Veritas Classification AS VERITASVEIEN |, N-1322 HOVIK, NORWAY TEL: +47 67 579900 FAX: +4767 5799 nLFOREWORD Det norske Veritas is an independent Foundation with the objective of safeguarding life, property and the environment at sea and ashore. Classification, certification and quality assurance of ships, offshore installations and industrial plants, as well as testing and certification of materials and components, are main activities. Det norske Veritas possesses technological capability in a wide range of fields, backed by extensive research and development efforts." The organization is represented world-wide in more than 100 countries. © Det norske Veritas, 1992... Computer Typesetting by Division Ghip disk Omtsnaie Dei norske Veritas Castineatiok A/S Printed in Norway by Det norske Yeritas © 7“ 02.92.2000 Ft edna acy acy fe oh se, bench waranty Classification Notes are publications which give practical information on classification of ships, offshore installations and other objects. Examples of design solutions, calculation methods, specifications of test procedures, quality assurance and quality control systems as well as acceptable repair methods for some components are given as interpretations of the more general rule.requirements. An updated list of Classification Notes available is given in the latest edition of the Introduction-booklets to the «Rules for Classification of Steel Ships», «Rules for Classification of Mobile Offshore Units» and «Rules for Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations»,CONTENTS L Mi 12 13 14 1s 16 2 2a 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 3 32 33 34 38 36 4 ‘SOIL INVESTIGATIONS FOR FIXED ‘OFFSHORE STRUCTURES Introduction : 4 Methods and techniques... 4 Soil investigation for gravity type foundations. 7 Soil investigation for pile foundations. 8 8 9 Soil investigation for jack-up platforms Soil investigation for pipelines see 10) AXIAL PILE RESISTANCE, Introduction 10 Resistance in cohesive soils... 10 Resistance in cohesionless soils. ........... 13 Resistance in calcareous soils 15 Group effects. 15 Effects of installation procedure cee IS Effects of cyclic loading LATERAL PILE RESISTANCE .. Introduction : Piles in cohesive sols Piles in cohesionless soils 18 Piles in calcareous soils . 19 Modifications of py curves. 19 Plastic analysis of piles - 20 STABILITY OF GRAVITY BASE FOUNDATIONS «esses eseeeeeeees 4 42 43 44 5. 52 $3 54 61 62 nM 12 13 al 82 a3 84 % Introduction. Soil shear strength Solution methods Bearing capacity formulae SETTLEMENT OF GRAVITY FOUNDATIONS . Introduction Sess distribution theories Settlement calculations Time rate of consolidation PENETRATION RESISTANCE OF SKIRTS 39 Introduction Methods of caleulation . SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ..... 41 Introduction at Global dynamic foundation sis for GBS . 41 type foundation Soil reaction on structural foundation clements 43 FOUNDATION OF JACK-UP PLATFORMS 44 Introduction “4 Individual leg supported jack-up platforms... 45 Mat-supported jack-up platforms ce Foundation cestraints.... =) REFERENCES se1. Soil Investigations for Fixed Offshore Structures 1.1 Introduction 1.11 General 1.1.1 Guidelines for determination of soil investigation programme for gravity type foundations, piled foundations and foundations of pipelines are given in this Chapter. Brief descriptions of the various methods and techniques to be used in geophysical and geotechnical surveys are given, 1.1.2 Planning 1.1.2.1 The required amount of information with respect to soil properties normally changes during a field development. At an early stage the gathered data should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the feasibility of a given concept. Also, the information available at this Stage facilitates the selection of the most favourable location for the structure within the development area. At a final stage the soil investigation should provide all necessary data for a detailed design of a specific structure at the specific location. 1.1.2.2 The soil investigation necessary for field devel- ‘opment should normally be performed in progressive "stages so that structural concepts can be developed with due regard to soil conditions. In order to optimize the extent of the soil investigation, planning should be done based on the results from previous findings. Factors as geological history, uniformity.of foundation depo: and type of structure etc. should be reflected in the extent Of the site investigation, 1.1.23 The sequence of the soil investigation for a platform should be as follows: © Collection of available geological, geotechnical and foundation performance data for the area. ‘© Carrying out of a geophysical survey at an early stage of the field development, comprising: — Bathymetry and seabed surveys = Sub-bottom profiling. This is to be supplemented with a few seabed samples (€.g, gravity cores) and one or two soil borings. @ When the type and location of platform have been determined, a detailed geotechnical investigation and topographical mapping and seabed survey of the actual location should be carried out. 1.2, Methods and techniques 1.2.1 General TZ TRE BOTT TAVERN MAY BEA EN © Geological studies @ Geophysical surveys ‘© Geotechnical investigations. Below, brief descriptions of the various survey methods and techniques are given. General sampling recommen- Classification Notes — No. 30.4 dations and guidelines for planning of laboratory test Programmes are also presented. 1.2.2 Geological studies 1.2.2.1 The geological study should be based on infor mation about the geological history of the general area of field development. The purpose of such a study is to establish a basis for selection of methods and extent of the site investigation. 1.2.3 Geophysical surveys 1.2.3.1 The main purpose of the geophysical survey should be to extend the more localized information from borings and in situ testing to get an understanding of the seabed topography and the stratification within defined areas. As such, these surveys should give guidelines in se~ lection of suitable platform sites within the exploration area. 1.2.3.2 Seabed topography and layering are investigated ‘by means of seismic methods. Geophysical surveys are cartied out by towed devices with specifed characteristics. 1.2.3.3 For determination of water depth and sea floor topography, high accuracy echosounders may be used together with vessel movement sensors (surface system). However, use of a towed fish with echosounder and pressure Sensor will improve the accuracy significantly. By adding a side-scan sonat device to the towed system, any seabed obstruction or feature may be investigated in more detail by towing closer to the seabed. Manned or unmanned submersibles for visual/video surveys of the actual foundation area will complement the echosounder and sonar profiles. Echosounders with adequate high frequency response may detect gas seeps at the sea floor and particularly soft seabed deposits. Stee! and iron objects may be detected with a marine proton magnetometer bottle, which measures the total magnetic field intensity along the tow line. Obstacles detected at the sea bottom shall be carefully mapped and identified. 1.2.3.4 The choice of an appropriate geophysical profiling system depends upon the required depth of penetration, the desired degree of resolution and the seismic response of the shallow formations. The resolution, i. the ability to identify the different sub-bottom layers, increases as the frequency of the transmitted and received signals increases. However, higher frequencies result in larger absorption losses in the ground and less penetration. The basic components of a seistiic profiling sy em area sound source, hydrophones.and a recording unit. Typical operating ‘characteristics for high energy systems are frequencies in the range 100~400Hz capable of achieving penetrations down to about 300m depth wi a resolution of some metres. A high resolution profiling system should contain a set of towed devices having different frequency response. The necessary depth to which formations and the type of structure. 1.23.5 Coarse grid surveys may give guidelines in selecting the optimum foundation site where detailed surveys must be done. By reducing the grid spacing, details of the geologic formations may be obtained for the most interesting area.Classification Notes — No. 30.4 1.2.4 Geotechnical surveys in general 1.24.1 The principal methods to be employed in a geotechnical investigation are: ‘© Sampling for laboratory testing © In-situ testing. The geotechnical investigation at the actual platform site should secure all data necessary for the foundation de sign. Options for modifications of the initial site investigation program in the course of the survey may be favourable. A qualified geotechnical engineer should therefore be onboard the survey vessel. The soil investigation should be tailored to the design methods used. To facilitate the interpretation of the test results, an overlap of information between the various methods employed should be planned. The field and laboratory investigations should establish the detailed soil stratigraphy across the site providing the following types of geotechnical data for all important layers: © Data for classification and description of the soil © Parameters required for a detailed and complete foundation design. 1.2.5 Sampling without drilling 1.25.1 Grab samplers, gravity corers and bottom oper ated corers may secure soil samples from the top soil layers. With present equipment these samples have usually been found disturbed and consequently only useful for identification purposes. 1.2.5.2 Gravity corers consist essentially of a heavy torpedo-shaped body with a sampling tube (50—100 mm diameter) attached in front. The basic method of operation is to lower the corer on a wire until itis a few metres above the sea bottom. It is then released and allowed to fall to the bottom. In soft to firm clays the depth of pen- tration is 3—5m while no penetration may be experienced in dense or hard soils. 1.2.5.3 Piston corers look like gravity corers but take longer samples. The piston remains near the top of the sediment by sliding up the sampling tube as the corer penetrates into the seabed. By this method samples exceeding 40m in length have been taken. The tube diameter is 50-100 mm. 1.2.8.4 Vibratory sampling can provide soil samples up. to 8m in Tength in soft to firm clays and loose sands while the length may be limited to 0.5—2m in hard clays, The sampling is carried out from a rig, lowered to the seabed and remotely controlled from the surface. The sampling tube has a diameter of 100--270 mm. 1.2.6 Sampling from a drilled borehole 126.1 ter depths drili ie sampling device is thea Tow. cred inside the drillsiring to the bottom of the borehole at the depth where a sample is taken. The boring is made with a straight flush rotary drilling technique, Drilling mud may be needed to remove the cuttings and to stabi lize the hole. The top of the drllstring is connected to motion compensator in the erown of the derrick so that the drilsting is in constant tension, The maximum available bit pressure is governed by the weight of the drill collars and the tension force required to avoid buckling of the drillstring above mudline. 1.2.6.2 The traditional sampling method is percussion sampling with a wireline tool consisting of a thin-walled tube and a sliding hammer. The percussive action of the falling weight produces clay samples which are significantly disturbed. 1.2.6.3 The sample disturbance is reduced to some extent by push sampling. Different techniques have been developed for this type of sampling: a) The sample tube is latched into the drillstring and pushed into the soil by the weight of the drillstring (by reducing the tension load). b) The sample tube is pressed into the soil by hydraulic Jacks operating: © ccither from the sea floor as part of a heavy jacking ‘unit providing the reaction force © or within the drillstring near the bit with the reaction force provided by friction between the borehole wall and inflatable packers inserted in the drillstring just above the bit. Wherever possible push sampling should be preferred as compared to percussion, sampling, especially in cohesive soils. 1.264 Rotary sampling tools are generally used for drilling and sampling in hard formations such as rock cemented sand, hard heavily-overconsolidated clays, and boulder type clays. A typical tool of this type is the ma- Fine wireline double walled core barrel. Cores are taken, by rotating outer barrel, while the non-rotating inner barrel is stationary around the core. After coring is completed the inner tube and the core are recovered to the surface by use of the wireline assembly. 1.2.7 General sampling requirements 1.2.7.1 The sampling tools should be checked for proper operation and should be equipped with undamaged, properly machined sample retainers. Where sampling is carried out from the bottom or a borehole, care must be taken to achieve a clean borehole free from cuttings and debris at the time of sampling. If metallic tubes are used to secure and store «undisturbed» samples, only new ~tubes_with-proper-cutting-edge-should-be employed. The sampling operation should be conducted in such a way that damage to the sampler and disturbance of the soil samples are avoided. 1.2.8 In-situ testing 1.2.8.1 The cone penetrometer test (CPT) is the most commonly used in-situ testing method in offshore soil ir derwater rig without drilling of a borehole (eg, «Seacalf), from a seafloor-based jacking unit (eg. «Stingray») or down-the-hole without use of any seafloor unit (e.g. «Wison»), The test is carried out by pushing a 10cm? cone at a pen- tration rate of 2cm/s into the soil. The cone tip simultaneously measures the tip (cone) resistance and thefriction along a sleeve behind the tip. The results provide Classification Notes — No. 30.4 1.286 — The pressuremeter is a dilatable cylindrical useful information, both quantitatively and qualitatively probe which is generally run into a borehole or sometimes about soil strength and stress-strain characteristics. Piezo driven into the soil. The test at a given depth consists of cone penetrometers, which incorporate also a pressure measuring the pressure-volume relationship during the transducer at the tip to measure the pore pressure, are the dilation phase. Any pressuremeter test includes two suc- most common today in offshore site investigations. 1.2.8.2 The «Seacalfy rig or similar equipment performs remotely controlled static cone penetrometer tests from the seabed using a hydraulic jacking system and a reaction force of 60-260 KN provided by the ballasted frame of the rig. The depth of penetration typically ranges from about 20m in hard clays or dense sands to 30—60m. cessive operations, i.. setting the probe in place and then expanding the cell together with data acquisition. This is 4 process capable of determining the static as well as the dynamic stress-strain characteristics of the soil. 1.2.8.7 Radioactive well logging is carried out by low- ering into a borehole a probe containing radioactive topes. On its way down through the drillstring a recording in soft normally consolidated clays. Continuous plots of is done on a paper trace which will give the wet density cone resistance, sleeve friction and excess pore pressure as function of depth may be obtained. 1.2.83 The «Stingray» rig or similar equipment is an ‘ocean floor, hydraulically powered drillstring reaction device typically weighing 230 kN. Sampling or in-situ testing can be performed on the seafloor or at any depth. It is designed to operate in water depths down to 900m. Cone testing is carried out in increments of max. 36m. or until refusal. After each increment the cone is retrieved by use of the wireline and the drillpipe is advanced to the depth penetrated by the cone. At this depth the cone penetrometer testing is resumed. This procedure is repeated until the complete depth of interest is tested. The «Stingray» is designed to’ accommodate cone penetrometer tests, vane tests, pressure-meter tests, load tests as well as soil sampling, 1.2.8.4 The «Wison» cone penetrometer system enables in-situ tests to be performed from the base of a borehole. and latcites to the drilleollar. The Wison is activated to push the penetrometer into the soil. After reaching maximum depth (about 3m) or earlier if the total thrust capacity is reached, the tool is depressurized. The drillstring is lifted to retract the test rod and the Wison unit subsequently retrieved. Also the «Wisom» CPT, with or without ‘measurement of pore pressure, can be carried out in combination with wireline sampiing or push sampling. 1.2.85 The Remote Vane is a wireline tool to be used for in-situ_measurement of the soil’s undrained shear and/or the moisture content profile through the surveyed depth. The «gamma radiation method» uses a source of gamma rays inserted at a fixed distance from a Geiger type gamma ray detector. The induced gamma rays pass into the soil and the detector records the number of rays which undergo Compton scattering which is a measure of the wet density of the soil. This probe contains a source of high energy neutrons which pass into the surrounding soil and are reduced in energy especially by colliding with hydrogen nuclei. By providing a unit which detects low energy neutrons, a measure is obtained of the moisture concentration, 1.28.8 The measurement of in-situ shear wave velocity requires. a. system comprising a source yenerating-shear waves, receivers, preferably 3-component, a recorder to measure travel times and a triggering system for triggering the recorder. The source may be located either at the seabed with the receivers at different depths below the seabed or in one of two parallel boreholes with the re- The cone penetrometer is lowered inside the drillstring ceivers in the other borehole. The former. of these techniques is the most common for offshore applications. ‘The receivers are located in a cone penetrometer unit which can be lowered by wireline and latched into the bottom of the drillstring. By this device the shear wave velocity can be measured as a function of depth. In a second step the small strain shear modulus (Gnas) of the soil can be calculated. The simultaneous measurement of the cone resistance makes this so-called useismic cone» a very useful tool. 1.2.8.9 The dilatometer consists of a flat blade which is strength. The instrument has two main sections — the Pushed into the undisturbed soil from the bottom of a tool body and the motion compensating section. The lower portion of the tool body contains the test vane and borehole or from the seabed. For the offshore dilatometer, which is smaller than the onshore Marchetti device & reaction vane; both of which are inserted into the soil. © fit inside the standard drilipipe used offshore; oil pres- The operational sequence for performing a Remote Vane {est begins by advancing the borehole to a depth approximately 1m above the desired test depth and then sus- pending the drillpipe with the drill bit a couple of metres, sure is used to expand the membrane. Readings are taken of the membrane «lift off pressure (at rest pressure, pu) and the I-mm expansion pressure (p,). A filter located on the opposite side of the membrane centre allows pore ° ure to 2 continuously. ilatometer above the bottom of the hole. The tool is then lowered Pressure to be measured continuously. The dilator through the drillpipe until it rests on the bottom of the al be used to determine the lateral earth pressure in-situ borehole. and the motion compensating unit is appro» its weight removed from the wireline, the pawls are activated to extend from the tool body. The drillpipe is then lowered until the open-center drill bit bears on the pawls, pushing the vane blade to the desired test depth. The drillpipe is again suspended off bottom and the test is performed, After the test is completed, the tool is retrieved and the borehole is advanced to the next depth. and thus the earth pressure coefficient Ky. Tent ical relationships are other geotechnical design parameter 1.28.10 As a guidance for assessment of a minimum setting depth of conductors, so-called uhydraulic fracture testing» is used. Equipment and procedures for this type of testing are still under development based on practical experience from various prototype testing in connection with offshore soil investigations.Classification Notes ~ No. 30.4 1.29 Laboratory investigations 1.2.9.1 The recovered soil samples should be described both onboard and later in the onshore laboratory. The description should comprise estimates of: Grain size distribution © Colour and smell © Consistency ¢ Laminations ‘© Carbonatic reaction ‘© Other relevant information. 1.2.9.2 The samples should be properly cleaned, marked, sealed and stored. Storage, handling and trans- portation of the samples should be as gentle as possible to avoid or limit disturbance. 1.2.9.3 The onboard laboratory testing should normally comprise the following determinations: © Water content © Unit weight ¢ Undrained shear strength of cohesive samples by means of pocket penetrometer, torvane, miniature vane, fall cone and UU triaxial test © Carbonatic reaction © Grain size distribution of selected cohesionless samples Liquid and plastic limits of selected cohesive samples. Recently even more advanced laboratory tests, eg. 0¢- dometer tests, direct simple shear tests etc. have been performed with success onboard the vessel ‘An experienced geotechnical engineer or an engineering geologist should be present on board during sampling and laboratory testing. 1.2.9.4 The onshore laboratory testing should be carried ‘out on representative samples which shall as closely as possible be subjected to the same stress conditions as ex: Perienced offshore. It is essential that initial stress conditions, overconsolidation ratio and stresses induced by the structure and environment are realistically reflected. A combined static/cyclic test programme should allow determination of stiffness, damping and strength of the soil under the range of load conditions to be covered by the design. The random nature of wave and earthquake loading re- quizes that special attention should be paid to the load simulation technique used in the testing. The chosen procedure should reflect the effect of the stress fevel and load duration on the development of pore pressure and shear strain. The types of tests which should normally be considered in the planning of a programme are the following: Classification and index tests such as: = Unit weight of sample Unit weight of solid particle = Water content ~ Liquid and plastic limits ~ Grain size distribution = Salinity ~ Carbonate content. © Permeability tests. © Consolidation tests. © Static tests for determination of shear strength parameters: = Triaxial tests (UU, CIUa, CAUa, CAUp, oedo- triax, K,) ~ Direct simple shear (CCV). @ Test for determination of remoulded shear strength (type UU, CTU). © Cyclic tests for determination of strength and stiffness parameters: ~ Triaxial tests (CTUc, CAUc) = Direct simple shear (CCVc) ~ Resonant column (CIUre) ~ Shear wave velocity measurement. 1.3 Soil investigation for gravity type foundations 1.3.1 General 1.3.1.1 The soil investigation for a gravity type foundation should give basis for a complete foundation design comprising evaluations of: © Subility © ‘Settlements Penetration and retrieval resistance of skirts Local contact stresses ‘© Dynamic response of foundation soil. 1.3.2 Geophysical surveys 1.32.1 The minimum depth of sub-bottom profiling should correspond to the depth to rock or the width of the largest base dimension. The required accuracy for sea bed topography measurements is normally in the order of £0.1—0.2m for relative elevations. This is outside the capacity of echosounders operated from the sea surface subject to wave and wind effects. Alternative methods include submarines or remotely controlled underwater vehicles equipped with differential pressure transducers or echosounders. Any obstructions e.g. large boulders discovered during seismic and topographic surveys within the foundation area should be accurately located. A fairly close grid of seismic profiles (50—100m spacing) over the ‘actual area for correlation with other investigation results will reduce the number of borings to a minimum. 1.3.3 Geotechnical surveys 1.3.3.1 As basis for all foundation analyses an extensive investigation of the shallow soil deposits should be performed. The minimum depth should be deeper than any possible critical shear surface. Further, all soil layers in- Tideneed by the structure Irom a settlement point of view should be thoroughly investigated, 1.3.3.2 The extent of shallow borings with sampling should be determined based on type and site of structure as well us on general knowledge about the soil conditions in the ateu of platform installation. Emphasis should be given to the upper layers and potentially weaker layersfurther down. Sampling intervals should not exceed 1.0—I.5m. A number of seabed samples (gravity cores oF equivalent) evenly distributed over the area should also be taken for evaluation of scour potential. 1.33.3 In addition to the borings, shallow CPTs distributed across the installation area should be carried out. The number of CPTs depends on size and type of structure and soil conditions. If the soil conditions are very irregular across the foundation site, the number of CPTs will have to be increased. The shallow CPTs should give continuous graphs from mudline to the maximum depth of interest. 1.33.4 For settlement evaluations and determination of dynamic response of the foundation soil, investigation of the soil to a greater depth is necessary. The depth should not be less than that corresponding to the largest base dimension of the structure. The investigation should consist of one boring with continuous CPT and at least one boring with sampling close to the CPT hole. The sampling interval is to be determined from the CPT results but should not exceed 3m. 1.3.35 If, during the course of the soil investigation, a weaker layer is encountered, along which a critical failure surface can be expected, special emphasis should be put on investigation of this layer. 1.3.3.6. Special tests such as plate loading tests, pressuremeter tests and shear wave velocity measurements should be added where relevant. 1.4 Soil investigation for pile foundations 141 General L411 The soil investigation for a pile foundation should give basis for a complete foundation design comprising evaluations of: © On-bottom stability of unpiled structure ¢ Lateral pile capacity © Axial pile capacity © Pile drivability predictions. 1.4.1.2 The extent of the soil investigation is dependent ‘on type and size of the structure and the consistency and degree of uniformity of the foundation soil 1.4.2 Geophysical surveys 1421 In 1.2.3 the demands to a geophysical survey are described. As for gravity foundations it is essential to carry out a coarse grid geophysical survey at an early stage of the field development. The minimum depth of seismic profiles should be the anticipated depth of pile penetration plus a zone of influence of about ten pile di bination of the following types of information: teeters 1.4.2.2 A topographic survey of the selected area should be carried out. Remotely controlled underwater vehicles with video camera and differential pressure transducers will provide data of sulficient accuracy. Any obstructions. within the foundation area, discovered during the seabed surveys shall be accurately mapped. Classification Notes — No. 30.4 1.4.3 Geotechnical surveys 1.43.1 For on-bottom stability and lateral pile analyses shallow cone penetration tests should be carried out from mudline to 20-30m depth. In addition, shallow borings with sampling should be performed for better determination of characteristics of the individual layers identified by the cone penetration tests. The sampling interval should not exceed 1.0—1.5m, 1.43.2 A number of seabed samples (gravity cores or equivalent) evenly distributed over the area should be taken for evaluation of scour potential, 1.43.3. For axial pile capacity analysis at least one down-the-hole CPT boring giving a continuous CPT profile and one nearby boring with sampling should be carried out. The minimum depth should be the anticipated penetration of the pile plus a zone of influence. The zone of influence should be sufficient for evaluation of the risk of punch through failure. The sampling interval should be determined from the CPT results but should not exceed 3m. 1.434 Ino potential end bearing layers or other dense layers which may create driving problems are found, the above scope of sampling and in-situ testing are sufficient. 1.435 In case potential end bearing layers or other dense layers are found, additional cone penetration testing and sampling should be carried out in order to deter- ‘mine the thickness and lateral extension of such layers Within the foundation area. Use of rotary sampling tools may be recommended in very hard or dense formations. LS.LI foundation behaviour of a jack-up rig, adequate geotechnical and geophysical information should be available, including information about: For general site assessment and evaluation of the @ Scafloor topography and sea bottom features. © Soil stratification and classification. ‘© Characteristics for soil in various strata. 1.5.1.2 The most important soil parameters are the soil “shear strength parameters, ie. undrained shear strength or the effective stress parameters cohesion (alternatively attraction) and angle of internal friction. As found relevant in each case, it may also be required to determine other characteristics such as grain size distribution, relative density, unit weight and in-situ small strain shear StiTFneSS Grane General geological knowledge about the area © Geophysical investigations (bathymetry, sidescan sonar. shallow seismic) ‘© Sampling and laboratory testing In situ testing, e.g. cone penetration test.Classification Notes — No. 30.4 1.5.2 Geophysical surveys 152.1 Geophysical investigations required for a site assessment includes bathymetric survey, seabed surveys with side scan sonar or high resolution multibeam echosounder and shallow seismic surveys. The various surveys are normally performed in parallel from one survey vessel using multipurpose tow equipment. Shallow seismic with digital recording will have to be performed separately, however. At the selected location, the line spacing should be sulfi- ciently small to detect all features of interest, such as seabed. irregularities or debrises, variations in subsoil strata including erosion channels etc. Interlining within the area of most interest may be decided based on initial survey of a wider area with coarser spacing. Depending on the general irregularities detected by the first survey, the line spacing for the detailed central survey can be decided. Typical spacings may be 100 x 250m for a coarse grid and 25 x 50m for a finer grid. 1.5.2.2 The purpose of the seabed survey is to detect seabed irregularities or debrises, as reefs, iceberg plough- marks, pockmarks, wrecks or other debrises. For detection of pipelines, cables or other metallic debris at or slightly below the seabed, magnetometer surveys may be required. ‘Thi puirpose of shallow seismic surveys is to determine the soil stratigraphy to a depth of interest as indicated in 1.5.3.4 and to detect any possible presence of shallow gas concentrations. The determination of soil stratigraphy requires correlation with soil boring data within the surveyed area. Even when a boring is performed at the location, a shallow seismic survey should be available to be able to show whether irregularities exist within the foundation area that give other foundation conditions than that determined by the boring, e.g. detect possible erosion channels or general variations in layer thicknesses of importance. Analog records may be used for determination of soil stratigraphy whereas registration of shallow gas will require ‘digital recording. The equipment characteristics (energy and frequency) should be chosen to fit the expected soil conditions and the correspondingly required depth for determination of soil stratification, 1.5.3 Geotechnical surveys 1.53.1 The required extent of the geotechnical surveys is dependent on the variability of the soil conditions in the area, and on possible problems foreseen for the subject jack-up platform at the given location. In the planning for site specific soil investigations, any existing information should be made available, such as general geological knowledge about the area. results from possible previous 1.5.3.2 As a minimum at each platform location, one should normally provide either one borehole with sampling and laboratory testing, or carry out in-situ testing, Such testing can be omitted provided that: 1) Existing knowledge about the general geology of the area (history of deposits) together with geophysical surveying can justify extrapolation from documented soil profiles nearby the platform location. 2) It-can be documented that, based on a possible range of soil conditions derived from existing soil data, the platform can be safely operated during installation (preload) as well as during normal operations and pull-out phases, see Chapter 8. 15.3.3 If the area, within which the platform is to be located shows irregular soil conditions, it may be necessary to perform more than one boring/ in-situ testing in order to verify the variations within the foundation area. For such events the uncertainties in positioning should be considered. Special concern should be given to the possibility of bur- ied erosion channels with soft infill material. 1.5.3.4 The design shear strength profile should be established to a depth below which the soil conditions have no influence on the foundation behaviour, For platforms supported by individual leg foundations (spud cans) the required depth of the documented soil profile will normally be one to two spud-can diameters below the antic pated penetration of the spud can. For mat supported foundations, usually only the upper few metres are of interest, except at locations with very soft clays where a deepseated failure may be relevant to study, see 8.3. 1.5.3.5 In areas with high potential of scour, grain size distribution tests should be performed on samples from the upper 2—3m in order to improve evaluations of scour potential. 1.6 Soil investigation for pipelines 1.6.1 General 1.6.1.1 The site investigation for a pipeline typically consists of a shallow seismic profiling survey of the wide lay barge anchoring corridor, a detailed bathymetric survey of the 100~150m wide construction corridor and finally a geotechnical investigation comprising cone penetration tests (CPT), push sampling, vibro coring, Bravity coring etc. To define the various soil deposits along a proposed pipeline route, the emphasis is put om the shallow seismic profiling results. In-situ testing and sampling should subsequently be performed for determi- mn of the soil properties in these deposits 1.6.2 Geophysical surveys 16.2.1 Total water depth is needed to determine ex- ternal water pressure on the pipe and wave effects on the bottom sediments. The trenching, laying and burying methods will also be dependent on water depth. The seabed topography will influence the support conditions of the pipe, the formation of free spans and the stability —-Heophysical investigations, borings and/or in situ testing. of the seabed itself Cousequentiy,-surveys-with-precise- echosounders and sidescan sonar are usually required. The accuracy of such measurements will directly influence the degree of conservatism in the design of the pipeline itself. 1.6.2.2 Especially in areas of highly variable seabed to- ography, the limitations of the echosounder may neces- sitate more accurate mapping methods. Profiling with10 small submarines may improve the accuracy compared with that of surface vessels, Seismic profiling is necessary to define the extent and variations of the various soil deposits along the pipeline route, The equipment used should give good resolution for the shallow layers down to about 10m depth for definition of erodable materials, applicability of trenching methods and stability of the pipeline itself. Deeper penetration should be recommended for identification of strata out- cropping at other locations along the route. 1.6.3 Geotechnical surveys 1.6.3.1 A sufficient number of samples should be se- cured from each major surface deposit to identify the soil or rock. Several types of shallow sampling techniques are now available for this purpose, see 1.2.5. In addition CPTs and/or vane shear tests should be performed. 1.6.3.2 A laboratory should be available onboard for the necessary soil classification and index testing, see 129, 1.6.3.3 _In special cases the seabed conditions should be documented by use of TV or photos. 1.634 To complement the above surveys, measurements of seawater temperature and currents should be taken, 2. Axial Pile Resistance 2.1 Introduction 1 Different methods for axial pile capacity caleu- lations are given in this Chapter. 21.12 Axial pile resistance is composed of two parts: © The accumulated skin resistance © The end resistance, 21.1.3 Piles carrying their loads mainly through mobilized end bearing resistance are called end bearing piles, while the term friction piles is used for piles carrying their loads mainly through mobilized shaft friction 21.1.4... The pile resistance may be assessed using total or effective stress analysis depending on which analysis best represents the actual conditions. 2.115 _ Inrespectively of the method applied for calculation of the skin resistance, the effects of factors such as, procedure of pile installation (driven or drilled piles), type of drilling mud and grout, length and geometry of pile (cylindrical or with increased base diameter), etc. have to be-considered. 2.1.1.6 The axial pile resistance may be determined according to one or preferably a combination of the following methods: © Load testing of piles © Static pile formulae ‘@ Dynamic pile formulae (driven piles only) Classification Notes — No. 30.4 © Semi-empirical methods based on in-situ tests. 2.1.1.7 Dynamic pile formulae, herein understood as those based on the wave propagation theory, are not ac- cepted as the only method for determination of pile resistance. 21.1.8 The axial pile resistance should be calculated in accordance with one or preferably by different methods (see 2.2.1.1). 2.1.1.9 The methods to be applied should be developed based on tests resembling the present situation with respect to soil conditions, determination of soil parameters, pile size, loading etc. 2.11.10 Where grout is relied upon to transfer loads from one pile element to another or from the pile ele- ‘ments to the foundation soil, the surfaces are to be free from rust scale etc. which can reduce the capacity for load transfer. Furthermore the grout itself is to have stress- strain characteristics permitting the transfer of such loads. 2.2. Resistance in cohesive soils 2.21 General 2.21.1 The design of offshore piles in cohesive soils is, based largely on the experience with onshore piles. The methods developed are empirical and subject to.the limitations and uncertainties in the « tabase, see /1,2,3,4). 2.2.12 It is generally recognied that the pile penetrations and axial loads encountered offshore are often greater than those covered by the database, There is also @ need to extend the database by conducting field pile tests in soil types more relevant to offshore conditions 2.21.3 During the last decade, considerable research has been put into trying to understand the changes which ‘occur in the soil due to installation of a pile by driving, during reconsolidation of the soil mass after installation, and finally during application of a combination of static and cyclic loads, typical for offshore piles, see e.g. /5,6,7). 2.2.1.4 The interaction between a driven pile and the surrounding soil during axial loading depends basically on the factors mentioned in 2.2.1.3. The effect of cyclic loading on the shaft friction depends e.g. on: © The mobilization of soil shear stresses due to the static pile load - ‘© The additional shear stresses in the soil caused by ey- clic loading ‘© The loading history © The number of cycles at the various load levels © The loading rate compared to the rate in static pile load testing. ELLE For Tong Tiexibie ofishore piles. failure between Pile and soil may occur close to mudline even before the soil near the pile tip is mobilized at all. This means that considerable slip between the upper part of the pile and the surrounding soil may occur before the lower part of the pile has reached failure. In a strain softening soil the measured static cupacity ofa pile will thus be less than the Predicted capacity assuming an ideal (tigid) pile. which oeClassification Notes — No. 30.4 un mobilizes the peak skin friction simultaneously down the _ soils, that large diameter piles develop a smaller unit whole pile shaft, see /3/. This so-called «length effect» is end resistance than do small diameter piles in the same important also with respect to the effect of cyclic loading. soil. The displacement required to mobilize the unit end 2.216 The degradation of the skin fiction due to cyclic aun wn een order of magnitude greater than that loading becomes significant once relative slip occurs be- considered in the pile capacity predictions, ‘especially tween the pile and the soil, increasing in magnitude and Where the pile end resistance represents a substantial part importance with increasing degree of overconsolidation of the total axial pile resistance. of the soil and particularly when two-way cyclic shear . stresses (reversed slip) are imposed on the slip surface. 2.2.2.3 For piles in mainly cohesive soils, the average unit skin friction, f,, may be calculated according to: 2.2.1.7 The loading rate during wave loading is about ‘wo orders of magnitude greater than during conventional @ Total stres methods, eg. the method, ee /8 static pile load testing. ‘This relative increase in loa fate may partly compensate {or the eect of eyee der © Bective stress methods, eg. the method, ee 9 gradation on the shaft capacity. When cyclic resistance @ Combined totaljeffective stress methods, eg, the is determined based on cyclic tests, the rate effect is ac- _ &-method, see /10,11). counted for through the use of a realistic cyclic period inp. ing alternate methods, which are based on sound engineering principles and are consistent with industry 2218 No rational analytical desgn method nits, experience, may be used in practice which can capture the effects of all factors of significance ni " ji forthe prediction ofthe axial ressance of pls in elay. A2 Uppet limit of 200 KPa is recommended for the uit This hat led to the introduction of design pilosopies SED tion on the beds of previous North Sea exper based on extensive use of in-situ testing, including field $066. Justification of higher values will require speci Pile tests, combined with the necessary supporting labo- ocumentation. ratory testing, to assist in the development of site specific 2.2.2.4 According to the a-method, in its simplest form, pile design parameters. The extrapolation from small the average unit skin friction in layer i is given by: scale test results to prototype pile and load conditions fn may, however, require special considerations, which fi =u should be documented in detail in each case. where 2.2.19 In the following, some methods for prediction» = a multiplier which of the static axial resistance of driven piles in clay are 1a ae a cere aed with cy and is equal shortly described. Due to the uncertainties in the predic- and depth of pile penetration. nso tion methods, the pile capacity should normally be pre- axial icted based on more than one method. The effect of “* undrained shear strength based on UU triaxial cyclic loading should be assessed based on the actual loading conditions with due consideration of the soil and pile properties, 2.2.2.8 Based on /8/ the a-factor may be calculated from the equations: 2.2.2 Resistance of piles in compression anosy? sto 2.2.2.1 The pile resistance, R, is composed of two parts, as one part being the accumulated skin resistance, R,, and a= 0.59 y> Lo ‘ i : the other part the end orn, Re still with the constraint than a<1.0, where R=R+R,=Dhy Ay + Rr Aut ay Ap = culp’s for the point in question. where P's = effective overburden pressure in kPa, at the point | average unit skin friction along pile shaft in layer in question. j i ‘Ag. = shaft area of pile in layer i These equations should be used with caution for deep t q, = unit end resistance. penetrating piles. | Ap = gross end area of pile, \ 222.6 A further modification of the equations in 2.2.2.5 is recommended in /4/ by considering the pile 2.2.2.2 The unit end resistance, qp, of piles in mainly length effec in addition to the ¢/p’s ratio. The average | cohesive soils may as an average be taken equal to 9 times unit skin friction along the pil e shaft, f,, is then obtained the undrained shear strength of the soil at the level of the from the equation: # duced the shear strength. The end resistance may, however, be limited by the capacity of an internal soil plug in where the pile. Where pile shoes are employed as a means of reducing soil plug friction during driving, an equivalent a, = peak friction coefficient, being a function of the reduction of internal skin friction should be adopted in ratio calP’s the assessment of unit end resistance. Experience indicates F ™ length factor, being a function of the ratio L/D(D that size effects may be of importance also in cohesive = pile diameter).R cy = average undrained shear strength from UU triaxial tests over the embedded pile length, L. = average effective overburden pressure over the embedded pile length. Reference is made to Fig. 2.1 for determination of a and F. 10,038) ient, Op 2 Classification Notes — No. 30.4 where c, ~ undrained shear strength at the level of the pile tip. 2.2.2.8 According to /1/, values for F. should be obtained from local experience. In the absence of such data, a value of 1.1 for unconfined compression tests on samples of high quality, 1.8 for unconfined compression tests on samples taken with typical driven samplers, and 0.7 for in-situ vane shear tests are suggested in /1/. Final design should not be based on unconfined compression tests or ‘on samples taken with driven samplers. 2.2.2.9 Table 2.1 shows the relationship between # and Fe ° 32 Peak Friction Coeffici ° rr Soil Strength Ratio, Sy/Sy ‘OF Table 2.1 Relationship between « and &F.. er. fo [29 38 240 Joo (kPa) @ 10 [io [os 03 [03 2.2.2.10 The correction factor for pile penetration Fy varies as shown in Table 2.2. (10,80) Length Factor, F ° 8s Pile Aspect Ratio, L/D Fig. 2.1 Criteria for capacity prediction, see /4/. 2.2.2.7 Based on a complete reevaluation of the pile test database, a revised x-method, called NCLI (New Clay Method 1), is proposed in /1/, where the average unit skin friction over the embedded pile length is given on the form: f =aty FoF where @ = adhesion factor. & = average undrained shear strength over the embedded pile length. oil strength correction factor. pile penetration correction factor. shear strength determined using consolidated-undrained triaxial compression tests on samples of high quality to the shear strength measured using some other techniques, The unit end resistance is according to the NCL1-method: Ap = %u Fe Table 2.2 Relationship between L and F.. Lomo 30 33 2 Fe 10. 10. 18 18. 22.211 In the f-method, as proposed in /9), the unit skin friction, fy, is related to the effective stress parameters K and das follows: fj = Ktand p’, =B p’ where K = average coelficient of earth pressure on pile shat. tan = average coefficient of friction between soil and pile shaft Plo = effective overburden pressure. For piles in normally consolidated clays inducing no ap- preciable change in lateral ground stress conditions, it may be assumed that: K= If iv is further assumed that failure takes place im the remoulded soil close to the shaft surface. the remoulded. drained angle of shearing resistance may be used for ” along with 0=6". Under these assumptions this equation ives p-values between 0.2 and 0.3 for a typical range of 8. For pile lengths exceeding about 15m, results from full-scale tests suggest fi-values in the eange 0.10.25. In the case of piles driven into overconsolidated clays, the scatter in fis considerable since it reflects the uncertainty in the lateral earth pressure coefficient K which usually only can be estimated within wide limits. The decrease in f with increasing pile length is even more pronounced for overconsolidated clays than for normally consolidated clays. ~ sing!Classification Notes — No. 30.4 2.22.12 Other methods where the unit skin friction is considered a function of the effective overburden pressure is proposed in /12,13/. 2.2.2.13 In the d-method, see /10), the total shaft resistance, R,, is calculated from the expression: R,=A q+ 26m) Ay or {=i Gn + 2m) where = average unit skin friction along pile shaft = mean effective overburden pressure between the mudline and the pile tip. qm = mean undrained shear strength along the pile shaft pile shaft area dimensionless coefficient (see Fig. 2.2). § a A Fig. 2.2 Frictional coefficient 4 as function of depth. i 2.22.14 The pile length effect on the average unit skir friction predicted by the a-, f- and 1-methods is investi: gated in /11/ by correlating the predicted shaft capacity with relevant pile load test data. Ref. /11/ describes a «modified 2-method», which accounts for the pile length effect. 2.2.3, Resistance of piles in tension 2.2.3.1 For piles in cohesive soils, the pile-soil friction may be equal in tension and in compression. 2.2.3.2 No resistance from the soil below pile tip should be accounted for. 22.3.3 For piles with am increased base diameter the resistance is to be based on the shaft resistance or on the resistance of the base. The two contributions are, however, not to be assumed to act simultaneously at the lower part of the pile. 2.3. Resistance in cohesionless soils 2.3.1 General 2.3.1.1 Prediction of the axial capacity of driven off shore piles in cohesionless soils (silicious sands and silts) ‘often requires extrapolations ‘beyond the boundaries of the database with respect to pile size, pile penetration, pile load and soil conditions. This is especially the case with piles designed for many North Sea locations, where the soils may be dense to very dense and often overconsolidated. 2.3.1.2 Due to the uncertainties in the database, the pile design parameters should be conservatively assessed. Limiting values are normally defined for the unit skin lriction and the unit end resistance. These limiting values are a function of the soil conditions. the quality and extent of the soil investigation, the method of pile installation, ete, 2.3.2 Resistance of piles in compression 2.3.2.1 For piles in cohesionless soils the unit skin friction, f, may be taken a &=Kpytand Xp © where . = ultimate resistance per unit length (kN/m), = undrained shear strength for undisturbed clay soil samples (kPa). D_ = pile diameter (m). Y= effective unit weight of soil (kN/m). J = dimensionless empirical coefficient with values in the range 0.25~0.50. The upper limit holds for soft normally consolidated cohesive soils. “= depth below soil surface (m), depth below soil surface to bottom of reduced resistance zone in m. For a condition of constant strength with depth Eqs. (a) and (b) are solved simultaneously to give: x Xp-=—oP— yBes Where the strength varies with depth, Eqs. (a) and (b) may be solved by plotting the two equations, ic. py vs. depth. The point of fist intersection of the two equations is taken to be Xx. These empirical relationships mey not apply where strength variations are erratic. In general, ‘minimum values of Xx should be about 2.5 pile diameters. 3.2.2 Load-deflection (p—y) curves for soft clay 3.2.2.1 The p~y curves for piles in soft clay are generally non-linear. For the short-term static load case they may be generated from Table 3.1 (see Fig. 3,2 a). Table 3.1 Pips yy 0 o 05 1.0, 0.72 3.0 1.00 8.0 1.00 22 In Table 3.1 the following applies: P= actual lateral resistance (kN/m), Y= actual deflection (mm), Ye = 2.Se,D (mm), = strain which occurs at one-half the maximum stress in laboratory undrained compression tests The form of the pre-plastic portion of the static resistance Curve (up to point e in Fig. 3.2 a) can be approximated with the parabola: 1” mS (e) fe stare Fig. 3.2 Criteria for predicting p~y curves, (a) short-time static loading, (b) equilibrium under itil cyclic loading and (c) reloading after cycling 3.2.2.2 For the case where equilibrium has been reached under cyclic loading, the py curves may be generated from Table 3.2 (see Fig. 3.2 b). Table 3.2 X>Xe X Sy. the shape is a straight horizontal line. 3.2.2.3 For reloading after evelie loading the p-y curve in Fig. 3.2 b may be modified to account for a possible sup between the soil and the pile due to previous (more intensive) cyclic loading (see Fig, 3.2 c).3.2.3, Lateral resistance in stiff clay 3.2.3.1 For static lateral loads the ultimate unit lateral resistance p, of stiff clay (cy > 100 kPa) would vary be- ‘tween 8c, and 1c, as for soft clay. 3.2.3.2 Due to rapid deterioration under cyclic loadings the ultimate resistance will be reduced to something con- siderably less and should be so considered in cyclic design. 32.4 Load-deflection (py) curves for stiff clay 3.24.1 While stiff clays also have non-linear stress- strain relationships, they are generally more brittle than soft clays, In developing stress-strain curves and subsequent py curves for cyclic loads, good judgement should reflect the rapid deterioration of lateral resistance at large deflections for stiff clays, 3.3 Piles in cohesionless soils 3.3.1 Lateral resistance in sand 3.34.1 The ultimate lateral resistance per unit length of sand has been found to vary from a value at shallow depths determined by Eq. (a) following to a value at greater depth determined by Eq, (b) following. Ata given depth the equation giving the smallest value of p, should bbe used as the ultimate resistance: Puy = (CrH + CyD)yX () Pug = CxD9’X (b) where Pu = shallow ultimate resistance (kN/m). Pus = deep ultimate resistance (kN/m), y = effective unit weight of soil (kN/m’), x = depth (m). 0 ~ angle of internal friction of sand (degrees). Ci.C..C) = coefficients determined from Fig. 3.3 as a function of @ D = average pile diameter from surface to actual depth (m). Classification Notes — No. 30.4 os 00 “ 90 c cS 4 BO, £ & z 70 w & G o 3-4 60 E 5 28 5 2 “0 5 & 30 a4 2 § 3 < Z 10> z = oO oO 2 3 30 35 40 ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION @DEG Fig. 3.3 Coefficients as function of ¢’. 3.3.2 Load-deflection (p—y) curves for sand 33.21 The lateral soil resistance-deflection (py) re- Jationships for piles in sand are also non-linear and in absence of more definitive information they may be ap- Proximated at any specific depth X by the following ex- Pression: - KX, P= A pytanh (4X ”) where A = factor to account for cyclic oF static loading condition, evaluated by: A=09 for cyclic loading A= (30-08 ) 209 tor static lading = ultimate resistance at depth H (kN/m). Pe k= initia! modutus of subgrade reaction (MIN/ni", in= creasing linearly with depth, determined as a function of the angle of internal friction @ from Fig. 3.4 Y= actual lateral deffection (mm) X = depth below soil surface (m).Classification Notes — No. 30.4 9; ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 28° 29° 36° __40°_45° = & 40 z 20 \ °. O20 4 60 80 100 RELATIVE DENSITY, */ Fig. 34 Initial modulus of subgrade reaction (k) as function of relative density and friction angle. 3.5 Modifications of p—y curves 3.5.1 Pile group effects 3.5.1.1 The influence of one pile on the behaviour another in a group of piles should be considered when t centre to centre distance between the piles (pile spacin is 8 pile diameters or less. 3.8.1.2 The analysis may be run as a single pile analy: as outlined herein provided that the p—y curves are co rected for «shadow» effects on the p-values and di placements effects on the y-values as a result of the grot action. Modification of the y-values to account for the group ¢ fect, may be done by superimposing the interaction effec calculated according to the theory of elasticity. 3.5.1.3 For further details on pile group analysis refe ence is made to relevant literature, e.g. 23,24). 35.2 Scour 3.5.2.1 Scour will lead to complete loss of lateral resis ance down to the depth of scour and should be considere so in the construction of the p—y curves for the soil laye susceptible to scour, see Fig. 3.5. pase atten scour 3.4 Piles in calcareous soils 3.4.1 General 3.4.1.1 The materials in question have grain sizes ranging from clay up to gravel and appear with different degree of cementation. The materials are often porous and are usually quite variable with depth with dry densities in the range 13-19 kN/m’. Cemented material may have lunconfined compressive strengths ranging from 0.5—5 MPa. These materials may be characterized as weak rocks with britle failure at less than 1% strain, For low strain conditions their behaviour is controlled by the inter-particle cementation and by the deformability of the rock mass (intact rock resistance). At larger strains, the inter- particle bonding breaks down and it may be expected that the stress-strain behaviour will principally be controlled by the frictional properties of the material (residual resistance). 34.1.2 Sound engineering judgement and a basic understanding of material behaviour under static and cyclic loading are necessary attributes for design of piles in cal- ~~ Cares Soils. For guidance reference is made to relevant literature, see e.g. /18), on expected shape of scoured surfuce. Fig. 3.5 Modification of effective overburden pressure, p', due to scour. Le som 35.2.2 Scour will also reduce the effective stress, p's. further down which should be considered by using a mo. dified mudline level in the construction of py curves, This has been demonstrated in Fig. 3.5. In sand this will reduce the value both of the k-parameter and the ultimate lateral resistance, p,, defining the p-y curve for a certain pile element. The reduction of effective stress in relation to total scour depth should be decided in each case based 353 Reloading 3.5.3.1 The modification due to reloading is based on the assumption that the design extreme lateral load gen- rates a space between the pile and the surrounding soil. For subsequent loading (fatigue limit state and servicea- bility limit state) the effect on the pile response of this space should be considered by introducing an initial de-flection y, for subsequent loads, see Fig. 3.6. Conserva- tively the slope of the unloading branch in the extreme load cycle is taken equal to the initial slope, k, of the loading branch. This gives for reloading the load-deformation curve shown in Fig. 3.6. Where the space is expected to be closed by time, it may be acceptable not to include such a gap. , ”) ») Fig. 3.6 P-y curves for extreme load (a) and subsequent loads b). 3.54 Long-term loading 35.4.1 Structures as piled anchors can be subjected to Jong term static loads, Tests in both clay and sand has shown that long term loads can give deformation 2-3 times greater than for short term static conditions. The increase will be greater with higher stress level 3.6 Plastic analysis of piles 3.6.1 General 36.11 In a plastic analysis of piles, plastic hinges are assumed to develop in the pile (Fig. 3.7) along with a fully mobilized earth pressure between the two hinges. This analysis may be used for the ultimate limit state and the progressive collapse limit state under certain conditions ‘The analysis should be supplemented with a load-deflection analysis according to 3.5.3. ; fe Fig. 37 Plastic hinges in pile and fully mobilized earth pres- Classification Notes — No. 30.4 3.6.2 Approach 3.6.2.1 The ultimate situation is illustrated in Fig, 3.7. Plastic hinges are assumed to develop in the upper fixed end and at some depth below mudline. It is assumed that the pile is sufficiently long that the lower end is prevented from rotating. The fully mobilized earth pressure may be calculated according to 3.2 and 3,3 for the clay and sand, respectively. 3.6.2.2 The equilibrium of the pile can be described by: F=P+s fa) My =P xy +Sxy +My. (b) P= fy (x) (e) Ky = f (2) @) where (see also Fig. 3.7): F = design load. P = resultant of soil resistance. S_ = shear force in plastic hinge no.2. My = yield moment in plastic hinge no.1. My = yield moment in plastic hinge no.2 4X1 = distance from hinge no.! to resultant P. X= distance between the two hinges. 362.3 When evaluating the yield moments, M,, and My, the axial force N (Fig. 3.7) must be taken into ac count. A reduction in the axial force due to skin friction (N/-N2 in Fig. 3.7) can be found in 3.2, 36.2.4 When the yield moments My, and M,: and the magnitude and distribution of the ‘soil reaction are known, Eqs (a) through (d) may be used to solve the un- knowns (P, S, x, and x3). F must be given the lowest value for which the equations have real solutions. 4. Stability of Gravity Base Foundations 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 General ‘411 Requitements to Touidation stability are often the most decisive factor for determination of foundation area, foundation embedment (i. skirt penetration depth) and submerged weight for a structure with gravity type foundation. It is therefore essential in an optimal design Process to give high emphasis to foundation stability calculations This clause gives recommendations on how to perform 44.12 — The foundation stability is most common} solved by limiting equilibrium methods, ensuring equilibrium between driving and resisting forces as explained further in 4.3. Using limiting equilibrium methods several failure surface(s) will have to be analysed in order to find the most critical failure.Classification Notes — No. 30.4 Alternatively finite element methods may be used being able to seek the critical failure surface as part of the analysis, 4.1.1.3 General bearing capacity formulae for idealized conditions will normally be too rough for foundation stability calculations of an offshore gravity base platform. For comparison with more elaborate analyses such a simple calculation could, however, be valuable in an early stage of design For gravity foundations with relatively small areas, as e.g. ‘mudmat foundation for temporary support of jackets or foundations for small subsea structures, bearing capacity formulae may be acceptable. For this purpose some bearing capacity formulae are given in Section 4, 4.1.1.4 In accordance with the general definition of an ULS limit state condition, foundation failure should be defined as a situation when the deformations of the soil become so large that damage may occur to the structure or vital equipment as conductors/casings or risers. This should be considered when shear strength parameters are selected for stability analyses. For total stress analyses undrained shear strength should thus be defined at an acceptable strain level: average (permanent) strains, cyclic strains or a combination of these For effective stress analyses, failu ‘a-shear stress characterized by: ote Tm defined by reaching where o” = normal stress on the shear surface. ¢! = angle of friction at failure. Ye = material coefficient. 4.1.15 The effect of cyclic loading on the shear strength should be accounted for as applicable. This will normally be required for traditional gravity base platforms where wave loading is governing for the foundation stability. For total stress analysis a cyclic strength should be defined as described in 4.2. For effective stress analysis the pore pressure generation, due to cyclic loading, should be accounted for. 4.2 Soil shear strength 4.2.1 General 4.2.1.1 Choice of shear strength should be based on relevant high quality laboratory and/or in-situ tests. One should consider (as applicable): © In-situ stress level © Effective static stresses at time of the design event ‘© Type of loading, e.g. static loading or cyclic load history © Effect of several loading scenarios, eg. effects of storms preceding the design storm. 4.2.1.2 Consolidation of pore pressures generated due to submerged weight of the structure can be allowed for. 21 long as the design event does not take place during installation. In clayey soils consolidation takes longer time dependent con permeability, compressibility and thickness of clay layers. The degree of consolidation to be accounted for at the time of the design event should be documented by calculations or analyses as appropriate for the actual case 42,13 For a homogeneous layer the degree of consol- ‘dation can be calculated from the time function: tey Be t= time from application of load. = coefficient of consolidation. hh = half thickness of layer in case of two-way free drainage. thickness of layer in case of one-way drainage. Degree of consolidation can be read from Fig. 5.10. 4.2.2 Total stress analyses 42.2.1 The undrained shear strength should be deter mined from laboratory tests being able to simulate the actual stress conditions, Different.type.of tests will be re ‘uired to simulate different stress conditions as illustrated on Fig. 4.1 (from /25A/). Thus triaxial compression and extension tests as well as direct simple shear tests will normally be required, to define active shear strength, passive shear strength and direct shear strength. Selection of shear strength for a given portion of a possible shear surface may be done as described in 4.3.6. 4 i Moen hfe wifi 0 time a time O triaxial tests © Simple sheor tests Fig. 4.1 Example of loading of soll elements along a potential mn beneath an offshore42.2.2 Static undrained shear strength may be used for ceases where the governing load has a mainly static character. Rate effects may be included for loads of short duration as e.g. peak collision forces. The rate effects should then be properly documented by tests. 42.23 The effect of cyclic (wave) loading on the shear strength should always be considered. Cyclic loading may cause a build-up of pore pressures leading to a reduction of shear strength. The general effects are described by several authors, see /26,27/. For soil subjected to cyclic loading one may define two undrained shear strengihs: 1) Static shear strength reduced for the effect of cyclic loading. 2) Cyclic shear strength, being defined as the sum of static and cyclic stress that causes failure for a given number of cycles Classification Notes — No. 30.4 In cases where cyclic effects are important, the cyclic shear strength is recommended. As basis for stability analysis using cyclic shear strength, diagrams should be developed showing combinations of average shear stress, r,, and cyclic shear stress, ta, that lead to failure for various number of cycles as illustrated on Fig, 4.2 (from /28/). The cyclic shear strength tia = (ta + to) may be determined from the diagrams in Fig. 4.2 and presented in diagrams as illustrated in Fig. 4.3 (from /28)). The failure mode, ie. the combination of average and cyclic shear strains at failure, 7, and ye, are indicated along the curves. It should be emphasized that these figures are example diagrams, not necessarily applicable for a specific design. ‘An approach for cyclic stability analysis utilizing such cyclic strength diagrams is described in 4.3. a Example of combinations of average shear stress r, und cyclic shear stress rzy that cause failure for various number ty/te gs %e 28 v -$ ase & x a He ai] * : THe tt [He 2. i fos IF . ve - - Fig. 42 of cycles fora) triaxial tests and b)direet simple shear test. Example for normally consolidated Drammen clay, see /28/. Wo 0.10 0.15 25, 10| 10.20 Bootes o SE of oS a y a F 06) if = ak oP PRLS ong A ern 0.01 00 02 04 06 08 10°°Classification Notes — No. 30.4 ou 3 P4045, 0.40 0.35 4,10) ¥ 0.30 20g 0.252 "og 0202 0. 0.15, o.10 07 140.05 0.0 10.04 0002 04 06 08 10 u Tiss a) Fig. 4.3 Example of cyclic strength as a fanction of average shear stress for various number of cycles to failure for a) triaxial tests and b) direct simple shear tests. Derived from Fi 4.2, see /28/. a/c 9.90 0.05, 0.10 wad 15 Yetta LAN 0.35 0.30 0.25 hy 0.20 by °/ssq 0.15, “40.10 fo.0s 00 | a a /s,085 4.2.2.4 Total stress analysis using cyclic shear strength is very suitable for analysis of clayey soils, which normally can be considered undrained for all load effects during a design storm. If considering the effect of the ULS design storm only, the event should be considered to take place the first stormy season after installation of the structure. The beneficial effect of dissipation of pore pressures caused by platform submerged weight as de- seribed in 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.3 can be taken into account. For big structures on very thick deposits of clay, might be required to investigate the effect of storms occurring prior to the design storm, eg. considering the design storm to come at the end of the design life. The deteri- orating effect of several storms prior to the design storm may be counteracted by the beneficial effect of further consolidation of pore pressures from platform submerged weight. It is allowed to account for this effect. 42.28 The load duration of a single wave may be so short that even a sand will be basically undrained during the time of the design wave. Very. “ perience large negative excess pore pressures (dilative behaviour) and corresponding high undrained shear strengths when sheared to failure under undrained loading conditions. One should be careful, however. to rely upon the high undrained shear strength which depends upon large negative pore pressures. The possibility for such high negative pore pressures to dissipate should be considered. und so should the strain level required 10. 1+ sin reach the corresponding stress conditions. Finally, one should not rely upon a high wstatic» shear strength with ‘out considering the effect of cyclic loading as discussed in 4363, 4.2.2.6 In approximate analyses the following formulae which depend on limited dilation will normally be ac- cepted for determination of undrained shear strength of very dense sand. Active triaxial strength S,, characterized by increase of vertical stress: s.-—ine_,, _ wk a Active triaxial strength characterized by decrease of horizontal stress 5, a ing! WA Tsing’ 7 Passive triaxial strength Syp characterized by increase of Passive triaxial strength characterized by decrease of ver~ tical stress: sing’ Sup 7 OyDirect shear strength Sp for horizontal parts of shear surface: Sup = o'yte6" where of, ~ initial vertical effective stress. oy, = initial horizontal effective stress. ¢” = effective angle of friction from undrained soil tests. The friction angle from drained tests may be used if it is verified that the strains in undrained tests for t=5,, obtained from the formulae using drained friction angle, is smaller than the shear strain at peak shear stress for drained loading. If the undrained laboratory tests show high strains at shear stress levels corresponding to the above defined strengths, a reduction of the shear strengths should be considered. In more accurate analyses, one may need to consider the effect redistribution of average and cyclic pore pressures may have on these shear strengths. Pore pressure redistribution within the soil may occur even if the pore pressure dissipation towards the free drainage boundaries is small. The formulae above are only valid for dilative soils, as very dense sands, and may not be applicable for dense, medium dense and loose sands. 4.2.3. Effective stress analysis: 423.1 For effective stress analyses, failure is defined by reaching a shear stress, r, given by: ote Tn where of = effective normal stress on the shear surface, "= angle of friction at failu Ym = (required) material coeffi = 1.2 according to the Rules /25) 4.2.3.2. When working with effective stresses all contributions to pore pressures must be included: (Classification Notes — No. 30.4 © Initial in-situ pore pressures, which may be different from hydrostatic pressures if the soil is not fully consolidated for its own weight. © Pore pressure due to installation, including effect of added weight of structure and effect of skirt penetration, accounting the dissipation taking place after time of installation until the design event. @ Pore pressure due to cyclic loading, including build-up and dissipations as relevant. © Pore pressure due to transient loading. 4.2.3.3 In-situ pore pressures should result from the soil investigations. Deviation from hydrostatic pressures are only to be expected for thick clay deposits with high de- positional rate, e.g. delta deposits. 4.2.3.4 Pore pressures due to weight of structure is determined based on initial pore pressures calculated as for transient loading described in 4.2.3.6 and based on standard consolidation analyses. 42.35 Pore pressure build-up due to cyclic loading may be derived from pore pressure contour diagrams derived from undrained cyclic test. An example of pore pressure contour diagrams is shown on Fig. 4.4, Each curve shows umber of cycles required at various stress levels to reach a given pore pressure. Curves need to be established for the specific soil. For low to moderate stress levels and pore pressure response the model given in /29/ may be used: =A oy tN R, 404-48 where R, = cumulative pore pressure resistance against repeated loading. ‘A.aa= change in deviatoric stress = A oi —A os. N = number of cycles at stress level A os. Using Ry = raiN gives: Aus do, hin N ry is to be determined from laboratory tests.Classification Notes — No. 30.4 t/t = 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 ond 0.7 ————], 1.25 1,00 BN 0.75 TAvey/su J] 0.50 0.25 0.00 = T 10° Fig. 44 Example of pore pressure contour diagram. Number ThE 10? of cycles. N 4.2.3.6 Pore pressures due to transient undrained loading can be defined from the following formula: Au=Aoq—DAog where Au = change in pore pressure. Agu = change in mean total stress. Sos —= change in deviatoric stress. Aon [3 (Ao +A a2 +A.) 0,03, 0;= major, intermediate and minor principal stresses. Ao = Amdo D _ = dilatancy parameter. Can be determined from the stress path of undrained triaxial tests. Presenting the results in @ oq]? versus 0” diagram the dilatancy parameter can be related to the inclination Sy of the stress path (Fig. 4:5). Definition of 8, from stress path of an wndrained tri- vial test. Also illustrating dlatant versus contractant behaviour towards failure. (Negative S, shown) 4.2.3.7 When using effective stress formulations and defining ULS failure as when the stress path crosses the failure line defined in 4.2.3.1, one might have a different i | |26 «eal safety leve» depending on whether the soil behaves dilatant or contractant when approaching ultimate failure (Fig. 4.5). This should be considered and discussed when selecting the design soil parameters for an effective stress analysis, 4.2.3.8 Use of effective stress formulations in stability analysis for undrained conditions has been presented in /30/, where general bearing capacity diagrams are given also accounting for the effect of pore pressures. General formulations for the limit state stress conditions, that ean be used for general limiting equilibrium solutions are given in /31/. These formulations account for the stress ath defined by the dilatancy parameter D and the effect Of the intermediate principal stress o's 4.3 Solution methods The foundation stability is normally solved by imiting equilibrium methods ensuring equilibrium be- | tween driving and resisting forces. The plastic equilibrium | (forces and overturning moment) is checked for the body | limited by a possible sliding surface as those described in 4.3.4. Several methods exist for stability analyses based on limiting equilibrium, e.g. /32,33,34,35/. Computer programmes based on such methods enable one to ana- lyse several possible failure surfaces searching for the _. ost critical one. 43.4.2 The analysis may be performed on a total stress basis, with use of the undrained shear strength of the soil as discussed in 4.2.2 or on an effective stress basis. In the latter case development of pore pressures will have to be defined as discussed in 4.2.3. 431.3 Alternatively the foundation stability may be solved by using finite element methods employing nov: Rear constitutive soil models. When analysing three-di- ‘mensional models one will be able to account for the 3-D effect more accurately than. by limiting equilibrium methods. For combinations of foundation geometry and soil profiles for which reliable data on the 3-D side effects to use with limit equilibrium methods are not readily available, 3-D finite element analyses should be consid ered. 4.3.1.4 If foundation stability is solved by finite element analysis one should thoroughly evaluate possible sources of error and their effect on the results. Of special concern are: © The constitutive soil model, e.g. the possibility to include an isotropic shear strength. © The iteration procedure. One should make sure that ‘no overshoot of specified shear strengths occur. * The clement mesh. The mesh should be sufficiently fine with proper width/length/height ratios of the elements to ensure a proper load distribution through the Classification Notes — No. 30.4 safety coefficients, it is recommended to use design shear strength, i. including soil material coefficient, as limit strength in the soil model. The loads should be applied in steps until or above the design /oad to show that failure does not take place at the level of the design load. 43.2 Acting forces 43.2.1 All relevant forces as defined in /25/ should be included, with load combinations and use of load coefficients as defined in /25/. A standard stability analysis for wave loading should include: © Submerged dead weight (minimum or maximum as relevant) © Wind loads © Combined current and wave loading Combining all loads on the structure gives a resulting set of forces: horizontal force, vertical force and overturning moment normally related to the center of the platform area at mudline level. In addition the. hydrodynamic pressures at the seabed outside the platform should be included as shown on Fig. 46. Especially for platforms with deep skirts this will be important, as the hydrodynamic seabed pressures result in an additional driving force in horizontal directions. Fig. 4.6 Acting loads on a GBS foundation and the seabed soil. 4.3.3. dealization of area 43.3.1 If the foundation stability problem is solved by using 3-D finite element analysis the foundation area can be modelled with no or only minor simplification, Limit. ing equilibrium methods are based on a plane strain-stress situation where the 3-D effects are included by defining resistance to the vertical side areas defined by the critical Plane strain failure surfaces. This requires a rectangular ‘idealization of the foundation area. This area can be defined by requiring the same area and the same areal mo- ‘ment of inertia as for the real area: Ag = BL =Agy They Tanai for load in y-direction eq = Tye for load in x-direction .3.1.5 | Limiting equilibrium analysis are normally per- ormed by specifying design loads, ic. including load co- Hicients in the loads applied in the analysis Resulting rom the analysis will then be soil material coefficients. Vhen using finite clement analysis to document founda- on stability using limit state philosophy with partial 4.3.4 Possible failure modes 4.34.1 Various failure modes will have to be analysed in order to find the most critical one. The critical failure surface will depend on the various load components as well as on variations in soil and on foundation geometry (size and shape of area, skirt, configuration und. peneClassification Notes — No. 30.4 tration etc.). Some typical failure modes to be considered are: @ Sliding along base of skirt tip © Sliding along soft layer below skirt tip Sliding at base with local failure around skirt tips © Conventional deepseated bearing failure © Deepseated failures governed by moment equilibrium with centre of rotation above or below the foundation base ‘The latter modes become increasingly important for plat forms with high ratio of overturning moment to horizontal force. The above modes are illustrated on Fig. 4.7. se’ Fig. 4.7 Example of possible failure modes. 4.3.5 Side resistance 4.3.5.1 Limiting equilibrium solutions are based on plain strain-stress condition providing resistance per unit length of the foundation. This resistance is multiplied with the actual length of the foundation, and the 3-D effect is included by calculating a resistance on the two vertical sides of the failure surface. For total stress analysis of structures on soil with relatively constant shear Strength, the side shear resistance at failure ean be taken as 0.4 times the undrained direct simple shear strength. For soil with increasing undrained shear strength with depth one should use a lower value, however. For the soil resistance below the base of the foundation, i.e. below skirt tip, it may in this case be relevant to use zero side resistance (compare with Table 4.2 showing decreasing depth). Any chosen side shear resistance should be well documented, 4.3.6 Interpolation for anisotropic shear strength 4.3.6.1 In an undrained total stress analysis it is important to account for the anisotropic shear strength as described in 4.2.2.1. Selection of shear strength for a given fined active shear strength, Sa, direct shear strength. Suo, and passive shear strength, S.p, as follows: Su (a) = Sup + sin 2a (Sua —Syp) for 0 cos" +79 fa) For n=3 Boussinesq’s solution for an incompressible solid (Poisson's ratio v= 0.5) and Young’s modulus E = constant is obtained. By introducing an exponent d, which defines the change of the modulus of elasticity E with depth: nelttad+3 () the E-modulus will vary with depth according to the formula: E = const. 24 © Furthermore, the expression for the lateral stress ratio, K,, according to /46/: K,=1-sing @ and the relationship: Ky T+K, ® are introduced which yields for n: oO For $= 30° the stress concentration factor 1 will be equal to 4, which implies that the modulus of elasticity increases linearly with depth. For = 42° n is equal to about 5. Due to the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour and stress level dependency of soil as well as effects of soil compressibility, itis likely that the friction angle of a dense sand will decrease significantly with depth and approach 4 value which is related to the critical density at great depth. This makes a value of d= 42°andn=5 rather unlikely for a sand at great depth. Sd —Aeaneeampte oF the 5 ‘on the stress increase distribution, when the modulus of clasticity increases linearly with depth, reference is made to the work by Buisman /47,48/. In this case Eq. (c) in 5.2.2.2 with d=1 applies and the ratio of the modulus of elasticity in the horizontal and in the vertical directions, Fy and E;, respectively, is assumed to be constant throughout the soil mass:Classification Notes — No. 30.4 Ey E (a) ‘With these assumptions the vertical stress increase becomes: (b) where the function F; (k, 6) is shown in Fig. 5.1 as a function of @ at different values of x, For 0= 0 the stress concentration factor n according to Fréhlich in Eq, (a) in 5.2.2.2 may be related to x through: 12 ae © This would correspond to 4 (i= 1) ie. at x= 2 (EVE, =2), 2 = a preloaded soil. For a preloaded sand, would represent a reasonable first approach. 20h assuuerions _| & + const 2 J &,/E 8K 25 Fig. 5.1 Relationship between factor F, (x, 6) and angle 0 at different values of coefficient x /48). 5.2.3 Stress distribution by Janbu’s plasticity approach 5.2.3.1 The feature of the elasticity approach that the predicted edge stresses may be infinitely high becomes particularly unrealistic for shallow foundations in sand. This difference between prediction and reality decreases with increasing depth of foundation embedment, however. 5.2.32 According to the plasticity approach by Janbu /41/ the maximum mobilized shear strength, %,, near the edge of the foundation is: @ where te = failure stress (shear strength). F, = the safety factor with respect to local plastic flow near the edge of the foundation. The allowable pressure (q,) is governed by the average shear strength (tq) of the soil: et | tw =F (b) where F = the average factor of safety. The ratio © is a stress concentration factor, which indicates the variation of the contact pressure over the base area. The factor f, normally varies between 1.5 and 1.0. A reasonable average value is 1.25. 5.2.3.3 The average shear strength tay can be estimated for normal loading conditions from Eq. (b) in 5.2.3.2. The mobilized shear stress 1. near the foundation level is obtained from the equation: tye hetay 5.2.34 The shear stress tat the perimeter of the loaded. area in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3 affects the vertical stress distribution: Ap (@g Ae") = orf ny (ayde WhRie ApS THE AEH wR OF TS the perimeter of the-foun-— dation. Both Ao’ and r, will gradually approach zero with increasing depth z.Classification Notes — No. 30.4 Ao! = ‘Wn taanf hae © 5.2.3.8 The perimeter shear stress ty can then be evaluated by assuming passive earth pressure below the edge of the foundation. “Then: y= GD +79 K, tb where foundation embedment depth. mobilized angle of internal friction. passive earth pressure coefficient (Fig. 5.4) average unit weights above and below the foundation level, respectively. ba = The angle dq must for sand satisfy the general bearing capacity formula /49/: Qn + 7D =05y'BN,s,+7D Ng sq Fig. 5.2 ‘Stress distribution below a foundation on normally consolidated soils /41/. where s = 10.3 (B/L). sy = LO. N, = bearing capacity factor according to Prandtl- Reissner (Fig. 5.4 and Table 4.1). N, = bearing capacity factor according to Caquot and ~ . B90 Kerisel (Fig. 5.4 and Table 4.1). The factors K,, N;, Ng and tan }p are evaluated from Eq. it (5.2.3.9) and Fig. 5.4 by trial and error. WV i ty NY fe re uteD a9oLe fore! SHEARING. RESISTANCE, ag otros 20 ; Fig. $.3 1900 Influence of the shear stresses along the perimeter on %0 the pressure increase, Aa’ /41/- 5 y ‘a 5.2.3.5 At the depth H below the foundation level the stress increase is assumed to be equal to zero, see Fig. 5.2 he For a surface loading H depends mainly on the factor f, Ny and on the shape of the loaded area. The depth H will t increase with increasing applied load. 1 os 5.2.36 Fora circular foundation with a diameter B, Eq ‘O02 00s 8 — (6.2.3.4) becomes: tan, tan # *, 4f* ‘ Ao’ aq [ ty (2) dz Fig. 54 B Jy Bearing capacity factors N,,N, and passive earth pressure coefficient K, as a function of the mobilized 5.2.3.7 When the dimensionless parameters angle of internal friction, dey /49/. H i i = ha fa B Str be the: singe point and ee (by are introduced, Eq. (5.2.3.6) can be rewritten as: S.2.4.1 The stress distribution below a foundation is af Fected by the Nexibility of the base. $.2.4.2 In Fig. 5.5 is shown the contact stress distribution against a rigid plate and a flexible square footing. The stress increase distribution with deoth through the centre of the foundation (point D) is shown for the twoClassification Notes — No. 30.4 cases in Fig. 5.6, It can be seen that the stiffness of the plate influences the stress distribution and thus the set- {lement of point D down to a depth equal to about 1.5B. 55 Influence of plate stiffness on the contact pressure distribution and definition of «singular point. 35 40: /%, ° 10 os PARABQLIC vuniFor 10 2/8 15 euisHaN G+ 28; c20h9 ak (esto) 20 t | of I.) | 25 bat Fig. 5.6 Influence of plate stiffness on vertical stress distribution below the centre of a plate. 5.2.4.3 Below the so-called «singular pointy the vertical stress increase distribution is independent of the contact stress distribution. $2.44 Fora rectangular plate (BL), the singular points are located om the diagonals at a distance 0.29B from the ‘centze. The location of the singular points for a square footing (B'B) is shown in Fig. 5.5. 5.24.8 Fora circular area with diameter B the singular points are located 0.35B from the centre of the plate. The Corresponding stress distribution for rigid and flexible base below the singular point are shown in Fig. 5.6. 5.2.4.6 If the stress distribution below the singular point is used in a settlement calculation it is not necessary to know the actual distribution of the contact pressure: The calculated settlement will in that case correspond the average settlement of the footing. 5.2.5 Empirical stress distributions 5.2.5.1 Empirical stress distributions, which are not based on the theory of elasticity, have been suggested. fansen_/50/, for example, suggests for depth 2under a rectangular foundation (B‘L) for the vertical component under the middle of the foundation: ee B+DL+H 5.3 Settlement calculations 5.3.1 General 5.3.1.1 Settlement calculations are based either on elastic or plastic theories. There are also empirical methods available, which are based on observed settlements, strain- or stress distributions. 5.3.1.2 In the following, a few useful formulae for settlement calculations based on the theory of elasticity are given, as well as a description of Janbu's settlement calculation procedure based on the tangent modulus concept. 5.3.2 Application of elastic theory 5.3.2.1 Since the vertical pressure has a dominating influence on the settlements the constrained modulus, or ocdometer modulus, M, is often the basis for calculating settlements. This reduces the generalized Hooke’s law for an isotropic medium to one component of strain: oe aM 5.3.2.2 The relationship between the constrained modulus and Young’s modulus E is dependent on Poisson's ratio v as expressed by the equation: 5.32.3 The normal range of v is 0.125—-0,30 for sand and 0,20-0.40 for clay. By combining Eqs. 5.2.2.2 (d) and (e) the following approximate expression is obtained: At p= 30° 5.3.24 The deflection at the centre of a circular, flexible foundation with the diameter B as calculated by Boussinesq’s theory /44/ is equal to: where q_ = the applied uniformly distributed load. ~—$:3:23-—The average detection Of ThE Sanie TOURS is: Boo byy = 0.85 4, = 0.854 (1 — vy 5.3.2.6 The average settlement of a rigid circular foundation can be calculated from the equation: Classification Notes — No. 30.4 24aBy 2 by $a) 5.3.2.7 A slightly more involved calculation of the same type can be made for a foundation embedded in the ground at a depth D with a rigid boundary within a depth H below the base of the foundation. In this case: by = Ho aE (=) where 1. and yy are geometrical influence factors, which can be taken from the chart in Fig. 5.7, from /49). 53.2.8 When the settlements from more than one foundation area, or an irregular loading area, are to be calculated, the vertical stress increase in the ground may be determined by use of influence charts given in relevant text books Fig. 5.7 Influence factors for settlements of embedded founda- + tions /49/. 5.3.3 Janbu’s tangent modulus concept | 5.3.3.1 Janbu /41/ defines the constrained modulus M aas a function of the stress level, o’, and a stress exponent, a, according to the equation: where m = a dimensionless modulus number. Oy = a reference stress (100 kPu).Classification Notes — No. 30.4 5.3.3.2 Eq. (5.3.3.1) is convenient to use for practically all types of soils. The following three main soil categories have been defined for practical purposes: © Type EL = elastic (a=1) © Type EP = elastic-plastic (a=0.5) © Type PL = plastic (a=0), 5.3.3.3 Each of these principal groups corresponds to a specific value of the exponent a, and for each group the modulus formula is therefore a special case of Eq. 63.3.1), 53.34 Type EL is defined by a=1, which corresponds to: M=mo, = constant Typical examples of soil belonging to type EL are rock, hard moraines, overconsolidated clays and undrained modulus of clay. 5.3.3.5 Typical values of M for Norwegian overconsol- dated clays are fairly low in an international sense: © M = 2-5 MPa (low) © M = 5-15 MPa (medium) © M > 15 MPa (high), $ which corresponds 5.3.3.6 Type EP is defined by tor M=myo'o, Sand (and partly also silt) may be considered typical examples of soils belonging to type EP. 5.3.3.7 The most common modulus numbers for Norwegian inorganic sand deposits may be adequately covered by the following values: © Loose: m = 80-150 @ Medium: m = 150-250 © Dense: m = 250-400, See also the Variation of m in Fig. 5.8 as a function of porosity n for Valgrinda sand, a rather uniformly graded fine sand. For very dense overconsolidated offshore sands somewhat higher values may be relevant, t SAND M=myppo_ E soo SENSE -_MED. = L00SE & oO Z z wo z 8 = POROSITY n—= Fig. 5.8 Modulus number, m, versus porosity, n, for Valgrinda sand, /41/, 53.3.8. An example of the variation of the modulus number with porosity for Trondelag-silt is shown in Fig. 5.9. Bases! on this local experience. inorganic silt may be Approximately classified as follows: © Loose: m = 40-60 © Medium: m = 60-80 © Dense: m > 80. 150. MODULUS NUMBER m —~ g 30S 4S POROSITY n —~ Fig. 5 Modulus m, versus porosity, n, for53.3.9 Type PL is defined by a=0, which corresponds to: M=mo The normally consolidated clay is the most typical exponent for type PL. $33.10 Based on a large number of oedometer tests on natural clay deposits from all parts of Norway, and a few back calculations on the basis of settlement observations ‘on structures on normally consolidated clays, Norwegian clays can roughly be classified as follows: © Soft m<10 © Medium: =m = 10-20 © Stitt: m > 20. Quick clays should be treated separately. In Norway, the mvalues for such clays are generally located within the range 5~15. 5.3.4 Janbu’s settlement calculation procedure 5.34.1 Since the constrained modulus, as defined in 5.3.3, is based on the same definition for al soil types the various steps of the settlement analysis can be derived from the same basic principle, meaning that the calculation procedure will be equal for all types of soils, $34.2 The total compression of a deposit of thickness H is found as the integral of the vertical strain over the depth Hi: H wf dz i.e, the settlement is equal to the area of the e~z 5.3.4.3 From the defini jagram, ion of the constrained modulus: do ® May it follows that: ) Hence, as the effective stress increases from the overburden pressure o’,, until its final value a',, +Ao, the resulting strain is obtained by integrating Eq, (b) between the given stress limit Ic tar © 5.3.44 Introducing Eg. (5.3.3.1) into Eq. (5.3.43 ¢) «gives the following generalized strain formula: [ssi )-(52)) 1 ar Ar which is directly applicable for the entire range of « from 0 to I, except a=0. which represents a special boundary case, 5.3.4.5 Eq. (5.3.4.4) includes the majority of the empi ical formulae of stress-strain relationships, which have Classification Notes — No. 30.4 been suggested in the literature, and besides it satisfies the boundary condition e= 0 for Ac= 0. 5.3.4.6 With reference to the soil categories defined in 5.3.3.2 the strain formulae corresponding to these types are as follows: Type EL, when a=1, and M = mp, yield: constant is seen to Ag ® Type EP, when a=0.5, and M = m/o’a, leads to: 3[)V3=-VE] © Type PL, when a=0, and M =m’, is governed by: Oyo tho In © . The stress distribution Ag with depth due to an applied net, additional load q, is established according to 5.3.3 with: Qa =4-7D q_ = the gross load per unit area at depth D. yD = the overburden at depth D before start of construction, 5.3.4.8 The settlement calculation procedure according to /42/ will now consist of the following steps: a) First, draw a representative soil profile, in which the soil type. the corresponding modulus number and layer thickness are recorded. b) Then, establish the vertical stress profile, containing the effective overburden oy and the stress increase Ao us functions of the depth 2, either drawn graph- ically or set up in a table. ©) Calculate the corresponding < for euch characteristic depth from Eqs. 5.3.4.6 (a), (b) or (c), whatever the cease (soil type) may be. 4) Finally. plot e-values versus depth for each characteristic layer, and estimate the. areas, The. total area (e-z) is then equal to the vertical settlement according to Eq. (5.3.4.2), 5.4 Time rate of consolidation 5.4.1 General 54.1.1 The time-depends c “mainly Tor normally consolidated. fully saturated clays and very fine silts. Coarse grained soils such as sand and gravel ate so permeable that drainage takes place almost simultaneously with stress change. SA.1.2__ Since the settlements are directly related to the Strain in the various soil layers it is the s-distribution that determines the time-rate of consolidation interestClassification Notes — No. 30.4 ‘Therefore, the actual problem is to find how ¢ varies with time and depth, hence: f(t 2) 5.4.1.3 A differential equation in terms of strain was developed by Janbu /S1/, having the form: be, 6 (., dt) _ 5% Bt bz 52) oz where Vo = a nominal velocity. c= the coefficient of consolidation, 5.4.1.4 Solutions of Eq. (5.4.1.3) can with specified boundary conditions be expressed in dimensionless terms when utilizing a dimensionless time factor T and a dimensionless depth parameter &, defined as: where H is layer thickness, or else depth for which = 0, for example in cases when the depth of a clay layer itself is many times the foundation width. For layers of limited thickness with two way drainage, H in the formulae above should be taken as half the layer thickness. 5.4.1.5 Time factors for different percent consolidation and e-distributions are given in Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.10, PER CENT CONSOLIDATION U se} a 1 ° TIME FACTOR, T—— s 2 Fig. 5.10 Time factors, T, for different percent consolidation, U, and distributions, /41/. See Table 5.1. 5.4.1.6 Computer programs solving the consolidation problem for more general conditions may have to be used fo solve specific problems for which available solutions do not exist. 6. Penetration Resistance of Skirts 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 General 6.1.1.1 With the aim to improve foundation stability and to serve as a means for scour protection, skirts are often required around the perimeter of the foundation in addition to skirts under the central part of the platform. ‘The skirts may be of steel and/or concrete. In this context it is assumed that steel skirts are thin, 20-30 mm in thickness, while concrete skirts (when used together with steel skirts) may have widths in the range 0.3—1.2m. 61.12 As an aid during «touch-down», especially for positioning and orientational operations, dowels project- ing a few metres below the skirts are used. These dowels are often hollow pipes of large diameter, 13m. 6.1.1.3 Furthermore, so-called ribs being shallower than the skirts but of about the same thickness, may be used. Ribs may be in either steel or concrete. 6.1.14 The penetration resistance of the members mentioned in 6.1.1.1 through 6.1.1.3 is the sum of skin resistance and end resistance. The principles for the calculation of these two contributions to penetration resistance are outlined below. Normally it is necessary to make two calculations of penetration resistance, a «most probable» and a «highest expected» resistance. The latter will govern the requirements to penetration force, while the first ree Table 5:1 Time factors for diferent percent consolidation and e-distributions, See Fig. 5.10. Time factor Degree of consolidation 0 r Case CaseB | Case C 0.000 2.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 0.001 0.0357 | 0.0698 | 0.1012 0.002, 0.0505 | 00969 | 0.1398 0.005 0.0798 | 0.1496 | 02110 O01 ozs | _0.2057__| 0.2830 0.02 0.1596 | 02792 | _ 03715 0.05 02523 | 0.4047 __| 0.5075 for 03568 | _05159_| 0.6132 02 soar] 06n7s [07159 os 0769 | 08784 | 0.8659 10 09313 | 0.9500 | 0.9609 2.0 0.9942 | 0.9958 | 0.9967 ee NC faction stresses against the foundation structure. All cal- ulations are based on material coefficients Ym = 1.0. 6.1.1.5 Due to inhomogeneities in the foundation soil, the penetration resistance may vary across the foundation area, By combining the «most probable» and the ‘chighest expected» penetration resistance, reasonable criteria can be developed for the design of the ballastingClassification Notes — No, 30.4 0 6.1.1.6 The calculation of the penetration resistance ar z Should be based on the results of in-situ testing supported | Zaue Gj Nemercal values of coefficients by and k, for by the results of relevant laboratory tests. The best field test presently available for this purpose is the cone pene- [Type of | Most probable | Highest expected tration test, since it gives a continuous record of the cone | sail (Reco) (Reus) penetration reiance with dept, Consauent, the mst & & je ik fruitful approaches to calculate the penetration resistance of steel skirts or dowels have been those based on the [Cl O4 0.03 96 0.05 cone penetration resistance. Still, several uncertainties re- [Sand 03 [ ooor [ 06 | 0003 ‘main regarding the conversion from one type of penetration resistance to the other, eg. the effects of different... rate of penetration, excess pore pressures during cone Penetration testing etc. Therefore, a consistent set of correlation factors for various penetration condition can never be developed. This emphasizes even more the need for sufficiently extensive site investigations for each platform site 6.2, Methods of calculation 6.2.1 General 6.2.1.1 The approach described below is applicable pri- marily to steel skirts, dowels and steel ribs whereas the penetration resistance of concrete skirts and concrete ribs should be calculated according to the principles laid down in 6.24, 6.2.1.2 The method is based on the results of a number of cone penetration tests (CPT’s) distributed over the target area for the platform. These test results are interpreted as follows: 1) Identify soil strata from soil borings and CPT’s, 2) Determine for each CPT an average cone penetration resistance, qeay, at even interval, for example 0.2m. 3) Determine for each depth an average cone penetration resistance, termed @, of a selected number of individual ear Fepresenting certain identified strata. 6.2.1.3 The penetration resistance is calculated from the following basic expression: - R=Kj(d) Ap Geld) + A, f kyle) Tela) de where d__ = depth of tip of penetrating member, m. Ka(z= empirical coefficient relating q. to end resistance, ki(2)= empirical coefficient relating q. to skin friction. G(z)= average cone resistance at depth z, MPa. Ap = tip area of penetrating member, me. ‘Ay = side area of penetrating member, per unit penetration depth, m?/m. 6.2.2 Penetration resistance of steel skirts 622.1 Based on Eq, (6.2.1.3) a «most probable» and a «highest expected» penetration resistance, Race td Remy respectively, can be calculated. For North Sea conditions, the coefficients ky and ke for dense sand and stiff clay can be introduced with the tentative values given in Table 6.1 Experience has shown that values of kp and ky for the upper 1-1.5m should be 25—50% lower than those given in the table due to local «piping» or lateral movement of the platform. Use of skirts with increased tip area or with stiffeners will reduce the k-values. Highly stratified soils or sand/clay mixtures will receive k, and ke values between those given above, 62.2.2 The cone resistance q. = 7, to be introduced in Eq, (6.2.1.3) is derived as outlined in 6,2.1.2. Combined with the coefficients given in Table 6.1 for the most Probable penetration resistance, Ryos, and the highest expected penetration resistance, Re, @ range of penetration resistances may be defined. The range obtained for the most unfavourable combination of penetration resistance across the foundation area indicates the capacity of the ballasting system required during installation 6.2.3. Penetration resistance of dowels 6.2.3.1 The approach described in 6.2.2 is in principle applicable to dowels, as well. However, when dowels with friction reducers both inside and outside are used, the skin resistance coefficient k; for sand given in Table 6.1 should be divided by a factor of 2. The calculations are made with the additional assumption that no plugging occurs, 6.2.3.2 The assumption of no plugging behaviour has to be verified by separate calculations. If plugging occurs, the approach in 6.2.2 is applicable with respect to the skin resistance contribution. The end resistance should be calculated as for a large diameter closed-end (plugging) pile, see 2.2.2 and 2.3.2, for dowel tip in clay or sand, respec. tively 6.2.4 Penetration resistance of concrete skirts $24.1. Theend. resistance gy of concrete-skirts should be evaluated from bearing capacity formulae as presented in 44, For clay the end resistance is: dp = Ne Sill + Sea + dg) + By @ where the values of N,, s.. and d. may be obtained from B43 For sad the eid resistance ap $Y BN, + PN by Where N,-values according to /36/ should be used for the calculation of the «most probable» end resistance and those according to 37/ for obtaining the highest expected» end resistance.Classification Notes — No. 30.4 6.2.42 _ As an aid in the assessment of the bearing capacity of wide concrete skirts the results of plate loading tests carried out within the platform foundation area may be useful 6.2.4.3 The skin resistance of wide concrete skirts designed for small depths of penetration will in most cases contribute little to the total penetration resistance and should therefore be neglected. However, if wedge-shaped concrete skirts or skirts designed for penetration depths exceeding 0.5m are used, this contribution should be considered. 62.44 For wedge-shaped concrete skirts a «most probable» skin resistance may be calculated from the second term in Eq. (6.2.1.3) with higher ky values than those given in Table 6.1. The maximum kr value for this type of calculation and wedge angles exceeding 5° should ‘be for sand ky = 0.006 and for clay kr= 0.08. For wedge angles 0—5°, linear interpolation between these values and those given in Table 6.1 is recommended. The «highest expected» unit skin friction, f, against wedge-shaped 4 skirts penetrating sand may be obtained by assuming that passive earth pressure is mobilized against the skirt, thus: §=Ky py tand ‘The passive earth pressure coefficient Ky in the above equation is a function of the characteristic angle of shearing resistance g” and the wall friction angle 5. The values for K, given in Table 6.2 are for curved surfaces of failure and a coefficient of wall friction tan 5= (2/3) tan d’ which may be considered high but still reasonable. Due to scale effects the values given for K, may be somewhat large for concrete skirts penetrating more than one metre in dense sand. 6.2.5 Penetration resistance of ribs 6.2.5.1 The penetration resistance of ribs should be cal- ‘culated according to either of the procedures described in 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 for steel and concrete skirts, respectively, whichever is the most representative for the actual rib geometry. Table 6.2 Passive earth pressure coefficient Ky. ano” 030 | 035 | 060 | 065 | 070 | 075 | 08s | 085 | 090 | 095 | 1.00 degrees 266 | 288 | 310 | 330 | 350 | 369 | 387 | 404 | 420 | 435 | 45.0 K, ar [at [ssf 63) 73] 86 [99 [107 [13.2-f 153 [178 7. Soil—structure interaction 7.1 Introduction 7.4.1 General 7A.1.1 The interaction between the structure and the soil through the structural foundation elements (e.g. GBS's baseplate and skirts or jacket piles) has influence ‘on several aspects of structural response in different ways. Examples are: ‘© Global response of dynamically sensitive structures where the foundation stiffness may strongly influence the response. ‘© Contact stresses between soil and structural elements being governed by soil stiffness and strength as well as of structural stiffness. ‘© Settlement on a GBS being governed mainly by the ‘oil stiffness and consolidation characteristics, but also by structural stiffness, geometry and permeability of structural foundation elements (particularly of interest for a GBS with deep skirts) © Stresses in and displacement of piles and structural el- ‘ements of a jacket platform being governed by soil 7.1.2 Tn the following sections global foundation stiffness and contact stresses on structural foundation elements are treated in more detail. Settlements are covered in Chapter 5. The special aspects of soil—structure interaction for earthquake loading are covered in the Rules PL3 Chil Sec.5, in Ch4 Sec.3 and Sec.4, and in Ch.S 7.2. Global dynamic foundation stiffness for GBS type foundation 7.21 General 7.2.1.1 The global foundation stiffness of the foundation, or more general the foundation impedance (complex stiffness), should be determined as basis for the dynamic response to wave or earthquake loading. The foundation impedance, of which the real term can be interpreted as stiffness and the imaginary term as damping. is frequency dependent. This frequency dependency should be consid- ‘ered where relevant and is particularly important when determining dynamic response to earthquake. 7.2.4.2 The foundation stiffness is dependent on the stiffness and strength of the soil as well as the stiffness of the structural foundation elements. Ideally the soil should be-modelled and analysed in an integrated analysis together with the structure using a non-linear soil model. However, due to limitations in available adequate soft- ware as well as in computer capacities, simplified approaches have to be allowed for. The degree of simplifications that can be allowed depends on the sensitivity of the cyclic response to variations in stiffness and damping. It should be demonstrated that within the un- 7.2.2. Analysis for determination of dynamic foundation stiffness 72.21 Ina dynamic analysis of a GBS structure consisting of a seabed caisson with one or more shafts supporting the deck structure, the seabed structure is often cs set of spring | | | suength and stiffen us well af sae of piles and Jemonstrated (at i ulations structure, performed, no critical response will occur.a or a stiffness matrix representing the foundation stiffness. Itis then essential that the flexibility of the seabed structure is included in the representation of the foundation stiffness. Separate F.E.M. analysis of the foundation structure with soil should be considered. 7.2.2.2 The three-dimensional effects on the foundation stiffness should be accounted for. In case two-dimensional analyses are performed, the resulting stiffnesses should be adjusted to account for the three-dimensional geometry. 7.2.2.3 As an alternative to perform three-dimensional analysis of the foundation seabed structure with non-- near soil model, one may use two-dimensional or axi- symmetric analysis with an adequate equivalent model of the foundation seabed structure and a non-linear soil model. The resulting equivalent soil stiffnesses may be used for soil modelling in a linear analysis with the true three-dimensional geometries. 7.2.2.4 The non-linear soil model to be used should be able to properly account for the stiffness degradation due to cyclic loading. Similar methods as used to determine degraded strength as described in Chapter 4 may be used for determination of degraded stiffness. One approach is described in /52/, particularly suited for wave loading. For earthquake loading the stiffness degradation may be based on an equivalent number of cycles related to the ‘earthquake magnitude at a load level often chosen as corresponding to 0.65 times the maximum acceleration. Degradation of soil shear modulus related to cyclic shear strain may be used as based on site specific tests and/or relevant well documented experience data. 7.2.2.5 The foundation damping may include soil material damping as well as geometric damping (radiation damping). For the soil material damping relations related to cyclic shear strain should be established based on site specific tests and/or relevant well documented experience data, 7.2.2.6 The foundation damping may be taken as the imaginary part of the complex foundation impedance as resulting from dynamic analysis of the structural foundation with soil. Large geometric damping as may result from such analyses should be used with care. Simplifi- cations of soil stratification with neglection of local in- homogenities may lead to an overestimation of the geometric damping, 7.22.7 Ideally representationof frequency dependent foundation stiffness and foundation damping should be aimed at in the dynamic structural analysis, The frequency dependency of the foundation stiffness may often be well represented at low frequencies by a combination of static stiffness and an added soil mass for the various components (modes) of motion. Damping may be simu- lated by a viscous dashpot by fitting to the frequency de- The stiffnesses correspond to static stiffnesses, ie. for pendent curve in the frequency ~ - structural ic analysis is on us rDOsitom else da analysis ie based on modal Su- ra weffetive soil mass» shall not be looked upon as an Perposition, relative damping ratio for the foundations in pet of critical damping should be calculated corresponding to each of the structural modes. The contribution of the foundation damping to the modal damping of the complete dynamic system should be weighted according to the relative energy entering into the foundation as compared to the structural parts for each specific mode. Classification Notes — No. 30.4 For dynamic storm analyses the foundation may often be sufficiently represented by a set of springs possibly com. bined with a relative damping corresponding to soil material damping only. 7.2.2.8 Depending on the sensitivity of the dynamic structural response to the foundation simulation, available solutions for simplified conditions may be used. Such solutions are dealt with in 7.2.3. 7.2.3, Foundation stiffoesses for idealized conditions 7.2.3.1 Under certain circumstances it may be right to calculate foundation stiffness characteristics based on available formulations for idealized conditions. Such cit- cumstances are when: ‘© The dynamic response is litle sensitive to variations in foundation stiffness characteristics. ‘© The soil is very uniform, the non-linear effects are well controlled. the foundation base geometry is regular and the foundation structure is rigid. ¢ Approximate values are wanted at an early stage of design. Even when more detailed analyses are cartied out to establish the foundation stiffness characteristics, simple calculations for idealized conditions should be performed to demonstrate the likelihood that.the results from the detailed analyses are correct. 7.2.3.2 Solutions for the foundation stiffness characteristics are available for the very idealized condition of rigid foundation with regular foundation area on the surface of an elastic halfspace. Solutions also exist that, account for one or more of the following deviations from the above idealized condition: © Soils with linearly increasing shear modulus or shear velocity, layered soils, or other non-uniformities ¢ Embedded foundations © Various foundation base geometries @ Flexible foundation structures. ‘In most cases none of the available solutions perfectly fits, all the actual characteristics related to soil stiffess or foundation geometry and stiffness. One should then eval- uuate which characteristics that are most important to match. The effects of deviations from the chosen model can be evaluated from other models that account for such deviations. One should, however, bear-in-mind-that vari- ‘ous parameters may be interrelated in a way that com- plicates corrections for model deviations. 7.2.3.3 Solutions for rigid circular foundations on elastic halfspace are given in Table 7.1 showing stiffnesses (pring coefficients), damping coefficients and «effective soil mass» for the various modes of vibrations. identifiable soil mass that physically moves in phase with the foundation, but rather as a means to simulate the de- ‘crease in stiffiess with increasing frequency. The damping coefficients are «average damping coefficients» over a range of frequencies at which reso- nance «usually occurs», The damping coefficients tabu- —Classification Notes — No. 30.4 lated represent the geometrical damping only. More exact frequency dependent impedance functions for this ideal condition are given in e.g. /53/ Table 7.1 Spring and damping coefficients, mass and damping ratios and «effective mass» for a rigid circular foundation resting on an elastic half space. ‘Mode of | Spring co- | Damping coef | «Effective vibration _| efficient k | _ficient ¢ mass Vertical (@) | 49 348 pe | Losed Ty Ty ¥ 1-¥ Horizontal 46 2 re | 21608 @) Jay BPS | oy Rocking osdJpG | 0.64pr8 » Toy sBy | tr Torsion (6) 4xivBoPG | 0.24 p38 T+2Bs a = radius of foundation (rectangular foundations ‘are treated as described in Section G5.2.2.4). G, vand p= shear modulus, Poisson's ratio and mass density of the elastic halfspace. 7.2.3.4 If the foundation material damping shall be si- mulated by a viscous damping coefficient, this will have to be fitted to the frequencies of major importance (major modes) by the following relation: onze where ¢ = damping coefficient B= foundation material damping ratio. K = spring coefficient. @ = frequency of the major mode. 7.23.8 The main uncertainty by using elastic halfepace solutions lies in selecting a representative Soil shear 1i0— dulus. For a large offshore gravity base structure the in situ soil stiffness normally increases with depth, an effect which is even more pronounced when looking at strain compatible shear moduli for storm or earthquake loading. In /54/ a suggestion for typical point beneath the base slab as reference for selection of equivalent soil shear odes of vibration. It may be more relevant, however, to use sctly lable solutions for foundations on soil with increasing shear stiffness with depth e.g. those given in /55, 56/. Various solutions for special idealized conditions are given in /S3, 51. 7.3. Soil reaction on structural foundation elements 7.3.1 General 7.3.11 Soil reaction against any structural element de- ‘on the stiffness and strength of the structure as well 5 of the soil. Normally the structure can be considered clastic, whereas for the soil it is important to consider the non-linear stress/strain characteristics. The latter is dependent not only on soil characteristics, but also on the load pattern and differs between long term loading and short term loading for which the soil behaves undrained. ‘This should be considered when calculating the soil reactions. The time to complete drainage may vary from a few seconds to several years depending on soil conditions, size of foundation and possible drainage within the foundation. These time aspects must be accounted for. 7.3.2. Foundation reactions for piled structures 73.21 For structures with pile foundations the pile re- sponses should preferably be determined from an integrated analysis of the pile foundation and the structure. Fhe soil non-linearities may be accounted for by modelling the piles as elastic beams supported by springs with non-linear characteristics. 13:22 Non-linear tateral springs (p-y curves) are dealt. with in Chapter 3. Axial non-linear springs to simulate ‘mobilization of skin friction (Iz curves) and pile tip re~ sistance (q-z curves) may be chosen in accordance with recognized practice, ref. e.g. /58, 59/. For relatively long flexible piles bilinear t-z curves will be acceptable, assuming maximum resistance to occur at a deflection of approximately 0.5 pet of the pile diameter. For piles with a large proportion of the pile capacity taken as tip resistance, one should aim at a good representation for the q-z curve. A deflection of 5—10 pot of the pile diameter to reach maximum tip resistance may be assumed. The initial stiffness for the q-z curve may be calculated from clastic halfspace theory. 7.32.3 The integrated analysis of the structure and pile sysiem may be solved iteratively using superelement technique to reduce the size of the problem. If the interaction is not solved in one integrated analysis, pile stff- ness matrices have to be calculated from analysis of the pile system to be used as input for the structural analysis, Fo account for the soil non-linearity. nalysis for derivation of pile stiffness matrices should be performed at a representative load level. Compatibility between the structural analysis and the pile foundation analysis should bbe demonstrated, e.g. by applying pile head forces from the structural analysis as input to the pile foundation analysis and compare resulting deflections. cl 4 Interaction between individ ly spaced ile analysis, see 2.5.1 and 3. 7.3.3 Soil reactions for a GBS structure 7.3.3.1 Ideally the global analysis of a GBS substructure should be performed as an integrated analysis of the structure and the soil together. This will, however, in most cases not be practical due to lack of adequate soft- ical_problem,especially if non-linear soil shall be included. Therefore the normal practice will be to perform independent analysis and evaluations to determine soil reaction load cases for use in the structural global analysis. 7.33.2 A realistic distribution of contact stresses against all parts of the foundation (e.g. foundation base and skirts) should be arrived at for all components of relevant types of loading, covering all phases. In the determination Of soil reactions one should account for: © The structural flexibility of the foundation, including «global» flexibility of the caisson with skirts, and «local» flexibility of skirts and baseplate © The non-linear soil stress/strain characteristics and the change in those with time (© The effects of installation, e.g. skirt penetrations, 7.3.3.3 The following soil reaction types may be relevant to consider as basis for definition of soil reaction unit load cases: © Reactions due to static submerged weights in drained and/or undrained condition, as relevant © Reactions due to any component of global environ- mental loading © Internal soil reactions not corresponding to global forces. For each type of soil reaction the distribution of soil reaction against any of the structural elements in contact with the soil should be established, e.g. the sharing of vertical reaction between baseplate (or dome) and skirts tip resistance and wall friction and how these reaction components vary across the foundation area uad with time after installation. The uncertainties in reaction distribution resulting from the uncertainties in structural stiffness, in soil stiffness and in analytical procedures may require that more than one solution for reaction distrib. ution are considered for the same load component. Dif. ferent distribution solutions may be critical for different aspects of structural design. 7.3.34 The complexity of the issue to determine soil reactions is variable depending mainly on the complexity ~ of the geometry of base and skirts, the importance and complexity of the flexibility of the structural foundation arts and the importance of a good representation of the Soil non-linearities. One way to reduce the complexity of the analyses is to initially perform analyses with non-linear soil based on a simplified model of the foundation structure. The resulting soil shear moduli may be used for an elastic analysis with a more detailed structural model, "7.335" For preliminary design and low complexity, e.g. in case of a relatively rigid foundation with small skitts available solutions may be used, as e.g. solutions for Foundations on elastic soil. In /60/ solutions are given for Figid foundations and for Mexible rafts with uniform stiffness. The high concentration of stresses towards the edges of the foundation as resulting from such solutions, Classification Notes — No. 30.4 may have to be adjusted based on limitations in the soil shear strengths, Many aspects of soil reactions for offshore gravity platforms are dealt with in /61/ based on F.E.M. analyses using models with rigid foundation bases. 7.3.3.6 One type of soil reactions that when integrated does not provide any global force is the horizontal soil Dressures against the skirts that arise from vertical loading on the base. This pressure is highest for complete uns drained loading conditions where isotropic pressures should be considered. Similarly the penetration of the skirts during installation may cause high horizontal pressures against the skirts, These pressures may be determined from calculations of horizontal soil pressures at failure, from elastoplastic analysis models or cavity expansion theories as found most relevant in each case. The thickness of the skirts and the constraints by neighbouring skirts should be accounted for. Its the pressure differences from one side to another side of the skirts that are important to account for in the structural design, and particularly on both sides of the Peripheral skirts, The pressures due to skirt penetration are mainly pore pressures. In addition to a possible initial higher pressure at the inside, the difference between inside and outside may increase with time due to a faster con, Solidation at the outside, which should be considered. 7.33.7 Pressure differences from one side to another side of a skirt may reduce when considering the flexibility of the skirts. Such reductions should be properly docu. ‘mented if accounted for. 8. Foundation of. jack-up platforms 8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 General 8.111 Prior to installing a selfelevating (jack-up) unit at any location, the foundation behaviour of the unit during all phases from installation to removal should be thoroughly documented, 8.1.1.2 In this appendix general requirements and rec- ‘ommendations are given to evaluation of foundation sta. bility, including penetration into the seabed, foundation fixity and to the soil and seabed investigations required as basis for such evaluations. 8.1.13 The need for detailed analyses will depend on the degree to which the platform has previously been checked for similar conditions. When existing analyses are used as basis for-verification rr pany de ation in actual conditions from those used in the ana~ lyses should be discussed, and the uncertainties related to such deviations should be taken into account. 8.1.14 Evaluations of the foundation behaviour should be based on a detailed knowledge of the soil conditions at the jack-up location. Recommendations to soil invest)~ gations for jack-up platforms are given in Section 5,Classification Notes — No. 30.4 8.2. Individual leg supported jack-up platforms 8.2.1 General 8.2.1.1 The performance of a jack-up platform with individual legs is to a large extent governed by the interaction between the jack-up structure and the foundation soils, which should be considered for all relevant aspects including leg extension, structural strength, foundation stability ete Governing parameters are soil conditions, foundation ge- ‘ometry, structural stiffness and loading conditions. 8.2.1.2 A main requirement to the foundation behaviour of a jack-up is that the foundation stability shall be suf ficient for the operating condition. Requirements to foundation stability are given in 8.2.3 and may result in specific requirements to preloading during installation Requirements and recommendations to account for proper foundation restraints in the structural analyses are given in 8.4 8.2.1.3 Im areas where jack-up footings are expected to penetrate deeply into clays, considerations should be Biven to the suitability of the jack-up to achieve a safe Pull-out of the footings. The footings should be equipped with jetting systems. ‘At difficult sites, the time required for extraction may, be wnificant. Evaluation of lateral loading when the hull is jacked into the water should be performed. Critical wave heights and required assistance of tugs should be assessed. 8.2.2 Installation 8.2.2.1 The penetration depths of the individual leg foundations (spud cans) should be calculated. Calcu- lations can be based on bearing capacity formulae. In 4.4, such formulae are given for various soil conditions. A range for possible penetrations should be worked out. Tt Should be checked that required hull clearance can be ‘obtained when maximum penetration of spud can occurs. 8.2.2.2 In 8.2.3, requirements to foundation stability in the operating phase are given. Experience shows that foundation failure during installation has been more fre- quent than during operation and has caused a great number of severe and less severe accidents. The main cause for such accidents is probably a combination of lacking knowledge about soil conditions and in founda tion studies and too little care with respect to installation procedures. Special concern should be given to the possibility of a punch-through failure during preloading, including the preceding phase of jacking the hull out of the water. If studies show that there is a risk of punch-through failures, the hull clearance should be kept as small as possible 45 tor against punch-through of at least 1.5 should be demonstrated. An approach for calculation of punch-through ‘capacity is given in 8.2.4. 8.2.3 Foundation stability in operating condition 8.23.1 Foundation stability failure of gravity type foundations is normally defined as the limit state when the continuous shear failure surface is developed in the soil. For certain conditions, this failure 2s,, and the resulting passive minus active soil pressure becomes: Pp~Pa=45, © For large embedment, this may underestimate the resistance and the following formula may be used for the resulting passive minus active soil pressure, Re=Pp-Pa=SPeda-) Pad, (0) ae ne where _ _ _ _ Pr = passive soil pressure. Pp = corresponding resulting force 10 p. corresponding resulting force to pa Py = active soil pressure. = projected area of penetrated spudcan, where D is the diameter of the cylinder section. 8.2.5.3 For sand, pp and pa can be taken as: pp =v Z+KpZ fay—__o_Deepseated global failure. Classification Notes — No. 30.4 Pa ny Z—KaZ © where Kp = passive soil pressure coefficient. _ ltsing T-sing K, = active soil pressure coefficient. 1 Kr @ = angle of internal soil friction. 8.2.5.4 The resistance at the bottom part, Ps, may in clay be taken as: Ru = Su Ao @) where Sw = shear strength at base interface. ‘As = contact area between the spudcan and the clay. 8.25.5 In sand the resistance at the bottom: part, Re, ‘may be-taken as: Rg =2 ted Fy @) where ical reaction, should be chosen in accordance with 8.23.14, $= soil friction angle. & = reduction factor for friction at soil/spudcan interface. Fy 8.3, Mat-supported jack-up platforms 8.3.1 General 8.3.1.1 Mat-supported jack-up platforms are generally designed to rest on the seabed. However, in underconsol- idated clays as found at some delta deposits, even mat- supported platforms may penetrate. For such conditions the magnitude of penetration should be evaluated. Bear- ing capacity formulae as given in 4.4 may be used, 8.3.1.2 For the operating phase, the stability should be checked with respect to: © Sliding Local failure leading to ting of the rig 8.3.1.3 Sliding resistance can be calculated as the sum of lateral earth pressure on penetrating members (as e.g. skirts) and the sliding resistance at the base area. For platforms equipped with skirts, the base level may be taken equal to skirt tip level. Load coefficients in accordance with Classification Note No. 31.5 should be used together with a material coefficient of 1.3 on soil resistance, 8.3.1.4 A deepseated bearing capacity failure may occur due to a combination of submerged weight of the platform, overturning moment on the platform and wave pressures on the seabed. This failure mode may be checked by calculating moment equilibrium of cylinder failure surfaces as shown in 8.3.2. Load coefficients as in Table 8.1 should be used together with a material coefficient of 1.3 on soil resistance. 83.1.5 Local failure under part of the foundation may be a critical failure mode in very soft clays, leading to tilting of the rig. For a particular rig at a particular location, a limit should be given to allowable inclination based on operational and/or integrity criteria. Any fail- ture mode representing inclinations exceeding this limit should be checked. Preloading may be a means to avoid this failure mode. 8.3.1.6 Considerations should be given to possible differential settlements caused by eccentric loading or non- symmetric mat area on weak soil. 83.2 Deepseated bearing capacity 8.3.2.1 A deepseated bearing failure as described in 8.5.4 may be checked by calculating moment equilibrium of cylinder surfaces as shown on Fig. 8.4. This failure mode is critical only for very soft clay deposits with low rease in shear strength with depth. Fig. 8.4 Deepseated bearing capacity failure for mat. 8.3.2.2 The position of the wave relative to the platform should be varied in order to find the most critical position. The position of the cylinder axis should be varied in order to find the most critical position of the failure sur- fa 8.3.2.3 The resisting moment can be taken as the sum of resisting moments on end surfaces and on cylinder surface as shown on Fig. 8.5.

DNV CN 30-4 Foundations - 1992

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DNV CN 30-4 Foundations - 1992

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi