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

net/publication/282710787

Jack-up spudcan penetration analysis: Review of semi-

analytical and numerical methods

Conference Paper · May 2015

DOI: 10.1201/b18442-204

CITATIONS READS

0 1,120

4 authors, including:

Youhu Zhang Dat Vu Khoa Huynh

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

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Monotonic and cyclic p-y curves View project

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

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

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

numerical methods

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

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)

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

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

1 INTRODUCTION in recent years utilizing both large deformation finite

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

1341
Table 1. Summary of calculation methods in SPLAT.
Soil condition Method
Single clay layer Skempton (1951)
Brinch Hansen (1970)
Houlsby & Martin (2003)
Hossain & Randolph (2009a, b)
Single sand layer Brinch Hansen (1970)
Vesic (1975)
Martin ABC
InSafeJIP (2011)
Two or more soil layers Pre Run
First Run
Second Run
Additional methods Hanna & Meyerhof (1980)
for two layers Hu et al. (2014a, b)
jack-up units in accordance with industry guide-
lines. It is developed for multi-layer soil conditions
and covers a comprehensive suite of analysis meth-
ods recommended in industry guidelines ISO (2012),
SNAME (2008), and InSafeJIP (2011). The program
also includes some newer methods that are developed
from recent research using advanced centrifuge and
numerical modelling. Table 1 provides a summary of
available methods in the program.
2.2 General calculation procedure for multi-layer
soil profile
For multi-layer soil conditions, the bearing capacity
is generally calculated in two steps: step 1) calcu-
late the bearing resistance from top to bottom, using
the selected methods for sand and clay, neglecting
interaction between layers; step 2) work out the capac-
ity from a selected bottom depth to the soil surface,
applying punch-through, squeezing or general shear
mechanisms, as appropriate, according to results from
step 1). The implementation of the algorithm follows
the procedures proposed by Xie et al. (2010).
Three methods, namely Pre Run, First Run and Sec-
ond Run are available for a multi-layer soil profile.
The Pre Run corresponds to calculation step 1) above.
The First Run is the same as Pre Run, but models the
conical underside of the spudcan at layer interfaces,
resulting in a smoother transition between the soil lay-
ers. The Second Run is used for the final prediction
1342
Note
ISO (2012), average su over 0.5D below footing base is used,
dc = 1 + 0.2d/D ≤ 1.5
SNAME (2008), average su over 0.25D below the footing
base is used, dc = 1 + 0.4arctan(d/D)
SNAME (2008) commentary, ISO (2012) main text and
INSAFE (2011), su at the spudcan base, soil heterogeneity,
conical shape, roughness, embedment explicitly considered
su at footing base, relevant mechanisms at various stages of
penetration explicitly considered
ϕ reduced by 5◦ from lab triaxial results for input
ϕ reduced by 5◦ from lab triaxial results for input
Nγ , Nq factors based on results from Martin’s ABC program,
consideration should be given to choose the appropriate ϕ
Use Cassidy & Houlsby (2002) Nγ factors, unreduced ϕ as
input, a reduction factor Fmob = 0.25 − 0.5 and a
roughness = 0.5 are recommended
Apply general shear to all layers, no treatment of conical
shape at layer interface
Apply general shear to all layers, with treatment of conical
shape at layer interface
“Bottom up” approach considering layer interaction.
Squeezing: Meyerhof & Chaplin (1953). Punch-though sand
over clay: “load-spread” method. Punch-through strong over
weak clay: Brown & Meyerhof (1968).
ISO (2012)/SNAME (2008), Sand over clay

Sand over clay, constant volume friction angle ϕcv and relative
density are inputs
which analyses the interaction between the layers (i.e.
punch-though and squeezing) using the results from
the First Run. The inclusion of the Pre Run and First
Run phases allows the user to identify what mecha-
nisms are involved in different stages of penetration.
Each layer is defined as either sand or clay and the user
can select the single layer methods to be used with the
Pre Run or the First Run phases.
2.3 Additional methods for two-layer soil profiles
Two additional methods are implemented for specific
two-layer soil profiles:
• Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) method, known as the
punching shear method in ISO (2012) and SNAME
(2008), for sand over clay.
• Hu et al. (2014a, b), new method proposed for
punch-through in sand over clay, based on model
initially proposed by Lee et al. (2013) and further
improved by Hu et al. (2014a, b).
3 LDFE ANALYSIS USING CEL IN ABAQUS
The finite element program Abaqus/Explicit includes
the Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) method. This
can be used to solve large deformation problems by
allowing Eulerian and Lagrangian bodies within the
same FE-model to interact with each other through an
enhanced immersed boundary method. In this method,
the Lagrangian elements can occupy voids inside the
Eulerian mesh, with the “general contact” algorithm
computing and tracking the interface between the
Lagrangian and the Eulerian bodies.
In the three-dimensional CEL FE analysis of a spud-
can penetrating through layered soils, the spudcan is
discretised using Lagrangian elements while the soil
is modelled with Eulerian elements. Herein, a modi-
fied Mohr-Coulomb model which assumes softening
of mobilized friction angle (ϕ ) and “cohesion” (c)
from peak to residual values according to a hyperbolic
relationship with equivalent plastic strain, was used
to described the soil behaviour. The material model
is implemented in the Abaqus/Explicit program and
described in more details in Khoa (2013). Each CEL
penetration analysis typically needs about 7 hours run
time using 6 processors.
4 ANALYSIS OF CENTRIFUGE
EXPERIENETS
This section presents comparison of the SPLAT and
CEL predictions against results from selected well-
controlled centrifuge measurements. Focus is given to
multi-layer soil conditions; general observations from
previous studies on single soil layer scenarios are sum-
marised. Numerical results are presented in terms of
bearing pressure (i.e. applied load, Q, divided by the
spudcan area, A) and a normalized penetration depth
(i.e. penetration depth of the maximum bearing area,
d, divided by the spudcan diameter, D).
4.1 Single layer clay or sand
Menzies & Roper (2008) present a comprehensive
comparison of predictions by the Brinch Hansen
(1970), Hossain & Randolph (2009a), Houlsby &
Martin (2003) and Skempton (1951) methods against
field records in normally consolidated and lightly
over-consolidated clays in the Gulf of Mexico. The
general conclusion from the work is that the guide-
line methods, Brinch Hansen (1970) and Skempton
(1951), provide good match with field records for most
cases. The Houlsby & Martin (2003) method gener-
ally provides lower bound capacity predictions, while
the Hossain & Randolph (2009a) method results in
upper bound capacity predictions. Hossain & Ran-
dolph (2009b) point out that when strain softening and
rate effects are accounted for, the method results in
good match with the guideline methods.
In thick sand deposits, spudcan penetration is typ-
ically shallow, making it difficult to obtain reliable
field records to calibrate predicting models. InSafeJIP
(2011) provides a comprehensive discussion on the
performance of various methods in sand and thus this
scenario is not considered further in this paper.
1343
Figure 1. Comparison of predicted and experimental bear-
ing pressures for case of sand over clay.
Table 2. Soil parameters for case of sand over clay.
Thickness γ su,intact 
ϕcv
Layer (m) (kN/m3 ) (kPa) Dr (%) (◦ )
Sand 5 10.8 – 77 32
Clay 7 6.5 17.3 + 1.2z
4.2 Sand over clay
A centrifuge test (Half_SP2) of a spudcan penetra-
tion in a dense sand over clay profile reported by Teh
(2007) is compared with SPLAT and CEL predictions
in Figure 1. The soil profile and parameters used in
the SPLAT calculations are detailed in Table 2. Using
the load spread approach described in the guidelines,
the peak capacity in the sand layer is independent of
the sand properties, except for the load spread fac-
tor (ns ), which is recommended to be between 3 and 5.
The result using ns = 3 is shown to considerably under-
predict the peak capacity and the post-peak capacity.
By reducing ns to 2, a larger peak capacity in sand
is calculated, but still smaller than the experimental
measurements.
The prediction using the method proposed by Hu
et al. (2014) shows an improved match with the cen-
trifuge test result. The peak capacity is well predicted,
and as the method also accounts for a sand plug below
the spudcan, the capacity in the clay layer is much
closer (somewhat lower) than the measurements.
The LDFE analysis result using the CEL method
published by Khoa (2013) is also plotted in Figure 1.
In addition to the main soil parameters given in Table 2,
the material parameters for modified Mohr-Coulomb
model in CEL analysis are summarized in Table 3. It
is seen that the CEL FE-model predicts very well the
onset of punch-through failure as well as the post-peak
penetration resistance. Note that below a penetration
of d/D ∼ = 1.1, it is believed the centrifuge results may
be influenced by the proximity of the strongbox base.
Table 3. Additional material parameters used in CEL Table 5. Soil parameters for multi-layer scenario FS5.
analysis.
Thickness γ su,intact Dr ϕ
  
ϕpeak ψpeak ψresidual su,residual Bp or Layer (m) (kN/m3 ) (kPa) (%) (◦ )
Layer (◦ ) (◦ ) (◦ ) (kPa) B∗c
1. Soft clay 5.2 6.5 8.5 – –
Sand 42.3 11.0 0 – 0.1 2. Stiff clay 4.4 7.0 35.5 – –
Clay – – – 0.85su,intact 0.1 3. Clay 5.2 6.5 21 – –
4. Sand 11.2 9 – 44 30∗
*: Bp and Bc : equivalent plastic strains at which half of
∗
the softening on mobilized friction angle and “cohesion” : The friction angle is after reduction of 5◦ for SPLAT input.
respectively occurs.

Table 6. Additional material parameters used in CEL

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

Figure 2, increasing the bearing capacity in the lower

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

4.4 General multi-layer conditions

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

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

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

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

1345
3. A limitation with the guideline methods is the gen-
eral lack of consideration of the plug of soil trapped
beneath the spudcan during penetration in layer
soils. This can lead to significant underestimation
of the bearing capacity. This effect may be greatest
where alternating sand and clay layers are present.
This study highlights the need to develop meth-
ods that take the actual penetration process into
account, for example the punch-through method
proposed by Hu et al. (2014) which demonstrated
a much improved prediction for the sand over clay
scenario.
4. The CEL FE method presents very good prediction
of the reported experimental responses, highlight-
ing the potential benefit of using this method with
complex soil profiles. It is essential to account for
potential effects of strain softening and strain rate
in the soil during large penetration of spudcan.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of SPLAT has been a joint collab-
oration between NGI and the Centre for Offshore
Foundation Systems (COFS). COFS is supported as
a node of the Australian Research Council Centre of
Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering.
REFERENCES
Abaqus 2011. User’s Manual – version 6.11-2. Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corp.
Brinch Hansen, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for
bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute.
Brown, J.D. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1969. Experimental study of
bearing capacity in layered clays. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on
Soil Mech. and Found. Eng, 2, pp. 45–51.
Cassidy, M.J. & Houlsby, G.T. 2002. Vertical bearing capacity
factors for conical footings on sand. Géotechnique, 52(9),
pp. 987–697.
Hanna, A.M. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1980. Design chart for ulti-
mate bearing capacity of foundation on sand overlying soft
clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17(2), pp. 300–303.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2009a. New mechanism-
based design approach for spudcan foundations on single
layer clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 135(9), pp. 1264–1274.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2009b. Effect of strain
rate and strain softening on the penetration resistance
of spudcan foundations on clay. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 9(3), pp. 122–132.
Houlsby, G.T. & Martin, C.M. (2003). Undrained bearing
capacity factors for conical footings on clay. Géotech-
nique, 53(5), 513–520.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2010a. Deep-penetrating
spudcan foundations on layered clays: centrifuge tests.
Geìotechnique, 60(3), pp. 157–170.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2010b. Deep-penetrating
spudcan foundations on layered clays: numerical analysis.
Geìotechnique, 60(3), pp. 171–184.
Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F. & Saunier, Y.N. 2011. Spud-
can deep penetration in multilayered fine-grained soils.
1346
View publication stats
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotech-
nics, 11(3), pp. 100–115.
Hossain, M.S. 2014. Experimental investigation of spudcan
penetration in multi-layer clays with interbedded sand
layers. Geìotechnique, 64(4), pp. 258–277.
Houlsby, G.T. & Martin, C.M. 2003. Undrained bearing
capacity factors for conical footings on clay. Géotech-
nique, 53(5), pp. 513–520.
Hu, P., Stanier, S.A., Cassidy, M.J. & Wang D. 2014a. Pre-
dicting peak resistance of spudcan penetrating sand over-
lying clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental
Engineering (ASCE), 04013009.
Hu, P., Wang, D., Cassidy, M.J. & Stanier, S.A. 2014. Predict-
ing the resistance profile of a spudcan penetrating sand
overlying clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51(10),
pp. 1151–1164.
ISO 2012. Petroleum and natural gas industries – Site-
specific assessment of mobile offshore units – Part 1:
Jack-ups, 19905-1. International Organization for Stan-
dardization.
Khoa, H.D.V. 2013. Large deformation finite element anal-
ysis of spudcan penetration in layered soils. Proc., Third
International Symposium on Computational Geomechan-
ics. pp. 570–585.
InSafeJIP. 2011 Improved guidelines for the prediction of
geotechnical performance of spudcan foundations during
installation and removal of jack-up units.
Lee, K.K., Randolph, M.F. & Cassidy, M.J. 2013. Bear-
ing capacity on sand overlying clay soils: a simplified
conceptual model. Géotechnique, 63(15), pp. 1285–1297.
Menzies, D. & Roper, R. 2008. Comparison of Jackup rig
spudcan penetration methods in clay. Proc., Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 19545.
Meyerhof, G.G. & Chaplin, T.K. 1953. The compression and
bearing capacity of cohesive layers, Br. J. Appl. Phys.
4(20).
Qiu, G. & Grabe, J. 2012. Numerical investigation of bearing
capacity due to spudcan penetration in sand overlaying
clay. Can. Geotech. J., 49, pp. 1393–1407.
Skempton, A.W. 1951. The bearing capacity of clays. In
Building Research Congress, London.
SNAME. 2008. Recommended practice for site specific
assessment of mobile jack-up units. T&R Bulletin 5-5A,
1st Ed., 3rd Rev., Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, N.J.
Teh, K.L. 2007. Punch-through of spudcan foundation in
sand overlaying clay. Doctor of Philosophy PhD thesis,
National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Tho, K.K., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. & Swaddiwudhipong,
S. 2012. Eulerian finite-element technique for analysis
of jack-up spudcan penetration. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 12(1), pp. 64–73.
Vesic, A.S. 1975. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
In Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand.
White, D.J., Teh, K.L., Leung, C.F. & Chow, Y.K. 2008.
A comparison of the bearing capacity of flat and coni-
cal circular foundations on sand. Géotechnique, 58(10),
pp. 781–792.
Xie, Y., Falepin, H. & Jaeck, C. 2010, Prediction of spud-
can penetration resistance in multiple soil layers. Proc.,
Twentieth International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, pp. 369–376.
Zheng, J., Hossain, M.S. & Wang, D. 2014. Numerical mod-
elling of spudcan deep penetration in three-layer clays.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 2014, in press.