Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

OTC 4143

FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE OF MAT-SUPPORTED JACK-UP


RIGS IN SOFT CLAYS

by Alan G. Young, McClelland Engineers, Inc.; Horace F. House


and Richard D. Turner, Conoco Inc.; Steven C. Helfrich, McClelland
Engineers, Inc. .

This paper was presented at the 13th Annual aTe In Houston, TX, May 4-7, 1981. The material is subject to correction by the author. Per-
mission lo copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. '

ABSTRACT according to their foundation type: (1) individual


footings, or (2) mat-supported. Many of the mats
Even though mat-supported mobile jack-up rigs are A-shaped.
are designed to develop low seafloor bearing
pressures, the observed mat penetration in soft Mat-supported rigs have a much larger bearing
soil areas may approach the thickness of the mat. area and develop lower bearing pressures than rigs
An accurate measurement of penetration is often with independent footings. The lower bearing
critical since designers caution against using the pressures enable mat-supported rigs to operate in
rig at locations where the top of the mat penetrates areas covered by very soft clay soils with only a
below the seafloor. Geological features and few feet of mat penetration below the seafloor.
geotechnical properties of very weak soils in Observed mat penetrations, however, can approach
areas such as the Mississippi River Delta also the mat thickness in active delta areas around the
greatly influence foundation perforJllance. This world, such as the Mississippi River where the
paper describes how ge010gic features and geo- soi1s are very soft, undercons01idated c1ays. In
technical properties can influence the foundation these cases, an accurate measurement of the mat
performance of jack-up rigs and includes field penetration and an assessment of the resulting
performance measurements at two sites during rig foundation stability is important since designers
placement and later, after Hurricane Allen. caution against using the rigs at locations where
the mat top penetrates below the seafloor. Hirst
The field measurements indicate the method of et al (1976) showed that foundation performance of
placement can greatly influence mat penetration. mat-supported jack-up rigs was safe and acceptable
An electronic bottom sensor proved very useful in as indicated by a record totaling 176 rig years
determining the actual mat penetration since without loss of a rig due to wind, wave, or current
diver's observations produced misleading indications activities during drilling. Their performance
of mat penetration below the seafloor due to a data does, however, indicate that vertical and
mound of soil that forms near the mat edge. The lateral movements have occurred in very weak soils
observed performance data are used to develop an during four severe hurricanes. The purpose of
improved method to more accurately predict mat this paper is to assess the geotechnical and
penetration in very soft deltaic clays than possi- geological factors that may influence the foundation
ble with classical bearing capacity theory and un- performance of mat-supported jack-up rigs operating
disturbed shear strengths of cohesive soils. The in areas with very soft clay soils.
paper concludes by recommending that integrated
geotechnical and geophysical studies be performed The paper then presents a series of field
to develop a better understanding of geologic and measurements made at two sites in the West Delta
geotechnical factors that can influence foundation Area to determine soil strength characteristics
performance of a mat-supported jack-up rig. and mat penetration at various stages during rig
placement and later, after Hurricane Allen (July
INTRODUCTION 1980). These measurements show that: (1) classical
bearing capacity equations underpredict actual mat
About 60 percent of the offshore oil and gas penetrations of a jack-up rig, (2) a soil mound
exploration is being conducted with a fleet of forms adjacent to the edge of the mat resulting
over 250 mobile jack-up drilling rigs. Although in divers making misleading observations of actual
there are many different mobile rig designs, the mat penetration below the seafloor, and (3) the
rigs can be divided into two broad categories method of placement can greatly influence mat
penetration. Later sections describe the type of
soil strength data that should be used with bearing
References and illustrations at end of paper.

273

- - - - - - - -
capacity equations to allow more accurate predictions preloading. Later sections will describe the
of mat penetration in very soft deltaic clay effects of eccentric mat loading upon the ultimate
soils. This paper describes various considerations bearing capacity of the supporting soils.
that may affect foundation performance, such as:
(1) soil strength variability, (2) bearing capacity, The method of foundation placem~~t can also
including cyclic and eccentric load effects, affect the performance of mat-supporte~ rigs
(3) horizontal sliding resistance, (4) seafloor after placement. The rigs are frequent\y ballasted
instability, (5) geologic features, and (6) soil so that the mat is tilted just before tapchdown.
disturbance effects associated with rig placement. The rig may also have slight forward mot~",on at
The authors also describe how information obtained touchdown, causing the mat to plow or sle on the
from integrated geotechnical and geophysical soft seafloor soils as it is pulled into inal
studies aid the prediction of foundation perfor- position. This dragging pn the seafloor c n cause
mance of mat-supported jack-up rigs. soil disturbance and soil mounding that ca leave
the rig out of level or cause unequal mat ettlement.
FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Field measurements will be described later ,to
illustrate the effects that foundation placement can
The main purpose of the foundation mat is to have on performance.
distribute the loads from three or more columns to
the near seafloor soils. Thus, the soils must Geologic Restraints. Problems with seafloor
provide sufficient resistance, termed bearing instability in the Mississippi Delta region received
capacity, to resist both the vertical load and considerable attention after 1969 when Hurricane
overturning moment. The soils must also provide Camille triggered a mudslide that damaged or
sliding resistance between the mat bottom and overturned three pile-supported platforms. Their
supporting soils to withstand the horizontal load. effect upon jack-up rigs was recognized but not
A number of factors can influence foundation emphasized until Hurricane Allen during 1980. Loss
performance of these rigs such as: (1) soil of one of the rigs at this time strongly suggests
strength variability, (2) bearing capacity including failure could be attributed to sliding or shifting
cyclic and eccentric load effects, (3) horizontal of the seafloor soils due to a mud slide.
sliding resistance, (4) seafloor instability,
(5) delta type geologic features, and (6) soil Seafloor instabilities as described by Roberts
disturbance effects associated with rig placement. et al (1978) most commonly have been associated
The significance of each of these factors will be with the following geologic features: (1) collapse
discussed in later sections.' depressions, (2) shallow diapiric intrusions, (3)
peripheral rotational block slides, (4) bottleneck
Details on the design of A-shaped mat-supported slides, (5) elongate, narrow, retrogressive mudslide
jack-up rigs, as shown in Figure 1, have been channels, and (6) large overlapping depositional
described by Hirst et al (1976) and Whitley (1970). mudflows (See Figure 2). Placement of a mat-
The 1eg 1ength ranges from 150 to 350 ft, depending supported rig within or near any of these features
upon the design water depth. The mat bearing greatly increases the risk of loss or failure
areas for the various size rigs range from 13,500 associated with seafloor movement. It is also impor-
to 30,000 sq ft. The height of the mat is usually tant.to recognize that the effects of such features
10 ft, although heights of 6 to 15 ft exist on as mudflows can influence foundation performance
some rigs. of rigs downslope.
For an average size rig designed to operate The geologic features can easily be identified
in 250-ft water depth, the average seafloor bearing using side-scan sonar systems, especially the SMS 960
pressure is about 470 psf for a mat area of Sea Floor Mapping System. Data acquired with this
21,600 sq ft. Bearing pressures for the various system can be used to produce undistorted scale
rig designs typically vary from 400 to 600 psf for mosaics as described by Coleman (1980). With
non-storm conditions with full variable load. these ~osaics, rig operators can best select
Besides the gravity loads, the rig is designed for drilling sites that avoid these hazardous geologic
wind, wave, and current forces. These additional features. An initial assessment of the potential
live loads result in a horizontal load of about for geologic hazards when block specific mosaics are
2000 kips and an overturning moment of 265,000 ft- not available in the Mississippi River Delta can
kip for the average rig designed for ls0-ft water be made by using photographic mosaics and maps
depth. The resulting soil pressures at the mat recently published by the U.S.G.S. (Coleman et al,
edges during maximum storm vary from about 250 to 1980).
650 psf.
Geotechnical Considerations. The foundation
Many of the rig designs experience eccentric performance of a jack-up rig generally can be
foundation loading as the cantilevered drilling predicted within reasonable limits if site specific
section is shifted as much as 50 to 60 ft when data on soil stratigraphy, soil type, and engineering
changing from the stowed to a fully cantilevered properties of the soils are known. This type of
position. This shift of a major dead load component data is obtained by drilling a soil boring at the
increases the bearing pressures exerted along the location, preferably supplemented by in situ
edge of the foundation mat beneath the cantilevered tests. Laboratory tests are performed on samples
section to about 125% of the average bearing pressure. from the boring. One principal product of an
This increased bearing pressure tends to cause offshore geotechnical investigation is a boring
additional foundation penetration or tilt since log, describing the subsurface conditions with the
the eccentric loads are not compensated for by

274
soil shear strength profile usually being the Skempton recommended that the average soil strength
significant engineering parameter. over"a depth of 2/3 B below the foundation be used
in the above expression, provided that the shear
Soil strength variations present a potential strength within this depth does not vary by more
risk to mat-supported rigs by inducing nonuniform than about + 50 percent of average strength. Depend-
settlement or penetration of the mat. Hooper (1980) ing on the width of the foundation, it is our
presented a series of field measurements in the experience that shear strength profiles in the
Mississippi River Delta confirming the existence of Gulf of Mexico, within the depth of 2/3 B frequently
strong clay "crusts" within weaker clay strata that exceed the +50 percent restriction for most linearly
may be highly irregular in strength properties, increasing strength profiles. For Skempton's
both vertically and horizontally. A series of in equation and linearly increasing strength profiles
situ tests with a cone penetrometer or the Halibut typical of the Gulf of Mexico, Helfrich et at
in situ vane, as described by Ehlers et al (1980), (1980) found the use of an average shear strength
can readily reveal any areal variations in soil within a depth of approximately 1/2 B below the
strength at a proposed drilling site. By developing footing to be more appropriate, unless this strength
advance knowledge of potential strength variations, variation in this zone exceeded the + 50 percent
the geotechnical engineer can predict the effects restriction. When exceeding the restriction,
upon foundation performance allowing the operator Helfrich et al (1980) propose using the procedure
to tailor the placement procedures to fit the developed by Davis and Booker (1973).
conditions. Thus, information gathered from geo-
logic and geotechnical investigations can be The Davis and Booker procedure was developed
integrated and used to predict the probable founda- for a linearly increasing strength profile and
tion performance of the rig. In this way, the risk of considers both "rough" and "smooth" foundations,
undesirable foundation performance is reduced to the with the solution for a smooth foundation giving
lowest possible level. the lower ultimate bearing capacity. The solution
for the rough footing is considered the most
PREDICTION OF FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE appropriate for computing the bearing capacity of
mats supporting jack-up rigs.
When a rig is jacked up, the mat penetrates
into the soil below the seafloor until the ultimate
Strength Data. Undrained shear strength of clays
bearing capacity of the soil is equal to or
is not a unique soil property and depends on many
greater than the pressure applied to the soil by
factors. Some of the factors are the sampling
the mat. The soil below the mat is displaced both
vertically and horizontally as the mat penetrates method, sample size, type of strength test, and
soil plasticity. In addition, many empirical
and may be partially remolded. Cyclic loads due
design procedures were derived for a sample quality
to storm waves may act on the rig while it is on
that may be higher or lower than strength measurements
location. Winds and ocean (nontidal) currents
intermittently act on the rig. Impact loads from made in the field. For example, Skempton (1951)
used results from unconfined compression tests on
drilling operations and supply vessels also act on
high quality pushed samples for his bearing capacity
the rig. The rate of loading can affect the
soil's response to each of these loads. correlation studies. When strength data has been
obtained on samples taken with wireline percussion
techniques or by in situ tests, adjustment factors
Classical theories of bearing capacity are
used to predict the mat penetration below the are required to develop equivaient unconfined
compression strengths obtained from good quality
seafloor (Hirst et aI, 1976). Reported measurements
pushed samples. For highly plastic clays such as
in the past have been made by divers and are not
those found in the Gulf of Mexico, adjustment
very accurate since there is not a suitable reference
factors presented by Emrich (1971) and Ehlers et al
frame. Thus, Hirst points out that comparison of
(1980) llave generally been found acceptable for
predicted and observed penetrations of mat-supported
developing an equivalent unconfined compression
rigs in soft soils in the past have not been very
strength profile.
meaningful.
Types of Loading. The analytical techniques
Analytical Techniques. A well recognized
previously described were developed for a footing
procedure that is often used to determine the
loaded by a concentric, vertical, static load. Most
ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations
jack-up rigs apply a complex load to the soil that is
on cohesive soils was presented by Skempton (1951).
eccentric, inclined, and cyclic. This complex loading
With this procedure, the ultimate bearing capacity,
can cause the jack-up rig to experience greater
qu' is obtained as follows:
penetration than those predicted by the analytical
techniques previously described. Eccentric
5 Su (1 + 0.2 D/B) (1 + 0.2 BtL) + yD
loading and cyclic loading are two load types that
probably have the most effect on mat penetration.
where
s average undrained shear strength Eccentric Load Effects. Eccentric loads decrease
u
of the soil the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation
(Meyerhof, 1953), can cause differential foundation
D 'depth of footing embedment
settlements or tilt, and can even cause overturning
B footing width if the magnitude is great enough. The tilt is
towards the side of the eccentricity since the
L footing length
contact pressure is maximum under this edge of the
Y submerged unit weight of soil mat. To compensate analytically for the eccentricity

275

- - - - - - - - --- - - -
(overturning moment divided by vertical load), a were 50 to 60 paf. Howe (1966) reports of an
reduced effective foundation area is determined incident during Hurricane Carla in 1961 where
such that the fictitious area is concentrically Penrod’s Rig 52 slid over 50 miles.
loaded and is subject to a uniform contact pressure
distribution in response to the applied load A short skirt can be used around the periphery
(Meyerhof, 1953 and Hansen, 1961). This procedure of the foundation mat to reduce the risk of sliding.
is considered appropriate if the load is applied TO check the influence of the skirt, geotechnical
within the kern area such that negative edge prea- engineers can compute the various components of
sures do not develop below the footing for a sltding resistance for a given rig if information
planar distribution of contact pressures. This on the type and strength of near seafloor soils is
requires that the eccentricity not exceed one- available. In uniform clay coils the base resistance
sixth the met width, B. is computed by multiplying the available horizontal
mat area times the shear strength of the soil.
The A-shaped mat supporting many jack-up rigs The passive soil resistance acting on the vertical
makes the analyees difficul~ to perform. For skirts can be calculated from classical theories
shapes other than rectangles, Vesic (1975) found (Terzaghi, 1943). Since the failure mode depends
that the effective area could be established as an primarily upon (1) the height, spacing, and orienta-
equivalent rectangle that has its geometric center tion of the skirts, (2) the vertical foundation
coinciding with the load center. Dimensions of load, (3) profile of soil strength, and (4) overall
the effective rectangle should closely follow the mat area, a number of failure modes need to be
outline of the actual base area. evaluated (Young et al, 1975).

Cyclic Load Effects. The cyclic loads having Seafloor Instability. Although seafloor
the most influence on a jack-up rig are generally instability is moat often associated with the
those caused by storm waves. However, the dynamic previously described geologic features, mud slides
loads caused by the drilling equipment and other may also be triggered in the extremely soft and
machinery on the rig may also influence foundation underconsolidated delta front sediments even
penetration. Soil subjected to cyclic loada can though the offshore slope angles are generally
exhibit progressive accumulation of etrain accompa- leas than one degree. Bottom pressure anomalies,
nied by softening and subsequent lossof strength for example, imposed on the seafloor in connection
as described by Thiers and Seed (1969). Each with the gravitational loading may trigger massive
element of the soil beneath the foundation is movements of the near seafloor soils as illustrated
subjected to a different stress loading and unloading in Figure 3.
history and a corresponding strain accumulation.
Techniques to predict the effects of cyclic loads are Limiting equilibrium techniques used by
available, but they are expensive and time con- Henkel (.1.970)
and Bea (1971) can be useful to
suming to implement (Prevost et al, 1981a and aasesa the potential of seafloor instability due
Prevost et al, 1981b). to the combined action of gravity and wave Induced
bottom pressure anomalies. Applications of this
Centrifugal model etudies of offshore gravity technique to stability analysea of gravity structures
structures on clay (Rowe, 1975) have shown that have been developed by Janbu (1973) and Lauritzsen
cyclic loading can cause these structures to and Schjetne (1976). For mat-supported jack-up
settle. This phenomenon is called “shake down.” rigs, the limiting equilibrium methods such as the
The clay underneath the edges of a cyclically method of slices can be used to analyze their
loaded mat softens and fails locally as the clay foundation stability as illustrated in Figure 4.
is squeezed from beneath the foundation. The A series of potential failure surfaces is checked
amount of shake down depends on many factors to establish the most critical factor of safety
associated with cyclic loads, structure, and soil against soil failure due to the stresses impoeed
properties. The effect of storm loading may be by the bottom pressure anomaly, structure weight,
influenced by water depth, geometry of the structure, and,wave forces imposed on the rig. Results of
soil shear strength, distribution of stresses, these analysea allow the rig operator to determine
number of cycles of loading, and history of previous the maximum wave height in which the jack-up rig
loading, to name a few. Thus, a relatively IOW may operate without experiencing a fcwndation failure
intensity storm or a series of storms may cause or seafloor slide. If information other than the
greater strain accumulation than a single high factor of safety against failure is desired, then
intensity storm of relatively short duration that finite element analyses may be performed to aesess
includes a few very large waves. the potential movements of the foundation mat under
various magnitudes of wave loading.
Sliding Resistance. The current, wind, and
wave loads on a jack-up rig when large enough may Long-Term Consolidation and Creep Settlements.
produce lateral movements of the rig while on After setting the jack-up rig on the seafloor and
location (Hirst et al, 1976). The information by preloading the foundation, additional settlements
Hirst et al and the authors’ experience indicate can occur. These settlements can be caused by
horizontal sliding is a potential hazard during storm loads or vibrations from rig machinery,
extreme hurricane conditions for mat-supported pore pressure dissipation (consolidation), and viscous
jack-up rigs operating in areas with very aoft flow of the aoft soil beneath the met. Consolidation
clay soils. Hirst et al cites two instances of of very soft marine soils can be estimated using
sliding that occurred during Hurricanes HiIda and elastic half-space stress distribution and one-
Betsy when two rigs were drilling on locations dimensional consolidation theory (Terzaghi,
where the undrained shear strengths of the S051S 1943). Computed total consolidation settlements are

276
usually less than 0.5 feet for typical mat-supported positions up to 55 ft from the mat edge. Figure 9
jack-up rigs operating for two month periods in presents a plan view of the mat-supported jack-up
areas covered by soft clays. drilling rig and the area around the mat that
could be reached with the two on-board cranes.
Even under constant stress conditions, the
soft soils supporting the mat may flow or squeeze Results of Measurementa. Several acts of
laterally from under the mat due to the imposed measurements of mat penetration were obtained in
static load. The settlement due to this plastic- July and Auguet, 1980 at two locations in the West
creep behavior is dependent upon the ratio of Delta Area. Only the results of the measurement
applied shear stress to shear strength (stress at the second location are presented here due lack of
ratio) aa illustrated in Figure 5. At low stress available space for this paper, but the results for
levels, the strain or settlement occurs rapidly both caaea were very similar.
upon first loading and then continues at essentially
a uniform rate, or may ceaae completely. At high- The influence of method of placement was
atress ratios, the strains increase until rapid checked by observing the rig tilt upon initial
movement or “creep rupture” occurs. Techniques to set-down with a uniform loading condition. During
predict the rate and magnitude of movement due to placement, the bow touched bottom first and was
the creep phenomena are complex since the movements dragged to the location about 1500 ft away. After
are dependent upon soil viacoaity and strength, placement, the level bubble indicated the bow was
magnitude of applied stresses, and many other about one degree lower than the atern due to soils
factora. The magnitude of creep settlement aaaoci- displaced by the dragging bow. Mat penetration
ated with mat-supported jack-up rigs ia described measurements taken 1 to 3 hours after touchdown
in a later section. confirmed the bow waa about 2.5 ft lower than the
stern.
CASE HISTORY
Soil Strength Variation. Two borings and in Measured seafloor elevations near lines AA’
situ vane tests at three locations were made as and BB’ from Figure 9 are presented in Figure 10
ahown in Figure 6 to check the potential strength for various stages in the loading and placement
variationa at one of the proposed drilling sitea sequence. The initial mat penetration (Stage 1)
in West Delta Area. Soil samples were taken with relative to the undisturbed seafloor ranged from 3.5
standard wireline techniques and vane testing was to 5.5 ft although computed penetrations were esti-
performed with the Halibut. The variation in soil mated to be about 2.5 ft. The changing shape of
strength over the site is illustrated in Figure 7. the soil mound is illustrated in Figure 10. The
Both laboratory and in situ data confirm that the mound enlarged with increasing mat loading and
very soft, highly plastic claya exhibit very penetration. Preloading caused an additional mat
uniform strength properties. The profile of penetration of 1.5 to 2 ft to develop a total met
undrained strength increases linearly with depth penetration of 5.5 to 6.o ft. Diver observations of
from 20 psf at the seafloor to about 200 psf at mat penetration at this time were reported to be
about 9 to 11 ft. Cantilevering the drilling
30-ft penetration. The measured values of sub-
merged unit weight on recovered soil samples section reduced the tilt of the mat by increasing
typically range from 0.025 kcf to 0.038 kcf. The the mat penetration of the stem about 1.5 ft.
natural water content of this highly plaatic
soil is about 70 ~ 10 percent and generally equal The effects of long term consolidation,
to or greater than the liquid limit. plastic creep, and cyclic shake down upon mat
penetration cannot be easily distinguished.
Field Measurement System. A measurement However, we believe that the consolidation settlement
system shown in Figure 8 was developed to make a was the smaller component of mat penetration that
series of controlled measurements of mat penetra- waa measured two weeks later after Hurricane Allen
tion to allow comparison of measured mt penetra- caused 10 to 15-ft-high aeaa at this site. The
tion with those predicted by claasical bearing one foot of additional mat penetration during this
capacity equations. An electronic bottom sensor time can be attributed primarily to plastic creep
(Stremlau and Spencer, 1980) waa attached to a and cyclic shake down that cauaed the soft soils
wireline and positioned over the side of the rig to flow or squeeze laterally from beneath the mat.
with the on-board crane. A winch operator lowered
the bottom sensor until seafloor contact was made. Observed Penetration versus Predictions. The
The difference in elevation between the undisturbed procedures and techniques described above were
seafloor (about 50 ft from the mat edge) and the used to predict the mat penetrations at the drilling
seafloor near the edge of the mat was determined locations in West Delta Area. Our predictions for the
with a surveyor’s level and a rod that waa attached second location are presented in Figure 11 as
to the wireline. curves of average mat bearing pressure versus
penetration below the original seafloor. Two
To provide horizontal control for each elevation methods, Skempton (1951) and Davis and Booker
measurement, the field crew measured both the (1973), were used with several profiles of inter-
horizontal angles from a reference line on the rig preted shear strength. Several of the shear
and the vertical anglea between marks on the rod. strength profiles required adjustment factors
The time of each measurement was recorded and previously described to take into consideration
subsequent measurements were made to eatabliah the the type of strength teat and sample quality.
rate of settlement of the rig during the loading
sequence. Elevation measurements were made at

277
Observed mat penetrations generally fall within the mat. Long-term consolidation settlements are
a range predicted by Skempton’s and Davis and Booker’s probably less than 0.5 ft for the 2-month period
methods using remolded shear strengths. Skempton’s that a rig is generally on site.
classical bearing capacity equation with unconfined
compression strengtha on high quality pushed In soft clay areas such as the active delta
samples gave predictions that are about half the of the Mississippi River, an integrated geotechnical
actual mat penetrations. Therefore, we recommend and high-resolution geophysical survey should be
using remolded miniature vane strengths with the performed to reduce the risk of undesirable
Davis and Booker equation to predict the mat foundation performance to the lowest possible
penetration in soft clay soils. The failure of level. The geotechnical study provides soil
the classical bearing capacity equation to accu- parameters needed for engineering analyses to
rately predict the mt penetration may partially assesa the probable foundation performance. Soil
be explained by the soil disturbance that occurs strength variations may be detected by a series of
durfng mat placement. The high ratio of bearing in situ vane or cone penetrometer tests to help
pressure to undrained strength may also cause a eliminate non-uniform settlement or mat penetration.
significant amount of plaatic creep. The failure The strength data for the near seafloor soils may
for the mat to rebound after reducing the preload also be used to predict the resistance to horizontal
confirms that the majority of the mat penetration sliding and the risk of seafloor instability or
is due to plastic deformation, which ia non- mass soil movements triggered by the bottom pressure
recoverable. anomaly during the passage of a large surface
wave.
CONCLUSIONS
The foundation performance of mat-supported In summary, the number of accidents associated
jack-up rigs has generally been very safe as tith foundation failure of mat-supported rigs has
evidenced by the excellent safety record over the been very low. The few cases of large movements
last 20 years. However, there are a number of or failures have occurred in active delta areas
geotechnical and geological conditions that pose such as the Mississippi River where very soft clay
a potential hazard to the safe foundation performance soils and a variety of geologic features associ-
of these rigs, especially when operating during a ated with seafloor movements exist. Data from the
hurricane in areas covered by very soft clay geophysical study, especially side-scan sonar data,
soils. A number of factors can-influence the will aid detection of hazardous geologic features
foundation performance of,these rigs. These factors in active delta soils. 7?hus,the rig operator can
include: (1) SOCL strength variability, (2) bearing avoid placing a mat-supported rig within or near
any of these features. The costs of the integrated
capacity, including cyclic and eccentric load
effects, (3) horizontal sliding resistance, (4) sea- studies are very small compared to the costs
floor instability, (5) delta type geologic features, associated with having to move a rig due to un-
and (6) soil disturbance effects associated with satisfactory foundation performance or the loss,
rig placement. both in terms of human lives and replacement cost
of the rig, caused by a disastrous failure.
Even though mat-supported rigs develop small,
average bearing pressures of about 500 psf, observed ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
mat penetrations can approach the thickness of the The authors wish to thank the management of
mat in very soft clays. Analytical techniques such Conoco Inc. for permission to publish this paper and
as Skempton’s bearing capacity equation, using support for gathering the field data. They wish to
unconfined compression strengths taken on high also acknowledge the contributions of Mr. F. W. Sharp,
quality pushed samples underpredi.ctthe actual mat Jr. with Broughton Drilling Company for the com-
penetration. Good agreement between predicted and pany’s assistance in acquiring the field data.
observed penetrations, however, was found when the Mr. Ralph Scales with Bethlehem Steel Corp. provided
remolded miniature vane strengths were used with the valuable information on design loadings and mat
Davis and Booker (1973) equation to predict the placement procedures. The authors are also very
mat penetration in soft clay soils. grateful to Messrs. Lowell Babb and Ivan Oglesbee
with McClelland Engineers’ Equipment Design group
Diver observations of mat penetration were found for developing the measurement system for the mat
not to be very accurate since a suitable reference penetrations. Finally, the authors appreciate the
‘frame is not available. Accurate measurements of contributions of Mr. Jack White and Ms. Phyllis
mat penetration are possible with a system con- Swinney in preparing the illustrations and text.
sisting of an electronic bottom sensor positioned
over the side of the rig with an on-board crane.
Measurements at two sites in the West Delta Area
show that the soil displaced by the penetrating
mat formed a mound that extended vertically to the
top of the mat and horizontally about 30 ft away.
Other measurements show differential foundation
penetration up to 1.5 ft may be caused as the
cantilevered drilling section is skidded 50 to 60
ft from the stowed position. Additional penetration
up to 1 ft was observed due to shake down due to
cyclic loading and plastic-creep behavior, causing
soft soils to flow or squeeze laterally from under

278
REFERENCES Prevost, Jean H., Cuny, Bernard, and Scott, Ronald
F. (1981a), “Offshore Gravity Structures: Centri-
Bea, R.G. (1971), ‘!HowSeafloor Slides Affect Off- fugal Modeling,” Jouxwzl of the Geotechn<caZ
Shore Structures,” Oil and GZZSJourwaL, Vol. 69, En@neeping Div<.s<on,ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT2,
No. 48, pp. 88-92. pp. 125-141.

Coleman, J.M., Prior, D.B., and Garrison, L.E. (1980), Prevost, Jean H., Cuny, Bernard, Hughes, Thomas
“Subaqueous Sediment Instabilities in the Offshore J. R., and Scott, Ronald F. (1981b), “Offshore
Mississippi River Delta,” U. S. GeologicalSurvey, Gravity Structures: Analysis,” Jouxzzl of the
OFR 80-01. Gwtechnical Zln@neering Div-hion, ASCE, Vol. 107,
No. GT2, pp. 143-165.
Davis, E. H. and Booker, J. R. (1973), “The Effect
of Increasing Strength with Depth on the Bearing Prior, D.B. and Coleman, J.M. (1980), “Sonograph
Capacity,” Geotechn@ue, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 551- Mosaics of Submarine Slope Instabilities, Mississippi
563. River Delta,” Marine GeoZogy, Vol. 36, pp. 227-239.

Ehlers, C.J., Young, A. G and Focht, Jr., J. A. Roberts, H. H., Suhayda, J. N., and Coleman, J. M.
(1980), “Advantages of Using In Situ Vane Tests (1978), “Sediment Deformation and Transport on
for Marine Soil Investigations,” Proceedings, Inter- Low-Angle Slopes: Mississippi River Delta,”
national Symposiumon Ma?ine Soil Mechanics, Ninth Binghamton GeomorphozogySymposium.
Mexico.
Rowe, P.W. (1975), “Displacement and Failure Modes
Emrich, W.J. (1971), “Performance Study of Soil of Modeh Offshore Gravity Platforms Founded on
Samples for Deep-Penetration Marine Borings,” Clay,” O,ffshoreEurope ’75, Spearhead Publications,
Sampling ofSoiZ and Rock, STP, 483, American Ltd. , London.
Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 30-50.
Skempton, A.W. (1951), “Bearing Capacity of Clays,”
Hansen, J.B. (1970), “A Revised and Extended Formula %ilding Reseurch Congress, London, Division 1,
for Bearing Capacity,” Bulletin No. 28, The Danish pp. 180-189.
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, pp. 5-11.
Stremlau, T. H. and Spencer, S. G. (1980), “In
Helfrich, S. C., Young, A. G, and Ehlers, C. J. Situ Bearing Capacity Evaluations,r’Proceedings,12th
(1980), “Temporary Seafloor Support of Jacket OfjtshoreTechnology Conference, Houston, Vol. 2,
Structures,” Proceedings,12t7zOffshore Technology pp. 151-158.
Conference,Houston, V01.-2, pp. 141-150.
SoiZMechan<cs,
Terzahgi, K. (1943), !l’heoreticaz
Henkel, D. J. (1970), tt~e ROle of Waves ‘n J. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Causing Submarine Landslidea,” Geotechn<que,
vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 75-80. Thiers, G. R. and Seed, H. B. (1969), “Strength
and Stress-Strain Characteristics of Clays Subjected
Hirst, T. J., Steele, J. F., Remy, N.D. and Scales, to Seismic Loading Conditiona,” ASTM S27?450,
R. E. (1976), “Performance of Mat-Supported Jack- American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila-
Up Drilling Rigs,” proceedings,Eighth Offshore delphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 3-sg.
TechnologyC’onfePence, Houston, Vol. 1, pp. 821-830.
Vesic, Aleksandar S. (1975), “Bearing Capacity of
Hooper, J.R. (1980), “Crustal Layera in Mia.siasippi Shallow Foundations,” Chapter 3, Handbook of Founckz-
Delta Mudflows,” Proceedings,12th Offshore Tech- tion Engineering,Winterkorn, Hans F. and Fang,
noZogy Conference, Ho”uston,Vol. 2, pp. 277-287. Hsai-Yang, Editors, New York, Van Nostrand.

Howe, Richard J. (1966), “The Evolution of Offshore Watkins, D. J. and Kraft, L. M., Jr. (1976),
Mobile Drilling Units,” Ocean Industry, Vol. 1, “Stability of Continental Shelf and Slope off
No. 1, pp. 11-32. Louieiana and Taxas: Geotechnical Aspects,”
Beyond -bheSheZf Break, American Association of
Janbu, N. (1973), “Slope Stability Computations,” Petroleum Geologists Short Course, New Orleans,
l+nbankment-Dam
Engineering;CasagrandeVo7.ume, IA, May, vol. 2, pp. B1-B33.
New York, Wiley & Sons, pp. 47-86.
Whitley, James O. Jr. (1970), Some Aspects of the
Lauritzsen, R. and Schjetne (1976), “Stability S%rwcturaz Des{gn ofa Three Cohunn,Mat Supported,
Calculation for Offshore Gravity Structures,” Self-EZevatingMob-izeDrizz Pzatfomn, Presented ASCE,
tioceedings,8th Offsho~e TechnologyConference, Texas Section, Galveston, Texas, Spring, 59 pp.
Houston, Vol. 1, pp. 75-82.
Young, A. G, Kraft, L. M., Jr., and Focht, J. A.,
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953), “The Bearing Capacity of Jr. (1975), “Geotechnical Considerations in Founda-
Foundations Under Eccentric and Inclined Loads, tion Design of Offshore Gravity Structures,”
=oceedings, Third InternationalConference on Soil tioceedings,Seventih Offshore TechnologyConference,
Mechanicsand FoundationEngiweping, Zurich, Vol. 1, Houston, Vol. 3, pp. 367-386.
pp. 440-445.

279
MAXIMUM BEARING
PRESSURE = 0.47 KSF

[ 1

(b)PLAN VIEW OF MAT


MAT FOUNDATION

(a)ELEVATION VIEW OF RIG

Fig. 1 - Typical A-Shaped Mat-Supported


Jack-Up Rig.

(A fter RObert$, Suhayda, and Coleman, 1978)

-;
Fig. 2 - Schematic Diagram of Delta Front

-n-r
SURFACE WAVEN I Instability Features.

—. -—–1 ~ .—.

Lf.1
D

BOTTOM PRESSURE
ANOMALY

4 :;:?;:,

/]w (SOIL WEIGHT)

Fig. 3 - Wave-Induced Bottom Pressure Anomaly.


DIRECTION OF WAVE ~
TRAVEL (AFT TO FORE)

HORIZONTAL OISTANCE, FEET


-w -100 -50 0 Sa 100 1543 200 2s0 300 350
I I I I I i I I I I

Fig. 4 - Stability Analysis by Limiting Equilibrium Procedure.

I
HALIBU~STNO. 3

JWJLIEO STRESS) &REEP


N

m=FoR”AT’”Y” ‘“’T””

HALIBUTTESTNO. 2
e 9BoRING1

CNTSTRESS”3 BORING2;HALIBUT
@
TEST NO. 1

03>02>01
i = STRAIN RATE
00 o lWZFt
TIME
-

Fig. 5 - Creep Behavior of Clay Soils.


Fig. 6 - Boring and Halibut Test Locations.
IN-SITU UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
KIPS PER SQ FT KIPS PER SQ FT

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Oo 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20



LEGEND :
@ %1 I B-1 B-2
O + MINIATURE
VANE
AO ❑ = TORVANE
0+ ~am 0 ● REMOLOEO
5 oAO 5 MiN!ATURE_
g VANE
L
@o J’ 00
tc- ct-
0 @ 0
0 10 0
J 10 u
ii 0 AO ● ov~
$ $ o
A6 .O ❑ It
g
15 15
20 0 J
Lu ❑
m $
OA 0
z
0 E
. 3
0

A Q
F 20 — — — — m F 20
< LEGEND :
E 0 CA 2
+
0 No, 1
0 No, 2 i-
Lu
● O ,0
%’
Lu
ANo 3 z
w
CL 25 L 25 ❑
Q ■

● ,00
+
30 30

(a) HALIBUT VANE TEST RESULTS (b)LABORATORY TEST RESULTS


HALIBUT LOCATIONS 1-3, WEST DELTA AREA BORINGS 1 & 2, WEST DELTA AREA

Fig. 7 - In Situ and Laboratory Strength Test Variations.

k
WIRE LINE WINCH

SURVEYOR’S
TRANSIT
ELEVATION MARKINGS
. .. . . . . . . . . .. .
ON RANGE POLES
CLAMPEDTO
WIRELINE
L J

— . —

UNDISTURBED SEAFLOOR ELECTRONIC


REFERENCE LEVEL BOTTOM SENSOR
) /-l--l-

‘MAT PENETRATION

NOTE :SKETCH NOT TOSCALE

Fig. 8 - Mat Penetration Measurement System.


-—

HELIPORT

/
/
/’ BOW

MAXIMUM CRANE
[ REACH

\ \

Fig. 9 - Plan View of Rig and Measured Cross Sections.

AVERAGE BEARING PRESSURE, PSF


0

ELEVATION OF B B’lz
TOP OF MAT
STAGE 1 1-
STAGE 4 u
STAGE 2 -...
STAGE 4 8Y
STAGE 2 z“
‘“,-.. o
- ---- . .— .— c
MAT 4$
STAGE 1
~

7 < “: - ‘ ‘ ~
o 10 20 30 40 50 60°
ELEVATION OF A K,z
TOP OF MAT
STAGE 1 ~
~. STAGE 2
\ u
STAGES 2
8 ‘.
AND 3 ‘\%
\ $
.%..,- _ - F
MAT 4$
STAGE 1 “—” STAGE 3 d TOTALMATLOAD, KIPS

1 ~ ‘+ T ‘T 7 ~ LEGEND :
o 10 20 30 40 50 60° —— DAVIS&SOOKER (1973) METHOD WITH SU= REMOLDED
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, FEET MINIATURE VANE STRENGTH.
—.-— SKEMPTON (1951) METHOCJWITHSu =047x
REMOTE VANE STRENGTH
LOADING DAVIS&SOOKER (1973) METHOD WITH SU=0.75X
STAGE DATE TIME OPERATION REMOTE VANE STRENGTH.
1 7/30 0135 BEFORE PRELOAD, DERRICK STOWED —.—. SKEMPTON (1951) METHOOwlTH su=uNADJusTED-
2 7/30 1745 FULL PRELOAD, DERRICK FULLY CANTILEVERED MINIATURE VANE STRENGTH.
3 7/31 1045 REDUCED PRELOAD, DERRICK PARTIALLY CANTILEVERED ----- DAvls&sOOKER (1973) METHODWITHSU’I.IX
4 8/1 3 0030 REDUCED PRELOAD, AFTER STORM MINIATURE VANE STRENGTH.

Fig. 11 - Predicted Versus Measured Mat


Fig. 10 - Measurements of Mat Penetration and Penetrations.
Seafluor Profiles.

Вам также может понравиться