1 Copyright 2002 by ASME

Proceedings of OMAE 2001

21
st
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23-28, 2002, Oslo, Norway
OMAE2002-28085R
DETERMINING APPROPRIATE STIFFNESS LEVELS FOR SPUDCAN
FOUNDATIONS USING JACK-UP CASE RECORDS

M.J. Cassidy
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems,
The University of Western Australia, Australia

G.T. Houlsby
University of Oxford,
United Kingdom

M. Hoyle
Noble Denton Europe Ltd., United Kingdom
M.R. Marcom
Rowan Companies Inc.,
United States of America

ABSTRACT
The level of soil stiffness under spudcan footings is an area
of intense interest and debate, with many practitioners
believing that current jack-up assessment guidelines are overly
conservative. In order to evaluate appropriate stiffness
parameters, back-analysis of case records of jack-up platforms
in the North Sea has been performed. The records relate to
three different rigs at a total of eight locations, which include a
variety of soil conditions, water depths and sea-state severity.
For each site the horizontal deck displacements and the sea-
state conditions under storm loading are available. Numerical
simulation of the platforms under storm loading was
undertaken with varying levels of foundation stiffness. For
each set of stiffness one-hour of numerical simulation was
performed, with the most severe recorded environmental
loading conditions for that site used. The horizontal deck
displacements of the measured data and the numerical
simulation results have been compared in both the frequency
domain and by the magnitude of response. On the basis of the
analyses, recommendations can be made for higher stiffness
factors then are currently suggested in the SNAME, 1997
Technical & Research Bulletin 5-5A, Site Specific Assessment
of Mobile Jack-up Units (SNAME, 1997).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This paper reports the findings of the back-analysis of case
records of jack-up platforms in the North Sea. The records
relate to three different rigs at a total of eight locations, which
include a variety of soil conditions, water depths and storm
severity and have been previously reported in Temperton et al.
(1997) and Nelson et al. (2000).
At each of the locations the record of horizontal deck
movement of the jack-up under wave loading was available.
Located near the legs on the hull, accelerometers in orthogonal
pairs were used to measure deck accelerations and these
records double integrated to determine the displacements. By
measuring the wave heights with a downward looking sensor at
the bow of the jack-up (usually a radar altimeter but on some
occasions a laser wave gauge), the sea-state records were
established. Anemometers located on the top of the derrick
and/or legs also monitored wind speeds and directions. These
data almost certainly represent the best currently available
database of monitored information of full-scale jack-ups under
wave and wind loading. Further details of the monitoring
program can be found in Nelson et al. (2000).
In order to compare the monitored jack-up units with
numerical simulations of the most severe storm events, a suite
of random time domain analyses were performed for each site.
One hour simulations were performed using a structural
dynamic program developed at the University of Oxford and
called JAKUP. The motivation behind JAKUP is the
development of a balanced approach to the analysis of jack-up
units, with the non-linearities in the structural, foundation and
wave loading models all taken into account. Key features of the
program and aspects important to this study are discussed in
section 3, with full details available in Thompson (1996),
Williams et al. (1998) and Cassidy (1999).
For each site the stiffness of the foundation model was
varied. By changing only this value the natural period of the
numerical jack-up model could be adjusted and a comparison
with the measured data made. To determine the most
appropriate stiffness level the numerical value was adjusted
until there was a good correlation with the measured results in
both the frequency domain and the magnitude of response.
2.0 THE MEASURED DATA CASE RECORDS
A program of monitoring the dynamic behaviour and
environmental conditions of three jack-ups was commissioned
by Sante Fe in 1992 and since then eight sites have been
subjected to substantial storm conditions (Nelson et al., 2000).
Proceedings of OMAE02
21
st
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Artic Engineering
June 23-28, 2002,Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002-28085
OE TOC
2 Copyright 2002 by ASME
A summary of these sites, which constitute the eight cases
analysed, is given in Table 1. All sites were in the Central North
Sea and as shown in Table 1 the cases contain a variety of
water depths (28.3 to 91.8m) and jack-up orientations. Two of
the units (Magellan and Monitor) are Friede and Goldman
L780 Mod V units and the other (Galaxy-1) a Friede and
Goldman L780 Mod VI. Table 2 outlines details of the soil
conditions for all of the sites. These are best estimates from site
assessment data, with properties fine-tuned to balance the
measured pre-load and penetration levels. More details on this
process is given in sections 5.1 and 5.2 for clay and sand
respectively. Further details of the site locations and conditions
can be found in Nelson et al. (2000).
3.0 ANALYSIS PROGRAM USED IN BACK-ANALYSIS
Analytical models for the eight cases were constructed
using the JAKUP program. The key features of this program
are:
The program uses the finite element method with dynamics
modelled by time-stepping. In the JAKUP structural model
P , Euler and shear effects are considered and the
Newmark ( 25 . 0 = 5 . 0 = ) solution method used to
solve the dynamic equations.
The structure is modelled as a 2-dimensional bar stool
model, with the legs and hull represented by elastic finite
elements.
Wave loading is modelled using either regular waves or
pseudo-random waves. Extreme events can be modelled
using the NewWave method (Tromans et al., 1991), and
these may be embedded within a pseudo-random
background using Constrained NewWave (Taylor et al.,
1995; Cassidy et al., 2001). Purely random seas, based on
the superposition of numerous wavelets and with no
NewWave embedment, are also possible and were used in
the analyses described here. The wave kinematics are
explicitly calculated, and the forces on the rig determined
by Morisons method.
Wind loading is specified by prescribed loads.
The foundation can be modelled as pinned, fixed, elastic
springs, or using one of two advanced work-hardening
plasticity models in terms of force resultants on the
foundation. This is the most significant aspect of JAKUP
for this project.
Hydrodynamic damping is introduced through Morisons
method, and structural damping is specified using
Rayleighs method.
The limitation of JAKUP to two-dimensional modelling was
not considered significant for the eight cases, as all of the storm
directions could be analysed as either two-legs windward one-
leg leeward or two-legs leeward one-leg windward (see Table 1
for orientations). The other limitation of the program is that
detailed modelling of leg and hull is not possible and no
account is taken of nonlinearity at the leg-hull connection.
However, an extensive structural calibration process between
the three-dimensional models previously used by Noble Denton
Europe Ltd (NDE) (Nelson et al., 2000) and JAKUP confirmed
the applicability of JAKUP for these calculations. For each case
the structural models of both NDE and JAKUP were subjected
to a 10MN impulse load at deck level under four conditions:
pinned footings and elastic springs for the jack-up in air (thus
excluding hydrodynamic damping) and in water. Comparisons
between the models were based upon the following criteria.
The mean (steady state) deck displacement, which gives a
direct measure of the overall stiffness of the system.
The mass distribution was checked by comparing the
natural period of the structure, deduced from the time
interval between successive deck displacement peaks.
The damping factor was determined from the logarithmic
decrement for the first six cycles. Since the damping factor
depends on mass, stiffness and damping, this represents
(having checked mass and stiffness above) a check on the
implementation of the damping.
In all of the cases the agreement between the NDE
program and JAKUP was extremely good. This correlation
gave an assurance of JAKUPs ability to provide realistic
structural modelling of jack-up response and the more
advanced foundation capabilities of the JAKUP code could be
used with confidence.
4.0 JAKUP MODELS
4.1 Structural models
The typical structural configuration used in all of the
numerical JAKUP analyses is shown in Figure 1. The
properties used for the three jack-up configurations are also
given. As detailed in Table 1, only two spudcan types were
used throughout the eight sites. The two shapes and sizes are
shown in Figure 2.
4.2 Wave loading
For each site the most severe sea-state recorded during the
monitoring period was chosen for numerical simulation. The
direction of the sea was assumed to be coincident with the
measured wind direction. An equivalent 2-D model was chosen
to be as close as possible to this direction. The sea-state was
represented by a JONSWAP spectrum, with specified
significant wave height, mean crossing period and peak
enhancement factor. The sea-state parameters are detailed in
Table 2. Wind forces were applied as nodal forces with a
summary of conditions given in Table 3.
4.3 Foundation models
One of JAKUP's major advantages is the implementation
of Model B and Model C - strain hardening plasticity
models for spudcans on clay and sand respectively. Both
models are based on experiments performed at Oxford
University and described in Martin and Houlsby (2000) and
Gottardi et al. (1999) respectively. In the strain hardening
plasticity theory the response of the foundations is expressed
3 Copyright 2002 by ASME
purely in terms of force resultants and is expressed in a way
that makes it directly applicable in numerical analysis of
structures. The two models are closely related, both having four
major components:
(1) An empirical expression for the yield surface in three
dimensional vertical, moment and horizontal loading space
(V, M/2R, H). A typical yield surface shape is shown in
Figure 3 and once the surface is established, any changes
of load within this surface will result only in elastic
deformation. Plastic deformation can result, however,
when the load-state reaches the surface.
(2) An empirical strain-hardening expression to define the
variation of the size of the yield surface with the plastic
component of vertical displacement. Model B and Model C
differ principally in the way this work-hardening is
described.
(3) A model for elastic load-displacement behaviour within the
yield surface. Finite element work has shown that cross
coupling exists between the horizontal and rotational
footing displacements (Bell, 1991; Ngo-Tran, 1996), with
a linear elastic incremental force-displacement relationship
of the form

|
|
|
.
|

\
|

(
(
(

=
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
du
Rd
dw
K K
K K
K
dH
R dM
dV
h c
c m
v
2
0
0
0 0
2
(1)

where K
v
, K
m
, K
h
and K
c
represent stiffness values and w ,
and u are the vertical, rotational and horizontal
displacements respectively. Figure 4 shows the assumed
loading and displacement directions at the foundation. For
both Model B and Model C the stiffness factors in
Equation 1 are proportional to the shear modulus G.
(4) A suitable flow rule to allow prediction of the ratios
between plastic footing displacements during yield. For
similar tests the direction of observed plastic displacements
differed for clay and sand, making the flow rule another
principal variation in the models.
A full description of Model B can be found in Martin (1994)
and Martin and Houlsby (2001) and Model C in Cassidy (1999)
and Houlsby and Cassidy (2002).
5.0 COMPARISONS WITH CASE HISTORIES
For each case, analyses were carried out for one hour of
the measured sea-state, with a variety of different stiffness
properties at the foundation. The history of the deck
displacement was recorded, and processed in the following
way.
Firstly the frequency spectrum for the response was
obtained for comparison with the measured spectra. The
spectrum was obtained by two means: a Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT), and by use of Autoregression Coeffiecients. The latter is
a more recently developed method, which allows a
representation of the spectrum using fewer variables. Details of
the method can be found in Pardey et al. (1996). By
comparison with the FFT it gives much smoother spectrum, but
otherwise the spectra derived from the two methods are very
similar (except for some special cases of mainly theoretical
interest). Example spectra derived from the measured deck
displacements, resolved to the direction of the storm, for two
cases (C1 and S1) are shown in Figure 5. The spectra found
were usually characterised by two peaks one at the dominant
wave frequency, and another at the natural period of the
structure (which is usually much shorter than the wave period).
For the two cases shown in Figure 5 the natural period of the
structure is dominating the spectral response with a peak at
0.16Hz for clay case 1 (C1) and at around 0.18Hz for sand case
1 (S1). The main purpose of this study was to match the natural
period of the structure.
While the spectra usually give good data on the frequency
response, they are poor indicators of the magnitude of
response. For this reason a measure of the magnitude of
response was also necessary and for both the measured and
simulated deck displacements the mean, standard deviation,
minimum, maximum and range are compared. The magnitude
of the measured results for cases C1 and S1 can be seen in the
first lines (highlighted) of Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
5.1 The Clay Cases
The strength of the seabed was found by applying vertical
load to the jack-ups of Figure 1 and calibrating the observed
penetration with the simulated values for the same pre-load
level. At the beginning of the main analysis the vertical preload
was applied, then the load reduced to the working load before
the wave and wind loads were applied.
On all of the clay sites, initial estimates of the profile of
undrained strength with depth were made on the basis of site
investigation information. In each case the strength profile was
fitted by a linear variation of strength with depth. Most
emphasis was placed on data for the depths between the
observed penetration and the observed penetration plus one
footing radius. None of the sites represented a significant risk
of punch through conditions.
The load-penetration curve was computed using JAKUP,
and the profile of strength then fine tuned to give a match of
the observed penetration at preload. Only minor adjustments
were necessary at this stage, with the jack-up penetration
process effectively used as a very large scale investigation of
the strength of the clay. The final penetration curves for the
three clay cases are shown in Figure 6(a) and the strength
profiles detailed in Table 2.
The significant variable to be found in the back-analyses
was the stiffness of the foundations and for all of the clay cases
Equation 1 was used as the elastic stiffness matrix in Model B.
The shear modulus (G) linearly scales all of the stiffness
coefficients in Equation 1 and was determined by

u r
s I G = (2)

4 Copyright 2002 by ASME
where s
u
is the undrained shear strength measured at 0.15
diameters below the reference point of the spudcan (the first
position of maximum diameter above the tip) and I
r
the rigidity
index.
5.1.1 Example Case C1
The investigation for the stiffness of the spudcan
foundations will be detailed here for clay case C1. The
measured spectrum is shown in Figure 5 and the measured
response magnitude detailed in the first line of Table 4.
On the basis of laboratory testing the starting point for the
estimation of the stiffness value was to assume 80 =
r
I
(Martin, 1994). One hour of random sea was simulated through
JAKUP and for this level of stiffness the frequency spectrum
for the hull displacement response can be seen in Figure 7.
Though this case did not reveal two discrete peaks the natural
period of the numerical jack-up can be observed at around
0.12Hz (or 8.33s). As some practitioners may have expected
this value estimated a natural period lower than that measured.
Subsequently
r
I was increased (stiffening the foundations) and
the spectra for values of I
r
= 150, 250, 300 and 350 are also
shown in Figure 7. To allow comparisons between all stiffness
levels the same hour of random wave loading, as was used in
the 80 =
r
I case, was applied. As the foundation fixity
increased the natural period (in seconds) decreased, as did the
overall response. The magnitude of displacement for all of
these cases are given in Table 4, with the simulated values
closest to the measured highlighted. The level of elastic
stiffness, for the parameters set out in Equation 1, are also
given in Table 4.
There are two upper and lower bound cases to the
rotational fixity: pinned and fixed footings. Both assume
infinite horizontal and vertical stiffness, but pinned assumes no
rotational stiffness whereas fixed assumes infinite. As well as
the Model B analysis these two foundation assumptions were
also analysed, with their spectra shown in Figure 7 and their
displacement magnitudes in Table 4.
On the basis of the measured spectrum it is clear that
250
r
I is required and values of 300 or 350 fit well. As the
fixed case gives only a fractionally different frequency (about
0.16Hz), no upper bound can be placed on the stiffness factor.
Examining the range of the displacement magnitudes, and also
the standard deviation of the displacement suggests that the
higher values of stiffness cannot be justified, with 250 to 300
fitting quite well. Based on this one case a value of 300 =
r
I
would be appropriate. The spectrum for this case superimposed
on the measure spectrum is shown in Figure 8(a).
5.1.2 Summary of Other Clay Cases
Two other clay cases were analysed. They also confirmed
that higher stiffness values may be appropriate. In clay case 2
(C2) an
r
I of between 300 and 350 was found to fit the data
well. On the basis of the measured spectra (position of the peak
response) it first appears that 600
r
I is required. This is
shown in Figure 8(b). However, somewhat lower values of
r
I
also give a peak not far from the observed value of about
0.175Hz (5.71s). Examining the range of the displacement
magnitudes, and also the standard deviations of the
displacements suggests a best fit at an
r
I value between 200
and 300. Taken together it is considered that the best overall fit
for this case is again achieved with 350 =
r
I .
The third clay case (C3) again suggested a high value of
stiffness at 600 =
r
I , with the sharp peak of the measured
spectrum at 0.21Hz (4.76s) quite well match at this stiffness
value. This can be observed in Figure 8(c). The displacement
data also suggests that this higher value of stiffness factor can
be justified.
A summary of the clay findings is given in Table 6.
5.2 Example Case on Sand
When using Model C for analysing spudcans on sand the
penetration depends almost entirely on the chosen angle of
friction, with a minor influence of the effective unit weight
(which was fixed on the basis of site investigation). For all of
the sand sites, the angle of friction was adjusted until the
observed penetration was matched. The resulting values are
quite low (in the range of 27 to 30.5), but are quite credible
for silty material. Note that, since the measured penetration was
only resolved to the nearest 0.3m, this process is rather
approximate, and too much credibility should not be given to
the friction values. The final penetration curves are shown for
the relevant five sand cases in Figure 6(b). The subsequent
behaviour of Model C depends principally on the ratio of
vertical load to preload and not to the angle of friction itself.
In the sand analyses presented here the shear modulus was
calculated using the formula recommended by Wroth and
Houlsby (1985) and detailed for Model C in Cassidy (1999)
and Cassidy and Houlsby (1999). It uses a non-dimensionalised
shear modulus factor g to scale the shear modulus by

a
a
p
R
gp G

=
2
(3)

where
a
p is atmospheric pressure, R the maximum embedded
spudcan radius and the submerged unit weight of the soil.
Equation 3 is derived from the empirical observation that the
shear modulus depends approximately on the square root of the
stress level, with R 2 a representative estimate of the mean
stress (Wroth and Houlsby, 1985).
5.2.1 Example Case S1
The results of an example sand case analysis are shown in
Figure 9. The elastic stiffness values used in Model C and
corresponding to the parameters of Equation 1 are listed in
Table 5. The starting point for the analysis was a shear modulus
5 Copyright 2002 by ASME
factor in Equation 3 of 4000 = g . However, this was found to
be too stiff as reflected in an estimated natural period of 0.25Hz
(4.0s). There is a sharply defined measured peak in the
spectrum at about 0.18Hz (as shown in Figure 5), with this
being well matched by the simulations using 300 = g . The
displacement data also suggests that 300 = g is appropriate, as
highlighted in Table 5.
5.2.2 Summary of Other Sand Cases
Four other sand cases were analysed and comparisons of
their measure response and interpreted best numerical fit are
shown in Figure 10. A summary of the results and stiffness
values thought appropriate is given in Table 7. Unfortunately
not all of the sand cases gave conclusive evidence as to a match
between the measured and analysed data.
It was on the basis of laboratory tests that the estimated
initial value of the dimensionless stiffness factor g was
assumed to be 4000. The three case histories, which give a
clear indication of a suitable value of g for the field (cases S1,
S2 and S3), give values of about 500, 400 and 300, i.e. a factor
of about 10 lower on average. Two cases (S4 and S5) are
inconclusive, but not entirely inconsistent with a value of 400.
The reasons for the discrepancy between laboratory and field
results are thought to be due to difficulties recording very small
displacements in the experiments and also scaling effects
between the experimental and field results. The values of
stiffness implied by g = 400 are, however, higher than those
obtained using the SNAME (1997) procedures.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
In the testing program eight case records of jack-ups in the
North Sea were back analysed to fit soil stiffness parameters.
On the basis of these records, it is possible to recommend
higher stiffness factors than are currently suggested in the
practice for Site Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units
(SNAME, 1997). Such higher stiffness factors had been
expected to be appropriate by some practitioners, but the case
records studied here provide a firmer basis than had hitherto
been available for recommending higher stiffness factors. A
publication on recommendations arising from this back analysis
and also outlining a calculation method for spudcan stiffness
levels, within the context of current practices in the SNAME
guidelines, will be forthcoming.
Although the present project has gone some way to
clarifying the uncertainties about the appropriate stiffness for
analysis of jack-ups, there remain a number of issues to be
resolved, and further work in this area would be beneficial. The
case data recorded were all for relatively mild environmental
conditions and a study using harsher environmental conditions
would be most valuable. Further monitoring and back analysis
is therefore recommended. Any field monitoring should
concentrate on gathering high-quality site-investigation data so
that the soils can be properly characterised. Other direct
indications of stiffness such as the measurement of soil rebound
as the preload is dumped, would also be a valuable check.
Whilst validation against field records is of primary
importance, a greater coverage of different cases (especially
extreme events) can be achieved by validation against further
model tests, and this should be pursued.
Models B and C are probably the most advanced
foundation models for the analysis of jack-ups currently
available, but they are inadequate as far as the modelling of
cyclic behaviour is concerned. The development of models that
provides realistic modelling of behaviour during cycling,
including a gradual degradation of stiffness with strain
amplitude, is required (and is currently being investigated at
Oxford University and the University of Western Australia).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the International Association
of Drilling Contractors (IADC) and the authors thank them for
permission to publish this paper.
The Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems was
established and is funded under the Australian Governments
Special Research Centres Program.
REFERENCES
Bell, R.W. (1991). The analysis of offshore foundations subjected
to combined loading. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Oxford.
Butterfield, R., Houlsby, G.T. and Gottardi, G. (1997).
Standardized sign conventions and notation for generally loaded
foundations, Gotechnique, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp1051-1054.
Cassidy, M.J. (1999). Non-linear analysis of jack-up structures
subjected to random waves, DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford,
United Kingdom.
Cassidy, M.J. and Houlsby, G.T. (1999). On the modelling of
foundations for jack-up units on sand, Proc. 31
st
Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, OTC 10995.
Cassidy, M.J., Eatock Taylor, R., Houlsby, G.T. (2001). Analysis
of jack-up units using a Constrained NewWave methodology. Applied
Ocean Research, Vol. 23, pp. 221-234.
Gottardi, G., Houlsby, G.T. and Butterfield, R. (1999). The plastic
response of circular footings on sand under general planar loading,
Gotechnique, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp 453-470.
Houlsby, G.T. and Cassidy, M.J. (2002). A plasticity model for the
behaviour of footings on sand under combined loading. Gotechnique,
Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.117-129.
Martin, C.M. (1994). Physical and numerical modelling of
offshore foundations under combined loads. D.Phil. Thesis, University
of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Martin, C.M. and Houlsby, G.T. (2000). Combined loading of
spudcan foundations on clay: laboratory tests. Gotechnique, Vol. 50,
No. 4, pp 325-338.
Martin, C.M. and Houlsby, G.T. (2001). Combined loading of
spudcan foundations on clay: numerical modelling. Gotechnique, Vol.
51, No. 8, pp 687-700.
Nelson, K., Smith, P., Hoyle, M., Stoner, R. and Versavel, T.
(2000). Jack-up response measurements and the underprediction of
spud-can fixity by SNAME 5-5A. Proc. 32
nd
Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, OTC 12074.
6 Copyright 2002 by ASME
Ngo-Tran, C.L. (1996). The analysis of offshore foundations
subjected to combined loading. D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford.
Pardey, J., Roberts, S. and Tarassenko, L. (1996). A review of
parametric modeling techniques for EEG analysis. Med. Eng. Phys.
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 2-11.
SNAME T&R 5-5A (1997). Site specific assessment of mobile
jack-up units. 1
st
Edition Rev 1. Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, New Jersey.
Taylor, P.H., Jonathan, P. and Harland, L.A. (1995). Time domain
simulation of jack-up dynamics with the extremes of a Gaussian
process. Proc. 14
th
Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanic and Arctic
Engineering (OMAE), Vol. 1-A, pp. 313-319.
Temperton, I., Stoner, R.W.P. and Springett, C.N. (1997).
Measured jack-up fixity: analysis of instrumentation data from three
North Sea jack-up units and correlation to site assessment procedures.
Proc. of 6
th
Int. Conf. Jack-Up Platform Design, Construction and
Operation, City University, London.
Thompson, R.S.G. (1996). Development of non-linear numerical
models appropriate for the analysis of jack-up units. D.Phil. Thesis,
University of Oxford.
Tromans, P.S., Anaturk, A.R. and Hagemeijer, P. (1991). A new
model for the kinematics of large ocean waves -applications as a
design wave-. Proc. 1
st
Int. Offshore and Polar Engng Conf. ,
Edinburgh, Vol. 3, pp. 64-71.
Williams M.S., Thompson R.S.G., Houlsby G.T. (1998). Non-
linear dynamic analysis of offshore jack-up units. Computers and
Structures, 69(2), pp. 171-180.
Wroth, C.P. and Houlsby, G.T. (1985). Soil mechanics property
characterization and analysis procedures. Proc. 11
th
Int. Conf. on Soil
Mech. and Fndn Engng, San Francisco, Vol. 1, pp. 1-55.

Table 1 - Summary of the eight site conditions

Rig Water
depth (m)
Spudcan
penetration (m)
Leg length
(to hull) (m)
Still water load
(MN)
Pre-load
ratio*
Spudcan type
(see Figure 2)
Orientation
C1 Magellan 91.8 2.4 117.7 157.3 1.89 1 2 windward 1 leeward
C2 Magellan 88.5 3.0 110.5 157.5 1.62 1 1 windward 2 leeward
C3 Galaxy-1 89.4 6.7 115.3 231.5 1.66 2 2 windward 1 leeward
S1 Galaxy-1 74.5 1.2 95.8 229.1 1.68 2 2 windward 1 leeward
S2 Magellan 77.0 0.9 98.9 161.1 1.54 1 1 windward 2 leeward
S3 Monitor 83.5 0.9 104.2 147.6 1.65 1 1 windward 2 leeward
S4 Monitor 28.3 0.6 47.5 151.1 1.65 1 1 windward 2 leeward
S5 Galaxy-1 91.8 1.5 113.1 227.7 1.69 2 1 windward 2 leeward
*Pre-load ratio is defined as the preload divided by the total still water load (vertical operating load).

Table 2 - Summary of soil conditions at each site and sea-state parameters used for JONSWAP spectrum

Notes on soil
conditions
Preload per
leg (MN)
Undrained
strength at
mudline

(kPa)
Strength
increase with
depth
(kPa/m)
Submerged
unit weight
(kN/m
3
)
Friction
angle
()
H
s
(m) T
Z
(s) Peak
enhancement
factor ()
C1 OCR 15-60 99.0 33 20 - - 5.84 8.87 1.15
C2 OCR 5-15 85.0 41 4 - - 8.03 8.84 1.4
C3 OCR 10-20 128.0 42 2 - - 6.8 7.96 2.8
S1 128.0 - - 9.3 30.4 4.1 6.89 2.2
S2 82.5 - - 9.1 27.15 9.85 8.78 2.35
S3 81.1 - - 9.0 27.1 5.09 7.35 1.9
S4 83.0 - - 9.1 29.0 5.97 7.53 2.4
S5 128.0 - - 9.5 27.6 4.64 7.65 1.1

Table 3 Wind loads applied as nodal point forces

Hull
Force
(MN)
Equivalent
location
above
seabed (m)
Windward
leg force
above hull
(MN)
Equivalent
location
above
seabed (m)
Windward
leg force
below hull
(MN)
Equivalent
location
above
seabed (m)
Leeward
leg force
above hull
(MN)
Equivalent
location
above
seabed (m)
Leeward
leg force
below hull
(MN)
Equivalent
location
above
seabed (m)
C1 0.163 126.72 0.079 144.7 0.096 114.6 0.040 144.7 0.042 14.
C2 1.581 129.5 0.062 137.9 0.031 101.9 0.124 137.9 0.055 102.7
C3 0.837 133.9 0.138 151.1 0.041 106.1 0.074 151.1 0.035 102.1
S1 0.476 116.9 0.106 143.8 0.025 87.1 0.052 143.8 0.016 84.4
S2 2.099 118.9 0.125 133.3 0.053 89.3 0.250 133.3 0.072 92.4
S3 0.327 120.2 0.022 135.6 0.013 92.5 0.044 135.6 0.017 96.3
S4 1.068 63.4 0.197 108.7 0.033 37.3 0.394 108.7 0.042 40.9
S5 0.967 134.4 0.070 152.0 0.023 104.6 0.137 152.0 0.059 102.3
7 Copyright 2002 by ASME
Table 4 - Stiffness values used and the deck displacement response magnitudes for Clay Case 1 (C1)

Stiffness Values Used in Analyses Deck displacement response magnitudes
K
v
K
m
K
h
K
c
mean Range of displacement Range Standard deviation
(MN/m) (MNm/rad) (MN/m) (MN/m) (mm) lower (mm) upper (mm) (mm) (mm)
Observed N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. -63.1 56.2 119.3 13.9
Pinned infinity 0 infinity N.A. 27.2 -308.9 333.5 642.4 97.7
Ir = 80 514.1 28708.8 353.3 -24.4 -25.9 -93.9 113.1 207.0 25.1
Ir = 150 964.0 53829.0 662.5 -45.8 -10.3 -57.9 74.2 132.1 14.9
Ir = 250 1606.7 89714.9 1104.1 -76.3 -4.3 -49.4 81.1 130.5 12.0
Ir = 300 1928.0 107657.9 1325.0 -91.6 -2.9 -56.4 83.3 139.7 12.2
Ir = 350 2249.4 125600.9 1545.8 -106.8 -1.8 -46.1 66.4 112.5 11.1
Fully Fixed infinity infinity infinity N.A. 3.0 -35.4 43.1 78.5 8.9

Table 5 - Stiffness values used and the deck displacement response magnitudes for Sand Case 1 (S1)

Stiffness Values Used in Analyses Deck displacement response magnitudes
K
v
K
m
K
h
K
c
mean Range of displacement Range Standard deviation
(MN/m) (MNm/rad) (MN/m) (MN/m) (mm) lower (mm) upper (mm) (mm) (mm)
Observed N.A. -43.7 40.2 83.9 7.0
Pinned infinity 0 infinity N.A. 57.5 -57.5 63.3 120.8 10.6
g = 100 408.0 13100.9 354.1 -293.2 64.0 -64.0 53.5 117.5 11.0
g = 200 816.0 26201.9 708.2 -586.3 48.2 -48.2 41.5 89.7 8.8
g = 300 1224.0 39302.8 1062.3 -879.5 41.5 -41.6 48.8 90.4 7.4
g = 400 1632.0 52403.7 1416.4 -1172.6 37.7 -37.8 39.1 76.9 6.3
g = 500 2039.9 65504.6 1770.5 -1465.8 30.5 -35.0 31.8 66.8 5.1
g = 1000 4079.9 131009.3 3541.0 -2931.6 28.6 -28.5 20.2 48.7 3.2
g = 2000 8159.8 262018.5 7082.1 -5863.2 24.6 -24.7 21.9 46.6 2.7
g = 3000 12239.7 393027.8 10623.1 -8794.7 23.1 -23.1 18.5 41.6 2.4
g = 4000 16319.6 524037.0 14164.1 -11726.3 22.3 -22.3 18.1 40.4 2.1
Fully Fixed infinity infinity infinity N.A. 16.8 -16.9 13.7 30.6 1.6

Table 6 - Summary of results for clay

Test Estimated best fit (I
r
) Comments
C1 300 Value fits both frequency and magnitude tests
C2 350 Compromise between higher value or frequency and lower value for magnitude and standard deviation.
C3 600 Both frequency and magnitude of displacements suggested this value. However, this test may-be a possible
outlier.

Table 7 - Summary of results for sand

Test Estimated best fit (g) Comments
S1 300 Value fits both frequency and magnitude tests (see section 6.2.1 for analysis)
S2 (500) The measured data of Case S2 showed no clear peak in response other than near the dominant wave
frequency. The calculated response only showed this behaviour for very low stiffness values (around g = 100).
However, the weak peak at about 0.18Hz (5.56s) can be well fitted with g of 500 or 1000. The magnitude of
the displacements for the low stiffness values are significantly too large and these are best fit by stiffness in
the range g = 500 to 4000. No firm conclusion can therefore be drawn, but a value of 500 could be justified.
S3 400 A value of g = 300 best fits the measured peak, but on the basis of measured displacement 400 and 500 fit
equally well. On balance a value of g = 400 is deemed appropriate.
S4 (500-2000)

A significantly higher natural frequency of 0.32Hz was measured in the much shallower water at this site. The
calculated spectrum did not fit this well, but g values in the range 500 to 2000 do provide some indication of a
small peak in broadly the same frequency range. However, the displacement data is inconclusive with the
extremes of the range best fitted with high stiffness, whilst the standard deviation fitted well with a low
stiffness. Unfortunately, no conclusions could be drawn at this site.
S5 (400) The measured data show only a weak peak at about 0.18Hz, with the frequency being quite well matched by
the calculations with g = 400. However, the displacements are best fitted by the pinned footing case. Overall
the analysis does not fit the pattern of the measured data well enough for any firm conclusions to be drawn
8 Copyright 2002 by ASME

























Figure 1 Typical structural configuration used (refer to Table 1 for case number)












Figure 2 Spudcan shapes and sizes (refer to Table 2 for case
number)





















u
w

Reference position
Current position
M
V
H
2R


Figure 4 - Loads and displacements at the foundation level
(after Butterfield et al., 1997)









V
Yield surface in
(V, M/2R, H) load space
M/2R
H

1.83m



C.L.
2.435m 3.665m 2.995m

1.4m

0.44m

C.L.
2.44m 6.65m
Spudcan Shape 1 Spudcan Shape 2
Structural Properties Used

Magellan Monitor Galaxy-1
Hull length (m) 42.19 45.72 47.86
For each leg
I (m
4
) 10.462 10.462 28.84
A (m
2
) 0.444 0.444 0.744
A
s
(m
2
) 0.038 0.038 0.0592
Hull
I (h
1
) (m
4
) 19.58 19.58 24.84
I (h
2
) (m
4
) 39.17 39.17 49.68


structural node
Hull length
upwave leg(s)
downwave leg(s)


h
1
h
2
Mean water
depth 90 m
Figure 3 Model C yield surface shape for three degrees of freedom
(V:M/2R:H)

0.0E+00
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
(
m
2
/
H
z
)
Figure 5 Measured deck displacement spectra for clay case 1 (C1) and sand case 1 (S1)
(a) Clay Case 1 (C1) (b) Sand Case 1 (S1)
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 50 100 150
Vertical pre-load per spudcan (MN)
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
i
p

(
m
)
C1
C2
C3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Vertical pre-load per spudcan (MN)
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
i
p

(
m
)
S1 S2
S3 S4
S5
Figure 6 - Vertical preloading of the spudcan footings
(a) clay cases (b) sand cases
9 Copyright 2002 by ASME
Case C1 IR = 80 (first approx.)
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.0E-03
9.0E-03
1.0E-02
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case C1 IR = 150
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case C1 IR = 250
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case C1 IR = 300
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case C1 IR = 350
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case C1 Pinned Footings
0.0E+00
5.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.5E-01
2.0E-01
2.5E-01
3.0E-01
3.5E-01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case C1 Fully Fixed Footings
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Figure 7 Frequency spectra for clay case 1 (C1)
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm.
IR = 350
Figure 8 Comparison of measured and simulated frequency spectra for all clay cases
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.0E-03
9.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm
IR = 600
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm
IR = 600
(a) Clay Case 1 (C1) (b) Clay Case 2 (C2) (c) Clay Case 3 (C3)
10 Copyright 2002 by ASME
Case S1 g = 4000 (first approx.)
0.0E+00
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
3.0E-05
3.5E-05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 g = 3000
0.0E+00
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
3.0E-05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 g = 500
0.0E+00
5.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.5E-04
2.0E-04
2.5E-04
3.0E-04
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 g = 400
0.0E+00
1.0E-04
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
6.0E-04
7.0E-04
8.0E-04
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 g = 300
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 g = 200
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 g = 100
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 Pinned Footings
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 Fully Fixed Footings
0.0E+00
2.0E-06
4.0E-06
6.0E-06
8.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.2E-05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Case S1 g = 1000
0.0E+00
1.0E-05
2.0E-05
3.0E-05
4.0E-05
5.0E-05
6.0E-05
7.0E-05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
Figure 9 Frequency spectra for sand case 1 (S1)
Case S1 g = 2000
0.0E+00
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
3.0E-05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
ar 11 coef.
FFT N = 512
11 Copyright 2002 by ASME
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm
g = 300
Figure 10 Comparison of measured and simulated frequency spectra for all sand cases
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.0E-03
9.0E-03
1.0E-02
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm
g = 500
g = 1000
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.0E-03
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm
g = 300
g = 400
(a) Sand Case 1 (S1) (b) Sand Case 2 (S2) (c) Sand Case 3 (S3)
0.0E+00
2.0E-05
4.0E-05
6.0E-05
8.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
1.6E-04
1.8E-04
2.0E-04
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm
g = 2000
g = 500
(d) Sand Case 4 (S4) (b) Sand Case 5 (S5)
0.0E+00
2.0E-03
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz)
P
o
w
e
r

S
p
e
c
t
r
u
m

(
m
2
/
H
z
)
storm
g = 400
12 Copyright 2002 by ASME