Fugro Thesis

AES/GE/11-13 Design and development of a hazard map for the
Positioning and siting of large jack-up rigs at the

Geologically complex areas of the Gulf of Suez
30/06/2011 Bert Lietaert
MSc Thesis Engineering Geology

Title : Design and development of a hazard map for the
positioning and siting of large jack-up rigs at the
geologically complex areas of the Gulf of Suez.
Author(s) : Bert Lietaert
Date : 30 June 2011

Supervisor(s) : D.J.M Ngan-Tillard (TU Delft)
L.A. Van Paassen (TU Delft)
S. Kortekaas (Fugro Engineers B.V.)
T. van der Wal (Fugro Engineers B.V.)
TA Report number : AES/GE/11-13
Postal Address : Section for Geo-Engineering

Department of Applied Earth Sciences
Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 5028
The Netherlands
Telephone : (31) 15 2781328 (secretary)
Telefax : (31) 15 2781189
Copyright ©2011 Section for Geo-Engineering
All rights reserved.

No parts of this publication may be reproduced,
Stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
In any form or by any means, electronic,
Mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
Without the prior written permission of the
Section for Geo-Engineering.
Abstract
The aim of this research project is to develop a hazard map for punch-through failure during jack-up
rig installation in the Gulf of Suez. This map can be used to make an upfront assessment of
unfavorable foundation conditions at a proposed installation site. This is not self-evident due to the
complex geological setting of the area.
Data to complete this research was provided by Fugro Engineers B.V.. The available data set contains
(geotechnical) borehole data, geophysical data, bathymetric data and information regarding the
surface sediments in the Gulf of Suez. The borehole data are used to perform bearing capacity
calculations for different kinds of spudcan foundations, ranging in diameter between 10 m and 18 m.
These calculations resulted in a distinction between locations with a “safe” profile and locations for
which a punch-through profile is generated. At these unfavorable locations, the actual risk of a
punch-trough failure will depend on the deployed rig and the corresponding preload. Therefore, a
factor of safety is calculated for these risky locations. The data was integrated into an ArcGIS project.
Data analysis resulted in the identification of different safe and risky zones regarding punch-through
occurrence. The identified zones turned out to be valid for every spudcan with a diameter between
10 m and 18 m. An observed trend is that for a constant preload, the risk for punch-through
decreases if the spudcan diameter increases. Generalization of the identified zones into depositional
environments allowed the production of a risk map that also covers these areas in the Gulf of Suez
for which no data was available. Two environments turned out to have the highest risk for punch-
through failure. The first environment is characterised by a deep bathymetry and fine grained
sediments, possibly with coarse grained intercalations. Punch-through in these areas is related to
these coarse grained intercalations or to different degree of consolidation inside these fine grained
packages. The second environment is related to areas where wadis bring a lot of sediment into the
Gulf of Suez and develop an alluvial fan at their mouth. Mixing of this coarse grained input with finer
grained deep water sedimentation results in the generation of punch-through profiles.
Finally, for two areas with a high borehole concentration, an attempt was made to develop 3D
ground models with the SGeMS software package. The bearing capacity inside the grid was predicted
by applying ordinary kriging between the boreholes. The accuracy of these models and the
practicability of the SGeMS program are thoroughly discussed.
Keywords: Gulf of Suez, jack-up rig, hazard map, punch-through failure, bearing capacity, 3D model,
ArcGIS, SGeMS.
i
ii
Acknowledgement
The realization of this Master thesis was an intense and time consuming process that would not have
been possible without the help and support of many people.
First of all I would like to thank TU Delft and Fugro Engineers B.V. for BLving in me and giving me the
opportunity to work on this interesting research subject. I would like to express my special thanks to
my supervisors from TU Delft, Dominique Ngan-Tillard and Leon van Paassen, and from FEBV, Stella
Kortekaas and Tim van der Wal. I really appreciated your guidance, commitment and support!
I would also like to thank all the other colleagues from the CDE department from FEBV. You created a
nice working environment and you were always eager to help me with my questions!
I also want to thank my fellow engineering-geology students. I really enjoyed the last two years at
the TU Delft and we shared some great moments!
Finally, many thanks to my parents, family and friends. Your support during the last two years is
really appreciated!
Bert Lietaert
June 2011
iii
iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. - 1 -
1.1 Fugro Engineers BV (FEBV)................................................................................................. - 1 -
1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................. - 1 -
1.3 General overview data set ................................................................................................. - 2 -
2 Geological background ................................................................................................................ - 3 -
2.1 Regional setting Gulf of Suez ............................................................................................. - 3 -
2.2 Total engineering geology approach ................................................................................. - 4 -
2.3 General Cenozoic tectonic evolution ................................................................................. - 6 -
2.4 Structural characteristics Gulf of Suez ............................................................................... - 9 -
2.4.1 Present day structural setting ....................................................................................... - 9 -
2.4.2 Structural evolution ..................................................................................................... - 11 -
2.5 Stratigraphy...................................................................................................................... - 12 -
2.5.1 Pre-rift deposits ........................................................................................................... - 12 -
2.5.2 Syn-rift deposits ........................................................................................................... - 13 -
2.5.3 Post-rift deposits ......................................................................................................... - 15 -
2.6 Rift evolution versus stratigraphy in the Gulf of Suez. .................................................... - 18 -
2.7 Conclusion for shallow depth engineering related activities........................................... - 19 -
3 Jack-up rigs ................................................................................................................................ - 21 -
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... - 21 -
3.2 Rig move and installation procedure ............................................................................... - 23 -
3.3 Geotechnical site investigation ........................................................................................ - 23 -
3.3.1 Engineering parameters, testing and sampling ........................................................... - 24 -
3.4 Preloading ........................................................................................................................ - 24 -
3.5 Bearing capacity failure mechanisms............................................................................... - 25 -
3.5.1 General shear failure ................................................................................................... - 26 -
3.5.2 Punch through failure .................................................................................................. - 26 -
3.5.3 Squeezing failure in layered soils................................................................................. - 27 -
3.5.4 Backflow ...................................................................................................................... - 28 -
3.6 Other failure mechanisms................................................................................................ - 28 -
3.7 Preliminary identification of hazardous areas in the Gulf of Suez................................... - 29 -
4 Bearing capacity calculations .................................................................................................... - 31 -
v
4.1 General shear failure........................................................................................................ - 31 -
4.1.1 General shear in sand .................................................................................................. - 31 -
4.1.2 General shear in clay ................................................................................................... - 32 -
4.1.3 Silt and carbonate soils ................................................................................................ - 32 -
4.2 Backflow ........................................................................................................................... - 32 -
4.3 Punch-through failure in layered soils ............................................................................. - 34 -
4.3.1 Sand over clay .............................................................................................................. - 34 -
4.3.2 Clay over clay ............................................................................................................... - 34 -
4.3.3 Considerations ............................................................................................................. - 35 -
4.4 Squeezing failure in layered soils ..................................................................................... - 35 -
4.5 Overview .......................................................................................................................... - 36 -
4.6 Spudcan penetration software programs ........................................................................ - 37 -
4.6.1 Geodin and GERRIT ...................................................................................................... - 37 -
4.6.2 Limitations of GERRIT .................................................................................................. - 37 -
4.7 Influence spudcan type on bearing capacity curve.......................................................... - 38 -
5 Data sets: selection and processing methodology .................................................................... - 41 -
5.1 FEBV data ......................................................................................................................... - 41 -
5.1.1 Selection and preliminary classification ...................................................................... - 41 -
5.1.2 Spudcan penetration assessments .............................................................................. - 47 -
5.2 Geophysical data .............................................................................................................. - 48 -
5.3 GEBCO data ...................................................................................................................... - 50 -
5.4 Admiralty charts ............................................................................................................... - 50 -
5.5 Maps and satellite images ............................................................................................... - 51 -
6 Design and development qualitative hazard maps ................................................................... - 53 -
6.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... - 53 -
6.1.1 Spudcan penetration assessments .............................................................................. - 53 -
6.1.2 Qualitative assessment punch-through risk ................................................................ - 55 -
6.1.3 Distribution of the surface sediments ......................................................................... - 56 -
6.1.4 Identification wadis ..................................................................................................... - 56 -
6.1.5 Combining the data ..................................................................................................... - 56 -
6.2 Large scale qualitative risk assessment ........................................................................... - 56 -
6.2.1 K1 rig ............................................................................................................................ - 57 -
6.2.2 BL and C2 rigs............................................................................................................... - 70 -
6.3 Verification of the identified zones.................................................................................. - 74 -
vi
7 Design and development quantitative hazard maps ................................................................ - 77 -
7.1 Geostatistical background ............................................................................................... - 77 -
7.1.1 The kriging interpolation method................................................................................ - 77 -
7.1.2 The semivariogram ...................................................................................................... - 78 -
7.2 SGeMS .............................................................................................................................. - 79 -
7.3 3D models in SGeMS ........................................................................................................ - 82 -
7.3.1 3D grid A ...................................................................................................................... - 83 -
7.3.2 3D grid B ...................................................................................................................... - 87 -
7.3.3 3D grid C ...................................................................................................................... - 91 -
8 Discussion results and remarks ................................................................................................. - 93 -
8.1 Bearing capacity curves ................................................................................................... - 93 -
8.2 Large scale qualitative hazard maps ................................................................................ - 95 -
8.2.1 Discussion of the identified zones ............................................................................... - 95 -
8.2.2 Generalisation of the map ........................................................................................... - 98 -
8.3 Small Scale quantitative hazard maps ........................................................................... - 102 -
8.4 Lateral variability............................................................................................................ - 106 -
8.5 Potential of geophysical data......................................................................................... - 107 -
9 Conclusion and recommendations .......................................................................................... - 109 -
10 Online Public Sources ......................................................................................................... - 113 -
11 Bibliography........................................................................................................................ - 115 -
Appendix 1: Site scale models ......................................................................................................... - 121 -
Appendix 2: Applied unit conversion factors .................................................................................. - 127 -
Appendix 3: Qualitative assessment punch-through risk................................................................ - 129 -
Appendix 4: Distribution of the surface sediments in the Gulf of Suez .......................................... - 130 -
Appendix 5: K1 rig and spudcan penetration assessments ............................................................. - 132 -
Appendix 6: C2 rig and spudcan penetration assessments ............................................................. - 138 -
Appendix 7: BL rig and spudcan penetration assessments ............................................................. - 144 -
Appendix 8: Bearing capacity profiles for the verification points ................................................... - 151 -
Appendix 9: Coordinates and grid details 3D models ..................................................................... - 153 -
Appendix 10: Parameter files for the produced semivariograms in SGeMS ................................... - 157 -
vii
viii
List of figures
Figure 1: Geographic setting of Gulf of Suez. ...................................................................................... - 3 -
Figure 2: General overview of the Red Sea environs.. ........................................................................ - 4 -
Figure 3: Predictions resulting from the initial engineering geology environment model ................. - 5 -
Figure 4: Global Scale Tectonic Model for the Gulf of Suez ................................................................ - 5 -
Figure 5: Tectonic evolution around 31 Ma and 27 Ma ...................................................................... - 6 -
Figure 6: Tectonic evolution around 24 Ma and 14 Ma ...................................................................... - 7 -
Figure 7: Tectonic evolution around 10 Ma and 5 Ma ........................................................................ - 8 -
Figure 8: Present day situation and possible configuration at +10 Ma............................................... - 9 -
Figure 9: Cross-section across the Zeit basin in the southern Gulf of Suez. ....................................... - 9 -
Figure 10: Structural map of the Gulf of Suez ................................................................................... - 10 -
Figure 11: Schematic polyphase evolution of the rift, with indication of the 4 major trends .......... - 11 -
Figure 12: Cross sections illustrating the Cenozoic evolution of the regional structural stetting of the
Gulf of Suez........................................................................................................................................ - 12 -
Figure 13: Syn-rift stratigraphy of the southern and central basins in the Gulf of Suez and correlation
with local and regional tectonic events ............................................................................................ - 13 -
Figure 14: Sediment yield components of a wadi system ................................................................. - 16 -
Figure 15: Post-Miocene facies distribution in the Gulf of Suez ....................................................... - 17 -
Figure 16: Example of an salt wall, influencing post-Miocene deposits. .......................................... - 19 -
Figure 17: The C2 rig. ......................................................................................................................... - 22 -
Figure 18: Case histories classified according to the cause of failure ............................................... - 22 -
Figure 19: Different jack-up installation phases................................................................................ - 23 -
Figure 20: Indicative plot of bearing capacity vs. depth for different kind of ground profiles. ........ - 26 -
Figure 21: General bearing capacity failure mechanism in uniform and layered soil profiles.......... - 26 -
Figure 22: Punch through failure during the installation phase and during the operational phase. - 27 -
Figure 23: Squeezing failure in layered soils ..................................................................................... - 27 -
Figure 24: Backflow in clay ................................................................................................................ - 33 -
ix
Figure 25: Identification of the different bearing capacity failure mechanisms in a spudcan
penetration curve .............................................................................................................................. - 36 -
Figure 26: Influence of the spudcan type on the generated bearing capacity curve for an identical soil
profile. ............................................................................................................................................... - 39 -
Figure 27: Organigram illustrating methodology for selection of relevant data and preliminary
classification ...................................................................................................................................... - 45 -
Figure 28: First plot of the BH-data in Google Earth ......................................................................... - 46 -
Figure 29: Seismic profile with SW NE orientation, situated in the deeper parts of the central October
basin. ................................................................................................................................................. - 49 -
Figure 30: Selected GEBCO grid for this research. ............................................................................ - 50 -
Figure 31: ENC displayed in Google Earth for part of the Gulf of Suez. ............................................ - 51 -
Figure 32: Meaning of FOS. ............................................................................................................... - 54 -
Figure 33: Identification of different risk zones for the K1 rig in the Gulf of Suez. ........................... - 57 -
Figure 34: Risk zone 1 - risk unknown ............................................................................................... - 58 -
Figure 35: Risk zone 2 - punch-through risk ...................................................................................... - 59 -
Figure 36: Risk zone 3 - punch-through risk. ..................................................................................... - 60 -
Figure 38: Risk zone 5 - safe .............................................................................................................. - 62 -
Figure 40: Risk zone 7 - safe .............................................................................................................. - 64 -
Figure 41: Risk zone 8 - safe. ............................................................................................................. - 65 -
Figure 42: Risk zone 9 - punch-through risk. ..................................................................................... - 66 -
Figure 43: Risk zone 10 - safe ............................................................................................................ - 67 -
Figure 44: Risk zone 11 - punch-through risk.. .................................................................................. - 68 -
Figure 45: Risk zone 12- safe ............................................................................................................. - 69 -
Figure 46: zone 13- safe. ................................................................................................................... - 69 -
Figure 47: Locations with punch-through profiles vs. locations with safe profiles for the BL rig, K1 rig
and C2 rig........................................................................................................................................... - 71 -
Figure 48: Example of semivariogram. .............................................................................................. - 79 -
x
Figure 49: SGeMS input file example in the GSLIB format. ............................................................... - 80 -
Figure 50: SGeMS Variogram modeler – step 1 ................................................................................ - 81 -
Figure 51: SGeMS Semivariogram modeler - step 2.......................................................................... - 81 -
Figure 52: Semivariogram direction parameters .............................................................................. - 82 -
Figure 53: Variogram Modeling in SGeMS – step 3........................................................................... - 82 -
Figure 54: Schematic representation of 3D grid A in the Gulf of Suez. ............................................. - 84 -
Figure 55: Input bearing capacity data for the 5 boreholes in 3D grid A. ......................................... - 85 -
Figure 56: OK-interpolation inside 3D grid A..................................................................................... - 86 -
Figure 57 OK-interpolation inside 3D grid A...................................................................................... - 86 -
Figure 58: Variance error of the OK-interpolation presented in Figure 56. ...................................... - 87 -
Figure 59: Schematic representation of 3D grid B in the Gulf of Suez, with indication of the 21
borehole locations. ............................................................................................................................ - 88 -
Figure 60: Input bearing capacity data for the 21 boreholes in 3D grid B. ....................................... - 89 -
Figure 61: Slices through the 3D block from Figure 60, indicating the change in bearing capacity with
depth. ................................................................................................................................................ - 90 -
Figure 62: Variance error of the OK-interpolation presented in Figure 60. ...................................... - 91 -
Figure 63: Influence of fine grained layer at the bottom of the vertical profile on the shape of the
bearing capacity curve....................................................................................................................... - 94 -
Figure 64: Relationship between wadis, Quaternary sediments in alluvial plains and sediment fans
and the mountainous hinterland, consisting of Tertiary and/or Mesozoic rocks. ............................ - 98 -
Figure 65: Comparison between the generalized punch-through risk map and the 1992 risk map - 101
-
Figure 66: The produced semivariograms for 3D grid A. ................................................................ - 102 -
Figure 67: The produced semivariograms for 3D grid B.................................................................. - 103 -
Figure 68: Cross - section through Zone A. ..................................................................................... - 104 -
Figure 69: Cross - section (1) through zone B.. ............................................................................... - 104 -
Figure 70: Cross - section (2) through zone B.................................................................................. - 105 -
Figure 71: Cross - section (3) through zone B.................................................................................. - 105 -
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Jack-up rig foundation associated risks & methods for evaluation and prevention. .......... - 25 -
Table 2: Applied ground model to illustrate the influence of a specific spudcan type on the shape of
the corresponding bearing capacity curve. ....................................................................................... - 38 -
Table 3: Simplified example of the input in the original FEBV Exel lists. .......................................... - 44 -
Table 4: Selection procedure for locations with multiple subsurface modeling strategies. ............. - 55 -
Table 5: Outcome risk analysis for the different rigs in the different zones ..................................... - 73 -
Table 6: Verification points for the identified risk zones. ................................................................. - 74 -
Table 7: Conversion factors for SI units........................................................................................... - 127 -
Table 8: Risk assessment of the locations for which only qualitative information is available. ..... - 129 -
Table 9: Detailed information on the locations in the Gulf of Suez for which a punch-through profile is
generated with the K1 jack-up rig and a preload of 50 MN. ........................................................... - 133 -
Table 10: Detailed information on the locations in the Gulf of Suez for which a punch-through profile
is generated with the C2 jack-up rig and a preload of 95 MN. ....................................................... - 139 -
Table 11: Detailed information on the locations in the Gulf of Suez for which a punch-through profile
is generated with the BL jack-up rig and a preload of 50 MN. ........................................................ - 145 -
Table 12: Coordinates and grid details of 3D Grid A. ...................................................................... - 153 -
Table 13: Coordinates and grid details of 3D Grid B. ...................................................................... - 154 -
xii
1 Introduction
1.1 Fugro Engineers BV (FEBV)

This research project was completed at the offices of Fugro Engineers B.V. at Leidschendam in the
Netherlands. FEBV is an operating company inside the worldwide operating Fugro group. It is a
geotechnical engineering and site investigation company, focusing on offshore projects. Its field of
expertise consists of conducting soil investigations and providing geotechnical and geological
consultancy services for offshore projects and near-shore projects. FEBV co-operates closely with
other Fugro companies in view of its international projects.
1.2 Scope
Over the last years FEVB has been carrying out a lot of offshore projects in the Gulf of Suez and
assembled a significant amount of data in that area. Furthermore, due to the economic importance
of the region, future prospectives for more offshore projects in the Gulf of Suez region look
promising. An important offshore activity for which FEBV is often consulted are rig-moves.
In the Gulf of Suez, offshore site investigations for rig moves are in many cases carried out from the
rig itself instead of deploying a specialised vessel, designed for geotechnical site investigations. This
implies that the engineering assessment during a rig move has to be performed directly onboard and
therefore based on low quality data. In the past, the installation of these jack-up rigs has caused
problems. The geological configuration of the upper soil layers in the Gulf of Suez makes punch-
through failure the most important failure mode during rig installation. Punch-through is the failure
process whereby one or more legs of the jack-up rig are displaced relatively fast compared to the
other legs so that controlled levelling of the rig is no longer possible. Damaging of the rig may result
in endangering the life of the work crew and high reparation costs for the rig. Thus, for rig moves an
upfront assessment of unfavorable foundation conditions would be very valuable.
In 1992, a first attempt to relate the occurrence of punch-throughs to the geological setting of the
Gulf of Suez was made at FEBV by R.J.M. Klein, a geology student from Utrecht University (Klein,
1992). Unfortunately, details regarding the methodology of the research were lost over the years.
Furthermore, since 1992 a lot of new data in the Gulf of Suez are gathered by Fugro and the need for
a more in depth assessment emerged.
The scope of this graduation project is to make a hazard map for punch-through failure during jack-
up rig installation in the Gulf of Suez. To achieve this, the data collected by Fugro over the years
needs to be (re-)analyzed. These data consist predominantly of borehole logs, but also some
geophysical surveys. Borehole logs allow to perform bearing capacity calculations and geophysical
data are needed to assess the lateral variability of the subsurface. Finally, the selected and processed
data will be put into a GIS to produce the hazard maps. These maps will assign a risk factor related to
the installation risks of a jack-up rig, based on the bearing capacity of the subsurface.
This document contains an extensive literature study. The purpose of this literature study is to get
both geologists and geotechnical engineers familiar with the geology of the Gulf of Suez and the
general aspects of rig moves. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the geological setting of the Gulf of Suez
and focuses on the relevant geological features for jack-up rig installation. Chapter 3 focuses on jack-
up rigs, their installation procedure and the associated risks. Chapter 4 gives an overview of the
-1-
procedures for bearing capacity calculations and the associated failure modes. In chapter 5, the
available data set is presented. Also the methodology to filter the relevant data is discussed and the
scope of the research is more exactly defined, based on the potential of the selected data. In chapter
6, the development of the qualitative hazard maps for the entire Gulf of Suez is presented. Chapter 7
focuses on specific areas for which 3D ground models are developed with the Stanford Geostatistical
Modeling Software (SGeMS). Chapter 8 discusses the methodology and results of this research.
Finally, chapter 9 presents a final overview and formulates a concluding advice towards jack-up rig
installation and bearing capacity failures in the Gulf of Suez.
1.3 General overview data set

The data for this project is, besides some public available sources, mainly collected by several
operational companies inside the Fugro group. One of the challenges, and largely determent for the
success of the research project, is to centralise the available data and select the relevant data. An
overview of the available data and their source is given below:
 Data from Fugro Engineers B.V. (FEBV)

o Borehole data and corresponding geotechnical reports
o Literature, maps
o 1992 punch-through map
 Data from Fugro Egypt
o Geophysical data
 Data from Fugro Survey
o Electronic Navigational Charts
 Public Source data
o Gebco bathymetry
o Google Earth
o Reefbase
Chapter 4 gives a more in depth overview of these data and presents the selection procedure and
processing methodology of these data.
1.4 Confidentiality
Due to confidentiality issues, there is no direct reference to project numbers or borehole names in
this version of the report. Instead, an ID-number is applied. Furthermore, there is no link between
these ID-numbers and their exact coordinates in the text. The version with references to the exact
project numbers, borehole names and exact coordinates is in the possession of FEBV. Also exact
information about the different kind of rigs is omitted. Their names have been replaced by acronyms:
K1-rig, C2-rig, BL-rig.
-2-
1.5 Geological background
1.6 Regional setting Gulf of Suez

The Gulf of Suez is the north-western continuation of the Red Sea basin (see Figure 1). The Gulf is
situated on Egyptian territory, has a length of approximately 300 km and its width varies between
approximately 10 km in the northern Suez region and up to 80 km towards the Red Sea. The
bathymetry is rather shallow (maximum ca. -80 m). There is a connection with the Red Sea, and thus
also indirectly with the Indian Ocean, through the Strait of Jubal. Towards the Red Sea, there is a NE-
SW orientated bathymetric scarp, marking the transition towards a considerably deeper ocean floor.
This area is called the Shadwan Embayment and water depths reach about 600 m (Orszag-Sperber et
al., 1998b). To the north, the gulf connects with the Mediterranean through the Suez-canal. These
connections make the Gulf of Suez an important trading route between north and south.
Furthermore, significant oil reserves are present in the subsurface. These features make the Gulf of
Suez an economically valuable region.
Figure 1: Geographic setting of Gulf of Suez. The places to which a reference is made throughout the report
are all indicated on the map.
From a geological point of view, the Gulf of Suez is a complex Cenozoic rift system and separates the
African plate from the Arabian plate (see Figure 2). It is part of a greater rift setting, which also
contains the Gulf of Aqaba - Dead Sea basins, the Red Sea basin and the Gulf of Aden. This greater rift
setting and its Cenozoic tectonic evolution will be discussed in the next paragraph.
-3-
Figure 2: General overview of the Red Sea environs. Major elements of the geographic and geological setting
are highlighted. GOS = Gulf Of Suez, GOA = Gulf Of Aqaba, D = Danakil horst, BM = Bab-Al-Mandeb, AFFZ =
Alula-Fartaq fracture zone, SR = Sheba Ridge, Owen FZ = Owen Fracture Zone (after Bosworth et. al (2005)).
1.7 Total engineering geology approach

This research subject requires a good understanding of the geological setting of the research area,
since this will determine the engineering performance of a site regarding jack-up rig installation. In
order to focus on the relevant geological features, the “total geological history approach”, initially
developed by Fookes et al. (2000), can be applied.
The concept of Fookes’ approach is that the (geotechnical) ground conditions at any site are the
product of the geological and geomorphological history of that site. To identify possible hazards and
get an idea about the subsurface conditions, the site is classified into certain “models” on different
scales.
The global scale tectonic models are idealised, large scale models representing conceptual end
members defined from the plate tectonic theory. They do not represent a particular location, but
they rather indicate the particular association of rock types and structures that typically occur. Based
on this model, smaller scale geological and geomorphological model(s) can be selected. The site scale
geological models represent the “building blocks” of the project site geology and comprise
-4-
associations of geological materials and structures. They relate to the global scale tectonic models as
their characteristics relate to their global setting. The site scale geomorphological models represent
the influence of climatic factors in the generation of characteristic landform assemblages. The
combination of the geomorphological and geological model result in the preliminary site engineering
geology environment model (see Figure 3). It is possible that several site scale models exist or
combine within one global scale model.
Figure 3: Predictions resulting from the initial engineering geology environment model (after Fookes et al.
(2000)).
The most appropriate global scale tectonic model for the Gulf of Suez is indicated in Figure 4. Since
there is no specific site to focus on in this stage of the research, it is not evident to select a specific
site scale geological/geomorphological model. However, the possible site scale models that could be
encountered in the Gulf of Suez region are listed in Appendix 1. A more in depth approach of the
features encountered on these models, will be worked out throughout the remainder of this chapter.
Figure 4: Global Scale Tectonic Model for the Gulf of Suez (Fookes et al. (2000)).
Anyhow, the global scale tectonic model already represents clearly several important features:
- uplift along the rift shoulders and sediment input coming from these uplifted shoulders
-5-
- rifting process with formation of different rifting blocks
- development of thick carbonate and evaporate sequences in the basin
- development of evaporate diapirs (i.e. salt tectonics)
- facies changes associated with altering sediment sources, platform highs (e.g. input clastic
material by wadis, development of reefs on block escarpments,…)
It is important to identify these features in the Gulf of Suez and evaluate their influence on the
engineering-performance of sites for jack-up rig installation. This is achieved by an extensive
literature study. The remainder of chapter 1.5 presents the results of this literature study.
1.8 General Cenozoic tectonic evolution

In order to understand the local geology of the Gulf of Suez, it is necessary to get an insight into the
greater dynamic rift setting to which the Gulf of Suez belongs and understand how the present day
geological configuration was established. The Gulf of Suez fits into a larger geodynamic context: the
collision of Arabia with Eurasia and the emergence of a mantle hot spot in the Afar region. This
paragraph briefly describes the late-Paleogene and Neogene geodynamic evolution of this entire
region and highlights the most important geological events. Later, the relationship between these
major tectonic changes and the syn- and post-rift stratigraphy in the Gulf of Suez will be discussed in
more detail (cf. paragraph 1.11).
The initiation of plume volcanism around 31 Ma in the greater Afar region was the trigger for the
development of large rifting processes on the east African continent (Figure 5). Nowadays, the Afar
region is considered to be a so-called ‘triple junction’ where three rifting systems meet: the East
African Rift System (EARS), the Aden rift system and the Red Sea rift system, which includes the Gulf
of Suez (Figure 2). The exact role of this rising mantle plume in the initiation of the entire rifting
process is still under discussion, but it is generally assumed that this plume provided the necessary
stress concentration and local weakening of the continental crust that triggered the entire rifting
process (Bosworth et al., 2005).
Figure 5: Tectonic evolution around 31 Ma and 27 Ma (from Bosworth et. al (2005)).
From that point onwards, the Afar region developed as a connection point between these three
different rift basins. Rifting in the Gulf of Aden spread eastwards and its initiation slightly predates
-6-
rifting in the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez. By the mid-Oligocene (28,5 Ma), rifting was established in the
eastern Gulf of Aden and the rifting zone connected to the Sheba ridge and the Owen fracture zone.
This process connected the African continent with the Indian Ocean (Figure 5). Opposed to the Gulf
of Aden, rifting in the Red Sea developed completely in an intra-continental setting, without
connection to the Indican Ocean (Bosworth et al., 2005). Rifting in the Red Sea started around 27 Ma
and gradually spread northwards. Aroud 25 Ma rifting in the southern Gulf of Suez started, by 25-23
Ma it reached the central Gulf of Suez and by 23,5 Ma the Cairo-Suez was reached. Further north,
between Cairo and Suez, there is a more diffuse zone of extension that includes the Bitter Lakes
region and the Manzala rift basin. Part of this system lies buried beneath the present day Nile Delta
fan (Bosworth and McClay, 2001).
The driving force for this entire rifting process was slab pull in the subduction zone beneath the
Urumieh-Dokhtar arc (Figure 6). Another driving force could be the dragging of the Arabian micro-
plate by the Indian plate along the Owen fracture zone. However, this second force was probably of
minor importance compared to the slab pull (Bosworth et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the combination
of these forces caused an anticlockwise rotation of the Arabian plate around a pole located
somewhere in the southern Mediterranean (Rihm and Henke, 1998). The orientation of the Red Sea
rifting was parallel to the Urumieh-Dokhtar subduction zone, thus perpendicular to the NE
extensional stress field. The local geometry of the Red Sea rift was influenced by pre-rift basement
structures, terrane boundaries and the composition and thickness of the pre-rift sedimentary cover
(Bosworth et al., 2005).
Around 18 Ma-19 Ma, active rifting and thus generation of oceanic crust starts at the eastern Sheba
ridge, east of the Alula-Fartaq fracture zone (Figure 2). The Aden rifting zone is now connected with
the world system of oceanic plate boundaries. The oceanic spreading propagated westwards and
reached the central Gulf of Aden by 16 Ma. By 10 Ma, there was generation of oceanic crust
throughout the entire Gulf of Aden (Bosworth et al., 2005).
-7-
By 14 Ma, a major transform boundary developed across the Sinai Peninsula and the Levant
continental margin (Figure 6). This fault originated due to the collision of Arabia and Eurasia and
connected the Red Sea with the Bitlis-Zagros convergence zone. This event initiated major kinematic
changes: the Red Sea rift became oblique to its orientation (from NE to NNE) and the Gulf of Suez
was abandoned as a strongly active rift. The principal motion was now transferred to this Aqaba-
Levant transform boundary. The installation of this new geodynamic setting, together with the
ongoing counter clockwise rotation of Arabia, emerged the Sinai Peninsula and ultimately caused a
permanent isolation of the Gulf of Suez and northern Red Sea from the Mediterranean. This isolation
was the trigger for massive evaporate deposition in the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez (Orszag-Sperber et
al., 1998a).
By 5 Ma, the generation of oceanic crust also starts in the south central Red Sea (Figure 7) (Bosworth
et al., 2005). It is the beginning of increased seawater input from the Indian Ocean through the Bab-
el-Mandeb Strait and at the same time the end of the massive evaporates sequences. This
unconformity can be correlated with the ending of the Messinian Salinity Crisis in the Mediteranean
(Bosworth et al., 2005).
Around 1 Ma, the Red Sea spreading centre linked with the Aden spreading centre through the Gulf
of Zula, the Danakil Depression and the Gulf of Tadjoura (Bosworth et al., 2005) (see Figure 2).
Nowadays, there are indications that the active spreading centre seems to propagate further
northwards and probably will connect in the future with the Aqaba-Levant transform (Figure 8). Up
to now, the southern Gulf of Suez underwent 35 km of spreading and there are indications that the
rifting is still ongoing. In the southern Red Sea, 85 km of oceanic crust has been generated in the last
5 Ma, at the Sheba ridge, 250 km in the last 10 Ma (Bosworth et al., 2005).
According to Bosworth et al. (2005), the Arabian Gulf will have disappeared within 10 Ma.
Furthermore, oceanic crust will be generated throughout the entire Red Sea and strike slip
movements along the Aqaba-Levant transform will continue (Figure 8).
-8-
Figure 8: Present day situation and possible configuration at +10 Ma (from Bosworth et. al (2005)).
1.9 Structural characteristics Gulf of Suez

1.9.1 Present day structural setting
Structurally, the Gulf of Suez is along axis subdivided into three major half graben basins, separated
by two accommodations zones. These half-graben basins are the Darag basin in the north, the central
October (also Belayim) basin and the southern Zeit basin (also Amal-Zeit) (McClay et al., 1998). The
Zafarana accommodation zone is situated in the north, between the Darag and October basin, and
the Morgan accommodation zone is situated in the south, between the October and Zeit basin. These
half-graben basins are bounded by well developed rift-border faults (see Figure 10). Each of these
half grabens consists of several major, tilted rift blocks, separated from each other by major faults.
These rift blocks are further subdivided in second-order, relatively small fault blocks, each of which
has its own characteristic syn-rift stratigraphy (Figure 9). Characteristic for the three subbasins is the
along axis alteration in dip direction of the different rift blocks. In the Darag and the Zeit basin, the
rift blocks dip towards the SW, whereas in the October basin, rift blocks dip towards the NE.
Figure 9: Cross-section across the Zeit basin in the southern Gulf of Suez, illustrating its characteristic
structural setting (from Bosworth et. al (2005)). The location of this profile is indicated on Figure 10.
Because the northern part of the Gulf of Suez was affected by a smaller amount of extension
compared to the central and the southern part, the number of rift blocks in the Darag basin is
relatively small compared to the October and Zeit basins. The Sudr rift block is the most developed
one. The western side of the Darag basin is bounded by two faults, one with a N55˚W orientation
-9-
(Darag fault) and one with a N15˚E orientation. The eastern side bounded by a zigzag north-northeast
and west-northwest fault system: the Baba-Nukhul fault system (BNFS) (Younes and McClay, 2002).
In the central October basin, the Araba, Durba, Ekma, Nezzazzat, Hadahid, Mukattab, Sidri and Baba
rift blocks are described in detail by several authors (e.g. Moustafa (1993), Moustafa (1996), Noufal
(1997), Wilson et al., (2009)). The Hamman Faraun block occupies an intermediate position in
between the Darag and October half graben basin (Moustafa, 1996). The main bordering faults in the
eastern part of the October basin are subdivided by Quah et al. (2010) in a Coastal Range Fault
system (CRFS) and a Rift Border Fault system (RBFS). The former separates the low lying Quaternary
coastal plains from the syn-rift strata of the different fault blocks, the latter separates the tilted fault
blocks from the Precambrian basement in the east. Throws along the CRFS (3,5 – 5,8 km) are in
general larger than along the RBFS (1 – 3.5 km). Younes and McClay (2002) further distinguish in
these range fault systems the Hamman-Faraun fault system (HFFS) and the BNFS, which are
connected by the Markha transfer fault. The Esh-el-Mellaha block is located in the southern Zeit
basin.
Figure 10: Structural map of the Gulf of Suez (ZAZ = Zafarana Accommodation Zone, MAZ = Morgan
Accommodation Zone, HF = Hammam Faraun fault block, HA = Hadahid fault block, CRFS = Coastal Range
Fault System, RBFS = Rift Border Fault System, HFFS = Hamman-Faraun Fault System, BNFS = Baba-Nukhul
Fault System)(after Younes and McClay (2002)).
- 10 -
Accommodation zones represent areas through which throw is transferred from the breakaway fault
of one half graben to that of the next (Moustafa, 1996). They are typically 60-20 km wide and higher
in elevation than the surrounding areas. In the Gulf of Suez, they have several complex geometric
attributes. The position, width and internal structure of these accommodation zones in the Gulf of
Suez, and thus also the overall rift geometry, is affected by reactivation of Precambrian structures in
the basement during the Neogene. The position of the Zafarana (also Gharandall) accommodation
zone is determined by the remnants of the late Precambrian, west-northwest orientated Rihba shear
zone (Younes and McClay, 2002) (Figure 10). The Morgan accommodation zone is structurally
dominated by a basement promontory, called the Dara Dorsal (Coffield and Schamel, 1989).
Compared to the Morgan accommodation zone, the Zafarana zone is relatively broad (60 vs. 20 km)
and dominated by intermixing dip domains characteristics of the two bordering half grabens. The
Morgan accommodation zone is more dominated by transverse strike-slip faults related to torsional
strain resulting from the opposite tilt directions of the adjacent half grabens (Moustafa, 1996).
Further south, in the northern part of the Red Sea, the Zeit basin is bordered by the Duwi
accommodation zone, which is structurally very similar to the Zafarana accommodation zone (Younes
and McClay, 2002).
1.9.2 Structural evolution

Nowadays, the Gulf of Suez is characterized by a complex zig-zag fault pattern and the presence of
tilted, rhombic blocks, on several scales (Figure 9). This structural pattern developed during the
Cenozoic due to a recombination and reactivation of pre-Cenozoic discontinuities. The size, geometry
and complexity of the several blocks depend directly on the nature and density of the discontinuities
susceptible to reactivation. Montenat et al. (1998) distinguishes four major tectonic trends:
- Clysmic trend. This trend has a NW-SE orientation and is parallel to the
Gulf of Suez basin. The trend can be easily recognized along the borders of
the Gulf of Suez and the borders of the large fault blocks are orientated
this way.
- Aqaba trend. This trend has a NNE-SSW orientation and is parallel to the
Aqaba-Levant wrench fault.
- Duwi trend. This trend has an E-W orientation and the old Nadj fault
complex on the Arabian shield can be associated with it.
- Cross trend. This trend can only be observed in the Gulf of Suez and is
perpendicular to the rift axis.
Figure 11: Schematic polyphase evolution of the rift, with indication of the 4
major trends (from Montenat et. al. (1998)).
The Cenozoic evolution of the regional structural stetting can be split up in four stages (Montenat et
al., 1988). During the initial stages of rifting, the wrench-fault stage, strike-slip movements along
- 11 -
Duwi and Aqaba orientated faults were dominant. This initiated the formation of large rhomb-
shaped blocks (Figure 11, A). In a next stage, the tilt block stage, normal fault movements along
clysmic trending faults became dominant and strike-slip movements stopped. This phase caused the
tilting of the large blocks (Figure 11, B). This tilting process was not a continuous and gradual process,
but occurred during a relatively short period. The maximum rotation of these larger blocks is around
20° to 25°. During the next phase, the horst and graben stage, the large, tilted blocks were split into a
mosaic of smaller blocks and a complex horst and graben structure was formed (Figure 11, C). The
last phase is the flexuration stage. During this stage, a general flexure of the margins towards the
axial part of the basin occurred (Figure 12). Subsequently, parts of the rift area were relocated
outside the area of marine sedimentation (e.g. the Mellaha basin on Figure 9).
Figure 12: Cross sections illustrating the Cenozoic evolution of the regional structural stetting of the Gulf of
Suez (from Montenat et al. (1998)).
1.10 Stratigraphy
Many authors (e.g. Bosworth and McClay (2001), Plaziat et al. (1998)) differentiate between pre-rift,
syn-rift and post-rift deposits when discussing the stratigraphy in the Gulf of Suez. For jack-up rig
installation procedures, it is evident that only the shallow, upper and thus probably most recent
strata will be of importance. However, in the syn-rift sequence, there are thick evaporate deposits
that may influence the upper sediment package through salt tectonics (Orszag-Sperber et al., 1998b).
Therefore, a good understanding of the location and the distribution of these layers in the
stratigraphic sequence is useful. Thus, in this paragraph, the focus is on the stratigraphic framework
of the syn- and post-rift deposits. The influence of regional tectonic events (discussed in 2.1) on the
deposition of these syn- and post-rift strata is handled in the next paragraph.
1.10.1 Pre-rift deposits

The Gulf of Suez is situated on the once continuous Arabian-Nubian shield. Characteristic for this
shield is the pan-African, mainly (Pre-)Cambrian, crystalline basement. On top of this basement lies a
thick Paleozoic to middle Cenozoic (i.e. Eocene) sedimentary cover, which can roughly be split up into
two large depositional sequences. The first one lies directly on top of the basement and consists of a
thick series of continental sandstones. Because of the similarity of lithologies over a wide
stratigraphic range (i.e. Cambrium to early Cretaceous) and the scarcity of fossils, this sequence is
- 12 -
informally called the “Nubian Sandstones”. On top, there is a series of marine, predominantly
carbonate rich sediments with Upper-Cretaceous to Eocene age, that was deposited during a major
transgressive cycle. From the late Oligocene onwards, rifting started in the Gulf of Suez and syn-rift
sediments were deposited (Richardson and Arthur, 1988).
1.10.2 Syn-rift deposits

The general stratigraphy of the syn-rift deposits is based on the abundant outcrops on the eastern
side of the Gulf of Suez, especially in the central October basin. Obviously, there are lateral variations
in thicknesses, facies and sometimes formation names. In general, proximal syn-rift deposits are
coarser and gradually change to finer grained deeper water facies in the central parts of the
depositional basins (Bosworth and McClay, 2001). The syn-rift deposits are subdivided into two large
groups: the Gharandal Group (Abu Zenima, Nukhul and Rudeis Formation) and the Ras Malaab
Group (Kareem, Belayim, South Gharib and Zeit Formation). Figure 13 gives an overview.
Figure 13: Syn-rift stratigraphy of the southern and central basins in the Gulf of Suez and correlation with
local and regional tectonic events (from Bosworth and McClay (2001)).
The oldest syn-rift deposits are the Chattian-Aquitanian red and white sandstones and siltstones of
the Abu Zenima Formation (“redbeds”). However, this formation is not widespread and no
equivalent is found in the southern Gulf of Suez (Bosworth et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2009).
The Nukhul formation contains non-marine to shallow, restricted marine facies mainly consisting of
calcareous conglomerates, sandstones and marls. The EGPC (Egyptian General Petroleum
Corporation) Stratigraphic Committee subdivided the formation into four members (El Gezeery and
Marzouk, 1974). The oldest member is the Shoab Ali member, consisting of basal sand and
sandstones. This member contains the first syn-rift deposits in the southern Gulf of Suez. The other
three members are younger, but are deposited contemporaneous. The October member consists of
sand, sandstone, conglomerates, shales and limestone. The Gharamal member is characterized by its
carbonate facies. The Ghara member contains anhydrite, shales, marls and limestone. The clastics
were deposited in marginal settings, while mudstones were deposited in the centre of the rift. The
- 13 -
base of the Nukhul formation is a (diachronous) unconformity and some workers interpreted the
basal beds of the formation as continental (McClay et al., 1998). The formation is poorly dated due to
the lack of diagnostic microfossil assemblages (Hughes et al., 1992), however it is accepted that
deposition took place during the early Miocene (Aquitanian - lower Burdigalian) (Evans, 1988).
The Rudeis Formation is more widespread than the above formations and is mainly characterized by
facies typical for deep marine conditions. The dominant lithology consists of shales, marls, limestone
and sandy intercalations. Characteristic for the formation is the occurrence of an important intra-
formation unconformity: the ‘mid-Clysmic’ or the ‘mid-Rudies’ event. Above this unconformity there
is a general shift towards a sandier facies. In these upper units, there are spectacular facies changes
towards the basin margins and locally sand(stone) deposits may become dominant (Bosworth et al.,
2005). Typical for the deeper depocentres are the Globigerina-rich marls (Hughes et al., 1992). At
these locations, the formation can become very thick: up to 1400 m (Bosworth et al., 2005). Where
recognition is possible, four members have been identified. These are, from young to old, the
Mheiherrat member, the Hawara member, the Asl member and the Mreir member (El Gezeery and
Marzouk, 1974). The characteristic lithology for these members are marls and limestones (Mheirrat
member), shales (Hawara member), limestones (Asl member) and poorly calcareous shales (Mreir
member) (Hughes and Beydoun, 1992).
The Rudies formation is conformably overlain by the Kareem Formation and is the first formation of
the Ras Malaab Group. It is a rather thin formation (maximal thickness = 350 m), characterized by a
shallow water facies. Two members are identified: the Markha member and the Shagar member (El
Gezeery and Marzouk, 1974). The basal Markha member is a diagnostic, but not widespread, border
with the Rudies formation. This member consists of typical thin anhydrite beds intercalated with
shale and marl. It is generally better developed in the central and southern parts of the Gulf of Suez.
If not present, it is difficult to differentiate with the Rudies formation. The Shagar member is
represented by shales and marls, occasionally with limestone interbeds and locally minor sand facies
(Bosworth and McClay, 2001).
The Belayim Formation indicates the beginning of the main Miocene evaporate cycli. Characteristic is
the widespread occurrence of evaporates, but also carbonates, shales and sandstone occur. The
formation can reach a thickness up to 400 m (Bosworth et al., 2005). Four members have been
identified in the formation (El Gezeery and Marzouk, 1974). The oldest member is the Baba member
and consists mainly of anhydrite and locally halite. The Feiran member is similar, but has more
sandstone intercalations. In between these two members is the Sidri member. This member is
composed of shales with minor carbonate content. The youngest member is the Hamman Faraun
member and contains predominantly clastics or carbonates (‘Nullipore rocks’) (Hughes et al., 1992).
Steckler et al. (1988) define the Abu Alaqa Formation as the clastic lateral equivalent of the Upper
Rudeis to Belayim Formation.
The South Garib Formation conformably overlies the Hamman Faraun member of the Belayim
formation. The formation consists of massive evaporate deposits (predominantly halite) with
intercalations of shales, sands and limestones. In the centre of the basin the salt deposition was
dominant, while towards the periphery, the clastic and anhydrite layers became more abundant. Also
the thickness of the formation is laterally variable. The type section is 700 m thick, but decreases
towards the (northern) margins of the basin thickness (Hughes et al., 1992). Furthermore, halokinesis
- 14 -
is continuously affecting the lateral continuity. Due to the absence of microfauna, precise dating is
not evident, but correlation with the Mediterranean basin suggests a Tortonian age (Gargani et al.,
2008).
Conformably on the South Garib Formation lies the Zeit Formation. This formation consists also out
of evaporates (anhydrite, halite, gypsum), but with signifanct more clastic intercalations than the
South Garib formation. The intercalations contain shales, sandstones, sand or siltstones. Towards the
margins of the basin, the sand and sandstones possibly become the dominant lithology. In the type
section, the formation is 941 m thick, but in the deeper depocentres, thickness can be ca. 1500 m
(Orszag-Sperber et al., 1998a). Towards the north, the formation is missing due to the late Miocene
uplift. In the south, the formation can also be locally missing. This is due to penetration of salt plugs
from the South Garib formation or by erosion resulting from creation of highs caused by swelling of
underlying salts. As in the South Garib formation, exact dating is difficult due to the lack of diagnostic
microfaunal assemblages (Hughes et al., 1992). However, correlation with the Mediterranean basin
revealed a Tortonian to Messinian age (Gargani et al., 2008). The top of the formation is a
widespread angular unconformity (Bosworth and McClay, 2001).
1.10.3 Post-rift deposits

The post-rift deposits are stratigraphically grouped in the El Tor Group. This group formally consists
out of the Wardan Formation and the Zafarana formation. Some authors prefer to use the informal
term “Post-Zeit” (e.g. Evans (1988)). Because of their limited economic potential and despite local
thickness up to 2000 m (e.g. Bosworth et al. (1998), El-Sammak and Shaaban (1996)), these
sediments have received few attention compared to the syn-rift deposits. Unfortunately, the legs of
jack-up rigs will be installed almost always in these poorly described post-rift deposits. Therefore a
profound understanding of the lithology and spreading of these sediments is essential.
In general, there are three main facies in these deposits: a clastic facies, a carbonate facies and an
evaporitic facies (see Figure 15). Characteristic is the rapid lateral variation between these facies,
especially for the recent Quaternary deposits. Complete transitions from one facies to another can
occur within few tens of meters (Purser et al., 1998). These conspicuous fast transitions are related
to an interaction between the existing climate and the particular morphology of the Gulf of Suez. Salt
tectonics heavily affected the post-rift sequences, especially in the southern Zeit-basin. Over there,
rift extensional faults remained active during the Quaternary. This can be kinematically explained
due to the proximity of the active Aqaba-Levant transform (Orszag-Sperber et al., 1998b).
The clastic facies is predominantly brought into the Gulf of Suez by numerous wadis. These wadis
originate in the mountainous hinterland and cut through the narrow coastal plains along the Gulf of
Suez. During seasonal, very short flood periods - so-called flash floods - they deposit clastic,
terrigenous material into the Gulf. Consequently, around the mouth of the wadis, large alluvial fans
developed (Mohamed, 1991). According to Purser (1987), these wadis bring coarse clastics into the
gulf. On the other hand, Khadr (2006) and Mohammed (1991), BLve that the wadis bring finer clastic
material (mainly silt) into the gulf. Although there are many factors affecting the sediment yield of a
wadi system, most probably, the geology of the source area is the most important one in this case
(see Figure 14). If the source area consists of coarser grained rock material (e.g. sandstones), then
the alluvial fan will also contain more coarse grained clastics. If the source area consists for example
mostly out of mudstones, more silty material will be found at the mouth. Purser (1987) argues that
- 15 -
the existing arid and low humidity climate benefits the physical erosion into coarser grained material
because chemical degradation into clay size particles will be very low. Anyhow, for the offshore
continuation of this sediment fan, a gravitational driven grading pattern will develop. Evidently, the
coarser clastics will settle relatively near-shore, while the finer particles will be much longer in
suspension and spread out towards the margins of the alluvial fan.
Figure 14: Sediment yield components of a wadi system (from Sen (2008)).
Flourishing reef development, both in the past as in recent time, are the reason for the development
of numerous carbonate platforms in the Gulf of Suez. The location where these reefs preferably
develop, both in the syn- and post-rift phase, is related to the location of footwall scarps of the tilted
blocks and rising salt diapirs in the subsurface (Bosence, 1998; Bosence et al., 1998; Burchette, 1988).
Nowadays, both patch reefs and fringing reefs can be found in the gulf. Especially towards the
transition with the Red Sea, reefs and associated carbonate platforms are abundant (e.g Ashrafi reef
complex) (Roberts and Murray, 1984). The degradation of these reefs gives rise to a carbonate rich
facies.
The development of an evaporitic facies is possible due to the warm, arid conditions which favours
evaporate mineral precipitation. In sabkhas, precipitation occurs subaerial. Salinas on the other hand
are continuously covered by a shallow water body (e.g. Ras Gharib (Purser et al., 1998)).
According to Bosworth and McClay (2001), the earliest Pliocene is characterized at the basin margins
by gravels and sands of the Wardan and Shukeir formations. Towards the centre of the basin, the
Pliocene consists predominantly of clasitcs with thin evaporates intercalations. On top, they
observed the Zafarana formation, which is dominated by anhydrite, salts and pisolitic limestone and
pebbly sandstones at the top. Differentiation of the border between the Pliocene and Pleistocene is
hard because of the lack of age determing microfossil assemblages.
The onshore Quaternary deposits in the Gulf of Suez consist mainly of Quaternary alluvium, aeolian
sand deposits and sabkha deposits. On the coastal plains of the eastern margin, raised beaches have
been described at different altitudes (e.g. Abou Khadrah and Darwish (1986)). Offshore, the
Quaternary is not very different from the Pliocene-Pleistocene and characterized by the
development of large alluvial plains and alluvial fans near the mouths of the main wadis (e.g. Wadi
Sidri, Wadi Feiran). Also the development of large reefal carbonate platforms, especially in the Strait
- 16 -
of Jubal, is typical for the Quaternary (e.g. Ashrafi reef complex). The bottom sediments are primarily
characterized by a sand fraction of biogenic origin and relatively low organic carbon content (Khadr
and Sakr, 2006). The area of greatest silt influx appears to be the middle of the gulf, between Wadi
Sidri to the east and Wadi Gharib to the west (Mohamed, 1991). Silty-sand and/or sandy-silt
sediments are deposited further away from the wadi mouths. Mohammed (1991) also stated that
the sediments on the eastern side of the Gulf are generally coarser than on the western side.
Figure 15: Post-Miocene facies distribution in the Gulf of Suez according to Gheith and El-Sherbini (1993).
Moussa et al. (1991) performed a more in depth analysis of the sediments in the Strait of Jubal. He
differentiated in the Quaternary sediments of the Strait of Jubal siliciclastics and unconsolidated
reefal sediments. The pollution of one sediment type by another is not more than 20%. The
siliciclastics are the product of the erosion of the pronounced uplifted rift shoulders in the region.
They form the beach sediments and are also abundant where wadis run into the Gulf of Suez. On the
western side of the Strait of Jubal, there are some conspicuous islands. The most pronounced islands
are made up of igneous and metamorphic basement rocks (e.g. Shadwan Jubal, Gefatin and Geisum
Island), the island with lower elevations are made up of dead corals and sand. The abundant fringing
- 17 -
and patch reefs are the source for the unconsolidated reefal bottom sediments. The disintegration of
these reefs produces calcareous rich sediments. Tidal and wind driven currents do not only have
influence on the shape of these reefs, but they also tend to transfer lime mud southwards.
1.11 Rift evolution versus stratigraphy in the Gulf of Suez.

Paragraph 1.8 described the Cenozoic evolution of the Gulf of Suez, paragraph 1.9 the structural
geology in the Gulf of Suez and paragraph 1.10 the different lithological units in the Gulf of Suez. This
paragraph now describes how these are related to each other.
The Chattian-Aquitanian was the period of ‘rift initiation’ in the Gulf of Suez. Slowly the rifting
advanced northwards an reached the northern Gulf of Suez by ca. 23,5 Ma (Bosworth and McClay,
2001). Both in the Abu Zenima as in the Nukhul formation, there are lithostratigraphic indications
that initial rifting began at or near sea-level. There was no significant relief due to crustal doming or
uplift prior to rifting. At that time, subsidence rates were relatively low (Steckler et al., 1988). In the
Aquitanian, during the deposition of the Nukhul formation, there was a first phase of major
extension and major depocentres developed along what are now the margins of the rift (e.g. the El-
Qua, Mellaha and Gemsa basins). According to Bosworth et al. (1998), extensive carbonate platforms
developed in the southern Gulf of Suez by the end of Nukhul deposition. These carbonate units
tended to seal previously active faults and initiated a reorganization of the fault-system (Bosence,
1998; Montenat et al., 1998).
The Rudeis formation was deposited during the Burdigalian – early Langhian. During the Burdigalian,
between 19 Ma and 16 Ma, subsidence rates reached their maximum in the Gulf of Suez (Steckler et
al., 1988). Concomitant with these high subsidence rates, the exhumation of the rift shoulders
throughout the basin developed and several separated rift faults transformed in more continuous
structures. The first major influx of coarse clastics into the Gulf of Suez occurred after the occurrence
of the widespread ‘mid-Rudies event’. Bosworth et al. (2005) interpret this mid Rudies event as a
response to the collision between Eurasia and Arabia along the Zagros-Bitlis suture.
The Kareem formation was deposited during the Langhian to Serravilian. At the beginning of the
Langhian, a brief pulse of evaporate deposition occurred in many sub-basins (Markha member). The
onset of Kareem deposition is interpreted by Bosworth and McClay (2001) as to reflect local uplift
because of renewed fault block orientation. The boundary reflects a period of complex interaction
between eustacy and local tectonism. However, during the late Burdigalian – Serravallian, the main
phase of rifting in the Gulf of Suez slowly came to an end and by the end of the Kareem deposition,
the Gulf of Suez was abandoned as a strongly active rift zone.
By 14 Ma Arabia and Eurasia collided and caused a shift of movement from the Gulf of Suez to the
Aqaba-Levant transform. This produced, together with the ongoing anti-clockwise rotation of the
Sinai Peninsula, a minor compression and uplift in the northernmost Gulf of Suez. The cyclic
alteration of clastics and evaporates in the Belayim formation reflects the start of a major isolation of
the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez from the Mediterranean. This isolation triggered the deposition of thick
evaporate sequences (Belayim, South Gharib and Zeit formations) in the Gulf of Suez and Red Sea
(Orszag-Sperber et al., 1998b). Furthermore this period is also characterized by an eustatic sea level
low stand. However, the isolation of the Gulf of Suez was a gradual process. Initially, normal marine
conditions persisted in the northern Darag basin (Bosworth et al., 2005). In the central and southern
basins, the isolation was more severe and deposition took place in restricted hypersaline, moderately
- 18 -
deep to shallow marine environments. This setting caused the decreasing trend in thickness of these
three formations towards the northern Gulf of Suez. The angular unconformity at the top of the Zeit
formation corresponds at least partly to the Messinian unconformity of the Mediterranean (Gargani
et al., 2008) and is readily observed throughout the entire Gulf of Suez and Red Sea (Bosworth et al.,
2005).
A second phase of significant subsidence occurred around the start of the Pliocene. Because of the
permanent closure of the northern connection with the Red Sea, the water influx was now from the
Indian Ocean (Orszag-Sperber et al., 1998a). Exact dating of the start of this phase is not possible due
to the lack of paleontological sequences. Anyway, after the Messinian eustatic sea level lowstand,
the sedimentary environment now changed to rapid deposition of thick sequences of Plio-
Pleistocene clastics. In the southern Gulf of Suez, the Plio-Pleistocene sequences are heavily affected
by extensional faults and salt tectonics (Figure 16). Kinematically this is explained by ongoing
extension in the northern Red Sea and a second phase of strike-slip movements along the Aqaba-
Levant transform (Orszag-Sperber et al., 1998b). During the late Pleistocene, the extension direction
in the Gulf of Suez rotated form NE to NNE-SSW (Bosworth and McClay, 2001).
During the Quaternary, the Gulf of Suez remains a tectonically active area. In the Gulf of Suez, micro-
earthquakes continue to occur along major faults and horizontal extensional stresses are still
present. Along the Aqaba-Levant transform, greater magnitude earthquakes may occur (Hamouda,
2011). Horizontal extension rates are estimated to be 0,08-0,12 cm/a in the vicinity of Gebel el Zeit
(Bosworth and Taviani, 1996).
Figure 16: Example of an salt wall, influencing post-Miocene deposits.
1.12 Conclusion for shallow depth engineering related activities

This literature study allows differentiating some general trends in the spreading of the most recent
sediments. A good understanding of the occurrence of these sediments is essential for the
installation for jack-up rigs. The relevant conclusions are:
- Mouth of the wadis: alluvial fans with clastic material, grain size depending on source area.
Offshore development of this sediment fan depends on proximity of mountainous areas.
- Greatest silt influx in the middle of the Gulf, between Wadi Sidri to the east and Wadi Gharib
to the west.
- Coarser material along the eastern margin compared to the western margin.
- 19 -
- Coral growth and corresponding carbonate platforms and facies more abundant towards the
southern Gulf of Suez.
- Southern Gulf of Suez: post-Miocene sediments intensely disturbed by salt tectonics in syn-
rift strata.
- Higher seismic activity in Southern Gulf of Suez.
- Accommodation zones form structurally higher areas in the bathymetry of the Gulf of Suez.
- 20 -
2 Jack-up rigs
The aim of this chapter is to give a general introduction to jack-up rigs, their installation procedure
and the associated risks. For detailed guidelines about design and assessment engineering of jack-
ups, the international accepted codes of conduct should be consulted. There are two principal sets of
guidance documents. The primary guidance is “Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
(SNAME) Technical and Research Bulletin 5-5A” (SNAME, 2008), the other one is “Petroleum and
Natural Gas Industries – Site specific assessment of mobile offshore units (ISO/DIS 19905-1)” (ISO,
2009). Also a Joint Industry Program (“InSafeJIP”), with representatives of a wide range of relevant
companies (geotechnical consultants, drilling contractors, legislative authorities, jack-up rig designers
and builders,…), has resulted in a 2010 publication with guidelines for jack-up rig installation and
removal (Osborne et al., 2009). FEBV’s code of conduct is based on the most recent versions of these
documents.
2.1 Introduction
Young et al. (1984) define a mobile jack-up rig as a floatable drilling platform with legs that can be
moved up and down. Most of the rigs are towed from one location to another, but some are self-
propelled. Jack-up rigs are mainly used in the oil and gas industry for exploration drilling, field
development, wellhead and platform work overs, etc. Smaller jack-up rigs are sometimes used for
offshore, shallow depth, site investigations. This work only considers the larger jack-up rigs, used in
the oil and gas industry. An example is indicated in Figure 17. The working depth of the rig depends
on the length of the legs. Nowadays, maximum working depths are around 150 m. Therefore, the
length of the legs has to be around 200 m. There are two types of foundations for jack-up rigs: (1) the
ones with a single large mat as foundation and (2) the ones with individual footings on 3 or more
legs. This second type will be further discussed because they are the dominant type of rigs in the Gulf
of Suez. The footings at the end of the legs, also-called spudcans, can have several shapes and are
serve as foundation. Replacing these spudcans is possible, but not common because of the high
associated costs. Therefore a particular rig is often associated with a particular shape of spudcan. The
different shapes give different bearing capacity results for a similar vertical ground profile (cf. 3.7).
The foundation of the rig must be capable of carrying the lightship weight of the structure, the
operational load and the environmental (dynamic) loads such as wind, current and waves (Young et
al., 1984).
Considering offshore structures, mobile jack-up rigs have a relatively high failure rate. Failure
mechanisms are related to unexpected vertical ground profiles (e.g. punch-through, sliding, shallow
gas), uneven seabed (e.g. scour, old footprints), seafloor instability (e.g. mudslides, slope failure,
liquefaction) or a combination. Besides the high failure costs - an incident costs the industry easily
between 1 and 5 million dollar (Hunt and Marsh, 2004) - there is the immediate danger for the
people working on the rig. Reducing the failure rates to a minimum is therefore an objective to aim
at. Roughly one third of the failures are related to the supporting capability of the seafloor soils
under the jack-up rig foundation (Young et al., 1984). According to Dier et al. (2004), punch-through
has the highest rate in incident causes, representing 53% of all incidents (see Figure 18). They are
further subdivided into punch-throughs caused by hurricanes (8%), punch-throughs during
preloading (14%) and punch-throughs with no stated underlying cause (31%).
- 21 -
Figure 17: The C2 rig. The three legs are 165 long, the associated working depth is around 120 m. The hull
dimensions of this rig are ca. 75 m x 70 m x 10 m.
An example of a punch through failure in the Gulf of Suez is the 1974 accident with Amoco’s
“Gemini” rig (Dier et al., 2004). The initial salvage operation to stabilize the jack-up rig failed and the
entire rig nearly overturned. Eventually, 18 people died, the rig was total loss and the entire accident
cost 4,1 million pounds. Nowadays, at a depth of 8-15 m, sunken ventilators, ladders, mooring cleats
and a 2 m deep circular depression are the only remnants of the disaster and serve as a tourist
attraction for divers (cf. website “shipwrecks of Egypt”, see Chapter. 9).
Figure 18: Case histories classified according to the cause of failure (Dier et al., 2004).
- 22 -
2.2 Rig move and installation procedure
A rig move and successive installation at a given location is performed by following each time a
specific procedure. The general steps of this procedure are described below and indicated in Figure
19:
 First of all, the rig is positioned into the desired location. Most of the time this is done by
tug boats. During this stage, the platform is in floating mode and the legs are up.
 Next, the legs are lowered onto the seabed.
 Then, the legs are pinned and the hull is jacked to obtain foundation-bearing resistance.
This resistance depends on the draught of the hull.
 If there was no up-front geotechnical site investigation, then this is the next step.
 In the following step, the foundation is preloaded by the intake of water ballast in the
hull.
 If no problems occurred, the water is dumped again and the platform is jacked up to the
desired operational height above the seabed.
 During the operational phase, the foundation performance is continuously monitored.
 If the work is finished, the hull is lowered in the water (legs up) and the platform can be
repositioned to another job.
Figure 19: Different jack-up installation phases (from Young et al. (1984)).
2.3 Geotechnical site investigation

A site investigation for the installation of a jack-up rig has three components: data acquisition and
interpretation of (1) geophysical data, (2) geological data and (3) geotechnical data. The geophysical
and geological investigations are often already performed during the site selection of the rig. The
geophysical part involves a.o. bathymetric analysis, seabed surface analysis, shallow seismics, etc.
The geological component is often a desk study in which information is gathered about stratigraphy,
lithology and geohazards at or nearby the future site. It is recommended to perform a geotechnical
site investigation from a specialised geotechnical drilling vessel before jack-up arrival. However, this
is not common practice and often the geotechnical site investigation is performed from the rig itself
(especially in the Gulf of Suez). Unfortunately, the quality of the data acquired in this way is less. The
- 23 -
purpose of the geotechnical site investigation for a rig move is to collect the geotechnical ground
conditions at the site, identify geotechnical units, asses the behaviour of the spudcan during
penetration, estimate the total penetration under maximal load and evaluate the possibility of a
punch-through or rapid leg penetration condition.
2.3.1 Engineering parameters, testing and sampling

The type and quantity of soil index, strength and advanced laboratory test data required for
analytical purposes depends on the complexity of the ground conditions. SNAME (2008), ISO (2009)
and InSafeJIP (2009) give a detailed overview of the procedures to follow in different circumstances.
However, there is always need for a soil classification. This classification can be performed in several
ways. It is possible to make a qualitative log description of the cores, but also quantitative analyses
based on e.g. grain size, carbonate content, moisture content, Atterberg limits or density are
common. FEBV always makes a qualitative log description and determines the submerged unit
weight. The latter is also a parameter in the bearing capacity calculations (see Chapter 3).
Other essential parameters for the spudcan penetration calculations are layer thickness, the
(undrained, remoulded) shear strength of the clayey materials and the friction angle for sandy
materials. For silty material it is common practice to also determine the drainage characteristics.
These geotechnical parameters are determined by performing continuous borehole sampling in

combination with different (in-situ) geotechnical tests. A geotechnical site investigation from a
specialised vessel before jack-up arrival will deliver the most accurate results. The in-situ testing is
generally some kind of penetrometer test (e.g. piezocone, T-bar penetrometer, ball penetrometer,
etc.). The advantage of these tests is that they can display a continuous course of the desired
parameter over the specific soil profile.
However, many times there are no up-front in-situ tests from a vessel and engineering parameters
are obtained directly on the rig by performing relatively simple laboratory tests on core samples.
Core logging and simple tests are then performed immediately in offshore laboratories. Occasionally,
more advanced laboratory tests are performed onshore. The most common offshore tests for a rig
move are the torvane test and the pocket penetrometer test. A disadvantage of these tests is that
they are performed on discontinuous samples that might be disturbed. Consequently, chances of
missing a finer layer with anomalous parameters significantly increase and the overall accuracy
decreases. In this situation, experienced engineering judgment is essential to derive representative
values for the different parameters over a certain soil profile.
2.4 Preloading
After the legs of the jack-up rig have been lowered and have reached the sea bottom, they will
penetrate the soil under the weight of the platform (“pinning”). This penetration will continue until
equilibrium has been reached between the bearing capacity of the soil and the forcing load.
However, during the operational phase, the rig foundations will be subjected to a combined load
(platform weight, wind loads, dynamic loads, storm loads,…), which can cause further penetration of
the platform legs in the soil. Preloading the platform by water intake in the hull of the rig aims to
foresee for these extra loads. It subjects the platform to a maximal load that, in normal
circumstances, will not be exceeded during the operational phase. Before the operational phase
starts, the water is removed from the hull again. Thus, after this preloading, the maximal penetration
- 24 -
of the rig into the soils is achieved. The duration of this preloading process will depend on the
available soil information and the complexity of the subsurface (Geer et al., 2000). Every rig has a
particular preload value, based on its size, spudcan type and location of deployment.
2.5 Bearing capacity failure mechanisms

An extended list of foundation associated risks, together with proposed methods for their evaluation
and prevention can be found in Table 1.
Risk Methods for evaluation and prevention

 Shallow seismic survey
 Punch-Through  Soil sampling, geotechnical testing and
analysis
 Settlement under storm loading/bearing  Soil sampling, geotechnical testing and
failure analysis
 Ensure adequate jack-up preload capability
 Soil sampling, geotechnical testing and
 Sliding failure analysis
 Increase vertical footing reaction
 Modify the footing(s)
 Bathymetric survey
 Surface soil samples, analyse seabed current
 Scour
 Inspect footing foundations regularly
 Install scour protection when anticipated
 Side scan sonar, shallow seismic survey
 Seafloor instabilities (mud slides)  Soil sampling, geotechnical testing and
analysis
 Seismic survey
 Gas pockets/shallow gas
 Pilot holes
 Faults  Shallow seismic survey
 Metal or other object, sunken wreck,  Magnetometer and side scan sonar
anchors, pipelines etc.  Diver/ROV inspection
 Local holes (depressions) in seabed, reefs,  Side scan sonar
pinnacle rocks or wooden wrecks  Diver/ROV inspection
 Geotechnical data
 Legs stuck in mud  Consider change in footings
 Jetting
 Evaluate location records jack-ups
 Footprints of previous jack-ups
 Consider filling/modification of holes
Table 1: Jack-up rig foundation associated risks & methods for evaluation and prevention (after SNAME,
(2008)).
Punch-throughs are one of the bearing capacity failures and are the main problem during FEBV’s rig
move operations. Therefore this research discusses the bearing capacity failures with special focus on
the punch-through failure. A general bearing capacity failure analysis includes general shear failure
for homogeneous soil packages and punch-through and squeezing failure mechanisms for layered
soil packages. It is common to produce a plot of the bearing capacity versus depth in order to analyse
- 25 -
bearing capacity failures. The mathematical formulas to do so are presented in chapter 3. Several
types of curves can occur in such a plot (see Figure 20). For hard soil profiles (e.g. sand,
overconsolidated clay), a high bearing capacity will be achieved at a relatively shallow depth. For a
soft soil profile (e.g. soft clay, silt), the bearing capacity at the same depth will be much lower.
Vertical alterations between harder and softer layers results in more complex curves and imply
increasing probability for bearing capacity failure.
Figure 20: Indicative plot of bearing capacity vs. depth for different kind of ground profiles. There is a profile
for hard soil (i), for a normal consolidated clay (ii), a layered ground profile for a softer layer in between two
harder layers (iii) and a layered ground profile for a harder layer in between two softer layers (iv) (from Dier
et al. (2004)).
2.5.1 General shear failure

General shear failure can occur if the soil strength of subsequent layers does not vary significantly.
Subsequently, an average strength of the soil package is determined and it is analyzed whether this
package is capable of bearing the foundation pressure of the jack-up (Figure 21).
Figure 21: General bearing capacity failure mechanism in uniform (left) and layered (right) soil profiles.
2.5.2 Punch through failure

Quah et al. (2010) define punch-through as a sudden leg penetration due to an unpredictable drop in
bearing capacity in which the legs cannot be jacked fast enough to restore the hull levelness. The risk
for a punch through arises if a layer with a low bearing capacity is situated below a layer with a high
bearing capacity. If the penetrating spudcans cross the boundary between the stronger and the
weaker layer, a rapid plunge of (one of) the legs of the rig can occur. This may result in tilting of the
jacket and possibly damage to the legs. Since the imposed tilt will cause additional out-of-balance
moments, this will lead to an increase in spudcan loading and hence further punch through
- 26 -
deformation (Dier et al., 2004). As indicated on Figure 22, punch-through can occur both during the
installation phase (e.g. during preloading) and during the operational phase (e.g. unexpectedly high
combined loads due to severe storm).
Figure 22: Punch through failure during the installation phase (left) and during the operational phase (right).
Dier et al. (2004) mention some common types of vertical ground profiles that are sensitive for
punch-through failure:
- Sand over softer layer (e.g. soft clay).

- Hard clay crust over soft layers, which stay uniformly soft or decrease in strength with depth.
- Clay layer which decreases in strength with depth
- Firm clay with sand or silt pockets
- Soft layer where the rate of increase of capacity does not match the loading rate.
An important aspect of this research is to determine which vertical ground profiles in the Gulf of Suez
will possibly result in punch-through failure. Therefore, a good understanding of the spreading of the
different geological layers and their strength characteristics is necessary. A preliminary identification
of the hazardous areas in the Gulf of Suez, is presented in paragraph 2.7.
2.5.3 Squeezing failure in layered soils

Squeezing can occur in layered soils if the upper stratum, which is loaded, is weaker than the
underlying stratum. The weaker layers are then compressed and pushed away laterally by the weight
of the foundation (see Figure 23).
Figure 23: Squeezing failure in layered soils.
- 27 -
2.5.4 Backflow
Backflow is the process whereby the void created by the spudcan penetration collapses and the soil
flows back over the spudcan. This extra weigh on the foundation will cause a extra penetration of the
spudcans. In practice, the calculation of a “stability number” will provide information concerning the
borehole stability and the possible occurrence of backflow.
2.6 Other failure mechanisms

Besides the bearing capacity failure mechanisms discussed above, there are several other failure
mechanisms for jack-up rigs (see also Table 1). However, these failure mechanisms will not be taken
into account for the development of the hazard maps in this thesis. A more comprehensive approach
to handle these possible failure mechanisms can be found in Dier et al. (2004) and of course the
SNAME (2008) and ISO guidelines (ISO, 2009). However, for completeness, the most important ones
are briefly summarized below:
Sliding failure
If the lateral soil resistance is insufficient, the spudcan(s) may move horizontally when subjected to
high horizontal loads. Especially in soil packages where leg penetration is rather limited, e.g. dense
sands, sliding failure should be kept in mind.
Previous footprints
If a jack-up rig is moved to a new location, a seabed depression remains at the old location. This is
called a ‘footprint’. The form of these footprints depend on the shape of the spudcan, the soil
conditions, the achieved penetration and the extraction method (Dier et al., 2004). If a new jack-up is
installed nearby a footprint depression, there is a chance that one of the legs will slide into the
depression, cause tilting of the platform and eventually lead to failure.
Scour
Scour is the removal of seabed soils by currents and waves and is a naturally occurring phenomenon
at the sea bottom, even if no jack-ups or other structures are nearby. However, removal of soils
around the legs of a jack-up rig may affect its foundation stability. The scour potential of a particular
site depends mainly on the specific seabed material (size, shape, density and cohesion) at the site,
the flow regime and the shape, size and penetration of the spudcan.
Shallow gas
In some areas of the world, the presence of gas in the pore water of shallow soils is not uncommon.
These shallow gas pockets will not only affect foundation stability of the jack-up rig, but they can also
cause dangerous situations during drilling operations.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs if the buildup of pore pressure continues until it equals the total stress. At that
moment, the effective stress of the soil becomes zero and thus the soil loses its bearing capacity.
Foundation failure is then evident. The rate and degree of pore pressure build up will depend on the
loading characteristics, the cyclic characteristics of the soil deposits and the drainage and
- 28 -
compressibility of the strata comprising the soil profile. The presence of shallow gas or frequently
occurring earthquakes, may increase the chances of liquefaction failure.
2.7 Preliminary identification of hazardous areas in the Gulf of Suez

Chapter 1.5 presented an overview of the geology of the Gulf of Suez, focussing on the relevance of
the geology for jack-up rig installation. Some general conclusions towards shallow depth engineering
related activities were formulated. Then, chapter 2 focussed on the jack-up rig itself and the possible
failure mechanism associated with bearing capacity failure. The information gathered in both
chapters can now be combined and makes it possible to formulate some general qualitative
identification of hazardous soil profile configurations in the Gulf of Suez. They are presented below:
- Near the mouth of the wadis, the presence of a layered ground profile with alternating
weaker layers (fine grained clayey and/or silty layers) and stronger layers (coarse grained
sand and/or gravel, possibly carbonate rich) is expected. Chances for punch-through failure
become more favorable. The exact grain size of the clastic input material will depend mainly
on the (distance to the) source area of the particular wadi (cf. Figure 14).
- Towards the southern Gulf of Suez, the carbonate content of the bottom sediments
increases because of the development of extensive post-Miocene carbonate platforms This
might lead to the formation of a harder, cemented top layer (“caprock”) on top of non-
cemented weaker deposits. Punch-through risks might increase if fine grained material is
situated below this caprock.
- Towards the centre of the Gulf of Suez, the sediments will become finer grained and more
homogeneous than at the basin margins. The dominant failure mechanism in these
homogeneous packages is more likely to be general shear failure. Due to the lack of
extensive post-Miocene carbonate platforms in the central and northern basins of the Gulf of
Suez, it is very likely to find in their deep, central parts rather homogeneous soil packages.
- The abundant deformation of the post-Miocene layers in the southern Gulf of Suez due to
salt tectonics increases the lateral variability of the upper layers. This may result in
completely different ground profiles over short distances. Lateral continuation of
geotechnical units over large distances is very unlikely.
- Near the accommodation zones, the bathymetry will be shallower. The rising basement
structures may result in a thinner post-Miocene sediment cover and the shallower
bathymetry may favour the development of reefs. These places may form (over time)
extensive carbonate platforms and result in strong vertical soil profiles.
- 29 -
- 30 -
3 Bearing capacity calculations
The different bearing capacity failure mechanisms are introduced in paragraph 2.5. This chapter now
presents the formulas that are applied to calculate the bearing capacity of a specific vertical soil
profile.
The governing soil parameters applied in the formulas are unit weight, friction angle (for drained
materials) and undrained shear strength (for undrained materials).
3.1 General shear failure

The calculations for general shear failure for spudcan foundations all start from the general bearing
capacity formula. General shear failure can occur both in layered and uniform soils (Figure 21). The
corresponding formula is:
1
Q  A(d c sc cu N c  d q s q D a' N q  d  s  ' BN  )
2 (4.1)
where,
 A = spudcan area [m]  γ’ = effective unit weight below footing *N/m3]
 D = penetration depth [m]  Nc, Nγ, Nq = bearing capacity factors [-]
 B = spudcan diameter [m]  sc,sγ, sq = bearing capacity shape factors [-]
 cu = undrained shear strength [Pa]  dc, dγ, dq = bearing capacity depth factors [-]
 γ'a = average effective unit weight above foundation level [N/m3]
The first term of the formula is related to the shear resistance of the soil, the second one to the
overburden pressure and the third one to the self weight of the soil. Several correction factors are
included in the formula (N-, s- and d-factors in formula 4.1). Vesic (1975) also uses i, b and g factors
to correct for inclination of load, base and ground respectively. This approach is adopted in FEBV’s
methodology for spudcan penetration calculations.
3.1.1 General shear in sand

For cohesionless materials (cu = 0) such as sand, the first term of the general formula disappears and
the formula 4.1 becomes now (SNAME, 2008):
1
Q  A(d q s q D a' N q  d  s  ' BN  )
2 (4.2)
FEBV’s practice is to apply this formula with the following constants:
Q  A(sq D a' N q  0.3 ' BN  )

(4.3)
where,
- 31 -
 sq  1  tan   ( φ = friction angle)
 s  0.6
 dq = 1,25 to 1,3 for 15˚ < φ < 35˚, but can be ignored according to Det Norske Veritas (1980).
 d  1
3.1.2 General shear in clay

Generally, clays can be considered to act as an undrained material (φ=0). For undrained materials,
the bearing capacity factor Nγ becomes zero. Therefore, the general formula 4.1 becomes (SNAME,
2008):
Q  A(dc sc cu Nc  d q sq D a' N q )
(4.4)
FEBV’s methodology applies this formula with the following constants:
Q  A(cu N c  D a' )
(4.5)
where,
D
 Nc  6  (1  0, 2 )  9 , according to Skempton (1951).
B
 Nq = 1
 sc, sq=1
 dc, dq=1
3.1.3 Silt and carbonate soils

To analyse the behaviour of silt and carbonate soils, engineering judgment is needed. Silts should be
analyzed by applying either the sand approach (i.e. drained analysis) or the clay approach (i.e.
undrained analysis), depending on the estimated drainage behaviour during footing penetration.
Non-cemented carbonate materials are characterised by a high compressibility. Therefore, greater

penetrations should be expected in carbonate sands compared to silica sands. The high
compressibility also generates larger friction angle values for these materials. Therefore, evidently,
corrections have to be applied before using them in the formulas. Cemented carbonate soils are
characterised by crushing behaviour when subjected to large loads. However, if the cemented soil
remains intact during loading, the soil should be treated as cohesive soil. In general, one can expect
the predictions for leg penetration in carbonate soils to be less accurate than for profiles with
uniform sand, silt or clay layers.
3.2 Backflow
Backflow is the process whereby the void created by the spudcan penetration collapses and the soil
flows back over the spudcan (Figure 24). This extra weight generates an extra load on the soil layers
and further penetration of the foundation can be expected.
- 32 -
Figure 24: Backflow in clay.
There are three approaches towards the backflow process:
 To calculate total backflow, the soil resistances at a depth equal or greater than the spudcan
foundation depth are reduced with the weight of the backflow material (Wbf), but the
resistances are also increased due to buoyancy of the spudcan (Wbu). Corresponding
formulas to determine the weight are:
 2
Wbf  B D a
'
4 (4.6)
Wbu  V ' (4.7)
 The formulas for gradual backflow only reduce the soil resistance with the weight of the
backflow material:
 2 '
W B  ( D  Dbf )
4 (4.8)
 Immediate backflow is similar to total backflow, but starts immediately after the spudcans
have replaced a volume of soil equal to the spudcan volume V.
 B2
D
4 V (4.9)
FEBV’s recommended practice is to use the immediate backflow approach in clay. However, the soil
displaced by the footing is still taken into account. Formula 4.5 now becomes:
Q  Acu N c   V '
(4.10)
The governing parameters for the formulas described above are:
- 33 -
- D = foundation depth [m] - γ'a = average submerged unit weight above
foundation depth [N/m3]
- Dbf = foundation depth where
backflow condition was fulfilled for - γ' = submerged unit weight at foundation
the first time [m] depth [N/m3]
- B = spudcan diameter at foundation - V = spudcan volume [m3]

depth [m]
3.3 Punch-through failure in layered soils

As discussed in paragraph 2.5.2, the risk for punch-through exists generally if there is hard layer on
top of a soft layer. There are different formulas to be applied, depending on the lithology in the
vertical profile. FEBV’s recommended method is to use a load spread approach, with a load spread of
3:1 (forms upper bound) and 5:1 (forms lower bound).
3.3.1 Sand over clay

If there is a sand layer over a clay layer, then the following formula is proposed:
2
 2H
Qt  1   Qb   ' HA'
 n B (4.11)
where
- A’ = equivalent spudcan area *m2] - γ' = submerged unit weight at foundation

depth [kN/m3]
- B = diameter spudcan [m]
- Qt = ultimate bearing capacity at foundation
- H = distance between foundation
level [N]
and soft layer [m]
- Qb = ultimate bearing capacity at top of soft
- n = load spread factor, =1 to 5 [-] clay layer [N]
3.3.2 Clay over clay
If there is a stiff clay layer on top of a softer clay layer, the empirical formula from Brown and
Meyerhof (1969) is applied:
 H  DH  
Q  A 3 su ,t  61  0.2 su ,b   a ' D 
 B  B   (4.12)
where,
- 34 -
- A = spudcan area [m2] - γa' =average effective unit weight above
foundation [N/m3]
- B = diameter spudcan [m]
- cu,t = shear strength of upper layer within
- H = distance between foundation
thickness H [Pa]
and soft layer [m]
- cu,b = shear strength of underlying layer [Pa]
- D = penetration depth [m]
3.3.3 Considerations
For the punch-through analysis of cemented sands or soft rocks over uncemented (carbonate) sand
or clay, FEBV stresses the need for some special considerations. For strongly cemented soils, which
are likely to stay intact during the loading, the use of a load spread factor of 4 to 6 should be
considered. Weakly cemented soils should be considered as granular soils.
3.4 Squeezing failure in layered soils

Squeezing can occur if there exists a soft layer in between the foundation and an underlying hard
layer. This soft layer can be squeezed sideways between the foundation and the harder layer (see
Figure 23).
FEBV’s approach is based on the recommendations of Brown and Meyerhof (1969):
B D
Q  A((a  b  1.2 ) su   a ' D)  A( N c su   a ' D)
T B (4.13)
where,
 T = thickness clay layer [m]
 a = empirical factor ranging from 4,14 to 5,05 [-]
 b = empirical factor ranging from 0,33 to 0,66 [-]
For the empirical factors a and b in formula 4.13, FEBV’s recommended values are respectively 5 and
0,33, if B ≤ 15 m. For B > 15 m, the recommended value for a changes to 0,25.
If these factors are put into formula 4.13, then squeezing occurs if:
B
 a  b   6
T  (4.14)
B
 5  0.33     6
T  (4.15)
1
 T    B
 3 (4.14)
- 35 -
3.5 Overview
As a summary, an example of the different bearing capacity failure processes that can occur during
the penetration of a spudcan into the soil are illustrated in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Identification of the different bearing capacity failure mechanisms in a spudcan penetration curve
(GSC=General Shear Clay, TBF=Total Back Flow, SQ=Squeezing, GSS=General Shear Sand, PTS.C=Punch-
Through Sand over Clay).
- 36 -
3.6 Spudcan penetration software programs
3.6.1 Geodin and GERRIT
Over the years, Fugro has developed in-house software programs to predict the penetration of jack-
up rigs. Untill 2010, the program JURIG was in use. Since 2011, the name of the program changed
into GERRIT. GERRIT is a component of the database program Geodin. Geodin is a database system,
in use for ca. 10 year, in which the geotechnical parameters of FEBV projects are stored. There are
three steps necessary to complete a spudcan penetration assessment in Geodin.
First of all, geotechnical units are defined by developing a ground model. Design parameters for
friction angle, undrained shear strength and unit weight are assigned to each layer of the
geotechnical model.
Secondly, a spudcan type is defined. The shapes of the most common types are predefined in GERRIT
and can be easily selected. However, it is also possible to create a new spudcan shape.
Last step is the actual engineering analysis. The spudcan penetration assessment is performed by
applying the formulas mentioned in paragraph 3.1 and 3.3 to the predefined ground model and
spudcan type. Parameters that still need to be defined are: load spread ratio, squeezing ratio,
squeezing with depth ratio, cu with depth ratio and the type of backflow.
3.6.2 Limitations of GERRIT

The output of the program should always be analyzed with the necessary engineering judgment. As
for every software program, also GERRIT has its limitations. Some scenarios cannot be addressed by
GERRIT. Errors may arise when dealing with the following issues:
- Specific risks in normally consolidated clays
Punch through risks can occur because of factors such as sudden backflow over spudcan,
thixotropy, variations in inclined loading, cyclic strength degradation, leaning instability
causing spudcan overload.
- Clay with thin sand and silt layers:
Thin layers can be easily missed and it can be assumed that there is a considerable lateral
variation in thickness. Furthermore, it is possible that the undrained layers form a sandwich
structure with higher strength.
- Cemented layers
The degree of cementation may change laterally very fast. Therefore, the borehole
information is possibly not representative. If the cemented layer is well cemented, the soil
strength may be much higher than predicted.
- Other issues, such as: rock cavities, gassy soils, earlier man activities
- 37 -
3.7 Influence spudcan type on bearing capacity curve
The bearing capacity vs. depth profile for a particular ground model can vary dependent on the type
of spudcan that is applied. Especially the diameter of the spudcan is decisive. An example is given in
Figure 26. The bearing capacity curve is generated based on the design profile from Table 2.
Table 2: Applied ground model to illustrate the influence of a specific spudcan type on the shape of the
corresponding bearing capacity curve.
Ground Ground cu, bottom

Depth [m] φ [deg] cu, top [kPa] γ [kN/m3]
Unit Model [kPa]
1 0-4 Sand 20 / / 17,7
2 4-13,7 Clay / 59 37 17,7
3 13,7-22,3 Clay / 59 69 19,1
4 22,3-25,9 Sand 25 / / 19,6
5 25,9-36,6 Clay / 167 167 16,2
6 36,6-44,2 Sand 23 / / 19,6
7 44,2-49,4 Clay / 167 167 19,1
49,4-73,8 Sand 23 / / 19,6
Squeezing factor 1.5
Squeezing Depth Factor 3
Undrained Shear Strength Factor 2
Load Spread Ratio 3
Figure 26 shows spudcan penetration curves for a 10 m (BL), a 14,7 m (K1) and a 18 m (C2) diameter
spudcan. The penetration curve looks completely different depending on the diameter of the
spudcan. The spudcan with the greatest diameter has the greatest ground resistance at a particular
depth. Increased loading of the rig will cause sooner problems for a rig with a small diameter
spudcan than for a rig with a larger diameter spudcan. E.g., assuming that a load of 180 MN is
applied, the rig with the BL spudcan will punch-through the second sand layer, while the other two
rigs will remain stable. Therefore, when assessing the risk for punch-through in a certain area, it is
only meaningful to compare spudcan penetration curves of the same spudcan type to each other.
- 38 -
Figure 26: Influence of the spudcan type on the generated bearing capacity curve for an identical soil profile.
- 39 -
- 40 -
4 Data sets: selection and processing methodology
At the start of this research, it was not very clear what the potential of the available data was. The
only certainty was that FEBV had been making a lot of geotechnical boreholes in the Gulf of Suez
over the years. However, there was no easily available overview regarding the spreading of the
boreholes throughout the gulf, their depth, the available geotechnical parameters at each location,
etc. Furthermore, besides the geotechnical boreholes, other data sets were needed in order to
produce reliable punch-through hazard maps (e.g. bathymetric data, geophysical data, satellite
images, geological maps, data regarding surface sediments, punch-through failure precedents, etc.).
It is obvious that the more data that can be combined, the more reliable the hazard maps will be. The
first objective was thus to gather as much information as possible, select the relevant data and
familiarize with it. This will render a good overview regarding the potential of the available data and
narrow the research scope; i.e. determine the type of hazard map (qualitative vs. quantitative) that
will be produced and the corresponding level of detail. This chapter discusses this entire process.
4.1 FEBV data

Inside the Fugro group, FEBV mainly focuses on offshore geotechnical site investigation. Therefore,
offshore geotechnical data in the Gulf of Suez region are available at the FEBV head office. FEBV uses
a database program, called “Xelion”, which centralises all relevant data for FEBV. Also geotechnical
reports can be consulted via this central database. A simple query application allows listing all the
geotechnical reports for a specific area, e.g. the Gulf of Suez. Unfortunately, geotechnical data
cannot be consulted directly through Xelion; only a reference to the geotechnical report can be
found.
Recently, FEBV started centralising basic borehole information for different regions into Excel sheets.
One of these regions is the Gulf of Suez. The purpose of this tremendous work is to convert all
coordinates mentioned in the (older) geotechnical reports into a uniform notation and coordinate
system (i.e. WGS 1984). Besides coordinate information and transformation parameters, this Excel
list also refers to the corresponding project number, report number, client, borehole name, type of
data, water depth and borehole length. Four types of data can be found in this list:
- Project coordinates (referred to as “P”)

- Data related to a borehole drilling or CPT (referred to as “Ext”)
- Data collected over a certain area, e.g. geophysical survey (referred to as “A”)
- Data collected along a line, e.g. pipeline survey (referred to as “L”)
In total, this Excel sheet contains 642 ID’s (= rows = location with x-y coordinate) with information.
This list was the starting point for the research (see Figure 27). The idea for this research project is to
develop a new database, based on this list, which is readily accessible and holds for every unique
location in the Gulf of Suez relevant information regarding the risk for punch-through for a specific
type of rig. This database can easily be extended whenever there is new information available about
a certain location and its information can be exported to GIS attribute tables.
4.1.1 Selection and preliminary classification

In order to better understand the structure of this original Excel list and the relationship between
“ID”, “project number”, “report number” and “type of data”, an example is formulated below. This is
important because these notations will be used frequently throughout the remainder of this report.
- 41 -
Assume a client X who wants to install a jack-up rig and wants FEBV to perform a site investigation by
initially drilling two boreholes. First of all, FEBV opens a new project number, e.g. N1111. In this site
investigation, two boreholes are drilled and CPT’s are performed. Next, a geotechnical report for this
site investigation is written and is sent to the client. This report could get the report number
N1111/01. However, after interpreting the geotechnical report, the clients feels the need for a
second site investigation and asks FEBV to drill another borehole and perform a corresponding CPT
nearby. Furthermore, there is a request for a seismic survey in order to assess the horizontal
variability between the boreholes. The project number will remain the same, however, the
corresponding geotechnical and geophysical reports could get the numbers N1111/02 and N1111/03
respectively. The corresponding project coordinates (“P”) for e.g. project N1111/01 could be a point
somewhere in the middle of the two boreholes or the location of one of the boreholes. Another
client Y wants to build a short pipeline, buried 1 m deep, from point A to B. He wants FEBV to
perform a feasibility study and asks for 3 CPT’s along the trajectory and an estimation of the surface
sediments by taking 3 grab samples. Table 3 shows how this information would be recorded in the
original FEBV Excel list.
Thus, first of all, the irrelevant information needs to be deleted from the list. To start, all project
coordinates are filtered from this list since they do not contain any useful data for spudcan
penetration predictions (see Figure 27). Obviously, the “Ext” ID’s are the most useful. Fortunately,
the major part of the list is of this “Ext” type. The “A” and “L” types are also useful since their reports
can tell more about lateral variability, though few of these ID’s were present in the list.
Then, it was decided to make a preliminary classification of the remaining ID’s based on the risk for
punch-through. Three classes are differentiated: GREEN (=safe), RED (= possible risk for punch-
through) and ORANGE (=not enough information). Some ID’s could be immediately classified,
without the need to take a look at the corresponding geotechnical report (see Figure 27). The punch-
through locations indicated on the 1992 punch-through failure map were immediately given code
red. Since the original Excel list also contained information about the depth of each borehole, it was
also possible to filter out the ID’s with a limited penetration depth. These ID’s are for example grab
samples, shallow CPT’s for pipeline route investigations, etc. All these ID’s were given the code
ORANGE, because the shallow vertical soil profile does not allow for spudcan penetration
assessments. The threshold was set at 5 m: every borehole less than 5 m deep is classified as
“orange”. This selection removed all the “L” and “A” type ID’s, which implies that the remaining ID’s
are now all boreholes or CPT’s with a minimum depth of 5 m.
In order to classify the remaining ID’s, the corresponding geotechnical report had to be consulted
(see Figure 27). This gave more information about the purpose of the geotechnical investigation (e.g.
spudcan penetration assessment, pile drivability study, foundation design report, seismic hazard
assessment,...) and the different geotechnical parameters that were determined during that specific
site investigation. This is important because if there is no numerical information on unit weight,
friction angle or undrained shear strength, then it is not possible to calculate the spudcan
penetration at that location. This first (superficial) consultation of the geotechnical reports was an
opportunity to start to develop the database for this project and gradually add extra information to it
(e.g. year of the site investigation, method of preliminary classification,…). It also allowed subdividing
the remaining ID’s in three groups (see Figure 27). The first group are the ID’s related to geotechnical
reports for spudcan penetration assessments. These reports already contain a spudcan penetration
- 42 -
curve. Interpretation of this curve allows classifying these ID’s as “GREEN” or “RED”. The second
group are the ID’s related to geotechnical reports that contain the governing parameters for spudcan
penetration calculations. For these ID’s, it is possible to generate a spudcan penetration curve. The
third group are the ID’s related to geotechnical reports that do not contain the governing parameters
for spudcan penetration calculations. For this group, a qualitative analysis needs to be performed,
based on the vertical soil profile (e.g.: top 20 m is sand, thus punch-through unlikely, thus code
GREEN).
By skipping through the reports, it was also possible to remove some ID’s from the list. A first feature
to eliminate, are the “double ID’s”. These ID’s, each of them displaying specific information, refer to
the same location. For example, it is common to develop one ground model, and thus one spudcan
penetration analysis, based on multiple boreholes which are spaced very close (i.e. order of meters).
Also a borehole and CPT at the same location will result in “double ID’s”, because the borehole log
and the CPT log are combined into 1 ground model. Over the years, it also regularly occurred that
several site investigations were performed at one and the same site. For this research, it is more
workable if only one design profile for a specific location is selected. The choice for a particular
design profile above another is applied on engineering judgement. Another feature to eliminate, are
the ID’s related to “field reports”. These field reports are often in a later stage of the project phase
combined into one final report, thus the corresponding ID’s can be deleted from the list. Finally, it
was also possible to add some new ID’s to the list. In the existing reports of the spudcan penetration
assessments, there are sometimes several modeling strategies for one location. The reason for this is
that the drilled boreholes and tests did not allow to develop an unambiguous subsurface profile.
However, eventually only one of the possible ground models will be chosen for the development of
the final map, thus they actually do not increase the total amount of ID’s (cf. also paragraph 5.1.1).
An overview of this selection and preliminary classification process is given in Figure 27.
- 43 -
Depth Maximum
ID Project Nr Report Nr Client Type BH name X coordinate Y coordinate Selected ?
Seafloor penetration
1 N1111 N1111/01 X P / 23,5464 34,5667 / / NO
2 N1111 N1111/01 X Ext BH01 23,2345 34,4321 23,5 15,7 YES
3 N1111 N1111/01 X Ext CPT01 23,2345 34,4321 23,5 8 YES
4 N1111 N1111/01 X Ext BH02 23,6457 34,4577 24,1 12,4 YES
5 N1111 N1111/01 X Ext CPT02 23,6457 34,4577 24,1 7 YES
6 N1111 N1111/02 X P / 23,1221 34,5788 / / NO
7 N1111 N1111/02 X Ext BH01 23,1221 34,5788 22,9 16,6 YES
8 N1111 N1111/02 X Ext CPT01 23,1221 34,5788 22,9 10,1 YES
9 N1111 N1111/03 X A / / / / / YES
10 N1112 N1112/01 Y L / / / / / YES
11 N1112 N1112/01 Y Ext CPT01 22,5345 34,8796 18,4 2,3 YES
12 N1112 N1112/01 Y Ext CPT02 22,4567 34,6789 17,6 1,8 YES
13 N1112 N1112/01 Y Ext CPT03 22,3536 34,4569 17,9 2,4 YES
14 N1112 N1112/01 Y Ext GRAB01 22,5345 34,8796 18,4 0,3 YES
15 N1112 N1112/01 Y Ext GRAB02 22,4567 34,6789 17,6 0,2 YES
16 N1112 N1112/01 Y Ext GRAB03 22,3536 34,4569 17,9 0,1 YES
Table 3: Simplified example of the input in the original FEBV Exel lists.
- 44 -
* Project coordinates: -226 ID’s
* Report not found: -4 ID’s

* Merged into 1 ground model: -24 ID’s
* Different assessments on same location: -13 ID’s
* Field reports: -7 ID’s
* (New ID’s: +8 ID’s)
Figure 27: Organigram illustrating methodology for selection of relevant data and preliminary classification (bc = bearing capacity, pt = punch-through).
- 45 -
The aim of this entire selection and classification process is to get rid of redundant data and get a
preliminary overview of the spreading of the data throughout the Gulf of Suez. For time saving
reasons, the ID’s that needed qualitative assessment were not analyzed right now, but will be
incorporated in a later phase (see paragraph 5.1.2).
In brief, this first analysis classified 138 locations “orange” (not enough information), 65 locations
have a possible risk for punch-through and 151 locations are safe (Figure 27). These points were
plotted in Google Earth (see Figure 28). This map gives a first indication of the spreading of the
available borehole data in the gulf and allows to fine tune the research scope.
Figure 28: First plot of the BH-data in Google Earth (RED = location with punch-through risk, GREEN = safe
location, ORANGE = not enough information to make evaluation of the risk). Three areas might be suitable
for the development of a 3D model.
Some trends are observed:
- Although there are 368 data points available, there are still large areas with no borehole data
(e.g. northern Gulf of Suez). Furthermore, the distance between two adjacent data points is
most of the times rather large (order of kilometers). Keeping in mind that high lateral
variability is one of the characteristics of the surface sediments in the gulf (cf. paragraph 2.7),
it is not straightforward to find a relationship between adjacent boreholes.
- The majority of the punch-through failures are situated in the central Gulf of Suez (October
basin).
- In the northern part of the southern Gulf of Suez, between El Tor and Ras Shukeir, there
appears to be a high concentration of safe locations.
- 46 -
- In the northern part of the Gulf of Suez, there is almost no data.
- The majority of the orange points are located along a line more or less parallel to the basin
axis. These points represent shallow site investigation for a pipeline route.
- There are some areas where the density of boreholes is significantly higher. Most of the
times, these areas correspond to zones with offshore oilfield development installations.
Considering these observations, it was decided to subdivide the risk assessment in two parts:
- A qualitative assessment of the punch-through risk over the entire Gulf of Suez area, based
on the available borehole information, surface sediments, bathymetry, geophysical data,
knowledge about the geology and existing geological processes and engineering judgment
(cf. Chapter 5).
- A quantitative assessment of the punch-through risk in areas with a high concentration of

boreholes and availability of geophysical data. The goal in these areas is to create a 3D model
of the subsurface that represents the bearing capacity of the soil (cf. Chapter. 6).
Based on the available data, three zones are selected for the development of a quantitative model:
- The zone with oilfield installations between Abu Zenima and Abu Rudeis (area I on Figure 28)
- The zone with oilfield installations between El Tor and Ras Shukeir (area II on Figure 28)
- Zone nearby Gemsa Oilfield (area III on Figure 28)
4.1.2 Spudcan penetration assessments

Figure 28 gives a first indication of the risk at different location in the Gulf of Suez. However, this first
classification is based partly on existing bearing capacity profiles (geotechnical reports) and partly on
calculated bearing capacity profiles with GERRIT (see Figure 27). The disadvantage of this approach is
that the classification is based on different spudcan shapes. For the GERRIT calculations, the K1
spudcan shape was used, but the generated bearing capacity curves in the geotechnical reports are
based on various spudcan types. As explained in paragraph 3.7, in order to make a proper
assessment of the risk, curves of one and the same type of spudcan shape should be analyzed (cf.
Figure 26). To overcome this problem, it was decided to put the 147 ground models for which in the
past already a penetration assessment was made (i.e. the ones from the geotechnical reports), also
into Geodin. Also the 9 locations with punch-through risk from the 1992 map were added to the
database. The Geodin database now contains 60+147+9=216 ground models at different locations for
which a bearing capacity curve can be generated for a specific type of spudcan with GERRIT.
As these geotechnical reports are sometimes rather old and originally written by other (non-
European) companies inside the FUGRO group, the input of the ground models to Geodin was not
always straightforward. Sometimes, a new design ground model was developed, based on the
available borehole logs. Imperical units were also converted to SI-units. The applied conversion
factors can be found in Appendix 2.
- 47 -
4.2 Geophysical data
Fugro has a online database in which a reference to all the available survey projects are stored. It is
possible to select a location, and then the database displays information about the type of survey
(e.g. bathymetric vs. seismic), the purpose of the survey (e.g. deep seismic vs. shallow seismic), the
name of the Fugro company where the data are stored, etc. A search for the data available in the
Gulf of Suez revealed that there are numerous surveys which could be useful for this research. Most
of these surveys are stored at the Fugro company in Egypt. The plan was to use these geophysical
data for validation of the borehole data, lateral variability assessment and identification of large scale
depositional and structural features. The geophysical data would help to delineate different risk
zones. Unfortunately, the exchange of geophysical data between FEBV and Fugro Egypt was not
evident and in the end, only one seismic profile was exchanged (see Figure 29). The available
geophysical profile is situated in the deeper part of the central October basin. The seismic line has a
SW-NE orientation, is approximately 11 km long and was shot for a shallow pipeline investigation.
The line contains 2596 shot points, but there is no information about the seismic source. Nearby
boreholes are ID 590 (at 200m distance) towards the SW end of the line and ID 5 towards the NE end
of the line (at 5km distance).
By using the Kingdom Suite seismic interpretation software package, it is possible to display and
interpret the seismic profile. The profile indicates four distinct reflectors (see Figure 29). The first one
(R1) is the seafloor reflector at ca. 0,080 s TWT. The horizontal orientation of this reflector indicates
no major bathymetric differences in this part of the gulf. The second one (R2) at ca. 0,090 s TWT has
a parallel orientation to R1 in the SW, but becomes very irregular towards the NE. Approximately in
the middle of the profile, a third reflector R3 appears, which is parallel again to R1. The fourth
reflector R4 starts in the SW part of the profile and has an (apparent) dip to the NE. In the SW part of
the profile, there is a fracture F1 which affects reflectors R1, R2 and R4.
It can be assumed that the seismic wave travels with a speed of approximately 1500 m/s through the
water column and 1600 m/s through the upper sediment facies. The seafloor is then at a depth of ca.
60 m, which is consistent with the available bathymetric and borehole data. The first seismic facies
(S1), with a thickness of 0,01 s TWT or ca. 8 m, has an uniform appearance along the profile. The
course of reflector R2, particularly in the NE, reminds of an incised paleosurface. Seismic facies S2 is
possibly an infill of these old incisions, with maximum thickness around 0,005 s TWT or ca. 4m. Facies
S2 also has much stronger reflectors and possibly indicates a change in lithology. Seismic facies S3,
(between R2 and R4) and seismic facies S4 (below R4) look similar to facies S1.
The ‘nearby’ boreholes can help to find out more about the cause of these strong reflectors and a
link between seismic facies and lithology or geotechnical parameters. The ID 590 consist mainly out
of clay, with thin sandy intercalations. At ca. 2 km from the NE-end of the seismic line, ID 5 indicates
a thin upper clay layer, with underneath a thick sand layer. Reflector R2 seems to correspond with
the increase in bearing capacity around 8 m depth, visible in both logs. A different degree of
compaction, water content or unit weight could be the cause (although not really obvious from the
corresponding geotechnical parameters). Seismic facies S1 possibly corresponds with a young
(Quaternary) clayey deposit. Seismic facies S2 possibly represents a sandy infill of the incisions of the
paleosurface. The sand package in ID 5 possibly corresponds to this infill. However, this theory about
R2 corresponding to an incised paleosurface should be verified with detailed sea level curves of the
Gulf of Suez.
- 48 -
Figure 29: Seismic profile with SW NE orientation, situated in the deeper parts of the central October basin. There are 4 reflectors (R1-R4), 4 seismic facies (S1-S4) and
one fracture F1 indicated. ID 590 is situated at the SW end of the profile (ca. 200m), borehole ID 5 at the NE end of the geophysical profile (ca. 5 km).
- 49 -
4.3 GEBCO data
The General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) is a publicly available bathymetric data set for
the world’s oceans. For this research, the GEBCO_08 grid for the Gulf of Suez region is used. This is a
global 30 arc-second grid, largely generated by combining quality-controlled ship depth soundings
with interpolation between sounding points guided by satellite-derived gravity data.
The grids and corresponding software for displaying and accessing the data are available to
download from the GEBCO website (cf. Chapter. 9). The software allows exporting the numerical
data in GIS recognisable formats. Figure 30 shows the selected grid for this research.
Figure 30: Selected GEBCO grid for this research. The corresponding numerical bathymetric data are
imported into ArcGIS. The colors represent relief/bathymetry.
4.4 Admiralty charts

Admiralty charts are nautical charts issued by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. They cover
the entire world in various levels of detail depending on the density of traffic and hazards. Large-
scale charts often cover approaches and entrances to harbours, medium-scale charts cover heavily
used coastal areas, and small-scale charts are for navigation in more open areas. The charts display
information about depths (compared to chart datum), coastline, buoyage, land and underwater
- 50 -
contour lines, surface sediments (for anchoring), hazards, tidal information, prominent land features
(for example wadi’s), traffic separation schemes and navigation lights.
These charts are available at FEBV in a digital format. These Electronic Navigation Charts (ENC) can be
consulted via different applications, e.g. Google Earth, Starfix NG, ArcGIS (see Figure 31). By zooming
in or out with these programs, a map with a lower/higher scale is displayed and more/less detail
becomes visible. This is possible because the underlying data is vector based.
Figure 31: ENC displayed in Google Earth for part of the Gulf of Suez. Zooming in or out results in more/less
detailed maps.
The programs mentioned above only make it possible to “see” the maps. They do not allow editing or
selecting a specific type of data (e.g. only bathymetry or surface sediments). However, the
“WebMapServer toolbox” application makes it possible to assess the underlying vector data and
export these into a GIS recognisable format.
For this research, the WebMapServer toolbox is used to filter the bathymetry and the spreading of
the surface sediments from the ENC. Further analysis and editing of the exported data is then
possible with ArcGIS.
4.5 Maps and satellite images

Several maps and satellite images of the Gulf of Suez can be found at FEBV and on the internet. Hard
copies can be scanned to have them in a digital raster format. Google Earth satellite images can also
be saved as raster images. Then, it is possible to import, georeference and display these raster
images in ArcGIS. Below is a list of the maps and satellite images available in the GIS project.
- 51 -
- Conoco geological map of the Gulf of Suez (1:500 000) (cf. ArcGIS project).
- Structural map Gulf of Suez from Younes and McClay (2002), cf. Figure 10.
- 1992 punch-through failure maps from Klein (1992).
- Facies distribution Post-Miocene sediments in the Gulf of Suez from Gheith and El-Sherbini
(1993), cf. Figure 15.
- Map with indication of isolines of median diameter of recent bottom sediments in the Gulf of
Suez from Mohamed (1991) (cf. ArcGIS project).
- Satellite images Google Earth.
- 52 -
5 Design and development qualitative hazard maps
This chapter discusses the design of the qualitative hazard maps for the Gulf of Suez. The first
paragraph discusses the methodology in order to produce these hazard maps (cf. paragraph 5.1). The
paragraph explains which data are used, why the selected data are interesting, how these data are
processed and interpreted. The second paragraph applies this methodology to three different rigs
with their corresponding spudcans (cf. paragraph 5.2). The final outcome of this paragraph is the
identification of different risk zones regarding punch-through occurrence for a specific rig with
associated spudcan in the Gulf of Suez. At the end of the chapter, the correctness of the identified
zones is verified (cf. paragraph 5.3).
5.1 Methodology
For the development of the qualitative maps, following data sets are used:
- 216 unique borehole locations for which a spudcan penetration curve is calculated with
GERRIT (see 5.1.1).
- 14 locations for which a qualitative assessment of the punch-through risk was made by
analyzing the vertical ground profile due to lacking geotechnical parameters at these
locations (see 5.1.2).
- ENC to get an idea about the distribution of the surface sediments in the Gulf of Suez (see
5.1.3)
- 254 borehole locations to get an idea about the thickness of these upper sediment packages
(see 5.1.3)
- ENC and GEBCO analysis, mainly for bathymetric purposes
- Satellite images, geological maps
5.1.1 Spudcan penetration assessments

Paragraph 4.1.2 identified 216 unique locations in the Gulf of Suez with the appropriate geotechnical
parameters to perform a spudcan penetration assessment. Paragraph 3.7 indicated that the spudcan
type (i.e. diameter) has a large influence in the generation of the bearing capacity curve for a specific
vertical ground profile. For this research it was decided to generate at every borehole location three
bearing capacity curves, i.e. for a jack-up rig with spudcans of respectively 10 m (BL rig), 14,7 m (K1
rig) and 18 m diameter (C2 rig). More details about these rigs, the corresponding spudcan
dimensions and preloads can be found in respectively Appendix 7, 5 and 6. In total 648 spudcan
penetration curves are generated. It can be assumed that the rigs deployed at the Gulf of Suez have
spudcan diameters somewhere in between this range. This makes it possible to get an idea about the
risk for punch-through for rigs with another diameter.
The locations for which a punch-through profile was generated are indicated on the hazard map as
red dots, the remaining locations do not have a punch-through profile and are indicated with green
dots (=”safe”). However, a punch-through profile at a certain location does not necessarily involve a
punch-through risk for that location. Whether the punch-through occurs or not depends on the type
of rig and the corresponding preload for that particular rig. As explained by Figure 32, the
relationship between the preload and the strength at which the punch-through occurs in the
subsurface defines the actual risk. If the preload is smaller than the strength of the soil where the
punch-through starts, there is no problem. If not, then there is an actual risk for punch-through.
- 53 -
Therefore, for every location that generated a punch-through profile, a corresponding safety factor is
calculated in order to identify the actual risk. This factor of safety (FOS) is defined as:
Punch-Through Peak  MN

FOS 
Preload  MN 
(6.1)
The threshold between risk and no risk was set at 1,5. If the FOS ≤ 1,5, then there is an existing risk
for punch-through. If this FOS ≥ 1,5, then there is a vertical ground profile configuration with
alternating significantly stronger and weaker layers. However, there is no actual risk for punch-
through since the high FOS indicates that the stronger layer can withstand the applied preload.
Figure 32 indicates that the identification of a punch-through profile will also depend on the chosen
scale for the bearing capacity axis in the produced graph. In this research, the maximum value for the
bearing capacity was consistently set at 240 MN. This value is reasonable considering the governing
preloads for the three rigs that are analyzed. Possible punch-through peaks above 240 MN will result
in FOS >> 1,5 and can thus be considered as “safe”.
Figure 32: Meaning of FOS. The punch-through peak is indicated with the black line and has a corresponding
strength. If the preload of the rig is situated on the left of the black line (e.g. the green line), then the FOS >
1,5 and there is a punch-through profile, but no actual risk. If the preload is situated to the right of the black
line (e.g. the red line), then the FOS < 1.5 and there is an actual punch-through risk.
Paragraph 4.1.1 states that for certain locations, there is no unanimity regarding the best way to
model the geotechnical and/or geological characteristics of the subsurface. In the corresponding
geotechnical reports, a number of possible modeling strategies are suggested. For this research, it
was decided to consistently select the model that results in the worst case scenario regarding the
occurrence of punch-throughs (see Table 4). By doing so, the occurrence of conflicting risk
assessments at a unique location on the map is avoided. This will result in a rather conservative
hazard map, but on the other hand, it only concerns 7 locations, thus there will only be a minor
influence.
- 54 -
Table 4: Selection procedure for locations with multiple subsurface modeling strategies (FOS = Factor of
Safety, B = BL, K = K1, C = C2 (95MN), Pt-r = punch-through risk, Pt-p = punch-through profile).
RISK FOS
ID Report Nr BH Selected?
B K C B K C
46
Pt-r Pt-p Pt-r 0,6 1,6 1,37 Yes
/ /
46.2
Pt-r Pt-p Pt-r 0,6 1,6 1,37 No
310
Pt-p S S 3,2 / / Yes
/ /
310,2
Pt-p S S 3,2 / / No
330
S S S / / No
/ /
330,2
Pt-r Pt-p Pt-p 0,8 1,7 Yes
480
S Pt-p S / 4 / No
/ /
480,2
Pt-r Pt-p S 1,46 2,9 / Yes
564
Pt-r Pt-r Pt-r 0,56 1,20 0,95 No
564,2 / /
Pt-r Pt-r Pt-r 0,44 1,30 0,95 No
564,3
Pt-r Pt-r Pt-r 0,50 1,00 0,74 Yes
565
Pt-r Pt-r Pt-r 0,58 1,30 1,00 Yes
/ /
565,2
Pt-r Pt-r Pt-r 0,60 1,30 1,00 No
624
S Pt-r Pt-r / 0,54 0,47 Yes
/ /
624,2
Pt-r Pt-p Pt-r 0,86 1,70 1,32 No
5.1.2 Qualitative assessment punch-through risk

Figure 27 indicates that there are 14 borehole locations which need to be classified qualitatively into
“pt-risk” or “safe”. In the end, it turned out that 4 from the 9 locations of the 1992 failure map also
needed a qualitative analysis. These 18 borehole logs lack one or more geotechnical parameters
necessary to perform a spudcan penetration assessment. However, by considering the vertical
ground profile at these locations, their location in the Gulf of Suez and the proximity of calibrated
bearing capacity profiles, it is possible to make a reasonable punch-through risk assessment. These
extra points can possibly ease the delineation of the different risk zones. Appendix 3 lists the
concerning boreholes, the associated risk assessment and the reasoning behind the classification.
Table 5 summarizes the outcome of all the risk assessments for the three rigs. The locations for
which there is not enough information available (“orange”) are also included in the table.
- 55 -
5.1.3 Distribution of the surface sediments
The ENC display a significant amount of information about the distribution of surface sediments.
These observations are based on soundings from ships. This kind of information is displayed on
nautical charts because it is import to find a suitable anchorage. The “WMS toolbox” application
allows extracting these points from the ENC into a Google Earth kml-file. It is then relatively easy to
get this information into a table and import this information into a GIS program.
To verify the sediment distribution pattern on the ENC and to get an idea about the thickness of
these upper sediment packages, borehole information from the FEBV database can be added. It was
possible to add for 254 locations, spread throughout the Gulf of Suez, information about the type of
surface sediment and the thickness of this first sediment package.
In general, there is a good agreement between the borehole observations and the ENC data. Thus,
these two combined sources give a relatively good insight in the distribution of the surface sediments
in the Gulf of Suez. A map of the distribution of the surface sediments can be found in Appendix 4.
5.1.4 Identification wadis

A conclusion from the literature study is that wadis are possibly important factors in generating an
alteration between stronger and softer layers near the mouth of the wadi (cf. 2.7). Therefore it is
important to identify the most prominent wadis and verify their relationship with the identified
offshore punch-through profiles. The wadis are identified from the Conoco geological maps, the ENC
and the Google Earth Satellite images and grouped in a new GIS layer. The identification of the
corresponding sediment fans is possible by analyzing satellite images (part above sea level) and the
bathymetric contour lines (offshore continuation of the sediment fan).
5.1.5 Combining the data

Considering the characteristic lateral variation of sediment facies and thicknesses in the Plio-
Quaternary sediments of the Gulf of Suez, interpolation of variables (e.g. lithologic facies, layer
thickness, geotechnical parameters, bearing capacity,...) between these discrete points is not
straightforward. The best way to verify the lateral variability of these parameters in between the
boreholes would be by interpretation of shallow depth geophysics. Unfortunately, there is only one
geophysical profile available (see Figure 29), thus an alternative way to “interpolate” is applied.
The borders of the different risk zones are defined by analyzing the clustering of safe vs. punch-
through profiles in an area, the cause of the punch-through in terms of soil profile, the corresponding
safety factors, the vertical configuration of the safe profiles, the spreading of the surface sediments,
the thickness of this upper sediment package, the relationship to the bathymetry, the relationship to
the onshore geological features, the depositional environment, knowledge gained from the literature
review and engineering judgment.
5.2 Large scale qualitative risk assessment

The first type of rig for which a hazard map with different risk zones is produced is the K1 rig.
Thereafter, the risk analyses for a larger and a smaller spudcan, respectively C2 and BL spudcan, can
be compared with the outcome of this map. If necessary, the borders of the risk zones can be
updated.
- 56 -
5.2.1 K1 rig
The K1 rig is frequently deployed in the Gulf of Suez. The corresponding spudcan has a 14,7 m
diameter. The preload of the rig is 50 MN. More details about the rig and the corresponding spudcan
can be found in Appendix 5.
Table 5 indicates that the K1 hazard map is based on 346 from the 368 available risk assessments
(see Figure 27). For 129 locations the risk is unknown, for 199 locations a spudcan penetration curve
is generated and 17 locations are analyzed qualitatively (see Appendix 3). There are 88 locations
identified with a punch-through profile, from which 33 have a FOS < 1,5. The other 128 locations are
identified as safe regarding the risk for punch-through. The 199 ground models and corresponding
spudcan penetration curves can be found in Appendix 5.
By following the methodology mentioned in 5.1.5, it was possible to divide the Gulf of Suez into 14
risk zones regarding punch-through failure for the K1 rig. They are indicated on Figure 33 and are
discussed in detail throughout the rest of this paragraph.
Figure 33: Identification of different risk zones for the K1 rig in the Gulf of Suez. The black bathymetric
contour line represents the -50 m. Orange zone = risk unknown because limited data, red zone = risk for
punch-through, green zone = safe. The remaining white zones = no data at all.
- 57 -
5.2.1.1 Zone 1: risk unknown
The first risk zone comprises almost the entire northern Darag Basin (cf. 1.9.1). Unfortunately, there
are almost no borehole data in this northern zone (see Figure 34) and therefore it is difficult to make
a proper risk assessment. There are 6 locations identified as risky for punch-through (3 calculated
profiles, 3 qualitative analyses) and 2 “safe” locations in the northern tip. The locations with a punch-
through profile, but with a FOS > 1,5, are situated in a relatively near-shore environment with sandy-
rocky surface sediments. The location with FOS = 1 is situated in a deeper part of the northern Gulf of
Suez with clayey surface sediments. The other three locations with a possible risky ground profile are
situated nearby Ain Sukhna and were executed for the development of the local harbor.
Figure 34: Risk zone 1 - risk unknown (red labels at BHs= FOS, black labels at BHs= thickness surface
sediments, legend surface sediments: see Appendix 4).
Conclusion: In general, there is not enough data available to make an overall punch-through risk
assessment in this area.
- 58 -
5.2.1.2 Zone 2: punch-through risk zone
The second zone, delineated in Figure 35, is situated in the deeper parts of the central October basin
(cf. 1.9.1). In this zone, there are 2 “safe” locations and 17 locations with a punch-through profile,
from which 10 locations have a FOS ≤ 1,5. Remarkably, these 10 locations are all at a depth of more
than -50 m. The surface sediments are dominated by the presence of a thick clayey-silty facies.
Often, the punch-through profiles develop into this clay or silt layer itself (e.g. ID 221, ID 298). On the
other hand, the clay-silt package has sometimes thin sandy-rocky intercalations which are
responsible for the generation of the punch-through profile (e.g. ID 205, ID 215). A geophysical
profile in the centre of this zone is indicated in Figure 29. As the geophysical profile indicates, the
harder layer in these punch-through profiles are possibly related to an old erosion surface (more
consolidated clay layer) and to sandy infill of incisions in this old erosion surface (cf. paragraph 4.2). It
should be noted that, although the punch-throughs occurring within this fine grained sediment
package have often a FOS ≤ 1,5, the associated plunge depth is rather limited.
Figure 35: Risk zone 2 - punch-through risk (red labels at BHs= FOS, black labels at BHs= thickness surface
Conclusion: This zone, characterized by a depth of predominantly more than 50 m and the presence
of an upper, thick and fine grained sediment package with occasionally thin intercalations of sand
and/or rock, has a high risk for punch-through occurrence. However, the plunge depth is in many
cases rather limited.

This zone is situated along the eastern side of the Gulf of Suez, nearby Abu Rudeis. Risk Zone 2 is on
its western side (see Figure 36). There are no “safe” profiles in this zone. There are 8 boreholes with
a punch-through profile (1 qualitative analysis) in this zone and 4 of them have a FOS ≤ 1,5.
Characteristic for this zone is the nearby presence of a large sediment fan, related to the mouths of
- 59 -
Wadi Matulla and Wadi Sidri. The geological map defines this fan as Quaternary sediments. This
sediment fan can be clearly seen on the Google Earth satellite images. However, the bathymetric
contour lines do not indicate an offshore continuation of this sediment fan. Zone 3 has mainly sandy
surface sediments. Towards the mouth of Wadi Sidri, the ENC indicate the presence of petrified
surface sediments and growth of corals. The borehole logs indicate that underneath this sandy top
layer, there is a continuous alternation between sand and rather thick clayey sediments. For the IDs
10, 11, 12 and 13, this vertical configuration is the reason for the punch-through development.
Conclusion: The large sediment fan indicates that this relatively near-shore zone is largely influenced
by the periodical input of sediments of the nearby active wadis. These wadis originate in the
proximate, uplifted rift shoulders along the eastern side of the Gulf of Suez. Considering this source
area, it is not unlikely that these wadis bring periodically rather coarse, sandy erosion material into
the Gulf of Suez. In between these flash floods, there is a normal, fine grained sedimentation (cf.
paragraph 2.7). This phenomenon is a likely explanation for the observed ground profiles at IDs 10,
11, 12 and 13. Therefore, this zone has a high risk for punch-through.
- 60 -
This zone is situated south-east of zone 2 and just south of zone 3. There are 3 locations with a
punch-through profile (1 of them with FOS ≤ 1,5) and 8 “safe” locations. The setting of this zone is
similar to zone 3 because of the presence of a large sediment fan related to the mouth of Wadi
Feiran. However, contrary to zone 3, the bathymetric contour lines do indicate that this sediment fan
continues offshore (see Figure 37). The ENC charts do not have a lot of information about surface
sediments in this area. The boreholes however indicate that the offshore continuation of this
sediment fan consists mainly out of thick sand and gravel deposits (e.g. ID 420, ID 448). Evidently, the
borehole locations on top of this fan core are all “safe” profiles. Towards the deeper parts of this
zone, where the sediment fan gradually spreads, the borehole logs are similar to the ones in zone 3
and indicate a punch-through profile (e.g. ID 250).
Conclusion: The core of the sediment fan itself is characterized by a coarse facies consisting mainly
out of sand and gravel. This core can be considered “safe”. Further away from this core, finer clay-silt
particles also settle and the risk for an alteration between stronger sandy layers and weaker clayey-
silty layers increase and likewise the risk for punch-through.
- 61 -
5.2.1.5 Zone 5: safe zone
This zone is situated between Ras Gharib and Ras Shukeir on the western side of the Gulf of Suez and
El-Tor on the eastern side. It is enclosed by zones 10, 11 and 6 (see Figure 38). It contains 39 “safe”
locations (from which 4 qualitatively analyzed) and 8 locations with a punch-through profile (but all
have FOS ≥ 1,5). This zone has towards the centre of the gulf a conspicuous shallow bathymetry. This
area is indicated on the ENC as “Tor-bank”. Over there, the surface sediments are predominantly
sandy and the boreholes indicate that this sandy package is rather thick (6 m-20 m). Towards the
edges of this higher plateau, corals are abundant (e.g. in the SE) and at some locations there are
indications of petrified surface sediments (e.g. in the NE). Several boreholes indicate that there are
also rocky intercalations in the subsurface (e.g. ID 406, ID 416).
Figure 38: Risk zone 5 - safe (red labels at BHs= FOS, black labels at BHs= thickness surface sediments, legend
surface sediments: see Appendix 4).
Conclusion: Structurally, this “Tor-bank”zone coincides with the Morgan Accommodation zone.
Literature review mentions that these accommodation zones can indeed cause a local uplift of the
bathymetry (cf. 1.9.1). It can be assumed that this thick, upper sand facies is carbonate rich due to
the coral development in the area. Carbonate rich sand mineralize easily and can form local hard
grounds at the surface. Over time, coral provinces can petrify and form robust limestone deposits in
the subsurface. In general, this area has a solid subsurface for rig installation and the risk for punch-
through is relatively low.

Zone 6 is situated in the southern Zeit basin (cf. 1.9.1) and is enclosed by zones 5, 12, 7, 14 and 13
(see Figure 39). It comprises 5 “safe” locations and 29 locations for which a punch-through profile
was generated (from which 6 qualitatively analyzed). Of those 29, 13 have a FOS ≤ 1,5. This zone is
situated in a deeper part of the gulf, with all depths exceeding -50 m. The upper sediment package is
predominantly clayey with thicknesses ranging between 4 and 36 m. Locally, there is a thin sand layer
- 62 -
at the surface (e.g. ID 209, ID 444). The boreholes indicate that this thick clay package is at some
locations intercalated with thin sandy layers, resulting in a vertical profile which is favorable to
produce punch-through curves (e.g. ID 332, ID 360, ID 151). However, similar to zone 2, some punch-
through curves are also generated within a continuous clayey or silty facies (e.g. ID 231), often
associated with a rather limited plunge depth.
Conclusion: The characteristics of this zone are similar to zone 2. Also here the governing depth is
more than -50 m, the dominant upper soil package is a fine grained clayey-silty facies and there are
thin sandy intercalations. The risk for punch-through is relatively high.

This zone is situated in the south-eastern part of the Zeit basin and bordered by zones 6, 8 and 15.
There are 15 “safe” locations in this zone and no locations with an indication of punch-through risk.
Figure 40 shows that the zone stretches from the coastline to circa the -50 m contour. Towards the
south-east, the zone narrows and stops. This is because this area is the start of the steep scarp
(Shadwan Embayment) towards the deeper Red Sea basin (cf. 1.6). The bathymetry rapidly increases
and there is no data regarding the installation of jack-up rigs in this transition zone. Within this zone
the ENC indicates a lot of petrified surface sediments along the coastline and more sandier facies
towards the deeper part. In the northern part of this zone, there are several wadis draining into the
Gulf of Suez. However, their sediment input is probably negligible. This can be assumed because they
first have to cross the Quaternary El-Qua plain and while doing so, the majority of the suspended
sediment particles will already settle down. The boreholes indicate that the subsurface
predominantly consists of thick sand packages (e.g. ID 207, ID 424, ID 426). The rocky outcrops along
- 63 -
the coastline are also present more offshore, but often buried by a sand layer (e.g. ID 145, ID 184, ID
211). The amount of clay-silt in the subsurface is negligible.
Conclusion: This zone can be considered as a safe zone regarding the potential occurrence of punch-
throughs. The thick sand layers with rocky intercalations provide a solid subsurface for jack-up rig
installation.

This zone is situated along the SW coastline of the Zeit basin and is bordered by zones 14, 6, 7, 15
and 9. In this zone, there are 2 locations which generated a punch-through profile, but all have a FOS
≥ 1.5. More important is that there are also 32 calibrated “safe” locations in this zone. The southern
border of this zone is, like in zone 7, determined by the transition zone towards the Red Sea basin
and the associated rapid increase in depth. The ENC indicates three dominant types of surface
sediments: corals in the northern part of this zone, petrified surface sediments in the center and
southern part and sandy sediments spread throughout the entire zone. Especially the small bay
where Wadi Dibb and Wadi Abu Had drain is rich in sandy surface sediment. The boreholes in the
northern part of the zone indicate that underneath this coral rich-sandy top layer, there are also
gravelly-rocky layers present (e.g. ID 165, ID 198). The boreholes in the center part have similar
ground profiles (e.g. ID 279, ID 296, ID 292). At some locations, there are thin clay or silt layers
intercalated, but they are too thin and negligible compared to the strong layers above and beneath
to generate a punch-through profile (e.g. ID 263, ID 570, ID 197).
- 64 -
Conclusion: The characteristics of this zone are similar to Zone 7. Both zones are separated from each
other by a deeper area, the so-called Strait of Jubal. It can be assumed that there is no risk for punch-
through in zone 8.

Zone 9 is situated in between 4 islands in the SW part of the Zeit basin (see Figure 42). This zone is
situated in a bay in between these islands where depths increase rapidly to -50 m and more. There
are 4 locations which generated punch-through profiles and 1 safe location. The “safe” location is
situated in the shallow part of the zone, the possible punch-through locations are situated in greater
depths. The borehole logs indicate that the shallow, safe location is associated with a ground profile
mainly consisting out of sand (ID 456). The ground profiles of the locations which generate a punch-
through profile, indicate that there, in the deeper part, the amount of fine grained sediments (clay,
silt) significantly increase. These ground profiles are now dominated again by thick clay and silt
layers, intercalated with rather thin sandy/rocky intercalations (e.g. ID 31, ID 34). Evidently, these
configurations are very sensitive for punch-through.
- 65 -
Conclusion: The amount of fine grained material in this relatively deep bay between the numerous
islands and carbonate platforms in the southwestern Gulf of Suez (cf. paragraph 1.12), rapidly
increases. This generates vertical ground profiles where the thickness of strong (sandy-rocky) layers
is considerably less than the thickness of the weaker, fine grained layers. These configurations are
very sensitive for punch-through occurrence and therefore this zone is marked as unsafe.

Zone 10 is a rather thin, but elongated zone along the western coast of the Gulf of Suez and bordered
by zones 2, 4, 11 and 5 (see Figure 43). The NE-border of this zone roughly corresponds to the -50 m
bathymetric contour line. Within this zone, the bathymetric contour lines are parallel to each other,
with regular intervals. Only in the center of this zone, there is a small platform between -20 m and -
30 m. This is striking because the geological map indicates the presence of numerous wadis in this
zone, especially in the southern part. However, the difference with the wadis on the other side of the
Gulf of Suez (cf. zone 3 and zone 4) is that the wadis on this side of the gulf cross an alluvial plane
before they discharge into the gulf. When crossing this zone, the majority of the suspended material
already settles and no offshore sediment fan develops, resulting in regular bathymetric contour lines.
The surface sediments in this area are mainly sandy, with at certain spots even petrified sediments.
There are 7 locations which generated a punch-through profile, but only two of them have a
FOS<1,5. The others have a FOS which indicates that the actual risk for punch-through does not exist.
The other 19 locations generated a “safe” profile.
- 66 -
Figure 43: Risk zone 10 - safe (red labels at BHs= FOS, black labels at BHs= thickness surface sediments,
legend surface sediments: see Appendix 4).
Conclusion: This long elongated zone along the western Gulf of Suez can be considered safe
regarding punch-through occurrence for the K1 rig. At some spots, punch-through profiles are
generated, but the concerned “strong” layers can withstand the K1 preload without a problem and
render high safety factors.

This zone is situated in the southern part of the October basin and is enclosed by zones 4, 10, 5 and
12 (see Figure 44). The zone lies in the deeper (> 50 m depth) central part of the Gulf of Suez. There
are 5 locations which generated a punch-through profile and 4 of them have FOS ≤ 1,5. There are no
locations identified as “safe”. The characteristics of this zone and the cause of the punch-throughs
are similar to zones 2, 6 and 9: thick fine grained layers with intercalated strong, but relatively thin,
sandy layers that are not capable of supporting the rig at its full preload (e.g. ID 562, ID 598).
- 67 -
Occasionally, the punch-through is also generated within a single fine grained layer (e.g. ID 564, ID
129).
Conclusion: This zone has a high risk for the occurrence for punch-through failure. The reasoning is
similar to the ones for zones 2, 6 and 9.

This zone, situated along the coast in the NE part of the Zeit basin, contains 7 calibrated “safe“
locations and 1 locations with a punch-through profiles, but with FOS >> 1,5 and thus also “safe”. The
amount of sediments discharged into this zone by the numerous nearby wadis can be assumed to be
negligible for the same reason as in zone 10. Most of the sediment will already settle when crossing
the Quaternary El-Qua alluvial plain. However, there is an indication of a plateau-like structure
developing between -20 m and -40 m (see Figure 45). The ENC also indicate that on this plateau,
there are numerous corals. The boreholes indicate that in the vertical direction there is
predominantly sand and rock to find. There are also more silty intercalations at some locations, but
they are negligible regarding the generation of a risky punch-through profile (e.g. ID 149, ID 173, ID
480).
- 68 -
Figure 45: Risk zone 12- safe (red labels at BHs= FOS, black labels at BHs= thickness surface sediments, legend
Conclusion: The characteristics of this zone resemble to the ones of zone 10. The vertical ground
profile in this zone is strong enough to ensure a safe installation and preloading of the K1 rig.

This zone is bordered by zones 5, 6 and 14 and only contains 1 borehole (“safe”). However, its
bathymetric characteristics and surface sediments are similar to zone 10 (see Figure 46). The only
difference is that less wadis are draining into the Gulf of Suez.
Figure 46: zone 13- safe (red labels at BHs= FOS, black labels at BHs= thickness surface sediments, legend
- 69 -
Conclusion: Similar to zone 10, this zone can be considered as “safe” regarding the occurrence of
punch-through failures.

Zone 14 does not contain any information about surface sediments, nor any borehole information
(see Figure 39). At first sight this zone is the continuation of zone 13. However, onshore, this zone is
not bordered by a Quaternary alluvial plane, but by Paleozoic rock outcrops. This could possibly give
locally a different input into the Gulf of Suez and generate deviant vertical ground profiles from zone
14.
Conclusion: This zone has similarities to zone 13, but is onshore not bordered by an alluvial plain, but
by Paleozoic rock outcrops. There is no data to see whether this affects the vertical ground profiles in
such a way that punch-through risks rise. Therefore, the risk for punch-through failure in this zone is
unknown.

This zone coincides with the Strait of Jubal, the access corridor for ships into the Gulf of Suez. In this
zone, there are no data at all (see Figure 41). The bathymetry is similar to zone 6.
Conclusion: The lack of data does not allow making a reasonable assessment about the risk for
punch-through failure in this zone. Therefore, the risk is unknown.
5.2.2 BL and C2 rigs

The C2 and BL rig are discussed together in one paragraph. This is justified because plotting the risk
assessments for these rigs on the hazard map for the K1 Rig indicated that the identified risk zones
for the K1 rig can be retained. Of course there are differences between the different rigs. For
example, some locations are reclassified from “punch-through risk” to “punch-through profile” (e.g.
ID 171) or from “punch-through profile” to “safe” (e.g. ID 606) and of course the corresponding
factors of safety change, but in general the differences are not of that kind to transfer an entire risk
zone from for example “safe” to “punch-through” or the other way around. At most, a zone becomes
more risky or safer, depending on the rig. To illustrate this, the safe and punch-through locations for
the different rigs are plotted on Figure 45. One can see that the general clustering of safe vs. unsafe
profiles does not change significantly.
The transitions towards more safe or risky and the influence of the spudcan diameter on these
transitions will be discussed throughout the remaining of this paragraph. The BL spudcan is a
theoretical spudcan shape, developed for the completion of this research because the GERRIT
database did not contain an existing 10 m diameter spudcan. The preload for this spudcan is set at 50
MN (cf. Appendix 7). The C2 rig is owned by Transocean Ltd. and is frequently deployed in Egyptian
waters. The corresponding spudcan has an 18 m diameter and a preload of 95 MN (cf. Appendix 6).
However, for the C2 rig, two factors of safety have been calculated (Table 5). The actual factor of
safety is the one based on a preload of 95 MN. The other factor of safety is based on a preload of 50
MN. The latter FOS allows identifying the effect of increasing spudcan diameter on the punch-
through risk. Since the preload is the same for the three rigs, the FOS is fully based on the outcome
of the bearing capacity calculations (cf. formula 6.1) and the only varying parameter in these
calculations is the spudcan diameter.
- 70 -
Figure 47: Locations with punch-through profiles (red dot) vs. locations with safe profiles (green dot) for the BL rig (left), K1 rig (center) and C2 rig (right).
- 71 -
Like for the K1 rig, the identified zones for the C2 and BL rig are also based on 345 risk assessments.
For both rigs, the risk is unknown at 129 locations, 199 spudcan penetration curves are generated
and 17 locations are analyzed qualitatively (see Table 5). For the C2 rig, 80 locations are identified
with a punch-through profile, from which 45 have a FOS < 1,5 if a preload of 95 MN is applied and 18
have a FOS < 1,5 if a preload of 50 MN is applied. The remaining 136 locations are safe regarding the
risk for a punch-through. For the BL rig, 113 locations are identified with a punch-through profile,
from which 58 have a FOS < 1,5. The remaining 103 locations are safe.
To compare the shift of a particular zone to more or less risky depending on the deployed rig, the
concept of “average FOS” is introduced. Table 5 indicates that in each risk zone, the number of
locations for which a FOS is calculated is more or less the same for every spudcan. This allows
comparing the average FOS per zone and interpreting it as a shift towards more or less safe/risky,
depending on the spudcan diameter.
If one compares the average FOS for the three rigs with a preload of 50 MN, then there is a general
trend of increasing FOS with increasing diameter. If the C2 is considered, then the average FOS for
each zone is larger than 2, while for the K1 there are some zones with an average FOS around 1,5 and
for the BL, several zones have an average FOS smaller than 1,5. However, if the actual preload of 95
MN is applied for the C2, the trend of higher average FOS with increasing diameter is no longer
observed.
If one looks at the actual FOS (thus 95 MN for C2) for the rigs, zones 2, 9, 11 and 6 appear to be the
most dangerous ones: they have many punch-through profiles and for every rig an average FOS
around 1,5 or lower. For zones 5, 7 and 8, the safe profiles are dominant and the FOS for the few
punch-through profile locations are that high for the three rigs that these zones can be considered as
the safest within the Gulf of Suez.
- 72 -
BL RIG K1 RIG C2 RIG (95MN/50MN)
RISK SAFE UNKNOWN RISK SAFE UNKNONWN RISK SAFE UNKNOWN
Q C Q C Q C Q C Q C (90MN/50MN preload) Q C
Zone Risk
Pt- Pt- Av. Pt- Pt- Av. Av.
Pt-r Pt-p
r p FOS r p FOS FOS
1 unknown 3 3 0 0,8 0 2 20 3 1 2 2,1 0 2 20 3 1/1 1/1 1,2/2,3 0 3 20
2 pt-risk 0 14 2 0,9 0 3 8 0 10 7 1,6 0 2 8 0 14/4 4/13 1,2/2,3 0 2 8
3 pt-risk 1 4 3 1,1 0 0 13 1 3 4 2,2 0 0 13 1 3/2 3/4 1,5/2,8 0 1 13
4 pt-risk 0 3 4 1,8 0 6 3 0 1 3 2,7 0 9 3 0 1/1 2/2 1,3/2,5 0 10 3
5 safe 0 7 8 1,8 4 22 0 0 0 7 2,5 4 30 0 0 1/0 6/7 2,0/3,8 4 30 0
6 pt-risk 6 13 6 1,1 0 8 7 6 11 9 1,9 0 7 7 6 15/6 3/12 1,2/2,2 0 9 7
7 safe 0 0 1 4,0 0 13 7 0 0 0 / 0 14 7 0 0/0 0/0 / 0 14 7
8 safe 0 2 7 3,3 0 25 40 0 0 2 3,9 0 32 40 0 0/0 0/0 / 0 34 40
9 pt-risk 1 4 1 0,8 0 1 0 1 2 3 1,5 0 1 0 1 4/2 1/3 1,2/2,3 0 1 0
10 safe 0 3 11 2,4 2 10 0 0 2 5 2,6 2 17 0 0 2/1 5/6 1,8/3,5 2 17 0
11 pt-risk 0 4 1 0,8 0 0 9 0 3 2 1,6 0 0 9 0 4/1 1/4 1,2/2,3 0 0 9
12 safe 0 1 1 2,9 0 6 10 0 0 1 2,9 0 7 10 0 0/0 0/0 / 0 8 10
13 safe 0 0 0 / 0 1 0 0 0 0 / 0 1 0 0 0 0 / 0 1 0
SUM 11 58 44 6 97 129 11 33 44 6 122 129 11 45/18 24/51 6 136 129
TOTAL 346 (+22 locations in between zones) = 368 346 (+22 locations in between zones) = 368 346 (+22 locations in between zones) = 368
Table 5: Outcome risk analysis for the different rigs in the different zones (Q = Qualitative Analysis, C = Calculations are performed, Pt-r = FOS<1,5, Pt-p = FOS >1,5, Av.
FOS = Average FOS for that zone). Zones 14 and 15 are excluded because they do not contain any relevant spudcan penetration data.
- 73 -
5.3 Verification of the identified zones
Paragraph 5.2 identified different risk zones in the Gulf of Suez. The correctness and accuracy of
these zones can be verified by plotting recent punch-through assessments on the map, see in which
zones they are situated and verify with the risk assessed in the corresponding geotechnical report.
The original Excel list of FEBV (cf. 4.1) referred to geotechnical reports from 2009 or younger. The
most recent report in that list referred to project ID 630. However, since then, FEBV has completed 5
new punch-through risk assessments for jack-up rig moves in the Gulf of Suez. The bearing capacity
profiles for these 5 locations can be found in Appendix 8. Although the number of locations in this
verification data set is rather limited, they can give a first idea about the correctness of the identified
zones (see Table 6).
Rig Type Assessed Point

Same
ID Report Nr BH Name (diameter risk in plots in
assessment?
spudcan) report risk zone
/ / Zoser
642 Safe / /
(12 m)
/ / Senusret
643 Safe Zone 1 /
(12,6 m)
/ / Zoser
644 Pt-risk Zone 3 YES
(12 m)
/ / Zoser
645 Pt-risk Zone 3 YES
(12 m)
/ / Zoser
633 Safe Zone 5 YES
(12 m)
Table 6: Verification points for the identified risk zones.
Unfortunately, ID 642 is situated outside the zones identified in paragraph 5.2. The geotechnical
report states that there is no risk for a punch-through at that location. The vertical profile consists
mainly out of sand and looks completely different than the nearest borehole log in the available data
set for this report, i.e. ID 578. This borehole is situated in risk zone 3, but more offshore compared to
ID 642. The corresponding vertical profile of ID 578 indicates an alteration between clay and sand
layers with approximately the same thickness in the subsurface, which are the cause of the
generation of a punch-through profile.
ID 643 plots in zone 1, where no risk assessment was performed because there was not enough
information available. The profile is classified as “safe” for the Senusret rig. However, by looking at
the vertical profile, it would not be surprising that a punch-through profile appears if the horizontal
axis is extended to 240 MN. Anyway, this punch-through profile would have a high corresponding
FOS, thus the location would still be safe regarding punch-through risk.
- 74 -
ID 644 and ID 645 plot inside punch-through risk zone 3 and also in the geotechnical report these
locations are assigned a possible punch-through risk.
ID 633 plots in zone 5 on one of the shallower parts of the El-Tor bank. Paragraph 5.2.1.5
characterized the subsurface as mainly consisting out of sand and rock. The vertical profile of ID 633
confirms this prediction. The risk for punch-through does not exist.
Although there only 3 new locations to verify the zones, it can be concluded that the predictions of
the hazard map all match the prediction in the geotechnical report.
- 75 -
- 76 -
6 Design and development quantitative hazard maps
After the large scale identification of different risk zones in the Gulf of Suez in chapter 5, this chapter
discusses the developing a numerical model which estimates the bearing capacity in three
dimensions. The aim is that this model gives a value for the bearing capacity at every x,y,z point in a
certain area. Analyzing the course of these values in a certain direction makes it possible to identify
hazardous zones for jack-up rig installation of a particular type. For the development of a
representative numerical model, three things are essential: (1) sufficient data, (2) a proper
geostatistical interpolation method (cf. 6.1), (3) a 3D software package to perform the interpolation
(cf. 6.2). The results are presented in paragraph 6.3. The data are available for three different rig
types (K1, C2 and BL), but in this chapter the data of the K1 rig with a load spreading factor of 3 is
used.
6.1 Geostatistical background

Information regarding the bearing capacity of the ground in the Gulf of Suez is obtained by analyzing
the geotechnical parameters at discrete sampling points at different locations. Based on these
parameters a bearing capacity curve for a particular location is generated. These discrete bearing
capacity values have to be converted in some way into usefull map representations. In order to
achieve this, a geostatistical interpolation technique that accurately predicts the bearing capacity in
unsampled areas is needed. This paragraph will only discuss the applied geostatistical interpolation
method (kriging). For basic geostatistical principles, I refer to literature (e.g. Olea (1999), Webster
and Oliver (2001)).
6.1.1 The kriging interpolation method

Kriging is a frequently applied geostatistical interpolation technique that considers both distance and
degree of variation between discrete data points for estimating values in unsampled areas. The
estimate is a weighted linear combination of the known sample values around the point to be
estimated. The interpolation technique aims to minimize the error variance of the generated points.
The development of a semivariogram allows weighting nearby sample points and including
directional trends for interpolation (cf. 6.1.2). An advantage of kriging is that the technique provides
a measure of confidence in the modeled surface by calculating the variance error. Furthermore, the
technique can use different weighting functions depending on the distance and orientation of the
sample points and the manner in which the points are clustered.
In its original formulation a kriged estimate at a place was simply a linear sum or weighted average of
the data in its neighbourhood. Over the years, kriging has been elaborated to tackle increasingly
complex problems in a.o. earth sciences. The terms is now generic, embracing several distinct kinds
of kriging, both linear and non-linear (e.g. simple kriging, ordinary kriging, cokriging, block kriging,…)
(Webster and Oliver, 2001).
After literature review and considering the available data, their distribution patterns and personal
experience with complex kriging algorithms, it was decided to use the ordinary kriging (OK)
technique for this research. Characteristic for OK is that the method assumes a constant variance and
mean. The mean however is unknown. If the bearing capacity function at a location xi is represented
by a function Z, then the OK technique estimates the bearing capacity Z’ at location x0 with the
following formula:
- 77 -
k
Z '( x0 )   i Z ( xi )
i 1 (7.1)
The parameter λi represents the weight in a certain direction. The sum of the different weights
equals one:

i 1
i 1
(7.2)
If γ(h) represents the applied variogram for the interpolation of the bearing capacity function Z, then
the estimation variance gives an indication of the accuracy of the estimation and is defined by:
k k k
 2 ( x0 )  2 i ( xi , x0 )   i  j ( xi , x j )
i 1 i 1 j 1
(7.3)
6.1.2 The semivariogram

The effectiveness of the kriging interpolation depends on the specification of the parameters that
describe the semivariogram. The semivariogram assesses the average decrease in similarity between
two random variables as the distance h (lag) between these two variables increases.
Let the bearing capacity be described by the random function Z. Consider two locations x and (x+h)
inside the field of function Z. If E[Z(x)] is a constant, then the theoretical semivariogram is defined by:
1
 (h)  Var[ Z ( x)  Z ( x  h)]
2
1
  ( h)  E[Z ( x)  Z ( x  h) ]
2
2
^ 1
  (h)  [Z ( x)  Z ( x  h) ]
2
2 (7.4)
In practice, the semivariogram for a data set with several bearing capacity values z at several
locations xi is calculated by:
1 m( h)
 z  xi   z ( xi  h)
^
 ( h)  
2
2m(h) i 1 (7.5)
Where m(h) represents the number of data pairs separated by the lag vector h.
A typical semivariogram plots the semivariance (=half of the variance) versus increasing lag distance
(see Figure 48). In practice, a semivariogram model is then fitted to the plotted points. Theoretically,
the semivariance should be zero at zero separation distance, because there is no difference between
points that are compared to themselves. However, sometimes the semivariogram exhibits a “nugget
effect” and does not start at the origin. This effect can be attributed to measurement errors and/or
spatial sources of variation at distances smaller than the sampling interval. As the lag distance
increases, also the variance will increase. At a certain lag distance, called the range, the variance will
level off and become more or less constant (= the sill).
- 78 -
Figure 48: Example of semivariogram.
Several types of analytical semivariogram models exist to fit the plotted data as good as possible. The
most common models are the spherical, exponential and Gaussian model. If h represents the lag
distance, a the range and c the sill, then the spherical, exponential and Gaussian models are
respectively defined by:
  3h 1  h  
3

c      for h  a
 (h)    2a 2  a  

c for h  a
(7.6)
 
3h

 (h)  c 1  e a 
  (7.7)
 
2
h
3 
 (h)  c 1  e  a  
  (7.8)
6.2 SGeMS
The 3D model is created with the Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Software (SGeMS). This open-
source computer package is a free and versatile tool for three dimensional geostatistical applications.
It has been downloaded over 12000 times in less than two years and is appreciated by many (e.g.
Bianchi and Zheng (2009). SGeMS has the advantages that it is open-source software, it has
numerous kriging and simulation techniques, it is relatively easy to use and an extensive user’s guide
is available (Remy et al., 2009). Every feature of the program can be assessed by a straightforward
graphical user interface or by typing a command through the command panel. The parameters
selected for a particular algorithm (e.g. kriging, semivariogram modeling,…) can be saved in a
parameter file. The format of such a parameter file is based on the eXtended Markup Language
(XML). For more advanced users, it is also possible to import Phyton scripts or plug-ins (e.g. Matlab
plug-in) in order to increase the possibilities and working speed of the program. The limited graphical
- 79 -
output options of the program can be considered as the main disadvantage. It is not possible to
visualise Cartesian axes, label data points or import any kind of base map. However, an interesting
graphical feature of the program is the “Volume Explorer”, which allows slicing the generated 3D grid
in different directions or hiding a particular range of values of the interpolated parameter(s) in order
to highlight particular trends.
Two input data formats are supported: the GSLIB (Geostatistical Library) format, which is an ASCII
format and the SGeMS binary format. For this research, the GSLIB file format is applied because it is
relatively easy to export bearing capacity values from Geodin to a GSLIB ASCII format. Figure 49
shows an example of an input file. The file is organised by lines. The first line gives a title and is
ignored by SGeMS. The second line is a single number n indicating the number of properties in the
object, i.e. the number of columns of data. The n following lines contain the names of each property
and one can add some extra information such as the unit of the parameter. The remaining lines
contain the values of each property (n values per line), separated from each other by a single space.
Figure 49: SGeMS input file example in the GSLIB format.
Once the data are loaded, the next step is to create a Cartesian grid around the data points on which
the algorithm, in this case ordinary kriging, will be performed. In a 3D Cartesian grid, all the cells have
orthogonal edges and same dimensions. The grid is completely characterised by 9 parameters: the
number of cells in x-y-z directions, the size of a cell in x-y-z directions and the x-y-z coordinates of the
origin of the grid.
In order to perform the OK discussed in 6.1.1, a semivariogram needs to be constructed. Therefore

the “Variogram modeller” feature of SGeMS is used. Because the semivariogram is essential for a
reliable interpolation, the modeling process steps with the corresponding input parameters are
exlained in more detail throughout the next paragraphs.
Besides loading an existing semivariogram from a file, it is also possible to start from scratch and
compute a new semivariogram. The first step is to select the input data (“Grid Name”) and the head
and tail properties (see Figure 50). To compute a univariate semivariogram, head and tail properties
are the same. The interpolation will then take place along a vector h (=lag), starting from the tail
property z(xi) towards the head property z(xi+h).
- 80 -
Figure 50: SGeMS Variogram modeler – step 1.
The next step is to define the lag and direction parameters (see Figure 51). Olea (2009) proposed
some practical guidelines and rules of thumbs to select proper values for lag parameters. First of all,
the lag separation should be as small as possible: the greater the lag, the fewer the pairs m(h) for a
give distance and thus the less reliable the results (see 6.1.2). Furthermore, it is advised to limit the
lag separation to half the extreme distance in the sampling domain for the direction to be analyzed.
In practice, the number of points separated exactly by lag h will be very small or none at all. There, a
lag tolerance is allowed to capture more data points in the calculation. The number of lags should be
large enough in order to capture the entire grid in the desired direction.
Figure 51: SGeMS Semivariogram modeler - step 2.
The direction parameters will define the orientation of the 3D ellipsoid that represents the search
volume in which the model analyzes the varying data. The azimuth defines the orientation in the xy-
- 81 -
plane, the dip the orientation towards the z-axis. Here also, the tolerance allows deviating from the
defined directions. The lag parameters in combination with azimuth, dip and tolerance define a
“search cone”. The bandwidth parameter controls the maximum width across the cone and allows
the cone to focus more on the specified direction (see Figure 52). Head and tail indicator cutoff
parameters are not relevant for OK.
Figure 52: Semivariogram direction parameters.
Then, the semivariograms for the specified directions are calculated and plotted. An example of 4
directional and 1 omnidirectional semivariogram from a tutorial data set is given in Figure 53. To fit a
model as good as possible to this semivariogram, the parameters to the right can be adjusted. Finally,
the modeled semivariograms parameters can be saved and applied later when the actual kriging
algorithm is selected.
Figure 53: Variogram Modeling in SGeMS – step 3.
6.3 3D models in SGeMS

The idea for a 3D model originated from TNO’s GeoTop model in the Netherlands. The perfect
scenario would be to develop a similar model for the entire Gulf of Suez. However, besides the
- 82 -
limited available time, the concentration of available borehole data in the Gulf of Suez is inadequate
to produce a similar model. To illustrate: to develop the GeoTop 3D model in the Dutch province of
Zeeland (surface area ≈ 1800 km2), 23000 boreholes are integrated, while for this research project in
the Gulf of Suez (surface area ≈ 10000 km2), only 260 boreholes are available. Furthermore, the
SGeMS program is not developed to process such enormous data sets. To do so, professional and
expensive geostatistical 3D interpolation programs or extensions are needed (e.g. Isatis, Petrel,
GoCAD).
To overcome this problem, different zones with a good ratio between amount of borehole data and
surface were selected in paragraph 4.1.1. These zones are delineated in the ArcGIS project and then
a corresponding 3D grid is constructed in SGeMS. Unfortunately, it is not possible to exchange data
between ArcGIS and SGeMS. For the input into SGeMS, the coordinate notation was changed to
meter and then the relative location of each borehole was calculated relatively to the origin of the
constructed grid in SGeMS. Details of these transformations, the characteristics of each grid and the
kriging and semivariogram parameter values can be found in Appendix 9.
6.3.1 3D grid A
The first 3D block is situated between Abu Zenima and Ras Abu Rudeis, in a zone with plenty oilfield
installation (cf. 4.1.1). This area corresponds to zone 3 and was identified as a punch-through risk
zone (cf. 5.2.1.3). Figure 54 is a schematic representation of this zone. The dimensions of the grid in
SGEMS are 2800 x 1500 x 24 m, thus the grid encloses 4,2 km 2. In this area, there are 6 BH’s from
which 2 were used as control points (see 5.3). Finally, it was decided to omit ID 644 because it is
situated at approximately the same locations as ID 10, thus 5 BHs remain. Figure 68 is a cross section
along these boreholes. The corresponding bearing capacity curves can be found in Appendix 5. The
logs indicate an alteration between sand and clay. IDs 11, 645, 10 and 13 in the first 30 m two sand
layers: one in the first 6m of the borehole and one around 24m. In between (and for IDs 645 and 10
also on top) there is a thick clay layer with a significant lower strength. This configuration is the
reason for the punch through risk in these boreholes. ID12 has a different configuration: the upper
sand layer is much thicker and the underlying clay layer is intercalated with another sand layer. This
significantly increases the strength in this area. Thus, one would expect to see in the 3D model a
significant increase in strength towards the lower right corner of the grid.
- 83 -
Figure 54: Schematic representation of 3D grid A in the Gulf of Suez. ID 645 and ID 644Ras are indicated in
blue because they served as control points (see 5.3). For orientation, the long side of this grid is orientated N-
S, the shorter side E-W. The line represents a cross section which will be discussed in paragraph 7.3 (Figure
68).
Figure 55 is a view on the 3D block with the input data. The colours (see legend on Figure 55) indicate
the bearing capacity throughout the vertical profile. In the four northernmost boreholes there is a
rather thick zone with bearing capacity around 40 MN (light blue). This represents the thick clay
layer. ID 12, situated in the south-eastern part of the grid, the intermediate sandy layer results in a
stronger profile with bearing capacity around 100 MN (red). Underneath this layer, the strength of
the soil decreases again (transition red to orange) and represents a typical punch-through profile.
- 84 -
Figure 55: Input bearing capacity data for the 5 boreholes in 3D grid A. The color scale represents the bearing
capacity value in MN. The Y-axis points to the north, the X-axis to the east.
After developing the most suitable semivariogram with SGeMS, these bearing capacity values were
interpolated with an ordinary kriging algorithm. The results are presented in Figure 56 and Figure 57.
The variance error of this interpolation is indicated in Figure 58. It evidently indicates that the error
increases, the further away from the borehole.
- 85 -
Figure 56: OK-interpolation inside 3D grid A. The color scale represents the bearing capacity value in MN. The
Y-axis points to the north, the X-axis to the east (thus view from SE).
Figure 57 OK-interpolation inside 3D grid A. The color scale represents the bearing capacity value in MN. The
Y-axis points to the north, the X-axis to the east (thus view from NW).
- 86 -
The 3D model indicates, as expected, in the SE corner of the grid a zone around 15m with a high
bearing capacity. This zone corresponds to the identified sand layer around 12m in ID 12. Towards
the north and west, this zone gradually thins and eventually disappears. Probably, this stronger zone
corresponds to a local sand deposit. A view from the NW on the 3D indicates a rather thick zone with
bearing capacity values ranging between 60 – 80 MN (green-yellow). This corresponds with the thick
clay deposits identified in the 4 most northern boreholes. It is eye-catching that the upper part of this
package is generally indicated in yellow and then gradually becomes greener, i.e. the upper part of
this layer is stronger. This can be identified as a potential punch-through profile.
In paragraph 5.2.1.3, it was stated that the nearby wadis are decisive in development of the vertical
ground profiles. Short, but intense flash floods bring periodically new sediments into the gulf.
Assuming that these input floods are possibly focused in a particular direction could explain the
development of local sand bodies in the subsurface.
Figure 58: Variance error of the OK-interpolation presented in Figure 56. The color scale represents the
2
variance error of the bearing capacity in MN . The Y-axis points to the north, the X-axis to the east.
6.3.2 3D grid B
The second 3D block is situated on the Tor bank in risk zone 5 (cf. 4.1.1), which was labelled as safe in
paragraph 5.2.1.5. Figure 59 indicates that there are 21 boreholes in this zone, from which one has a
potential punch-through profile (with FOS = 2.6). 3D grid B is noticeably larger compared to the 3D
- 87 -
grid in 6.3.1. The dimensions of the grid are 5100 x 7500 x 20 m and thus covers an area of 38,25 km 2
(see Figure 60).
Figure 59: Schematic representation of 3D grid B in the Gulf of Suez, with indication of the 21 borehole
locations. The long side of the grid is orientated N-S, the shorter sides E-W. In the NW corner of the grid is
the borehole location which generated a punch-through profile (red label). The three lines represent cross-
sections which will be discussed in paragraph 7.3 (cf. Figure 69- Figure 71).
- 88 -
Figure 60: Input bearing capacity data for the 21 boreholes in 3D grid B. The color scale represents the
bearing capacity value in MN. The Y-axis points to the north, the X-axis to the east.
By looking at the input data in Figure 60, some trends can be already observed. First of all, the
boreholes situated below the NW-SE diagonal of the grid develop a high bearing capacity (dark red)
at relatively shallow depths. Above the NW-SE diagonal, the ground profiles indicate a lower strength
at the same depth. In the NW corner of the grid, the borehole with the punch-through profile is
easily recognizable. To illustrate the local change in bearing capacity with depth, Figure 61 represents
slices at every 2m in the Z direction. Figure 62 indicates the associated variance error of this
interpolation procedure.
- 89 -
Figure 61: Slices through the 3D block from Figure 60, indicating the change in bearing capacity with depth.
The color scale represents the bearing capacity in MN.
The interpolation operation confirms the initial observed trends: the SW part of the grid reaches a
higher bearing capacity at shallower depths than the NE part. However, keeping in mind that the
preload for the K1 rig is 50 MN, it can be concluded that this entire zone has a sufficiently strong
subsurface and that the risk for K1 punch-through is non-existent. Nevertheless, a location with a
punch-through profile was identified inside this grid. The slices of Figure 61 locate the concerning
area in the NW part of the grid, between -6 and -10m: the color scale indicates a transition from
yellow to green which corresponds to a decrease in strength with depth.
It should be noted that the above observations should be interpreted with care. The variance error
for this entire grid is much larger than for grid zone A (cf. Figure 58). This is because the ratio
borehole/surface area is smaller. Especially the (SW) corners of the grid have a relatively high error
variance.
- 90 -
Figure 62: Variance error of the OK-interpolation presented in Figure 60. The color scale represents the
2
variance error of the bearing capacity in MN . The Y-axis points to the north, the X-axis to the east.
The generation of 5 lithological cross-sections across the area helps to get an idea about the lateral
variability of the subsurface and the associated differences in bearing capacity. The orientation of
these profiles is indicated on Figure 59 and the cross-sections in Figure 69-Figure 71.
6.3.3 3D grid C
Originally it was planned to develop a third 3D model in the zone nearby the Gemsa oilfield (cf.
4.1.1). However, it turned out that this 3D model in SGeMS would not produce useful results.
Therefore, no 3D model has been created in this zone. The reasons for this decision are discussed in
the next chapter (cf. paragraph 7.3).
- 91 -
- 92 -
7 Discussion results and remarks
Every research project induces questions about the data set, the methodology, the applied
assumptions, etc. This is no different for this dissertation. This chapter critically discusses the
methodology and results from chapters 4, 5 and 6.
7.1 Bearing capacity curves

The calculation of bearing capacity curves for different kind of spudcans form a substantial part of
this research project. In total, the bearing capacity is calculated at 216 locations, for three different
kind of spudcans, which renders approximately 650 bearing capacity curves to analyse. Without the
availability of the user-friendly software programs like Geodin and GERRIT, this task would be
enormous. However, like every software program, GERRIT has some limitations (cf. paragraph 3.6.2),
which should be kept in mind when interpreting the produced results. During the course of this
research, it regularly happened that the GERRIT produced rather striking bearing capacity profiles.
Also the reproduction of earlier calculated profiles is not always evident. The most prominent issues
are summarized below.
Rig moves and associated spudcan penetration assessments are typical engineering challenges which
have to be analysed case by case. Therefore, the biggest challenge was to develop a generalised and
consistent approach towards the interpretation and classification (safe vs. unsafe) of each location
for different kinds of spudcan types. Several issues arise when combining data from different
geotechnical investigations. First of all, at some locations, the ground model is adopted from
geotechnical reports which are not analysing spudcan penetrations, but another geotechnical
investigation, e.g. pile driveability analyses. These investigations often implement a different
modeling strategy and use ground models with a much greater or smaller depth and/or possibly
assume other values for the associated parameters. SNAME indicates that the considered depth for a
spudcan penetration assessment should be approximately 1,5 times the spudcan diameter. However,
if the ground model covers a larger vertical profile, the produced bearing capacity curve may become
more complex and punch-through(s) may appear on the profile at greater depths than the 1,5 times
spudcan diameter. Because each rig has its own preload condition, a similar problem arises on the
horizontal axis of a bearing capacity graph. If the horizontal axis is limited by a maximal value of e.g.
90 MN, the location could be classified as safe, but if the maximum value is extended to e.g. 180 MN,
the location may all of a sudden indicate a punch-through profile. Furthermore, sometimes thin and
weak intercalated layers produce a punch-through with a very small plunge depth. It is evident that
at these locations the risk associated with the installation will be relatively smaller than for locations
with larger plunge depths. To overcome these problems, a factor of safety (punch-through profile
versus punch-through risk) is calculated for every location and the depth of the punch-through and
associated plunge depth are given.
Secondly, this research analysed data from the last 35 years. Throughout this period the way of
assessing spudcan penetrations has changed. Different software programs and versions have been
developed with particular defaults for the values of input parameters (i.e. friction angle, undrained
shear strength, unit weight). In the newest version of GERRIT it is not always possible to take over the
exact parameters as indicated in older reports and accordingly, some parameters need to be
changed. This possibly results in slightly different penetration curves or curves with a peculiar shape
at specific layers.
- 93 -
One should also keep in mind that the identification of the different zones is based on a worst case
scenario (cf. 5.1.1). This may implement that the risk regarding punch-through in some zones may be
lower than indicated in paragraph 5.2. Furthermore, the risk at some locations is assessed purely on
qualitative data (cf. 5.1.2). However, this is only a fraction of the total data set and their overall
influence can be considered insignificant.
It also seems that GERRIT produces peculiar bearing capacity curves if the ground model ends with a
clay layer. In those cases, the program always indicates a major drawback in bearing capacity,
without regarding the thickness of this layer. This possibly affects the classification of a certain
location into safe or risky. The best way to illustrate is by an example. In Figure 63, the vertical profile
of two locations is indicated. Both locations originally have at the bottom of their vertical profile a
fine grained clay or silt layer. The upper part of Figure 63 indicates the corresponding bearing
capacity curve. The lower part of Figure 63 indicates the same vertical profiles, but now without the
fine grained layer at the bottom of the vertical profile. Suddenly the corresponding bearing capacity
curves look completely different. The profiles in the upper part would be classified as “punch-
through profile” with a rather high safety factor, whereas the lower part would be classified as
“safe”.
Figure 63: Influence of fine grained layer at the bottom of the vertical profile on the shape of the bearing
capacity curve. The curves are from ID 217 (left) and ID 450 (right).
Another remarkable feature is that the punch-through in the profiles often occurs at rather
unexpected locations. Sometimes, the bearing capacity drawback is not situated directly at the
transition from a harder to softer layer (e.g. sand above clay), but in the middle of a geotechnical
unit. If the punch-through occurs in a clay or silt layer, one could still assume that the cause is a
different kind of compaction of the clay, but punch-throughs in a sand package (e.g. ID 300) are
unlikely. Also gravel layers produce in some cases rather remarkable profiles.
- 94 -
7.2 Large scale qualitative hazard maps
7.2.1 Discussion of the identified zones
Paragraph 5.2 identified several risk zones regarding punch-through occurrence in the Gulf of Suez.
This was achieved by analysing the clustering of safe vs. punch-through profiles, the vertical profile of
these locations, their relationship to bathymetry and (onshore) geological features, the distribution
and thickness of surface sediments, geological insight in the area and engineering judgement. The
outcome of this analysis indicates that dangerous zones are situated in the deeper parts (depth < -
50m) of the Gulf of Suez (zone 2-11-6-9) or along shore, close to the mouth of well developed wadi
systems which do not cross broad alluvial plains (zone 3-4). Figure 33 also indicates that these risky
zones are concentrated between Zafarana and Zeituna. However, the western part of this area (zone
10-5-13) is considered safe. South of Zeituna, the Gulf of Suez broadens and two large, safe zones
(zone 7-8) cover almost this entire southern part. North of Zafarana, there is a lack of data.
Based on literature review, relevant geological features and possibly hazardous areas for jack-up rig
installation were identified (cf paragraphs 1.12 and 2.7 respectively). Now that the available data are
analysed and different risk zones are bordered, it is possible to check the results with the predictions
from the literature study.
Regarding the post-rift facies distribution in the Gulf of Suez, the zone between Wadi Sidri and Wadi
Gharib was described as the zone with the greatest silt influx (Mohamed, 1991). Furthermore, it was
indicated that the further away from the basin margins, the finer the sediments would be. In these
homogeneous, fine grained soil packages general shear failure was expected to be the dominant
failure mechanism and the risk for punch-through thus relatively low (cf. 2.7). Mohamed (1991)
indicated also that the sediments on the eastern side of the Gulf of Suez are generally coarser than
on the western side. This is also indicated on the facies distribution map (cf. Figure 15) of Gheith and
El-Sherbini (1993). Because of the development of extensive carbonate platforms in the southern
Gulf of Suez, the amount of fine grained sediments was expected to be lower in that area.
These conclusions from literature match relatively well with the observations from this research.
Zones 2 and 11 are situated between Wadi Sidri and Wadi Gharib. The vertical profiles in these zones
consist indeed mainly out of fine grained sediments. Also the surface sediments in these zones are
predominantly fine grained. However, it was not expected that these zones are apparently also the
areas where most of the punch-through profiles develop. This is because these rather homogeneous
fine grained packages are intercalated by thin stronger layers and thus are very sensitive for punch-
throughs. Also a different degree of consolidation appears to generate an alteration between
stronger and weaker layers. However, it should be noted that there is still a significant amount of fine
grained material in zone 6, which is situated south of Wadi Gharib. In zone 9, which represents the
deep channels in between the shallower carbonate platforms and islands, there is also still a
significant fine grained component. However, compared to the abundant carbonate facies, this is
only a minor component in the southern Gulf of Suez.
At first sight, the statement that the coarsest sediments would be situated at the eastern side of the
Gulf of Suez also does not match the observations in paragraph 5.2. The surface sediment map
indicates that in the central October basin, there is more sand at the surface on the western side of
the gulf. Furthermore, analysis of the vertical profiles on the eastern side of the central October
basin indicates that there a significant amount of fine grained sediments present in the subsurface:
- 95 -
the alteration of silt and clay layers with approximately the same thickness is dominant. Therefore,
the large sand provinces indicated on the map of Gheith and El-Sherbini (1993) on the eastern side of
the Gulf of Suez (cf. Figure 15) seem to be exaggerated.
Literature study also indicated that accommodation zones can cause a shallower bathymetry and
possibly a preferred location for reef development. This feature is observed at the Morgan
accommodation zone, where the El-Tor bank represents a shallower area in the Gulf of Suez. Gheith
and El-Sherbini (1993) expect in that area predominantly sand and limestone deposits and this is also
observed in the vertical profiles on the El-Tor bank. These succession of predominantly sand and
limestone eliminate the risk of punch-through and make zone 5 a safe zone. Similar features were
not observed at the northern Zafarana accommodation zone.
As described in literature, the southern Gulf of Suez is characterised by carbonate platforms. The
amount of fine grained sediments is relatively low compared to the central October basin. The
dominant deposits around reefal complexes are calcareous rich sand, unconsolidated reefal
sediments and limestone (Moussa et al., 1991). Alongshore, the sand may be or terrigenous origion.
This description matches the observations. Zones 7 and 8, which cover almost the entire southern
Gulf of Suez, are dominated by corals, sand and limestone. However, in between these carbonate
complexes, deeper channels exist in which the amount of fine grained sediments significantly
increases and possible punch-through profiles are generated (cf. risk zone 9). Since the amount of
fine grained sediments in zones 7 and 8 is negligible, there is no generation of risky ground profiles
consisting of a caprock at the surface with thick fine grained sediment layers below (cf. 2.7). It is also
remarkable that the ENC indicated alongshore practically the entire Gulf of Suez abundant corals,
rock fragments and sand in between 0 and -10 m. This is possibly an indication for abundant fringe
reef development alongshore. If it is assumed that these areas have the same characteristics as the
carbonate platforms in the southern Gulf of Suez, it seems unlikely that punch-through profiles
develop in these shallow areas.
Another important feature to discuss is the actual influence of wadi systems on the generation of
risky punch-through profiles. Why is there a development of risky ground profiles in zones 3 and 4,
situated close to the mouths of respectively Wadi Sidri and Wadi Feiran, and not in zones 12, 7 or 10,
zones where also many wadis drain into the Gulf of Suez?
There appear to be two types of wadis: (1) wadis associated with broad alluvial plains (e.g. wadis on
El-Qua plain) and (2) wadis associated with alluvial fans (e.g. Wadi Sidri, Wadi Feiran). Both types of
wadis have their source area in the mountainous hinterland, consisting of Tertiary and Mesozoic
rocks. It can be assumed that both types of wadis transport coarse grained erosion material
(predominantly sand) during flash floods from these mountain ranges towards the Gulf of.
Characteristic for the first type of wadi is that there is a large distance in between the mouth of the
wadi and the mountainous areas with the source material; the alluvial plain. Probably, these wadis
will have eventually a limited sediment input into the Gulf of Suez. When crossing the alluvial plain,
the course of the wadi has a limited gradient and a lot of sediment will already settle on the alluvial
plain. Characteristic for the second type of wadi is that there is only a very short distance between
the mouth of the wadi and the mountainous source area. This implies that one can expect a large
input of coarse grained material into the Gulf of Suez, since the gradient of the wadi remains high
and there is not much room to lose the suspended material before the mouth. Furthermore, contrary
- 96 -
to the other wadis around the Gulf of Suez, Wadi Sidri and Wadi Feiran appear to have a much
broader network which penetrates deep into the mountains of the Sinai Peninsula.
It can be expected that for this second type of wadis the offshore vertical ground profiles consist of
coarse grained materials like sand and gravels. This is confirmed by the observations in zone 4 where
a solid, ‘alluvial fan core’ has been identified which seem to extend in a SW direction (see Figure 37).
This is less obvious in zone 3. Strong currents or a preferential input direction of the wadi systems
might explain this observation. However, it should be noted that the offshore area in front of these
two wadis is also identified above as the zone with a significant fine grained sedimentation. The
combination of dominant fine grained sedimentation with periodical input of coarser grained
material can explain the development of risky ground profiles in zone 3 and 4. Towards the SE, the
coarse grained input material becomes dominant over the fine grained sediments and safe ground
profiles develop.
Figure 64 indicates the most important wadis, their length and the associated Quaternary deposits
they bring towards the Gulf of Suez. It is clear that most wadis are associated with broader alluvial
plains. Wadi Sidri and Wadi Feiran are the only two associated with a combination of an extended
source area and a well developed (onshore) alluvial fan. There are two well developed alluvial plains:
the El-Qua plain on the SE-borders of the Gulf of Suez and the alluvial plain on the western side of
the Gulf of Suez, in between Wadi Dara and Wadi Abu Khelelii. One can expect that along these
alluvial plains the limited input material will consist out of sand. In the northern Gulf of Suez, there
are also wadis associated with Quaternary alluvial plains. However, these plains are smaller and the
wadis penetrate further in the mountainous hinterland. It can be assumed that there will be more
sand input into the Gulf of Suez over there. The surface sediment map seems to confirm this
observation, but the configuration in the vertical direction remains unknown due to the lack of
boreholes.
The development of an Quaternary alluvial plain seems to be related to the structural setting of the
Gulf of Suez, i.e. the orientation of large faults around the Gulf of Suez (cf. paragraph 1.9.1).
Comparions of Figure 64 with Figure 10 indicates that the orientation of the CRFS, BNFS and HFFS on
the eastern side of the Gulf of Suez create are determent for the proximity of the uplifted rift
shoulders to the basin. On the western side, a large normal fault system creates room for the alluvial
plains to develop.
- 97 -
Figure 64: Relationship between wadis, Quaternary sediments (Q) in alluvial plains and sediment fans and
the mountainous hinterland, consisting of Tertiary and/or Mesozoic rocks (T/M).
7.2.2 Generalisation of the map

The identification of the different risk zones in Figure 33 is based on the available data set.
Unfortunately, in some parts of the Gulf of Suez the amount of data is insufficient or absent in order
to produce a reasonable prediction about the punch-through risk. On Figure 33, these spots were
indicated in orange or left blank. Obviously, it would be more practical if these zones are also
classified as safe or risky.
With the observations in paragraph 5.2, the comparison with the literature study and conclusions
regarding the influence of the wadis in paragraph 7.2.1, it is now possible to discriminate 5
depositional environments, each one characterised by a particular vertical ground profile and
accordingly, a particular risk for punch-through profile development. Identifying these areas in the
Gulf of Suez allows assigning a risk to the zones with limited or no data and eventually creating a
generalised risk map that covers the entire Gulf of Suez. The characteristics of the 5 different
environments are listed below:
The first environment: deep water environment

- bathymetry: deep bathymetry ca. -50 m or deeper
- surface sediments: clay or thin sand layer
- vertical profile: predominantly fine grained material, possibly thin sand-rock intercalations
- 98 -
- risk: punch-through on these thin intercalations or because of strength differences in fine
grained soil packages
- zones: 2, 11, 6, 9, 15 (cf. Figure 33)
The second environment: coastline environment, wadi + alluvial plain

- onshore: bordered by a broad alluvial plain, mountains relatively far away
- bathymetry: shallow: ca. -40 max, contour lines parallel to coast
- surface sediments: sand, (petrified) fringe reefs along coastline
- sediment input: limited, coarse grained (i.e. sand)
- vertical profile: dominated by sand
- risk: safe
- zones: 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 (cf. Figure 33)
The third environment: coastline environment, wadi + alluvial fan

- onshore: alluvial fan, mountains close to mouth wadi
- bathymetry: shallow, possibly offshore continuation of alluvial fan, irregular contour lines
- surface sediments: sand, (petrified) fringe reefs along coastline, further offshore: mixing with
fine grained material from the first environment
- sediment input: concentrated input of coarse grained material in particular direction
- vertical profile: core fan = coarse grained material, further away from core mixing with finer
grained sediments from deep water environment and development of risky ground profiles
for punch-through.
- risk: core fan = safe, towards borders fan = punch-through because of possible mixing with
fine grained layers from deep water environment
- zones: 3, 4 (cf. Figure 33)
The fourth environment: coastline, no wadi

- onshore: alluvial plain or mountains, no wadi nearby
- bathymetry: shallow, contour lines parallel to coastline
- surface sediments: sand, (petrified) fringe reefs along coastline
- sediment input: limited input due to absence of wadi
- vertical profile: predominantly sand
- risk: safe
- zones: 5, 14, “white spot” north of zone 12 and east of zone 11, “white spot” north of zone 3
and east of zone 2, “white spot” in between zone 5 and 13, “white spot” in between zone 12
and 7 (cf. Figure 33)
The fifth environment: reef complexes and carbonate platforms

- bathymetry: shallow, max -40 m
- surface sediments: fringe and patch reefs, carbonate rich sand, limestone rock, often
petrified sediments
- sediment input: dominated by reefal fragments due to (bio)degradation reefal complexes,
towards coastline possibly mixing with terrigenous sediment input
- vertical profile: dominated by sand and rock
- risk: safe
- zones: 5, 7, 8 (cf. Figure 33)
- 99 -
Now, only the large orange zone (cf. 5.2.1.1), covering the northern Darag basin is not classified yet.
In that area, there are some isolated boreholes, a verification point (cf. Table 6), bathymetric
information and some wadi mouths. The central part of the basin is obviously a deep water
environment, comparable to zone 2 (= punch-through risk). On the eastern side there are three
wadis, with a limited alluvial plain, irregular bathymetric contour lines and dominant sandy
sediments at the surface. This area reminds of the safe alluvial fan core, similar to zone 4 (=safe). At
the western side, there are also some wadis, related to a rather small alluvial plain, regular
bathymetric contour lines, clayey and sandy surface sediments and some isolated boreholes with a
punch-through profile. This area reminds of risk zone 3 (= punch-through risk). The NW-SE orientated
coastline along the western side has a very steep transition towards deep water. This is probably due
to the Darag-fault which coincides with this coastline (cf. Figure 10). Clayey surface sediments are
nearby and an isolated borehole indicates a punch-through profile. This area has most of the
characteristics of the deep water environment (=punch-through risk).
The white and orange areas from Figure 33 are now classified into safe or punch-through, based on
the reasoning explained above. The result is a generalised risk map, covering the entire Gulf of Suez
(see Figure 65). This generalised map has (evidently) similarities with the 1992 map of Klein (1992).
The 9 locations which he identified as risky are also situated in the risk zones of the generalised map.
Klein’s map is in fact only a map of the surface sediments on which locations of project are indicated.
The difference between the 1992 map and the generated maps of this research is that there are now
actual risk zones identified, which borders are not solely based on surface sediment spreading, but
also on analysis of numerous vertical profiles, bathymetry, (onshore) geological features and
depositional environments.
- 100 -
Figure 65: Comparison between the generalized punch-through risk map (left) and the 1992 risk map from Klein (1992). On the generalized risk map, the -50m
bathymetric contour line is also indicated.
- 101 -
7.3 Small Scale quantitative hazard maps
After reading some review articles, consulting different experts with 3D modeling experience and
considering different options, it was decided to explore the possibilities of the software program
SGeMS for the development of a numerical 3D bearing capacity model. The results of this effort are
presented in chapter 5.3. However, the generated models have some flaws which will be discussed
throughout the remainder of this paragraph.
As explained in paragraph 6.1, the effectiveness of the kriging interpolation method is dependent on
the goodness of fit of the variogram model to the calculated points in the semivariogram. SGeMS has
a “variogram modeler” module with 3 variogram models to fit the data: a spherical, exponential or
Gaussian model (cf. 6.1.2) . Paragraph 6.2 explains the different input parameters for this module.
After experimenting with different values for these input parameters (e.g. lag distance, number of
lags, search directions,...), it turned out that the program did not managed to plot sufficient points in
the semivariogram. Therefore, the goodness of fit of a selected semivariogram model to these points
is questionable (see Figure 67 and Figure 67). The parameter files for the generated semivariograms
can be found in Appendix 12.
A disadvantage of SGeMS is that it is not possible to ‘see’ in some kind of output file what the
program is actually calculating. Such an output file could be used to adjust the working method and
analyse where things are going wrong. A possible solution to create better semivariograms could be
to write a script in a more advanced numerical computing program (e.g. Matlab, Java). On the other
hand, it cannot be guaranteed that these more advanced semivariogram models could be used in the
SGeMS program. Possibly, another, professional 3D interpolation program should be selected.
Considering the scope of this research project and the available research time, no attempts to do this
have been made. Furthermore, it is generally known that kriging is a robust interpolator and that
even a naive selection of parameters will provide an estimate comparable to many other grid
estimation procedures.
Figure 66: The produced semivariograms for 3D grid A. Obviously, there is no good match between the
plotted points and the semivariogram model.
- 102 -
Figure 67: The produced semivariograms for 3D grid B. Obviously, there is no good match between the
plotted points and the semivariogram model.
The generated models have another flaw, which the attentive reader without a doubt noticed when
looking at Figure 54 and Figure 59: it is not possible in SGeMS to implement bathymetry and produce
presentable output models. However, for 3D grid A, the bathymetric differences are relatively small
and it is assumable that the 3D block represents the actual strength of the subsurface in a realistic
way. A cross-section along the boreholes is represented in Figure 68 to illustrate this. For 3D grid B
on the other hand, the bathymetric differences are much larger (see Figure 69 - Figure 71) and
therefore this 3D block is not an optimal representation of the reality. The impact of this flaw on the
results has been underestimated when suitable locations for 3D model development were identified
(cf. 4.1.1). Therefore, it was decided that it does not make sense to ‘model’ a third zone, as originally
planned. Especially because this zone is characterised by pronounced bathymetric differences.
- 103 -
Figure 68: Cross - section through Zone A. See Figure 54 for location of the cross-section inside 3D grid A.
Figure 69: Cross - section (1) through zone B. Figure 59 locates cross-section (1) inside 3D grid B.
- 104 -
- 105 -
7.4 Lateral variability
With the cross-sections generated in Figure 67 - Figure 71, it is now also possible to discuss the
lateral variability in those two areas. The geophysical profile in Figure 29 can do the same for the
October basin.
The cross-section in 3D grid A, approximately 3,5 km long, indicate that the layers along this section
are relatively easy to connect. A personnel interpretation is indicated in Figure 67. At the surface,
there is a undulating sandy layer which thins towards the centre of the grid (IDs 10 and 645) and
which is there also overlain by a clayey surface layer. Underneath this sand layer, there is a thick
clayey package. In ID 12, there is a 4m thick sandy intercalation in this clay deposit, which is not
recognisable in the other boreholes. At the bottom, a thin, undulating sand layers appears.
For 3D grid B, the situation is different. In these cross-sections, it is very difficult to connect layers
between the different boreholes. Especially cross-sections (1) and (2) indicate spectacular facies
changes over relatively short distances (i.e. 400-900m). In cross section (1) for example, ID 406
indicates 12 m rock, intercalated by a thin sand layer. However, in the two neighbouring boreholes,
respectively 355 m and 870 m away from ID 406, this rocky facies has completely disappeared. The
same remark for the 8 m thick silt layer in ID 186, which cannot be followed to the neighbouring
boreholes. Also in cross section (2) there are some peculiar facies changes. In ID 335 there is a 6m
thick clay layer at towards the end of the boreholes. However, only 400 m further in borehole ID 416,
there is sand and rock at the same depth.
There are several possible explanations for these fast lateral facies changes. First of all, this could
actually be a natural phenomenon and thus an example of the fast facies transitions which Purser et
al. described (1998) in the Gulf of Suez (cf. 1.10.3). Another explanation is that the lithological
description in these ground models are simplified versions of the original boreholelogs and that the
actual facies description is more complex. Furthermore, neighbouring boreholes possibly belong to
projects with significant time lags in between. This implies that different people, possibly with
different backgrounds, describe borehole logs of neighbouring locations. Evidently, this affects the
consistency in description and interpretation. However, no blaim to the project executors, since
these boreholes are drilled and analysed within the context of a single project that is limited in
project site area and time. The boreholes are not drilled with the aim of a regional geological study of
the upper sediment packages. Thefore, it is not evident to interpret them for such goals. Most
probably, the answer lies somewhere in between.
The geophysical profile in Figure 29 also indicates fast lateral changes. The upper sediment package,
seismic facies S1, has a constant thickness and lateral continuation. However, this is completely
different for facies S2. This facies, on the NE side of the profile, changes in thickness from ca. 4 m to <
1 m over lateral distances in between 250 m – 450 m. If the assumption that facies S1 and S3
correspond to clay and facies S2 to sand, then one can understand that the thickness of facies S2 is
possibly determent in the generation of a punch-through. Consequently, making predictions of
punch-through occurrence over large lateral distances, based on widely spaced borehole data is
risky.
- 106 -
7.5 Potential of geophysical data
The outcome of this research project would definitively benefit from the addition of geophysical
profiles to the existing data set. The seismic line in Figure 29 give a good example of the potential of
geophysical data. They allow to assess the lateral variability and, in combination with borehole data
along the line, estimate thicknesses and lithology of the identified seismic facies. It would be possible
to identify particular layer sequences which are risky for punch-through and evaluate their lateral
continuation. This would benefit the accuracy of the borders of the identified risk zones in paragraph
5.2.
It would also be possible to verify the observations with the proposed explanations for these
observations. How far do the alluvial fans spread out into the Gulf of Suez? Do the coarse grained
intercalations in the deep water environment, which are often responsible for the punch-through
generation, also originate from wadi mouths? Are there any more observations of (incised) erosion
surfaces and form these surfaces harder layers that possibly generate punch-throughs? Are salt
tectonics also affecting the Quaternary layers and are they a possible cause for the high lateral
variability?
Furthermore, it would be possible to not only focus on punch-through risk, but also try to include
other risk associated with jack-up rig installation, such as shallow gas, footprints or faults.
- 107 -
- 108 -
8 Conclusion and recommendations
The scope of this research project was to develop a hazard map for punch-through failure during
jack-up rig installation in the Gulf of Suez. This map will help FEBV’s engineers during future rig move
projects to make an upfront assessment of unfavorable jack-up rig foundation conditions.
First, several risk zones for punch-through failure were identified for the K1 rig with a 14,7 m
diameter spudcan. The classification of a particular zone as safe or unsafe is primarily based on
bearing capacity calculations at numerous locations spread throughout the Gulf of Suez. The borders
of the zones are defined by analyzing the clustering of these safe and risky locations, the associated
factor of safety for a punch-through profile, the cause of the punch-through failure, the bathymetry,
the spreading and thickness of surface sediments, the relationship to onshore geological features and
geo-engineering judgment.
Eventually, it turned out that the identified risk zones are also valid for the smaller BL rig with its 10
m diameter spudcan and for the larger C2 rig with its 18 m diameter spudcan. Since the majority of
the deployed rigs in the Gulf of Suez all have spudcans with a diameter in between this 10 m and 18
m, the map is widely applicable. The identified zones only become more/less risky depending on the
applied rig, but do not completely transfer from safe to risky or the other way around. To evaluate
the influence of the spudcan diameter, an ‘average factor of safety’ was calculated for the zones with
a punch-through risk. The observed trend is that for a constant preload, the actual risk for punch-
through becomes smaller if the spudcan diameter increases.
Generalization of the identified risk zones to depositional environments helped assessing the punch-
through risk in those areas where no data was available. It turned out that there are two
environments that are generating possible punch-through profiles. The first one is the deep water
environment, with water depths exceeding – 50 m. The surface sediments in these environments are
dominated by fine grained sediments or thin sand layers. The vertical profiles are also dominated by
fine grained sediments, but occasionally, there are rather thin coarse grained intercalations. Punch-
through failure often develops due to these intercalations which form stronger layers in relatively
weaker fine grained sediments. However, it is also possible that the punch-through failure develops
in a fine grained layer itself, due to different degrees of consolidation. These different degrees of
consolidation are possibly linked to old erosion surfaces, created during sea level lowstands. The
sandy intercalations are possibly infill material from incisions on these erosion surfaces or are related
to sediment input from wadis.
The second environment is related to the sediment input from wadi systems. Quaternary material is
brought (in)to the Gulf of Suez by numerous wadis during flash-floods. Considering the source area of
these wadis, the mountainous hinterland with Tertiary and Mesozoic rocks, this is predominantly
coarse grained material. Wadis associated with alluvial plains, will lose most of the sediment before
reaching the Gulf of Suez. They will only bring a small amount of coarse grained material into the
gulf. Wadis associated with alluvial fans, do not have the space to lose the suspended material and
they will bring a lot of material into the Gulf of Suez. Consequently, an (offshore) alluvial fan
develops. This fan will consist out of an alluvial fan core with the coarsest grained material, while the
finer grained material will spread out towards the borders of the fan. Furthermore, mixing with the
- 109 -
fine grained deep water sediments can occur at these borders. This will generate an alternation
between fine and coarse grained layers and consequently risky ground profiles.
The areas related to reef development are considered as safe. They are characterized by a carbonate
rich sedimentation. In the Gulf of Suez, these areas are the El-Tor bank and the southern Gulf of
Suez. Analysis of the vertical ground profiles in those areas indicates thick sand or rock layers. These
‘rocks’ are probably related to mineralization of carbonate rich sands and reefal material or to
petrifaction of entire reef complexes over time. Finer grained layers can occur but are insignificant
compared to the thickness of the sand and rock layers. Consequently, they will not generate a punch-
through risk. However, in the deep channels in between these carbonate platforms, fine grained
sediments become dominant again and punch-through risk arises. Alongshore, approximately in
between 0 and -10 m, the soil profiles are dominated by (fringe) reefs and terrigenous sand input. It
is unlikely that in this near-shore environment punch-through profiles develop.
The results of the attempt to develop 3D ground models in areas with a high concentration of
borehole data are twofold. For the model in zone A, situated in the punch-through risk zone in front
of Wadi Sidri, the results look promising. The ‘layer’ where the punch-through failure develops can
be clearly identified in the 3D block. Corresponding values for bearing capacity and an indication of
the accuracy are calculated throughout the entire grid. On the other hand, the models have several
flaws that decrease the reliability significantly. However, by implementing some recommendations,
these 3D models can become a valuable tool in assessing the risk for punch-through in the Gulf of
Suez.
This work combined all the available information to produce a hazard map for punch-through failure
in the Gulf of Suez. However, to ensure the practicability of the map in the future, this research
should not be considered finished, but rather dynamic. By updating the created database and GIS
project, the accuracy of the produced maps can be further verified and if necessary adjusted.
To finish, some recommendations for FEBV are listed that will help to improve and guarantee further
practicability of the generated maps.
- Update the GIS project and associated database regularly with new punch-through risk
assessments in the Gulf of Suez. This will allow verifying the borders of the risk zones and, if
necessary, adjusting them.
- Integrate geophysical data into the project. This will benefit the accuracy of the identified
zones and their borders and possibly allow implementing other risks such as shallow gas,
fractures and footprints.
- Invest in a professional geotechnical 3D interpolation software package (e.g. Isatis), if FEBV
should see potential in the 3D models. This will allow applying more advanced geostatistical
interpolation algorithms and the flaws encountered while working with SGeMS will be
avoided.
- Some remarkable bearing capacity profiles were generated with GERRIT. Analysis of these
profiles can possibly help to improve the GERRIT software package.
- Make it possible to perform a spudcan penetration analysis on multiple ground models at the
same time in Geodin. Currently, the number of ground models on which a particular
engineering analysis can be performed at the same time is limited. This makes the input work
- 110 -
for multiple engineering analyses at many locations very time consuming. This is probably
irrelevant for project related tasks, but for research tasks, a lot of time could be saved.
- 111 -
- 112 -
9 Online Public Sources
 Shipwrecks, information on locations, type and dive opportunities

Website: http://www.shipwrecksofegypt.com/redsea/OP/oilrig.html
 Reefbase – Information and locations of live coral reefs and marine protected areas.
Website: http://www.reefbase.org
 Rigzone – Site providing information related to the offshore oil and gas industry
Website: http://www.rigzone.com
- 113 -
- 114 -
10 Bibliography
Abou Khadrah, A.M., and Darwish, M., 1986, On the occurrence of raised
beach sediments in the Hammam Faroun area, Sinai, Egypt, Volume 4.
Bianchi, M., and Zheng, C., 2009, SGeMS: A Free and Versatile Tool for
Three-Dimensional Geostatistical Applications: Ground Water, v. 47,
p. 8-12.
Bosence, D.W.J., 1998, Stratigraphic and sedimentological models of rift
basins, in Purser, B.H., and Bosence, D.W.J., eds., Sedimentation and
Tectonics of Rift Basins: Red Sea-Gulf of Aden: London, Chapman and
Hall, p. 9-25.
Bosence, D.W.J., Cross, N., and Hardy, S., 1998, Architecture and depositional
sequences of tertiary fault-block carbonate platforms; an analysis
from outcrop (Miocene, Gulf of Suez) and computer modelling:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 15, p. 203-221.
Bosworth, W., Crevello, P., Winn Jr., R.D., and Steinmetz, J., 1998, Structure,
sedimentation, and basin dynamics during rifting of the Gulf of Suez
and north-western Red Sea, in Purser, B.H., and Bosence, D.W.J., eds.,
Sedimentation and Tectonics of Rift Basins: Red Sea-Gulf of Aden:
London, Chapmann and Hall, p. 77-96.
Bosworth, W., Huchon, P., and McClay, K., 2005, The Red Sea and Gulf of
Aden Basins: Journal of African Earth Sciences, v. 43, p. 334-378.
Bosworth, W., and McClay, K., 2001, Structural and stratigraphic evolution
of the Gulf of Suez Rift, Egypt: a synthesis, in Ziegler, P.A., Cavazza, W.,
Robertson, A.H.F., and Crasquin-Soleau, S., eds., Peri-Tethys Memoir
6: Peri-Tethyan Rift/Wrench Basins and Passive Margins, Volume
186: Paris, Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, p.
567-606.
Bosworth, W., and Taviani, M., 1996, Late Quaternary reorientation of stress
field and extension direction in the southern Gulf of Suez, Egypt:
Evidence from uplifted coral terraces, mesoscopic fault arrays, and
borehole breakouts: Tectonics, v. 15, p. 791-802.
Brown, J.D., and Meyerhof, G.G., 1969, Experimental Study of Bearing
Capacity in Layered Clays, 7th ICSMFE, Volume 2, p. 45-51.
Burchette, T.P., 1988, Tectonic Control on Carbonate Platform Facies
Distribution and Sequence Development - Miocene, Gulf of Suez:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 59, p. 179-204.
Coffield, D.Q., and Schamel, S., 1989, Surface expression of an
accommodation zone within the Gulf of Suez rift, Egypt: Geology, v.
17, p. 76-79.
- 115 -
Dier, A., Carroll, B., and Abolfathi, S., 2004, Guidelines for jack-up rigs with
particular reference to foundation integrity, Research Report 289:
Egham, Surrey, UK, MSL Engineering Limited.
DNV, 1980, Appendix F. Foundations: Reprint with corrections (1980),
Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore
Structures, Det Norske Veritas.
El Gezeery, M.N., and Marzouk, I.M., 1974, Miocene rock stratigraphy of
Egypt, Egyptian Journal of Geology, Volume 18, Stratigraphic Sub-
Committee of the National Committee of Geological Sciences of Egypt,
p. 1-59.
ElSammak, A.A., and Shaaban, M.N., 1996, Carbonate geochemistry and
mineralogy of short cores, Gulf of Suez, Egypt: Carbonates and
Evaporites, v. 11, p. 155-161.
Evans, A.L., 1988, Neogene Tectonic and Stratigraphic Events in the Gulf of
Suez Rift Area, Egypt: Tectonophysics, v. 153, p. 235-247.
Fookes, P.G., Baynes, F.J., and Hutchinson, J.N., 2000, Total Geological
History: A Model Approach to the Anticipation, Observation and
Understanding of Site Conditions, International Conference
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Volume I: Invited papers:
Melbourne, p. 91.
Gargani, J., Moretti, I., and Letouzey, J., 2008, Evaporite accumulation during
the Messinian Salinity Crisis: The Suez Rift case: Geophys. Res. Lett., v.
35, p. L02401.
Geer, D.A., Devoy, S.D., and Rapoport, V., 2000, Effects of Soil Information on
Economics of Jackup Installation, Offshore Technology Conference:
Houston, Texas.
Gheith, A.M., and El-Sherbini, M.E., 1993, Post-Miocene Sedimentation in the
Gulf of Suez, Egypt: Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Marine
Sciences, v. 4, p. 73-92.
Hamouda, A., 2011, Assessment of seismic hazards for Hurghada, Red Sea,
Egypt: Natural Hazards, p. 1-15.
Hughes, G.W., Abdine, S., and Girgis, M.H., 1992, Miocene Biofacies
Development and Geological History of the Gulf of Suez, Egypt:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 9, p. 2-28.
Hughes, G.W., and Beydoun, Z.R., 1992, The Red Sea - Gulf of Aden:
Biostratigraphy, Lithostratigraphy and Palaeoenvironments: Journal
of Petroleum Geology, v. 15, p. 135-156.
Hunt, R.J., and Marsh, P.D., 2004, Opportunities to improve the operational
and technical management of jack-up deployments: Marine
Structures, v. 17, p. 261-273.
- 116 -
ISO, 2009, Petroleum and natural gas industries - Site-specific assessment
of mobile offshore units - Part 1: Jack-ups (draft), ISO/DIS 19905-1,
International Standards Organization.
Khadr, A., and Sakr, E., 2006, Gulf of Suez revisited: texture and organic
carbon contents of sediments, Red Sea, Egypt: Egyptian Journal of
Aquatic Research, v. 32, p. 61-69.
Klein, R.J.M., 1992, Summary soil data for jack-up rig foundations in the Gulf
of Suez, Egypt, Fugro-McClelland Engineers B.V., p. 28.
McClay, K.R., Nichols, G.J., Khalil, S.M., Darwish, M., and Bosworth, W., 1998,
Extensional tectonics and sedimentation, eastern Gulf of Suez, Egypt,
in Purser, B.H., and Bosence, D.W.J., eds., Sedimentation and Tectonics
of Rift Basins: Red Sea-Gulf of Aden: London, Chapman and Hall, p.
223-238.
Mohamed, M.A., 1991, Marine Geological Studies of the Recent Bottom
Sediments in the Gulf of Suez: Annals of the Geological Survey of
Egypt, v. XVII.
Montenat, C., Destevou, P.O., Purser, B., Burollet, P.F., Jarrige, J.J.,
Orszagsperber, F., Philobbos, E., Plaziat, J.C., Prat, P., Richert, J.P.,
Roussel, N., and Thiriet, J.P., 1988, Tectonic and Sedimentary
Evolution of the Gulf of Suez and the Northwestern Red-Sea:
Tectonophysics, v. 153, p. 161-177.
Montenat, C., Ott d'Estevou, P., Jarrige, J.J., and Richert, J.P., 1998, Rift
development in the Gulf of Suez and the north-western Red Sea:
structural aspects and related sedimentary processes, in Purser, B.H.,
and Bosence, D.W.J., eds., Sedimentation and Tectonics of Rift Basins:
Red Sea-Gulf of Aden: London, Chapman and Hall, p. 97-116.
Moussa, A.A., Elaskary, M.A., Nasr, S.M., and Elmamoney, M.H., 1991,
Unconsolidated Reefal Sediments in the Jubal Strait Region, Red-Sea,
Egypt: Marine Geology, v. 97, p. 379-390.
Moustafa, A.R., 1993, Structural characteristics and tectonic evolution of the
east-margin blocks of the Suez rift: Tectonophysics, v. 223, p. 381-
399.
Moustafa, A.R., 1996, Internal structure and deformation of an
accommodation zone in the northern part of the Suez rift: Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 18, p. 93-107.
Noufal, A.W., 1997, Geology and tectonic evolution of the Gulf of Suez, west-
central Sinai, Egypt: Tubingen, Universitat Tubingen.
Olea, R.A., 1999, Geostatistics for engineers and earth scientists: Dordrecht,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 303 p.
Orszag-Sperber, F., Harwood, G., Kendall, A., and Purser, B.H., 1998a, A
review of the evaporites of the Red Sea-Gulf of Suez rift, in Purser,
- 117 -
B.H., and Bosence, D.W.J., eds., Sedimentation and Tectonics of Rift
Basins: Red Sea-Gulf of Aden: London, Chapman and Hall, p. 409-426.
Orszag-Sperber, F., Purser, B.H., Rioual, M., and Plaziat, J.-C., 1998b, Post-
Miocene sedimentation and rift dynamics in the southern Gulf of Suez
and northern Red Sea, in Purser, B.H., and Bosence, D.W.J., eds.,
London, Chapman and Hall, p. 427-447.
Osborne, J.J., Houlsby, G.T., Teh, K.L., Leung, C.F., Bienen, B., Cassidy, M.J.,
and Randolph, M.F., 2009, Improved Guidelines for the Prediction of
Geotechnical Performance of Spudcan Foundations during
Installation and Removal of Jackup Units, Offshore Technology
Conference, Volume InSafeJIP. Proc. OTC Paper 20291: Houston.
Plaziat, J.C., Montenat, C., Barrier, P., Janin, M.-C., Orszag-Sperber, F., and
Philobbos, E., 1998, Stratigraphy of the Egyptian syn-rift deposits:
correlations between axial and peripheral sequences of the north-
western Red Sea and Gulf of Suez and their relations with tectonics
and eustacy, in Purser, B.H., and Bosence, D.W.J., eds., Sedimentation
and Tectonics of Rift Basins: Red Sea-Gulf of Aden: London, Chapman
and Hall, p. 211-222.
Purser, B.H., Barrier, P., Montenat, C., Orszag-Sperber, F., Ott d'Estevou, P.,
Plaziat, J.-C., and Philobbos, E., 1998, Carbonate and siliciclastic
sedimentation in an active tectonic setting: Miocene of the north-
western Red Sea rift, Egypt, in Purser, B.H., and Bosence, D.W.J., eds.,
London, Chapman and Hall, p. 239-270.
Purser, B.H., Soliman, M., and M'Rabet, A., 1987, Carbonate, Evaporite,
Siliciclastic Transitions in Quaternary Rift Sediments of the
Northwestern Red Sea: Sedimentary Geology, v. 53, p. 247-267.
Quah, M., Cahyadi, J., Purwana, O.A., Krisdani, H., and Randolph, M.F., 2010,
An Integrated System for Improving Geotechnical Performances of
Jackup Rig Installation, Offshore Technology Conference: Houston.
Remy, N., Boucher, A., and Wu, J., 2009, Applied Geostatistics with SGeMS: A
User's Guide: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, M., and Arthur, M.A., 1988, The Gulf of Suez--northern Red Sea
neogene rift: a quantitive basin analysis: Marine and Petroleum
Geology, v. 5, p. 247-270.
Rihm, R., and Henke, C.H., 1998, Geophysical studies on early tectonic
controls on Red Sea rifting, opening and segmentation, in Purser, B.H.,
and Bosence, D.W.J., eds., Sedimentation and Tectonics of Rift Basins:
Red Sea-Gulf of Aden: London, Chapman and Hall, p. 29-49.
- 118 -
Roberts, H.H., and Murray, S.P., 1984, Developing Carbonate Platforms -
Southern Gulf of Suez, Northern Red-Sea: Marine Geology, v. 59, p.
165-185.
Sen, Z., 2008, Wadi Hydrology: Hoboken, CRC.
Skempton, A.W., 1951, The Bearing Capacity of Clays, Building Research
Congress: London, p. 180-189.
SNAME, 2008, Guidelines for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up
Units (Third Revision), Technical & Research Bulletin 5-5A, Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Steckler, M.S., Berthelot, F., Lyberis, N., and Lepichon, X., 1988, Subsidence
in the Gulf of Suez - Implications for Rifting and Plate Kinematics:
Tectonophysics, v. 153, p. 249-270.
Vesic, A.S., 1975, Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, in Winterkorn,
H.F., and Fang, H.Y., eds., Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 121-147.
Webster, R., and Oliver, M.A., 2001, Geostatistics for Environmental
Scientists: Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wilson, P., Hodgetts, D., Rarity, F., Gawthorpe, R.L., and Sharp, I.R., 2009,
Structural geology and 4D evolution of a half-graben: New digital
outcrop modelling techniques applied to the Nukhul half-graben, Suez
rift, Egypt: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 31, p. 328-344.
Younes, A.I., and McClay, K., 2002, Development of Accommodation Zones in
the Gulf of Suez-Red Sea Rift, Egypt: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1003-
1026.
Young, A.G., Remmes, B.D., and Meyer, B.J., 1984, Foundation Performance
of Offshore Jack-up Drilling Rigs: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering-
Asce, v. 110, p. 841-859.
- 119 -
- 120 -
Appendix 1: Site scale models
Site Scale geological models:
Four site scale geological models are selected. Characteristics from the individual models should be
selected and combined in a new model, typical for the Gulf of Suez. The models that contain
characteristics that also can be found in the Gulf of Suez are:
 Geological model 1: Sedimentary – continental fluvial, colluvial and lacustrine
- 121 -
 Geological model 2: Sedimentary – shelf carbonates and evaporates
- 122 -
 Geological model 3: Structural – normal faults
- 123 -
 Geological model 4: Structural – strike slip faults
- 124 -
Site Scale geomorphological models:
Two site scale geomorphological models are selected. The Gulf of Suez is situated in an environment
with a hot and dry climate. However, coastal features are also prominent.
 Geomorphological model 1: Hot, dry climate features
- 125 -
 Geomorphological model 2: Coastal features
- 126 -
Appendix 2: Applied unit conversion factors
Table 7: Conversion factors for SI units.
TO CONVERT TO IMPERIAL
QUANTITY SYMBOL MULTIPLY BY
FROM SI UNITS UNITS
mm in 0,03937
Lengt l
m ft 3,281
mm2 in2 1,550*103

Area A
m2 ft2 10,76
ml in3 0,06102
Volume V
m3 ft3 35,31
g lb 2,205*10-3
Mass m
t kips 2,205
kg/m3 lb/ft3 0,06243

Density ρ
t/m3 lb/ft3 62,43
N lbf 0,2248
Force F kN lbf 224,8
MN kips 224,8
N/m2 (Pa) lbf/ft2 (psf) 0,02089
Stress, Pressure σ, p kN/m2 (kPa) lbf/in2 (psi) 0,1450
MN/m2 (MPa) tf/ft2 (tsf) 10,44
Unit weight γ kN/m3 lbf/ft3 (pcf) 6,366
- 127 -
- 128 -
Appendix 3: Qualitative assessment punch-through risk
Table 8: Risk assessment of the locations for which only qualitative information is available.
ID Report Number BH Risk Assessment Reasoning

1 / / Pt-risk /
/ / /
15 Pt-risk
/ / /
41 Safe
/ / /
42 Safe
/ / /
44 Safe
/ / /
55 Pt-risk
/ / /
114 Pt-risk
/ / /
115 Pt-risk
/ / /
116 Pt-risk
/ / /
125 Pt-risk
/ / /
127 Safe
/ / /
157 Pt-risk
/ / /
158 Pt-risk
/ / /
163 Pt-risk
/ / /
225 Pt-risk
/ / /
446 Pt-risk
/ / /
573 Safe
/ / /
574 Safe
- 129 -
Appendix 4: Distribution of the surface sediments in the Gulf of Suez
- 130 -
- 131 -
Appendix 5: K1 rig and spudcan penetration assessments
K1 Rig (Information from www.rigzone.com, consulted in May 2011)
General
- Rig Name K1
- Rig Manager /
- Rig Owner /
- Competitive Rig? /
- Rig Type /
- Jack-up Type /
- Rig Design /
- Rated Water Depth /
- Drilling Depth /
Rig Contract and Operating Status

- Operating Status /
- Operator /
Rig Construction Details

- Classification /
- Built By /
- Delivery Year /
- Flag /
Rig Equipment
- Derrick /
- Drawworks /
- Mud Pumps /
- Top Drive /
- Rotary Table /
Spudcan Details:
- Max. Spudcan Diameter 14,7 m
- Spudcan Volume 313 m3
- Preload 50 MN
- 132 -
Locations in the Gulf of Suez with punch-through profile
generated with the K1 jack-up rig and a preload of 50 MN.
Plunge
PT-peak Qualitative Risk
ID Report Nr BH Nr Risk depth FOS
[MN] reason PT Zone
[m]
576 / / Pt-r 50 6 sand-clay 1.00 1
442 / / Pt-p 110 >10 sand-clay 2.20 1
606 / / Pt-p 160 0.5 pt in sand 3.20 1
114 / / Pt-p Qualitative Assessment 1
624 / / Pt-r 27 1 pt in clay 0.54 2
221 / / Pt-r 30 1 pt in clay 0.60 2
590 / / Pt-r 40 2 pt in clay 0.80 2
/ / rock/sand-
141 Pt-r 45 8 0.90 2
silt
215 / / Pt-r 55 8 sand-silt 1.10 2
245 / / Pt-r 60 7 pt in clay 1.20 2
205 / / Pt-r 65 10 rock-clay 1.30 2
265 / / Pt-r 65 1 pt in clay 1.30 2
255 / / Pt-r 75 >11 sand-clay 1.50 2
298 / / Pt-r 75 >8 pt in clay 1.50 2
171 / / Pt-p 80 10 sand-silt 1.60 2
203 / / Pt-p 83 9 pt in clay 1.66 2
302 / / Pt-p 85 / pt in clay 1.70 2
622 / / Pt-p 90 3 sand-clay 1.80 2
123 / / Pt-p 130 >24 sand-silt 2.60 2
628 / / Pt-p 130 >8 pt in clay 2.60 2
5 / / Pt-p 200 >27 sand-clay 4.00 2
13 / / Pt-r 40 6 sand-clay 0.80 3
- 133 -
10 / / Pt-r 45 11 sand-clay 0.90 3
11 / / Pt-r 60 8 sand-clay 1.20 3
12 / / Pt-p 120 13 sand-clay 2.40 3
3 / / Pt-p 125 >7 sand-clay 2,50 3
300 / / Pt-p 170 2 pt in sand 3.40 3
578 / / Pt-p 210 >12 sand-clay 4.20 3
250 / / Pt-r 25 6 sand-clay 0.50 4
337 / / Pt-p 125 >20 sand-silt 2.50 4
418 / / Pt-p 130 >20 pt in sand 2.60 4
249 / / Pt-p 250 1 sand-silt 5.00 4
330.2 / / Pt-p 85 4 pt in silt 1.70 5
408 / / Pt-p 110 1 pt in clay 2.20 5
450 / / Pt-p 100 >10 pt in sand 2.00 5
217 / / Pt-p 180 >9 sand-silt 3.60 5
371 / / Pt-p 150 2 sand-clay 3.00 5
434 / / Pt-p 130 15 sand-clay 2.60 5
560 / / Pt-p 120 >10 sand-silt 2.40 5
231 / / Pt-r 25 1 pt in clay 0.50 6
438 / / Pt-r 25 1 pt in clay 0.50 6
190 / / Pt-r 30 1 sand-silt 0.60 6
209 / / Pt-r 30 7 sand-clay 0.60 6
445 / / Pt-r 40 10 sand-clay 0.80 6
367 / / Pt-r 45 7 pt in silt 0.90 6
582 / / Pt-r 50 4 sand-silt 1.00 6
61 / / Pt-r 55 5 sand-clay 1.10 6
626 / / Pt-r 70 1 clay-silt 1.40 6
356 / / Pt-r 75 4 sand-clay 1.50 6
356.2 / / Pt-r 75 4 sand-clay 1.50 6
- 134 -
46 / / Pt-p 80 1 pt in silt 1.60 6
64 / / Pt-p 90 8 sand-clay 1.80 6
436 / / Pt-p 90 8 pt in clay 1.80 6
379 / / Pt-p 120 15 sand-clay 2.40 6
151 / / Pt-p 150 >15 sand-clay 3.00 6
365 / / Pt-p 190 >13 sand-clay 3.80 6
133 / / Pt-p 210 >21 rock-silt 4.20 6
339 / / Pt-p 230 >7 sand-clay 4.60 6
161 / / Pt-p 240 >10 sand-silt 4.80 6
76 / / Pt-p 210 27 pt in sand 4.20 8
390 / / Pt-p 175 1 sand-clay 3.50 8
31 / / Pt-r 30 12 rock-clay 0.60 9
73 / / Pt-r 30 11 sand-silt 0.60 9
34 / / Pt-p 80 11 sand-silt 1.60 9
33 / / Pt-p 83 6 sand-silt 1.66 9
32 / / Pt-p 150 7 rock-clay 3.00 9
285 / / Pt-r 40 1 pt in clay 0,80 10
257 / / Pt-r 65 6 pt in clay 1,30 10
304 / / Pt-p 110 3 sand-clay 2.20 10
568 / / Pt-p 130 >13 rock-clay 2.60 10
604 / / Pt-p 175 1.5 sand-silt 3.50 10
600 / / Pt-p 185 21 gravel-clay 3.70 10
247 / / Pt-p 210 >8 sand-clay 4.20 10
- 135 -
564.3 / / Pt-r 50 4 pt in clay 1.00 11
598 / / Pt-r 55 8 sand-clay 1.10 11
129 / / Pt-r 60 7 pt in silt 1.20 11
562 / / Pt-p 80 10 sand-clay 1.60 11
/ / sand/rock-
169 Pt-p 155 17.5 3.10 11
silt
480.2 / / Pt-p 145 0.5 pt in silt 2.90 12
- 136 -
Corresponding bearing capacity curves for the K1 Rig
It was decided not to include a hard copy of the numerous bearing capacity profiles. However, they
are electronically accessible at FEBV through the Geodin database associated with this project. The
corresponding Excel database allows to list the concerning project numbers per zone.
Zone 1: see Geodin database
- 137 -
Appendix 6: C2 rig and spudcan penetration assessments
C2 Rig (Information from www.rigzone.com, consulted in May 2011)
General
- Rig Name /
- Rig Manager /
- Rig Owner /
- Competitive Rig? /
- Rig Type /
- Jack-up Type /
- Rig Design /
- Rated Water Depth /
- Drilling Depth /
Rig Contract and Operating Status

- Operating Status /
- Operator /
Rig Construction Details

- Classification /
- Built By /
- Delivery Year /
- Flag /
Rig Equipment
- Derrick /
- Drawworks /
- Mud Pumps /
- Top Drive /
- Rotary Table /
Spudcan Details:
- Max Spudcan Diameter 18 m
- Preload 95 MN
- 138 -
Locations in the Gulf of Suez with punch-through profile for the C2 Rig
generated with the C2 jack-up rig and a preload of 95 MN.
PT-peak Plunge
Qualitative Risk
ID Report Nr BH Nr Risk [MN] depth FOS
reason PT Zone
[m]
576 Pt-r 75 5 sand-clay 0.79 1
/ /
442 / / Pt-p 150 >13 pt in silt 1.58 1
624 / / Pt-r 45 1 pt in clay 0.47 2
221 / / Pt-r 55 1 pt in clay 0.58 2
590 / / Pt-r 60 1 sand-clay 0.63 2
/ / rock/sand-
141 Pt-r 65 6 0.68 2
silt
215 / / Pt-r 80 5 sand-silt 0.84 2
205 / / Pt-r 95 5 rock-clay 1.00 2
245 / / Pt-r 95 5 sand-clay 1.00 2
265 / / Pt-r 100 2 silt-clay 1.05 2
255 / / Pt-r 105 >13 sand-clay 1.11 2
171 / / Pt-r 110 9 sand-silt 1.16 2
298 / / Pt-r 115 9 pt in clay 1.21 2
203 / / Pt-r 120 10 pt in clay 1.26 2
302 / / Pt-r 125 >6 pt in clay 1.32 2
622 Pt-r 135 3 sand-clay 1.42 2

/ /
123 / / Pt-p 170 >28 pt in sand 1.79 2
273 / / Pt-p 175 0.5 rock-clay 1.84 2
628 / / Pt-p 180 >12 pt in clay 1.89 2
- 139 -
5 / / Pt-p 265 >33 sand-clay 2.79 2
10 / / Pt-r 60 12 sand-clay 0.63 3
13 / / Pt-r 70 10 sand-clay 0.74 3
11 / / Pt-r 90 9 sand-clay 0.95 3
12 / / Pt-p 180 16 sand-clay 1.89 3
578 / / Pt-p 270 >15 sand-clay 2.84 3
3 / / Pt-p 270 >15 sand-clay 2,89 3
250 / / Pt-r 30 4 sand-clay 0.32 4
337 / / Pt-p 165 >25 pt in sand 1.74 4
418 / / Pt-p 175 >22 sand-clay 1.84 4
450 / / Pt-r 135 >16 pt in sand 1.42 5
560 / / Pt-p 170 >15 pt in sand 1.79 5
408 / / Pt-p 180 2 sand-clay 1.89 5
371 Pt-p 190 2 sand-clay 2.00 5

/ /
434 / / Pt-p 190 15 pt in sand 2.00 5
330.2 / / Pt-p 210 1.5 silt-clay 2.21 5
217 / / Pt-p 250 >15 pt in sand 2.63 5
231 / / Pt-r 38 1 sand-clay 0.40 6
438 / / Pt-r 40 1 sand-clay 0.42 6
190 / / Pt-r 50 0.5 sand-silt 0.53 6
209 / / Pt-r 50 5 sand-clay 0.53 6
445 / / Pt-r 50 10 sand-clay 0.53 6
367 / / Pt-r 70 8 sand-silt 0.74 6
582 / / Pt-r 80 4 sand-silt 0.84 6
61 / / Pt-r 85 4.5 sand-clay 0.89 6
- 140 -
626 / / Pt-r 110 5 sand-clay 1.16 6
356 / / Pt-r 115 5 sand-clay 1.21 6
356.2 / / Pt-r 115 3 sand-clay 1.21 6
/ / sand-
46 Pt-r 130 1.5 1.37 6
clay/silt
64 / / Pt-r 130 10 sand-clay 1.37 6
133 / / Pt-r 130 1 pt in clay 1.37 6
436 Pt-r 130 0.5 pt in clay 1.37 6

/ /
379 / / Pt-p 170 15 sand-clay 1.79 6
151 / / Pt-p 210 12 sand-clay 2.21 6
365 / / Pt-p 265 14 pt in sand 2.79 6
31 / / Pt-r 38 10 rock-clay 0.40 9
73 / / Pt-r 40 10 sand-silt 0.42 9
34 / / Pt-r 120 9 sand-silt 1.26 9
33 / / Pt-r 130 5 sand-silt 1.37 9
32 / / Pt-p 240 13 rock-clay 2.53 9
55 / / Pt-p 9
Qualitative Assessment
285 / / Pt-r 65 2 pt in clay 0,68 10
257 / / Pt-r 100 5 clay-silt 1,05 10
568 Pt-p 170 >16 rock-clay 1.79 10

/ /
464 / / Pt-p 180 >10 sand-clay 1.89 10
- 141 -
304 / / Pt-p 235 2 sand-clay 2.47 10
247 / / Pt-p 285 >11 rock-clay 3.00 10
564.3 / / Pt-r 70 2 sand-clay 0.74 11
598 / / Pt-r 80 10 sand-clay 0.84 11
129 / / Pt-r 90 5 pt in silt 0.95 11
562 / / Pt-r 120 10 sand-clay 1.26 11
/ / sand/rock-
169 Pt-p 220 / 2.32 11
silt
- 142 -
Corresponding bearing capacity curves for C2 Rig
- 143 -
Appendix 7: BL rig and spudcan penetration assessments
BL Rig
BL is a theoretical spudcan type, created by the author, for the completion of this research project.
This spudcan type is created because there was not an existing spudcan type with a maximum
diameter of 10m in GERRIT at the time this research project was executed.
Spudcan Details:
- Max. Spudcan Diameter 10 m
- Preload 50 MN
- 144 -
Locations in the Gulf of Suez with punch-through profile for the BL spudcan
generated with the BL jack-up rig and a preload of 50 MN.
Plunge
PT-peak Qualitative Risk
ID Report Nr BH Nr Risk depth FOS
[MN] reason PT Zone
[m]
576 Pt-r 13 4 sand-clay 0.26 1
/ /
/ / sand-
606 Pt-r 45 15 0.90 1
silt/clay
442 / / Pt-r 62 >15 pt in silt 1.24 1
221 / / Pt-r 17.5 1 pt in clay 0.35 2
590 / / Pt-r 20 1 sand-clay 0.40 2
/ / rock/sand-
141 Pt-r 20 5 0.40 2
silt
265 / / Pt-r 28 1.5 silt-clay 0.56 2
215 / / Pt-r 30 5.5 sand-silt 0.60 2
205 / / Pt-r 30 4.5 rock-clay 0.60 2
245 / / Pt-r 30 6.5 sand-clay 0.60 2
255 / / Pt-r 37 >11 sand-clay 0.74 2
298 / / Pt-r 38 7.5 pt in clay 0.76 2
171 / / Pt-r 40 14 sand-silt 0.80 2
302 / / Pt-r 44 >4 pt in clay 0.88 2
203 / / Pt-r 45 11 pt in clay 0.90 2
622 Pt-r 46 2.5 sand-clay 0.92 2

/ /
628 / / Pt-r 72 >15 pt in clay 1.44 2
123 / / Pt-p 80 >34 sand-silt 1.60 2
- 145 -
5 / / Pt-p 115 37.5 sand-clay 2.30 2
13 / / Pt-r 22 4.5 sand-clay 0.44 3
10 / / Pt-r 25 12 sand-clay 0.50 3
11 / / Pt-r 30 14 sand-clay 0.60 3
12 / / Pt-r 30 4.5 sand-clay 0.60 3
300 / / Pt-p 83 2.5 pt in sand 1.66 3
3 / / Pt-p 85 >21 sand-clay 1,70 3
578 / / Pt-p 120 14.5 sand-clay 2.40 3
250 / / Pt-r 10 4.5 sand-clay 0.20 4
458 / / Pt-r 30 11.5 pt in sand 0.60 4
337 / / Pt-r 75 >24 sand-silt 1.50 4
418 / / Pt-p 80 >20 sand-clay 1.60 4
620 / / Pt-p 92 3.5 pt in sand 1.84 4
249 / / Pt-p 140 1 pt in sand 2.80 4
7 Pt-p 185 >25 sand-clay 3.70 4

/ /
315 / / Pt-r 38 6 sand-clay 0.76 5
330.2 / / Pt-r 40 3 sand-silt 0.80 5
408 / / Pt-r 50 3 sand-clay 1.00 5
450 / / Pt-r 62 >15 sand-clay 1.24 5
371 / / Pt-r 65 2.5 sand-clay 1.30 5
434 / / Pt-r 65 12 sand-clay 1.30 5
560 / / Pt-r 68 >10 pt in sand 1.36 5
314 / / Pt-p 90 1.5 sand-clay 1.80 5
324 / / Pt-p 90 4.5 sand-silt 1.80 5
335 / / Pt-p 90 10 sand-clay 1.80 5
- 146 -
352 / / Pt-p 90 1 sand-clay 1.80 5
312 / / Pt-p 95 2.5 sand-silt 1.90 5
322 / / Pt-p 95 3 sand-silt 1.90 5
/ / sand/gravel-
217 Pt-p 98 >11 1.96 5
silt
310 / / Pt-p 160 >5 sand-clay 3.20 5
416 / / Pt-p 220 5 rock-sand 4.40 5
438 / / Pt-r 10 0.5 sand-clay 0.20 6
190 Pt-r 15 1 sand-silt 0.30 6

/ /
209 / / Pt-r 15 7.5 sand-clay 0.30 6
445 / / Pt-r 20 11 sand-clay 0.40 6
367 / / Pt-r 25 9 sand-silt 0.50 6
582 / / Pt-r 25 5 sand-silt 0.50 6
61 / / Pt-r 25 3.5 sand-clay 0.50 6
356.2 / / Pt-r 30 2.5 sand-clay 0.60 6
/ / sand-
46 Pt-r 30 1 0.60 6
clay/silt
356 / / Pt-r 35 4.5 sand-clay 0.70 6
64 / / Pt-r 45 9 sand-clay 0.90 6
436 / / Pt-r 45 8 pt in clay 0.90 6
379 / / Pt-r 65 20 sand-clay 1.30 6
151 / / Pt-p 80 14.5 sand-clay 1.60 6
626 / / Pt-p 95 1 sand-silt 1.90 6
365 / / Pt-p 110 15 sand-clay 2.20 6
133 / / Pt-p 120 28 rock-silt 2.40 6
161 / / Pt-p 130 >19.5 sand-silt 2.60 6
339 / / Pt-p 130 >10 sand-clay 2.60 6
- 147 -
1 Pt-p Qualitative Assessment 6
/ /
184 / / Pt-p 200 1.5 pt in rock 4.00 7
586 / / Pt-r 70 2.5 sand-clay 1.40 8
390 / / Pt-r 75 1 sand-clay 1.50 8
76 / / Pt-p 110 24.5 pt in sand 2.20 8
369 / / Pt-p 125 3.5 pt in gravel 2.50 8
233 / / Pt-p 145 3.5 rock-sand 2.90 8
362 / / Pt-p 225 >6.5 rock-sand 4.50 8
229 / / Pt-p 235 1 pt in clay 4.70 8
394 / / Pt-p 240 1 sand-clay 4.80 8
279 / / Pt-p 280 >13 gravel-clay 5.60 8
31 / / Pt-r 15 13.5 rock-clay 0.30 9
73 / / Pt-r 15 13.5 sand-silt 0.30 9
34 Pt-r 40 10 sand-silt 0.80 9

/ /
33 / / Pt-r 40 5.5 sand-silt 0.80 9
32 / / Pt-p 100 15 rock-clay 2.00 9
257 / / Pt-r 18 2 clay-silt 0,36 10
304 / / Pt-r 50 2.5 sand-clay 1.00 10
604 / / Pt-r 70 1 sand-silt 1.40 10
568 / / Pt-p 80 >15 rock-clay 1.60 10
- 148 -
603 / / Pt-p 80 1 gravel-clay 1.60 10
600 / / Pt-p 88 2.5 sand-clay 1.76 10
464 / / Pt-p 95 >11 sand-clay 1.90 10
/ / rock/sand-
247 Pt-p 115 >11m 2.30 10
clay
462 / / Pt-p 135 2 sand-clay 2.70 10
470 / / Pt-p 135 2 sand-clay 2.70 10
472 / / Pt-p 150 >10 sand-gravel 3.00 10
463 / / Pt-p 162 3 pt in sand 3.24 10
269 / / Pt-p 235 1,5 rock-clay 4,70 10
/ / sand/gravel-
558 Pt-p 250 >5 5.00 10
silt
564.3 Pt-r 25 3 sand-clay 0.50 11

/ /
598 / / Pt-r 28 10 sand-clay 0.56 11
129 / / Pt-r 33 8 pt in silt 0.66 11
562 / / Pt-r 30 5 sand-clay 0.60 11
/ / sand/rock-
169 Pt-p 80 18.5 1.60 11
silt
480.2 / / Pt-r 73 0.5 rock-sand 1.46 12
173 / / Pt-p 215 2 rock-silt 4.30 12
- 149 -
Corresponding bearing capacity curves for the BL spudcan
- 150 -
Appendix 8: Bearing capacity profiles for the verification points
It was decided not to include a hard copy of these bearing capacity profiles. However, they are
electronically accessible at FEBV through the Geodin database associated with this project. The
corresponding Excel database allows to list the concerning project numbers.
- 151 -
- 152 -
Appendix 9: Coordinates and grid details 3D models
ZONE A
Table 12: Coordinates and grid details of 3D Grid A.
ZONE A
Corner Points X [m] Y [m] ∆X [m] ∆Y [m]
1 0.0 0.0
/ /
2 / / 1274.5 0.0
3 / / 1274.5 3565.2
4 / / 0.0 3565.2
Area [m2] 4,54 km2
Report Nr & BH
X [m] Y [m] ∆X [km] ∆Y [m]
name
337.8 2342.9
/ / /
/ / / 953.1 3214.1
/ / / 1027.4 162.9
/ / / 185.1 1457.5
/ / / 315.4 2464.5
Coordinates origin
Cell Dimensions [m] Number of cells
(lower left corner)
X 0 5 255
Y 0 5 713
Z -30 0.1 300
TOTAL CELLS ≈ 5,45 * 107
- 153 -
ZONE B
Table 13: Coordinates and grid details of 3D Grid B.
ZONE B
Corner Points X [m] Y [m] ∆X [m] ∆Y [m]
1 0.0 0.0
/ /
2 / / 0.0 7487.6
3 / / 5061.2 7487.6
4 / / 5061.2 0.0
Area [m2] 37,90 km2
Report Nr (+ BH
X [m] Y [m] ∆X [km] ∆Y [m]
name)
2913,2 4272,9
/ / /
/ / / 2381,1 7289,0
/ / / 2747,9 127,9
/ / / 99,1 4112,2
/ / / 1833,8 7423,2
/ / / 3029,9 4274,8
/ / / 3716,7 5830,9
/ / / 3727,4 5804,6
/ / / 3505,7 2215,5
/ / / 1711,3 1116,5
/ / / 1925,2 5776,9
/ / / 4654,9 4237,5
/ / / 665,8 5565,7
/ / / 2915,8 1122,9
/ / / 4026,6 1044,8
/ / / 107,3 4473,1
- 154 -
/ / / 3488,7 2159,7
/ / / 2088,9 1346,1
781,1 5099,1
/ / /
/ / / 710,1 6547,6
/ / / 4210,5 1900,9
Coordinates origin
Cell Dimensions [m] Number of cells
(lower left corner)
X 0 51 100
Y 0 75 100
Z -20 1 20
TOTAL CELLS ≈ 2,0 * 105
- 155 -
- 156 -
Appendix 10: Parameter files for the produced semivariograms in
SGeMS
Semivariogram parameter file in XML language for 3D grid A:
<variogram_model nugget="0" structures_count="1" >

<structure_1 contribution="1500" type="Spherical" >
<ranges max="2800" medium="1920" min="0" />
<angles x="0" y="0" z="0" />
</structure_1>
</variogram_model>
<experimental_variograms>
<variogram>
<title>variogram - azth=0, dip=0</title>
<direction>6.12303e-017 1 -0 </direction>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 </x>
<y>547.59 745.894 1433.47 -9e+099 </y>
<pairs>174243 58081 58081 0 </pairs>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 </x>
<y>547.59 745.894 1433.47 -9e+099 </y>
<pairs>174243 58081 58081 0 </pairs>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<direction>1 0 -0 </direction>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 </x>
<y>-9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 </y>
<pairs>0 0 0 0 </pairs>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<direction>4.32964e-017 0.707107 -0.707107 </direction>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 </x>
<y>-9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 </y>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<direction>0.707107 0 -0.707107 </direction>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 </x>
<y>-9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 </y>
</variogram>
</experimental_variograms>
- 157 -
Semivariogram parameter file in XML language for 3D grid B:
<variogram_model nugget="0" structures_count="1" >
<structure_1 contribution="130000" type="Spherical" >
<ranges max="5000" medium="5000" min="0" />
<angles x="0" y="0" z="0" />
</structure_1>
</variogram_model>
<experimental_variograms>
<variogram>
<title>variogram - Omni-directional</title>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 </x>
<y>107230 137481 106543 124430 109059 </y>
<pairs>651740 1305788 1080549 1390936 1151980 </pairs>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 </x>
<y>272217 244328 130451 229890 19863.5 </y>
<pairs>139077 440099 360938 392601 241205 </pairs>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<direction>1 0 -0 </direction>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 </x>
<y>24997.5 54807.2 94356.6 208641 -9e+099 </y>
<pairs>219037 261141 564750 43416 0 </pairs>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<direction>4.32964e-017 0.707107 -0.707107 </direction>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 </x>
<y>-9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 </y>
<pairs>0 0 0 0 0 </pairs>
</variogram>
<variogram>
<direction>0.707107 0 -0.707107 </direction>
<x>1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 </x>
<y>-9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 -9e+099 </y>
<pairs>0 0 0 0 0 </pairs>
</variogram>
</experimental_variograms>
- 158 -

Fugro Thesis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fugro Thesis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AES/GE/11-13 Design and development of a hazard map for the

Positioning and siting of large jack-up rigs at the

30/06/2011 Bert Lietaert

MSc Thesis Engineering Geology

Author(s) : Bert Lietaert

Date : 30 June 2011

Postal Address : Section for Geo-Engineering

Copyright ©2011 Section for Geo-Engineering

All rights reserved.

Figure 1: Geographic setting of Gulf of Suez. ...................................................................................... - 3 -

Figure 2: General overview of the Red Sea environs.. ........................................................................ - 4 -

Figure 5: Tectonic evolution around 31 Ma and 27 Ma ...................................................................... - 6 -

Figure 6: Tectonic evolution around 24 Ma and 14 Ma ...................................................................... - 7 -

Figure 7: Tectonic evolution around 10 Ma and 5 Ma ........................................................................ - 8 -

Figure 8: Present day situation and possible configuration at +10 Ma............................................... - 9 -

Figure 10: Structural map of the Gulf of Suez ................................................................................... - 10 -

Figure 14: Sediment yield components of a wadi system ................................................................. - 16 -

Figure 15: Post-Miocene facies distribution in the Gulf of Suez ....................................................... - 17 -

Figure 16: Example of an salt wall, influencing post-Miocene deposits. .......................................... - 19 -

Figure 17: The C2 rig. ......................................................................................................................... - 22 -

Figure 19: Different jack-up installation phases................................................................................ - 23 -

Figure 23: Squeezing failure in layered soils ..................................................................................... - 27 -

Figure 24: Backflow in clay ................................................................................................................ - 33 -

Figure 28: First plot of the BH-data in Google Earth ......................................................................... - 46 -

Figure 30: Selected GEBCO grid for this research. ............................................................................ - 50 -

Figure 32: Meaning of FOS. ............................................................................................................... - 54 -

Figure 34: Risk zone 1 - risk unknown ............................................................................................... - 58 -

Figure 35: Risk zone 2 - punch-through risk ...................................................................................... - 59 -

Figure 36: Risk zone 3 - punch-through risk. ..................................................................................... - 60 -

Figure 37: Risk zone 4 - punch-through risk ...................................................................................... - 61 -

Figure 38: Risk zone 5 - safe .............................................................................................................. - 62 -

Figure 39: Risk zone 6 - punch-through risk ...................................................................................... - 63 -

Figure 40: Risk zone 7 - safe .............................................................................................................. - 64 -

Figure 41: Risk zone 8 - safe. ............................................................................................................. - 65 -

Figure 42: Risk zone 9 - punch-through risk. ..................................................................................... - 66 -

Figure 43: Risk zone 10 - safe ............................................................................................................ - 67 -

Figure 44: Risk zone 11 - punch-through risk.. .................................................................................. - 68 -

Figure 45: Risk zone 12- safe ............................................................................................................. - 69 -

Figure 46: zone 13- safe. ................................................................................................................... - 69 -

Figure 48: Example of semivariogram. .............................................................................................. - 79 -

Figure 50: SGeMS Variogram modeler – step 1 ................................................................................ - 81 -

Figure 51: SGeMS Semivariogram modeler - step 2.......................................................................... - 81 -

Figure 52: Semivariogram direction parameters .............................................................................. - 82 -

Figure 53: Variogram Modeling in SGeMS – step 3........................................................................... - 82 -

Figure 54: Schematic representation of 3D grid A in the Gulf of Suez. ............................................. - 84 -

Figure 56: OK-interpolation inside 3D grid A..................................................................................... - 86 -

Figure 57 OK-interpolation inside 3D grid A...................................................................................... - 86 -

Figure 66: The produced semivariograms for 3D grid A. ................................................................ - 102 -

Figure 67: The produced semivariograms for 3D grid B.................................................................. - 103 -

Figure 68: Cross - section through Zone A. ..................................................................................... - 104 -

Figure 70: Cross - section (2) through zone B.................................................................................. - 105 -

Figure 71: Cross - section (3) through zone B.................................................................................. - 105 -

Table 6: Verification points for the identified risk zones. ................................................................. - 74 -

Table 7: Conversion factors for SI units........................................................................................... - 127 -

Table 12: Coordinates and grid details of 3D Grid A. ...................................................................... - 153 -

Table 13: Coordinates and grid details of 3D Grid B. ...................................................................... - 154 -

1.1 Fugro Engineers BV (FEBV)

1.3 General overview data set

 Data from Fugro Engineers B.V. (FEBV)

1.6 Regional setting Gulf of Suez

1.7 Total engineering geology approach

1.8 General Cenozoic tectonic evolution

Figure 5: Tectonic evolution around 31 Ma and 27 Ma (from Bosworth et. al (2005)).

Figure 6: Tectonic evolution around 24 Ma and 14 Ma (from Bosworth et. al (2005)).