Proceedings of the Twenty-third (2013) International Offshore and Polar Engineering

Anchorage, Alaska, USA, June 30July 5, 2013

Copyright 2013 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-999 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

www.isope.org

Bearing Capacity Predictions of Subsea Mudmats An Integrated Analysis Approach

Basel Abdalla1, Kabir Hossain2, Nikolaos Gazis1, Jianfeng Xu2 and Ayman Eltaher2
1

J P Kenny, Houston, USA

MCS Kenny, Houston, USA

overturning moment (API RP 2GEO). Moreover, it can at times be

overly conservative for foundations under complex loading conditions,
such as the case of multiple interacting loads (e.g., a PLET subject to
self-weight, structure-soil interaction, and multiple interface loads from
the flowline and jumpers), and they can be unconservative in situations
that involve (e.g.) layered soil or dynamic loading. Whereas an
unconservative design is not acceptable, a conservative design may be
acceptable for newly designed structures but can lead, for example, to
costly remedial measures.

ABSTRACT
The traditional method of subsea mudmat foundation stability analysis
is to calculate the bearing capacity factor of safety using the classical
approach given in the API RP 2GEO (2011, updated 2A). This
classical approach can be overly conservative for foundations under
complex loading conditions with multiple interacting loads. For
example, pipeline end termination (PLET) structures, which can be
subjected to combinations of self-weights, structure-soil interactions,
and multiple interface loads from the flowline and jumpers during
operating conditions.
In this paper, a rigorous 3D-FEA based assessment approach is
described that can overcome such complex loading conditions and
interactions to achieve a more accurate bearing capacity estimates of
subsea structure mudmats. The approach is demonstrated by an
example application to a subsea flowline sled support system with
mudmat foundation. The approach features fully integrated finite
element analysis using comprehensive 3-D modeling of all critical
system components and their physical interactions.
The use of this approach improves the calculated mudmat bearing
capacity factor of safety, and can be critical in situations where the
mudmat size is restricted, or where new loadings will be applied to
existing mudmats in brown field developments. On the other hand, it
uses elaborate numerical procedures and hence requires much larger
effort.

Fig. 1. Limit Analysis/ Slip Line Solution of Shallow Foundation

Bearing capacity

An alternative method that is based on the Q-H-M interaction

diagram/yield surface has recently been introduced in API RP 2GEO to
achieve greater accuracy in some of the above-mentioned situations;
however, the method provides solutions only to some specifically
defined design parameters and conditions in published studies.

KEY WORDS: FEA, Subsea mudmat foundation, bearing capacity,

Cam clay, soil failure
INTRODUCTION

Three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA) has been used

extensively by the offshore O&G for the design of deeper foundations
(such as suction piles) where simpler solutions are not available or are
not adequately general. Three-dimensional FEA has shown to provide
accurate predictions of the foundation response, provided appropriate
soil modeling are used. API RP 2GEO recommends 3D FEA shallow
foundation design, for cases with complex loading conditions. It is also
used extensively in research work related to shallow foundations, such
as to generate the Q-H-M solutions (API RP 2GEO; Gourvenec and
Steinepreis, 2007) used consequently by designers. A situation where
use of 3D FEA is particularly critical is addressed here, in which the
effective area approach indicates inadequate safety margin for a
restricted mudmat size and where relevant published Q-H-M
interaction diagram/yield surfaces are not available.

Traditionally, designing for the bearing capacity of shallow foundations

has been adequately performed using the upper-bound limit analysis/
slip line solutions (Fig. 1) detailed extensively in foundation
engineering text books (e.g., Terzaghi, 1943; Meyerhof, 1951) and
industry codes. In particular, the procedure adopted in API RP 2GEO is
based on the above method and on an effective area concept to
account for complex loading. This procedure has historically dominated
the offshore Oil and Gas (O&G) industry with satisfactory performance
in applications such as shallow temporary jacket and permanent subsea
structure mudmats; the latter with additional serviceability
considerations (e.g., long-term settlement). However, the procedure
may not be appropriate for use with highly compressible soils or
layered soils, and for skirted foundations on soft soils or subject to high

422