OTC 6468

Settlement of Mat-Supported Mobile Units in Very Soft Clays

W.R. Cox, Fugro-McClelland Marine Geosciences Inc.; S.C. McClure,
Alan C. McClure Assocs. Inc.; and K.H. Sorensen, Atlantic Pacific Marine Corp.

Copyright 1990, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper waa presented at the Z2nd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 7-10, 1990.

Thla paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee followingreview of informationcontained in an abatract submitted by the author(a). Contente of the paper,
aa presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correctionby the author(a),The material, as presentad, does not necessarily reflect
any positionof the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied, The
abstract should contain conspicuousacknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT
The behavior of a mat-supported mobile rig founded
on very soft clay has been examined. The settlement of the
mat into the clay during preload when setting up on the
location is used to arrive at the ultimate bearing capacity of
the soil. Analyses are then made of the bearing pressure of
the mat on the soil when the mobile unit is subjected to
storm loadings and these bearing pressures are compared to
the ultimate soil bearing pressures generated during
settlements that accompanied ~reloadin . This comparison
provides guidelines for predlctiom ot! additional settle-
ments that may occur under the storm loadings. The
method of computing bearing pressures under storm
loadings is unique in that It considers elastic-plastic
response of the soil resistance as contrasted to conventional
elastic solutions or equivalent-area solutions.
INTRODU~ON . eccentric load ef[ects, (3) horizontal sliding resistance, (4)
The first mat-supported submersible mobile unit, as
reported by Howe (1966), was the Barnsdall-Hayward
Breton Ri 20, later known as Kerr-McGee Rig 40, that was
complete f in 1949, Many years before the advent of the
submersible rig, there were units known as marine drilling
ri s that operated in lakes, bayous and dredged canals.
T%ese marine rigs were used offshore beginning in the late
1940’s, and they were often founded on shell pads to in-
crease their operating water depth. The submersible mobile
units and the marme drilling rigs share one common
feature: the large area of the mat permits the units to
operate with minimum settlement, even on some very soft
clay bottoms.
Hirst et al (1976) have reported that the average
seafloor contact ressure of mat-supported mobil units is
a proximately 501 psf when there is no wave loading. They
a Yso reported no significant settlement of the rigs as lon as
clay bottoms had shear stren ths of 100 psf or greater. k or
very soft deltaic clays with sf ear strengths of 40 to 50 psf,
settlements do occur under contact pressures of 500 psf. A
References and illustrations at end of paper.
.-.,..
IIY I
handful of clay soil with 40 to 50 psf shear strength can
easily be squeezed between the fingers.
To control settlement in very soft clay bottoms a
Ianned preload is applied when setting up the unit on
Focations, Turner et al (1987). As the mat settles into the
seafloor under the preload, additional bearing capacity is
developed from three sources: the increasing strength of the
soil as the mat oes deeper, the increased buoyancy from
the displaced soif, and the increasing friction of the soil on
the sides of the mat.
Youn et al (1981) have presented an extensive
discussion of foundation performance of mat-supported
mobile units in soft clays. Their paper addresses the wide
range of foundation performance including: (1) soil
strength variability , (2) bearing capacity, includm~ cyclic and
seafloor instability, (5) geologic features, and (6) soil
disturbance effects associated with rig placement.
In the paper that follows, a discussion will be
presented on only one aspect of foundation performance:
bearing capacity. During preload the ultimate bearin capa-
city of the soil is developed as the mat settles into t Ee soil.
The contribution of buoyancy from displaced soil is treated
as a reduction of the contact pressure rather than as an
increase in the bearing capacity of the soil.
Under eccentric loading on the mat, cxdused by
vertical dead loads and by wind and wave loadings, the
contact pressure of the mat on the soil will not be uniform.
The traditional solution is to assume a maximum contact
pressure at the toe, a minimum pressure at the heel, and a
linear distribution between the toe and heel. This is
unrealistic in that soft soils cannot develop this same linear
resistance distribution. At the toe and the heel there would
be a more rounded distribution of resistance. Furthermore,
as the contact pressures in the toe region become equal to
the ultimate bearin capaci~, there will be an area of the
mat that is resisted ! y the ultlmate bearing capacity and not
just a line of ultimate bearing capacity at the edge of the
mat.
 -u
L L JJJA1.lL!AV L Ur l.Jh
Tim following is a discussion of an existing type of
mat sup orted mobde unit with realistic settlements into a
very so ft clay during preloading. Two levels of storm
loading are then considered: one storm that causes
additional minor settlements of one foot and a lar er storm
that causes additional settlements of some five t?eet. The
method of solution is developed in considerable detail in the
Appendix.
DESCRIPTI ON OF MOBILE UNIT
This paper is based on a Bethlehem type JU-70MCW
jackup unit. An elevation of the unit in the jacked up mode
1sshown in Fig. 1, and the plan view of the mat that rests on
the soil is shown in Fig. 2. The unit has three legs of 4.5 ft
diameter. The mat is 110 by 84 ft with an opening in the
middle that gives the mat a contact area on the soil of 5655
sq ft. The mat is 8 ft deep and has a 2 ft deep skirt on all
edges of the mat.
These units have an approximate lightship weight of
4500 kips that includes 1400 kips of permanent water ballast
in the mat.
The unit is “acked up on site to an air gap of 2 to 6 ft.
This laces the i u1l above normal wave action. It is
desira \ le to load the soil equivalent to that which it may
experience from working or storm loads. Ballast water is
umped onboard to simulate these maximum loads. This
Yoad N held for a minimum of 1 hour and up to 6 hours after
settlement has stopped. List and trim are carefully observed
and ballast water N moved as necessary to achieve even
settlement.
The depth of settlement is monitored carefully by the
operator, with assistance from divers, to assure that it does
not exceed 8 ft, since the top of the mat at this penetration
would be even with the seafloor. If more than 8 ft of
settlement occurs, it is necessary to move the unit to another
location in an attempt to obtain acce table penetration.
The unit is cleared for operation if the fist and/or trim are
within 1 degree.
Removal of the unit is accom lished by jacking down
into the water to a level such that t I e hull is deeper in the
water than the wei ht of the unit would requme. This
provides a buoyant t!orce on the mat. On locations where
the mat has settled considerably into very soft clays, it has
proven necessaV to hold the buoyant force for several hours
to break the mat loose from the soil.
The mat is subjected to reasonably concentric
loadin during the working condition. The total of the
variab fe loads in the working condition is 700 kips, made up
of loads from pipe, mud, water, cement, hook, and setback.
These loads are monitored such that the combined weight of
the variable loads and the hull wei ht are approximately at
the geometric center of the legs. h e total of the variable
loads and the lightship wei ht 1s5200 kips. The resultant of
this load is near the center f ine and is located approximately
57 ft aft of the bow of the hull.
Preload when setting up on location should be at
least equal to the maximum elevated variable load. This is
700 kips in this case. The center of the preload is also
adjusted to be 57 ft aft of the bow and on the centerline.
5J.JJ.tLuN1.’IS .LN VJ!KY SUF’1’ CLAYS
J. -D”yy”~~Jj”
OTC 646
Storms may cause greater vertical loads on the mat
than the working loads. It is common practice to increase
the preload to more than the maximum e ected variable
load to compensate for storm loadings. ? n the example
problems, the preload of 700 kips is increased to 1100 laps
to compensate for storm loadings.
Storm loads are not uniform over the mat so some
settlement may occur. Sliding of the unit can occur if the
horizontal loads exceed the resistance of the soil. This is of
considerable concern when the unit is located near fixed
structures or well heads.
Since the resultant of wave and wind forces is not
located at the center of the unit, pressures on the soil will
I
increase on one side of the mat and decrease on the other
side. Wave action causes cyclic loads on the mat because
the wave force changes direction as the wave passes by the
legs and because the wave hydrostatic pressure on the mat
moves along with the wave crest. The total vertical force on
the unit will vary in ma nitude and location as the wave
moves through the unit. h is will cause a rocking motion of
the unit that may cause additional settlement.
These units are designed to withstand moderate
storms but not hurricanes. They must be moved to a
sheltered harbor if hurricane conditions are expected in the
immediate vicinity.
~~OD OF SOJ ,~oN
A plan view of the mat is shown in Fig. 3. The X-Y
system of coordinates is taken as coplanar with the bottom
of the mat. The mat is rotated in Fig. 3 so that the ordinate,
Y axis, is parallel to the path of the storm with positive Y
being the direction of storm movement. The point marked I
B is the corner of the bow first hit by the crest of the wave
and point S is the corner of the stern which is the maximum
Y distance, ~ from B. The X axis is taken through point B.
The cross hatched section of the mat over a distance
of Z is the area that is assumed to be resisted by a constant
soil pressure of P. At oint B the soil is assumed to exert a
pressure of Q against t! e mat, In the region between Y = O
and Y = L-Z, the soil pressure is assumed to vary linearly
between Q and P.
In the solution, the vertical forces and the moments
of the horizontal and vertical forces about the X axis are set
in equations of equilibrium. The following are considered:
Vertical Forces
- vertical dead loads
- vertical wave forces on the mat
- buoyancy of the soil displaced by
the mat settlement
- skin friction of soil on the sides
of the mat and the mat skirts
Moments about X axis
- moments of each of the above
designated vertical forces
- horizontal wind forces
- horizontal wave forces
The two equations of equilibrium, summation of
vertical forces and summation of moments about the X axis,
let us solve for the two unknowns, P and Q. For each as-
sumed value of Z, length of constant pressure area, there
are unique values of P and Q.
OTC 6468 ---- ,
COX. —— —--
SCOTT
A plot of values of P and Q vs assumed values of Z is
made. From this plot ajudgement ismadeof the probable
range of P and Q values that are developed durin storm
loading. This will be discussed more in the a xample
Problems.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
The mat of the unit is always completely submerged
and it has a dis Iacement of 2820 klps. The three legs of the
unit are free t?ooding and for all practical purposes their
displacement can be ignored in calculations for effective
bottom pressures. When the unit is jacked up, the effective
load on the seafloor will be 4500-2820 = 1680 kips. This
load will be increased b variable loads and by extra ballast
that is added during pre roading.
In the considerations that follow, it is assumed that
the unit weight of the soil that is displaced by mat
settlement is 94 pcf. This results in an effective unit weight
of 30 pcf for the submerged soil to use in Eqs A-12 and
A- 13. The value of k in Eq A-24 for friction is taken as
0.05. The influence of k on the solutions will be discussed in
a later section.
~ When the maximum preload is reached,
it is assumed that the sum of the variable loads and the extra
ballast water is 1100 kips. This results in an effective load of
the mat on the soil of 1680 +- 1100 = 2780 kips. The
effective pressure of the mat on the soil during maximum
preload is then 2780000/5655 = 491.6 psf. This effective
pressure is reduced by friction on the slurts and, as the mat
settles, further reduction of the effective bottom pressure
occurs as the mat displaces soil and as friction is developed
on the sides of the mat.
The mat is assumed to settle 2 ft under the maximum
~reload of 1100 ki s. The analyses carried out as presented
m the Appendm sf-low that the effectwe bottom pressure of
491.6 is reduced by 60 psf to account for 2 ft of dis@aced
soil and is further reduced by 12.7 psf because of friction on
the skirts and on the sides of the mat. This results in a
pressure on the bottom of 418.9 psf, which is rounded off to
420 psf.
The 420 psf is the ultimate bearing capacity of the
soil at 2 ft below the seafloor. It is now of interest to
estimate ultimate bearing capacities at depths greater than 2
ft below the seafloor.
For normally consolidated, very soft to soft clays, the
undrained shear strength of the clays commonly increases at
a rate of 6 to 10 psf per foot of depth. For this analyses a
gradient of 8 psf per ft is used. Young et al (1981) have
indicated for mat supported mobile units a reasonably good
correlation of ultimate bearin capacities with an equation
developed by Skempton (1951f and with methods proposed
by Davis and Booker (1973). Skempton’s e uation will be
used in this analysis. It will be sufficient‘1y accurate in
applying Skem~ton’s e uation to use the ultlmate bearing
capacit as being equa? to five times the undrained shear
strengt t of the clay. Then, for a gradient of 8 psf per ft, the
ultimate bearing capacity increases b 40 psf for each foot of
penetration below 2 ft from t { e seafloor. These
assumptions result in the following ultimate capacities that
will be used in the problems that follow:
on.1
_—. .. ... —__
-------- ------- .
Attll SO12F!?JSF.N 2
Mat Ultimate Bearing
Penetration Capacity
_ft_ +f
2 420
3 460
4 500
5 540
580
! 620
8 660
~ The still water depth is 70 ft
including astronomical and storm tides. The maximum
wave is 12 ft high and 300 ft long with an 8 sec period. The
maximum winds are 40 mph. The equations in the
Appendix were developed for moment about the bottom of
the mat at the X am shown in Fig. 3. The maximum
combined moments about the X axis from the wave forces
on the three legs and the vertical wave load on the top of
the mat occurs when the crest of the wave is 79 ft in the
positive Y direction from Point B in Fig. 3. The forces and
moments produced by the wave and wind are
Forces: Wave horizontal) 3.2 kips
Wave [vertical) 693.5
Wind 26.2
Moments: Wave horizontal) 109 kip ft
Wave [vertical) 47390
Wind 4208
As the mat settles, the moment produced by the wave forces
on the three legs will increase by 3.2 kips times the average
settlement of Points B and S in Fig. 3. Other moments are
not affected by settlement.
During the storm the variable loads are taken as 400
Id s. This results in an effective bottom load in still water of
1t!80 + 400 = 2080 kipS.
An analysis using the above forces, moments and
loads produces the bottom pressures shown on Fig. 4. The
mat settled 2 ft during preload, and Fig. 4 shows the bottom
ressures durin the storm for this initial 2 ft of settlement.
h e abscissa in %ig. 4 is the length of the plastic zone, shown
as Z in Fig. 3. The left ordinate is for pressure in the plastic
zone, and the right ordinate is for ressure at the bow, Point
Bin Fig.3. Although the scale of tKe left and right ordinates
is the same, the right ordinate has been shifted upwards to
permit display of the ne ative values of the bow ressure
that develop to yield equi fibrium for large values of %.
For a Z of O,the pressure distribution under the mat
is assumed to be linear, the elastic case. For this condition
the toe pressure, at Point S in Fig. 3, is 511 psf. The heel
ressure, at Point B in Fig. 3, is 322 psf. The ultimate
Eearing capacity at 2 ft penetration is orIly 420 psf. It can be
seen on FI . 4 that for all values of Z, the zone pressure
exceeds 42%psf, hence the mat will settle.
In Fig. 5 an additional settlement of 1 ft is assumed,
bringing the total settlement to 3 ft. At 3 ft penetration the
ultimate bearing capacity of the soil is 460 psf. For zone
lengths greater than 15 feet, the zone pressures are less than
the ultimate bearing capacity of 460 psf. The mat should
not e~erience additional settlements exceeding 1 ft when
the umt is subjected to the 12 ft waves and 40 mph winds.
—__~.—.~-— m—-——— __
 SETTLEMENT OF MAT-SUPPORTED
LarFe Storm A still water depth of 70 ft is also
assumed for this storm and the maximum wave is taken as
22 ft high and 422 ft long with a eriod of 10 sec. The
maximum winds are taken as 70 mp[ . The maximum wave
moments continue to occur when the crest of the wave is 79
ft in the positive Y direction from Point B in Fig. 3. The
forces and moments produced by the wave and wind are
Forces: Wave horizontal) 9.7 tips
~;~ [vertical) 2113.2
80.2
Moments: Wave horizontal) 516 kip ft
Wave [vertical) 131531
Wind 12887
As the mat settles, the moment produced by the wave forces
on the three legs will increase b 9.7 kips times the average
settlement of Points B and S in ? ig. 3.
The variable loads during the storm are a ain taken
as 400 kips, producing an effective bottom load o t?2080 kips
in still water.
In Fi . 6 the mat is assumed to have settled an
additional 4 f t from the 2 ft settlement that occurred durin
the preload. This gives a total settlement of 6 ft for whit E
the ultimate bearing capacity is 580 kips. For all values of
Z, the zone length, the zone pressures exceed the value of
580 psf, hence the mat will settle.
In Fig. 7, an additional settlement of 5 ft is assumed
to occur under this storm givin a total settlement of 7 ft.
At 7 ft penetration the ultimate %earing capacity is 620 psf.
For all values of Z eater than 23 ft, the zone pressure is
less than 620 psf. % e mat should reach equilibrium with
the storm loads with the additional settlement of 5 ft.
HORIZONTAL LOADS
The total horizontal force from wave and winds
durin the moderate storm is only 29,4 ki~s. Sliding of the
units ! ould not occur since the sod is reqmred to develop an
average horizontal resistance of only 5.2 sf. Sliding should
also not occur during the large storm wEen the horizontal
wave and wind forces are 89,9 kips and the required average
horizontal resistance from the soil is only 15.9 psf.
The resistance of the soil to horizontal loads has not
been included in the equations for moment about the X
axis. If this horizontal resistance is mobilized along the
bottom of the mat, then the resistance has no moment arm.
If, in the unlikely event, all of the resistance should be
mobilized on a plane through the bottom of the skirts, the
moment arm about the X axis for this resistance is only 2 ft.
The contributions to total moment about the X axis would
only be 0.03 and 0.07 ercent for the moderate and large
storms respectively. h is supports the decision not to
include in the e~uilibrium equations the moment about the
X axis of the horizontal resistance.
SIDE FRICTION
The avera$e skin friction of the clay on the skirts and
sides of the mat N assumed in Eq A-24 to be a constant k
times the uniform bearing resistance, P, that is developed in
the plastic zone. This relationship of friction to bearing
ca acity is selected because both quantities are directly
re rated to the undrained shear strength of the clay. It is
recognized that friction is related to soil stren ths that are
adjacent to the mat surfaces on which the friction acts,
whereas bearing capacity is related to average soil strengths
MOBILE UNITS IN VERY SOFT CLAYS OTC 646E
in some distance beneath the mat. Nevertheless, there are
values for k that will yield reasonable frictions from clays
that have a well defined gradient of shear strength.
If we knew the thickness of soil beneath the mat that
is mobilized to produce the ultimate bearing ressure, then,
with use of the assumed gradient of strengt E, a profile of
undrained shear strengths could be developed for the site.
From a profile of soil strength, rational estimates could be
made of frictions that occur on the sides of the mat during
settlement.
Skempton (1951) recommended that the average
shear strength over a depth of 2/3 of the foundation width
be used in his equation for ultimate bearing ca acity.
Young et al (1981) found better correlation wit 1! mat
settlements in the Gulf of Mexico by using average stren ths
over 1/2 of the width. The shape of the mat in Fig. 3 t oes
not lend itself to an obvious choice for foundation width to
use in Skempton’s equation. An ultimate bearing capacity is
mobilized by forcing settlement during preloadmg, but the
distribution of shear strength below the mat is not revealed.
This leaves us with no dependable method for developing a
profile for shear strength when we have only the ultimate
bearing capacity.
In the example problems k was taken as 0.05. For
the moderate storm and 3 ft total settlement, the average
skin friction was calculated from Eq A-24 to be in the ran e
of 22 psf. For the large storm and 7 ft total settlement, t i?e
average skin friction 1sin the range of 30 psf. Both of these
magmtudes of avera e frictions are believable for a mat that
enetrates a very sof t clay under rocking motions produced
Ey waves and winds.
In the example problems, the friction reduced
bottom pressures by 4 and 7 percent for the moderate and
large storms respectively. We conclude that errors in the
assumed frictions can be expected to produce small changes
in the calculated settlements.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A method has been presented for establishing
equilibrium of working and environmental loads with sod
pressures on the mat of a mobile unit. The method is
unique in that the soil pressures can be considered as
elastic-plastic as contrasted with usual methods of analysis
that are restricted to elastic solutions for soil pressures
The plastic zone is in the toe region of the mat and is
shown cross hatched in Fig. 3 The uniform pressure in the
plastic zone is designated as P: Thet soil pressure at Point B
m Fig. 3, the heel of the mat, N designated as Q. There are
unique values of P and Q for each assumed length of the
plastic zone, Z. A study of Figs. 4 through 7 guides our
Judgement to accept solutions for equilibrium when Z is in
the range of 25 to 65 ft. For the moderate storm, P varies by
only 18 psf for Z in the range of 25 to 65 ft. For the large
storm P varies by onl 30 psf in this same range of Z. This
small variation of $ is probably not significant when
compared with the accuracy by which wave and wind forces
can be calculated.
It should be noted in comparing the pressures in the
plastic zone for Fig. 4 with Fig. 5, and for Fig. 6 with Fig. 7,
that the mat penetrations are clearly defined for additional
settlement to occur and for no additional settlement to
occur. This reflects that for each additional foot of
penetration, the ultimate bearing ca acity increases 40 psf
and the effective mat pressure on t! e soil reduces 30 psf
because of the displacement of the soil. Also the friction on
““.
ULL 0+00 L“A, “b”.
the sides of the mat increases for each additional foot of
penetration.
In the example problems a uniform settlement of the
mat was assumed durin storm loading. The method of
solution is not restricte J to uniform settlements. To the
contrary, the e uations developed in the Appendix are for
differential sett‘1ements of the mat in the dmection of the
ath of the storm. Analyses for differential settlements have
! een made for actual cases but, because these analyses are
more involved, they cannot conveniently be covered in this
paper.
It has been observed that the windward edge of a
mat sometimes settles more than the leeward edge. The
reasons for this are usually not known, but the fact that it
does occur can discourage a detailed analyses with
differential settlements that would show that the leeward
edge will settle more than the windward edge. A uniform
settlement analyses is believed valuable in predicting the
level of storm intensi that will trigger the onset of
additional settlement. 1%is information would be important
to the operator.
Young et al (1981) report better agreement of theory
with actual mat settlements If the remolded shear strengths
of the soil are used in the bearin capacity equations rather
than the undisturbed soil strengt f s. When a mat is settled
into the soil during preloading, there are numerous
adjustments of the list and trim, and this works and remolds
the soil. In a similar manner, the cyclic loading from a
storm also causes rocking motions of the mat that work and
remold the soil. It follows that the ultimate bearing capacity
available at a given penetration should be almost the same
during a storm as it was during preloading.
The bow pressures in Fi s. 4 through 7 are shown to
go negative for large values of %. Very soft clays can take
negatwe pressures, a fact that is well known to operators
who have spent many hours breaking the suction on a mat
when leaving location. As a general rule it has been the
practice to limit equilibrium analyses to conditions where
the soil pressures are positive, that is, compression as
opposed to tension. No attempt has been made in this
paper to consider suction pressures at the heel.
The example problems are based on hypothetical
data. The authors have had experience using the method to
hindcast actual conditions and the results to date have been
encouraging.
REFERENCES
Davis, E. H. and Booker, J. R. (1973), “The Effect of
Increasing Strength with Depth on the Bearing Capacity of
Clays,” Geotechnique, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 551-563.
Hirst, T. J., Steele, J. F., Rem , N. D. and Scales, R. E.
(1976), “Performance of Mat { upported Jack-Up Drilling
Rigs,” Proceedings, 8th Offshore Technolo~ Conference,
Houston, Vol. 1, pp. 821-830.
Howe, Richard J. (1966), “Evolution of Offshore Mobile
Drilling Units,” Offshore, March 1966, pp. 68-92.
Skempton, A. W. (1951) “Bearin Ca acity of Clays,”
Building Research Congress, London, %ivis~n 1, pp. 180-189.
. -.” ““.. AJL. ”UL.
Turner, E. L., Chevalier, J., and Ra oport, V. (1987),
“Placement of Mat-Supported Jacku i ig on Very Weak
Soil,” Proceedings, 19th Offshore ? echnolo~ Conference,
Houston, Vol. 1, pp. 35-46.
Youn , A. G, House, H. F., Turner, R. D., Helfrich, S. C.
(1981?, “Foundation Performance of Mat-Supported Jack-
Up Rigs in Soft Clays; Proceedings, 13th Offshore
Technology Conference, Vol. 4, pp. 273-283.
~ea rin~ Pressures on SW“1
In Fig. 3, the section of the mat that is cross hatched is
assumed to have developed the ultimate bearing capacity of
the soil, P. On the other part of the mat, the soil resistance
is assumed to vary linearly from the value of P at Y = L - Z
to Q at Y = O,and this resistance can be expressed as
Py = Q + Y (P - Q)/(L -Z) ....................................(A- 1)
0< Y< (L- Z)
The vertical force of the soil on the mat and the
moment of that force about the X axis in Fig. 3 can be found
by dividing the mat into areas and summing the
contributions to force and moment from each of the areas.
Since the force and moment for each area will be
determined by mathematical inte ration, the areas must be
either three- or four-sided. For t\ ree-sided areas, one side
must be parallel to the Y axis. For four-sided areas, two
sides must be parallel to the Y axis. The areas in Fig. 3
satisfy these requirements, but it should be recognized that
there are other subdivisions into three-or four-sided areas
that would also be correct.
In Fig. 8, an area of the mat is represented with tsvo
sides, 1 to 3 and 2 to 4, being parallel to the Y axis. The
equation of line 1-2 is
Y= A+BX ...............................................................(A-2)
where,
Y1 x2 - Y2 xl
A=
x2-xl
B= Y2-Y1
X2-xl
In a similar way, the equation of line 3-4 is
Y = C + D X................................................................(A-3)
where,
c. Y3X4-Y4X3
x4-x3
D_ Y4-Y3
x4-x3
For areas in the plastic zone, the vertical force on each
area is
b b
V = P (A + B X) dX - P (C + D X) dX ...................(A-4)
J J
a a
..”.
 SETTLEMENT OF MAT-SUPPORTED

The moment about the X axis for each area in th~

BILE UNITS IN VERY SOFT CLAYS OTC 6468
I
Since the settlement of the mat has a linear distribution
plastic zone is between Points B and S, we can use the solutions for Cl?---,
C4 for Z = O (linear case) to determine the upward vertical
force of the dis laced soil, and the resisting moment of the
m= ;~?A+BX)2dX- ; $C + D X)2 dX ...........(A-5 displaced soil a 1?out Point B.
a o
For Z = O, the values of the constants are
For areas in the linear (elastic) zone, the vertical forcf cl = 2792 ft?
on each area is
C2 = 2863 ft2 I
b b C3 = 218060 ft3
v = Q(f(A+BX)dX- C4 = 122817 f?
(C+ D X) dX)
1 The vertical force, VD, and the resisting moment, MD
a a
b of the displaced soil are
+ (P-0)( (A+ BX)2dX VD = ~ ‘(2792 SS + 2863 SB) .................................(A- 12)
2(L -Z) ~J
MD =#(218060 SS + 122817 SB) .........................(A- 13)
Vertical Wave Force on of Mat I
J
TOD
- ~+ DX)2dX) .................................................(A.6.
a The vertical pressure on the top of the mat caused by
the wave is
The moment about the X axis for each area in the
linear zone is pw = a cos (b Y) ........................................................(A- 14)

m= ~(~tA + B X)2 dX-~& + D X)2 dX) where,

a a
% b = constants for a given still water depth and for a
b wave of given height and length
I
+ (P-0)(
3(L-Z) a J (A + B X)3 dX Y = distance from wave crest
(positive in direction of wave movement)
For cah.dations of vertical pressure on top of the mat,
the wave crest should be in the same position as used for

a
S
- &+ DX)3dX) ..................................................(A.7) calculating horizontal forces of the wave on structural
elements. The Y values in Fi .3 are measured from the X
axis passing through Point B. f f the crest of the wave is not
After performing the inte~ations for each area, at Point B, then an adjusted value of Y must be used in Eq
summing, and collecting terms, It can be shown that the A-14. If PH is the phase distance of the crest in relation to
vertical resisting force of the soil on the mat, V, and the
resisting over turnin moment of the soil, M, about the X
Point B, then when usin E A- 14, aII Y values in Fig. 3 I
must be increased by P l!%if oint B is ahead of the wave
axis can be expresse # as crest and decreased by PH if behind the crest.
v = c1 P + C2 Q.......................................(A-8) If Fig. 9 an area of the mat is shown with the X axis
adjusted to be at the wave crest. The X dimension of the
M= C3P+C4Q ......................................(A-9) area is divided into strips of width w. A median line is
selected through the strip with boundary values of Y1 and
where, Cl, ---, C4 are constants for each value of Z selected Y2. In Fig. 10 the median line is shown from Y1 to Y2, and
to represent the length of the plastic zone as shown on Fig. the Z axis is wave pressure as determined from Eq A- 14.
3.
The wave pressure in Fig. 10 is integrated from Y 1 to
Y2 and then multiplied by w to give the total wave force on
I
the strip shown in Fig. 9. This is repeated for each of the
In Fig. 3, the extreme positions of the bow and stern strips in Fig. 9 and the force on the strips added to give the
are designated as B and S respectively. The buoyant forces total wave force on the area. The same procedure is then
of the duplaced soil at the bow and stem are repeated for each area and the sum of the area forces is the
total wave force, VW, on the mat. Similar procedures are
FB = ~’SB ..............................................(A- 10) used for determining the total moment of the forces, MW.
Since the moment of the forces is about the wave crest, it is
FS = 7’SS ................................................(A-n) necessary to correct the moment for the phase distance PH
in order to yield a moment about Point B.
where,
I
~‘= effective weight of soil, pcf

SB = settlement of mat at Point B, ft

SS = settlement of mat at Point S. ft
396
OTC 6468
Cox, SCOT’ ND SORENSEN
For each strip, as shown in Fig. 9, the wave force on the where,
strip, VS, and the moment of that force, MS, about Point E
are
S1 = settlement at Point 1
Y2 Y2
Vs S2 = settlement at Point 2
W ZdY = w a cos (b y) dY ....................(A- 15)
J s
Y1 Y1 The length of the side between points 1 and 2 is
Y2
MS W
J YZdY-VSPH N = ((Y2 - ‘1)2 + (~ - Xl)2)0”5 .....................(A-21’
Y1 The area of the side that is below the seabed is:
Y2
A = LS (S1 + s2)/2 ..................................................
= w a Y cos (bY) dY - VS PH ...........(A- 16) (A-22;
s
Y1 The moment of the area about Point B is
j
M = LSS2 (Yl + Y2)/2
w ‘i~l VSi .............................................................(A- 17)
+ ~~) (Yl + ~~,) ..................(A-23)
j 3
m ‘i~l ‘Si ...........................................................(A- 18) For mat supported rigs, it is reasonable to assume one
value of side fnctio% f, to be representative for all sides of
where j is the total number of strips on all areas on the mat the mat. The value of f can be estimated if the soil
as shown in Fig. 3. parameters at the site are known. If there are no avaiiable
soil data at the site, then it will be convenient to assume that
Friction on Sides of Ma the friction is dmectly related to the ultimate bearing
capacity of the soil, P, by a factor k such that
In Fig. 3 a side of the mat is selected between Points 1
md 2. If the settlement of the mat at Point B is SB, and at f=k P ....O..O.O
......O.......................................(A.24)
Point S the settlement is SS, then it follows that
The total soiI friction on n sides of the mat is then
S1 = ss + (SB~ SS) (L- Yl) ................................
(A- 19)

S2 = SS + (SB~ SS) (L - Y2) ----...- ...................(A-20)

TF= fi$l+ ..............................................(A-25)

The total moment about Point B from friction on n

sides is

MF = f~Mi ..S..S
......................................(A- 26)
i=l
Fig .
-_?!&AL&.
1
.. Bethlehem TYPO JD-70Flcw Jackup Mobile unit
Fig. 2 Plan of Mat for Jackup Hobi~e unit

141

121
----
---
L_ ‘N,
\
\
ii
\
‘\
\
i
% \
80 \
\
\
..----- .. ----- ------ ------- -. -1 . . . .
1
I
60
\
\

40

20.

------- ULTIMATE BEARING CApACj Ty II

I I I
I
20 60 I
LENGTH 8F PLASTIC ZONE, :

Fig . 3 coordinate system for ElmstipPlastic solution

Wind ad Waves 25 Degrees Off Longitudinal tii. Fig. 4 zQne and Bow Pressures for 12 ft wave and
2 ft settlement of stern and Bow 40 MPH Wind
 800
400 800
400
---
-.<
700 .
___
300 \
--~ 700
300
-% \
\
\ \
600 \
$J 200
600 s
a ~ 200
& 580 ------- ------- ------- ---
\ k .- -. -. ___
n
% \ %
Q 0. l.u-
500 4 -100 ~- ‘\ ~
\ : 500
~ 460-i - ------ - ------ - .-.___ -4. g -1 00
_____ \ g-
~ I i- # !
1 < m
400
s \
g t -0
!+! 0- 400 2
UJ \ ~ 1 0 #
a a
fl u \
2 \ a t
a ~
f 300 \ L
I
- 100+
.$
I z 300 I E
- I 00
1 z %/
L I
G I 2
z I E
200 I 2
I
-2 00 z
200 — . . _
I —-J---- 200
I
I i
I 00

— ZONE PRESSURE
1
I
-3 00 100 1
I
--3 00
- ‘-- BOW PRESSURE I — ZONE PRESSURE
I
------- ULTIMATE BEARING ~Ap~c~Ty ‘--- BOW PRESSURE
} I
1 ------- ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY
1 I i I
00 20 ,05400 1 1 I f I I
LENGTH :F PLASTI:ZONE, ; 00 20
105400
LENGTH :F PWI:ZONE, $

Fig. 5 zone and Bow Pressures for 12 ft wave and 40 WPH Wind
3 ft Settlement of stern ana BOW Fig. 6 zOne and Bow Pressures for 22 ft Wave and 70 MPH Wind
6 ft Settlement of Stern and BOW

---
-.
700
\
%
\
\
---- -. _____ ._. ___ _. _,_,
60 0

I I I I \—
\
I
\
!

400
\
\
\
\
300
t
I
I
I
200
~

I
I

‘OEk!$!al
1 ------- ULTIMATE

LENGTH
BEARING

OF PLASTIC ZONE, FT
CAPAC17Y

60 80
-300

o~400

Fig. ~ Zone and Bow Pressures for 22 ft Wave and 70 WPSi wind
7 ft settlement of Stern and Bow

S9g
 —

I
I

> J4---F43Y4
~ I
I
I
I
1
I
I
a b ,
x
x I
Fig . 8 An Area of the Mat for Integration of Soil Pressures
Ffg. 9 ti Al_*a of ths Mat for Integration of Wave Pr.ss”xes

‘1’(DIRECTION OF WAVES)

Fig. 10 Integration of Wm. Pressure’ Along a strip in an Area

41Ja

.-_— ._. ---- ___

~..-.——=.-==—=
..—=—.=
~. kn: ——— . .- —~-=. _ ———— _ -— = -a —-==-—— =< -=
.——.= ~—~ —-. = s= ———=== —_————— — —