Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth (2015) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
Kona, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, June 21-26, 2015
Copyright © 2015 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-89-0; ISSN 1098-6189

Gravity Based Structure Foundation Design and Optimization Opportunities

Joar Tistel, Gudmund R. Eiksund
Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Trondheim, Norway

Jon Hermstad
Kvaerner, Concrete Structures
Oslo, Norway

Anders Bye, Corneliu Athanasiu

Multiconsult, Geotechnical Department
Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT
Concrete Gravity Based Structures (GBS) have been used in the oil and
gas industry since the early 1970-ties. Several structures have been
installed worldwide at various water depths and soil conditions.
Concrete Gravity Based Structures have proved to be well suited in
harsh offshore environments. The structures have therefore been chosen
as the preferred concept for several recent projects in arctic areas. GBS
structures are robust and constitute a solid substructure for the topsides.
The geotechnical design of the structures is based on proven principles.
The concrete GBS are however relatively expensive, and in order to
limit the costs it is important to optimize the design.
The arctic environment is extremely harsh and the structures are
exposed to significant environmental loads and abrasion. The concrete
GBS structures have proven to be robust and well fit for the arctic
challenges. Therefore, several projects under development are now
looking at these structures as the preferred solution facing the arctic
areas.
The construction of concrete GBS is costly compared to other
structures (steel) and it is important to focus on optimization. The
optimization must however not compromise the levels of safety
described by the governing codes.

The first sections within this paper presents the state-of-the-art for GBS
geotechnical design. Further, the paper assess a selection of design
exercises which can be performed to optimize the foundation design.
The examples are especially governing for structures on sands.
KEY WORDS: Gravity Based Structure; soil drain filter; offshore
geotechnical design, optimization; foundation; on-bottom stability;
Scour protection
INTRODUCTION
A substantial literature has been published on the subject of GBS
geotechnical engineering. Both geotechnical design and large scale
observations have been addressed. Clausen et.al (1976) reported the
observed behavior of the Ekofisk tank which was installed in 1973.
Further, several publications summarize GBS geotechnical design and
observed behavior of the structures. Janbu et.al (1976) presented
effective stress stability analysis for gravity structures in 1976. Eide
and Andersen presented state of the art in GBS geotechnical
engineering in 1984, presenting the most recent developments at that
time. The developments in the geotechnical design for such structures
are also presented by Randolph et.al (2005) among others.

Concrete Gravity Based Structures (GBS) have been used widely in the
oil and gas industry since the early development of the Norwegian
sector in the North Sea. The first concrete GBS was the Ekofisk Tank,
installed in 1973. The structures serve as both production and storage
units. A total of approximately 50 structures have been constructed and
installed worldwide. Concrete GBS structures are however in many
cases found to be expensive compared to other concepts, such as steel
jackets and subsea solutions tied in to floating units. Therefore, in the
recent years, the planned field-developments by use of concrete gravity
based structures have been limited to arctic areas.
Most of the Research and Development (R&D) took place during the
early evolution of these structures (70-ties and 80-ties). However, as
projects are proceeding using these structures, there is still development
going on. Recent field developments using concrete Gravity Based
Structures are the Sakhalin II platforms (Lun-A and Pa-B) installed
2006, The Adriatic terminal installed 2008, Sakhalin I (Arkutun Dagi)
installed 2012, and under construction; the Hebron GBS.
Some of the topics related to stability of offshore structures were
outlined in Panel discussions of Technical Session 2e at Osaka
International Conference in 2005 (Athanasiu, 2005).

772
Optimization of design is an important issue in the development of
competitive concepts. Different variables may be investigated to find
the preferred solutions. Wallis et.al. (1999) discuss the issue of
optimization. The paper presents the design innovative for the entire
project process adopted for the Wandoo Concrete Gravity Substructure.
Humpheson (1999) presented the geotechnical aspects of the Wandoo
GBS.
The first sections within this paper summarizes the state-of-the-art for
GBS geotechnical design. GBS construction methodology and GBS
general geotechnical design are discussed. The last section assess a
selection of geotechnical optimization-exercises which can be done in a
GBS project. In addition, examples from in-service structures are
provided. Examples presented herein consider optimization in terms of:
skirts, underbase grouting (omitting grouting) and scour protection.
These are all elements of the design which contribute to the total cost
and optimization of these items might lead to significant savings.
Figure 1. Sakhalin II GBS inclined installation.
GBS CONSTRUCTION
Concrete Gravity Based Structures are constructed in a dry dock
prepared for the massive structure to be erected. There are several
elements which need to be evaluated in order to ensure that the
construction site meets the requirements dictated by the execution
method: Dry dock base elevation (GBS Draft requirement), dock-base
area, GBS foundation skirt depth (trenches in the dock base, or elevated
skirts in the dock?), bearing capacity in dock, drainage systems in the
dock base, dock base material parameters if GBS is casted directly on
the dock base. The dry dock needs to be water tight to prevent water
ingress into the dock. Sheet piling to reasonable depths, section-wise
slurry cut-off walls, or simply use of low permeable in-situ materials
are all alternatives which can be used to establish a water sealing. The
dock gate is also a challenge, as this element needs to be removed prior
to tow-out. Different dock-gate designs have been adopted; sheet piles
in gravel, impermeable slurry wall in sand and removable concrete
walls. The GBS construction work can either be fulfilled in the dry
dock, or the structure can be towed to a deep-water site where the
construction is completed. The Sakhalin II and Sakhalin I platforms
were both completed in dry dock, whereas larger structures, such as the
Hebron GBS, will be completed afloat at a deep-water site. The Hebron
GBS construction sequences are illustrated in figure 2. The structure
geometry (necessary draft), the dry dock facilities and the topsides
installation methodology chosen for the project determines if there is a
773
requirement for a deep-water site.
Figure 2. Hebron GBS construction sequences (www.kkc-gbs.com)
GBS Construction Tow out to Deep GBS construction Ready for mating
in dry dock Water Site (DWS) at DWS
GBS GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
The geotechnical design checks will in many cases involve and in some
instances also control the following items:
- Minimum required on-bottom weight
- Necessary foundation base area
- Skirt depth and skirt lay-out
- Under base grouting
- Soil drain filters
Further, the geotechnical design shall address the following topics:
- soil parameters interpretation, including assessment of cyclic
strength and excess pore water pressures
- On-bottom stability for all design conditions
- Soil reactions – input to civil design
- Soil drain filter design
- Settlements and deformations
- Installation requirements (evacuation systems, assessment of
lowering velocity prior to skirt touch, need for dowels)
- Dynamic stiffness
- Seismic design
- Scour protection
The design must also consider construction and constructability
matters, and meet the requirements from the interfacing disciplines.
This section gives a brief introduction to aspects related to design loads
and loads characteristics, as well as introducing geotechnical design
checks related to the optimization exercises presented in the following.
Design Loads
The Governing design loads will depend on the site specific conditions.
The self-weight of the structure, including minimum and maximum
weights, shall be combined with different environmental load
conditions. A 100-year wave load might be critical for the on-bottom
stability at one particular site, whereas ice loads (packed ice around the
structure) might be the governing condition for arctic sites. Cyclic 2-
way short term loading is characteristic for the wave loading, whereas
ice-loading will in many cases be applied as a 1-way or a static force
component. The load characteristics must be well understood before
being implemented in the design.
Typically, for a North Sea platform, the 100-year storm (wave loading)
will be the critical condition for the on-bottom stability in the
operational phase. During the temporary installation phase, the return
period may be reduced if a progressive collapse in the structure does
not entail a substantial risk (ISO 19903). The resulting mudline loads
(overturning moment (OTM), horizontal force and vertical force as
indicated in figure 4), including appropriate load factors (defined by the
design codes) will be applied in the on-bottom stability calculations.
The foundation base area, skirt design and on-bottom weight, together
with the soil parameters determines the structure ability to resist the
combined action of all simultaneous loads.
Soil Investigations
The soil investigations are typically divided into two or more
campaigns. The first campaign is normally an early phase
reconnaissance survey. The following investigation campaigns are
planned based on information obtained from the first campaign, and
when the global design is more developed. Offshore soil investigations
and laboratory testing are thoroughly presented in the literature, for
example by Andersen et.al. (2012), Randolph & Gourvenec (2011) and
also in ISO 19901-8 and DNV 30.4.
Early phase soil investigations typically constitute geophysical and
bathymetry survey and seabed inspection. Depending on the purpose of
the early phase investigations, additional testing may be performed
such as in-situ soil testing (Cone Penetration Testing, CPT) either by
light equipment penetrating to limited depths, or by more solid
equipment, penetrating to larger depths. Sampling by use of light
equipment may be performed in an early phase. This will typically be
executed by use of vibrocore or grab sampler. Sampling by use of
heavier equipment belongs to the more detailed investigation campaign.
Offshore laboratory testing is performed onboard the vessel during the
campaign, whereas onshore laboratory testing is performed later.
Essentially, the soil investigations and laboratory testing methods shall
reflect the actual structure planned for in terms of geometry, weight and
loading size and characteristics. Some important parameters to consider
are;
- number and positioning of boreholes
- soil layering identification and adequate testing of each layer
- consolidation pressures in the testing apparatus to match the
in-situ overburden together with the structural weight
- the size and characteristics of the load acting on the structure
in operational conditions
If a non-grouted foundation shall be considered, the accuracy of the
bathymetry map will be of great importance. It is worthwhile to notice
that this will play an important role in the assessment of local stresses
against the GBS base due to seabed unevenness. The achievable
accuracy of the bathymetric maps is dependent on the equipment being
used and the waterdepth. Multibeam Echosounders (MBE) are used to
perform the bathymetry mapping for the offshore site. The MBE can
either be fixed to the vessel, or if higher accuracy is required, the
survey can be accomplished by the use of Remotely Operated Vessels
(ROV) or Autonomous Underwater Vessels (AUV). Post processing of
the acquired data concerning tides and vessel motions etc. improves the
data quality.
Soil Parameters
As this paper focuses on structures on sand, it is emphasized that the
strength parameters of the upper sand layers are of special importance.
For these cases, shallow failure mechanisms are often governing (for
instance, Wandoo, Sakhalin II). Soil parameters with depth must
obviously also be defined for a complete on-bottom stability analysis
including deep seated failure modes. Cyclic Undrained Direct Simple
and effective vertical pressure cy/v’ can be used to produce
Shear testing (DSScy) at different ratios between horizontal cyclic shear
porepressure contour diagrams. The design storm is applied in the
porepressure diagram according to the methodology suggested by
Andersen et.al. (1994) and Hamre et.al. (2005). The derivation of cyclic
strength in sand during a storm also depends on the consolidation
parameters of the sand. The permeability and stiffness parameters of
the sand material are therefore important to assess by reliable
laboratory testing. Triaxial testing in compression and tension shall also
774
be performed with the purpose of defining the complete set of strength
parameters to be used for the failure surface as illustrated in figure 4.
The effect of sample preparation is of most importance. Since
undisturbed samples of sand are difficult to achieve the in-situ relative
density is most commonly derived by CPT tests. Samples prepared by
wet-tamping and pre-shearing have shown to provide the most equal
results comparing with undisturbed “in-situ” samples. This is true for
materials with a low content of fines (Andersen, 2007). For sand
materials, the wet-tamping together with pre-shearing will in most
cases result in a compaction of the sand (increase in relative density Dr)
and thereby improve the cyclic strength of the sand. According to
Andersen (2007) samples should be pre-sheared if the soil is subjected
corresponding to 400 cycles at a stress ratio corresponding to cy/v’ =
to drained preshearing prior to the main design event. A pre-shearing
0.04 is typically used for large offshore gravity platforms (Andersen,
2007).
The effect of cyclically induced pore pressures in sandy materials may
be reduced by installation of soil drains in the base slab. This is further
discussed in the following.
On-Bottom Stability
The geotechnical on-bottom stability analysis comprises the foundation
geometry, the structural weights, and the site specific loads. Typical
concrete GBS geometries and sizing can be found in Eide and
Andersen (1984) and Randolph et.al (2005). The publications present
tables showing as-built foundation areas, submerged weights, water
depths, skirts details and more. Several GBS structures have been
installed after the publication by Eide and Andersen. Detailed
information for the Hibernia GBS and Wandoo can be found in Ugaz
et.al. (1997) and Humpheson (1998).
The Hebron GBS is the most recent structure of its kind, and will soon
be installed offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. This particular
structure contains seven storage cells, and 52 well slots penetrating
through the foundation base. The structure is under construction and
holds the following key-numbers:
GBS foundation diameter: ≈ 130 m*
Water depth: 93 m*
Topsides weight: ≈ 65 000 tonnes*
*www.hebronproject.com
Figure 3. The Hebron GBS (Kvaerner.com).
The critical failure modes are preferably found by use of Finite Element
Method (FEM), searching for the weakest failure surface. Depending
on the position of the soil element along the sliding surface, the
mobilized shear strength to be used in analysis must account for
strength anisotropy (different strength in compression, direct or
extension condition as illustrated in figure 4).
The bearing capacity must be verified by Analyses. This is usually
performed by limiting equilibrium control between driving and
resisting forces. During storm loading the GBS foundation base will
transfer cyclic loads to the soils below the structure. This will in turn
lead to a cyclic degradation of the soil strength. Cyclic strength in soils
has been discussed in Andersen (1994), (2004) and (2007). Hamre et.al.
(2005) presents a calculation procedure to predict cyclic strength in
sandy materials, accounting for simultaneous building up and drainage
of pore pressures during the storm loading. The reduced strength is
used in the on-bottom stability analyses. Figures 4 and 5 present typical
critical failure surfaces for GBS structures. Figure 4 shows a combined
failure mode consisting of a shallow failure in the eccentricity zone and
a deep seated mechanism at the toe of the foundation. Figure 5 shows a
potential failure mechanism for a foundation base including skirts in the
eccentricity zone of a GBS subjected to moment loading, or for the
pure horizontal sliding case.
Figure 4. GBS on-bottom stability, illustration of a combined failure
mode.
Figure 5. Failure mode in the eccentricity zone for a short skirt case.
Soil Reactions for Civil Design
The structure needs to be designed for a selection of design cases,
whereas the soil reactions on the foundation base are an important
input. The soil reactions are not necessarily limited to impact the
775
foundation base design, but might also affect other areas of the concrete
design.
Several Unit Load Cases (ULC) may be combined to various load
combinations by load matrixes. These matrixes are thereby used as
input to the structural analysis.
Figure 6 presents a simple illustration of a load combination input to
concrete design. The figure illustrates the uniform soil stress due to
structural self-weight (ULC 1), combined with a linearly distributed
moment load (OTM)) caused by wave forces (ULC 2). The system
defined by unit load cases allows for numerous load combinations
describing the definite design condition in question. Local contact
stresses, scour effects (loss of contact areas), stress increase along the
platform periphery, drilling effects etc. may be modelled using this
system.
Figure 6. Load combination example for base slab design.
Scour Assessment
Scour is erosion of sediments around a structure, and accordingly
requires an imbalance in sediment transport. Scour might as a worst
case scenario remove seabed materials from the soil below the
structure, and thereby undermine parts of the foundation structure.
Scour predictions in the design phase are therefore of great importance
in a GBS design process.
Tidal current, wave-induced currents, and combinations of wind and
wave induced currents must be considered when evaluating the scour
potential around a structure. The basis for scour predictions is to a large
degree based on empirical formulations. It is difficult to predict
accurate scour depths around a structure, and model tests for structures
on sand are in some cases unreliable due to scaling effects (grain size).
There is a minimum grain size limit to avoid cohesive behavior.
Theoretical framework for scour predictions are presented by Hofman
and Verheij (1997), Khalfin (1983) and more.
Gravity based structures on sand are in some cases subjected to scour,
especially around corners and edges of the structure where the seabed
current is amplified. Circular shaped structures seem to be favorable
when considering scour on marine structures. This is demonstrated by
the TP1 and TCP2 case (Eide and Andersen 1984). The conclusion is
plausible as the amplification of the water velocity will be less
pronounced around a circular shaped structure.
Scour protection around large GBS structures traditionally consists of
gravel/rock carpets placed around the periphery of the structure.
Purpose-fit Fall Pipe Vessels (FPV) are used to install scour protection.
Inclined fall pipes allows for placing of gravel and crushed rock
aggregates close to the structure. Alternative scour protection systems
available on the market are: Concrete block mattresses, rubber mats,
gravel bags, frond matts and collars (for monopoles).
The installation of scour protection is nevertheless an expensive
operation. Fjeld and Røland (1982) states the following: “Scouring is in
many cases difficult to predict. The cost of installation of a scour
protection in order to eliminate any theoretical risk will be high”.
GBS GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
The optimization of the structure shall not compromise the general code
requirements defined for the actual structure. Optimization shall rather
be a joint effort between the disciplines to search for optimum
solutions. Cost drivers will be identified, and cost-benefit evaluations
can be done. Based on experience in recent projects, the following
items are suggested within this paper:
1) Evaluate possibility for non-grouted base
2) Evaluate possibility for skirts optimization
3) Evaluate Possibility for omitting scour protection
Optimization of these items might lead to significant cost reductions
and acceleration of the project schedule. The items above are further
discussed in the following.
Non Grouted Option
The cost reduction obtained by avoiding grout below the base might be
significant. This relates to several matters: systems design, construction
complexity, materials and the offshore grouting operation itself (being
the major contributor). Foundation under-base grouting is commonly
performed in order to: 1) avoid further penetration and to keep the
platform vertical 2) ensure uniform stresses against the foundation slab
and avoid unintended overstressing of structural elements during
continued ballasting and environmental loading 3) prevent piping from
water pockets below the base during environmental loading (Eide and
Andersen, 1984). Certain boundary conditions must therefore be in
place if grouting shall be omitted.
A foundation base installed directly on the seabed will be subjected to
local stresses caused by the seabed bathymetry (unevenness).
Therefore, detailed assessments of the bathymetry and soil layering
must be performed, followed by calculations of stresses caused by the
local seabed unevenness. Eide et.al (1981) presents contact stresses
measured below GBS foundations (domes) in the North Sea. Kvalstad
and Dahlberg (1979) proposed a semi-empirical analysis method for
assessment of contact stresses versus penetration of a dome. This
methodology can also be used to assess the local contact stresses on a
flat slab, caused by seabed unevenness. The inclination of the local
unevenness determines if the problem can be solved by an elastic or a
plastic approximation. The theoretical background and formulas are
presented in the reference (Kvalstad and Dahlberg).
FEM analyses have also been used in recent projects to assess local
stresses against the base slab. The ANSYS software allows for a “true”
modelling of the structure, on the seabed bathymetry defined by the xyz
bathymetry file. Development of the contact area between the
foundation base slab and the seabed is modelled by use of contact
elements in the model. This analysis can thereby simulate the
installation phase from the first touch between base slab and seabed
776
until complete installation weight of the structure has been applied.
This methodology also includes the soil-structure interaction, which
thereby accounts for the base slab flexibility. The model accordingly
excludes the uncertainty related to the rigidity-factor proposed by
Kvalstad and Dahlberg. Figure 7 a presents an example of a GBS
modelled by use of ANSYS. The foundation base in the example is flat.
Figure 7 b presents the resulting stress intensities acting against the
foundation slab. The stress-pattern is caused by the bathymetry input
file, the soil parameters and the structural stiffness. The resulting
stresses are included in the load combination matrix used by the
structural designers.
Figure 7. FEM model showing a GBS model and a resulting stress plot.
a. b.
Due conservatism must be taken when applying this method: the
accuracy of the bathymetry map must be cautiously evaluated, and the
local conditions in terms of mobility of the seabed materials must be
regarded.
- The time period and likelihood for soil transport during the
period of bathymetry survey and structure installation must
be evaluated.
- The slab should be designed to account for the largest soil
heap assumed to be present at any arbitrary location across
the foundation footprint.
- The measurements reported by Eide et.al (1981) indicates
that the local stress concentrations do not seem to decrease
with time (no redistribution of stresses). This is worthwhile to
notice. There is apparently negligible stress redistribution
during the lifetime. The local stress concentrations must
therefore be regarded present through the design-life of the
structure.
According to Eide and Andersen (1984), piping from water pockets
below the base during environmental loading might also be a risk
element. By detailed studies of the bathymetry map, simulating
stepwise installation of the GBS, one might establish a good basis for
evaluation of this risk.
Several structures have been installed without underbase grouting such
as; The Ekofisk Tank, the Sakhalin II platforms, Adriatic LNG tank and
the Frigg CDP1.
Skirts Optimization
Historically, the GBS structures comprise skirts by varying dimensions.
The purpose of the skirts are:
1) Transfer the loads deeper where the soil is stronger
2) Provide closed compartments to facilitate grouting of open
spaces beneath the base after installation
3) Provide scour protection for the platform base, especially on
sand.
  cy
These features are also brought forward by Lunne and Kvalstad (1982).

Qhorizontal   rbase  qv  Abase

v '
The optimum skirt depth is determined by evaluating the combination (1)
of foundation base area, skirt depth, and on-bottom weight. For some
projects, deep skirts will be desirable (Gullfaks C, Tjelta et.al. 1990),
whereas for other projects short skirts will be the preferred solution
fcy/v’
Qhorizontal ult =Horizontal foundation capacity
(Sakhalin II (Hamre et.al.2005)).
= Cyclic shear strength in sand normalized with
respect to effective vertical effective pressure
With regards to constructability, shorter skirts will in most cases be
rbase =Interface roughness between underside of
desirable. This relates to: Requirement for trenches in dock or elevated
foundation base and top seabed
slab calling for significant dock works and loss of draft during towing
qv =Vertical pressure acting on the seabed
out of dock. The skirt compartments are filled with air if the length
Abase =Foundation base area
exceeds certain limits, this balance some of the loss of draft out of
dock.
In order to ensure a satisfactory roughness between the base-slab and
the seabed material, the GBS foundation base can be casted directly on
Before it can be decided to design for short skirts, the items 1-3 must be
a sufficiently coarse aggregate bed in the dry dock. This methodology
addressed and concluded. (Item 2 is necessary only if grouting below
has been used for several Concrete GBS projects, Hebron GBS being
the base is required, and is therefore not mentioned in the following).
the most recent. The actual value of rbase can be assessed by laboratory
tests.
Item 1, requirement of load transfer to deeper soil layers
If short skirts shall be allowed for, the soil must hold satisfactory
The development of cyclic induced porepressures in the sand layers
strength propertied from the very top of the seabed and downwards. For
will reduce the strength in the sand materials. Hamre et.al. (2005)
a pure horizontal sliding case, the failure mechanism will develop in the
presents a methodology to assess the transient porepressure in the sand
interface between the base-slab and the seabed when the skirts are
below the Sakhalin II GBS during a storm. The methodology presented
short. This will also be true in the eccentricity zone for load cases
by Hamre et.al (2005) uses a design storm governing for the structure
including large overturning moments. For these cases, a combination of
and a procedure described by Andersen et.al. (1994) to establish the
shallow and a deep-seated failure surface is more likely to occur. This
undrained porepressure build-up. The porepressure time-dependency
is illustrated in figure 4.
during the storm was calculated in a transient analysis using a finite
difference program where the drainage conditions and dissipation were
Figure 5 illustrates a potential horizontal sliding failure for a foundation
included. In order to increase the degree of consolidation during a
with short skirts on dense sand. This surface is typically located in the
storm and thereby reduce the cyclically induced porepressures, soil
eccentricity zone below a structure subjected to vertical (weight),
drains are included in the Sakhalin II foundation design. Soil drains can
overturning, and horizontal loading. For such failure mechanisms, it is
also be used to speed up the drainage of excess pore pressures caused
obvious that the strength parameters in the upper soil layers will be of
by the installation weight, and thereby increase the rate of consolidation
great importance.
(Gullfaks C, Adriatic LNG). The soil drains are installed as an
integrated part of the foundation base, fluctuating with the underside of
The strength parameters in the top sand layers may be determined by
the base slab.
use of combinations of several investigation methods, correlations and
laboratory results. The CPT interpretation methodology suggested by
The soil drain filter material may typically consist of a sand-epoxy
Jamiolkowski et.al. (2003) is commonly used for derivation of relative
composite material, casted in a steel frame, holding a proper
density and friction angle in sand from CPT results. This methodology
permeability to ensure satisfactory drainage. Comprehensive testing of
is nevertheless unreliable for the upper layers, due to the low
the filters must be performed to document the efficiency of the filters
overburden pressure. Emerson et.al. (2008) suggested a global model
and the robustness to resist penetration forces and soil pressures. If the
capable of describing the complete CPT profile from shallow to greater
operation of the filters relies on drainage driven by excessed pore
depth. Relative density and effective friction angle can thus be
pressures in the soil below the foundation, the design must account for
accurately determined from shallow CPT profiles. Nevertheless, there
a back-pressure to drive the produced water through the soil drain
are certain parameters which need to be thoroughly evaluated when
system. Soil drain systems can also be designed by use of artificial
applying the Emerson interpretation. The coefficient of earth pressure,
suction. The soil drain system installed in the Gullfaks C platform was
K, which is a function of the over-consolidation ratio and the angle of
designed with suction during the first months after installation (Tjelta
dilatancy of the sand, is an important input parameter to the model.
et.al. 1990). In this case the soil drain system consisted of 800 single
filters, and a total filter area of 1600 m2. The Gullfaks C case
Detailed evaluations of the CPT data in the upper layers, grab samples
documents interesting and significant effect of the soil drain filters: A)
from the upper layer, laboratory test results (Direct Simple Shear etc.),
Drainage of excessed porepressures B) Increase in long-term skirt tip
information with regards to sampling equipment is important when
resistance and skirt wall friction capacity C) Acceleration of
evaluating the adequacy of the sand samples being tested and the
consolidation settlements.
resulting strength properties to be used for geotechnical design.
Samples obtained by Grab sampling might for instance have
Soil drains can also be used if the GBS foundation base includes under-
experienced washing out of fines during the sampling process. Pictures
base grouting. The drains can then be installed in casings penetrating
and videos of the seabed and samples are also of interest if available.
into the original seabed to protect the filters from clogging due to
intrusion of grout.
An interface roughness between the foundation base underside and the
seabed material below 1.0 will reduce the capacity towards horizontal
The use of soil drain filters can improve the soil parameters for design
sliding (compared to the sand-sand interface). The correlation is
significantly both in top layers, and deeper layers if the skirts are deep.
presented in equation (1).
During the early design phases there is typically a compromise between

777
necessary on-bottom weight, foundation base area and skirt depth. The
implementation of soil drain filters can improve the soil parameters for
design and thereby reduce the necessary foundation base area, skirt
depth and on-bottom weight. These are all global design parameters
with a potential major impact on cost and schedule.
Item 3, requirement for skirts as scour protection
Increasing the skirt length to a certain depth below the calculated scour
depth might be a solution to avoid installation of scour protection
around a marine structure. The decision to use longer skirts to mitigate
scour or alternatively to install scour protection (gravel and rock)
around the structure must be based on an overall cost – benefit
evaluation.
evaluation and scour protection installation (scour management plan) is
also presented by Whithouse et.al. (2011).
It is emphasized that the basis for the scour evaluations must be made
on a reliable basis. This means: experience from neighbor structures,
model testing or other representative data must be available for a
diligent evaluation. If the design process concludes that scour
protection installation at the time of installation can be omitted, the
resulting cost reduction might be significant.
Figure 8. Scour Protection - decision matrix.

Lacasse et.al (1991) reported the CDP1 case study from the North Sea.
One of the conclusive remarks in the study is the necessity of skirts on
gravity based structures installed on sand, as a preventive measure to
ensure hydraulic stability. It should be noted that CDP1 is a special
case where scour was induced by differential water pressures below the
slab. These differential pressures initiated the “pumping” of seabed
materials from inside the foundation structure.

Several structures have been installed with short skirts or no skirts;

Ekofisk Tank on fine sand: 0.4m concrete ribs (both internal ribs and
along the periphery) (Eide and Andersen 1984), Wandoo GBS on fine
sand: 0.3m concrete ribs (external only) (Humpheson 1998), Sakhalin
II (LUN-A, PA-B): No skirts or ribs (Hamre 2005). Scour protection
was installed around the structures after installation.

Scour Protection Evaluation

There is limited public information regarding scour observations
around large GBS structures on sand. Scour around the F3 GBS has
been reported by Bos et.al. (2002). The F3 platform was installed at
43m waterdepth in the Dutch sector of the North Sea in 1992. Scour of
up to 2.5 – 3.5m was observed. Fjeld and Røland (1982) reports only
one case where further scour protection had to be installed after
installation. Nevertheless, scour protection was placed around most of
the structures installed on sand evaluated by Fjeld and Røland. The
scour observations need to be evaluated and coupled to real-time
environmental (seabed current) observations. The theoretical scour
prediction framework can thereafter be calibrated to match the
observed field data and further be used to predict scour in the design of
comparable structures. The main parameters which need to be regarded
to ensure validity of the scour prediction models are: Structural
geometry (width, shape, water depth, skirts), environmental conditions
(current history), seabed material (grain size).

The scour analysis conclude whether scour protection is required or

CONCLUSIONS
not. The evaluation should assess the probability of scour exceeding
The total cost of a concrete GBS is relatively large compared to steel
beneath the skirt tip level. A short skirts option will therefore ideally be
structures. The robustness and adequacy of the structures, especially
decided after concluding if skirts shall be used as scour protection.
when going into arctic areas, is nevertheless a substantial argument
when making conceptual decisions. The global GBS design is
In order to evaluate if scour protection shall be installed at the time of
performed based on the project requirements; storage capacity,
installation or not, the decision matrix presented in figure 8 can be
environmental conditions, drilling operation and requirements, topside
helpful. The reader must be aware that this might be a thorough
geometry and weight and so on. The geotechnical design shall
process, as collection of experience data, calibration of models and
nevertheless verify or decide the following global parameters:
establishment of hindcast models might not be straight forward. The
- On-bottom weight
criticality of a potential scour might be addressed by including the
- Foundation area
calculated maximum scour in the on-bottom stability models, and
- Skirt depth and layout
thereby evaluate the calculation results. A decision whether or not to
install scour protection at the time of installation might be based on the
Further, the geotechnical design also decides:
resulting stability safety margin. A comparable approach to scour
- Grouting or no grouting
- Requirement for scour protection

778
Optimization of the foundation structure with respect to: skirts,
grouting and scour protection have been discussed within this paper.
Significant cost savings can be achieved by evaluating these items. The
exercises presented in the paper are based on proven design and field
experience. The cost reductions are related to a broad spectrum:
material cost, installation (construction work), draft in dock, air system
in skirt compartments, grout system, offshore grouting operation,
offshore scour protection installation. Omitting these items will also
have a positive impact on the project schedule.
On the other side, the structure will need to be designed for additional
soil reactions due to the uneven seabed. This might call for additional
rebar density and a thicker base slab. If installation of scour protection
is omitted at time of installation, a detailed inspection plan must be
followed through the lifetime of the structure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The acceptance provided by ExxonMobil to present the herein given
information from the Hebron project is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Andersen, KH (2007). "Bearing Capacity under Cyclic Loading –
Offshore, along the Coast, and on Land" Bjerrums Lecture no. 21,
Norsk Geoteknisk Forening
Andersen, KH (2004). "Cyclic clay data for foundation design of
structures subjected to wave loading" Keynote lecture, Proc
International conference on cyclic behavior of soils and liquefaction
phenomena, CBS04, Bochum Germany, 371-387.
Andersen, KH, Allard, MH, Hermstad, J (1994). "Centrifuge model tests
of a gravity platform on very dense sand. II Interpretation." Proc
Seventh International Conference on the Behavior of Offshore
Structures, BOSS'94. MIOT. Also published in Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute (NGI) Publication No.191 (1994)
Andersen, KH, Lunne, T, Kvalstad, TJ, Forsberg, CF, (2012). "Deep
Water Geotechnical Engineering" Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
Publication No.208
Athanasiu C, (2005). "Stability of offshore foundations" Panel discussion
Technical Session 2e ICSMGE Osaka Multiconsult AS
Bos, KJ, Chen, Z, Verheij, H, Onderwater, M, Visser, M (2002a), (2002).
"Local Scour and Protection of F3 Offshore GBS Platform" OMAE
conference, Oslo
Clausen, CJF, DiBiagio, E, Andersen, KH, Duncan, JM (1976).
"Observed Behavior of the Ekofisk Oil Storage-Tank Foundation"
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 329-336
Det Norske Veritas Classification Notes 30.4 Foundations (1992)
Eide, O, Andersen, KH, (1984). "Foundation Engineering for Gravity
Structures in the Northern North Sea" NGI Publication no.154
Eide, O, Andersen, KH, Lunne, T, (1981). "Observed Behavior of
Concrete Gravity Platforms installed in the North Sea 1973-1978"
Applied Ocean Research Vol.3, No.3, 134-144.
Emerson, M, Foray, P, Puech, A, Palix, E, (2008) "A global model for
accurately interpreting CPT data in sands from shallow to greater
depth" Proc 3rd International Conference of Site Characterization
(ISC’3), Taipei, Taiwan, 687-694.
779
Fjeld, S, Røland, B, (1982). "In-Service Experience With Eleven
Offshore Concrete Structures" Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, USA, OTC 4358, 687-693.
Hamre, L, Bye, A, Søreide, OK, Athanasiu, C, (2005). "Study of transient
porepressure due to cyclic loads to optimize the foundation concept for
Sakhalin Platforms" Proc 16th ICSMGE, Osaka, vol 3, session 2e
Hofman, GJCM, Verheij, HJ (1997) Scour Manual, CRC press; 1st
edition, ISBN-13: 978-9054106739
Humpheson, C, (1998). "Foundation design of Wandoo B concrete
gravity structure" Offshore site investigation and Foundation Behavior,
Soc. For Underwater Technology, 353-382.
ISO 19901-8:2014 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Specific
requirements for offshore structures – Part 8: Marine soil investigations
ISO 19903:2006 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Fixed concrete
offshore structures
Jamiolkowski, M, et al. (2003). "Evaluation of relative density and shear
strength of sands from CPT and DMT" Soil Behaviour and Soft
Ground Construction, Geotechnical special publication no. 119: 201–
238.
Janbu, N, Grande, L, and Eggereidet, K, (1976), "Effective stress stability
analysis for gravity structures" Proc from Conference on the Behavior
of Offshore Structures, Trondheim, Vol 1. , 449-466.
Khalfin, ISH, (1983). "Local scour around ice-resistant structures caused
by waves and current effect" P.O.A.C symposium 28, Helsinki, Vol.2
pp.992-1002
Kvalstad, TJ, Dahlberg, R, (1979). "Soil reaction stresses on the base
structure of gravity platforms during installation" VI ECSMFE , vol.3,
225-230.
Lacasse, S, Goulois, A, Robberstad, L, Andersen, E, Boisard, P, (1991).
"The Foundation of the Frigg CDP1 Gravity Platform: A Case Study",
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, OTC 6512,
125-131.
Lunne, T, Kvalstad, T, (1982). "Analysis of full scale measurements on
gravity platforms: Final report. Foundation Performance During
Installation and Operation of North Sea Concrete Gravity Platforms."
NGI and DNV, Oslo
Randolph, M, Cassidy, M, Gourvenec, S, (2005). "Challenges of
Offshore Geotechnical Engineering" Proc XVI ICSMGE Osaka, 123-
176
Randolph, M, Gourvenec, S, (2011). "Offshore Geotechnical
Engineering" Spon Press ISBN 0-203-88909-6
Tjelta, TI, Aas, PM, Hermstad, J (1990). "The Skirt Piled Gullfaks C
Platform Installation" Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, USA, OTC 6473, 453-462.
Ugaz, OG, Nowacki, F, Harvik, L, (1997). "Foundation Analysis of the
Hibernia GBS" Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
USA, OTC 8403, 447-454.
Wallis, R, Jackson, G, (1999). "Wandoo Concrete Gravity Substructure –
Economy Through Design" Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, USA, OTC 11023
Waters, LB, Mueler, CV, Hellen, PC, Hurst, GL (2007). "Design and
Construction of Gravity Based Structure and Modularized LNG tanks
for the Adriatic LNG Terminal" ExxonMobil Development Company
Paper PS6-7
Whitehouse RJS, Sutherland J, Harris, JM, (2011). "Evaluating scour at
marine gravity foundations" Maritime Engineering, Volume 164, Issue
MA4, December 2011, 143-157