OTC 19645

Time Domain FE Seismic Analysis of Mat-Supported Jack-Up Structure on

Soft Clay
J. S. Templeton, III, SAGE USA, Inc.

Copyright 2008, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents the methods and results of nonlinear of 3-D finite element analysis of the response of the Maleo
Producer Mobile Offshore Production Unit to earthquake loading conditions. The analysis performed combined the
determination local site response, the soil –structure interaction and the structural dynamic response to earthquake loading all
in a single analysis. This advanced approach was motivated by the need to eliminate unwanted excess conservatism from the
determination of response to severe earthquake loading conditions on a soft clay site.

The product of the analyses reported in this paper produced fundamentally based predictions of dynamic response of the
subject structure to substantial earthquake loading conditions. The results obtained included sufficient response details to
enable acceptable assessments of foundation and structural performance for the design earthquake conditions. The nonlinear
dynamic analyses of this study produced results for the platform performance which were more realistic than those
previously produced via more conventional analysis techniques. This resulted in the elimination of substantial amounts of
unacceptable excess conservatism, and paved the way for certification of the structure.

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first complete, combined, finite element analysis of site response, soil-structure
interaction and structural dynamic response to earthquake loading yet published, not only for a mobile offshore production
unit but indeed for an offshore structure of any kind. The demonstrated capability to perform this kind of analysis has the
potential to revolutionize practices for the analysis of offshore structure response to earthquake loading.

Introduction
The Maleo Producer is a Bethlehem 250 mat supported jack-up unit that has been located offshore of Madura Island and
converted to serve as a gas production facilities platform. (See Figure 1.) The site has generally soft clay soils and it is in
region of significant earthquake activity. Previous studies had indicated that nonlinear, time domain analyses would be
required in order to assess properly the dynamic performance of the platform under earthquake loading. This paper presents
the results of 3-D nonlinear finite element analyses of the response of the structure, its foundation and surrounding soils,
which analyses were performed to determine, in combined analyses, the detailed foundation dynamics, overall structural
dynamics, dynamic response of the site soils and the soil-structure interaction.

The work documented in this paper includes: 1.) Application of finite element methods for 3-D nonlinear dynamic analysis of
soil-structure interaction to incorporate a dynamic model of the structure including multidirectional earthquake loading
capability, 2.) Performance of 3-D nonlinear dynamic analysis of soil-structure interaction for the response of the Maleo
Producer platform structure and foundation to multidirectional earthquake loading for Strength Level Events (SLE) and
Ductility Level Events (DLE), 3.) determination of multi-directional platform base motions for use as input motions in
structural dynamics 4.) assessment of the platform foundation’s ability to meet performance requirements for SLE and DLE
earthquakes events.

Work Performed
Using the ABAQUS finite element program, SAGE USA developed 3-D models for the analysis of soil-structure
interaction of the Maleo Producer platform under multi-directional earthquake loading. A full-space (360-degree) model was
2 OTC 19645

developed with a simplified structural model and a 9-layer model of the final Maleo Producer soil profile. (See Figures 2 and
3.) The 360-degree model allowed the incorporation of a structural model that was not symmetric, and it also allowed
analyses with multi-directional shaking, so that all 3 components of earthquake ground motion could be applied
simultaneously.

Figure 1. Maleo Producer Platform

Figure 2. Finite element model, overall view

OTC 19645 3

The model represented a soil region 150 ft deep by approximately ½ mile wide. The depth was selected to be sufficient to
reach firm soil conditions and to be sufficiently below expected variations in upward wave propagation to make the results
relatively insensitive to the precise location of this boundary. The model width was selected to be sufficient to ensure one-
dimensional response conditions at the far side boundaries, and it was also, further established to be great enough for
reflected waves traveling from the structure to be sufficiently diminished by the combination of travel time, travel distance
and “R2” loss that their effects would be negligible. The adequacy of the dimension in these respects was verified by
comparing the mudline motion at the free-field boundary to that determined from 1-D analysis.

Figure 3. Finite element model, zoomed view in vicinity of structure

The modeled soil profile included revised soil stratigraphy and soil properties based on the final geotechnical field and
laboratory data for the Maleo Producer site. The simplified dynamic model of the structure was provided by MMI
Engineering through Stewart Technology Associates. The stiffness, mass and damping characteristics of the structure were
specifically included in this model. The Maleo Producer platform structure has a rectangular base with skirts that penetrate 2
ft into the foundation soil. The simplified structure model was mated to the continuum element foundation model at the
embedded surface of the mat rectangular base. The stiffness of the skirts was modeled via rigid constraints that tied the skirt
tip nodes to the mat.

Throughout the modeled soil region ABAQUS first order hexahedral continuum elements with standard (selectively reduced)
integration were used. Of all available element types, these elements provide the most accurate results for plasticity solutions
with nearly incompressible material behavior.

The soil conditions were established through consultation with GEMS. Specific material parameters required for the model
were developed using data for interpreted soil strength, maximum modulus, density and minimum damping specified by
GEMS. Table 1 gives the soil parameters used to set soil behavior model parameters in the finite element model.
4 OTC 19645

F. E. soil Unit Damping, shear shear Rigidity Index

Layer unit Penetrations Weight Gmax minimum strength rate effect Gmax strength (Ir = G/Su)
factor for rate adjusted
(below (below 1 log per model fit
layer layer elastic elastic cycle of rate rate to dynamic
no. layer top botom botom mid layer total limit) limit) rate adjusted adjusted test data
ft ft m ft pcf ksf % ksf ksf ksf
1 S-I 0 10.75 3.27744 5.375 83 40 2.0 0.073 1.16 29.83 0.15 200
2 S-I 10.75 21.2 6.46341 15.975 86 87 2.0 0.151 1.17 63.83 0.32 200
3 S-I 21.2 31.6 9.63415 26.4 87 94 2.0 0.228 1.11 76.81 0.38 200
4 S-I 31.6 43.624 13.3 37.612 88 129 2.0 0.311 1.11 105.20 0.53 200
5 S-II 43.624 64.5 19.6646 54.062 99 630 2.5 1.04 1.14 484.90 1.94 250
6 S-II 64.5 87.248 26.6 75.874 101 840 2.5 1.25 1.16 624.67 2.50 250
7 S-III 87.248 99.056 30.2 93.152 100 840 1.8 1.88 1.10 691.45 2.98 231.9
8 S-IVa 99.056 124 37.8049 111.528 98 840 2.0 1.88 1.14 649.60 3.43 189.4
9 S-IVb 124 150.224 45.8 137.112 93 840 2.0 2 1.13 663.11 3.49 190.1
10 S-V 150.224 190.24 58 170.232 93 840 or > 1.6 >2.0
11 S-VI 190.24 206.64 63 198.44 841 or > 1.3 >2.0
12 S-VI 206.64 246 75 226.32 842 or > 1.3 >2.0
13 S-VII 246 334.232 101.9 290.116 843 or > 1.3 >2.0

Table 1. Soil properties

The basic interpreted strength data (appropriate to static tests with durations of 3 to 5 hours) and the basic interpreted
maximum shear modulus data (appropriate to resonant column test frequencies on the order of 100 Hz) were adjusted for rate
effects according to a rate adjusted rigidity index as implied by the fit if the finite element soil behavior model performance
to the dynamic laboratory test data. The rate adjusted parameters as well as the rate adjusted rigidity index are presented in
Table 1, along with the implied rate effect factor in terms of increase per log cycle of rate change.

Undrained total stress behavior was assumed throughout the model. Mass densities for the dynamic analysis were based on
the interpreted total unit weights. Minimum material damping values were taken directly from the interpreted values. Soil
behavior for layer 9 of the model was taken as lightly damped elastic using the interpreted, rate adjusted, shear modulus for
that layer. Layers 1 through 8 were modeled as elastic-plastic kinematic work hardening materials. Normalized parameters
required to set the specific behavior of the model in each major soil unit were established by fitting the dynamic modulus
reduction and damping buildup performance of the model to the dynamic test results.

Figure 4 presents plots of the fit of model performance for modulus reduction and damping buildup to the lab test data for
Unit I. Each of the two plots displays model performance in comparison to lab data from resonant column tests and cyclic
simple shear tests. Curves from published correlations (Vucetic and Dobry) are also shown. Since the model modulus and
damping performance curves are interdependent and governed by the same parameters, they can not be fit independently.
Generally a lowering of the Modulus curve is accompanied by an elevation of the damping curve. The fits shown in Figure 4
were judged to be the best overall compromise achievable for Unit I.

The driving motions for the analyses were imposed at the 150-ft depth. All nodes on the 150 ft boundary were constrained to
have the same motions in each of the 3 directions of independent input earthquake excitation.
The accelerations input to the analyses were based on the Strength Level Event (SLE) and Ductility Level Event (DLE)
records specified for use in this by MMI, derived from the following historical records, spectrally shaped for firm soil
outcrop conditions and scaled for the Maleo Producer site.

• SLE 1, Newhall record

• SLE 2, El Centro record
• SLE 3, Chi Chi record
• DLE 1, Newhall record
• DLE 2, El Centro record
• DLE 3, Chi Chi record
OTC 19645 5

10.6 m

1.2

1
Series1
Series2
RC 10.45m, Stage 1
0.8 RC 11.8 m, Stage 1
CSS 9.46 m ,Stage 1
Normalized Gsec

CSS 9.46 m, Stage 2

CSS 9.46 m, Stage 3
V&D (PI=50)
0.6 V&D (PI=100)
v&d (PI=200)
RC 11.8 m, Stage 2
RC 11.8 m, Stage 3
CSS 10.5 m, Stage 1
CSS 10.5 m, Stage 2
0.4 CSS 10.5 m, Stage 3
CSS 11.6 m, Stage 1
CSS 11.6 m, Stage 2
CSS 11.60 m, Stage 3
CSS 11.60 m, Stage 4
CSS 10.5 m, Stage 4
0.2

0
1.00E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01
Shear Strain, %

10.6 m

70 D
RC 10.45 m
RC 11.8 m, Stage 1
CSS 9.46 m, Stage 1
60
CSS 9.46 m ,Stage 2
CSS 9.46 m ,Stage 3
V&D (PI=50)
50
v&d (PI=100)
V&D (PI=200)
RC 11.8 m, Stage 2
Damping (%)

40 RC 11.8 m, Stage 3
CSS 10.5 m, Stage 1, 0.1 HZ
CSS 10.5 m, Stage 2
30 CSS 10.5 m, Stage 3
CSS 10.5 m, Stage 4
CSS 11.60 m, Stage 1
20 CSS 11.60 m, Stage 2
CSS 11.60 m, Stage 3
CSS 11.60 m, Stage 4

10

0
1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03
Shear Strain (%)

Figure 4. Dynamic modulus and damping plots for Unit I

6 OTC 19645

SHAKE program analyses for a generic firm soil site with the horizontal components of these outcrop motions were used to
derive (deconvolve) corresponding motions at the 150-ft depth. Three directional motion sets consisting of these
deconvolved horizontal components plus the unmodified vertical outcrop motions were applied to the model base for all 3
SLE and DLE record sets.

The deconvolved 150-ft motions were observed to have a deficiency of content for periods in the vicinity of 1 second. To
cover the possibility that this deficiency is unrealistic for the site soil profile, it was seen necessary to perform some analyses
using input base motions without such deficiency. We took a “sledgehammer” approach to this by simply applying all three
components of the firm soil outcrop motions directly to the 150-ft base.

Additionally, in order to demonstrate adequate safety margin in the response to SLE and DLE events, analyses were
performed for 1.5 times the SLE motions and 2.0 times the DLE motions. The factor of 1.5 for the SLE events was selected
to be equal to the required factor of safety for the SLE. The factor of 1.5 for the DLE events was selected because the 5000
year event levels for this site are essentially equal to 2.0 times the (1000-year) DLE levels.
Finally, two severe overload cases were analyzed based DLE 1, one case with the structure masses (masses and inertial forces
only not weight forces) increased by a factor of 10 and one case with 10 times the DLE acceleration levels. The purpose of
these severe overload cases was to demonstrate unacceptable foundation response from the finite element analysis.

In all, 20 nonlinear 3-D dynamic analyses were performed: 3 SLE and 3 DLE cases, 3 SLE and 3 DLE outcrop
“sledgehammer” cases, 3 safety margin cases at 1.5 times SLE levels cases, 3 safety margin cases at 2.0 times DLE levels
cases and 2 severe (x 10) overload cases.

Results
The results of the 3-D nonlinear dynamic analyses of the Maleo Producer platform to earthquake loading including
response of the site soils, the soil-structure interaction and the overall structural response are presented in this section.

The soil and foundation responses to DLE 1 generally exceeded those to DLE 2 and DLE 3. Figures 5, and 6 present for
cases of DLE 1 and DLE 1 times 2, respectively, deformed mesh contour plots of the plastic strains in the soil throughout the
foundation zone and surrounding regions including the plots of the deformed structure configuration. The deformations in
these plots are magnified by a factor of 40, and the soil plastic strains are displayed on a color spectrum scale ranging from
dark blue for strains of 0.01 % or les to dark burgundy for strains of 0.5 % or more. The plots in these figures are the show
the conditions at 9.0 seconds of elapsed time in the events. These plots show clearly the achievement of 1-dimensional
conditions in the far field regions, somewhat greater strains in the foundation zone and both sway and yaw displacements of
the platform deck. Animations of these plots throughout the events have been supplied separately to Stewart Technology
Associates and can be included with digital distributions of this paper. Even at 2 times the DLE levels, there was no
indication of foundation collapse, general sliding or any other foundation failure. None of the soil strain levels achieved in
these analyses are great enough for any concern regarding foundation performance, and the structure deformations would not
be perceptible without the extreme magnification. This shows that the foundation meets the DLE performance requirements
not only for the (1000-year) DLE event, but also for twice the DLE event which is essentially equivalent to a 5000-year
return interval event.

Figure 7 shows detail near the structure, for the case of 10 times DLE 1 motions, on a deformed mesh contour plot of the
plastic strains in the soil throughout the foundation zone, together with the plot of the deformed structure configuration. The
deformations in this plot are magnified by a factor of 4, and the soil plastic strains are displayed on a color spectrum scale
ranging from dark blue for strains of 0.01 % or les to dark burgundy for strains of 10 % or more. The structure has settled
over 2 feet and tilted approximately 1.5 degrees, and substantial amounts of foundation zone soil have reached failure strain
levels. This situation would not be tolerable from a foundation performance standpoint. The results for the case of DLE 1
with 10 times the structure masses gave substantially similar results but slightly less foundation settlement.

Figures 8 and 9 present soil motion response spectra for the SLE 1 and DLE 2 cases, respectively. Shown here are sway
direction acceleration response spectra for the control motion (firm soil outcrop), the 150-ft motion, and the far field mudline.
In addition to these results from the 3-D analysis are shown comparative results for the mudline motions from 1-dimensional
analysis, one for 1-direction shaking and one from 3-directional shaking as in the 3-D analysis. The agreement between the
mudline spectrum for the 3-D results and that for the 1-D analysis with 3-direction shaking demonstrates the adequacy of the
3-D model performance in the far field and also the adequacy of the location of the outer boundary in the 3-D model. The
comparison between the 150-ft base and the mudline indicates the dynamics of the site soil column, and the comparison
between the mudline motion and the control motion indicates the difference between the dynamics of the subject site and that
of a firm soil site.
OTC 19645 7

Figure 5. Deformed mesh contour plot of plastic strains for DLE 1 at 9.0 seconds

Figure 6. Deformed mesh contour plot of plastic strains for DLE 1 x 2 at 9.0 seconds
8 OTC 19645

Figure 7. Deformed mesh, detail near structure at end of DLE 1 x 10

Maleo Producer Acceleration Response Spectra

Sway direction motions for SLE1 (based on Newhall)
3-D FEA results
1
Spectral response acceleration (5 %
damping), g

0.1

Control motion, firm soil outcrop

Deep motion, firm soil, 150-ft below mudline

Mudline, 1-D column with 1-direction shaking

Mudline 1-D column with 3-direction shaking
Mudline, far field, 3-D analysis
0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period, seconds

Figure 8. Soil response spectra for SLE 1

OTC 19645 9

Maleo Producer Acceleration Response Spectra

Sway direction motions for DLE2 (based on El Centro)
3-D FEA results
1
Spectral response acceleration (5 %
damping), g

0.1

Control motion, firm soil outcrop

Deep motion, firm soil, 150-ft below mudline

Mudline, 1-D column with 1-direction shaking

Mudline 1-D column with 3-direction shaking
Mudline, far field, 3-D analysis

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period, seconds

Figure 9. Soil response spectra for DLE 2

Figures 10 and 11 present structure motion response spectra for the SLE 1 and DLE 2 cases, respectively. Shown here are
sway direction acceleration response spectra for the mat motion, and deck motion and mudline soil motion. The comparisons
between the mat and the mudline soil show great overall spectral similarity, with the slight attenuation of the mat with respect
to the soil. The comparisons between the deck and the mat show general attenuation of the deck except for significant
amplification of the deck for periods near 4 seconds, the vicinity of the deck natural sway period.

Maleo Producer Acceleration Response Spectra

Sway direction motions for SLE1 (based on Newhall)
3-D FEA results

1
Spectral response acceleration (5 %

Deck, center of mass

Mat, center of mass
Mudline, far field
damping), g

0.1

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period, seconds

Figure 10. Structure response spectra for SLE 1

10 OTC 19645

Maleo Producer Acceleration Response Spectra

Sway direction motions for DLE2 (based on El Centro)
3-D FEA results

1
Spectral response acceleration (5 %

Deck, center of mass

Mat, center of mass
Mudline, far field
damping), g

0.1

0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Period, seconds

Figure 11. Structure response spectra for DLE 2

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the maximum displacements and rotations of the foundation mat with respect to the (far field)
mudline soil for the SLE and DLE events, respectively. Both the SLE x 1.5 and DLE x 2 results are also included as are the
results for the DLE “sledgehammer” cases. The responses for the SLE “sledgehammer” cases were similar to those for the
SLE x 1.5 cases.

The maximum mat displacements during the SLE and SLE x 1.5 cases were 0.058 ft horizontal and 0.005 ft vertical. The
maximum rotation was 0.024 degrees. These foundation displacements are sufficiently small to exclude any foundation
damage or unacceptable movement and therefore to show that the foundation performance requirements are met with a factor
of safety exceeding 1.5.

The maximum mat displacements during the DLE and DLE x 2 cases were 0.24 ft horizontal and 0.015 ft vertical. The
maximum rotation was 0.075 degrees.

Conclusions
Based on the results of the work reported here the following conclusions are made:

1. Complete time histories of the motion of the mat produced by the analyses in this study are appropriate and
sufficient for use as driving input motions in more detailed structural dynamic analyses of the Maleo Producer for
SLE and DLE earthquake conditions.

2. The Maleo Producer foundation meets SLE earthquake requirements with a factor of safety exceeding 1.5.

3. The Maleo Producer foundation meets DLE earthquake requirements with a sufficient margin that even two times
the DLE motions would result in no foundation failure or excessive movement.
OTC 19645 11

SLE RESULTS
Max Horizontal Max Vertical Final Horizontal Final Vertical Max. Lateral Max. Yaw Final Lateral Final Yaw
EQ Number and
Multiplier Displacements Displacements Displacement Displacement Rotation Rotation Rotation Rotation

(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (degree) (degree) (degree) (degree)

SLE 1X1 0.038 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.012 0.004 0.005 0.001

SLE 2X1 0.030 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.009 0.003 0.002 0.000

SLE 3X1 0.020 0.002 0.005 0.000 0.006 0.003 0.004 0.002

SLE 1X1.5 0.058 0.005 0.025 0.001 0.024 0.005 0.012 0.002

SLE 2X1.5 0.048 0.005 0.012 0.000 0.018 0.005 0.004 0.001

SLE 3X1.5 0.042 0.004 0.012 0.000 0.013 0.008 0.002 0.003

DLE RESULTS
Max Horizontal Max Vertical Final Horizontal Final Vertical Max. Lateral Max. Yaw Final Lateral Final Yaw
EQ Number and
Multiplier Displacements Displacements Displacement Displacement Rotation Rotation Rotation Rotation
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (degree) (degree) (degree) (degree)
DLE 1X1 0.090 0.010 0.040 0.005 0.038 0.008 0.018 0.002
DLE 2X1 0.070 0.005 0.030 0.000 0.025 0.006 0.007 0.002
DLE 3X1 0.070 0.003 0.022 0.000 0.021 0.012 0.004 0.006
DLE 1X2 0.143 0.020 0.100 0.010 0.075 0.013 0.040 0.000
DLE 2X2 0.150 0.012 0.100 0.005 0.048 0.010 0.020 0.004
DLE 3X2 0.234 0.015 0.160 0.003 0.080 0.022 0.050 0.007
DLE 1 sledgeham 0.125 0.013 0.070 0.008 0.043 0.045 0.006 0.029
DLE 2 sledgeham 0.100 0.004 0.050 0.000 0.025 0.011 0.005 0.003
DLE 3 sledgeham 0.106 0.006 0.053 0.002 0.037 0.013 0.017 0.004

Table 2. Summary of maximum displacements and rotations

Acknowledgements
The work reported here was performed by SAGE USA, Inc. under the direction of Stewart Technology Associates (STA)
for the benefit of global Process Systems (GPS) and their client, Santos. The author gratefully acknowledges STA, GPS and
Santos for granting permission to make this publication. The author also specifically acknowledges the important
contributions of Wm. P. Stewart of STA who provided valuable guidance throughout the course of the work. Mr. Stewart
had the vision to see that valuable results could be obtained from an advanced engineering approach to the combined analysis
of the foundation and structural dynamics under earthquake loading and that such an approach could provide much more
realistic results for the Maleo project than were achievable with conventional methods.

The author wishes to acknowledge the significant contributions of F. B. Biegler of SAGE USA and X. Long, Ph.D. of
Geoscience Earth and Marine Services, Inc. (GEMS). Ms. Biegler constructed the finite element models, and Dr. Long
assisted in the material behavior characterization, performed many of the finite element analyses, and organized results. Dr.
Long and Dr. H. Shi, Ph.D. of GEMS performed the SHAKE program analyses.

The finite element analyses were performed ABAQUS program from ABAQUS Inc. and Dassault Systemes SIMULIA.

This paper is one of seven papers presented in a special session in the 2008 Offshore Technology Conference dealing with
the advanced engineering undertaken to obtain class certification for the Maleo Producer. Audibert and Neubecker (2008)
report on detailed site investigation results; Spikula and Garmon (2008) report on the advanced and dynamic soil testing;
Murff and Young (2008) report on the foundation overturning analysis; Jacob and Stewart (2008) report on the seismic
response of the structure; Nizar describes the development of the design criteria for earthquake ground motions, and Stewart
and Ooley (2008) provide an overview of the entire project. All of these authors are acknowledged for the valuable
consultation they provided during the course of the work.
12 OTC 19645

References

API RP2A (2000): “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working
Stresses Design,” 21st Edition, December 2000.
Audibert, J.M.E. and S. Neubecker (2008), “Detailed Geotechnical Investigation Around in-Place Mat Foundation Including
T-Bar And CPT Comparisons,” Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper Number 19580.
Jacob, P. and W. P. Stewart (2008): “Seismic Time History Response of the Maleo Producer.” Proceedings Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper Number19480.
Murff, J.D. and A.G Young (2008), “Overturning Analysis of Maleo Jack-Up Mat Foundation on Soft Clay,” Proceedings
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper Number 19553.
Nizar, A.. (2008), “Seismic Design Criteria for the Maleo Producer, Madura Straits,” Proceedings Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, Paper Number 19583.
Spikula, D.R. and G.S. Garmon (2008), “Soft Clay Dynamic Characteristics for Madura Straits from Advanced Geotechnical
Tests,” Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper Number 19582.
Stewart W.P., and M. Ooley (2008), “The Maleo MOPU Project - Project Overview and Keynote Address,” Proceedings
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper Number 19581.