See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279135785

BACK-CALCULATION OF MEASURED LEG PENETRATIONS OF TUBULAR LEGGED

JACK-UPS DURING PRELOADING

Conference Paper · January 2013

DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-297-4-213

CITATIONS READS
0 773

1 author:

Sylvie Raymackers
DEME Offshore
12 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sylvie Raymackers on 04 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 5th International Young Geotechnical Engineers’ Conference – 5th iYGEC 2013 213
Edited by Y.-J. Cui et al. © 2013. The authors and IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-297-4-213

BACK-CALCULATION OF MEASURED LEG PENETRATIONS OF

TUBULAR LEGGED JACK-UPS DURING PRELOADING

ANALYSE INVERSE DES MESURES DE PENETRATION DES PIEDS D’UNE

PLATE-FORME AUTO-ELEVATRICE PENDANT LE PRECHARGEMENT
Sylvie RAYMACKERS
GeoSea (DEME Group), Zwijndrecht, Belgium

ABSTRACT – For offshore wind applications, four-legged jack-ups with tubular legs are often operated
without spudcans. In cohesive soils the leg penetrations during preloading can exceed 2.5 times the
diameter of the pile. The behaviour is therefore typically that of a semi-deep foundation. Because industry
standards were originally intended for truss leg jack-ups with spudcans, guidance is limited for the estimation
of leg penetrations of tubular leg jack-ups without spudcans.
In this paper measured leg penetrations at 2 sites across Europe are back-calculated using industry
standard methods (ISO 19905-1:2012) and compared with CPT results. Based on a literature study and pile
bearing capacity formulae, a method to predict semi-deep leg penetrations of tubular leg jack-ups directly
from CPT’s, is proposed. The method will be calibrated based on the presented measured leg penetrations.

1. Introduction which would be usable in all soil types, for both

tubular legged jack-ups without spudcans and at a
For offshore wind applications, four-legged jack- later stage also for jack-ups with spudcans.
ups with tubular legs are often operated without In this first step towards the ultimate goal,
spudcans. Before jacking to working height literature will be reviewed, a method to predict
preloading is realized to install the legs at a depth semi-deep leg penetrations of tubular leg jack-ups
at which the bearing capacity is guaranteed with directly from CPT’s, is proposed and applied on
sufficient safety. measured penetrations at two sites with cohesive
Leg penetration assessments are performed for soils.
each location on site as a part of a global site
specific assessment of the jack-up. Accurate high
estimate (HE) and low estimate (LE) predictions
are needed to allow a safe prediction of all hazards.
Measured penetrations should be in between both
predictions.
Because most industry standards are intended
for truss legged jack-ups with spudcans, guidance
is limited for the estimation of leg penetrations of
tubular legged jack-ups. An example of a leg
penetration assessment for tubular legged jack-ups
is presented in Kort et al (2013).
In recent years several authors have been
working on direct correlations of CPT results with
spudcan leg penetration predictions (Bienen et al,
2012, Hossain et al, 2012). Such correlations would
allow for automated calculation of the load
penetration diagram, limiting the need for Figure 1 Jack–up platform Vagant © Photo:
discretization of the problem and derivation of GeoSea/DEME
secondary parameters from the CPT’s.
The research on CPT methods focusses 2. Literature
however on truss legged jack-ups with spudcans.
In this paper a CPT method for the smaller jack-ups 2.1. Standard offshore practice for tubular
with tubular legs, without spudcans is envisaged. In legged jack-ups
cohesive soils the leg penetrations during
preloading can exceed 2.5 times the diameter of The ISO 19905-1 (2012) and SNAME (2008) are
the pile, the behaviour is therefore typically that of a the most frequently used standards to perform site
semi-deep foundation (Fascicule 62, 1993). specific assessments for jack-ups. Their calculation
This paper presents a synthesis of a work in methods for the leg penetrations are based on
progress, with as ultimate goal an automated CPT shallow footing bearing capacity formulas. The
method for predicting leg penetrations for jack-ups, formula for clay is presented in (1).
214 5th International Young Geotechnical Engineers’ Conference – iYGEC 2013

 ୠ ൌ ሺୡ •ୡ †ୡ …୳ ൅ ’ᇱ଴ ሻୠ       ሺͳሻ cone penetration tests after averaging the cone
resistance (5).
To apply the formula the undrained shear
୯ౙ ሺ୸ሻ
strength needs to be determined and soil strength  ୲ ൌ ሺ ୡ “ୡୣ ൅ ’ᇱ଴ ሻୠ ൅        ሺͶሻ
ஒ
needs to be discretized to a limited number of soil
layers. Generally a conservative HE and an 
ଵ ୈାଷୟ
optimistic LE interpretation are made. To facilitate “ୡୣ ൌ  ‫׬‬ “ୡୡ ሺœሻ†œ      ሺͷሻ
ୠାଷୟ ୈିୠ
the interpretation of the soil strength, a CPT
method for clay is proposed in InSafeJIP (2012) The averaging method is based on the
(2). arithmetic mean, neglecting peaks higher than 1.3
times the mean.
୒ౙ
ୠ ൌ ሺ •†“ ൅ ’ᇱ଴ ሻ ୠ      ሺʹሻ Arithmetic averaging is also found in other
୒ౡ౪ ୡ ୡ ୬ୣ୲
(European) semi-empirical pile bearing capacity
formula’s, like the Dutch standard (NEN 6743-1,
The cone factor (Nkt) should be derived from
2006). It is however outside the scope of this paper
laboratory testing. Values of 12 to 25 are reported
to discuss all the available averaging methods.
to be commonly used around the world; values of
15 to 20 are common for the North Sea and the
2.3. Belgian method
Gulf of Mexico (InSafeJIP, 2012).
Experience has shown that applying equation
In Belgian practice, pile bearing capacity is
(1) or (2) on the tubular legged jack-ups is too
generally calculated from CPT’s (WTCB, 2008) (6).
conservative and leads to overestimation of the
penetration depth in both HE and LE, which is not
ࡽ࢚ ൌ ࢻ࢈ ࢿ࢈ ࣅ࡭࢈ ࢗ࢈ ൅ ࡭࢙ σሺࢻ࢙ǡ࢏ ࢎ࢏ ࢙ࢗǡ࢏ ሻ (6)
wishful. Therefore engineers tend to adapt the
shallow footing bearing capacity formulas by
The derivation of the unit point bearing qb in the
adding side friction from pile bearing capacity
WTCB method is based on the method De Beer
formulas (Kort et al, 2013) (3).
(De Beer, 1971, Van Impe et al, 1988). The method
was primarily developed for driven piles. Its merit is
 ୲ ൌ ሺୡ •ୡ †ୡ …୳ ൅ ’ᇱ଴ ሻୠ ൅ Ƚ…୳ ୱ (3)
that it scales the CPT to a resistance that would be
measured with a cone that has the same diameter
2.2. French method
as the pile that is pressed in, rather than averaging
it arithmetically. This ‘translation’ from qc to qb is
Combining shallow bearing capacity formulas with
based on the ‘scale’-effect which takes into account
friction for semi-deep piles is in line with the French
the fact that the zone of influence around a CPT
practice for semi-deep foundations. In Fascicule 62
cone or around a pile tip is defined by its diameter.
(1993) a semi-deep penetration is defined between
The scale effect is illustrated in figure 3. It
1.5D and 5D. It allows the calculation of the bearing
shows that the effect of the weaker layers is bigger
capacity by combining bearing capacity for shallow
on the unit point bearing for the larger diameter
foundations with friction taken into account from
pile.
1.5D (4), or alternatively by using pile bearing
capacity formulas.

Figure 3: Illustration of the scale effect in a

Figure 2: Averaging in the French Method
(Fascicule 62, 1993)
Both for the shallow as for the pile bearing
capacity, end resistance is derived directly from the
hetergoneous soil for a pile of 0.6m and 1m
(Holeyman et al, 1997)
This way of scaling the CPT combines
advantages of averaging and mechanism methods
(like the load spread model) used in classical leg
penetration analysis.
 5th International Young Geotechnical Engineers’ Conference – iYGEC 2013 215

2.4. Formula for leg penetration prediction interpreting the CPT. A cone factor of 15 was used.
The striped and the continuous line, present the
Because the leg penetration prediction differs from results with the new method. The squares are the
other bearing capacity problems, when it comes to measured penetrations.
means of installation, conservativeness (a range of
possible penetration depths, from optimistic to
conservative, is required) and because penetration
depth often differs from either shallow or deep
foundations, a new method is proposed based on
the existing methods.
Equations (7) and (8) are proposed for low and
high estimate leg penetrations:
ࡽ࢚ࡸࡱ ൌ ࢽࡸࡱ ሺࣀ࢈ ࢗ࢈ࢇ࢜ࢋࡸࡱ ࡭࢈ ൅ ࣀ࢙ ࢗሺࢠሻࢉ ࡭࢙ ሻ (7)
ࡽ࢚ࡴࡱ ൌ ࢽࡴࡱ ሺࣀ࢈ ࢗ࢈ࢇ࢜ࢋࡴࡱ ࡭࢈ ൅ ࣀ࢙ ࢗሺࢠሻࢉ ࡭࢙ ሻ (8)

The dimensionless end and shaft installation

parameters ζb and ζs should reflect soil properties
during installation. They should be determined per
soil type, based on laboratory testing and regional
experience. In a cohesive soil ζb and ζs are
expected to be linked with the Nkt value. For
example, based on SNAME, ζb would correlate with
ࡺࢉ Τࡺ࢑࢚ ࢙ࢉ ࢊࢉ , and based on API, ζs would correlate
with ࢻΤࡺ࢑࢚ .
The calculation of the point resistance qb ave
would need to include means for assessing punch- Figure 4: cone resistance and back calculations in
through in case of sand over clay or strong clay tertiary clay
over weak clay. The averaging method of De Beer API and WTCB would render values for ζs of
is proposed as a starting point, because its scale respectively average 0.025 and 0.02. A satisfying fit
effect does include this already in a way. The is found by setting the factor ζs to 0.02, and ζb to 1.
effective pile diameter (D) is expected to result in a This correlates with regional experience.
safe, high estimate point resistance (qb ave HE). A
smaller diameter (D/n), with n as a scale factor, is 3.2 Site 2: Glacial till
introduced in the point resistance calculation in At site 2 the jack-up preloaded on a more
order to decrease the dimensions of the zone of heterogeneous glacial till. The CPT is shown on the
influence around the leg tip. This is done to obtain left side of figure 5.
a low estimate, optimistically scaled point
resistance (qb ave LE).
Finally a dimensionless factor γ is introduced to
obtain a LE and HE prediction, this factor is related
to the uncertainty on the soil parameters.

3. Back-calculations

Back-calculations are presented for two sites

visited with the jack-up platform Vagant. Vagant
has tubular closed end legs with a diameter of 2m.
Penetrations are reported from the base plate. To
limit the number of variables in the back-
calculations the factor γ is fixed to 1, the scale
factor n is set to 4.

3.1 Site 1: Belgian continental shelf, fairly

homogenous tertiary clay

The cone resistance at the site is presented in the

left side of figure 4. The clay is a overconsolidated
tertiary highly plastic clay. On the right side of
figure 4 the back-calculations are presented.
The dotted curve presents the combination of Figure 5: cone resistance and back-calculations in
ISO end bearing and API side friction after glacial till.
 216 5th International Young Geotechnical Engineers’ Conference – iYGEC 2013
The till is known to have higher a cone factor
compared to the tertiary clay found at site 1
(Weltman and Healy, 1978). Based on laboratory
testing performed on samples collected at the site,
a Nkt factor of 20 was derived.
Because of the more heterogeneous cone
resistance, the ISO end bearing capacity is
calculated with equation (2), without averaging. In
the new method, the factor ζb was set to 0.75
(=15/20), ζs was kept at 0.02. Both methods are
presented on the right side of figure 5 together with
the measured penetrations.
4. Conclusions
The paper has presented an overview of methods
used to predict leg penetration depth of jack-ups
offshore and some (semi-deep) pile bearing
formulas used onshore. These methods are the
basis for a newly proposed method to predict leg
penetrations directly from CPT tests. The proposed
method is applied on measured penetrations at two
sites across Europe.
The method has as input parameters the
measured cone resistance -which is automatically
rescaled with the De Beer method to take into
account the diameter of the jack-up leg- combined
with end and shaft installation factors. The latter
should be further calibrated by performing more
back-calculations.
The paper is limited to tubular legged jack-ups
in cohesive soils, the method has however the
potential to be extended to heterogeneous soils
(punching risk) and to jack-ups with spudcans.
5. Symbols
For the ease of comparing equations, some
equations are adapted to suite tubular legs (no
back-fill) and to be able to use the same symbols
throughout the text. This may lead to some
difference with the equations used in the standards.
Original references should therefore be consulted.
a, b a=max(D/2, 0.5), b= min(a,d)
Ab, As Pile tip and shaft area
cu Undrained cohesive shear strength
d Depth at which penetration is calculated
D Diameter of the pile
de Equivalent penetration depth
hi Thickness of a soil layer
End bearing factor,
kc
=min(0.32*(1+0.35*(1)de/D), 0.6)
n Scale factor to obtain the LE point resistance
Bearing capacity factors,
Nc sc dc
6 for d=0D and 9 for d=2.5D
Nkt Cone factor
p0 Total overburden stress at d
View publication stats
p'0 Effective overburden stress at d
Qb, Qt End and total bearing capacity
qb Unit point bearing calculated with De Beer
qc(z) Cone resistance at depth z
qce Equivalent point resistance
qnet Net cone resistance, =(qc +u2 (1-α’))-p0
qs,i Unity friction resistance, =min(qc/30, 150) in clay
u2 Pore water pressure at the shoulder of the cone
α A dimensionless factor of shaft friction
α’ Cone area ratio
αb, εb Empirical factors for pile base resistance
β friction coefficient, equal to15/40 or 80 in clay
γLE, γHE Dimensionless factors to obtain LE and HE
λ reduction factor for an enlarged basis
ζb ζs Dimensionless end and shaft installation factors
References
API (2007) Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms—Working Stress Design
Bienen B, Pucker T, Henke S (2012), Cone
penetrometer-based spudcan penetration prediction
in uncemented carbonate sand, OTC 2012
De Beer, E (1971-1972). Methodes de deduction de la
capacité portante d’un pieux à partir des résultats des
essais de penetration. Annales des Travaux Publics
de Belgique, No 4 (p 191-268), no 5 (p 321-353) & no
6 (p 351-405), Brussels
Fascicule N°62 – Titre V (1993), Règles techniques de
conception et de calcul des fondations des ouvrages
de genie civil, Ministère de l’équipement, du
lodgement et des transports
Holeyman A, Bauduin C, Bottiau M, Debacker P, Dupont
E, Hilde JL, Legrand C, Huybrechts N, Mengé P,
Miller JP, Simon G (1997) Design of Axially Loaded
Piles – Belgian Practice, Balkema, Rotterdam
Hossain M. S., Randolph M. F., Safinus S; Cassidy MJ,
Krisdani H, Purwana OA, Quah CK (2012),
Development of an integrated jack-up Installation
system, OTC 2012
InSafeJIP (2012), Improved guidelines for the prediction
of geotechnical performance of spudcan foundations
during installation and removal of jack-up units
ISO 19905-1 (2012). Petroleum and natural gas
industries. Site-specific assessment of mobile
offshore units -- Part 1: Jack-ups
Kort A, Raymackers S, Hofstede H, Meyer V (2013) Leg
penetration assessments for self-elevating tubular leg
units in sand over clay conditions, GeoInstall
Conference proceedings
NEN 6743-1 (2006), Geotechnics - Calculation method
for bearing capacity of pile foundation - Compression
piles
SNAME (2008). Technical and Research Bulletin 5-5A.
Guidelines for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile
Jack-Up Units. Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Jersey City, New Jersey.
Van Impe W F, De Beer E, Lousberg E (1988), Prediction
of the single bearing capacity in granular soils out of
CPT-results. ISOPT I p 1 -34, Orlando
Weltman A.J., Healy P.R. (1978) Piling in boulder clay
and other glacial tills, CIRIA, London
WTCB (2008), Richtlijnen voor de toepassing van
Eurocode 7 in België, Deel 1: Het grondmechanisch