Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marstruc

Advances in the prediction of spudcan punch-through in

double-layered soils
Pan Hu a, b, *, Zhong Xiao a, **, Chin Leo b, Samanthika Liyanapathirana b
a
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
School of Engineering, Western Sydney University, Second Ave, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Punch-through failure of jack-up spudcan foundations occurs in active oil and gas drilling
Bearing capacity exploration regions, where relatively stiff soil overlies soft marine layer. Therefore, installation of
Spudcan foundations spudcan foundations in such seabed formations threatens the stability of the jack-up rig. A site-
Sand
specific assessment of the potential and severity of failure must be completed before the
Clay
Offshore engineering
commencement of the installation. However, the accuracy of the prediction is limited by the
validity of the design method currently in use. This paper presents advances in the prediction of
punch-through failure of jack-up platforms in sand/stiff clay over soft clay soils. New analytical
models for spudcan installation in double-layered soils are reviewed and compared to the existing
methods in the ISO 19905-1 standard and SNAME standard. The capabilities and limitations of
each method are summarised and recommendations are drawn for the theoretical predictions of
spudcan punch-through in double-layered soils.

1. Introduction

Jack-ups are traditionally used as exploratory drilling platforms. A jack-up is normally composed of a buoyant triangular hull, a
lifting system, three or four lattice legs and spudcan foundations. Recently, the same jack-up concept has been extended to serve as
purpose-built vessels for the installation of offshore wind turbines. Jack-ups are preloaded by pumping seawater into ballast tanks in
the hull when they first arrive at a site. This is to simulate the maximum expected leg loads and ensure that they can be supported after
they are jacked to full air gap and experience operating and environmental loads. The ballast tanks are emptied and the hull is elevated
to provide an adequate air gap before operations on the jack-up begin. The process of jack-up rig installation is highly dependent on the
soil resistance with the penetration of the spudcan foundations.
As shown in Fig. 1, globally the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico are home to many offshore rigs as of early 2018, totaling 184 and
175 rigs, respectively. The regions where jack-up units are also active include the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia and Middle East.
A site-specific assessment must be performed prior to each jack-up deployment to demonstrate that the selected rig is suitable for
the site and capable of withstanding the loads expected at that site. This will allow the rig moving personnel to identify any deviation
from the predicted response and take appropriate action. The calculation of leg penetration in sand or clay normally follows classical
bearing capacity theory, with the spudcan idealised as a flat circular foundation of diameter D and embedded at a depth d below the

* Corresponding author. School of Engineering, Western Sydney University, Second Ave, Kingswood, NSW, 2747, Australia.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: p.hu@westernsydney.edu.au (P. Hu), tjuzhongxiao@tju.edu.cn (Z. Xiao), C.Leo@westernsydney.edu.au (C. Leo), S.
Liyanapathirana@westernsydney.edu.au (S. Liyanapathirana).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2021.103038
Received 9 November 2020; Received in revised form 25 March 2021; Accepted 23 May 2021
Available online 13 June 2021
0951-8339/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

mudline. The load-penetration profile could be progressively constructed from independent calculations of footings at increasing
depth. Over the past two decades, a great amount of research has been dedicated to develop methods to calculate spudcan bearing
capacity in clay (e.g. Refs. [1–3], and sand (e.g. Refs. [4–6].
In contrast to single layer soil stratigraphy, the presence of layered problematic seabed profiles challenges the stability of the rig
during spudcan installation. Amongst these profiles, the sand overlying clay and stiff clay overlying soft clay are the commonly found
profiles causing spudcan punch-through. Fig. 2 shows two sand-over-clay logs of boring from North Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This soil
stratigraphy is also prevalent in Australia’s Bass Strait, Southeast Asia, South China Sea and Persian Gulf. For such stratigraphy, the
profile of capacity with depth normally has a peak at shallow depth, then the capacity reduces over a range of depth and increases
again at greater depth. An unstable load equilibrium condition may develop for such soil conditions since any minor increase in load
may cause the spudcan to penetrate further until the leg reaction is balanced. Punch-through is thus defined as rapid uncontrolled leg
penetration due to a drop in bearing capacity, causing serious damage to the jack-up rig, consequential loss of drilling time and risking
safety of the personnel on board [7–11]. Due to this instability, the jack-up may also collide with the adjacent fixed platform for which
it is drilling.
MSL [12] presented a comprehensive review of jack-up foundation failure, including compilation of over 50 incidents, where
punch-through had the highest rate accounting for 53%. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the punch-through failure potential and
severity to safeguard the jack-up platform. This review mainly presents recent advances in the prediction of the installation of jack-up
platforms in double-layered seabed profiles, where a stiff soil layer overlies a soft soil, with the overall aim of investigating the current
knowledge and assessment practices of punch-through failure. Various prediction methods were examined in depth and recommen­
dations were made. In some cases, the improvements were proposed to existing prediction methods.

2. Guidelines and standards

Normal industry practice for site-specific assessments of jack-up installations typically follows the methods described in the
guidelines to perform the spudcan load-penetration calculations. The recommendations on jack-up geotechnical assessment are based
on the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Technical and Research Bulletin for site-specific assessment of mobile jack-up
units, SNAME TR5-5A [13] and International Standards Organisation document ISO 19905-1 [14]: “Petroleum and natural gas indus­
tries—Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units—Part 1: Jack-ups” guideline. The latter is largely based on the SNAME documents
with inclusion of recent advancements of solutions to the engineering problems.
Additional guidance for spudcan installation is provided in the InSafeJIP (Joint-Industry Project) guidelines [6,15,16]. This
“Improved Guidelines for the Prediction of Geotechnical Performance of Spudcan Foundations during Installation and Removal of Jack-up
Units” was formulated on the basis of benchmarking research developments against a large amount of offshore field records. A
database of approximately 150 case study data sets provided by the project participants was created with the geographical distribution
of the data spanning from Australasia to Africa, America, Europe and Middle East. This specification complements SNAME [13] and
ISO [14]; and provides alternative solutions to the prediction of spudcan load–displacement curves and other geotechnical issues.
Some of the recommended practices do not intend to impose specific calculation methods or procedures and leave the users some
freedom to interpret or apply alternative practices within the framework of the guidelines.

3. Sand-over-clay

In sand-over-clay soil stratigraphy, punch-through events could occur during spudcan installation when the sand layer yields,
causing the spudcan to plunge into the underlying weaker clay. In view of this, a large number of investigations on spudcan punch-

Fig. 1. Number of offshore rigs worldwide in January 2018 (modified from statista website).

2
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

Fig. 2. Typical sand-over-clay log of boring in North Sea and Gulf of Mexico.

through in sand-over-clay have been initiated using centrifuge modelling technique [17–21]. This database of experiments has led to
three new methods, that of Teh et al. [22,23], Lee et al. [17,19,24] and Hu et al. [25–28], supplementing the latest industry guidelines
for the site-assessment of jack-ups [14]. Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics and limitations of these sand-over-clay
punch-through prediction methods.

3.1. ISO methods

As shown in Fig. 3, SNAME [13] and ISO [14] suggest two methods for estimating the load–penetration curves and identifying the
likelihood and severity of punch-through using the load spread method (also known as projected area method) and the punching shear
method.
The load spread method in Fig. 3(a) is based on classical Boussinesq elastic theory. Application of load spread method has been
studied by some researchers for two-layered soil deposits [29–31]. In the load spread method, the bearing capacity is calculated by
considering a fictitious enlarged footing at the layer interface. This method assumes that the load is spread through the strong sand
layer at a spreading angle so that the clay layer is subjected to an equivalent reduced bearing pressure. The bearing capacity Qv is
equated to the capacity of a fictitious footing of increased area at the sand-clay interface and it is calculated according to
( )2
π t
(1)
′
Qv = Qu,b − D+2 tγs
4 ns

where ns is the load spread factor, which is recommended to be between 3 and 5; γ′ s is the effective unit weight of sand, and t is the
thickness of the soil layer below the spudcan. The second term of Eq. (1) is the weight of the sand frustum between the spudcan base
and the original sand-clay layer interface. The Qu,b is the ultimate vertical bearing capacity for the fictitious footing at the sand-clay
interface with no backfill, which is expressed as
( )2 [ ( )2 ]
π t π t
Qu,b = su Nc D + 2 + γ’s D+2 Hs + Vb (2)
4 ns 4 ns

where su is the undrained shear strength of clay; Vb is the spudcan volume below the base level; Hs is the sand thickness. The bearing
capacity factor Nc developed by Houlsby and Martin [1] is recommended.
As the load spread factor governs the extent of load spread at the sand-clay interface, it greatly affects the accuracy of the bearing
capacity evaluation. Calibrating the estimated values of peak bearing capacity using the recommended ns values against those
measured from the centrifuge tests on dense sand over soft clay indicated an average underestimation of 40–50% [17,18]. Kenny and
Andrews [29] have found that better and more reliable results can be obtained by employing lower values of load spread angle. By

3

Table 1
Summary of sand-over-clay punch-through prediction methods.
Method Characteristics
ISO methods • Both load spread and punching shear methods are well-known methods and
they are still commonly used in industry;
• Load spread method is based on classical Boussinesq elastic theory and
punching shear method adopts well-established punching shear mechanism;
• Empirical design charts instead of logical framework is used for the punching
shear method.
Teh et al. • Based on limit equilibrium theory and considers the evolving soil failure
method mechanism;
• The shear surface is trumpet-shaped when peak bearing capacity occurred and
it gradually reduces to vertical shear surfaces during post-peak penetrations.
4
Lee et al. • The analytical treatment of the conceptual model follows the method of
method ‘differential slices’ with integration of vertical force equilibrium formulas;
• Stress-level dependency and dilatant response of the upper sand layer are
considered in the bearing capacity formula for Qpeak;
• For the underlying clay, the effect of soil plug and the increase of shear
strength of soil with depth are accounted.
Hu et al. • Embedment depth occurred during punch-through failure is considered;
method • New empirical distribution factor expression considering sand of various
relative density and various footing shapes;
• New mechanism-based conceptual model to predict post-peak bearing ca­
pacity in the sand layer;
• Bearing capacity factor expression incorporating the normalised sand layer
thickness and normalised shear strength of clay and confirmed sand plug
height.
P. Hu et al.
Limitations
• Originally developed for shallow foundation supporting onshore structures, which were not
based on physical mechanisms occurring offshore and key soil characteristics are not input to the
calculations;
• They are not intended for a successive assessment of the spudcan bearing resistance in sand-over-
clay undergoing continuous penetration;
• The effect of trapped sand plug is not considered when calculating the bearing capacity in the
underlying clay layer.
• Limited data were used to summarise the design charts of the empirical parameters;
• The strain-softening behaviour and stress-dependent nature of the soil were not incorporated.
• A linear relationship between the empirical distribution factor and normalised sand layer
thickness based on limited number of dense sand over clay centrifuge tests;
• Bearing capacity factor in clay was derived from small strain finite element wished-in-place
analyses with assumed sand plug height. The installation effect is not considered;
• Calibrated only on a large number of silica sand overlying kaolin clay centrifuge tests with typical
offshore soil properties. Its performance on the other type of soils and soil properties are
uncertain.
• More verification with field data is needed.
Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

Fig. 3. Spudcan bearing capacity analysis on sand over clay.

adjusting the load spread factor ns, the load spread method could be made to fit the experimental database. Optimal values to fit the
database have been back-calculated and the range of 0.91≤ ns ≤ 2.07 were shown in Hu et al. [25] to fit the centrifuge testing data
well. This is also consistent with the recommendation based on the derivation from tests on field soil samples [32]. It is recommended
to apply caution, when applying this empirical approach.
The punching shear method [33,34] is recommended as an alternative method in the ISO guideline. The punching shear method is
schematically shown in Fig. 3(b). For a footing at any depth in the sand layer, this method assumes a cylindrical plug of diameter D
between the base of the advancing spudcan and the underlying layer interface, which is depressed into the underlying clay, with the
base fixed at the layer interface regardless of the spudcan penetration. The dilatancy of the sand is therefore neglected (dilation angle,
ψ = 0∘). The bearing capacity consists of frictional resistance on the vertical failure plane in the sand layer and the clay bearing capacity
at the base and it is given by:

π π [ ] Ks tan φ’
Qv = Qu,b − D2 tγ ’s + D2 t γ’s (2Hs − t) (3)
4 2 D

where φ′ is the friction angle of sand; Ks is the punching shear coefficient, which depends on the strength of both the sand layer and clay
layer. The value of this coefficient could be obtained from an improved chart based on Hanna and Meyerhof [34] and ISO [14], in
which the friction angle of sand as well as the ratio of the bearing capacity in clay and sand are taken into account. It should be noted
that the value of Ks may vary due to different interpretations of the bearing capacity factor in the chart, causing uncertainty in pre­
dictions. According to SNAME [13], it can be approximated by the following lower bound expression:
3su
(4)
′
Ks tan φ =
Dγ′s

Alternatively, as recommended in the InSafeJIP [6] guideline, Ks could be determined as:

( )0.6
su
(5)
′
Ks tan φ ≈ 2.5
Dγ′s

and it is recommended to be used for loose to medium dense sand with 25◦ < φ’ < 35◦ and 0.1 < su/Dγ′ s < 0.5.
The Qu,b is determined according to Eq. (6), assuming the spudcan bears on the surface of lower clay layer with no backfill:
( 2 )
π D2 πD
Qu,b = su Nc + γ ’s Hs + Vb (6)
4 4
The bearing capacity of a spudcan in the underlying clay at a specific depth can be expressed as:

π D2
Qclay = (su Nc sc dc + q0 ) (7)
4

where sc is the shape factor; dc is the depth factor; and q0 is the effective overburden pressure. The ISO [14] guideline also recommends
the expressions of Houlsby and Martin [1] for Nc in the punching shear method.
There is a belief in the industry that both ISO methods under-predict the bearing capacity [15,32]. Indeed, this has been shown to
be the case in back-analysis of centrifuge test results by Lee et al. [19] and Hu et al. [20]. The reasons are attributed to the fact that both
methods were originally developed (a) for onshore shallow wished-in-place footings with a fixed elevation, instead of continuously
penetrating spudcan; (b) for stress magnitudes significantly lower than the spudcans’; and (c) for inappropriate physical mechanics
neglecting key soil characteristics. Therefore, the applicability of these methods to evaluate the downward moving spudcan
punch-through hazard is questionable.
Based on observations of visualisation experiments using geotechnical centrifuge [21,35] and finite element analysis [17,36], there

5
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

is overwhelming evidence that the peak failure mechanism is significantly different compared to the mechanism assumed in the ISO
guideline. Calculation of bearing capacity profile in sand-over-clay soil can be improved using recently developed mechanism-based
design approaches by Teh et al., Lee et al., and Hu et al. These methods estimate bearing capacity when the spudcan penetrates to
different depths, considering change in the shear strength of sand, soil plug effect and accounting for the progressively changing failure
mechanism.

3.2. Teh et al. Method

Based on the full model centrifuge tests and the observations from half model visualisation tests, Teh [22] and Teh et al. [23]
proposed a new method to represent the load-penetration profile typical of the punch-through condition in sand-over-clay using three
characteristic bearing capacities, namely bearing capacity at sea floor Q0, peak bearing capacity Qpeak, and bearing capacity in the
underlying clay Qclay.
In Teh et al. method, Q0 is the bearing capacity developed when a spudcan’s widest cross-sectional area is first in contact with the
sand surface, i.e., at d = 0, and it is calculated as:

πD π D2
Q0 = γ ’s Hs2 K tan φ1 + sum Nc + γ ’s Vb (8)
2 4

where sum is the undrained shear strength of clay at the sand-clay interface; K is the mobilised earth pressure coefficient. It is obtained
through the best fit expression of the parameter Rk, which correlates the mobilised earth pressure coefficient, K, at-rest earth pressure
coefficient, K0, and passive earth pressure coefficient, Kp; φ1 is the mobilised sand friction angle. The values of K and φ1 are given by
Teh [22].
The peak bearing capacity in the sand layer Qpeak consists of the vertical component of the shear resistance in the mobilised sand
frustum, the self-weight of the sand, the bearing capacity of the underlying clay, and the weight of the soil displaced by the embedded
base of the spudcan:

(9)
′
Qpeak ​ = ​ Qs,peak + ​ Qc, peak − Wpeak + γs Vb

where Qs,peak is the vertical component of shear force developed along a simplified inclined failure surface in the upper sand layer:
′ [( ) ]
πγ Kp sin(φ2 − ω) 1 2
Qs,peak = s 2
dpeak + Heff DHeff + dpeak tan ωHeff 3
+ tan ωHeff (10)
cos φ2 cos ω 2 3

where Kp is the coefficient of passive earth pressure; φ2 is reduced operative friction angle; ω is geometric parameter; Heff is the
distance between the depth of peak bearing capacity and the sand-clay interface; dpeak is the spudcan depth at peak bearing capacity.
The Qc,peak is the bearing capacity of the underlying clay when d = dpeak:
[ ( )]
( ) 0.5 2 3 1 3
(11)
′
Qc,peak = π Nc sum + γs Hs R2 − R + r − R2 r
R− r 3 3

where R and r are the geometric parameters, and Wpeak is the weight of a sand wedge trapped between the spudcan level and sand-clay
interface:
[( )2 ]
1 ′ D D
Wpeak = πγ s Heff + R + R2 (12)
3 2 2
The Teh et al. method normally provides a conservative prediction for Qpeak with the ratio of Qpeak, calculated/Qpeak, measured generally
less than unity.
Beyond the sand-clay interface, the bearing capacity is assessed as a foundation in clay with the sand layer contributing to the
overburden stress. Centrifuge testing has revealed that as a spudcan progressively penetrated, it trapped and pushed a sand plug into
the underlying clay [35,37]. The trapped sand plug is considered to increase the bearing capacity due to the side friction on the sand
plug and the depth effect on the bearing capacity factor, so it is accounted while evaluating Qclay.
The spudcan together with the sand plug are treated as a new composite foundation in which the design depth is shifted from the
spudcan level to the base of the sand plug. The expression for calculating spudcan bearing capacity in the underlying clay is:
[ ( )]
4sua αside Hplug + hf πD2
(13)
′
Qclay = sub Nc + + γ c Vf
D 4

where γ′ c is the effective unit weight of clay; Hplug is the sand plug thickness; sua is the average shear strength from d – hf to d + Hplug; sub
is the shear strength of clay at the base of the composite foundation; αside is the side adhesion factor; hf is the thickness of the spudcan at
the widest section; Vf is the volume of the spudcan. Taking the sand plug into consideration, the equation given by Hossain et al. [38] is
suggested to be used with the modified expression as:

6
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

( )
d + Hplug
Nc = 10 1 + 0.075 (14)
D

3.3. Lee et al. Method

Based on centrifuge testing and small strain finite element analysis results, a new methodology to construct the load–penetration
profile of a spudcan in sand-over-clay soil was proposed by Lee [17]; Lee et al. [19,24] and termed as Lee et al. method. This method,
for the first time, takes into account the stress level and dilatant response of the sand through an iterative procedure.
In Lee et al. method, an analytical model is proposed, which assumes Qpeak occurs when a sand frustum with a dispersion angle
equal to the mobilised dilation angle of the sand is pushed into the underlying clay. Qpeak is calculated as the sum of the frictional
resistance in the sand, the weight of the sand frustum and the bearing capacity of the underlying clay. The method gives:
⎧ ( )E * ⎫
⎪ 2Hs ⎪
⎪
⎪ (Nc0 sum + q0 ) 1 + tan ψ ⎪
⎪
⎨ D ⎬ π D2
Qpeak = (15)
⎪
⎪ ′ [ ( )( )E * ] ⎪
⎪ 4
⎪
⎩+ γs D 2Hs * 2Hs ⎪
⎭
1− 1− E tan ψ 1+ tan ψ
2 tan ψ (E* + 1) D D

The first term is related to the bearing capacity of the underlying clay and the frictional resistance from the upper sand layer,
whereas the second term arises from the self-weight of the sand frustum. The bearing capacity factor, Nc0, of clay at the base level of a
circular foundation is based on the equation given by Houlsby and Martin [1]:
k(D + 2Hs tan ψ )
Nc0 = 6.34 + 0.56 (16)
sum

where k is the strength gradient of clay; and E* is a parameter to simplify the algebra:
[ (tan φ* )]
E * = 2 1 + DF − 1 (17)
tan ψ

where φ* is the reduced friction angle due to non-associated flow rule:

′
sin φ cos ψ
tan φ* = (18)
1 − sin φ′ sin ψ
Instead of punching shear coefficient, a distribution factor DF as a function of normalised sand thickness was introduced, which
relates the normal effective stress at the slip surface to the mean vertical effective stress averaged across the sand frustum. The values of
DF were calibrated against the experimental database, giving:
( )
Hs Hs
DF = 1.333 − 0.889 ≤ 0.9 (19)
D D

for spudcans; and

( )
Hs Hs
DF = 0.726 − 0.219 ≤ 1.12 (20)
D D

for flat-based foundations.

For calculating bearing capacity in the underlying clay, the spudcan and the trapped sand are taken as a single composite foun­
dation with cylindrical shape, where the underlying clay will flow around it during continuous penetration. Following traditional
expression, Qclay is calculated as:
( ) πD2
(21)
′
Qclay = Nc suc + γ c Hfdn
4

where suc is the shear strength of clay at the base of the composite foundation; Hfdn is the height of the composite foundation of spudcan
and sand plug. The bearing capacity factor for shallow mechanism is expressed as:
dbase dbase Hfdn
Nc = 4 +9 for ≥ (22)
D D D

where dbase is the depth from the bottom of the sand plug to the sand-clay interface. With further penetration, the shallow mechanism
will be transformed into a deep mechanism with new expression for bearing capacity factor:

7
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

⎛ ⎞
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
1 Hfdn
⎜ κ D ⎟ Hfdn Hfdn dbase Hfdn
Nc = ⎝1 − 2
⎠ 18.2 + 0.7 − 2 as ≤ 1.12 and > + 0.5 (23)
1 + κ dbase
D
D D D D

where κ is the dimensionless strength parameter for non-homogeneous cohesive soil. The above relations were derived from small
strain finite element (SSFE) analyses for buried cylinders, accounting for the effect of composite spudcan and soil plug. However, the
drag-down of near-surface sediments and strain softening were not accounted for in the above approach.

3.4. Hu et al. Method

The bearing capacity of spudcans in sand-over-clay was further investigated using centrifuge tests by Hu et al. [20,21]; Hu and
Cassidy [28] and large deformation finite element (LDFE) analyses by Hu et al. [26,36]. Based on the new series of data by centrifuge
testing and numerical modelling, a new ‘mechanism-based’ design method has been proposed. This method simplifies the spudcan
penetration profile as a combination of the peak bearing capacity and post-peak bearing capacity in the sand layer, Qpeak and Qpost, peak,
and the bearing capacity in the clay layer, Qclay.
Similar to the model for Qpeak in Lee et al. method, a series of infinitesimal horizontal discs were used to construct the vertical force
equilibrium equation, as in a ‘silo’ or ‘hopper’ analysis. However, the model in Hu et al. method accounts for the embedment depth
attained during the mobilisation of Qpeak and extends it to consider various spudcan shapes and relative densities of sand.
The spudcan failure mechanism in this model is illustrated in Fig. 4. The Qpeak and the weight of the sand frustum between the
spudcan and the original sand-clay interface are opposed by frictional resistance along the sides of the sand block and the bearing
capacity of the underlying clay. Through integration of the vertical force equilibrium equation of the disc element in the top sand layer,
the design formula for Qpeak was derived as:
⎧( ( )E * ⎫
′ ) 1.76Hs
⎪
⎪ Nc0 sum + q0 + 0.12γ s Hs 1 + tan ψ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ D ⎪
⎬ π D2
Qpeak = (24)
⎪
⎪ ′ [ ( )( )E* ] ⎪
⎪ 4
⎪
⎩+ γs D 1.76Hs * 1.76Hs ⎪
⎭
1 − 1 − E tan ψ 1 + tan ψ
2 tan ψ (E* + 1) D D

where E* can be calculated using Eq. (17) and Nc0 is expressed by:
k(D + 1.76Hs tan ψ )
Nc0 = 6.34 + 0.56 (25)
sum
Power expressions for DF were developed based on centrifuge tests that account for various spudcan shapes (bottom shoulder angle
from 0◦ to 21◦ ) and sand relative densities (loose to very dense sand):
For spudcan foundations:
( )− 0.576
Hs Hs
DF = 0.642 for 0.16 ≤ ≤ 1.0 (26)
D D

while for flat-based circular footings:

( )− 0.174
Hs Hs
DF = 0.623 for 0.21 ≤ ≤ 1.12 (27)
D D

Fig. 4. Model of Qpeak of a spudcan in sand-over-clay in Hu et al. method.

8
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

Qpeak occurs at a relatively shallow embedment, consistently measured at ~0.12Hs, following the experimental observations of Teh
et al. [18,35]; Lee et al. [19] and Hu et al. [20].
The previous analytical methods assumed inaccurate linear interpolation for the bearing capacity between Qpeak and sand-clay
interface. For assessing spudcan bearing capacity at post-peak stage, the dpost, peak is defined as the depth corresponding to local
minimum of post-peak bearing capacity. A value of 0.3Hs is confirmed based on the above centrifuge testing database. For the
calculation of the bearing capacity between qpost, peak and sand-clay interface, the ‘differential slices’ approach was followed with
critical state friction angle of sand φcv and no dilatancy due to large shear strain of sand. The mathematical formula is shown below:
⎧ [( ) ]⎫
⎪
⎪ γ’s D d − 0.1Hs γ’s D ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ + 14.8 + 10.6 sum + q0 + γ’s Hs + (γ’c − γ’s )(d − 0.1Hs ) − ⎪ 2
⎬
E D E πD
Qv = [ ] (28)
⎪
⎪ E(H − d) ⎪
⎪ 4
⎪ exp
⎩
s ⎪
⎭
D

The φcv could be derived from laboratory tests or based on mineralogy; and the parameter E is given as:
E = 4DF sinφcv (29)
The parameter DF was also determined from back-calculation of the centrifuge tests and it is shown as having a power relationship
with Hs/D. For spudcan foundations:
( )− 0.389
Hs
DF = 0.5 for 0.3Hs ≤ d < Hs (30)
D
For flat-based circular footings:
( )− 0.063
Hs
DF = 0.4 for 0.3Hs ≤ d < Hs (31)
D
The bearing capacity in the underlying clay layer is expressed by:
( )
( ′ ) πD
2
Hs
Qclay = Nc su0 + 0.9Hs γc ​ 0.16 ≤ ≤ 1.00 (32)
4 D

Table 2
Summary of stiff-over-soft clay punch-through prediction methods.
Method Characteristics Limitations

ISO method • Developed on the basis of model tests conducted on a
surface circular footing with very small displacement
prior to failure, and under 1g conditions;
• The base of the soil plug is assumed to be fixed at the
original layer interface regardless of the spudcan
penetration.
Hossain and • It accounts for the evolution of the failure mechanism at
Randolph each penetration depth;
method • A dummy spudcan is placed at the bowl shaped plug
bottom, in contrast with the traditional way of placing
foundation on the layer interface;
• The effect of soil plug is explicitly considered in the
conceptual model;
• The possibility of soil back-flow in the upper layer was
accounted and assessed using the procedure for a single
clay layer.
Zheng et al. • It develops design charts to estimate the limiting cavity
method depth and the peak bearing capacity factor at punch-
through on strain softening, and rate dependent stiff-over-
soft clay;
• The bearing capacity at the stiff-soft layer interface is
specially considered and assessed;
• The effect of the soil plug and corresponding additional
contribution in the deep bearing capacity factor is
considered.
• It does not account for the distortion of the upper layer as
the foundation punches through into the lower layer;
• It applies to clay layers of uniform undrained shear strength.
It is uncertain about how to select the undrained shear
strength for nonhomogeneous strength profile;
• No guidelines are provided for the punch-through criterion
about the punch-through depth;
• Strain softening of both clay layers due to remoulding of
clay is not explicitly considered.
• The clay was modelled as an intact plastic material in the
simulation without considering the softening effect;
• The top clay layer was assumed to be homogeneous only, so
it is uncertain whether this method is still valid for non-
homogeneous stiff-over-soft clay soils.
• This method is applicable to clay deposits with sensitivity of
approximately 2.8. Its applicability for highly sensitive clay
deposits is uncertain;
• The rate dependency might not be properly considered
while evaluating the bearing capacity at each penetration
stage, as only a constant rate parameter was used in the
numerical analyses to derive the formulas.

9
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

where su0 is the clay shear strength at spudcan base level. The sand plug height was confirmed as 0.9Hs from full spudcan and half-
spudcan centrifuge model tests and further validated by large deformation finite element analyses by Hu et al. [26]. A bearing ca­
pacity factor Nc was derived from the sand-over-clay centrifuge testing database and LDFE analyses of the full penetration process:
( ) ( ) ( )
kD kD Hs kD
Nc = 9 + 0.9 + 10 + for 0 ≤ ≤3 (33)
sum sum D sum

Here, Nc incorporates the effect of normalised sand layer thickness Hs/D and normalised shear strength of clay kD/sum.

4. STIFF-OVER-SOFT clay

Equally problematic for potential punch-through during spudcan installation is a layer of stiff stronger clay overlying weaker clay.
Such conditions are encountered increasingly in frontier regions such as offshore South-East Asia [39–41]. The Brown and Meyerhof
[33] method was traditionally used to evaluate the bearing capacity of such soil stratigraphy. Two additional prediction methods were
developed in recent years, i.e. Hossain and Randolph method and Zheng et al. method. Table 2 provides a summary of the charac­
teristics and limitations of these stiff-over-soft clay punch-through prediction methods.

4.1. ISO method

For assessing the bearing capacity in stiff-over-soft clay, it is usually considered that for such two layered systems, the bearing
capacity is bounded by the bearing capacity of the upper clay (as upper bound) and bearing capacity of the lower clay (as lower
bound). For predicting the vertical bearing capacity of a spudcan on the surface of a stiff clay layer overlying a soft clay layer, the
punching shear method of Brown and Meyerhof [33] was recommended by the SNAME [13] and ISO [14] industry guidelines. The
mechanism diagram of this method is shown in Fig. 5. The bearing capacity is calculated as follows:
( t )
QV = A 3 sut + Nc sc sub ≤ ANc sc sut (34)
D

where sut and sub are the undrained shear strength of the top and bottom clay, respectively. Similar to the punching shear method for
sand-over-clay soil, there are two main components of the method: (a) end bearing at the base of the soil plug; and (b) frictional
resistance around the periphery of the soil plug trapped beneath the advancing spudcan. This equation is applicable to the calculation
of the bearing capacity of a spudcan on the surface of clay layers of uniform shear strength.
For the evaluation of deep spudcan penetration, and to maintain compatibility with the equations for homogeneous clays, the
following equations are recommended by SNAME [13]:
For the no back-flow condition:
[ ( ) ]
t d+t
QV = A 3 sut + Nc sc 1 + 0.2 sub + q0 ≤ A(Nc sc dc sut + q0 ) (35)
D D

and for the full back-flow condition:

[ ( ) ]
t d+t
QV = A 3 sut + Nc sc 1 + 0.2 sub + γ ’ V ≤ ANc sc dc sut + γ’ V (36)
D D
This method does not account for the movement of the soil plug into the underlying soft layer as the base of the plug is assumed to
be fixed at the upper-lower layer interface regardless of the spudcan penetration. This approximation has been found to generate lower
estimation on the predicted bearing capacity.

Fig. 5. Spudcan bearing capacity analyses on stiff over soft clay.

10
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

4.2. Hossain and Randolph method

Hossain and Randolph [42] proposed a method to estimate the full spudcan penetration profile in stiff over soft clay, accounting for
the evolution of the failure mechanism at each penetration depth. The method is based on an assumed uniform shear strength profile
for the upper stiff layer, and uniform to linearly increasing profile for the lower soft layer. This method contains the following steps:
( ) [( )( )( )]
Qv subs Hc kD
= 2.9ln 1+ + 9.9 ≤ 12 (37)
Asut p sut D subs

(a) Calculate Qpeak, the magnitude of triggering punch-through in the top clay layer:

where subs is the undrained shear strength of bottom layer soil at the layer interface and Hc is the thickness of the top layer of the stiff-
over-soft clay. The depth of Qpeak could be calculated as:
( ) [( )( )( )]1.3
d subs Hc kD
= 1.3 1+ (38)
D p sut D subs
[( )/( )] [( ) / ( ) ]
Qv Qv d d
= 0.12ln +1 (39)
Asut Asut p D D p

(b) Calculate the bearing capacity from the soil surface to Qpeak:

It should be noted that the prevalent prediction methods (e.g. Refs. [9,39]) generally assume that the spudcan is based on a deep
layer with uniform strength sut and general shear failure. It has been revealed in Hossain and Randolph [42] that the underlying soft
clay affects the spudcan performance before Qpeak and the bearing capacity should be lower than that for only a deep upper clay layer.

(c) Calculate the bearing capacity after Qpeak until soft clay behaviour in lower clay is established:

Hossain and Randolph [42] described the critical punch-through mechanism of a stiff-over-soft clay as a punching shear model of a
truncated cone. This model is illustrated in Fig. 6. In contrast with the traditional method of placing the foundation on the layer
interface in the guidelines, a dummy spudcan is placed at the bowl shaped plug bottom. The soil plug in the lower clay is surrounded by
a combination of stiff and soft clays.
By solving the force equilibrium formulation during punching shear, the bearing capacity at this stage could be calculated as:

Fig. 6. Punch-through failure mechanism of Hossain and Randolph method.

11
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

[ ( ) ]
4 Hplug,t sut + Hplug,b suavg π D2
(40)
′ ′ ′
Qv = + Nc,deep sub0 + γt Hc + γ b Hplug,b − γ t Hplug
D 4

where Hplug,t is the thickness of soil plug in top layer; Hplug,b is the thickness of soil plug in bottom layer; suavg is the average of sut and
sub; γ′ t and γ′ b are the effective unit weight of top clay and bottom clay; sub0 is the shear strength at the dummy spudcan base level in the
lower clay; Ncd is the deep bearing capacity factor assuming displacement measured from the surface of the bottom layer, which is
expressed as:
{ [ [ ( )0.5 ]]}
Hplug,b
Ncd = Nc,limit 1 − exp − min 10, 2 Nc,limit = 13 (41)
D

where Hplug was fitted considering different subs/sut, kD/subs and spudcan roughness and it could generally be expressed as:
( )
Hplug d
= f1 exp − f2 ≤1 (42)
Hc D

where the values of factor f1 and f2 could be calculated as:

( )( )
subs kD
f1 = 0.17 1 + 3.3 +1 (43)
sut subs
( )( )
subs kD
f2 = 1 + 1.9 + 0.25 (44)
sut subs
[( )( )/( )]0.5
H sut Hc kD
≈ 1.4 ′
1+ (45)
D γb D D subs

(d) Estimate the cavity depth (depth of soil back-flow), and subtract the backfilled soil weight from the right hand side of Eq. (40), if
it falls within stage (c). The open cavity depth H after spudcan penetration (taken as identical to back-flow depth) could be
estimated as:

(e) Calculate the bearing capacity below the depth in stage (c):

The calculation of Qv at successive depths following Eq. (40) is up to the depth where it is equivalent to the response for the lower
soft clay alone. Afterwards the bearing capacity is calculated using the classical bearing capacity formula for clay together with the
bearing capacity factor for deep penetration [2]:
( )
d
Ncd ≈ 10 1 + 0.065 ≤ 11.3 (46)
D
This method was recommended for evaluating bearing capacity in stiff clay over soft clay in the InSafeJIP [6] guideline.

4.3. Zheng et al. Method

Following a similar framework suggested in Hossain and Randolph method, a simple design method was later proposed by Zheng
et al. [43] to predict spudcan penetration profile in stiff-over-soft clay deposits. Similar to other prediction methods, it also contains
formulas for estimation of the magnitude and position of peak bearing capacity, the bearing capacity in the layer interface and in the
bottom clay layer. The peak bearing capacity is evaluated as:
[( )− 1 ( )0.75 ( )0.5 ]0.77
Qpeak subs Hc kD Qnets
= 6.35 + 5 1+ ≥ (47)
Asubs sut D subs Asubs

where Qnets is the net bearing capacity at the top of the stiff clay layer. The corresponding depth of peak bearing capacity dpeak varies
with the normalised parameters subs/sut, Hc/D, and kD/subs and it is expressed as:
( )1.5 ( )( )0.5
dpeak subs Hc kD Hc
= 1.3 1+ ≤ (48)
D sut D subs D
The expression for bearing capacity at the layer interface, Qint, was calibrated to testing and numerical modelling data as:
[( )− 0.5 ( )0.25 ( )0.25 ]0.85
subs Hc kD
Qint = 10.2Asubs 1+ (49)
sut D subs
Similar to the treatment in Hossain and Randolph method, but with implicit inclusion of the sand plug effect, the deep bearing

12
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

capacity factor Ncd could be calculated as:

( )− 1 [( )0.5 ]( )− 1
subs Hc kD
Ncd = 9.8 + 1.3 min , 1.0 1 + (50)
sut D subs
This bearing capacity factor combined with the traditional bearing capacity formula for single-layer clay is used to estimate the
bearing capacity in the underlying clay layer.
It is noted that this method is mainly derived and applicable to clays with sensitivity of around 2.8. It may not be suitable for stiff-
over-soft clay deposits with high sensitivity.

5. Conclusions

This paper presents recent advances in analysing the installation of the jack-up spudcan foundations in double-layered soils which
exhibit punch-through failure potential. It is considered that both SNAME and ISO guidelines address most of the punch-through issues
with an appropriate interpretation. However, there are some issues highlighted in this study, and the ISO recommendations could be
modified and updated considering the comments in the following key areas:

(1) There is consensus that these ISO methods are conservative in predicting the overall bearing capacity. For example, the load
spread method is observed to under-predict the punch-through capacity, even for a load spread factor of 3. However, only
accurate prediction of spudcan bearing capacity in a problematic soil profile can facilitate the adoption of adequate precau­
tionary measures to achieve a safe installation of the jack-ups;
(2) Some guidelines were based on empirical methods for onshore fixed foundations without considering the installation effect and
the disturbance of the soil layers. This review highlights the need to adopt methods that take the actual penetration process into
account;
(3) Another limitation of the guidelines is the general lack of consideration of the soil plug trapped beneath the spudcan during
penetration in layered soils. This can lead to significant underestimation of the bearing capacity;
(4) Although majority of recently developed methods were based on centrifuge tests and large deformation finite element analyses
with similar field stress conditions, seldom they are fully validated with adequate field penetration data. It is recommended to
record complete leg penetration data during preloading, which provides invaluable information in assessing the quality and
performance of each prediction method to improve future evaluations.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University Open
Foundation [grant number HESS-1802] and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51890912, 51879187,
51890915.

Notation

A spudcan plan area at largest section

d penetration depth of spudcan base (lowest point of largest section)
dbase depth from the bottom of the sand plug to the sand-clay interface
dc depth factor
dpeak spudcan depth at peak bearing capacity
dpost, peak spudcan depth corresponding to local minimum of post-peak bearing capacity
D foundation diameter
DF distribution factor
E parameter to simplify the algebra
E* parameter to simplify the algebra
hf thickness of the spudcan at the widest section
H open cavity depth after spudcan installation
Hc thickness of the top layer of the stiff-over-soft clay
Heff distance between the depth of peak bearing capacity and the sand-clay interface
Hfdn height of the composite foundation of spudcan and sand plug
Hplug thickness of the soil plug
Hplug,b thickness of soil plug in bottom layer

13
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

Hplug,t thickness of soil plug in top layer

Hs sand layer thickness
k strength gradient of clay
Kp coefficient of passive earth pressure
Ks punching shear coefficient
ns load spread factor
Nc bearing capacity factor
Nc0 bearing capacity factor of clay at base level of a circular foundation
Ncd bearing capacity factor for deep penetration
q0 effective overburden pressure
Q0 bearing capacity at sand surface in Teh et al. method
Qclay bearing capacity in clay
Qc,peak bearing capacity of the underlying clay when d = dpeak
Qint bearing capacity at the layer interface
Qnets net bearing capacity at the top of the stiff clay layer
Qpeak peak bearing capacity in the sand layer
Qpost, peak post-peak bearing capacity in the sand layer
Qs,peak vertical component of shear force developed along a simplified inclined failure surface in the upper sand layer of sand-over-
clay
Qub ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the (fictitious) footing
Qv vertical bearing capacity of a spudcan
r geometric parameter in Teh et al. method
R geometric parameter in Teh et al. method
sc shape factor
su undrained shear strength of clay
sua average shear strength from (d – hf) to (d + Hplug)
suavg average shear strength of sut and sub
sub undrained shear strength of the underlying clay
subs undrained shear strength of bottom layer soil at the layer interface
suc shear strength of clay at the base of the composite foundation
sum undrained shear strength of clay at the sand-clay interface
sut undrained shear strength of the top clay
su0 clay shear strength at spudcan base level
t thickness of the soil layer (below spudcan) in the ISO methods
V total volume of spudcan beneath backfill (buried volume)
Vb volume of spudcan below maximum bearing area
Vf volume of the spudcan
Wpeak weight of a sand wedge trapped between the spudcan and sand-clay interface
z depth below soil surface
αside side adhesion factor
σ′ v effective stress at the level of the sand plug base
φ′ friction angle of sand
φ* reduced friction angle due to non-associated flow rule
φ2 reduced operative friction angle
φcv critical state friction angle of sand
ψ dilation angle of sand
γ′ effective unit weight of soil
γ′ b effective unit weight of bottom clay
γ′ c effective unit weight of clay
γ′ s effective unit weight of sand
γ′ t effective unit weight of top clay
μ rate parameter
ω geometric parameter
κ dimensionless strength parameter for non-homogeneous cohesive soil

14
P. Hu et al. Marine Structures 79 (2021) 103038

References

[1] Houlsby GT, Martin CM. Undrained bearing capacity factors for conical footings on clay. Geotechnique 2003;53(5):513–20.
[2] Hossain MS, Randolph MF. New mechanism-based design approach for spudcan foundations on single layer clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135(9):
1264–74.
[3] Hossain MS, Randolph MF. Effect of strain rate and strain softening on the penetration resistance of spudcan foundations on clay. Int J GeoMech 2009;9(3):
122–32.
[4] Cassidy MJ, Houlsby GT. Vertical bearing capacity factors for conical footings on sand. Geotechnique 2002;52(9):687–92.
[5] Martin CM. User guide for ABC - analysis of bearing capacity. Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Report No. OUEL 2261/03; 2004.
available from, http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/civil/people/cmm/software/abc_manual.pdf.
[6] InSafeJIP. Improved guidelines for the prediction of geotechnical performance of spudcan foundations during installation and removal of jack-up units. Joint
Industry Funded Project 2011:1–124.
[7] Aust T. Accident to the mobile offshore drilling Unit Maersk Victory on 16 November 1996. South Australia: Mines and Energy Resources; 1997.
[8] Maung UM, Ahmad CKM. Swiss Cheesing to Bring in a jack-up rig at anding Location. In: Proceedings of the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific drilling Technology, Kuala
Lumpur, IADC/SPE 62755; 2000.
[9] Brennan R, Diana H, Stonor RWP, Hoyle MJR, Cheng C-P, Martin D, Roper R. Installing Jackups in punch-through-Sensitive clays. In: Proceedings of the offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC 18268; 2006.
[10] Kostelnik A, Guerra M, Alford J, Vazquez J, Zhong J. Jackup mobilization in hazardous soils. SPE Drill Complet 2007;22(1):4–15.
[11] Chan NHC, Paisley JM, Holloway GL. Characterization of soils affected by rig Emplacement and Swiss Cheese operations - Natuna sea, Indonesia, A case study.
In: Proceedings of the 2nd jack-up Asia Conference and exhibition, Singapore; 2008.
[12] MSL. Guidelines for jack-up rigs with particular reference to foundation integrity. MSL Engineering Limited for the Health and Safety Executive, Research
Report 289; 2004.
[13] SNAME. Guidelines for site specific assessment of mobile jack-up units, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. New Jersey: Technical and Research
Bulletin 5-5A; 2008.
[14] ISO. Petroleum and natural gas industries: site-specific assessment of mobile offshore unit. 1: jack-ups. ISO 19905-1. Geneva: ISO/FDIS; 2012.
[15] Osborne JJ, Houlsby GT, Teh KL, Bienen B, Cassidy MJ, Randolph MF, Leung CF. Improved guidelines for the prediction of geotechnical performance of spudcan
foundations during installation and removal of jack-up units. In: Proceedings of the 41st offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 20291; 2009.
[16] Osborne JJ, Teh KL, Houlsby GT, Cassidy MJ, Bienen B, Leung CF. Improved guidelines for the prediction of geotechnical performance of spudcan foundations
during installation and removal of jack-up units. In: RPS Energy Report number EOG0574-Rev1. Final guidelines of the InSafe Joint industry project 124p; 2010.
Now available to all industry at, http://insafe.woking.rpsplc.co.uk/Default.asp.
[17] Lee KK. Investigation of potential spudcan punch-through failure on sand overlying clay soils. Ph.D. thesis. Perth, Australia: University of Western Australia;
2009.
[18] Teh KL, Leung CF, Chow YK, Cassidy MJ. Centrifuge model study of spudcan penetration in sand overlying clay. Geotechnique 2010;60(11):825–42.
[19] Lee KK, Cassidy MJ, Randolph MF. Bearing capacity on sand overlying clay soils: experimental and finite element investigation of potential punch-through
failure. Geotechnique 2013;63(15):1271–84.
[20] Hu P, Stanier SA, Cassidy MJ, Wang D. Predicting peak resistance of spudcan penetrating sand overlying clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2014;140(2):
04013009.
[21] Hu P, Stanier SA, Wang D, Cassidy MJ. Effect of footing shape on penetration in sand overlying clay. Int J Phys Model Geotech 2016;16(3):119–33.
[22] Teh KL. Punch-through of spudcan foundation in sand overlying clay. Ph.D. thesis. Singapore: National University of Singapore; 2007.
[23] Teh KL, Leung CF, Chow YK, Handidjaja P. Prediction of punch-through for spudcan penetration in sand overlying clay. In: Proceedings of the offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 20060; 2009.
[24] Lee KK, Randolph MF, Cassidy MJ. Bearing capacity on sand overlying clay soils: a simplified conceptual model. Geotechnique 2013;63(15):1285–97.
[25] Hu P, Stanier SA, Wang D, Cassidy MJ. A comparison of the full profile prediction methods for spudcan penetrating sand overlying clay. Géotech Lett 2015;5:
131–9.
[26] Hu P, Wang D, Stanier SA, Cassidy MJ. Assessing the punch-through hazard of a spudcan on sand overlying clay. Geotechnique 2015;65(11):883–96.
[27] Hu P, Cassidy MJ, Randolph MF. Bearing capacity on sand overlying clay: an analytical model for predicting post peak behaviour. Mar Struct 2018;59:94–104.
[28] Hu P, Cassidy MJ. Predicting jack-up spudcan installation in sand overlying stiff clay. Ocean Eng 2017;146:246–56.
[29] Kenny MJ, Andrawes KZ. The bearing capacity of footings on a sand layer overlying soft clay. Geotechnique 1997;47(2):339–46.
[30] Okamura M, Takemura J, Kimura T. Bearing capacity predictions of sand overlying clay based on limit equilibrium methods. Soils Found 1998;38(1):181–94.
[31] Carlos AF. Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on layered soils. MSc Thesis. Quebec: Concordia: Civil and Environmental Engineering; 2004.
[32] Baglioni VP, Chow GS, Endley SN. Jack-up foundation stability in stratified soil profiles. In: Proceedings of the 14th offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
OTC 4409; 1982.
[33] Brown JD, Meyerhof GG. Experimental study of bearing capacity in layered clays. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, vol. 2; 1969. p. 45–51.
[34] Hanna AM, Meyerhof GG. Design chart for ultimate bearing capacity of foundation on sand overlying soft clay. Can Geotech J 1980;17(2):300–3.
[35] Teh KL, Cassidy MJ, Leung CF, Chow YK, Randolph MF, Quah M. Revealing the bearing capacity mechanisms of a penetrating spudcan through sand overlying
clay. Geotechnique 2008;58(10):793–804.
[36] Hu P, Wang D, Cassidy MJ, Stanier SA. Predicting the resistance profile of a spudcan penetrating sand overlying clay. Can Geotech J 2014;51(10):1151–64.
[37] Craig WH, Chua K. Deep penetration of spud-can foundation on sand and clay. Geotechnique 1990;40(4):541–56.
[38] Hossain MS, Randolph MF, Hu Y, White DJ. Cavity stability and bearing capacity of spudcan foundations on clay. In: Proceedings of the offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, OTC 17770; 2006.
[39] Castleberry II JP, Prebaharan N. Clay crusts of the Sunda Shelf - a hazard to jack-up operations. In: Proceedings of the 8th Southeast Asian geotechnical
Conference, Kuala Lumpur; 1985. p. 40–8.
[40] Osborne JJ, Paisley JM. SE Asia jack-up punch-throughs: the way forward?. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on offshore site investigation and
Geotechnics - Sustainability and Diversity. London; 2002. p. 301–6.
[41] Paisley JM, Chan N. SE Asia jack-up punch-throughs: technical guidance note on site assessment. In: Proceedings of the jack-up Asia Conference and exhibition,
Singapore; 2006.
[42] Hossain MS, Randolph MF. New mechanism-based design approach for spudcan foundations on stiff-over-soft clay. In: Proceedings of the offshore Technology
Conference. Houston, USA: OTC; 2009. p. 19907.
[43] Zheng J, Hossain MS, Wang D. Prediction of spudcan penetration resistance profile in stiff-over-soft clays. Can Geotech J 2016;53(12):1798–990. https://www.
statista.com/statistics/279100/number-of-offshore-rigs-worldwide-by-region/.

15