Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Investigation on Perforation Drilling to Mitigate Punch-through Potential in

Sand Overlying Soft Clay
Pan Gao 1, Zhihui Liu 1, Danda Shi 1, *, Fei Wang 2
1
College of Ocean Science and Engineering, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai 201306, China
2
China Oilfield Services Limited, Sanhe 065201, China

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

Editor: Pengzhi Lin Perforation drilling has been successfully conducted in engineering practice to mitigate the punch-through po­
tential in stiff-over-soft clays. However, it has not been implemented in sand-over-clay stratum which usually
Keywords: shows high potential of punch-through. In this paper, an engineering case successfully perforating the sand layer
Perforation drilling is reported, in which the borehole was filled with drilling mud. Its mechanism is investigated numerically with a
punch-through
finite element model based on the coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian (CEL) method. And effects of the borehole
sand overlying clay
diameter, borehole depth and the drilling position on the mitigation efficiency are discussed. The preliminary
Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
sand disturbance study shows that the mitigation effect of perforating the sand overlying clay is most probably due to the
weakening of the sand surrounding the borehole. Simulation also shows that the mitigation efficiency increases
with the increase of borehole depth. However, it shows little improvement if the borehole depth increases
beyond the sand layer. Drilling directly under the spudcan is more effective than the region expanding outwards
from the edge with a ratio of 3:1. The reported engineering case and the numerical findings are of great sig­
nificance for guiding the future engineering practice and ensuring the safe operation of jack-up drilling units in
sand overlying clay.

1. Introduction
With the development of offshore oil and gas fields and offshore wind
farms, jack-up platforms are widely used in multifarious offshore oper­
ations including drilling and wind turbine installation. However, the
layered hard-over-soft soils spreading from the North Sea to the South
China Sea greatly threaten the installation of jack-up units (Dier et al.,
2004; Young et al., 1984; Fan et al., 2022). It typically includes the type
of stiff-over-soft clay layers and the sand-over-clay layers. The former is
common in Southeast Asia, while the latter is usually found in other
regions (Osborne et al., 2006). When the jack-up platform is preloaded
to make its spudcan penetrate the hard layer, rapid and uncontrolled
vertical leg settlement may occur due to an abrupt reduction of the
foundation bearing capacity, which is often referred as “punch-­
through”. Statistics show that the punch-through failure is the most
hazardous of all geohazards for jack-up foundations, and has the highest
rate in incident causes, representing 53% of all incidents (Hunt and
Marsh, 2004).
Among these layered stratum cases, the sand-over-clay case is the
most dangerous. The punch-through potential in sand overlying clay is a
serious threat to the safety of jack-up platforms, which motivates a lot of
researches (Craig and Chuat, 1990, Teh et al., 2008, Lee et al., 2009, Teh
et al., 2010, Qiu and Grabe, 2012, Ullah and Hu, 2017). In addition, in
order to reduce the occurrence of punch-through accidents, a multitude
of researchers explored how to reduce the risk. The methods can be
divided into three categories:(i)footing modifications (Hossain and
Dong, 2014, Hu et al., 2016, Li et al., 2019, Lee et al., 2020); (ii) reliable
risk assessment (Osborne et al., 2009, Hu and Cassidy, 2017, Li et al.,
2018, Bienen et al., 2015) and (iii) seabed modifications (Maung and
Ahmad, 2000, Kostelnik et al., 2007, Hossain et al., 2010, Hossain et al.,
2014). The footing modification method is proved effective by centri­
fuge tests. However, it has never been implemented in engineering
practice, and modifying the traditional spudcan shape may induce
problems when the jack-up unit is installed in other kinds of soil stratum.
Recently proposed methods for reliable risk assessment have improved
the evaluation accuracy. However, the accuracy is still inadequate, and
punch-through accidents have still been reported in recent years. Be­
sides, no matter how accurate the method is, it cannot help the jack-up
unit to operate in soil layers with punch-through potential. The third
category of methods, seabed modification, can usually reduce the peak

* Correspondence: Prof. Danda Shi, Tel.: +86-21-3828-2501.

E-mail address: ddshi@shmtu.edu.cn (D. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.103026
Received 11 March 2021; Received in revised form 14 September 2021; Accepted 22 December 2021
Available online 31 December 2021
0141-1187/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Gao et al. Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

Table 1
Properties of seabed soil at the A oilfield
Number Soil description Depth/ Effective unit Design
m weight, γ/(kN/ parameters of
m3) soil

1 Loose sand 0.0-2.4 8.7 ∅ = 25∘

2 Medium dense silty 2.4-5.3 8.5 ∅ = 30∘
sand
3 Slightly hard silty 5.3- 7.1 su = 48kPa
clay and sandy silt 11.1
4 Slightly hard silty 11.1- 7.7 su = 45 −
clay 18.2 50kPa

Note: su is the undrained shear strength of clay,∅ is the internal friction angle of
sand.

resistance in the egg-shell layer, and therefore mitigate the

punch-through potential. R&B Falcon firstly launched a technology
called "Swiss cheesing", which showed the feasibility of the "perforation
drilling method" by using many shallow holes to tackle the
punch-through problem associated with layered clay (Maung and
Ahmad, 2000). Brennan (2006) also reported that this technology was
successfully applied at Belida B wellhead platform (WHP) in Natuna sea,
Indonesia (Brennan et al., 2006). The joint industry project In SafeJIP
found that the perforating drilling had achieved a certain degree of
success, and discussed the factors to be considered in the perforation
program and the prediction of the bearing capacity reduction (Osborne
et al., 2009). With regard to the punch-through risk in two-layer and
multi-layer clay, Hossain et al. (2011) investigated the effectiveness of
perforation drilling through centrifugal tests and found that drilling
around the periphery of the spudcan was an effective pattern for
reducing the bearing capacity and punch-through potential (Hossain
et al., 2011). Kostelniket al. (2007) also demonstrated that drilling
directly under the spudcan (29% to 37% of the holes fall outside the
diameter of the spudcan) can reduce the punch-through potential
(Kostelnik et al., 2007).
Although the perforation drilling method has been successfully
implemented in stiff-over-soft clay, it has not been used in sand over­
lying clay. It is because the borehole drilled in sand is usually unstable.
In this paper, an engineering case that successfully implemented the
perforation drilling method in sand overlying clay is reported, in which
the borehole drilled was filled with drilling mud. And a finite element
model is used to investigate the mechanism of perforation drilling in
sand overlying clay. And parametric analysis is conducted to study the
effects of perforation parameters including the drilling depth, borehole
diameter and the perforation range.
2. An Engineering Case of Punch-through and Perforation
2.1. Punch-through accident in the first installation
In 2014, a punch-through accident occurred during the installation
of a JU-2000E jack-up drilling unit in sand overlying clay at oilfield A.
The jack-up platform has three legs with a total length of 167.03m
(including spudcan), and the largest part of the spudcan foundation has
an effective diameter of 18.1 m and an area of 254.0m2. The designed
maximum preload of each spudcan is 11000 t. The stratum formation at
the well site is listed in Table 1.
During the installation of the jack-up rig, the 2# leg quickly pene­
trated from 4.7 m to 13.3 m when the preload was increased to 8000t,
while the 1# leg and 3# leg remained at 5.1 m and 4.7 m, respectively,
which caused serious damage to the jacking system of the platform. At
this well site, the two layers on the top are sandy soils, and they lie on a
10m thick layer of slightly hard silty clay. They form a typical eggshell
stratum. However, geotechnical analysis according to the SNAME TR5-5
guideline shows no punch-through potential if preloaded at 8000t
(SNAME 2008). It may be attributed to the inaccurate geotechnical
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of typical stratum with sand overlying clay
investigation, as a comparative analysis of the soil parameters of
different well sites in this oilfield shows that the variation of soil
spreading in this field is significant.
2.2. Perforation to mitigate punch-through in the second installation
After the drilling unit was repaired, it was still ordered to drill at this
oilfield. However, in order to prevent punch-through again during the
reinstallation of the 1# leg and 3# leg, measures should be taken at the
two footprints induced by the former penetration.
In general, a typical spudcan penetration resistance profile in sand
overlying clay can be simplified with three key characteristic points:
Q0 (spudcan bearing resistance at d = 0),Qpeak (peak resistance of spud­
can near the sand surface) and Qpost− peak (the post-peak resistance at the
sand-clay interface), as shown in Fig. 1. The difference between Qpeak
and Qpost− peak , named asQdiff , indicates the severity of punch-through
failure.
When installing jack-ups in sand overlying clay, it keeps pumping
ballast water to preload the unit. Once the preload slightly exceeds the
Qpeak value, the soil under the spudcan will deform abruptly and reach
the limit state, resulting in the punching shear failure. Then the leg will
penetrate suddenly, undergoing a sudden post-peak softening and
gradually lying on the underlying soft layer. Finally, as the leg pene­
trates deeper into the clay layer, the penetration resistance gradually
increases and stabilizes (Lee et al., 2013). To mitigate the punch-through
potential, the Qdiff should be eliminated.
In this project, the perforation drilling method was adopted to
weaken the sand layers, so that the peak resistance is reduced and then
the Qdiff is eliminated. A bottom-hole drilling assembly with 5” drill pipe
+ 8” drill collar + 42” reamer + 26” bit was used. And 62 boreholes were
planned in each footprint induced by the 1# and 3# legs, as shown in
Fig. 2. The diameter of the boreholes Dd is 1.0m. To avoid collapse of the
drilled borehole in sand, the borehole was filled with drilling mud.
Affected by the sea condition, positioning accuracy and drilling failure,
8% of the planned boreholes failed in the actual operation. Then with
supplementary operations carried out, 82 boreholes were finally drilled
and the ratio of equivalent drilling area to the footing area was 28.85%.
Distribution of the planned and actual boreholes is shown in Fig. 2.
Eventually, the implementation of the drilling method achieved the
desired effect, as the spudcan penetrated safely through the damaged
sand layer and continued to go down into the soft clay until the desired
preloading was achieved. The final penetration depth of the three legs is
14.4m, 15.2m and 13.9m, respectively.

2
P. Gao et al. Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

Fig. 2. Layout and actual scheme of perforation in the engineering

Fig. 3. Finite element mesh and geometry of CEL model and spudcan.

3. Perforation Mechanism in Sand Overlying Clay
Although the perforation drilling was successfully conducted in the
oilfield A, the mechanism to mitigate punch-through was not clear.
Different from the perforation in stiff-over-soft clay, the drilled borehole
in sand overlying clay was filled with drilling mud. In addition, the
bearing mechanism of spudcan in sand overlying clay is different from
that in stiff-over-soft clay. These factors may affect the mechanism of
perforation in sand overlying clay to mitigate punch-through potential.
To study the mechanism, numerical analysis is conducted with a finite
element model based on the Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) tech­
nique available in the ABAQUS.
3.1. Finite Element Model
In the CEL analysis, the structural spudcan is taken as a rigid body,
and the soil is modeled as a Eulerian domain with eight-node linear brick
elements with reduced integration and hourglass control, denoted as

3
P. Gao et al. Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

EC3D8R, which can overcome problems like mesh distortion in

Lagrangian simulation. Considering the model symmetry, only a half of
the model is set up and analyzed to save the computational cost. And the
mesh within 0.75 times of the spudcan diameter from the spudcan center
is refined. The specific geometric structure and finite element mesh used
in the simulation are shown in Fig. 3, in which the soil part is 5.5D long,
2.5D wide and 2.8D deep, and the diameter D of the maximum section of
spudcan is 18 m. According to the studies of Ullah and Hu (2012) and
Ullah et al. (2017), the present model size can eliminate the boundary
effect (Ullah and Hu, 2012, Ullah et al., 2017). Ullah and Hu (2012)
concluded that the spudcan shoulder should be away from the rigid
bottom boundary at least at a distance 1D and 1.3D for Zs/D <1.0 and
Zs/D>1.0. In the present calculation, the spudcan diameter is 18m, and
the penetration depth is about 0.8D. Therefore, the spudcan bottom is
always away from the rigid bottom boundary at 2D. The lateral distances
of the boundary to the spudcan center are 2.75D and 2.5D, respectively,
which satisfy the design chart proposed in Ullah et al. (2017).
The symmetric boundary condition is applied to the base and four
sides of the soil part, that is, the normal velocity of the surfaces is con­
strained. The spudcan penetrates at a rate of 0.01 m/s, ensuring the
undrained behavior in clay. The contact between the soil and spudcan is
described using the “general contact” algorithm provided in the ABA­
QUS software, which enforces the use of the penalty contact method.
There is no general consensus regarding the friction coefficient between
spudcan and soil in numerical simulations and finally a friction coeffi­
cient α = 0.3 is adopted, which is within the range of 0.3-0.5 suggested
by the SNAME guidelines (SNAME 2008).
The Drucker-Prager (D-P) model is used to simulate the complex Fig. 4. Comparison of the penetration resistance between the numerical and
sand layers in the actual engineering case including loose and medium test results.
dense silty fine sands, which is more suitable for sand than the Mohr-
Coulomb (M-C) yield function. The yield criterion equation of D-P cumulative shear strain required for 95% remolding. Typical value of
model is defined as: ξ95 = 10 in the range of 10-50 (i.e., 1000-5000% shear strain) was
Fs = q − ptanβ − s = 0 recommended by Einav and Randolph (2005) and 0.2 is suggested for
δrem (Einav and Randolph, 2005).
in which q is the deviator stress parameter, p is the hydrostatic stress, β
andsare the friction angle and cohesion in the meridional (p − q) plane. 3.2. Model Validation
The value of sis related to the input hardening parameter, when the
hardening parameter is defined by the uniaxial compression test Teh et al. (2008) reported a series of half-spudcan penetration tests in
( )
parameter σc , s = 1 − 13 tanβ σ c (Han et al., 2008, Jin et al., 2020). For sand overlying clay by a drum centrifuge (Teh et al., 2008). A numerical
√̅̅̅ simulation with the CEL model was conducted, assuming the kaolin clay
the case of sand flow without dilation angle in this study, tanβ = 3sin∅, with Poisson’s ratio of 0.49 and Young’s modulus of 500Su , where Su is
√̅̅̅
s = 3ccos∅ are adopted, where c and ∅ are the cohesion and internal the undrained shear strength. And the superfine silica sand has an
friction angle of soil in the M-C model. effective unit weight of 10.8 kN/m3, the internal friction angle is 34◦ .
In addition, the clay is simulated as an elastic-perfectly plastic ma­ Two cases, T2 and T4, are simulated and compared to the test results.
terial obeying the Tresca criteria. Hossain and Randolph (2009) pointed For the case T2, the spudcan diameter, sand layer thickness, and the
out that the effect of strain rate on spudcan penetration resistance is undrained shear strength of the clay are 6m, 5m, and 10kPa, respec­
negligible (Hossain and Randolph, 2009), while Tjahyono (2011) tively in the prototype scale. For the case T4, these parameters are 3m,
proved the necessity of strain softening effect on hard and soft clay. 5m and 10kPa, respectively. As shown in Fig. 4, the numerical results
Therefore, the strain softening effect of clay is considered in this model show a similar trend in the resistance profile to the test results for both
(Tjahyono, 2011). A field variable is introduced to represent the soft­ cases. The resistance all reached a peak value in the sand layer followed
ening degree in the ABAQUS model, and the user subroutine VUSDFLD by significant reduction when the spudcan penetrating towards the
can update the field variable to furtherly update the soil strength in each underlying layer. It has to be noted that the peak value is not well
time increment. The undrained shear strength at the integration points is captured in the numerical simulation for both cases, especially in the T2
calculated according to the formulation proposed by Einav and Ran­ case. There are two possible reasons causing the problem. One is that the
dolph (2005) as: adopted constitutive models of the sand and clay do not accurately
( ) simulate their mechanical property, especially for the sand. The other is
sus 3ξ
= δrem + (1 − δrem )exp − that the CEL algorithm tends to underestimate the peak value of spudcan
sui ξ95
penetration resistance. However, it is believed the accuracy of the pre­
sent numerical model is acceptable as this research is dedicated to study
where sus is the undrained shear strength considering strain softening,
the effects of perforation. And these effects can be reflected by the
and sui is the initial undrained shear strength of undisturbed clay. The
profile differences between cases with different perforation parameters.
strength degradation is expressed as an exponential function of the cu­
mulative shear strain ξ and the residual shear strength of the fully
remolded clay δrem (δrem = 1/St , and St is the clay sensitivity). The rela­ 3.3. Mechanism of perforation drilling
tive ductility is controlled by the parameter ξ95 , which represents the
To investigate the mitigation mechanism, several cases are numeri

4
P. Gao et al. Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

Fig. 6. Specific drilling scheme and weakening range of hard soil layer

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the boreholes filled with drilling mud

Table 2
Parameters of numerical simulation cases.
Case Friction angle Diameter of Borehole Borehole Borehole
reduction, Δ∅ weakening diameter,Dd depth, Hd location
(◦ ) region, Ds

A0 0 3Dd 0 0 no
PA0 0 3Dd 0.056D 1Zs Just
below the
spudcan
WA0 -10 3Dd 0.056D 1Zs Just
below the
spudcan
WA1- -10 2Dd 0.056D 1Zs Just
1 below the
spudcan
WA1- -10 2.5Dd 0.056D 1Zs Just
2 below the
spudcan
WA2- -15 3Dd 0.056D 1Zs Just
1 below the
spudcan
WA2- -5 3Dd 0.056D 1Zs Just
2 below the
spudcan
WA3- -10 3Dd 0.083D 1Zs Just
1 below the
spudcan
WA3- -10 3Dd 0.111D 1Zs Just
2 below the Fig. 7. Comparison of penetration resistance profiles between the cases of A0,
spudcan PA0 and WA0.
WA4- -10 3Dd 0.056D 0.45Zs Just
1 below the
spudcan means no surrounding sand is weaken. For the engineering case shown
WA4- -10 3Dd 0.056D 2Zs Just in Fig. 2, the whole perforation region is weaken if Ds = 3Dd , as the
2 below the surrounding regions of the boreholes intersect each other, as shown in
spudcan
Fig. 6(c).
WA4- -10 3Dd 0.056D 2.8Zs Just
3 below the At the initial stage, three cases of numerical simulations are con­
spudcan ducted, and the penetration resistance Q is plotted against the pene­
WA5- -10 3Dd 0.056D 1Zs Besides tration depth in Fig. 7. In the first case labeled as A0, spudcan
1 stress penetration in the initial seabed is simulated, and potential punch-
diffusion
1:3
through risk is observed in the resistance profile, as shown in Fig. 7.
In other two cases, the sandy layers are perforated with boreholes up to
Note: Zs is the thickness of sand layers; D is the diameter of the spudcan’s the sand-clay interface. The second case labeled as PA0, in which the
maximum section;
perforation drilling is directly simulated by replacing the sand in the
boreholes with drilling mud (see Fig. 5), and the drilling mud is modeled
cally simulated and compared. As shown in Fig. 5, when perforating the as very soft clay with undrained shear strength of 1kPa, is simulated and
sand overlying clay, the boreholes are filled with drilling mud. The compared with the case A0. As shown in Fig. 7, resistance profile of the
parameters adopted in the numerical simulation are listed in Table 2. As PA0 case does not show significant difference from the A0 case. This is
the perforation process may affect the mechanical property of the sand, quite different from the perforation drilling in stiff-over-soft clay, as Gao
the friction angle reduction Δ∅ represents how much the friction angle et al. (2016) observed significant reduction of the peak resistance in the
is reduced in the simulation compared to Table 1. The diameter of numerical simulations of the stiff-over-soft clay case, in which the
weakening region Ds describes a round area concentric to the borehole. boreholes were simply modeled by removing the clay (Gao et al., 2016).
As shown in Fig. 6(a), if Ds = 1Dd , only the borehole is weaken, which As the perforation drilling may greatly affect the mechanical

5
P. Gao et al.
Fig. 8. Soil flow fields around the spudcan in sand overlying clay
Fig. 9. Comparison of penetration resistance profiles between the cases with
different weakening ranges
properties of the overlying sand layer, it is assumed that the perforation
would not only remove the sand, but also weaken the sand layer, that is
to say the friction angle of the sand is reduced. To verify the assumption,
a numerical case labeled as WA0 is conducted, in which the region in the
range of 3Dd from the borehole center is assumed to be weakened by
Fig. 10. Soil flow fields around the spudcan in cases with different weakening ranges
6
Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026
reducing the internal friction angle by 10◦ . As shown in Fig. 7, it
significantly reduces the peak resistance and mitigates the punch-
through potential. At the same time, the resistance profile in the un­
derlying clay layer is not much reduced. This is consistent with the en­
gineering case, as the final penetration of 1# and 3# legs were very close
to the 2# leg under which the soil was not perforated.
Fig. 8 shows the velocity vector fields of the three cases at d = 5m.
Along with the velocity vector fields, the interface between the sand and
clay is also sketched. As shown in Fig. 8(a), a trapezoid soil plug is
formed under the spudcan, which induces the peak resistance. For the
PA0 case, the soil plug is similar to that of A0, implying that modeling
the perforation by only filling the holes with drilling mud does not
significantly change the bearing mechanism of the sand overlying clay
stratum. For the WA0 case, the soil plug under the spudcan is much
smaller compared to cases A0 and PA0. Therefore, the authors
concluded that the mechanism of perforation to mitigate punch-through
potential is that the perforation greatly weaken the sand soil around the
boreholes by reducing its friction angle, and then reduces the soil plug
formed under the spudcan.
Furthermore, effects of the weakening range and degree of the sand
around the boreholes due to perforation are investigated. As the
research on the disturbing effect of drilling on sand is very limited,
different ranges of the affected zone are assumed and the corresponding
cases are compared.
Case WA1-1 reduces the friction angle within the 2Dd range around
each borehole and the weakening and drilling are shown in the Fig. 6(b).
The simulation result (see Fig. 9) shows the same change trend as that of
case WA0, and the upper sand resistance decreased by 8.6% without
peak and post-peak bearing capacity. However, combined with the
comparison of soil flow fields in Fig. 10(b) to (d), it is found that the
larger weakening range is, the smaller vertical component of velocity
vector is, indicating the smaller the vertical resistance to reach the
boundary between sandy soil layer and clay layer. In addition, the size of
the soil plug formed under the spudcan decreases with increasing the
weakening range.
Three cases with different internal friction angle reductions (-5◦ ,
-10 , -15◦ ), i.e., the WA2-2, WA0, and WA2-1 cases, are simulated and
◦
compared. In these cases, the weakening range is 2D from the borehole
P. Gao et al. Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

4. Parametric Study

Both the engineering practice and numerical simulations have

confirmed the effectiveness of perforation drilling in mitigating the
punch-through potential in sand overlying clay. In this section, effects of
the borehole diameter, depth and the perforation range on the punch-
through mitigation are analyzed. Several series of numerical simula­
tions are carried out, with the parameters shown in Table 2. In these
cases, the weakening range is Ds=3Dd.

4.1. Effect of the Borehole Diameter

Borehole diameter greatly affect the efficiency of perforation drilling

in stiff-over-soft clay, as it determines the perforation area (Gao et al.,
2016). To study its effect in sand overlying clay, three cases with
different borehole diameters (i.e., Dd = 0.056D, 0.083D and 0.111D,
cases WA0, WA3-1 and WA3-2 in Table 2) are simulated and compared.
As shown in Fig. 13, all three cases effectively mitigate the

Fig. 11. Comparison of penetration resistance profiles between the cases with
different weakening degrees

center. The vertical bearing resistance profiles and the soil flow fields of
different weakening cases are shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, respectively.
Compared with the case without drilling, vertical resistance profiles of
the perforated cases have no peak points. The peak resistance is reduced
by 15.8%, 21% and 25.6%, respectively. Among the three perforated
cases, the WA2-2 case gives the smallest reduction, and it can be
explained by Fig. 12 which shows that the soil plug under the spudcan in
the WA2-2 case is the largest.
In short, numerical simulations prove that the perforation drilling
weakens not only the soil in the boreholes but also the surrounding soil
in the sand layer. The decrease of sand strength around the boreholes
reduces the possibility of punch-through. The larger the weakening
range and degree are, the smaller the peak resistance in the sand layer is.
However, the exact weakening range and degree by perforation drilling
in sand layer need further study.

Fig. 13. Penetration resistance profiles of the cases with different bore­
hole diameters.

Fig. 12. Soil flow fields around the spudcan in cases with different weakening degrees

7
P. Gao et al. Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

Fig. 14. Soil flow fields around the spudcan in cases with different borehole diameters.

Fig. 15. Penetration resistance profiles of the cases with different bore­ Fig. 17. Penetration resistance profiles of the cases with different bore­
hole depths. hole locations.

punch-through potential. The borehole diameter slightly affects the
penetration resistance in the sand layer, however, it has little effect on
the resistance in the soft clay layer. The velocity vector fields explain the
resistance profiles. As shown in Fig. 14, the soil plugs under the spudcan
at the sand-clay interface depth are insignificant for all the three cases.
4.2. Effect of the Borehole Depth
Moreover, four cases with Hd = 0.45Zs , 1Zs , 2Zs and 2.8Zs (cases
WA4-1, WA0, WA4-2 and WA4-3 in Table 2) are simulated to investigate
the effect of borehole depth. As shown in Fig. 15. When Hd = 0.45Zs ,

Fig. 16. Soil flow fields around the spudcan in cases with different borehole depths.

8
P. Gao et al.
Fig. 18. Soil flow fields around the spudcan in cases with different borehole locations.
the Qpeak is not reduced significantly, and the resistance in the clay layer
shows little difference. When the borehole depth increases to Hd = 1Zs ,
e.g. drilled to the sand-clay interface, the peak resistance is reduced
significantly by 21% and the Qdiff is eliminated. It is worth noting that if
the borehole depth continues to increase beyond 1Zs , it shows little ef­
fect on the resistance profile, as shown in Fig. 15. The effect of the
borehole depth on the mitigation is explained by the flow mechanism
around the spudcan, as shown in Fig. 16. Compared with the case
without drilling (Case A0), the soil plug under the spudcan in the case
WA4-1 is similar, but the soil plugs in other three cases are much
smaller. However, the soil plugs in cases WA0, WA4-2 and WA4-3 are
similar, which explains the little difference in resistance profiles shown
in Fig. 15.
4.3. Effect of the Borehole Location
According to previous research, the 3:1 projection area method was
usually used to analyze and evaluate the spudcan bearing capacity in
sand overlying clay, so as to predict the potential of punch-through. This
method assumes that the foundation load applied on the soil extends
through the hard layer in a ratio of 3:1 (vertical direction: horizontal
direction), producing the assumed equivalent foundation at the top of
the soft layer. This ratio has also been verified by Wu et al. (1999) and
approved by SNAME guidelines (SNAME 2008, WU et al., 1999). The
present study compares two configurations, e.g. drilling directly below
the spudcan (case WA0) and in the 3:1 projection region (case WA5-1). It
can be seen from Fig. 17 that there is a significant difference between the
two configurations. Compared to the case without drilling, the Qpeak of
WA5-1 only decreases by 8%, and the overall trend of load-penetration
profile does not change significantly. However, the Qpeak of WA0 de­
creases by 21%, and the Qdiff is successfully eliminated. As shown in
Fig. 18, the soil plug under the spudcan in the WA5-1 case is similar to
that of case A0, but the soil plug in the WA0 case is much smaller.
5. Conclusion
A successful engineering case of perforation drilling in sand over­
lying clay to mitigate the punch-through potential is reported. And
based on numerical simulations on the problem, the mechanism and
effects of perforation parameters are studied. The following conclusions
are drawn.
1) The perforation drilling method mitigates the punch-through
potentialby weakening the sand around the drilled borehole. It is
proved in this paper by the comparison between numerical simula­
tions varying the weakening degree and range in the surrounding
sand. The larger the weakening degree and range are, the more the
peak resistance is reduced. However, the specific weakening degree
and range caused by the drilling in practical engineering remains to
be studied.
9
Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026
2) Change of the borehole diameter mainly affects the penetration
resistance of spudcan in the sand layer. The borehole diameter in the
range between 0.056D and 0.083D can be selected to make the
vertical resistance profile gentle, along with efficient mitigation.
3) The mitigation efficiency increases with the borehole depth. How­
ever, it shows little improvement when the borehole depth is deeper
than the sand layer. Therefore, an optimal perforation drilling depth
equal to the sand layer is recommended in the engineering practice.
4) Perforation in the area projected from the maximum cross section of
the spudcan with an expansion ratio of 3:1 is less satisfactory than
the perforation drilling right below the spudcan.
This preliminary study has provided an insight into the efficiency
and mechanism of perforation drilling in mitigating the punch-through
potential in sand overlying clay. However, more studies including
centrifuge and field tests should be conducted to bring more insight into
this topic. Future indoor tests are planned with the aim of investigating
the effects of different drilling methods (filling with drilling mud or not)
on the surrounding dense sand.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pan Gao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing –
original draft. Zhihui Liu: Software, Validation, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing – original draft. Danda Shi: Writing – review & edit­
ing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Fei Wang: Resources, Data
curation.
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.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China (Grant Nos. 51709164, 41772273).
Acknowledgments
The authors greatly thank the China Oilfield Service Limited com­
pany for providing the engineering data. And many thanks are given to
those who facilitated the successful operation of the engineering
practice.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.apor.2021.103026.
P. Gao et al. Applied Ocean Research 119 (2022) 103026

Reference K.K. Lee, M. Randolph, M. Cassidy, New Simplified Conceptual Model for Spudcan
Foundations on Sand Overlying Clay Soils, in: Proc. Annu. Offshore Technol. Conf.,
Houston, Texas, USA, 2009: pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4043/otc-20012-ms.
Bienen, B., Qiu, G., Pucker, T., 2015. CPT correlation developed from numerical analysis
Lee, K.K., Randolph, M.F., Cassidy, M.J., 2013. Bearing capacity on sand overlying clay
to predict jack-up foundation penetration into sand overlying clay. Ocean Eng 108,
soils: A simplified conceptual model. Geotechnique 63, 1285–1297. https://doi.org/
216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.08.009.
10.1680/geot.12.P.176.
R. Brennan, H. Diana, R.W.P. Stonor, M.J.R. Hoyle, C.-P. Cheng, R. Roper, Installing
Lee, J., Cassidy, M.J., Hossain, M.S., Hu, Y., Hu, P., Park, S., Kim, Y., 2020. Effect of
Jackups in Punch-Through-Sensitive Clays, in: Proc. Annu. Offshore Technol. Conf.,
spudcan shape on mitigating punch-through in sand-over-clay. Int. J. Phys. Model.
Houston, Texas, USA, 2006: pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.4043/18268-ms.
Geotech. 20, 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.18.00072.
Craig, W.H, Chuat, K., 1990. Deep penetration of spud-can foundations. Geotechnique
Li, M., Gao, P., Zhang, J., Gu, J., Zhang, Y., 2018. Study on the system design and control
40, 541–556.
method of a semi-active heave compensation system. Ships Offshore Struct 13,
A. Dier, B. Carroll, S. Abolfathi, Guidelines for jack-up rigs with particular reference to
43–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2017.1342893.
foundation integrity, 2004.
Li, Y.P., Liu, Y., Lee, F.H., Goh, S.H., Zhang, X.Y., Wu, J.F., 2019. Effect of sleeves and
Einav, I., Randolph, M.F., 2005. Combining upper bound and strain path methods for
skirts on mitigating spudcan punch-through in sand overlying normally consolidated
evaluating penetration resistance. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 63, 1991–2016.
clay. Geotechnique 69, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.P.085.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1350.
Maung, U.M., Ahmad, C.K.M., 2000. Swiss cheesing to bring in a jack-up rig at anding
Fan, Ning, Jiang, Jianxiong, Dong, Youkou, et al., 2022. Approach for evaluating
location. In: Proc. IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drill. Technol. Conf. APDT, Kuala Lumpur,
instantaneous impact forces during submarine slide-pipeline interaction considering
pp. 241–248. https://doi.org/10.2118/62755-ms.
the inertial action. Ocean Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
J.J. Osborne, C. Nelson, R. Hunt, Unpredicted jack-up foundation performance, in: 1st
oceaneng.2021.110466. In press.
Jack-up Asia Conf. Exhib. Singapore, 2006.
Gao, P., Liu, X.L., Duan, M.L., Li, M.J., 2016. Finite element analysis of punch-through
J. Osborne, G. Houlsby, K. Teh, C. Leung, B. Bienen, M. Cassidy, M. Randolph, Improved
mitigation with perforation. Yantu Lixue/Rock Soil Mech 37, 563–569. https://doi.
Guidelines for the Prediction of Geotechnical Performance of Spudcan Foundations
org/10.16285/j.rsm.2016.S1.073.
During Installation and Removal of Jack-up Units, in: Proc. Annu. Offshore Technol.
Han, L.H., Elliott, J.A., Bentham, A.C., Mills, A., Amidon, G.E., Hancock, B.C., 2008.
Conf., Houston, Texas, USA, 2009: pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4043/otc-20291-
A modified Drucker-Prager Cap model for die compaction simulation of
ms.
pharmaceutical powders. Int. J. Solids Struct. 45, 3088–3106. https://doi.org/
Qiu, G., Grabe, J., 2012. Numerical investigation of bearing capacity due to spudcan
10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.01.024.
penetration in sand overlying clay. Can. Geotech. J. 49, 1393–1407. https://doi.org/
Hossain, M.S., Dong, X., 2014. Extraction of Spudcan Foundations in Single and
10.1139/T2012-085.
Multilayer Soils. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 140, 170–184. https://doi.org/
SNAME, 2008. Guidelines for site specific assessment of mobile jack-up units. T&R
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000987.
Bulletin 5-5 and 5-5A.
Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F., 2009. Effect of Strain Rate and Strain Softening on the
Teh, K.L., Cassidy, M.J., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K., Randolph, M.F., Quah, C.K., 2008.
Penetration Resistance of Spudcan Foundations on Clay. Int. J. Geomech. 9,
Revealing the bearing capacity mechanisms of a penetrating spudcan through sand
122–132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1532-3641(2009)9:3(122).
overlying clay. Geotechnique 58, 793–804. https://doi.org/10.1680/
Hossain, M.S., Cassidy, M.J., Daley, D., Hannan, R., 2010. Experimental investigation of
geot.2008.58.10.793.
perforation drilling in stiff-over-soft clay. Appl. Ocean Res. 32, 113–123. https://doi.
Teh, K.L., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K., Cassidy, M.J., 2010. Centrifuge model study of
org/10.1016/j.apor.2009.12.005.
spudcan penetration in sand overlying clay. Geotechnique 60, 825–842. https://doi.
Hossain, M.S., Cassidy, M.J., Baker, R., Randolph, M.F., 2011. Optimization of
org/10.1680/geot.8.P.077.
perforation drilling for mitigating punch-through in multi-layered clays. Can.
Tjahyono, S., 2011. Experimental and Numerical Modelling of Spudcan Penetration in
Geotech. J. 48, 1658–1673. https://doi.org/10.1139/t11-065.
Stiff Clay Overlying Soft Clay. University of Western Australia. http://scholarbank.
Hossain, M.S., Safinus, S., Cassidy, M.J., 2014. Using a thin sand layer to ease spudcan
nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/27918.
extraction in clay. Can. Geotech. J. 52, 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-
Ullah, S.N., Hu, Y., 2012. A numerical investigation into the bottom boundary effect for
2014-0294.
spudcan penetration on sand overlying clay in centrifuge test. In: Proc. Int. Conf.
Hu, P., Cassidy, M.J., 2017. Predicting jack-up spudcan installation in sand overlying stiff
Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. OMAE, pp. 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1115/
clay. Ocean Eng 146, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.09.046.
OMAE2012-84246.
Hu, P., Stanier, S.A., Wang, D., Cassidy, M.J., 2016. Effect of footing shape on
Ullah, S.N., Hu, Y., 2017. Peak punch-through capacity of spudcan in sand with
penetration in sand overlying clay. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 16, 119–133.
interbedded clay: Numerical and analytical modelling. Can. Geotech. J. 54,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.15.00013.
1071–1088. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0597.
Hunt, R.J., Marsh, P.D., 2004. Opportunities to improve the operational and technical
Ullah, S.N., Hu, Y., Stanier, S., White, D., 2017. Lateral boundary effects in centrifuge
management of jack-up deployments. Mar. Struct. 17, 261–273. https://doi.org/
foundation tests. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 17, 144–160. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marstruc.2004.08.005.
10.1680/jphmg.15.00034.
Jin, W., Klinger, J.L., Westover, T.L., Huang, H., 2020. A density dependent Drucker-
WU, Q., Zhou, Y., Feng, X., Zhuang, Z., 1999. Applying of the punch-through analysis
Prager/Cap model for ring shear simulation of ground loblolly pine. Powder Technol
method ofrig-drilling ship in bohai open up oilfields. Coast. Eng. 18, 16–19.
368, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2020.04.038.
Young, A.G., Remmes, B.D., Meyer, B.J., 1984. Foundation performance of offshore jack-
A. Kostelnik, M. Guerra, J. Alford, J. Vazquez, J. Zhong, Jackup mobilization in
up drilling rigs. J. Geotech. Eng. 110, 841–859. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
hazardous soils, in: Proc. 2004 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drill. Technol. Conf. Exhib.,
0733-9410(1984)110:7(841).
Kuala Lumpur, 2007: pp. 4–15. https://doi.org/10.2118/88001-pa.

10