Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Handbook for
Marine Geotechnical Engineering
00
!6
D5
Technical Editor
LI
March 1985
'I
85
Approed for public release; distribution unlimited.
8:6
043
PrCoTOt-At'.."HIS SHEET
' ci
LEVEL
IN,'vENfO-RY
S~~~DOCUMENTr IDENTICIO
-idocl
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
ACCESSION FOR
D,, c
NTIS
DTIC
GR.i-4
QT
UNAOINOUNt2ED
AIELECTE
JUSnFICATnON
... ... . . .
S..
AU
-!
1 2' 198
BY
DIS'llBDrTION/
AVAILABILrYcCODES
D,r
AVAIL AND/OR SPECIAL
DISTRIBUT1ONVSAIMP
(Y-
__DATE
RETURNED
70A
"-",
"
"
PREVIOUS
EDITION MAY
SOCK
IS'EXHAUSTED.
BE USED UNTIL.,,,
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
.I.Ened)REDIS
UC
ON
BEFORECOPLTIGORM
N-ro
U"6161
DN 987083
TITLE tods"Wbitio)
4.
C. TYPE OF
Final
-Oct 1979 - Dec 1983
.
6! PEaRFORMIN
7.
AUT"MO(.j
AND .00CtESS
to.
PE 637 13N
2.11001
IS.
Washington, DC
20362
REPORT OATE
March 1985
IVNE~%4AO
'3
Ififfter. NInl
C..te..jiin
Off-C.)
IS.
Unclassified
IS.OCLASSIVICATION'DOWNGRAOINd
SCHEDULE
19.
17.
in Block M. At -dlofo...
Anfi
ASPA9)
IS9. SUPOLEMENKTARYNOTIES
IS.
M IOf..
5155
IlRt..O
SHrf
555
4104
I #~#(Y
AV
90"
N
tptgmanl~
bflock,Ew
This handbook discusses the application of engineering tetdhniques and scientific knowledge to the' investigation of seafloor materials, 'their characteristics, and theirresponses
to foundation and mooring loads. Its prim~ary thrust is with.
problems engineers will encounter beyond the continental shelf
or below 600 feet but the information is also applicable to
shallow water tasia.
*
00
','OM1473
EYU@IN@Sil@SIt3Unclassified
SSCURITY Cl.AUfCBjAIOU 00 TNIS VAE
:39
w 9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much of the background material for the Handbook for Marine
Geotechnical Engineering was developed by the Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory (NCEL).
These materials were updated and supplemented with
experience from the private sector by a number of contractors. Initial
,-diting and consolidation of the chapters was carried out by Brian Watt
Associates, Inc.
Technical review of the Handbook was also made by
Dr. Robert H. Mayer, Jr. (U.S. Naval Academy) and Mr. Homa J. Lee. The
primary contributor for each of the chapters is as follows:
Chapter
1
2
3
4
"7
8
9
10
11
:::i:
-.
-i
Primary Contributor
TX
TX
TX
Menlo Park, CA
Mr. N.J. Atturio, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory,
Port Hueneme, CA
Dr. D.A. Sangrey, Carnegie-Mellon Univ. , Pitts. PA
CONTENTS
Page,
Chapter 11.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION ......................
.....................................
OBJECTIVE .............................................................
.. 1-1
HANDBOOK ORGANIZATION . ......................................................
1-1
SELECTION OF FOUNDATION/ANCHOR TYPE ...........
...........................
.. 1-3
REFERENCES
.............................................................
1-6
"2.1
"
2.2
2-1
INTRODUCTION
2-1
2.1.1
Purpose
2.1.2
2.3.6
.......
..... ...
.......................
.. 2-1
...................
2-1
.. . .. . .. .. . .. .
"2.2.2
2.4
............................
2.11.uros.....................................................-
2.2.1
2.3
1-1
.........
2-3
...............................
.............................
2-3
2-4
......................................
2`12
..
General ..................
.....................................
Seismic Profiling ................
.................................
Limited Sampling ............................................
Side-Scan Sonar .....
.................................
Visjal Observation ..............
................................
2-12
2-12
....... 2-14
2-14
.. 2-14
........
........................
2-14
2-1s
General ........
..............................
Shallow Sampling ...... ...........................................
Deep Sampling .........................
Sample Handling ...........
.....................
........
.........
...........................
. ..............
2-15
2-16
2-19
2-20
..
S,2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
2-21
General .............................................
. ...........
2-21
Vane Shear Tests .................
......................
........
2-22
Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) ......
............................
. ..2-23
Pressuremeter Tests ........
.......................................
2-25
Dynamic Penetrometer ............................. ..........
......
2-25
Borehole Logging Techniques . .......................................... 2-25
3.1
"-'"
3.2
3. .1 Sc
. .
'
..
.
...
...
.
.
r"""............
m.........
....................
3-1
.....
.. . . .
....
3-
3"1I
3-1
........................
3-1
....
3-1i
1............................31
'.. 3-2
.........................
. . . 3-4
3.3.3
Gener&l ......
.....................................
Sample Preparation . . . . . .. . . . ...
. . . . . ...
Water Content ..................
.....................
3-4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
.............
3-4
3.3.4
3.3. 1
........
3.3.3 2
;
3.2.3
' '
3.1.2
"3.2.2
Scop
3.2.1
"3.3
................. 3-1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................
3.1.1
225
2-26
2-27
3-?
Page
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.4
General ...................
.....................................
Vane Shear Test ..............
.................................
Unconfined Compression Test
.............................
Unconsolidated, Undrained Triaxial Compression Test ........
...............
Consolidated-Undrained and Consolidated-Drained Triaxial Compression Tests .
Consolidated-Drained Direct Shear Test .........
......................
Considerations for Triaxial Testing of Marine Soils ........
...............
One-Dimensional Consolidation Test ...............................
3.6
REFERENCES ......
3.7
SYMBOLS .......................
................
3-14
3-14
.. 3-16
3-17
3-18
.....................
......................................
..................................
4-1
4-1
4-3
General ..............................................
..........
Site .......
..........................
. ........
...............
Structure ..................
......................................
Loading .................
............................
. ..........
Geotechnical ....................
.
.
..........................
Factor of Safety ................. ......................
4-1
4-1
.................
3-14
.......................
.........
INTROCUCTION ....................
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.3
.. 3-9
3-10
.. 3-12
3-13
. 3-13
.. 3-13
3-13
3-13
.........................................
4.2
3-9
4.1
37
3-7
3-9
.. 3-9
3.5
. .......
.......................
4-3
4-4
4-4
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-5
4.3.1 General
............................
.......
.4-5
4.3.2 Bearing Capacity . ..............................................
. ..
.
4-7
4.3.3' Lateral Load Capacity ...........
..................................
4-11
4.3.4 Overturning Resistance ............
. ....... ....................
4-13
4.3.5 Shear Key Design ..............
.................................
.. 4-14
4.3.6 Foundation Settlement ................................................
4-15
4.3.7 Installation and Removal ...........
...........................
..
. 4-17
4.4
4.5
4.6
Chapter 5
5.1
5.2
.................................
4-17
.....................
.. ............
. ........... ....................
..............
4-17'
4-24
..................
.................
4-28
4-28
............................
5-1
INTRODUCTION
....................................
PILE
DESCRIPTIONS
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5 "1"
IE
5.
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3
REFERENCES .....
SYMBOLS .............
-
......
ECITIN.................... ...........
.....
.....
o.....
....
General . .........................
Soil Properties .... .......
....
......
.....
SEAFLOORS . ........................
.......
..........
.............
.................
....
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
51
....
. . ...-5
.1
Page
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.3.7
.. 5-6
5-7
. . 5-9
5-11
.. 5-12
.. 5-13
........................
.. 5-14
5-15
.............................
.................................
PILE INSTALLATION.5-15
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
"5.5,4
.. 5-15
5-17
5-18
.. 5-18
....................................
5-18
"5.6.1
"5.6.2
....
...........
INTRODUCTION ....................
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
...........
...................
......................................
6-1
Purpose ...........
.....................
. .....
..........
......
6-1
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6-1
......................
6-1
6.2.2
6-6
6-6
6-7
6-7
6.2.4
6.2.5
General ..........
................................
...............
Preliminary Penetration Estimate .......................................
Topography,
Strata Thicknesses, Type.
.
......................
Engineering Propetties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ...
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
6.3.5
6.3.6
6-10
6-11
.-..
11
6-11
6-11
6-12
"6.5.7
"6.6
....................................-
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
.. ._
. ... 6-8
6.3.1
6.3.2
a.3.3
6.5
6-1
6.2.1
""6.2.3
. - .6.3.4
6.1
................
Loading Conditions.
.
.....................
Deep and Shallow Anchor Failure .....
...............
. ......
.........
Short-Term Capacity in Cohesive Soils ..............
.... ...............
Long-Term Capacity in Cohesive Soils .......
.......................
..
Short- and Long-Term Capacity in Cohesiofess Soils . . ...
.....
............
Disturbance Corrections . . ........ .............
..........
. .......
Factors ef Safety . ...............
...........................
. ..
..........
6-12
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-15
6-16
6-16
6.6.1
Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . -1
6.6.2
. .......
vii
. .......
......................
6-16
Page
6.6.3
6.6.4
.. 6-19
6-19
.............................
.................................
6.8.1
6.8.2
6.9
....
.. 6-23
.. 6-24
. ..........................
6-24
6.9.1
6.9.2
..
..............
6-23
............................
............................
Coral ....................
......................................
Rock... .......
. ..........
........ ....
........
EXAPLIE PROBLEMS
6-24
...
.. 6-24
........
......................
6-24
6-24
.. 6-28
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
7.2
7.3
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-3
General
7.2.2
Tripping ... .
..............................
7-3
.....................................
7-4
..............
..........................................
.........................
..
......................
. ................
..........................
... ...
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.3
7-5
.. 7-6
7-8
... . ....
.
7-B
..
..........
............
,77-8
7-9
..................
.
....
..........
. .....
. 710
.............
7-11
0-
7-3
Embedment ....................
Stability ...........
Soaking ...............
7.3.4
7.4
7-1
7.2.1
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.2.5
77-1
...........................................
-'
. 6-31
6-32
.................................
INTRODUCTION ................
'..".
...
7-11
.. 7-12
7-12
7-12
... 7-12
K-"
7.6
TROUBLESHOOTING. .. .. ........
............
........
7.6.1 Soft Sediments ..............................
7.6.2 Hard Sediments .............................................
7.7
PIGGYBACKING......................................................7-20
7.G
BI
. .
..
. .
...
........
......
................
..............
7-12
7-13
.. 7-17
. . .7-18
.
............
. . ...
.. .
.... 7-19
7-19
7-20
. .
, .......
...
......
.
7-20
7-22
.. 7-23
.20
Page
7.8
7.9
REFERENCES .........................................................
SYMBOLS ..................
.........................................
..
......................................
.. 8-1
"8.1.1
.....................................
..................................
.. 8-1
8-1
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.6
Application .................
...........................
Approach ..................
.....................................
Method ,for Predicting Shallow Static Penetration ..........
Methods for Predicting Deep Static Penetration ......
8-1
.......
8-1
8-1
8-2
.. 8-5
...... .........
..................
8-7
Application ................
...................................
Approach . ..........................................................
Method for Predicting Dynamic Penetration ......
.....................
.-"
...................................
8.4
Purpose ..................
Scope ...........
....
8-1
INTROOUCfION ...................
8.1.2
8.2
.......................
.. 8-7
8-7
.. 8-7
....................................
8-11
..
REFERENCES
.............................................................
SYMBOLS........................................................
B L
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
. .
. . .
. .
. . .
. .
.
. .
.
. .
. . . . .
.
. .
.
. .
. .
SY
9.1
INTRODUCTION..................
9.1.1
9.1.2
9.1.3
9.2
. .......................................
Applications . . . . . . ...............
.
General Concepts .............
Definitions ................
REQUIRED INFOR14ATION
..
..
...............
...................
9.3
.........................
Object Embedment Characteristics ............
Sediment Chardcteristics .............
........................
Bearing Capacity (Cohesive Sediments) .......
......................
SHORT-TERM (IM4EDIATE) BREAKOUT .......
....................................
"9.4
9.5
-'"
9.6
"*
9.7
-
.9-6
9-8
9-9
9-9.
9-9
. 9`9
. . 9-9
.. .
.....................
. ........
...
ix
..................
9-10
9-10
9-10
9-10
............
9-10
.........
........
9-4
9-4
9-5
9-5
9-7
........................................
. . ...... .......
...
. ..................
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
9,7.1
9.7.2
........
......
.....................
Jetting and Drainage Tubes
Eccentric Loading ...................................................
Cyclic Loading .....
.
..............................
Rocking or Rolling ..........................................
.....................
Breakaway Parts .........................
........
......................
Altering Buoyant Weight ..........
..................
9-1
9-2
9-2
9-4
.....
"9.2.3
........
8-19
8-20
8 2
9-1
............................
.................................
.............
.....................
................
8-11
8-14
9-1
9.2.1
9.2.2
7-23
7-24
9-10
9_13.
Page
9.8
9.9
REFERENCES ......................
SYMBOLS ..................................
......................................
.....................
.. 10-1
.................................
. . . . . ,........10-1
. . . . . . . 10-1
. .. . .
. . . . . . . ..
10.1 10.1~
INTRODUCTION
ITOUTO..................
,..........................
9-16
9-17
..........
....................................
......................................
.....................................
10-1
10-1
.. 10-1
.. 10-2
.......................................
10-2
10-2
.......................
ln-2
......................
.. 10-3
. ...
..............
..
10-3
10-5
10-9
10-11
........
10-12
10-12
10-12
..............................
......
............
.11-1
11-1
11-2
Translational Slides.........
...
.............................
.. 11-3
Rotational Slides ..........
.....................................
.. 11-3
Flow Slides
....................................
11-3
Turbidity Currents ...................................................
11-5
..............
..............................
..
11-5
... 11-5
11-5
. . ..........
.. 11-6
................................
11.4.1 Gene-al
....................
.......................
.. .U11-6
11.4.2 Special Conditions: Underconsolidated Sediments
..................
11-6
11.4.3 Repetitive and Dynamic Loading Response of Sediments .....................
11-7
11.5 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS ................................................
11.6 SITE ,INVESTIGATION .................
.................
. .................
11.6.1
11.6.2
11.6.3
11.6.4
General ...................
..............................
Preliminary Studies ..................
...............................
Ar.oustic Surveys ..............
...................
Sampling of Sediments . . .... . ...
...................
11-7
11-7
.......
11-7
11-8
11-9
11-11'
...............
................
....
11-12
. 11-15
... 11-16
- -
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.3-1
1.3-2
1.3-3
1.3-4
1.3-5
2.1-1
2.1-2
2.1-3
2.3-1
2.4-1
2.4-2
2.4-3
2.5-1
3.2-1
3.3-1
3.3-2
3.4-1
4.2-1
4.3-14.3-2
5.2-1
5.2-2
5.2-3
5.3-1
5.3-2
5.3-3
5.3-4
5.3-5
5.4-1
6.2-1
6.2-2
6.3-1
6.5-1
6.6-1
6.7-1
7.3-1
7.4-1
.7.6-1
7.5-2
7.6-1
&.2-1
Page
Features of Shallow Foundations and Deadweight Anchors .......
.................
Features of Pile Foundation and Anchor Systems . .. ......... ..................
Features of Direct-Embedment Anchors..........
... ..........................
Features of Drag-Embedment Anchor Systems .........
........................
Performance of Foundation and Anchor Types as a Function of Seafloor and
Loading Conditions ........
..... ... ..................................
.. 1-3
.. 1-4
1-5
.. 1-5
.. 1-6
Site Data Requirements for Categories of Geotechnical Engineering Applications ..... ...
Soil Engineering Parameters Normally Required for Categories of Geotechnical
Engineering Applicatiolis.. ............
..... .............................
Historical Environmental Information Needed to Assess Geotechnical Hazards .........
..
Steps in a Typical Regional Survey ..........
... ...........................
..
Steps in a Typical Site-Specific Survey ......... ....... ........................
Shallow Soil Sampler Types and Applications .........
.......................
Characteristics of Some Free-Fall and Lowered Corers
.......
....
.......
In-Sitqi Tests, Applications, and Some.Equipment Characteristics .... .............
.
Size Range Limits for Two Soil Classification Systems .... .......
................
Requirements for Indtx Property Tests ......... ..... ........................
Some Index and Engineering Properties of Ocean Sediments (Most Data Limited to
Upper 2 Meters of Seafloor) ...........
......................
...........
Requirements for Engineering Property Tests ...........
......................
Soil Properties Required for f.maysis and Recommended Factors of, Safety .........
Suimary of Steps in the Design of Shallow Foundations and Deadweight Anchors ........
Coefficient of Friction Between Cohesionless Soils and Some Marine
Constructicn Materials ........
.........
................................
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-12
2-1b
2-16
2-19
2-22
3-2
.. 3-5
3-6
.. 3-11
4-5
4-7
...
4-12
5-2
5-3
.. 5-3
5-5
5-5
.. 5-6
5-7
6-3.
6-4
. 6-10
.. 6-16
.. 6-18
Estimated Maximuo Fluke nip Penetrattou of Some Drag Anchor Types in Hard
,and Soft Soils .......
...........
.
..........
..........
Rating of Drag Anchor Types Based on Tripping and Dig-In, Roll Stability,
and Holding Capacity Efficiency .........
....... ............................
Parnmeters HR and b Used in Equation 7-2 . .............
. ..... ..............
Parameters N and f Used for Clays and Cohesive Silts in Equation 7-3 .............
'Troubleshooting Procedures for Correcting Drag Anchor Performance Problems .... .......
..
5-9
5-14
6-24
7-9
7-11
7-14
.. 7-18
7-19
8.3-1
8.4-1
8.4-2
..
11.2-1
11.7-1
11.7-2
Movement Models for Submarine Slides in Soft and Loos* Sediment .........
Level I Slope Stability Survey ..........
.....
.............................
Level II Slope Stability Survey ...........
.....
.........................
11-2
.. 11-13
.. 11-14
X1
.....
8-6
8-9
. 8-14
.8-19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.3-1
2.2-1
2.2-2
2.2-3
2.2-4
2.2-5
2.2-6
2.2-7
2.2-8
2.3-1
2.4-1
2.4-2
2.4-3
2.4-4
2.5-1
2.5-2
2.5-3
2,5-4
2.6-1
3.2-1
3.2-2
3.4-1
3.5-1
3.5-2
3.5-3
,3.5-4
...........
.......................
Trilineal soil classification plot - normally used with Wentworth grade limits . ...
. 3-2
Unified soil classification chart........
.....................
3-3
Miniature vane blade geometry . . . . ......
.............. ....... .... 3-12
Relationship between s /P
and P1 for normally consolidated late glacial clay ... .....
3-14
Relationship between fIiclton angle and P1 for normally consolidated
fine-grained soils . .........
............................................. 3-15
Correlation between coefficient of consolidation and liquid limit .........
..... ...
3-15
Range of PI values for pelagic clay .....
: ......................
3-16
3.5-5
Correlation between water content and C /(I + e ) for pelagic clay and
calcareous ooze .c..
. . .
. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
4.1-1
4.1-2
4.1-3
4.3-1
4.3-'2
4.3-3
4.3-4
4.3-5
4.3-6
4.4-1
4.4-2
4.4-3
5.3-'1
5.3-2
5.3-3
5.3-4
5.3-5
5.4-1
5.5-1
5.5-2
5.6-1
5.6-2
6.2-1
6.2-2
6.2-3
6.2-4
6.2-5
6.3-1
6.5-1
6.5-2
6.5-3
6.5-4
.....................
.............................
xi.
.,_
-.
-Y
4-1'
4-2
4-3
4-6
4-8
4-10
4-11
4-14
416
4-18
4-23
427
"'
Page
Figure
""
S6.6-3
6.6-1
6.6-2
6.6-6
6.6-7
6.9-1
6.9-2
6.9-3
7.1-1
7.1-2
7.1-3
6.6-4
"6.6-5
4..
,...-
7.1r4
7.1-5
7.2-1
S-
7.2-2
7.2-3
7.2-4
7.2-5
7.2-6
7.3-1
7.5-1
7.5-2
7.6-1
7.7-1
7.7-2
7.7-3
7.7-4
8.2-1
8.2-2
8.2-3
8.2-4
8
8.3-1
8.3-2
8.4-1
"8.4-2
8.4-3
9.1-1
""
"
.......................
....
..
..........
7-2
.......
..............
. ...............
........
.................
.................
7-2
7-2
7-3
7-3
.......
. 7-4
7-5
7-5
7-7
77..................77
7-8
7-10
7-15
7-16
7-20
7-21
7-21
7-22
7-23
9.3-1
9.4-1
9.7-1
9.7-2
Flow chart for procedures to determine immediate breakout force and time required
........
for long-term breakout under a lower force . . ....... ... .......
Normalized immediate breakout force as a function of relative embedment depth .........
Normalized long-term breakout force as a function cf breakout time parameter .. ......
Problem sketch and data for example problem I . . ... ......
...........
.........
Problem sketch and-data for example problem 2 ........ ........................
9-3
9-6
9-8
9-11
9-14'
10.4-1
Clear water scour and general sediment transport near a pile ..... . . . .. .
10.4-2
04
"10.410.4-4
10.4-5
1046
-10.4-6
10.4-7
10.5-1
10.5-2
10-3
Variation of maximum clear water scour depth with seafloor material diameter
,at a cylindrical pier .......... ............
....
. .... ............ ... 10-4
Idealized wave-induced flow and scour patterns around a vertical cylinder ........
10-i
Summary plot of field and model scour depth data at single piles and pile groups . . .
10-7
Scour comparison for very large circular, square and hexagonal cylinders of equal
cross-sectional area where a/D << 0.2 .......
.........
. .... .... ..
...... 108
Scour development at a pipeline exposed to a uniform current of 1.2 to 1.5 ft/sec . .
. 10-10
Burial of a smell object on the seafloor from a progressive scour sequence .... ....... 10-11
Example of an inverted filter for scour protection at an offshore structure ..........
10-14
Example of a filter material specification (Diamond Shoals Light) .... ............
.. 10-14
11.1-1
11.2-1
11.2-2
11.2-3
"11.3-1
11.5-1
11.6-1
11.6-2
"11.7-1
.........
.111
..
11-3
11-4
11-4
11-6
11-10
11-12
11-15
Chapter 1
INTROOtkTION
OBJECTIVE
1.1
"*
"Marine
geotechnical
neering
techniques
physical
properties
seafloor
materials
"elements are
knowledge
the
investigation
The
to
responses
foundation
of
seafloor
of these
and
widely distributed.
information together.
'
ment.
Navy
Geotechnical
Engineering brings
low level
construction,
of underMuch
mooring
Also, due
topics.
This
because of
to address
the
and engi-
seafloor materials
.
to
is
engineering
application of scientific
engineers
in
background
The Handbook
brings
this
who do
geotechnical
The
engineering.
Rather,
The Navy installs, or may require installation of, a variety of facilities fixed to the
*4,
tively unc
nical directo
ocean floor.
.
'
*
Some
or
subsurface-moored
Ssurfacetypes
buoyant element is
uplift-reSisting
of
tinental
foundations
or
piles
or
and slope
1.2
In addi-
.cour
construction
.
bilitty
for
of,
plan
design,
facilities.
and 1
SEAFLOOR
the
in
shallow
water as
well.
chapters
grouped
into
LEKS.
remaining ch pters.
respondt-
Geotechnical
*
technical
supervise
tuo
7f@
or below
or have -technical
'these
is intended
(nominally
HANDOOK ORGANIZATION
tion,
of
these elements.
to
and be a tech-
tion,
exist
required
is to
lying on or
be
the Handbook
or drag-ebedeent anchors.
to p
cable
"embedded
"
ugh i t
she f
information
by
of
propel*,ant-embedment
Behavior
where
objective
licated. problems,
Alt
dures.
rmy be
Others
on pile*-like foundations.
the
1.
reader in selection of an
"appropriate foundation
are discussed.
ments.
for
the
Properties
"consisting of
"
Determination
Chapters 2 and 3,
section,
discusses
predicting
depth
of
on-
penetration
of
lost hardware,
tion elments)
Chapter 2 describes
shapes
instrument packages,
(such
as
or founda-
the various aspects of surveying a site, including preliminary reference information gathering
low
of
subbottom
remote
survey equipment,
sampling equipment,
"testir.g
initial velocities.
The procedures of
Chapter 8 can also be used to predict the force
equipment.
Additional
information
on
depth
(shear
foundation,
resting
keys
for
below
example).
bottomChapter 9
site
""
stability
can
Analytical techniques are given for two significantly different cases--full-suction and zero-
""
and
seafloor structures.
scour prediction
"""
surveying
is
the
for
given
in
assessment
of
Chapter 11.
slope
tim required
Chapter 2
in
classify the soil and to correlate with enginearing properties is also described,
Design
The
section,
of
Foundations
consisting
of
and
Chapters 4
properties
soil
necessary
*"tions
"
breakout.
Chapter 10
techniques.
describes
is
It
directed
changes.
from historical
drawn
to
studies
of
seasonal
seafloor pro-
information
Most
nearshore
on
observations
and
river
is
scour
conditions.
extrapolated
seafloor
surface.
Design of piles
or
anchors
is
in
stability
analysis
"given to
presented
in
recently
the
selection
anchors;
anchor
sizing
the
resistance
chain
interaction
only
and
materials
interoretiv
Chapter 7 covers
and
of
of
drag-embedment
developed
with
system.
detail.
The methods of
but are not
Considerable
technical
information
and
application
of
the
from
seafloor
References 1-1,
site
are described
analytical procedures.
symbols visd In that chapter.
complete mooring
are
to
for use as
discussed
is
and model
foundations
"
on
Chapter S.
effect
requirements.
time
file
"predict
*
significant
discussion of nearshore
7,
stratigraphic,
information
have
Anchors
through
Example problems,
2-Z,
1.2r
-!-
"1.3
idfferent
.
deadweight,
drag-embedment,
and
anchor
features.
SChapters
types
pile,
strong
summarizes
.':!::::'.."
and direct-
(a)deadweight
This section
points
these
or
fea-
to provide
foundation or
....
.... .
...............
(b) drag-ebedment
"-.
Table 1.3-1
of
the
lists
these
and
other
weight anchors.
foundation)
(d) directembedment
Table 1.3-1.
--
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
obstruction.
1m.3
p/
resistance.
seafloor
soils
by
hsmer-driving
propellant,
systems.
The
vibratory,
or
propellant-
is
tzation
few
operating
and
"lists features
installation
costs.
Table 1.3-2
limitations
on
in Table L3-3.
Table 1.3-2.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
It
depth.
Other
Table 1.3-3.
S2.
of short scope.
3.
4.
S.
6.
"-
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
A-.'.
S2.
3.
"4.
1.
..".-.-
2.
3.
"4.
.
5.
Table 1.3-4.
S*..--.
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
'
,,.
6.
7.
8.
z*,"9.
"10.
11.
12.
13.
.setting distance.
(
4 1J
llI"
Jl
_~]IJII
Table 1.3-5.
Item
Dirct
Embedment
Brag
Deadweight
Pile
++
+
+
+4
4+
+4
+.
44
++
++
++
0
++
++
++
0
+
++
++
+
0
a4
0
++
++
44
++
+
++
++
++
44
Seafloor Topography
*+
o
*4
++
Loadina Direction
++
functions well
normally is not the preferred choice
does not function well+
drag-
1.4
1-1.
ties,
,NAVFAC
horizontal.
44
+4
+
a
REFERENCES
embedment anchors.
Although these anchors can
develop high capacities, the load on a drag
virtually
+4
of
4.
+4
features
44
lists
Table' 1.3-4
++
4+
.+
+
"a4 4
o
4+
4+
++
+4
(foundations)
Omni-directional (not down)
Uni-directional (not down)
Large uplift component
Design manual,
Naval
Facilities
DN-26.
Engineering
Washington.
D.C.
Command,
Jul
1968.
1-2.
To
and
assist
in
understanding
disadvantages
Table 1.3-5
under
of
the
compares
different
the
various
how
well
conditions.
advantages
anchor
they
types,
AF!
function
Judgments
of
1-3.
Rules
offshore
Shipping.
It
should
be
noted
that
Table 1.3-5
is
an
and special
'
,,
14
for
building and
drilling
units,
clessing
American
1980.
mobile
Bureau
of
fI
Chapter 2
SITE SURVEY AND IN-SITU TESTING
2.1
INTRODUCTION
design
Purpose
S-2.1.1
because
"methods for
Table 2.1-2
site
data
2.1.2.3
Constraints.
'',loadi
sought
will
Ninim.
phases
geographic area.
For example,
a manned
foundation
sletdst*
e select
Since
regional
requires
high-precision
ste.
surveys
compare
sites
or
of this date
performance,
as
In
the
low
ilact
of micro-
*symbol
used in Table 2.1-2 and other tables
"are defined where used In the text and
"summarized In Section 2.8.
S2-1
Site-Specific
project
or
of:
2.1.2.2
Versus
projects
a function
be
Regional
Some
parameters
small
""
lists geotochnical
Surveys.
of
not
are
in the
deep ocean.
techniques
analysis
developed,
This chapter sumarizes considerations and
technical
lected,
usually
in-situ tests,
tests.
from
soil
samples
and
froe
Geophysical
Table 2.1-1.
Application
Aplcto
Rock
Sediment
"AMterial
Laboratory
Strength
Macro
(>3 ft)
a"
high
Micro
(<3 ft)
Tnickness
Index
Properties
In-Situ
Strength
LabGratory
Strength
Dynamic
Response
Index
Properties
high
low
high
low
high
low
low
low
Deep Foundations/
Pile Anchors
high
low
high
high
high
high
high
high
high
Direct-Eabedent
Anchors
low
high
high
low
high
high
high
high
Drag Anchors
high
low'
high
high
low
low
low
low
Penetration
Ligh
high
high
high
low
high
high
low
low
high
low
high
high
high
low
low
high
high
high
high
low
low
Shallow Foundations/
Deaodweight Anchors
Breakout
Scour
Mgh
high
Slope Stability
high
high
high
"able 2.1-2.
iled.
Properties
Atterberg
cas:t
Size
Limits
Yet
fat
Yes
oudai n.
Deadweight Anchors
No
Yes
No
Yes
esrvesu.
o
c k Cc
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Depth
of Survey
Sand
Clay
Sand
Clay
Compression
Properties
Strength
Shallow Foundatons
a-
Grain
Soil
-.
cc.s
Yes
1.5 to 2 x foundation
width
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Deep Pile
Foundationa
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pile Anchors
Direct-E. nt
Anchors
Yes
'Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
'
'I
Ma
o
S,I
to SO ft clay; l1 to
.33
16-1/2 ft sand for
Drag Anchors
Yes
Yes
No
Penetration
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Me
No
33 to 50 ft clay; 13 to
33 ft sand
Breakout
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yrs
Yes
No
No
No
Scour
Yes
Yes
Mo
Yet
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes'
No
large anchors
Slope Stability
Yes
e'n
--
Mo
Yes
--
einSection 2.
2-2
m
No
Yes'
No
'
Table 2.1-3.
Hazard
Information Needed
Earthquakes
Frequency
Magnitude
Peak accelerations
Response spectra
Wind
Velocity distribution
Direction distribution
Maximum wind velocity
Waves
Currents
*,
also be needed,
depending
and location of
complexity.
nates.
These
being
geotechnical hazards
waves, and currents.
on the project
f rom 'earthquakes,
being measured.
winds,
2.2
2.2.1
2.1.2.5 Positioning 'Capability. The ability to reference a site survey and position a
tion of horizontal
criticsa
nical
A precise determiha-
and vertical
position is a
PRELIMINARY STUY
Information Sources
information,, as
areal
well as site-specific
and aid In planning for a mere detailed
data,
tion.,
turvey.
"Positioning
usually
requires
an
of
2.3
governmental,
intitutions.
logical
and
sediments
Bulletin
A prime source of
Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91105.
earthquake Information.
at
Report 181:
Mine Defense Laboratory.
Navy
Bibliography on sieches, by FC.W. Olson, Panama
Observatory
Geological
Lamont-Doherty
Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964
of
Society
of
of
Hawaii,
Hawaii
Mongo,
Institute
Bunkyo-Ku,
345 Middlefield
Road,
2.2.2.1
Sediment Types.
Seafloor
soils
ga
the deep sea; and contain >30% s-ilt and sandsized particles of land origin.
Marine Geotechnology,
Crane,
Russals & Co.,
Inc., 3 East 44th Street, New York, NY 10017
Ocean Engineering,
Pergai-n
Park, Elmsford, NY 10523
Turbiditos
sand, silt,
and clay
deposits transported great distances
Into deep water areas by turbidity
currents; characterized by graded beds*sands at bottom grading to clays at top
Fairview
I
Houston,
-,
....
Engi-
Conftrence,
Technology
"
Tokyo,
Offshore
(yearly)
.-.-
Woods
2.2.2
Press,
Seismological Depart-
University
.'.
(AD 283510)
of
of
','-
California
Clfri
San Rafael
Institute
Hawaii
University of Hawaii,
Geophysics, Honolulu, Hawlaii 96822.
University of Tokyo,
Japan.
La Jolla,
Institution,
Seismological
the
University of California,
ment, Berkeley, CA 94720.
of
Tex.
2.4
or Muds - bar-
"-'"
* Slide Deposits and Volcanic Ash derived from slumps on marine slopes or
from volcanoes
Pelagic
soils,
pelagic clays,
described
seafloor
Sediment Consisency.
2.2.2.2
are
soil:
and
depth
is
Three terms
have
been
normally consolidated,
Overconsolidated
underconsolidated.
ments
*
the
and calcareous
oozes.
where
tivity, usually
below the CCD.
include
below,
siliceous oozes,
Siliceous oe
depths shallower then the CCD.
are found in ocean areas of high surface produc-
subjected
sedi-
to a greater
load
plasticityI
The overconsolidation (OC) phenomenon can also
result from many chemical or physical processes,.
equilibrium is reached.
Permeability characteristics generally limit underconsolidation to the
fine-grained cohesive soils.
The degree of consolidation is important to
a site
it dictates
investigation because
the
sediments
shows
the
d Atribution
over
the
world's
continental
shelves
and
nous
sediment
continental
strength
are
generally
proportion
Terrige-
to
the weight
with
depth--in
above.
the
be
found
beyond
solidated soils.
Inversely
The composi-
with
being
to its source,
underconsolidated.
least
rect
normally
sediments
biogenous
materials.
The
of
consolidation,
is usually cor-
eous
siliceous
increases
may also
slope,
the material.
oceans.
slones
of
consolidated.
In contrast,
neershore
particu-
deeper
sea
(CCD)
than
the
carbonate
[Figure 2.2-2].
compensation
depth
level
present.
was
significantly
lower
than
at
2-S
I-10
OWO
C;
uo
.#
2-4
'I-i
444
CL
0.20
aa
\..*
..
-2-7
i76
the
Mississippi
River
increase
little-to-no
Delta,
in
soil
the sediment is
shelf
assumed terrigenous.
be
For
2.2.2.3 Estimatinga Soil Properties.
planning a geotechnical survey or design of a
cohesive,
is
the sediment
If
clay).
or
Figure 2.2-4 is used for the strength distribu-
nonsensitive,
bottom-resting
A
tion of a normally consolidated sediment.
literature search is made for strong indications
estimates
device,
when
the
parmeters
i'.SHELF
and
with
may
strength
types
such as near
there
sediment
of
Underconsoli-
discussion
Additional
are estimated
CONTINENTAL
CONTINENTAL
some
penetrometers
iOCE
ABYSSAL
ABYSSAL
IHILLS
IRISE
IPLAIN I
RISE
AND RIDGE
AND SLOPE
BELOW
CCD**
ABOVE
CCD$*
"PELAGIC CLAY
OR
CALCAREOUS
(OR SILICEOUS
OOZE
TURBIDITE
ITERRIGENOUSI
ABOVE
CCD$*
OOZE)
(CLAY-SILT-SAND)
0 FT
10,000
COARSE
FINE
248
W)4fld-f ua,.qqnq
CL
e0 E
C'L
-9-
o2.
4-
o~
CL
C4
22
5t4-
2-9-
.4
-
*a
0
-
(44)
.4
-
qd(
aa4aaa4qqnq
*
-
C
-
0
*4
.4
N
C
.4
t
.4
0
.4
.1
Ia
- -
U
*5I
0. C
A
-
..
10
.2
.4
Iaa.
ZAj
t1
4.-
a;
-I-
4-.0
0.
.
4..
C
*
I.
@2*
a
44
I-
-r
*
c.
I0I?
(.4
*-.
U.
.*
.4
.4
-
.4
-
C
-
0
.4
N
.4
C
.4
.4
S
.4
0
.4
@1
02 .E
0244
00
a
a
0
-*
.4--
A.
*4.
.8
b-'
4-
--
0
-.
a0
.4-
22
U.
8
9
.4.
4'
a.
4.-
aIa.
II'
U
S
a;
Aaj
I.
C
0
a
-I
I.-
2.10
.........................................................................
1O
.00
30
40
50
ihe"r
Note: Curve ba*d o w %
te~t. of 12 10-m p'Stot eo
from the Equstonai Pwifi
20-
30-
35 jet
10
5..|0okh
40-
7b - 25 b1,
40 b/tft,
to
1*
ISat ,
",0 -20
-0-
so-
go-
"_I
"
ta(p.O
with
penetration
or
slight
Nonpenetratlon
"attainment of minimal sample' length suggests
overconsolidated
that
""tinental
sand properties
Typical
exist.
""
Figure 2.2-5..
sediment
indeed
does
are
given
[Figure 2.2-2].
in
1.
a large
*is classed
as a
turbidite,
The distinction
nd distal
is made based on
2.
.
the
If abovei the, CCD,
probably calcareous ooze.
sediment is
Figure 2.2-6
seafloor
they can
from the
seafloor
and
If
the,
typical
properties
can
be
found
In
Ftgurr 2.2-8.
If the site Is in the deep ocean in' not an
(2-11
2.3
REGIONAL SURVEY
layers)
with different
"portion
2.3.1
General
of
the
[Figure 2.3-1(a)].
acoustic properties,
Sprofiling,
sonar surveys,
observation,
reflection profiling is commonly used for studying the upper 300 feet of soil.
are
soil behavior.
boomers, or sparkers.
seismic profiling
often
referred
as
These devices
sediment
little
if any
information
about
soil
power.
2.3.2
Seismic Profilina
but
have
systems
greater
yield
less penetration
resolution.
source
propagate
outward
through
the
Additional
seawater at a certain velocity. When the campressive wave encounters another medium (i.e.,
surficial
sediments or deeper,
denser sediment
"Table 2.3-1.
1
Steps
Procedure
3
4
"7
S(c)
*
8
;sites
wr
S~2-12
r
Typically,
sound
,'
sounders,
'I
to
gives
consistency.
S.
producing a pro-
reflected
is
energy
Radio, positioning
Dee-Twtysem
Acous-icosntec
~
oar"ih"--I
Side~
~~o
scn
"ysems
cosirofiling
Figur P31
3fshSona
2.3.3
Limited 'Sapling
slope
stability
Chapter 11,
problems,
is
presented
in
Section 11.6.3.2.
"
outcropping
filing
and
sediment
layers,
surficial
sampling
2.3.5
Visual Observation
In areas
acoustic
pro-
can
used
be
Visual
by
made
observations
three
observation,
type
subbottom
camera,
for
can make
and
layers
projected
an
of
properties
of
Samplers
used
area.
such
and
general
of
use
(3)
underwater
In
a deep-diving vehicle,
and
corers,
rock
dredges.
i.
sampling equipment
included
discussion
in
of
when
Visual
other
are
direct
controlled
television.
Divers
shallow water.
observations
survey
become
techniques
(1)
Turtle.
Section 2.4.
seafloor
remotely
direct observaticns, in
cated Variety--the
short gravity
the
methods:
(2)
of
necessary
cannot
For example,
provide
remote survey
Side-Scan Sonar
sonar
systems
provide
seafloor
well
as gas
Seafloor
topography.
graphic
slope.
infilling,
as
objects
side-scan
sonar operates
waves
in
sonar
bee
The fish is
dictated
system.
The'
side-scan
For
pulses
from a
by
the
chosen
are
range.
The
Major
fish
structures
following
these
on
reflected signals
a dual-channel
scale selected,
systems
transform
image
into an acoustic
recorder.
Depending
installations,
risk
a
(un-
regional
general
as
(such
informa-
panned
acquisition
low
is available.
cost)
relatively
not be required if
On
deck,
and
returning
low
survey may
acoustic signals
small
manned,
transducer
"fish" that is
information.
such
narrow
provide
could
2.3.6
pos-
bubbles
as in an aerial pnotograph.
of
plan views of
a full-scale
guidelines
regional survey.
are
suggested
on the
where
the overall
gravity
however,.
for
The
mesh
survey area is
to cover a 1-
by 1-mile area.
wide..
shows
an
*xample
of
aFor
s'de-scan record.
The
side-scan sonar
to detect
ships,
seafloor obstructions,
pipelines,
outcrops.
scan
By
sonar
sometimes
technique
studying the
survey,
aL
be avoided in
such as sunken
flows,
sediment
and
a spacing of 500 feet is recommended at
other locations.
other
loctn
s.
can be used
results
4-desirable
and'
of a
site
rock
side-
ous.
can
tion.
Additional
techniques, .a
discussion
of
side-scan
sonar
2-14
the
profile
spacing
can be
increased.
'
2.4.1
r:,aral
properties
Soil
"
SITE-SPECIFIC SURVEY
2.4
at
are
usually
smmarizes
more compli-
the steps of
Steps
Procedure
1
2
3
4
and s'ize
The
utilizing a jackup
tion.
to
the sampling
used
to 20 feet.
Table 2.4-1.
-.
10
upper
because of
soil
in the
samples
Generally, in shallow
and
obtain
vibracorers
corers
single boring):
2-1.
"
Table 2.4-2.
I aximus
Seaer Type
ype
Sampler
Qual
ity,
sample
Length
Sample
Comments
Application
(Vt)
Grab Sampler
'low
Box Corer
very high
Gravity Corer
Free Fall
Short Corer
Long Corer
high
4
10
30
Vibracorer
moderate
20-40
Soil identification
Index property tests
Soil identification,
Sample for:
strength test
index test
Soil identification,
Sample for:
strength test
index test
Soil identification,
Saple for:
index test
2.4.2
Shallow Sampling
2.4.2.2
8ox Corers.
Box
corers
"
obtain
part
seafloor
regional
of the
installations,
survey.
soil.
For small
A box corer
shallow-penetration
sample
'box,
(Figure 2.4-2].
,.
samplers
method
for
Because
obtaining
samples
Grab or
offer
the
seafloor
soil
by
this
obtained
ort
Large grab
ell
..
Sx
samplers are,
'M"
......
2-16
(a) Descentmanwe
hook
wright column
box
ICA
2-17.
Gravity Corers.
2.4.2.3
corers
Gravity
the
kinetic
The
energy
mudltne
during
recovery
and
last 10 to
being
is
not
used,
the
by
free-wheeling
Benthos
of
handling,
the winch,
corer,
boomerang
is
can
lists
quality.
soil
most
soil
improve
A comprehensive discus-
not
piston type.
recovered
to
penetration
be
found
teristics,
or,
in
Reference 2-4.
Table 2.4-3
their charac-'
on their performance.
free
fa
lowering'
lowerin-
Partial
fun,
penetration
penetration
hauling in
cable
,.retease
corer
piston
fall
loop
~'
. .
. . .. . ...
..............
.
tnwX
XX-'""
..
....
. . .. . .
..
...
.. .....
......
te rigger
Figure
rig
wigl
"wght
TIhie 2.4-3.
rWater
Mae
Maker or
Contractor
Designation
of Unit
Typeof
Link
jpe of Unit
Dater
Depth
(ft)
ii
Penetration
(ft)
Samp
Remarks
ecovered
Free-Fall Corers
HydroProducts
Bouma-Box
Sampler
Flexible
Unlimited
1.5
Rectangular
coras seasuring 200 by
7an
HydroProducts
Moore Free
Corer
Autonomous
Unlimited
2.0
5.0
62-mr-diam
cores
Autunomous unit
that can be used
Benthos
Boomerang
Free Fall
Autonomous
20,000
65-rna-dim
cores
Reinecke
Long Reinecke
Flexible
Unlimited
150- by 150-mm
Collapsible
sheath
in soft soils
10
4.0
<30
cores
I
C
Corers Lowered by Cable
Inventor:
Kereabon
Saclant CEN
Benthos
Model 2450
Gravity
Piston
Alpine
Geophysical
Associates
Comex
Inventor:
Ewing
2.4.2.4
Unlimited
About 35-50
Flexible
Unlimited
10-25
58-mm-diam
cores
Gravity corer
Flexible
Unlimited
10 or 16
Wam dim
cores
Kullenberg
corer
Flexibse
Ulimited
16-32
Can be adapted to
pressuremeter
Corer
Kullenberg
corer
Flexible
Unlimited
65
54-mr-dim
cores
"Giant Corer"
Kullenberg
corer
Flexible
Unlimited
>65
10 me
Vibracorers.
less
limited
strength
penetration.
of a
The
core barrel
supported
Figure 2.4-4.
piston
by
The
source.
typical
and
vibracorer
and driver-vibrator
stand,
as
driver-vibrator
eccentric
variety,
pneumatic,
shown
may
weight
or
it
be, powered
hydraulic,
may
or
soft
In
vibratory
only slight
differences
preferences.
Most are
of material
sediment
length Is
reciprocating
by
Is
being corea.
encountered,
Unless very
coring
maximum
limited to 40 to 50 feet.
electrohydraulic
corers--sm,
Offshore
engineering
inves-
on piles,
with
and
to accommodate company
limited, to operation
Deep Semplina
2.4.3
maintain
be of a
(soils of
low consolidation)
65-rndiam
cores
50
the corer.
rotating
Unlimited
unit
Cores about
120 mmin
diameter
Flexible
cohesionless sediments,
consists
Flexible
Gravity and
piston corer
(Kullenberg
type)
Piston corer
Casting Corer
Techniques
Louis Menard
(TLM)
Station de
Geodynami que
sous-sarine
Villefranchesur-mer
in
Improved
Kullenberg
type
2-19
especially
is
require
equipment
for
sapling
samples.
higher
and
major
those placed
deep soil
of reopasentative
techniqmus
sophistication
in
Investigations
requitexpensive
recovery
boring
site
structures,
in
Deep
'level
the
of
drill
samplers.
The wire-line hammer sampler uses
successive vertical blows to advance the sampler
and provides somewhat disturbed samples. However, it is economical and provides adequate
information for pile design. Wire-line push
samplers advance the sampler with a continuous
motion, which produces less soil sample disturbance. However, the operation of a push sampler
requires a fairly calm sea since the motion of
the ship is transferred to the sampler through,
the drill pipe. A limited number of drill shipi
do compensate for motion, with specialty equipment, but this is an expensive complication to
the basic drilling operation.
The depth to which soil sampling is necessary depends on the type and size of the structure. For most pile foundations, the borehole
should be at least as deep as the anticipated
pile penetration plus three pile diameters. For
A
-of
2.20
"raphyis
2.4.5.3 Transit.
Samples
should
be
shipped to 'the laboratory as soon as possible
after the vessel arrives in port. Undisturbed
samples are best "hand-carried," either as
Sample Handling
"2.4.5.1
"'-
Sbox
"W.
0
'.:
2.4.5.2 Storage.
Proper sample storage
prior to testing is somewhat controversial.
It
is usually best that samples are stored vertically, when possible,
to maintain their
natural orientation and to limit mixing or
changes in stress conditions. Cushioning should
be used toprotect the samples from vibration.
Samples should be stored at 5 2*C in near 100%
relative humidity and away from direct sunlight
to prevent biological growth and other physical
alterations that might otherwise occur.
2.4.5
.--
"6feet
the sample.
Samples should be tested as soon as possible because even proper storage will only slow
down and not stop sample property changes that
occur with time.
2.5
2.5.1
IN-SITU TESTING
General
2.21
and confining
from
the
soil
seabed
decrease results
internal
with
pressure
to
the
in
sea
bringing
surface.
tests,
This
disturbance
subsequent
them
introduced
sample handling,
sections.
When combined
by
sampling
the
total
and
distur-
2.5.2
to
gases,
such
Mexico.
as
those
For these
found
soils,
in
the
decreases
Gulf
of
rotate a four-bladed
in hydro-
the
shear strength
the
vane
of
solution,'
which
completely
disturbs
and
Relatively
of
few
pieces
of
equipment
size is
of the soil.
dictated
in the
Selection of
by the anticipated
are
the
rate
equipment.
are
standardized
[Ref 2-7].
However,
"generally represent
to
"satisfactory quality
able
measuring
the
engineering
Table 2.5-1.
Test
Performed
Vane Shear
Static Cone
Penetrometer
properties
of
of
in-situ
The types of
Parameter
Obtained
Paraeter
Apparatus
Type
Appaatus(feet)
Designation
Operational Limits
,
e,
Water
_Depth
Cohesive
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
su
*, or
su1j,Cv~k
The
Wire-Line
Platform
McClelland
Remote Vane
Halibut
MITS
Lehigh
Wire-Line
Platform
Wison
XSP-40
"MITS
Stingray
"Seacalf
Dynamic (Free
Fall)
Penetrometer
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
su
Pressuremeter
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
suE
Wire-Line
Platform
Menard
Menard (driven)
IFP (self-boring)
Cohesionless
and Cohesive
y , soil
layer
boundarie_
Wire-Line
Borehole
Logging
"_ __"
through a
Soil Tested
_
for example,
types
NCEL
,Sandia
vane embedded
3,000
Seafloor
Penetration
800
1,600
16,000
20
20
10
650
200
1,600
6,600
800
40
20
300
1,000
100
20,000
....
4-5
210
330
1,000
250
65
180
--
about
''.
20 feet
in
soft
c1I
.. for
existing
rate,
devices,
The shear strength can be calculated from
can often
affect
vane
""
-"2
and sensitivity
=v2
ability.
C
3 Cone
Penetration Tests (CPT)
(2-1)2.
2)2.5.3
2T
n d2[H + (d/3)]
2
'suv = vane shear strength [F/L ]
T
applied torque ELF]
where:
The
offshore
quasi-static
S"
for
accounting
continuous
with
in
depth
and
standardized,
base diameter of
(2-2)
,v
information
has
S
in-situ
from
cone.*
soil properties.
of
effects
determined
strength
shear
vane
the
into
Su, a
for
penetrometer used
investigation
is
the soil at a constant rate while point resis"tance and side friction are measured. These
undrained sdata
shear strength,
factor,
correction
type of cone
geotechnical
S8 0.6
. _,..
"0
20
40
60
""Platicity index
80
(PI)
100
. s
120
"shearstrength (after
Ref 2-8).
2
3
45
6
insertion
of
the
vane.'
Erratic
results
Iod edl
Swain Pga
2
Frictionaleue(150CM
Adjusow rn
Wa-rpoofbumin"
7 Cable
8 Electriclcoanection
"*'-'"
3.
2
1 Conical poim (10 CM )
are
9 Rods
Effects of anisotropy,
strain
2-23
"-.,.- d
.. .W
...-
--" " """; -'"' .'" ' -"- " - ."" -', ' . ."
, -" -" -'" ]
'
"
.:"
r,-"
" %
-i
" .
.' ., ,
tFugro
po
100
saturated
i1
\
t
interpretation
of
2-11].
correlations
vary
2.5 T
CPT data.
These
3.0
Figure ZS3. Correlation between cone tip resistance
and sand relative density (after Ref 2-10).
sea-
between
-mined
changes
46
in a given
42
" 4s'
soils is
OsA
.. ,orm-C
*".i".
and qc.
011
>
'
; 1.5liii
estimated
uncemented
1.0
"
recent.
ii\\"
Strength parameters
So0
finesandsISM
,"
400
300
'
to measure the unit friction along the soilCone penetrometers can also
sleeve interface.
be equipped with electrical piezometers at the
200
04
32
3
30
0
4"
Io-o
1020,30
40 5060
7080
90100
Relativedensity. in%
value
elasticity,
Es,
of the
constrained modulus
Note of caution
Inproblems wherethei en
"vtrain
Pas the
may
of
soil,).
(1.5 to 2.0) q
strain
(2-3)
2-24
............
.....
.,."
............................
'-......
, -. -.--.
'".
.".'."....-
.-.a-.'
.',
* . *- *.
S4
The
higher
value
velocity-dependent
in measured frequency
is
used
to monitor
the
penetrometer
signal
and
estimated from:
s'"
Doppler penetrometer
it
qc - Yt Z -um
u
t
embeds
1.
"-ive
the
seafloor.
The
system has
expendable
the
following
into
components:
(2-4)
.where:
shift
hydrophone with a
A reivin
2.
"-"*
S
2.5.4
Pressuremeter Tests
a45
2.5.6
ticity),
can be performed
rest.
a
predrilled
hole
[Table 2.5-1].
or
pushed
into
the
soil
of test,
details
active mineral
2.5.5
.-"
Dynamic Penetrometer
contents
Thus,'a correlation
".
soil types.
The impor-
Penetrometer
.slowed
by
"Undrained
velocity
the
is
during
soil
shear strengths
manner, similar
to
the
monitored
as
it
reverse
is
penetration.
are calculated
be greatly
Information on thermal and magnetic properties of the soil mass Around the borehole can be
in a
of the dynamic
penetration
2.6
the kinetic energy consumed, and then .to calcu"late the soil strength required to consume that
energy.
For the
change
-r.
Navy's Doppler
in velocity
from
'
penetrometer,, the
is calculated
SEISMICITY SURVEY
the
occurrence
(see
Section 2.Z.1
2-25'
. .
..
for
sources).
TT
Akska
Hawai
!f
Sdue
"by
of ground
REFERENCES
2-1.
'2.7
W.H.
Berger
and
and
the
stratigraphy
line,"
motion.
in. Pelagic
Oceans,
K.J.
Hsu
Blackwelfl,
Association
Publication 1, 1974,
E.L.
Winterer.
fluctuating
Sediments
and
Oxford',
of
H.
on
"Plate
carbonate
Land
Jenkyns,
in
the
editors.
England,
International
Sedimentation,
Special
pp 11-48.
ZX 0
g = 0
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.25
0.40
where:
P.
LeTirant.
Seabed
reconnaissance
and
2-26
Houston,
Tex.,
Gulf
(English translation by
Exploring
2-3. R. McQuillin and B.A. Arders.
London, England,
the geology of shelf seas.
Graham and Trotman, Ltd., 1977.
2-4. H.J. Lee and J.E. Clausner. Seafloor soil
sampling and geotechnical parameter determination handbook, Civil Engineering Laboratory,
Port Hueneme, Calif.,
Technical Report R-873.
Aug 1979.
t-"o
Noorany.
tion Control,
Materials,
1972,
"Underwater
soil sampling
Philadelphia,
Pa.,
pp 3-41.
2.8
SYMBOLS
Cc
Compression index
AOL
I.
cv
d
Or
Relative density
ASTM
D-3441.
Philadelphia,
Pa.,
1982.
2-10. J.H. Schmertmann.'
Guidelines for cone
penetration test performance and, design, U.S.
Department of Transportation, FIHA-75-78-209.
Washington, D.C., 1978.
K.
"Soil
2-11. 8.J. Doug!as and R.S. Olson.
classification using electric cone penetrocr
eter," in Cone Penetration Testing and Experience, G.M. Norris and R.D. Holtz, editors;
S/
777.
[L/T 2 ]
Height of vane blade
Permeability [L/T]
NC
PI
Pvo
pressure)r[F/L2f
2
]
,.F/L
Cone tip resistance
SP Normally consolidated, saturated, recent,
fine sands
rented
unc
2-2"7
St
s
Sensitivity
Undrained shee strength (F/Li]
2
Vane shear strength [F/L ]
um
2
Hydrostatic pressure at mudline [F/L ]
angle [deg]
3
Buoyant unit weight of soil [F/L )]
]t
Yb7
2--28
*'/
,.
................
...............
*#
'
.+
kI
Chapter 3
"*"LABORATORY
3.1
*'-."
3.1.1
ie
"
/
INTRODUCTION
3.2
Scope
3.2.1
"
.
".
Classification by Origin
Table 2.1-2 of Chapter 2 identified engineering properties of soils required for analysis and design for several applications in the
deep ocean environment.
Chapter 2 outlined
elements of preliminary "desk-top* and field
surveys, including the acquisition of some
engineering properties from in-situ tests. This
enced personnel.
enced personnel or
fit into one of the
ties testing. This
3.1.2
Special Considerations
""
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
techniques arise because of the new soil materials encountered (primarily the biogenous
remains and the authigenic precipitates); the
very low effective stresses in surficial materials (and resulting very soft or loose physical
"state); and, to a lesser extent, the salt content of the pore fluid.
This chapter often
cites conventional soils testing references
(Ref 3-1 and 3-2), with most of the material
"devoted to presenting necessary deviations from
standard procedures.
3.2.2
The marine geologist also classifies sediments strictly by grain size, according to the
Wentworth scale (Table 3.2-1(a)] or according to
an American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTN) -scale that has slightly different grade
limits
and
subdivides
material
types
(Table 3.2-1(b)].
The portion of the sample
3-1
Table 3.2-1.
material
Type
purposes, but. it
Silt,
o0.062-0.0036
Clay
<0.0036
tool.
64-2.0
2.0-0.062
Gravel
Sand
3.2.3
GravelI
CThe
2i
>76.2
Coarse
Fine
Sand
Coarse
76.2-19.1
19.1-4.76
4.76-2.00
Medium
2.00-0.42
Fin*
Silt
Clay
Coilloids
0.42-0.074
0.074-0.005
<0.00O
<0.001
for
and
.7..
clay
Santdy
Silty
Cany
zo
s0
Pe Co.
Figure 32-1.
60
100
Silt Size
n
grade limits.
3.2
%-
,-r-,.,
TI
at.
*~1~
%too&%$
~~~I Mul i
.=
0~
ft
=Iiio
O6.010
~pa-0
dw=is
s
60430"
v *&e o-s*
CI
Il
:;s
j;...v :
be00 ONA:
U. ow
40
0.
MASS
11*1
#w1Dei
if
3-3
iit
coarse-grained
(silts
fine-grained
organic materials.
(gravels
and
into three
and
and
clays),
The classifications
are
(no.
200
sieve).
than 0.074 -
Highly
indicate
based
larger (coarse-grained)
smaller (fine-grained)
highly
sands),
or
3.3.2
Sample Preparation
in diameter
organic
soils
are
The coarse-grained
the
index properties
Tie
based
on
of their
their
Figure 3.2-2].
index
fine
fraction.
properties
biogenous
[see
rial,
described
of biogenous material,
resaturated
tests.
3.3
However,
material.
Air
voids
later during
thi
Atterberg
limit
technique used (grinding with mortar and rubbercovered pestle) is far too abrasive for use with
3.3.1
General
Index
present
physical
tests
condition
provide
(water
information
content)
on
the
and on
the
and chemical
relationships
have
been
developed
including coralline
sands.
Instead, mrine soil
amplised
between
3.3.3
in a
dlouaso
lution.
Water Content
S.
Most
apply 'to
terrigenous
marine
soils' because
Thi
in
Ruference 3-1.
This
important
section
aspects
will
of
Is obtained
(
(W2
3-4
. .
oftent..
test
ist most
discusss,.
these
weveru
made.
coretionfo
+
Wc I
"W2
(3-1)
3
Table 3.3-1.
Re ference,
for
Standard
Test
Procedure
Sample preparation
ASTM D421
None
Disturbed or
or undisturbed.
As required for
for subsequent
tests.
Water content
ASTh 02216
None
Disturbed or
undisturbed with
unaltered natural
water content.
As large as
convenient.
None
Undisturbed with
unaltered natural
volume.
As large as
convenient.
ASTM 0854
Volumetric flask
preferable; vacuum
preferable for
de-airing.
Disturbed or
undisturbed.
ASTh C127
None
Disturbed or
undisturbed.
25 to 50 gm for
fine-grained
soils; 150 gm
for coarsegrained soil.
500 gin.
Atterberg limitsc
Liquid limit
ASTM 0423
Disturbed or
.50 to 100 gin.
undisturbed, fraction
passing No. 40 sieve.
Plastic limit
ASTM 0424
Specific gravity:
-wMaterial smaller
than No. 4 sieve
size,
Material larger
than No. 4 sieve
size.
Variations From
Standard Test
Procedure
Tyeo
aie
Size or Weight
fyeof Tstml
of SampiR
for Test frTs
Disturbed or
undisturbed, fraction
passing No. 40 sieve.
15 to 20 gin.
Gradation:
Sieve analysis
ASTM 0422
-.
HydomeerNo.
HyrmtrASTN 0,422
analysis
-for
Selection of sieves
to be utllited may
vary for samples of
different gradation,
Disturbed-or
undisturbed,
nonsegregated sample,
fraction larger than
200 sieve size..
Fraction itf sample
Disturbed or
hydrometer
undisturbed,
analysis may be that nonsegregated sample,
passing No. 200
fraction small~er than
sieve. Entire
.No.
10 sieve size.
600 gmnfor
finest grain
soil; to 4,000
gmnfor coarsegrained soils.
65 gmnfor'finegrainedrsoil;
115 gm'for sandy
soil.
sample of fine-
'I
3.6
Siko
Tp
Depth
w*%
jae
sooll,
Unai
*IF
Weight
1
pso" (kwL
Pie.
TER3NIG3E24OUS
Tenipwas CleyoryUl
ISO
44-59
13544
Towigposoaw
C UMN (1madl
379
73-308
13~-1111 434
*I
29-12
COW)%t SG
14.4-3154
safibi.siP
3.4-14hlb
3-9
L13-IU3
1.7-10thy
4-se5'
igh
3S
93
72-78
72-77
12.9-33J.3 7J-79
12.9-13.5 7442'
2.6?
2.76
2.54-2.59
2.93-2.53
2453-2.58
2.55-2.63
11-34
31-32
3.34.9
24.932.9
2.3-5.8
3.6-310
13
11
6
a
2.51-2.61 2.0.4.3
2.51-2A62 2.6-11 A.
2.11-2.60 2.3-8.1
2.40-2.621 .7-4.6
2.49-2.16136-3.4
2.55-2,62 2.1-3.t
4-30
4-32
5-7
46
2-32
4-33
2.4-2.63
2.57-2.65
2.57
2.62-2.6
2.33-2.36
2.67.3
2.6-3.2
JA
1.94.3
3A.11,11
2.73
A
34
36-75
2.652,69 4.348.9
52-79
MA.
NA.
PELAGIC-CAkcarcous coem
Cilcaugvsowow:
Calcaregous
uo
C~kWCAeOO&ooa
Cak1vosenimm
Calcuttao00or
calat~e-owsoa
00.670
1.643
4,4110
3,300
3.3)0
3.69
86-136
84330
16".236
136.213
2631
130.233
43J
36
NP
WeP
3183-5.4
33.8.33.4
12.4-12.9
12.6-13.1
Oe
33 Coooaccau~os
calcarw" oooe
32
3.940
327-210 4,.3110 112-245 -
33 Calc temao'
14
Calcareouji eon
13I C1akaecovetwo.,
I3& Cak~s..o.
4.560
4.700
4.300
4.70
128-434
343415
172-255
320-230
111.0-13.9 76-84
12.4.14.0 63482
33.4.33.6 538-1
313.6.13.147-79
12.4-13A. 64413
12.2.13.7 56-4161
37
Is
19
20
21
Ccicarew" .4,44
Colcoowrgeou
a
Cu~akwA twoua
Cakwoewseat...
ea,
Calcowitaus
4.450
4.100
4.300
4.520
4.850
53-233
102-196 372
300-164 2904124 -
132.3-14.3 704?
13.4-.4.1 7948
34.8
90
14.41-14.9 3046
13.111.32.1 414-4
22
2J
Noosao
&sownchalkava,
N.-~..s.
O&Y~
1 khSOAwM O
25oaea
Ck
3.950
4.723
4.431
.910
135
a32
321
60
983310
146
19,
66-10
45
3s
36to41-37
IJS-14.1 segliolk,
78
4-32
1.100
51-71
MAA .
239
351
385
339
398
'3
N.P.
N.P.
57-306
83-171
.j
1
1
I#3.0
1AR09
0 809
. 0 2
29
27
0.91
0.67
0.21
0.39
3.9
.
33 42.7 lips.4400)"
349
3
a
6
5
J.7
5.7
40 1(3. kPa..44"3)
35 41.4 kloo,42')
I-
16
33
2S
14.1-14.)
36-6
248-2.72 14-27
3-130
I U.6441.89
03.1741.21
0.4-1.2 dIMP
27
20
%a#ts.6 0016.0 f
4
Dist~ant~. 33ao
If
Wava,
Dotlomooht(I533
IS
Pe3..cday
13
12
P.4aW cay
Prugrgudy'
JS
34
IM
3...au.lo
Absood odhls
blls).
loss *oa*dAbp
ODaaa.paaishoma.
.440
J)
3.313
3649
2.649
.) 2.609
2.414
2.4341
73
47
N.P.
N.P.
-
W4-12 73-113
III2IJ1
5.644
15.163
me
00#Ma
latid
%:,
13.14
12-13)
31.0.33.3
183.
23
mow3
1
2.18
Lill,
Negqligibl
35336
veryl
79-102
191-101
19
3.46
3344
NJ3
41
J
40
.-
ift6
43
2.24.4oksp
2-11
3.3
27
3-32
J1-3
to
37
2o
.72
11.A46-1.15
Ver loo,Io 269-2.73J 0.73-3.17
5"l
tnau3
towa
33-48
941:301354
i319
1"26-24 157-223
12082-235 1225-229
9.4
4
lab
26 cakoare~au
(deg)
0.220.40 0.1041.17
La
2.000
24
It0
2.1
2
1,700-
*9
gltul
.- 7
calicarecs
Pronomiala
Twhocliac
(sdl-daygy WO
S
6
7
A
Yet.
1.4-35 la
Tcroigea-- ayM Silt
4
Pisviest
tOA
14*118 in.h
'NoVas
kPs
4.8
12.2
33.0
Oadictowww
.
-
O3. IsP,
031
2A69.79 4.J.A1
3.314
1.
J7
1.3
6
1.70
9.3-3.13.
2.36-3.30 32.2311.5
2.3
1A-2
3.5
4.3
13
35
2.64
1149
273
t ?
6.70
V112
1.706
6.7
2.616
6.35
63.4
61.29
where:
w = water
corrected for salt
contentcontent
[]
r
of 0.035
W, = weight of container and moist
soil [F]
W2 = weight of container and oven-dried
soil [F]
Wc = weight of container [F]
the pycnometer,
soil
run
as
grains
is
where:
(3-4)
Wa-W
Wd-
undisturbed
soil
samples
obtained directly from core tube or liner sections of known length and diameter (ASTH 0 2937)
Wd
Wa
such as
[F]
sample.
V(3-2)
where:
The adjusted
"content,
Aft
dry density,
corrected
for salt
(W2
Wc)
r(W1 " W
2)
without
Table 3.3-2
3.3.6
"3.3.5
2.7
incurring
lists
some
significant
measured
for
[Ref 3-5].
Plasticity Index
(3-3
Specific Gravity
error.
values
is:
id
(.
test is
G Wc
relatively
"aconsolidation
and the
Unit Weight
3.3.4
ties.
the m
wL,
pycnometer
provides
weighted
average
samples
containing
rial.s.
C-3.
method
0 854-58
will
suffice
guidance
specific
both
on
here.
computing
gravity
for
ASTN
the
those
3.3.6.1
is the
This is
Liquid Limit.
water 'content
determined
scoured
placed.
separating it
into
two
halves.
The
liquid
limit
is
arbi-
is
dropped
passing
a specific
a no. 40
diameter).
tion
distance 25 times at a
of
It
sieve (less
is
the
test sample
than 0.42 -
does
in
not change
the
to shift.
"with
water
characteristics.
it
limit
of
test.
sample
However,
preparation
If
at
possible,
of coarse materials
is
Except
for
the
recommended
test
taken
66-72.
directly
from
the stored
sample
tubes.
is
conducted
It
changes
in
or the
the
liquid
the
Although
test
this
limit
at
has
been
several
procedure
defined
water
will
by
contents,
result
in
some
3.3.6.2
Plastic Limit.
wp,
boundary is minimal.
must be
the soil
solthsout
soil can be
content1/8at which
lowest waterthrad
in the
diaete
agitation
'-lle
agittio and
remolding
linch of
minimized.
"For those
organic
or
blogenous
of
(Section 3.3.2).
materials
79).
All comlenti
test
possible
but is a nlaborlo
s process.
. b cn soked
dsttledwate
index
The sample
an
getly
is poured
"water is
into
he 'sieve.
can be
'
liquid
method
until
this
-'running
the
because
limit determinations.
"sample should be
"drying with air
for
'
The
moist soil
sample characteristics
""
the
to be
performed only on that portion of a soil sample
nal
is
also
3.3.6.3
(PI)
apply
is calculated
btentelqi
PI
limit
the plastic
to
test.
as
lsi
the
difference
iis
~.
(3-5)
Distilled
"3-8
S.............
.. .
... ... .
.. . .
. ....
. ... .
3.3.7
-.
"---.
The determination of the grain size distribution of marine soils is performed in the same
way as for terrestrial soils (ASTN D 422-63-72).
with some variation in sample preparation to
limit grain particle degradation.* The distribution of particle sizes larger than 0.075 1
(no. 200 sieve) is determined by sieving.. The
distribution of sizes finer than 0.075 mm is
determined by hydrometer test. Grain sizes up
The grain size curves from the sieve analysis for larger particles and from the hydrour
eter analysis for smaller particles may not
agree exactly where the test data overlap. Part
of this deviation arises because the theory on
which the hydrometer grain size analysis is
based (Stoke's theory) assumes a sphericalshaped particle. Clay particles and much of the
foram fragments are plate shaped and do not
conform to the theory.
Further, the whole
biogenous shells, especially the foraminifera,
particle degradation.
"Samples of marine soils for the hydrometer
test are prepared by rough mixing the sample
with water to promote separation of t4. very
-mall particles.
Some pelagic clay samples,
notably those having a high iron oxide content,
clay-sized material is not a significant problem, as the material is primarily minute plate*shaped particles that do not break down.
'Salt content of the water plays no part in
this test.
3.4
(.3
3.3.8
3.4.1
P.,
"Laboratory
"-
Sbladed
-the
vane.
Foame
is
measured by
torque
spring or torque
attached
to the vane.
a calibrated
transducer
This force is
directly
then con-
cylindrical surface.
3. Apparatus. The vane should consist of
a rectangular four-bladed vane as Illustrated in
Figure 3.4-1. It is reconmended that the height
'of the vane be twice the diameter, although
vanes with other ratios can be used, including a
height equal to the diameter. Vane blade diameter ypically varies frm 0.5 to 1.0 Inch.
Variations from recomiended. values would be made
ability, k,can be calculated either from consolidated triaxial tests or from one-dimensional
consolidation tests.
A sumary of test requirements is given in'
Table 3.4-1.
Care should be taken that the
3.4.2
4.
Preparation of Samples.
Soil
samples
The miniature
2
escrptlon
vane shear test consists of inserting a four-
the Test.
Dsrpinof
f2.
$6
3-10
o
-h.A A*
N
"-
Table 3.4-1.
Tetfor
Vane Shear
Unconfined
Compression (UC)
Applicability and
Variations From
Suggested Test
Procedure
Text,
Section 3.4.2
ASTM D 2166
Minimum cross-sectional
area 10 cm2 . Length =
2 to 3 x diameter.
Information similar to
that from UC test; can
be used with softer and
more pervious sediments
than UC.
Rate of shear limited
to allow complete
drainage.
M4ore common and
enerally less timeonsuming than CO.
ressure lines leading
.o sample should be
"seawatet, filled.
Loading rod friction should
be minimized by using
air bushing or equivalent.
Same as UC test.
ASTM 0 2435
Sample diameter t
50 mm or Z 2 to 5 x
Sample
height.
height t 13 mm.
ASTM 0 3080
Limited to consolidated
shear tests on finegrained soils.
Sample diameter
50 mm, or Z 2 x height.
Sample height t 12.5 mm.
'
,.
Triaxial
Compression
SUnconsolidated
ASTM 0 2850
Undrained (UU)
ConsolidatedDrained ,(CD)
Ref 3-2
ConsolidatedUndrained (CU)
Ref 3-2
One-Dimensional
"Consolidation
Direct Shear
'
P. e1.1
"-.
Same as UC test.
Same as UC test.
A #
'4.
i~.
it
was
inserted.
Determination
of
the
The proce-
dure,
si on
-:-s
Calculations.
6.
graph
is
prepared
angle.
puted
same
+
is
con-
introduced
for
corn-
puting
in-situ
vane
shear
strength
[Equation 2-1]. The rmolded' shear strength is
sam way.
computed the
Soil sensitivity, St. is derived from the
ratio of undisturbed to remolded shear strength
as follows:
1:1 Vne
(H-d)
2:1 Vane
(H-2d)
suv,
Suv (undisturbed)
(3-6)
Suv (rewlde)-
t
5.
Test Procedure.
The vane shear unit
should be securely fastened to a table or frame
The vane is
influenced by effects of
anisotropy
should
be
held
Torque readings
quency that will
torque-rotation
5 degrees
of
180 degrees
firmly
to
preven% rotation,
the
The'
a maximum of
obtained.
described
in
inspected
inclusions
3.4.3
to determine
is
Figure 2.5-1.
The vane
and a representa-
specimen is
test
soil
*and other
gravel,
as
of rotation is
of
rate,
strain
a correction factor
should be applied as done for the in-situ vane,
and
at a fre-
should be recorded
that
the water
for
sand,
may
have
relatively
ties observed.
strength
to
Pelagic
clays
15 feet
would
if
'd only
-'
desired, is
impervious,
stand
from
biogenous
sampling.
and
under
have
their
subbottom
e,
are
sufficient
own
weight.
depths
beyond
3.12
..-. ....
...
.* .
. ..
- .
'...
','..
- ., ,.....
a..
'. .
...
....-
....
,.-
;.....
........
.....
'
. 5..
a..
..
.5-.. .... ..
3.4.4
Unconsolidated.
Undrained Triaxial
Compression Test
fluid,
sample
soils
rather,
compression
test,
it
can be
run on
somewhat
3.4.5
use
used
(CD)
(CU)
triaxial
and
tests
of
stainless
steel
"points.
Secondly,
many
are
marine
at
critical
sediments
are
land.
Load
and pressure
transducers
used to
These
rate at abnormally
within
"direct shear
pressure.
fittings
eters, c and i,
significantly
behavior.
samples
consolidated-undrained
could
alter
consolidated-drained
with seawater
The
"*
be filled
The unconsolidated,
should
The CU and
0.02 pound
low readings:
for
load and
accuracy to
0.02 psi
for
however,
procedure
is
given
on
pp 122-137
of
normally accep-
3.4.6
another
alternative
for
determining
cohesive
soils.
0 2435-80.
"test
exact
.*
stress-strain
relationships
within
rate
of
displacement
engineein
pet y of
f high'
hig value
ve
becas of
engineering
property
because
of
the high Impact that soil stress history has on
provides
for
bu
it
plasticfsow
of softuoes,
b
ive
plastic
flow pof
soft cohesive
exess o orepresure,
disspaton
alsopermito
also
permits
effective
soils.
3.4.7
vertical
pressure
special considerations
triaxial
testing
of
must be made
marine
than
The ratio
for
overburden
Some
through triaxial
sediments.
solidation.
3.13
Ty a
the
ui
under applied loads.
determined by
is well-suited to a consolidated-drained
because the drainage paths through the
condition
S~comprossion;
test specimen are short,
Engineering propertles
is sta-
This .test
the
. .
"*
s /P
marine soils
SU/Pvo
loads,
as
is
8
(OCR) 08,
for NC soil
the
soil
sample
should be
In addi-
can be
submerged in
in-situ
strength
of overconsolidated
nearshore
marine clays.
0.
3.5
3-:
(3-7)
low as
8 psf.
This is normally
achieved by placing small weights on the loading
tion,
for OC soil
-
PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
.
A.
0.6
General
3.5.1
properties
with
index
U04
properties
0.2
young
,.
0I
0
-.
PING
20
60
40,
8o
100
Nearshore Sediments
sediments are
A considerable
Figure 3.5-2
ments.
fine-grained
soils.
Although
this
was
not
in this figure, su
coefficient
Figure 3.5-3
vo
correlation between
consolidation,
with aging.
The s 6/
of
shows
Cv,
and
liquid
%olldatnd (have
under
dated
eoties
of
these
special
types
of
sediments.
.3-14
-I-
'9:,-T
".- '
..
'.t.
',..".
..-
;'."."
"..' .
-.5s,:.
%***
"" ,
.' ."
*,.:.;%*.*-,I'*.9
*s *. 9s:..-..-
-....-
...
lsiiyblx(o
eintda;:C
dasi
rie
Stndr dvitono
Coefficient of consolidation
U4-
0.3
0.2
Unistuwbed sampleu
*41073
11-
eofreeompre
~above
-
0.1 r4
Iolea
007
10.05
00.03,
-
--
---
00.02
CyT
Am below thsuppw~m
200
iquid Limit
3~
properties
The
pile foundations,
and
due
mode
to
For this
reason,
suggested
for
of deposition
gives
sumary
Although
the deep
region
sea
depositional
calm
processes,
typically
a rela-
is
wit
more than
275,
&an cause
180.
60% particles
finer
indices range
from "40 to
As
in profile
with
adjacent
sediments
at
the
same
"A"
uniform
relatively
corresponding
and plasticity
'(compared
depth)
with
other
envirnnment,
.-
nodule deposits.
tively
sections
information,
3.5.3
following
available
of
The
elevations.
deeper
sands.
calcareous
samples by con-'
and
cannot be
typical properties
nearshore
Reference 3-12
extrapolated
deposition.
place after
that take
alterations
Cal-
variable in character
behavior
depths.
equivalent
at
particularly
sediments,
properties
engineering
calcareous
nearshore
of
line and to
the
right of
200.-'*.a...
.,
iMin
NN
:: ....
:a..
SO
.
0
CL
CO
ML
so
~
100
~MH
AOH
ISj
....
200
300
3.10
IS0
0.60
0.40
__
___-
___
0.2.
10
20
30
40 50
100
wsw content. M%
Nat%ral
200
300
400 500
RFRNE
3-1.
behavior.
3.17
5,.
.m
. .
't-
3-4.
Soil
mechanics,
neering Command,
Naval
Facilities
Engi-
NAVFAC D0-7.
Washington,
D.C.,
coefficient
1971.
3-5.
P.J.
deep
Valent.
ocean
influence
on
the
2-6.
"Part
14,
in
Annual
American
Society
Philadelphia,
3-7.
A.W.
ment
of
for
Pa.,
of
mineral
Standards,
and
Materials.
Testing
Ltd.,
1962.
3-8.
L.
in
properties
London,
the
triaxial
test,
Edward
Arnold
England,
"Embankuments
Bierrum.
Proceedings
of ASCE
Specialty Conference
vol 2,
Purdue University,
review,"
Journal
of
A.F.
K.
3-11.
measurement)
Coefficient of (grain size) uniformity
cv
D 10
on
Engineering,
K.R.
in
on
060
Mechanics
Demars, editor.
behavior;
soils.
American
Materials,
STP
GC
Clayey gravel
GM
Silty gravel
and
SMS,
GP
Sep
of
submarine
and
Geotechnical
GW
Well-graded gravel
H4
Permeability [L/T]
LI
Liquidity index
1U4
Inorganic st
ML
Inorganic silt,
NC
Normally consolidated
OC
Overconsoldated
OCR
Overconsolidation ratio
OH
OL
Organic silts
PI
Plasticity index
prop-
Philadelphia,
f,.
.o
low plasticity
Pa.,
1982.
.,
Testing L and
3-18
.*.'-
of calcareous
for
Society
.'
grains
Foundation
1956.
Gw
SYMBOLS
Void ratio
..-
of Eighth Texas
and performance
777.
1967.
Proceedings
Soil
301
falls
"Engineer-
geotechnique.
Marine
University of Texas,
erties,
030
Struc-
Mechanics
"Varieties
Terzaghi.
Conference
Richards.
slope failures,"
3-12.
,*.
o0 ,
-'e-
Consolidated-undrained triaxial
pp 1735-1762.
3-10.
3.7
Recompression index
CU
1972.
Soil
Cs
low to medium
Inorganic clay,
plasticity
on soft ground,"
3-9.
CL
of material falls
The measure-
soil
CH
aggre-
ASTM
1982.
second edition.
in
of the propellant
and
Book
Consolidated-drained triaxial
compression test
including
pp 19-20.
Concrete
gates,"
CD
Purdue University.
thesis,
Aug 1979,
Ind.,
behavior of two
sediments,
performance
Ph.D.
driven anchor,
Lafayette,
Engineering
calcareous
and clays,
low plasticity
Pt
Weight of pycnometer
'distilled water [F] filled with
Wb
Salt content
SC
Clayey sadc
S.G.
Specific gravity
Wd
SM
Silty sand
SP
W2
S t.
S-
Se ns i t i v i t y
su
, uv
determination [F]
Reference temperature
test weights
"
sY
un
e compretssion
o
U
n
Unconfined
test
t
UCC
F].
soil [F]
w
"SW
W
a
for pycnoueter
wL
wp
Liquid limit
Plastic limit
w
n
triaxial testing
Volume [Ls]
.,3i.
m-
Yd
condition for
Unconsolidatedundrained
UU
or drained,
.3-1
7:...~'.-'-c::'~*..
frictior
angle
Chapter 4
"SHALLOW
4.1
FOUNDATIONS
AND
DEADWEIGHT
INTRODUCTION
ANCHORS
Figure 4.1-2.
General
"base
Shallow foundations and deadweight anchors
are
typically
foundations
forces,
":'
"'
similar
primarily
structures.
resist
while deadweight
the foundation.
Shallow
downward-bearing
forces.
The
design
methods
in
this
chapter
are
of
reasonable
anchor
or' "convenient"
dimensions
or anchor
--
S.'
foundation
predict performance.
V
process.
or
is made to
--
::7-
--
excessively
overdesigned,
the
dimensions
analysis process is
keys
Bo:B
is found to be inadequate or to be
are
repeated.
"
foundation
types (such
"considered.
4.1.2
"m
loading from current and wave forces (and possibly from wind and earthquake forces).
Load-
Definitlons/Oescriptions'
4.1.2.1
Shallow Foundations.
Generally,
in
Of.
the foundation,
"sions
large
S...,
8.
lateral dimension of
overturning moments,
sive,)
loadings
component
loads).
" :"
-'-"
4-1,
* .- s* *I.
--""""""::"-'";,-'',':.''-',:;':""7,":
to a shallow
create
uplift
foundation.
Vir-
tually a1 loadings (except gravitational loadings on a horizontal seafloor) develop some load
__
which
parallel
. *
'.;.
to
the
':-"::'2-"',:
seafloor
-...
*-..
:'.. "-".''-'"-".':';"
(lateral
* .
.:"
" '-.''..''
footing
-ID
The
type
of
loading
methodology
used in
loading
compressive,
is
"from the
will
design.
loaded
is
in
foundation,
is
tension,
embedded
the
surfaces,
and
the
extent as
foundation
resistance
the
derived
foundation
of
determine
If
If
the
the
friction' on
"suction"
beneath
as
the
Deadweight Anchors.
seafloor.
anchors
Deadweight
often,
the
within
The
it.
anchor
lateral
to
is
resist
from a mooring
forces
of
uplift
provide little
and,
gr~ater
lateral
without
shear
capacity
lint con-
Anchors
inchors
of
may
with
load
However,
the
more
be
offset
anchors
Installation procedures.
Itmited
the
to
and
of heavy scrap
shear
keys
resistance
keys.
soil
shaped
into
uplift
deadweight
dig
'
of
specially
submerged
The anchors
fabrication
to
net
these specially
additional
of deadweight
few
the
Often,
(designed
anchor.
Figure 4.1-3.
-,
sub-
rest on
purpose
the same
foundation
the
or even completely
primary
shallow
shaped anchors
placed on
can
the behavior
practically
the
A deadweight
primarily
Ten types
4.1.2.2
deadweight
of
weight
in
buried
behavior of
is, provided
foundation.
the
anchor is dragged),
a deadweight anchor is
uplift
the
of
provide
than do those
the
additional
sophisticated
deadweight
by
for
increased
costs
accomodating
for.
special
4-2
.
'.-.'......~.'.-.
"..-.
S~.
*'.%..-
. .-
o. o-
**...
*.....*.-.,.
.
.
.
.
., .-.
. ..
.. p.** ., . .'.
..
..
'.
non-solid
-top
(a) Sinker
* efficient uplift
&easy to handle
e low overturning
* more area contacting soil
scrap iron
S.'
(f) Mushroom
(g) Wedge
, shallow burial
e shallow burial
* low overturning
* uni-directional
* deeper burial
* uni-direetional
AM
4.2
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.2.1
General
letermined.'
This information is
design).
a
-" '.'.-..
'To define 'the appropriate types of geotechnical information needed which will allow
fodi
o anchor
c
foundation
or
design.
~ps
types.
a
* d*.
Factors
weight
anchor
design
include
the
following
degrees.
The
influence
the
listed
choice
considerations
of
should,
safety- factors
for
Items:
4-3.
r-,'-;.'
"
".,""";2s.:;,..'.cN-''.'';,'L'2',"','','.".".".',,"e"."
"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. . .
.. . . "
-%..
.. ,,*.
,a~
,, . ".'%
, *.* '."....,..-".".:..%
., , ....'-,....,.,,,,,
|
4.2.2
Site
conditions,
stratigraphic
characteristics,
S.sediment
sdafloor
ardous
features.
Slf.
profiles,4.So
eforces
tifying
seafloor
slopes,
erosion,
consolidated
existing
sediment.
slumps,
These
or
(i.e.,
oang
(e.
cyclic
cci
opportunity,
loading
yl
under-
indicate
that
4.2.5
Geotechnical
T
SThe
d
n off shallTow
a
od
n
n
foundationsan
design
deadweight. anchors requires that the following
should be considered
during design.
4.2.3
"be considered:
Structure
"Characteristics of
Sl~~~ions
".design
tion,
aspects of design
Foundation instability:
bearing capacity
failure and other failures due to uplifting,
horizontal sliding, or combinaoverturning,
of these.
'"-
tn
f e
displacements--primarily
foundation
Slow
excessive consolidation settlement.
Installation problems associated with the use
of shear keys.
and
size
of the
foundation
or
anchor.
0
4.2.4
Loading
The soil date required include soil. type,
index properties, density, strength under th,
conditions of the applied loads, and deformation
"determined:
l
"1gIcharacteristics
Static long-term
1.
loading
(i.e.,
Wie-
rela-
tions discussed
in
and cohesion!e,
sols.
Section 4.2.4
for cohesive
At the site where the foundation or deadweight anchor is to be placed, the depth to
which soils data are required is approximately
the foundation width or diameter below the
foundation base.
The soil characteristics and
d
design parameters should be obtined through
on-site and laboratory testing. For unmanned or
other noncritical installations, and for small
structures
4-.
and
ow loads,
where overdesign
is
Table 4.2-1.
;-
Loading.
Condition
Recommended
Factor of
Safety
fog
~Stabil1ity"
"Long-Term
Static
Loading
Short-Term
2.0
Drained Parameters
c, :,Yb' Cc",
E, v, o
Drained Parameters
* Yb' E, v
1.5
Undrained Parameters
Sul Stl Ybl Cco
Drained Parameters
41 Yb' E, v
1.5
E, v, e.
Undrained Parameters
Undrained Parameters
Static
Loading
"Rapid
Su,
Cyclic c
Loading
Slow
"Cyclic
2.0
LoadingU
..
Eu'v'
Undrained Parameters
S St Yb' Cc'
e o
E ,v, b:.
Yb' E,
Drained Parameters
Yb'E,v
aThese factors are recommended for the cases where properties data
are accurately known. These factors should be increased by
multiplying the listed value by 1.5 if geotechnical data are not
accurately known or if the installation is particularly critical
(see Section' 4.2.6).
bIn the absence of site-specific data on E and v, the following are
recommended:
For cohesive soil: E = 400 s v = 0.45.
For cohesionless soil: E = 2 O0[(3 - e )2/(l + e)]
0.35
where both E and Pv are in psi.
o
1-0
cUsually treated as equivalent to short-term static loading.
-.-.
"
not costly, soil information can often be estimated from available literature (Chapters 2 and
4k
3 include properties for typical soil types and
" "engineering
property correlations with more
easily obtained index properties).
However,
this lack of high quality soils data must be
"reflected by use of a high factor of safety.
SThe
General
during the
anchors to
soils data
accuracy.
of safety
to be applied to the loading conditions discussed in Section 4.2.4 when soils properties
are accurately known (by field and laboratory
testing). Where these data are not well known,
the
design
process
are
summarized
in
Table 4.3-1.
The design must consider those
factors discussed in Section 4,.2 which are
applicable.
-
4.2.6
Factor of Safety
p.
4-5
'
.0
STRUCTURAL
CHARACTERISTICS:
TYPE, CONFIGURATION, WEIGHT
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION;
WIND, WAVE,
CURRENT,
EARTHQUAKE
SITE CHARACTERIZATION:
WATER DEPTH, GEOPHYSICAL DATA,
BATHYMETRY,
GEOLOGIC
DESIGN LOADS
SITE INVESTIGATION
F hr F vGEOTECHNICAL AND
Fh, F ~
GEOPHYSICAL
SOIL PARAMETERS1
TABLE'4.2-1
FOUNDATION TYPE
SELECIONS
POTENTIAL,
COCENS
DESIGN
~~
SHALLOW~~
(SPRAD
FOR
MTHODOLOG
ORSPRED
FOTIN)
FONAINDADEGTACO
FOTIN
BTTOMSUPPRTEDFOR
OORE
STRUCTUR STUTR
BEigure
FATowA
c LA.3RAL
o h eino hlo
CAAIY
RSSANChors.TNE
ANALYIS
AALYSI'
AN4YSI
oundations Ndedwih
TAILT
Table 4.3-1.
Cohesionless Soils
Cohesive Sails
Shallow Foundations
1.
1.
Same.
2.
Assumez.
2.
Same.
3.
3.
Same.
4.
4.
5.
S.
6.
6.
Sam.
okay, go to step 7.
6.
If
"through
If
7.
7.-
8.
8.
Same.
9.
Check penetration.
9.
Same.
1.
1.
Same.
2.
Assume zs.
2.
Same.
3.
3.
4.
4.
Same.
5.
5.
Same.
6.
7.
Same.
8.
Same.
Deadweight Anchors
6.
*
7.
8.
4.3.2
".f
I'
Bearing Capacity
4.3.2.1
Static
"Cyclic Loading
The bearing capacity of a seafloor soil is
short-term
Short-Term
in COHESIVE SOILS.
loadings
and
all
Under static
cyclic
failure
""
cohesive 'soils
on
used
In
the
will
design
and
Loading
loadings,
occur
are
before
These are,
the soils
undrainvd
a Depth of embedment
a
Load direction
of the ground surface
"oInclination
"The maximum
"size foundation
that a
bearing capacity
is
calculated
as explained
in
This capacity
"is
compared
forces
to
normal to the
priate safety
ryphtion
the
sum
of
all
"under
-
acting
where:
foundation
undrained
A'
vertical
load,
Q,
is
calculated
by:
K"4
u
Kc
A' -
f Kq
.forces.
eccentricity (L ] (Section
,4.3.2:.5s)
4.7
%,.
,.
Ky
of the
= cohesive
undrained soil-averaged
shear strengthover
Su
correction
factor dependent
on
load inclination,
founda-
[L]
foundation
1000
the
simple
case
applied concentrically
resting
vertical
on
the
seafloor
20
25
horizontal,
100- 30
33.29
40
Z 40
5.38
10.87
20.71
30.14 22.40
46.11 48.02 1
46.11 46.02
134.87 133.87
13317 271.74
271.74
1349.87
.50
Static
Long-Term
The
static
long-term
_/
Nq ..
,,
lo'--..
Loading
_"
(4-2)
SOILS.
in
loading
//
60-45
450
4.3.2.2
13329
COHESIVE
18.40
35
surface,
(6.17) A s
QU
/N
1.22
2.65
2.47 8.33
3.94 10.97
6.39 14.81
10
s
load
""
u t Value
N
N
N
..s,. _._
N-1
1.00
5.14
0.00
1.56
6.40 0.45
0
5
20
on a square or circular
foudaio
foundation
of a
,__
600
400
For
....
800
'
_!___[
pore
water
pressures
is a drained
failure
have
dissipated.
condition,
and the
ljI
The
downward vertical
maximum
load of
Qu
A'[c Nc Kc *Yb Of Nq Kq
(1/2) 1b B N K3
(n Y
where:
30
40
(delFees)
50
N and N
q
as, function of the soil friction
angle
(from Ref 4-1).
(43)
NNq
10
20
soilhied'n a
failure
on
cohesionless
soils
occurs
4.
under
4-8
%
.-
-/....
.-........
-.. . -.
.;..-'... .. ,.,-.
.,.
.. .. ,
'.
..
". ,. . o ..
,S
*..
, -. .- * ,.".
. ','.
. 'S'
*.,.*.*..,
o
.. . . " .
,,.
...
./
.~S,
.' , -,"
,"
.*
- . . %. ~....
,
.~.
. . ."
.**S***
. .
.
,..% ...
%,..
5-.....
. ;
*
5 .
The
maximum downward
shallow
foundation
or
vertical
deadweight
load
of a
anchor
on
As shown in
Figure 4.3-3,
base
for
or both, axis.
A'[Yb Of Nq Kq + (1/2) Yb B' N K ]
Qu
where
the
simple
case
(4-4)
B'
[L].
B N6
time
for dissipation
of generated
a foundation
Oesignation
Item
The correction
The
bearing capacity under rapid cyclic loading can
be determined by using Equation 4-4'with bearing
i
s
d
b
g
factors Kc,
Kq,
and K are
evaluated from:
Kc
Sc dc bc gc
sC
q
a
q
s
q
d
q
b
(4-8)
pressures
have time to dissipate, the
dare
drained analysis of Section 4.3.2.3 is used witt.
are
and,
pore
and N
(4-7)
(45)
higher than
= B' L'
AP
4.3.2.4
LESS SOILS.
(46)
2 e
sufficient
0.3A
of a vertical load
area,
L'
rectangular
B'
eccentricity
often
ofte
subjected
subjecte
to a large
toalreltrlla
lateral
load
4.3.2.5
loading is
If the
con-
the gravity
deadweight,
This inclina-
Eccentric vertical
are
handled
by defining
an
eccentricity,
e,
face,
permitting
which
lower load.
4-9,
""-".:'- .o ..
.-'
" '-..
."-.-
..
6'
- ..-.
'"".
.. '":.
.."-" .
-.
.-.
..
.'.
.-.
"
.-
QQ
Equivalent loaduing
2 (axis)
-.
reduced area
(axis)
C 0I
-1
L'- L-e
-32a,
2e
RS2.CU
KIU
B'
Q1W
A'-ifi B''
ircaglr-I-a
odn.e/
[cuila
ara-muWst
Reduced
A2
O'3.2
reducednle
Reduce
area-
maesis.4~i
.
9R
cirulircularn
hecare:= wangle
between thelin o0ctono
andtheloengaxsfh
F
Wo
Areardction factori
Figure4.3-3.
~
~
whre
Fh
horzota
l co+nn
veica
Fhdohwer
isroccetriallne fr add
m
~ retialloddonains
Aereutofatrfo
~
~
L
(aN Ref-4-))
of' deig
omonst
(4-9)
lCOS
~ ~ {a'a.~A
~
o
bearing
4Thene capacit-atos
of all
Fityfiure
4.3- aredived
s
forthe#=t0odimensiona-
4-14-0)
4
/)
L s~ N.f
'
= 1 + (B'/L')(Nq/N
I)
= 1- 0.4(B'/L')
1 + (B'/L') tan
For circular
foundations
(4-11)
loaded
without
J;
dingbwefalur
"
Planes
%
(b) Dee panv frailure
P.a
pi2Ms":
The lateral load that acts on the foundaor deadweight anchor can result from:
downslope gravity force caused by a sloping
seafloor, current drag on a foundation and
striscture, nonvertical mooring line loading, or
stormr-wave and earthquake loadings.
tion
failure
Potentia fallur"
Planes
Paswewedgefailure
Figure 4.3-4. Possible failure modes when sliding
resistance is excveded (after Ref 4-3).
4%11,
"
Table 4.3-2.
p.
for--
SoSoiloil
Soil
Internal
Smooth
Rough
Smooth
Friction
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
PVC
Rough
Smooth
Coefficient
4.3.3.1
Quartz
Sand
0.67
0.27
0.60
0.60
0.69
0.33
Corallne
Sand
0.67
0.20
0.63
0.63
0.66
0.20
Oolitic
Sand
0.79
0.23
0.56
0.58
0.74
0.26
Form
Sand-Si It
0.64
0.40
0.66
0.67
Static
Static st-rt-
on
cohesive
soils
are
treated
as
the
seafloor),
cohesive
soil
Qul'
under
for
undrained
foundation
on
conditions
is
[F/L ]
Qul
Suz A + 2
where:
soils,
failure,
(4-12)
A
'Rp
4.3.3.2
ingl in
sua's
Static
COHESIONLESS
literal
load
and the
ShortSOI.S.
failure
maxima
For
cohesionless
is a drained
lateral
there
is no other guidance,
Wbst * 1b A Of-
-Fh sin 0] + Rp
where:
be estimated as follows:
soil
load capacity
p * tan (
-'
S dog)
fora
concrete base
0itht
0l((Wbf
"-
friction values for typical construction materials and marine cohesionless soils.
Where
Qul
is
s asstied positive)IF]
buoyant unit weight of soil
1
calculated by:
uz
and
Fh
The miaxmtu
to
0.40
--
Fve) cos
rough steel or
"'-"'-"
shear keys
(4-13)
, for the
f~r the
case)
is
embedded deeply,
wedge
of
sull
In
4-12
foundation
and
For
wedge
contribute
can
lateral
edge
sliding.
some
provides
resistance
foundations
around
resistance.
this
1(0
However,
of
to
passive
the
because
total
with
sediment
an
contribution
additional
effective
soil
cohesion.
current
downslope
(set
scour
or
by
Chapter 10).
wedge
sive
to
animal
the
burrowing
contribution
sliding
activity
of the pas-
resistance
is
direction)
cohesive soil
often
in
c,
from
maximu
The
the
lateral
for
foundation
a drained condition
is
on
calcu-
lated by:
omitted.
In
design of
the
cohesionless soils,
a shallow foundation on
the weight of the foundation
is
often increased
load
capacity.
maintain
To
stability
account
for
The minimum
soil
In
data
or
The factor of safety in this
failure mechanism.
case is
FvW) cos
Wbf
W_
for
-bf
case
derived
is
buoyant
from
weight
for
+Fv
Equations 4-13
and
"?bf
stiff.
Vei
y
Wbst
Yb A Of
and.
therefore,
aspects
..
Where
the
skirts
. .
(4-1S)
...
Therefore.
weight
of
sOil
should
not
be
the
in
skirts/keys
For the
43.4
toundation
case of
level,
Equation 4-15
illustrates
in
the
analyzing
a
horizontal
slope,
deawight
foundation,
Figure 4.3-i
on
* Fve
load
anchor
Wbst
1b A 0f
subjectd
if
to
(FsFseafloor
1
and
capacity
lateral
(yb A O)
special
shallow
(4-16)
components
the'forces
considered
capwcity of a shallow
tion or deadweight
control
Overturning Resistance
excessive
bec omes.
Wbf
will
short-term
lower
the
used.
of
the
yield
design.
Normally,
will
case
Fs tan 0
Note:
tan ft) Fh
p t(undrained)
(F(s
(4-18)
A Of
yh
Wbst
.]
buoyant weight
C
Cosp
(Fs + iJ tan p) Fh
_ hp
J_ -%F_ tan
bs
(-14)
foundation
Fh cosp
Fve) sin
bfF
used.
(4-17)
Qu
this
sinp]
determined by:
FF=
Fs
-Fh
ybAOf
against
sliding,
uncertainties
cA -((Wbf*Wbst
founda-
the
parallel
forces
Where
are
and noral1
there
resolved
is
into
to the seafloor
surface.
Table 4.2-1
lists
recommended
values
to
Stability against
"COHESIVE
Static
SOILS.
ccapacity' of' a
The
Long-Term
long-term
Loading
overturning
is achieved
in
the design* by insuring the resisting or
stabilizing moment,
S.
,
is
greater than t!.e
Overturning
nmmet, N .
To insure full'contact
in
0
lateral
load
between
the
base and
the supporting
sail,
the
4-13
SWb
,
"HI
Fdte
.the
-X
-- ---------. -67-A
zj
Sak
HI
sod ras
Rs
B - width of foundation
I 4-
3 -
keys
Figure -C3
the
resultant
normal
soil
reaction,
Rs.
crosses
assumed
of
foundation
"maimum stabilizing
It
moment
rotation.
is
is
The
then calculated
priate
values
highest
values possible
not
as:
result
maximum
and
(Wbf
(W
Wbst
Fv,) 8
b6
when tits
iuportant,
in
for
the
value of N
Wbst
art
possible
be used.
to
separate
the
does
therefore.
and,
assumed
F (N.
mment
is
calculated
Zs
where:
calculation
for
lower values
at
ye and
the
sizing,
time
se
Fh occur,
the
the
for Wbf
the
they should
minimum width
Wbf
-F(4-22)w
%f
overturning
The
It(-' z)
contribute
stabilizing moment.
The
involved.
during overturning
to the
base
not
is
used
to use appro-
, If
(4-19)
forces
an accurate
For prelimOary
The soil
equation is
point
acts
Where
as:
- WbSt
FV
F
(4-20')
the
(4-
lateral
distance
N * zs
(the, moment
loed component)
as possible.
This
is
that
H be
of
the
arm
limited
It
to 0.258
is
recoi-
where
pos-
sible.
To maintain stability.
6 b
N1 s
Fh(H'
N .5
Therefore:
0
+ z,)
4K
4.3.5
(4-21),
limited
by
the
net
downward, force
4-14
. . - .-. - -, .. :%-. -'-. .-. % -. '. -. . . . .
;'
. '.
".
,;.
. *% % ,,-.
..
.%
available
to drive
resistance
skirt
the
calculation
penetration
keys.
is
assured
that
under
full
only
the
skirts
are
Sby
shear
keys
In cohesionltss soils, a z5
A penetration
should show
or perimeter
0.058
is
The shear
skirt,
preventing
undermining
of
the
foundation
of
by
of
keys will
foundation placement
The actual
burrowing.
soils is
again com-
puted using
"eccentric foundation
orientation,
Equation 4-23.
"-
ap
recommended
"cohesive
..
cannot
depth
of
shear
reduced
achieved
if
full
keys
on
This depth
penetration
(Section 4.3.5.2).
4.3.5.2
sheer
number of
direction
shear keys,
is
couted by
n,
required
comparing
in
the
[F*sFhp *(wb
(F
%Sdst) 01 .]
"where
F
is the resultant of applied loadi in
dmsloh
diretion (F].
(The minimum
soils,
Penetration
of
Shear
Keys.
The
(4-23)
p
the
)
(4-26)
force
each
(-2)
(4-2S)
Other
SThe
""
to
be
quate
S
.
soils
have
may
maximum
Kp T
If
it
it
is
cos-
e
is smaller
is larger, then
+.2 su
z8
Increased, a check
a
ap
(4-24)
'""4.3.6
where
"of the
,o..% o4
The
seafloor
bearing
capacity 'of
the
surficial
to
,.
"is
not
sufficient,
then
the
foundation
will'
"4
by eccentric
loading.
The resulting. tilting
could impair structure function.
Settlement of a deadweight anchor is, in
not normally considered a problem
contrast,S~ap
because the holding capacity is unaffected, or
a--
6i
where:
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
"
"
can'
0 be ca lc u la ted , a ft
L-Fonato bo lenth:
2.0
-e
/,
-.fo--iomu -e-"lel
a -i
-istein mwfticaleffectiv
Rer
ef 4-5, by:
m
3.
0 V)
0.2
L-B
4.3.6.1 Initial
Settlement.
Initial
settlement is the instantaneous response of the
soil to the foundation loading and results
primarily fro, elastic soil deform'ations.
The
initial vertical settlement of a shallow' foundatio n , 6
F'v
(4-27)
- *(if
nitely
iong fouulndom
of widhbS)
S.soil
4.3.6.2
Consolidation
'Settlement.
O
n
ihv
Only consolidation of the cohesive soil
layers within the depth 21 needs to be calculited. The calculations are made by breaking
the distance 23 into several layers. The total
consolidation settlement is the sun of the
settlement of the individual layers and is
In
obtained from:
4-16.
..
....
. .V..
,.
' .,.-----
/-/-
6
where:
ps]
[f(4-28)
Wbv = submerged.weight of installation
[b]
area of the
AV = vertical projected
package [ft 2]
= consolidation settlement
C EL]
n = number of layers within distance
"28
.i
As the installation approaches the seafloor, the maximum lowering velocity must be
soil layer
".[F/L;]
initial
eo0
inia
vtion
has occurred.
---
computation of consolidation
An accurate
A
The
' q~e---
Prediction
4.4.1
forces
and
presented
in Chapter
(4-29)
Wbv
Wb
417
. .. . . . , ,
breakout
Determine the
4.4,1.1 Problem Statement':
dimensions of a concrete and steel square foundation, essentially a deadweight anchor, with
shear keys to resist given environmental loadthgs at a deep ocean site. The seafloor is
rate is:
EXAMPLE PROSLEMS
4.4
*c
of
are
force
breakout
"
minimize the
used toinptos
of techniques
discussion forc
presnte
are
of
recovery
Vable.
"::::::-"
" where:
o
("
l 10og
,=i
Elngl\ci
..
,-
...
..
.:
....
..
..
..
.,
...
. ..
.-.
...
..
strength (Su),
tivity
and
(S ),
cohesion (c)
the
drained
sensi-
parameters
solution
of
method
are
shown
presented
below.
They
the
design of
for
follow
the
a square
ing conditions.
S4.4.1.2
Problem Solution:
"and computational
procedures
The analytical
for the problem's
--
.-
C.-0o
., *Atdh
-.
pde
2Ft
St.,..0
Sr
20
':""-.7
oz.-1 o)
. 14po
+e(4 p
,kh
Problem 4.4.1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
1.
,
2.
COMPUTATIONS
Say 8 = 12 ft.
= 18,180 lb
F a F cosp- F sin I
hp
h
ye
Fs
1.5 (given)
Therefore,
FsFhp = (1.5)(18,180
3.
A
Sz%12
2 s&ua Of a
lb) = 27,300 lb
Suz 3 Su 0 depth z
= 144 psf ',(4.5 psf)(1.2 ft)= 198 psf
A =(12 ft)(12 ft) = 144 ftz
sua
s,
depth zs/2
Qul
4-18
33,400 lb
Problem 4.4-1
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
4.
2.
(F
Wbf
-. ".. -.
"
cA
tan p) F
F tan
+ Fve
i = tan
0.58
p=50
= 0
Wbt
=20,000 lbb
,00l
Fve
F-ye
b A
Wbst =0
Wbf =[1.5
"Wbf
+ 20,000 lb - 0
- (28 pcf)(144 ft2)(1.2 ft)
= 84,300 lb
(1.5)[18,180 lb + (84,300 lb + 0
+ 6,200 lb) sin (50)] = 39,100 lb
5.
"
driving it downslope?
Is QuL Z F5[Fh
(W
Q+ < 39,100 lb
The foundation size is not adequate to resist
downslope sliding. The foundation trial size
will have to be increased.
bsNO;
"
'
B =.13 ft
zs = 0.1(13 ft) = 1.3 ft
f =zs
=
"f
.3 ft (complete
embedent-
"A""(13 ft)
Suz = s ul
depth zs.
= 169 ft;
downslope?A
= 144 psf + (45 pcf)(1.3 ft) = 202 psf
ua
Z/2
= 144 psf + (45 p.f)(0.65 ft) = 173 psf
2
""Q= (202
psf)(169 ft
"7.
Qui
":"-h
Wbs1bt
A Of
39,100 lb
a 0 + (0.58)([84.300
-
u(CwbfA
""4
= 40,000 lb
lb + 0
2 pcf(169 ft)(1.3 ft)
26
(20.000 lb) cos (50)]
(20,000 lb) sin (50))
A,
) Cosp
239,400 lb
aui
sinp]
4 1
S'.
.
.,,.
,._
,__
. _....
..
. ;
-;,.*. . .;. *
.** ,.
..
oj .-
d...
,C
. :',
.
a:
Problem 4.4-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATION-
S.
Vb (concrete)
H
Wbf
-5.8
84,300 lb
ft
-
W-Yb--'AHj
(86 pcf)(169 ft)
Wbf = Yb A H-.
Check that H does not exceed the recommended limit (Section 4.3.4).
Is H < 0.258?
Therefore, the foundation base appears too high,
and this may promote overturning instability.
9.
YbWbf/AH
13
10.
11.
Calculate..
= 6,200 lb
Fn = (84,300 lb + 6,200 lb - 20,000 lb)
, cos (50)- (20,000 lb) sin (5)
= 68,500 lb
Fh sin
sin ('
5*)
H/2) sin ft
IN
= 99,100 ft-lb
,.
n-
*1 a 0
L" - 13.0 ft
2' x 13.0 ft
- 13.0 ft
2(1.45 ft)
a 10.10 ft
BI- 2L?
A'
"0
A'z=B' L'
13.
s
$ 1 0s
SU
U
Ju
z 202 ps.
8)
45 pcf(1.3 ft
144 psf
v792g
13 ft)
sf
.s'-
497 pat
+20-
o.'
-.. '-..-...
,.
'
..
O'
Wo
........................
.-.....'.-.
'
-o
.. '
'
-.........
'
'
'..."....,
"
'
"
'
.....
'....'...
.
'
..
"
....-.... '."
.
_.
."
"
...-,-..........,.-..-........A
o,%
Problem 4.4-1
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
14.
""Kc
= ic
q
""ic
Sc dc bcgc
h'L
uN
L'Is
uN
/Fv
'=
-Fh
+q
= [*
=0 +
L'+(10.I
ft 1G)2
(ft/
..563
q sqdqbqgq
=1 "
L'
Z cot
= 70,400 lb
1
i'c
cos 2s a
"sc = 1 + (B,/L')(IN/N)d
.Sq = I + (B/L') tan
-1.
563) 20,000 lb
(10.1 ft)(13 ft)(497 psf)(5.14)
['
70,50
lb * (10.1 ft
)(13't
l)(O)lcot 30"
Jq = 0.594
Sq = 1 + (10.1 ft/13 ft) tan (300) = 1.449
dq = bq = gq = 1.0 (from Section 4.3.2.6)
Nq = 1.0. (Figure 4.3-2)
+ 10. ft
"dc =
1.151
Kc = (0.907)(1.151)(1)(1)(1)
15.
1.044
Kq
(0.594)(1.449)(1)(1)(1) = 0.861
Qu
Fs Fn a (1.5)(68.500 lb)
Is Q >F F?
YES; Q > F F
p-.
4.21
0.907
102,800 lb
,]
Problem 4.4-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
16.
COMPUTATIONS
A = 169 ft 2 (no eccentricity)
0+
ic
Wb cos
Qu
>
2 + (13
1.50
sinf
'c
Fs Fn?
/it13ft)
i 20
+ 13 ft/13
3 ft
(
S )+1.9
=1.195
,.T
KC = (1)(1.195)(1)(1)(1) = 1.195
(1
70500 l+
= 0.666
Qu
17.
e 2 = 1.45 ft
YES;
maximum
maximum e
2.:.7 ft
-
B/6
Is *2 < maximum 9t
18.
sua = $
(F, Fh
(Wbf*Wbst) sin
p]
R -
p
lip
Note:
Yb
-7-
2 Sum zs I9..
[n
spac'Ing equal to z.
'
* iza (rounded u
from 7.2)
Therefore,
required spacing
13
h ft S -1 = 1.86 ft
4-22
Problem 4.4-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
is noted that the design is most critical with respect to sliding stability.
3
IF
. Z
II
4,23
4.4.2
Problem 2
Simple Foundation on
Cohesionless Soil
4.4.2.1
dimensions
P-oblem Statement:
Determine the
mined
from
in-situ
or
laboratory
testing:
of 35 degrees.
(This is the same problem as
4.2.1 except that the soil is differeat and
loadings,
qkirts
The seafloor
without
interior
shear
keys
are
to be
used.)
4.4.2.2
solution
loads
method
from
20,000 pounds
mooring
in
direction
[see
sheltered
and no
line
that
may
reach
The
effects
area
Problem Solution:
and computaticnal
are
procedures
shown
presented
for
below.
The analytical
follow
the design of a
the
square
is
ing cone:
are expected
Problem 4.4-2
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES,
1.
bf "
(F
(F
5
p tan ft)Fh
-
F tan
ye
D =
f
=
2.
Fh = 20,000 lb
F
20,OGO lb
"
ye
bst
"f'"ien
Yb = 60 pcf (given)
=35 (drained)
F
;(rne
=1.5 (given)
tan (35o)
= 0.70
20,000 lb
Fh
F
20,000 lb
we
Wbst
W~e~F 00
5.
:
(0o.'o) tan
(U.10)
tan
20,000 lb
(Section 4.3.3.2)
4-24
(5i1(201000 lb)
0 = 74,900 lb
Problem 4.4-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
3.
COMPUTATIONS
y(cor,crete)
Wbf = Yb A H
0.25B
Bz
Yb
Say 8
Z
Therefore,
\1/
(4 w
8*Yb
= 15.16 ft
Pct
15 ft
A = (15 ft)
150 pcf
= 225 ft
H =Wbf_.
74,900 lb
387 ft
4.
Fh sin p
5.
(
e
(IM
Fh(H
Wb(zs/Z)
sin
s
Zs
Cos 0
S2 Nq/Fn
02
6.
oMIn
"I"2
L' -
3- 2
01= 0
1
8' = 15 ft - 1.77 ft = 13.2 ft
L' = 15 ft- 0 = 15.0 ft
A' a (13.2
A * 84 L5
4.25
---------------------------------
"--"-"""'
"s:"""................
.''.'*...""'
"%1%"
""'
Problem 4.4-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
7.
COMPUTATIONS
Kq =
Fv=. Wbf + Wb
F"
a' L'
[2.(L'/
T
'
4
Fo
O",l 9
1)2
=17
(e
"0"
o 4.623.2.6)
sy=1
2.*(0'/L')IiZ2
--
,10
iy20,000
s
+
(13.2 Ib2"3"";
ft/iS t
.5
= 1 - rb, 100 1bF
0.457
cti
"/'
sq1)tnd
(1
s1
75,100 lb
ccot
ty-8' L'4ICOSL
Fv
c
N212-~~~--r
7
F+8
(13.2ft/1Sft/1 a (
= 1 +
iq
-I
Fve =74,900 lb
+ 20,200 lb - 20,000 lb
gy
F2
""
c = 0 (cohesionless soil)
Sq dq bq gq
KY = iy sy dy b
..
":""
....
0.4('/L')d
Kq = (0.623)(1.0ri)(1)(1)(1) = 0.671
Ky - (0.957)(1.352)(1)(1)(1) - 0.616
a.
NH 35 (Figure 4.3-2)
0u
2N
50 (Figure 4.3-2)
(198 ft 2)((60
cf)(1.5 ft)(35)(0.671)
Is Q 'uFC F ?
Qu "2,80,,O0
F$ Fn
lb
(1.5)(71,100 ]b)
109,U)0
lb
YES; Qu v FS rn
?:
02 - 1.77 ft
YES; 62
8/6
Is a<
02
maxImum e
Mximu
iximm 0.?
4.46
:
.. .........:`:
.*
...
;-..--...
._.::...--..
.'..,.".'L'.'..".
:N."
*'
Problem 4.4-2
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
negligible.
SUMMARY
The soil-related aspects of the foundation design process have resulted in a L)ncrele foundation
designed with the following dimensionsSide*...........
..............
Height ....... ................
Skirt Depth .... .............
..
Buoyant Weight ...........
.
.
'-
15.0 ft
3.87 ft
1.5 ft
74,900 lb
It is noted that the design is most critical with respect to down-.lop-, sliding, w',-ch was used to
figure the required minimum buoyant weight.
..
to-L
IS
,I
ft
",,1,
4.5
REFERENCES
4-1.
Planning,
fixed
offshore
Institute,
API
designing,
platforms,
RP 2A.
and
2
Young's modulus of soil [F/L ]
e,el,e 2
Eccentricity [L]
American
Washinqton,
Petroleum
D.C.,
Jan
e oCeo
0
Fh
1982.
H.F. Winterkorn and H-Y.
engineering hsndbook.
Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.
4"3.
A.G.
New
Fang.
Foundation
York,
N.Y.,
Factor of szfety
Fvpositive)
Vertical load
[F] component (downward
"F
Van ,2
consid-
ve
in foundation design of
offshore
gravity structures," in Proceedings of the 1975
Offshore
Technology Conference,
Houston,
Fs
erations
1975.
F]"
4-2.
constructing
is
Tex.,
(OTC 2371).
g
OTEC single anchor
P.J. Valent ec al.
4-4.
holding capacities in typical deep sea sediments, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical
Note N-1463.
H'
4-5.
T.W.
Port Hueneme,
Lambe
mechanics.
,.
and
New York,
R.W.
N.Y.,
Calif.,
Dec 1976.
Whitman.
John Wiley,
Soil
1969.
layer [L]
4.6
Si
SYMBOLS
AK
A
2
Foundation or anchor base area 'EL
)c
A'
KcKq, KY
p
Length of foundation or anchor base
[L]
A
Vertical projection'area of
installation [L 2 ]
'L'
Ms
NC.N N
Cc C
Compression index
3B'
Of
Poi
iv
AP
4.28
Wbst
Wbv
"Qui
"EL]
Ybc
R
P
R
"4.-
Ybf
[F/L3]
St
5c
"Q
A
'ci-.-Undrained
s
5
u
Sue4
[F/L 3]
Water content
Wb
S
Wbf
.Qim
a-..
'Vx
-
"
7."
4.-
Chapter 5
PILE FOUNDATIONS AND ANCHORS
5.1
INTRODUCTION
Piles
installed
Sanchor
.:
5.2.2
are
by
deep
driving
foundation
or
by
elements
drilling-and-
Table 5.2-2
mooring line
shows
four
connections.
common
types
The selection
of
of a
grouting.
cannot
piles
supply
the
iupport
required.
Use
of
as
increasing
rapidly
ciated
-.-.
installation
5.2.3
Load Capacity
costs.
5.2
PILE OESCRIPTIONS
5.2.1
Pile Types
expected
Prestressed
in nearshore
rarely
used
construction,
concrete
anchors
wood
are
in
pile
capacity
must
be
'installation procedure.
deeper
handling,
ties with long piles.
and
and
increase
weighed against increases in cost for fabrication and for the higher complexity of the
water
because'of
S.30
in deep water,
pipe
sections and
SOIL SEAFLOORS
5.3.1
General
(-
designed
c&pacity of
to
increase
the anchorage.
lateral
or
uplift
Pile foundations or anchors may be subjected to one or more of the following loads:
o Axial downward loads (compression)
"e'
Table 5.2-1.
Characteristics
Umbrella Pilesa
Chain-1n-Holea
Rock Roltsa
Applications
Approximate
Maximum
Capacity
550 kips
30 kips
Installation
Methods
driven or
drilled and grouted
driven
drilled and
grouted
drilled and
grouted, or
mechanically
wedged
Applicable
Soil Type
soils without
boulders and other
obstructions
rock, with
overlying soil
strata
rock
Advantages
high capacity in
high capacity
Disadvantages
Remarks
Illustration
Anchors
Anchors
uplift
Anchors
heavy mechanical
equipment necessary
inspection of
connection not
possible
rock must be
competent, nonfractured (shallow
water only), low
capacity
resistance developed
similar to plateembedment anchor'
(Chapter 6)
(in-service position)
alac
NH-P&.hn
'2-
Pile Types
52
5.2.%
....
-
-.
Table 5.2-2.
Side Padeye
End Padeye
Type of Connection
Bridle
"Advantages
Omni-directional loading.
Easily inspected and
repaired.
Simple construction.
Applicable to H-piles.
Simple construction.
Distributes l:
pile,
Disadvantages
Uni-directional loading.
Cannot be inspected and
repaired.
iround
Omni-directional loading.
Eliminates torsional
stresses in pile.
Design must protect
. against fretting
corrosion.
Complex construction.
Illustration
....
.....
.
.....
.....
Table 5.2-3.
Technique
Advantages
-.
Collars
Shear
PlatesWith
Anchor
Attaching Fins
Increases lateral
resistance.
Limits pile head
deflection and bending
moment.
Uni-directional loading.
and repair of
connection impractical.
Soil in frnt'of pile may
be w.ekened.
Complex installation.
More costly fabrication.
Limited experience with
system.
"higher.
Disadvantages
"Inspection
Illustration
(1..
-I.
S111PI
are
resisted by
the
pile
(for
and H-piles,
soil
Lateral
forces
STIP2
downward
design is
axial
and
ITP 3
loads.
controlled
by
uplift
and
lateral
7'
normally
loads.
.!..
However,
design is
ALE4A
5-3
&wT
_._
,--AT
5I
*:,.AEA
normally controllea by
lateral
and
L''"."
OMI
LWDAT SFAO$
IDETEWMEI
loads).
or
SCAM
...
forces
shaft and by
downward
axial
<;"T"
---------
YE
depending on
--
s,
ECTM|I
EFLECTWS:YW'
sJAlSTE
'EQ
layered~~TE
consstin
ofL
seflo
sandMinclyo
a nonpiles embedded
uniform cross-section
layered seafloor consisting of sand, clay, or
N5-4
6a
-T.-..
SEP
STEP I_
STEP
1-
.-.
DETIUN A
STEP9,LL,
,al
LOJU
CAL.ULATt.LAMW
.-.
S-S
1.6ATTO
!
YES
YE
is
sive movement and without exceeding the allowable stresses for the pile material.
a
trial-and-error
procedure,
where
Design is
a pile
is
!cLcuu
STEPS
determine
stresses
pile is
if
the
foundation
with
an
of
this
type
Reference 5-2.
The procedure
pile
""
material
modulus
elastic
of
EU8TIOU 5-9
MSlS'
,aaT.
EMUATIMS
allowable
are exceeded.
assumed to be
CTRII
toil SiU
....
T"Tu Sits
that
SSI'-
Further descrip-
analysis
is
tO piles
applies
found
in
TIP
STEPis
s;
loaded at
SE16C.AKW~TIE
EE1WUTX.PILE
EQU
S.-1
-IO
6
',,s"
PILEICAPCIT$.
EQUAY!IM5-13
::
;"':.
Section 5. 3.7. )
.T
sTEP
am....'
toICL S
-.
1,
STE
Note
:';"e
Sloads
FuFigure
..
t-
.e.'3'...
... .
".ig.-t
...
--
sumrz
3.1. Flow
Flow
.
fors
- -d
t"'he
-" p-le
for"lesign
r..'
"-
5.3.2
If site-specific soil data are not available, it may be possible to extrapolate from
_oilPrpertie
other property 'data using geologic and geophysical information from similar nearby areas. In
the absence of any test-determined data, estimates of soil properties may be made based on
the geologic and depositional environment and
geoph~ysical data. Chapter 2 provides guidelines
for estimating engineering properties and iden-
S(STEP
*for
fictin agletifies
* effetiv)
= raied
[deg)
3
Yb= buoyant uni.. weight [F/L ]
0 =relative density (]Tables
Coheive
=buoatui
Calcareous soils,
Carbonate content, degree of cementation,
and degree of crashing (in addition to the
Pproperties required for cohesionless soils)
'Table 5.3-1.
%
'-Type
jBlo
W~
(pcf)
30-50
28-30
30-36
35-42
0-35
35-65
65-85
45-55
55-65
60-70
50+
'40-45
185-100
60-70
310
Very dense
Table 5.3-2.
.~.
Typo
*
.(pus
Underconsli~dated clays
Normally consolidated
soils at depth z. in.
Overconsol idated soils
based on consistency:
mediuL*sti ff
stif,
very %tiff
YbD
(deg)
Cunt
..
Staw lard
Penetration
Medumene
20-25
0.0033z
2-1
25-50
3.5-7.0
7.0-14,
14-280.
10
.
50-65
0.35-1.0
1.0
b5
(Pci)
i)
ovr 8
Table 5.3-3.
Characteristic
low, 0 to IC%
medium, 30 to 45%
high, 457
Carbonate content
5.3.3
*'
Degree of cementation
Degree of crushing
crushes easily
resistant to crushing
where:
-.
(STEP 2)
-,r.
combinations
used
in
soils
data
are
the
A safety factor,
Fs,
is
foundation
design.
accurately
If
the
known (from
pile.
This
actual
moment
should
necessary
in-situ
Ma = F
where:
more questionable.
the pile is
anchor
For
Th = F
piles,
the design
loads are:
this,
horizontal and vertical design loads
determined in STEP 2 must be corrected.
The
vative
follows.
assumptions
and are
made
force is
Pt
FC
(51
zcdb bNq
5-6
S
.6
'
.j
,sY
'
Fcb
where:
(STEP 5)
db z
(5-b)
= horizontal
db
=characteristic
=
(forachainc
[L]
(for
chain,
mooring
line size
use 3xchaine sejustified
T'
Tt+
2 Th Fcb Fs
cb
reaction,
nh
r
and Tt'
where Th'
if
.
value of ymax/ 0 .
this
) 1
Then nh is deter-
For
mined from the equation on that figure.
calcareous soils, Figuri 5.3-2 and a value of
(5-3)
.. . . .....
used
(
(STEP 6) Detemine
coefficient
of
slibgrade
reaction.
The coefficient of subgrade soil-
(5-2)
Fcb Fs
is
by structural requirements.
use 3 x chain
g.J
(a lower value of y, /O)
terion
Th.
Yrmax()
D
Table 5.3-4.
Soil Friction
Angle,
iaO
Bearing Capacity
Factors for Chain
Lateral Force in
Sand (After
Ref 5-3)
i 50
.6S
20
"
.
N
IF
(deg)
"
20
25
516
30
3S.
12
.40
22-
_5
36
100
5.3.4
120--r
(STEP 4)
availability.
5,7
V*
where a is the distance of the pile load attachment point above the seafloocr surface for foun-
Yr7
(%M
to
S'
20
-----
Wft dly
-
stiff
daydesign
100'
if Ph(calc)
h
Z
to
required
a____
ds
>> P
____
ISOthe
I~n1 -l
20(1
Idiameter
Itionis
from STEP 4).
"educe pile length, unless
200(b)
already
very short (repeat calculations ,from
STEP 9).
if Ph(cakc)
'P
The
(STEP 7) Deterr.ine pile-soil stiffness.
pile-soil relative stiffoess, T, is computed by:
1 El0.2
Depth Coefficienit ( z
MT
A pile length, L.
p
as a minimum.)
(STEP 9) Determine deflection coefficients. The
maximum value of the depth coefficient zmax
IE
(STEP 1,O)
Calculate lateral 1rad Cap_ i_. The
lateral load capacity of the tvial pile,
Ph(calc), for the value of yma), selected mi
STEP 5 is computed.
Ph(calc)
ymax (EI)
A T3 +a
y
-
_
T
(5)Figure
y~~fyM
shgou
urface.
S-8
....................................
" an
at.
A..
soils, the average unit skin frictional resistance, f (in uplift and compression), is calcuS
lated from:
k pv0 tan (0 - 5 deg)
fs
(5-7)
5*
(5-6)
(5-6
b L
Table 5.3-5.
Soil Type
NOi$calcareous
Sand
35
Silty Sand
Sawndy slilt
30
25
silt
20
q,(max)
WSoil- -
30
40
2.0
200
25
20
'20
12
1.7
1.4
100
60
1.0
40
60
Calcareous Soils
Uncemented calcareous
sand (easily crushed)
rartially cemented
calcareous sands with
.carbonate content:
0 to 30%
30 to 4S%
above 45%
30
20
20
0.3a
--
2.0
--
0.6 4,
OSCa
100
160
140
11
140
c~lcareous soils such
L as ChalkL
aFor drillled and grouted piles. the valuje may approach '2.0 ksf-*the
value for quartz sand; actual va"u depends upon installs-'
ti on technique.
Highly cemented
--
tion resistance
fs
If
(5-8a)
Spile
tip [F/L ]
(5-11)
P 0o(tip) Nq
qp
(5-12)
:, 9 su(tip)
qp
feet.
in
where Lp is
SFor
For
[L2]
is equal to:
fs
"
where:
For NC soils,
tio
stress at
pvo(tip) = effective vertical
2
Vpile
tip [F/L ] ,
oiswhere:
OC soils:
fs
0.155 ln(su6vo)A
"If Su/P
U VO
I=
strength
su(tipj = soil undrained shear
2
at pile tip [F/L ]
(5-8b)
su
VO
Piles
14)
design
load.
piles,
the
For
both
frictional
"Qs.must exceed
"Pile frictional
anchor
and
closed-ended
resistance
of the
(When this
"the pile
considered closed-ended.)
is
the
required to
force
approximately
resistance is:
of
equal
the pile,
push a
plug
up
capacity
frictional
computed as Q *
5
piles, Q
for open-ended
soil
to the
previously
The soil
to
pile,
will
foundation
Asf
is
equal
Thereto Q
(5-9)
not
soil plug is
fore,
SQs
are
0.351s
(STEP
that
is
the surface
ar-ea of
with
required
compression,
pile
capacity.
Qc,
is
capacity
in compression
'The
capacity
computed,
pile
in
and' this is
com-
com-
pared with
If
If
QS
P
then the design is adequate for
-i"rsting uplift forces.
pression,
15) Compute
soc. -bearing
foundation
pile
resistance
to
frictional
resistance
resistance
to
closed-ended
for
the pile
tip.
For
along
or
piles,
foundation
loading
compressive
tip
end
the
tip, Q.,
soil
is
capacity
the
computed
as
If Q
qp
Qs + Q
(5-13)
9 PC.
the pile is
adequate In
comprssion.
for
from
For
If
was signifi-
capscity
follows:
significant benefit
to plug
the
Recompute Qc for a closed-ended trial
--
Qp
from
pile and
penetration.
bearing
QC
piles,
comes
P
C
Qs < P
(STEP
the design
(5-10)
it
may be of
pi)e end.
pile and
10
/i
5.3.6
Mmax,
(STEP 17) Calculate maximum moment. The maximum
in the pile is determined by
moment (Mmax)
combining any applied (cosign)
-
and
"* .".
bending moments,
It may be necessary to determine Mmax at several
locations (z)
~0
from
the
curves
appropriate
Deflection coefficient (B )
for applied moment (M)
1,
Ii
.i+s,5&1
-00
"+'"'"
z/T.
.5
__
on
,.
Lprr
foe 4, $-
oc
-ple
2ae~
prr4.5,&10LfY.2~1
-w-
L7r.r 5
jj-
r
_L t
..- "
/P
.i..,.
, .
,.*
LP/ US,:
3.
1
Deflectofi
. -
Figure 5.3-5.
2
coefficients. A
ad y
to find
?d"6
(5-14)
(Am + a Bm) Ph T + Ma
Mmax
0.4
0.
Moment Coefficients, A(
''
0.6
ad B
(after
)ef
rpplied lateral load of moment
52).
.*.
.-.-.
.........
Maxi-
side of
......
than
"compression (fmaxc)
simplified approach
is calculated by:
five
for
"fmaxt
P/Aps -Mmax/S
fmaxc
Pc/Aps
Mmax/S
pile
lateral
diameters
load
is
For
the
'midway
containing
not adequate.
(5-16)
manufacturers
literature
these pile shapes.
the
Note:
head,
in Section 5.3.4
(5-15)
from the
presented
on
pitfre force.
uplift
Where
the
mooring
line
chain.
is
almost
connection point.
5.3.7.2
being used.
near the
seafloor
5-7].
reducing deflections
small incease
It
increased
adequate.
inadequate.
hazardous
to
pi'les
the oft0..
f
5.3.7.3
is cost-effective,
in
placement
re
or
functioning of
environment.
Some
of
Special Cases
5.3.7.1
Head.
'Steeply
5.-12
zones
can make
difficult.
installation
of
driven
piles
structure.
be accentuated
in the vicinity
5.4
of piles.
the type of
configuration
granular
of
soils
than cohesive
upper
S to
Removal
soil,
. pile
are more
soils.
groups.
Generally,
dure
to scour
For granular soils, the
1U feet may be
subject
to
susceptible
of
An approach
for
pile
anchor
A detailed proce-
design
in
rock
is
not
presented because this cannot be done simply-primarily because of the difficulty in charac-
scour.
can slgnifi-
Rock
failure
modes
are
illustrated
in
Figure 5.4-1.
"during pile
design.
Scour is discusse~d in more
detail in qhapter 10.
Earthquak -related
'hazards
should
be
bonding or
because
of a
rock-mass
failure
in
fractured material.
Uplift failure can also
occur due to the pile's loosening and the loss
complete
of
zones,
liquefaction
essentially
in
loose
removing
granular
soil
soil
support
loads.
strength of a cored
force applied by
sample may
be misleading
rock ucafloor
~~~:
:l I .1
. .......
X
craushed
VCcfractured
,:'..".oc
:
::.:..
yrock
::i!
~~~~x
&-13
"when
develop
The
and these
vatively
designed
as
if
the
soil
were
not
present.
"5.4.1
That is, the pile is considered cantilevered'out of the rock surface and resists all
Lateral Capacity
If
In a rock or hard cemented soil seafloor,
"soil cover
zone
may be
underlain
by
Sc,
soil.
should
be
used
[Ref 5-6,
5-7]
is
lateral
if
mine
rock/cemented
this is done,
the compressive
exceeded by
load.
stresses
That is,
to ensure that:
to
Ph
<
S
(
nonuniform conditions.
where:
Soil Overlying Rock.
5.4.1.1
overlying
rock,
estimated
by
pile capacity
the
following
For
can be
procedure.
soil
roughly
The
is determined,
rock,
Table 5.4-1.
Rock Type
(kstg)
Buoyant Unit
Saturated
Weight,
(pcf)
Dolerite
28.4-49.8
123
Gabbro
25.6-42.7
123
Gneiss
7.1-28.4
117
Basalt
21.3-42.7
111
Quartzite
21,3-42.7
101
Granit6
14.2-35.6
98
Morble
14.2-35.6
98
Slate
14.2-28.4
98
Dolomite
11.4-35.6
92
Limestone
4:3-35.6
73
Sandstone
Shale
2.8-24.1
1.4-14.2
61
61
Coal
0.7-7.1
5.14
Yb
"5.4.1.2
For the
if
z ,
is
less than
0.2T, where T =
Section 5.3.2.
Sgreater
than O.5T,
soil may be
rock
the
thickness,
Zr-
5.4.2.2
rock,
Fractured Rock.
anchor
compressive
strength
as
under
Section
Zr,
Because
normal
forces
rock procedure;
cracks,
this
For
intermediate
values
of
the
ignored.
5.4.2
5.5
Uplift Capacity
Failure
due
to
uplift
load
may
the
In (3),
the
difficulty
acting
joints
is
and
normally
methods:
in
The
force
the
e Driving
e Drilling and grouting
* Jacking
Figure 5.4-1(c).
estimating
on, vertical
frictional
"for design
in
PILE INSTALLATION
occur:
(2) at the
grout-pile interface,
"grout-rock
interface, or (3) along a rock fracat
following guidelines
Jetting
are suggested.
"5.5.1
5.4.2.1
Aim,
of
(1)
fractured
determined by
'-.
For
influence of underlying
5.4.1.1.
and grouting
uplift capacity is
'".
""
rock,
procedure.
-"
type of
the
"-
The grout-to-rock
Massive,
Competent
Rock.
Driven Piles
For
grout
by the
uplift capacity,
the
by:
S=sbLr C
b
where:
sb
r p)
5.5.1.1
Conventional Hammers.
Piles
for
piers,
template
that
rests
on
the
seafloor,
**;-,5.1
that supports
the necessary
ft.
t..
hamme~r
J%---
"--drill string
"I'- follower
ftt
......
...........
S~pile
bit
"
S~~grout
,"-
scaled-up
types
versions of
include
air,
diesel,
land hammers.
single-acting
The
steam,
compressed
The rated
number
developed
of
over
large
the
hammers
last
have
10 years
that
been
are
of
these
hammers
have
rated
striking
blow.
been
Surface-operated
used
in
water
pile drivers
depths
in
have
excess
of
1,000 feet.
Underwater Vibrators.
5.5.1.3
pile
drivers
are
American practice
their
use
and
becoming
as more
powerful
developed.
or
machines
hydraulic
common
in
the template,
Vibratory
more
motors
use
are
counter-
powered by electric
to produce
the
vibratory
forces.
present
long
lateral
restraint,
reasonable maximum
water
Underwater Hammers.
operated
while
Several
in
energies
rated
60,000 ft-lb.
These
submerged
with
stan-
surface.
Because
factors
on
large-diameter,
high-pressure
little
5.5.1.4 Selection of Hammers. When selecting a hme for Mllghtor" offshore tasks, where
loss
of
steam cools
too much
compressed air is
~5.18
."
.-
hammew
required
hae150,000 ft-lb, a
J.
lengths of
of
be
depth-limiting
ai r
may
efficiency.
water
major
the line..
These factors limit the maximum
practical depth of a surface-powered, hydraulic
The
than
less
are
energies
general rule of thumb for
.f.
..
"
the drill
scring,
placed over
grout
mated by:
[Figure 5.5-2].
2,000 APS
Eh.
where:
as
the
drill
string
is
withdrawn
(5-19)
in steel
is
of
12,000 psi
under
working
loads.
For
preliminary
hammers,
it
selection
of
air/steam
(For
__Equation
-These
recommendations
assume
investigated
Equation 5-19
analyses
by
using
beyond
the
use
available
the
of
level
wave
computer
of
equation,
programs
5.5.2
depths
method is
essentially identical
in' excess of
600 feet.
The
to that used to
A hole of some-
,.
5-17
5.5.3
Jack-in Piles
Piles
seafloor
may
if
supplied.
be
design
loads,
jacking
times the
loads
design
the
5.6.1
failure
equal
under
to two
to
jack-up platforms,
5.6.1.1
anchor
water
ballasting or the
addition
and
merged,
water
removal
Problem Statement:
pile
loads.
for specified
Also,
determine
Design
lateral
and
an
uplift
Can
ing?
Data:
designed
placed
in
be
entire length.
compression loads.
puller
shown in
FigureS.6-1.
site
may be
used,
with
the chain
or cable
A short-
are
A sketch
of this pile is
shown
in
Figure 5.6-2.
limited. A supply of 24-inch-diam and 48-inchdidm steel piles (F = 36,000 psi) of several
S5.5.4
into
the
area,
soil
by
portions
diameters
whic0
Jetting.
"generally confined
of 'the
The
has
been
jetting
action
is
are
very
used
.*
'-
Problem Solution:
The trial-and-
".
5.6.1.2
greatly
sizes
4.
pile
weakened
Available
Jetted Piles
less
practical.
The actual jacking of the piles can be
accomplished by a number of systems.
A rack-
Sits
'-"
ballast
However,
into
safety
three
or jacked
%*,
in which
i.,..4
..
.,--
*,
tj
.. '..'
~0
25,000 lbs
40
20(a)~..
.rbe
.ketc
.- 2
olsdt for...
exam....le problm 1
Pro....e.
5.6ANALTICA
PROEDURS
1.
COPUTAION
DtrAesilpoeteOSTP1Lad
s~ad
--
.- )
(aste
poles arket
available).a
Diur 562
in..
e foro
e aml piolem
Datar
on-1 theoplemskaetac
deig
manual.
Prole
7.47.
Seectdefiectain
pritertias (STEP 5).u Fro
an
(STEPto2)(5.
~.
Fgr
so-
48ln-d
4.
aegvn
Tt
ericl
Sx ladatth safoor
First,__
0-1.
xml polm1
uadY(0argivn)
2
(F
.4rIn.6-)
ro3.4:n53.).poetisaewelko
T F
x hoiotllaattesfo
h -s
aafo
fI
pil
thtwl
Seetatilpl
ie(TP*)(4,n
T (20(000b)=1000b
h
T z (.p(2,00
aesfiin
aea
4i.pl
l)5-5,009
odcpct
wt
.-
altikes
Problem 5.6-1
"_"'"
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
5.
COMPUTATIONS
K determined from
reaction, nh (STEP 6).
Figure 5.A and s . s Iveraged for pper
pe
vref
four pile diameter
@ 0 ft = 1.0 psi
nh =
20 (soft clay)
nh = (1.16PSi(20)
6.
7.
8.
0.967 oci
T= ,
T
O.2
(Inh
"_:_"-_"
Say Lp = 3"T
Guidance
Lp =3(151.2 in.)
452.6 in.
453.6 in.
Zmax =151.2 in.
a-38 ft
A/= 2.7
3y = 1.8
9.
Pcc)
A
10.
T + a 8
2
-lb)
1010
+ 0""
)4 in.
in.,)7.647 2 x 1n.
2calc)
I (Z.7)(151.
=2.4
= 19,
lb0
lb
Th = 100,000 lb
(STEP 11)..
Is Ph(Calc)
THEREFORE,
0 =48 i~n.,--tW
1.0 in.
S
12.
Ynax%
147.6 in.
=1,699.6 ln.3
Yax
- 10,
&.20
4.8 in.
,:
'.
Problem 5.6-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Determine n
Figure 5.A3-,
,
K
13.
(STEP 6).
KI, and
COMPUTATIONS
From su,
su @ 0 ft
0
@4
nh
1.0 psi
-=su @ 16 ft
1.64 psi
L=
"""
n (1.32 psi)(20)
nh =
48 in.
0.5$5 pci
rh
"14.
From
T
102 lb-in.)
.224
0.2
295 in.
0.2
(E\
15.
Say Lp
16.
3 T
3(295 in.)
74 ft
={3
A, = 2.7
By
1.8
18.
85,000 lb
Th = 100,000 lb
(STEP 11)
-Is Ph(cac)
19.
,hcac)
"
.
10)
Calculate lateral load capacity (STEP
from Equation 5-5.
17.
th?
THEREFORE,
h
Try another trial pile size (STEP 4).
(Because P (calc) is only a little smaller,
don't incrgase the pile diametep but,
increase the wall thickness.)
THE
LL.
"20.
Note:
The
nh
a 183.6 in.,
aS2,091 in. 3
2
0.55 pcI
21.
T=(EIO.
Say L. = 3 T ''3(307
05 1o2
blin.4
0.2T
.sox
lb-n.
in.)
n
in.
77 ft
"5.21
*
*,,
*---
%'
..
Problem 5.6-1
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
22.
= 3
max
,Ay = 2.7
y
(By not needed)
23.
a = 0
2
(4.8 in.)(1. 506 x 1012 lb-in. )
3
(2.7)(307 in.)
+ 0
= 92,000 lb
24.
25.
26.
Th = 100,000 lb
Is Ph(calc) Th?
zmax = 4
Ay :2.4
-.
-:r
12
lb-in.1)
(4.8 in.)(1.506 x 1C
Ph(calc)
(2.4)(307 in.)J + 0
104,000 lb
28.
Ph(Ca~t)
Th = 100,000 lb
Is
~T~?YES;
P~ca'~)
Ph~ac
a T h?
>
Th
Now, check the pile for its uplift capacity (axial upwdrd load analysis).
29.
Pvo =
S.....--.
Pile midpoint a 51 ft
. .
....
..
.. .
a1.660 psf
. .
..
.,
'''
5&22
-.-.
u .
Vi
..
"
-.
>
..
Problem 5.6-1
"ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
30.
COMPUTATIONS
"per unit
u 432 psi
TPvo pi
1 0.4, it is.
If su/pvo
.o
1 psi)
0.26
YES; it is an NC clay.
fs = (1,660 psf)[0.468
f" =
.0
(not t- exceed f.
SU)
fs = 437 psf
S31.
As
432 psf
554,000 lb
As f
S32.Is
.Tt
50,000 lb
Qs > 50,000 lb
THEREFORE, THE PILE IS ADEQUATE FOR UPLIFT
CAPACITY.
Now, calculate th@ pile load capacity iii compression (axial downward load).
33.
u(tip)
qp
Qp = Ap qp
Ap =x 0-n(
=
Qp
34.
m...
,,
5 23
ft)
= 12.57 ft2
ft 2 )(6580 psi)
Q = 554,000 lb
c
Qcl2 Q + Q
= (12.57
83,000 Ib
83,000 lb
637,000 lb
Problem 5.6-1
"ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
T= 307 in. = 25.6 ft
35.
i1
;.(P
Th =O0,CO0 lb)
T
Ma
Ma
max
=2.36xi10
"36.
Pt = Tt = 50,000 lb
fmaxt =
5-16.
fmaxt = - P /Aps
f
= P!/A
in.-lb
- Mmax /S
50 000 lb
18i.6 in.
-11,600 psi.
Compute f
for P = 0 (pile in tension),
and for pI-aCQ = 657,000 lb (at maximum
capacity)c
C
+ max/S
S=0.6
2.091 in. 3
maxc
11,300 psi
1836 in
-
2,091 in.3
14,800 psi
2.
3.
4.
The maximum steel stress under the actual mooring load is 11,600 psi in tension and
11,300 psi in'compression.
The steel compressive stress at the pile's axial capacity
is 14.800 psi.
5-24
...
5.6.2
and
Soil
the seafloor.
is
5.6.2.1
anchor
Problem Statement:
pile
loads.
for specified
Also,
compression,
determine
and
the
Design
lateral
an
axial
uplift
and uplift
maximum
steel
stresses.
density.
The 24-
(F
mooring?
AOL
= 36,000 psi)
Data:
The anchor pile is to be used for
the floating drydock mentioned in Problem 1, but
5.6.2.2
"the
of
several
Problem Solution:
wall
thicknesses
The trial-and-
must
resist
lateral
but it again
Problem 5.6-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
1.
"2.
'
COMPUTATIONS'
they
s
deg
.x35
Yb
60 pcf
or
6b5
Th
T
FFs x horizontal
T h = (2.0)(50,000
lb) = 100,000 lb
"Tt=
Tt = (2.0)(25,000
lb)-= 50,000 lb
First, find a pile that will have sufficient lateral load capacity.
3.
.*
t1 = 0.5 in.
*-El
S a 212.4 In. 3
4.
from
yM
(0.10)(24 In.)
2.4 in.
Ymax
, -25
'
Problem 5.6-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
5.
6.
nh = 13 pci
'7647
.6=7"
n.lb0.2
0.1010
10 0/in.
"
= 89.9 in.
13 /b/in.3
T= (EI)0.2
"7.
Say Lp
8.
z
max
270 in.
89. i
Ay =2.7
-"
8y= 1.8
y
9.
T3
h(calc)
ymax(EI)
A T
aB
(2-4 inn10.
11.
12.
in.)-'
in. '1b)
+ 0
Th = 100,000 lb
NO; Ph(calC)
Th
(STEP 11).
Ph(calc)"
1
101
= 94,000 lb
Is
(27(8.
hca)
10.
Th?
THEREFORE,
Say Lp
(STEP 10).
4 T = 4(89.9 in.)
360 in.
30 ft
Zmax = Lp/T = 4
A = 2.4 (from Figure 5.3-4)
y
2
-lb)
1010 +in.
)(7647 x,n.)j
Ph(Calc) = (2.4 in.
(2.4)(89.9
U
,.x
13.
.,
05lO,000 lb
Th = 100,000 lb
(STEP 11).
s Ph'calc"~ Th?
"LOAD.
Now, check the pile for its axial load'capacity.
5."
_______________________._
.526
Problem 5.6-2
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
14.
.-
<"
.""
vo
15.
AM
PVo
aD
In uplift:
(0.5)(900 psf) tan (350 - 50) = 260 psf
In compression:
fs= (0.7)(900 psf) tan (350 - 50)
""-A
16.
364 psf
From Equation 59
Qs = A f
"17.
Tt = 50
00 lb
YES; Qs > Tt
THE PILE IS ADEQUATE FOR UPLIFT CAPACITY.
18.
qp,
=p
= 1,800 psf
(tip) N
A
Ap = it 2 = -X.
= 3.14 ft
Q a3.14
(
ft )(21,600 psi) = 68,000 lb
V."
19.
Qc aQs #QOP
C
u" ..
20.
As= 0.77
zm0
ON not needed
) Ph T + M&
P
'M
max
5.27
= T
100,000 lb
Problem 5.6-2
"ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
21.
lIA
maxc
"fa
Pc/A0s
+M
max
C4PUTATIONS
Pt
f
maxt
.
-34,000
Compute f
psi
for P
0 (pile in tension),
lb (at the maximum
l7,000
capacity)c
0.6 F
maxc = 0
faxc
IF-
6.92212.4$
x 106in.'in.-lb = 32,600 psi
x 106in.in.-lb
36! i"7
3
lb + 6.92212.4
136000
= 36,300 psi
F = 36,000 psi
fa
06(36,000 psi)
21,600 psi
22.
SMALL.
= 54.78 in.2
PS
S = 308.8 in.
lb
50OO00 in.2
913/8
IF
maxt
,.
6
x 1O
6.9Z308.8
in.'in.-lb
= -23,300 psi
23.
"IFxmaxc
= 0
+ 692308.8
x 106in.3
in.-lb = 22,400 psi
"NO;
THESE
THIS PILE
Try
a 24-in.-dim pile with a 0.875-in. wall
thic:kness.
Try
a larger size pile. 'Repeat the
callculations.
= .50
.mfxt
000 )b .6.92"x
63A6 in.-
10e In.-lb,
354. 6 in.J
= -20,300 psi
S354.6in.
fmaxc
3 -lb
0 + 6.92 x 106 in.
19,500 psi
fxc
'136000
6.92 x 108in.in.-lb
Z
63.9; in.zlb, '354.6
- 21,600 psi
__
5-28
Problem 5.6-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
"SUMMARY
1.
2.
24 in.
"0.875 in.
Lp = 30 ft
5.7
3.
4.
The maximum steel stress under the actual mooring load is 20,300 psi in tension and
19,500 psi in compression. The steel compressive stress at the pile's axial capacity
"is 21,600 psi.
REFERENCES
5-6.
L.C.
Documenta-
I.W.
"5-3.
5-4. K. Terzaghi.
"Evaluation of coefficients
of subgrade reaction," Geotechnique,
vol 5,
rocks.
T.J.
Hirsch,
L. Carr,
&.29
5.8
SYMBOLS
Am
Lp
Lr
Lr
Ma
Mmax
NC
Normally consolidated
,ax
Aps
As
nh
A
y
8
OC
Overconsolidated
P
c
*y
P '
c
Ph
P [F]
c
Design horizontal load at the
foundation pile (F)
f.
Nq,
EL2)
Cp
Eh
Sti~ffness
Fcb
Factor of safety
F
Y
Pt
Pt
Pvo
Qp
'
fmaxt
F FcorofsfeyQc
f
a
El
P(calc)
h
2
EF/L 3 ]
h'
Dr
SD
N
q
QFrictional
2
mac pile (F/I
]
tip (F/12]
qp(max)
2
mat pile (F/L
]
-[
C/2
Ra
S
fs(max)
sb
K
1
= n1hD/s
for clay
sU
SU(Z)
nondimensional coefficient
,
]
,F/IZ]depth z
5*30
Ymx
Th
z
zc
Th'
Th
corrected for the effects on
loading of a pile being driven below
zD
Zr
pile (F]
h,,oor
Tt
.-"t
Wall
Wl
Zs
Yb
spw
LDrained
5.
5.31
...........................
3
Buoyant unit weight of soil [F/L ]
Chapter 6
DIRECT-EMBEDM4ENT ANCHORS
6.1
-'.-
INTRODUCTION
6.1.1 Purpose
tighter moorings.
This chapter details procedures and considerations for use of direct-embedment anchors.
6.2
"
.L,
6.1.2
Function
"The
'-2
6.2.1
OIRECT-EMBEDMENT
ANCHOR
AND
TYPES
SIZES
Propellant-Driven Anchor
More detailed
are described in Table 6.2-1.
information, including photographs and drawings
systems
!isted in
describing
the anchor
Table 6.2-1, can. be found in' References 6-2
7'\.
\'4**
""I.
--
.*
' * *b *-
* - - , .
- -
'
. .--
1. Touchdown 2. Anchor
(firing)
penetration
3. Anchor
keying
4. Anchorage established
Zpt
through 6-5.
The Navy systems, are further
described in Table 6.2-2 for a preliminary
design of mooring systems. The fluke dimensions
listed represent an optimized balance o'fgundeliverable energy and anchor fluke mass,, end
area, and bearing area.
Figure 6.2-2 illustrates components of a propellant-embedded
anchor
system with
sand
and
clay
flukes.
6-2-
ML
Measured or
Nomial
esign
C aiy
N
Operatioanal
Depth
(kp)Water
(ft)
Anchr
Estimated Holding
Capacity
(kips)
a
Sand
Clay
Coral
SNCEL,
Port Hueneme, Calif.
Navy 10K
10
25-20,000
Navy 20K
20
50 c 20 ,000
Navy 10OX
100
35-20,000
SUPSALV lOOK
100
Navy
35c-700c
300
300 K9
50-20,000
50so
130
R
15
35b
60
35
35 d
250
150
250
15O 0
600
450
10
l IO7h
5
A/SI Raufoss
Amunlsjonsfabrikker,
Norway
REA 250Th
100
ISO18
701
"Average of 10
""'as been used
1.5-2.5 ks0.
.............................................
*.50.**1.10e
"hAverage of
63
Table 6.2-2.
Anchor Type
Anchor System Characteristics
Length, gun with fluke, ft
Diameter or width, ft
Nominal weight, in air, lb
Operating water depth, ft
Nominal holding capacity, lb
Fluke velocity, fps
Fluke Dimensions
Sand, length x width, ft
bearing area, ft2
weight in air, lb
Clay,-iength x width, ft
bearing area, ft 2
weight in air, lb
Coral, length x width, ft
Esti. -ted Penetration. ft
Clay Flukes
Soft basin soil (silty-clay)
Distal turbidite (low s )
Distal turbidite (high Vu)
Proximal turbidite
Calcareous ooze (deep water)
Coarse .alcareous ooze (low s,,)
Coarse calcareous ooze (high ;U)
Siliceous ooze
Pelagic clay (low s )
Pelagic clay (high Vu)
Sand Flukes
Loose sand
=30 deg, y = 110 pcf)
Medium dense sana
(# = 35 deg. yt = 120 pcf)
Dense iand
(=
40 deg. t * 130 pcf)
Coralb
Coa
1OK
20K
6.5
2.0
650
25-20,000
10,000
370-390
9.0
3.5
2,000'
50-20,000
20.000
360-460
2 x 1
1.9
160
2 x 2
3.7
185
2 x 1
3 x 2
5.5
290
3 x 3
8.5
420
3 x 1.5
5 x 2.5
11.0
1,300
6 x 4
28. 0
2,100
5 x 2, or
6 x 3.2
25
19
19
17
27
25
19
30
33
27
35
27
26
23
39
35
27
43
47
37
12
JOOK
100K
12.0
13.0
6.0
8.0
7,006
14,000
35-20,06: 0 25-500
100,000
100,000
380-500
380-500
"
15.0
8.0
18,000
50-20.000
300,000
380-520
5.5 x 2.8
13.0
6.7 x 3.3
22.0
1,900
6.7 x 3.3
1x 4
24
4,000
8 x 7
56
6,80
a
52
43
39
33
60
54
42
65
68
52
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
64
57
49
41
72,
63
50
79
81
63
17
2S
a,
30
11
16
23
.27
10
15
21
25
10-37
8-35'
2-7
I2L
3-12
-,
"
,,;..-..
""-4i 11
1 "
safe-and-Mn
device
Assembly
33t
oft
'LI
Ivend
2.Oft
"
"'
'
Iuke
(aLAsM
afluk
ritaction
u'n
1
><
ud
.e -- o:
F(igowd
fluke
send
fluke
po63Cron)
"touchdownprobe
3 f
Hawaii (fomwRefrobe
"-'.
'
Figure 6.2-3. Coral and rock flukes for NCEL iropellant-embedrnent anchor systems (from'Ref 6-23),
--.-...
6..
6.2.2
Vibratory-Driven Anchors
typically
"15
"
Vibratory-driven
embedment anchors have
been developed, but have not seen wide use.
The
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) devel-
**
anchors
Another
were
developed
by
Rockville,
and
has
is
and
6.2.3
depth
Holding
anchors,
capacity,
of
are approximately
25 kips in soft,
40 kips
for
Two hammer-driven
types
have been.
both
in sand and
both
require
expensive
for installation.
clayey silts. A disadvantage of the vibratorydriven systems is the prolonged time period
*"
[Ref 6-8].
a counterrotating
capacities
Impact-Oriven Anchors
Various
was
Engineering,
water
vibrator.
systems
It
maximum
Science
system
during installation,
[Ref 6-2].
This depth limitation is
by power losses in the lines to the
hydraulic
mass
Ocean
Md.
a
500 feet
dictated
developed.
to 30 minutes.
The handling platform must
maintain its position directly over the anchor
pile-driving
equipment
i:i
mud line
ii.
driving !
mawwrel
""Intermen
pt
puU~oas test
unlocked
poairon
opening
postion
In-awkce
position
~.
Jetted-In Anchors
'6.2.4
disturbance of the
soil.
6.2.5
Auger Anchors
into
the
seafloor.
holding
capacity
anchors
of 1 to
These
from
systems
range
Auger
in
diver-installed
small,
anchors
are
screw-shaped
shafts
load.
lines
on
[Figure 6.2-5].
function pri-
water
lots.
stopped,
10 kips
Jetted
After
anchors
the
jetting
action
"tion in
is
torque
undisturbed material.
.-. p z
---
at
is
reaction
[Ref 6-2].
for each
in supplying power,
and
seafloor
Normally,
other.
Operational
Penetra-
the
the
seafloor.
experience
limit
t-
water i
, l--I for bridle
pulling line
i
undktusbed
I-
A
ai ijecion
hawfor bridle
Pointwate
inlet
cemenit
line'
Seabed t2
-e
JOplate
- ..
tle
mimadurbed
clay
bolted to
anchorA
.............................
6.7
is
"
6.3.1
.
.
-
SlMaxima
6.3.2
General
"knowledge. of
'
sensitivity, natural watuer contecit, bulk denstity, grain size, carbonate content, origin and
history, permeability,
and shear strength
(drained and undrained).
Where dynamic loads
are significant,, other; more specialized tests
on core samples may be necessary. At least one
*
*
,o..
LEVE OFYSITE~l
6-I)I~O~RH
6
C IT
-- WALLMTCOUIUNSA1
IO
(SECTIO 6.3)
P.4
KIU UTPY
TAI,67
(SECTION6.35)1
CAPACEISTY CPC
V.CAACY
IAACT
*
FACTg
)UC'IOR
F~ToPACTOS
OR
)SCCi U
~(CI A
Ig~ ~.3.1.
Flow chart fAT
psklg.hldn
AN~.ANCHor.S
SCIR
FACTOR
(CT
FACTO
aaiyo
ON69'E
VPO
-w;A~L
"mine these
is
properties.
required.
on
mooring
For
a
In many cases,
for a
example,
large
a 4-
"variability over
where
However,
deep water
only one
the
Soil
extend
depth.
the
depth
of
survey below
sampling
6.3.5
required
depth
different
Navy
The
on experience
smaller corers,
well
depths.
function
systems
of seafloor conditions.
nonfunctional.
Extreme
soil
conditions
However,^
making
of
survey,
anchor
Direct-embedment
cores
Expendable,
depth.
necessary
consis-
with
the
to
is,
the
use
special
of
direct-embedment
efforts
positioning,
necessary
design,
anchors,
during
site
installation,
proof-loading.
portion
af the
geotechnical
property profile.
anchor
direct-eebent
performance.
Seafloor Condition.
Pottntial Complication
Sloping Seafloor
"eHard
Scour
o Sand waves.
a Same as above.
e Same as above.
e Weak, high-void-ratio clays with s /p. e Long-term capacity my be lower than short-term.
u 0
"of 0.10-0.15.
-7.10
.,
. .
. ..
...
The
Hard Strata
" Thin soil layer over rock, or thin
"softclay layer over sand.
..
and
. .,p.
. ....
.. .....
..
Twoste
pecalizd
urve tols hve eengiven
embedded anchors.
""
undrained
shear
strength
of
the
soil
(see
Although strength is
"'
becomes
increases.
The second device,
6.4.2
is a
rotates Into a horizontal orientation--the position of maximum holding capacity. This keying
distance,
soil
:--.
tton.
and duration
of
in coheslonless soils.
fluke penetration, the
"Incohesive
=4p
Z
6.4.1
is
soil
However,
experience has shown that the Navy's propellantembedded anchor 'flukes keys in about 2.0 fluke
lengths when embedded in cohesive soil and in
"that maximizes
6.4
6
Zk,
type,
S'Over
Keying Prediction
Penetration Prediction
Includes
'Table 6.2-1
soil,
2 H
(6-1).
In coheslonless soil,
estimates
of
e
e
of
S4Cpropellant-embedded fluke penetrations for
generalized classifications of surflcial soils.
z'
- 1.5 H
(6-2)
where:
"profiles of
".
(._
undrained
Although no recommendation
the above estimate for z,
of Chapter 8.
...
S~~6.11.
"
*',
t
*_-*!A
.
..
-, *
o*
is believed that
,*,-
,..
..
.....
time
6.5
6.5.1
6.5.2
Loading Conditions
Static
loading
is a
relatively
Holding capacity
depends
on -the soil
failure mode, which is dependent on the anchor
plate embedment depth and on the soil type and
constant
strength.
being
applied sig-
nificantly
Sthe affects anchor holding capacity.
Anchor failure
either
characterized
as
in
Figure 6.5-1).
In
is
when
completely
surface continues
static
but
repetitive components.
levels
Lelow
certain
response will be as if
ly loaded.
often
have
impulse
or
the
anchor-soil
'
as
static
and
more
when
the
load
than 10 minutes
than
10 seconds
failure
the 'anchor
surface accompanying
movement
the seabed
of
surface.
strength.
It occurs over 'a range of z/B values
in cohesive soil from 2 to 5 and in cohesionless
duration
s1
soil from 2 to 10 [Ref 6-18].
in
-C
A.
,e.
..
in sands and
-7-----------
4qmc
I
%
sodail ur
Surface
Shallow anchor failure
amchor failure
'Deep
Figure 6.5.1. Failure moder for .hallow and deep embedded plate a.'hom"
6"12
'.
'
....
6.5.3
exists when
short-term condition
The
anchor-caused
soil
failure
is
governed
of
pore
full
by
can
Failure in the
take
place.
It
Fst
:FtA
where:
su
In some instances,
projected maximu
(6-3)may
63
O.1(BL]
fluke area
Ncs
in cohesive soil
20
rN
10
Q-6
*10
0
..
I.
lI
._I_
_______mm
a0
to...
'
6.13
direction of
perpendicular
Soil undrained shear strength
(F/LZ]
h = correction factor for soil
disturbance
due to penetration and
key
ing
/1,
is
su
Iz
It
is:
hh s[O.84 *
is
load application.
usually
water
occurs immediately,
the
usually
,*
.4
41
.
"0
"
I.
.10
a.
iC
Relative Embedment Depch. Z/B
~Figure
',.
6.5-3. Long-term holding capamcity factors and short-term, no-suction factors for
cohesive soils.
The
Ssufficiently
long-term
condition
exists
when
initiating a failure).
,..
sediments..
capacity
tion 6-4.
Flt
is:
holding
'
than
The
would
be
reduced
calculated
holding
by
Equa--.::
capacities
in
2/(-)
T
'
6-14
-.
""
",
-.
Yb
-..
01(/)
FN)08
A(2 ic +, Ybz R [.4+01(/
'entering
,...
.
.(-4)
Nc
'-
where:
excess
applied long-term
This
Flt'
of
, '
""
c(65
ar
c\
rtntn)(6-6)
ta (-'a
100
80
r,.,.."
'
,.
;
60
40
..:.-.
=-40 deg
"
.30 deg
0,
-20 deg .-
~25
deg--,
II
ll
6810
12
14
6.5.5
.
in cohe-
6.5.6
a correction
factor
load is applied.
Thus,
Values
both
soil
static
short-
and
long-term
conditions,
4.
Disturbance Corrections
and gravels)
types
listed
in
Table 6.5-1. by
anchor
tests.
cation
to
similar
soil
propellant-embqdded
types
anchor
in, calculating
holding
capacity
(Ref 6-19].
A~a
F
-1.
[0.84
0.16(0/1)3
(6-7)
to
is obtained from
than 40%),
I,
should be
%
S....
.- ;...'p.'h..
.... '.....
More sensitive
reductions
in
615
.%'
...
...
.............
- .
,......
.......
..
.......
.-..
.,.......
Table 6.5-1.
Sail Type
Strength
Reduction.,
Factor, h
0.8-0.9
The calculation
section
provide
them
cause
is
in
given
Reference 6-20.
.
6.6.2
08
Pelagic clay
s =3 1.2 psi,
Foraminiferal sand-silt, 77-86]
Farbonate
0.7
Cyclic Loading
.
6.6.2.1. Definitions.
Cyclic loading can
be considered an impulse loading that occurs in
a repetitive manner rather than as a single
event.
For design purposes cyclic loadings are
separated into three categories:
(1) cyclic
0.25
(2)
cyclic line
factor
of
(creep),
safety
to
be
applied
determined
to
from Equao
which
could
accumulate
to
move
the
tions 6-3, 6-4, and 6-7 varies with the type ard
mass
purpose of the
environmental
applications
soil
where
conditions
installations,
on
the
site.
little is
at the site,
For
of
those
known about
the
or for critical
a safety factor of 3 is
recoi-
mended.
by
resulting
pure
loss
of
cyclic
Pc#
near-complete
"double-amplitude"
superimposed
on
loading
basically
be reduced to 2.
component,
with
anchor failure..
element is noncritical,
static
short-term anchor
determined
by
holding capacity
Equations 6-3
or
6-7).
6.6
Loading Conditions
(1)
cyclic or repetitive
loadings and
Two additional
is
the
soil
needed
the
anchor.
These,
loading
,.................
......-....
The first
lifetime, nT.
evaluate
the
This parameter
potential
is
for anchti
creep.
The second i.s the number of cycles, nc.
that occurs in a limited time' period required
S616
.=................
In design, a
___
clayey silt
su
1 psi, St - 3
6.5.7
-.
..
.-
...-,,,
.,.''.'.,,.-...,..,."
I/
lImpuilse
Loading
t:
Cyclic LoAding
~40
"0"
i"
""
i0
.o
where
loading.'
soil's
In general,
the
lie in the
soil mass.
susceptibility to strength
loss:
a
a more plastic soil, a lower cyclic
loading
"cycles,
"denser soil,
magnitude,
a smaller
of
load
sures.
number
cyclic
period
t cd
cycles occur.
Some
low
relative
density, cohesionless
expected
is estimated
loading
from
conditions.
the
known' or
Figure 6.6-3
is
of
then used
Sediments of
this type
(such
as uniform
fine
to
determine
these soils' is
-
not recommended
if
significant
cyclic
load
strength
level.
The prediction
curves
of
6-17
. ................................
,,....,.....
IP i I- lP
-V!,
I.
...
....
Table 6.6-1.
1
I
1
3 x 10
and
6.6-3.
33% (PS This new value
1x o
Well-Graded Silty
(Dirty) Sand
1 x 10-
Uniform Silt
2 x 10-6
cyclic
6.6.2.3
Cyclic creep of an
X10above
iow Plasticity Cl ay
(Kao IliInite), PI < 20
3 x 10-8
3 x 10~
3 x 10-10
P1
>
3 x 10 1
10anchor,
I
J
1 ~o101o
I
S
301
j
-jo
.10
toI
104able
101
200
embedment anchor can occur under loading conditions' that appear quite safe relative to the
To
criteria for cyclic strength loss.
SilyCay~
Cyclic Creep-
.:,
double-amplitude
cyclic
load should be
* 30
___________________,..
SW
k)f/aft8%).
p"I""ty.
It was designed to be
cant cyclic loading
conservative because cyclic creep of anchors is
not well-understood.
6-18
"6.6.2.4
above approaches
.--soAf
recommended
for
with
the
aspects
anchor design.
It
of
soils
5 0
data
1an
noncritical
E U
MOi-
103
10
10
106
are
not well
installations
known
and 1.25
or where
for'
the soils
mass.
some
loading,
lowever,
occurs
for only
loading cycles.
to dense sands (materials that are less susceptible to liquefaction) subjected to such loading
outlined in
are treated by the techniques
Section 6.6.2.
Relatively clean cohesionless
soils, of medium to low density, are considerably more susceptible to liquefaction under
earthquake loadings.
,soils,
60
loading
recommended
Earthquake Loading
"of an
0 77
is
107
Numberof LoadinglCycles, nc
cyclic
6.6.3
102
use
'that
101
the
i Ir
109
Because
Factors of Safety.
so
the
liquefaction
potential
of soils are
Impulse Loading
30
6.6.4
20
"".6.6.4.1Definitions.
Sloading
S .U
"priate
10
i0
0.
I.i
,0O
106
'.i.
for
squarei or rec-
Numbe eoiUniformLoadingCyces,
Figure 6.6-4. Maximum (lifetime) cyclic loadcapecity
'withoutdevelopmentofcycliccreep
"(sfterRef 6-20).
Procedures
short-
6.19
An impulse load, P,, is defined as basicaly a single, load that is applied quickly but
does not remain for- a long tim (less than
10
linuter
for
sands).
FFigure, 6.6-1.
An
example
is
shown
in
These loads are considered single
I Rc RI I f(Fst)
where:
events
I =
its "noraalR
c =
effect
from other impulse loads.
In the absence of
other dynamic loads, impulse loading will result
R =
If =
higher
than
6.6.4.2
ity
its
static
short-term
Cohesive Soil.
(6-8)
capacity.
The factor I is a strain rate used to adjust for
an increase in the soil undrained shear strength
during
load
obtained
impulse
from
loading.
The
value
Figure 6.6-5
of soil type.
3.0
~2 .6
-06
s! nitiv ay (St a 2 to )
---.
non-sensitive
c'ormally
lay ,s (St<consolidated.
"2)
2.4
al claysIdI
with liquidity indx > 1
2-.. .
......
2.2-
1.6
Or0l
SFigure
0.1I
6."-.
1.0
is
on the basis of
impulse load duration and a general description
3.2 T7i7TI,
2.8-
of
10
100
1O
The
history
factor
prior
Rc
depends
to the
used to adjust FI
on
impulse
for the
the
loading
loading.
It
period,
is
then
determined as follows:
(1)
RI
'
there
It
is
one
2.-,..4-1
3.4
~
Z3.2
impulse
(6-10)
in impulses
in
FI
(1)
of the
if
second).
It
is
determined
a 4-hour
__
_
__-o__
__
_
_
&-I-a
28
load
______._I
3...
7 ft
"622.2
2.0
AW
1.4 12
"""
1.4
1.2
0.001,
0.01
L.0
0.1
100.0
10.0
Dwadom (on)
.'...'.LAM
Figure G.&&L Inrlo
..
more
impulse
is determined as follows:
only
"ii~i'3.0
1.33 e
where fc
(6-9)
loadings.
is
Pc/Fst
The
."
there
ct6The
Rc
if
-1.15fc
if
(2)
influence of other
R= 1;, or
8-21
FRef 6-21).
b.6.4.3
COt.s'onless *;oil.
also ,4er've
influence
static
-a-ctor!
hildin';
The
luading in
holling
The
coheyionless
Dy applying a
r-rfres of
on
cmp&:ity.
The
maxA.m.
R(RRI
,'.'"
(6-11)
If(F)
'
holding
the soil
obtain NqI'
anchor
capacity IMP1
U
, lcading i.given by:
F1
adjusted
capacity
factor,
NqI'
In
order
to
#I, is
calcu-
Then,
NqI is
determined
Figure 6.5-4.
0I
from
s
sin-1
the
curves
in
(6-2)
"where:
.
"loading
'-"iauls
icadings,
1.0;
RI
then
or
(2)
if
fs
> one
3.24Jflp~
2.8
3,0
7tII
2.6
8
ine-sahry sands
-co
mands
*-
'
-Im:diumd
ItSin
a- M)
2.4
2.2
"a
S12.0
SI
14 i
/1.0
0.01
10.0
1.0
1.1
100.0
"Figure 6.6-7.
6-22
..
. .
1000.0
Table 6.7-1.
-0. 116fs
R
2 e
where fs is
10Factor
St..a
siit
ftr Refa622)
Reasons for Consideration
Impact Loading
During Embedment
Figure 6,6-6.
calculate
Remolding or
Disturbance of
Soils During
Installation
Cyclic Loading
by Anchor
IMportant consideration in
all anchor installations.
Local Instability
After Anchor
Pullout
Direct
Application of
Anchor Load
to Slope
Factors of Safety.
To
recomiended
safety
of
factors
the
Sec-
in
A.-7
6.7.1
-Two major
Uthe
tems
should
in
of embedded
stabiliLy of
be considered
upsiope direction.
Methods for calculating the reduced holding
anchor
.:-slope.
*-'-"
Tablo'6.7-1
presents
list of factors
cppacity
asso-
6.6.4.4
:,"
S~Stability
(6-13)
f 6-2]
[R f-22.O
stablity (Re
fatsledt
Aoll fator-s
loeasidtomultiplying
Al
stblt
of
stability depwndi
Slope angle
to a high
Fs
ment.
slopes
It
therefore, greater slope instability.
.
of
plate
to
note
that
the
influence
is important
and,
on slope
on
anchors
anchors
F5
the
(2.
-23
.. .-
..
.'S
**~*
***~*~***~
*~U~S*'%
Rs represents the
both
and
depth
the
h
fluke and piston, mass
a=anchor
ahlu
k
p
n
holding
capacity,
(slugs]
"This
6.7.2
holding capacity
of all
(Ref
However,
(Ref 6-24]
[;
Sshear
"-
and
that,
indicate
only
the
static
ooze
[Ref 6-25]
with unconfined
undrained
condition,
compressive
from
6.8.2
always
creep
the
failure
the
on
maximum
long-term
develop
to
efforts
date,
predictive
propellant-embedded
raot been successful.
plate
for
To
There-
[Ref 6-24].
potential
1,500
anchors
reliable
for
equation
in
hard rock
holding
A conical-
Rif 6-1].
Col
Prediction
of
dlrect-mbedment
anchor
capacity in coral is difficult due to
seafloors.
systems
"evaluated by
equation
at
Oahu
a simple
and Kauai,
function of kinetic
~only
Hawaii,
vesicular
in
basalt
area to
estimating
capacity.
were
regression analysis.
An
6.9
and
It
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
6.9.1
estimates the
fol-
"lows:
6.9.1.1. Problem
(1)
S.684
Fc
in
designs
and
fluke
'Tests
granite
seven
recom-
based 'on
"holding
of coral
with
results
weathered
"-
have
the
A
is
6.8.1
to
Rock
holding capacity
will
plate
anchor
time
increase with
the
fore,
above
ranging
strengths
4,200 psi.
shear
Equa-
Thus,
calcareous
for
limited
loading
under
soils
6-23].
was developed.
"cohesive
where
those
obtained.
In
to
similar
of direct-embedment anchors
failure
Creep
-.
o.0066[ 1/2) m v]
Statement:
Determine
force,
(6-15)
'6-24
........................**.*.
7. -
and
(3)
propellant-embedment
frequently.
of
Data:
411.L
conditions.
impulse
under
loading
,1,.
capacity
holding
the
specific
An
NCEL-style
20K
propellant-
The
subsurface
buoy
installation
at
duration.
is to be installed in
the' anchor
of
between
from wave
result
"below
the
water
transmission
surface
buoy
installation
is
[see
considered
and
surface
Figure 6.9-1].
critical
data
in nature.
"The
and
the
material
is
"very
The
soft"
Problem Solution:
6.9.1.2
The analytical
silty-clay
(cohesive).
problem are shown below. They follow the procedures outlined in Figure 6.3-1 and in Sec-
~22e
sol
shear seh, .s, (pi)
-_
mbm"f
T3.
33"--0
120o ftatya0
%tt.
Whm40
2t&24
-iyOl
-
1.37*
.-.
problem 1.
Problem 6.9.1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
"st
1.
A su h No 0.84 + 0.16(./L)]
Cs
a
35 ft
6-25
",
e,
"Problem 6.9.1
"
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
2.
COMPUTATIONS
"""
Zp
-2H
3.
4.
h = 0.8
5.
z/B ratio5
N = 15
Cs
'4b
"6.
44,100 14
st
Calculate the anchor's static long-term holding capacity.
Flt= A(c'
7.
N +
z N )[0.84 + 0.16(8/L)]
0.2 psi
(2-
c''=37
1;'
are known:
Oeg
= arctan2(.-t~n1)
=26.7
deg
8.
9.
10.
z/B = 9.7
11.
z/B = 9.7
Nc= 9.0:
'
= 26
2b6bpsf
Nq
q
(Fquation 6-4).
46,300 lb
'o
allowable P5s
%6.2
Fst/Fs
Fst 0 44,100 lb
Problem 6.9-1
13.
15.
8 x 104 sec = 22 hr
(Data are
,16.
tcd
nc
13 sec/cycle
2,770 loading cycles per storm
*=
*'''..
17.
18.
P /F
PC = (0.32)(44,100 lb)
= 32% = 0.32
14,100 lb
F I = I Ret I1 If(Fst)
19.
"20.
Rc
21.
Rf
22.
etermu ne6the
"."Figure 6.6-6).
23.
nertial factor,
.
,
(from
F, - (1.8)(1)(1)(1)(44,100 lb)
79,400 lb
\6"27
",
"',
:.
"
-.
4-
....
.
.
-''"
.........o
...
""-"-"
. .-....
..
-".
".
".
.","
"
Problem 6.9-1
___
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
"allowable FI
Fs
24.
= FI/Fs
SUMMARY
1.
The maximum allowable steady uplift force is 14,700 lb (the lowest of the short-term and
long-term maximum capacities divided by a factor of safety).
"2.
The maximum allowable cyclic load component (double-amplitude) is 8,100 lb (the cyclic load
"capacity for the expected storm conditions divided by a factor of safety).
3.
The maximum allowable impulse load which can be applied when the subsurface buoy is
installed is 26,500 lb (the impulse load capacity at that time divided by a factor of
safety).
6.9.2
of
Cohesionless Soil
10 seconds.
10 hours
duration
with
In addition,
wave
periods 'of
the
and
Problem
Statement:
maximum allowable
(2)
the
maximum
static
allowable
wave
Determine
uplift
cyclic
force
each.
uplift
zone.
conditions
"anchor is
A Navy
lOOK
ptpellant-embedment
"lOOK anchor
2Of,
200ft
o:one
reflector, believed to be a rock contact, at......
about
40 feet.
geologic
data
A review
indicates
of
available
nothing
that
2 years.
....
..
would
rock
...
oi
ol:
Smodel.
..
.. ::.:.:::
areal
6.28
6.9.2.2
Problem Solution:
The analytical
dures
outlined
in
Figure 6.3-1
and
"Problem 6.9,2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
COMPUTATIONS
"F=
1.
b z N[0.84
0.16(B/L)]
"from typical
conditions.)
For well-graded
dirty medium-dense silty sand. Table 5.3-1
gives values for * and y for medium-dense
sand. Table 6.6-1 has values for k.
V'-
2.
zp
3.
z = 23 ft
zZp=
4.
.
23 ft
1.5H
6.2
"Nai 15
q
5.
S(Equation
"F= 141,000
."-.
6.
lb
allowable Ps a F/F 5s
Calculate tne anchor's maximum holding capacity under cyclic loading.
7.
8.
9.
__dissipation
cyclic load,, P
....
...
'"
Because t
of 10 hr.
.6.29
'
cd-
- 15 cycles
pP
(0.40)(141,000 lb)
56,400 lb
in
Problem 6.9-2
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
10.
Fs
6.6.2.4).
Pc = (56,400 lb)/(1.75) = 32,200 lb
allowble PC ==P/s
c P /F
allowable
Calculate tVie maximum holding capacity under lifetime cyclic creep considerations.
11.
nT
T
.--
nT = 46,800 cycles
12.
(1)
13.
PC
Fs
allowable PC
P /Fs
44710
,
lb/1.75
25,500 lb
SUMMARY
1.
The maximum allowable static uplift force is 47,000 lb (the static maximum capacity divided
by a factor of safety).
2.
.-
,%
6-30
_.M.
.-
6.10
REFERENCES
6-1. J.F. Wadsworth and R.N. Beard. Propellantembedded anchors: Prediction of holding capacity in coral and rock seefloors, Civil EngineerPort
ing Laboratory, Technical Note N-1595.
Hueneme, Calif., Nov 1980.
I-
"Interaction of anchors
6-11. R.J. Taylor.
with soil and anchor design," presented at short
course on Recent Developments in Ocean Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif., Jan 1981.
H.S. Stevenson and W.A. Venezia. Jettedmarine anchors, Naval Civil Engineering
Port
N-1082.
Note
Technical
L,boratory,
1970.
Hucneme, Calif., Feb
6-12.
"in
6-3. J.F. Wadsworth and R.J. Taylor.. CEL 10K
propellant-actuated anchor, Civil Engineering
Port
N-1441.
Note
Technical
Laboratory,
Hueneme, Calif., Jun 1976.
-. '.
6-13.
N. Kerr.
"The hydropin:
A new concept
6-14. R.N. Beard. Expendable Doppler penetrometer: A performance evaluation, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical Report R-855. *Port
Hueneme, Calif., Jul 1977.
Acoustic
6-15. R.J. Malloy and P..l. Valent.
siting and verification of the holding capacity
of embedment anchors, Civil Engineering LaboraPort Hueneme,
tory, Technical Note N-1523.
Car f, Ju 1978.
6-16.
Design manual:
Soil mechanics,
founda-
"6-8.
'.4
"Breakout resistance of
Vesic.
6-18. A.S.
objects embedded in ocean bottom,," in Civil
Engineering in the Oceans II. New York, N.Y.,
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1970,
pp 137-165.
6-9. resign manual, harbor and coastal fac~llties, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Jil 1968.
Washington, D.C.,
NAVFAC 0#4-26.
-.
'
'
&31
. . .. . .... . . . .
- .. . .
-..
.-
6-19.
P.J.
capacity
Valent.
tests
Results
on
direct
of
some
embedment
uplift
anchors,
Fc
F1
6-20.
H.G.
Herrmann.
Design
Note
for
F.]
FIt
Fs
Technical
Report R-888.
procedures
Nov 1981.
6-21.
B.J. Douglas.
Effects of rapid loading
rates on the holding capacity of direct embed-
ment anchors,
If
Port Hueneme,
D.A.
F.H.Kulhawy,
6-22.
Calif.,
M-R420.
No.
Port Hueneme,
P.O.
Calif. , Oct
_"78.
and
S.P.
Sangrey,
Clemence.
seafloors,
state-of-the-art,
Laboratory,
P.O.
No.
Engineering
Civil
M-R510.
Port
Hueneme,
A.
Singh
and
J.K.
Mitchell.
"General
ivl
AmrianSoiey
American Society
off Civil
no. SMl,.Jan 1968, pp 21-46.
ngners-vol 94,
Engineers,
N',C
Nn6
cs
6-24.
Civil
cohesive soil
Beard.
cohesive soil
N-1545.
Engineering Laboratory,
Technical
Port Hueneme, Calif., Jan 1979.
6-25.
P.J.
Waent.
Long-term
Nq
conditionc-to.-
NqI
os
s
lit
adjusted for impulse loading
Note
stress-strain
nT
Huenm,
Pc
PI
Calif.,
Feb 1978.
F])
6.11
SYMBOLS
Ps
R
C
R1
usually
width [L]
c
2
Drained soil cohesion [F/LA
6-32
.................
Rs
St
Soil sensitivity
.
-.
".
---.-
""'
tcd
zk
Df
Maximaum penetration depth of keyi;q-type
fluke rIL
3
Soil buoyant unit weight [F/L ]
A.i
!l.4
6-33
Chapter 7
"DRAG-EMIEDMENT ANCHORS
7.1
"-
7. 1.1
7.1.2
INTROOUCTION
While
and
design
geotechnical
""
are listed;
Sare
information
Criteria
follows.
for
information
drag-
necessary
Smooring
"""
and
system components
For
prediction
moored vessels,
the
Design Manual
Navy's
""
of
and
are
inspection
reader is
loadings
which
into
and -Inspection
of
Offshore
(Ref 7-3],
the' API
parts
of
the
Stocks or stabilizers
anchors
seafloor
to improve
and
are
their biting
their
rotational
is the
fluke tip.
the ODt
The
chain
or
wire
rope
mooring
line
Structures"
"Recommended
line
is
dragged
the
seafloor
and
analysis
(Ref
are
generally
ing
available
(Ref 7-4]
and
suarized
by
line sections
zontal
FJeld
7-7].
'
on and is
Both moor-
nnce
4.,
and a fluke or
digging
-'-
applied',
the
design
(jjj
and
the
luke
on
are
seafloor.
stability.
the
used on many
of
referred to the
line
flukes,
into
not discussed.
environmental
common
Prediction of
maintenance
load is
mooring
materials,
different
share
sediment resistance.
very
have a
features.
for design
may
anchors
many
shape,
anchor is described,
.
specialty
performance,
embedment anchors.
-C
consolidates
chapter
7-1
.- ,-
moor
linemooring
n
moorin
lineline
mooring line
testng on
scafloor)
embedded
above
scalloor
crown padeye
trppin
fluke
7.1.3
WAeal lk nbrrsigo
"L0
*(Figure
*
* --
*(Figure
*
shook
dkV
7-9).
'S
.3.
\3 .00
stabilizer
bar/
""
(i.e.,
hard clays
and most
sands
and
gravels)
ings
tips to
initiate penetration.
minimum
"stabilizer
bars
to
counter
"area and
on the
hand,
other
because
instability
reusable.
reaction
they
of
are
Often,
to an
increase
7.1.4
is
are
system
motion
(in
in
line, tension)
and
floors.
Drag anchors are standard equipment for the
Further,
and
maximize fluke
require
support,
catenary
stantial
efficient,
specialized
"temporary
They
gravity
anchor
system.
After
placement,
the
".
soils.
7.2
7.2.1
General
"The drag
''
The
'
*..'
-
*.
ab.
...
'.
*..t.
, ..
+*.
..
The
.*\,;*-,
anchor is
pulled
along
the seafloor
digs in or penetrates to
until it
its place of maximum
On soft
muds)
holding capacity.
dragged.
,
hardet
the
"itself into
""
in
the
properly,
the
horizontal
the
position.
When
7.2-1(a)].
embed
Stockless,
them,
will
deadweight
Anchors
LWI,
of
STEVFIX),
this
type
"are not
anchor ,
at
the
mud
surface
tripping
problem
in
soft,
(depicted
is
movable
deploy,
fluke
and
In Figure 7.2-2].
Generally, implementatlon of this procedure requires two vessels
to lay a mooring leg:
one paying out the moor-
recover.
anchor on
silts
clayey
[Ref 7-12].
This problem in
"the anchor
the
to set
e.g.,, the
Most drag anchors are the movable, bilateral fluke variety, where the flukes are free
to move to either side of the shank and where
to
(e.g.,
when dragged
with the
movable flukes oriented parallel to the shank or
pointing s~ightly upward, serving only as a
Tripping
easier
and
crowns,
(Figure 7.2-1(b)].
"Occasionally,
heavy
all.
lowering, and
positioning the anchor for digging in when the
mooring line is pulled.
the
soft clays
very
to
7.2.2
(i.e.,
with
anchor
working
seafloors
those anchors
Figure 7.2-1. Development of a tripping problem in soft seafloors with an improperly set anchor.
7-4
.*
*.
S7.
2.3
pendnt finetoambor
badf
boat
the
Ha
X...........X`....
..
..
the
-degree
X
Embedment
ness
Soil
premme.
holdsfhke open
...
o.......
ensure
selected drag
hr o........11ebe
There
is
a critical
fluke-to-shank
angle
l
[in*e
cked
dgpendsat
"*
"X
..........
x..................
floating platforms.
and
dense
hard
Even
soils.
(a)Andragging nhard
alwthfluketp
proper
""
with
anchor
"[Figure 7.2-3(a)]
or
may
dig
tripping
in slightly
to
Those anchors
of fluke area
"susceptible to
corrected
sharpening
by
the
"moment,
"degrees
anchor
to
palms
and, by
types
prevent
stocks
to
tips
fluke
to
by welding barbs on
increase
the
tripping
fluke
angle
several
reducing
the
below
sand
setting.
Most
drag
-------
completely on its
the
soils.
the
serve
standing
anchor
fror
falling
the
fluke tips
Thus,
in
digging position.
(c))Anuhor sadingupbuttippingtosidedO
(atrRef7-)
d.n
in hard seafloor.
,7-
anchor
will
penetrate
only
the
slightly
the STEVFIX.
and
at
For fluke
embedment
a very small
angles
less
depth
holding capacity.
than
will
be
critical,
reduced,
anchor
and
the
anchor
for
STATO
anchors
the
anchors
will
penetrate
more
in
7.2.4
Stability
the
of
50 degrees
"3"4 degrees
for
sand.
(clayey
More
silt) and
recent
tests
two
flukes,
initial
differences
penetration
STATO,
fluke
angle
of
10 degrees
is
more
depths,
slight
in the
change
fluke
in
the
or some other
source of asymmetry.
manufactured
angle
with
fluke
of
about
feet
the
angle
much reduced, and the force couple in the direction of the roll is increased, thus speeding the
reduction
"standard fluke
for
hard
Changes
to
improve performance,
"sands and
soils.
especially
gravels.
on hard,
dense
of drag.
soil
rolling
of
7.2-5(a)].
the
anchor
on
its
side
Stocks or stabilizers
[Figure
are designed
initiate
the
the
biting
and
digging-in
of
degree
of
streamlining.
The
anchor
designs
flukes,
with
tapered
and
large
by
roll
motion
[Figure 7.2-5(b)].
-In
soft
the
newer
sharpened
up to the point
and open
potentially
profile.
An
anch-r
increase
in
penetration
fluke
and
roughness
therefore
limits
unstable.
Once
beneath
soft
the
influences
At present,
holding capacity.
Flukes with smooth surfaces
mobilize less soil resistance to penetration in
the
plane of
penetrate
the
deeper
fluke.
Thus,
smooth flukes
stronger soils
penetration
Instability
after
anchor
dig-in also
includes the phenomenon of anchor "balling up"
and pulling out [Ref 7-15].
This balling up
Sclays
optimum
and
fluke
angles,,
anchor
seafloor
7.2-4(a)],
may
surface,
or it
remain
as
(Figure 7.2-6],
with
the
'a
[Figure
penetration
7-6
surrounding
STATO
will
clays)
7. ,
capability
and
its
stability.
20
40
so
'Or
lo1
30
40
.~~
............
.
iank.odaerradon
3: 10-AI
.0
20(b)
Figure 7.2-4. Penetration and orientation behavior of an anchor in hard and soft seafloors
\,.%7-7
so
"drag
distance because
developed ,by
these
the soil
anchors
shear surfaces
are
substantially
This will be
___..
""
of an
_"Soaking"
period
of
that
time,
makes
~causing
typically
24 hours,
(i.e.,
u
clay soil
strengthening
before
The mechanism
'"
balling up
silt and
up is hypothesized as follows.
the practice of
".'
anchor is
Soaking
7.2.5
consolidation
ci
around the
of that
fluke,
of the
causing
~7.3
SITE INVESTIGATION
T
"E
water pressures.
(muds),
A.
Although
results
[Ref 7-13]
STATO,
LWT,
anchor.
Performance
orientation
differences
fluke with
of, the
in
lie
Drag
than the
in
the STATO's
toward
a rational
design
anchor
usually
consists
of
This selec-
the soil
Hook anrhor.
work
the
of site conditions:
a
trajectory
initial
present
the
more obliquely
its
does
chapter
to the
respect
this
Moorfast
and
of
~anchors,
anchors,
7.3.1
7.3.2
Knowledge of topography and sediment thickness at the proposed anchor locations is neces-,
"sible
for
happening.
reducing
the
potential
for
this
"Apositive
up
is
that
7-8
. .
. . . . . . . ..
..
"
",
boulders or talus.
Drag anchors should not be
expected to function well, if at all, at such
sites.
Second, topography indicates the bottom
slope
gradient
at
the
anchor
location.
An
holding
capacity
than if
it
were pulled on a
that
the
siting
of
In lieu of
it
drag
which
is recom-
anchors
site
investigation
needed.
The
be
and,
where it
is
practical,
to slopes
of less
degrees.
the
required
lengths
of
the
7.3.3
mooring
legs,
mooring
leg
loads,
and
oSediment
thickness data are necessary to
determine'that sufficient depth exists to permit
"where
anchor
the
developed.
penetration
maximum
Drag
to
holding
anchors
information
can
sometimes
be
directly from subbottom acoustic
equilibrium depth,
experienced
capacity
will
will
penetrate
Table 7.3-1.
be
to a
and
index
personnel.
property
But,
testing
Cohesiornless
Cohesive Soils
(soft clays
and silts)
Soils
(dense sands)
Moorfast
Offdrill
BOSS
BRUCE Cast
ODanforth
LWT (Lightwelght)
4-1/2
"STATO/NAVMOOR
STEVFIX
Hook
STEVPJO
7.9
%*
This
interprete
records by
more often,
for visual
-.
silt, or sand)
full
mooring
"*
is
"than 5
soil
classification
(see
Chapter 3).
In
most
Instances,
from
samples
short
gravity corers will provide the necessary sediment for determining classification and consistency data.
Acoustic survey data will usually
suffice to characterize the sediments over the
expected
depth
of
penetration
of
the
IDENTIFY
MOrN&SYTM
ADKTAIL
anchor,
I.111E
2.
layering
or
FROIGLG
SDATA
SU]FFICIENT
FOR
ARE
ICIE
O
ANM SIZING?
SELECTiON
surficial
soil
UPED
tion cepth.
In
those
stratigraphy
where
situations
is
complicated,
taken
the
sediment
from samples
as,
for
example,
Where
in
in the
NO
following
penetrate
TASK
III
SOUST SURVEY
I SITE
PHAS
ACOUSTIC
SURVEY
1. 1.S-KHZ
| IMP SURFACE
z. SURFICIAL
SANWING
BY
GRAVITY
corER:,
CORER
instances.
TO OUVELOP
RATASUFFICIENT
tmu
SIL PROFILE TO IS FT FOR HARD
AD60FT FORSOFTSEAFLOOR?
(I.E.. O LAYERING
PRORLEMS?)
but be unable to
,oI
sand
or
clay
bottom
anchor
to
initiate dig-in.
then
will
However,
develop a
not
sn
the
1. DEEP
TON
3. -EKHZ
S. MAYREQUIRE
DEEPTON3.S-,Z
TODELINEATE
HARD
dRREGhlLAR
SURFACE
TOPOGRAPHY]
will
2.
problems
AND IRREGULAR
SURFICIAL SEDIMEII
LAYER
THICENESS
SAMPLIING
BYLARGE
GVITY
TOPOGRAPHY
IRREGULAR
2.
FT OF WATER:
LESS
THAN 100
VIBRACORER
BEST
JEER 100 FT OF WATER: LAE
GRAVITYPISTON CORERWITH
2O-FTAARREL
PISTON
REEO SOIL
PRFLEI"""
7.3.4. Site Investigation Summary
Figure 7.3-1
.
presents
developing a geotechnical
"drag anchor
design.
to
It
accomplish
a
site
chart
flow
for'
may. be advantageous or
some
of
the
on-site
necessary
-"
.+
"*
7-10
ACOUSTICSURVEYTO DELINEATE
ACOUSTICSURVEY
high holding
potential
CONISETCH?
Xt
SL
this soil
In
strata.
Yes
-
-WAY
condition,
for a
the anchor fluke angle may have to be set
silt
YES
RV
required
soil
YES
sZ
SEDIMENTLAYERTHICKNESS
DEPTHTDIMNEREALE STRATA
the planned
the
on
1. TOPOGRAPHY
EIETTP
AOCNITNY
2. SEDIMENT
TYPEANDCONSISTENCY
3.
4
LOACPER LEG
In homogeneous soils,
measured
parameters
sediment
over
changes
SITI ATA
AVAILALE:
l.REQUIREMENTS:
NUMBER
OFOIqKtNG
LEGSI
4'
"''
7.4
To
aid
the
anchor
selection
process,
General
on
reports
of
"process in
an anchor
system is
a two-step
Separate
which:
ratings
reliability
stability
---
,to
given
dig-in
for
(1) tripping
performance,
setting
(2)
roll
dragging,
and
and
and
during
are
The selected
type
is thenholding-'
sized
develop anchor
the
required
captoydevelo
tbeen
category.
Where
data
medium,
or low for
on
particular
capacity.
Anchor Type
Cohesive Soils
(clays and silts)
Tripping/
Holding
Dig-In
Stocklessb
(movable fluke)
Stocklessb
(fixed fluke)
"G.S.
Danforth
LWT
STATOd/NAVMOOR
""
Cohesionless Soilsa
(sands)
Tripping/
Holding
StablityStability
Stability
Capacity
Dig-In
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
High
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
Mediumk
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
High
Moorfast
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Offdrill II
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
STEVIN
Medium
STEVFIX
Low
Low
High
STEVPRIS
STEVDIG
S.
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
STEVMU0
High
High
"BOSS
High
Medium
High
High
Hook
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
BRUCE Cast
High
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High'
High
High
7.11
'..
Medium
c
Capacity
Medium
Flipper Delta
,.
r,
e
High
7.4.2
set
angles,
to
according
soil' anchor,
soft
for
recommendations
holding-
highest
the
has
specialized
the STEVMUO,
silts),
and
clays
are
dig-in performance
consolidated soft
highest
in
the
Next
ratio.
capacity-to-weight
developed
If the anchor is
Cast large
anchors
of
type
and Offdrill II
the Moorfast
efficiencies
capacity
holding
lower
BRUCE
HOOK,
area,
fluke
In soft clays,
is
exhibit
because
roll
still
may
stability
roll
limited
with
"
..
smaller.
Once back at
'..
In send,
and STATO
BOSS,
BRUCE
STEYPRIS,
STEVOIG,
the STEVFIX,
Offdrill 11
[Ref 7-11,
'rate
to
stability
is
the
small
treated
be
should
ratings
7.4.5
the
and
in nature,
best
as
the
estimate--one
to tht: anchor
ratings
holding
Table 7.4-1
capacity
consider
ratings
other
(1)
availability,
(3)
transportation,'
7-11)
[Ref 7-12,
performance
on
the
based
(4) vessel
space
require-
"
holding
on
is
capacity
capac ty
ratings
can
be
7.5.1
expected
and
drag
the
anchor
performance
capability
predictive
to
highly
regarding
of
predicted
field tested.
holding
factors
their geometri
rating
and
the,
for each of
types
The
discussed.
considerations' previously
becom, available.
7.4.4
high as
on model
are based
not as
but
tests in sand.
used
or
as exhibiting
projected
type are
holding capacities,
good
and
Moorfast
the
of
anchors
bilateral
roll
The cast,
Stability Performance
7.4.3
That
improve.
is,
holding capiaity
is based on field
-.
'.o .
.-
,.
..-.
..
.
-..- ...
%
.. .*.
%" .
....
...
-.
o.
:T. ........ "%-%
. .
.."-.
.-
-%
...-
"...-.
"of
these
ratio
method.
efficiency.
horizontal
the
approaches
In
is
the
this
e, is
simple efficiency
method,
defined
as a
the
7.5.2
anchor's
ratio
of
the
anchor's weight
(also
as
capacity of drag-embedeent
capacity-to-weight ratio"),
for the
"with
here:
It
accounts
increasing
air weight
[Ref 7-1].
"M(7-)
This method produces a strafght-line relationship between 'anchor holding capacity and anchor
weight on a log-log plot.
The validity of the
load
WA
-w
anchors.
Expressed
as
an
equation,
the
holding
"M2
=
Rb
where:
S.by
",000
WA
lb(-2
(7-2)
R
)
HR = holding'capacity of a 10,000-lb air
weight version of the reference
WA = anchor weight in pounds for which
HM is to be determined
b = an exponent constant depending on
the anchor
and soil
graphical' presentation
of the data
fror
Table 7.5-1 for cohesive soils (clays and silts
and cohesionless soils (sands), respectively.
7.13
Table 7.5-1.
Anchor Typea
Cohesive Soils
(clays
and silts)
Chsols
Soils (sands)
(ki s)
215
32
0.92
0.92
0189
.92
250
250
260
0.8
0.8
0.8
87
139
0.92
0.92
126.
-.
0.75
c
87
0.92
126
0.75
189
87
87
0.92
0.92
0.32
82
126
6
100
Offdrill 1I
87
0.92
60
STATO/NA0OR
215
0.92
d
100
250e
0.75
0.75
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
STEVDIG
STEVFTX
0.8
0.8
STEMNJO
236
0'. 92
0.92
0.92
0.92
290
290
STEVIN
139
189
139
..
46
0.92
24
0.92
_(kis)
BOSS
BRUCE Cast
BRUCE Twin Shank
Danforth
Flipper Delta
G.S. (AC-14)
Hook
LWT (Lightweight)
Noorfast
"STEVPRIS
ff
--
290
70
0.8
0.8
449
70
0.8
P-g
aFluke angles set for 50 dog in soft soils and according to manufacturers' specifications in hard soils, except when otherwise noted.
is an exponent constant in Equation 7-2 and not a footnote.
CNo data available.
~b"V
7-14
factor of safety
700
60
soo
400
300..4
1P
A.A
100
9U
~7
C
44
40
'
30
23
(~.Anth.,
14
6 7
89 o2030
Air Weigh. WA '(KIPS)
Figure 7.5.1'. Anchor chain system holding capacity at the rmudigne in soft soils.
-Apply
factor of safety
1000
.r..
177
.:
.:2::.~...
800
Fluke angles set for sand as per
manufacturer's specifications
except as noted
600
400
ACO
Cw
100
aN
30
AshoArWigs
Fi~~~~~~jr.~~Net
nh cansse
7 .
odn
A(IS
aaItyatcwo
themudl
. ..........
. . . . .
. .
inveyhard is
. .. .
It
is
noted
Flipper
diameter
penetrate
deeper
increased
anchor
resistance
In Figure 7.5-1,
holding
.
for the
capacity
the
of drag
consolidated clays
curves
describe
anchors
expected
in normally
the
from
to compensate
for
and an
at that depth
is
any
in
reduction
These
measured
difference
7.5.3
in
Considerations
"in
both
fixed
and
movable
positions.
The
movable,
will
capacity
of the anchor
in soft soils
Stockless,
"develop
with
flukes
left
A complete
""
with
penetration
"..
(Ref 7-21].
Figure 7.5-2 presents an interpretation of
data from field tests
""
in
soils.
ties
sands.
A more
for these
accurate
variations
has
predictive
curves of
7.5.3.1
The predic-
"ties,
in
ments,
to
slightly
anchors
will
In this
The power
law method,
as used here,
includes both buried chain .and anchor holding
capacity, but makes no separate accounting of
ity. of
HA
anchor
where:
the projected plan area of the different shapes, a correction factor is applied to
method
a
Nc(f
drag
anchor
is
L) su
(7-3)
SIELI
."
Cohesive
in these sediments..
capacity.,
The
Soft
consolidated
Drag-embedment
describe
contributions.
for
situation,
normally
penetrate deeply
""
are
chain
anchor
Calculations
overconsolidated.
and
calculating
Most
soft
cohesive
seafloors,
defined as mud or soft silt to clay size sedi-
for
Seafloors.
"InTable
technique
tration is known.
The
an established anchor,
, '"
capa-
'developed.
*
S-
However,
of
sand types.
scheme
__
is
prediction
several
bility.
7.17
Table 7.5-2.
Anchor Type
Nc
13.0
0.54
Oanforth
1a
0.60
LWT
11a
0.60
STATO/NAVHOORb
12
0.95
Moorfast
12
0.95
Offdrill II
12
0.95
STEVFIX
6.4
0.72
STEVMUD
6.8
0.77
"Hook
"BRUCE Cast
6.2
0.80
4.0
0.36
6.5
0.52
aEstimated values.
"bNAVMOOR has a configuration similar to that of the
STATO anchor.
entire fluke is embedded. Presently, a predictive equation which uses geotechnical considerations isnot available.
Smates
of the drag anchor/chain system is beyond presant predictive capability (save for the estishown in Table 7.3-1).
For established
,*
""
anchors, where anchor penetration can be measure4 from a pendant line, Equation 7-3 can be
utilized for evaluating the holding capacity.
.Equation 7-3 predicts rnly the holding
7--IS
7.6
TROUBLESHOOTING
anchors and
and
of drag-embedment
the
marizes
potential
embedment anchors,
and
stability
holding
of
the
drag
anchor
functioning
""
capacity
of
drag-
Table 7.6-1.
system.
in
anchors.
This
section
a. troubleshooting
procedure.
sum-
solutions
These
are
of drag
"Pr
e
Problem
-Failure to
Initiate
Penetration
1.
2.
3.
Cohesionless Soils
Proper setting
procedure used?
Fix fluke in open
position
Increase stabilizer
length,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sharpen flukes
Reduce fluke angle to a minimum 27 deg
Increase stabilizer
length
Place barbs on
tripping palms
Fix fluke open
Crush hardened
surface soil with
"explosives
Failure to
Develop Expected
Holding Capacity
1.
2.
3.
Increase stabilizer
length
2. Reduce fluke angle to a minimum 27 deg
3. Piggyback or change
to larger anchor
1.
"'7.6.1
Soft Sediments
prevents
use
of this
When limited
procedure,
then
Drag
anchors
in
soft
seafloors
may
enconter (1) tripping problems, (2) instability
problems, or (3) inability to develop sufficient
and
In
Instability
problems
on the
line tension
"failure-to-trip
level"
[curve b
in
"
developed
while setting an anchor. Failure to
trip and initiate penetration is suggested when
Figure 7.6-1].
When 'the anchor behaves in this
manner and fails to develop adequate capacity,
linetwo
tension remains nearly constant at one-half
"to
times the combined weight of the anchor
the
recovered
cleaned.
In
soft anchor
soil, should
it is be
likely
that and
a mud
ball has
(curve
are
in Figure 7.6-1].
fluke
angle
should be
should~~7.9
b
should
resetrand
-rstaddage
be
In hard soils,
reduced.
dragged
the
The, anchor
until
nt
the
h
line
tn
"K,
;,
80 100
'
............
- 60-/
r','
(0c)Tripping failure
..
60
15
10
30
25
20
40
35
Drag disance
Figure 7.6-1. Typical performance of drag anchors when operating properly and improperly.
stabilizer
The
approaches
tension
If
beneficial
this
"required line
larger anchors
then
anchor
original
Should
stability.
the
these
line
required
steps
tension,
be
anchors will
or piggybacked
piggybacked
be
fluke
the
required.
to
in gaining
fail
delay is
of
A decrease
length.
angle to
(Section 7.7).
penetration,
Tripping,
PIGGYBACKING
7.7
Hard Sediments
7.6.2
and
Field Practice
7.7.1
instability
is enhanced
dig-in
or
tion
angle
fluke-to-shank
to
as
by
When
Tripping is
gravel,
as
first
keep
the
anchor
from sliding on
In extreme
[Figure 7.2-3].
cases,
have
charges
have
been
used
on
these
surfaces
the
it is
in-line,
This
primary anchor.
is called
existing pendant
line
to
is
lowered ar.t
then
so.
oy a second
pendant
anchor
or
or
initiate
develop
not.
will
its side
barbs
moring leg,
the sam
to
25
anchor
the
reducing
small
an
Penetra-
means
for
increasing
7-20
.............................. )-~
-a
spring bouy
Figar 7.71.
A endat lpeandan wioaranemes frsmsbesbls(rmRf72
20fpedant
recoverve
thekl
p0,i0ary
Whn
wire
fo
usn
anchr.
chaser
syse.~ sthe piggybhacki
cornttce
isdrngd
seth bothnanho
woan fhsromaerwrefo
inselowered. Thnoe cavy,
available~~~sahe
anhoanvntrdlaingn
igy
theesr
chshir
moorings.
ihcpct
thechniques fo
emnn
sn primary anchors.We
laynghri
attamoor
adire77Cancaserd
to 10ieesin
ho
abnv leghninuewather dpthsar
pi1
[he
crane baorge hisave bee demnt ratbeoed
7.21
______
anho
is.
loerd
Th
Nay
working.,
from
usetoaiseist anchor
deploymen andsreovery
7.7.2
*
*
-anchors
*
-flukes
*tension
~~~at
the back
-.
-ment
*
-
Swhen
1-the
*
*.of
W
*or
.
.'-.
..
.--
..
(b)
Piggback anchorattached topendant psadye
of fixed mancho. Remsks.m prknaiy and=o
oetto
ludadhligcpct eue
frmmthatof siengicahor.
*<:-:
*
*.
*
f,
*.-
Figure
7.7-a.
7-22
-:
..
.2.~2'
-~
~~-.:
:*,.
.. '.
-crown
.*.
i.:
.
primary anchor
piggyback anchor
7.8
REFERENCES
7-1.
Design manual:
ties,
Naval
Engineering
Command,
D.C.,
Washington,
Jul
1968.
construction,
"Rules
7-2.
Facilities
DM-26.
NAVFAC
and
Hydrostatic
Norske Veritas.
"7-3.
Rules
Stability
Anchoring,
Oet
for building
and
classing
New
units.
drilling
offshore
and
York,
mobile
N.Y.,
.'-'...
"7-5.
M.A.
Nay 1981.
'Spread mooring systems,"
Childers.
compiled by ET,
Inc.
Tulsa,
Okla.,
Publishing Company, 1976, pp 94-128.
Offshore
Petroleum
Seminars,
"7-6.
11,
*4,
7-7.
S.A.
Fjeld.
"Certification aspects," in
Recommended Practice
7.7.3
"Careful
i.
anchor at the
Hook,
STATO,
piggyback
at
7-8.
Vryhof
ankers.
The
Netherlands,
Vryhof
1980.
crown
or dRUCE type.
anchor
Ankers,
proper when
the
7-9.
the
Bruce
anchor.
primary anchor is
Ltd.,
proceedings of
Anchor Technology
Ltd.
International
The
Bruce
Pa.,
1977.
1978.
Attachment of the
shackle
end
of
'-10.
the
Baldt Inc.
baidt.
Chester,
The primary
is one of the other anchor typei.
anchors should be set and be well-st-%ilized
before
Engineering
tension
from
the
piggyback
amn.nor
is
applied.
Laboratory,
Technical
7-23
%,
'%
Note N-1581.
7-12.
*coummercially
Civil
tui'es,"
section
en
I," Schip
Werf,
Rotterdam,
7-14.
R.C.
cmodified
Towne
and J.V.
anchors
Stalcup..
for
moorings,
Engineering Laboratory,
Technical
New
Naval
In
Beck.
Proceedings
Conference,
American
R.C.
P.G.S.
of
'the
Ocean
Technology
Houston,
Tex.,
1972,
pp 268-276.
and J.V.
Stalcutp.
7-18.
Port Hueneme,
design,
Naval
BUSH]PS
~~~
Laboratory,
H
Technical
l
R.C.
Towne
pCivil otosNve
Engineering
sn
Memoranmcum
Civil
066.
Memorandum 097.
Holland
pp 230-232.
Model and
7.9
SYMBOLS
An
anho
exponent
anirr
weight
constant in the holding
Port
Tests of
Laboratory,
Port Hueneme,
(piggybacks),"
Table 7.5-1]
J.V. Stalcup.
,
Engineering
Mote
anchor
pp 114-128.
Naval
5varies
and
in
Huenme,
Jn 193.
ali.,
Cn7-19.
1980,
7-26.
R.C. Towne.
Stackle
"Methods
Mar
back-up anchors
Shipbuilding,
Aug 1954.
Calif..
API
Tests of
Dove.
Offshore,
P.J. Klaren.
7-25.
Towne
Institute,
Report R-044.
'.
Petroleum
hand"eng,"
7-16.
*tests
*
Structures,
platforms,
use of
R.W.
Sea
7-24.
and
Civil
on
7-23. API
designing,
RP.2A.
Comniission
FIP
dt
Dept
Technical
o
o
rand
the flke'
tip
a.-
Towne.
"Mooring anchors," paper
gatthAn,Nval Meinl
ThSoiety
thechnnal M
angum 066.
S
oietyPh of
R.J.
Taylor.
"Performance,
H
Contribution of embedded chain to holding
Ct Ecapacity of drag anchor system
eF]
of conven-
7-24.
'...
*-A.'
. *"j
*.*''*
".. ".'.
"
.-d
*.*o.
. .'
~.-
'
..
*-..
* *.. -
*.
-.
..
N
c
holding capacity
A constant In anchor for
clays; varies with
predictive equation
anchor geometry
WA
A
o'.%".
* *.
., . . .,. .
7-25
*~
~~
-r
~~- ~
.-
.-
'.
---- v.~
~~~~~~'
=W-
Chapter 8
PENETRATION OF
3.1
9.1.1
OBJECTS
INIRODUCTION
Purpose
This chapter presents technliques for predi':ting the Ide'th of penetration of objects
ruished into-or impacting on sediments found in
trhedeep ocean. The techniques prssented can
also be used to predict tt!.e
force required to
push an object to a specified depth within the
seafloor and to predict the sediment-rel1ated
forces acting on a rapidly moving object after
it impacts the seafloor surface,.
8.1.2
*highly
*.,
*
Scope
INTO THE
SEAFLOOR
g..1.2.3 Penetrator Velocities. The techniques presented are applicable for penetration
velocities from near zero (normally called
.static" penetration) to 400 fps. This encompasses the full velocity range expected in Navy
deep ocean applications.
8.2
8.2.1
STATIC PENETRATII3H
Applicatlijn
Approach
The static penetration problem is subdivided into shallow and deep sediment penetration cases, at defined by the ratio of an
object's penetration depth to its diameter (or
minimum lateral dimension if not circular), z/B.
In shallow penetration, this ratio is less than
2.5.
The' shallow condition is treated as a
(FI
S eFcit u
orne 8..2 .1) a.C
n
N'
c
Assumptions:
v < 3fps
5[1
where:
0.2(8/1)]Cl
-mds
~
peerto'r
rsne
.. L
a
pecJ~tr
~tion
QU=0.5
where:
, where z/S 9
=bern
tr earing f area s
b caaiyfto
penetra
Figure 8.2-2
values for N
Influence "'..~~~~~
of
side
friction on the
"..
.. -"
becomes substantial and must be
This is done by theB
included in computations.
the
used
ities.
Techniques
for predicting
hapey
Yq
~~~ ned foral)
obt.
ailS
30
hegreesisance
to
e
h
on % =0egreerrand
bearingle,
pile c<pac-
i4
the
pn rtn-peee
(8-3)
BY
factor
penetratort
methods
coarse silts,
tame
(e.g.,
2.5),
soils
For cohesionless
inarSection 8o.zonta
2.5
f
B
(8-2)
O.2(z/B)J
t/
1 = penetrator
diameter, or
+the
(7b) Z
maximum N' 9
f= 0
z/B :
2t
with subsequen
laboratory,
mtesting is difficult
soils.
Unless
other
e tavailable,
information
under average
"best
For cohe8.2.3.1 Descriptive Equations.
sive soils (e.g., clays, muds, fine silts), the
resistance
to
penetration
estimate
Figure 8.2-2,
for
rshould
grphical
values
is
be
of N
made.
A
,In
can be
is described by the
2.5+),40
vauz)
to medium relative density.
An angle of
degrees cam be considered. typical of a very
where:
high
h
relative denhity,
[F]
An =oend
t
area of penetriator n (the
tive bearing surface) [Li2
7.-
Tebwn
ffec
aaiyfcos
Tio
used in Equations 8deand 8-3t respectively, are
a*
d
tho
deth
To determine-the Ms
amum depth,
882
to
ointh
ea
ti
s
pon,
of
nfonetration of
'
100-
30P
'1I
1.2
I4
Cow2
.8
8
smoothshaft6
-;"
o
shaft
prosuueg
ST
'90-
./5
conditi
40
_05frv
a15
knfito
.6
eons hf
Vt
15
40
'.
30
I0
054
/015
_________r____o
9001
al onaio
hps
rg
CL
1.f.avrge.
condtion,
.4'CiU
Fiur 8.
V' ero.
Anasue
.2
fo.acltn
Relaionhip
/2
dphisetee
2ikg
itRtatid.
spondin
r
circtingforcnsatio tha peerto.F
tLiemtne
3.f
ocsaesmle
hnte
peerto force th0n a deeper penetration
asumd
*W
an2h.ocsa0reacltd
Although~~~~~~~~~~~~
culytil
th2ouini
and-error,
~ iso0e
~ ~ ~sflt
~ ~ s~~~~1
i5 n tv
aprah2010
0v
oe yslciga
(~0
__8 _____
chsols
eitnei
In matino
ol;fr~
ths
30ad4
aluainsBti
n
orresptonding penetoratsio:
sstne
o7each calcu eationg seacty
anfeeopr
lt
shvrusapThn
oigtes
fre.viabet
2U
as
bjc
eertoth
etddpho
eeraincnb
bandfo
h
lte
uv.
Ohrie
teepce
et-cn
dtrmnafo tetiteplto ewe
h
3
"*
""
force.
Should the ratio z/B exceed 2.5, then
the soil friction on the sides of the object
"
t
"isv <
,..
DYNAMIC
NO
USE METHOD FOR
8.31
SECTION
FT/ECPENETRATION,
YES
,-
"
INITIATE - i
i0. z .
'..."
zi =~~i(Az)
":
i
""
EQUATION 8-2
".
DETERMINE VALUE
HALOW:.......
is
an
COHESIVE
COHESIONLESS
o
4,
a
(AS NECESSARY)
NECESSARY)
S(AS
EQ 8'-1 COMPUTE Qu
EQ 8-3 (AT zi)
EQUATION 8-2
PENETRATE ONE MORE '
DEPTH INCREMENT AZ
a..
T
IS
i'..oo
(AT
z.
DATA INTERPOLATION
Figure 8.2-3. Flow chart of the calculation procdure for predicting static penetration.
S- -
8.2.3.2
N .-
of
Influence
Penetrator
Shape.
8.2.3.3
Selection.
each
are
new
calculation.
the
bearing
The
force,
increasing
area
shear strength,
dealing
with
relatively
uniform
clays
capacity factors.
penetrator
"soil zone
su,
and
c and
*,
These methods
but also by
"The
or sands.
However,
deep
deposits
'uniform
of
sand
environment.
Those sands that do occur are
normally the lower portions of turbidite layers
and
have interbedded
clay
sized
soil.
For
such
complex
sediment
below z -is
objects,
su,
(Figure 8.2;4(a)].
equation
'
Parameter
affects
"
Strength
For
such complex
tapered
excess penetration is
data
Equation 8-1
8.2.3.4
Prediction Accuracy.
Some field
are available to examine the accuracy of
in predicting penetration.
Equa-
.......
__.___....
'"':''"of
"less than
"7---u
S'
704
No prediction was
and only
'
d tmand
e
cohesionless soils.
8.2.4
.... ---
...
"
. "
(For
(b)
Spenetrator
21..
cnkal P"Wavem
'
slender,
"(afterRef 8,3).
___.
8,5
(e.g.
spud
soil
cans
of
jack-up
rig
or
the
compared
test
devices).
In cohesive
Equation 8-1 is
soils,
to
known driving
forces
(object
force),
new
penetration
selections
depth to
the
for
the
and
calcu-
lated
block
diagram
of this
calculation process
is
At(Su N' + Yb Z) + As su a
Qu =
where:
8.2.4.2
offshore oil
[L2J
[F/L
and
gravity
soil
tests
are
developed with
The
adhesion
and
is
factor
is
a function of
difficult
to determine
strength,
and
degree
of
[Ref 8-5,
8-6].
Use
a = 0.5
SN'c
reaches
shear
when
too
much
qu
its
maximum
.kt qc
where:
2.5,
Equation 8-3
slightly
soils,
is
value
higher
when
z/B
z/B
supplemented with
ratio.
kf qc
(8-7)
exceeds
a side
is
kf
where
Values
KHpo
H
tan
In
and
esistance.
correlation
kf
general,
where:
friction
the
of
Table 8.2-1.
0.5 At(B Vb Nyq)
The
at
resis-
(8-6)
this
cohesionless
.-
overconsolidation
occurs
are
In
in-situ
Correlations
penetration
is
the primary concern,
and use
S1.0
when
inadequate
penetration
is
the
primary concern.
Note that for square and round
penetrators,
Specific
required.
are
the
factor.
listed
higher
in
values
predicting penetration
the
[deg)
*
= soil
friction angle
Table 8.2-L.
Equations 8-4
and
8-5
penetration
are
used
to
depths,
described
in
as
for
deep
determine
static
for
penetrations.
depth is
'corresponding
calculated.
resistance, to
This
calculated
kt
Soi Deactrptlea
penetration
shallow
penetration
Section 8.2.3.1
First,
vey",tiff.
silty c|ey
prnetration
is
inteixd de.sesa,
resistance
is
Dame to
0-6
layeeu
$itt
f|n
sand
kf
0.4-O.S
0.03-0.0.5
e.s
e.00e-O.oi4
0.3-0.5
0.01-0.03
j.
,..".
-.
N.
A:
8.3
.-
.....--
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
...
layer.
The calculation
is
..
repeated
for each
Application
""
to
predict
the
penetration
of
objects
gravity
anchors' and
falling
objects,
ship
such
as
hulls;
other
gravity
tions.
It
free-
corers
and
8.3.3
"penetrometers;
8.3.3.1
8.3.2 ,Approach
"full object
The technique presented here predicts both
total
penetrations
and
decelerating
forces
Fdi + Wbl
F1
where:
[F]
but is
on
* effects in passing from the overlying fluid drag
""
* .
.well
the
dynamic
because
the
bearing,
side friction,
resisting
penetration
force. terms
Two
problem
for
penetrator
"depth increments
into
noSe
other
the soil
or layers (Az).
in equal
of
these
three,
Qni'
Fdi
and Wbi,
are
The
Frst,and Fhi,
are resisting
that penetration.
8.3.3:2
bearing
finite
Nose Resistance.
resistance force
obtained from:
Resisting soil
Qni
whr:
Su2(nose) %j Nt At
ose
underlyng layer.
The kinetic
,defined
energy remaining
with the penetrator and its reduced velocity ire
A
.
forces,
Fhi
subscript 1
F
F
=n'
solution
(8-8)
qnt - Fsi - F hi
Fi
is:
versus depth.
Early versions of this technique
[Ref 8-9,8-10,8-11]
have
been
modified
[Ref 8-12, 8-13) to adapt the technique to
""-
EL23
&.7
(8-9)
V-77
~Vccity'v
impict
Z -0
8.3.3.3
0.o0
*
-.*o.
.-
,..
.....
or
adhesion
Side Friction.
force in
SFdl;
"
FdJVelocity-v
"- z-,Fs
obtained
tFho
aufirst
penetration
Ii-Si
As
[ s.....)]
Wbl
' "
""
where:
Q
#####Qn1
#1Fhl
trntonsoils
4 .
'-'
(8-11)de
(8-11)
-.
Velocity
zoi- - Vi
z"i(Az)
I I*
''*
the side of
jJfT Qni
."
penetration.
t Fhi
8.3.3.4
___
undrained
undrain
after contactafte
with
the
wih cotac
te seaffoor.
saflorincrease
and
is
dimensionless
nose
resistance
(8"10)
10.0.
sands
dynamic penetration
are
event,
sheared
during
reofth
increases.wih
This increase
8-13],
strength
failure.
she
strength.
A somewhat cumbersome' formulation,
based on a best fit to penetration test data
[Ref 8-12,
Cohesive soil
increases
with an,
strength
shear
1..C
where minimum S.
S.'
,a
0.5
oi+ C0 )
(8/12)
I and
from
CO
ul
Table 8.3-1
soil undrained shear strength equal to
. (nose) or s (side), depending on
wich of theseuthat S;, is modifying
S
v;/
i-i
010
Table 8.3-1.
Parameter Value
Condition for Use in
S;
s/ft2)
CO
(lb-se~f2
0.11
10
0.25
40
1.0
[Ref 8-16)
0 5
(4 At/A) .
use
values of S;*,
Equation 8-12
in
(8-13)
The appropriate
to
An iterative
8.3.3.6 Method of Solution.
process is used for the solution of penetration
are
C;, and CQ
specified
penetrator travel.
in
categorized
separately
from "all
following modification
other object
shapes."
This simple geometric shape has a
large side surface area in comparison to its
frontal
area
predictive
8.3.3.5
to
(modifiel
F
eliminate
of Newton's
the
second
parameter
time):
2
penetrator mass [FT /LQ
N a
law
(8-15
v'
(
\dz)
1
where:
force 'acting
dv
dz
)2
(0.5) C0 p At(vi
(8-14)
penetrating
2
2
~z
F
F8
-
"where
terminal
%
for
possible,
is
dv/dz
reorganization of terms:
where:
calulations,
is calculated as:
Fhi
incremental
For making
are best
C0
values
by
backfiguring
velocities
in water.
obtained,
V
fromo measured
In
increment is:*
absence
a* vt* 1
a
$ 2 Av1
of
the
To begin the incremental calculations,
velocity, v1 , at the end of the 'first increment
8.9-
Qni
bl
FS
F
'Ii)]
and 8-17).
'OBJECT
CMKUTERISTICS
EQUATION
8-1.3 DETERHINE
L.A8.0. At*A.
A, W' P'v. C
necessary
have been
values of
completed
~TRAITORSECTION
JE
8.21
JOBTAINSOILPAPARTERS
TABLE8.3-1
1u
Subsei'ent
SLC
V ;
t
ET
NRNN
Qni F
and Fh
ITA ZETRTVEALS
penetoation.
When the computation forv +
produces a negative velocity, the iterative
procedure is completed. The knaximum penetration
i-i*Z
z az
Az
OIF
W
TU IB
,(EPEHINRNETB
l(8-19)
V +
A-,8-I?.
EQUATIONS
CITE %I~
8-11,N-1I? 6
EQUATIONS
StA S-,
(side).
Figure 8.3-2.
8.3.3.7 Prediction Accuracy
The dynamic
penetration 'prediction techn~ique provides reasona;ole oenetration estimates for long slender
pen Ietrators
in.cohesive
sediments,
Eo
SING.
such Ias
S1Ml11EOAIN-8
I'S
CONUT
8-14
EQUATION
silts.
hedipelagic and pelagic clays and 'Infine
*This is true because the predictive technique
good.
EUtONBI
8-8
EQUATION
OPUE
*
E1
8-I1C6OT
EQUATION
Is
WB
<>-d
YES
EQAIN81
COMTErM~IAX I
:
1.-C +
8-10
8.4
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
8.4.1
Cylinder
the
core.
problem is
Determine how
Problem Statenent:
Soil properties at
piston
8.4.1.1
The sediment at
schematic
from
a 40-foot
diagram
for
The results
laboratory
of
Data:
is to
static penetration z is
cooling water
and
to
lateral
procedures
pruvide
input
data
dure outlined
'or calculating
The EPS
80
Yt (pcf)
1 .5
120
1'O
0
lowering'!ne
cooling
The analytical
Problem Solution:
8.4.1.2
this
2 ... ....
(psi)
.. ..
. 4
.0
water
intakes
L0
v-2fps
*1
-.
su - 1.O + (z/30)
1-
0a
,=.I
"
- "----.Y-- _
.-
Z/10
"30
_=__
oL",
.. ..
p5 + 0.31:'
$
Figure 8.4-1. Problem sketch and soils data for example problem 1.
8-11
Problem 8.4-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
1.
COMPUTATIONS
Yes:
vo = 2 ft/sec
Is v0 < 3 ft/sec?
2.
L = 12 ft
L (known)
B = 4 ft
2
2
At = (3.14)(4 ft) /4 = 12.6 ft
Wb = 20,000 lb
8 (known)
2
At = (n)(8) /(4)
Wb (known)
3.
4.
S.
and
zI( 1) Az
6.
Yes:
zl/1
Q 0,.z *8/2
s u at'0 atodepth
8/2 below z averaged over
z 1 (from
Figure 8.4-1b)
s @2 ft
Yb averaged over 0 to z
Figure 8.4-1b)
(from
N' at a
= 0 + (4
ft)/2 =2 ft
=,153.6 psf
Z.-(
z 1 . z * 8/2
2 ft
(4 ft)/2
4 ft
64 pcf
8.
Qua At(S N. Yb a)
)
u
2
a (12.6 ft )((158.4 psf)(6.6)
+ (21.3 pcf)(2.0 ft)]
13,710 'Ib
9.
No!
Is Qu > Wb + Fd?
Wb + Fd
da 20,000 lb
10.
Increase
z2 a 2(4z) a 4.0 ft
8-12
*-.-:
'
Problem 8.4-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
Yes:
11.,
Calculate
@ z2 .
Z2 + B/2= 4 ft + 4 ft/2 = 6 ft
su @ 6 ft = [1.0 + (6.0/30)] psi = 1.20 psi
b average.
= 172.8 psf
Calculate N'.
Calculate Qu
Is Q > W
u
b
Fb
F'Fd?
d
avg
".b
12.
N'
Qu
ft2)[(163.2 psf)(7.2)
(12.6
+ (21.6 pcf)(4.0 ft)) = 15,890 lb
"No.
z3 = 6.0 ft
IsQ.>.W
z 2 + 8/2= 8 ft
F?
21.6 pcf
@ 8 ft
182.4 psf
"b 0 6 ft
Yb average
'/.N'
21.9 pcf
7.8
18,170 lb
QU
No
13.
4 = 8.0 ft
z 2 + S/2"' 10 ft
2
s ' 10 ft * 192.0 psf
>
F?
us>b +d
s.
U(avg) 0 172.8 pat
'b average * 22.2 pcf
F,.:.N,
8.4
SQu 20,530 lb
Yes: Therefore, the predicted penetration
lies between 6 and 8 ft.
14.
,813
Problem 8.4-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
The cooling water intakes are 10 ft above the EPS base. Therefore, tney should be 2.4 ft
above the seafloor. Becaur: the EPS is considered a very important installation, great
care should be taken that the lowering speed at impact is as slow as possible. A more
rapid lowering could add a dynamic force component and increase penetration.
15.
Resista,, to pw
e'tpnc on. (J -lb
"0
10_ 12
14
16
Is
20
22
24
26
Table 8.4-1.
2
-d
Z.I 1/2 8
Z+
(ft)
(ft)
xtiot%of theFPS
7.6 ft
Average
Average
cp f)
Q
(1)
N'
158.4
21.3
6.6
13,710
4
""]=I
163.2
21.6
7.2
15,890
168.0
21.9
7.8
18,170
10
172.8
22.2
8.4
20,530
-"2
prediad P
Problem 1
_lWb*Fd
8.4.2
"Cylinder
8.4.2.1
"deep
into
will
penetrate
the
seafloor
if
it
large
Determine
how
long cylinder
The electric
in
The
terminal
as
40 fps
dand '1.0,
respectively.
the
properties
are 'the
same
not
terminal velocity.
Data:
4&1
the depth
Figure 8.4-1b.)
as
those
A schematic diagram
8.14,,
(The
shown
for
soil
in
this
a..
8.4.2.2
Problem Solution:
The analytical
"2ft
f
Yv 40 fps
Wb
20 KIPS
H--12 ft
Problem sketch
Problem 8.4-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
1.
2.
COMPUTATIONS
Yes"
Is v
vo a 40 fps
.3
fps?
L a 4.0 ft
L (known)
89
"8(known)
0 " 4,0 ft
2
1.2.6 ft
At A (3.14)(4 ft)2/(4)
As = (3.14)(4 ft) z a 12.64z) ftz
0 (known)
(n)(O) 2 /(4)
At
"As
=(n)(0)z
4.0 ft
Wb a 20,000 lb
Wb (known)
v (known)
C0 (known)
v a 40 fps
_
xW * weight of water
C-
_c__
... .
1.0
Problem 8.4-2
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
3.
(known)
(known)
p = (t)/(32.2 fps 2 )
S;*, C;, C. (from Table 8.3-1)
-.
0p
.,
varied
S;* =4.0
C-= 4 lb-sec/ft 2
e
Co
4.
0.06
iterations)
,%z = (assumed penetration)/(1O)
"5. Initialize
.z,6.
..
0, zo
0, v=
vo = 40 fps
Increase i:
0 +1
1(2 ft)
"2
ft
zi =i(Az)
7.
Compute Fdl
Fd1
8.
Yb(avg) = C(yb
=w b
=W
"'Yb ( a v g ) ( z ) ( n ) ( O) 2 / ( 4 )
yav.(
*0
Yb @ 0 ft
Wbl
i 'm
values:
)b
Yb
yb(avg)
"yT
21.6
*
pcIf
21.3 pcf
Wbl_2 20,000 lb
19,465 lb
'8-1
2
(21.3 pcf)(2 ft)(n)(4 ft) /(4)
(.~.
I+
Problem 8.4-2
..
:'-.-;-
--
________________________
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES.
S.
COMPUTATIONS
sui(nose)
Sel Ntl At
[Su(nose) @ 0 ft
+ Su(nose) @ 2 ft]/2
su(nOse) @0 ft
Su(nose)
j
su @ (0 + D/2)= su @2 ft
2 ft= s
@ (2 ft + D/2) = s @ 4 ft
u
(nose)
.1
fps)1/[(156+4
Ib/ft4){4
ft)
's
0.1110'5O
Nt=51
+ 0.2(8/L)][1 + 0.2(z/8)J
+ 0.2(4 ft)/(4 ft))L1
+ 0.2(2 ft)/(4 ft)] = 6.6
S='51
psf)(1.50)(6.6)(12.6 ft2)
Qn1 =(158.4
=19,760 lb
10., Compute 'Fs
(Eq,:ation 8-11)
su @ 0 ft = 1.0 psi
144
psf
As z 12.6(z) ft
Fs
Vo + (1/Vo)[(U/M)(Fdl
+ Wbl
v1
Qn-
01110"
2,850 lb
fps
hi
Fhl
(0.5)(1.0)(2.69
slugs)(12.6 ftz)
(0.5) co p At(vQ)2..
Compute
us'ng the new value of Fh,
(Equation 8
F,
ft)
-.
14.
lb/ft')(4
Fhl
(0.5)(1.0)(2.69 slugs)(12.6 ft 2 )(40 fps)z
hI 27,120 lb
"38.36
sl
Fhl
4.8
fp .)I/t(0
A..
13.
)(40
2
(0.5) C0 p At(v )2
Fhl
.12.
Il
As
5
.4
11.
lb-'.1
j11(4
Fdl + Wbl
Qnj
FSl
F1
0 * 19,460 lb - 19.760 lb
24,940 lb 23,090 lb
hF!
8.17
2,850 lb
Problem 3.4-2
"
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
15.
16.
v
17.
i+1
i-1
+ 24V
2Av 1 -(2)(2.0
ft)/921 slugs]
.(-28,090 lb/38.41 fps) = -3.18 fps
_._
v2
236.82
________________________
i = 1+ 1= 2
z = 2(2 ft) = 4 ft
/.
i = i + 1
"Z
i(Az)
Fd2
Fd2
t tb:
)(n)(0)2/4
N At
S(nose)
".2
u2=S; 2
yb(avg) =
0 ft) ;(ob 4 ft)]/2
- (21 pcf + 22.2 pcf)/2
21.6 pcf
Wb
20,000 lb - (21. pcf)(4 ft)(m)(4) 2 /4
18 ,9 10 lb
""u(nose)
1 + 1/[Ci Vl/(su2 0) + Co
s2
J S; 2 As
su2 (side)/St 2
..F 2
"s2
A
1 + 0.2(z/8)]
5[1 + 0.2(8/L)]0
Nt2
a 1s (nose)
ft)/2"Q 2 ft + su(nose)
u22
t2
IS;2
ft7
= 12.6(z)
* h(4
im
Ib-..It)(39.4 fIl(140
.O lb/Ift-)f
t) - O.111
'.
At('
(.)CD
h2
v(.5)
F=
* op Q tv2)
F
Fs2
"
Qn2
Wb2
+
Fd2
F2
F
,.2av
2A2
(2az/)(F/v
(2zM( 2 v 2)
Fh2
Nt2
2
5(11
7.2
Qn2
psf)(1.47)(7.2)(12.6 ftz)
,0(168.0
22,400 lb
su (side)
u163.2
;"
St 2
7.
.(s, * 0
4fts
4 ft)/2psl)/2 = 153.6 psf
psf
~ ~I
* 11114 Ib...tftt)41S.
-
""
(14
7.
F a (0.5)(1.0)(2.69
)
h'. (36.82 fps) 2 - slugs)(12.6'ft
22,980 lb
"F
2* 0
2'- -
22,980 lb a -32,280 lb
5,810 lb
8.18
-.
'm
.7
-1 -
.-
Problem 8.4-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
COMPUTATIONS
This is the end of the second iteration. Calculations made during subsequent iterations are not
shown. The values obtained are shown in Table 8.4-2.
At the end of the tenth iteration, the EPS has a very small velocity. The calculation for 2Av,
produces a large negative number because that calculation blows up at a velocity near zero.
Interpolation between velocity values for the tenth and eleventh iterations shows the maximum
value of penetration to be 20.0 ft.
(It is only coinci.-znce that .his is the same as the
assumed penetration used in step 4.)
r,
CONCLUSION:
It is likely the EPS has completely penetrated into the seafloor and lies buried
under about 8 ft of soil.
Table 8.4-2.
|
(It)
(pcf)
su (nose)
Wbi
Si.
(psi)
(b)
Qn|
sui(slde)
(lb)
(psi)
S~i
As
(it
F51
Fhi
F1
24vl
v.
(ib)
(ib)
(ib)
(fps)
(fps)
--
20,000
"1
21.3
19,465
158.4
1.50
6.6
19,760
148.8
1.52
25.2
2.850
24,940
-28.090
-3.18
38.36
21.6
18,910
168.0
1.47
7.2
22.400
153.6
1.50
50.4
5,810
22,980
-32.280
-3.81
36.82
"3
21.9
18,350
177.6
1.42
7.8
24,790
158.4
1.48
75.6
8,860
20,230
-35,530
-4.47
34255
22.2
17,760
187.2
1.39
8.4
27,540
163.2
1.43
100.8
11,760
17,740
-39,280
-5.27
32.35
10
22.5
17,170
196.8
1.35
9.0
30,130
168.0
1.39
126.0
14,710
14,530
-42,200
-6.26
29.28
12
22.9
16,550
206.4
1.31
9.6
32.710
172.8
1.35
151.2
17,640
11,540
'45.340
-7.55
26.09
14
23.5
16,460
216.0
1.26
10.0
34,290
182.4
1.29
151.2
17,790
8.000
-43,620
-8.72
21.73
16
24.1
16,370
244.8
1.19
10.0
36,710
192.0
1.24
151.2
18,000
5,110
-43,450
-10.86
17.37
"9
18
24.7
16,280
273.6
1.12
10.0
38,610
205.2
1.15
151.2
17,840
2.000
-42.170
-16.85
10.87
10
20
25.3
16,180
302.4
1.00
10.0
38,100
219.8
1.00
151.2
16,620
-38,540
S11
--
40.0
-322
0.2
22
8.5
-311
REFERN.MCES
8-1. J.F.
Wadsworth
III
and R.
Board.
Propellant-e
,--dded
anchors:
Prediction
of
holding
.
Civil
capacity
"N-1595.
8-2.
In
Engineering
K. Terzaghi.
N.Y.,
rock seafloors,
Laboratory,
Port Hueneme,
"New. York,
and
corea
Calif..
Technical
Note
Nov 1980.
Theoretical
John
soil mechanics.
Wiley
and
and
J.A.
Sons,
1943,
8-S.
recomnded
API
practice
designing,
and
constructing
platforms,
12th
edition,
Institute,
API
RP
2A.
for
planning,
fixed
American
Washington,
offshore
Petroleum
D.C.,
Jan
1981, p. 40.
p. 121.
8-6.
8-3.
J.P.
Gemenhardt
rig footings
Offshore
1970.
on clay,"
Technology
(Paper 1201)
Focht
of maP'le
in Proceedings
Conference,
Jr.
Houston,
of the
Tea.,
J.
de
foundations
Karine
Ruiter
for
Geotachnology,
pp 267-314.
and
large
F.L.
North
vol 3,
fergen.
Sea
"Pile
structures,"
no.
3,
1979,
8-7.
0. Eide,
8-16.
and E. Brylawski.
0. Kjekstad,
the
Sea,"
North
no. 4,
1979, pp 315-368.
8-17.
S.F.
8recktown,
8-8.
Standard method
cone
and
soil,
part 19,
quasi-static,
tests
penetration
friction-cone
Materials,
Pa.,
for deep,
Dec
Personal communication,
True.
vol 3,
Geotechnology,
Marine
D.G.
1982.
Hoerner.
N.J.,
8-18.
dynamics
drag.
"
1965.
rN
of
FluiJ
Hoerner,
R.M. Beard.
ments,
1981, pp 515-522.
Naval
Techhical
Civil
Report R-905.
Engineering
Laboratory,
Port Hueneme,
Calif.,
Feb 1984.
8-9.
W.E.
Schmid.
8.6
of Civil Engineers,
1970, pp 167-208.
A
8-10.
R.J.
SYMBOLS
soil [L 1
Smith.
.-
Seafloor
Lee.
H.J. Migliore and H.J.
penetration tests: Presentation and analysis of
At
of penetrator
End area surface)
EL2] (the effective
bearing
C0
Ci
2
Empirical strain rate coefficient [FT/L ]
,,
8-11.
Naval
results,
Technical
Note N-1178.
Aug 1971,
Port Hueneme,
D.G.
True.
tion
into
ocean
Undrained
D.G.
True.
Technical
,
May 1975,
Ph.D.
Berkeley.
Penetration
vertical
bottom, soils,
University of California,
Calif., 1976.
tory,
Calif.,
p.'59.
8-12.
8-13.
Laboratory,
Engineering
Civil
penetra-
thesis,
Fd
Fh
F1
Berkeley,
of projectiles
Civil Engineering
Report
R-822.
Port
Hueneme,
p. 45.
of
Division,
vol 93,
8-15.
the Soil
American
no. SM6,
U.
Dayal,
Society of Civil
mov 1967.
J.H.
Allen,
and J.M.
siustegt f
ain
ed-
Unit wal1
KH
kf
kt
"'
in situ strength
ments,"" Marine
of marine sedino. 2,
vol 1,
Geotechnology,
Jones.
8-14.
H.B.
Seed and K.L.
Lee.
"Undrained
stre'ngth characteristics of cohesonless soils,"4
Journal
'"
penetrator [F]
Labora-
EL]
1975., pp 73-89.
8.20
"N'
v0
St
Wb
4z
N
yq
(F]
the effective
PO
Qn
Yb
2
Soil buoyant unit weight [F/L ]
Qu
qc
2
Soil bulk wet density [F/I ]
Friction angle between penetrator and
sand [deg]
q:u
A
p
S;
S;*
..
Su
accelerated [FT2 /L 4 ]
F/IL2 ]
8o21
"Chapter 9
OBJECTS
OF
BREAKOUT
"the seafloor
or the amount
is
"applied
two is
force
for object
breakout to occur.
Either
level
desired
weapons,
of
is
Navy
for
;ed in this
total
force required
uplift
plus
(Ref 9-5].
The goal
The objective
structures.
of
for breakout
immediate breakout,
or to determine an adequate
of any bottom
previously
or foundations
airplanes,
seafloor
retrieval
sunken ships,
"tural
limitations
that the
of objects-embedded in the
the retrieval
seafloor.
to ca se breakout.
It
is,
however,
the
generated breakout
difficult
and
is
predictiun
force
that
of concern
of
is
sediment-
particularly
he
in this chapter.
place
floor
the breakout
could
happens
Swhat
to
the soil
durirg
process,
capabilities
predictive
study of
general
would
the breakout
tions
far
above
what
to be available
cou'd
reasonably
in most actual
the sea-
experience an uplift
force in excess
of
estimate
That is,
exerted
In excess
of
this
value.
This
be
field
from
were
conditions.
situation
and a
breakout
much
require
process,
of
type
conse vative
To Improve
second
is
submarines,
chapter
it
and where
desired,
impor-
situations--where retrieval
SEAFLOOR
Applications
9.1.1
INTRODUCTION
9.1
THE
FROM
9..
esti
brea
ut
force,
that estimate.
It
also presents
a method for
removal.
be
Most
width.
objects
outside
this
categor}
quately
as
embedment
(Chapters,6 or 5),
an
object
well-described'
ship,
that
could
be
would
or
as
ade-
silts),
piles
object
impervious
or low permeability
soil
flow
into
is impeded.
the space
below
the
is
by
an
With
(such
deeply
these
embedded
other
are
not
treatments
(a
as friction along a
necessary,
fall
treated
anchors
if
depth of embedment.
which
treated,
their
However,
be approached
embeament
anchor
as
or
if
a
the
pile.
applications.
For a
more
rapid
cause
sediment
flow
ainalogous
foundation
breakout,
into
the
space
left
movement
bearing
accompanying
capacity
failures
(Chapter 4).
Otject.breakout,
however,
Figure 9.1-1.
For example,
initial
9.1.2
force
or
time
for
breakout
are
outlined
in
General Concepts
may be
from a combination of sediment and water flow.
sediment
space
that
breakout. is
the object
occupies.
9.1.3
Definitions
Whether
9.1.3.1
force
object
in excess of
out
of
shallow
seafloor
embedment.
(i.e.,
9.1.3.2
Immediate
soils such
time i;
breakout force is
allowed.
Breakout
as
Force.
The
For cohesionless
the
immediate
negligible.
the rate
many silts,
rapid.
small,
Only
fea ly negligible,
net
result of soil
dent on
high.
It 'is
common 'prac-
soil
9.1.3.3
Long-Term
Breakout
Force.
a force less
,-.
The
than
'-'9'
SETUP
(SECTION9.2.1)
DTERINE9OBJE~CT
ANDSIEMBDMNT
34ARCTERSTIC
(SICTis
(SECTION9.1.1)
IMEDA
ECTO
.. )
IHI SOINO
ESU. ATEC
NO.3?
T/8VEOI? Y
VA.. CITY
C.IAE
CLWAE~
ISEAKOUS
SIMEA
(SECUTION
9.2.)
-9.3*l)
YE
CT0I
14
BKA
LAaI
51E 0
IMIII VELOCITYCESSAAY
NoST
I~YYE
NEAAOICA
(ECTAION9.2.).
EAF
W
'
bE
FVK
VE
COHESI
BOTTM
TEA PAIEYEUTW.
ESTIEMATEIS
s.
YS
CNAEKETRMNE
BEIKT
ESTIMATED
E
11545HAV 9.9.9)7
(5MM91
FOA0CWEOAO
.011 .M)
2F
(SETIO
9..3)
CULSE
19011011 919
CALCUAKJTEA
111001EUATION119-I
Figure
9.A1~ Flow~
Ifor
toDETERMINE
PRhartE eabrkotfcenDFibedre
time
reue VAIV
fo lonRter breakout uneUaRowrVore
it
in
some
finite
of
amount
time
("breakout
aids.
They include
end,
tubes.
of
time
to
allow
pore
water
flow,
sediment
Long-term
water-jetting,
9.1.3.9
rocking,
and
installing
drainage
Waiting Time.
9.1.3.4
Shallow
or
Partial
Embedment.
Shallow or partial
9.2
REQUIRED INFORMATION
This
9.2.1
chapter.
The existing object embedment characteris9.1.3.5
Soil Suction.
Soil suction is
the
mate is
as occurs with
seafloor.
sive sediment.
negative
forces pull
and
pore
pressure
best
is
the
time required
cohesive
Breakout time is
to achieve
sediment
when a
breakout
force
less
9.1.3.7
force
is
the
total
from a
than the
retrieval
cobesionless
equal
to
the
soils,
object's
cohesive soils,
it
breakout
submerged
weight
sediment
displaced.
term is
and becomes
is
1'.e force
cross
sections,
the
(B
must
For nonrec-
object's
longest
embedment depth
embedded
by
volume
'relatively
the
cross-sectiohal
area.
gently,
velocity
is
assumed
equal to zero.
approximately
submerged
weight.
For
9.2.2
force
minus
plus
the
the'
buoyant
Although
included,
it
the
object's
Sediment Characteristics
Characteristics
weight of
be determined.
displaced
is usually minor
Likely sediment
worldwide
The
seafloor
soil must
breakout
type
ocean
[Figure 2.2-1,
local charts,
Breakout Aids.
of t..
situation.
B, as
long-term
sediment
it
is then
L, and width,
existing
object as It became
should be estimated.
The breakout
the
length,
If possible,
A, of the
It
line
fits
tangular
Breakout Time.
area,
extr3cted.
9.1.3.6
The cross-sectional
and an equivalent
"suction"
or
An esti-
should
sediment
distribution
chart
confiried
by
sampling
(set
to
type may be
be
applied
center
of mat-.
breakout
this
force
simplified
approximately
Any
the
object's
possible.
Sediment
that reduce
the
photographs.,
for
case
3ctions
at
if
are
considered
breakout
material
adhering
to
remote
9.4'
'
NOT
DEEP,
IT
IS
LIKELY
THAT
THE
cohesive,
it
is
REQUIRED
If the sedi-
necessary to estimate
the
continued
object
penetrated
downward
movement
the seafloor,
as
soil
consolidation
soft
materials.
will
In
likely occur
this
case,
in such
the
bearing
."
Yb Vs
s ( +A0.2(&)[1 + 0.2( )-
"where:
su
(9-2)
where:
W -W
(9-1)
buoyant
unit
weight of sediment
3
u
uF/L
[L2 ]
.-.
Ssu
"*T.
9.3
SHORT-TERM (IMMEDIATE)
BREAKOUT
FIb
Flib, is:
ments presented
is
unusual
in Chapter 2.
the operation
or
If the sediment
is particularly
Flb
'Ib
Wb
(9-3)
Ws
(9-4)
critical,
in-situ
test (see
procedures).
"rapidly -and
known,
If
the
Chapters 2 and
the
entry
object
for these
penetrated
velocity
is
more
accurately
-..
However,
this
Is a,complicated hand-procedure.
Another, and simpler, method for obtaining
be used where an object is placed gently
It
";st
be
I.
method
should. only
be
"9
used
If the embedment
and
is
empirical
laboratory breakout
and
based
objects
on
The
as a 3-inch
cylinder.
"Fcan
'
Equation 9-3
-field
be
see"
approach F
as
q
approaches zero,
embedment,
the
0/8 approaches 1.
indicative of very
breakout
force
It
becomes
very
'small.
The'
normalized
immediate
breakout
force
plotted on
2.0
1.6
1.6
,-
1.0-
Ss.2
:"
if b'Dot
..-
ut
%t 9sdse)
0.
10
.2
i not -brakout
desired)
Fi
02
"0.4 .0
000.0.
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
"Figure9.31.
Sdepth.
*
upper and
operation
and
*
*
breakout
FIb/2),
F
are
for objects
whose
shape
and
is probable
depth, and
problems
in
the
field.
Therefore,
~may' also
The
and
upper and
lower limits,
are
"Figure 9.3-1.
The predicted
force
fail
should
strength
cause breakout,
the conservative
value to pre-
+ Wb-
Ws-
9.4
not be as good.
Fib/(2.0 Fq),
object
instance,
the
dimensions,
between
also
(2.0 F b)/Fq
plotted
on
immediate breakout
these
limits
embedment' depth,
and
when
soil
of
The upper
the
for
These
structural 'limitations
of
the
object
or
The rece
line
force applied at a
sediment
more complex
The
long-term
portion
of
breakout
the
force,
long-term
Fib,
breakout
is
that
engineering
properties
and
vastly
line force
FlLb - Wb + Ws
(9-5)
the
lower curves,
respectively).
Equation 9-6
where
immediate
the
Unlike
breakout
force,
of the
The following
relationships
t
are used to
outside
'-
curves.
-0193(lo
log. (F/F
g10
b..force.
bounded
the
by
curves
the
in
limit
tw
Figure 9.4-1
FLb/A
(9-8)
the
That is,
it
is
times'
from
field
The curve is
tests,
tb
is
entirely
and
laboratory
determining
one
a best fit
9.5
of data from 76
theoretical
breakout
becomes
9)
time
is
available.
solution
possible.
It
will
BREAKOUT-AIOS
breakout
Breakout
no
2= 'T
T. 4,-(9
empirical.
If
aids
are
any
operations
that
Presently,
The
from
relationship defined by
and
9-7
T = time parameter
p = the average breakout pressure
applied to the sediment [psf]
field tests.
S "-
area
us. of
use
384)'
Equations 9-6
when
the
T
The
individual
'
(9-7)*
The basis
used,
(p tb/0 )(B/O)
.t
"-.
are
4_6
tests:
(9-6)
"where:
out
FiLb
upper
to occur.
determine, this time,
2 FLb and
the
"-?i.
for
the
time
required
for
long-term
breakout.
for
The
and
likely
out
9.-7
following
force
is
discussion
too
high
provides
to
be
suggestions
applied
or
the
..
-...
......
.7
2.0
".91.6
"CONSERVATIVECURVF.(used
1.4
-6
r.
-1 .2-
U0.6
r---
e.A
0.4
0.2 -CONSERVATIVE CURVE (usd
0o
10o
102
10
Breakout timne
psrsmeter,T
Figure 9.4-1. Normalized long-term breakout force as a function
of breakout time parameter(after Ref 9-1).
Sexample,
9.5.1
"An
S.'equired
.
9-8.
----
"should be
over
minimized'and ,.pt
the
entire
contact
relatively constant
area
of
the object,
facilitate
object-soil
9.5.2
Eccentric Loading
if
the object is
its center.
In Chapter 4,
"respect
to
bearing
capacity
prediction
for
This concept
"force is
flow
area.
and
A
reduce
lateral
the
force
"will result
water
contact
These openings
The uplift
to
increase
along
the
the
sides.
development
This
process
of
of
rocking or rolling may also result in a reduction of object embedment depth and,
an
additional
reduction
therefore,
in necessary
breakout
force.
After
9.5.5
Breakaway Parts
"ferred to
S...
"
50%.
Long,
effect.
"easy
In many
breakout
limitations
field cases,
aid to use;
on
the
this may be an
however
object
structural
could
prevent
CclcLoading
and
resulting
pore water
development
pressures.
of
positive
For example,
"based
9.5.6
"and more
soils.
plastic.
tainea,
10 minutes or less.
,-
seafloor for
before retrieval.
on' the
on
earthquake
stability
analysis
[Ref 9-8], breakout force may be reduced by 30
"clayey silt
in sea-
Ssediment
.- ,
force
"The strength
The
retrievAl
cantly reduced if
line
it
bags,
or removal
prior
to
of
heavy parts of
attempting
breakout.
the
These
9.5.4
load.
Air- or litt-bag-assisted recovery may
introduce potentially dangerous situations where
Rocking'or Rolling
the
object's
orientation
changes.
positively
the
object.
The procedures
outlined
in this
chapter apply as if
above
9.6
it
as it
OTHER FACTORS
Irregular Shape or Nonuniform Embedment
Depth
9.6.1
9.7
in shape
9.7.1
depth.
or
"
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
-
Cylinde
9.7.1.1
cases.
However, this introduces a higher level
of uncertainty and results in the computational
it
an embedded, cylin-
An object
extended
period
of
time
before
recovery
Data:
is
diameter,
A large,
200 feet
long,
and an underwater
weight of 1 million pounds fell to the seafloor,
object
zontal
is embedded.
This
occurs
primarily
because
in 200 feet
approximately
(perhaps
million-pound
strength
month
or
more),
a
It
of
half its
to
the seafloor
significant
can be compen-
uplift
force
at '200-foot
water
sated for by
ousy
dmagng
herecovery gear.
But, it can
here because
several days.
9.6.3
located; no
obtained.
Foundation Skirts
other
data
,
on the
sediment
were
problem are shown below. They foilow the proc.dures outlined by the flow chart in Figure 9.1-1'.
skirts
force
the
soil
failure
surfaces
0W
to a
9.10
".".
4,.
'
,t~oq.o"
L20 feet~t
... ..
."%
Problem data.
Jof
depth 0
Problem 9.7.1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
1.
"characteristics:
COMPUTATIONS
Total Volume
2
(200 ft)
Z
equivalent length
B a width
""
31,400 ft 3
n(1O ft)
4,000 ftz
L a 200 ft (known)
"Wb
B * 20 ft (known)
submerged weight
31.400 ft
(20 ft)(200 ft)
Vs
L=x B
Wb : 1,000,000 lb
2.
""
Yes,
3.
0.392
0/n < 1
(0 * 8) * 7.8S ft + 20 ft * 27.8S ft
From Chapter 2 [Figure Z.2-4);
(avragd)
271 ps
9.g11.
, .S
7.85 ft
20 ft ,
0
i
Problem 9.7-1
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
4.
COMPUTATIONS
Determine F
W and W - Although actual
impact velocity'is not known, it is riot
likely to have been less than 2 fps.
Therefore, Equation 9-1 must be used in
lip
Ws
(31,400 ft
)(20.8 lb/ft 3 )
650,000 lb
Equation 9-2.
5 A s0[1 + 02
u
1 0
0
3
B 8
Wb (known)
W=
s
5.
V x y
s.b
0.67
.- .
Fib(best estimate)
7.
8.
= FIb + 350,000 lb
4,340,000 lb (best estimate)
= 8,340,000 lb (conservative)
F Lb
FLbWbb
T is obtained from Figure 9.4-1, and tb is
Lb
- Wb +
llb
4,500,000 lb - 1,000,000 lb
4,150,000 lb
4,150,000 Ib
650,000 lb
.
1.0b4
".1.
7 x '103
T(conservative)
4,150,000 lb
a 3 x 10'
*
1.038 lb/ft.
9.12
2,740 win a 46 hr
Problem 9.7-1
SANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES'
COMPUTATIONS
9.
INITIAL CONCLUSION - The recovery vessel is not likely to be able to lift the object from
the seafloor by applying a 4.5 million-lb line load for 10 to 20 min. The best estimate
for breakout to occur under that load is 64 mir. However, to be reasonably sure of object
breakout at that uplift load, it may have to be applied for 46 hr. The time required for
object breakout at the lower (sustainable) load should be examined.
10.
%q
F
= uplift capacity = 3,000,000 lb
lib
F
=
W+
Lb
FFtLb - Wbb
Ws
= F1Lb - Wb + W
= 3,000,000 lb
= 2,650,000 lb
Determine t for best estimate and conservative estikates of the problem (Figure
9.4-1 and Equations 9-8 and 9-9).
11.
- 1,000,000 lb + 650,000 lb
2,650,000 Tb
,640,000 lb
", :001
Fib
FIb(best)
6b6
T(best) a 4 x 104
T(conservatlve)
"FLb
P
2 x 106
2 650 000 lb
4,000 ftz
tb x T(7.85)4/(2O)2(662)
(1.430 x !0"2) T
12.
9.7.2
Problem 2
Recovery of a Skirted
3-day
9.7.2.1
Is
reasonable
small
to expect
foundation
from
quick
the
recovery
seafloor' with
it
of
the
circular
Is a heavy, small
footing that will be installed for a
The
experiment
and
then
recovered.
Skirts
Foundation
foundation
during the
skirts
experiment.
Is' expected,
The
footing Is 4 feet in diameter, and has an underwater weight of 3,000 pounds [see Figure 9.7-2].
The skirts extend 0.8 foot below the footing
9.13'
The
base.
abyssal
hill
at
47*N latitude.
approximately 165E
seafloor
longitude,
maintaining
force
that
level.
and'
indefinitely.
Problem Solution:
and computational
procedures
The analytical
used
.-
to evaluate
.-
foundation base
.......-..........
diameter
Poblem darm d
Problem 9.7.2
COMPUTAT IONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
1:
!.(4ft)
4(O .8 ft)
V5
A- 14.0 it:).
10.0 ft
"2:'
12.0 ftz
3aL
0 a0.8 ft
0.8 ft
2.
Check if
embent.
Is 0/8 < 1?
Yes,
9.14
0/S < I
.*
312.6U
-3.55
ft
Problem 9.7-2
COMPUTATIONS
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
3.
(he soil
Deterbine soil characteristics.
Figure 2.2-3 in Chapter 2
type is unknown.
indicates that sediment on abyssal hills in
the deep ocean is probably pelagic clay
(possibly a siliceous ooze). Figure 2.2-1
indicates it could be either, as the
geographic location falls between large
zones of each soil type. Examine both
Properties of s averaged
possibilities.
from 0 to (D+B) ft, and of yh aVeraged from
0 to 0 ft, must be determineg.
o0
130 psf
20.0 lb/ft
su
25.0 lb/ft 3
4.
Determine Fq, W
F
and We:
[Equation 9-1]
Wb x
,000 Ib
S= ya
5.
*
(10.0 ft
"6.
10,540 lb
F ib * Wb - WS 0 Flb + 3,000 lb
225 lb
Fl 1 b
7.
S.
alft'capacity
F
f7
FI. l
FLbm FLb - Wb +Ws
See
7,000 lb
4,275 lb
Problem 9.7-2
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
9.
COMPUTATIONS
FLb
_ 4,275 lb
Fib(best)
8,045 lb
T(best estimate)
0.531
3 x l,.
'b
=
A
4,250 lb
3 .7psf
12.6 ft
-.
T(0.8 ft)
(3.55 ft)z(337 psf)
T D4
b2 P
(9.64 x 10.5) T
tb(best estimate)
29 min
10.
PROBLEM CONCLUSION -The best estimate of time required to lift the foundation off a
pelagic clay or siliceous ooze seafloor (the likely soils at the site) is 29 min. It is
possible that as much as 24 hr will be required for the foundation to break free. If this
range of uncertainty is not acceptable due to potential high cost (another day at'
$]O,OUO/day) or for other reasons (covert requirements, for instance), then other steps
should be taken.
The following are two possibilities.
(1) Although most breakout aids
discussed in this chapter are not applicable due to the very deep site, passive drainage
tvbes could have been designed into the foundation in anticipation of a potential breakout
problem. They should be very effective on a footing that has only its skirts embedded in
soil.
(2) A breakaway footing can be designed so that the skirts and all or part of the
footing are left on the seafloor when an uplift force of 7,000 lb is applied.
9.8 -REFERENCES
9-4.
C.L. Liu.
against
9-1.
H.J.
objects
Civil
R-755.
24 hr
Lee.
from
seafloor
soils,
Naval
Laboratory. Technical
Port Hueneme, Calif., Feb 1972.
Report
Engineering
breakout
Engineering
Civil
R-635.
9-5.
embedded objects,
Laboratory, Technical
Naval
Report
Aug 1969.
Finn.
"Breakout of
9-2.
"Breakout'
of
partially
Canadian
Geotechnical
pp 146-154.
Conference,
9-6.
Houston,
Tax.,
1973.
(OTC'
1904)
9-3.
B.J. Muga.
Ocean bottom breakout forces,
including field test data and the development of
an
analytical
Laboratory,
method,
Naval
Technical
Civil
Report
A.W.
clays,
Papers,
Skempton.
Journal,
vol 15,
The bearing
1978,
capacity of
pp 180-189.
Engineering
R-591.
Port
9-16
I
9-7.
K.O. Vaudrey.
Flib
FlLb
(qDownward)
bearing capacity [F]
Technical
Note
Apr 1972.
N-1227.
Port
Hueneme, Calif.,
9-8.
H.J.
Lee,
"Geotechnical
B.O.
analysis
Edwards,
of
and M.E.
Field.
submarine
slump,
dimension) [L]
(OTC 4121)s
9.9
tb
SYMBOLS
of the object
Equivalent embedment depth
(LI
Wb
(T]
s
FLb
Yb
9-17
4Z.
Chapter 10
SCOUR
10.1
INTRODUCTION
10.1.1
*
sent selected experimeatal and field data helpful in s~.ructure design, (3) evaluate coimmon,
scour prevention techniques, and (4) present
methods for minimizing scour.'
Objectives
*sion
without reference
mechanism of the process
of sediments that
deprssin
gneraora
- to the cause or
to describe this eroresults in a local .
loerin ofthe ea-
the
though
tainty, most of what is known is from historical
obsrvaion
scor of
efecs lon pies nd
*
V(e.g.,
'Th
the
mean shear
stress
is near zero.
.*..for
oscillatory bottom currents 'from shortperiod waves in shallow water and high-velocity
aenttypically found in deep.water). Even if
parallel deep ocean situations ,are rare, this
chapter presents an overall picture of scour in
-order,
her
1..2
10.
isnwue
(Rf1 3]
toc claea*ptum
10.1 .3 10~
fwvs
usa
pr edr
whn
nlyia
approaches are difficult or not satisfactory is
to
rely
on
scour,
important
modeled
structure)
.
physical
evaluatina
model
proper
testing;
scaling
elements
simultaneously
(flow,
is
but,
for
sonal
all
the
even
of
sediment,
extremely
Laboratory
and field
Ssediment
scour
directional
waves
and
least
diffi-
as
can
bridge
compare
uni-directional
be
extrapolated
the
flow,
to
test
turbulence
greater
modeling
problems
that would
were
not
occurrence
of
these
primarily
on
the
located in
test
deposition or removal
However,
local
if
significant
scour at the
ConversEly,
of
experience
substantial
seasonal
collection
are
a structure located in
sedi-
currents
structure could be
could
scouring
and
Reference
10-6
of
such
for
scour
The
and
10.4
estimating seasonal
type
combined
may be
to
present techniques
and local
estimated
provide
rough
estimate
10.2.2
similarity in
scour.
Each
independently
If
two
water
the highly
presents
Signifi-
to be maintained,
and
occur,
present,
scale.
exist.
depends
seasonal
relative
substantial.
with
model
field
changes
A structure
present,
abutments
favorably
types
ment.
without
Laboratory
The
scour
little
uni-
cantly
flow
level
structure
Unfortunately,
model
reversing
in
ture.
depth.
small
in modeling
su,--ks
scour at
10-4]
not corre-
modeling
structures
achieved.
(Ref
for
results
Some
slowly
modeling
data.
when
around
been
of
pie's
field
at
or
has
results
data have
particularly
well,
the
cult.
lated
seafloor
if
of
and
the
the bed
size.
Attempts have been made to
(angularity, weight, etc. ) by using
materials,
gravity = 1.06).
-
introduce
results
other
to
such
as
This is
gilsonite
is w*ve-jnduced excess pore pressure and subseiswv-nueexssprpesreadubquent water flow in the seabed [Ref 10-7 through
(specific
10-9].
unIcertainties
field situations.
in
applying
the
In
at
one
,
least
platform.
But,
replication
liquefac~ion.
of
The
these phenomena
effect
on
the
on scour
itself
is
complt-
and by simultane-
the
ot
effects
_instan
ce
[Ref 10-5],
however,
gilsonite was
effectively used in a model study to reproduce a
f
d s
r
Ious
suppfteld scou
siturepcation
form.
a
n offe pe
msupported
The
tified,
they
increase
with
increasing
wave
factor,
concrete
in
Sdescription
sediment
is
length
scour,
not possible,
its
and
analytical
model
study
scour
protection
slabs,
17-1/2
by
quantitative
horizontal
scour estimates.
positions
[Ref 10-10].
to
Seven, slabs
vertical
positions
"their hinges.
10.2
SCOUR TYPES
10.2.1
Seasonal
Sediment
erosion
(scour)
10.3
from
around
'The
sea-
best
method
scour at a location is
M02
for
estimating
seasonal
the site.
cannot
If
be gathered,
maximum expected
10.4
STRUCTURES
ment
Aymx=
\-
change
1.15 He
where He
(which is
is
roughly
seasonal
estimated
4.1
by:
(10-1)
environment
specified
not
is
yet
extreme
wave height is
[after
10.4.1
(10-2)
modeling
laboratory
of
Observations
together with the techniques of dimensional
Ref 10-12]:
"*m.
He
where:
..
H + 5.6
4.
"M
change,
limit of significant
dc,
also
termed
the
sediment
close-out
(10-4)
a2
Sdc
.(20w)
Flow
Velocity
and
Equilibrium
"2.0 .
flow.
Scour begins at
mIhmg
-M
____
Is
change.
(j
10.4.1.1
The seaward
level
occurs is:
N(103)
""
of
interest
are
required
to obtain
S~10.3
Ito
oj
0,
3
3
Msa fleW
Mi.,
P"
iW"
an obstruction when the velocity in the undisturbed area outside the influence of the struc-
2.5-
Bcd materiai, d
initiate sediment
o-
movement
2.0
tion
increases
before
the
rapidly
critical
until
the
velocity
is
+
. 1.5
0.55nun
0.85
1.
0
+ -
8070
0.70
+ -
M~
critical
reached
0 .- *.0
'-
0 9
o -
is
--
,E
carried downstream.
( 0.5
.9
scour depression
about
10% less
recent model
than
data
its maximum
[Ref 10-14]
Figure 10.-
to a depth
value.
"
'
in motion and
actually decreases
'
j|D-piednYS
o
0
depth
Fs
1.0
0.5
___"_
2.0
1.5
Some
suggest that at
Ref 10.16).
increast
again,
but at a much
and it extends to the depth 'of the finer material, the scour depth will increase dramatically
10.4.1.2
For
to scour.
Layered
sand--specifically,
the
ratio of
the
sediment
is
not
the
only
way
standard
median
diameter'
[Ref 10-16].
The
curves
in
sizes
common
in the
indicate that,
ocean.
in,general,
The curves
scour
experience
uniform mate-
reported
rials.
"without
10.4.1.3
Shielding.
Severe
scour
Rational
well-graded materials
10.4.1.4
also
can
10-20].
some
10-15,
10-18
model
inves~tigations
through
below
rents alone.
At' the Diamond Shoals Light,
current was noted to be primarily responsible
it
when a structure is
ment with
over
fine
a, coarse
sand,
For example,
coarser
material
surface
ordinarily
may
experiences
hot erode.
However,
layer
when
it
Pres-
tur-
10.4
'
.71
10.4.2
large structures.
or as wave length is
More
cylindrical
structures
that
pierce
the
water
Much
vortices
begin
and the
often,
piers
is
carefully
tern,
the
evaluated
before
forms,
at
such
to
should be forthcoming
occurring
application
large,
each
as observations of scour
deep water,
as' those
used
for
lent
oil
the
fluid
flow
the water
Given
the
length,
is
depth, wave
height,
length
is
vortex
shedding
for
the
from
diameters
producing
'an
downstream
the
scour
asymmetrical
pit.
The scour pit around pile
larger
much
than
scour
that
groups can be
develops
around
individual piles.
and wave
obtained
pile groups.
Lsinh
1
(z xd/L.
(15
(10-)
where:
In deep water,
N
N0
.1)
continual
The turbu-
several
obstruction,
from:
alternately from
producing a highly
semi-orbital
shed
extends
is
seafloor,
and
a cylinder.
cally
scour
the
are
The figure
field
wake
around
and
vortices
offshore
gravity plat-
at a circular cylinder.
about 0.4 D.
teristics
is
For
scour
the
depth
Mcst
a/D = 1.0,
field-problem.
""
increased,
"""o
2-
w,.here:
T2
u
S -
where:
(10-6)
g 05
(10-7)
(50-)
eL/T]
Several
values
texts
(e.g.,
values of d/L 0 .
list
50
for various
When waves
and
the
flow
situation
mild scour
to occur
for very
Two design
10-5
IN
pile
urn
./0
( 0
--
depth -0.03D
&ID I
depdi.-0.1D
*5,~-
--
-depth
>>
__
0.D
det
/
am
_ __
st-
-D
Figure 10.4-a Idealized wave-induced flow and scour patterns around a vertical cylinder (after Ref 10-22).
6.0
~~5.0
4.0
4.0
--
--
, Z-.Psand Sybert/Il
oo
do
(Ref 10-9)
Au.-/
(Ref 10-15)
DeWs!! (Kitty Hawk
ED
(Ref 10-23)
6 2.0
"
"DeWlU (Duck)
""(Ref
O-23) /Mximum
(Ref
0-
1.0
.-1
10
0.0
ACMIR
t
30
20
a
40
Sedimn number, N
-Figure 10.4-4. Summary plot of field and model scour depth data
at single piles and pile groups.
wava-induced
and
uni-directional
"relative scour
environments;
mended.
depth
and
for pile
(2)
maximum
groups
relative
limit curve in
saximum
scour
large
structures
Figure 10.4-4 is
(where
is
"account
water
pier
[Ref 10-4].
".value
of
depth,
shape,
sediment
However,
2.0,
Figure 10.4-4,
number,
pier
the
relative
scour
maximum
lower
under conditions
depth
limit
currents.
The
with
point
in
the
direction
in
is recomended as a conservative
study.
")ossible.
")ver four
indicate
Relative
pile
scour depths
diameters
"structures
Atlantic
In the Gulf
Ocean -near
have
from three to
observed
been
10-20] at pile-founded
of Mexico and
Cape
Hatteras,
in 'the
N.C.
The
It
diameter
and cylinder
Indicated by Figure 10.4-4 are appli-
at
structures
located
in ocean
areas' where
10.7"
recomi-
the higher
L..--.
velocities
flow
(b)
(a)
(d)
m.'.mu
------
. Y
-
(c)
We
Waves.Only
Waves and
Current
Structure Shape
Ys
5 /D
xs/D
ys/D
xs/D
0.035
0.5
0.065
0.75
(a)' Truncatedcylinder
(height = D/4)
0.10
1.0
...--
(b)
Hexagon--point
into flow
0.003
0.5
0.04
0.50
(c)
Hexagon--flat side
into flow
0.045
1.0
0.07
1.0
(d)
Square--flat side
into flow
0.06
0.5
0.13
0.75
(e)
Square--point into
0.08
1.0
0.18
1.0
(a)
Surface-piercing
cylinder
flow
Figure 10.4-5. Scour comparison for very large circular, square and hexagonal cylinders of equal
croas-sectional area where a/D <<0.2 (after Ref 10-22).,
M...
10-8
"depths near
or
rock
outcrops
structures,
like shipwrecks
[Ref 10-24].
model
reasonably
For an
foundation
is
much
more
sensitive
to
/ 2\0.2
Y
10.4.3
pipelines.
A general
like
footings
and
around
as
significant
scour
as
igfcnt
cor
mechanisms
for
scour
shows a
forces as well as
Fgre14-
of events
for scour-
a ausaive
Scur
Scour aas a causative
Small
hiding places
hatitats.
pipe is
-scour
usually
holes
settling.
studies of
pipeline
under the
pipe do
scour,
the
the seafloor.
com-
steady uni-directional
At this elevation,
inrilling of
the
scour depression 'occurs.
Eventually,
fotgcabeopeey
red".
burldy
n~ilythe-o
s of its
buriedofppeins
to three-fourths
In
the
habitats
result
not
Its
of
were
a footing become
Therefore,
pleel bued
"pletely
buried,,
under
preying on others
Scour accelerates,
likely sequence
"In model
Figure 10.4-7
c 'u.
consderble
ttetion
attention.
k considerable
occurs.
*.
is
the
at footings
particular,
".
Scour
1cause
can remove soil from bareath the pipe, causing
free spans of pipe*.
These unsupported spans
".-
clear.
",,,
is to changes
in flow velocity.
(10-8)
(D)O8
bottom-resting
"
placed in the North Sea concluded that a squarescour than a cylindrical one [Ref 10-25].
""
estimate,
shaped
-"
initial
flow at
"shows that
In the study
all pipelines lying on the surface were underdepths of 60 feet or more in -relatively mild
mined.
One of two pipes burled initially to
dph
f6
eto
oeI
eaieyml
mid Oenvironments, scour caused settlement
and tilt-.
half a diameter was undermined, while the other
ing, but not burial of structures.
Field data
-"hese -unsupported spans of pipeline can occur
as a result of either seasonal or local scour.
10.9
~10-9
Datum
Soil: viet fine sand
D
(D 5 0 0.074 mm)
0.2to 1.64 ft
No Scout
flow
0.25D
O.5D
yB-0 .34D,
0.0
-4.9D,
ISD----o0.0
,S1
Figure 10.46. Scour development at a pipeline exposed to a uniform current of 1.2 to 1.5 ft/sec
(after Ref 10.26).
1000
OA
Position at initial
_
..........
.............
......
.. ..... .
. , , . . .
. . . . ...
. ..... ....-......
v o
Figure 10Q4-7. Burial of a small object on the seaflbor from a progressive scour sequence.
suggest that,
latory
in general,
currents
exceed
0.7 fps,
significant
is likely to occur.
48-hour period
footings
more
rapidly.
Lower
velocity
usually
in 'a
response
to changing
height.
10.4.4
period
of
hours
or
evaluating
quickly.
relatively
scour,
future
condition
In studies
model
not
rapidly at first,
reaching
to
waves
scour
can
at
some
occur
In .
increase the
higher
scour depth
pile' exposed
additional
time,
in
is
days,
occurred
near pipelines,
it
test
series
maximmi
scour
depth
was' reached
10-11
lower
MINIMIZING SCOUR
10.5
allowed
flow conditions
produ.ce scour,
(2)
tures,
employing
and
(3)
(1) avoiding
are
scour will
If
nearslore
sonal
a structure
area
changes
known
is
to
10.5.2
be placed
in a
fully
to experience large
sea-
effective;
in sediment elevation,
installa-
taken
before,
after
protection
to soame-offshore
the
best
scour
instances.
To
be
most
immediately after,
structure
is
installed.
location
in many
or
buried
quently,
..
scour
significant
as
seafloor,
bottom
on a cohesionless
into the
sures.
that,
settle
likely to
As previously mentioned,
to
occurs.
This will result in a generally stable
structure that. undergoes small settlements.
In
the
case
structures,
prevention
of
offshore
waiting until
pile-supported
10.5.1
Scour-Resistant Structures
much
Pi'es are
They
are
the
structures
used
in
during
Everglades Shallow Water Range consumed approximately the same amount of time required- for
In applications
where lateral load on the pile is'high, the loss
of
or
recovered
resistance
may
through
use of
longer piles.
not
be
retrofit
during
required
operation
footing
for
at
the
installation,
cutting
and
the-
fitting
Port
time
scour mats
economically
larger 'diameter or
In these cases,
-how
reliance on scour
much
structure
system,
is
is
necessary until
after
the.
installed.
For
ca-I
on
each
tripod
leg
can be
articulated
""
and
10-12
large
structures
protection
from angular
[Ref 10-22].
For
(a/0,
small
isolated
structures
1.0),
"
approximately
group
recommended.
three
For
lower,
one
radius
of
the
piles.
filter
filter
material.
pile
material
with
the
treated
previous,
as
the
base
material
For large
requirements
with
specific
gravity
of 2.5
or
on
for
The
designing
protection
measures.
Several
should
placed
by
tremie
or
similar method
to prevent
below.
the particles.
It
must be
overwhelm
kept in mind
system
that
protection
from existing
example
the
is
Christchurch
profile,
Bay
Tower
circular,
insufficient
forces.
reported
for
An..unusual
shown
light
station.
used;
low-
severely
during
bed material
Filters
"proper
storms,
considerable
performance
removed,
mined
with
skirts,
and
rein-
skirts.
was
barrier of
then
The
scour
grouted
sand bags
The
under
.a
last
the
departure
also
from
even the
standard
used
[Ref 10-15].
been
used
in
filter
the
In
at
the
Gulf
least
Steel mill
successfully
in
of
one
slag has
an
inverted
Also,
in
information
been
used
as the
shell
be undermined.
layer,
it
used successfully
scour.
(Ref 1O-L9,
10-30]
layer of
storm
however,
from
filters
10.5.2.1
significantly
are common;
as backfill
protective
.reported
depart
grain
pit
and
criteria
Mexico
the
footing
fitted
It
that
design"
requirements
stalled,
design
[Ref 10-25],
filter
was 'undermined
The
is
size segregation of
rip-rap,
for pre-
protective
conditions.
stone
sized to resist
A formula
for sizing
weight,
and
stone diameter.
this
is based
stone specific
Similar formulas
and design curves are available in other references such as Reference 10-32). Other published
be
velocity at
least
undisturbed
bed
eroded
transition
by
scour.
Thi.
from material
filter, layers
as
large
may
as rip-rap
in
result
times
as
layers.
'experiences
at
[Ref 10-15]
and
size
Mexico
.Each
In
each
adjacent
layer
This
in the
would
expected
distribution
[Ref'10-4].
[Ref 10-17].
area
velocity.
However,
the
at
[Ref 10-5],
Diamond
platforms
on the
basis of
Shoals
Light
in the Gulf of
10-13
Notes:
A. 12' to 16" riprap max size and No. 4
siem min size; 50% by weight is 8" or
larger
B. 3" max size and No. 40 sieve min size;
50% by weight is 3/8" or larger
36ft
C. bed material; D5
...S .. :. .
~coarse
.s- .
...
graded riprap~...
..
..
20 ft20f
elevation of bottom of
brace - 52'9"
Na
0 i4. B
'6Note
'
'
Nt
-4 ft
0.45 mmn
after scour
Figure 10.5-1. Example of an inverted filter for scour protection at an offshore structure (after Ref 10-15).
aIt
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
7.
GRA VE L-
..
SI
-_A
12 P4 111 1
17 L
11
t,______
so:
20t
7
V.. te
I3_
W~
Beds matria
".
+**
. .tI
Z..
"
.e 5d
Ia
X.
VV
A0
.
g?
ff:-v
'K
rv.
%
:::'
;,.
ih) 3
dSol
pcfcto'Da :.L&
Exml of~5a-itrmtra
d)
T,
..
AI A~L
Fiur
CD
-o
d3
r-
_mra
%S
1 3
<D
.a0-14
"ocean structures.
In these cases,
rip-rap sized
or
sized
[Ref 10-5],
smaller
area:
than
that
value
used.
Until
*-- .
Maximum open
EOS
no .larger than the openings
in a should
no . 70 be
sieve
in the ocean.
filter
10.5.2.2
been
used
[Ref 10-33],
Filter Fabric.
successfully
to
sometimes
overcome
to
combat
scour
the
and
most
to place a protective
For
and sometimes
10.5.2.3
Fronds).
Artificial
seaweed
soils
10-10].
up through
the
rock cover.
Although a
vicinity.
encourages
Results
deposition
indicate
of
that
sediment
it
also
(Ref 10-35,
"regarding
ronments
their performance.
Filter fabric is
polypropylene,
two
basic
and
ana
including
polyvinylidene.
cloth
categories
nonwoven--only
are
the woven
for
filter
is
fabric,
primary
they
consideration.
cannot
be
Unlike
weighted
from
filter
10.5.2.4
Flat Plate.
A horizontal
flat
tensile
strength
Based
on
recommendations
in
clogging
seawater
and
sunlight,
at
tests,
the
following
attached
selecting
filter
"eOnly
"*Minimum
-
"
9
open area:
a pil'e.
The plate
to
slide down
the pile;
but should
rigidly
be free
to
should not be
turbulence
Peripheral Skirt.
A method of
than 4%.
best
hold
the
available--woven
.'-.'-
The
to
Although
place.
used method is
used
polyester,
""
in
been
""-.
""
fabric
commonly
have
drawbacks
"example,
methods
Open
area
should
not
be
less
however,
it
of
beneath
the
the
and
possible
erosion
footing
will
of
of material
still
Subsequent,
burial
10-3.
cal
skirt,
10-23, 10-25].
[Ref 10-37].
occur
rocking,
the
footing
sedimentation,
modeling.
lines
of
[Ref
Publishing Co.,
may
then
10-4.
H. Breusers,
"Local
Pipelines.
Pipe-
Hydraulics
G. Nicollet,
Research,
and
vol 15,
no.
H. Shen..
3,
1977,
pp 211-252.
unsupported
spans'
Protection
protection
of
production
Proceedings
of
the
Dobrovnik,
Yugoslavia,
around
protection
of
pipe.
pipelines
is
difficult.
from
If
C.J. Posey
10-6.
sediment
(Ref 10-10]
scour
at
J.H. Sybert.
Ninth
dum M-42-81-3A.
"Erosion
structures,"
Convention,
1961,
in
IAHR,
pp 1157-1161.
pipelines
oil
and
J.M. Atturio.
structures,
Naval
Technical Memoran-
by
10-7.
T. Yamamoto.
waves,"
Conference,
"Sea
bed instability
from
Tex.,
1978.
(OTC
3262)
10-8.
seasonal
vol II.
New
York,
N.Y,,
American
Society
10.6
10-9. 'O.S.
REFERENCES
10-1.
C.F. Nordin
and
E.V. Richardson.
"The
processes,"
in
IAHR Conference,
W.W.
Sayre
two dimensional
and
and
Madsen.
"Wave-induced
pore
of
pres-
i. a porous bed,"
Dec 1978, pp 337-
393.
in studies of alluvial
Proceedings
of the,
Ft. Collins, Colo.,
10-10.
I.B. Maidl.
"New experiences in scour
protection for offshore pl'atforms and pipe-
and
1974.
stresses due to
effluents,
Elsevier Scientific
creating excessive
means
engineering II,
tides,
undermined,
scour
Sport
coastal
settling,
of
Protection
Developments in geotechni-
estuaries,
from
follow.
10.5.2.6
R. Silvester.
engineering 48,
Conover.
"General
Engineering.
Halifax,
Nova
Scotia,
Jun 1982.
dispersion
of bed material
particles,"
in Proceedings
Conference,
Ft. Collins,
sediment
10-11.
1967,
and
J.A. Christenson.
vol 2,
pp 88-95.
S.
A,E. DOwall
106'16
10-12.
Engineers,
Army Corps of
10-22.
Wave
idealized
1977.
Report
No.
1978.
10-13.
-
R.J.
Hallerme'ier.
Calculating a yearly
potential
around
Hydraulics Research
EX832.
Wallingford,
(Offshore
Energy
large
Station,
England,
Technology
Sep
Report
OT-R7826)
scour
shapes,
10-23.
A.E. DeWall.
Experiments on nearshore
scour around small footings and pile-supported
Sep 1977.
S.C. Jain
and
E.E.
Fischer.
"Scour
Jul 1981.
10-24." T. Carstens.
interaction
by
vol 106,
Proceedings
of
no. HY11,
Nov 1980,
pp 1827-1842.
"Wave-seabed
Bijker
(Vol.
BOSS '76,
1,
structural
p. 830),"
vol 2,
in
Trondheim,
"Norway,
..
10-15.
R.C.K. Au.
Shoals
light
station,
Cape
-Hatteras,
North
10-25. R. Dhalberg.
"Observation
of
scour
around offshore structure," Det norske Veritas,
DOT-CG05-988)
Aug 1976.
Trondheim, Norway, Norwegian
Institute
of Technology,
1976,
pp 558-562.
Rd
dE
aon
Marine
10-26.
S.P. Kjeldsen, 0. Gjorsvik, and K.G.
Bringaker.
Experiments with local scour around
scour,"
C.J. Posey.
Conrerence,
Houston, Tex.,
1970.
(OTC
10-18.
natural
H.D.
Palmer.
objects,
Ph.D.
"University of Southern
California.
alf. 170'10-28._
Los Angeles,
0
J.C Kreig.
offshore pipeline,"
oiCollege
Texas,
Journal
of
the
Division,
American Society of Civil
-/'Publication
vol 91, no.
PL1,
E.W. Bijker.
"interaction," in
Trondheim, Norway,
"Local
scour
Proceedings
near
of
the
R,.M. Sorenson.
Scour
Pipeline
Station, Tex.,
Engineers,
Jan 1970.
(Sea
Grant,
No. 208).
10-0.10-29.
'-...R.
Blumberg.
extremes," Pipeline
Oct 1966, pp 31-34.
10-21.
River
Norway,
"rtramotion,
19.
Trondheim,'
thesis,
Calif., 1970.
"1.
Laboratory.
1304)
and artificial
Harbour
Mar 1974.
'C."
"Design
Industry,
environmental
vol 25,
Enid
no. 4,
Proceedings of BOSS
Aug 1976.
10-30.
v'76,'vol
1,
Trondheim, Norway,
Halifax,
"10-17.
Engineering,
and
Geotechnical
"."10-16.
C.J. Posey.
ments,' ",
Congress,
1976.
IAHR,
pp. 211-219.
I10-17
Proceedings
Kyoto,
of
Japan,
the" Thirteenth
1969,
vol.
2,
015
D50
d85
dc
'the
of
"Experience of scour in
10-31.
10-32.
C.D.
Mar 1981,
Technology,
stability
The
Ponce-Campos.
pp 18-21.
of
and
N.D. Wilson
10-33.
"Seafloor
or
maximum sediment
which EL]
Water
level depth
change at
occurs
EOS
Gravitational.acceleration
10-34.
Station,
Technical
Report
S-72-7.
Vicksburg,
and
[L]
E. Tesaker.
ICI
scour
flume study,
River
10-36.
and
N. Yano.
Twelfth
IAHR
Congress,
"Local
J.S.'Muraoka.
seafloor installations,
Technical
Laboratory,
SHueneme,
10.7
Calif.,
H
e
Wave length
10
Ns
Specific gravity
y5
Aymax
scour
in Proceedings of
Ft. Collins, Colo,
pp 193-201.
10-37..
'(A0745085)
P.A. Tufto
Animal
undermining
of
Nov 1970.
SYMBOLS
a
2
[L/T ]
S
Semi-orbital
length CL]
aaSei-rbital Clenh
Water depth el]%
"
."
4.
'.,
Chapter 11
SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
11.1
the
describe
offshore
slope
consulted
but
methods
analytical
in
stability. problems
presented.
A structured
applicable
to
problems
that
detail
evaluation
of
offshore
tant
"
sediment
the
evaluation
~~~~Sedinment
type
Loadier dylmLcd
Time effeca
sioe
Gi,
more detail
loading
is
desired
than is
functions
is
usually
uncertain.
For designing,
probabil-
instability,
dealing with
:::
if
sediment
for
11-2
The most
the processes is defined.
of these principles is the basic
methods
not
procedure
analytical
and
treat
are
References 11-1
mass.
Specific
stability.
sediment
for defining
is
maximum magnitudes
....,
eConColodatcn
,\ ~~
~
~ ~ ',, Wih (gravity)
,
. ..
.
- "Figure.1. 1-1. Loading and resistance forces ona potentil Sidemass.
11-1
"
Thus,
offshore
is
often
terms
(dis-
based,
sediment stability
in
part,
analysis
on probabilistic
requires
which
is
Stesting
an
evaluation
often complex,
of
to
considerable
and
Sskills.
"
determine
knowledge
considerable
quality of
The
stratigraphy
require
the
he
Another
concern
Mass
"*
wide or
long
""
found.
11-3].
amount and
they
fall
is
resistance is
to
rotational
several
miles
identify:
outside
tional slides,
on
few
slides,
This is an artificial
The
6 side are
the
the
small
resolution
of
form
of
already occurred
the
survey
is
submarine
"Table 11.2-1.
"Type of
However,
geophysical
survey
because
record
"Rotational Slides
Turbidity Currents
'material
Characteristics
Shear displacement along one or several surfaces
or within a relatively narrow zone. Movement
"predominantly along planar or'gently undulatory
surfaces.
Movement frequently structurally
controlled by surfaces of weakness, such as
faults, joints, bedding planes, and variations
in shear strength between layers of bedded
deposits.
Flow Slides
Mud, Silt', or Sand
S*rapid
Translational Slides
of
Movement
(Slumps)
(Section 11.6.3).
because
.".
--
transla-
flow slides,'
feet
be -difficult
sediment
movements
to
offshore
of
interpretative
cases,
understanding
of marine geotechnology
technical
In almost all
FORMS OF INSTABILITY
stratigraphy,
of recovered sediments.
p,retations
11.2
load-
Complete fluidization of sediment with Introduction of additional water. Mixing and resuspenslon of material during transport.
Extremely
rates of movement.
Transport of surface
from a large geographical area hundreds
"of miles to a new location is possible. A major
"geological event.,
11-2
"
common
irregular.
than is,
in fact,
horizontal
scale
If the vertical to
distortion
10 times)' is eliminated,
(typically
the actual
walls,
form of the
flat
slides,
slope
becomes
steeper
and mare
and
similar
shelf
features
than on
or plain areas.
the more
Many small-scale
Translational Slides
Translational
about
as
such as depicted by
11.2.3
are of rotational
Flow Slides
mechanisms,
such
take place.
as
Many
earthquakes
cantly
and
other
translational
slow
creep
planar
mode.
Also,
movements
surfaces
where
probably
associated
they
take
with
strength
latter.
attributed
slides
is
example
shown
Figure 11.2-2.
of
multiple
the
seismic
Rotational
slides
by
shearing or srane
that
lead
to
such
strength
is
Sensitivity
to clays,
a property generally
while high potential for
of
Rotational Slides
tional.
The
Soil liquefaction
consequence
reductions are high sensitivity and susceptibility to strength reduction under cyclic loading.
on
anomaly.
*
characteristics
occur,
place
as
process.
rotational
profile
become
Figure 11.2-3.
on
Frequently,
the
flow slide
is
more
O%"
3.9
%"
Figure 11.2-1.
11-3
33 46.3'E
1013
33 39.0'E
sec
33
km
53.11E
13?
_______________
42.3'N-_---
31
.0
37.7'N
4.SN31
31
330 46 5E
-1----
~~
.-
M~7- -j-?f7%
I
2
2:1
-ft
O&P
.-;r- -
30
VA 10xl.1
3 4
5kimeIters
*-600
1.0-
sslide
Oxfoce-
(2)
nated.
tural
in
the
stability
assessment
of
(3)
loads.*
currents,
Defining
is
not easy.
Each
design) is
Turbidity Currents
and the
L
A turbidity current is a very fluid sedior sediment-laden
struc-
increment
ment
(4)
load
region.
11.2.4
and
the
movement
earthquakes,
by
conservative
selection
of
forces
that
promote instability.
11.3.2
ence 11-4.
For slope
It
in Refer-
stability assessmenit,
In some
to natural processes
is
desired,
or anchoring
activities
is
likely to increase
the risk.
Evaluating the risk of inducing a
slope failure can be treated as part of the
11.3
LOADING
11.3.1
Loading Mechanisms
application
variables is
be evaluated.
of offshore sediment is
an
influence
Knowledge
Instability
increment of external
of
probabilistic
evaluation. is often necessary; these are discussed below and explained more thoroughly in
for
of gravity on the
sediment mass.
of
load
and
unlikely to be large.
TD make up
resistance
soil
'illustrates
simple
case
can
be
Figure 11.3-1(a)
in
which
all
the
wise,
plished with
their
high-resolution
seismic profiles.
also required,,
'
another
all
possible
probable
curve
levels of
occurrence
as
shown
are
in
Like-
resis'ance
and
combined
into
Figure
1.3-1(b).
Figure 11.3-1(c)
if
tlonship between loads and resistance probabilities and shows that loading may exceed resis-
Chapters 2 and 3
four. dominate
illustrates
tance and
as the
initiators
of
that failure,
comon
in this cas
Failure
sources
of
""Man-made"
external
loads
are:
(1) waves,
can
occur
even
is
though
believed
11,5
a slope
rela-
'a
to
overlap.
ufficient
ave
been.
P(L)
P(R)
Load level - L
(a) Loading probabilities
Figure 11'.3-1. Probabilistic description of loading and resistance and risk assessment in
slope stability evaluation.
The
methods
for
combining
the
separate
In evaluating
the
hazard
instability of marine
for
of
between
the
relationship
risk
and 11-6.
considered,
techniques
usually
involve
so that the
the
external
a'ssociated with
sediments,
analysis.
When
it
is
one of
these
factors is
be defined is
1am.
Frequently,
the
amount
of
information
so limited that
limit
a, rigorous
'This may
probabilistic
anal-
facility
In many
exposure period.
A probabilistic description of
Sources
of
earthquake
data,
for
as input.
It
lem's
is common for one or two of the probmajor variables to have a much greater
uncertainty
than the
other variables.
dominated
factors.
by, the
For
Influence
example,
weight
as
of
of
particular
earthquake
load
General
Data
and engineering
parameters
required
Methods
determine
the
properties
is
discussed
in
Chapter 3.
An alterna-
the dominant
11.4.1
the voluie
of one or two
sediment
11.4
Conse-
variable dictates
the
11.4.2
Special Conditions:
Underconsolidated
Sediments
deterministic
analysis considering
-~:.1;.,
consolidated
normally
soils at
(Ref 11-7]
are
of
presence
rapid
in
bubbles
gas
the
sediment
or
unusually
an
shearing resistance.
anchorages
and
content
water
Softening of
undrained
low
the
draining into
the
its
increasing
by
caused
soil,
the
pressures
water
loading.
mass
soil
pore
negative
An underconsolidatea cqndi-
(bubble-phase gas).
or
dynamic loadings.
the
and
sedimentation
repetitive
from
condition
underconsolidated
an
loss
strength
experience
instability problems.
produce
in particular--can also
same
the
It
tions.
but determining
installa-
in permanent or 'long-term
be
also
may
for slope
problem
stability.
cores
or
measurements
in-situ
LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
11.5
because a
It
lower
tinctly
acoustic
associated
velocities
common
to
use
simpler
analytical
of this gas.
is
for
reasons
this
practice
Two major
the
are:
relative
of Sediments
Response
is
an
since
important
of a
aspect
Waves
loading.
scenarios
and
storm-caused
sediment
is
involve dynamic
two
of
the
When
are
shown
used.,
ship
movements
ultimately
involve
rotational
components,
as,
including
finite
element
analysis,
suc'h as
may be useful
in
the
slumps
resisted by anchors).
usually sufficient
loading mechanisms,
marine
earthquakes,
many offshore
(e.g.,
As a consequence, the
Most
soft
marine
application in assessing
silts,
An
SITE INVESTIGATION
11.6
loss of
11.6.1
General
Although silts.
this
lead
are discussed
to bottom
in Chapter 2.
information
site
survey
cusses
11-7
gathered
*1
offshore
in
relation
lat '
to
techniques
for
stabilized
minimize
been developed,
sonar.
used
equipmnt
surveys,
for offshore
and the
present time,
will
land survey,
conventional
of
At the
ends
cant
will
and
the extremes
to
side-scan
methods
ignore
for
A detailed examination
disclose
often
the
Therefore,
causative
definition
slope
stability
assessment.
large they cannot be easily or accurately identified 'using conventional sensors and line
The solution to this problem is to
spacing.
insure that sufficient data are gathered over a
(3)
of
part
Some
(2)
platform
ate:
More detailed information about the
internal structure and stratigraphy in
t'e sediment mass through the use of
seismic
profiling.
high-resolution
analytical
commonly geneer-
(1)
record,
compared to a
an offshore survey,
the
some
identification
in
sensor
corrected
noise
Although
in geophysical
and
Preliminary Studies
11.6.2
Site investigation methods used for 'siope
stability assessment must be capable of detecting small,
as well
subsurface
features.
that
are
important
location
are too
identified
using
as very
large,
However,
or 'too
notmal
these
frequencies
or
features
include:
higher
resolution
a' particular
be
equipment,
large area)
shallow to
seismic
features
some
in evaluating
small
surface and
from
alternative
sensors,
A
mapped
11i8
,.
areas
of
specifically/
identify
slumping
or
'I
other stability
done,
hazards.
Where
offshore
study
petroleum
of
development,
Mississippi
11-12).
As
offshore
sediment
collection
Delta
such
as
mudslides
the
[Ref
a consequence,
and
the assessment of
instability usually requires
interpretation
controls
on
navigation.
accuracy is
gation
velocities
ments.
The
vertical
scale
Unfortunately,
each study.
11.6.3
Acoustic Surveys
sonar
regional
acoustic
survey
Section 2.3.
This
section
methods
for
mination
in Chapter 2,
discusses
seismic
of
soil
acoustic properties
What
an
individual
from a high-resolution
respect
nition
to
their
role
in
assessing
slope
stability.
11.6.3.1
Seismic Profiling.
the broad-band
In
general,
systems,
is
dis-
able
interpret
to
seismic record
depends
For
example,
bottom and relat
in
*ly
cies)
surface
3.5-kHz
systems,
shallow
boomers,
give
depth of penetration.
The
profile
reflectors.
and
In
On Figure 11.6-1(b),
interpretation
of
high-resolution
only
be
identified
because
of the
very high-
and experienced
apparent
characteristic
through
to discern
features,
which
behavior
individual
real
often
of
layers.
wave
features from
result
from
propagation
Features
indicated
other
layers
or
hyperbolic
feature completely.
tllus-
trate the high value of careful seismic profilIng in identifying slope failure features.
tool
is
powerful
in
evaluating potential
This
for
slope Instability.
shapes.
Assuming
that
a seismic
record
has been
or
receiver
Is
supported on the
sea surface,
the record.
vertical
10 times.
exaggeration
of
approximately
S~~11.g
movement
electronic
of
the
towed
processing
equipment
of
during
th, signal.
the
These
""
14-1Soometers-*
so
0
40
30
20
10
0
V.E.x 10.1
0-
P7p
3 kilometera
'
~ e'* ~
E~ ~ .
11'i
l*0
!~
~'D~
_
V~*7
-30O0
OS5-
slides
sli&e surface
Figure 11.6-1. Examples of high resolution seismic records of s'lides caused by slope instability.
11-10
equipment
features
conditions
have
(1)
(2)
Where sediments
are not uniform,
high-resolution seismic records can be
used to define surface outcrops of the
same soil layer that exists along the
failure surfaces buried deep with the
slide mass itself.
These surface
outcrops are sampled by a gravity
corer.
Samples from these cores are
tested at the state of stress estimated for the inaccessible material
along the failure surface. These test
results are then assumed to apply also
to the inaccessible failure surface.
use.
"11.6.3.2
Side-Scan Sonar.
Side-scan sonar
have recently become very popular for
hresolution
systems
assessment
hazardous
(Chapter 2)
S.
high-resolution
seismic
sensors
that
have
for
sampling.
a record
"from
11.6.4
Sampling of Sediments
of
seafloor
describes
shallow
required
to recovejr
cost
and
,e:;"
the
is
Chapter 2
deep
equipment
tively short cores is used to define the engineering properties for analysis of this slide
coring'
soil samples.
Because the
of
sediment
mass,
stability.
corer penetration
is
mass.
slide
surface
is developed
slope margin
slide area. Because the depth of core penetration is much less than the thickness of the
Figure 11.6-2(a)
of a continental
A.
signifi-
cantly less.
Most submarine slides extend to
much greater depths than this.
Therefore, the
S~to cannot provide specimens
gravity corers
from
C.
1111
The
upper
part
of
the
slide
mass,
---
------- ----
--
--- crest
1"
(a
iw
b Pa ve
eros
"
i0
fault
"
lower
part
of
the
intact
slide
offshore slope stability and slump hazard potential are presented as follows:
moss
E.
The debris
slide.
Tests
run
on
fan
that
flowed
from
the
(1)
these
five
cores
provide
insight
"of aisturbance on
These data provided
S
"
TrshSurvey
A
Level I Survey
(described
Table 11.7-1)
is based on use
remotely obtained
data only.
sampling or testing of sediments
done.
The basis of the investigation
is definition of previous sliding and
existing morphology associated with
sediment instability by pattern recognition in survey data.
The Level I
may be appropriate for causeways,
anchors,
and pipelines,
or
where the
short-lifetime
installations
time
installa
whre the
to identify engineering properties at the failure isurface and allow more accurate identifica-
time
tion of soil
in
of
No
is
and
cost -of
a -more
detailed
surface.
In a majority of slides, ' shallow cores
obtained by gravity-piston corers can provide
(2)
A
Level 1 jSurvey
(described
in
Table 11.7-2) includes use of remotely
obtained
data
plus
gravity-piston
coring.
Shipboard
and
shoreside
laboratory measurement of sediment
properties from core samples provides
values for quantitative analysis of
The Level II Survey
bottom stability.
is intended fo- siting of more important facilities, such as those where
failure threatens life, loss of very
expensive equipment, or loss of a
better
critical
deposits are too complex to be evaluated adequately by such simplified and relatively inexpensive methods.
In these cases,
evaluated)
rises
sharply
more
capability
when
needed.
extensive analysis.
in
*
11.7
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
investigations.
"conducting
i
site
investigation
to
evaluate
-11-12
Table 11.7-1.
Operation
1. Collect all
existing data
"2.
Comments
Bathymetric maps can be used to establish a base for the survey.
ipate conditions which might occur.
2.Seismic
survey
a. Extent
b. Spacing
c. Instruments
"3.
Interpretation
of seismic
"data
Survey should cover the entire area of anticipated project and extend a minimum of 112 mile beyond
the project limits for a large area of interest. Other information, especially bathymetry, is considered to extend limits beyond the minimum.
If suspect bottor. features are encountered, the project
limits should be extended to define these areas.
Surveys should be run on an intersecting grid of lines. Strike (along the contour) and dip (perpendicular to contours) lines should be run to the degree possible. Line spacing depends on project
size and scale of potential slide features; 100 meters would be a typical maximum. Navigation
Both narrow-band (3.5 kHz) and broad-band (sparker or'boooer) systems should be used if possible.
If
only one is used, the 3.5 is preferred in shallow water and the high energy sparker or boomer in deep
water. Side-scan sonar is recommended as an additional sensor on all surveys to better define small
surface features.
Interpretation of seismic data should concentrate on recognizing features which are associated with
previous sliding and on existing morphology associated with sediment instability.
If natural
instability is a potential problem, slopes will have failed in the past. The following features
should be identified.
(a) Offset reflectors [Figure 11.7-1(a)]. A primary indicator of submarine slides is offset bedding
or reflectors; a similar feature also of concern is "offset along a fault:" Bubble-phase gas (d)
may appear similar to an offset. Depositional features (i) may also show an intersection between
their internal reflectors and the original surface upon which deposition occurred. Such contact is
usually not as sharp as for offset reflectors.
(b) Surface to
ra
[Figure 11.7-1(b)].
Some surface irregularity is usually associated with a'
slide, and
ld show on any of the acoustic sensors but may be more distinct on the lower energy
12 kiz or 3.5 kHz.
Breaks in surface topography often coincide with offset reflectors unless the
slide is a relic and has been covered by subsequent sedimentation. Side-scan sonar data can confirm
the surface topographic feature and extend the definition of the break on either side of the seismic
profile transect.
-d
"-.
"upon,
(g)
e2!sst2! survy.
If the interpretation of a seismic survey shows an ilportant feature
the survey limits or if debris deposits are made which ca from a source
area not covered by the survey, the survey should be extended.
A Level I Survey is intended as an expeditious examination of a site (justified by economics and
saving of time), but some problems cannot be adequately evaluated using only the Level I survey data.
The following are likely to be of this type: heavy loads placed on the sediment, excavations,
dynamic loading. and scour. To evaluate most of these problem requires analysis that Includes
relatively accurate values of sediment shear resistance. If strength values can reasonably be
assumed, the analysis procedures described for the Level 11 Survey (Operation 6) can be applied.
One other special problem is the possibilit, of slide features which are very much larger or much
smaller than the extent or scale of the seismic survey used (Section 11.1), which must always be
considered possible.
"whichieteds outside
4.
Special
problems
11-13
.9o
Table 11.7-2.
Operation
Comments
1. Collect all
existing data
2. Seismic survey
Same as Level I.
3.
Same as Level 1.
Interpretation
of seismic data
4. Sediment sampling
a. Extent
In addition to the requirements for a Level I survey, this survey should include use of side-sca"
sonar to develop a complete surface mosaic over the area of interest. Both narrow-band and broadband seismic systems are required. A depth compensated seismic system (Section 11.6.3.1) is
recomended whenever surveys are done in rough seas.
Sediment sampling should be defined through item 3 above. As a minimum, one sample should be
obtained from each identifiable sedimentary unit within the study area if accessible to shallow
samlers. For any slide or suspected slide area, minimum sediment samples would be obtained from
areas:
b.
Type of
sampling
5. Sediment testing
a. Shipboard
b. On-shore
laboratory
to define (1)the effective stress strength parameters c' and # and (2) the rate of strength increase
with increasing
6. Analysis
7. Safety
seafloor depth. Other tests which may be important in specific cases include
consolidation-compression tests and dynamic or cyclic loading itrength tests.
The following basic identification tests should also be done on every distinct sediment unit
and at a maximua spacing of 1 meter:
e water content (compare with shipboard measurement as an indication of post-sampling disturbance)
a liquid limit
* plastic limit
* grain size distribution
grain specific gravity (less frequent interval)
Specific stability analysis should be done for:
a slide features identified from the seismic survey data
a staep slopes or'other potential slide areas
* seafloor areas which will be supporting an applied load or subjected to excavation or scour due
to planned operations
The following need to be determined for these stability analyses:
a Topograpiy and stratigraphy of the study area (data from seismic survey, corrected to true
scale, provide this Information).
a Engineering properties for each distinct sediment unit (data from~sedlment testing program will'
provide this information).
a Shear strength relationship for the sediment units on the potential failure surfaces.
External loading which -isappropriate for th lifetime of the facility (Section 11.3).
E
0 Appropriate analysis method selected for the evaluation (Section 11.5).
Shear strength can be defined using either a shear strength profile or a set of strength paramters
(c, *) for each-sediment unit. Where data from shipboard measurements do not extend deep enough into
the sediment to profile, the parameters must be estimated from empirical correlations or triaxial
testing. The method of analysis used depends on the assumed shape of the failure surface and
mechanism of loading. Analysis may be necessary which assures that the sediment resistance will
involve no excess port pressures or the amount of excess pore pressure can be estimated. The following are stability analyses, that are commonly performed with 'a reference to where further explanation
may be found:
static analysis, translation - infinite slope equations [Ref 11-2]
e static wave analysis, rotation [Ref 11-16]
e wave loading [Ref 11-17]
oarthqua;e loading [Ref 11-2, 11-18]
An acceptable level of safety fcr slope stability of an offshore sediment deposit Is not easily
defined. A factor of safety based on the relationship of forces driving a slide and the resistance
mobilized by the soil can be established. However, so many assumptions are made on both driving and
resisting forces that the accuracy of the factor is questionable. Aprobabilistic analysis may provida better' insight Into the actual safety involved in a slope but this also requires detailed analysis. A proper evaluation should be made with slightly conservative, but consistent, essumtions
for all forces.
In any case, quantitative analysis of an offshore sediment stability problem must be
recognized as approximate and imperfect.
11%14
ce
%:%
"
'-,'
-b
acuustic void
(d) Bubble-phase gas
11.8
REFERENCES
11-1.
AlW
R.L.
11-5.
Schuster (ed.).
Landsi,des:
Anal-
Research
Board.
11-6.
J.R. Benjamin
ability,
11-2.
engineers.
Co., 1970.
Morgenstern.
"Submarine
slUmping
Ill.,
University
of
Illinois
Press,
1967, pp 189-220.
Landslides
11-3. O.J. Varnes.
Slope movement types and processes,
tion Research Board,
"'1978 pp 11-33.
Special
Chapter 2:
Transporta-
Report
No.
176.
statistics,
New
York,
Sangrey.
D.A.
fth
at"
and
, r,,11.15,
1973.
and
C.A. Cornell.
decision
N.Y.,
for
McGraw-Hill
'Marine
Probcivil
Book
geotechnology2,hrs
vol 2,
and B.F.
Clukey,
E.C.
Sangrey,
11-8. D.A.
Molnia.
"Geotechnical engineering analysis of
underconsolidated
sediments
from
Alaska,"
Eleventh
Offshore
Technology
Conference,
1979,
pp 677-682.
Turbidity
deep
water sedimentation,
Society
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
mAngeles, Calif.,
and
New York,
Transportation
1978.
N.R.
Probability concepts
of
11-9.'
Los
sands,
silts,
"Cyclic
loading of
on Earth-
quake
Engineering
and
Soil
Dynamics,
vol 2,
1978, pp 836-851.
11-15.
B.8.
grating
angle
11-10.
H.B.
Seed.
faction effects
on
"Evaluation
of soil lique-
retrogressive
subaqueous
Marine
landslfdes
slopes,"
Geotechnology,
"Disinte-
on very-low-
Mississipi
vol 3,,
no. 1,
Delta,
1978,
pp 37-60.
"*
B.C.
currents
Banks
1979,
Heezen
and
M. Ewing.
and, submarine
earthquake,"
Engineers,
p. 201.
slumps
American
"Turbidity
and the
Journal
11-16.
"The
slip sur-
faces,"
Geotechnique,
pp 79-93.
1,
yol 15,
no.
1965,
-'-,
Grand
Science,
pp 849-873.
11-17.
D.J. Henkel.
causing
submarine
"The
role
landslides,"
of
waves
in
Geotechnique,
11-18.
of
Bureau of Land
slope
instability in
Tenth
1978, p. 2307.
11-13.
La.,
in seismic
tion
New Orleans,
interpretation,
Geophysicists,
1980.
Series,
E.L. Hamilton.
"Prediction of
Conference,
vol 4,
11.9
SYMBOLS
vol 2.
1973.
11-14.
Technology
Pitfalls
Society of Explora-
i4onograph
Offshore
"Quantitative study
in situ
ments,"
Geophysics,
vol 36,
1971,
pp 266-284.
,'.
o. .
7*
_________________________..____
1,.1.
FILMED
DTIC