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

net/publication/281104304

Deterministic and probabilistic advances in the analysis of

spudcan behaviour

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.1201/b18442-11

CITATIONS READS

5 314

5 authors, including:

Mark Cassidy Jinhui Lisa Li

University of Western Australia Harbin Institute of Technology
177 PUBLICATIONS   2,289 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   421 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pan Hu Marco Uzielli

University of Western Australia Georisk Engineering S.r.l.
18 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   537 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pile Reliability JIP View project

Feasibility study on manganese nodules recovery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinhui Lisa Li on 20 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III – Meyer (Ed.)
© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7

Deterministic and probabilistic advances in the analysis

of spudcan behaviour

M. Cassidy, J. Li & P. Hu
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems and ARC CoE for Geotechnical Science
and Engineering, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

M. Uzielli
Georisk Engineering S.r.l., Florence, Italy

S. Lacasse
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT: This paper presents recent advances in the prediction of the installation of jack-up platforms.
New analytical models for spudcan installations in clays, sand-over-clay and stiff-over-soft clays are reviewed
and compared to the existing methods in the recently released ISO 19905-1 standard. The ability of each to
retrospectively simulate databases of field and centrifuge model tests are summarised and conclusions are
drawn on whether or not modifications to the ISO document are warranted. The paper also demonstrates how
deterministic approaches commonly used in jack-up assessment can be transformed into and completed by
probabilistic predictions. Prior predictions of jack-up installations can be improved with the use of model factors
obtained from existing field records or model tests. Curves of jack-up installation pressure versus depth can be
written as probability of exceedance curves, thus providing the engineer with information on how the installation
curve may develop. A Bayesian updating technique is introduced and provides a reliable and consistent framework
to update installation predictions with monitored information. This technique is then applied to predict punch-
through potential in layered soils. Hypothetical examples demonstrate how updated quantitative information can
benefit industry in guiding decisions during offshore jack-up installations. The authors hope that the introduction
of the probabilistic approaches, although less mature than the deterministic ones, will provoke discussion and
suggest a path forward for the jack-up industry.

1 INTRODUCTION

Mobile jack-up platforms remain a key contributor

to the development of offshore oil and gas reservoirs
through their ability to self-install and then drill in
moderate water depths. Modern jack-ups, such as the
Keppel FELS B class, consist of a buoyant triangular
hull, three independent truss-work legs of approxi-
mately 170 m in length and inverted conical spudcan
footings of approximately 20 m in diameter (Figure 1).
More recently, the same jack-up concept has been
extended to purpose-built vessels for the installation
of offshore wind farms.
A jack-up is self-installed by lifting the hull from
the water and pushing the large spudcans into the
seabed. On location, the legs are lowered to the seabed,
where they continue to be jacked until adequate bear-
ing capacity is achieved for the hull to be lifted clear
of the water.
Figure 2 illustrates the installation process schemat-
ically. The spudcan foundations are pre-loaded by Figure 1. Photograph of two jack-ups (courtesy of Keppel
pumping sea-water into ballast tanks in the hull. This Offshore and Marine).

183

Figure 2. Schematic of jack-up installation process (after
Dean 2010).
Figure 3. Definition of punch-through failure.
proof tests the foundations by exposing them to a
higher vertical load than would be expected during ser-
vice. The ballast tanks are emptied before operations
on the jack-up begin.
The installation and preloading process for jack-
ups is complex, with uncertainties in soil layering,
soil strength, structure, behaviour, the measured load
applied and the current installation depth. Even in
relatively uniform soils, accurate predictions of the
installation and bearing capacity are essential. For
instance, in softer clay soils, reassurance that the spud-
cans will not penetrate past the available leg length
is required. Installation in layered soils is particularly
hazardous, with the potential for a spudcan punching-
through a locally stronger soil into an underlying
weaker material (as illustrated in Figure 3). Punch-
through failures result in rig damage, such as buckling
of the legs and lost drilling time, and may even cause
temporary loss of serviceability of a rig with major
financial implications.
To reduce the occurrence of failure incidents, it is
critical to ensure that the applied preload does not
184
exceed the load required for the spudcan to punch-
through. This has been difficult to achieve in practice
as a result of (i) scarce and possibly inadequate site-
investigation data (i.e., significant uncertainty in layer
location and thickness and in soil properties), (ii)
deficiencies in prediction methods (current guidelines
being based on incorrect failure mechanisms), and (iii)
the use of a deterministic model that does not account
for the different uncertainties. A reliability assessment
provides a framework that includes the uncertainties in
the analysis.
The paper has two main objectives: (1) present
recent advances in the prediction of the installation
of jack-up platforms, with focus on whether or not
new analytical models provide more reliable predic-
tions than the existing ISO 19905-1 standard (ISO
2012); and (2) show how the deterministic approaches
commonly used in jack-up assessment can be trans-
formed into and completed by probabilistic predic-
tions. The probabilistic approach is less mature than
the deterministic ones, but the authors hope to provoke
discussion and suggest a way forward.
The paper concentrates on jack-up installations and
specifically where modifications to the ISO docu-
ment may be possible. The authors discuss how the
deterministic and probabilistic advances can benefit
industry, provide useful and quantitative information
and guide decisions made during offshore jack-up
installations.
After a short overview of the recent standards and
guidelines, the statistical analyses and Bayes’ theorem
used in the paper are briefly reviewed. The approaches
are introduced in order of increasingly complexity and
are progressively applied to clay, sand-over-clay and
then stiff clay-over-clay profiles in Sections 5 to 7
respectively. In each section, the current ISO guide-
line and possible improvements from recent research
are presented, together with a summary of the predic-
tive capabilities of the guidelines for field or centrifuge
experiments. For the three soil profiles, a probabilistic
application is illustrated and discussed.
2 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Before a jack-up can operate at a location, a site-
specific assessment of its installation, operation
and subsequent extraction must be completed. Site-
specific assessments of jack-up installations typically
follow the recently released International Standards
Organisation document ISO 19905-1 (ISO 2012).
The document SNAME TR5-5A Revision 2 (SNAME
2008) was used as the starting point for the draft-
ing of the ISO standard. The geotechnical assessment
approach was revised and updated with the results
of industrial and academic research. The guidelines
are deterministic and provide no guidance on using
probabilistic methods.
Additional guidance for spudcan installation is
provided in the InSafe JIP (Joint-Industry Project)
guidelines (Osborne et al. 2009, 2010): 146 field
installations were collated and a subset used to cali-
brate predictive analysis methods. Preliminary InSafe
guidelines on the use of statistical methods were
provided, including:
• the statistical derivation of best-estimate strength
profiles from multiple data sources (see also Bienen
et al. 2010),
• the interpretation of single-layer design methods
with field data, with exceedance percentile curves
to illustrate variability in the predicted values,
• a Monte Carlo simulation method to do installation
predictions (see also Houlsby 2010), and
• guidance on interpreting monitored data against the
statistical results (see also Houlsby 2010).

Even though such probabilistic methods have been

outlined, there is little evidence of their use in practice,
and further development, verification and champi-
oning of their use is required.

3 INTRODUCTION TO PROBABILISTIC
METHODS

3.1 Current approach and InSafe

recommendations
Before a jack-up installation and preload, engineers
prepare a load-penetration curve to assess if the oper-
ations will be safe. It is well acknowledged that there
is considerable uncertainty in this prediction. These
include uncertainties in
• measuring and deriving the properties of the soils
(predominantly, but not limited to, strength);
• locations of layer boundaries;
• variation in properties across the site; and
• the application of the predictive model. Figure 4. Current methodology with soil strength estimates.

Furthermore, there are measurement uncertainties • No modelling (or transformational) uncertainty

(e.g. vertical load, depth) when comparing the mon-
itored data from the installation against the prior
prediction curve.
As highlighted in the InSafe JIP (Osborne et al.
2009, 2010) common practice in installation predic-
tion is to find a “best estimate” of the soil strength
properties and do a deterministic analysis (e.g. ISO,
SNAME) to produce a “best estimate” of the load
penetration curve. This methodology is schematically
shown in Figure 4.
Knowing that there are uncertainties in this pre-
diction, engineers use a “lower estimate” and “upper
estimate” to complement their best prediction (Figure
4b). This is most often produced in an ad-hoc fash-
ion, usually with lower and upper bound soil strength
properties (Figure 4a). For complex layering, differ-
ent analysis methods may be used to produce the
estimates. Problems with this methodology include:
• The lower and upper estimates of strength are not
statistically derived but rather judgment of outliers
of soil data;
within the models is accounted for, and only soil
strengths can incorporate variability;
• There is no use of empirical or historical records to
calibrate uncertainties.
Often the best estimate is calculated as the statistical
average of all the different soil characterization tests,
following methods advocated by Lacasse et al. (2007),
amongst others, and detailed in DNV (2012). These
are discussed further in Section 4. Lower and upper
estimates of strength often reflect judgment. The sig-
nificant uncertainty in the site investigation data used
to predict the load-displacement installation of jack-
up units was discussed in Bienen et al. (2010), who
provide a statistical interpretation of 14 cases of off-
shore data collated as part of the InSafe Joint Industry
Project.
Using the same InSafe database, Houlsby (2010)
outlined a Monte-Carlo approach to account for the
variability in soil conditions, geometry, calculation
and observation uncertainties, and suggested proba-
bilistic percentile curves of the installation load and

185

Figure 5. Probability of exceedance plots (method recom-
mended in InSafe JIP and discussed in Houlsby 2010).
Table 1. Observed response and suggested action (a sub-
group of the full table after Osborne et al. 2010 and Houlsby
2010).
displacement. The engineer estimates the uncertain-
ties and probabilistic distribution of all the parameters
and factors in the predictive model and does a Monte-
Carlo simulation of the installation curves. These can
be sorted into exceedance percentile curves relative to
the mean, as illustrated in Figure 5. These percentile
curves reflect the uncertainty in the predictions.
This method is included in the InSafe guidelines
(2010). No guidance on appropriate assumptions of
uncertainty is given. Model uncertainty could be
included but determining the bias and standard devia-
tion is difficult.
The InSafe JIP and Houlsby (2010) do introduce a
rationale for comparing monitored data recorded dur-
ing the installation process against the probabilistic
curves. It is argued that this could guide decisions
when a monitored event diverges from the original
deterministic and/or probabilistic predictions. Cate-
gories of response to monitored behavior were pro-
vided, with a subgroup shown in Table 1. These only
186
provide a qualitative assessment, and often only with
advice on what could improve the predictive models
retrospectively. The initial predictions are not updated
with the new information from the monitored data. To
do so would be a significant improvement, providing
more reliability for jack-up installation.
3.2 Use of Bayes’ theorem to update predictions
Bayes’ Theorem provides a theoretical framework to
allow updating of the load-penetration prediction with
monitored data. This can be done in real-time or in
retrospective to improve the predictive models. Quan-
titative probability of punch-through occurrence, for
instance, could be continuously updated. Potentially,
the results of updating could suggest a riskier project
than expected and warrant halting operations.
Bayes’ theorem relates current probability to prior
probability with the help of new (or additional) infor-
mation. Bayes’ theorem is the essential means of
changing one’s opinion in the light of new evidence.
Mathematically it is expressed as:
It converts the prior assessment P(A) into the so-
called posterior assessment P(A|B), where A is the
prior (i.e. the predicted bearing pressure) and B is the
observation (i.e. the monitored data). P(A) and P(B)
are the probabilities of occurrence of A and B, and
P(A|B), called the conditional probability, is the prob-
ability of A given that B is true. It is natural that one
should be prepared and willing to alter one’s opinion
in the light of new facts, and Bayes’ theorem tells us
how to do it.
In the paper, Bayesian updating will be used to
investigate whether a peak punch-through pressure
will occur (qpeak , Figure 3) before the installation
preload pressure is reached (qpreload ). In this paper,
a very loose definition of punch-through is used: it
solely defines if a peak capacity will form, followed
by a reduction in bearing pressure, but it gives no
judgment of the consequence post-peak. However, a
formulation to probabilistically define the likelihood
of qpeak occurring and the depth dpeak where peak
bearing pressure occurs (see Figure 3) are derived.
One can illustrate the prediction of the punch-
through pressure at depth dpeak before installation,
with its uncertainty, with a series of two-dimensional
contours. The prior prediction, done before installa-
tion, is illustrated in Figure 6. The probability that
punch-through will occur before preload is reached
can be evaluated by summing all the cases where
qpeak ≤ qpreload (the portion left of qpreload in Figure 6).
Figure 6 illustrates the updating of the prior
prediction with the help of monitoring data. To
achieve this, a probabilistic model describing the load-
displacement paths leading to a punch-through event
is needed.

Figure 6. Prior probability predictions of punch-through.
Figure 7. Bayesian updating of punch-through from moni-
toring.
• In Figure 7a, the monitored data lie above the a
priori predicted pressure-displacement curve and
suggest higher bearing pressure and shallower depth
than initially predicted. The probability of punch-
through related to qpreload is lower than in Figure 6.
• In Figure 7b, the monitored data show higher pen-
etrations at lower bearing pressure, the updated
contours of punch-through probability will give
lower pressure and larger penetrations than initially
predicted. The probability of punch-through related
to qpreload is significantly higher than in Figure 6.
In this paper, the probabilistic approach is used
to study several aspects: probabilistic representa-
tion of the bearing pressure vs depth curve for the
sand-over-clay case; probabilistic representation of the
187
bearing pressure vs depth curve for the stiff-over-soft
clay case; Bayesian updating of the bearing pres-
sure vs depth curve with monitored data for a series
of hypothetical examples; and the calculation of the
probability of exceeding a target preload.
4 INTERPRETING SOIL DATA
STATISTICALLY
Statistical methods used in the interpretation of site
investigation data are discussed in this section. Only a
few aspects are presented. A more complete treatment
can be found in e.g. Baecher and Christian (2003) and
Ang and Tang (1975, 1984, 2007).
4.1 Determining layer boundaries
Locations of layer boundaries are often identified by
eye, with engineers using their judgment and experi-
ence. This process, although appropriate, usually will
introduce additional uncertainties. Methods to identify
layer boundaries using statistical methods help reduce
the uncertainty. Examples include:
• Lacasse and Nadim (1996) proposed a geostatistical
analysis with three-dimensional graphical represen-
tation of cone resistance. This allows the engineer
to adjust the originally assumed position of the clay
layers.
• Houlsby and Houlsby (2013) developed an unbiased
fitting of strength profiles to undrained strength
data using Bayesian inference techniques. The nov-
elty of this approach is that, instead of determining
boundaries between soil layers a priori, the approach
automatically deduced both the number of layers
and the position of the boundaries. Further, in setting
the prior it is possible to incorporate expert knowl-
edge and information derived from other datasets
into the determination of soil layers and proper-
ties. An example is provided in Figure 8. For the
same undrained strength with depth data, a two-
layer and four-layer profile were fit to the data and
updated based on an assumed prior. The statistical
method also allows the calculation of a posterior
probability of the most probable number of layers
(Fig. 8c). This can be extremely useful to increase
confidence in the layering. For the example shown
in Figure 8, the most likely number of layers was
two, followed closely by three. Fewer and more than
two or three layers was unlikely. The difference in
the soil profiles between two and four is shown in
Figure 8.
4.2 Fitting of the undrained shear strength data
Uncertainties arise when the geotechnical data (e.g.
undrained shear strength) show significant scatter.
Although the distributions can be described to follow a
probability distribution function, it is more usual to use
“best estimates” and “lower” and “upper estimates”
for jack-up assessments, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 8. Predicted soil layering using (a) Two-layer model;
(b) Four-layer model; and (c) Marginal posterior over the
number of layers (after Houlsby & Houlsby 2013).
In geotechnical design, the characteristic values for
design are often assumed as either:
• the mean value;
• a low quantile in the probability distribution;
188
• the mean value minus two standard deviations;
• or the most probable value (modal).
Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV 2012) prepared a
detailed treatment of the statistical representation of
soil data. In particular, DNV (2012) proposed a method
to estimate parameters for dependent soil variables,
such as an undrained shear strength (su ) that linearly
increasing with soil depth (z):
with su0 being the strength intercept at the soil sur-
face and k the shear strength gradient with depth from
the soil surface. ε represents the natural variability
of su about the mean. The parameters su0 and k are
evaluated as:
where sui are the observations of undrained shear
strength at depth of zi ; z̄ and s̄u are the mean values of
depth and undrained shear strength, respectively.
When the characteristic value is estimated with a
confidence interval, DNV (2012) described the calcu-
lation of the lower and upper bound of a characteristic
value (i.e. the values at 5% quantile). If the character-
istic value is defined as the mean, the range of values
in which the true but unknown mean value lies with
confidence of 1-α is:
where x̄ and s are the estimated mean and standard
deviation, respectively. tn−1 (α/2) is the value of the t-
distributed variant at the probability of (1 − α) with
(n − 1) degrees of freedom.
For jack-up design, the InSafe JIP and Bienen
et al. (2010) looked into the statistical description of
the undrained shear strength as determined from UU
(unconsolidated undrained) tests, a number of strength
index tests (à la pocket penetrometer, miniature vane,
torvane and motor vane) and the piezocone tests. The
variation in the measured data derived for each test-
ing method (and expressed as CoVs) is provided in
Table 2. More generally, Lacasse et al. (2013) sug-
gested a method to do the statistical reduction of cone
penetration data to help determine the soil layering.
The approach includes data screening, data sorting and
data filtering before obtaining the mean and standard
deviation of the cone resistance.
4.3 Spatial variability of a soil property
The estimations above are for one location without
considering the correlation between adjacent locations
Table 2. Coefficient of Variation (CoV) of undrained shear
strength derived from InSafe database (after Bienen et al.
2010).
Mean of CoV Range of CoV
Testing method (%) (%)
UU 20 3–37
Minature Vane 20 0–48
Moter Vane 12 3–18
Torvane 13 2–31
Pocket Penetrometer 19 4–44
CPT 23 2–41
CoV of measured undrained shear strength data within a layer
assumed to be homogenous
across the field. A critical statistical parameter that is
needed to describe inherent variability is the scale of
fluctuation (ISO-2394 2014).
Soils are by nature rarely homogeneous and the
properties may be strongly spatially correlated, in
either or both the horizontal and vertical direction. One
of the sources of uncertainties in soil properties is their
inherent spatial variability.
The spatial averaging is a concept with which spa-
tial variability of the soil property is averaged to
approximate a random variable that represents a soil
parameter (Vanmarcke 1977). A variance reduction
factor is derived in terms of a scale of fluctuation and
an averaging distance.
The scale of fluctuation, describing the random
field, defines the distances over which there is a signif-
icant correlation of the geotechnical parameter, while
the averaging distance is defined as the distance over
which a geotechnical property is averaged.
The estimation of the scale of fluctuation can be
found in, among others, Vanmarcke (1977, 1983),
Phoon and Kulhawy (1999) and Fenton and Griffith
(2008). Li et al. (2014) presented values for the scale
of fluctuation at the Ballina national field test facility
in Australia.
4.3.1 Interpolation by Kriging
An exact picture of the variation of a property within
a soil volume can not be obtained because there will
never be enough subsurface data, but it is possible with
spatial variability approaches to obtain the best unbi-
ased estimate of the properties by interpolation (see
also Lacasse and Nadim 1996). A stochastic interpo-
lation technique that is well suited for soils is Kriging,
which is also recommended by DNV (2012).
Kriging is a method of interpolation for which the
interpolated values are modeled by a Gaussian pro-
cess governed by covariances. Kriging gives the best
linear unbiased prediction of the interpolated values.
The basic idea of Kriging is to predict the value of
a function at a given point by computing a weighted
average of the known values of the function in the
neighborhood of the point.
Some of the first geotechnical applications were
presented by Nadim (1988) and Keaveny et al. (1990).
189
Li et al. (2015) present at this conference an application
example with cone penetration tests at the Laminaria
site, offshore Western Australia, with an interpolation
and reduction in variance from a limited number of
CPT and T-bar tests.
Kriging is useful to estimate and interpolate soil
properties (e.g. soil strength or depth to a weak layer)
across an entire site. The kriging approach can help
estimate the soil properties for the prediction of the
installation prediction bearing curve at locations where
there is little data, for example when a jack-up needs
to be relocated.
4.4 Selection of soil parameters for design
Lacasse et al. (2007) and DNV (2012) recommended
a principle for the definition of characteristic value.
For problems that are governed by a local soil
strength value (and where a conservative prediction
is required), a value representative of the low quantile
in the probability density function is often required.
For problems that involve large soil volumes the mean
value of the soil strength is often specified as the
characteristic value. This is because the local strength
variation can be assumed to be averaged during shear-
ing. The confidence bands chosen (say as lower and
upper estimates, Figure 4) should also reflect the
uncertainty and severity of consequences. The authors
believe that it is better to use statistical methods to cal-
culate these rather than to use ad hoc judgement based
on an observation of the scatter in the data set.
Consistent with this logic, the InSafe JIP recom-
mended using upper and lower estimates undrained
shear strength at ±1 times the standard deviation about
the mean for jack-up installation predictions. This fol-
lows the recommendation of Lacasse et al. (2007) to
use a ±0.5 standard deviation for designs that require
resistance over large volumes of soil (as a spudcan
does), and ±1 to 2 standard deviations for designs
based on less reliable test data.
If probability distributions are desired, normal dis-
tribution and lognormal distribution models are often
used. The normal distribution is typically used for vari-
ables derived as sums or averages of a large number of
independent quantities (e.g. strength). The lognormal
distribution is used for variables which come about
as non-negative products of a large number of inde-
pendent quantities (DNV 2012). Lacasse and Nadim
(1996) evaluated the probability distribution (PDF)
and the coefficient of variation (CoV) for several soil
properties evaluated from different tests (see Table 3).
5 JACK-UPS IN CLAYS
5.1 Current ISO recommendations
The calculation of the ultimate vertical bearing capac-
ity of a spudcan foundation in uniform clay soil is influ-
enced by (i) the geometry of the foundation; (ii) the
strength parameters of the soil, including its undrained
shear strength and its sensitivity to remoulding; (iii) the
Table 3. Probability Density Function (PDF) and Coeffi- the Skempton Nc factors do not account for an increase
cient of Variation (CoV) of soil properties (after Lacasse & in strength with increasing depth). Further discussion
Nadim 1996). of the implementation of the Skempton method in the
ISO guidelines is provided by Wong et al. (2012).
Soil property Soil type PDF CoV
An alternative set of bearing capacity factors
that directly account for the axisymmetric geome-
Cone resistance Sand LN —
Clay N/LN try, embedment depth (d), cone apex angle (β), cone
Undrained shear Clay (triax) LN 5–20% roughness (α), and increasing the undrained shear
strength, su Clay (index su ) LN 10–35% strength with depth (k) inherent in the spudcan pene-
Clayey silt N 10–30% tration problem are also provided inAppendix E of ISO

Ratio su /σv0 Clay N/LN 5–15% (2012). These factors are tabulated in ISO (2012) and
Plastic limit Clay N 3–20% were calculated using the lower-bound method of char-
Liquid limit Clay N 3–20% acteristics (the axisymmetric slip-line method with the
Submerged unit All soils N 0–10% Tresca yield criterion), as reported by Martin (1994)
weight
and Houlsby & Martin (2003). The latter also provided
Friction angle Sand N 2–5%
Void ratio, porosity, All soils N 7–30% the following simple formula based on a curve fit of
initial void ratio four key parameters, the cone apex angle (solutions
OCR Clay N/LN 10–35% for 30◦ ≤ β ≤ 180◦ ), the cone roughness (α = 0 to 1),
the embedment ratio (d/D = 0 to 2.5) and the dimen-
N/LN: Normal and lognormal distribution sionless rate of strength increase with increasing depth
(kD/sum = 0 to 5, where sum is the mudline undrained
shear strength and k the increase of undrained shear
selected set of bearing capacity factors; and (iv) the strength with depth):
drainage conditions of the soil depending on the rela-
tive velocity of the footing penetration. For most clay
soils, spudcan preloading will be done fast enough
to ensure fully undrained conditions. For clays with
coefficient of consolidation (cv ) less than 100 m2 /yr,
the normalised installation velocities of vD/cv (where
v is the spudcan penetration velocity and D is spudcan
diameter) tend to be greater than 10, thereby ensuring with
undrained conditions. However, rate effects are also
possible (Hossain & Randolph 2009a , Randolph &
Gourvenec 2011, Cassidy 2012).
The primary method of calculating leg penetra-
tion in clay in ISO (2012) follows classical bearing
capacity theory, with the spudcan idealised as a flat
circular foundation of diameter D embedded at a depth
d below the mudline. A load-penetration curve is pro-
gressively constructed from independent calculations
of wished-in-place footings at increasing depth. The
recommended bearing capacity Nc factors of ISO are
based on solutions for a strip footing on homogeneous
clay, with shape and depth factors based on Skemp-
ton (1951). The gross vertical bearing capacity, QV , is
calculated as:
In this paper, Equations 7 and 8 (rather than the
tables) are used for the ISO Houlsby-Martin calcu-
lations. These ISO methods assume failure based on
where su is the design undrained shear strength; Nc sc dc wished-in-place footings, and adjustments must be
is the bearing capacity factor for a circular footing, made to account for the change in mechanisms with
accounting for shape and depth (with a recommended depth.
value of 6 (1.0 + 0.2d/D) ≤ 9.0); qo is the effective Perhaps the most significant advance in ISO (2012)
overburden stress at depth d; and A is the equiva- was the inclusion of a rational method for predicting
lent cross-sectional area of the spudcan. Engineers are the depth at which a flow-round failure mechanism
allowed considerable freedom to estimate the value becomes preferential, leading to backfilling of the cav-
and representative depth of an equivalent su . Scrutiny ity above a penetrating spudcan. This method is based
of field installations in Gulf of Mexico clays have on the thorough centrifuge and large-deformation
yielded recommendations to use a strength averaged finite element investigations of Hossain et al. (2003,
over the zone of soil from the spudcan tip to a depth of 2005, 2006, 2009a ), which yielded the observation
half a diameter (partly to compensate for the fact that (and, ultimately, the encapsulation in formulae) of

190
three distinct mechanisms of soil flow around an
advancing spudcan. Initially, there is an outward and
upward flow, leading to surface heave and the forma-
tion of a cavity above the spudcan; then, there is a
gradual flow back into the cavity; and finally, a fully
localised flow forms around the embedded spudcan,
leaving the cavity unchanged. This localised mecha-
nism is the result of a preferential flow failure and not
a wall failure caused by the instability of the open
cavity (as was previously assumed in the SNAME
guidelines). In accordance to the findings of Hossain
et al. the ISO guidelines define the conditions for back
flow as
mechanism at depth. Equation 9 can be used to predict
the transition to back flow, although several different
interpretations regarding the depth at which a full flow
mechanism arises have been proposed. This is stated
to occur at 0.7D to 1.0D by Hossain et al. (2006),
although the recent publication of Hossain et al. (2014)
recommends that for simplicity, the fully localised
mechanism should be assumed immediately follow-
ing the onset of backflow. The latter is assumed in
the calculations in this paper. When the full flow-
around mechanism is assumed, no overburden stress
is incorporated. The bearing capacity equation is then:

The formulation of the Nc factors when d ≤ hcavity

for smooth spudcans (α = 0) is
where hcavity is the limiting cavity depth (also the depth
at the onset of backflow), γ  is the submerged unit
weight and suh is the undrained shear strength at that
depth.
With a formula to predict the onset of backflow
and the limiting cavity depth, more accurate estimation
of the surcharge component of the capacity can be
achieved, as well as better prediction of the increase in and that for rough spudcans (α = 1) is:
the bearing capacity factor that occurs before the fully
localised flow-round mechanism is generated (as the
failure mechanism passes through the backfilled soil).
This transition has been found to occur at a penetration
of approximately 0.7D to 1.0D beyond the onset of
backflow (Hossain et al. 2006).
Therefore, for shallow penetration of less than the
limiting cavity depth (d ≤ hcavity ),
Once a full flow-around mechanism has mobilised,
the recommended Nc formulation, under the assump-
tion that this occurs immediately at d > hcavity , is:
where Vb is the (partial) volume of the spudcan
that is submerged in soil, whereas after back flow
(d > hcavity ),

where Ncd simply implies the bearing capacity of a

deep flow-around mechanism.
where V is now the full volume of the spudcan, as
it is entirely submerged. In Equations 10 and 11, the 5.2.1 Accounting for strain-rate dependency and
single Nc value represents the best estimate of the bear- strain-softening
ing capacity factor (and includes the sc dc factor of the Hossain & Randolph (2009a ) extended their method
Skempton formulation). to account for strain-rate dependency and strain-
softening as the soils are sheared and remoulded as a
5.2 Recent advances in prediction methods result of the large displacements during spudcan pene-
tration (which were shown to be important by Erbrich
Following their improved understanding of the evolu-
2005, Osborne 2007, Hossain & Randolph 2009a ).
tion of failure mechanisms for a penetrating spudcan,
Following a similar equation for reduction in shear
Hossain et al. (2006, 2014) and Hossain & Randolph
strength with shearing formulated by Einav & Ran-
(2009a ) suggested alternative bearing capacity formu-
dolph (2005), Hossain & Randolph (2009a ) suggested
lations that consider the evolution of the soil failure
that the Nc factors of Equations 12 to 15 be adjusted
mechanism at different stages of penetration. They
via multiplication by:
included the three distinct mechanisms of soil flow
around an advancing spudcan mentioned above: a gen-
eral shear before the onset of backflow, a transitional
failure mechanism and a fully localised flow-around

191
where µ is a rate parameter (assumed to be 0.1, repre-
senting a 10% increase in load per log cycle of rate),
Rb is a rate coefficient that is used to adjust for the
strain-rate dependency, St is the sensitivity of the soil,
and ξ95 is the absolute shear strain required for the soil
to undergo 95% of full remoulding.
Hossain & Randolph (2009a ) suggested Rb values
of 1.47 for rapid penetration (initial stages, in which
the spudcan velocity is assumed to be ∼2 m/s) and
0.77 for slow penetration (final stages, in which the
velocity is assumed to be ∼0.36 m/s). An Rb value of
zero implies no rate dependency, with the formulation
reverting to one in which only softening is considered.
The importance of the term Rb , which effectively acts
as a multiplier on the capacity (1.147 for fast and 1.077
for slow), is discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, where
comparisons with field data are presented.
In the Hossain & Randolph method, the foot-
ing roughness, clay sensitivity and ductility must be
specified. In the absence of detailed information, a
roughness coefficient of 0.5 and a ξ95 value of 15 are
recommended.
5.3 Model performance against field data
Various databases of field installations in clay sites
have been collated and published, including 14 sites
from the InSafe JIP (∼100 monitored points) and 16
sites in the Gulf of Mexico, as published by Menzies &
Roper (2008) and Hossain et al. (2014). The latter
database will be used to compare the two ISO methods
and the proposed Hossain & Randolph methodology
(an assessment against the InSafe database was also
provided in Osborne et al. 2009 and will be discussed
later in this paper in Section 5.5). A retrospective
prediction for one site using deterministic methods
is initially discussed to allow for a qualitative com-
parison of the methods. This is followed in the next
section by a statistical and probabilistic interpretation,
including a proposed method for forward probabilistic
assessments.
Previous assessments of this database have been
conducted by Menzies & Roper (2008) and Hossain
et al. (2014). The soils are predominantly nor-
mally consolidated or overconsolidated clays with an
undrained shear strength that increases with depth
(Hossain et al. 2014). In this paper, the recommended
profiles of Hossain et al. are used.
Field measurements are compared with the values
predicted by the four methods outlined in Sections
5.1 and 5.2: (a) the Skempton (1951) ISO method,
hereinafter denoted by SKE; (b) the ISO method of
Houlsby & Martin (2003), denoted by HMA; (c) the
method of Hossain and Randolph, denoted by HRN;
and (d) the subsequent development of the HRN
method presented by Hossain & Randolph (2009a ),
denoted by HRS, which considers the effects of strain-
rate on shear strength and gradual remoulding. Several
variants of this last method are considered: HRS
addresses only strain-softening (no rate effects, Rb =
0, ξ95 = 15, St = 2.85), whereas HRSfast (Rb = 1.47,
192
Figure 9. Comparison of the performance of single-layer
clay analysis methods for Site 1 of Menzies and Roper (2008)
(a similar analysis is presented in Hossain et al. 2014)
ξ95 = 15, St = 2.85) and HRSslow (Rb = 0.77, ξ95 = 15,
St = 2.85) take rate effects into account.
Shown in Figure 9 are retrospective simulations
for Site 1 of Menzies & Roper (2008). A similar
plot was provided by Hossain et al. (2014). How-
ever, additional simulations of the rate-dependency
and softening parameters are provided in Figure 9.
The HMA method yields the lowest load per pen-
etration depth; the HRN method yields the highest
values, and the SKE method lies in between. This
behaviour was described by Menzies & Roper (2008)
and Hossain et al. (2014) as providing good “lower-
bound”, “upper-bound” and “average” or “best” esti-
mates of spudcan penetration from the HMA, HRN
and SKE methods, respectively. As will be demon-
strated in Section 5.4, this loose terminology does not
necessarily reflect the entire database. For this site, the
HRS method reduces the HRN prediction (acknowl-
edged to be ∼20% too high by Menzies & Roper
2008 and Hossain et al. 2014), bringing it closer to
the lower-load predictions of the HMA analysis. The
rate-dependent HRSfast and HRSslow methods modify
the reduction due to softening and appear well suited
to this site (though there is an element of curve fit-
ting, with the magnitude of Rb being the best fit to
large-deformation finite element data).
5.4 Use of probabilistic methods, jack-up in clay
This section details the procedure for and results
of the statistical and probabilistic characterisation of
the model factor for the vertical bearing capacity of
spudcans in single-clay-layer stratigraphies. The study
relies on a total of 318 field measurements from 16
sites in the Gulf of Mexico (Menzies & Roper 2008,
Hossain et al. 2014). The data are considered to be
sufficiently homogeneous from a geotechnical point
of view to be addressed as a single population for
statistical and probabilistic purposes. The model factor
was defined as:

Figure 10. Comparison of the performance of four sin-
gle-layer clay analysis methods with 318 field measurements
(Menzies & Roper (2008) and Hossain et al. (2014).
where Qmeasured and Qcalculated are the measured (field)
and model-predicted values of the vertical bear-
ing capacity. The model factor included both epis-
temic uncertainties (i.e., measurement uncertainty)
and uncertainties in the calculation model, namely,
parameter uncertainties (i.e., uncertainties in the input
parameters to a calculation model) and transforma-
tion uncertainties (e.g. converting the cone resistance
to undrained shear strength).
Figure 10 presents scatter plots of Qmeasured and
Qcalculated for each method (note that only the non-
rate dependent HRS variant was analysed). Samples
of 318 model factors were obtained using Equation
17. Figure 10a presents all data, whereas Figure 10b is
only the data for Q < 100 MN. Table 4 gives the statis-
tics (mean, standard deviation (σ ) and coefficient of
variation (CoV)) of the model factors.
The HMA method has the smallest bias, as its sam-
ple mean is closest to unity. The relative scatter of
sample values around the mean is given by the CoV.
The four models are comparable in terms of scatter,
with a moderate dispersion of 8 or 9% around the
mean.
193
Table 4. Sample statistics of the model factors.
Model Mean σ CoV (%)
SKE 0.9 0.07 8.0
HMA 1.01 0.08 8.0
HRN 0.83 0.07 9.0
HRS 1.08 0.09 8.0
Figure 11. Frequency histograms for the model factor for
(a) all methods and (b) fitted lognormal distribution for the
HMA model factor.
For reliability analysis using Monte Carlo simula-
tion, the model factor should be characterised prob-
abilistically. Visual inspection suggests a moderate
increase in scatter with increasing Q. The lognormal
probability density function distribution was selected
to ensure that no values could become negative. Fig-
ure 11 shows the frequency histograms of the model
factors for the four models and the fitted lognormal
distribution for the HMA model. The goodness of fit
was checked with the Anderson-Darling test. The sam-
ples for the SKE, HMA and HRN methods were found
to have a lognormal (LN) distribution at the 95% con-
fidence level. The HRS method showed slightly lower
confidence level for a LN distribution.
Based on the results of this analysis, the ISO
method of Houlsby and Martin (2003) was adopted to
probabilistically calculate the vertical bearing capaci-
ties of spudcans in single-layer clay stratigraphy. The
recommendation of this method applies solely to soil-
spudcan systems that are geotechnically similar to
those in the dataset used for the study. Further updating
and generalisation of this performance of the methods
 Figure 13. Cumulative distribution of the ratio of measured
to predicted (HMA) resistances (after Osborne et al. 2009).
Figure 12. Probabilistic predictions using the ISO
Houlsby & Martin method and the random LN model factor.
Table 5. Measured/predicted load ratios for spudcans in
clay.

can be done with the 14 single-layer clay field cases Qfield /Qcalculated
collated in the InSafe JIP (Osborne et al. 2009, 2010).
If larger, more representative databases could be accu- Percentile InSafe1 This paper2
mulated by the industry after each installation, simple
probabilistic methods can be easily developed. 5% 0.64 0.884
25% 0.92 0.955
For the purpose of a probabilistic analysis, vertical 50% 1.07 1.007
bearing capacity Q can be expressed as: 75% 1.18 1.062
95% 1.42 1.147

1. Factors from InSafe database (Osborne et al. 2009)

where Qcalculated is the deterministic bearing pressure
calculated with the ISO model of Houlsby and Martin
and
is a lognormal (LN) random variable for the model
factor with a mean of 1.01 and a standard deviation
of 0.08. Equation 18 involves only one random vari-
ate. Hence, a probabilistic analysis can be conducted
by retrieving the quantiles of the lognormal distribu-
tion of η that correspond to relevant probabilities of
exceedance or non-exceedance and multiplying these
by the deterministic value Qcalculated .
As an example, Site 1 of Menzies and Roper (anal-
ysed deterministically in Figure 9) was reanalysed with
the ISO Houlsby-Martin method and the model fac-
tor distribution. Probabilities of exceedance of 0.995,
0.95, 0.05 and 0.005 were considered (i.e., lines repre-
senting, for each depth, the probability that the load
will be exceeded by 99.5%, 95% etc). The corre-
sponding quantiles of the lognormal distribution of
η are 0.821, 0.884, 1.147 and 1.234, respectively.
Capacity lines pertaining to the exceedance proba-
bility levels were obtained by applying Equation 18.
Figure 12 plots the measured capacities (black circles,
squares and triangles), the deterministic capacity and
the capacity lines pertaining to the 99.5, 95, 5 and 0.5%
probabilities of exceedance.
2. Model factors calculated using the method in Section 5.4
5.5 Comparison with InSafe guidelines
The InSafe guidelines give a direct comparison of the
HMA and HRN methods. Figure 13 presents a cumu-
lative distribution of the ratio of the measured vertical
load to the HMA prediction for the ∼100 monitored
data points in the InSafe JIP database (14 sites around
the world). The spread of the results is greater than
that found here for the more consistent 16 Gulf of
Mexico sites of Menzies and Roper (2008) and Hos-
sain et al. (2014). The InSafe guidelines provide the
model factors that can be directly read off Figure 13
or Table 5.
6 PUNCH-THROUGH PREDICTION: SAND
OVER CLAY
A thin layer of sand (less than one spudcan diam-
eter) overlying a weaker stratum of clay is partic-
ularly hazardous during the installation of spudcan
foundations.
6.1 Limitations of ISO recommendations
The new ISO 19905-1 guidelines retain the SNAME
recommendation to use either a load spread approach
or the punching shear mechanism to calculate the peak
penetration resistance for a footing on sand overlaying
clay.

194
Figure 14. Load spread method of ISO (2012).
In the load spread approach, the load is projected
through the upper sand layer at an angle of spread
α to a fictitious footing of increased bearing area
at the sand-clay boundary, as shown in Figure 14.
Some debate still remains regarding the applicable val-
ues of the assumed angle of spread; ratios of 1:5 to
1:3 (horizontal:vertical) are typically recommended.
In retrospective simulations of a database of 71 cen-
trifuge tests that cover most practical punch-through
scenarios (and will be further described in Section 6.4),
the steeper spreading ratio of 1:5 yielded peak punch-
through loads that were, on average, 21% lower than
those in the flatter 1:3 case.
In the application of the load spread method in ISO
19905-1, there seems to be ambiguity as to where the
surcharge should be considered in the calculation of
the bearing capacity of the fictitious larger footing.
As the authors see it, it is consistent, when calculat-
ing the bearing capacity of the fictitious footing, that
the actual surcharge on the sand-clay layer should be
assumed. That is, the surcharge at the spudcan level
(q0 ) should have the additional surcharge due to the
sand layer between it and the fictitious footing added
to it (i.e. q0 + Hs γs ). However, close reading of the
ISO guidelines seems to indicate that the pressure
should be at the spudcan and therefore remain as just
q0 (i.e. engineers are referred to Figure A9.3-11 of
ISO 19905-1 that shows the effective overpressure at
the footing level to be used in conjunction with the
bearing capacity Equation A9.3-7). Following the ISO
guidelines, the weight of the sand between the spud-
can and the fictitious footing is subtracted from the
fictitious footing’s capacity in the qpeak reported here.
In the calculations of this paper, the surcharge at
the fictitious footing level (i.e. the sand-clay inter-
face) is used, as it provides higher (less conservative)
required capacities. The authors also believe that most
engineers, if not reading the guidelines, would do the
calculation in this way. A discussion of the difference
in the two interpretations on the retrospective predic-
tion of the experimental database is provided in Hu
(2015).
The punching shear mechanism developed by
Hanna and Meyerhof (1980) is retained as an
195
Figure 15. Punching shear method of ISO (2012).
alternative design approach in the ISO guidelines. For
a flat footing at a particular depth (i.e. wished into
place), the failure mechanism is assumed to comprise
a truncated cone in the sand layer being depressed
into the underlying clay. However, for calculation pur-
poses, a simpler vertical shear plane is used (SNAME
2008, ISO 2012), as illustrated in Figure 15. The peak
resistance qpeak is calculated with the punching shear
method as follows:
where the punching shear coefficient Ks is related to
the normalised shear strength of the underlying clay
layer through the ratio of the bearing capacity of the
clay to that of the sand and through the effective angle
of internal friction of the sand; it is suggested that the
value of this coefficient be obtained from the chart pre-
sented by Meyerhof & Hanna (1978). γs is the buoyant
unit weight of the sand.
There is a belief in the industry that both meth-
ods of ISO under predict the peak capacity (Baglioni
et al. 1982, Osborne et al. 2009). This has been indeed
shown to be the case, with averages of 42% and 56%
under prediction with respect to centrifuge data for
the load spread and punching shear methods, respec-
tively (see Section 6.4 and also Lee et al. 2013b and Hu
et al. 2014a ). The methods were originally developed
(i) for shallow wished-in-place footings (rather than
continuously penetrating spudcans) and (ii) for stress
magnitudes significantly lower than those experienced
by spudcans. There is an inconsistency between the
parameters required to fit small-scale model test data
and those required to fit field observations (Young &
Focht 1981, Higham 1984).
Based on observations from visualisation experi-
ments using geotechnical centrifuges (Teh et al. 2008,
Hu et al. 2014b ) and finite element analysis (Lee 2009,
Hu et al. 2014c,d ), there is overwhelming evidence
that the mechanism of failure at the peak is signifi-
cantly different from the mechanisms assumed in the
ISO guidelines. In the former study, digital images
were captured continuously during the installation of
a half-spudcan against a transparent window. Through
Figure 16. Normalised incremental deviatoric shear strain
contours measured at qpeak for a conical angle of 14◦ and
Hs /D = 0.68 (after Hu et al. 2014b ).

analysis using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) cou-

pled with close-range photogrammetry corrections, a
change in the spudcan failure mechanism with pene-
tration depth (and under stress conditions equivalent to
the offshore case) was observed. An example of such
a change is illustrated in Figure 16. In this visualisa-
tion experiment, the silica sand layer had a thickness
of Hs /D = 0.68, with a relative density Id of 74%, and
the underlying undrained shear strength of the clay
layer was ∼20 kPa at the interface and increased by
∼2 kPa/m with increasing prototype depth. The key
aspects of the observations were as follows:
Initial spudcan tip penetration: The soil movement
radiates from the spudcan tip, is very limited and is
concentrated in the upper sand layer.
Peak resistance: The peak resistance occurs at a
relative shallow embedment, consistently measured at
∼0.12Hs (consistent with the full-spudcan centrifuge
tests of Teh et al. (2010), Lee et al. (2013a ) and Hu
et al. (2014a ) and discussed further in a probabilistic
context in Section 6.5). The mechanism consists of
a truncated cone of sand being forced vertically into
the underlying clay layer; farther from the centre line,
the pure vertical movement (directly under the spud-
can) gradually changes to radial movement with small Figure 17. Normalised incremental deviatoric shear strain
amounts of heave. This behaviour is manifested in the distributions at depths d = 0.6D, 1.1D and 1.6D (with
normalised incremental deviatoric strain contours of Hs = 0.68D these represent depths just before the sand-clay
Figure 16. The outer angle of the sand frustum being interface and then 0.42D below and 0.92D below, respec-
tively).
forced into the clay reflects the dilation angle ψ of the
sand (a much narrower angle than that obtained using
the load spread method of ISO). 1.6D (just before to just less than 1D beyond the sand-
In the underlying clay layer: After punch-through, clay interface, which was initially located at 0.68D).
in the clay layer, the sand becomes trapped in a nearly As discussed in Hu et al. (2014b ), the sand plug is
vertical plug below the spudcan. The evolution of this not fully formed at the sand-clay interface; rather,
sand plug underneath a conical footing of 14◦ is illus- the sand is still undergoing a significant amount of
trated in Figure 17 for depths of d = 0.6D, 1.1D and shearing (Figure 17a). A conical wedge of clay is also

196
Figure 18. Normalised sand plug heights at various pene-
tration depths below the interface (after Hu et al. 2014a,b ).
Figure 19. Model of peak resistance of a spudcan in sand
overlying clay.
trapped beneath the sand plug, and the combination
of the spudcan, the stiff sand and the wedged clay
produces an “enlarged spudcan” and soil flow mech-
anism. The bearing capacity factor required to predict
the behaviour in this scenario, if a traditional undrained
approach is used, will significantly increase. As pene-
tration continues, the size of the soil plug decreases
and stabilises with a height Hplug of approximately
0.9Hs . This behaviour was consistently observed in
seven centrifuge tests, for conical angles from 0 to 21◦
(Figure 18).Accounting for this spudcan, plug and clay
wedge is essential to obtain accurate predictions of the
post-peak spudcan behaviour.
6.2 New approach to predict qpeak
A new calculation method that, for the first time,
accounts for the stress level and dilatant response of
the sand was first advocated by Lee et al. (2013b ) and
was then improved on by Hu et al. (2014a,b,c,d ). The
spudcan failure mechanism in this model is illustrated
in Figure 19. It is consistent with the observations from
the PIV observation experiments described above. In
this mechanism, a sand frustum with a dispersion angle
197
Figure 20. Depth at which punch-through occurs (after Hu
et al. 2014a ).
equal to the dilation angle ψ is assumed to be pushed
into the underlying clay. The footing pressure and the
weight of the sand frustum are opposed by frictional
resistance along the sides of the sand block and by
the bearing capacity of the underlying clay (Lee et al.
2013b ; Hu et al. 2014a ).
The primary improvement in the equations of Hu
et al. is the incorporation in the mechanism of the pen-
etration depth at which punch-through occurs (dpeak ).
Punch-through has been demonstrated to consis-
tently occur at shallow embedments of approximately
0.12Hs , as shown for 66 centrifuge tests in Figure 20.
There is some debate regarding the optimal form of
this equation, as some degree of scatter is evident
even in precise and carefully executed model exper-
iments. However, the scatter can be accounted for in
the probabilistic methodology detailed in Section 6.5.
A design equation for the peak resistance qpeak was
derived by treating the conceptual sand frustum as a
series of infinitesimal horizontal discs and equating
vertical force equilibrium, as in a ‘silo’ analysis. The
detailed derivation can be found in Lee et al. (2013b )
and Hu et al. (2014a ), and the final design equation,
which includes dpeak = 0.12Hs , is as follows:

 
where E = 2 1 + DF tan φ∗
tan ψ
− 1 and q0 is the sur-
charge. The definition of the model parameters are
provided in Table 6. Although the equation appears
daunting, it looks more complex than it actually is.
The first term is related to the bearing capacity of
the underlying clay and the frictional resistance from
the upper sand layer, whereas the second term arises
Table 6. Parameters for the sand-over-clay model proposed
by Lee et al. (2013b ) and Hu et al. (2014a ).

Symbol Parameter Parameter determination

D Footing diameter Known parameter

Hs Sand thickness In situ tests
ID Relative density In situ or laboratory tests
γs Buoyant unit In situ or laboratory tests
weight
φcv Critical state Laboratory tests or based
friction angle on mineralogy
Q Natural log of grain Bolton’s (1986) equation
crushing strength
IR Relative dilatancy Iterative calculations
index between Equation 21 and
  
φ Friction angle IR = ID Q − ln qpeak − 1 Figure 21. DF measurements from half-footing PIV tests

φ − φcv = 2.65IR (solid) and centrifuge tests (non-solid) (Hu et al. 2014b ).
ψ Dilation angle 0.8ψ = φ  − φcv
(φ  , φcv and ψ in degrees) One of the primary difficulties encountered in the
sin φ  cos ψ derivation of an equation for sand over clay is the
φ∗ Reduced friction tan φ∗ = estimation of the shear stress that is acting on the sand’s
angle due to the 1 − sin φ  sin ψ
slip surface. In Equation 21, this difficulty is overcome
non-associated by introducing a distribution factor, DF , that relates the
flow rule normal effective stress at the slip surface to the mean
sum Undrained shear In-situ or laboratory tests vertical effective stress averaged across the sand frus-
strength at sand- trum. This approach allows Equation 21 to be easily
clay interface calculated, but the values of DF must be (pre)calibrated
κ Strength profile of k can be inferred from site to the experimental database (Lee et al. 2013b ; Hu et al.
the clay, where k is investigations, and 2014a,b ). The expression for DF provided in Table 6
the gradient with k (D + 1.76Hs tan ψ) accounts for various spudcan shapes (flat and coni-
depth and κ is a κ=
sum cal, 7◦ to 21◦ ) and sand densities (loose, medium and
non-dimensional
parameter dense) and was developed based on 56 centrifuge tests,
as shown in Figure 21.
Nc0 Bearing capacity Nc0 ≈ 6.34 + 0.56κ
factor (Houlsby and Martin 2003)
Following Equation 21 and Table 6, the stress level
and dilatant response of the sand are calculated using
DF Distribution factor: For spudcans with conical an iterative approach.
the ratio of the bases greater than 7◦ , use
 −0.576
vertical effective Hs
stress at the slip DF = 0.642 ,
D 6.3 Predicting behaviour in underlying clay
planes to the mean 0.16 < Hs /D < 1.0, but for
vertical effective flat spudcans, use As the spudcan penetrates through the sand layer
stress within the  −0.174 (Figure 17), a plug of sand becomes trapped under-
Hs
sand layer DF = 0.623 , neath the spudcan. This effectively enlarges the footing
D size and, as the undrained shear strength increases
0.21 < Hs /D < 1.12. with increasing depth, it mobilises soil with a higher
shear strength at the base of the plug. The ISO and
SNAME guidelines give no recommendations on how
to account for this plug whilst retaining a classical
from the self-weight of the sand frustum. The term bearing capacity solution. Lee (2009) derived new Nc -
qpeak , as calculated from Equation 21, must be less factors for buried cylinders via small-strain finite ele-
than the bearing capacity of the spudcan foundation ment analysis and recommended their use to approx-
in the sand alone. Examples of methods for calculat- imate a composite spudcan and soil plug (although
ing the bearing capacities of spudcans in sand alone the experimental data fit the model only for a range
include Brinch Hansen (1970), Cassidy & Houlsby of plug heights between 0.6 to 0.9 Hs ). Upon examin-
(1999, 2002), Houlsby & Cassidy (2002), Randolph ing 52 centrifuge and retrospective numerical Coupled
et al. (2004) and ISO (2012). Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL) large-deformation anal-
Recent advances reported by Hu et al. (2014a ) yses, Hu et al. (2014d ) recommended a simplified
have demonstrated the applicability of Equation 21 method in which the formula
in medium to loose sand conditions as well as in the
original dense sand. All investigated cases, however,
concerned silica sands.

198

Figure 22. Bearing capacity factor in clay underlying sand
(classified in terms of the strength gradient in the clay; after
Hu et al. 2014d ).
Figure 23. Normal distribution fit of difference between
measured Nc and Equation 22.
is assumed to apply to the classical formulation
where su0 is the soil strength at the lowest elevation
of the spudcan’s widest cross-sectional area; hplug is
the sand plug height, which is estimated to be 0.9Hs ;
and γc is the effective unit weight of the clay. Figure
22 illustrates the fit of Equation 22 to all experimen-
tal and numerical analysis considered in this study.
Also shown is the range ±one standard deviation
(σ ). The difference between the experimentally mea-
sured Nc and the fit of the bearing capacity (i.e.
(Nc,measured − Nc,fit )/Nc,measured ) are all within 20%,
with the majority within 10%. The variation was a
normal Gaussian fit with a mean of zero and a CoV of
only 7.5%. This is shown in Figure 23. These bounds
199
can be used to obtain an estimate of the variabil-
ity in the prediction of the bearing pressure in the
underlying clay.
6.4 Full profiles: model performance compared to
centrifuge database
To the authors’ knowledge, 71 geotechnical centrifuge
tests of circular foundations in sand-over-clay scenar-
ios have been reported in the literature within the last
five years. These tests were assembled into a database
by Hu (2015) and used to compare the results of ISO
and three new predictive methods to the experimen-
tal results. In tests performed at both UWA and the
National University of Singapore, the conical angles
of the footings ranged from 0 to 21◦ , the Hs /D ratios
ranged from 0.16 to 1.12, the sand ID values ranged
from 43 to 99%, and the strength gradients kD/sum of
the clay ranged from 0.6 to 2.8.
Two tests, labelled D1F40a (Lee et al. 2013a ) and
L1SP3 (Hu et al. 2014a ), are presented in Figure 24.
D1F40a represents a dense silica sand case (ID = 0.92)
with Hs /D = 0.6 and a typical spudcan shape with a
conical angle of 13◦ . The same spudcan shape was
used in L1SP3, but the sand was loosely laid (ID =
0.43), with Hs /D = 0.6. In both cases, a clear qpeak
was observed, at 520 kPa and 365 kPa respectively,
which was followed by a sharp reduction in measured
capacity before the capacity again increased in the
underlying clay layer.
In this paper, it is assumed that the vertical distance
penetrated between qpeak and the depth at which the
same capacity is regained in the clay can be regarded
as a measure of the punch-through intensity; this quan-
tity is labelled dpunch . This is also shown on Figure 3.
Experimentally, this quantity took values of 9.3 m and
7.7 m in tests D1F40a and L1SP3, respectively.
Figure 24 shows that the two ISO-recommended
methods under predict the capacity both for qpeak and
in the underlying clay; in the latter case, the under
prediction is attributed to not accounting for the soil
plug. For these cases, the method of Hu et al., as
described in this paper, provides accurate predictions
of both the peak and the capacity in the underlying clay.
This performance is to be expected, as the method was
calibrated using these two tests. In the following, the
performance of the Hu et al. method is verified with
the entire database, including tests that were not used
to guide the derivation of the method.
Figure 25 summarizes the predictions by the method
of Hu et al., represented by Equations 21 to 23 in this
paper, assessed against the full 71-test database. The
predictions with the ISO recommendations are also
shown. Comparisons of the predicted and experimen-
tally measured values of qpeak , the bearing capacity
at 1D below the sand-clay interface and dpunch are
presented in Figures (a), (b) and (c), respectively.
The statistics of the performance of each method are
summarised in Table 7.
The ability of the Hu et al. method with regard
to qpeak was reported earlier (Lee et al. 2013b , Hu
Figure 24. Comparison of experimentally measured and
predicted punch-through using Equations 21 to 23 and the
ISO guidelines for two centrifuge tests.

et al. 2014a ), but the analysis herein is with a more

extensive database (Figure 25a). The results provide
evidence that the existing load spread and punch-
ing shear models recommended by current jack-up
industry guidelines (ISO 2012) significantly and con-
sistently under predict qpeak . On average, the ISO
methods predict only 58% and 44% of the measured
pressure in the centrifuge tests. Furthermore, the ISO-
methods show significantly higher variability. The Hu
et al. method yields values that are 1% higher than the
experimental values on average, with a relatively small
CoV of 8.2%.
The same trend can be seen with the retrospective
simulations with the ISO guidelines. The adoption
of Nc factors derived for single-layer clays and the
assumption of no sand plug formation result in a sig-
nificant under prediction of the capacity in the clay.
Figure 25. Comparison of the performance of the Hu et al.
(2014a,b,c,d ) and ISO methods with the full database for (a)
qpeak , (b) Nc in the underlying clay, and (c) dpunch .
On average, only 46% of the capacity is predicted by
the ISO methods. The Hu et al. method yields pre-
dictions for the bearing capacity in the clay layer (at
1D below the sand-clay interface) that are on average
97% of the experimental values, with a relatively small
CoV of 7.7%. Because of the accuracy of its predic-
tions of qpeak and Nc , the Hu et al. method also predicts
quite accurately the penetration dpunch (mean of 1.06),

200
Table 7. Statistics of the performance of the ISO and Hu
et al. methods from simulations of the 71 centrifuge tests in
database (also reported in Hu 2015).

ISO (2012)

Load Punching Hu et al.

Method spread∧ shear method

qpeak, calculated / No. of tests 71 71 71

qpeak, measured Mean 0.58 0.44 1.01
σ 0.09 0.07 0.08
CoV (%) 15.8 14.1 8.2
Nc, calculated / No. of tests# 54 54 54
Nc measured Mean 0.45 0.45 0.97
σ 0.07 0.07 0.07
CoV (%) 15.7 15.7 7.7
dpunch, calculated / No. of tests∗ 62 56 54 Figure 26. Variation of punch-through depth with sand layer
dpunch, measured Mean 2.50 1.64 1.06 thickness.
σ 3.90 1.56 0.39
CoV (%) 155.9 95.5 36.5 Figure 20 and the data that were used to fit the prob-
abilistic model of punch-through failure of sand over
# Only 54 tests are available for Nc comparison (as some did
not penetrate past 1D below the sand-clay interface)
clay). The punch-through depth varied in the determin-
*Number of punch-throughs predicted istic model, with its scatter increasing with a thicker
ˆLoad spread of 1:3 (horizontal:vertical) used in calcula- sand layer (Figure 26). A multiplicative random vari-
tions and the surcharge acting at the sand-clay interface was ate was used as a model factor (εd ) and applied to
assumed the deterministic model of the punch-through depth
(darker line in Figure 26):

although with a wider variation than for qpeak and Nc

(CoV of 36.5%).
6.5 Probabilistic modelling of punch-through,
sand over clay
The previous section provided details of a new method
for predicting spudcan punch-through from a layer of
strong sandy material into an underlying weak clay
layer (following Lee et al. 2013b and Hu et al. 2014a ).
The calculation of the peak capacity was based on a
‘silo’ analysis and, for the first time, accounted for
the stress level and dilatant response of the sand.
New bearing capacity factors that account for the for-
mation of a sand plug were suggested. The results
in the previous section show that the method can
be used to retrospectively simulate an experimental
database more accurately than the current ISO guide-
lines, and that the scatter in the predictions provide
initial guidance on the uncertainties in the model.
The method is a deterministic model, yielding only
one prediction for any given site. In reality, the soil
properties and layering at a site are uncertain due to
inherent variability and measurement errors. These
uncertainties are ignored in the deterministic model. A
probabilistic assessment of the likely punch-through
pressure and depth is required to account for the
uncertainties. In this section, an estimation on the
probability of punch-through pressures and depths is
described.
The punch-through depths (dpeak ) in 30 centrifuge
tests are plotted as a function of sand layer thick-
ness (Hs ) in Figure 26 (these tests are a subgroup of
A computational Bayesian Markov Chain Monte
Carlo (MCMC) approach was used to determine that
the model factor, εd , follows a truncated lognormal
distribution. The mean value and standard deviation of
the MCMC distribution were 0.98 and 0.14. The prob-
ability density function (PDF) and the corresponding
cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the model
factor εd are shown in Figure 27.
A similar analysis was performed on the punch-
through pressure, qpeak . As the variation in qpeak
increased with higher bearing pressures (see Fig-
ure 25a), a multiplicative model factor, εq , was also
applied to the deterministic model for qpeak :
where qpeak,calc is the deterministic value calculated by
the Hu et al. (2014a ) model (and provided in Equa-
tion 21 and Table 6). The model factor, εq , followed
a lognormal distribution with mean value of 1.00 and
standard deviation of 0.19.
With these model factors, punch-through pressure
and depth were estimated probabilistically. The prob-
ability of punch-through occurring at a set of pressure
values (qpeak,i ) was first investigated. This probability
is termed as the marginal probability for the punch-
through pressure (P(qpeak,i )). The marginal probability
for the punch-through depth (P(dpeak,j )) was also cal-
culated at a set of depth values (dpeak,j ). The marginal
probability values were obtained independently by per-
forming Monte Carlo simulation on the punch-through
pressure and depth models (Equations 24 and 25).

201
Figure 27. Probability density function of model factor εd .

Assuming the two random variables to be mutually

independent, a bivariate joint probability density in the
(qpeak , dpeak ) can be obtained by multiplying the two
marginal probabilities:

for i = 1 to nq and j = 1 to nd , and where P(qpeak,i ,

dpeak,j ) is the probability that punch-through occur-
ring at (qpeak,i , dpeak,j ) and nq and nd are the
number of Monte Carlo simulations. The probabil-
ity P(qpeak,i ,dpeak,j ) estimated before installation was
called the prior probability.

6.5.1 Example calculations

The probabilistic potential for punch-through was
evaluated for three cases: D1F40a, L1SP3, and NUS-
F5 (tests of Lee et al. 2013a , Hu et al. 2014a and Teh
et al. 2010 respectively). The deterministic penetra-
tion profiles for D1F40a and L1SP3 were discussed in
Section 6.4 and shown in Figure 24.
The probabilistic predictions of the spudcan pres- Figure 28. Prior probability contours of punch-through
compared to measured and deterministic values for three
sures and depth are shown as contours on Figure 28.
tests.
These predictions are based on 20 000 Monte Carlo
simulations. The contours are constructed with 50

202
discrete intervals subdividing the range from 0.9 of
the minimum qpeak to 1.1 the maximum of qpeak
(and another 50 intervals between 0.9 min(dpeak ) to
1.1 max(dpeak )). The contour give the probability of
punch-through occurring within one of the increments
(qpeak,i , dpeak,j ). The extent of the contours “footprint”
along the qpeak and dpeak axes give the range of pos-
sible values for punch-through pressure and depth at
punch-through. For higher probabilities, the contours
in Figure 28 are dark and for lower probabilities the
contours are light. The exact probability values are a
function of the number of discretization chosen (with
the sum being one). Therefore, if more discretization
had been used (say 100), the probability values of the
contours would be lower (around half for this case, but
still summing to one).
The marginal probability showing the probability
distribution of qpeak alone is shown in the upper sec-
tion of each of the three diagrams in Figure 28 and
the marginal probability of dpeak alone is shown on
the right hand side of the diagrams. A description on
how these marginal probabilities can be used to predict
probability of exceeding a preload level is provided for
the stiff-over-soft clay example in Section 7.4.
The punch-through depth and stress measured in
the centrifuge are presented by the cross in the three
diagrams in Figure 28. The predicted values using
the deterministic Hu et al. (2014a) method are also
demonstrated in Figure 28 as a square.
Test D1F40a represents a dense silica sand case
(ID = 0.92) with Hs /D = 0.6 and a typical spudcan
shape with a conical angle of 13◦ . The measured qpeak
was observed at 520 kPa. The probability of punch-
through occurring at the measured values (qpeak =
520 kPa, dpeak = 0.67 m) is 0.0077, which is larger
than the probability of punch-through occurring at
the predicted values, 0.0065 (qpeak = 514 kPa, dpeak =
0.74 m). This prior probability indicates a higher
punch-through probability due to the numerous uncer-
tainties.
The same spudcan shape was used in L1SP3, but the
sand was loosely laid (ID = 0.43), with Hs /D = 0.6. In
this case, qpeak was measured at 365 kPa. The most
probable contours were lying between the measured
punch-through values and the predicted values, as
shown in Figure 28b. Compared to a sole determinis-
tic data point (the square), the contours and marginal
distributions provide more information and illustrate
the effect of the uncertainties in qpeak and dpeak on the
possibility of a punch-through.
Test NUS-F5 was conducted at the National
University of Singapore (Teh et al. 2010) and was not
used in the calibration of the deterministic Hu et al.
model or the probabilistic extension of this paper. The
deterministic punch-through pressure deviated signifi-
cantly from the measured one (Figure 28c). In this case,
the prior probability calculated probabilistically indi-
cated the range of punch-through qpeak and dpeak which
the engineer may consider likely. The predicted range
captured even the measured value which was much
lower than predicted deterministically. This process is
203
particularly helpful if the prediction model deviates
from the measured punch-through value.
The prior probability can be further updated by
incorporating the monitored data using Bayes’ theo-
rem. This will be presented in Section 7.3.5.
7 PUNCH-THROUGH PREDICTION: STIFF
OVER SOFT CLAYS
Equally problematic for potential punch-through dur-
ing spudcan installation is a layer of stiff stronger clay
overlying weaker clay. Such conditions are encoun-
tered increasingly in frontier regions of offshore
South-East Asia (Castleberry and Prebaharan 1985;
Osborne and Paisley 2002; Paisley and Chan 2006).
7.1 Limitations of ISO recommendations
The SNAME (2008) and ISO (2012) industry guide-
lines both recommend the punching shear method of
Brown and Meyerhof (1969) for predicting the peak
load of a spudcan penetrating a seabed consisting of a
stiff clay crust overlying soft clay. The peak resistance
qpeak is calculated, under the assumption that the spud-
can is positioned at the surface of the strong clay layer,
as follows:
where H is the height of the stronger upper layer; sut
and sub are the undrained shear strengths of the over-
and underlying clays, respectively; and Nc is the appro-
priate bearing capacity factor for the spudcan-shaped
footing.There are two main components to the method:
(a) the frictional resistance around the periphery of the
soil plug trapped beneath the advancing spudcan and
(b) the end bearing at the base of the plug.
As highlighted by Hossain & Randolph (2009b ) and
demonstrated in Section 7.2 below, the method does
not account for the movement of the plug into the
underlying soft layer (because the base of the plug is
assumed to be fixed at the upper-lower layer interface
regardless of the spudcan penetration). This approxi-
mation has been found to exert significant influence
on the prediction results.
7.2 New predictive methods
Recently, Edwards & Potts (2004) and Hossain
and Randolph (2009b ) have proposed new design
approaches. Edwards & Potts (2004) proposed that the
peak resistance be determined as the sum of the bear-
ing capacity of the underlying clay and a fraction of the
capacity of the upper layer. Based on their finite ele-
ment analysis, they provided factors relating the depth
of the upper layer normalised with respect to the spud-
can diameter to the fraction of the upper-layer strength
that should be used.
By contrast, Hossain & Randolph (2009b ) based
their new design approach on the failure mechanisms

Figure 29. Failure mechanism (Hossain and Randolph
2009b ).
observed in large-deformation finite element and cen-
trifuge experiments performed using half-spudcan
models against a clear window via digital imaging and
PIV analysis.
The following four types of flow mechanisms were
observed by Hossain and Randolph in stiff-over-soft
clay soils: (i) the initial vertical movement of the upper
layer into the lower layer and the consequent deforma-
tion of the interface, (ii) the creation of a soil plug
consisting of clay from the strong upper layer beneath
the penetrating spudcan, (iii) the delayed (compared
with the case of a single clay layer) backflow of soil
around the spudcan into the cavity above, and (iv) an
eventual localised flow around the spudcan in the soft
underlying layer.
Although the predictive method of Hossain &
Randolph (2009b ) can be used to estimate a full spud-
can penetration profile (as it accounts for the evolution
of the failure mechanism at each penetration depth),
the discussions presented in this paper focus on the
peak capacity prediction and the events leading to this
potential punch-through point. Hossain and Randolph
describe the critical punch-though mechanism of a
stiff-over-soft clay as a punching shear model of a
truncated cone. This model is illustrated in Figure 29.
The full details of the equations will not be provided
here, as they will be recast in a probabilistic form in
Section 7.3. However, they are available in Hossain &
Randolph (2009b ) and Uzielli et al. (2015).
7.3 Probabilistic modelling of punch-through,
stiff clay over soft clay
7.3.1 Deterministic and probabilistic models
The deterministic analytical model of Hossain and
Randolph (2009b ) was formulated into a probabilistic
framework by Uzielli et al. (2015).
Hossain & Randolph (2009b ) showed the punch-
through pressure and depth in stiff-over-soft clay to
be complex functions of the following dimensionless
factors: (a) the strength ratio between the lower and
204
Figure 30. Parameters used for stiff-over-soft clay.
upper soil layers, subs /sut ; (b) the thickness of the upper
layer relative to the spudcan diameter, H/D; and (c) the
normalised clay strength, subs /γb D. Definitions of the
parameters used in the model are provided in Fig-
ure 30. Pressure and penetration data can be plotted
and analysed efficiently with the following normalised
parameter (Hossain & Randolph 2009b ):
The Bayesian updating approach was used, with a
framework to update the prior probabilistic estimate
with new information gained through the monitoring
of load-displacement points during installation (see
also geotechnical applications by Zhang et al. (2004,
2009a,b ) and Uzielli et al. (2015).
For the jack-up penetration analysis, Bayes’ theo-
rem can be expressed as:
or as “the probability of punch-through occurring at
a loading pressure q∗peak and depth d∗peak conditioned
on the observed load-displacement behaviour (qmon ,
dmon ) observed during installation is proportional to
the product of (1) the prior (pre-installation) probabil-
ity of occurrence of punch-through for q∗peak and d∗peak
and (2) the likelihood, i.e., the probability of observ-
ing the actual qmon and dmon during installation should
punch-through occur for q∗peak and d∗peak ”.
A computational Bayesian approach relying on
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods was
implemented for uncertainty characterization by
Uzielli et al. (2015). Only the final equations are
provided here, along with application examples to
illustrate the potential of such methods in the jack-
up. Uzielli et al. present the details of the Hossain &
Randolph equations and the associated uncertainties
for predicting the punch-through pressure (qpeak ), the
depth at which punch-through occurs (dpeak ) and the
load-displacement response.
7.3.2 Approach to quantify model uncertainty
To update the punch-through pressure based on moni-
toring measurements requires a probabilistic formula-
tion of the load penetration curve. Quantifying model
uncertainty in the calculation of punch-through pres- Table 8. Model uncertainty factors εq , εd , εb .
sure and depth is also required for the Bayesian
updating. Distribution Parameters# Note
The results of Large Deformation Finite Element
(LDFE) analyses were used to establish the uncertain- εq Normal µ = 0.02 σ = 0.29
ties in the analysis parameters. The equations derived εd Log-normal ξ = 0.05 λ = 0.23
εb Truncated µ=0 σ = 0.02 Truncated at
statistically to match the LDFE data points, differ
normal −0.05 and 0.05
slightly in format from the Hossain and Randolph
deterministic equations. #
µ: mean; σ : standard deviation; ξ : log-mean (mean of
The population of the LDFE results were compared the natural logarithm); λ: log-standard deviation (standard
with the predictions with the Hossain & Randolph deviation of the natural logarithm)
model was evaluated to derive a model of (i) the punch-
through pressure qpeak , (ii) the punch-through depth
dpeak , and (iii) the load-displacement curve leading to
the peak punch-through event (used for the Bayesian
updating).

7.3.3 Formulation of model uncertainty

Using the Hossain & Randolph parameter χ , the
uncertainty in qpeak was expressed as:

where η1q = 1.78, η2q = 12.38, η3q = 1.17 and η4q =

0.87 are model estimators and εq is an additive, nor-
mally distributed model uncertainty factor (Uzielli
et al. 2015). The latter accounts for scatter in the LDFE
results around the analytical deterministic model in
Equation 22, as well as for epistemic uncertainties in
the parameters appearing in the model (see Uzielli et al.
2015). The mean and standard deviation of the model
uncertainty factor were taken as the sample means of
the posterior distributions of the mean and standard
deviation, respectively, as obtained using the MCMC
approach. Its values are provided in Table 8.
To model the uncertainty of the punch-through
depth (dpeak ), a sigmoid model was found to offer the Figure 31. Uncertainty modelling of (a) punch-through
best fit to the LDFE data: pressure, (b) punch-through depth and (c) load-displacement
curve (dots = LDFE data; black curve = deterministic regres-
sion line; grey = probabilistic realisations using MCS) (after
Uzielli et al. 2015).

where the values of θb1 = 0.154 and θb2 = 0.515 were

where η1d = 0.14, η2d = 3.77, η3d = 0.337, η4d = 7.0
and η5d = 0.047 are the model coefficients and εd is
the best-fit random model factor with a lognormal
distribution.
The probabilistic description of the bearing pressure
(q) vs depth (d) curve was also based on the LDFE
data of Hossain & Randolph (2009b ), with a single-
parameter power model:
found to fit the LDFE data well. Again, a ran-
dom variable εb was used to parameterize the model
uncertainty.
7.3.4 Illustration of model uncertainties
Table 8 provides the distributions of the model uncer-
tainty factors ε . Figure 31 (a, b, and c) compares the
results of 20 000 probabilistic realisations of Equa-
tions 30 and 31 (Monte-Carlo Simulations (MCS))
with the LDFE results of Hossain and Randolph for
the normalized capacity.
The probabilistic model was calibrated for a broad
range of potential punch-through conditions, but its
applicability is still restricted to the bounds of the
LDFE database used. A discussion of its range of

205
Table 9. Range of applicability of model.
H/D χ min
H/D ≤ 0.50 0.10
0.50 < H/D ≤ 1.00 0.20
1.00 < H/D ≤ 1.50 0.30
1.50 < H/D ≤ 2.00 0.40
subs /sut χ min
subs /sut ≤ 0.20 0.10
0.20 < subs /sut ≤ 0.40 0.20
0.40 < subs /sut ≤ 0.60 0.60
0.60 < subs /sut ≤ 0.80 0.80
applicability is provided in Uzielli et al. (2015) and
in Table 9.
7.3.5 Bayesian updating
Bayes’theorem was formulated for the present analysis
with four terms, A, B, C and D, as follows:
where qpi (i = 1, . . . , Nint ) is the ith discrete candidate
value of the punch-through pressure qpeak (of a set of
Nint ), dpj (j = 1, . . . , Nint ) is the jth discrete candidate
value of the punch-through depth dpeak , qmon is the
set of Nm measured loading values, and dmon is the
set of Nm measured penetration-depth values for the
loading pressures qmon . It is noted that in Equation 33
(in order to save space) qp is used to represent qpeak
and dp to represent dpeak . Equation 33 states that the
posterior probability of a set of punch-through pres-
sure and depth values given a set of monitored data
(Term A), is calculated by multiplying the prior prob-
ability of their occurrence (Term B) with the likelihood
of the measured points leading to that punch-through
pair (Term C) and normalising by summing all possi-
ble combinations of eligible punch-through pairs given
the measured monitoring data (Term D).
Equations 30 and 31 are used to calculate the pre-
installation expectation of punch-through occurrence
(Term A). This joint probability density is calcu-
lated as the product of the two independent marginal
probabilities,
and is evaluated through Monte Carlo simulations of
the two models (as was performed for sand-over-clay
scenarios in Section 6.5).
χ max
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
χ max
0.70
1.30
1.30
1.60
Figure 32. Soil and jack-up characteristics for example
case.
In the formulation of Bayes’theorem, the likelihood
term P(qmon , dmon |qpeak,i , dpeak,j ) (Term C) expresses
the probability of predicting spudcan penetration val-
ues that may be compatible with the penetration values
observed during installation, given the occurrence of
punch-through at the ith value of the peak pressure
qpeak,i and at the jth depth value dpeak,j . Equation 32
describes the model for estimating the likelihood of the
load-displacement behaviour, which can be assessed
for compatibility against a set of monitoring data.
The Bayesian likelihood is calculated for each can-
didate punch-through scenario (qpeak,i , dpeakj ) by doing
Monte Carlo simulations of Equations 30 and 31.
This allows for the calculation of a sample of load-
displacement model factors ηb that are compatible with
the monitoring data.
7.4 Example calculations
The practical application of the Bayesian framework
is illustrated through two examples. The details of the
installation are provided in Figure 32.
In the two hypothetical examples, the spudcan is
assumed to be 15 m in diameter (D). The engineer need
to predict whether a peak punch-through event (qpeak )
will occur before the preassigned preload pressure
(qpreload ) is reached. The seabed consists of a two-
layered clay with an upper layer of 8 m in thickness (H),
with an undrained shear strength of sut = 100 kPa, and
an underlying clay layer with an increasing strength
gradient starting at subs = 50 kPa and increasing at a
rate of k= 1.5 kPa/m. The buoyant unit weights of the
clay in the top and bottom layers are γt = 5.3 kN/m3
and γb = 6.0 kN/m3 , respectively. The probability of
punch-through is to be investigated for preloads of
qpreload = 530, 550 and 600 kPa.
Using the procedures described in the previous sec-
tion, probabilistic predictions of the punch-through
pressure and depth were made. These are illustrated
in Figure 33. These predictions were calculated based
on 20 000 Monte Carlo simulations for each model,
and refer to discrete intervals of stress and depth of
qu = 5 kPa and d = 0.1 m, respectively. The con-
tours represent iso-probabilistic punch-through sce-
narios, i.e. the combinations of punch-through stress
206
 Table 10. Calculated “Factor of Safety” and probability of
punch-through for Example 1.

qpreload = 530 kPa qpreload = 550 kPa

Case FS Pf FS Pf

Prior 1.07 0.08 1.03 0.26

After mon1 2.26 0.28 2.26 0.54
After mon2 1.61 0.26 1.61 0.52
After mon3 1.41 0.21 1.41 0.52
Alternative mon3 points
mon3 : w = 2 m, q = 500 kPa 1.13 0.36
mon3 : w = 2 m, q = 525 kPa 1.08 0.07

Table 11. Monitoring data for Examples 1 and 2.

Figure 33. Prior probability of punch-through. Example 1 Example 2

and depth having equal joint discrete values of prior
punch-through probability. The cross in Figure 33
represents the unique deterministic punch-through
pressure of qpeak = 565 kPa and punch-through depth
dpeak = 5.6 m.
The deterministic punch-through point does not
necessarily coincide with the most probable punch-
through pressure and depth, which is found at the
centre of the concentric contours. This is due to the
skewness in Monte Carlo simulation output samples
of punch-through stress and depth. The most proba-
bly failure corresponds to a pressure of approximately
560 kPa and a depth of 5.4 m.
7.4.1 Example 1
The likelihood of reaching punch-through conditions
was calculated. With a deterministic analysis, a “factor
of safety” (FS) can be defined:
where values of FS ≤ 1 represent failure and values
FS > 1 represent the margin of safety. If the jack-
up is to be preloaded to qpreload = 530 kPa, then the
FS calculated prior to installation is 565/530 = 1.07.
As reported for many other geotechnical applications,
one cannot convert a factor of safety to probability of
failure.
The probabilistic method allows for a direct calcu-
lation of the probability that qpeak will be less than the
preload qpreload . For a qpreload of 530 kPa, the proba-
bilistic calculation yields Pf = 0.08. This means that
there is an 8% probability that during preloading to
530 kPa, a peak punch-through load will be reached or
exceeded. The first line in Table 10 presents the prior
“factor of safety” FS and the probability of failure Pf
for preload pressures of 530 and 550 kPa.
With Bayes’ theorem formulated as in Equation 33,
the probability of punch-through was updated with
the results of monitoring data. Two monitoring sce-
narios are used as examples. Table 11 presents the
Monitoring
data dmon (m) qmon (kPa) dmon (m) qmon (kPa)
mon1 0.1 250 0.2 300
mon2 0.2 350 0.6 400
mon3 2.0 400 2.0 550
measured data. The data consist of sets of depth (dmon )
and pressure (qmon ) measurements during the jack-up
installation. Three measurement sets are used (mon1 ,
mon2 and mon3 ).
Figure 34 presents the likelihood and updated pos-
terior probability for the punch-through after the
acquisition of the first measured data set (mon1 for
Example 1). Figure 34a presents the probability con-
tours for these curves. The single measured data point,
dmon of 0.1 m and qmon of 250 kPa, limits the extent of
the possible load-displacement curves.
With Equation 33, the probability was updated. It
can be observed in Figure 34b that the probability con-
tours have moved to a punch-through scenario that
is deeper and at a lower pressure (the contours move
down and to the left in Figure 34b). For a preload target
of 530 kPa, this modification increases the likelihood
of punch-through, with the prior Pf increasing from
0.08 to 0.28 (Table 10). As the installation continues
and further data points are collected, the probability
can be further updated. For Example 1, Figure 35 and
Figure 36 present the results of the updating for two
and three sets of data. The contours in this example
do not undergo significant changes with each addi-
tional measurement (Pf decreases slightly to 0.26 and
then to 0.21). Because the contours are not changing
this result implies that the monitoring points are fol-
lowing typical load-displacement curves leading to a
punch-through event, according to the formulation of
Equation 32. Table 10 presents the values of FS and Pf
for the Example 1 cases analysed.
For a qpreload of 550 kPa (Table 10), a deterministic
FS of 1.03 was calculated, corresponding to a Pf of
0.26 (or a 26% probability of a punch-through failure).

207

Figure 34. Likelihood and posterior probability of
punch-through updated with one set of monitoring data
(Ex. 1).
From Table 10, one can observe that Pf increases with
the updating with the first set of monitoring data.
Table 10 also shows the change FS values as more
data points become available. The FS values repre-
sent the ratio between the deterministic punch-through
pressure predicted (565 kPa) and the most recently
measured data.
If a third set of monitoring data had been used for
Example 1, the results can be quite different. The data
set mon3 is changed to reflect higher pressure recorded
at the depth of 2 m: qmon3 is increased from 400 kPa to
500 kPa and then to 525 kPa (Table 10).
In the deterministic calculation, the FS gradually
decreases as the measured data approaches qpeak =
565 kPa (1.41 to 1.13 to 1.08 in Table 10). However,
the opposite occurs in the probabilistic calculation. In
Figure 37, the contours concentrate at pressure levels
higher than the preload of 550 kPa. This in turn reduces
the Pf values from 0.52 to 0.36 to 0.07. The updating
suggest that a punch-through failure is less likely to
occur than initially predicted.
208
Figure 35. Likelihood and posterior probability of
punch-through updated with two sets of monitoring data
(Ex. 1).
7.4.2 Example 2
Figure 38 and Table 12 present the results of Example
2, where another set of monitored data (Example 2 in
Table 11). In this example, the updating has the oppo-
site effect to that observed in Example 1. The higher
monitored pressure leads to the concentration of the
predicted punch-through pressure at shallower depths
and higher pressure, thus moving the contours up and
to the right in Figure 38. The likelihood that a punch-
through pressure will be reached before the preloading
to 530 kPa has been achieved was reduced from the
prior 0.08 to 0.07 (for two monitored points). Interest-
ingly, Pf increases if a preload of 600 kPa is targeted,
as shown in Table 12 (increasing from a prior value
of 0.83 to 0.91 after the acquisition of three sets of
monitoring data). This occurs because the probability
contours become more concentrated with the acqui-
sition of the monitoring data (Figure 38) compared
with the predicted pressure prior to installation (Fig-
ure 33). The more uncertain (less concentrated) prior
predictions, therefore, allow for a no-punch-through
probability of 17% above 600 kPa.
 Figure 37. Probability of punch-through at qpeak and dpeak
with alternative third monitored points (Ex. 1).
Figure 36. Likelihood and posterior probability of
punch-through updated with three sets of monitoring data
(Ex. 1).

8 CONCLUSIONS

This paper presented recent advances in both the

deterministic and probabilistic methods to analyse the
installation of the spudcan foundations of offshore
mobile jack-up platforms. The authors concentrated
on new methods that may lead to modifications to
the recently released ISO 19905-1 guidelines (ISO
2012). These include the deterministic analytical mod-
els predicting spudcan penetration in predominantly
clay sites, as well as the formulas to estimate punch-
through potential in sand-over-clay and stiff-over-soft
clay sites.
Compared to the ISO 19905-1 methods, the data
and methods in the paper show that the ISO recom-
mendations could be changed in two key areas: Figure 38. Updated probability of punch-through at qpeak
and dpeak (Ex. 2).

(1) In retrospectively simulating field installation

data from Gulf of Mexico clay sites, the primary and Martin (Appendix E of ISO), on average, fit the
“Skempton” method of ISO under predicts the field data better (mean of 101% of field data). The new
records (with a mean of 90% below the field data). methods of Hossain et al. fit the data better when the
The alternative bearing capacity factors of Houlsby more complex rate and softening effects are included

209
Table 12. Calculated “Factors of Safety” and probabilities
of failure for Example 2.
qpreload = 530 kPa qpreload = 600 kPa
Case FS Pf S Pf
Prior 1.07 0.08 0.94 0.83
After mon1 1.88 0.07 1.88 0.94
After mon2 1.41 0.07 1.41 0.94
After mon3 N.A. N.A. 1.03 0.91
in the calculations. The scatter in the ratio of the
predicted to recorded data was very small, with con-
sistent CoV values of 8 or 9% for all four methods
(Table 4).
(2) In retrospective simulations of 71 geotechnical
centrifuge tests of spudcans penetrating in a sand-
over-clay profile, the ISO load spread and punching
shear mechanisms were shown to significantly under
predict the peak punch-through pressure. On average,
they predicted only 58% and 44% of the measured
centrifuge values respectively. These represent signifi-
cant variations and confirm the existing opinion within
industry that these ISO methods under predict cases
considerably jack-up installation loads in sand-over-
clay profiles. The new method of Lee et al. and Hu
et al. that calculates the peak capacity through a ‘silo’
analysis and, for the first time, accounts for the stress
level and dilatant response of the sand provides pre-
dictions of the centrifuge database that are very close
(mean of 101%) to the measured values.
The authors recommend that the profession con-
tinue to improve the deterministic models with
applications for buried strong layers, multi-layered
approaches and for silty materials. Each topic requires
further research. Of utmost importance, remains the
verification of predictions against field measurements.
Industry is encouraged to collate these and make them
available to researchers and practitioners (such as in
van Dijk and Yetginer 2015 at this conference).
There is so far little evidence that statistical and
probabilistic models are used in jack-up site assess-
ments. It is hoped that the advances described in this
paper provide inspiration for the inclusion of such
methods in practice and for further development and
refinement.
A significant product form the probabilistic
approach is that engineers can calculate likelihood
intervals in the load-penetration behaviour that have
quantitative meaning. The intervals were presented
as probability of exceedance plots in this paper. It is
well recognised in practice that uncertainties in spud-
can behaviour exist, and engineers do develop upper
and lower estimates for the soil strength. However,
the consistent framework that allow the incorpora-
tion of all significant uncertainties in a systematic
manner and that the reliability approach provides,
is not used.
Applications of the reliability approach were out-
lined in this paper, including distributed model factors
210
for the probabilistic prediction of bearing pressure
in predominantly clay layers and for punch-through
scenarios. The model factors findings could also ben-
efit from additional field data to help further refine
the probabilistic model factors.
A Bayesian framework to update the probabilis-
tic forecast with observations made during spudcan
installation was introduced. The approach is poten-
tially an extremely powerful tool for the jack-up
industry, as monitored installation data are commonly
available.
Methods for the probabilistic prediction of punch-
through in sand-over-clay and stiff-over-soft clay were
described. Example analyses showed how a prediction
prior to an installation could be updated with moni-
tored data, and how the statistics such as the probability
that a peak punch-through pressure would occur before
preload is reached can be changed.
The probabilistic models are not as mature as the
deterministic models, and also need further develop-
ment and verification with industry monitored data.
However, the authors believe that deterministic and
probabilistic, when used as complements to each other,
provide an improved basis for assessing how reliable
one’s prediction is, and for making decisions.
The deterministic models that are founded in cor-
rect science and realistic failure mechanisms will not
be replaced by probabilistic models. However, the
deterministic models do not provide all the infor-
mation required by engineers. They give no guid-
ance on the confidence the engineer should place in
his prediction or on what course of action should
be taken if a jack-up installation diverges from the
installation prediction done before the installation.
Taking into account uncertainties probabilistically
and updating a priori predictions as more informa-
tion becomes available, will lead to safer jack-up
installations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank colleagues at the Centre for Off-
shore Foundation Systems (COFS) and the Australian
Research Council Centre of Excellence for Geotechni-
cal Science and Engineering, the Norwegian Geotech-
nical Institute, the University of Oxford and the
National University of Singapore for their contribu-
tion to the analysis of spudcan foundations from which
this paper builds on, particularly Mark Randolph,
Shazzad Hossain, Sam Stanier, Dong Wang, Kok
Kuen Lee (now at Advanced Geomechnics-Fugro),
Britta Bienen, Youhu Zhang, Christophe Gaudin, Guy
Houlsby, Colin Leung and Kar Lu Teh (now at Brae-
mar Technical Services). COFS is supported by the
Lloyd’s Register Foundation as a Centre of Excel-
lence and currently is one of the primary nodes of the
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for
Geotechnical Science and Engineering. Lloyd’s Reg-
ister Foundation invests in science, engineering, and
technology for public benefit, worldwide.
REFERENCES
Ang, A, H-S. & Tang, W.H. 1975. Probability concepts
in engineering planning and design. Volume I Basic
principles. John Wiley & Sons. 409 p.
Ang, A, H-S. & Tang, W.H. 1984. Probability concepts in
engineering planning and design. Volume II. Decision,
risk and reliability. John Wiley & Sons. 562 p.
Ang, A, H-S. & Tang, W.H. 2007. Probability concepts in
engineering. Emphasis on applications to civil & envi-
ronmental engineering. 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons.
406 p.
Baecher, G.B. & Christian, J.T. 2003. Reliability and statistics
in geotechnical engineering. Wiley & Sons. 605 p.
Baglioni, V.P., Chow, G.S. & Endley, S.N. 1982. Jack-up
rig foundation stability in stratified soil profiles. Proc.
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC
4408.
Bienen, B., Cassidy, M.J., Randolph, M.F. & Teh, K.L. 2010.
Characterisation of undrained shear strengths using sta-
tistical methods. Proc. 2nd Int. Sym. on Frontiers of
Offshore Geotechnics. (ISFOG-2010). Perth, Australia,
pp. 661–666.
Bolton, M.D. 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands.
Géotechnique, 36(1), 65–78.
Brinch Hansen, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula
for bearing capacity. The Danish Geotechnical Institute,
Copenhagen 98: 5–11.
Brown, J.D. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1969. Experimental study
of bearing capacity in layered soils, Proc. 7th ICSMFE,
Vol. 2.
Cassidy, M.J. 2012. Experimental observations of the pen-
etration of spudcan footings in silt. Géotechnique 62(8)
727–732.
Cassidy, M.J. & Houlsby, G.T. 1999. On the modelling of
foundations for jack-up units on sand, Proc. 31st Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 10995.
Cassidy, M.J. & Houlsby, G.T. 2002. Vertical bearing capacity
factors for conical footings on sand. Géotechnique, 52(9),
687–692.
Castleberry II, J.P. & Prebaharan, N. 1985. Clay crusts of the
Sunda Shelf - a hazard to jack-up operations. Proc. 8th
SoutheastAsian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
40–48.
Dean, E.T.R. 2010. Offshore geotechnical engineering.
Thomas Telford.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV). 2012. Statistical representation
of soil data. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C207. Jan.
2012.
Edwards, D.H. & Potts, D.M. 2004. The bearing capacity of a
circular footing under ‘punch through’ failure. Proc. Int.
Symp. Num. Models in Geomech., (NUMOG), Ottawa,
493–498.
Einav, I. & Randolph, M.F. 2005. Combining upper bound
and strain path methods for evaluating penetration resis-
tance. International Journal of Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 63(14), 1991–2016.
Erbrich, C.T. 2005. Australian frontiers – spudcans on the
edge. Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotech-
nics (ISFOG), Perth, pp. 49–74.
Fenton, G.A. & Griffiths, D.V. 2008. Risk assessment in
geotechnical engineering. Wiley and Sons. 461p.
Hanna, A.M. & Meyerhof, G.G. 1980. Design charts for ulti-
mate bearing capacity of foundations on sand overlaying
soft clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 1: 300–303.
Higham M.D. 1984. Models of jack-up rig foundations. MSc
Thesis. Manchester University.
211
Hossain, M.S., Hu, Y. & Randolph, M.F. 2003. Spudcan
foundation penetration into uniform clay. Proc. Int. Symp.
Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE), Hawaii, USA,
647–652.
Hossain, M.S., Hu, Y., Randolph, M.F. & White, D.J. 2005.
Limiting cavity depth for spudcan foundations penetrating
clay. Géotechnique 55(9), 679–690.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2009a . New mechanism-
based design approach for spudcan foundations on single
layer clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 135(9), 1264–1274.
Hossain, M.S. & Randolph, M.F. 2009b . New mechanism-
based design approach for spudcan foundations on stiff-
over-soft clay. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Paper OTC19907.
Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F., Hu, Y. & White, D.J. 2006.
Cavity stability and bearing capacity of spudcan foun-
dations on clay. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Paper OTC 17770.
Hossain, M.S., Zheng, J., Menzies, D., Meyer, L. & Randolph,
M.F. 2014. Spudcan penetration analysis for case histories
in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 140(7), 04014034.
Houlsby, G.T. 2010. A probabilistic approach to the pre-
diction of spudcan penetration of jack-up units. Proc.
2nd Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics:
ISFOG-2010, Perth.
Houlsby, G.T. & Cassidy, M.J. 2002. A plasticity model for
the behaviour of footings on sand under combined loading.
Géotechnique, 52(2), 117–129.
Houlsby, N.M.T. & Houlsby, G.T. 2013. Statistical fit-
ting of undrained strength data. Géotechnique. 63(14),
1253–1263.
Houlsby, G.T. & Martin, C.M. 2003. Undrained bearing
capacity factors for conical footings on clay. Géotechnique
53(5), 513–520.
Hu, P. 2015. Predicting punch-through failure of a spudcan
on sand overlying clay. PhD Thesis, University of Western
Australia, Australia.
Hu, P., Stanier, S., Cassidy, M.J. & Wang, D. 2014a .
Predicting peak resistance of spudcan penetrating
sand overlying clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 140(2), DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001016.
Hu, P., Stanier, S.A., Wang, D. & Cassidy, M.J. 2014b . The
effect of conical shape on a footing penetrating sand over-
lying clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Under review.
Hu, P., Wang, D., Cassidy, M.J. & Stanier, S.A. 2014c .
Predicting the resistance profile of a spudcan on sand
overlying clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51(10),
1151–1164, DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2013-0374.
Hu, P., Wang, D., Stanier, S.A. & Cassidy, M.J. 2014d .
Assessing the punch-through hazard of a spudcan on sand
overlying clay, Géotechnique, Under review.
ISO. 2012. Petroleum and natural gas industries: Site-
specific assessment of mobile offshore unit. 1: jack-ups.
ISO 19905-1, ISO/FDIS, Geneva.
ISO DIS 2394. 2015. General principles on reliability for
structures. International Standard. Draft.
Keaveny, J.M., Nadim, F. & Lacasse, S. 1990.Autocorrelation
functions for offshore geotechnical data. Proc. ICOSSAR
1990. International Conference on Structural Safety and
Reliability. Perth, Australia, 263–270.
Lacasse, S., Guttormsen, T., Nadim, F., Rahim, A. & Lunne,
T. 2007. Use of statistical methods for selecting design soil
parameters. Proc. 6th Int. Offshore Site Investigation and
 Geotechnics Conference: Confronting new challenges and
sharing knowledge, London, UK, 449–460.
Lacasse, S. & Nadim, F. 1996. Uncertainties in characterizing
soil properties. Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment:
From Theory to Practice, ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication, 58: 49–75.
Lacasse, S., Nadim, F., Andersen, K.H., Knudsen, S., Eidsvig,
U.K., Yetginer, G., Guttormsen, T.R. & Eide, A. 2013.
Reliability of API, NGI, ICP and Fugro axial pile capac-
ity calculation methods. Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC-24063-MS. Houston, Texas.
Lee, K.K. 2009. Investigation of potential spudcan punch-
through failure on sand overlying clay soils. PhD thesis,
University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Lee, K.K., Cassidy, M.J. & Randolph, M.F. 2013a . Bearing
capacity on sand overlying clay soils: Experimental and
finite element investigation of potential punch-through
failure, Géotechnique, 63(15), 1271–1284.
Lee, K.K., Randolph, M.F. & Cassidy, M.J. 2013b . Bear-
ing capacity on sand overlying clay soils: A simplified
conceptual model, Géotechnique, 63(15), 1285–1297.
Li, J.H., Huang, J., Cassidy, M.J. & Kelly, R. 2014. Spa-
tial variability of the soil at the Ballina national field test
facility. Australian Geomechanics, 49(4), 41–48.
Li, J.H., Uzielli, M. & Cassidy, M.J. 2015. Uncertainty-based
characterization of Piezocone and T-bar data for the Lam-
inaria offshore site. Proc. 3rd Int. Sym. on Frontiers of
Offshore Geotechnics. (ISFOG-2015). Oslo, Norway.
Martin, C.M. 1994. Physical and numerical modelling of off-
shore foundations under combined loads. D.Phil. Thesis,
University of Oxford.
Menzies, D. & Roper, R. 2008. Comparison of jackup rig
spudcan penetration methods in clay. Proc. 40th Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston.
Meyerhof, G.G. & Hanna, A.M. 1978. Ultimate bearing
capacity of foundations of layered soils under inclined
loads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15, 565–572.
Nadim, F. 1988. Geotechnical site description using Stochas-
tic Interpolation. NGM.1988. 10th NGM (“Nordiske
Geoteknikermøte”). Oslo. 158–161.
Osborne, J.J. 2007. Unpredicted jack-up foundation perfor-
mance, PetroMin, Singapore, pp. 42–51.
Osborne, J.J., Houlsby, G.T., Teh, K.L., Bienen, B., Cas-
sidy, M.J., Randolph, M.F. & Leung, C.F. 2009. Improved
guidelines for the prediction of geotechnical performance
of spudcan foundations during installation and removal of
jack-up units. Proc. 41st Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, OTC-20291.
Osborne, J.J. & Paisley, J.M. 2002. SE Asia jack-up punch-
throughs: The way forward? Proc. Int. Conf. on Offshore
Site Investigation and Geotechnics – Sustainability and
Diversity. London, 301–306.
Osborne, J.J., Teh, K.L., Houlsby, G.T., Cassidy, M.J.,
Bienen, B. & Leung, C.F. 2010. Improved guidelines
for the prediction of geotechnical performance of spud-
can foundations during installation and removal of
jack-up units. RPS Energy Report Number EOG0574-
Rev1. Final Guidelines of the InSafe Joint Indus-
try Project 124p. Now available to all industry at
http://insafe.woking.rpsplc.co.uk/Default.asp.
Osborne, J.J., Teh, K.L., Houlsby, G.T., Cassidy, M.J., Ran-
dolph, M.F., Bienen, B., Hossain, M.S. & Leung, C.F.
2009. InSafe Joint Industry Project. FirstYear Report. RPS
Energy Report.
212
View publication stats
Paisley, J.M. & Chan, N. 2006. SE Asia jack-up punch-
throughs: technical guidance note on site assessment.
Proc. Jack-up Asia Conference and Exhibition, Singapore.
Phoon, K.K. & Kulhawy, F.H. 1999. Characterization of
geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
36: 612–624.
Randolph, M.F. & Gourvenec, S. 2011. Offshore Geotech-
nical Engineering. CRC Press/ Taylor & Francis. ISBN:
978-0-415-47744-4.
Randolph, M.F., Jamiolkowski, M.B. & Zdravkovi, L. 2004.
Load carrying capacity of foundations. Proc. Skempton
Memorial Conf., London, 1: 207–240.
Skempton, A.W. 1951. The bearing capacity of clays. Build-
ing Research Congress, London, 1, 180–189.
SNAME 2008. Guidelines for site specific assessment of
mobile jack-up units, Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers.Technical and Research Bulletin 5–5A,
New Jersey.
Teh, K.L., Cassidy, M.J., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K., Randolph,
M.F. & Quah, C.K. 2008. Revealing the bearing fail-
ure mechanisms of a penetrating spudcan through sand
overlaying clay. Géotechnique. 58(10), 793–804.
Teh, K.L., Leung, C.F., Chow, Y.K. & Cassidy, M.J. 2010.
Centrifuge model study of spudcan penetration in sand
overlying clay. Géotechnique, 60(11), 825–842.
Uzielli, M., Cassidy, M.J. & Hossain, M.S. 2015. Bayesian
prediction of punch-through probability for spudcans in
stiff-over-soft clay. To appear in the Wilson Tang Special
Edition, GeoInstitute, ASCE.
van Dijk, B.F.J. & Yetginer, A.G. 2015. Findings of
the ISSMGE jack-up leg penetration prediction event.
Proc. 3rd Int. Sym. on Frontiers of Offshore Geotechnics.
(ISFOG-2015). Oslo, Norway.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1977. Probabilistic modeling of soil
profiles. J. Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE
103(11): 1227–1246.
Vanmarcke, E.H. 1983. Random Fields: analysis and synthe-
sis. Cambridge: MIT Press. 382p.
Wong, P.C., Templeton, J.S., Purwana, O.A., Hofstede, H.,
Cassidy, M.J., Hossain, M.S. & Martin, C.M. 2012. Foun-
dation modeling and assessment in the new ISO standard
19905-1. Proc. 44th Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, USA, OTC23521.
Young, A.G. & Focht, J.A. 1981. Subsurface hazards affect
mobile jack-up rig operations. Sounding, McClelland
Engineers Inc., Houston, 3(2): 4–9.
Zhang, L.M., Tang, W.H., Zhang, L.L. & Zheng, J.G. 2004.
Reducing uncertainty of prediction from empirical corre-
lations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 130(5), 526–534.
Zhang, L.L., Tang, W.H. & Zhang, L.M. 2009a . Bayesian
model calibration using geotechnical centrifuge tests.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, ASCE, 135(2), 291–299.
Zhang, J., Zhang, L.M. & Tang, W.H. 2009b . Bayesian
framework for characterizing geotechnical model uncer-
tainty. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 135(7), 932–940.