Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Goa, India
th
Assessment of Bearing Capacity and Settlement of IrregularShaped Mat Supported Oil Drilling Rigs Using Finite Element Analysis
Mahanta. R, Prakasha, K. S, Deshpande.A.R and Dholey H.S,
Institute of Engineering and Ocean Technology, ONGC, Panvel, Navi Mumbai, India. Keywords: mat, finite element, bearing, drilling rig ABSTRACT: Mobile drilling rigs are used for drilling offshore wells by the oil and gas industry. Many rigs have legs connected at the bottom by a large sized and irregular shaped mat for bearing the loads. Design of its shape is dictated by the loads arising out of the gravitational as well as lateral forces and moments. The mats are generally A shaped which makes it a somewhat complicated task for exact evaluation of its bearing capacity and settlement. The complicated geometry makes adoption of usual limit equilibrium method for calculation of bearing capacity un-amenable, unless simplifying assumptions are made. The inaccuracies arising out of such assumptions are difficult to estimate/predict. Hence, it is desirable to find the exact solution adopting finite element method for calculation of bearing capacity. The solution so obtained has been compared with those obtained from the limit equilibrium approach. The other important consideration in such foundations is settlements which occur during the operation period.The paper presents the results of analysis and discusses the inaccuracies associated with making different assumptions. Based on the study, the most suitable limit equilibrium approach is suggested.
1 Introduction
One of the two main types of jack up rigs used for offshore drilling is mat supported rig. These rigs have large area of foundation and they can be used in areas where the soil is soft up to a significant depth below the mudline and where independent leg jack up rigs would require large penetration of their footing (spudcan) which becomes risky and sometimes infeasible from operational point of view. The large area of the mat in the mat supported leg ensures that penetration of the mat is small in the seabed. The bearing stress is less and even soft soil can support it. The analysis for penetration into the seabed soil and to know the stability during operation requires the calculation of bearing capacity. The irregular shape makes it difficult to follow the limit equilibrium method in the same way as for a rectangular footing. Therefore, attempts have been made to assess it through finite element method and compare it with the limit equilibrium method to come out with the comparison and recommend a practice to reduce uncertainty in the calculation of bearing capacity. The main issues that concern the mat supported rig foundation are The penetration under the preload or due to consolidation and differential settlement later should not exceed the depth of the mat There should be an adequate factor of safety against failure due to effect of environmental load while in operation The differential settlement due to environmental loading should be within the acceptable limit
2 Foundation detail
The type of the mat supported rig foundation is of A type as shown in the Fig.1. The depth of the mat box is 3.1m. These foundations should not sink completely into the soil during preloading and operation. Load is transferred to the mat through 3 legs of tubular shape having external diameter of 3.1m. The area of the mat is 1925 sqm. Maximum preload is 110MN and operational load is 72MN. The foundation has been assumed as rigid and rough for the analysis. Skirts which are located in the periphery of the footing have not been considered. Also, sliding stability has not been discussed in this paper.
3127
Soil profile
The soil profile has been chosen from a typical site of Indian offshore, where the mat supported rig deployment is suitable. The profile contains clay in very soft condition near the seabed gradually increasing in strength up to 15.0m depth and overlying a dense sand layer. The mudline shear strength is 5 kPa with increment of 1kPa/m depth. In the model the mat is considered as sitting at the mudline without penetration. Normally penetration of about 1-1.5m is commonly seen. Therefore, the soil has been modeled with undrained shear strength of 7 kPa at the mudline(instead of 5 kPa) with an increment of 1 kPa/m depth downward. The soil parameters used in the finite element analysis and for settlement calculation are considered as listed in table1.
Y
50.0
11.0
27.0 Opening
11.0
20.5
20.5
59.5
centroid
28.0 Legs
17.0 28.0
11.0
LEGS
Y
11.0 11.0 Figure 1. Plan of the Mat All dimensions are in metre (Figure not to scale)
3128
4 Settlement
There are two types of settlements- elastic and consolidation. Consolidation settlement was calculated with one dimensional consolidation theory by dividing the 15m thick clay layer into 7 sub layers. Average stress increment in the mid of the sub layers due to the applied operational load was then calculated with elastic theory. A maximum period of two years was assumed conservatively to estimate the consolidation settlement over the period of operation. Elastic settlement was computed from the finite element analysis. Elastic differential settlement was computed from the finite element analysis applying operational and environmental loads. The tilt of the hull due to total differential settlement was compared with the allowable degree of tilt during operation.
3129
Table 2. Comparison of results from limit equilibrium method and FEM for centric load
Result of unit Bearing capacity Davis and Booker method (kPa) Common area Strip (25% of total area) 26 32 36 39 50 26 46 55 64 78 Result of unit Bearing capacity by Finite Element method (kPa) Along Y axis 27 34 38 41 53 Along X axis Common area (25% of total area) Load Capacity by Davis and Booker (MN) A Load Capacity by Finite element (MN) B Compara tive ratio A/B
Su = 5 kPa at surface, gradient =0 27 30 Su = 5 kPa at surface, gradient= 0.4 kPa/m 34 47 Su = 5 kPa at surface, gradient =0.7 kPa/m 38 57 Su = 5 kPa at surface, gradient = 1 kPa/m 41 65 Su = 7 kPa at surface, gradient = 1 kPa/m 53 79
50 68 78 87 110
53 72 82 90 115
Note: Mat area = 1925 m2 The effect of the presence of the skirts in the actual rig was not considered in the analysis. It can be seen that the separated strips have hardly any influence on each other so far as the ultimate bearing capacity is concerned Fig.4. it may be safely assumed that the strips are acting individually. The equilibrium is established for soil undrained strength of 7 kPa at the surface and an increment of 1 kPa/metre depth which gives the ultimate capacity equal to the preload of the rig i.e. 110MN. Now, with this soil strength stability is assessed under environmental loading.
3130
Table 3. Comparison of results from limit equilibrium method and FEM for eccentric and inclined load
Extreme wave from direction Forces (MN) Moment (MN.m) Horizontal 5.4 Vertical 72 moment 243 eccentricity Horizontal Vertical moment eccentricity Horizontal Vertical moment eccentricity 3.4 5.4 72 243 3.4 4 72 187.4 2.6 Bearing capacity FEM (MN) Long strips 62.6 Short strips 28.4 Total 91 F.O.S. Long strips Short strips Total F.O.S. Long strips Short strips Total F.O.S 1.26 67.2 21.5 88.7 1.23 61.6 28 89.6 1.24 Bearing capacity conventional (MN) Remarks For conventional calculation: Correction factor = 1.08 Effective area = 1705 sqm Unit bearing capacity =50kpa for 11m strip For conventional calculation: Correction factor = 1.08 Effective area = 1705 sqm Unit bearing capacity =50kpa for 11m strip For conventional calculation: Correction factor = 1.07 Effective area = 1724 sqm Unit bearing capacity =50kpa for 11m strip
Total F.O.S.
92.1 1.28
Total F.O.S.
92.1 1.28
Total F.O.S.
92.2 1.28
5.3 Settlement
The results of settlement calculations are presented in Table 4. Average bearing stress on soil due to operating load is calculated as 37.4 kPa. Table 4. Settlement of mat
Settlement Type (a) Maximum consolidation (b) Consolidation in the period of operation (maximum two years assumed) (c) Elastic(operational load) (d) maximum elastic in storm (e) Differential settlement due to elastic compression Differential settlement due to consolidation (0.5 x b) Quantity (mm) 1034 0.37x1034 = 383 35 48 19 191 383+48 =431 19+191 =210 tan (210/50000) =0.25 degree (Permissible limit =1 degree. Hence safe)
-1
It is seen that the total maximum settlement is 431 mm after deployment. This will be in addition to the initial penetration under preload.
6 Conclusion
Based on the above analysis for the given configuration of the mat, a simplified procedure has been recommended (Table 5) for the analysis of rig under different loading conditions and soil profiles where the soil is
3131
very soft up to a significant depth below the seafloor. Table 5. Recommended procedure for evaluation of bearing capacity
Case 1 Load condition Vertical Soil condition Constant strength profile with soft soil to significant depth Recommendation Calculate strip bearing capacity for constant strength condition (BCstr). Find area under strips (A). Correction Factor Fc = 1.06. Ultimate bearing capacity = Fc. BCstr. A Calculate strip bearing capacity for increasing strength condition (BCstr). Find total area under strips (A). Correction Factor Fc =1.15. Ultimate bearing capacity = Fc. BCstr. A Calculate strip bearing capacity for increasing strength condition (BCstr). Find total area under strips (A). Correction Factor Fc = 0.92. Ultimate bearing capacity = Fc. BCstr. A Calculate strip bearing capacity for increasing strength condition (BCstr). Find total area under strips (A). Correction Factor Fc = 0.94. Ultimate bearing capacity = Fc. BCstr. A
Vertical
Extreme: Inclined and eccentric; horizontal load from forward direction Extreme: Inclined and eccentric; horizontal load from aft direction
The bearing capacity of irregular shaped mats in soft soil may be evaluated based on bearing capacity of strips and applying correction in the range of -8% to +19% for different loading conditions. The load bearing capacity for pure vertical loading calculated by using finite element method for the soil profile is higher than strip bearing capacity of individual strips(11m width) calculated by using limit equilibrium method. For the soil profile considered in the case, it is about 19% greater. This is mainly because of the higher unit bearing capacity at the junctions. However, the capacity reduces on account of eccentricity and inclination of the load. These two factors compensate each other and the vertical capacity determined considering the mat as combination of strips provide a good approximation for the capacity under VHM loading. Most parts of the mat behave as individual strips and do not influence the capacity due to interference (Fig.3). Bearing capacity by finite element result is found to be in good agreement with bearing capacity of strip with vertical loading (Table 2). Conventional approach for stability assessment of the rig with VHM loading does not address the assymetry of the mat in the longitudinal direction. The factor of safety from the analysis is 1.0 with maximum preload and is nearly 1.3 with environmental load which are acceptable. Maximum possible settlement during operation is found to be about 14% of the mat depth for an operational period of 2 years which is within the recommended available mat depth after preload. Differential settlement is found to be within limit based on the allowable limit of tilt of the hull.
7 References
American Petroleum Institute, 2000. Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platformsworking stress design, API RP 2A, Twenty First Edition, December, 2000. Davis E.H., Booker J.R. 1973. The effect of increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity, Geotechnique, 23(4), 551553. Gaythwaite, John.1981. The marine environment and structural design Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York (USA). Lambe W., Whitman J., 2000. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons. Pierre Le T., Christian P., 1993. Stability and operation of jackups, Editions Technip, Paris PLAXIS, 1998. Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses, PLAXIS B.V., Netherlands. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Technical & Research Bulletin 5-5A, Guidelines for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units, First Edition, 1994.
3132