GUIDELINES

Guideline Title: Jacket Foundation Design CMS Number: CMS-830-03-GL-70021

Guideline Offshore and Marine Engineering Issuing Manager of Offshore Structures
Owner: Authority:

JACKET FOUNDATION DESIGN

0 Issued for Use MK 19 Nov 2009

Rev Changes Approved Date

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 1 of 23

"©Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, 2009. All Rights Reserved. For Internal Use Only.
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT, AND ALL TEXT, DRAWINGS, DETAILS AND DATA SHOWN HERETO, IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, USED FOR ANY PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER, OR RELEASED TO ANYONE EXCEPT BY EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON
COMPANY."
 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

1.0 PURPOSE
This guideline defines the process that should be used in the analysis and design of fixed offshore
structures (jackets) supported by steel pipe piles driven in the seabed for offshore oil and gas industry
projects. The collation of necessary data and technical procedures required to undertake detailed
foundation analysis and design are also discussed in this guideline.
Other types of fixed offshore structures include Gravity Base Structures (GBS). These are often
concrete structures which typically rest on skirted shallow foundations and therefore are not part of this
guideline.

2.0 SCOPE
This guideline applies to all engineers performing foundation analysis and design of fixed offshore
structures (jackets) supported by steel pipe piles driven into the seabed.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
The following personnel have responsibilities defined in this guideline:
 Project Lead Engineer
 Geotechnical Engineer

4.0 GUIDELINE
4.1 General
4.1.1 Pile foundations for North Sea jackets are typically between 2 and 3m in diameter and
are installed by driving to depths that could approach 90 to 100m. The procedures to
be followed in the design of the foundations cover installation, in-place, and fatigue
conditions.
4.1.2 Prior to pile installation, the jacket will be temporarily supported on mudmats. A
mudmat is a steel base plate located under each of the jacket corners and provides
stability to the jacket prior to pile driving. Pile sleeves act as a guide for the piles
during driving. The required on-bottom stability considerations are also described.
The jacket installation and piling are usually performed using a semi-submersible crane
vessel (SSCV). These activities are described elsewhere in CMS-830-03-SP-71011.
4.1.3 Steel jackets supported on large suction caissons, termed buckets, have also been
installed in the North Sea as an alternative to piles. These buckets are stiffened cans
of large diameters (over 10m) and are installed in the seabed with the aid of suction.
The geotechnical design process for the design and installation of such an innovative
concept are also discussed briefly.
4.1.4 The foundation design shall be conducted in accordance with recognised codes and
standards including API RP2A (WSD or LRFD), HSE guidelines, DnV classification
notes 30.4 and ISO 19902 – see Section 5.0, References.
4.1.5 Additionally, relevant CMS documents shall apply including those for Offshore
Geotechnical Survey, Offshore Pile Installation, Grouting Piles, Jacket Transportation
and Installation and Offshore Structures - Substructure Design.
4.1.6 Project Related Documents
Site investigation, laboratory testing and foundation reports specific to the Platform site
shall be identified and listed in this section.
4.1.7 During the detailed design phase, drawings and specifications shall be prepared
containing sufficient information to enable fabrication and installation contractors to
safely fabricate and install the substructure including the foundations.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 2 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

4.2 Design soil parameters

4.2.1 Site Investigation
4.2.1.1 It is common to drill several deep boreholes (occasionally in excess of
150m) at the proposed jacket location and to position the boreholes in the
vicinity of the jacket leg pockmarks with intermediate boreholes drilled in
between. The platform site investigation (other than in rocks) must include
a sufficient number of cone penetration tests CPTs (especially the piezo-
cone or PCPT, which can additionally measure the pore water pressure).
This will allow an accurate assessment of the near surface soil properties.
CPTs can be deployed in two modes, starting from the surface and pushed
until refusal (known as push CPTs) or in the downhole mode alternating
with sampling and drilling. CPTs are most effective in defining relative
density of deep sand strata that could give rise to driving difficulties. The
depth of boreholes should normally cover the maximum anticipated depth
of the piles plus at least 3 to 5 five pile diameters. The latter depth is
required to ensure that the pile end bearing contribution is properly
assessed. CMS-830-03-SP-12001 Offshore Geotechnical Survey gives
further details.
4.2.1.2 The site investigation and laboratory testing data shall be thoroughly
reviewed in order to develop design soil parameters for the design of piles
and mudmats. In particular, layers of soft surficial soils shall be closely
checked to ensure that the jacket temporary on-bottom stability is not
undermined. The shear strength profile selected for the top soils have a
large influence on the design of the mudmats, and on the lateral analysis of
the piles, but only a marginal influence on pile axial capacity. Similarly,
layers of dense and very dense sands existing at depth could cause pile
drivability problems and may result in pile premature refusal.
4.2.2 Soil Parameters
4.2.2.1 The design soil parameters are principally the undrained shear strength
(Su) of a clay soil and the angle of internal friction (Φ) of a sand, together
with the submerged unit weight of the soil (γ΄). It is rather uncommon to
assign c - Φ parameters to a soil except in some cases of intermediate soils
such as silts. As the parameters are intended primarily for the pile design,
limiting skin friction and end bearing values in granular soils and
occasionally in very hard clay are quoted. For granular soil, the pile-soil
interface friction angle  is typically taken as Φ – 5 degrees. The other
parameter appearing in the table is Epsilon 50 ( ε50 ) which is the soil strain
required for the pile lateral loading analysis.
4.2.2.2 Typical design soil parameters for a recent North Sea jacket are presented
in Table 4.1 below:

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 3 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

Table 4.1: Design Soil Parameters for an Example Platform

‘
From To Soil Su   fmax qmax ε50
metres metres Type kPa degrees kN/m3 kPa kPa
0.0 1.1 Sand scour - 8.0 - - -
1.1 4.7 Clay scour - 7.5 - - -
4.7 7.0 Clay 13.5 - 17 - 7.5 - - 0.005
7.0 9.0 Clay 17 - 100 - 10.0 - - 0.02
9.0 20.2 Clay 100 - 10.0 - - 0.02
20.2 29.1 Sand - 30 9.8 95.7 7.50 -
29.1 33.0 Clay 340 - 9.7 - - 0.006
33.0 39.0 Sand - 30 9.5 95.7 9.60 -
39.0 46.2 Sand - 30 9.5 95.7 5.00 -
46.2 48.0 Clay 900 - 9.5 250 5.40 0.006
48.0 72.7 Sand - 30 9.5 95.7 9.60 -
72.7 76.1 Clay 900 8.8 250 5.40 0.006
76.1 76.5 Sand - 30 8.8 95.7 9.60 -
Where:
Su : undrained shear strength
 : interface angle for pile-soil
γ΄ : submerged unit weight
fmax : limiting unit skin friction
qmax : limiting unit end bearing
ε50 : axial strain at 50% of the principal stress difference
4.2.2.3 In addition to the above, it will be required to make estimates of the
remoulded shear strength of the clay strata and also the stress history
(overconsolidation ratio) of the soil. These data will be used in the pile
drivability predictions as discussed in Section 4.3.3.
4.2.3 Scour
4.2.3.1 Where the surficial soils consist of loose fine sands and silty sands and the
water depth is shallow, particular attention should be paid to scour. While
the soft clay soils are not expected to be susceptible to scouring, large
plastic deformations are likely to be experienced during storms with the
result that little resistance is offered under repeated loading.
4.2.3.2 The effect of scour should be included in the pile design. It is
recommended to allow for both general scour and local scour around the
pile head. General scour is a lowering of the seabed around and beneath
the platform whilst local scour occurs in the shape of an inverted cone
around the pile head. Typically 1m general scour and a local scour of 1.5 x
pile diameter are recommended in granular soils. However, the Southern
North Sea environment is far more onerous than the northern and central
sectors and scour depths of several metres have been observed in
Amoco’s Leman and Indefatigable Fields (Southern North Sea).
4.2.3.3 Where a jack-up has been used for work-over alongside the platform,
consideration should be given to the proximity craters left by the jack-up
spud cans on the piles due to possible loss of resistance.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 4 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

4.2.4 Seabed Slope

Seabed slope is determined using bathymetry and geophysical data obtained at the
platform location. Only occasionally, when the seafloor slope is excessive it may be
necessary to introduce modifications into the design of the mudmats and jacket legs.
4.3 Pile Foundations Design
4.3.1 General
4.3.1.1 The design soil parameters and any updates shall be used in the
foundation design calculations.
4.3.1.2 The foundation design shall be performed in accordance with the API RP2A
WSD or LRFD Codes (normally specified by the Platform owner) and the
design methods and assumptions for the piles and mudmats are discussed
in the following sections.
4.3.2 Ultimate Pile Capacity
4.3.2.1 Calculation Method
The pile capacity calculation shall be based on the soil design parameters.
The calculations shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations in API RP2A WSD or LRFD, subject to the following
qualifications:
1. In clays, the unit shaft friction calculation shall be based on the
strength ratio method recommended in API RP2A. In hard clays,
an upper limiting skin friction value of 250 kPa shall be adopted.
Unit end bearing calculations shall also follow the API RP2A
recommended practice.
2. The following parameters are recommended by API RP2A for pile
ultimate capacity calculations in silicate granular soils for driven
pipe piles.
Table 4.2: Design Parameters for Cohesionless Siliceous Soil
Interface Limiting Skin Limiting Unit
Soil
Density angle, δ, Friction fmax, Nq End Bearing,
Description
degrees kPa qmax, kPa
Very Loose Sand
Loose Sand-Silt 15 47.8 8 1900
Medium Silt
Very Loose Sand
Loose Sand-Silt 20 67.0 12 2900
Medium Silt
Medium Sand
25 81.3 20 4800
Dense Sand-Silt
Dense Sand
30 96.0 40 9600
Very Dense Sand-Silt
Dense Gravel
35 114.8 50 12000
Very Dense Sand
Note: for carbonate and calcareous sands and micaceous sands, the above
parameters will not apply
3. For long piles driven in granular soils, the unit skin friction shall be
calculated in accordance with API RP2A except for adopting
coefficients of earth pressure of 0.7 and 0.5 for compressive and
tensile loading, respectively (to be agreed). In granular soils,
limiting unit skin friction and end bearing values shall be imposed in
accordance with API RP2A’s current practice (see Table 4.2).

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 5 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

4. At any penetration, the ultimate capacity will be taken as the lesser

of the plugged and unplugged pile assumptions. The unit inside
friction will be taken equal to unit outside friction at any given depth
and the top of the soil plug will be assumed at the sea floor level.
5. Mobilisation of the pile end bearing shall take into account the
strata changes and the relative strengths of the interface soils.
Rounding effects will be incorporated into the capacity curves by
assuming the pile end bearing to be fully mobilised for pile tip
penetration of no less than 3 diameters into the stronger soil.
Similarly the potential for punch-through of the pile tip from the
stronger and into the softer soils shall be checked, assuming linear
variation over 3 pile diameters above the weaker stratum. This is
consistent with API’s recommendations.
6. The pile capacity shall be calculated for both compressive and
tensile loading conditions. Under tensile loading, the pile end
bearing is ignored.
7. Factors of safety or resistance factors shall be applied to the
calculated capacities based on the respective API RP2A, WSD /
LRFD.
8. Although the API RP2A recommended pile capacity calculation
methods continue to be the acceptable design method, other
methods have been evolved but are only occasionally applied in
the pile design. These include the Imperial College Pile (ICP)
method described by Jardine and Chow, which has been lately
applied to several UK North Sea platforms located on granular
soils.
9. In cohesive soils, pile capacity methods include those by Meyerhof,
the Lambda method and the method by Semple and Rigden.
Especially, in heavily overconsolidated clays, predictions of pile
skin friction are not too accurate.
10. Changes to the pile design recommendations have regularly been
made due to the availability of new pile load data from around the
world, and from field observations. In most cases, there have been
improvements in predetermination of pile ultimate capacity in these
soils.
11. The above pile capacities are appropriate to static loading
conditions. Under cyclic loading, skin friction degrades and the pile
capacity could be appreciably smaller than the static capacity
especially under 2–way loading (i.e. compression to tension) and in
hard clays – see Bea, and Mirza.
12. Offshore piles generally experience a limited regime of cyclic
loading. However, cyclic loading is of paramount importance to
piles supporting Tension Leg Platforms (TLPs). A TLP is a buoyant
platform held in place by a mooring system. The TLPs are similar
to conventional fixed platforms except that the platform is
maintained on location through the use of moorings held in tension.
The mooring system is a set of tendons attached to the platform
and connected to a template or foundation on the seafloor. The
template is held in place by piles driven into the seabed. TLP piles
will have to resist large tensile forces with combined static and
cyclic loading.
4.3.2.2 Isolated Pile Capacity
Profiles of ultimate compressive capacity (skin friction plus end bearing)
and tensile capacity (skin friction) shall be developed for selected pile
diameters using the procedures outlined above.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 6 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

4.3.2.3 Number of Piles Required

1. The number of piles required shall be confirmed using the capacity
curves described above, together with pile drivability study results
and the expected pile group loads for the storm and operating load
cases. The in-place design load combinations shall comprise the
100 year storm and 1-year operating cases with maximum and
minimum topside loads.
2. Safety / Resistance factors shall be applied to the computed
capacities in accordance with the API RP2A recommendations in
order to determine the required pile penetration. Where
appropriate, load factors or factors of safety are applied to the
design loads as per API RP2A LRFD/WSD.
4.3.2.4 Pile Group Layout
The pile group layout will be derived from consideration of the following
clearances.
1. Clearance between piles and/or hammer and adjacent structure. A
minimum clearance of 300mm shall be assumed. Clearances
between piles due to pile ‘slop’ in the sleeves at maximum stick-up
shall be checked for the potential installation hammers.
2. Clearance between the hammer and the piles or structure for re-
stabbing after hammer breakdown during pile driving.
3. Clearance between the pile and adjacent piles.
4. Clearance between the hammer and the piles whilst driving.
5. Clearance between the pile sleeves and legs to provide sufficient
space for fabrication.
6. Clearance to sea-fastening during load-out.
4.3.2.5 Pile Group Efficiency
1. Should it become necessary to support the jacket on a cluster of
piles at each leg, then in developing the pile group configuration, a
minimum pile to pile centre spacing of 1.8 diameters shall be
assumed. This spacing is to ensure a group efficiency of at least
100% under axial load.
2. Efficiency of a pile group is defined as the capacity of a group of
piles divided by the sum of the individual capacities of the piles
making up the group.
3. The axial group efficiency of the selected pile group shall be
confirmed using the equivalent pier method described by Terzaghi
and Peck.
4. Shear resistance mobilised along the shear plane between the
piles shall be assumed equal to that at the pile/soil interface.
Should the group capacity be less than the summation of the
individual pile capacities then the group may be reconfigured.
5. In evaluating the ultimate capacity of the pile group, the end
bearing of the pier shall be taken as the sum of the end bearing
components of the individual piles in the group.
4.3.2.6 Required Pile Penetration
1. Pile ultimate compressive capacity is determined as the lesser of
the “plugged” (i.e. internal friction on the soil plug exceeds the end
bearing on the plug) and “unplugged” capacity at any given depth.
2. Pile ultimate capacity under tensile loads is equated to the external
pull-out friction capacity (assuming zero end-bearing under uplift
loads).

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 7 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

3. The required pile penetrations shall be determined based on pile

loads from the in-place analysis of the platform under both the
extreme and operating storm conditions using the appropriate load
and resistance factors specified in API RP2A.
4. The required penetrations shall be based on the maximum
compressive and tensile leg loads.
5. The maximum loads should be determined from a coupled linear
structure and non-linear foundation model.
6. The stiffness of the piled foundations shall be modelled using a full
non-linear soil/structure interaction analysis for all conditions.
4.3.3 Pile Driveability
4.3.3.1 General
1. Where competent soils are present at depths, the pile driveability
study shall consider the use of a range of appropriate hammers
(e.g. MHU2100, IHCS2300 and MHU3000) to identify the hammers
suitable for installation of the piles, depending on the pile size and
anticipated driving conditions, but with due considerations given to
limiting the pile stresses during driving, and under fatigue
conditions.
2. Predictions of pile driveability, including blowcount versus depth,
should be based on the hammer(s) proposed by the selected
Offshore Installation Contractor, OIC.
3. The driveability of piles shall be estimated using a combination of a
wave equation analysis and the soil resistance to driving (SRD)
predictions. The techniques for evaluating these are briefly
outlined below.
4. The pile driveability shall be estimated by integrating results of the
wave equation analyses and the estimated profiles of soil driving
resistance.
5. Where driving records from adjacent platforms exist, these shall be
reviewed and where possible integrated into the pile driveability
predictions.
4.3.3.2 SRD versus Depth
1. For clays, SRD shall be calculated for each borehole using the
methods proposed by Semple & Gemeinhardt and/or Toolan and
Fox. In the former method the dynamic shaft resistance in the clay
is calculated based on the over-consolidation ratio (OCR), while in
the latter, remoulded shear strength data are used to determine
shaft resistance.
2. In sand the shaft resistance is calculated using static capacity
parameters.
3. The end resistance for both sands and clays shall be based on the
static-capacity calculated values supplemented by cone
penetration test data, specifically a value of 60% of the measured
cone point resistance in sand, subject to a limiting unit end bearing
value of 50 MPa.
4. Driving resistance is the lesser summation of either outer shaft
friction plus full end bearing, or outer and inner shaft friction plus
pile wall end bearing.
5. A range of resistance is usually determined to provide upper and
lower bound to the expected driving behaviour.
6. The Toolan and Fox procedure has been calibrated against North
Sea driving conditions and is generally considered to give
conservative predictions.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 8 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

7. Soil driving resistance (SRD) may additionally be checked using

the methods by Stevens and by Alm and Hamre.
4.3.3.3 SRD versus Blowcount
1. A wave equation analysis shall be used to investigate the dynamic
behaviour of the pile during driving. The analysis shall be used to
predict.
a. The maximum resistance that the hammer can
overcome
b. The maximum stresses in the pile during driving
2. Results from the wave equation analysis should include the
resistances that can be overcome by the hammer at various driving
rates (blow counts) and the driving stresses in the pile and follower.
3. In the wave equation analyses, the following values of quake and
damping given should be used after Smith:

Wave Equation Parameters

Damping in clays Damping in sands Quake in clays and sands
Side - 0.656 sec/m (0.2 sec/ft) Side - 0.164 sec/m (0.05 sec/ft) Side - 0.00254m (0.1 inch)
Point - 0.33 sec/m (0.1 sec/ft) Point - 0.492 sec/m (0.15 sec/ft) Point - 0.00254m (0.1 inch)

4. The wave equation analyses shall consider hydraulic hammers.

These include both the IHC and MHU hammers. The hammer
selection depends on the pile size and anticipated driving
conditions.
5. In the analyses for pile driveability only, the hammer maximum
operating efficiency shall be taken as 85% for the MHU hammers
and 95% for the IHC hammers.
6. In the analyses for pile driving stresses only, upper bound hammer
operating efficiencies shall be considered, such as 100% for the
MHU 2100 and IHC S-2300 hammers and 95% for the MHU 3000
hammer.
7. Data to be used to model the more powerful hammers currently
available are listed below:

Selected Hammer Data :

Description MHU 3000 IHC S-2300 MHU 2100 MHU 1700
Maximum net impact energy (kNm) 3000 2300 2100 1700
Hammer efficiency 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.85
Ram mass (kN) 1619 1008 1138 922
Anvil mass (kN) 383 329 314 314
Spring constant ram-anvil (kN/mm) 50000 48000 50000 50000
Coefficient of restitution ram-anvil 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95

4.3.3.4 Achievable Penetration

1. The SRD versus depth profiles shall be integrated with the results
from the wave equation analysis to allow estimation of the
penetration that can be achieved at selected 'refusal' blowcounts.
Effective refusal shall be assumed as 250 blows per 250mm
penetration. Under field driving conditions, effective refusal shall be
defined as follows:

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 9 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

a. 125 blows per 250mm (150 blows per foot) over at least
1.5m (5 consecutive feet) of penetration,
or
b. 125 blows per 250mm (150 blows per foot) increasing
to 200 blows per 250mm (250 blows per foot) over 1.0m
(3 consecutive feet) of penetration,
or
c. 200 blows over the last 250mm (250 blows over the last
foot) of penetration.
2. Curves of predicted blowcounts versus depth shall be developed
for the selected pile and hammer combination.
3. Checks shall be carried out to ensure that refusal is not predicted
at a shallower penetration than that required for the design.
4. Comparisons shall be made with similar data developed by the
Offshore Installation Contractor, OIC.
4.3.3.5 Piling Contingencies
Consideration shall be given to premature refusal, drilling out of the pile
plug, restart of driving, set-up etc.
4.3.3.6 Allowable Pile Underdrive
Any pile wall thickening at the mudline, and / or weld beads shall be
extended down the pile for an appropriate distance to accommodate
underdrive of the piles in the event of premature refusal during driving.
4.3.3.7 Pile Acceptance Criteria
1. Driveability predictions shall show whether the design pile
penetration can be achieved at the borehole offering maximum
resistance. If not, the pile wall thickness or outside diameter or the
number of piles may have to be increased.
2. Piles shall be deemed acceptable if the target penetration is
achieved.
4.3.4 Pile Load-Deflection Behaviour
4.3.4.1 Introduction
1. The piles should be designed to withstand static and cyclic, lateral
and axial loading. To model the effects of soil non-linearity, it will
be necessary to develop non-linear models for the soil’s lateral and
axial resistance-deformation relationships for the piles considered.
2. The following sections describe the methodologies that may be
used in calculation of the soil resistance - pile deflection (p-y, t-z, q-
z) data and in developing the pile axial, lateral and torsional
responses. The non-linearity in the soil behaviour is therefore
incorporated into the foundation analyses.
4.3.4.2 Load-Deflection Behaviour
1. Lateral Load-Deflection Behaviour
a. Lateral soil resistance pile deflection (p-y) curves for
cyclic loading should be developed using methods
proposed by Matlock for clays, and by O’Neill and
Murchison for sands, as recommended in API RP2A.
b. The design soil parameters for lateral load analysis of
the piles should be based on the interpreted soil
parameters, including the coefficient of subgrade

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 10 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

reaction for sands Ks and the strain at 50% of the

deviator stress (ε50) values for clays.
c. Scour shall be incorporated in the calculations.
2. Axial Load-Deflection Behaviour
a. The t-z and q-z curves should be generated using the
recommendations of API RP2A. No degradation in the
peak skin friction is incorporated in the t-z curves.
b. For end bearing, the maximum value is mobilized at a
displacement equal to 10% of the pile diameter,
consistent with API recommendations.
3. Torsional Load-Deflection Behaviour
a. The torsional behaviour of the pile should be evaluated
using the t-z curves derived to represent frictional
behaviour.
4.3.5 Foundation Models
1. Foundation options such as a single pile or a group of piles per leg
may be selected for supporting the platforms.
2. The following sections describe the procedures to be used in the
in-place, fatigue, ship impact and redundancy foundation
calculations. Both non-linear and linear models are discussed.
4.3.5.1 Non-Linear Model For In-place Analysis
1. The in-place 100-year return and 1 year operating storm shall be
performed using a foundation model which accounts for non-
linearity of the soil. A similar model shall be adopted for the
seismic analysis. Non-linear soil resistance springs namely p-y
data describing pile lateral response and t-z and q-z data
describing the axial shaft and tip responses should be incorporated
in the model.
2. Loads and load combinations are first generated in the structural
analysis to represent the self-weight of the platform, live loads and
applied loading due to waves, current and wind for operating and
extreme storm conditions. Effects of dynamic amplification where
appropriate should be applied to the non-linear foundation model,
in which pile forces, moments, displacements and rotations are
computed by an iterative procedure.
3. The maximum pile-head in-place forces under compression and
tension loading should be extracted from the analysis and the
results used to determine the required pile penetration.
4. Distribution of stress within the piles shall be used to determine
wall thickness by means of API RP2A WSD/LRFD stress utilization
checks.
5. The computed pile displacements and rotations shall be inspected
to ensure that the pile head displacements are not excessive.
4.3.5.2 Linear Foundation Models for Ship Impact and Fatigue
1. Linear foundation models may be required for the ship-impact and
fatigue analyses. The linear foundation model consists of a 6 x 6
matrix describing “linearised” pile head behaviour under combined
loading conditions. A stiffness matrix can be generated to
represent the behaviour of a single isolated pile or of the pile group
as a whole or the individual piles within the pile group.
2. In the linear model, the stiffness coefficients in the matrix represent
secant stiffnesses determined at the design load levels. For the

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 11 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

fatigue analysis, pile loads should be taken for the centre-of-

damage wave, determined statistically from the annual wave
scatter diagram.
4.3.5.3 Soil Elastic Modulus
1. In the case where pile groups are used to support a platform, pile
group interaction effects must be taken into account. Evaluation of
the pile-soil-pile interaction effects should be made on the basis of
theory of elasticity. An elastic modulus is required for the analysis,
and the selection criteria of the elastic modulus for the soil-pile-soil
interaction calculations in the pile group analyses are outlined
below:
2. The group behaviour is derived from the summation of the isolated
pile and pile-soil-pile interaction effects. The pile-soil-pile
interaction relationships are a function of the pile group geometry,
the pile axial compressibility and lateral flexibility and the soil
modulus (see Poulos and Davis).
3. The lateral and axial soil moduli shall be calculated using elastic
half-space analysis for free-floating piles. At the working load
levels, an equivalent elastic soil modulus shall be determined by
matching the elastic displacements with those of the single pile
load-deflection behaviour analyses.
4. The elastic soil modulus, used for the interaction calculations, may
be uniform or may vary linearly with depth. The soil modulus will
therefore be derived based on judgement, considering that the
lateral modulus has most influence near the mudline whilst the
axial modulus will have an influence on the majority of the pile
length.
5. A review of pertinent soil modulus values for axial and lateral
loading of piles, available in the literature e.g. Poulos and Davis
shall be made. The results shall be compared with those assessed
using the method described above and values shall be selected
judiciously.
6. Elastic procedures for the single pile response calculations include
those given in Poulos and Davis.
4.3.5.4 Non-Linear Foundation Model for Pushover and Redundancy
A non-linear foundation model (consisting of p-y, t-z and q-z data and the
pile section properties) is developed for use in analyses to determine the
structural behaviour under pushover and redundancy conditions. Generally
the data are the same as those used in the in-place analyses unless the
soil conditions vary significantly from leg to leg.
4.3.5.5 Pile Static Strength
The maximum loads are determined from a coupled linear structure and
non-linear foundation model.
4.3.5.6 Utilization Stress Checks
1. Stress utilization checks for the in-place condition shall be
performed using the procedures recommended in API RP2A WSD/
LRFD.
2. The pile wall thickness profile shall be determined to satisfy
installation requirements as well as in-place considerations.
4.3.6 Pile Foundation Static Strength
4.3.6.1 Design Pile Penetrations

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 12 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

1. The design pile penetration will be selected on the basis of the

average leg axial load factored in accordance with API RP2A and
with allowance for the pile submerged weight. For WSD design,
the factors of safety shall be as follows:

Load Conditions Factor of Safety

Extreme storm environmental load case (compression) 1.5
Extreme storm environmental load case (tension) 1.5
Operating condition 2.0
Still water load 2.0
Ship Impact (accidental impact) 1.25
Push-over 1.0
Redundancy 1.0

2. The target pile penetration will be that required to safely support

the design loads in the softest borehole, determined from the
design axial capacity versus depth curves as described in previous
sections. For pile groups, additionally the pile group efficiency
must not fall below 100%. The factor of safety of any individual pile
within a group shall not fall below 1.25 and 1.4 for storm and
operating conditions, respectively.
3. In addition to satisfying the in-place load requirements for static
strength, the above factors of safety shall be satisfied due to ship
impact, push-over and redundancy in both compressive and tensile
loading of the foundation piles.
4.3.6.2 Pile Fatigue Analysis
Introduction
1. Pile fatigue lives are calculated by assessing fatigue damage from
two components:
a. Damage due to wave loading (environmental damage).
b. Damage due to pile driving.
2. The fatigue analysis of the piles shall use a spectral approach and
shall utilize loadings derived from the dynamic fatigue analysis of
the jacket.
3. Miner's summation shall be used to compute damage. S-N curves
appropriate to butt welds and weld beads are used. Stress
concentration factors should be used to account for increased
stresses that occur at thickness transitions and at mismatched butt
welds in joints of the same thickness.
4. In the pile fatigue assessments, stress concentration factors (SCF)
and plate thickness correction factors as per the HSE guidelines
should be applied to the computed stress ranges. The S-N curves
are in accordance with the HSE guidelines.
5. In the fatigue calculations, the curve appropriate for exposure to
“air” should be used for driving fatigue, while for environmental
fatigue, the curve for exposure to seawater should be used.
6. The S-N curves and classification factors together with the SCFs
and thickness corrections are summarised below:

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 13 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

HSE S-N Curve

Double sided Butt Welds 1.14P
Weld Beads 1.34P

7. For weld beads, the thickness correction exponent (n) should be

taken as 0.3 with an SCF of 1.0.
4.3.6.3 Fatigue Damage Due To Wave Loading
1. The linear foundation model should be used for spectral fatigue
analysis.
2. Minimum fatigue lives of the piles under environmental loading
should be determined, taking into account the distribution of stress
within the piles.
3. If maximum stresses occur below the seabed, a separate pile
analysis may be conducted.
4.3.6.4 Fatigue Damage Due To Pile Driving
1. Pile fatigue damage during driving should be calculated at the
following locations:
a. Changes in pile wall thickness;
b. Welds which have maximum environmental damage;
c. The zone of weld beads.
2. The results of wave-equation analysis should be used to compute
the driving resistance/ blow-count relationship and to provide
maximum driving stress v. resistance.
3. The profile of soil resistance to driving should be integrated with the
wave equation analysis results to enable a profile of predicted
blow-counts versus penetration to be developed.
4. The maximum stress range generated by driving should be
determined at critical locations, as listed above.
5. The stress range shall then be multiplied by the stress
concentration factor and plate thickness correction factor.
6. Damage due to driving shall be calculated by combining the
predicted blow-count with the factored stress range as a function of
depth and summing the damage in accordance with Miner’s
summation.
4.3.6.5 Pile Fatigue Life Prediction
1. The minimum fatigue life for a pile subject to environmental and
installation loading are calculated. The pile fatigue life shall be
calculated using the equation:
Fatigue Life (years) = (1 – Dd) / De
Where:
Dd = damage due to driving
De = annual damage due to wave loading
2. Where fatigue lives fall below ten times the platform design life,
grinding of selected welds may be considered.
4.3.6.6 Pile Installation
As part of the pile installation study, the following shall be performed:
4.3.6.7 Maximum Length of Piles
The pile lengths shall be limited by the following:

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 14 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

1. Pile wall stresses during lifting;

2. Allowable lift weight on the auxiliary hook of the heavy lift vessel;
3. Hook height restrictions of the heavy lift vessel;
4. “Stick-up” stresses considering the pile and hammer self-weight,
wave and current loading, and the possibility of vortex shedding.
4.3.6.8 Pile Make-Up
1. The length of the piles shall allow for:
a. The maximum required pile penetration;
b. Grouted connection length;
c. An over-drive allowance of 0.5 m;
d. Length of grout seal and wiper seal arrangement above
mudline;
e. Length of pile inside hammer casing (if driving without a
follower);
f. Height of pile stabbing cone and catcher (+ gripper
arrangement, if used);
g. Minimum clearance of 0.5m between hammer casing
and catcher;
h. Minimum clearance of 0.5m between hammer trunnion
and jacket lower lift points.
2. The pile make-up details will include:
a. Any permissible variations in pile penetration;
b. Any local wall thickening, allowing for possible
variations in pile penetration at different boreholes;
c. The effect of overdrive (0.5m allowance) and under-
drive (2m allowance);
d. EEMUA tolerances (0.3m);
e. Jacket verticality (1.0°)
f. Pile driving head;
g. Limitations of available hammer sleeve requirements;
h. Weld bead details;
i. Drainage holes in the top of pile if required.
3. The over-drive or under-drive allowances may be revised to allow
for the predicted driving conditions.
4.3.6.9 Design of Pile Driving Head
A driving head may be used to reduce the pile driving stresses, and should
be dimensioned to suit the offshore installation contractor’s requirements.
4.3.6.10 Design of Pile Driving Shoe
1. Local pile tip thickening, referred to as a drive shoe, may be
employed to improve driveability, to provide reinforcement against
local hard spots e.g. boulders and to reduce the pile tip stresses.
2. The shoe usually incorporates an internal wall thickening which
reduces the internal skin friction and hence reduces the overall
resistance to driving.
3. The use of a driving shoe shall be investigated in the pile
driveability analysis.
4. If a driving shoe is provided, the effect on the pile ultimate capacity
shall be investigated.
4.3.6.11 Pile Stick-Up
1. Pile stick-up calculations shall be made in accordance with API
RP2A.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 15 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

2. The dynamics of the free-standing pile and the pile with hammer
placed shall be assessed.
3. The maximum allowable wave height for pile installation operations
shall be determined.
4.3.6.12 Pile Self-Weight Penetrations
1. The self-weight penetration of the pile alone and the pile with
hammer shall be estimated by calculating the combined
submerged self-weight, and determining the corresponding
penetration using soil resistance calculations based on the
available CPT results and empirical factors.
2. Minimum penetrations shall be obtained by equating the resistance
to the weight.
3. Maximum penetrations shall be obtained by equating the loss in
potential energy following pile release to the work done in
overcoming soil resistance – Toolan and Fox.
4.3.6.13 Design of Pile Sleeve Centralisers
1. Pile sleeve centralisers shall be designed so that the pile passes
through the sleeve without damaging the packer (or the grout seal)
under the most extreme conditions set by the following tolerances:
a. Maximum and minimum diameters of pile, sleeve and
the grout seal/ packer can;
b. Out-of-straightness of tubulars;
c. Maximum height of weld beads.
2. The centraliser setting-out radius shall be determined to ensure
clearance between the pile weld beads and the centralisers.
3. The minimum clearance between the pile outer surface and the
packer (or the keeper-plates holding the grout seal in place) shall
be checked to ensure this complies with the manufacturer’s
recommendations.
4. Centralisers should be designed to withstand the loads (pile self-
weight) applied during lowering of the pile through the sleeve.
5. The minimum number of centralisers shall be determined on the
basis of those necessary to align the pile, to protect the packer (or
grout seal) and to withstand the loads due to pile stabbing.
4.3.7 Grouted Connection
4.3.7.1 Design Method
The pile sleeve grouted connections shall be designed according to the
HSE Guidelines.
4.3.7.2 Design Loads
1. The design axial load to be used in determining the grouted
connection length shall be based on the maximum individual pile
load determined from unfactored extreme and operating storm load
cases for the in-place condition.
2. The following overall factors-of-safety shall be used to determine
grouted connection lengths, based on the HSE Guidelines:

Safety Factor Condition

6.0 Operating
4.5 Extreme

4.3.7.3 Grouted Length Required

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 16 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

1. The grouted length for all piles shall be designed to provide a

characteristic strength not less than that required to resist the
maximum axial load under extreme and operating conditions of any
individual pile, multiplied by the appropriate factor-of-safety.
2. For the maximum loaded pile within a pile group, a small
contingency (1.1) may be applied to the pile load to allow for
uncertainty in the load distribution and soil stiffness effects.
4.3.7.4 Grout Strength
1. The characteristic compressive strength of the pile sleeve grout
shall be taken as 60 N/mm2after 28 days curing time.
2. The modular ratio between steel and grout shall be taken as 18.
3
3. The grout density shall be assumed to be 2100 kg/m .
4.3.8 On-Bottom Stability
4.3.8.1 Introduction
Prior to pile installation a jacket is supported on mudmats. Jacket on-
bottom stability analyses shall be performed to provide information to
permit sizing of the mudmats and to assess the stability of the jacket after
placement on the seabed and prior to piling.
4.3.8.2 Design Loads For On-Bottom Stability
1. The un-piled stability of the jacket shall be verified using the 1 year
return wave and associated current for the installation period May
to August. In certain cases, it may be necessary to extend this
period to include April and/or September according to the Client’s
design basis. The maximum limiting wave height shall be
determined in order to ensure compliance with the minimum factors
of safety.
2. For on-bottom stability analyses, the relevant loads are as follows:
a. The weight of the jacket, less buoyancy, immediately
after touchdown on the seabed
b. The overturning moments and base shears on the un-
piled jacket due to wave forces experienced during and
after installation and grouting of the piles (including
wave load on any stabbed but un-driven piles).
3. Using the 1 year return wave, there shall be a factor of safety of 1.5
on the horizontal-vertical (H-V interaction) load components. The
minimum factor of safety against gravity loading shall be 2.0.
4. Alternatively, the methods and requirements set out in Sections C.5
and G.13 of API RP2A – LRFD may be adopted.
4.3.8.3 Jacket Weight and Buoyancy
1. Jacket buoyancy shall be obtained for the 1-year return low and
high tide water levels.
2. Both Predicted Weight and Maximum Weight shall be used in
determining the range of seabed reaction on the mudmats,
accounting for centre-of-gravity and centre-of-buoyancy positions.
4.3.8.4 Wave-Loads for On-Bottom Stability
1. Wave and current loads shall be generated for maximum wave
heights up to and including the 1-year return period summer storm,
and co-directional 1-year current.
2. Wind loading on the jacket above waterline can ignored for this
analysis.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 17 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

4.3.8.5 Jacket On-Bottom Stability

1. Jacket stability shall be checked using the relevant load and
resistance factors specified in API RP2A – LRFD or the methods
in API RP2A WSD.
2. Limiting wave heights for uplift and bearing / sliding shall also be
determined.
3. No marine growth shall be considered for the unpiled condition.
4.3.8.6 Mudmat Bearing Capacity / Sliding Resistance
1. Bearing capacity interaction envelopes illustrate the relationship
between vertical and horizontal loading that can be sustained by
the mudmat. Such relationships can be derived using the
procedures given in DnV Classification Notes 30.4.
2. The sliding resistance is assumed the sum of:
a. Passive earth pressure acting on the sleeves and skirt
plates extending below mudline.
b. Friction along the soil/soil interface at the tip of the skirts
and soil/steel or soil/soil interface on the skirt walls.
3. Other potential sliding modes should be evaluated and the
minimum capacity mode is considered in the factor of safety
evaluation.
4.3.8.7 Mudmat Sizing Procedure and Stability Limits
1. The mudmat plan area shall be sized initially to accommodate the
maximum dead load of the structure under still water conditions
with a safety factor of 2.0. An ultimate capacity interaction diagram
shall then be developed for the mudmat relating bearing capacity to
horizontal load.
2. Mudmat loads shall be developed as per API WSD. A minimum
factor of safety of 1.5 shall be required on the vertical-horizontal (V-
H) load combination for the 1 year summer return storm.
3. Alternatively, using API RP2A LRFD design, a factored bearing
capacity interaction diagram will be determined such that the
following conditions hold:
Bearing: PDB  SB QDB
Sliding: PDS  SS HDS
Where:
QDB = ultimate bearing capacity
HDS = ultimate sliding capacity of the foundation
PDB = bearing load (under extreme or operating conditions using
factored loads)
PDS = sliding load (under extreme or operating conditions using
factored loads)
SB = shallow foundation resistance factor on bearing capacity
(0.67)
SS shallow foundation resistance factor on sliding capacity (0.80)
4. Combinations of vertical and horizontal loads for a range of wave
heights shall be plotted on the interaction diagrams to determine
the wave heights which result in uplift of the mudmat and failure of
the soil. An installation wave-height shall be determined such that
the factored capacity is not exceeded. Re-sizing of the mudmat
UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 18 of 23
 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

may be necessary to increase the installation wave height which

can be resisted.
5. The critical wave height for overturning shall be calculated for
waves incident diagonally and orthogonally to the jacket, using the
minimum jacket weight. The normal procedure is to assume zero
uplift resistance and determine the wave height causing uplift of the
“upstream” leg, with a factor of safety of 1.0. However if it is
proposed to equip the mudmats with relatively deep skirts, some
account may be taken of the allowable pull-out skin resistance
offered by the foundation soils.
6. The design wave for on-bottom stability is the 1-year summer
storm, extended to include September. The mudmat load paths for
load combinations up to the 1-year summer storm shall be plotted
on the interaction diagram, allowing for redistribution of load as a
result of uplift where required. The maximum wave height
sustainable with a safety factor of 1.0 shall be determined.
7. The limiting installation wave height shall be determined using a
minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against bearing failure and against
sliding. Alternatively an equivalent LRFD method shall be applied.
4.3.8.8 Mudmat Bearing/Sliding Capacity (added numbers
1. The bearing capacity interaction diagram illustrating the
relationship between axial and shear force shall be developed
using a method consistent with those published in DnV Rules,
Davis and Booker and/or Houlsby and Wroth, and Hansen.
2. The sliding resistance is assumed to be the sum of:
a. Passive earth pressure acting on the individual sleeves
and skirt plates.
b. Friction along the soil/soil interface at the tip of the
skirts.
3. In the case of zero horizontal force and for shear strength profiles
varying linearly with depth:
QULT = A . Sf . Fs ( (2 + p) C0 + rD/4)
Where:
QULT = ultimate bearing capacity
A = effective foundation area
Sf = shape factor
Fs = constant for smooth footing
C0 = undrained shear strength at underside of
mudmat
r = rate of increase of shear strength with depth
D = diameter of mudmat.
4. Under combined vertical and horizontal loading and for uniform
shear strength profiles using the method of Hansen:
QULT = A . Su . Nc (1 + Sca + dca - ica)
Where:
Nc = bearing capacity factor = 2 + 
Sca = shape factor
dca = depth factor
UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 19 of 23
 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

ica = load inclination factor

Su = uniform undrained shear strength
A = mudmat effective area
5. The horizontal load on the mudmat will be partly resisted by the
passive soil resistance on the skirts and by adhesion on the sides.
This load take-out will be allowed for in the mudmat bearing
capacity assessment. Similarly re-distribution in shear between the
mudmats may be taken into account in determining the limiting
installation wave heights.
4.3.8.9 Forces Required For Skirt or Sleeve Penetration
1. Where skirts are specified or pile sleeves extend below the
mudmat, an estimate of the force required to penetrate these
elements into the soil is required, for comparison with the minimum
on-bottom reaction to ensure that full penetration can be achieved.
2. The resistance of the skirts to penetration into the soil is
determined using the cone penetration test (CPT) results. The
penetration resistance of thin wall skirts, sleeves and dowels are
estimated from empirical formulae.
3. Skirt penetration resistance will be evaluated using the method
detailed in Section 6.2.2 of DnV Foundation Classification Notes.
Resistance is calculated using the formula:
d

R  kp (d ) Apqc(d )  As  kf ( z )qc( z)dz

0

Where:
d = depth of tip of penetrating member
kp (z) = empirical coefficient relating qc to end
resistance
kf (z) = empirical coefficient relating qc to skin
friction
qc (z) = average cone resistance at depth z
Ap = tip area of penetrating member
As = side area of penetrating member per
unit depth of penetration

and the following empirical factors apply:

Type of soil Most Probable (Rprob) Highest Expected (Rmax)

kp kf kp kf
CLAY 0.4 0.03 0.6 0.05
SAND 0.3 0.001 0.6 0.003

4. The available on-bottom weight should exceed the “most probable”

resistance at the design skirt penetration by a factor of at least 2.0.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 20 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

5. The cone resistance 'qc' in clay may be estimated from the

following equation:
qc = Cu . Nk
where:
Cu = undrained shear strength
Nk = cone factor (15 to 20)
4.3.8.10 On-Bottom stability Contingency Scenarios
If a 3 day weather forecast following jacket placement on the seabed
predicts conditions in excess of a pre-supposed wave height, a contingency
scenario can be considered in which 4 piles (i.e. 1 pile per leg) are driven
and grouted and any auxiliary tanks removed as a means of securing the
jacket against 100 year recurrence April or May storm thereby complying
with NPD guidelines for on-bottom stability.
4.4 Bucket Foundations
4.4.1 Over the past 15 years or so, alternatives to piles for supporting steel jackets have
been evolved. These alternatives include use of bucket foundations and steel plates or
mudmats. Large suction caissons, also termed buckets or skirted foundations, have so
far been used in the North Sea on two jackets, the Sleipner SLT and Draupner
(formerly known as Europipe), both installed on dense to very dense sands. The
buckets were tubular stiffened cans of large diameters (12 to 14m) and were installed
in the seabed with the aid of suction to penetrations of between 5 and 6m.
4.4.2 Typically, bucket aspect ratios (height to diameter) are very low compared to piles and
seldom exceed 6. After the skirts are fully penetrated under self weight, suction is
applied by pumping water from within the skirted compartments to effect further
penetration.
4.4.3 Suction bucket foundations are also being extensively used as deep water anchors for
floating structures, such as FPSOs.
4.4.4 The geotechnical design process for the design and installation of such an innovative
concept is discussed briefly below:
4.4.4.1 Foundation Geometry: A bucket foundation consists of a single steel
tubular foundation with internal stiffeners. A top cap (base plate) is placed
over the cylindrical unit so that a seal is obtained when an underpressure is
applied inside the caisson during installation. When the foundations are
subject to extreme environmental loading, the foundation system mobilises
tensile capacity through passive suction under the base plate,. The bucket
foundation dimensions are governed by displacements rather than bearing
capacity
4.4.4.2 Suction Installation: The bucket foundation is installed by sealing the top
and applying suction (underpressure) inside the bucket. However the depth
of penetration under self weight must be sufficient to provide a hydraulic
seal around the skirt tips, otherwise there is a risk of the foundation soil
blow-out.
1. The hydrostatic pressure difference and the deadweight cause the
bucket to penetrate into the soil. The applied suction sets up a
seepage flow which reduces the friction and end resistance of the
skirts. After installation, the suction pump is removed and the
bucket top is sealed. Instabilities during installation due to in-
homogenous resistance around the bucket circumference should
be considered carefully. If critical suction is exceeded, liquefaction
sets in and the soil is pumped out, thus severely undermining the
foundations.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 21 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

2. The penetration resistance of the bucket foundation is calculated

as the sum of the penetration resistances on the skirt wall and on
the tip.
4.4.4.3 Foundation Capacity: Under compression, the bucket will behave like a
skirted footing or plugged pile. Under tension, the suction below the cap
will increase the resistance which will otherwise consist only of the
deadweight and skin friction. The bearing capacity of the individual corner
bucket foundations is calculated based on static and cyclic strength
parameters and using limit equilibrium methods (Anderson and Jostad).
Horizontal capacity is also checked. Results of the calculations are
combinations of diameter and penetration depth satisfying minimum safety
requirements (e.g. load coefficient of 1.2 on the environmental load and a
material coefficient of 1.25).
4.4.4.4 Settlements and Displacements: Differential settlements between the
individual buckets should be checked to ensure that they are acceptable.
These settlements may arise for example from unequal leg load
distribution, variable soil properties and predominant cyclic wave loading on
one of the jacket legs. The settlements due to the cyclic storm loading and
under the maximum wave should be evaluated.

5.0 REFERENCES

CMS-830-03-GL-70010 Offshore Structures - Substructure Design

CMS-830-03-SP-12001 Offshore Geotechnical Survey
CMS-830-03-SP-71003 Grouting Piles
CMS-830-03-SP-71008 Offshore Pile Installation
CMS-830-03-SP-71011 Jacket Transportation and Installation
API RP2A “American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms -
Working Stress Design”, API RP2A WSD, 21st Edition, 2000.
API RP2A “American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice for
Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms –
Load and Resistance Factor Design LRFD , 1st Edition, July
1993.
HSE (UK Department of “Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and
Energy) Certification”, 4th Edition, June 1990.
Det norske Veritas, Classification Notes No. 30.4, DnV, Hovik, February 1992.
“Foundations”,
ISO 19902: 2007 “Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries- Fixed Steel Offshore
Structures”
Jardine , R. and Chow, F. “New Design Method for Offshore Piles”, MTD Publication 96/103.
Meyerhof, G.G., “Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations”, Proc
ASCE, Vol 102, GT3, pp. 197-227, 1976.
Vijayvergiya, V. and Focht, J. A. “A new way to predict capacity of piles in clay”, Offshore
Technology Conference, Vol. 2, OTC Paper No. 1718, 1972.
Semple, R.M. and Rigden, W.J. "Shaft Capacity of Driven Piles in Clay," Analysis and Design of
Pile Foundations, ASCE, Washington, DC, pp. 59-79, 1984.
Bea, R.G. “Pile Capacity for Axial Cyclic Loading”, ASCE, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, VOL 118, No. 1, pp. 34-50, 1992.

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 22 of 23

 Jacket Foundation Design

CMS Number: Revision: Approval Date:

CMS-830-03-GL-70021 0 19 Nov 2009

Mirza, U.A.A. “Cyclic Loading Regime of Offshore Piles”, Proceedings, Sixth

International Conference on Offshore and Polar Engineering, Los
Angeles, Vol. 1, pp. 491 - 498.
Terzaghi, K., & Peck, R. “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Wiley, 1987, pp 537-
539.
Semple, R.M., & Gemeinhardt, “Stress History Approach to Analysis of Soil Resistance to Pile
J.P. Driving", Proceedings, 13th Offshore Technology Conference, Vol
1, PP. 165-172, 1981.
Toolan, F.E., & Fox, D.A. “Geotechnical Planning of Piled Foundations for Offshore
Platforms”, Proc. ICE, Paper 7996 Part 1, 62, May 1977.
Stevens, R.F., Wiltsie, E.A. & “Evaluating pile drivability for hard clay, very dense sand and
Turton, T.H. rock”, OTC 4205, Offshore Technology Conference, May 1982.
Alm, T. and Hamre, L. ”Soil Model for Drivability Predictions Procedure”, Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC Paper No. 8835, Houston, 1998.
Smith, E.A.L. “Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation”, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, SM4, August 1960
Matlock, H. "Correlation for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay",
Proceedings of 2nd Offshore Technology conference, Houston,
Paper No. OTC 1204. 1970.
O’Neill, M. W. and Murchison, “An Evaluation of p-y Relationships in Sand”, Report to API, May
J.M. 1983.
Poulos H.G. and Davis E.H. “Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics”, John Wiley and
Sons, 1974.
Davis, E.H. and Booker, J.R. “The Effect of Increasing Strength with Depth on the Bearing
Capacity of Clays” Geotechnique, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 551 - 563,
1973.

Houlsby, G.T. and Wroth, C.P. “Calculation of Stresses on Shallow Penetrometers and Footings”
in Seabed Mechanics, ed. B. Denness, Proc. IUTAM Symposium,
pp. 107 - 112.
Hansen, J.B. “A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity” Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin No. 28, pp. 5-11, 1970.
The Engineering Equipment Construction Specification for Fixed Offshore Structures in the
and Materials Users North Sea Publication No. 158 (Revised 1994).
Association (EEMUA)
Andersen, K.H. and Jostad, “Foundation Design of Skirted Foundations and Anchors in Clay”,
H.P. Proc Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 10824,
1999.

6.0 TERMINOLOGY

None

7.0 EXHIBITS

None

UNCONTROLLED COPY IF PRINTED Page 23 of 23