Randolph - McClelland Lecture - Powerpoint Slides

2nd McClelland Lecture
Analytical contributions to offshore

geotechnical engineering
Mark Randolph
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS)
The University of Western Australia
18th ICSMGE, Paris
Tuesday 3rd September 2013
Bramlette McClelland (1921-2010)
A giant of a man pioneer of

offshore foundation engineering
Founder and President of McClelland

Engineers
Headquartered in Houston
14 offices around the world
Awards included
9th Terzaghi Lecturer (1972)
OTC Distinguished Achievement Award (1986)
Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013
What passes for analytical ?

WhenIamworkingonaproblem,Ineverthink
aboutbeautybutwhenIhavefinished,ifthe
solutionisnotbeautiful,Iknowitiswrong.
BuckminsterFuller
True analytical solution (algebraic expression)
Idealisation
Synthesis of numerical parametric study
Realism ?
Computable analytical formulation (design chart)
Appropriate non-dimensional parameter groups

Algebraic or chart outcome
Overview
Piled foundations
Consolidation after driving
Axial stiffness and cyclic loading
Shallow foundations
Rectangular foundations for subsea systems
Full-flow penetrometers
Resistance factors
Degree of consolidation during penetration
Subsea pipelines
Embedment and axial resistance of deep water pipelines
Piled foundations - consolidation
Radial consolidation solution
Refined through strain path method

t
'r(t)
D
Non-dimensional time: T = cvt/Deq2

cv as for piezocone dissipation
(horizontal flow; soil stiffness partly swelling)
Deq reflecting outward flow of soil

Soil flow:
Piles: 0:100
D/ ~ 40
Suction caissons ~ 50:50 D/ > 300
Development of axial pile resistance
Consolidation index
CI ~ 1
1 T/ T50
0.75
T10 ~ T50/20 : t10 ~ 2 to 5 hours

T50 ~ 0.6 :
t50 ~ 2 to 5 days
T90 ~ 20T50 : t90 ~ 1 to 3 months
Consolidation around suction caissons

Colliat & Colliard (2011):
Diameters: 3.8 m to 8 m
Deq ~ 0.28 to 0.45 m
(extremely thin-walled)
Consolidation index
Relative increase in shaft resistance
0.9
0.8
CI ~ 1
Radialconsolidationsolution
(cv =10 m2/yr;Deq =0.3m)
0.7
0.6
1 T/ T500.75
0.5
T10 ~ T50/20 : t10 ~ 2 to 5 hours
0.4
T50 ~ 0.6 :
0.3
T90 ~ 20T50 : t90 ~ 1 to 3 months
Datafromsuctionanchors
(Colliat &Colliard2011)
0.2
t50 ~ 2 to 5 days
0.1
0
0.1
1
10
Time (days) - scaled for Deq = 0.3 m
100
Consolidation - commentary
Radial consolidation solution

Adequate fit to sparse data
Analytical framework: piles to caissons and different soil types
Consolidation coefficient: relevant cv difficult to estimate
field data (piezocone dissipation) a vital aid
Do we need the black magic of thixotropy for this problem?
Axial stiffness of piles

Pt
K axial
wt
D
ka ~ 1.5G
w
(EA)p
K S tanhL
Pt
S b
wt
S K b tanhL
EAp
ka
L and S
L
EAp
L
(for L > 2)
EAp k a
Pile shaft
compliance
Mobilisation of shaft friction initiated near pile head:
Pb
Pslip
Kb
wb
Qshaft
1
1
L L
EAp
ka
Consequences for progressive failure and cyclic stability
Cyclic stability diagram for axial loading of piles

Common form of global stability diagram:
1
Diagram applies at element level not globally
Normalised cyclic load, Qcyclic/Qshaft
0.8
0.6
Unstable
N < 10
0.4
N ~ 300
Cyclic degradation progresses down

Increasing cycles
(N) to failure
pile from soil surface
Pile shaft compliance important
Metastable
0.2
Stable N
> 10,000
Model tests (low compliance) not
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Mean load, Qmean/Qshaft
directly applicable for design of more

compliant piles used offshore
10
Shallow mat foundations

Widespread use for subsea systems and pipeline terminations
Generally rectangular: 50 to 200 m2 in plan area
Complex 6 degree of freedom loading
Pipeline end termination (PLET)
Production sled during lay
(photos courtesy Subsea 7)

11
Design considerations for small mat foundations

Holy grail: analytical failure envelope for general 3-D loading
Industry design guidelines limited

Strip or circular geometries only
Oriented towards bearing capacity, with allowance for H, M
Operational loads for subsea foundation systems

Vertical load (V) constant; low proportion of bearing capacity
Thermally induced variations of horizontal (Hx, Hy), moment (Mx,
My) and torsion (T) from eccentric pipeline and spool connections
Critical failure mode: combined sliding and torsion

12
Numerical analysis: parameterised solutions

L
B
Mx
mudline
Simplified soil
profile
x
Hx
LRP
Hy
su
sum
My
su0
k
T
V
Identify non-dimensional groups:

B/L, d/B, kB/su0, Hx/Hy, My/Mx, V/Asu0, Hres/Asu0 etc
Evaluate uniaxial ultimate capacities for each loading component

Adjust ultimate horizontal and moment capacities for V/Vult, T/Tult
Collapse 6-dimensional failure envelope into 2 dimensions!
13
Design approach for small mat foundations

Parameter
Width, B
Value
8
Length, L
16
Load, Hx
200
kN
0.21
Skirt, d
0.6
Load, Hy
300
kN
0.34
Strength, sum
kPa
Moment, Mx
1500
kNm
0.07
su gradient, k
kPa/m
Moment, My
-2400
kNm
0.30
Skirt friction
Torsion, T
2100
kNm
0.45
Resultant moment, M (kNm)
Units
m
Design loads
Vert. load, V
Value
1200
Mobilisation
Units Ratios
kN
0.17
10000
Zero torsion
V = 1200 kN
9000
8000 Unfactored
Failure envelopes
su
7000
6000
T = 2100 kNm
5000
4000
Design
3000
point
2000
1000
0
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000
Resultant horizontal load, H (kN)
Failure envelopes
q
m d 1 h h 2 h 2 1
md
M Hd
Mf
H
Hf
14
Design approach for small mat foundations

Design loads
Vert. load, V
Value
1200
0.27
Parameter
Width, B
Value
8
Length, L
16
Load, Hx
200
kN
0.21
0.33
Skirt, d
0.6
Load, Hy
300
kN
0.34
0.54
Strength, sum
kPa
Moment, Mx
1500
kNm
0.07
0.11
su gradient, k
kPa/m
Moment, My
-2400
kNm
0.30
0.48
Skirt friction
Torsion, T
2100
kNm
0.45
0.72
Resultant moment, M (kNm)
Units
m
Mobilisation
Units Ratios
kN
0.17
10000
V = 1200 kN
9000
8000
T=
Zero
7000
2100 kNm
torsion
6000 Unfactored su
5000
4000
Design
3000
point
2000
Factored su
1000
0
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000
Resultant horizontal load, H (kN)
Factored su
(by 0.63)
Failure envelopes
q
m d 1 h h 2 h 2 1
md
M Hd
Mf
H
Hf
15
Full flow penetrometers

Motivations for introduction, targeting soft soils
Penetrometer shapes amenable to analysis

Resistance independent of soil stiffness or in situ stresses
Sufficient projected area ratio for minimal
T-bar: 100 cm2
correction for overburden stress

Shaft area < 15 % of projected area
Soil sensitivity measured directly: cyclic testing

Reduced reliance on ad hoc correlations for
shear strength from penetration resistance
Variations in resistance factors arise from differences in
Push rod and

anti-friction
sleeve
Spherical ball
Pore water
pressure filter
ball: 30 to 50 cm2
sensitivity (and brittleness), and strain rate dependence

16
Cyclic degradation of soil strength

Nk or q
Cycle No.
0.5
extraction
Penetrometer
Undisturbed
In
Fully
remoulded
Out
0.75
0.25
penetration
0 1
Net ball resistance qball,net (MPa)

-0.20
2.30
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.80
0.70
2.90
Degradation Factor
Depth (m)
2.80
Cycle number
0.90
2.50
2.70
0.75
1.00
2.40
2.60
0.25
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
3.00
4 5 6 7
Cycle Number
10
17
Theoretical resistance factors rate dependence & softening

25
T-bar
NTbar
Strain to 95 % remoulded
No strain softening
gradient = 4.8
20
q net
Nk
su
95 = 50
95 = 25
15
95 = 15
95 = 10
10
FE results
5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Rate parameter
25
No strain softening
Nball
NTbar ~ 10 to 13
Nball ~ 12 to 17
0.25
95 = 50
95 = 25
gradient = 4.8
20
Gradient of 4.8 implies

'operative' shear strain
rate of 20 %/s or
approximately 0.5v/D
Typical parameters:
Parameters
= rem = 0.2
Tbar = 3.7
95 = 15
95 = 10
15
10
Ball
5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Rate parameter
Parameters
= rem = 0.2
ball = 3.3
0.2
0.25
18
Consolidation around penetrometers
In situ assessment of consolidation coefficient

Typically 3 to 10 times greater than from laboratory oedometer testing
Essential for estimating set-up times around piles, caissons etc
Pipeline-soil interaction (e.g. buckling, walking) sensitive to degree of
consolidation during movement
Penetrometer testing in intermediate soils (silt-sized)

Partial consolidation during penetration how best to quantify?
Requires independent measurements multiple pore pressure sensors?
Or varying penetration rate
Ideal: continuous sensing during penetration to detect

both degree of consolidation and cv
19
Partial consolidation effects backbone curves

Effect on resistance, q, and excess
pore pressure, u
Function of relative velocity, vD/cv
Probe by changing penetration rate
Normalised resistance, q/qun
but at least measure it
Catch 22:
What is effect of partial
consolidation on subsequent
dissipation test?
Normalised excess pore

pressure, u/uref
Ideally need prior knowledge of cv -
Response to velocity
change (factor of 3)
2.5
2
1.5
Penetration
resistance
1
0.5
0.1
1.2
100
1000
Excess pore
pressure
1
0.8
0.6
Response to velocity
change (factor of 3)
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
1
10
Normalised velocity, vD/cv
1
10
100
1000
20
Partial consolidation effects experimental study

One soil type; varying velocity
Dissipation testing after penetration

phase at normalised velocity, vD/cv
Reduced initial excess pore pressure
Gradual increase in t50 times
Normalised excess pore

pressure, u/uref
1.2
Dissipation
tests
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Simple analytical assumption
0.1
100
Teh & Houlsby (1991)
90
Typical data
80
70
60
Hypothetical dissipation
Subsequent
50
during penetration phase
dissipation test
40
30
Apparent
20
T50
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
corresponds to initial phase of

dissipation test
Post-penetration dissipation leads to

increased T50
Consequent under estimation of cv
Normalised excess pore pressure

(u/uinitial)
Reduced excess pore pressure
1
10
100
1000
100
Normalised time factor, T (cvt/D2)

21
Partial consolidation effects theory & experiment

1000
Theoretical approach
t50 (s)
Ignoring partial consolidation effects
100
Allowing for partial

consolidation
during penetration
gives cv inversely proportional to t50
Assuming all dissipation part of same
10
Assuming
undrained
penetration
theoretical curve gives apparent lower

limit to t50
1
1
Experimental data
Observed (up to) 3-fold increase in t50
Experimental data fall between above

two assumptions
Need revised theory!
10
160
Excess pore pressure (kPa)
Experimental
data
100
1000
cv
(mm2/s)
10000
140
120
t50 times
100
80
200 s
60
280 s
40
400 s
600 s
20
0
0.1
10
100
Time (sec)
1000
10000
22
Pipeline geotechnical engineering
23
Deep water pipeline geotechnical design issues

Infrastructure
Pipeline: laid directly on seabed, possibly with concrete weight coating
Pipeline initiation, anchoring and manifold systems
Embedment in seabed
Pivotal for lateral stability, lateral buckling analysis, axial sliding
Pipe lay dynamics has major impact on embedment
Need combination of analytical solutions and empirical adjustments
Lateral stability
Breakout resistance, post-breakout residual resistance
Axial friction
Large range depending on drainage conditions, hence velocity and time
scale of movement
24
Pipeline geometry and key parameters
Sea surface
Pipeline:
Diameter, D
Bending rigidity, EI
Submerged weight, W'
T
T0
Seabed (stiff)
W'.s
From equilibrium:
Tx constant (T0)
zw
Tz = W'.s
(cumulative pipe weight)
Characteristic length
s (arc length)
z
Tension, T0
Touch down point

(TDP)
25
Pipeline embedment quick estimate

Linear seabed strength gradient (upper 0.5 m): su = z kPa
Seabed plastic stiffness (V/w): k ~ 4D
Dynamic lay motions remould soil: need rem = /St
Allowance for buoyancy effects as pipe embeds in soil (consider '/rem)
w/D ranges from 0.065 to 0.9

Force concentration
in touchdown zone:
V/W' ~ 1.4 to 2.7
26
Pipeline embedment refined approach (Westgate et al.)

Detailed assessment of lay-induced vertical and horizontal motions
Estimated lay rate, metocean conditions hence number of exposure cycles
Pipeline configuration in touchdown zone (maximum dynamic vertical loads)
Cyclic soil degradation model from cumulative pipeline motions
Non-deterministic estimates
consistent with modern
pipeline design approaches
27
Pipeline axial friction

Axial friction controlled by normal effective stress and pipe-soil roughness
Low effective stress level (< 5 kPa), so enhanced roughness coefficient
Rapid shearing results in excess pore pressures, reducing normal effective stress
Consolidation leads to hardening, and local reduction in soil water content
e
Pipe
diameter D
W'
umax
e0
u
emax
n' cos
critical
state line
Average normal stress, n, enhanced

by wedging factor, 1.3
qn
ln 'n
28
Time scale for consolidation during axial sliding

0.8
Normalised friction, /n
0.7
Drained
Undrained
Rapid shearing leads to undrained
0.6
friction values
0.5
0.4
0.3
Critical state framework
Sustained sliding results in
Backbone curve
0.2
0.3
consolidation towards drained friction
vD/cv = 0.1
1
0.9 T50 =0.05
Design range
0
0.8
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.7
2
vD/cv 0.3
Normalised time, T = cvt/D
0.6
1
3 10
Initial excess pore pressure
0.5
0.4
vD/cv =30
& friction
0.3
Mobilisation time:
0.2
0.1
slip/v cv /vD slip/D
0
Consolidation time:
0.01
0.1
1
Normalised axial displacement, /D
T10 ~ 0.001; T50 ~ 0.05; T90 ~ 1
30
Normalised friction, /n
0.1
10
10
29
Additional effects during axial sliding

High strain rates (v/D) enhance shearing resistance
Sustained volumetric collapse of soil (damage) source of further u
v
v damage n
D
Normalisedfriction,/n
0.8
0.7
vd/cv 0.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
10
0.2
0.1
0
0.001
vd/cv = 30
0.01
0.1
10
100
Normalised displacement, /D
30
Consolidation properties at shallow depth
Near surface measurement of consolidation coefficient

Piezocone no longer practical (shallow penetration; long dissipation times)
Introducing the parkable piezoprobe (PPP) offline dissipation data
31
LDFE analyses as basis for interpretation
Couple Modified Cam clay large deformation FE analyses

Assessment of excess pore pressure field
Backbone consolidation curves
1.2
1
u/ui
0.8
Pipeline (w/D = 0.5)
0.6
CPT (using DPPP)
CPT (using DCPT)
0.4
PPP, w/D = 0.5
0.2
PPP, w/D = 1
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
T = cvt/D2
32
Concluding remarks
Analysis underpins day to day design

Direct application of solutions
Planning of studies based on physical or numerical modelling
Empirical correlations: a challenge to capture analytically
Simplicity a guiding light

Dimensional analysis
Idealisation of analytical models and input
Synthesis of outcomes especially from numerical studies
Field and laboratory data vital: validation and adjustment of models
All is worthless without understanding!

33
Acknowledgements
Colleagues and collaborators throughout the world, but

particularly at
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems at UWA
Advanced Geomechanics
ISSMGE Technical Committee 209 on Offshore Geotechnics
Generous funding support from

Australian Research Council
Lloyds Register Foundation
Industry
Mentors throughout my career

34

Randolph - McClelland Lecture - Powerpoint Slides

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Randolph - McClelland Lecture - Powerpoint Slides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd McClelland Lecture

Analytical contributions to offshore

18th ICSMGE, Paris

Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Bramlette McClelland (1921-2010)

A giant of a man pioneer of

Founder and President of McClelland

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

What passes for analytical ?

True analytical solution (algebraic expression)

Synthesis of numerical parametric study

Computable analytical formulation (design chart)

Appropriate non-dimensional parameter groups

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

Piled foundations - consolidation

Radial consolidation solution

Refined through strain path method

Non-dimensional time: T = cvt/Deq2

Deq reflecting outward flow of soil

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

Development of axial pile resistance

T10 ~ T50/20 : t10 ~ 2 to 5 hours

T90 ~ 20T50 : t90 ~ 1 to 3 months

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

Consolidation around suction caissons

Relative increase in shaft resistance

T10 ~ T50/20 : t10 ~ 2 to 5 hours

T90 ~ 20T50 : t90 ~ 1 to 3 months

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

Radial consolidation solution

Do we need the black magic of thixotropy for this problem?

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

Axial stiffness of piles

Mobilisation of shaft friction initiated near pile head:

Consequences for progressive failure and cyclic stability

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

The University of Western Australia

Cyclic stability diagram for axial loading of piles

Diagram applies at element level not globally

Normalised cyclic load, Qcyclic/Qshaft

Cyclic degradation progresses down

pile from soil surface

Pile shaft compliance important

Model tests (low compliance) not

Mean load, Qmean/Qshaft

Mark Randolph: 2nd McClelland Lecture: Paris, September 2013

directly applicable for design of more

The University of Western Australia

Shallow mat foundations

Pipeline end termination (PLET)

Production sled during lay

(photos courtesy Subsea 7)

The University of Western Australia

Design considerations for small mat foundations

Industry design guidelines limited

Operational loads for subsea foundation systems