4.7 Article

Random finite element method for spudcan foundations in spatially variable soils

Journal

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
Volume 205, Issue -, Pages 146-155

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.12.019

Keywords

Spudcan; Bearing capacity; Settlement; Random field; Finite element method; Shallow foundation

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [51379053]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spudcans are large diameter (similar to 20 m) conical foundations holding up mobile jack-up platforms for offshore oil and gas developments in shallow to moderate water depths. During self-installation the spudcan often penetrates several tens of meters into seabed soils, where large variations often occur in the shear strength of the soils. Although the failure mechanisms and bearing capacity of spudcan foundations have been studied in homogeneous soil and layered uniform soil, the effect of the spatial variability in soil strength on the spudcan response is still unclear. This study presents a random finite element method (RFEM) for assessing the failure mechanisms and-the bearing capacity of a spudcan foundation embedded in spatially varied seabed soils. A comprehensive review of seabed soils discusses typical ranges of the mean, the coefficient of variation and the scale of fluctuation of the undrained shear strength. Random fields are generated and mapped into a non-linear finite element analysis to reveal the failure mechanisms of the spudcan in spatially varied soils. The influence-of the scale of fluctuation in different directions is investigated. The results indicate that ignoring the spatial variability of soil strength leads to an overestimation of the bearing capacity. It is unconservative for the foundation design to assume an isotropic random field model in the RFEM analysis. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available