4.7 Article

Experimental investigation on the effect of spudcan shape on spudcan-footprint interaction

期刊

APPLIED OCEAN RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 65-75

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2017.10.003

关键词

Clays; Horizontal load; Moment; Sliding; Spudcan-footprint interaction

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [LP140100066]
  2. node of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering and as a Centre of Excellence by the Lloyd's Register Foundation
  3. Australian Research Council [LP140100066] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction between a spudcan and an existing footprint is one of the major concerns during jack-up rig installation. The influence of spudcan-footprint interaction has recently been well addressed by a number of researchers. A lack of investigation exists in mitigating spudcan-footprint interaction issues. In the field, stomping and successive repositioning is conventionally used in installing a rig adjacent to an existing footprint. Water jetting and perforation drilling are also sometimes suggested. This paper reports a measure for easing spudcan-footprint interaction issues, with the efficiency of a spudcan with 4 slots tested through model tests carried out at 1 g on the laboratory floor. The soil conditions tested simulate soft to moderate seabed strength profiles close to the mudline, varying the undrained shear strength. The most critical reinstallation locations of 0.5D and 1D (D = spudcan diameter) and existing footprint depths of 0.33D and 0.66D were investigated. By comparing with a conventional spudcan, the spudcan with slots reduced the induced maximum moment, horizontal force, and horizontal sliding distance by up to 80%, 40%, and 98% respectively. Critically, no additional operations, such as stomping/repositioning, perforation drilling, water jetting, are required to be performed offshore. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据