OTC 3969

STRESS HISTORY APPROACH TO ANALYSIS

OF SOIL RESISTANCE TO PILE DRIVING

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

by Robert M. Semple and J. Peter Gemeinhardt,
McClelland Engineer~

©Copyrlght 1981 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 13th Annual OTC In Houston, TX, May 4·7, 1981. The material is subject to correction by the author. Per·
mission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT STRESS WAVE THEORY

A method has been developed to predict soil resistance Stress wave theory (Smith, 1962) has been used
during continuous pile driving in clay based on interpretation routinely for many years in offshore pile drivability studies.
of pile installation experience and related soils data in terms Nonetheless, uncertainty exists regarding values for some of
of the soil overconsolidation ratio. Soil resistance, obtained the numerous parameters used in the mathematical solution.
from offshore pile driving records using standard wave The more important of these variables are the hammer
equation analysis, can be less than or greater than the impact energy and the parameters for springs and dashpots
predicted static pile capacity in normally consolidated and that model soil resistance. Hammer input energy is not
heavily overconsolidated clays, respectively. Analysis of routinely measured in offshore construction. Conflicting
installation data from large diameter pipe piles in soft to published values for quake and damping, representing the
hard clays provides an empirical factor for computing soil resistance springs and dashpots respectively, indicate an
re.sistance from the predicted static pile capacity. Values of imperfect knowledge of appropriate values for soils.
the factor for six case histories show a consistent relationship Application of a reasonable range of values for quake and
with overconsolidation ratio, and this relationship is damping for a given soil results in variation by a factor of at
represented mathematically. The procedure incorporates least two in the predicted resistance that a given pile-
overconsolidation ratios determined from undrained shear hammer combination can overcome. Variation of hammer
strength and soil index properties. The method for computing efficiency increases the range of predicted resistance.
soil resistance during driving for a given soil profile based on
the static pile capacity and the empirical adjustment factor Considering the uncertainties regarding key wave
is described. equation variables, the most reasonable approach at present
is to use the wave equation in a standardised manner to
INTRODUCTION avoid introducing additional uncertainties into pile
drivability analyses. For this study of piles in clay, quake
DrivabiIity of offshore pipe piles is currently predicted was taken as 2.5 mm, and side and tip damping as 0.65 and
by estimating the resistance that a pile-hammer combination 0.15 sec/m, respectively. Side resistance was assumed to
can overcome and comparing this with the likely resistance of increase linearly from the seafloor. The proportion of tip
the foundation soils. The capability of pile-hammer resistance was taken directly from static pile capacity
combinations to overcome resistance can be analysed using calculations. Efficiency was taken as 75 percent for the
one-dimensional stress wave theory (Smith, 1962). A logical larger offshore steam hammers considered herein except
starting point for assessing the soil resistance is the predicted where measurements indicated actual values. This
static axial compressive pile capacity. However, pile install- combination of values for the parameters of primary
ation data indicate that soil resistance during continuous pile importance produces wave equation results that are
driving is less than the predicted static pile capacity in representative of normal practice in the offshore industry
normally consolidated clays (McClelland et aI, 1969; Aurora, today.
1980; Stockard, 1980), and can exceed the static capacity in
heavily overconsolidated clays (McClelland et aI, 1969; Fox Where comments are made about results of wave
et aI, 1970; Durning and Rennie, 1978). In order to examine equation analyses in this paper, the foregoing parameters
the relationship between static pile capacity, the soil are implied. In reality, the magnitude of soil resistance
resistance mobilised during driving, and the degree of corresponding to a given rate of penetration is not
overconsolidation, six installation case histories of large accurately known because of uncertainty in application of
diameter pipe piles in silty and sandy clays were analysed. the wave equation model.
The results indicate that the overconsolidation ratio of
cohesive soils has a significant influence on pile drivability. PILE CAPACITY
The paper presents results of this study and a procedure for
computing soil resistance during continuous pile driving. Shaft capacity of offshore pipe piles in clay usually is
computed by either the methods given in API RP 2A (1980)
References and illustrations at end of paper

165
 or the" A-method" proposed by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972). shallow depths the Heather clays are very heavily
For clays of low to medium plasticity, API recommend <:1.- overconsolidated, but the OCR reduces rapidly with
values that vary with the soil undrained shear strength. Both penetration, the soils becoming near normally consolidated
the Q; and Avalues are based on pile load test data assembled at final pile penetration. If soil resistance during driving is
and presented by Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972). These data related to OCR then the type of driving resistance observed
are plotted on Fig. 1 as skin friction versus undrained shear at Heather Field, i.e. generally increasing with depth at a
strength. Published data for hard, overconsolidated, lean clay decreasing rate, is to be expected.
are limited to tests on two 0.76 m (30 in.) diameter
conductors performed at BP's West Sole Field in the North Stress history, as expressed by OCR, significantly
Sea (Fox et ali 1970, 1976). In this study, the API Ct affects soil behaviour. Two clays with the same undrained

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

relationship, the solid curve shown on Fig. 1, was used for shear strength can have quite different stress histories
undrained shear strengths up to 400 kPa. Skin friction was which are reflected in their stress-strain and volume or pore
taken as 200 kPa for stronger overconsolidated, lean clays as pressure change characteristics during shear. In undrained
linear extrapolation of the empirical relationship for such shear, normally consolidated clays tend to strain soften,
soils is uncertain. Limiting adhesion does not apply to their particle structure collapses and the tendency to
normally consolidated clays that have large undrained shear volume decrease produces relatively large positive pore
strengths because of existing overburden stress. water pressures. Heavily overconsolidated clays tend to
strain harden with dilatant behaviour during shear resulting
Unit end bearing was computed as nine times the in negative pore pressures. Pile installation shears clay to
undrained shear strength of the clay at pile tip penetration. large strains, so stress-strain characteristics, and hence
However, total end bearing was limited by the frictional stress history, should affect resistance to pile driving. A
resistance of the soil plug. The behaviour of a soil plug is parallel exists with regard to static skin friction. The <:1.
complex (Poskitt, 1978), and is likely to be different under values for cohesive soils should be related to OCR rather
dynamic and static loading. Many pipe piles are installed than undrained shear strength (Wroth, 1972; McClelland,
with an internal driving shoe to reduce internal skin friction. 1974), and this relationship can be seen in pile load test
Comparative data of piles in clay with and without a shoe results (Semple, 1979).
indicate that an internal shoe can reduce the driving
. resistance and the extent to which the pile plugs during The relationship between static pile capacity, soil
driving (Heerema, 1979; Fox et aI, 1976). Opinions vary resistance during driving and OCR was elucidated in general
regarding the reduction in internal skin friction caused by a terms more than a decade ago by McClelland et al (1969).
shoe during continuous driving. Some believe that an internal Soil resistance is significantly less than static capacity in
shoe completely eliminates internal skin friction in stiff clay, normally consolidated clays and exceeds it in heavily
whereas others assume reductions of 30 to 50 percent (Toolan overconsolidated clays. Where the OCR is initially large and
and Fox, 1977; Durning and Rennie, 1978; Heerema, 1979). decreases to small values at depth, as at Heather Field, the
For assessing pile drivability, internal skin friction was soil resistance may initially exceed the static pile capacity
assumed equal to the external skin friction for plain-end and then reduce below it at depth. These trends indicate the
piles, and 25 percent of external skin friction for piles with possibility of determining from pile driving experience a
an internal driving shoe. The internal clearance will not be factor, varying with OCR, that can be applied to the
maintained after pile installation so the effects of a shoe on computed static pile capacity to predict soH resistance
driving resistance and on long term pile capacity are not the during driving.
same.
PILE CAPACITY FACTOR
SOIL BEHAVloUR DURING DRIVING
The ratio of computed static pile capacity, Q, to soil
Considerable driving experience is available for long resistance during continuous driving, R, was defined by
pipe piles in the Gulf of Mexico where cohesive soils are Aurora (1980) as the driving resistance factor, Fd' Values of
predominately under-to-normally consolidated and highly Fd were computed for some Gulf of Mexico clays at
plastic. Soil resistance during driving computed using drivingpenetrations where pile driving stopped. The factor relating
records and standard wave equation analysis is generally 20 tostatic pile capacity and soil resistance during driving in this
50 percent of the relevant static capacity (Aurora, 1980; study, termed the pile capacity factor Fp ' differs from the
Stockard, 1980). The reduction in resistance is attributed to driving resistance factor Fd in three ways: (1) Fg relates to
remoulding and loss of shear strength in these relatively incremental shaft friction, that is t,Q / lJ.R , (2) pIle capacity
sensitive clays. Remoulded undrained shear strength has been for lean, overconsolidated clays is cofl,put~d with a limit on
used to predict soil resistance in stiff overconsolidated clays
adhesion, and (3) end bearing is modified for a pile with a
(Toolan and Fox, 1977). driving shoe. These variations to the conventional API
method were discussed earlier. For a long pile in normally
In stiff clays, however, the driving resistance can consolidated clay, the OCR is/constant, the adhesion limit is
increase with penetration to 20 or 30 m depth then remain not applicable, and end bearing is not significant, so the
unchanged as the pile is driven to greater depths whereas the factors F p and Fd will be approximately the same.
computed static capacity increases more or less linearly from
the seafloor. A good example is the well-documented EVALUATING OCR
installation of Union Oil's Heather platform in the North Sea
(Durning and Rennie, 1978; Durning et aI, 1978). One Values of OCR can be determined directly from
explanation for this behaviour assumes that the unit skin laboratory one-dimensional consolidation test data, and
friction at a given penetration progressively decreases with estimated from generalised relationships between
the length of pile driven past that depth. Heerema (1978) consolidation pressure and liquidity index (Navfac-DM7,
developed a procedure to account for this possibility in 1971) or between OCR and undrained shear strength (Ladd
prediction of soil resistance based on the Heather platform and Foot, 1974; Koutsoftas and Fischer, 1976; Andersen et
experience and data from several other sites. An alternative aI, 1979). Laboratory consolidation test data usually are not
explanation of the Heather driving resistance is based on the available for published pile installation records; they also
overconsolidation ratio (OCR) of the cohesive soils. At tend to be affected by sample disturbance and exhibit
measurement scatter thereby introducing another element of Forties platforms are located in Block 21/10 of the UK
subjective interpretation into a procedure based on OCR. Of North Sea where water depths range from about 110 to
the two generalised methods, the correlation between OCR 130 m. Groups of 9 and 11 plain-end 1.37 m (54 in.)
and undrained shear strength is more precise, although the diameter by 51 to 64 mm (2 to 2.5 in.) wall piles were driven
application of any generalised relationship to specific sites to a maximum penetration of 76 m. At the FD platform, an
can always be questioned. However, in back analysing field additional instrumented pile, with observations of hammer
experience to develop a predictive technique, the absolute performance, was installed using the Menck 3000 and 7000
accuracy of a component, such as OCR, may not be of great hammers in the spring of 1976. The Tartan platform was
importance provided one method is used consistently installed in the summer of 1979 in 140 m water depth in
throughout. Block 15/16 of the UK North Sea. The platform is supported

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

by groups of seven 1.83 m (72 in.) diameter by 64 mm
Relatively high quality data from simple shear tests (2.5 in.) wall plain-end piles driven to about 67 m
relating OCR and undrained shear strength of lean clays are penetration using the Menck 8000 hammer.
assembled on Fig. 2. Undrained shear strength, Su, is
normalised to the value for the clays in the normally Geotechnical parameters for the silty and sandy clays
consolidated state, Sunc. By normalising the shear strength at the Heather, Forties FD and Tartan platform sites of
data, the information can be reasonably extended to primary relevance to this study are shown on' Fig. 3.
compression test data, the basis of the API method for Foundation conditions at these sites are fairly
determining shaft friction. The curve drawn through the representative of relatively strong and weak clays in the
data in Fig. 2 is described by the equation: North Sea. Based on published data (Holmes, 1977), the
shallow soils at Forties and Tartan appear to have the same
S /S = OCR O•85 (1) geological origin. At Tartan, an intermittent stratum of
u unc
dense silty fine sand was present at the base of the normally
The curve has been extrapolated to an OCR of 100. consolidated clay. The Su profiles for the three platforms
Undrained shear strength of normally consolidated clay may were developed for pile design at the time of the
be computed from (Skempton, 1957); investigation. The SUf)C and OCR profiles were obtained by
applying Eq. (l) to (3). The OCR values for all three
c/p= 0.11 + 0.0037PI • (2) locations are shown on Fig. 4. Data from three other
platform sites available in our files also were analysed. The
where c is Sunc, p is the effective overburden stress, and PI is OCR profiles and Su values for these additional sites fall
the plasticity index of the clay. When plasticity data are within the range represented by Heather, Forties and
unavailable, the c/p ratio for a lean clay may be taken as 0.2 Tartan.
and the submerged unit weight of a stiff clay as 10 kN/m 3•
Hence, Sunc in kPa units is twice the depth in metres. For a Soil resistance during continuous driving interpreted
stiff, lean clay the OCR may be estimated as; using wave equation analyses from the field penetration rate
data are presented on Fig. 5. The Heather data were taken
OCR = 0.45 (S /2)1.2 . (3) directly from the paper on the platform installation (Durning
u et aI, 1978). The published driving record for the
instrumented pile at Forties FD platform (Sutton et aI, 1979)
where Su is the undrained shear strength (kPa) at depth Z (m)
taken from the shear strength profile established for static was interpreted for this study using a hammer efficiency of
pile design. In kip, ft units the constant of proportionality in 65 percent based on the reported observations of the
Eq. (3) is 200. When submerged unit weight and plasticity hammer performance. The range of soil resistance at
data are available, Eq. (2) should be evaluated directly. Tartan was affected by the intermittent sand stratum that
was not present at all pile positions. Undrained shear
PILE INSTALLAnON INFORMAnON strength in the deeper clays at Tartan also varied locally,
tending to be greatest at places where the sand stratum was
Extensive information on pile driving in under-to- encountered. The lower and upper bound soil resistances are
normally consolidated, highly plastic clay is available from averages for the four legs for piles that respectively
the Gulf of Mexico and is represented in recent publications appeared to miss and intersect the sand stratum. Similar
by Aurora (1980) and Stockard (I980). Two major platform data were analysed for three other platforms supported by
installations featuring cohesive soils in the North Sea have large diameter pipe piles installed with steam hammers.
been well documented; British Petroleum's Forties platforms
(Hirsch et aI, 1975; Fox et aI, 1976; Sutton et aI, 1979) and DATA ANALYSIS
Union Oil's Heather platform (Durning and Rennie, 1978;
Durning et aI, 1978; Rausche, 1978). Texaco made available Static axial pile capacities at various penetrations
information for their Tartan platform. below the seafloor were computed for the six platforms
using the criteria outlined previously. Static capacity
Heather Field is at the northern end of the North Sea, curves for the Heather, Forties and Tartan soil conditions
about 100 km east of the northern tip of the Shetland Islands. are shown on Fig. 5. As a prediction of soil resistance
Forties and Tartan Fields lie about 80 km apart, 300 to during driving, the static capacities are of the correct
350 km south of Heather and about 150 km east to northeast magnitude, but some differences exist that would
of Peterhead, Scotland. significantly affect pile installation planning and
performance. The maximum soil resistance at Heather
The Heather platform was installed in about 140 m of exceeds the maximum computed static pile capacity by
water in Block 2/5 of the UK North Sea in the summer of some 20 percent, whereas the static capacity at Forties is
1977. The platform is supported on four groups of six 1.52 m about 70 percent greater than the soil resistance at terminal
(60 in.) diameter by 64 mm (2.5 in.) wall piles fitted with an penetration.
internal shoe and driven to about 46 m penetration primarily
by the Menck 8000 and 12500 steam hammers. The four

167
 Factors required to adjust the static pile capacity to fit of a piled structure. The soil parameters required are
the maximum soil resistances were determined by comparing submerged unit weight, plasticity index and undrained shear
the change in static shaft capacity, AQs, with the estimated strength. The first two parameters are used to compute the
change in soil shaft resistance during driving, ARs, for undrained shear strength of the soil in the normally
successive increments of depth, and then computing the pile consolidated state based on Skempton’s c/p ratio, Eq. (2).
capacity factors Fp as AQS /A Rs. The static capacities and The ratio of the actual to normally consolidated values of
soil resistances were reduced by the end bearing component undrained shear strength then are used with Eq. (1) to
prior to analysis. Unit end bearing for static capacity and develop an OCR profile for the site. This in turn permits
during driving was assumed to be the same. evaluation by Eq. (4) of the appropriate Fp values.
Alternatively, Eq. (1) and (4) can be combined to give the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

Incremental analysis of two variables introduces factor directly in terms of undrained shear strength:
problems of scatter in the results. Back analysis of the FP
values is sensitive to details of static capacity and soil FP=0.5(S /S )0”35 . . . . . (5)
u unc
resistance variations with depth, and these can vary
significantly over successive depth increments. To overcome Specifically for stiff, lean clays Eq. (5)can be approximated
this problem, the curves of soil resistance during driving were as;
smoothed, which is unavoidably subjective. The validity of
the analyses so performed can only be judged by the Fp=0.4(Su/Z)0”35 . . . . . . (6)
usefulness of the results. However, just as incremental back
analysis induces scatter in the resulting data, forward where Su is in kPa and Z is in metres. In kip, ft units the
prediction based on these data tends to integrate variations constant of proportionality in Eq. (6) is 2.4. Where site-
so that the magnitude of scatter is to some degree specific data are available, the Fp vaIues for a given soil
misleading. In other words, a pile tends to integrate the profile should be based on application of Eq. (1), (2) and (4).
response of a soil profile. Predicting the maximum value of
soil resistance and not the details ofa soil resistance profile To use this procedure, computations are performed to
is most significant for pile hammer selection. determine cumulative skin friction versus depth for the site.
In overconsolidated clays, unit skin friction is limited to
In dividing pile penetrations into depth intervals for 200 kPa. The pile capacity factors are incorporated into
analysis, a constant depth increment of 3 m was used these computations by multiplying each increment of skin
wherever possible so that all resulting Fp data could be given friction by the Fp value appropriate to the average OCR
equal weight. For ease of computation, the actual depth for that depth increment. End bearing is then added to the
increments varied from about 2.5 to 3.5 m. Because of the adjusted cumulative skin friction. For a pile with a driving
influence of the sand stratum on driving resistance at Tartan, shoe, internal skin friction is taken as 25 percent of the
analyses were made only for increments in the stronger clay outside friction in determining end bearing. The resulting
below 43 m penetration. A total of 90 individual Fp values capacity curve is the prediction of soil resistance during
were computed for the six platforms. driving. As the method is based on the conventional
undrained shear strength profile developed for the site,
The Fpvalues were plotted against Su, depth, and OCR design axial pile capacity and soil resistance during driving
for the various depth increments. NO relationship with SU are directly linked. Once the design shear strength profile is
was apparent. Fp tended to decrease with increasing pile established, drivability predictions can proceed without the
penetration, however each of the six sites indicated a need to develop additional soil data that inevitably require
different relationship. When depth wasreplacedby OCR, the additional interpretive judgements.
results collapsed into a well-defined zone as shown on Fig.6.
Most Fp values are between 0.5 and 2. A relationship Delays once the driving sequence is initiated can lead
representative of the data is: toafurther increase in soil resistance. Some data on set-up
effects are available in the literature (Housel, 1950; Seed
FP=0.5(OCR)0.3. . . . . (4) and Reese, 1957; Eide et al, 1961; Stermac et al, 1969;
Flaate, 1972; McClelland and Lipscomb, 1972; Fox et al,
The relationship was seIected to provide a value of 0.5 for a 1976; Aurora, 1980).
normalIy consolidated clay in recognition of the considerable
experience from the Gulf of Mexico that indicates soil ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
resistance during continuous driving generally does not
exceed one-half of the computed static pile capacity. A clay The authors wish to thank Texaco Inc. for permission
profile having an average OCR of 10 is predicted to have a to publish data from site investigation and installation of
soil resistance during continuous driving about equal to the their Tartan platform in the North Sea. The authors
computed static pile capacity. acknowledge the work of Messrs. C. Patel and I. R.
Penberth, and other staff members of McClelland Engineers
APPLICATIONOF PROCEDURE in London, inanalysing data for this study.

Soil resistances obtained from computed static pile REFERENCES

capacities modified for OCR by use of Eq. (4) are shown for
the Heather, Forties FD and Tartan platforms on Fig.5. Soil Andersen, A., Berre, T., Kleven, A. and Lunne, T. (1979),
resistance in the sand stratum at Tartan was computed using Ilprocedures lJsed to obtain Soil Parameters for Foundation
a unit skin friction of 100 kPa, and a unit end bearing of Engineering in the North Sea”, Marine Geotechnology,
50 MPaacting on the stee1annu1us of an unplugged pile. The V01.3, pp. 201-266.
pile capacity factor method overestimates the maximum soil
resistance at the three platform sites by 5 to 10 percent. API RP 2A (1980), Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Offshore Platforms, American
Application of this procedure involves no additional soil Petroleum Institute, Ilth Edition.
data to that routinely developed for basic foundation design

168
Aurora, R. (1980), “Case Studies of Pile Set-Up in the Gulf of McClelland, B., Focht, 3. A. and Emrich, W. 3. (1969),
Mexico”, Proceedings, Twelfth Offshore Technology !Iproblems in Design and Installation of Offshore piles”?
Conference, Houston, VOL 3, pp. 281-290. 3ournaI, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
VO1. 95, No. SM6, pp. 1491-1514.
Durning, P. 3. and Rennie, I. A. (1978), “Determining Pile
Capacity and Pile Drivability in Hard, Overconsolidated McClelland, B. and Lipscomb, L. (1972), “Load Test of a 333-
North Sea CJay”, Proceedings, European Offshore Petroleum Foot Friction Pile in Deep Under-Consolidated Clay”, ASCE
Conference, London, VoL l,pp. 383-392. National Meeting, Dallas, Tex., 24 pp.

Durning, P. J., Rennie, I. A., Thompson, 3. M. and Ruckstuhl, Navfac-DM7 (1971), “Design Manual-Soil Mechanics,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

E. % (1978), “Installing a Piled Foundation in Hard Foundations and Earth Structures”, Naval Facilities
Overconsolidated North Sea Clay for the Heather Platform”, Engineering Command, Department of the Navy,
Proceedings, European Offshore Petroleum Conference, Washington, DC., p. 7-3-8.
London, VoL l,pp. 375-382.
Poskitt, T. 3. (1978), Discussion on “Geotechnical Planning
Eide, O., Hutchinson, J. N. and Landva, A. (1961), “Short and of Piled Foundations for Offshore Platforms”, Proceedings,
Long-Term Test Loading of a Friction Pile in Clay”, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, Part I, 64, May,
Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Soil pp. 261-262.
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol. 2, pp. 45-
53. Rausche, F. (1978), I!pile Driving Measurements on the
Heather Platform Installation”, Proceedings, European
Flaate, K. (1972), “Effects of Pile Driving in Clays”, Canadian Offshore Petroleum Conference, London, Vol. 1, pp. 423-
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 81-88. 430.

Fox, D. A., Parker, G. F. and Sutton, V. 3. R. (1970), “Pile Seed, H. B. and Reese, L. C. (1957), “The Action of Soft
Driving into North Sea Boulder Clays”, Proceedings, Second Clay Along Friction Piles”, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 122,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Vol. 1, pp.535- pp. 731-754.
548.
Semple, R. M. (1979), Discussion on “The Effective Stress
Fox, D. A., Sutton, V. 3. R. and Oksuzler, Y. (1976), “North Analysis of Piles”, Proceedings, Conference on Recent
Sea Platform Piling Development of the Forties Field Piles Developments in the Design and Construction of Piles,
from West Sole and Nigg Bay Experience and Tests”, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 397-399.
Proceedings, Conference on Design and Construction of
Offshore Structures, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, Skempton, A. W. (1957), Discussion on “Planning and Design
pp. 47-59. of the New Hong Kong Airport”, Proceedings, Institution of
Civil Engineers, London, Vol. 7, pp. 305-307.
Heerema, E. P. (1978), “PredictingP ileD riveability: Heather
as an Illustration of the Friction Fatigue Theory”, Smith, E. A. L. (1962), “Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave
Proceedings, European Offshore Petroleum Conference, Equation”, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 127, Part 1, pp. 1145-
London, Vol. l,pp. 413-422. 1193.

Heerema, E. P. (1979), “Pile Driving and Static Load Testson Stermac, A. G., Selby, K. G. and Devata, M. (1969),
Piles in Stiff Clay”, Proceedings, Eleventh Offshore !tBehaviour of Various Types of piles in a Stiff clay”>
Technology Conference, Houston, VoL2, pp. 1135-1147. Proceedings, Seventh International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, VOL 2,
Hirsch, T. J., Koehler, A. M. and Sutton, V. J. R. (1975), pp. 239-245.
“Selectionof Pile Driving Equipment and Field Evaluation of
Pile Bearing Capacity During Driving for the North Sea Stockard, D. M. (1980), “Case Histories of Pile Driving in the
Forties Field”, Proceedings, Seventh Offshore Technology Gulf of Mexico”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, April,
Conference, Houston, Vol. 2, pp. 37-49. pp. 580-588.

Holmes, R. (1977), “Quarternary Deposits of the Central Sutton, V. 3. R., Rigden, W. 3., 3ames, E. L., St. John, H. D.
North Sea; 5. The Quarternary Geology of the U.K. Sector and Poskitt, T. 3. (1979), “A Full Scale Instrumented Pile
of the North Sea Between 56° and 58° N“, Institute of Test in the North Sea”, Proceedings, Eleventh Offshore
Geological Sciences, London, Report No. 77/14, 50 pp. Technology Conference, Houston, Vol. 2, pp. 1117-1133.

Housel, W. S. (1950), Discussion on “Effect of Driving Piles TooIan, F. E. and Fox, D. A. (1977), “Geotechnical Planning
Into Soft CIay”, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 115, pp. 339-346. for Piled Foundations for Offshore Platforms”, Proceedings,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, Part 1, 62, May,
Koutsoftas, D. and Fischer, 3. A. (1976), “In Situ Undrained pp. 221-243.
Shear Strength of Two Marine Clays”, JournaI, Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT9, pp. 989-1005. Vijayvergiya, V. N. and Focht, J. A. (1972), “A New Way to
Predict the Capacity of Piles in Clay”, Proceedings, Fourth
Ladd, C. C., and Foott, R. (1974), “New Design Procedure for Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Vol. 2, pp. 865-
Stability of Soft Clays”, Journal, Geotechnical Engineering 874.
Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT7, pp. 763-786.
Wroth, C. P. (1972), Discussion on “Design and Performance
McClelland, B. (1974), “Design of Deep Penetration Piles for of Deep Foundations”, Proceedings, Conference on the
Ocean Structures”, Journal, Geotechnical Engineering Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures,
Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT7, pp. 705-747. ASCE, Lafayette, Ind., Vol. 3, pp. 231-234.

169
 Key to Pile Load Test Data* *Vijayvergiya and Focht (1972)
X Alliance ● Morgonza
❑ British Columbia + MSC Houston
Z
+ Burnside e New Orlrmn8
0 Cleveland o North Sea
O Detroit e San Franai8co -— —-- -—.
o Donaldsanville * South Pass
A Drayton ■ Stanmore
A Lemoore ~ Venice 0
0 0

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

0
a

■
■
■
O*

IA’ I
00 100 200 300 400 500
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, kPa

Fig. 1 -SKIN FRICTION IN CLAY FROMPILE LL140 TEST DATA,

OCR

Fig. 2- EFFECTff OVERCONSCLIDATIONON

UNORA[NED SHEARSTRENGTH.
 OCR OCR
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ~ 5
c. ,
. i
g [0 10 ~.,
___-— -,
-\ ----- A
------
~ Z. \ySunc <~~~ \
20 -
m

3 \ .=”---
s
: 30 - \ ~,’~ OCR 30 -
/

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

m Heather Field, Block 2/5
Forties Field, Block 21/10
\ UK Sector, North Seo
UK Sector, North Sea
540 -1 ----- s“ 40 -
1= Boring DB25
a 1’ \ Boring B4/4A
E I (Sutton etal,1979)
+t
(Owningond Rennie,1978)
k 50 - 50 -
z
L1.1
n \//
, 1 t ! ! t t - &
60 60-
o 100 200 3D0 400 5c0600700[
;(
UNDRAINED SH”EAR STRENGTH, Su, kPa
I I t 1
70~ s~
100 I 50 200 250 3(
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, Su, kPa

Fig. 3A - GEOTECHNICALOATA W NWTH SEA PLATFCRMSITE., Fig. 3B-GEOTECHNICAL OATAWNCRTH SEA PLATRXMSITE.

OCR OCR
‘234567[ 001 5 [0 15 20 50 75 1(
P\
I -\
NOTE
‘\

1~
SCALE
CHANGE
10 :. [0
E o I ‘~’’or’ies
-
:201 If’””
g 20 -
0-1 a
w u’
L (n , 1:
a
~ 30 - \ Heather
Silty Fine Sand
5
~ 40 -- ,/~ - ,T
m ,/
,0
z \
!250 - \ /
“<OCR - /= Tartan
G \
K \/s””c /
+ , /“
~ 60 - /“ /’
IJ.1 \ z-”--- >
n
/’ < s“
70- \ /’ 70~
\ ..~
,,j, \

800
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8C
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, Su, kPa Fig. 4- RANGEW(XRCONOITIONS ANALYSES.

Fig. 3C-GEOTECHNICAL OATAF NCRTHSEA PLATFLXMSITE.

 SOIL RESISTANCE DURING DRIVING, MN

‘“~
SOIL RESISTANCE DURING DRIVING, MN
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 \ Driving Record
.. . \. Computed by Stotic
y..% I& > Copocity Procedure

1.,’ -5., ‘h ,, Computed with Pile

10 ( ( RI%, ‘!%,s Capacity Factor
\ Computed by Static = 0.5 OCRO”3
“\ ‘“\ “< Capacity Procedure
“1. ~.h,
20

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/81OTC/All-81OTC/OTC-3969-MS/2042327/otc-3969-ms.pdf/1 by University of Western Australia user on 24 January 2023

\ \ ‘“. :%$,:::::,
‘\. N, . .
30 1. ‘\\
! \

40
/., ‘“,, -“\.
\ ~ \.
50
1.,
Heather Platform
t i
70
t Forties Plotform

Fig.5A- OBSERVED
AND COMPUTEDSOIL RESISTANCES,

Fig.5B- OBSERVEO
ANDCOMPUTEO
SOILRESISTANCES,

SOIL RESISTANCE DURING DRIVING, MN

o0 ‘o 20 30 ?0 5? 60 7? 80 [ 1 I I 1 , , , I i

Key Key
— -1
—
A Heather
● Tarton
■ Forties ❑
i

1 i

OCR
70 -
Tortan Platform
1 1
80

Fig.6- PILECAPACITY
ADJUSTMENT
FACT131
VERSUS
~R.

Fig.5C - OBSERVEOANO COMPUTEOSOIL RESISTANCES,