OTC 8122
. .
Installation of the Troll Phase I Gravity Base Platform
E. Anden=s, Aker, E. Skomedal, Statoil’] and S Lindseth,
CWWII l=. OfWW TK+VIM9Y wlerof?a
This paper was pfesentsd m ttw 2slh ti”ual OTC in Houstm, Texas, U S A 6-9 May 199s
Tms papof wu sewed for presentwm by the OTC Pra$ram Commme followingIewew of mformatm ContainedIn an abstrati submlned by the Author(s) Conlenls of vw paper,
as pretented, have nti ken rev!owedby the Offshore Tdndogy
fef!ecfany FC.stiumof lk OtlshoroTechrmlogyConference or Is olkars PennIss& to COPYis restricted10an abstmti 0! not more than 300 words 111.
The abstraci should containmmsptcuws acimow!+dgmeol of where ana by whcnmthe paper was F@$enlti
Abstract
The TROLL Phase 1 concrete Gravity Base Platform is
located in 303 m of water in the Norwegian Trench
some 80 kilometers northwest of Bergen. The platforms
wi 11be a major gas supplier to the European market far
into the next century. This paper describes the major
aspects in the design, preparation and performance of
the platform installation operation.
The extreme height of the structure was a
challenge for design and performance of the marine
operations, particular when passing a “shallow area”
with minimum depth of237 m. The foundation soils at
the Troll Field required skirt piles to recordbreaking 36
m depth in order to sustain the extreme North Sea
weather conditions.
The potential of intolerable horizontal soil
pressure on the skirt walls from large soil
displacements during penetration was the dominating
aspect of the skirt penetration. Extensive engineering
supplemented with model testing and planning were
conducted in the development of systems and
procedures for monitoring and manipulation of acting
loads on the skirt walls.
The success of the design, planning and
performance of the operation is documented through
comparison between observed and predicted
performance of main operation parameters.
Introduction
Field Information, The TROLL Phase 1 Gas Platform
was installed in May 1995. The Troll Field is located in
the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The platform
will be a major supplier of gas to the European market
far into the next century. Design operating life is 70
years and the maximum production rate some 84 x 106
Sm3/day (3 BCF/day).
Norske Shell was appointed as field development
operator in 1988. The contract for engineering,
procurement and construction of the concrete Gravity
Base Structure (GBS) including tow out and
installation of the platform at the Troll Field was given
‘)Seconded to Norske Shell during project.
Tables and figures at the end of the paper,
@
Aker
Can ferec!ceand we sullecf to c.nrucllonby the author(s) The maleroal,as c!resented,das not necessarily
stmtmns may not be cop$es
to the Aker company Norwegian Contractors in March
1991, .Watoil will take over as production operator in
June 1996.
Platform Design and Site Conditions. The Troll Field
is in the Norwegian Trench. At the platform location
the water depth is 303 m, The upper 74 m of soil
consists of more or less normally consolidated,
homogeneous clay. From seabed to 16.5 m depth the
clay is sofi to firm with high plasticity. This layer is
called Soil Unit I. In Soil Unit 11,below 16,5 m, the
plasticity becomes medium. The strength increases
gradually by depth, A summary of soil data is given in
Figure 1.
The 472 m high structure including topsides is the
tallest structure that has ever been moved on the
earth’s surface. An artists view of the platform is
shown in Figure 2. The substructure is made of
concrete and is a Condeep SP-4 -19-R design,
comprising skirt piles, 19 caisson cells, one rieg,el and
four shafts. Figure 3 provides a general view and a
cross section.
The soils required a foundation area of 16,600 m’
and skirt piles to 36 meters depth in order to provide
sufficient bearing capacity and rocking stiftiess for
extreme North Sea weather conditions. The foundation
is composed of 19 circular cell skirt compartments with
diameter 32 m as extensions of the caisson cells. In
between the circular cells there are 24 tricell skirt
compartments. The skirt wall thickness varies from 0.5
mtol,Om.
Four of the 19 caisson cells are extended to form
shafts for support of the 32,000 tonnes topside
facilities. A riegel s[ruc[ure at approximately mid
height acts as a beam tying the shafis together. The
riegel also provided buoyancy during tow to field, The
two central shafts contain 20 well conductors each. A
dry riser shaft to the east contains export and import
risers and J-tubes for pipelines. The seawater shaft to
the west is also kept dry. The buoyancy provided by the
shafts is balanced to keep static foundation loading and
settlements low.
57
2 INSTALLATION OF THE TROLL PHASE I - GRAVITY BASE PLATFORM
Platform particulars are given in Table 1. More
detailed description of the platform foundation is found
in References 1, 2 and 3.
Challenges. The extreme height of the structure was a
challenge for the towing operation both with respect to
the large freeboard in general and the bottom clearance
when passing the most shallow part of the tow route in
particular. This minimum depth was 237 m which is
normally considered abundant for surface towing
operations. In this case however, 237 m depth was
governing for buoyancy volume and gave strict
requirements for the performance of the tug
configuration.
The dominating aspect of skirt penetration of Troll
A was the difference in area between the circular cells
and the tricells. Two main consequences were ( 1) more
soil heave in tricells than in circular cells giving
possibility for premature filling up of the tricells and
(2) higher stress increase in the soil inside the tricells
due to wall friction. The potential consequences were
intolerable horizontal loading on the walls of the
tricells. The main challenge of penetration was thereby
to manipulate the pressure difference between cells to
control soil heave and horizontal loading on the tricell
walls, This required comprehensive operation systems
for monitoring and manipulation of the pressures.
Soil heave was defined as the level of the soil
surface within a skirt cell minus virgin seabed level.
With these novel challenges, verification of the
operation feasibility, analysis of potential problems,
contingency planning and training the installation crew
became important activites during preparatory works
for the operation.
Preparations For Marine Operations
Minimum Clearance. Dynamic analyses and model
tests (scale 1:84) were carried out to investigate
platform motions and to establish the required tug
configuration when maneuvering through the “shallow”
area. The platform base area has a size of 3 soccer
fields.
The challenge was to arrive at reasonable
environmental operation criteria for the tow with a
minimum bottom clearance of2 meters, when including
for vertical platfomo motions from wind, waves, tide
and tension in towing lines as well as uncertainties in
the bathymetric survey.
The tug fleet consisted often vessels with a total
bollard pull of 1629 tonnes and one tug serving as
escorthescue vessel. The tug configuration and the 175
n. miles towing route are shown on Figures 4 and 5,
respectively. A semisubmersible accommodation
platform (flotel) accompanied the tow,
Safety and Training. The inshore towing draft up to
beyond the “shallow” was 227 m. This elevated the
topsides and Captain’s brigde on Main Deck to some
145 m above sea level. The free fall lifeboats, which
were the permanent platform evacuation facilities, were
designed for operation from a freeboard of some 30 m.
Two helicopters were therefore provided for rescue and
platform emergency evacuation purposes. This limited
the number of people onboard during the tow to field to
58
OTC 8122
maximum 25 persons (one helicopter lift). A specially
designed rapell ing system (DONUT) acted as
emergency evacuation back-up.
Through extensive training on a shiphandling
simulator, key marine personnel on the platform and
tug boats were given abetter feel for the platform
response to varying environmental conditions and
platform maneuverability. The training also gave
opportunities to test out and practice on the
communication procedures during normal operation
and emergency situations.
Preparations for Skirt Penetration
Penetration Principle. Penetration of skirt piles
comprises two major operation activities:
Ballasting the platform to provide gravity
penetration force.
Evacuation of 580,000 m’ of water entrapped
inside the cell skirt compartments .
lfrequired, additional penetration force is provided
by applying underpressure (suction force) inside the
skirt compartments.
Penetration Resistance. The calculation of skirt
penetration resistance was based on the undrained
shear strength profile as determined by direct simple
shear tests using conventional tip bearing capacity and
skin friction formulas. Skirt tip resistance was
estimated to be the main contributor in the first part of
penetration. Wall friction was considered the major
resistance towards final penetration due to increase of
both wall area in contact with soil and friction. Based
on previous experience, filly remoulded clay was
assumed when calculating the wall friction. A rapid
increase in wall friction was expected when passing
16.5 m penetration due to significantly lower sensitivity
of the clay in Soil Unit 11.
A probabilistic evaluation of the uncertainty in
penetration resistance was performed, The wall friction
was considered the major uncertainty. The evaluation
resulted in coefficients of variation of 0.07 for tip
resistance and 0.16 for wall tliction. Upper and lower
bound values were determined by the range* 1.5
standard deviation of the best estimate.
Tricells. The skirt walls to be penetrated into the
seafloor consisted of 37,800 m’ concrete, or equivalent
to a cube with sides 34 m, resulting in large soil
displacements and corresponding 2.6 m average
seafloor heave within the skirts. However, due to
geometry effects, the seafloor heave within the narrow
tricells would be higher than in the circular cells. Itwas
foreseen that complete tilling (plugging) of the tricells
would happen several meters before the desired depth
was achieved. Continued penetration atler plugging
would thereafter induce unacceptable high internal
tricell pressures.
Silo effects in the tricells could alone cause similar
excessive internal pressures during the last part of the
penetration.
Rather than designing the skirt walls for these
extreme temporary loads, it was decided to reduce the
loads by manipulation of the skirt water pressures.
The following novel strategy was chosen:
OTC 8122 E. ANDEN/ES, E, SKOMEDAL, S, LINDSETH
A Reduce theamount ofsoildisplaced into thetricells
by applying a hydrostatic overpressure in the
tricells relative to the adjacent circular skirt cells.
B Reduce thepressure ontheintemal tricellwalls
during the last part of the penetration by applying
underpressure in the tricells relative to the adjacent
circular skirt cells.
In case A the estimated required overpressure in the
tricells to control the heave increased rapidly above
structural design limitations afier 12 to 15 m
penetration depth.
In case B, the calculations showed that the heave
would increase drastically in the tricells when the
applied tricell water pressure reduced the total pressure
to levels acceptable to the structural strength.
It was obvious from these analyses that the seafloor
within the tricells would have to be suppressed
suftlciently within the first 10-12 meter of penetration
to make room for the expected soil heave during the
later reduction of the pressure.
Triceli Model Testing. It was realized that the success
of the whole installation operation was very much
depending on the novel operation of controlling the sea
floor heave within the tricells and the tricell wall
stresses by manipulation of the water pressures.
The applied analytical model had shortcomings
with respect to effects of soil remolding along the
skirt wall and geometrical constraints. In order to
improve the planning of the operation procedure it was
decided to perform model testing at the Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute (NGl).
The objectives of the testing were:
1. Demonstrate the concept of controlling the soil
plug level inside a skirt compartment by regulating
the water pressure.
2, Investigate potential failure modes and
consequences of hydraulic failure around the skirts.
3. Calibration of the analytical model,
The test model, in scale I :60, is shown in Figure 6.
9 tests were carried out in 3 test bins. A slurry made of
natural clay was consolidated to a uniform undrained
direct simple shear strength of 3.7 kPa and sensitivity
about 3.
Figure 7 shows observed soil heave during four
tests with different pressure histories, The tests clearly
demonstrated the feasibility of controlling the soil
heave by regulation of the water pressure in the tricell,
An example of a theory for soil displacement at
skirt tip level is given in Appendix B According to this
theory, all soil below skirt tip will go to the outside if
the overpressure inside the tricell is 3.14 times the
undrained shear strength, Such conditions would imply
zero soil heave. For penetration between 4 and I I-12
cm test A3 in Figure 7 gave zero or slightly negative
heave. The corresponding overpressure of water in the
tricell skirt compartment was 3.2 times the undrained
shear strength, For deeper penetration the heave
59
3
decreased. This was interpreted as an effect of wall
friction which would give increased overpressure in the
tricell at skirt tip level (silo effect).
In test C 1, see Figure 8, the pressure inside the
tricell was increased to failure by closing the water
evacuation line. The responding negative soil heave
indicated that the failure mode was a global failure
below the tricell. The failure pressure was 5-6 times the
undrained shear strength, as would be predicted by
bearing capacity theory.
Test C 1 also showed that the differential pressure
capacity was almost filly restored after only a few
centimeters fisrther penetration.
Local or hydraulic fai!ure around the skirts were
not observed with realistic test conditions.
The results tlom the model tests gave confidence to
the theoretical models and were of great value in the
tlu-ther detail planning of the skirt penetration
operation.
Operation Tolerances. The installation contract gave
tolerances to platform position, orientation and
verticality as installed. In addition there were several
restrictions established during platform design related
to acceptable loads on structural elements, foundation
soil capacities and limitations in the operation systems.
The extent and complexity of the operation
parameters and limitations are described below.
The structural elements of the skirt system
comprised 12 peripheral skirts, 42 cell joints and 72
tricell skirts See Figure 3.
During penetration each of these structural
elements would be subjected to a measured skirt water
pressure and an esfimated soil pressure increasing with
depth. The resulting loads on each element were to be
checked against the structural capacities.
The structural capacity of a tricell skirt was defined
as a combination of the total differential pressure over
the skirt wall and the membrane forces
(tension/compression) in the wall. The membrane
forces were a function of the water pressure in the
adjacent circular cell skirt compartment relative to
ambient sea,
Operation Procedure and Organization. Experience
from previous penetration operations has shown that
the execution of the operation is governed by boundary
conditions such as appearing penetration resistance,
response to environmental loading and performance of
the mechanical systems utilized in the operation.
Thus, the operation procedure should both define a
sequence of actions based on most probable boundary
conditions and make provisions for adjustments to
observed behaviour in order to obtain optimal
conditions within allowable ranges for operational
parameters throughout the operation,
This required routines and systems for close
monitoring and control of the operation as well as
relevant competence within Contractor’s and Client’s
organizations on site to continuously evaluate
performance and establish the fin-ther operation steps if
4 Installation OF THE TROLL PHASE I - GRAVITY S3ASEPUTFORM
deviations from the anticipated performance should
occur.
Analyses of possible failures and contingency
planning were given high priority. Rather than
establishing detailed step by step procedures for all
possible failure situations the following strategy was
adopted:
- For each operation parameter the consequences to
the structure or foundation soil of gradual
exceedance of the operational limit were analysed
and reported in supporting documents.
A contingency situation was defined as exceeding
an operational limit or if one or more limits had to
be exceededin order to continue the penetration.
In a contingency situation the consequences of
exceeding the critical operational limits would have
to be evaluated and an optimal approach for further
operation would then be established. Temporary
stop of operation was considered acceptable.
Penetration crew list and shitl plans were established
some 12 months ahead of the operation. The persomel
were recruited horn the project engineering and
construction disciplines. They maintained detailed
knowlegde on the structural, geotechnical and
operation system designs and had broad experience in
use of the operation systems.
During operation training seminars the two shifts
worked through different operation scenarios from
touch down of the skirts to penetration completed.
Temporary Water Ballast and Skirt Evacuation
System. The water ballast and skirt evacuation systems
are shown schematically on Figure 9.
The ballast water to the drill shafts was either
sluiced from sea or from the underbase skirt
compa~ents. The skirt water not sluiced to the shafts
was evacuated to sea dircectly or through the skirt
evacuation pumps.
The evacuation system would generate suction
pressure within the skirt compartments the moment the
penetration resistance became higher than the
submerged platfrom weight if the water was evacuated
by pumps or sluiced to the drill shafts.
Restrictions to acceptable differential skirt water
pressure and need for individual manipulation of the
pressures required a system for controlling the water
pressure in the 43 different skirt compartments
separately. The evacuation Iine from each compartment
was therefore equipped with both remotely operated
hydraulic throttle valves, with limit switches and
position indicators, and manual block valves.
The system, comprising close to 100 different
valves, was controlled by a Programmable Logic
Computer (PLC) and operated from a tempormy
control room.
The valves on the skirt compartment evacuation
lines could also be operated from a push button panel
hardwired directly to the valve actuators for quick and
safe response to requests for changes in the skirt
differential pressure when required.
60
OTC 8122
Instrumentation and Data Acquisition System. A
comprehensive structural, geotechnical and
environmental instrumentation and data acquisition
system was available for monitoring the operation,
totalling I20 sensors.
The system provided measurements of water
pressure in each skirt compartment and accumulated
soil heave within the tricells in addition to platform
inclination, penetrated depth, base contact stresses and
ballast water, etc.
The instrumentation program is listed in Table 2.
The data acquisition system scanned through the
sensors once per second and presented more than 1750
updated measured and calculated operation variables
every 10 second.
The enormous amount of information made it
necessary for each operation discipline to customize
their own data presentation on the operation computers
for monitoring of assigned operation parameters,
Operation Performance
Tow to Field and Positioning. Micro-Fix radio
positioning system was used for navigation during the
35 n.miles inshore towage and two independent DGPS
systems for the offshore towage.
The platform arrived at the Troll field after 6 days
towage. The “shallow area was passed with a recorded
minimum clearance of 10.8 m.
The tugs were rearranged into a star formation
during the approach to the target area for the final
positioning of the platform. Both DGPS and UHF radio
positioning systems were utilized. The platform was
placed 6 m tlom the center of the specified 50 m radius
target area and oriented 0.2° off theoretical heading.
The contractual tolerance on the orientation was ~2.5°.
Skirt Penetration. The main operation steps were as
follows:
Depth Interval Activity
0+4m: The ballast water intake and skirt
evacuation were control led to maintain
skirt water pressures close to ambient
sea. This in order to obtain early
sealing of the skirt compartments.
4m+7m: Water pressures in circular cells were
kept close to ambient sea.
Started suppressing the soil within the
tricell by increasing the tricell water
pressures uniformly in all tricelis
relatively to the circular cells.
7 m -+ 12 m: Individual adjustments of the tricell
pressures were made in order maintain
soil heave within acceptable limits,
12 m +25 m: The tricell pressures were adjusted to
maintain control of soi I heave.
Started Ievelling the platform by
differentiating the water pressures in
the various circular cells.
25 m + 36 m: Reduced tricell pressure to comply with
stmctural capacities and acceptable
seafloor heave criteria.
Established final penetration demh
from evaluation of observed sea floor
OTC 8122 E ANDEN/ES, E, SKOMEDAL, S. LINDSETH
heave within tricell and circular cell
skirts, platform inclination, base contact
stresses and sea bed topography.
The operation time from touch down until the skirts
were penetrated to the final depth was 104 hours, Final
penetration depth was 35,7 m which was within the
acceptable range of35 -36 m,.
Comparison of Expected and Observed
Performance
Penetration Resistance. The observed total skirt
penetration resistance isshown in Figure 10. The water
pressure in the circular cells were close to zero
throughout the penetration. The ballast water gave
sufficient penetration force and thus there was no need
for suction in the circular cells to reach the final
penetration depth.
The observed penetration resistance was slightly less
than the expected lower bound. To investigate further
the low penetration resistance, design calculations of
resistance against various parts of the foundation was
compared with measurements. Comparison with the
best estimate isgiven totheleft in Figure II and it is
seen that the wall friction represents the main
deviation, Totheright in Figure II comparison with
lower bound values tlom design is shown. The
measured tipresistance compares well with the lower
bound throughout the penetrated interval. The
measured friction compares well with the lower bound
from seabed to about 17mdepth which is the lower
boundary of soil Unit I. The major deviation from
design is represented by the wall friction in Soil Unit
11.The wall filction in Soil Unit II is less than the
estimated lower bound.
The undrained shear strength of soil was back-
calculated from measured earth pressure at skirt tip by
use of the two alternative solutions for the bearing
capacity factor. A comparison with the design profile
of direct undrained shear strength is made in Figure 12.
Taking account of the variation between the calculation
models, an interpretation may be that the
backcalculated strengths are mainly slightly less or
equal to the design strength for the entire penetration
depth.
Platform Inclination, Figure 13 shows the platform
inclination versus penetrated depth. The platform
inclination measured on the deck was 0.04° when the
penetration was completed. The contractual
requirement was <0.4°,
The need for applying a penetration moment in
order to maintain platfomn verticality within
acceptable ranges was less than expected.
Soil Heave. The operation parameter for controlling
the soil heave in the tricells was the overpressure in the
tricells relative to the neighboring circular cells, The
planned water pressure differences were followed and
the soil heave proved to be easily controlled by these
pressure differences as indicated by Figure 14. Positive
pressure difference indicates higher pressure in the
61
5
tricell than in the surrounding circular cells The soil
response down to 12 m required more reduction of soil
heave in the tricells in the interval 15-22 m than
planned in order to obtain sufficient margins towards
the end where suction in the tricells were required. The
variation between the cells were small confirming
homogeneous soil conditions and good performance of
the operation systems. As a result of the successful
heave control, the loading on the tricell walls and other
parts of the structure was well within the limitations.
To improve the understanding of the heave process,
a more detailed comparison with a theoretical model
is given in the Appendix A.
The observed relationship between tricell heave
and pressure differences indicates that the theory used
during planning was reasonably realistic. The friction
effect on differential pressure was possibly somewhat
overestimated. The observations also compared well
with the model tests performed.
Conclusions
The installation of the TROLL Phase 1 platform
represented several new challenges in the field of
offshore installation operations. The success of the
operation was provided through a devoted
multidisciplinary teamwork throughout the engineering
planning and performance of the operation,
The potential in combining analytical approach
with model testing in design and planning of
complex operations has been clearly
demonstrated.
Observed penetration resistance was slightly
less than expected due to an overestmation of
the wall friction..
The flow of even large volumes of displaced
soil was controlled by moderate and predictable
pressure differences within the skirts,
The operation generated experiences of great value in
design of future skirt pile concepts, like suction achors.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank A/S Norske Shell and Statoil
for their permission to publish data from TROLL Phase
1,
The contribution from colleagues and ftom
subcontractor Norwegian Geotechnical Institute both
during design, planning and performance of the
operation as well as preparation of this paper is highly
appreciated.
References
.1 Knudsen, A., Skjaeveland, H., l.indseth, S, and }Ioklie,
hi,: “Record-Breaking for Fixed Concrete
Water Depth
Platforms”. Paper no 7463, OTC 1994,
2 By.T and Skomedal, E: “Soil Parameters for Foundation
Design, Troll Platform”, BOSS ’92, London.
3 I{anscn, 13., Nmvacki, F., Skomedal, E, and t{ennstad, J.,
“Foundation Ocsign, Troll Platform”, BOSS ’92,
London.
4 Tjelta, T. I., Aas, P. M., Hernrstad, J, and Andenzs,E.:
“The Skirt Piled Gullfaks C Platfomr Installation”. Paper
no 6473. OTC 1990.
TABLE l: Platform Particulars TABLE 2: Instrumentation Program

Foundation base area 16,600 m2 Parameter

Length of foundation skirts

Height of GBS
36 m

369.4 m
Bottom Clearance and
Penetrated Depth I 4
I

Total height of platform 472 m

Topside tow-out weight 23,000 tonnes

Max. operational topside 30,000 tonnes

weight Soil Heave within Tricells I 24 u

Draft during inshore tow

Draft during offshore tow 227-278

227 m

m
Flow ffom Tricells; Flow Rate
and Accumulated Flow I 24
1
Flow rate to shatts, to sea and 3
Displacement 1,052.000 tonnes ffom sea
Concrete volume 232,147 m3

volume of penetrated 37,800 m3

Etih Pressure on Lower
Dome I 5
1
skirts

Platform operation life 70 years

Shon Term Settlements I 2 II

$-c, kPa
Depth Grain Soil u o Z? @o 600 8M lW w 1, s, OCR 0’ a
N
m size Oescnption 1 — Q“VP.fM:a 7* y“ - - dell Wa
T 1
a /
CLAY,Vwy [on D h. hiftl 70
#19tafr. SignorOrwcml- 1 10 37 5.5 1.45 29 4.5
W* I*d 47
!45 : ‘s

-Zt) :;.
.. cur. SS1-ldf. &m 10 wry ~ ntt 26
,.,“
.:
..,. mtf.mtim owmw. tlA
20 2 1.45 28.5 8.0
,’..
Ibjhllyov9rcam46ald, 10
mmy gravcts ati acaoond
.,. .:
lQII*$
40 :::..
—-- \
-
,., ——- ——— -- — .-. -_
;4-. ,: ; - - --- ;,6
y“
:...,
CLAY. m~ U1-111
Ilk b( **l-r
,..., $EfJ10hti,
3* sqhUy I[a : “!0 19 2 I :5 29 llj
.,. mom Obwcmmbdaled
- 60 :~‘ i :~j
--- --— -- ) —- :L---— —-- 3- ‘: .. -- _. ,!? .-, -_
bb ,, CiiY.;a UI’Ul 11Awo 118 WI
..
: .. 10ft 10 bud. tihl$ I[c 2’ 20 2 ‘“40 28.5 a
!L owwconsddarnd 1018 0 1.2!

Figure 1- Characteristic Soil Conditions

62
OTC 8122 E. ANDEN/ES, E. SKOMEDAL, S. LINDSETH 7

Figure 2- Troll Phase I Platform

Y
.302.9 MSL)

7 1

E
.,
s
.

I
I
I

L 1

IEIL
SECTION 2-2
-T *
o

36

SECTION 1-1

Figure 3- Platform Geometxy

63
8 INSTALLATION OF THETROU PHASE I - GRAVITYSASEPIATFORM OTC 8122

fAR SEk 11511 B/P)

ARILO VIKING 11451 B/P)

(
NCRIAANOORAIJPK II 701 B/P)

VIKIW OtNXN (1351 fl/P)

~> PUWHfR [1981 B/P)

FAR SKY (158T B/P)

~,
vIKING TITAN 11451 8/pi

8R[NOA VIKIffi (1681 8/Pi

CONT.FLOATER SlR I NC
MCAYIKAvIKING [1787 B/Pi

ESCORT[W vE5SEL
M.uA$T[R ( 1611 B/Pi

Figure 4- Tow to Field Tug Configuration

Figure 5- Towing Route

64
OTC 8122 E. ANDEN/ES, E. SKOMEDAL, S. LINDSETI+ 9

~ Orainage pm

-Lid

- Scale etched on
inside of skkl wall

—
+ WI watts
Skin companmen!
00
_ Sandblast area
(all sides. in-
and outside)

‘>
All dimemi- in millimeters

‘C S.fltip
BOITOM VIEW

Figure 6- Tricell Test Model

Plva Iwave
o

-2 -
----- .: ___-. :_- ,-- ---
...,., .-- .-, -. -.,, -4 - -----
---
~
..
‘.
.,. 54 .
6-
>
, $
-. --, :t
:
>
: a.
:
;,
-12 -

:
: -14 -
A3
A3

-16
0 5 10 15 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
PIessuIe, kPa Heave, cm

Figure 7- Results Tests A 1, A2. A3, C3

65
 10 INSTALLATIONOF THE TROLL PHASE 1- GRAVITY BASE PLATFORM OTC 8122

sproxim.ista
plug heave In C 1

,.
,.. T

i+
L___-i
.10
-10 -e -6
<

-4
Plug heave, cm
.2 0

Figure 8- Results Test C 1

Total penetration resistance (MN)

o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0

-. Design Lower

- Design Best

( -. Design Upper

—. - Measured
—. —.

F“-
— —— _—
—— -.
—
..—
— .-
—: - Ballast capacity
——-—-. —

— --

D-

Q-

,-... .

4C

Figure 9- Water Ballast and Skirt Evacuation System Figure 10- Total Penetration Resistance
 OTC 8122 E. ANDEN/ES, E. SKOMEDAL, S. LINDSETH 11

Measured vs best eslimate (MN) Measured vs low estimate (MN)

o 500 1000 1500 2000 o 500 1000 1500 2000

0,. t I
!1

-- Best est. tip - Low est. tip

. . Best est. wall . . Low est. wall

1.
– Measured tip - Measured tip
I
– Measured wall - Measured wall

I
I
I

I I

J
40 i

Figure 11- Penetration Resistance Components

Undrained shear strength (kPa) Inclination(Degrees)

o 20 40 60 80 100 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3

[ 1
0 I
I 1

I
- Design sud

-J
- Back./Brinch-Hansen

- Back./Skempton
10

r
- East

- North

Figure 12- Undrained Shear Strength Figure 13- Platform Inclination

67
 12 INSTALLATION OF THE TROLL PHASE I - GRAVllY BASE PIATFORM OTC 8122

Dif~. pressure tricells vs circular cells (kPa) Soil heave (m)

-400 -200 0 200 400 -5 -4 .3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0. I I I 1
‘.
‘.
‘.
-. Proc. low

-El
\
I ‘m
-. Proc. high ‘.
‘.
- Meas. min. ‘,
10 I 10 /’ ‘,
~ -,
- Meas. max.
,.*
+...-.’’.-”’
.-
~ ,.-
c
~.’ E
~: %
, ,’ ~ 20
1’
:,’
j’ z
%
, c ,..
,’

,, .
.’ 1!’
,’
‘.
,’
‘.
,’
,’ 30 -.-: ‘. . .
‘.
‘.

A-
,.’ ,’ ‘.
,,’ ‘.
.’
,.’ ‘.
, “c ‘.

40 L I

Figure 14- Differential Water Pressure and Soil Heave in Treicells

68
 OTC 8122 E, ANDEN/ES, E. SKOMEDAL, S, LINDSETH 13

Appendix-Analysis of Soil
Displacement

Analytical Model
The model described in the following was proposed by the
geotechnical verification contractor Sintef Geotechnical
Engineering.

For qua] vertical stress p on both sides of the tricell wall, the
soil displaced by the skirt tip will be qually distributed into the
two cells. The plastitied zones are symmetric and the bearing
capacity ofthc skirt tip maybe calculated by

q= N.s. +p

in which N indicates the bearing capacity factor ands. the

undrained shear strength. The flow of soil is assumed to be
dependent on the geometry of the plastified zones and the effect
of differential pressure may be model led by rotating the central
Circular cell Tricell
zone below skirt tip. Such rotation would be associated with a
horizontal shear stress ~A below skirt tip. A roughness parameter
r is introduced to account for the effect of the rotation tis on
bearing capacity (N. Janbu, 1985):

r=+=sin2m

N=K+ 1 +COS sin-]r

() –sin-ir

k=!i Bc 91
The sign of r will be opposite on the two sides, given by the
direction of the horizontal shear stress below skirt tip. The
relation between stress d iffercnce and lr[ is found by static
quilibrium:

q = N(+). S. +P. = N(+r). S. +PI

The ratio of the displacedsoil goinginto thetricell is determined

by

The resulting relationship between overpressure in the tried

(p, –p.) normalised by S. and soil displacement ~ is indicated
by the curve. Nothing of the soil displaced by the skirt tip goes
into the tricell if the overpressure in the tricell is 3.14 times s“.

4 -3-2-101234 The theory described is valid for the differential stress range of
H, 14. sU. ]f the overpressure in the tricell exceeds 5.14 times
s“, a failure below the whole tricell takes place(N= n + 2 for
1=0) and no soil at all will flow into the triccll during further
penetration.

Reference
Jarrb~N.: “Soil models in offshore engineering”, ~nkine lecture. Geotechnique 35,No.3(1985) 24 I

69
14 lNSTALtATION OF THE TROLL PHASE I - GRAVllY 8ASE PLATFORM OTC 8122

Comparison with Observed
Trieells ti and T17 WCm selected as ex8Mpk2S but the
other cells behaved similar. In F@rre A-1 soil heave is
shown together with differential pressure (vetticxd
stress) at skist tip level divided by the undraiied shear
strength (A% differential pressure included the
water pressure in the biccll minus average water
pressure in the surround~ circular cells and a
contribution from fiction. ‘Ihe measured wall fiction
was assumed evenly distribution along the skirt walls
and the vertical stress txmtribution at skirt tip level was
taken as the tliction force in each cell divided by the
cross sectional area. At final penetration the fii~ion
effect gave an excess verlieal stress irr the tricells of
about 340 kpa relative to the surmxrnding circular cells.
Note that pressure measurements between O and 6 m
penetration is excluded due to an error in this interval.
The heave development may be divided into five parts:
B. The pressure difference was in the range 3-6 times
ADbetween 6 and 10 m penetration. The heave was
zero. Accordiig to the thcmy, zero heave should
eonespond to an overpresaure of 3.14 times WD.
C. In the depth ran e 10-22 m the pressure difference
was 5-7 times w%. The heave deuwtaed by the
same rate as the penetration increased. lltii
indicates that all soil below the tricell went into the
neighboring circuhw cells. Aecxxding to the
theory, such globaI failure should take lace at an
overpressure in excess of 5.14 times sut .
D. At 22 m the heave changed tapidly tlom decreasing
to increasing trend at the same time as the pressure
difference dropped from 5 to 3 times SUD. Around
25 m the heave decreased slightly again as the
pressure differences increased to about 4 times SUD.
E. From 27 m to final penetration the slope of the
heave curve indicates that 20-3070 of the soil went
into the tricell. The pressure difference was

A. The pressure difference was about zero in the between I and 3 times SUD with an average slightly
penetration interval O-5 m. The inclination of the above 2. Such heave would according to the theoty
heave curve indicates that 50% of the soil displaced correspond to a pressure difference of about I
by the skirts went into the tricell, which is in times sun.
accordancewith the theory.

Tricell T2 Tried TI 7
Soil heave (m) Soil heave (m)
-7-6-5-4-3-2-101 234 -7-6 -5-4 -3-2 -lo I 234
0, 0: ,
t’”’’’/A”
I 1

1’

‘h-b‘“”
I

—1

Y- B
+
I o ~ = SOil heave

– Diff. pressure ,+ %
~;
~
<
c! <
/

I
40’ f ,,, ,,,
I
-3-2-101 234567E -3-2 -1OI 2345678
Differential pressure/sud Differential pressure/sud

Figwe Al - Soil heave in Tricells and Differential Pressure normalized with Stren@
70