See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263009717

Latest technological developments in offshore deep mixing for piled oil&gas

platforms

Conference Paper · June 2014

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2014-23045

CITATIONS READS
12 2,292

4 authors:

Giovanni Spagnoli Paul Doherty

DMT Group University College Dublin
192 PUBLICATIONS 1,793 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 1,260 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Diego Bellato Leonhard Weixler

Züblin Spezialtiefbau GmbH Bauer Maschinen GmbH
25 PUBLICATIONS 110 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Induced Polarization View project

Soil and rocks characterization: from laboratory to field scale View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giovanni Spagnoli on 12 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2014
June 8-13, 2014, San Francisco, California, USA

OMAE2014-23045

LATEST TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN OFFSHORE DEEP MIXING FOR

PILED OIL&GAS PLATFORMS

Giovanni Spagnoli Paul Doherty

Dept. of Maritime Technologies Civil Engineering Department
BAUER Maschinen GmbH University College Dublin
Schrobenhausen, Germany Dublin, Ireland

Diego Bellato Leonhard Weixler

Dept. of International Project and Dept. of Maritime Technologies
Services BAUER Maschinen GmbH
BAUER Spezialtiefbau GmbH Schrobenhausen, Germany
Schrobenhausen, Germany

 interface friction angle [°]

ABSTRACT
This paper presents some recent technological
developments in deep mixing for the offshore sector. Deep
mixing methods comprise in-situ soil treatment technologies
where binding materials are added and blended with the original
soils in order to improve their mechanical properties. The
MIxed Drilled Offshore Steel (MIDOS) pile is introduced in
this paper, which takes advantage of such deep mixing
technologies. The comparison between the API approach and
CPT-based methods for the prediction of the pile capacity are
provided to validate the capability of the MIDOS pile as a
foundational element for oil&gas structures in different
geological conditions. The theoretical calculations are intended
for initial estimation of pile sizing only and are not intended as
a detailed design method.
NOMENCLATURE
The following symbols and acronyms have been used in the
following:
DMM Deep Mixing Method
MIDOS MIxed Drilled Offshore Steel
OC Over-consolidated clay
QC/QA Quality control/quality assurance
cu undrained shear strength of the clay [FL-2]
 internal soil friction angle [°]
 dimensionless adhesion coefficient
 dimensionless lateral earth pressure coefficient
’V0 vertical effective overburden pressure [FL-2]
Nq dimensionless end bearing factor
qb unit end-bearing resistance [FL-2]
qlim limit unit end-bearing resistance [FL-2]
fs unit shaft resistance [FL-2]
cpl dimensionless limit compressibility index
t thickness of the casing of the MIDOS pile
INTRODUCTION
For many offshore platforms, driven piles are the preferred
foundation solution, however difficult soil conditions may
preclude conventional pile driving as a viable installation
technique for attaining design pile penetrations of 60 to 120 m.
In such circumstances, methods of grouting a pile into an
oversized hole or drilling and underreaming for a cast-in-place
pile have received considerable attention (Kraft and Lyons,
1974). Drilled-and-grouted piles are normally used in
challenging geologies, such as very dense sands, very stiff clays
and in calcareous deposits. However, bored piles normally
cause changes in moisture content of the soil adjacent to the
shaft, mechanical disturbance to the soil during drilling and
furthermore the drilling mud influences the grout-soil and
structural pile-grout interfaces. The effect of drilling can cause a
relief of lateral pressure on the walls of the drilled shaft. In
cohesive soils, this can result in swelling of the clay and

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

migration of pore water towards the exposed clay face.
Furthermore, the effect of drilling causes softening of the clay.
After placing concrete in the pile borehole, water migrates from
the unset concrete into the clay, causing further softening of the
soil. The rise in moisture content due to the combined effects of
drilling and placing concrete was observed by Meyerhof and
Murdock (1953), who measured an increase of 4% in the water
content of London Clay close to the interface with the concrete.
The increase extended for a distance of 76 mm from the
interface. This softening affects the shaft resistance
performance. The soil within the zone of rupture beneath and
surrounding the pile base remains unaffected for all practical
purposes. However, Whitaker and Cooke (1965) showed that
the fissured structure of London Clay had some significance on
the end-bearing resistance of large bored piles, and they
suggested that if a bearing capacity factor of 9 is adopted the
characteristic shearing strength should be taken along the lower
range of the graph of shearing strength against depth. If
bentonite is used the effects of any entrapment of slurry beneath
the pile base as described by Reese et al. (1973) should be
allowed for by an appropriate reduction in end-bearing
resistance. Calcareous soils are normally not suited for driven
piles, due to the very low shaft friction resulting from particle
damage from the high-energy installation process. Carbonate
soils are encountered in several locations coincident with areas
of offshore petroleum activities such as the Southern
Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Florida, Brazil,
India, Philippines and Australia. Although they may have a
grain size distribution similar to silica sands and an angle of
internal friction of 35° or more, carbonate sands provide
extremely inferior pile resistance relative to piles in siliceous
sands. This is partially attributed to the innate softness of
calcium carbonate vs. silica, i.e. mineral hardness 3 vs. 7
(McClelland and Reifel, 1986).
Figure 1. Drilled-and-grouted pile (modified after
McClelland and Reifel, 1986).
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Calcareous sands are characterized by significant
compressibility, which may be due to the high in situ void ratio
and to the specific grain crushing susceptibility along with a
reduced grain strength (Colliat et al., 1999). Generally, these
properties lead to very low skin friction resistances, i.e. usually
lower than 15 kPa (Datta et al., 1980). For instance, some of the
foundation piles driven at the North Rankin A platform on the
North-West Shelf in Australia penetrated over 100 m in just a
few blows, with back-calculated shaft frictions of just a few kPa
(Dolwin et al., 1988). Grouted piles offer much better bearing
capacity than driven piles of the same size in such formations
(Nauroy and LeTirant, 1985), but at the same time they involve
higher costs and additional equipment/time for their proper
installation. In several cases, deep mixing methods (DMM) may
also offer an economic alternative to customary foundational
techniques in some complicated geology, e.g. calcareous soils.
DMMs comprise all those in-situ soil treatment technologies
whereby binding materials are added and blended with the
original soils in order to improve their hydraulic and
mechanical properties. Deep mixing techniques are today well-
established procedures in the geotechnical engineering practice
of an increasing number of countries. The reasons for this
success can mainly be due to the wide array of engineering
applications where they can serve as an alternative, more
economic (e.g. Topolnicki and Pandrea, 2012), and
environmental friendly solution with respect to the traditional
methods involved in ground improvement and foundation
works. The performance of deep mixing structures depends
significantly on the mixing process implemented at the site,
which is much more effective when a homogeneous distribution
and uniform blending of the binding material with the soil is
achieved (Mitchell, 1981). Currently, no standard classifications
exist for deep mixing methods. However, different classification
systems have been proposed in the past (Porbaha, 1998) based
on the geometry of the treated mass, the construction technique,
the stabilizing agent introduced into the ground, and the
applications that can be realized using DMMs. The criteria
assumed by the American Federal Highway Administration,
AFHA, (1996) to classify DMMs (Fig. 2) are the location of the
site where deep mixing has to be performed, i.e. on-land or
ocean environments, and the main purpose of the structure to be
built, e.g. foundational or ground improvement applications.
Despite numerous near-shore DMMs being patented and
many maritime advancements have been developed in the last
decades (especially in Japan and Korea), only a few
documented case histories dealing with near- and offshore deep
mixing projects are reported in the international literature (e.g.
Tatsuoka, 1997). Furthermore, generally, no information related
to the overall performance of the construction process and to
the environmental consequences of DMMs is available, even if
many efforts have been done in the past to prove the
environmentally friendly capabilities of these methods (Al-
Tabbaa, 2005). Quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA)
programs normally focus on three basic parameters describing
the hydro-mechanical behavior of stabilized soils and directly
related to the effectiveness of ground improvement treatments,
namely unconfined compressive strength, elastic modulus, and
hydraulic conductivity. These properties are determined by
means of customary geotechnical laboratory tests carried out on
samples collected from the site through wet grab sampling or
coring. Both sampling techniques present several advantages
and disadvantages, with the second being the only option
feasible in offshore applications. DMMs are usually low noise
and low vibration techniques compared to other improvement
methods or pile installation processes like driven piles or
vibration-based technologies.
THE MIDOS PILE
The MIDOS pile is a new type of offshore pile, which
might be used in future for the installation of oil&gas platforms
in difficult geologies (i.e. calcareous soils) and may represent a
valid alternative to drilled-and-grouted piles. The structural
element of the MIDOS pile is a steel casing; the dimensions are
determined by design calculations, usually 2 m to 3 m in
diameter. The casing is positioned in the satellites of the
modular template. A starter with a diameter slightly larger than
the casing diameter is mounted at the toe of the casing. One or
two rotary drives are clamped inside of the top area of the
casing. A mixing tool is positioned at the bottom end of a
vertical drive shaft and rotated by the top rotary drive. Specially
designed cement slurry exits the mixing tool, so that the
loosened soil is immediately mixed with this slurry to a soil-
cement-mixture. When reaching the final depth, the rotary
drives with the shaft and the mixing tool are extracted, while the
casing and the starter piece remain in place.
Figure 2. Classification of DMMs applications
proposed by the American Federal Highway
Administration (1996).
The final strength of the soil/cement mixture depends on
the prevailing soil conditions and the amount of cement slurry.
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Fig. 3 shows the basic concept of the MIDOS installation. Fig.
3a shows the mixed soil with grout which flows upward through
the openings, while the pile is pushed vertically and the
excavation chamber rotates; Fig. 3b shows the ring mixed soil
with grout which is created along the shaft; Fig. 3c shows the
actual drill rig, Bauer BG42, used for installing the MIDOS for
the trial tests. In order to ascertain the feasibility of the
installation process and to evaluate the structural and
geotechnical capabilities of the pile, a MIDOS trial test was
performed in quartz sands in Aresing (Germany). Static and
cyclic tension tests were conducted to estimate the ultimate
tension and compression load of the pile. In this paper, static
calculations according to the most acknowledged international
standards for offshore piling were employed to determine
whether traditional design codes can reliably predict the limit
load of MIDOS piles. The MIDOS pile was installed during the
trial test with the following steps:
1. The casing (i.e. the steel pile) with the excavation
chamber was inserted into the soil by directly mixing
the soil with a cement suspension;
2. The spoil (i.e. in situ soil and suspension) flew along
the openings in the pile shaft to the surface where they
were recollected for late disposal;
3. When the pile reached the design depth, for the trial
test the drilling tool and pile remained in situ. For
future application the drilling tool must be retrieved,
whereas only the pile with the grout/soil ring remains
in situ.
The MIDOS system has several advantages over standard
drilled and grouted piles, such as the installation of casing
directly during drilling, which negates the need for pre-driven
steel casing in weak soils, and the soil-grout mixing system
designed to ensure adequate grouting around the pile shaft.
Furthermore, as there is no soil removed during the drilling
process, relaxation of the surrounding soil is maintained at a
minimum ensuring that the controlling radial stresses are not
overly reduced. According to Kraft and Lyons (1974) the use of
drilling mud (i.e. bentonite) can significantly reduce the
mobilized shaft shear stresses.
PRELIMINARY STATIC CALCULATIONS FOR
OIL&GAS STRUCTURES FOR THE MIDOS PILE
By means of a drilling rig, a 1.9 m diameter test pile was
installed in fine sand to 17 m depth. During the test, cement
spoil specimens were collected and the uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) values were measured after 28 days curing time,
giving values up to 5 MPa. The pile was installed in about three
hours. Static pull-out test was also carried out. At approximately
9,300 kN the loading process was stopped. The ultimate
resistance of the MIDOS pile was estimated to be about 9,000
kN based on the load-displacement behavior at yield observed
in the large scale axial load test.
Figure 3. A) MIDOS installed in the soil: the mixed soil and grout flows upward through the openings in the
casing; B) The ring mixed soil with grout created along the shaft while the pile was installed. The mixing drilling
tool inside the casing is retrieved; C) The actual drill rig Bauer BG42 used for the trial tests in Germany.

Two existing oil&gas platforms were used to derive
preliminary estimates of the likely loads that may be applied to
operational MIDOS piles. Design loads from the Magnus
drilling and production platform, which is the largest single
piece steel jacket structure in the North Sea were provided by
Clarke (1993). The jacket structure was designed for 186 m
water depth and had a float-out weight of 34,000 tons. The
unfactored design loads consisted of a horizontal component
from wave and hydrodynamic action of 130 MN and a
horizontal wind load on the deck structure of 9 MN. Separate
loads for the jacket structure weight (415 MN), buoyancy (195
MN) and vertical deck load (330 MN) were also provided. The
jacket was supported by four groups of No.9 x 2.1 m diameter
steel piles driven to 87 m penetration in stiff clay.
Similarly, design loads for the Bullwinkle oil platform in
the Gulf of Mexico were provided by Digre et al (1989). The
structure was the tallest jacket structure in the world at the time
in 412 m water depth. Digre et al. (1989) provided the total
design lateral force on the Bullwinkle Platform (as opposed to
separate wind and wave components) of 83 MN acting 377 m
above seabed. The platform was supported by four groups of
No. 7 x 2.1 m piles driven to 120 m penetration. The piles had a
design axial load of ≈45 MN.
In this paper all API calculations are performed assuming
the MIDOS pile is vertical with no batter angle. It should be
noted that all design calculations discussed in this paper are for
initial design load estimates only. Full detailed design should
consider site specific wind and wave loading conditions, the
effects of cyclic and fatigue loading and should include the
influence of dynamic loading on the structure. Detailed
aeroelastic design load calculations based on the actual
structural design and certified site conditions must be
performed in cooperation with the foundation designer. For
calculation of the design axial pile the following loads have
been assumed (Fig. 4):
 Vertical deck loading (Vdeck) including self-weight,
operating loads and environmental forces (wind/waves
acting on the deck),
 Vertical structure loading (Vstructure) including self-weight
in air and hydrodynamic loading (vertical component of
waves on structure),
 Vertical load due to buoyancy (Vbuoyancy),
 Horizontal loads due the currents, wave and hydrodynamic
action (Hwave),
 Horizontal loads due to wind action (Hwind).
The API RP2A design guidelines for offshore piles focus
on driven open-ended steel piles. The API guidelines refer to
Kraft and Lyons (1974) for choosing design parameters for
offshore drilled and grouted piles. The guidelines suggest that,
when determining the frictional resistance for drilled and
grouted piles, the strength of the soil-grout interface, including
potential effects of drilling mud, should be considered.
A further check should be made of the allowable bond
stress between the pile steel and the grout. Kraft and Lyons

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

(1974) suggest that it is common practice to use a conservative
grout-pile shear bond value of between 140 – 240 kPa.
Figure 4. Input load parameters for design of
MIDOS for oil&gas platforms.
Kraft and Lyons (1974) suggest the unit shaft resistance, fs,
of drilled and grouted piles offshore can be calculated as
follows in siliceous sands:
(1)
in compression
in tension
Where σ'v0 is the vertical effective overburden pressure, δ is
the interface friction angle and ϕ is the internal soil friction
angle. For OC clays:
(2)
where α ranges from 0.3 – 0.5 and is typically taken as 0.45 and
cu is the undrained shear strength of the clay.
Limiting skin friction values, flim, equivalent to those
recommended in API for driven pipe piles were also
recommended for bored piles. The API method calculates the
unit end bearing resistance of piles, qb, in sand as follows:
(3)
Where qlim is the limiting unit end-bearing value and Nq is
the dimensionlesss end bearing factor. Nq and qlim values for
driven piles are provided by API. For drilled and grouted piles
the base resistance will be smaller than driven piles. As such,
conservative Nq value of 20 and qlim of 3 MPa was chosen for
dense siliceous sands. For clays the API method recommends
using Eq. 4:
(4)
5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Equation 4 is applicable for both driven and drilled and
grouted piles. Lehane (2008) discussed the use of simple CPT
correlations for determining the capacity of bored piles in
sands:
(5)
(6)
Equation 5 refers to the average unit shaft resistance,
whereas eq. 6 to the unit base resistance. Lehane (2008) notes
that design βc values for sands vary widely across Europe with
values from 90 – 280 used in practice, with an average βc value
of 150. Conservative βc value of 200 – 220 could be used for
large diameter piles in sands. De Cock et al. (2003)
recommended a βc value of 70 for bored piles in clays. Lehane
(2008) suggests that at a pile displacement of 10% of the pile
diameter (typically taken as failure for offshore structures) αb
values of 0.15 – 0.2 were applicable for bored or low-
displacement piles in sands. It was noted that αb varied with
relative density and stress level as seen in Fig. 5. De Cock et al.
(2003) suggest higher values of 0.4 for bored piles in clays. In
highly variable soil the qc should be averaged by 1.5 diameters
above and below the pile toe.
Figure 5. Predicted variation in αb with relative
density and stress level (after Lehane 2008).
Design parameters for calcareous and carbonate soils have
been noted to be as low as 15% of the recommended values for
siliceous sands as recommended by API guidelines and while
cemented calcareous soils may have increased end-bearing
resistance, driven piles may exhibit extremely low frictional
resistance. The API guidelines, however, note that drilled and
grouted piles may exhibit significantly higher capacities than
driven piles in calcareous soils and have been used successfully
offshore in many areas with calcareous soils. There are
relatively few guidelines for designing in calcareous soils and MIDOS AS POSSIBLE NEW DRILLED-AND-GROUTED
extreme care should be taken when designing piles in these soil PILE IN CALCAREOUS SOILS
conditions. Particular attention should be given to the effects of More complex methods for designing driven piles in
cyclic loading, due to the high friction degradation noted on calcareous soils have been proposed by Thompson and Jardine
piles in calcareous soils (Erbrich et al., 2011). The ARGEMA (1998) and Schneider et al. (2007). Both methods use a friction
method (Nauroy and Le Tirant, 1985 and Nauroy et al., 1986) degradation function to estimate the shaft stresses and so
uses the same basic formulations as the API method but uses the require an input design length to calculate the pile capacity, as
limit compressibility index, cpl, of the sand to provide tables of opposed to the other API and CPT based methods which can
limiting skin friction and end bearing values which may be used use a design load to calculate the pile length. Due to the extra
for bored piles in calcareous soils. Conservative limiting values complexity of these methods, a separate preliminary calculation
for skin friction and end-bearing are suggested and for pile design using these methods has been performed.
implemented in the calculation procedure based on the values of Both methods have been adapted from CPT based design
the ARGEMA method. Le Tirant (1992) suggests that K and Nq methods for driven piles in siliceous sands. The Imperial
for calcareous soils may be similar to those recommended in College Pile (ICP-05) design method and University of Western
API for siliceous sands, however these are of little consequence Australia (UWA-05) design methods for driven piles have been
due to the much smaller limiting values implied for calcareous developed for driven piles in siliceous sands and have been
soils. In practice, the limiting values control the pile design. The shown to provide significantly improved predictive
calculation procedure described above is for preliminary pile performance over the traditional API approach. Both methods
design only. We chose the API limiting values (even those these have been included in the commentary of the API guidelines
were for driven piles) as conservative values for the preliminary since 2007 and are in theory the preferred method for capacity
calculations. As the limiting shear stress value recommended by prediction. For calcareous sands, Thompson and Jardine (1998)
Kraft and Lyons was for drilled and grouted piles, and the suggest a modified version of the ICP approach, while
MIDOS pile is a new type of technology with a mixed soil/grout Schneider et al. (2007) suggests a modified version of the
interface, it is unclear as to whether the MIDOS pile would UWA-05 approach. For large diameter offshore driven piles (>1
have the same grout-pile interface strength as a traditional m) the design formulas are as follows:
drilled and grouted pile. Regarding the base resistance,
considering, the nature of the MIDOS pile and the mechanism
(7)
by which the soil is mixed internally, it was probably safe to
assume that there is a better grout/soil - steel bond on the inside
of the pile as there would be on the outside. An assumption was
made that the internal shear stress would be limited by the (8)
grout-steel bond strength, i.e. 140 kPa as suggested by Kraft
and Lyons (1974) and the soil inside the pile would be
sufficiently mixed and full bonding occurs along the entire
inside of the pile casing. From the preliminary interpretations (9)
and using the load characteristics of the two above mentioned
platforms the following estimated lengths come out (Table 2). Where Pa is atmospheric pressure (=100 kPa), h is the
For calcareous sands, the low limit compressibility index, cpl, distance from the pile toe, R* = equivalent pile radius (for
was chosen. The diameter of the pile used for MIDOS in the open-ended piles), D is the pile external diameter and Ar is the
calculations was 3 m. area ratio (ratio of area of pile annulus to gross pile area for
open-ended piles). To extrapolate these design formulae for
drilled and grouted piles, the MIDOS is assumed to be
Platform Method Silica sand OC clay Calc.sand Load
equivalent to low-displacement driven piles with an area ratio
Magnus API 118.8 89.6 80.4 Comp. (Ar) = 0.1. The equivalent radius, R*, is calculated based on an
CPT 78.4 78.4 / Comp. Ar = 0.1 as follows:
API 34.6 29.2 37.8 Tens.
CPT 18.6 24.3 / Tens.
Bullwinkle API 93.3 70.3 66.5 Comp. (10)
CPT 61.0 61.0 / Comp.
API 33.3 27.6 36.5 Tens. For bored piles the unit base resistance is calculated based
CPT 17.7 23.3 / Tens. on the CPT cone resistance in the same manner as for siliceous
sands (for bored piles) where:
Tab. 2. Estimation of the pile length with MIDOS for
different soils and for different platforms according to (11)
API and CPT method.

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 There is very little information available regarding
applying these methods for tension resistance calculations,
however Schneider et al. (2007) warns that the tension shaft
friction may be significantly lower than that developed during
compression loading. As such, no calculation procedures for
tension loading in calcareous sands are provided using these
methods. It should be noted that these methods are modified
from driven pile formulations which are not routinely used for
offshore design in calcareous soils. API design guidelines note
that drilled and grouted piles may exhibit significantly higher
capacities than driven piles in calcareous soils; however the
design of such piles should be carried out by an experienced
geotechnical engineer with sufficient knowledge of calcareous
soils and a detailed understanding of the site specific issues.
The calculation procedure described above is again for
preliminary pile design only.
Taking the pile length value (in compression) obtained for
calcareous sands and using the Modified UWA method
(Schneider et al. 2007) and the Modified ICP method
(Thompson and Jardine, 1998), and using the following
parameter - interface friction angle, δ, 29°, soil effective unit
weight, γ, 10 kN/m3, pile resistance factor of safety, ϕp, 0.5 - the
following factored shaft and base capacity for the large Magnus
Platform using the total loading provided in Clarke (1993), are
obtained (Table 3):
Method Shaft capacity Base capacity
Modified UWA 10.26 MN 10.63 MN
Modified ICP 15.90 MN 10.63 MN
Tab. 3. Indicative value of shaft and base capacity for
a MIDOS pile in calcareous soil for a Magnus-like
platform.
DESIGN METHOD CALIBRATION
Static and cyclic tension load tests were performed on a 1.9
m diameter, 17 m long MIDOS pile in fine sand. The ultimate
capacity from the static test was compared to design load
predictions based on the above mentioned calculation. The
MIDOS pile had an ultimate tension capacity of approximately
9,000 kN. Based on the calibration model, the API method
predicts a pile capacity of 6,048 kN, which is quite
conservative. These findings are unsurprising since several
researchers have shown the API method to demonstrate a poor
predictive performance and a tendency to be conservative in
dense sands (e.g. Gavin et al., 2012). For typical jacket
structures axial loading will be the controlling pile design
criteria. It is also necessary to check lateral loading to ensure
the piles may have sufficient lateral stiffness and structural
strength to support the required loads. Of particular concern
about the MIDOS is that it is still unproven offshore. Typical
lateral design loads on offshore jacket piles can vary from 0.5
MN to 10 MN. A design pile lateral load of 5.8 MN was derived
for the large Magnus platform using the total loading provided
7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
in Clarke (1993), while a 3.7 MN pile lateral load was
calculated for the Bullwinkle platform (Digre et al., 1989). A
preliminary check was conducted to assess if the MIDOS pile
could sustain typical lateral loads from an oil&gas platform. As
a conservative design case the Magnus platform was chosen
(due to the high lateral loads applied). The lateral load
calculations were performed using the API lateral loading
criteria implemented within a finite difference programme. Two
soil profiles were chosen for analysis, the properties for which
are shown in Table 4. A pile design length of 80 m was chosen
(based on the axial pile design calculations for the Magnus
Platform). The MIDOS pile was assumed to have an external
diameter of 3 m with a steel casing diameter of 2.6 m. Due to
the high stress and bending moments imposed over the top
portion of the pile, the thickness of the casing, t, was varied
over the top 25 m of the pile, using values of t=30 mm, 50 mm
and 70 mm. Below 25 m depth, a constant cross section was
adopted where the casing was assumed to have a 30 mm wall
thickness. Due to the low strength of the internal grout-soil mix,
the stiffer response of the steel, and the uncertainty regarding
the composite response of the casing and grout-soil mix under
bending, it is assumed that the casing provides the complete
lateral restraint.
Sand properties
Soil Effective Unit Weight (kN/m3) 10
Soil Friction Angle, ϕ (°) 36
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k (kN/m3) 27,679
Clay properties
Soil Effective Unit Weight (kN/m3) 11
Undrained Shear Strength, cu (kPa) 200
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k (kN/m3) 13,400
Strain at 50% of compressive stress, ε50 0.03
Tab. 4. Soil properties assumed for the calculations.
A preliminary estimate of the composite bending stiffness
indicates only a small contribution from the grout-soil mix (i.e.
the bending stiffness, EI, of the composite is <10% larger than
that of the casing alone). Pile stickup was assumed equal to 4 m.
Lateral deflection, bending moment and total stress profiles
from the API lateral loading calculations are shown in the
Figures 6a, 6b and 6c respectively. Lateral pile deflections at
the pile head varied from 31 mm to 16 mm, depending on the
casing thickness chosen over the top 25 m of the pile, and were
similar in both dense sands and over-consolidated (OC) clay. A
maximum bending moment of 39 MNm was imparted to the
pile and was relatively independent of casing thickness or soil
type. The maximum total stress varied from 480 MPa to 244
MPa depending on the wall thickness over the top 25 m and was
relatively independent of soil type. The API guidelines calculate
the allowable bending stress for the MIDOS pile of ≈270 MPa
(assuming steel with a yield stress of 460 MPa), which is
exceeded by ≈80% for a uniform thickness 30 mm casing. A
70mm casing over the top 25 mm of the pile yielded a
maximum stress of 244 MPa, satisfying the bending stress
requirements according to the API calculations.
Figure 6. Preliminary estimations for lateral deflection
(A), bending moment (B) and total stress (C) in dense
sand (left) and OC clay (right) for MIDOS pile.
CONCLUSIONS
A new type of offshore pile based on the deep mixing
method was introduced. Preliminary design calculations for
estimating the loads imparted on piles supporting offshore
oil&gas platforms are provided. Typical axial design loads on
piles supporting offshore oil&gas jackets range from 20 – 100
MN. The methodology for calculating the design loads are
described in this paper. A large scale onshore field test was
8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
conducted and the preliminary pile design procedures capacity
prediction performance was assessed. The API method provided
a very conservative estimate of the pile capacity while CPT
correlations using a βc value of 130 provided a more accurate
prediction of the pile capacity (and therefore yielded a less
conservative estimate of the pile capacity with shorter design
lengths). In comparison to the API approach, CPT-based
methods are considered fundamentally better and, although not
required, are in principle the preferred methods. However,
offshore experience with these CPT methods is either limited or
does not exist and hence more experience is needed before they
are recommended for routine design instead of the API method.
CPT-based methods should be applied only by qualified
engineers who are experienced in the interpretation of CPT data
and understand the limitations and reliability of these methods.
For the design loads representative of the Magnus platform, a
thicker steel casing may be required, particularly over the top
20 – 30 m of the pile. Laboratory tests in calcareous soils are
needed in order to specifically analyze the response of a
MIDOS pile in such soil deposits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to BAUER Maschinen GmbH for the permission to
present these data.
REFERENCES
Al-Tabbaa, A., 2005, "State of practice report –
Stabilization/Solidification of contaminated materials with wet
deep soil mixing," Proceedings, International Conference On
Deep Mixing – Best Practice and Recent Advances, Swedish
Deep Stabilization Research Centre, Stockholm (Sweden), Vol.
2., pp. 697–731.
American Federal Highway Administration, 1996, "Draft report
on deep soil mixing," Tech. rep., Federal Highway
Adiministration. Prepared as part of the Ground Improvement
Teaching Module, TWG 82.
Clarke, J., 1993, "Large Scale Pile Tests in Clay," American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Colliat, J.L., Foray, P.Y., and Nauroy, J.F., 1999, "Behaviour of
carbonate sands and design of driven piles," Proceedings,
Offshore Mediterranen Conference, Ravenna, Italy, pp. 171-
184.
Datta, M., Gulhati, S.K., and Rao, G.V., 1980, "An Appraisal of
the Existing Practice of Determining the Axial Load Capacity of
Deep Penetration Piles in Calcareous Sands, " Proceedings, 12th
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, pp. 119-130.
De Cock, F., Legrand, C., and Huybrechts, N., 2003, "Overview
of Design Methods of Axial Loaded Piles in Europe," Report of
ERTC3-Piles, ISSMGE, Vol. 3, pp. 663-716.
Digre, K., Brastad, L., and Marshall, P., 1989, "The Design of Sands," Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Offshore
the Bullwinkle Platform," Proceedings, 21st Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, The Society for Underwater
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. Technology, London, UK, pp. 367-382.

Dolwin, J., Khorshid, M.S., and van Goudoever, P., 1988,
"Evaluation of Driven Pile Capacity – Methods and Results,"
Proceedings, International Conference on Engineering for
Calcareous Sediments, Perth, 409-428.
Erbrich, C., O'Neill, M., Clancy, P., and Randolph, M.F., 2011,
"Axial and Lateral Pile Design in Carbonate Soils,"
Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium on Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics, S. Gourvenec et al., ed., CRC Press, pp.
125-154.
Gavin, K.G., Igoe, D., and Doherty, P., 2012, "Use of Open-
Ended Piles to Support Offshore Wind Turbines: A State of the
Art Review," Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 164, No. 4, pp.
245-256.
Kraft, L., and Lyons, C., 1974, "State of the Art: Ultimate Axial
Capacity of Grouted Piles," Proceedings, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, pp. 485-503.
Porbaha, A., Tanaka, H., and Kobayashi, M., 1998. "State of the
art in deep mixing technology. Part 2: applications," Ground
Improvement, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 125–139.
Reese, L.C., O’Neill, M.W., and Touma, F.T., 1973, "Bored
Piles Installed by Slurry Displacement," Proceedings, 8th
International Conference, ISSMFE, Moscow, Vol. 2.1, pp. 203–
9.
Tatsuoka, F., Uchida, K., Imai, K., Ouchi, T., and Kohata, Y.,
1997, "Properties of Cement-Treated Soils in Trans-Tokio Bay
Highway Project," Ground Improvement, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 37–
57.
Thompson, G.W.L., and Jardine, R.J., 1998, "The Applicability
of The New Imperial College Pile Design Method To
Calcareous' Sands," Proceedings, Conference on Offshore Site
Investigations and Foundation Behaviour, The Society for
Underwater Technology, pp. 383-400.

Lehane, B.M., 2008, "Relationships between Axial Capacity
and CPT qC for Bored Piles in Sand," Proceedings, 5th
International Symposium on Deep Foundations on Bored and
Auger Piles (BAP V), W.F Van Impe et al., ed., Ghent,
Belgium, pp. 61-74.
Topolnicki, M. and Pandrea, P., 2012, "Design of In-Situ Soil
Mixing," Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Ground Improvement – Recent Research, Advances &
Execution Aspects of Ground Improvement works, Vol. 3,
Bruxelles (Belgium), pp. 309–316.

Le Tirant, P.,1992, "Offshore Pile Design," Editions Technip. Whitaker, T., and Cooke, R.W., 1965, "Bored Piles with
Enlarged Bases in London Clay" Proceedings, 6th International
McClelland, B., and Reifel, M.D., 1986, "Planning and Design Conference, ISSMFE, Montreal, Vol. 2, pp. 342–6.
of Fixed Offshore Platforms," Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Meyerhof, G.G., and Murdock, L.J., 1953, "An Investigation of

the Bearing Capacity of some Bored and Driven Piles in
London Clay," Geotechnique, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 267–82.

Mitchell, J., 1981, "Soil improvement – state of the art report,"

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Stockholm, pp.
509–565.

Nauroy, J., and LeTirant, P., 1985, "Driven Piles and Drilled
and Grouted Piles in Calcareous Sands," Proceedings, 17th
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, pp. 83-91.

Nauroy, J.F., Brucy, F., Le Tirant, P., and Kervadec, J.P., 1986,
"Design and Installation of Piles in Calcareous Formations,"
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling: 3rd International
Conference, Editions Technip, pp. 461-480.

Schneider, J.A., White, D.J., and Lehane, B.M. 2007, "Shaft

Friction of Piles Driven in Siliceous, Calcareous and Micaceous

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

View publication stats