Proceedings of The Fourteenth (2004) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Toulon, France, May 23−28, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-62-1 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)
Torsional Loading of Subsea Structures
I.M.S. Finnie and N. Morgan
Lloyds Register
United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
This paper demonstrates that the torsional-effect of horizontal loads on
a subsea structure can represent a governing load-case for the
foundation. It is intended to alert potential designers to this aspect as
there is currently not much specific guidance in the public domain.
Codes of practice for foundation design of offshore platforms are
routinely used for the design of subsea structures, and the design is
often performed by engineers whose technical-speciality is not
necessarily geotechnics. The design can be performed strictly
according to such a code but the underlying intention of the code can be
overlooked; specifically, that that stability for all credible load-cases be
considered in order to achieve a design that is fit-for-purpose.
The importance of torque loading is initially demonstrated through
examples of simple shallow foundation limit-equilibrium, and
expanded with discussion of more realistic cases. It is shown that the
sliding capacity could quite conceivably be about half that which could
be determined using a traditional code approach, albeit inappropriately.
The influence of torque on piled foundations is also discussed, with
particular reference to well-head protection frames that are supported
on the well’s grouted conductor. Relationships between axial and
torsional capacity are explained and it is shown that latter is limited by
the number of high-torque connectors. It is also shown that it may be
inappropriate to directly apply conventional t-z design methods to
determine the distribution of torque.
KEY WORDS: Torsion; Torque; Subsea; Foundation.
INTRODUCTION
At either end of the possible range, subsea structures are classified as
‘overtrawlable’ or ‘snaggable’; being designed either to deflect fishing-
gear, thereby limiting the loads, or withstand a full snag. Plausible
points of action of these overtrawl or snag loads can conceivably occur
near the corners of these structures. This can therefore induce both a
horizontal load and considerable torsion on the foundation. (In this
paper, torsion implies a moment in the horizontal plane).
Norsok U-002 (1998) represents a rare standard that specifically
326
intended for the design of subsea structures for protection against
fishing gear. Overtrawl loads are considered to be part of normal
operation, unless a fishing study indicates that it is a rare event.
Despite the Norsok indication that snag loads can be considered to be
abnormal it is recommended here that this be reviewed on a case-by-
case basis. Norsok appropriately states that model tests shall be
performed to investigate the overtrawlability of the structures and the
possible loads, with a test set-up determined through a location-specific
fishing activity study. Norsok also provides some ‘default’ values, and
it could be misinterpreted that these can be used in lieu of a fishing
study, rather than being only indicative. For instance, in UK waters
where large beam trawlers operate, subsea structures have been
designed for snag loads considerably in excess of those defined in the
Norsok code. Overtrawl loads are highly dependent on the water depth
and the set-up of the fishing gear, and the detail of the overtrawlable
superstructure. (The dynamic nature of the loads or appropriateness of
the conventional static assumption is not considered here).
Most significantly, Norsok appropriately states that “protection against
fishing gear and overtrawlability shall comply with project specific
design basis”. Commonly, the design basis stipulates compliance with
other established standards, such as API RP2A (2000), despite the fact
that they were not specifically intended for the design of seabed
structures. Perhaps because the aspect is not explicitly described in
most codes, torsional loading can be overlooked in foundation design,
even though it can represent the governing load-case. Given that it is
analogous to interaction between vertical and overturning moments, for
which a design approach is clearly set out, it is reasonable to expect that
design for torsional loads should be considered implicit to any design
basis, even if it is not explicitly stated.
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Murff and Miller (1977) considered the stability of shallow foundations
using the upper-bound energy method. Amongst other important
things, they demonstrated that torsion can significantly reduce the
sliding resistance for their given example.
For ease of demonstration a limit equilibrium method is used here to
illustrate the torsional sliding capacity of a foundation. Sliding failure
with a component of twist is assumed to occur on a planar interface,
where the mobilized shear stress (τ) is uniform across the sliding Analytical, it can be simply shown that the maximum pure torsional
surface and parallel with the local direction of movement. capacity of a strip foundation whose length, L, is much greater than its
width, B, tends to;
Calculation of the pure translational sliding resistance is obviously L (5)
straightforward. The purely translational sliding resistance a circular Tmax = (τBL)
foundation of radius r is, for example: 4
H = τπr 2 max
(1)
For a square, the pure torsional capacity is approximately
(conservatively);
The maximum or pure torsional resistance (i.e. without any component T = 0.38τB 3 (6)
of translation) is relatively easy to estimate analytical for simple max
shapes; for a circle it is:
For rectangular foundations the pure torsional capacity can be
T = τ 2 πr 3 max 3
(2)
estimated by numerical integration of the following equation;
The effective ‘lever-arm of the resistance’ is two-thirds of the radius, B L
(7)
∫ ∫ (x )
2 2 1
which is the same as that of a narrow sector. Tmax = τ 2
+ y2 2
dx ⋅ dy
−B −L
2 2
Relative to a nominal reference point at the centroid, the correlation
between torsional and translational capacity for the solid circle can be This tends to the following polynomial approximation for rectangular
approximately defined as:
foundations with intermediate aspect ratios (0 ≥ B/L ≤ 1):
 74 4 
7
(3)
  (8)
T + H  = 1
2
 B  B
  Tmax =  0.09  + 0.04  + 0.25 τBL2
 L L 
The terms T and H represent the mobilized torsional and  
translational resistance divided by their respective maxima. This can It should be recognised that the two dimensional capacity envelope
be achieved by a process of numerical integration and using a process represents a slice through a three dimensional capacity surface, in terms
of limit equilibrium techniques of torque and two component perpendicular forces. One half of a yield
surface, corresponding to torque in one direction only, is presented on
The relationship between torsional and translational capacity for Figure 2.
rectangular foundations is also of the form:
 n m
 (4)
T + H  = 1
 
The powers n and m depend on the rectangle’s aspect ratio and the
relative load orientation. Indicatively n varies between 1 and 2 and m
varies between 2 and 2.5. The power-terms for a square are fairly
similar to those for the circle.

When presented diagrammatically the relationship between the

torsional and translational capacity forms an envelope with the axes,
within which lies a region of stability. An example is presented on
Figure 1 for a corner load on a square foundation.

0.9

0.8
Figure 2: Example Normalised Capacity Surface

0.7 Factors of Safety for Torsional Sliding

Force / Maximum Force

0.6
The horizontal force required to fail a foundations is obviously
0.5 dependent on the associated torque. Considering tangential loading at
the perimeter, the force required to fail a circular foundation through a
0.4
process of combined translation and twisting is approximately 53% of
0.3 the maximum sliding resistance. For a square this ratio is about 46%,
and is represented by the grey dot on the capacity envelope in Figure 1.
0.2

0.1 Therefore, in order to achieve a reasonable level of reserve capacity, a

factor of safety approximately double what is normally required for
0 purely translational sliding would be expected. For instance, if a
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
minimum resistance factor of 1.3 is required for sliding stability, it may
Torque / Maximum Torque be expected that a factor of 2.6 or more should be evident if the
situation is treated as being purely translational. This is of course
Figure 1: Example Normalised Capacity Envelope
specific to this considered loading condition.

327

It is common for the foundation to consist of individual elements, i.e.
individual pads or strips, to assist installation and tie-in of pipework,
amongst other things. The entire foundation can become more
torsionally ‘efficient’ when these elements are positioned towards the
edge of the encompassing total area, i.e. the ratio of torsional to force
capacity increases.
Shallow Foundation Example
In order to expand the discussion, the following hypothetical example
is considered. A well-head protection structure is placed on over-
consolidated clay with a thin veneer of weaker sediment. It is
supported on four 3 m square pads, set 3 m apart. The strength of the
interface between the veneer and the base-plate is estimated to be 20
kPa. The foundation layout is illustrated on Figure 3.
Figure 3: Schematic of Example Foundation
According to a simple limit equilibrium approach, the pure translational
sliding capacity is 720 kN, and the pure torsional capacity equals
3118 kNm. There are three design situations:
1. A net overtrawl acts over the entire structure inducing a load
of 400 kN, which will act symmetrically, i.e. with no induced
torque;
2. A trawl-board over-pull inducing a factored load of 300 kN
and a maximum torque of 1350 kNm;
3. A snag on a connected spool-piece inducing (say, for
simplicity) a pure torque of 3000 kNm.
It is relatively simple to use analytical techniques in consideration of
the first two load-cases.
For simplicity, global factors of safety (FoS) are considered in this
example, although partial factor approach is arguably much more
appropriate for the design of subsea foundations.
For the symmetrical overtrawl event, the ratio of the pure translational
capacity to the load equals the FoS, and its value of 1.8 could be
considered acceptable.
328
For the (nominally) purely torsional snag load event, the ratio of the
pure torsional capacity to the applied torque equals the FoS and is
slightly more than unity. Since this is too low by most standards, a
decision could be taken to place concrete mattresses over the spool
piece. The possibility of a snag would therefore be considerably
reduced and a FoS of slightly more than unity could be considered
acceptable for this accidental condition.
A capacity envelope needs to be developed in order to determine the
suitability of the foundation for the trawl-board over-pull. It is
considered that a load perpendicular to the frame can occur, as shown
by the black arrow on Figure 3. The corresponding capacity envelope
for the foundation is presented on Figure 4.
Yield Envelope
800
700
600
500
FoS = 1.54
Force (kN)
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Torque (kNm )
Figure 4: H-T Yield Envelope
This shows that the factor of safety for the trawl-board over-pull is
1.54, which could also be considered satisfactory.
Illustrative directions for the mobilized shear stresses are shown as
small black arrows on Figure 3. Their alignment is consistent with a
particular virtual centre of rotation (vCoR), shown as a small black dot
on the right-hand side, for which force and torque equilibrium exists. It
is by varying the position of the vCoR that the capacity envelopes, such
as that shown on Figure 4 and as defined in Equations 3 and 4, can be
determined. The distorted hoops illustrating the form the yield surface
in Figure 2 correspond to a certain vCoR offset from the centroid of the
foundation.
Combined Sliding and Bearing Failure
Commonly, the drained and consolidated strength of the supporting
sediments is governed by the bearing stress distribution across the base,
which will vary if the subsea-structure’s weight is off-centre, or the
applied loads have a component of overturning.
Where a drained mode of failure occurs, and the shear stress is a
function of the bearing pressure, the distribution of component
resistance changes. Assuming that an overturning moment is
associated with the horizontal load, the change in bearing pressure can
lead to a reduction in the torsional efficiency of the foundation. For the
previously considered overtrawl example, this could result in the vCoR
moving towards upper-right foundation as shown on Figure N. This
reduces the torsional-sliding resistance to a significant degree that
depends on the magnitude of the overturning.
There are established methods of estimating the combined vertical-
moment-horizontal (V-H-M) capacity envelope (eg. API, 2000),
generally using the principle of effective areas. The distributed
components of horizontal load and torque acting on individual
foundation elements can be deduced, as illustrated by the grey arrows
on Figure 3.
The external or structural casing supports the weight of the subsea
frame and the internal casings, and is also required to resist any snag
loads. For convenience, the term pile is used in this paper to represent
the structural casing as both are considered.

Ideally a three-dimensional numerical model would be required for

Axial Load Due to
design where there a combined torsional and bearing failure was likely. Conductor Weight
Such analyses are not generally commensurate with design of subsea and Protection
Frame Structure
structures, but there are a number of simple variations that can be
adopted to approximately account for the effect of torque in standard Snag Load
(V-H-M) bearing capacity approach. It is important to recognise that at Eccentricity
the influence of torque is most significant where sliding failure occurs
and least significant where deep pure bearing failure occurs. The pure
sliding capacity can be determined, and on the basis of which a reduced
strength at sliding level can be deduced. For the considered example, Seabed
the actual strength (of 20 kPa) would be divided by the factor of safety,
resulting in a strength of slightly less than 13 kPa. The purely
translational sliding capacity then becomes 462 kN and, when the
torque is ignored in the V-H-M stability calculation, the deduced factor
of safety for sliding under the force of 300 kN (alone) would still result
in a factor of safety of 1.54. The artificially low strength at sliding Pile/ Conductor
level can then be progressively increased with depth to become equal to
the actual strength at a certain depth. The particular depth at which this
occurs could be made on the basis of engineering judgement, and
High Torque
ideally based on some form of model calibration. Connector

Skirts

Primarily, skirts are used to enhance stability by lowering the effective

bearing area, provide a soil-on-soil or rough mode of sliding failure,
prohibit failure within the soil plugs, and reduce the effects of scour.
Deep skirts have a large influence on torsional sliding resistance. They
can be accounted for in H-T analysis just as is conventionally done for
translational sliding capacity, i.e. by considering the earth pressures,
friction and local failure at skirt level. However, the overlap of failure
zones should be considered.
Due consideration should be given to the effects of scour, gapping and
the often large amount of movement required to mobilize the passive
resistances, relative to that required to mobilize base-shear.
Displacements
The preceding examples all considered the simplistic situation where
the mobilized shear stress was of uniform magnitude across the base.
In reality the shear stress is mobilized in proportion to shear strains of
the supporting material. For most structures, displacements can be
limited to tolerable magnitude if a reasonable factor of safety against
yield is achieved. However, the load-displacement response of the
foundation would be required for structures that have displacement
sensitive pipework. Also, for brittle materials that show strain-
softening behaviour, the load-displacement should be considered, or
else residual shear stresses would need to be considered in the
simplistic limit-equilibrium analysis, which may prove unattractively
conservative.
PILE AND CONDUCTOR ANALYSIS
In the past it was common for a well-head protection structure to be
supported only on the well’s conductor. It usually consists of a
framework of steel-tubulars sometimes with some form of protective
casing and seabed penetrating members to prevent snagging.
Figure 5: Conductor system and loading
The axial capacity of a pile is conventionally considered to be the sum
of the axial skin friction and end bearing. However if a torsional load
is induced in the pile then some of the available skin friction will be
required to resist torsional loading, hence there will be less skin friction
available to resist axial forces, or vice versa.
The remainder of this paper describes how combined axial and
torsional analysis can be undertaken. It also focuses on the importance
of the configuration of the connectors making-up the structural casing
of the well, in terms of its torsional capacity.
The t-z Transfer Curve Method
Conventionally, pile displacements (z) and interface shears (t) are
assumed to act vertically in the t-z transfer curve method (eg. API
2000). In order to model the combined effect of torsional and axial
loading it is necessary to consider two interrelated load-displacement
responses for both axial and twisting movements, as depicted on
Figure 6. For offshore piles the shape of the t-z curves is often
determined according to API (2000) recommendations.
In the analysis of axially and torsionally loaded piles it is necessary to
include an additional displacement term to be input into the t-z load
transfer curve which is used to derive friction values. The displacement
term is the resultant displacement vector (V) of the axial displacement
of the pile element and an equivalent radial displacement due to
rotation of the pile. (For a drilled and grouted pile this could be radius
of the drilled hole). Figure 6 shows a pile element which is subjected

329
to an axial load P causing an axial displacement, z, and a torque, T, casing sizes, the initial stiffness approximately simplifies:
which causes a twist, ϕ, about the vertical axis of the pile. The axial tz 1 G
rotation ϕ is translated into an equivalent circumferential displacement = (13)
x equal to Rϕ, where R is the pile radius.
z 5 r
Using theory developed by Randolph (1981) the soil-spring stiffness in
P torsion can be defined as:
t
tc G
H
tz
=2 (14)
T tv
tx
c r
where tc and c represent the circumferential shear stress and
displacement at the interface. By comparison of equations 13 & 14 it
can be deduced that initial torsional spring would be about 10 times
z stiffer than the axial spring.
x z V
Load Transfer Curves
for Soil around Non-linear spring in the general form of Georgiadis (1990) for both
the Pile Shaft torsion and axial loading is a function of the axial or torsional
P displacement (d), the maximum shear stress (f) and an initial stiffness,
Ko, as defined by equations such as 13 and 14:
T  Ko
d

x t = f 1 − e f  (15)
z  
V  
On the basis of the last 3 equations, it can be deduced that the axial
displacement required to mobilize a particular axial shear stress could
ϕ therefore be 10 times the circumferential displacement to mobilize the
same shear stress torsionally.
x
T
The Georgiadis equations reportedly gave a good fit to his experimental
Figure 6: Numerical Pile Model results, whereas API t-z curves did not, as may be expected. Based on
the theoretical reasoning of Randolph the API t-z curve is perhaps 10
This radial displacement x should then be combined with the times too soft torsionally. In comparison there appears to be only a
displacement caused by axial load z as a vector to give a combined minor difference between the Georgiadis equation for axial loading and
displacement V. that for API.

V = x2 + z2 (9)
It is the displacement V which should then be used to determine a
frictional value t from the assumed t-z curves. In this way the
combined axial-torsional friction capacity must conform to the
following equation:
t2 + p2 ≤ f (10)
Where f is the maximum available skin friction, t is the shear stress due
to torsion and p is the shear stress due to axial load. It is obviously
unconservative to consider the axial and torsional effects separately.
Relative stiffness of Axial and Torsional Springs
Previously published work (e.g. Georgiadis, 1990; Randolph & Wroth
1978) examined the stiffness t-z response of piles in torsion. The work
appears to lead to significantly stiffer equivalent t-z curves than those
recommended by API (2000) for analysis of axial load cases.
For axial loading, Randolph & Wroth (1978) deduced that the initial
stiffness of the t-z curve could be defined as follows:
t G r 
= ln  m  (11)
z r  r 
where G is the shear modulus of the soil and rm is the radius of the zone
of influence beyond which the shear stresses become negligible, and
defined as follows:
rm = 2.5 L(1 − υ ) (12)
where L is the length of the pile and υ is the Poisson’s Ratio of the soil.
For the considered situation, with undrained conditions and typical
It can therefore be imagined that the soil response to movement of the
casing element could be 10 times stiffer torsionally than axially. The
real situation deviates from this idealization. Firstly, the axial loads are
predominantly applied before any torque. The element would
theoretically have to rise towards its original position in order share its
capacity in development of the torsional restraint. The torsion-rotation
displacement response is likely to become important when considering
contingency measures such as pin-piles when the geotechnical capacity
and torque connection configuration alone is insufficient. In practice
the difference between the torsional and axial soil response may be
slightly less as the theoretical analysis does not account for slippage at
the interface and the non-linearity of the soil.
An example application
An example application of the conductor analysis described above is
outlined below. The example is based upon an API (2000) clay type t-z
analysis with a few modifications. The clay is assumed to have a shear
strength of 2z (kPa), where z is the depth below seabed in metres. The
effective unit weight is assumed as 8kN/m3 and the alpha value in
deriving the skin friction is assumed to be unity. For brevity several
simplifications have been made to the example. These include a
uniform conductor diameter of 0.7m and wall thickness of 35mm and
additionally load and material resistance factors are ignored and the
structural strength of steel is assumed not to be critical. (The grouted
annulus has been ignored for simplicity).
The axial load on the structural casing is assumed to be 1.5 MN. This
comprises its self-weight and the internal casings hanging within,

330
unsupported below often for many hundreds of metres, and the weight
Torque [kNm]
of the protection frame structure above the seabed. Horizontal loads 0 200 400 600 800
are induced by environmental conditions and the major component is 45
snag or accidental loads. In this example the snag load is assumed to
induce a torque of 2 MNm. Typically, normal casing connectors have
low torque capacity capacities and an example of 180 kNm has been
assumed. Where this is not sufficient purpose-built high-torque
connectors are used and these can have a capacity of 2 MNm or more.
50
Limiting Capacity of the Conductor System

As discussed above a yield envelope which describes the axial torsional

capacity of the system can be constructed with given soil conditions,
conductor length and diameter. From these capacity envelopes alone it

Depth Below Seabed [m]

is possible to determine the approximate number of high torque 55
connectors that would be required. Several yield envelopes and the
location of the applied loading within these is shown in Figure 7.
9000
60m A=1500, T orque T -Z
60m stiffened x1
8000 55m
60m A=1500, T orque T -Z
50m 60 stiffened x16
7000 Applied Loading 70m, A=1500, then T orque T -Z
stiffened x1
6000 70m, A=1500, then T orque T -Z
Axial Force Applied[kN]

stiffened x2
5000 70m, A=1500, then T orque T -Z
65 stiffened x4
4000 70m, A=1500, then T orque T -Z
stiffened x8

3000 70m, A=1500, then T orque T -Z

2000
1000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Axial Torque Applie d [kNm]
Figure 7: Capacity Envelopes
From these yield envelopes it can deduced that sufficient geotechnical
capacity could be developed to absorb the applied torque and axial
loading if only high-torque connectors are used above a depth of 55 m.
Finite Element Analysis of the Conductor System
The t-z curves were developed according to API (2000) and input into
Lloyds Registers in-house pile analysis software, in which torsion and
axial loading can be considered simultaneously or individually.
Figure 8 shows the t-z analysis based on both 70m and 60m analysed
lengths.
The data presented in Figure 8 illustrates the effect of torsional t-z
curve stiffness on the distribution of torsional resistance down the
length of the pile. The ratio of stiffness between the torsional and axial
response is increased up to a nominal factor of 16. It can be observed
that the influence of torsional stiffness depends on the pile length. This
is discussed more later.
stiffened x16
Low T orque Connector Capacity
70
Figure 8: Effect of Torsional Stiffness
2500 3000 From Figure 8 it could be deduced that the 70m length would be
adequate with a total of 6 high torque connectors extending to a
penetration of 50m. However where the load displacement response
was not a limiting criteria, referring to Figure 7 shows that a 55m
length conductor would have sufficient geotechnical capacity. When
conducting the finite element analysis it is important to consider the
capabilities of the software being used and the manner in which it
applies the various loadings. One consideration is that API type t-z
springs may not be accurately applicable to torsional analysis. This
section outlines the different ways finite element analysis can be
applied and the effects of the assumptions made. It is apparent that
there are three main ways of applying a finite element analysis.
The first sequence of analysis to consider is initial application of the
axial load, deduce the skin friction used from that and consequently the
skin friction which remains available. This remaining skin friction can
then be applied as a friction limit and the torsional analysis carried out.
One advantage of carrying out the analysis in this order is that the t-z
curves for torsional analysis can be stiffened, which may indeed be a
more realistic situation. The effect of changing this t-z curve stiffness
is discussed later. The most conservative way to determine the number
of high torque connectors is to carry out the axial analysis and then
apply the subsequent friction limits to torsional analysis, as seen in
Figure 9 where the takeout of torque is reduced.

331
 Torque [kNm]
the stiffness of the curve was adjusted, the stiffness factors are shown
on the plot. Considering the 70m long conductor the plot shows that
0 500 1000 1500 2000
changing the stiffness has the greatest effect by the first factor of 2, and
0 then the effect of further stiffness increases is reduced. Where the
conductor design is optimized and only a 60m conductor length is
analysed the effect of changing t-z curve stiffness is much less marked.
This is probably explained by the greater utilisation of the available
skin friction capacity for the 60m length and hence the combined
10 displacements caused lie further along the t-z curves. The conclusion
from this is that stiffness only becomes an important issue when the
design is not optimised by selecting the shortest length to satisfy
geotechnical capacity, such as from Figure 7.

20 Recommendations for Design and Analysis

This summary of design and analysis for high torque connectors and
Depth Below Seabed [m]

conductors has not considered the effects of drilling mud, grout

30
40
A=1500, then T orque Z/1
50 A=1500 combined with
T =2000
T =2000, then A=1500
Low T orque Connector
Capacity
High T orque Connector
60 Capacity
Figure 9: Influence of Analysis Sequence
Another option is to do the above procedure in reverse where the
torsion is applied, friction limits derived and then axial analysis carried
out. This is not thought to represent a realistic representation of the
actual situation, specifically where the axial load on the conductors is
always present.
The third main option is to carry out a combined analysis where the t-z
curve stiffness remains the same as recommended by API for both axial
and torsional analysis. The resultant torque profile using this method is
noticeably similar to applying the torsion load before the axial load.
Determining an appropriate sequence for analysis may be important
where the load-displacement response will be used to design any
remedial measures, in this case the preferred analysis is likely to be
conducting the axial analysis and limiting frictions for any subsequent
torsional analysis. The other more complex option is to carry out a full
continuum analysis using finite element software, such as Abaqus,
though this may be an unnecessarily complex and expensive
undertaking.
The effect of t-z curve stiffness on torsion profile
Figure 8 shows the effect of changing the t-z curve stiffness on the
torsion profile. The analysis is carried out similarly to above where the
axial load of 1.5 MN is applied and subsequently a reduced skin
friction profile is deduced prior to the application of the torsion loads.
This skin friction profile is then used to produce new t-z curves where
cracking or the effect of gapping. Unless any counter measures have
been taken the presence of drilling mud can be accounted for by
applying an appropriate reduction factor to any frictions deduced (e.g.
HSE, 2002). Grout cracking, pile gapping and scour should be
accounted for by a suitable reduced friction zone near the seabed after
assessment of the risks.
From the analyses of the conductor systems presented in this paper the
following conclusions are drawn:
• If the load-deformation characteristics of the conductor system are
relatively unimportant, then the number of high torque connectors
can be deduced from an evaluation of yield envelopes.
• Where the load-deformation characteristics of the conductor system
are important then the effect of the t-z curve stiffness and of
optimised design should be considered.
• Where finite element analysis is used consideration should be given
to applying the axial load first in order to deduce a friction limit
profile for torque analysis.
Remedial Measures
Well-head protection frames have been installed on structural casings
without adequate high-torque connectors. In order to subsequently
strengthen the system it is possible to provide additional support in the
form of pin-piles. Because of the relatively high lateral flexibility of
these piles compared to the torsional response of the casing, it is
possible that yield of the connectors could occur. However, the
structural casing does not carry hydrocarbons and yield of the
connectors does not necessarily mean failure of the system. In certain
circumstances it can be shown that the weaker connectors of the
smaller pressure-containing casings, within the structural casing, will
not unscrew. This is because these casings are torsionally relatively
flexible compared to the lateral flexibility of the pin-piles. Obviously,
this would require consideration on a case-by-case basis, but it should
be recognised that remedial measures are achievable.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper demonstrates that the torsional-effect of horizontal loads on
a subsea structure can represent a governing load-case for the
foundation. It is intended to alert potential designers to this aspect and
avoid direct use of codes of practice that do not explicitly consider the
aspect.
It has been shown that simple limit equilibrium methods can be used to
determine the capacity for torsional sliding. Other potentially
important aspects have been identified and their treatment described.

332
The importance of high-torque connectors on the adequacy of well-
head protection frames has been demonstrated. Selection of the
number of high-torque connectors can be achieved at a preliminary
level through limit equilibrium techniques, and by finite element
analysis when optimisation is important.
REFERENCES
API (2000). “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design”. API
Recommended Practice 2A WSD. Twenty-First Edition.
Georgiadis, M., Saflekou, S. (1990). “Piles under Axial and Torsional
Loads”, Computers and Geotechnics Vol. 9, pp. 291-305.
333
Health and Safety Executive (2002). “Pile/Sleeve Connections”.
Offshore Technology Report 2001/016.
Randolph, M.F. (1981). “Piles Subjected to Torsion”, J. Geot. Eng.
A.S.C.E, 107, GT8, (1981), pp. 1095-1111.
Randolph, M.F. and Wroth, C.P. (1978). “Analysis of Deformation of
Vertically Loaded Piles”. J. Geot. Eng. A.S.C.E, 113, GT12, pp.
1465-1488.
Murff J.D. and Miller T.W. (1977). Stability of Offshore Gravity
Structure Foundations by The Upper Bound Method. Proc. Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 2896, pp 147-154..