2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.taml.2014.12.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Failure mechanisms of a spudcan penetrating next to an existing footprint

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, for penetration depths  the footprint toe level (i.e. dtip  20 mm), as expected, the vertical load resistance on a flat ground was consistently higher compared to that on a sloped ground (Figures 8a and 10a) due to lower spudcan base-soil contact area (Kong et al 2015;Zhang et al 2015). The difference was more obvious for the free sliding penetration (see Figure 8a).…”
Section: Typical Responsesupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, for penetration depths  the footprint toe level (i.e. dtip  20 mm), as expected, the vertical load resistance on a flat ground was consistently higher compared to that on a sloped ground (Figures 8a and 10a) due to lower spudcan base-soil contact area (Kong et al 2015;Zhang et al 2015). The difference was more obvious for the free sliding penetration (see Figure 8a).…”
Section: Typical Responsesupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Second, a somewhat S-shaped response profiles can be seen in Figures 10b and 10c for the spudcan penetration adjacent to an unperforated footprint (Test SF). This was perhaps partly because of the balancing of various mobilised failure mechanisms (as illustrated by Kong et al 2015 andZhang et al 2015) and corresponding leg splay along the penetration depths of this rigidly fixed (allowing no sliding) spudcan, and partly because of the existence of a profound drop in the corresponding undrained shear strength profile around 80 mm depth (see Figure 5). Perforation drilling ensured a somewhat vertical penetration and hence eliminated the former, leading to negligible M0 and H0 along the penetration depth.…”
Section: Typical Responsementioning
confidence: 96%
“…The capacity of the spudcans under combined loading needs to be carefully assessed. The problems of existing footprint, extraction of spudcans and skirted spudcan are not included in this review and can be found in recent publications [37][38][39][40][41].…”
Section: Spudcans For Jack-up Platformsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cassidy et al [3] used a 1:250 scale model of current Mod 'V 'jack-up in their centrifuge tests to simulate the interaction between real spudcan and soil. Kong et al [13,14] replaced real spudcan with flat base footing in their centrifuge tests to eliminate the variables related to spudcan geometry. Cassidy et al [3] used a 1:250 scale model of current Mod 'V 'jack-up in their centrifuge tests to simulate the interaction between real spudcan and soil.…”
Section: Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%