OSIG 2017

Introduction to Alan G. Young,

The Fourth ISSMGE McClelland Lecturer

first drilled and grouted piles used to support a fixed

Alan G. Young was born in Pittsburg, Texas in
offshore platform in the North Sea, and led the inte-
1946. He received his B.S. in Civil Engineering
grated foundation studies for the Conoco Joliet Plat-
from Texas A&M University in 1970, MSc in Civil
form – the first TLP installed in the GoM.
Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin
in 1971, and graduated from the Executive Man- Alan also managed the site investigation and founda-
agement Program at Harvard Business School in tion studies for Exxon and Chevron for the first
1991. He spent his entire professional career based deepwater structures installed offshore California
out of Houston, Texas. and helped establish the practice and methods for
conducting site investigation for offshore jack-up
Inspired by the reading of Mr. Bram McClelland’s
rigs and the procedures for analysing their founda-
papers, he joined McClelland Engineers Inc. in 1971
tion stability.
as a project engineer. His first job was to work with
Prof. Lymon Reese on the Ekofisk Gravity Base His contributions in the field of geotechnical site in-
Foundation in the North Sea, performing finite ele- vestigation have been substantial. In addition to the
ment analyses and conducting cyclic triaxial testing Remote Vane, he developed and patented the con-
to evaluate the liquefaction potential of the sands cept of the offshore mini-Cone Penetration Test
strata during storm loading. (CPT), managed the development of the Dolphin
downhole CPT and sampling system, established the
Alan rose to the positions of Vice President in 1984,
method of push sampling with a standard rotary
President of Fugro-McClelland Marine Geosciences
drilling rig without motion compensation equipment,
in 1987, and President of Fugro International Inc. in
and, most importantly, implemented the use of these
1992. Throughout his tenure with McClelland Engi-
key technology advancements in standard offshore
neers, he was a close associate of Mr. Bram McClel-
site investigations.
land and he helped establish the company as a
worldwide leader in offshore geotechnics. In 1997 Alan also conceived and patented the concept of the
he co-founded and became Vice President of Geo- DeepSea CPT and promoted its development with a
science Earth & Marine Services, Inc. (GEMS), a Joint Industry Program (JIP). He also helped devel-
company established in Houston, TX. op and patent a method for using seismic amplitudes
for extrapolating strength and other soil properties.
For over 45 years Alan has been a major contributor
As the industry moved into ever increasing water
to the advancement of offshore geotechnical engi-
depths he saw the potential of the Jumbo Piston Core
neering. His contributions have been worldwide, en-
sampler, a tool until then confined to usage by Aca-
compassing a wide range of technical, operational
demia. He pioneered its implementation for deep-
and business applications. He was a leading member
water site investigations through an industry JIP. He
of the team that developed the Remote Vane and
helped develop the concept of the CPT Stinger
performed the first offshore testing with the tool in
which is now increasingly used in projects in the
1972 at the Shell and Arco structure sites that failed
GoM and offshore West Africa. His innovative tal-
in the South Pass area Gulf of Mexico (GoM) due to
ents were critical in developing and patenting the
a mudslide.
concept of the Spear Anchor (Omni-Max Anchor)
Early in his career, he managed the Thistle field site
investigation, performed foundation analyses for the
26
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
by performing testing and analytical studies that led Courses on Design of Fixed Platforms and Design of
to its use in the GoM. Floating Production Systems.
Not content with revolutionising offshore sampling He has delivered many invited lectures and chaired
and in-situ testing practices, Alan has always been numerous sessions at industry conferences. In 2012
driven to optimize the benefit of these data by un- he received the Distinguished Graduate award from
derstanding how they could be used and applied Texas A&M’s Zachry Department of Civil Engi-
over large seafloor areas. So he became a pioneer in neering.
integrated geoscience studies, a now ubiquitous ac- Alan tirelessly seeks to recognize his colleagues in
tivity in deepwater field developments, where a team the industry. He has chaired the ASCE OTC Hall of
of specialists in such areas as geology, environmen- Fame Awards Committee for nine years and spends
tal science, geophysics, geochemistry, oceanogra- an enormous amount of time and energy to select
phy, and geotechnics coordinate their efforts to yield key historical OTC publications so that their authors
a single, comprehensive study of the past, current, are honoured at a special ceremony.
and future ground conditions at a site of interest.
Alan has also been an extraordinary mentor for gen-
He has been instrumental in implementing and lead- erations of geotechnical engineers. It is remarkable
ing integrated studies for numerous deepwater pro- that, over the years, roughly 200 engineers have
jects including Mad Dog, Atlantis, Mad Dog 2, been hired or mentored by Alan, who always looked
Thunder Horse, Shenzhi, Blind Faith, Neptune, Pu- out to give the best and brightest engineers their first
ma, Tahiti, Stones, Kaskida, Who Dat, Great White, chance in the industry, all the while keeping a keen
Tubular Bells, Delta House, Joliet, Thunder Hawk, eye for diversity and inclusion.
Cascade, and Heidelberg.
In October 2015, the United States Board on Geo-
Alan’s areas of expertise include: 1) offshore ge- graphic Names approved the naming of an underwa-
otechnical analyses and geohazard assessment, 2) ter feature in the Gulf of Mexico as “Young Knoll”
marine foundation analyses of seafloor and subsur- to honor Alan’s Major Contributions Advancing
face installations and mobile jack-up rigs, 3) spe-
Geological and Geotechnical Engineering
cialized laboratory testing and strength interpretation Knowledge of the Seafloor in the Gulf of Mexico.
for different sampling and in situ testing methods, Young Knoll (Lat: 26° 08' 00" N, Long: 093° 01'
and 4) planning and managing marine operations in- 00" W) is fittingly located along the Sigsbee es-
volving geophysical and geotechnical investigations. carpment, which has been the focus of several of
His work has resulted in more than 50 journal and Alan’s studies, in 2,000m of waters in Block KC810
conference publications with two of his papers re- of the Keathley Canyon area. It is truly a special
ceiving the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) recognition and the first time that a geotechnical en-
Best Paper award and three others receiving the gineer is honored in such a way.
ASCE/OTC Hall of Fame Award. In addition he has Alan and his beloved wife of 46 years, Melinda Ma-
been the author and coauthor on two books and most rie, live in Sugar Land, TX. Melinda is a retired
recently contributed two chapters in Deepwater kindergarten teacher, and they have three sons: Rus-
Foundations and Pipeline Geomechanics. sell, Matthew, and Samuel and four grandchildren.
Alan has served the industry through his member- Over more than twenty years, I have had the privi-
ships in many committees. In particular, he joined lege and honor to work with Alan on many challeng-
the American Petroleum Institute (API) committee ing deepwater projects. It is therefore with great
on offshore geotechnics and foundation in 1978 and pride and pleasure that I, on behalf of the Interna-
remained a member for 39 years, the longest tenure tional Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
on record, during which he made great contributions Engineering and its Technical Committee 209 on
to the Foundation Section of the API Recommended Offshore Geotechnics, hereby present him with the
Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fourth ISSMGE McClelland Lecture award.
Fixed Offshore Platforms.
Alan also served as member of the Society of Un- Philippe Jeanjean, Ph. D., P.E., M. ASCE
derwater Technology OSIG Committee, the Ocean- Chairman, ISSMGE TC209, Offshore Geotechnics
ographic Department Steering Committee at Texas
A & M University, the Marine Board of the National with contributions from Dr. J.D. (Don) Murff, First
Research Council - Executive Committee and as McClelland Lecturer, who was lab partner with Alan
Lecturer for the University of Texas at Austin Short during their first soil mechanics course at Texas
A&M University in 1968.

27
 OSIG 2017

UNDERSTANDING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF AN INTEGRATED

GEOSCIENCE STUDY
Alan G Young PE, M ASCE
Consultant, Sugar Land, Texas, USA
Formerly Vice President, Geoscience Earth & Marine Services (GEMS), Houston, Texas, USA

Abstract
This paper describes innovative changes in geophysical and geotechnical equipment and advances in marine
technology that allows the offshore industry to conduct integrated geoscience studies. This holistic approach
allows an interdisciplinary team to develop the five components of a 4D Geo-Site Model. The model defines
the three-dimensional building blocks of subsurface geologic structure, geotechnical conditions, and geo-
constraints. Age dating is critical for defining the fourth dimension (time) since it provides the framework for
understanding the geologic history and the frequency of geologic processes. Correlating sequence stratigraphy,
geotechnical soil properties, and horizon age control is a model benefit that allows extrapolation of spatial
subsurface conditions. The capability to assess site favorability for various installation and operational criteria
is another benefit. Regulations should not be too prescriptive and allow experienced engineers and geologists
to plan the scope of site investigations. The paper indicates that if we change our way of collectively studying
the seafloor; then an integrated study will reduce uncertainty in the overall design process.

1 Introduction practice for offshore geotechnical engineering. He

The opportunity to give the Fourth McClelland appreciated the challenges of the harsh marine
Lecture is the epitome of my professional career. environment. Bram realised at the start that a group
During my graduate studies in geotechnical of experts in a wide range of disciplines was needed
engineering, I read many of Bram McClelland’s to understand the design risks and provide economic
technical papers and decided that I wanted to work for solutions for successful offshore developments.
this pioneer in offshore geotechnical engineering. I
first met Bram in 1971 after joining McClelland His first offshore paper, presented at the 1952 ASCE
Engineers, a company he started in 1946. He was my Convention, described the Quaternary Geology of the
mentor for the next 40 years. Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico and the
physical properties of the Recent and Pleistocene
Bram had impressed me with his broad range of soils (McClelland, 1952). This paper was the first to
expertise including: 1) offshore engineering geology; present many of the building blocks of an integrated
2) site investigation methods; 3) laboratory testing geoscience study that are still applicable today. In it,
methods appropriate for marine sediments; and he discussed structure and foundation design
4) analytical methods applicable to offshore requirements, and the type of site investigation
foundation design. His leadership, ingenuity, and zest needed to acquire soil samples and integrate geology
for knowledge inspired his peers and many young with geotechnical engineering. Various types of
geotechnical engineers. The first three McClelland storm loading forces and simplified methods for
Lecturers (Don Murff, Mark Randolph, and Knut determining the lateral and axial capacity of
Andersen) either knew Bram or were inspired by him foundation piles were also included.
to pursue their areas of special interest and make
major contributions to the field of geotechnical Bram’s last paper entitled “Frontiers in Marine
engineering. Geotechnical Engineering” was presented in 1991 as
an Honors Lecture for the Offshore Technology
2 Background Research Center at Texas A&M University. The
Bram seemed to recognise early in his career that a lecture was presented the year he retired and
holistic approach was required to improve the state of described advances in marine technology made

28
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
during each prior decade. Bram emphasised the geosciences. Despite all his achievements, Bram
progress that had been made in developing tools and remained humble and an excellent listener. Attentive
techniques for marine site investigations – both to even the most junior engineer, he always
geotechnical and geophysical and in combining encouraged them to pursue new solutions to technical
geology with geotechnical engineering problems. He was a beautiful writer and crafted every
investigations. These advances allowed the offshore illustration to tell a precise story. I coauthored four
industry to extend marine geotechnical engineering papers with him and worked with him on dozens of
practice into extreme water depths (>300m). He projects. This experience was incredible since he was
described projects that had benefitted from this multi- a great teacher and a source of inspiration.
discipline, integrated approach. Finally, he pointed
out shortcomings in the practice that needed to be Over this period, I learned many lessons from
addressed and advised that our goal should be “to use Mr. McClelland that are critical to understanding and
every available means to expand our knowledge of implementing the full potential of an integrated
the deep ocean processes and their engineering geoscience study.
implications.” Lesson 1. Employ an interdisciplinary team of
Mr. McClelland also understood that many experts to understand the regional processes and
geotechnical engineers have little or no background geologic structure.
in geology and its implications. He recognised this Lesson 2. Use high-resolution geophysical
shortcoming as early as 1956, and credited equipment to thoroughly investigate seafloor and
Professor Raymond Dawson of the University of stratigraphic features over an extensive seafloor
Texas for calling attention to this weakness in our region.
practice. Professor Dawson invited Dr. Karl Terzaghi Lesson 3. Conduct the geotechnical investigation
and Dr. Harold Fisk (head of Humble geology with equipment capable of performing in situ
research) to participate in the 8th Texas Conference on testing accompanied with high quality
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. In undisturbed samples.
Mr. McClelland’s opinion, the seed of multi- Lesson 4. Rely heavily on the in situ testing data
discipline collaboration was planted at this time and to interpret the undrained strength profile and, in
would continue to grow over the next sixty years. particular, to identify the disturbance effects of
sampling on laboratory test data.
Even though the idea of collaboration between Lesson 5. Rely on experimental testing and case
geotechnical engineers and geologists on offshore studies to calibrate the empirical foundation
developments was introduced in 1956; there was design methods
limited application until the 1970s. Advances in Lesson 6. Develop an integrated
geophysical survey technology (high-resolution geologic/geotechnical model to assess risks and
acoustic profiling, side-scan sonar, and bathymetric define constraints to site development.
surveys) combined with soil borings and testing
allowed the collaboration to take hold. Project These six lessons highlight the critical components of
professionals recognised that geological and an integrated geoscience study and are still applicable
geotechnical data was needed on a regional scale today. Since Mr. McClelland published his last paper
when planning studies were conducted in frontier in 1991, many significant developments in field
areas for oil and gas companies. These regional equipment, seismic processing, mapping software,
datasets proved to be extensive enough to develop visualisation renderings, stratigraphic modeling, and
geologic models and to define site conditions, which radiocarbon ( ଵସ‫ ) ܥ‬dating methods have been
were necessary to assess drilling and production implemented. These developments have resulted in
hazards critical to operations. Since that time, the much-improved data quality and geophysical data
integrated geoscience approach has been more widely being available today.
recognised and the benefits better understood and
appreciated. 3.1 Potential of an Integrated Study
My hope for this paper is to convey to each reader two
3 Lessons Learned from Bram McClelland ideas to promote the advancement of the marine
Mr. McClelland published over 25 papers applicable geosciences and integrated study. The first is the
to offshore geotechnics during the 20 years prior to importance of geologic time when conducting an
his retirement. It is important to emphasise that his integrated study and second is the importance of a
interest was not in being published, but to clearly multi-disciplinary team in developing the Geo-Site
benefit the development of the offshore marine Model.

29
 OSIG 2017
My lecture provides an overview of the advancements and risks associated with the development of offshore
available to the current state of practice using case facilities.
studies to illustrate the potential of an integrated
geoscience study. Please note, this paper will not be
reiterating current standards that cover operational
and data acquisition procedures. Instead, it describes
recent innovations in both geophysical and
geotechnical equipment that has improved the quality
of data needed to conduct an integrated study.
Unfortunately, the most common practice in the
development of a 3D (three-dimensional) ground or
site model is engineers and geologists each doing 
their part but with minimal collaboration. So much Figure 1: Phases of an integrated study (figure provided
courtesy of Alan G Young)
more can be realised from the data sets when a team
of multi-disciplinary geoscientists is assembled from
the start and they work together. Such a team can A regional desktop study is conducted first to
identify the Geo-constraints and Geologic- understand regional geologic conditions and plan the
Geotechnical conditions and interpret their evolution scope of the geophysical program. The high-
over geologic time. This four-dimensional integrated resolution geophysical investigation is then
approach allows the description of the environmental conducted since it provides an opportunity to achieve
processes and spatial variability of sediments maximum data coverage most economically over the
throughout the development area. To provide the entire project area. It provides a framework for
most accurate representation, the context of geologic collecting other forms of in situ data and sediment
time must be interwoven into the 3D site model to samples, understanding environmental processes, and
develop a four-dimensional (4D) Geo-Site Model for achieving an optimal engineering design.
(Geologic-Geotechnical Site Model).
Data collection in deepwater is expensive and
The principal objectives of an integrated geoscience generally requires coverage of a very large seafloor
study are to accurately define seafloor site conditions area as compared to most shallow-water
to achieve the following: developments. The coverage needs to be extensive
1. reliable site selection for all facilities; enough to adequately characterise the geologic and
2. realistic assessment of potential geohazard geotechnical conditions throughout the planned area
exposure; of the field development. In some areas, the coverage
3. successful foundation designs and needs to extend beyond the planned area of the
installation; and development to confirm that the risks associated with
4. safe operations of all planned seafloor- geological processes such as slope instabilities
supported structures. upslope or down-slope will not adversely influence
the development.
The project work is performed using all available Close interaction of an integrated team of geologists,
geoscience data sets throughout the process. Each geophysicists, geotechnical engineers, facility
geoscience discipline must collaborate as part of a designers, and other supporting geoscience
mutually supportive team while developing the 4D professionals is essential throughout all phases. We
Geo-Site Model. should remember Mr. McClelland’s Lesson No. 1
3.2 Integrated Approach when assembling the integrated team as stated:
The integrated approach is a process for evaluating
seafloor subsurface conditions for a planned offshore LESSON 1: Employ an interdisciplinary team of
development. By conducting an integrated study in a experts to understand the regional processes and
logical sequence of phases as illustrated in Figure 1, geology structure.
the geophysical and geotechnical programs can be
carefully planned to acquire relevant data needed to
characterise the range of geologic/geotechnical Communication among different disciplines should
conditions in a cost-effective manner. The iterative begin at the start of the project, to achieve a more
process of analyzing the integrated data sets defines comprehensive and truly integrated field-
the state of knowledge, uncertainty, consequences, investigation program – including both geophysical

30
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture

and geotechnical investigations. Clear 4 Regional Desktop and Planning Study

communication is essential to ensure that the final A desktop study should be performed using all data
field architecture places all seafloor infrastructures at available at the onset of the project to plan the general
an optimum site with uniform geological and field architecture. A good understanding of the
geotechnical conditions. Information must be shared; seafloor conditions, shallow stratigraphy, and
open, clear communication is required among all sediment properties is required to select the best
team members, including representatives of the corridors for pipeline routes and sites for seafloor-
owner/operator. supported infrastructure.
Integration is not a stand-alone task; rather, Exploration 3D seismic data is an initial key input for
integration is a way of thinking and questioning to be conducting the desktop study. The frequency content
adopted by all team members. Communication is of the 3D data is usually sufficient to evaluate
especially important when more information is seafloor topography, shallow geologic conditions,
needed or when unfavorable conditions present and potential constraints for evaluation of preliminary
obstacles. production options. It is also useful to evaluate sub-
seafloor features and geological processes using
3.3 Phases of an Integrated Geoscience Study commonly available work stations and associated
The recommended general sequence of phases is as software.
follows:
A methodology described by Doyle et al. (1996)
x regional desktop and planning study; provided a breakthrough in identifying near-surface
x geophysical systems and equipment planning; geohazards using conventional 3D seismic data
x geophysical acquisition and data interpretation to instead of performing high-resolution deepwater
develop initial geologic/geotechnical model; surveys at this early stage in a project. The
x preliminary site and/or route selections; methodology has also proven quite valuable for the
x geotechnical planning and data acquisition; shallow engineering evaluations required for field
x geological and geotechnical laboratory development plans and assessment of the potential
assignments and testing; risks posed by different geo-constraints as shown in
x integration of geophysical/geotechnical data and Table 1.
finalization of site-characterization model; and
Table 1: Potential foundation risks for various geo-constraints
x final foundation design, geohazard assessment, (Young and Kasch, 2011) © reprinted with permission of J.
and final facilities site optimization. Ross Publishing. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
As the project progresses through the different phases Seafloor Shallow
the 3D Geo-Site Model will be re-evaluated and Geologic Process or Lineaments Foundation Deep Foundation
Condition (Pipelines, mooring (Mudmats, suction (Driven piles, Geophysical Data
reconfirmed as new data is acquired and interpreted (Geo-Constraint) lines, etc.) piles, etc) conductors, etc.) Required

and the project matures. Some of the phased activities Steep Slope Gradients Medium High Low
Multi-Beam
Bathymetry
may need to be recycled or refocused as knowledge Slope Reversal
Multi-Beam
of the ground conditions grows and the end-uses of (Irregular Seafloor
Topography
High High none
Bathymetry

the 4D Geo-Site Model evolve, as shown on Figure 2. Fault Displacement/

Low Medium High
Side Scan Sonar &
Offsets Sub-bottom Profiler

Shallow/Deep-Seated Side Scan Sonar &

High High Medium
Slope Instability Sub-bottom Profiler

Debris/ Turbidity Side Scan Sonar &

High Medium Low
Flows Sub-bottom Profiler

Side Scan Sonar &

Spatial Soil Variability High High Low
Sub-bottom Profiler
Multi-Beam
Bathymetry, Side
Currents and Erosion High Medium Low
Scan Sonar &
Sub-bottom Profiler
Gas/Fluid Expulsion 3D Seismic & 2D
Low Medium High
Shallow Water Flow High Resolution

The aim of the desktop study is to assess and

understand the existing data and use the desktop
results to plan the geophysical and geotechnical
 investigations. This ensures that the data collection
Figure 2: 3D geo-site model – enhanced seafloor rendering program appropriately fulfills the requirements, and
(Horsnell et al. 2009) reprinted with permission from Horsnell, that the surveys can be performed as efficiently as
Little, and Campbell with Fugro Geoconsultants. possible.
31
 OSIG 2017
The use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) is The 3D seismic amplitudes associated with the
recommended to efficiently manage the large seafloor can be used to infer the physical properties
volumes of different data. The GIS database should of the shallow sediments and identify geologic
be initiated with the desktop study and be appended processes as described by Roberts et al. (1996) and
and edited until the completion of the integrated Brand et al. (2003 a, b). As described by Doyle et al.
study. This system allows for interpretation, mapping, (1996) the amplitude of a seismic wavelet can be
and archiving of the data and serves any future needs overlain onto a seafloor rendering as illustrated in
including modifications to the field architecture. The Figure 4. The seismic amplitudes can be used to
GIS database facilitates the collaboration of key evaluate potential weak and hard sediments at the
professionals to evaluate the geotechnical and seafloor and at depth. By associating amplitudes with
geophysical relationships over geologic time. seafloor morphology, the rendering can indicate
features such as authigenic rock outcrops, active fluid
A wide variety of computer programs are available to expulsion, and potential chemosynthetic
interpret and create 3D geologic maps. These communities. These types of features can pose a
programs can be used to construct a digital elevation constraint to future production operations.
model (DEM). As described by Bolstad (2002), a
DEM is a grid of x and y coordinates with
corresponding elevation values.
Groshong (2006) describes how to contour the DEM
to produce a visualization of the topographic surface.
Enhanced seafloor renderings, as shown in Figure 3,
are derived from the 3D seismic data. Using closely
gridded data, a three-dimensional image of
identifiable seismic horizons can be produced. The
3D seismic data helps identify near seafloor geologic
conditions prior to acquiring conventional side-scan
or sub-bottom profiler data. Structural and
stratigraphic relationships can be correlated and
evaluated using the vertical cross-sectional profiles.

Figure 4: Peak seismic amplitude overlain over seafloor
rendering at Atlantis Development (Young et al. 2009) ”
reproduced with permission of owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

The final products of a desktop study will be an initial

3D Geo-Site Model and an operational plan stating
objectives for conducting the geophysical survey. A
general layout of the field architecture is required and
potential geo-constraints identified to make sure that
the data coverage is adequate to assess all potential
risks to the planned development.
5 Geophysical Planning and Site Investigation
A critical component of an integrated geosciences
 study is definition of the scope of field investigations
Figure 3: 3D enhanced seafloor amplitude rendering of Shell necessary to make an accurate assessment of all risks
Auger Development (Doyle et al. 1996) posed by seafloor and subsurface conditions. The 3D
seismic data was useful during the planning study, but
the next geophysical program requires better high-
The enhanced seafloor renderings (ESRs) may be
resolution data to accurately characterise the project
used to make assessments of near-seafloor geological
area. There are several geophysical systems that
features and provide insight towards understanding
provide such high-resolution data for deepwater site
the geologic processes existing within the area of
characterization, geohazard assessment, and
interest.
foundation design. Advances in deepwater seismic

32
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
systems over the last decade have dramatically bathymetric profiles, a sparker for subsurface
improved the quality and resolution of the stratigraphy to depth of 400 to 500m, and a mini-
geophysical data allowing the 3D Geo-Site Model to sparker for subsurface stratigraphy to depths of 100
be produced with high confidence. Mr. McClelland to 200m. The Phase 2 survey was conducted by
would be very pleased to know that current system towing a side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and
capabilities satisfy his Lesson No. 2: other sensors (Deep-Tow System) relatively close to
the seafloor. These surveys were very expensive due
LESSON 2: Use high-resolution geophysical to the slow survey speeds, the extensive time required
equipment to thoroughly investigate seafloor and to make the turns at end of track line, and the need to
stratigraphic features over an extensive seafloor perform two surveys. Thus, the industry sought an
region. improved and more efficient system for conducting
deep-water geophysical surveys.

A planning study is a critical component for Today high quality, digital, geophysical data are
conducting a successful high-resolution geophysical routinely acquired very efficiently in deepwater with
survey to insure the acquired data serves all survey an AUV (See Bingham et al. 2002). The AUV as
objectives. Critical components of the plan should shown in Figure 5 is equipped with a large suite of
include a checklist including: 1) survey grid layout; geophysical equipment to acquire high-resolution
2) equipment specifications and operating data such as swath bathymetry, sub-bottom profiles,
parameters; 3) geodetic and projection parameters; and side-scan sonar imagery. These digital data are
4) calibrations; 5) existing seafloor infrastructure and then processed and interpreted to develop a clear 3D
potential obstructions; and 6) a copy of the desktop picture of the seafloor and subsurface geologic
study and 3D Geo-Site Model. conditions.

The plan should verify that appropriate equipment is

selected that can operate throughout the depth of
water to be surveyed. The equipment must provide
high-quality resolution data in the existing sediment
types down to the depth of foundation interest with
adequate data density for completing interpretation
and mapping activities. The field operations need to
be managed by a survey specialist. He/she will
provide quality control supervision, verify regulatory
requirements are satisfied, and assure operations are
conducted in accordance with the HSE standards.

The systems used to acquire the higher resolution data Figure 5: HUGGIN 3000 launch and recovery system (figure
are generally deployed as a suite of geophysical provided courtesy of Mr. Charlie Spann with C&C
systems that are simultaneously transported over the Technologies)
seafloor as a towed fish behind a vessel or part of an
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV). The high-
resolution systems are more accurately classified a The volume and quality of subsurface data that can be
“multi-sensory acoustic systems” since each system acquired today in the offshore environment allows the
has a sound-generating device, sound receiver, and team to develop a much clearer picture of sediment
data recorder. These systems are generally low variability throughout the project area (Young and
energy, high-frequency devices designed to provide Kasch, 2011). The credibility of the integrated
high-quality resolution data instead of greater assessment depends upon the resolution and quality
seafloor penetration. of the geophysical and geotechnical data as described
by Moore et al. (2007). Figure 6 shows the range of
Prior to 2000, deepwater geophysical investigations equipment and sampling resolution that can be
were conducted by towing a system of sonars and acquired with current AUV systems and geotechnical
other sensors behind the vessel as it transits a planned equipment.
grid of survey lines (Prior et al. 1988; Doyle, 1998).
The surveys were conducted in two phases. Phase 1
was conducted with surface-tow equipment
consisting of narrow-beam echo-sounder for

33
 OSIG 2017
There are other high-resolution 2D (HR2D) and 3D
(HR3D) systems available that provide deeper
penetrating sub-bottom profiler data throughout the
foundation and top-hole section. These systems may
be needed if there is a concern for shallow gas,
shallow-water flow, or more accurate hazard
assessment for slope stability and fault assessment. A
comparison of the quality of the sub-bottom data
obtained with a higher resolution system is shown in
Figure 8 as compared with the conventional
exploration 3D seismic data.


Figure 6: Data acquisition technologies and vertical
resolution (Moore et al. 2007) Reprinted with permission from
Moore with Halcrow Group Ltd., Usher and Evans with BP.

The quality of current ultra-high-resolution data

obtained with the AUV systems provides a far better
opportunity to understand the subsurface conditions
than could be attained with older generations of 
equipment. Moore et al. (2007) has compared the Figure 8: High-resolution 3D sub-bottom profiler data
excellent data quality of the AUV with seabed images compared to exploration 3D seismic data (figure provided
courtesy of Mr. Earl Doyle)
acquired with 3D seismic data used for hydrocarbon
exploration. Examples of seabed images obtained
with the different geophysical systems are shown in In more recent years the use of AUV 3D Micro
Figure 7 illustrating the excellent quality of the AUV (AUV3Dm) technology has vastly improved the
data. quality of geophysical data for evaluating sediment
character and the spatial variability of geologic
features for placement of foundations. The data as
illustrated in Figure 9 can be used to avoid anomalies
such as faults, gas vents, MTD (mass transport
deposit) blocks, etc. Campbell et al. (2013).


Figure 7: Contrasts in resolution between 3D imagery for
landslides on the West Nile Delta (Moore et al. 2007) reprinted
with permission from Moore with Halcrow Group Ltd., Usher
and Evans with BP.


These improvements in the data provide two Figure 9: Perspective view of AUV3Dm subsurface data
important benefits when used appropriately: 1) the (Campbell et al., 2013) ” reproduced with permission of
cost of the site investigations is reduced and 2) the owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
entire foundation design process is conducted with
less uncertainty.

34
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
During the planning study an important consideration The sub-bottom profiler is another important
for the geophysical investigation should be the geophysical tool that provides continuous images
collection of all seismic data in GIS compatible along the path of the vessel transit showing
format. As a minimum, the data should include subsurface conditions as illustrated in Figure 10. The
information about its location and relevant coordinate energy transmitted from this lower energy system
systems and elevation datum to allow it to be penetrates the seafloor with a portion of the
accurately used to develop the 3D Geo-Site Model transmitted energy being reflected at each interface.
described in a later section. The sub-bottom profiles are very useful to understand
the sedimentary processes that formed each
6 Geophysical Data Interpretation depositional layer. For example, sediment layers
The high-resolution data provides a wealth of formed by debris or turbidity flows exhibit different
knowledge relative to the geologic conditions of the seismic signatures. Turbidity flows and debris flows,
area including stratigraphy, existence of as illustrated in Figure 10, produce a very irregular
unconformities, lithology, structural deformation, signature as compared to uniform layering associated
sedimentary processes, faulting, boundaries of gas with normal deepwater deposition.
charged sediments, and unstable slope areas. The
acoustic systems all work on the same geophysical This seismic reflection system is high resolution and
principle: the amounts of energy that are reflected and achieves typical seafloor penetrations of 50 to 80m.
transmitted across various sediment interfaces The limits of depth penetration depend upon the
depend on the contrasts in acoustic impedance at the number and reflectively of each interface penetrated.
interfaces. Acoustic impedance is the product of the Typical resolution is about 0.1 to 0.3m depending
sediment density and compressional wave velocity, upon the frequency of the system and the composition
which in turn, are functions of the sediment properties of the sediments.
such as density, strength, and elastic properties of
each material. 6.1 Evolution of 3D to 4D Geo-Site Model
Once all the geophysical data has been acquired, the
The very high-frequency systems such as the depth geologic team will interpret the data and map the
recorder or (multi-beam swath bathymetry system) geologic conditions and processes within the three-
and the side-scan sonar reflect their energy from the dimensional space identified as the project area. At
first acoustic interface, typically interpreted as the this stage, the initial 3D Geo-Site Model will be
seafloor. The side-scan sonar image along each side refined using all the data available from the recently
of the vessel transit provides swath imagery on both completed geophysical investigation. The geologic
sides along the vessel transit. The objective of a team will interpret and map the structure,
seafloor mapping is to use the data to map the stratigraphic sequence, potential geo-constraints, and
bathymetry and to define the seafloor morphology spatial variability in geotechnical conditions. The
and to identify man-made objects on the seafloor. initial 3D Geo-Site Model will be transformed into a
more well defined model to accurately plan the
geotechnical investigation. Sample locations needed
for radiocarbon dating should now be selected for the
~7.6m
geotechnical investigation to define time (the fourth
~152m
dimension of the 4D Geo-Site Model) that will be
further explained in Section 8.
6.2 Preliminary Site and/or Route Selection
The 3D Geo-Site Model is critical to select sufficient
sites to ground-truth the sediment stratigraphy, to
characterise the geotechnical and geologic properties,
to evaluate risk of the various geo-constraints, and to
provide data for future geotechnical analyses. A
 general layout of the field architecture and the type of
Figure 10: Comparison of seismic profiles for different foundations being considered is needed to select the
sedimentary processes (Doyle, 1998) ” reproduced with depths to be investigated at each site. The layout is
permission of owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
also needed to determine the number of sites to be
permission.
investigated in order to define spatial variability and
to characterise temporal processes that might
influence the foundation design.

35
 OSIG 2017
7 Geotechnical Planning and Data Acquisition number of difficulties in interpreting the most
Once the number of geotechnical sites and the depths realistic strength profile for foundation design as will
of sampling or in situ testing have been determined, be illustrated later by a number of case studies.
then the type of vessel and geotechnical tools may be
selected to meet the technical objectives. A wide Although the equipment has been continuously
range of geotechnical equipment is currently upgraded, there are still many drilling, sampling, and
available to conduct a deepwater geotechnical testing procedures (Young et al. 1983) that impose
program. The type of vessel and most appropriate deleterious effects upon our measurements of the
sampling and in situ testing methods depend upon a undrained shear strength. Recognition of the potential
number of site and project specific factors. Water negative impacts of these field operational and
depth, sediment type, potential foundation depth, and laboratory procedures led the offshore geotechnical
soil properties all influence the type of vessel and industry to put more emphasis on in situ testing and
equipment. the use of seafloor supported drilling and sampling
equipment especially in deepwater. Lunne (2012)
If deep foundations are required (>40m depth below previously emphasised the importance of acquiring
the seafloor) and soil conditions consist of strong high quality samples by stating:
clays and deep deposits of sand, then a geotechnical
drillship will be needed. In regions where normally “It is of vital importance that the quality of the
consolidated to slightly over-consolidated clays or samples is good from a geotechnical viewpoint,
limited sand deposits exist and shallow foundation otherwise the results of laboratory tests on the
may be used (up to 40m depth below the seafloor), samples will not be representative for the in situ
smaller vessels and seafloor deployed sampling and conditions”.
in situ testing equipment may be used.
In the last decade, the practice of conducting
A detailed field operational plan is critical and should deepwater geotechnical investigations has
include a description and requirements of the dramatically improved. New methods have emerged
sampling and in situ testing activities for each site. for obtaining large diameter continuous cores,
Information on site conditions at the proposed work performing continuous Cone Penetrometer Test
site is required such as water depth, sediment types, (CPT) soundings, and combining these data into an
seafloor slopes, wave and current conditions, integrated geoscience study. The following section
potential for shallow water flow, and risk for shallow will review the current state of practice as it has
gas/hydrates. An experienced geotechnical engineer evolved from conventional soil borings up to more
should be involved throughout the planning phase to innovative in situ testing and seafloor sampling
help prepare the site investigation scope and methods that are available today (Young and Murff,
specifications. The geotechnical specialist will 2013). These methods have improved the quality of
supervise all field operations to assure the acquired geotechnical data, so their use has led to reducing data
data satisfies all project requirements. They will also uncertainty and improving foundation design
provide quality control supervision, verify regulatory reliability while reducing the conservatism required
requirements are satisfied, and assure operations are to achieve the target reliability. Mr. McClelland
conducted in accordance with the HSE standards. would be very pleased to know that recent
innovations in geotechnical sampling and in situ
7.1 Historical Review of Geotechnical Investigations testing tools satisfy the technical objectives of his
Standard borings from a drillship or other floating Lesson No. 3 as stated:
platform have been the primary approach for
conducting geotechnical investigation over the last
50 years (McClelland 1991). The borehole is LESSON 3: Conduct the geotechnical
advanced by rotary drilling methods (McClelland investigation with equipment capable of
1972) and down-hole samples are acquired using a performing in situ testing accompanied with high
wire-line sampler lowered down the bore of the drill quality undisturbed samples.
pipe used to advance the borehole. The technology is
very mature and the equipment has been continuously 7.2 Seabed Drilling, Sampling and Testing Systems
upgraded to improve sample quality and allow A number of self-contained seabed systems have been
operations in deeper water. developed in the last decade that avoid the difficulties
The common practice has been to drill the borehole of working from a drillship and the inefficiencies of
and take samples at intermittent intervals (about 3m). using a wireline for sampling and testing operations.
Sampling at fixed depths in the borehole can lead to a As described by Carter et al. (1999), the Portable

36
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
Remotely Operated Drill (PROD) is a seabed system
that has the capability to take piston samples and
perform CPTs in the same borehole (see Figure 11).
The system can drill, obtain continuous cores or
samples, and/or perform in situ CPT testing to depths
of 100m below the seafloor.


Figure 12: Jumbo piston core (JPC) operation and layout
(figure courtesy of Dr. Bernie Bernard, TDI-Brooks
International).


Figure 11: PROD seafloor sampling and in situ testing system These devices are well suited for normally
(figure courtesy of Mr. Alan Foley with the Benthic Group) consolidated clays and can be used in
overconsolidated clays to take continuous large
diameter cores to depths up to 12 to 15m. Extensive
The Rovdrill as described by Spencer (2008) is a field testing as described by Young et al. (2000) and
seabed sampling and in situ testing system that uses Wong et al. (2008) has confirmed that the sample
an ROV. The ROV provides electrical and hydraulic quality of long cores is as good as or better than
power, telemetry, and high definition video and samples from drilled borings.
operator interface to the operator control room
onboard the vessel. These seabed systems improve The long cores have many technical benefits: 1) they
operational efficiency and reduce vessel time. yield a continuous core providing a visual image of
Working from the seabed eliminates delays variations in soil properties; 2) they can be
associated with operating a wireline tool down more continuously logged with a Multi-Sensor Logging
than 1 to 2km of drill pipe and dramatically improves System (MSCL); and 3) they facilitate continuous
data quality. correlation of the data results with high resolution
sub-bottom profiling data. In addition, samples from
7.3 Long Core Sampling long cores can provide the same test data as borehole
Large diameter drop cores such as the Jumbo Piston samples. The disadvantage of long cores is the depth
Core (JPC) shown in Figure 12 (Young et al. 2000), limitation, i.e. they have limited depth range in strong
the STACOR (Borel et al. 2002), and the Deepwater soils.
Sampler (DWS) (Lunne et al. 2008) are relatively
recent innovations that allow a continuous core to be
obtained from the seafloor to depths up to 20 to 23m.

37
 OSIG 2017
This paper provides an excellent source for
understanding the state of practice with the CPT and
the importance of its use. As Lunne states:
“in most parts of the world it is hardly possible to
consider an offshore soil investigation without the
use of the CPT, and the results are essential input
in establishing the soil profile and soil parameters
for foundation design”.

Since Lunne published his paper, a new innovative

system was developed called the “CPT Stinger” that
allows CPT testing to overlap and extend below the
 bottom of a long core (Young et al. 2011). The system
Figure 13: Photograph of Atlantis split core showing chaotic
as shown in Figure 14 has been used on about
debris flow deposits in JPC (continuous 100mm diameter 50 deepwater site investigations over the last five
sample) (Young, et al. 2003) ” reproduced with permission of years, confirming key advantages.
owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Another key benefit of a continuous sample is the

ability to split the sample and take color photographs
as shown in Figure 13. The figure shows a color
photograph of a split continuous long core with
chaotic debris flow deposits. Visual inspection of the
cores allows one to distinguish debris flow deposits
from normal sedimentary deposits. The continuous
visual picture of the sediment lithology allows the
selection of appropriate intervals for radiocarbon
dating and other testing with more confidence.
7.4 Cone Penetrometer Testing 
The CPT has played a key role in conducting an Figure 14: Overview of TDI-Brooks’ CPT-Stinger system
offshore geotechnical investigation for over 40 years. (figure courtesy of Dr. Bernie Bernard, TDI-Brooks
Several key references such as Lunne et al. (1997), International).
Robertson (2009), and Schnaid (2009) describe:
1) procedures; 2) equipment specifications;
3) intended use; 4) performance requirements; and The system can be easily deployed to gather data over
5) data interpretation methods available for the CPT. different testing intervals below the seafloor allowing
This paper cannot repeat all the details but, it will overlap in the CPT data. Thus, a continuous sounding
highlight the critical role that the CPT plays is of point resistance, side friction, and pore pressure
performing an integrated geoscience study. response can be tied to the seafloor as shown in
Figure 15.
The Fourth James K. Mitchell Lecture prepared by
Tom Lunne in 2011 describes the historic perspective
of CPT use during an offshore site investigation. The
paper provides a detailed discussion of the historic
development, present status, and future challenges
associated with:
x deployment methods and equipment;
x penetrometer design and construction;
x data acquisition, processing and quality control;
x standards and guidelines; and
x interpretation of result and application in
foundation design.

38
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
discontinuous sampling in a standard boring. The key
advantages include the following:
1. the continuous sample can be logged and
compared with the sub-bottom profile data
showing the individual strata and horizon
breaks;
2. the continuous CPT data can be directly
correlated with MSCL data obtained on the
continuous cores and the sub-bottom data to
obtain a continuous image of subsurface soil
conditions and potential soil variability;
3. the continuous sample can be split and
photographed allowing one to clearly identify
depositional changes and maintain an image
 for the archive;
Figure 15: Continuous CPT profile of point resistance, side 4. the effort and time for site investigations may
friction, and pore pressure. (Lunne et al. 1997) Reprinted with be reduced; and
permission from Lunne with NGI, Robertson with Gregg 5. the entire foundation design process is
Drilling, and Powell with Geolabs Ltd. conducted with less uncertainty and fewer
risks.
7.5 Advantages of Improved In Situ Testing and Case studies will be presented in a later section to
Seabed Drilling Systems illustrate the advantages of integrating the multiple
There are many advantages of obtaining continuous data sets to improve our understanding of subsurface
in situ testing data and samples as compared to conditions and its implications on foundation
reliability.


Figure 16: Boring log of JPC sample showing geotechnical laboratory data, MSCL log, and sub-bottom profiler cross-section
(Young et al. 2009) ”reproduced with permission of owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

7.6 Geotechnical Laboratory Assignments and The field boring logs are then used to assign a series
Testing of standard/advanced geotechnical and geological
Once the geotechnical investigation is completed, laboratory tests.
boring logs are prepared. Figure 16 shows all the
results of the in situ and onboard laboratory testing. The laboratory testing as described by Campbell et al.
(2008) is performed for three different purposes:
39
 OSIG 2017
1. characterise the soil stratigraphy and properties that can be computed from the MSCL
properties at specific locations where measurements include: 1) moisture content; 2) bulk
structures are to be installed to allow selection density; and 3) acoustic impedance. Cores for logging
of soil parameters for foundation design; should be selected based upon their importance to
2. define soil conditions within geologic units understanding the overall surficial geology within the
allowing extrapolation of soil conditions study area. The continuous profiles of data as shown
around the actual sampling site; and in Figure 16 can be correlated with the sub-bottom
3. measure the engineering properties of profile data to help identify marker horizons and
sediments susceptible to geohazards confirm the variation in properties between horizons.
(landslides/slumping or erosion by seafloor
currents) that may be a risk to the An understanding of the environment and/or
development. mechanism of how the sediments were deposited help
identify the character of each sedimentary unit
7.6.1 Standard and Advanced Geotechnical Testing interpreted on the seismic profiles. For example, it is
During the geotechnical field investigation, a series of important to differentiate between mass-transport
laboratory tests are performed onboard the vessel deposits, turbid-flow deposits, or sediments deposited
including moisture content, miniature vane, remolded slowly and uniformly from suspension. A number of
miniature vane, and unconsolidated-undrained (UU) geological tests are available to help identify the
Triaxial tests. Classification tests are performed in an depositional character of the sample including thin-
onshore laboratory to improve our knowledge of the slab x-ray radiography, digital CAT scan
soil types encountered at each depth in the soil (computerized axial tomography), x-ray diffraction,
profile. Supplemental classification tests should and heavy minerals analysis. Experts in
include: 1) moisture content; 2) Atterberg Limits; sedimentology and micropaleontology may use these
3) grain size distribution (sieves and hydrometer); results to verify the visual interpretation of
4) bulk density; and 5) specific gravity. Once the depositional character of the split cores.
field and classification results are available, standard Various age determination methods should be
and advanced testing programs are assigned to considered to help determine the age of the sediments
determine important geologic and geotechnical and the state of sea level/climate conditions at the
engineering parameters. time of sediment deposition. The three dating
The standard testing is assigned to measure the methods most commonly used as described by
physical properties, and advanced testing as needed Slowey et al. (2003) are: 1) oxygen isotope analysis;
to determine the stress history and strength properties. 2) radiocarbon dating; and 3) nannofossil
The advanced testing program as described by Al- biostratigraphy.
Khafaji et al. (2003) may include: 1) controlled-rate- The oxygen isotope analysis measures the ratio of
of-strain (CRS) one-dimensional consolidation; stable isotopic compositions of foraminifera shells
2) static direct simple shear (‫ܭܥ‬௢ ܷ ᇱ െ ‫ )ܵܵܦ‬at lab
( ଵ଼ܱ to ଵ଺ܱ ratio expressed in delta notation). The
induced OCRt1; 3) static ‫ܭܥ‬௢ ܷ ᇱ െ ܶ‫( ܥ‬triaxial-
ratios are used to correlate variations of the downcore
compression) and ‫ܭܥ‬௢ ܷ ᇱ െ ܶ‫( ܧ‬triaxial-extension); ଵ଼
ܱ record from each core site to published, well-
and 4) ring shear, undisturbed and remolded. The
type of tests performed will be selected to measure dated ଵ଼ܱ records from elsewhere. Recognizable
various soil properties needed for the design of the differences exist between ଵ଼ܱ of glacial-aged and
particular foundations being considered on the Holocene-aged foraminifera (glacial values are
project. greater than Holocene values) reflecting the increase
in seawater temperature and decrease in glacial ice
7.6.2 Geological Testing volume that occurred during the transition from the
If long cores are obtained, then measurements are last glaciation to the Holocene.
often made with an MSCL manufactured by Geotek
(Schultheiss and Weaver, 1992). The measurements Radiocarbon ( ଵସ‫ ) ܥ‬dating can be performed on
are made at very close intervals throughout the length foraminifera shells selected from different depths in
of the core to provide a continuous profile of the cores and to determine their absolute ages. The
specialised sediment properties. The MSCL is a shells are analyzed with Accelerator Mass
computer-controlled, automated system that takes Spectrometer (AMS) equipment to obtain absolute
ଵସ
non-intrusive measurements of bulk density, ‫ ܥ‬dates. The absolute ages are then corrected for the
compressional wave (P-wave) velocity, and magnetic surface ocean reservoir age effect to determine
susceptibility of a sediment core. Physical soil calendar years before 1950 (BP). ଵସ‫ ܥ‬dating is very
40
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
useful to determine the age of marker horizons, horizons once the age information is available. The
sediment accumulation rates, and estimated time of case study reported by Hadley et al. (2017) illustrates
mass sediment movements. the importance of making depth adjustments for site
selection and foundation design when the seafloor has
Paleontological dating indicates the occurrence of been severely eroded.
nannofossils that can provide diagnostic markers
needed to constrain the age of the sediments with
certain time intervals. On the Continental Slope in the
Gulf of Mexico the sediments deposited during the
late Neogene/Holocene period only have a resolution
in the order of a few 100,000 years and sometimes
less.
8 4-Dimensional Geo-Site Model
An initial 3D Geo-Site Model of the present-day
environmental conditions at the seafloor and within
the seabed is typically developed during the desktop
study phase, and then refined after completion of the
combined geophysical and geotechnical
investigations. The 3D Geo-Site Model provides a 
three-dimensional picture of the subsurface geologic Figure 17: 4D geo-site model (figure provided courtesy of
Alan G Young).
structure, geotechnical conditions, and geo-
constraints. The advantages and limitations of using a
3D Geo-Site Model in the Danish Sector of the North Age control is needed to define the fourth dimension
Sea is described in a case study by Sienko et al. (time or age), which allows the site’s geologic history
(2015). The study stresses the importance of high to be determined and the timing and frequency of past
quality seismic data and time depth conversion of soil events to be understood. An understanding of historic
units in creating an accurate 3D integrated model. events and their trigger mechanisms helps us evaluate
At this early stage samples are not available for the current risk of exposure and to predict the
dating, so the fourth dimension (time) is unknown. probability of occurrence in the future.
Age dating provides the framework for understanding A brief description of the components of the 4D Geo-
the geologic history and the timing and frequency of Site Model and examples showing the risks and
geologic processes (geo-constraints) that may impacts on site development are presented in the
influence the development area as described by following sections.
Williams (1984).
8.2 Constructing the 4D Geo-Site Model
8.1 Visualizing the 4D Geo-Site Model Proper construction of the 4D Geo-Site Model is one
A 4D Geo-Site Model can best be understood by of the most important activities associated with
visualizing the components of a cube of soil from the conducting an integrated study as illustrated in
seafloor to a depth required to define the geologic Figure 17. The major task is to use all the available
structure and sediment properties for facilities design data to properly construct the model in order to
(Figure 17). The geophysical data provides an overall characterise the seafloor and subsurface features
framework for constructing the initial 3D Geo-Site including past and active processes. A well-
Model since it provides continuous coverage in 3- constructed 4D Geo-Site Model will provide the
dimensional space referenced to sea level. The fixed framework for evaluating the risks and/or potential
reference (x, y, and z) datum makes it extremely constraints to installing various types of facilities and
convenient to construct maps, cross-sections, their supporting foundations.
isopachs, and plan views of the seafloor and
subsurface conditions as depicted in Figure 17. The The activities required to develop the 4D Geo-Site
fourth dimension (time or age, ‫ )ݐ‬should be plotted to Model in a systematic approach include the
align with the vertical z-axis since sediments typically following:
get older with increasing depth. However, the time
scale for dating the marker horizons does not x define the geological structure and deformation
necessarily coincide with the depth scale for the soil history (faults and slope failures);
boring (seafloor) possibly due to erosion, so the time x identify and map seafloor processes;
scale needs to be adjusted to stratigraphic marker
41
 OSIG 2017
x identify stratigraphic marker boundaries different case studies illustrating the final integration
(horizons); product are presented in the following sections.
x re-construct the sequence stratigraphy and age of
9.1 Physiographic and Geomorphic Conditions
each horizon;
The physiographic and geomorphic conditions are
x understand the historic geologic processes and
important factors that relate to the seafloor
events;
bathymetry, geologic features, and physical and
x map the lateral and vertical extent of landslides chemical processes that formed the seascape over
and past mass transport deposits; time and the dynamic processes that will continue to
x correlate the seismic stratigraphy with alter them in the future. All these factors help the
geotechnical data (sediment properties); geoscientists understand the landform history and the
x identify geological constraints to infrastructure dynamic processes still active to predict future change
layout; by relying on field observations, physical
x develop soil province maps defining spatial experiments or numerical modeling.
variability; and
x project the historic model into the future to Examples of physiographic and geomorphic
assess future risks. conditions can best be illustrated by two projects in
the deepwater Gulf of Mexico as shown in Figure 18.
Most offshore developments cover a fairly large The Atlantis and Mad Dog projects are two
seafloor footprint, and their seafloor architecture developments that straddle a complex geomorphic
often is not finalised until late in the development region named the Sigsbee Escarpment. The seabed
phase. Thus, a 4D Geo-Site Model may require large geomorphology is highly variable within this area
areal coverage. In situ geotechnical testing and illustrating the dynamic behavior of the
geotechnical borings and piston cores are collected allochthonous salt nappe.
later to ground-truth the geologic interpretations, to
define the shallow soil conditions and the deeper The Atlantis drill center is located about 1.5km below
stratigraphy, and to characterise sediment properties. the toe of the escarpment in 2,077m of water. The
Later sections provide a detailed description of all the Mad Dog drill center is above the escarpment about
data that may be required and how the data can be 15km west of Atlantis in 1,350m of water.
used to interpret the geologic processes and to
determine the relevant parameters needed for various
methods of analysis.
The following paragraphs will describe the
components and activities required to construct the
4D Geo-Site Model in more detail.
9 Components of a 4D Geo-Site Model 
The components of the 4D Geo-Site Model that need
Figure 18: Seafloor rendering showing 3D perspective of Mad
to be interpreted, analyzed, and mapped include: Dog and Atlantis Developments on Sigsbee Escarpment (Young
et al. 2003) ” reproduced with permission of owner. Further
x physiographic and geomorphic conditions; reproduction prohibited without permission
x structural framework;
x stratigraphic framework and definition;
x geotechnical stratigraphy; and The thin-skinned sediment section overlying the
x geochronologic sequence. series of enechelon, coalescing Pleistocene emplaced
salt intrusions has been uplifted and deformed
The different data sets are used during the integration resulting in the seaward movement of sediments and
phase to define the depositional processes, sediment subsequent over-steepening of the slope as described
stratigraphy, geologic structure, various geologic by Sweirz (1992). The upward and lateral movement
features, and event activity defined in space and time of the underlying salt has deformed the sediments
(frequency and scale). Each component can be resulting in steep slopes, faults, and slumps as
visualised in three-dimensional space using various illustrated in Figure 19.
computer programs to produce images and the GIS
system to archive all mapping and interpretation
activities. Detailed descriptions and examples from

42
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
Provinces related to salt movement (i.e. ascension,
SEAFLOOR subsidence) occur within the outer continental slope
region of the Gulf of Mexico. The lateral movement,
ascension, and subsidence of the salt triggered
faulting, thereby demarcating major provinces of
similar geologic structure. Most of these fault-derived
provinces occur in the outer continental region and
the remaining occur seaward of the Escarpment in the
lower continental rise region.

Salt movement and associated faulting sometimes
Figure 19: Seismic profile illustrating salt/fault interaction
result in failure of over-steepened soils along
across Sigsbee Escarpment (Young and Kasch, 2011) ”
reprinted with permission of J. Ross Publishing. Further associated scarps, ridges, and flanks. The large-scale
reproduction prohibited without permission effect of this salt movement-fault activity interaction
is demonstrated along the face of the Escarpment
where large scalloped slump features have incised
The Atlantis and Mad Dog Development area can be existing seafloor (Slump 1 to Slump 11). See
divided into three major seafloor bathymetric regions Figure 18.
based on the general seafloor gradient variations. The
bathymetric regions as shown in Figure 20 are There are an extensive number of technical papers
namely, the lower continental slope (LCS), Sigsbee listed in the text or tables in this paper that describe
Escarpment (SE), and upper continental rise (UCR). the physiographic and geomorphic conditions in this
area. These references will provide more details than
can be covered in this paper.
9.2 Structural Framework
The next component of the 4D Geo-Site Model is an
understanding of the structural framework of the area.
The structural framework helps us understand the
three-dimensional distribution of different sediment
units and their deformational histories. The goal is to
interpret and map current sediment geometries, to
understand structural evolution, and the past
 deformation structure and resulting stress fields that
Figure 20: Atlantis bathymetric, physiographic, and produced the current geometry. The evolutionary
geomorphic provinces (Brand et al. 2003a) ” reproduced with history will provide an understanding of the causes
permission of owner. Further reproduction prohibited without for the widespread patterns of sediment deformation.
permission. This is accomplished by measuring and
understanding the physical and mechanical properties
of the sediments in which the structural defects such
The regions may be further classified into provinces as faults, folds, or internal weakness formed as shown
based on the physiographic and geomorphic in Figure 19.
characteristics of the seabed (see Figure 20). Well-
defined provinces aid in understanding geologic The structural framework is generally divided into
processes and provide a better explanation of these shallow and deep stratigraphy for discussion
processes to help in properly identifying risks, and purposes. The shallow stratigraphy is interpreted
mitigations for future field developments. using the sub-bottom profiler data, since it provides
very good vertical resolution (about 0.3m) to depths
The seafloor geomorphology in the Atlantis and Mad between 45 to 75m below the seafloor. While the
Dog area was used to select the provinces based on older sediments down to depths of 300m (deep
variations in seabed appearance that reflects the stratigraphy) are typically imaged with high-
differences in underlying structural deformation. resolution 3D (HR3D) seismic equipment. Vertical
These province boundaries were selected to outline resolution in the HR3D data is approximately 2m.
areas of deformation related to geologic processes
such as salt movement (ascension and withdrawal), We again will use the Mad Dog Development as an
faulting, slope failure (mass wasting and gravity example to illustrate how the structural framework
flows), and bottom current processes. influenced the development of the 4D Geo-Site

43
 OSIG 2017
Model. The salt underlying the Sigsbee Escarpment three-dimensional framework also allows
plays a critical role in understanding the structural determination of the continuum of processes and
evolution of the area and the formation of the features defined in space over time. Stratigraphy
stratigraphic section of the sediment overriding the provides the temporal framework for all geologic
salt. The deformation of the underlying coalescing sciences. Its major role in the field of geology has
salt masses is the mechanism that caused the over- previously been noted:
steepening of the escarpment slopes and the resulting
gravitational instability and slumping along the face “Stratigraphy is the great unifying agency of
of the escarpment as described by Orange et al. (2003) geology that makes possible the synthesis of a
and Young et al. (2003). unified geological science from its component
parts.” – Weller 1947
The HR3D data example presented in Figure 21
shows a profile view of the Mad Dog Salt Nappe. Stratigraphy also serves as the unifying attribute that
Major structural elements and faulting are identified allows integration of geologic and geotechnical
on the profile. Notice the differences in faulting engineering data into a comprehensive 4D Geo-Site
associated with different locations of the sediment Model. Dr. Niall Slowey has clearly emphasised the
overlying the salt topography. The profile shows toe importance of stratigraphy by stating:
thrust faults and a sediment thrust wedge in front of
“To successfully carry out a program of integrated
the leading edge of the salt mass.
site characterisation, the key stratigraphic aspects
of seafloor sediments must be understood!” –
Slowey, 2016

Marine stratigraphy is concerned with the age

relations of sub-bottom sediment layers. The
sediment relations that need to be defined included:
form; distribution; lithologic and fossil compositions;
physical and geotechnical properties; and the
environmental processes and the events associated
with the earth/ocean/climate histories. Improved
technology over the last two decades has advanced
 the science past mere recognition of stratigraphic
Figure 21: “Domino-style” faults over shallow, planner salt
horizons. We are now able to recognise the shape of
tongue, southwestern Mad Dog Development (profile view) stratigraphic sequences, interpret their depositional
(Angell et al. 2003) ” reproduced with permission of owner. history, and distinguish unconformities and
Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reconstruct the transgressional-regressional history of
an area.
9.3 Stratigraphic Framework Stratigraphic definition requires that the sediment
The next component of the 4D Geo-Site Model is an units be characterised both laterally and with depth
understanding of the stratigraphic framework of the below the seafloor. The nature of the sediment
area. The sub-bottom profiler is an important stratigraphy is interpreted using the seismic profiles
geophysical tool that produces shallow high-quality to select unit boundaries. Collection of other data sets
vertical profiles of the sediments underlying the provides the ground truth to characterise the
seafloor. It is an excellent tool for interpreting and lithology, chronology, and geotechnical properties.
mapping the sequence stratigraphy over the entire
area of a development. The continuous images 9.4 Geotechnical Stratigraphy
obtained along the path of the vessel or AUVs transit Once the interpretation and mapping of key
clearly display the sediment stratigraphy, geologic stratigraphic units is complete, then the spatial
structure, and various geologic features and processes distribution of geotechnical properties can be
such as faults, gas charged sediments, extrapolated both laterally and vertically throughout
unconformities, etc. the 4D Geo-Site Model. All geotechnical data
available such as the CPT, MSCL, and boring logs
9.3.1 Stratigraphic Definition can be correlated with the different stratigraphic units
Stratigraphy plays a key role in constructing the 4D to define and interpret a suite of geotechnical
Geo-Site Model since it defines the lateral and parameters throughout the development area. The
vertical relationship of various sediment units. The Mad Dog project as illustrated in Figure 18 is a good

44
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture

example of the extreme variation in spatial soil thoroughly investigate the site variability. As
conditions that can be resolved by using the 4D Geo- illustrated in Figure 24, the measured net cone
Site Model (Berger et al. 2006 and Jeanjean et al. resistances (‫ݍ‬௡௘௧ ) in the debris flow deposits reveal
2006). extreme differences due to depositional nature of
these materials. The wide variation is real and should
not be neglected in interpreting the design strength
4.8 km
profiles.
Cluster 1

GC782

Cluster 3

Cluster 2
CPT
Borings


Figure 22: Mad Dog SPAR mooring spread with eleven
suction piles (figure provided courtesy of BP, further
reproduction prohibited without permission)

Three anchor clusters moor the Mad Dog SPAR as

shown in Figure 22. Jeanjean et al. (2003) previously
described the uncertainty associated with the soil
conditions in Slump 8 at Mad Dog where one cluster 
of suction caissons was installed. The soils in Figure 24: CPT site variability of all Mad Dog anchor
Slump 8 are highly variable since they were deposited clusters piles (figure provided courtesy of BP, further
as a series of debris flows with interbedded zones of reproduction prohibited without permission)
soft debris flow material, silt and sand layers, and stiff
clay debris flow blocks as shown in Figure 23.
In contrast, the sub-bottom profiler data shown in
Figure 25 revealed very uniform soil stratigraphy
between Anchor Clusters 1 and 3. The CPT profiles
also shown in this figure and Figure 24 verify that the
soil conditions are very uniform and continuous. The
sub-bottom profiler data was used very effectively to
select the appropriate number of CPTs and borings
within each anchor cluster.


Figure 23: Mad Dog Slump 8 – Cluster 2 geotechnical work
scope piles (figure provided courtesy of BP, further
reproduction prohibited without permission)

The highly variable soil conditions within the area of

Anchor Cluster 2 required four CPTs, one for each
anchor site. A boring was also drilled adjacent to each
CPT location within Anchor Cluster 2 to more
45
 OSIG 2017
geochronology and sea level/climate history help
relate changes in sediment properties and lithologies
to regionally persistent seismic reflectors
(stratigraphy) shown in Figure 26
The Atlantis and Mad Dog projects again provide
excellent examples illustrating the importance of
geochronology in understanding the geologic history
and assessing processes that may impact the
development. The results of the Atlantis reference
core (CSS-1) shown in Figure 26 illustrate how ଵସ‫ܥ‬
dating/sea level correlations can be used to
 understand the influence of environmental processes
Figure 25: Sub-bottom profile data showing uniform soil upon the geologic and geotechnical characteristic of
stratigraphy between Clusters 3 and 1 piles (figure provided the near seafloor sediments. The figure shows the
courtesy of BP, further reproduction prohibited without correlation of radiocarbon dates versus depth in CSS-
permission)
1 to the sequence of high-resolution reflectors at the
core site. The ages from CSS-1 combined with the
This case study confirms the importance of using the other core age results allowed regionally persistent
4D Geo-Site Model to define the scope of the reflectors M1 (14,900 ybp), M2 (19,800 ybp), M3
geotechnical site investigation. When uncertainty in (22,500 ybp), and M4 (23,800 ybp) to be identified
soil conditions was apparent in the seismic data, site- throughout the Atlantis and Mad Dog project area.
specific geotechnical data was acquired at each The geochronology, as illustrated in Figure 26 was
anchor site. Confirmation with the seismic data that critical for these projects in terms of understanding
uniform soil conditions exist allowed a single CPT the processes, events, and time scales associated with
and soil boring to define the soil properties needed to structural evolution of the Sigsbee Escarpment.
design all suction caissons for Anchor Clusters 1 and
3. An additional CPT was performed within Anchor
Cluster 1 to investigation an anomaly in the seismic
data (a bright spot). The results of this second CPT
revealed an identical soil profile as the earlier boring.
Use of a 4D Geo-Site Model allowed the geotechnical
work scope to be reduced resulting in significant
savings.
9.5 Geochronologic Sequence
After the stratigraphic mapping has been completed
throughout the area of an offshore development, then 
age dates should be obtained on the sediments to Figure 26: Results of radiocarbon analysis for Atlantis
define the spatial and temporal distribution of the reference core CSS-1 (Slowey et al. 2003) ” reproduced with
stratigraphic units. The dating of the bounding permission of owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
horizons is required to constrain the timing of the
different depositional systems, deduce sedimentation
rates, and determine the frequency of events from an Age control for the shallow stratigraphy was derived
age-sea level correlation. Thus, sediment age control mainly from radiocarbon ( ଵସ‫ ) ܥ‬dating, while the deep
is a fundamental aspect to achieving a reliable and stratigraphy dating was based on paleontological
useful 4D Geo-Site Model. methods and oxygen isotope analysis. Tying the
Key horizon markers are identified and correlated depositional ages with sea level revealed that most of
across the area in order to establish an understanding the shallow horizon markers were deposited from the
about the temporal distribution of the different last low-stand maxima to high-stand (rising sea
depositional units and their relationship with sea level level). This explains why the Atlantis and Mad Dog
changes and sedimentation. The geochronology helps area is interpreted to be in a state of geological
to constrain past geological events (the timing and quiescence because the principle trigger (e.g. high
rates), which can be used to adapt future sedimentation rate) that generate the geohazards are
developments to the site conditions. The presently inactive.

46
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
The chronology of sea level/climatic history during Seafloor su, kPa su, kPa Seafloor su, kPa
50 100 50 100 50 100
Ͳ0
the last 40,000 years of the Quaternary period played Preconsolidation
Seafloor Datum
a very important role in integrating the changes in
10
200 kPa
psf 19
400 kPa
psf 19
400 kPa
psf
sediment properties and lithology throughout the Mad
Ͳ 25
Dog. The sediment accumulation during this period

Depth,m
m
Depth, ft
changed dramatically from the glacial low-stand to

Depth,
0.63 kPa/m 1.25 kPa/m
the present Holocene high-stand. Thus, the age dating Strength Strength
Profile Profile
information obtained from the ଵସ‫ ܥ‬radiocarbon
Ͳ 50

1.25 kPa/m
method was correlated with the regionally persistent Strength
Profile
seismic reflectors as shown in Figure 26. Ͳ 75

10 4-Dimensional Integration UNDER-CONSOLIDATED OVER-CONSOLIDATED NORMALLY

RAPID DEPOSITION CONSOLIDATED
Once the marine geologists have completed their SLOW DEPOSITION
interpretation and geophysical mapping, the 
geotechnical data should be incorporated as another Figure 27: Idealised strength profiles – homogeneous clay
(McClelland, 1956)
layer in the framework of the 4D Geo-Site Model.
Correlating all the geologic and geotechnical data into
the 4-dimensional space accomplishes the maximum Figure 27 shows the variation in strength profiles that
benefit of an integrated study. typically occur due to the rate of deposition and state
10.1 Correlation of Geotechnical Soil Properties to of consolidation. Cohesive soils deposited at a slow
Sediment Stratigraphy rate under normal sedimentation rates is called a
Geologic processes may have deposited sediments in normally consolidated soil and has a slope of the
both predictable circumstances and under chaotic strength profiles that increases at a rate of 1.25kPa/m.
conditions. Thus, interpretation of the geotechnical Soils deposited very rapidly are considered
soil properties throughout a region or site is probably underconsolidated and exhibit a strength profile
the most difficult task to be accomplished. The scope increasing at a rate of only 0.63kPa/m. Where
of the geotechnical site investigation and the quality seafloor erosion occurs, the soils are classified
of the seismic data are critical factors associated with overconsolidated soils. Although the
interpreting and mapping the spatial trends. overconsolidated soils exhibit the same slope as the
normally consolidated clay, the strength at the
As early as 1956, Mr. McClelland recognised the seafloor is 19kPa that is the same as the normally
importance of understanding the regional geology to consolidated profile at 20m depth. These examples
extrapolate geotechnical soil data (McClelland, illustrate the importance of understanding the
1956). He emphasised that the depositional history is geologic history when trying to interpret soil
fundamental to defining typical strength versus depth properties especially spatial strength distribution.
profiles as shown in Figure 27. His paper also
highlighted the correlation between consolidation In a later study, McClelland Engineers compiled a
pressure and soil strength and the rate of database of 1,200 borings acquired over 82,900sq km
sedimentation. Using these concepts along with about of the continental shelf in the North-Central Gulf of
100 different borings throughout the continental shelf Mexico and prepared a series of maps (Parker et al.
offshore Louisiana and Texas, he relied upon regional 1979). These maps depict the shear strength
geologic history as reported by Fisk et al. (1954) to variations of the cohesive soils to a depth of 46m
show that classic strength relationships can be below the seafloor. An example of the strength map
generalised for different regions of the Gulf of for a region at a depth of 3m below the seafloor is
Mexico. shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29. The maps were
intended for desktop studies and have proven quite
accurate when compared with the strength data from
many thousands of subsequent borings.

47
 OSIG 2017


Figure 28: Example strength map from Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf Atlas (Parker et al. 1979)


Figure 29: Example strength map from Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf Atlas (Parker et al. 1979)

This study proved that geotechnical properties could consistency in the geotechnical strength data
be extrapolated over large regions using the geologic measurements. Case studies will be presented in a
history as reflected in the geotechnical properties of later section showing how geotechnical soil
the sediment. Specific signatures of the geologic properties can be easily correlated with sediment
processes (stress history) involved with the stratigraphy.
deposition of cohesive soils are recognizable in their
strength profiles (Figure 27). The approach of 10.2 Use of CPT Data and Laboratory Test Data
extrapolating soil properties especially the strength In more recent years a typical site investigation
profile throughout a project area or region based on includes in situ testing with the CPT along with
the geologic history has been subsequently used in conventional and advanced lab testing on recovered
other regions of the world. It can be used with much samples obtained in a deep boring or long core. Our
confidence today due to the quality of the high- ability to interpret a consistent and reliable undrained
resolution geophysical data and improved shear profile is often hard to accomplish because of

48
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture

the impact of sample disturbance upon the laboratory Some of the studies have attempted to correlate the
test data (Young et al. 1983 and Caruthers et al. values of ܰ௞௧ or ܰ௞ with the plasticity index, ‫ܫ‬௉ ,
2014). although these correlations have yielded major scatter
as shown in Figure 30.
Traditional practice has relied more heavily on the
measured values of laboratory strength to interpret a
design strength profile instead of values interpreted
with CPT data. However, the effects of sample
disturbance result in large scatter in the measured
laboratory values. Other factors such as soil
anisotropy, strain rate, stress history, and different
loading mechanisms also cause some of the scatter.
The effects of different loading mechanisms mean as
quoted by Wroth (1984) in his 24th Rankine Lecture:
Consequently, there cannot be a unique undrained
shear strength of a soil, and different values will
be observed in different tests.

Thus, the author recommends that practicing

geotechnical engineers put more weight on the CPT
which is a more consistent and representative
measure of the depositional nature of marine 
sediments and avoids most of the other effects. Wroth Figure 30: ܰ௞௧ correlations with plasticity index (Aas et al.
(1984) previously indicated that the CPT is a tool of 1986 and Lunne et al. 1997) reprinted with permission from
great promise for obtaining a rapid and reliable soil Lunne with NGI, Robertson with Gregg Drilling, and Powell
with Geolabs Ltd.
profile if its use is standardized to follow industry
guidelines.
Interpretation of an undrained strength profile in The design practice during the earlier years in the
cohesive soils may be done using either the in situ or Gulf of Mexico was to use ܰ௞௧ values ranging from
laboratory data set. Using the CPT data requires an 15 to 20 depending on the type of reference strength.
approach based on the relationship between In more recent years, a value of ܰ௞௧ of 17.5 has been
undrained shear strength, ‫ݏ‬௨ , and the net cone tip used to correlate with reference strengths based on
resistance, (‫ݍ‬௡௘௧ ) expressed as follows: UU-triaxial compression and direct simple shear tests
in normally consolidated clays (Young and Kasch,
‫ݍ‬௡௘௧ ൌ ܰ௞௧ ‫ݏ‬௨  ሺͳሻ 2011).
where ܰ௞௧ is the cone factor that is analogous to a The author believes that the wide range of reported
bearing capacity factor, ܰ௖ . values of ܰ௞௧ and ܰ௞ occur because there is not a
In the past, the value of ܰ௞௧ has been computed by unique measure of ‫ݏ‬௨ . The wide range of reported ܰ௞௧
using a combination of laboratory or other type of in and ܰ௞ values occurs because we do not use a
situ tests to represent the reference value of ‫ݏ‬௨ . In consistent set of reference strength tests and cone
most studies ܰ௞௧ was computed using the in situ vane types. The author recommends using ܰ௞௧ instead of
or UU-triaxial compression tests, UU-triaxial ܰ௞ on offshore projects to eliminate the hydrostatic
extension tests, direct simple shear (DSS), and the component in the measured value of ‫ݍ‬௡௘௧ .
average strength from the triaxial compression and The DSS test on high quality samples also provides a
extension and direct simple shear. very consistent measurement of •୳ that helps negate
To complicate matters more, some studies have relied the effects of sample disturbance. The author also
upon the total cone tip resistance (‫ݍ‬௧ ) and computed recommends using the DSS strength tests as the
a value of ܰ௞ instead of ܰ௞௧ . These studies have also reference strength to correlate with the values of ‫ݍ‬௡௘௧
used a wide range of in situ tests such as the in situ measured with the CPT. When these two types of
vane or a wide variety of laboratory test as the tests are performed at the same site, then a majority
reference strength. of the human and environmental induced errors can
be eliminated yielding a very consistent measure of
‫ݏ‬௨ . A number of recent case studies (Caruthers et al.

49
 OSIG 2017

2014 and Young et al. 2013) yielded an average ܰ௞௧ 0 20

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
40 60 80 100
Ͳ0
of 17.5 as shown in Figure 31, Figure 32, and
Figure 33 when using this approach in the Gulf of Ͳ5

Mexico and other offshore regions. 1.26kPa/m Ͳ 10

1.23kPa/m

Penetration Below Seafloor (m)

1.30kPa/m Ͳ 15

1.02kPa/m
Ͳ 20

Ͳ 25

Ͳ 30

Ͳ 35

Ͳ 40

Ͳ 45
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750

Net Cone Resistance, qnet (kPa)


Figure 33: Site 3 – ‫ݏ‬௨ derived from CPT using ܰ௞௧ =17.5
(GEMS, 2013) further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

A panel of geotechnical experts previously conducted

a Joint Industry Project (Young et al. 2013) that
 recommended more reliance should be placed on the
Figure 31: Site 1 – laboratory and CPT strength data for eight use of continuous CPT data to select the gradient of
test sites correlated with sub-bottom profiler data (Young et al. the strength profile. Reliance on the CPT data allows
2011) ” reproduced with permission of owner. Further selection of the strength profile with more certainty
reproduction prohibited without permission. than using only the laboratory strength data from
recovered soil samples that exhibit varied degrees of
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
sample disturbance. Relying solely on strength data
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ͳ0
obtained from soil borings in deep water locations
1.4 kPa @ 0m
may lead to overly conservative designs due to
Ͳ5
7.2 kPa @ 6.1m inevitable sample disturbance.
Ͳ 10
14.4 kPa @ 10.7m
Baecher and Christian (2003) indicate that measured
Penetration Below Seafloor (m)

Ͳ 15
soil properties are often treated as if they are
Ͳ 20 independent samplings of a random variable.
Ͳ 25
Offshore soils are frequently deposited in a uniform
physical process over time, so their spatial variability
Ͳ 30
is often not random. The uncertainty is frequently in
Ͳ 35 the model or error in soil measurements and not in the
Ͳ 40 soil deposit. The soil properties resulting from
55.1 kPa @ 42.7m depositional processes and subsequent history might
Ͳ 45
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750
be unknown to the engineer and therefore appear to
Net Cone Resistance, qnet (kPa)
 be random, but the physical processes are not random
Figure 32: Site 2 – ‫ݏ‬௨ derived from CPT using ܰ௞௧ =17.5
and, therefore, the soil properties are not either.
(GEMS, 2013) further reproduction prohibited without
permission
In summary CPT soundings provide a continuous
profile of soil strength and insight relative to the type
of depositional processes throughout the soil profile.
Thus, the CPT is an excellent tool for investigating
the depositional variability since it provides a
continuous profile of soil resistance (‫ݍ‬௡௘௧ ). The
repetitive procedure of inserting the CPT at a constant
rate provides a more consistent and repeatable in situ
process for measuring ‫ݏ‬௨ than laboratory testing on
recovered samples, which are disturbed to varying
50
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture

degrees. In other words, the CPT helps eliminate most described by Ladd and Foote (1974) and Ladd et al.
of the critical factors that can induce error in the (1977) is an approach used to help negate the effects
measured values of ‫ݏ‬௨ . We need to remember and of sample disturbance. The method relates the in situ
follow Mr. McClelland’s Lesson No. 4 as stated: undrained shear strength ‫ݏ‬௨ to parameters developed
from results from CRS consolidation tests and
LESSON 4: Rely heavily on the in situ testing strength tests such as  ௢ -consolidated undrained
data to interpret the undrained strength profile strength tests performed with a direct simple shear
and, in particular, identify the disturbance effects (DSS) device. The state of consolidation and
on laboratory test data. undrained strength can then be determined from the
following equation:
௦ೠ ವೄೄ
10.3 Interpretation of Undrained Strength Profile ‫ݏ‬௨ ൌ ߪԢ௩ ቀ ቁ ܱ‫ܴܥ‬௠  ሺʹሻ
ఙᇱೡ೎ ௡௖
Once the field and laboratory programs are completed
there will be a large volume of laboratory and in situ where ‫ݏ‬௨ ൌcomputed in situ undrained shear strength
testing data available to characterise the physical and and ߪԢ௩ ൌin situ effective vertical stress.
engineering properties of the subsurface sediments. ௦ೠ ವೄೄ
All the available laboratory and in situ strength data ቀ ቁ ൌnormalised shear strength ratio
ఙᇱೡౙ ௡௖
are typically plotted on a boring log that illustrates the
trends and abrupt variations with depth as shown in where ‫ݏ‬௨ ஽ௌௌ is the DSS undrained shear strength
Figure 16. The plot of undrained strength data versus obtained from a laboratory sample consolidated to the
depth also allows a comparison of the difference effective consolidation pressure ߪԢ௩௖ in a normally
between standard, advanced, in situ test data. consolidated state, ܱ‫ ܴܥ‬ൌoverconsolidation ratio,
and ݉ ൌparameter relating the normalised shear
Recent studies (Young et al. 2013 and Caruthers et al. strength ratio to the OCR.
2014) show that too much reliance is being placed on
the laboratory strength data to interpret the undrained The SHANSEP method relies upon the consolidation
strength profile. There are several critical factors that test results to estimate the state of stress
can influence the quality of recovered soil samples (preconsolidation pressure) and then select
and create the large scatter in the measured values of consolidation pressures for the DSS tests.
undrained strength. Critical factors as reported by
Young et al. (1983 and 2013) that are difficult to The SHANSEP method assumes that the normalised
control and must be carefully monitored included: shear strength ratio, ൫‫ݏ‬௨ ஽ௌௌ ΤߪԢ௩௖ ൯ , is a constant
௡௖
value. However, Quirós et al. (2000) have presented
x weather conditions that induce motion of the DSS test results for soils from various parts of the
drill-string during drilling and sampling; world including significant data from the Gulf of
x type of sampling procedure and size of sampling Mexico. The data set utilised by Quirós et al. (2000)
tube; is plotted on Figure 34 in the form of normalised
x stress relief during sampling recovery; shear strength ratio versus effective consolidation
x type of sample extrusion procedure; pressure. As indicated by the plot, a trend of
x sample handling, packaging, transportation decreasing ൫‫ݏ‬௨ ஽ௌௌ ΤߪԢ௩௖ ൯ values with increasing
௡௖
processes;
values of vertical consolidation pressure is
x sample storage methods; established. Quirós et al. (2000) utilised a least-
x adherence to laboratory testing standards; squares regression on their plotted data to yield the
x unusual geologic and physio-chemical properties following relationship:
of sediment; and
௦ೠ ವೄೄ
x gas expansion. ቀ ቁ ൌ ͲǤʹͻͶሺߪԢ௩௖ ሻି଴Ǥଵଵଷ  ሺ͵ሻ
ఙᇱೡ೎ ௡௖
The benefit of acquiring in situ test data is that most where the equation components are as previously
of these factors can be avoided and disturbance defined.
effects can be eliminated. The large scatter in
laboratory strength data reflects “human-induced”
error and often is not representative of the
depositional nature of classic marine sediments.
The SHANSEP method (Stress History and
Normalized Soil Engineering Parameters) as

51
 OSIG 2017
V'vc, kPa Quirós et al. (2000) states that the above equation
10 100 1000
0.5 may be useful in preliminary evaluations of shear
cu/V’vc=0.294(V’vc)-0.113 strength where no advanced testing is available, but
0.4 R2=0.65 cautions that site-specific determination of the
relation between undrained shear strength and the
0.3 pressure-water content ratio (termed the “SPW” line)
cu/V'vc

is advisable. They also state that the history of

0.2 Ip=14
Ip=20 to 39 successful application of the stress-history approach
Ip=30 to 39
Ip=40 to 49 to offshore in situ shear strength evaluation may
0.1 Ip=50 to 59
Ip=60 to 69 demonstrate that sample strength in offshore
Ip=70 to 101
0.0
environments generally are more strongly influenced
0.1 1 V'vc, ksf 10 100
 by past maximum consolidation than soil structure.
Figure 34: Quirós plot of ‫ݏ‬௨ ஽ௌௌ ΤߪԢ௩௖ versus ߪԢ௩௖ (Quirós et al. Their study also indicates that the database shows no
2000) ” reproduced with permission of owner. Further reliable correlation between the normalised shear
reproduction prohibited without permission. strength ratio and the soil plasticity indices.
The author has found on numerous deepwater Gulf of
The Quirós et al. (2000) paper cautions that if the Mexico studies that the SHANSEP method and the
above laboratory correlation is employed to estimate Quirós SPW method give very consistent results for
the in situ shear strength the results are likely to be interpreting the undrained shear strength profile. The
unconservative due to a decrease in void ratio following case study shows how the CPT and
compared to the in situ void ratio. In an effort to SHANSEP data provide a more reliable measure of
further extend the usefulness of their DSS data set, soil strength and improve our ability to interpret an
Quirós et al. (2000) studied the possibility of relating undrained strength profile.
the laboratory shear strength data with the “pressure-
water content ratio,” the effective consolidation The study as reported by Caruthers et al. (2014)
pressure divided by the measured final (after presents data acquired at the Tubular Bells
development located at a depth of 1,250m in the Gulf
consolidation) water content, ሺߪԢ௩௖ Τܹ௖ ሻ. Their data
of Mexico. Two geotechnical site investigations were
set plotted as DSS shear strength versus the
ሺߪԢ௩௖ Τܹ௖ ሻ ratio is shown on Figure 35. Their conducted in the same geologic setting to
accommodate a shift in the mooring locations ranging
equation based on a best-fit line correlation of the data
from about 1.6 to 5.6km. This study provides an
is as follows:
excellent opportunity to compare both laboratory and
ఙᇱೡ೎ ଴Ǥ଺଼଺ in situ testing data acquired from a specialised
‫ݏ‬௨ ൌ ͲǤʹͷͺ ቀ ቁ  ሺͶሻ
ௐ೎ geotechnical drillship and a seafloor-drilling unit. In
where the equation components are as previously addition, continuous samples were acquired with a
defined. large-diameter corer and CPT data were acquired
with a vessel deployed CPT system, CPT-Stinger.
V ’vc/Wc, kPa
100
10 100 1000 10000 The CPT profiles as shown in Figure 36 are from data
Ip=14
acquired by the two different CPT systems within the
Ip=20
Ip=30
to
to
39
39 1000
Tubular Bell mooring area. The total cone resistance
10
Ip=40
Ip=50
to
to
49
59 measured from all 18 CPT soundings reveals
Ip=60 to 69
basically no spatial variability verifying the uniform
cu , kPa
cu, ksf

Ip=70 to 101

100
geologic/geotechnical conditions throughout this
1
large area. Sub-bottom profile lines across the
mooring spread area confirm the uniformity and
cu=0.258(V’vc/W c)0.686
10
consistency of the subsurface stratigraphy that allows
R2=0.97
0.1 for direct data comparison.
0.1 1 10 100 1000
V'vc /Wc, ksf

Figure 35: Quirós plot of ‫ݏ‬௨ ஽ௌௌ versus ߪԢ௩௖ Ȁܹܿ (Quirós et al.
2000) ” reproduced with permission of owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

52
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture

0
0

5Ͳ
5Ͳ

10Ͳ
10Ͳ

PenetrationbelowMudlinem
15Ͳ
15Ͳ
PenetrationbelowMudlinem

20Ͳ
20Ͳ

25Ͳ
25Ͳ

30 Ͳ
30 Ͳ

35Ͳ
35Ͳ

40Ͳ 40Ͳ

45Ͳ 45Ͳ

Figure 36: Comparison of CPT data from different cone
systems (Caruthers et al. 2014) ” reproduced with permission
of owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


Contrary to the CPT results, the conventional Figure 37: Laboratory and in situ strength data comparison
laboratory strength data shown in Figure 37 reflect a for two investigations (Caruthers et al. 2014) ” reproduced
wide range in the measured values. Unconsolidated- with permission of owner. Further reproduction prohibited
undrained triaxial (UU) and miniature vane (MV) without permission.
tests were performed on recovered samples during
both site investigations. The reference line shown in 10.4 Sequence Stratigraphy, Geotechnical Soil
Figure 37 is the same for the two site investigations Properties, and Horizon Age Control
and was added for comparing the results of the Correlation of sequence stratigraphy, geotechnical
different types of strength results. soil properties, and horizon age control is critical to
To overcome the effects of sample disturbance and the development of the 4D Geo-Site Model. A
stress relief, the SHANSEP approach was used to deepwater development located in a mini-basin in the
perform a series of direct simple shear (DSS) tests on Gulf of Mexico serves as a good case study showing
recovered samples from the two site investigations. how the geochronology can be constructed and used.
The effects of sample disturbance are evident in The stratigraphy within the upper 100m of the mini-
conventional strength tests (MV and UU) when basin consists of normally consolidated clays
compared to the SHANSEP-consolidated DSS tests. represented by parallel, closely-spaced, and
(See Figure 37). continuous reflectors of varying amplitude as shown
in Figure 38. The general “layer-cake” stratigraphy is
interrupted in regions by geologic erosion, mudflows,
shallow debris flow deposits, faults, etc. The
development of the 4D Geo-Site Model is important
to understand the process-driven causes and timing of
these events and their impact on the facilities siting
and design.

53
 OSIG 2017
cores. Core JPC-1 was taken on a bathymetric high to
isolate it from sediments that moved downslope due
to mass wasting processes. Thus, Core JPC-1 serves
as a reference of “undisturbed” hemipelagic
sediments that were deposited over the last 170,000
to 200,000 years. Core JPC-3 obtained in the middle
of the mini-basin and was not impacted by any
mudflow deposits except for a thin zone beneath the
Triplet. The MSCL profiles and the AUV sub-bottom
profiles at the two sites are very similar indicating the
 depositional uniformity over the entire mini-basin
Figure 38: Sequence stratigraphy from a mini-basin in the
area.
Gulf of Mexico
Core JPC-5 was obtained on the western edge of the
mini-basin where a 5m thick debris flow deposit was
A series of JPCs were obtained within the mini-basin encountered below the Triplet. Figure 41 compares
to understand the consistency of the stratigraphic the MSCL logs for JPC-1 and JPC-5.
conditions. Five key JPC cores as shown in Figure 39
are used to investigate the variability in geological
and geotechnical conditions.


Figure 41: Comparison of JPC-1 and JPC-5 with 5-m thick
debris flow deposit

Figure 39: JPC locations in a mini-basin in the Gulf of Mexico
A series of seismic horizons was identified and
mapped using the sub-bottom profiler data. The depth
A series of MSCLs were performed on these cores to range and average depth of each seismic horizon are
investigate the uniformity of the sediment shown and radiocarbon dating performed on samples
stratigraphy within the area of the mini-basin. taken from the five key JPCs is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Horizon depth and radiocarbon dates
Horizon Depth Range Average Depth Radiocarbon
Designation (m, bml*) (m, bml*) Date**
Horizon 10 4 to10 6 ~13,000 ybp

Horizon 15 5 to 27 11 ~20,000 ybp

Horizon 20 16 to 62 32 ~70,000 ybp

Horizon 30 27 to 88 65 200,000 ybp

 *bml - below mudline
Figure 40: Correlation of JPCs MSCL with AUV profiles **ybp - years before present


Figure 40 reveals that the stratigraphic sequence is The four seismic horizons were mapped across the
quite consistent over a large area of the mini-basin. mini-basin and correlated with the age dates obtained
Cores JPC-1 and JPC-3 were selected as reference from JPC-1, JPC-3, and JPC-4 as shown in Table 2.

54
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
The sequence consists of very soft-to-soft a series of plots for the various soil properties
hemipelagic sediments deposited over the last superimposed in a single figure as illustrated in
170,000 to 200,000 years. Figure 42. The plots for the five key cores reveal a
very consistent trend in most of the measured soil
A key geologic marker was also observed in all the properties except for JPC-5. The trend verifies the
JPC cores. The “Triplet” marker consists of a series depositional uniformity throughout the mini-basin
of high-density silt layers that occur at about 2.4m and confirms that the geotechnical markers and
below the seafloor. Three silt seams representing the horizons can be traced to understand the depositional
“Triplet” are evident in the MSCL data as represented variability and spatial soil properties.
by the spikes associated with the amount of silt size
material. Figure 42 illustrates that the normally consolidated
clays generally exhibit with depth a decreasing
This geologic marker was first identified around the moisture content profile, and increasing strength and
Mad Dog and Atlantis Developments as a series of submerged unit weight profiles. The existence of the
three and sometime four seismic reflectors on the sub- 5m mass transport deposits at the site of JPC-5 is
bottom profiler records. These silt rich sediment clearly evident by comparing the different measured
seams (Young et al. 2003) were deposited during a soil properties. The moisture contents within the mass
relatively short period ranging from about 18,900 to transport deposits are much lower and the submerged
20,160 ybp (Slowey et al. 2003). unit weights are much higher than the remainder of
The Triplet has also been identified at many other the cores with normal depositional history. It is also
deepwater sites (Stanley, 2017). The wide interesting to note the sharp increase in the shear
distribution of the Triplet illustrates the importance of strength below the mass transport deposit in JPC-5
this key geologic marker in understanding the due to the surcharge in the overburden pressure.
depositional uniformity across a large region of the 11 Site Favorability Assessment
Gulf of Mexico. It provides a means to understand the Once the 4D Geo-Site Model is complete the
process-driven causes and timing of geologic events integrated team can perform their final evaluation of
such as mudflows, seafloor slides, mass-transport the risks and potential constraints to the planned
deposits, faulting, etc. seafloor architecture. A proper site favorability
Moisture Content (% ) Submerged Unit Weight (kg/m3 )
assessment must address several key seafloor and
0 100 200 0 1.6 3.1
0 0 geologic conditions/processes. The team will
typically prepare a group of site favorability maps
6 6
that define the installation and operational criteria
appropriate for each type of planned
Depth (m)

12 12
facility/foundation. Table 3 presents an example of
site favorability criteria as used on past projects.

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

Table 3: Site Favorability Assessment Criteria (Young and
Miniature Vane Sensitivity

0
0 9.6
Miniature Vane
19.2 JPC-1
0
0 2 4 Kasch, 2011) ” reprinted with permission of J. Ross
JPC-4
JPC-5 Publishing. Further reproduction prohibited without
JPC-3
JPC-2 permission.
6 6
SITE FAVORABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Depth (m)

Potential Geo-Constraint Mudmat Suction Caisson Pipeline

12 12

Steep Slope Gradient 3q 15q 20°

 Slope Reversal (Irregular

3q 10q 15q
Seafloor Topography)
Figure 42: Correlation of geotechnical data across 5 JPC -3 -3
0.1 m for 10 1m for 10 3 m for 10 -3
sites Fault Displacement/ Offset
annual recurrence annual recurrence annual recurrence
Deep Seated Slope Slope  5q Slope  15q Slope  18q
Instability FS ! 1.5 FS ! 1.25 FS ! 1.2
A series of geotechnical tests were performed on the Shallow Seated Slope Slope  5q Slope  15q Slope  18q
five JPCs to understand the spatial distribution of Instability FS ! 1.5 FS ! 1.25 FS ! 1.2

sediment properties within the mini-basin. The Debris/Turbidity Flows Avoid Limited Avoid
geotechnical testing consisted of moisture content,
Highly Variable Soil
submerged unit weight, miniature vane shear Conditions
Avoid Possible Acceptable
strength, and remolded miniature vane strength. The Gas/Fluid Expulsion
Avoid Avoid Limited
results of all the geotechnical testing are presented on Shallow Water Flow

55
 OSIG 2017
Examples of site favorability maps prepared for the The following sections describe the scope of work
West Nile Project offshore Egypt are shown in and methods of analyses often used to evaluate the
Figure 43 as described by Moore et al. (2007). Final design impact of each geo-constraint (Young and
selection of the optimum site for each seafloor facility Kasch, 2011).
often requires an iterative process of shifting the
architecture to place all seafloor facilities at favorable 11.1 Slope Gradient/Reversal (Irregular Seafloor
sites to satisfy each of the individual criteria. In Topography)
addition, the various types of data used to construct Final placement of any facility or pipeline requires a
the 4D Geo-Site Model may need to be reviewed for detailed assessment of the seafloor gradient and
further analyses to understand the severity of the potential irregular topography throughout the
constraint. foundation footprint. As indicated in Table 4 various
foundation types have different criteria in terms of the
maximum slope or slope reversal that may be
acceptable for placement to achieve satisfactory
performance. For example, a mudmat typically must
be placed on a seafloor of less than 3q to insure
uniform foundation contact and skirt penetration and
to avoid excessive loading on jumpers. A suction
caisson may be placed at a site with seafloor gradients
up to 15q and pipelines may be designed to cross
seafloor slopes as great as 20q.
The designers on the integrated team will need to set
 the tolerances for each facility type in the assessment
Figure 43: Example of site favorability maps for West Nile criteria for the planned layout of the field architecture
Project offshore Egypt (Moore et al. 2007) reprinted with to accommodate the requisite criteria. A slope
permission from Moore with Halcrow Group Ltd., Usher and gradient map can be prepared from the swath
Evans with BP. bathymetry data. The slope gradient map may be
color coded to outline the areas that are favorable
(green) compared to those areas that are off limits
Table 4 shows the type of data required to evaluate
(red). Thus, all seafloor facilities may be shifted or
each potential geo-constraint and provides references
foundation types changed to keep all facilities in
showing the types of analysis employed and how their
favorable areas.
evaluation may be performed.
11.2 Fault Displacement/Offset
Table 4: Data Requirements and References for Various Geo-
Constraints (Young and Kasch, 2011) ” reprinted with
Faulting may result in significant extension along the
permission of J. Ross Publishing. Further reproduction slip zone and deformation in the general area of
prohibited without permission. seafloor facilities that must be considered in their
DATA REQUIREMENTS siting and design. The long-term risk must be
Sub-Bottom

evaluated relative to the fault displacement/offset in

Bathymetry

Age Dating
Advanced
Borings

Control
Profiles

Testing
MSCL

Swath

terms of an annual recurrence tolerable for each type

Cores

GEO-
Deep

CONSTRAINT REFERENCES
Steep Slope
Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes Young et al. (2011)
of facility.
Gradients
Slope Reversal
(Irregular Seafloor Maybe Yes
To determine the annual frequency of occurrence for
Topography different size of individual fault movements per event
Fault Angell et al. (2003)
Displacement/ Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes Yes Orange et al. (2003) requires a methodology classified as a probabilistic
Offsets Slowey et al. (2003)
Nadim et al. (2003)
fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA) as
Deep-Seated
Maybe Yes Yes Yes Yes
Orange et al. (2003) described by Angell et al. (2003). The input
Seafloor Instability Nowacki et al. (2003)
Al-Khafaji et al. 2003) parameters are the selection of representative marker
Shallow-Seated
Seafloor Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes Yes Brand et al. (2003b)
horizons, their age, the cumulative offset, and the
Instability average displacement per event. An accurate
Debris/ Turbidity
Flows
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Niedoroda et al. (2003) measurement of fault displacement of each marker
Spatial Soil
Variability
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Young et al. (2003)
Brand et al (2003b)
horizon requires high-resolution sub-bottom profiler
Current and
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Brand et al. (2003a) data and good age control as discussed in Section 9.5.
Erosion Niedoroda et al.(2003)
Gas/Fluid
Expulsion Shallow Maybe Yes Maybe
Eaton (1999a,b) The first result of the PFDHA methodology as
Pelletier et al. (1999)
Water Flow
 described by Youngs et al. (2003) estimates the fault

56
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
displacement as one large discrete event (>1m). The objective of the field program is to gather field data
second result estimates the fault displacement as and samples for laboratory testing representative of
creep movements for a large number of small events the individual soil strata.
(0.1 to 1.0m). The results of the PFDHA are
presented as a hazard curve. The hazard curve for Nowacki et al. (2003) described the slope stability
each individual fault crossing shows the risk in terms analysis using the static limiting equilibrium method
of the displacement per single event as compared to based on the Morgenstern and Price (1965) procedure
the frequency of exceeding the specified to analyze circular and non-circular surfaces. Since a
displacement. The hazard curve can then be used to trigger mechanism was not clearly evident, both
select the site for each facility relative to the undrained and drained analyses were carried out in
assessment criteria indicated in Table 4 for each order to cover different causes of slope failure.
facility type. The probability of recurrence for the Both the deterministic as well as the probabilistic
three types of facilities varies from 0.1 to 3.0m for a analyses indicate relatively safe slopes unless an
ͳͲିଷ annual frequency of exceedance. unknown triggering mechanism brings the soil mass
11.3 Deep-Seated Seafloor Instability to failure. Probabilistic stability analyses were used to
Offshore slope failures often called submarine study how sensitive the pre-failed slope stability was
landslides occur in many forms within various to possible excess pore pressures (Nadim et al. 2003).
worldwide geologic provinces depending upon the Age control of the different depositional units was
type of trigger mechanisms as described by Hampton also performed to constrain the timing of shallow and
et al. (1996) and Mulder and Cochonat, (1996). deep-seated slope failures. The results reveal that
Unstable slopes may pose a direct threat to any shallow slope collapse events were closely associated
downslope field infrastructure and must be addressed with times of low sea level and high sedimentation
as part of the site favorability assessment. rates. The last deep-seated slope failure of the Sigsbee
Examples of past slope failures are readily apparent Escarpment in the Mad Dog area occurred about
along the Sigsbee Escarpment in the deepwater Gulf 137,000 ybp (Young et al. 2003). This was a period
of Mexico. The Mad Dog and Atlantis Developments of low sea level and high sedimentation rates. Since
located on the escarpment as shown in Figure 18 are we are presently in a time of high and rising sea levels
examples where extensive studies were conducted to and low sedimentation rates, the risk of shallow slope
evaluate the potential risk of both shallow-seated and failure is considered low. The author believes that the
deep-seated slope failures. Integrated studies as Mad Dog and Atlantis areas are now in a state of
described here were conducted to obtain geophysical, geological quiescence since the frequency and size of
geotechnical, and geologic data needed to develop mass-wasting events were greatest during the last
models for slope stability evaluation. glaciation (sea level low stand) and have since
decreased.
The upper and lateral movement of the Sigsbee Salt
Nappe has resulted in the seaward movement of the 11.4 Shallow-Seated Seafloor Instability
thin-skinned sediment section, over-steepening of the Although the steep slopes beneath the face of the
slope, and resulting deformation of the slope Sigsbee Escarpment consist of competent over-
sediments. The process has produced gravity driven consolidated soils, the face at many locations is
slides resulting in 35 large-scale slumps, (13 at covered by a shallow drape of soft clay. There is
Atlantis, 11 at Mad Dog, and 11 between the two evidence that the soft soils have failed and more
developments) as shown in Figure 18. Thus, frequently in recent times than the deep-seated slides
installations must be assessed near the edge of the (Young et al. 2003).
Sigsbee Escarpment and those placed downslope The failures pose a risk of a debris slide or turbidity
where they may be hit by debris flows that can travel current that would move downslope and possibly
surprisingly long distances. damage or destroy existing field production
Slope stability analyses to evaluate the risk for deep- infrastructure (Randolph et al. 2005). Thus, it was
seated slope failures require an extensive amount of necessary to assess the potential for shallow-seated
information on the soil properties throughout the soil slope failures at the site and to select sites favorable
profile (Duncan, 1996). The available seismic data for seafloor facilities on the escarpment face or
was used to locate slope areas where there is a high downslope from it.
risk of slope instabilities. Then soil borings and in situ The extensive seafloor area occupied by large
testing sites are selected to ground-truth sediment developments like the Mad Dog and Atlantis
stratigraphy and to define soil properties. The
57
 OSIG 2017
Development makes it difficult to assess all areas term, drained events using effective stress
with individual cores. A new method as described by parameters, and “triggered” short-term events, using
Brand et al. (2003b) integrated available geotechnical total stress parameters.
core data and 3D seismic data to predict the location
of critical areas for shallow-seated slope failures. The results of the slope stability analysis were used to
establish criteria that allowed locations with
The data from the cores and the 3D seismic data were potentially weak shallow sediments to be identified
used to correlate acoustic impedance with seismic based upon steep seafloor gradients evident on multi-
amplitude, and correlate shear strength with acoustic beam and 3D seismic data as shown in Figure 46.
impedance as illustrated in Figure 44 and Figure 45, Potentially unstable locations exist in the gullies,
respectively. By combining these two correlations, it channels, and other depressed areas along the edges
was possible to develop a relationship between of each slump region. Critical locations, where the
seismic amplitude and soil shear strength. For the 3D computed factor of safety approached 1.0, were
data as used by Brand et al. (2003b), variations in the mapped; and the areas, volumes, and strengths of the
amplitude of an individual seismic reflection potential failed material were computed. These values
corresponds a10m thick interval of the seabed. were provided as input parameters for the volume
run-out analysis to be described in a later section.


Figure 44: Seismic impedance versus amplitude correlation
(Brand et al. 2003b) ” reproduced with permission of owner. 
Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 46: Critical slope areas identified from shallow-seated
slope analyses (Brand et al. 2003b) ” reproduced with
permission of owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

11.5 Debris Flows/Turbidity Currents

Mass gravity flows are a significant geo-constraint
that may pose significant risk to seafloor facilities
positioned within their path of travel. Seafloor
instabilities on the steep slopes within the Mad Dog
and Atlantis Developments reveal a rugged relief as
shown in Figure 18. The excavation of failed soil
masses that moved rapidly down the slope as mass
gravity flows characterises these slope failures. Many
 seafloor features exist on and near the base of the
Figure 45: Seismic Impedance versus Soil Shear Strength
Sigsbee Escarpment that formed as a result of mass
(Brand et al. 2003b) ” Reproduced with permission of owner. gravity flows.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The mass gravity flows are categorised as debris
flows, mudflows, and turbidity currents. As indicated
The potential of slope instability due to shallow- by Niedoroda et al. (2000) and Niedoroda et al.
seated landslides was investigated using a limit- (2003), the gravity flows most frequently occurring in
equilibrium method based on infinite slope analyses. the marine environment are divided into two broad
Drainage conditions analyzed included both long- categories, debris flows and turbidity currents. These
58
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
two types are governed by different flow regimes and extrapolate soil properties such as shear strength
require different flow models. throughout the area of the planned seafloor
architecture. These capabilities may be some of the
The Bing Model (Jiang and LeBlond, 1993) was first more important features of the 4D Geo-Site Model
used to simulate a number of debris flows observed since both help limit the amount of geotechnical data
in the project area. After identifying the potential acquired. In addition, the ability to extrapolate soil
unstable areas from the shallow-seated slope stability strength allows one to construct with confidence soil
analysis, the volume and character of the soil province maps that confirm foundations such as
properties of the failed area were measured for input mudmats are placed at sites with uniform soil
into the debris flow analyses as described by conditions.
Niedoroda et al. (2003). The turbidity current model
required modification to replicate the field conditions
to match observed features of turbidity current
deposits
Diagnostic modeling is first performed to
demonstrate that the models replicated observations
of past mass gravity flows that would overrun any
planned facilities. The calibrated numerical models
were used to predict likely flow paths and the
kinematics of potential flows. The results then helped
establish the criteria to avoid their action in the design
of seafloor production and transportation facilities.
As part of these analyses, the integrated team
conducted a site assessment of the following 
conditions: (1) cataloged past mass gravity flows; Figure 47: Fence diagram schematic of debris flows (Brand et
(2) evaluated the causes for various events; al. 2003a) ” reproduced with permission of owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
(3) characterised the kinematics (speed, dimensions,
run-out distance of each flow; and (4) compared the
past flows to potential flow exposures. To construct an accurate soil province map, a “proper
The debris flow/turbidity current modeling required reference datum” is required to understand how the
full use of all integrated data sets to model seafloor sediment depositional history has influenced soil
conditions. The models for debris flows included the variability within 3-dimensional space associated
size of the source sediment traveling down the slope with the site development. The seafloor has
until it came to rest as the potential energy was traditionally been used as the fixed vertical datum for
dissipated by friction. The turbidity current models plotting the boring log that shows soil properties
must include the gravitational energy that drives the versus depth below the seafloor. The seafloor
flow of suspended sediment and ambient water down reference works well for an individual site; however,
the slope. The results of the mass gravity flow this datum does not work when comparing soil
analyses allowed for successful design and properties between individual geotechnical sites if the
installation of seafloor facilities (Niedoroda et al. sediments exposed at the seafloor are not the same
2003). age at all sites.

11.6 Spatial Sediment Properties (Highly Variable To understand how the sediment properties vary
Soils) spatially throughout the development area often
Once the 4D Geo-Site Model has been completed, requires a vertical reference linked to the geologic
maps showing the spatial soil properties can be history of how and when the sediments were
prepared to understand the potential for spatial deposited. Thus, age control correlated to isochronos
variability and to identify areas where highly variable marker horizons (such as the Triplet) identified in the
soil conditions exist which should be avoided. The sub-bottom profiler data generally serves as a better
sub-bottom profile data can be used to construct vertical reference for mapping spatial soil properties.
cross-sections or fence diagrams as shown in An example illustrating why a marker horizon is a
Figure 47 to correlate with the geotechnical data. The better vertical reference is shown in Figure 48. The
seismic amplitude data can also be used as described example shows a total of nine continuous CPTs
by Brand et al. (2003b) and Berger et al. (2006) to obtained in a federal lease block in the Gulf of Mexico

59
 OSIG 2017

where seafloor currents have formed mega furrows The variation in strength makes it very difficult to
due to erosion of the sediments from the seafloor to extrapolate soil profiles throughout the development
depths up to 10m. When ‫ݏ‬௨ obtained with continuous area since the seafloor reference does not take into
CPTs are plotted on a single plot with seafloor as the consideration the depositional history as reflected by
reference, there is band of large scatter in the plot of the stratigraphic sequence observed in the sub-bottom
strength versus depth (blue lines) below the seafloor profiler data. Figure 49 shows that the strength at 20m
as illustrated in Figure 49. If the same CPT data is depth is 27.5kPa for all marker horizon adjusted CPT
plotted using a marker horizon (Triplet) as the profiles compared to a range of 30.2 to 35.1kPa for
appropriate vertical reference, then the plot of all the CPT profiles using the seafloor as the reference
strength versus depth shows a single strength profile depth.
for all nine CPTs. The strength at the marker horizon
depth is also the same for all CPTs. (See right depth The process of integration means that the
scale). geotechnical properties should be tied to the
depositional history as reflected in the stratigraphic
horizons that can be identified and mapped in the sub-
bottom profile data. Representative samples taken
near each marker horizon share the same stress
history, so the undrained shear strength will be the
same as verified by the CPT plots adjusted to the same
vertical reference using a marker horizon. If the
samples used for SHANSEP testing are selected to
correlate with identifiable marker horizons, then the
undrained shear of the marker horizon can be
extrapolated throughout the area of the seismic data.
11.7 Shallow Water Flow
Shallow water flow occurs when water from a
saturated sand aquifer flows up the casing string
eroding the surrounding sediment supporting the
 casing. The problem was first identified in 1996
Figure 48: 3D geo-site model showing 9 CPT strength profiles within some deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico
(figure provided courtesy of Alan G Young). associated with setting the conductors for the Ursa
Development as described by Eaton (1999a and
1999b). Shallow water flow reduced the lateral
stability of the casing resulting in structural damage
and lost circulation as described by Pelletier et al.
(1999).
An assessment of the potential risk for shallow water
flow for future wells is generally performed with
conventional 3D seismic data as described by Berger
et al. (1998). High-resolution 3D data provide even
more detail for evaluating the risk of shallow water
flow as described by McConnell and Campbell
(1999). The high-resolution 3D data helps define the
geometry of potential channel or turbidity flow units
where sand prone deposits may produce shallow
water flow conditions. Thus, the proposed location of
the well may be moved or a well casing and mud
program may be designed to address the depth
intervals where shallow water flow deposits may be
encountered.

Figure 49: CPT strength profiles using seafloor and marker
12 Site Assessment Risk Matrix
horizon at CPT-6 as reference datum (figure provided courtesy Selection of the final sites and foundation types for
of Alan G Young). different project facilities means that the risks must
be evaluated relative to their seafloor conditions,
60
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
installation methods, and expected operating different level of reliability in terms of these
performance. Several site assessment factors may be foundation design uncertainties. Deepwater
used as a modified risk matrix as described by Young foundations are generally divided into two broad
et al. (2009) to conduct the site assessment as shown applications: 1) foundations (anchors) used for
in Table 5. The integrated design team can use all the mooring and 2) foundations used to support seafloor
data available in the 4D Geo-Site Model to evaluate facilities.
each proposed foundation site as they lay out the
seafloor field architecture. The site assessment risk The most suitable foundation type is generally
matrix includes the following factors: 1) maturity of dependent upon:
the foundation concept; 2) difficult soil conditions; 1. understanding all the sediment properties;
3) spatial soil variability; 4) type of seafloor strength 2. satisfying the available installation
profile; 5) foundation experience within the project procedures;
area; 6) confidence in computed foundation capacity; 3. providing required capacity to resist the most
and 7) seafloor topography. critical loading conditions; and
Table 5. Site assessment risk matrix (SARM) (table modified
4. limiting foundation movements to satisfy the
after Young et al. 2009) ” reproduced with permission of structure tolerances.
owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thus, the combined soil-foundation system must be
WEIGHTING

RISK RATING designed to resist the maximum foundation loading

FACTOR

Low Medium High applied during the facilities operating life without
SITE FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 experiencing soil failure or excessive movement.
1 Long History–Driven Piles
M Maturity of Foundation 3 Recent History–Gravity Anchors
Concept 5 Novel Foundation
3 The challenge is to recognise the most crucial
1 Uniform Clay
Concept geologic features and understand their depositional
3 Weak over Strong Clay nature and potential impact relative to the physical
N Difficult Soil Conditions 5 Carbonate Soil with
3

Cemented Layers
location of the proposed field architecture.
1 Uniform, Layer-Cake Stratigraphy Interpretation of the engineering properties
O Spatial Soil Variability 3 Sloping Soil Layers 3
surrounding a site is probably the most difficult task
5 Highly Irregular

P Type of Seafloor
1 Normally Consolidated to be accomplished, bringing into focus the need for
3 Stratified 3
Strength Profile 5 Overconsolidated high quality site investigations to identity the spatial
Q Foundation Experience
1 Foundation Previously Used
3 Modest Use in Region 2
trends in the development area.
in Area 5 No Foundation Use

R Confidence in Computed
1 High Safety Factor There are two types of uncertainty associated with
3 Acceptable 2
Foundation Capacity 5 Low Safety Factor
acquiring data during an offshore site investigation.
1 Flat There is natural uncertainty about the random
3 Undulating
S Seafloor Topography 5 Steep or Highly
2 variability of the physical properties of the soil
Irregular  deposit that are called aleatory uncertainties.
Epistemic uncertainties are defined as uncertainty due
to lack of knowledge that can be reduced with
The site assessment risk matrix is completed for each additional data (Christian, 2003).
site factor by assigning a risk rating varying from 1
for those with the least risk to 5 for the highest level Our lack of knowledge of the spatial distribution of
of concern for potential risks. Each rating for the site specific soil properties deposited in chaotic (i.e. high
factors is multiplied times a weighting factor to assign energy) conditions creates the epistemic uncertainty.
the most critical factors of risk. The sum of all risk Random errors in testing or sample disturbance can
scores yields an overall site assessment risk rating. create much of the aleatory uncertainty, although
When the site risk rating is high (greater than 60), some spatial variability in identified sediment trends
either a different foundation type should be selected, are often considered as aleatory uncertainty.
the foundation site moved, or additional work
performed to demonstrate that the desired installation Christian (2003) believes that geotechnical engineers
and foundation performance might be achieved. generally face epistemic uncertainties. The
acquisition of high quality geophysical and
12.1 Final Foundation Selection and Design geotechnical data helps eliminate the epistemic
The principal risks in foundation design are uncertainty. Aleatory uncertainties associated with
associated with uncertainties in selection of design chaotic depositional processes such as debris flow
parameters, determination in foundation loads, and deposits are much more difficult to define and should
design method reliability. Each foundation type has a be avoided if possible. In summary, the 4D Geo-Site
61
 OSIG 2017
Model allows geotechnical engineers to more basis for defining the subsurface conditions, the
accurately understand how different geologic complexity of geo-constraints, and the required scope
processes impact the epistemic and aleatory of the geotechnical investigation. The geophysical
uncertainties for the various soil profiles. It allows the data provides comprehensive coverage of the entire
preferred foundation type and site to be selected with development area allowing extrapolation of soil
more certainty and to avoid site conditions that pose stratigraphy and properties.
high risks.
A panel of industry experts recently conducted a
12.2 Ambiguous Regulatory Requirements study (Young et al. 2013) to provide an independent
API, ISO, and BSEE have previously published a review of the current US regulations including their
number of regulations and guidelines that describe the historical development. The objective was to ensure
requirements for conducting deepwater that the regulations reflect the latest improved
geophysical/geotechnical investigations. Since methods for conducting deepwater geophysical and
publication of many of these standards, numerous geotechnical investigations. The panel recommended
advances have been made in site investigation that changes in the regulation language be
technology (geophysical and geotechnical field implemented to provide the practicing engineer more
methods) that have improved the quality of data used flexibility and to avoid ambiguity among regulators.
to construct the 4D Geo-Site Model. It was the opinion of the panel members that there is
no “one size fits all” designation with regard to the
In recent years, practicing geotechnical engineers complex art of site investigation. What is adequate for
working on deepwater offshore projects have found one site may be inadequate for some and unnecessary
that establishing the scope of an offshore site for others.
investigation is challenging. The difficulty lies in the
ambiguity and conflict in the regulations leading to a In lieu of the prescriptive requirement of the
lack of consensus between the regulators and standards, the panel of experts recommended that
practicing geotechnical engineers as to what different wording as stated in ISO/DIS 19901-4
constitutes the best practices. should be adopted for worldwide application:
An example of a regulation governing the foundation Geotechnical and Foundations Design
design for floating moored structures in the Gulf of Considerations
Mexico that has caused much confusion is presented The onsite studies should extend throughout the
in Section 250.915b published by the Minerals depth and areal extent of soils that will affect or be
Management Service (MMS) in 2005 (Title 30- affected by installation of the foundation elements.
Mineral Resources, 2005). The regulation states that The number and depth of borings and extent of soil
a boring must be taken at the most heavily loaded testing will depend on the soil variability in the
anchor location and at anchor points approximately vicinity of the site, environmental design
120q and 240q around the anchor pattern from the conditions (e.g. earthquake loading and slope
boring, and as necessary to establish a suitable soil instability) to be considered in the foundation
profile. These regulations are prescriptive in nature design, the structure type and geometry, and the
and do not take into consideration the site geology definition of geological hazards and constraints.
and the influence of site variability upon the required
scope of the geotechnical investigation. In 1962 Dr. Ralph Peck emphasised the importance
of performing an integrated study. He pointed out that
In addition, some regulators have assigned to date a we must understand the natural processes that created
very limiting definition to the term “boring” meaning a soil deposit if we want to appreciate its inherent
a borehole advanced by rotary methods from a variability. He believed that we must approach all
drillship. In situ testing with a CPT or long cores geotechnical engineering problems from a geological
apparently do not satisfy their requirement of a point of view. This early pioneer stressed that the
“boring.” Compounding the difficulty, the traditional disciplines of geology and geotechnical engineering
methods of drilling soil borings with a deepwater are mutually dependent for achieving a reliable site
drillship are often very time consuming and characterization. He believed that geology should
expensive, which tends to minimise soil data play an essential role in the design process and should
collection. This may represent the greatest potential guide all data acquisition activities.
risk to overall foundation reliability. In addition,
some regulators do not appear to appreciate the The geotechnical engineer now has an outstanding set
benefit of conducting an integrated study. The of tools for developing engineering parameters for a
geophysical (acoustic-profiling) survey provides the myriad of geologic conditions so that he/she can

62
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
confidently and economically design anchors and It is important to consider that uncertainty in
foundations around the world. This expert panel study geotechnical properties is not necessarily the largest
emphasised the importance of allowing flexibility in determinant of the performance of a foundation and
design requirements so that the judgment of that eliminating this source of uncertainty does not
experienced engineers, a critical element, continues eliminate the risk of a foundation failure. We must
to play its proper role in geotechnical design practice. remember that most of the foundation design methods
In summary, regulations should not be written to be are empirical and need to be correlated to the same
overly prescriptive. Realizing the potential of the reference strengths as measured in the experimental
integrated approach means that stakeholders can testing. Mr. McClelland highlighted the importance
focus on methods for acquiring data that will be most of this factor as stated:
informative or have the greatest impact on project-
specific decisions. LESSON 5: Rely on experimental testing and
13 Risk and Design Reliability case studies to calibrate the empirical foundation
Installation of permanent production systems in design methods.
deepwater regions around the world always poses an
element of risk. Risk is commonly represented by the Most foundation design methods are correlated to
probability of occurrence and consequence of a loss. empirical tests where high quality samples or in situ
Consequences can include human safety, testing was performed to establish the reference
environmental, and economic losses. strengths. Thus, it is important that the methods
In order to mitigate foundation risk, operators and described in this paper be used to select the design
regulators must acquire an appropriate quantity, strength profile in the future to improve the reliability
quality, and type of subsurface data. Geophysical data in foundation design.
provides the greatest coverage of a project area and is Reliability analyses, such as described by Gilbert et
quite useful for deducing the geologic conditions and al. (2010), provide guidance in establishing the value
spatial soil variability in the area. Thus, it helps set of various geophysical and geotechnical investigation
the scope of the geotechnical investigation to ground- methods in reducing the uncertainty in soil properties
truth the geophysical data. for foundation design. An integrated study provides
A common decision point in offshore design is all the data needed within the framework of the 4D
whether or not additional data are needed or would be Geo-Site Model to provide more certainty in
beneficial enough to justify the cost, effort, and time interpreting the geotechnical properties and
to acquire the data. The value of additional data improving the design reliability.
depends on how much those data are expected to 14 Realizing the Full Potential of 4D Geoscience
reduce design conservatism and improve foundation Study
design and control risk. Maximizing the value of The full potential of an integrated geoscience study is
information entails finding the optimal combination not fully appreciated by many professionals working
of design information and conservatism, such that the in the offshore industry. Some believe that an
combination will minimise the total expected cost and integrated study is only needed when the geology is
maintain the requisite reliability. extremely complex and fraught with geohazards
The reliability of a foundation depends on the (risks that they do not understand). The author
following factors, as summarised by Clukey et al. believes that all offshore geoscience studies should be
(2013): conducted using the integrated approach no matter
how mundane site conditions may appear. The beauty
x uncertainty in establishing geotechnical of the integrated study is that the level of work can be
properties for design (e.g., a design profile of tailored to fit the complexity of the site conditions and
undrained shear strength versus depth) due to foundation elements. The desk study provides an
limited site-specific data; initial 3D Geo-Site Model that generally defines the
x uncertainty in the actual capacity of a foundation complexity of the regional site conditions and
compared to the capacity predicted with the potential constraints that must be addressed. Thus, the
design method; and scope of the geophysical investigation can be
x uncertainty in the loads that will be applied to carefully planned to address specific constraints and
the foundation over its service life. confirm that data coverage is adequate for the planned
seafloor architecture.

63
 OSIG 2017
Part of the problem is that our technical disciplines integrated team can quantify the frequency and
remain isolated by departments in setting up their magnitude of each geo-constraint event upon the
university courses and research work. Thus, it may be impact on all planned seafloor infrastructure.
difficult for a student in geotechnical engineering to
take a course in marine geology, and vice versa. In As described by Jeanjean et al. (2003), the evaluation
fact, students in one discipline may not realise the of risk requires two important considerations: 1) the
value of understanding related disciplines. The annual probability of occurrence and 2) a measure of
inability of each professional on an integrated team to the consequences of all risks in terms of damage to
understand and appreciate the other technical health, environment, capital investment, and
disciplines, therefore, is the primary reason that the company reputation.
integrated approach is critical to understand all InferThePast : UnderstandThePresent: PredicttheFuture:
Geoscientists,Oceanographers: Geoscientists: Geoscientists:
factors that may influence the site development. • Devel opmodelsforpastprocesses
• Understandcurrentgeological
processes.
• As s essfutureprocesses(i.e.fault
movements,salttectonics).
• Des cribefailures cenarios. • Mapcurrenthazards.
• Defi nepasttri ggermechanisms. Oceanographers:

One of my favorite clients (Mr. Horace F. House) • Understandti mingandfrequencyof

pa s tevents •
Oceanographers:
Des cribecurrentoceanographical
•

•
Des cribefutureoceanographical
processes.
As s essconsequencesofslopefailures:
processes(bottomcurrents,erosion)
once remarked to me: •
Engineers:
As s esspastgeotechnical/pore Engineers:
debrisflowsandturbiditycurrents.

pres sureconditions • Meas urecurrentgeotechnicals oil Engineers:

• Ba ckͲcalculatepreviousfailures properties. • Qua ntifychangesinl evelofstabilityof
• Qua ntifys hallowporepressureregime. thees carpment.
You do a great job of investigating and measuring • Qua ntifythecurrentlevelofs tabilityof
theescarpment.
•
•
Es ti mateprobabilityoffailure
Es ti matedamagetoi nfrastructure

the soil properties within a 9-in borehole, but I still

do not know how the soil conditions vary around
that borehole.
RiskAssessment
Even though Mr. House made this statement over
30 years ago when integrated studies were not RiskAcceptanceCriteria

practiced, he fully appreciated the need. An early Recommendations:

pioneer in geotechnical engineering, Dr. Ralph Peck •Riskacceptance?
•Riskavoidance?
(1962) previously made these enlightening •Riskmitigation?

statements:
Figure 50: Risk Assessment Criteria (figure provided courtesy
Subsurface engineering is an art; soil mechanics of BP, further reproduction prohibited without permission)
is an engineering science. This distinction, often
expressed but seldom fully appreciated, must be
The full potential of an integrated study requires the
understood if we are to achieve progress and
combined experience of all team professionals and
proficiency in both fields of endeavor.
coordination of their work activities in executing and
Whether we realise it or not, every interpretation meeting project requirements. The full potential is
of the results of a test boring and every achieved providing a myriad of benefits if one
interpolation between two borings is an exercise recognises the key to success as stated by Jeanjean et
in geology. al. (2005):
The key to a successful integrated study might
All these statements highlight why the offshore reside in gathering outstanding high-resolution
industry should remember Lesson No. 6 from geophysical and geotechnical data early in the
Mr. McClelland: project, but not too early, hire world-class
technical specialists, give them as much time and
LESSON 6: Develop an integrated space as possible, and ensure that they
geologic/geotechnical model to assess risks and communicate and interact appropriately.
define constraints to site development.
In summary, there have been many integrated studies
conducted over the last 20 years as illustrated by the
An integrated geoscience study allows one to develop case studies in this paper that demonstrate the
criteria for evaluating geo-constraints in terms of risk potential technical benefits that may be achieved.
acceptance, risk avoidance, and risk mitigation. The There is a common misconception that the cost of an
full potential of an integrated study also allows one to integrated study is necessarily more expensive than a
achieve real economic benefit associated with more conventional site study and the benefits do not
eliminating future risks to the development. This often justify the additional expense. Paradoxically an
means that all risks have been characterised and integrated study on the other hand offers the potential
evaluated in a consistent manner. Its full potential is to reduce the overall cost by reducing the scope of the
realised as illustrated in Figure 50 when the geotechnical investigation and the need to perform
64
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
additional work if the field architecture is adjusted described in this paper will help the reader understand
during the design phase of the project. The ability to the full potential of an integrated study by:
confidently extrapolate soil conditions is a benefit
that many offshore owner/operators do not fully Integrating the science of geology and
appreciate because they do not understand the full geotechnics to master the art of seafloor
potential of an integrated geoscience study. engineering

15 Summary and Conclusions The objective of my paper has been to focus on the
Technological improvements over several decades important interactions needed by the team conducting
have dramatically changed the way geophysical an integrated study. Each technical expert must
surveys and geotechnical investigations are understand his role and be capable of explaining the
conducted or at least should be conducted. In earlier critical factors to other team members. Close
years, these two independent efforts were conducted collaboration is needed to make sure that all
to satisfy regulatory requirements for exploration and constraints and risks are identified and investigated
production permitting. Thus, the geophysical and during each appropriate phase.
geotechnical data were seldom integrated and hence
Marine geologists and geophysicists need to improve
not used in a mutually supportive way to fully
their understanding of the general principles of
understand the subsurface geologic conditions and
geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical engineers
variability in sediment properties in a cost-effective
need to teach themselves more geology in order to
manner.
appreciate the critical role that geology plays in
A goal of this paper has been to change our way of defining the spatial distribution and variability of soil
looking at the seafloor and subsurface conditions. In properties. Both groups of experts need to understand
the past the geotechnical engineers have looked at that the CPT and sub-bottom profiler provide the two
each site individually and concentrated on defining most important data sets needed to understand the
engineering properties for foundation design relying stress history and depositional character of the
upon a combination of widely scattered in situ and sediments. Correlation of the two data sets allows
laboratory test data. The marine geologists have stratigraphic definition to be fully interpreted and
focused on mapping “geohazards” and identifying mapped throughout the full volume of the cube
seafloor constraints that might impact the placement representing the 4D Geo-Site Model. Age dating will
of seafloor facilities or the drilling of exploration then constrain the timing of different depositional
and/or development wells. When we look together at systems, establish sedimentation rates, and determine
the seafloor and subsurface condition with a different the timing and frequency of past geologic events. The
approach, then we may find that 4D Geo-Site Model age control is needed to verify that all risks have been
will portray many things that we never observed to characterised and evaluated to allow the field
wit: infrastructure to be adapted for the seafloor and
subsurface conditions.
If you change the way you look at things, the
things you look at change. The author believes that the geotechnical community
Anonymous needs to change their thinking and break away from
traditional practice for conducting a geotechnical site
Conducting an integrated study collectively with a investigation. We should work closely with the
team of experts allows one to construct a 4D Geo-Site marine geologists to maximise the use of the
Model using all geophysical, geotechnical, and geophysical data to reduce the scope of the
geologic data. Using this process also defines the type geotechnical investigation. We should conduct more
and resolution of geophysical and geotechnical data CPT testing and less sampling and testing on samples
required to undertake an integrated geoscience study from a soil boring. Frankly, in most cases the
(i.e., considers the entire process when planning continuous CPT sounding will portray a more
every data acquisition activity). realistic definition of the depositional character, stress
history, and strength gradient than more widely
The 4D Geo-Site Model provides an important scattered laboratory test data. The use of more
opportunity to identify and define the potential geo- innovative geotechnical systems and tools as
constraints, geologic conditions, and geotechnical described previously will reduce the time to conduct
engineering properties throughout the project the field investigation and provide more reliable and
development in a cost-effective manner. The author consistent data.
hopes that the case studies and the processes

65
 OSIG 2017
It is my opinion, the CPT and SHANSEP testing was a tremendous sacrifice that has allowed me to
provides an improved method for establishing the achieve a very enjoyable and fulfilling life.
design strength profiles than drawing lines through
widely scatter laboratory test data. Case studies in the A number of close friends and mentors supported me
Gulf of Mexico and other offshore regions show that in preparation of this paper. Ms. Jill Rivette helped
an average ܰ௞௧ value of 17.5 will correlate closely me stay motivated, and her assistance with the text,
with the DSS test results. The ܰ௞௧ value provides very figures, references, and other details were critical to
consistent results for normally consolidated clays, but its successful completion. I also want to thank a group
more work is needed to establish the appropriate of mentors for reviewing and helping to edit the text.
values for overconsolidated clays. The assistance of Dr. Don Murff, Dr. Philippe
Jeanjean, Dr. Niall Slowey, Dr. Bernie Bernard, and
The author wants to emphasise that regulations Mr. Earl Doyle was very beneficial in preparing this
should not be too prescriptive allowing experienced paper.
engineers and geologists to serve their critical role in
planning the scope of the site investigation. Their A number of other friends supported me throughout
experience and judgment are critical to understanding my career that I would like to acknowledge. This
the geologic variability and establishing the amount group of professionals who helped advance the state
and type of data needed to be informative for the of practice of integrated geoscience studies wrote
design process and to have the greatest impact on numerous papers as shown in the reference list. The
project-specific decisions. The integrated study will group includes Dr. Ed Clukey, Dr. Eric Liedtke, and
reduce uncertainty in the overall design process and Mr. Dan Spikula with BP; Mr. Chris Hadley and
provide many benefits in terms of identifying Dr. Craig Shipp with Shell; Mr. Rob Little and
potential constraints and the criteria for evaluating the Mr. Clarence Ehlers with Chevron; Mr. Mike Kaluza,
potential impact of future events during the lifetime Mr. Vernon Kasch, Mr. Bill Berger, Mr. Dan Lanier,
of the development. Dr. John Brand, Ms. Dianne Phu, Ms. Laura Johnson
Ms. Oluwayomi Oyedele, all formerly with GEMS;
In closing, the author applauds the vision that Mr. Steve Garmon with C&C Technologies; Mr. Bob
Mr. McClelland and other pioneering experts played Bruce; Dr. Bernie Bernard and Dr. Jim Brooks; and
in identifying the building blocks for conducting an Mr. Kerry Campbell and Mr. Bill Quirós with Fugro-
integrated geoscience study. They identified the need McClelland Marine Geosciences.
for close collaboration between geologists and
geotechnical engineers before equipment was 17 References
available to acquire the high-quality data that can be Aas G, Lacasse S, Lunne T and Hoeg K. (1986) Use
acquired today. Mr. McClelland taught me six of in situ tests for foundation design on clay.
important technical lessons that I have shared in this Proc., ASCE Specialty Conference In Situ ’86:
paper. I dedicate this paper to him. He was a very Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering,
special mentor and friend. I was so very fortunate to Blackburg, ASCE, 1-30.
have had the opportunity to work with the first Al-Khafaji Z, Young AG, DeGroff W, Nowacki F,
pioneer in offshore geotechnical engineering. Brooks J and Humphrey G. (2003) Geotechnical
properties of the Sigsbee Escarpment soil borings
16 Acknowledgement and jumbo piston core. Proc., Offshore
It is a distinct honor to be selected by the International Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 15158.
Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Angell M, Hanson K, Swan B and Youngs R. (2003)
Engineering (ISSMGE) to give the Fourth Bramlette Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard
McClelland Lecture since Bram was a friend and Assessment for Flowlines and Export Pipelines,
mentor for over 40 years. The opportunity to work at Mad Dog and Atlantis Field Developments.
his company, McClelland Engineers, with his team of Proc., Offshore Technology Conference,
outstanding geotechnical engineering experts was a Houston, OTC 15402.
highlight of my professional career. I am indebted to Baecher GB. and Christian, JT. (2003) Reliability
his company for allowing me to work on some very and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering, John
challenging offshore projects around the world. Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Berger WJ, Kaluza MJ, and Usher NF. (1998) The
I also dedicate this paper to my wife, Melinda, who use of very high resolution 3D seismic data in
supported my career for the last 46 years. Her conjunction with 3D data in evaluating the
dedication to me while teaching kindergarten and potential for water flow and other shallow
rearing three sons, Russell, Matthew, and Samuel,

66
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture

hazards. Proc., Offshore Technology Conference, Clukey E, Gilbert R, Andersen K and Dahlberg R.
Houston, OTC 8593. (2013) Reliability of suction caissons for deep
Berger WJ III, Lanier DL and Jeanjean P. (2006) water floating facilities. Foundation Engineering
Geologic Setting of the Mad Dog Mooring in the Face of Uncertainty, ASCE Geo-Congress,
System. Proc., Offshore Technology Conference, San Diego.
Houston, OTC 17914. Doyle EH, Smith JS, Tauvers PR, Booth JR, Jacobi
Bingham D, Drake T, Hill A and Lott R. (2002) The MC, Nunez AC, Diegel FA and Kaluza, MJ.
application of AUV technology in the oil (1996) The usefulness of enhanced surface
industry--vision and experiences. TS4.4 renderings from 3-D seismic data for high
Hydrographic Surveying, FIG XXII International resolution geohazards studies. MMS Gulf of
Congress, Washington, D.C. Mexico 16th Information Transfer Meeting, New
Bolstad P. (2002) GIS fundamentals, White Bear Orleans.
Lake, MN: Eider Press, 411. Doyle EH. (1998) The integration of deepwater
Borel D, Puech A and de Ruijter M. (2002) High geohazard evaluations and geotechnical studies.
quality sampling for deepwater geotechnical Proc., Offshore Technology Conference,
engineering: the STACOR experience. Proc., Houston, OTC 8590.
Conference on Ultra Deep Engineering and Duncan JM. (1996) Soil slope stability analysis.
Technology, Brest. Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation, special
Brand J, Lanier D, Angell M, Hanson K, Lee E and report 247:337-371, Transportation Research
George T. (2003a) Indirect methods of dating Board, National Research Council, eds. AK
seafloor activities: regional stratigraphic markers, Turner and RL Schuster.
and seafloor current processes. Proc., Offshore Eaton LF. (1999a) Drilling through deepwater
Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 15200. shallow water flow zones at Ursa. SPE/IADC
Brand JR, Lanier DL, Berger III WJ, Kasch VR and Drilling Conference, SPE/IADC 52780,
Young AG (2003b) Relationship Between Near Amsterdam.
Seafloor Seismic Amplitude, Impedance, and Soil Eaton LF. (1999b) The Ursa template failure. Proc.,
Shear Strength Properties and Use in Prediction 1999 International Forum on Shallow Water
of Shallow Seated Slope Failure. Proc., Offshore Flow, League City.
Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 15161. Fisk HN, McFarlan E Jr, Kolb CE and Wilbert LJ Jr.
Campbell KJ, Smith S and Pastor C. (2013) (1954) Sedimentary framework of the modern
AUV3Dm: Detailed Characterisation of Shallow Mississippi River. Journal of Sedimentary
Soil Strata and Geohazards Using AUV Petrology, June.
Subbottom Profiler 3D Micro Volumes. Proc., GEMS-Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc.
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC (2013) JIP Report – Review of BSEE
23950. Geotechnical Site Investigation Regulations and
Campbell KJ, Humphrey GD and Little RL. (2008) Current Industry State of Practice – Gulf of
Modern deepwater site investigation: getting it Mexico, Houston.
right the first time. Proc., Offshore Technology Gilbert RB, Murff JD and Clukey EC. (2010) Risk
Conference, Houston, OTC 19535. and reliability on the frontier of offshore
Carter JP, Davies PJ and Krasnostein P. (1999) The geotechnics. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II,
future of offshore site investigation--Robotic Proc., 2nd International Symposium on Frontiers
drilling on the seabed. Australian Geomechanics in Offshore Geotechnics, Perth, November.
343:7-84. Groshong RH Jr. (2006) 3-D structural geology a
Caruthers C, Hartsfield R, Dobias J, Young A, practical guide to quantitative surface and
Spikula D, Fitzpastrick M and Remmes B. (2014) subsurface map interpretation, 2nd ed., Springer-
Case study of geotechnical site investigation Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
using a seafloor drilling unit, large-diameter Hadley C, Bradford K and Young A. (2017)
cores, and coring-vessel-deployed cone Integrated study of a complex seabed for the
penetration tests in the Gulf of Mexico. Proc., Stones FPSP. Proc., Offshore Technology
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC Conference, Houston, OTC 27835.
25378. Hampton MA, Lee HJ and Locat J. (1996)
Christian JT. (2003) Geotechnical engineering Submarine landslides. Reviews of Geophysics
reliability: how well do we know what we are 34(1): 33-49.
doing? 39th Karl Terzaghi Lecture, ASCE, Healy-Williams N. (1984) Principles of pleistocene
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, October. stratigraphy applied to the Gulf of Mexico,

67
 OSIG 2017
International Human Resources Development McClelland B. (1956) Engineering properties of
Corporation, Boston. soils on the continental shelf of the Gulf of
Horsnell MR, Little RL and Campbell KJ. (2009) Mexico. Proc. 8th Texas Conf. on Soil Mechanics
The Geotechnical challenges of active geohazards and Foundation Engineering, Austin.
in the design of deepwater facilities. Proc., SUT McClelland B. (1972) Techniques used in soil
Annual Conference, Perth. sampling at sea. Offshore 323:51-57.
Jeanjean P, Hill A and Taylor S. (2003) The McClelland B. (1991) Frontiers in marine
challenges of siting facilities along the Sigsbee geotechnical engineering. Offshore Technology
Escarpment in the southern Green Canyon area of Research Center Honors Lecture, Houston.
the Gulf of Mexico, Framework for Integrated McConnell D and Campbell KJ. (1999)
Studies. Proc., Offshore Technology Conference, Interpretation and identification of the potential
Houston, OTC 15156. for shallow-water-flow from seismic data. Proc.,
Jeanjean P, Liedtke E, Clukey EC, Hampson K and 1999 International Forum on Shallow Water
Evans T. (2005) An operator’s perspective on Flow, League City.
offshore risk assessment and geotechnical design Moore R, Usher N and Evans T. (2007) Integrated
in geohazard-prone areas. Proc., International multidisciplinary assessment and Mitigation of
Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, West Nile Delta geohazards. Proc., 6th
Perth. International Offshore Site Investigation and
Jeanjean P, Berger WJ III, Liedtke EA and Lanier Geotechnics Conference: Confronting New
DL. (2006) Integrated Studies to Characterize the Challenges and Sharing Knowledge, London.
Mad Dog Spar Anchor Locations and Plan Their Morgenstern NR and Price VE. (1965) The analysis
Installation. Proc., Offshore Technology of the stability of general slip surfaces.
Conference, Houston, OTC 18004. Geotechnique 15(1): 79-93.
Jiang L and LeBlond PH. (1993) Numerical Mulder T. and Cochonat P. (1996) Classification of
Modeling of an underwater Bingham plastic offshore mass movements. Journal of
mudslide and the waves which it generates. Sedimentary Research 66(1):43-57.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 10313-10317. Nadim F, Krunic D, and Jeanjean P. (2003)
Ladd CC, Foott R, Ishihara K, Schlosser F and Probabilistic Slope Stability Analyses of the
Poulos HG. (1977) Stress-deformation and Sigsbee Escarpment. Proc., Offshore Technology
strength characteristics. Proc., 9th International Conference, Houston, OTC 15203.
Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Niedoroda AW, Reed CW, Parsons BS, Breza J,
Engineering Vol. 1: 421-494, Tokyo. Forristall GZ and Mullee JE. (2000) Developing
Lunne T. (2012) The 4th James K. Mitchell Lecture: engineering design criteria for mass gravity flows
The CPT in offshore soil investigations – a in deep-sea slope environments. Proc., Offshore
historic perspective. Geomechnics and Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 12069.
Geoengineering: An International Journal, 7:2, Niedoroda A, Reed CW, Hatchett L, Young A,
75-101. Lanier D, Kasch V, Jeanjean P, Orange D, and
Lunne T, Berre T, Strandvik S, Andersen KH and Bryant W. (2003) Analysis of Past and Future
Tjelta TI. (2001) Deepwater sample disturbance Debris Flows and Turbidity Currents Generated
due to stress relief. Proc., OTRC International by Slope Failure Along the Sigsbee Escarpment
Conference on Geotechnical, Geological and in the Deep Gulf of Mexico. Proc., Offshore
Geophysical Properties of Deepwater Sediments, Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 15162.
OTRC, 64-85, Austin. Nowacki F, Solheim E, Nadim F, Liedtke E, and
Lunne T, Robertson PK and Powell JJM. (1997) Andersen K, (2003) Deterministic slope stability
Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, analyses of the Sigsbee Escarpment. Proc.,
312, Blackie Academic, EF Spon/Routledge, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC
New York. 15160.
Lunne T, Tjelta TI, Walta A and Barwise A. (2008) Orange D, Angel M, Brand J, Thompson J, Buddin
Design and testing out of deepwater seabed T, Williams M, Hart B, and Berger B. (2003)
sampler. Proc., Offshore Technology Conference, Shallow geological and salt tectonic setting of the
Houston, OTC 19290. Mad Dog and Atlantis fields: relationship
McClelland B. (1952) Foundation Investigations for between salt, faults, and seafloor geomorphology.
offshore drilling structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Proc., Offshore Technology Conference,
ASCE Convention, New Orleans. Houston, OTC 15157.

68
 ISSMGE Bramlette McClelland Lecture
Parker F Jr, Kolb CR, Young AG and McClelland B. Stanley LL. (2017) Personal Communication about
(1979) Strength Characteristics of Near Seafloor thesis in preparation at Texas A&M University,
Continental Shelf Deposits of North Central Gulf Distribution of the M3 reflector in the
of Mexico, McClelland Engineers Report offered Northwestern Gulf of Mexico observed on high-
to Offshore Industry, Houston, TX. resolution sub-bottom profiles.
Peck RB. (1962) Art and science in sub-surface Sweirz AM. (1992) Seismic stratigraphy and salt
engineering. Geotechnique 12(1): 60-62. tectonics along the Sigsbee Escarpment,
Pelletier JP, Ostermeier RM, Winker CD, Nicholson southeastern Green Canyon region. CRC
JW, and Rambow FH. (1999) Shallow water flow Handbook of Geophysical Exploration at Sea,
sands in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico: Some 2nd ed., Ed. R. A. Geyer, CRC Press, Boca
recent Shell experience. Proc., 1999 International Raton, 227-294.
Forum on Shallow Water Flow, League City. TDI-Brooks International, Inc. (2010) CPT stinger--
Prior DB, Doyle EH, Kaluza MJ, Woods DD and Deepwater static cone penetrometer, Technical
Roth JW. (1988) Technical advances in high- Service Sheet, College Station.
resolution surveying, deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Title 30- Mineral Resources (2005) Chapter II-
Proc., Offshore Technology Conference, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Houston, OTC 5758. Regulation, and Enforcement, Dept. Of Interior,
Quirós, GW, Little RL and Garmon, S. (2000) A Subchapter B- Offshore: Part 250- Oil and Gas
normalized soil parameter procedure for and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental
evaluating in-situ undrained shear strength. Proc., Shelf
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC Weller JM. (1947) Relations of the invertebrate
12090. paleontologist to geology,” Journal of
Roberts HH, Doyle EH, Booth JR, Clark BJ, and Paleontology 21:570-575.
Kaluza M. (1996) 3D-seismic amplitude analysis Wong PC, Taylor BB and Audibert ME. (2008)
of the seafloor: An important interpretative Differences in shear strength between jumbo
method or improved geohazard evaluation. Proc., piston cores and conventional rotary core
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC samples. Proc., Offshore Technology Conference,
7988. Houston, OTC 19683.
Robertson P. (2009) Interpretation of cone Wroth CP. (1984) Interpretation of In Situ Soil
penetration tests--a unified approach. Canadian Tests. 24th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique 34,
Geotechnical Journal 4611:1337-1355. No. 4: 449-489.
Schnaid F. (2009) In situ testing in geomechanics. Young AG, Bernard BB, Remmes BD, Babb LV and
The main tests, Taylor Francis, London and New Brooks JM. (2011) CPT Stinger-An innovative
York. method to obtaining CPT data for integrated
Schultheiss PJ and Weaver PPE. (1992) Multi- geosciences studies. Proc., Offshore Technology
sensor core logging for science and industry. Conference, Houston, OTC 21569.
Ocean92, Mastering the Oceans through Young AG, Honganen CD, Silva AJ and Bryant
Technology 2:608-613. WR. (2000) Comparison of geotechnical
Sienko M. Kaufmann KL, Jorgensen RB, Almholt properties from large diameter long cores and
A, Dukrkop J. and Geduhn M. (2015) borings in deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Proc.,
Geotechnology – Converting site investigations Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC
into 3D geotechnical models. Frontiers in 12089.
Offshore Geotechnics III, ISFOG, Oslo. Young AG and Kasch VR. (2011) Deepwater
Slowey N, Bryant B, Bean DA, Young AG and Integrated Geoscience Studies. Chapter 2 –
Gartner S. (2003) Sedimentation in the vicinity of Deepwater Foundations and Pipeline
the Sigsbee Escarpment during the last 25,000 Geomechanics, J. Ross Publishing, W.O.
years. Proc., Offshore Technology Conference, McCarron, Editor Chief, Ft. Lauderdale.
Houston, OTC 15159. Young AG and Murff JD. (2013) A Historical
Slowey N. (2016) Personal communication about Review of the Geotechnical Offshore Site
SUT presentation. Investigation Practice. Geo-Strata. May/June, pp
Spencer A. (2008) Rovdrill and the Rovdrill “M” 18-23.
Series, pushing the limits of the offshore Young AG, Murff JD, Gilbert RB, Dutt R and
geotechnical investigation. Proc., Rio Oil & Gas Aubeny CP. (2013) An Expert Panel Review of
Expo and Conference, Rio de Janeiro. Geotechnical Site Investigations Regulations and
Current Industry State of Practice. Proc.,

69
 OSIG 2017
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC
24085
Young AG, Phu DR, Spikula DR, Rivette JA,
Lanier, DL and Murff JD. (2009) An Approach
for Using Integrated Geoscience Data to Avoid
Deepwater Anchoring Problems. Proc., Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 20073.
Young AG, Quirós GW and Ehlers CJ. (1983)
Effects of offshore sampling and testing on
undrained soil shear strength. Proc., Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 4465.
Young AG, Slowey N, Bryant B and Gardner S.
(2003) Age dating of past slope failure events
from C14 and nanno-fossil analyses. Proc.,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC
15204.
Youngs RR, Arabasz WJ, Anderson RE, Ramelli
AR, Ake JP, Slemmons DB, et al. (2003) A
methodology for probabilistic fault displacement
hazard analysis (PFDHA). Earthquake Spectra
1(1):191-219.

70