OTC 19553

Overturning Analysis of Maleo Jack-Up Mat Foundation on Soft Clay

J.D. Murff, Texas A&M University; and A.G. Young, Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc.

Copyright 2008, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
An analysis of the overturning stability of the Maleo Platform has been conducted using the results of a comprehensive, post
installation site investigation and interpretation. The jack-up is idealized as a rigid structure supported by a large "A" shape
mat foundation. The mat is considered to be an assemblage of independent strip footings. The structure and foundation are
idealized as a rigid-plastic system and the upper bound method of plasticity is used to determine the overturning capacity
under wave, current and wind loading. A series of 1-g model tests was carried out to validate the analysis method. Based on
this analysis, the Maleo Platform is shown to have a safety factor against overturning failure for the 100-year storm loading
significantly greater than the requisite value of 1.5.

Introduction
The foundation performance of mat supported jack up rigs has been very successful since the first rig was built by Bethlehem
Steel in 1964 (Hirst et al. 1976). This type of rig has traditionally been used to drill exploration wells, but in recent years the
rig has been used as a permanent production platform. The requirements of foundation performance are usually different for
these two operations in terms of the design environmental loading.
This paper describes the results of a detailed foundation analysis of the overturning stability of the Maleo platform that
was to be used as a production platform. The subject structure is a Bethlehem 250 mat supported jack-up platform which has
been placed on soft, normally consolidated clay. The base of the mat penetrated approximately 6.5 ft under a sequence of
preloads with a maximum preload of 12,950 kips resulting in an average peak bearing pressure of 599 psf. The details of the
structure's geometry, preload history, and design load conditions used herein are described in detail elsewhere (Ooley and
Stewart, 2008; Whitley, 1970) and are summarized in later sections.
The soil conditions used in our analyses reflect data collected during the initial site investigation (PT Kalindo Raya
Semesta, 2003) as well as additional data obtained from a comprehensive site investigation around the Maleo platform mat
foundation after its placement (Fugro Alluvial Offshore Ltd., 2007). The site investigation and resulting interpreted strength
profile based on this work are also detailed elsewhere (Fugro Alluvial Offshore Ltd., 2007; Audibert, et al., 2008) and
summarized in a subsequent section.
The general approach taken here is to idealize the structure and foundation as a rigid-plastic system and to apply the upper
bound method of plasticity (Murff, 2000) to determine the overturning capacity under wave, current and wind loading. We
have focused herein on assessing the factor of safety on the overturning resistance in the transverse direction, as that has been
shown to be the critical failure mode from our studies. Our definition of overturning capacity for this study is that load at
which a plastic failure mechanism is initiated. The basic methodology for carrying out this assessment is detailed in a later
section.
The data described below provide the necessary input to assess the transverse overturning stability of the structure
foundation. To achieve the design criterion for overturning stability, the foundation must have a factor of safety of 1.5 or
higher.

Foundation Geometry and Loading Conditions

The jack-up is idealized as a rigid structure supported by a large "A" shape mat foundation (Hirst et al., 1976). The
foundation mat as shown in Figure 1 has outside dimensions of 210 ft by 170 ft providing a total mat area of 21,616 sq ft.
The mat height is 10 ft, and there is a 2-ft deep perimeter skirt (Hirst et al., 1976; Whitley, 1970). The shape of the mat has
been designed to keep the centroid of the plan area of the mat as close as possible to the centroid of the columns (Whitley,
1970).
2 OTC 19553

91.00 119.00

3S

40.00
1S
COL
2

4S
2S

95.31

170.00
90.00
COL
1
154.00 150.00
4.31

2P 45.00
53.00 4P
111.50 107.50

62.50 COL
58.50 3

40.00
1P
3P
16.00 20.00

32.00 59.00 32.00 87.00

210.00

Figure 1. Mat strip definitions for transverse ultimate moment capacity calculations.

The spacing and shape of individual mat components suggest that a reasonable idealization for the purposes of this
analysis is to consider the mat to be an assemblage of independent strip footings. Figure 1 depicts the individual strip
footings making up the idealized mat used in our overturning analysis for rotation in the transverse direction (rotation about a
longitudinal axis).
In this study, we assume that the structure is pinned to the centroid of each strip footing and each footing can move
independently of the others. This in effect allows the structure to rotate and the individual footings to displace vertically
without rotation. This is a conservative idealization since removing constraints in plastic limit analysis always leads to a
lower estimated capacity. The implications of this assumption are discussed briefly in a subsequent section. The analysis
was carried out assuming both no uplift resistance and full uplift resistance on individual footings as discussed in a later
section.
The buoyant weight of the structure under operating conditions is expected to vary between 9,661 kips and 9,885 kips
which, as shown in Figure 1, acts at the geometric center of the mat at a point 85 ft from a longitudinal edge and 95.3 ft from
the bow edge (114.7 ft from the stern edge). The resultant design environmental load (wind, current and wave) in the
100-year storm in the lateral direction is 922 kips acting at 177 ft above the bottom of the mat giving an overturning moment
of 163,774 kip-ft (Ooley and Stewart, 2008).

Soil Conditions
The soil conditions around the Maleo platform site were originally investigated (PT Kalvindo Raya Semesta, 2003) by
drilling two soil borings at the site. The soils were characterized as normally consolidated clay with the undrained shear
strength at the seafloor equal to 40 psf increasing linearly with depth at a rate of 7.83 psf/ft.
The new site investigation (Fugro Alluvial Offshore Ltd., 2007; Audibert, et al., 2008) was carried out to obtain
additional soils data, with one of the main objectives being to confirm the strength parameters (Spikula and Garmon, 2008).
This objective was to verify the possible effects of installation disturbance under and around the mat in order to analyze the
platform stability against overturning during storm loading. A detailed map showing the locations of all the CPT and T-bar
tests relative to the platform's mat is provided in a companion paper (Audibert, et al., 2008). A total of 7 CPT’s and 8 T-bar
tests were conducted at distances ranging from only 2 ft to 60 ft from the edge of the mat.
Figure 2 shows results of CPT testing to indicate the spatial variability in soil strengths. Some variability is evident,
however, the individual data are very similar for the most part. The generalized interpreted strength profile using an Nk of
17.5 is indicated on the plot. The average strength profile selected for the overturning stability analyses increases linearly
with depth from 21 psf at the seafloor to 324 psf at 39.4 ft giving a linear strength gradient of 7.72 psf/ft. The rate of strength
increase is very similar to the strength profile that was previously interpreted to be 7.83 psf/ft from the earlier two borings
(PT Kalvindo Raya Semesta, 2003), although the seafloor strength is somewhat less. The overall strength characteristics
OTC 19553 3

suggest that disturbance effects were relatively small and/or any such reductions have been largely regained during the
approximately nine months since the installation. Similar results were obtained for a suite of T-bar tests as discussed in a
companion paper (Audibert, et al., 2008).

-2
Su (kPa)
0 5 10 15 20
0 BH-02 CPT with depth offset UP
BH-03 CPT with depth offset UP
BH-07 CPT with depth offset UP
BH-08 CPT with depth offset UP
2
BH-09 CPT with depth offset UP
BH-10 CPT
BH-14 CPT with depth offset UP
Selected Su Profile
4
Depth BML (m)

10

12

14

Figure 2. Plot of Su interpreted from CPT BH-02, BH-03, BH-07, BH-08, BH-09, BH-10, and BH-14 adjusted for common marker
stratum depth. NOTE: The red line represents the interpreted undrained strength profile used in the analyses of overturning
stability.

The second site investigation (Audibert, et al., 2008) confirmed that a soil mound had developed around the mat as the
soil was displaced from beneath the mat and heaved up along its side. A previous study on a mat rig (Young et al, 1982) was
carried out for two locations where soft clays exist in the Gulf of Mexico. This study also confirmed that a soil mound may
heave up to a few feet and extend as far as about 40 ft from the edge of the mat. Therefore, we corrected the seafloor datum
for the various CPT and T-bar tests performed around the platform mat as discussed in the companion paper (Audibert, et al.,
2008).
A sharp spike appeared in both the CPT and T-bar data that served as a very useful marker stratum. The marker stratum
was sufficiently deep not to be affected by the soil wedge (Prandtl zones) that formed during mat penetration into the
seafloor. By using this marker stratum as a common elevation datum, we could estimate the thickness of the soil mound by
adjusting the reference depth of each CPT and T-bar sounding to match the location of the spike on each data profile. The
results are shown in Figure 3. Assuming the volume of the displaced soil matches the volume of the mound indicates that the
mat bottom was at least 6.5 ft below the original sea bed. This profile indicates that the soil strength at the bottom of the mat
is at least 71 psf.
4 OTC 19553

Inferred Seafloor Heave

5.0

4.0

S e a flo o r R is e (ft)
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance Away From Mat Edge (ft)

Figure 3. Plot showing height of soil mound above original seafloor.

Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing Components

To assess the overturning capacity, we first determined the bearing capacity of the individual strip footings, as these are
inputs for the overturning analysis. For the purposes of this study, we estimate the bearing capacity of the component strip
footings using the interpreted soil strength profile with conventional bearing capacity solutions. As discussed above, it is
estimated that the mat penetrated at least 6.5 ft into the soil, bringing the tip of the two-foot shear skirts to a depth of 8.5 ft.
The penetration was under a known preload of 12,950 kips, which gave a direct measure of the average unit bearing capacity
of the mat components at the time of installation of 599 psf.
The interpreted soil profile shows that the undrained strength is increasing approximately linearly with depth. In this
case, we believe that it is appropriate to use the bearing capacity solution for linearly increasing strength profiles (Davis and
Booker, 1973). This solution is a rigorous plasticity solution for the bearing capacity of a strip footing on the surface of an
ideally plastic, cohesive soil where the strength increases linearly with depth. Applying this solution using the interpreted
strength profile, we find that the predicted bearing capacity for a strip footing with an average width of 36 ft at 6.5 ft
penetration is 643 psf, which is only slightly greater than that indicated by the preload. The increased resistance can be
attributed to the rocking of the mat during installation and post installation consolidation of the soil. There are several factors,
which likely affect the result and are important to consider in the interpretation.
First, it is useful to summarize the installation history (Ooley and Stewart, 2008). The foundation was subjected to
several cycles of preload, with the maximum preload exerting an average of 599 psf. During the installation, the foundation
was subjected to large (but unknown) eccentric loads, which caused the mat to rotate an estimated 2.5°. Applying eccentric
load in the opposite direction was only able to rock the structure back approximately 0.6°. It is very likely that at least parts
of the mat experienced pressures higher than the maximum average of 599 psf and that the final penetration of the mat may
be deeper than it would have been under a purely uniform preload of 599 psf. This would suggest the bearing capacity at the
present depth of penetration is somewhat greater than indicated by the preload, consistent with our calculations for a strip
footing. Second, the solution used here is for idealized conditions of a strip footing on an ideally plastic soil. Neither of
these conditions is strictly met. The beneficial effects of the overburden and finite footing length are ignored although it is
acknowledged that the soil may show some degree of strain softening under the large shear deformations accompanying the
penetration of the mat into the seabed. Based on the latest in-situ tests around the mat this latter effect does not appear to be
significant. Third, consolidation will cause the soil strength below the mat to increase over time. Finally, there is some
uncertainty in the actual final penetration. As previously mentioned, soil displaced from under the mat has mounded up
around the edges making it somewhat difficult to determine the actual penetration referenced to the original mudline.
However, we believe that the mat is at least 6.5 ft below the original mudline and the soil strength at that depth is at least
71 psf.
While there are good reasons why these various influences might occur, it is difficult to quantify them. For this reason,
we have taken the following simplified approach: (1) assume the mat is at a penetration of 6.5 ft below the original mudline
with a shear strength at the mat-soil interface determined by the selected soil profile, (2) estimate the bearing capacity under
individual strip footing components using the solution for linearly increasing strength profiles (Davis and Booker, 1973), and
(3) use this calculated bearing capacity with the method described below to estimate the overturning resistance. We believe
this is a consistent, yet conservative, approach.

Analysis Methodolgy
To estimate the overturning capacity of the mat’s complex shape, we simplify the foundation mat as a number of independent
strip footings. Mat idealizations used herein are shown in Figure 1. The general approach taken here follows a previous
study for multiple footing systems (Murff, 2000) although details such as the specific footing interaction diagrams differ.
In this model, we assume that each component strip footing is represented by a concentrated vertical resistance acting at
its centroid. For footings in compression, the resistance is set equal in magnitude to the footing’s bearing capacity. For those
in tension, the resistance is set to zero. The jack-up is therefore idealized as a rigid structure pinned to the centroid of each
strip footing so that no moment is transmitted to the footings. The overturning resistance then arises from the vertical
OTC 19553 5

resistances alone. We also investigated the potential improvements to capacity in cases where uplift resistance equal to
compression resistance could be mobilized on footings windward of the axis of rotation and for the cases where the structure-
footing connection is rigid allowing the footing moment capacity to be included. These studies were carried out to assess the
conservatism of these effects but were not included to help meet the design criteria.
Here we consider the overturning resistance about an assumed axis that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the mat. The
vertical resistances of each footing and the load representing the platform weight are projected onto a vertical plane normal to
the axis of rotation as shown schematically in Figure 4. An unknown lateral load is assumed to act at the height of the
resultant environmental load generating a moment about the assumed axis of rotation. Here we use virtual work methods to
determine the overturning resistance about a specified axis of rotation, although for this special case a direct equilibrium
approach can also be used. This solution is then an upper bound to the exact solution. We then vary the location of the axis
of rotation to determine the axis that gives the minimum overturning resistance. Although this is an upper bound
formulation, it results in an exact solution for the idealized problem, i.e., both moment and vertical equilibrium are satisfied
and failure loads on the footings are fully mobilized.

Virtual Rotation Rate

Mat Edge β and Overturning
Moment, M Structure Weight, Fw

x
1 2 i n
Qi
Xo
Xw
Footing Bearing Capacities
xi
Strip Footing Centroid
Trial Center of Rotation of Mat
Figure 4. Schematic of footing system for this analysis.

As shown in Figure 4, footing resistances on the leeward side of the assumed axis of rotation are in compression and
those on the windward side are in tension (or uplift). We assume a virtual rotation rate, β& , about the axis of rotation as
shown in Figure 4. The work rate of the external loads (weight, Fw, and unknown lateral load, Fh) is then
• • •
E = Fh ( yo + zo ) β o + Fw( xw − xo ) β o (1)

where zo is the height of the lateral load above the base, yo is the depth of the axis of rotation below the base and the other
parameters are defined in Figure 4. In this model, the critical axis of rotation will always be at the base level (yo=0). The
energy dissipation rate of the footing resistances is
• • • • •
D = Q1 ( x1 − xo ) β + Q2 ( x2 − xo ) β + Q3 ( x3 − xo ) β + ... + Qn ( xn − xo ) β (2)

where n=number of strip footings. The upper bound method is applied here by setting the external work rate equal to the
energy dissipation rate, canceling the virtual rotation rate terms, β& , and solving for the unknown lateral load to get

Fh = [Q1 ( x1 − xo ) + Q2 ( x2 − xo ) + Q3 ( x3 − xo ) + ... + Qn ( xn − xo ) − Fw ( xw − xo )] / zo (3)

M (=Fh*zo) is then minimized with respect to xo to obtain the best solution for a specified value of Fw. For the idealization
assumed here, the optimization will give the exact solution, i.e., one in which the foundation strength is fully developed and
that is also in vertical and moment equilibrium. It is interesting to note that the minimum solution will almost always give a
critical xo value exactly at one of the component strip foundation reactions (centroids). This is because the solution tries to
satisfy vertical equilibrium and to do so, one of the footing reactions will not be fully mobilized in general. That is, it would
be unusual if all footings could be exactly at failure and also in equilibrium with the exact structure weight. The reaction of
the component footing at the center of rotation will be whatever value between zero and its compression capacity that is
needed to satisfy equilibrium and failure of the remaining foundation components. The value of the unyielded reaction does
not follow directly from the virtual work equation, but since xo is known and all of the other forces are known, the value can
be determined from vertical equilibrium.
In our analysis, we have used only the case where there is no footing uplift resistance or footing moment capacity to
satisfy the design criteria. As will be discussed below, the uplift resistance can add significantly to the overturning
6 OTC 19553

resistance. Further, local moment resistances will also add to the resistance in this model. The on-bottom weight of the
structure is taken as 9,885 kips (i.e., the maximum expected weight).

Model Test Verification of the Analysis

To help validate the analysis method, a series of 1-g model tests was carried out with the following objectives:

1. To gain a qualitative understanding of the behavior of the model that will help develop insight into prototype
behavior, and
2. To provide data for calibrating the simplified analytical model.

The preferred approach to model testing is to build a model of the prototype structure and foundation that meets
similitude requirements. However, developing test procedures that would achieve similitude would require geotechnical
centrifuge testing and carrying out such testing would not meet the time constraints of this project. Space requirements do not
allow for a full discussion of the model tests but a brief summary will be provided here.
A model of the Maleo mat, at a scale of approximately 1:200, was tested under three loading regimes:

1. Bearing capacity under centric vertical loading

2. Bearing capacity under eccentric vertical loading
3. Overturning capacity under lateral loading

The tests were carried out using soft Gulf of Mexico clay in a large bin approximately 3-ft wide, 5-ft long, with a clay
sample depth of approximately 30 in. In most cases, three tests were carried out in each prepared bin. The clay had a liquid
limit of 79% and a plasticity index of 48. The soil was mixed and placed by hand into the bin resulting in a strength profile
that was approximately uniform with depth. Strength testing of the soil was carried out using a miniature vane shear device.
Strengths of the clay samples varied somewhat but were generally in the range of 20 to 40 psf. Figure 5 is a photograph of the
model mat being tested under vertical, eccentric load.

Figure 5. Photograph of modle footing under vertical, eccentric load.

The first series of test results showed that the unit bearing capacity (of the actual mat surface area) of the slotted mat is at
least as great as for solid mats, supporting the validity of the idealization of the slotted mat as an assemblage of strip footings.
The analytical model was used to simulate the behavior of the experimental model tests under loading conditions that
included vertical load and moment. For example, Figure 6 shows results of an analytical simulation of tests carried out under
eccentric vertical load compared to three model tests with varying eccentricities. It should be emphasized that considerable
judgment was involved in interpreting the model tests, in particular the appropriate shear strength measure and the failure
loads; however, the model testing confirmed that the behavior of the slotted mat is in general accord with the analytical
model.
OTC 19553 7

25

No Moment,No Tension
20 No Moment, With Tension
Eccentric Load Tests

Moment, Ft-Lbs 15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Vertical Load, Lbs

Figure 6. Analytical model interaction surfaces versus load test results, Bin 3.

It should be noted that Figure 6 shows analytical solutions (interaction diagrams) both for cases where uplift resistance on
leeward footings was included and not included. It is also apparent that the uplift resistance most affects the cases where the
vertical load is significantly smaller than the vertical bearing capacity as should be expected. For example, a foundation with
no vertical load would have no overturning capacity unless the individual footings could resist some uplift resistance. The
results shown in Figure 6 suggest that the model test foundation is probably mobilizing some uplift resistance on the leeward
footings. This is most evident at smaller vertical loads.

Results of Analysis
Using the simplified, idealized analytical model described above we calculated an ultimate resistance to overturning of
268,400 kip-ft. For the design wave load of 163,774 kip-ft, the factor of safety is 1.64. We consider that this is a minimum
assessment owing to a number of conservatisms in the analysis as follows:
1. The bearing capacity of the strip footings comprising the mat at its current penetration of 6.5 ft was estimated
using the linearly increasing strength solution (Davis and Booker, 1973) solution. No benefit was taken of the
following potential soil strength increases as follows:
• Based on the divers' observations, it is believed that, even accounting for the local rise in the seafloor
surface, the average embedment depth relative to the initial seafloor might be slightly in excess of 7 ft,
which would lead to a higher soil strength (>75 psf) and bearing capacity.
• The linearly increasing strength solution (Davis and Booker, 1973), used to estimate the bearing
capacity, shows that the footing resistance will increase approximately 7.0% to 7.5% for every foot of
penetration of a component footing. Therefore, a small rotation of the mat will result in a significant
increase in overturning resistance due to increased bearing capacity of the leeward footings.
• Both soil buoyancy and the overburden strength (depth effect) were ignored and will increase the
bearing capacity.
• Considering the likely interface strengths as discussed above, the bearing capacity may be over 700 psf.
The capacity was limited to a value corresponding to 6.5 ft of penetration.
• The initial rocking of the mat preloaded parts of the mat to pressures in excess of the average values.
• There is some beneficial effect of the skirts, which was not included in our analysis.
• Consolidation of the soil beneath the mat under the current mat pressure will increase the soil strength.
Ultimately, the soil strength at the soil-mat interface will increase from an estimated 71 psf at
installation to approximately 100 psf at the end of consolidation. The 100 psf strength is equivalent to
the current mat pressure of 457 psf times a typical Su/p value of 0.22 for soft clays.
• The loading rate under wave loading is much faster than conventional load tests on which bearing
capacity theory is calibrated and will result in an increase in soil strength of perhaps 10 to 20 percent.
2. The safety factor cited in our report is based on the assumption that the legs are pinned at the mat rather than
having a fixed connection. This is a conservative representation in that the assumption removes a constraint
from the structure-foundation system.
3. The safety factor cited herein is based on no uplift resistance of the footing components windward of the axis of
rotation. The rise time of wave loads is on the order of 3 to 4 seconds. We are confident that the uplift
8 OTC 19553

resistance (combination of suction and associated reverse end bearing) will be significant at this loading rate
resulting in an increased factor of safety.

Conclusions
An analysis of the overturning stability of the Maleo Jack-Up Platform has been carried out using a recent, comprehensive
assessment of soil conditions. The following conclusions have been reached:
1. The new soils data are reasonably consistent with the previous data and indicate that penetration of the mat into
the seafloor has not significantly weakened the soil, even in close proximity to the mat, where deformations are
expected to have been the greatest.
2. The new soils data have provided a means for estimating the soil heave around the mat and have given us a much
better assessment of the original penetration of the mat. It is estimated that the mat penetration was at least 6.5 ft
below the original mudline.
3. Calculations of bearing capacity based on these new data show that the mat penetration depth is reasonably
consistent with theoretical estimates.
4. Results of this study indicate a minimum factor of safety of 1.64, greater than the requisite value of 1.5.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of their colleagues who contributed materially to this study. Bil
Stewart provided overall guidance and review of the work. Jean Audibert, Dan Spikula, and Jack Templeton provided
valuable suggestions, review comments, and checked calculations. Steve Garmon developed the experimental apparatus and
conducted the 1-g model tests.

References
Audibert, J., Neubecker, S., and Stewart, W.P.: Detailed Geotechnical Investigation Around In-Place Mat Foundation Including T-Bar
and CPT Comparisons, Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC No. 19580, May, (2008).
Davis, E.H. and Booker, J.R: The effect of increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clay, Geotechnique, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp. 551-563., (1973).
Fugro Alluvial Offshore Limited: Geotechnical Report In-Situ Data Maleo Producer Geotechnical Site Investigation, FAOL Report
No. 0712507-1, May, (2007).
Hirst, T.J., Steele, J.E., Remy, N.D., and Scales, R.E.: Performance of Mat Supported Jack-Up Drilling Rigs, Proceedings, 8th Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, OTC No. 2503, May, (1976).
Murff, J.D.: Limit Analysis of Foundation Systems with Offshore Applications, Modeling in Geomechanics, eds. Zaman, Gioda, and
Booker, John Wiley & Sons, Chap. 15, pp. 359-388, (2000).
Ooley, M. and Stewart, W.P.: The Maleo MOPU Project: Overview and Keynote Introduction to the Session, Proceedings, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, OTC No. 19581, May, (2008).
PT Kalvindo Raya Semesta-Fugro Geotechnic: Offshore Geotechnical Survey, Maleo Development Programme, Maleo Site, Madura
Offshore Block PSC, Offshore South Madura, Indonesia, PTKRS Report No. 03008J-3, Issue 2, August, (2003).
Spikula, D.R. and Garmon, G.S.: Soft-Clay Dynamic Characteristics for Madura Straits From Advanced Geotechnical Tests, Proceedings,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC No. 19582, May, (2008).
Whitley, J.D. Jr.: Some Aspects of the Structural Design of a Three Column Mat Supported, Self-Elevating Mobile Drill Platform, Texas
Section ASCE Spring Meeting, Galveston, (1970).
Young, A.G, House, H.F.; Turner, R.; and Helfrich, S.: Foundation Performance of Mat-Supported Jack Up Rigs in Soft Clay, Society of
Petroleum Engineers”; SPE No. 11547, (1982).