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

net/publication/282375524

Findings of the ISSMGE jack-up leg penetration prediction

event

Article · May 2015

DOI: 10.1201/b18442-192

CITATIONS READS

2 66

2 authors, including:

Gülin Yetginer
Equinor
15 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

NPD Seabed Project View project

Pile Reliability JIP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gülin Yetginer on 14 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III – Meyer (Ed.)
© 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN: 978-1-138-02848-7

Findings of the ISSMGE jack-up leg penetration prediction event

B.F.J. van Dijk

Fugro Engineers B.V., Nootdorp, The Netherlands

A.G. Yetginer
Statoil ASA, Stavanger, Norway

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the findings of an international jack-up leg penetration prediction event,
organized by the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) Technical
Committee for Offshore Geotechnics (TC209). Professionals within the offshore geotechnical industry were
invited to predict leg penetration behaviour for four different soil conditions based on geotechnical information
available, spudcan/footing dimensions and preloads. Evaluation of the predictions and comparison with actual
measured leg penetrations provided insight in industry practice with regard to selection of calculation methods,
soil parameter values and the range of predictions that can be expected for various soil conditions.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 CASE 1 WEAK CLAY

The ISSMGE Technical Committee for Offshore Case 1 concerns a LeTourneau Design, Super Gorilla
Geotechnics (TC 209) organized an international XL Class jack-up rig installed in the Gulf of Mexico.
jack-up leg penetration prediction event. Predictors
were invited to present their assessment of spudcan leg
penetration behaviour for four cases. Three located in 2.1 Jack-up rig details
the Gulf of Mexico, and one located in the North Sea. The Super Gorilla jack-up rig is among the largest rigs
For each case soil data and jack-up details, includ- in the world. The preload was 155.9 MN per spudcan.
ing preload and spudcan geometry were provided. The lightship-plus-variable (LPV) load was 84.5 MN.
Predictors were asked to provide information on the The slightly irregular spudcan shape is presented in
calculation method(s), selected (soil) parameter val- Figure 1. The spudcan has an effective area of 307 m2
ues, spudcan penetration curves, expected penetration and a volume of 1,327 m3 .
depth and foundation risks.
In total there were 25 Predictors, representing 7 con-
sultants and 6 institutes, including 2 universities. 2.2 Soil conditions
Some Predictors used more than one prediction model, The soil conditions consist of normally consolidated
resulting in over 30 predictions per case. The Predic- (NC) soft clay over slightly over-consolidated clay.
tors provided best estimate (BE), lower bound (LB) From 45 m below seafloor (bsf) medium dense silt
and/or upper bound (UB) predictions. The predic- to very dense fine sand was found. Measured sub-
tions were compared with actual measured spudcan merged unit weight (γ
) and undrained shear strength
penetrations for each case.
Limit equilibrium methods, such as given in ISO
19905-1 (2012) and SNAME (2008) were mostly
used, either by utilizing proprietary and commercially
available software or Excel sheets. Three Predic-
tors used the Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian model in
Abaqus/Explicit, a Large Deformation Finite Element
(LDFE) method. One participant used an in-house
CPT based method. Since all predictions were made
after the event, they may be classified as Type C
(Lambe 1973). Figure 1. Case 1 spudcan geometry.

1267
Figure 2. Soil conditions cases 1 and 2.

(su ) are presented on Figures 2a and 2b, together with

the design lines used by Predictors.
High quality 3 inch diameter push samples were
collected in the clay. A borehole log to 60 m bsf was
provided, presenting soil stratigraphy, soil descrip-
tions, submerged unit weight and undrained shear
strength. The borehole log indicated gas blisters
between 19.2 m and 30.5 m bsf. Additionally, lab-
oratory results included Atterberg Limits (AL) and
(remoulded) Unconfined Undrained triaxial (UU)
tests and Miniature Vane (MV) tests.

2.3 Predicted and measured penetrations

Best estimate predictions and measured spudcan pen-
etrations are presented in Figure 3. Most predictions
are within a few metres of measured penetrations at
LPV load. However at preload, there is a large spread
in predicted penetration results, which are all consis-
tently shallower than observed. The LDFE predictions
lie within the same range as the predictions based on Figure 3. Case 1 BE predictions and measured penetration.
limit equilibrium models.
Figure 4 presents predicted LB, BE and UB, as
provided by the Predictors, measured spudcan leg
penetrations at preload and corresponding probability
density graphs, assuming normal distributions. Most
predictions, including the LB predictions are shallower
than the final measured penetrations. There is little
overlap between the predicted and measured proba-
bility density graphs (Fig. 4.). The mean measured
penetration (35 m bsf) is approximately 8 m deeper
than the mean of the BE predictions (27 m bsf). For the
bow leg (spudcan), which penetrated deepest (37 m),
this difference increases to 10 m. At deep water sites
this difference between predicted and actual penetra- Figure 4. Case 1 predicted and measured spudcan
tions could lead to insufficient leg length, once the penetration.
jack-up rig has been mobilized to location.

methods of Skempton (1951), Brinch Hansen (1970),

2.4 Back analysis by Menzies & Roper (2008)
Houlsby & Martin (2003) and Hossain et al. (2006)
This case has already been analysed by Menzies & with measured spudcan penetrations. Hence some
Roper (2008). They compared predictions using predictions may have been of type C1 (Lambe

1268

Figure 5. Case 1 BE predictions and measured penetration.
1973); i.e. measured results were known to Predictors,
although Figure 3 does not suggest this.
Menzies & Roper (2008) adjusted the vertical bear-
ing capacity of all four prediction methods with an
empirical factor of 0.85 to better match measured
spudcan penetrations. Figure 5 shows their adjusted
vertical bearing capacity for Houlsby & Martin (2003)
method only. Menzies & Roper (2008) indicated that
the adjustment factor is probably related to the spud-
can geometry, which is not circular, but features short
(9 m) and long (10.1 m) radii and has a relatively flat
bottom. They mentioned that this empirical factor has
been used in practice at other sites where this type of
jack-up was employed.
The Houlsby & Martin (2003) method provided the
best match with measured penetrations. The method
gives a theoretical lower bound to soil resistance and
should therefore predict the deepest expected spudcan
penetration (ISO 19905-1 2012). Houlsby & Martin
(2003) consider spudcan tip cone angle (β) and rough-
ness factor (α). In their assessment Menzies & Roper
(2008) used α = 1.0. ISO 19905-1 (2011) recommends
α = 0.5 for stiff clay found at final penetration depth.
For α = 0.5 instead of α = 1.0, the ratio between mea-
sured and calculated spudcan capacity increases from
0.86 to 0.90.
Menzies & Roper (2008) did not consider a stable
cavity depth for this case, but considered full back-
flow. Using Houlsby & Martin (2003) with Hossain
et al. (2006) partial backflow recommendations, the
vertical bearing capacity increases by approximately
9% (Fig. 5), leading to a shallower penetration.
According to Menzies & Roper (2008), the Hossain
(2006) method over-predicted soil resistance by 20%,
in addition to the above mentioned empirical reduc-
tion factor. Hossain et al. (2014) is a modification of
Hossain (2006) which includes an adjustment factor
of 20% on the deep bearing capacity factor.
1269
2.5 Comparison of methods used by
predictors
The failure mechanism for this case is general shear in
clay. SNAME (2008), ISO 19905-1 (2012), Skempton
(1951), Houlsby & Martin (2003) and Hossain et al.
(2014) methods were mostly used by Predictors.
BE penetration predictions are shown (as sym-
bols) in Figure 6 against the average undrained shear
strength below the spudcan base (su,avg ) as used by the
Predictors. su was averaged to a depth (davg ) of B/2 for
most methods, with the exception of Skempton (1951)
(davg = B) and Brinch Hansen (1970) (davg = B/4).
For Hossain et al. (2014) and Houlsby & Martin
(2003) BE predictions are shown against su at spud-
can base (su0 ). Figure 6 also includes theoretical lines
for Vesic (1973), Skempton (1951), Hossain et al.
(2014), Houlsby & Martin (2003), Young et al. (1984)
and Brinch Hansen (1970) methods, assuming 155.9
MN preload, full backflow and parameters used by
Menzies & Roper (2008). It is noted that lines are not
related to a su profile, except for Hossain et al. (2014)
and Houlsby & Martin (2003) methods. In case of par-
tial backflow, the theoretical lines would shift down by
approximately 6 to 7 kPa (i.e. an decrease of su,avg ).
Some predictions are above the theoretical lines for
full backflow. This could have been caused by neglect-
ing the spudcan volume, differences in averaging su
and/or modification of methods used.
Both Young et al. (1984) and Houlsby & Martin
(2003) methods are included in ISO 19905-1 (2012).
Young et al. (1984) is actually Skempton (1951)
method where su is averaged over a depth of 0.5 ∗ B
below spudcan base level instead of B. SNAME (2008)
includes a Main Text method (Vesic 1973) and men-
tions other methods such as Houlsby & Martin (2003)
in the Commentary section. Hence for Predictors who
used ISO 19905-1 (2012) and SNAME (2008), it
is unclear which methods were actually used. One
SNAME (2008) prediction is close to the theoretical
Vesic (1973) line, while the others are closer to the
theoretical Young et al. (1984) and Houlsby & Martin
(2003) lines. ISO 199051 (2012) predictions are close
to the Houlsby & Martin (2003) theoretical line, prob-
ably used by Predictors. Differences found for these
predictions are probably caused by differences in soil
parameter value selection.
One Predictor obtained a spudcan penetration of
33.6 m bsf, close to the measured penetration. Predic-
tor reported using Brinch Hansen (1970), combined
with a modified version of Hossain et al. (2006)
for partial backflow and in-house experience. Using
the Predictors soil parameters with Brinch Hansen
(1970) and Hossain et al. (2006) recommendations, the
Authors found a soil resistance of 211 MN at 33.6 m
bsf. The difference of 35% is believed to be a result
of modifications made to the approach, based on the
Predictor’s in-house experience.
One LDFE Predictor calculated a penetration of
33.1 m bsf. Using approximately the same soil parame-
ters, another LDFE prediction resulted in a penetration
of 24.3 m bsf. Not enough detail was provided by the

Figure 6. Case 1 su,avg for BE penetration predictions
(symbols) and theoretical lines, for 155.9 MN preloading
condition.
predictors to explain the difference. The third LDFE
Predictor used a probabilistic approach. The prediction
showed a 5% probability that the spudcan penetrates
more than 31.2 m, which was selected as final pene-
tration depth, and a 50% probability that the spudcan
penetrates more than 26.7 m.
Using a simple hand calculation of 9 ∗ su to 10 ∗ su ,
one Predictor assessed a penetration depth of 32 m bsf.
Interestingly, the bearing capacity factor Nc for the
methods used by other Predictors are lower than 9.
The relatively large predicted penetration depth is due
a low estimate of the su value (Fig. 6).
CPT-based prediction resulted in a penetration
depth of 31.5 m bsf. Predictors used a cone fac-
tor Nk = 15 to derive cone resistance from selected
undrained shear strength design line.
Penetration predictions using the Skempton (1951)
method vary between 20.0 m and 30.6 m bsf. It can
be seen from Figure 6 that the selection of soil con-
ditions is not the only factor for the wide spread in
the predictions. If selection of soil conditions were the
main factor for the differences, the trend in predictions
would have been expected to be parallel to the the-
oretical lines. Backflow conditions or modifications
of the method may attribute to the main cause of the
difference. Most Skempton (1951) predictions have a
higher su,avg than the theoretical line. Possibly these
Predictors used a lower value for davg , e.g. davg = B/2,
as recommended by Young et al. (1984). This would
reduce su,avg by 7 to 14 kPa.
1270
Figure 7. Case 2 spudcan geometry.
For the Houlsby & Martin (2003) method, the pre-
dicted penetrations are between 26.2 and 30.2 m bsf.
Predictions are close to the theoretical line. Differ-
ences may have been caused by assumptions made
(e.g. spudcan roughness). su0 varied between 56.5 and
63.9 kPa, whereas the increase of su with depth (ρ)
varied between 1.2 and 2.0 kPa/m. It is noted that
for these penetration depths, higher ρ value decreases
resistance. Two predictions with higher su0 values are
related to partial backflow, which is not as expected.
Predictors using Hossain et al. (2014) method pre-
dicted penetrations of 25.9 and 31.4 m bsf. Latter
Predictor used Menzies & Roper (2008) reduction fac-
tor of 0.85 on the bearing capacity, which resulted in
a relatively high su0 .
One Predictor used the Young et al. (1984) method.
The prediction is well below the theoretical line,
caused by a partial backflow assumption.
The discrepancy between predictions and observa-
tions indicates that the models and the parameter selec-
tion may not always represent the actual behaviour of
deep penetrating spudcans correctly. Possible causes
are spudcan size, spudcan shape and/or a large dis-
turbed zone around the spudcan, degrading the su along
an important part of the failure zones.
3 CASE 2 WEAK CLAY OVER SAND
Case 2 concerns a Marathon LeTourneau Design,
Class 82-SD-C jack-up rig, installed in the Gulf of
Mexico.
3.1 Jack-up rig details
The spudcans were preloaded to approximately
32 MN. The spudcan shape is presented in Figure 7.
The spudcan has an effective area of 115 m2 and a
volume of 288 m3 .
3.2 Soil conditions
The soil conditions consist of alternating clay and sand
layers. The stratigraphy consists of normally consoli-
dated soft clay at seafloor over medium dense silty fine
sand. Measured γ
, su , internal friction angle (φ
), and
CPT data are presented on Figures 2c and 8, together
with the design lines used by Predictors. High qual-
ity 3 inch diameter push samples were collected in
the clay. Borehole logs to 30 and 60 m bsf were pro-
vided, presenting soil stratigraphy, soil descriptions,
Figure 8. Soil conditions case 2.
Figure 9. Case 2 BE predictions and measured penetration.
γ
and su . Additionally, laboratory results included AL
and (remoulded) UU and MV tests.
3.3 Predicted and measured penetrations
Predictions and measured spudcan penetrations are
presented in Figures 9 and 10. The predicted penetra-
tion is in most cases very close to the actual measured
penetration. All BE predictions lie within 2.4 m from
the measured depths at final preload.
The predictions for the vertical bearing capacity just
above and into the first sand layer show a large scatter,
ranging between about 60 MN and 600 MN, and one
extreme of around 1400 MN. This scatter may have
been caused by differences assessing the su profile for
the second clay layer and/or the failure model for sand
over clay.
In case the preload would have been higher than
32 MN this might have led to significant differences
in predicted probability of punch-through.
1271
Figure 10. Case 2 predicted and measured spudcan
penetration.
4 CASE 3 FISSURED CLAY
Case 3 concerns a jack-up rig installed in the North
Sea.
4.1 Jack-up rig details
The spudcans were preloaded to approximately
32 MN, which was less than the design preload
of 3,800 tonnes originally submitted to Predictors
(Fig. 12). The spudcan was rectangular (7.7 m by
8.3 m). No details were provided regarding the volume
of the spudcan.
4.2 Soil conditions
The soil conditions consist of over-consolidated heav-
ily fissured clay. Only CPT data was available at this
location. No laboratory data, such as γ
and su were
available. The predictors were informed that samples
in a nearby borehole indicated heavily fissured clay.
Cone resistance, and undrained shear strength derived
from CPT data using cone factors Nk = 20 and Nk = 30
are presented on Figures 11b and 11c. Figure 11
also includes design lines for γ
and su used by the
Predictors.
Figure 11. Soil conditions case 3.
Figure 12. Case 3 BE predictions and measured penetration.
Figure 13. Case 3 predicted and measured spudcan
penetration.
4.3 Predicted and measured penetrations
Figures 12 and 13 present predicted and measured
jack-up leg penetrations. All Predictors but two under
predicted the measured penetration.
1272
Figure 14. Case 4 spudcan geometry.
The deep measured penetration at this site is caused
by the heavily fissured clay. Depending on the spac-
ing size, fissures can significantly reduce the su for
large foundations when compared to the measured su in
undrained triaxial tests and CPT derived values using
an Nk = 20 (Terzaghi et al. 1996). For this case, selec-
tion of su values for the assessments using Nk = 30 to
35 may have been more appropriate. The above men-
tioned two Predictors used Nk factors between 30 and
40 to account for fissured clay. One other Predictor
mentioned possibility of reduced su due to fissures,
and used an Nk = 30 for the LB prediction.
5 CASE 4 SAND OVER WEAK CLAY
Case 4 concerns a Marathon LeTourneau Design,
Class 116-C jack-up rig, installed in the Gulf of
Mexico.
5.1 Jack-up rig details
The spudcans were preloaded to approximately
53.4 MN. The spudcan shape is presented in Figure 14.
The spudcan has an effective area of 144 m2 and a
volume of 383 m3 .
5.2 Soil conditions
The soil conditions consists of a 7 m thick medium
dense to dense fine sand layer overlaying soft to stiff
Figure 15. Soil conditions case 4.
Figure 16. Case 4 BE predictions and measured penetration.
Figure 17. Case 4 predicted and measured spudcan
penetration.
clay to 56.1 m bsf. Figure 15 presents measured γ
and
su , as well as the design lines for γ
, su and φ
used by
the Predictors. The clay samples were obtained with a
2.25 inch diameter (small) sampler.
1273
Figure 18. Case 4 predicted and measured punch-through
load.
The soil was expansive due to the presence of bio-
genic gas. To account for the small diameter sample
size and sample expansion, the measured low su val-
ues were adjusted by applying several correlations
commonly used in the Gulf of Mexico (Quiros et al.
2000). Both measured and adjusted data was provided
to Predictors.
5.3 Predicted and measured penetrations
Predictions and measured spudcan penetrations are
presented in Figures 16 and 17. Measured spudcan
penetrations show punch-through at approximately
4 m bsf near the preload. It is noted that, between 4 m
bsf and final penetration depth, the measured verti-
cal bearing capacity has been estimated, considering
percentages of applied load and hull buoyancy.
One Predictor indicated low punch-through risk.
The LDFE prediction resulted in a shallow penetration
to 3.5 m bsf and no clear risk of punch though.All other
Predictors indicated a (high) risk of punch-through
and/or rapid leg penetration. Shallow penetration (less
than 4 m bsf) was predicted 3 times for the BE.
Most Predictors anticipated punch-through for a
spudcan load between 25 MN and 50 MN (Fig. 18), i.e.
much less than the measured leg load between 53 MN
and 56 MN at which punch-through occurred. Predic-
tors used either the load spread model (ISO 19905-1
2012) or the Hanna & Meyerhof (1980) model to assess
the punch-through load.
Three Predictors assessed a punch through load
close to the measured one (less than 10% difference).
The first Predictor performed a parametric study,
using ISO 19905-1 (2012) and SNAME (2008) recom-
mendations with load spread model with factors (ns )
varying between 1 and 5. ISO 19905-1 (2012) with an
ns of 2 and SNAME (2008) with an ns of 3 resulted in
punch through loads close to the measured one. Vari-
ation of ϕ
between 25 and 35 degrees for the ISO
199051 (2012) recommendations did not influence the
penetration curves, as expected. The second Predictor
combined SNAME (2008) and Osborne et al. (2011)
recommendations with the punching shear method by
Hanna & Meyerhof (1980). The last Predictor used a
newly developed discrete analysis approach, where the
soil is discretised into thin layers. The punch through
load was assessed by peripheral shear strength along
the sand plug, bearing resistance at the plug base, plug
weight, spudcan buoyancy and soil backfill.
As can be seen in Figure 16, there is a large spread
in predicted vertical bearing capacity, both in the top
sand layer and the underlying clay. This is caused by
the spread in soil parameter values, load spread factors
and calculation models used.
6 CONCLUSIONS
For all cases, there is high scatter in predicted verti-
cal bearing capacity to spudcan penetration. It can be
concluded that accurate prediction of the penetration
depth for cases 1, 3 and 4 is difficult and for most pre-
dictions was inaccurate. Case 1 indicated that current
practice for selection of parameter values and calcu-
lation models for general shear in clay may lead to
overestimation of soil resistance. The predictions for
case 2 compared well to the measured penetration.
However, as for case 4, there was a large scatter in
prediction of the punch-through load for the first sand
layer.
For case 1 the rig might have been installed but
would not have had sufficient leg length to work the
location. The predictions for case 3 show that the large
scale strength of the fissured clay is much lower than
generally expected. Some predictions for case 4 might
have led to an unforeseen punch-through.
The more advanced LDFE assessments did not
provide better predictions than those using limit equi-
librium methods showing that use of more advanced
models does not necessarily increase prediction accu-
racy. Comprehensive soil data was not available for
all of the cases, possibly causing some of the differ-
ences between predictions and measurements. How-
ever, since all Predictors were provided with the same
information, the observed wide range in the predic-
tions is mostly due to variances in data interpretation,
selection of parameters and calculation models used.
This paper illustrates that the accuracy of any pre-
diction depends on the quality of the data, parameter
1274
View publication stats
selection, the sophistication of the prediction method
and engineering judgement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Fugro, Statoil,
David Menzies and ISSMGE’s commitment and
support to improving geotechnical practice.
REFERENCES
Brinch Hansen, J. 1970. A Revised and Extended Formula
for Bearing Capacity, The Danish Geotechnical Institute
Bulletin, No. 28, pp. 5–11.
Hanna A.M. & Meyerhof G.G. 1980. Design Charts for Ulti-
mate Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sand Overlying
Soft Clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal Vol. 17, 1980
Houlsby, G.T. & Martin, C.M. 2003. Undrained Bearing
Capacity Factors for Conical Footings on Clay, Géotech-
nique, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 513–520.
Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F., Hu, Y. & White, D.J.
2006. Cavity Stability and Bearing Capacity of Spudcan
Foundations on Clay, Proceedings Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 1–4 May 2006. OTC paper 17770.
Hossain, M.S., Zheng, J., Menzies, D., Meyer, L. & Randolph,
M.F. 2014. Spudcan Penetration Analysis for Case Histo-
ries in Clay, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-
tal Engineering, Vol. 140, No. 7, 13 p.
ISO International Organization for Standardization 2012.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Site Specific
Assessment of Mobile Offshore Units – Part 1: Jack-ups,
International Standard ISO 19905-1:2012.
Lambe, T.W. 1973, Predictions in Soil Engineering, Géotech-
nique, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 151–201.
Menzies, D. & Roper, R. 2008. Comparison of Jack-up
Rig Spudcan Penetration Methods, Proceedings Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 5–8 May 2008. OTC
paper 19545.
Osborne, J.J., Teh, K.L., Houlsby, G.T., Cassidy, M.J., Bienen,
B. & Leung, C.F. 2011. InSafeJIP: Improved Guide-
lines for the Prediction of Geotechnical Performance of
Spudcan Foundations during Installation and Removal
of Jack-up Units: Joint Industry-funded Project, Woking,
Report No. EOG0574-Rev1c.
Quiros, G.W., Little, R.L. & Garmon, S. 2000. A Normalized
Soil Parameter Procedure of Evaluating In-Situ Undrained
Shear Strength, Offshore Technology Conference, 1–4
May 2000, Houston. OTC paper 12090.
Skempton, A.W. 1951. The Bearing Capacity of Clays,
Building Research: 1st International Congress, London,
Sept. 1951 Papers Division 1 and 2, pp. 180–189.
SNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
2008. Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assess-
ment of Mobile Jack-up Units, First Edition, May 1994
(Revision 3,August 2008),Technical & Research Bulletin,
5-5A.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. & Mesri, G. 1996. Soil Mechanics
in Engineering Practice, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York.
Vesic,A.S. 1973Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foun-
dations, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, Vol. 99, No. SM1, pp. 45–73
Young, A.G., Remmes, B.D. & Meyer, B.J. 1984. Foundation
Performance of Offshore Jack-up Drilling Rigs, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 7, pp. 841–859.