Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore & Arctic Engineering

OMAE36
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway

OMAE2017-61503

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN OF VERTICALLY LOADED HYBRID SUCTION-GRAVITY

ANCHORS

Majid Hesar Raquel Maciel

Subsea 7 Subsea 7
Sutton, Surrey, UK Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

ABSTRACT hybrid anchor. The governing condition was found to be the

The Sapinhoá and Lula North-East fields, 300km offshore long term drained pull-out capacity under sustained loading
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil are the two pilot fields of the Pre-salt with the assumption of slowly leaking suction port and air
development strategy. Field architecture consists of satellite evacuation port at the top.
wells connected to a spread moored FPSO in each of the fields.
Through a design competition Petrobras and Partners selected INTRODUCTION
the de-coupled riser system developed by Subsea 7. In each The Sapinhoá and Lula North-East fields are located in the
field two BSRs (Buoy Supporting Risers) anchored at 250m Santos Basin, about 300km offshore Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
below waterline support the rigid risers on one side and flexible The fields are being developed through pilot systems composed
flowlines running to the FPSO on the other. Each BSR of satellite wells connected to spread moored FPSOs. Each of
displaces close to 10,000t of water and provides a nominal net these developments needed to connect up to 45 flowlines
up thrust of 3,250t. This Paper highlights the engineering coming from the wells to a single balcony at FPSO portside,
challenges and the solution developed for the large-scale not including gas export riser and its umbilical. Evaluation of
foundation anchors that support these massive BSRs in the the produced fluids from the fields indicated that levels of CO2
harsh environment of the Santos Basin in 2140m water depth. and H2S were significantly high and would pose serious
Vertically below each corner of the BSR tank an 8m challenges for flexible lines to withstand the endurance life of
diameter by 18m penetration suction anchor houses the the fields, predicted to be 27 years, especially under the severe
receptacles for the pair of tethers. Tension in the tethers was dynamic conditions caused by the harsh environment and
tuned to optimise the system stiffness (to minimise lateral BSR 2140m water depth. These combined factors led the operator
excursion orbits and avoid clash of risers and FPSO mooring and partners to select a decoupled riser system solution
lines) while requiring minimum anchor capacity. Four ballast developed by Subsea 7 through a “design competition process”.
modules of 150t each sit on top of each suction anchor to The system uses rigid pipes lined with CRA.
provide the remainder of the required uplift resistance. Soil Decoupling the rigid risers from the FPSO isolates them
conditions across both fields consist of soft silty clay. A from the FPSO motions and ensures enhanced fatigue life, Ref.
geotechnical FE model of the suction anchor in Abaqus was [1]. It also has the added benefit of reducing the payload on the
used to evaluate the interaction of the structure, surrounding FPSO, where a one-sided balcony supports the 45 lines
soil and trapped water beneath the top cap. The model was used hanging in 2140m water depth. Specifically, a saving of some
to develop the complete load-displacement curves of the system 5000 metric tons on payload was achieved. Another benefit of
during the undrained design current events. this system is the potential pre-installation of the riser system,
A consolidation FE model using the Soft Soil model in allowing for a quick production ramp up. The concept is to
PLAXIS showed that the hybrid anchor/ballast system under have the risers coming from the wells end in an intermediate
sustained uplift loading is stable throughout the design life for structure, protected from the surface environmental loading,
the level of sustained design load. and then continue to the FPSO through low-tension and
Although the LRFD verification format of suction anchors “damped” double catenary flexible jumpers.
and gravity anchors are well covered in the design codes, there
seems to be a gap in the coverage of this particular type of

1 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND FIELD LAYOUT It is clear from the above that the choice of net up thrust
The architecture of each field is illustrated in Figure 1. The provided by the buoy for any possible payload is the key
system has been fully described in Ref. [1], while the design of parameter for ensuring the system’s overall functionality. If too
SCRs has been presented in Ref [3]. It comprises of two tether small, the buoy would loosely move around with potential
moored buoys (also referred to as the BSR) submerged at 250m issues of clashing with platform mooring lines, excessive
below surface, capable of accommodating 22 or 23 flowlines sagging movements on jumpers, and build up excessive angles
each. A single buoy displaces close to 10,000m3 of water, at the top end of risers and top and bottom ends of tethers. If
providing a nominal net up thrust of 32,500kN once all the too high, the size and strength of all structural components,
lines have been connected. The system net tension is set to including moorings, foundations and buoy hull, would impact
cope with both FPSO and buoy offsets responding to the the system cost. A parametric costing constrained-optimization
environmental loads as well as variations in the density of study was performed during the FEED phase which
conveyed fluids. The buoy is shaped as a closed pontoon with demonstrated that the deeper the buoy and the closer to the
uneven volumes to balance the asymmetric payloads from the FPSO, the more cost effective the system would be, allowing
risers on one side and the flexible jumpers on the FPSO side, for setting the minimum net up thrust that still provided a sound
see Figure 2. The BSR Buoy dimensions are 52m long by 40m design to fulfill all system functionality requirements. Client
wide by 10m height. requirement for keeping the buoy at diving access depth,
limited it to be around 250m. With this input and with a
nominal offset of 400m from the FPSO, the net up thrust of
32,500kN proved to be the cost effective solution.

BSR MOORING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

On each corner of the BSR two tether lines spaced 5m
apart secure the buoy to the top of a single suction anchor on
ocean floor, Figure 4.

BSR ANCHOR FOUNDATION STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Each bottom connector is locked into one of the pile’s twin
top receptacles mounted on the two diametrically opposite
sides of a core pipe, which is itself welded to the top of the
suction pile as shown in Figure 4. The anchor piles have a
diameter of 8m and skirt penetration of 18m. The pile overall
height reaches 23m, accounting for the top anchoring structure
made of reinforced plates, counter weight supports and a
central core pipe housing the connector receptacles, see Figures
FIGURE 1 – SYSTEM OVERALL CONFIGURATION. 4 and 5.

BSR SYSTEM CONCEPT COUNTERWEIGHTS

The tether mooring lines are connected on both the buoy The top of pile is reinforced by inner structural girders
and the foundation ends through gimbaling devices that allow below the top plate. Four peripheral receptacles support the
the build up of conical angles. The system resembles a tension- counterweights. The latter are steel canisters with a capacity of
leg platform (TLP) where the inverted pendulum-like 25m3 each. Their inner void is filled with steel shot and grit
movements don’t affect the buoy even-keel condition, Figure 3. solidified with a special mix of cement, stones and additives.
The lateral offset envelope mostly results from the balance This provides a fit for purpose high density dead weight that is
between the restoring horizontal forces projected from the lowered to the seabed by the installation vessel. Each
inclined tether tension, which is a direct function of the counterweight then rests permanently on its pile top peripheral
available net up thrust, the horizontal pull of catenaries and the support. The counterweight dead load is transferred to the pile
external action of currents and FPSO pull-push forces coming top reinforced structure by means of cantilever girder plates.
from its own excursions, transmitted to the buoy through the Full details can be found in Ref. [1].
jumpers. It is worth noting that a single rigid riser has a drag A total of 16 suction piles and 64 counter weights were
area of some 500m2 which is comparable to the buoy’s biggest deployed in the Sapinhoá Lula NE project. The piles and
vertical panel area at the riser pontoon face. Therefore, the drag counterweights were fabricated in China. Figure 6 shows the
area of risers by far dominates the system response to current first batch of suction piles at the port of Rio de Janeiro, being
loading. transferred onto the installation barge.

2 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 Top connector
Receptacle
Core pipe
Counter weight

Connector Guide

Top of pile

FIGURE 2 – BSR ARTIST’S IMPRESSION. FIGURE 5 - SUCTION PILE TOP ARRANGEMENT.

FIGURE 6 - FIRST BATCH OF SUCTION PILES ARRIVING AT

THE PORT OF RIO.

FIGURE 3 – BSR SYSTEM AND CONFIGURATION. BSR ANCHOR FOUNDATIONS - GEOTECHNICAL

DESIGN
From an anchoring point of view there are certain
similarities between the BSR and TLPs. TLPs being floaters
experience a large variable component of tension in their
tethers superimposed onto a steady state tension. This is due to
the large variations in the draft of the hull in waves and swells.
On the other hand, BSR is a submerged element, free from
buoyancy variations and hence experiences significantly milder
dynamic loading than a surface moored floating unit. The
foundation concept selected for the BSRs is similar to that of
the Norwegian TLPs in the North Sea e.g. Snorre and Heidrun,
Refs [4 and 5]. These use massive multi-cell concrete
foundation units that are installed by suction and incorporate
provision for placement of a large quantity of iron ore on top as
ballast. These foundation anchors are sized such that during
calm weather the steady state tension in the tethers is balanced
by the dead weight of foundation unit itself plus ballast. During
FIGURE 4- BUOY MOORING ARRANGEMENT. the storms however, the additional variable load component
mobilises the geotechnical resistance of the foundation anchor.
In this way, the net loading on soil over long periods of

3 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

calm weather is eliminated and hence neither consolidation due In this Paper the geotechnical capacity of the suction
to dead weight, nor gradual pulling out from the soil occurs. anchor under scenario (a) is referred to as “static” capacity and
This concept of minimizing the variable load component is governed by the drained soil properties. In this mode of
has several major advantages for the BSR concept. For the failure the suction anchor skirt simply slides out of the soil
risers it reduces the fatigue damage, and from a geotechnical leaving the soil plug behind, as it cannot be guaranteed that the
point of view effectively eliminates the large fluctuations of seals at the suction port and air evacuation port will hold
loads on foundation anchors, and hence the large cyclic stresses throughout the design life of the project. The total uplift
on foundation soils which is well known to degrade their shear resistance is hence the sum of operating effective friction
strength. The foundation anchors of the BSR were designed in between soil and skirt faces. Therefore, this scenario is
a similar way to the TLPs mentioned, except that advantage governed by the drained friction angle of soil/steel interface on
was taken of the long-term drained capacity of soil to avoid a skirts.
large quantity of dead weight to have to be transported, In scenario (b), referred to as “dynamic” (as opposed to
lowered and placed at such great depths. static, since the loading is short-term) the clay soil behaviour is
Various options, including ballast filled concrete monolith undrained and geotechnical capacity is governed by undrained
multi-cell suction anchors were studied, but the sheer weight of soil strength parameters. In this case a large component from
such concrete monoliths precludes the possibility of safe Reverse End Bearing plus soil plug weight contribute to the
installation at such great depths. The final solution selected was total geotechnical uplift resistance. In the intermediate cases
the steel suction anchor described above with optimum where an increased magnitude of load acts over a time period
dimensions of 8m diameter and 18m skirt penetration. This long enough for partially drained conditions in the soil to
size, including other structural components necessary to prevail the uplift resistance may have a value between the fully
transfer the double tether loads at the top, weighs about 180t in drained and fully undrained capacities. Such scenarios may
air, which was within the limit of 200t stipulated for the arise from full shut down conditions where the risers are empty
designated installation vessel, Subsea7’s Seven Polaris. for a relatively long period of time (e.g. of the order several
Additional ballast was provided in the form of four weeks).
counterweight modules mounted on housings on top of the
anchor, as described in the previous section. RELEVANT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CODES AND
SAFETY FORMAT
LOADING SCENARIOS TO BE CONSIDERED The relevant API Codes, Refs. [6] and [7] are both
With reference to Figure 7, the pull-out capacity of the Working Stress Design (WSD) format. Ref. [6] uses the same
suction anchor/counterweight system has to satisfy two distinct safety factors for driven piles and suction anchors. Ref. [6]
scenarios: does not deal with suction anchors, but has a section for
(a) Normal operating calm weather conditions where the Gravity Anchors. In this section Ref. [6] uses a load factor of
BSR is in its nominal equilibrium position 1.25 on the maximum dynamic load as the only safety factor.
(b) Maximum design event i.e. the 100-year return current However, if the Gravity Anchor incorporates any skirts
combined with 10-year return wave. deriving some uplift resistance from them, then it applies an
overall factor of safety of 2.00 on the ultimate uplift resistance
(skin friction + submerged weight). Neither of these codes
addresses the hybrid case of a vertically loaded suction anchor
with ballast. There seems to be a gap in the coverage of this
particular type of hybrid anchor.
The main code of practice selected for design of the
present combined suction anchor/counterweight system was
ref. [8], which is an LRFD format. In the scheme of
categorization of anchors addressed in this code the present
design can be treated as a Gravity Anchor. The verification
principle considers characteristic loads with partial load factors
and characteristic resistance of the anchor system with a soil
material factor. The level of safety can therefore be considered
satisfactory if the design load effect does not exceed the design
resistance (Equation 1).
FIGURE 7 - MECHANISMS OF FOUNDATION RESISTANCE
TO LONG-TERM SUSTAINED LOADS (A) AND SHORT-TERM
DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTAL PULL-OUT LOADS (B).

4 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 Qult (W ' SA W 'CW ) DESIGN LOADS
( fg G   fq Q   fe E )   (1) The loads according to the categorization in Ref. [8] and as
m 1.0 used in Equation 1 are presented in Table 2:
where:
G = Permanent Load Table 2 - Load categories and descriptions.
Q = Variable Load Load
E = Environmental Load Category Description BSR Position
γf = Partial Load Factors for different load categories Permanent Loads
γm = Material factor for soil G (Buoyancy minus empty weight Static
Qult = Ultimate resistance of Suction Anchor of Risers hanging)
W’SA = Submerged Weight of Suction Anchor Variable Functional Loads
Q (Caused by weight of fluid in the Static
W’CW = Submerged Weight of Counter Weight flowlines)
Environmental Loads
100-year Current +
The characteristic “geotechnical” resistance calculations of E (Contribution from current,
10-year wave
the suction anchor follow the recommendations in Section 11, whenever it applies)
Accidental Loads
E501 to E505 (Anchor Foundations) of Ref [8] which A (when one tendon breaks, or is
100-year Current +
recommends the use of Ref. [9] and a material factor γm=1.2 for 10-year wave
removed for repair)
both ULS Consequence Classes CC1 and CC2. However, for
additional safety in the absence of redundancy in the anchor With the load cases presented above and the appropriate
system per corner of BSR an enhanced material factor (γm=1.7) partial load factors in Ref. [8], the tension load effects were
discussed in Section 11.C of Ref. [9] was used following evaluated. An installation verticality tolerance of 5° was
discussions with the verification authority, DNV. The material allowed. Conservatively, in calculating the dynamic loads the
factors used on the geotechnical soil resistance component are risers were assumed empty.
as presented in Table 1.
PULL-OUT CAPACITY FOR LONG-TERM SUSTAINED
Table 1 - Material Factors used for different limit states and LOADS
under different loading conditions. Since it is assumed that the seals of suction port and water
Limit Load Analysis Material Applied evacuation port may be leaking slowly after some years in the
State Type Type Factor, γm to
long-term, in this failure mechanism the soil plug would be left
Long term Drained 1.7 tan(’)
behind and the skirts would simply slide out of the soil, Figure
ULS Short term Undrained 1.7 Qult 7(a). The drained pullout capacity Q’ult is therefore simply the
SLS Long term Drained 1.0 tan(’) sum of the effective vertical shear stresses 'v along the inner
ALS Short term Undrained 1.0 Qult and outer faces of pile wall (Equation 2):

  2D  v' K 0 tan  ' dL 

L
SOIL CONDITIONS  Qult
'

Geophysical surveys of the two fields indicated that over 0

the depth of interest the soil stratigraphy is uniform and where:

consists of very soft to soft silty normally consolidated clays D = Suction anchor diameter
with undrained shear strength increasing linearly with depth. L = Suction anchor skirt length
v´ = Effective vertical stress
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAMME AND K0 = Coefficient of earth stress at rest
GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES ´ = Effective interface friction angle
A programme of stress path testing (CIUC, CIUE, CKoUC
and DSS) was performed. In bearing capacity problems the In the absence of dedicated interface shear test results during
failure surfaces contain regions in which tension, compression the tight design schedule, conservatively ´=²/3´ was used
and simple shear stress paths operate. It is therefore, difficult to (where ’= internal friction angle). Subsequently, a suite of 12
choose a single undrained strength profile which will be soil/steel interface tests were commissioned in the specially
representative of the “average” soil shear strength. In normally adapted DSS apparatus. These specimens were prepared from
consolidated clays SuDSS profiles are known to lie to the left of samples taken at the same depths as the batch of effective stress
the average of CIUC and CIUE profiles. Hence, it is normal DSS tests. Untreated steel samples from the fabrication yard
practice to calibrate the constitutive soil model to the SuDSS were cut to shape to form the lower half of the sample in the
profile for use in geotechnical FE models. SuDSS tests performed DSS apparatus. The tests were performed at the slowest
agreed well with the PCPT results of the local databases from shearing rate possible by the apparatus, 0.122mm/minute,
the Santos Basin. which ensured drained conditions at the interface throughout

5 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

the test. Surprisingly, the minimum value obtained was ´=31˚, (a) Thixotropy (time dependent strength regain at
which was close to the internal friction angle, ´, obtained from constant volume i.e. with no consolidation)
the other stress path tests. (b) The dissipation of positive excess pore pressures
Theoretically, the effect of sustained upward loading on the generated during remoulding.
soil plug is to cause some reduction in effective stresses at the
base of soil plug as a result of suction and reverse It is recommended in Ref. [9] that in high plasticity clays
consolidation. A reduction of 17% was predicted. This (Ip>50%) a final -value =0.65 in the suction penetrated zone
reduction in effective stress below the suction anchor base may be taken. In this region consolidation becomes essentially
translates to a reduction of the same proportion in the complete within about two months. However, in the self-weight
undrained shear strength at this location. The extent of the zone penetrated zone soil volume increase and total stress increase is
of soil affected can be assessed from coupled stress-pore greater, and hence it takes longer for the soil to consolidate.
pressure FE models, but was not investigated in this project. According to Ref. [8] the -values within this zone could be
For conservatism, the undrained shear strength of all the soil estimated as for driven tubular piles, i.e. the recommendations
layers below the skirt tip elevation was reduced by this factor of API code, Ref. [6], may be used.
in the FE model used for calculation of the short-term Predicted self-weight penetration depths for the UB, BE
undrained pull-out capacity. and LB soil strengths were calculated to be 6.5m, 9.5m and
12.0m, respectively (see Figure 17). Figure 8 shows the
PULL-OUT CAPACITY FOR SHORT-TERM complete -values after full set-up is complete. It can be seen
ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS that the -profile is least favourable for the case of minimum
Under the short term loading conditions there isn’t self-weight penetration, hence this profile was adopted in the
sufficient time for drainage to take place from the trapped water FE analysis of the pull-out capacity under undrained
in the space under the suction anchor cap, even if the seals conditions.
were not functioning 100%. As a result the soil plug is lifted
upwards with the suction anchor body and a Reverse End
Bearing mode of resistance is mobilised within the soil below
the soil plug tip. For undrained conditions (under dynamic
short-term loads) the empirical methods reported by Deng and
Carter, Refs. [10 and 11], were used to obtain a first estimate of
required size. This is a simplified method for estimating the
uplift capacity. It is essentially a closed-form best fit equation
to the results of their parametric finite element analyses of
suction caissons under vertical and inclined loading. Their FE
model does not allow for a weaker interface layer on the skirt
faces i.e. it models the soil as being fully bonded to the skirt
(implying =1) and the rigid skirt elements of their model
share the same nodes as the adjacent soil elements. From these
analyses the design dimensions were estimated (8m diameter,
18m penetration), taking into account the total tonnage and
manageable number of ballast modules (4x150t = 5886kN in
air). These dimensions were then confirmed by the more
sophisticated FE analyses described later in this paper.
FIGURE 8 - -VALUES AT FULL SET UP ALONG THE SKIRT. 
SET-UP
During installation penetration of the skirt causes a local
An axisymmetric coupled stress-pore pressure geotechnical
bearing failure in the soil below the skirt tip and the soil is
FE model in Abaqus, Ref. [15] was used to simulate the
pushed out of the way. This causes remoulding of a thin layer
consolidation effects adjacent to the skirts. Initial excess pore
of soil adjacent to the skirt face of approximately the same
pressures were estimated from the laboratory DSS undrained
thickness as the skirt wall. The remoulding process results in a
shear strength tests with pore pressures measurement. These
temporary reduction of soil strength due to sensitivity of the
values were input into the Abaqus model to define the initial
soft clay and development of excess pore pressures adjacent to
excess pore pressure field in the manner discussed in Ref. [12].
the skirt wall. A proportion of this loss in strength is recovered
The excess pore pressures were then allowed to dissipate with
over time by the phenomenon of “set up”. The process of set-
time and the progress of consolidation adjacent to the outside
up is due to two main causes:
face of skirts was monitored at several elevations. Figure 9
shows the progress of dissipation of excess pore pressure at

6 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

these points. It can be seen that after 60 days most of the points well above the mudline. Similarly, the cylindrical rigid surface
along the skirt face will have reached effectively 90% recovery has been extended slightly out of the vertical faces of soil in the
from the consolidation effect alone. The project schedule was model to aid visualisation.
to install all the suction anchors (16 no.) and their
counterweights (64 no.) before returning to install the first
buoy, a period of about 60 days. It should be noted that
thixotropy effect is only effective in the earlier part of recovery
i.e. in the first few hours and days, whereas consolidation
effects are a longer-term phenomenon.

FIGURE 10 - ISOMETRIC VIEW OF THE 3D ABAQUS

MODEL.

FIGURE 9 - PROGRESS OF CONSOLIDATION AND SOIL

STRENGTH RECOVERY ADJACENT TO SKIRT.

These results are in line with the recommended set-up

times quoted in Ref. [13], which forms the basis of the DNV
design Code for suction anchors, Ref. [9].

PULL-OUT CAPACITY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Having estimated the main dimensions of the suction
anchor, a nonlinear 3D soil-structure interaction finite element
model was developed in Abaqus to fully evaluate and
investigate the pull-out behaviour of the suction anchor for
different values of the -factor and hence at different times
after installation. Figures 10 and 11 show isometric views of
the model in the undeformed state. FIGURE 11 - MESH DETAILS IN THE VICINITY OF SUCTION
The geometry of the model covers a cylindrical volume of ANCHOR SKIRT.
soil with a radius of 32m and a depth of 50m. In this
“geotechnical” assessment only the soil’s response is of interest The interaction between suction anchor and soil was
and stresses in the suction anchor body are not sought by the defined by large-sliding frictional contact between the inner
analysis. Since the soil is several orders of magnitude softer and outer faces of skirt and soil. This would allow any potential
than steel the suction anchor was modelled using an gaps to open up, for example on the active side of the wall. In
analytically defined cylindrical rigid surface. The reference the fully undrained runs the inner face of skirt was made to
control point of the rigid body was located at the centre of the “stick” to the soil plug in order to model the assumption of full
load application point from the pair of tethers. This point is at effectiveness of the seals at the top of suction anchor. To
approximately 3.0m above the mudline level. comply further with this requirement the top surface of soil
Due to symmetry only one half of the domain was plug was constrained to move up with the suction anchor.
modelled and analysed. 40 equal mesh divisions were used in Geometric nonlinearity was switched on.
the circumferential direction (20 for the half model). It should In order to help the contact algorithm the lower order 8-
be noted that the stickup section of skirt shown in the model is noded linear brick elements C3D8 were selected to model the
for visualisation purposes only and has no involvement in the soil. Initial geostatic equilibrium was established within the soil
soil-structure interaction. It is therefore arbitrarily extended to prior to introduction of the suction anchor. Contact interaction

7 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

properties were used to model the remoulding effect of soil mode is visible below the base. The classic passive and active
adjacent to the skirt. Adhesion factor, α, controls the recovery wedges above about mid-depth as well as the scoop failure
of remoulded clay strength and limiting friction between steel zone beneath the soil plug base are visible.
and soil at any elevation. This limiting friction varies with It is notable that the largest lateral extent of plastified soil,
depth along the skirt face according to the variation of which is at mudline, is less than one diameter on either side.
undrained shear strength with depth, since α is a multiplier on This shows that in case of an abortive installation attempt, only
the undrained shear strength at the given elevation. Hence a a maximum of two diameters center-to-center spacing is
Coulomb friction law was enforced with a shear cut off value sufficient for re-spudding the suction pile.
of max = α . SuDSS. Here SuDSS is the undrained shear strength at
the given elevation.
Only the most severe case where the suction anchor
verticality tolerance and load angle are at their limits was
analysed (tilt = -5° and tension load acting at +5° to the
vertical).
A total stress analysis approach was adopted. Mohr-
Coulomb soil constitutive model was used to simulate the
elasto-plastic behaviour of undrained clay, with its strength
calibrated to the SuDSS profile. At any depth the hardening
behaviour was assumed to follow the shape of Vermeer and de
Borst function Ref. [14], which resembles the stress-strain
behaviour of test specimens in DSS tests fairly closely.
Undrained shear strength with depth was allowed to increase
linearly with depth. A vector plot of total displacements when
the ultimate capacity is mobilised is shown in Figure 12. It can
be seen that the failure mode is one of predominantly upwards
displacement combined with rotation.

FIGURE 13 - CONTOURS OF PLASTIC STRAIN MAGNITUDE

(JUST YIELDING ZONE).

FIGURE 12 - VECTORS OF DISPLACEMENT MAGNITUDE.

Figure 13 shows the contours of plastic strain magnitude

when full pull-out capacity has been mobilised. The minimum
contour has been set to a small value so that the Gauss points
with just-yielding state are included within the minimum
contour (dark grey zone in the soil).
This helps illustrate the extent of plastified soil zone and
demarcation between plastic and elastic zones in the model. It
can be seen that plasticity is mainly concentrated around the tip FIGURE 14 - LOAD-DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE OF THE
and outside faces of skirt and the Reverse End Bearing failure SUCTION ANCHOR.

8 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 The load-displacement response of the suction anchor is LONG-TERM VERTICAL DISPLACEMENTS
plotted in Figure 14 for design value of =0.65. The ultimate Long-term vertical settlement of the suction anchor and
“geotechnical” capacity predicted is 11293kN. Also plotted are counterweight system under self-weight prior to tether
the load versus horizontal and load versus vertical components connection and also the vertical upward displacements due to
of displacement of the loaded point. With reference to equation the sustained tension load were evaluated to ensure that they
1 the proportion of unfactored load that the suction anchor’s were within tolerable limits. The long-term displacement is a
geotechnical resistance is required to provide is 6512kN, which drained process and as such only the conditions pertaining to
is indicated with a horizontal dotted line. This is equivalent to a the nominal static BSR position are relevant.
FOS=1.73 in the conventional sense. The horizontal and Axisymmetric coupled stress-pore pressure models in
vertical displacements of the load application point are some Abaqus employing the modified Cam Clay and Mohr-Coulomb
50mm and 60mm, respectively. soil models were used initially. In order to confirm the
predictions an axisymmetric model in PLAXIS, Ref. [16] using
INSTALLATION SUCTION PRESSURES the SOFT SOIL MODEL was also utilised. The results were
The LB, BE and UB self-weight penetrations of skirt were found to be similar, with the model in PLAXIS predicting
estimated to be 6.5m, 9.5m and 12.0m respectively. Soil somewhat larger displacements.
sensitivity plays the most important role in these calculations. Only the results of the PLAXIS model have been presented
Unfortunately, as self-weight penetration is not a critical in- here. 15-node triangles were selected as they are numerically
place design aspect, it is usually not given sufficient very efficient and capable of modeling cubic variation of strain
consideration. The tests performed for determination of the and parabolic variation of pore pressure fields across the face
sensitivity parameter were deemed not to be of good quality of the element. The mesh was made finer in the vicinity of skirt
and consisted of lab-vane and fall-cone tests, no remoulded UU where sharp gradients of stress and excess pore pressure are
test results were available. The results showed a large range of expected. Geometric nonlinearity and large strain formulation
scatter and were considered unreliable. This was probably the capabilities of PLAXIS were switched on. The skirt/soil
reason for the large range of predicted self-weight penetration. interface was modelled by means of interface elements of
The field observations during the installation campaign showed compatible order. The strength of the interface on both faces of
a much narrower range and were close to 13m, indicating a skirt was made equivalent to the interface friction angle.
sensitivity value higher than the upper bound estimated from The yield surface of the SOFT SOIL constitutive model in
the tests. Figure 15 shows the predicted installation suction principal stress space is shown in Figure 16. As can be seen the
pressure versus depth plots. The maximum expected suction model has a shear yield surface controlled by a Mohr-Coulomb
pressure required at target penetration was around 135kPa. type criterion and a cap yield surface that controls the
volumetric hardening behaviour. Some of the salient features of
the Soft Soil model relevant to this work include:

 Stress dependent stiffness (logarithmic compression

behaviour);
 Distinction between primary loading and unload-
reload response;

Long-term displacements of the suction anchor/counterweight

system under the sustained net upward loading are primarily
governed by the consolidation process. Hence the key
parameters of the Soft Soil Model are λ* and κ*. These are
respectively the slopes of primary or virgin consolidation line
and unload/reload line in the volumetric strain versus natural
logarithm of pressure stress space. λ* will govern the degree of
settlement after placement of the counterweights and κ* will
govern the unloading behaviour once the tethers are connected
and the net loading acts upwards.
FIGURE 15 - REQUIRED AND ALLOWABLE SUCTION
PRESSURES FOR INSTALLATION.

9 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

 40mm of the total settlement, bringing the net displacement to
about 15mm downwards. Once operational conditions are
established vertical displacement of the suction anchor remains
effectively constant and no appreciable long term
displacements should occur.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An innovative solution was developed to isolate the
fatigue-critical SCRs from the FPSO motions by de-coupling
the system. Many industry firsts were achieved in this project.
One of these, which is a key element of its success, is the use of
vertical mooring and multiple large diameter suction anchors
carrying ballast modules to reduce the demand on geotechnical
pull-out resistance alone. This concept of modular anchor
FIGURE 16 - YIELD SURFACE OF THE SOFT SOIL MODEL. design allows for tuning of the tension in the tethers of the riser
support buoys to satisfy all criteria. The sizing of suction
These parameters were determined from the one- anchors and ballast modules has been optimized for easy
dimensional consolidation test results. The vertical installation offshore in 2140m depth. An advanced geotechnical
displacement history of the anchor system is presented in soil-structure finite element model has been used to develop the
Figure 17 for two different scenarios as follows: full pull-out response curves up to the ultimate capacity at
various times after installation. The model has also been used
(a) The seals on the suction anchor top assumed to be for the assessment of downward capacity, extent of disturbed
fully effective and there is no leakage of water (the soil around suction anchor, contribution of skin friction and
blue curve); reverse end bearing. Pull-out resistance to long-term sustained
(b) The seals are assumed to be leaking and pressure or loads has been found to be the governing case, as opposed to
suction does not develop under the top cap (the red the undrained capacity in response to environmental loading.
curve). Long-term downward displacement of the suction
anchor/counterweight system prior to BSR installation and
For scenario (a) the top cap steel was modelled as being in full tether connection has been predicted to be less 70mm. The long
contact and bonded to the top of the soil mesh. term net upward displacement has been predicted to be about
15mm.
Suction anchors, driven tubular pile anchors, drag anchors
and gravity anchors have been addressed well in the existing
design codes of practice. However, there appears to be a gap in
the codes as regards the present type of anchorage, which is a
hybrid between purely geotechnical and purely gravity type of
anchor. Suction technology is now at a mature state and
engineering of suction anchors to carry vertical loads has a
more scientific basis than dependence on empiricism as
compared to for example driven tubular piles. Hence it is felt
that this subject deserves attention to optimize and reduce their
size and cost by reducing the current unnecessarily high soil
material factor, while maintaining the required level of safety.

FIGURE 17 - VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT HISTORY OF NOMENCLATURE

SUCTION ANCHOR AND COUNTERWEIGHT SYSTEM. ALS Accidental Limit State
API American petroleum Institute
It can be seen that the system is predicted to be stable over BE Best Estimate
time. The immediate settlement under the self-weight of suction BSR Buoy Supporting Risers
anchor and counterweight is expected to be in the order of CIUC Consolidated Isotropically Undrained Compression
40mm (scenario a). Following the 60 days’ time lapse prior to CIUE Consolidated Isotropically Undrained Extension
tether connection a further maximum settlement of CKoUC Consolidated Ko Undrained
approximately 15mm due to consolidation of the soft clay is CRA Corrosion Resistant Alloy
predicted. Installation of the tethers and de-ballasting of the DNV Det Norsk Veritas
BSR to design up thrust level will cancel and reverse about DSS Direct Simple Shear

10 Copyright © 2017 by ASME

FE Finite Element Pipes. Part I – Risers Design. Offshore Technology
FEED Front End Engineering Design Conference, Houston, USA.
FOS Factor of Safety 4. Christophersen, H.P., Bysveen, S., Stove, O.J., (1992).
FPSO Floating Production System Innovative foundation systems selected for the Snorre
HRT Hybrid Riser Tower field, BOSS’92, Proc., Vol. I, p.81-94.
LB Lower Bound 5. Hornung, M. R., Hanna, S.Y., Hannus, H., Rowan, D.,
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design (1996). The Heidrun Field - Heidrun TLP Tether System,
NC Normally Consolidated Paper OTC 8100. Offshore Technology Conference,
PCPT Pore pressure Cone Penetration Test Houston, USA.
REB Reverse End Bearing 6. API RP 2T, Recommended Practice for Planning,
SCR Steel Catenary Riser Designing and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms. July
SHR Single Hybrid Riser 2010.
SLS Serviceability Limit State 7. API-RP-2SK, Design and Analysis of Station-Keeping
SSW Sheathed Spiral Strand Wire Systems for Floating Structures. Oct 2009
TLP Tension Leg Platform 8. DNV-OS-C101. Design of Offshore Steel Structures,
UB Upper Bound General (LRFD Method). April 2011.
ULS Ultimate Limit State 9. DNV-RP-E303. Geotechnical Design and Installation of
UU Unconsolidated Undrained Suction Anchors in Clay. October 2005
10. Deng, W. and Carter, J. (1999). Predictions of the vertical
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pullout capacity of suction caissons in fine-grained soils.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Research report no. R797, University of Sydney.
Subsea 7 for permission to publish this Paper. The views 11. Deng, W. and Carter, J. (1999). Analysis of suction
expressed in this Paper are those of the authors and do not caissons in uniform soils subjected to inclined uplift
represent the opinion of Subsea 7 or Petrobras. loading. Research report no. R798, University of Sydney.
12. Hesar, M. (2003), Geotechnical design of the Barracuda
REFERENCES and Caratinga Suction Anchors. Paper OTC15137,
1. Zimmermann, C.A., Layrisse, G., de la Cruz, D. and Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA.
Gordonnat, J. (2009); Greater Plutonio Riser Tower 13. NGI Report 524071-2, (1999). Skirted Foundations and
Installation - Studies and Lessons Learnt, OMAE2009- Anchors in Clay - 'set-up' effects outside skirt wall."
79028. Summary Report. Joint Industry Project
2. Cruz, I., Hepner, G., Karunakaran, D.N., Claro, C., 14. Vermeer, P.A. and de Borst, R. (1984) Non-associated
Nicoletti, F., Fontaine, E., Hesar, M., de Paula, M.R., plasticity for soil, concrete and rock. HERON 29, No. 3,
Trovoado, L.C. (2015). The Buoy Supporting Risers pp. 1-64.
(BSR) System: Engineering a Solution for Ultra-Deep 15. Abaqus/Standard, Version 6.10. Dassault System.
Water Subsea Developments in Harsh Environments. 16. PLAXIS 2D Version 8 User Manual. Version 8.
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA.
3. Gouveia, J., Sriskandarajah, D., Karunakaran, D.N.,
Manso, D., Chiado, M., Zhou, D., Cao, L., Rao, V.,
Vargas, T., Escudero, C. Steel Catenary Risers (2015):
From Design to Installation of the First Reeled CRA Lined

11 Copyright © 2017 by ASME