China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P.

333–343
DOI: 10.1007/s13344-019-0032-6, ISSN 0890-5487
http://www.chinaoceanengin.cn/ E-mail: [email protected]

Maximum Force of Inclined Pullout of A Torpedo Anchor in Cohesive Beds

WANG Cheng, CHEN Xiao-hui, YU Guo-liang*
SKLOE, CISSE, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean 7338; Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, China

Received December 5, 2018; revised December 25, 2018; accepted January 17, 2019

©2019 Chinese Ocean Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

Abstract
Torpedo anchors have been used in mooring systems for deep-water oil and gas projects owing to their prominent
advantages, such as low cost and easy installation. The maximum force of torpedo anchors is crucial not only to the
safety and stability of vessels and other marine facilities, but also for an economical design. It is necessary to develop
reliable formula for fast predicting their maximum inclined force of a torpedo anchor in cohesive beds. In this study,
the maximum inclined force of a torpedo anchor vertically embedded in cohesive beds was extensively investigated.
316 sets of inclined pullout laboratory tests were carried out for 9 differently shaped torpedo anchors which were
vertically embedded in different cohesive beds. The loading curves were automatically acquisitioned and their
characteristics were analyzed. The load angle relative to the horizontal varied from 20° to 90°. A new formula for
fast calculating the maximum inclined force of the torpedo anchor vertically embedded in cohesive beds was
obtained based on force analysis and a nonlinear regression on the data from the present and other studies. Effect
aspects on the tests are discussed and further studies are highlighted.
Key words: torpedo anchor, maximum inclined force, cohesive bed, load angle, embedment depth

Citation: Wang, C., Chen, X. H., Yu, G. L., 2019. Maximum force of inclined pullout of a torpedo anchor in cohesive beds. China Ocean Eng.,
33(3): 333–343, doi: 10.1007/s13344-019-0032-6

1 Introduction application in 2002, several different forms of torpedo an-

An accurate estimation of the maximum inclined force chors have been successfully used in ocean engineering
of an anchor is crucial not only to ensure the safety and sta- projects. T-98 was used to anchor the PETROBRAS FPSO
bility of vessels and other marine facilities, but also to real- P-50 in 2003 (de Araujo et al., 2004). Two full-scale 80 t
ize an economical design. In order to anchor the platforms torpedo anchors were installed at the Gjøa field in the North
and ships, a variety of anchorage systems have been de- Sea in August 2009; the embedment depths of these an-
signed using stockless anchors, screw anchors, anchor chors were up to 1.85 to 2.38 times their length into the
plates, suction anchors, vertically loaded anchors (i.e., seabed, respectively (Lieng et al., 2010). The maximum in-
VLAs), or torpedo anchors. The geotechnical focus of the clined force of a torpedo anchor is a crucial index for a
offshore oil and gas industry has recently shifted to the de- mooring system. Therefore, it is of practical significance to
velopment of cost-effective anchoring systems that meet study the maximum inclined force of a torpedo anchor ver-
both the geotechnical and economic demands associated tically embedded in cohesive beds.
with hydrocarbon exploration and extraction in deep water Numerous studies, including physical laboratory, field
(Richardson et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2016). Torpedo anchors tests and numerical analyses, have been conducted on the
are regarded as a type of the cost-effective anchoring sys- pullout characteristics of torpedo anchors. The physical
tem owing to their short installation duration and conveni- laboratory experiments can be classified into 1-g tests
ent anchoring equipment (Kim et al., 2018; Wang W.K. et (which were conducted under one-gravity acceleration con-
al., 2018). A torpedo anchor can usually be divided into four ditions) and centrifuge tests (which were completed under
parts: a cylindrical anchor shaft, fins, a tip segment and a higher-gravity acceleration conditions). The 1-g tests were
padeye segment (O’Beirne et al., 2015). The padeye seg- mainly conducted by Gilbert et al. (2008) and Wang W.K.
ment is used to connect the anchor and the anchor chain, et al. (2018), while the centrifuge tests were principally con-
which is often hinged at the padeye at an angle (load angle) ducted by Richardson et al. (2009), Hossain et al. (2015),
of 30°–45° to the horizontal (Fu et al., 2017). Since its first and Fu et al. (2017). With respect to the field tests, Medeir-
Foundation item: This work is financially supported by the Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 6141A02022337).
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
334 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343

os (2002), Brandão et al. (2006), and Lieng et al. (2010) pacity factor Nc as 12 and 17 for the ellipsoidal tip, respect-
conducted full-scale tests. Recently, O’Beirne et al. (2015) ively. It can be observed that the bearing capacity factor de-
carried out reduced-scale field tests using one 1:20 scale pends on the local soil properties at the anchor position,
model anchor with four wide fins. From the above literature which requires further investigation. O’Beirne et al. (2015)
review, it can be found that most of the tests were conduc- proposed a design procedure for a dynamically installed an-
ted to investigate the vertical pullout characteristic of tor- chor (DIA) under inclined loading, based on 1:20 scale field
pedo anchor. Besides, the effects of anchor aspect ratio, tests and finite element analysis. However, this procedure is
slenderness ratio and fins on the maximum inclined pullout strictly applicable only to the specific anchor geometry in
force of the torpedo anchor in cohesive bed were also lim- their study (Fu et al., 2017). Fu et al. (2017) proposed a
ited. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct additional physic- method for calculating the maximum inclined force of a tor-
al tests to extend the scope of the tests and investigate the pedo anchor based on the API (2014), Broms (1964), and
soil failure characteristics. linear fitting method. Nevertheless, the method in Fu et al.
Numerical models were used to calculate the maximum (2017) is complicated to calculate the maximum inclined
inclined force of a torpedo anchor (de Araujo et al., 2004; force of torpedo anchor and requires program or spread-
Brandão et al., 2006; de Sousa et al., 2010; Hossain et al., sheet. Thus, it is necessary to develop a new formula for fast
2013; O’Beirne et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2017). These numer- estimation of maximum inclined force.
ical models are generally regarded as effective tools for ana- Wang C. et al. (2018) have investigated the penetration
lyzing the maximum inclined force of a torpedo anchor characteristics of a torpedo anchor in cohesive bed. This
which is vertically embedded in saturated cohesive beds. study was designed to investigate the maximum inclined
Assuming the soil as an ideal elastoplastic material and ad- force of a torpedo anchor. By conducting comprehensive
opting the Drucker-Prager model, de Sousa et al. (2010) experimental tests in the laboratory, the effects of the load
used ANSYS to explore the effects of the load angle, num- angle, embedment ratio, anchor geometry, and soil shear
ber of fins, soil properties, and width of fins on the maxim- strength on the maximum inclined force of a torpedo an-
um inclined force of torpedo anchors. Assuming the soil as chor were studied. Finally, based on the force analysis and
an elastic perfectly plastic material obeying a Tresca yield experimental data, a formula was proposed to fast estimate
criterion, Kim and Hossain (2016) used Abaqus to investig- the maximum inclined force of a torpedo anchor in cohes-
ate the effects of the installation method, impact velocity, ive beds. The reliability of the formula was validated by the
anchor geometry, padeye position, pullout angle on the data of other researchers.
maximum inclined force of torpedo anchors. Nevertheless,
it is very difficult to correctly formulate the module for con- 2 Materials and methods
sidering the soil-anchor interaction and complex rheologic-
al properties of the soil. These numerical models have to be 2.1 Experimental setup
extensively validated to obtain the correct simulation res- The experimental setup for anchor pullout tests is
ults using sufficient data of physical tests. Moreover, for the schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, comprising of an I-beam,
engineering design of a torpedo anchor, it is time-consum- two pulleys, a steel string of 1 mm in diameter, a stepper
ing to calculate the maximum inclined force by these nu- motor with a frequency converter, a barrel (with 120 cm and
merical models. 120 cm of diameter and depth, respectively) filled with
To date, the main methods for calculating the maximum well-stirred soft soil (with 116 cm of depth), a load cell, a
inclined force are the American Petroleum Institute (API) computer, a data acquisition card, and anchors. In order to
(2014), O’Beirne et al. (2015), and Fu et al. (2017) methods. minimize boundary effects from the barrel, the diameter of
The API (2014) method has been recommended for design the barrel was 120 cm allowing an enough distance of 55.2
(Richardson et al., 2009; O’Beirne et al., 2015). In the API cm (5.75 times the anchor diameter) between the anchor and
method, the ultimate axial pile capacity is considered the the wall of the barrel. The I-beam was erected over the bar-
sum of the shaft friction capacity and end bearing capacity rel, which was attached to two pulleys. The left pulley,
(API, 2014).The maximum vertical force calculated by API which was fixed at a predetermined position on the I-beam,
method (2014) was relatively sensitive to the values of fric- was installed above the stepper motor. Another pulley was
tion ratio (α) (Fu et al., 2017). However, the value of α in fixed by a clamp near the top of the torpedo anchor, and it
API method (2014) varies within a certain range; there are could be moved to a designated position on the I-beam to
still divergences in determining its exact value (Fu et al., obtain the required load angle θ0 (θ0 =arctan(H1/S), where S
2017; Wang W.K. et al., 2018). Fu et al. (2017) stressed that and H1 are defined in Fig. 1) between the mooring line and
API method is restricted to vertical pullout and not applic- mudline. One end of the steel string was passed over the
able for inclined pullout. Furthermore, the empirical factor pulleys and connected to the anchor padeye, while the other
Nc is assumed to be 9 (API, 2014), whereas O’Loughlin et end of the steel string was attached to one end of the load
al. (2009) and Gilbert et al. (2008) regarded this bearing ca- cell (measuring range of 50 kg). The other end of the cell
 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343 335

Fig. 1. Layout of the experimental setup for anchor pullout tests.

was connected to the motor via another string. A 380 V characters 1, 2, and 3 represent the three slenderness ratios
stepper motor provided sufficient torque and pullout speed. of the anchor (i.e., 5, 8, and 11), respectively; the third char-
By adjusting the frequency of the motor, the required pul- acters 0, 1, and 2 indicate three ratios of fin length to an-
lout speed was obtained. The load cell was connected to the chor length (i.e., 0, 1/3, and 2/3), respectively.
data acquisition card.
2.3 Characteristics of cohesive beds
2.2 Torpedo anchors Two types of cohesive silt were used to constitute the
Nine different full-torpedo anchors with conical tips cohesive beds for the full-anchor pullout tests. The sedi-
(30°) were manufactured for the anchor pullout tests. The ments were collected from the seabed of Shanghai Jinshan
torpedo anchors were fabricated according to the geometric Port and the riverside of the outlet of Shanghai Huangpu
shape of the full-scaled T-98 torpedo anchor with dimen- River, respectively. The median particle diameters (d50) of
sional scales from 1:65 to 1:180, which were identical to the two sedimentary beds were 19.49 μm and 29.31 μm. The
those used by Wang et al. (2016) and Wang W.K. et al. properties of the prepared test cohesive bed were measured.
(2018). The T-98 torpedo anchor had 98 tons dry mass (m), The liquid limits of the two sedimentary beds were 57% and
17 m in length (L), 1.07 m in diameter (d), and four fins of 52%, respectively. The plastic limits of the two sediment-
dimensions 0.9 m × 10 m (width × length). The torpedo an- ary beds were 28% and 24%, respectively. The undrained
chors were made of stainless steel. The anchor shaft was shear strength (Su) of the sedimentary beds was measured by
hollow, and the conical tip was solid. The tested model tor- the vane shear test. The properties of the experimental co-
pedo anchors had three different shaft diameters, seven dif- hesive sediments are listed in Table 2, where Z is the depth
ferent shaft lengths, and three different slenderness ratios. below the bed surface.
The thickness of each fin was 1.2 mm. The distance from In order to derive a formula for the maximum inclined
the upper end of the torpedo anchor to the upper end of the force of a torpedo anchor, the representative undrained
fin was 6 mm. The purpose of choosing these shapes and shear strength was used. This study used Su, ave as the repres-
sizes was to explore the effect of aspect ratio, slenderness entative undrained shear strength, which is the average un-
ratio and fins on the maximum inclined pullout force of the drained shear strength over the length of the anchor at its fi-
torpedo anchor in cohesive bed. nal embedment depth (Richardson et al., 2009).
Table 1 lists the geometric dimensions of the anchors.
For the tested model anchor A12-C22 listed in Table 1, the 2.4 Test procedure
first characters A, B, and C denote three anchor diameters The whole process of a pullout test of the torpedo an-
(d=1.9 cm, 2.5 cm, and 3.2 cm, respectively); the second chor could be divided into two stages: installation and pul-

Table 1 Properties of tested model anchors

Mass Diameter Length Slenderness ratio Lateral area Projected area Cross section perimeter
Anchor number AS (cm2) AF (cm2) CF (cm)
m (g) d (cm) L (cm) L/d
A12 140.2 1.9 9.5 5 117.37 4.28 21.17
A22 223.6 1.9 15.2 8 209.15 4.28 21.17
A30 176.4 1.9 20.9 11 103.59 4.28 5.970
A31 231.6 1.9 20.9 11 195.04 4.28 21.17
A32 287.8 1.9 20.9 11 300.94 4.28 21.17
B12 329.4 2.5 12.5 5 203.20 6.81 27.85
B22 496.0 2.5 20.0 8 362.11 6.81 27.85
C12 469.2 3.2 16.0 5 332.93 10.47 35.65
C22 682.6 3.2 25.6 8 593.28 10.47 35.65
336 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343

Table 2 Properties of testing soil

Bed name Soil location d50 (μm) PL (%) LL (%) Gs Su (kPa) ρs (g/cm3) ω (%) St
1.463+4.313Z 1.668 26.37
A Shanghai Jinshan Port 29.31 28 57 2.65 1.506+3.5Z 1.772 24.91 2–2.5
1.906+3.438Z 1.898 23.72
B Shanghai Huangpu River 19.49 24 52 2.62 1.313 1.512 63.41 2.3

lout. The sampling rate of torpedo anchor pullout force was al fluctuations, which might have been caused primarily by
4 Hz. In order to simplify the experimental conditions, all the collapse of the wall of the cavity beneath the torpedo an-
tests were conducted in air and only a thin layer of water chor. For identical pullout speed and torpedo anchor, the
covered the sedimentary bed surface. During the pullout fluctuations of the curve in Bed A were larger than those in
process, the stepper motor was turned on 10 min after the Bed B; this difference resulted from the different undrained
torpedo anchor installation to pull the torpedo anchor out at shear strengths of the beds. The higher undrained shear
the designated speed (v=2 mm/s). The friction between the strength of the wall of the cavity had a stronger ability to
mooring line and pulleys and the weight of the mooring line resist its collapse, so that the cavity could endure higher
could be neglected in the present tests. Simultaneously, the negative pressures. Similar characteristics of pullout pro-
load cell with the acquisition software began to record the cess were observed in the other tests using different torpedo
pullout load. The pullout test proceeded until the torpedo anchors.
anchor was removed completely from the bed. After that,
the motor was switched off. 3.2 Effect of load angle on the maximum inclined force of
torpedo anchor
3 Results and analysis Fig. 3 shows the maximum total inclined force, its hori-
A total of 316 tests were conducted using nine different zontal (maximum inclined force times cos θ0) and vertical
torpedo anchors embedded in cohesive beds to investigate components (maximum inclined force times sin θ0 ) versus
the maximum inclined force of the torpedo anchors. The load angle in Bed A. For large load angles larger than 80°,
load angle varied from 20° to 90°. the maximum inclined force remains almost constant. When
the load angle decreases from 80° to 50° (or less), the max-
3.1 Loading curves imum inclined force increases obviously. This increase in
The loading curves of torpedo anchor A32 in two differ- the maximum inclined force can be attributed to an increase
ent beds are shown in Fig. 2. These curves can be divided in its horizontal component, as a simultaneous increase in
into three stages. In the first stage, the pullout force rapidly the total and horizontal components can be observed. Be-
increased with pullout time until it reached a peak (re- sides, the corresponding vertical component remains
garded as the maximum inclined force FPU). In the two test roughly unchanged in the range of 80° to 50°. This is con-
beds, the displacement of the torpedo anchors was different sistent with the phenomena described in Fig. 4, which
when the peak value was reached. In the second stage, the presents the normalized vertical component (FPU, V0/FPU, V)
load decreased gradually until the top of the torpedo anchor versus the load angle, where FPU, V0 is the vertical compon-
emerged from the bed. In the last stage, after the top of the ent of the maximum inclined force, FPU, V is the maximum
torpedo anchor reached the bed, the load dropped quickly vertical force, and γs′ is the submerged unit weight of the
because the torpedo anchor did not have any remaining soil soil. This behavior indicates that, for load angles larger than
weight. It was noteworthy that the loading curve had sever- 50°, anchor failure is controlled predominantly by the max-
imum vertical force and the failure mode is likely to be ver-

Fig. 3. Maximum total inclined force, its horizontal and vertical compon-
Fig. 2. Loading curves of anchor A32 in two different beds. ents versus load angle in Bed A.
 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343 337

Table 3 Data of fitting curves

C0
Anchor Case C R2
Value Standard error 1
D/L=1.96, k/γs′=0.45 –0.313 0.0119 0.973
D/L=1.48, k/γs′=0.45 –0.260 0.01192 0.974
D/L=3.39, k/γs′=0 –0.179 0.00832 0.971
A32 0
D/L=2.91, k/γs′=0 –0.152 0.00838 0.955
D/L=1.96, k/γs′=0 –0.134 0.00630 0.961
D/L=1.48, k/γs′=0 –0.126 0.00711 0.941

location of the torpedo anchor. As shown in Fig. 5, a posit-

Fig. 4. Normalized vertical component versus load angle. ive correlation was found between FPU/FPU, V and a non-di-
mensional factor k/γ′s . That is, the value of FPU/FPU, V in-
tical. For load angles smaller than 50°, both the horizontal creased from 1.17 to 1.47 for the embedment ratio of 1.96
and vertical components undergo great changes, and the and the load angle of 22 when the value of k/γ′s increased
failure mode is not vertical. from 0 to 0.45. Furthermore, Fig. 5 and Table 3 also depict
Fig. 5 depicts a negative correlation between FPU/FPU, V that the values of C 0 decreased with increasing k/γ′s . The
and θ0 for anchor A32. That is, the anchor with a lower values of C0 decreased from –0.134 to –0.313 for the em-
value of θ0 corresponded to a higher maximum inclined bedment ratio of 1.96 when k/γ′s increased from 0 to 0.45.
force, as high as 1.46 times that of the vertical pullout with a Hence, the maximum inclined force depends on the value of
higher load angle. Evidently, a larger load angle θ0 makes it k/γ′s.
easier to pull out the anchor. Furthermore, the data are fit-
( )C0
FPU C 1 θ0 4 Discussion
ted with a power functional relation, as =e ,
FPU,V 90◦
and the fitted curves are plotted in Fig. 5 as dashed lines. 4.1 Force analysis
The values of C 0 and C 1 , and the statistics of the fitted Referring to the force analysis of other anchor struc-
curves are listed in Table 3. The results of the fitting show a tures performed by other researchers (Shin et al., 1994;
good power functional relation between F PU /F PU, V and Bridge et al., 2004; Singh and Ramaswamy, 2008), the
θ0 /90°. The values of C 1 were 0. The values of C 0 de- forces acting on a torpedo anchor vertically embedded in a
creased with the increasing embedment ratio, i.e., the val- cohesive bed are as follows: a maximum inclined force
ues of C0 decreased from –0.126 to –0.179 when the embed- (FPU), suction force (FSU), side adhesion force (FAD), addi-
ment ratio increased from 1.48 to 3.39 for anchor A32 em- tional shear force (FAS), the submerged (or buoyant) weight
bedded in Bed B. Similar phenomena were found for other of the torpedo anchor in the soil (WAS), and the weight of
tests using different anchors. Hence, the maximum inclined the upward soil (Ws), as shown in Fig. 6.
force depends on the load angle and embedment ratio. For vertical pullout with a load angle of 90°, the suction
force formula for torpedo anchors was obtained by refer-
3.3 Effect of k/γ′s on the maximum inclined force of tor- ring to the formula used by marine facilities. The vertical
pedo anchor suction force (FSU, V) proposed by Das et al. (1994) for the
The non-dimensional factor k/γ′s basically represents the plate anchors is described as:
ratio of the undrained shear strength over the pressure at the

Fig. 5. Power functional relation between FPU/FPU, V and θ0 /90° for an-
chor A32. Fig. 6. Forces on the anchor.
338 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343

(H)
form a maximum cavity, and then fluctuated, which may be
FSU,V = 5.25AF S u,ave − 0.734 AF S u,ave , (1)
d due to the dynamic change of the cavity caused by the soil
where AF and H are the projected area of the anchor and dis- mobilization. The result of such non-synchronized vari-
tance from the anchor tail to the bed surface, respectively. ations in the five forces was the maximum force obtained
Eq. (1) shows that the suction force is negatively related to after a certain displacement of the anchor.
H/d and positively related to S u, ave . However, other re-
searchers (Shin et al., 1994; Bridge et al., 2004; Singh and 4.2 Empirical formula for maximum inclined force of a tor-
Ramaswamy, 2008) considered that the suction force should pedo anchor
be positively related with these two parameters. By substituting Eq. (1)–Eq. (6) into Eq. (7), a general
Hence, a general form of the vertical suction force for form of the maximum vertical force can be presented as:
[ (H) ]
torpedo anchors may be expressed as: FPU,V = β + λ AF S u,ave + αAS S u,ave +
(H) d
FSU,V = f AF S u,ave , (2) ξCF HS u,ave + AF Hγ′s + (m − ms ) g. (8)
d
where f is the function of H/d. As stated above, the( equa- The normalized maximum vertical force F N, V , i.e.,
)
tion is linear, and it can be presented as f (H/d) = β Hd + λ, FPU, V/(AFSu, ave), is presented as:
[ (H) ] AS CF H Hγ′s (m − ms ) g
where β and λ are constants. FN,V = β +λ +α +ξ + + . (9)
For the vertical side adhesion force (FAD, V), Richard- d AF AF S u,ave AF S u,ave
son et al. (2009), O’Beirne et al. (2015) and Fu et al. (2017) Based on the results of the present experiment and the
introduced a friction ratio α and expressed it as a general data of Medeiros (2002), O’Beirne et al. (2015), and Fu et
form: al. (2017), the normalized maximum vertical force of the
FAD,V = αAS S u,ave , (3) torpedo anchor can be expressed by the following relation-
where AS is the lateral area of the anchor. ship using multiple linear regression analysis:
( H ) AS CF H
The soil on the top of the anchor, which was com- FN,V = 0.09 +1.2 + 0.54 + 0.0014 +
pressed during the pullout process, induced an additional d AF AF
shear force on the anchor. In order to estimate the vertical Hγ′s (m − ms ) g
+ . (10)
additional shear force (FAS, V), the soil failure surface was S u,ave AF S u,ave
assumed to be cylindrical, which was in line with the as- Thus, the maximum vertical force of the torpedo anchor
sumptions made by Majer (1955) and Wang and O’Lough- can be described as:
lin (2014). Hence, the height of the cylindrical soil failure ( H )
surface may be calculated by introducing a coefficient ξ ow- FPU,V = 0.09 +1.2 AF S u,ave + 0.54AS S u,ave +
d
ing to the complexity of the torpedo anchor, i.e., ξH . The 0.0014CF HS u,ave + AF Hγ′s + (m − ms ) g. (11)
vertical additional shear force can be presented as
Fig. 7 presents the comparison between the measured
FAS,V = ξCF HS u,ave , (4)
and calculated FN, V. Of the 112 test data points, 98.2% fell
where CF is the cross-section perimeter of the anchor. within the band with a relative error of ±20%. The value of
The vertical weight (W S, V ) of the upward soil can be R2=0.91 further indicated that Eq. (11) has acceptable accur-
presented as (Singh and Ramaswamy, 2008; Singh et al., acy for calculating the maximum vertical force.
2017): For the case of an inclined pullout, because FPU/FPU, V
WS,V = AF Hγ′s . (5) corresponded to a power functional function of θ0 /90°, as
The vertical submerged (or buoyant) weight (WAS, V) of described in Section 3.2, F PU /F PU, V can be presented as
the anchor in the bed can be written as follows:
WAS,V = (m − ms ) g, (6)
where m s is the mass of the soil that would occupy the
volume of the anchor and m is the mass of the anchor.
Thus, a general form of the maximum vertical force dur-
ing the pullout process can be expressed as:
FPU,V = FAD,V + FAS,V + WS,V + WAS,V + FSU,V . (7)
During the pullout process, the force terms on the right
side of Eq. (7) kept changing, except the forth term WAS, V,
but did not achieve their maxima in synchronization. In oth-
er words, the fourth term did not change and the first three
terms kept decreasing, while the suction force increased to Fig. 7. Comparison between the measured and calculated FN, V.
 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343 339

FPU/FPU, V =(θ0 /90°)C0. As stated above, as a shearing inter- has satisfactory accuracy for calculating the maximum in-
face with dynamic position and variable shape exists clined force. It should be noted that Eq. (14) is probably not
between the adhered and the stagnant soil, the adhesion soil suitable for those cases in which the embedment depth is
induces an additional shear force on the anchor. The addi- smaller than one anchor length and load angle is smaller
tional shear force is a function of the integration of the ad- than 20°.
hesion force on this interface, which depends not only on The influence of the major parameters (undrained shear
the mean undrained shear strength, but also on the value of strength, undrained shear strength gradient, and load angle)
k/γ′s. Again, the additional shear is a component of the max- on the maximum inclined force calculated by Eq. (14) was
imum inclined force. Hence, the maximum inclined force assessed by sensitivity analysis. In general, it is impossible
depends on the value of k/γ′s , which is consistent with the to avoid the test error of these parameters. Supposing that
results in Section 3.3. Furthermore, referring to the research the tests errors are ±10% for the undrained shear strength,
on the plate anchor carried out by Merifield et al. (2005) and undrained shear strength gradient, and load angle, all calcu-
Singh et al. (2017) as well as the dynamically embedded lated errors of the maximum inclined force are smaller than
plate anchor conducted by Wang and O’Loughlin (2014), ±10%. These major parameters that affect the calculation
the maximum inclined force depends on the value of D/L. accuracy of the maximum inclined force in Eq. (14) are
Hence, the normalized maximum inclined force (FPU/FPU, V) ranked in terms of the sensitivity as follows: undrained
can be assumed as shear strength, undrained shear strength gradient, and load
( )a k +b D +c angle. In practice, these major parameters should be determ-
FPU θ0 1 γ′ s L
= , (12) ined as accurately as possible before using Eq. (14).
FPU,V 90◦ In the present test, it was found that the shaft resistance
where a1, b, and c are coefficients. and bearing resistance decreased with the increase of load
Based on the present experimental data and the data of angle. For instance, as shown in Fig. 9, for the cohesive soil
de Sousa et al. (2010), O’Beirne et al. (2015), Kim and Bed A (Su, ave=3.297 kPa) and the anchor tip embedment ra-
Hossain (2016), and Fu et al. (2017), the normalized max- tio (D/L=2.44), when the load angle increased from 25° to
imum inclined force of the torpedo anchor can be expressed 90° for anchor A32, the values of shaft resistance and bear-
by the following relationship using multiple nonlinear re- ing resistance decreased from 72.3 N and 20.1 N to 54.6 N
gression analysis: and 12.4 N, respectively.
( )−0.23 k′ −0.051 DL −0.17
FPU θ0 γs
4.3 Comparison with other methods
= ◦
. (13)
FPU,V 90
Thus, the maximum inclined force of the torpedo an- 4.3.1 API method
chor can be described as: The maximum vertical force of the torpedo anchors can
( )−0.23 k′ −0.051 DL −0.17 be calculated by the API (2014) method. In the method, the
θ0 γs bearing capacity factor Nc may have different values for dif-
FPU = FPU,V . (14)
90◦ ferent parts of the anchor (Richardson et al., 2009; O’Beirne
Fig. 8 presents the comparison between the experiment- et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2017). For anchor fins, N c =7.5
al and calculated values of the normalized maximum in- (Skempton, 1951) while Nc=12 for the tip (O’Loughlin et
clined force F N , i.e., F PU /(A F S u, ave ). Of the 441 test data al., 2009), and N c =9 for the padeye (Skempton, 1951).
points, 94.8% fell within the band with a relative error of Fig. 10 shows a comparison of the calculated results by the
±20%. The value of R2 = 0.95 further indicated that Eq. (14) API (2014) method with the measured values of the present

Fig. 9. Total resistance, shaft resistance and bearing resistance versus load
Fig. 8. Comparison between the measured and calculated FN. angle.
340 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343

maximum inclined force of a torpedo anchor. The maxim-

um inclined force of a slant anchor would be higher than
that of a vertical anchor. In present tests, the verticality of
the torpedo anchor in the bed was guaranteed. The posture
of the slender stainless steel rod was checked to be vertical
using a level ruler after the anchor was inserted into the des-
ignated experimental depth. If the slender stainless steel rod
was vertical, then the torpedo anchor would be vertical, as
the slender stainless steel rod had the same direction as the
attached anchor.
In engineering practice, the typical torpedo anchor is in-
stalled by free-fall under gravity. The velocity of the tor-
Fig. 10. Comparison of results of API (2014) with those measured in
pedo anchor changes with the depth in a parabolic nature,
present tests.
with initially reaching a large velocity, which then de-
47 tests. 66% of the points calculated by the API (2014) creases to zero. The high penetration velocities would lead
method fell within the band with a relative error of ±20%, to a high strain rate in the vicinity of the torpedo anchor.
and 93.6% of the points calculated by the API (2014) meth- The high strain rate leads to increase in undrained shear
od fell within the band with a relative error of ±30%. The strength of the soil (DeJong et al., 2011; Kim and Hossain,
value of R2 is 0.81. Although its accuracy is lower than Eq. 2016). Furthermore, the soil in the vicinity of the torpedo
(14), it is acceptable for present data in terms of engineer- anchor would also undergo softening caused by the soil re-
ing practice. Since Fu et al. (2017) stressed that API meth- moulding (Randolph, 2004; Lunne et al., 2011; Gaudin et
od is restricted to vertical pullout and is not applicable for al., 2014). Overall, it was found by Kim and Hossain (2016)
inclined pullout, whether the API method is applicable for that the soil strength increased sharply as the torpedo an-
the inclined one requires further validation. chor tip approached the designated depth due to the effect of
higher strain rate, and then dropped abruptly as the torpedo
4.3.2 Method of Fu et al. (2017) anchor tip passed through the depth, which was associated
Fu et al. (2017) proposed a complicated method to cal- with the domination of remoulding or softening. Before the
culate the maximum inclined force. Fig. 11 shows a com- pullout test, the undrained shear strength would gradually
parison of the maximum inclined force calculated by Fu et increase due to the combined effects of thixotropy and con-
al. (2017) method with those measured in the present tests. solidation (Richardson, 2008; Hossain et al., 2015).
63.2% of the points calculated by the Fu et al. (2017) meth- In the present tests, the torpedo anchor was very slowly
od fell within ±20%, which was lower than the 94.3% of the pushed into the designated depth, which was different from
present method. Thus, the reliability of the method devised the installation process in engineering practice. The shear
by Fu et al. (2017) seems to require further validation. strength near the torpedo anchor installed at very slow velo-
city was higher than that by free-fall due to a lower soil dis-
4.4 Other factors affecting maximum inclined force of a
turbance adjacent to the slow installed torpedo anchor (Kim
torpedo anchor
and Hossain, 2016). Then, the maximum inclined force of
4.4.1 Effect of installation the torpedo anchor installed at very slow velocity was also
The tilt of the torpedo anchor in the bed would affect the higher than that of the torpedo anchor installed by free-fall.
However, if the suitable waiting time from the end of the in-
stallation to the start of the pullout exists, the difference of
the shear strength and maximum inclined force under these
two different installation methods could be ignored
(Richardson et al., 2009; Kim and Hossain, 2016). For the
present tests, the installation effect was neglected. Further-
more, Eq. (14) for estimating the maximum inclined force
of torpedo anchor is valid for the condition that the installa-
tion effect can be ignored.

4.4.2 Effect of mooring line

The curvature of the mooring line would influence the
maximum inclined force. If the mooring line is coarse and
Fig. 11. Comparison of maximum inclined force calculated by Fu et al. heavy, and the bed is stiff, the mooring line may be curved
(2017) method with the measured values of the present tests. during the pullout process. In such cases, the mooring line
 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343 341

angle at the padeye is higher than the mooring line angle at of the pullout was required to ensure the effect of installa-
the mudline as stated by O’Beirne et al. (2015). In the tion acceptable. According to Kimura and Saitoh (1983) and
present tests, according to the chain solution proposed by Yang et al. (2014), the waiting time is likely dependent on
Neubecker and Randolph (1995), the difference between the the disturbance rate (or impact rate; Vi/d) of the torpedo an-
mooring line angle at the padeye and the mooring line angle chor and restoration speed of the bed sediments. In the
at the mudline was smaller than 3° and could be neglected present tests, the waiting time was determined by trial tests
(O’Beirne et al., 2015). Furthermore, the mooring line was (Kimura and Saitoh, 1983).The results of the trial tests for
assumed to be straight in the study because the mooring line Bed B are shown in Fig. 13. When the waiting time was
used in the present tests was light and thin, and the bed was longer than 10 min for the bed (sheared 1 min at the disturb-
soft (Fu et al., 2017). Therefore, the influence of the moor- ance rate of 1 –s 1 ) of present tests, the difference of the
ing line curvature on the maximum inclined force was ig- shear stress between the sheared bed and the un-sheared bed
nored in the present tests. was smaller than 10%. According to the previous sensitiv-
ity analysis, the corresponding difference of the maximum
4.4.3 Effect of pullout speed inclined force calculated using the undrained shear strength
It is noteworthy to highlight that the pullout speed may of the sheared bed (corresponding to the undrained shear
affect the maximum inclined force of torpedo anchor. The strength in the vicinity of the torpedo anchor in the present
maximum inclined force would be larger if the pullout tests) and the undrained shear strength of the un-sheared bed
speed increased significantly, as the pullout speed or the (corresponding to the undrained shear strength away from
shear rate caused changes in the soil shear strength. The ef- the torpedo anchor) would be smaller than 10%. Hence, the
fect of shear rate on shear strength for Bed B is shown in waiting time from the end of the installation to the start of
Fig. 12. Clearly, the shear strength increases with the in- the pullout should be at least 10 min in the present tests.
creasing shear rate, which is validated by Eq. (15) (Liu et Thereafter, the effect of the installation was assumed to be
al., 2016; Kim and Hossain, 2016; Kim et al., 2018). In gen- restored to an acceptable level, and the soil shear strength
eral, the pullout speeds were sufficiently small in previous which is measured away from the torpedo anchor and sub-
tests conducted by Hossain et al. (2015), O’Beirne et al. sequently used in Eq. (14) can represent that in the vicinity
(2015) and Fu et al. (2017), so that the effect of pullout of the torpedo anchor.
speed on maximum inclined force could be ignored.
However, due to the importance effect of the pullout speed
on the maximum inclined force of torpedo anchor, it is ne-
cessary to conduct further research.
 ( )β 

 γ̇  [ ] S u,ref
S u = 1 + η  δrem + (1 − δrem ) e−3ξ/ξ95 , (15)
γ̇ref 1+η
where η is the viscous property, γ̇ is the soil shear strain
rate, γ̇ref is the reference shear strain rate, β is the shear-
thinning index, δrem is the fully remoulded ratio and equal
to 1/St, ξ is the cumulative plastic shear strain, ξ95 is the cu-
mulative plastic shear strain required for 95% remoulding,
and Su, ref is the undrained shear strength at the reference Fig. 12. Shear stress for different shear rates.
strain rate.

4.4.4 Effect of Su measurement

The undrained shear strength used in Eq. (14) can rep-
resent that in the vicinity of the torpedo anchor. However, it
was impossible to measure the undrained shear strength in
the vicinity of the torpedo anchor. Practically, there are two
methods: (1) measure it before the anchor installation, then
modify it with the friction ratio (Gilbert et al., 2008;
Richardson et al., 2009; O’Beirne et al., 2015; Hossain et
al., 2015; Fu et al., 2017); (2) wait for the effect of the in-
stallation on the pullout restored to acceptable level and
then measure it away from the torpedo anchor. In present
tests, the second method was used. For this method, suit-
able waiting time from the end of the installation to the start Fig. 13. Shear stress for disturbance rate at different waiting time.
342 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343

The effects of the consolidation on Su during the pullout force were investigated by using nine different types of tor-
process were assumed to be negligible in the study. In gen- pedo anchors and two types of silts. The cohesive bed prop-
eral, the value of S u would increase with time as the bed erties were measured by using precise instruments, and the
consolidation (Kamei et al., 1987). In present tests, the time maximum inclined force were recorded by a high-speed data
from the start of the pullout to the moment when the peak acquisition system. The load angle varied from 20° to 90°.
pullout force (i.e., the maximum inclined force) was reached A total of 316 sets of experimental data were collected in
is less than 5 min. To evaluate the changes in Su because of the laboratory. Effect aspects on the tests are discussed and
the bed consolidation during this period, the rheological further studies are highlighted. The main conclusions of this
curves were measured using a RheolabQC rheometer for the study can be summarized as follows.
soil Bed B at different consolidation time, as shown in Eq. (14) was proposed for fast calculating the maxim-
Fig. 14. The rheological curves corresponding to the consol- um force of inclined pullout of a torpedo anchor in cohes-
idate time of 5, 10 and 20 min were quite close. Thus, the ive beds. This formula was validated by comparing the ob-
effects of the consolidation on Su during the pullout process tained results with the numerical simulated, laboratory and
were assumed to be negligible in the study. field data by Medeiros (2002), de Sousa et al. (2010),
O’Beirne et al. (2015), Kim and Hossain (2016), and Fu et
al. (2017).
The sensitivity of major parameters in Eq. (14) reduces
as follows: the undrained shear strength, undrained shear
strength gradient, and load angle. The calculated errors of
the maximum inclined force of the torpedo anchor are smal-
ler than ±10% when the tests errors in the undrained shear
strength, undrained shear strength gradient, and load angle
were ±10%.
The proposed formula is suitable for the torpedo anchor
without a fin or with four fins, but has not been verified by
other anchors such as plate anchor, OMNI-Max and dynam-
ically embedded plate anchor (DEPLA). Whether the for-
Fig. 14. Shear stress for different consolidation time.
mula is suitable for other types of anchors needs further in-
This study only focuses on the maximum inclined force vestigation. Owing to the critical importance of large-scale
of torpedo anchors vertically embedded in un-stratified co- mooring system, the difficulty of seabed detection and the
hesive soils subject to a constant pullout speed. In practice, limitation of formulae, a trial test may be necessary in fu-
the bed may be composed of several layers with different ture engineering practice.
kinds of sediments, such as clay, silt, and sand. Moreover, In addition to the influence of the soil parameters, an-
an anchor may be embedded in the soil bed in a tilted man- chor parameters and load angle on the inclined pullout force
ner, rather than a vertical manner. Further investigation on of torpedo anchor, many other factors such as pullout speed,
the maximum inclined force of torpedo anchors embedded mooring line, vibrational or an intermittent pullout force and
at an angle in stratified beds is necessary. Another issue to layered soil may also affect the inclined pullout force of tor-
highlight is that the anchor pullout performance may vary pedo anchor in cohesive soil bed. These factors may be paid
when the anchor is subjected to a vibrational or an intermit- attention to in future study.
tent pullout rather than a constant pullout (Richardson,
References
2008). The soils around the anchor may be liquefied under a API, 2014. Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations, ISO
vibrational or an intermittent pullout force (Yang et al., 19901-4: 2003, API.
2014). Once the soil around the anchor is liquefied, its un- Brandão, F.E.N., Henriques, C.C.D., Araújo, J.B., Ferreira, O.C.G. and
drained shear strength would be significantly reduced, and dos Santos Amaral, C., 2006. Albacora leste field
the anchor would provide a lower maximum inclined force development–FPSO P-50 mooring system concept and installation,
(Richardson, 2008). Hence, further investigation on the Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC, Hous-
maximum inclined force of torpedo anchors subjected to the ton, Texas.
Bridge, C., Laver, K., Clukey, E. and Evans, T., 2004. Steel catenary
vibrational or an intermittent pullout force is necessary.
riser touchdown point vertical interaction models, Proceedings of
the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC, Houston.
5 Conclusions
Broms, B.B., 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils, Journ-
The maximum inclined force of a torpedo anchor vertic- al of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 90(2), 27–64.
ally embedded in cohesive beds was extensively investig- Das, B.M., Shin, E.C., Dass, R.N. and Omar, M.T., 1994. Suction
ated in this study. The effects of the soil, anchor shape, em- force below plate anchors in soft clay, Marine Georesources & Geo-
bedment ratio, and load angle on the maximum inclined technology, 12(1), 71–81.
 WANG Cheng et al. China Ocean Eng., 2019, Vol. 33, No. 3, P. 333–343 343

de Araujo, J.B., Machado, R.D. and de Medeiros Junior, C.J., 2004. deep waters, Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, OTC,
High holding power torpedo pile: results for the first long term ap- Houston.
plication, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Off- Merifield, R.S., Lyamin, A.V. and Sloan, S.W., 2005. Stability of in-
shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Vancouver, Brit- clined strip anchors in purely cohesive soil, Journal of Geotechnic-
ish Columbia, Canada. al and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(6), 792–799.
de Sousa, J.R.M., de Aguiar, C.S., Ellwanger, G.B., Porto, E.C., Neubecker, S.R. and Randolph, M.F., 1995. Profile and frictional ca-
Foppa, D. and de Medeiros, C.J., 2010. Undrained load capacity of pacity of embedded anchor chains, Journal of Geotechnical Engin-
torpedo anchors embedded in cohesive soils, Journal of Offshore eering, 121(11), 797–803.
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 133(2), 021102. O’Beirne, C., O’Loughlin, C.D., Wang, D. and Gaudin, C., 2015. Ca-
DeJong, J.T., Yafrate, N.J. and DeGroot, D.J., 2011. Evaluation of un- pacity of dynamically installed anchors as assessed through field
drained shear strength using full-flow penetrometers, Journal of testing and three-dimensional large-deformation finite element ana-
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(1), 14–26. lyses, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52(5), 548–562.
Fu, Y., Zhang, X.Y., Li, Y.P., Gu, H., Sun, J., Liu, Y. and Lee, F.H., O’Loughlin, C.D., Richardson, M.D. and Randolph, M.F., 2009. Cent-
2017. Holding capacity of dynamically installed anchors in nor- rifuge tests on dynamically installed anchors, Proceedings of the
mally consolidated clay under inclined loading, Canadian Geotech- 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic En-
nical Journal, 54(9), 1257–1271. gineering, OMAE, ASME, Honolulu.
Gaudin, C., O’Loughlin, C.D. Hossain, M.S., Randolph, M.F. and Col- Randolph, M.F., 2004. Characterisation of soft sediments for offshore
liat, J.L., 2014. Installation of suction caissons in gulf of guinea applications, Proceedings of the Second International Conference
clay, Proceedings, 1, 493–499. on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation, Porto 1,
Gilbert, R.B., Movant, M. and Audibert, J., 2008. Torpedo Piles Joint pp. 209–231.
Industry Project–Model Torpedo Pile Tests in Kaolinite Test Beds, Richardson, M.D., 2008. Dynamically Installed Anchors for Floating
The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.
Offshore Structures. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Western Aus-
Hossain, M.S., Kim, Y.H. and Wang, D., 2013. Physical and numeric-
tralia, Perse.
al modeling of installation and pull-out of dynamically penetrating
Richardson, M.D., O’Loughlin, C.D., Randolph, M.F. and Gaudin, C.,
anchors in clay and silt, Proceedings of the 32nd International Con-
2009. Setup following installation of dynamic anchors in normally
ference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, American Soci-
consolidated clay, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
ety of Mechanical Engineers, Nantes, France, Paper No.
Engineering, 135(4), 487–496.
OMAE2013-10322, pp. V006T10A019.
Shin, E.C., Dass, R.N., Omar, M.T., Das, B.M. and Cook, E.E., 1994.
Hossain, M.S., O’Loughlin, C.D. and Kim, Y., 2015. Dynamic install-
Mud suction force in the uplift of plate anchors in clay, Proceed-
ation and monotonic pullout of a torpedo anchor in calcareous silt,
ings of the Fourth International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Géotechnique, 65(2), 77–90.
Conference, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers,
Kamei, T., Ogawa, S. and Tanaka, N., 1987. The variation in un-
Osaka, Japan, pp. 462–466.
drained shear characteristics during consolidation process, Soils and
Singh, S.P. and Ramaswamy, S.V., 2008. Effect of shape on holding
Foundations, 27(3), 91–98.
capacity of plate anchors buried in soft soil, Geomechanics and
Kim, Y.H. and Hossain, M.S., 2016. Numerical study on pull-out ca-
pacity of torpedo anchors in clay, Géotechnique Letters, 6(4), Geoengineering, 3(2), 145–154.
275–282. Singh, V., Maitra, S. and Chatterjee, S., 2017. Generalized design ap-
Kim, Y.H., Hossain, M.S. and Lee, J.K., 2018. Dynamic installation of proach for inclined strip anchors in clay, International Journal of
a torpedo anchor in two-layered clays, Canadian Geotechnical Geomechanics, 17(6), 04016148.
Journal, 55(3), 446–454. Skempton, A.W., 1951. The Bearing Capacity of Clays, Building Re-
Kimura, T. and Saitoh, K., 1983. Effect of disturbance due to insertion search Congress, London, pp.180–189.
on vane shear strength of normally consolidated cohesive soils, Soils Wang, C., Zhang, M.X. and Yu, G.L., 2018. Penetration depth of tor-
and Foundations, 23(2), 113–124. pedo anchor in two-layered cohesive soil bed by free fall, China
Lieng, J.T., Tjelta T.I. and Skaugset, K., 2010. Installation of two pro- Ocean Engineering, 32(6), 706–717.
totype deep penetrating anchors at the Gjøa field in the North Sea, Wang, D. and O’Loughlin, C.D., 2014. Numerical study of pull-out ca-
Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, OTC, Houston. pacities of dynamically embedded plate anchors, Canadian Geo-
Liu, H.X., Xu, K., and Zhao, Y.B., 2016. Numerical investigation on technical Journal, 51(11), 1263–1272.
the penetration of gravity installed anchors by a coupled Eulerian- Wang, W.K., Wang, X.F. and Yu, G.L., 2016. Penetration depth of tor-
Lagrangian approach, Applied Ocean Research, 60, 94–108. pedo anchor in cohesive soil by free fall, Ocean Engineering, 116,
Lunne, T., Andersen, K.H., Low, H.E., Randolph, M.F., Sjursen, M., 286–294.
2011. Guidelines for offshore in situ testing and interpretation in Wang, W.K., Wang, X.F. and Yu, G.L., 2018. Vertical holding capa-
deepwater soft clays, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(4), city of torpedo anchors in underwater cohesive soils, Ocean Engin-
543–556. eering, 161, 291–307.
Majer, J., 1955. Zur berechnung von zugfundamenten, Osterreichis- Yang, W.Y., Yu, G.L., Tan S.K. and Wang, H.K., 2014. Rheological
che Bauzeitgschrift, 10(5), 85–90. properties of dense natural cohesive sediments subject to shear load-
Medeiros, C.J. Jr, 2002. Low cost anchor system for flexible risers in ings, International Journal of Sediment Research, 29(4), 454–470.