BACKGROUND

1. 2. Offshore Foundations ................................................................................................................................ 2 Temporary Foundations .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. 3. Spudcans ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Geotechnical Calculations..................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1. 3.1. 3.1.1.

Permanent Foundations ........................................................................................................................... 4 Shallow foundations ......................................................................................................................... 4 Pile Foundations ........................................................................................................................... 4 Driven Piles............................................................................................................................ 5 Grouted Piles ......................................................................................................................... 6 Pile Resistance...................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1.1. 3.1.1.2. 3.1.1.3. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4.

Gravity Based Structures ........................................................................................................... 9 Concrete Caissons for Tension Leg Platforms ................................................................ 11 Steel Buckets for Jackets .......................................................................................................... 12 Installation in Clay ............................................................................................................ 13 Installation in Sand........................................................................................................... 13 Gravity Anchors ...................................................................................................................... 17 Pile Anchors ............................................................................................................................. 18 Suction Caissons ..................................................................................................................... 19 Vertically Loaded Drag Anchor ........................................................................................ 20 Suction Embedded Plate Anchor ..................................................................................... 22 Dynamically Penetration Anchor .................................................................................... 22

3.1.4.1. 3.1.4.2. 3.2. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 3.2.5. 3.2.6.

Deep and Ultra-Deep Waters Foundations ........................................................................... 16

I.

BACKGROUND

1. OFFSHORE FOUNDATIONS
Over the past century, many advances have been made into the development of the offshore technology. Some of them focused on the foundations of the structures that support the working platforms. Currently, there are several solutions for each offshore site conditions. Those conditions can either be fair or harsh depending on: the weather conditions such as wind, tether and waves; or the local conditions such as the water-depth, seabeds quality and topography, among other particularly circumstances. Therefore, a description of the different technologies and its applications are follow presented. Offshore platforms can be either temporary or permanent, which results in a very different foundation solution. The temporary platforms have an enormous benefit which is the mobility; it can be relocated and reutilized. On the other hand it cannot be applied in deep waters or on aggressive environments, due to the stability problems. When these problems are crossed permanent solutions can deal with them, there is a large variety of solutions with the purpose of bearing them up.

Marine Foundations
Temporary Shallo w Spudcan s Deep VLA Gravity Based Structures Tank Condee p Shallow (<300m) Steel Buckets Concrete Caissons Driven Piles Piles Grouted Piles Box Gravity
Grillage and berm

Permanent Deep and Ultra-deep Anchoring Systems Embedded Anchors Piles

Suction Caissons

VLA

SEPLA

DPA

Figure 1 Marine Foundations type by application and water depth. FPSO- floating production, storage and offloading vessel. VLA- drag embedment vertically loaded anchor. SEPLA- suction embedded plate anchor. DPA- dynamically penetrating anchor.

2. TEMPORARY FOUNDATIONS
In the offshore industry a vital role is played by the self-elevating mobile drilling units, commonly known as jack-ups, due to its flexibility and cost-effectiveness (Randolph et al., 2005). It has proved to be a very useful construction tool, especially when working in turbulent sea areas, or breaking waves such as shoal or coastal waters, and in swift currents (Gerwick Jr. et al., 2007). These structures consist on a buoyant triangular unit resting in three or more retractable legs passing through it. This unit supports drilling and other topside equipment; it moves onto the aimed location with legs retracted, then releases the legs onto the seabed, and raises the hull out of the water. On jack-ups the legs foundation operate independent of each other and they are usually known as spudcans.

Figure 2 Jack-up installation procedure

2.1.

SPUDCANS

These foundations have a unique geometry, since they are installed relying only on structures self-weight plus an additional designed preload, so it minimizes settlements and improves resistance to withstand the environmental solicitations. Therefore, spudcans are roughly circular in plan, typically they have a shallow conical underside (in the order of 15 to 30 degrees to the horizontal) with a sharp protruding spigot. In the larger jack-ups operating today the diameter can exceed 20 meters in diameter, with the shapes varying with the manufacturer and rig (Randolph et al., 2005). The usual height of a jack-up structure is over 160m.

Since jack-ups started to be applied in deeper and harsher environments, preloading also started to play a more important role on its design. Preloading induces bearing capacity failure in the soil beneath and around each spudcan, causing the spudcan to penetrate into the seabed until the soil resistance equals the applied load. If the same penetration was given to all legs a punch-through failure might occur during preloading, which could result in jackup toppling over and one or more legs being bent or broken. So,

to avoid these risks, modern jackups are able to preload spudcans individually (Dean. 2009).

2.1.1. GEOTECHNICAL CALCULATIONS

Jackups are mobile units, and when designed the foundation conditions where it will be applied are not specially known. So, for each new site, SNAME (2002) recommends that a site-specific assessment be done. This may include: Assessment of geohazards Foundation assessment for installation, commonly including a preload check Foundation assessment for operations, including a sliding check and an overturning check Assessment of effects of the jackup on nearby structures Leg extraction assessment, for when the jackup is moved off site to another location

These analyses are preformed to predict the footing penetration during installation and preloading, and the capacity to withstand a design storm.

3. PERMANENT FOUNDATIONS
The worlds need of energy pushed the oil companies to search petroleum in every places of earth. In some of the harsher sites petroleum has been found, forcing engineers to develop high productive solutions. These solutions must be capable of withstanding the environmental forces as well as extracting and some storing the needed substances. Where temporary solutions are no longer viable, permanent solutions where developed. There are many solutions, either for shallow or deep situations.

3.1.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

A foundation is considered shallow if the seabed depth does not exceed the 300 meters. The principal types of these foundations are: Piles Gravity based structures Concrete caissons Steel Buckets

All these solutions have advantages and disadvantages, some cannot be applied in every soil and some are more conducive.

3.1.1. PILE FOUNDATIONS

Piles are columnar elements in a foundation which have the function of transferring load from the superstructure through weak compressible strata or through water, onto stiffer or more compact and less compressible soils or onto rock. They may be

required to carry uplift loads when used to support tall structures subjected to overturning forces from winds or waves. Piles used in marine structures are subjected to lateral loads from the impact of berthing ships and from waves. Combinations of vertical and horizontal loads are carried where piles are used to support retaining walls, bridge piers and abutments, and machinery foundations (M.J. Tomlinson 1977). Pile foundations can be used either in shallow or deep water, the link to the working platform is what differs. In shallow foundations the connection is made by steel lattice structure commonly called as jacket. This is the most used structure of fixed offshore platform. Piles can also be used as anchors in moor floating facilities, but this will be further discussed in the deep and ultra-deep sphere. There are two construction methods for piles: driven and grouted. The most used are the metallic driven piles because they are the most reliable and have the easiest construction path. Although we are in marine environment there is no problem with corrosion once the steel pile has no contact with oxygen.

3.1.1.1.

DRIVEN PILES

On offshore, the most frequent pile is the open-ended steel pipe, which is classically driven into the seabed by a hammer. Pile diameter ranges from 0.76m up to 2.5m, but exceptionally a diameter of 5.1m has been successfully used on offshore wind turbines. The walls thickness may vary along the pile length, so it will be thicker where moment is greater (near the pile head). Typical diameter to wall thickness ratios (d/t) are between 20 and 60. The lower value represents the greatest curvature that can normally be achieved in a steel rolling machine. The highest value represents a curvature beyond which wall-buckling or section ovalisation effects can be common (Barbour and Erbrich, 1994; MSL, 2001; Aldridge et al., 2005; Randolph et al., 2005). Installing an offshore driven pile trough a steel jacket leg is illustrated on the figure 3. First the steel jacket is released on the precise wanted place, where it will be supported by mudmats, and then the first section of pile is lowered trough the leg. A hammer is installed on the stack, and is used to drive the first segment until its limit, the pilling equipment is removed and another pile segment is lifted on and welded in place. This weld is normally subjected to non-destructive testing, after which the hammer is lifted back on, and the whole procedure starts again until the designed pile penetration is achieved. Unless jacket confines the pile, grout is injected into the annular space to provide the structural connection between them (Dean, 2009).

Figure 3 Pile driving method trough a jacket leg (Dean, 2009)

When more than one pile is required per leg, sleeves may be attached to the jacket around the base of its legs. These sleeves operate both as guides and grouping pile. Piling is done in the same way as for a leg pile, with each pile installed in several segments, if necessary. The figure 4 shows the sleeve arrangement for pile group.

Figure 4 - arrangement for pile group around a leg (Dean, 2009)

Contrarily to onshore pile penetration, where it ends when needed bearing capacity is reached. On offshore driven piles are driven to a specified penetration, calculated from pile design algorithms. ISTO ACONTECE MAIS PARA DEEP!? E NAO SHALLOW

3.1.1.2.

GROUTED PILES

Even though driven piles are the most common on offshore environment, there is also the equivalent of a bored pile. It consists on grouting a steel section, which is inserted in a previously drilled hole. Figure 5 shows the stages in construction of a drilled and grouted pile. In order to avoid collapse of loose uncemented material near the seabed, it is often necessary to drive a primary pile first; alternatively stabilizing mud can also be used. This solution is only used if an adequate drilling barge is already on the site, since it is more expensive to install and has longer construction period than the driven piles (Randolph et al, 2005). Whenever the seabed is composed by calcareous sediments, and potentially other crushable material, where the shaft friction obtained with driven piles seem to be tremendously low, drilled and grouted piles are more reliable. The low shaft friction is associated with very low radial effective stresses around the pile, a situation remedied by drilled and grouted pile construction, where the original horizontal effective stresses in the ground can be restored by appropriate grouting design.

Figure 5 stages in installation of an offshore drilled and grouted pile (Randolph et al., 2005)

3.1.1.3.

PILE RESISTANCE Despite many studies have been made into the understanding of end-bearing and shaft friction resistance, design methods still rely on empirical methods. The determination of the soil resistance can be done applying current offshore guidelines, e.g. API RP2A and ISO 19902, or CPT- based methods. The latters advantage is that it takes account of the detailed stress history of the soil around the pile (Randolph et al., 2005; Dean, 2009).
Unit parameters
Table 1 summarizes the unit parameters recommended by API RP2A and ISO 19902, and also gives some data for carbonate sands. For granular material, drained conditions are assumed to apply. The parameters are based on relative density and silt content. The design approach for shaft friction is expressed as,

where K is a coefficient of lateral earth pressure, and the recommended values are between 0.7 and 0.8 for open ended piles loaded in compression and 0.5 to 0.7 for tensioned piles, is the vertical effective stress, is the soil-pile friction angle, and is a limiting unit skin friction, which varies with soil type and density. The limiting bearing pressure is expressed as

where ranges from 12 to 50 according to the grain size and relative density of the material. All parameters needed to determine sand resistance re given in Table 1.

Siliceous Sands Soil Soil density description Sand Loose Medium Dense Very Dense Silty Sand Loose, Med Clayey Sand Dense Very Dense Sandy Silt Loose Med. Dense Very dense

Dr(%) 15-35 35-65 65-85 85-100 15-65 65-85 85-100 15-35 35-85 85-100

() 20 25 30 35 20 25 30 15 20 25

(kPa) 65 80 95 115 65 80 95 45 65 80 12 20 40 50 12 20 40 8 12 20

(MPa) 3 5 10 12 3 5 10 2 3 5

Table 1 Pile Design parameters for siliceous sands in ISO (2004)

For cohesive material, axial pile failure is assumed to be as undrained conditions. Shaft friction is calculated as multiple of the undrained shear strength . The multiplier depends on the ratio or in terms of the over-consolidation ratio (OCR), using Semple and Gemeinhardts (1983) relation. This last interpretation also expresses, . API RP2A recommends that the unit end bearing be taken as 9 in clay. Table 2 provides the way to determine the multiplier ISO 19902 and API RP2A Range of 1 Interpreted in terms of OCR* Approximate range of OCR 1

Table 2 Pile Design multiplier parameter ( ) for clays based on Gemeinhardt, 1983).

or OCR (Semple and

It is now recommend that grouted piles are better suited to soil profiles consisting primarily of calcareous and carbonate materials (Kolk, 2000). For soil profiles that contain thin calcareous and carbonate sand layers, driven piles may still be feasible. On Table 3 Kolks recommendations are summarized for open-ended piles. Range of carbonate contents: CC As siliceous sand Unit end bearing Notes

As siliceous sand q for coring, for plugged. determined from CPT cone

and if no CPT data available

Table 3 Shaft friction and end bearing capacity on carbonate sands based on Kolk( 2000).

3.1.2. GRAVITY BASED STRUCTURES

Gravity based structures (GBS) are designed to be founded at or just below the seafloor, transferring theirs loads to the soil by means of shallow footings. Usually these structures have been made of reinforced and prestressed concrete, but some were built of steel or a hybrid of concrete and steel. These structures have a large base footprint with porpoise of minimizing soil-bearing loads. An important advantage of these solutions is the possibility of oil storage, the base operates both as foundation and storage. GBS are also used for offshore wind power plants. By the end of 2010, 14 of the world's offshore wind farms were supported by gravity-based structures. Design loads for an offshore GBS are much superior to onshore conditions. Due to its big volume, inertial forces under waves, earthquake, and impact from vessel or icebergs are much greater than usual. Thus, sliding tends to become the dominant mode of failure. So, to prevent this tendency, concrete or steel skirts and dowels are employed, designed to penetrate and thus force the failure surface farther below the seafloor. Those skirts also provide protection against scour and piping (Gerwick Jr. et al., 2007). These structures have been evolved over the time, the first of its kind was the Ekofisk tank, which was installed in the North Sea in 1973 (Clausen et al., 1975). The experience gained on this first project lead to conceptualization of a better, and now common, concrete deep water structure called Condeep. A Condeep gravity base comprises a number of cylindrical cells usually displayed in a hexagonal arrangement, the underside of the cells has a convex profile and half a metre inside the concrete skirts the top of the dome touches down on the seabed, as illustrated in Figure 6b. On figure 6 it is visible the more complex design of Condeep foundation over the Ekofisk. While Ekofisk tank had short (40cm) concrete skirts, the Condeep has first steel skirts (to 3.5m), then concrete skirts. The condeep design has much smaller wave forces acting on the structure as the major volume is located below the water surface. On figure 7 it is possible to see this characteristic on some different condeep platforms.

Figure 6 (a) Plant of Ekofisk tank and (b) Condeep gravity base designs

Figure 7 Condeep Structures exemples ref. http://www.inrisk.ubc.ca/files/2012/11/CondeepComparison.png

Another unusual group of GBS has been developed, and it is a hybrid concrete-steel solution. They have been applied in sites where the calcareous muddy silts and sands dominate. The rapid construction time is a very important reason for choosing this kind of solution (Dean, 2009).

Gravity foundations are often considered to be more complicated than jackets because soil behaviors must be considered in a three-dimensional volume that stretches one or more caisson diameters below the caisson, and several diameters either side. The main design features is to determine the foundation footprint and the skirts depth and its spacing too. There are three design codes for gravity platforms, which are ISO 19903, API RP2A and Det Norske Veritas. Besides structural design another really important aspect on the implementation of these structures is the foundation construction method. Obviously foundation is constructed in dry dock, the hard work is to fix it to the sea ground. Most gravity platforms are kept level as they are lowered to the seabed. This allows the dowels to start do penetrate the seabed almost simultaneously. Similarly, the skirts will penetrate simultaneously. Dowels are steel pipes up to above 2m in diameter, they contact the seabed first and pin the platform to the seabed and penetrate a few meters below all other components. As for the skirts, they can be of steel (few millimeters thick) or concrete (about a meter thick). Their height is determined by the need to transfer vertical load to competent layers and shear against horizontal forces, and design is similar to piles. On Figure 8 it is possible to attend to all issues that must be cared while designing and installing the platform (Dean, 2009).

Figure 8 Principal design issues for parallel descent installation: (a) dowel penetration, (b) skirt penetration, (c) base suction or pressure, (d) dome contact stresses, (e) grouting pressures and density, and (f) scour protection.

3.1.3. CONCRETE CAISSONS FOR TENSION LEG PLATFORMS

Concrete caissons evolved from deep skirted concrete base foundations, thus starting to use individual or clusters of small concrete caissons or bucket foundations. Figure 9a illustrates a TLP and its foundation system. This foundation system has the particularity that the resistance is provided by a combination of concretes self-weight and the interaction between structure and seabed (Randolph et al., 2005). The average static tension is counteracted by the concrete foundation template (CFT), while load originated by cyclic waves and wind (design storm) are transferred to the soil by skirt friction and suction under the top cap (Stove et al.; 1992). During a storm the TLP will offset from foundations producing moment on the CFTs which give the most critical load situation (Christophersen, 1993). Figure 9b reveals the limit equilibrium and three dimensional finite element analyses predictions, as well as values of bearing capacity and measured displacements (Christophersen, 1993).

Figure 9 (a) Inset, Foundation template showing cluster of concrete caissons (b) Predicted and measured cyclic load vs. displacement response (Christophersen, 1993)

The concrete caissons installation has normal procedure, which: Begins with the free release of the concrete caissons on the sea ground, this step is very important to ensure a minimum penetration by means of caissons self-weight, so a water tight seal is provided to withstand the differential pressures applied during suction. On the other hand, too much self-weight penetration must be prevented to avoid costly consolidation phase before water evacuation could be released (Stove et al., 1992). Then water evacuation from the inside of the caisson is done by means of pumps located on its top. As soil operates under untrained conditions, caissons skirts will be forced to penetrate the soil due to interior negative pressure. Afterwards the foundation template is covered with ballast to increase the weight and confinement. Lastly, the connection and tensioning to the TLP can be done.

The resistance calculation of the skirts is similar to the piles, by observation friction coefficient is in the range of 0.15 and 0.30 depending on the material (Randolph et al., 2005). The resistance set by suction has to be analyzed on site, since it depends on the soil characteristics, like permeability, as well as loads magnitudes. The greater the loads, higher suctions we will get. Caissons have certain advantages over piles as anchors for deeper water moorings if they can provide enough tensile capacity. For example, the pumps used for caissons installation do not have the same problems as piling hammers at great working depths, even though new systems are being developed for the latter to allow operations in water depths of 3km; also the larger diameter of caisson foundations provides a larger area for ballast and also mobilizes greater reverse end bearing or passive suction during uplift compared to a pile foundation (Clukey et al., 1995)

3.1.4. STEEL BUCKETS FOR JACKETS

Steel buckets (also known as suction cans) are used as an alternative to pile foundations for jackets. It has also a significant appliance on offshore wind turbines. These

suction foundations are steel cylindrical structures, closed on one end and open on the other. Bucket foundations can easily exceed 5 meter of diameter, some reach 10 or 20 meters. The jackets, to which the buckets are attached, have much larger dimensions. So the installation of these structures can proof to be quite difficult to perform with the use of a crane. Therefore, pontoons are used from where the structure is launched into the water. Then, the structures dives by slowly filling the containers with water and aligning with the help of a crane so it is placed on the seabed. For installation the open end is placed on the seabed and the water contained within the cylinder and the floor is pumped out. This causes a vertical load on the structure, penetrating it into the ground. Figure 10 illustrates two steps of the installation, first the filling of the containers so the structures penetrates the soil under its own weight, and second the pumping out of water producing suction penetration. Suction foundations can be applied in sands as well as in clays, but especially in softer clays they work very well. Depending on which soil the steel buckets are installed, different failures can occur.

Figure 10 Stages of installation of a bucket Foundation for a jacket structure

3.1.4.1.

INSTALLATION IN CLAY

One of the failure mechanisms is that when there is a lot of friction on the outside of the can, plastic failure of the soil can occur. In that case, it can happen that instead of a penetration of the can, the soil can be sucked up into the can. This phenomenon is called reversed end bearing failure. Normal end bearing failure occurs when after installation too large load is placed on the soil inside and right underneath the can the soil will move out of the can. The reversed can happen if the suction applied is too large or if the pull force on the can is too large.

3.1.4.2.

INSTALLATION IN SAND

In sands another failure mechanism can occur, and it is related to the inflow of water. In Figure 11 the flow net around the suction can has been sketched, during the suction penetration phase, pumping creates an under-pressure across the foundation baseplate and, and more importantly, sets up seepage flow that reduces tip resistance and internal skirt friction. The inflow will always be present because of the pressure differential between the sea and the inside of the can and the fact that sands are relatively permeable. If the suction produces a very fast flow a large flow gradient can occur, which will decrease effective stresses and ultimately liquefaction can occur.

Figure 11 Seepage pressures set ip during suction installation of bucket foundation

3.2.

DEEP AND ULTRA-DEEP WATERS FOUNDATIONS

Prime materials shortage, such as petrol and natural gas, has forced companies to search for resources in remote sites. Some of these sites are offshore and have water coverage up to 2400 meters (Perdido Spar, Gulf of Mexico); it is considered to be deep water for depths starting from 300 meters. The economic investment is huge, so it is vital to produce optimal solutions between reliability and economy. On Figure 12 it is allowed to see some spots where deep and ultra-deep foundations are being used. As depths on play are colossal, it is impossible to build load transferring structures such as jackets or gravity based structures. Or else we would build underwater skyscrapers. Therefore, a different kind of solutions has been brought, the anchoring and mooring systems. There is a vast list of solutions which are sub-divided on gravity anchors and embedded anchors. Gravity anchors types are: Box Grillage and Berm

Embedded anchors types are: Anchor pile Suction cassion Drag anchor (fixed fluke) Vertically loaded drag anchor (VLA) Suction embedded plate anchor (SEPLA) Dynamically penetrated anchor (DPA)

Figure 12 Locations of some current deepwater developments (Dean, 2009)

The deep water environment faces severe geohazard challenges. Many current deepwater developments are close to a continental rise, and so are subject to additional potential geohazards associated with possible land sliding (Dean, 2009). The mooring system plays an important role, and there are two main types of mooring. On one hand, there is the catenary mooring, which is generally used in shallow to

deep water (up to 1000 meters). It is used chain or wire rope mooring lines, which a significant length of it lays on the seabed, and the anchor is loaded in a horizontal direction, typically are used conventional drag embedment anchor. Figure 13a represents the catenary mooring geometry and a common drag anchor. On the other hand, there is the taut leg mooring, which is typically used in deep and ultra deep water (greater than 1000 meters). Mooring lines used are light weighted (synthetic rope or wire rope), and they enter the seabed at a significant angle, without laying on seabed. The anchor is loaded either on horizontal and vertical direction, vertical loaded anchors (VLA) are commonly used, although there are diverse solutions. On Figure 13b it is possible to see straight alignment of the taut leg mooring and an exemplar of a VLA.

Figure 13 (a) Catenary mooring and drag embedment anchor. (b) Taut leg mooring and VLA

http://events.energetics.com/deepwater/pdfs/presentations/session5/roderickruinen.p df

3.2.1. GRAVITY ANCHORS

An anchoring system is normally required to provide resistance forces that are primarily horizontal, with cyclic as well as static components. Gravity anchors are consisted essentially of heavy weight steel structures (empty box, or grillage), filled or covered with granular fill (either rock-fill, or heavier material such as iron ore), and placed on the seafloor. Simply, the structural element is placed first, and then the bulk fill is added (Randolph et al., 2005; Dean, 2009). On Figure 14 are displayed two different structures, on the left is shown a conventional box anchor filled with iron ore, which provides huge weight, and on the right a covered grillage. The latter is considerably more efficient in terms of quantity of steel for a given holding capacity, but is much less efficient in terms of the quantity of ballast required. Design of this type of anchor is also more complex since a variety of failures modes must be considered, ranging from sliding of the complete berm, pulling out of the grillage, or combinations involving asymmetric mechanisms (Randolph et al., 2005).

Figure 14 Gravity anchors (Randolph et al., 2005)

3.2.2. PILE ANCHORS

Pile anchors have a similar behaviour to pile foundations (i.e. little skin friction developed in calcareous soil), but the construction method and the forces they need to withstand are different. They are very effective in many soils, and can either be drilled in and grouted using an offshore mobile drilling rig, or driven in with an underwater hammer or a follower. Advances have been made to allow hydraulic hammers to work on deep waters and with greater power, so the driving of the piles does not become an issue (Gerwick et al., 2007). The anchor pile system consists of a mooring chain or cable, and the pile. Figure 15a shows a simple system of an anchor pile and chain. In a catenary mooring system, the chain is laid along the seabed describing a smooth curve, and the anchoring force that it provides includes affects of the weight of the line, the friction on the seabed, and the frictional resistance from the soil on the buried part of the anchor line, as well as the pullout resistance of the anchor itself. In a taut mooring system, the line is taut, and rises from the seabed without passing along the seafloor. The soil resistance along the length of a buried chain or cable can be a significant proportion of the overall anchoring resistance provided by the system. Figure 15b shows the forces on an element of the anchor line in a catenary mooring system. The concept of an anchor pile starts with a pad-eye that is attached to a pile and a line is attached to the pad-eye. The location of the pad-eye is designed with the porpoise of reducing potential rotation of the pile when loaded. Then the pile is driven into the seabed, which can be left with some stick-up, so as to be retrievable later. After installation, the chain is attached to the line to the floating platform and tightened. The most difficult anchoring soil of all is a soft mud, silt, or loose sand overlying a hard material such as conglomerate or very dense sand and silt. So, conventional anchor may be placed in holes excavated by clamshell bucket and then back filled with dumped rock (Gerwick et al., 2007).

Figure 15 (a) Anchor pile and chain. (b) Forces on an element of the anchor line (Ruinen, 2005)

3.2.3. SUCTION CAISSONS

Although concrete caissons have been used, the majority are fabricated from steel, which have a similar concept to steel buckets on shallow foundations. Suction caissons operate as anchors, and vertical capacity is granted by the weight of the plug inside and the friction on the outer surfaces, and in addition, the characteristic negative end-bearing. The latter, as in steel bucket, is the force required to separate the lower end of the soil plug from the undisturbed soil. Typically, suction anchors are open at the bottom and closed at the top. They also comprise big diameters cylinders, larger than 5 meters in diameter and 20-30 meters in length, generally with a length to diameter ratio (L/d) in the range 3 to 6. Normally the cylinders have very high ratios of diameter to wall thickness (d/t ~100 to 250), that require internal stiffeners to prevent structural buckling during installation, and due to the large lateral loads imposed by taut moorings. Mooring loads are applied by an anchor line attached to the side of the caisson at a depth that optimises the holding capacity. Usually this requires the line of action of the load to pass through a point on the axis at a depth of 60 to 70% of the embedded depth. Figure 16 illustrates the optimal depth (D*) of the padeye, from which it is possible to realise that a taut wire does not request such a great depth like catenary mooring.

Figure 16 Mooring appliance point and variation of padeye depth with loadind angle for given centre of ration (Randolph & House, 2002)

Suction caissons have an identical installation to buckets and concrete caissons. On Figure 17 are represented the four major installation steps. Firstly, the caisson is driven to the wanted location, and then it is initially penetrated into the seabed under self-weight with the vented. Afterwards, the remaining penetration is completed by pumping water from inside the caisson using demountable pumps connected to a valve in the lid and operated by ROVs. After installation the caisson lid is sealed allowing internal suctions to develop under vertical loading, consequently maximising the end-bearing resistance.

Figure 17 Suction Caisson Installation Steps

Calculation Steps?

3.2.4. VERTICALLY LOADED DRAG ANCHOR

High capacity drag anchors evolved from conventional ship anchors. Traditionally, drag anchors comprise a broad fluke rigidly connected to a shank, as shown in figure 18a. The angle between shank and fluke is pre-determined, though may be adjusted prior to anchor placement on the seabed. This angle is typically around 50 for clay conditions and 30 in sand or where clay of high strength occurs ate the seabed. For installation, the anchor is positioned on the seabed correctly orientated and embedded by pre-tensioning the chain to an appropriate proof load. Depending on soil conditions, penetrations depths usually range from 1 to 5 fluke lengths (which go up to around 6.3 m), and anchors can be dragged through a distance of 10 to 20 times the fluke length, in the end is mobilizes a holding capacity of 20 to 50 times the anchor weight.

Figure 18 Drag anchors, (a) fixed fluke anchor. (b) VLA Stevmanta

Vertically loaded drag anchors (VLA), also known as drag-in plate anchors, were developed to overcome the existing limitations on fixed-fluke anchors, which could not withstand significant vertical load components at the seabed, actually these anchors are removed by applying vertical load to the anchor chain. Therefore, common drag anchors cannot be used for deep-water foundations using taut or semi-taut polyester rope moorings. The VLA is similar to the conventional drag anchor except the fluke is a plate with much lower profile and the shank is replaced by either a much thinner shank or a wire harness, as is possible to see on Figure 18b. It is installed like a conventional drag anchor with a horizontal chain load at the mudline and then different mechanisms are used to allow the fluke to rotate until it is perpendicular to the applied load, mobilizing the maximum possible soil resistance, and enabling the anchor to withstand both horizontal and vertical loading. There are two different installation methods; it can be either single line or double line installation. On Figure 19 is illustrated both of the installation methods. For each installation method a recovery method for the VLA is available, typically by detaching the front chains or wires and pulling the anchor opposite to the installation direction with a fraction of installation load. Figure 20b shows the VLA being pulled out of the seabed after detaching the front mooring.

Figure 19 Installation methods

Figure 20 (a) Anchor depth determination. (b) VLA simple recovery.

VLAs achieve the desired effect of installing a plate anchor at a sufficient depth below the seabed in order to resist the mooring loads, but there is an inherent problem with these kinds of anchors in knowing exactly where they are in the soil. Usually, the depth is determined by measuring the angle o the anchor line with the seabed, and the length of wire in soil, but by many reasons this angle may not correspond to the reality, as it may have a differential angle along its embedded length. On Figure 20a is possible to see a scheme to determine the simplified anchor depth. Calculation?

3.2.5. SUCTION EMBEDDED PLATE ANCHOR

A new system, called suction embedded plate anchor (SEPLA), was developed to overcome the problems of a plate anchor achieving greater depth localization below the seabed. The plate sits in a vertical slot in the tip of the suction caisson, which and caisson is retrieved leaving

3.2.6. DYNAMICALLY PENETRATION ANCHOR