Proceedingsof the Eleventh (2001) lnternatimzal Offshore attd Polar Enghteering Conference
Stavanger, Norway, June 17-22, 2001
Copyrlght © 200I by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653.51-6 (Set); 1SBN 1-880653-53-2 (Vol. I1); ISSN 1098-6189(Set)
Suction Piles: Their Position and Application Today
Tor Inge Tjelta
Statoil
Stavanger, N o r w a y
ABSTRACT
• Suction piles or suction anchors were first introduced some 20
years ago. But, it was only after further research and
development in late 80's and early 90's that the widespread use
in mooring applications for floating production units took place.
Today, less than 10 years after this research, their position and
application are significant in the offshore oil industry
world-wide. Their preference in major offshore development
areas like Brazil, West Africa, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, West
of Shetland and the Gulf of Mexico where reliable high capacity
foundations for catenary and taut legged moorings are required
is well known. Key factors which have influenced their selection
as a preferred foundation include:
• Reliable design methods both for installation and in service
behaviour
• Predictable installation behaviour
• Redundancy, i.e. installation may be reversed and repeated
• Cost efficiency
• Removal is easy if planned for
Suction pile technology has been applied for a great variety of
fixed and floating offshore structures and proved to be extremely
adaptable to soil conditions, structural requirements and type and
magnitude of loading. The suction pile used in mooring application
is a flexible foundation solution: Geometry and aspect ratio (length
to diameter ratio) can vary significantly. Installation methods
likewise can vary similarly and the anchors may be fabricated at a
great variety of construction yards.
Design methods used to date are based on general soil mechanics
and soil modelling. General rules and regulations are not
specifically reflecting this new foundation technique although some
codes (e.g. NS 3481) have made certification or authority approval
easier and as such, contributed to the rapid growth of this
foundation solution. W o r k is now progressing within API to
establish the state of the practice in design of deep water anchors.
The objective is to develop a widely applicable recommended
practice for the design and installation of
deep water anchors.
This paper reviews the suction pile technology today and includes
some comments o n other applications, challenges and potential
future applications.
KEY WORDS: Suction pile, suction anchor, geotechnics, mooring,
soil, offshore
W H A T IS A S U C T I O N P I L E ?
The term "suction pile" is somewhat misleading since it is also used
for short "piles" with large diameter. The aspect ratio L/D (Length over
Diameter) for some suction piles are close to 1 and is clearly not a pile
in a classical sense. Other terms used are suction caisson, bucket
foundation, suction anchor, skirted foundations and more. Sometimes
the term reflects the usage, e.g. "Suction anchor" which is almost
exclusively used for mooring applications of floating structures. In
order to avoid misunderstandings and to define the scope of this paper
the following terms will apply in the discussions presented in this
paper.
Bucket foundation, a term which is primarily used when the suction
pile is attached to a structure, e.g. a jacket structure or a sub-sea
structure and form an integrated part of this structure. The individual
bucket foundations, often 3 or 4 per structure, have a geometry which
often resembles an inverted bucket, hence the name and aspect ratios
are often less than one (L/D < 1). The term "Plated foundation" has
also been used in parallel with bucket foundations for jackets since it
reflects the primary mode of providing foundation support.
Skirted foundation, a general term used when skirts are attached to
foundations to increase the bearing capacity and/or provide scour
protection. The skirts may be shallow or deep forming a circular,
square or irregular geometry. The bucket foundation is a special case of
the general term "skirted foundation".
Skirt pile is a term with dual definition. It is used for long steel piles
attached to a jacket main leg through parallel pile sleeves, but it is also
used for long, circular concrete skirts, which is an integrated part of
concrete gravity structures resting on soft soils. The most typical
examples are Gullfaks C and Troll A concrete platform structures with
"skirt piles" to 22 and 34m depth respectively and diameters in the 30~,n
range.
Suction anchor is most frequently used with the same definition as
suction pile: An open ended often circular shaped cylinder with closed
top which is penetrated into the soil by its own weight and assisted with
suction inside the enclosed compartment formed after initial
penetration. So far this anchor is mostly used to provide an anchor
point for horizontal loads in a mooring system. The strictly correct term
for this type of anchor is "Suction installed anchor". But if the anchor
is left in place with a closed top, then the ultimate pullout capacity will
in most cases mobilise internal suction, which may increase the anchors
total holding capacity. Suction anchor is also a term that is used for
genuine suction anchors where active pumping is providing suction
relative to surrounding pressure.
Suction caisson is defining a suction anchor that is circular and
otherwise as defined above.
Suction pile is generally given the same definition as suction caisson,
although if the aspect ratio becomes less than unity, the similarity to a
pile is not obvious. However, for this paper and the current
understanding in the industry, suction pile and suction caissons are
equal terms, whilst suction anchor may be a more general term
comprising different geometries, some of which may be very different
to current industry standard.
HISTORY
Suction anchors were introduced to the offshore industry in 1980 in
the Gorm field, (Senpere and Auvergne, 1982). The experience gained
with installation of these anchors for a loading buoy installed by a
heavy lift vessel did not merit repeat usage. The time spent in the field
and the total cost was in excess of comparative systems like piles or
marine drag and embedment anchors. Excessive jetting and removal of
sand inside the anchors were necessary. Because of this somewhat
negative experience, it took more than 10 years before a reappearance
of these anchors was considered, now largely because of significant
experience gained from skirted gravity platforms. Also the large suction
anchor installed and retrieved in 1985 at the Gullfaks C site was a key
development for accepting this technology. However, purpose of the
Gullfaks C tests anchor was not for an actual mooring application and
again the cost was much in excess of what a mooring application could
accept.
The reappearance of the suction pile in the t 990's would probably not
happened if it had not been for the development of huge concrete
gravity platforms for soft soils. This development started in the early
1970's when BP was considering various platform concepts for their
Forties field in the North Sea. One concept that was developed by
Norwegian Contractors with support from NGI on foundation design
was the first concrete platform for soft soils with more than 20m long
concrete skirts (since called concrete skirt piles). At the time the huge
concrete gravity structures were only used at dense sand or
overconsolidated clay sites and the long skirt concept was believed to
be too novel and a more traditional solution (several steel jackets) was
selected. Meanwhile the concrete platforms were gradually developed
for more complex and often softer soils and in the early 80's several
platforms had up to 5 m long skirts. When Statoil considered a platform
solution for the Gullfaks C field at 220 m water depth in 1984 it soon
became apparent that if a concrete platform should be selected, it
required long skirts since soil conditions now were soft and comparable
to the Forties field. In 1995 a field test was carried out to demonstrate
the feasibility of penetrating long concrete skirts by weight and suction
to the required depth, (Tjelta et al., 1986). From that point and onwards
long skirts and long suction piles were accepted, and the test was also
used to support that even longer "skirt piles" could be penetrated by
suction, for example on the Troll 'A' platform. The Gullfaks 'C' test
further opened the way for suction foundations for the Snorre Tension
Leg Platform (TLP), (Christophersen et.al., 1992) and later the Heidrun
TLP suction foundations. In parallel with this long concrete skirt
development, skirted mudmats were designed for the Veslefrikk Jacket
to support un-piled stability and later the full development of Bucket
foundations for the Europipe 16/11-E Riser platform and Sleipner 'T'
Platform took place. These developments included a comprehensive
field model test programme of a scaled suction pile that supported the
understanding of suction pile design in general and resulted in a
number of mooring applications from mid 90's and onwards.
REVIEW OF SUCTION PILE T E C H N O L O G Y TODAY
This chapter includes a review of suction pile technology and starts
with an explanation of why and where they are used. This is followed
by a description of site conditions (soil, seabed topography and water
depth), installation techniques and tolerances, anchor geometry and
details, soil behaviour, anchor behaviour and capacity predictions.
Finally standardisation and cost are considered.
Suction anchors, why and where?
Suction anchors have been the preferred solution for a number of
mooring applications since 1995. All of these have been permanent
moorings for oil industry production units (FPSO's) or production
related facilities like storage or offioading buoys. In addition to cost the
primary reason for selecting suction anchors have been reliability.
Reliability is impacted in many ways, but most importantly design
capacity predictions and positioning accuracy during installation, i.e.
the anchor is installed within very tight tolerances allowing a better
prediction of it's capacity.
Suction piles as used today are primarily for mooring application.
Other type of applications will be briefly discussed in next chapter. The
majority of these suction piles have been for catenary moorings ("slack
mooring"), i.e.
O load from the mooring line is horizontal although load inclination
at the attachment point to the anchor may be inclined due to the
location of the attachment point at the lower part of the anchor and
O there is no or negligible static load in the mooring line close to the
anchor.
In deep water, however, an increased number of Taut Mooring
Systems have been installed. The main differences for these systems are
1) load inclination at anchor is often significant (30-40 degrees)
and
2) part of the load is static and permanent (pre-tension of mooring
lines).
Cost, often in combination with the technical advantages like position
accuracy, no need for pretension and more accurate capacity prediction,
have been important factors when choosing suction piles. Suction piles
can normally be installed in a great variety of soil conditions and in a
wide range of water depths. Over the last f~w years more than 200
suction anchors have been installed world-wide demonstrating the
effectiveness of the concept, (Table 1).
Suction anchors are also, to an increasing degree, involved in
temporary moorings of drilling rigs. Initially this was for testing only or
for other special applications, for example at the Asgard field where
single suction anchors are used in congested seabed installation areas to
replace a drilling rig's drag and embedment anchor. More recently
suction anchors are used more systematically in the Gulf of Mexico for
pre-set moorings, (El Gharbawy, 1999) and (Offshore Engineer, 2000).
 Table I Summarv of key data for suction anchors used in major Soil conditions
permanent mooring systems 1995-98 Over the years suction piles have been installed in a variety of field
conditions spanning world-wide applications in soft and strong soils,
Fickl flame Year Water Mix,ring No.of Soil Dt'~figu lamd Skirt Diam Woghl shallow and deep water and for many different purposes. When
depth syslc'll| itl~choi~ ctmditioas load mlgle deplh (m) examining the range of soil conditions encountered at these sites it is
(m) (u~n) (m) (ton) apparent that suction anchors may be installed in many sites with
Nkossa prod. -95 181)
I
catolary
I
14 SOIlclay 600 15 12.5 4.5-5 40 Im
typical offshore soil conditions. The experience in 1980 in the Gorm
Ixarge(El f)
field was gained at a site that included both dense sands and stiff clays
(layered profile). Such conditions are more complex than homogenous
Hardillg -95 I10 catomry 8 layo'ed 8-10 5 40
clays or sand sites. The suction anchor concept is feasible even in
FPSO (BPI cla~sealcl
I mixed conditions, but the design and installation operation requires
] ,,'ME FPSO -95 I(1(I catcl~ar~, 8 layertxl 900 15 7 5 40
careful planning and preparation and most importantly it is necessary to
(Statoil) ela~,qsrald
i
understand the mechanisms of how penetration resistance in sand is
Nomc FPSO -96 350 ~dolary 12 layered It) 5 influenced by suction. This is really the only prerequisite; to understand
(Statoil) day the geotechnical aspects of suction anchor penetration. As mentioned
Baldcr FPSO -97 350 ri~1" i 8 layer~l 160 85 7 5 llXF~ earlier, the Gorm field represented at the time a real challenge with
base cla~ respect to achieving target penetration depth. And layered soils with
Nionl -c)7 3~0 catcala~ 211 layLTcd 800 15 7-11 5 40 dense sands and stiff clays are probably the most difficult conditions
SclnI/FPU I clay for penetration, but it has been done: The Yme, Harding and the
(H~.lra) Curlew fields all had mixed soil profiles and large penetration
Curlew FPSU -97 90 caltmat3 9 laytved 15 9-12 5-7 60-80
resistances were experienced. The experience gained from these
(Shell) clay/staid
installations is available through the contractors and operating
Mitrlinl -97 700-1
i
tibrc 32 : vt~y soft 650 40 13 4.7 80'~
companies and should provide considerable insight for assuring
penetration in these types of soils.
P-19126 OIS} r~pc taul clay
Another difficult site condition that has been encountered is boulder
St~llls leg
clay. The Haltenbanken area offshore mid Norway is at certain
(Por(Jbriis)
locations known for the presence of stones and boulders in a clay
Sdudmllion -97 ~50 calolary' 12 laytxod 121H) 15 12 6.5 130
matrix. The Nome field is also in this area, and it is possible that a
FPSO (BP) clay
couple of the suction anchors hit minor boulders during installation.
\'isund Scull -97 35[~ calc~ul~' 16 ~)lt/In~'liu 801l 15 ll ~l 5~ 50 The resistance at half penetration depth suddenly increased
nl clay dramatically and at final penetration depth necessitated a suction of 600
i i
Lut~.algFPSO -97 catg'lla~" 8 soft clay 700 I0 10 5 40 kPa, which is higher than can be explained based on a prediction of the
ISlaloil) penetration resistance from the soil conditions. Similar behaviour was
Aquila FPSO _c)7 850 calOl~., 9 vtry soil 7f~l 15 16 5 70 experienced at the Njord field, (Solhjell et al., 1998). One possible
IAgip) clay explanation at both these sites is boulders. High resolution seismic has
L;munaria -98 411(1
i
catoutry
i
9 soft clay 13 5.5
been applied to investigate the presence of boulders. So far the
FPSO
irregular sebed topography and the soil conditions, heavily
(Wl~txl~idc)
overconsolidated glacial clays overlaid by soft clays of varying
Marlim
thickness, have prevented any conclusive interpretation on the presence
-9~ 600 Caltllary 16 layerod 1100 15 17 4.7 75
of single boulders. Boulder beds have been identified, and avoided.
P33/35 chiy/s,'md
The only soil conditions that are believed to effectively prevent
FPSO'~
installation of suction anchors are gravel or boulder beds, very hard
(Porobras)
clays and strongly cemented soils. These are not frequently found
Asg;wtl A -98 3511 CalCtlary 12 soft clay li 5
offshore and will in most cases require a special design tailored to suit
FPSO
these conditions, e.g. gravity anchors and drilled and grouted piles.
(Staloil)

Troll C Solli -98 3311 cattnlary 16 soft clay 800 15 15 5 70 Seabed topographical irregularities may also become a problem, but
(Hydro/ again the Haltenbanken area offshore mid Norway represents
i i
Asgard B -99 350 catmmy 16 something of the worst conditions to be found offshore. Heavily
(Slatoil)
Asgard C -99 350
i
catenary
i
9
reworked and scarred by grounding icebergs during the last glaciation
(Slatoil) period, the seafloor is very irregular and inhomogeneous. Despite these
Siri (Stzitoil) -98 71) I catcalary I I difficulties, suction anchor moorings for six floating production and/or
Ba~l" -98 ':'?
i
calt~lary
i
l storage units have been installed in this area.
t i
Di~ala -99 1450 taut leg 12 Soft clay 1500 40 30.5 6.4 250
(Exxon) Water depth is a barrier that continuously challenges the industry. As
i i
Kuilo FPSO
(Chew(m)
-OD 430 cat~nary 12 Soft clay far as the suction pile technology concerns, it appears that there is no
Kuito catenaxy ~ 6 Soft clay
obvious limitation which prevents the technology from following the
Loading
Buoy
rest of the deep-water industry. Both ROV's and suction pumps appears
(Chevron) to be well ahead and will also be required for drilling support and other
Girassol -01 s~ Taut leg
(E~0 related functions as well. Currently suction anchors have been installed
Notes: I ) without top li& 2) incl. ballast, 3) instaLled by follower with anchor top 2.5 m below mudliae, 4) as deep as 2500m (8400 ft) in Mississippi Canyon (Offshore Engineer,
excluding fins each prolruding t .7 m and 5) not yet installed Nov. 2000).
Installation techniques used to date include lift-installed anchors from
crane vessels and launch installed over the stern of an Anchor Handler
Tug, Availability of installation vessels, logistics and costs rather than
the anchor itself usually dictates which method is selected. Suction
equipment range from
• pre-installed pump-modules on the anchor with an umbilical cord
running back to the installation vessel (often includes a variety of
monitoring equipment) to
• simpler ROV mounted and operated equipment with a minimum of
monitoring equipment.
Based on experience to date, there is no obvious recommendation on
which route to follow. The need for control and on-line data during
installation may dictate the amount of instrumentation, but the tendency
is that a reduced amount of instrumentation is needed as experience and
confidence increases with the contractors.
Installation vessels availability will often dictate whether a lift
installed or a launch installed solution is preferred. The time spent
installing each anchor and mooring line range within wide limits and is
often more governed by equipment break down, weather downtime,
water depths, mooring line configuration and technical problems rather
than the installation method itself. Both methods have demonstrated the
capability of installing a suction anchor and the associated mooring line
in approximately 12 hours in 350-400 metres of water. A more detailed
description of installation methods is given by (Sparrevik, 1998).
In this context it is important to realise that project specifications may
have a significant impact on installation technique and monitoring
philosophy. If very strict installation criteria apply to anchor tilt and
heading, say less than +/- 3 degrees, more instrumentation and data
acquisition equipment is required. The same is true if documentation to
the "as installed" conditions is too strict, say +/- 1 degree or less. It is
important to accept the requirement for on-line information during
installation if large uncertainties exist that can influence the state of the
installed anchor, e.g. large suction and risk of anchor wall buckling,
misalignment (heading) causing unacceptable bending on mooring line
attachment (padeye bending) or large inclination towards mooring line
resulting in decreased capacity. How such installation data are obtained
is less important as long as these data are achieved in real time during
the installation.
Installation tolerances do also have an impact on anchor holding
capacity. Both orientation (horizontal plane) and inclination (vertical
plane) should be kept within a 5-10 degrees limitation to avoid any
significant decrease in holding capacity. Alternatively the anchor
should be designed for possible effects of "out of tolerance".
Additional information on installation tolerances is presented in the
paragraph Standardisation at the end of these chapter and is discussed
by (Huslid, 1999).
Anchor geometry (diameter and length) are key parameters that define
the holding capacity of a suction anchor. The relationship between
length or diameter and capacity is often non-linear. Perhaps a more
interesting parameter to discuss, since it involves both of the previously
mentioned parameters, is dimensionless and as such fundamental, is the
aspect ratio (L/D) or length to diameter ratio of an anchor. Early
suction piles had aspect ratios of 1-2, but later have increased to values
approaching 10. It is not obvious which aspect ratio is preferable for
certain conditions. Some guidance can however be given:
O In sand and hard clays a low aspect ratio is required to achieve
penetration and limit extremely high suction values during
installation, e.g. in dense sands an aspect ratio greater than 1.5 is
not recommended unless special precautions are taken.
O In soft clays a higher aspect ratio may be preferable since for the
same weight of an anchor this will provide larger penetration and
thus reach stronger clay strata (assuming increasing strength with
depth). This is however not a direct correlation since a small aspect
ratio for the same weight yields a larger diameter anchor, and a
different failure mechanism. Load attachment point and load
inclination as discussed below will also have an important role
optimising the design.
O High aspect ratio anchors, i,e. long and slender, may be more easy
to handle and more robust. There is a limitation to this ratio caused
by penetration refusal, i.e. pile does not penetrate anymore due to
high external friction and the soil plug inside pile is moving
upwards relatively to the pile. This limit depends on soil sensitivity
and pile/soil interface friction and is believed to be approximately
20. However, at aspect ratios higher than 10 the potential refusal
should be carefully checked The highest known aspect ratio today
outside laboratory model pile conditions is 9, which were used for
two riser support anchors, each 2m diameter by 18 m length.
O Optimal aspect ratio for a suction pile with inclined load may
theoretically be when the failure mode is a combined vertical and
horizontal translation with no rotation. This requires often an
aspect ratio in the range 2-3. Higher aspect ratios often give a
failure mode where vertical translation dominates for inclined loads
since the mooring line angle at the attachment point becomes more
vertical due to the reversed catenary of the mooring line (often this
part is chain with a limited penetration capacity into the soil when
the mooring line is tensioned). This is the case even for catenary
moorings with zero load inclination at mudline.
Load attachment point or padeye position provides an almost equally
important contribution to the suction pile holding capacity. This point
is often selected such that no rotational movement takes place during
ultimate loading, i.e. there are no significant rotation caused by these
loads. This point is normally at or just below the mid position of a pile
in a constant strength soil and often close to 2/3 below the surface for a
pile in a soil with linearly increasing strength. Load inclination and
aspect ratios both plays an important role. Increasing the load
inclination from the seabed moves the optimal attachment point up
while increasing aspect ratio moves the optimal attachment point
downwards. For suction piles with permanent static loads the
attachment point may be placed lower than the optimal position to
avoid a gap forming at the back of the anchor. Gap prevention is
discussed in more detail below. It should be noted that moving the
attachment point down will increase the load angle due to reverse
catenary of the mooring line.
The load attachment point has also attracted considerable attention
due to the structural design of the pile itself. Attached to the surface of
a cylindrical shell it creates significant structural stresses for the
maximum design loads, and reinforcements and stiffeners (both vertical
and circumferential) have been used. These stiffeners often cause new
problems, both during fabrication and during installation. The best
solution appears to be an integrated cast padeye close to the wall,
(Tjelta, 1998).
Shape of the suction pile is another geometrical parameter that may
vary. Cross sectional shape is normally circular but other shapes have
been considered. To date no obvious overall advantage have been
identified. Triangular and specifically with inward shaped sides (to
better resist suction during installation) have practical benefits relating
to storage and stability onboard a rolling vessel. However, this shape is
less efficient since higher suction is required during installation and
reduced capacity may result for the same reason (less erossectional area
provides reduced uplift capacity). Fabrication costs are also higher. For
a given situation, the triangular shape may still be of interest, for
example if a single vessel is used for transportation and installation
over large distances and the associated costs dominate.
 Top caps have been flat and curved. Flat is acceptable for small
diameter piles and moderate suction values during installation, while
for large diameter and/or high suction values a curved spherical top is
• preferred and may even be required due to pressure and stress
considerations. Often the curved top is the cheaper solution if standard
pressure vessel end caps can be used.
Soil Behaviour. Set up and consolidation, particularly inside the
anchor need some consideration since it may affect the permanent
capacity. These effects are more important for low aspect ratios since
the behaviour of the internal soil plug plays a more active role here
than for the high aspect ratio piles. One mechanism to consider is the
re-consolidation of soil close to the wall which may take place at a
lower effective stress then the natural overburden since part of the
vertical stresses may be carried as soil friction. If the pile is subjected
to permanent pull out loads shortly after installation, consolidation of
soil close to the wall may be even more affected. Friction is regained at
a lower effective stress level causing a reduced friction both inside and
outside
In general, tbr all type of vertically loaded anchors ("pull out loads"),
the long term undrained strength of the soil at and below the anchor is
suffering a pennanent reduction in effective stresses. The upward load
direction results in an unloading of the soil at and below the anchor
itself and the long term effect on drained and undrained capacity needs
to be investigated.
Tension crack forming at the back of the anchor due to a permanent
pretension load from a taut mooring system will decrease the total pile
capacity and change the failure mechanism. It is important the risk of
this occurring is checked and if found relevant either taken into account
or eliminated by lowering the load attachment point such that there is a
slight tendency tbr rotation to close the crack. In very soft soils it is not
believed such tension cracks will stay open over any significant depth
since an active pressure failure mode will occur.
Capacity predictions. Design methods to predict capacities for suction
piles are not standardised to the same extent as for ordinary piles. For
low aspect ratio suction piles design methods dominated by bearing
capacity considerations, limit equilibrium methods frequently used in
gravity platform designs are in place. For high aspect ratio piles API
RP2A pile design methods may be used, and for all aspect ratios there
are a number FEM programs that can be used to check both failure
modes, displacements and the ultimate capacity. In recent years,
proprietary computer codes are also developed (not published, no
references available). A simple way of checking combined capacity for
an inclined load is to calculate vertical and horizontal capacity
independently and consider the vector sum as an approximate capacity.
Although the combined capacity prediction is a coupled problem, this
very simple approach has proved to be only slightly on the optimistic
side.
The greatest design challenge for suction piles in a taut mooring
system may actually be to define the loads and determine which
components are drained and which are undrained. With special
phenomena like low frequency surge and "Loop currents" in the Gulf
of Mexico there are a mixture of drained, partly drained and undrained
loads and the combination of these and how they act at the load
attachment point at the anchor need careful considerations. However,
combinations of different load components have been handled for other
type of structures in the past and it is only their relative distribution that
is different.
Standardisation has not taken place yet in the suction pile industry.
For every new project a new and specific design takes place. Two
known cases where a slight tendency for standardisation has taken
place are 1) Brazil where a similar design anchor was used for several
platforms and 2) Asgard (Norway) where the Asgard B and C projects
developed a "standard design" which was used both in soft and stiff
clays, but with two different lengths. However, with the knowledge that
is now available in suction anchor design, it is fully possible to design a
standard suction pile that can be used in a variety of soil conditions by
varying length and which is sufficiently robust for different installation
techniques, (Tjelta, 1998).
Cost is the final and perhaps most important parameter. However,
when costs of the suction piles are compared to the total cost of
mooting system (anchors, mooring lines, installation costs) it is
apparent that anchor cost (suction pile or other type of anchors) is
limited and generally is less than 10 % of the total mooring cost while
the major cost item is the offshore installation cost. The greatest impact
from the anchor may actually be time spent on installing it. The choice
of an anchor then becomes a question of installation cost, reliability
(capacity prediction and installation prediction), ability to place it at a
given location and limited displacement at ultimate load. The suction
pile has proved to be a competitive anchor for a number of permanent
production units all around the world.
Other applications, challenges and future applications
The suction pile technology is simple and can be used for various
offshore applications including
O Bucket foundation for jackets and jack-up rigs
O Bucket foundations or skirted foundations for small and large sub
sea structures
O TLP (Tension Leg Platform) foundations, e.g. Snorre and Heidrun
O Foundation for riser bases
O Sub sea silos for protection of sub sea well and equipment
O Well head supports
O Single anchor bow mooring for supply boats and FSO's
O Deployment platform for site investigation tools, ref. TSP
(Tethered Seabed Platform)
O Carrier vehicle to deploy other type of anchors, e.g. the SEPLA
anchor (Suction Emplaced Plate Anchor)
O Mooring of fish farms and any other floating structure or system
that requires mooring.
The greatest advantage with the suction pile is the flexibility. It can be
a stand alone structure of virtually any dimension, or it can be
combined into clusters of any number and thus provide rotational
stiffness and capacity, which is the case with the large concrete gravity
structures. Further, it is further easy to install and its position can be
predetermined to great accuracy achievable by a seabed positioning
system. These characteristics should allow many suction pile
applications in the years to come.
The history of suction anchors is still relatively short and it is
believed further optimisation may take place and certain challenges
may still need to be more closely examined. Such issues may be:
* Installation of mooring line separate or as integrated lifting line.
This is already taking place for pre-installed moorings for
exploration drilling rigs (MODU's) in the Gulf of Mexico, but has
so far not taken place for permanent moorings.
* The aspect ratio relationship in relation to retrieval. It is believed
aspect ratios of perhaps as high as 20 can be installed, but there is
no doubt that any aspect ratios higher than 10 and perhaps as low
as 6 may become difficult to retrieve after some time when
consolidation has taken place, see further comments below. This is
an area where experience is still scarce and until it exists should be
treated with caution. This issue is of special importance when
suction piles are used for temporary moorings and need to be
retrieved after some time.
• Use of suction piles with actual suction inside when used in taut Senpere D. and Auvergne G.A. (1982) : Suction Anchor Piles: A
mooring applications, i.e. not only suction installed piles but piles Proven Alternative to Driving or Drilling. Proc. Offshore Technology
which are loaded to such an extent that passive suction develops Conf., publication OTC 4206, Houston, May 1982.
inside and below the pile. Analyses of such piles has shown that
effective stresses will reduce over time to such an extent that both Solhjell E., Sparrevik P., Haldorsen K. and Karlsen V. (1998) :
drained and undrained capacity is reduced, perhaps as much as 50 Comparison and Back Calculation of Penetration Resistance from
% in extreme cases. The mechanism leading to a reduced capacity Suction Anchor Installation in Soft to Stiff Clay at the Njord and
is dominated by changes in effective stresses at the wall and below Visund Fields in the North Sea. SUT conf. ('Society for Underwater
the base of the suction anchor (at skirt tip level). A permanent high Technology') on 'New Frontiers in Offshore Site Investigation and
pull out load (in excess of drained capacity) will create not only an Foundation Behaviour', London, September 1998.
unloading situation but over time also additional reduction in
effective stresses due to pore water flow. Again, caution is advised. Sparrevik P. (1998) : Suction Anchors - A Versatile Foundation
This situation is equally relevant for any type of vertically loaded Concept Finding its Place in the Offshore Market. OMAE conf. on
anchor irrespective of its shape and installation technique. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, publication OMAE
• Many future application will be in deep water. These sites are often 98-3096, Lisbon, July 1998.
soft clay sites. Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, West Africa, West of Ireland
and Shetland and recently West of Mid Norway (Voting and M~re Tjelta T.I. (1998) : Views on Geotechnical Integration. Proc. SUT conf.
Basins) are all predominantly soft clay sites. This makes life easier ('Society for Underwater Technology') on 'New Frontiers in Offshore
in many ways. The penetration resistance and concern about Site Investigation and Foundation Behaviour', London, September
penetration refusal is generally not as critical an issue as long as the 1998.
appropriate aspect ratios are taken into account in design.
• Retrieval of suction anchors is both feasible and easy as long as the Tjelta T.I., Guttormsen, T.R. and Hermstad, J (1986): Large-Scale
aspect ratio is kept below approximately 6 (this is a theoretical Penetration Test at a Deepwater Site. Proc. Offshore Technology
value). Higher ratios are possible if vertical lifting of the anchor is Conf., publication OTC 5103, Houston, May 1986.
available (sustained load) or if time between installation and
retrieval is short, i.e. weeks or few months. The idea of removing
the anchors is interesting for two reasons:
1. Application of moorings for exploration drilling rigs
(MODUs). The mooring is installed prior to rig arriving at the
site, saving time for the rig and making the mooring
installation less critical (usually the MODU moorings are
installed when the rig arrives at the site and time spent on
installing anchors and mooring lines are considered "dead
time" for the rig). Removal is easy by reversing the
installation procedure, (El Gharbawy, 1999)
2. Also for the permanent application (FPSOs etc.), the idea of
removal is of interest. Reuse is both economically attractive
and is environmental friendly.
The future applications of suction anchors look bright. It has already
been demonstrated that it is a feasible and preferred solution in water
depths in excess of 2000 metres, due to position accuracy and a more
predictable and therefore reliable capacity for both horizontal and
inclined pull out loads.
A simple conclusion based on today's experience with suction
anchors is that no severe limitations exist and the concept is well suited
for deep-water applications.

REFERENCES
Christophersen H.P., Bysveen S. and St6ve O.J. (1992). Innovative
Foundation Systems Selected for the Snorre Field Development. Proc.
6th BOSS conf. on 'Behaviour of Off-Shore Structures', London, July
1992.

E1-Gharbawy S.L., Olson R.E. and Scott A. (1999) : Suction Anchor

Installations for Deep Gulf of Mexico Applications. Proc. Offshore
Technology Conf., publication OTC 10992, Houston, May 1999.

Huslid C. and Tjelta T.I. (1999) : Examining the Success of Installing

the Aasgard B & C Suction Anchors in Deep Water. Proc. IIR conf. on
'Mooring & Anchors for Deep and Ultra Deep Water Fields',
Aberdeen, Nov. 1999.

Offshore Engineer November 2000 Issue, Article.