OTC 15137 Geotechnical Design of the Barracuda and Caratinga Suction Anchors

M. Hesar, KBR
Copyright 2003, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 58 May 2003. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or officers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.

restraint of the risers. The subject of this paper is the geotechnical in-place capacity of mooring anchors only and excludes installation aspects. The suction anchors were designed to comply with ABS Rules3 and current industry practice for 20 years service life. Site Investigation An integrated approach to SI was taken4,5. A comprehensive geophysical and geotechnical site investigation was performed in spring 2001 from the vessel Rockwater-1. Subsea7 (formerly Halliburton Subsea), performed the geophysical surveys consisting of swathe bathymetry, ROV high resolution sub-bottom profiling and side scan sonar imaging, while Fugro BV performed the following geotechnical SI from the same vessel: 66 WHEELDRIVE Piezo-cone penetration testing (CPTU) to 30m penetration, 12 WHEELDRIVE insitu vane tests up to 20m. One test every 0.4m and remoulded shear strength determination every second test, 39 Push-in Piston cores up to 20m. The SI was followed by a programme of monotonic and cyclic laboratory testing both in Holland and the UK. Seabed and Soil Conditions Full details of the SI, seabed and soil conditions are the subject of a companion Paper6. Detailed evaluation of the field and laboratory tests revealed a relatively small spatial variation across each site. The soils at the sites are classed as nonorganic, the organic content of the soils, after correction for clay mineral content, is approximately 5%. Carbonate content is approximately 10%. The results of Atterberg limit tests indicate uniform clays with a plasticity index of in the range 45%-55%. The peak undrained shear strength varies essentially linearly with depth, consistent with normally to lightly over-consolidated soil conditions. Figure 1 is a combined plot of the results of static effective stress triaxial compression (CAUc) triaxial extension (CAUe), direct simple shear (DSS) and insitu vane tests performed. Unlike expectation the results of CAUe tests are similar to CAUc tests. For the purpose of FE analyses the DSS profile was used. Design Philosophy Suction anchors have been deployed extensively for a variety of applications since they were first used in the Gorm field offshore Denmark in 1982, and their safety record has been exemplary. The success of suction anchors is largely due to the simplicity of their installation compared to conventional

Abstract The Paper presents the methodologies adopted for the design of mooring and riser anchors of the P43 and P48 FPSOs due to be installed in 2003 in deep water Campos Basin, offshore Brazil. It is shown how an efficient semi-analytical 3D finite element model can be used as a routine design tool for calculating the pull-out capacity of cylindrical suction anchors under combined horizontal and vertical loading. The speed of the FE model has allowed pull-out capacity contours to be developed which help in the selection of limiting installation tolerances. Fully coupled axisymmetric finite element consolidation analyses of the set-up phenomenon have been described in which the initial excess pore pressure field is established by simulating the final penetration stages of the skirts. Introduction The Barracuda and Caratinga fields are located in deepwater Campos Basin, some 150 km offshore Brazil. The average water depth is 825m at Barracuda and 1030m at Caratinga. A taut-leg spread mooring system has been adopted for both the Barracuda (P43) and Caratinga (P48) FPSOs. Each FPSO is moored by 18 lines, ten at the stern and eight at the bow. The mooring lines are made of polyester rope, combined with lengths of chain at the fairlead and seabed ends, Wibner1. Various types of anchor were considered in the initial phases of the project. Suction anchors were selected as the preferred option for the following reasons, Sparrevik2: (1) Relatively accurate positioning on the seabed, which is important in fields congested with flow lines and subsea facilities, (2) Economical and simple installation method, avoiding the need for pile driving in deepwater or dragging and proof loading. (3) Reasonably well-established design methods compared to other types of anchor, even though no Standard Code of Practice is yet available. In addition to the 36 mooring suction anchors, 52 suction anchors in four different sizes were designed for

OTC 15137

driven piles. Although the design elements are similar to tubular piles, there are some important differences in the details. Gilbert and Murff5 discuss the uncertainties that need to be addressed specifically for the design of suction anchors. There is currently no general consensus on a design approach. At present API7 provides two different sets of guidelines for the design of offshore pile in compression: a working stress design lumped safety factor approach (WSD) and a reliability-based partial factor approach using separate load and resistance factors (LRFD). Recently there has been a concentrated effort to try and understand different geotechnical aspects of suction caissons, including penetration by self-weight and suction8, setup effects following installation9, and in-place pullout capacity prediction10,11. Tubular piles have been in use much longer and also have an excellent safety record, particularly their in-place behaviour. There has therefore been some effort to develop a consistent set of load and resistance factors which would provide similar levels of reliability to conventional piles12,13. The use of reliability-based design principles will provide a means of achieving a balance between overconservatism on the one hand and un-conservatism on the other. Until then it is anticipated that a lumped safety factor design will be in use. The Barracuda and Caratinga suction anchors were designed to satisfy the ABS Rules, which is based on the WSD approach. Inplace Design Loads and Safety Factors Dynamic mooring analysis of the two FPSOs provided the set of design loads. In line with ABS Rules suction anchors must satisfy two load scenarios: (All lines intact: FOS=2.0) and (One line damaged: FOS=1.5). The design loads for the two FPSOs are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Pretension and Maximum Loads
Load Condition Tension (kN) Pretension Maximum Intact Maximum Damaged Pretension Maximum Intact Maximum Damaged 1921 6532 8243 1665 6297 7926 Seabed Angle () 21.3 27.3 27.6 25.3 32.3 32.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 Required FOS

a lesser tendency for pore pressure generation and development of cyclic strain compared to Drammen clay in triaxial tests, particularly when negative average stress ratios were used. This seems to correspond with the results of static effective stress triaxial tests, where the strengths in extension and compression tests were similar. Dynamic mooring analyses of the two FPSOs was performed using 10 individual synthesised 3-hour storms. Figure 4 shows a typical storm load history in one of the heaviest loaded mooring lines at mudline. The cyclic loads are not severe in relation to the average load, which is about 60% of the peak cyclic load. The storm load composition together with the failure contour diagrams were used to determine Neq, the number of cycles of maximum load which would result in the same amount of degradation in undrained shear strength as the full design storm history. The cyclic strengths were found to be somewhat higher than the static strength. Therefore the cyclic load environment at Barracuda and Caratinga is relatively benign in relation to the cyclic behaviour of the clays at both sites. Rate effects were thought to be partly responsible for this, since the standard laboratory equipment are typically run at 10-second cycles, corresponding to similar periods of waves. However, the load periods of the storm history shown in Figure 4 are typically 200 seconds. Using the Briaud et al14 relationship it was estimated that the cyclic strengths would be in the order 10-15% less than predicted from the 10-second laboratory cyclic tests. Hence, it was concluded that the relatively benign environment of the Barracuda and Caratinga sites would not cause any cyclic degradation of the clays. Chain Inverse Catenary The commercial Program, STA-CHAIN was used to assess inverse catenary effects in the soil. The best estimate and upper bound undrained shear strength profiles were used to obtain the chain angles at the padeye and soil friction loss in the chain load. Review of Analysis Techniques for Pullout Capacity Currently there are a number of analysis techniques available for the design of suction anchors. These are discussed below. Limit Equilibrium Method. In this technique the soil behaviour is assumed to be rigid plastic. As an example Andersen et al15 have described how the strain accumulation technique is used with the limit equilibrium method to analyse a number of possible failure surfaces in a 2D equivalent model and the critical mechanism is selected. This technique relies on appropriate friction factors which have been derived from numerical and field experiments NGI16. Upper Bound Plasticity Method. Randolph and House11 have reported a 3D upper bound solution approach to the analysis of suction anchors under general modes of loading including rotation. Their method considers three regions in the soil: (a) A passive/active conical wedge region at shallow depth as suggested by Muff and Hamilton17 for the analysis of laterally loaded piles. Within this zone the vertical velocity field is determined for the condition of zero volumetric strain. (b) A constrained flow region below the wedge is assumed

Barracuda (P43)

Caratinga (P48)

Cyclic Degradation of Soil Properties Tests were performed with different combinations of average and cyclic shear stress for CAUc, CAUe and DSS effective stress paths. The cyclic CAUc and CAUe test results are shown plotted in Figure 2. Similar plots for the cyclic DSS tests are shown in Figure 3. Contours of the number of cycles to failure, Nf, are drawn through the data. The number of cycles to failure in the cyclic DSS tests indicated a reasonable agreement with the Drammen clay model for OCR=1. However, the Barracuda and Caratinga clays appeared to show

OTC 15137

where the soil flows around the caisson. The net horizontal pressure on the caisson body in this region is taken as the limit pressure for a cylinder moving horizontally through the soil, Randolph and Houlsby18. (c) A base region which generally fails in a spherical shape with its centre on the caisson axis. Depending on the depth of point of rotation, and hence the load and its angle this region may extend upwards and eliminate the flow region. V-H Interaction Envelope Method. A particularly useful technique is the use of 2D interaction diagrams. Zdravkovic et al10 performed FE analyses of suction caissons in soft clay loaded at the top at different load inclination angles to the horizontal ranging from 0-90 degrees. They found that for a given caisson geometry the points defining the failure or ultimate capacity can be fitted to an elliptical envelope with a reasonable accuracy. Senders19 reported similar V-H interaction envelopes for suction caissons loaded optimally. He found that normalised plots of ultimate capacity fit onto an envelope of the form:

V ult H ult + V max H max

= 1 ....(1)

Where Vult and Hult are the vertical and horizontal components of ultimate pullout capacity in oblique loading, and Vmax and Hmax are the maximum resistance for purely vertical and purely horizontal loading without rotation. Values of a and b close to 3.0 were found to fit the Barracuda and Caratinga soil conditions well. A typical V-H interaction envelope showing the all lines intact load condition for Caratinga is shown in Figure 5. One disadvantage of the V-H interaction envelope is that the actual form of equation (1) (values of a and b above) must be determined by other means such as FE analysis or model tests. Finite Element Method. Although the other methods discussed above can be used to obtain a quick estimate of the overall size of the suction anchor they cannot directly account for many intricate details such as soil/steel interfaces, installation tolerances, optimal padeye positioning, etc. On the other hand, FE analyses are often prohibitively time consuming, since the mesh has to be hard wired to the dimensions of the structure. For this reason FE analyses are usually used as a confirmatory tool once the final design details are established. The suction anchor is a cylindrical element with an axisymmetric geometry. However, in a taut moored system the anchors are loaded obliquely, producing a full 3D state of stress in the surrounding soil. Hence, a realistic numerical analysis of the problem must use a 3D model in conjunction with an elasto-plastic soil constitutive model. Non-linear design analyses using a true 3D model are computationally expensive. In order to reduce the computational effort a pseudo-3D technique based on the Fourier series was adopted. In this technique Fourier expansions of force and displacement in the circumferential () direction are used to solve the 3D

problem essentially as a 2D equivalent. This method was first developed by Wilson20 in 1965 for linear elastic analysis of cylindrical aerospace structures. Since then various extensions to the non-linear domain, including its successful application to many geotechnical problems has been reported in the literature e.g. Winnicki and Zienkiewicz21 and Griffiths and Lane22. More recently the method has been applied to the analysis of suction caissons e.g. Hansteen and Hoeg23 and Zdravkovic et al10 and Kolk and Kay24. Potts and Zdravkovic25 give a full account of all different variants of this technique. The 2D discretisation into FE mesh is only performed in the =0 plane (plane of symmetry, which contains the padeye and chain). In this plane regular 8-noded reduced integration elements with isoparametric interpolation functions were used. The commercial code ABAQUS was adopted for this project. In ABAQUS these are called CAXA elements (Continuum AXisymmetric elements with Asymmetric loading). The structure of the suction anchor body was modelled using SAXA elements. These are the shell equivalents of the continuum elements discussed above. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the loaddisplacement results with a full 3D model. The CAXA elements under-predict pullout resistance up to a padeye displacement of about 150mm (3% of diameter). Thereafter they tend to over-predict pullout capacity slightly. Analyses with these elements typically take about 40 minutes to complete compared to more than 18 hours with the 3D model on the same computer. The present FE model input file was set up in a script format, in such a way that all the dimensional characteristics of the anchor and soil profiles could be controlled by a few input parameters. In this way hard wiring was avoided and FE analyses were used in a similar way to other analytical tools. The finite element analyses were performed in a load-controlled mode. The horizontal and vertical components of load were ramped up simultaneously. This allowed the suction anchor body to move in the direction of least resistance in response to the oblique loading applied at the padeye. The loading was continued until the maximum resistance of the surrounding soil had been mobilised and a near-plateau region had developed on the load-displacement response curve. The large-strain capability was switched on in the analyses. During geotechnical sizing runs the structural details of the suction anchors were kept to a simple cylindrical shape with no stiffeners. The soil reaction stresses immediately inside and outside the suction anchor wall at the unfactored design load level were output for use in structural design of the suction anchor. For structural design a separate FE shell model capturing all the structural details was used. Additional non-linear structural FE analyses were performed to check the potential for buckling during various stages of suction penetration. The finite element model used for geotechnical analyses is shown in Figure 7. The overall dimensions of the mesh are 50m in the radial and depth directions. The mesh consists of a total of 1200 8-noded elements (40 rows of 30 elements). The shell elements modelling the suction anchor share the same nodes as the soil elements.

OTC 15137

The displacement path of padeye point for a typical run is shown in Figure 8 together with the load direction. This plot highlights the importance of load-control simulation as opposed to displacement control in FE analyses. Setup Effects During penetration of skirts severe remoulding of the soil adjacent to the skirt wall takes place. It is now widely accepted that over the depth penetrated by self-weight the soil displaced by the volume of skirts largely moves outside the suction anchor. Over the depth penetrated by suction, however, nearly all the displaced soil moves inside the suction anchor. The self-weight penetration based on the best estimate soil strength profile was estimated to be in the order 6m. Holding capacity analyses are usually performed for conditions pertaining after the disturbance due to remoulding during installation has been effectively recovered. Factors to be considered are: thixotropy, consolidation and effective stress changes. Thixotropy effects take of the order of hours to a few days to complete. Consolidation will have been largely complete before the design storm load becomes relevant. Recent research, NGI9, indicates that for thin walled suction anchors with diameters smaller than about 4.5m 90% dissipation should be complete in less than two months over the depth penetrated by suction. However, due to arching effects the final effective stresses adjacent to the skirt wall never return to original levels. When the final effective stresses are related back to the in situ undrained shear strength of the clay the resulting adhesion factor, , may range between 0.6 and 0.7. Nearly all existing literature on set-up effects relies on measurements and hand calculations of consolidation around driven long tubular offshore piles, and assume radial drainage only, e.g. Karlsrud and Nadim26. In order to account for combined radial/vertical consolidation effects an axisymmetric FE model with a highly refined mesh in the vicinity of skirt walls and tip was used. The analysis was performed in two stages. In stage one the skirt was pushed into the soil to maximum resistance and the shear stress fields generated as a result of the penetration of skirt was created. The penetration process itself from mudline was not simulated and the skirts were modelled as being wished-in-place near target penetration at the start of this analysis. In the second stage the shear stresses were converted into initial excess pore pressures using the results of effective stress DSS tests. Bjerrum27 has shown that DSS strength of normally consolidated and slightly overconsolidated clays is almost the same in vertical and horizontal planes. In order to be able to use the DSS results in the FE model, the test results were normalised with respect to mean effective stress. The contours of initial excess pore pressure are shown in Figure 9. These initial excess pore pressures were then allowed to dissipate with time using a fully coupled consolidation analysis with the drainage boundaries at the far field and mudline. The degree of dissipation versus time response of several points on the outer skirt face is illustrated in Figure 10. It can be seen that points within the self-weight penetrated depth will take much longer to dissipate. The slowest point is at 2.87m depth and will take about 180 days to reach 90%

dissipation. It should be noted that the radial extent of affected soil is much greater in the self-weight penetration depth (see Figure 9). Points within the depth penetrated by suction will reach 90% dissipation in about 30 days. The t90 values appear to be proportional to depth i.e. the deeper the node location the faster the dissipation rate. This is favourable for the pull out capacity development, since deeper layers contribute greatest to the overall capacity. Soil-Structure Interaction In the holding capacity FE model the steel-clay interface behaviour was modelled by means of a layer of elements with reduced shear strength relative to the local intact clay. The thickness of interface layer was made equal to the wall thickness of suction anchor wall, following model test results reported by Renzie et al28. The reduction factor adopted for local shear strength was =0.65 along the length penetrated by suction, following NGI9. This factor was further reduced to account for the effects of heading mis-orientation, as discussed below. For the length of skirts penetrated under self-weight values were selected as per API7 for offshore piles. Zdravkovic et al10 have shown that for suction caissons (smaller Length/Diameter ratios than Barracuda and Caratinga) the effect of -value of 0.5 is to reduce the pullout capacity by approximately 10-15%. The effect of heading mis-orientation angle () was taken into account by reducing the interface friction factor , appropriately. Part of the torsional resistance of suction anchor will be mobilised in re-aligning the padeye with the mooring line. The residual value of for =5 degrees was calculated to be 0.63. Hence the undrained shear strength of the vertical layer of elements forming the clay/soil interface both on the inside and outside the skirts was set to 63% of the local DSS shear strength. Soil Anisotropy The failure mode of obliquely loaded suction anchors involves active, passive and simple shear failure zones in the soil around the anchor. The finite element analyses were performed using the Mohr-Coulomb soil constitutive model. The DSS undrained shear strength together with an isotropic -plane cross section was adopted (i.e. a Tresca criterion). Definition of Ultimate Capacity in Finite Element Analyses The finite element method is the only type of analysis for obliquely loaded suction anchors in which both ultimate pullout resistance and displacements can be obtained together. The shape of the load-deflection response in these analyses is highly non-linear due to the elasto-plastic nature of soil behaviour being taken into account. These analyses demonstrate that mobilisation of the ultimate resistance of suction anchors to pullout loads occurs at relatively large displacement. As shown in Figure 6 both the CAXA model and the full 3D model show that the ultimate capacity is essentially fully mobilised at a displacement of about 150mm (approximately 3% of anchor diameter). Hence, in all the FE analyses the ultimate pullout capacity was taken as the resistance mobilised at a displacement equal to 150mm. The padeye displacements are in the order 30mm at the design load

OTC 15137

level. The magnitude of elastic moduli used will affect the predicted displacements but the ultimate capacity is independent of elastic properties. Optimal Positioning of Padeye Figure 11 shows the load-displacement curves obtained for three different depths of padeye of 9m, 10m and 11m below mudline. In these runs the interface -value was 0.5. The response in terms of ultimate capacity appears to be relatively insensitive to the actual depth of padeye. The same results are plotted in the form of suction anchor rotation against pull-out load and are presented in Figure 12. These results show that if the padeye is at 11m depth the anchor rotates backwards (+ve rotation, i.e. top of anchor moves away from the mooring line and tends to close the potential tension crack at the top of the back face). If the padeye is at 9m depth, then the anchor rotates negatively first, towards the mooring line, although at higher load levels it also starts rotating backwards. The optimal padeye position is at 10m below mudline. In this case the rotation of anchor is negligible until a tension load of approximately 7000kN has been mobilised. This load approaches the maximum unfactored design load. Hence, as a compromise, the padeye was positioned at 10.5m below mudline to ensure positive rotation and closure of any potential tension crack at the back and maximum pullout capacity. It should be noted that only the FE methods of analysis can help in the selection of an optimal padeye depth. It is the authors experience that whilst for normally consolidated sites the 2/3 penetration depth rule applies well for most loading angles, at sites with a sharply contrasting stratigraphy this may not be the case. Revised Installation Tolerances Parametric studies and optimisations resulted in the design dimensions of suction anchors as: 5m diameter and 16m penetration, Figure 13. The design penetration and installation angle tolerances (here called standard tolerances) are shown on the 2nd row of Table 2. Following detailed analyses of the vessel moorings the incidence angles of mooring lines with the horizontal at mudline were reduced by 3-4 degrees. It was decided to utilize the resulting increase in geotechnical Factor of Safety by allowing slightly more relaxed installation tolerances, as a contingency in case of difficulties during field installation, such as early refusal. Limiting installation tolerances (verticality, heading and penetration) were calculated for individual anchor clusters. Table 2 Design installation tolerances
Backward / Forward Lean towards chain () +/-5 +/-5 Verticality in normal planes () +/-5 +/-5 Heading misorientation () +/-5 +/-10

Figure 14 shows the variation of pullout capacity with penetration for anchors installed to the standard installation angle tolerances (2nd row of Table 2). FE analyses were performed for load angles of 26, 32 and 37 and curves were drawn for load angles between these in increments of 1 by interpolation. Also plotted, as horizontal lines, are the all lines intact loads in the heaviest loaded anchors within each cluster. From these the minimum penetration for the most critical anchor in each cluster was determined. The results showed that anchors installed to a penetration depth of 15.5m and a heading mis-orientation of 10 would satisfy the required Factors of Safety. The ultimate pullout capacity of a suction anchor is a function of the angle of pull with the horizontal, amongst other parameters. Plots typified in Figure 15 were produced in order to identify: the most critical anchor, the governing load condition, and limiting installation angle tolerances. Similar plots were produced for one line damaged, or all lines intact load conditions The contours were obtained by calculating the percentage reductions in pullout capacity, relative to an anchor installed with standard tolerances, using both the 3D and CAXA finite element models. These plots represent contours of installation tolerance (forward lean and heading mis-orientation) plotted in the load-inclination space. Also plotted are points representing the factored individual anchor loads for each of the 18 mooring lines, after taking account of the inverse catenary effects in the soil. These plots help identify not only the most critical load condition, but also the minimum installation tolerances for anchors of individual mooring lines of each FPSO. Hence the revised installation tolerances were identified as those in the 3rd row of Table 2. The factors of safety against these new tolerances were checked using the V-H interaction envelopes. Conclusions Design analyses of the Barracuda and Caratinga suction anchors have been performed using a pseudo-3D FE model utilising Fourier series in the third dimension. It was found that these elements are not only sufficiently accurate for design purposes, but also speed up the analysis considerably compared to a 3D model. This fact, together with a flexible input file, where control of the main characteristics of the model could be achieved by a handful of key parameters, was utilised to gain great efficiency. This technique effectively transforms the finite element method into a quick analytical tool whilst retaining the ability to account for intricate details of the problem. Comparisons with other known analytical methods have been shown to be favourable. The model has allowed techniques to be developed for selecting the limits on installation tolerances (verticality, heading and penetration) on a line by line basis. Axisymmetric coupled consolidation analyses of the set-up effects have been performed, where the initial excess pore pressure field is developed by simulation of the final stages of penetration process. The results agree with the recent JIP9 and show that recovery will take a few months, much faster than predicted by the conventional theory based on radial drainage only.

Penetration Below mudline (m) Original Angle () Revised Angle () 16.0 15.5

OTC 15137

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Petrobras for their permission to publish this Paper. Thanks are also due to the colleagues in KBR project teams in Rio de Janeiro and London for their cooperation during the design of these anchors. Nomenclature API =American Petroleum Institute CAUc = Consolidated Anisotropically, Undrained (compression) CAUe = Consolidated Anisotropically, Undrained (extension) DSS = Direct Simple Shear FE = Finite Element FOS = Factor of Safety FPSO = Floating Production Storage and Offloading JIP = Joint Industry Project SI = Site Investigation References
1 Wibner, C. Specifying and testing polyester rope for the Barracuda & Caratinga FPSO deepwater mooring systems, Paper OTC 15139, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 2003. Sparrevik, P. Suction pile technology and installation in deep water, Paper OTC 14241, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 2002. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations, 2000. Jeanjean, P., Andersen, K.H., Kalsness, B., Soil parameters for design of suction caissons for Gulf of Mexico deepwater clays, Paper OTC 8830, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 1998. Gilbert, R.B., Murff, J.D., Identifying uncertainties in the design of suction caisson foundations, (2001), Proc. Nt. Conf. Geotechnical and Geophysical properties of Deepwater Sediments Honoring Wayne A. Dunlap, OTRC, Houston, Texas, 231-242. Argiolas, R., Rosas, M.M. Barracuda and Caratinga Integrated Deepwater Site Investigation, Offshore Brazil, Paper OTC 15136, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 2002. PI RP2A-WSD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Construction of Fixed Offshore Platforms, 20th edition. Fugro Houston, Invitation to JIP, private communication, 2002. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (1999): Skirted Foundations and Anchors in Clay set-up effects outside skirt wall. Summary Report, Joint Industry Project, NGI Report 524071-2. Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D.M., Jardine, R.J. (2001), A Parametric Study of the Pull-out Capacity of Bucket Foundations in Soft Clay, Geotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 1, 55-67. Randolph, M.F. and House, A.R., Analysis of suction caisson capacity in clay, Paper OTC 14236, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 2002. Clucky, E.C., Banon, H., Kulhawy, F.H., Reliability assessment of deepwater suction caissons, Paper OTC 12192, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 2000.

13 14

15

16

17 18 19

20 21

2 3 4

22 23

24 25 26 27

7 8 9

28

10

API RP 2SK, DRAFT - Vertical Load Capable Anchors, 23 October 2002, unpublished. Briaud, J.L. and Garland, E. and Felio, G.Y. Rate of Loading Parameters for Vertically Loaded Piles in Clay, Paper OTC 4694, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 1984. Andersen, K.H., Dyvik, R., Schroder, K., Hansteen, O.E. and Bysveen, S. (1993), Field Tests of Anchors in Clay, II: Interpretation, J. Geot. Eng. Vol. 119, No. 10, ASCE, (1993). Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (1999): Application of offshore bucket foundations and anchors in lieu of conventional design Summary Report. Joint Industry Project, NGI Report 524083-22. Murff, J.D. and Hamilton, J.M. (1993), P-ultimate for undrained analysis of laterally loaded piles. J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 119(1), 91-107. Randolph, M.F. and Houlsby, G.T. (1984) The limiting pressure on a circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil, Geotechnique, Vol. 34, (4), 631-623. Senders, M., Contribution to Workshop: Design Methodologies and Criteria for Suction Caissons for Deepwater Mooring Applications, Ed. Gilbert, R.B. and Murff, J.D., OTRC, Houston, June 2001. Wilson, E.L. (1965) Structural Analysis of Axisymmetric Solids, J.A.I.A.A., Vol. 3, 2269-2274. Winniki, L.A. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1979), Plastic (or visco-plastic) behaviour of axisymmetric bodies subjected to non-axisymmetric loading; semianalytical finite element solutions, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol. 14, pp. 1399-1412. Griffiths, D.V., and Lane, P.A. (1990), Finite element analysis of the shear vane test, Computers and Structures, Vol. 37, No. 6, 1105-1116. Hansteen, O.E. and Hoeg, K. (1994), Soil-structure Interaction Analysis of Embedded Caisson Anchor under Tension Load, 7th In. Conf. Behaviour of Offshore Structures. Kolk, H. J. and Kay, S., North Nemba Flare Bucket Foundations, Paper 13057, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 2001. Potts, D.M., and Zdravkovic, L., Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering- Vol 1 theory, Thomas Telford, London, 1999. Karlsrud, K. and Nadim, F., (1990): Axial capacity of offshore piles in clay, Paper OTC 6245, Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, 1990. Bjerrum, L. (1973) Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clay. state-of-the-art report to Session IV, 8th ICSMFE, Moscow, Proc. Vol.3, pp. 111-159. Renzi, R., Maggioni, W., Smits, F. and V. Manes (1991) A centrifuge study on the behaviour of suction piles. International Conference, Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 6191 1931, pp. 169-176.

11 12

OTC 15137

Undrained Shear Strength Su (kPa)

TYPICAL PROTOTYPE STORM

0 0 2 4
Depth Below Mudline (m)

10

20

30

40

50

60

9000 8000 7000 Storm Load (kN) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 Time (Sec)

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Design-DSS Bar-CAUc Bar-CAUe Bar-VANE

Figure 4 Typical 3-hour synthesized storm load history.

Figure 1 Combined undrained shear strength profiles for Barracuda and Caratinga.
V - H Failure Envelopes Caratinga 5m diameter
10000 9000 8000 7000 Vertical Load (V kN) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Horizontal Load (H kN)
factored unfactored Best Estimate Max Damaged Best Estimate Max Intact

Figure 5 V-H Interaction envelope for mooring anchor.

Figure 2 Contours of Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (DSS) test.

CAXA and Full-3D Model results Effect of Verticality

16000.00 14000.00 12000.00

Load (kN)

10000.00 8000.00 6000.00 4000.00 2000.00 0.00 0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

Displacement (m)
Car ati nga Lean=-5deg (Load Angl e=42deg) 3d-Lean=-5-theta=37 Car ati nga-INTACT (FOS=2.0) 3d-Lean=0, theta=37 Car ati nga-DAMAGED (FOS=1.5) 3d-Lean=+ 5-theta=37

Figure 3 Contours of Cyclic triaxial CAU and CAU test Results.

Figure 6 Load-displacement results from 3D and CAXA model.

OTC 15137

Barracuda and Caratinga Set-up Model results (Nodes at different depths

0.01 0 10 Degree of pore pressure dissipation (%) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0.160

0.1

10

100

1000

Figure 7 Finite element model using CAXA elements - deformation scale: x10.

Load and Displacement Trajectories

0.180

Tim e (days)

0.140

1021 (15.64m) 788 (9m)

923 (14.28m) 709 (6m)

858 (12m) 583 (2.87m)

V rtic l D p c m n (m e a is la e e t )

0.120

0.100

0.080

Figure 10 Degree of consolidation (% set-up) v. time predictions for different points along the outside of skirt.

0.060

0.040

0.020

CARATINGA Load-Displacement Responses - Effect of Lug Level

16000.00
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200

0.000 0.000

Horizontal Dis place m e nt (m )

14000.00
Displacement Trajectory Load Trajectory

12000.00

Figure 8 Comparison of load direction and displacement path of padeye.

Load (kN )

10000.00

8000.00

6000.00

4000.00

2000.00

0.00 0.000

0.050

0.100 Displace me nt (m) Z=11m Z=10m

0.150

0.200

Z=9m

Figure 11 Load-displacement padeye depths.

responses

for

different

Figure 9 Contours of initial excess pore pressure.

OTC 15137

CARATINGA Load-Displacement Responses - Effect of Lug Level

0.0035 0.0030

15000

14000

13000

0.0025 0.0020 Rotation (Rad) 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0000 0 -0.0005 -0.0010 -0.0015 Load (kN) Z=11m Z=10m Z=9m
9000 12 13 14 15 16 17 Suction Anchor Penetration (m) Theta=26, Lean=5, Or=5 Clus ter-1-m ax Clus ter-4-m ax Theta=32, Lean=5, Or=5 Clus ter-2-m ax Theta=37, Lean=5, Or=5 Clus ter-3-m ax 10000 P llo t C p ity (k ) u u a ac N

12000

11000

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Figure 12 Load-rotation responses for different padeye depths.

Figure 14 Contours of equal load angle (intermediate contours not shown, for clarity).

Barracuda & Caratinga - Installation Tolerances FE Analysis Results (Penetration=15.5m )

16000

15000

14000

Pullout Capacity (kN)

13000

12000

11000

10000

9000

8000 25 30 35 40 45 50 Padeye Load Angle (deg) 15.5m Pen. Lean=-5 Or=10 Lean=-7.5 Or=10 Lean=-10 Or=10 Lean=-5 Or=5 Lean=-7.5 Or=5 Lean=-10 Or=5 Car-Intact Lean=-5 Or=7.5 Lean=-7.5 Or=7.5 Lean=-10 Or=7.5

Figure 15 Contours of equal verticality & heading tolerance. Figure 13 Outline of P43 and P48 mooring suction anchor.