Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Study on Buried Depth Protection Index of Submarine Cable
Based on Physical and Numerical Modeling
Xinlong Zheng 1 , Yongqiang Ge 2, * , Zhifei Lu 1 , Chen Cao 2 , Peng Zhou 2 , Shiqiang Li 1 and Jiawang Chen 2






Citation: Zheng, X.; Ge, Y.; Lu, Z.;
Cao, C.; Zhou, P.; Li, S.; Chen, J.
Study on Buried Depth Protection
Index of Submarine Cable Based on
Physical and Numerical Modeling. J.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137. https://
doi.org/10.3390/jmse10020137
Academic Editors: Siming Zheng,
Zhen Liu, Yaling Chen
and Yang Yang
Received: 8 December 2021
Accepted: 17 January 2022
Published: 20 January 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10020137
1 State Grid Zhoushan Electric Power Company, Zhoushan 316021, China;
zheng_xinlong@zj.sgcc.com.cn (X.Z.); 11934037@zju.edu.cn (Z.L.); Li_shiqiang@zj.sgcc.com.cn (S.L.)
2 Ocean College, Zhejiang University, Zhoushan 316021, China; cc666@zju.edu.cn (C.C.);
0918902@zju.edu.cn (P.Z.); arwang@zju.edu.cn (J.C.)
* Correspondence: ge_yongqiang@zju.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-188-6711-6922
Abstract: The buried depth of submarine cables is very important to avoid damage on the cable from
dropping and dragging anchors. This study focused on the actual engineering needs of submarine
power cable protection and laying construction. In order to investigate the buried depth protection
index of submarine cable, physical model tests, theory analysis, and numerical simulations were
conducted in this study. The effects of the bottoming velocity, dropping energy, and anchor mass
on the anchor penetration depth were analyzed and investigated. The analytical model based on
the impact and drag mechanism is presented to analyze the forces and energy on the anchor. The
accuracy and reliable of the model test results are verified by the theory analysis and numerical
simulation, indicating that the buried depth protection index of the submarine cable in the research
area is recommended to be 3 m. The research results can provide guidance for operation of the
submarine cable laying machine and submarine cable protection.
Keywords: submarine cable; buried depth protection; anchor impact damage; model test
1. Introduction
As the main transportation channel of hydrocarbons, submarine pipelines and cables play
an important role in offshore oil and gas resources exploitation and operation [1]. However,
the pipeline and cable are often exposed to greater risk of impact from fishing and anchors
with more and more maritime activities [2]. Since the first cable was laid in 1850, the main
contributor to submarine cable damages is human activity, as most of the cable failures are
caused by anchors [3]. The protection methods of submarine cables mainly include enclosure
protection and embedding protection. Submarine cables in shallow water are buried to a
certain depth through the cable laying machine, which can effectively prevent the damage of
anchoring and fishing, and prolong the service life of the submarine cable [4].
Recent research related to penetration depth of ship anchors are summarized as fol-
lows: DNV-RP-F107 (A standard published by Det Norske Veritas) Risk Assessment of
Pipeline Protection proposed an empirical formula to predict the anchor penetration depth
in clay and sand [5]. Luger and Harkes conducted field tests to investigate the penetration
depth during the drop process in sandy seabed [6]. The physical and numerical simulations
also have been performed to study the drag process of the anchor. Grabe et al. performed
large deformation finite-element (LDFE) analyses to investigate the anchor drag process
in sand and clay, in which the effects of anchor size, dragging speed, soil density, drained
condition, and undrained strength were discussed [7,8]. Kim et al. also adopted the LDFE
method to analyze the behavior of a torpedo anchor in two-layered non-homogeneous clay
sediments, and proposed a total energy-based method to assess the anchor penetration
depth in two-layered fine-grained sediments [9,10]. Wang et al. investigated the penetra-
tion depth of a free-falling torpedo anchor in cohesive soil, and proposed a formula to
calculate the penetration depth of the anchor based on energy conservation principle and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
 method to predict the penetration depth of dropped anchor, based
method (FEM) and coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) method [13
ducted experimentally investigation of the penetration depth of the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137
two-layered soil bed. An empirical formula to predict the penetratio 2 of 19

anchor in two-layered soil bed was proposed based on the energy ana
imental data
experimental [14]. Du[11].
measurements et al.
Liustudied the penetration
et al. proposed depth of
a numerical framework Hall ancho
to predict
the penetration
under sanddepth
soil,ofand
gravity
theinstalled
ultimate anchors based on
bearing coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
capacity and the energy algo
(CEL) approach and field tests [12]. Gao et al. experimentally, numerically and theoretically
to establish
analyzed thepenetration
the anchor theoreticalprocessalgorithm
and proposedofa method
anchor dropping
to predict depth, and t
the penetration
calculation
depth of droppedmodel
anchor,was
baseddemonstrated by experimental
on finite element method (FEM) and coupled research
Eulerian-[15].
Lagrangian (CEL) method [13]. Wang et al. conducted experimentally investigation of the
At present, there is no unified standard for the determination of b
penetration depth of the torpedo anchor in two-layered soil bed. An empirical formula
marine
to cable,
predict the which
penetration is of
depth only
torpedobased
anchoron operationsoil
in two-layered experience
bed was proposedor genera
based on the energy analysis and 177 experimental data [14]. Du et al. studied the pene-
the different influence of geological conditions on submarine cables i
tration depth of Hall anchor and AC-14 anchor under sand soil, and the ultimate bearing
these regulations
capacity are not were
and the energy algorithm generally
adoptedapplicable
to establish theand cannot
theoretical be directly
algorithm of a
anchor dropping depth, and the feasibility of the calculation model
of submarine cables in specific area [16]. According to the actual en was demonstrated by
experimental research [15].
submarine
At present, power
there is nocable
unifiedlaying
standardconstruction in Zhoushan
for the determination of burial depthIslands
of (
China), cable,
submarine the penetration depth
which is only based of the experience
on operation anchor in different
or general weight
definition. Due and v
to the different influence of geological conditions on submarine cables in various sea
cally and theoretically analyzed. The theoretical and numerical simu
areas, these regulations are not generally applicable and cannot be directly applied to the
then of
laying verified
submarine by model
cables tests,
in specific which
area can provide
[16]. According guidance
to the actual engineeringforneeds
operation
of submarine power cable laying construction in Zhoushan Islands (Zhejiang province,
laying machine and submarine cable protection.
China), the penetration depth of the anchor in different weight and velocity are numerically
and theoretically analyzed. The theoretical and numerical simulation analysis are then
2. ThebyDamage
verified Mechanism
model tests, of Anchoring
which can provide to Submarine
guidance for operation Cable
of submarine cable
laying machine and submarine cable protection.
As shown in Figure 1, there are two types of anchor damage on
2. The Damage Mechanism of Anchoring to Submarine Cable
impact and drag damages. If a submarine cable is located below the a
As shown in Figure 1, there are two types of anchor damage on submarine cables:
ship is
impact and anchoring,
drag damages. then the anchor
If a submarine cablemay directly
is located hitanchor
below the the pipeline
point whenwhile
abed. Occasionally,
ship is anchoring, then the theanchor
mooring point
may directly hitmay be located
the pipeline near a submarin
while penetrating the
seabed. Occasionally, the mooring point may be located near a submarine cable, so that the
anchor
anchor is likely
is likely to cable
to hit the hit the
whencable when it is dragged.
it is dragged.

.
Figure 1. The impact and drag damage on submarine cables. (a) Impact damage on submarine cable;
(b) Drag damage on submarine cable.
Figure 1. The impact and drag damage on submarine cables. (a) Impact dama
cable;
2.1. (b)Damage
Impact Drag Analysis
damage on submarine cable.
2.1.1. Analysis of the Dropping Velocity of an Anchor
From practical experience, an anchor falling in the water will be subjected to gravity,
2.1. Impact Damage Analysis
the buoyancy and resistance of water, anchor chain tension, and water flow. Among these
factors,
2.1.1. gravity, buoyancy,
Analysis of theand resistance ofVelocity
Dropping water are the
ofmajor forces subjected by the
an Anchor
anchor, as show in Figure 2.
From practical experience, an anchor falling in the water will be s
the buoyancy and resistance of water, anchor chain tension, and water
factors, gravity, buoyancy, and resistance of water are the major forc
anchor, as show in Figure 2.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 3 of 19

Figure 2. (a) The forces acting on the anchor when dropping in the water, and (b) the maximum
Figure 2. (a) The forces acting on the anchor when dropping in the water, and (b) the
dropping velocity of the anchor.
dropping velocity of the anchor.
In the initial stage, the gravity of the anchor is greater than the resistance of water; the
mechanical
In theequation
initial of the dropping
stage, processofcan
the gravity be anchor
the expressedisas:greater than the resistance
the mechanical equation of the
G−dropping
Ff − Fr = mprocess
·a can be expressed as: (1)
G − Ff − F
where G is the gravity of the anchor, Ff is the buoyancy, r =Fm
and ⋅a
r is resistance of water. The
Equation (1) can be obtained as:
where G is the gravity of the anchor, Ff is the buoyancy, and Fr is resista
1
· g − ρw · Va · g − · ρw · Cd · A F · v2 = m · dv/dt
ter. The Equationm(1) can be obtained2 as: (2)

where m is the anchor’s mass, g is the acceleration 1 of gravity, ρw is 2water’s density, Va

⋅ g − ρ w area
is anchor’s volume, A F is themprojected ⋅ Va ⋅of
g− ⋅ ρ w ⋅ Cin
the anchor d ⋅ the
AF ⋅direction
v = m ⋅ of
dvforce,
dt v is
anchor’s velocity, and Cd is drag coefficient, which is2related to the geometric characteristics
of the anchor. For ship anchors, the general drag coefficient is 1. The acceleration of the
where m is the anchor’s mass, g is the acceleration of gravity, ρw is
anchor can be expressed as:
water
Va is anchor’s volume, AF is the projected area of the anchor in the direction o
dv dv dh dv
is anchor’s velocity, and Ca d= is = · = v· (3)
dt drag
dh coefficient,
dt dh which is related to the geometr
teristics
where h isofthe
the anchor.
dropping For Assuming
height. ship anchors,
that h =the
h0 ,general
the initialdrag coefficient
velocity is 1.
of the anchor in The ac
ofwater
the is:
anchor
v0 = can2gh0be expressed as:
p
, which can be expressed as:

v2 − v0 2 = 2 · h · a = dv
2 · h · vdv dvdh
· dv/dh (4)
a= = ⋅ = v⋅
dt solving
Substituting the Equations (3) and (4), and dh dt dh
the differential equations, the
following can be obtained:
where h is the dropping height. Assuming that h = h0 , the initial velocity of t
· g(ρva0−=ρw )2 gh0 , which
s
in water
2 · Vais: −(ρw ·can beF ·expressed
Cd · A 2 · Va as:
· g(ρ a − ρw )
  
h)
v= 2·g·− exp + (5)
(ρw · Cd · A F ) Va · ρ a ρw · Cd · A F
2 2
v − venough
When the resistance of water is great 0 = 2 ⋅to
h ⋅be
a =equal
2 ⋅ hto
⋅ vgravity,
⋅ dv dh the maximum
dropping velocity of an anchor in seawater can be obtained [5]:
Substituting the Equationss(3) and (4), and solving the differential equation
lowing can be obtained: v = 2 · Va · g(ρa − ρw ) (6)
a
ρw · Cd · A F
 2 ⋅V ⋅ g ( ρ − ρ w ) 
a a  − ( ρ w ⋅ Cd ⋅ AF ⋅ h )  2 ⋅ Va ⋅ g ( ρ a − ρ
= maximum
where v a isvthe  2 ⋅ g ⋅ −dropping velocity.
   exp  +
 ( ρ w ⋅ Cd ⋅ AF )    Va ⋅ ρ a  ρ w ⋅ Cd ⋅ AF

When the resistance of water is great enough to be equal to gravity, the m

dropping velocity of an anchor in seawater can be obtained [5]:

2 ⋅ Va ⋅ g ( ρ a − ρ w )
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 4 of 19

The measured data of a set of anchor bottoming velocity are compiled based on foreign
literature on anchoring experiments [17]. Equation (6) is used to calculate the velocity of
the anchor under the same conditions. The two values are relatively close, with an error
of less than 20%. Moreover, the calculated data is larger than the measured data, which is
safer for the case of calculating the penetration depth to determine the buried depth of the
submarine cable. Therefore, the anchor bottoming velocity method used in this study is
reasonable. The detailed data is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The comparison of the bottoming velocity of the measured data and the calculated data.

Horizontal Aerial Measured Calculated

Anchor Mass/t Water Depth/m Error
Projection Area/m2 Height/m Velocity/ms−1 Velocity/ms−1
1.26 0.6 0 17.7 4.5 5.39 19.8%
1.26 0.6 1.6 17.7 4.5 5.39 19.8%
6.84 1.9 0 17 6 7.01 16.8%
6.84 1.9 3.4 17 6.8 7.07 4%
6.84 1.9 6.5 17 6.9 7.12 3.2%

2.1.2. Analysis the Impact Energy of an Anchor

When the anchor hits the submarine cable, in addition to its own energy, the energy
carried by the surrounding water is included, which is called hydrodynamic energy. The
equivalent density method is used to consider the influence of the additional energy, and
the additional hydrodynamic energy is added to the dropping anchor in the form of
density [18]. The equivalent density can be expressed as:

ρe = ρ a · (1 + Ca · ρw /ρ a ) (7)

where ρe is equivalent density of dropping anchor, and Ca is added mass coefficient, which
is related to the geometric characteristics of the anchor. For ship anchors, the general drag
coefficient is 0.6 [18,19]. The equivalent mass is:
ρe
me = m a · (8)
ρa

The energy of the anchor hitting the seabed is:

1 2 1 ρe 2
Ea = · me · v a = · ma · · va (9)
2 2 ρa

Substituting Equations (8) and (9), the following can be obtained:

m a 2 · g · ρ a 2 − ρ w 2 · Ca


Ea = (10)
A · ρ a 2 · ρw · Cd

After the anchor hits the seabed, it is mainly subjected to gravity and the resistance of
the soil. Therefore, the balance equation of the anchor determined can be expressed as:

dv
Qz − mg = m (11)
dt
where Qz is the resistance of the soil in the depth of z.
When the seabed is sand, the soil resistance is:

1
Qz = Nγ γ0 BA F + Nq p0 A F (12)
2
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 5 of 19

where γ0 is effective unit weight, B is the width of anchor crown, A F is horizontal projection
area, Nγ and Nq are the bearing capacity factors, and p0 is overburden pressure, which can
be expressed as:
p0 = ρ s · g · z (13)
where ρs is soil density.
When the seabed is clay, the soil resistance is:

Qz = ( Nc (Cu0 + kz) + p0 ) A F (14)

where Cu0 is the undrained shear strength at the surface of the seabed, k the rate of change
of untrained shear strength with respect to depth, and Nc is the bearing capacity factor.
When the anchor penetrates the seabed, the seabed soil absorbs part of the kinetic
energy, and the amount of absorbed energy can be expressed as [20]:

2 0
Ep = · γ · L · Nγ · z3 (15)
3
√
2 0
Ep = · γ · Sγ · Nγ · z4 (16)
3
The anchor with sharp edges, and with rounded edges are expressed in Equa-
tions (15) and (16), respectively, where γ0 is effective unit weight, L is the length of pene-
trating side, z is the penetration depth, Sγ is the shape factor, which is 0.6, and Nγ is the
capacity of the soil, which can be expressed as:
 h i 
Nγ = 2 [exp(π tan φ)] tan2 (45 + φ/2) + 1 tan φ (17)

where φ is effective friction angle.

After the anchor passes through the water and soil, the impact energy of the anchor
can be expressed as:
Ec = Ea − E p (18)
When Ec is equal to zero, the penetration depth of the anchor can be calculated as:
" √ #1
m a 2 g · ρ a 2 − ρ w 2 · Ca 4


2 2
z= · ≈ 2.88 m (19)
A · ρ a 2 · ρw · Cd γ0 · Sγ · Nγ

where m a is anchor ‘s mass, ρ a is anchor’s density, ρw is water’s density, Ca is added mass

coefficient, Cd is drag coefficient, which is related to the geometric characteristics of the
anchor, γ0 is effective unit weight, Sγ is the shape factor, which is 0.6, and Nγ is the capacity
of the soil.

2.2. Drag Damage Analysis

The force acting on the ship when anchored is shown in Figure 3. The ship is subjected
to wind and waves, and produces periodic yawing, so that the anchor chain is subjected
to both the fixed and periodic tension. At the same time, the anchor chain produces a
restraining force on the ship, which will be transmitted to anchor rod ‘A’. At anchor point
B, the anchor chain tension is divided into horizontal tension to resist external forces and
vertical tension to fix the ship. When the horizontal tension is greater than the force of the
anchor and the anchor chain, the anchor will be dragged and even taken away.
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 6 of 19

Figure 3. (a) The force acting on the ship and anchor when anchored. (b) The wind and hydrodynamic
Figure 3. (a) The forceforces
acting on ship.
on the the ship and anchor when anchored. (b) The wind and hydrody-
namic forces on the ship.
2.2.1. Drag Force
2.2.1. Drag Force The wind and hydrodynamic forces on the ship are shown in Figure 3, the transverse
components of wind and hydrodynamic forces are perpendicular to the direction of ship,
The wind and hydrodynamic forces
which can cancel each onand
other, thethe
ship are shown
longitudinal in Figureare
components 3, parallel
the transverse
to the direction
components of wind and hydrodynamic forces are perpendicular to the direction of ship,
of ship, which can be expressed as:
which can cancel each other, and the longitudinal components are parallel to the direction
Fx = Fa cos α + Fw cos Φ (20)
of ship, which can be expressed as:
where Fx is the horizontal force, α is wind pressure angle, Φ is hydrodynamic angle, and
Fx = Fa cos
Fw and Fa are hydrodynamic α +and
force Fw cos
windΦforce, which can be respectively expressed
(20) as:
where Fx is the horizontal force, α is windFw pressure ρw · vw 2 ·Φ
= 0.5 · Cw ·angle, L · dis hydrodynamic an- (21)
gle, and Fw and Fa are hydrodynamic force and wind force, which canbe respectively
Fa = 0.5 · Ca · ρ a · v2 A a cos2 θ + Ba sin2 θ (22)
expressed as:
where ρw is seawater density, ρ a is air density, v is the velocity of the wind relative to the
= 0.5
anchored ship, vwFisw the velocity ρwthe
⋅ Cw ⋅of 2
⋅ vwwater
⋅ L ⋅relative
d to the anchored ship, L is the(21)
waterline
length, A a is the area in the waterline, Ba is the lateral area, θ is the wind angle, d is the

( )
draught depth, Cw is hydrodynamic coefficient, 2 Ca is wind coefficient. According to
and
the actualFengineering ρ a ⋅ v 2 Aa cos
a = 0.5 ⋅ Ca ⋅environment, theθtypical
2
+ Ba sin θ
conditions in Zhoushan Island (22)
is selected,
as shown in Table 2.
where ρw is seawater density, ρ a is air density, v is the velocity of the wind relative
Table 2. The parameters of wind, water and ship [21,22].
to the anchored ship, v w is the velocity of the water relative to the anchored ship, L is
the waterline length, Aa Parameters Value
is the area in the waterline, lateral area, θ is theValue
Ba is theParameters wind
1025 kg/m 3 Ba 1469.53 m2
angle, d is the draught depth, Cw is hydrodynamic
ρw
coefficient, and Ca is wind coef-
ρa 1.29 kg/m3 d 19 m
ficient. According to the actual v engineering environment, theθ typical conditions
4 m/s 40◦ in
Vw 0.5 m/s Cw 0.15
Zhoushan Island is selected, as shown in Table 2.
L 313 m Ca 1.733
Aa 348.47 m2
Table 2. The parameters of wind, water and ship [21,22].
Substituting the parameters into Equations (21) and (22), respectively, the hydrody-
Parameters Value
namic force and wind force can beParameters
obtained: Value
1025 kg/m3 Fw = 0.5 · Cw · ρw · vw 2 · L · d = 1120.04 kN
1469.53 m2 (23)
1.29 kg/m3  d  19 m
Fa = 0.5 · Ca · ρ a · v2 A a cos2 θ + Ba sin2 θ = 142.25 kN (24)
v 4 m/s 40°
0.5 m/s 0.15
L 313 m 1.733
348.47 m2
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 7 of 19

Therefore, the horizontal force is:

Fx = Fa cos α + Fw cos Φ = 1262.29 kN (25)

The drag force of the ship is roughly equal to the horizontal force, which can be
obtained as [23]:
P = Fx = 1262.94 kN (26)
where P is the drag force. The maximum allowable tension of submarine cable is:

F = S·g·n·A (27)

where F is maximum allowable tension, S is the cross-sectional area of a single wire, g is the
tension of the armoring wire, n is the number of armored wires, and A is the factor of safety.
According to the actual engineering environment in Zhoushan Island, the parameters of
the submarine cable are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. The parameters of the submarine cable.

Parameters Value
S 18.9 mm2
g 35 kN
n 51
A 0.25

Substituting the parameters into Equation (27), the maximum allowable tension of
the submarine cable is: F = S · g · n · A = 85 kN. The drag force is much larger than the
maximum allowable tension of the submarine cable; therefore, it is necessary to protect the
submarine cable from dragging damage.

2.2.2. Penetration Depth of Anchor Dragging

The force of the anchor when it is dragging is shown in Figure 4, which mainly includes
the gravity (G), the drag force (F), and the force of the soil on the anchor. The force of the
soil on the anchor can be subdivided into the supporting force (N), thrust of the anchor
claw (F1), and the thrust of the anchor crown (F2).
The maximum penetration depth of anchor dragging can be considered only to be
related to the sum of the length of the anchor claw and the height of the anchor crown, and
the maximum open angle of the anchor claw [24]. The state of the anchor after anchoring
and dragging on the seabed is shown in Figure 4b,c.
The length of the open angle of the Hall anchor claw is set as C = h and θ = 42◦ , and
the thickness of the anchor crown is D = h1 ; therefore, the penetration depth (H2 ) can be
obtained as:
(1) The anchor claw is fully inserted into the soil: H2 = h · sin 42◦ = 0.76 m.
h1
(2) The anchor crown is fully inserted into the soil: H2 = sin 42◦ + h · sin 42◦ = 1.13 m

2.3. Comparison of the Impact Damage and Drag Damage on Submarine Cable
In actual anchoring engineering, the drag process occurs after anchor penetration
process is completed. The following situations exist in analyzing the penetration depth of
dragging: (1) if the drag force is greater than other external forces (e.g., wind, water flow,
etc.) of the ship, the penetration depth in the dropping process is the maximum depth of
penetration; (2) if the drag force is smaller than other external forces (e.g., wind, water flow,
etc.) of the ship, the anchor will be dragged. In the latter case, increasing the length of the
chain or embedding the anchor in a deeper seabed can increase the drag force, and the
maximum depth of penetration is the maximum depth after the anchor is dragged.
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 8 of 19

Figure 4. The drag force of the anchor in different states. (a) Force analysis of anchor dragging, (b) the
Figure 4. The drag force
anchor of the
claw anchor inindifferent
is submerged the soil, andstates. (a) Force
(c) the anchor crownanalysis of anchor
is submerged in the soil.dragging, (b)
the anchor claw is submerged in the soil, and (c) the anchor crown is submerged in the soil.
To ensure the submarine cable avoids anchor damage, the buried depth of the submarine
cable should be greater than the penetration depth of the anchor in extreme conditions and
The length ofthethe open angle
penetration depth ofofthethe Hall
anchor anchor
claw claw
in dragging is setwhich
process, as can and θas:= 42° ,
C =behexpressed
and the thickness of the anchor crown is D = h1 ; therefore, the penetration depth ( H 2 )
H = max( H1 , H2 ) (28)
can be obtained as:
where H is the safe buried depth of the submarine cable, H1 is the penetration depth in
(1) The anchor claw is conditions,
extreme fully inserted
and H2into
is the the soil: H
penetration 2 = of
depth h ⋅the 42° =claw
sinanchor 0.76inm .
dragging process.
The penetration depth of the anchor was studied, andhthe maximum penetration depth
(2) The anchor crown
of a 2100iskg
fully inserted
anchor into ofthe
in the process soil: and
dragging = 1
H 2 impacting is+1.13
h ⋅ sin 42° = 1.13
m (Section 2.2.2)m
and
sin 42
2.88 m (Equation (19)), respectively. Therefore, the impact °
damage of the anchor needs to
be further studied in the following section.
2.3. Comparison of 3.the Impact Damage and Drag Damage on Submarine Cable
Numerical Simulation Analysis
In actual anchoring engineering,
3.1. Finite Element Method the drag process occurs after anchor penetration
The commercial
process is completed. The following software LS-DYNA
situations is adopted
exist to simulate
in analyzing thethepenetration
dynamic penetration
depth of
process of anchor impacting in seabed. LS-DYNA is a nonlinear dynamic program with
dragging: (1) if the drag force is greater than other external forces (e.g., wind, water flow,
powerful contact analysis functions and high solution accuracy. The mechanism of the
etc.) of the ship, the penetration
impact depth
between anchor andin the dropping
seabed is complicated;process is tothe
in order maximum
calculate depth of
the maximum
penetration depth of the anchor, and to provide guidance for the
penetration; (2) if the drag force is smaller than other external forces (e.g., wind, water buried depth protection
of submarine cables, the simulation analysis in this paper is based on the following as-
flow, etc.) of the ship, the anchor will be dragged. In the latter case, increasing the length
sumptions: (1) the anchor is very hard and will not deform when it hits the seabed; (2) the
of the chain or embedding
anchor doesthe anchor
not rotate in adropping;
during deeper(3) seabed canenergy
the impact increase the drag
is instantly force,toand
transferred
the maximum depth of penetration
the seabed, and most ofis thethe maximum
energy is absorbed depth
by the after the anchor
deformation is seabed
pits of the dragged.
soil;
and (4) the anchor reaches the maximum velocity when hitting the seabed.
To ensure the submarine cable avoids anchor damage, the buried depth of the sub-
Explicit dynamic analysis was used to carry out the numerical simulation of the anchor
marine cable should be greater
penetrating than
the soil, themodel
the soil penetration depth ofby
(Part 1) is established the
theanchor in model
constitutive extreme con-
of soil
ditions and the penetration depth of the anchor claw in dragging process, which can be
MAT47 in the LS-DYNA preprocessor, and the three-dimensional model of the anchor
(Part 2) is established through Solidworks. The two parts are set in the surface-to-surface
expressed as:
H = max ( H1 , H 2 ) (28)

where H is the safe buried depth of the submarine cable, H is the penetration depth
 chor (Part 1) to study the penetration depth of the anchor.

Table 4. The specifications of Hall anchor.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 9 of 19
Mass/kg A/mm E/mm D/mm B/mm F/mm C/mm H/mm G/m
2100 2093 1136 249 1614 1136 628 340 25
contact, and a grid (element) consists of eight nodes. The penetration process of the Hall
anchor in the seabed is studied, and the most important part is the bottom of the anchor.
Table 5. The parameters of the
Therefore, the sandy
bottom of theclay
Hall in Zhoushan
anchor should beIsland.
close to the real anchor, and the anchor
claw and rod should be simplified, as shown in Table 4. The simplified geometric model
Shear Modulus of the Hall anchor and the finite Angle ofmodel
element Internal Friction
is shown in Figure 5, and the Cohesion
seabed in
Poisson’s
Zhoushan sea area Ratio
is mainly sandy clay, the parameters are listed in Table 5 [25–27]. In
(MPa) (°) (MPa)
the Option module in LS-DYNA, three different velocities are set for the anchor (Part 1) to
4.445 0.340 depth of the anchor. 0.477
study the penetration 0.010
t Table 4.Liquid Limitof Hall anchor.
The specifications Compression Modu
Porosity Ratio Plasticity Index (IP/%)
(WL/%) (MPa)
Mass/kg A/mm E/mm D/mm B/mm F/mm C/mm H/mm G/mm
2100 1.1632093 1136 36.300
249 1614 113615.800 628 340 2.810
256

Figure 5. The simplified geometric model and the finite element model of the Hall anchor. (a) The
Figure 5. The simplified geometric
simplified geometric modelmodel and
of the Hall theand
anchor, finite element
(b) The model
finite element of the Hall anchor. (a
model.
simplified geometric model of the Hall anchor, and (b) The finite element model.
Table 5. The parameters of the sandy clay in Zhoushan Island.

Density Shear Modulus Cohesion

Poisson’s Ratio Angle of Internal Friction (◦ )
(t/m3 ) (MPa) (MPa)
1.920 4.445 0.340 0.477 0.010
Compression
Water Content (W%) Porosity Ratio Liquid Limit (WL/%) Plasticity Index (IP/%)
Modulus (MPa)
40.7% 1.163 36.300 15.800 2.810

3.2. Simulation Results

The penetration depth of the anchor with different mass and dropping velocity is
analyzed. Different anchor masses (100 kg, 500 kg, 1020 kg, and 2100 kg) were dropped
at the same velocity (4 m/s), and the 2100 kg anchor was dropped at different velocities
(3.5 m/s, 4.5 m/s, and 5.81 m/s). The penetrating process of the anchor in the soil in
the numerical analysis is shown in Figure 6. When the anchor hits the seabed, the soil is
squeezed and quickly drained around, forming a bulge, As the anchor falls further, the
uplifted soil fell back into the pit.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 3.2. Simulation Results 10 of 19

The penetration depth of the anchor with different mass and dropping velocity is
analyzed. Different anchor masses (100 kg, 500 kg, 1020 kg, and 2100 kg) were dropped at
the same
3.2.1. velocity
Influence (4 m/s), Weight
of Anchor and theon2100
ThekgPenetration
anchor wasDepth
dropped at Anchor
of the different velocities (3.5
m/s,According
4.5 m/s, and 5.81 m/s). The penetrating process of the anchor in the soilofinanchors
to Figure 2, the limit dropping velocity of different weights the numer-
are
ical analysis is shown in Figure 6. When the anchor hits the seabed, the soil
different; in order to ensure the comparison of model test, a specific dropping velocity is squeezed
is
and quickly
selected drained around,
for numerical forming
simulation withina bulge, As the
the range anchor
of the falls further,
dropping velocity.the
Theuplifted soil
maximum
fell back into
penetration the pit.
depths of different anchor weights in this simulation case are shown in Table 6.

Figure6.6. Numerical
Figure Numericalanalysis
analysisof
ofthe
thepenetrating
penetratingprocess
processof
ofthe
theanchor
anchorin
inthe
thesoil.
soil.

Table 6. The maximum penetration depths of different anchor weights.

3.2.1. Influence of Anchor Weight on The Penetration Depth of the Anchor
According to Figure 2, the limit dropping velocity
Simulation of differentMaximum
Limit Dropping weights ofPenetration
anchors are
Case Mass (kg)
Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s) Depth (mm)
different; in order to ensure the comparison of model test, a specific dropping velocity is
selected
F1-1 for numerical
10 simulation within
4 the range of the dropping velocity.
4.982 116.85The maxi-
mum penetration depths
F1-2 500 of different 4anchor weights 5.235
in this simulation case are shown in
484.58
F1-36.
Table 1020 4 5.421 982.11
F1-4 2100 4 5.812 1863.01
Table 6. The maximum penetration depths of different anchor weights.
As shownVelocity
Simulation in FigureLimit
7, theDropping
dropping Velocity
depth of the anchor will increase significantly
Case Mass (kg) Maximum
as the anchor weight increases, which is due to the impact Penetration
energy Depth
being directly (mm)
affected
(m/s) (m/s)
by the anchor weight. The relationship between the maximum penetration depth and the
F1-1 10 4 4.982 116.85
anchor weight is linear relation, as shown in Figure 7.
F1-2 500 4 5.235 484.58
F1-3 1020 4 5.421 982.11
F1-4 2100 4 5.812 1863.01

As shown in Figure 7, the dropping depth of the anchor will increase significantly as
the anchor weight increases, which is due to the impact energy being directly affected by
the anchor weight. The relationship between the maximum penetration depth and the
anchor weight is linear relation, as shown in Figure 7.
ar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 11 of 19

FigureFigure The maximum

7. maximum
7. The penetration depths
penetration depths of of
different anchor
different weights.
anchor (a) Case (a)
weights. F1-1; (b) Case
Case F1-2;
F1-1; (b) Case F
(c) Case F1-3; (d) Case F1-4. (e) The relationship between the maximum penetration depth and the
2; (c) Case F1-3; (d) Case F1-4. (e) The relationship between the maximum penetration depth and
anchor weight.
the anchor weight.
3.2.2. Influence of Bottoming Velocity on the Penetration Depth of the Anchor
3.2.2. Influence of Bottoming
The penetration depth ofVelocity onanchor
the 2100 kg the Penetration
with different Depth of velocities
bottoming the Anchor is ana-
lyzed, and the maximum bottoming velocity of 2100 kg anchor is 5.812 m/s (Section 2.1.1).
The penetration depth of the 2100 kg anchor with different bottoming velocities
The maximum penetration depths with different bottoming velocities is shown in Table 7.
analyzed, and the maximum bottoming velocity of 2100 kg anchor is 5.812 m/s (Secti
2.1.1).Table
The7.maximum
The maximumpenetration depths
penetration depths with different
with different bottoming bottoming
velocities. velocities is shown
Table 7.
Bottoming Velocity Maximum Penetration
Case Mass (kg)
(m/s) Depth (mm)
Table 7. TheF2-1
maximum penetration
2100
depths with different
3
bottoming velocities.
1564.83
F2-2 2100 4.5 2082.15
Case Mass F2-3 (kg) Bottoming
2100 Velocity (m/s) 5.812 Maximum Penetration 2712.64 Depth (mm)
F2-1 2100 3 1564.83
F2-2 The2100 4.5 of the 2100 kg anchor with different
maximum penetration depths 2082.15 bottoming
F2-3velocities2100
is shown in Figure 8. The dropping velocity is near zero after 1 s,2712.64
5.812 and the dropping
velocity reaches a negative value until 2 s, which can be understood that there will be a
small rebound after the seabed soil is compressed. The rebound velocity (about 0.1 m/s) of
The maximum
the anchor penetration
can be ignored due to depths of the 2100
the long simulation kgand
time, anchor with different
the penetration depth canbottomi
velocities is shown
be guaranteed to in Figure
reach 8. The
a stable state.dropping velocity
The relationship is near
between zero afterpenetration
the maximum 1 s, and the dro
depth and the bottoming velocity is linear, as shown in Figure 8.
ping velocity reaches a negative value until 2 s, which can be understood that there w
be a small rebound after the seabed soil is compressed. The rebound velocity (about 0
m/s) of the anchor can be ignored due to the long simulation time, and the penetrati
depth can be guaranteed to reach a stable state. The relationship between the maximu
penetration depth and the bottoming velocity is linear, as shown in Figure 8.
J. Mar. J.Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137
12 of 19
12 of 19

Figure 8. The
Figure maximum
8. The maximumpenetration
penetration depths ofdifferent
depths of different bottoming
bottoming velocities.
velocities. (a) Case
(a) Case F2-1; F2-1; (b) Case
(b) Case
F2-2; (c) (c)
F2-2; Case F2-3;
Case (d)(d)
F2-3; The relationship
The relationshipbetween
between the
the maximum penetrationdepth
maximum penetration depth and
and thethe bottoming
bottom-
velocity.
ing velocity.

4. Experiment and Results

4. Experiment and Results
The original model test is difficult to perform due to the long model test period.
The original
Therefore, from themodel test is of
perspective difficult to perform
convenience due to the
and the principle long model
of similarity, test period.
the original
Therefore,
model testfrom the perspective
is scaled down, and of theconvenience
similar model and the principle
is studied of similarity,
and analyzed [28]. Inthe original
order
model test is
to make thescaled down,similar
test model and the similar
to the model
original is studied
model, and
both the analyzed
geometric [28].
and In order to
dynamic
parameters
make the test must
model besimilar
similar. toConsidering
the original that the force
model, bothsubjected by the soil
the geometric andisdynamic
mainly pa-
gravity,must
rameters the anchor depends
be similar. on the kinetic
Considering thatenergy andsubjected
the force gravitational potential
by the soil isenergy
mainlytograv-
penetrate into the seabed soil, and the anchor weight plays a major
ity, the anchor depends on the kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy role. The Froudeto pene-
similarity criterion is used for the design of the test model, and the Froude number is
trate into the seabed soil, and the anchor weight plays a major role. The Froude similarity
expressed as [29]:
criterion is used for the design of the test model, v and the Froude number is expressed as
Fr = p (29)
[29]: gh
where v is flow velocity and h is water depth. v
r = required to have the same Froude number (29)
The test model and the original modelFare
gh
in Froude similarity criterion, which can be expressed as:
where v is flow velocity and h is water depth.
( Fr ) = Fr (30)
The test model and the original modelmare required to have the same Froude number
in Froude
where ( Fsimilarity
r )m and Fr criterion, whichparameters
are the physical can be expressed as:model and the original model,
in the test
respectively. The Similarity relationship of the test model and the original model under
Froude criterion is shown in Table 8. ( Fr )m = Fr (30)
In order to compare the test results, the geometric scale of this model test is λ = 6.51.
where ( Fr )m and
The physical Fr are
parameters of the physical
the test model parameters in model
and the original the test
aremodel
shown and the9.original
in Table
model, respectively. The Similarity relationship of the test model and the original model
8. Similarity
TableFroude
under relationship
criterion of thein
is shown test model8.and the original model under the Froude criterion.
Table
Parameter Length Area Weight Velocity Penetration Depth Shear Strength
Table 8. Similarity relationship of the test model and the original model under the Froude crite-
Scale λ λA λm √λv λz λsu
rion. Similarity λ λ2 λ3 λ λ λ
√
Test model λ λA 2 λm 3 λv λz λsu
Parameter Length Area Weight Velocity Penetration Depth Shear Strength
Scale λ λ λ λ λ λ
Similarity λ λ λ √λ λ λ
Test model λ λ λ λ λ λ

In order to compare the test results, the geometric scale of this model test is λ = 6.51
. The physical parameters of the test model and the original model are shown in Table 9.
 Table 9. Physical parameters of the test model and the original model.

Parameter Test Model Original Model

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 scale 1 6.54
13 of 19
Anchor weight 5.1 kg, 7.5 kg 1440 kg, 2100 kg
Penetration velocity 2.268 m/s 5.8 m/s
Table 9. Physical parameters of the test model and the original model.
Shear strength 4.59 kPa 30 kPa
Parameter Test Model Original Model
4.1. Design of Experiment
scale Platform 1 6.54
Anchor weight 5.1 kg, 7.5 kg 1440 kg, 2100 kg
4.1.1. Soil Penetration
and Anchor Model
velocity 2.268 m/s 5.8 m/s
Shear strength 4.59 kPa 30 kPa
(1) Soil preparation
The penetration
4.1. Design depth
of Experiment of the anchor is affected by the soil; in order to get accur
Platform
test data,
4.1.1. the
Soil proper soilModel
and Anchor must be chosen. Speswhite kaolin clay, which has good plastic
and strong
(1) Soilbonding,
preparationwas used to simulate the seabed soil in this test. The characterist
of the Kaolin
The penetrationshown
clay are depth ofintheTable
anchor10.
is affected by the soil; in order to get accurate test
data, the proper soil must be chosen. Speswhite kaolin clay, which has good plasticity and
Tablestrong
10. The characteristics
bonding, was usedof
tothe Kaolin
simulate theclay.
seabed soil in this test. The characteristics of the
Kaolin clay are shown in Table 10.
Characteristic Value
Table 10. The Proportion
characteristics of the Kaolin clay. 2.61
Liquid limit
Characteristic Value 65%
Plastic limit
Proportion 2.61 33%
Liquid limit 65%
Plastic limit 33%
Firstly, the Kaolin clay and water are mixed in certain proportions, and then pu
into the vacuum stirring
Firstly, the blender
Kaolin clay for 5 are
and water h. During
mixed inthis process,
certain the air
proportions, pressure
and then putisit kept at
kPa to ensure
into the gas
the vacuum in the
stirring soil isforcompletely
blender 5 h. During discharged [30],
this process, the airas shown
pressure is in Figure
kept at 9. T
70 kPa to ensure the gas in the soil is completely discharged [30], as
geotechnical test is carried out to determine whether the prepared soil meets the test shown in Figure 9.
The geotechnical test is carried out to determine whether the prepared soil meets the test
quirements. The strain controlled direct shear apparatus is applied in the test to measu
requirements. The strain controlled direct shear apparatus is applied in the test to measure
the shear strength
the shear ofofthe
strength theprepared soil,and
prepared soil, and continuously
continuously change change the proportion
the proportion of kaolin of kao
and water until
and water thetheshear
until shearstrength
strength ofofwhich
whichwaswas about
about 4.6 kPa.
4.6 kPa.

Figure 9. (a)9.The
Figure soilsoil
(a) The ininvacuum stirring
vacuum stirring blender,
blender, (b) prepared
(b) prepared soil and
soil in tank, in tank, andHall
(c) model (c) anchor.
model Hall an
chor.
(2) Model anchor
Theanchor
(2) Model model anchor was made of iron and the anchor surface was electroplated with
a layer of chromium to prevent rusting, as shown in Figure 9. The model anchor was a
The model
replica anchorHall
of a full-scale wasanchor,
made which
of iron and the
weighs 1440anchor
kg and surface
2100 kg. was electroplated
The scale ratio in wit
layermodel
of chromium
tests is λ to prevent
= 6.51; rusting,
hence, as shown
the model anchor isin5.1
Figure
kg and9.7.5
The kg,model anchor
respectively. Aswas a re
shown in Figure 4, the primary dimensions of the Hall anchor are listed in Table
lica of a full-scale Hall anchor, which weighs 1440 kg and 2100 kg. The scale ratio in mod 11.
tests is λ = 6.51 ; hence, the model anchor is 5.1 kg and 7.5 kg, respectively. As shown
Figure 4, the primary dimensions of the Hall anchor are listed in Table 11.
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 14 of 19

Table 11. The specifications of Hall anchor.

Mass A E D B F C H G
Table 11. The specifications of Hall anchor.
(kg) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
hor 2100 2093 Mass 1136 A 249 E 1614
D 1136
B 628
F 340
C H256 G
(kg) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
nchor 322 175 38 252 175 96 52 39 322
2100 kg anchor 2100 2093 1136 249 1614 1136 628 340 256
7.5 kg model anchor 322 175 38 252 175 96 52 39 322
4.1.2. Experiment Platform
The experiment 4.1.2. Experiment
platform Platform
consists of a height-adjustable anchoring platform, soil
The experiment platform
tank, high-speed image acquisition system, and consists
depthofmeasurement
a height-adjustable
module, anchoring platform,
as shown in soil
tank, high-speed image acquisition system, and depth measurement module, as shown
Figure 10. The height-adjustable anchoring platform is mainly composed of a height-ad-
in Figure 10. The height-adjustable anchoring platform is mainly composed of a height-
justable module, a cable recovery
adjustable module
module, a cableand a sliding
recovery railand
module module. The
a sliding railbottoming
module. Theveloc-
bottoming
ity of the anchor is controlled byanchor
velocity of the the dropping height
is controlled by theof the model
dropping heightanchor.
of the model anchor.

Figure 10. (a) The experiment platform,

Figure 10. (a) (b) height-adjustable
The experiment anchoring platform,
platform, (b) height-adjustable (c) high-speed
anchoring platform, (c) high-speed
image acquisition system,
imageand (d) depth
acquisition measurement
system, and (d) depthmodule.
measurement module.

The high-speed camera (AOS X-xtreme) is used to collect image data to measure the
The high-speed camera (AOS X-xtreme) is used to collect image data to measure the
relationship of the time and space information of the anchor. The soil tank is a transparent
relationship of the time
glassand
tankspace
made information of the anchor.
of methyl methacrylate, the wall The
of soil
whichtank
canis
beaused
transparent
as observation
glass tank made of window.
methylInmethacrylate, the
the vicinity of the wall
wall oftank,
of the which can be used
the high-speed as isobservation
camera used to capture the
window. In the vicinity of the
dropping wall of
position ofthe
theanchor
tank,atthe high-speed
different times, ascamera
shown in isFigure
used 10c.
to capture
the capturing
frequency of the camera is set to 160,000 FPS (Frames per Second).
the dropping position of the anchor at different times, as shown in Figure 10c. the captur- The dropping velocity
can be obtained by combining the corresponding heights of the anchor in the two adjacent
ing frequency of thepictures
camera is set to 160,000 FPS (Frames per Second). The dropping ve-
and the capturing frequency of the camera. Since the interval time of the adjacent
locity can be obtained by captured
photos combining the corresponding
by high-speed heights
camera is less than 10 of
µs, the anchor invelocity
the calculated the two
from the
adjacent pictures and the capturing
images frequency
can be regarded of the camera.
as the instantaneous Since
velocity theanchor.
of the interval time of the
adjacent photos captured by high-speed camera is less than 10 μs, the calculated velocity
4.2. Experimental Cases
from the images can be regarded as the instantaneous velocity of the anchor.
The penetration depth of the anchor with different weights and bottoming velocity is
studied in this paper. The bottoming velocity is controlled by the dropping height of the
4.2. Experimental Cases
anchor in the tests of the penetration depth versus the dropping velocity. Assuming that
thedepth
The penetration anchorof is the
onlyanchor
subjected by gravity
with whenweights
different dropping, andbottoming
and the air resistance is ignored.
velocity
As shown in Table 12, a total of nine model tests were performed to investigate the effects
is studied in this paper. The bottoming velocity is controlled by the dropping height of
of bottoming velocity and anchor weights on the anchor penetration depth. Each model
the anchor in the tests of the penetration
test is repeated three times.depth versus the dropping velocity. Assuming
that the anchor is only subjected by gravity when dropping, and the air resistance is ig-
nored. As shown in Table 12, a total of nine model tests were performed to investigate the
effects of bottoming velocity and anchor weights on the anchor penetration depth. Each
model test is repeated three times.

Table 12. Model test details.

Group Case Mass (kg) Dropping Height (mm) Bottoming Velocity (m/s)
P1-1 7.5 13.0 0.5
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 15 of 19

Table 12. Model test details.

10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Group Case Mass (kg) Dropping Height (mm) Bottoming Velocity (m/s)
P1-1 7.5 13.0 0.5
P1-2 7.5 51.0 1.0
P2-1 I 7.5 P1-3 7.5 114.8 114.8 1.5 1.5
P1-4 7.5 204.1 2.0
P2-2 7.5 P1-5 7.5
262.0 262.0
2.268 2.268
II
P2-3 5.1 P2-1 7.5 114.8 114.8 1.5 1.5
P2-4 5.1 P2-2 7.5 262.0 262.0 2.268 2.268
II
P2-3 5.1 114.8 1.5
P2-4 5.1 262.0 2.268
4.3. Experimental Results
4.3. Experimental
Take the case P1-4 Resultsto analyze the kinematics characteristics of the an-
as an example
chor during the dropping Takeprocess.
the case P1-4 as an 11
Figure example
shows to analyze the kinematics
the photos characteristics
of the anchor of the anchor
at different
during the dropping process. Figure 11 shows the photos of the anchor at different falling
falling positions captured by the high-speed camera. The soil is splashed around in Figure
positions captured by the high-speed camera. The soil is splashed around in Figure 11b,c,
11b,c, indicating that the surface
indicating that thesoil gets
surface a gets
soil higher impact
a higher energy
impact energy and speed
and speed when
when the is
the anchor
anchor is penetrating, and theand
penetrating, surface soil is
the surface quickly
soil is quicklysqueezed
squeezed out.
out.

Figure 11. The different falling

Figure positions
11. The differentof the anchor
falling positionsin
ofcase F1-4. in
the anchor (a)case
TheF1-4.
anchor is anchor
(a) The not touch
is notthe
touch the
soil; (b–e) The anchor is penetrating the soil; (f) The anchor is in the maximum penetration depth.depth.
soil; (b–e) The anchor is penetrating the soil; (f) The anchor is in the maximum penetration

The curves of dropping velocity versus dropping height and penetration depth are
The curves of plotted
dropping basedvelocity versus dropping
on the information collected inheight andaspenetration
the images, depth
shown in Figure are 12b
12. Figure
plotted based on the is ainformation collected
part of Figure 12a, in the
which only showsimages, as shown
the dropping inversus
velocity Figure 12. Figure
penetration depth in
12b is a part of Figure 12a, which only shows the dropping velocity versus penetration the
the soil. As shown in Figure 12b, A turning point exists when the anchor impacting
depth in the soil. Assoil, whichin
shown is caused
Figureby12b,
the following
A turning two reasons:
point (1) the
exists impact
when theenergy is absorbed
anchor impact-by the
soil when the anchor hits the soil, therefore, the acceleration of the anchor will significantly
ing the soil, which decrease;
is caused by the following two reasons: (1) the impact energy is ab-
and (2) the resistance of the soil increases due to the increase in contact area when
sorbed by the soil when the touching
the anchor anchor hits thewhich
the soil, soil, will
therefore, the the
also change acceleration
accelerationof theanchor.
of the anchor
will significantly decrease; and (2) the resistance of the soil increases due to the increase
in contact area when the anchor touching the soil, which will also change the acceleration
of the anchor.
22, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 16 of 19

Figure 12. Dropping velocity versus dropping height and penetration depth. (a) The anchor dropping
Figure 12. Dropping in velocity
the air andversus
the soil.dropping height
(b) The anchor and penetration
penetrating depth.
in the soil and (a) The
the turning anchor drop-
point.
ping in the air and the soil. (b) The anchor penetrating in the soil and the turning point.
4.3.1. Static Scouring Experiment
The end of the anchor is connected to the roller, therefore, the anchor is subjected to
4.3.1. Static Scouring Experiment
the resistance of the roller, as shown in Figure 10. In order to eliminate the influence of the
The end of the anchor
roller is connected
damping, to instantaneous
the calculated the roller, therefore,
bottomingthe anchor
velocity basedison
subjected to
the high-speed
the resistance of the roller,
camera as to
is used shown
correctin
theFigure 10.height
dropping In order to eliminate
required the influence
for the corresponding of
dropping
velocity. The modified physical parameters in the model tests
the roller damping, the calculated instantaneous bottoming velocity based on the high-are shown in Table 13.
speed camera is used The penetration depth of the anchor in the soil increases significantly as the bottoming
to correct the dropping height required for the corresponding drop-
velocity increases, because the impact energy is completely absorbed by the soil. The
ping velocity. Thecomparison
modified of physical parameters
the penetration depth in thesoil
in the model
of thetests areisshown
anchor shown in Table14.
in Table 13.The
penetration depth versus bottoming velocity of the anchor in the model test and simulation
Table 13. The physical parameters
is shown in13.
in Figure model tests.

Bottoming Simulation
Table 13. The physical parameters in model tests. Modified Dropping Height
Dropping Height (mm)
Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s) Bottoming Simulation Dropping
(mm)
Modified Dropping
Case
0.5 1.279 Velocity (m/s) 13.0
Velocity (m/s) Height (mm) 29.0 Height (mm)
1.0 2.557
P1-1 0.5 51.0 1.279 13.0 69.0 29.0
P1-2 1.0
1.5 3.836
P1-3 1.5
114.82.557
3.836
51.0
114.8
69.0
133.0 133.0
2.0 5.115
P1-4 2.0 204.15.115 204.1 219.0 219.0
P1-5 2.268
2.268 5.8 262.0 5.8 262.0
282.0 282.0
Table 14. Comparison of the penetration depth in the model test and numerical simulation.
The penetration depth of the anchor in the soil increases significantly as the bottom-
becauseAverage
ing velocity increases,Case Penetration Depth in
the Model
impact Penetration Depth
energy is completely
Tests (mm)
Penetration Depth
absorbed by
in Prototype (m)
the soil. The
in Simulation (m)
comparison of the penetration
P1-1
depth in119.3
the soil of the anchor0.78is shown in Table0.98
14. The
penetration depth versus
P1-2 bottoming velocity
123.3 of the anchor in 0.81the model test and1.92
simula-
tion is shown in FigureP1-3
13. 164.6 1.078 1.34
P1-4 243.0 1.59 2.28
P1-5 387.3 2.53 2.71
Table 14. Comparison of the penetration depth in the model test and numerical simulation.

age Penetration Depth in Model Tests Penetration Depth in Penetration Depth in Simulation
(mm) Prototype (m) (m)
119.3 0.78 0.98
123.3 0.81 1.92
164.6 1.078 1.34
243.0 1.59 2.28
387.3 2.53 2.71
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 17 of 19

Figure 13. The penetration depth versus bottoming velocity of the anchor. (a) The results in
model test (b) The simulation results and the prototype results.

4.3.2. The Penetration Depth Versus the Anchor Weight

The impact
Figure energy depends
13. The penetration onbottoming
depth versus the dropping
velocity velocity and(a)the
of the anchor. Theweight
results inof
thethe anch
Figure
As the 13.testThe
model
anchor penetration
(b)mass
The simulation depth
results
increases, the versus
and bottoming
the prototype
penetration velocity
results.
depth in theofsoil
theincreases
anchor. (a) The results i
significantly.
model test (b) The simulation results and the prototype results.
comparison of the penetration
4.3.2. The Penetration depth
Depth Versus in the Weight
the Anchor soil of the anchor is shown in Table 15.
penetration depthenergy
The impact versus anchor
depends onweight and velocity
the dropping bottoming velocity
and the weight in theanchor.
of the model test
4.3.2.
As The Penetration
the anchor Depth Versus
mass increases, the Anchor Weight
simulation is shown in Figurethe 14.penetration depth in the soil increases significantly. The
comparison
The impact of the penetration
energy dependsdepthonin the
the soil of the anchor
dropping is shown
velocity in Table
and the 15. The
weight of the anc
penetration
As the depth versus anchor weight and bottoming velocity in the model test and
Table 15.anchor mass of
Comparison increases, the penetration
the penetration depth in the depth
model intest
theand
soilnumerical
increasessimulation.
significantly
simulation is shown in Figure 14.
comparison of the penetration depth in the soil of the anchor is shown in Table 15.
Average Penetration penetration
Depth in Model depthTests
versus Penetration
anchor weight Depth
and in
bottoming Penetration
velocity Depth
in the in Simulati
model test
Case Table 15. Comparison of the penetration depth in the model test and numerical simulation.
(mm)
simulation is shown in Figure 14. Prototype (m) (m)
Average Penetration Depth
P2-1 164.67 Case
in Model Tests (mm)
1.078 Penetration Depth
in Prototype (m)
Penetration Depth
0.98
in Simulation (m)
P2-2 387.33
Table 15.P2-1 penetration2.53
Comparison of the 164.67 depth in the1.078model test and numerical 2.71simulation.
0.98
P2-3 107.00 P2-2 387.33 0.70 2.53 0.81
2.71
Average Penetration Depth P2-3in Model Tests 107.00 Penetration Depth in 0.70 Penetration 0.81 Depth in Simulat
Case
P2-4 183.67 P2-4
1.20
183.67 Prototype (m) 1.20
1.41
1.41(m)
(mm)
P2-1 164.67 1.078 0.98
P2-2 387.33 2.53 2.71
P2-3 107.00 0.70 0.81
P2-4 183.67 1.20 1.41

Figure 14. The penetration depth versus bottoming velocity and anchor weight. (a) The results in the
Figure 14. test
model The(b)penetration depth
The numerical versus
simulation bottoming
results velocity results.
and the prototype and anchor weight. (a) The results
the model test (b) The numerical simulation results and the prototype results.
4.3.3. Results Analysis
As shown
4.3.3. Results in Figures 13 and 14, the trend of the penetration depth of the anchor in the
Analysis
model test is similar to the numerical analysis results, and the correlation is good, which
As shown
proves that theinmodel
Figures test 13 and 14,
is correct andthe trendThe
reliable. of penetration
the penetration depth of
depth obtained by the
the ancho
Figure
the model 14. The
experiment penetration
testis generally
is similar depth
to the
smaller versus bottoming
thannumerical
the simulation velocity
analysis and
results,
results, which anchor
and by
is caused weight. (a)
thethecorrelation
followingThe results
is go
the reasons:
model test(1) (b) The
due to numerical
insufficient simulation
solidarity and results and the
reinforcement of prototype
the soil, the results.
shear strength of
which proves that the model test is correct and reliable. The penetration depth obtai
the soil is not uniformly distributed in pressure, and there will be a deviation in the shear
by the experiment
strength at different
isdepths,
generally smaller than the simulation results, which is caused by
and the deeper soil exceeds the set value due to the consolidation
4.3.3. Results Analysis
following reasons:of(1)
and compression thedue
soil; to
(2) insufficient
the shear strengthsolidarity
of the soiland
withreinforcement
a certain depth in of thethe soil, the sh
surface
strength As shown
of than
is lower the thein Figures
soilsetisvalue; 13
not uniformly and 14,
(3) strain-rate the trend
distributed of the penetration
in pressure,
effect is ignored in numerical and depth
thereand
analysis; will of
(4)bethe
the anch
a devia
inthe
themodel
shear test
boundary isofsimilar
effects
strength the
atsoil to the
tank
different numerical
affect andanalysis
the penetration
depths, thedepth
deeperresults,
of the and the the
anchor.
soil exceeds correlation
set valueisdug
which
the proves that
consolidation thecompression
and model test isofcorrect and
the soil; (2) reliable.
the shearThe penetration
strength depth
of the soil obta
with a
by the experiment is generally smaller than the simulation results, which is caused
tain depth in the surface is lower than the set value; (3) strain-rate effect is ignored by
following analysis;
numerical reasons: (1)
anddue
(4)tothe
insufficient
boundary solidarity
effects ofandthereinforcement of the
soil tank affect thesoil, the s
penetra
strength of the soil is not uniformly distributed in pressure, and there will be a devia
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 18 of 19

5. Conclusions
We focused on the actual engineering needs of submarine power cable laying construc-
tion in Zhoushan Islands (Zhejiang province, China). This paper conducted both model
tests, theory and numerical simulation analysis, to investigate the buried depth protection
index of a submarine cable. The accuracy and reliability of the model tests are verified by
the theory analysis and numerical simulation results. The effects of the bottoming velocity,
dropping energy, and anchor mass on the anchor penetration depth were analyzed and
investigated. The primary conclusions are summarized in the following:
(1) The parametric study from the model tests and numerical simulation indicates that
the anchor penetration depth is affected by the bottom velocity, impact energy, and
anchor mass.
(2) The analytical model based on impact and drag mechanism, which is put forward
based on Energy conservation law and Newton’s second law, can help to analyze each
force subjected by the anchor when dropping and dragging in the soil.
(3) The maximum penetration depth of the 2100 kg anchor in the test and the simulation
analysis is 2.53 m and 2.77 m, respectively. Therefore, the buried depth protection
index of the submarine cable in Zhoushan Island is recommended to be 3 m.
(4) In future research, the influence of different anchors (e.g., types, size, etc.) on the
penetration depth of the seabed soil should be considered, and the penetration depth
of the anchor should be studied in the actual submarine cable project in Zhoushan area.

Author Contributions: X.Z. and Z.L. conceived, investigated and designed the experiments; Z.L.
and S.L. performed the experiments; C.C. and Y.G. analyzed the data; P.Z. contributed analysis and
visualization tools; S.L. contributed materials tools; Y.G. wrote, reviewed and edited the paper; X.Z.
and J.C. managed project and provided funding. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request
from the first author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Randolph, M.F.; Gaudin, C.; Gourvenec, S.M.; White, D.J.; Boylan, N.; Cassidy, M.J. Recent advances in offshore geotechnics for
deep water oil and gas developments. Ocean Eng. 2011, 38, 818–834. [CrossRef]
2. Osthoff, D.; Heins, E.; Grabe, J. Impact on submarine cables due to anchor-soil interaction. Geotechnik 2017, 40, 265–270. [CrossRef]
3. Payne, E. CNN. Vandals Cut San Francisco Area Fiber Optic Lines for 11th Time in a Year. 1 July 2015. Available online:
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/01/tech/california-fiber-optic-cable-cuts/index.html (accessed on 10 December 2021).
4. Wu, A.-G.; Yuan, Z.-L.; Gong, Y.-Q. Overview of Construction Technology for Deep-buried Laying of Submarine Cables in China.
Zhejiang Electr. Power 2015, 3, 57–62.
5. Det Norske Veritas. DNVGL-RP-F107 Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection. May 2017 ed. Available online: https://oilgas.
standards.dnvgl.com/download/dnvgl-rp-f107-risk-assessment-of-pipeline-protection (accessed on 10 December 2021).
6. Luger, D.; Harkes, M. Anchor Tests German Bight: Test Setup and Results; Project Rep., 1207052-002-GEO-0003; Deltares: Delft, The
Netherlands, 2013.
7. Grabe, J.; Qiu, G.; Wu, L. Numerical simulation of the penetration process of ship anchors in sand. Geotechnik 2015, 38, 36–45.
[CrossRef]
8. Grabe, J.; Wu, L. Coupled-Eulerian-Lagrangian simulation of the penetration and braking behaviour of ship anchors in clay.
Geotechnik 2016, 39, 168–174. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, Y.; Hossain, M.S.; Lee, J. Dynamic Installation of a Torpedo Anchor in Two-layered Clays. Can. Geotech. J. 2017, 55, 446–454.
[CrossRef]
10. Kim, Y.-H.; Hossain, M.S.; Wang, D.; Randolph, M.F. Numerical investigation of dynamic installation of torpedo anchors in clay.
Ocean Eng. 2015, 108, 820–832. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 137 19 of 19

11. Wang, W.; Wang, X.; Yu, G. Penetration depth of torpedo anchor in cohesive soil by free fall. Ocean Eng. 2016, 116, 286–294.
[CrossRef]
12. Liu, H.; Xu, K.; Zhao, Y. Numerical investigation on the penetration of gravity installed anchors by a coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian
approach. Appl. Ocean Res. 2016, 60, 94–108. [CrossRef]
13. Gao, P.; Duan, M.; Gao, Q.; Jia, X.; Huang, J. A prediction method for anchor penetration depth in clays. Ships Offshore Struct.
2016, 11, 782–789. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, C.; Zhang, M.-X.; Yu, G.-L. Penetration depth of torpedo anchor in two-layered cohesive soil bed by free fall. China Ocean
Eng. 2018, 32, 706–717. [CrossRef]
15. Du, Y.; Chen, F.; Xu, W. Experimental study and calculation method of falling anchor depth under sand soil. South. Energy Constr.
2018, 5, 222–227.
16. Zha, M.; Wang, Y.-J.; Wang, Z.-Y.; Fan, X.-M. The Burial Depth of Submarine Cable. Opt. Fiber Electr. Cable Appl. 2015, 2, 33–42.
17. Wang, Y.-S. Study on the Depth of Penetration of Anchors. Master’s Thesis, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China, 2015.
18. Wang, L.-P. Submarine Cable Mechanical Impact Structural Damage Analysis. Master’s Thesis, China University of Petroleum,
Beijing, China, 2016.
19. Katteland, L.H.; Oygarden, B. Risk analysis of dropped objects for deep water development. In Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics & Arctic Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, 18–22 June 1995; American
Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1995; Volume 2, pp. 443–450.
20. Ren, Y.-S.; Yan, S.-W.; Yan, Y.; Chen, G.; He, X.-Q. Numerical Analysis on Dragging Anchors in Soil Based on CEL. Chin. J. Undergr.
Space Eng. 2017, 13, 1573–1578.
21. Lei, D.; Pan, L. Application of integral hoisting technology of VindebyTunoeKnob in Zhoushan sea area. Ocean Dev. Manag. 2018,
35, 6.
22. Yu, Y.H.; Liu, F.; Jiang, J.; Liu, P.; Cui, Z.M. Continuous arc-shaped laying technique for large diameter flexible pipeline in
complicated sea conditions. Pet. Eng. Constr. 2018, 44, 5.
23. Xuan, K. The Study on Anchoring Damage to Subsea Pipelines. Master’s Thesis, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China, 2012.
24. Xu, W.; Wang, J.-Y.; Zheng, Z.-Y.; Li, Y.-Y. Influence of Dragging Anchor upon the Buried Depth of Submarine Cable. Ship Ocean
Eng. 2018, 1, 147–150.
25. Yue, X.-B. Research on Settlement Characteristics and Calculation of Immersed Tube Tunnel with Soft Foundation and High
Siltation. Ph.D Thesis, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China, 2014.
26. Yu, K.-B.; Yang, T.; Shan, T.-K.; Meng, Q.-J.; Li, Z.-G. Study on the Adsorption Forces of Seabed Platform on Muddy Seafloor
Based on ANSYS. J. Ocean Technol. 2017, 36, 58–62.
27. Wang, Z.-H.; Pan, Y.-J.; Pan, G.-F.; Chen, P.-X. Statistic analysis of physical and mechanical indices of quaternary marine sediments
in the western sea area between Zhoushan and Daishan Island. Mar. Sci. Bull. 2011, 30, 557–561.
28. Dai, B.-L. Research on the Jetting Arm of Jetting Propelled ROV Trencher and Its Jetting Process. Master’s Thesis, Zhejiang Uni-
versity, Hangzhou, China, 2016.
29. Han, C.-C.; Liu, J. Model tests on the penetration depth of gravity installed plate anchors. Ocean Eng. 2016, 5, 92–100.
30. Han, C.-C.; Chen, X.-J.; Liu, J. Model tests on penetration depth of hall anchor. Ocean Eng. 2018, 5, 90–98.