Multiline Anchors for Floating Offshore Wind

Towers

Brian D. Diaz, Marcus Rasulo, Charles P. Aubeny Melissa Landon

Civil Engineering Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University University of Maine
College Station, TX, USA Orono, ME, USA

Casey M. Fontana, Sanjay R. Arwade, Don J.

DeGroot
Civil Engineering
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Amherst, MA, USA

Abstract— Roughly 60% of potentially exploitable offshore resources are often limited” [1]. Offshore wind can help
wind power is located beyond the range of water depths suitable provide energy to these populations in a cost competitive
for fixed foundations, where floating offshore wind towers manner. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
(FOWTs) moored to the seabed are required. Anchors comprise has mapped wind speeds at 90 m (approximate nacelle height
a critical component of the mooring system. A variety of anchor for offshore turbines) to assist in project planning. Generally,
types are potentially suitable for this purpose, but all have the east coast minus Florida and Georgia, the northwest coast
limitations in regards to the types of seabed soils in which they and central California coast, and the Gulf of Mexico show
may be deployed and the type of mooring systems (catenary, great potential for providing wind energy. Fig. 1 shows the
taut) for which they are suitable. Additionally, foundations for
NREL map of wind speeds at 90 m height [2].
offshore wind make up a large portion of project cost; therefore,
minimizing the costs of fabrication, transport and installation of Power generation potential by water depth is shown in Fig.
anchors is a key aspect of overall project feasibility. In contrast 2. It can be seen that over 50% of total power generation
to offshore oil-gas installations, offshore wind towers are potential occurs in water depths greater than 60 m. 50 m is
deployed in arrays, which offer the possibility of reducing project about the point that floating structures become a competitive
costs by attaching more than one mooring line to a single anchor. option for supporting offshore structures. For this reason,
In addition to direct cost savings, the multiline anchor concept offshore wind has started using semisubmersible and SPAR
permits a reduced scale of costly offshore geotechnical site
style supports for offshore wind turbines.
investigations. This paper first examines different anchor types
that are potentially suitable as anchors for FOWTs, largely With offshore wind turbines, an estimated 15-25% of
within the context of their traditional usage in securing a single installed 1,200-1,850 €/kW wind farms are in the foundation
mooring line to the seabed. Then, the potential for adapting these system [3], while other estimates state that foundation costs
anchors to multiline systems is assessed. Anchor types examined
include: driven piles, dynamic piles, suction caissons, drag
embedded anchors, vertically loaded anchors, pile driven plate
anchors (PDPA), dynamically embedded plate anchors (DEPLA),
and suction embedded plate anchors (SEPLA). Performance
considerations for each anchor include: Soil profile constraints,
vertical load capacity, horizontal load capacity, precision of
positioning, installation cost, efficiency, performance under
sustained loading, potential loss of embedment, as well as other
anchor specific considerations.

Keywords—anchors; mooring lines; wind towers; floating

systems

I. INTRODUCTION
The US Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) states that
“53% of the US population lives in coastal areas, where energy
costs and demands are high and land-based renewable energy Fig. 1. NREL map of offshore wind speeds at 90 m height.

978-1-5090-1537-5/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 2. NREL map of potential wind generation by water depth.
can be up to 35% of the installed cost of offshore wind [4].
Cost data on floating systems are lacking, since it is a relatively
new concept with few actual deployments. However, anchor
and mooring system costs for floating systems are anticipated
to be comparable to those for fixed turbines. Accordingly,
efficient mooring and anchor systems should be used in an
attempt to decrease this cost.
II. MOORING FOR FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND TOWERS
In contrast to conventional floating systems used for oil-gas
production, floating offshore wind towers (FOWTs) will be
deployed in arrays covering a wide areal extent. This raises the
possibility of achieving cost savings by attaching more than
one mooring line to a single anchor (Fig. 3). A multiline
solution for anchor systems will not only directly reduce
project costs by reducing the number of required anchors, but
also reduce the cost of offshore geotechnical site investigations
required to support the anchor design. The multiline concept
also provides a promising means of providing redundancy in
mooring system design for modest additional cost. Ideally,
each turbine should be secured by at least four anchors for
redundancy in stationkeeping in the event of one mooring line
failure. Depending on water depth and wind farm layout,
anchor reductions of 33-84% [5] can be achieved. Fig. 3 shows
come configurations being considered. Configuration A and B
show a 66% reduction in foundations per 100 turbines, C a
33% reduction, and D 84% reduction. Simple foundation
reduction is not the only consideration in multiline, because
configuration D only has 3 anchors per turbine, there is no
redundancy, and if one anchor is lost, potentially 6 turbines
will be unusable. Whereas configuration C can have up to two
foundations fail and leave a turbine useable. Based on
preliminary analysis, it seems that a multiline system may
reduce loads on each anchor on each line, though the total sum
of forces acting on the anchor will be greater [5].
The National Science Foundation, award number CMMI-1463431 is the
sponsor of this research effort.
Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 3. Potential Wind Farm Configurations [5].
III. ANCHOR ALTERNATIVES
Considerations for anchor selection include soil profile
constraints, load orientation, precision of positioning,
installation cost, efficiency, performance under sustained
loading, and the potential for loss of embedment under vertical
and cyclic loading. Anchor efficiency has several facets,
including capacity-to-weight ratio and the requirements with
respect to size of the anchor handling vessel (AHV) and the
associated equipment. This paper discusses three categories of
anchor. The first is piles (Fig. 4) that can be installed by
driving, free fall through the water column (Dynamically
Installed Piles, DIPs) or suction. The second are plates installed
by dragging with a chain or wire line (Fig. 5), which include
drag embedded anchors (DEAs) and vertically loaded anchors
(VLAs). The third category are plates installed by some form
of direct embedment (Fig. 6), which include dynamically
embedded plate anchors (DEPLAs), suction embedded plate
anchors (SEPLAs), and pile driven plate anchors (PDPAs).
In conventional usage, a single anchor is attached to a
single mooring line. However, in renewable energy systems
involving arrays of floating units, the possibility exists of
achieving significant cost reductions through the use of
multiline attachments to a single anchor. In the case of anchors
having a vertical axis of symmetry, adapting existing designs
to a multiline arrangement is a relatively straightforward matter
of attaching additional padeyes (connections to mooring line)
around the circumference of the anchor (Fig. 7a). By contrast,
plate anchors have a preferred direction of resistance to
loading, which precludes a simple scheme of attaching multiple
mooring lines to a single anchor. However, a multiline
arrangement is still possible by attaching a series of mooring
lines to an intermediary load ring which, in turn, transmits the
load to individual anchors (Fig. 7b). Beyond simple geometric
considerations, a multiline arrangement can alter both
installation and operational conditions for the anchor. This
section assesses the capabilities of the anchors illustrated in
Fig. 4-6 relevant firstly to general FOWT applications,
 Fig. 4. Pile Anchors, left to right: Driven Piles, courtesy JD Murff; DIP, [18]; Suction Caissons, courtesy JD Murff.

Fig. 5. DEA courtesy JD Murff and VLA (Vryhof)

Fig. 6. Direct Embedment Plate Anchors, left to right: DEPLA (1:200 scale), [6]; SEPLA, courtesy R Wilde, Intermoor; PDPA, NAVFAC, 2011

Fig. 7. Multiline Attachment to Anchors

Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
alongside of specific issues that have been identified in
adapting the anchors to a multiline arrangement.
A. Driven Piles
Driven piles are a well-established technology for both
foundations and anchors for offshore energy systems. They are
very versatile in that they can be installed in soil profiles
ranging from soft clay to soft rock [7], including highly
heterogeneous soil deposits. The latter feature is of particular
importance to offshore wind energy systems, since many
potential sites are expected to be located relatively close to land
where highly variable soil conditions often occur. Piles can
also resist any load orientation, making them suitable for any
mooring system: catenary, taut or vertical tethers. A major
down side of pile anchors is their relatively low efficiency and
high cost. Installation is complex and requires a working
platform, such as jack-up rigs which, in addition to added cost,
are not necessarily available in sufficient quantity for large-
scale wind farm installations. Installation by hammer driving is
noisy, and may well be environmentally unacceptable for wind
farm applications possibly requiring thousands of piles.
Reduction of noise to acceptable levels may be possible
through: (1) bubble curtains to attenuate acoustical wave
propagation [8] and (2) the use of quieter installation methods
such as jetting [9] or vibratory installation. Jetted piles in
particular have relatively low skin friction, so they may not be
acceptable where vertical loads are significant.
Analysis of vertical load capacity of piles is largely
empirical [10]. In spite of an extensive data base of pile load
test data, significant uncertainty can exist with respect vertical
load capacity estimates. However, estimates of soil resistance
to pile penetration during driving based on wave equation
analysis [11] coupled with estimates of strength gain due to
setup can substantially improve the reliability of pile vertical
load capacity estimates. If the mooring system imposes
sustained vertical loading higher than 30% of monotonic loads
on piles in clays, creep effects can become an issue [12]. The
effects of multiline attachments on axial capacity are a topic of
ongoing investigation, and they may be dependent on specifics
of the anchor design. For example, if the mooring line
attachment to the pile is positioned deep in the soil (advisable
if the pile needs to resist horizontal loads), then the soil
disturbance associated with the protruding padeyes and trailing
chains are likely to seriously reduce skin friction above the
padeye depth. Placing the padeyes at the top of the pile will
avoid this problem, but will significantly reduce the horizontal
load capacity of the pile. The use of wire line in lieu of chains
may also alleviate this problem by reducing the extent of soil
disturbance.
The ultimate horizontal load capacity of slender piles
(length/diameter greater than 6) is usually limited by the
flexural strength of the pile itself, although details of the soil-
pile interaction strongly influences the capacity calculation.
Usual practice for design of offshore piles utilizes a Winkler
spring approach, with the ‘p-y’ springs based on pile load test
data. Widely accepted p-y curves include those of [13] for soft
clays, [14] for sands, and [15] for stiff clays. Recent studies
[16] suggest that these curves may be excessively conservative,
at least those for piles in soft clays. Additionally, the
Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
adjustments to the p-y for cyclic loading in the original studies
cited above also appear to be overly conservative, and recent
research is working to provide a more realistic description of
cyclic p-y stiffness [17]. Finally, it is noted that, with some
exception [18], research on soil-pile interaction under lateral
loading has overwhelmingly been directed toward
unidirectional loading. Adapting pile anchors to multiline
loading is expected to require a significant research effort in
regard to developing p-y curves suitable for multi-dimensional
loading.
B. Dynamically Installed Piles (DIPs)
DIPs are weighted piles with a pointed tip that fall at winch
speed to a point, then freefall and embed under their own
weight. The pile can have an essentially cylindrical or dart-
shaped geometry [19], or be configured from plates [20]. Fins
can assist in keeping the anchor on position and vertical. DIPs
can be installed in the soft to stiff clays, silica sands and
uncemented calcareous sands [21]. In soft clays penetration
depth is on the order of 2-3 times the pile length. Overall, DIPs
are potentially suitable for a fairly wide range of soil profiles,
but arguably not as diverse as driven piles. They can be
deployed in any depth of water that exceeds the required free
fall height required for penetration, about 50 m. Installation is
relatively simple, with minimal required equipment, making
DIPs among the least expensive anchor alternative. Installation
is also very quiet; thus, this mode of installation avoids the
acoustic issues associated with driven piles. The padeye can be
attached at the top of the DIP, but if horizontal load capacity is
needed, the padeye is more effectively positioned near the two-
thirds depth of the anchor. Although data on precision of
horizontal positioning has not been reported, control of
horizontal positioning is not anticipated to be a major issue.
However, substantial variability occurs in vertical penetration
depth, even in homogeneous soft clay deposits [20]. To some
extent, variability in penetration depth is self-compensating
from the standpoint of anchor capacity, since a reduced
penetration depth due to higher soil resistance is compensated
by a higher pullout resistance associated with the greater soil
strength. Variability and uncertainty in penetration depth may
have implications in a multiline system, where both anchors
and the floating units need to be properly positioned in the
array. Installation tolerance for anchors in a multiline system is
one topic of investigation in the ongoing research.
Analytical methods for estimating pullout resistance of DIPs
largely parallels that of other pile types. Much of the analysis
of performance of DIPS centers about predicting penetration
depth. The analysis is relatively complex and involves
prediction of velocity gain due to free fall through the water
column, and penetration into the soil column accounting for the
effects of soil shearing resistance, variable strain rate effects
and inertial resistance. Reliable predictive methods exist for
DIP penetration in soft clays [22], [23]. Although DIPs can
penetrate into stiff clays, sands and (to some extent) stratified
soil profiles, reliable prediction methods are lacking at this
time. Given that potential wind farm sites are likely to be
located in regions containing these types of soil conditions, the
capabilities of analytical methods for predicting DIP
penetration depth need to be extended beyond soft clays to a
broader range of soil conditions if DIPs are to be considered as
a general alternative for anchoring FOWTs. This comment
applies to DIPs used either in traditional single line mooring
systems or in a multiline system. In summary, DIPs are a very
promising anchor alternative for mooring FOWTs, with proven
capabilities in soft clays. Extending the predictive capabilities
to a broader range of soil conditions could conceivably make
them the anchor of choice for FOWTs.
C. Suction Caissons
Suction caissons are low aspect ratio (length/diameter
typically less than 6) piles that are installed partially by self-
weight penetration and partially by pumping from the interior
chamber of the caisson to induce ‘suction’, actually an
underpressure. Installation in homogeneous clays [24] and
sands [25] is relatively straightforward. Installation in stratified
soil profiles is possible, but requires specialized procedures
such as cycling and jetting [26]. At this point, a tentative
assessment of the use of suction caissons for anchoring
FOWTs is that they are likely to be highly competitive in
homogeneous soil profiles, but marginally competitive in
heterogeneous seabed deposits. This assessment may change if
the methodology for installing suction caissons in stratified
deposits continues to improve. While installation requires
relatively little equipment, caissons are bulky, so relatively
large transport vessels and/or repeated vessel trips are required,
which drives up costs. Installation costs are less than driven
piles, but greater than dynamically installed piles. This
installation method also avoids the acoustic issues associated
with pile driving. Both vertical and horizontal positioning of
caissons can be very precise.
Caissons can resist loads at any orientation angle ranging
from purely horizontal (catenary), inclined (taut) and purely
vertical (tension leg systems). Reliable analysis methodology is
well-established for estimating ultimate load capacity under
both horizontal and inclined loading conditions [27], [28].
Computation of caisson capacity for cyclic loading conditions
associated with wave loading usually proceeds within the
framework of a monotonic analysis, using soil strengths
adjusted to account for cyclic degradation effects [29]. In soft
clays, much of the vertical capacity derives from reverse end
bearing at the base of the caisson. The negative pore water
pressures that permit mobilization of reverse end bearing will
dissipate over time. The reduction in vertical load capacity
under sustained loading needs to be considered in suction
anchor design. Horizontal load capacity of suction caissons is
sensitive to padeye depth. Ultimate load capacity at the optimal
padeye depth (typically 60-70% of the caisson length) can be
some 4-5 times that of a padeye attached at the mudline. A
deeply embedded padeye, desirable from the standpoint of
maximizing load capacity, can create potential problems in
regard to scour [30], which can reduce ultimate load capacity.
Since a scour trench occurs in shallow soils above the padeye
and since most load capacity derives from the deeper soil
below the padeye, potential scour is a generally manageable
problem for single line anchor systems. However, for multiline
systems (Fig. 7b) potential scour down to padeye depth around
the entire circumference of the caisson is a more serious issue.
It should be noted that scour is not necessarily a universal
Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
problem, and it seems to most serious in soils have a high ratio
of soil strength-to-density ratio capable of supporting deep
open trenches. Scour also seems to be a more serious problem
for taut mooring systems. In contrast to deepwater oil-gas
developments wind farms are likely to be sited relatively close
to shore; therefore, a maintenance-based strategy of simply
backfilling scour trenches if and when they occur is not
unrealistic.
D. Drag Embedment Anchors (DEA)
Plate anchors are an attractive anchoring solution due to
their high geotechnical efficiency and relatively low cost of
transport and installation. Under ideal conditions DEA are one
of the most efficient types of anchors with efficiencies ranging
from 33-50+ times their weight [31], which far exceed what
can be expected from a pile or caisson. The anchor is installed
by lowering it to the seabed with the fluke in a near vertical
position, dragging it along the seabed until the anchor bites in
and begins to dive. In soft clays a variant of the DEA, the
vertically loaded anchor (VLA), becomes a more appropriate
anchor choice. Therefore, discussion of drag anchor
performance in soft clays is deferred to the following section
on VLAs, and the remainder of this discussion focuses on
DEAs in sands and stiff clays. Much shallower embedment
occurs in these soils, usually on the order of 1-2 fluke lengths.
Consequently, DEAs in sands and stiff clays have minimal
uplift resistance and their usage is largely restricted to
providing anchorage for catenary mooring systems. Drag
distance during installation is typically on the order of 10s of
meters, accordingly positioning of the anchor is imprecise.
This can be an especially significant issue for multiline
systems, where anchors must be placed in a pre-determined
grid. Anchor load capacity is heavily dependent on penetration
depth, which involves considerable uncertainty. Consequently,
DEAs are often rated as less reliable than pile or caisson
anchors. However, reliability is substantially reduced by proof
load testing following installation to verify capacity. Scour
around shallowly embedded DEAs can reduce their effective
load capacity and needs to be considered in design.
Analysis methods for DEAs are dominated by empirical
methods. The major anchor manufactures provide empirical
design charts of, at the least, anchor holding capacity and often
provide supplemental charts for embedment depth. However,
analytical predictions of shallowly embedded DEA holding
capacity is possible using limit equilibrium procedures such as
that developed by [32]. Anchor holding capacity under cyclic
loading requires an accounting of the effects of pore pressure
accumulation [33] and partial drainage. Shallowly embedded
DEAs have very limited capabilities for resisting out-of-plane
loading; i.e. a load orientation outside of the plane of symmetry
of the anchor. This raises a potential concern for multiline
systems using DEAs (Fig. 7b), if excursions of the attachment
ring produce out-of-plane loading angles in excess of 5o.
E. Vertically Loaded Plate Anchors (VLA)
VLAs are essentially an adaptation of DEA to increase their
bearing resistance by releasing the anchor shank following
drag installation. Usage of VLAs is restricted to soft clay soil
profiles. The increased capacity achieved by releasing the
shank varies with anchor type and loading conditions, but can
be on the order of two. The ideal VLA design opens the shank
to a ‘near-normal’ orientation relative to the fluke, which
promotes diving behavior if the anchor is overloaded. Since the
anchor deeply embeds, VLAs are suitable for taut mooring
systems. They also tend to retain their holding capacity under
out-of-plane loading conditions [34]. Since they require
prolonged drag to achieve sufficient embedment, drag
distances are on the order of 10-100 meters. This makes
positioning difficult to predict, which may be a factor for
multiline systems.
Prediction of VLA performance involves two steps:
prediction of embedment trajectory and prediction of holding
capacity. The embedment trajectory during drag installation
depends heavily on the interaction between the anchor and the
mooring line, as described in the trajectory prediction
procedure developed by [35]. Embedment trajectory is
sensitive to heterogeneity in the soil profile; therefore,
embedded sand or stiff clay layers within a soft clay profile can
interrupt penetration, with a consequent reduction in holding
capacity of the anchor. Holding capacity calculations are
complicated by the complex geometry of typical VLAs. In fact,
few analyses rigorously model the actual anchor geometry, and
simplified analyses are commonly performed based on plastic
limit solutions for equivalent rectangular plates [36], [37].
F. Suction Embedded Plate Anchors (SEPLA)
A SEPLA consists of a plate anchor attached to the tip of a
suction caisson. Suction installation is very similar to that of a
suction caisson, except that additional underpressure is
required to overcome the added soil resistance acting against
the plate. After installation to the target penetration depth, the
caisson is withdrawn, leaving behind the vertically oriented
plate. The plate must be turned into the direction normal to the
direction of applied loading, a process known as keying. The
keying process results in a loss of anchor embedment and,
therefore, holding capacity. The advantage of a SEPLA is that
it has the precision positioning of a suction caisson combined
with the lightness and high geotechnical efficiency of a drag
anchor. To date, SEPLAs have only been deployed in soft clay
soil profiles. SEPLA installation actually takes longer than
conventionally suction caisson installation, since the caisson
needs to be withdrawn after the anchor is embedded to its
target depth. However, cost savings can still be realized since
material and transport costs are much less for a plate anchor
than a caisson. The SEPLA was originally conceived and
developed by [38], [39]. As a new technology, it was originally
deployed only for temporary mooring systems. However, it is
now considered acceptable for use in permanent mooring
systems.
Much of the research effort on SEPLAs has focused on
providing accurate prediction of embedment losses during
keying. Investigation of keying behavior includes centrifuge
tests by [40] and numerical studies by [41]. Models of SEPLA
performance rely heavily on the resistance and kinematic
behavior during plastic loading of a plate subjected to three-
degree of freedom loading of a plate. In contrast to DEAs and
VLAs, the SEPLA has a relatively simple geometry, for which
reliable predictive models can be developed using plastic limit
Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
analyses. Ref. [42] provides a comprehensive summary of the
bearing factors and interaction parameters needed to support
this type of analysis. Of particular value are parameters that
implicitly incorporate the effects of the anchor shank, which
greatly simplifies the analysis. The original version of the
SEPLA featured a keying flap intended to reduce the loss of
embedment during keying. Plastic limit analyses by [43] and
large deformation analyses by [44] cast doubt on the
effectiveness of the flap.
G. Dynamically Embeded Plate Anchors (DEPLA)
DEPLAs are a relatively recent technology similar to
dynamically embedded piles that are plate anchors installed by
dropping them to the seabed to achieve embedment by
dynamic penetration. While embedment of a plate anchor
under its own momentum is possible, the anchor as conceived
and developed by [6] attaches a plate anchor to a pile follower.
After dynamic embedment, the follower is retrieved, leaving
the plate anchor in place. Thus, the installation procedure
parallels that of a SEPLA, except that dynamic penetration
replaces suction as the physical mechanism of penetration. In
the current design of the DEPLA, the anchor left behind is
comprised of two plates in a cruciform configuration (Fig. 6).
Circular and diamond-shaped plates have been investigated. To
date, DEPLAs are being considered only for deployment in
soft clay soils. As with the SEPLA, at the end of installation
the plates are oriented in a vertical orientation. Keying is
necessary to rotate the plates normal to the direction of applied
loading. Since the anchor deeply embeds, it has substantial
vertical holding capacity. Consequently, it is suitable for
resisting loads at any angle. As is the case for any plate anchor,
the DEPLA has a high geotechnical efficiency. It is also very
inexpensive to install [45]. Although dynamic penetration
involves significant uncertainty in regard to penetration depth,
the overall uncertainty in positioning is likely to be less than
that of the vertically loaded plate anchor (VLA) described
above. Relative to the other anchor types discussed in this
paper, the DEPLA is at an early stage of development. Its
feasibility and performance have been evaluated in centrifuge
tests [6] and in small-scale field tests [46] but, to the authors’
knowledge, a DEPLA has not yet been deployed in an actual
project. Much of the analysis methodology for DEPLAs builds
on analyses developed for other anchor types. For example, the
dynamic penetration model is essentially the same as that
described earlier for dynamically installed piles, except that
consideration must be given to the added resistance to
penetration due to the attached plate anchor. Similarly, analysis
of embedment loss during keying follows the analysis
methodology discussed earlier for SEPLA installations.
H. Pile Driven Plate Anchors (PDPA)
A PDPA [47] is a plate anchor that is attached to the tip of
a pile and installed to design depth by conventional methods of
pile installation. It is unique in that it is the only plate anchor
alternative that can be deeply embedded (i.e., can provide
vertical holding capacity) in virtually any soil type: soft clay,
stiff clay or sand. This is in contrast to VLAs, SEPLAs and
DEPLAs, which can provide vertical uplift resistance only in
soft clay soil profiles. The PDPA can also be installed in
stratified soil profiles, in which suction caisson installation is
either difficult or not possible. As a plate anchor, the PDPA is
relatively light and efficient. On the down side, pile driving
requires a platform for installation, such as a jack-up rig,
although the PDPA is expected to be less costly than piles, due
to the much lower material and transport costs. As noted earlier
for driven piles, hammer driving is noisy and may be
environmentally unacceptable without some form of
mitigation, such as bubble curtains. However, vibratory or
jetted installation may largely eliminate the noise issue. It is
noted that the low vertical pile load capacity associated with
jetted installation is actually beneficial for PDPAs, since it
reduces the effort required to extract the pile after the plate
facilitate pile after the plate has been embedded to its design
depth.
Analysis of PDPA installation follows the usual wave
equation analysis performed for pile installation. As with any
other plate anchor, keying is required. Ref. [47] provides
guidance for estimating keying embedment loss for PDPAs in
both clays and sands. Holding capacity of PDPAs in clays can
be estimated using the solutions developed for other types of
plate anchors in clay [36]. Holding capacity of plate anchors in
sands has received less attention. In the opinion of the authors,
the studies of [48] and [49] provide the best guide for
predicting plate behavior in sands.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A number of anchor types exist that are potentially suitable
for securing floating offshore wind towers to the seabed.
However, their capabilities can differ substantially in regard to
the type of mooring systems and the seabed soil conditions for
which they are suitable. All of the anchors considered in this
paper are considered likely to be amenable to a multiline
mooring configuration, but multiline systems introduce
additional technical issues that need to be resolved. Major
conclusions from an initial assessment of anchor alternative are
as follows:
1. Anchors having an axial symmetry, such as driven
piles and suction caissons, can be adapted to multiline
moorings by attaching additional padeyes around the
circumference of the pile or caisson. Since the padeyes
must be positioned at about the two-thirds depth of the
pile to achieve optimal efficiency, multiple
attachments may significantly reduce the pile/caisson
skin friction above the padeye depth.
2. Anchors having a directional preference in their
holding capacity, essentially any plate anchor, are not
suitable for direct multiline attachments. However,
multiline attachments to a load ring which, in turn,
transmits mooring line loads to individual plate
anchors, appears to be feasible.
3. Anchors that can be readily deployed in a wide range
of soil conditions (soft clay, stiff clay, sand, stratified
profiles) and that are suitable for both catenary and taut
mooring systems include piles and pile driven plate
anchors. Pile driving requires a platform, such as a
jackup rig, which drives up costs. However, in highly
heterogeneous soil profiles this may be the only viable
option. Pile driven plate anchors are expected to be
Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
substantially less expensive than driven piles, since
material and transport requirements are much less for
plate anchors than for piles. Driving is noisy and
possibly environmentally unacceptable, although
mitigating measures are possible. Vibratory or jetted
installation can greatly reduce noise and are
particularly attractive for pile driven plate anchors.
4. Dynamically installed piles are also suitable for
providing anchorage for either catenary or taut
systems. In principle, they can be deployed in clays,
sands and stratified soil profiles. However, to date,
they have largely been deployed in soft clays, so their
reliability in other soil profiles needs to be
demonstrated. Dynamically installed piles are expected
to be amenable to multiline attachments. Dynamic
installation is very inexpensive, so dynamically
installed piles are likely be highly competitive in any
environment where adequate penetration is achievable.
5. Suction caissons are easily installed in uniform clays
and sands. With recent innovations, they can be
installed in soil profiles exhibiting some degree of
heterogeneity. They can be expected to be less
expensive than driven piles but considerably more
expensive than drag embedded plate anchors or
dynamically installed piles.
6. In uniform soft clay soil profiles a variety of anchors
are feasible; suction caissons, vertically loaded
anchors, dynamically installed piles, suction embedded
plate anchors and dynamically embedded plate anchors
are all likely to be attractive and all can, in principle,
be configured into a multiline system.
7. Drag embedded anchors are a proven, cost-effective
anchorage alternative. However, in stiff clays and
sands their shallow embedment depth limits their
vertical load capacity, so their usage is largely
restricted to catenary mooring systems. Shallowly
embedded anchors have little resistance to out-of-plane
loading; therefore, if DEAs are employed in a multiline
system, great care must be taken to ensure that load
ring movement does not generate significant out-of-
plane loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the National Science
Foundation, award number CMMI-1463431.
REFERENCES
[1] http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Renewable-Energy-
Guide/Offshore-Wind-Energy.aspx, accessed August 1, 2016
[2] M. Schwartz, D. Heimiller, S. Haymes, and W. Musial, “Assessment of
Offshore Wind Energy Resources for the United States,” Technical
Report NREL/TP-500-45889, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Washington, D.C., June 2010.
[3] M. Junginger, A. Faaij, W.C. Turkenburg, “Cost reduction prospects for
offshore wind farms,” Wind Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 97-118,
2004
[4] B.W. Byrne and G.T. Houlsby, “Foundations for Offshore Wind
Turbines.” Phil. Trans.Royal Society of London, Vol. 361, pp 2909-
2930, 2003.
[5] C.M. Fontana et al, “Efficient multiline anchor systems for floating
offshore wind turbines,” Proceedings of the 35th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2016,
July 19-24, 2016.
[6] C.D. O’Loughlin, A. Blake, M.D. Richardson, M.F. Randolph, and C.
Gaudin, “Installation and capacity of dynamically embedded plate
anchors as assessed through centrifuge tests,” Ocean Engineering, 88,
204-213, 2014.
[7] V.N. Vijayvergiya, A.P. Cheng, and H.J. Kolk, “Design and installation
of piles in chalk,” Proc. 9th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston:
OTC 2938, 1977.
[8] K. Reiman and J. Grabe, “Validation of sound source simulation due to
offshore pile driving,” ASME 34th International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE 2015-41146, 2015.
[9] A. Zakeri, E. Liedke, E.C. Clukey, and P. Jeanjean, “Long-term axial
capacity of deepwater jetted piles,” Geotechnique, 64(12), ICE
Publishing, Thomas Telford, Ltd., London, 966-980, 2014.
[10] M.F. Randolph, “Science and empiricism in pile foundation design,”
Geotechnique 53 (10), 847-875, 2003.
[11] L.L. Lowery, Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation, Wild West
Software, Bryan, Texas, 1993.
[12] E. Doyle, “Driven pile design for tension leg platforms,” from
Deepwater Foundations and Pipeline Geomechanics, William O.
McCarron Editor, J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 2011.
[13] H. Matlock, “Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft
clay,” Proceedings 2nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, TX, 1, 577-594, 1970.
[14] L.C. Reese, W.R. Cox, and F.D. Koop, “Analysis of laterally loaded
piles in sand,” Proceedings 6th Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, TX, 2, 473-484, 1974.
[15] J.M. Murchison and M.W. O’Neill, “Evaluation of P-Y relationships in
cohesionless soils,” Proceedings Symposium on Analysis and Design of
Pile Foundations, ASCE, 174-191, 1984.
[16] P. Jeanjean,“Reassesment of P-Y curves for soft clays from centrifuge
testing and finite element modeling,” 2009 Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 20158, Houston, TX, 2009.
[17] A. Zakeri, E. Clukey, B. Kabadze, P. Jeanjean, G. Piercy, J. Templeton,
L. Connelly, and C. Aubeny, “Recent advances in soil response
modeling for well conductor fatigue analysis and development of new
approaches,” Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC-
25795-MS, 2015.
[18] N.H. Levy, I. Einav, and T. Hull, “Cyclic shakedown of piles subjected
to two-dimensional lateral loading,” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
Geomech. 2009; 33:1339–1361, 2009.
[19] C.S. de Aguiar, J.R.M. de Sousa, G.B. Ellwanger, E.C. Porto, C.J. de
Medeiros Junior and D. Foppa, “Undrained load capacity of torpedo
anchors in cohesive soils,” Proceedings of the 28th International
Conference Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2009,
ASME, Honolulu, OMAE2009-79465, 2009.
[20] E.H. Zimmerman, M.W. Smith, and J.T. Shelton, “Efficient gravity
installed anchor for deep water mooring,” Proceedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC 20117, 2009.
[21] C.J. Ehlers, A.G. Young, J-H Chen, “Technology assessment of
deepwater anchors,” Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC
16840, 2004.
[22] C.D. O’Loughlin, M.D. Richardson, M.F. Randolph, and C. Gaudin,
“Penetration of dynamically installed anchors in clay,” Geotechnique
63, No. 11, 909–919, 2013.
[23] Y. Kim, M.S. Hossain, D. Wang, and M.F. Randolph, “Numerical
investigation of dynamic installation of torpedo anchors in clay,” Ocean
Engineering, 2015.
[24] K.H. Andersen, J.D. Murff, M.F. Randolph, E. Clukey, H.P. Jostad, B.
Hansen, C. Aubeny, P. Sharma, C. Erbich, and C. Supachawarote
“Suction anchors for deepwater applications,” Keynote lecture,
Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Perth,
Australia, pp. 3-30, 2005.
[25] K.H. Andersen, H.P. Jostad, and R. Dyvik, “Penetration resistance of
offshore skirted foundations and anchors in dense sand,” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 1, pp.
106–116, 2008.
[26] T.I. Tjelta, “The suction foundation technology,” Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics III, Ed. V Meyer, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, 2015.
[27] C.P. Aubeny, S.K. Moon, and J.D. Murff, “Lateral undrained resistance
of suction caisson anchors,” Intl. J. Offshore and Polar Engineering,
Volume 11, No. 3, pp 211-219, 2001.
[28] C.P. Aubeny, S.W. Han,, and, J.D. Murff , “Inclined load capacity of
suction caisson anchors,” Intl. J. for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics, Vol. 27, pp 1235-1254, 2003.
[29] K.H. Andersen “Cyclic soil parameters for offshore foundation design,”
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics ISFOG15, Oslo, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 5-82,
2015.
[30] H. Arslan, B.R. Peterman, P.C. Wong, and S. Bhattacharjee,
“Remaining Capacity of the Suction Pile due to Seabed Trenching,”
Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth (2015) International Ocean and Polar
Engineering Conference,Kona, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE), pp. 924-931, June 21-
26, 2015.
[31] Vryhof Anchors, Vryhof Anchor Manual, Krimpen and Yssel,
Netherlands, 2015.
[32] S.R. Neubecker and M.F. Randolph, “The static equilibrium of drag
anchors in sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, 574-58,
1996.
[33] K. Noren-Cosgriff, H.P. Jostad, and C. Madshus, “Idealised load
composition for determination of cyclic undrained degradation of soils,”
Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics III – Meyer (Ed.), Taylor & Francis
Group, London, 2015.
[34] C. Aubeny, R. Gilbert, R. Randall, E. Zimmerman, K. McCarthy, C-H
Chen, A. Drake, P. Yeh, C-M Chi, and R. Beemer, The Performance of
Drag Embedment Anchors for Minerals Management Service, Offshore
Technology Research Center, College Station, TX, 2011.
[35] C.P. Aubeny and C-M. Chi, “Mechanics of drag embedment anchors in
a soft seabed.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 136(1), 57-68, 2010.
[36] M.P. O’Neill, M.F. Bransby, and M.F. Randolph, “Drag anchor fluke-
soil interaction in clays,” Can. Geotech. J., 40: 78-94, 2003.
[37] J.D. Murff, M.F. Randolph, S. Elkhatib, H.J. Kolk, R.M. Ruinen, P.J.
Strom, and C.P. Thorne, “Vertically loaded plate anchors for deepwater
applications.” Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, IS-
FOG05, Perth, pp. 31-48, 2005.
[38] P. Dove, H. Treu, and B. Wilde, “Suction embedded plate anchor
(SEPLA): a new anchoring solution for ultra-deep water mooring.”
Proc. DOT Conf., New Orleans, 1998.
[39] B. Wilde, H. Treu and T. Fulton, “Field testing of suction embedded
plate anchors.” Proc. 11th ISOPE Conference, Stavanger, International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Cupertino, California, 544-
551, 2001.
[40] C. Gaudin, C.D. O’Loughlin, M.F. Randolph, and A.C. Lowmass,
“Influence of the installation process on the performance of suction
embedded plate anchors,” Geotechnique, 56(6): 381-391, 2006.
[41] Z. Song, Y. Hu, C.D. O’Loughlin and M.F. Randolph, “Loss in anchor
embedment during plate anchor keying in clay,” ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(10), pp. 1475-
1485, 2009.
[42] Q. Wei, M.J. Cassidy, Y. Tian, and C. Gaudin, “Incorporating Shank
Resistance into Prediction of the Keying Behaviour of Suction
Embedded Plate Anchors,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(1), 2014.
[43] M. Yang, C.P. Aubeny, and J.D. Murff, “Behavior of suction embedded
plate anchors during keying process” Vol. 138(2), 174-183, 2012.
[44] Y. Tian, C. Gaudin, and M.J. Cassidy, “Improving anchor design with a
keying flap,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 140(5), 2014.
[45] C.D. O’Loughlin, D.A. White, and S.A. Stanier, “Novel anchoring
solutions for FLNG – opportunities driven by scale,” Proceedings of the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 26032-MS, 2015.
[46] A.P. Blake and C.D. O’Loughlin “Installation of dynamically embedded
plate anchors as assessed through field tests,” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 52, NRC Research Press, pp. 87-95, 2015.
Authorized licensed use limited to: LEHIGH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 26,2023 at 21:24:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[47] J. Forrest, R. Taylor, and L. Brown, “Design Guide for Pile-driven Plate
Anchors,” Technical Report TR-2039-OCN, Naval Facilities
Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA March 1995.
[48] R.K. Rowe and E.H. Davis, “The behaviour of anchor plates in sand,”
Geotechnique, 32, 1, 24-41, 1982.
[49] E.A. Dickin, “Uplift behaviour of horizontal anchor plates in sand,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 114(11), pp. 1300–1317,
1988.