SOIL INVESTIGATION

• Laboratory testing

• Evaluation of design parameters

• Recommendation for design

 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
FOUNDATIONS
• Offshore Piled Jackets
– Axial Capacity of piles

– In-place analysis of pile foundation

– Drivability analysis of pile

– Pile make-up
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
FOUNDATIONS

• Jack-up Rigs
– Estimation of bearing capacity of
soil
– Estimation of Rig footing
penetration
– Recommendations for rig
deployment
 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
FOUNDATIONS
• Submarine pipelines
– Stability analysis of submarine pipeline
– Lay analysis
– Freespan Analysis
 SPECIAL STUDIES
• Liquefaction potential
• Seabed stability analysis
• Shore protection work
• Punch-through of Jackup rig footings
• Pile refusal studies
 Overview of Present
Scenario

• Water depths less than 100 m

• Soil sampling & in-situ testing by Marine Survey
using GTV Samudra Sarvekshak
• Laboratory testing, evaluation of design soil
parameters, engineering analysis & reporting
done by IEOT since June, 1994
 Special Geotechnical
Features in Deep waters
Experience in other parts of the
world
• Relatively new field of knowledge
• Very soft soils - clays / oozes
• Possible presence of Gas Hydrates
and / for shallow gas
• Possibility of submarine slides
 Special Geotechnical
Problems in Deep Waters

Deep Waters pose special geo-technical problems

related to -
•Soil Investigation
•Foundation Design & installation
 Problems Related to Soil
Investigation

• Operational handling of the equipments

• Special requirements for GTV
• Special requirements for electronics due to large
pressure at sea bottom
• Large stress relief causing sample disturbance -
specially when gas is present
• Requirement of special in-situ and laboratory
testing
• Identification of geo-hazards
 Problems Related to Foundation
Design and Installation

• Unsuitable conventional foundation systems and

installation techniques
• Anchoring problems for floaters
• Effects of Geo-hazards - e.g. Sub-marine slides
and gas hydrates
 Soil Investigation
techniques for deep waters
 Sampling

• Use of stationary piston for Gravity Coring

• Use of piston with push sampling
• Use of Nickel plated thin walled shelby
tubes
 Sample Disturbance and
Laboratory Testing
• Research on assessment of extent of sample
disturbance

• Research on validity of existing correlations for

special deep water soils
 In-situ Testing and
Identification of Geo-
hazards
• Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) with Pore
Pressure measurement (CPTU) - possible
identification of Gas Hydrates
• CPT with Electrical Resistivity measurement -
Possible identification of Gas Hydrates
• BAT probe for Shallow Gas detection
Emerging
Solutions
 Suction Anchors - A New
Anchoring
Solution
• An effective anchoring solution
for floaters

• Application in various soil

conditions and water depths
 Advantages Over
Conventional
Foundations
• Easy Installation
• Reduced Installation Time
• No Pile Driving / No Drag or Proof
Loading
• Significant Uplift Load capacity
• High Positioning Accuracy
• Potential for Removal and Reuse
• Shorter Anchor Lines
• Reduced Cost
 ISO 9001
certified

BASIC CONCEPT
Suction Anchor Basic Concept ISO 9001
certified

Penetration Resistance = Driving Force

discharge
weight of water

suction pressure
side friction

Driving Force =
weight + suction force

Penetration Resistance =
side + tip resistance
tip
resistance
Suction Penetration Driveability
Penetration Resistance = Driving Force

discharge
weight of water

suction pressure
side friction

Driving Force =
weight + suction force

Penetration Resistance =
side + tip resistance
tip
resistance
Suction Penetration Driveability

40 000 Possible suction force at

tons 200 m depth and 5 m diam.

20 Bar suction
side friction

Driveability
normally limited
by suction levels
critical for heave
tip of soil plug
resistance
 Ample margins against
penetration refusal
280
tons Maximum 1.4 Bar
suction was recorded
during Nkossa installation

As predicted, 50%
side friction

of suction levels
estimated critical
for soil plug heave
where used to reach
tip target penetration
resistance
 Alternative Suction
Pile concepts Similar installation
ISO 9001
certified

pump pump pump

unit unit unit

• permanent top • retrievable top • follower

 Alternative Suction
Pile concepts Different in-place ISO 9001
certified

conditions

pump
Closed for large vertical unit
pump
pump
cyclic load components unit

Hicap

• permanent top • retrievable top • follower

 Suction Pile Installation

30 30

28 28

26 26

24 24

22 22

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2m 2m

seabed
Suction Pile Pump Skid
 Mooring
anchors Suction pile

Driven pile

Suction
anchor Fluke anchor

Driven Plate anchors

Illustration: Saga Petroleum ASA
VARIOUS APPLICATIONS
 JACKET WITH BUCKET
FOUNDATIONS
Installation phases

flooding
of leg

free water pumping

evacuation
pumps

Weight/ballast
Touch Down
penetration Suction penetration
Deep-water production

Artificial
seabed buoy

Suction piles for taut mooring

 FPSO mooring, Riser Base and
foundations for Subsea Templates

Loading
turret

Flexible
risers

suction anchor pile template foundations riser bases

 Single anchor mooring

Loading
direction

Loading
direction + - + neutral

+ - neutral -
Multiple-cell
Subsea loading system from
Suction anchor
 Subsea templates with skirt foundation
ROV Operated pump unit

ROV SUCTION SUCTION

Suction port

Skirt Skirt
foundation foundation
Pipeline supports with skirt footings
Solutions for difficult pipeline routing
Suspended pipe
Buoyancy
element

Subsea Pipeline routes

Ormenproduction
Lange gas field Suction pile

Storegga slide area

Bathymetric map
Suction pile
from Norsk Hydro
Tie-in support and temporary anchor
point for Pipe laying

suction anchor pile

 Exxon Diana - Suction Pile anchors
• 12 anchors, each with 1 500 ton holding capacity - Highest !
• 220 ton weight, 30.5 m penetration and 6.4 m diameter - Largest !
• 1500 m water depth - Deepest !
• First permanent suction pile mooring in the Gulf of Mexico

30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m

28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
World Wide Use
 Deep-water sites around the world

Mid
Norway
Suction
piles

Deep
Gulf of Mediterranean
Mexico
NW
Africa Suction
Suction Columbus
piles
piles Barong
Amazon Tarajam
West East
Suction India India
West
Africa
piles
Suction
NW
piles Shelf Suction
Campos piles
Basin

New Zealand
 Details of suction anchors & Bucket
Foundation

Platform Location Wate Soil Dimen- Year

Type r Type sions(m)
Dept D Z
h
TLP Snorre 335 Soft 30 12 1991
Clay
Subsea Snorre 335 Soft - - 1992
Template Clay
Wellhead Tordis 200 Soft 9 6.5 1993
Protection Clay
TLP Heidrun 375 Soft 44 4.5 1994
Clay
Jacket Europipe 70 Dense 12 6 1994
16/11 Sand
Platform Location Water Soil Dimen- Year
Type Depth Type sions(m)
D Z
Process N'kossa 170 Soft Clay 4.5 10 1995
Barge
Loading Harding 110 Layered 5 8-10 1995
Buoy
Loading Yme 97 Layered 5 7 1995
Buoy
Producti Norne 375 Soft Clay 5 10 1996
on
Vessel
Jacket Sliepner 70 Dense 14 5 1996
Sand
 Cost
Savings
Structure Type Cost Saving
‘N’Kossa Skirted 20%
Process barge Anchor

Sleipner Bucket US $ 8million

Jacket Foundation

Jacket Bucket US $ 1.7 million

(in malaysia) Foundation
INSTALLATION ASPECTS
 Installation methods (Marine Operations)

Suction Suction
anchor pile anchor pile

Lifting from crane vessel Skidding from supply boat

 Suction Pile installation

30 30

28 28

26 26

24 24

22 22

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2m 2m

seabed
Suction Pile Pump skid
 Suction Pile installation
Positioning and landing of Suction Pile: 10-30 min

10
Deviation from target heading (deg)

30 30
6
28 28

4 Touch 26 26
Down 24 24
2
22 22

0 Target heading 20 20

18 18
-2 16 16

14 14
-4
12 12

-6 10 10

8 8
-8
6 6

-10 4 4

2m 2m
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
seabed
Elapsed time after Touch Down (min)
 Suction Pile installation
Weight penetration with free water evacuation
5-20 min

30 30

28 28

26 26

24 24

22 22

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2m 2m
Suction Pile installation
Weight penetration with free water evacuation
5-20 min

30 30

28 28

26 26

24 24

22 22

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2m 2m
Suction Pile installation
Slack lifting wire and close valves
10-30 min

30 30

28 28

26 26

24 24

22 22

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2m 2m
 Suction Pile installation
Pump out entrapped water and ISO 9001
certified

penetrate by suction: 30-60 min

30 30
19
28 28
20
26 26
21
Penetration depth (m)

24 24
22 22 22

23 20 20

24 18 18

25 16 16

14 14
26
12 12
27
10 10
28
8 8
29
6 6
30 4 4

31 2m 2m
0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140
Differential pressure (kPa)
Suction Penetration Driveability

40 000 Possible suction force at

tons 200 m depth and 5 m diam.

20 Bar suction
side friction

Driveability
normally limited
by suction levels
critical for heave
tip of soil plug
resistance
 Ample margins against
penetration refusal
280
tons Maximum 1.4 Bar
suction was recorded
during Nkossa installation

As predicted, 50%
side friction

of suction levels
estimated critical
for soil plug heave
were used to reach
tip target penetration
resistance
 COMPARISON OF
INSTALLATION ASPECTS
• PILES • SUCTION CAISSONS
• HEAVY LIFT CRANE • TWO AHTs
BARGE and UNDER • LESS PER DAY COST
WATER HAMMERS • SELF CONTAINED PUMP
• HIGHER PER DAY COST SKID OR ROV MOUNTED
OF VESSEL and MORE PUMP
INSTALLATION TIME • LESS INSTALLATION
• GUIDE FRAME IS TIME AND COST
REQUIRED • POTENTIAL FOR
REMOVAL AND REUSE
DESIGN ASPECTS
Failure Modes for Suction Anchors
z
opt

1a) Optimal location of mooring line for pre-

dominantly horizontal loads (translation)
tension
crack

 zopt

1b) Same as 1a) but tension crack forming

at back of anchor
Failure Modes for Suction Anchors

zopt
2) Optimal location of mooring
line for loads with large vertical
components (translation)

3) Not optimized location of

mooring line attachment point
(translation and rotation)
Failure Modes for Suction Anchors


zlow

4) Mooring line located slightly below optimal

position (rotation with large failure surface)

5) Optimal location of mooring

line for vertical loads
(unloading failure)
FAILURE MODES
FAILURE MODES FOR SUCTION CAISSONS

z
opt

1a) Optimal location of mooring line for pre-

dominantly horizontal loads (translation)
tension
crack  zopt

1b) Same as 1a) but tension crack forming

at back of anchor
FAILURE MODES FOR SUCTION CAISSONS

zopt
2) Optimal location of mooring
line for loads with large vertical
components (translation)

3) Not optimized location of

mooring line attachment point
(translation and rotation)
FAILURE MODES FOR SUCTION ANCHORS
4) Mooring line located slightly below optimal
position (rotation with large failure surface)


zlow

5)) Optimal location of

mooring line for vertical loads
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram
Loading point at Horizontal
optimal position loads

anchor top

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram
Zero moment at skirt tip
Translation failure
No rotation

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram
Loading point at 40o load angle
optimal position to the mudline
No rotation

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram
Loading point at 60o load angle
optimal position to the mudline
No rotation

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Top loaded True vertical
anchor load

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Reversed True vertical
bearing load
failure

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading
Undrained loading in soft
in soft clay clay
(deformations are
(deformations are exaggerated)
exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Top loaded anchor 60o load angle
skirt tip moment to the mudline

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Top loaded anchor 60o load angle
skirt tip moment to the mudline
Rotational failure

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Top loaded anchor 30o load angle
skirt tip moment to the mudline
Rotational failure

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Top loaded anchor True horizontal
skirt tip moment load
Rotational failure

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Loading point below True horizontal
optimal position load

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Failure modes and
Load
relative load capacity vector
diagram

Pvmax
Loading point below True horizontal
optimal position load
Rotational failure

skirt wall
Phmax

Undrained loading in soft clay

(deformations are exaggerated) center
line
Conclusions : Optimal
• Load attachment point load vector
important for design True diagram
optimisation vertical
load
• Largest capacity for failures 60o angle
without rotation to mudline

40o angle
Special conditions : to mudline

skirt wall
• Combination of permanent & cyclic
loads (pre-tensioning) True
horisontal
• Partly drained failure conditions load
(sand)
center
line
 Gradients and seepage in sand
C
L Drained suction penetration

more critical
for heave of
soil plug

Narrow skirts Wide skirts

Arrangement of equipment during installation
Main winch Umbilical winch
control sheave
consol
SAPMON HPU

DSV Dynamic Installer (SBM)

lifting
sling

umbilical pump
skid
hydraulic supply
20" for cover release
outlet and evacuation system
mooring
chain
Suction
pile
padeye
 Hover position prior to pump
unit

touch Down

Adjust position
and heading

-3 .0

-2 .0
Final check of heading
Penetration depth (m)

-1 .0

0 .0

1 .0

2 .0

3.0

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Elapsed time from Touch Down (min)

 Rotation of suction anchor
during positioning and North

touch down Mooring pattern

10

8 NKP Barge
Deviation from target heading (degr.)

4 Touch
Down
2

0 Target Heading

-2 North
Padeye
-4
Suction
-6 pile

-8

-1 0

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Elapsed time after Touch Down (min)

 Touch Down
3 .0
Tilt of suction pile (degr.)

2 .0 Tilt in X-direction

1 .0 pump
unit

0 .0 vertical axis
-1.0
Tilt in Y-direction
-2 .0

-3 .0

-2 .0
Final check of heading
Penetration depth (m)

-1 .0 Touch
Down
0 .0

1 .0

2 .0

3.0

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Elapsed time from Touch Down (m in)

 Touch Down and Weight Penetration
3 .0
Tilt of suction pile (degr.)

2 .0 Tilt in X-direction

1 .0

0 .0

-1.0
Tilt in Y-direction
-2 .0

X-tilt
-3 .0

-2 .0
Penetration depth (m)

-1 .0 Touch
Down
0 .0

1 .0

2 .0

3.0

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Elapsed time from Touch Down (m in)

 Weight Penetration moving
3 .0
vessel
Tilt of suction pile (degr.)

2 .0 Tilt in X-direction
correcting
1 .0 X-tilt
0 .0

-1.0 pump
Tilt in Y-direction unit

-2 .0

-3 .0

-2 .0
Penetration depth (m)

-1 .0 Touch
Down
0 .0

1 .0

2 .0

3.0

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Elapsed time from Touch Down (m in)

 pump
unit
Start suction penetration
• Full weight on anchor
• All vents are closed
• Starting pump slowly

2
Penetration depth (m)

4
weight penetration

10

12

0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140

Differential pressure (kPa)
Suction penetration
• Adjusting hydraulic supply to pump pump
unit
• Continuous monitoring

2
Penetration depth (m)

4
weight penetration

6
suction penetration
8

10

12

0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140

Differential pressure (kPa)
 Target depth
• Pump turned off
• Instant verification of
pump
installation parameters unit

• Retrieval of cover to surface

0

2
Penetration depth (m)

4
weight penetration

6
suction penetration
8

10

12 target depth

0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140

Differential pressure (kPa)
 Measured and predicted pump
skid
Penetration Resistance
0
1
2
Penetration depth (m)

3
4 SUCTION
5 PILE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2 500 3000

Total penetration resistance (kN)
 CASE STUDY - 1

DESIGN OF SUCTION ANCHORS

FOR A FLOATING STRUCTURE

 SOIL DATA
• SOIL SAMPLES FROM TAPTI FIELD

• TESTS FOR STATIC AND CYCLIC SHEAR STENGTH

– TRIAXIAL TESTS
– DSS TESTS

• INCREMENTAL OEDOMETER TESTS

• STRAIN AND PORE PRESSURE CONTOUR

DIAGRAMS
 LOAD DATA
• 16 CATENARY MOORING LINES IN 4 CLUSTERS

• TOTAL CHAIN FORCE OF 7800 kN IN A SINGLE

MOORING LINE

• AVERAGE LOAD / CYCLIC LOAD = 1

• CYCLIC LOAD PARCEL FOR THE DESIGN

STORM OF NORTH SEA
 ANALYSIS
• Holding Capacity
– Anchor Geometry - Diameter and Length
– Point of Load Attachment
• Penetration & Removal
– Penetration Resistance
– Required and Allowable Suction for Penetration
• Soil Contact Stresses for Structural Design
SUCTION ANCHOR CONFIGURATION

6000

30

7750
13800

1000 t
150

Pad eye
Pile Anchor Configuration

PILE CUT-OFF LEVEL

MUD LINE 1000 t
TOTAL PILE LENGTH = 36000 PAD EYE
LOCATION =17. 5 m
(VERTICAL)
(VERTICAL)
1828.8 X 51
 COMPARISON OF STEEL TONNAGE

• Pile anchor = 80.0 tons

• Suction anchor = 75.0 tons
• Savings in steel tonnage
with 16 mooring lines FPO = 80.0 tons
• Saving In Steel Tonnage =7%
 CASE STUDY - 2
DESIGN OF SUCTION CAISSONS
FOR A JACKET STRUCTURE
 SOIL AND LOAD DATA
• SAME SOIL DATA AS IN THE FIRST CASE STUDY
• SAME CYCLIC LOAD HISTORY FOR THE DESIGN
STORM OF NORTH SEA
• LOAD FACTOR OF 1.3 AND MATERIAL COEFFICIENT
OF 1.3
• TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD - 25700 kN
• TOTAL HORIZONTAL LOAD - 5000 kN
• TOTAL MOMENT - 14070 kN
 ANALYSIS
• Bearing Capacity
– Anchor Geometry-Dia & Length / Penetration Depth
• Settlements / Displacements
– Length / Penetration Depth
• Penetration & Removal
– Penetration Resistance
– Required and Allowable Suction for Penetration
• Soil Contact Stresses for Structural Design
 SUCTION ANCHOR CONFIGURATION

11300 mm

MUDLINE

10800 mm 10500 mm
30 mm THICK
 PILE CONFIGURATION

PILE CUT-OFF LEVEL

25 m

MUD LINE
116 m

91 m

VERTICAL - 1524 X 32, 38 mm

BATTER 1 IN 10
 COMPARISON OF STEEL TONNAGE

• Piles - 4 nos = 600.0 tons

• Suction Caissons - 4 nos = 540 tons

• Savings in steel tonnage = 60.0 tons

• Saving In Steel Tonnage = 10 %
 COST BREAK UP

SURVEYS & ENGINEERING ----- 10 - 15%

FABRICATION ----- 15 - 20%
INSTALLATION ----- 70 - 75%
 Suction Piles
Cost saving alternative

20 % total cost reduction for

the mooring system compared
to piling or drag anchors
at Elf’s Nkossa field

30t drag 50t suction pile

anchor 11 m penetration
60 t, 60” pile, 45m
penetration
600 m mooring chain
900 m mooring chain
 COLLABORATIVE
RESEARCH
• Effect of Gas on Soil Properties
• Soil structure Interaction Analysis for
Suction Caissons
• Model Testing for Latest Deepwater
Foundation Systems
• Establishment of Soil Design Parameters
from Index Parameters
 Problems Related to
Drilling

• Borehole stability in possibly very soft, weak

and brittle oozes
• Shallow water flows
FPSO
Elf Girassol field ISO 9001
certified
Riser
towers

Manifolds Well-head

Suction anchor
foundations

Suction anchor

Subsea manifolds
with satellites
Anchor Penetration
pumping
out water

Fsuctio
n

Fsidefriction
Weight

Ftipresistance
Exxon Diana
Suction Pile installation 1999

Houston

1500 m
Diana field
water depth
Gulf of Mexico
Exxon Diana
Platform

Diana Spar
floating storage
and production
platform

Downtown Houston
 Exxon Diana
Mooring system

Downtown Houston
Suction Suction
piles piles
Exxon Diana - Suction Pile installation
Gulf of Mexico, 18 October to 12 November 1999

Marine Contractor: Saipem, Vessel: S-7000

Suction pile installation contractor: NGI-FRAMO

Suction Anchors Basic
Concept
hoist line to
Suction crane
pump
closed top

Cylindrical
caisson

open bottom
 Installation Sequence
Anchor brought to
location

g
 Installation Sequence
Anchor being lowered and
penetrates under self weight
 Installation Sequence
Anchor at final penetration
Installation Sequence
Anchor left in place
3 D Finite Element Mesh
3D FEM DEFORMED MESH FOR DESIGN
Depth
0m
1000 ton

12

16
80
60
40
20
0m
 Finite Element Results

Variation of ultimate capacity

10000

9000
Ultimate Load (KN)

8000

mid-level (1/2)
7000
below mid-level
lower (2/3)
6000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Load angle (degrees)
 Efforts under OIDB funded projects

• Soil Structure Interaction Analysis

– 3 D Finite Element Analysis & Plasticity Solutions
• Soil Contact Stresses for Structural Design
• Holding capacity / Bearing Capacity
• Soil Deformations / Settlements

• Model Testing Facilities for Deepwater

foundations
 CONCLUSIONS ISO 9001
certified

• IEOT CAN TAKE UP SUCTION

CAISSON PROJECTS FOR :
• Analysis and Design for Conceptual
Engineering, Feasibility studies and Basic
Engineering
• Consultancy for Installation
 Introduction

Suction anchors (or suction piles) are deep water anchors for
floating structures or offshore oil installations. The pile consists
of a hallow cylinder which has a top cap and a relatively thin
wall.
D


L
In-place Holding Capacity
for Nkossa anchors
Load attachment point
5.5 m above bottom of Ultimate chain load
suction pile giving optimal with 15o inclination
capacity (translation failure)

36
tons

4.5 m diameter suction pile

penetrated 12.5 m in soft NC clay
(deformations are exaggerated)