SUCTION CAISSON ANCHORS - A BETTER OPTION FOR DEEP

WATER APPLICATIONS

B. Sukumaran, Member, SWE
Rowan University

ABSTRACT

As offshore exploration and development of oil fields reach water depths of 1,000 to
3,000 m, novel methods of anchoring production platforms become attractive due to cost savings
associated with installation. Surface production systems that are viable in these water depths
include Tension Leg Platforms (TLP), spar platforms, and laterally moored ship-shaped and semi-
submersible vessels. Possible anchor systems for TLP and spar platforms include the traditional
driven piles, drag anchors and suction caissons.
Suction caissons become better alternatives to driven piles in deepwater because of
technical challenges and costs associated with the installation equipment. In addition, suction
caissons also provide a greater resistance to lateral loads than driven piles because of the larger
diameters typically used. Initial penetration of the suction caisson into the seabed occurs due to
the self weight; subsequent penetration is by the suction created by pumping water out from the
inside of the caisson.
This paper presents a brief overview of what the current state of knowledge is regarding
the design of suction caissons. In addition, the paper also documents some finite element
analyses results that were conducted to determine the capacity of suction caisson anchors
founded in soft clays, typical of the Gulf of Mexico.


INTRODUCTION

Exploration and production of oil fields in deep waters has become a necessity as we
exhaust oil resources near shore and on land. In the past few years, gas and petroleum reserves
under deep water (1,000 to 3,000 m) on the continental slopes of the Gulf of Mexico have been
demonstrated to be of enormous economic and strategic significance to the United States and
other oil producing countries. In such deep waters, floating production systems such as Tension
Leg Platforms (TLP), spar platforms, and laterally moored ship-shaped and semi-submersible
vessels are economically viable.
TLPs consists of four vertical cylinders or columns connected by the platform above
water and pontoons underneath it. These buoyant structures are arranged in a rectangle. Vertical
mooring lines called tendons or tethers attach the rig to the seafloor. On the seafloor, there are
two basic components, the foundation and the TLP template. There are generally four massive
foundations installed on the seabed and each has flexible joints on to which the tendons are
attached. The TLP template is located directly above the predrilled oil wells and contains slots for
each well and any number of pipelines. Tendons or tethers, the anchoring system for tension leg
platforms, are essentially vertical mooring systems that connect the platform to the seafloor.
Because of the excess buoyancy of the platform, each tendon is pretensioned. For Gulf of
Mexico TLPs, driven piles have been the preferred method of anchoring tendons to the seafloor.
Suction caissons or piles are gaining acceptance.
Spars are buoyant single-column hull structure similar to a buoy. The hull remains
submerged and tethered to the seafloor. In water depths less than approximately 1200 m (4000
ft), TLP and spar systems are competitive economically. For greater water depths, the spar
platform offers some performance and economic advantages. Possible foundation systems for
spars include the traditional driven piles, drag anchors and suction caissons or piles.
Suction caissons (also called "buckets", "skirted foundations", and "suction anchors")
were first introduced by Senpere and Auvergne (1982) as mooring anchors for a storage tanker in
the Gorm field, which is located offshore Denmark. The offshore industry has recently developed
a renewed interest in these foundations because of their simplicity and reliability. Suction
caissons are a better alternative to driven piles in deepwater because of technical challenges and
costs associated with the installation equipment for driven piles. Heavy lift vessels can be
avoided, simplifying and shortening the installation procedure. Another advantage is that there is
more control over the installation process. Therefore, the location of the anchors on the seabed
is fixed and known with accuracy. Suction caissons also provide a greater resistance to vertical
and lateral loads than driven piles and drag anchors because of the larger diameters typically
used (Colliat et al., 1995).
Initial penetration of the suction caisson into the seabed occurs due to the self-weight.
Field observations have shown that the initial penetration of the pile into ocean sediments under
self-weight is substantial enough to develop an adequate seal to facilitate suction installation
(Cuckson, 1981 and Senpere and Auvergne, 1982). Subsequent penetration is by the suction
created by pumping water out from the inside of the caisson (Figure 1). A submersible pump
attached to the top of the sealed caisson applies suction pressure. By evacuating water from the
inside, a pressure differential is created. The limiting value of this pressure differential, such that
cavitation does not occur, is the sum of the atmospheric pressure and hydrostatic pressure
outside the caisson. In very deep waters, large penetration or suction pressures can be created,
which is only limited by the capacity of the pump. Once the required depths are reached, the
pumps can be disconnected and retrieved.
(a) (b) (c)
Seabed
Suction
penetration
Water pumped out
creating suction
pressure

Figure 1 Installation sequence of suction caissons (a) Touchdown phase (b)
Penetration due to self weight/ballast (c) Water pumped out to create suction
penetration
The feasibility of suction caissons have been demonstrated in the North Sea foundations
for the Snorre and Heidrun TLPs (Christophersen et al, 1992), the Tordis wellhead protection silo
(Guttormsen and Wikdal, 1994), Europipe 16/11-E and Sleipner (Tjelta, 1994). At present, the
uses of suction caissons are being extended to the Gulf of Mexico.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The resistance to pullout of the suction caisson is derived from the following components
(Albert et al., 1988):
1) Submerged weight of the caisson and ballast if applied.
2) Suction pressure that is created across the caisson under tensile loading.
3) Weight of the soil plug inside the caisson.
4) Skin friction.
5) Soil tensile strength at the caisson base.
The lateral capacity is provided due to the active and passive pressures mobilized due to the
horizontal translation of the caisson. In the deeper sections, lateral resistance will be afforded by
soil flow around the caisson. The holding capacity obtained therefore depends on the suction
pressure applied, soil conditions at the site, load attachment point and the anchor geometry used.
The latter two points will be addressed here, namely the load attachment point and the anchor
geometry suitable for the various soil types.
Caisson geometry

In sands, the pressure differential that is applied causes a hydraulic gradient in and
around the caisson. Water flows into the caisson due to the suction pressure that exists inside
the caisson. If the hydraulic gradient is increased sufficiently, a limiting condition will be reached
when the effective stress of the soil inside and below the caisson approaches zero. The limiting
condition is commonly referred to as the critical gradient. When the critical gradient is achieved,
piping of soil inside and below the caisson occurs. A soil plug is formed inside the caisson due to
this effect. A larger diameter caisson configuration has been found to minimize the formation of
the soil plug as the gradients are more concentrated along the caisson wall (Sparrevik, 1995).
In both stiff clays and sands, problems arise during installation due to the resistance
offered by these stiff soils. To obtain sufficient suction forces to overcome this resistance, larger
diameter caissons are used. Shorter caissons with larger diameters are therefore preferred for
stiff clays and sands that usually provide sufficient holding capacity. Typically, caissons
constructed in these materials have penetration to diameter ratios less than 2.
In soft clay deposits, the shearing resistance of the soil usually improves with depth
below seabed. Larger penetration depths will be required to mobilize sufficient holding capacity
due to negligible side friction along the wall of the caisson. The suction forces that are required to
drive the caisson in soft clays are not very high. Therefore, in normally consolidated clay
deposits, large penetration depth to diameter caissons are typically used.
Load attachment point

The load attachment point is a very important factor influencing the holding capacity of
the suction caisson. Finite element studies conducted by the author will be used to show this.
The caisson analyzed has dimensions of 6.1 m diameter and 12.2 m depth. The soil surrounding
the caisson is a normally consolidated clay. The shear strengths are assumed to be zero at the
seabed and increasing linearly with depth as given below:
s
u
DSS
= 1.41z (kPa)
where z is the depth below seabed in meters and s
u
DSS
is the undrained static direct simple shear
strength. The submerged unit weight of the soil is 6.3 kN/m
3
.
The finite element analyses were conducted using ABAQUS (HKS 1996). A von Mises
shear strength idealization was used to model the clay. The von Mises model implies a purely

cohesive (pressure independent) soil strength definition. The elastic moduli used for the soil are
2394 kPa at the seabed increasing linearly to 25956 kPa at 36.6 m below the seabed. The yield
strength was also assumed to increase linearly from 4.79 kPa at seabed to 89.5 kPa at 36.6 m
below the seabed. The caisson is modeled as a linear elastic material.
The inclination of the load was assumed to be 32 with the horizontal, measured
counterclockwise. Several points of attachment for the mooring line were considered to study the
effect of the attachment point on the load capacity. The optimal load attachment point is that
which produces maximum capacity.
Figure 2 shows a plot of load capacity vs. point of attachment. For a load inclination of
32 and for a penetration to diameter ratio of 2:1, the maximum capacity is obtained when the
load is attached at mid-height. The optimal load attachment point will depend on the soil strength
profile, the penetration to diameter ratio and the load inclination.
0
3
6
9
0 10 20 30 40 50
Load Capacity (kN/m)
Figure 2: Load capacity per unit width vs. distance of attachment
point below mud line



Figures 3(a), (b) and (c) shows the various failure mechanisms produced when the load
is attached above, at and below the optimal attachment point (z
opt
). The figures shown here are
based on finite element studies conducted on the effect of the load attachment point on the zone
of shear failure. Figures 3(a) and (c) shows that when the load attachment point is above or
below the optimal point, the caisson rotates. The shear zone mobilized is also lesser in area than
if the load is attached at the optimal attachment point. Figure 3(b) shows that when the load is
attached at the optimal load attachment point, the failure mechanism is translational and the
maximum shear zone is mobilized.
When the long-term capacity of the suction caisson is considered, it should be noted that
tension cracks develop on the active side of the caisson when the load is attached at the optimal
attachment point. The tension crack fills with water, which increases the lateral load on the
caisson and reduces the long term load capacity of the caisson. To prevent this from happening,
the load attachment point can be placed below the optimal attachment point. Figure 2 shows that

the load capacity only decreases slightly if the attachment point is below the optimal attachment
point of the caisson. The rotation of the caisson as shown in Figure 3(c) prevents the formation
of the tension crack.

z
low
R
z
opt

z
top

CONCLUSIONS
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3: Shear zone mobilized when the load is attached (a) at the top, z
top
(b)
at optimal attachment point, z
opt
and (c) below optimal attachment point, z
low



Suction caisson anchors are gaining considerable acceptance in the offshore industry.
The suction caisson is a highly versatile and efficient anchor concept that can be installed easily
as compared to driven piles, especially in deep waters. The installation procedure is simple and
requires no heavy lift vessel. The geometry to be used is dependent on the soil type. The

optimal load attachment point is obtained when a translational mode of failure is obtained. To
prevent tension cracks from developing in clays, the load attachment point should be placed
below the optimal attachment point.

REFERENCES

Christophersen, H.P., Bysveen, S., and Stove, O.J. (1992), "Innovative Foundation Systems
Selected for the Snorre Field Development," Proceedings 6
th
International Conference on
the Behavior of Offshore Structures (BOSS), Vol. 1, pp. 81-94.
Colliat, J.L., Boisard, P., Andersen, K., and Schroeder, K. (1995), "Caisson Foundations as
Alternative Anchors for Permanent Mooring of a Process Barge Offshore Congo,"
Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 7797, pp. 919-929.
Cuckson, J. (1981), "The Suction Pile Finds its Place," Offshore Engineer, pp. 80-81.
Guttormsen, T.R., and Wikdal, J.A. (1994), "Foundation of the Tordis sub-mudline silo,"
Proceedings 7
th
International Conference on the Behavior of Offshore Structures (BOSS),
Vol. 1, pp. 189-203.
Roscoe, K.H., and Burland, J.B. (1968), "On the generalized stress-strain behavior of 'wet clay',
"Engineering Plasticity edited by J. Heymann and F.A. Leckie, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 535-609.
Senpere, D., and Auvergne, G.A. (1982), "Suction Anchor Piles - A Proven Alternative to Driving
or Drilling," Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 4206, pp. 483-493.
Sparrevik, P. (1995), "Suction in Sand - New Foundation technique for Offshore Structures," NGI
Publication No. 196.
Tjelta, T.I. (1994), "Geotechnical Aspects of Bucket Foundations Replacing Piles for the Europipe
16/11-E Jacket," Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 7379, pp. 73-82.

CURRICULUM VITAE

Beena Sukumaran is currently an Assistant Professor at Rowan University. She obtained
her Ph.D. from Purdue University in the School of Civil Engineering with particular emphasis in
Geotechnical Engineering. Her Ph.D. research work included looking at the effects of
microscopic particle characteristics on the shear strength of sands. She obtained her M.S.
degree in Civil Engineering from Auburn University and her B.S. degree from College of
Engineering, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. She worked at Amoco Worldwide Engineering and
Construction in Houston and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute analyzing suction anchor
behavior using the finite element method. Her research interests include and are not limited to
evaluating the performance of suction caissons in different soil conditions.