Proceedings of the ASME 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE2008 June 15-20, 2008,

Estoril, Portugal

OMAE2008-57417
DESIGN OF SUCTION PILES FOR DEEPWATER HPHT SUBSEA PIPELINES
Ayman Eltaher, PhD, PE; Jason Sun, PhD; Paul Jukes, PhD J P Kenny, Inc. 17404 Katy Freeway, Suite 350 Houston, TX 77094 USA

ABSTRACT Thermal expansion management of high pressure and high temperature (HPHT) pipelines using buckle initiators and anchors has proven to be a viable approach for projects in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In this study, using suction piles as pipeline anchors is discussed, as suction piles represent the most commonly used anchoring technology in deepwater. Considerations and issues particular to the pipeline anchoring application are discussed and possible solutions are presented. In this study, the traditional suction pile analysis and design procedures (based on simple calculations and/or the finite element method) are discussed, and modifications and simplifications are proposed to suit the new application. In particular, applying the anchor loads at the mudline level, longterm loading and the absence of significant axial loading are examples of issues and particulars that are common to pipeline anchoring that would either simplify analysis or put restrictions on the validity of current suction pile design procedures. Different types of connections to pipelines and subsea structures are also proposed and addressed. This study extends the applicability of suction piles from mooring applications to thermal buckle and walking management for HPHT pipeline applications. It presents solutions to connection and design issues particular to suction piles as anchoring means for HPHT pipeline thermal management. KEYWORDS Anchor, Pile, Suction Pile, P-Y, ABAQUS, Pipeline Buckling, Deepwater, High Pressure, High Temperature,

HPHT, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Pipelines, Flowlines, Gulf of Mexico, GoM, SIMULATOR, Thermal, Buckle Management. INTRODUCTION This paper summarizes current practice and latest developments in designing and using of suction piles in anchoring pipelines and subsea structures. Anchoring pipelines and subsea structures is usually required in order to restrain the pipeline/structure movement under extreme and cyclic environmental and operational conditions. Examples of applications that require pipeline/subsea structure anchoring are pipelines subject to high catenary riser (SCR) tension; pipelines subject to HPHT conditions; and pipelines prone to walking under effects of the pipeline longitudinal thermal gradient and/or gravity (slope) (1,2). Suction piles are also sometimes used as foundations for vertical risers; an application that is not addressed in this paper. Suction piles are usually designed to criteria relevant to both installation and service life. In particular, during installation operations, suction piles should be able to withstand lifting, handling and transportation; ensure its structural stability against hydrostatic collapse during suctiondriven penetration; ensure soil plug stability against bearing failure during both penetration and possible extraction; etc. During service, suction piles should also be able to fulfill their functional requirements as to transmitting anchor loads safely to the foundation soil. While doing so, piles should be able to ensure adequate margins against structural (strength, fatigue and corrosion) and geotechnical (load capacity) failures.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

NOMENCLATURE Clay Cohesion c Clay Cohesion at Pile Base cBase Average Clay Cohesion along Pile caverage Pile Diameter D Applied Load F, F1, F2 Elevation of Applied Load above Seabed H Pile Penetration L Ratio between Pile Penetration and Diameter L/D Undrained Bearing Capacity Coefficient Nc Equivalent-Nc, for Global Pile Response to Nc,eq Lateral Loading Soil Strength Su Depth below Mudline (Variable) z Depth (Location) of Pile Center of Rotation zc Soil Saturated Unit Weight soil Angle between Chain and Pipeline 1, 2 REVIEW OF GENERAL SUCTION PILE DESIGN PROCEDURE Suction pile global sizing (identifying adequate diameter and length/penetration) is usually achieved through an optimization between stability of the soil plug, which increases with decreasing L/D ratio, and the pile weight and associated costs, which usually increases with decreasing L/D. The pile structural strength and fatigue adequacy during installation and service is usually achieved through an optimization of the pile wall thickness, possibly with variation thereof along the pile length, based on stress and collapse criteria. A great deal of the knowledge and methods currently used in designing suction piles is reported in the JIP References 3 and 4; further development and additional work is reported in a number of published papers, such as References 5 through 12. However, a limited amount of standardization and rules are reported in codes (13). The commonly used method for analysis and design of suction piles, especially under lateral loading, is a straightforward application of the established Finite Element (FE) method, with its known advantages and limitations, particularly, its ability to accommodate general loading and boundary conditions with no major assumptions. Less commonly used methods include the Limit Analysis methods, which involve assuming a number of failure mechanisms, or a general mechanism with a number of variables, with the least resisting mechanism deemed the most accurate (7, 15). Accuracy of the results depends on how close the assumed failure mechanisms are to the actual one. Twodimensional mechanisms are often assumed, with 3-D effects taken into account by way of equivalent side friction and/or empirical factors (3, 6). Research in this area is underway. Some designers also use conventional beam-column analysis procedures (otherwise known as the P-Y method, intended for slender piles) for preliminary sizing of suction piles; some even use the method for final design of short-term temporary suction piles. One issue that may somewhat affect

the acceptability and applicability of the method to suction piles is not accounting for the interaction between axial and lateral responses of the pile. This, however, is immaterial in the case of anchoring pipelines and subsea structures, where the pile axial load is negligible. Another concerns the validity of commonly used P-Y curves for larger diameter piles, where stiffer response appears to be more applicable (17). The P-Y methods indeed are unacceptable for smaller L/D ratios, as the method neglects the shear and moment resistances at the pile base and the vertical opposite shears on the pile wall, as shown in Figure 1. These soil reactions normally contribute more to resisting lateral loads and overturning moments for cases of smaller L/D ratios. The P-Y methods are still rather inaccurate, even for larger L/D ratios, as will be discussed later in this study.

Base Shear

Base Moment

Vertical Shears

Figure 1. Soil Reactions not Accounted for in P-Y Methods

Copyright 2008 by ASME

DESIGN OF SUCTION PILES FOR ANCHORING PIPELINES In this section, emphasis is placed on unique aspects of designing suction piles as anchors for pipelines. In particular, loads from pipelines tend to be long-term, especially those resulting from the pipeline thermal expansion and walking. The former usually ramps up in a matter of hours and may continue for weeks or months at a time; the latter can still continue and even ramp up through years. Subject to such long-term loading, suction piles need to be designed taking soil creep, or even drained strength, into account. However, experience has shown that drained capacity of laterally loaded suction piles normally exceeds its undrained capacity. Another characteristic of suction piles used in anchoring pipelines is that loads are usually applied at the pile top. (Although this arrangement reduces the pile load carrying efficiency, it seems that the economics does not support pretensioning a chain connection that is attached to the pile at its optimum point.) This tends to cause the pile top to deflect more than usually expected for the case of a pile loaded at the optimum point. Such deflection has been observed to cause cracks and/or a gap to form at the back side of the suction pile (19, 20). This phenomenon should be taken into account when designing suction piles as pipeline anchors. This can be done with different techniques, depending on the method of analysis. The gap depth can be estimated as 2c/soil, where c and soil are the surface soil strength (or cohesion) and the soil unit weight, respectively. If the analysis method does not allow for modeling 3-D details of the gap (such as the case for the P-Y method and the axisymmetric-asymmetric FE method introduced below), an approximate approach can be adopted, whereby the soil strength is reduced by 50% along the estimated depth of the forming gap. Otherwise, loading suction piles mainly laterally provides opportunities to improve their economics and help simplify their analysis, as discussed herein: The third edition of API RP 2SK (13) recognizes the safety benefits in the ductility of a pile lateral failure mode; therefore, the RP requires a geotechnical capacity factor of safety of 1.6, compared to a factor of 2.0 for axial loads. This helps realize significant savings by reducing the required pile size. The zone of influence of a laterally loaded pile is usually shallower than that of an axially loaded pile. This provides an opportunity to reduce the needed soil investigation depth. In particular, for an axially loaded pile, soil investigation is recommended to extend two to three times the pile diameter (2.0-3.0D) beyond the pile design penetration. For a laterally loaded pile, one diameter (1.0D) below the pile base could be sufficient. As discussed in the previous section and with the lack of significant axial loading on the pile, a simple P-Y analysis could be used for in-place conditions, especially for higher L/D ratios. Where the P-Y method is acceptable, an even

simpler method for assessing the ultimate capacity of the pile for lateral loading is proposed in the next section. Since axial capacity of piles used as pipeline anchors is not of major concern, it can be ignored in the design process. In particular, reduction in the strength of the soil directly in contact with the pile anchor structure due to the following effects may not need to be taken into account: soil remolding and reconsolidation (i.e., friction factor, , and soil set-up); and tilt and tolerance in heading (within reasonable limits). No significant impact from this simplification is anticipated on the accuracy of the analysis. Based on this, a cost-effective finite element model that takes advantage of the above-mentioned simplifications is described in a later section. Using internal ring stiffeners in suction piles is not common, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, due to the lack of sufficient experience on their impact on the pile response during installation and under axial loading. With the minimal axial loading on pipeline anchor piles, such uncertainty is reduced to installation conditions only. Shortcomings of this uncertainty can readily be offset by savings in the pile wall thickness and added certainty in buckling calculations and safety against buckling collapse. Reference 29 addresses in more detail issues relevant to designing and installation of suction piles with ring stiffeners.

Again, due to the unimportance of the piles axial load capacity, measures to reduce its penetration resistance (e.g., through using friction-reducing coatings) could be implemented without concern over the pile load capacity during service. Design of the pile for embedment follows a procedure that is similar to that used for mooring piles, except the tolerance in the pile location, tilt and orientation would generally depend on specifics of the connection between the pile and the pipeline. If not controlled by the connection requirements, the pile orientation and tilt tolerances can be more liberal than those of mooring applications, again, due to the unimportance of the pile axial capacity. Experience has shown that interaction between the pipeline system and its anchors plays a significant role in determining the pipeline response and anchor loads (16). This is readily explained, since the stiffnesses of suction piles usually are within the same order of magnitude as that of the pipeline stiffness. Accordingly, an average stiffness of the suction pile would need to be modeled in the pipeline analysis. Nonlinearity of the pile response within the service load is rather minimal and therefore may not need to be modeled. Importance of modeling the exact stiffness of the pile in a pipeline analysis may decrease where the pipeline is deemed soft or is softened with thermal buckling. Fatigue damage of pipeline anchor piles is not usually of major concern, since the number of stress cycles is normally low (in the order of few tens or hundreds, over the life of the

Copyright 2008 by ASME

system). That is, unless the pile is directly subject to cyclic environmental loads, such as those applied by SCRs. SIMPLIFIED ASSESSMENT OF SUCTION PILE ULTIMATE LATERAL CAPACITY For suction piles with higher L/D ratio, the P-Y method is considered by many designers to be acceptable, albeit in need for further calibration to more accurately represent the range of diameters and L/D ratios applicable to suction piles. Wherever the P-Y method is deemed acceptable, the following simplified approach to assessing the pile ultimate lateral capacity can be used: In this method, the ultimate soil resistance along the pile length is calculated based on the specific P-Y method adopted (e.g., those described in Section 6.8 of API RP 2A WSD (18)). At its ultimate load capacity, the pile is assumed to undergo a large rigid body rotational mode of displacement, with the location of the center of rotation along the pile axis being unknown. Direction of the soil reaction at any depth is, by definition, opposite to that of corresponding displacement; i.e., soil reactions above and below the center of rotation would have opposite directions. Having the applied loads and soil reactions set up, one can construct both the pile shear force and bending moment diagrams by integrating the load distribution twice. Location of the center of rotation and the ultimate load capacity are, then, identified through satisfying the two conditions that both the shear and bending moment vanish at the pile base. However, a correction is also suggested, regarding these conditions, in order to account for the shear and moment at the pile base, as these shear and moment are more significant for piles with smaller L/D ratios. The correction assumes that the shear and moment resistances at the pile base are at their ultimate values and that they can be calculated as follows: Base Shear = /4D cBase Base Moment = /6D3NccBase The above expressions are for clayey soils; similar expressions for other soil types can also be derived. A schematic of the applied loads and straining actions, as discussed above, is shown in Figure 2. A simple algorithm that summarizes the procedure is shown in Figure 3. Correspondence between results obtained from this procedure and actual pile response could be affected by built-in conservatism in simplified methods adopted by codes (including P-Y methods). For example, and as discussed in API RP 2A WSD (18), the ultimate unit lateral bearing capacity of soft clay had been found to vary between 8c and 12c, where c is the clay cohesion, based on actual field tests. With the FE analysis lacking the imperfections that causes such variations, results from FE is likely to be at or exceed the upper bound of that range, whereas the ultimate soil resistance and the P-Y procedure adopted by the RP assume a conservative value of
2

9c. Other references support much higher Nc value, possibly greater than 14, especially for larger L/D (27).

FH

Center of Rotation

/4D cBase Applied Loads Soil Strength Parameters Ultimate Soil Resistance Pile Shear Force

/6D NccBase Pile Bending Moment

Figure 2. Simplified Assessment of Pile Ultimate Lateral Capacity

Input Pile and Soil Parameters and Load Elevation above Mudline Loop with Different Depths of the Center of Rotation, zc o Soil Reaction at Depth z = Ultimate Soil Resistance at Depth z SIGN(z-zc) Shear at Pile Base = /4D2cBase Shear along Pile = Shear at Pile Base + Load Diagram Bending Moment at Mudline = Shear at Mudline Load Elevation Bending Moment along Pile = Bending Moment at Mudline + Shear Diagram If Bending Moment at Pile Base = /6D3NccBase, Exit Loop

o o o o

Ultimate (Lateral Load, Associated Moment) Capacity = (Shear, Bending Moment) at Mudline, Transferred to Pile Top

Figure 3. Algorithm of Simplified Method

To validate it, the simplified procedure was used to evaluate an equivalent Nc factor for a suction pile in normally consolidated (NC) clayey soil and subject to a lateral load at the mudline. The equivalent factor, Nc,eq, is defined as the piles ultimate capacity, divided by its projected side area times the average soil strength; i.e., DLcaverage. The results then compared to results published by Randolph et. al. (28), for the same type of soil, where limit analysis techniques had been

Copyright 2008 by ASME

used. The comparison is shown in Figure 4 and indicates reasonable agreement for piles with L/D ratios above 1.5, assuming an Nc factor, at depth, of 9 to 12. The method also agrees well with finite element results (using the FE model discussed in the next section) when an Nc value of 14 is assumed. The method can indeed be useful for preliminary analysis and design, especially if a better calibrated Nc factor is used, as will be discussed later in this study.

wedge Elements, are implemented in AFENA (25). The formulation of these elements allows non-axisymmetric loading of the suction anchor. If the pile structure is not stiffened with cross-beams/plates, or if such details can be idealized with axisymmetric features, the stresses in the pile structure can readily be obtained as a direct output of the analysis. The resulting pile stresses and strains are considered accurate and realistic to the extent of the accuracy of the modeled structural elements. An example problem and the analysis output using the above approach (implemented in ABAQUS) is shown in Figure 5; the radial lines shown are used by ABAQUS for illustration purpose only.

Nc ,eq = F / L .D .c average

N c = 14
3

N c = 12

Nc =9

Proposed Simplified Method Randolph et. al. (28) FE Method FE Method, Shown in Figure 6 P-Y Method, Shown in Figure

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

L /D Ratio

Figure 4. Validation of Proposed Simplified Method

Pile Length = Diameter = Wall Thickness = 55 ft 11 ft in.

Soil Normally Consolidated Clay Slope of Su Profile = 9 psf/ft Shear Modulus = 200Su Load Lateral, at Seabed Level

A COST-EFFECTIVE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL Although the suction anchor is a cylindrical element with an axisymmetric geometry, lateral loading produces a full 3D state of stress and strain in both the anchor body and surrounding soil. Hence, a realistic numerical analysis of the problem must use a three-dimensional (3-D) model in conjunction with an elasto-plastic nonlinear soil constitutive model. However, nonlinear analysis, using such 3-D model, is quite expensive in terms of computer run time. In order to reduce computational cost, a pseudo-3D technique based on the Fourier series can be adopted. This technique was first developed for linear elastic analysis of aerospace structures. Since then, various extensions to the nonlinear domain, including its successful application to many geotechnical problems, has been reported in the literature (21, 22). More recently the method has been applied to the analysis of suction anchors (23, 24, 25, 26). In this technique the variation of stresses, displacements, etc., in the circumferential direction are expressed in terms of Fourier series and the problem is effectively solved as a quasi2D situation. (This method is implemented in the software package ABAQUS with the CAXA and SAXA continuum and shell elements, respectively.) Similar types of elements, dubbed

Figure 5. Example Input and Output of AxisymmetricAsymmetric Finite Element Analysis

As discussed above, accurate modeling of the thin layer of remolded/reconsolidated soil at the interface with the pile wall is unnecessary for pipeline anchoring suction piles, as the axial capacity of the latter is not critical. Accordingly, refinement of the mesh or using contact elements at that interface is not required, either. This is quite helpful in simplifying discretization of the soil domain, and a simple structured mesh, as that in Figure 5, should be adequate. With an L/D ratio of 5 and no vertical load to interact with the lateral load, the suction pile in Figure 5 could also be analyzed using the P-Y approach, as discussed above. A comparison between the load-displacement responses derived from the finite element and P-Y analyses is shown in Figure 6. The P-Y analysis, per API RP 2A WSD (18), predicts a significantly softer response with lower ultimate capacity. Stevens and Audibert (17) did indeed observe this issue and

Copyright 2008 by ASME

introduced P-Y curves for larger-diameter piles that are stiffer and that assumes an Nc, factor (at depth) of 12, instead of 9 as recommended by RP 2A. From Figure 4 and Figure 6, one can conclude that the P-Y method could be acceptable, provided the following issues are taken into account: 1. The pile L/D ratio should be larger than 1.5; 2. The pile design is not sensitive to the accuracy of predicted displacement; and 3. An Nc, factor that is larger than 9 (at depth) should be used.

driven piles can be used for this purpose, with the advantages and drawbacks of each discussed briefly below. Suggested examples of pipeline anchoring systems are shown in Figure 7, a through d.

PLET

600

Suction Pile

Suction Pile

500 Load at Pile Top (kips)

Finite Element Method

400

a) PLET on Top of Suction Piles

PLEM/ PLET

300
Suction Pile

Rigid Yoke

200

P-Y Method
100

Max. Nc = 9 50 = 0.015

Ultimate Capacity after Large Displacement, Using Either P-Y or Proposed Simplified Methods (with Nc = 9)

0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72

b) Rigid Connection (Supports Load Reversal)

Displacem ent at Pile Top (in.)

Figure 6. Comparison between Suction Pile Responses per Finite Element and P-Y Methods

Connection to Pile PLET Connection to Pipeline

Chain

Identifying a more appropriate Nc, value, and possibly stiffer curves, will need to be addressed in more detail in future studies; however, from Figure 4 and other studies (27), it appears that an Nc, value of 14 could be appropriate. Otherwise, displacement predictions that are more accurate than those derived with the RP 2A procedure may be obtained using the PY curves proposed by Stevens and Audibert (17). Accuracy of the simplified method, on the other hand, does not depend on the accuracy of the P-Y curves. The response of the pile in Figure 5, calculated by both the above-described FE and proposed simplified methods, is depicted in Figure 4 as the star data points. PIPELINE ANCHORING SYSTEMS Final design of the pipeline anchor system should satisfy as closely as possible the support stiffness assumed in the pipeline analyses; otherwise, the anchor system could be subject to loads that are not accounted for. Pipeline anchoring systems that are used in deepwater range from rigid connections to connections that comprise chained arrangements. Piles are usually the main elements that transfer the involved loads to the foundation soil. Suction piles and

c) Chain Connection (no Load Reversal)

PLET

Connection to Pipeline

Connection to Pile Chain

d) Chain Connection (Supports Load Reversal)

Figure 7. Pipeline Anchoring Systems

Suction piles are more commonly used in deepwater because of their relative ease of installation; however, it was suggested that driven piles could be quite competitive if they could be driven to grade without hammers (16). This could be

Copyright 2008 by ASME

an advantage over suction piles, whose installation success is known to be more sensitive to actual soil type and layering. The arrangement in Figure 7a is rather useful when a tight tilt tolerance is required for the subsea structure. A tight tilt tolerance can be achieved with the multiple piles by way of controlling the pumps of each, individually. The Connection in Figure 7b may be used to restrain the movement of a pipeline end structure in both longitudinal directions. Installation of this arrangement could be rather challenging, as the subsea structure is to be lowered with the yoke targeted to engage a receptacle at the top of the pile. Installation of the chained connections in Figure 7c and d is simpler and requires only tensioning and locking of the chain, using a devils claw connection that is attached to the pile. However, tolerances of the pipeline connection and pile locations have proved critical in how the pipeline load is divided between the piles. The angles between the chains and the pipeline are preferably small to minimize the load on the piles. However, with such small angles, small changes in the locations of the pipeline connection and piles could change the load split considerably, which affects the load that the piles should be designed for. In particular, and based on the configuration in Figure 8, the pile design load can be shown to be Fsin2 / sin(1+2) Where 1 and 2 are the smaller and bigger chain angles, respectively, taking into account the tolerances. With a small value for 1, the design load is liable to be close to 100% of the total pipeline load.

not common for pipeline anchoring applications, due to the lack of an economic way to pre-tension the chains. Devising such a way has the potential for providing significant savings in pile fabrication and handling. Partial pre-tensioning of anchor chains has been used, while taking account of resulting slack in the pipeline analysis. CONCLUSIONS Suction piles are widely used in deepwater applications, especially for temporary and permanent mooring. They are, however, particularly useful in anchoring pipelines and subsea structures against movement under thermal expansion and walking conditions. Although the design procedure of suction piles as pipeline anchors does not deviate much from that of piles used for other applications, there are a number of areas where it can be simpler, as those piles are usually subject only to lateral loading. Possible simplifications discussed in this paper include ignoring the pile axial response; possibility of the use of the P-Y method for larger L/D ratios; and possible use of internal ring stiffeners for the pile wall. Due to the pure lateral nature of pipeline anchoring load, a lower geotechnical factor of safety can also be used. As pipeline anchors, suction piles can be analyzed under applicable loads using the finite element, limit analysis and beam-column (P-Y) methods. The method of choice would usually depend on the type of application, pile L/D ratio and complexity of the soil conditions. In this paper, two simplified methods were introduced; these methods take advantage of the loading conditions common to pipeline anchoring. The first is a simplified analytical approach to calculating the pile ultimate lateral load capacity, based on the P-Y method. The method appears reasonably valid for a large range of L/D ratios. The method can be useful in preliminary analysis and design situations. An improvement, however, can be achieved through adopting a better calibrated Nc factor; based on the limited number of analyses performed on cases with normally consolidated clay in this and other studies, a value of 14 appears to be appropriate. The second is a finite element model that uses a less commonly used formulation that allows for simplifying the axisymmetric geometry and asymmetric loading of a suction pile to a 2-D problem. Further simplification in discretizing the model could also be achieved when the thin remoldedreconsolidated layer of soil, at the interface with the pile wall, is not accounted for. Finally, a number of pipeline-suction pile attachment configurations were presented, with discussion on situations each is best suited for. REFERENCES 1. N.P. Brown et. al., Pipeline Lateral Stabilisation Using Strategic Anchors, Proceedings of SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference 99 and Exhibition, SPE 77849, 2002

Tolerance in Pile Center Location

Nominal Configuration Worst-Condition Configuration Tolerance Boxes

F1

1 2

Tolerance in Pipeline Connector Location

F2

Figure 8. Effect of Location Tolerances on Split of Pipeline Load between Piles

Suction piles are known to exhibit their maximum lateral capacity when the load is applied at the pile optimum loading point that causes the pile to move laterally, with no rotation. Attaching the chain to the optimum loading point, however, is

Copyright 2008 by ASME

2. BP/JP Kenny, Gulf of Mexico Deepwater SPU Subsea Standardization - Design Basis Document - Level 2: Flowline and Riser Systems, ssst1-30-FL-DC-000001, BP Internal Document 3. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Skirted Foundations and Anchors in Clay. State-of-the-Art Report, Joint Industry Project. NGI Report 524071-1, 1997 4. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Application of offshore bucket foundations and anchors in lieu of conventional designs - Taut leg mooring anchors with large permanent loads at a North Sea soft clay site, Joint Industry Project, NGI Report 524083-24, 1997 5. K. Carlsrud, and T. Haugan, Cyclic loading of Piles and Anchors - Field Model Tests, NGI Research Report No. 40010-28, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway, 1983 6. K.H. Andersen, and H.P. Jostad, Foundation Design of Skirted Foundations and Anchors in Clay, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 10824, 1999 7. M. Randolph, and A. House, Analysis of Suction Caisson Capacity in Clay, Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 14236, 2002 8. J.D. Murff and J.M. Hamilton, "P-ultimate for undrained analysis of laterally loaded piles," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(1), pp. 91-107. 1993 9. L. Zdravkovic, D.M. Potts, and R.J. Jardine, A parametric Study of the Pull-out Capacity of Bucket Foundations in Soft Clay, Gotechnique, 51(1), pp. 55-67, 2000 10. K.H. Andersen, and H.P. Jostad, Shear Strength along Outside Wall of Suction Anchors in Clay after Installation, Proceedings, 12th ISOPE Conference, Houston, ISOPE 10824, 2002 11. C. Erbrich, and P. Hefer, Installation of the Laminaria Suction Piles A Case History, Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, OTC 14240, 2002 12. S. Bang, and Y. Cho, Analytical Performance Study of Suction Piles in Sand, Proceedings of ISOPE, Brest, France, 1999 13. API, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures Recommended Practice 2SK, 3rd Edition, 2005 14. Advanced Geomechanics, Suction Pile Analysis Code: AGSPANC Users Manual, Ver. 3.0, Advanced Geomechanics Internal Report, Perth, 2001 15. C. Supachawarote, M. Randolph, and S. Gourvenec, Inclined Pull-out Capacity of Suction Caissons, ISOPE 2001 16. G. Harrison, P. Jukes, J. Wang, and A. Eltaher, A General Flowline Thermal Expansion Design Philosophy Employing

Buckle Initiators and Piles, IOPF2007100, Proceedings of 2nd Annual International Offshore Pipeline Forum, 2007 17. Stevens, and Audibert, Re-examination of P-Y Curve Formulations, OTC, PP 397-403, 1979 18. API, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore PlatformsWorking Stress Design - API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2AWSD), 21st Edition, 2005 19. R. Dyvik, K.H. Andersen, S.B. Hansen, and H.B. Christophersen, Field Tests of Anchors in Clay. I: Description, Paper No. 3218, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 10, October, 1993 20. K.H. Andersen, R. Dyvik, K. Schroder, O.E. Hansteen, and S. Bysveen, Field Tests of Anchors in Clay. II: Predictions and Interpretation, Paper No. 3219, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 10, October, 1993 21. Winniki, and Zienkiewicz, Plastic Behaviour of Axisymmetric Bodies Subject to Non-axisymmetric Loading, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., Vol. 14, pp. 1399-1412, 1979 22. Smith and Griffiths, Programming the Finite Element Method - with applications to Geomechanics, 3 Ed. Wiley, 1997 23. Hansteen and Hoeg, Soil-structure Interaction Analysis of Embedded Caisson Anchor under Tension Load, 7th In. Conf. Behaviour of Offshore Structures, 1994 24. Zdravkovic, Potts, and Jardine, A Parametric Study of the Pull-out Capacity of Bucket Foundations in Soft Clay, Geotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2001 25. Carter, J.P., and Balaam, N., User manual, AFENA, Geotechnical Research Center, The University of Sydney, 1990 26. M. Hesar, Geotechnical Design of the Barracuda and Caratinga Suction Anchors, Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2003, OTC 15137 27. P.G. Watson, and M.F. Randolph, Combined Lateral and Vertical Loading of Caisson Foundations, OTC 12195 28. Randolph, M., O'Neill, M., and Stewart, D, performance of Suction Anchors in Fine-Grained Calcareous Soils, OTC 8831, 1998 29. Erbrich, C., and Hefer, P., Installation of the Laminaria Suction Piles A Case History, OTC 14240, 2002

Copyright 2008 by ASME