Proceedings of OMAE04

24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

June 20-25, 2004, Vancouver, Canada

OMAE2004-51564
EFFECT OF SKIRT-TIP GEOMETRY ON SET-UP OUTSIDE SUCTION ANCHORS IN
SOFT CLAY
Knut H. Andersen
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
P.O. Box 3930 Ullevaal Stadion
N-0588 Oslo, Norway
Email: kha@ngi.no

Lars Andresen
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
P.O. Box 3930 Ullevaal Stadion
N-0588 Oslo, Norway
Email: la@ngi.no

Hans Petter Jostad

Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
P.O. Box 3930 Ullevaal Stadion
N-0588 Oslo, Norway
Email: hpj@ngi.no

Edward C. Clukey
BP America Production Company
501 WestLake Park Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77079, USA
Email: clukeyec@bp.com

Keywords: Suction Anchor, Soft Clay, Set-up, Finite Element

Analyses, Tapered Skirt Tip
ABSTRACT
An important part of suction anchor design is the
determination of the shear strength along the outside skirt wall.
Previous work has suggested that when a suction anchor in clay
is installed by applying underpressure inside the anchor, the
external skin friction may be reduced compared to the skin
friction expected for driven piles. The primary reason for this
reduction is that the movement of soil at and beneath the
caisson tip during installation will be influenced by whether the
anchor is penetrated by weight or by underpressure. To further
investigate the impact of installation by underpressure,
additional finite element analyses have been performed where
the skirt installation process has been better followed than in
the previous analyses. The movement of soil around the caisson
wall was studied for both a flat caisson tip and a tip with a
tapered edge of 45 towards the outside of the anchor. The
tapering was made to see if it would cause more of the
displaced soil to move outside the anchor and thereby increase
the mean total stresses and the shear strength along the outside
anchor wall. The analyses were made with two separate wall
roughness factors for a typical anchor in soft clay.
INTRODUCTION
Suction anchors are cylindrical steel units closed at the top
and open at the bottom. They are installed by penetrating the
cylinder wall, also called skirt, into the seabed. The first part

of the penetration is achieved by the self-weight of the anchor.

Further penetration requires application of an underpressure
below the top lid inside the anchor to generate an additional
driving force (e.g. Andersen and Jostad, 1999). Suction anchors
have been widely used to anchor various types of floaters
world wide during the last decade.
During self-weight penetration, a significant part of the
soil displaced by the skirt wall will move outside the skirt wall,
as for driven piles. When underpressure is applied, however,
most of the clay displaced by the skirt is expected to move into
the anchor. In addition, the underpressure may cause shear
strains in the soil beneath and outside the anchor that will also
lead to soil movements into the anchor. The outward soil
movement during weight penetration will cause a significant
increase in the mean total stresses in the soil outside the skirt
wall, whereas the movement of soil into the anchor during
penetration by underpressure is likely to give significantly
smaller mean total stress increases, or even stress reduction,
outside the skirt wall.
During penetration, a thin zone of clay along the skirt wall
will be remolded, and the shear strength in the clay along the
skirt wall will be equal to the remolded shear strength. This
zone of remolded clay will have a high excess pore pressure in
soft normally consolidated clay. With time, the excess pore
pressure in the remolded zone will dissipate, and the effective
stresses and the shear strength will increase. There will also be
a shear strength increase due to thixotropy. The effect of
penetration on the mean total stresses outside the skirt wall
gives the potential for higher effective stresses and shear

Copyright 2004 by ASME

strength along the outside skirt wall for anchors penetrated by

weight than for anchors penetrated by underpressure.
Andersen and Jostad (2002) proposed a method to
calculate the shear strength along the outside skirt wall (i.e. the
set-up) with time. They assumed that all the displaced soil
moves inside the caisson when it is penetrated by
underpressure, thus giving no mean total stress change outside
the caisson immediately after installation. This assumption was
based on prototype and model test experience and some small
strain, small displacement finite element analyses for caissons
with a flat skirt tip. Consolidation analyses showed that even
with no change in mean total stress, the difference in
compressibility of the remolded zone and the intact soil gave
reduced effective stresses in the remolded zone along the
outside of the anchor wall as the excess pore pressure due to
total stress changes, remolding and shear strains dissipated.
Andersen and Jostad (2002) suggested from their analyses that
for typical anchors in normally consolidated plastic clay, the
strength along the outside of the skirt wall after full set-up
would be in the order of the initial shear strength in the case of
self-weight penetration and about 65% of the initial strength
when underpressure was applied. The factor will depend on
plasticity, sensitivity, overconsolidation ratio, anchor geometry
and wall thickness.
The reduced strength after full set-up along the outside
skirt wall of anchors penetrated by underpressure may in some
cases have an important effect on the holding capacity of a
suction anchor, and it is therefore of interest to check the
assumption that all the displaced soil moves into the caisson
when it is penetrated by underpressure and to investigate means
of increasing the set-up. One way to increase the set-up may be
to taper the skirt tip in an attempt to force some of the displaced
soil to move outside the anchor also when the anchor is
penetrated by underpressure. This effect from the taper
increases the mean total stresses outside the anchor as during
self-weight penetration. The soil heave inside the anchor will
also be reduced if more displaced soil moves outside the
anchor, reducing the extra skirt length to accommodate soil
heave.
To further investigate the impact of penetration by
underpressure on the displacement pattern and the stress
changes outside the skirt wall, additional finite element
analyses were performed. The numerical scheme used in these
analyses followed the skirt installation process better than the
previous analyses. This methodology was used to assess
movement of soil around the caisson wall for both a flat skirt
tip and a tip with a tapered edge of 45 towards the outside of
the caisson. The analyses were performed both for penetration
by weight and for penetration by underpressure, and for
roughness factors of 0.5 and 0.25 at the interface between the
skirt wall and the clay.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Geometry and finite element mesh
The finite element analyses were performed with an
axisymmetric model with an inside anchor diameter of D = 3.8
m, a skirt wall thickness of t = 0.033 m (~1.25''), an outer mesh
radius of 3.5D and a mesh height of 5D, as shown in Figure
1a. The analyses were for practical reasons started from a
penetration depth of 3D (11.4m) and continued to a
penetration depth of 4.2D (16m). Two different skirt tip
geometries were used, one with a flat tip and one with a tapered
tip (Figure 1b).
The finite element analyses were made with the program
PLAXIS v. 8.1 (PLAXIS, 2003). The finite element mesh is
shown in Figure 2. The model was discretized using 3367 15noded axisymmetric elements with a refined mesh at and below
the skirt tip. Interface elements were used to model the
disturbed zone of clay between the intact clay and the inside
and outside skirt walls, and the interface between the clay and
the skirt tip. Interface elements were also used in the clay
around the skirt tip, as shown in Figure 1 marked as dotted
lines with + and - signs, in order to model the failure
mechanism around the skirt tip more accurately.
Modelling of skirt penetration
The finite element model was designed to analyze the
process of penetrating the skirt tip 4.6 m from the skirt tip at a
depth of 3D (11.4 m) to the skirt tip at depth of 4.2D (16 m).
The 4.6 m penetration of the skirt was modeled by changing the
geometry configuration of the FE-model in a series of 28
penetration steps. In each step the penetration length of the
skirt was increased by switching material from clay to steel and
reducing the shear strength in the interface elements along the
skirt according to the roughness factor wall. For each step, after
the switching of material, the loading of the anchor was
increased until the penetration resistance (steady-state plastic
failure condition) for the new penetration depth was achieved.
When the final depth of 16 m was reached, the load on the
anchor was removed (unloaded) such that all external loads
were zero. This was done both for the weight and the
underpressure cases. The situation before unloading is more
representative for the weight case, since the self-weight will
remain after penetration. The situation for the underpressure
case will in a prototype situation be between the end of loading
and the unloading cases, as the underpressure will be removed,
but the anchor weight will remain.
Loading
Penetration of the anchor by weight or underpressure is
modeled by applying tractions on top of the axisymmetric
model (Figure 3). For weight loading only, the traction p acting
on the annulus with area Atip is activated. For loading by
underpressure both this traction p and a traction pAtip/Abase,
acting on the base area Abase in the opposite direction, are

Copyright 2004 by ASME

1/2D

3D

3D

p*Atip/Abase
t = 0.033 m
~ 1.25 ''

A base = 11.34 m2
Atip = 0.397 m2

Figure 3.

2D

Start penetration
depth 3D= 11.4 m

End penetration
depth 4.2D= 16 m
D=3.8 m

a)

activated. The anchor is brought to penetration failure by

increasing the traction p for each penetration depth using the
automatic incremental-iterative solving procedure in PLAXIS.
The penetration resistance can then be calculated as pAtip both
for weight and underpressure loading.
Material properties
The undrained shear strength of the clay is modeled as
being isotropic and increasing linearly with depth from the
seabed according to:

0.6 cm

45o

b)

Load system

2.7cm

Figure 1. Finite element model. a) Overall geometry b)

Detail of flat and tapered skirt tips

su = 1.25z
(kPa) for self-weight penetration
su = 1.0+1.25z (kPa) for penetration by underpressure
The shear strength for the underpressure penetration
analyses has a small intercept at the surface in order to avoid
numerical problems when loading a boundary (surface of the
soil plug) with zero shear strength.
The clay is modeled as being elastic-perfectly plastic using
the PLAXIS Mohr-Coulomb material model with a normalized
shear modulus G/su= 100. The stress-strain relationship for the
clay is illustrated in Figure 4.
The skirt is modeled as steel by an elastic material model
with the Young's modulus E = 2.1108 kPa.
The shear strength along the interface between the intact
clay and the skirt wall is set equal to the clay shear strength
times a roughness factor wall.
The clay material is modeled as being weightless meaning
that the calculated stresses are stress changes from the initial
stresses before anchor installation.

1%
Figure 2. FE-mesh and zoomed in detail around skirt tip

unload/
reload

Figure 4. Shear stress shear strain relationship

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Table 1. Identification of cases analyzed

wall

0.5

Penetration
Type
Weight

Tip
Geom
Flat

0.5

Underpr

Flat

0.25

Weight

Flat

0.25

Underpr

Flat

0.5

Weight

Tapered

0.5

Underpr

Tapered

0.25

Weight

Tapered

0.25

Underpr

T otal penetration force [kN]

0

1000

11.9

1500

2000

2500

case 1-flat,r=0.5,selfweight
case 2-flat,r=0.5,suction

12.4

Tapered

CASES ANALYZED
The 8 cases summarized in Table 1 were analyzed. They
cover flat and tapered skirt tips of skirts with roughness factors
of wall = 0.5 and 0.25 penetrated by weight and underpressure.
The tapering was 450 towards the outside of the caisson from a
6mm flat portion of the 33mm thick skirt (Figure 1b). The
roughness factors correspond to soil sensitivity values of
St=1/wall = 2 and 4, assuming that the skirt wall is rough
enough for the failure along the skirt wall to occur in the
remolded clay. This is believed to be the case unless the skirt
wall is painted or prepared in other ways, has variation in
thickness, or the anchor has stiffeners.

500

11.4

Penetration depth [m]

No

case 3-flat,r=0.25,selfweight
case 4-flat,r=0.25,suction

12.9

case 5-tapered,r=0.5,selfweight

13.4

case 6-tapered,r=0.5,suction

13.9

case 8-tapered,r=0.25,suction

case 7-tapered,r=0.25,selfweight

14.4
14.9
15.4
15.9

a)
Tip penetration fo rc e [kN]
0

50

10 0

150

2 00

11 .4
11 .9
12 .4

Penetration resistance
The total penetration resistance Ftot at a given penetration
depth is calculated by multiplying the penetration failure stress,
pfail, obtained from the load-displacement curve for each of the
28 penetration steps by the tip area Atip. The results are given in
Figure 5a, which shows that the penetration resistance is
roughly proportional to the roughness factor, wall. The
penetration resistance is consistently higher for penetration by
underpressure than for penetration by weight. The reason for
this is the difference in the shear strength profile with a 1kPa
intercept at the clay surface in the case with penetration by
underpressure. The effect of skirt tip tapering is negligible
compared to the total penetration resistance.
The effect of skirt tip tapering is studied more closely by
isolating the skirt tip resistance. The skirt tip resistance is
calculated by subtracting the resistance caused by the shear
strength along the inside and outside skirt wall from the total
penetration resistance, i.e. Ftip= Ftot - Ffrict. The portion of the
penetration resistance that is caused by the shear strength along
the inside and outside skirt wall is calculated by:

Penetration depth [m]

RESULTS

12 .9
13 .4
13 .9
14 .4
14 .9
15 .4
15 .9

b)
Figure 5. a) Total penetration resistance and b) skirt tip
resistance versus penetration depth.

sutip :
susurface :
wall :
Askirt :

Ffrict = 1/2(sutip+ susurface)wallAskirt

undrained shear strength at skirt tip depth

undrained shear strength at the clay surface
skirt wall roughness factor
area of penetrated skirt wall (inside and
outside)

where

Copyright 2004 by ASME

The calculated skirt tip resistance is presented in Figure 5b.

The result shows that there is an effect of roughness factor, but
as expected the effect is much less than proportional to the
roughness factor, since the failure will occur through the clay.
There is also a difference between resistances from penetration
by weight and by undrepressure. This difference is attributed to
the difference in shear strength profile, as discussed above for
the total resistance. Tapering has only small or no effect on the
tip resistance. For cases with penetration by weight the effect of
tapering is 10% or less, and there is essentially no effect for
cases with penetration by underpressure.

when the tip passes 13.7 m depth and ending at the final
penetration depth of 16 m.
The plots in Figure 7 show that the mean stress at 13.7m
depth decreases with penetration depth after the tip passes
13.7m. A near "steady-state" situation representative for an
infinitely long anchor is approached at a penetration depth of
about 16m. However, the plot shows that some additional
reduction of the mean total stress can be expected for further
penetration (i.e. deeper than 16m). The trend of stress reduction
with depth shown for Cases 4 and 5 in Figure 7 is believed to
be representative also for the other cases.

Displacement pattern around skirt tip

The calculated displacement pattern around the skirt tip is
shown in Figure 6a and b, for roughness factors of wall = 0.5
and 0.25, respectively. The displacements in Figure 6 are the
incremental displacement vectors at failure when the skirt tip is
at depth 13.7 m, the midpoint between start and end of
penetration.
The incremental displacements at failure show that
- about half the displaced soil moves outside the anchor
when it has a flat skirt tip and is penetrated by weight
- essentially all the displaced soil moves inside the anchor
when it has a flat skirt tip and is penetrated by
underpressure
- tapering of the skirt tip causes more clay to move outside
the anchor than for a flat tip, both for penetration by weight
and by underpressure
- the displacement pattern is not significantly influenced by
the roughness factor, but there is a tendency for more soil to
move inside the anchor for the lower roughness factor
The displacements shown in Figure 6 are due to (1) penetration
of the skirt tip into the soil and (2) displacements of the soil
plug due to the shear stresses along the skirt wall and the
underpressure applied at the top of the clay plug inside the
anchor, if the anchor is penetrated by underpressure. For an
anchor penetrated by underpressure, the relative magnitude of
these displacement components depends on how close the
underpressure is to causing an inverse bearing capacity failure
of the soil plug at skirt tip level. It is therefore expected that
more soil will move into the anchor as the depth to diameter
ratio increases. The cases analyzed here are not close to inverse
bearing capacity failure.

Mean total stress distribution with depth

Figures 8 and 9 show the contour shadings of changes in
mean total stress at the final penetration depth after unloading
the penetration force. The stress concentrations outside the skirt
wall above 13.7m are caused by the analyses starting with the
wished-in-place condition at 11.4m depth. The effect of this
artificial starting point is reflected down to a penetration depth
of less than 13.7m for anchors penetrated by underpressure. For
anchors penetrated by weight, the stresses at 13.7m may have
some minor influence from the starting conditions at 11.4m.
There is also some stress concentrations around the skirt
tip, indicating that the stresses will not be fully uniform along
the whole skirt wall after penetration. The stress concentrations
around the skirt tip do not extend very far up along the skirt
wall when the anchor is penetrated by underpressure, and
normalized stresses at 13.7m will be reasonably representative
for the whole skirt length.
The stress concentrations extend further up along the wall
for anchors penetrated by weight, and the stresses at 13.7m will
tend to underestimate the stresses along the lower part of the
skirt for anchors penetrated by weight. This stress
concentration influences the stresses almost one anchor radius
above the skirt tip for anchors with flat skirt tip and roughness
factor of 0.5. The influence decreases with decreasing
roughness factor and is reduced by tapering.
The contours show some local stress variations along the
skirt wall between the zone influenced by the starting
conditions and the zone influenced by the concentrations
around the skirt tip. These variations are due to the finite size of
the penetration steps. Smaller steps would have evened out
these variations.

Development of mean total stress at depth of 13.7m

Examples of the change in the mean total stress, mean=
1/3(1 + 2 + 3), in two monitoring points at 0.33 m and
0.56 m outside the skirt wall at depth 13.7 m are shown for two
cases in Figure 7 (1, 2 and 3 are the principal total stresses).
The two cases are Case 4 (anchor with flat tip and roughness
factor of 0.25 penetrated by underpressure) and Case 5 (anchor
with tapered tip and roughness factor of 0.5 penetrated by
weight). The change in mean stress is plotted against the
penetration depth for 8 selected penetration depths starting

Mean total stress at depth 13.7m as function of radius

The change in mean total stress, mean, outside the skirt
wall along a horizontal section at depth 13.7 m after the skirt
has been penetrated to 16 m is plotted in Figures 10 and 11
before and after the penetration force is unloaded, respectively.
The stresses in the zone close to the skirt wall are average
stresses over a large enough depth interval to even out the
stress concentrations along the skirt wall.
The stress change at the skirt wall at 13.7m depth is
summarized in Table 2. The stress change is normalized to the
initial in situ effective mean stress of mean, initial= 62kPa, based

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Case1
Flat tip, r = 0.5,
Selfweight

Case3
Flat tip, r = 0.25,
Selfweight

Case5
Tapered tip, r = 0.5,
Selfweight

Case7
Tapered tip, r = 0.25,
Selfweight

Case2
Flat tip, r = 0.5,
Suction

Case4
Flat tip, r = 0.25,
Suction

Case6
Tapered tip, r = 0.5,
Suction

Figure 6a. Incremental displacements at failure when skirt

tip is at 13.7m. Roughness factor wall=0.5. Black arrows
give displacement direction where vectors may be unclear.

on a submerged unit weight of = 6.5kN/m3 and a coefficient

of earth pressure at rest of K0 = 0.55. These normalized stresses
are representative for the conditions along the part of the wall
away from the zone influenced by the local variations around
the skirt tip.
The data in Figures 10 and 11 and in Table 2 show that
- penetration by weight gives significantly higher mean total
stress increase than penetration by underpressure. The
difference depends strongly on the roughness factor, and is

Case8
Tapered tip, r = 0.25,
Suction

Figure 6b. Incremental displacements at failure when skirt

tip is at 13.7m. Roughness factor wall=0.25. Black arrows
give displacement direction where vectors may be unclear.

highest for the high roughness factor.

penetration by weight gives a significant increase in the
mean total stress at the anchor wall for all cases (32-46%
before unloading the penetration force). The stress increases
to a radius of more than 1.75-2.25 times the anchor radius
(1.4-2.4m from the wall).
- penetration by underpressure gives only a modest increase
in the mean total stress outside a distance of about 1.25
times the anchor radius (0.5m from the wall). At the wall,
-

Copyright 2004 by ASME

the mean total stress after unloading decreases by 26-32%

of the initial mean effective stress for a roughness factor of
0.5 and increases by 2-16% for a roughness factor of 0.25.
It is assumed that the penetration force is unloaded in this
case.
The largest stress reduction for the highest roughness
factor for an anchor penetrated by underpressure can be
explained by the penetration resistance increasing with
increasing roughness factor. A higher penetration resistance
will require a higher underpressure at the top of the clay
plug inside the caisson, and this unloading causes a higher
reduction in the horizontal total stresses in the clay outside
the anchor at and below the anchor tip depth. As the skirt
penetrates into and through this zone, the reduced
horizontal total stresses will be locked in and give a
permanent reduction in the horizontal total stress along the
skirt at this depth.
- tapering gives somewhat higher mean total stress increase
than flat tips, but the effect is relatively modest, with
tapering giving 2-6% increase for a roughness factor of 0.5
and 12-14% increase for a roughness factor of 0.25. These
ranges assume that the penetration force is not unloaded
when the anchor is penetrated by weight, and that it is
unloaded when the anchor is penetrated by underpressure.

0.25, the set-up factor will thus be very close to the set-up
factor from Andersen and Jostad (2002) for a flat tip, whereas
tapering may give potential for some small increase in the setup factor. For a roughness factor of 0.5, the set-up factor
related to effective stresses is likely to become smaller than
calculated by Andersen and Jostad (2002), for both flat and
tapered skirt tips. However, as shown by Andersen and Jostad
(2002), thixotropy is likely to govern the shear strength if the
roughness factor is already 0.5 (sensitivity of 2), and a
thixotropy factor of only 1.3 is needed to reach a set-up factor
of 0.65.
Table 2. Mean total normal stress change at outside skirt
wall at 13.7m depth when the skirt is penetrated to 16m.
Effect of
mean/mean,initia
Tip
Tapering
No wall Penetr.
l
Type
Geom.
No
After
No After
Unld
Unld Unld Unld
1
0.5
Weight
Flat
44%
33%

Effect of mean total stress change on shear strength

along outside skirt wall
The effect that the mean total stress change will have on
the shear strength along the outside skirt wall requires a finite
element consolidation analysis with modeling of the total stress
variation with radius (both in the remolded clay along the wall
and in the intact clay outside the remolded zone), the excess
pore pressure in the remolded zone, the shear induced pore
pressure in the intact clay, and the compressibility and
consolidation characteristics of the remolded and intact zones
(Andersen and Jostad, 2002). The shear strength change will
therefore not be proportional to the total stress change.
Generally, however, the stress changes calculated by the
new finite element analyses seem to support the
recommendations by Andersen and Jostad (2002). For anchors
penetrated by weight, they assumed that the mean total stress
changes outside the anchor would be large enough to restore
the initial shear strength with time as the excess pore pressure
dissipates, and that there would be no total stress change
outside an anchor penetrated by underpressure. Even if definite
conclusions can not be drawn without consolidation analyses,
the high calculated total stress change outside anchors
penetrated by weight is in line with their assumption.
For anchors penetrated by underpressure, Andersen and
Jostad (2002) assumed that no mean total stress change would
occur outside the anchor. The new calculations give a total
stress increase of 2-16% for a roughness factor of 0.25 and a
reduction of 32-26% for a roughness factor of 0.5. The first
numbers in the ranges are for flat skirt tips and the second
numbers are for tapered skirt tips. For a roughness factor of

0.5

Weight

Tapered

46%

35%

0.5

Underpr

Flat

-31%

-32%

0.5

Underpr

Tapered

-21%

-26%

0.25

Weight

Flat

32%

24%

0.25

Weight

Tapered

44%

32%

0.25

Underpr

Flat

6%

2%

0.25

Underpr

Tapered

21%

16%

2%

2%

10%

6%

12%

8%

15%

14%

Sig_mean [kPa]
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

13.66

Penetration depth [m]

14.16

14.66

15.16

Case 5 r= 2.26 m
Case 5 r=2.5 m

15.66

Case 4 r= 2.26 m
Case 4 r=2.5 m

Figure 7. Changes of mean total stress, mean,

during penetration for Cases 4 and 5 in two points
(Depth 13.7m and radius 2.26m and 2.5m)

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Case 1
Flat tip, r = 0.5,
Self weight

Case 3
Flat tip, r = 0.25,
Self weight

< -50 kPa

< -50 kPa

Case 5
Tapered tip, r = 0.5,
Self weight

Case 7
Tapered tip, r = 0.25,
Self weight

< -50 kPa

Case 2
Flat tip, r = 0.5,
Suction

> 50 kPa

> 50 kPa

Case 4
Flat tip, r = 0.25,
Suction

Case 8
Tapered tip, r = 0.25,
Suction

> 50 kPa

Case 6
Tapered tip, r = 0.5,
Suction

Figure 8. Distribution of change in mean total stress,

mean, for skirt penetrated to 16 m and then
unloaded. Roughness factor wall=0.5. Note that
compression is negative in these plots.

> 50 kPa

Figure 9. Distribution of change in mean total stress,

mean, for skirt penetrated to 16 m and then
unloaded. Roughness factor wall=0.25.Note that
compression is negative in these plots.

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Tapering the skirt tip is thus giving potential for some

small increase in the set-up factor for a roughness factor of
0.25, but tapering is not likely to have an effect for a roughness
factor of 0.5, since the set-up is then governed by thixotropy.
Stronger tapering of the skirt tip with a higher angle from the
horizontal is likely to give more effect than the 450 tapering
analyzed here, but one then needs to consider that a higher
tapering angle may weaken the skirt at the tip.

flat,r=0.5,selfweight

40

flat,r=0.25,selfweight

flat,r=0.5,suction
flat,r=0.25,suction

30

tapered,r=0.5,selfweight

tapered,r=0.5,suction

Sig_mean [kPa]

20

tapered,r=0.25,selfweight
tapered,r=0.25,suction

10

-10

-20

-30
1.932

2.932

3.932

4.932

5.932

6.932

7.932

8.932

9.932

Radius [m]

Figure 10. Distribution of mean total stress change, mean,

outside the skirt wall along horizontal section at depth
13.7m for skirt penetrated to 16m. Before unloading.

30

flat,r=0.5,selfweight
flat,r=0.25,selfweight
flat,r=0.5,suction
flat,r=0.25,suction

20

Sig_mean [kPa]

tapered,r=0.5,selfweight
tapered,r=0.5,suction

10

tapered,r=0.25,selfweight
tapered,r=0.25,suction

-10

-20

-30
1.932

2.932

3.932

4.932

5.932

6.932

7.932

8.932

9.932

Radius [m]

Figure 11. Distribution of mean total stress change, mean,

outside the skirt wall along horizontal section at depth
13.7m for skirt penetrated to 16m. After unloading.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The installation of suction anchors has been simulated by
finite element analyses in order to study the impact of
installation by underpressure on the displacement pattern
beneath the anchor and the stress changes outside the anchor
wall. Both flat and tapered skirt tips were analyzed to assess the
potential benefit that a tapered skirt tip may have. The analyses
were made both for weight penetration and for penetration by
underpressure, and for roughness factors at the interface
between skirt wall and clay of 0.5 and 0.25.
The results of the analyses show that the displacement
pattern of the soil depends strongly on whether the anchor is
penetrated by weight or by underpressure. Roughly half the soil
displaced by the anchor wall moves into the anchor when the
anchor is penetrated by weight, whereas essentially all the
displaced soil moves into the anchor when it is penetrated by
underpressure. Tapering causes more clay to move outside the
anchor than a flat tip in all cases, i.e. both for penetration by
weight and by underpressure and for roughness factors of 0.5
and 0.25.
Penetration by weight gives significantly higher mean total
stresses than penetration by underpressure, both at the outside
skirt wall and away from the wall. The difference is highest for
the highest roughness factor because more underpressure is
needed to penetrate the anchor. Tapering gives higher total
stresses, but the effect is relatively modest, with a stress
increase of 2-6% for a roughness factor of 0.5 and 12-14% for
a roughness factor of 0.25.
Penetration by weight gives an increase in the mean total
stress in all cases. The increase at the skirt wall is about 3246%, and the increase is highest for the highest roughness
factor and for tapered skirt tips.
Penetration by underpressure gives only a modest increase
in the mean total stress outside a distance of about 0.5 m from
the wall. At the wall, the stress decreases by ~26-32 % of the
initial mean effective stress for a roughness factor of 0.5, but
increases by ~2-16% for a roughness factor of 0.25. Tapering
gives the highest stresses. Higher tapered angles may further
increase the mean total stress and ultimately the shear strength
along the outside anchor wall.
The calculated total stress changes for anchors penetrated
by underpressure agree reasonably well for a roughness factor
of 0.25 with the assumption of no total stress change outside
the anchor wall made by Andersen and Jostad (2002). The
calculated stress changes for roughness factor of 0.5, however,
gives lower stresses than assumed by Andersen and Jostad
(2002). Considering both stress changes and thixotropy,
however, the resulting set-up factor is likely to be very close to
the set-up factor recommended by Andersen and Jostad (2002).
Tapering the skirt tip by 450 gives potential for some small
increase in the set-up factor for a roughness factor of 0.25, but
tapering is not likely to have an effect for a roughness factor of
0.5, since the set-up is then governed by thixotropy.
The shear strength along the skirt wall will not be
proportional to the total stress, and additional consolidation

Copyright 2004 by ASME

analyses are needed to fully assess the detailed impact of

tapering and stress changes on the shear strength along the skirt
wall with time.
The analyses involve some simplifications, like small
strain and small displacement finite element formulations,
isotropic initial stresses and shear strength, and an elasticperfectly plastic soil model with a constant normalized shear
modulus. It is believed that the analyses still give reasonable
results, especially with respect to the relative effect of tapering
the skirt tips.
REFERENCES
(1) Andersen, K. H. and Jostad, H. P. (1999). Foundation
design of skirted foundations and anchors in clay. Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Proc., Paper 10824.
(2) Andersen, K. H. and Jostad, H. P. (2002). Shear strength
along outside wall of suction anchors in clay after
installation. Proc., XII ISOPE Conference, Kyushu, Japan,
26 31 May 2002
(3) PLAXIS, (2003)
www.plaxis.nl

10

Copyright 2004 by ASME