Suction Piles and Suction Anchors for Offshore Structures

S. Bang, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD, USA; 605-394-2440;
sangchul.bang@sdsmt.edu
K. D. Jones, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD, USA
Y. Cho, Daewoo Engineering and Construction, Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea
D. J. Kwag, AdvaCT Inc., Anyang, Korea

ABSTRACT
In recent years, suction piles and suction anchors have been used as underwater foundations for
various offshore structures. They have been proven very versatile, effective, and environmentally
friendly. This paper describes the load resisting mechanism, installation, and design of suction piles
and suction anchors. Also included are brief descriptions of three offshore structures that have
recently been constructed using suction piles and suction anchors. They include: a new breakwater
system utilizing gravity-type concrete caisson superstructure on top of concrete suction piles; a
floating breakwater system utilizing embedded suction anchors; and a foundation system utilizing
suction piles for temporary mooring of underwater tunnel elements.

INTRODUCTION The suction piles have advantages over

An innovative underwater permanent conventional underwater foundation systems
foundation system utilizing suction piles was due to their simplicity and efficiency. Most
introduced in the offshore industry in 1982 as significant advantages of suction piles are (1)
alternative anchors for mooring of a storage easy installation, (2) ease of leveling, (3) large
tanker. Since then, this new foundation system bearing capacity, and (4) retrievability. After
has been successfully used in numerous initial penetration into the seafloor due to
occasions on a variety of offshore structures their own weight, the suction piles are installed
in a wide range of environments due to its through the application of reduced water
low cost, simplicity, efficiency, and reliability pressure inside the piles. A suction pump
(Burgess et al., 1981; Senpere and Auvergne, attached at the top of the pile can accomplish
1982; Larsen, 1989;). Originally conceived as a the entire pile driving operation. Because
retrievable mooring point for floating oil and of this efficient pile driving operation, very
gas production facilities in the open sea, suction large suction piles can be driven into the soft
piles are expected to provide a viable alternative seafloor, which eliminates the use of a large
to the conventional anchoring system that
utilizes either drag embedment anchors, plate
anchors, or drilled or driven piles. Fig. 1 shows
a typical schematic of a suction pile.
Suction piles typically have a large diameter
with a relatively large diameter-to-length
ratio. They are installed by applying a suction
pressure inside the pile, which acts as an
external surcharge to push the pile into the
seafloor. They may be retrieved later by
applying a positive pressure inside the pile.
The details of the suction pile with regard to
its use, mechanism, installation, and analysis
and design methods can be found in various
references (Hogervorst, 1980; Morrison and
Clukey, 1984; Tjelta et al., 1986; Cottrill, 1992;
Bang and Cho, 2000). [FIG. 1] Schematic of Suction Pile

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009 [3]

 number of conventional piles. Largest suction
pile dimensions ever installed in the field are
approximately 32 meters (105 ft) in diameter
and 36 meters (118 ft) in length (Troll Field in
the North Sea).
For offshore structures that require tension-
resisting foundations, deeply buried plate
anchors have been used in the past, since
they can provide very large bearing capacity.
However, the plate anchors are typically
installed by conventional pile hammers such
as a diesel hammer. Therefore, the installation
of plate anchors requires mobilization of
various equipment including a floating barge,
pile hammer, mandrel, etc., making the use
of plate anchors virtually impossible for deep
water locations. Recently, however, due to the
introduction of suction piles, plate anchors
or similar anchors have been installed using a
suction pile at almost any water depth. One such
anchor is the embedded suction anchor (ESA).
The ESA is a type of permanent offshore
foundation that is installed by a suction pile.
The cross-sectional shape of the ESA is circular
with its diameter being same as that of the
suction pile that is used to drive it into the
seafloor. To increase the capacity against pull-
out, three to four wings (vertical flanges) are
attached along the circumference with equal
spacing (Fig. 2). During installation, the ESA
is attached at the tip of a suction pile and
then driven as a unit with the suction pile by
the applied reduced water pressure inside the
suction pile. Once the ESA reaches the desired
depth, the suction pile is retrieved by applying
a positive water pressure inside the pile,
leaving the ESA permanently in the seafloor
soil. The mechanism of the suction pile
installation is well described in reference (Bang
and Cho, 2000).
[FIG. 2] Embedded Suction Anchor (dimensions in millimeters)
[4] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Determination of the bearing capacity of a
suction pile or ESA under horizontal, vertical
or inclined loading is described briefly below.
It shows how the suction piles and ESAs have
been designed by the authors for various
offshore structures.
The determination of the suction pile inclined
pull-out loading capacity follows the procedures
described in reference (Bang et al., 2000).
Basically, the loading capacity of a suction
pile against inclined loads is obtained from
the failure envelope defined by the combined
horizontal and vertical loads that cause the
failure of soil surrounding the pile. The
inclined loading capacity is then described as
a combination of the horizontal and vertical
components, which in turn are expressed
as fractions of their respective maximum
loading capacities. The maximum vertical
and horizontal capacities are calculated based
on previously published formulations by the
authors (Bang et al., 2006a; Bang et al., 2006b;
Bang et al., 2007; Bang et al., 2008) and briefly
explained below.
Installation
The magnitude of the suction pressure that
could be applied safely is defined by its upper
and lower limits (Bang and Cho, 2000). The
lower limit of the suction pressure is dictated
by the soil resistance corresponding to the pile
penetration. If the applied suction pressure
is smaller than this value, the equivalent
vertical downward load applied at the top
of the pile is smaller than the soil resistance
and therefore the pile cannot penetrate any
further. However, if the suction pressure is too
high, the soil inside the pile becomes unstable
and consequently the pile inside may be filled
with soil and the pile installation becomes
incomplete, rendering the pile useless. This is
the upper limit of the suction pressure that can
be safely applied.
Bearing Capacity
Horizontal Bearing Capacity
The analytical solution of the horizontal pull-
out capacity of a suction pile or ESA embedded
in any type of soil, i.e., having either friction
or cohesion or both, is based on the method of
limiting equilibrium, which requires an assumed
soil failure wedge. This study adopted the soil
failure wedge in the shape of a tetrahedron,
as originally proposed by Reese et al. (1970)
and subsequently modified by Bang and Shen
(1989), as shown in Fig. 3. The wedge has
an inclination angle of ξ to the vertical and a
horizontal inclination angle of ε to the direction
of loading. Typically, ξ and ε are assumed to
be 45°+ φ/2 and φ/2, respectively, at failure. By
considering the soil wedge shown in Fig. 3, the
developed passive thrust due to the soil weight
and the friction angle can be obtained directly
from the force equilibrium along the vertical
and horizontal directions.
[FIG. 3] Three-Dimensional Soil Failure Wedge
The passive lateral earth pressure can then be
obtained by differentiating the passive thrust
with respect to the depth, z. However, it is
highly unlikely, particularly when the pile or
anchor rotates, that the friction reaches full
values everywhere as described by the soil
internal friction angle. For this reason, the
concept of the “mobilized friction angle” has
been introduced.
Likewise, the passive earth pressure distribution
due to the soil cohesion can be obtained from
the failure wedge considered previously. It,
however, needs to describe the development
of the soil cohesion as a function of the soil
movement. For this reason, the concept of the
“mobilized cohesion” has also been introduced.
The mobilized cohesion needs to be compatible
with the mobilized friction angle at any given
depth. Therefore, it is assumed that an equal
percentage of soil friction and cohesion
mobilize at all times. It is noted that one classic
slope stability analysis method, the friction
circle method proposed by Taylor (1937),
utilizes a similar concept.
Using the mobilized friction angle and cohesion,
the lateral passive earth pressure can be
described completely from an initial failure to
an ultimate failure state, i.e., at any stage of
the pile movement. Complete details on this
subject can be found in reference (Bang and
Shen, 1989).
Suction pile or ESA under a horizontal load is
subjected to normal and shear stresses along
the pile circumference. Horizontal forces along
the direction of loading can be obtained by
integrating the loading directional components
of the shear and normal stresses. Vertical
forces can be evaluated similarly.
The ultimate horizontal resistance and the
point of rotation can then be evaluated from
the force equilibrium along the loading
direction and the moment equilibrium about
the pile tip. Complete details of the analytical
solution formulation for the horizontal pull-
out capacity can be found in reference (Bang et
al, 2006a).
Vertical Bearing Capacity
The vertical compressional bearing capacity of
a suction pile, once it is fully and completely
installed, is calculated based on conventional
pile bearing capacity theories and therefore is
not included here.
Vertical Pull-Out Capacity of Suction Pile
The vertical pull-out capacity of a suction pile
is determined as follows. Depending upon the
soil properties, pile aspect ratio, and loading
conditions, two potential failure mechanisms
of suction piles under vertical pull-out loads
have been suggested by researchers (Fuglsang
and Steensen-Bach, 1991; Narashimha et al.,
1997; El-Gharbawy and Olson, 1998). These two
failure modes include the soil tension failure
and the pile pull-out failure (Fig. 4).
[FIG. 4] Suction Pile Failure Modes under Vertical Pull-out
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009 [5]
 Failure mode I represents the failure mechanism
under which the soil plug inside the pile behaves
as a unit with the pile, resulting in a tension
failure of the soil at the pile tip. Fuglsang and
Steensen-Bach (1991) observed this failure
mechanism from their tests. El-Gharbawy
and Olson (1998) also identified this failure
mechanism from suction pile tests in clay under
the undrained condition, i.e., when a vertical
tension was applied rapidly. This failure mode
has been identified from suction pile tests in
both clay and sand. The ultimate pile pull-out
capacity associated with this failure mode is
dominated by the friction between the soil and
the pile outside surface as well as the soil tensile
resistance at the tip of the pile. This failure
mechanism typically occurs when the pile aspect
ratio is relatively high or when the applied
vertical tension is very rapid.
Failure mode II represents the case when the
pile itself slips out of the seafloor soil under a
vertical tension. This failure mechanism has
normally been observed for relatively short
piles or piles with low aspect ratios in both
clay and sand. El-Gharbawy and Olson (1998)
identified this failure mechanism from suction
pile tests in clay under the drained condition,
i.e., when a vertical tension was applied very
slowly. The ultimate pile pull-out capacity
associated with this failure mode is dominated
by the friction between the soil and the inside
and outside pile surfaces.
The ultimate pile pull-out capacity under a
given condition is the minimum of the two
pile pull-out capacities corresponding to
aforementioned two different failure modes
(Bang et al, 2006b; Bang et al, 2008). The
correct failure mechanism for the ultimate
pile pull-out resistance depends upon the pile
aspect ratio as well as the soil conditions and
the loading rate.
Vertical Pull-Out Capacity of ESA
To estimate the vertical pull-out capacity
of an ESA, first, conditions equivalent to
a horizontally embedded plate anchor are
assumed with local failure of the soil above
occurring due to a vertical pull-out force. This
is mainly because the ESA must rotate before it
is pulled out.
To use a solution formulated for the vertical
pull-out capacity of a horizontally embedded
plate anchor, a couple of modifications need to
be made (Jones, 2006). First, the projectional
[6] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009
area needs to be considered. The projectional
area is the two-dimensional area perpendicular
to the loading direction projected by the three
dimensional ESA after the ESA has rotated.
Second, since the ESA may be loaded at points
other than its geometric center, the non-centric
factor has to be added to the solutions. The
non-centric factor is a ratio of the vertical pull-
out capacity for the current loading condition
to the vertical pull-out capacity when the
load is applied at the geometric center of the
plate. Complete details on the vertical pull-
out capacity of ESAs can be found in reference
(Jones, 2006).
RECENT APPLICATIONS
New Breakwater System with Suction Piles
Conventional breakwater systems typically
utilize a trapezoidal shaped rubble mound
cross-section with pre-cast concrete surface
elements such as tetra-pods on the seaside.
Alternatively, gravity-type concrete caissons
have also been used.
To provide more efficient and effective
breakwaters, a new breakwater system has been
perceived. It utilizes a gravity-type concrete
caisson superstructure on top of suction piles
that act as the subsurface foundations of
caissons. Suction piles do not require excavation
of soft seafloor soils. Instead, it penetrates into
the soft seafloor soil to depths where sufficient
soil bearing capacity is expected. Concrete
caissons are then placed on top, which resist
the lateral loads caused by the wind and wave
to protect the harbor behind.
Site Conditions
Two breakwaters, each being approximately
400 meters (1,312 ft) long, are planned to
be constructed for the new Ulsan Harbor in
southeastern Korea. The test site of the new
breakwater system is located near the middle of
the northern breakwater site. The water depth is
approximately 20 to 21 meters (65 to 69 ft). The
wave characteristics at the site were estimated
to be as follows: the wave height of 6.4 meters
(21 ft), period of 11 seconds, and length of
148.1 meters (486 ft).
The seafloor soil at the test site consists of
roughly 15 meters (49 ft) of soft silty clay
underlain by medium dense silty sand. The
silty clay has undrained shear strength of 9.81
to 15.69 kPa (205 to 328 psf) measured from
the consolidated undrained triaxial test. The
silty sand has standard penetration test values
of 17 to 36, with an internal friction angle of 34
degrees at the top and 38 degrees at the bottom.
If conventional rubble mound breakwater
system is used, the base of the breakwater has
to start from the top of the silty sand layer.
Therefore the base width of the breakwater
cross-section would be over 100 meters (328 ft).
Instead, the new design utilizes two concrete
suction piles in a row with an outer diameter
of 11.0 meters (36 ft) and wall thickness of
55 cm (21.7 in). Each suction pile has a square
concrete slab on top whose dimensions are
13.9 x 13.9 meters (45.6 x 45.6 ft). Along the
longitudinal direction on both ends, vertical
flanges of 3 meters (10 ft) high are provided.
Two meter (6.6 ft) thick crushed rock leveling
stones are placed and compacted on top of the
concrete slab and between the flanges. Concrete
caissons with dimensions of 21.4 (B) x 16.0 (L) [FIG. 5] Cross-Section of New Breakwater System
x 18.0 (H) meter (70 ft x 52.5 ft x 59 ft) are
finally placed on top of the leveling stones. This
configuration utilizes three concrete caissons
on top of eight suction piles. Suction piles
were designed to penetrate the entire soft clay
layer and 2.5 additional meters (8.2 ft) into the
sand layer to provide necessary soil bearing
resistance. Fig. 5 shows the cross-section of the
breakwater system.

Suction Pile Details and Installation

Design of the suction pile diameter and length
was based on the expected externally applied
loads, the vertical and horizontal soil bearing
capacities, and the suction pressure that can be
applied safely inside the pile without causing
any soil instability. [FIG. 6] Suction Piles

Between late 2004 and early 2006, suction piles

were fabricated and installed successfully. Fig.
6 shows a photo of four suction piles fabricated
and ready to be installed.
Each suction pile required a concrete volume
of approximately 500 m3 (654 cu yd), having
air and underwater weights of approximately
1,200 and 700 tonnes (1,323 and 772 tons),
respectively. The suction piles were handled,
transported and installed, including the
orientation and alignment control, by an 1,800-
tonne (1,984 ton) capacity barge crane as shown
in Fig. 7.
Four centrifugal type water pumps
attached at the top of the pile were used
to provide necessary suction pressure to [FIG. 7] Barge Crane Lifting Suction Pile

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009 [7]

 penetrate the pile to the design depth. Each
water pump had a capacity of 3 cubic meters
per minute (793 gal/min) with 40 HP.
When the suction pile was correctly positioned
and oriented, the crane lowered the pile slowly
until the pile penetration into the seafloor soil
stopped due to its own weight. According to
the analytical estimation made by the suction
pile installation design method (Bang and
Cho, 2000), this self-weight penetration was
approximately two-thirds of the pile length.
Field measurements by the ultrasound device
and by divers confirmed that the self-weight
penetration of the suction pile was very close to
the predicted depth.
When the penetration of the suction pile
stopped, the water pumps attached at the top of
the suction pile were started to apply negative
water pressure (suction pressure) inside the
pile. The application of the suction pressure was
continuously monitored and carefully controlled
so that the soil inside the pile did not experience
any instability such as boiling and/or plugging.
The magnitudes of the lower and upper
limits of the suction pressure were estimated
based on the analytical solution previously
developed (Bang and Cho, 2000). These
limits were updated continuously as the pile
penetrated into the seafloor soil deeper until
full penetration. All piles were successfully
installed using the suction pressures defined
by those limits.
Suction Pile Instrumentation
The field instrumentation included the
measurements of the pore water pressures
inside and outside the pile, the pile penetration
depth into the seafloor soil, the elevation of
the soil surface inside the pile, and the tilts
of the pile. Measurements were displayed and
recorded by a data logger.
Two piezometers were installed inside and
outside, near the top of each pile at the same
elevation. The difference between the two
piezometers was calculated and recorded as
the suction pressure as a function of the pile
penetration depth. The pile penetration depth
was measured primarily by an ultrasound
device and verified by the pore pressure
measured outside the pile. The measured
suction pressures were continuously compared
directly against the lower and upper limits of
the suction pressure and adjustments in the
water pump speed were made accordingly.
[8] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009
The final position and penetration depth of the
suction piles were measured manually by the
divers at three different locations that were 120
degrees apart along the circumference of the
pile. Average of the three measurements was
used as the final pile penetration depth.
The soil surface inside the pile was measured
using an ultrasound device. This device calculates
the distance between the pile inside top and
the soil surface by measuring the time elapsed
between the sound emitter and the receiver.
The inclination of the suction pile during
installation was measured using two
tiltmeters attached at the top of the pile along
perpendicular directions. Thus, the pile tilt
along any direction and the maximum tilt could
be estimated.
Fig. 8 shows a typical variation of the
measurements between the applied suction
pressure inside the pile and the time during
installation for a total duration of 2 hours and
25 minutes.
[FIG. 8] Suction Pile Installation Record (2 hrs 25 m)
Suction Pile Load Test
After each suction pile was completely installed,
they were load-tested by further reducing
the suction pressure inside the pile. This was
possible, since the necessary suction pressure
for full pile penetration was approximately
56.4 kPa (8.18 psi). Since the suction pressure
could be reduced as low as negative one
atmospheric pressure (-101.33 kPa or -14.7 psi),
the difference between the maximum suction
pressure for full pile penetration and the
maximum applicable suction pressure
therefore could be used for the pile load test.
Detailed calculation indicated that the largest
suction pressure would be approximately 800
tonnes (882 tons), resulting in total force of
approximately 1,500 – 1,600 tonnes (1,653 -
1,764 tons) including the underwater weight of
the pile. The load was held constant for a period
of 30 minutes. No noticeable settlement of the
suction piles was observed.

Caisson Blocks
Prior to the installation of concrete caisson
blocks, leveling stones were needed to be
placed on top of the suction pile top slabs.
The purpose of the leveling stones is to
compensate any difference in vertical elevations
and tilts between the suction pile top slabs. A
geosynthetic mat was first placed on top of the
suction pile top slabs, which was followed by a
placement of crushed rocks. The crushed rocks
[FIG. 10] Caisson Block Installed on Top of Suction Piles
were then leveled and compacted.
The concrete caissons each have a length of Korea as part of a new 8.2 km (5.1 mile)
16 m, width of 21.4 m, and height of 18 m highway connecting Busan, the second largest
(52.5 ft x 70.2 ft x 59 ft) with an air weight of city in Korea, and Geojedo, an island that is
approximately 3,700 tonnes (4,079 tons). Fig. home to two major shipyards. The underwater
9 shows a photo of the assembly plant where tunnel will consist of 18 immersed pre-cast
concrete caissons were fabricated. One at a concrete elements with each element being
time, the caisson blocks were first moved out 180 m (590.5 ft) long. Each tunnel element will
of the assembly plant and sat on top of a semi- have eight segments that will be constructed
submersible FCL barge. The FCL barge with a separately and joined later. Each segment has a
caisson block on it was then towed to the site width of 26.4 m, length of 22.5 m, and height of
where the suction piles were already installed. 10 m (86.6 ft x 73.8 ft x 32.8 ft). A total of 144
The concrete caisson was then slowly sunk segments are therefore necessary to complete
by careful control of flooding of the interior the immersed tunnel.
hollow space until it touched and was correctly
The tunnel elements are constructed on-shore
installed on top of the leveling stones. Fig. 10
and left floated (six tunnel elements at a time)
shows a photo of the exposed part of concrete
until they are ready to be installed. Fig. 11 shows
caisson blocks above the water after they were
a photo of tunnel element being built in a dry
seated successfully. Three concrete caisson
dock and to be towed out. Therefore, temporary
blocks were tied together by a cap concrete slab
mooring of these six tunnel elements is inevitable.
so that they could act as a unit against the wind
Initially, embedded deadweight concrete
and wave loads.
anchors with its top surface being flush with the
seafloor surface were considered to provide the
necessary resistance against the mooring line
tension. However, due to environmental concerns
associated with the potential contamination
and damage that may be caused by underwater

[FIG. 9] Caisson Block Assembly Plant

Immersed Tunnel Mooring with Suction Piles

An immersed vehicular tunnel, 3.24 km (2.01
miles) long, is currently being built in southern [FIG. 11] Tunnel Element Construction

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009 [9]

 excavation or dredging to nearby aqua farms, it conditions. The suction piles were designed to
became evident that an alternative foundation penetrate the silty clay layer completely and at
system needed to be introduced. The least 0.5 m (1.64 ft) of the sandy gravel layer.
alternative foundation
system should not
include the seafloor
soil excavation and
could be retrieved later
after the completion
of the entire tunnel
construction. Since
suction piles
could satisfy these
requirements, they
were chosen as the
foundation system
to provide necessary
resistance against the
mooring line tensions.
Fig. 12 shows how the
six tunnel elements
can be moored to 14
suction piles.

Soil Conditions
[FIG. 12] Details of Temporary Mooring of Tunnel Elements
The seafloor consists
of predominantly silty
clay extending to an average
thickness of 7 meters (23 ft).
Below the silty clay layer,
1.0 m to 1.7 m (3.3 ft to 5.6 ft)
thick sandy gravel underlain
by weathered rock exists. The
properties of silty clay include
undrained shear strength of
zero at the seafloor surface and
7.86 kPa (1.14 psi) at a depth of
7 meters (23 ft); and an effective
friction angle of 28.1 degrees.
The sandy gravel has an average [FIG. 13] Schematic of Typical Suction Pile
standard penetration value of 12.
Considering both the normal and extreme
Design of Suction Piles
loading conditions under short and long term
For a typical suction pile, it is subjected to four situations and utilizing the analytical solution
mooring lines, i.e., two transverse lines and two of the inclined loading capacity of suction
spring lines (Fig. 12). The expected loading piles, the outside diameter of the pre-cast
conditions on the suction piles were determined concrete suction piles was determined to be
based on anticipated waves and currents acting 10.5 m or 11 m (34.4 ft or 36.1 ft). The length
on the floating tunnel element at the temporary of the suction piles varied between 7.7 m and
mooring site. For normal conditions, a load 8.4 m (25.3 ft and 27.6 ft) depending on the
factor of 1.35 was used, whereas 1.0 was used site seafloor soil conditions. All together, 14
for extreme conditions. suction piles were required for the temporary
The design of suction piles adopted a minimum mooring of six tunnel elements at any given
factor of safety of 1.75 for normal loading time. Fig. 13 shows a schematic diagram of pre-
conditions and 1.2 for extreme loading cast concrete suction pile dimensions.

[10] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009

Construction and Installation of Suction Piles
Ten precast concrete suction piles were
manufactured between late 2006 and early
2007. Fig. 14 shows completed suction piles.
Interior piles have four eye hooks along its
side where mooring lines are to be connected,
whereas the exterior piles have two eye hooks.
The completed suction piles were transported
one at a time to its correct position to be
installed. During installation, the suction
pressure inside the pile was applied through
a pump attached at the top of the pile. The
magnitude of the suction pressure inside the
pile was controlled by the amount of water
flowing through the pump (supplied by a 2 m3
per minute or 528 gpm capacity water pump).
The installation details of the suction piles are
identical to those of the new breakwater system.
[FIG. 14] Precast Concrete Suction Pile
Proof Testing
After the suction piles were successfully and
completely installed, they were proof-tested to
validate the design loading capacity. A barge
located in the mid-point between two suction
piles applied a tension simultaneously to both
piles, thus eliminating the need of reaction
anchors. The tension was applied through a
mechanical winch with 122.5 kN (27.5 kips)
capacity. The applied tension to suction piles
was measured through a load cell with a capacity
of 1,960 kN (220 tons) and an error of 0.15 %.
The rate of tension application was 50 kN
(11.2 kips) per minute. As soon as the tension
reached a multiple of 25 % of the design load,
the tension was held constant for 1 minute.
With no significant movement, the load test
continued until the tension reached 100 % of
the design load. All suction piles successfully
passed the proof test.
Floating Breakwater with Embedded Suction
Anchors
A floating breakwater, 252.9 meters (830 ft)
long and 7.5 meters (24.6 ft) wide, has been
built in southern Korea as part of the Wonjeon
Harbor reconstruction plan. The floating
breakwater consists of four separate units with
each unit having a length of 60 meters (197 ft)
and spacing of 4.3 meters (14 ft) between any
two units. Fig. 15 shows a bird’s eye view of
the floating breakwater.
[FIG. 15] Floating Breakwater
The initial design of the floating breakwater
utilized seven separate units with each unit
to be connected to four mooring lines located
at corners. Each mooring line had a concrete
dead-weight anchor with a sinker attached
at the middle of the mooring line. The dead-
weight anchor was to be fully embedded
with its top flush with the seafloor surface to
provide the necessary resistance. However,
the design was later modified to utilize a
smaller number of floating units, from seven to
four, and a smaller number of higher capacity
anchors, from 28 to 10. Deeply buried ESAs
were then selected to provide the necessary
higher resistance. Fig. 16 shows a plan of
this revised design of the floating breakwater,
mooring lines, sinkers, and ESAs.
Soil Conditions
The seafloor consists of predominantly silty
clay extending to depths of 10 to 20 meters
(32.8 to 65.6 ft). Below the silty clay, a thin
gravel layer underlain by weathered rock or
soft rock exists. The properties of the silty clay
include an average saturated unit weight of
14.60 kN/m3 (93 pcf) and an average undrained
shear strength of 7.84 kPa (1.14 psi).
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009 [11]

[FIG. 16] Revised Breakwater Design with Embedded Suction Anchors (in meters)
Design of Embedded Suction Anchors
For a typical ESA, it is subjected to two mooring
line tensions. The maximum mooring line
tension was determined experimentally through
laboratory model tests based on the wave
conditions prevailing at the site.
These design conditions result in the maximum
mooring line tension of 25.5 tonnes (28.1 tons)
including the initial pre-tension. Considering
the seafloor soil properties, the following ESA
dimensions were obtained: Diameter = 1.9
meters (6.23 ft), length = 2.5 meters (8.2 ft),
thickness = 2 cm (0.79 in), flange width = 0.3
meters (1 ft), and depth of installation to ESA
top = approximately 9 meters (29.5 ft).
[FIG. 17] Suction Pile with Embedded Suction Anchor
(a) Before ESA Installation (b) After ESA Installation
[12] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009
Construction and Installation of
Embedded Suction Anchors
Ten steel ESAs were
manufactured and installed
in late 2007. Each ESA has
an eye hook along its side
where mooring lines are to be
connected. These ESAs would
be connected to the floating
breakwater units by means of
mooring lines. Nominal diameter
of 64 mm (2.5 in) stud link steel
chains with underwater weight
of 78.3 kg/m (52.6 lb/ft) was
used for the mooring line. The
installation of ESAs followed the
procedures described previously
for that of suction piles. All
ten ESAs successfully passed
the proof test. Fig. 17a shows a
photo of an ESA attached to the
tip of a suction pile right before
installation. Fig. 17b shows the
retrieved suction pile after the
ESA installation.
CONCLUSIONS
Suction piles and suction anchors have been
introduced in recent years for foundations of
various offshore structures. This paper brief
describes the mechanism, installation, and
analysis of suction piles and one of the suction
anchors, i.e., embedded suction anchors.
The suction piles and suction anchors have
advantages over conventional underwater
foundation systems due to their simplicity and
efficiency. Significant advantages of suction
piles are (1) easy installation, (2) large bearing
capacity, and (3) retrievability. The suction
piles are installed through the application of
a reduced water pressure inside the pile. A
suction pump attached at the top of the pile can
accomplish the entire pile driving operation.
Because of this efficient pile driving operation,
very large suction piles can be driven into the
soft seafloor, which may replace the use of a
large number of small piles.
Details of the design, construction, installation,
and proof tests of three recently completed
offshore structures utilizing suction piles and
suction anchors are also described.
Success of these projects as well as other
offshore projects are expected to expedite the
use of suction piles and suction anchors around
the world in the near future, since engineers
are primarily concerned about the economy
and safety of very large capacity offshore
foundation systems.
REFERENCES
1. Bang, S. and Cho, Y., 2000. Use of Suction
Piles for Mooring of Mobile Offshore Bases
– Task 3 Completion Report: Analysis and
Design Methods of Suction Piles. Report
Prepared for the Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center.
2. Bang, S., Jones, K., Kim, Y. S., and Cho, Y.,
2007. Horizontal Capacity of Embedded
Suction Anchors in Clay. 26th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Paper No. 2007-29115,
San Diego, CA, June.
3. Bang, S., Jones, K., Kim, Y. S., Kim, K. O., and
Cho, Y., 2006a. Horizontal Pullout Capacity
of Embedded Suction Anchors in Sand.
25th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Paper No.
2006-92006, Hamburg, Germany, June.
4. Bang, S., Jones, K., Kim, Y. S., Kim, K. O., and
Cho, Y., 2006b. Vertical Pullout Capacity
of Embedded Suction Anchors in Sand 16th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Paper No. 2006-JSC-166, San
Francisco, CA, May.
5. Bang, S., Jones, K., Kim, Y. S., Kim, K. O. and
Cho, Y., 2008. Vertical Pullout Capacity of
Embedded Suction Anchors in Clay. UKC
2008 Conference, Paper No. CEE-1.6, San
Diego, CA, Aug.
6. Bang, S. and Shen, C. K., 1989. Analytical
Study of Laterally Loaded Cast-In-Drilled-
Hole Piles, Transportation Research Record,
No. 1219.
7. Burgess, I. W., Hird, C. C., and Cuckson,
J., 1981. Sinking Test Anchors in Clay in
Offshore Structures: The Use Of Physical
Models in their Design. Construction Press.
8. Cottrill, A., 1992. Skirt Plate To Support
Europipe Jacket. Offshore Engineering.
9. El-Gharbawy, S. and Olsen, R., 1998.
The Pullout Capacity of Suction Caisson
Foundations for Tension Leg Platforms. 8th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Montreal, Vol. I., pp. 531-536.
10. Fuglsang, L. D. and Steensen-Bach, J. O.,
1991. Breakout Resistance of Suction Piles in
Clay, Proceedings International Conference:
Centrifuge 91, A.A. Balkema Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 153-159.
11. Hogervorst, J. R., 1980. Field Trials with
Large Diameter Suction Piles. Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper No. 3817.
12. Jones, K. D., 2006. Pull-Out Capacity
of Embedded Suction Anchors. Ph.D.
Dissertation, South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology.
13. Larsen, P., 1989. Suction Anchors as an
Anchoring System for Floating Offshore
Constructions. Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper No. 6029.
14. Morrison, M. J. and Clukey E. C., 1984.
Behavior of Suction Caissons under Static
Uplift Loading. Centrifuge94, Rotterdam.
15. Narasimha, R., Ravi, S. R., and Ganapathy,
C., 1997. Pullout Behavior of Model
Suction Anchors in Soft Marine Clays. 7th
International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Honolulu, Vol. I, pp. 740-743.
16. Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D.,
1970. Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles
in Sand. Offshore Technology Conference,
Paper No. 1204, Houston, April.
17. Senepere, D. and Auvergne, G. A., 1982.
Suction Anchor Piles – A Proven Alternative
to Driving or Drilling. Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper No. 4206.
18. Taylor, D. W., 1937. Stability of Earth Slopes.
Journal of Boston Society Of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 24, pp. 197-246.
19. Tjelta, T. I., Guttonmsen, T. R., and
Hermstad. J., 1986. Large Scale Penetration
Test at a Deepwater Site. Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper No. 5103.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 3 No. 2 November 2009 [13]