Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II Gourvenec & White (eds) 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-58480-7

Set-up of suction piles in deepwater Gulf of Guinea clays

J.L. Colliat & D. Colliard
Total, Pau and Paris, France

ABSTRACT: Suction piles were installed at several deepwater oil fields operated by Total in water depth ranging from 700 m to 1300 m offshore Angola and Congo. The increase in friction resistance was tested in-situ by extraction of piles at various set-up times, ranging between 1 day and 3 years. The paper presents the installation behaviour and set-up resistance of these suction piles, with design consequences in term of average interface friction factor.

INTRODUCTION

Table 1.

Characteristics of suction piles. Site A FPSO Site A RTA 1300 m 8.0 m 25 mm 19.0 m 175 T 8 & 35 Site B FPSO 1300 m 4.9 m 25 mm 20.5 m 105 T 1260 Site C FPU 700 m 3.8 m 20 mm 17.0 m 53 T 7

Since 2001, suction piles have been used extensively in the Gulf of Guinea, notably at several deepwater oil fields operated byTotal offshoreAngola and Congo.At these sites, suction piles were installed for the moorings of two large FPSOs and off-loading buoys, one FPU, four riser towers, and a number of manifolds. With several more applications to come, the lessons learned may have some implications for future design studies. In particular, when considering the minimum consolidation time required between installation and hook-up or loading of suction piles with significant pull-out loading component (for TLM moorings, or for riser tower anchors under constant tension, for example), the pile shaft friction resistance and its increase with time are key design issues. The topic of the paper is the increase in pile friction resistance with time (set-up due to thixotropy and/or consolidation after installation) in soft deepwater West Africa clays, as determined from field extraction testing of suction piles at various set-up times ranging from one day to 3 years. The database presented in the paper is for extraction of six suction piles installed at three different sites in water depth ranging from 700 m to 1300 m offshore Angola and Congo, for the moorings of one FPU and two FPSO vessels, and for a large RTA pile. The data were available from retrieval of suction piles related to operational constraints, and the estimate of the setup effect is a direct by-product. However, some of the installation or retrieval data might be incomplete and therefore involve an inevitable uncertainty.

Water depth Dimensions diameter thickness Penetration Subm. weight Set-up (days)

1300 m 4.5 m 20 mm 16.5 m 55 T 1&2

Increased to 4050 mm in the mooring padeye area for the FPSO and FPU piles.

from 3.8 m to 8.0 m in diameter and up to 20.5 m of penetration (Table 1). The piles were installed by a combination of self-weight and suction penetration. The self-weight penetration ranged between 50% and 67% of the final embedment, as is typically the case for suction piles in soft deepwater clays (Andersen et al. 2005, Colliat 2006). 2.1 Soil conditions The soil conditions at the three sites are relatively uniform and composed of high plasticity clays (plasticity index IP equal to or over 100%), with a low submerged unit weight ( ranging between 3 and 5 kN/m3 ), typical of deepwater West Africa clays (Puech et al. 2005, Colliat et al. 2010). The undrained shear strength increases linearly with depth, with an apparent over-consolidation ratio equal to 1.5 down to about 15 m, which is attributed to ageing and possibly chemical bonding without any pre-consolidation stress from past overburden pressure. The clay sensitivity (i.e. the ratio of the intact to remoulded undrained shear strength obtained from laboratory tests) ranges between 2.5 and 4. For sites A and B, the former is considered as a lower bound value since the observed self-weight penetrations (generally larger than the

SOIL CONDITIONS AND INSTALLATION BEHAVIOUR

The clays present similar general characteristics at the three sites under consideration, and the applications presented in the paper cover a range of pile sizes,

723

Figure 2. Site C CPT cone resistance profiles. Figure 1. Site B CPT cone resistance profiles. Table 2. Design undrained shear strength profiles (su,DSS ). Holding capacity analysis Site A Site B Site C su = 6 kPa [03 m] su = 6 + 1.26(z-3) su = 4 kPa [02.5 m] su = 4 + 1.31(z-2.5) su = 1.6 + 1.05z Penetration/Retrieval analyses su = 8.5 kPa [03 m] su = 8.5 + 1.4(z-3) su = 4.6 kPa [02.5 m] su = 4.6 + 1.51(z-2.5) su = 3.2 + 1.27z

calculated ones) suggest a higher sensitivity of about 4 to 5. Typical CPT cone resistance profiles from Site B are given in Figure 1 (also representative of Site A), where the gradient of net cone resistance (i.e. the cone resistance corrected for hydrostatic water pressure effect, qnet ) is equal to about 21 kPa/m. At both Sites A and B, a 1 m thick stiffer seafloor formation is present, with a shear strength ranging between 7 and 15 kPa. The CPT cone resistance profiles from Site C are given in Figure 2, showing a slightly larger qnet gradient of about 23 kPa/m at this shallower depth site. The design undrained shear strength profiles are summarized in Table 2. These profiles are based on the direct simple shear strength su,DSS with reference to a reasonably conservative characteristic strength for the holding capacity analysis, and to an upper bound profile for the penetration and retrieval analyses. Note that, despite slightly higher measured CPT cone resistances, the design strength profile for Site C (about 22 kPa at 20 m depth) falls below those of Sites A and B (2627 kPa at 20 m depth), which is related to a more conservative choice by the designer. 2.2 Installation behaviour

penetration curves. At final penetration depth, the installation suction is in the range 7096 kPa and 102135 kPa for Site A and Site B, respectively. The variation of about 20% in suction (corresponding in first approximation to the as-built penetration resistance) is similar to the scatter in measured CPT cone resistance (see Figure 1). With the Site A piles having a smaller diameter and half the weight of the Site B piles, a higher suction would have been predicted for these piles, when similar suction values are obtained between 14 m and 16.5 m depth at both sites. This lower than expected installation resistance at Site A is explained by two characteristics of the suction piles, i.e.: Site A piles have two 400mm wide ring stiffeners in the mooring padeye area (at 4.5 m above pile tip), which is known to reduce the inside friction

The installation behaviour of Sites A and B FPSO piles is shown in Figure 3, giving the suction versus

724

Figure 3. Installation results for Site A and Site B FPSO piles.

Figure 4. Installation results for Site C FPU piles.

(Erbrich & Hefer 2002, Dendani 2003, Andersen et al. 2005); Initially painted and then sand-blasted, but with about 20% of their external wall remaining painted, a reduced outside friction is obtained at the soil-pile interface (see details in Colliat et al. 2007). The installation results for the Site C FPU piles are given in Figure 4. At this site, the scatter in suction response is significantly larger than the variation in CPTU cone resistance (see Figure 2), which is not fully understood to date. When excluding the two extreme values, the final installation suction ranges between 120 and 175 kPa. Compared to Sites A and B, the larger installation suction measured for the Site C piles is related to: (a) the combination of a slightly stiffer clay and smaller pile diameter, and (b) friction acting on a significantly larger surface, with Site C piles including a vertical 15 mm thick web plate over the whole pile length, giving an increase of 64% in inside friction area. The installation results for the three Site A riser tower anchors are described in detail in Colliat et al. (2007) and are not repeated here. It is only recalled that a very low penetration resistance was observed, which was explained by the following two main causes: (a) a dramatic decrease of the outside soil-steel interface friction because the RTA external surface was fully painted (contractors choice for protection against corrosion), and (b) an increased remoulding effect and reduction of the inside friction by 265 mm large ring stiffeners (last one 2 m above pile tip) down-dragging a mixture of seafloor soil and water.

Moreover, the installation of Site A RTA that has been field tested was a bit hectic and deserves some additional explanations. Landed on the seafloor too quickly, the RTA initially self-penetrated to 15.5 m depth with a tilt of about 11 . After partial retrieval and re-penetration, the tilt was reduced to 4 (i.e. below the installation tolerance of +/5 ), and the pile reached its final depth with a suction of 20 kPa. In addition to the paint effect, it is believed that this extremely low suction is also related to the rough selfpenetration phase, with a gap that opened along the pile side to an unknown depth. A second RTA, more properly installed close to the previous one, obtained a similar self-weight penetration (14.5 m), but with a significantly higher suction of 30 kPa at final depth, which is probably more representative of the actual soil-pile interface friction, and therefore is used in the analysis below. 3 3.1 RETRIEVAL AND SET-UP DATABASE Set-up database

The set-up database is summarized in Table 3. All retrieval cases were performed by over-pressurizing after the piles had reached their final penetration depth (i.e. short duration stoppages at intermediate depths of penetration are not considered here). The increase in friction resistance was field tested over various setup times, i.e.: (a) one to seven days, for suction piles that were re-located after being installed out of tolerances at Sites A and C, (b) eight days and about one month, for the field testing of a RTA pile at Site A, and

725

Table 3.

Set-up database. Set-up time (days) Final inst. & Initial retr. pressure 92 kPa +180 kPa 87 kPa +165 kPa 160 kPa +400 kPa 30 kPa +95 kPa +110 kPa 115 kPa +347 kPa Initial retr./ Final inst. resistance 1.42 1.36 1.93 1.47 1.70 2.03 factor

Site A FPSO Site A FPSO Site C FPU Site A RTA Site B FPSO

0 1 0 2 0 7 0 8 35 0 1260

0.25 0.43 0.23 0.38 0.36 0.56 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.33 0.55

Negative value corresponds to installation suction.

3 years, for the replacement of a FPSO anchor and mooring line at Site B. Figure 5 shows the results of the installation and retrieval of the two Site A FPSO piles that were retrieved one and two days after installation. The ratio of retrieval to installation resistance is obtained by dividing the retrieval resistance (equal to the initial retrieval pressure acting over the internal pile area, counteracting soil resistance and pile weight minus any pull-out crane load) by the installation resistance (equal to the sum of the pile submerged weight and the final installation suction acting on the internal cross section). With the pile submerged weight not always known accurately, due to some added weight from the rigging and the length of ground chain hanging on the pile side, the largest uncertainty in the database lies with the installation suction or retrieval pressure when the measurement is not done directly inside the pile and not corrected for venturi effects and hydraulic losses in the pumping system. The results given in Table 3 suggest a rapid increase in resistance, from 3545% in one week to 70% in one month (with the exception of the Site C pile showing 93% of increase in one week), but very little gain between one month and 3 years. A larger database is obviously needed, but it is worth mentioning that this result is in relatively good agreement with: (a) the results of thixotropy tests in high plasticity clays published by Andersen & Jostad (2002), Dendani (2003) or Colliat et al. (2010), and (b) similar data obtained at deepwater Gulf of Mexico sites, with Jeanjean (2006) obtaining similar results, and Dupal et al. (2000) mentioning a pump-out pressure equal to 2.5 times the pump-in suction for piles which were in place over six months. 3.2 Calculated average interface friction factor

Figure 5. Installation and retrieval of two Site A FPSO piles.

Similar friction resistance along both internal and external pile surfaces (which may be questionable for Site A FPSO and RTA piles with internal ring stiffeners). An average interface friction factor is then obtained from the following equation:

The following major assumptions were made for calculating the average interface friction factor : Same friction resistance for self-weight penetration and suction assistance zones, and friction adhesion constant with depth (i.e. no degradation effect)

where Q = installation resistance (or retrieval resistance when the pile weight is subtracted); Aside = total pile shaft area (inside + outside); Atip = total pile tip area (tip + stiffeners); = average interface friction factor; z = penetration depth; su = characteristic undrained shear strength; pz = effective vertical stress; and Nc = end bearing capacity factor (7.5). When excluding the lowest values obtained logically for the fully painted Site A RTA pile, Table 3 suggests that the average interface friction factor is in the range 0.250.35 at time of installation, and increases to 0.400.55 in the longer term. The latter value is greater than the design average friction factor for the Site B FPSO piles. A cautious design method was applied for these piles, by considering an outer friction factor equal to 0.65 (from Andersen & Jostad, 2002), but an interface friction factor of 0.45 below the padeye stiffeners along the internal pile wall and no soil friction above the padeye inside the pile (based on the possibility of having internal ring stiffeners, which was actually not the case).

726

CONCLUSION

Although based on a too scarce database to draw firm conclusions, the set-up behaviour of suction piles in highly plastic Gulf of Guinea deepwater clays appears to be relatively similar to that of suction piles from Gulf of Mexico sites. In both cases, the increase in friction with time is rapid in the short term, i.e. 100% of increase in about one month, as compared to two months (proposed by Andersen & Jostad 2002) or about three months generally considered as a conservative design assumption. This rapid set-up effect is in good agreement with the results of thixotropy tests carried out on Gulf of Guinea deepwater clays (Colliat et al. 2010). However, the lack of significant increase in long term friction resistance is a design issue that would require further verification by the performance of specific field tests, possibly allowing separate measurement of inside and outside friction. The safety margin for the piles presented is not adversely affected since a cautious design method was applied, i.e. (a) in friction resistance, by using reduced internal friction adhesion based on the possibility of using ring stiffeners (Site B), and (b) in bearing capacity, either by not considering reverse end bearing (Sites A and C) or by limiting it to about 30% (Site B), as was required by the certifying authority (Colliat et al. 2007). 5 ABBREVIATIONS CPT DSS FPSO FPU TLM REB RTA Cone Penetration Test Direct Simple Shear Floating Production Storage and Off-loading Floating Production Unit Taut Leg Mooring Reverse End Bearing Riser Tower Anchor

the design studies made by NGI and Fugro France, and of the installation and retrieval operations performed by the respective crews of Acergy Polaris, Saipem FDS, Technip Constructor and Solstad Normand Progress (sub-contracted by Doris Engineering). REFERENCES
Andersen, K.H. & Jostad, H.P. 2002. Shear strength along outside wall of suction anchors in clay after installation. Proc. Int. Seminar on Offshore and Polar Engineering, ISOPE, Kyushu. Andersen, K.H., Murff, J.D., Randolph, M.F., Clukey, E.C., Erbrich, C., Jostad, H.P., Hansen, B., Aubeny, C., Sharma, P. & Supachawarote, C. 2005. Suction anchors for deepwater applications. Proc. 1st Intern. Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG, Perth. Colliat, J.L. 2006. Evaluation of suction piles and plate anchors from current deepwater mooring applications. Proc. Int. Seminar on Offshore and Polar Engineering, ISOPE, San Francisco. Colliat, J.L., Dendani, H., Puech, A. & Nauroy, J.F. 2010. Gulf of Guinea deepwater sediments: geotechnical properties, design issues and installation experiences. Proc. 2nd Intern. Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG, Perth. Colliat, J.L., Dendani, H. & Schroeder, K. 2007. Installation of suction piles at deepwater sites in Angola. Proc. Int. Conference on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, SUT OSIG, London. Dendani, H. 2003. Suction anchors: some critical aspects for their design and installation in clayey soils. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC paper 15376, Houston. Dupal, K., Von Eberstein, B., Loeb, D., Xu, H., Grant, J. & Bergeron, B. 2000. Shells experience with deepwater mooring systems for MODU. Proc. Int. Conference on Deep Offshore Technology, DOT, New Orleans. Erbrich, C. & Hefer, P. 2002. Installation of the Laminaria suction piles A case history. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC paper 14240, Houston. Jeanjean, P. 2006. Set-up characteristics of suction anchors for soft Gulf of Mexico clays: experience from field installation and retrieval. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC paper 18005, Houston. Puech, A., Colliat, J.L., Nauroy, J.F. & Meunier, J. 2005. Some geotechnical specificities of Gulf of Guinea deepwater sediments. Proc. 1st Intern. Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG, Perth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Total EP for the permission to publish this paper. Special acknowledgement is made of

727