FEM Modelling of the Torpedo Anchor

Penetration in the Seabed

Pedro Henrique Epichin Cheroto

www.esss.com.br

Topics

PAGE 2

General Idea
Motivation

Overview
Geometry
Material
Meshing
Solution

Results
Final Remarks
www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor General Idea

PAGE 3

What is a Torpedo Anchor?

What is its use?

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Motivation

PAGE 4

Torpedo Anchor modelling in Ansys

Goal: correctly predict the anchor pull-out capacity
The soil displacement during the
penetration causes an increased stress
and pore pressure on the regions near
the anchor, resulting in a reduced pullout resistance. Subsequent soil
reconsolidation will provide a recovery
of the pull-out capacity.

Today we focuse on the

stationary solution, were the
pore pressure field is
consolidated. Pore pressure
relaxed to stationary condition
result in larges effective stress
in the soil and the largest pull
out capacity.

The pullout resistance is mostly

caused by the shear strength in the
soil-anchor interface which is greatly
affected by the reconsolidation time
after the installation.

We do not model the

interface capacity. The
anchor pull-out capacity
is limited by the soil
material limits.

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Overview

PAGE 5

Analysis Overview
Model Based on paper from Sturm H. and Andresen L (2010)
Automated model in Ansys APDL to generate the geometry, mesh,
contacts, loads and solution config.
Model with ineherent Ansys material models for soil - drucker
prager.

Model with multiPlas materials for soil

Tresca

Mohr Coulomb

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Geometry

PAGE 6

Geometry
Axissimetric Model
Small gap between axissimetric axis and geometry, to prevent
mesh distortion problems, based on assumption of Cudmani and
Sturm (2006)

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Material

PAGE 7

Material
The material model used for the soil in this case is Tresca, from the
multiPlas material library
A region with reduced stiffness was created to simulate an infinite
domain, based on a proposal from Burd and Houslby (1990)
The torpedo anchor was modelled with as a rigid line

Region with reduced

stiffness.

Torpedo
anchor
modelled as
rigid line.

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Meshing

PAGE 8

Meshing
Initially mapped mesh, with rezoning after initial penetration

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Solution

PAGE 9

Solution
Quasistatic solution, with many substeps for stability and accuracy
Rezoning to solve convergence issues
Large strains create large mesh distortions

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Results

PAGE 10

Results
With mises and tresca failure: Radial stress results comparison.
Similar contours.

Radial Stress contours in

Abaqus model

Radial Stress Contours in Ansys

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Results

PAGE 11

Results
With mises and tresca failure: Normalised Stress Components.
Very similar results, with small differences near the torpedo anchor
interface with the soil.

Normalised Stress Components Abaqus

Normalised Stress Components - Ansys

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Results

PAGE 12

Results
With mises and tresca failure: Residual stresses and Strains.
Same behavior on both models, the stresses on the near wall region
after the installation of the anchor are higher on Ansys models

Strain at midheight of the anchor and Radial above the

anchor, after installation - Abaqus

Strain at midheight of the anchor and Radial above the

anchor, after installation - Ansys

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Results

PAGE 13

Results
With mises and tresca failure: Normalized stress results over time
at depth 5.8m, 0.3 meters away from the anchor
Again, very similar results, with slightly different values after the anchor
insertion.

Normalized stresses during penetration Abaqus

Normalized stresses during penetration - Ansys

www.esss.com.br

Torpedo Anchor Results

PAGE 14

Additional remarks
Although the mohr-coulomb and drucker prager material models
can be used to model more realistic materials, on this particular
case, experimental data would be required to define the material
parameters.
The normalized results of ansys and abaqus are almost the same,

but the paper used does not give the exact material parameters, so
the actual results will differ.
The results from simulations using Tresca and Mises failure were
almost the same. For that reason, the images in this report are
from only one of the simulations the one using tresca failure
criteria.

www.esss.com.br

References

PAGE 15

Cudmani, R. and H. Sturm (2006).An investigation of the tip

resistance in granular and soft soils during static, alternating
and dynamic penetration. In H. Gonin, A. Holeyman, and F.
Rocher-Lacoste (Eds.), TransVib 2006: International
Symposium on vibratory pile driving and deep soil compaction,
pp. 221231.
Burd, H. and G. Houlsby (1990). Finite Element Analysis of two
Cylindrical Expansion Problems involving nearly Incompressible
Material Behaviour. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 14(5), 351366.
Sturm, H. and Andresen, L. (2010). Large deformation analysis
of the installation of Dynamic Anchor. Numerical Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering Benz & Nordal (eds) 2010 Taylor &
Francis Group

www.esss.com.br