Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J.

, “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

AN OVERVIEW OF DRAG EMBEDDED ANCHOR HOLDING CAPACITY FOR DREDGING AND

OFFSHORE APPLICATIONS.

S.A. Miedema1, G.H.G. Lagers2, J. Kerkvliet3

ABSTRACT

Dredging and mining is shifting to deeper waters. For dredging with TSHD’s the limit is around 150 m of water
depth, but for mining the water depth can be hundreds or even thousands of meters. New technologies have to be
developed or copied and adapted from the offshore industry. At the Delft University, Offshore Engineering, students
carry out research into many subjects related to moorings and mooring systems, like:
1. The holding capacity of drag anchors in sand.
2. The holding capacity of drag anchors in clay.
3. The holding capacity and operations of suction anchors.
4. The use of the catenary equation in moorings.
5. The methodology about choosing the right anchor for different purposes.
6. The methodology about choosing the right anchor line for different purposes and conditions.
7. The methodology about designing an anchoring system for FPSO’s.
8. The methodology about designing an anchoring system for SPAR’s.
9. The methodology about designing an anchoring system for Semi-Sub’s.
The results of the research can also be found on: http://www.offshoreengineering.org. In dredging and offshore
anchors are used for positioning, but also for operations (the cutter suction dredger). In all cases it is evitable that a
proper estimation of the holding capacity is very useful when designing the application.
The holding capacity of anchors depends on the digging depth, the soil mechanical properties end of course the
dimensions and the shape of the anchor. The digging depth also depends on the soil mechanical properties and the
shape of the anchor. Now the first question is of course how is the digging depth related to the soil mechanical
properties and the shape of the anchor and the second question is, how does this relate to the holding capacity.
By means of deriving the equilibrium equations of motion of the anchor and applying the cutting theories, the
digging behavior of anchors can be simulated. The main challenges are, how to model the shape of the anchor and
how to apply the existing cutting theories to this complex shape. This paper gives a first attempt to derive
equilibrium equations based on the cutting theory of Miedema 1987.

Keywords: Dredging, Anchors, Holding Capacity, Soil Mechanics

INTRODUCTION

This paper is the result of assignments carried out by students for the Offshore Moorings course of the MSc program
Offshore Engineering of the Delft University. In this study an analyses is made of the penetration behavior of an
anchor in sand. The following points are be taken into account.
• The geometry of the anchor and how to simplify it.
• What happens when the anchor penetrates the soil?
• Which forces will occur during penetration?
• How to solve this mathematically?

First of all, the most common anchors on the market are analyzed and a general anchor geometry will be chosen.
This chosen geometry will be simplified to a 2D geometry, which will be realistic for a first analysis. After this step
the penetration behavior of an anchor will be described in different phases, such a way that it is clear and easy to
understand. Forces on the soil layer, fluke, shank and mooring line forces will be defined and analyzed. The forces
will be described as a function of the geometries including the relevant variable angles.

1
Associate Professor, Delft University of Technology, [email protected]
2
Associate Professor, Delft University of Technology, [email protected]
3
Student in Offshore Engineering, Delft University of Technology. [email protected]

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

THE GEOMETRY OF THE ANCHOR

While searching for the best simplified anchor geometry, knowledge of the most common anchors on the market is
needed. Vrijhof Anchors 2005 gives a good overview of the most common anchors. Two types of anchors can be
considered, horizontal load anchors and vertical load anchors. The vertical load anchor can withstand both
horizontal and vertical mooring forces. The horizontal anchor or drag embedment anchor can only resist the
horizontal loads. The drag embedment anchor is mainly used for catenary moorings, where the mooring line arrives
the seabed horizontally. The vertical load anchor is used in taut leg mooring systems, where the mooring line arrives
at a certain angle the seabed. A good starting-point for this case is to analyze the horizontal load anchor, because this
anchor is often used and will form an adequate challenge. To determine a simplified geometry of this horizontal
anchor an actual figure of this anchor is needed. In the figures 1 and 2, a sketch of the selected anchor can be found.

Figure 1: Examples of anchors

Figure 2: The geometry of anchors

The actual blade (fluke) on the anchor, that will penetrate the soil is represented by the horizontal part of the above
given figure. The shank is represented by the other part of the anchor. On the end of the anchor an anchor shackle
can be found. A first simplification will be made by modeling the anchor as a 2D model. Hereby all the calculations
will be made easier, but the geometry is still to complex to determine all the forces. A second simplification can be
made by supposing the anchor as two straight lines as can be seen figure 3. This simplification is allowed, because
this is a conceptual (first) model. When all the forces and the penetration curve of this simple model are known, a
much more complicated model can be made. Figure 4 gives an overview of drag embedded anchors.

Figure 3: The definition of fluke and shank

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

For the rest of the case a few assumptions must be made. First, the type of soil will be sand, this way the cohesion
and adhesion effects can be neglected. As a next assumption it is considered that the anchor penetrates the soil at a
very low velocity. Therefore inertia and water tension can also be neglected. Several constrains were also made to
simplify the 3D force analysis into a 2D analysis. This way several shear zones can be neglected. As a final
assumption, the force acting on the point of the fluke will be neglected. This force is low considering a big anchor
and will be fully cancelled by the force perpendicular on the shank.

Figure 4: Typical drag embedded anchors (API 2005)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO EMBEDDED ANCHOR LINE

The forces on the embedded anchor line can be seen as a separate system in the anchor burial process and will be
treated first. Up until 1989 the work reported on embedded anchor chains was basically theoretical. Values of the
design parameters such as the effective chain width in sliding (Bs), the effective chain width in bearing (Bb) and the
bearing capacity factor in clay (Nc) were suggested, but little experimental proof confirmed their validity. With
respect to general practice, the effective chain widths can be expressed in terms of the nominal chain diameter (D):

B s = EWS ⋅ D (1)
B b = EWB ⋅ D (2)

Where EWS and EWB are the parameters to express the effective widths in sliding and bearing, respectively.
Vivatrat et al. (1982) developed the analytical model of a chain inside soil by assuming the chain length inside soil
as a summation of short line segments and expressing the equilibrium conditions of each segment. The effective
width parameters EWS and EWB proposed were 10 and 2.6, respectively and the use of a value for Nc between 9
and 11 was suggested.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Yen and Tofani (1984) performed laboratory measurements on sliding and bearing soil resistances on a ¾ inch
diameter stud-link chain in very soft silt. During cutting and sliding tests, the maximum soil resistances were
established to be mobilized within a small movement of chain, even less than half a link. The EWS parameter can be
determined from laboratory tests and varies between 5.7 and 8.9. The Nc factor at a particular depth was found to be
between 7.1 and 12.1, considering the EWB parameter to be 2.37.
Using the finite segment approach, Dutta (1986, 1988) derived the nodal equilibrium equations for chain segments
and proposed a simple calculation method. This study showed good agreement with the results obtained by the
analytical method used by Vivatrat et al. (1982).
Degenkamp and Dutta (1989) derived a more accurate analytical model of embedded chain under soil resistance and
a simple calculation procedure. They used a soil model to accurately predict the soil resistances to the chain inside
soil and estimated critical design parameters, such as effective widths of chain, based on laboratory tests.
Assuming: (1) Chain elements are inextensible; (2) due to the chain shift, the soil medium suffers an undrained
loading condition; (3) soil in the vicinity of the chain reaches limit state of stress and thereby develops ultimate soil
resistances; and (4) the shear strength and weight of the soil over a chain element are constant. the forces on a chain
element are as presented in figure 5.

Figure 5: Force system on an embedded anchor line

Assuming Δs is small, equilibrium in tangential direction leads to:

∂T
= −(f + w sin Φ 1 ) (3)
∂s

and by using the incremental integration approach, one can write:

T2 = T1 − Δs(f + w sin Φ 1 ) (4)

Equilibrium in normal direction ( Δs is small) leads to:

∂φ P − w cos Φ 1
=
∂s ∂T (5)
T+ Δs
∂s

or, for discrete elements, applying the incremental approach:

(p − w cos Φ 1 )Δs
Φ 2 = Φ1 + (6)
T2

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

The entire embedded chain configuration can be assumed to be a summation of the discrete chain elements. For each
element, the value of T2 and Φ 2 can be determined using the known values of T1 , Φ 1 , w , f and p . To
determine f and p , the tangential movement has been assumed to cause an uncoupled sliding resistance,
independent of the normal soil resistances. Using this assumption, the frictional resistance is written as:

f = B s αS u (7)

And the normal soil resistance is written as:

p = Bbq (8)

The value of q is evaluated using the formula given by Skempton (1951) for the ultimate net soil resistance of a
strip footing:

⎛ h ⎞
q = N c S u Where N c = 5.14⎜⎜ 1 + 0.2 ⎟ (with a maximum N c = 7.6 )
⎟ (9)
⎝ B b ⎠

From these equations, it can be seen that the accuracy of p and f are governed by the factors (EWB x N c ) and
(EWS x α ) respectively. Extensive testing led to the next values:
• For very soft (Su = 5 kPa) clay: EWB = 2.5, EWS = 8.0
• For firm (Su = 34 kPa) clay: EWB = 2.3, EWS = 7.2
Grote (1993) used the exact same approach and values obtained by Degenkamp and Dutta (1989) to determine the
force distribution and geometric profile of the embedded anchor line in his work to simulate the kinematic behavior
of work anchors.
Neubecker and Randolph (1994, 1995) derived closed form expressions for both the load development and chain
profile to avoid the numerical solution by an incremental integration technique used by Degenkamp and Dutta (1989)
and simplify the procedure. Their work corroborates the results found by Degenkamp and Dutta. For the typical case
where the chain angle at the seabed is zero, the expression becomes:

Ta θ a2
= DQ (10)
2

The expression for frictional development along the chain was derived as:

T0
= e μθa (11)
Ta

In addition they found formulations for the embedded anchor line in sand using the same approach, but changing the
bearing capacity factor. For non-cohesive soils, the bearing pressure q may be expressed in terms of a standard
bearing-capacity factor N q as:

q = N q γ 'z (12)

THE KINEMATIC BEHAVIOR OF DRAG ANCHORS IN CLAY

Grote (1993) derived a dynamic model to describe the anchor embedment. He described the forces on the anchor as
illustrated in figure 6. The forces on the anchor consist of its weight, shear and normal forces on both fluke and
shank and the tension force from the anchor line pulling the anchor. The fluke force ff is calculated with a
transformation of the cutting formula of Miedema 1987. Grote states that the force on the fluke depends on the depth

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

and velocity of the anchor and a constant, containing soil specific properties. This leads to a quantitative formula of
this force:

ff = C(depth )a ( velocity )b (13)

Figure 6: Forces on an embedded anchor

The second force on the fluke, fff , is a front force on the fluke caused by the bearing capacity of the surrounding
soil. This same force is present at the shank of the anchor and called fsf . They are both calculated with the formula
for the bearing resistance of a strip footing formulated by Terzaghi:

γB
fff = fsf = A front (cN c + N γ + γdN q ) (14)
2

For no free-draining soils as clay, it can be assumed that the internal friction angle φ = 0 and N q = 1 . The second
term is small compared to the last one, so equation 16 can be simplified to:

fff = fsf = A front (cN c + γd ) (15)

fss is a shear force on the shank. In clay ground the angle of internal friction is assumed zero while the cohesion is
not. The shear stress where failure occurs is then equal to the cohesion, which is equal to the undrained shear
strength.

fss = A shear s u (16)

And finally, ft is the force on the pad eye implied by the anchor line.

Steward (1992) published methods to describe the kinematic behavior of drag anchors in cohesive soils. These
methods were simplified by Neubecker and Randolph (1995) who formulated bearing capacity and moment
equilibrium calculations utilizing two fundamental anchor resistance parameters, f and θ w . The assumption that a
drag anchor travels parallel to its flukes is widely accepted. Therefore the authors expressed a geotechnical
resistance force Tp acting on the anchor parallel to the direction of the fluke, illustrated in figure 7, as:

Tp = fA p N c s u (17)

Since there will also be geotechnical forces normal to the fluke, the resultant resistance force Tw acting on the
anchor will make an angle θ w with the fluke.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Figure 7: anchor parameter, θ w

Therefore:

Tp
Tw = (18)
cos θ w

The pad eye force Ta can be determined as the resultant of Tw and the anchor weight Wa . As the anchor embeds,
the upper fluke surface and resultant force Ta will be at angles of β and θ a respectively to the horizontal.
Allowing for the offset angle ψ between Tw and Ta , it then follows that:

β = θ w + ψ − θa (19)

Neubecker and Randolph (1994, 1995) also developed an expression for the anchor chain tension and angle at the
anchor padeye assuming the chain angle at the seabed is zero:

Ta θ a2
= DQ (20)
2

Every anchor can be considered to have unique properties f and θ w that are independent of the anchor size or the
soil strength profile, and can be determined by experimental modeling or comparison against published field data.
The equations described above can then be implemented into an incremental simulation as follows:
1. Assume an anchor fluke orientation β and displace the padeye horizontally an increment Δx .
2. Calculate the new embedment depth D, assuming motion parallel to the previous fluke orientation.
3. Calculate the anchor resistance Ta from the anchor characteristics, anchor orientation and local soil strength.
4. Calculate the chain angle θ a using equation 20.
5. Calculate the new fluke angle β using equation 19 in order to maintain equilibrium.
6. Displace the padeye a further increment Δx and loop to step 2.
By adjusting the variables involved, the authors showed agreement with centrifuge and full-scale tests.

Thorne 1998 developed a theory from geotechnical principals, without the use of any site or anchor specific
correlations. His predictions of the anchor movement showed good agreement with nine full scale tests covering
three different sites and five anchor types. The equations used are based on the proposition that no movement will
occur until the soil forces acting parallel to the fluke are overcome. The motion of the anchor results in the soil
around the shank failing in bearing capacity on the underside and in shearing on the base and sides, exerting on the
shank the maximum force of which the soil is capable. This is also true for other elements which have to be dragged
through the soil like shackles, palms and stabilizers. These forces are calculated as:

Drag = DA i DFi S u (21)

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

where DA i and DFi are the area and drag factor for the “ith” component, acting at an angle α i to the plane of the
fluke on the anchor element (figure 8).

Figure 8: The anchor model Figure 9: The force application points

There are three drag components: base bearing and skin adhesion of the base (acting at right angles to the element),
and skin adhesion on the sides (acting parallel to the fluke). The drag factors are shape dependant and taken from
geotechnical research on soil forces on cylinders, flat plates, wedges and strip footings. All forces are assumed to act
at the centers of the respective areas and the undrained shear strength is taken as that at the centre of area. The forces
of each element can be added to give the total drag force components normal and parallel to the fluke and the
moments about the fluke centre of area:

i=n
TDFN = ∑ − DA i DFi S u sin α i (22)
i =1
i =n
TDFP TDFN = DA f DFf S u + ∑ DA i DFi S u cos α i (23)
i =1
i=n
TDFM = ∑ DA i DFi S u ( Distx i sin α i + Disty i cos α i ) (24)
i =1

Considering an anchor with its fluke at an angle θ to the horizontal, the centre of area of the fluke at a depth D
below the seabed and the anchor chain at an angle θ a to the horizontal (figure 9), the equilibrium equations are:
.
Ta cos(θ + θ a ) = TDFP − W sin θ (25)
Fn = Ta sin( θ + θ a ) − W cos θ − TDFN (26)
{ }
M = Ta S x sin(θ + θ a ) − S y cos(θ + θ a ) + TDFM − W( Yw sin θ + X w cos θ) (27)

To solve this force system with the four unknowns M , Ta , Fn , θ a , one more equation is needed. Thorne used the
closed form expression given by Neubecker and Randolph 1995 for the anchor shackle tension, Ta , and the angle of
the chain at the anchor to the horizontal, θ a :

Ta θ a2
= DQ (28)
2

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

The proposed approach for progressive penetration is based on the pressure distribution over a flat plate. An anchor
fluke is considered, B long and L wide, at some position acted upon by a normal force, Fn , and a moment, M ,
which results in the idealized contact pressure distribution abcd and stress changes as the plate is moved a distance
δ s (figure 10).

Figure 10: The pressure distribution

These stress changes can be considered as a loading on the plate consisting of an equivalent normal force and
moment acting at the centre of area.

⎧ ⎛ f δ ⎞ 2f δ (B − δ s ) ⎫
Feq = L ⎨δ s ⎜ f n + f m − m s ⎟ − m s ⎬ (29)
⎩ ⎝ B ⎠ B ⎭
⎧⎪ δ (B − δ ) ⎛ f δ ⎞ f δ 2 (B − δ s ) ⎫⎪
M eq = L ⎨ s s
⎜ fn + fm − m s ⎟ − m s ⎬ (30)
⎪⎩ 2 ⎝ B ⎠ B ⎪⎭

Now the incremental normal and angular deflections of the fluke after the movement δ s are assumed to be
proportional to Feq and M eq with proportionality constants K 1 and K 2 respectively. K 1 and K 2 are functions
of the elastic modulus of the soil, the plate size and the relative depth of the plate. If the plate moves a total distance
S
S parallel to its plane, there will be increment and the resulting total deflections of the centre of area, δ n and
δs
δ θ are:

δs → 0
S S 6M
δn = K1 Feq = K 1LSB(f n − f m ) = K 1 (Fn − ) (31)
δs B B

δs → 0
S K 2 LSB(f n + f m ) S⎛F B ⎞
δθ = K 2 M eq = = K 2 ⎜ n + 3M ⎟ (32)
δs 2 B⎝ 2 ⎠

To allow estimation of the response of a real anchor fluke, an equivalent rectangular fluke is used with the same
centre of area and absolute first moment of area. For a rectangle, the values of K 1 and K 2 are based on research
done by Lee (1962), Whitman and Rickart (1967), Butterfield and Bannerjee (1971) and Rowe and Davis (1982) on
deflection coefficients for a buried plate (figure 11):

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Figure 11: The deflection coefficients for a buried plate

⎛ 0.6B + 0.3L ⎞
K 1 = I d ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ (33)
⎝ BLE u Ec ⎠

ImId
K2 = (34)
Eu Ec B 2 L

The term I m takes account of the aspect ratio of the rectangle, I d takes account of the depth effect, E c is a
reduction factor to take account for post yield behavior and E u is the undrained elastic modulus of the soil.

The analysis of progressive movement now proceeds as follows. Assume the fluke moving a distance S , parallel to
its plane, from an old position (n-1) to a new position n and rotating an angle δ 'θ from the initial angle θ n −1 to an
angle θ n . The statics can be solved to find Fn and M for equilibrium. Now using the progressive penetration
approach as described above, it is possible to estimate the angular displacement δ θ which would occur if this
combination of Fn and M were applied to the plate. Repeating this for various angular displacements until
δ θ = δ 'θ will result in the angle θ for this step. The drag distance (horizontal movement), IDD , of the anchor from
position n-1 to n is then calculated as:

S sin θ n −1
IDD = + δ n sin θ n
⎛θ + θn ⎞ (35)
tan⎜ n −1 ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠

and the new depth for step n+1, Dn +1 , is calculated as below and the whole process is repeated.

Dn +1 = Dn − δ n cos θ n + S sin θ n (36)

A value of S = 1.0B was adopted for calculation.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Finally the American Petroleum Institute 2005 gives a graph for the holding capacity in soft clay based on the ratio
of the weight of the anchor and the holding capacity. This graph is shown in figure 12, and gives lines for different
types of anchors. Of course this graph shows a worst case scenario based on soft clay.

Figure 12: Anchor holding capacity in soft clay (API 2005)

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

THE KINEMATIC BEHAVIOR OF DRAG ANCHORS IN SAND

Compared to the behavior of an anchor in clay, the weight of the soil above the anchor plays an important role in
non cohesive soils like sand.

Le Lievre and Tabatabaee 1981 proposed a limit equilibrium method. This method has been shown to give
reasonable predictions of the ultimate holding capacity of drag anchors in sand, for a given depth of embedment.
However, several assumptions in the analytical procedure make it unsuitable for application to a drag anchor during
embedment, and hence the approach does not allow prediction of the depth to which the anchor will embed, and thus
the actual capacity. A schematic representation of the failure mode and force system adopted by Le Lievre and
Tabatabaee is shown in figure 13.

Figure 13: Soil failure mode and force system

The proposed solution procedure followed in a stepwise manner:

1. Assume a failure wedge angle, λ , of the soil.

2. For the particular failure wedge angle, λ , calculate the mobilized mass of soil, Ws .
3. For the particular failure wedge angle, λ , calculate the side friction, SF. The side friction is assumed to be
the force required to overcome the lateral earth force acting on the soil wedge area, hence:

SF = ∫ K s γz tan(φ)dA (36)
Area

4. From the force polygon of the soil wedge plus anchor (figure 13), solve for the two unknowns of chain
tension, Ta , and soil reaction, R .
5. From either of the other two force polygons of soil wedge only, solve for the values of shank force, Fs , and
fluke force, Ff .
6. Go back to step 1 and repeat with a different value of λ . Stop procedure after minimum chain tension is
calculated. This value is the best upper bound solution to the problem.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Grote (1993) defined a force model shown in figure 10. His problem approach is the same for clay as for sand
grounds only the formula’s for the ground resistances are different.

Figure 14: Forces on an embedded anchor

The fluke force ff is calculated with a quantitative formula:

ff = C(depth )a ( velocity )b (37)

The second force on the fluke, fff , is a front force on the fluke caused by the bearing capacity of the surrounding
soil. This same force is present at the shank of the anchor and called fsf . They are both calculated with the formula
for the bearing resistance of a strip footing formulated by Terzaghi:

γB
fff = fsf = A front (cN c + N γ + γdN q ) (38)
2

where N c , N γ and N q are the bearing capacity factors, c the cohesion of the soil, γ the unit weight of the soil, B
the width of the footing (here fluke and shank) and d the depth of the bottom of the footing. For free-draining soils
such as sand, the cohesion c is thought to be zero. The second term is small compared to the last one, so equation
38 can be simplified to:

fff = fsf = A front ( γdN q ) (39)

To take account for the under pressure that can occur during anchor burial, the author used a empirical equation
which is a combination of the foundation theory of Terzaghi and the cutting theory of Miedema set up by Becker et
al. 1992:

d
fff = fsf = A front N q ( γ soil + γ water Δp ) (40)
2

where Δp is the pore under pressure that follows from the cutting theory of Miedema.

fss is a shear force on the shank. In sand ground the horizontal stress is assumed to be a function of the vertical
ground force:

σ = Kγ soil d (41)

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Using this relation, the formula used for the shear force is:

fss = A shear Kγ soil d tan( φ steel − soil ) (42)

For K the value 2 was taken. This value applies for piles driven into sand that densifies at the pile tip due to the
driving vibrations. And finally, ft is the force on the pad eye implied by the anchor line.

Neubecker and Randolph 1995 based their approach on the method of LeLievre and Tabatabaee 1981. They
extended this method to incorporate:
• a more realistic 3-dimensional failure pattern in the soil,
• a force acting on the back of the fluke.
The latter modification is particularly important at shallow penetrations, when the bearing capacity of the anchor
shank is insufficient to provide equilibrium (figure 15).

Figure 15: General force model

The authors suggested that the force on the shank is dependent on its size and shape and should be calculated from a
bearing capacity viewpoint. Thus:

Fs = A s γd s N qs (43)
1
The normal self-weight term ( bγN γ ) is omitted in equation 44, because it is assumed to have a relatively small
2
contribution and even the N qs alone tends to over predict the shank resistance.

The 3-dimensional failure mode

Dickin 1988 presented an overview of some of the various methods that have been developed to evaluate the pullout
resistance of a flat plate (figure 16).

Figure 16: Slip surfaces used for flat plate pullout: (a) Majer 1955; (b) Vermeer and Sutjiadi 1985

It was considered that the simple method of Majer (1955) consistently underestimated the pullout capacity of the flat
plate, while the model of Vermeer and Sutjiadi (1985) gave predictions that compared well with observations.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Neubecker and Randolph incorporated the model of Vermeer and Sutjiadi into the drag anchor problem as illustrated
in figure 17.

Figure 17: 3-dimensional failure mode

The fluke can be thought of as being mapped onto the soil surface by the displacement vector of the soil wedge. The
failure planes are inclined at the dilatation angle, ψ , to the displacement vector so that, when they reach the soil
surface, the distance they are away from the fluke shadow is proportional to the depth of the original point. This 3-
dimensional soil failure mode is still an idealized failure mode for the soil. However it does result in a more realistic
description of the failure surface. The area, A , can be written as:

H 2 − h 2 H 2 tan λ
A= + (44)
2 tan β 2

A simplification is made in the calculation of the cross-sectional area, A , in that a vertical slip surface is assumed
behind the fluke, rather than an inclined one. This is supposed to have a minor effect on the balance of forces, as low
active pressures are involved. However, no shear force is assumed across this surface and as such the extra soil mass
included by this idealized failure mode counteracts the shear force that is neglected from the realistic failure mode.
The lateral extent of the failure wedge, X , is determined from simple geometry.

H tan ψ
X= (45)
cos(λ − ψ )

Using a pyramidical approximation for the sides of the wedge, the mobilized soil mass, Ws , is expressed as:

⎛ 2 ⎞
Ws = A⎜ γB + γX ⎟ (46)
⎝ 3 ⎠

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

The side friction, SF , that is to be used in the limit equilibrium equations is obtained from Vermeer and Sutjiadi
1985.

γL( H + h ) 2 (sin φ' − sin ψ )

SF = (47)
4 cos ψ(1 − sin φ' sin ψ )

Figure 18 and 19 show the system of forces with free body diagrams and force polygons for the soil wedge only, the
anchor only and the combined anchor-soil body.

Figure 18: Free body diagram Figure 19: Force polygons

The limit equilibrium calculation procedure is executed in the same way as that of Le Lievre and Tabatabaee 1981 in
that the chain tension is calculated for a given failure wedge angle, λ , which is than varied until the chain tension
reaches a minimum. The procedure begins however, by initially examining force equilibrium on the soil wedge only.
The soil mass, Ws , and the side friction, SF , are calculated using equations 46 and 47, respectively, for the 3-
dimensional soil wedge. The shank force, Fs , is calculated from the standard bearing capacity calculations from
equation 43. The two unknown forces on the soil wedge, which are the fluke force, Ff , and the soil reaction, R ,
can be calculated from horizontal and vertical force equilibrium requirements. The force equilibrium of the anchor
only is considered now. The fluke force, Ff , is defined from the previous equilibrium calculation, the weight of the
anchor is known and the shank force, Fs , is calculated from equation 43. Again, there are only two unknown forces
left for solution by force equilibrium, namely the force on the back of the fluke, Ffb , and the chain tension, Ta . The
failure wedge angle, λ , is then varied and the process repeated to obtain a minimum upper bound estimate of Ta .
The solution of this force system still proceeds using simple limit equilibrium methods, however, the equilibrium
solution is applied in a two step manner to arrive at a chain load and the introduction of an extra unknown and an
extra equation has resulted in a more realistic force system acting on the anchor.

Finally the American Petroleum Institute 2005 gives a graph for the holding capacity in sand based on the ratio of
the weight of the anchor and the holding capacity. This graph is shown in figure 20, and gives lines for different
types of anchors.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Figure 20: Anchor holding capacity in sand (API 2005)

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Miedema et al 2006 derived a model based on 4 different penetration phases. The model is described below.

PENETRATION PHASES

Phase 1: No penetration

In this first situation the anchor lies on the bed of soil and the fluke/shank angle will be considered as a minimum.
When pulling on the mooring line the anchor will scratch over the seabed, see figure 21. A bed of soil will be
formed in front of the fluke and will give some resistance. Because of this resistance, an angle κ will reach its
maximum at a certain point. At that certain point, the bed of soil in front of the fluke will give his highest resistance
and it will become easier to penetrate than scratching over the seabed. When the assumption of a perfect sharp fluke
point is made, the point load can be neglected.

Figure 21: The anchor on top of the soil in phase 1

Phase 2: Penetration causes fluke forces

When the fluke starts to penetrate (figures 22 and 23), the cutting theory of Miedema 1987, can be used. Forces that
will play a role in the force balance are the fluke forces. When the angles on the fluke are considered, a few
assumption can be made. First of all the fluke/shank angle κ will be constant and will have its maximum value. The
internal friction and the external friction angles are also constant. These parameters are only depending on the
material of the anchor and soil mechanical properties.

Figure 22: The fluke penetrating the soil in phase 2

Fluke

Shear zone in the soil

L x

Figure 23: The fluke in the soil

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

G +
N2 S2
S1
δ φ N1
K2 K1
α β

Figure 24: The forces on the soil layer

As discussed before the cohesion, adhesion, inertial forces and water tension can be neglected. According to figures
24 and 28, a force balance can be calculated.

The shear force and the normal force are related according:

S1 = N1 tan ϕ (48)
S2 = N 2 tan δ (49)

The grain forces will be:

K1 = (S 1
2
+ N12 ) (50)

K2 = (S 2
2
+ N22 ) (51)

The weight of the soil can be given as a force according:

⎛ x 2 sin 2 α x 2 sin 2 α ⎞
G=⎜ + ⎟ ⋅γ (52)
⎝ 2 tan α 2 tan β ⎠

Horizontal equilibrium of forces:

K1 ⋅ sin ( β + ϕ ) − K 2 ⋅ sin (α + δ ) = 0 (53)

Vertical equilibrium of forces:

− K1 ⋅ cos ( β + ϕ ) + G − K 2 ⋅ cos (α + δ ) = 0 (54)

Fluke K2 +
δ
S2 N2

α
Fp

Figure 25: The forces on the fluke

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

The force K2 on the fluke is important to determine the horizontal and vertical acting forces on the fluke (fig.25).

G ⋅ sin ( β + ϕ )
K2 = (55)
sin (α + β + ϕ + δ )

The following forces are acting on the fluke blade:

• The Horizontal Force
Fh = K 2 ⋅ sin (α + δ ) (56)
• The Vertical Force
Fv = K 2 ⋅ cos (α + δ ) (57)

The force Fp can be neglected as discussed before.

Phase 3: Penetration causes fluke and shank forces

In this situation the fluke is completely covered by sand and the shank will become an extra factor which will cause
penetration resistance, see figures 26 and 27. For the shank the cutting theory of Miedema 1987, can’t be used. The
strip footing theory as described in Verruijt 2000, will be used for determining the shank resistance. The maximum
shank resistance acts when the complete shank is penetrated.

Figure 26: The shank penetrating the soil in phase 3

In this paragraph you will find the modeling of the forces on the fluke and the shank. The influences of the angles
will be given. The cutting theory of Miedema 1987, is still valid for the fluke part of the anchor forces. For
determining the forces on the shank, the strip footing theory, as described in Verruijt 2000, will be used. For phase
3, two shear zones are taken into account. This will lead to a geometry as shown in figure 28.

Shank
y

Fluke

L = Shear zone in the sand

Figure 27: The fluke and shank in the soil

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Figure 28: Forces on the soil layer

As discussed before; the cohesion, adhesion, inertial forces and water tension can be neglected. For the figures 28
and 30, a force balance can be calculated. The shear force and the normal force are related according:

The shear force and the normal force are related according:
S1 = N1 tan ϕ (58)
S2 = N 2 tan δ (59)

The grain forces will be:

K1 = (S 1
2
+ N12 ) (60)

K2 = (S 2
2
+ N22 ) (61)

The weight of the soil can be determined by using the geometry of figure 29, so the weight of the soil will be:
G = A ¦¦¦¦¦ ⋅ γ (62)

Figure 29: The dimensions of the soil layer

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

with:

⎛ y*sin(κ -α )+L*sin(α ) ⎞ ⎛ y 2 *sin(κ -α

A ¦¦¦¦¦ := (y*sin(κ -α )+L*sin(α ))* ⎜ L*cos(α )+ ⎟−⎜
⎝ tan(β ) ⎠ ⎝ 2*tan(β )
(63)
1 2 ⎛ ( y*sin(κ -α )+L*sin(α ) )2 ⎞
− *L *sin(α )*cos(α ) − ⎜ ⎟
2 ⎜ 2*tan(β ) ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Forces on the fluke and the shank

For the determination of the forces on the fluke and the shank, figure 30, two different theories will be used. For the
fluke the cutting theory of Miedema is valid, therefore forces on the soil layer and on the fluke are the same as
discussed in phase 2. For the forces on the shank the strip footing theory can be used. This theory is based on the
fundamentals of Brinch Hansen and is a generalization of the Prantl theory. This can be found in Verruijt 2000.

P
T

Shank +

Fluke K2
δ
S2 N2

α
Fp

Figure 30: The forces on the anchor

To determine the friction Brinch Hansen force P on the shank we can make use of:

1
P = ic sc cN c + iq sq qN q + iγ sγ γ BNγ (64)
2
Where c is cohesion and q is the external load on the soil

Because c and q are zero in this case (no cohesion and no external force on the soil), P will only be a function of the
soil weight part of the function, so:

1
P = iγ sγ γ BNγ (65)
2

i
Hereby γ is a correction factor for inclination factors of the load. The factor
sγ is a shape factor for the shape of
the load.

In this case only a load perpendicular to the soil will be considered, so

iγ will be removed from the formula.

Inserting
Nγ :

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

⎛ B⎞ ⎛ 1 + sin φ π tan φ ⎞
P = ⎜1 − 0,3 ⎟ B 2 yγ ⎜ e − 1⎟ tan φ (66)
⎝ y⎠ ⎝ 1 − sin φ ⎠
Now the friction part of the shank has to be determined.
For the friction of the shank, the next formula is valid:

Ffriction = σn tan(δ) y h (67)

It is possible now to plot the results for P and Ffriction (see figure 31) then it is possible to find out if the downward
force of the fluke is big enough to pull the shank through the seabed and further.

It is also possible now to make a total force and moment balance, to predict the trajectory of the anchor.

T
P+Fr ε

Shank

Fh Fluke

Fv

Figure 31: The forces on the anchor

Phase 4: Penetration causes fluke forces, shank forces and mooring line forces

Figure 32: The mooring line penetrating the soil in phase 4

The fluke and the shank are completely covered by sand (figures 32 and 33). When there is still no equilibrium, a
part of the mooring line will enter the soil. The mooring line penetration will lead to an extra factor which will cause
penetration resistance. The anchor becomes stable when there is a balance between the vertical and horizontal forces
on the anchor part, which is covered by sand.
In this phase you will find the modeling of the forces on the fluke, the shank and the mooring line. The cutting
theory of Miedema is still valid for the fluke part of the anchor forces. For determining the forces on the shank and
the mooring line we will use the strip footing theory as discussed in Verruijt.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Shank

Fluke

= Shear zone in the sand

L

Figure 33: Fluke, shank and mooring line in the soil

The soil layer properties can be interpreted in a same way as described in phase 3. So this way the function for G is
still valid.

M C
P

K2
δ
S2 N2

α
Fp

Figure 34: Forces on the fluke, shank and mooring line

To determine the forces on the anchor for this situation the theory as discussed in phase 3 is valid. For the mooring
line forces (figures 34 and 35) we will also use the Brinch Hansen theory as discussed in Verruijt 2000.

The penetration of the mooring line causes resistance perpendicular to this line (penetration resistance, see figure 36).
This effect is noticeable in all soil conditions. The type of mooring line will determine the value of this resistance.
Think of a wire rope mooring line which penetrates deeper (less resistance) than a chain mooring line.

During the penetration process of the anchor, the resistance increases when depth increases, which is related to the
position of the anchor.

The mooring line penetration can be described by the following geometry:

When looking at the point where the anchor becomes stable, a force and moment balance can be made out of all the
forces on the anchor and mooring line. In fact this is the moment were the anchor reaches his maximum holding
capacity.

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

Figure 35: The forces on the anchor

Figure 36: The forces on the mooring line

Vertical equilibrium of forces:

Fv − Pv − Frv − M v − Tv = 0 (68)

Horizontal equilibrium of forces:

Fh + Ph + Frh + M h − Th = 0 (69)

Moment balance to point A:

1 1 1 1
− Fv ⋅ L cos α − Fh ⋅ L sin α + ( Pv + Frv ) ⋅ y cos (κ − α ) + ( Ph + Frh ) ⋅ y sin (κ − α )
2 2 2 2 (70)
+Tv ⋅ y cos (κ − α ) + Th ⋅ sin (κ − α ) = 0

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the penetration behavior the different forces and moments in all four phases can be described with the theory dealt
with, in this document. These forces and moments are a function of the anchor geometry. The holding capacity of
the anchor is described as well as a function of the depth and the geometry. To predict the trajectory of the anchor
during the penetration, one has to find a relationship between the different forces and moments on the anchor and
the trajectory of the anchor. The anchor trajectory will stop when the different forces are in equilibrium, or when the
pull force will be too high for that particular anchor, at a certain depth. In the last case, the pull force necessary to
penetrate deeper in the soil, is higher then the maximum holding capacity of that particular anchor at a certain depth.
to that point the maximum holding capacity is reached (see figure 37). When pulling further, the anchor will be
pulled out and looses his function.

Figure 37: Holding capacity vs. anchor trajectory

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

LIST OF SYMBOLS USED

As The area of the shank m2

B Width of the shank m
Bs The effective chain width in sliding m
Bb The width of the footing, which is the chain width in bearing m
c Cohesion kPa
C Catenary force kN
d Depth of bottom footing m
D the pad eye embedment depth m
f Anchor form factor -
f soil frictional resistance per unit chain length kN/m
h Height of the shank m
h the depth of the footing. m
L Total fluke length m
M Resistance on mooring line kN/m
Nc Baring-capacity factor for clay -
Nγ Bearing cpacity factor -
Nq Bearing capacity factor -
p soil normal/bearing resistance per unit chain length kN/m
q the normal ultimate soil pressure kPa
Q the average bearing resistance of the chain in the soil kN
Su the undrained shear strength of the soil kPa
Δs chain element length m
T Anchor pull force kN
Ta the chain load at the anchor pad eye kN
T0 the chain load at the seabed kN
T1 chain tension at the top of the chain element kN
T2 chain tension at the bottom of the chain element kN
w effective chain weight in soil per unit chain length kg/m
y Length of the shank in the sand m
z Depth m
α Angle of the fluke in the sand rad
β Angle of the shear zone, inclination fluke rad
ϕ Internal friction angle of the sand rad
δ External friction angle fluke/sand rad
χ Length of the fluke in the sand m
γ Density of the in situ sand ton/m3
κ Angle between fluke and shank rad
φ Internal friction angle sand rad
μ the friction coefficient between the chain and soil
α a reduction factor (= 1 for soft clay) -
σn Normal stress on the area of the shank N/m2
Φ1 chain angle at the top of the chain element rad
Φ2 chain angle at the bottom of the chain element rad
θa the chain angle at the anchor padeye rad
λ Failure wedge angle rad

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

Miedema, S.A., Lagers, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.

REFERENCES

API (American Petroleum Insitute) 2005, “Design and analysis of stationkeeping systems for floating
structures”. Recommended practice 2SK 2005.
Degenkamp, G. and Dutta, A., 1989. “Behaviour of Embedded Mooring Chains in Clay During Chain
Tensioning.” Offshore Technology Conference, Paper 6031.
Degenkamp, G. and Dutta, A., 1989. “Soil Resistances to Embedded Anchor Chain in Soft Clay.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Vol 115, No. 10
Det Norske Veritas., 2002. “Design and Installation of Plate Anchors in Clay.” Recommended Practice DNV-
RP-302.
Dunnavant, T.W. and Kwan, C-T.T., 1993. “Centrifuge Modeling and Parametric Analysis of Drag Anchor
Behavior.” Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC 7202.
Grote, B.J.H., 1993. “Simulation of Kinematic Behavior of Workanchors.” Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Offshore Engineering Major, Report nr: 92.3.GV.3034, 93.3.GV.4074 and 93.3.GV.4167, Delft
University of Technology.
House, A., 1998. “Drag Anchor and Chain Performance in Stratified Soils.” Geomechanics Group, Report 1319,
The University of Western Australia.
Lammes, R.R. and Siemers, R.W., 1988. “Soil Mechanics of Drag Embedment Anchor in Sand.” Faculty of
Civil Engineering, Offshore Engineering Major, Delft University of Technology.
Lin, K. and Randolph, M.F., 1998. “Numerical Analysis of Stresses and Displacements in Layered Soil
Systems.” Geomechanics Group, Report G1334, The University of Western Australia.
Miedema, S.A., 1987, "Calculation of the Cutting Forces when Cutting Water Saturated Sand". Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, September 15th 1987.
Miedema, S.A. , Kerkvliet, J., Strijbis, D., Jonkman, B., Hatert, M. v/d, 2006, "THE DIGGING AND
HOLDING CAPACITY OF ANCHORS". WEDA XXVI AND TAMU 38, San Diego, California, June
25-28.
Mierlo, R. v., 2005. “Anchor Trajectory Modeling.” Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Offshore Engineering
Major, Delft University of Technology.
Murff, J.D., Randolph, M.F. & Elkhatib, S., Kolk, H.J., Ruinen, R.M., Strom, P.J. and Thorne, C.P., 2005.
“Vertically Loaded Plate Anchors for Deepwater Applications.” Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics
ISFOG.
Ruinen, R.M., 2005. “Influence of Anchor Geometry and Soil Properties on Numerical Modeling of Drag
Anchor Behavior in Soft Clay.” Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics ISFOG.
Neubecker, S.R. and Randolph, M.F., 1996. “The Static Equilibrium of Drag Anchors in Sand.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 33: 574-583
Neubecker, S.R. and Randolph, M.F., 1996. “The Kinematic Behavior of Drag Anchors in Sand.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 33: 584-594
Neubecker, S.R. and Randolph, M.F., 1995. “Performance of Embedded Anchor Chains and Consequences for
Anchor Design.” Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC 7712.
Neubecker, S.R. and Randolph, M.F., 1995. “Profile and Frictional Capacity of Embedded Anchor Chains.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Vol. 121, No. 11
Neubecker, S.R. and Randolph, M.F., 1995. “The Performance of Drag Anchor and Chain Systems in Cohesive
Soil.” Geomechanics Group, Report G1168, The University of Western Australia.
Neubecker, S.R. and Randolph, M.F., 1994. “Profile and Frictional Capacity of Embedded Anchor Chains.”
Geomechanics Group, Report G1142, The University of Western Australia.
O’Neill, M.P. and Randolph, M.F., 1998. “The Behaviour of Drag Anchors in Layered Calcareous Soils.”
Geomechanics Group, Report G1329, The University of Western Australia.
O’Neill, M.P., Randolph, M.F. and House, A.R., 1998. “The Behaviour of Drag Anchors in Layered Soils.”
Geomechanics Group, Report G1346, The University of Western Australia.
Stewart, W.P., 1992. “Drag Embedment Anchor Performance Prediction in Soft Soils.” Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper OTC 6970.
Thorne, C.P., 1998. “Penetration and Load Capacity of Marine Drag Anchors in Soft Clay.”
Verruijt, A., “Soil Mechanics”. Lecture Notes, Delft University of Technology, 2000.
Vrijhof Anchors, 2005, “Anchor manual 2005”

Copyright: Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Bibliography Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema 1980-2010
1. Koert, P. & Miedema, S.A., "Report on the field excursion to the USA April 1981"
(PDF in Dutch 27.2 MB). Delft University of Technology, 1981, 48 pages.
2. Miedema, S.A., "The flow of dredged slurry in and out hoppers and the settlement
process in hoppers" (PDF in Dutch 37 MB). ScO/81/105, Delft University of
Technology, 1981, 147 pages.
3. Miedema, S.A., "The soil reaction forces on a crown cutterhead on a swell
compensated ladder" (PDF in Dutch 19 MB). LaO/81/97, Delft University of
Technology, 1981, 36 pages.
4. Miedema, S.A., "Computer program for the determination of the reaction forces on a
cutterhead, resulting from the motions of the cutterhead" (PDF in Dutch 11 MB).
Delft Hydraulics, 1981, 82 pages.
5. Miedema, S.A. "The mathematical modeling of the soil reaction forces on a
cutterhead and the development of the computer program DREDMO" (PDF in Dutch
25 MB). CO/82/125, Delft University of Technology, 1982, with appendices 600
pages.
6. Miedema, S.A.,"The Interaction between Cutterhead and Soil at Sea" (In Dutch).
Proc. Dredging Day November 19th, Delft University of Technology 1982.
7. Miedema, S.A., "A comparison of an underwater centrifugal pump and an ejector
pump" (PDF in Dutch 3.2 MB). Delft University of Technology, 1982, 18 pages.
8. Miedema, S.A., "Computer simulation of Dredging Vessels" (In Dutch). De
Ingenieur, Dec. 1983. (Kivi/Misset).
9. Koning, J. de, Miedema, S.A., & Zwartbol, A., "Soil/Cutterhead Interaction under
Wave Conditions (Adobe Acrobat PDF-File 1 MB)". Proc. WODCON X, Singapore
1983.
10. Miedema, S.A. "Basic design of a swell compensated cutter suction dredge with axial
and radial compensation on the cutterhead" (PDF in Dutch 20 MB). CO/82/134, Delft
University of Technology, 1983, 64 pages.
11. Miedema, S.A., "Design of a seagoing cutter suction dredge with a swell compensated
ladder" (PDF in Dutch 27 MB). IO/83/107, Delft University of Technology, 1983, 51
pages.
12. Miedema, S.A., "Mathematical Modeling of a Seagoing Cutter Suction Dredge" (In
Dutch). Published: The Hague, 18-9-1984, KIVI Lectures, Section Under Water
Technology.
13. Miedema, S.A., "The Cutting of Densely Compacted Sand under Water (Adobe
Acrobat PDF-File 575 kB)". Terra et Aqua No. 28, October 1984 pp. 4-10.
14. Miedema, S.A., "Longitudinal and Transverse Swell Compensation of a Cutter
Suction Dredge" (In Dutch). Proc. Dredging Day November 9th 1984, Delft
University of Technology 1984.
15. Miedema, S.A., "Compensation of Velocity Variations". Patent application no.
8403418, Hydromeer B.V. Oosterhout, 1984.
16. Miedema, S.A., "Mathematical Modeling of the Cutting of Densely Compacted Sand
Under Water". Dredging & Port Construction, July 1985, pp. 22-26.
17. Miedema, S.A., "Derivation of the Differential Equation for Sand Pore Pressures".
Dredging & Port Construction, September 1985, pp. 35.
18. Miedema, S.A., "The Application of a Cutting Theory on a Dredging Wheel (Adobe
Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 745 kB)". Proc. WODCON XI, Brighton 1986.
19. Miedema, S.A., "Underwater Soil Cutting: a Study in Continuity". Dredging & Port
Construction, June 1986, pp. 47-53.
20. Miedema, S.A., "The cutting of water saturated sand, laboratory research" (In Dutch).
Delft University of Technology, 1986, 17 pages.
21. Miedema, S.A., "The forces on a trenching wheel, a feasibility study" (In Dutch).
Delft, 1986, 57 pages + software.
22. Miedema, S.A., "The translation and restructuring of the computer program
DREDMO from ALGOL to FORTRAN" (In Dutch). Delft Hydraulics, 1986, 150
pages + software.
23. Miedema, S.A., "Calculation of the Cutting Forces when Cutting Water Saturated
Sand (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 16 MB)". Basic Theory and Applications for 3-D
Blade Movements and Periodically Varying Velocities for, in Dredging Commonly
used Excavating Means. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, September
15th 1987.
24. Bakker, A. & Miedema, S.A., "The Specific Energy of the Dredging Process of a
Grab Dredge". Delft University of Technology, 1988, 30 pages.
25. Miedema, S.A., "On the Cutting Forces in Saturated Sand of a Seagoing Cutter
Suction Dredge (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 1.5 MB)". Proc. WODCON XII,
Orlando, Florida, USA, April 1989. This paper was given the IADC Award for the
best technical paper on the subject of dredging in 1989.
26. Miedema, S.A., "The development of equipment for the determination of the wear on
pick-points" (In Dutch). Delft University of Technology, 1990, 30 pages
(90.3.GV.2749, BAGT 462).
27. Miedema, S.A., "Excavating Bulk Materials" (In Dutch). Syllabus PATO course,
1989 & 1991, PATO The Hague, The Netherlands.
28. Miedema, S.A., "On the Cutting Forces in Saturated Sand of a Seagoing Cutter
Suction Dredge (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 1.5 MB)". Terra et Aqua No. 41,
December 1989, Elseviers Scientific Publishers.
29. Miedema, S.A., "New Developments of Cutting Theories with respect to Dredging,
the Cutting of Clay (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 640 kB)". Proc. WODCON XIII,
Bombay, India, 1992.
30. Davids, S.W. & Koning, J. de & Miedema, S.A. & Rosenbrand, W.F.,
"Encapsulation: A New Method for the Disposal of Contaminated Sediment, a
Feasibility Study (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 3MB)". Proc. WODCON XIII,
Bombay, India, 1992.
31. Miedema, S.A. & Journee, J.M.J. & Schuurmans, S., "On the Motions of a Seagoing
Cutter Dredge, a Study in Continuity (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 396 kB)". Proc.
WODCON XIII, Bombay, India, 1992.
32. Becker, S. & Miedema, S.A. & Jong, P.S. de & Wittekoek, S., "On the Closing
Process of Clamshell Dredges in Water Saturated Sand (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File
1 MB)". Proc. WODCON XIII, Bombay, India, 1992. This paper was given the IADC
Award for the best technical paper on the subject of dredging in 1992.
33. Becker, S. & Miedema, S.A. & Jong, P.S. de & Wittekoek, S., "The Closing Process
of Clamshell Dredges in Water Saturated Sand (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 1 MB)".
Terra et Aqua No. 49, September 1992, IADC, The Hague.
34. Miedema, S.A., "Modeling and Simulation of Dredging Processes and Systems".
Symposium "Zicht op Baggerprocessen", Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands, 29 October 1992.
35. Miedema, S.A., "Dredmo User Interface, Operators Manual". Report: 92.3.GV.2995.
Delft University of Technology, 1992, 77 pages.
36. Miedema, S.A., "Inleiding Mechatronica, college WBM202" Delft University of
Technology, 1992.
37. Miedema, S.A. & Becker, S., "The Use of Modeling and Simulation in the Dredging
Industry, in Particular the Closing Process of Clamshell Dredges", CEDA Dredging
Days 1993, Amsterdam, Holland, 1993.
38. Miedema, S.A., "On the Snow-Plough Effect when Cutting Water Saturated Sand
with Inclined Straight Blades (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 503 kB)". ASCE Proc.
Dredging 94, Orlando, Florida, USA, November 1994.
Additional Measurement Graphs. (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 209 kB).
39. Riet, E. van, Matousek, V. & Miedema, S.A., "A Reconstruction of and Sensitivity
Analysis on the Wilson Model for Hydraulic Particle Transport (Adobe Acrobat 4.0
PDF-File 50 kB)". Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Transport and Sedimentation of Solid
Particles, 24-26 January 1995, Prague, Czech Republic.
40. Vlasblom, W.J. & Miedema, S.A., "A Theory for Determining Sedimentation and
Overflow Losses in Hoppers (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 304 kB)". Proc.
WODCON IV, November 1995, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1995.
41. Miedema, S.A., "Production Estimation Based on Cutting Theories for Cutting Water
Saturated Sand (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 423 kB)". Proc. WODCON IV,
November 1995, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1995.
Additional Specific Energy and Production Graphs. (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 145
kB).
42. Riet, E.J. van, Matousek, V. & Miedema, S.A., "A Theoretical Description and
Numerical Sensitivity Analysis on Wilson's Model for Hydraulic Transport in
Pipelines (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 50 kB)". Journal of Hydrology &
Hydromechanics, Slovak Ac. of Science, Bratislava, June 1996.
43. Miedema, S.A. & Vlasblom, W.J., "Theory for Hopper Sedimentation (Adobe
Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 304 kB)". 29th Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar. New
Orleans, June 1996.
44. Miedema, S.A., "Modeling and Simulation of the Dynamic Behavior of a
Pump/Pipeline System (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 318 kB)". 17th Annual Meeting
& Technical Conference of the Western Dredging Association. New Orleans, June
1996.
45. Miedema, S.A., "Education of Mechanical Engineering, an Integral Vision". Faculty
O.C.P., Delft University of Technology, 1997 (in Dutch).
46. Miedema, S.A., "Educational Policy and Implementation 1998-2003 (versions 1998,
1999 and 2000) (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF_File 195 kB)". Faculty O.C.P., Delft
University of Technology, 1998, 1999 and 2000 (in Dutch).
47. Keulen, H. van & Miedema, S.A. & Werff, K. van der, "Redesigning the curriculum
of the first three years of the mechanical engineering curriculum". Proceedings of the
International Seminar on Design in Engineering Education, SEFI-Document no.21,
page 122, ISBN 2-87352-024-8, Editors: V. John & K. Lassithiotakis, Odense, 22-24
October 1998.
48. Miedema, S.A. & Klein Woud, H.K.W. & van Bemmel, N.J. & Nijveld, D., "Self
Assesment Educational Programme Mechanical Engineering (Adobe Acrobat 4.0
PDF-File 400 kB)". Faculty O.C.P., Delft University of Technology, 1999.
49. Van Dijk, J.A. & Miedema, S.A. & Bout, G., "Curriculum Development Mechanical
Engineering". MHO 5/CTU/DUT/Civil Engineering. Cantho University Vietnam,
CICAT Delft, April 1999.
50. Miedema, S.A., "Considerations in building and using dredge simulators (Adobe
Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 296 kB)". Texas A&M 31st Annual Dredging Seminar.
Louisville Kentucky, May 16-18, 1999.
51. Miedema, S.A., "Considerations on limits of dredging processes (Adobe Acrobat 4.0
PDF-File 523 kB)". 19th Annual Meeting & Technical Conference of the Western
Dredging Association. Louisville Kentucky, May 16-18, 1999.
52. Miedema, S.A. & Ruijtenbeek, M.G. v.d., "Quality management in reality",
"Kwaliteitszorg in de praktijk". AKO conference on quality management in
education. Delft University of Technology, November 3rd 1999.
53. Miedema, S.A., "Curriculum Development Mechanical Engineering (Adobe Acrobat
4.0 PDF-File 4 MB)". MHO 5-6/CTU/DUT. Cantho University Vietnam, CICAT
Delft, Mission October 1999.
54. Vlasblom, W.J., Miedema, S.A., Ni, F., "Course Development on Topic 5: Dredging
Technology, Dredging Equipment and Dredging Processes". Delft University of
Technology and CICAT, Delft July 2000.
55. Miedema, S.A., Vlasblom, W.J., Bian, X., "Course Development on Topic 5:
Dredging Technology, Power Drives, Instrumentation and Automation". Delft
University of Technology and CICAT, Delft July 2000.
56. Randall, R. & Jong, P. de & Miedema, S.A., "Experience with cutter suction dredge
simulator training (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 1.1 MB)". Texas A&M 32nd Annual
Dredging Seminar. Warwick, Rhode Island, June 25-28, 2000.
57. Miedema, S.A., "The modelling of the swing winches of a cutter dredge in relation
with simulators (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 814 kB)". Texas A&M 32nd Annual
Dredging Seminar. Warwick, Rhode Island, June 25-28, 2000.
58. Hofstra, C. & Hemmen, A. van & Miedema, S.A. & Hulsteyn, J. van, "Describing the
position of backhoe dredges (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 257 kB)". Texas A&M
32nd Annual Dredging Seminar. Warwick, Rhode Island, June 25-28, 2000.
59. Miedema, S.A., "Automation of a Cutter Dredge, Applied to the Dynamic Behaviour
of a Pump/Pipeline System (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 254 kB)". Proc. WODCON
VI, April 2001, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2001.
60. Heggeler, O.W.J. ten, Vercruysse, P.M., Miedema, S.A., "On the Motions of Suction
Pipe Constructions a Dynamic Analysis (Adobe Acrobat 4.0 PDF-File 110 kB)".
Proc. WODCON VI, April 2001, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2001.
61. Miedema, S.A. & Zhao Yi, "An Analytical Method of Pore Pressure Calculations
when Cutting Water Saturated Sand (Adobe Acrobat PDF-File 2.2 MB)". Texas
A&M 33nd Annual Dredging Seminar, June 2001, Houston, USA 2001.
62. Miedema, S.A., "A Numerical Method of Calculating the Dynamic Behaviour of
Hydraulic Transport (Adobe Acrobat PDF-File 246 kB)". 21st Annual Meeting &
Technical Conference of the Western Dredging Association, June 2001, Houston,
USA 2001.
63. Zhao Yi, & Miedema, S.A., "Finite Element Calculations To Determine The Pore
Pressures When Cutting Water Saturated Sand At Large Cutting Angles (Adobe
Acrobat PDF-File 4.8 MB)". CEDA Dredging Day 2001, November 2001,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
64. Miedema, S.A., "Mission Report Cantho University". MHO5/6, Phase Two, Mission
to Vietnam by Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema DUT/OCP Project Supervisor, 27 September-8
October 2001, Delft University/CICAT.
65. (Zhao Yi), & (Miedema, S.A.),
"

"
(Finite Element Calculations To Determine The Pore Pressures When Cutting Water
 Saturated Sand At Large Cutting Angles (Adobe Acrobat PDF-File 4.8 MB))". To be
published in 2002.
66. Miedema, S.A., & Riet, E.J. van, & Matousek, V., "Theoretical Description And
Numerical Sensitivity Analysis On Wilson Model For Hydraulic Transport Of Solids
In Pipelines (Adobe Acrobat PDF-File 147 kB)". WEDA Journal of Dredging
Engineering, March 2002.
67. Miedema, S.A., & Ma, Y., "The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand at Large Cutting
Angles (Adobe Acrobat PDF-File 3.6 MB)". Proc. Dredging02, May 5-8, Orlando,
Florida, USA.
68. Miedema, S.A., & Lu, Z., "The Dynamic Behavior of a Diesel Engine (Adobe
Acrobat PDF-File 363 kB)". Proc. WEDA XXII Technical Conference & 34th Texas
A&M Dredging Seminar, June 12-15, Denver, Colorado, USA.
69. Miedema, S.A., & He, Y., "The Existance of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting
Angles (Adobe Acrobat PDF-File 4 MB)". Proc. WEDA XXII Technical Conference
& 34th Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, June 12-15, Denver, Colorado, USA.
70. Ma, Y., Vlasblom, W.J., Miedema, S.A., Matousek, V., "Measurement of Density and
Velocity in Hydraulic Transport using Tomography". Dredging Days 2002, Dredging
without boundaries, Casablanca, Morocco, V64-V73, 22-24 October 2002.
71. Ma, Y., Miedema, S.A., Vlasblom, W.J., "Theoretical Simulation of the
Measurements Process of Electrical Impedance Tomography". Asian Simulation
Conference/5th International Conference on System Simulation and Scientific
Computing, Shanghai, 3-6 November 2002, p. 261-265, ISBN 7-5062-5571-5/TP.75.
72. Thanh, N.Q., & Miedema, S.A., "Automotive Electricity and Electronics". Delft
University of Technology and CICAT, Delft December 2002.
73. Miedema, S.A., Willemse, H.R., "Report on MHO5/6 Mission to Vietnam". Delft
University of Technology and CICAT, Delft Januari 2003.
74. Ma, Y., Miedema, S.A., Matousek, V., Vlasblom, W.J., "Tomography as a
Measurement Method for Density and Velocity Distributions". 23rd WEDA
Technical Conference & 35th TAMU Dredging Seminar, Chicago, USA, june 2003.
75. Miedema, S.A., Lu, Z., Matousek, V., "Numerical Simulation of a Development of a
Density Wave in a Long Slurry Pipeline". 23rd WEDA Technical Conference & 35th
TAMU Dredging Seminar, Chicago, USA, june 2003.
76. Miedema, S.A., Lu, Z., Matousek, V., "Numerical simulation of the development of
density waves in a long pipeline and the dynamic system behavior". Terra et Aqua,
No. 93, p. 11-23.
77. Miedema, S.A., Frijters, D., "The Mechanism of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting
Angles - Velocity and Friction Measurements". 23rd WEDA Technical Conference
& 35th TAMU Dredging Seminar, Chicago, USA, june 2003.
78. Tri, Nguyen Van, Miedema, S.A., Heijer, J. den, "Machine Manufacturing
Technology". Lecture notes, Delft University of Technology, Cicat and Cantho
University Vietnam, August 2003.
79. Miedema, S.A., "MHO5/6 Phase Two Mission Report". Report on a mission to
Cantho University Vietnam October 2003. Delft University of Technology and
CICAT, November 2003.
80. Zwanenburg, M., Holstein, J.D., Miedema, S.A., Vlasblom, W.J., "The Exploitation
of Cockle Shells". CEDA Dredging Days 2003, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
November 2003.
81. Zhi, L., Miedema, S.A., Vlasblom, W.J., Verheul, C.H., "Modeling and Simulation of
the Dynamic Behaviour of TSHD's Suction Pipe System by using Adams". CHIDA
Dredging Days, Shanghai, China, november 2003.
82. Miedema, S.A., "The Existence of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting Angles".
CHIDA Dredging Days, Shanghai, China, november 2003.
83. Miedema, S.A., Lu, Z., Matousek, V., "Numerical Simulation of the Development of
Density Waves in a Long Pipeline and the Dynamic System Behaviour". Terra et
Aqua 93, December 2003.
84. Miedema, S.A. & Frijters, D.D.J., "The wedge mechanism for cutting of water
saturated sand at large cutting angles". WODCON XVII, September 2004, Hamburg
Germany.
85. Verheul, O. & Vercruijsse, P.M. & Miedema, S.A., "The development of a concept
for accurate and efficient dredging at great water depths". WODCON XVII,
September 2004, Hamburg Germany.
86. Miedema, S.A., "THE CUTTING MECHANISMS OF WATER SATURATED
SAND AT SMALL AND LARGE CUTTING ANGLES". International Conference
on Coastal Infrastructure Development - Challenges in the 21st Century. HongKong,
november 2004.
87. Ir. M. Zwanenburg , Dr. Ir. S.A. Miedema , Ir J.D. Holstein , Prof.ir. W.J.Vlasblom,
"REDUCING THE DAMAGE TO THE SEA FLOOR WHEN DREDGING
COCKLE SHELLS". WEDAXXIV & TAMU36, Orlando, Florida, USA, July 2004.
88. Verheul, O. & Vercruijsse, P.M. & Miedema, S.A., "A new concept for accurate and
efficient dredging in deep water". Ports & Dredging, IHC, 2005, E163.
89. Miedema, S.A., "Scrapped?". Dredging & Port Construction, September 2005.
90. Miedema, S.A. & Vlasblom, W.J., " Bureaustudie Overvloeiverliezen". In opdracht
van Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, September 2005, Confidential.
91. He, J., Miedema, S.A. & Vlasblom, W.J., "FEM Analyses Of Cutting Of Anisotropic
Densely Compacted and Saturated Sand", WEDAXXV & TAMU37, New Orleans,
USA, June 2005.
92. Miedema, S.A., "The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand, the FINAL Solution".
WEDAXXV & TAMU37, New Orleans, USA, June 2005.
93. Miedema, S.A. & Massie, W., "Selfassesment MSc Offshore Engineering", Delft
University of Technology, October 2005.
94. Miedema, S.A., "THE CUTTING OF WATER SATURATED SAND, THE
SOLUTION". CEDA African Section: Dredging Days 2006 - Protection of the
coastline, dredging sustainable development, Nov. 1-3, Tangiers, Morocco.
95. Miedema, S.A., "La solution de prélèvement par désagrégation du sable saturé en
eau". CEDA African Section: Dredging Days 2006 - Protection of the coastline,
dredging sustainable development, Nov. 1-3, Tangiers, Morocco.
96. Miedema, S.A. & Vlasblom, W.J., "THE CLOSING PROCESS OF CLAMSHELL
DREDGES IN WATER-SATURATED SAND". CEDA African Section: Dredging
Days 2006 - Protection of the coastline, dredging sustainable development, Nov. 1-3,
Tangiers, Morocco.
97. Miedema, S.A. & Vlasblom, W.J., "Le processus de fermeture des dragues à benne
preneuse en sable saturé". CEDA African Section: Dredging Days 2006 - Protection
of the coastline, dredging sustainable development, Nov. 1-3, Tangiers, Morocco.
98. Miedema, S.A. "THE CUTTING OF WATER SATURATED SAND, THE
SOLUTION". The 2nd China Dredging Association International Conference &
Exhibition, themed 'Dredging and Sustainable Development' and in Guangzhou,
China, May 17-18 2006.
99. Ma, Y, Ni, F. & Miedema, S.A., "Calculation of the Blade Cutting Force for small
Cutting Angles based on MATLAB". The 2nd China Dredging Association
 International Conference & Exhibition, themed 'Dredging and Sustainable
Development' and in Guangzhou, China, May 17-18 2006.
100. ,"
" (download). The 2nd China Dredging
Association International Conference & Exhibition, themed 'Dredging and
Sustainable Development' and in Guangzhou, China, May 17-18 2006.
101. Miedema, S.A. , Kerkvliet, J., Strijbis, D., Jonkman, B., Hatert, M. v/d, "THE
DIGGING AND HOLDING CAPACITY OF ANCHORS". WEDA XXVI AND
TAMU 38, San Diego, California, June 25-28, 2006.
102. Schols, V., Klaver, Th., Pettitt, M., Ubuan, Chr., Miedema, S.A., Hemmes, K.
& Vlasblom, W.J., "A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE APPLICATION OF FUEL
CELLS IN OIL AND GAS SURFACE PRODUCTION FACILITIES". Proceedings
of FUELCELL2006, The 4th International Conference on FUEL CELL SCIENCE,
ENGINEERING and TECHNOLOGY, June 19-21, 2006, Irvine, CA.
103. Miedema, S.A., "Polytechnisch Zakboek 51ste druk, Hoofdstuk G:
Werktuigbouwkunde", pG1-G88, Reed Business Information, ISBN-10:
90.6228.613.5, ISBN-13: 978.90.6228.613.3. Redactie: Fortuin, J.B., van Herwijnen,
F., Leijendeckers, P.H.H., de Roeck, G. & Schwippert, G.A.
104. MA Ya-sheng, NI Fu-sheng, S.A. Miedema, "Mechanical Model of Water
Saturated Sand Cutting at Blade Large Cutting Angles", Journal of Hohai University
Changzhou, ISSN 1009-1130, CN 32-1591, 2006.
绞刀片大角度切削水饱和沙的力学模型, 马亚生[1] 倪福生[1] S.A.Miedema[2],
《河海大学常州分校学报》-2006年20卷3期 -59-61页
105. Miedema, S.A., Lager, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag
Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity for Dredging and Offshore Applications”.
WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.
106. Miedema, S.A., Rhee, C. van, “A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON THE
EFFECTS OF DIMENSIONS AND GEOMETRY OF TRAILING SUCTION
HOPPER DREDGES”. WODCON ORLANDO, USA, 2007.
107. Miedema, S.A., Bookreview: Useless arithmetic, why environmental scientists
can't predict the future, by Orrin H. Pilkey & Linda Pilkey-Jarvis. Terra et Aqua 108,
September 2007, IADC, The Hague, Netherlands.
108. Miedema, S.A., Bookreview: The rock manual: The use of rock in hydraulic
engineering, by CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF. Terra et Aqua 110, March 2008, IADC, The
Hague, Netherlands.
109. Miedema, S.A., "An Analytical Method To Determine Scour". WEDA
XXVIII & Texas A&M 39. St. Louis, USA, June 8-11, 2008.
110. Miedema, S.A., "A Sensitivity Analysis Of The Production Of Clamshells".
WEDA XXVIII & Texas A&M 39. St. Louis, USA, June 8-11, 2008.
111. Miedema, S.A., "An Analytical Approach To The Sedimentation Process In
Trailing Suction Hopper Dredgers". Terra et Aqua 112, September 2008, IADC, The
Hague, Netherlands.
112. Hofstra, C.F., & Rhee, C. van, & Miedema, S.A. & Talmon, A.M., "On The
Particle Trajectories In Dredge Pump Impellers". 14th International Conference
Transport & Sedimentation Of Solid Particles. June 23-27 2008, St. Petersburg,
Russia.
113. Miedema, S.A., "A Sensitivity Analysis Of The Production Of Clamshells".
WEDA Journal of Dredging Engineering, December 2008.
 114. Miedema, S.A., "New Developments Of Cutting Theories With Respect To
Dredging, The Cutting Of Clay And Rock". WEDA XXIX & Texas A&M 40.
Phoenix Arizona, USA, June 14-17 2009.
115. Miedema, S.A., "A Sensitivity Analysis Of The Scaling Of TSHD's". WEDA
XXIX & Texas A&M 40. Phoenix Arizona, USA, June 14-17 2009.
116. Liu, Z., Ni, F., Miedema, S.A., “Optimized design method for TSHD’s swell
compensator, basing on modelling and simulation”. International Conference on
Industrial Mechatronics and Automation, pp. 48-52. Chengdu, China, May 15-16,
2009.
117. Miedema, S.A., "The effect of the bed rise velocity on the sedimentation
process in hopper dredges". Journal of Dredging Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1 , 10-31,
2009.
118. Miedema, S.A., “New developments of cutting theories with respect to
offshore applications, the cutting of sand, clay and rock”. ISOPE 2010, Beijing China,
June 2010.
119. Miedema, S.A., “The influence of the strain rate on cutting processes”. ISOPE
2010, Beijing China, June 2010.
120. Ramsdell, R.C., Miedema, S.A., “Hydraulic transport of sand/shell mixtures”.
WODCON XIX, Beijing China, September 2010.
121. Abdeli, M., Miedema, S.A., Schott, D., Alvarez Grima, M., “The application
of discrete element modeling in dredging”. WODCON XIX, Beijing China,
September 2010.
122. Hofstra, C.F., Miedema, S.A., Rhee, C. van, “Particle trajectories near
impeller blades in centrifugal pumps. WODCON XIX, Beijing China, September
2010.
123. Miedema, S.A., “Constructing the Shields curve, a new theoretical approach
and its applications”. WODCON XIX, Beijing China, September 2010.
124. Miedema, S.A., “The effect of the bed rise velocity on the sedimentation
process in hopper dredges”. WODCON XIX, Beijing China, September 2010.