See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248579329

Suction Caissons for Wind Turbines

Article · August 2005

DOI: 10.1201/NOE0415390637.ch4

CITATIONS READS

75 895

3 authors:

Guy Tinmouth Houlsby Lars Bo Ibsen

University of Oxford Aalborg University
292 PUBLICATIONS   8,553 CITATIONS    149 PUBLICATIONS   1,019 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Byron W. Byrne
University of Oxford
87 PUBLICATIONS   2,097 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cyclic Loading of Offshore Foundations View project

Pipejacking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Byron W. Byrne on 30 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Suction Caissons for Wind Turbines
Guy T. Houlsby1, Lars Bo Ibsen2 & Byron W. Byrne1
1: Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University, U.K.
2: Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark

ABSTRACT: Suction caissons may be used in the future as the foundations for offshore wind turbines. We
review recent research on the development of design methods for suction caissons for these applications. We
give some attention to installation, but concentrate on design for in-service performance. Whilst much can be
learned from previous offshore experience, the wind turbine problem poses a particularly challenging
combination of a relatively light structure, with large imposed horizontal forces and overturning moments.
Monopod or tripod/tetrapod foundations result in very different loading regimes on the foundations, and we
consider both cases. The results of laboratory studies and field trials are reported. We also outline briefly
relevant numerical and theoretical work. Extensive references are given to sources of further information.

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to review recent
research work on the design of suction caisson
foundations for offshore wind turbines. Most of the
relevant work has been conducted at, or in co-
operation with, the universities of Oxford and
Aalborg, so we report here mainly the work of our
own research groups.
Suction caissons have been extensively used as
anchors, principally in clays, and have also been
used as foundations for a small number of offshore
platforms in the North Sea. They are currently being
considered as possible foundations for offshore wind
turbines. As discussed by Houlsby and Byrne (2000)
and by Byrne and Houlsby (2003), it is important to
realise that the loading regimes on offshore turbines
differ in several respects from those on structures
usually encountered in the offshore oil and gas
industry. Firstly the structures are likely to be
founded in much shallower water: 10m to 20m is
typical of the early developments, although deeper
water applications are already being planned. Figure 1: Offshore tests in Frederikshavn, Denmark. Front:
Typically the structures are relatively light, with a Vestas V90 3.0MW turbine. Back: Nordex 2.3MW turbine.
mass of say 600t (vertical deadload 6MN), but in
proportion to the vertical load the horizontal loads dominate, many relatively small and inexpensive
and overturning moments are large. For instance the foundations are required for a wind farm
horizontal load under extreme conditions may be development, which might involve anything from 30
about 60% of the vertical load. to 250 turbines.
An important consideration is that, unlike the oil The dominant device used for large scale wind
and gas industry where large one-off structures power generation is a horizontal axis, 3-bladed
turbine with the blades upwind of the tower, as
shown in Figure 1. The details of the generator,
rotational speed and blade pitch control vary
between designs. Most offshore turbines installed to
date generate 2MW rated power, and typically have
a rotor about 80m in diameter with a hub about 80m
above mean sea level. The size of turbines available
is increasing rapidly, and prototypes of 5MW
turbines already exist. These involve a rotor of about
128m diameter at a hub height of about 100m. The
loads on a “typical” 3.5MW turbine are shown in
Figure 2, which is intended to give no more than a
broad indication of the magnitude of the problem.
Figure 2: Typical loads on a 3.5MW offshore wind turbine
Note that in conditions as might be encountered
in the North Sea, the horizontal load from waves
(say 3MN) is significantly larger than that from the
wind (say 1MN). However, because the latter acts at
a much higher point (say 90m above the foundation)
it provides more of the overturning moment than the
wave loading, which may only act at say 10m above
the foundation. Using these figures the overturning
moment of 120MNm would divide as 90MNm due
to wind and 30MNm due to waves.
Realistic combinations of loads need to be
considered. For instance the maximum thrust on the
turbine occurs when it is generating at the maximum
allowable wind speed for generation (say 25m/s). At
higher wind speeds the blades will be feathered and
provide much less wind resistance. It is thus unlikely
that the maximum storm wave loading would occur
at the same time as maximum thrust. Turbine
designers must also consider important load cases
such as emergency braking. It is important to
recognise that the design of a turbine foundation is
not usually governed by considerations of ultimate
capacity, but is typically dominated by (a)
considerations of stiffness of the foundation and (b)
performance under fatigue loading.
An operational wind turbine is subjected to
harmonic excitation from the rotor. The rotor's
rotational frequency is the first excitation frequency
and is commonly referred to as 1P. The second
excitation frequency to consider is the blade passing
frequency, often called 3P (for a three-bladed wind
turbine) at three times the 1P frequency.
Figure 3 shows a representative frequency plot of
a selection of measured displacements for the Vestas
V90 3.0MW wind turbine in operational mode. The
foundation is a suction caisson. The measured data,
monitoring system and “Output-Only Modal
Analysis” used to establish the frequency plot are
described in Ibsen and Liingaard (2005). The first
mode of the structure is estimated, and corresponds
to the frequency observed from idling conditions.
The peak to the left of the first natural frequency is
the forced vibration from the rotor at 1P. To the right
of the first natural frequency is the 3P frequency. It
should be noted that the 1P and 3P frequencies in
general cover frequency bands and not just two
particular values, because the Vestas wind turbine is
a variable speed device.
To avoid resonances in the structure at the key
excitation frequencies (1P, 3P) the structural
designer needs to know the stiffness of the
foundation with some confidence, this means that
problems of deformation and stiffness are as
important as capacity. Furthermore, much of the
structural design is dictated by considerations of
high cycle fatigue (up to about 108 cycles), and the
foundation too must be designed for these
conditions.
2. CASES FOR STUDY
The two main problems that need to be studied in
design of a suction caisson as a foundation are:
• installation;
• in service performance.
In this review we shall discuss installation
methods briefly, but shall concentrate mainly on
design for in service performance. The relevant
studies involve techniques as diverse as laboratory
model testing, centrifuge model testing, field trials at
reduced scale, and a full-scale field installation.
 Frequency Domain Decomposition - Peak Picking
dB | 1.0 / Hz Average of the Normalized Singular Values of
Spectral Density Matrices of all Data Sets.
20

3P
1P First mode
0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100 1
Frequency

Figure 3. Frequency plot of measured displacements for a wind turbine in operational mode.

Complementing these experiments are numerical 4(b). In either of these configurations the
studies using finite element techniques, and the overturning moment on the structure is resisted
development of plasticity-based models to represent principally by “push-pull” action of opposing
the foundation behaviour. vertical loads on the upwind and downwind
Suction caissons may be installed in a variety of foundations. Alternatives using asymmetric designs
soils, but we shall consider here two somewhat of tripod, and those employing “jacket” type
idealised cases: a caisson installed either in clay, substructures are also under consideration.
which may be treated as undrained, or in sand. For
typical sands the combination of permeability value,
size of caisson and loading rates leads to partially
drained conditions, although much of the testing we
shall report is under fully drained conditions. In this
paper we report mainly work on sands.
We shall consider two significantly different
loading regimes, which depend on the nature of the
structure supporting the wind turbine. Most offshore
wind turbines to date have been supported on a
“monopile” – a single large diameter pile, which in
effect is a direct extension of the tubular steel tower
which supports the turbine. Some turbines have been
supported on circular gravity bases. An obvious
alternative is to use a single suction caisson to
support the turbine, and we shall call this a
“monopod” foundation, Figure 4(a). The monopod
resists the overturning moment (usually the most
important loading component) directly by its
rotational fixity in the seabed.
As turbines become larger, monopod designs may (a) (b)
become sufficiently large to be uneconomic, and an Figure 4: caisson foundations for a wind turbine, (a) monopod,
alternative is a structure founded on three or four (b) tripod/tetrapod
smaller foundations: a “tripod” or “tetrapod”, Figure
3. NORMALISATION PROCEDURES
A number of studies have been conducted at
different scales and it is necessary to compare the
results from these various studies. To do this it is
appropriate to normalise all the results so that they
can be represented in non-dimensional form. This
procedure also allows more confident extrapolation
to full scale.
The geometry of a caisson is shown in Figure 5.
The outside radius is R (diameter Do ), skirt length is
L and wall thickness t. In practice caissons may also
involve stiffeners on the inside of the caisson, these
being necessary to prevent buckling instability
during suction installation, but we ignore these in a
simplified analysis. Geometric similarity is achieved
by requiring similar values of L 2 R and t 2 R .
Figure 5: Geometry of a caisson foundation
Figure 6: Loading and displacement conventions for a caisson
foundation (displacements exaggerated).
The sign convention for applied loads and
displacements is shown in Figure 6.
The rotation of the caisson θ is already
dimensionless, and we normalise the displacements
simply by dividing by the caisson diameter, to give
w 2 R and u 2 R .
In sand it is straightforward to show that, for
similar values of dimensionless bearing capacity
factor, the loads at failure would be proportional to
γ ′ and to R 3 . We therefore normalise vertical and
horizontal loads as V 2πR 3 γ ′ and H 2πR 3 γ ′ ,
where we have included the factor 2π to give the
normalisation factor a simple physical meaning: it is
the effective weight of a cylinder of soil of the same
diameter of the caisson, and depth equal to the
diameter. In a similar way we normalise the
overturning moment as M 4πR 4 γ ′ .
Use of the above normalisation is appropriate for
comparing tests in sands with similar angles of
friction and dilation. We recognise that these angles
both decrease slightly with pressure and increase
rapidly with Relative Density (Bolton, 1986). This
means that comparable tests at smaller scales (and
therefore lower stress levels) will need to be at lower
Relative Densities to be comparable with field tests.
In clay the vertical capacity is proportional to a
representative undrained shear strength su and to
R 2 , so we normalise loads as V πR 2 su and
H πR 2 su , and the moment as M 2πR 3 su .
In order to be comparable, tests at different scales
will need the profile of undrained strength with
depth to be similar. If the strength profile is fitted by
a simple straight-line fit su = suo + ρz , then this
requires similar values of the factor 2 Rρ suo .
Scaling of results using the above methods should
give satisfactory results in terms of capacity. For
clays it should also lead to satisfactory comparisons
in terms of stiffness, provided that the clays being
compared have similar values of I r = G su . This
condition is usually satisfied if the clays are of
similar composition and overconsolidation ratio. For
sands, however, an extra consideration needs to be
taken into account. The shear modulus of a sand
does not increase in proportion to the stress level,
but instead can reasonably be expressed by:
n
G ⎛ p′ ⎞
= g ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1)
pa ⎝ pa ⎠
where g and n are dimensionless constants, and p a
is atmospheric pressure (used as a reference
pressure). The value of n is typically about 0.5, so
that the stiffness is proportional roughly to the
square root of pressure.
 Comparing rotational stiffnesses on the basis of a Table 1: Installations in shallow water
plot of M 4πR γ ′ against θ effectively makes the
4
hw D L
assumption that the shear stiffness is proportional to Site Soil Ref.
(m) (m) (m)
2 Rγ ′ , which may be regarded as a representative Installation
stress level. Since in fact the stiffness increases at a Wilhelmshaven Sand 6.0 16.0 15.0
April 2005
lower rate with stress level, this comparison will Frederikshavn Sand 1.0 12.0 6.0 30
result in larger scale tests giving lower apparent 2.0 2.0
Frederikshavn Sand 0.2 -
normalised stiffness. This effect can be reduced by 4.0 4.0
multiplying the θ scale by the dimensionless factor Sandy Haven Sand 0.5 4.0 2.5 23
( p a 2 Rγ ′)1− n ,
which compensates for the stiffness Tenby Sand 2.0 2.0 2.0 23
Burry Port Sand 0.5 2.0 2.0 -
variation with stress level. 3.0 1.5
Thus we recommend that to compare both Luce Bay Sand 0.2 27
1.5 1.0
stiffness and capacity data for sands one should plot 3.0 1.5
θ( p a 2 Rγ ′)0.5
Bothkennar Clay 0.2 26
M 4πR 4 γ ′ against (assuming 1.5 1.0

n = 0.5 ) for moment tests, and V 2πR 3 γ ′ against

(w 2 R )( p a2 Rγ ′)0.5 for vertical loading tests. A
fuller description of these normalisation procedures
is given by Kelly et al. (2005a).

4. INSTALLATION STUDIES
The principal difference between installation of a
suction caisson for an offshore wind turbine and for
previous applications is that the turbines are likely to
be installed in much shallower water. There is a
popular misconception that suction caissons can only
be installed in deep water, where a very substantial (a)
head difference can be established across the lid of
the caisson. In shallow water the net suction that can
be achieved is indeed much smaller (being limited
by the efficiency of the pumps, as the absolute
pressure approaches zero), but the suctions that can
be achieved are nevertheless sufficient for
installation in most circumstances. Only in stiff clays
is it likely that some possible caisson designs, which
might otherwise be suitable as far as in-service
conditions are concerned, could not be installed by
suction in shallow water.
In Table 1 we list the main instances where
caissons have been installed in shallow water, as (b)
appropriate to wind turbine installations. The water
depths hw are approximate only. In addition to the Figure 7: Installation of the prototype foundation at the test site
in Frederikshavn: (a) during installation, (b) at the end of
field tests listed, a large number of small scale model installation.
tests of installation have been carried out at Oxford
University (on caissons of 0.1m to 0.4m diameter), has a diameter of 12m and a skirt length of 6m. The
the University of Western Australia (UWA), operational water depth is 4m, and as the site is in a
Aalborg and elsewhere. basin, no wave or ice loads are applied. As seen in
The largest completed installation in shallow Figure 7 the suction caisson was installed in only 1m
water is that of a prototype suction caisson, shown in of water in the basin. The steel construction has a
Figure 7, installed in the offshore research test mass of approximately 140t, and the caisson was
facility in Frederikshavn, Denmark. The prototype placed in late October 2002. The installation period
was about 12 hours, with the soil penetration time
being 6 hours. A computer system was used to
control the inclination, suction pressure and
penetration rate. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) has
certified the design of the prototype in
Frederikshavn to B level. The Vestas V90 3.0MW
turbine was erected on the foundation in December
2002. The development of the design procedure for
the bucket foundation is described in Ibsen and
Brincker (2004). An even larger installation is
currently in progress at Wilhelmshaven, Denmark.
There are two main ways of predicting firstly the
self-weight penetration of the caisson and secondly
the suction required to achieve full installation. The
first method (Houlsby and Byrne, 2005a,b) involves
use of adaptations of pile capacity analysis, in which
the resistance to penetration is calculated as the sum
of an end bearing term on the rim and friction on the
inside and outside. In sands the seepage pattern set
up by the suction processes alters the effective stress
regime in a way that aids installation.
The calculation has been implemented in a
spreadsheet program SCIP. Figure 8 shows for
example a comparison between variation of
measured suction in a model test installation with tip
penetration of the caisson (Sanham, 2003), and the
SCIP calculation.
Suction, s (Pa)
0 500 1000
0
50
Penetration, h (mm)
100
150
200 SCIP Results
Experimental Result
250
Figure 8: Comparison of SCIP with model test
The other approach involves use of CPT data to
infer directly the resistance Rd to penetration of the
caisson. The required suction u req to penetrate the
caisson to depth d is calculated as:
Rd (d ) − G '(d )
∆ureq (d ) =
Asuc
where G '(d ) is the self-weight of the caisson at
penetration depth d (reduced for buoyancy), and
Asuc is the area inside the caisson, where the suction
is applied.
The penetration resistance is calculated from the
following expression, which is based on calibration
against measured data:
Rd (d ) = K t (d ) Atip qt (d ) + Aout ∫ K out ( z ) f s ( z )dz +
d
0
d
(3)
Ain ∫ K in ( z ) f s ( z )dz
0
where qt is the corrected cone resistance and f s the
sleeve friction at depth z. K t is a coefficient relating
qt to the unit tip resistance on the rim. This
resistance is adjusted for the reduction due to the
applied suction by the expression:
βt
⎛ ∆u ⎞
K t = kt ⎜1 − rt ⎟ (4)
⎝ ∆ucrit ⎠
where kt is an empirical coefficient relating qt to the
tip resistance during static penetration of the caisson,
rt is the maximum reduction in tip resistance. ∆ucrit
is the critical suction resulting in the critical
hydraulic gradient icrit = 1 along the skirt. β t is an
empirical factor.
K out and K in are coefficients relating f s to the
unit skin friction on the outside and inside of the
skirt. The water flow along the skirt changes the skin
friction. For the inside skin friction the coefficient
1500 2000 2500 3000 reduces the skin friction when suction is applied,
whereas on the outside the skin friction is increased.
The coefficients are established as:
βout
⎛ ∆u ⎞
K out = α out ⎜1 + rout ⎟
⎝ ∆ucrit ⎠
(5a,b)
βin
⎛ ∆u ⎞
K in = α in ⎜1 − rin ⎟
⎝ ∆ucrit ⎠
Where α out and α in are empirical coefficients relating
f s to the unit skin friction during static penetration
of the caisson. rout and rin are the maximum changes
in skirt friction. β out and β in are empirical factors.
The required suction ureq to penetrate the
prototype in Frederikshavn was predicted using
(2) equation (2). The result of the analysis is shown in
Figure 9. The lower line represents ureq calculated
from the CPT tests. The curved line represents the
limiting suction upip which would cause piping to
occur. umax is the theoretical maximum net suction,
limited by the possibility of cavitation within the
caisson, as the absolute pressure approaches zero, so
 -3 3
Volume, (10 m )
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0

50 Cell 1
Cell 2
100

Penetration, h (mm)
150

200

250
Total
300 Volume
Seepage
Volume Volume
350 Displaced
400

Figure 11: Volumes pumped from 2-cell caisson in sand.

application of eccentric loads (moments), especially

Figure 9: Suction required for installation at Frederikshavn
Figure 10: The limiting suction upip has been achieved and soil
failure by piping has occurred.
that u max = 100kPa above water level and increases
linearly with the water depth, as shown by Figure 9.
umax is used to calculate the accessible net suction,
which is limited by the efficiency of the pumps,
upump. As is seen, the suction in shallow water can be
limited either by the suction causing piping or by the
accessible net suction available from the pumps.
The suction upip causing piping has been studied
at the test site in Frederikshavn by installation tests
on 2x2m and 4x4m caissons. Figure 10 shows a
4x4m caisson where the limiting suction upip has
been achieved, and soil failure by piping has
occurred. The soil outside of the skirt is sucked into
the caisson and the penetration of the caisson cannot
proceed.
If a tripod or tetrapod structure is to be installed,
then levelling of the structure can be achieved by
separately controlling the suction in each of the
caissons. For a monopod structure, however, an
alternative strategy has to be adopted. Experience
suggests that for installation in either clay or sand,
the level of the caisson is rather sensitive to the
in the early stages of installation. This offers one
possibility for controlling the level of the caisson: by
use of an eccentric load that can be adjusted in
position to keep the caisson level.
An alternative strategy, which has proven to be
highly successful for installation in sand, is to divide
the rim into sections and to control the pressures at
the skirt tip in each section individually. By applying
pressure over one segment of the caisson rim the
upward hydraulic gradient within the caisson can be
enhanced locally, thus encouraging additional
downward movement for that sector. By controlling
the pressures at a number of points the caisson may
be maintained level.
This method would not be applicable in clays.
One possibility, as yet untried at large scale, for
controlling level in clays would be to use a
segmented caisson in which the suctions in the
different segments could be controlled
independently.
Some preliminary small scale tests suggest that
this approach might be successful in sand too
(Coldicott, 2005). Figure 11 shows the volumes of
water pumped from the two halves of a 400mm
diameter caisson split by a diametral vertical wall.
About 60% of the water pumped represents the
volume displaced by the descending caisson, whilst
about 40% represents seepage beneath the caisson
rim. Figure 12 shows that during the installation the
suctions developed in the two halves were (as would
be expected in a uniform material) almost equal.
5. CAISSON PERFORMANCE: MONOPOD
A large number of tests have been devoted to
studying the performance of a caisson under moment
loading at relatively small vertical loads, as is
relevant to the wind turbine design. Some details of
the test programmes are given in Table 2.
 Suction, s (Pa) Table 2: Moment loading tests
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 D L
Site Soil Ref.
50 Cell 1 (m) (m)
Cell 2
100 Frederikshavn Sand 12.0 6.0 -
Penetration, h (mm)

150
Frederikshavn Sand 2.0 2.0 -
Sandy Haven Sand 4.0 2.5 -
200
Burry Port Sand 2.0 2.0 21
250
Luce Bay Sand 3.0 1.5 27
300
0.1 0.0-0.066 2,4
350 0.15 0.05 2,7
400 0.15 0.1 42,43
Oxford laboratory Sand
Figure 12: Suctions required for installation of 2-cell caisson in 0.2 0.1 34,42,43
sand. 0.2 0.2 11,43
0.3 0.15 11,42,43
5.1 Sand: field tests
0.2 0.0 – 0.2
The largest test involves the instrumented Vestas Aalborg laboratory Sand 0.3 0.0 – 0.3 -
V90 3.0MW prototype turbine at Frederikshavn, 0.4 0.0 – 0.4
Denmark. The caisson is installed in a shallow 4m Bothkennar Clay 3.0 1.5 26
depth lagoon next to the sea, and the turbine is fully 0.2 0.1
Oxford laboratory Clay 34
operational. The only significant difference between 0.3 0.15
this installation and an offshore one is that the 0.02
UWA centrifuge
structure is not subjected to wave loading. Clay 0.06 0.03 12
(100g)
The test program involving the prototype (turbine 0.06
and caisson) is focusing on long-term deformations,
soil structure interaction, stiffness and fatigue. The
prototype has been equipped with:
• an online monitoring system that measures the
dynamic deformation modes of the foundation
and the wind turbine,
• a monitoring system that measures the long-time Level IV: 89 m

deflection and rotation of the caisson

• a monitoring system that measures the pore
pressure along the inside of the skirt.
The online monitoring system that measures the Level III: 46 m
modes of deformation of the foundation and wind
turbine involves 15 accelerometers and a real-time
data-acquisition system. The accelerometers are
placed at three different levels in the turbine tower Level II: 13 m
and at one level in compartments inside the caisson Level I: 6 m
foundation. The positions are shown in Figure 13,
and the locations and measuring directions are
defined in Figure14.
Output-only Modal Analysis has been used to
analyze the structural behaviour of the wind turbine Figure 13: Sensor positions in tower and foundation.
during various operational conditions. The modal
analysis has shown highly damped mode shapes of The static moment tests referred to in Table 2 at
the foundation/wind turbine system, which the Sandy Haven and at Burry Port were relatively
present aero-elastic codes for wind turbine design straightforward, with very simple instrumentation,
cannot model. Further studies are to be carried out but those at Frederikshavn test site and at Luce Bay
with respect to soil-structure interaction. A detailed were detailed investigations.
description of the measuring system and the Output- The large scale tests at Frederikshavn is part of a
Only Modal Analysis is given by Ibsen and research and development program concerning
Liingaard (2005). caisson foundation for offshore wind turbines. The
research program is a co-operation between Aalborg
 Table 3. Loading heights in the Aalborg test program
Field
Prototype Laboratory Model
Model

D p = 12m D m = 0 .2 m 0.3m 0.4m 2.0m

h p [m] h m [m] h m [m]

104.4 1.74 2.61 3.48 17.40
69.6 1.16 1.74 2.32 11.60
38.0 0.63 0.95 1.27 6.33
20.0 0.33 0.50 0.67 3.33
10.0 0.17 0.25 0.33 1.67

Figure 14: Sensor mountings in the tower and foundation at

Frederikshavn.

University and MBD offshore power (Ibsen et al.

2003). The large scale tests are complemented by
laboratory studies. The laboratory and large scale
tests are intended to model the prototype in
Frederikshavn directly. In order to design a caisson
foundation for offshore wind turbines several load
combinations have to be investigated. Each load Figure 15: Caisson for large scale test at Frederikshavn
combination is represented by a height of load h
above the foundation and a horizontal force H. The
3 MW Vestas
moment at the seabed is calculated as M = hH. Table windmill on bucket
3 shows that the resulting loading height varies from foundation

10m (for a wave force in shallow water) to 104.4m loading tower

(force from normal production of a 3MW turbine in
20m of water). Scaling of the tests is achieved by:

Dm
hm = h p
Dp
where D is the diameter of the caisson and index m
and p are for model and prototype. The values of the
loading height in the test program are shown in
Table 3.
The large scale tests at Frederikshavn employ
loading by applying a horizontal load at a fixed
height, under constant vertical load. A steel caisson
with an outer diameter of 2m and a skirt length of
2m has been used. The skirt is made of 12mm thick
steel plate. Figure 15 shows the caisson prior to
installation, and Figure 16 the overall test setup.
Currently 10 experiments have been conducted, but
the testing program is ongoing. Each test has three
phases:
tower located on
loading wire
(6) bucket foundation
Figure 16: Setup for combined loading of 2x2m caisson at
Frederikshavn. (Back: prototype 3MW Vestas wind turbine on
the 12 x 6m caisson)
1. Installation phase: The caisson is installed by
means of suction. CPT tests are performed
before and after installation of the caisson.
2. Loading phase: An old tower from a wind
turbine is mounted on top of the caisson. The
caisson is loaded by pulling the tower
 horizontally with a wire. The combined loading
(H,M) is controlled by changing the height of
loading.
3. Dismantling phase. The caisson is removed by
applying overpressure inside the bucket.
Figure 17 shows the moment rotation curve for a
test on the 2x2m caisson at Frederikshavn. The test
is performed with hm = 17.4m and a vertical load on
the caisson of 37.3kN. The fluctuations in the curve
are caused by wind on the tower.
Figure 17: Moment-rotation test on 2x2m caisson.
Tests at Luce Bay were designed by Oxford
University and conducted by Fugro Ltd.. The
moment loading tests were of two types. Firstly
small amplitude (but relatively high frequency)
loading was applied by a “Structural Eccentric Mass
Vibrator” (SEMV) in which rotating masses are used
to apply inertial loads at frequencies up to about
12Hz. Secondly larger amplitude, but lower
H H
L L
R 1500 C R
4000 4000
(a)
Figure 18: Field testing equipment, dimensions in mm. Water level and displacement reference frames not shown. (a) arrangement
for jacking tests on 1.5m and 3.0m caissons, (b) alternative arrangement during SEMV tests. Labels indicate (A) A-frame, (B)
concrete block, (C) caissons, (H) hydraulic jacks, (L) load cells, (R) foundations of reaction frame, (V) SEMV, (W) weight
providing offset load for SEMV tests.
frequency, cycles were applied using a hydraulic
jack. A diagram of the loading rig, which allowed
both moment and vertical loading tests, is shown in
Figure 18.
The SEMV test involve cycles of moment
loading at increasing amplitude as the frequency
increases. Figure 19 shows the hysteresis loops
obtained from a series of these cycles at different
amplitudes. As the cycles become larger the stiffness
reduces but hysteresis increases. The tests were
interpreted (Houlsby et al., 2005b) using the theory
of Wolf (1994), which takes account of the dynamic
effects in the soil, and the equivalent secant shear
modulus for each amplitude of cycling determined.
Figure 20 shows the moment rotation curves for
much larger amplitude cycling applied by the
hydraulic jack. Again hysteresis increases and secant
stiffness decreases as the amplitude increases. The
unusual “waisted” shape of the hysteresis loops at
very large amplitude is due to gapping occurring at
the sides of the caisson.
The secant stiffnesses deduced from both the
SEMV tests and the hydraulic jacking tests are
combined in Figure 21, where they are plotted
against the amplitude of cyclic rotation. It is clear
that the two groups of tests give a consistent pattern
of reduction of shear modulus with strain amplitude,
similar to that obtained for instance from laboratory
tests.
5.2 Sand: laboratory tests
Turning now to model testing, a large number of
tests have been carried out both at Aalborg and at
Oxford. Almost all the model tests have involved “in
plane” loading (in which the moment is about an
H L
V V
A A
W
B B
L L L L
3000
C C
6000
(b)
 30
6Hz
7Hz 20
8Hz
10
Moment (kNm)

9Hz
10H 0
-0.00005 -0.000025 0 0.000025 0.00005
-10

-20

-30
Rotation (radians)
Figure 19: Hysteresis loops from SEMV tests on 3m caisson.

500
400
300
200
Moment (kNm)

100
0
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 -100 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Rotation of caisson centre (2R θ) (m)

Figure 20: Hysteresis loops from hydraulic jacking tests on 3m

caisson. Figure 22: The caisson test rig at Aalborg University

100
is saturated by the water reservoir shown in Figure
90 Jacking
80
SEMV 22. Before each experiment CPT-tests are performed
Hyperbolic curve fit
70 to verify the density and strength of the sand. The
60 caisson is then installed and loaded with a constant
G (MPa)

50 vertical load. The vertical load is kept constant

40
through the experiment, while the horizontal force is
30
20
applied to the tower by the loading device mounted
10 on the loading frame, see Figure 21. The tower and
0 the loading device are connected by a wire. The
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
∆θ (radians)
combined loading (H, M) is controlled by the height
of loading h. The loading frame allows the
Figure 21: Shear modulus against rotation amplitude. possibility of changing h from 0.1m to 4.0m above
the sand surface (Table 3). The horizontal force H is
measured by a transducer connected to the wire. The
axis perpendicular to the horizontal load). However,
deformation of the foundation and the moment are
a test rig capable of applying full 6 degree-of-
measured with the measuring cell mounted on the
freedom loading has recently been developed by
top of the caisson, as shown by Figure 23.
Byrne and Houlsby (2005).
Laboratory tests at Oxford University have used a
The model tests at Aalborg are performed by the
versatile 3 degree-of-freedom loading rig designed
test rig shown in Figure 22. The rig consists of a test
by Martin (1994) and adapted by Byrne (2000) (see
box and loading frame. The test box consists of a
also Martin and Houlsby (2000) and Gottardi et al.
steel frame with an inner width of 1.6m x 1.6m and
(1999)). The rig is shown in Figure 24, and is
an inner total depth of 0.65m. The test box is filled
capable of applying a wide range of combinations of
with Aalborg University Sand No 0. After each
vertical, horizontal and moment loading under either
experiment the sand in the box is prepared in a
displacement or load control.
systematic way to ensure homogeneity within the
Typical moment loading tests involve applying a
box, and between the different test boxes. The sand
fixed vertical load, and then cycling the rotation at
 100
80
60

Moment Load, M/2R (N)

40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Rotational Displacement, 2Rθ (mm)

Figure 25: Moment-rotation test on sand

Figure 23: The measuring cell connecting the caisson and the
tower. 100

Moment Load, M/2R (N)

Experiment, M/2RH = 1
80
Fitted Yield Surface

Soil Plug Weight

60

40

20

0
-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
Vertical Load, V (N)

Figure 26: Experimentally determined yield surface in V-M

plane

significant fraction of the weight of the soil plug

Figure 24: Three degree-of-freedom testing rig at Oxford
University
increasing amplitude. An example is given in Figure
25.
The first interpretation of such tests is to
determine the yield surface for a single surface
plasticity model (see section 7.2 below, and also
Martin and Houlsby (2001), Houlsby and Cassidy
(2002), Houlsby (2003), Cassidy et al. (2004)). An
example of the yield points obtained, plotted in the
vertical load-moment plane, is given in Figure 26.
Of particular importance is the fact that at very low
vertical loads there is a significant moment capacity,
and that this extends even into the tensile load range.
In these drained tests the ultimate load in tension is a
inside the caisson.
Sections of the yield surface can also be plotted in
H-M space as shown in Figure 27, where the data
here have been assembled from many tests at
different stress levels. The flow vectors are also
plotted in this figure, and show that in this plane
(unlike the V-M plane) associated flow is a
reasonable approximation to the behaviour. Feld
(2001) has observed similar shapes of a yield surface
for a caisson in sand.
We now consider the possibility of scaling the
results of laboratory tests to the field. The test at
Frederikshavn shown in Figure 17 was on a caisson
with a ratio L 2 R = 1 , at an M 2 RH value of
approximately 8.7, and with a value of V 2πR 3 γ ′ of
about 0.62. Using the data from the Oxford
laboratory on 0.2x0.2m caissons this requires a
vertical load of about 60N. In fact a test had been
carried out with L 2 R = 1 and V = 50 N . According
to the scaling relationships discussed in section 3,
the moment should be scaled according to R 4 γ ′ (a
factor of 6250) and the rotational displacement 2 Rθ
according to R 3 γ ′ (a factor of 25). Figures 26 and
27 suggest that for a vertical load of 60N rather than
 120 0.3
Incremental Rotation, 2Rdtheta (mm) V = -50 N
0.2
80 V= 0N
0.1
Moment Load, M/2R(N)

V = 50 N

M/[su(2R) ]
40

3
0

0 -0.1

-0.2
-40
-0.3

-80 -0.4
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
-120 θ
-180 -140 -100-60 -20 20 60 100 140 180
Horizontal Load, H(N) (a) field test
Incremental Horizontal Displacement, du (mm) 0.3

Figure 27: Yield surfaces and flow vectors in H-M space. 0.2

0.1
150

M/[su(2R) ]
3
0
100
-0.1

50 -0.2
Moment, M (kNm)

0
-50
-100
-150
-0.06
Figure 28: Laboratory moment test scaled to field conditions
for comparison with Figure 17
50N a moment capacity say 5% higher might be
expected, and that for the higher value of M 2 RH a
further increase of say 15% is appropriate. We
therefore apply a factor of 7500 to the moments and
25 to the rotational displacements. The result is
shown in Figure 28. It can be seen that after scaling
the moment at a 2 Rθ value of 0.04 m is about
120kNm, compared to about 280kNm measured in
the field. Although there is a factor of about 2
between these values, it must be borne in mind that
there are a number of possible causes of difference
between the tests (e.g. the sand in the field test may
be much denser), and also that a factor of 7500 has
already been applied: a factor of 2 is relatively small
by comparison.
5.3 Clay: field and laboratory tests
Less work has been carried out on clay than on sand.
The large scale trials at Bothkennar (Houlsby et al.
2005b) are complemented by laboratory studies
intended to model these trials directly, and therefore
add confidence to the scaling of the results to
prototype size caissons (Kelly et al., 2005a).
-0.3
-0.4
-0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
θ
(b) model test
Figure 29: Moment-rotation results presented in non-
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
dimensional form for laboratory and field tests.
Rotational Displacement, 2Rtheta (m)
At Bothkennar, moment loads were applied to a
3m x 1.5m caisson by two means. Small amplitude,
but relatively high frequency (10Hz) loading was
applied by means of the SEMV device described
above, and larger amplitude cycles, but at much
lower frequency, were applied using a hydraulic
jack. In both cases the loading was 4m above the
caisson, so that hload D = 1.33 . The most important
observation from these tests was the gradual
reduction of secant stiffness (and increase in
hysteresis) as the amplitude of the load cycles
increases.
The laboratory tests, specifically modelling the
field tests, involved just relatively low frequency
loading. After the scaling relationships described in
section 3 were applied, there was a satisfactory
agreement between laboratory and field data,
especially at relatively small amplitudes of
movement. As an example, Figure 29(a) shows the
results (in dimensionless form) for rotation of the
3.0m diameter caisson in the field, and Figure 29(b)
the equivalent results, also in dimensionless form,
from the small scale model test. The pattern of
behaviour is remarkably similar in the two tests.
This sort of comparison is vital to establish
confidence in the use of model testing to develop Table 4: Vertical loading tests
design guidelines. D L
Site Soil Ref.
(m) (m)
6. CAISSON PERFORMANCE: TETRAPOD OR Luce Bay Sand 1.5 1.0 27
TRIPOD 0.05 0.0 - 0.1 11
In the following, in which we consider multiple 0.1 0.0 - 0.066 2,5
footing designs to support the wind turbine, we shall Oxford 0.15 0.05 2,5
Sand
refer principally to a tetrapod (four footings) rather laboratory 0.15 0.1 34
than a tripod. As a tripod is perhaps the most 0.2 0.133 34
0.28 0.18 25,32,33,35
obvious multiple footing design to use, and has the
Bothkennar Clay 1.5 1.0 26
obvious advantage of simplicity, our preference for
UWA 0.02
the tetrapod deserves some explanation.
centrifuge Clay 0.06 0.03 3
As is discussed below, prudent design of a (100g) 0.06
multiple footing structure will avoid tension being
applied to any of the foundations (except under the
most extreme of circumstances). This in effect Normalised Vertical Displacement, w/D
dictates the separation of the foundations for a given 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
400
overturning moment and weight of structure.
350
Approximate calculations indicate that the tetrapod
Vertical Load, V (N)
300
structure is usually a more favourable configuration 250
to avoid tension, as it requires somewhat less 200
material. The differences are not large, and a tripod 150
may be preferred in some circumstances, but we 100

shall refer to a tetrapod, as this will probably be 50

more efficient. The important mechanism is the 0

0 50 100 150
same in both cases: the overturning moment is Vertical Displacement, w (mm)
resisted by opposing “push-pull” action on the Figure 30: Vertical load-penetration curves for caissons of
foundations. different L/D ratios
In Table 4 we list the tests that have been carried
1600
out on vertical loading of caissons relevant to the
1400
wind turbine problem. In addition to these studies 1200
Vertical Stress (kPa)

there are a number of other relevant studies which 1000

have been directed towards vertical loading of 800
caissons for structures in the oil and gas industry or 600
400
for use as anchors.
200
6.1 Sand: field and laboratory tests 0
-200
The simplest tests on vertical loading of caissons in -400
sand, which are relevant both to installation and to 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
Vertical Displacement (mm)
subsequent performance, simply involve pushing
caissons vertically into sand to determine the vertical Figure 31: Cyclic vertical loading of model caisson.
load-displacement response. Figure 30 shows the
results of a set of such tests on caissons of different
31 shows the results of tests on a 300mm diameter
L/D ratios, Byrne et al. (2003). It is clear from the
caisson subjected to rapid cyclic loading. Small-
figure that there is a well-established pattern. While
amplitude cycles show a stiff response, with larger
the caisson skirt is penetrating the sand there is
cycles showing both more hysteresis and more
relatively low vertical capacity, but as soon as the
accumulated displacement per cycle. The most
top plate makes contact with the sand there is a
important observation is that as soon as the cycles go
sudden increase in capacity. The envelope of the
into tension, a much softer response is observed, and
ultimate capacities of footings of different initial L/D
the hysteresis loops acquire a characteristic “banana”
ratios also forms a single consistent line.
shape. Clearly the soft response on achieving tension
Of most importance, however, is the performance
should be avoided in design. Closer examination of
of the caissons under cyclic vertical loading. Figure
the curves reveals that the softening in fact occurs
 capacity in this case is simply the friction on the
Vertical Displacement (mm) skirts. The test at 100mm/s (but zero ambient water
150 160 170 180 190 200 210
0
pressure) shows a larger capacity, and it is
-50
straightforward to show that this is controlled by
-100
cavitation beneath the foundation. This means that at
Vertical Stress (kPa)

-150
elevated water pressures (as in the third test) the
-200
capacity rises approximately in step with to the
-250
ambient water pressure, as correspondingly larger
Direction of
-300 movement
pressure changes are required to cause cavitation.
-350 5mm/s, 0kPa
This problem is studied in more detail by Houlsby et
-400 100mm/s, 0kPa al. (2005a).
100mm/s, 200kPa
-450 It is important to note, however, that although
Figure 32: Tensile capacity of model caisson pulled at different ambient water pressure increases the ultimate
rates and at different ambient pressures. capacity, it has negligible influence on the tensile
load at which a flexible response begins to occur.
5 Comparison of cyclic loading tests at different
1.5m Field scales and at different speeds shows that it is
4 0.15m Suction difficult to scale reliably the accumulated
0.2m Pushed
3 displacements, which reduce with larger tests and
V/[γ'(2R) ]

0.15m Pushed
3

2
1 individual hysteresis loops at different scales and at
0 different rates become remarkably similar. Figure 33
-1
0 0.01 0.02
[w/(2R)][pa/(2Rγ')]
Figure 33: Hysteresis loops from tests at different scales and
rates.
once the drained frictional capacity of the skirts has
been exceeded, rather than simply the transition into
tension.
Paradoxically, although additional accumulated
displacement is observed once tension is reached,
this accumulated displacement is downwards (not
upwards as one might expect because of the tensile
loading).
The above observations mean that tension must
be avoided in a prudent design of a tripod or tetrapod
foundation for a wind turbine. However, in all but
the shallowest of water, avoiding this tension means
that either the foundation must have a large spacing
between the footings, or that ballasting must be used.
The latter may in fact be a cost effective measure in
deep water.
Some designers may wish to reduce conservatism
by allowing for the possibility of tension under
extreme circumstances. It is therefore useful to
examine the ultimate tensile capacity under rapid
loading. Figure 32 shows the result of three such
tests. The slowest test (at 5mm/s) is almost drained,
and a very low capacity in tension is indicated. The
higher loading rates. However, when the scaling
rules described earlier are applied, the shapes of
shows a comparison, for instance, of loops at three
0.03 0.04 0.05
different load amplitudes from four different tests.
1/2
At each particular load amplitude the loops from the
different tests are very similar.
The accumulation of displacement after very
large numbers of cycles is difficult to predict, and so
far few data are available. Rushton (2005) has
carried out vertical loading tests to about 100000
cycles on a model caisson in sand, using a simple
loading rig which employs a rotating mass and a
series of pulleys to apply a cyclic load. A typical
result is shown in Figure 34, on a caisson 200mm
diameter and 100mm deep, with cycling between
210 ± 260 N . The caisson is therefore subjected (at
the minimum vertical load) to a small tension, but
less than the frictional capacity of the skirts. The
dimensionless accumulated vertical displacement is
seen in Figure 34 to increase approximately with the
logarithm of the number of cycles of loading (after
about 1000 cycles). Note that even in this case where
there is a tensile loading in part of the cycle, the net
movement is downwards. The displacement is of
course very sensitive also to the amplitude of the
cycling.
6.2 Clay: field and laboratory tests
Very few vertical loading tests relevant to the wind
turbine problem have been completed on caissons in
clay, although there have been a number of studies
directed towards suction caissons used as tension
 0.05 more detailed research project was carried out by
Feld (2001).
0.00
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Finite element analysis is particularly appropriate
1/2

for establishing the effects of design parameters on

[w/(2R)][pa/(2Rγ’)]

-0.05
the elastic behaviour of caissons, and has been used
-0.10
by Doherty et al. (2004a,b) to determine elastic
-0.15 stiffness coefficients for caisson design which take
Min into account the flexibility of the caisson wall as
-0.20 Max well as coupling effects between horizontal and
-0.25 moment loading.
Number of Cycles
7.2 Plasticity models
Figure 34: Accumulated displacement during long term cyclic An important tool for the analysis of soil-structure
vertical loading on sand
interaction problems, particularly those involving
anchors, e.g. El-Gharbawy (1998), Watson (1999), dynamically sensitive structures are “force resultant”
House (2002). models. In these the behaviour of the foundation is
At Bothkennar tests were carried out in which represented purely through the force resultants
inclined (but near vertical) loading was applied to a acting upon it, and the resulting displacements (see
1.5m diameter caisson (Houlsby et al., 2005b). Figure 4). Details of stresses and deformations
Difficulties were encountered with the control of the within the soil are ignored. The models are usually
loads using a hydraulic system, and the resulting framed within the context of work-hardening
load paths are therefore rather complex, leading to plasticity theory. Examples include models for
difficulties in interpretation. Further work on vertical foundations on clay (Martin and Houlsby, 2001) and
loading in clay is required before definitive on sand (Houlsby and Cassidy, 2002). Overviews of
conclusions can be drawn, and in particular the issue the development of these models are given by
of tensile loading in clay needs attention. Some Houlsby (2003) and Cassidy et al. (2004)
preliminary results (Byrne and Cassidy, 2002), These models have been further developed
shown in Figure 35, show that the tensile response specifically for the offshore wind turbine
may be sensitive to prior compressive loading. application. The developments include:
Footings loaded in tension immediately after • Generalisation to full three-dimensional loading
installation showed a stiff tensile response, whilst conditions,
those loaded after first applying a compressive load • Inclusion of special features to represent the
to failure showed a more flexible tensile response. caisson geometry,
• Expression of the models within the “continuous
hyperplasticity” framework to allow realistic
60 description of hysteretic response during cyclic
40 loading.
Vertical Stress, V/A (kPa)

20
A model with all these features is described by
Lam and Houlsby (2005). The fitting of cyclic data
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
to a continuous hyperplastic model is discussed by
-20 Byrne et al (2002a).
-40

Test 1: Post Bearing Capacity

8. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
-60
Test 2: Pre Bearing Capacity
-80
We have concentrated here on the design of caisson
Normalised Displacement, (w + L)/D foundations as far as capacity and stiffness are
Figure 35: Tension tests on caisson foundations in clay concerned for in-service conditions. However, there
a number of other issues which need to be addressed
7. NUMERICAL STUDIES in a caisson design, and we mention them here
7.1. Finite element studies briefly.
A number of analyses of suction caissons for 8.1 Scour
offshore wind farms have been carried out as part of Scour is more important for caissons, since they are
commercial investigations for possible projects. A relatively shallow, than for piles. The size of
caissons, and the fact that part of the caisson
inevitably protrudes above mudline level, creates
rather aggressive conditions for scour. The fact that
the caissons may be installed in mobile shallow-
water environments means that proper consideration
of this problem is essential, especially in sands.
If the scour depth can be determined with
sufficient confidence (e.g. from comprehensive
model testing) then it may be possible to permit the
scour to occur, and simply allow for this in the
design by ensuring that the caisson is deep enough.
It is more likely, however, that scour protection
measures such as rock-dumping will need to be
employed. Practical experience suggests that such
protection must be placed very soon after caisson
installation, as scour can occur very rapidly. In
highly mobile environments, significant scour can,
for instance, occur due to the currents in a single
tide. Model testing indicates, however, that scour
protection measures can be effective in preventing
further erosion (R. Whitehouse: private
communication). For in-service conditions regular
monitoring for the possibility of scour would be
prudent.
8.2 Liquefaction
The transient pore pressures induced in the seabed
can induce liquefaction, especially if the seabed is
partially saturated due to the presence of gas (as can
occur in shallow seabeds, largely due to decay of
organic matter).
The problem is a complex one, but typically, at
one stage in the wave cycle, the pore pressure in the
seabed can become equal to the overburden stress,
and the effective stress falls to zero. This problem is
further complicated by the presence of a structure,
which clearly modifies the pore pressure pattern that
would occur in the far field. Although some progress
has been made, the interactions are complex, and
theoretical modelling of the problem is not
straightforward.
8.3 Wave-induced forces
A quite different problem from liquefaction is also
related to the fact that the principal forces on the
structure are wave induced. As a wave passes the
column of the structure it exerts large horizontal
forces (of the order of a few meganewtons for a
large wave), which also cause overturning moments.
However, at the same time the wave causes a
transient pressure on the seabed, and on the lid of the
caisson. Because the caissons are in shallow water
these pressures are quite large. The pore water
pressure within the caisson is unlikely to change as
rapidly as the pressure on the lid, so there will be
pressure differentials across the lid of the caisson
which result in net vertical forces, and overturning
moments on the caisson.
The relative phase of the different sources of
loading is important. As the crest of the wave just
reaches the structure, the wave kinematics are such
that the horizontal forces are likely to be largest. At
this stage the pressure on the upwave side of the
caisson is likely to be larger than on the downwave
side. The net result is that the moment caused by the
pressures on the caisson lid opposes that caused by
the horizontal loading, so this effect is likely to be
beneficial to the performance of the caisson. Little
work has, however, yet been completed on the
magnitudes of these effects. The problem is
complicated by the fact that the kinematics of large
(highly non-linear) shallow water waves is still a
matter of research, as is their interaction with
structures.
8. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have provided an overview of the
extensive amount of work that has been carried out
on the design of suction caisson foundations for
offshore wind turbines. Further verification of the
results presented here is still required, and in due
course it is hoped that this will come from
instrumented caisson foundations offshore. Our
broad conclusions at present are:
• Suction caissons could be used as foundations
for offshore wind turbines, either in monopod or
tripod/tetrapod layout.
• The combination of low vertical load and high
horizontal load and moment is a particular
feature of the wind turbine problem.
• Stiffness and fatigue are as important for turbine
design as ultimate capacity.
• Monopod foundation design is dominated by
moment loading.
• Tripod/tetrapod foundation design is dominated
by considerations of tensile loading.
• The moment-rotation response of caissons in
sand has been extensively investigated by model
tests and field trials, and modelled theoretically
by finite element analyses and force resultant
(yield surface) models.
• As amplitude of moment loading increases,
stiffness reduces and hysteresis increases.
• Moment loading in clay has been less
extensively investigated in the laboratory and
field.
• Vertical loading in sand has been extensively
investigated in the laboratory and field.
• The as the amplitude of vertical loading
increases, stiffness reduces and hysteresis
increases. Once tension is reached there is a
sudden reduction of stiffness.
• Whilst high ultimate tensile capacities are
possible (especially in deep water) this is at the
expense of large movements.
• Application of scaling procedures for tests in
both sand and clay allows model and field tests
to be compared successfully as far as stiffness
and the shapes of hysteresis loops is concerned.
• Cumulative displacements after very many
cycles are harder to model.
• The design of caisson foundations also needs to
take into consideration issues such as scour and
liquefaction.
It is hoped that the conclusions above lead in due
course to application of suction caissons as
foundations for offshore wind turbines, thereby
making an important renewable energy source more
economically viable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work at Oxford University has been supported
by the Department of Trade and Industry, the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council and a consortium of companies: SLP
Engineering Ltd, Aerolaminates (now Vestas),
Fugro Ltd, Garrad Hassan, GE Wind and Shell
Renewables. An outline of the project is given by
Byrne et al. (2002b). The work of Richard Kelly,
Nguyen-Sy Lam and Felipe Villalobos on this
project is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Bolton, M.D. (1986) “The strength and Dilatancy of
Sand”, Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp 65-78
2. Byrne, B.W. (2000) "Investigations of Suction Caissons in
Dense Sand", D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University
3. Byrne, B.W. and Cassidy, M.J. (2002) “Investigating the
response of offshore foundations in soft clay soils”, Proc.
OMAE, Oslo, Paper OMAE2002-28057
4. Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (1999) "Drained
Behaviour of Suction Caisson Foundations on Very Dense
Sand", Offshore Technology Conference, 3-6 May,
Houston, Paper 10994
5. Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (2002) “Experimental
Investigations of the Response of Suction Caissons to
Transient Vertical Loading”, Proc. ASCE, J. of Geot. Eng.,
Vol. 128, No. 11, Nov., pp 926-939
6. Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (2003) "Foundations for
Offshore Wind Turbines", Phil. Trans. of the Royal
Society of London, Series A, Vol. 361, Dec., 2909-2930
7. Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (2004) “Experimental
Investigations of the Response of Suction Caissons to
Transient Combined Loading”, Proc. ASCE, J. of Geotech.
and Geoenvironmental Eng., Vol. 130, No. 3, pp 240-253
8. Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (2005) "Investigating 6
degree-of-freedom loading on shallow foundations", Proc.
International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics, Perth, Australia, 19-21 September, in press
9. Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T. and Martin, C.M. (2002a)
"Cyclic Loading of Shallow Offshore Foundations on
Sand", Proc. Int. Conf on Physical Modelling in Geotech.,
July 10-12, St John's, Newfoundland, 277-282
10. Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., Martin, C.M. and Fish, P.
(2002b) "Suction Caisson Foundations for Offshore Wind
Turbines", Wind Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp 145-155
11. Byrne, B.W., Villalobos,, F. Houlsby, G.T. and Martin,
C.M. (2003) "Laboratory Testing of Shallow Skirted
Foundations in Sand", Proc. Int. Conf. on Foundations,
Dundee, 2-5 September, Thomas Telford, pp 161-173
12. Cassidy, M.J., Byrne, B.W. and Randolph, M.F. (2004) “A
comparison of the combined load behaviour of spudcan
and caisson foundations on soft normally consolidated
clay”, Géotechnique, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp 91-106
13. Cassidy, M.J., Martin, C.M. and Houlsby, G.T. (2004)
"Development and Application of Force Resultant Models
Describing Jack-up Foundation Behaviour", Marine
Structures, (special issue on Jack-up Platforms: Papers
from 9th Int. Conf. on Jack-Up Platform Design,
Construction and Operation, Sept. 23-24, 2003, City Univ.,
London), Vol. 17, No. 3-4, May-Aug., 165-193
14. Coldicott, L. (2005) “Suction installation of cellular
skirted foundations”, 4th year project report, Dept. of
Engineering Science, Oxford University
15. Doherty, J.P., Deeks, A.J. and Houlsby, G.T. (2004a)
"Evaluation of Foundation Stiffness Using the Scaled
Boundary Method", Proc. 6th World Congress on
Computational Mechanics, Beijing, 5-10 Sept., in press
16. Doherty, J.P., Houlsby, G.T. and Deeks, A.J. (2004b)
"Stiffness of Flexible Caisson Foundations Embedded in
Non-Homogeneous Elastic Soil", Submitted to Proc.
ASCE, Jour. Structural Engineering Division
17. El-Gharbawy, S.L. (1998) “The Pullout Capacity of
Suction Caisson Foundations”, PhD Thesis, University of
Texas at Austin
18. Feld T. (2001) “Suction Buckets, a New Innovative
Foundation Concept, applied to offshore Wind Turbines”
Ph.D. Thesis, Aalborg University Geotechnical
Engineering Group, Feb..
19. Gottardi, G., Houlsby, G.T. and Butterfield, R. (1999)
"The Plastic Response of Circular Footings on Sand under
General Planar Loading", Géotechnique, Vol. 49, No. 4,
pp 453-470
20. Houlsby, G.T. (2003) "Modelling of Shallow Foundations
for Offshore Structures", Proc. Int. Conf. on Foundations,
Dundee, 2-5 Sept., Thomas Telford, pp 11-26
21. Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W. (2000) “Suction Caisson
Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines and Anemometer
Masts”, Wind Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp 249-255
22. Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W. (2005a) “Design
Procedures for Installation of Suction Caissons in Clay and
Other Materials”, Proc. ICE, Geotechnical Eng., Vol. 158
No. GE2, pp 75-82
23. Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W. (2005b) “Design
Procedures for Installation of Suction Caissons in Sand”,
Proceedings ICE, Geotechnical Eng., in press
24. Houlsby, G.T. and Cassidy, M.J. (2002) "A Plasticity
Model for the Behaviour of Footings on Sand under
Combined Loading", Géotechnique, Vol. 52, No. 2, Mar.,
117-129
25. Houlsby, G.T., Kelly, R.B. and Byrne, B.W. (2005a) "The
Tensile Capacity of Suction Caissons in Sand under Rapid
 Loading", Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore 44. Watson, P.G. (1999) “Performance of Skirted Foundations
Geotechnics, Perth, Australia, September, in press for Offshore Structures”, PhD Thesis, the University of
26. Houlsby, G.T., Kelly, R.B., Huxtable, J. and Byrne, B.W. Western Australia
(2005b) “Field Trials of Suction Caissons in Clay for 45. Wolf, J.P. (1994) “Foundation Vibration Analysis Using
Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations”, Géotechnique, in Simple Physical Models”, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
press
27. Houlsby, G.T., Kelly, R.B., Huxtable, J. and Byrne, B.W.
(2005c) “Field Trials of Suction Caissons in Sand for
Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations”, submitted to
Géotechnique
28. House, A. (2002) “Suction Caisson Foundations for
Buoyant Offshore Facilities”, PhD Thesis, the University
of Western Australia
29. Ibsen, L.B., Schakenda, B., Nielsen, S.A. (2003)
“Development of bucket foundation for offshore wind
turbines, a novel principle”. Proc. USA Wind 2003
Boston.
30. Ibsen, L.B. and Brincker, R. (2004) “Design of New
Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines”, Proceedings of
The 22nd International Modal Analysis Conference
(IMAC), Detroit, Michigan, 2004.
31. Ibsen L.B., Liingaard M. (2005) “Output-Only Modal
Analysis Used on New Foundation Concept for Offshore
Wind Turbine”, in preparation
32. Kelly, R.B., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T. and Martin, C.M.
(2003) "Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson
Foundations in Sand", Proc. Int. Conf. on Foundations,
Dundee, 2-5 Sept., Thomas Telford, pp 421-431
33. Kelly, R.B., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T. and Martin,
C.M., 2004. Tensile loading of model caisson foundations
for structures on sand, Proc. ISOPE, Toulon, Vol. 2, 638-
641
34. Kelly, R.B., Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W. (2005a) "A
Comparison of Field and Laboratory Tests of Caisson
Foundations in Sand and Clay" submitted to Géotechnique
35. Kelly, R.B., Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W. (2005b)
"Transient Vertical Loading of Model Suction Caissons in
a Pressure Chamber", submitted to Géotechnique
36. Lam, N.-S. and Houlsby, G.T. (2005) "The Theoretical
Modelling of a Suction Caisson Foundation using
Hyperplasticity Theory", Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics, Perth, Australia, Sept., in press
37. Martin, C.M. (1994) "Physical and Numerical Modelling
of Offshore Foundations Under Combined Loads", D.Phil.
Thesis, Oxford University
38. Martin, C.M. and Houlsby, G.T. (2000) "Combined
Loading of Spudcan Foundations on Clay: Laboratory
Tests", Géotechnique, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp 325-338
39. Martin, C.M. and Houlsby, G.T. (2001) “Combined
Loading of Spudcan Foundations on Clay: Numerical
Modelling”, Géotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 8, Oct., 687-700
40. Rushton, C. (2005) “Cyclic testing of model foundations
for an offshore wind turbine”, 4th year project report, Dept.
of Engineering Science, Oxford University
41. Sanham, S.C. (2003) “Investigations into the installation of
suction assisted caisson foundations”, 4th year project
report, Dept. of Engineering Science, Oxford University
42. Villalobos, F.A., Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (2005)
"Moment loading of caissons installed in saturated sand",
Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics,
Perth, Australia, Sept., in press
43. Villalobos, F., Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W. (2004)
"Suction Caisson Foundations for Offshore Wind
Turbines", Proc. 5th Chilean Conference of Geotechnics
(Congreso Chileno de Geotecnia), Santiago, 24-26
November

View publication stats