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

net/publication/346932852

Cyclic Loading of Offshore Wind Turbine Suction Bucket Foundations in Sand:

The Importance of Loading Frequency

Conference Paper · December 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 273

12 authors, including:

Han Eng Low Fangyuan Zhu

Fugro World Wide University of Western Australia
26 PUBLICATIONS   554 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Henning Mohr Carl Erbrich

University of Western Australia Fugro World Wide
14 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   473 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Efficient export riser solution for gas field developments in deep-water sites. View project

Investigation of shallow skirted foundations under cyclic loading View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henning Mohr on 11 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CYCLIC LOADING OF OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE SUCTION BUCKET FOUNDATIONS
IN SAND: THE IMPORTANCE OF LOADING FREQUENCY

Han Eng Low, Fugro, Perth, Australia, he.low@fugro.com

Fangyuan Zhu, Fugro, Perth, Australia, j.zhu@fugro.com
Henning Mohr, University of Western Australia, Australia, henning.mohr@uwa.edu.au
Carl Erbrich, Fugro, Perth, Australia, c.erbrich@fugro.com
Phil Watson, University of Western Australia, Australia, phillip.watson@uwa.edu.au
Fraser Bransby, University of Western Australia, Australia, fraser.bransby@uwa.edu.au
Conleth O’Loughlin, University of Western Australia, Australia, conleth.oloughlin@uwa.edu.au
Mark Randolph, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, mark.randolph@uwa.edu.au
Mohamed Mekkawy, Fugro, Walnut Creek, California, USA, m.mekkawy@fugro.com
Thaleia Travasarou, Fugro, Walnut Creek, California, USA, ttravasarou@fugro.com
Daniel O’Connell, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Sterling, Virginia, USA,
daniel.o'connell@boem.gov

ABSTRACT

Suction buckets are expected to be increasingly used as foundations for offshore wind turbine (OWT)
projects as they move to deeper water and monopiles become impractically large. Since OWTs are
relatively light and operational loads include high overturning moments, potential exists for individual
foundations to experience periods of net tension with accompanying (significant) cyclic tension.
Foundation design must ensure that these loading conditions do not lead to permanent tilting of an
OWT, due to differential foundation movement. This paper presents selected results from a series
of centrifuge tests designed to investigate how foundation performance is affected by the signature
of the loading, the frequency of the cyclic vertical loading and the average vertical load. Tests were
conducted with ‘random’ cyclic vertical loading, applied at different frequencies and with different
magnitudes of static and cyclic loading, to replicate the conditions experienced by the windward
bucket of a multi-bucket foundation system in sand. The results indicate that under certain drainage
conditions, suction buckets can sustain two-way cyclic loading – comprising significant tension load
and close to zero average load – with only modest permanent uplift displacement.

Keywords: offshore wind turbine, suction bucket, cyclic loading

INTRODUCTION

Suction buckets have been used successfully for over 20 years as foundation options for offshore
oil and gas facilities (Bye et al. 1995; Erbrich and Tjelta 1999; Tjelta 2015). Leveraging this
experience and depending on the water depth, soil conditions, and characteristics of the supported
superstructure, ‘mono-bucket’ or ‘multi-bucket’ systems can be used for offshore wind turbine (OWT)
projects. As illustrated on Fig. 1a, a ‘mono-bucket’ system relies on foundation moment capacity,
where the windward side of the bucket may experience net tension. For ‘multi-bucket’ systems
(Fig. 1b) the overturning moment is resisted by the ‘push-pull’ effect between the windward bucket,
where the vertical load (V1) reduces, and the leeward bucket, where the vertical load (V2) increases.
For foundations in sand, it is generally the reducing vertical loading on the windward bucket that
governs design, as it can load the bucket in net tension and lead to large foundation movement.

Two issues that make the use of suction buckets for OWTs more challenging than for conventional
oil and gas facilities are:
• OTWs are sensitive to foundation movement i.e. the maximum allowable tilt may be limited
to 0.25°, while the dynamic response of the structure may govern turbine behavior and
fatigue life (Houlsby et al. 2005a);
• OWTs are generally light – leading to high ratios of moment to vertical load and the potential
for significant cyclic tensile stress to occur in the soil under certain design conditions. In
addition, wind loading may lead to periods where a net tension load is applied simultaneously
with a significant cyclic tension.
1
 (a) Mono suction bucket (b) Multi-buckets in a tripod structure

Fig. 1: Simplified loading mechanisms for suction-bucket supported OWTs

Accordingly, while they have been used for a small number of offshore wind farms such as Borkum
Riffgrund 1 (Shonberg et al. 2017), challenges remain to optimize the foundation design.

In this paper, ‘tension’ refers to the development of localised (net) tensile loads on the windward
leg(s) of a multi-bucket system under predominately vertical push-pull loading. From a design
perspective, tension loading can lead to permanent tilting of an OWT due to the differential
movement of windward and leeward buckets (for multiple-bucket systems). However, previous work
suggests that, in sand, these movements may be limited by (i) high undrained tension capacity during
transient tension loading, and (ii) pore water dissipation between large load cycles eliminating
degradation of the undrained strength and stiffness caused by cyclic loading (Tjelta 2015).

While a number of experimental studies have been conducted over the past 20 or so years to
investigate suction bucket responses to cyclic loading in sand (e.g. Kelly et al. 2006; Bienen et al.
2018), the majority of these studies used packets of uniform cyclic loading and did not systematically
address the potential benefit of pore water pressure dissipation between the peak loads. The
consequence of this is likely to be overly onerous design, leading to larger bucket foundations, or
even invalidating such foundation concepts for OWTs installed at locations with sandy soils.

The Importance of Loading Frequency or Drainage Response

Figure 2 suggests how loading frequency relative to soil drainage time may influence the capacity
of a windward suction bucket (of a multi-bucket system) under combined static and uniform cyclic
vertical loading. This is specifically for sands, where significant drainage may occur during individual
loading (e.g. storm) events.

For drained monotonic uplift loading, pullout of the bucket engages skin friction on the bucket walls
only, and the drained uplift capacity (A) is modest. However, if monotonic uplift loading is applied
quickly relative to pore pressure dissipation in the soil, then the uplift capacity (D) will be larger. For
intermediate drainage response, a transition curve is envisaged as denoted by the black line AD. In
practice, and reflecting the typically modest water depth for OWTs, uplift capacity is likely to be
limited by cavitation (C) and the overall monotonic uplift capacity will therefore be denoted by the
line ABC.

When subject to cyclic loads, other mechanisms occur that reduce the capacity to less than the
monotonic capacity. The green zone on Fig. 2 postulates how the cyclic capacity of a single bucket
foundation (subject to uniform cyclic loading around a small compressive static vertical load) may
change with loading frequency. For slow cyclic loading, either drained or where there is sufficient
time between cycles to dissipate induced pore pressure, the maximum sustainable load may be
2
 Vertical load
D Undrained

Tension B C Cavitation limit

Cyclic excess pore pressure 

shear-induced displacement limited
Drained Cyclic ratcheting pullout
pullout
A =
0
Static load Loading
Sustainable frequency
=
cyclic capacity
Compression

Static
forces
Cyclic volumetric strain Cyclic excess pore pressure 
 settlement limited shear-induced displacement limited

Fig. 2: Conceptualized effect of load frequency on the capacity of suction buckets

limited either by ratcheting pullout (as the drained uplift capacity is approached) or by settlement of
the foundation caused by volume reduction in the soil beneath the foundation – as indicated by the
red and purple shaded zones in Fig. 2 respectively. In contrast, during fast cyclic loading, excess
pore pressure will accumulate between cycles and result in reduced foundation cyclic capacity –
indicated by the blue shaded zone. It is hypothesized that there is a zone of intermediate loading
frequency, where partial drainage conditions lead to larger cyclic capacity as a result of pore water
pressure dissipation during the loading cycles - and specifically between peak loads.

Although conceptualised for uniform cyclic loading, the associated mechanisms hint to a design
opportunity in the case of random loading – where sufficient time may exist between (discrete) peak
loads, allowing pore pressure to dissipate and thereby increasing sustainable cyclic capacity. This
paper explores this by presenting centrifuge test results for suction bucket foundations in sand,
subject to random cyclic vertical loading at different frequency.

The tests are part of a larger research programme funded by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) and administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). The primary objective of the research project is to
improve methods for designing suction bucket foundations in sandy soils under long term cyclic
loads, with application to new wind farm developments off the U.S. East Coast.

CENTRIFUGE TESTING PROGRAMME

The centrifuge tests presented in this paper were conducted at the National Geotechnical Centrifuge
Facility (NGCF) at The University of Western Australia. The 1.8 m radius beam centrifuge (Randolph
et al. 1991) was used, and the tests were conducted at a nominal acceleration of 100g (applied at
half the skirt depth).

The tests presented in this paper were undertaken to investigate the effect of cyclic load frequency
and average stress on suction bucket foundation response in dense to very dense sand, as
encountered in many sites offshore the U.S. East Coast. The test programme specified in Table 1
was conducted, comprising monotonic tests to measure drained / undrained monotonic pullout
resistance, followed by a series of cyclic tests (with random load patterns) to investigate the effect
of changing cyclic load frequency and average vertical stress. Note that changes in average vertical
stress represent different levels of monotonic uplift force caused by wind / current relative to the
structure (static) dead weight.
3
 Table 1. Summary of tests presented in this paper
Maximum Displacement
Prototype Average
Test Test Cyclic Stress Rate (mm/s) or
Water Stress,
ID Type Amplitude, Load Frequency
Depth (m) V/A (kPa)
Vcyc/A (kPa) (Hz)
M1_3 ~24 Monotonic - - 3 mm/s
M2_3 ~10 Monotonic - - 3 mm/s
M3_0.001 ~24 Monotonic - - 0.001 mm/s
C60_160_0.1 ~24 Cyclic 60 160 0.1 Hz
C60_160_0.6 ~24 Cyclic 60 160 0.6 Hz
C60_260_0.6 ~24 Cyclic 60 260 0.3 to 0.6 Hz
C60_260_1.8 ~24 Cyclic 60 260 0.9 to 1.8 Hz
C0_100_0.1 ~24 Cyclic 0 100 0.1 Hz
C0_100_0.6 ~24 Cyclic 0 100 0.6 Hz
C0_150_0.1 ~24 Cyclic 0 150 0.1 Hz
C0_200_0.6 ~24 Cyclic 0 200 0.3 to 0.6 Hz

MODEL BUCKET AND TEST SETUP

The suction bucket tests were conducted using a model with diameter of 80 mm (8 m prototype) and
skirt length of 40 mm (4 m prototype), subject to pure vertical load to simulate the windward bucket
of a multi-bucket foundation system. The wall thickness was 0.5 mm (50 mm prototype).

The model was instrumented with a pore pressure transducer (PPT) and a total pressure transducer
(TPT) at the bucket invert to measure changes in pore pressure and contact pressure. A second
TPT was installed on top of the bucket to measure the hydrostatic water pressure, to allow
determination of excess pore pressure inside the bucket. A three-way valve was used to vent the
bucket during the self-weight installation, and to seal the bucket during suction installation (achieved
with a syringe pump) and suction bucket load tests. A load cell was used to measure the applied
vertical load and an independent linear displacement transducer (LDT) was used to measure vertical
displacement during testing. Photos of the model bucket and setup are shown on Fig. 3.

TEST SOIL AND SOIL SAMPLE PREPARATION

The samples were prepared using ‘super-fine’ silica sand (Chow et al. 2018), which is a poorly
graded silica sand with measured D50 = 0.19 mm and D10 = 0.095 mm. The samples were prepared
by dry pluviation to a (consistent) relative density of about 80% to sample height of approximately
120 mm. The sand samples were saturated using cellulose ether (METHOCELTM) with viscosity of
approximately 450 cSt (at 20°C), which lowers the effective permeability of the sand and allows
testing to be conducted under a range of drainage conditions (from fully drained to nearly undrained).
Saturation was achieved using the bottom-up saturation method and by subjecting the soil samples
to a series of ramp-up / ramp-down cycles in the centrifuge. The height of free fluid simulated a
prototype water depth of ~24 m, with the exception of one test where the height was reduced to
~10 m to investigate cavitation effects on uplift resistance (i.e. line BC on Fig. 2).

Several samples were used in the testing programme. Although not presented in this paper, the
penetration resistance measured during the installation phase of each test was comparable,
suggesting the samples were largely consistent. This was also confirmed by results from model
cone penetrometer testing.

TESTING PROCEDURE

The bucket installation and testing procedure for the suction bucket test is presented schematically
on Fig. 4 and described in the following sections.

4
 Tube connected
Load cell to syringe pump
TPT

3-way valve

TPT
PPT
Model
TPT Bucket LDT

(a) (b)
Fig. 3: The centrifuge testing apparatus and setup

Fig. 4: Testing procedure

Bucket Installation Procedure

In each test a realistic installation process was simulated. To simulate self-weight penetration, the
bucket was pushed (vented) at a constant penetration rate of 0.1 mm/s to a self-weight of 70 kPa
(defined as vertical load divided by projected plan area). This corresponds to a prototype self-weight
of about 350 tonnes per bucket, considered representative for a typical tripod jacket. In-flight suction
was then applied through the (now sealed) lid of the bucket, without stopping the centrifuge, with
the vertical stress held constant at 70 kPa. After the bucket was fully penetrated, the vertical stress
was increased to 120 kPa – corresponding a prototype total self-weight (i.e. wind turbine plus
foundation and jacket self-weight) of about 605 tonnes per bucket, again considered representative
of a typical OWT. Excess pore pressures from installation were then allowed to dissipate.

A pre-shearing stage was then performed, involving the application of 400 cycles of ± 6kPa vertical
stress (around an average of 120 kPa). The purpose this stage was to simulate small cyclic loading
events that may occur before a design storm and to capture the ‘bedding-in’ process experienced
in the field (Andersen 2015). Following the pre-shearing stage, the vertical stress was again held at
120 kPa to dissipate any induced excess pore pressure, prior to unloading to the average cyclic
stress selected for each cyclic load test.

Cyclic Load Time History and Frequency

The ‘random’ cyclic load time history adopted in the suction bucket tests presented in this paper
were generated semi-randomly from the 6-hour duration peak storm load composition outlined in
5
 Table 2. 6 Hours peak storm composition (Andersen 1991)
Load in % of Number of Load in % of Number Load in % of Number of
maximum load cycles maximum load of cycles maximum load cycles
20 900 64 50 89 4
37 500 70 30 96 2
49 200 77 16 100 1
58 90 83 8

Andersen (1991) and summarized in Table 2. The load history was generated by placing the largest
load cycle at the middle of the load history. The next 60 largest load cycles (i.e. those with amplitude
equal to or greater than 70% of the maximum amplitude) were then placed evenly at either side of
the peak load cycle, at a constant time interval and in decreasing order toward both ends of the time
history. This was intended to simulate the gradual ramp-up / ramp-down evident in real storms. The
remaining (small) cycles were distributed randomly between the pre-arranged (large) load cycles.
The amplitude for each cycle was then uniformly scaled according to the amplitude corresponding
to the maximum load targeted in each test. The loads were applied using a sinusoidal curve.

The cyclic frequency adopted in each test (summarised in Table 1) was chosen to allow comparison
of suction bucket responses at a range of drainage conditions (as illustrated on Fig. 2). The load
frequency was generally kept constant through each test. However, for load cycles with maximum
tension loads greater than 100 kPa, the load frequency was reduced slightly, which was to simulate
the increase in period for (very) large waves, while also improving load control (i.e. via the actuator)
under conditions where larger vertical displacement was expected.

SUCTION BUCKET FOUNDATION RESPONSE DURING MONOTONIC PULLOUT

The effect of water depth on suction bucket pullout capacity was investigated by conducting fast
monotonic pullout tests (at 3 mm/s) in soil samples with different levels of free fluid, simulating ~10 m
water depth (Test M2_3) and ~24 m water depth (Test M1_3). The vertical pullout response and
suction pressure at the bucket invert for these tests are presented in Fig. 5, which also shows the
approximate cavitation limits for each water depth. The results from a monotonic pullout test
conducted at 0.001 mm/s with the bucket vented (Test M3_0.001) are also shown, illustrating the
drained pullout resistance (which does not vary with water depth).

As expected, the reduced water depth in Test M2_3 led to a reduced undrained pullout capacity due
to cavitation. As shown on Fig. 5, up to a pullout resistance of approximately 130 kPa, the pullout
responses in both Test M1_3 and Test M2_3 are very similar. However, as displacement increases,
Test M1_3 demonstrates a higher pullout resistances and stiffer response than Test M2_3. Given
that the only difference between tests is the height of the free fluid surface, these test results confirm
that the pullout capacity and foundation stiffness for suction bucket depend on the cavitation limit of
the pore fluid inside the bucket (per Houlsby et al. 2005b). It is interesting to note that the two
responses seem to deviate when the pressure at the caisson invert is (much) less than the cavitation
limit, suggesting more negative pore pressures are experienced elsewhere in the model – postulated
to be at skirt tip level, but the subject of further study.

SUCTION BUCKET FOUNDATION RESPONSE UNDER CYCLIC VERTICAL LOADING

Typical Test Results

Figure 6 presents typical cyclic vertical stress-displacement responses, along with total pressure
and excess pore water pressure at the bucket invert (expressed relative to hydrostatic) as measured
in in Test C60_260_1.8 and Test C60_260_0.6 in which testing parameters are identical except for
the loading frequency (1.8 and 0.6 Hz). The settlements occurring during the tests are shown against
cycle number on Fig. 7a and the measured excess pore pressures are shown on Fig. 8.

Relative to the hypothesis in Fig. 2 (and discussed further below), the faster of the two tests appears
to correspond to a condition where cyclic capacity is governed by settlement due to excess pore
6
 Vertical Stress and Suction Pressure (kPa)
-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
0.3
Vertical Stress (M1_3)
Normalized Pull-out Displacement, d/L

Test M2_3, Vertical Stress (M2_3)

Water depth Vertical Stress (M3_0.001)
~10 m Suction Pressure (M1_3)
Suction Pressure (M2_3)
0.2
Suction Pressure (M3_0.001)
Cavitation Limit (24 m)
Cavitation Limit (10 m)

Test M3_0.001
0.1

Suction pressure
~ 0 kPa
Test M1_3,
Water depth ~24 m
0
Fig. 5: Monotonic pullout test results

pressure generation, while the slower test gives a ‘better’ foundation response (i.e. less settlement)
as excess pore pressure generated during the large cycles is able to dissipate during periods of
lesser loading. For both tests, the suction bucket was able to withstand the largest cycles (in the
middle of the load sequence) without significant additional settlement being generated, perhaps
because of the beneficial volumetric strain which occurred in the soil beneath the bucket as the initial
cyclically-induced pore pressure dissipated.

Observations - Vertical Displacement and Pore Pressure

The cumulative vertical displacements measured in all the cyclic tests are presented in Fig. 7. As
expected, the responses depend markedly on the cyclic frequency, average stress and cyclic load
amplitude. As is evident from Fig. 7a, the net displacement under cyclic loading with a compressive
average stress is downward (i.e. settlement). This is despite cycling in tension up to 200 kPa but
also seems to depend on the cyclic load frequency. As shown by the results for Tests C60_160_0.1
and C60_160_0.6, for which the test parameters were identical except for cyclic load frequency,
larger settlements were observed for the slower test (at 0.1 Hz), i.e. the faster loading condition (at
0.6 Hz) gave ‘better’ foundation performance. In contrast, the results from testing conducted at
higher cyclic load and frequency (i.e. Test C60_260_1.8 and Test C60_260_0.6) suggest that
greater settlement is observed for the higher frequency (Test C60_260_1.8).

In addition, the effect of cyclic load amplitude on the suction bucket settlement is also evident in
Fig. 7a, where tests performed at the same cyclic load frequency but with higher cyclic load
amplitude led (as expected) to greater overall settlement and larger cyclic movements. Note that
differences in measured settlement are thought not to relate to incomplete touch down of the suction
bucket, as full embedment was confirmed by monitoring, with ‘installed’ penetration depth greater
than 95% of the skirt length.

Close examination of pore pressure data measured at the bucket invert provides clues that explain
the settlement response, indicating that where high net settlement accumulates during the early
stages of a test, this may be attributed to high excess pore pressures. Fig. 8 highlights this, showing
the maximum excess pore pressure measured over the early stage of individual tests compared to
that over the remainder of the test. It appears that high (early) excess pore pressure observed in
Test C60_260_1.8 (which agrees with the applied vertical stress as shown in Fig. 6a) degrades the
soil beneath the suction bucket, resulting in greater overall settlement in the initial stages. As the
test continues, the pore pressure response is more comparable across the different tests, and the
rate of (permanent) settlement increase with cycle number is broadly consistent.

7
 Vertical Stress, V/A (kPa) 300
Total Pressure

Vertical Stress, Excess Pressure at Bucket Invert

-200 0 200 400 200
Excess Pore Pressure
-0.02 100
Normalised Vertical Displacement, ∆z/L
0
0.00 -100
-200
0.02 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Cycle Number, N

(kPa)
300
0.04
200
100
0.06
0
-100
0.08 Vertical Stress
-200
C60_260_1.8 0 10 20 30
0.10 Cycle Number, N

(a) Average stress = 60 kPa, cyclic load amplitude = 260kPa, load frequency 1.8Hz

Vertical Stress, V/A (kPa) 300

Total Pressure
Vertical Stress, Excess Pressure at Bucket Invert

-200 0 200 400 200 Excess Pore Pressure

-0.02 100
Normalized Vertical Displacement, ∆z/L

0
0.00
-100
-200
0.02 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Cycle Number, N
(kPa)

300
0.04
200
100
0.06
0
-100
0.08 Vertical Stress
-200
C60_260_0.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.10 Cycle Number, N

(b) Average stress = 60 kPa, cyclic load amplitude = 260kPa, load frequency 0.6Hz
Fig. 6: Typical test results

In contrast to above, when the bucket is subjected to 2-way cyclic loading around a zero average
stress, the foundation tends to be (gradually) pulled out of the soil during the cyclic loading – as
shown on Fig. 7b. Of particular interest is the impact of cyclic load frequency (i.e. drainage condition)
on the magnitude of displacement. As shown on Fig. 7b, the displacement observed in Test
C0_100_0.6 is close to zero despite the bucket being consistently subjected to cyclic tension up to
100 kPa (~3 times the drained pullout capacity of about ~30 kPa, see Fig. 5) with zero average
stress. Similarly, despite slightly greater observed uplift displacement, Test C0_200_0.6 with cyclic
tension up to 200 kPa (~6 times the drained pullout capacity) did not lead to large displacements. In
contrast, tests conducted at lower cyclic load frequency (i.e. 0.1 Hz) measured significant uplift
displacement.

In summary, the cyclic tests confirm that (for displacement) there is a ‘sweet spot’ in term of loading
frequency, in this case around 0.6 Hz, with cycling at lower frequency leading to additional settlement
or uplift, and cycling at higher frequency leading to greater pore pressure generation (and associated
settlement). These observations suggest that, even with zero average stress, suction bucket
foundations can sustain significant tension with minimum permanent displacement during storms

8
 -0.02 -0.5

Normalized Vertical Displacement,

Normalized Vertical Displacement,

-0.4 C0_150_0.1
0
C60_160_0.6 -0.3
0.02
C60_160_0.1 -0.2
∆z/L

∆z/L
0.04
-0.1 C0_100_0.1
C60_260_0.6
0.06 0
C60_260_1.8
C0_100_0.6
C0_200_0.6
0.08 0.1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Number of Cycles, N Number of Cycles, N
C60_160_0.1 C60_160_0.6 C0_100_0.1 C0_100_0.6
C60_260_0.6 C60_260_1.8 C0_150_0.1 C0_200_0.6

(a) Average stress = 60 kPa (b) Average stress = 0 kPa

Fig. 7: Cumulative normalized vertical displacement

160 120
Maximum Positive Excess Pore
Pressure at Bucket Invert (kPa)

Maximum Positive Excess Pore

Pressure at Bucket Invert (kPa)
140 C60_260_0.6
100
120 C60_260_1.8
80
100
80 60 C60_160_0.1
C60_260_0.6
60
40
40 C60_160_0.6 C60_260_1.8
20
20 C60_160_0.6
C60_160_0.1 N < 30 Cycles N > 30 Cycles
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Cyclic Load Amplitude, Vamp/A (kPa) Cyclic Load Amplitude, Vamp/A (kPa)
C60_160_0.1 C60_160_0.6 C60_160_0.1 C60_160_0.6
C60_260_0.6 C60_260_1.8 C60_260_0.6 C60_260_1.8

(a) First 30 cycles (b) Cycles greater than 30

Fig. 8: Maximum excess pore pressure measured at bucket invert. The presented data is the average
value of the maximum positive excess pore pressure observed at each cyclic load amplitude.

when cyclically loaded under favorable drainage conditions - hypothesized to correspond to the ‘fat’
part of the green shaded area in Fig. 2.

Observations – Unloading Stiffness

The average foundation unloading stiffness, as measured at each cyclic load amplitude, is presented
in Fig. 9. The unloading stiffness was calculated as suggested by Kelly et al. (2006) and is the ratio
of the change in (peak to trough) vertical load to measured vertical displacement (= ΔV/Δz). For
presentation purposes, the unloading stiffness shown on Fig. 9 is the average value of unloading
stiffness values measured at each cyclic load amplitude applied across each test. As can be seen,
the stiffness generally decreases with increasing cyclic load amplitude – indicative of an expected
non-linear load displacement response.

Consistent with the measured vertical displacement responses, foundation stiffness is also affected
by the cyclic load frequency i.e. drainage condition. In tests with compressive average stress of
60 kPa, the results show that during the early cycles of the fastest test, i.e. Test C60_260_1.8 (when
the highest pore pressure was observed), foundation unloading stiffness is significantly lower than
that for other tests. In contract, during the later cycles, the stiffness for each test conducted at cyclic
load frequency faster than 0.6 Hz is broadly comparable, albeit slightly higher for faster (more
undrained) tests. When considered over the full test, however, results suggest that cycling at 0.1 Hz
leads to foundation unloading stiffness that is consistently lower than for higher load frequency tests.
Similar observations are observed in tests conducted with zero average stress, with the stiffness

9
 1.6E+06 1.6E+06

Unloading Stiffness, k unload (kN/m)

Unloading Stiffness, k unload (kN/m)
C60_160_0.6 C60_160_0.6
1.4E+06 1.4E+06
1.2E+06 1.2E+06 C60_260_1.8

1.0E+06 C60_160_0.1 1.0E+06

8.0E+05 8.0E+05 C60_260_0.6
C60_260_0.6
6.0E+05 6.0E+05

4.0E+05 4.0E+05
C60_160_0.1
C60_260_1.8 2.0E+05
2.0E+05
N < 30 Cycles N > 30 Cycles
0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Cyclic Load Amplitude, Vamp/A (kPa) Cyclic Load Amplitude, Vamp/A (kPa)
C60_160_0.1 C60_160_0.6 C60_160_0.1 C60_160_0.6
C60_260_0.6 C60_260_1.8 C60_260_0.6 C60_260_1.8

(a) Average stress = 60 kPa (N < 30 cycles) (b) Average stress = 60 kPa (N > 30 cycles)
1.4E+06 1.6E+06
Unloading Stiffness, k unload (kN/m)

Unloading Stiffness, kunload (kN/m)

N < 30 Cycles N > 30 Cycles
1.2E+06 1.4E+06 C0_100_0.6
C0_100_0.6
1.2E+06
1.0E+06
C0_100_0.1 1.0E+06
8.0E+05 C0_100_0.1
8.0E+05
6.0E+05
6.0E+05
4.0E+05 C0_200_0.6 C0_200_0.6
4.0E+05
2.0E+05 2.0E+05
C0_150_0.1
C0_150_0.1
0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Cyclic Load Amplitude, Vamp/A (kPa) Cyclic Load Amplitude, Vamp/A (kPa)
C0_100_0.1 C0_100_0.6 C0_100_0.1 C0_100_0.6
C0_150_0.1 C0_200_0.6 C0_150_0.1 C0_200_0.6

(c) Average stress = 0 kPa (N < 30 cycles) (d) Average stress = 0 kPa (N > 30 cycles)

Fig. 9: Suction bucket unloading stiffness

evident in tests conducted with cyclic load frequency of 0.1 Hz being consistently lower than
measured in the tests conducted with a cyclic load frequency of 0.6 Hz.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Selected data from a centrifuge test programme performed to better understand the behavior of
suction buckets in sand is presented in this paper. Tests were performed to explore the performance
of suction buckets subject to ‘random’ cyclic vertical loading into (transient) tension. The results
confirm that the settlement and stiffness response to cyclic loading are highly dependent on the load
frequency (i.e. drainage condition), as well as both average and cyclic stress levels.

The data presented suggests that, under identical cyclic amplitudes, the permanent displacement
(either settlement or uplift) could be largest, and the foundation stiffness lowest, when the suction
bucket is subjected to either a low (quasi-drained) or high (quasi-undrained) cyclic load frequency.
Consequently, the most favorable cyclic frequency for suction buckets in sand under long-term cyclic
loading occurs for intermediate loading frequencies (i.e. generating partially drained conditions). The
data also showed that under favorable drainage conditions and with a sufficiently high cavitation
pressure limit, the suction bucket is potentially able to sustain two-way cyclic loading with significant
tension loads at close to zero average stress, with minimum permanent displacement.

Further analysis of the data collected from these and other centrifuge tests conducted under this
testing programme will aim to validate the hypothesis outlined in Fig. 2, with the aim to develop an
improved method of designing suction bucket foundations in sandy soils under cyclic loading.

10
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by funded by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., under Contract 140M0119C0002. The third author is
funded under the Wave Energy Research Centre, a joint initiative of The University of Western Australia
and the Western Australian Government, via the Department of Primary Industries and Regional
Development (DPIRD). The fifth and sixth authors are (respectively) supported by the Shell Chair in
Offshore Engineering and the Fugro Chair in Geotechnics at UWA. The authors thank the NGCF
technicians for their support, and Alex Osuchowski for his assistance with sample preparation.

REFERENCES

Andersen, K.H., 1991. Foundation design of offshore gravity structures. in ‘Cyclic Loading of Soils’,
Blackie, London, 122-173.

Andersen, K.H., 2015. Cyclic soil parameters for offshore foundation design. The Third ISSMGE
McClelland lecture. In Frontiers in offshore geotechnics III (ISFOG) (ed. V. Meyer), pp. 5–82. Boca
Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis).

Bienen, B., Klinkvort, R.T., O’Loughlin, C.D., Zhu, F. and Byrne, B., 2018. Suction caissons in dense
sand, part II: vertical cyclic loading into tension. Géotechnique 56(10), 665–675.

Bye, A., Erbrich, C.T., Rognlien, B. and Tjelta, T.I., 1995. Geotechnical design of bucket foundation.
Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, TX, USA, paper OTC 7793, pp. 869–883.

Chow, S.H., Roy, A., Herduin, M., Heins, E., King, L, Bienen, B., O’Loughlin, Gaudin, C. and Cassidy,
M., 2018. Characterisation of UWA superfine silica sand. Oceans Graduate School Report GEO 18844.

Erbrich, C.T. and Tjelta, T., 1999. Installation of bucket foundations and suction caissons in sand-
geotechnical performance. Proc. Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, TX, USA, paper OTC 10990.

Houlsby, G. T., Ibsen, L. B. and Byrne, B.W., 2005a. Suction caissons for wind turbines. Proc. Int.
Symp. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG) (eds S. Gourvenec and M. Cassidy), pp. 75–94.
Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis).

Houlsby, G.T., Kelly, R.B. and Byrne, B.W., 2005b. The tensile capacity of suction caissons in sand
under rapid loading. Proc. Int. Symp. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG) (eds S. Gourvenec
and M. Cassidy), pp. 405–410. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis).

Kelly, R.B., Houlsby, G.T. and Byrne, B.W., 2006. Transient vertical loading of model suction
caissons in a pressure chamber. Géotechnique 56(10), 665–675.

Randolph, M.F., Jewell, R.J., Stone, K.J.L. and Brown, T.A., 1991. Establishing a new centrifuge
facility. Proc. Centrifuge 1991 (eds H.-Y. Ko and F. G. McLean), pp. 2–9. Rotterdam, the
Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.

Shonberg, A., Harte, M. Aghakouchak, A. Brown, C.S.D., Andrade, M.P. and Liingaard, M.A., 2017.
Suction bucket jackets for offshore wind turbines: applications from in situ observations. Proc.
TC 209 Workshop – 19th ICSMGE, Foundation Design for Offshore Wind Structures, (ed. Yunsup
Shin), pp. 65–77.

Tjelta, T.I., 2015. The suction foundation technology. Proc. Int. Symp. Frontiers in Offshore
Geotechnics (ISFOG) III (ed. V. Meyer), pp. 85–93. Oslo, Norway: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis).

11

View publication stats