Installation and Axial Pullout of Suction Caissons:

Numerical Modeling
L. F. Gonzalo Vásquez, M.ASCE1; Dilip R. Maniar, A.M.ASCE2; and John L. Tassoulas, M.ASCE3

Abstract: We outline the development of a computational procedure for finite-element analysis of suction-caisson behavior, highlighting
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

its unique features and capabilities. The procedure is based on a description of clayey soil as a two-phase medium: a water-filled porous
solid. Nonlinear behavior of the solid phase is represented by means of a bounding-surface plasticity model. An algorithm is developed
for frictional contact in terms of effective normal stress. Furthermore, a special remeshing scheme is introduced facilitating the simulation
of the installation process, tracking the caisson penetration path and avoiding numerical complications in the vicinity of the caisson-soil
interfaces. To illustrate the use of the proposed computational procedure and examine its validity, complete simulations of available
laboratory tests on model suction caissons are conducted. Results are presented and discussed for test-bed preparation 共consolidation兲
followed by caisson installation by self-weight and suction, setup 共reconsolidation兲, and axial pullout. The overall agreement between
computations and measurements is good. Possible improvements are identified and recommendations are made regarding future studies.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000321
CE Database subject headings: Caissons; Porous media; Friction; Pullout; Finite element method; Numerical models.
Author keywords: Caisson; Suction; Anchor; Offshore; Penetration; Porous medium; Porous media; Friction; Consolidation; Setup;
Pullout; Axial capacity; Finite element.

Introduction consuming. On the other hand, laboratory testing of model suc-

Suction caissons are hollow cylinders 共tubes兲 capped at the top.
They are allowed to penetrate the sea-bottom sediments under
their own weight, and then pushed to the required depth with
differential pressure applied by pumping water out of the interior.
The use of suction caissons as foundations for deep-water off-
shore structures and anchors for mooring lines has been increas-
ing in the last decade. Suction caissons are an attractive option in
providing anchorage for floating structures in deep water. They
are easier to install than impact-driven piles and can be used in
water depths well beyond where pile driving becomes impracti-
cal. Suction caissons have higher load capacities than drag em-
bedment anchors and can be inserted reliably at preselected
locations and depths with minimum disturbance to the seafloor
environment and adjacent facilities 共Sparrevik 2001兲.
Better understanding of suction-caisson behavior has been
sought by means of field tests, laboratory tests, and numerical
simulations. Extensive field tests on small-scale and full-scale
caissons have been carried out to determine their installation char-
acteristics and axial as well as lateral load capacities, e.g., Hog-
ervorst 共1980兲, Tjelta et al. 共1986兲, and Tjelta 共1995兲. Field tests
are valuable in obtaining geotechnical information relevant in the
design of future caissons, but they are expensive and time-
1
Project Manager, Ensoft, Inc., Austin, TX 78728.
2
Associate, Stress Engineering, Inc., Houston, TX 77041.
3
Professor, The Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 共corresponding au-
thor兲.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 28, 2009; approved
on December 29, 2009; published online on January 8, 2010. Discussion
period open until January 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 8, August 1, 2010.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/8-1137–1147/$25.00.
tion caissons can be employed to investigate performance of the
caissons under a variety of conditions. Geotechnical centrifuge
tests on model suction caissons have been carried out to simulate
the stress conditions and soil response at the field scale 共see
Clukey et al. 1995 and Randolph et al. 1998兲. These tests are
quite costly and remain subject to various limitations. Model suc-
tion caissons have been tested under 1-g and controlled laboratory
conditions 共Wang et al. 1977; Steensen-Bach 1992; Rao et al.
1997; El-Gharbawy and Olson 1999; El-Gharbawy et al. 1999;
Whittle et al. 1998; Byrne and Houlsby 2002兲. The caissons stud-
ied were of aspect ratio 共length-to-diameter ratio兲 in the range of
2–12 and were tested under various loading conditions. Labora-
tory tests on model suction caissons conducted by Wang et al.
共1977兲 were focused on studying caisson efficiency and feasibility
and identifying important parameters governing their perfor-
mance. The recent laboratory tests 共Rao et al. 1997; El-Gharbawy
and Olson 1999兲 were focused on improving the design method-
ology.
Studies of suction-caisson behavior involving extensive axi-
symmetric and three-dimensional numerical simulations 共Suku-
maran et al. 1999; Erbrich and Tjelta 1999; El-Gharbawy and
Olson 2000; Deng and Carter 2002兲 have been carried out to
determine their capacity under different loading and drainage con-
ditions. Sukumaran et al. 共1999兲 and Erbrich and Tjelta 共1999兲
used the commercial finite-element code ABAQUS 共www.hk-
s.com兲, El-Gharbawy and Olson 共2000兲 used the commercial
finite-element code PLAXIS 共http://www.plaxis.nl兲 developed for
geotechnical computations, and Deng and Carter 共2002兲 used
the finite-element software AFENA developed at the Center for
Geotechnical Research at the University of Sydney 共http://
www.civil.usyd.edu.au/cgr兲. In all cases, the stress-strain behavior
of the soil skeleton was represented by means of plasticity models
such as the modified cam-clay model. The suction caisson was

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1137

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 wished in place, without simulation of the installation process.
Perfect interface bonding was assumed between the caisson and
the surrounding soil skeleton. The initial state of stress in the soil
skeleton was typically estimated in terms of the submerged unit
weight and the lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest 共Deng and
Carter 2002兲. Caissons were also analyzed under inclined loads
by means of a semianalytical finite-element method 共Taiebat and
Carter 2001兲 based on Fourier series expansions of the field quan-
tities with respect to the azimuthal coordinate. The resulting pre-
dictions were compared with solutions based on the limit analysis
of Murff and Hamilton 共1993兲. Zdravkovic et al. 共2001兲 used a
finite-element procedure 共Potts and Zdravkovic 1999兲 in studies
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
␴ = ␴eff + pwI 共1兲
We adopt the stress and pressure sign convention that compres-
sion is positive and denote the mass density of the solid phase by
␳s, the pore-fluid 共water兲 mass density by ␳w, the porosity by nw,
the body force per unit mass by b, and the acceleration of the
solid phase by as. Also, we take Darcy’s acceleration as
ar = nw共aw − as兲 共2兲
In Eq. 共2兲, a and a = accelerations of the solid and pore-fluid
s w
phases. In terms of the excess pore-fluid pressure p̄w 共pore-fluid

pressure reduced by its hydrostatic part兲, the differential equation

of the effects of load inclination, caisson aspect ratio and soil governing conservation of linear momentum of the mixture can
adhesion and anisotropy on suction-caisson behavior. Cao et al. be written as
共2003兲 conducted finite-element simulations of caisson behavior
as observed in centrifuge tests 共Cao et al. 2001兲. 关␳s共1 − nw兲 + ␳wnw兴共b − as兲 − ␳war − ␳wb − div共␴eff兲 − grad共p̄w兲
In order to simulate the complete installation process of suc-
tion caissons as well to estimate the axial and lateral capacities of =0 共3兲
such foundations, a computational procedure was developed in In Eq. 共3兲, div and grad are the 共spatial兲 divergence and gradient
the course of our work 共Vásquez 2000; Maniar 2004兲. An axisym- operators.
metric finite-element formulation was implemented in a computer
code for analysis of installation and axial-pullout problems. On
the other hand, a three-dimensional analysis formulation that uti- Conservation of Pore-Fluid Linear Momentum
lizes the general-purpose finite-element analysis code ABAQUS Denoting the permeability tensor of the soil skeleton by k and
共http://www.hks.com兲 but imports the state of the soil-caisson Darcy’s velocity by vr, conservation of linear momentum of the
system from axisymmetric installation computations was adopted fluid phase is specified by
for lateral-pullout problems. In this paper, we provide an outline
of the computational procedure and describe two unique ingredi-
␳w r ␳w
ents: 共1兲 the frictional model of the soil-pile interface in terms of − ␳ wa s − a − grad共p̄w兲 − k−1vr = 0 共4兲
effective normal forces and 共2兲 a simple yet highly effective re- nw nw
meshing approach that enabled us to simulate the penetration. Recall that Darcy’s velocity is defined in terms of the velocities vs
Then, we summarize the computed caisson behavior during in- and vw of the solid and pore-fluid phases and the porosity as
stallation and axial pullout in comparison with measurements
from recent laboratory tests conducted at the Offshore Technol- vr = nw共vw − vs兲 共5兲
ogy Research Center 共Meacham 2001; Luke 2002; Coffman 2003;
Coffman et al. 2004兲.
Conservation of Mixture Mass
Assuming that the particles that form the soil skeleton are incom-
Governing Equations
pressible and of constant mass density, the conservation of mix-
ture mass can be expressed as
The response of saturated, porous, clayey soil can be described
using the Biot theory of porous media 共Biot 1941, 1955; Atkin
and Craine 1976; Bowen 1976; Prevost 1980, 1981兲 that accounts nw ⳵ 共p̄w兲 nw␥w s ␥w r 1
div共vs兲 + div共vr兲 + − v − v + 关grad共p̄w兲兴Tvr
for coupling between the deformation of the solid phase and the ␭w ⳵ t ␭w z ␭w z ␭w
flow of the pore fluid. Vásquez 共2000兲 and Maniar 共2004兲 provide =0 共6兲
detailed accounts of the governing differential equations and the
corresponding weak statements that form the basis of our finite- In the above equation, v = velocity of the solid phase, while ␭w
s

element modeling. Solid displacements, Darcy’s velocities, and
excess pore-fluid pressure are the field quantities. One set of
equations imposes conservation of mixture linear momentum. An-
other set specifies conservation of pore-fluid linear momentum.
The last equation expresses conservation of mixture mass. Al-
though these equations have been applied in earlier studies of
flow and deformation in porous media, it is worth mentioning that
we have introduced an equivalent arrangement that facilitates the
description of frictional contact in terms of the effective 共normal兲
stress component on the caisson-soil interfaces 共Vásquez 2000;
Maniar 2004兲.
Conservation of Mixture Linear Momentum
The total Cauchy stress tensor ␴ is the sum of the effective stress
tensor ␴eff and the 共isotropic兲 pore-fluid pressure tensor pwI:
and ␥w = bulk modulus and specific weight of the pore-fluid, re-
spectively. The subscript z identifies the vertical component of the
corresponding vector 共the vertical direction is taken as the nega-
tive of the gravitational direction兲.
Finite-Element Discretization
The weak statements corresponding to the governing differential
equations can be derived following standard arguments 共Vásquez
2000; Maniar 2004兲. Discretizing by means of finite-elements and
interpolating the field variables 共solid displacements, Darcy’s ve-
locities, and excess pore-fluid pressure兲, we obtain the following
weak statements, Eqs. 共7兲–共9兲, for conservation of mixture linear
momentum, conservation of pore-fluid linear momentum and con-
servation of mixture mass

1138 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 冕 ⌫s
共Ns兲TTdA + 冕⍀
关grad共Ns兲兴T␴effJdV + 冕⍀
关div共Ns兲兴T p̄wJdV
boundary excess pore-fluid pressure and defines the consistent
excess pore-fluid force 共consistent with Darcy’s velocity interpo-
lation兲. Therefore, recalling Eqs. 共1兲 and 共10兲, the surface traction

+ 冕⍀
共Ns兲T共␳s − ␳w兲共1 − n0兲bdV − 冕 ⍀
共Ns兲T关␳s共1 − n0兲
due to effective stresses or within the finite-element framework,
the consistent effective force, can be obtained as the difference
between these two integrals.

+ ␳wnwJ兴asdV − 冕 ⍀
共Ns兲T␳wJardV = 0 共7兲
For the purposes of nonlinear analysis, Newton iterations are
carried out by linearization of Eqs. 共7兲–共9兲 共see Vásquez 2000 and
Maniar 2004兲. The treatment of large deformation 共large strain
and rotation兲 is by means of a Lagrangian formulation described

冕 共Nr兲TTwdA + 冕 关div共Nr兲兴T p̄wJdV − 冕 共Nr兲T␳wJasdV

by Nagtegaal 共1982兲 and involves an update of the reference con-
figuration at the end of each time/load step. Reduced numerical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

⌫R ⍀ ⍀
integration 共2-by-2 Gauss-Legendre quadrature兲 is applied to all

− 冕⍀
共Nr兲T
␳ wJ r
nw
a dV − 冕
⍀
共Nr兲T
␳wJ −1 r
nw
k v dV = 0 共8兲
terms resulting from the first domain integral in Eq. 共7兲 共the one
that contains the effective stress components兲. In a variety of
practical problems involving incompressible as well as nearly in-

冕 冕
− 共N p兲TqdA +
⌫q
冕
compressible elastic solids, reduced integration has been shown to
关grad共N p兲T兴vrJdV − 共N p兲Tdiv共vs兲JdV avoid locking at increased computational efficiency 共Zienkiewicz
⍀ ⍀
et al. 2005兲. In most computations, we have ensured stability

冕 冕
using the backward-Euler time-stepping scheme.
nwJ ⳵ 共p̄ 兲 w
J
− 共N p兲T dV − 共N p兲T 关grad共p̄w兲兴TvrdV
⍀ ␭w ⳵ t ⍀ ␭w

冕 冕
n w␥ wJ s ␥ wJ r
+ 共N p兲T v dV + 共N p兲T v dV
⍀ ␭w z ⍀ ␭w z
The soil domain is ⍀, while ⌫q, ⌫s, and ⌫ p = parts of the soil
boundary where the pore-fluid flux 共q兲, total traction 共T兲, and
traction due to pore-fluid pressure 共Tw兲 are prescribed. In Eq. 共7兲,
n0 = soil porosity in the reference configuration and J = Jacobian of
the deformed configuration with respect to the reference one. We
use axisymmetric soil discretization with eight-node finite ele-
ments 共quadratic interpolation兲 for solid displacements 共matrix of
interpolation functions: Ns兲 and Darcy’s velocities 共matrix of in-
terpolation functions: Nr兲 in combination with four-node finite
elements 共linear interpolation兲 for the excess pore-fluid pressure
共matrix of interpolation functions: N p兲. We impose 共spatial兲 con-
tinuity on all field variables 共including the excess pore-fluid pres-
sure兲. The geometry of each finite element is defined in terms of
the coordinates 共updated on the basis of the solid displacements兲
of all eight nodes 共corner and side nodes兲 and the same applies to
the interpolation of solid displacements and Darcy’s velocities, so
that
Nr = Ns
On the other hand, only the four corner nodes are involved in the
interpolation of excess pore-fluid pressure. The caisson is repre-
sented using conventional, axisymmetric finite elements: eight-
node isoparametric finite elements for 共solid兲 displacements
共quadratic interpolation兲.
As explained by Vásquez 共2000兲 and Maniar 共2004兲, our
choice of identical interpolation functions for solid displacements
and Darcy’s velocities, along with the arrangement of the above
equations, lead to straightforward calculation of effective nodal
forces on any soil boundary. This is particularly significant when
dealing with the caisson-soil interface where the frictional-contact
algorithm requires effective forces 共the ones corresponding to soil
effective stress components兲. The first integral on the left-hand
side of Eq. 共7兲 is associated with the virtual work of the boundary
traction due to total stresses. Within the finite-element frame-
work, this integral defines the consistent total force 共consistent
with displacement interpolation兲. Similarly, the first integral on
the left-hand side of Eq. 共8兲 corresponds to the virtual work of the
Soil Constitutive Model
=0 共9兲
The nonlinear behavior of clayey soil is described on the basis of
a bounding-surface plasticity model for isotropic cohesive soils
共Dafalias and Herrmann 1982; Dafalias 1986; Dafalias and Her-
rmann 1986; Kaliakin and Herrmann 1991兲. Concepts and prin-
ciples of critical state soil mechanics are incorporated within the
framework of the bounding-surface plasticity theory to provide
representation of clay behavior along arbitrary stress and strain
paths. The constitutive model furnishes the relationship between
strain and effective stress increments. While other comparable
models are available, we opted for the bounding-surface plasticity
model because it provides greater flexibility in dealing with nor-
mally consolidated as well as overconsolidated clays. Early labo-
ratory tests by El-Gharbawy and Olson 共1999兲 examined suction-
caisson installation and pullout behavior in overconsolidated
kaolinite and the bounding-surface plasticity model facilitated the
simulations that were carried out by Vásquez 共2000兲. For the
purposes of the present study, the values of some of the model
parameters 共␬ , ␭ , Nc , Ne , Rc , Re兲 are selected 共Maniar 2004兲 on the
basis of consolidation tests on small specimens and measurements
共10兲 of the internal friction angle 共Pedersen 2001兲 while the values of
the remaining parameters are assumed on the basis of recommen-
dations from earlier applications of the plasticity model 共Dafalias
and Herrmann 1986; Kaliakin and Herrmann 1991兲. Table 1 sum-
marizes the model parameters and the corresponding values. As
implemented in our computations, the bounding-surface plasticity
model does not represent the effects of clay “remolding” in the
vicinity of the caisson-soil interface during penetration. A model
capable of describing anisotropy and its evolution during defor-
mation 共see Kaliakin 2005兲 will be considered in future work but
is outside the scope of the present study.
Caisson-Soil Interfaces
The interior and exterior soil-caisson interfaces are modeled with
a contact algorithm based on a slide-line formulation 共Hallquist et
al. 1985兲, allowing for large relative displacements between the
caisson and the soil. The slide-line formulation involves nodes on

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1139

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 Table 1. Bounding-Surface Plasticity Model Parameters
Model parameter Value
Consolidation slope 共␬兲 0.04
Rebound slope 共␭兲 0.49 7L 6L 5L 7R 7R 6R 5R
6R 6L 7R 6R 5R 7L 6L 5L
7L 5L
Poisson’s ratio 共␯兲 0.30 5R

Critical state line slope in compression 共Nc兲 0.21 8L

4L 8R 8L 4L 8R 4R
8L 4L 4R
4R 8R
Critical state line slope in extension 共Ne兲 0.16
Compression 共ellipse 1兲 shape parameter 共Rc兲 1.54 1L 2L 3L 1R
2R 3R 1L 2L 3L 1R 2R 3R
3R 1L 2L 3L 1R 2R
Extension 共ellipse 1兲 shape parameter 共Re兲 1.23
Compression 共hyperbola兲 shape parameter 共Ac兲 0.01 (a) (b) (c)

Extension 共hyperbola兲 shape parameter 共Ae兲

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.01
Old element Old node
Tension 共ellipse 2兲 shape parameter 共T兲 0.01 New element New node
Projection center parameter 共C兲 0.50
Elastic zone parameter 共s兲 1.20 Fig. 1. Remeshing below the caisson tip: 共a兲 elements in the vicinity
Compression hardening parameter 共hc兲 1.00 but entirely below the tip; 共b兲 elements with a single node on the tip;
Extension hardening parameter 共he兲 1.00 and 共c兲 elements with two nodes on the tip and a third node below the
tip

the soil side of the interface and surface elements on the caisson
side.
In the contact algorithm, penetration of soil nodes into the
caisson is prevented with constraints imposed on the solid dis-
placements, Darcy’s velocities, and the excess pore-fluid pressure
using Lagrange multipliers. Friction between the soil and the cais-
son is assumed to obey the classical Coulomb law. Conditions of
“stick” and “slip” are distinguished on the basis of the level of
interface frictional force in comparison with the Coulomb force
共the stick condition, or adhesion, is applied whenever the fric-
tional force is lower than the Coulomb force兲, the latter being
equal to the effective compressive 共normal兲 force multiplied by
the soil-caisson interface friction coefficient. The slide-line con-
tact formulation is in terms of effective forces on the interfaces
共integrals of the effective traction components on the interface
weighted by the interpolation functions兲. As explained above, the
choice of interpolation functions for solid displacements and Dar-
cy’s velocities as well as the arrangement of the governing equa-
tions and the corresponding weak statements render the extraction
of these effective forces straightforward 共Vásquez 2000; Maniar
2004兲.
Potential Flow
During installation of the caisson, by self-weight or suction, water
flows out of the caisson interior through outlets in the cap. The
size of the outlets is considerably smaller than the interior cross
section of the caisson. Therefore, water cannot flow freely and
some nonuniformity of pressure is expected in the interior of the
caisson. To represent the effects of this phenomenon in the simu-
lations, we used a potential-flow formulation to estimate the pres-
sure at the top of interior soil 共Vásquez 2000兲. The formulation
assumes that the fluid is incompressible and inviscid and the flow
is irrotational.
Remeshing
separation of soil interior and exterior occurs during penetration.
With this adjustment, overconfinement of the soil in the caisson
interior is eliminated, and the path of caisson penetration in the
soil is determined in the course of the installation process 共Maniar
and Tassoulas 2002; Maniar 2004兲. At the beginning of the analy-
sis, the seam starts with pairs of “linked” nodes. A pair of nodes
and the elements involved are selected for remeshing, if the dif-
ference between their radial coordinate and that of the caisson tip
exceeds a specified tolerance. Shown in Fig. 1 are the rearrange-
ments of nodes and elements by our remeshing scheme.
Unlike other numerical simulations in which the caisson is
wished into position within the soil, our approach not only leads
to the caisson penetration path but provides estimates of the
forces required for installation on the interior and exterior
caisson-soil interfaces. Furthermore, our detailed treatment of
caisson penetration, enhanced by this remeshing tool, enables
evaluation of the significance of fine caisson characteristics, such
as the tip geometry, that may affect the installation process.
Another remeshing tool was developed in order to adjust the
finite-element mesh next to the caisson-soil interfaces. This tool is
intended for eliminating distortion of the soil elements in the
vicinity of the caisson-soil interfaces and is convenient and help-
ful in cases where a high coefficient of friction leads to significant
finite-element distortion.
Simulation Procedure
Computations carried out using our procedure are arranged in a
sequence that closely follows laboratory and field tests. The steps
are 共1兲 preparation of the soil test bed via slurry consolidation; 共2兲
installation of the caisson by self-weight and suction; 共3兲 setup of
the caisson 共reconsolidation of the caisson-soil system兲; and 共4兲
pullout of the caisson at various speeds. For each of Steps 2–4,
the initial state of the soil is the one computed at the end of the
previous step.

We developed a remeshing tool in order to eliminate the need for Results

a priori specification of the caisson penetration path. As installa-
tion of the caisson progresses, the finite-element mesh is adjusted Complete records of our computational experience are provided
so that the line of nodes below the tip remains straight in the axial by Vásquez 共2000兲 and Maniar 共2004兲. In this paper, we report
direction. This line of nodes is also the “seam” in the mesh where results from two simulation sequences: one that involves caisson

1140 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 installation by self-weight, and another in which the caisson is 0
installed partially by suction. In both sequences, installation is
followed by setup and rapid axial pullout with the top closed.

Slurry surface settlement (mm)

100

Preparation of Soil Test Bed 200

The test-bed soil was formed by allowing kaolinite slurry to con-
solidate under its own weight, resulting in normally consolidated 300
clay. Details of the preparation and consolidation of the test bed
are presented elsewhere 共Pedersen 2001; Olson et al. 2003兲. The
slurry has specific gravity of 2.6 and coefficient of permeability of 400 One-Dimensional Simulation
8 ⫻ 10−5 mm/ s; the slopes of the virgin and recompression
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Axisymmetric Simulation
Measured (Pedersen, 2001)
curves, 0.49 and 0.04, respectively, were obtained by means of
500
straight-line approximations 共Maniar 2004兲 of graphs of void 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
ratio versus logarithm of effective pressure based on available test
Time (day)
data 共Pedersen 2001兲. According to experimental results reported
by Pedersen et al. 共2003兲, the effective friction angle varies from Fig. 2. Settlement of slurry surface by axisymmetric simulations
about 63° for normal effective stress levels around 1 Pa to 22° at
5,000 Pa. In the present study, the friction angle was taken con-
stant, which equals to 28°. This value is reasonable and self- the friction coefficient on the basis of a single test, then use the
consistent, leading to an average level of normal effective stress calibrated coefficient in simulations of the remaining tests. Shown
of about 1,000 Pa in the simulations. The data reported by Ped- in Fig. 4 is the total soil resistance computed for three alternative
ersen et al. 共2003兲 points to 28° at 1,000 Pa. values of the friction coefficient: ␮ = 0.16, 0.32, and 0.45 along
In order to obtain a rational state of initial stress within the soil with the resistance reported from the test 共Coffman 2003兲, all
skeleton, the consolidation of kaolinite slurry was simulated by during the 406-mm self-weight penetration. The simulation shows
means of both one-dimensional and axisymmetric finite-element that, in this particular case, the submerged-caisson weight 共9.4 N兲
computations. A cylindrical domain of radius equal to 305 mm alone will produce a penetration of only about 279 mm 共11 in.兲
共12 in.兲 was used in the axisymmetric simulation with the friction 共Maniar 2004兲. Of the three values considered, the choice ␮
coefficient between the soil and the outer boundary set at 0.45 = 0.16 seems best, certainly near the end of installation. At low
共the frictional-contact algorithm described above for caisson-soil levels of penetration, a higher value of the friction coefficient
interfaces was used for the interface between the soil and the tank appears more appropriate. This is consistent with measurements
wall as well兲. The size of the axisymmetric computational domain
was chosen such that the distance of the axis from the outer
boundary is about the same as the distance 共in the actual soil tank兲
Measured at location more than 305 mm
to the closest tank wall from the location where the laboratory from tank wall (Coffman, 2003)
tests, compared with below, were conducted. A calibration pro- Measured at location within 305 mm
0 of tank wall (Coffman, 2003)
cess was used in selecting the friction coefficient so that agree-
Computed at the center of the
ment can be reached between computed and measured 共by a circular tank from axisymmetric
T-bar兲 undrained shear-strength profiles. The actual consolidation consolidation analysis
started with initial slurry height of 1,550 mm 共61 in.兲 and ended, -200
Computed at 102 mm from tank wall from
axisymmetric consolidation analysis
for practical purposes, about 7 months later with clay height of Computed from one-dimensional
1,118 mm 共44 in.兲 共Pedersen 2001兲. The simulations started with consolidation analysis
the same initial slurry height of 1,550 mm 共61 in.兲 and ended with
clay height of 1,092 mm 共43 in.兲 in the one-dimensional case and -400

共because of friction at the outer boundary兲 slightly greater height

Elevation (mm)

of 1,143 mm 共45 in.兲 in the axisymmetric case. A good agreement

was found between observed and computed settlement-time -600
curves 共Fig. 2兲. Following the completion of consolidation, we
apply the plasticity model at each point of interest in the test bed
with initial state of stress as computed 共at the end of consolida-
tion兲, then increase the axial strain monotonically until the peak -800
value of axial stress is reached at constant volumetric strain 共un-
drained condition兲. With the selected value of the friction coeffi-
cient, the computed undrained shear-strength profile is close to -1000
the reported measurements 共Fig. 3兲.

Calibration of Caisson-Soil Friction Coefficient -1200

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
The friction coefficient ␮ = 0.16 used in the computations on both
interior and exterior caisson-soil 共aluminum-kaolinite兲 interfaces Undrained undisturbed shear strength (kPa)
was obtained by calibration of our procedure using a test by Coff-
man 共2003兲 in which installation was accomplished by self- Fig. 3. Computed and measured undrained shear-strength profiles at
weight to about 406 mm 共16 in.兲. Our approach was to calibrate the end of test-bed consolidation

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1141

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 0 0
Measured (Coffman, 2003) -100
Computed, Friction coefficient = 0.16 -200
Elevation of caisson tip (mm)
-100 Computed, Friction coefficient = 0.32 -300
Computed, Friction coefficient = 0.45
-400

Elevation (mm)
-500
-200
-600 Caisson wall
thickness
-700
-800
-300
µ = 0.45 -900
µ = 0.16 Final tip
-1000 embedment

-400 -1100
µ = 0.32
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-500
0 10 20 30
Total soil resistance (N)
Fig. 4. Calibration of caisson-soil friction coefficient
共Pedersen et al. 2003兲 that suggest an increase in the friction
coefficient for aluminum-kaolinite interfaces with decreasing
level of normal effective stress. However, our frictional-contact
formulation was implemented with a constant friction coefficient,
independent of the level of normal effective stress. Although the
formulation can be revised to accommodate a variable friction
coefficient, the constant value is a compromise between greater
model complexity and improved predictive accuracy. Further-
more, the friction-coefficient measurements 共Pedersen et al. 2003兲
indicate values in the range 0.9 to 0.3. According to our simula-
tions, a constant or variable friction coefficient in this range
would overestimate the soil resistance recorded in the test by at
least 100%. Thus, we have opted to accept the outcome of this
calibration; the friction coefficient has been set equal to 0.16 in all
computations. Nevertheless, we recognize this value as very low
compared with all available direct measurements. The soil consti-
tutive model, as implemented in our computations, does not rep-
resent the remolding of clay 共reorientation of clay particles and
accompanying shear-strength reduction兲 that may occur next to
the caisson exterior and interior walls during penetration. Soften-
ing occurs in the caisson vicinity but the model-predicted strength
reduction is apparently not enough to bring about the low mea-
sured resisting force. The soil constitutive model, as implemented
in our computations, does not represent the remolding of clay
共reorientation of clay particles and accompanying shear-strength
reduction兲 that may occur next to the caisson exterior and interior
walls during penetration. Softening occurs in the caisson vicinity
but the model-predicted strength reduction is apparently not
-1200
48.0 48.5 49.0 49.5 50.0 50.5 51.0 48.0 48.5 49.0 49.5 50.0 50.5 51.0
Radial coordinate (mm) Radial coordinate (mm)
40 50
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Shown in 共a兲 prior to caisson installation by self-weight; 共b兲
after installation, the shaded soil region constitutes the caisson inte-
rior
mation and reconfiguration. Shaded in Fig. 5共a兲 is the soil region
prior to penetration that is kept in the interior of the caisson after
installation, as shown in Fig. 5共b兲. Clearly, the soil is being
“pushed” outwards during self-weight installation. The cumula-
tive volume of soil displaced from one side 共interior side兲 of the
caisson tip to the other 共exterior side兲 is about 11, 700 mm3
共7 in.3兲 共Maniar 2004兲. Our simulation indicates that the top of
the soil plug is lowered during self-weight installation 共Maniar
2004兲.
The computed forces required for installation along with mea-
surements from the test by Luke 共2002兲 are shown in Fig. 6. At
penetration of about 350 mm, the computed total soil resistance is
reasonably close to the one reported from the test. The agreement
between computed and measured total soil resistance at this pen-
etration is not surprising since the friction coefficient was cali-
brated on the basis of a similar test 共Coffman 2003兲 in which the
model caisson was installed to depth of 406 mm. At low levels of
penetration, the force measurements are higher than the computed
ones, suggesting that a variable friction coefficient, dependent on
the mean normal stress, may improve the agreement. On the other
hand, the deviation between simulation and test results with re-
gard to the total soil resistance increases with penetration with the
0
-100 Total measured soil resistance (Luke, 2002)
Elevation of caisson tip (mm)

enough to bring about the low measured resisting force. As men- -200

tioned earlier, a constitutive model that represents and tracks the -300
Exterior friction
evolution of anisotropy 共see Kaliakin 2005兲 should be considered
-400
in future work.
Total computed soil resistance
-500
Interior
Installation by Self-Weight -600 friction

We now proceed to examine the case of installation by self- -700

weight by comparing our simulation results with those reported -800 Tip force
by Luke 共2002兲 from a test in which a model caisson 共102 mm in
diameter兲 was installed in about 200 s to depth of 816 mm by -900
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
self-weight. In the context of this test, “self-weight” refers to
caisson weight plus additional ballast required for installation to Force (N)
the specified depth. Details of the test arrangements are provided
by Luke 共2002兲 while a description of the apparatus is given by Fig. 6. Computed and measured forces during self-weight installa-
Rauch et al. 共2001兲. During penetration, the soil undergoes defor- tion

1142 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 Computed
Measured (Luke, 2002)
0
Distance Above Tip Interior interface Exterior interface
O1 - 482.6 mm -100
I1 O2 - 25.4 mm

Elevation of caisson tip (mm)

I1 - 584.2 mm -200
I2 - 279.4 mm
O1 I3 - 25.4 mm I1
-300
O1
I2
I2 -400
I3
-500
O2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-600

I3 O2 -700

-800
Fig. 7. Locations of pore-water pressure transducers
-900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

computational result substantially overestimating the measure- Excess pore-water pressure (kPa)
ment, even with the low friction coefficient ␮ = 0.16, adopted by
calibration. Certainly, we could have calibrated the friction coef- Fig. 8. Computed and measured excess pore-water pressure during
ficient 共at a value lower than 0.16兲 on the basis of the results by self-weight installation
Luke 共2002兲 for the entire self-weight penetration 共816 mm兲, only
to find a comparable discrepancy with respect to the measure-
ments by Coffman 共2003兲. While there are clear differences be- weight installation discussed above. The computed reconfigura-
tween measurements in tests that seem otherwise similar, it is tion of the soil during installation of the 102-mm diameter caisson
likely that clay remolding and strength reduction 共not represented model is shown in Fig. 9. After suction is applied 共at penetration
in the plasticity model as implemented in our computations兲 have of about 406 mm兲, inward soil movement occurs 共opposite to the
played a role as well. The level of shear on the caisson-soil inter- outward movement during self-weight installation兲. As reported
face increases with depth, thereby, amplifying the reduction in by Maniar 共2004兲, the simulation indicates that the top of the soil
strength at greater depths. The contrast between the exterior and plug rises during installation while the cumulative volume of dis-
interior components of soil resistance during self-weight installa- placed soil 共from the exterior side of the caisson tip to the interior
tion is consistent with the outward displacement of the soil. The side兲 is about 6 , 000 mm3 共3.5 in.3兲.
exterior friction is substantially higher than the interior compo- Computed forces required for installation along with measure-
nent 共about 60% higher near the end of the installation process, ments from the test by Luke 共2002兲 are shown in Fig. 10. The
see Fig. 6兲. computed soil resistance is close to the one reported from the test
The computed and measured excess pore-fluid pressures, re- up to penetration of about 406 mm, the part corresponding to
corded at five locations 共Fig. 7兲, on interior and exterior wall self-weight installation, but does not exhibit the drop associated
surfaces of the caisson, during self-weight installation are plotted with suction installation. At greater penetrations, the measured
versus the position of the caisson tip in Fig. 8. There is substantial soil resistance during installation by self-weight followed by suc-
deviation between the computed excess pore-water pressures and tion is clearly lower than the computed results. The contrast is not
the measured values. Markedly different are the computed values as high as in case of installation by self-weight apparently be-
at Locations I3 and O2, one in the interior and the other in the cause of the applied suction. Nevertheless, a friction coefficient
exterior of the caisson, both near the tip. The corresponding mea-
surements at I3 and O2 are close to each other, as would be
expected assuming continuity of pore-water pressure at the tip.
On the other hand, the average computed value at I3 and O2 is
about the same as the measured value at these locations. Since I3
and O2 are located near the caisson tip, it seems reasonable that
the pore-water measurements would be close. Also, the agreement
between computed and measured pore-water pressures is substan-
tially better at sensors away from the caisson tip 共I1 and I2 are
certainly in this category; at O1, the measurements are low and so
are the computed values兲. Therefore, it is likely that the discrep-
ancies with respect to I3 and O2 are due to insufficient fineness of
the mesh in the vicinity of the tip.

Installation by Self-Weight Followed by Suction

In this case, the caisson was first pushed to 406-mm penetration
by self-weight 共plus additional ballast兲 and then to the final depth Fig. 9. Shown in 共a兲 prior to caisson installation by self-weight and
of 812 mm by suction 共Luke 2002兲. Thus, the simulation of the suction; 共b兲 after installation, the shaded soil region constitutes the
initial 406-mm penetration is the same as in the case of self- caisson interior

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1143

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 0 7
Measured total 6
-100 5
soil resistance
Elevation of caisson tip (mm)
(Coffman, 2003) Self-weight 4
-200
installation phase 3 O1
-300 Exterior 2
friction 1
-400 7
Computed total 6
-500 soil resistance 5
-600 Suction 4
Interior installation phase 3 O2
-700 friction

Excess pore-water pressure (kPa)

2
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-800
Tip force 7
-900 6
0 20 40 60 80 100 5
4
Force (N) 3
Computed
I1
Measured (Luke, 2002)
2
Fig. 10. Computed and measured forces during installation by self- 1
weight followed by suction 7
6
5
calibrated at a value lower than 0.16 would have brought mea- 4
3 I2
surements and computations in better agreement for this test. 2
Also, the exterior and interior components of soil resistance are 1
given in Fig. 10. In this case, the interior friction is about the 7
same as the component on the exterior. This is in contrast to the 6
simulation result for self-weight installation and consistent with 5
4
the inward soil movement. Relative to the installation by self- 3 I3
weight, the soil displacement from the exterior to the interior due 2
to suction increases the interior soil resistance and decreases the 1
exterior component. 0
The comparison between computed and measured excess pore- 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 1e+1 1e+2

fluid pressures 共refer to Fig. 7 for transducer location兲, on interior Elapsed time (hour)
and exterior wall surfaces of the caisson during suction installa-
tion is shown in Fig. 11. There is good agreement on the interior Fig. 12. Computed and measured excess pore-water pressure during
surface 共Sensors I1, I2, and I3兲 but discrepancy on the exterior set up after self-weight installation
surface 共O1 and O2兲 where the measurements amount to suction
while the computations are of opposite sign. The computed pore- is insufficient to reverse the sign at this location. At O1, both
water pressure at O2 is influenced by the application of suction computed and measured values are much smaller than at other
during the second half of the installation process in that the pres- locations. It is possible that these differences will be reduced by
sure is of nearly constant level but, apparently, the applied suction increasing the fineness of the mesh near the caisson tip.

Setup
Computed The computed pore-water pressure dissipation during set up of the
Measured (Coffman, 2003)
caisson-soil system is in good agreement 共Maniar 2004兲 with the
0
Interior interface Exterior interface measurements 共see Figs. 12 and 13兲. In both cases, self-weight as
-100 well as suction installations, the caisson settles by an additional
I3 10 mm 共0.4 in.兲 during set up. The computed forces on the cais-
Elevation of caisson tip (mm)

-200
O2 son in the two cases as the surrounding soil undergoes reconsoli-
-300 dation are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. For the self-weight
-400 installation case 共Fig. 14兲, upon termination of the installation
phase, the forces due to friction change very quickly and reach
-500 about the same level 共approximately half of the caisson weight兲 as
O2
-600 setup is completed. The force acting on the caisson tip remains
I2
relatively very small. In the case of installation by suction 共Fig.
-700
I1 I3 O1 15兲, the frictional forces also change quickly after suction is no
-800 longer applied. According to our computations, the submerged
weight of the caisson is resisted entirely by exterior friction at
-900
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 setup completion. The interior friction is downward in this case.
Excess pore-water pressure (kPa)
Pullout
Fig. 11. Computed and measured excess pore-water pressure during The force components computed for rapid 共25.4 mm/s, 1 in./s兲
installation by self-weight followed by suction axial pullout of the caisson installed by self-weight are plotted in

1144 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 4 50

0 40

-4 30
O1 Exterior friction
-8 20
End of installation

Force (N)
4 10 Tip force

0 0

-4 -10
O2
Excess pore-water pressure (kPa)

-8 -20
Interior friction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 -30

0 -40
1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 1e+1 1e+2
-4
I1 Time (hour)
-8

4
Fig. 15. Computed forces on caisson-soil interfaces during set up
after suction installation
0

-4
Computed I2
-8 Measured (Coffman, 2003)
-823.0
4
Exterior friction
-823.5
0 Interior friction

Elevation of caisson tip (mm)

-824.0
-4 Caisson submerged weight
-824.5
I3
-8 -825.0
Total capacity
-12 -825.5
1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 1e+1 1e+2
-826.0 Tip force
Elapsed time (hour)
-826.5

Fig. 13. Computed and measured excess pore-water pressure during -827.0
Suction force
set up after suction installation -827.5

-828.0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fig. 16 versus tip displacement with the top closed. The corre-
Force (N)
sponding results for self-weight followed by suction installation
are provided in Fig. 17. In both cases, the contribution of suction
Fig. 16. Computed capacity components: caisson installed by self
共under the caisson top兲 is about 40% of the total capacity. Also, in
weight, closed top, rapid pullout 共25.4 mm/s兲
both cases, exterior friction is the next most significant contribu-
tor to pullout resistance 共greater, as expected, in the case of self-

50
-818.0
Interior friction
40 Exterior friction -818.5
Exterior friction
-819.0 Caisson submerged weight
Elevation of caisson tip (mm)

30 -819.5
Interior friction -820.0
Force (N)

20 -820.5
End of installation -821.0 Tip force
10
-821.5
-822.0 Suction force
0
-822.5
Total capacity
-10 Tip force -823.0
-823.5
-20 -824.0
1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 1e+1 1e+2 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Time (hour) Force (N)

Fig. 14. Computed forces on caisson-soil interfaces during set up Fig. 17. Computed capacity components: caisson installed by suc-
after self-weight installation tion, closed top, rapid pullout 共25.4 mm/s兲

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1145

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147

 weight installation兲. The computed capacities compare quite well
with the test results: 125 N for self-weight installation and 83 N
for suction installation, with differences of about ⫺16 and 22%,
respectively. Consistently with the measurements, the computed
capacity in the suction-installation case is lower than the self-
weight installation case.
Conclusions
A computational procedure has been developed for finite-element
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analysis of suction-caisson behavior. The procedure includes a
contact algorithm in terms of effective normal stress and a re-
meshing scheme that facilitates caisson installation simulations
and tracks the penetration path. Complete laboratory tests of
model suction caissons have been simulated for the purpose of
illustrating the use of the procedure. Simulations presented in the
paper follow the sequence of steps in laboratory tests of caisson
models. In all steps, the computational results and experimental
data are in good overall agreement. Differences are noted between
computed and measured soil resistance and numerical and experi-
mental data on pore-water pressure on the interior and exterior
caisson walls. Not surprisingly, the differences appear to be con-
nected primarily with structural changes in the soil in the vicinity
of the caisson. Also, the deviations of computational results from
the pore-water pressure measurements near the caisson tip may be
due to an insufficiently fine mesh. Both possibilities should be
considered in future studies of caisson behavior.
Acknowledgments
We thank Professor Roy E. Olson for countless and invaluable
discussions on all facets of geotechnical engineering. His constant
willingness to explain concepts and observations while conveying
immense knowledge of soil behavior are a source of inspiration.
Also, thanks are due to our former colleague Alan F. Rauch, a
great resource, always available to describe and explain the ex-
perimental procedures and results. Professor Victor N. Kaliakin of
the University of Delaware helped us at an early stage of our
study by providing the routines necessary for implementation of
the bounding-surface plasticity model in our computations. Fi-
nally, the support of the Offshore Technology Research Center
throughout the course of our work is acknowledged with grati-
tude.
References
Atkin, R. J., and Craine, R. E. 共1976兲. “Continuum theories of mixtures:
Basic theory and historical development.” Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math.,
29, 209–244.
Biot, M. A. 共1941兲. “General theory of three dimensional consolidation.”
J. Appl. Phys., 12, 155–164.
Biot, M. A. 共1955兲. “Theory of elasticity and consolidation of porous
anisotropic solid.” J. Appl. Phys., 26, 182–185.
Bowen, R. M. 共1976兲. “Theory of mixtures.” Continuum physics, A. C.
Eringen, ed., Academic, New York, 1–127.
Byrne, B. W., and Houlsby, G. T. 共2002兲. “Experimental investigations of
response of suction caissons to transient vertical loading.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 128共11兲, 926–939.
Cao, J., Phillips, R., and Popescu, R. 共2001兲. “Physical and numerical
1146 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147
modelling on suction caissons in clay.” Proc., 18th Canadian Con-
gress of Applied Mechanics, Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland, St.
John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 217–218.
Cao, J., Phillips, R., Popescu, R., Audibert, J. M. E., and Al-Khafaji, Z.
共2003兲. “Numerical analysis of the behavior of suction caissons in
clay.” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 13共2兲, 154–159.
Clukey, E. C., Morrison, M. J., Gariner, J., and Corté, J. F. 共1995兲. “The
response of suction caissons in normally consolidated clays to cyclic
TLP loading conditions.” Proc., Offshore Technology Conf., OTC
7796, Offshore Technology, Houston, 909–918.
Coffman, R. A. 共2003兲. “Horizontal capacity of suction caissons in nor-
mally consolidated kaolinite.” MS thesis, The Univ. of Texas at Aus-
tin, Austin, Tex.
Coffman, R. A., El-Sherbiny, R. M., Rauch, A. F., and Olson, R. E.
共2004兲. “Measured horizontal capacity of suction caissons.” Proc.,
Offshore Technology Conf., OTC 16161, Offshore Technology, Hous-
ton, Tex.
Dafalias, Y. F. 共1986兲. “Bounding surface plasticity I: Mathematical foun-
dation and hypoplasticity.” J. Eng. Mech., 112共9兲, 966–987.
Dafalias, Y. F., and Herrmann, L. R. 共1982兲. “Section 10: Bounding sur-
face formulation in soil plasticity.” Soil mechanics—Transient and
cyclic loads, G. N. Pande and O. C. Zienkiewicz, eds., Wiley, New
York.
Dafalias, Y. F., and Herrmann, L. R. 共1986兲. “Bounding surface plasticity
II: Application to isotropic cohesive soils.” J. Eng. Mech., 112共12兲,
1263–1291.
Deng, W., and Carter, J. P. 共2002兲. “A theoretical study of the vertical
uplift capacity of suction caissons.” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng.,
12共2兲, 89–97.
El-Gharbawy, S., and Olson, R. 共1999兲. ““Suction caisson foundations in
the Gulf of Mexico.” Analysis, design, construction, and testing of
deep foundations. ASCE geotech. special pub., Vol. 88, ASCE, Re-
ston, Va., 281–295.
El-Gharbawy, S. L., and Olson, R. E. 共2000兲. “Modeling of suction cais-
son foundations.” Proc., Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf.,
Vol. 2, Offshore Technology, Houston, 670–677.
El-Gharbawy, S. L., Olson, R. E., and Scott, S. A. 共1999兲. “Suction
anchor installations for deep Gulf of Mexico applications.” Proc.,
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 10992, Offshore Technology,
Houston, 747–754.
Erbrich, C. T., and Tjelta, T. I. 共1999兲. “Installation of bucket foundations
and suction caissons in sand—Geotechnical performance.” Proc., Off-
shore Technology Conf., OTC 10990, Offshore Technology, Houston,
725–735.
Hallquist, J. O., Goudreau, G. L., and Benson, D. J. 共1985兲. “Sliding
interfaces with contact-impact in large-scale Lagrangian computa-
tions.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 51, 107–137.
Hogervorst, J. R. 共1980兲. “Field trials with large diameter suction piles.”
Proc., Offshore Technology Conf., OTC 3817, Offshore Technology,
Houston, 217–224.
Kaliakin, V. N. 共2005兲. “An assessment of the macroscopic quantification
of anisotropy in cohesive soils.” Geomechanics testing, modeling and
simulation, ASCE, geotechnical special technical publication 143, J.
A. Yamamuro and J. Koseki, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 370–393.
Kaliakin, V. N., and Herrmann, L. R. 共1991兲. “Guidelines for implement-
ing the elastoplastic-viscoplastic bounding surface model.” Technical
Rep., Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis,
Calif.
Luke, A. M. 共2002兲. “Axial capacity of suction caissons in normally
consolidated kaolinite.” MS thesis, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex.
Maniar, D. R. 共2004兲. “A computational procedure for simulation of suc-
tion caisson behavior under axial and inclined loads.” Ph.D. disserta-
tion, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex.
Maniar, D. R., and Tassoulas, J. L. 共2002兲. “Nonlinear finite element
simulation of suction caisson behavior.” Proc, 15th ASCE Engineer-
ing Mechanics Conf., ASCE, New York.
Meacham, E. C. 共2001兲. “A laboratory for measuring the axial and lateral
 capacity of model suction caisssons.” MS thesis, the Univ. of Texas at
Austin, Tex.
Murff, J. D., and Hamilton, J. M. 共1993兲. “P-ultimate for undrained
analysis of laterally loaded piles.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 119共1兲, 91–
107.
Nagtegaal, J. C. 共1982兲. “On the implementation of inelastic constitutive
equations with special reference to large deformation problems.”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 33, 469–484.
Olson, R. E., Rauch, A. F., Mecham, E. C., and Luke, A. M. 共2003兲.
“Self-weight consolidation of large laboratory deposits of clay.”
Proc., 12th Pan-American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Cambridge, Mass.
Pedersen, R. C. 共2001兲. “Model offshore soil deposit: Design, preparation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and characterization.” MS thesis, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex.
Pedersen, R. C., Olson, R. E., and Rauch, A. F. 共2003兲. “Shear and inter-
face strength of clay at very low effective stress.” Geotech. Test. J.,
26共1兲, 71–78.
Potts, D. M., and Zdravkovic, L. 共1999兲. Finite element analysis in geo-
technical engineering: Theory, Thomas, Telford, London.
Prevost, J. H. 共1980兲. “Mechanics of continuous porous media.” Int. J.
Eng. Sci., 18, 787–800.
Prevost, J. H. 共1981兲. “Consolidation of anelastic porous media.” J.
Engrg. Mech. Div., 107共EM1兲, 169–186.
Randolph, M. F., O’Neill, M. P., and Stewart, D. P. 共1998兲. “Performance
of suction anchors in fine-grained calcareous soils.” Proc., Offshore
Technology Conf., OTC 8831, Offshore Technology, Houston, 521–
529.
Rao, S. N., Ravi, R., and Ganapathy, C. 共1997兲. “Pullout behavior of
model suction anchors in soft marine clays.” Proc., 7th Int. Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conf., International Society of Offshore and
Ploar Engineers, Honolulu.
Rauch, A. F., Olson, R. E., Mecham, E. C., and Pederson, R. C. 共2001兲.
“A laboratory facility for testing model suction caissons.” Proc.,
OTRC 2001 Int. Conf., Offshore Technology, Houston.
Sparrevik, P. 共2001兲. “Suction pile technology and installation in deep
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2010 / 1147
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(8): 1137-1147
waters.” Proc., OTRC 2001 Int. Conf., Geotechnical, Geological, and
Geophysical Properties of Deepwater Sediments, Offshore Technol-
ogy, Houston, 182–197.
Steensen-Bach, J. O. 共1992兲. “Recent model tests with suction piles in
clay and sand.” Proc., Offshore Technology Conf., OTC 6844, Off-
shore Technology, Houston, 323–330.
Sukumaran, B., McCarron, W. O., Jeanjean, P., and Abouseeda, H.
共1999兲. “Efficient finite element techniques for limit analysis of suc-
tion caissons under lateral loads.” Comput. Geotech., 24, 89–107.
Taiebat, H. A., and Carter, J. P. 共2001兲. “A semi-analytical finite element
method for three-dimensional consolidation analysis.” Comput. Geo-
tech., 28, 55–78.
Tjelta, T. I. 共1995兲. “Geotechnical experience from the installation of the
Europipe jacket with bucket foundations.” Proc., Offshore Technology
Conf., OTC 7795, Offshore Technology, Houston, 897–908.
Tjelta, T. I., Guttormsen, T. R., and Hermstad, J. 共1986兲. “Large-scale
penetration test at a deepwater site.” Proc., Offshore Technology
Conf., OTC 5103, Offshore Technology, Houston, 201–212.
Vásquez, L. F. G. 共2000兲. “Computational procedure for the estimation of
pile capacity including simulation of the installation process,” Ph.D.
dissertation, the Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex.
Wang, M. C., Demares, K. R., and Nacci, V. A. 共1977兲. “Application of
suction anchors in the offshore technology.” Proc., Offshore Technol-
ogy Conf., OTC 3203, Offshore Technology, Houston, 1311–1320.
Whittle, A. J., Germaine, J. T., and Cauble, D. F. 共1998兲. “Behavior of
miniature suction caissons in clay.” Offshore site investigation and
foundation behaviour ’98, SUT, London, 279–300.
Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D. M., and Jardine, R. J. 共2001兲. “A parametric
study of the pull-out capacity of bucket foundations in soft clay.”
Geotechnique, 51共1兲, 55–67.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Taylor, R. L., and Zhu, J. Z. 共2005兲. The finite ele-
ment method: Its basis and fundamentals, Elsevier/Butterworth-
Heinemann, New York.