Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Improved load capacity of a hybrid bucket foundation for offshore structures T

in sand
Jae-Hyun Kima, Yeong-Hoon Jeongb, Dong-Soo Kimb,
⁎

a
Department of Infrastructure Safety Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT), Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

01 Keywords: As offshore structures grow larger with increasing depth and distance from shore, their foundations must in-
Offshore foundation crease in strength owing to the larger supporting capacity needed. This requires new approaches to ensure
Suction bucket
mahdi shakeran economic and reliable infrastructure. Suction bucket foundations (SBFs) are viable options in offshore settings
Hybrid bucket foundation owing to their easy installation and affordability; however, they suffer from performance limitations. Recently, a
Combined load capacity
hybrid bucket foundation (HBF) design has been proposed in which a suction bucket is connected to an un-
Centrifuge modeling
02 Sand
derlying mat to increase load capacity. However, the behavior of this design under combined vertical, hor-
izontal, and/or moment loads is not yet well understood. In this study, we used centrifuge models to investigate
mahdi shakeran the behavior of HBFs and conventional SBFs under different load conditions. The results demonstrated the
feasibility and superior performance of HBFs. In particular, the bearing capacities of HBFs under vertical and
combined loads were ~1.91 and ~1.82 times higher, respectively, than those of SBFs within the testing ranges.
These findings indicate that the mat component attached on top of the hybrid bucket unit significantly improves
the bearing capacity.

1. Introduction
Increasing energy demands and the depletion of natural resources in
shallow water have resulted in the movement of offshore developments
into harsher and untested deep-water environments exceeding depths
of 1000 m. Moored floating facilities tethered to the seabed using an-
03 chor systems are common in deep water, whereas small shallow foun-
dations are widely used to support subsea structures such as pipeline
mahdi shakeranend manifolds and terminations, sleepers, and protection systems [1].
These systems may directly rest on the seabed using short peripheral
skirts or short piles. Typical foundation breadths range from 2–10 m,
with length:breadth ratios of ~2:1 and peripheral skirt length:breadth
ratios of 0.05–0.2.
Although the foundations for facilities submerged in deep water are
smaller than those for fixed structures exposed above sea level in
shallow water, such as offshore wind turbines or mobile jack-up rigs,
the loads transmitted to the foundation are more complex. External
loads may arise from currents, expansion/contraction of pipelines
linked to the structure, or loads transferred from mooring lines. These
typically take the form of horizontal loads (H) rather than vertical loads
(V) owing to the low self-weight (typically, ~4 MN for subsea manifolds
[2]); therefore, such foundations often need to withstand large
horizontal forces and the related overturning moment (M) [3, 4-6]. This
contrasts with platform foundations whose relatively high self-weight
helps counteract large horizontal loads.
The suction bucket foundation (SBF) has become a popular option
for deep-water seafloor facilities owing to its simplicity of installation,
wide range of applicable water depths, and highly economic deploy-
ment [13–20]. In some cases, large-diameter suction buckets that in-
crease the foundation's load capacity are used to provide a higher
holding capacity. However, this approach can be inefficient, requiring
higher manufacturing and transportation costs owing to the significant
number of stiffeners required in the inner skirt wall to prevent skirt
buckling during installation.
Recently, hybrid bucket foundations (HBFs) have been developed
that combine SBFs with a mud mat to increase the load capacity while
reducing structural costs (Fig. 1) [3, 21-23]. The bearing capacity of
HBF under combined loadings has been studied using centrifuge model
tests [21, 24, 25] and numerical simulations [3, 22-24, 26]. Previous
studies have shown that a substantial increase in holding capacity can
be achieved in this manner, especially for horizontal loads. Such studies
adopted the VHM framework to define foundation capacities using
small strain finite element analysis [7-12].
Existing studies have largely been restricted to numerical

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jaehyun@kict.re.kr (J.-H. Kim), yeonghoon@kaist.ac.kr (Y.-H. Jeong), dskim@kaist.ac.kr (D.-S. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2020.102197
Received 30 January 2020; Received in revised form 31 March 2020; Accepted 6 May 2020
0141-1187/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 J.-H. Kim, et al.
Fig. 1. Bucket foundation types: (a) single bucket foundation (SBF); (b) circular mat foundation with single bucket (hybrid bucket foundation; HBF); (c) square mat
foundation with multi buckets.
simulations and a few model tests because the HBF concept is relatively
new. In particular, studies have insufficiently evaluated HBFs in sand
under an enhanced gravity field; this requires further research on the
actual behavior of HBFs. In this study, we used centrifuge model tests to
assess the comparative load capacity performance of an HBF and SBF
under different load conditions in sand. This study mainly aims to
quantify the increase in V, H, and M capacity (or combined VHM) re-
sulting from the addition of a circular mat in the HBF under low self-
weight. The failure mechanism (i.e., rotation center), rotational stiff-
ness, and effect of the contact condition between the foundation bottom
and the seabed on the bearing behavior were also discussed. Finally, the
testing results were compared with existing failure envelopes, and
suitable expressions were proposed for the combined load capacity of
an HBF and SBF.
2. Methods
2.1. Foundation design
All load tests were conducted at 70 g under vertical (V), horizontal
(H), and combined horizontal-moment (HM) load conditions in a con-
sistent soil substrate using steel buckets. The SBF was 71.4 mm in
diameter (Dc) and 71.4 mm in length (L), each corresponding to a di-
mension of 5 m in the prototype. The tip thickness (t) of the skirt em-
bedded into the soil was over-designed (t/Dc = 4.2%) compared to the
typical skirt tip thickness range (t/Dc = 0.3–0.4%, [18]) to address
concerns about structural failure during testing(the tip thickness of the
suction bucket is only 3 mm, but a vertical load of more than 16 kN was
applied on the model foundation). The tip thickness of the foundation
controls the lower intersection of the failure envelope with the V-axis
[4]. The HBF consisted of circular mats and bucket units with outer
diameters of Dm = 142.8 mm and Dc = 71.4 mm, respectively (model
scale), where the diameter of the circular mat was two times that of the
internal bucket. These corresponded to a circular mat diameter of 10 m
04 and bucket diameter of 5 m at the prototype scale. The mat protruding
from the single bucket accounts for ~52% of the total submerged
mahdi shakeranweight of the HBF in the prototype. In addition, the submerged weight
of the HBF is 1.44 times larger than that of the SBF. Nevertheless, the
self-weight has minimal influence on the bearing behavior because the
entire weight is less than 2.2% of the vertical yield capacity (Vy) of the
foundation. To compare the effect of each unit on the bearing capacity,
a circular mat foundation (CMF) (Dm = 142.8 mm) without a bucket
05 unit was also tested. Table 1 summarizes the dimensions of the foun-
dation model.
mahdi shakeran
2.2. Test apparatus
All load tests were conducted in a cylindrical container with an
inner diameter of 700 mm and height of 900 mm, corresponding to
prototype dimensions of 49 m and 63 m, respectively.To perform tests
2
Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197
with different loading directions, loading systems were set up using
vertical and horizontal actuators as described by Kim [27]. Models and
actuators were connected by a pin joint with a pair of male and female
elements, allowing the model free vertical motion by a certain stroke
relative to the upper element but restricted lateral movement (Fig. 2a).
This allowed for the vertical movement of the model along with the soil
settlement that occurs during centrifuge acceleration. During the ex-
periment, the model foundations were displaced by driving the actuator
at a constant rate with a displacement control that applied a vertical
load to the model; the load acting on the actuator and the vertical
displacement were monitored using a load cell connecting the foun-
dation model and the driving part of the actuator. The vertical dis-
placement of the model foundation was obtained by measuring the
displacement of the actuator using two linear variable differential
transformers mounted on the frame and connected to the actuator. The
bucket displacement was obtained by averaging the two measurements.
To simulate horizontal loads, we used a linear actuator controlled
by a step motor (Fig. 2b). The actuator was placed on top of the con-
tainer in line with the loading direction and linked to the model
foundation using a chain through pulleys fixed on the side wall. This
system transferred a pure horizontal load to the model while mini-
mizing the moment load induced by applying a load at a certain height
apart from the bucket lid. The horizontal load was applied at the top of
the foundation by displacing an actuator at a constant speed. The
manufactured load cell was connected to the end of a chain near the
bucket. The load cell was directly linked to the central top of the bucket
lid with a freely rotating hinge, and it directly measured the horizontal
load near the model. This load cell was made small so that pure hor-
izontal loading could be applied to the foundation without inducing an
additional moment during testing. Two laser displacement transducers
were used to measure the foundation's movement. Displacements were
monitored at different levels of thin and flat acetal plastic target plates
at the center of the foundation model to measure both lateral transla-
tion and rotation.
To simulate combined HM loads, we applied a horizontal load on
the tower at a certain height above the bucket lid and simulated dif-
ferent combinations of load ratios. The extension rod connected to the
linear actuator for applying a horizontal load was positioned at a cer-
tain height above the top of bucket lid; this included a load cell and a
hinge connector with a Teflon collar (Fig. 2c). The hinge connector was
used to clamp the tower on the bucket without exerting any moment at
the loading level. The load was applied by driving an actuator at a
constant speed to tow the foundation horizontally at the top of the
container. The horizontal translation and rotation of the foundation
were measured using two laser sensors at different locations.
In addition, total pressure transducers (TPTs) were attached to the
underside of the bucket lid and the underside of the mat for the HBF to
monitor variations in effective stress and to check the contact area
between the soil and the foundation. Additional TPTs were installed
outside the bucket wall on the opposite side of the loading direction,
 J.-H. Kim, et al. Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

flush with the external face. A screw valve was also fitted to the bucket
Vd/Vy

0.017
0.019
0.022
lid and always kept open to allow drainage during the test. In the whole
test, no noticeable pressure variation was observed inside the bucket,
ensuring drainage condition during loading tests [31].
Vy† (kN in prototype)

06 The bucket displacement during loading was continuously captured

using a Canon Powershot G10 digital camera at 0.2 Hz with target
mahdi shakeran markers placed at 1-cm intervals on the side of the plastic plate (or
tower). TEMA 2.6 digital image correlation processing software was
130,500

146,200

07
80,500

used to track the two-dimensional movement of the foundation. The

mahdi shakeran displacements in the image space were converted into the objective
space using the program's calibration process. Three target markers in
Vd⁎⁎ (kN in prototype)

the same interval were used to yield the displacements in the objective
space.

2.3. Soil model preparation

2,258
1,555
3,248

08 We used homogeneous silica sand (Table 2) to produce the soil

substrate, which was deposited in the cylindrical container using air
mahdi shakeran pluviation. The target relative density was set to be Dr = 60%
Mat thickness tm (mm)

(γ' = 14.4 kN/m3). After soil preparation, water was added very slowly
from the surface to saturate the model. The degree of saturation was
enhanced by pre-spinning the model up to a target g-level in the cen-
6 (0.42)*
6 (0.42)*
6 (0.42)*

trifuge before the loading tests. Four soil models were prepared to a
depth of 450 mm.

2.4. Test program

Skirt thickness t (mm)

09 Twelve tests were planned in the four soil models; hence, 2–3 tests
were conducted in a single soil model but at different locations
mahdi shakeran (Table 3). To avoid interference between load tests on the same soil
3 (0.21)*
3 (0.21)*

sample, we ensured a minimum clearance of two bucket diameters

between the edges of the buckets, which was the minimum value re-
-

quired to eliminate boundary effects [21].

First, vertical load tests were performed individually on the SBF,
Skirt length L (mm)

HBF, and CMF foundations in T-1, T-4, and T-12, respectively. These
were designed to provide a relative comparison between the foundation
types and to determine the effect of the CMF on the vertical bearing
71.4 (5)*
71.4 (5)*

capacity. Second, four horizontal load tests were performed: in T-3

(SBF) and T-6 (HBF), the lower part of the bucket lid (or mat bottom)
-

fully contacted the top of the soil surface, and in T-2 (SBF) and T-5
(HBF), this contact was only partial. This condition may occur through
Mat diameter Dm (mm)

uneven soil heaving during suction installation inside the bucket so that
the entire underside of the foundation cannot touch the seabed. Third,
The value in the parentheses indicates the prototype dimension in meters

five combined-load model tests were performed by applying the hor-

142.8 (10)*

142.8 (10)*

izontal load at an eccentricity above the bucket lid under a constant

71.4 (5)*

vertical load (i.e., self-weight). Therefore, the moment load acted on

the bucket lid with respect to the horizontal load eccentricity (k = M/
HDc). These tests were performed at k = 0.5, 1, and 2 for the SBF (T-7,
Specifications of the foundation models used in this study.

T-8, and T-9, respectively) and k = 1 and 2 for the HBF (T-10 and T-11,
Bucket diameter Dc (mm)

Submerged self-weight of the foundation prototype

respectively), corresponding to impact heights of 2.5 m (k = 0.5), 5 m

Vertical bearing capacity measured from the test

(k = 1), and 10 m (k = 2). Three combined load tests were performed

on the SBF and two tests on the HBF.
After preparing the soil samples, the models were mounted in the
71.4 (5)*
71.4 (5)*

centrifuge basket [33]. Each bucket was installed by pushing it at a

constant rate using the vertical actuator with a speed of 1 mm/s at 1 g,
-

thereby satisfying the drainage condition during the installation process

[31]. The foundation model was lowered until the bucket lid touched
Hybrid bucket foundation (HBF)
Single bucket foundation (SBF)

the seabed, except for T-3 (SBF) and T-6 (HBF), where the effect of
separation between the soil plug and the baseplate was investigated.
Contact between the lid and the soil was confirmed through a sudden
increase in the readings of the load cells and TPTs below the base plate.
Circular mat (CMF)

All models were placed at the same embedded depth by controlling the
displacement of the actuator, thereby ensuring uniformity in the in-
FND type

stallation process.
Table 1

For the horizontal load tests, the horizontal actuator was installed
⁎⁎
⁎

after the foundation and its driver was connected to the foundation

3
J.-H. Kim, et al. Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

Fig. 2. Scheme for vertical and horizontal loading: (a) vertical loading system; (b) horizontal loading system; (c) combined loading system.

using the chain and pulleys. Initially, the chain was left with minimum
slack, thereby ensuring that no horizontal force acted on the foundation
during the ramping-up of the centrifuge. The centrifuge was ramped up
to 70 g at 1 g/min and stabilized for 15 min, after which cone pene-
tration tests were performed just before the load tests to characterize
the soil properties. The cone penetrated up to 300 mm at a rate of 10
mm/s at the model scale [31].
In all figures in this paper, individual tests are identified using a
code that indicates the testing conditions: the first letters before the
comma indicate the testing number, followed by the foundation type
(i.e. SBF, HBF, and CMF), and the letters in brackets represent the
loading conditions.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Cone penetration test
Fig. 3 shows the cone tip resistance profiles as well as predicted
cone resistance (qc) for Dr = 60%, as proposed by Kim et al. [34]. qc
increased with depth and was 11.5–20.9 MPa at 17 m depth. At lower

4
J.-H. Kim, et al. Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

Table 2
Geotechnical soil properties of the tested sand.
Items Properties

Specific gravity, Gs 2.65

Fine contents passing #200 (%) 0.9
Max. dry density⁎ (kN/m3) 16.4
Min. dry density†(kN/m3) 12.4
Grain size (mm) d10 = 0.148
d50 = 0.237
d60 = 0.257
Soil classification, USCS‡ SP

⁎
ASTM D4253-14 [28]
†
ASTM D4254-00 [29]
‡
ASTM D2487-11 [30]

depths, some deviations between qc profiles occurred; however, these

were fairly well-matched in the region of interest (~5 m depth). In
addition, the measured qc profiles were well-matched with the predic-
tions for the corresponding soil density.

3.2. Vertical load-displacement curve

We assessed the results for the vertical bearing capacity of the HBF
at the prototype scale or normalized form (normalized displacement, z/
Fig. 3. Cone tip resistance profiles.
Dc, and vertical bearing capacity factor, 2V/Amγ'Dc or 2V/Acγ'Dc, where
Am and Ac are the area of circular mat and bucket, respectively).
Fig. 4 presents three load-displacement curves observed during the
vertical loading tests of different foundation types. These load dis-
placements steadily increased with penetration (without a peak value),
reflecting the characteristics of hardening behavior. The vertical
bearing capacity of the HBF was clearly the highest among all foun-
dation types. The load-displacement curve of the CMF was much
steeper than that of the SBF but less so than that of the HBF, clearly
indicating that the circular mat provided a larger portion of the vertical
bearing capacity than the skirt. In addition, the load capacity of the HBF
was lower than the summation of the SBF and the CMF, suggesting that
interactions between these two lower the total bearing capacity of the
HBF.
The curves for the SBF and HBF were S-shaped and could be divided
into two different parts. In the first part, labeled (1) in Fig. 4, the in-
crease in vertical bearing capacity was mainly due to skirt penetration.
Following full contact between the soil and the bucket lid (or mat
foundation bottom), the vertical resistance increased sharply as the
bucket lid became the predominant bearer of weight (2). The transition Fig. 4. Vertical load–displacement curves.
depth was z/Dc ~ 0.07.

Table 3
Summary of centrifuge test parameters.
TestNo. Foundationtype Loadingdirection K (M/HDc)* Submerged weight‡(V, kN) Loading rate (mm/s) Soil conditions
Effectiveunit densityγ' (kN/m3) Dr (e)⁎⁎

T-1 Single bucket (SBF) V - 1,555 0.05 9.2 61.3 (0.80)

T-2† (L/Dc=1) H† 0.1 1,555 0.05 9.2 62.9 (0.79)
T-3 H 0.1 1,555 0.10 9.2 62.9 (0.79)
T-4 Hybrid bucket (HBF) V - 3,248 0.05 9.2 61.3 (0.79)
T-5† (L/Dc=1, Dm/Dc =2) H† 0.1 3,248 0.05 9.2 62.9 (0.79)
T-6 H 0.1 3,248 0.10 9.2 62.9 (0.79)
T-7 Single bucket (SBF) MH 0.5 2,119 0.10 9.0 58.7 (0.83)
T-8 (L/Dc=1) MH 1.0 2,119 0.10 9.0 58.7 (0.83)
T-9 MH 2.0 2,119 0.10 9.0 58.7 (0.83)
T-10 Hybrid bucket (HBF) MH 1.0 3,812 0.10 9.0 58.7 (0.83)
T-11 (L/Dc=1, Dm/Dc =2) MH 2.0 3,812 0.10 9.0 58.7 (0.83)
T-12 Circular mat (CMF) V - 2,446 0.10 9.0 58.7 (0.83)

⁎
Normalized load eccentricity
⁎⁎
Void ratio
†
Bottom of the circularmat was partially detached from the soil surface
‡
Submerged weight of the foundation including the accessories for payload and the target plate placed on the foundation

5
J.-H. Kim, et al. Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

Fig. 5. Horizontal load–rotation angle curves (in T-2 and T-5, the bottom of the
circular mat is partially detached from the soil surface).

The bearing capacity (Vy) was determined as the location of the

tangential intersection of two linear lines parallel to the initial and later
parts of the measurement and the corresponding point on the curves.
The determined bearing capacities were Vy = 81 MPa (2V/
Acγ'Dc = 113) at z/Dc = 0.21 for the SBF, Vy = 131 MPa (2V/
Amγ'Dc = 39) at z/Dc = 0.24 for the CMF, and Vy = 146 MPa (2V/
Amγ'Dc = 54) at z/Dc = 0.21 for the HBF. The bearing capacity of the
HBF was around 1.91 and 1.13 times larger than that of the SBF and
CMF, respectively, at the yielding point.

3.3. Horizontal load-rotation curve

Fig. 5 presents the horizontal load test results for the SBF (T-2 and T-
3) and HBF (T-5 and T-6) under low moment and self-weight (M/
HDc = 0.1), in which the rotation angle was calculated from the
measurement values of the two laser sensors. The horizontal load ca-
pacities of the HBF were much higher than those of the SBF as the
circular mat increased the resistance area.
The load-rotation angle trend of T-5 (where the base of the circular
mat was not fully in contact with the ground surface) showed a double-
curvature shape, which contrasted sharply with the behavior of T-6 (full
contact between mat and ground). This can be explained through the
rotational behavior of the foundation. First, the skirt wall mainly re-
sisted the horizontal load because the mat was partially detached from
the soil surface Fig. 5, ((1)). As the load increased, the foundation began
to rotate, and the mat protruding beyond the bucket began to intrude
into the ground surface Fig. 5, ((2)). Finally, the mat completely pe-
netrated the ground and the full bearing capacity of the HBF was
reached Fig. 5, ((3)). In the field, this could happen through soil
heaving during suction bucket installation, such that the bucket cannot
reach full penetration, as discussed by Kim and Kim [35]. For T-6,
where the circular mat was fully in contact with the soil, the horizontal
load continuously increased and reached the bearing capacity.
The yield point was determined using the method suggested by
Villalobos [36]. Straight lines were fitted to the initial and later por-
tions of each load-rotation curve. From the intersection of these lines, a
horizontal line was drawn back to the curve, and this point was defined
as the yielding point (Hy). The rotation angles for Hy were 1.2° (T-3) and
1.9° (T-2) for the SBF but 3.8° (T-6) and 7.6° (T-5) for the HBF, in-
dicating that the higher level of contact between the base and the soil
when using the HBF results in a larger required rotation to achieve the
yield horizontal load. The determined bearing capacities were
Hy = 1,280 kN (T-3) and 1,770 kN (T-2) for the SBF and Hy = 5,450 kN
(T-6) and 4,590 kN (T-5) for the HBF; the average bearing capacity of
the HBF test specimens was thus 3.3 times greater than that of the SBF
Fig. 6. Combined load–rotation angle curves: (a) SBF; (b) HBF.
test specimens.
3.4. Combined load-rotation angle relationships
Fig. 6 shows the horizontal load-rotation angle curves for the SBFs
and HBFs. The horizontal load resistance decreased with increasing
load eccentricity (k= M/HDc). In addition, Hy for both foundations
occurred at rotations close to 2°. The Hy values for the HBF were clearly
higher than for the SBF at the corresponding load eccentricity owing to
the existence of the circular mat that increased the resisting force. The
combined load capacity of the HBF was 1.82 and 1.34 times higher than
that of the SBF at corresponding load eccentricities of k = 1 and 2,
respectively.
Fig. 7 shows the horizontal and moment loads at different rotation
angles for the SBF and HBF. The moment load was determined by
multiplying the horizontal load measured at the loading point and the
load eccentricity from the reference point (M/H). The results clearly
show that the horizontal and moment loads increased with the rotation
angle. In addition, the horizontal and moment capacities (Hy and My) of
the HBF were larger than those of the SBF, again demonstrating that the
circular mat increased the bearing capacity of the foundation.
3.5. Behavior of bucket foundation under combined loads
Fig. 8 shows the vertical and horizontal displacements at the re-
ference point with respect to horizontal loading under low load

6
J.-H. Kim, et al.
Fig. 7. Combined load–rotation angle curves under low vertical load.
Fig. 8. Vertical and horizontal displacements of the model foundation under
horizontal loads (negative y-axis values indicate upward bucket movement).
eccentricity (M/HDc = 0.1) for the different foundation types and
contact conditions between the foundation base and the soil surface.
Overall, the model buckets clearly moved upward and toward the
loading direction. The contact condition did not affect foundation
movement for the SBF but had a significant effect on the HBF. When the
latter's circular mat was fully in contact with the soil surface, it moved
upward more than in the noncontact condition; this could be explained
by the enlarged mat acting as a brace so that the rear side of the bucket
was lifted up. The vertical component of displacement for the HBF was
larger than for the SBF.
Fig. 9 shows photographs captured at different displacements with
different contact conditions for the HBF. The contact condition (Fig. 9a)
indicated that horizontal and vertical movements occurred together
from the initial stage to the end of loading. However, the rotational
behavior was dominant in the early stage of loading in the noncontact
condition ((1) and (2) in Fig. 9b) followed by upward movement owing
to contact ((2) and (3) in Fig. 9b). The large vertical components of
displacement for all tests could be attributed to the low V/Vy values
(0.019 for the SBF and 0.022 for the HBF), as discussed by Larsen et al.
[37]. The vertical load greatly impacts the combined load capacity,
especially at low V/Vy values [38].
Fig. 10 presents the displacement path at the reference point with
7
Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197
Fig. 9. Image captures during the test: (a) T-6, (b) T-5 (at x/Dc = 0, 0.03, 0.07,
and 0.1, where x indicates the horizontal displacement of the foundation from
the reference point).
Fig. 10. Vertical and horizontal displacements of the model foundation under
combined loads (negative x-axis values indicate upward motion from the
seabed).
respect to different load eccentricities (M/HDc = 0.5, 1, and 2) for
different foundation types. The “zig-zag” form of the curve represents
the unloading-reloading steps. For the SBF, downward movement (po-
sitive y-axis values) during loading occurred owing to rotational be-
havior except in the case of relatively low load eccentricity (T-7, M/
HDc= 0.5), where initial upward motion was eventually replaced by a
downward trend with increased loading. This initial upward motion
was clearly shown in the horizontal load tests (T-2 and T-3, Fig. 8). A
horizontal load with low moment load (low eccentricity) tended to
translate the foundation rather than rotate it, whereas a moment load
with low horizontal load (high eccentricity) produced the opposite ef-
fect. Unlike the SBF, the normalized vertical displacements were all
negative in the HBF during the loading stage regardless of the load
eccentricity, indicating upward motion because the presence of the
circular mat unit hindered the rotational behavior.
The rotational center of the foundation under a horizontal load is an
important indicator for estimating the earth pressure distribution
around the bucket because the failure mode is dependent on the
 J.-H. Kim, et al. Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

Fig. 11. Location of rotation centers under horizontal loads (positive x-axis
values indicate the direction of loading).

rotational center and is governed by a combination of rotation and

translation. Kim [39] used centrifuges and numerical solutions to assess
the effect of the loading point on the center of rotation and bearing
capacity for a suction anchor installed in silty sand, concluding that (1)
the horizontal bearing capacity differed with the loading point, (2)
maximum horizontal bearing capacity occurred at a depth of two-thirds
the length of the anchor skirt, and (3) bearing capacity was associated
with the failure mode that, in turn, was directly related to the rotational
center.
Fig. 11 shows variations in the rotational center for horizontal load
tests with low load eccentricity (M/HDc = 0.1). The rotational center of
the SBF moved upward with increasing horizontal load (from 0.87 to
0.71 Dc) but became increasingly stable near the yield load. In com-
parison, the rotational center of the HBF moved downward with in-
creasing horizontal load (from 0.45to 0.96 Dc) but also stabilized near
the yield load. The rotational center of the HBF was also at a lower
position than that of the SBF when approaching the yield load. At the Fig. 13. Relations of (a) initial stiffness to loading eccentricity and (b) rota-
yielding state, it deviated from the centerline of the bucket and moved tional stiffness to loading eccentricity.
toward the loading direction by ~0.16 Dc and ~0.20 Dc for the SBF and
HBF, respectively. SBF. For the latter, when the loading eccentricity was M/HDc= 0.5, its
Fig. 12 shows variations in the rotational center by load eccen- rotational center was at 0.79 Dc at the yielding point; when the load
tricity. It moved upward in the yielding state; the higher the load ec- eccentricity was M/HDc = 2, its rotational center was at 0.66 Dc (~16%
centricity, the closer the rotational center was to the surface. The ro- higher). Similar results occurred for the HBF (rotational center depths
tational centers of the HBF were closer to the surface than those of the of 0.65 Dc for M/HDc = 1.0 and 0.59 Dc for M/HDc = 2). The deviation
of the rotational center from the centerline of both foundations was
~0.08–0.12 Dc toward the loading direction in the yielding state.

3.6. Rotational stiffness

The stiffness of a foundation significantly affects its behavior under

working loads. Fig. 13 shows the initial and rotational stiffness of the
SBF and HBF with respect to load eccentricity. The former was obtained
from the initial slope of the horizontal load-rotation curve (values
corresponding to rotation angles of 0°–0.1°) and decreased with in-
creasing horizontal loading eccentricity. In addition, the initial stiffness
of the HBF was 20% higher than that of the SBF.
10 The rotational stiffness was determined from the horizontal load-
rotation curve and load eccentricity (kθ = kint × loading height, where
mahdi shakeran kint is the initial stiffness of the foundation). The stiffness increased with
increasing load eccentricity and was higher for the HBF than for the
SBF. The relative difference in rotational stiffness between the two
foundations increased with load eccentricity, indicating that the HBF's
rotational stiffness increased with larger load eccentricities.
Fig. 12. Centers of rotation under combined loads.

8
J.-H. Kim, et al. Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

Fig. 14. Bearing capacities from tests performed at low V/Vy with different load eccentricities.

3.7. Comparison with other research H

2
M
2
H M
f= + 2a
h 0 Vy m 0 Dc Vy h 0 Vy m 0 Dc Vy
Byrne and Houlsby [38] found an approximately linear relation 2 1 2 2
2
between the applied combined loads at failure from a limited number of 12 V V
+ t0 1 =0
experiments for bucket foundations in loose and dense sand: (t 0 + 1)( 1+ 2) Vy Vy (5)
where
1
My f2
= f1 + (Vy + f3 W )
Dc k (1) ( + ( 1+ 2)
1 2)
12 =
where k is the ratio of moment to horizontal load (k = M/HDc); W is the ( 1) 1 ( 2 ) 2 (6)
weight of the soil plug inside the bucket (W = 1/4πDc2Lγ'); and f1
and h0, m0, t0, a, β1, and β2 define the shape of the failure surface. The
(=3.26), f2 (=1.073) and f3 (=0.71) are the fitting parameters. The far
parameters h0 and m0 determine the size of the yield surface at the
right term in Eq. (1) indicates that the moment capacity is proportional
widest plane along the V-axis by H/Vy (H value at intersection with
to the soil plug weight. This equation also indicates that increasing
M = 0, indicating Hy) and M/Vy (M value at intersection with H = 0,
vertical load is beneficial for increasing moment capacity.
indicating My), respectively. The parameter a determines the rotation of
Larsen et al. [37] modified the above equation to serve as a function
the ellipse of the yield surface in the radial planes. The parameters β1
of tensile capacity because the term f3W physically corresponds to the
and β2 determine the location of the peak of the parabola along the V-
vertical tension capacity, while also considering the skirt embedment
axis as well as the slope of the parabola's ends. The t0 value is a function
ratio:
of the skirt thickness t relative to the bucket diameter. Villalobos et al.
My L [4] found that the t0 value varied with the skirt thickness. Ibsen et al.
= (Vy + Vt ) = f1 (k ) + f2 (k ) (Vy + Vt ) [42] suggested that t0, which controls the lower intersection of the
Dc Dc (2)
failure surface with the V-axis (i.e., tensile capacity), could be expressed
where α is the inclination factor and Vt, the vertical tension capacity. as
The tensile capacity can be calculated using the method proposed by
Vt
Houlsby and Byrne [40]. The inclination factor α is affected by the t0 =
Vy (7)
embedment ratio and load eccentricity (k = M/HDc). Larsen et al. [37]
performed a series of parametric studies to calibrate each parameter where Vt is the tensile capacity of the bucket. Other studies have de-
from extensive 1 g model tests and provided the experimental para- fined the relationships between the yield surface parameters (h0, m0, a,
meters f1 and f2 in terms of the load eccentricity. β1, and β2) and the bucket's aspect ratio [4, 37, 42-44].
Achmus et al. [41] proposed normalized equations for load-moment Fig. 14 shows the normalized yield moment loads (My) for each test
load interaction curves for two different sand densities by using finite performed with low vertical load along with the failure expression in
element and hyperbolic methods: Eq. (5) with different load eccentricities (M/HDc = 0.1, 0.5, 1, and 2)
0.2 0.6
calculated using input parameters based on values suitable for the
L L Lref
For high density sand: H˜ y = 0.011 ˜ y2
·M 0.43· ˜ y + 14.1·
·M testing data as determined by Gottardi et al. [43] and Ibsen et al. [42].
Lref Lref L
The failure expression given by Villalobos et al. [4] accurately de-
(3) scribed the yielding capacities measured from the combined load tests
0.2 for the two foundations for t0 = 0.01. The normalized moment capacity
L L Lref 0.6
For medium density sand: H˜ y = 0.009
Lref
˜ y2
·M 0.50·
Lref
˜ y + 10.5·
·M
L
increased with increasing normalized vertical load capacity, indicating
that the failure surface expression can accurately describe the combined
(4) capacity of both foundations in the V-M space within the testing range
2 3
where Lref= 1 m, H̃ y = Hy/(γ'L Dc), M̃ . y= My/(γ'L Dc), and My is the when suitable input parameters are selected.
yielding moment load capacity. They also concluded that the yielding Fig. 15 shows a comparison of the bearing capacity of both founda-
capacity was more sensitive to the skirt length than to the bucket dia- tions with different load eccentricities and relevant values from previous
meter. research in the radial (M-H) plane. The expressions given by Byrne and
Villalobos et al. [32] proposed a general expression to describe the Houlsby [38] and Larsen [37] seemed to be more conservative than our
combined load capacity of bucket foundations under low vertical loads: SBF results, whereas those given by Achmus et al. [41] overestimated the

9
 J.-H. Kim, et al. Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197

Eq. (5) accurately described the measured capacities of the tested

foundations. Fig. 16 shows the elliptical shape of the failure envelope in
the radial (M-H) plane as expressed by Eq. (5) and the input parameters
given in Table 4. In addition, the failure surface area for the HBF was
higher than that for the SBF, indicating a higher combined load capa-
city owing to the existence of the circular mat that aided the resisting
force from the external load.

4. Conclusion

We investigated the feasibility of a new HBF that combines circular

mats and suction buckets to enhance the load capacity of deep-water
sea-bottom foundations by using centrifuge models to conduct uniaxial
and combined load tests in sand. The following conclusions can be
drawn from this study:

1) The vertical bearing capacity of the HBFwas ~1.91 times higher

than that of the conventional SBFfor the same skirt size. A large
proportion of the vertical bearing capacity was provided by the mat
rather than by the skirt.
Fig. 15. Comparison of predicted failure envelopes with test results.
2) The combined load capacity of the HBFwas ~1.82 times higherthan
that of the SBF. Moreover, the HBF exhibited limited rotation be-
cause the mat acted as a support as the foundation rotated. This
highlights the contribution of the mat component attached to the
top of the bucket unit in significantly improving the bearing capa-
city of the HBF. This component allows the bucket unit to be more
effectively designed byminimizingits diameter and reducing the cost
of manufacturing and transportation while still providing adequate
resistance against rotation. The bearing capacity and displacement
pattern of the HBFwerefound to be affected by the contact condition
(i.e., fully or partially contacted) between the mat bottom and the
seabed.
3) The initial stiffness and rotational stiffness of the HBFwere higher
than those of the SBF.
4) The failure criterion proposed by Villalobos (2005) accurately ex-
pressed our test results for both foundations with appropriate input
variables.

11 Although we only tested small vertical loads, a foundation's bearing

capacity can change significantly with increasing vertical load.
mahdi shakeran Therefore, the applicability of our results is limited to the experimental
range (V = 1.5–3.8 MN) that may suitable for subsea structures. In
Fig. 16. Failure envelopes of the SBF and HBF in the H–M plane.
addition, we tested a narrow range of HBF dimensions, such that further
research is necessary to determine the most effective and economic
Table 4 shape of this new approach.
Input parameters for the framework proposed by Villalobos et al. [4].
Inputs Single bucket Hybrid foundation Remarks Acknowledgements

Dc 5m 5m Testing condition This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Dm 5m 10 m Testing condition
Korea funded by the Mistry of Science and ICT (MSIT) of the South
T 0.21 m 0.21 m Testing condition
V/Vy 0.018 0.0095* Testing condition Korean Goverment [grant number 2017R1A5A1014883].
Dr 62 % 62 % Testing condition
ϕ 41° 41° Triaxial tests (Dr= 62 %) Supplementary materials
Ktan (δ) 0.34 0.34* [45], δ = 2/3×ϕ
β1 0.84 0.84* [42]
β2 1 1* [43]
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
β12 3.56 3.56* [42] the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.apor.2020.102197.
h0 0.15 0.15* [42]
m0 0.135 0.135* [42] References
a -0.86 -0.86* [42]
t0 0.0092 0.008* Vt/Vy [40]
[1] M.F. Randolph, C. Gaudin, S.M. Gourvenec, D.J. White, N. Boylan, M.J. Cassidy,
Recent advances in offshore geotechnics for deep water oil and gas developments,
⁎
Non-dimensional value
Ocean Eng. 38 (7) (2011) 818–834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.10.
021.
capacity of the SBF compared with our results. The results for dense sand [2] Y. Bai, Q. Bai, Subsea engineering handbook, 1st edn., Gulf Professional Publishing,
Burlington, USA, 2010.
given by Achmus et al. [41] were closer to the capacity of our HBF, al-
[3] D. Fu, B. Bienen, C. Gaudin, M. Cassidy, Undrained capacity of a hybrid subsea
though their methods were only valid for the SBF. skirted mat with caissons under combined loading, Can. Geotech. J. 51 (8) (2014)

10
J.-H. Kim, et al.
934–949, https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0330.
[4] F.A. Villalobos, B.W. Byrne, G.T. Houlsby, Moment loading of caissons installed in
saturated sand, Proc., Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG),
Perth, Western Australia, 2005 441-416.
[5] L.B. Ibsen, K.A.Larsen A.Barari, Modified vertical bearing capacity for circular
foundations in sand using reduced friction angle, Ocean Eng. 47 (2012) 1–6.
[6] L.B. Ibsen, K.A.Larsen A.Barari, Adaptive plasticity model for bucket foundations, J.
Eng. Mech. 140 (2) (2013) 361–373.
[7] B. Bienen, L. Rausch, C. Gaudin, M.J. Cassidy, O.A. Purwana, Numerical study of
the combined load capacity of a hybrid foundation, Proc., 21st Int. Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conf. (ISOPE), Mountain View, CA, 2011, pp. 556–562.
[8] M.F. Bransby, M.F. Randolph, The effect of embedment depth on the undrained
response of skirted foundations to combined loading, Soils Found. 39 (4) (1999)
19–33.
[9] M.F. Bransby, M.F. Randolph, The effect of skirted foundation shape on response to
combined VMH loadings, Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 9 (3) (1999) 214–218.
[10] S. Gourvenec, Failure envelopes for offshore shallow foundations under general
loading, Geotechnique 57 (9) (2007) 715–728.
[11] S. Gourvenec, Effect of embedment on the undrained capacity of shallow founda-
tions under general loading, Geotechnique 58 (3) (2008) 177–186.
[12] S. Gourvenec, D. Mana, Undrained vertical bearing capacity factors for shallow
foundations, Géotech. Lett. 1 (4) (2011) 101–108.
[13] J.R. Hogervorst, Field trials with large diameter suction piles, Proceedings of
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, 1980 Paper OTC 3817.
[14] T.I. Tjelta, T.R. Guttormsen, J. Hermstad, Large-scale penetration test at a deep-
water site, Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, 1986
Paper OTC 5103.
[15] C.T. Erbrich, T.I. Tjelta, Installation of bucket foundations and suction caissons in
sand—Geotechnical performance, Offshore Technology Conf., Paper No. OTC
10990, Society of Petroleum Engineering, Houston, 1999.
[16] M. Iskander, S. El-Gharbawy, R. Olson, Performance of suction caissons in sand and
clay, Can. Geotech. J. 39 (3) (2002) 576–584, https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-030.
[17] M.N. Tran, M.F. Randolph, D.W. Airey, Installation of suction caissons in sand with
silt layers, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (10) (2007) 1183–1191, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:10(1183).
[18] M.N. Tran, M.F. Randolph, Variation of suction pressure during caisson installation
in sand, Géotechnique 58 (1) (2008) 1–11.
[19] M. Senders, M.F. Randolph, CPT-based method for the installation of suction cais-
sons in sand, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (1) (2009) 14–25, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:1(14).
[20] B. Zhu, D.Q. Kong, R.P. Chen, L.G. Kong, Y.M. Chen, Installation and lateral loading
tests of suction caissons in silt, Can. Geotech. J. 48 (7) (2011) 1070–1084, https://
doi.org/10.1139/t11-021.
[21] C. Gaudin, H. Mohr, M.J. Cassidy, B. Bienen, O.A. Purwana, Centrifuge experiments
of a hybrid foundation under combined loading, Proc., 21st Int. Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conf. (ISOPE), Mountain View, CA, 2011, pp. 386–392.
[22] B. Bienen, C. Gaudin, M.J. Cassidy, L. Rausch, O.A. Purwana, H. Krisdani,
Numerical modelling of a hybrid skirted foundation under combined loading,
Comp. Geotech. 45 (2012) 127–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.05.
009.
[23] D. Li, Y. Zhang, L. Feng, Y. Gao, Capacity of modified suction caissons in marine
sand under static horizontal loading, Ocean Eng. 102 (2015) 1–16, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.04.033.
[24] P. Dimmock, E. Clukey, M.F. Randolph, D. Murff, C. Gaudin, Hybrid subsea foun-
dations for subsea equipment, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (12) (2013)
2182–2192, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000944.
11
Applied Ocean Research 101 (2020) 102197
[25] N. Cheng, C. Gaudin, M.J. Cassidy, Physical and numerical study of the combined
bearing capacity of hybrid foundation systems, Ocean Eng. 179 (2019) 104–115.
[26] B. Bienen, L. Rausch, C. Gaudin, M.J. Cassidy, O.A. Purwana, Numerical study of
the combined load capacity of a hybrid foundation, Proc. Int. Symp. Off. and Pol.
Eng. (ISOPE2011), Maui, Hawai, USA, 2011, pp. 556–562.
[27] J.H. Kim, Model testing of bucket foundations for offshore structure in the cen-
trifuge and development of miniature cone, Ph.D. thesis Korea Advanced Institute
of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2016.
[28] ASTM, Standard test method for minimum index density and unit weight of soils
and calculation of relative density, ASTM standard D4254-00, ASTM International,
West Conshohoken, PA., (2006). doi: 10.1520/D4254-00R06.
[29] ASTM, Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified
Soil Classification system), ASTM standard D2487-11, ASTM International, West
Conshohoken, PA., (2011). doi: 10.1520/D2487-11.
[30] ASTM, Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils
Using a Vibratory Table, ASTM standard D4253-14, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA., (2014). doi:10.1520/D4253-14.
[31] J.H. Kim, Y.W. Choo, D.J. Kim, D.S. Kim, Miniature cone tip resistance on sand in a
centrifuge, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (3) (2015) 04015090, , https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001425.
[32] Y.Tsukamoto, Drum centrifuge tests of three-leg jack-ups on sand, Ph.D. thesis,
University of Cambridge, UK, (1994).
[33] D.S. Kim, N.R. Kim, Y.W. Choo, G.C. Cho, A newly developed state-of-the-art geo-
technical centrifuge in Korea, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 17 (1) (2013) 77–84, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12205-013-1350-5.
[34] J.H. Kim, Y.W. Choo, D.S. Kim, Correlation between the shear-wave velocity and tip
resistance of quartz sand in a centrifuge, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (11)
(2017) 04017083, , https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001782.
[35] J.H. Kim, D.S. Kim, Soil displacement near a bucket foundation installed in sand by
suction and jacking in a centrifuge, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (11) (2019)
06019015, , https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002149.
[36] F.A. Villalobos, Model testing of foundations for offshore wind turbines, Ph.D thesis,
Univ. of Oxford, Oxford, England, 2007.
[37] K.A. Larsen, L.B. Ibsen, A. Barari, Modified expression for the failure criterion of
bucket foundations subjected to combined loading, Can. Geotech. J. 50 (12) (2013)
1250–1259, https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2012-0308.
[38] B.W. Byrne, G.T. Houlsby, Foundations for offshore wind turbines, Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. London, Ser. A 361 (1813) (2003) 2909–2930.
[39] S. Kim, Evaluation of pullout capacity of suction anchor installed in silty sand, Ph.D
thesis Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea, 2015.
[40] G.T. Houlsby, B.W. Byrne, Calculation procedures for installation of suction cais-
sons in sand, Geotech. Eng. 158 (2005) 135–144.
[41] M. Achmus, C.T. Akdag, K. Thieken, Load-bearing behavior of suction bucket
foundations in sand, Appl. Ocean Res. 43 (2013) 157–165, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apor.2013.09.001.
[42] L.B. Ibsen, K.A. Larsen, A. Barari, Calibration of failure criteria for bucket foun-
dations on drained sand under general loading, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140
(7) (2014) 04014033, , https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000995.
[43] G. Gottardi, G.T. Houlsby, R. Butterfield, Plastic response of circular footings on
sand under general planar loading, Géotechnique 49 (4) (1999) 453–470.
[44] B.W. Byrne, Investigations of suction caissons in dense sand, Ph.D thesis Univ. of
Oxford, Oxford, England, 2000.
[45] J. Jaky, Pressure in silos, Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng.
(ICSMFE) 1 (1944) 103–107.
Annotations

Improved load capacity of a hybrid bucket foundation for

offshore structures in sand
Kim, Jae Hyun; Jeong, Yeong Hoon; Kim, Dong Soo

01 mahdi shakeran Page 1

26/8/2020 6:42

02 mahdi shakeran Page 1

26/8/2020 6:41

03 mahdi shakeran Page 1

31/8/2020 12:34

04 mahdi shakeran Page 2

31/8/2020 14:34

05 mahdi shakeran Page 2

31/8/2020 14:35

06 mahdi shakeran Page 3

31/8/2020 14:35

07 mahdi shakeran Page 3

31/8/2020 14:35

08 mahdi shakeran Page 3

26/8/2020 6:42

09 mahdi shakeran Page 3

31/8/2020 14:37
10 mahdi shakeran Page 8
31/8/2020 15:23

11 mahdi shakeran Page 10

13/9/2020 18:47