Conference title.

Thomas Telford, London, 2003

Pressure Chamber Testing of Model
Caisson Foundations in Sand
R.B.Kelly, B.W.Byrne, G.T.Houlsby and C.M.Martin
Department of Engineering Science
University of Oxford

Introduction
Within the next few years a number of wind farms will be constructed around
the coast of the United Kingdom. In the first instance many of the wind turbine
structures will be founded on piles. These foundations, although simple to
design as they are a well-established technology, are a significant proportion of
the overall installed cost for these structures; of the order of 30%. Various
options are being investigated that may reduce the installed cost, and therefore
increase the economic viability of these wind-farm developments. One
possibility is to use skirted shallow foundations installed by suction either as a
single foundation (i.e. monopod structure) or as a multi-foundation system (i.e.
quadruped/tripod structure). For the monopod, the key issue is the performance
of the foundation under the large moments applied by the wind and wave loads
on the structure. For the multi-footing case the applied moment loads from the
wind and waves will largely be reacted as vertical compression and tension
loads on the individual foundations. Both these loading cases are being
investigated at the University of Oxford in laboratory scale tests. This paper
concentrates on the tensile vertical capacity of the caisson foundation. A
companion paper by Byrne et al. (2003) covers the moment loading case.
There is little previous research on the vertical cyclic loading of skirted
foundations in sand. Most recent research has been carried out at the University
of Oxford (Byrne, 2000; Johnson, 1999). The research carried out by Byrne
(2000) involved vertical loading experiments on skirted foundations in an oil-
saturated sand. These indicated that significant tensile capacities are possible
and are limited by cavitation of the pore fluid. There is also evidence that the
stiffness of the response changes when the load applied to the foundation
changes from compression to tension (Byrne and Houlsby, 2002; Johnson,
1999). These experiments were carried out on the laboratory floor, where the
Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 2
ambient fluid pressure is very low. A central issue is therefore that, since the
available suction pressure is limited by cavitation of the pore fluid, the
maximum available suction is much lower on the laboratory floor as compared
with the offshore case. To investigate the effect of water pressure, and therefore
cavitation, on the behaviour of suction caissons, a pressure chamber has been
developed. This can simulate water pressures corresponding to depths of up to
20m. This paper describes the pressure chamber and presents data from a
commissioning test conducted at atmospheric pressure.
A model caisson having a diameter of 280mm and a skirt depth of 180mm
was used in the experiment. A waterproof load cell was constructed in order to
measure the axial load on the caisson and any moment loads that may have
occurred during loading. The displacement of the caisson and the water pressure
beneath the caisson base plate were recorded. A fast-acting 100kN Instron
actuator applied the loads.

Pressure Chamber
A diagram of the pressure chamber is presented in Figure 1. The pressure
chamber comprises a watertight cylindrical vessel one metre in diameter and
one metre in height. A saturated sand sample, described below, was placed
inside the pressure chamber to a height of about 560mm above a perforated
false floor. The false floor was constructed to provide a void beneath the
sample. The water in the void space could be pressurised in order to fluidise the
sand and thus loosen it. The water level inside the pressure chamber was about
100mm above the top of the sand sample. The Instron actuator was fixed to the
lid of the pressure chamber to provide vertical load to the model caisson. The
model caisson and a waterproof load cell were suspended beneath the lid of the
pressure vessel and attached to the actuator via a stainless steel rod, which
penetrated through the lid of the pressure chamber via a gland. Sensors near the
top and the base of the cylinder monitored pressure within the chamber. A pore
pressure sensor was also placed within the base plate of the model caisson. The
waterproof load cell measured the axial and moment loads applied to the
caisson. The load applied by the actuator was also measured by a 100kN
capacity load cell fixed to the ram of the actuator. The displacement of the
caisson during loading was measured by an LVDT attached to the rod fixing the
actuator to the caisson. During installation, the air within the caisson was vented
through a tube from the caisson to the outside of the pressure vessel. Once the
caisson had been installed, a slight pressure was applied within the chamber in
order to force water through this tube and remove all of the air within it. Signals
from the instrumentation were filtered and amplified. The data was recorded by
a PC-based system incorporating a Computerboards data acquisition card.

Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 3
Sand Properties and Sample Preparation
The sand used to create the test bed in these tests was Redhill 110. This is a
commercially available fine-grained, poorly graded silica sand. The average
particle size of the sand was about 0.1mm.
The test bed was prepared by first placing a filter layer of Leighton Buzzard
16-30 sand to a thickness of about 80mm. About 700kg of the Redhill 110 was
then placed dry on top of the filter layer. The pressure chamber was then sealed
and a vacuum applied within it. Carbon dioxide gas was introduced to the base
of the chamber and allowed to flush through the sand for a period of time. De-
aired water was then introduced to the base of the evacuated chamber until the
test bed was entirely submerged. Carbon dioxide gas was again flushed through
the sample then the vacuum was gradually released. At this stage any small
amounts of carbon dioxide were expected to have dissolved in the water.
The test bed was made dense through the use of a vibrating motor strapped to
the side of the pressure chamber.

Test Results
The sand bed used in the caisson test was prepared to a relative density of 80%.
The initial penetration of the caisson into the sand was conducted at a rate of
0.2mm per second, then vertical load cycles of increasing amplitude were
applied at a rate of 1Hz. The final pullout of the caisson from the sand was
conducted at a rate of 5mm per second.
The method for conducting the test was as follows:

Calibrate the Instron load cell
Position the test caisson above the soil
Penetrate the test caisson into the sample until a load of 10kN was
reached. The feedback control response of the actuator was then
optimised by cycling at a rate of 5Hz with a load amplitude of 1kN
Continue penetration of the caisson until a load of about 30kN was
reached
Apply 10 cycles, at 1Hz, with amplitudes of 5kN, 10kN, 20kN
and 30kN. The pore pressure beneath the base plate of the caisson
was allowed to dissipate between each set of cycles.
Apply 5 cycles, at 1 Hz, with amplitudes of 35kN and 40kN. The
pore pressure was again allowed to dissipate between tests.
Pull the caisson out of the sand.

The Instron load cell was used to control the applied loads, whereas the
waterproof load cell inside the chamber measured the load data reported below.
Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 4
Caisson Installation
Load-penetration data during the installation of the caisson are presented in
Figure 2. The load increased non-linearly with depth while the skirts were being
penetrated. The shear stress mobilised on the skirts of the caisson can be
estimated as
v
.Ktan. This can be integrated over the depth of the skirt, h, to
produce an expression for the total friction on the skirt. The bearing on the
annulus of the caisson skirt, of width t, is given by a standard bearing capacity
expression where N
q
and N

are bearing capacity factors for a strip footing. The

expression for the penetration resistance is therefore given by:
( ) Dt
t
N h N D K
h
V
q

+ +

=
2
'
' tan
2
'
2
2

The estimated penetration resistance from this expression is shown on Figure
2 superimposed over the data from the test. The resistance was computed taking
Ktan = 1.15 and the friction angle to be 45. During the first 70mm of
penetration, the expression above closely predicted the penetration resistance.
The resistance was under-estimated on further penetration. Once the base of the
caisson came into contact with the sand the load increased rapidly. The stiffness
of the foundation increased from about 10N/mm during skirt penetration to
about 1,700N/mm on contact of the base plate with the sand.
Cyclic Loading of the Model Caisson
Load-displacement data measured during the cyclic phase of the model caisson
test are shown in Figure 3. The mean vertical load was about 35kN. The data
show that as the cyclic load amplitude increased so did the displacement of the
caisson into the sand. The data also showed that the caisson was unable to
sustain significant tensile loads during the 40kN cyclic load set. The maximum
tensile force recorded during the 40kN cyclic load set was about 1kN.
The load, pressure beneath the base plate of the caisson, displacement of the
caisson and velocity of the caisson during the 4
th
cycle of the 20kN load set are
shown in Figure 4. The data show that the load and the displacement of the
caisson are related to each other, as are the pressure and velocity of the caisson.
The load/displacement data are about a quarter of a cycle out-of-phase with the
pressure/velocity.
The loads during the 4
th
cycle in each set are plotted against re-zeroed
displacement in Figure 5. As per Figure 3, the loads increased with penetration
into the soil. It can also be seen that the stiffness of the foundation reduced
rapidly towards zero as the load moved from compression to tension and
remained low upon reloading the caisson for a significant displacement prior to
a rapid increase in stiffness as the compressive load increased.
Although the positive and negative excess pore pressures immediately below
the base plate of the model caisson increased in magnitude as the cyclic load
amplitude increased, the excess pressures did not increase as the load increased.
The excess pore pressure increased with load amplitude because the Instron
Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 5
actuator had to displace the caisson at an increasing rate to achieve the target
load amplitude within the load period of 1 second. Excess pore pressures are
plotted against the velocity of the caisson during the 4
th
load cycle in each set in
Figure 6. While the loads were compressive, during cyclic amplitudes of 5kN
to 30kN, the excess pore pressures were linearly related to the velocity of the
caisson, at least to a first approximation. After the loads became tensile, the
excess pressures were unable to be directly related to the velocity of the caisson.
At no time during the test did the excess water pressures beneath the base
plate of the caisson approach the cavitation pressure of 100kPa.
Pullout of the Model Caisson
The maximum tensile load on the model caisson during its pullout is shown in
Figure 3 and was 2.1kN. The corresponding suction pressure beneath the base
plate of the model caisson was 17kPa and is shown in Figure 4. A soil plug
was observed to remain inside the skirts of the caisson after the caisson had
been fully extracted from the sand. The computed load equivalent to the suction
pressure, measured under the base plate, was 1.1kN and the saturated weight of
the soil plug was estimated to be 0.2kN. It was inferred that the remaining
tensile load was generated on the outer surface of the skirt of the caisson.
As the maximum suction pressure during pullout of the caisson was less than
that observed during cyclic loading it was inferred that the pullout rate of 5mm
per second was insufficient to generate an undrained response in the sand. The
rate of loading required to produce cavitation beneath the base plate of the
caisson can be estimated from extrapolation of a trend line fitted through the
linear pressure-velocity data in Figure 6. It was estimated that the caisson
would have to be displaced at a rate of 55mm/s for cavitation beneath the base
plate to occur.

Discussion
It has been argued that structures built on shallow foundations resting on the
seabed can resist uplift forces greater than their own self weight (Tjelta, 1994).
This idea led to caissons replacing piles as foundations for the Europipe 16/11-E
jacket. In contrast to jacket structures, offshore wind turbines are extremely
lightweight, must resist large overturning loads and are founded in relatively
shallow water. If a multi-caisson foundation were to be used to support the wind
turbine it would be a great advantage if the tensile capacity of the upwind leg(s)
were significantly greater than the drained frictional capacity of the foundation
i.e. that a suction could be relied upon for capacity calculations. Two important
questions are therefore:

1. What is the ultimate tensile capacity of a caisson foundation in sand?
2. At what displacement is the ultimate tensile capacity mobilized?

Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 6
There is a contrast between the data in Byrne (2000) and the results
presented here regarding the ultimate tensile capacity of a caisson foundation.
Byrnes data, obtained from tests conducted in an oil-saturated fine silica sand,
suggest that the ultimate tensile capacity is quite large and is governed by
cavitation of the pore fluid. The results presented above, for a test conducted in
water-saturated silica sand, suggest the ultimate tensile capacity is low and that
cavitation of the pore fluid does not occur. The contrasting results occur because
the suction pressure beneath the caisson depends on a complex interaction
between the permeability of the soil, the length of the drainage path and the rate
of loading. A faster rate of loading than that in the test presented here is likely to
produce results more reminiscent of those observed by Byrne (2000). The effect
of loading rate on stiffness and tensile capacity can be found in Bye et al.
(1995), and in particular presented in their Figures 2.6 and 2.7. Loading rates
applied to a 550mm diameter caisson with 210mm skirts were varied from 0.1
mm/s to 50 mm/s and the tensile load response varied accordingly. In addition,
the small-scale laboratory test data need to be appropriately scaled in order to
assess the ultimate tensile capacity of a field scale caisson. Work in this area is
ongoing and plans are being made to conduct field trials using a 1.5m diameter
caisson.
The data from Byrne (2000) and the test data reported in this paper suggest
that the vertical stiffness of a caisson foundation reduces significantly as the
loading changes from compression into tension, and that displacements in the
order of 10-20% of the caisson diameter are required to mobilize the ultimate
tensile capacity. The magnitude of these deformations would be unacceptable
for the operation of a wind turbine. The low stiffness as the loads become
tensile may limit the serviceability design of an upwind leg of a multi-caisson
foundation to zero tensile load. This condition may be required in order to
prevent the caisson from ratcheting into or out of the ground, depending on the
mean vertical load applied to each caisson. The laboratory-scale data suggests
that the maximum tensile load possible before a caisson undergoes significant
upward displacement is limited to the self-weight of the caisson, the weight of
the soil plug and the external skin friction acting on the caissons skirts.
The effect of increasing the ambient pressure in the chamber on the load
capacity of the caisson foundation may depend on whether the minimum excess
pore pressure of 27.7kPa measured in this test can be exceeded or not. The
pore pressure of 27.7kPa is sufficiently remote from the cavitation pressure of
100kPa (relative to atmospheric pressure) to suggest that cavitation did not
occur in any part of the sand. It would be expected that increasing the ambient
water pressure would only affect the capacity of the caisson foundation if
cavitation occurred in the sand during tests at atmospheric pressure. Otherwise,
the rules of effective stress will govern the foundation response. However, the
suction pressure beneath the base of the caisson may be dependent on the rate of
loading and may approach the cavitation limit more closely as the rate of
Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 7
loading is increased. Further tests are planned to investigate the effect of loading
rate on the pressure response.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the DTI and EPSRC for the funding of this research.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the industrial participants to this
research project: SLP Engineering Ltd, Shell Renewables Ltd, Enron Wind
Overseas Development Ltd, Fugro Ltd, Aerolaminates Ltd, HR Wallingford and
Garrad Hassan. The second author is also grateful for the support provided by
Magdalen College, Oxford.

References
1. Bye, A., Erbrich, C. and Rognlien, B. (1995), Geotechnical Design of
Bucket Foundations, OTC Offshore Technology Conference, Paper
OTC7793
2. Byrne, B.W. (2000) Investigations of suction caissons in dense sand,
DPhil thesis, University of Oxford
3. Byrne, B.W. and Houlsby, G.T. (2002) Experimental investigations of the
response of suction caissons to transient vertical loading. Proc. ASCE,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 11, Nov., pp 926-939.
4. Johnson, K. 1999. Partially drained loading of shallow foundations.
Fourth Year Project. Department of Engineering Science, The University of
Oxford.
5. Tjelta, T.J. (1994), Geotechnical aspects of bucket foundations replacing
piles for the Europipe 16/11-E jacket, OTC Offshore Technology
Conference, Paper OTC7379
6. Byrne, B.W., Villalobos, F., Houlsby, G.T. and Martin, C.M. (2003),
Laboratory Testing of Shallow Skirted Foundations in Sand, ICOF03
Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 8
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9) (10)
PS
PS
PS
(1) Pressure Chamber
(2) Void Beneath Sample
(3) Saturated Sand Sample
(4) Water Level
(5) Instron Actuator
(6) Instron Support Structure
(7) Test Caisson
(8) Waterproof Load Cell
(9) Instron Load Cell
(10) LVDT Displacement Transducer
PS Pressure Sensor


Figure 1 Pressure chamber apparatus

Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 9
Figure 2 Caisson installation


Figure 3 Cyclic loading of caisson

-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250
Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Initial Penetration
Inferred Load
Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 10

Figure 4 Force, pressure, displacement and velocity during 4
th
cycle of
20kN load set

Figure 5 Displacement during the 4
th
load cycle of each set

-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
+/- 5kN
+/- 10kN
+/- 20kN
+/- 30kN
+/- 35kN
+/- 40kN
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Time (s)
F
o
r
c
e
/
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
/
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
Pressure (kPa)
Force (kN)
Displacement (mm)
Velocity (mm/s)
Pressure Chamber Testing of Model Caisson Foundations in Sand 11
Figure 6 Excess pressure vs rate of caisson displacement during the 4
th

cycle of each set
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Velocity (mm/s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
+/- 5kN
+/- 10kN
+/- 20kN
+/- 30kN
+/- 35kN
+/- 40kN