Numerical Analysis of Bearing Capacity

of Suction Bucket Foundation for

Offshore Wind Turbines
Yun-gang Zhan
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Jiangsu University of
Science and Technology, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China
Email: zygseastar@163.com

Fu-chen Liu
Shandong Vocational Polytechnic College of Water Resources
Rizhao, Shandong, China
Email: liu803036@126.com

ABSTRACT
Suction bucket foundations have been widely used in oil and gas offshore structures.
Recently, it is attempted to be used as foundation for offshore wind turbines. Though the
loadings transferred to suction bucket are all in combined mode for these two types of
applications, the eccentric lateral load, other than vertical forces, has a dominating role of the
bearing capacity of suction bucket for offshore wind turbines. In this paper the results of
numerical study on the bearing capacity of monopod suction bucket installed in homogeneous
clayey soil to support wind turbine structures are presented, considering the frictional contact
behavior of interface between skirt and subsoil. Here bucket aspect ratios are taken from 0.25
to 1.0 and eccentricity ratios of horizontal loads vary in the range of 0.0~2.0. The bearing
capacity behavior of the bucket under pure vertical, lateral, torsional loads was investigated
through displacement controlled method first, followed by the interaction of these loads with
each other by using load-displacement controlled analysis method. The interaction of various
combinations of loading is presented in the form of failure locus. It is shown that, the vertical
capacity from FE analysis agrees well with that of modified conventional method, and
horizontal capacity factor decreases with aspect ratio increasing. The torsional load has
significant effect on the vertical capacity but has trivial effect on the horizontal capacity. The
normalized failure loci for suction bucket with different eccentricity ratio can be fitted by
elliptic curve and the fitting curve is presented.

KEYWORDS:

suction bucket; finite element; bearing capacity; combined loading

- 633 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. F

634

INTRODUCTION
In current major offshore wind turbine projects, two types of foundations have been dominating,
the gravity base foundation and the monopile, which have commonly been used as foundation for
oil and gas offshore platform. In contrast to typical oil and gas structures used offshore, for a
wind turbine the foundation may account for up to 35% of the installed cost (Byrne, Houlsby,
2003). Recent research and development projects (Byrne 2000; Feld 2001; Houlsby et al., 2005)
have shown that, suction bucket may be used as offshore wind turbine foundations for its
economic advantage and repetitive usability. In addition, in-situ installation of the bucket
foundation is relatively convenient by active suction installation method. Suction bucket
foundation is a hollow and large diameter cylinder, open at bottom and closed at top as illustrated
in Fig.1. The suction bucket is installed initially to the seabed by its self-weight to provide a seal
between the skirt tip and the soil. Then further penetration is achieved by pumping out the water
within bucket through an opening in the top lid of the bucket, thus developing differential
pressure between inside and outside of bucket forces it downwards into desired depth of soil
(Ehlers et al., 2004). Suction bucket can easily be removed by pumping water back into the
bucket cavity, forcing it out of the seabed. Consequently, the suction bucket foundation can be
used repetitively.
H
Waves
V

L1

T
Mudline
L
Suction bucket

Figure 1: Suction bucket foundation

Suction bucket have previously been used as anchors to moor large floating systems in deep
waters and foundations to support fixed offshore platforms in coastal areas. For using as anchors,
the suction bucket is mainly subject to vertical (V) and horizontal (H) loads. However, by
comparison with offshore oil and gas platform, the vertical load applied to wind turbines
foundations is relatively small, the horizontal load and overturning moment (M) are substantial
compared with the vertical load (Byrne; Houlsby, 2003). A typical assumption is that the
combined loads (V-H-M) applied to the structure are in-plane. Actually, in the case of wind
turbines the wind and wave directions may not be collinear. Therefore, torsion moments (T) about
the vertical axis of the structure might be applied to the foundations along with overturning
moment, vertical and horizontal loads (Bienen, et al., 2005). The combined loads (V-H-M-T),
which are not in co-planar, must be economically and safely transferred to the sea ground.
The behavior of suction bucket foundations under vertical and horizontal loads has been the
subject of various studies. Ei-Gharbawy (1998) conducted a series of laboratory tests to study the
behavior and pullout capacity of suction bucket foundations under vertical and inclined loading

conditions. Sukumaran and McCarron (1999) documented an application of the finite element
method to estimate the capacity of suction bucket foundations installed in soft clays and subjected
to axial and lateral loads under undrained conditions. Aubeny et al. (2003a 2003b) presented
upper bound solutions to estimate lateral load capacity of suction bucket anchors as a function of
the load attachment point location and load inclination angle. The effects of overturning moment
on bearing capacity of suction bucket have been studied using finite element method by Wang
and Jin(2008), Bransby and Yun (2009). The results shown that overturning moment induced by
eccentric horizontal force reduce the axial capacity and lateral resistance of suction bucket
foundation. Taiebat and Carter (2005) employed finite element method to investigate the behavior
of suction bucket foundation under the combinations of axial, lateral and torsional forces,
assuming the bucket fully bounded to subsoil, where it was shown that torsional forces reduce the
axial and lateral capacity obviously. In their study, a typical bucket with aspect ratio (L/D) 2 is
used.
In this paper the response of monopod suction bucket installed in uniform clayey soil to support
wind turbine structures is studied by finite element method, considering the combinations of
vertical, lateral, overturning and torsional forces (V-H-M-T), and the interaction of these forces is
presented in the form of failure locus. Here bucket aspect ratios are taken from 0.25 to 1.0, which
is within the range of bucket foundation for fixed platform. Accordingly, a series of finite element
analyses have been conducted, which have been verified with published results and theoretical
solutions. Based on numerical result, the dependencies of bearing behavior of bucket foundation
on aspect ratio, loading combination are discussed.

NUMERICAL MODELING
Geometry of FE Models
ABAQUS FE package (ABAQUS, 2005) was used to investigate the behavior of suction bucket
foundations with aspect ratios, L/D = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0. Due to three-dimensional loading
conditions, a full-cylinder representing the sub-soil and the bucket was considered. The
discretized model area had a radius of five times the bucket diameter. The bottom boundary of the
model was extended five times the bucket diameter below the toe of the bucket. With these model
dimensions, the calculated behavior of the bucket is not significantly influenced by the
boundaries. An example of the three-dimensional finite element model for bucket foundation is
shown in Fig.2. The bucket was modeled with rigid body element and the soil was modeled with
linear brick elements with reduced integration and hourglass control (C3D8R). Relatively fine
meshes were employed at the edge of the bucket and immediately below the bucket toe to capture
localized failure, while coarser meshes were used away from the bucket to reduce computational
effort. No vertical and horizontal displacements were adopted as boundary conditions for the base
of soil, as well as horizontal moments prevented on the side boundary of soil.

Material property
In order to calculate undrained failure conditions, the clayey soil response was taken as elastoperfectly plastic using a Tresca yield criterion with uniformed undrained strength su. Youngs
modulus of the soil was assumed as 500su and Poissons ratio was taken as 0.49. The submerged
soil unit weight was taken as = 6 kN/m 3 , and the unit weight of bucket was taken as the same as
that of soil to establish the balance of initial stress.

- 635 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. F

636

Figure 2: Finite element model used in analyses

Unlike FE analyses carried out by Monajemi and Abdul Razak (2009), in which bucket was fully
bonded to surrounding soil, here the contact behavior of the interface between skirt and soil was
simulated by contact pair algorithm in the ABAQUS. Normal hard contact model was used to
describe the detachment or contact of skirt and soil. When skirt and soil were in contact, normal
pressure, as well as tangential frictional resistance was transferred between interfaces,
accompanied by Coulombs friction activated. Otherwise, no forces were transferred between
skirt and soil. The ultimate frictional resistance was set as soil-undrained strength su. When shear
stress on the contact surface was less than su, both are stuck together and no slip happened,
whereas slip occurred along the contact surface when shear stress was up to the ultimate frictional
resistance. The connection between top lid of bucket and soil was considered as fully bonded to
account for suction developed within bucket to some degree.

Analysis method
The finite element calculations were executed stepwise. At first, the initial stress state was
generated by applying gravity to the whole model. Subsequently, the contact conditions between
bucket and soil was activated. Then displacement analyses were carried out as recommended by
previous researchers (e.g. Bransby, Randolph, 1997; Wang, Jin, 2008) to determine the pure
ultimate vertical (Vult), horizontal (Hult), overturning (Mult) and torsional (Tult) loads. For
determining combined loading loci, load-displacement controlled analyses were performed
beginning with initial stress state, where, for example, a constant vertical load lower than Vult was
applied to the bucket foundation following by a horizontal displacement analysis step. This
method has been found to provide more accurate and effective calculation of combined failure
loads. For the combination of horizontal load and overturning moment, it was determined by
imposing horizontal displacement at a fixed point on the foundation with arm lever L1 above the
mud line. The failure loci of H-M would be depicted by several analyses with different lever-arm
heights, that is to vary the eccentricity ratio L1/D of lateral load.
In contrast to offshore floating system, wind turbines are relatively sensitive to the displacement
of foundation. The ultimate capacity was defined as a cut-off value where either of the

following criterions was satisfied: the vertical settlement of reference loading point approaching
0.05D; or the horizontal tilt 0.02(L+L1); or the rotation about vertical axis reaching 0.01 radians.
With these displacement limitations, trouble free operation could be secured for wind turbines.

BEARING CAPACITY UNDER PURE LOADING

CONDITIONS
Vertical capacity
The conventional vertical bearing capacity for embedded foundation can be estimated as:
Vu = N c s d A su

(1)

where A is the plane area of the bucket, Nc is the bearing capacity factor of 5.14, s is the shape
factor and s = 1.2 is suggested for circular footing, d is the embedment factor and
d = 1 + 0.4 arctan( L / D) suggested for circular footing. Deng and Carter (1999) modified the
formula to take into account the adhesion developed on the bucket skirt. Based on the result of a
series of finite element analyses, they recommended bearing capacity factor N c 9.0 and
embedment factor d = 1 + 0.4( L / D) . If the skirt adhesion DLsu is added to the capacity
predicted by conventional method, Eq.1 should be modified by appending an add-in 4 ( L / D) Asu .
The results of the FE analyses for suction buckets under vertical loads are presented in Fig.3. It
can be seen that the major part of ultimate resistances has mobilized at the prescribed vertical
displacement limit. A summary of the failure loads obtained from FE analyses and that from Eq.
1 and the method suggested by Deng and Carter are given in Tab. 1. The results of FE analyses
are close to the value calculated using modified Eq.1, and less than that of Deng and Carters
method. This is because Deng and Carters method was based on the results of FE analysis with
fully bounded conditions between skirt and subsoil, and the vertical resistances were determined
at vertical displacement reached 0.5D. The cut-off value of this paper is more practical than that
of Deng and Carters method.
Table 1: Vertical failure loads Vult / A su
L/D
Modified Eq.1
FE analysis
Deng & Carter method

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.0

7.77
8.51
11.88

9.31
9.79
12.96

10.76
10.82
14.04

12.11
11.86
15.12

- 637 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. F

638

Vertical Load Vult / (A.su)

14
L / D = 1.0
L / D = 0.75
L / D = 0.5

12
10

L / D = 0.25
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

Vertical Displacement / D %

Figure 3: Vertical load-displacement relationship for suction bucket

Horizontal capacity
The pure horizontal capacity of suction bucket foundations were obtained from FE analyses by
applying lateral displacement on the central point of bucket at the mudline level. The capacity
commonly expressed as:
H ult = N h LDsu

(2)

Where Hult is the ultimate lateral capacity of bucket foundation and Nh is the lateral capacity
factor. Fig. 4(a) shows the FE result of Nh. It can be seen that the value of Nh decreases with L/D
increasing. The trend of this varying of Nh is depicted in Fig. 4b and the formula of the fitting
curve is

10

(3)

L / D = 0.25
8

8
L / D = 0.5

6
L / D = 0.75
L / D = 1.0

Nh

Horizontal Load Hult / (L.D.su)

N h = 12.23 -14.06 L / D + 6.12 ( L / D ) 2

FE
Fitting Curve

4
0
0

0.00

0.25

0.50

Horizontal Displacement /L %

(a)

L/D

(b)

Figure 4: Horizontal capacity of suction bucket foundation

0.75

1.00

The trend of Nh varying with L/D is different from that of Deng and Carters study, in which the
aspect ratio of bucket, L/D, has no significant effect on the lateral capacity factor Nh. The reason
is as above mentioned that they assumed skirt was fully bounded to subsoil.

Torsional capacity
Based on the assuming that the shear strength of the interface between skirt and soil is the same
as that of subsoil, the theoretical value for the ultimate torsional capacity of bucket foundations,
Tult, is expressed as:
Tult = N t LD 2 su

(4)

Torsional Load Tult / (L.D .su)

where Nt is the torsional capacity factor of Nt = (0.5 + D / 12 / L) . Fig.5 shows the load-deflection
curves predicted by the FE analyses for buckets with different aspect ratios, as well as the
theoretical solutions. It can be seen that the torsional resistances were fully mobilized at the
prescribed rotational limitation and are in excellent agreement with the theoretical value
represented by dash-dot-lines from Eq. 4.

3.0
L / D = 0.25

2.5

L / D = 0.5
L / D = 0.75
L / D = 1.0

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

Rotation Radian %

Figure 5: Torsional capacity of suction bucket foundation

COMBINED LOADING CAPACITY

For suction bucket foundations, the failure loci of combined loading are usually described in V-H,
V-M, H-M, H-T, V-H-M load spaces. While for wind turbines foundation, the overturning moment
mainly induced by horizontal loads applied eccentrically. The effect of overturning moment on
the bearing capacity of bucket foundation can be represented by ultimate horizontal loads applied
with different level above seafloor. On the other hand, the vertical loads always exist. So the
failure loci of combined loading are depicted in V-H and V-T-H load spaces with different value
of L1/D, based on large numbers of FE analyses.

Vertical-horizontal capacity
Tab. 2 gives the horizontal failure loads with L1/D=0, 0.2, 1.0, and 2.0 under no vertical load
conditions. The horizontal resistances under V-H and V-T-H loading conditions can be
normalized using these corresponding capacities.
Table 2: Horizontal failure loads (Hult / L Dsu) with different L1 / D
- 639 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. F

640
L1/D

L/D
0.25

0.0
9.11

0.2
7.59

1.0
2.86

2.0
1.55

0.5

6.32

4.71

1.89

1.07

0.75

5.12

3.73

1.77

1.07

1.0

4.34

3.36

1.72

1.06

The failure loci obtained from FE analyses are shown in Fig. 6 for bucket foundation under
vertical and horizontal loads. It can be seen that, though the eccentricity ratios, L1/D, are different
for bucket foundation with given aspect ratio L/D, the normalized loci in V-H loading spaces are
almost identical. The locus of L1/D=0 can be chosen as typical one to describe the interaction of
vertical and horizontal loading, and are shown on Fig. 7. The overall size of normalized failure
envelope enlarges as aspect ratio L/D, increases. For a bucket foundation of given aspect ratio, the
vertical ultimate capacity, Vult and horizontal ultimate capacity, Hult of different eccentricity ratio
L1/D can be obtained from Tab. 1 and Tab. 2, then the horizontal capacity varying with vertical
load could be determined from Fig.7.
1.0

1.0

0.8

0.8

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0

0.6

0.4

H / Hult

H / Hult

L / D = 0.5

L / D = 0.25

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

1.0

0.8

1.0

L / D = 1.0
0.8

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0

0.6
0.4

H / Hult

H / Hult

0.6

1.0

L / D = 0.75

0.8

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.4

V / Vult

V / Vult

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

V / Vult

0.8

1.0

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

V / Vult

Figure 6: Normalized failure loci for V-H

0.8

1.0

1.0

H / Hult

0.8
0.6

L / D = 0.25
L / D = 0.50
L / D = 0.75
L / D = 1.00

0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

V / Vult

Figure 7: Normalized typical failure loci for V-H

Vertical-torsional-horizontal capacity
Fig. 8 presents the failure loci for bucket caissons with aspect ratio ranging from 0.25 to 1.0
subjected to combinations of vertical and torsional loads. It can be seen that torsional loads have
significant effects on vertical capacity when it reaches 0.8Tult. A failure locus for the bucket of
L/D = 1.0 subjected to combination of horizontal and torsional loads is presented in Fig. 9, which
shows that the horizontal resistances are not affected by the torsional load until torsional loading
limitation state reached. The ultimate horizontal resistances, Hult for bucket of different
eccentricity ratio L1/D can be made as reference values to normalize that for bucket foundation
under V-T-H loading conditions.
5

1.0

L1 / D = 0
4

0.8
0.6
0.4

H / L.D.su

V / Vult

L1 / D = 0.2

L / D = 0.25
L / D = 0.50
L / D = 0.75
L / D = 1.00

L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
T / Tult

0.8

0
0.0

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

T / Tult

Figure 8: Normalized failure loci for V-T

Figure 9: Normalized failure loci for T-H

An additional set of FE analyses, in which only suction bucket foundation of aspect ratio 1.0 was
considered, were carried out to investigate the effects of torsional loads on the V-H capacity.
Representation of the normalized failure loci in V-T-H loading space is shown in Fig. 10, where
the torsional load varies from 0.2Tult to 0.9Tult and eccentricity ratio varies from 0.0 to 2.0 to
account for the overturning moment. The vertical resistance was normalized using the vertical
load from Fig. 8 and the horizontal resistance was normalized by Hult from Fig. 9. As can be seen,
the numerical data for combination of vertical and horizontal load are well in coincidence for a
given torsional load, though the eccentricity ratio varying. The failure loci can be approximated
with elliptical curve
- 641 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. F

642
a

H V

+
=1
H ult Vult

(5)

where a and b are fitting coefficients and are presented in Tab. 3. The fitting curves for each
torsional loading case are shown in the last frame of Fig. 10, which shows that the effect of
vertical loading on lateral resistance decreases with the increasing of torsional load. Namely, the
range of horizontal resistance affected by vertical load is larger under small torsional load than
that under great torsional load.
Table 3: Fitting coefficients of normalized failure loci for V-T-H

0.2
1.79

0.4
1.80

T / Tult
0.6
1.85

0.28

0.25

0.19

L/D = 1

1.0

0.4

H / Hult

H / Hult

L1/D = 0.0
L1/D = 0.2
L1/D = 1.0
L1/D = 2.0
Fitting Curve

0.13

T = 0.4Tult

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0
Fitting Curve

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.0
0.0

1.0

0.2

V / Vult

1.0

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

V / Vult

1.0

T = 0.6Tult

T = 0.8Tult

0.8

0.8

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0
Fitting Curve

0.6
0.4

H / Hult

H / Hult

0.15

0.8

0.6

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.9
2.22

1.0

T = 0.2Tult

0.8

0.0
0.0

0.8
1.92

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0
Fitting Curve

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

V / Vult

0.8

1.0

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

V / Vult

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.0

T = 0.9Tult
0.8

L1 / D = 0.0
L1 / D = 0.2
L1 / D = 1.0
L1 / D = 2.0
Fitting Curve

0.6
0.4

H / Hult

H / Hult

0.8

0.2
0.0
0.0

T / Tult = 0.2
T / Tult = 0.4
T / Tult = 0.6
T / Tult = 0.8
T / Tult = 0.9

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0
0.0

0.2

V / Vult

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

V / Vult

Figure 10: Normalized failure loci for V-T-H

CONCLUSION
Suction bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines under the combination of vertical,
horizontal, torsional and overturning loads are investigate by the FE method, considering the
frictional contact of the interface between skirt and subsoil. The bucket was assumed to be
embedded in a homogeneous clayey soil which deforms under undrained conditions. A
displacement controlled method was used to predict the capacity under pure loading condition
and a load-displacement controlled method was used to derive the failure loci under combined
loading conditions. Based on a series of numerical analyses, the following conclusion can be
drawn:
(1) The vertical capacity from FE analysis agrees well with that of modified conventional method
considering the adhesion between skirt and subsoil. Horizontal capacity factor, Nh is not a
constant, which decreases with L/D increasing.
(2) The torsional load has significant effect on the vertical capacity, but has trivial effect on the
horizontal capacity until it nearly reaching its ultimate value.
(3) The normalized failure loci for suction bucket with different eccentricity ratio are almost the
same in vertical-horizontal load space, if torsional load fixed. The locus expands with torsional
load increasing and can be represented by elliptic curve.
(4) An individual component of combined loads can be determined using the failure loci
presented in the paper with other components are given in advance.
Supported by: Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China
(No. 09KJD570002)

REFERENCES
1. Abaqus, (2005). Users Manual. Version 6.5.
2. Aubeny, C. P., Han, S. W., and Murff, J. D., (2003a) Inclined Load Capacity of
Suction Caissons, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 27, 1235-1254.

- 643 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. F

644

3. Aubeny, C. P., Han, S. W., and Murff, J. D. (2003b) Refined Model for Inclined
Load Capacity of Suction Caissons, Proc. 22nd International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, OMAE, 2003, 37502.
4. Bienen, B., Byrne, B. W. and Houlsby, G. T. (2005) Six degree-of-freedom loading
of a circular flat footing on loose sand, Experimental data, Report No OUEL
2289/05. Oxford: Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford.
5. Bransby, M. F. and Randolph, M. F. (1997) Shallow Foundations Subject to
Combined Loadings, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics, Wuhan, 1947-1952.
6. Bransby, M. F., Yun, G. (2009) the undrained capacity of skirted strip foundations
under combined loading, Geotechnique, 59(2):115-125.
7. Byrne, B.W. (2000) Investigations of Suction Caissons in Dense Sand, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford.
8. Byrne, B. W. and Houlsby, G. T. (2003) Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines,
Phil. Trans. of the Royal Society of London, Series A 361, 2909-2300.
9. Deng, W. and Carter, J. P. (1999) Analysis of Suction Caissons in Uniform Soils
Subjected to Inclined Uplift Loading, Report No. R798, Department of Civil
Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia.
10. Ehlers, C. J. Young, A. G. and Chen, W. (2004) Technology Assessment of
Deepwater Anchors, Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC,
16840.
11. Ei-Gharbawy, S. L. (1998) The Pullout Capacity of Suction Caisson Foundations,
PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
12. Feld, T. (2001) Suction Buckets, a New Innovative Foundation Concept, Applied to
Offshore Wind Turbines Ph.D. Thesis, Aalborg University Geotechnical
Engineering Group, Feb.
13. Houlsby, G. T., Kelly, R. B., Huxtable, J. and Byrne, B. W. (2005) Field Trials of
Suction Caissons in Sand for Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations, Geotechnique.
55(4): 287296.
14. Monajemi, H. and Abdul Razak, H (2009) Finite element modeling of suction
anchors under combined loading Marine Structures, 22(4):660-669.
15. Sukumaran, B., and McCarron, W. O., (1999) Total and Effective Stress Analysis of
Suction Caissons for Gulf of Mexico Conditions, Proc. OTRC'99 Conference,
Geotechnical special publication No. 88, 247-260.
16. Taiebat, H. A., Carter, J. P. (2005) Interaction of Forces on Caisson in Undrained
Soil, Proc. 15th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, Korea, 625323.
17. Wang, D., Jin, X. (2008) Failure Loci of Suction Caisson Foundations Under
Combined Loading Conditions, China Ocean Engineering, 22(3):455-464.

2010 ejge