Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Response and Capacity of Monopod Caisson

Foundation Under Eccentric Lateral Loads

Tanmoy Kumar Deb & Baleshwar Singh

To cite this article: Tanmoy Kumar Deb & Baleshwar Singh (2017): Response and Capacity
of Monopod Caisson Foundation Under Eccentric Lateral Loads, Marine Georesources &
Geotechnology, DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2017.1330374

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1330374

Accepted author version posted online: 17

May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 20 May 2017, At: 12:23
 Response and Capacity of Monopod Caisson Foundation

Under Eccentric Lateral Loads

Tanmoy Kumar Deb

Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,

Guwahati, India

Baleshwar Singh

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati,

India

Address correspondence to Tanmoy Kumar Deb, Research Scholar, Department of Civil

Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, India. E-mail:

tanmoy.deb@iitg.ernet.in

Abstract

Monopod caisson foundation is a viable alternative for supporting offshore wind turbines located

at shallow water depths. This foundation system has to resist overturning moment generated due

to resultant lateral load, arising from wind and water wave action, that can act at any loading height

above the seabed. This paper presents results of a numerical investigation carried out to determine

the influence of loading height, caisson geometry and superstructure load on the ultimate lateral

capacity, initial stiffness and soil failure zone of the foundation, when installed in very dense sand.

1
Both the ultimate and serviceable states of the caisson foundation obtained from the analyses are

represented in terms of envelopes plotted between lateral load and overturning moment. Simplified

expressions, which take into account the influence of the caisson geometry, loading height and soil

properties, are also presented to serve as a preliminary base for design of the monopod caisson

foundation.

Keywords: 3-dimensional finite element modelling, caisson, lateral load capacity, loading

height, monopod, sand

INTRODUCTION

A caisson foundation supporting an offshore wind turbine structure resembles an upturned

bucket in shape, is made up of steel or concrete and is suitable at water depths near shore up to

about 30 m. During installation, the foundation is initially allowed to penetrate the seabed under

its self-weight. The subsequent stage of penetration is achieved by pumping out water from its

closed top thereby creating a negative pressure inside. The first installation of caisson foundation

for a fully operational wind turbine structure was completed in 2002 in Frederikshavn, Denmark

(Zhu et al. 2011; Ibsen, Barari, and Larsen 2012).

In the offshore environment, a monopod caisson foundation has to resist vertical load,

lateral load and moment. The lateral load is produced due to the resultant action of water current

and wind force acting on the turbine tower at a particular loading height, measured vertically above

the seabed level. This eccentric resultant lateral load gives rise to overturning moment at the

caisson lid level. The vertically acting superstructure load of the wind turbine tower and its

components is usually smaller in magnitude in comparison to the lateral load and overturning

2
moment. The overturning moment generated due to the resultant water wave and wind force is a

crucial aspect in the design of the foundation.

Several studies on the response of caisson foundations under offshore loading conditions

have been addressed through laboratory as well as field tests, analytical studies and numerical

simulations. Some of the previous investigations reported in the literature, pertinent to pure lateral

and eccentric lateral capacity of monopod caisson foundation embedded in sandy bed are presented

here. Byrne and Houlsby (1999) conducted laboratory tests to study the effect of embedment on

the plasticity behaviour and yield surface response of caisson models under combined vertical

load, lateral load and moment. Byrne et al. (2003) studied the effect of caisson geometry on vertical

and moment load capacity in the laboratory and developed an expression to determine the moment

capacity. From the model test results of Byrne et al. (2003), Byrne and Houlsby (2003) presented

design calculations to evaluate the spacing and sizing of caisson foundations.

Villalobos, Byrne, and Houlsby (2005) conducted laboratory tests to study the installation

effect on vertical and moment carrying capacity of caisson foundations. The test results indicated

that the caisson installed using suction exhibited lower moment carrying capacity as compared to

the one installed by pushing. Kelly, Houlsby, and Byrne (2006) carried out model tests on caisson

and compared the moment capacity and stiffness response with field results in a non-dimensional

form. Zhu et al. (2011) analyzed failure modes of large scale model caisson foundation under

eccentric lateral loads, based on the measured instantaneous centre of rotation and distribution of

soil pressure.

Larsen, Ibsen, and Barari (2013) proposed expressions to describe the failure of model

caisson foundation having several embedment depths subjected to combined loads. Zhu et al.

(2014) studied the overturning response of model caissons of different sizes and provided

3
analytical formulation to estimate the deflection based bearing capacity. Ibsen, Barari, and Larsen

(2014) established strain-hardening criterion from laboratory test results of model caisson

foundations under combined loading conditions. Li et al. (2014) inspected the behaviour of model

skirted caisson foundation under monotonic load in laboratory and compared their results with

numerical simulations. Further, numerical study was carried out to investigate soil deformation

and lateral stress along the skirt length. Ibsen, Barari, and Larsen (2015) explored the strain-

hardening behaviour of caisson foundations with several embedment depths by conducting

laboratory tests.

In addition to laboratory experiments, several investigations were carried out on large

diameter caisson models in the field by Houlsby et al. (2006) to explore the effect of cyclic moment

and vertical loads embedded in dense sandy bed. Ibsen, Liingaard, and Nielsen 2005 discussed

about full-scale field installation of the prototype caisson foundation, its in-service performance

and response under static loads.

Along with laboratory and field experiments, a number of numerical studies have been

carried out, which have addressed the response of monopod caisson foundation under offshore

loading conditions. Doherty, Deeks, and Houlsby (2004) provided a technique for estimating

elastic stiffness coefficients of flexible skirted caisson under vertical load, lateral load and moment,

using scaled boundary FEM. Abdel-Rahman and Achmus (2006) carried out numerical

investigation of caisson foundations and presented interaction diagrams to represent the failure

and allowable states. Based on finite element analyses, Achmus, Akdag, and Thieken (2013)

developed normalized equations to determine ultimate capacity of caisson foundation. Jin, Zhang,

and Qiu (2014) studied the failure of caisson numerically, by considering several aspect ratios and

proposed a formulation for ultimate lateral load capacity utilizing limit equilibrium method.

4
 Although there are several studies concerning offshore caisson foundations in sandy soils,

design expressions for determination of stiffness and allowable bearing capacity for varying

caisson geometry, loading height and superstructure load as well as the failure mechanisms at

ultimate condition are less well documented.

Objective and Scope

A monopod caisson foundation has to resist lateral load that is greater in magnitude as

compared to the superstructure load acting on it. Thus, the overturning moment produced due to

the eccentric lateral load plays a critical role in the design of the monopod caisson foundation. The

main objective of this study to develop simplified expressions for predicting the initial stiffness

and the allowable lateral load capacity of the monopod caisson foundation installed in very dense

sand. To meet this objective, numerical analysis was carried out considering seven caisson

geometries, nine load cases (eight lateral loading heights & pure moment), and three superstructure

loads.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

Three-dimensional Finite Element Modelling Procedure

The lateral response of the three-dimensional monopod caisson foundation was simulated

numerically using finite element software, ABAQUS. The difficulties associated with caisson

installation and its effect due to soil rearrangement were not considered in this study. The

simulations were carried out to investigate the in-service performance assuming the caisson to be

wished-in-place. Considering the geometric and loading symmetry, only half of the caisson

embedded in soil domain was modelled. In order to avoid boundary effects on the lateral load

5
response of the system, several trials were carried out to determine the size of soil domain. The

soil domain was discretized with finer mesh in the vicinity of caisson, and the size of mesh was

increased gradually towards the domain boundary. The three-dimensional soil domain and the

caisson foundation were modelled using 8-node linear brick element with reduced integration

scheme (C3D8R) as shown in Figure 1. The displacements at the base boundary of the soil domain

were fixed in every direction. In addition, normal displacements were constrained in the symmetric

plane, and lateral displacements were restrained along the curved periphery of the soil domain.

In the analysis, loads were applied in steps to simulate the actual field conditions for

foundations located offshore. In the first step, geostatic load was applied to achieve the initial stress

state in the whole soil domain. In the second step, contact between the caisson and soil was

established. The interface between the caisson surface and the corresponding adjacent soil surface

was modelled using master-slave contact pair algorithm. The caisson foundation being stiffer was

chosen as master surface and the soil surface was selected as slave surface. The interface friction

angle between master and slave surface was considered as two-thirds of the internal friction angle

(φʹ). In the third step, superstructure load representing the self-weight of the wind turbine structure

was applied at the centre of the caisson lid. In the final step, resultant water wave and wind load

was simulated by displacement-controlled lateral load, applied at an eccentric location measured

vertically above the centre of the caisson lid. However, when the resultant load consisted of only

pure lateral load or pure moment, it was applied directly at the caisson lid. The lateral displacement

and the corresponding rotation angle of the caisson lid centre were extracted from the recorded

output database of the numerical simulation.

Numerical Model Verification

6
 A caisson foundation with a diameter of 20 m and a skirt length of 15m , embedded in

medium dense sand was modelled, considering the caisson material and soil properties as in Abdel-

Rahman and Achmus (2006). The caisson foundation and soil domain were discretized with 8-

node linear brick element with reduced integration scheme (C3D8R). A superstructure load of 10

MN was applied at the caisson lid. FE analyses were carried out under pure lateral load, and under

lateral load acting at eccentricities of 50 m and 100 m. Figure 2 presents a comparison of the

results in the form of published lateral load-displacement curves and those of the present

investigation. It can be noted that there is a good agreement of the results.

Parametric Study

A parametric study was then carried out for seven geometries (diameter ranging from 6 m

to 12 m) of the monopod caisson foundation installed in very dense sandy seabed. The loading

height was varied from 0 m to 100 m. Eight loading heights, representative of the point of

application of resultant lateral load due to water waves and wind currents, were considered.

Superstructure loads ranged between 10 MN to 30 MN, where 10 MN is the typical dead weight

of a 5 MW wind turbine structure (Malhotra 2011). The geometric and loading details are presented

in Table 1. The monopod caisson foundation was assumed to be made up of steel with thickness

of caisson lid and skirt as 0.10 m and 0.03 m, respectively. The foundation was modelled with

isotropic and linear elastic material properties. The values of Young’s modulus, buoyant unit

weight and Poisson’s ratio were set as 210 GPa, 68 kN/m3 and 0.15, respectively.

The behaviour of the very dense sand bed was simulated using Mohr-Coulomb

elastoplastic constitutive model with non-associated flow rule. The effective unit weight, internal

friction angle and dilation angle of the soil were taken as 11 kN/m3, 40° and 10°, respectively. The

7
soil non-linearity was modelled by defining modulus of elasticity as Es = κ.pa(pʹ/pa) λ, where pʹ is

mean principal stress, pa is atmospheric pressure, and κ and λ are empirical parameters having

corresponding values of 600 and 0.55 (EAU 2004).

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Lateral Load-displacement Response

In general, the ultimate or failure state of the foundation can be assumed to have reached

when there is a continuous increase of displacement with no further increase of lateral load

capacity. But in certain cases, even though a large displacement has been reached, the lateral load

capacity continues to increase incrementally. For such cases, the ultimate capacity can be defined

corresponding to a displacement, which is sufficiently high to cause collapse of the structure. In

the present study, the ultimate lateral capacity (HUltimate) of the caisson foundation is taken as the

load applied at the loading height level, which causes a lateral displacement equal to 10% of

caisson diameter, measured at the lid centre level. At such a large value of displacement, full

mobilization of passive earth pressure can be assumed to have taken place.

Figure 3(a) illustrates typical lateral load capacity versus displacement response of a

monopod caisson foundation of 12 m diameter and 12 m skirt length, loaded up to ultimate

condition. Prior to reaching ultimate condition, for a given displacement level at caisson lid, as the

loading height increased from 0 m to 100 m, there was a significant reduction in lateral load of the

caisson foundation. At any lateral load, observed displacement levels increased as the loading

height increased from 0 m to 100 m. This increase in caisson lid displacement with loading height

can be attributed to increased thrust on the caisson at the seabed level (Kumar and Rao 2012).

From Figure 3(a), it can also be noted that the ultimate lateral load capacity reduced significantly

8
from 58.27 MN to 5.81 MN as the loading height was increased from pure lateral load (h = 0 m)

to the maximum loading height, h = 100 m. The ultimate lateral load capacities obtained for the

various caisson geometries under superstructure load of 10 MN are summarized in Table 2. In a

few cases, prior to the prescribed maximum lid displacement equal to 10% of caisson diameter,

the simulation aborted due to numerical instability. For such cases, hyperbolic method was

employed to estimate the ultimate lateral load capacity (Haiderali, Cilingir, and Madabhushi 2013).

The lateral load capacity versus rotation response and the resisting moment capacity versus

rotation response of the caisson foundation (D = 12 m, L = 12 m) are respectively depicted in

Figure 3(b) and Figure 3(c). At any rotation angle, the resisting moment capacity was calculated

as the product of the lateral load capacity and the corresponding loading height. At ultimate

condition corresponding to a lid displacement of 1.2m  [Figure 3(a)], the respective maximum lid

centre rotation was noted to increase from 6.84° to 8.97° [Figure 3(b) and Figure 3(c)], as the

loading height was increased from h = 2.5 m to h = 100 m. This is because the magnitudes of the

respective overturning moment acting at the lid centre have increased from 122.2 MN.m to 581

MN.m. A still higher lid rotation of 9.50° was obtained when the foundation was subjected to pure

moment of 611.49 MN.m. The trends of lateral load-displacement, lateral load-rotation and

overturning moment-rotation response remained similar for all other geometries of monopod

caisson foundation.

Effect of Caisson Diameter

The effect of diameter on ultimate lateral capacity was examined numerically by increasing

the diameter in increments from 6m  to 12 m under several loading heights, keeping skirt length

as constant (L = 12 m). For a superstructure load of 10 MN, the variation of ultimate lateral capacity

of caisson foundation with diameter is illustrated in Figure 4. The ultimate lateral capacity for a

9
caisson foundation of 6 m diameter and 12 m skirt length, under pure lateral load, was obtained as

28.55 MN. For the same skirt length and under pure lateral load, the ultimate lateral capacity

increased to 40.39, 49.85 and 58.27 MN as the diameter was increased to 8, 10 and 12 m,

respectively. Similar increase in ultimate lateral capacity was noted for higher loading heights.

Effect of Skirt Length

The influence of skirt length on ultimate lateral capacity of caisson foundation was studied

by increasing the skirt length gradually from 9m  to 18m , keeping diameter as constant (D = 12

m). The variation of ultimate lateral capacity of caisson foundation with skirt length is shown in

Figure 5, for a superstructure load of 10 MN. From the figure, the ultimate lateral capacity of

caisson is seen to increase significantly in almost linear manner with skirt length. Under pure

lateral load, for a caisson foundation with diameter of 12 m and skirt length of 9 m, subjected to a

superstructure load of 10 MN, the ultimate lateral capacity was found to be 40.37 MN. For the

same diameter and under pure lateral load, the ultimate lateral capacity increased to 58.27, 86.47

and 111.72 MN as the skirt length was increased to 12, 15 and 18 m, respectively. Similar increase

in ultimate lateral capacity was noted for higher loading heights.

The improvement in ultimate lateral capacity with increasing caisson diameter or skirt

length can be attributed to increased surface area of the foundation, which experiences greater

passive resistance exerted by the soil mass to the lateral displacement at ultimate condition. From

a comparison of Figures 4 and Figure 5, it is evident that as compared to diameter, increasing

skirt length had greater influence on the ultimate lateral capacity.

Effect of Superstructure Load

10
 The effect of superstructure load on ultimate lateral capacity was also examined by varying

the superstructure load from 10 to 30 MN, for caisson foundations with 12 m diameter and lengths

of 9, 12 and 18 m. Figure 6(a–c) show the variation of ultimate lateral load capacity of the caisson

foundations with superstructure load. From a comparison of these figures, for all loading heights,

when the superstructure load was varied from 10 MN to 20 MN and 30 MN, the ultimate lateral

load capacity increased noticeably in the case of shorter skirt length (L = 9 m) and insignificantly

in the case of longer skirt length (L = 18 m). For example, under pure lateral load, the ultimate

lateral capacity varied from 40.37 to 56.07 MN for caisson length of 9 m, and from 111.72 to 112.8

MN for caisson length of 18 m, as the superstructure load was increased from 10 MN and 30 MN,

respectively.

As noted above, the influence of superstructure load on ultimate lateral capacity kept on

decreasing with the increase of caisson length. The behavior can be attributed to the reducing

intensity of vertical pressure at larger depths due to load dispersion effects. This will in turn lead

to lesser changes in confining stresses at larger depths due to increasing superstructure load applied

at the caisson lid level.

Passive Earth Pressure Along Skirt Length

Figure 7 shows the schematic diagram of monopod caisson foundation, where the skirt is

divided into two sides, namely, front or right exterior side (RE) and back or left exterior side (LE).

Due to lateral movement of the caisson, passive earth pressure is exerted by the surrounding soil

along the skirt length at both RE and LE sides. The passive earth pressure acts against the direction

of loading on the RE side, whereas it acts in the direction of the applied lateral load on the LE side.

11
At the large caisson lid displacement equal to 10% of the diameter, the ultimate passive earth

pressure conditions must have been reached.

The variation of passive earth pressure at ultimate condition in both RE and LE sides, along

the skirt length in the plane of symmetry, are shown in Figure 8(a–b). For a caisson geometry (D

= 12 m and L = 12 m) and at loading height, h = 0 m, the passive earth pressure was observed to

increase parabolically from mud level and reached a maximum value at about 7.5 m along the skirt

length in the right exterior (RE) side, and then reduced to a negligible value at a depth of about 11

m. In the left exterior (LE) side, the passive earth pressure was seen to be prominent only at the

lowermost one-third part of the skirt, i.e. below a depth of 8 m. When the loading height was varied

from h = 0 m to 10 m and 30 m, the magnitude of maximum earth pressure at the RE side decreased

significantly from 1213 kPa  to 1024 kPa  and 898 kPa , respectively. However, with the variation

of the loading height, there was insignificant difference in the earth pressure distribution on the

LE side. Further, the skirt length location (RE side) where the maximum earth pressure was

obtained, gradually moved upward from approximately 7.5 m to 5 m, as the loading height was

increased from 0 m to 30 m.

At the ultimate condition, the magnitude of the lateral load capacity, is equal to the

difference in the total earth pressure reactions in the RE side (front side) and the LE side (back

side), of the caisson. The variations of the passive earth pressure distributions [Figure 8(a–b)] can

be correlated with the observed reduction in the ultimate lateral load capacity of the caisson

foundation with increased loading height [Figure 3(a)]. Similarly, the variation of ultimate lateral

capacity (Table 2) of the caisson foundation with caisson geometry and superstructure load can

also be correlated from the respective differences in the passive earth pressure along the RE and

LE sides.

12
 Depth of Point of Rotation

The centre of rotation of the foundation at ultimate condition is defined as the point along

the vertical axis of the caisson, which undergoes zero lateral displacement with respect to its initial

position. The depth of the point of rotation was measured from the caisson lid centre. The rotated

position of the axis was obtained from averaging the rotated positions of the RE and LE sides of

the skirt.

The variation of depth of point of rotation with loading height for caisson foundation with

12 m diameter and 12 m  skirt length, is shown in Figure 9. For a caisson foundation under pure

lateral load, the point of rotation was located at 10.61 m below the lid centre. The depth of rotation

was noted to move upward to 8.08 m, when the loading height was increased to 30m . Similar

upward shift of depth of point of rotation with increased loading height was observed for all caisson

foundation geometries. Due to upward movement of the point of rotation, the reaction due to

passive pressure on the LE produces a greater resisting moment below this point, which leads to

an overall increase in the moment resisting capacity of the caisson foundation.

The variation of depth of point of rotation with loading heights for several caisson

diameters are presented in Table 3. For a given loading height, as either the caisson diameter or

skirt length was increased keeping the other dimension constant, the depth of point of rotation

shifted downward. Further, for the same loading height and caisson geometry, as the superstructure

load was increased, the point of rotation was observed to shift marginally in the downward

direction. There were cases when the analysis aborted before reaching failure condition (i.e. lateral

displacement of 10% diameter) due to numerical instability, and therefore their rotation point

depths could not be included in the table.

13
 Stiffness of the Foundation System

The natural frequency of an offshore wind turbine system is dependent on the seabed soil

profile, caisson foundation geometry, turbine superstructure weight and elevation, and the loading

height of the resultant lateral load. Under operating conditions, an offshore wind turbine is

subjected to harmonic excitation from its rotor. The rotor’s rotational frequency is the first

excitation frequency and is commonly referred to as 1P frequency. The second excitation

frequency is the blade passing frequency, often called as 2P/3P (for a two-bladed or three-bladed

wind turbine) frequency. The blades of the wind turbine, when passing in front of the tower, cause

a shadowing effect and produce a reduction of wind load on the tower. This is a dynamic load

having frequency equal to two times (2P) the rotational frequency of the turbine for a two-bladed

turbine and three times the rotational frequency of the turbine (3P) for three-bladed wind turbines.

The 2P/3P loading is also a frequency band such as 1P and is simply obtained by multiplying the

limits of the 1P band by the number of the turbine blades (Houlsby Ibsen, and Byrne 2005; Ibsen,

Liingaard, and Nielsen 2005; Bhattacharya 2013).

The natural frequency of the offshore wind turbine system plays an important role for its

safe operation. In order to avoid resonance, this natural frequency should be such that it does not

coincide with either the 1P or the 2P/3P frequency ranges. For the determination of the natural

frequency, knowledge of the stiffness of the caisson foundation is necessary, either as initial

stiffness or as rotational stiffness. In this study, the initial stiffness (Kini) for design purpose

corresponding to a given loading height has been determined from the lateral load versus lid

rotation plot [Figure 3(b)], and can be defined as the slope of the line drawn from the origin to a

rotation value of 0.5° (Ahmed and Hawlader 2016). The rotational stiffness (Krot) can be noted

from the resisting moment versus lid rotation plot [Figure 3(c)], and is equal to the product of the

14
value of Kini and the corresponding loading height. Usually, the value of the rotational stiffness is

used directly in the determination of the natural frequency.

Variation with Loading Height, Caisson Geometry and Superstructure Load

The influence of loading height and caisson geometry on the initial stiffness of the

monopod caisson foundation is highlighted in Figure 10(a–b). For any caisson geometry, the

initial stiffness was noted to reduce non-linearly for increasing loading height from h = 0 m to 100

m. For a caisson of diameter and skirt length equal to 12 m each, subjected to a superstructure load

of 10 MN, the initial stiffness values were 60.48 MN/° and 5.22 MN/° for loading heights of 0m 

and 100m , respectively. For any loading height, increasing caisson diameter by two times from 6

to 12m  [Figure 10(a)] was seen to have lower influence on the change of initial stiffness than

increasing skirt length by two times from 9 to 18m  [Figure 10(b)].

Under the action of lateral load at any loading height, the interface frictional force on the

front side (RE side) acts upwards whereas the interface frictional force on the rear side (LE side)

acts downwards. The interface frictional forces as well as the resultant forces due to passive

pressure on both the RE and LE sides produce resisting moment against the action of the lateral

load. For any loading height, the magnitude of the total resisting forces or the magnitude of total

resisting moment will increase with larger contact area between the soil and the skirt surface area

of the caisson foundation. The increasing stiffness with diameter [Figure 10(a)] or with skirt

length [Figure 10(b)] is due to the larger contact area of the soil-caisson interaction. However, as

the resultant force due to passive pressure acting on the RE side decreased with loading height,

there was an associated decrease in the initial stiffness. Further, the variation with superstructure

load was insignificant [Figure 11]. For the same caisson geometry, the initial stiffness values were

15
66.62 MN/°, 70.98 MN/° at h = 0m  and 5.68 MN/°, 5.88 MN/° at h = 100 m, for superstructure

loads of 20 MN and 30 MN, respectively.

Failure Mechanisms Under Lateral Load

Variation with Loading Height and Caisson Geometry

The soil deformation at ultimate condition in terms of plastic strain within and around a

particular monopod caisson foundation (D = 8 m and L = 12 m) for loading heights of 0 m, 20 m

and 40 m are illustrated in Figure 12(a–c). Under the action of pure lateral load, the caisson began

to translate rigidly to the right (along the direction of loading) and the portion of the skirt below

the depth of point of rotation moved towards the left, considering the installed position as reference

or mean position. As a result of rigid translation, the soil experienced compression in the front side

of the caisson and a heave formation was seen at bed surface. However, the soil located in the rear

side of the caisson experienced tension as the caisson moved away from the soil mass, causing a

depression on the bed surface.

As the caisson approached ultimate condition, the entire left skirt had already begun to

move upward from the surrounding soil. The plastic strain generated at the bed surface propagated

along the left exterior side of the skirt and reached the skirt tip to form a wedge shape in the rear

side. From this tip of the left skirt, the plastic strain propagated through the lower part of the soil

plug towards the right skirt tip, forming a scoop mechanism [Figure 12(a–c)]. At this stage, the

right skirt tip had already penetrated the soil. The zone of plastic strain along the right skirt, which

had already extended from the bed surface to about mid-skirt length, expanded further and then

merged with the propagated plastic strain zone from the skirt tip of the right end, forming a wedge

in the front side [Figure 12(a–c)].

16
 Application of lateral load at any loading height till ultimate condition caused the caisson

foundation to undergo both lateral and rotational translation, produced due to coupling of lateral

and rotational degrees of freedom. Under pure lateral load, the lateral translation was more

dominant than the rotational translation, and thus an internal inverted scoop mechanism was

observed to develop above the base of soil plug, as shown in Figure 12(a). The extents of plastic

deformation measured in front and rear sides were 11.44 m and 6.12 m, respectively, for a caisson

(D = 8 m and L = 12 m) under pure lateral load and superstructure load of 10 MN.

As the loading height increased, the failure of the caisson was progressively dominated by

rotational translation, and an external upright scoop mechanism was noted to develop below the

base of soil plug, as illustrated in Figure 12(a–c). The extent of plastic deformation in front side

reduced to 9.69 m and 9.21 m as the loading height was increased to 20 m and 40 m, respectively.

Similarly, the plastic deformation zone measured in the rear side decreased to 5.11 m and 4.99 m

for loading heights of 20 m and 40 m, respectively. For the same skirt length of 12 m, as the caisson

diameter was increased from 8 m to 12 m, higher deformation within the soil plug was noted [See

Figure 12(a) & Figure 12(d)]. The extents of plastic deformation at the bed surface in front and

rear sides were seen to increase with caisson diameter and skirt length. The variations of extent of

plastically deformed soil for several eccentric lateral loads are presented in Tables 4 and 5. The

missing values in the tables indicate those cases, for which the FE analysis got terminated before

reaching ultimate condition due to numerical instability.

Variation with Superstructure Load

The variation of lateral extent of plastic deformation at bed surface under lateral load was

studied by increasing the superstructure load from 10 MN to 30 MN. The influence of

superstructure loads on plastic deformation along the front and rear sides of the caisson foundation

17
is illustrated in Figure 12(d–f). For a caisson geometry (D = 12 m and L = 12 m), under a

superstructure load of 10 MN and at pure lateral load, the extent of plastically deformed soil at bed

surface in front and rear sides were 13.45m  and 6.88m , respectively Tables 6 and 7.

The extent of deformation in the rear side of caisson was observed to increase to 7.19 m

and 7.20 m as the superstructure load was raised to 20 MN and 30 MN, respectively. In contrast,

in the front side, the extent of deformation reduced to 13.42 m and 12.84 m, when the

superstructure load was increased to 20 MN and 30 MN, respectively. This behaviour can be

attributed to the increasing dominance of rotational translation over the lateral translation under

pure lateral load, caused by the higher superstructure load.

Failure Envelopes and Design Plots

The values of ultimate lateral load capacity and ultimate resisting moment capacity of a

caisson foundation under a superstructure load of 10 MN (Table 2), obtained for different loading

heights, can be presented as failure envelopes. Figure 13(a–b) show that the failure envelopes and

their variations with skirt length and caisson diameter. The failure envelope is noted to expand

with the increase of either caisson diameter or skirt length. During extreme environmental

conditions, combined loading from wind, waves and currents can become unidirectional (Byrne

and Houlsby 1999). For a given caisson geometry, if the critical combination of acting lateral load

and overturning moment lies within the envelope, it indicates that the ultimate limit state of the

caisson foundation has not been reached.

Determination of the allowable lateral capacity of the monopod caisson foundation is

crucial for the stability of the offshore wind turbine structure. The maximum allowable angular

rotation of the wind turbine is limited by serviceability constraints of the turbine. Lateral

18
foundation displacement corresponding to a maximum angular rotation of 0.5° at the lid level, can

be considered allowable for the design of offshore wind turbine foundation system (Harte, Basu,

and Nielsen 2012; Malhotra 2011; Golightly 2014).

Allowable lateral load capacity versus resisting moment capacity envelopes have been

plotted in Figure 13(c–d) for several caisson geometries, corresponding to a lid rotation value of

0.5°. For any caisson geometry, if the combination of acting lateral load and overturning moment

falls inside the respective envelope, the wind turbine foundation system is safe and serviceability

limit state is not reached.

Design Expressions

Figure 14(a) shows the variation of initial stiffness with loading height in normalized form.

The initial stiffness values were scaled with respect to caisson diameter (D), normalized skirt

length (L/Lref) and reference modulus of elasticity of soil (Achmus, Akdag, and Thieken 2013),

where Lref is taken as unity and ES,ref = κ.pa with κ and pa being the empirical parameter and

atmospheric pressure, as explained earlier. The normalized initial stiffness values for the

superstructure load of 10 MN were utilized to fit a curve which represented all the data points

adequately [Figure 14(a)], and similar fits were made for other superstructure loads of 20 MN and

30 MN. Based on the fits, expressions were developed to determine the initial stiffness for

preliminary design of a monopod caisson foundation, and the general expression is given in Eqn.

(1). The values of the coefficients (a, b and c) in this equation for different superstructure loads

are presented in Table 8(a).

19
 0.5
2  L 
D ES ,ref  
K ini   Lref 
(1)
2
h h
a  b   c 
L L

Figure 14(b) shows the variation of ultimate lateral capacity with loading height in a non-

dimensional form, for superstructure load of 10 MN. Based on the best-fit curve, general

expression of ultimate lateral capacity (HUltimate) with soil density (γʹ), caisson diameter (D), skirt

length (L) and loading height (h) is given in Eqn. (2). The values of coefficients (a*, b* and c*) in

this equation for different superstructure loads are given in Table 8(b).

 DL2
H Ultimate  2
(2)
h h
a  b    c*  
* *

L L

The variation of allowable lateral capacity with ultimate lateral capacity of the caisson

foundation is shown in Figure 14(c) in a non-dimensional form, under a superstructure load of 10

MN. The general expression for the relationship between the allowable lateral capacity (HAllowable)

and ultimate lateral capacity (HUltimate) of caisson foundation can be expressed in the form of Eqn.

(3). The values of the coefficients (a' and b') in this equation for respective superstructure loads

can be referred from Table 8(c).

 H Ultimate 
2

H Allowable  a  H Ultimate   b
' '
(3)
 DL2

The above expressions (Eqns. 1-3) can serve as a base for preliminary design of caisson

foundation embedded in very dense sand bed with relative density around 85%. For the specific

superstructure load, initially a monopod caisson foundation geometry can be selected. From

practical considerations of field installation using suction, the caisson length (L) should be kept

20
less than the diameter (D) (Byrne and Houlsby 2004). Using Eqn. (1), the corresponding rotational

stiffness of the caisson can be determined for known value of loading height (h). Thereafter, based

on the rotational stiffness, the natural frequency of the entire wind turbine system can be

determined. Once the frequency check for dynamic stability is found to be satisfactory, the ultimate

and allowable lateral capacities can be determined from Eqns. (2) and (3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The response and capacity of monopod caisson foundations subjected to eccentric lateral

loads arising due to the combined action of wind and water waves, were investigated through three-

dimensional finite element analyses, considering the effect of non-linear behaviour of soil. The

following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The ultimate lateral load capacity of the foundation reduced with the increase of loading

height, and this was accompanied by an associated increase in the rotation angle at the

caisson lid level.

2. The caisson diameter was observed to have lower influence on the improvement of ultimate

lateral capacity and initial stiffness, as compared to skirt length. When the superstructure

load was varied substantially from 10 MN to 30 MN, the ultimate lateral load capacity

increased noticeably in the case of shorter skirt length (L = 9 m) and insignificantly in the

case of longer skirt length (L = 18 m). However, the influence of the of superstructure load

variation on initial stiffness was insignificant.

3. The magnitude of maximum passive earth pressure at the RE side decreased considerably,

when the loading height was increased from h = 0 m for any caisson geometry. However,

there was insignificant difference in the passive earth pressure distribution on the LE side.

21
4. The depth of point of rotation was noted to move upward when the loading height was

increased, for all caisson foundation geometries. The depth of point of rotation shifted

downward for a given loading height, as either the caisson diameter or skirt length was

increased keeping the other dimension constant.

5. Under the action of pure lateral load, failure of the caisson foundation was caused by

dominant lateral translation as compared to the rotational translation, where the soil yielded

plastically resembling a shape similar to inverted scoop above the base of the soil plug.

However, with the increasing loading height, rotational translation progressively

dominated the failure, where plastic failure of the soil resembled an external upright scoop

shape below the base of the soil plug.

6. Simplified expressions have been developed to estimate the initial stiffness, ultimate as

well as allowable lateral capacity of a monopod caisson foundation installed in very dense

sand.

References

Abaqus. 2010. User’s Manual. Version 6.10.

Abdel-Rahman, K., and M. Achmus. 2006. Numerical investigation on the bearing capacity of
bucket foundations under combined horizontal and moment loading. International
symposium on ultimate limit state of geotechnical structures, Paris, 6p.
Achmus, M., C. T. Akdag, and K. Thieken. 2013. Load-bearing behavior of suction bucket
foundations in sand. Applied Ocean Research 43:157–65. doi:10.1016/j.apor.2013.09.001
Ahmed, S. S., and B. Hawlader. 2016. Numerical analysis of large-diameter monopiles in dense
sand supporting offshore wind turbines. International Journal of Geomechanics 16
(5):04016018. doi:10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000633
Bhattacharya, S. 2014. Challenges in design of foundations for offshore wind turbines.
Engineering & Technology Reference. doi:10.1049/etr.2014.0041.
Byrne, B. W., and G. T. Houlsby. 1999. Drained behaviour of suction caissons on very dense sand.
Proceedings of the offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, Paper No. OTC
10994.
Byrne, B. W., and G. T. Houlsby. 2003. Foundations for offshore wind turbines. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences 361 (1813):2909–30.

22
Byrne, B. W., and G. T. Houlsby. 2004. Experimental investigations of the response of suction
caissons to transient combined loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
engineering 130 (3):240–53.
Byrne, B. W., F. Villalobos, G. T. Houlsby, and C. M. Martin. 2003. Laboratory testing of shallow-
skirted foundations in sand. Proceedings of british geotechnical association international
conference on foundations, Dundee, 161–73.
Doherty, J. P., A. J. Deeks, and G. T. Houlsby. 2004. Evaluation of foundation stiffness using the
scaled boundary finite element method. Computational mechanics WCCM VI in
conjunction with APCOM’04, 5–10.
EAU. 2004. Recommendations of the committee for waterfront structures: Harbours and
Waterways. 8th ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Golightly, C. 2014. Tilting of monopiles long, heavy and stiff; pushed beyond their limits.
Technical note, Ground engineering, 20–23.
Haiderali, A., U. Cilingir, and G. Madabhushi. 2013. Lateral and axial capacity of monopiles for
offshore wind turbines. Indian Geotechnical Journal 43(3):181–94.
Harte, M., B. Basu, and S. R. Nielsen. 2012. Dynamic analysis of wind turbines including soil-
structure interaction. Engineering Structures 45 (1):509–18.
Houlsby, G. T., L. B. Ibsen, and B. W. Byrne. 2005. Suction caissons for wind turbines. Frontiers
in offshore geotechnics: ISFOG, Perth, 75–93.
Houlsby, G. T., R. B. Kelly, J. Huxtable, and B. W. Byrne. 2006. Field trials of suction caissons
in sand for offshore wind turbine foundations. Geotechnique 56 (1):3–10.
Ibsen, L. B., A. Barari, and K. A. Larsen. 2012. Modified vertical bearing capacity for circular
foundations in sand using reduced friction angle. Ocean Engineering 47 (1):1–6.
Ibsen, L. B., A. Barari, and K. A. Larsen. 2014. Adaptive plasticity model for bucket foundations.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 140 (2):361–73. doi:10.1061/(asce)em.1943-
7889.0000633
Ibsen, L. B., A. Barari, and K. A. Larsen. 2015. Effect of embedment on the plastic behavior of
bucket foundations. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 141
(6):06015005. doi:10.1061/(asce)ww.1943-5460.0000284
Ibsen, L. B., M. Liingaard, and S. A. Nielsen. 2005. Bucket foundation, a status. Proceedings of
copenhagen offshore wind, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1–15.
Jin, S., Y. Zhang, and Z. Qiu. 2014. Research on the horizontal ultimate bearing capacity of suction
bucket foundation in saturated sand ground. Advances in soil dynamics and foundation
engineering, 241–51.
Kelly, R. B., G. T. Houlsby, and B. W. Byrne. 2006. A comparison of field and laboratory tests of
caisson foundations in sand and clay. Géotechnique 56 (9):617–26.
doi:10.1680/geot.2006.56.9.617
Kumar, N. D. and N. Rao. 2012. Lateral load: Deflection response of an embedded caisson in
marine clay. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 30 (1):1–31.
doi:10.1080/1064119x.2011.562444
Larsen, K. A., L. B. Ibsen, and A. Barari. 2013. Modified expression for the failure criterion of
bucket foundations subjected to combined loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 50
(12):1250–59. doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0308
Li, D. Y., Y. K., Zhang, L. Y. Feng, and Y. X. Guo. 2014. Response of skirted suction caissons to
monotonic lateral loading in saturated medium sand. China Ocean Engineering 28
(1):569–78. doi:10.1007/s13344-014-0046-z

23
Malhotra, S. 2011. Selection, design and construction of offshore wind turbine foundations. In
Wind turbines, ed. I. Al-Bahadly. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
Villalobos, F. A., B. W. Byrne, and G. T. Houlsby. 2005. Moment loading of caissons installed in
saturated sand. Frontiers in offshore geotechnics: ISFOG, Perth, 411–16.
Zhu, B., D. Q. Kong, R. P. Chen, L. G. Kong, and Y. M. Chen. 2011. Installation and lateral
loading tests of suction caissons in silt. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48 (7):1070–1084.
doi:10.1139/t11-021
Zhu, B., W. L. Zhang, P. P. Ying, and Y. M. Chen. 2014. Deflection-based bearing capacity of
suction caisson foundations of offshore wind turbines. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 140 (5):04014013. doi:10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-
5606.0001107

24
Table 1. Geometric and loading details considered for numerical study

Geometric details Lateral load cases Superstructure load, V

(MN)

D = 6 m, L = 12 m h = 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 100m , 10, 20 and 30

D = 8 m, L = 12 m and Pure moment

D = 10 m, L = 12 m

D = 12 m, L = 9 m

D = 12 m, L = 12 m

D = 12 m, L = 15 m

D = 12 m, L = 18 m

25
Table 2. Values of ultimate lateral load capacity and ultimate resisting moment capacity (for V =
10 MN)

Geometri DL2 Ultimate lateral load capacity (MN) Ultimat

2
c details e
3 Loading height, h (m)
(m )
resisting
0 2.5 5 10 20 30 40 100
moment

capacity

(MN.m)

D = 6 m, 1357.2 28.55 24.6 20.5 15.5 10.2 7.70 6.14 2.78 300.62

L = 12 m 0 3 1 0 8

D = 8 m, 1809.5 40.39 33.9 28.7 21.5 14.0 10.3 8.20 3.62 400.03

L = 12 m 4 6 9 1 3 8

D = 10 m, 2261.9 49.85 43.7 36.8 27.4 17.6 13.0 10.4 4.54 521.48

L = 12 m 4 5 6 5 9 5 5

D = 12 m, 2714.3 58.27 48.8 41.4 31.8 21.0 16.0 12.8 5.81 611.49

L = 12 m 4 8 4 5 7 5 0

D = 12 m, 1526.8 40.37 31.4 26.1 18.8 12.4 9.01 7.00 3.2 329.72

L=9m 0 5 2 3 5

D = 12 m, 2714.3 58.27 48.8 41.4 31.8 21.0 16.0 12.8 5.81 611.49

L = 12 m 4 8 4 5 7 5 0

26
D = 12 m, 5089.4 86.47 75.5 66.2 52.1 35.6 27.0 21.5 9.65 1018.19

L = 15 m 2 9 7 1 0 6 5

D = 12 m, 6107.3 111.7 98.7 87.7 71.5 52.2 41.0 33.0 15.9 1716.50

L = 18 m 1 2 0 7 6 7 9 7 0

27
Table 3. Depth of point of rotation of caisson foundation, V = 10 MN

Geometric details Loading height, h (m)

0 2.5 5 10 20 30 40 100 Moment

D = 6 m, L = 12 m 9.83 9.37 9.24 8.87 8.62 8.49 8.42 8.25 8.19

D = 8 m, L = 12 m 10.07 9.53 – 8.80 8.43 8.24 8.16 – –

D = 10 m, L = 12 10.51 10.03 9.57 – – – – – –

D = 12 m, L = 12 10.61 10.14 9.80 9.09 8.59 8.08 – – –

D = 12 m, L = 9 m 8.42 7.96 7.59 7.03 6.25 5.96 5.78 – –

D = 12 m, L = 12 10.61 10.14 9.80 9.09 8.59 8.08 – – –

D = 12 m, L = 15 13.09 12.56 12.13 11.46 11.05 10.46 10.21 – –

D = 12 m, L = 18 15.23 14.73 14.36 13.79 13.11 – 12.54 – –

28
Table 4. Lateral extent of plastically deformed soil at the seabed level along the direction of
loading (V = 10 MN)

h Failure extent in front side (m)

(m) D = 6 m, L D = 8 m, L D = 10 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L

= 12 m = 12 m = 12 m = 12 m = 15 m = 18 m

0 9.66 11.44 13.13 13.44 15.24 17.31

20 9.02 9.69 – 4.20 – 14.28

40 8.39 9.21 – – 11.94 13.96

29
Table 5. Lateral extent of plastically deformed soil at the seabed level against the direction of
loading (V = 10 MN)

h (m) Failure extent in rear side (m)

D = 6 m, L D = 8 m, L D = 10 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L

= 12 m = 12 m = 12 m = 12 m = 15 m = 18 m

0 5.51 6.12 6.92 7.04 7.94 9.62

20 4.89 5.11 – 3.97 – 7.84

40 4.60 4.99 – – 6.54 7.68

30
Table 6. Lateral extent of soil failing plastically in front side of caisson with varying
superstructure load

V Failure extent in front side (m) for h = 0 m

(MN) D = 6 m, L D = 8 m, L D = 10 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L

= 12m = 12 m = 12 m = 12 m = 15 m = 18 m

10 9.66 11.44 13.13 13.45 15.24 17.13

20 9.48 11.20 12.48 13.42 15.24 17.13

30 9.40 11.18 12.48 12.84 15.24 16.95

31
Table 7. Lateral extent of soil failing plastically in rear side of caisson with varying
superstructure load

V Failure extent in rear side (m) for h = 0 m

(MN) D = 6 m, L D = 8 m, L D = 10 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L D = 12 m, L

= 12 m = 12 m = 12 m = 12 m = 15 m = 18 m

10 5.51 6.12 6.80 6.88 8.14 9.72

20 5.73 6.19 6.97 7.19 8.14 9.72

30 5.78 6.42 6.97 7.20 8.33 9.71

32
Table 8 . Values of coefficients to determine (a) Kini. (b) HUltimate. (c) HAllowable

Coefficient Design initial stiffness (Kini) in MN/°

V = 10 MN V = 20 MN V = 30 MN

a 355.257 316.823 311.197

b 618.986 612.145 574.363

c 2.223 –3.767 –1.708

Coefficient Ultimate lateral capacity (HUltimate) in MN

V = 10 MN V = 20 MN V = 30 MN

a 0.325 0.288 0.258

b 0.365 0.367 0.380

c –0.003 –0.007 –0.012

Coefficient Allowable lateral capacity (HAllowable) in MN

V = 10 MN V = 20 MN V = 30 MN

a' 0.200 0.191 0.305

b' 0.085 0.083 0.042

33
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of offshore wind turbine foundation system and discretized FE
model of monopod caisson foundation embedded in sand bed.

34
Figure 2. Comparison of results of present study with Rahman and Achmus (2006) (Diameter =
20 m, Skirt length = 15 m, Superstructure load = 10 MN).

35
Figure 3 (a). Lateral load capacity versus lid displacement response of caisson foundation at
several loading heights (D = 12 m, L = 12 m & V = 10 MN). (b). Lateral load capacity versus lid
rotation response of caisson foundation at several loading heights (D = 12 m, L = 12 m & V = 10
MN). (c). Resisting moment capacity versus lid rotation response of caisson foundation at
several loading heights (D = 12 m, L = 12 m & V = 10 MN).

36
Figure 4. Variation of ultimate lateral capacity with caisson diameter (L = 12 m & V = 10 MN).

37
Figure 5. Variation of ultimate lateral capacity with skirt length (D = 12 m & V = 10 MN).

38
Figure 6. (a). Variation of ultimate lateral capacity with superstructure load (D = 12 m & L = 9
m). (b). Variation of ultimate lateral capacity with superstructure load (D = 12 m & L = 12 m).
(c). Variation of ultimate lateral capacity with superstructure load (D = 12 m & L = 18 m).

39
Figure 7. Schematic diagram indicating left exterior (LE) and right exterior (RE) sides of
caisson foundation.

40
Figure 8. Variation of passive earth pressure distribution with increasing loading height (for D =
12 m, L = 12 m & V = 10 MN): (a) Along LE side; (b) Along RE side.

41
Figure 9. Variation of depth of point of rotation of caisson foundation (D = 12 m, L = 12 m & V
= 10 MN) with increasing loading heights.

42
Figure 10. (a). Variation of initial stiffness with loading height and caisson diameter (L = 12 m,
V = 10 MN). (b). Variation of initial stiffness with loading height and caisson length (D = 12 m,
V = 10 MN).

43
Figure 11. Variation of initial stiffness with superstructure load (D = 12 m and L = 12 m).

44
Figure 12. (a). Internal inverted scoop type failure mechanism (D = 8 m, L = 12 m, V = 10 MN
& h = 0 m). (b). External upright scoop type failure mechanism (D = 8 m, L = 12 m, V = 10 MN
& h = 20 m). (c). External upright scoop type failure mechanism (D = 8 m, L = 12 m, V = 10 MN
& h = 40 m). (d). Plastic deformation at ultimate condition (D = 12 m, L = 12 m, V = 10 MN & h
= 0 m). (e). Plastic deformation at ultimate condition (D = 12 m, L = 12 m, V = 20 MN & h = 0
m). (f). Plastic deformation at ultimate condition (D = 12 m, L = 12 m, V = 30 MN & h = 0 m).

45
46
47
Figure 13. (a). Typical failure envelopes of caisson foundations (D = 12 m). (b). Typical failure
envelopes of caisson foundation (L = 12 m). (c). Typical allowable lateral load capacity versus
resisting moment capacity envelopes (D = 12 m). (d). Typical allowable lateral load capacity
versus resisting moment capacity envelopes (L = 12 m).

48
49
Figure 14. (a). Normalized initial stiffness versus loading height plot (V = 10 MN). (b).
Normalized ultimate lateral capacity versus loading height plot (V = 10 MN). (c). Relationship
between normalized allowable and ultimate lateral load capacities (V = 10 MN).

50