Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

The offshore prefabrication and semi-wet towing of a bucket foundation for

offshore wind turbines
Jijian Lian a, b, c, Tianrun Xiao a, b, Dongming Liu a, b, *, Fangdi Ye a, b, Dongzhi Xiong a, b
a
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
c
Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin, 300384, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik In recent years, the bucket foundation as a new form of supporting structure of offshore wind turbines (OWTs)
has attracted increasing attention with the rapid development of offshore wind power. A synthetical prefabri­
Keywords: cation and transportation (P&T) technique is proposed in this paper to enable a broader application of bucket
Bucket foundation foundations efficiently and economically in the offshore wind market. The novel P&T technology consists of two
Offshore wind turbine
key auxiliary pieces of equipment, i.e., an offshore prefabrication platform (OPP) and a U–K barge. The process of
Offshore prefabrication
the offshore prefabrication is elaborated, and the requirement that need to be met for the monopod-bucket
Semi-towing
Dynamic responses foundation with subdivisions (MBFS) to achieve offshore prefabrication utilizing the OPP is analyzed. Then,
the concept of the semi-wet towing with a U–K barge is proposed, which can provide sufficient buoyancy and
stability to ensure the safety of the MBFS during the towing operation. To investigate the seakeeping of the
combined semi-wet system in moored and towing scenarios, a series of experiments were carried out to prove the
reliability of the U–K barge design. Sensitivity analysis regarding towing speed, wave height, and wave period for
the disintegration risk is performed, and three methods are proposed to avoid the disintegration of the U–K barge
and MBFS at extreme sea cases. The results show that the proposed offshore prefabrication is feasible, and it is
suggested that as the MBFS floats up, the water depth of the construction site should not be less than 6 m. In
addition, it is proved that the combined semi-wet towing system composed of the U–K barge and the MBFS has an
exceptional seakeeping capability with regard to the pitching angles, accelerations, and towing resistances, and
that the wave height and the towing speed have greater effects on the disintegration risk than the wave period.

1. Introduction
The investigation on bucket foundations, also known as suction
buckets, originated in the 1960s and they were initially used for anchor
piles with negative pressure for mooring systems (Kim et al., 2015).
Later, due to the high mobility and the low pull-out resistance of the
bucket foundations, they were used to support offshore structures such
as offshore wind turbines (OWTs). Though monopiles have been utilized
to support most OWTs worldwide, bucket foundations have been
considered an alternative foundation type due to their easier installation
and lower cost (Bagheri et al., 2019; Foglia et al., 2015). For example,
the bucket foundations do not require the large bearing capacity of deep
soil as do the monopile foundations; in addition, they do not require the
high bearing capacity of topsoil as the gravity foundations do (Zhu et al.,
2018). Especially, the bucket foundations can be used in soft clay (or
silty clay) and fine sand (or sandy silt) due to their strong
anti-overturning ability, taking the offshore wind farms in Guangdong
Province, China for example (He et al., 2021). Furthermore, compared
with monopile foundations, bucket foundations have better adaptability
in terms of water depths. The use of monopile is usually limited to
shallow water less than 30 m. Still, for a water depth of 30–50 m, the
application becomes impractical because the size and the penetration
depth of the monopile have to be increased sharply, which significantly
raises the difficulty and the construction risk of the offshore piling (Hou
et al., 2022; Sánchez et al., 2019). The bucket foundations, on the other
hand, have been proven to be well-suited for offshore sites with water
depth ranging from 5 to 50 m (Kim et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2018). As a
result, bucket foundations have been considered a reliable and
cost-effective solution for OWTs.

* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, No.135, Yaguan Road, Jinnan District, Tianjin,
300350, PR China.
E-mail address: hpeliudm@tju.edu.cn (D. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115354
Received 14 May 2023; Received in revised form 27 June 2023; Accepted 8 July 2023
Available online 11 July 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Lian et al.
Abbreviations
OWT Offshore wind turbine
MBFS Monopod-bucket foundation with subdivisions
OPP Offshore prefabrication platform
P&T Prefabrication and transportation
RAO Response amplitude operator
Bucket foundation structures, consisting of a bucket body with an
open bottom, a sealed top, and transition structures, can be designed as
monopod-bucket foundation (Bakmar et al., 2009; Dvorak, 2015; Ibsen
and Brincker, 2004), tripod-bucket foundation (Vieira et al., 2019;
Zhang et al., 2022b), and the latest monopod-bucket foundation with
subdivisions (MBFS) (Ding et al., 2015; Lian et al., 2012, 2019a, 2021b).
Unlike the previous two forms, the MBFS have seven cells that are ar­
ranged inside the bucket like a honeycomb structure, as is shown in
Fig. 1. After the MBFS is laid in a shallow harbour basin or dockyard like
an upside-down cup, high-pressure air is injected into the bucket
through an air pump. The high-pressure air can squeeze a certain
amount of water out, generating an air cushion in the bucket and
providing additional buoyancy for the foundation at sea. In theory,
when the buoyancy is large enough and equals to the weight of the
structure, the MBFS with aircushion can even float without any auxiliary
equipment. This type of MBFS has a self-floating capability, which may
enable the structure to be transported by wet towing (Zhang et al., 2021)
and a fine levelling ability during the bucket embedment in the seabed.
On the other hand, the MBFS has large load capability (Lian et al., 2014;
Liu et al., 2016) and its costs is nearly 20% lower than other types of
bucket foundations, and thus has been widely utilized in Xiangshui
offshore wind farm and Dafeng offshore wind farm in China (Lian et al.,
2019b, 2021a; Guo et al., 2022).
However, as the subsidy policy for offshore wind has been termi­
nated in China, further cost reduction may be essential to keep the OWTs
technology superior to the conventional energy supplies. It is considered
that the costs of OWTs can be reduced by utilizing and optimizing the
prefabrication and transportation (P&T) technology of foundations
(Sarker and Faiz, 2017). At present, two types of transportation for
offshore wind foundations are usually adopted, i.e., dry towing and wet
towing. The dry towing usually relies on lifting equipment to place the
foundation on a barge and to lower the foundation into the water at the
installation site (Zhang et al., 2022). Hence, expensive lifting and
lowering equipment must be employed, which significantly raise the
cost of the installation of large-scale foundations of OWTs. As for wet
towing, it requires the structures to possess sufficient buoyancy and
self-floating stability and is mostly used for structures with a large
waterline surface, such as gravity foundations (Attari et al., 2016).
Although the MBFS meets the floatability and self-stability, due to its
opening bottom, large responses, especially at severe sea status,
Fig. 1. Two types of MBFS under construction in China.
2
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354
probably will occur, leading to the air leakage of cabins during the
long-distance towing stage. Thus, the MBFS is usually suitable for
short-distance transport or transfer in smooth sea conditions, if utilizing
the wet towing without any auxiliary equipment.
To avoid the high cost of special vessels with hoisting equipment and
to ensure the stability of bucket foundations, many innovative transport
methods have been proposed. In 2018, the University of Delaware
proposed a new transport method for a jacket structure with three-
bucket foundation called “Suction Piles for WTG Substructures”
(SPTOffshore, 2017, 2018, 2021), which realizes the stability during
transportation through the sufficient buoyancy of three suctions and the
auxiliary function of a special operation vessel. However, although the
buoyancy of the buckets offsets a large part of the structure weight, the
method cannot completely get rid of the lifting equipment. In 2012, the
researchers in Tianjin University and DDHI Company proposed an in­
tegrated transportation vessel for MBFS (Lian et al., 2021; Zhang et al.,
2013, 2015), whose concept of “ship pressing against bucket” and the
flow chart of the transportation process are presented in Fig. 2. During
the transportation, the high-pressure air cushion inside the MBFS can
provide not only enough buoyancy for its weight, but also the buoyancy
to overcome the force exerting on the top of the bucket by the vessel
(about 500 ton). Therefore, the MBFS can be tightly integrated with the
vessel during transportation. The interaction force between the vessel
and the MBFS can be adjusted by changing the difference of draft inside
and outside of the bucket, which ensures the integration of the bucket
foundation and the vessel during transportation (Zhang et al., 2019).
This strategy makes full use of the adaptable buoyancy of MBFS and
simultaneously avoids the use of heavy lifting equipment during trans­
portation and installation. However, because the “ship pressing against
bucket” does not allow the top cover of the bucket to exceed the vessel’s
deck, larger towing resistance may be generated and, thus, trans­
portation speed reduced. In addition, the water depth cannot be too
shallow in this approach because the bottom of the MBFS skirt may
touch the seabed.
On the other hand, the prefabrication of the OWT foundations by
traditional methods usually requires the construction to be completed in
a factory or dockyard onshore. Then the foundations have to be trans­
ported to the shore for launching if wet towing is chosen, or placed on a
barge by using a crane if dry towing is adopted. As a result, the process is
not only time-consuming but cost-consuming in terms of rental of both
work yard and lifting equipment.
From the above analysis, the current P&T technology of MBFS still
requires improvement to enhance the cost-effectiveness and applica­
bility. Hence, we propose in this study a synthetic P&T technique for
MBFS, which consists of two parts of key equipment: the offshore pre­
fabrication platform (OPP) and the U–K barge, as is shown in Fig. 3. Such
technique can provide an ideal solution for the shortcomings and chal­
lenges mentioned above.
The organization of the rest of this paper is as follows. In section 2,
the working principles of OPP and U–K barge are proposed, and the main
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Fig. 2. The non-self-propelled integrated transportation vessel.

Fig. 3. The processes of prefabrication, transportation and installation.

stability issues in P&T processes are verified and discussed. In section 3,

the experimental set-up is provided to verify the process of semi-wet
towing, followed by the dynamic responses and towing resistance
characteristics of the combined semi-wet towing system in section 4.
Finally, conclusions about the feasibility of prefabrication offshore and
the seakeeping of semi-wet towing are drawn in section 5.

2. The concept of prefabrication and transportation (P&T)

technology for MBFS

2.1. The configuration of MBFS

The P&T technology has been applied on a MBFS of hexagon, which

was designed for 6.45 MW OWT and has been installed successfully at
Guishan offshore wind farm in China (Fig. 3). The wall of bucket skirt of
the MBFS is designed with hexagonal steel-clad concrete with a total Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the orthohexagnal MBFS.
wall thickness of 300 mm. The concrete strength is C60, and the bucket
wall is wrapped with 8 mm thick steel panels inside and outside, which examined, according to the static stability state, the buoyancy Fb should
is a feasible solution to the buckling problem of the bucket wall. The be equal to the gravity force G, as shown in Equation (1),
main parameters of MBFS are shown in Table 1. The cross section of the
MBFS is a regular hexagon with the side length of 36.95 m and its skirt G = Fb = γw Ain hw + γ w As hc # (1)
height 15.5 m. As the bucket has an open bottom and is divided into
seven cabins by panels, air cushion is formed in each cabin to provide where γ w is the unit weight of seawater, Ain the area of the air cushion,
additional buoyancy when the MBFS is put into the water, as is shown in and hw the distance from the interna water surface to the external sur­
Fig. 4. The bucket skirt is made of prestressed high-performance con­ face. In addition, H is the height of the bucket body of MBFS (Fig. 5), and
crete because of its lower cost and longer fatigue life compared to steel
(Mathern et al., 2021; Pérez Fernández and Lamas Pardo, 2013).
Therefore, the weight of the bucket can be over 2000 ton. In such situ­
ation, if traditional P&T methods are used, it poses severe challenges
and threats for the lifting equipment. However, this problem can be
solved by using the air cushion structure of MBFS.
When the force balance of the floating structure with air cushion is

Table 1
Main parameters of the MBFS.
Parameters Value

Length of side projection (m) 36.95

The total weight (ton) 3500
The weight of the bucket skirt (ton) 1400
The height of the bucket skirt (m) 16
Fig. 5. Sketch of air-cushion floating MBFS.

3
J. Lian et al.
hs the distance from the still water to the top of the bucket, so the
draught of the structure is hc = H − hs . As is the cross-sectional area of
the bucket wall and can be calculated by As = Aout − Ain , in which Aout
and Ain refer to the area of the waterplane and the air cushion, respec­
tively. The external atmospheric pressure is p0 , and hw is the height
difference between the draught and the internal water surface, so the
pressure of the air cushion can be calculated by pa = p0 + γ w hw .
2.2. The procedure of the proposed P&T technology
The entire P&T process of MBFS consists of the prefabricating on the
OPP, the floating up by pumping air into the cabins, the assembling with
the U–K barge and finally the towing to the designated installation site.
The operations can be summarized into four main stages as is shown in
Fig. 6. It is worth noting that the combination of the U–K barge with the
MBFS is referred to as the combined semi-wet system in this study, and
the details will be elaborated in Section 2.2.2.
2.2.1. Prefabrication of the MBFS on the offshore prefabrication platform
(OPP)
The OPP consists of a base plate and four stabilizing float tanks, like a
traditional semi-submersible platform, and the main parameters are
shown in Table 2. The base plate is a square with the side length of 50 m
and its height is 1.2 m; each small float tank is 10.8 m in height (Fig. 7)
and can be used in offshore construction sites with water depths within
10 m. The working principle is as follows:
1. The prefabricated platform floats with a draft of only 0.5 m and re­
serves enough buoyancy, so the construction of the bucket skirt and
cabin panels can be completed in the floating state, as is shown in
Fig. 6(1).
2. The four stabilizing float tanks are ballasted with sea water, and the
platform and the bucket skirt are sink to the seabed, so the remaining
upper-structure of MBFS can be completed, as is shown in Fig. 6(2).
3. High-pressure air is pumped into the cabins to create a pressure
difference between the liquid surface inside and outside the cabins,
so the MBFS can float up, as is shown in Fig. 6(3).
4. The MBFS is assembled with the U–K barge, so the combination is
ready for semi-wet towing.
According to the above analysis, the most critical and difficult part of
the prefabrication process is the stage of floating up after the MBFS is
fully completed, which requires the MBFS to ensure stability during the
floating process. In general, to verify if a position of the floating body is
stable, one must disturb it slightly to see if it develops a moment that will
return it to its original position. Since the prefabrication process is on the
coast with mild marine environmental conditions, it is only necessary to
verify the stability of MBFS in a small inclination range (<10◦ ) generally
by calculating the value of GM, which is the vertical distance from the
center of gravity of the floating body and is positive when the center of
gravity is above the center of gravity. Stability requirement about GM
for the column-stabilized offshore structures of different classification
societies are stated in Table 3. Some scholars have made their efforts to
evaluate the initial stability properties of floating structures with the air
cushion. In this paper, the method proposed by Bie et al. (Bie et al.,
Fig. 6. The flow chart of the P&T technology for MBFS.
4
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354
Table 2
Main parameters of the prefabrication platform.
Parameters Value
Length of the deck (m) 62
External width of the deck (m) 50
Internal width of the deck (m) 27.4
Depth of the deck (m) 1.2
The deck area (m2) 2725
Buoyancy tank (m) 7.8 × 6 × 10.8
The total weight of the fabrication platform (ton) 1300
Maximum load in floating state (ton) 1525
Maximum settlement depth (m) 11
Maximum ballasted displacement (ton) 5000
2002a, 2002b) was adopted to check the GM and the results are shown
in Table 4. The results show that as the draft of the MBFS decreases, the
GM-value decreases, which indicates that the stability of the MBFS
gradually reduces as it floats up until it loses stability at a draft of 4.5 m.
Therefore, the draft of MBFS floating should not be less than 5 m, and the
draft of 6 m is chosen as the towing state in this paper. In summary, the
OPP and the offshore prefabrication process are feasible.
2.2.2. Transportation of the MBFS by the U–K barge
The U–K barge is basically a floating platform composed of a U- and a
K-shaped block, on which a series of cable-hangers are arranged, as is
shown in Fig. 8. The U–K barge proposed here is to provide enough
buoyancy and stability to ensure the MBFS’s safety during the towing
operation. It is characterized by a simple geometrical shape and a weight
of only 1500 tons, which makes the constructure process easier and the
costs reduced. Notably, the auxiliary cable-hanger system can help the
MBFS lowering operations from the splash zone toward the seabed. By
utilizing such combination, we may not need traditional expensive
barges with heavy lifts throughout the MBFS transportation and instal­
lation processes.
In this paper, the U-module, the K-module and the MBFS are referred
to as a combined semi-wet system. The operation process and the
connection methods are described in three steps according to the oper­
ational sequence:
(1)After floating up from the OPP to a draft of 6m, the MBFS is
assembled with the U-module under the assistance of auxiliary ships.
When the MBFS and the U-module are in place, the K-module can
slide into the grooves of the U-module by a winch, during which the
relative position of the three parts is shown in Fig. 9.
(2) According to the requirements of the towing stability and water
depth, the relative position of the MBFS and the U–K barge in the
vertical direction can be adjusted by pumping or releasing air.
Larger draft of the MBFS, which requires a larger water depth,
contributes more to towing stability, but generates larger towing
resistance and, thus, slows down the towing speed. Therefore, in
this paper, the draft of MBFS is chosen to be 6 m, and the draft of
the U–K barge 2 m, as shown in Fig. 11.
(3) Once the relative position of the MBFS and the U–K barge is
determined, the snaps can be welded on the bucket skirt tangent
to the ship deck, and then the limit grooves are welded on the
deck, both of which can limit the relative movement in the
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of OPP.

Table 3 G = Fb + Fup = (pa − p0 )Ain + γ w As hc + Fup # (2)

Summary of structure stability criterion about GM.
where G is the gravity of MBFS, Fb the buoyancy of MBFS, and Fup the
Criterion CCS DNV BV ABS
jacking force provided by the U–K barge.
GM (m) ≥0.15 ≥0.3 ≥0.3 ≥0
Compared to the one-step integrated P&I technique (Fig. 2), trans­
porting one bucket foundation each time in this T&P Technology makes
up for the one-step transportation vessel’s shortcoming which has a
Table 4 large mid-arch and pendant in the middle of the deck during towing two
GM of MBFS under different draughts. turbines in wave (Guo et al., 2022). The semi-wet towing mode of
Draught of MBFS (m) Water depth inside cabins (m) GM (m) transportation makes the draft of the MBFS not limited by the height of
the ship’s deck and not constrained by the depth of the channel. In
9.0 6.2 5.96
8.5 5.7 5.27
addition, the slamming of waves can result in high local slamming
8.0 5.2 4.59 pressures, which may lead to partial loss of the structural strength in the
7.5 4.7 3.91 towed object during the long-distance towing process, especially at the
7.0 4.2 3.25 bow and stern. Therefore, the MBFS is surrounded by U- and K-shaped
6.5 3.7 2.58
modules and is positioned in the middle of the towing combination. This
6.0 3.2 1.93
5.5 2.7 1.21 design of the U- and K-module around the MBFS reduces the possible
5.0 2.2 0.47 structural damage of the bucket skirt caused by wave slamming during
4.5 1.7 − 0.19 the long-distance towing process.

3. Experimental verification of the semi-wet towing

horizontal and vertical directions, as shown in Fig. 10. The
interaction force between the MBFS and U–K barge is increased
To improve the reliability of the U–K barge and reduce the risk
when releasing the air, meaning that releasing more air inside
during the semi-wet towing to the installation site, we need to evaluate
cabins leads to the tighter connection between MBFS and the U–K
the motion characteristics of the combined semi-wet towing system, and
barge.
to choose the appropriate period for transportation. Hence, towing ex­
periments were performed in State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engi­
The proposed concept in this study is called “semi-wet towing”
neering Simulation and Safety in Tianjin University to investigate the
mainly because it is not like dry towing that all weight is placed on the
motion performance and resistance of the combined semi-towing system
barge nor like wet towing that all buoyancy is balanced by itself. As is
under different towing speeds and wave conditions.
shown in Fig. 11, the gravity of the MBFS (G) is balanced by two kinds of
forces; the first one is the buoyancy force (Fb ) generated by pumping
4. Experimental set-up
compressed air into cabins to form the difference between inner and
outer liquid levels, and the other one is the jacking force (Fup ) given by
The experiment was conducted in a tank by utilizing a physical
the U–K barge, as shown in Equation (2),

Fig. 8. The set-up of the proposed U–K barge.

5
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Fig. 9. The assembling process of MBFS and U-shaped floating block.

Fig. 10. The combination semi-wet towing system of U–K barge and MBFS.

model with a scale of 1:50 (Fig. 12). The towing tank has a length of 135
m, a width of 7 m, and the water depth of 3 m. The speed of a moving
carriage mounted on rails can be controlled by an electronic system,
which is up to 4 m/s. Initially, the carriage was stopped at a position
about 10 m far from the dock and the combination of MBFS and U–K
barge was towed with a wire connected with the carriage. The tension of
the robe was measured and acquired by using a tension sensor connected
to the end of the wire. A wave maker was placed at the other end of the
tank creating regular sinusoidal waves. Besides, the tank was equipped
with absorption facilities to minimize the effects of reflected waves on
lateral sides and the dock. The experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 11. Force analysis of MBFS about the concept of semi-wet towing. The gyroscope and acceleration sensor were used to monitor the
inclination and acceleration of the MBFS and the U–K barge. Air pressure
transmitters were equipped in each cabin to monitor the cabin pressure
and the air pressure can be adjusted during the experiment. The

6
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Fig. 12. Towing system attached to the carriage.

Fig. 13. Arrangement of sensors and setup of experiments.

experiments mainly focused on the towing resistance, the pitch angle,
surge acceleration and heave acceleration.
4.1. Model description
The MBFS model in the experiment was designed based on a large
capacity steel-concrete bucket foundation of an OWT in Guishan Wind
Farm in China. The dimensions of the prototypes and models of the U–K
barge and MBFS are listed in Table 5. The models were made of poly­
methyl methacrylate (PMMA) because the relatively low density can
facilitate the adjustment of the model inertia, and the transparent
appearance makes it easier to observe the water level inside each cabin.
The additional weight made of lead was placed on the model to ensure
the proper positions of gravity center and inertia moment. Since the
transitional section above the top lid of the bucket foundation is not
allowed to enter the water during the towing stage and has no effect on
this experiment, this part of the model has been simplified.
According to the concept of “semi-wet towing”, the gravity of the
MBFS is balanced by two types of forces. The first type is the buoyancy
generated by pumping compressed air into cabins, as well as the jacking
force given by the U–K barge through four snaps. The second type is
other interaction force between the MBFS and the U–K barge, which can
prevent the MBFS detaching from the U–K barge during transportation.
The “semi-wet towing” is realized in three steps in the experiment. First,
the MBFS is placed between U- and K-modules of the barge without
pumping in air. At this moment, all weight of the foundation is trans­
ferred to the U–K barge through the snaps (the buoyancy of the bucket
skirt can be ignored because of the thin wall), and the water levels inside
and outside the foundation are the same. Second, the cabin valve is
closed so all seven cabins can form a sealed space. Third, the air is
pumped into each cabin simultaneously and we can observe the pressure
changes until the pressure values inside cabins reach the target ones.
Therefore, it is possible to control the interaction force between the
MBFS and the barge in the vertical direction.

Table 5
The properties and main dimensions of MBFS and U–K barge.
Parameters Froude Scaling Law Prototype Target model (λ = 50) Model used in experiments Difference (%)

Mass of U–K barge (kg) λ3 1500000 12.00 12.13 1.08

Mass of MBFS (kg) λ3 3500000 28.00 28.10 0.36
Draft of the U–K barge (m) λ 2 0.040 0.040 0
Draft of MBFS (m) λ 6 0.120 0.120 0
Cabin pressure of MBFS (kph) λ 39.24 0.785 0.778 0.89
COG of U–K barge X λ 45.11 0.902 0.885 1.9
Y λ 0 0 0 0
Z λ 3 0.060 0.063 5.0
COG of MBFS X λ 0 0 0 0
Y λ 0 0 0 0
Z λ 15.6 0.312 0.319 2.2
√̅̅̅
Towing speeds range (m/s) λ 0.5–3.5 0.071–0.495 0.071–0.495 0

*COG is the center of gravity.

7
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

4.2. Test matrix

In the experiment, three scenarios were considered under different

towing speeds, wave periods and wave heights as follows:

a. The responses of the combination without towing speed under

different wave periods.
b. The responses of the combination at different towing speeds in calm
water and in waves, respectively.
c. The responses of the combination with towing speed under different
wave conditions.

The test matrix can be found in Table 6 based on prototype

parameters.

5. Results and discussion

The motion responses and resistances of the model during the towing
operation were evaluated in both clam water and wave conditions. It Fig. 14. Pitch RAO at zero speed.
should be noted that all the results shown in this section have been
transformed to full-scale values.

5.1. Responses of moored combination at different wave periods

To evaluate the responses of the combined system of the MBFS and

U–K barge, the motion performance and the towing resistance at moored
condition are analyzed first. Since the model natural frequency has the
largest impact on the motion responses, it is necessary to conduct ex­
periments in regular waves over a fairly wide range of wave frequencies
to obtain the response amplitude operator (RAO) of the combined sys­
tem. Therefore, the experiments were carried out in a head wave field
for the U–K barge, with the wave height being 1 m, and the wave period
ranging from 4.5 to 21.7 s.
Since the pitch motion of the MBFS and the U–K barge are syn­
chronized in this set of tests, indicating that the two parts are not
separated, so only the pitch RAO of the U–K barge is shown in Fig. 14.
The results of the pitch RAO show that the maximum response occurred
when the wave period was around 9.0 s. Similarly, the largest heave
acceleration and towing resistance were also triggered under the con­ Fig. 15. Heave acceleration at zero speed.
dition of this wave period of 9.0 s (Figs. 15–16), probably corresponding
to the natural period of the system. As a result, the wave with a period of
9.0 s is a hazardous wave condition for the moored combination due to
the large motion response generated.
In addition, the heave acceleration is an important parameter for the
strength design of the snaps to ensure the safety during the trans­
portation stage, because of the complex and fully coupled interaction
between the MBFS and the U–K barge. It can be seen from Fig. 15 that
although the maximum heave acceleration of the MBFS and the U–K
barge both occurred under the wave period of 9.0 s, the heave acceler­
ation of the U–K barge is much larger than that of the MBFS. Conse­
quently, the design of snap should be made according to the heave
motion of the U–K barge to ensure the safety of the system during the

Table 6
Test matrix.
Case Test Towing Wave Period (s) Wave
Number Speed (kn) Height (m)

a 1 0 4.5/6.2/7.7/9.3/10.8/12.4/ 2
13.9/15.5/17.0/18.6/20.1/
21.7 Fig. 16. Towing resistance at zero speed.
b 2 2/3/4/5/6/ – –
7
3 2/3/4/5/6/ 9 1
7
c 4 3 6/8/9/10/11 1
5 3 9 1/2/3

8
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

transportation.

5.2. Effects of towing speed on the motion of the combination

The towing speed is an important factor that can affect the towing
resistance and the motion response of the combined towing system.
According to previous engineering experience, the towing speed of this
type of non-self-propelled transportation is generally within 5 kn. To
investigate the effects of towing speed on the responses of the combined
semi-wet towing system, experiments were conducted at the towing
speed of 2–7 kn in still water and regular wave condition (the wave
height of 1m and wave period of 9 s). This wave condition was chosen
because the waves effect of the characteristic period on the towing
system is more pronounced, compared to the static water condition.

5.2.1. Towing with different speeds in still water

As the motion responses of the floating combination towed in still
water is very insignificant, the No.2 group tests focus on the towing Fig. 18. Towing resistance statistics for different speeds in still water.
resistance at different towing speeds, marked as Rs . In Fig. 18, when the
combination was towed in still water and as the towing speeds
increased, both the average values of towing resistance and the extreme
values increased. It can be seen from Fig. 17 that when the towing speed
was larger than 3 kn, the time series of the Rs started to show fluctua­
tions. To quantify the magnitude of this towing resistance fluctuation,
the concept of fluctuation value is introduced here. Based on the time
series of the towing resistance, the difference between the crest and
trough in each period is calculated firstly, and then these differences are
averaged, which is the fluctuation value, also called the peak-to-peak
value. Therefore, fluctuation value can represent the fluctuation
magnitude of the towing resistance (Fig. 18), indicating that the fluc­
tuations grow with the increase of towing speeds. One possible reason
for the fluctuations of towing resistance is the wave-making action of the
floating structure, which is generated by the combination even though
the towing was conducted in still water.

5.2.2. Towing with different speeds in waves

In contrast to towing in still water, the combination in this study
towed in waves generated significant motion responses, as well as the
relative motion between the U–K barge and the MBFS, so the No.3 group
tests focused on both the effect of towing speed on motion responses and
towing resistance.
Fig. 19 shows the pitch amplitude of the MBFS and U–K barge at
different speeds in waves (the wave height of 1 m and wave period of 9
s). With the increase of the towing speed, the pitch angles of both MBFS
and U–K barge decrease. When only the MBFS is considered, smaller
pitch angle usually means less risk of air leakage during transportation.
But for the combined semi-wet towing system, it cannot be concluded
that higher speed leads to safer towing. This is due to the fact that these
two parts actually had a different pitch angle of less than 0.1◦ at the
speed of 4–6 kn, indicating that there was a relative motion during
towing. This relative motion may cause a serious collision between the
U–K barge and MBFS. As a result, high speed towing is not suggested for
Fig. 19. Pitch response at different speeds in waves.
this combined system.
As is shown in Fig. 20(a), the heave acceleration of the U–K barge
remained greater than that of MBFS, with the largest acceleration
occurring at the speed of 5 kn. The maximum heave acceleration for the
U–K barge and the MBFS was 0.066g and 0.032g, respectively. In Fig. 20
(b), the surge accelerations of these two parts were both not greatly
affected by the speed, and the changes with the speed are relatively
small. The surge acceleration of MBFS is always greater than that of the
U–K barge, with the maximum surge acceleration of the U–K barge
0.10g, and the maximum surge acceleration of MBFS being 0.02g.
Fig. 21 shows the times series of the towing resistance of the com­
bination at different towing speeds in waves, in which the time is

Fig. 17. Towing resistance time history for different speeds in still water.

9
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Fig. 20. Acceleration comparison of the MBFS and U–K barge for a different period.

Fig. 21. Towing operation resistance with waves at different speeds.

normalized by the modeled wave encounter period to facilitate com­

parison. The results show that the resistance fluctuated periodically at
all speeds. The statistics of towing resistance at different speeds are
shown in Fig. 22, in which we can find that the extreme and average
values of towing resistance increased as the speed grew under the wave
condition of H = 1 m and T = 9 s. However, the towing resistance
fluctuated the most at the speed of 5 kn.
The towing resistance in waves (Rw ) can be considered as a super­
position of two resistance components: the towing resistance in still
water (Rs ) and the additional resistance caused by incident wave field
(RA), also known as added resistance because of the interaction between
the incident wave and the ship. In Fig. 23, Rs , Rw , and the difference
between the two, i.e., the added resistance RA caused by incident waves
at different speeds are plotted. It can be observed that the RA caused by
incident waves increased with the growing towing speed first, reaching
the maximum value at the speed of 5 kn, and then decreased as the

Fig. 23. Towing resistance component analysis.

towing speed continued increasing. It should be noted that the heave

acceleration of the U–K barge also shows the similar trend, and the
maximum heave acceleration also occurs at the speed of 5 kn as shown
in Fig. 20(a). This is because the trend of RA caused by the incident
waves with the speed is consistent with the trend of heave acceleration
of the U–K barge; in other words, greater heave acceleration of the U–K
barge can result in larger RA. In addition, as the towing speed increases,
the percentage of Rs in total resistance grew rapidly to 91% at 7 kn.
Based on the above analysis, the combined semi-wet towing system
introduced in this paper presents a significantly low towing resistance
compared to the one-step integrated transportation vessel (Zhang et al.,
2019), which leads to a reduction of the capacity needed to tow the large
capacity bucket foundation to the installation point, commonly known
as bollard pull. This low bollard pull makes it possible to perform the
transportation operation just using conventional tugboats and avoiding
Fig. 22. Towing resistance statistics for different speeds.

10
J. Lian et al.
the need for the expensive tugboat used currently used for the Oil & Gas
sector.
5.3. Effects of different wave conditions on the motion of the combination
5.3.1. Towing in different wave periods
To evaluate the motion responses and towing resistance of the semi-
wet towing system for different wave periods, experiments were con­
ducted in the frequency domain from 6 to 11 s at speed of 3 kn and wave
height of 1 m.
In Fig. 24, it is found that the U–K barge and the MBFS exhibited
almost the same pitch angle under the wave periods of 6–11 s, meaning
that there was no relative emotion between the two parts. In Fig. 25(a),
the heave accelerations of MBFS and U–K barge were of the similar trend
with increasing wave periods. The peak values of heave acceleration for
U–K and MBFS appeared around the wave period of 9 s, which were
0.069g and 0.027g, respectively. The heave acceleration of the U–K
barge remained greater than that of the MBFS. In addition, it can be seen
from Fig. 25(b) that the surge accelerations of MBFS and U–K barge also
had the similar trend, with the maximal value near 9 s. The maximal
surge accelerations of the MBFS and the U–K were about 0.093g and
0.017g, respectively. Consequently, this semi-wet towing system has the
same characteristic period of 9 s in both towing and moored states
(investigated in section 4.1).
The time history of towing resistance at the towing speed of 3kn and
the wave height of 1 m for different wave periods is illustrated in Fig. 26.
It is obvious that the resistance under different wave periods show pe­
riodic fluctuations, but the fluctuation was not that significant in the
case of a wave period of 6 s. According to the statistics results of the
towing resistance under different wave period in Fig. 27, the maximum
and the fluctuation values of towing resistance increase with the wave
period when the period is less than 9 s, but do not change much under
wave period of more than 10 s.
5.3.2. Towing in different wave heights
The towing operation of offshore platforms is usually carried out in
the season with relatively clam sea states, roughly equivalent to level
3–4 sea states and the corresponding wave height is 0.5–2.5 m. The sea
states with actual wave heights of 1–2 m are more common. To evaluate
the motion responses and towing resistance of the combined semi-wet
towing system for different wave heights, experiments were also con­
ducted with five different wave heights (1.0/1.5/2.0/2.5/3.0 m) but the
same wave period of 9 s.
As is shown in Fig. 28, the pitch angle of the MBFS is larger than that
of the U–K barge when the wave height becomes larger than 2 m,
indicating that a small relative motion occurs between the two bodies,
Fig. 24. Pitch comparison of the MBFS and U–K barge.
11
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354
and the difference between them is 0.073◦ at the wave height of 3 m.
Fig. 29 presents the pitch change of the U–K barge and the MBFS at the
wave height of 3 m (negative values of pitch are forward-leaning and
positive ones are backward leaning). The results show that there is a
small phase difference between the MBFS and U–K barge during the
head-on towing, and the extreme values of backward leaning angle are
both larger than that of forward-leaning angle for both bodies. Conse­
quently, the risk of the buried bow is reduced by sailing under this head-
on wave condition and towing speed, and the maximum pitch angle
extremes are 3.48◦ for the U–K barge and 3.60◦ for the MBFS under the
wave height of 3 m.
To reduce the disintegration risk of the two bodies in actual towing,
the following effective methods from the perspective of engineering
practice are suggested according to the principle of “semi-wet towing”
concept, as shown below.
(1) Release the gas to reduce the pressure inside the cabins and
decrease the buoyancy of the MBFS itself. This method can in­
crease the interaction force between the MBFS and U–K barge,
which makes the MBFS resist more wave force in the vertical
direction. Based on equations (1) and (2), it can be estimated that
for every 0.1m decrease of the air-cushion height, the interaction
force between the MBFS and theU–K barge increases by 8369 kN.
(2) Add rubber blankets to the point where the snaps and the barge
deck contact as is shown in Fig. 8(a). Although the disintegration
was not directly prevented, the impact force of the MBFS is
reduced when it collides with the U–K barge again after
disintegration.
(3) Increase the upper limit grooves as shown in Fig. 8(a) and strictly
limit the movement displacement of the MBFS in the vertical
direction to ensure that the disintegration of the two parts does
not occur under treacherous sea conditions.
Fig. 30(a) presents the heave response of the combined semi-towing
system at different wave heights, which shows that the heave acceler­
ation of the U–K barge is always larger than that of the MBFS. With the
increase of the wave height, the heave acceleration of both the U–K
barge and the MBFS increase, with the maximum values of 0.136g and
0.070g, respectively. Fig. 30(b) shows the surge acceleration of the
combined semi-wet towing system at different wave heights, indicating
that the surge acceleration of the MBFS is always larger than that of the
U–K barge. With the increase of the wave height, the surge accelerations
of both the MBFS and the U–K barge also increase, with the maximum
values of 0.037g and 0.159g, respectively. In addition, the responses of
the semi-wet system studied above all show a linear increase with the
increasing wave height, which proves that linear potential flow theory
may be used for numerical simulation in further study.
Fig. 31 shows the time history of towing resistance at 3 kn towing
speed and wave period of 9 s for different wave heights. It is obvious that
the resistance curves under different wave heights all show significant
fluctuations. According to the statistical results of towing resistance in
Fig. 32, with the increase of wave height, the maximum, average value,
and fluctuation value of towing resistance increase and the minimum
value decreases, indicating that higher wave height can lead to greater
expansion and contraction amplitude of the spring connected to the
towing rope in tests, and in turn require larger towing equipment in
actual towing.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, an innovative P&T technology for offshore prefabri­
cation and semi-wet towing of MBFS is proposed. This technology, uti­
lizing the capacity of MBFS self-floating, can satisfy the market needs for
cost reduction, and avoid the use of heavy lift. The feasibility of the
offshore prefabrication and the safe draught range were investigated by
calculating the MBFS’s self-stability. Moreover, a series of experiments
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Fig. 25. Acceleration comparison of the MBFS and U–K barge for different periods.

Fig. 26. Towing resistance time history at 3 kn towing speed and wave height of 1m for different wave periods.

were carried out to investigate the key factor of the dynamic charac­
teristics and towing resistance of the combination during the towing
process. The following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) According to the analysis of the offshore prefabrication process of
the MBFS utilizing OPP, it is concluded that the key requirement
for the MBFS to achieve offshore prefabrication is that the MBFS
can float up stably from the OPP, i.e., the MBFS has self-stability
under different drafts. The results of GM of the MBFS at a draft of
5.0–9.0 m indicate that the MBFS has good self-stability. There­
fore, the MBFS can float up to the specified draft (≥5.0 m) safely
after prefabrication on the OPP for the subsequent semi-towing.
(2) The results of variable speed towing tests in still water and waves
show that the trend of RA caused by the incident waves is
consistent with the trend of heave acceleration of the U–K barge.
Furthermore, with the increase in towing speed, the wave-
making action of the combination becomes more obvious, and
the Rs gradually becomes the main component of the total towing
resistance, with 91% of Rs at 7 kn. In addition, the influence of
high towing speed on the safety of the combined semi-wet towing
system may be negative due to the risk of disintegration between
the U–K barge and MBFS.
(3) The results of towing tests in different wave conditions indicate
that the combined semi-wet towing system has the same

Fig. 27. Towing resistance for different wave periods. Fig. 28. Pitch comparison of the MBFS and U–K barge.

12
J. Lian et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354

Fig. 29. Pitch time history at a wave height of 3m.

Fig. 30. Acceleration comparison of the MBFS and U–K barge for different wave heights.

characteristic period of 9 s in both towing and moored states.
Besides, the combination of U–K barge and MBFS has an excep­
tional seakeeping capability, even at seas with Hs = 3 m, with low
pitching angles, accelerations, and towing resistances (<200
tons) at 3 knots. The wave height has great effects on the disin­
tegration of U–K barge and MBFS. To avoid the disintegration
during the transportation process caused by large wave height,
three effective methods are proposed according to the principle of
the “semi-wet towing” concept.
(4) With this single wire towing configuration in experiments, the
model develops a small directional instability and oscillates
slightly from side to side, called fishing tailing. This phenomenon
pointed out that it is advisable to perform the towage of the
combination system of bucket foundation and U–K barge using
two tugboats and two towing lines instead of a single line. These
results from model tests can be used to evaluate and define
realistic operational limits for practical engineering operations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jijian Lian: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investi­
gation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration. Tian­
run Xiao: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Dongming Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investi­
gation, Supervision, Project administration. Fangdi Ye: Conceptualiza­
tion, Methodology. Dongzhi Xiong: Investigation, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Fig. 31. Towing resistance time history at 3 kn towing speed and wave period of 9 s for different wave heights.

13
J. Lian et al.
Fig. 32. Towing resistance for the different wave height.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
References
Attari, A., Doherty, P., Reig Amoros, E., Paulotto, C., 2016. Design drivers for buoyant
gravity-based foundations. Wind Energy 19 (10), 1833–1844.
Bagheri, P., Yoon, J.C., Park, D., Kim, J.M., 2019. Numerical analysis of suction bucket
foundations used for offshore wind turbines. In: Proceedings of the 1st Vietnam
Symposium on Advances in Offshore Engineering, pp. 336–341.
Bakmar, L.B., Ahle, K., Nielsen, S.A., Ibsen, L.B., 2009. The Monopod Bucket Foundation:
recent Experiences and Challenges Ahead. European Offshore Wind Conference &
Exhibition.
Bie, S., Ji, C.N., Ren, Z.J., Li, Z.Z., 2002a. Study on floating properties and stability of air
floated structures. China Ocean Eng. 16, 263–272.
Bie, S., Xu, Y., Wang, G., 2002b. Static Stability Analysis of Air Floated Structures.
Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology.
Ding, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, P., Le, C., 2015. Model tests on the bearing capacity of wide-
shallow composite bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines in clay. Ocean Eng.
103, 114–122.
Dvorak, P., 2015. Update on the Lake Erie Icebreaker wind project: clever foundation
selected for 6 turbines. https://www.windpowerengineering.com/update-on-the-la
ke-erie-icebreaker-wind-project-clever-foundation-selected-for-6-turbines/.
Foglia, A., Gottardi, G., Govoni, L., Ibsen, L.B., 2015. Modelling the drained response of
bucket foundations for offshore wind turbines under general monotonic and cyclic
loading. Appl. Ocean Res. 52, 80–91.
Guo, Y., Wang, H., Lian, J., 2022. Review of Integrated Installation Technologies for
Offshore Wind Turbines: Current Progress and Future Development Trends, vol. 255.
Energy Conversion and Management.
He, B., Jiang, J., Cheng, J., Zheng, J., Wang, D., 2021. The capacities of tripod bucket
foundation under uniaxial and combined loading. Ocean Eng. 220.
Hou, G., Xu, K., Lian, J., 2022. A review on recent risk assessment methodologies of
offshore wind turbine foundations. Ocean Eng. 264.
Ibsen, L.B., Brincker, R., 2004. Design of a New Foundation for Offshore Wind Turbines,
the International Modal Analysis Conference.
14
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115354
Kim, S.-R., Hung, L.C., Oh, M., 2014. Group effect on bearing capacities of tripod bucket
foundations in undrained clay. Ocean Eng. 79, 1–9.
Kim, S., Choo, Y.W., Kim, J.H., Kim, D.S., Kwon, O., 2015. Pullout resistance of group
suction anchors in parallel array installed in silty sand subjected to horizontal
loading - centrifuge and numerical modeling. Ocean Eng. 107, 85–96.
Lian, Jiang, Dong, Zhao, Zhao, 2019a. Dynamic impedance of the wide-shallow bucket
foundation for offshore wind turbine using coupled Finite–infinite element method.
Energies 12 (22).
Lian, J., Chen, F., Wang, H., 2014. Laboratory tests on soil–skirt interaction and
penetration resistance of suction caissons during installation in sand. Ocean Eng. 84,
1–13.
Lian, J., Ding, H., Zhang, P., Yu, R., 2012. Design of large-scale prestressing bucket
foundation for offshore wind turbines. Trans. Tianjin Univ. 18 (2), 79–84.
Lian, J., Jiang, J., Dong, X., Wang, H., Zhou, H., Wang, P., 2019b. Coupled motion
characteristics of offshore wind turbines during the integrated transportation
process. Energies 12 (10).
Lian, J., Wang, P., Wang, H., Guo, Y., Xu, Y., Ye, F., Yang, Y., 2021a. Experimental study
of one-step overall transportation of composite bucket foundation for offshore wind
turbine under the coupled dynamic action of wave and current. J. Renew. Sustain.
Energy 13.
Lian, J., Zhao, Y., Dong, X., Lian, C., Wang, H., 2021b. An experimental investigation on
long-term performance of the wide-shallow bucket foundation model for offshore
wind turbine in saturated sand. Ocean Eng. 228.
Liu, R., Zhou, L., Lian, J., Ding, H.-y., 2016. Behavior of monopile foundations for
offshore wind farms in sand. J. Waterway Port Coast. Ocean Eng-asce 142,
04015010.
Mathern, A., von der Haar, C., Marx, S., 2021. Concrete support structures for offshore
wind turbines: current status, challenges, and Future trends. Energies 14 (7).
Pérez Fernández, R., Lamas Pardo, M., 2013. Offshore concrete structures. Ocean Eng.
58, 304–316.
Sánchez, S., López-Gutiérrez, J.-S., Negro, V., Esteban, M.D., 2019. Foundations in
offshore wind farms: evolution, characteristics and range of use. Analysis of main
dimensional parameters in monopile foundations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 7 (12).
Sarker, B.R., Faiz, T.I., 2017. Minimizing transportation and installation costs for
turbines in offshore wind farms. Renew. Energy 101, 667–679.
SPTOffshore, 2017. Suction installed wind turbine (SIWT) - T&I methodology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xhm3Aj966E.
SPTOffshore, 2018. Offshore wind: industrializing development to reduce cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alpYMJTMCHoSuction Installed.
SPTOffshore, 2021. Wind turbine generator (WTG) foundations. https://www.sptoffsh
ore.com/wind-turbine-generator-wtg-foundations/.
Vieira, M., Maciel, G., Henriques, E., Reis, L., 2019. A new proposal for an offshore wind
foundation for transitional waters. Mar. Struct. 68, 13.
Wang, L.Z., Wang, H., Zhu, B., Hong, Y., 2018. Comparison of monotonic and cyclic
lateral response between monopod and tripod bucket foundations in medium dense
sand. Ocean Eng. 155, 88–105.
Zhang, P., Ding, H., Le, C., Huang, X., 2013. Motion analysis on integrated transportation
technique for offshore wind turbines. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 5 (5).
Zhang, P., Han, Y., Ding, H., Zhang, S., 2015. Field experiments on wet tows of an
integrated transportation and installation vessel with two bucket foundations for
offshore wind turbines. Ocean Eng. 108, 769–777.
Zhang, P., Li, Y.e., Ding, H., Le, C., 2022a. Response analysis of a lowering operation for
a three-bucket jacket foundation for offshore wind turbines. Renew. Energy 185
(10), 564–584.
Zhang, P., Li, Y.e., Le, C., Ding, H., Yang, Z., Qiang, L., 2022b. Dynamic characteristics
analysis of three-bucket jacket foundation lowering through the splash zone. Renew.
Energy 199, 1116–1132.
Zhang, P., Liang, D., Ding, H., Le, C., Zhao, X., 2019. Floating state of a one-step
integrated transportation vessel with two composite bucket foundations and offshore
wind turbines. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 7 (8).
Zhang, P., Zhao, X., Ding, H., Le, C., 2021. The wet-towing resistance of the composite
bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines. Mar. Struct. 80 (1).
Zhu, F.Y., O’Loughlin, C.D., Bienen, B., Cassidy, M.J., Morgan, N., 2018. The response of
suction caissons to long-term lateral cyclic loading in single-layer and layered
seabeds. Geotechnique 68 (8), 729–741.