See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276123623

Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons for Offshore Wind Turbine

Foundations by Numerical Limit Analysis

Article  in  Marine Georesources and Geotechnology · April 2015

DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2015.1004766

CITATIONS READS

5 428

2 authors:

Hao Wang Xiaohui Cheng

Nanyang Technological University Tsinghua University
6 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   560 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

THM coupled constitutive modeling of geomaterials View project

Numerical limit analysis on suction caissons View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiaohui Cheng on 06 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Tsinghua University]
On: 09 September 2015, At: 00:26
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons for

Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations by Numerical Limit
Analysis
a a
Hao Wang & Xiaohui Cheng
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Accepted author version posted online: 29 Apr 2015.Published online: 29 Apr 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Hao Wang & Xiaohui Cheng (2015): Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons for
Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations by Numerical Limit Analysis, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, DOI:
10.1080/1064119X.2015.1004766

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2015.1004766

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 0: 1–13
Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1064-119X print/1521-0618 online
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2015.1004766

Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons for

Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations by Numerical
Limit Analysis
HAO WANG and XIAOHUI CHENG
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Received 7 August 2014, Accepted 4 January 2015

Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015

Determining the ultimate capacity of suction caissons in response to combined vertical, horizontal, and moment loading is essential
for their design as foundations for offshore wind turbines. However, the method implemented for stability analysis is quite limited.
Numerical limit analysis has an advantage over traditional limit equilibrium methods and nonlinear finite element methods in this
case because upper and lower bounds can be achieved to ensure that the exact ultimate capacity of the caisson falls within the
appropriate range. This article presents theories related to numerical limit analysis. Simulations are conducted for centrifuge model
tests, the findings of which reveal the ability of numerical limit analysis to deal with the inclined pullout capacity of suction cais-
sons. Finally, this article proposes an estimation of the ultimate capacity of a 3.5 MW offshore wind turbine foundation on nor-
mally consolidated clay based on the typical environmental parameters of Bothkennar, Scotland. Undrained failure envelopes and
safety factors are obtained for suction caissons with different embedment ratios. Failure mechanisms, plastic zones, clay stress
distributions, and the influence of the skin friction coefficients of caissons are discussed in detail.
Keywords: limit state design, lower bound, numerical limit analysis, offshore wind turbine, suction caisson foundation, upper
bound

Introduction
Suction caissons are large hollow cylindrical foundations
that are open at the base and closed at the top and penetrate
into soil with active suction after partial penetration by
deadweight. Depending on the type of load and geometrical
conditions, they comprise shallow foundations (suction cais-
sons or suction buckets) or anchors (suction anchors). For
anchoring systems, suction caissons are usually used in
deep-sea operations and suffer uplifts combined with lateral
loads. Many researchers have conducted centrifuge tests of
suction anchors and piles (Fuglsang and Steensen-Bach
1991; Renzi et al. 1991; Clukey and Morrison 1993; Clukey
et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2007), and the foundation type has
been widely used in the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico. The
application of suction caissons as shallow foundations,
mainly as offshore wind turbine foundations, is relatively
new. The suction caissons used for offshore wind turbines
differ from those used for other purposes in that they are
installed in much shallower water (depths from near-shore
to approximately 40 m) and suffer a much larger moment.
The average embedment ratio (L=D, where L is the wall
length and D is the diameter of the caisson cap) of a suction
Address correspondence to Hao Wang, Department of Civil
Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
E-mail: wanghao0605@gmail.com
caisson falls between 0.5 and 1, and is usually smaller than
that of a suction anchor (whose L=D can reach up to 6).
Two structural types of offshore wind turbines are
currently used, the ‘‘monopod’’ and the ‘‘tetrapod’’ (or
‘‘tripod’’) (Figure 1). The diameter of a monopod caisson
is usually 20–25 m (Houlsby et al. 2005b) and that of
a tetrapod or tripod caisson is approximately 6–8 m.
The foundation of a tetrapod resists loading mainly via
a ‘‘push-pull’’ action. Some caissons suffer a larger
compression and others suffer a smaller compression or even
tension in the balance of the moment and self-weight.
Monopod caissons suffer the associative effects of self-
weight, lateral loads, and overturning moments. In terms
of analysis, the monopod caisson is much more represen-
tative than the tetrapod caisson. Therefore, this article
mainly investigates the former.
Methods for designing caisson foundations for offshore
wind applications are in their infancy (Houlsby et al.
2005b). The soil-structure interactions and failure modes
of suction caissons under large overturning moments have
not been investigated thoroughly. One key challenge is that
offshore wind turbine structures are relatively light for their
size (for example, a 3.5 MW turbine structure has a mass
of 600 t), despite being subjected to large lateral forces and
overturning moments from wind and waves (Byrne and
Houlsby 2003). These lateral loads can be as large as 70%
of the vertical load.
 2 H. Wang and X. Cheng
Fig. 1. Caisson foundations for a wind turbine: (a) monopod;
(b) tripod=tetrapod.
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
Although many small-scale tests of suction caissons have
been carried out (Zhang et al. 2010; Zhu et al. 2011; Barari
and Ibsen 2012; Larsen et al. 2013; Ibsen et al. 2014a;
2014b), full-scale tests have been relatively rare. In 2003
and 2009, two suction caisson foundations (D ¼ 12 m,
L ¼ 6 m) were successfully installed in Frederikshavn and
at the Horns Rev 2 offshore wind farm in Denmark,
respectively. The installation of a suction caisson founda-
tion for an Enercon E112 4.5-MW plant in Hooksiel near
Wilhelmshaven in 2005 failed because buckling occurred
in the caisson (Lesny 2010). The first full-scale tripod
with suction caisson foundations was recently successfully
installed in Germany. Due to a lack of design standards
and field trial data, the industry has not yet widely applied
suction caisson foundations to marine structures.
The design of wind turbine foundations presents three
major concerns: foundation stiffness, performance under
fatigue loading, and ultimate capacity. This article considers
only the ultimate capacity of the suction caisson. To observe
only the performance of soil and soil-structure interactions
at its ultimate capacity, the caisson is assumed to be rigid.
The limit equilibrium method (LEM), slip-line field
theory, and limit analysis are the traditional methods
for analyzing ultimate capacity (stability analyses or collapse
calculations). LEM is by far the method most commonly
used for solving stability problems. Although it usually
provides solutions that agree quite well with real situations,
no fundamental theory has proven that these solutions are
correct. The slip-line theory is one of the most powerful
methods for solving plane-strain boundary value problems
for rigid plastic materials. The theory uses both equilibrium
(lower bound) and compatibility (upper bound) equations
and thus provides accurate solutions. However, it is difficult
to apply the theory to complex loading and geological
problems when analyzing offshore wind turbine founda-
tions. Limit analysis states a statically admissible stress
field as a lower bound and a kinematically admissible
velocity field as an upper bound to bracket true solutions.
Its theory is rigorous, but like the slip-line theory, it is
difficult to apply to combined loading problems.
This article introduces a more rigorous and efficient
theory for stability problems, especially for complex loading
and geometric conditions, in the form of two-dimensional
numerical limit analysis (NLA) (Sloan 1988a; 1988b; 1989;
Sloan and Kleeman 1995; Ukritchon et al. 1998; 2003; Yuan
and Whittle 2013). Rigorous upper and lower bound failure
loads are solved using linear programming methods, and
spatial discretization and interpolation of the field variables
are accomplished using the finite element method (FEM).
The method possesses the advantage of limit analysis for
bounding the true solution, as well as the efficiency and
accuracy of FEM for dealing with complex geometric and
loading conditions.
LEM and upper bound plastic limit analysis have histori-
cally been used to analyze the ultimate capacity of suction
piles and caissons. The undrained pullout capacity of
a suction caisson was commonly calculated using LEM with
a reverse end bearing mechanism (Clukey and Morrison
1993). Murff and Hamilton (1993) and Aubeny et al.
(2003) applied an upper bound plastic limit approach to
estimate the capacity of undrained laterally loaded piles
and inclined loaded suction caissons, respectively. Zhang
et al. (2010) proposed a three-dimensional upper bound limit
analysis for a suction caisson subjected to a lateral load
applied above the mudline.
The strain-hardening plasticity model and FEM have
recently been used to investigate the stability of suction
caisson foundations. Based on a plasticity model for
circular footings known as Model C (Cassidy et al. 2002),
Larsen et al. (2013) and Ibsen et al. (2014a; 2014b)
developed a macro model for caissons that considered
plasticity hardening and calibrated failure criteria using
data from an extensive number of small-scale tests conduc-
ted on sand. The method can be used for preliminary
design and benchmarking numerical methods. Bransby
and Yun (2009) applied 2-D FEM to estimate the
undrained capacity of skirted strip foundations and com-
pared their results with those of upper bound limit analysis.
Mana et al. (2010) used 2-D FEM to investigate the
undrained vertical bearing capacity of caissons on normally
consolidated clay. Applying 3-D FEM, Hung and Kim
(2012; 2014) and Liu et al. (2014) conducted an extensive
study of the influential factors of the combined loading
capacity of caissons, including the embedment ratio,
loading direction, and normalized strength parameter.
Although FEM can provide good estimations, significant
errors may sometimes occur due to the use of inappropriate
types of elements and constitutive models. In terms of the
design of suction caisson foundations, it is difficult to
recognize FEM analysis errors or whether the ultimate
capacity has been overestimated or underestimated when in
situ test data is insufficient. The uncertainty problem is solved
via numerical limit analysis, which is a new approach for
investigating the undrained combined loading capacity of
suction caissons as the foundations for offshore wind turbines.
The following sections of this article first briefly present
the theory of numerical limit analysis. The EPR centrifuge
model test data (performed by the French Central Transport
 Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons
Research Laboratory (LCPC) and supplied by the Exxon
Production Research Company) of suction caissons are then
compared with numerical limit analysis results to authenti-
cate the accuracy of the latter. Finally, a numerical limit
analysis is conducted to estimate the ultimate capacity of a
3.5-MW wind turbine foundation on normally consolidated
clay in Bothkennar, Scotland. Undrained failure envelopes
of combined loading and safety factors are obtained, with
the soil parameters and loading conditions chosen according
to the actual situation.
Theories of Numerical Limit Analysis
Background
Lysmer (1970) was the first to propose the theory of numeri-
cal limit analysis. However, its application was restricted due
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
to the large computational time required to solve the prob-
lems caused by complicated linear programming optimiza-
tion. A revised simplex optimization algorithm introduced
by Anderheggen and Knopfel (1972) and used by Bottero
et al. (1980) contributed an important extension to the
method. The efficiency problem was solved by Sloan
(1988b), who introduced a steepest edge active set algorithm
into the linear programming. Although the algorithm was
originally developed for finite element formulations of the
lower bound theorem, the scheme has also proven to be very
efficient for upper bound analysis (Sloan and Kleeman 1995).
As efficiency improved, simple strip footing cases were
discussed for both the lower (Sloan 1988a) and upper (Sloan
and Kleeman 1995) bounds. Ukritchon et al. (1998; 2003)
extended the application of the method to a combined
loading of strip footings on clay and the undrained stability
of braced excavations.
Salgado et al. (2004) recently proposed a three-
dimensional type of numerical limit analysis. A robust
nonlinear algorithm was used for the lower bound and a
quasi-Newton strategy for the upper bound (Lyamin and
Sloan 2002). The method has proven to be accurate and
efficient for estimating the shape factors of square and rec-
tangular footings, which could not be derived in the past
due to the lack of three-dimensional computations. The
ability of three-dimensional analysis to deal with complex soil
behavior and loading conditions remains quite limited and
restricted to footings and soil of uniform undrained strength.
Due to the complexity of suction caisson foundations for
offshore wind turbines, this article adopts two-dimensional
numerical limit analysis as its computational method. This type
of limit analysis is easier to visualize than the three-dimensional
type and requires less processing time. In addition, researchers
have found that the normalized combined loading capacity of
plane-strain and circular surface foundations varies insignifi-
cantly (Bransby and Yun 2009). A brief introduction of the
method framework is provided as follows.
Lower Bound Analysis
Figure 2a shows a brief scheme of two-dimensional plane-
strain numerical limit analysis used for analyzing the
3
ultimate capacity of a suction caisson foundation. The suc-
tion caisson is placed within the soil with its caisson cap at
the mudline. It suffers a vertical load, a horizontal load
and a moment transferred from the wind turbine structure.
In lower bound analysis, the soil is discretized into
three-node triangular elements. Each node is associated with
three unknown stresses (rx, ry, sxy) in the Cartesian (x, y)
frame of reference (Figure 2b). The stress components are
assumed to vary linearly within each element. In contrast
to the conventional FE method, each node is unique to
a particular element, so that stress discontinuities may occur
along the shared edges between the elements. The suction
caisson is discretized into two-node beam elements connec-
ted by one-node joint elements (of no physical dimension).
Each node is unique to a particular element and is associated
with three unknown degrees (two forces and one moment)
(Figure 2c). The stresses are assumed to vary linearly along
the structural elements. From the definition, it is also
assumed that the beam elements carry only distributed stres-
ses and that the joint elements carry only point forces. The
soil-structure interface is modeled by the discontinuities
between the triangular and beam elements (Figure 2d).
Lower bound analysis is formulated as a linear program-
ming problem with an objective function subjected to several
constraints (Table 1). The constraints of equalities and
inequalities are set by the statically admissible stress field
subjected to equilibrium (within soil and structural elements
and along discontinuities and soil structure interfaces), stress
boundary conditions and the yield criterion. A linearized
Tresca yield criterion is applied in this paper (Figure 2e),
offering the convenience of linear programming and giving
the analysis a rigorous lower (interior polygon) or upper
(exterior polygon) bound. A 24-sided polygon is used for
both the upper and lower bounds with the consideration
of accuracy and efficiency. Sloan (1988a) describes the
constraint formulations in more detail.
The objective function of the lower bound is to maximize
the driving force that leads to failure under the constraints of
a statically admissible stress field. In suction caisson analysis,
the critical driving forces are the lateral loads and moments
sent to the caissons by the supporting structures. The loads
are a combination of wind and waves. Finally, the linear
programming problem is solved using the active set
algorithm (Sloan 1988b).
Upper Bound Analysis
The type of soil and structure discretization used in lower
bound analysis is also used in upper bound analysis
(Figure 2b). Each node of a beam or a triangular element
has two unknown velocities in the X and Y directions.
A joint element has three unknown velocities (an additional
angular velocity w enables the formation of plastic hinges
along the structure, as shown in Figure 2c). The velocity field
varies linearly within the elements. Due to the uniqueness of
each node to a particular element, velocity discontinuities
are allowed along the shared edges. The discontinuities
between the soil and caisson shown in Figure 2d enable slip
 4 H. Wang and X. Cheng
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015

Fig. 2. Problem discretization for caisson foundations and summary of plane-strain elements in numerical limit analysis: (a) prob-
lem discretization; (b) soil elements of numerical limit analysis; (c) structural elements of numerical limit analysis; (d) modeling for
soil-structure interface; and (e) polygonal representation of Tresca yield criterion.

Table 1. Solution of limit analyses as linear programming problems

Lower Bound Upper Bound

MAX. fCT Rg MIN. fCT2 K þCT3 Ug

Subject To: Subject To:
A1 R ¼ b1 (Equilibrium within elements) A11U-A12 K ¼ 0 (Plastic flow within elements)
A2 R ¼ b2 (Equilibrium along stress discontinuities) A21U-A22 U ¼ 0 (Plastic flow in velocity discontinuities)
A3 Rb3 (Linearized yield criterion) A31U ¼ B31 (Velocity boundary conditions)
A4 R ¼ b4 (Stress boundary conditions) A41U ¼ B41 (Additional constraints due to objective function)
K  0, U  0
Where R is the global vector of nodal stresses; Ai, Bi, Where U, K and U are global vectors of nodal velocities, plastic
C are constraint matrices (i ¼ 1,2,3,4) multipliers and subsidiary tangential velocity jumps, respectively; Aij, Bij,
Ci are constraint matrices (i ¼ 1,2,3,4; j ¼ 1,2)
 Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons
or separation to occur. No separation is allowed in the
suction caisson analysis.
Upper bound analysis is subjected to a kinematically
admissible velocity field, which is defined by the constraints
of strain and velocity compatibility, velocity boundary
conditions and the associated flow rules (Table 1). Sloan
and Kleeman (1995) detailed the constraint formulations.
The objective function of the upper bound is obtained by
equating the rate of work done by external loads with
the internal power dissipation. The external work rate of
the problems discussed in this paper is caused by: (1) the
hydraulic pressure applied on the sea bed and the caisson
cap; (2) the gravity force of the soil mass and caisson; and
(3) the lateral load and moment acting on the caisson cap:
Wext ¼ Whyd þ Wg þ WH þ WM ð1Þ
The internal power dissipates due to (1) plastic
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
deformation within the soil elements and along the disconti-
nuities; and (2) tangential slip along the soil-structure
interfaces:
Wint ¼ Wele þ Wdis þ Wssi ð2Þ
Due to the assumption of a rigid suction caisson, no
energy dissipation occurs within the structural elements.
The aim of the upper bound is to minimize the collapse
load, which in this case is represented by MINfWH þ WMg.
The linear programming is solved by the active set
algorithm, which was originally designed for the lower
bound but appears to be quite efficient for the upper bound
(Sloan 1988b; Sloan and Kleeman 1995).
Inclined Pullout Capacity of the EPR
Centrifuge Model
The LCPC performed a series of EPR centrifuge model tests,
which were supplied by Exxon Production Research
Company (Clukey and Morrison 1993). The aim of the tests
was to analyze the pullout capacity and resulting failure
mechanisms of suction caisson foundations. This section
compares the model test data with the numerical limit
analysis results. The embedment ratio of the caissons is 2.05,
which is not between 0.5 and 1.0, as is usually the case for wind
turbine foundations. Nevertheless, the comparison validates
the ability of numerical limit analysis to deal with the complex
loading conditions of suction caisson foundations.
Figure 3 shows the simplified geometrical condition at the
scale of a prototype caisson. The length of the side walls
is 31.2 m and the outside diameter of the cap is 15.2 m.
The wall thickness is 3 cm (neglected in numerical limit
analysis). The self-weight of the caisson is 0.22 MN. A Kao-
linite clay (Speswhite) is applied here. After consolidation,
the clay layer has a depth of 50 m and the water depth is
32.5 m. The load on the caisson is applied through a pin
connection at 8.5 m above the cap and inclines at an angle of 6 .
Once consolidated, the clay sample is transferred to the
centrifuge and accelerated to 100 g. Approximately 0.5-1
hours after 100 g is reached, the caisson is installed with
a combination of deadweight and suction. The centrifuge
is then returned to 1 g to allow the installation hardware
5
Fig. 3. EPR centrifuge test prototype dimensions (at100 g).
to be replaced with the loading equipment. The centrifuge
is then accelerated back to 100 g and the pore pressures
are given 24 hours to equilibrate. After a consolidation of
90–95% is achieved in the sample, the pullout test begins.
By linearizing the soil strength measured before the test,
the numerical model assumes that the isotropic undrained
shear strength ratio su=rvc’ ¼ 0.2, where su is the undrained
shear strength of clay and rvc’ is the current vertical effective
stress. In this case, rvc’ is equal to the product of the buoyant
unit weight of clay, cb ¼ 8.9 kN=m3, and the depth from the
mudline, z. Hence, by considering the idealistic state in
which the undrained shear strength increases linearly with
depth, su ¼ 1.78z. The self-weight of clay is considered in
analysis. The water pressure is considered a surcharge of
343 kPa on the surface of the clay and caisson cap. The clay
layer is discretized into standard plane-strain elements and
the caisson is formed by rigid structural elements. The skin
friction of the side walls is determined using an undrained
shear strength equal to 75% of the undrained shear strength
of the clay (a ¼ 0.75). During the test, this strength reduction
is verified by strain gauge pore pressure measurements
(Clukey and Morrison 1993). No gap is assumed to occur
between the cap and underlying soil or along the soil-
structure interfaces.
A regular mesh is used for upper bound analysis (Figure 4)
and a random mesh is applied in lower bound analysis
(Figure 5). For the lower bound, the randomness of the
mesh helps to better estimate the stress distribution when
the exact form is unknown. For the upper bound, a regular
mesh performs much better than a random mesh. In real-life
situations, the slip surface of clay is approximately a smooth
curve, which can be well represented by the continuous
straight edge of a regular mesh (for example, the edge of
the plastic zone in Figure 5a). In the case of a random mesh,
 6 H. Wang and X. Cheng
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
Fig. 4. Results of upper bound analysis for the EPR centrifuge
test: (a) failure mechanism; (b) plastic zone.
a smooth slip line is not possible because of the randomness
of the elements, resulting in an overestimation of the
collapse load. Analysis assumes a rigid caisson with no
failure at either the joint or beam elements. The influence
of installation is considered within the value of the skin
friction coefficient a. The reason for this approximation
will be discussed in detail later in this article.
Under these circumstances, the ultimate inclined load for
the lower bound is 7.153 MN and that for the upper bound
is 7.499 MN. Two alternative methods can be used to apply
the planar results to a cylinder caisson. The first approach is
to assume that the caisson acts as a planar structure with
a width of D. The second is to scale the wall and cap force
from the lower bound analysis separately to account for
the differences in the relative surface areas of the cap and
side walls. Here, we choose the former approach with width
D ¼ 15.2 m. Accordingly, the three-dimensional pullout
capacity determined by numerical limit analysis is 109.39
MN  Q  122.74 MN (with a bound error of 5.75%).
The calculated capacity can be compared with the
centrifuge test results (Clukey and Morrison 1993; Whittle
et al. 1996), the LEM solution from a study by Clukey
Fig. 5. Results of lower bound analysis for the EPR centrifuge
test: (a) major principal stress distribution; (b) minor principal
stress distribution; (c) direction of major principal stress to
the vertical.
and Morrison (1993) and the upper bound limit solution
using the method proposed by Aubeny et al. (2003) in
Table 2. There is good agreement between the analysis
results and test data, although one test point falls out of
the bound range with an error of 15.6%. The solution used
by Aubeny et al. (2003) agrees with the upper bound analysis
results (with an error of 2.3%). The LEM solution may
underestimate the ultimate capacity.
Figure 4 shows the results of upper bound numerical limit
analysis. Figure 4a shows that the failure mechanism of the
caisson involves an inclined sliding and a rigid rotation cen-
tered at a depth of approximately 22.5 m under the mudline.
Figure 4b shows the plastic zone and velocity vectors of the
clay. The plastic zone (the white regions) represents loca-
tions at which the state of the clay reaches the undrained
 Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons 7
Table 2. Comparison between EPR centrifuge test results and solutions by numerical limit analyses, LEM, and upper bound limit
analysis
Solution by
Centrifuge Centrifuge Centrifuge Numerical Limit Upper Bound
Test Resulta Test Resultb Test Resultc Analyses LEM Solutiond Limit Solutione

Pullout Capacity 92.3 108.5 120.4 UB: 122.74 97.7 119.96

(MN) - -- -- -- -- -- -- -
LB: 109.39
a&d
From Clukey and Morrison (1993).
b&c
From Whittle et al. (1996).
e
Calculated using the method proposed by Aubeny et al. (2003).

shear strength. The contour of the plastic zone in the foundation, and that from wind is 1 MN and acts at 90 m
front (the positive direction is defined by the horizontal above the foundation. Therefore, the total lateral load can
component of the pullout force) is mainly vertical and that be represented by a 4 MN force acting at 30 m above the
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015

at the back extends in an angle of approximately 45 . This
is not a plastic zone of symmetry, as other researchers have
suggested (e.g., Murff and Hamilton 1993), indicating that
the former upper bound plastic limit solutions may result
in errors when estimating the failure mechanism.
Lower bound analysis provides the distributions of
major and minor principal stress (Figure 5a; 5b) and the
direction of the major principal stress to the vertical d
(Figure 5c). Stress concentration develops near the tip of
the front and back walls (mainly at the back wall), which
may be the weak region of the clay layer under this typical
loading condition (see Figure 5a; 5b). The uplift loading
causes a vertical release of stress in the soil elements
directly beneath the caisson. At the failure point, the
vertical stress component of these soil elements acts as
the minor principal stress rather than as the major principal
stress (see Figure 5c). A zone of passive failure occurs
outside the front wall (with reference to Figure 4a), with
a degree of 90 of the major principal stress to the vertical.
In the back wall, this angle only occurs around the tip.
The rotational angle of the principal stress suggests that
further analysis considering the anisotropy of the clay
may lead to more accurate results.
foundation, which leads to a 120 MNm overturning
moment. The vertical load is the self-weight of the wind
turbine, which is 6 MN in this case.
The water depth is assumed to be 20 m. The diameter of
the suction caisson is usually 20–25 m (Houlsby et al.
2005b). In this section, 20 m is chosen as the diameter for
all of the caissons. Embedment ratios (L=D) of 0.5, 0.75,
and 1.0 are discussed, indicating lengths of 10, 15, and
20 m for the caisson walls.
The soft clay at Bothkennar is unusual in that it is
remarkably uniform, with its engineering properties being
consistent across the site and increasing linearly with the
depth (Nash et al. 1992). According to the in situ vane tests
described by Nash et al. (1992), the average vane strength
profile is given by
su ðkPaÞ ¼ 14 þ 2:3  zðmÞ ð3Þ
where su is the undrained shear strength of the clay at differ-
ent depths. The buoyant unit weight of clay is 7.0 kN=m3.

Estimation of the Ultimate State of a 3.5 MW Wind

Turbine Foundation
General Introduction
The purpose of the simulation is to estimate the ultimate
state of wind turbine foundations in actual working
conditions and the failure envelope of suction caissons with
different embedment ratios. A typical 3.5 MW wind turbine
is discussed according to the typical offshore conditions
occurring at Bothkennar (Figure 6). A loading condition
typical of the North Sea is obtained from Houlsby et al.
(2005a). The lateral load is a combination of wind and
waves. The load from waves is usually much larger than that
from wind. However, the wind load is acting on a much
higher point, making it the major component of the over-
turning moment. In the case of Bothkennar, the load from Fig. 6. Typical situation of a 3.5 MW offshore wind turbine
waves is approximately 3 MN and acts at 10 m above the at Bothkennar.
 8 H. Wang and X. Cheng
No tension cut-offs are assumed for the undrained strength
of the clay.
Lower bound analysis uses a high density of elements
around the caisson, especially at the caisson tips, where
stress concentration may occur. Extension elements are
applied to ensure the statically admissible stress field in half
space (Ukritchon et al. 2003). A regular mesh is used for the
upper bound analysis.
The analysis assumes that no gap occurs between the cap
and underlying soil or along the soil-structure interfaces.
The skin friction coefficient a (mainly relating to the
installation procedure and material properties) is assumed to
be 1.0 in the following sections, but is discussed in detail later.
Ultimate Bearing Capacity and Failure Envelope
The failure envelope approach has recently been adopted to
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
express the capacity of shallow foundations (e.g., Bransby
and Yun 2009; Achmus et al. 2013; Hung and Kim 2014).
The loads contributing to failure are plotted in the
horizontal-moment (H-M) load space (if the vertical load
(V) is assumed to be constant), thus forming a failure envel-
ope. Load states within the failure envelope do not cause
failure, while those on the envelope do. Therefore, a simple
design method involves comparing the applied load with
failure envelopes in the load space to ensure that the chosen
foundation design has an adequate safety margin. Numerical
limit analysis is used to investigate the failure envelopes of
suction caissons with different embedment ratios.
Given the geological situation described in the previous
section and the lateral load H, self-weight V and overturning
moment M acting at the center of the caisson cap, the failure
envelopes of suction caissons in H-M space are obtained and
plotted in Figure 7. As defined in Figure 2a, both H and M
are positive in order to achieve the combined extreme state.
Figure 7 shows that the failure envelopes vary signifi-
cantly according to different embedment ratios. In all of
the cases, the lateral load increment leads to a reduction in
Fig. 7. H-M failure envelopes of caisson foundations with
different embedment ratios.
moment capacity and vice versa. As expected, a larger
embedment ratio leads to a larger envelope. The pure lateral
capacity H0 (when the moment is zero) of L=D ¼ 1.0 is 29%
larger than that of L=D ¼ 0.75 and 77% larger than that of
L=D ¼ 0.5, and the pure moment capacity M0 (when the
lateral load is zero) of L=D ¼ 1.0 is 55% higher than that
of L=D ¼ 0.75 and 172% higher than that of L=D ¼ 0.5.
These results indicate that elongation of the caisson walls
has a more obvious effect on resisting moments than on
resisting lateral loads.
Figure 8 plots the normalized failure envelopes of the
means of the upper and lower bound results, where M0 is
the pure moment capacity and H0 is the pure horizontal
capacity. The results are compared with the FEM results
produced by Bransby and Yun (2009) (FEM-1) and Hung
and Kim (2014) (FEM-2). In their analyses, the soil was
modeled as an elastic perfectly plastic material and the foun-
dations were modeled as solid, rigid bodies. The two FEM
calculations assume that V ¼ 0. Although the strength para-
meters of the three analyses are different, the comparison is
worthwhile. According to Figure 8, the normalized failure
envelopes vary according to the different embedment ratios.
The gaps between the envelopes revealed by the numerical
limit analysis are relatively small compared with the FEM
results. Although the shapes of L=D ¼ 1.0 determined by
FEM and the numerical limit analysis are quite similar,
those of L=D ¼ 0.5 show some differences, perhaps due
to the difference in the vertical load and soil conditions.
Factor of Safety
The factor of safety (FOS) is the ratio of the ultimate
capacity to the applied load in relation to the same
self-weight and M=H ratio. The applied load of the wind tur-
bine is supposed to be a 4-MN lateral force added to the pole
30 m above the mudline, as shown in Figure 6 and by the star
point at (4, 120) in Figure 7. The ultimate capacity is reached
Fig. 8. Normalized failure envelopes of caisson foundations
in H-M space.
 Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons 9
Table 3. Factor of safety for suction caisson foundation Figure 9 plots the specific failure mechanisms. If the moment
dominates, then the failure mechanism is a rigid body rotation
FOS LB Mean UB Bound Errora with its center located at a certain depth under the cap (Points
A and D). If the lateral load dominates or the lateral load and
L=D ¼ 1.0 4.56 4.95 5.35 7.94%
moment combine, the failure mechanism involves both a rigid
L=D ¼ 0.75 3.16 3.42 3.68 7.59%
L=D ¼ 0.5 2.01 2.14 2.28 6.50%
body rotation and a lateral sliding (Points B, C, E, and F).
a
For the points on a failure envelope of a certain embedment
Calculation of bound error: 0.5 (UB-LB)=Mean..
ratio, as H increases (e.g., from A to C or from D to F): (1)
more of the ground surface in front of the caisson heaves
by maximizing the external load under the constant while that behind the caisson settles; and (2) the depth of
self-weight and M=H ratio, represented by the intersections the external load’s influence becomes shallower, suggesting
between the dashed line and the failure envelopes of each that the failure mechanism tends to be rather horizontal than
embedment ratio in Figure 7. vertical.
Table 3 indicates that, in all three of the cases, the system
is able to resist the extreme load with an FOS larger than 2.
The FOS increases with the embedment ratio. Meanwhile, Plastic Zone
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015

the effect of an increment from 0.75 to 1.0 is not as obvious
as that of an increment from 0.5 to 0.75. Engineers and
researchers must set the expected FOS value before the
design to decide the embedment ratio of suction caisson
foundations in relation to the performance cost ratio. In
all of the cases, the bound error is within 8%, suggesting
that the mean of the upper and lower bounds is a good
estimation of the true ultimate bearing capacity.
Failure Mechanism
The upper bound analysis shows that different failure
mechanisms prevail at different points on the failure envelope.
Determining which part of the clay layer will fail is always a
major issue in a stability analysis. A plastic zone represents
clay failure in the upper bound analysis. Figure 9 clearly
shows that caissons with larger embedment ratios take great-
er advantage of deep-level clay, resulting in a deeper plastic
zone and a larger bearing capacity. The magnitude of the lat-
eral load mainly affects the plastic zone horizontally and
that of the overturning moment affects the zone vertically
(compare A with C or D with F).
When moment loading prevails (Points A and D), the
plastic zone is in agreement with the plastic limit approach
proposed by Murff and Hamilton (1993). It assumes a sur-
face failure wedge, a plane-strain flow-around zone and a

Fig. 9. Upper bound mesh and deformation patterns for caisson foundations of L=D ¼ 1.0 and L=D ¼ 0.5 at different ultimate
states (Points A, B, C, and D, E, F in Figure 7).
 10
Fig. 10. Failure mechanism proposed by Murff and Hamilton
(1993).
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
spherical failure surface for the failure mechanism of piles
and caissons (Figure 10). Bransby and Yun (2009) described
this as a scoop-slide mechanism. With the increase of the lat-
eral load and the corresponding decrease of the moment, the
failure mechanism gradually translates into a scoop mech-
anism with an inverted scoop within the caisson (Point C
and F), also known as an internal Hansen mechanism
(Bransby and Yun 2009).
Researchers have assumed that the soil within a caisson
remains rigid during undrained loading (e.g., Tani and Craig
1995; Bransby and Randolph 1998). According to this
assumption, a caisson may possess the same bearing capacity
as an equivalent solid embedded foundation. However, this
is not always the case for shallow foundations (also proved
by Barari and Ibsen (2012)). The ability to ‘‘trap’’ soil
depends largely on the embedment ratio and skin friction
of the soil-structure interface (as will be described later). A
smaller embedment ratio causes more of the soil plug area
to deform (compare A with D, B with E, or C with F),
leading to a more significant reduction in capacity compared
with solid foundations.
Stress Analysis
According to the numerical lower bound analysis, for all
of the cases in which the lateral load prevails, the back
wall suffers a larger lateral load than the front wall. For
example, for point T in Figure 7, the back wall contributes
to 60.2% of the total lateral capacity and the front wall
contributes to 37.0%. From a structural viewpoint, the
back wall will collapse before the front wall if possible.
However, when the overturning moment prevails, the
front wall contributes more to the moment capacity than
the back wall.
Figure 11 compares the shear stress distribution along the
side walls between L=D ¼ 1.0 and L=D ¼ 0.5 under a pure
lateral load (Points T and H in Figure 7). sm stands for the
total shear stress of both sides of a wall (down is positive).
In both cases, the front wall suffers a larger total shear force
than the back wall. For L=D ¼ 1.0, full shear strength
is almost reached along both the front and back walls at
a depth of 12.5 m. Due to the limited length, full shear
H. Wang and X. Cheng
Fig. 11. Comparison of shear stress distribution along the side
walls between L=D ¼ 1.0 and L=D ¼ 0.5 under only lateral load
(Points T, H in Figure 7).
strength is not reached for L=D ¼ 0.5. Therefore, it is
extremely unsafe to simply apply the undrained shear strength
as the friction along soil-structure interfaces in a design with-
out also considering the differences in the embedment ratio.
The major and minor principal stress distributions in
Figure 12 (Point S) indicate that the clay layer fails under
biaxial compression. For the pure moment loading situation
(Point R), there is a stress concentration at the tip of the
back wall. For the cases in which both moment and lateral
loads or only a lateral load is applied (Points S and T), the
stress concentrates at the tip of the front wall. Therefore,
in engineering design, it is essential to analyze the weak
region of a system according to different loading conditions.
The stress distribution within the caisson is also different
for the three cases shown in Figure 12. A dominant moment
leads to an ‘‘inclined distribution’’ and a dominant lateral
load leads to a ‘‘horizontal distribution.’’ A zone of passive
failure occurs outside the front wall at 90 of the major
principal stress to the vertical (Point S). d remains at 0
for the zones outside the back wall. The d of the clay within
the caisson does not stay at 0 but varies from 0 to 90 ,
again indicating the importance of considering strength
anisotropy in further research.
The Influence of the Skin Friction Coefficient
on Bearing Capacity
The previous analysis does not consider the influence of the
installation procedure and assumes that the full shear
strength of clay can be achieved along the side walls. Actu-
ally, the penetration of a suction caisson during installation
may cause disturbance to the clay layer. Furthermore, due to
the slightly drained condition after installation, the effective
stress of the clay inside and outside the caisson changes as
 Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons 11
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015

Fig. 12. Lower bound mesh and principal stress distributions for caisson foundations of L=D ¼ 1.0 at different ultimate states
(Points R, S, T in Figure 7).

the excess pore water pressure dissipates. Experience has within 15%. The reduction of the skin friction weakens the
shown that the affected area is mainly distributed along bond between the caisson and clay layer, causing more
the caisson walls and that the area as a whole suffers a plasticity within the caisson and a weaker influence on the
reduction in undrained shear strength. Renzi et al. (1991) deep layers (Figure 14). Mana et al. (2010) proved via FEM
and Renzi and Maggioni (1994) assumed that the influence that reductions in the vertical capacity of a suction caisson
of the changed undrained shear strength of the area could
be represented by a reduction of skin friction along the walls.
Fuglsang and Steensen-Bach (1991) and Renzi et al. (1991)
suggested that the skin friction could be calculated by
multiplying the average undrained

shear strength by the skin
friction coefficient a: f ¼ Su a, where f is the decreased shear
strength of the side walls (both sides), 0  a  1, considering
both the influence of the installation and the material
properties along the soil-structure interfaces. Therefore, by
using the same geological condition described earlier and
a constant ratio of M=H ¼ 30, the ultimate capacity (P) under
different values of a is obtained. a usually stands between 0.7
and 1.0. However, to fully observe the influence of a on the
bearing capacity, a range from 0 to 1 is analyzed here.
Figure 13 shows the results of the ultimate capacity
under different values of a compared with a ¼ 1. The figure
indicates that the skin friction coefficient has a significant
influence on the ultimate capacity of the caisson and
that the capacity drops faster as a decreases in all three of
the cases. In common situations, where a is between 0.7 and Fig. 13. Normalized ultimate capacity of caisson foundations
1.0, the decreased amplitude of the ultimate capacity remains with different skin friction coefficients.
 12
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
Fig. 14. Upper bound plastic zones of caisson foundation
with different skin friction coefficients (L=D ¼ 1.0): (a) a ¼ 1.0;
(b) a ¼ 0.5.
along with a decreasing a followed a straight line, as opposed
to the curves shown in Figure 13. This result indicates
that capacity decreases caused by skin friction are more
complicated under combined loading than under vertical
loading and that special care is required in engineering design.
Conclusions
This article applied numerical limit analysis to investigate
the undrained combined loading capacity of the suction
caisson foundations of offshore wind turbines. Simulations
were conducted for normally consolidated clay, in which
the soil strength increased linearly with depth. The following
main conclusions can be drawn:
. Based on the back-calculation of the inclined pullout
capacity of the EPR centrifuge tests, the numerical limit
analysis estimated the test results well, with an error bound
of 5.75%. An asymmetric plastic zone was obtained,
indicating that the earlier upper bound limit approaches
using symmetric plastic zones might have contained errors.
. The analysis proved the ability of suction caissons to func-
tion as foundations for offshore wind turbines from a
bearing capacity viewpoint. For a typical 3.5 MW offshore
wind turbine at Bothkennar, Scotland, the safety factors
of caissons with a diameter of 20 m and embedment ratios
of 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 were 2.14, 3.42, and 4.95, respectively.
H. Wang and X. Cheng
. The shapes of the failure envelopes in H-M space varied
according to different embedment ratios. Elongation of
the caisson walls had a more obvious effect on resisting
moments than on resisting lateral loads.
. As the lateral load increased along the failure envelope,
the failure mechanism transitioned from a scoop-slide to
an internal Hansen mechanism. Compared with equiva-
lent solid foundations, a decrease in capacity may have
occurred due to the plasticity of clay within the caisson.
The reduction became more significant as the embedment
ratio decreased.
. The undrained shear strength of clay along the walls of
a caisson with relatively small embedment ratios may
not be fully reached. The caisson would be extremely
unsafe if the full shear strength were used in its design.
. The skin friction of caisson walls had a significant
influence on the ultimate capacity of the caisson. There-
fore, the effects of the installation procedures and material
properties should be taken seriously to make accurate
estimations.
This analysis ignored a range of complexities, such as the
plasticity of structural elements, the potential water-filled
gaps along the soil-structure interfaces, and the strength
anisotropy of the clay. However, the general conclusions
presented here should be suitable for the design of suction
caisson foundations under combined loading and complex
geological conditions.
Acknowledgements
The first author is grateful to Professor Andrew Whittle of
MIT for his guidance and generous help with the subject.
The upper and lower bound codes used in this article were
provided by MIT and originally developed by Professor
Scott W. Sloan from the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Funding
Part of this article was finished while the first author was
visiting the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with the
support of Huang Yanfang=Xinhe Educational Funds.
References
Achmus, M., C. T. Akdag, and K. Thieken. 2013. Load-bearing
behavior of suction bucketfoundations in sand. Applied Ocean
Research 43: 157–165.
Anderheggen, E. and H. Knopfel. 1972. Finite element limit analysis
using linear programming. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 8: 1413–1431.
Aubeny, C. P., S. W. Han, and J. D. Murff. 2003. Inclined load
capacity of suction caissons. International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 27: 1235–1254.
Barari, A. and L. B. Ibsen. 2012. Undrained response of bucket
foundations to moment loading. Applied Ocean Research 36: 12–21.
Bottero, A., R. Negre, J. Pastor, and S. Turgeman. 1980. Finite
element method and limit analysis theory for soil mechanics
problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing 22: 131–149.
Bransby, M. F. and M. F. Randolph. 1998. Combined loading of
skirted foundations. Géotechnique 48(5): 637–655.
 Undrained Bearing Capacity of Suction Caissons
Bransby, M. F. and G. J. Yun. 2009. The undrained capacity of skirted
strip foundations under combined loading. Géotechnique 59(2):
115–125.
Byrne, B. W. and G. T. Houlsby. 2003. Foundations for offshore wind
turbines. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical,
Physical, and Engineering Sciences 361: 2909–2930.
Cassidy, M. J., B. W. Byrne, and G. T. Houlsby. 2002. Modelling the
behaviour of circular footings under combined loading on loose
carbonate sand. Géotechnique 52(10): 705–712.
Clukey, E. C., C. P. Aubeny, and J. D. Murff. 2004. Comparison of
analytical and centrifuge model tests for suction caissons subjected
to combined loads. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering 126(4): 364–367.
Clukey, E. C. and M. J. Morrison. 1993. A centrifuge and analytical
study to evaluate suction caissons for TLP applications in the Gulf
of Mexico. Design and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and
Piers in Soil and Soft Rock, ASCE, NY: 141–156.
Fuglsang, L. D. and J. O. Steensen-Bach. 1991. Breakout resistance of
suction piles in clay. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Downloaded by [Tsinghua University] at 00:26 09 September 2015
Centrifuge Modelling, Boulder, CO, 153–159.
Houlsby, G. T., L. B. Ibsen, and B. W. Byrne. 2005a. Suction caissons
for wind turbines. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, ISFOG 2005:
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics: 75–93.
Houlsby, G. T., B. W. Byrne, J. Huxtable, and R. B. Kelly. 2005b.
Field trials of suction caissons in clay for offshore wind turbine
foundations. Géotechnique 55(4): 287–296.
Hung, L. C. and S. R. Kim. 2012. Evaluation of vertical and horizontal
bearing capacities of bucket foundations in clay. Ocean Engineering
52: 75–82.
Hung, L. C. and S. R. Kim. 2014. Evaluation of undrained bearing
capacities of bucket foundations under combined loads. Marine
Georesources & Geotechnology 32(1): 76–92.
Ibsen, L. B., A. Barari, and K. A. Larsen. 2014a. Adaptive plasticity
model for bucket foundations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
140(2): 361–373.
Ibsen, L. B., K. A. Larsen, and A. Barari. 2014b. Calibration of failure
criteria for bucket foundations on drained sand under general
loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
140(7): 04014033.
Larsen, K. A., L. B. Ibsen, and A. Barari. 2013. Modified expression
for the failure criterion of bucket foundations subjected to com-
bined loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 50(12): 1250–1259.
Lesny, K. 2010. Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines: Tools for
Planning and Design. Essen, Germany: VGE Verlag GmbH.
Liu, M., M. Yang, and H. Wang. 2014. Bearing behavior of
wide-shallow bucket foundation for offshore wind turbines in
drained silty sand. Ocean Engineering 82: 169–179.
Lyamin, A. V. and S. W. Sloan. 2002. Lower bound limit analysis using
non-linear programming. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 55: 573–611.
Lysmer, J. 1970. Limit analysis of plane problems in soil mechanics.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 96: 1311–1334.
Mana, D. S. K., S. Gourvenec, and M. F. Randolph. 2010. A numerical
study of the vertical bearing capacity of skirted foundations.
View publication stats
13
Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II, ISFOG 2010. Gourvenec, S.
and D. White (eds.), 433–438. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
Murff, J. D. and J. M. Hamilton. 1993. P-ultimate for undrained analy-
sis of laterally loaded piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
119(1): 91–107.
Nash, D. F. T., J. J. M. Powell, and I. M. Lloyd. 1992. Initial investiga-
tions of the soft clay test site at Bothkennar. Géotechnique 42(2):
163–181.
Renzi, R. and W. Maggioni. 1994. Modeling the behavior of skirt piles.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Behavior of
Offshore Structures, Cambridge, MA, 77–85.
Renzi, R., W. Maggioni, and F. Smits. 1991. A centrifugal study on
the behavior of suction piles. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Centrifuge Modelling, Boulder, CO, 169–176.
Salgado, R., A. V. Lyamin, S. W. Sloan, and H. S. Yu. 2004. Two- and
three-dimensional bearing capacity of foundations in clay.
Géotechnique 57(8): 647–662.
Sloan, S. W. 1988a. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements
and linear programming. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 12(1): 61–77.
Sloan, S. W. 1988b. A steepest edge active set algorithm for solving
sparse linear programming problems. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 26(12): 2671–2685.
Sloan, S. W. 1989. Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements and
linear programming. International Journal for Numerical and Ana-
lytical Methods in Geomechanics 13: 263–282.
Sloan, S. W. and P. W. Kleeman. 1995. Upper bound limit analysis
using discontinuous velocity fields. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 127: 293–314.
Tani, K. and W. H. Craig. 1995. Bearing capacity of circular founda-
tions on soft clay of strength increasing with depth. Soils and
Foundations 35(4): 21–35.
Ukritchon, B., A. J. Whittle, and S. W. Sloan. 1998. Undrained limit
analyses for combined loading of strip footings on clay. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(3): 265–276.
Ukritchon, B., A. J. Whittle, and S. W. Sloan. 2003. Undrained stab-
ility of braced excavation in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(8): 738–755.
Whittle, A. J., J. T. Germaine, D. F. Cauble, M. A. Geer, and B.
Ukritchon. 1996. Behavior of Suction Caisson Foundations Final
Report. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Yuan, Y. and A. J. Whittle. 2013. Evaluation and prediction of 17th
Street Canal I-wall stability using numerical limit analyses. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(6):
841–852.
Zhang, J. H., Z. Y. Chen, and F. Li. 2010. Three dimensional limit
analysis of suction bucket foundations. Ocean Engineering 37:
790–799.
Zhang, J. H., L. M. Zhang, and X. B. Lu. 2007. Centrifuge
modeling of suction bucket foundations for platforms under
ice-sheet-induced cyclic lateral loadings. Ocean Engineering
34: 1069–1079.
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.