Advertisement

A parametric study on the vertical pullout capacity of suction caisson foundation in cohesive soil

  • Suchit Kumar PatelEmail author
  • Baleshwar Singh
Technical Note
  • 181 Downloads

Abstract

The pullout capacity of suction caisson foundation plays a vital role in its field performance. This study presents numerical investigation on the vertical pullout capacity of suction caisson foundation in cohesive soil under both drained and undrained conditions. The influence of soil cohesion, internal friction angle and caisson aspect ratio on the ultimate vertical pullout capacity of suction caisson foundation has been investigated. It is noted that the upper limit of pullout capacity is governed by undrained condition and the lower limit by drained condition. The pullout capacity increases with increasing soil cohesion, friction angle and caisson aspect ratio when caisson diameter is kept constant, whereas it decreases with increasing caisson aspect ratio when caisson length is kept constant. Mathematical models have been developed for both drained and undrained pullout capacity. The pullout capacity values have been compared with those of available analytical and simplified relationships, and it has been found that the developed models can accurately predict the vertical pullout capacity of suction caisson foundation.

Keywords

Suction caisson foundation Vertical pullout capacity Cohesion Friction angle Caisson aspect ratio 

List of symbols

A

Area of caisson base

D

Caisson diameter

E

Young’s modulus of elasticity

f

Bearing capacity correction coefficient

K

Earth pressure coefficient

L

Caisson length

L/D

Caisson aspect ratio

Nc

Bearing capacity factor

OCR

Over-consolidation ratio

Pu

Ultimate pullout capacity

Pud

Ultimate pullout capacity under drained condition

Puud

Ultimate pullout capacity under undrained condition

t

Caisson wall thickness

Rinter

Interface between soil and caisson wall

Wc

Caisson weight

su

Undrained shear strength

su,avg

Average undrained shear strength

su,tip

Undrained shear strength at caisson tip

c

Soil cohesion

γsat

Saturated soil unit weight

γunsat

Unsaturated soil unit weight

γc

Caisson unit weight

γ′

Submersed unit weight of soil

σ′v,bottom

Vertical effective stress

ϕ

Soil friction angle

ψ

Dilation angle

ν

Poisson’s ratio

δ

Caisson displacement

α

Skin friction factor

ξs

Shape factor

ξd

Depth factor

ξe

Embedment factor

References

  1. 1.
    Iskander M, EI-Gharbawy S, Olson R (2002) Performance of suction caissons in sand and clay. Can Geotech J 39:576–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mackereth FJH (1958) A portable core sampler of lake deposits. Limnol Oceanogr 3(2):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Houlsby GT, Byrne BW (2000) Suction caisson foundation for offshore wind turbines and anemometer masts. Wind Eng 24(4):249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clukey EC, Morrison MJ, Gamier J, Corte JF (1995) The response of suction caisson in normally consolidated clay to cyclic TLP loading conditions. In: Proceedings of offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, pp 909–918Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen NH, Haar F, Rasmussen JL (1991) Soil structure interaction model for a suction pile platform. OMAE Offshore Technol 1(B):601–610Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clukey EC, Morrison MJ (1993) A centrifuge analytical study to evaluate suction caisson for TLP—application in Gulf of Mexico. In: Design and performance of deep foundations: piles and piers in soil and soft rock ASCE, pp 141–156Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deng W, Carter JP (2000) Uplift capacity of suction caisson in uniform soil. In: Geotechnical engineering, Melbourne, Australia, CD-RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng W, Carter JP (2002) A theoretical study of vertical uplift capacity of suction caissons. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 12(2):89–97Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Houlsby GT, Kelly RB, Byrne BW (2005) The tensile capacity of suction caisson in sand under rapid loading. In: Proceedings of 1st international symposium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics, Perth, Australia, pp 405–410Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsen KA, Ibsen LB, Barari A (2013) Modified expression for the failure criterion of bucket foundations subjected to combined loading. Can Geotech J 50(12):1250–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahman MS, Wang J, Deng W, Carter JP (2001) A neural network model for the uplift capacity of suction caissons. Comput Geotech 28:269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Renzi R, Maggioni W, Smits F, Manes V (1991) A centrifuge study on the behavior of suction pile. Centrifuge 91:169–176Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sgardeli CG (2006) A finite element analysis of the pullout capacity of suction caisson in clay. Master of engineering thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhu B, Zhang WL, Ying PP, Chen YM (2014) Deflection-based bearing capacity of suction caisson foundations of offshore wind turbines. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 140(5):04014013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cao J, Phillips R, Popescu R, Audibert JME, Al-Khafaji Z (2002) Penetration resistance of suction caissons in clay. In: Proceedings of the 12th international offshore and polar engineering conference, Kitakyushu, Japan, pp 800–806Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    House AR, Randolph MF (2001) Installation and pull-out capacity of stiffened suction caisson in cohesive sediments. In: Proceedings of 11th international and polar engineering conference, Stavanger, Norway, pp 574–580Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly RB, Byrne BW, Houlsby GT, Martin CM (2004) Tensile loading of model caisson foundations for structures on sand. In: Proceedings of 14th international offshore and polar engineering conference, Toulon, vol 2, pp 638–641Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taiebat HA, Carter JP (2005) A failure surface for caisson foundation in undrained soils. In: Proceedings of 1st international symposium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics, Perth, Australia, pp 289–295Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen W, Randolph MF (2007) Uplift capacity of suction caisson under sustained and cyclic loading in soft clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(11):1352–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Villalobos FA, Byrne BW, Houlsby GT (2010) Model testing of suction caisson in clay subjected to vertical loading. Appl Ocean Res 32:414–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibsen LB, Barari A, Larsen KA (2015) Effect of embedment on the plastic behavior of bucket foundations. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng ASCE 141(6):06015005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brinkgreve RBJ, Engin E, Swolfs WM (2012) Plaxis 2D 2012 reference manual. Delf University of Technology and Plaxis bv, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringBhagalpur College of EngineeringBhagalpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations