Numerical Investigation of the Vertical Response of Bucket Foundations Supporting Offshore Wind Turbines in Sand

  • Tanmoy Kr. DebEmail author
  • Baleshwar Singh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)


The vertical response of bucket foundations embedded in medium dense and very dense sands was investigated employing finite element method. The effect of bucket length on the vertical load capacity was studied by considering three different foundation geometries, namely, surface circular foundation, bucket foundation and embedded solid foundation. The effect of soil plug on the end-bearing capacity was explored by comparing the vertical load behaviour of bucket and embedded solid foundations, while assuming zero skirt. The vertical capacities of all the considered geometries are noted to be higher in very dense sand, and the maximum vertical capacity is obtained in the case of embedded solid foundation. For bucket foundations, the ultimate vertical bearing capacity is noted to increase in near-linear manner with increasing skirt length. Due to the presence of soil plug inside the bucket foundation, the percentage reduction in end-bearing capacity compared to that of embedded solid foundation is found to be about 21–22% in medium dense sand and 18–19% in very dense sand. Plastic strain contour diagrams indicate surface flow failure mechanism for surface circular foundation, which then changes to confined deep flow failure mechanism with increasing skirt length. Based on the results of the numerical analyses, design expressions are obtained to estimate the vertical bearing capacity of bucket foundations embedded in sand.


Bucket foundation Finite element analysis Sand Vertical bearing capacity 


  1. 1.
    Abaqus Version 6.10, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp. Providence RI USA (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barari A, Ibsen LB, Taghavi Ghalesari A, Larsen KA (2016) Embedment effects on vertical bearing capacity of offshore bucket foundations on cohesionless soil. Int J Geomech 17(4):04016110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrne BW, Houlsby GT (2002) Experimental investigations of response of suction caissons to transient vertical loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(11):926–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    EAU (2004) Recommendations of the committee for waterfront structures: harbours and waterways. Ernst & SohnGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eid HT (2012) Bearing capacity and settlement of skirted shallow foundations on sand. Int J Geomech 13(5):645–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haddad A, Amin, R, Barari A (2018) Effect of embedment on the vertical capacity of bucket foundation in loose saturated sand: physical modeling. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 1–9Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houlsby GT, Byrne BW (2000) Suction caisson foundations for offshore wind turbines and anemometer masts. Wind Eng 24(4):249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mehravar M, Harireche O, Faramarzi A (2016) Evaluation of undrained failure envelopes of caisson foundations under combined loading. Appl Ocean Res 59(1):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park JS, Park D, Yoo JK (2016) Vertical bearing capacity of bucket foundations in sand. Ocean Eng 121(1):453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Villalobos F (2007) Bearing capacity of skirted foundations in sand. In: VI Congreso Chileno de Geotecnia, 28–30 Nov 2014, Valparaiso, 1–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations