0
Research Papers: Ocean Engineering

Seepage Induced Soil Failure and its Mitigation During Suction Caisson Installation in Silt

[+] Author and Article Information
Lizhong Wang

e-mail: wlzzju@163.com

Luqing Yu

e-mail: yuluqingcugb@126.com

Zhen Guo

e-mail: nehzoug@163.com
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture
and Research Center of Coastal
and Urban Geotechnical Engineering,
Zhejiang University,
Yuhangtang Road 866,
Hangzhou 310058,
Zhejiang, China

Zhenyu Wang

College of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Zhejiang University,
Yuhangtang Road 866,
Hangzhou 310058,
Zhejiang, China
e-mail: wzyu@zju.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 16, 2013; final manuscript received October 8, 2013; published online November 12, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Dong S. Jeng.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 136(1), 011103 (Nov 12, 2013) (11 pages) Paper No: OMAE-13-1036; doi: 10.1115/1.4025677 History: Received April 16, 2013; Revised October 08, 2013

Suction caisson is an advantaged foundation option for offshore wind turbines in sandy and clayey soils. In this work, a series of model tests were conducted to investigate the installation behavior of a suction caisson in silty soils. The test results showed that the total soil resistance to the caisson increased steadily with penetration depth in the beginning of the suction-assisted penetration (SP) process, but rose slowly or remained constant after reaching a certain depth with excessive soil heave. This failure mechanism, which was quite different from that identified in sandy or clayey soils, was caused by the seepage induced silt soil failure in the caisson, such as erosion, liquefaction or piping, with reducing internal side friction and tip resistance. To suppress this type of failure, a special filtration method was introduced to help caisson penetration. The test results showed that such filtration technique had the advantage of reducing the height of soil heave and prevent seepage induced soil failure in the silt, but also suppress the under pressure effects on reducing the soil resistance. Numerical simulations were also performed to aid in understanding the observed test results and mitigation mechanisms.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Byrne, B. W., and Houlsby, G. T., 2003, “Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 361, pp. 2909–2930. [CrossRef]
Guo, Z., Wang, L. Z., Yuan, F., and Li, L. L., 2012, “Model Tests on Installation Techniques of Suction Caissons in a Soft Clay Seabed,” Appl. Ocean Res., 34, pp. 116–125. [CrossRef]
API RP 2SK, 2005, Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, 3rd ed., Washington, D.C.
Det Norske Veritas, 2005, Geotechnical Design and Installation of Suction Anchors in Clay, DNV Recommended Practice RP-E303, Høvik.
Erbrich, C. T., and Tjelta, T. I., 1999, “Installation of Bucket Foundation and Suction Caissons in Sand-Geotechnical Performance,” Proceedings of the 31th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC 10990, pp. 725–735.
Senpere, D., and Auvergne, G. A., 1982, “Suction Anchor Piles-A Proven Alternative to Driving or Drilling,” Proceedings of the 14th annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC4206, pp. 483–493.
Tjelta, T. I., 2001, “Suction Piles: Their Position and Applications Today,” Proceedings of the 11th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway, June 17–22, Vol. 11, pp. 1–6.
Chen, W., Zhou, H., and Randolph, M. F., 2009, “Effect of Installation Method on External Shaft Friction of Caissons in Soft Clay,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE, 135(5), pp. 605–615. [CrossRef]
Whittle, A. J., Germaine, J. T., and Cauble, D. F., 1998, “Behavior of Miniature Suction Caissons in Clay,” Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behavior’98, London, pp. 279–300.
Rauch, A. F., Olson, R. E., Luke, A. M., and Mecham, E. C., 2003, “Measured Response During Laboratory Installation of Suction Caissons,” Proceedings of the 13th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, May 25–30, pp. 780–787.
Yang, S. L., Grande, L. O., Qi, J. F., and Feng, X. L., 2003, “Excessive Soil Plug and Anti-failure Mechanism of Bucket Foundation During Penetration by Suction,” Proceedings of the 13th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, May 25–30, pp. 659–664.
Tran, M. N., Randolph, M. F., and Airey, D.W., 2007, “Installation of Suction Caissons in Sand With Silt Layers,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE, 133(10), pp. 1183–1191. [CrossRef]
Tran, M. N., and Randolph, M. F., 2008, “Variation of Suction Pressure During Caisson Installation in Sand,” Géotechnique, 58(1), pp. 1–11. [CrossRef]
Houlsby, G. T., Ibsen, L. B., and Byrne, B.W., 2005, “Suction Caissons for Wind Turbines,” Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics: ISFOG, Perth, WA, Australia, pp. 75–93.
LeBlanc, C., 2009, “Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Support Structures,” Ph.D. thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
House, A. R., Randolph, M. F., and Watson, P. G., 2001, “In-Situ Assessment of Shear Strength and Consolidation Characteristics of Soft Sediments,” Proceedings of the OTRC 2001 Conference, Austin, TX, pp. 52–63.
Finnie, M. S., and Randolph, M. F., 1994, “Punch-through and Liquefaction Induced Failure of Shallow Foundations on Calcareous Sediments,” Proceedings of International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Structures, Boston, MA, pp. 217–230.
Houlsby, G. T., and Byrne, B. W., 2005(a), “Design Procedures for Installation of Suction Caissons in Clay and Other Materials,” Geotech. Eng., 158(2), pp. 75–82. [CrossRef]
Houlsby, G. T., and Byrne, B. W., 2005(b), “Design Procedures for Installation of Suction Caissons in Sand,” Geotech. Eng., 158(3), pp. 135–144. [CrossRef]
Anderson, K. H., Jostad, H. P., and Dyvik, R., 2008, “Penetration Resistance of Offshore Skirted Foundations and Anchors in Dense Sand,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE, 134(1), pp. 106–116. [CrossRef]
Senders, M., and Randolph, M. F., 2009, “CPT- based Method for the Installation of Suction Caissons in Sand,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE, 135(1), pp. 14–25. [CrossRef]
Palmeira, E. M., Fannin, R. J., and Vaid, Y. P., 1996, “A Study on the Behavior of Soil-geotextile Systems in Filtration Tests,” Can. Geotech. J., 33, pp. 899–912. [CrossRef]
Koerner, R. M., 1997, Designing With Geosynthetics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 761–792.
Wu, C. S., Hong, Y. S., Yan, Y. W., and Chang, B. S., 2006, “Soil-Nonwoven Geotextile Filtration Behavior Under Contact With Drainage Materials,” Geotextiles and Geomembrances, 24, pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Photo of the caisson model and (b) corresponding sketch

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Illustration of the soil tank and its bottom drainage system (a) soil tank and (b) drainage system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Site of the soil acquired and (b) particle distribution curve of the soil used in the test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Positions of the soil samples acquired and CPTs in the tank

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Apparatus of the cone penetration test and (b) cone resistance results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Model test equipment system (a) dead-weight loading rig and (b) suction installation apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Locations and dates of model caisson installation tests within the soil tank (a) SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, and JP and (b) SPF-1, SPF-2, and SPF-3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Penetration depth versus time in tests SP-1, SP-2, SP-3, and JP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Variations in suction pressure in tests SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Predicted and measured rate of seepage flow in tests SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3 (a) SP-1 (b) SP-2 (c) SP-3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Measured and predicted installation resistance with penetration depth

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Hydraulic gradient and soil resistance with penetration depth (a) SP-1 (b) SP-2 (c) SP-3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

(a) Photo of the filter layer applied in the test and (b) sketch of the filtration technique

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Penetration depth versus time in tests SPF-1, SPF-2, and SPF-3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Variations of suction pressure in tests SPF-1, SPF-2, and SPF-3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Soil resistance in tests SPF-1, SPF-2, and SPF-3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Equipotential lines for caisson with different filter layer permeabilities (a) without filtration (b) kf/k = 1/5 (c) kf/k = 1/10 (d) kf/k = 1/20

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In