Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Evaluation of horizontal and moment bearing capacities of tripod bucket MARK

foundations in sand

Nghiem Xuan Trana, Le Chi Hungb,c, Sung-Ryul Kima,
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Dong-A University, 840 Hadan2-dong, Saha-gu, Busan 604-714, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
c
School of Physics, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Bearing capacities of tripod bucket foundations dier from those of single bucket foundations because of the
Tripod bucket foundation interaction among individual buckets of the tripod. This study analyzed the bearing capacities of tripod bucket
Bearing capacity foundations in medium and dense sands by performing a series of 3D nite element analyses. The sandy soil
Finite element analysis was modeled by using an elasto-plastic model following the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The Young's
Sandy ground
modulus of the sands increased with depth because of the stress-dependency of the modulus. Parametric studies
Oshore wind turbine
were performed, in which the spacing between each bucket, the embedded depth of the bucket, the bucket
diameter, and the magnitude of vertical loading were varied. Results showed that the horizontal bearing
capacities of tripod bucket foundations reached the maximum values at a spacing ratio of S/D=1.5 to 3.5 for the
foundation with an embedment ratio of L/D=0.5 to 1 (where S is the bucket spacing, D is the bucket diameter,
and L is the skirt length of the tripod bucket). However, the moment bearing capacities increased linearly as the
S/D ratios increased. Finally, bearing capacity equations were proposed in consideration of bucket spacing,
embedment depth, eect of foundation diameter and vertical load, and soil density.

1. Introduction the group eect on undrained bearing capacities of rigidly connected

Oshore wind turbines are being constructed and used in Korea,
and the construction of several oshore wind farms are being planned
at the west sea of the country. Studies on the foundations for oshore
wind turbines have been conducted extensively in European countries
(e.g., UK, Germany, and Denmark). In recent years, the majority of
foundations supporting oshore wind turbines have been monopiles,
tripod piles, and jacket structures. The cost of the foundation for an
oshore wind turbine accounts for approximately 35% of the total
construction cost (Byrne and Houlsby, 2003). Therefore, reducing the
cost of the foundation greatly contributes to the cost-eectiveness of
constructing an oshore wind turbine.
A potential alternative foundation is the bucket foundation, which
can be classied into two types: single (monopod) bucket foundation
and tripod bucket foundation. A tripod bucket foundation consists of
three single bucket foundations in a triangular shape. Single bucket
foundations have been extensively investigated in both sand and clay
soils (e.g., Hung and Kim, 2012; Hung and Kim, 2014a; Achmus et al.,
2013), whereas only a few studies have examined tripod bucket
foundations in clay (e.g. Hung and Kim, 2014b; Kim et al., 2014a) or
multi-footings (e.g., Martin and Hazell, 2005; Gourvenec and
Steinepreis, 2007; Gourvenec and Jensen, 2009).
Several experimental studies on bearing capacities of single bucket
foundations in dry dense sands were carried out by varying embedment
depth and vertical load (Byrne and Houlsby, 1999; Byrne, 2000; Byrne
et al., 2003; Villalobos, 2006; Villalobos et al., 2009). These works
successfully investigated the failure of the bucket foundation under
general loading conditions. However, investigation in saturated sand
might be more practical than investigation dry sand. Therefore, several
previous works investigated the failure of the bucket foundation in
saturated sand, i.e., Villalobos (2006), Larsen et al. (2013), Ibsen et al.
(2014), and Ibsen et al. (2015). They found that the failure surface of
the bucket foundation under general loading largely depends on the
embedment depth and the applied vertical load. The failure surface size
increased with the increase of the embedment depth and applied
vertical load.
Meanwhile, Achmus et al. (2013) conducted a parametric study on
the single bucket foundation under combined loading by using
numerical analysis. A signicant nding of the relationship between
moment and horizontal loads was presented in consideration of the

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sungryul@dau.ac.kr (S.-R. Kim).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.05.012
Received 11 November 2015; Received in revised form 27 December 2016; Accepted 13 May 2017
0029-8018/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N.X. Tran et al.
foundation geometry and load eccentricity.
Tripod bucket foundations show varying bearing behaviors depend-
ing on geometric conguration. Gourvenec and Jensen (2009) stated
that the horizontal bearing capacity of the skirted foundation in
uniform clay would reach a constant value at a certain spacing between
each individual of conjoined skirted foundation systems. Meanwhile,
the moment bearing capacity was proportional to the magnitude of the
spacing. The bearing capacities of tripod bucket foundations were
systematically investigated for clayey soil (e.g., Hung and Kim (2014b)
and Kim et al. (2014a)). They rearmed the foregoing ndings on the
bearing behaviors of tripod bucket foundations under horizontal loads
and moments.
From the above discussions, the bearing behavior of single bucket
foundations has been extensively investigated in both sand and clay
grounds. However, no study has been investigated systematically
bearing capacities of the tripod bucket foundations in sand. Oshore
wind turbines with large power rates must be installed in deep waters
of more than 20 m and are subjected to strong horizontal and moment
loadings exerted by wind, waves, and currents (Achmus et al., 2009).
The tripod bucket foundation is well-suited to support large horizontal
and moment loadings of oshore wind turbines in deep waters.
Therefore, this study investigates the horizontal (Ho) and moment
(Mo) bearing capacities of tripod bucket foundations in medium and
dense sands.
Three-dimensional (3D) nite element (FE) analysis was adopted to
model the 3D geometry of the tripod bucket foundations and the
appropriate soilfoundation interaction. The accuracy of the FE
modeling was validated by comparing its results with published
experimental ones. A parametric study was performed in which the
embedment depth of the bucket and the bucket spacing were varied.
The model grounds were medium and dense sands. In addition, the
eects of the bucket diameter and magnitude of the vertical load on the
bearing capacities were evaluated.
2. Numerical simulation
2.1. Finite element modeling and material properties
Fig. 1 shows the geometry of the tripod bucket foundation and the
sign conventions adopted in this study. In the parametric study, the
embedment ratio L/D (where L is the skirt length and D is the
foundation diameter of a single bucket foundation) was varied as 0.5,
0.75, and 1, and the spacing ratio S/D was varied as 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3,
3.5, and 4 (where S is the bucket spacing between the center of the
individual buckets of the tripod bucket foundation and the center of the
tower structure). The bucket diameter was varied as 6, 9, 12, and 15 m.
The skirt thickness was xed at t=25 mm, which is the common
thickness of steel bucket foundations. The skirt thickness was modeled
Bucket
V,v
M,
H, h
Ground surface
S
L
D Load reference point (RP)
(a) Side view
Fig. 1. Geometry of the tripod bucket foundation and sign conventions for loads and displacements (adopted from Kim et al. (2014a)).
210
Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221
by using a steel material with a Youngs modulus of 210 GPa and a
Poissons ratio of 0.2. The top lid of the foundation was modeled as a
rigid body to avoid any possible deformation during loading. Such a
simulation is a reection of real-world situations, where the top lids of
foundations are rigidly reinforced.
All FE analyses were conducted by using the ABAQUS software
(Simulia, 2010). Large-strain analysis was applied to consider the large
deformation of the bucket foundation to reach the ultimate load. In
addition, using the large-strain analysis avoided the oscillation on the
load-displacement curve induced by small-strain analysis. The rst-
order, eight-node linear brick, reduced integration continuum element
C3D8R was used to model the foundation and the soil.
Fig. 2 shows the FE meshes and boundary extensions of the soil
foundation domain at S/D=2 and L/D=0.75. Only half of the entire
system was modeled in consideration of symmetry. The results
obtained from the numerical analyses were then doubled to obtain
the bearing capacities for the whole foundation. The vertical and
horizontal displacements at the bottom boundary, as well as the
horizontal displacements at the lateral boundaries, were constrained.
Preliminary analyses were performed to obtain the optimum FE mesh
sizes and FE boundary extensions of the soilfoundation domains to
minimize their eects on the results. In Fig. 2, BH and BV denote the
vertical and horizontal boundary extents from the center of the bucket
foundation and the ground surface, respectively. For the single bucket
foundation, the FE boundaries were extended at BH=3.5D and
BV=2.5D. For the tripod bucket foundation, these boundaries were
remotely extended at BH=3.5D+S and BV=2.5D+S. The total number of
FE elements were dependent on the L/D and S/D ratios. The number of
FE elements was varied from 20,000 to 30,000 for the single bucket
foundation and from 70,000 to 120,000 for the tripod bucket founda-
tion.
The soil was modeled by using a non-associative MohrCoulomb
elasto-plastic model. By applying the stress-dependent modulus Eq.
(1), which was adopted from the work of Achmus et al. (2009), the
Youngs modulus Es of the sand increased with depth.
j
Es = pa m
pa (1)
where pa is the atmospheric pressure (pa=100 kPa), is the Janbu
modulus number, j is the stress index, and m is the mean principle
stress.
Sands were considered to have medium and dense states. Table 1
presents the soil properties, which were determined from the EAU
recommendations (2004).
The interface friction angle between the foundation and the soil was
set to 2/3 (where is the internal friction angle of the sands). The
interface was modeled with the use of Coulomb friction and hard
contact models, which are provided in the ABAQUS program. When
Bucket
Bucket
D
RP
S
(b) Plan view
N.X. Tran et al.
Fig. 2. Typical FE mesh and boundary extensions of the tripod bucket foundation (S/D=2 and L/D=0.75).
Table 1
Soil properties for FE model (EAU, 2004).
Medium sand
Eective unit weight (tf/m )
3
0.9
Janbu modulus number 400
Stress index j 0.6
Poissons ratio 0.25 0.25
Internal friction angle (degree) 35 38
Dilation angle (degree) 5 8
Cohesion c (kPa) 0.1
the soil and the foundation are in contact, the shear and the normal
stresses are transmitted along the interface. A slip occurs between the
foundation and the soil when the shear stress reaches the shear
strength of the interface, and the foundation is separated from the soil
when the normal stress becomes zero. The ultimate horizontal capa-
cities based on nite element analyses would be considerably over-
estimated without considering the separation phenomenon between
the soil and foundation (Maheshwari and Watanabe, 2006; Hussien
et al., 2010; and Sarkar and Maheshwari, 2012).
The connection between individual bucket foundations and the
tower structure of the wind turbine is neither fully rigid nor fully
exible. Therefore, in practical design, the degree of exibility of the
connection will be selected corresponding to each design target. In this
study, this connection was simply considered to be fully rigid, in
accordance with the suggestion of previous works (e.g. Mur, 1994;
Gourvenec and Steinepreis, 2007; Gourvenec and Jensen, 2009) to
ignore the exibility eect of the structure on the results presented in
this study.
2.2. Validation of nite element modeling
The accuracy of the FE modeling adopted in this study was
validated by comparing the obtained results with the static load test
results from published works for the single bucket and tripod bucket
foundations. The mesh size and boundary extension discussed in
Section 2.1 were applied in this analysis.
The rst validation was performed by comparing the FE results
with two eld test results for single bucket foundations in sand. These
eld tests were originally reported by Houlsby and Byrne (2000) and
Houlsby et al. (2005) at the Sandy Haven and Frederikshavn test sites,
respectively, and thereafter adopted by Achmus et al. (2013). The
Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221
Bucket
Bucket
S
RP
L
D
single bucket foundation tested at the Sandy Haven site had a diameter
of 4 m and a skirt length of 2.5 m, and it was installed in medium to
dense sand. The foundation was subjected to a constant vertical load of
Dense sand
100 kN. The horizontal load test was then conducted at a loading point
1 height of 14.5 m above the ground surface. The bucket foundation
600 tested at the Frederikshavn site, which had a diameter of 2 m and a
0.55
skirt length of 2 m, was installed in very dense sand. The foundation
was subjected to horizontal loading at a height of 17.4 m above the
ground surface under a constant vertical load of 37.3 kN.
0.1 The second validation was performed by comparing the FE analysis
result with the centrifuge test result reported by Kim et al. (2014b) for a
tripod bucket foundation embedded in a multi-layered soil. This
centrifuge test was performed to simulate a prototype tripod bucket
foundation that was planned to be installed at the Yellow Sea in South
Korea. The ground condition used in this test was formed by two soil
layers: a silty sand layer from 0 to 11 m and a silt layer of low plasticity
from 11 m to 20 m. The silty sand and silt layers had relative densities
of 82.7% and 58.4%, respectively. The prototype tripod bucket
consisted of three single bucket foundations, and each single bucket
had a diameter of 6.5 m and a skirt length of 8 m. These single bucket
foundations were rigidly connected to one another. The distance among
these single buckets (i.e., center to center) was 26.85 m. The tripod
foundation had a self-weight of 4.65 MN. The horizontal loading was
applied at a xed height of 33 m above the ground surface.
The soil properties were not fully reported in the works of Houlsby
and Byrne (2000) and Houlsby et al. (2005). For this reason, the back-
calculation method described by Achmus et al. (2013) was used to
determine the soil properties for the rst validation. According to the
soil characterization, the input parameters were selected in the
bandwidth presented in the Recommendation EAU (2004). The soil
properties used in the FE analysis for the second validation were
obtained from Kim et al. (2013). The detailed soil properties used in
the validation are presented in Table 2.
Figs. 3 and 4 show that the loaddisplacement curves obtained
from the FE analyses agreed well with those measured from the tests,
thereby conrming that the FE modeling adopted in this study can
reliably evaluate the bearing capacity of single and tripod bucket
foundations in sand.
2.3. Determination of bearing capacities
Displacement-control method was used to determine the load
211
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Table 2
Soil properties for validation of FE modeling.

Achmus et al. (2013) Kim et al. (2013,

2014b)

Sandy Frederikshavn Silty sand Silt

Haven

Eective unit weight 0.9 1.1 0.95 0.85

(tf/m3)
Janbu modulus number 500 600 100 120

Stress index j 0.57 0.55 0.75 0
Poissons ratio 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.3
Internal friction angle 35.5 38 35 34
(degree)
Dilation angle 5.5 8 5 4
(degree)
Cohesion c (kPa) 0.1 0.1 16.1 5.2
Fig. 4. Comparison of FE analysis and centrifuge test result.

movement curves of the bucket foundations by horizontally (h) or

rotationally () displacing the bucket foundations, as shown in Fig. 1.
Loads were numerically obtained at a load reference point (RP) by
ABAQUS program. A vertical load of 10 MN was applied to the RP of
the tripod bucket foundations to consider a typical vertical weight of a
5 MW oshore wind turbine.
The bearing capacities were determined from full loaddisplace-
ment curves by using tangential intersection method (Mansur and
Kaufman, 1956; Villalobos, 2006), as shown in Fig. 5. However, several
loaddisplacement curves were not fully obtained because FE simula-
tions were terminated caused by instability. Therefore, hyperbolic
method was adopted to extrapolate the full loaddisplacement curves
for these cases, as suggested by Achmus et al. (2013).
The sign conventions and notations for analyzing the capacities
were adopted from the works of Buttereld et al. (1997) and Zhu et al.
(2013), as shown in Table 3. The horizontal bearing capacity factors for
the single and tripod bucket foundations are denoted by NcH(S) and
NcH(T), respectively, which are dened as NcH(S)=Ho(S)/( D3) and
NcH(T)=Ho(T)/(3D3) (where Ho(S) and Ho(T) are the horizontal bear- Fig. 5. Example of the tangential intersection method (L/D=0.75, S/D=2.5 in medium
ing capacities of the single and tripod bucket foundations, respec- sand).
tively). The moment bearing capacity factors for the single and tripod
bucket foundations are denoted by NcM(S) and NcM(T), respectively, and the group eect of the tripod bucket was analyzed by comparing the
are dened as NcM(S)=Mo(S)/(D4) and NcM(T)=Mo(T)/(3D4) (where bearing capacities of single and tripod buckets. Case 1 in Table 4 was
Mo(S) and Mo(T) are the moment bearing capacities of the single and selected to analyze the eect of L/D and S/D ratios on the bearing
tripod bucket foundations, respectively). capacities. The diameter of the single bucket and the individual buckets
of the tripod bucket foundation was xed at D=6 m.
3. Evaluation of bearing capacities of tripod bucket
foundations 3.1. Horizontal bearing capacity

To evaluate the bearing capacities of the tripod bucket foundation, Fig. 6 presents the horizontal bearing capacity factors NcH(T) at

Fig. 3. Comparison of FE analyses and eld test results.

212
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Table 3 soil properties, explaining the similar failure mechanism of the tripod
Notations for the loads and displacements (Buttereld et al. (1997) and Zhu et al. bucket foundation in sand and clay. This conclusion is also supported
(2013)).
by the experimental observation for suction group anchors in silty sand
Vertical Horizontal Moment reported in the work of Kim et al. (2015). By analyzing the obtained
results from the centrifuge tests and numerical analyses, they found
Displacement at RP h that interaction between individual anchors would not occur when the
Load at RP V H M
net spacing between each bucket exceeded three times the diameter of
Dimensionless load V/(3D3)
Bearing capacity Ho(S), Ho(T) Mo(S), Mo(T) the single anchor.
Bearing capacity NcH(S)=Ho(S)/(D3) NcM(S)=Mo(S)/(D4)
factor NcH(T)=Ho(T)/ NcM(T)=Mo(T)/
3.2. Moment bearing capacity
(3D3) (3D4)

Note: Subscripts of (S) and (T) indicate the single and tripod bucket foundations,
respectively.
Table 4
Analysis cases used in this study.
D (m) L (m) L/D S/D
Case 1 6 3 0.5 0 4(*)
4.5 0.75
6 1
Case 2 6 3 0.5 0(*), 3
4.5 0.75
9 6 1 sand were approximately 1.2 times higher than those for medium sand.
6 0.67 3 However, the NcM(T) factors were relatively similar for both medium
12 9 1
6 0.5 3
15 9 1
6 0.4 3 tripod bucket foundations in medium sand. The failure mechanism of
(*)
Note: for single bucket foundation.
dierent S/D and L/D ratios for both medium and dense sands. The
bearing capacity factor of the bucket foundations in dense sand was
approximately 1.1 times higher than that of the foundations in medium
sand. The horizontal bearing capacity factors of the tripod bucket
foundations increased with S/D ratio and reached constant values at
critical spacing ratios of (S/D)critical=1.5, 2, and 3.5 for L/D=0.5, 0.75,
and 1, respectively. The critical spacing ratio is the spacing ratio at
which no group eect exists between individual buckets of the tripod
bucket foundation.
Fig. 7 shows the failure mechanism of the single and tripod bucket
foundations in medium sand under horizontal loads. The single bucket
with L/D=0.75 and the tripod bucket with L/D=0.75 and S/D=2.5 were
selected for presentation. Fig. 7(a) shows the failure mechanism of the
single bucket foundation under the free rotation condition. The single
bucket with free rotation (Fig. 7a) showed a combined behavior of
rotation and horizontal translations. The xed rotation condition of the
single bucket in Fig. 7(b) was numerically simulated by restricting the
rotation of the foundation during loading to mobilize the maximum
horizontal bearing capacity. Fig. 7(c) presents the failure mechanism of
the tripod bucket foundation under horizontal load. As shown in
Fig. 7(c), each individual bucket of the tripod bucket foundation
exhibited pure horizontal translation at S/D(S/D)critical. This failure
mechanism of the tripod bucket was the same as that of the single
bucket under the xed rotation condition, as shown in Fig. 7(b).
In addition, the horizontal bearing capacity factor of the tripod
bucket became the same as that of the single bucket with xed rotation
(indicated as a star symbol), as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, the
horizontal bearing capacity of the tripod bucket foundation was
evaluated based on the bearing capacity of the corresponding single
bucket foundation with xed rotation.
Interestingly, these ndings are similar to those reported by Kim
et al. (2014a) for tripod bucket foundations in clay. This similarity is
due to the fact that the failure mechanism of the tripod bucket
foundation is controlled by its physical movement as well as the
reaction force from the soil. These two factors are not related to the
To simulate the rigid connection between each bucket, a reference
point (RP) was used. The RP was numerically placed at the top center
of the single bucket foundation or at the intersection point from the top
center of each bucket of a tripod bucket foundation. In practical design,
this intersection point is considered the center of the turbine tower
structure. Loading was applied using the displacement-controlled
V (MN)
method, which increases the horizontal (h) or rotation () displacement
10 at the RP, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 8 shows the NcM(T) factors according to the S/D and L/D ratios
for both medium and dense sands. These factors almost linearly
520
increased with an increase in S/D ratios. The NcM(S) factors for dense
and dense sands.
Fig. 9 presents the moment failure mechanism of the single and
the single bucket foundation showed a combination of rotational and
horizontal translations (Fig. 9(a)), whereas the tripod bucket founda-
tion exhibited a pushpull failure mechanism with the rotational axis
located at the downward buckets (Figs. 9(b) and (c)). The Mo(T) of the
tripod bucket foundation was mainly governed by the vertical pull-out
capacity Vo(pull-out) of the upward bucket.
3.3. Eects of vertical loads and foundation diameters on bearing
capacities
The results were obtained with a vertical load of V=10 MN for the
tripod bucket foundation with D=6 m. Therefore, the eects of dierent
vertical loads and foundation diameters on the bearing capacities of the
tripod bucket foundations should be explicitly analyzed. For this
purpose, the vertical load V was varied at 5, 10, 15, and 20 MN, and
the bucket diameter D was varied at 6, 9, 12, and 15 m in both medium
and dense sands (Case 2 in Table 4).
Fig. 10 shows the eect of V on the Ho and Mo of the tripod bucket
foundations at dierent L/D ratios in medium and dense sands. As
shown, Ho and Mo almost linearly increased with an increase in
vertical load. Fig. 11 plots the eects of D on the Mo and Ho of the
tripod bucket foundations at dierent vertical loads in medium and
dense sands. As shown in the gure, the bearing capacity increased
almost linearly with the increase in foundation diameter D at dierent
values of V. This can be explained by the increase of conning stress in
sand caused by the increase in the V values. These ndings suggest that
the horizontal and moment bearing capacities of the tripod bucket
foundation can be increased by adding more vertical weight to the
structure (for example, by using ballasting), by increasing the founda-
tion diameter, or by increasing both of these.
4. Development of bearing capacity equations
On the basis of the results obtained from the FE analysis, new
equations were proposed to evaluate the horizontal and moment
bearing capacities of tripod bucket foundations in medium and dense
sands. All of the equations were developed by performing least square
analysis as described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

213
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Fig. 6. Horizontal bearing capacity factors of single and tripod bucket foundations.

Fig. 7. Failure mechanisms of single and tripod bucket foundations in medium sand under horizontal loads (L/D=0.75): a) single bucket with free rotation, b) single bucket with xed
rotation, c) tripod bucket, S/D=2.5.

214
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Fig. 8. Moment bearing capacity factors of single and tripod bucket foundations.

Fig. 9. Failure mechanisms of single and tripod bucket foundations in medium sand under moment loads (L/D=0.75): a) single bucket, b) tripod bucket at S/D=1, c) tripod bucket at S/
D=2.5.

215
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Fig. 10. Eect of vertical load on the bearing capacities of the tripod bucket foundations (D=6 m and S/D=3).

4.1. Horizontal bearing capacity equations In addition, to extend the applicability of Eq. (2) under S/D < (S/
D)critical, the group eciency factor EcH, which was dened as NcH(T)/
At rst, the horizontal bearing capacity equations were proposed for NcH(S),xed, was introduced, as shown in Eq. (6).
the tripod bucket foundations with D=6 m and V=10 MN (presented in
NcH(T) = EcH NcH(S),fixed At S /D< (S /D )critical (6)
Section 3.1) at dierent L/D and S/D ratios, as shown in Eq. (2). The
tripod bucket foundations demonstrated the same behavior as single where EcH is the group eciency factor that describes the decrease in
bucket foundations under xed rotation condition when S/D(S/ NcH(T) values at S/D < (S/D)critical.
D)critical. Therefore, NcH(T) is equal to NcH(S) with xed rotation. Fig. 13(a) shows the variation of EcH with S/D ratio. No clear trend
Ho(T ) = 3NcH (T ) D 3 was observed for EcH. Therefore, an adjustment was performed to
(2)
determine a clear trend. The group eciency EcH would be calculated
NcH(T) = NcH(S),fixed At S / D(S /D )critical (3) by using a modied group eciency factor EcH(*) and the term
(S / D L / D ) . By using least square analysis, factor =0.8 was
where NcH(S),xed is the horizontal bearing capacity factor of the single determined, inducing the highest correlation coecient between
bucket foundation under xed rotation condition. EcH(*) and S/D as a linear function (Fig. 13(b)). The group eciency
However, as presented in Section 3.3, the NcH(S) of a bucket with can be expressed as Eqs. (7) and (8).
xed rotation can be signicantly inuenced by the variation in
foundation diameter and vertical load. Thus, additional FE analyses
(* ) S L
0.8
EcH = EcH
were performed to determine NcH(S),xed at dierent D and V values. D D (7)
Fig. 12 illustrates a linear relationship between the NcH(S),xed factors
and normalized vertical load, V/(3D3). Therefore, the NcH(S),xed S
factors can be expressed, as shown in Eqs. (4) and (5).
( *)
EcH = 0. 829 0. 284
D (8)
For medium sand
Eqs. (2)(8) can be used to evaluate the horizontal bearing capacity
V L 0.25 L 1.87
NcH(S),fixed = 0. 772 +4. 643 of the tripod bucket foundation in either medium or dense sand.
3D 3 D D (4) However, the application of these equations requires an embedment
ratio less than 1, at which the tripod bucket foundation under
For dense sand
horizontal loading shows pure horizontal translation in case of S/
V L 0.25 L 1.91 D(S/D)critical.
NcH(S),fixed = 0. 855 +5. 625 An investigation was numerically performed to examine the eects
3D D
3 D (5)
of dilation angle on the horizontal bearing behavior of tripod bucket

216
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Fig. 11. Eect of foundation diameter on the bearing capacities of the tripod bucket foundations at dierent vertical loads (L=6 m and S/D=3).

foundations. The results showed that horizontal bearing capacities
increased by about 0.9% per degree increase of the dilation angle.
Therefore, the eect of slight variation of the dilation angle on the
horizontal bearing capacity is negligible.
4.2. Moment bearing capacity equations
As discussed in Section 3.2, the Mo(T) of the tripod bucket
foundation was mainly governed by the vertical pull-out capacity
Vo(pull-out) of the upward bucket. Therefore, Mo(T) might approximately
be calculated by multiplying Vo(pull-out) with the length of the moment
arm of 1.5S (Fig. 14) and a correction factor fM (Kim et al., 2014a), as
expressed in Eq. (9). The fM factor was determined as follows:
First, the Vo(pull-out) capacities were evaluated for the single bucket
foundation at L/D=0.5, 0.75, and 1 by using the FE analysis results.
The diameter of the single bucket foundations was set at 6 m, which
was the same as that for the individual bucket foundation of the tripod.
By back-calculating after inputting the Vo(pull-out) capacities into Eq.
(9), an average value of fM=1.1 was obtained for both medium and
dense sands at S/D(S/D)critical.
V
Mo(T ) = fM 1. 5S (Vo(pull out )+ )
3 (9)
where fM is the correction factor with fM=1.1 at S/D(S/D)critical,

Fig. 12. Horizontal bearing capacity factors of single bucket foundations under xed rotation condition.

217
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Fig. 13. Group eciency factors of tripod bucket foundations under horizontal load.

foundations under pull-out load were dierent from each other.

Small rotation resistance might contribute to the increase of the
moment bearing capacity of tripod bucket foundations under moment
load. Meanwhile, the theoretical equation for single bucket foundations
under pull-out load considers only the pure vertical pull-out bearing
capacity. Hence, the results obtained from numerical analyses of tripod
bucket foundations under moment load at S/D(S/D)critical were about
10% larger than the one calculated according to the pull-out bearing
capacity of single bucket foundations. As the bucket spacing decreased,
i.e. S/D < (S/D)critical, the rotational resistance became dominant and
the proposed equation for the moment bearing capacity produced a
conservative calculation for preliminary design purpose.
The Vo(pull-out) capacity can be calculated by following the sugges-
tions of Das (1986) and Byrne (2000) :
Vo(pullout ) = RS (outerskirt ) +RS (innerskirt ) (10)

Fig. 14. Denition of moment arm length (adopted from Kim et al. (2014a)). L 2
RS (outerskirt ) = K tan ( ) DoL
2 3 (11)
Vo(pull-out) is the vertical pull-out capacity of the single bucket founda-
L 2
tion, V is the vertical load subjected to the foundation from super- RS (innerskirt ) = K tan ( ) Di L
2 3 (12)
structure.
The suggestion of fM of 1.1 showed that the response mechanism of where RS(outer skirt) is the frictional resistance between the outer surface
tripod bucket foundations under moment load and single bucket of the skirt and the surrounding soil, Do is the outer diameter of the

Table 5
Comparison of horizontal bearing capacities between proposed equations and FE analyses (S/D=3).

V (MN) D (m) L (m) Ho (T) (MN)

Medium sand Dense sand

Proposed FEM Error (%) Proposed FEM Error (%)

5 6 6 27.83 29.00 4.03 36.62 37.60 2.60

9 6 45.49 44.80 1.54 53.54 53.10 0.84
9 85.54 84.90 0.76 102.88 102.50 0.37
12 6 61.38 61.00 0.63 71.74 70.60 1.62
12 197.93 197.50 0.22 239.03 238.00 0.43
15 6 77.88 76.10 2.34 90.43 89.50 1.04
10 6 6 31.36 33.45 6.24 40.53 42.30 4.18
9 6 48.98 49.20 0.45 57.02 57.8 1.35
9 89.07 89.8 0.81 106.40 106.70 0.28
12 6 64.63 65.50 1.33 74.98 75.50 0.69
12 201.46 204.50 1.49 242.55 245.50 1.20
15 6 80.95 80.50 0.56 93.49 94.90 1.49
20 6 6 38.42 41.10 6.51 48.35 50.50 4.25
9 6 55.95 56.60 1.14 63.97 65.30 2.03
9 96.14 98.60 2.50 113.44 116.00 2.21
12 6 71.12 71.80 0.95 81.45 82.20 0.92
12 208.52 216.00 3.46 249.59 257.00 2.88
15 6 87.09 87.70 0.70 99.61 101.60 1.96

218
N.X. Tran et al. Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221

Table 6
Comparison of moment bearing capacities between proposed equations and FE analyses (S/D=3).

V (MN) D (m) L (m) Mo (T) (MNm)

Medium sand Dense sand

Proposed FEM Error (%) Proposed FEM Error (%)

5 6 6 82.23 81.82 0.50 85.47 92.80 7.90

9 6 147.89 146.50 0.95 155.19 160.30 3.19
9 239.95 239.00 0.40 256.36 276.00 7.11
12 6 229.92 225.20 2.10 242.89 247.20 1.74
12 622.69 584.00 6.62 674.57 688.00 1.95
15 6 328.31 308.40 6.46 348.58 335.20 3.99
10 6 6 131.73 127.32 3.46 134.97 141.12 4.36
9 6 222.14 215.50 3.08 229.44 242.30 5.31
9 314.20 314.00 0.06 330.61 353.50 6.47
12 6 328.92 302.10 8.88 341.89 335.60 1.88
12 721.69 687.00 5.05 773.57 787.00 1.71
15 6 452.06 429.10 5.35 472.33 447.00 5.67
20 6 6 230.73 219.50 5.12 233.97 234.80 0.35
9 6 370.64 357.00 3.82 377.94 368.80 2.48
9 462.70 447.00 3.51 479.11 488.00 1.82
12 6 526.92 486.80 8.24 539.89 509.60 5.94
12 919.69 876.00 4.99 971.57 999.00 2.75
15 6 699.56 641.00 9.14 719.83 677.90 6.19

Note: K=Ko=1-sin ()

Table 7
Bearing capacities of several trial designs of tripod bucket foundations.

Eqs. (2)(12) Eq. (13)

D (m) L/D S/D V (MN) Ho (MN) Mo (MNm) H (MN) M (MNm)

(*)
8 0.5 1.5 6 27.99 53.47 4 32.25
8 0.75 1.5 6 49.03 70.80 4 44.63
8 0.75 2.0(*) 6 56.14 94.40 4 59.95
8 1.0 1.0 6 51.30 63.38 4 40.06
8 1.0 2.0 6 74.28 126.76 4 81.47
8 1.0 3.0 6 86.10 190.14 4 122.84

Note: Values marked with asterisk (*) denote the critical spacing ratios.

bucket, RS(inner skirt) is the frictional resistance between the inner

surface of the skirt and the inside soil, Di is the inner diameter of the
bucket, and K is the lateral earth pressure coecient. The K value can
be calculated by following the suggestion of Das (1986) or can be
simply taken as K=Ko=1-sin ().
Similar to the horizontal bearing capacity, the foundation diameter
and the vertical load also aect the moment bearing capacity of the
tripod bucket foundation.
Tables 5 and 6 compare the horizontal and moment bearing
capacities of the tripod bucket foundations predicted from the pro-
posed equations with those obtained from the FE analyses. As an
example shown in the tables, the S/D ratio was xed at 3.0, the errors
between the proposed equations and the FE analyses for the horizontal
and moment bearing capacities were lower than 10%. Therefore, the
proposed equation can be used to evaluate the horizontal and moment
bearing capacities of tripod bucket foundations in medium and dense
sands.

4.3. Discussion

An investigation of tripod bucket foundations under combined H

M loads was numerically conducted to consider the practical design for
oshore wind turbines. The combined HM loads were simulated by
varying the eccentricity h=M/H (where h is the horizontal loading point
Fig. 15. Normalized bearing capacity envelopes of tripod bucket foundations under H
M combined loads.
height considered from the seabed level). Only the tripod bucket
foundations with S/D(S/D)critical were analyzed, as the Ho of the
tripod bucket foundation did not change at S/D > (S/D)critical. The L/D

219
N.X. Tran et al.
ratios of the tripod buckets were 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0. The bucket
diameter and vertical loading of the foundation were maintained at
D=6 m and V=10 MN, respectively, as the Ho and Mo increased almost
linearly with the increase in these factors, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
Fig. 15 shows the normalized H/HoM/Mo bearing capacity
envelopes of the tripod bucket foundations under combined HM
loads. The normalization tended to decrease as the L/D ratios and the
density of soil increased. The normalized H/Ho and M/Mo envelopes
were almost linear when the spacing ratio decreased until a certain
value, for instance, L/D=1.0 and S/D=1.0. In addition, the size of the
normalized H/Ho and M/Mo envelopes was approximately indepen-
dent of the soil state.
Based on the FE results shown in Fig. 15, a linear bearing capacity
envelope under combined HM loads was suggested. The envelope was
selected to track along the data points of L/D=1 and S/D=1, as these
points induced the smallest envelope size for the conservative design.
The equation is expressed as follows:
H M
= +1
Ho Mo (13)
Horizontal and moment bearing capacities of the tripod bucket
foundations in sands can be determined by using Eqs. (2)(13).
Prototype data was taken from the works of Houlsby et al. (2005)
and Houlsby et al. (2006) to describe the calculation of the proposed
equations in this study. The uniform sand has a relative density of
about 8085% determined based on the results of CPT tests. The
eective unit weight and friction angle of sand were 10.3 kN/m3 and 45
degrees, respectively. The water level was 15 cm higher than the
ground surface level during the testing period (winter season).
Detailed information on the soil properties was provided by Houlsby
et al. (2006). A factor of safety of 1.5 was applied for the nal design
following Houlsby et al. (2006). A 3.5 MW oshore wind turbine was
considered. The anticipated loads acting on the structure consist of a
horizontal load of 4 MN, a vertical load of 6 MN, and a moment load of
120 MNm (Houlsby et al., 2005).
At rst, the Ho and Mo were calculated by using Eqs. (2)(12)
corresponding to the input parameters, including the bucket diameter
D, the bucket embedded depth L, the bucket spacing S, the magnitude
of vertical loading V, and soil properties (eective unit weight and
internal friction angle ). For this example, the equation would
consider the case of dense sand. After that, the design of bucket size
was examined by means of Eq. (13). The calculated bearing capacities
of several trial designs of tripod bucket foundations supporting the
required structure are tabulated in Table 7. Finally, a possible option of
the tripod bucket foundation for the 3.5 MW oshore wind turbine
would comprise a bucket diameter of 8 m, an embedment depth of 8 m,
and a bucket spacing of 24 m.
5. Conclusions
Three-dimensional nite element analyses were performed to
investigate the horizontal and moment bearing capacities of the tripod
bucket foundations in medium and dense sands. The following con-
clusions were drawn:
(1) The horizontal bearing capacity factors NcH(T) of the tripod bucket
foundations increased with an increase in S/D ratios for all
foundations in both medium and dense sands, and these factors
reached constant values at S/D(S/D)critical. The factors in dense
sand were approximately 1.1 times higher than those in medium
sand for all foundations.
(2) The moment bearing capacity factors NcM(T) increased continu-
ously with an increase in S/D ratio for all foundations in both
medium and dense sands. In contrast to the NcH(T) factors, the
NcM(T) factors were relatively similar for both medium and dense
sands.
220
Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221
(3) The eect of the vertical load and foundation diameter on the
bearing capacities of tripod bucket foundation were investigated.
The horizontal and moment bearing capacities increased almost
linearly with the increase in vertical load. This phenomenon can be
explained by the increase of conning stress in sand caused by the
increase in vertical load. By considering the same embedment
depth, the horizontal and moment bearing capacities also in-
creased linearly with the increase in bucket diameter.
(4) Design equations were proposed to evaluate the horizontal and
moment bearing capacities of the tripod bucket foundations in
medium and dense sands. The main input parameters of these
equations were L/D ratio, S/D ratio, vertical load, bucket diameter,
and soil properties. These equations can be used for preliminary
design. However, the equations have been proposed based on FE
analyses for purely uniform sand. Thus, further calibration and
correlation of the proposed equations with FE analyses and
experimental tests for dierent soil conditions (e.g., layer soil)
need to be carried out to improve their applicability.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the project entitled Development
of performance-based seismic design technologies for advancement in
design codes for port structures, funded by the Ministry of Oceans
and Fisheries of Korea and Basic Science Research Program funded by
the Ministry of Education, South Korea (NRF-
2016R1A6A1A03012812).
References
Achmus, M., Kuo, Y.S., Abdel-Rahman, K., 2009. Behavior of monopile foundations
under cyclic lateral load. Comput. Geotech. 36 (5), 725735.
Achmus, M., Akdag, C.T., Thieken, K., 2013. Load-bearing capacity of suction bucket
foundation in sand. Appl. Ocean Res. 43, 157165.
Buttereld, R., Houlsby, G.T., Gottardi, G., 1997. Standardized sign conventions and
notation for generally loaded foundations. Geotechnique 47 (5), 10511054.
Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., 1999. Drained behavior of suction caisson foundations on
very dense sand. In: Proceedings of the Oshore Technology Conference. Oshore
Technology Conference.
Byrne, B.W., 2000. Investigation of Suction Caissons in Dense Sand (Ph.D dissertation).
University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., 2003. Foundations for oshore wind turbines. Philos. Trans.
R. Soc. Lond. A 362 (1813), 29092950.
Byrne, B.W., Villalobos, F., Houlsby, G.T., Martin, C.M., 2003. Laboratory testing of
shallow skirted foundations in sand. In: Proceedings of the British Geotechnical
Association International Conference on Foundations. Dundee 2, pp. 161173.
Das, B.M., 1986. Uplift capacity of piles and pile groups in sand. Inst. Electr. Electron.
Eng. (IEEE), Oceans 86, 9095.
EAU, 2004. Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures Harbors and
Waterways. Ernst & Sohn, a Wiley Company, Berlin, Germany.
Gourvenec, S., Jensen, K., 2009. Eect of embedment and spacing of conjoined skirted
foundation systems on undrained limit states under general loading. Int. J.
Geomech. 9 (6), 267279.
Gourvenec, S., Steinepreis, M., 2007. Undrained limit states of shallow foundations
acting in consort. Int. J. Geomech. 7 (3), 194205.
Houlsby, G.T., Byrne, B.W., 2000. Suction caisson foundations for oshore wind turbines
and an emometer masts. J. Wind Eng. 24, 249255.
Houlsby, G.T., Ibsen, L.B., Byrne, B.W., 2005. Suction caissons for wind turbines. In:
Gourvenec, S.M., Cassidy, M.J. (Eds.), Proceeding of the 1st International
Symposium on Frontiers in Oshore Geotechnics (ISFOG 2005). Taylor & Francis
group, London, ISBN 041539063X, pp. 7593.
Houlsby, G.T., Kelly, R.B., Huxtable, J., Byrne, B.W., 2006. Field trials of suction caissons
in sand for oshore wind turbine foundations. Geotechnique 56 (1), 310.
Hung, L.C., Kim, S.R., 2012. Evaluation of vertical and horizontal bearing capacities of
bucket foundation in clay. Ocean Eng. 52, 7582.
Hung, L.C., Kim, S.R., 2014a. Evaluation of undrained bearing capacities of bucket
foundations under combined loads. Mar. Georesources Geotechnol. 32 (1), 7692.
Hung, L.C., Kim, S.R., 2014b. Evaluation of combined horizontal-moment bearing
capacities of tripod bucket foundations in undrained clay. Ocean Eng. 85, 100109.
Hussien, M.N., Tobita, T., Iai, S., Rollins, K.M., 2010. Soil-pile separation eect on the
performance of a pile group under static and dynamic lateral loads. Can. Geotech. J.
47 (11), 12341246.
Ibsen, L.B., Barari, A., Larsen, K.A., 2014. Adaptive plasticity model for bucket
foundations. J. Eng. Mech. 140 (2), 361373.
Ibsen, L.B., Barari, A., Larsen, K.A., 2015. Eect of Embedment on the Plastic Behavior
of Bucket Foundations. J. Waterw., Port., Coast., Ocean Eng. 141 (6), 06015005.
N.X. Tran et al.
Kim, D.J., Choo, Y.W., Kim, S., Kim, J.H., Choi, H.Y., Kim, D.S., 2013. Bearing capacity
of a monopod bucket foundation for oshore wind towers centrifuge and
numerical modeling. J. Korean Geotech. Soc. 29 (04), 2332.
Kim, S.R., Hung, L.C., Oh, M.H., 2014a. Group eect on bearing capacities of tripod
bucket foundations in undrained clay. Ocean Eng. 79, 19.
Kim, D.J., Choo, Y.W., Kim, J.H., Kim, S., Kim, D.S., 2014b. Investigation of monotonic
and cyclic behavior of tripod suction bucket foundations for oshore wind towers
using centrifuge modeling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (5), 19435606.
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
loadingcentrifuge and numerical modeling. Ocean Eng. 107, 8596.
Larsen, K.A., Ibsen, L.B., Barari, A., 2013. Modied expression for the failure criterion of
bucket foundations subjected to combined loading. Can. Geotech. J. 50 (12),
12501259.
Maheshwari, B.K., Watanabe, H., 2006. Nonlinear dynamic behavior of pile foundations:
eects of separation at the soil-pile interface. Soils Found. 46 (4), 437448.
Martin, C.M., Hazell, E.J., 2005. Bearing capacity of parallel strip footing on non-
homogeneous clay. In: Gourvenec, S.M., Cassidy, M.J. (Eds.), Proceeding of the 1st
221
Ocean Engineering 140 (2017) 209221
International Symposium on Frontiers in Oshore Geotechnics (ISFOG 2005),
Taylor & Francis group, London, ISBN 041539063X, pp. 427441.
Mansur, C.I., Kaufman, R.I., 1956. Pile tests, low-sill structure, Old River, Louisiana. J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 82 (4), 133.
Mur, J.D., 1994. Limit Analyses of multi-footing foundation systems. In: Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference Computer on Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics. Morgantown, Balkeema, Rotterdam 1, pp. 223244.
Sarkar, R., Maheshwari, B.K., 2012. Eects of separation on the behavior of soil-pile
interaction in liqueable soils. Int. J. Geomech. 12 (1), 113.
Simulia, 2010. Abaqus Users Manual. Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp, Providence, RI.
Villalobos, F.A., 2006. Model Testing of Foundations for Oshore Wind Turbines (Ph.D
dissertation). University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
Villalobos, F.A., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., 2009. An experimental study of the drained
capacity of suction caisson foundations under monotonic loading for oshore
applications. Soils Found. 49 (3), 477488.
Zhu, B., Byrne, B.W., Houlsby, G.T., 2013. Long-term lateral cyclic response of suction
caisson foundation in sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (1), 7383.