EFFICIENT FINITE ELEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR LIMIT

ANALYSIS OF SUCTION CAISSONS UNDER LATERAL LOADS

By

B. Sukumaran,1 W.O. McCarron,2 P. Jeanjean,3 and H. Abouseeda4

ABSTRACT: This paper documents the use of finite element analyses techniques to

determine the capacity of suction caisson foundations founded in soft clays under

undrained conditions. The stress-strain response of the soft clay is simulated using an

elasto-plastic model. The constitutive model employed is the classical von Mises strength

criterion with linear elasticity assumed within the yield/strength surface. Both two- and

three-dimensional foundation configurations are analyzed. The three-dimensionality of

the failure surface of the actual caisson requires that computationally intensive three-

dimensional models be used. Suggestions are given on how to improve computational

efficiency by using quasi three-dimensional Fourier analyses with excellent results

instead of true three-dimensional analyses. The finite element techniques employed are

verified against available classical limit solutions. Results indicate that both hybrid and

displacement-based finite element formulations are adequate, with the restriction that

reduced-integration techniques are often required for displacement-based formulations.

1
Assistant Professor, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028.
2
Senior Staff Engineer, Amoco Worldwide Engineering and Construction, Houston, TX 77058.
3
Engineering Specialist, Amoco Worldwide Engineering and Construction, Houston, TX 77058.
4
Project Engineer, Fugro-McClelland Marine Geosciences, Inc., Houston, TX 77274.
INTRODUCTION

As offshore exploration and development of oil fields reach water depths in the

1,000 to 3,000 m range, novel methods of anchoring production platforms become

attractive due to cost savings associated with offshore installation activities. Surface

production systems that are viable in these water depths include Tension Leg Platforms

(TLP), SPAR platforms, and laterally moored ship-shaped and semi-submersible vessels.

TLPs are floating structures anchored by vertical pretensioned tendons which exert

considerable tensile forces on the foundation. In the Gulf of Mexico, vertical design loads

for individual tendons range up to 27MN (6000 kips), resulting in foundation lateral loads

of 4MN (900 kips). Laterally moored systems, on the other hand, have the dominant load

in the horizontal direction; the horizontal load component being on the order of 9MN

(2000 kips), and the vertical component being less than half that of the horizontal

component. At this time (1998), there are five TLPs and two SPARs installed and

operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Several other TLPs and SPARs are in various stages of

design and fabrication.

For Gulf of Mexico TLPs, driven piles have been the preferred method of

anchoring tendons to the seafloor. This solution arises from a combination of

engineering, geotechnical, fabrication, installation and cost constraints. Chief among

these are the high accuracy (within 1 m) required for positioning the tendon anchoring

points, and the normally consolidated cohesive soils without appreciable strength in the

upper 20 m. These conditions combined with available offshore installation barges,

underwater hammers capable of operating in 1300 meters of water and simple fabrication
of steel pile shapes lead to the preference of driven piles. The depth of penetration of TLP

piles ranges up to 120 m.

SPARs are buoyant single-column hulls anchored by lateral moorings to

foundation elements. In water depths less than approximately 1200 m (4000 ft), TLP and

SPAR systems are competitive economically, but TLPs have a more proven construction,

technology and operating history. For greater water depths, the SPAR platform offers

some performance and economic advantages. Possible foundation systems for SPARs

include the traditional driven piles, drag anchors and suction caissons.

Suction caissons have been used in shallow waters as foundations for single point

moorings, jack-up drilling rigs, fixed platforms and as anchors for floating systems.

Initial penetration of the suction caisson into the seabed occurs due to the self weight;

subsequent penetration is by the ‘suction’ created by pumping water out from the inside

of the caisson. Suction caissons become attractive alternatives to driven piles in

deepwater because of technical challenges and costs associated with the installation

equipment. In addition, suction caissons also provide a greater resistance to lateral loads

than driven piles because of the larger diameters typically used. The terminology for this

foundation is sometimes misleading. ‘Suction’ can refer to the method of installation or a

component of foundation load resistance, or both. Figure 1 shows a schematic view of a

SPAR platform anchored by mooring to suction caissons.

The feasibility of suction caissons has been demonstrated in the North Sea

foundations for the Snorre TLP [1], Europipe 16/11-E structure [2], and with centrifuge

tests for Gulf of Mexico TLP conditions [3]. At present, the use of suction caissons are
being extended to the Gulf of Mexico. Soil conditions in the North Sea (stiff clays and

sands) have so far lead to designs with penetration to diameter ratios typically less than 2.

Because the deepwater shallow sediments in the Gulf of Mexico exhibit very low surface

shear strength, it is necessary to increase the penetration to diameter ratio of the caisson

to obtain satisfactory capacities. However, experience with the installation and behavior

of caissons with large penetration to diameter ratios (up to 10) is limited. To investigate

the installation, performance and capacity of such caissons, a series of field tests,

centrifuge tests, and numerical investigation have been commissioned by the industry.

This paper presents the findings of some numerical investigations aimed at validating

numerical procedures to calculate the lateral capacity of caissons for deepwater

foundations.

SOME BACKGROUND ON FINITE ELEMENT LIMIT ANALYSIS

Available displacement based and hybrid (combined stress and displacement

solution variables) based finite elements formulations are capable of accurately and

efficiently calculating limit loads for foundation systems. An important feature in the

successful use of displacement based finite element formulations is the use of reduced

integration techniques in many limit analysis investigations. The term ‘reduced’

integration refers to the fact that a lower level (fewer sampling points) of numerical

integration is being used than that theoretically required, to exactly integrate a

polynomial of a certain order.

 Experience has indicated that the use of reduced integration techniques improves

performance under conditions of nearly incompressible (entirely deviatoric plastic

strains) response for von Mises and other pressure independent material strength models

near the limit conditions. Historical discussions on the relative merits of full and reduced

integration techniques are given by Zienkiewicz and Taylor [4] and Zienkiewicz et al.

[5]. Nagtegaal et al [6] discussed the success and failures of several fully integrated

elements with respect to their ability to accurately predict limit loads in association with

elastic-plastic material models. Sloan and Randolph [7] extended this work for plane

strain (strip) and axisymmetric (circular) footing configurations, and proposed a

triangular 15-noded element for use in axisymmetric problems. The performance of this

element was later discussed by de Borst and Vermeer [8], and Whittle and Germaine [9].

Barlow [10,11] presented mathematical arguments that reduced integration in quadratic

(8-noded) elements enhances performance and solution convergence. Griffiths [12]

presented the successful use of quadratic reduced-integration elements in plane-strain and

axisymmetric conditions. Naylor [13] discussed the elements’ performance for nearly

incompressible conditions.

Zienkiewicz and Taylor [4] demonstrate that reduced integration elements, of the

type used here, satisfy the mathematical conditions of stability and convergence required

in the ‘patch’ test. While it is beyond the intended scope of this paper to review in detail

the theoretical studies on reduced integration cited by these authors, two key findings are

summarized in the following for completeness of discussion. First, the minimum level of

numerical integration (quadrature) necessary to insure stability and convergence of

solution is that which correctly integrates the volume of the finite element. For the two-

dimensional quadratic 8-noded element used here, this implies a four-point quadrature for

reduced integration, as opposed to full quadrature which leads to a nine point

requirement. Second, reduced integration leads to a weak singularity in the single element

stiffness and fewer internal constraints on the coupling between volumetric and

deviatoric strains. This singularity does not appear in equilibrium equations when more

than one element is involved.

We therefore conclude that reduced integration techniques have a firm theoretical

basis, supporting their application. However, as with any finite element, their robustness

and accuracy in particular applications should be critically examined. Alternatives to the

use of reduced integration exist, e.g. hybrid finite elements, or very high order

displacement-based elements such as the 15-noded cubic strain triangle. Hybrid elements

are available in commercial codes, such as ABAQUS [14], and are effective in the

analysis of incompressible materials. The term hybrid stems from the use of both

displacement and stress components as solution variables. In this case, the stress

component included is the mean pressure. Detailed discussion of these elements are given

by Zienkiewicz and Taylor [4] and HKS [14]. The performance of the hybrid elements

are compared herein with results of displacement based elements.

VERIFICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODELING TECHNIQUES

The adequacy of the hybrid and reduced-integration elements are demonstrated in

the following by virtue of their performance in accurately calculating the limit loads for
three problems; some of which have typically proven to be problematic for a wide range

of element formulations. The analyses were performed with the program ABAQUS [14].

The first series of problems are plane strain (strip) and axisymmetric (circular) footings

on the surface of purely cohesive soil. Secondly, deeply embedded footings in cohesive

soil are considered. The final problem relates to the ultimate lateral resistance of a

circular pile cross section in a cohesive soil. The finite element analyses make use of

isotropic elasticity combined with a von Mises or Tresca type strength surface. The

implementation of the Tresca elastic-plastic constitutive model includes a non-associated

flow rule. Young’s modulus is taken as approximately one thousand times greater than

the undrained strength.

Footing analyses presented here represent rigid footings and a weightless soil. The

surface and deep footings are analyzed with smooth and perfectly rough interfaces,

respectively. The footing limit load is conventionally denoted as Pult = N⋅Su⋅A, where N is

the bearing capacity factor, Su is the undrained strength, and A is the bearing area.

Theoretical limit solutions presented here are based on the Tresca strength condition. The

Tresca and Mohr-Coulomb criteria are identical when the Mohr-Coulomb internal

friction parameter is zero, as is the case for a purely cohesive material. Finite element

strength models used here include both the von Mises and Tresca criteria. Plane strain

(strip) footings are analyzed with the von Mises condition matched to the Tresca strength

using the procedure presented by Chen [15]. For circular footings, limit loads are

presented for the Tresca criterion. Comparison of limit loads predicted by displacement

and hybrid elements for strip and circular surface footings are shown in Figure 2. The
finite element mesh is shown in Figure 2a, and the load-displacement relationship in

Figure 2b. Displacement (D) and hybrid (H) element formulations are indicated in Figure

2b, along with the order of integration, full/standard (S) and reduced (R). Thus, SD

implies a standard integration combined with a displacement formulation. A small

displacement formulation was used in the analyses to formulate the element stiffness and

equilibrium equations. Limit solutions are well defined for all conditions but the fully

integrated displacement formulation element in the circular footing case; as expected

based on previous experience. Theoretical bearing capacity factors, N for smooth and

rough circular footings are 5.69 and 6.05 [15], respectively. The theoretical bearing

capacity factor for a strip footing is 5.14. The calculated bearing capacity factors for the

strip footing range from 5.3 to 5.4. For circular footings, the calculated bearing capacity

factors range from 5.77 upwards. The RH and RD analyses with the Tresca material

model for the circular footing fall within a reasonable range of the theoretical solution.

The bearing capacity factor of 5.77 from the RH analysis is essentially the exact solution

for the smooth footing condition considered.

The finite element mesh and results of limit analysis of embedded deep strip and

circular footings are shown in Figure 3. A large displacement formulation is required for

this particular problem because of the relatively large stresses compared to the elastic

moduli. Theoretical solutions for these conditions have been given by Chen [16], using

upper-bound limit analysis, and Meyerhof [17], using limit equilibrium methods. The

ratio of the depth of embedment to footing width is 4, and the shaft of the footing is

smooth and allows no horizontal deformations. The theoretical solutions by Meyerhof

[17] result in bearing capacity factors ranging from 8.85 to 9.74 for rough strip and

circular footings, respectively. Chen [16] reported a bearing capacity factor of

approximately 9 for deep strip footings. The results for the RD analyses for strip and

circular footings indicate bearing capacity factors of 8.9 and 10.7, respectively. The RH

analyses result in bearing capacity factors of 7.7 and 9.6 for strip and circular footings,

respectively. In the present case, the fully integrated displacement elements (SD) perform

poorly and do not reach a limit (results not presented). Accurate determinations of the

bearing capacity of deep embedded footings are complicated by the fact that the

plastically deforming region is confined within an elastic region, so that the plastically

strained zone is not free to undergo the unlimited plastic deformation typically associated

with limit conditions. In the present cases, the zone of plastic behavior is contained

within about two footing diameters distance from the footing (results not shown).

The final illustrative example is that of determining the lateral resistance of a

circular pile cross section. For this analysis, a plane strain idealization and von Mises

strength criterion matched to the plane strain condition is adopted. The finite element

mesh is shown in Figure 4a. The results are shown in Figure 4b for three pile-soil

interface conditions: rough with no separation, gapping (separation allowed, no tensile

forces transmitted), and gapping with a frictional interface. The theoretical limit solutions

have been presented by Randolph and Houlsby [18]. Those authors presented lower-

bound solutions with bearing capacity factors, N of 9.14, 10.52, and 11.94 for friction

coefficients f of 0, 0.4, and 1, respectively. These correspond well with the results shown

in Figure 4b for the same conditions obtained for both reduced integration and hybrid
elements. Hamilton et al. [19] reported experimental investigations showing N values

generally between 10 to 12 for depths greater than four pile diameters. These results are

further discussed later in the paper.

Current practice in the offshore industry [20] assumes the lateral bearing capacity

factor at large depths to be N = 9. Based on the results presented here, limit solutions

[18], and experimental investigation [19], the current API practice is conservative.

LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY ANALYSES OF SUCTION CAISSONS

The ultimate holding capacity of a suction caisson anchored at a site with soil

conditions similar to that found in the Gulf of Mexico were analyzed. The soil at the site

where the suction caisson is expected to be anchored is a normally consolidated clay. The

shear strengths are assumed to be zero at the seabed and increasing linearly with depth as

given below:

SuDSS = 1.41z (kPa) (1)

where z is the depth below seabed in meters and SuDSS is the undrained static direct

simple shear strength. The submerged unit weight of the soil is 6.3 kN/m3.

The finite element analyses were conducted using ABAQUS [14]. A von Mises

shear strength idealization was used to model the clay. The von Mises model implies a

purely cohesive (pressure independent) soil strength definition. The caisson is modeled as

a weightless linear elastic material.

TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOAD CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF SUCTION CAISSONS

Two-dimensional analyses were performed to confirm the mesh and boundary

definitions selected for three-dimensional investigations are suitable for classical passive

and active pressure problems. The caisson analyzed was 6.1 m in diameter with a

penetration depth of 12.2 m below the mud line. The caisson length to diameter ratio is

L/D = 2. The caisson has a closed top during installation and operation. Initial horizontal

stresses were defined with a coefficient of lateral earth pressure Ko equal to 1. The finite

element mesh shown in Figure 5 was used for the analyses. The mesh model dimensions

of 56 m width by 36.6 m depth was intended to minimize boundary effects on response.

The mesh consists of eight-noded plane strain elements for the soil and two-noded linear

beam elements for the caisson.

The inclination of the load considered was assumed to be 28° with the horizontal,

measured counterclockwise. Several points of attachment for the mooring line were

considered to study the effect of the attachment point on the load capacity. The optimal

load attachment point is that which produces maximum capacity. Figure 6 shows a plot of

load capacity vs. point of attachment. The capacity generally increases with depth of

attachment. This is in agreement with previously published results [21,22].

Figure 7 shows the horizontal stress acting on the wall when it is constrained to

translate horizontally with no rotation occurring. Both smooth and rough soil-wall

interfaces are considered. The active and passive pressures computed at the limit

conditions display the expected linear distribution with depth, and closely match the

pressures calculated for classic active and passive pressure retaining wall response.
 The effect of the load attachment point on the failure mechanism produced was

also studied. Figures 8(a), (b) and (c) shows the various failure mechanisms produced

when the load is attached above, at and below the optimum point. Figures 8(a) and (c)

show that when the load attachment point is above or below the optimal point, the caisson

rotates. The failure mechanism is more rotational than translational. The shear zone

mobilized is also less in area than if the load is attached at the optimal attachment point.

It can be seen from Figure 8(b) that when the load is attached at the optimal load

attachment point, the failure mechanism is predominately translational. From Figure 6, it

can be seen that the load capacity only decreases slightly if the attachment point is below

mid-height of the caisson.

COMPARISON OF LOAD-DEFORMATION RESPONSE OF FOURIER AND

THREE-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSES

The three-dimensional response was analyzed using both three-dimensional and

quasi three-dimensional Fourier analysis elements (CAXA) available within ABAQUS.

CAXA elements are biquadratic, Fourier quadrilateral elements. These elements were

used for the analyses of suction caissons because they allow non-linear, asymmetric

deformations and loading. Two types of CAXA elements, namely the CAXA8R2 and

CAXA8R4, were used in the analyses. These are eight-noded quadrilateral reduced

integration elements that differ in the number of Fourier modes used for interpolation.

CAXA8R2 elements use two Fourier modes for interpolation while the CAXA8R4 uses

four. The number of elements and nodes in the mesh are 180 and 3616, respectively. A
three-dimensional model having a similar mesh configuration with twenty-noded brick

elements was also developed to compare the results from a quasi three-dimensional

Fourier analysis and the actual three-dimensional response. The far boundaries of the

model are modeled as perfectly rough (no translations allowed). The modeled caisson

does not include a top plate, which results in free deformations of the top soil surface in

the caisson soil plug.

The plane of symmetry of the three-dimensional and axisymmetric models is

identical to the plane-strain model shown in Figure 5. The point of load application is at

about mid-height of the caisson (5.97 m below the mud line). The inclination of the load

was 32° with the horizontal, measured counterclockwise. The coefficient of lateral earth

pressure Ko is 0.8. The load-displacement curves for the three-dimensional model as well

as the axisymmetric analyses using two and four Fourier modes are shown in Figure 9.

The load indicated in Figure 9 represents the load vector magnitude (resultant from

horizontal and vertical components). The three-dimensional and Fourier analyses give the

same limit loads, approximately 7700 kN.

Finite element analyses with a purely horizontal applied load resulted in a limit

load of approximately 5000 kN when the load is applied at mid-height of the caisson, and

2300 kN when the load is applied at the top of the caisson. Murff and Hamilton [23]

present methods using upper-bound limit analyses, which give a capacity of 7000 kN for

the case of pile translating horizontally in a soil mass with full adhesion and suction

assumed on the back side of the pile. Those authors also compared their solutions with

experimental centrifuge tests in kaolin clay previously presented by Hamilton et al [19].

The present numerical results are compared with these limit analysis and experimental

results in the following.

Figure 10 shows the non-dimensionalized normal (radial) stresses acting on the

outside wall of the caisson from the axisymmetric-asymmetric analysis. The 0° plane is

the plane along which the load is attached. The results in Figure 10 were obtained by

dividing the soil radial stresses adjacent to the caisson by the soil strength (Eqn 1) at the

respective depth. The left side of the plot in Figure 10 represents results with an inclined

(at 32° from the horizontal) load, while the right side represents results for a purely

horizontal load. The results from the analysis with an inclined load generally show

higher non-dimensionalized pressures than that for a horizontal load. This can be

explained by the fact that the vertical load component applied on the face of the caisson

tends to reduce rotation of the caisson. The non-dimensionalized stresses generally

increase with depth when rotation of the caisson is limited, but when significant rotation

does occur, passive pressures are reduced at the leading edge of the base of the caisson.

As shown in Figure 11, the present numerical results compare reasonably with

available limit solutions and experimental results. Figure 11 includes capacities computed

from methods commonly used in the offshore industry developed by Matlock [24] for

laterally loaded piles in soft clays. Centrifuge tests performed by Hamilton et al [19,23]

resulted in a mean bearing factor of 11 over a wide range of depths. The analytical limit

solutions and experimental results in Figure 11 are for a strength profile increasing

linearly with depth at the same rate assumed for the present numerical results (Eqn 1).

Murff and Hamilton [23] attributed the scatter shown in Figure 11 at shallow depths to
‘both the low shear strength near the mud line and the inherent scatter in the soil-

resistance derivation methodology.’ The latter point refers to numerical procedures that

infer bearing pressures on model piles from measured bending strains. The present

numerically determined bearing factors are intermediate to those determined by Murff

and Hamilton [23], and Matlock [24]. Limiting bearing factors N assumed by Murff and

Hamilton, and Matlock are 12 and 9, respectively. The Matlock method results in lower

lateral bearing factors than the experimental results and other numerical and analytical

limit results shown in Figure 11.

Magnitudes of plastic strain are plotted in Figure 12 on the deformed mesh for an

inclined load analysis with Fourier elements. The zone of plastic action is contained

within a distance of three caisson diameters of the caisson axis. This is also the zone of

significant soil deformation. The mobilized soil mass is roughly conical in shape and

extends to a depth of one half diameter below the caisson base.

The authors performed limit analyses with hybrid forms of the Fourier elements

and found that these elements produced limit loads approximately 3% lower than the

displacement based formulation. It can be concluded based on these results that

CAXA8R2 or CAXA8R4 elements can be used for three-dimensional analyses of suction

caissons without loss in accuracy compared to the full three-dimensional formulations.

Further, the definition of the finite element model is much less time consuming, and limit

loads compare favorably with available experimental results.

Investigations not presented here showed that the limit loads determined from

analyses with and without the effect of soil self-weight are negligibly different. The
reason for this can be seen in the form of the failure mechanisms shown in Figure 8.

Since the passive and active wedges are the same size, the work contribution due to the

self-weights sum to zero. That is, the weight of material lifted in front of the caisson is

the same as that pulled down on the opposite side, thus resulting in no net work being

performed. Different results would be expected if separation between the caisson and soil

occurred on the active pressure side.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have been conducted to examine the response under loading of

suction caissons in Gulf of Mexico clays. The present analyses used linear elasticity

combined with the von Mises strength model to describe the deformation and strength

properties typical of Gulf of Mexico deepwater clays. New insights were obtained on the

extent of area in which displacements will occur due to loading of a suction caisson as

well as the magnitude of horizontal stresses that are expected to develop on the caisson

wall. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:

• The maximum anchor capacity is obtained when the load attachment point forces the

caisson to have a translational mode of failure rather than a rotational mode of failure.

This is in agreement with earlier findings by Keaveny et al. [21], and Colliat et al.

[22] but conflicts with those of Murff and Hamilton [23] who concluded that

translational and rotational mechanisms resulted in essentially the same limit loads.

• Inclined loads applied at the face of the caisson tend to reduce caisson rotation,

resulting in greater lateral capacity.

• A pseudo three-dimensional model available in ABAQUS, utilizing the use of Fourier

interpolation to define approximate three-dimensional conditions can be used instead

of an actual three-dimensional model for analyzing the capacity of a suction caisson

with considerable computational time savings. While not pointed out elsewhere in

this paper, the authors would like to note that the use of reduced integration

procedures and the Fourier modeling technique offered large computational

efficiencies with no loss of accuracy. For the problems considered herein, using

reduced integration procedures for three-dimensional problems resulted in a 40%

reduction in solution time requirements compared to full integration procedures.

Fourier solutions required approximately 20% of the computational time of full three-

dimensional analyses.

• Limiting lateral bearing pressures on deep piles in cohesive soils are greater than

those currently used in the design of offshore piles. Other limit analysis solutions and

experimental observations support this conclusion.

• The lateral resistance of suction caissons is not affected by installation disturbance of

the soil near the caisson wall since the source of resistance is the soil in the passive

and active pressure zones.

• Accurate predictions of the capacity of suction caissons, footings and other embedded

structures can be obtained from finite element analyses. Reduced integration elements

were shown to produce well-defined limit conditions in both two- and three-

dimensional conditions. Hybrid elements generally provided lower limit loads than
 displacement based formulations. The difference in caisson capacities determined by

the hybrid and displacement element formulations is relatively small.

These results have important practical implications for the estimation of the

capacity and the design of suction caissons.

REFERENCES

1. Christophersen H.P., Bysveen S., and Stove O.J., Innovative Foundation Systems

Selected for the Snorre Field Development. Proceedings of the Behavior of Offshore

Structures Conference (1992) 81-94.

2. Baerheim M., Heberg L., and Tjelta T.I.., Development and Structural Design of the

Bucket Foundations for the Europile Jacket. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology

Conference. (1995) 859-868.

3. Clukey, E.C., and Morrison, M.J., A Centrifuge and Analytical Study to Evaluate

Suction Caissons for TLP Applications in the Gulf of Mexico. Preprint, Design and

Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft Rocks, Dallas, (1993)

141-156.

4. Zienkiewicz O.C., and Taylor R.L., The Finite Element Method, Vol. 1, 4th Edition,

McGraw-Hill (1994).

5. Zienkiewicz O.C., Taylor R.L., and Too J.M., Reduced Integration Technique in

General Analysis of Plates and Shells. International Journal for Numerical and Methods

in Geomechanics. 3 (1971) 275-290.

6. Nagtegaal J.C., Parks D.M., and Rice J.R., On Numerically Accurate Finite Element

Solutions in the Fully Plastic Range. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and

Engineering. 4 (1974) 153-177.

7. Sloan S.W., and Randolph M.F., Numerical Prediction of Collapse Loads Using Finite

Element Methods. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in

Geomechanics. 6 (1982) 47-76.

8. De Borst R., and Vermeer R.A., Possibilities and Limitations of Finite Elements for

Limit Analysis. Goetechnique, 34 (1984) 199-210.

9. Whittle A.J., and Germaine J.T., Behavior of Suction Caisson Foundations, Annual

Technical Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1993).

10. Barlow J., Optimal Stress Locations in Finite Element Models. International Journal

for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 10 (1976) 243-251.

11. Barlow J., More on Optimal Stress Points-Reduced Integration, Element Distortions

and Error Estimation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 28

(1989) 1487-1504.

12. Griffiths D.V., Elasto-Plastic Analyses of Deep Foundations in Cohesive Soil.

International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. 6 (1982)

211-218.

13. Naylor D.J., Stresses in Nearly Incompressible Materials by Finite Elements with

Applications to the Calculations of Excess Pore Pressures. International Journal for

Numerical Methods in Engineering. 8 (1974) 443-460.

14. HKS, ABAQUS User’s Manual - Version 5.7. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen (1997).

15. Chen, W.F., Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials. Plasticity and

Modeling. Vol. 2, Elsevier (1994).

16. Chen, W.F., Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity, Elsevier Scientific Publishing

Company, 1059 pp (1975).

17. Meyerhof G.G., The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations. Geotechnique. 2

(1951) 301-332.

18. Randolph M.F., and Houslby G.T., The Limiting Pressure on a Circular Pile Loaded

Laterally in Cohesive Soil. Geotechnique. 34 (1984) 613-623.

19. Hamilton J.M., Phillips R., Dunnavant T.W., and Murff J.D., Centrifuge Study of

Laterally Loaded Pile Behavior in Clay. Proceedings of the International Conference on

Centrifuge, ISSMFE (1991).

20. API, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed

Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design. API RP 2A-WSD, 20th Edition. American

Petroleum Institute, Washington DC (1993).

21. Keaveny J.M., Hansen S.B., Madshus C., and Dyvik R., Horizontal Capacity of Large

Scale Model Anchors. XIII International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering, New Delhi, India (1994).

22. Colliat J.L., Boisard P., Andersen K., and Schroeder K., Caisson Foundations as

Alternative Anchors for Permanent Mooring of a Process Barge Offshore Congo. 27th

Annual Offshore Technology Conference (1995).

23. Murff J.D, and Hamilton J.M., P-Ultimate for Undrained Analysis of Laterally

Loaded Piles. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 119-1 (1993) 91-107.

24. Matlock, H., Correlations For Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay. Paper

No. 1204, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas (1970).

Definition of Terms

A Bearing area

B Width or diameter of footing

d Displacement

D Diameter

DSS Direct simple shear (shear strength evaluation)

f Coefficient of friction

L Length

N Bearing factor

P Load
Sea level
Su Undrained shear strength of soil

z Depth

Figure
Figure
1 1

Suction caisson
 7.0
Center line
Circular SD-Mises
Half footing RD-Mises
of 15.2 cm width SH-Mises
6.5 76.2 cm
RH-Mises
RD-Tresca
RH-Tresca
Load Factor N

6.0 SD-Tresca

61 cm Strip

5.5

5.0

4.5
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1

Normalized Displacement (d/B)

Figure 2a

Figure 2b

23
 1.53 m
25.9 m

12
RD-Mises
Circular
11m RH-Mises
12.2
RH-Tresca
10 RD-Tresca
Load Factor N

Strip
9
36.6 m
8

5
-0.1 -0.05 0 Figure 3b 0.05 0.1 0.15

Normalized Displacement (d/B)

27.45 m

Figure 3a

24
14

12

10

6
Rough, No Separation; SH

4 f=0.4, Gapping;
14m SH
Pile of
3.13m diameter f=0.4, Gapping; RD
2 f=0.4, Gapping; SD
Figure 4a Smooth, Gapping; SH
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Normalized Displacement, d/B

Figure 4b

25
 Caisson of
6.1 m diameter
24.4 m

36.6 m

54.8 m

Figure 5

26
 Load Capacity (kN/m)
0 20 40 60 80
0

Pressure (kPa)
0 40 80 120 160
10 Horizontal Load,
0 Rough Interface
Rough
Load Inclination = Rough
28, Rough Smooth
3
Interface Smooth
Horizontal Load,
Classical Smooth
Depth Below Seabed(m

Friction=0.4
15 Classical Smooth
6

9
Figure 6

12 Figure 7

Active Pressure Passive Pressure

15

27
Figure 8a

28
Figure 8b

29
Figure 8c

30
 σ radial
Su

8000
0 Soil Weight Included

Inclined Load 20 10 20 Horizontal Load

6000
40 8 40

6
60 60
4000
4

80 2 80
2000
0 CAXA8R2
100 CAXA8R4
100
C3D20R
0
0 120 0.05 0.1 0.15 120 0.2

Normalized Displacement, d/D

140 140

160 Figure 9
160
180

0.25L 0.55L 0.75L 0.95L

Figure 10

31
 20
Centrifuge tests [19,23]

Upper bound limit analysis, Murff method [23]

Limit Analysis, Matlock method [23]
16
Present Finite Element Analyses, 0° plane
Normalized Ultimate Lateral Stress (Pult/SuD)

12

2 4 6 8 10
Depth in Pile Diameters (L/D)

Figure 11

32
Figure 12

33
Figure 1 Schematic view of a spar platform anchored to suction caissons at the seabed
Figure 2(a) Finite element mesh used in the analyses of the capacity of surface footings
Figure 2(b) Bearing capacity factor, N vs. Normalized displacement computed for surface strip and circular footings
Figure 3 Bearing capacity factor, N vs. Normalized displacement for deeply embedded circular and strip footings
Figure 4(a) Finite element mesh used for determination of lateral pile capacity
Figure 4(b) Bearing capacity factor vs. Normalized displacement for a circular pile
Figure 5 Finite element mesh used for determining the capacity of suction caissons
Figure 6 Load capacity of suction caisson (kN/m) vs. Depth to load attachment point obtained from the analyses of a plane strain
model
Figure 7 Horizontal stress acting on the wall on the active and passive side
Figure 8(a) Plot of Displacement Vectors Indicating Failure Pattern when Horizontal Load is Attached at the Top of the Caisson
Figure 8(b) Plot of Displacement Vectors Indicating Failure Pattern when Horizontal Load is Attached at the Optimal Attachment
Point
Figure 8(c) Plot of Displacement Vectors Indicating Failure Pattern when Horizontal Load is Attached Below Optimal Attachment
Point
Figure 9 Load capacity vs. Normalized displacement for the three dimensional and axisymmetric asymmetric analyses
Figure 10 Normal Stresses Acting on the Outside of the Caisson at Various Depths Below Mudline
Figure 11 Predicted versus Experimental Soil Resistance (Reproduced with permission from ASCE [Murff J.D, and Hamilton J.M., P-
Ultimate for Undrained Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 119 (1993) 91-107.])
Figure 12 Plastic Strains Developed in the Soil Surrounding the Caisson

34