Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Experimental studies on sand plug formation in

suction caisson during extraction

Yukun Zhang, Dayong Li & Fuquan Chen

To cite this article: Yukun Zhang, Dayong Li & Fuquan Chen (2018): Experimental studies on
sand plug formation in suction caisson during extraction, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology,
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2017.1390709

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1390709

Published online: 06 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1390709

none defined

Experimental studies on sand plug formation in suction caisson during extraction

Yukun Zhanga,b, Dayong Lia,b, and Fuquan Chena
a
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China; bCollege of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Shandong University of Science and
Technology, Qingdao, PR China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A series of model tests were conducted on Perspex-made suction caissons in saturated dense marine Received 29 June 2017
sand to study the sand plug formation during extraction. Suction caissons were extracted by pullout Accepted 11 September
loading or by pumping air into the suction caisson. Effects of the pullout rates, aspect ratios and 2017
loading ways (monotonic or sustained) on the pullout capacity, and plug formation were investigated. KEYWORDS
It was found that the ultimate pullout capacity of the suction caisson increases with increasing Extraction; model test;
the pullout rate. The sand plug formation under the pullout loading is significantly influenced by the monotonic and sustained
pullout rate and the loading way. When the suction caisson is extracted at a relatively slow rate, pullout loading; sand plug;
the general sand boiling through the sand plug along the inner caisson wall occurs. On the contrary, suction caisson
the local sand boiling will occur at the bottom of the suction caisson subjected to a rapid monotonic
loading or a sustained loading. Test results of the suction caisson extracted by pumping air into the
caisson show that the pressure in the suction caisson almost follows a linear relationship with the
upward displacement. The maximum pressures for suction caissons with aspect ratios of 1.0 and 2.0
during extraction by pumping air into the caisson are 1.70 and 2.27 times the maximum suction
required to penetrate the suction caisson into sand. It was found that the sand plug moves downward
during extraction by pumping air into the caisson and the variation in the sand plug height is mainly
caused by the outflow of the sand particles from the inside of the suction caisson to the outside. When
the suction caisson model is extracted under the pullout rate of 2 mm/s (0.28 mm/s for the prototype),
the hydraulic gradient along the suction caisson wall increases to the maximum value with increasing
the penetration depth and then reduces to zero. On the contrary, when extracted under the pullout
rate of 10 mm/s (1.4 mm/s for the prototype), the hydraulic gradient along the suction caisson wall
increases with increasing the pullout displacement. When extracted by pumping air into the caisson,
the hydraulic gradient reaches the critical value, and at the same time, the seepage failure occurs
around the suction caisson tip.

Introduction For the suction caisson subjected to pullout loading, three

drained conditions for the sand encased inside the suction
Suction caissons have been widely used as foundations in
caisson, namely, the perfectly drained, perfectly undrained,
offshore oil and gas industry and have recently been extended
or partially drained conditions, will occur. For the perfectly
to offshore wind turbines. The large diameter monopile is
drained condition, the pullout bearing capacity equals the
preferred for use as wind turbine foundations in shallow
sum of the caisson self-weight and the shaft friction along
waters (Kelly, Houlsby, and Byrne 2006). Some offshore wind
the inner and outer suction caisson walls (Cerfontaine, Collin,
energy farm sites have been gradually moving from shallow
and Charlier 2015); however, the soil plug will not move
waters to deep waters to meet some needs. In greater water
upward with the increasing upward vertical displacement.
depths, suction caissons attract more attention instead
For the perfectly undrained condition, the passive suction is
of monopiles avoiding difficulties in driving them with a
mobilized, leading to the upward movement of the soil plug.
tremendous hammer. Moreover, suction caissons have
It has been proved that the pullout bearing capacity for the
significant advantages of cost-effectiveness, fast installation,
undrained condition is much larger than that for the drained
and reuse (Byrne and Houlsby 2004). As an alternative to the
condition. Furthermore, Mana et al. (2012) found that the
pile foundation for offshore wind turbines, the suction caisson
pullout capacity of the suction caisson under the undrained
is required to withstand larger horizontal forces and overturn-
condition in clay equals the capacity in compression (Mana
ing moments than the vertical loads. For a tripod wind turbine
et al. 2012). However, Acosta-Martinez, Gourvenec, and
foundation, the overturning moment induced by the wind
Randolph (2008) concluded that the pullout capacity of
and waves is primarily carried by a “push–pull” action by the
suction caisson is about 0.7 times the undrained vertical
opposing caissons (Byrne and Houlsby 2003); therefore, the
capacity under compression (Acosta-Martinez, Gourvenec,
upwind caissons of a tripod caisson foundation will encounter
and Randolph 2008). The reduction in the pullout bearing
tensile loads (Houlsby, Kelly, and Byrne 2005).

CONTACT Dayong Li ldydy@163.com College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, No. 2, Xueyuan Road, Fuzhou 350116, Fujian Province, PR China.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/umgt.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
2 Y. ZHANG ET AL.

capacity attributes to dissipation of the passive suction caused force between the Perspex-made suction caisson wall and sand
by the separation between the caisson wall and soil is smaller than that of the steel or concrete suction caisson
(Kelly, Houlsby, and Byrne 2006; Mana, Gourvenec, and with the same dimensions, the installation or extraction
Randolph 2013). resistance of the Perspex-made suction caisson is smaller than
For the suction caisson embedded in sand, Kelly, Houlsby, that of the steel or concrete suction caisson. However, model
and Byrne (2006) and Gabr, Xiao, and Rahman (2015) have test results presented by our companion paper showed that
concluded that the loading rate and water depth dominate the behavior of the suction caisson during suction-assisted
the caisson pullout capacity (Kelly, Houlsby, and Byrne installation or extraction by pumping water into or out of
2006; Gabr, Xiao, and Rahman 2015). Kelly, Houlsby, and the caisson is similar to that by pumping air into or out
Byrne (2006) found that a small passive suction was generated of the caisson (Zhang, Li, and Gao 2017). Therefore, to
at atmospheric pressure when the loading rate equals 5 mm/s, observe the sand plug formation directly, the suction caisson
and in contrast the cavitation pressure of 100 kPa was was extracted by pumping air into the caisson.
reached at the loading rate of 100 mm/s (Kelly, Houlsby, and
Byrne 2006). In addition, Houlsby, Kelly, and Byrne (2005)
Test equipment and testing procedures
presented calculations for pullout capacity in sand by taking
the drained condition and pullout rate into account (Houlsby, Test equipment
Kelly, and Byrne 2005).
Suction model caissons
It has been proven that suction caissons can provide a high
The Perspex-made suction caissons are shown in Figure 1a,
magnitude of tension force owing to the generation of the pass-
and the corresponding dimensions and weight are given in
ive suction between the caisson top plate and the soil plug (Byrne
Table 1. Figure 1b gives the sign convention of the load and
and Houlsby 2003; Mana et al. 2012). Thieken, Achmus, and
displacement for plane loading of the suction caissons. In this
Schröder (2014) concluded that a considerable sand plug is
study, the positive load (V) and positive displacement (w) are
necessary to mobilize the suction caisson pullout capacity
taken downward; therefore, the pullout load acting on the suc-
(Thieken, Achmus, and Schröder 2014). Therefore, it is neces-
tion caisson is negative. The dimensionless form of the vertical
sary to study the sand plug formation during extraction to guide
displacement is w/D, where D is diameter of the caisson.
the suction caisson removal in sand after its commission.
In addition, the serviceable life of an offshore wind farm is
normally 20–50 years, and some wind farms may be required Tank and loading apparatus
to meet the needs of the increasingly promoted wind turbine The tests were conducted in a steel tank with dimensions of 1 m
power capacity. Therefore, many offshore wind turbines and long � 1 m wide � 0.8 m high (Figure 2). A hydraulic servo
foundations will be updated. However, only few studies have actuator was used to provide the monotonic or the sustained
been conducted to investigate the extraction behavior of suc- pullout loads. The pullout load and the corresponding upward
tion caissons in sand (Zhang, Ding, and Le 2013; Lehane, displacement were measured by a load cell and an LVDT,
Elkhatib, and Terzaghi 2014). Zhang, Ding, and Le (2013) respectively (Figure 2b). A pore pressure transducer was
carried out field tests on installation and removal of suction mounted on the caisson lid to measure variations of the suction.
caissons in silt clay and concluded that during removal of A miniature vacuum pump with the maximum pumping rate of
the suction caisson, the removal resistance would suddenly 1.25 L/min was used to pumping out the water and air encased
decrease with the soil structure failure caused by seepage in the suction caisson during the suction-assisted installation.
(Zhang, Ding, and Le 2013). Lehane, Elkhatib, and Terzaghi
(2014) proposed a method to estimate the overpressure Sand used
required to extract a suction caisson in sand based on the
observations in the centrifuge tests and in the corresponding The sand used was collected from the Golden Sand Beach in
FE analyses (Lehane, Elkhatib, and Terzaghi 2014). The entire Qingdao, East China. The hydraulic conductivity of the sand
extraction process and sand plug formation of the suction cais-
son should be further investigated to guide the removal. To the
authors’ knowledge, there are no comprehensive investigations
on the sand plug formations during extraction by pullout
loading or by pumping air or water into the suction caisson.
In this study, model tests on the model Perspex-made cais-
sons were initiated to investigate the sand plug formations
during pullout loading and extraction by pumping air into
the suction caisson. During installation and pullout loading,
both the vertical displacement and pressure between the
caisson lid and sand plug surface were measured to display
installation and pullout behavior. Influences of pullout rates,
aspect ratios, and loading ways (monotonic or sustained) on
the sand plug formation were also analyzed. It should be noted
that the prototype suction caisson is extracted by pumping Figure 1. Suction caisson models. (a) Photo. (b) Notation of load and
water into the suction caisson. In addition, since the frictional displacement.
 MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 3

Table 1. Dimensions and weight of model suction caissons.

Caisson no. Material Diameter, D (mm) Length, L (mm) Aspect ratio, L/D ( ) Wall thickness, t1 (mm) Caisson lid thickness, t2 (mm) Weight, W (N)
I-P Perspex 120 120 1 5 10 5.68
II-P 240 2 8.23

is 0.0025 mm/s and the maximum and minimum void ratios of
the sand are 0.903 and 0.61, respectively. The other parameters
such as internal friction angle are presented by Li, Feng, and
Zhang (2014). Gravel with particle size range of 15–20 mm
was initially placed uniformly to a thickness of 10 cm to form
the filter layer (Figure 2b). It assures that the water level
decreases uniformly during draining by opening the valve at
the bottom of the tank. A sheet of geotextile was then covered
in case that sand particles were washed away with drainage.
Enough water was then poured into the tank, and the dry
marine fine sand was sprayed into water to ensure the
homogeneity of sand formation. During this process, the water
level should be kept higher than the sand surface. Sand bed
reached a height of 60 cm at the end.

Testing procedures
It is vital to keep each test condition, especially the sand
relative density in the same state to make the test results
reproducible. Before each test, the sand was loosened by
raising the water level through the valve at the bottom of the
tank. During this stage, the water level reached 10 cm above
the sand surface. The water level was then lowered to 2 cm
high above the sand surface to accelerate the consolidation rate
of the sand. In this way, the relative density of the sand base is
approximately 0.91, and the corresponding submerged unit
weight is 10.7 kN/m3.
In this study, the suction caissons were installed using suc-
tion. During suction-assisted installation, the caisson was first
allowed to penetrate into a certain depth under its self-weight
with the vents on the caisson lid opened. Further penetration
was then achieved by pumping air and water out of the cais-
son. The caisson was left in the sand for 12 h after installation
and the monotonic or sustained pullout load was then applied
to the caisson. The pullout rate is normalized as v/k, where v is
the pullout rate and k is the hydraulic conductivity of the sand.
The details of the tests are summarized in Table 2.

Figure 2. Model test setup. (a) Sketch. (b) Photo.
Test results
Installation of caissons
Figure 3a shows the installation results of the caissons
numbered I-P and II-P and Figure 3b gives the corresponding
normalized suction–penetration depth curves. The suction is
normalized by p/γ’D, where p is the pressure difference under

Table 2. Experiment program of tests.

Caisson Aspect Final penetration Pullout rate, Normalized pullout Pullout rate for Ultimate vertical Maximum passive
no. ratio, L/D depth, wfinal/D vM (mm/s) rate, vM/k ( ) prototype, vP (mm/s) resistance, Pu (kPa) suction (kPa)
I-P 1.0 0.71 0.2 8 0.028 1.71 1.29
0.75 2 80 0.28 2.74 2.30
0.74 10 400 1.4 6.43 4.87
II-P 2.0 1.60 0.2 8 0.028 2.84 1.98
1.60 2 80 0.28 5.10 3.74
1.60 10 400 1.4 10.11 7.43
I-P 1.0 0.76 Sustained loading – – 1.80 1.31
II-P 2.0 1.58 Sustained loading – – 3.50 3.48
I-P 1.0 0.75 Pumping air into the caisson – – – –
II-P 2.0 1.6 Pumping air into the caisson – – – –
4 Y. ZHANG ET AL.
and above the suction caisson lid. It can be observed that the
suction first increases rapidly to a certain value without obvi-
ous penetration. Then the suction increases almost linearly
with further penetration. When the caissons penetrate to a
certain depth, a sharp reduction of the suction is observed
and no further penetration depth is achieved, indicating that
the caisson lid came into contact with the soil plug. As shown
in Table 2, wfinal denotes the final penetration depth. The final
penetration depths for the suction caisson models numbered I-
P and II-P are approximately 0.7 D and 1.6 D, respectively.
During a suction-assisted installation test, it is difficult to
investigate the hydraulic gradient behavior along the suction
caisson wall. However, Tran and Randolph (2008) concluded
that p/γ’w (w is the penetration depth) by normalizing the
suction by the effective overburden stress at the suction
caisson tip during suction-assisted installation is a good indi-
cator of the hydraulic gradient along the suction caisson wall
(Tran and Randolph 2008). Tran and Randolph (2008) found
by carrying out centrifuge tests and numerical simulations on
the suction caisson installation in sand that the relationship
between p/γ’w and the penetration depth follows the similar
trend as that between the hydraulic gradient and penetration
depth (Tran and Randolph 2008).
Figure 4 shows the variations of p/γ’w under various
penetration depths for the suction caissons numbered I-P
Figure 3. Installation of model caissons. (a) Suction–penetration depth curves.
(b) Normalized suction–penetration depth curves.
and II-P. The normalized suction p/γ’w increases rapidly to
the maximum values as pumping is initiated and then
decreases to constant values with increasing the penetration
depth, indicating that the maximum hydraulic gradient is
obtained at the early stage of suction-assisted installation.
The variation of p/γ’w value with respect to the penetration
depth follows the similar trend as that proposed by Tran
and Randolph (2008). It can be also concluded that the
maximum value of p/γ’w for the suction caisson with the
aspect ratio of 1.0 is larger than that for the aspect ratio of 2.0.
Figure 5 gives the response of the sand plug height to the
penetration depth during suction-assisted installation. The
sand plug height h shown in Figure 1b represents in dimen-
sionless form of h/D. It can be seen that the sand plug height
increases almost linearly with the penetration depth. For the
Perspex-made suction caisson, since the ratio of the caisson
wall thickness to the caisson diameter is relatively large com-
pared with that for the prototype steel-made suction caisson,
the final penetration depth for the Perspex-made is smaller
than the steel-made. However, it helps to investigate the sand
plug formation during installation and extraction.
Pullout tests of caissons
Figure 6 shows the relationship between the vertical resistance
and the normalized pullout displacement for the suction cais-
sons under various pullout rates. The vertical resistance is com-
puted as the pullout load divided by the area of the caisson lid.
Responses of Perspex-made caissons to the pullout rate follow
the same trend as those of steel caissons under monotonic load-
ing in sand (Kelly, Houlsby, and Byrne 2006). The pullout bear-
ing capacity is mobilized soon after the start of the test and then
decreased to a stable value. Therefore, test results of the Perspex-
made caisson can be used to reflect the behavior of the steel cais-
son. It is found that increases in the pullout rate and the aspect
ratio can result in an increase in the pullout bearing capacity.
The pullout bearing capacity is defined as the maximum value
of the vertical resistance during pullout loading.
In addition, it can be concluded from Figure 6 that, for the
tests conducted at the pullout rates of 0.2 and 2.0 mm/s, when
the caisson is extracted out of the water, the vertical resistance
Figure 4. Curves of p/γ’w versus normalized penetration depth.
 MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 5

The pullout rates in 1-g model test can be scaled to the

prototype using Eq. (3). Table 2 gives the pullout rates for
the prototype using Eq. (3) under the λ value of 50. In
addition, the hydraulic conductivity of sand for the prototype
equals that of the model suction caisson.
Suction caissons for floating platforms and floating wind
turbines are required to withstand both static and sustained
loadings from loop currents, waves, and tides. Among these
loads, sustained loading exerted by loop currents often governs
the suction caisson design.
After suction-assisted installation, the sustained load was
applied to the top of the caisson with an incremental vertical
resistance of 0.5 and 1.0 kPa for suction caissons with aspect
ratios of 1.0 and 2.0, and each loading step was sustained for
10 min.
Figure 7 presents variations of the vertical resistance of the
Figure 5. Sand plug formation during suction-assisted installation.
caissons during sustained loading with time, and together with
the corresponding normalized pullout displacement. During
equals the caisson self-weight, indicating that no soil plug the initial three loading steps (as shown in the subplots in
is encased inside the suction caisson. On the contrary, the Figure 7), the minimal variation in pullout displacement is
vertical resistance is larger than the self-weight of the caisson observed. Moreover, a considerable portion of the pullout
after the pullout loading when the pullout rate is 10.0 mm/s; displacement happens when applying the pullout force during
therefore, a significant amount of sand was found encased in
the suction caisson.
The loading time length for the prototype suction caisson
can be obtained from the 1-g model test results (Kelly,
Houlsby, and Byrne 2006):
TP kM pffiffiffi3ffi
¼ k ð1Þ
TM kP
where kM and kP are the hydraulic conductivities for model
and prototype sand and λ is defined as:
LP
k¼ ð2Þ
LM
where LP and LM are lengths of the prototype and model
suction caissons. Therefore, the relationship between the
pullout rates for the prototype (vP) and model suction caisson
(vM) can be expressed by:
vP 1 kP
¼ pffiffi ð3Þ
vM k kM
where vP ¼ LP/TP and vM ¼ LM/TM.

Figure 7. Variations of vertical resistance and displacement of caissons under

Figure 6. Pullout response of suction caissons under various pullout rates. sustained loading. (a) Caisson No. I-P. (b) Caisson No. II-P.
6 Y. ZHANG ET AL.
each loading step. The pullout bearing capacity of suction
caisson under sustained loading is mobilized when the pullout
displacement of caisson occurs without any increase in the
applied pullout load. As shown in Figure 6, the sustained pull-
out capacities of the caissons numbered I-P and II-P are 1.80
and 3.50 kPa. The capacity ratio is designated as the sus-
tained bearing capacity of the caisson to the maximum pullout
capacity of the caisson under monotonic loading. Therefore,
the capacity ratios of the caissons with aspect ratios of 1.0
and 2.0 are about 0.21 and 0.35 but are much less than the
average value of 0.78 in clay reported by Chen and Randolph
(2007). The main reason for the difference in capacity ratios in
sand and clay may be that the passive suction in sand can
dissipate in a relatively shorter time than in clay, leading to
a dramatic reduction in the vertical resistance.
Soil plug formation during pullout loading
Figure 8 presents the entire pullout process of the suction cais-
son numbered II-P at the pullout rate of 0.2 mm/s (0.028 mm/s
for the prototype). It can be seen that the sand in the caisson
does not move upward with the upward moving caisson. In
addition, the space between the lid and sand plug was filled
with water (Figure 8b), indicating that seepage is induced
Figure 8. Soil plug formation of suction caisson at v ¼ 0.02 mm/s (Caisson
No. II-P). (a) w/D ¼ 0. (b) w/D ¼ 0.5. (c) w/D ¼ 1.71. (d) w/D ¼ 1.75.
during pullout loading. As the caisson is being extracting from
the sand (Figure 8c), the sand plug moves downward gradually
and then the caisson is filled with water. However, in the case of
the caisson fully extracted from the water surface (Figure 8d), a
sudden outflow of the water inside the caisson is observed and
the passive suction should be zero. Then the vertical resistance
equals self-weight of the suction caisson (Figure 6).
The sand plug formation during pullout loadings is
presented in Figure 9. It can be concluded that the sand plug
with the caisson vents opened follows a similar trend as that
with the vents closed under the pullout rate of 0.2 mm/s,
indicating that the sand does not move along with the caisson
moving upward.
For the closed-lid tests, the sand plug formation under
various pullout rates can be classified into three modes:
a. When the pullout rate is less than or equal 0.2 mm/s, the
sand plug height decreases linearly with increasing the
pullout displacement, indicating the sand plug does not
move upward with the caisson (Figure 8).
b. When the caisson is loaded at the pullout rate of between
0.2 and 2 mm/s (0.028 and 0.28 mm/s for the prototype),
Figure 9. Sand plug formation during pullout loading. (a) Caisson No. I-P.
(b) Caisson No. II-P.
 MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 7

the sand plug height first reduces with increasing the

pullout displacement; however, the slope of the sand plug
height–pullout displacement curve is much smaller than
that of the pullout rate of 0.2 mm/s. When the pullout dis-
placement reached a certain value, higher rate of variation
in sand plug height occurs. It should be noted that, at that
time, sand boiling occurs along the inner suction caisson
wall from the base to the surface of the sand plug
(Figure 10a), and then sand flows outward from the cais-
son. This phenomenon here is called the general sand
boiling.
The normalized passive suction variations for suction
caissons during pullout loading are shown in Figure 11.
The passive suction is defined as the pressure difference
under and above the suction caisson lid. It can be found
from Figures 7 and 11 that the passive suction beneath
the caisson lid reaches the maximum value when the Figure 11. Variations of passive suction in suction caissons.
pullout bearing capacity is mobilized. In addition, a sharp
reduction in the passive suction takes place as the general pullout rate of 10 mm/s (1.4 mm/s for the prototype)
sand boiling occurs. Despite the sand in the caisson flowing mainly attributes to the occurrence of the sand boiling.
outward after the occurrence of the general sand boiling, This type of sand boiling is called the local sand boiling.
the ambient water still flows into the caisson due to exist- As shown in Figure 11, when local sand boiling occurs,
ence of the passive suction. When the caisson is entirely passive suction decreases immediately and then tends to be a
extracted out of the water, the passive suction fully stable value. When the caisson is extracted from the water
dissipates, indicating no sand plug and water encased in surface, for the caisson with aspect ratios of 1.0 and 2.0, the
the caisson. passive suction decreases by approximately 42 and 53%
c. When the pullout rate is higher than 2.0 mm/s, it is found compared to the peak values. The final heights of the sand plug
that the h/D value changes from 1.0 to 0.97 and 2.0 to 1.94 confined in the caissons numbered I-P and II-P are 0.62 and
for caissons numbered I-S and II-S during the pullout load- 1.34 times the caisson diameter, respectively. Water is still
ing, which means that the sand plug moves upward with encased between the caisson lid and the sand plug when the
the caisson. However, a sudden reduction in the sand plug suction is extracted from the water surface.
height takes place when the caisson is almost extracted The variations of values of p/γ’w during pullout loading for
from the water surface (as shown in Figure 10b). Sand boil- the suction caissons numbered I-P and II-P are shown in
ing occurs in the zone located between 1.6 D and 2.0 D Figure 12. When the suction caisson is extracted at the pullout
below the caisson lid. In addition, as shown in rate of 2 mm/s, the normalized passive suction increases to the
Figure 10b, the normalized distance between the caisson maximum value with increase of the penetration depth and
lid and the soil plug surface is approximately 0.11 D, indi- then reduces to zero. Figure 12 also indicates that the general
cating that the reduction in the sand plug height under the piping occurs in the suction caisson when p/γ’w reaches the

Figure 10. General and local sand boiling occurred in the caisson (Caisson
No. II-P). (a) General sand boiling. (b) Local sand boiling. Figure 12. Curves of p/γ’w versus normalized vertical displacement.
8 Y. ZHANG ET AL.

maximum value, which means that the hydraulic gradient

along the suction caisson wall reaches the critical value.
When the suction caisson is extracted at the pullout rate of
10 mm/s, the p/γ’w-normalized penetration depth relationship
is quite different from that at the pullout rate of 2 mm/s. The
p/γ’w-normalized penetration depth curve consists of three
stages. In the first stage, the p/γ’w values are observed to rise
rapidly as the pullout loads are applied and then to increase
with increasing the penetration depth. In the second stage,
there is an obvious reduction in the incremental rate of p/γ’w
with respect to the penetration depth. In the third stage, the
value of p/γ’w increases with penetration depth at a relatively
high rate. It can be also seen from Figure 12 that the local sand
boiling occurs in the third stage, indicating that the passive
suction cannot fully dissipate during pullout loading.
The sand plug formation under sustained loading is also
shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that in the initial three
loading steps, the sand plug does not move upward with the
caisson. However, when the pullout displacements reach 0.23
and 0.33 times the diameters of caissons numbered I-P and
II-P, a decrease in the pullout displacement rate of the sand
plug is observed, indicating that the sand plug moved upward
with the caisson. It can be also observed from Figure 9 that the
local sand boiling occurs while the sustained ultimate pullout
capacity is reached, and at the same time the height of sand
plug decreases sharply.
In general, the formation of the sand plug during the
pullout loading is affected significantly by the loading rate
and the loading way. The aspect ratio of the caisson has little
effect on the sand plug formation.

Extraction of the suction caisson by pumping air into Figure 13. Relationships between the normalized vertical displacement and the
caisson pressure. (a) Suction caisson No. I-P. (b) Suction caisson No. II-P.

Extraction tests on suction caisson Nos. I-P and II-P were

initiated by pumping air into caissons. Model test results
presented by our companion paper (Zhang, Li, and Gao
2017) show that the behavior of the suction caisson during
suction-assisted installation or extraction by pumping water
into or out of the caisson is similar to that by pumping air into
or out of the caisson. Therefore, to observe the sand plug
formation directly during extraction, the suction caisson was
extracted by pumping air into the caisson.
Figure 13 displays the relationship between the normalized
vertical upward displacement and the pressure between the
caisson lid and the sand plug surface during extraction. It
can be seen that the pressure first increases rapidly to a certain
value, and then the pressure decreases with increasing the
upward vertical displacement. The maximum pressures for
the suction caisson Nos. I and II (2.72 and 8.09 kPa) were
reached under the normalized upward vertical displacement
of 0.09 and 0.08 times the caisson diameter. Moreover, the
pressure in the caisson almost follows a linear relationship
with the upward vertical displacement.
For the suction caisson numbered II-P, it was found that
sharp reductions in the pressure were observed when
the upward vertical displacements reached 0.3, 0.71, and 1.39
D (Figure 11b). At the same time, seepage failure occurs in part
of sand base adjacent to the suction caisson outer wall.
However, further upward displacement can be achieved by
pumping air into the suction caisson after the occurrences of
the aforementioned seepage failure. When the upward vertical
displacement of the suction caisson No. II-P reaches 1.52 D,
seepage failure occurs around the entire suction caisson (inset
graphs in Figure 11b), and then no further upward vertical dis-
placement happened. The reason is that as the upward vertical
displacement of the suction caisson increases, the seepage path
length of sand plug in the caisson decreases, leading to an
increase in the hydraulic gradient in the sand plug. When the
suction caisson is extracted to a certain value, the critical
hydraulic gradient in the sand plug is obtained, leading to the
seepage failure of the sand plug and the sand around the suction
caissons. For suction caisson No. I-P, the seepage failure only
occurs when the final upward vertical displacement of the suc-
tion caisson is reached. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
response of the pressure to the upward vertical displacement
during extraction is dependent mainly on the aspect ratio.
It can be also found from Figures 3 and 13 that the
maximum value of suction required to penetrate the suction
caisson into the sand base is smaller than the maximum press-
ure required to extract from sand. For the suction caissons
with aspect ratios of 1.0 and 2.0, the maximum pressures
during extraction by pumping air are 1.70 and 2.27 times

the maximum suction required to penetrate the suction
caisson into sand.
The main reason is that during installation, the driving
force consists of the suction caisson self-weight and the
suction induced by pumping out the encased water. In
addition, the penetration resistance is the sum of the tip
resistance and upward shaft frictional forces on the inner
and outer suction caisson walls. However, it shows that the
seepage in sand induced by suction reduces the tip resistance
almost to zero (Zhang, Li, and Gao 2017).
On the contrary, during extraction of the suction caisson in
practical engineering, the extraction force is only induced by
the pressure difference under and above the suction caisson
lid, and the extraction resistance consists of the suction caisson
self-weight and the downward frictional forces on the inner
and outer suction caisson walls. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the resistance during extraction is higher than that during
installation, leading to a dramatic increase in the required
pressure to extract compared with that to install the suction
caisson.
The variations of the normalized passive suction p/γ’w
during extraction by pumping air into the caisson are shown
Figure 14. Curves of p/γ’w versus normalized vertical displacement. (a) Suction
caisson No. I-P. (b). Suction caisson No. II-P.
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 9
Figure 15. Sand plug formation during suction caisson extraction.
in Figure 14. It can be observed that p/γ’w increases rapidly
to a constant value as air is pumping into the caisson.
Comparing Figures 13 and 14, it shows that when the seepage
failure occurs, p/γ’w reaches the maximum value, indicating
that the hydraulic gradient reaches the critical value. Then
p/γ’w reduces sharply to a relatively small value. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the hydraulic gradient reduces after
occurrence of the seepage failure. For the suction caisson with
the aspect ratio of 2.0, when the seepage failures occur, the
corresponding p/γ’w equals 2.95, 2.92, and 2.88, respectively,
which means that the critical hydraulic gradient of sand in
the suction caisson is a constant during the suction caisson
extraction.
The sand plug formation during extraction by pumping air
is illustrated in Figure 15. It can be seen that the sand plug
moves downward with increase in the vertical displacement.
The majority of the reduction in the sand plug height takes
place when the seepage failure occurs. Comparing Figures 4
with 12, it can be concluded that the variation of the sand plug
height during the suction-assisted installation is larger than
that during extraction by pumping air. For suction-assisted
installation, the variation of the sand plug height is mainly
induced by the upward seepage in the caisson. On the
contrary, when the suction caisson is extracted by pumping
air, the variation in the sand plug height is caused by the
outflow of the sand particles from the inside of the suction
caisson to the outside.
Conclusion
A series of model tests were conducted to investigate the sand
plug formation of Perspex-made suction caissons during
installation and extraction in dense fine sand. Suction caissons
were extracted by pullout loading or by pumping air into the
caisson. The following concluding points have been drawn:
1. The sand plug formation is significantly influenced by the
loading rate and the loading way. It is found that local sand
boiling occurs at the bottom of the caisson when subjected
10 Y. ZHANG ET AL.
to the sustained loading and monotonic loading at the rate
is larger than or equal to 10 mm/s (1.4 mm/s for the
prototype). The passive suction can be maintained when
the caisson is entirely extracted from water surface. In con-
trast, general sand boiling occurs in the caisson when the
rate of loading is less than or equal to 2 mm/s (0.28 mm/s
for the prototype), leading to the fully dissipation of the
passive suction when fully extracted from the water surface.
2. Extraction tests by pumping air into the caisson were con-
ducted and results show that the pressure almost follows a
linear relationship with the vertical displacement. In
addition, the maximum pressures for suction caissons with
aspect ratios of 1.0 and 2.0 during extraction by pumping
air are 1.70 and 2.27 times the maximum suction required
to penetrate the suction caisson into the sand. The variation
in the sand plug height during extraction is caused by the
outflow of the sand particles from the inside of the suction
caisson to the outside.
3. When the suction caisson is extracted at the pullout rate of
2 mm/s (0.28 mm/s for the prototype), the hydraulic
gradient increases to the maximum value with increasing
the penetration depth and then reduces to zero. On the con-
trary, when the suction caisson is extracted at the pullout
rate of 10 mm/s (1.4 mm/s for the prototype), the hydraulic
gradient increases with increasing the pullout displacement.
The hydraulic gradient reaches the maximum value as the
suction caisson is extracted from the water surface. When
extracted by pumping air into the suction caisson, the
hydraulic gradient reaches the critical value, at the same
time the seepage failure occurs at the suction caisson tip,
and then the hydraulic gradient reduces sharply to a rela-
tively small value. The critical hydraulic gradient of sand
in the suction caisson is a constant during extraction.
Funding
The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant Nos. 51639002, 51379118) and SDUST Research Fund
(Grant No.2015TDJH104).
ORCID
Fuquan Chen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5583-3734
References
Acosta-Martinez, H. E., S. M. Gourvenec, and M. F. Randolph. 2008. An
experimental investigation of a shallow skirted foundation under
compression and tension. Soils and Foundations 48 (2):247–54.
doi:10.3208/sandf.48.247.
Byrne, B. W., and G. T. Houlsby. 2003. Foundations for offshore wind
turbines. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical,
and Engineering Sciences 361 (1813):2909–30. doi:10.1098/rsta.
2003.1286.
Byrne, B. W., and G. T. Houlsby. 2004. Experimental investigations of the
response of suction caissons to transient combined loading. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (3):240–53.
doi:10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2004)130:3(240).
Cerfontaine, B., F. Collin, and R. Charlier. 2015. Numerical modelling
of transient cyclic vertical loading of suction caissons in sand.
Géotechnique 65 (12):121–36. doi:10.1680/jgeot.15.p.061.
Chen, W., and M. F. Randolph. 2007. Pullout capacity of suction caissons
under sustained and cyclic loading in soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133 (11):1352–63. doi:10.1061/
(asce)1090-0241(2007)133:11(1352).
Gabr, M. A., J. Xiao, and M. S. Rahman. 2015. Plastic Flow of Sand and
Pullout Capacity of Suction Caissons. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 141:02815002. doi:10.1061/(asce)
gt.1943-5606.0001331.
Houlsby, G. T., R. B. Kelly, and B. W. Byrne. 2005. The tensile capacity of
suction caissons in sand under rapid loading. Proceedings of the
international symposium on frontiers in offshore geomechanics, Perth,
405–10.
Kelly, R. B., G. T. Houlsby, and B. W. Byrne. 2006. Transient vertical
loading of model suction caissons in a pressure chamber. Géotechnique
56 (10):665–75. doi:10.1680/geot.2006.56.10.665.
Lehane, B. M., S. Elkhatib, and S. Terzaghi. 2014. Extraction of suction
caissons in sand. Géotechnique 64 (9):735–39. doi:10.1680/geot.14.
t.011.
Li, D. Y., L. Y. Feng, and Y. K. Zhang. 2014. Model tests of modified
suction caissons in marine sand under monotonic lateral combined
loading. Applied Ocean Research 48:137–47. doi:10.1016/j.apor.2014.
08.005.
Mana, D. S., S. M. Gourvenec, and M. F. Randolph. 2013. Experimental
investigation of reverse end bearing of offshore shallow foundations.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 50 (10):1022–33. doi:10.1139/cgj-
2012-0428.
Mana, D. S., S. M. Gourvenec, M. F. Randolph, and M. S. Hossain. 2012.
Failure mechanisms of skirted foundations in pullout and com-
pression. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
12 (2):47–62. doi:10.1680/ijpmg.11.00007.
Thieken, K., M. Achmus, and C. Schröder. 2014. On the behavior of
suction buckets in sand under tensile loads. Computers & Geotechnics
60 (60):88–100. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.04.004.
Tran, M. N., and M. F. Randolph. 2008. Variation of suction pressure
during caisson installation in sand. Géotechnique 58 (1):1–11.
doi:10.1680/geot.2008.58.1.1.
Zhang, P. Y., H. Y. Ding, and C. H. Le. 2013. Penetration and removal of
the mooring dolphin platform with three caisson foundations. Journal
of offshore mechanics and arctic engineering-transactions of the ASME
135 (4):041302. doi:10.1115/1.4025145.
Zhang, Y. K., D. Y. Li, and Y. F. Gao. 2017. Model tests on installation
and extraction of suction caissons in dense sand. Marine Georesources
& Geotechnology 35 (7):921–29. doi:10.1080/1064119x.2016.1259698.