Our experience

with suction
bucket jacket
foundations

Ørsted
1. Introduction
Monopiles (MPs) are currently the most commonly used In contrast, the installation process for SBJ structures is
foundation solution for offshore wind turbines with 82% yet to become standard practice and is thus considerably
of offshore wind turbines in European waters founded more complicated in practice than the installation process
on MPs at the end of 2018 (EWEA, 2019). Where site of monopiles.
conditions do not allow for an efficient or practical MP
design, a number of alternative foundation solutions are The SBJ was first used as a foundation solution for a WTG
available, including the suction bucket jacket (SBJ), piled in 2014 at the German Borkum Riffgrund 1 offshore wind
jacket, gravity base or even a floating solution. Therefore, farm (developed by Ørsted) where a single SBJ foundation
the SBJ is one of a range of alternative foundation solutions was installed. In 2018, Ørsted installed a further 20 SBJs
to the more commonly used monopile foundation solution at the German Borkum Riffgrund 2 offshore wind farm,
for locations where the MP solution is not appropriate. All bringing the total amount of installed SBJs to only 21 out of
of the above listed foundation solutions have successfully more than 1,100 foundations installed in total by Ørsted.
been used to support offshore wind turbine generators (WTGs),
with the choice of foundation solution often dependent This memorandum provides a brief background to the use
on site-specific conditions such as water depth, ground of SBJs as a foundation solution for WTGs. It provides a brief
conditions and country specific requirements. description of suction buckets for windfarm applications, the
limitations for the use of suction buckets and a summary
In general, there is limited industry experience in the design, of Ørsted’s experience with suction buckets as a foundation
fabrication and installation of SBJs compared to the more solution.
common MP foundation solution. Installing monopiles is
a complicated undertaking, but due to the high degree of
experience gained with this foundation type, the complexity
has become well understood and manageable in practice.

2 Ørsted’s experience with suction bucket jacket foundations

2. Brief description of suction buckets
for windfarm applications
Suction installed foundations, referred to as suction For a small number of fixed base structures, such as the
buckets, suction caissons, suction piles or suction anchors, Sleipner T (Bye et al, 1995) and Draupner E (Erbrich and
have been widely used in the offshore industry since the Tjelta, 1999) oil production platforms in the North Sea,
early 1980’s for a range of applications. These foundations, suction buckets were also used as a foundation solution for
normally made from steel or concrete, are installed using supporting the superstructures (images of these structures
the principles of suction whereby the pressure difference are shown in Figure 1). More recently, suction buckets have
generated between the inside of the bucket and the water been deployed in the offshore wind sector with installations
surrounding it (at the seabed) leads to the structure being taking place at the Borkum Riffgrund 1 (2014; one position;
installed without any use of mechanical force. Therefore, as shown in Figure 2), Borkum Riffgrund 2 (2018; 20 positions)
a key difference between suction installed foundations and Aberdeen Bay (2018; 11 positions) offshore windfarms.
and other foundation types is that the installation design, For this application, three suction buckets are used to
which must consider the soil type, soil strength, installation support a ‘jacket’ structure, most commonly referred to as
specific risks (for example, the presence of boulders or other a ‘suction bucket jacket’ (SBJ).
hard inclusions) and the installation process (for example,
the speed of installation), have a direct influence on the SBJs for windfarm applications differ significantly from
dimensions of the foundation. typical oil and gas suction assisted installations (such as
suction anchors) as they:
Since suction bucket technology was developed in 1970’s, • are connected rigidly to a structure (such as a jacket)
suction buckets have predominantly been used as anchors • are installed in relatively shallow waters (less than
for floating offshore structures, where they are “the most widely 100m water depth),
used anchor types for deep-water mooring applications” • predominantly carry vertical loads (and relatively
(McCarron, 2011), or for seabed installations supporting small moment and horizontal loads) which results in
oil and gas infrastructure in deep water. This is due to the the behaviour being very similar to a shallow foundation,
difficulty associated with installing other foundation types and
at locations with deep or very deep water (for example, • have a large overall footprint1 and a low suction
in the Gulf of Mexico, where water depths may be greater bucket ‘length to diameter’ ratio (L/D ratio), meaning
than 1,500m). For these applications, suction buckets are that they generally cover a large spatial area whilst
generally installed into soft clay material maintaining a small embedment into the underlying
soil (very short ‘skirt’ lengths).

Figure 1: A) The Sleipner T Statoil platform

(installed 1995) and B) the Draupner Statoil platform
(installed in the Norwegian part of the North Sea 1994)

1
Footprint refers to the maximum plan area of the jacket structure. For the
Borkum Riffgrund 1 SBJ, the footprint was approximately 30m in diameter.

3 Ørsted’s experience with suction bucket jacket foundations

 →

→
Wind

Figure 2: The three-legged SBJ installed at Borkum

Riffgrund 1 by Ørsted
→

There are two key reasons for windfarm suction buckets

having a large footprint and shallow seabed embedment
compared to other foundations types (including typical
deep-water oil and gas applications and also monopile
foundations):

1. Loading conditions relevant to an offshore WTG. As shown

in Figure 3, an offshore WTG experiences a significant lateral
load (due to the wind and waves) which is transferred to the
foundations via the jacket as a ‘push-pull’ mechanism, resulting
in predominantly vertical foundation loads (Shonberg et
al, 2017). Therefore, the load transferred to the ground is a
function of the distance between the suction buckets such
that increasing the footprint of the jacket reduces the load
on the foundations. In order to transfer the loads into the
ground, individual suction buckets must also therefore have
a large area over which to spread the large vertical loads,
which results in the suction buckets having low embedment
compared to suction caissons used for deep-water applications.

2. Shallow waters restrict the installation pressure which

→
→

can be applied during the installation process. As described

by Houlsby and Byrne (2005), the maximum suction pressure
is limited by the water depth. Therefore, if the water is
shallow and the soil resistance is high (e.g. if stiff clays
are expected to be present), the suction bucket diameter
must be increased in order to increase the installation
driving force such that the suction bucket can be installed Figure 3 Idealised SBJ
to the required depth. loading.

4 Ørsted’s experience with suction bucket jacket foundations

3. Limitations
3.1 Geotechnical limitations The entire SBJ installation operation, including lowering,
Suction buckets are generally able to be installed in all soil ‘touch down’, self weight penetration and the suction
materials, including silts, sands and clays, which are commonly installation process, all have unique risks which must be
found at the seabed surface in the offshore environment. considered in the design. A limited number of companies,
However, a number of geotechnical limitations do exist perhaps only a few, currently have extensive experience
meaning that the technology is not applicable everywhere. with this procedure. Furthermore, the suction installation
procedure is technically very different from piling in that
As previously described, the installation design is a key soil variability may significantly impact the installation,
step in the design process and is considered a key risk for mitigation measures are limited and extensive ‘real time’
any suction bucket design. This is predominantly due to monitoring of the suction installation process is required.
the unknowns associated with the underlying soil conditions
which are likely to vary with depth and vary laterally. It
has been noted in the literature that there have been a 3.3 Manufacturing limitations
number of difficult suction bucket installations over the Monopiles are by far the most commonly used foundation
years which has led to further investigations on this topic, technology in the offshore wind industry with jackets only
in particular, a joint industry project led by the Carbon accounting for approximately 7% of all installed offshore
Trust Offshore Wind Accelerator program (Tjelta, 2014). wind foundations (EWEA, 2019). The limited experience
with serial production of jackets and the additional
In general, suction buckets cannot be installed into rock. complexity in the jacket manufacturing process limits
However, where rock is encountered deeper than 10m the scalability of the use of SBJs. Though manufacturing
below seabed level, suction buckets are potentially a viable increasingly larger monopiles is a challenging discipline,
foundation solution (i.e. the suction buckets can be installed manufacturing of jackets is much more complex and as
in the soil material above the rock). Large boulders, or other such, the industry is yet to see manufacturers with serial
‘hard inclusions’ (such as cemented layers or coral outcrops) production capabilities to compete at competitive cost
can also be problematic for suction bucket installation. and time schedule levels.
Where large boulders or hard inclusions are present, suction
buckets can be ‘micro-sited’ (position shifted laterally by 3.4 Limitations summary
5-10m) to ensure that the bucket does not come into contact As the monopile is the most common foundation solution
with the boulder, or if practical, the boulder could be for supporting offshore WTGs, comparisons are often made
removed prior to suction bucket installation. between these two foundation solutions. In brief, the SBJ’s
limitations when compared to the monopile are that:
Furthermore, a key limitation to suction bucket installation
is a shallow seabed (limited water depth). As suction • they have a significantly larger footprint (approximately
bucket installation is a function of water depth2 (Houlsby 30-40m in diameter) and require more scour protection
and Byrne, 2005), shallow waters restrict the amount of (although scour protection may not be required for
all structures in appropriate ground conditions),
driving force available for suction bucket installations
• there are installation challenges in shallow water
and therefore, water depths less than 15-20m may not be
(less than 20m),
suitable for suction bucket installations.
• the installation process is highly dependent on soil type
and soil strength,
3.2 Installation limitations
• the installation process is potentially riskier due to the
To date, a total of 32 SBJs have successfully been
larger volume of soil in contact with the structure
installed to support offshore WTG structures at Borkum
(leading to a higher risk of ground variability, hitting a
Riffgrund 1 and 2 (Ørsted) and Aberdeen Bay (Vattenfall).
boulder or encountering a ‘hard inclusion’) and a lack of
Therefore, it is generally considered that there is limited
available proven mitigation options, although it is
experience in the installation of three-legged SBJ structures
expected that this risk could be mitigated during the
(when compared with monopile installations). The recent
design process,
projects Borkum Riffgrund 2 and Aberdeen Bay projects
• installation experience is limited,
where markedly different soil profiles were encountered,
• manufacturing experience and scale is limited; and
has however increased the knowledge regarding SBJ-
• the overall cost may be higher.
installation significantly.

2
Due to the critical suction limit in sandy materials or cavitation limit
in clayey materials

5 Ørsted’s experience with suction bucket jacket foundations

4. Ørsted experience
with suction buckets
Suction bucket technology was originally developed in 4.1 Summary
the early 1980’s for offshore oil and gas applications and A range of foundation solutions exist for supporting off-
has now been identified as a foundation solution for the shore wind farm WTGs. Monopiles are the most common
offshore wind industry. Whilst there is limited offshore wind foundation solution but other solutions, such as the SBJ,
industry experience relating to the design and installation piled jacket, gravity base and floating, have all success-
of SBJs, Ørsted has been an industry leader in the development fully been installed at offshore windfarms in Europe.
of SBJ technology for application in the offshore wind
environment. Ørsted’s development of the SBJ foundation Suction installed foundations, which are able to be installed
solution aims to provide flexibility in choosing the right without the need for any mechanical force, have most
foundation solution for any given offshore wind farm commonly been used as anchors for deepwater oil and
development. gas applications. They are generally able to be installed
in all soil materials, including silts, sands and clays, but are
Within this context, Ørsted installed the world’s first SBJ unsuitable for locations with a rocky seabed or locations
for an offshore WTG at the Borkum Riffgrund 1 offshore with shallow water (less than 20m). The installation design
windfarm in Germany in 2014. The SBJ installed at Borkum of suction buckets is key to their use and introduces a risk
Riffgrund 1 was designed by Ramboll (structural jacket due to the uncertainties associated with the site specific
design) and NGI (geotechnical design). ground variability.

The Borkum Riffgrund 1 SBJ was outfitted with an extensive The SBJs utilised for offshore wind applications are
monitoring system to provide measurements of the geo- considerably different to oil and gas focused structures as
technical and structural response of the structure during they are required to transfer predominantly vertical loads
installation and operation. The most comprehensive (created by the combination of wind and waves) and they
study of the recorded data relating to the geotechnical are also installed in much shallower waters. Compared
behavior of the Borkum Riffgrund 1 suction buckets has with monopiles, SBJs have a much larger footprint and
been published by Shonberg et al (2017). potentially have a higher installation risk to the potential
presence of subsurface ‘hard inclusions’ such as boulders.
Furthermore, Ørsted (then DONG Energy) entered into a
3 year collaboration with Leibnitz University of Hannover To date, 32 SBJs have been installed to support offshore
(LuH) and BAM (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und WTG (installed at Borkum Riffgrund 1 in 2014 and Borkum
-prüfung, or German Federal Institute for Materials Research Riffgrund 2 and Aberdeen Bay in 2018) and in general,
and Testing) whereby a number of researchers were provided there is limited offshore wind industry experience relating
access to the monitoring data. This project is currently to the design, manufacturing and installation of SBJs for
being concluded (results are yet to be published). The lessons this purpose. It is within this context that Ørsted has been
learned from back analysis of the monitoring data collected an industry leader in the development of SBJ technology,
from the Borkum Riffgrund 1 SBJ will be required to ensure through research and partnerships, to ensure a range of
cost effective SBJ structures for any future Ørsted project foundation solutions are able to be considered for each
utilising this as a foundation solution. project.

Since the installation of the Borkum Riffgrund 1 SBJ, Ørsted

has been involved in the design and installation of SBJs
at the Borkum Riffgrund 2 and the design for Hornsea 1
offshore wind farms. At Hornsea, 1 overall project timeline
considerations and limitations of serial production capacities,
precluded the use of SBJs, and therefore the project chose
an alternative foundation type. The Borkum Riffgrund
2 SBJs, installed in 2018, were designed by Ramboll and
NGI (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute). All of Ørsted’s
SBJ scheme designs have been certified by the certifying
body Det Norske Veritas (DNV-GL).

6 Ørsted’s experience with suction bucket jacket foundations

5. References

5.1 Ørsted publications

A significant volume of published information is available 5.2 Other publications
in the literature relating to suction buckets. NGI (Sturm, Sparrevik, Andersen), Oxford University
(Houlsby, Byrne), the University of Western Australia
The published information relates to both the installation (Randolph, Gourvenec, Senders, Doherty, Deeks) and a
of suction buckets and the behavior of suction buckets number of other practitioners (Tjelta, Erbrich, Bye) have
under different loading conditions. Initial research focused all provided a significant additions to the understanding
on the use of suction buckets for oil and gas applications of suction bucket behaviour (including both installation
(for example, Bye et al, 1995 and Erbrich & Tjelta, 1999), and in place behavior) over the past 20-30 years. Some
but more recently, the focus of the research has been selected references are presented below.
targeted towards the use of suction buckets for offshore
wind applications (for example, DTI, 2005, Houlsby Achmus, M., C. T. Akdag and K. Thieken, 2013.
Load-bearing behaviour of suction bucket foundations in sand.
and Byrne, 2005, Achmus et al, 2013, Tjelta, 2014 and Applied Ocean Research 43, 157-165.
Shonberg et al, 2017).
Bye, A., Erbrich, C., Rognlien, B. and Tjelta, T.I., 1995.
Geotechnical design of bucket foundations.
The following publication relating to SBJs authored by
Offshore Technology Conference. Houston, Texas, USA, May 1-4, 1995.
Ørsted employees (or those directly associated with
Ørsted) have been published over the past two years: DTI (Danish Technological Institute), 2005.
The application of suction caisson foundations to offshore wind turbines,
Contract No. W/62/00604/00/00, URN No. 15/1691.
Harte, M., Shonberg, A. (2018)
“Reliability based installation design of a suction caisson in clay” Proceedings
Erbrich, C. T., and T. I. Tjelta, 1999.
of the 1st Vietnam Symposium on Advances in Offshore Engineering
Installation of bucket foundations and suction caissons in sand-geotechnical
(Energy and Geotechnics), 1-3 November 2018, Hanoi, Vietnam (submitted,
performance. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 3-6,
under review)
1999.

Shonberg, A., Harte, M., Aghakouchak, A., Andrade, M.P., Brown, C.S.D.,
European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), 2019.
Liingaard, M.A. (2017) “Suction bucket jackets for offshore wind turbines:
The European Offshore Wind Industry - Key Trends And Statistics 2018.
applications from in situ observations”, Proceedings of the TC209
Web. 19 Feb. 2019.
Workshop at the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 20 September 2017. Seoul, South Korea.
Houlsby, G. T. and Byrne, B. W. 2005.
Design procedures for installation of suction caissons in clay and other
Shonberg, A., Anusic, A., Harte, M., Schupp, J., Meissl, S., Liingaard, M. A
materials, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
(2017) “Comparison of Self Weight Penetration Prediction Methods for
Engineering 158, April 2005 Issue GE2, Pages 75–82.
Large Diameter Monopiles in North Sea Soils”, OTC-27763-MS. Proceedings
of the Offshore Technology Conference, 2 – 5 May, 2017, Houston, Texas.
McCarron, W. O., 2011, Deepwater Foundations and
Pipeline Geomechanics, J. Ross Publishing, 2011.
Surysentana, S., Byrne, B. W., Burd, H. J., Shonberg, A. (2017)
“Weighting functions for the stiffness of circular surface footings on
Shonberg, A., Harte, M., Aghakouchak, A., Andrade, M.P., Brown, C.S.D.,
multi-layered non-homogeneous elastic half-spaces under general loading”
Liingaard, M.A., 2017. Suction bucket jackets for offshore wind turbines:
Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
applications from in situ observations, in: Proceedings of the 19th
Geotechnical Engineering, 17 - 21 September 2017, Seoul, South Korea.
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. Seoul, Korea, September 24-27, 2017.
Suryasentana, S., Dunne, H., Martin, C., Byrne, B. W., Burd, H. J., Shonberg,
A. (2018) “Assessment of numerical methods for determination of shallow
Tjelta, T. I., 2014. Installation of suction caissons for
foundation failure envelopes”, Geotechnique (submitted for review).
offshore wind turbines. Danish Geotechnical Society Seminar, Gentofte,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1st April, 2014. Web. Accessed 15 March 2018.
Surysentana, S., Byrne, B. W., Burd, H. J., Shonberg, A. (2017)
http://www.danskgeotekniskforening.dk/sites/ default/files/pdf/pdf2014/
“An elastoplastic 1D Winkler model for suction caisson foundations under
Moede%202/ Session%204%20-%20Presentation%201%20-%20T%20
combined loading” Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on
Tjelta%20-%20Statoil%20-%20Installation%20of%20suction%20cais-
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering (NUMGE), 25 - 27 June
sons%20for%20OWT’s%20-%20DGF%20Seminar%202014-04-01.pdf
2018, Porto, Portugal.

Surysentana, S., Byrne, B. W., Burd, H. J., Shonberg, A. (2017)

“Simplified model for the stiffness of suction caisson foundations under 6
DOF loading” Proceedings of the SUT OSIG Conference, 12 - 14
September 2017, London, UK.

7 Ørsted’s experience with suction bucket jacket foundations