Fig. 1 Failure modes of suction caisson under pullout load (modified from Ref. [ 8 ]): ( a ) local shear failure, ( b ) local tension failure, and ( c ) reversed bearing capacity failure Failure modes of suction caisson under pullout load (modified from Ref. [8]): (a) local shear failure, (b) lo... More

Fig. 2 Stress–strain behavior of caisson–soil interface Stress–strain behavior of caisson–soil interface More

Fig. 3 Variations of E 50 /c u ( OCR < 3) for clay with respect to plasticity index (modified from Ref. [ 21 ]) Variations of E50/cu (OCR < 3) for clay with respect to plasticity index (modified from Ref. [21]) More

Fig. 4 Illustration of the coupling behavior between caisson and soil: ( a ) cross section of the suction caisson and ( b ) vertical forces acting on an infinite unit Illustration of the coupling behavior between caisson and soil: (a) cross section of the suction caisson and (b) vertical forces ... More

Fig. 5 Stress–strain behavior of caisson material Stress–strain behavior of caisson material More

Fig. 6 Development of the shear stress along with caisson–soil interface: ( a ) before force applied, ( b ) small pullout force with no bonding, ( c ) debonding happened on the tip, ( d ) debonding developed along caisson wall, ( e ) fully debonding along caisson wall, and ( f ) bottom tip moved ... More

Fig. 7 ( a ) Comparison between analytical prediction and that of the model test No. NCIP1 carried out by Ref. [ 11 ], ( b ) the normal stress distribution along the caisson, and ( c ) shear stress distribution along the caisson subjected to different pullout load (a) Comparison between analytic... More

Fig. 8 ( a ) Comparison between analytical prediction and that of the model test #1-030502 conducted by Ref. [ 20 ], ( b ) the normal stress distribution along the caisson, and ( c ) shear stress distribution along the caisson subjected to different pullout load (a) Comparison between analytical... More

Fig. 9 Parameteric studies: ( a ) P ult /γ c ′H 2 versus D 2 /H 2 curve with κ = 0.4, a / γ c ′ = 0.0234, b = 0, ( b ) P ult /γ c ′H 2 versus κ curve with a / γ c ′ = 0.0234, b /( γ c ′H ) = 0, and ( c ) P ult /γ c ′H 2 versus a / γ c ′ curve with κ = 0.4, b = 0 Pa... More

Fig. 10 Variations of normalized pullout force P/P ult to the pullout displacement w/H with a / γ c ′ = 0.0234, κ = 0.4, and b /( γ c ′H ) = 0 Variations of normalized pullout force P/Pult to the pullout displacement w/H with a/γc′ = 0.0234, κ = 0.4, and b/(γc′H) = 0 More

Fig. 11 The distribution of the normal stress σ/γ c ′H along with the caisson depth z/H with a / γ c ′ = 0.0234, κ = 0.4, and b /( γ c ′H ) = 0 The distribution of the normal stress σ/γc′H along with the caisson depth z/H with a/γc′ = 0.0234, κ = 0.4, and b/(γc′H) = 0 More

Fig. 1 Statistical descriptors of ROA by a number of MC simulations Statistical descriptors of ROA by a number of MC simulations More

Fig. 2 Sharpe ratios of an offshore wind turbine at different phases Sharpe ratios of an offshore wind turbine at different phases More

Fig. 3 Sharpe ratios of an offshore wind farm at different phases Sharpe ratios of an offshore wind farm at different phases More

Fig. 4 Effect of COV on the Sharpe ratio of offshore wind farm considering CAGR Effect of COV on the Sharpe ratio of offshore wind farm considering CAGR More