OTC 12195

Combined Lateral and Vertical Loading of Caisson Foundations

P.G. Watson and M.F. Randolph, The University of Western Australia, M.F. Bransby, The University of Dundee

Copyright 2000, Offshore Technology Conference

foundation engineers to challenge traditional design methods
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 Offshore Technology Conference held in for founding offshore structures (such as piled foundations).
Houston, Texas, 1–4 May 2000.
In turn, this has led to the development and increased use of
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of caisson (or skirted) foundation systems.
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to The idea of caisson foundations originated from gravity
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, base platforms in the North Sea, where skirts were employed
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
to transfer vertical bearing loads below mudline level to more
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The competent material. The generic term, caisson foundation,
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. may be applied to a family of alternatives including:
• Skirted gravity base structures, such as the Gullfaks C
Abstract platform installed in the North Sea in 1989 (Tjelta et al1,
This paper summarises aspects of a four-year study of caisson Tjelta2).
foundations under the action of combined vertical, horizontal • Suction anchors (used as alternatives to drag anchors), as
and moment loading. The study included physical (centrifuge) installed at the Laminaria field in 1999 in the Timor Sea
modelling and numerical analysis (finite element, upper and (Randolph et al3).
lower bound analysis). Caissons with skirt lengths of 40 to • Caisson foundations for taut leg mooring systems, such as
50 % of the foundation diameter were modelled, with physical installed in the North Sea for the Snorre tension leg
tests conducted in either kaolin clay, calcareous silt or platform in 1992 (Anderson et al4).
calcareous sand, under either undrained or partially drained • Caisson foundations for jacket structures or jackup rigs,
loading conditions. In addition, laboratory tests (simple shear, such as described by Erbrich and Tjelta5 for the Draupner
triaxial compression and extension) were undertaken to E platform, installed in dense sand in the North Sea in
evaluate element response under different loading paths. 1994.
The results presented in this paper have implications for • Caisson templates for subsea structures, as described by
the design of caisson foundations in low permeability clays Aas and Anderson6.
and silts, focusing on the response to lateral and vertical The use of caisson foundations for either taut leg mooring
loading. General numerical solutions (presented in the form of systems or jacket structures (where skirt lengths may be in the
design charts) for bearing capacity, tension capacity and order of 10 to 50% of the foundation diameter) has been the
lateral capacity are compared to results from experimental focus of a detailed research project at The University of
testing. In addition, the observed installation resistance is Western Australia (UWA), and is the subject of this paper.
discussed, as is the potential for significant increases in In these cases, foundations may be expected to withstand
bearing and lateral capacity arising from the application of large vertical (either tension or compression) load, in
preload. combination with significant horizontal load and overturning
Finally, caisson performance under combined vertical - moment resulting from environmental conditions. Further,
lateral loading is examined, and the results from a series of loading may be either sustained (ie long term loading, such as
model tests are used to investigate empirically the form of a structure dead weight) or cyclic in nature.
yield envelope for caisson foundations, and the potential use
of an associated flow rule to define plastic deformation at Scope of Research Project
yield. Despite the wide use of caisson foundations, design is largely
conducted on a case by case basis, with only general design
Introduction guidelines available to assist foundation engineers (such as
Over the last two decades, offshore oil and gas development API7; DNV8). Given this, one of the primary aims of the
has moved towards design in increasingly deep water and research undertaken at UWA was to examine the monotonic
hostile loading environments. Coupled with fluctuating oil response of caisson foundations, in order to develop generic
prices and the development of marginal fields, this has led solutions to various aspects of foundation design. In addition,
2 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

research was undertaken to examine means of improving results obtained from triaxial extension, triaxial compression
foundation response, such as through the use of preload, which and simple shear tests conducted on reconstituted samples
has been shown to generate significant increases in monotonic (consolidated under Ko conditions) of kaolin clay and
capacity. calcareous silt. It is clear that the properties of the two
Model testing was conducted using the centrifuge facility materials are significantly different, with the silt material
at UWA, and included testing to examine bearing (and tending to dilate after reaching the critical state line (CSL),
tension) capacity, lateral capacity and installation resistance of resulting in considerable strain hardening. This is discussed
caisson foundations. In addition, the interaction between further in relation to the caisson performance in each material.
vertical and horizontal loading of caisson foundations was In situ tests were conducted during each centrifuge test in
examined, and used to investigate appropriate yield surfaces to order to accurately assess the undrained soil strength. Fig. 3
describe the caisson yield. This included investigation of an shows typical results obtained from a variety of test devices in
associated flow rule to define plastic deformation at yield. kaolin clay. The undisturbed undrained shear strength
To enhance the applicability of the results obtained, model gradient is shown to be in the range k = 0.8 to 1.0 kPa/m, with
testing was supported by numerical analysis, including finite a remoulded strength on pullout that is approximately 70 % of
element, upper bound and lower bound analyses. This paper the undisturbed strength.
will present a range of results obtained from centrifuge testing
of caisson foundations, with emphasis on the comparison Geotechnical Centrifuge and Testing Apparatus
between numerical solutions and model test results. The focus The UWA centrifuge (Fig. 4) is an Acutronic Model 661
is on the undrained foundation behaviour, although tests were geotechnical fixed beam centrifuge with a radius of 1.8 m and
also conducted to examine caisson response under partially a maximum payload of 40 g-tonnes, and is capable of
drained loading conditions. subjecting 200 kg sample packages to accelerated gravity
As part of the general scope of the research project, model fields up to 200 g. A full description of the centrifuge and
caisson testing was supplemented by a range of soil associated equipment has been given by Randolph et al10.
characterisation testing, conducted both in situ (using various A schematic of the model caisson used for foundation tests
‘in-flight’ soil testing devices) and with traditional laboratory in calcareous silt is shown in Fig. 5, with a skirt length to
apparatus (triaxial and simple shear). In addition to making diameter (d/D) ratio of 0.4. At 150 g (the nominal working
improvements in the assessment of in situ strength (with acceleration for tests in calcareous silt), the model represents a
recommendations for field testing apparatus), soil prototype with D = 12 m. Fig. 6 illustrates a typical set-up in
characterisation testing provided a means of accurately the centrifuge prior to installation of the caisson in kaolin clay.
evaluating soil strength for each model test undertaken. Full Here, the model shown has prototype dimensions (at 100 g) of
details of the testing undertaken are contained in Watson9, and D = 7.5 m and d/D = 0.5.
only a brief discussion is provided here.
Finally, although beyond the scope of this paper, several Caisson Response
other aspects of caisson foundation performance were This section presents a selection of the results obtained from
investigated during the research project, including: caisson testing and outlines the development of numerical
• Performance under the application of cyclic loading. Here, solutions for caisson capacity.
centrifuge modelling and laboratory soil testing was
undertaken to develop empirical design methods for Installation The installation resistance of caisson foundations
caissons subjected to ‘complex’ cyclic loading conditions. comprises:
• Response of more complex foundation systems, including • end bearing at skirt tip level (Qtip); and
square foundations with relatively shallow skirts, and • internal and external shear along the skirt wall (Qside).
multiple caisson foundations for jacket structures. In certain circumstances, caisson resistance may increase
Details of the results obtained, and the implications for caisson further due to penetration of internal stiffeners, or the padeye
design, are described in Watson9. itself (when used as a catenary anchor).
End bearing may be directly related to the soil strength at
Material Types and Soil Characterisation skirt tip level (sutip) using a suitable bearing capacity factor
The main focus of the study was on foundation performance in (Nc) and making allowance for the overburden pressure (such
calcareous sediments typical of those found on the North-West that Qtip = AtipNcsutip, where Atip is the skirt tip area). Although
Shelf of Western Australia. However, complementary tests there has been some debate over the selection of Nc, largely
were also undertaken in clay. related to the observation that the skirt wall is generally very
In the following discussion, results will be presented only slender in comparison to the caisson diameter, a value of Nc =
from caisson tests conducted in normally consolidated kaolin 7.5 has been adopted in the current study. This is consistent
clay or calcareous silt. Fig. 1 shows the measured particle size with the findings of Colliat et al11, Solhjell et al12.
distributions for each material. Shear resistance along the skirt wall will be related to the
A suite of laboratory tests was conducted on each material local soil shear strength. Here, the shear resistance is related
used in the centrifuge test program. Fig. 2 summarises the to the average soil strength (suave) over the embedded length of
OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS 3

skirt using the silt increases significantly. This can be attributed to

the differences in material behaviour shown in Fig. 2,
Qside = αAwallsuave (1)
with the silt tending to dilate and strain harden following
where Awall is the total (internal and external) area of the yield while the clay strain softens. As pullout continues,
caisson wall at each stage of embedment, and α is an adhesion the caisson is displaced into a zone of disturbed
factor. Although it is common to assume identical values of α (strained) soil, leading to a reduction in capacity for the
for both internal and external shear, House et al13 suggested clay, but a rising capacity for the dilating silt. This
that for suction installation a lower value of internal shear may behaviour was not evident in bearing tests, as the caisson
be more appropriate. However, in the current study the is continually displaced into fresh material.
foundations were installed using direct loading, and the same This observation is discussed further in later sections.
value was adopted inside and outside.
Fig. 7 illustrates the predicted and observed caisson Design Charts for Bearing Capacity The bearing capacity
installation resistance from tests conducted in kaolin clay and (VC/A) of caisson foundations may be calculated using the
calcareous silt. As can be seen, excellent agreement is traditional approach of a bearing capacity factor (Nc) and the
observed using adhesion factors of 0.1 and 0.4 for the clay and shear strength at skirt tip level. The caisson foundation is
silt tests respectively (and Nc = 7.5). often considered to be a surface footing acting on a soil
surface located at skirt tip level. This simplification is shown
Observed Bearing and Tensile Response To determine the in Fig. 12. However, two factors must be taken into account:
net bearing (and tension) resistance, qnet (= V/A where V is the 1. Soil strength non-homogeneity. Quantified by the ratio,
net vertical load and A is the caisson area), of the caisson kD/suo, the effect of strength non-homogeneity on
foundation during penetration, the measured bearing pressure bearing capacity has been examined by Houlsby and
(qm) must be corrected to account for overburden and the Wroth15 using lower bound (method of characteristics)
weight of the soil plug. This process has been previously analysis, and by Kusakabe et al16 using upper bound
described by Tani and Craig14, and the result is illustrated in analysis. In both cases a surface foundation was
Fig. 8 for both a bearing test and a tension test performed after analysed, and the results are shown in Fig. 13. For the
full installation (to ‘touchdown’). normally consolidated case, where suo = kd, the ratio
The bearing resistance of caisson foundations was kD/suo is equivalent to D/d, giving a value of Nc in the
evaluated from tests in both calcareous silt and kaolin clay. range 7.9 to 8.6 for a caisson foundation with d = 0.4D.
Fig. 9 shows the observed bearing resistance of the 12 m This is somewhat lower than the observed Nc shown in
diameter foundation (d = 4.8 m) in a range of different Fig. 10.
strength calcareous silts (although not shown, a similar 2. Embedment. Increasing the embedment reduces the ratio
response was observed in kaolin clay). Also shown are kD/sutip (assuming soil strength increases consistently
corresponding soil strength profiles derived from in situ with depth) and hence the value of Nc. However, this is
strength measurements. Bearing resistance increases offset both by the confining effects of increased
proportionally with the soil shear strength at skirt tip level. embedment, and the increasing contribution of side wall
This is illustrated further in Fig. 10, where the observed shear, both of which increase the bearing capacity.
bearing resistance is shown normalised by kD (constant value) The effects of both strength non-homogeneity and embedment
and also by kz (= sutip). This later normalisation may be used have been explored using different approaches, including:
to determine experimental values of Nc. As the foundation • Upper bound analysis, based on an extended form of the
penetrates, the value of Nc may change, partly due to a mechanism proposed by Kusakabe et al16. The
decreasing ratio of kD/sutip that tends to decrease Nc, and partly mechanisms used are shown in Fig. 14, and are described
due to increased side friction and end-bearing capacity due to in Randolph17. Although not included in the analysis, an
embedment, which increases Nc. As may be seen, the effect of alternate mechanism (involving a form of spherical
these competing trends is a slight but gradual increase in Nc. cavity expansion) becomes optimal at very large
Centrifuge testing was also conducted to examine the embedment.
tension response of caisson foundations. Unlike bearing • Lower bound analysis, using the method of
response, however, a significant difference was observed characteristics (Martin18).
between tests conducted in kaolin clay and calcareous silt. • Finite element analysis. Described in Hu et al19, Fig. 15
Fig. 11 illustrates the observed tension response in both illustrates the displacement vectors from finite element
materials (bearing tests are also shown). Two observations analysis of rough-sided (α = 1) caisson foundations with
can be made from the result: different embedment. The results support the upper
1. At touchdown, the initial tension capacity (VT/A) is equal bound failure mechanisms shown in Fig. 14.
to the initial bearing capacity (VC/A), and the failure It should be noted that the F.E. analyses described above were
mode may be considered “reverse bearing capacity”. conducted on “pre-embedded’ foundations at different
2. With increasing displacement, the tension capacity of the embedment ratios. Large displacement (remeshing) finite
foundation in kaolin clay reduces, while the capacity in element analyses have also been conducted (Hu et al19), with
4 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

results indicating a small reduction in the computed bearing and should be primarily designed for transient ‘undrained’
capacity compared with the pre-embedded case, due to the loading events.
entrapment of soft soil beneath the foundation. However, as The consolidation evident in the caisson response to long
the analysis requires very large computing times, the pre- term compressive load, which may be achieved by preloading
embedded solutions are recommended for design purposes. the foundation (such as through temporary ballast in excess of
Fig. 16 summarises the numerical results, for the cases of the working load), leads to strengthening of the soil at skirt tip
caisson with (a) fully rough sides (α = 1); and (b) fully smooth level. This in turn increases the observed bearing capacity.
sides (α = 0). In both cases the base is considered to be fully Fig. 20 illustrates the increase in bearing capacity due to the
rough (soil-soil interface). This figure represents a design application of preload equal to 40 % of the vertical bearing
chart for caisson foundations in normally consolidated soil. capacity, allowing either 50 % or 100 % dissipation of pore
From these results, it may be shown that the bearing capacity pressure. As shown, even 50 % consolidation results in about
of a rough foundation may be closely approximated using the 50 % increase in initial bearing capacity.
capacity of a smooth caisson and simply adding in the
frictional component. This allows the solutions to be Observed and Theoretical Lateral Resistance High lateral
generalised for any roughness, by interpolating between the capacity of caisson foundations makes them suitable as anchor
two cases. systems for catenary moorings (Keaveny et al20) or as
foundations for jacket structures (Tjelta21). Conservative
Comparison with Observed Response The finite element analysis of caisson foundations subjected to pure lateral loads
solutions shown in Fig. 16 are compared to the observed allows only for base shear, with little or no contribution due to
foundation response in Fig. 17 (kaolin clay) and Fig. 18 passive and active soil wedges. Alternatively, caissons may
(calcareous silt). In both cases it may be seen that the be thought of as stubby piles, and analysed using lateral pile
numerical solutions provide a good (moderately conservative) theory. The latter approach has been adopted in this project.
estimation of the observed bearing capacity. Figs. 21 and 22 show the observed foundation response to
For tensile loading, however, the observed response in pure lateral loading in kaolin clay and calcareous silt
kaolin clay reduces below the numerical prediction at large respectively. As may be seen, the response in both cases
displacement (although the initial tension capacity is well reaches a clear ‘yield’, although the displacement required to
predicted). This is attributed to the soil remoulding effect, as reach yield is significantly larger in the clay. However,
the caisson is displaced into disturbed soil (as shown in Fig. 3, similar to the tensile tests, the lateral capacity of the caisson in
the remoulded strength of the kaolin clay after one load cycle calcareous silt continues to increase beyond the yield point.
is approximately 70 % of the undisturbed strength). This is not observed in the clay tests (where a moderate
Multiplying the numerical solutions by 0.7 gives excellent amount of work hardening may be attributed to heave in front
agreement with the observed large displacement tension of the caisson), and is associated with dilation in the silt.
capacity. Also shown are numerical results determined using a 3-
For the silt, the initial tension capacity is again well dimensional upper bound failure mechanism, initially
predicted by the numerical solutions. However, the numerical proposed by Murff and Hamilton22, and later applied to
analysis takes no account of dilation, which causes a caisson foundations by Randolph et al3. Discussed in detail in
significant increase in the tension capacity with increased Randolph et al23 and Watson9, the upper bound mechanism
displacement. Further research is required in this area, and at consists of three components (shown in Fig. 23):
present the numerical solutions are conservative. 1. Conical wedges in front and behind the caisson (unless
gapping occurs, in which case a one-sided mechanism is
Response to Sustained Vertical Load and Preloading adopted).
Foundation response to sustained (long term) loading, and the 2. Plane strain soil flow around the caisson beneath the
effect of consolidation on observed bearing capacity have also wedge.
been examined. 3. An internal or external scoop mechanism at the base of
Fig. 19 illustrates the observed caisson response to the caisson.
sustained compressive and tensile loading (note that pore Using the upper bound analysis, a design chart (Fig. 24) has
pressure is measured inside the soil plug at skirt tip level). been developed for the lateral capacity of caisson foundations
Under compressive loading the pore pressure generated by in normally consolidated soil (note that this chart is for pure
loading gradually dissipates, and the foundation settlement translation of caissons only). As may be seen in Figs 21 and
ultimately reaches a limit. However, under constant tensile 22, lateral capacity (Ho/A) deduced using the upper bound
load the pore pressure remains nearly constant, and unbounded approach provides a good approximation to the observed
displacement occurs as water is drawn into the caisson. This (yield) lateral capacity.
observation leads to the conclusion that in soils with moderate The application of preload and subsequent consolidation is
permeability, caisson foundations are not suited to long term likely to influence the lateral capacity of caisson foundations
‘drained’ tension loading (load greater than the weight of the in the same way as for bearing capacity. Fig. 25 compares the
foundation and contained soil plus the external side friction), lateral capacity (normalised by suo) observed from a caisson
OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS 5

test in which 50 % consolidation (at V = 0.4VC) was allowed displacement (due to dilation) results in a symmetrical yield
with the undisturbed response. There is a 20 % increase in the envelope with ∆ = 3.75 for both tension and compression.
observed resistance. If it is assumed that the wedge capacity Note that, as was the case for pure lateral loading, in silt the
remains unchanged by the preloading, then a 20 % increase in lateral load increases beyond the yield envelope due to
total resistance may be interpreted as a 50 % increase in the dilation.
base shear component. This then implies an equivalent In addition to assessing the shape of the yield surface,
increase in vertical and base-sliding capacity due to probe tests may be used to estimate displacement increments
consolidation, although further testing is required to confirm at yield. These may then be compared with those derived
this observation. assuming associated flow, in order to assess the assumption of
normality. From tests conducted in calcareous silt, the relative
Combined Loading Traditional design of offshore magnitudes of the displacement increments at failure, δv/δh,
foundation systems subjected to combined loading (vertical, are plotted in Fig. 29 as a function of the vertical load level.
lateral, moment) has largely relied on limit equilibrium Excellent agreement with normality is evident for both tension
methods based on specific collapse mechanisms. This is and compression, suggesting a symmetrical yield envelope and
usually achieved using 2-dimensional idealisations with associated flow are appropriate in the calcareous silt.
allowance for side shear (Andersen et al24). In addition, finite Finally, testing was conducted to investigate the potential
element and upper bound plasticity methods have also been for work hardening of the yield envelope due to increased
used (Bransby and Randolph25, Zdravkovic et al26). penetration. Fig. 30 illustrates the V-H response observed
Alternatively, experimental testing has been used to define during sideswipe testing at increasing penetration. Significant
3-dimensional ‘yield envelopes’. Fig 26 shows an example of work hardening occurs with increasing embedment.
a 3-dimensional yield envelope, deduced from model tests of a Normalising the response using Vc and sutip reveals a constant
spud-can footing on clay (Martin27). Similar functions have size and shape yield envelope, independent of embedment.
been defined for spud-can footings in sand (Dean et al28). This contrasts with upper bound analysis (Fig. 24) , where it
Within the yield envelope behaviour is generally assumed to was shown that H/Asutip increases with increasing skirt length.
be elastic, and the elastic-plastic response during and after This conflict may be attributed to an increase in the
yield is often computed using an associated flow rule. A work displacement required to mobilise the ‘undisturbed’ lateral
hardening function may also be used to link increase resistance, associated with soil disturbance arising from
penetration with increasing vertical capacity (and hence yield increased penetration. The implication from this is that the
envelope size). normalised touchdown yield envelope, with both horizontal
However, unlike spud-can foundation, caisson foundations and vertical load axes normalised by Vc, provides the best
exhibit both tension capacity and lateral capacity at V = 0, and prediction of combined loading capacity during work
as such the yield envelope must be extended for V < 0. The hardening, although further research is required to confirm
current study explored caisson response to combined vertical this. Further discussion of the potential for work hardening is
and horizontal loading (under conditions of zero rotation) over given in Watson9.
the full range of vertical load between tensile and bearing
failure. Conclusions
The test program included ‘sideswipe’ tests (lateral This paper has described outcomes arising from an
translation with fixed vertical displacement, Tan29) and experimental and numerical study of the performance of
‘probe’ tests (lateral translation with constant vertical load). caisson (or skirted) foundations for offshore structures. The
Figs. 27 and 28 show typical yield envelopes deduced for the main conclusions from the results presented are:
caisson foundation in kaolin clay and calcareous silt. The 1. Installation resistance of caisson foundations may be
yield lateral capacity (H/Asuo) is a function of the vertical load accurately predicted using the conventional approach,
(V/VC). The yield envelope may be described using an taking account of tip resistance and wall friction.
equation of the form 2. Caisson tests in materials with variable soil strength
indicate that bearing capacity is largely proportional to
V 1 H (2)
  + =1 the soil strength at skirt tip level, with only slight
 VC  Γ Asuo increase in bearing capacity factor, Nc, with penetration.
where Γ = (H/Asuo)max at V/VC = 0, A is the foundation area, 3. Tensile tests indicate that the initial ‘touchdown’ tension
capacity is equivalent to the bearing capacity for both silt
VC is the bearing capacity at H = 0 (equal to VT), suo is the soil
and clay, suggesting the failure mode may be thought of
strength at touchdown skirt tip level and ∆ is a parameter
as ‘reverse’ bearing capacity. However, increasing
governing the shape of the envelope. For clay (Fig. 27), the
pullout displacement highlights significant differences
yield envelope is non-symmetrical about V = 0, associated
between tests in the two materials, which may be
with the observation that tension capacity decreases with
attributed to the strain-softening and strain-hardening
increasing displacement, and ∆ = 2 for V < 0 and ∆ = 3.75 for
nature of the clay and silt respectively.
V ≥ 0. This contrasts with the response in calcareous silt 4. Analysis of bearing capacity in normally consolidated
(Fig. 28), where the increasing tensile capacity with
6 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

soils must take into account the effects of soil non- foundations and suction caissons in sand – Geotechnical
homogeneity and caisson embedment. Lower bound, performance”, Proc. 1999 Offshore Technology Conf., Houston,
upper bound and finite element analyses have been Texas (1999), OTC 10990.
conducted for both smooth and rough-sided caisson 6. Aas, P.M. and Anderson, K.H.: “Skirted foundations for offshore
structures”, Proc. Offshore South East Asia Conf., Singapore
foundations, and good agreement has been shown (1992), 1-8.
between the observed bearing response and finite 7. American Petroleum Institute: “Recommended practice for
element solutions. The remoulded strength should be planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms –
used to predict tension capacity for tests conducted in working stress design”, API RP 2A-WSD (1993).
clay (as the caisson is displaced into disturbed material), 8. Det Norske Veritas: “Foundations”, Classification Notes 30.4
while for silt the solutions with the yield strength have (1994).
been shown to be conservative due to the beneficial 9. Watson, P.G.: “Performance of skirted foundations for offshore
effects of dilation. structures”, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia
5. Good agreement between the observed lateral resistance (1999).
10. Randolph M.F., Jewell R.J., Stone K.J.L. and Brown T.A.:
and capacity predicted by upper bound analysis has been
“Establishing a new centrifuge facility”, Proc. Int. Conf. on
shown. However, in calcareous silt the resistance is seen Centrifuge Modelling - Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado (1991),
to increase beyond yield with increasing displacement 3-9.
(due to dilation). 11. Colliat, J.L., Boisard, P., Andersen, K.H. and Schroeder, K.:
6. Consolidation due to the application of constant vertical “Caisson foundations as alternative anchors for permanent
load has been shown to increase both the vertical and mooring of a process barge offshore Congo”, Proc. 27th Offshore
base-shear capacity by about 50 %. Technology Conf., Houston, Texas (1995), OTC 7797, 919-929.
7. A yield envelope has been proposed for caisson 12. Solhjell, E., Sparrevik, P., Haldorsen, K. and Karlsen, V.:
foundations in both kaolin clay and calcareous silt. “Comparison and back calculation of penetration resistance from
suction anchor installation in soft to stiff clay at the Njord and
While a non-symmetrical (about V = 0) envelope is Visund Fields in the North Sea”, Offshore Site Investigation and
proposed for kaolin clay, a symmetrical envelope appears Foundation Behaviour ’98, Science and Underwater Technology,
more appropriate from tests in calcareous silt. Probe London (1998), 325-349.
tests confirm the applicability of an associated flow rule. 13. House, A., Randolph, M.F. and Borbas, M.E.: “Limiting aspect
ratio for suction caisson installation in clay”, Proc. 9th Int.
Acknowledgements Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference - ISOPE ’99, Brest,
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the France (1999), 676-683.
other members of the Geomechanics Group at The University 14. Tani, K and Craig, W.H.: “Bearing capacity of circular
of Western Australia. In particular, thanks go to Mr Don foundations on soft clay of strength increasing with depth”, Soils
and Foundations (1995), 35(4), 21-35.
Herley and Mr Mike McCarthy for their assistance in
15. Houlsby, G.T. and Wroth, C.P.: “Direct solution of plasticity
developing and conducting the model tests, and to Dr Yuxia problems in soils by the method of characteristics”, Proc. 4th Int
Hu and Dr Chris Martin for their assistance in developing Conf Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Edmonton (1982),
numerical solutions. During his doctoral research, the first 1059-1071.
author was supported by an FS Shaw Memorial Postgraduate 16. Kusakabe, O., Suzuki, H. and Nakase, A.: “An upper bound
Scholarship, a Samaha Postgraduate Scholarship and an calculation on bearing capacity of a circular footing on a non-
Australian Postgraduate Award. The work described in this homogeneous clay”, Soils and Foundations (1986), 26(3), 143-
paper forms part of the activities of the Special Research 148.
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, established and 17. Randolph, M.F.: “Modelling of offshore foundations - Part 1 :
Bearing capacity”, E H Davis Memorial Lecture, Australian
supported under the Australian Research Council’s Research Geomechanics (1998), 33(2), 5-22.
Centres program. 18. Martin, C.M.: Personal communication (1999).
19. Hu, Y., Randolph, M.F. and Watson, P.G.: “Bearing response of
References skirted foundations”, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
1. Tjelta, T.I., Aas, P.M. and Herstad, J.: “The skirt piled Gullfaks Engineering, ASCE (1999), 924-935.
C platform installation”, Proc. 22nd Annual Offshore Technology 20. Keaveny, J.M., Hansen, S.B., Madshus, C. and Dyvik, R.:
Conf., Houston, Texas (1990), OTC 6473, 453-462. “Horizontal capacity of large scale model anchors”, Proc. XIII
2. Tjelta, T.I.: “Foundation behaviour at Gullfaks C”, Society for Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New
Underwater Technology, Vol 28 : Offshore Site Investigation and Delhi, India (1994), 677-680.
Foundation Behaviour (1993), 451-467. 21. Tjelta, T.I.: “Geotechnical aspects of bucket foundations
3. Randolph, M.F., O’Neill, M.P., Stewart, D.P. and Erbrich, C.T.: replacing piles for the Europipe 16/11-E jacket”, Proc. 26nd
“Performance of suction anchors in fine grained calcareous Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Texas (1994), OTC
soils”, Proc. 1998 Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Texas 7379, 73-82.
(1998), OTC 8831, 521-529. 22. Murff, J.D. and Hamilton, J.M.: “P-ultimate for undrained
4. Anderson, K.H., Dyvik, R. and Schroeder, K.: “Pullout capacity analysis of laterally loaded piles”, J. of Geotechnical
analysis of suction anchors for tension leg platforms”, 6th Int. Engineering, ASCE (1993), 119(1), 91-107.
Conf. Behaviour of Offshore Structures, London (1992). 23. Randolph, M.F., Watson, P.G. and Fahey, M.: “Site
5. Erbrich, C.T. and Tjelta, T.I.: “Installation of bucket characterisation and foundation design in soft sediments”, Proc.
OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS 7

Int. Conf. on Offshore and Nearshore Geotechnical Engineering, s u , kPa

Navi Mumbai, India (1999), 35-48. -20 -10 0 10 20 30
24. Andersen, K.H., Dyvik, R., Schroeder, K., Hansteen, O.E. and 0
Bysveen, S.: “Field tests of anchors in clay II : Predictions and
interpretation”, J. of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE (1993), Pullout strength ~ C o ne penetro meter
70 % undisturbed 4 T -b ar penetro meter
119(10), 1532-1549. B all p enetro meter
strength
25. Bransby, M.F. and Randolph, M.F.: “Combined loading of V ane s hear tes t
skirted foundations”, Geotechnique (1998), 48(5), 1-19. 8
26. Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D.M. and Jardine, R.J.: “Pull-out capacity

Depth, m
of bucket foundations in soft clay”, Offshore Site Investigation
12
and Foundation Behaviour ’98, Science and Underwater Undisturbed
Technology, London (1998), 301-324. k = 0.8-1.0 kPa/m
27. Martin, C.M.: “Physical and numerical modelling of offshore 16
foundations under combined loads”, PhD thesis, The University
of Oxford (1994). 20
28. Dean, E.T.R., James, R.G., Schofield, A.N., Tan, F.S.C. and
Tsukamoto, Y.: “The bearing capacity of conical footings on sand
in relation to the behaviour of spudcan footings of jackups”, 24
Predictive Soil Mechanics, Thomas Telford, London (1993), 230- Fig 3 Example of measured undrained shear strength (normally
253. consolidated kaolin clay)
29. Tan, F.S.C.: “Centrifuge and theoretical modelling of conical
footings in sand”, PhD thesis, Cambridge University (1990).
Direction of rotation

100
Loading
90 actuator
80 Kaolin clay
Percentage passing (%)

70
60
50
40
30 Calcareous silt
20 Sample ‘strongbox’
on swinging platform
10
0 Fig 4 UWA centrifuge
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 Scale

Particle size (mm) Drainage 30 mm

holes (2)
Fig 1 Particle size distributions : kaolin clay and calcareous silt

60 300
T riaxial
50 compression 250 T riaxial
40 compression
Start A A
point 200
30
Simple
150
20 shear
σ1-σ3, kPa

σ1-σ3, kPa

Simple Pore pressure

10 100 Connection to transducers (3)
shear
Start loadcell (4)
0
50 point PLAN VIEW
-10
D = 80 mm
0
-20 T riaxial
T riaxial
extension
-30 -50 extension

-40 Interchangeable
-100
skirt length
0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100 150
M ean effective stress, kPa M ean effective stress, kPa

(a) Kaolin clay (b) Calcareous silt d = 32 mm

Fig 2 Stress paths in triaxial compression, triaxial extension and

Extension pipe for
simple shear pore pressure transducer
SECTION AA

Fig 5 Model caisson (D = 80 m; d = 24-80 mm; t = 1 mm)

8 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

q net , kPa
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
2
Load cell : B earing tes ts in c alc areo us s ilt
1 axial output 4 with inc reas ing s trength
2 moment outputs
Miniature valve 6
8 k=1.8 kP a/m

Depth, m
10
Model caisson
12 k=1.25 kP a/m
14

Fig 6 Model caisson (D = 60 mm; d = 25 mm; t = 1 mm)

16 C o rres po nding s o il s trength pro files
ie k=1.0 kP a/m
18
q net , kPa q net , kPa k=1.05 kP a/m
0 2 4 6 8 0 3 6 9 12 20
0 0 0 4 8 12 16 20
s u , kPa
0.5
Nc = 7.5; α = 0.1 Fig 9 Bearing tests in normally consolidated calcareous silt
1 Observed
1
q net /kD qnet /kz (= Nc)
1.5 2 0 10 20 5 10 15
Depth, m

Nc = 7.5; α = 0.4
Depth, m

2 0 0
Observed
3 0.2 Moderate increase 0.2
2.5
with depth
3 0.4 (wall friction) 0.4
4
3.5 0.6 0.6
z/D

z/D
4 5 0.8 0.8
(a) Kaolin clay (b) Calcareous silt
1 1
Fig 7 Installation resistance
1.2 1.2
q m & q net , kPa
1.4 1.4
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Fig 10 Normalised bearing resistance
0 q net /kD q net /kD
-8 -4 0 4 8 -10 -5 0 5 10
qm
(i) 1 2
1 q net D = 7.5 m ;
T ension T ens io n tes t D = 12 m ;
d/D = 0.5 d/D = 0.4
test T ens io n tes t
3
2 2 T o uc hdo wn
(z = 4.8 m )
Depth, m

T o uc hdo wn
Depth (z), m

(z = 3.75 m ) 4
Depth (z), m

3 3
T ouchdown
5

4 4
6
(ii) A t to uc hdo wn :
5 5 A t to uc hdo wn :
Bearing V t = -V c V t = -V c 7
(q net/kD = 5.2-5.5) (q net/kD = 4-4.5)
test
B ea ring tes t B ea ring te s t
6 6 8

Fig 8 Derivation of net bearing pressure (a) Kaolin clay (b) Calcareous silt

Fig 11 Tension resistance

OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS 9

Actual prototype Simplified prototype

configuration configuration
(skirts penetrated (exclusion of depth
to caisson touchdown) effects)

Caisson diameter (D) Caisson diameter (D)

Strength profile Strength

sum su , kPa su , kPa
Shallow mechanism Deep mechanism
Skirt Skirt (d/D = 0.1) (d/D = 0.4)
length k length
suo = kd + sum
(d) (d)
1 k

z, m z, m

Fig 12 Idealisation of the relationship between skirt length and

soil strength increasing with depth

Local failure mechanism

14 (d/D > 2.0)

12
Fig 15 Displacement vectors from FE analysis (after Hu et al [19])
10
18
8
Nc

6 16 Upper
Ho uls b y&W ro th, 19 8 3 bound
4 (lo wer b o und ) 14
Kus akab e et al, 19 8 6
Nc

2 (up p er b o und ) 12

0 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 Lower
8 Finite element
bound
kD/s uo analysis
Fig 13 Bearing capacity factors excluding depth effects for rough
6
circular foundation (after Houlsby and Wroth [15]; Kusakabe et al 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
[16])
d/D
(a) Rough sides : Rough base
16
π/4
14
β Upper
12 bound
α
Nc

10
Sh allo w m ech an ism D eep m ech an ism
8
Lower Finite element
Fig 14 Upper bound failure mechanisms (after Randolph [17]) 6
bound analysis
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
d/D
(b) Smooth sides : Rough base

Fig 16 Bearing capacity (Nc) for caisson foundations in normally

consolidated soil
10 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

0.5
q net /kD 0.1 8 Root time (model scale), s
-8 -4 0 4 8 0 10 20 30
δv
0.08 6 0 0
1
D = 7.5 m; -0.05 -1
0.06 4 δv

u, kPa
v, m
d/D = 0.5 -0.1 -2

0.04 2 -0.15 -3

u, kPa
2

v, m
N um eric al s o lutio n
0.7V T /A ∆u -0.2 -4
fro m F E ana lys is with
0.02 0
wa ll ro ughne s s (α ) = 0.1 -0.25 -5
-0.3 -6
0 -2
V T /A 3
Depth (z), m

0 20 40 -0.35 ∆u -7
0.5
O bs e rved Root time (model scale), s -0.4 -8

(a) V = 0.4VC (b) V = 0.4VT

4
O bs erved Fig 19 Response to constant applied load

V C /A
Increase in bearing resistance
5 (ratio o f pre lo aded to undis turbe d bearing pre s s ure)

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

0

Normalised depth (z/D)

100% c o ns o lidatio n
6 0.2 50% c o ns o lida tio n
T o uc hdo wn (z/D = 0.4)
Fig 17 Comparison between theoretical and observed caisson 0.4
response (kaolin clay)
0.6
q net /kD
-10 -5 0 5 10 0.8
2 1
Inc reas ing
D = 12 m;
dive rgenc e
d/D = 0.4 Fig 20 Increase in bearing resistance due to preload of 0.4VC
3
N um eric al s o lutio n 14
fro m F E analys is with M o de ra te inc reas e
Lateral resistance (H/A), kPa

wall ro ughnes s (α) = 0.4 due to s o il heave

12
4
Depth (z), m

V T /A
10

5 8 Upper bo und
O bs erve d pre dic tio n (α = 0.1)
6 (δh to rea c h yield ~ 0.25 m )
O bs erved

6 4
C ais s o n
2 res po ns e

7 V C /A
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2
8 Lateral displacement (δh), m
Fig 18 Comparison between theoretical and observed caisson Fig 21 Caisson response to lateral loading (kaolin clay)
response (calcareous silt)
OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS 11

30 7 1.4
Lateral resistance (H/A), kPa R atio

Increase in lateral resistance

25 6 1.2

5 1
20
Large inc reas e 4 0.8

H/As uo
15 due to dila tio n

3 P relo ad = 0.4 V C ; 0.6

10 50 % c o ns o lidatio n

2 0.4
5 Upper bo und predic tio n (α = 0.4) Undis turbe d
→ δh to re ac h yie ld ~ 0.07 m 1 0.2
0
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Lateral displacement (δh), m
δh, m
Fig 22 Caisson response to lateral loading (calcareous silt)
Figure 25 Increase in lateral resistance associated with preload

Direction of Direction of
Tension loading loading
Tension
crack crack

Soil Soil
Soil wedge
wedge wedge

Soil flow

Soil flow

External scoop Internal scoop

mechanism mechanism

(a) Rotation point above (b) Rotation point below

skirt tip level skirt tip level

Fig 23 Upper bound collapse mechanisms (after Randolph et al

[3])

Fig 26 Example of 3-D yield envelope (after Martin [27])

16

4
12 Sideswipe
Non-symmetrical
tests
R o ugh s ides
H/As uo

yield envelope
(α = 1) 3
8
H/As uo

4 2
S m o o th s ides
(α = 0)

0 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
d/D
0
Fig 24 Design chart for lateral resistance of caisson foundations
in normally consolidated material -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
V/Vc
Fig 27 Deduced yield envelope of caisson foundation in kaolin
clay
12 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

4 Sideswipe tests
Symmetrical Probe tests
yield envelope
3
H/As uo

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
V/Vc
Fig 28 Deduced yield envelope of caisson foundation in
calcareous silt

1.5
Settlement
( δv > 0)
1

0.5 Observed
v/ h

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.5
Based on
associated
-1 flow rule
Pullout
(δv < 0)
-1.5
V/Vc
Fig 29 Displacement vectors at yield : theorectical vs measured

6 4
d/D = 1.08 H /A s utip ~ 2.6 (to uc hdo wn)
3
4 d/D = 0.78
2
d/D = 0.5
2
1
H/As utip
H (MN)

0 0

-1 Y ield envelo pe
-2
d/D = 0.65 -2
-4
d/D = 0.93 -3

-6 -4
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
V (MN) V/Vc
Fig 30 Effect of work hardening on deduced yield envelope