Doherty, J. P. & Deeks, A. J. (2003). Géotechnique 53, No.
8, 703–714
Elastic response of circular footings embedded in a non-homogeneous
half-space
J. P. D O H E RT Y
a n d A . J. D E E K S

This study uses a semi-analytical technique (the scaled
boundary finite-element method) to evaluate the load–
displacement response of rigid circular footings em-
bedded in a non-homogeneous elastic half-space. Results
are presented in terms of dimensionless elastic stiffness
coefficients. The footings are subjected to vertical, hori-
zontal, moment and torsional loads. The cross-coupling
between the horizontal and moment load case is also
evaluated. The variation of soil shear modulus with depth
may correspond to normally consolidated sand or clay,
and the footing geometries considered cover a range of
footings commonly encountered in engineering practice.
KEYWORDS: elasticity; footing/foundations; offshore engineer-
ing; soil/structure interaction; stiffness; torsion
INTRODUCTION
Foundation design principally consists of two main tasks.
First, an estimate of the ultimate bearing capacity is made
to obtain a safe footing design at the likely maximum load,
and second, the deflections of the footing under working
loads are determined for serviceability purposes or for
soil–structure interaction studies. Accounting for the inher-
ent non-linear mechanical behaviour of soil in predicting the
load–displacement response of footings is an onerous task
(Selvadurai, 1979). Consequently a simplified linear elastic
analysis is often preferred, as it can provide reasonable
estimates within the range of working loads (Schofield &
Wroth, 1968): that is, loads that are remote from those
required to cause foundation failure (Martin, 1994). It is
most convenient if a previously derived elastic solution can
be applied that simply requires substitution of the site-
specific elastic parameters, shear modulus (G) and Poisson’s
ratio (
). This can be done with confidence only if an
existing elastic solution reflects the geometry of the problem
under consideration. This study extends the range of avail-
able elastic solutions for problems commonly encountered in
engineering practice. The elastic response of embedded
circular footings of radius R subjected to vertical, horizontal,
moment and torsional loads in bonded contact with a non-
homogeneous half-space is examined. The geometry and
embedment conditions considered are shown in Fig. 1. Case
1 represents a circular footing at the bottom of an open
trench, case 2 represents a fully embedded footing, case 3
represents an embedded footing (or short pile) with full
sidewall–soil contact, and case 4 represents a skirted foun-
dation (or caisson), also with full sidewall–soil contact.
The vertical (V ), horizontal (H ), moment (M ) and tor-
sional (T ) loads applied and the corresponding vertical (w),
horizontal (u), moment (Ł M ) and torsional (ŁT ) deformations
Manuscript received 24 September 2002, revised manuscript
accepted 5 June 2003
Discussion on this paper closes 1 April 2004, for further details see
p. ii.

School of Civil and Resource Engineering, The University of
Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia.
703
Cette étude utilise une technique semi-analytique (méth-
ode d’élément fini à limite proportionnelle) pour évaluer
la réponse au déplacement de charge d’assises circulaires
rigides enfouies dans un espace simi-infini élastique et
non homogène. Nous présentons les résultats en termes
de coefficients adimensionnels de rigidité élastique. Les
assises sont soumises à des charges verticales, horizon-
tales, de moment et de torsion. Nous évaluons également
le couplage transversal entre les cas de charge horizon-
tale et de moment. La variation du module de cisaille-
ment du sol en fonction de la profondeur peut
correspondre à du sable ou à de l’argile à consolidation
normale et les géométries d’assises étudiées couvrent
toute une gamme d’assises rencontrées couramment dans
la pratique industrielle.
O O
z d
O O
R
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 1. Footing geometry for three embedment conditions: (a)
case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3; (d) case 4
are all measured relative to the reference point O, as shown
in Fig. 1. For cases 1 and 2 this point corresponds to the
centreline of the footing at depth d, whereas for cases 3 and
4 this point is located at the intersection of the ground
surface (z ¼ 0) and the centreline of the footing. Fig. 2
shows the positive loading convention adopted and the
corresponding displacements.
The elastic response of rigid circular footings subjected to
V, H, M and T loading on the surface of a homogeneous
elastic half-space has been examined extensively, and
closed-form analytical solutions have been developed. These
solutions are summarised by Poulos & Davis (1974). Most
practical geotechnical engineering situations, however,
d z
O R
w M
H
O θT
O θM
T
V
u
z
Fig. 2. Loads and deformations
704 DOHERTY & DEEKS
involve footings embedded at a finite depth (d ) below the
soil surface. In this situation, formulation of fundamental
elastic solutions is considerably more complex, and various
embedment conditions can be assumed, four of which are
shown in Fig. 1. Several researchers have studied the vertical
response of rigid footings/anchors embedded in a homoge-
neous elastic half-space and have developed analytical solu-
tions: Hunter & Gamble (1974) examined a footing fully
submerged (case 2) in an incompressible elastic half-space
and considered the effect of de-bonding on the tension side
of the soil–footing interface, whereas Selvadurai (1993)
considered a range of values of Poisson’s ratio but only the
fully bonded condition. The torsional response of embedded
foundations has also been considered: Poulos (1975) and
Randolph (1981) studied the torsional response of piled
foundations (case 3), whereas Rajapakse & Selvadurai
(1989) studied rigid circular foundations with geometry
similar to case 2, as well as rigid cylindrical foundations.
Rajapakse & Selvadurai (1985) presented solutions for the
torsional stiffness of non-uniform and hollow rigid piers in
bonded contact with a layered elastic half-space. However,
no analytical solutions are available for the horizontal or
moment load cases. This has motivated other researchers to
employ approximate techniques, such as the finite-element
method. Bell (1991) carried out a series of three-dimensional
finite-element analyses to examine the effect of embedment
on rough rigid circular footings with three types of embed-
ment (cases 1, 2 and 3 shown in Fig. 1) subject to vertical
horizontal and moment loads. Bell (1991) expressed the
stiffness of a footing subject to combined loading in matrix
form as
8 9 8 w 9
> V >
>
> 2>
> 2 3>> >
>
>
> GR >
> KV 0 0 > R >
> >
>
< >
= >
< >
=
H 6 7 u
¼ 4 0 K H K MH 5 (1)
> 2> > surface. Rajapakse & Selvadurai (1989) presented solutions
> GR >
>
> >
>
>
>
> R >
>
>
>
>
> > 0 K MH K M > > for the torsional response of rigid foundations embedded in
: M > ; :
ŁM
;
GR 3
where KV , K H , K M , and K MH are dimensionless elastic
stiffness coefficients, which are dependent only on Poisson’s
ratio (
), embedment ratio (d/R) and the embedment condi-
tions or footing geometry. Here KV , K H and K M correspond
to vertical, horizontal and moment degrees of freedom
respectively, K MH is the cross-coupling that exists between
the horizontal and moment degree of freedom, and G is the
shear modulus of the soil.
Ngo-Tran (1996) extended the work of Bell by determin-
ing elastic stiffness coefficients for rigid conical footings,
making his results applicable to modelling spudcan founda-
tions used to support offshore jack-up structures. The results
of Bell (1991) and Ngo-Tran (1996) are widely used in
soil–structure interaction problems for offshore structures.
Recommended practice for site specific assessment of mobile
jack-up units (SNAME, 1997) includes a set of vertical,
horizontal and moment stiffness coefficients derived from
Bell’s study, which are recommended for use in the analyses
of jack-up structures with embedded foundations.
Recent studies by Martin & Houlsby (2001) and Houlsby
& Cassidy (2002) use the results of Bell (1991) and
Ngo-Tran (1996) in sophisticated plasticity-based load–
displacement footing (spudcan) models where the response
of the footing is expressed in terms of resultant forces (V, H,
M ). In these models a yield surface is defined in terms of V,
H and M load space. Inside the yield surface the footing
behaviour is described by linear elastic stiffness coefficients.
When the loading combination reaches the yield surface,
work-hardening plasticity theory is used to form an elasto-
plastic stiffness matrix to incrementally describe the non-
linear load–displacement behaviour of the footing. This
procedure allows realistic characterisation of footing behav-
iour under combined loading, which can be implemented
easily in a plane-frame analysis of an offshore gravity plat-
form (such as a jack-up).
In nature, most deep soil deposits exhibit an increase in
elastic stiffness with depth, so solutions taking this into
account are more appropriate. Several authors have consid-
ered this problem and have presented analytical solutions for
rigid surface footings. Gibson (1967) presented a fundamen-
tal study of an incompressible elastic half-space with a
linearly increasing shear modulus with depth subjected to a
vertically loaded surface footing. Booker et al. (1985) pre-
sented analytical solutions for the vertical and moment
loading of smooth circular footings on a non-homogeneous
elastic half-space where the shear modulus exhibits a power
law variation with depth, with zero shear modulus at the
surface. Stark & Booker (1997a, b) and Stark (2001) also
considered this power law variation of shear modulus with
depth, and presented solutions for rectangular and circular
loaded areas. Selvadurai (1996) calculated the vertical stiff-
ness of a smooth rigid footing on a non-homogeneous region
with an exponential variation of shear modulus with depth,
and presented a comprehensive review of the literature
related to available elastic solutions for the surface loading
of a non-homogeneous elastic half-space. Solutions for
the vertical loading of footings embedded in a non-
homogeneous-elastic half-space have been obtained by Rowe
& Booker (1981) and Rajapakse & Selvadurai (1991), but,
as for the homogeneous half-space, solutions are not avail-
able for the horizontal or moment load cases. The torsional
studies of Randolph (1981) and Rajapakse & Selvadurai
(1989) referred to above also considered non-homogeneous
soil profiles. Randolph (1981) considered a linearly increas-
ing modulus with depth with zero shear modulus at the
a non-homogeneous elastic half-space with a weathered
crust.
This paper examines the elastic response of embedded
rigid circular footings in bonded contact with the surround-
ing non-homogeneous elastic soil subjected to vertical, hor-
izontal, moment and torsional loading for the embedment
conditions shown in Fig. 1. Following the study of Booker
et al. (1985), the shear modulus is taken to have a power
law variation with depth and, for non-homogeneous cases, to
have a value of zero at the surface. This is appropriate for
normally consolidated sands and normally consolidated clays
(Hardin & Drnevich, 1972) that have not developed a
weathered crust, such as marine clays. The relationship
between shear modulus and depth can be expressed as

Æ
z
G(z) ¼ G R (2)
R
where G R is the shear modulus at a depth equal to the
radius of the footing (R), and Æ is the non-homogeneous
parameter that varies between zero and one. This equation
encompasses homogeneous (Æ ¼ 0) and Gibson (Æ ¼ 1) soil
profiles, as shown in Fig. 3.
Closed-form solutions presented by Booker et al. (1985)
show that the stiffness of a circular region on the surface of
a compressible (
, 0·5) elastic half-space with a Gibson
soil profile is zero, whereas for all other cases (that is,
Æ , 1 and/or
¼ 0·5) a finite stiffness results. Doherty &
Deeks (2003a) compared numerical solutions, computed
using the scaled boundary finite-element method, with the
closed-form solution by Booker et al. (1985), and showed
excellent agreement, except for cases where the stiffness of
 CIRCULAR FOOTINGS IN A NON-HOMOGENEOUS HALF-SPACE
GR G(z)
0
1 described by equation (2). Doherty & Deeks (2003a) exam-
α
1
Gibson soil
0α1
α
0
Homogenous
soil
z/R
Fig. 3. Variation of shear modulus with depth
the footing approaches zero. In this paper, as footings are
embedded at a finite depth below the soil surface, situations
resulting in zero footing stiffness are not encountered.
The main aim of the paper is to determine the dependence
of the dimensionless stiffness coefficients KV , K H , K M , K MH
and KT (the dimensionless torsional stiffness coefficient
defined in equation (9)) on Æ and on the embedment
conditions. As discussed above, these parameters cannot be
evaluated analytically in general, so a numerical approach is
adopted. Because of the unbounded nature of the problem,
the scaled boundary finite-element method is chosen.
The scaled boundary finite-element method for axisym-
metric non-homogeneous situations under general loading
conditions is briefly outline in the next section. (A complete
derivation is presented by Doherty & Deeks (2003a)). This
section also indicates how each embedment case is modelled
using the scaled boundary finite-element method. The third
section describes how the stiffness coefficients can be used
to predict the load–displacement response of the embedded
footings, and presents stiffness coefficients that have not
been available until now. A fourth section provides a simple
example demonstrating the usage of these coefficients.
THE SCALED BOUNDARY FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD
Background
The scaled boundary finite-element method is a novel
semi-analytical approach to continuum analysis developed by
Wolf & Song (1996). The method combines many of the
advantages of the standard finite element method and the
boundary element method. In particular, unbounded pro-
blems may be handled with ease, as solutions are obtained
analytically to infinity in the radial direction. The technique
involves discretisation of the boundary of the solution do-
main, but, unlike the boundary element method, does not
require the use of a fundamental solution. Because of the
complexity of the original formulation, a simplified virtual
work derivation for plane stress, plane strain and axisym-
metric elasto-statics has recently been presented (Deeks &
Wolf, 2002), but this derivation is restricted to two-
dimensional situations and axisymmetric domains with axi-
symmetric loading. Although the method was originally
derived for situations of homogeneous isotropic and aniso-
tropic elasticity, Doherty & Deeks (2003b) have extended it
to allow variation of shear modulus with depth in the form
specified by equation (2), which is also restricted to the
axisymmetric load case.
The use of a Fourier series to model general loading of an
axisymmetric region in the scaled boundary finite-element
705
method was first presented in Wolf & Song (1996). A
complete formulation is presented in Doherty & Deeks
(2002), including non-homogeneous elasticity in the form
ined the accuracy and efficiency of the scaled boundary
finite-element solutions by comparing computed results with
analytical solutions for the vertical, horizontal, moment and
torsional loading of rigid circular footing on the surface of
an elastic half-space. They showed that, using a boundary
discretised with 61 nodes, the discrepancies between the
scaled boundary finite-element solutions and the analytical
solutions are negligible for all load cases, and incompressi-
bility (
¼ 0·5) is modelled accurately, with no special
treatment, using a Poisson’s ratio of 0·49999.
Summary of method for an axisymmetric domain subjected
to general loading
The scaled boundary finite-element method uses a coordi-
nate system that scales a defining curve S relative to a
scaling centre. The normalised radial coordinate, , has a
value of 0 at the scaling centre and a value of 1 at the
defining curve S, which is discretised in a finite-element
manner. The domain boundary is defined by revolving the
discretised curve S and two radial ‘side-faces’, in the plane
Ł ¼ 0, around the axis of symmetry, as shown in Fig. 4.
Each value of  defines a scaled version of the discretised
curve S, which is represented by a set of points (rs (s), z s (s)).
s is a boundary coordinate measuring the distance along the
curve S, from s ¼ s0 at the first side-face to s ¼ s1 at the
second side-face. (For convenience, s0 may be taken to be
zero, so s1 is the actual length of the curve S.)
To model an axisymmetric domain, the scaling centre and
first side-face are restricted to the axis of symmetry, and
therefore s ¼ s0 defines a vertical line on the axis of
symmetry. To permit Young’s modulus to be scaled with
depth, the scaling centre is positioned on the surface, and
the second side-face at s ¼ s1 is horizontal.
A bounded domain is defined by s0 < s < s1 , 0 < Ł < 2
and 0 <  < 1 (Fig. 4(a)), whereas an infinitely deep do-
main, referred to as an unbounded domain because of its
infinite extent in the  direction, is defined by s0 < s < s1 ,
0 < Ł < 2 and 1 <  , 1 (Fig. 4(b)). The truncated cone
shown in Fig. 4 is an example of an axisymmetric domain.
However, more general shapes, where S is not piecewise
linear, can also be handled.
The scaled boundary and cylindrical coordinate systems
are related by the scaling equations
r ¼ rs ð sÞ (3a)
z ¼ z s ð sÞ (3b)
Ł¼Ł (3c)
The scaled boundary finite-element method seeks an approx-
imate solution for displacement in the form
8 9
< u r (, s, Ł) = X 1 n   
u z (, s, Ł) ¼ F su ð n, ŁÞ ½ N ð sÞ u s ð, nÞ
: ; n¼0
uŁ (, s, Ł)
   o
þ F au ð n, ŁÞ ½ N ð sÞ u a ð, nÞ (4)
Here, the variation of displacement in the circumferential
direction (Ł) is represented by a Fourier series, where
2 3
cos nŁ 0 0
[F su (n, Ł)] ¼ 4 0 cos nŁ 0 5 (5)
0 0 sin nŁ
706
θ Horizontal
side-face
Scaling centre
s
s1 s axis
[ξ
0]
r r
uz
uθ
ur
Discretised curve S
[ξ
1]
Vertical
side-face
z side-face
s
s0
(a)
Fig. 4. (a) Bounded and (b) unbounded axisymmetric scaled boundary finite-element domains, with curve S discretised
with five nodes
describes a symmetric variation of displacements about the
r-axis at Ł ¼ 0, whereas
2 3
sin nŁ 0 0
[F au (n, Ł)] ¼ 4 0 sin nŁ 0 5
0 0 cos nŁ
describes an anti-symmetric variation of displacements about
the r-axis at Ł ¼ 0.
[N(s)] contains shape functions corresponding to the dis-
cretisation of S, and {u s (,n)} and {u a (,n)} contain nodal
displacement functions for the symmetric and anti-symmetric
Fourier terms respectively. Nodal functions {u s (,n)} and
{u a (,n)} are found analytically in the solution process, and
represent the variation of the solution in the  direction. As
the displacements along the side-faces are represented by
nodal displacement functions, no discretisation along these
domain boundaries is required.
Based on equation (4), Doherty & Deeks (2003a) obtained
expressions for stress and strain that are used to derive an
expression for internal virtual work. This is equated to
expressions for external work done by forces acting at nodes
on the discretised boundary and the radial side-faces. The
resulting set of equations reduces to a series of decoupled
quadratic eigenvalue problems, one for each symmetric and
anti-symmetric Fourier term, which are solved to form a
stiffness matrix for the domain relative to degrees of free-
dom at nodes on the discretised curve on the boundary of
the domain. This is done separately for bounded and un-
bounded domains, and the stiffness matrix for each is
assembled together as in the standard finite-element method
to form a global stiffness matrix for the entire problem. A
linear equation of the form
fPn g ¼ [K n ]fu n g
results for the symmetric and anti-symmetric component of
each Fourier term n, where {Pn } is the vector of nodal force
amplitudes, [K n ] is the stiffness matrix, and {u n } is the
vector of nodal displacement amplitudes. Equation (7) is
solved independently for each component present in the
Fourier series, in the standard finite-element manner. Pro-
blems involving the translation or rotation of a rigid circular
footing, such as those considered here, contain only one
Fourier term in the solution. For full details the reader
should refer to Doherty & Deeks (2003a).
DOHERTY & DEEKS
θ Horizontal
Scaling centre
side-face
s axis
s
s1
Discretised curve S
uz [ξ
1]
uθ
ur
Vertical ξ axis
[ξ → ]
s
s0
z
(b)
Modelling details of embedded footings
In the scaled boundary finite-element method, displace-
ments can be prescribed at nodes on the discretised bound-
ary in the same way that displacements are prescribed in the
(6) standard finite-element method. Constant-displacement
boundary conditions can also be prescribed on side-faces, as
detailed by Doherty & Deeks (2003a). In each load case,
displacements are prescribed only at degrees of freedom on
the boundary/boundaries representing the rigid rough circular
footing; all other degrees of freedom are unrestrained.
Based on a study by Doherty & Deeks (2003a), each
solution in the next section is obtained using a boundary
curve discretised with 61 nodes. Fig. 5 shows the discretised
boundary curves, S, the scaling centre, and each node
displacement function for the four footing types considered.
The parts of the boundary used to represent the footing are
shown with a thickened line. For all footing types and
loading conditions considered here, the discretised boundary
curve is defined (with s0 ¼ 0 and s1 ¼ R + d) by

s 0<s< R
rs (s) ¼ (8a)
R R< s< Rþd

d 0<s<R
z s (s) ¼ (8b)
dþ Rs R< s< Rþd
The bounded domain is a cylinder, whereas the unbounded
domain is a half-space with a cylindrical cavity.
To model the vertical load case, only the symmetric
component of n ¼ 0 in the Fourier series is used, resulting in
a stiffness matrix formed relative to radial and vertical
degrees of freedom only. A uniform displacement of the
vertical degree of freedom of each node on the boundary
representing the footing is prescribed, while the radial degree
of freedom is restrained to comply with the rough footing
condition. For the horizontal and moment load cases only
(7) the symmetric component of n ¼ 1 in the Fourier series is
used, which results in each node having all three degrees of
freedom. For the horizontal load case the vertical degree of
freedom of each node on the boundary representing the
footing is restrained, while uniform radial and tangential
displacements are imposed, with u r ¼ uŁ . For the moment
load case the radial and tangential degrees of freedom are
restrained, while the vertical degree of freedom of each node
on the boundary representing the footing is displaced with a
magnitude proportional to the distance of the node from the
axis of symmetry, with zero displacement on the axis of
symmetry. The torsional load case is modelled using only
 CIRCULAR FOOTINGS IN A NON-HOMOGENEOUS HALF-SPACE 707
R
r r r r

z z z z

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 5. Scaled boundary finite-element mesh for each footing type: (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3; (d) case 4

the anti-symmetric component of n ¼ 0, resulting in only a cases shown in Fig. 1. These stiffness coefficients can be
tangential degree of freedom at each node. A displacement used to predict the load–displacement response through the
of the tangential degree of freedom of each node on the following equation:
boundary representing the footing is imposed with a magni-
tude proportional to the distance of the node from the axis of
8 9
symmetry, with zero displacement on the axis of symmetry. > V > 8 w 9
>
> >
>
As illustrated in Fig. 5(a), case 1 is modelled is using an >
> G R R2 >
> > >
unbounded domain only, and the footing is represented by >
> >
> 2 3>> R >
> >
>
>
> >
> KV 0 0 0 > > >
>
the boundary with 0 < s < R. Case 2, as illustrated in Fig. >
> H >
> > u >
> >
< G R2 >
> = 6 7>< >
=
5(b), is modelled in the same way as case 1, except that a R 6 0 KH K MH 0 7
¼6
6 0
7 R
7 (9)
bounded domain is included. For case 3, the entire discre- >
> M >
> 4 K MH KM 0 5>> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
tised curve is use to represent the footing, and the bounded >
> G R R3 >
> >
> Ł M >
>
domain is omitted. Case 4 is modelled by combining >
> >
> 0 0 0 KT >> >
>
>
> > > >
bounded and unbounded domains, as shown in Fig. 5(d). >
> T > >
>
:
ŁT
;
: ;
The caisson’s skirt is modelled using prescribed nodal G R R3
displacements on the vertical section of the discretised
boundary—that is, the section of the boundary defined by
R < s < R + d, whereas the top of the caisson is modelled This equation is similar to equation (1) but with G replaced
by prescribing the displacement of the horizontal side-face, by G R and the additional stiffness coefficient KT describing
at s ¼ s1 , of the bounded domain. the torsional response, which is independent of Poisson’s
ratio, included. In order to use equation (9) to predict the
load–displacement response of an embedded footing, para-
STIFFNESS COEFFICIENTS FOR EMBEDDED meters G R , Æ (in equation (2)) and Poisson’s ratio must be
FOOTINGS evaluated using conventional site investigation techniques.
Using the stiffness coefficients Given Æ and Poisson’s ratio, stiffness coefficients can be
In the following subsection, stiffness coefficients KV , K H , read from Figs 6–22 for the relevant footing geometry and
K M , KT and K MH are presented for the four embedment embedment ratio.

40 80
35 d/R
0·5 ν
0·2 70 d/R
0·5 ν
0·5
d/R
1 d/R
1
30 60
d/R
2 d/R
2
25 50
d/R
4 d/R
4
KV

20
KV

40
15 30
10 20
5 10
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Case 1, KV : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

708 DOHERTY & DEEKS
50 80
d/R
0·5 ν
0.2 70 d/R
0·5 ν
0.5
40 d/R
1 d/R
1
60
d/R
2 d/R
2
30 d/R
4 50 d/R
4
KV

KV
40
20 30

20
10
10
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Case 2, KV : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

70 100

60 d/R
0·5 ν
0·2 d/R
0·5 ν
0·5

d/R
1 80 d/R
1
50
d/R
2 d/R
2
40 d/R
4 60 d/R
4
KV

KV
30
40
20
20
10

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Case 3, KV : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

60 100
ν
0·2 ν
0·5
d/R
0·5 d/R
0·5
50
d/R
1 80 d/R
1
40 d/R
2 d/R
2
d/R
4 60 d/R
4
KV

KV

30
40
20

20
10

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Case 4, KV : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

35 60

d/R
0·5 ν
0.2 d/R
0·5 ν
0.5

30 50
d/R
1 d/R
1
25
d/R
2 40 d/R
2
20 d/R
4 d/R
4
KH

KH

30
15
20
10

5 10

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Case 1, K H : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

 CIRCULAR FOOTINGS IN A NON-HOMOGENEOUS HALF-SPACE 709
45 70
40 d/R
0·5 ν
0·2 d/R
0·5 ν
0·5
60
35 d/R
1 d/R
1
50
30 d/R
2 d/R
2
25 d/R
4 40 d/R
4
KH

KH
20 30
15
20
10
5 10

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 11: Case 2, K H : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

70 90
ν
0·2 80 ν
0·5
60 d/R
0·5 d/R
0·5
d/R
1 70 d/R
1
50
d/R
2 60 d/R
2
40 d/R
4 d/R
4
50
KH

KH
30 40
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Case 3, K H : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

90
70
80 d/R
0·5 ν
0·5
60 d/R
0·5 ν
0·2
70 d/R
1
d/R
1
50 60 d/R
2
d/R
2
d/R
4
40 d/R
4 50
KH
KH

40
30
30
20
20
10 10
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Case 4, K H : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

25 40
ν
0·2 ν
0·5
d/R
0·5 35 d/R
0·5
20 d/R
1 d/R
1
30
d/R
2 d/R
2
25
15 d/R
4 d/R
4
KM

KM

20
10 15

10
5
5
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 14. Case 1, K M : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

710 DOHERTY & DEEKS
35 50

d/R
0·5 ν
0·2 d/R
0·5 ν
0·5

30
d/R
1 40 d/R
1
25
d/R
2 d/R
2
20 d/R
4 30 d/R
4
KM

KM
15 20
10
10
5

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Case 2, K M (a) í 0·2 (b) í 0·5

250 300

d/R
0·5 ν
0·2 d/R
0·5 ν
0·5

250
200 d/R
1 d/R
1
d/R
2 200 d/R
2
150 d/R
4 d/R
4
(d/R)

(d/R)
KM

KM
150
100
100

50
50

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 16. Case 3, K M : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

200 300
ν
0·2 d/R
0·5 ν
0·5
d/R
0·5
250 d/R
1
150 d/R
1
d/R
2
d/R
2 200
d/R
4
d/R
4
(d/R)
(d/R)

KM
KM

100 150

100
50
50

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 17. Case 4, K M : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

0 1
0·5
0
1
1
1·5
2 2
KMH

KMH

2·5 d/R
0·5 3

d/R
0·5
3 d/R
1
4 d/R
1
3·5 d/R
2
d/R
2
d/R
4 ν
0·2 5 ν
0·5
4 d/R
4
4·5 6
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 18. Case 1, K MH : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

 CIRCULAR FOOTINGS IN A NON-HOMOGENEOUS HALF-SPACE 711
0·4 0·8

0·3 d/R
0·5 0·6 ν
0·5

d/R
1
0·2 ν
0·2 d/R
2
0·4

0·1 d/R
4 0·2

Linear (d/R
4) 0

KMH
KMH

0
0·2 d/R
0·5
0·1 d/R
1
0·4
d/R
2
0·2
0·6 d/R
4
0·3 0·8 Linear (d/R
4)
0·4 1
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 19. Case 2, K MH : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

0 0

10
10
20
20
30
(d/R)
KMH

(d/R)
KMH

30 d/R
0·5 40 d/R
0·5

d/R
1 d/R
1
50
d/R
2 d/R
2
40 ν
0·2 ν
0·5
d/R
4 60 d/R
4

50 70
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 20. Case 3, K MH : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

0 0

10
10
20
20 30
(d/R)

(d/R)
KMH

KMH

40
30 d/R
0·5 d/R
0·5
d/R
1 50 d/R
1
40 d/R
2 d/R
2
ν
0·2 60 ν
0·5
d/R
4 d/R
4
50 70
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

Fig. 21. Case 4, K MH : (a) í 0·2; (b) í 0·5

Computed coefficients
Results are presented for Poisson’s ratios of 0·2, to
represent a wide range of sands (Lade, 1977), and Poisson’s
ratio of 0·5 to represent undrained clays. Embedment ratios
(d/R) of 0·5, 1·0, 2·0 and 4·0 are considered, which ade-
quately cover most foundation applications. For each case,
non-homogeneous soil profiles with Æ ranging between 0
and 1 are considered, encompassing realistic variations of
shear modulus with depth for both normally consolidated
sands and clays (Hardin & Drnevich, 1972). Based on the
study of Doherty & Deeks (2003a), all results presented here
use a boundary discretised with 61 nodes, giving an accu-
racy of within 1%. K M , and K MH for cases 3 and 4, have
been divided by their respective embedment ratio in Figs 16,
Fig 17, Fig 20 and 21 to improve readability of the figures.
Discussion
It can be seen from the Figures in the preceding subsec-
tion that the stiffness coefficients vary smoothly with respect
to the non-homogeneity parameter Æ for all load cases,
except for the cross-coupling term (K MH ) for case 2, shown
in Fig. 19. For R/d ¼ 4, the results are scattered and a linear
line of best fit is included. In this case, the cross-coupling
terms are small relative to the corresponding K H and K M ,
terms, so these values are of little practical significance.
712 DOHERTY & DEEKS
40 50
35 d/R
0·5 d/R
0·5
d/R
1 40 d/R
1
30
d/R
2 d/R
2
25
d/R
4 30 d/R
4

KT
KT
20
15 20

10
10
5
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(a) (b)

140 140
d/R
0·5
120 120 d/R
0·5
d/R
1 d/R
1
100 d/R
2 100 d/R
2
d/R
4 d/R
4
80 80
KT

KT
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1
α α
(c) (d)

Fig. 22. KT : (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3; (d) case 4

EXAMPLE APPLICATION OF STIFFNESS

COEFFICIENTS
This section provides an example demonstrating the appli- 8 MN
cation of the stiffness coefficients presented in the previous
section to obtain a first estimate of the footing displacements
for a given set of design loads.
As a result of a growing demand to produce clean renew-
able sources of energy, offshore wind turbines are becoming
increasingly common worldwide. Byrne & Houlsby (2002)
proposed the use of novel foundation systems to support
these offshore wind turbines, which involves the use of one
or more caisson (case 4) foundations. 50 m
The configuration of the structure used in this example is 4 MN
shown in Fig. 23: it consists of a single caisson supporting a
wind turbine. The loads acting on the structure are assumed
to be V ¼ 8 MN, H ¼ 4 MN at a height 20 m above 20 m
the caisson resulting in an over-turning moment of
M ¼ 80 MN m at reference point O and an eccentricity about O 3 MPa G
the vertical axis of 3 m, resulting in a torsional moment of
T ¼ 12 MN m. The soil properties are assumed to be d
12 m
Æ ¼ 0·8, G R ¼ 3 MPa and Poisson’s ratio
¼ 0·2, and the 12 m
caisson is assumed to be 12 m in radius (R) and 12 m in
R
12 m
depth (d ).
For d/R ¼ 1,
¼ 0·2 and Æ ¼ 0·8 for case 4, KV ¼ 11·5 z
from Fig. 9(a), K H ¼ 10·3 from Fig. 13(a), K M ¼ 16·9 from
Fig. 17(a), K MH ¼ 8·4 from Fig. 21(a) and KT ¼ 14·5 from
Fig. 22(d). Fig. 23. Caisson supporting offshore wind turbine
From equation (9), the following expressions can be
obtained for the displacement components:

V K MH H KH M
w¼ (10) ŁM ¼ þ
KV GR R K M K H  K 2MH G R R2 K M K H  K 2MH G R R3
(12)
KM H K MH M T
u¼  (11) ŁT ¼ (13)
K M K H  K 2MH G R R K M K H  K 2MH G R R2 K T G R R3
 CIRCULAR FOOTINGS IN A NON-HOMOGENEOUS HALF-SPACE 713
Substituting in the stiffness coefficients, design loads, G R fu a (, n)g vector of ant-symmetric nodal displacement functions
and R specified above, the resultant displacements at the fu s (, n)g vector of symmetric nodal displacement functions
intersection of the centreline of the footing and ground
surface are w ¼ 0·019 m, u ¼ 0·033 m, Ł M ¼ 0·002 radians
and ŁT ¼ 0·00016 radians. This results in total horizontal
and vertical displacements at the centre of the wind turbine REFERENCES
hub, 50 m above the ground surface, of 0·133 m and Bell, R. W. (1991). The analysis of offshore foundations subjected
to combined loading. MSc thesis, University of Oxford.
0·019 m respectively. Booker, J. R., Balaam, N. P. & Davis, E. H. (1985). The behaviour
of an elastic non-homogeneous half-space. Int. J Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 9, 353–367.
CONCLUSION Byrne, B. W. & Houlsby, G. T. (2002). Investigating novel founda-
The scaled boundary finite-element method is used to tions for offshore windpower generation. Proc. 21st Int. Conf.
obtain semi-analytical stiffness coefficients for rigid circular on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Oslo.
footings subjected to vertical, horizontal, moment and tor- Deeks, A. J. & Wolf, J. P. (2002). A virtual work formulation of the
sional loads embedded in a non-homogeneous half-space. scaled boundary finite-element method for elastostatics. Comput.
Mech. 28, No. 6, 489–504.
The non-homogeneous profiles considered are appropriate
Doherty, J. P. & Deeks, A. J. (2003a). Scaled boundary finite-
for normally consolidated sands and clays, and the founda- element analysis of a non-homogeneous axisymmetric domain
tion geometries and embedment ratios examined cover many subjected to general loading. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geo-
of the footing types used in industry. mech. 27, 813–835.
The soil non-homogeneity parameter Æ has a significant Doherty, J. P. & Deeks, A. J. (2003b). Scaled boundary finite-
effect on all stiffness coefficients. The effect of Æ is greatest element analysis of a non-homogeneous elastic half-space. Int. J
for the vertical and moment load cases as displacement Numer. Methods Engng 57, 955–973.
fields extend deeper into the half-space encountering materi- Gibson, R. E. (1967). Some results concerning displacements and
al of increasing stiffness. The interaction between Poisson’s stresses in a non-homogeneous elastic half-space. Géotechnique
17, 58–67.
ratio and Æ is greatest for loading cases that have a vertical
Hardin, B. O. & Drnevich, V. P. (1972). Shear modulus and
component. damping in soils: design equations and curves. J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., ASCE 98, No. SM7, 667–692.
Houlsby, G. T. & Cassidy, M. J. (2002). A plasticity model for the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS behaviour of footings on sand under combined loading. Géotech-
The first author wishes to acknowledge the support of an nique 52, No. 2, 117–129.
Australian Postgraduate Award funded by the Common- Hunter, S. C. & Gamble, D. (1974). The theory of a rigid circular
wealth Government of Australia and a Jean Rogerson Post- disc ground anchor in an elastic soil either with or without
graduate supplementary scholarship from the University of adhesion. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 22, 371–399.
Lade, P. V. (1977). Elasto-plastic stress–strain theory for cohesion-
Western Australia. less soil with curved yield surface. Int. J Solids Struct. 13,
1019–1035.
Martin, C. M. (1994). Physical and numerical modelling of offshore
NOTATION foundations under combined loading. PhD thesis, University of
d embedment depth of footing Oxford.
G soil shear modulus Martin, C. M. & Houlsby, G. T. (2001). Combined loading of
H horizontal load spudcan foundations on clay: numerical. Géotechnique 51, No.
M moment load 8, 687–699.
n Fourier term Ngo-Tran, C. L. (1996). The analysis of offshore foundations sub-
O load and displacement reference point on footing jected to combined loading. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.
R radius of footing Poulos, H. G. (1975). Torsional response of piles. J. Geotech.
r radial coordinate Engng, ASCE 101, No. GT10, 1014–1035.
S defining curve Poulos, H. G. & Davis, E. H. (1974). Elastic solutions for soil and
s boundary coordinate rock mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
T torsional load Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. & Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1985). Torsional
u horizontal displacement of footing stiffness of non-uniform and hollow rigid piers embedded in
V vertical load isotropic elastic media. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
w vertical displacement of footing 9, 525–539.
z vertical coordinate Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. & Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1989). Torsion of
GR soil shear modulus at d ¼ R foundations embedded in a non-homogeneous soil with a weath-
KV vertical stiffness coefficient ered crust. Géotechnique 39, No. 3, 485–496.
KH horizontal stiffness coefficient Rajapakse, R. K. N. D. & Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1991). Response of
KM moment stiffness coefficient circular footings and anchor plates in non-homogeneous elastic
K MH cross-coupling stiffness coefficient soils. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 15, 457–470.
ur radial nodal displacement component Randolph, M. F. (1981). Piles subjected to torsion. J. Geotech.
uz vertical nodal displacement component Engng, ASCE 107, 1095–1111.
uŁ tangential nodal displacement component Rowe, R. K. & Booker, J. R. (1981). The elastic displacement of
Æ non-homogeneous parameter single and multiple underream anchors in a Gibson soil. Géo-

Poisson’s ratio of soil technique 31, No. 1, 125–141.
Ł circumferential coordinate Schofield, A. & Wroth, C. P. (1968). Critical state soil mechanics.
 normalised radial coordinate Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
ŁM moment rotation of footing Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1979). Elastic analysis of soil-foundation
ŁT torsional rotation of footing interaction, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, No. 17.
[K n ] stiffness matrix for the nth Fourier term Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[N (s)] shape function matrix Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1993). The axial loading of a rigid circular
fPn g vector of nodal force amplitudes for the nth Fourier anchor plate embedded in an elastic half-space. Int. J. Numer.
term Anal. Methods Geomech. 17, 343–353.
fu n g vector of nodal displacement amplitudes for the nth Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1996). The settlement of a rigid circular
Fourier term foundation resting on a half-space exhibiting a near surface
714 DOHERTY & DEEKS
elastic non-homogeneity. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
20, 351–364.
SNAME (1997). Recommend practice for site specific assessment of
mobile jack-up units, Technical and Research Bulletin 5–5A.
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Stark, R. F. (2001). Integration of singularities in FE/BE analyses
of soil-foundation interaction with non-homogeneous elastic
soils. Meccanica 36, 329–350.
Stark, R. F. & Booker, J. R. (1997a). Surface displacement of a
non-homogeneous elastic half-space subjected to uniform sur-
face tractions. Part I: Loading on arbitrarily shaped areas. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 21, 361–378.
Stark, R. F. & Booker, J. R. (1997b). Surface displacement of a
non-homogeneous elastic half-space subjected to uniform sur-
face tractions. Part II: Loading on arbitrarily shaped areas. Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 21, 379–395.
Wolf, J. P. & Song, Ch. (1996). Finite-element modelling of
unbounded media. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.