Suction Caisson Capacity in Anisotropic,

Purely Cohesive Soil

Charles Aubeny1; Seung-Woon Han2; and James D. Murff 3

Abstract: This paper presents a plastic limit analysis of the lateral load capacity of suction caissons in an anisotropic, purely cohesive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

soil assuming conditions of rotational symmetry about the vertical or gravity axis. The formulation utilizes a form of the Hill yield
criterion that is modified to allow for different soil strengths in triaxial compression and extension. Using this yield criterion, energy
dissipation relationships are formulated for continuous and discontinuous deformation fields. These dissipation relationships are then
applied to a postulated caisson failure mechanism comprising a wedge near the free soil surface 共mudline兲, a two-dimensional flow-around
failure at depth, and a hemispherical slip surface at the base of the rotating caisson. The plastic limit analysis predictions compared
favorably to predictions obtained from finite-element simulations employing a Hill yield criterion. For the range of anisotropic undrained
strength properties commonly reported for normally K 0 -consolidated clays, parametric studies indicate that suction caisson horizontal load
capacities predicted using a conventional approach 共a von Mises yield surface fitted to the soil simple shear strength兲 will differ from
anisotropic predictions by less than 10%.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1532-3641共2003兲3:2共225兲
CE Database subject headings: Soil suction; Cohesive soils; Plastic analysis; Anchors; Offshore structures.

Introduction Ou 1973; Ladd 1991兲. Methods for characterizing strength anisot-

Suction caissons are large, hollow, cylindrical foundation ele-
ments 共resembling an inverted coffee can兲 used to anchor offshore
facilities. They are installed by pressure drawdown within the
cylinder, referred to as ‘‘suction,’’ after partial penetration of the
cylinder due to its dead weight. When suction caissons are used as
anchors for floating structures, a reliable estimate of their hori-
zontal load capacity is needed for both catenary mooring systems
that impose horizontal loads as well as taut mooring systems that
impose inclined loads.
A major step in understanding the lateral load capacity of a
cylinder embedded in soil was provided by Randolph and
Houlsby 共1984兲 who presented a two-dimensional plastic limit
analysis for smooth and rough cylinders for plane strain condi-
tions. Murff and Hamilton 共1993兲 developed an upper bound plas-
tic limit analysis of horizontal load capacity of cylinders taking
into account the presence of a free surface. Aubeny et al. 共2001兲
present a simplified formulation of the Murff and Hamilton analy-
sis, making it more amenable for use as a design tool.
All of the aforementioned formulations assume isotropic soil
with undrained strength properties. However, many clay soils ex-
hibit anisotropic undrained strength properties 共e.g., Saada and
1
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M Univ., College
Station, TX 77843.
2
Research Assistant, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843.
3
Visiting Professor of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M Univ., College
Station, TX 77843.
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2004. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on February 4, 2002; approved on September 6, 2002. This
paper is part of the International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 3, No.
2, December 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2003/2-
225–235/$18.00.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 225
ropy have been proposed by various authors. Casagrande and Car-
illo 共1944兲 proposed one of the earliest formulations, which was
able to model different soil strengths in triaxial compression and
extension; however, the soil strength in simple shear cannot be
independently specified. Hill 共1950兲 proposed extending the von
Mises yield surface to an ellipsoidal form. Hill’s refinement can
model independent strengths corresponding to up to five modes of
shearing 共triaxial, simple, cavity expansion, etc.兲, but cannot
model strength differences due to the sense of loading; most sig-
nificantly, triaxial compression and extension strengths cannot be
independently specified. Davis and Christian 共1971兲 overcame the
limitations of both the Casagrande-Carillo and Hill models using
a modified elliptical yield surface that is not centered at the origin
in stress space. The Davis and Christian model permits soil
strengths in triaxial compression, extension, and pure shear to be
independently specified.
To assess the effects of strength anisotropy on suction caisson
lateral load capacity, the Murff and Hamilton 共1993兲 model was
modified to incorporate anisotropic soil strength properties. Key
elements of the modified anisotropic formulation are as follows:
1. The Hill anisotropic yield criterion is applied assuming con-
ditions of rotational symmetry about the vertical or gravity
axis. The limitation noted previously regarding the Hill
model is overcome by specifying different yield surfaces for
conditions of triaxial compression versus extension. The ma-
terial parameters necessary to define the Hill yield surface
can be obtained from interpretation of conventional geotech-
nical shear test data.
2. Energy dissipation relationships for conditions of strength
anisotropy presented by Murff 共1980兲 are utilized for the
case of: 共1兲 a continuously deforming region; and 共2兲 a dis-
continuity along a slip plane.
3. The velocity and strain rate fields comprising the suction
caisson failure mechanism postulated by Murff and Hamil-
ton 共1993兲 are applied to the aforementioned energy dissipa-
tion relations. A least upper bound solution for suction cais-

Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235

 son lateral load capacity is then obtained using the same
optimization procedure used by Murff and Hamilton 共1993兲.
Upper bound solutions obtained from the modified formulation
are compared through comparisons to a linearly elastic, perfectly
plastic finite-element formulation that utilizes the Hill anisotropic
yield criterion.

Hill Anisotropic Yield Criterion

The Hill yield criterion is expressed in functional form as

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

f ⫽J 1/2⫺k⫽0 (1a)
where
J⫽a 1 共 ␴ z ⫺␴ x 兲 2 ⫹a 2 共 ␴ y ⫺␴ z 兲 2 ⫹a 3 共 ␴ x ⫺␴ y 兲 2 ⫹a 4 ␶ 2zx

⫹a 5 ␶ 2yz ⫹a 6 ␶ 2xy (1b)

where k⫽strength measure; and a i ⫽experimentally determined
material constants. In the common situation of a K 0 -consolidated
soil, rotational symmetry exists about the vertical or z-axis;
hence, the x and y subscripts are interchangeable and it can be
shown that a 1 ⫽a 2 , a 4 ⫽a 5 , and a 6 ⫽2(a 1 ⫹2 a 3 ). In other
words, there are only three independent constants. Eq. 共1兲 then
reduces to
J⫽a 1 兵 共 ␴ z ⫺␴ x 兲 2 ⫹ 共 ␴ y ⫺␴ z 兲 2 其 ⫹a 3 共 ␴ x ⫺␴ y 兲 2 ⫹a 4 共 ␶ 2zx ⫹␶ 2yz 兲

⫹2 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 ␶ 2xy (2)

Note that Eq. 共2兲 contains only three independent material
constants; hence, k can be selected arbitrarily. For isotropic ma-
terials, if k is taken as the soil strength in simple shear, a 1 ⫽a 3
⫽1/6, a 4 ⫽1, and J becomes the second invariant of the stress
deviation tensor.

Strength Variation due to Mode of Shearing

Evaluation of the three independent material parameters in Eq. 共2兲
requires shear strength measurements in three independent shear-
ing modes. For this purpose it is convenient to define shearing
modes that are approximated by conventional laboratory and field
tests, especially those tests that apply undrained shear starting
from the in situ consolidation stress state 共usually
K 0 -consolidation兲. Strengths measured in these modes are signifi-
cantly affected by anisotropic properties. The three independent
shearing modes used in this paper are as follows:
Triaxial shear corresponds to conditions 关Fig. 1共a兲兴 in which
the normal stress components in both horizontal directions are
equal (␴ x ⫽␴ y ) and ␶ xy , ␶ yz , and ␶ zx are all zero. The triaxial
shear strength is taken as
1
S uTX⫽ 共 ␴ z ⫺␴ x 兲 f (3a)
2 Fig. 1. 共a兲 Triaxial shear, S uTX ; 共b兲 direct simple shear, S uSSH ; 共c兲
pressuremeter shear, S uPM ; 共d兲 direct simple shear, S uSSV
where the subscript f designates stress conditions at failure.
Direct simple shear corresponds to the strength in simple shear
in a vertical plane 关Fig. 1共b兲兴:
can also be achieved in the laboratory using special tests that
S uSSV⫽␶ zx f ⫽␶ yz f (3b)
permit application of a deviatoric stress in a horizontal (x-y)
Pressuremeter shear corresponds to the idealized stress state plane, such as the true triaxial apparatus or the directional shear
occurring during an undrained pressuremeter test as depicted in cell. The pressuremeter shear strength S uPM is taken as one-half
Fig. 1共c兲: cylindrical cavity expansion under plane strain condi- the maximum difference between the normal stress components in
tions with respect to the vertical (z) coordinate. This stress state the x and y directions:

226 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003

Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Triaxial compression and extension around rotating caisson
1 Fig. 3. Anisotropic yield surfaces
S uPM⫽ 共 ␴ x ⫺␴ y 兲 f (3c)
2
Under conditions of rotational symmetry about the vertical axis,
the pressuremeter strength will also equal the strength in simple
shear in a horizontal plane 关Fig. 1共d兲兴 S uSSH⫽␶ xy f , which corre-
sponds to the shear strength mobilized on the sides of the probe in
a vane shear test.
It is often convenient to use the simple shear strength S uSSV as
the strength measure k. In this case, the material parameters a 1 ,
a 3 , and a 4 in Eq. 共2兲 can be shown 共see the Appendix to this
paper兲 to be as follows:
冉 冊 2 shear, a relevant strain rate measure is
1 S uSSV
a 1⫽ (4a)
8 S uTX
冋冉 冊 册
1 S uSSV 2
a 3⫽ ⫺2a 1 (4b)
4 S uPM
a 4 ⫽1 (4c)
In an isotropic von Mises material, S uSSV /S uTX⫽2/) and
S uSSV /S uPM⫽1. Substitution of these values into Eq. 共4兲 again
yields a 1 ⫽a 3 ⫽1/6, and a 4 ⫽1.
Strength Variations due to Sense of Loading
Undrained shear strength can also vary according to the sense of
loading for a given mode of shearing. This effect can be important
when considering triaxial compression versus extension, for ex-
ample. In K 0 -consolidated soils, the strength in compression
(S uTC) along the consolidation axis can be more than twice that in
extension (S uTE). The Hill model expressed by Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲
cannot directly model strength differences according to the sense
of loading for a given shearing mode. However, it is possible to
specify different yield surfaces according to whether triaxial com-
pression or extension is expected within a given element of soil.
Such a procedure is quite straightforward in upper bound plastic-
ity calculations, where velocities and strain rates are completely
defined in advance of stress and energy dissipation calculations.
This ‘‘modified Hill’’ formulation is used subsequently through-
out this paper.
For relatively simple collapse mechanisms, zones where tri-
axial compression and extension occur can be identified by in-
spection. Fig. 2 illustrates these zones for a rigidly rotating cais-
son for the typical case of the load attachment point being above
the center of rotation. In this case, triaxial extension occurs in the
surface failure wedge ahead of the caisson and on the backside of
the failure surface at the base of the caisson. Triaxial compression
occurs in the surface failure wedge behind the caisson and on the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 227
Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235
front side of the failure surface at the base of the caisson. It
should be noted that triaxial shear does not in general occur ex-
clusively in these zones; i.e., these are zones of combined shear-
ing in the triaxial, simple, and pressuremeter modes.
A more rigorous approach to distinguishing between triaxial
compression and extension can be made using the transformed
tensorial measures used in some anisotropic constitutive soil
models 共e.g., Whittle and Kavvadas 1994兲. For the case of triaxial
1
Ė TX⫽␧˙ z ⫺ 共 ␧˙ x ⫹␧˙ y 兲 (5)
2
Using a soil mechanics sign convention, positive and negative
values of Ė TX correspond to triaxial compression and extension,
respectively. In cases of discontinuous deformations across a slip
surface, the strain rates are actually infinite. However, it will be
later shown in this paper that the relative magnitudes of the strain
rate components can be evaluated; hence, the sign of Ė TX in Eq.
共5兲 can always be determined.
Rather than the modified Hill approach adopted in this paper,
other authors 共e.g., Davis and Christian 1971兲, utilize a formula-
tion in which the center of an ellipsoidal yield surface 共Fig. 3兲 is
set equal to (S uTC⫹S uTE)/2 to model strength differences in tri-
axial compression and extension. A comparison of the yield sur-
faces corresponding to differing assumptions is shown in Fig. 3
for a typical normally consolidated clay in which S uTC⫽1.33
S uSSV and S uTE⫽0.67 S uSSV . Differences between the modified
Hill surface and the Davis and Christian yield surface are rela-
tively small. The chief difference is that, for the modified Hill
approach, the maximum resistance in simple shear, ␶ xy f , is mo-
bilized under conditions of zero triaxial stress, (␴ y ⫺␴ x )⫽0,
while the Davis and Christian surface has the maximum simple
shearing resistance occurring when (␴ y ⫺␴ x )⫽(S uTC⫹S uTE)/2.
Also shown in Fig. 3 is the von Mises yield surface as it is
commonly utilized, i.e., when the second invariant of the devia-
toric stress tensor at yield is assumed equal to the square of
simple shear strength of the soil, S uSSV . As is evident in Fig. 3,
the von Mises surface significantly underestimates the triaxial
compression strength and overestimates the triaxial extension
strength.
Randolph 共2000兲 adopted the Davis and Christian 共1971兲 yield
surface described previously in his study of the effects of strength
anisotropy on bearing capacity of shallow foundations, penetrom-
eter resistance, and lateral load capacity of suction caissons. An-
 isotropic strength characteristics are based on triaxial test mea-
surements in compression and extension, and from simple shear
data when available. When simple shear data are not available,
Randolph recommends assigning a default value for simple shear
strength equal to the average of the triaxial compression and ex-
tension strengths. In the absence of experimental data, Randolph
assumes the plane strain shear strength in a horizontal plane
(S uPM and S uSSH) to be equal to the triaxial extension strength. He
notes that this is a conservative assumption. As will be discussed
subsequently, in this paper the plane strain strength in a horizontal
plane is assumed equal to the shear strength in a vertical plane, a
somewhat less conservative assumption. Randolph’s plasticity so-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lutions using an anisotropic yield formulation provide a very

plausible explanation for spherical and cylindrical penetrometers Fig. 4. Mechanism at discontinuous deformation
having similar measured resistance factors, when isotropic plas-
ticity and finite-element solutions indicate that resistance factors
for spherical shapes should exceed cylindrical shapes by 25%. Substituting Eq. 共7兲 into Eq. (6a兲 gives the rate of dissipation
per unit volume in the transition zone
Energy Dissipation
Development of an upper bound formulation requires energy dis-
Ḋ ⫽
k a1
t 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 2 再 冋冉 v ⬘r n r ⫺
a3
v ⬘n
a1 z z 冊 冉
2
⫹
a3
v ⬘ n ⫺ v ⬘␪ n ␪
a1 z z 冊册
2

sipation relationships for continuously deforming regions as well a3 1

as for discontinuous deformations across a slip surface. ⫹ 2 共v⬘
␪ n ␪ ⫺ v r⬘ n r 兲 2 ⫹ 关共 v z⬘ n r ⫺ v r⬘ n z 兲 2
共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 a4

Continuous Deformation
Murff 共1978兲 invokes the normality rule with the yield relation-
⫹ 共 v ␪⬘ n z ⫺ v z⬘ n ␪ 兲 2 兴 ⫹
1
共 v ⬘ n ⫺ v ⬘␪ n r 兲 2
2 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 r ␪ 冎 1/2
(8a)

ship in Eq. 共2兲 to obtain the rate of energy dissipation per unit The rate of dissipation per unit surface area of discontinuity is
volume in a continuously deforming material then found to be

Ḋ⫽k 再 a1
共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 2 冋冉 a3
␧˙ ⫺␧˙ x
a1 z 冊 冉
2
⫹ ␧˙ y ⫺
a3
␧˙
a1 z 冊册
2
Ḋ A ⫽ lim 共 tḊ 兲
t→0
(8b)

a3 4 in which the thickness term, t, simply cancels.

⫹ 共 ␧˙ ⫺␧˙ y 兲 2 ⫹ 共 ␧˙ 2xz ⫹␧˙ 2yz 兲
共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 2 x a4

⫹
2
␧˙ 2
共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 xy 冎 1/2
(6a)
Laterally Loaded Caisson Failure Mechanism

Murff and Hamilton 共1993兲 postulate a collapse mechanism for

where ␧˙ i j ⫽corresponding plastic strain rate 共or increment兲.
For the isotropic case (a 1 ⫽a 3 ⫽1/6, a 4 ⫽1) this reduces to the
well-known result for the von Mises yield condition
Ḋ⫽k 冑2␧˙ i j ␧˙ i j
Discontinuous Deformation
Murff 共1980兲 calculates the rate of energy dissipation on a slip
surface by assuming a transition zone of thickness t undergoing a
uniform strain rate as shown in Fig. 4. The strains in the transition
zone are
1 tent of wedge; 共3兲 L 0 ⫽depth to center of rotation; and 共4兲 ␣
␧˙ i j ⫽ 共 v ⬘ n ⫹ v ⬘j n i 兲
2t i j
where v i ⫽components of the tangential velocity vector of the
upper block relative to the lower block; and n j ⫽components of
the unit vector normal to the discontinuity surface on the lower
block. The prime ( ⬘ ) symbol is used on velocity terms to empha-
size that a relative velocity across the discontinuity is being con-
sidered. For the purpose of distinguishing between triaxial com-
pression versus extension using Eq. 共5兲, only the term in
parentheses on the right-hand side of Eq. 共7兲 need be evaluated,
because only the relative magnitudes of the various strain rate
components are needed to determine the sign of Ė TX .
piles or caissons as illustrated in Fig. 5. Near the soil surface, a
deforming conical wedge forms and is pushed up by the pile,
which itself may translate, rotate, or both. Below the wedge the
soil flows around the caisson in a plane strain mode. In the gen-
(6b) eral formulation, a plastic hinge may form in the pile. However,
as suction caissons typically behave as short piles, the present
formulation considers only rigid body motions of the caisson. For
the initial development, a gap is assumed at the back of the pile,
but this restriction can be easily removed, as discussed in a later
section. To characterize velocities and strain rates associated with
this mechanism, Murff and Hamilton 共1993兲 introduce four opti-
mization parameters: 共1兲 z 0 ⫽depth of wedge; 共2兲 r 0 ⫽radial ex-
(7) ⫽exponent that controls the distribution of radial velocity in the
wedge.
Fig. 5共b兲 shows six areas of energy dissipation associated with
the collapse mechanism in Fig. 5共a兲: 共1兲 internal deformations in
the wedge (E 1 ); 共2兲 the interface between the wedge and the rigid
far-field soil (E 2 ); 共3兲 the interface between the wedge and the
caisson boundary (E 3 ); 共4兲 the flow-around zone above the rota-
tion point (E 4 ); 共5兲 the flow-around zone below the rotation point
(E 5 ); and 共6兲 the bottom of the caisson (E 6 ).
We assume that the circumferential velocity v ␪ vanishes in soil
regions associated with the wedge and invoke the incompressibil-
ity conditions therein. This allows us to obtain the following ve-

228 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003

Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235

 Wedge-Rigid Soil Interface
The soil outside the wedge is assumed rigid; hence, the relative
velocity across the wedge-rigid soil interface is obtained by
evaluating velocity terms in Eq. 共8兲 at the wedge boundary. In this
case the relevant equation describing the boundary is
z 共 r 0 ⫺R 兲
r⫽⫺ ⫹r 0 (11)
z0
Velocities are obtained by substitution of Eq. 共11兲 into Eq. 共9兲.
The associated components of the unit normal vectors on this
discontinuity are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

z0
n r ⫽⫺ (12a)
冑 z 0 ⫹ 共 r 0 ⫺R 兲 2
2

r 0 ⫺R
n z ⫽⫺ (12b)
冑 z 0 ⫹ 共 r 0 ⫺R 兲 2
2

n ␪ ⫽0 (12c)
Substitution of these velocity and unit vector terms into Eq. 共7兲
provides the rate of energy dissipation per unit surface area along
the discontinuity. Integrating over the area yields

冑 冉
冉 cz
冊
冊 冕
R ␣ 1⫺
r 0 ⫺R 2 z0 z0

冉 冊
Ė 2 ⫽2k v 0 1⫹ C1 ␣⫺1 dz
z0 0 z 共 r 0 ⫺R 兲
r 0⫺
Fig. 5. 共a兲 Failure mechanism for laterally loaded caisson; 共b兲 energy z0
dissipations for laterally loaded caisson (13)
where

locity distribution within the surface wedge in cylindrical coordi-

C 1⫽ 再 a1
共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 2 冋冉 n r⫹
a3 z0
n
a 1 r 0 ⫺R z 冊 冉
2
⫹
a3 z0
n
a 1 r 0 ⫺R z 冊册
2

冉 冊冎
nates (r, ␪, z), corresponding to a virtual radial velocity v 0 at the 2 1/2
top center of the leading edge of a caisson of radius R 共Murff and a3 1 z0
⫹ n 2⫹ n ⫺ n
Hamilton 1993兲 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 2 r a 4 r r 0 ⫺R z

v r⫽ v 0 冉 冊冉 冊
R
r
␣
1⫺
cz
z0
cos ␪ (9a) Wedge-Caisson Interface

冉 冊
v z ⫽g 共 r,␪ 兲 z⫺
cz 2
2z 0
⫹h 共 r,␪ 兲 (9b)
To permit total or partial adhesion at the pile-soil interface, Eq.
共8b兲 may be modified as follows:

where Ḋ A ⫽␩ lim 共 tḊ 兲 (14)

t→0
共 ␣⫺1 兲 R ␣
g 共 r,␪ 兲 ⫽ v 0 cos ␪ with limiting values of ␩⫽0 for no adhesion and ␩⫽1 for full
r 1⫹␣
adhesion.

h 共 r,␪ 兲 ⫽ v 0 z 0 cos ␪冉 冊 冉 冊再
R
r
␣
r 0 ⫺r
r 0 ⫺R
⫺
1
r 0 ⫺r
⫹ 冉 冊c
r 0 ⫺R
The relative velocity components across the soil-caisson inter-
face 共i.e., where r⫽R) are as follows:

⫹
1⫺␣
冋 冉 冊册 冎
c r 0 ⫺r v r⬘ ⫽0 (15a)

再 冉 冊 冋 冉 冊册
1⫺
r 2 r 0 ⫺r 共 ␣⫺1 兲 cz 2 c⫺1 1⫺␣ c
v z⬘ ⫽ v 0 cos ␪ z⫺ ⫹z 0 ⫹ 1⫺
R 2z 0 r 0 ⫺R R 2

冉 冊 冎
Internal Energy Dissipation in Wedge
cz R
The dissipation rate per unit volume within the wedge is com- ⫹ 1⫺ (15b)
z 0 z 0 /c⫺z
puted by differentiation of Eq. 共9兲 to obtain strain rates and sub-
stitution of these strain rate terms into Eq. 共6兲. The total dissipa-
tion rate is obtained by integrating over the volume of the wedge v ⬘␪ ⫽ v 0 L 1⫺ 冉 cz
z0 冊
sin ␪ (15c)

Ė 1 ⫽2 冕 冕
r⫽r 0

r⫽R
z⫽z 0 [(r 0 ⫺r)/(r 0 ⫺R)]

z⫽0
冕␪⫽0
␪⫽␲/2
Ḋrd␪dzdr (10) Noting that the unit normal vectors along this slip surface are
n r ⫽1 and n z ⫽n ␪ ⫽0, substitution of Eq. 共15兲 into Eq. 共8兲 yields

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 229

Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235

 Ė 3 ⫽2␩kR 冕冕 冋
0
z0

0
␲/2 1 2
a4
vz ⫹
1
册
v 2 d␪dz
2 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 ␪
(16)

Flow-Around Zone
For the case of rotational strength anisotropy, the energy dissipa-
tion for flow-around (E 4 and E 5 ) is computed on exactly the
same lines as for the isotropic strength case, provided one recog-
nizes that the appropriate strength parameter is the pressuremeter
shear strength or simple shear strength in a horizontal plane,
S uPM⫽S uSSH . The dissipation rate along a unit length 共measured
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the vertical direction兲 of the caisson is then

Ḋ⫽DS uPMN p v (17a)

v ⫽␤˙ 冉 冊 冉
z0
c
⫺z ⫽ v 0 1⫺
cz
z0 冊 (17b)

The appropriate bearing factors N p of 9.14 and 11.94 are provided

by Randolph and Houlsby 共1984兲 for no and full adhesion, re-
spectively, along the soil-caisson interface.
Computation of Eq. 共17兲 will depend on whether the center of
rotation L 0 is above or below the bottom of the caisson. If it is
above the bottom of the caisson (L 0 ⬍L f )

Ė 4 ⫽ 冕z0
z 0 /c
2R N p S uPMv 0 1⫺ 冉 冊 cz
z0
dz (18)

Ė 5 ⫽ 冕 lf

z 0 /c
2R N p S uPMv 0 冉 冊 cz
z0
⫺1 dz (19)

Conversely, if the center of rotation is below the bottom of the

caisson

Ė 4 ⫽ 冕 lf

z0
2R N p S uPMv 0 1⫺ 冉 cz
z0
dz冊 (20)

Ė 5 ⫽0 (21)

Tip Resistance
Dissipation over the caisson tip is idealized as a spherical seg-
ment fixed to the pile tip with a center at the point of rotation.
Using a spherical coordinate system 共␳, ␾, ␻兲 with origin at the
intersection of the center of rotation of the mechanism and the Fig. 6. 共a兲 Failure mechanism at tip of caisson; 共b兲 spherical coordi-
centerline of the pile 共Fig. 6兲, the dissipation is integrated over the nate system
spherical surface, limited by its intersection with the pile wall.
The velocity components are transformed to Cartesian coordi-
nates for convenient implementation in Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲

v ⬘x ⫽0 (22a) n y ⫽cos ␾ sin ␻ (23c)

By substituting these velocity and unit normal vector components
v0
v ⬘y ⫽⫺R 3 sin ␺ (22b) into Eq. 共8兲, it is shown that
共 z 0 /c 兲

v z⬘ ⫽⫺R 3
v0
cos ␺ (22c)
Ė 6 ⫽ 冕 冕␾⫽2␲

␾⫽0 ␻⫽0
冑
␻⫽sin⫺1 (R/ R 2 ⫹R 1 )
2 kR 32 v 0
共 z 0 /c 兲
A 1 C 2 sin ␻d␻d␾
共 z 0 /c 兲 (24)
where ␺⫽tan⫺1关cos ␻/(sin ␻ cos ␾)兴; R3 where
⫽R 2 冑cos ␻⫹(sin ␻ sin ␾)2; R 2 ⫽ 冑R 2 ⫹R 21 ; R 1 ⫽L f
再 冋冉 冊 冉 冊册
2
and 2 2
⫺ z 0 /c. a1 a3 a3 a3
C 2⫽ A 2⫹ A ⫹ A ⫹ A2
Unit normal vectors are similarly transformed 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 2 a1 3 a1 3 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 2 2
n x ⫽sin ␾ cos ␻
n z ⫽cos ␻
(23a)
(23b)
⫹
1
a4
关共 A 4 ⫺A 5 兲 2 ⫹A 26 兴 ⫹
1
冎 A2
2 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 7
1/2

230 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003

Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235

 where A 1 ⫽ 冑cos2 ␻⫹(sin ␻ sin ␾)2; A 2 ⫽sin ␺ sin ␾ sin ␻; A 3
⫽cos ␺ cos ␻; A 4 ⫽sin ␺ cos ␻; A 5 ⫽cos ␺ sin ␾ sin ␻; A 6
⫽cos ␺ cos ␾ sin ␻; and A 7 ⫽sin ␺ cos ␾ sin ␻.
Minimum Upper Bound Solution
With the energy dissipation terms thus derived, the external hori-
zontal load F can be evaluated from
冉
F v 0 1⫺
Li
⫽冊 兺i Ė i ⫺Ẇ g
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
L0
The energy dissipation terms Ė i are described in the previous
section, and the work done by the soil weight in a gravitational
field 共Murff and Hamilton 1993兲 is
冕 冕 冕
r⫽r 0 z⫽z 0 [(r 0 ⫺r)/(r 0 ⫺R)] ␪⫽␲/2
Ẇ g ⫽2 v z ␥ ⬘ rd␪dzdr
r⫽R z⫽0 ␪⫽0
where v z is given by Eq. 共9b兲.
The virtual velocity terms are cancelled and the lateral load F
is minimized with respect to the four optimization parameters
described earlier.
Comparison to Finite-Element Method Solutions
To evaluate the analytical procedure described previously, a series
of plastic limit analysis 共PLA兲 predictions of lateral load capacity
was compared to finite-element method 共FEM兲 simulations. The
finite-element simulations were performed using the anisotropic
yield option available in the computer code ABAQUS 共HKS
2000兲. The material model features linearly elastic behavior be-
neath the yield surface, a Hill yield criterion 关Eq. 共1兲兴, an associ-
ated flow rule, and perfect plasticity following yield. The FEM
model used three-dimensional, eight-node, linear brick elements.
Prior to presenting the FEM/PLA comparisons, the limitations
of both approaches should be recognized. Accurate estimates of
limit load capacity from FEM analyses are difficult to achieve,
particularly for a rotating body. The PLA formulation utilized in
this paper is actually an assemblage of three independent upper
bound solutions and hence not a rigorous upper bound solution in
itself. Therefore, neither solution can be considered as a bench-
mark or ‘‘true’’ solution. Nevertheless, comparisons between the
methods can provide useful insights into the limitations of each
method.
A series of isotropic analyses were performed initially to
evaluate the FEM model. For an infinitely long translating caisson
with full adhesion on the boundary, the FEM analysis predicts a
normalized load capacity F/S u LD⫽13.12, which exceeds the
Randolph and Houlsby 共1984兲 solution of 11.94 by 10%. This
overestimate is due somewhat to computer storage capacity re-
strictions on the degree of mesh refinement for a three-
dimensional model. For a long finite length caisson, L f /D⫽10,
with a load attachment point at the mudline, the FEM simulation
also overestimates the PLA by 10%. However, for shorter cais-
sons, L f /D⫽4 and 6, the FEM and PLA solutions are in much
closer agreement. This improved agreement is attributed to com-
pensating errors associated with the FEM solution. On one hand,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 231
Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235
Table 1. Comparison of Isotropic FEM and PLA Estimates of
Suction Caisson Lateral Load Capacity
L f /D FEM capacity, F/S u LD PLA capacity, F/S u LD F FEM /F PLA
2 5.20 4.36 1.19
4 4.76 4.69 1.01
6 4.98 4.77 1.04
10 5.33 4.83 1.10
Infinite 13.19 11.94 1.10
(25)
the FEM simulations tend to overestimate the PLA solutions due
to the relatively coarse mesh used in the three-dimensional model.
On the other hand, in an elastoplastic FEM analysis of a rotating
caisson, the ultimate lateral resistance in the elastic region near
the center of rotation cannot be fully mobilized, leading to an
underestimate of the full capacity. The progressive improved
agreement between PLA and FEM solutions for shorter aspect
ratios 共Table 1, L f /D⫽10, 6, and 4兲 suggest that the latter effect
is increasingly significant and the tendency for the errors to can-
(26) cel increases with decreasing caisson aspect ratio. However, for
very short caissons, L f /D⫽2, the trend reverses and the FEM
simulation overestimates the PLA capacity by nearly 20%. This
latter case, L f /D⫽2, suggests that the postulated failure mecha-
nism used in the PLA analysis is probably less accurate for very
short caissons. More detailed comparisons of FEM and PLA so-
lutions for suction caisson load capacity in an isotropic soil are
presented by Aubeny et al. 共2001兲.
For the anisotropic simulations, the following conditions were
selected for the test case: load application point at the mudline,
full adhesion between the soil and the caisson, and full develop-
ment of suction behind the caisson. A series of suction caissons of
varying aspect ratios (L f /D⫽2, 4, 6, and 10兲 were considered.
Undrained strength properties typical of normally consolidated
clay 共to be discussed subsequently兲 were selected for the
analyses—that is, with the axis of symmetry aligned with vertical.
All analyses assigned a pressuremeter shear strength equal to the
simple shear strength, S uPM /S uSSV⫽1. Three cases were consid-
ered for characterizing the triaxial shear strength:
• A triaxial shear strength typical of triaxial compression,
S uTX /S uSSV⫽1.57, was assigned to all soil elements.
• A triaxial shear strength typical of triaxial extension,
S uTX /S uSSV⫽0.73, was assigned to all of the soil.
• A strength S uTC /S uSSV⫽1.57 was assigned to the zones of tri-
axial compression, and S uTE /S uSSV⫽0.73 was assigned to
zones of triaxial extension depicted in Fig. 2.
It should be noted that the first two cases are not realistic
conditions of anisotropy and that these runs were performed pri-
marily for the purpose of evaluating the FEM and PLA numerical
models.
Because the ABAQUS Hill yield model cannot differentiate
between triaxial compression and extension strengths, different
material parameters were assigned beforehand to elements in an-
ticipated zones of compression and extension. In front of the cais-
son, an extension zone was assumed to occur above the rotation
point with compression occurring below the rotation point. The
opposite was assumed to occur behind the caisson: compression
above and extension below the rotation point. An estimate of the
depth to the rotation point was made based on PLA solutions.
Comparisons between FEM and PLA solutions for anisotropic
soils are summarized in Table 2. The horizontal load capacity F is
normalized to a dimensionless ratio using the simple shear
strength S uSSV as a reference:
 Table 2. Lateral Load Capacity of Suction Caisson in Soil Profile
with Uniform Strength Profile and Load Application Point at Mud-
line: Full Adhesion at Soil-Caisson Interface and Full Development
of Suction behind Caisson
Normalized capacity,
Strength propertiesa F/S uSSVLD
L f /D S uTC /S uSSV S uTE /S uSSV FEM PLA F FEM /F PLA
2 1.57 1.57 6.30 5.08
4 5.65 5.06
6 5.51 5.03
10 5.35 5.02
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
6 0.73 0.73 4.93 4.74
2 1.57 0.73 5.85 4.61
6 5.20 4.85
10 5.32 4.90
a
S uPM /S uSSV⫽1.
F the PLA estimates for both isotropic and anisotropic soils. Both
F normal⫽
S uSSVL f D
Table 2 shows that, when the triaxial shear strength in both
compression and extension exceeds the simple shear strength,
S uTX /S uSSV⫽1.57, the trend of compensating errors in the finite-
element analyses noted previously for the isotropic analyses does
not occur. A likely explanation for this observation is that, with
the high strength in the triaxial shear mode, a much greater pro-
portion of the caisson’s rotational resistance occurs at the top 共in
the surface failure wedge兲 and bottom 共in the hemispherical slip
surface兲 of the caisson, far from the center of rotation. Hence, the
fact that full soil resistance is not mobilized near the center of
rotation becomes less significant. The other FEM simulations for
anisotropic soils, S uTX /S uSSV⫽0.73 and S uTC /S uSSV⫽1.57 with
S uTE /S uSSV⫽0.73, show trends similar to the FEM results for
isotropic soils; namely, except for short caissons, L f /D less than
or equal to 2, differences between the PLA and FEM solutions
decrease with decreasing aspect ratios. As in the isotropic analy-
ses for L f /D⫽2, the FEM predictions exceed the PLA solutions
by about 20%, again suggesting that the PLA method becomes
less accurate for short caissons having aspect ratios L f /D less
than or equal to about 2.
The normalized load capacities reported in Table 2 for the case
of triaxial shear strength exceeding the simple shear strength,
S uTX /S uSSV⫽1.57, show what might be considered an unusual
trend in that the normalized capacity decreases with increasing
caisson aspect ratio. This is in contrast to isotropic analyses show-
ing an opposite trend. This unusual trend is actually a conse-
quence of the definition of normalized horizontal capacity. Eq.
共27兲 normalizes F by the simple shear strength, S uSSV , which is
the dominant shearing mode 共assuming S uSSV⫽S uPM) for long
caissons. However, as shorter caissons are considered, the triaxial
shear resistance S uTX mobilized in the surface failure wedge and
at the bottom of the caisson exerts an increasingly greater influ-
ence on capacity. Hence, the simple shear strength S uSSV used in
the normalization is somewhat lower than the average soil
strength, resulting in a normalized load capacity somewhat higher
than what might otherwise be expected. Anisotropic FEM simu-
lations for the more realistic case of differing strengths in triaxial
compression and extension, S uTC /S uSSV⫽1.57 with S uTE /S uSSV
⫽0.73, show a trend similar to isotropic analyses—namely, nor-
malized capacity increases with increasing aspect ratio L f /D ex-
cept for very short caissons.
232 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003
Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235
Table 3. Optimal Center of Rotation for Suction Caisson in Soil
Profile with Uniform Strength Profile and Load Application Point at
Mudline: Full Adhesion at Soil-Caisson Interface and Full Develop-
ment of Suction behind Caisson
Strength properties L 0 /L f
S uTE /S uSSV
L f /D S uTC /S uSSV PLA FEM
2 0.866 共isotropic 0.866 共isotropic 0.76 0.78
1.24 von Mises兲 von Mises兲
1.12 6 0.71 0.74
1.10 10 0.74 0.74
1.07 2 1.57 0.73 0.72 0.78
1.04 6 0.71 0.75
1.27 10 0.70 0.74
1.07
1.09
Comparisons of the optimal centers of rotation for the FEM
and PLA analyses are shown in Table 3. Estimates of the depth to
the center of rotation from the FEM analyses slightly exceeded
(27) the PLA and FEM analyses indicate that strength anisotropy has
little effect on the optimal depth to the center of rotation.
Overall, the FEM/PLA comparisons indicate reasonable agree-
ment between solutions for medium to long caissons, i.e., for
aspect ratios L f /D of 4 and greater. Hence, the anisotropic PLA
model developed is judged to provide reasonable estimates of
load capacity for these caisson aspect ratios. For short caissons,
L f /D less than 2, the relatively large disparity between the FEM
and PLA solutions suggests that the accuracy of the PLA formu-
lation used in this paper deteriorates for very short caissons. In all
the cases presented, the FEM solutions exceeded the ‘‘upper
bound’’ PLA solution. This apparent contradiction can be ex-
plained by noting first that the FEM analysis is itself an approxi-
mate solution, and second that the PLA formulation utilized in
this paper is not, strictly speaking, a rigorous upper bound solu-
tion.
Parametric Studies
To evaluate the effects of strength anisotropy on suction caisson
capacity, a series of PLA load capacity predictions were made for
a realistic range of anisotropic strength properties obtained from
published literature.
Material Parameters
The parametric study considers a range of anisotropic strength
ratios S uTC /S uSSV⫽1.04 to 1.33 for triaxial compression and
S uTE /S uSSV⫽0.55 to 0.96 for triaxial extension. Excluding con-
sideration of varved clays, this range of anisotropic strength prop-
erties generally encompasses 共with one exception兲 the range un-
drained strength ratios reported by Ladd 共1991兲 for normally
K 0 -consolidated clays and silts in simple shear and triaxial com-
pression and extension. The exception is the ‘‘B2 Marine Clay’’
reported by Ladd having an unusually low extension strength,
S uTE /S uSSV⫽0.41. It is noted that the strengths reported by Ladd
are based on mobilized shear resistance at comparable strain lev-
els, using the strain compatibility technique described by Kout-
softas and Ladd 共1985兲.
It is sometimes useful to consider the effects of strength an-
isotropy in light of the commonly employed isotropic analysis, in
which a von Mises yield surface is matched to the soil strength in
 Table 4. Undrained Strength Anisotropy in Typical Normally Table 5. Strength Parameters Considered in Parametric Study
Consolidated Clays Case S uTC /S uSSV S uTE /S uSSV
Direction Anisotropic Ratio of actual to von Mises
A 1.33 0.96
of shearing strength ratio isotropic triaxial strength
B 1.33 0.55
Compression S uTC /S uSSV S uTC /S uTX (isotropic) C 1.04 0.96
⫽1.04– 1.33 ⫽1.20– 1.54 D 1.04 0.55
Extension S uTE /S uSSV S uTE /S uTX (isotropic)
⫽0.55– 0.96 ⫽0.64– 1.11
wedge behind the pile, and for anchor line attachment points at
the top and middepth of the caisson. PLA predictions were also
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

simple shear, S uSSH . In such an analysis, the strength of the soil in
a triaxial shearing mode 共compression or extension兲 will be
S uTX (isotropic)⫽0.866 S uSSV . Expressing actual triaxial
strengths in terms of the triaxial strengths derived from an isotro-
pic von Mises yield criterion 共Table 4兲 shows that actual triaxial
compression strengths will typically exceed von Mises triaxial
strengths by about 20–50%. Actual extension strengths can range
from about 40% less to 10% greater than von Mises triaxial
strengths. Hence, the von Mises criterion will tend to be quite
conservative for shearing modes involving triaxial compression.
It will sometimes, but not always, be unconservative for shearing
in triaxial extension.
Much less data are available regarding the pressuremeter
strength S uPM , particularly in view of the unreliability of strength
estimates from the pressuremeter test due to pressuremeter instal-
lation disturbance and finite membrane length effects described
by Aubeny et al. 共2000兲. However, a review of shear strength data
for resedimented K 0 -consolidated Boston Blue Clay 共BBC兲 by
Whittle and Aubeny 共1993兲 included strength comparisons for the
triaxial compression and extension, direct simple shear, and pres-
suremeter shear modes for normally to moderately overconsoli-
dated conditions. The pressuremeter strengths were derived from
true triaxial test data from Wood 共1981兲 on normally consolidated
BBC, and from directional shear cell test data from O’Neill
共1985兲 on moderately overconsolidated (OCR⫽4 – 5) BBC. In
both instances the pressuremeter shear strength S uPM was compa-
rable to the direct simple shear strength S uSSV . Based on this
somewhat limited data set, the pressuremeter strength was taken
equal to the direct simple shear strength for all cases considered
in this parametric study.
made based on a conventional isotropic analysis with the von
Mises yield surface matched to the simple shear strength of the
soil S uSSV . The anisotropic strength cases A through D are shown
in dashed lines in Fig. 7; while the conventional isotropic analy-
ses are indicated by solid lines.
The predictions in Fig. 7 indicate the following:
• Predictions of horizontal load capacity using an anisotropic
strength model differ from conventional isotropic predictions
by less than 10%.
• When no gap occurs behind the caisson, the effects of strength
anisotropy become quite small for caissons with aspect ratios
L f /D⬎6. This result was to be expected, because for longer
caissons the relative influence of the surface failure wedges
diminishes; hence, the load capacity is increasingly dominated
by the simple shear strength in the flow-around failure zone.
• When no gap occurs behind the caisson, the conventional iso-
tropic analysis tends to give somewhat conservative results,
except for the condition of a low triaxial extension strength
共Case D兲, in which case the isotropic analysis is unconserva-
tive by a very small amount.

Horizontal Load Capacity Predictions

A series of PLA predictions were made for capacity of horizon-
tally loaded suction caissons in a soil having a uniform strength
profile considering caisson aspect ratios L f /D⫽2 to 10. Two con-
ditions were considered for the active wedge of soil behind the
pile. The first condition assumed that suction could develop be-
tween the soil and the caisson; hence, no gap would occur be-
tween soil and caisson, and the shearing resistance in the active
wedge would contribute to horizontal load capacity. The second
condition assumed that no suction could be mobilized in the ac-
tive wedge behind the caisson; hence, a gap would develop be-
tween the soil and the caisson in this active zone. Full adhesion at
the soil-pile interface was assumed at any locations where the soil
and caisson were in contact.
The parametric study evaluated four cases with different com-
binations of the reported upper and lower bounds of triaxial com-
pression and extension strengths. These situations, designated
Cases A through D, are listed in Table 5. The parametric studies
Fig. 7. Effect of strength anisotropy on load capacity of suction
were performed for conditions of no suction versus full suction
anchor in soil with uniform strength profile
共gap or no gap兲 at the soil-pile interface in the active failure

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 233

Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235

 • When a gap is assumed to occur behind the caisson, the con-
ventional isotropic analysis can be somewhat unconservative
for conditions of low triaxial extension strength 共Cases B and
D兲, but the magnitude of the overestimate is less than 10%. It
should be noted that, when a gap forms, the effects of a low
triaxial extension strength in the passive surface wedge are no
longer offset by the effects of the high triaxial compression
strength in the active wedge; hence, anisotropic model predic-
tions will be lower than those from an isotropic model.
• In contrast to the no-gap predictions, the predictions for the
gap condition show noticeable strength anisotropy effects for
all aspect ratios. Because the shearing resistance in the passive
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wedge is dominated by the relatively low 共for Cases B and D兲
triaxial extension strength, the optimization routine tends to
maximize the depth of the surface failure wedge until it ex-
tends to nearly the full depth of the caisson. Hence, when a
gap develops behind the caisson, the influence of the surface
failure wedge does not decline with increasing aspect ratio as
much as it does for the no-gap case.
The parametric studies summarized herein apply to uniform
soil strength conditions. Actual strength conditions often are more
appropriately characterized by a strength profile that increases
linearly with depth. Under these conditions, the effect of strength
anisotropy can normally be expected to be less than that corre-
sponding to uniform conditions. The reason for this expectation is
that the effects of soil strength anisotropy are most significant
when resistance mobilized in the surface failure wedge comprises
a significant portion of the total load capacity. Under conditions
where the soil strength profile increases with depth, this is not
likely to be the case. Because the soil strength increases with
depth, most of the caisson load capacity tends to be mobilized in
the flow-around zone beneath the surface failure wedge where,
provided that the shearing resistance for loading in a horizontal
plane approximates that in a vertical plane, anisotropic effects are
small.
Summary and Conclusions
A plastic limit formulation for horizontal load capacity for suction
caissons in an anisotropic soil is presented. The formulation uti-
lizes a Hill yield criterion to characterize anisotropic strength be-
havior, and the present formulation is restricted to conditions of
rotational symmetry about the vertical axis. Different yield sur-
faces are specified for the soil according to whether a soil element
experiences triaxial compression or extension to realistically
simulate strength behavior for these loading conditions. Material
parameters characterizing the Hill yield surface are readily de-
rived from conventional geotechnical tests. The anisotropic yield
surface is implemented using dissipation formulations applicable
to continuously deforming and discontinous failure mechanisms,
both of which are present in the failure mode postulated for a
horizontally loaded caisson. The least upper bound is obtained by
optimizing four parameters using the procedure presented by
Murff and Hamilton 共1993兲.
For the range of anisotropic undrained strength properties
commonly reported for normally K 0 -consolidated clays, paramet-
ric studies indicate that suction caisson horizontal load capacity
predicted using a conventional approach 共a von Mises yield sur-
face fitted to the soil simple shear strength兲 will differ from an-
isotropic predictions by less than 10%. The isotropic analyses
tend to be conservative in situations where full suction is mobi-
lized behind the caisson 共no gap兲. If a gap is assumed to occur
234 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003
Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235
behind the caisson, an isotropic analysis can be slightly unconser-
vative, particularly for soils having low undrained shear strength
in triaxial extension.
To a large extent, the relatively small effects of anisotropy
predicted by this study result from the assumption that the pres-
suremeter shear strength S uPM equals the direct simple shear
strength S uSSV . As noted in this paper, there is some experimental
basis for this assumption; however, the database for reliable com-
parisons between S uPM and S uSSV is quite sparse, particularly for
natural soils. The findings of Randolph 共2000兲 indicating that the
effects of soil strength anisotropy can be significant in situations
in which the pressuremeter strength S uPM approximates the tri-
axial extension strength S uTE should be borne in mind. Hence, the
effects of anisotropy on suction caisson load capacity should con-
tinue to be considered, particularly until sufficient experimental
data exist to permit the assumption of equality between S uPM and
S uSSV to be made with greater confidence.
Appendix. Anisotropic Material Parameters
If triaxial shear conditions (␴ x ⫽␴ y , ␶ xy ⫽␶ yz ⫽␶ zx ⫽0) are ap-
plied to Eq. 共2兲
k 2 ⫽2a 1 共 ␴ x ⫺␴ z 兲 2
If k is taken as S uSSV and, noting that (␴ x ⫺␴ z ) f ⫽2 S uTX , it
follows that
冉 冊
2
1 S uSSV
a 1⫽ (28)
8 S uTX
Applying the conditions for undrained cylindrical cavity expan-
sion (2␴ z ⫽␴ x ⫹␴ y , ␶ xy ⫽␶ yz ⫽␶ zx ⫽0) to Eq. 共2兲 leads to
a1
k 2⫽ 共 ␴ x ⫺␴ y 兲 2f ⫹a 3 共 ␴ x ⫺␴ y 兲 2f
2
Again, taking k as S uSSV and noting that (␴ x ⫺␴ y ) f ⫽2S uPM leads
to
冋冉 冊 册
1 S uSSV 2
a 3⫽ ⫺2a 1 (29)
4 S uPM
Alternatively, one can consider the case of simple shear in a ver-
tical plane. In this case, Eq. 共2兲 yields
2
S uSSV⫽2 共 a 1 ⫹2a 3 兲 S uSSH
2
Imposing a condition of rotational symmetry, S uSSV⫽S uPM , also
leads to Eq. 共29兲.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the support of the Depart-
ment of the Interior Minerals Management Service 共Cooperative
Agreement No. 1435-01-99-CA-31003兲, the Offshore Technology
Research Center, and their colleagues at Texas A&M University
and the University of Texas.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
D ⫽ caisson diameter;
Ḋ i ⫽ rate of energy dissipation per unit volume;
 Koutsoftas, D. C., and Ladd, C. C. 共1985兲. ‘‘Design strengths for an
Ė i ⫽ rate of energy dissipation;
offshore clay.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 111共3兲, 337–355.
F ⫽ total caisson load capacity;
Ladd, C. C. 共1991兲. ‘‘Stability evaluation during staged construction.’’ J.
Lf ⫽ length of caisson; Geotech. Eng., 117共4兲, 540– 615.
Li ⫽ load attachment depth; Murff, J. D. 共1978兲. ‘‘Upper bound analysis of incompressible, aniso-
L0 ⫽ optimization parameter, center of rotation of caisson; tropic media.’’ Proc., 15th Annual Meeting of Engineering Science,
Su ⫽ undrained shear strength; 521–526.
v ⫽ velocity; Murff, J. D. 共1980兲. ‘‘Vane shear testing of anisotropic, cohesive soils.’’
v0 ⫽ velocity at mudline; Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 4, 285–289.
W ⫽ work due to external load on caisson; and Murff, J. D., and Hamilton, J. M. 共1993兲. ‘‘P-ultimate for undrained
z ⫽ depth below mudline. analysis of laterally loaded piles.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 119共1兲, 91–107.
O’Neill, D. A. 共1985兲. ‘‘Undrained strength anisotropy of an overconsoli-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by YILDIZ TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI on 03/05/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dated thixotropic clay.’’ MS thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental

References
Aubeny, C. P., Moon, S. K., and Murff, J. D. 共2001兲. ‘‘Lateral undrained
resistance of suction caisson anchors.’’ Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng.,
11共2兲, 95–103.
Aubeny, C. P., Whittle, A. J., and Ladd, C. C. 共2000兲. ‘‘Effects of distur-
bance on undrained strengths from the pressuremeter test.’’ J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共12兲, 1133–1144.
Casagrande, A., and Carillo, N. 共1944兲. ‘‘Shear failure in anisotropic
materials.’’ Contributions of soil mechanics, Boston Society of Civil
Engineers, Boston, 74 – 87.
Davis, E. H., and Christian, J. T. 共1971兲. ‘‘Bearing capacity of anisotropic
cohesive soil.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 97共5兲,
753–769.
Hill, R. 共1950兲. The mathematical theory of plasticity, Oxford University
Press, London.
Hibbitt, Karlson, and Sorensen, Inc. 共HKS兲. 共2000兲. ABAQUS version 6.1
user’s manuals, Pawtucket, R.I.
Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Randolph, M. F. 共2000兲. ‘‘Effect of strength anisotropy on foundations.’’
Proc., Booker Memorial Symp., 313–327.
Randolph, M. F., and Houlsby, G. T. 共1984兲. ‘‘The limiting pressure on a
circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil.’’ Geotechnique, 34共4兲,
613– 623.
Saada, A. S., and Ou, C.-D. 共1973兲. ‘‘Strain-stress relations and failure of
anisotropic clays.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
119共12兲, 1091–1111.
Whittle, A. J., and Aubeny, C. P. 共1993兲. ‘‘The effects of installation
disturbance on interpretation of in-situ tests in clays.’’ Predictive Soil
Mechanics: Proc., Wroth Memorial Symp., Oxford, U.K., 742–767.
Whittle, A. J., and Kavvadas, M. J. 共1994兲. ‘‘Formulation of MIT-E3
constitutive model for overconsolidated clays.’’ J. Geotech. Eng.,
120共1兲, 173–198.
Wood, D. M. 共1981兲. ‘‘True triaxial tests on Boston Blue Clay.’’ Proc.,
10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 825– 830.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 235

Int. J. Geomech., 2003, 3(2): 225-235