OTC 12195
Combined Lateral and Vertical Loading of Caisson Foundations
P.G. Watson and M.F. Randolph, The University of Western Australia, M.F. Bransby, The University of Dundee
Copyright 2000, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, 1–4 May 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.
Abstract
This paper summarises aspects of a four-year study of caisson
foundations under the action of combined vertical, horizontal
and moment loading. The study included physical (centrifuge)
modelling and numerical analysis (finite element, upper and
lower bound analysis). Caissons with skirt lengths of 40 to
50 % of the foundation diameter were modelled, with physical
tests conducted in either kaolin clay, calcareous silt or
calcareous sand, under either undrained or partially drained
loading conditions. In addition, laboratory tests (simple shear,
triaxial compression and extension) were undertaken to
evaluate element response under different loading paths.
The results presented in this paper have implications for
the design of caisson foundations in low permeability clays
and silts, focusing on the response to lateral and vertical
loading. General numerical solutions (presented in the form of
design charts) for bearing capacity, tension capacity and
lateral capacity are compared to results from experimental
testing. In addition, the observed installation resistance is
discussed, as is the potential for significant increases in
bearing and lateral capacity arising from the application of
preload.
Finally, caisson performance under combined vertical -
lateral loading is examined, and the results from a series of
model tests are used to investigate empirically the form of a
yield envelope for caisson foundations, and the potential use
of an associated flow rule to define plastic deformation at
yield.
Introduction
Over the last two decades, offshore oil and gas development
has moved towards design in increasingly deep water and
hostile loading environments. Coupled with fluctuating oil
prices and the development of marginal fields, this has led
foundation engineers to challenge traditional design methods
for founding offshore structures (such as piled foundations).
In turn, this has led to the development and increased use of
caisson (or skirted) foundation systems.
The idea of caisson foundations originated from gravity
base platforms in the North Sea, where skirts were employed
to transfer vertical bearing loads below mudline level to more
competent material. The generic term, caisson foundation,
may be applied to a family of alternatives including:
• Skirted gravity base structures, such as the Gullfaks C
platform installed in the North Sea in 1989 (Tjelta et al1,
Tjelta2).
• Suction anchors (used as alternatives to drag anchors), as
installed at the Laminaria field in 1999 in the Timor Sea
(Randolph et al3).
• Caisson foundations for taut leg mooring systems, such as
installed in the North Sea for the Snorre tension leg
platform in 1992 (Anderson et al4).
• Caisson foundations for jacket structures or jackup rigs,
such as described by Erbrich and Tjelta5 for the Draupner
E platform, installed in dense sand in the North Sea in
1994.
• Caisson templates for subsea structures, as described by
Aas and Anderson6.
The use of caisson foundations for either taut leg mooring
systems or jacket structures (where skirt lengths may be in the
order of 10 to 50% of the foundation diameter) has been the
focus of a detailed research project at The University of
Western Australia (UWA), and is the subject of this paper.
In these cases, foundations may be expected to withstand
large vertical (either tension or compression) load, in
combination with significant horizontal load and overturning
moment resulting from environmental conditions. Further,
loading may be either sustained (ie long term loading, such as
structure dead weight) or cyclic in nature.
Scope of Research Project
Despite the wide use of caisson foundations, design is largely
conducted on a case by case basis, with only general design
guidelines available to assist foundation engineers (such as
API7; DNV8). Given this, one of the primary aims of the
research undertaken at UWA was to examine the monotonic
response of caisson foundations, in order to develop generic
solutions to various aspects of foundation design. In addition,
2 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY
research was undertaken to examine means of improving
foundation response, such as through the use of preload, which
has been shown to generate significant increases in monotonic
capacity.
Model testing was conducted using the centrifuge facility
at UWA, and included testing to examine bearing (and
tension) capacity, lateral capacity and installation resistance of
caisson foundations. In addition, the interaction between
vertical and horizontal loading of caisson foundations was
examined, and used to investigate appropriate yield surfaces to
describe the caisson yield. This included investigation of an
associated flow rule to define plastic deformation at yield.
To enhance the applicability of the results obtained, model
testing was supported by numerical analysis, including finite
element, upper bound and lower bound analyses. This paper
will present a range of results obtained from centrifuge testing
of caisson foundations, with emphasis on the comparison
between numerical solutions and model test results. The focus
is on the undrained foundation behaviour, although tests were
also conducted to examine caisson response under partially
drained loading conditions.
As part of the general scope of the research project, model
caisson testing was supplemented by a range of soil
characterisation testing, conducted both in situ (using various
‘in-flight’ soil testing devices) and with traditional laboratory
apparatus (triaxial and simple shear). In addition to making
improvements in the assessment of in situ strength (with
recommendations for field testing apparatus), soil
characterisation testing provided a means of accurately
evaluating soil strength for each model test undertaken. Full
details of the testing undertaken are contained in Watson9, and
only a brief discussion is provided here.
Finally, although beyond the scope of this paper, several
other aspects of caisson foundation performance were
investigated during the research project, including:
• Performance under the application of cyclic loading. Here,
centrifuge modelling and laboratory soil testing was
undertaken to develop empirical design methods for
caissons subjected to ‘complex’ cyclic loading conditions.
• Response of more complex foundation systems, including
square foundations with relatively shallow skirts, and
multiple caisson foundations for jacket structures.
Details of the results obtained, and the implications for caisson
design, are described in Watson9.
Material Types and Soil Characterisation
The main focus of the study was on foundation performance in
calcareous sediments typical of those found on the North-West
Shelf of Western Australia. However, complementary tests
were also undertaken in clay.
In the following discussion, results will be presented only
from caisson tests conducted in normally consolidated kaolin
clay or calcareous silt. Fig. 1 shows the measured particle size
distributions for each material.
A suite of laboratory tests was conducted on each material
used in the centrifuge test program. Fig. 2 summarises the
OTC 12195
results obtained from triaxial extension, triaxial compression
and simple shear tests conducted on reconstituted samples
(consolidated under Ko conditions) of kaolin clay and
calcareous silt. It is clear that the properties of the two
materials are significantly different, with the silt material
tending to dilate after reaching the critical state line (CSL),
resulting in considerable strain hardening. This is discussed
further in relation to the caisson performance in each material.
In situ tests were conducted during each centrifuge test in
order to accurately assess the undrained soil strength. Fig. 3
shows typical results obtained from a variety of test devices in
kaolin clay. The undisturbed undrained shear strength
gradient is shown to be in the range k = 0.8 to 1.0 kPa/m, with
a remoulded strength on pullout that is approximately 70 % of
the undisturbed strength.
Geotechnical Centrifuge and Testing Apparatus
The UWA centrifuge (Fig. 4) is an Acutronic Model 661
geotechnical fixed beam centrifuge with a radius of 1.8 m and
a maximum payload of 40 g-tonnes, and is capable of
subjecting 200 kg sample packages to accelerated gravity
fields up to 200 g. A full description of the centrifuge and
associated equipment has been given by Randolph et al10.
A schematic of the model caisson used for foundation tests
in calcareous silt is shown in Fig. 5, with a skirt length to
diameter (d/D) ratio of 0.4. At 150 g (the nominal working
acceleration for tests in calcareous silt), the model represents a
prototype with D = 12 m. Fig. 6 illustrates a typical set-up in
the centrifuge prior to installation of the caisson in kaolin clay.
Here, the model shown has prototype dimensions (at 100 g) of
D = 7.5 m and d/D = 0.5.
Caisson Response
This section presents a selection of the results obtained from
caisson testing and outlines the development of numerical
solutions for caisson capacity.
Installation The installation resistance of caisson foundations
comprises:
• end bearing at skirt tip level (Qtip); and
• internal and external shear along the skirt wall (Qside).
In certain circumstances, caisson resistance may increase
further due to penetration of internal stiffeners, or the padeye
itself (when used as a catenary anchor).
End bearing may be directly related to the soil strength at
skirt tip level (sutip) using a suitable bearing capacity factor
(Nc) and making allowance for the overburden pressure (such
that Qtip = AtipNcsutip, where Atip is the skirt tip area). Although
there has been some debate over the selection of Nc, largely
related to the observation that the skirt wall is generally very
slender in comparison to the caisson diameter, a value of Nc =
7.5 has been adopted in the current study. This is consistent
with the findings of Colliat et al11, Solhjell et al12.
Shear resistance along the skirt wall will be related to the
local soil shear strength. Here, the shear resistance is related
to the average soil strength (suave) over the embedded length of
OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS
skirt using
Qside = αAwallsuave (1)
where Awall is the total (internal and external) area of the
caisson wall at each stage of embedment, and α is an adhesion
factor. Although it is common to assume identical values of α
for both internal and external shear, House et al13 suggested
that for suction installation a lower value of internal shear may
be more appropriate. However, in the current study the
foundations were installed using direct loading, and the same
value was adopted inside and outside.
Fig. 7 illustrates the predicted and observed caisson
installation resistance from tests conducted in kaolin clay and
calcareous silt. As can be seen, excellent agreement is
observed using adhesion factors of 0.1 and 0.4 for the clay and
silt tests respectively (and Nc = 7.5).
Observed Bearing and Tensile Response To determine the
net bearing (and tension) resistance, qnet (= V/A where V is the
net vertical load and A is the caisson area), of the caisson
foundation during penetration, the measured bearing pressure
(qm) must be corrected to account for overburden and the
weight of the soil plug. This process has been previously
described by Tani and Craig14, and the result is illustrated in
Fig. 8 for both a bearing test and a tension test performed after
full installation (to ‘touchdown’).
The bearing resistance of caisson foundations was
evaluated from tests in both calcareous silt and kaolin clay.
Fig. 9 shows the observed bearing resistance of the 12 m
diameter foundation (d = 4.8 m) in a range of different
strength calcareous silts (although not shown, a similar
response was observed in kaolin clay). Also shown are
corresponding soil strength profiles derived from in situ
strength measurements. Bearing resistance increases
proportionally with the soil shear strength at skirt tip level.
This is illustrated further in Fig. 10, where the observed
bearing resistance is shown normalised by kD (constant value)
and also by kz (= sutip). This later normalisation may be used
to determine experimental values of Nc. As the foundation
penetrates, the value of Nc may change, partly due to a
decreasing ratio of kD/sutip that tends to decrease Nc, and partly
due to increased side friction and end-bearing capacity due to
embedment, which increases Nc. As may be seen, the effect of
these competing trends is a slight but gradual increase in Nc.
Centrifuge testing was also conducted to examine the
tension response of caisson foundations. Unlike bearing
response, however, a significant difference was observed
between tests conducted in kaolin clay and calcareous silt.
Fig. 11 illustrates the observed tension response in both
materials (bearing tests are also shown). Two observations
can be made from the result:
1. At touchdown, the initial tension capacity (VT/A) is equal
to the initial bearing capacity (VC/A), and the failure
mode may be considered “reverse bearing capacity”.
2. With increasing displacement, the tension capacity of the
foundation in kaolin clay reduces, while the capacity in
3
the silt increases significantly. This can be attributed to
the differences in material behaviour shown in Fig. 2,
with the silt tending to dilate and strain harden following
yield while the clay strain softens. As pullout continues,
the caisson is displaced into a zone of disturbed
(strained) soil, leading to a reduction in capacity for the
clay, but a rising capacity for the dilating silt. This
behaviour was not evident in bearing tests, as the caisson
is continually displaced into fresh material.
This observation is discussed further in later sections.
Design Charts for Bearing Capacity The bearing capacity
(VC/A) of caisson foundations may be calculated using the
traditional approach of a bearing capacity factor (Nc) and the
shear strength at skirt tip level. The caisson foundation is
often considered to be a surface footing acting on a soil
surface located at skirt tip level. This simplification is shown
in Fig. 12. However, two factors must be taken into account:
1. Soil strength non-homogeneity. Quantified by the ratio,
kD/suo, the effect of strength non-homogeneity on
bearing capacity has been examined by Houlsby and
Wroth15 using lower bound (method of characteristics)
analysis, and by Kusakabe et al16 using upper bound
analysis. In both cases a surface foundation was
analysed, and the results are shown in Fig. 13. For the
normally consolidated case, where suo = kd, the ratio
kD/suo is equivalent to D/d, giving a value of Nc in the
range 7.9 to 8.6 for a caisson foundation with d = 0.4D.
This is somewhat lower than the observed Nc shown in
Fig. 10.
2. Embedment. Increasing the embedment reduces the ratio
kD/sutip (assuming soil strength increases consistently
with depth) and hence the value of Nc. However, this is
offset both by the confining effects of increased
embedment, and the increasing contribution of side wall
shear, both of which increase the bearing capacity.
The effects of both strength non-homogeneity and embedment
have been explored using different approaches, including:
• Upper bound analysis, based on an extended form of the
mechanism proposed by Kusakabe et al16. The
mechanisms used are shown in Fig. 14, and are described
in Randolph17. Although not included in the analysis, an
alternate mechanism (involving a form of spherical
cavity expansion) becomes optimal at very large
embedment.
• Lower bound analysis, using the method of
characteristics (Martin18).
• Finite element analysis. Described in Hu et al19, Fig. 15
illustrates the displacement vectors from finite element
analysis of rough-sided (α = 1) caisson foundations with
different embedment. The results support the upper
bound failure mechanisms shown in Fig. 14.
It should be noted that the F.E. analyses described above were
conducted on “pre-embedded’ foundations at different
embedment ratios. Large displacement (remeshing) finite
element analyses have also been conducted (Hu et al19), with
4 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY
results indicating a small reduction in the computed bearing
capacity compared with the pre-embedded case, due to the
entrapment of soft soil beneath the foundation. However, as
the analysis requires very large computing times, the pre-
embedded solutions are recommended for design purposes.
Fig. 16 summarises the numerical results, for the cases of
caisson with (a) fully rough sides (α = 1); and (b) fully smooth
sides (α = 0). In both cases the base is considered to be fully
rough (soil-soil interface). This figure represents a design
chart for caisson foundations in normally consolidated soil.
From these results, it may be shown that the bearing capacity
of a rough foundation may be closely approximated using the
capacity of a smooth caisson and simply adding in the
frictional component. This allows the solutions to be
generalised for any roughness, by interpolating between the
two cases.
Comparison with Observed Response The finite element
solutions shown in Fig. 16 are compared to the observed
foundation response in Fig. 17 (kaolin clay) and Fig. 18
(calcareous silt). In both cases it may be seen that the
numerical solutions provide a good (moderately conservative)
estimation of the observed bearing capacity.
For tensile loading, however, the observed response in
kaolin clay reduces below the numerical prediction at large
displacement (although the initial tension capacity is well
predicted). This is attributed to the soil remoulding effect, as
the caisson is displaced into disturbed soil (as shown in Fig. 3,
the remoulded strength of the kaolin clay after one load cycle
is approximately 70 % of the undisturbed strength).
Multiplying the numerical solutions by 0.7 gives excellent
agreement with the observed large displacement tension
capacity.
For the silt, the initial tension capacity is again well
predicted by the numerical solutions. However, the numerical
analysis takes no account of dilation, which causes a
significant increase in the tension capacity with increased
displacement. Further research is required in this area, and at
present the numerical solutions are conservative.
Response to Sustained Vertical Load and Preloading
Foundation response to sustained (long term) loading, and the
effect of consolidation on observed bearing capacity have also
been examined.
Fig. 19 illustrates the observed caisson response to
sustained compressive and tensile loading (note that pore
pressure is measured inside the soil plug at skirt tip level).
Under compressive loading the pore pressure generated by
loading gradually dissipates, and the foundation settlement
ultimately reaches a limit. However, under constant tensile
load the pore pressure remains nearly constant, and unbounded
displacement occurs as water is drawn into the caisson. This
observation leads to the conclusion that in soils with moderate
permeability, caisson foundations are not suited to long term
‘drained’ tension loading (load greater than the weight of the
foundation and contained soil plus the external side friction),
OTC 12195
and should be primarily designed for transient ‘undrained’
loading events.
The consolidation evident in the caisson response to long
term compressive load, which may be achieved by preloading
the foundation (such as through temporary ballast in excess of
the working load), leads to strengthening of the soil at skirt tip
level. This in turn increases the observed bearing capacity.
Fig. 20 illustrates the increase in bearing capacity due to the
application of preload equal to 40 % of the vertical bearing
capacity, allowing either 50 % or 100 % dissipation of pore
pressure. As shown, even 50 % consolidation results in about
50 % increase in initial bearing capacity.
Observed and Theoretical Lateral Resistance High lateral
capacity of caisson foundations makes them suitable as anchor
systems for catenary moorings (Keaveny et al20) or as
foundations for jacket structures (Tjelta21). Conservative
analysis of caisson foundations subjected to pure lateral loads
allows only for base shear, with little or no contribution due to
passive and active soil wedges. Alternatively, caissons may
be thought of as stubby piles, and analysed using lateral pile
theory. The latter approach has been adopted in this project.
Figs. 21 and 22 show the observed foundation response to
pure lateral loading in kaolin clay and calcareous silt
respectively. As may be seen, the response in both cases
reaches a clear ‘yield’, although the displacement required to
reach yield is significantly larger in the clay. However,
similar to the tensile tests, the lateral capacity of the caisson in
calcareous silt continues to increase beyond the yield point.
This is not observed in the clay tests (where a moderate
amount of work hardening may be attributed to heave in front
of the caisson), and is associated with dilation in the silt.
Also shown are numerical results determined using a 3-
dimensional upper bound failure mechanism, initially
proposed by Murff and Hamilton22, and later applied to
caisson foundations by Randolph et al3. Discussed in detail in
Randolph et al23 and Watson9, the upper bound mechanism
consists of three components (shown in Fig. 23):
1. Conical wedges in front and behind the caisson (unless
gapping occurs, in which case a one-sided mechanism is
adopted).
2. Plane strain soil flow around the caisson beneath the
wedge.
3. An internal or external scoop mechanism at the base of
the caisson.
Using the upper bound analysis, a design chart (Fig. 24) has
been developed for the lateral capacity of caisson foundations
in normally consolidated soil (note that this chart is for pure
translation of caissons only). As may be seen in Figs 21 and
22, lateral capacity (Ho/A) deduced using the upper bound
approach provides a good approximation to the observed
(yield) lateral capacity.
The application of preload and subsequent consolidation is
likely to influence the lateral capacity of caisson foundations
in the same way as for bearing capacity. Fig. 25 compares the
lateral capacity (normalised by suo) observed from a caisson
OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS
test in which 50 % consolidation (at V = 0.4VC) was allowed
with the undisturbed response. There is a 20 % increase in the
observed resistance. If it is assumed that the wedge capacity
remains unchanged by the preloading, then a 20 % increase in
total resistance may be interpreted as a 50 % increase in the
base shear component. This then implies an equivalent
increase in vertical and base-sliding capacity due to
consolidation, although further testing is required to confirm
this observation.
Combined Loading Traditional design of offshore
foundation systems subjected to combined loading (vertical,
lateral, moment) has largely relied on limit equilibrium
methods based on specific collapse mechanisms. This is
usually achieved using 2-dimensional idealisations with
allowance for side shear (Andersen et al24). In addition, finite
element and upper bound plasticity methods have also been
used (Bransby and Randolph25, Zdravkovic et al26).
Alternatively, experimental testing has been used to define
3-dimensional ‘yield envelopes’. Fig 26 shows an example of
a 3-dimensional yield envelope, deduced from model tests of a
spud-can footing on clay (Martin27). Similar functions have
been defined for spud-can footings in sand (Dean et al28).
Within the yield envelope behaviour is generally assumed to
be elastic, and the elastic-plastic response during and after
yield is often computed using an associated flow rule. A work
hardening function may also be used to link increase
penetration with increasing vertical capacity (and hence yield
envelope size).
However, unlike spud-can foundation, caisson foundations
exhibit both tension capacity and lateral capacity at V = 0, and
as such the yield envelope must be extended for V < 0. The
current study explored caisson response to combined vertical
and horizontal loading (under conditions of zero rotation) over
the full range of vertical load between tensile and bearing
failure.
The test program included ‘sideswipe’ tests (lateral
translation with fixed vertical displacement, Tan29) and
‘probe’ tests (lateral translation with constant vertical load).
Figs. 27 and 28 show typical yield envelopes deduced for the
caisson foundation in kaolin clay and calcareous silt. The
yield lateral capacity (H/Asuo) is a function of the vertical load
(V/VC). The yield envelope may be described using an
equation of the form
V 1 H (2)
  + =1
 VC  Γ Asuo
where Γ = (H/Asuo)max at V/VC = 0, A is the foundation area,
VC is the bearing capacity at H = 0 (equal to VT), suo is the soil
strength at touchdown skirt tip level and ∆ is a parameter
governing the shape of the envelope. For clay (Fig. 27), the
yield envelope is non-symmetrical about V = 0, associated
with the observation that tension capacity decreases with
increasing displacement, and ∆ = 2 for V < 0 and ∆ = 3.75 for
V ≥ 0. This contrasts with the response in calcareous silt
(Fig. 28), where the increasing tensile capacity with
5
displacement (due to dilation) results in a symmetrical yield
envelope with ∆ = 3.75 for both tension and compression.
Note that, as was the case for pure lateral loading, in silt the
lateral load increases beyond the yield envelope due to
dilation.
In addition to assessing the shape of the yield surface,
probe tests may be used to estimate displacement increments
at yield. These may then be compared with those derived
assuming associated flow, in order to assess the assumption of
normality. From tests conducted in calcareous silt, the relative
magnitudes of the displacement increments at failure, δv/δh,
are plotted in Fig. 29 as a function of the vertical load level.
Excellent agreement with normality is evident for both tension
and compression, suggesting a symmetrical yield envelope and
associated flow are appropriate in the calcareous silt.
Finally, testing was conducted to investigate the potential
for work hardening of the yield envelope due to increased
penetration. Fig. 30 illustrates the V-H response observed
during sideswipe testing at increasing penetration. Significant
work hardening occurs with increasing embedment.
Normalising the response using Vc and sutip reveals a constant
size and shape yield envelope, independent of embedment.
This contrasts with upper bound analysis (Fig. 24) , where it
was shown that H/Asutip increases with increasing skirt length.
This conflict may be attributed to an increase in the
displacement required to mobilise the ‘undisturbed’ lateral
resistance, associated with soil disturbance arising from
increased penetration. The implication from this is that the
normalised touchdown yield envelope, with both horizontal
and vertical load axes normalised by Vc, provides the best
prediction of combined loading capacity during work
hardening, although further research is required to confirm
this. Further discussion of the potential for work hardening is
given in Watson9.
Conclusions
This paper has described outcomes arising from an
experimental and numerical study of the performance of
caisson (or skirted) foundations for offshore structures. The
main conclusions from the results presented are:
1. Installation resistance of caisson foundations may be
accurately predicted using the conventional approach,
taking account of tip resistance and wall friction.
2. Caisson tests in materials with variable soil strength
indicate that bearing capacity is largely proportional to
the soil strength at skirt tip level, with only slight
increase in bearing capacity factor, Nc, with penetration.
3. Tensile tests indicate that the initial ‘touchdown’ tension
capacity is equivalent to the bearing capacity for both silt
and clay, suggesting the failure mode may be thought of
as ‘reverse’ bearing capacity. However, increasing
pullout displacement highlights significant differences
between tests in the two materials, which may be
attributed to the strain-softening and strain-hardening
nature of the clay and silt respectively.
4. Analysis of bearing capacity in normally consolidated
6 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY
soils must take into account the effects of soil non-
homogeneity and caisson embedment. Lower bound,
upper bound and finite element analyses have been
conducted for both smooth and rough-sided caisson
foundations, and good agreement has been shown
between the observed bearing response and finite
element solutions. The remoulded strength should be
used to predict tension capacity for tests conducted in
clay (as the caisson is displaced into disturbed material),
while for silt the solutions with the yield strength have
been shown to be conservative due to the beneficial
effects of dilation.
5. Good agreement between the observed lateral resistance
and capacity predicted by upper bound analysis has been
shown. However, in calcareous silt the resistance is seen
to increase beyond yield with increasing displacement
(due to dilation).
6. Consolidation due to the application of constant vertical
load has been shown to increase both the vertical and
base-shear capacity by about 50 %.
7. A yield envelope has been proposed for caisson
foundations in both kaolin clay and calcareous silt.
While a non-symmetrical (about V = 0) envelope is
proposed for kaolin clay, a symmetrical envelope appears
more appropriate from tests in calcareous silt. Probe
tests confirm the applicability of an associated flow rule.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the
other members of the Geomechanics Group at The University
of Western Australia. In particular, thanks go to Mr Don
Herley and Mr Mike McCarthy for their assistance in
developing and conducting the model tests, and to Dr Yuxia
Hu and Dr Chris Martin for their assistance in developing
numerical solutions. During his doctoral research, the first
author was supported by an FS Shaw Memorial Postgraduate
Scholarship, a Samaha Postgraduate Scholarship and an
Australian Postgraduate Award. The work described in this
paper forms part of the activities of the Special Research
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, established and
supported under the Australian Research Council’s Research
Centres program.
References
1. Tjelta, T.I., Aas, P.M. and Herstad, J.: “The skirt piled Gullfaks
C platform installation”, Proc. 22nd Annual Offshore Technology
Conf., Houston, Texas (1990), OTC 6473, 453-462.
2. Tjelta, T.I.: “Foundation behaviour at Gullfaks C”, Society for
Underwater Technology, Vol 28 : Offshore Site Investigation and
Foundation Behaviour (1993), 451-467.
3. Randolph, M.F., O’Neill, M.P., Stewart, D.P. and Erbrich, C.T.:
“Performance of suction anchors in fine grained calcareous
soils”, Proc. 1998 Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Texas
(1998), OTC 8831, 521-529.
4. Anderson, K.H., Dyvik, R. and Schroeder, K.: “Pullout capacity
analysis of suction anchors for tension leg platforms”, 6th Int.
Conf. Behaviour of Offshore Structures, London (1992).
5. Erbrich, C.T. and Tjelta, T.I.: “Installation of bucket
OTC 12195
foundations and suction caissons in sand – Geotechnical
performance”, Proc. 1999 Offshore Technology Conf., Houston,
Texas (1999), OTC 10990.
6. Aas, P.M. and Anderson, K.H.: “Skirted foundations for offshore
structures”, Proc. Offshore South East Asia Conf., Singapore
(1992), 1-8.
7. American Petroleum Institute: “Recommended practice for
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms –
working stress design”, API RP 2A-WSD (1993).
8. Det Norske Veritas: “Foundations”, Classification Notes 30.4
(1994).
9. Watson, P.G.: “Performance of skirted foundations for offshore
structures”, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia
(1999).
10. Randolph M.F., Jewell R.J., Stone K.J.L. and Brown T.A.:
“Establishing a new centrifuge facility”, Proc. Int. Conf. on
Centrifuge Modelling - Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado (1991),
3-9.
11. Colliat, J.L., Boisard, P., Andersen, K.H. and Schroeder, K.:
“Caisson foundations as alternative anchors for permanent
mooring of a process barge offshore Congo”, Proc. 27th Offshore
Technology Conf., Houston, Texas (1995), OTC 7797, 919-929.
12. Solhjell, E., Sparrevik, P., Haldorsen, K. and Karlsen, V.:
“Comparison and back calculation of penetration resistance from
suction anchor installation in soft to stiff clay at the Njord and
Visund Fields in the North Sea”, Offshore Site Investigation and
Foundation Behaviour ’98, Science and Underwater Technology,
London (1998), 325-349.
13. House, A., Randolph, M.F. and Borbas, M.E.: “Limiting aspect
ratio for suction caisson installation in clay”, Proc. 9th Int.
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference - ISOPE ’99, Brest,
France (1999), 676-683.
14. Tani, K and Craig, W.H.: “Bearing capacity of circular
foundations on soft clay of strength increasing with depth”, Soils
and Foundations (1995), 35(4), 21-35.
15. Houlsby, G.T. and Wroth, C.P.: “Direct solution of plasticity
problems in soils by the method of characteristics”, Proc. 4th Int
Conf Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Edmonton (1982),
1059-1071.
16. Kusakabe, O., Suzuki, H. and Nakase, A.: “An upper bound
calculation on bearing capacity of a circular footing on a non-
homogeneous clay”, Soils and Foundations (1986), 26(3), 143-
148.
17. Randolph, M.F.: “Modelling of offshore foundations - Part 1 :
Bearing capacity”, E H Davis Memorial Lecture, Australian
Geomechanics (1998), 33(2), 5-22.
18. Martin, C.M.: Personal communication (1999).
19. Hu, Y., Randolph, M.F. and Watson, P.G.: “Bearing response of
skirted foundations”, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE (1999), 924-935.
20. Keaveny, J.M., Hansen, S.B., Madshus, C. and Dyvik, R.:
“Horizontal capacity of large scale model anchors”, Proc. XIII
Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New
Delhi, India (1994), 677-680.
21. Tjelta, T.I.: “Geotechnical aspects of bucket foundations
replacing piles for the Europipe 16/11-E jacket”, Proc. 26nd
Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, Texas (1994), OTC
7379, 73-82.
22. Murff, J.D. and Hamilton, J.M.: “P-ultimate for undrained
analysis of laterally loaded piles”, J. of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE (1993), 119(1), 91-107.
23. Randolph, M.F., Watson, P.G. and Fahey, M.: “Site
characterisation and foundation design in soft sediments”, Proc.
OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS 7

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

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

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

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

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

Particle size (mm) Drainage 30 mm

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

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

σ1-σ3, kPa

Simple Pore pressure

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

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

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

Fig 2 Stress paths in triaxial compression, triaxial extension and

Extension pipe for
simple shear pore pressure transducer
SECTION AA

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

8 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

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

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

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

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

Nc = 7.5; α = 0.4
Depth, m

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

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

T o uc hdo wn
Depth (z), m

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

3 3
T ouchdown
5

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

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

Fig 11 Tension resistance

OTC 12195 COMBINED LATERAL AND VERTICAL LOADING OF CAISSON FOUNDATIONS 9

Actual prototype Simplified prototype

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

Caisson diameter (D) Caisson diameter (D)

Strength profile Strength

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

z, m z, m

Fig 12 Idealisation of the relationship between skirt length and

soil strength increasing with depth

Local failure mechanism

14 (d/D > 2.0)

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

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

2 (up p er b o und ) 12

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

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

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

consolidated soil
10 WATSON, RANDOLPH & BRANSBY OTC 12195

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

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

0.04 2 -0.15 -3

u, kPa
2

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

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

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

4
O bs erved Fig 19 Response to constant applied load

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

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

0

Normalised depth (z/D)

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

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

12
4
Depth (z), m

V T /A
10

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

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

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

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

Increase in lateral resistance

25 6 1.2

5 1
20
Large inc reas e 4 0.8

H/As uo
15 due to dila tio n

3 P relo ad = 0.4 V C ; 0.6

10 50 % c o ns o lidatio n

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

Direction of Direction of
Tension loading loading
Tension
crack crack

Soil Soil
Soil wedge
wedge wedge

Soil flow

Soil flow

External scoop Internal scoop

mechanism mechanism

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

skirt tip level skirt tip level

Fig 23 Upper bound collapse mechanisms (after Randolph et al

[3])

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

16

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

yield envelope
(α = 1) 3
8
H/As uo

4 2
S m o o th s ides
(α = 0)

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

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

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

1.5
Settlement
( δv > 0)
1

0.5 Observed
v/ h

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

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

0 0

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

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