Gourvenec, S. et al. (2009). Géotechnique 59, No. 6, 525–537 [doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.
00108]
Experimental study of uplift resistance of shallow skirted foundations in
clay under transient and sustained concentric loading
S . G O U RV E N E C , H . E . AC O S TA - M A RT I N E Z a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H
Wind, wave and current forces cause significant overturn-
ing loads to be transmitted to foundation systems of
fixed-bottom offshore structures, while buoyancy forces,
in conjunction with environmental loading, impart direct
tensile loads to foundations of floating facilities. Shallow
skirted foundations are a potentially attractive foundation
solution when overturning or tension loading is signifi-
cant, as suctions mobilised within the soil plug provide
tensile resistance. While passive suctions are maintained,
undrained reverse end bearing will govern failure provid-
ing enhanced uplift resistance compared with vented
pull-out of the foundation unit (with or without the soil
plug), governed by skirt/soil friction. Currently uncer-
tainty exists over the limiting ratio of skirt depth to
foundation diameter to mobilise undrained reverse end
bearing and the duration over which passive suctions can
be sustained. This paper reports results from beam
centrifuge tests investigating the response of shallow
skirted foundations in lightly over-consolidated clay to
concentric transient and sustained uplift.
KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; footings/foundations; model
tests; offshore engineering
INTRODUCTION
Skirted foundations, also referred to as bucket or plated
foundations, are steel or concrete foundations with a thin
circumferential skirt beneath the periphery that penetrates
the seabed confining a soil plug. Often an arrangement of
internal skirts will be provided to enhance the stiffness of
the foundation unit and ensure uniform deformation of the
soil plug down to the level of the skirt tip. Skirted founda-
tions usually refer to shallow foundations, with an embed-
ment ratio, that is skirt depth to foundation diameter ratio,
d/D, less than 2 (‘caisson’ is applied to similar foundations
with larger embedment to diameter aspect ratios, typically
between 3 and 8 (Andersen et al., 2005).
The benefit of skirted foundations over conventional em-
bedded foundations lies in their ability to resist uplift owing
to negative excess pore water pressure (i.e. suction) devel-
oped within the confined soil plug. If passive suctions can
be maintained, reverse end bearing will govern uplift resis-
tance. If negative excess pore water pressures dissipate, the
uplift resistance of the foundation will be reduced to the
weight of the foundation and the lesser of the sum of the
inner and outer skirt friction or the sum of the outer skirt
friction and the weight of the soil plug. Uncertainties regard-
Manuscript received 20 June 2007; revised manuscript accepted 30
October 2008. Published online ahead of print 18 February 2009.
Discussion on this paper is welcomed by the editor.
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The University of Western
Australia, Perth, Australia
525
Les forces du vent, des vagues et des courants détermi-
nent la transmission de charges de basculement significa-
tives sur des systèmes de fondations de structures
offshore à fond fixe, tandis que des forces de ascension-
nelles, conjointement avec des charges environnementales,
appliquent des efforts de tension directs sur les fonda-
tions d’installations flottantes. Les fondations à jupe peu
profondes sont des solutions potentiellement attrayantes
pour les fondations, en présence de charges de bascule-
ment et de traction significatives, car les forces d’aspira-
tion mobilisées au sein du bouchon de sol offrent une
résistance à la traction. Tant que les forces d’aspiration
passives se maintiennent, la résistance inverse à la pointe
non drainée déterminera la rupture, en présentant une
résistance supérieure au soulèvement par rapport à la
remontée aérée des fondations (avec ou sans bouchon de
sol), sous l’effet de la friction jupe/sol. On relève actuelle-
ment une certaine incertitude concernant le ratio limite
de la profondeur de la jupe sur le diamètre des fonda-
tions, pour mobiliser la résistance inverse à la pointe non
drainée et la durée de la période au cours de laquelle ces
forces d’aspiration passives peuvent être soutenues. La
présente communication présente des résultats de tests
centrifuges sur poutre effectués pour examiner la réac-
tion de fondations à jupe peu profondes, dans de l’argile
consolidée par précompression, aux remontées concentri-
ques transitoires et continues.
ing the uplift resistance of skirted foundations include
whether the undrained bearing capacity factor is similar in
tension and compression, the appropriate friction ratio to
define the proportion of undrained shear strength mobilised
for shaft friction and the relationship between the duration
of applied load and degradation of holding resistance.
The current paper presents results from beam centrifuge
tests on shallow skirted foundations of two embedment
ratios, founded in lightly over-consolidated clay and sub-
jected to both undrained and sustained concentric vertical
uplift. Results from six undrained uplift tests and 11 sus-
tained uplift tests following consolidation at varying stress
levels over varying durations are reported.
BACKGROUND
Classical theory suggests the undrained uplift ‘reverse’
end bearing capacity of a skirted foundation can be esti-
mated by
Vult ¼ Nc su A þ W 9 (1)
where Nc is a bearing capacity factor (accounting for foun-
dation shape and embedment), su is the undrained shear
strength of the soil, A is the cross-sectional area of the
foundation and W9 is the submerged weight of the founda-
tion. The weight of the soil plug effectively cancels out the
overburden term that is normally present in the classical
bearing capacity equation.
Embedment is conventionally accounted for by modifying
526 GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH
the bearing capacity factor for a surface foundation by a
depth factor, dc . Classical bearing capacity theory incorpo-
rates empirical and semi-empirical depth factors based on
undrained uniaxial compressive failure of a smooth-sided
circular foundation (Skempton, 1951; Brinch Hansen, 1970;
Vesic, 1975) although these are widely applied across a
range of foundation geometry and interface roughness. These
historical factors have recently been challenged by analytical
and numerical studies accounting explicitly for foundation
geometry, soil strength profile and foundation/soil interface
conditions (Martin & Randolph, 2001; Houlsby & Martin,
2003; Salgado et al., 2004; Edwards et al., 2005).
Despite refinement of undrained bearing capacity factors,
it is unclear whether similar factors are appropriate in
tension and compression. Experimental studies have investi-
gated undrained uplift capacity, although typically of deeper
skirted foundations (d/D . 2) and often at 1 g (e.g.
Fuglsang & Steensen-Bach, 1991; Steensen-Bach, 1992;
Puech et al., 1993; Clukey & Morrison, 1993; Rao et al.,
1997; Watson et al., 2000; Randolph & House, 2002; Luke
et al., 2005). Small-scale laboratory-floor tests are limited
by unrealistically low soil stresses relative to the shear
strength at foundation level for prototype conditions, a sig-
nificant limitation, particularly for problems involving uplift.
For the case of skirted foundations, low soil stresses allow a
tension crack to develop at skirt tip level leading to pull-out
of the soil plug rather than enabling reverse end bearing to
be mobilised.
Considering previous centrifuge studies investigating tran-
sient uplift of skirted foundations in clay, some report
reverse end bearing resistance very similar to that in com-
pression, while others report a reduced tensile resistance.
Puech et al. (1993) report centrifuge tests of skirted mud-
mats for temporary foundations (d/D ¼ 0.18) and propose
that for shallow skirted foundations in soft sediments in
significant water depths, reverse end bearing can be ex-
pected. Watson et al. (2000) report centrifuge tests of
shallow skirted foundations (d/D ¼ 0.5) in normally consoli-
dated kaolin in which tensile and compression capacities
were indistinguishable. In contrast Clukey & Morrison
(1993) report centrifuge tests of skirted foundations with
d/D ¼ 2, in normally consolidated clay, in which bearing
capacity factors in tension of about 80% that in compression
were observed. Bearing capacity in undrained uplift may be
less than that in compression, or the reduced end bearing
may be attributable to partial drainage and dissipation of
negative excess pore pressures during swelling of the soil in
uplift. Further investigation is required before firm conclu-
sions can be drawn.
The pull-out capacity of longer skirted caissons under
sustained loading has received some attention (e.g. Clukey
et al., 1995; Randolph & House, 2002; Clukey & Phillips,
2002; Clukey et al. 2004), although in all cases d/D > 2.
Both numerical analysis and centrifuge model tests have
shown that sustained loads may be maintained for years for
caisson foundations with large d/D. For example, Clukey et
al. (2004) considered suction caissons with length to dia-
meter aspect ratios between 3.9 and 7 in Gulf of Mexico
soft clay and report negligible reduction in capacity for
holding times of up to 100 days, while sustained loads
between 65% and 75% of the undrained capacity were held
indefinitely with only minimal displacements.
Sustained pull-out of shorter skirted foundations has not
been considered previously, although it is arguably more
critical with shorter drainage path lengths leading to more
rapid dissipation of suctions.
In general there is uncertainty over, and no formal gui-
dance regarding, the timescale for which tensile stresses can
be sustained beneath a skirted foundation. Although guide-
lines acknowledge that temporary suctions caused by dy-
namic loads may allow greater capacities to be mobilised,
because the effect is temporary they advise it should not be
accounted for in design unless substantiated by appropriate
analysis or experimentation.
The results reported in this paper provide quantitative data
concerning the response of shallow skirted foundations under
transient and sustained uplift as a function of embedment
ratio, stress level and duration of consolidation prior to
uplift, and the magnitude and duration of applied uplift. A
selection of preliminary results from some of the tests has
been previously reported by Gourvenec et al. (2007).
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
Apparatus
The tests were carried out in the beam centrifuge at the
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems at the University of
Western Australia (COFS-UWA), which has a nominal
radius of 1.8 m (Randolph et al., 1991). The strongbox has
dimensions 0.650 m by 0.390 m in plan and 0.325 m deep
with a maximum payload of 200 kg at 200 g. The tests
reported in this paper were carried out at 167 g providing a
testing area in excess of 7000 m2 .
Two shallow skirted foundation models were fabricated
with skirt depth to foundation diameter ratios d/D ¼ 0.15
and 0.3. In each case, the base plate was fabricated from
aluminium to minimise the weight of the foundation and the
skirts and stiffeners were fabricated from stainless steel to
prevent buckling. The models comprised a circular plate
equipped with a peripheral skirt and internal cruciform
stiffener (to a level flush with the peripheral skirt). The skirt
thickness to foundation diameter ratio of t/D ¼ 0.01 was
chosen as a compromise between typical ratios of ,0.005
for skirted foundations employed in the field (Randolph et
al., 2005; Bye et al., 1995), and practical fabrication limits
for the models. The foundation models were left unfinished
(i.e. not painted) and therefore would be expected to be
partially rough, with an interface friction angle of about 188
(Chen & Randolph, 2007).
The four compartments formed by the internal stiffener
were connected by a small hole at the cross-over to allow
for drainage during installation through a single vent in the
base plate. Details of the foundation geometry at model and
prototype scale are summarised in Table 1.
Instrumentation
The models were equipped with total pressure and pore
pressure measurement instrumentation to monitor conditions
under the base plate, along the skirt and at foundation level.
A schematic of the models indicating the position of the
instrumentation is shown in Fig. 1.
Two miniature pore pressure transducers (PPT) were en-
cased in a housing attached to the cruciform stiffener to
provide pore pressure measurements at skirt tip level. The
incorporation of transducers into the model has some short-
Table 1. Foundation geometry
Model: m Prototype: m
Plate diameter D 0.12 20
Plate thickness 0.005 0.835
Skirt depth d 0.018 3.0
0.036 6.0
Skirt thickness t 0.0012 0.20
Stiffener thickness 0.0009 0.15
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY 527
gradual loss of uplift capacity and to detect differences in
Stiffener
pore water pressure dissipation under eccentric uplift,
TPT-lid planned in a future set of tests.
Diametrically opposed pairs of total pressure transducers
(TPTs) were set into the external face of the peripheral skirt
to monitor variations of total radial stress acting against the
skirt. The external face of the TPT was set flush with the
external face of the skirt. A single pair of TPTs was
Drainage PPT-lid mounted on the shorter skirted model (d/D ¼ 0.15) and two
valve
levels (on the same diametric section) were mounted on the
longer skirted model (d/D ¼ 0.3). The upper level of TPTs
20 m on the longer skirted model was positioned at the same
distance below the base plate as the TPTs on the shorter
(a) skirted model.
A PPT and TPT were set into the underside of the
0·83 foundation base plate. The PPT was positioned to identify
See detail (c) excess pore pressures within the skirted cavity during instal-
Drainage Inter-cell PPT-lidTPT-lid lation in order to ascertain if drainage was able to take place
valve drainage sufficiently quickly. The TPT acted as a backup for pore
(b) pressure measurements prior to touchdown of the base plate,
to assess when contact between the soil and base plate
occurred during installation and if separation occurred dur-
Model d/D ⫽ 0·15 Model d/D ⫽ 0·30 ing transient or sustained uplift.

2·0 m 3·0 m
TPT 1·0 m Load and displacement application and measurement
2·5 m 6·0 m
TPT The models were attached by a rigid arm to a one-
1·5 m dimensional actuator allowing load or displacement control
t ⫽ 0·2 m
via a 3 kN load cell and a 25 mm stroke linear displacement
(c) transducer (LDT). Load or displacement control was
achieved with a software feedback loop using output from
the load cell or LDT from data recorded at a typical
frequency of 10 Hz during testing.
Drainage PPT-lid
valve
PPTs at skirt
tip level
Soil sample
(in housing) The tests were carried out in a lightly over-consolidated
kaolin clay prepared from slurry in a consolidation press at
1 g. The sample was incrementally loaded to a maximum
Stiffener TPT-lid vertical stress of 150 kPa over 11 days, held for a maximum
of 4 days to avoid viscous, creep and secondary compression
Inter-cell drainage effects, and subsequently incrementally unloaded to 40 kPa
over a further 4 days. The sample was then moved to the
Dimensions given for equivalent prototype foundation centrifuge and reconsolidated at 167 g with an average
(d) 0.17 m head of surface water, producing a total stress of
280 kPa on the soil surface serving as backpressure for
Fig. 1. Foundation geometry and location of model instrumenta- negative increments in pore pressure, sufficient to prevent
tion: (a) plan view—top; (b) elevation; (c) skirt details; (d) plan
view—base
cavitation. The surface water level was maintained constant
during the testing by way of a hose to compensate for
evaporation effects. Test results are reported in terms of
comings, particularly remoulding soil within the plug owing excess pressures (i.e. the hydrostatic pressure has been
to local failure around the housing during installation. It deducted from the measured pressure) such that the reported
was, however, considered more reliable to attach the transdu- results are independent of the head of surface water.
cers to the model than trying to pre-embed transducers One-dimensional consolidation tests in a standard oed-
within the body of the soil. The latter is a complex process ometer were carried out as part of this study to accompany
when preparing samples from slurry and moreover when the centrifuge tests. The samples were prepared from the
several tests are carried out at different sites and different same material used for the centrifuge sample and consoli-
elevations in the same strong box. The main purposes of dated to the same maximum stress level. The findings of the
PPTs at tip level were to provide information about the oedometer tests are summarised in Table 2. The mechanical

Table 2. Kaolin properties

Bulk unit weight ª: kN/m3 16.5

Initial void ratio e0 (at
v9 ¼ 1 kPa)
Coefficient of compression Cc (˜e/˜log10
v9 )
1D modulus E9o (MPa) (¼ ˜
v9 /˜v )
Coefficient of consolidation cv : m2 /year
Coefficient of permeability k: m/s
1.267
0.47
Varying between 1.2 in the OC range to 7.5 in the NC range (i.e.
v9 . 150 kPa)
1–4 over 0 ,
v9 kPa , 200
1.1310
10
5.1310
9 (assuming constant E9o ¼ 7.5 MPa)
528
properties identified in these tests are similar to those
previously reported for the kaolin used at COFS-UWA
(Stewart, 1992; Chen, 2005)
The shear strength profile of the centrifuge samples was
measured in-flight with a T-bar penetrometer (Stewart &
Randolph, 1991). The tests were carried out at a rate of
1 mm/s to ensure undrained conditions. In terms of the
dimensionless velocity group v ¼ vL/cv , where v is the
velocity of T-bar penetration, L is the appropriate length
dimension of the drainage path and cv is a representative
value of the coefficient of consolidation, a value above 30
indicates undrained behaviour dominates (, 0.1 corresponds
to drained conditions) (Finnie & Randolph, 1994; Randolph
& Hope, 2004). Taking the drainage path length as the T-bar
diameter, DT-bar ¼ 0.005 m, and a representative value of the
coefficient of consolidation cv(av) ¼ 2.6 m2 /year, based on the
vertical stress at skirt tip level, gives a dimensionless
velocity v of 60.
T-bar tests were carried out across the sample and periodi-
cally over the duration of the testing programme to verify
the samples were uniform and fully consolidated. Shear
strength profiles derived from the T-bar tests are shown in
Fig. 2. The shear strength profiles were calculated based on
a constant T-bar factor, NT-bar ¼ 10.5 (Stewart & Randolph,
1994) although a slightly lower T-bar factor would be
anticipated near the surface where full flow around is not
established (Barbosa-Cruz & Randolph, 2005).
The ratio of undrained shear strength to effective over-
burden (su =
v90 ) has been related to the over-consolidation
ratio (OCR) theoretically (Wroth, 1984) and experimentally
(Ladd, 1991) leading to the expression


  m
su su
v9m
¼  ¼ a  OCR m (2)

v90 OC
v90 NC
v9 0
where
v90 is the effective vertical stress,
v9m is the pre-
consolidation stress and a and m are constants. a refers to
the strength ratio for a normally consolidated profile and m
determines the rate of increase in strength ratio with OCR.
For the conditions in these tests (
v9m ¼ 150 kPa), a factor
of a ¼ 0.185 and exponent m ¼ 0.7 provide a good fit to the
measured shear strength data. These constants are similar to
those identified in previous tests in kaolin at COFS-UWA
and to reported ranges for natural clays of 0.17 , a , 0.24
and 0.65 , m , 0.80 (Mayne & Kulhawy, 1982; Stewart,
Undrained shear strength, su: kPa
0 4 8 12
0 indicating partial consolidation during installation in the
2 DT-bar
2 egress during penetration. Once installation was completed the
Model 1
4 installation load to allow dissipation of the excess pore pres-
Level of d/D ⫽ 0·15
Prototype depth, z: m
skirt tip Model 2
d/D ⫽ 0·30
6 that near-complete primary (re)consolidation was achieved
Box # 1
8
Box # 2
a ⫽ 0·185
10
m ⫽ 0·7
σ ⬘vm ⫽ 150 kPa
12 σ⬘v0 ⫽ γ⬘z
γ⬘ ⫽ 6·5 kN/m 3
14
Fig. 2. Shear strength profile from T-bar tests
GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH
1992; Chen, 2005). Values towards the lower end of the
range are expected for remoulded and/or artificial materials
(Mayne 2001) as is the case with the kaolin clay reported
here.
The undrained shear strength profile derived from the
measured T-bar resistance falls below the profile predicted
by equation (2) for depths up to approximately two T-bar
diameters (DT-bar ). The apparent under-prediction is likely
attributable to the constant T-bar factor (NT-bar ¼ 10.5)
adopted in the derivation of the undrained shear strength.
Comparing the shear strength profiles predicted by equation
(2) and by the T-bar suggests the T-bar factor increases from
around 6.3 at a depth of 0.5DT-bar to 10.5 at a depth equal to
2DT-bar.
Testing programme
The testing programme consisted of six undrained uplift
tests and 11 sustained uplift tests at eight sites over two
samples. The shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15, was
tested in the first sample, box 1 (B1) at five sites, over a
period of ten days. The longer skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3,
was tested in the second sample, box 2 (B2) at three sites
over a period of 12 days. Each test involved jacked, vented
installation in-flight followed by a period of reconsolidation
at constant vertical stress prior to undrained and/or sustained
concentric uplift. The programme of testing is summarised
in Table 3. Stress and displacement time histories are
illustrated in Fig. 3 during (a) installation, (b) consolidation
following installation and (c) sustained uplift for test B2T1.
The foundation models were installed at a constant rate of
displacement v ¼ 0.1 mm/s. The rate of installation was
chosen to allow precise control over the procedure (which
took place over several minutes) and was not intended to
represent field conditions. The installation rate of 0.1 mm/s
in the centrifuge corresponds to installation times of two and
four months at prototype scale for the foundations with
embedment ratios d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0.3 respectively. Installa-
tion in the field may take place over several hours, corre-
sponding to only one or two seconds in the centrifuge.
Taking a representative coefficient of consolidation,
cv(av) ¼ 2.6 m2 /year, and representative drainage path length
as the diameter of the foundation, the installation rate
corresponds to a dimensionless velocity v ¼ vD/cv ¼ 145,
indicating undrained conditions with respect to the entire
foundation. Taking the representative drainage path length as
the average thickness of the tip bearing area of the skirt and
stiffener, t, gives a dimensionless velocity v ¼ vt/cv ,1,
16 20 24 28
su ⬇ σ⬘v0a[σ⬘vm / σ⬘v0 ] m vicinity of the skirts (Finnie & Randolph, 1994).
The base plate was vented during installation to allow water
base plate was sealed while the foundation was held at the final
sures generated during installation. Observations of settlement
of the foundation during this reconsolidation period ensured
following installation in each test (as shown by the time–
settlement relationship illustrated in Fig. 3(b)). Settlement of
the foundation reached an almost steady state within fifty
years, or expressed in terms of a dimensionless time factor
T ¼ cv t/D2 , 0.325, based on a representative coefficient of
consolidation cv(av) ¼ 2.6 m2 /year. Following the period of
reconsolidation the uplift resistance of the foundation was
investigated under transient and/or sustained loading.
Undrained uplift tests were displacement controlled at a
constant rate v ¼ 0.1 mm/s, ensuring undrained conditions
with respect to the entire foundation (v ¼ vD/cv ¼ 145,
where D is the foundation diameter), while local drainage
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY 529

Stress: kPa
Table 3. Testing programme
20 Touch-down
Reference Test sequence (skirt tip)
40 Touch-down
Box 1; d/D ¼ 0.15 (base plate)
60

B1T1 Undrained (to w/D ¼ 0.02) 0 1 2 3 4 5

B1T2_1 Sustained 0.6Vu

Tip penetration: m
0
# tc ¼ 0
B1T2_2 Sustained 0.3Vu 2 Touch-down
# tc ¼ 0
B1T2_3 Sustained 0.3Vu 4 Penetration rate:
B1T3_1 Sustained 0.6Vu vmodel ⫽ 0·1 mm/s
# tc ¼ 4 h (12.7 y) 6
B1T3_2 Sustained 0.3Vu 0 1 2 3 4 5
B1T4 (Consolidation stress , 2Q) Prototype time, tp: months
Undrained (to UC) (a)
B1T5_1 Undrained (to w/D ¼ 0.02) 40
# tc ¼ 16.0 h (50.9 y)
Sustained 0.3Vu

Stress: kPa
B1T5_2 45
# tc ¼ 5.5 h (17.5 y)
50
B1T5_3 Sustained 0.1Vu
55
Box 2; d/D ¼ 0.3
60
B2T1_1 Undrained (to w/D ¼ 0.02) 0 10 20 30 40 50
5·7
# tc ¼ 5 h (15.9 y)
Tip penetration: m

B2T1_2 Sustained 0.3Vu 5·8

# tc ¼ 14 h (44.6 y) Consolidation
5·9
B2T1_3 Sustained 0.6Vu settlement
B2T2 Undrained (to UC) 6·0
B2T3_1 (Consolidation stress , 2Q)
Sustained 0.3Vu 6·1
B2T3_2 # tc ¼ 16 h (50.9 y) 0 10 20 30 40 50
Sustained 0.6Vu Prototype time, tp: years
B2T3 # tc ¼ 6.7 h (21.3 y) (b)
Undrained (to UC)
⫺60
⫺40
B ¼ Box reference, T ¼ test reference, tc ¼ consolidation time
Stress: kPa

⫺20 0·3 Vu
(h ¼ hours, y ¼ years), Vu ¼ uplift resistance mobilised at w/D ¼
0.02, w/D ¼ relative uplift displacement, UC ¼ ultimate capacity, 0
consolidation stress , Q unless otherwise stated, Q ¼ installation 20 Reconsolidation
resistance 40
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
5·0
Tip penetration: m

was likely in the vicinity of the skirt tips and stiffener
(v ¼ vt/cv , 1, taking t as the average thickness of the tip
bearing area of the skirt and stiffener), as described above
for installation.
Six undrained uplift tests were carried out; three with the
shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15 (prefixed B1: B1T1,
B1T4 and B1T5) and three with the longer skirted founda-
tion, d/D ¼ 0.3 (prefixed B2: B2T1, B2T2 and B2T3). Three
tests (B1T1, B1T5 and B2T1) were limited to a relative
vertical displacement w/D ¼ 0.02, in order to protect the site
to enable subsequent sustained load tests. The remaining
three undrained uplift tests (B1T4, B2T2 and B2T3) were
continued to larger displacement to investigate ultimate up-
lift capacity.
Sustained uplift was applied through load control, by
imposing a selected proportion of the undrained uplift
resistance mobilised at the limiting displacement criterion
w/D ¼ 0.02.
Sequences of tests were carried out at a single site to
optimise the testing programme. Consecutive uplift tests
were carried out immediately following a previous uplift
test, immediately following reinstallation or (more typically)
following reinstallation and a period of reconsolidation
sufficient to achieve a relatively steady state. Periods of
intermediate consolidation varied from 12 years to 50 years
(as seen in Table 3), or in terms of the dimensionless time
5·1
5·2
5·3
5·4 Tip level at end of reconsolidation
following preceding undrained uplift
5·5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Prototype time, tp: months
(c)
Fig. 3. Time histories for: (a) installation; (b) consolidation
following installation; (c) sustained uplift (test B2T1)
factor, 0.083 , T , 0.325. In selected cases, consecutive up-
lift tests were carried out without an intermediate period of
reconsolidation in order to assess the effect of the degree of
consolidation on uplift resistance.
Reinstallation between consecutive tests was achieved
through load control to the original installation load, noting
that in most cases the foundation did not return to the embed-
ment depth prior to the preceding test due to swelling of the
soil during the initial uplift, therefore the embedded depth of
the foundation was slightly reduced in subsequent tests (as
seen in Fig. 3(c)). Reinstallation took place with the base plate
sealed since displacements were small (w/D < 0.02).
530
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Installation response
Figure 4 shows installation resistance measured by the
load cell and excess pore pressures measured by the PPTs at
skirt tip level. The load cell measurement, Q, has been
divided by the plan area of the foundation, A, to give
installation resistance in terms of stress. Touchdown of the
foundation base plate, at a relative embedment z/D is evident
from the rapid increase in the load cell and PPT readings.
One of the tests with the longer skirted foundation was
loaded some way beyond touchdown to achieve a higher
consolidation pressure, indicated by the longer tail of the
curve in Fig. 4 (test B2T3, see Table 3). The final installa-
tion load was maintained during the subsequent consolida-
tion stage and was re-established for periods of intermediate
reconsolidation between consecutive tests carried out at the
same site.
Installation data for one of the tests on the shorter skirted
foundation, test B1T4, is not shown as accidental dynamic
installation occurred after the thread connection of the
model with the actuator sheared in-flight. As a result con-
solidation took place under the submerged weight of the
model, equal to approximately twice the consolidation pres-
sure in the other tests with the shorter skirted foundation,
B1T1 and B1T5.
Installation of the foundations was accompanied by 1 or
2 mm plug heave occurring with the shorter and longer
skirted foundations respectively (i.e. corresponding to em-
bedment of ,95% of the total skirt length). An exception
was observed in one of the tests with the shorter skirted
foundation, test B1T5, in which 2 mm of plug heave was
observed, corresponding to embedment of ,90% of the total
skirt length. The internal stiffeners and PPT casings repre-
sent about 3.5% of the internal area of the foundation, while
the skirt represents about 4%. Assuming for these short
skirts that the wall thickness is accommodated equally by
inward and outward flow of the soil (Chen & Randolph,
2007), a heave ratio [(portion of volume of caisson wall
accommodated by flow into the plug + volume of stiffener
and internal protuberances)/volume previously occupied by
soil] of around 5% would be expected. The lower embed-
ment achieved in test B1T5 may reflect more localised heave
in the vicinity of the PPT casings.
Considering the installation resistance defined by the load
cell data, good repeatability was observed during installa-
tion. The slightly higher installation resistance for the longer
skirted foundation for relative embedment z/D < 0.15 corre-
sponds to the higher undrained shear strength in box 2 (see
Fig. 2).
The installation resistance of a skirted foundation can be
Installation resistance (Q/A) and excess pore pressure (∆u): kPa
0 20 40 60 80
0·00
Normalised embedment, z/D
0·05
0·10
Load cell
0·15
0·20
End of B2T1 &
0·25 B2T2
0·30
Fig. 4. Installation resistance and excess pore pressure at skirt
tip level during installation
GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH
predicted from the sum of tip bearing and skirt friction
through the simple relationship
 
Q ¼ Nc(tip) su(tip) þ ª9z Atip þ Æ  su(av) Asurface (3)
where Nc(tip) is a bearing capacity factor for tip resistance,
su(tip) and su(av) are respectively the undrained shear strength
at tip level and averaged over the embedment depth and Æ is
a friction ratio defining the limiting friction along the skirt/
soil interface as a proportion of the shear strength of the soil
mass. Atip is the sum of the skirt and stiffener end bearing
area and Asurface is the sum of the surface areas of the inner
and outer skirt and stiffener.
For undrained conditions a bearing capacity factor for tip
resistance Nc(tip) ¼ 7.5 is commonly adopted, based on analo-
gous conditions of a deeply embedded strip (Randolph et
al., 2005; Andersen et al., 2005). Owing to the low rate of
installation in the centrifuge tests, v ,1, partial consolida-
tion in the vicinity of the skirt tips would be expected to
lead to increased tip resistance. Randolph & Hope (2004)
indicate doubling of resistance for a normalised velocity
v ¼ vt/cv ,1.
The undrained shear strength at skirt tip level su(tip) was
14.5 kPa for the tests with the shorter skirted foundation, d/
D ¼ 0.15, in box 1 and 20.0 kPa for the tests with the longer
skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3 in box 2 (Fig. 2). The average
undrained shear strength over the depth of the skirts, su(av)
was 11.5 kPa and 14.2 kPa for d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0.3 respec-
tively, determined from the integral of equation (2)
ð z¼d

v90 að
v9m =
v90 Þ m dz
su(av) ¼ z¼0 (4)
d
Comparing the observed profile of the measured installation
resistance prior to touchdown of the base plate with equation
(3) indicates an interface friction ratio Æ,0.3, similar to that
reported by Chen (2005) for partially drained conditions and
a lightly over-consolidated kaolin clay.
Installation resistance of 18 and 36 kPa was measured just
before contact of the base plate for the foundations with
embedment ratios d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0.30 respectively.
Excess pore pressures measured with the PPTs at skirt tip
level are also shown in Fig. 4. Readings from the two
sensors during each test were consistent, although it is
noteworthy that they were around four times greater than the
average installation resistance indicated by the load cell. It
is likely that the measured pore pressures relate to a local
bearing failure around the housing of the PPTs.
Changes in total vertical stress and excess pore water
pressures during installation, measured by the TPT and PPT
located on the underside of the base plate, are shown in Fig.
5. Excess pore water pressures were not developed beneath
100 120 140
0
the base plate during penetration of the skirts, indicating that
drainage provision in the model was adequate. Both sensors
indicated touchdown of the baseplate with a rapid increase
1
Prototype embedment, z: m
PPTs at skirt tip in pressure. The PPT always recorded contact with the soil
2
surface slightly after the TPT as the PPT was slightly
recessed (0.001 m) into the underside of the base plate while
3 the TPT was flush with the underside of the base plate (see
Fig. 1(b)). Termination of the PPT and TPT curves in Fig. 5
4 corresponds to the same point in time, with the higher final
contact stress recorded by the TPT owing to the additional
5 increment of embedment.
Figure 6 shows the total radial stress measured during
6 installation by the TPTs located along the skirt. The changes
in gradient correspond to the change in surrounding media
from water to soil adjacent to the mid-point of the sensor.
Similar readings were observed in all tests and the similarity
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY 531
Change in total vertical stress (∆σv) and excess pore
pressure (∆u): kPa tests with the shorter skirted foundation (prefixed B1: B1T1,
0 20 40 60 80 100 B1T4 and B1T5) and three tests with the longer skirted
0·00 0 foundation (prefixed B2: B2T1, B2T2 and B2T3) are shown.
The inset shows a detailed view of the load–displacement
response up to a relative displacement w/D ¼ 0.02, the
Normalised embedment, z/D

0·05 1

Prototype embedment, z: m
prescribed limiting displacement criterion for tests that were
0·10 d/D ⫽ 0·15 TPT-lid 2 not continued to mobilisation of ultimate capacity.
The shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15, appeared to be
0·15 PPT-lid 3 close to ultimate capacity by a relative displacement
w/D ¼ 0.02 (tests B1T1, B1T4 and B1T5), while by contrast
0·20 4 the longer skirted foundation was still developing resistance
d/D ⫽ 0·30 at w/D ¼ 0.02 (tests B2T1, B2T2 and B2T3), reaching
0·25 TPT-lid 5 ultimate capacity at a relative displacement of around
w/D ¼ 0.1.
0·30 PPT-lid 6 Greater uplift resistance was achieved with the longer
skirted foundation as would be expected. Following consoli-
Fig. 5. Changes in total stress and excess pore pressure beneath dation at a stress level close to the installation resistance, a
top cap during installation doubling of the skirt depth to diameter ratio from d/D ¼
0.15 to 0.3 led to a 150% increase in uplift resistance
Change in total radial stress, ∆σt: kPa mobilised at a relative displacement w/D ¼ 0.02 (comparing
⫺5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 B1T1 and B1T5 with B2T1 and B2T2) or a 250% increase
0·00
d/D ⫽ 0.15
0 comparing ultimate capacity (B1T1 and B2T2).
d/D
0·15 The magnitude of the consolidation stress appeared to have
Normalised embedment, z/D

TPTupper
Prototype embedment, z: m

0·05 0·30 1 a significant effect on the ultimate uplift resistance of the

0·10
0·15
0·20
0·25
0·30
Fig. 6. Radial stresses on skirts during installation
of readings from the diametrically opposed pairs of sensors
confirmed the verticality of the foundation during installa-
tion. The magnitude of total radial stress following installa-
tion falls within the range expected from semi-empirical and
theoretical calculations, for example, the NGI method
(Andersen & Jostad, 2002), or cavity expansion formulations
such as proposed by Randolph (2003) respectively.
Undrained uplift response
Figure 7 shows the undrained uplift resistance measured
by the load cell plotted against relative uplift displacement
w/D. Uplift resistance has been taken as the load cell
reading, divided by the plan area of the foundation. Three
⫺10
shorter skirted foundation, with a two-fold increase in con-
d/D ⫽ 0.30 2 solidation stress leading to more than a two-fold increase in
TPTupper uplift capacity (comparing B1T1 or B1T5 with B1T4). The
TPTlower 3
effect of the magnitude of consolidation stress appeared to be
less significant for the longer skirted foundation with a two-
4
fold increase in consolidation stress leading to only an 8%
increase in ultimate capacity (comparing B2T2 with B2T3).
5
Test B2T3 was carried out following a sequence of sustained
6
load tests which may have softened the soil, whereas the
other undrained uplift tests were carried out in virgin sites
(see Table 3). The dynamic installation in test B1T4 may
also have affected the subsequent uplift resistance.
In terms of bearing capacity factor Nc ¼ Vu /Asu(tip) , taking
the undrained shear strength at skirt tip level
su(tip) ¼ 14.5 kPa for the shorter skirted foundation, d/D
¼ 0.15, from box 1 and 20.0 kPa for the longer skirted
foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3, from box 2 (see Fig. 2), gives
Nc ¼ 3.60 and 8.90 for the foundations with d/D ¼ 0.15 and
0.3 respectively.
It is interesting to compare the bearing capacity factors
derived from the centrifuge tests with available theoretical
solutions for bearing capacity factors. Houlsby & Martin
(2003) present bearing capacity factors calculated by the
method of characteristics for rigid circular foundations with
smooth sides and a rough base that are relevant for compari-
son with this study. Houlsby & Martin (2003) also present
bearing capacity factors for intermediate base roughness,
although a rough interface is most appropriate for the soil/soil
interface across the base of a skirted foundation. In the
⫺2·0 theoretical solutions, the soil was assumed to be weightless
Prototype uplift displacement, w: m

B2T2 ⫺2·0 0·4

⫺9 B1T5 and with yield determined by the Tresca criterion. The soil
⫺1·6
Uplift displacement, w/D: %

⫺8 B1T1 0·3 ⫺1·6 was taken to be isotropic, but both homogeneous and hetero-
B1T4 ⫺1·2
geneous soil strength profiles were considered. For the hetero-
⫺7 0·2
B1T4
⫺6
⫺0·8
B2T2 ⫺1·2 geneous conditions, the undrained shear strength, su , was
⫺5
⫺0·4
B2T1
B2T3
0·1
defined as varying linearly with depth in terms of a hetero-
0·0 0·0 geneity coefficient kD/sum , where k is the gradient of the
⫺4 ⫺0·8
⫺160⫺120 ⫺80 ⫺40 0 40 80 120 undrained shear strength profile, D is the diameter of the
⫺3 foundation and sum is the undrained shear strength at the
B2T3 Uplift d/D
⫺2 B1T5 0·15 ⫺0·4 mudline. For the conditions in this study, the heterogeneity
B1T1 0·30
⫺1 End of B2T1 B2T3
coefficient lies in the region of 4 to 5 (taking sum , 8 kPa, k
0 0·0 in the range , 2 kPa/m close to the surface, reducing to ,
⫺200 ⫺150 ⫺100 ⫺50 0 50 100 1.5 kPa/m for 0.15 , z/D , 0.3 and D ¼ 20 m), giving Nc ,
Uplift resistance, Vu/A: kPa 8 to 8.5 for both the foundation embedment ratios considered
(a similar Nc is to be expected given the relatively shallow
Fig. 7. Undrained uplift resistance embedment ratio of both foundations). Assuming uniform
532 GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH
undrained soil strength with depth (i.e. kD/sum ¼ 0), a lower the applied load carried by friction along the skirts, which is
bearing capacity factor, Nc , 6.5, is predicted, although as up to 30% in some tests. The point of separation between
for the heterogenous condition, a similar value is predicted the soil plug and the underside of the base plate was clear
over the range of foundation embedment ratios considered in in Test B1T1 with no further increase in pressure observed
this study. The theoretical bearing capacity predictions may
be expected to lie on the low side given the assumption of
frictionless skirts in contrast to the partial roughness of the
skirts of the physical models.
Comparing the bearing capacity factors from the measured
uplift resistance from the centrifuge tests with the theoretical
predictions indicates the ultimate measured capacity of the
shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15, was less than 50% of
the theoretical end bearing capacity, while the longer skirted
foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3, mobilised full (theoretical) reverse
end bearing capacity.
Recent tests at COFS-UWA indicated a bearing capacity
factor in compression Nc , 13 for d/D ¼ 0.3 under similar
conditions as this series of tests (Acosta-Martinez et al.,
2008). Comparing with the bearing capacity factor in uplift
from this study, Nc , 8.9, indicates undrained uplift capacity
of approximately 70% of the compression capacity was
mobilised (similar to observations reported by Clukey &
Morrison (1993)). It is noteworthy that the experimental
bearing capacity in compression is around 60% greater than
the theoretical prediction (Houlsby & Martin, 2003), high-
lighting the degree of influence of the soil strength profile
(a)
and skirt interface roughness on bearing capacity. Experi-
mental results are not available for the shorter skirted
foundation, but if a similar bearing capacity factor as ob-
served for the longer skirted foundation is assumed (as
indicated by the theoretical bearing capacity factors), ulti-
mate resistance measured in uplift with the shorter skirted
foundation was possibly as low as 30% of the compressive
end bearing capacity.
Examination of the soil surface after testing indicated local
shear governed failure of the shorter skirted foundation, d/D
¼ 0.15, with cracking observed near the skirt, , 0.1D–0.15D
from the perimeter, and concentrated on the side of the PPT
housings. Conversely, a reverse end bearing mechanism was
evident for the longer skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3, with the
soil plug proud of the surface and a circumferential crack ,
0.3D–0.4D from the footprint. Photographs of the observed
mechanisms are shown in Fig. 8.
Figure 9 shows excess pore pressures measured by the
PPTs at skirt tip level plotted against relative uplift displace-
(b)
ment. The load paths begin at a state of almost zero excess
pore pressure, indicating the duration of consolidation was Fig. 8. Failure modes observed in undrained uplift: (a) local
sufficient for full dissipation of excess pore pressures devel- shear mechanism; d/D 0.15 (test B1T1); (b) reverse end
oped during installation (Fig. 4). During uplift the two bearing mechanism; d/D 0.30 (test B2T1)
sensors recorded consistent values in each test other than in
B2T3 where some instability was observed in one of the
sensors. The PPT readings suggested higher uplift resistance ⫺10 ⫺2·0
⫺2·0 ⫺0·4
Prototype uplift displacement, w: m

B2T1
than indicated by the load cell readings, and as noted with ⫺9 B3T4
B3T4 ⫺1·5 ⫺0·3
Uplift displacement, w/D: %

respect to the installation response, it is likely that during ⫺8 B1T5 ⫺1·6

uplift the excess pore pressures measured at skirt tip level ⫺7
⫺1·0 B2T3 ⫺0·2

relate to a local failure around the housing and not the B2T3 ⫺0·5 ⫺0·1
⫺1·2
⫺6
global behaviour of the foundation. (The PPTs at skirt tip B1T1
⫺5 0·0 0·0
level were damaged during the accidental dynamic installa- ⫺400 ⫺300 ⫺200 ⫺100 0
tion and no data were available for test B1T4.) ⫺4 ∆u from pairs of ⫺0·8
Figure 10 shows excess pore pressures and change in total ⫺3 B1T1 PPTs at skirt tip
B2T1
vertical stress from the PPTs and TPTs located beneath the ⫺2 ⫺0·4
d/D B1T5
base plate during undrained uplift. During all tests a gradual ⫺1 0·15
drawing in of water into the cavity occurred from the start 0
0·30
0·0
of the test and the PPT and TPT readings are similar.
⫺450 ⫺350 ⫺250 ⫺150 ⫺50 50
Some excess pore pressure was present under the base ⫺400 ⫺300 ⫺200 ⫺100 0
plate at the start of uplift, particularly when consolidation
Excess pore pressure, ∆u: kPa
had taken place at higher stress levels. Comparing the TPT
measurements beneath the base plate with the load cell Fig. 9. Pore pressure generation at skirt tip during undrained
readings (Fig. 7) provides an indication of the proportion of uplift
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY 533
⫺8 ⫺1·6 ⫺3·0
G1 V/Vu ⬃ 0·6

Prototype uplift displacement, w: m

B1T4 2·0 ⫺0·4
B2T3
⫺7 B1T5
⫺2·5 _2

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

T3
Uplift displacement, w/D: %

1·6
⫺0·3

2_3
⫺6 ⫺1·2 B1 2
B2T3 1·2 B2T2 5_

2
B1T2_1
⫺2·0

B1T
T

T2_
⫺0·2
B1

_1
⫺5 0·8

B1
B1T3
⫺0·1
0·4 B1T4 ⫺1·5 V/Vu ⬃ 0·3 F1
⫺4 ⫺0·8
B2T2 0·0 B1T1 0·0 A C
⫺3 ⫺100 ⫺80 ⫺60 ⫺40 ⫺20 0 20 40 ⫺1·0 B
Vu: uplift capacity at w/D ⫽ 0·02
⫺2 B1T1 d/D ⫺0·4 D
B1T5 ⫺0·5 (see Fig. 7)
0·15 D B1T5_3
B2T1 0·30
⫺1
PPT-lid
0·0 V/Vu ⬃ 0·1
TPT-lid
0 0·0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
⫺140 ⫺120 ⫺100 ⫺80 ⫺60 ⫺40 ⫺20 0 20 40
Prototype time, tp: days
Change in total vertical stress (∆σv) and excess pore (a)
presssure (∆u): kPa
⫺3·0
Fig. 10. Change in total stress and excess pore pressure beneath
G2
base plate during undrained uplift ⫺2·5

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

V/Vu ⬃ 0·60
⫺2·0

1_3
with continued uplift. A gradual increase in pressure was

2
T3_
B2T
observed until the end of the other tests. ⫺1·5

B2
Figure 11 shows examples of readings from the TPTs A E B2T3_1
located along the skirt during undrained uplift from tests ⫺1·0
_2
with both foundations. In each case, the negative excess pore
F2 B2T1
pressure generated during transient uplift gives rise to a ⫺0·5
Vu: uplift capacity at w/D ⫽ 0·02
temporary increase of total radial stress. A similar magni- V/Vu ⬃ 0·30
(see Fig. 7)
tude of radial stress was recorded by TPTs located at the 0·0
same level in the two models and similarity of readings from 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
each diametric pair of TPTs confirmed verticality of the Prototype time, tp: days
foundation during uplift. (b)

Fig. 12. Time histories of sustained uplift tests: (a) d/D 0.15;
(b) d/D 0.3
Sustained uplift response: load and displacement time
histories uplift capacity. For the longer skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3,
Time histories for each sustained load test are presented the undrained uplift resistance Vu mobilised at a relative
in Fig. 12 in terms of relative uplift displacement against displacement w/D ¼ 0.02 corresponded to approximately
prototype time for a year following application of the uplift 75% of the ultimate undrained uplift capacity. Expressed
load. with respect to the ultimate undrained uplift capacity, the
Eleven sustained load tests were carried out; seven with proportional uplift loads labelled as 0.3Vu and 0.6Vu in Fig.
the shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15 (Fig. 12(a)) and 12 correspond to 0.22VuULT and 0.45VuULT respectively (a
four with the longer skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3 (Fig. 0.1Vu load was not investigated for the foundation with
12(b)). The position in a sequence of the sustained uplift test embedment ratio d/D ¼ 0.3).
is indicated by the number following the underscore in the The displacement response to a sustained load was essen-
test label, for example B1T2_1 is the first sustained test in tially bilinear over the range of displacement considered,
the series at that site, followed by tests B1T2_2 and B1T2_3 with immediate displacement followed by time-dependent
respectively at the same site. displacement at a constant rate.
Sustained loads of 10%, 30% and 60% of the undrained The magnitude of immediate displacement increased with
uplift resistance, Vu , mobilised at a relative displacement w/ increased magnitude of load, as would be expected. A
D ¼ 0.02, were considered. For the shorter skirted founda- reduction in immediate displacements may usually be ex-
tion, d/D ¼ 0.15, this corresponded to the ultimate undrained pected with increasing consolidation stress as a result of
increasing stiffness. For uplift following consolidation the
⫺2·0 ⫺0·4 relationship is not straightforward, however, as the magni-
Prototype uplift displacement, w: m

B1T5_1 tude of the stress increment during the load path reversal
B2T1_1
Uplift displacement, w/D: %

⫺1·6 TPTd/D⫽0·15 increases with higher consolidation stress. This may account
⫺0·3 for the large immediate displacements observed in some of
⫺1·2 the tests carried out from the higher consolidation stress
TPTd/D⫽0·3
TPTd/D⫽0·3
⫺0·2
levels, particularly for the tests involving higher levels of
(upper level)
(lower level) uplift load for which the stress increment was large
⫺0·8
(B2T3_2). Tests without a period of consolidation prior to
⫺0·1 uplift did not exhibit immediate displacements (B1T2_2,
⫺0·4 d/D B1T2_3 and B1T5_4.)
0·15
0·30 Repeatability of the tests was confirmed by comparison of
0·0 0·0 the time–displacement response of tests in which conditions
0 10 20 30 40 50 were identical, for example, tests B1T2_1 and B1T3_1 (A in
Total radial stress, σr: kPa Fig. 12(a)), were both carried out with the shorter skirted
foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15, subjected to an uplift load of 0.6Vu
Fig. 11. Radial stresses on skirts during undrained uplift and in both cases were the first test in a sequence (_1).
534 GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH
Effect of consolidation. The beneficial effect of prior
consolidation on sustained uplift capacity is evident compar-
ing the time–displacement response from tests B1T2_2 or
B1T2_3 and B1T3_2, (B in Fig. 12(a)), which were both
carried out with the shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15
and subjected to an uplift load of 0.3Vu. Tests B1T2_2 and
B1T2_3 immediately followed previous load tests (i.e.
without an intermediate period of consolidation) whereas
test B1T3_2 followed a 12 year period of consolidation
(T ¼ 0.083). Displacement occurred around three times more
slowly when a period of consolidation had preceded uplift.
Limited additional benefit was observed with continued
increase in the period of consolidation prior to uplift for
T . 0.083. This is evident by comparing tests B1T3_2 (as
under the higher load of 0.6Vu (G1 and G2 in Figs 12(a) and
(b) respectively, that is comparing tests B1T2_1 or B1T3_1
with B2T1_3).
Pore pressure and radial stress response. Figures 13, 14 and
15 respectively show time histories for the year following
application of the uplift load of the change in vertical stress
and excess pore pressure measured under the base plate, the
excess pore pressure measured at skirt tip level, and the
change in radial stress for two selected tests, B1T2_2 and
B2T1_2, for d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0.3 respectively with V ¼ 0.3Vu

total stress (∆σv) under base plate: kPa

described above) and B1T5_2 (C in Fig. 12(a)); both carried 20 V/Vu ⬃ 0·3 d/D
out with the shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0·15

Excess pore pressure (∆u) and

subjected to an uplift load of 0.3Vu, but carried out following 10 d/D ⫽ 0·15
0·30
12 years (T ¼ 0.083) and 50 years (T ¼ 0.325) of consolida- B1T2_2
0
tion respectively. The additional 38 years (˜T ¼ 0.242) of PPT d/D ⫽ 0·30
consolidation prior to sustained uplift in test B1T5_2, repre- B2T1_2 PPT
⫺10
senting more than a four-fold increase in consolidation time,
TPT
provided only a further 12% reduction in the rate of ⫺20 TPT
displacement.
⫺30

⫺40
Effect of magnitude of uplift load. The effect of the magnitude
of the uplift load on the rate of displacement was more 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
significant for the foundation with the smaller embedment Prototype time, tp: days
ratio, as would be expected. Considering the shorter skirted
foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15, under proportional loads of 10%, 30% Fig. 13. Change in total stress and excess pore pressure beneath
and 60% of the undrained uplift resistance Vu (D in Fig. 12(a), base plate during sustained uplift
i.e. tests B1T5_3 with B1T5_2 or B1T3_2 and B1T2_1 or
B1T3_1), a 15-fold increase in the rate of displacement is 20
observed with a 20% increase in load, from 0.1Vu to 0.3Vu , and
10 ∆u from pairs of
a further 15-fold increase in the rate of displacement with a
Excess pore pressure ∆utip: kPa

PPTs at skirt tip

further 30% increase in load, from 0.3Vu to 0.6Vu; correspond- 0
ing to rates of displacement of 0.04 m/year, 0.6 m/year and 9 m/ ⫺10
d/D ⫽ 0·15 V/Vu ⬃ 0·3
year for loads of 0.1Vu, 0.3Vu and 0.6Vu respectively. A load
⫺20 B1T2_2
equal to 0.1Vu was sustained for over ten years (in prototype
time) without a change in the rate of displacement (B1T5_3). ⫺30
For the longer skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3, a ten-fold increase ⫺40
in the rate of displacement was observed, from 0.2 m/year to ⫺50
2.0 m/year with a 30% increase in load from 0.3Vu to 0.6Vu , d/D ⫽ 0·30 d/D
⫺60 B2T1_2 0·15
compared with the 15-fold increase observed with the shorter 0·30
skirted foundation. ⫺70
Considering the rate of displacement in terms of absolute ⫺80
load, V (rather than proportional load V/Vu ), the load cases 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
0.6Vu for d/D ¼ 0.15 (A in Fig. 12(a), i.e. tests B1T2_1 or Prototype time, tp: days
B1T3_1) and 0.3Vu for d/D ¼ 0.3 (F2 in Fig. 12(b), i.e. test
B2T1_2) are most similar. Although the load applied to the Fig. 14. Excess pore pressure at skirt tip level during sustained
uplift
shorter skirted foundation is only 65% of that applied to the
longer skirted foundation, a 50-fold reduction in the rate of
displacement is evident with the foundation with greater 45
embedment ratio. The higher consolidation stress in test d/D
40 TPTs 0·15
B2T3 had little effect on the rate of displacement initially,
(deeper level) 0·30
Total radial stress, σr: kPa

but the rate appeared to slow with increasing time. 35

30

25
Effect of embedment ratio. The effect of embedment ratio on
sustained uplift capacity is evident by comparing the response 20 d/D ⫽ 0·30
d/D ⫽ 0·15 B2T1_2
of the two foundations subjected to the same proportional 15 B1T2_2 TPTs
load, V/Vu. For example, tests B1T3_2 or B1T5_2 (F1 in Fig. (upper level)
12(a)) carried out on the shorter skirted foundation, d/ 10
D ¼ 0.15, with B2T1_2 (F2 in Fig. 12(b)) carried out on the 5
longer skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3, in both cases subjected
0
to an uplift load of 0.3Vu. In this case a doubling of the 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
embedment ratio led to a three-fold reduction in the rate of Prototype time, tp: days
displacement. A 50% greater reduction in the rate of
displacement was observed between the two foundations Fig. 15. Radial stress during sustained uplift
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY 535

Normalised uplift resistance, V/Vu w/D⫽0·02

in both. The sensors were largely stable over the period of all 1·0
1 month 1 year 2 y 5 y 10 y 25 y
the sustained uplift tests. 0·9
wt /D ⫽ 0·005, 0·01 and 0·02
Figure 13 shows an initial change in magnitude of excess 0·8 d/D
ì
pore pressure and total stress under the base plate due to the 0·7 0·15 í (t ⫽ 0)
î c
applied uplift load. In B2T1_2, negative excess pore pressure 0·6 ì
0·30 í (preload)
temporarily reduced owing to relaxation of the soil close to î
0·5
the interface with the base plate before stabilising (typically
0·4
within 20 days) after which suction remained almost con-
stant. In tests that immediately followed a previous test, that 0·3
is with no intermediate consolidation, the period of relaxa- 0·2
tion of the soil in the period following the applied uplift was 0·1
not observed, as seen for B1T2_2 in Fig. 13. 0·0
Figure 14 shows evidence of continued dissipation of excess 1 10 100 1000 10 000
pore pressures at skirt tip level during sustained loading in test Prototype time, tp: days
B2T1_2, but as noted previously the readings represented (a)
local drainage around the PPT housing rather than a reflection
1·0
of the overall behaviour of the foundation. Dissipation was not

Normalised uplift resistance, V/Vu ULT

1 month 1 year 2 y 5 y 10 y 25 y
evident in B1T2_2 in which the level of suction appeared to 0·9
wt /D ⫽ 0·005, 0·01 and 0·02
remain constant for the duration of the test. 0·8 d/D
ì
Figure 15 shows the total radial stress along the skirts 0·7 0·15 í (t ⫽ 0)
î c
measured during uplift, by the pairs of diametrically opposed 0·6 0·30
ì
í
î (preload)
TPTs set flush with the external face of the skirt. Following 0·5
an initial change in radial stress owing to the applied uplift
0·4
load, the sensors close to the tip indicate the radial stress
0·3
gradually diminished throughout the test, while the higher
level of sensors on the longer skirted foundation recorded a 0·2
more constant level of radial stress over the duration of the 0·1
sustained load. The observed reduction in radial stress from 0·0
the lower sensors may reflect gradual reduction in the local 1 10 100 1000 10 000
effective stress levels in the vicinity of the caisson base Prototype time, tp: days
during sustained uplift. (b)

Fig. 16. Degradation of uplift resistance with time: (a) uplift

Sustained uplift response: degradation of uplift resistance
with time
Figures 16(a) and (b) show the results from the sustained
uplift tests in terms of degradation of uplift resistance with
time under sustained load for three discrete intervals of
relative time-dependent displacements wt /D ¼ 0.005, 0.01
and 0.02. Time-dependent displacements were taken as the
difference between total displacement and immediate displa-
cement.
Figure 16(a) represents the time-dependent degradation of
uplift resistance based on uplift loads of 10%, 30% and 60%
of the undrained uplift resistance, Vu , mobilised at the limit-
ing displacement criterion wt /D ¼ 0.02. Fig. 16(b) shows the
time-dependent degradation of uplift resistance based on
uplift loads expressed as a proportion of the ultimate un-
drained uplift capacity, VuULT (synonymous to Fig. 16(a) for
the shorter skirted foundation, d/D ¼ 0.15).
V/Vu ¼ 1 and V/VuULT ¼ 1 correspond to the undrained
uplift resistance mobilised at relative displacements
wt /D ¼ 0.005, 0.01 and 0.02 and the ultimate uplift capacity
respectively. The corresponding time values were calculated
from the constant displacement rate (v ¼ 0.1 mm/s) in the
undrained uplift tests.
Trend lines are indicated through the results of the tests
that followed a period of significant consolidation (i.e. T >
0.083) prior to uplift. The trend lines allow approximate
interpolation of the relationship between degradation of up-
lift resistance and time, although more data points at other
load levels would be beneficial. The separation between the
trendlines is uniform since rates of displacement under
sustained load were constant (as seen in Fig. 12).
Uplift resistance diminished more rapidly under higher
loads, as would be expected. The shorter skirted foundation,
with an embedment ratio d/D ¼ 0.15, sustained a load of
60% of the undrained uplift capacity for up to two weeks, or
a load of 30% of the undrained uplift capacity for up to six
resistance mobilised at limiting displacement, wt /D 0.02;
(b) uplift resistance at ultimate capacity VuULT
months without relative time-dependent displacement ex-
ceeding wt /D ¼ 0.02. Loads of 10% of the undrained uplift
capacity could be sustained for several years. The effect of
the degree of consolidation prior to uplift on the duration
over which loads can be sustained is evident from the offset
of the data points referring to those tests with no consolida-
tion prior to uplift, tc ¼ 0.
Considering the longer skirted foundation, with an embed-
ment ratio d/D ¼ 0.3, loads of 60% or 30% of the undrained
uplift resistance mobilised at a relative displacement wt /
D ¼ 0.02, or 45% and 22% of the ultimate undrained uplift
capacity could be sustained for two months or two years
respectively without relative time-dependent displacement
exceeding wt /D ¼ 0.02. The overlapping of the trendlines
results from the linear interpolation and is somewhat mis-
leading. Nonetheless, closer banding of the data points in
Fig. 16(b) suggests embedment ratio affects the degradation
of uplift resistance less when uplift loads are expressed in
terms of ultimate capacity, VuULT, as opposed to mobilised
resistance defined by a limiting displacement, Vu .
The type of curve shown in Fig. 16 has been reported for
longer skirted suction caisson foundations with embedment
ratios d/D ranging between 3.9 and 7 (Clukey et al., 2004).
A less onerous relative displacement criterion w/D ¼ 0.1 was
adopted in that study as loss of embedment becomes less
significant with increasing embedment ratio. As would be
expected, reported holding times were considerably greater
than in this study; loads approaching the undrained capacity
were maintained for several months and loads between
0.65Vu and 0.75Vu were sustained indefinitely. Considering
the five-fold increase in the limiting displacement criterion
and (average) 25-fold increase in embedment ratio, it would
536 GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH
seem that the rate of increase in uplift capacity reduces with
increasing embedment ratio.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study has shown the potential application of shallow
skirted foundations to provide uplift resistance over time-
scales appropriate to operational conditions of various off-
shore systems. For the conditions considered in this study, of
shallow skirted foundations in lightly over-consolidated soft
clay, the following remarks can be made.
(a) A reliable and stable response of the model and the
sensors was observed during installation, transient
loading, sustained loading and prolonged periods of
consolidation. The sensors (i) confirmed that excess
pore pressures were not developed during installation,
(ii) indicated the instance of touchdown or separation
of the base plate with the soil and (iii) confirmed both
installation and uplift were concentric. The model
instrumentation was selected with the extension of this
study to eccentric loading in mind and their interpreta-
tion under concentric load was limited. It was
unfortunate that the housing of the PPTs mounted at
skirt tip level led to a local response during installation
and uplift rather than monitoring the overall behaviour
of the foundation. In the future, with further develop-
ments in sensor technology, it may be possible to
mount PPTs on the face of the stiffener in a similar
arrangement to the TPTs recessed in the skirt face.
(b) Measured installation resistance was repeatable and well
predicted by simple theoretical expressions indicating a
soil/skirt interface friction ratio Æ , 0.3. Observations
of plug heave indicated a 50:50 split between inward
and outward flow of soil during skirt penetration,
independent of embedment ratio.
(c) The load–displacement response of the shorter skirted
foundation, with an embedment ratio of d/D ¼ 0.15,
indicated ultimate undrained uplift capacity was mobi-
lised at relatively small displacements, w/D < 0.02.
Ultimate capacity was mobilised with the longer skirted
foundation, d/D ¼ 0.3, at larger relative displacements,
w/D , 0.1. The relative displacement required to
mobilise ultimate capacity appeared to be independent
of the consolidation stress level.
(d ) Doubling the foundation embedment ratio, d/D, from
0.15 to 0.3 led to a 150% increase in undrained uplift
resistance measured at a relative displacement w/
D ¼ 0.02, Vu , and a 250% increase in ultimate uplift
capacity, VuULT.
(e) Bearing capacity factors, Nc , for undrained uplift of 3.6
and 8.9 were recorded for the foundations with
embedment ratios d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0.3 respectively.
Comparison with theoretical bearing capacity factors
and other centrifuge tests indicated between 30% and
50% of reverse end bearing capacity was mobilised for
the foundation with an embedment ratio d/D ¼ 0.15 and
70–100% of reverse end bearing was mobilised for the
foundation with an embedment ratio d/D ¼ 0.3.
( f ) Local shear failure was observed following undrained
uplift of the shorter skirted foundation, with the
embedment ratio d/D ¼ 0.15, while general shear,
reverse end bearing failure was observed for the longer
skirted foundation with embedment ratio d/D ¼ 0.3.
These visual observations supported the conclusions
drawn from the values of measured uplift resistance.
(g) In sustained uplift under a constant proportional load
(V/Vu ), a slower rate of displacement was observed for
the foundation with greater embedment ratio, with the
effect becoming more evident at higher load levels. A
doubling of the embedment ratio from d/D ¼ 0.15 to
0.3 led to a three-fold reduction in the rate of
displacements under an uplift load of 0.3Vu compared
with a four and a half-fold reduction under a load of
0.6Vu. In terms of absolute loads, the effect on the rate
of displacement with increase in embedment ratio was
significant; an increase in embedment ratio from d/
D ¼ 0.15 to 0.3 reduced the rate of displacements by
an order of magnitude.
(h) A period of consolidation sufficient to achieve a
relatively steady state, following installation or a
previous loading event and prior to sustained uplift,
was beneficial in terms of reducing the subsequent rate
of displacement under sustained uplift. For example, a
three-fold difference in the rate of displacement was
observed comparing the sustained uplift response (of
the same foundation and under the same load) when a
period of consolidation to achieve a relatively steady
state preceded uplift compared with uplift immediately
following a preceding uplift test. In this study T >
0.083 was sufficient to benefit from a period of
consolidation and further increase in the period of
consolidation had minimal benefit.
(i) Considering the duration over which uplift loading can
be sustained, loads of 60% of the undrained uplift
resistance, based on a limiting time-dependent displace-
ment criterion wt /D ¼ 0.02, were sustained for two
weeks or two months by the skirted foundations with
embedment ratios d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0.3 respectively,
while loads of 30% of the undrained uplift resistance
could be sustained for six months or two years by the
foundations with embedment ratios d/D ¼ 0.15 and 0.3
respectively. Loads of less than 10% of the undrained
uplift resistance were sustained for several years
without significant displacement.
Further work is required to quantify general guidance for the
reliance on passive suctions for shallow skirted foundations.
In particular further investigation of the effect of consolida-
tion stress level on subsequent uplift response and under a
wider variety of uplift loads would be beneficial. Further
tests are underway at the Centre for Offshore Foundation
Systems investigating these issues and also the effect of
cyclic loading, load eccentricity and gapping along the skirt
on transient and sustained uplift capacity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described here forms part of the activities of
the Special Research Centre for Offshore Foundation Sys-
tems, established under the Australian Research Council’s
Research Centres Program, and now supported through
grants FF0561473 and DP0665958 and Centre of Excellence
funding from the State of Western Australia. This support is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to
thank Don Herley, Senior Beam Technician and Shane De
Catania, Electronics Technician for their assistance during
the tests.
REFERENCES
Acosta-Martinez, H. E., Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M. F.
(2008). An experimental investigation of a shallow skirted
foundation under compression and tension. Soil Found. 48, No.
2, 253–260.
Andersen, K. H. & Jostad, H. P. (2002). Shear strength along
outside wall of suction anchors in clay after installation. Pro-
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY
ceedings of the international offshore and polar engineering
conference, ISOPE, pp. 785–794.
Andersen, K. H., Murff, J. D., Randolph, M. F., Clukey, E., Erbrich,
C. T., Jostad H. P., Hansen, B., Aubeny, C. P., Sharma, P. &
Supachawarote, C. (2005). Suction anchors for deepwater appli-
cations. Proceedings of the international symposium on frontiers
in offshore geotechnics (ISFOG), Perth, pp. 3–30.
Barbosa-Cruz, E. R. & Randolph, M. F. (2005). Bearing capacity
and large penetration of a cylindrical object at shallow embed-
ment. Proceedings of the international symposium on frontiers
in offshore geotechnics ISFOG, Perth, pp. 615–621.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1970). A revised and extended formula for
bearing capacity. Danish Geotech. Inst. No. 28, 5–11.
Bye, A., Erbrich, C., Rognlien, B. & Tjelta, T. I. (1995). Geo-
technical design of bucket foundations. Proc. Annual Offshore
Technol. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 7793.
Chen, W. (2005). Uniaxial behaviour of suction caissons in soft
deposits in deepwater. PhD thesis, The University of Western
Australia.
Chen, W. & Randolph, M. F. (2007). Radial stress changes and
axial capacity for suction caissons in soft clay. Géotechnique 57,
No. 6, 499–511.
Clukey, E.C. & Morrison, J. (1993). A centrifuge and analytical
study to evaluate suction caissons for TLP applications in the
Gulf of Mexico. In Design and Performance of Deep Founda-
tions: Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft Rock. ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication 38, pp. 141–156.
Clukey E. C., Morrison, M. J., Garnier, J. & Corté, J. F. (1995).The
response of suction caissons in normally consolidated clays to
cyclic TLP loading conditions. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech.
Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 7796.
Clukey, E. C. & Phillips, R. (2002). Centrifuge model tests to verify
suction caisson capacities for taut and semi-taut legged mooring
systems. Proceedings of deep offshore technical international
conference, New Orleans, pp. 1–16.
Clukey, E. C., Templeton, J. S., Randolph, M. F. & Phillips, R. A.
(2004). Suction caisson response under sustained loop-current
loads. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC
16843.
Edwards, D. H., Zravkovic, L. and Potts, D. M. (2005). Depth
factors for undrained bearing capacity. Géotechnique 55, No. 10,
755–758.
Finnie, I. M. S. & Randolph, M. F. (1994). Punch-through and
liquefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on calcar-
eous sediments. Proc. Int. Conf. Behaviour of Offshore Struc-
tures (BOSS), 217–230.
Fuglsang, L. D. & Steensen-Bach, J. O. (1991). Breakout resistance
of suction piles in clay. Proc. Int. Conf. On Centrifuge Model-
ling: Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, 163–159.
Gourvenec, S. (2008). Undrained bearing capacity of embedded
footings under general loading. Géotechnique 58, No. 3, 177–185.
Gourvenec, S., Randolph, M. F. & Kingsnorth, O. (2006) Undrained
bearing capacity of square and rectangular footings. Int. J.
Geomech. 6, No. 3, 147–157.
Gourvenec, S., Acosta-Martinez, H. E. & Randolph, M. F. (2007).
Bucket foundations for offshore oil and gas facilities. Proc. 6th
Int. Conf. Offshore Site Investigation and Geotech. Soc. Under-
water Technol., London, 479–484.
Houlsby, G. T. & Martin, C. M. (2003). Undrained bearing capacity
factors for conical footings on clay. Géotechnique 53, No. 5,
513–520.
Ladd, C. C. (1991). Stability evaluation during staged construction.
22nd Terzaghi Lecture, J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 117, No. 4,
540–615.
Luke, A. M., Rauch, A. F., Olson, R. E. & Mecham, E. C. (2005).
537
Components of suction caisson capacity measured in axial pull-
out tests. Ocean Engng, No. 32, 878–891.
Martin, C. M. & Randolph, M. F. (2001). Applications of the lower
and upper bounds theorems of plasticity to collapse of circular
foundations. Proceedings of international conference on compu-
ter methods and advanced geomechanics, Tuscon, Vol. 2, 1417–
1428.
Mayne, P. W. (2001). Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from
enhanced in-situ tests. Proceedings of an International Confer-
ence on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties & Case His-
tories (In-Situ 2001), Bali, Indonesia 27–47.
Mayne, P. W. & Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). K0 -OCR relationships in
soils. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 108, No. 6, 851–872.
Puech, A., Iorio, J-P., Garnier, J. & Foray, P. (1993). Experimental
study of suction effects under mudmat type foundations. Pro-
ceedings of Canadian Conference on Marine Geotechnical En-
gineering, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Vol. 3, 1062–1080.
Randolph, M. F. (2003). Science and empiricism in pile foundation
design. 43rd Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique 53, No. 10, 847–
875.
Randolph, M. F. Cassidy, M. J., Gourvenec, S. & Erbrich, C. T.
(2005). The challenges of offshore geotechnical engineering
(Keynote). Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on
Soil Mechanics and geotechnical engineering (ISSMGE), Vol. 1,
pp. 123–176. Osaka, Japan: Balkema.
Randolph, M. F. & Hope, S. (2004). Effect of cone velocity on
cone resistance and excess pore pressures. Proc. Int. Symp.
Engng Practice and Performance of Soft Deposits, Osaka, 147–
152.
Randolph, M. F. & House, A. R. (2002). Analysis of suction
caisson capacity in clay. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf.,
Houston, Paper OTC 14236.
Randolph, M. F., Jewell, R. J., Stone, K. J. L. & Brown, T. A.
(1991). Establishing a new centrifuge facility. Proc. Int. Conf.
on Centrifuge Modelling, Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado,
3–9.
Rao, S. N., Ravi, R. & Ganapathy, C. (1997). Pullout behaviour of
model suction anchors in soft marine clays. Proc. Int. Offshore
and Polar Engng Conf., ISOPE ‘97, Honolulu 1, 740–744.
Salgado, R., Lyamin, A. V., Sloan, S. W. & Yu, H. S. (2004). Two-
and three-dimensional bearing capacity of foundations in clay.
Géotechnique 54, No. 5, 297–306.
Skempton, A. W. (1951). The bearing capacity of clays. Proceed-
ings of the building and research congress, London, Vol. 1, pp.
180–189.
Steensen-Bach, J. O. (1992). Recent model tests with suction piles
in clay and sand. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston,
Paper OTC 6882.
Stewart, D. P. (1992). Lateral loading of pile bridge abutments due
to embankment construction. PhD thesis, University of Western
Australia.
Stewart, D. P. & Randolph, M. F. (1991). A new site investigation
tool for the centrifuge. Proc. Int. Conf. on Centrifuge Modelling:
Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, 531–538.
Stewart, D. P. and Randolph, M. F. (1994). T-bar penetration testing
in soft clay. J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE 120, No. 12, 2230–
2235.
Vesic, A. S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In
Foundation engineering handbook (eds H. F. Winterkorn & H.
Y. Fang), pp. 121–147. New York: Van Nostrand.
Watson, P. G., Randolph, M. F. & Bransby, M. F. (2000). Combined
lateral and vertical loading of caisson foundations. Proc. Annual
Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 12195.
Wroth, C. P. (1984). The interpretation of in-situ soil tests. 24th
Rankine Lecture, Géotechnique 34, No. 4, 449–489.
Copyright of Géotechnique is the property of Thomas Telford Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.