See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238381379

Applications of the lower and upper bound theorems of plasticity to collapse

of circular foundations

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS

103 6,396

2 authors:

Chris Martin Mark Randolph

University of Oxford University of Western Australia
97 PUBLICATIONS   3,564 CITATIONS    383 PUBLICATIONS   14,289 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tunnel-induced settlement damage to masonry buildings View project

Spudcan Foundations for Jackup Units View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Martin on 30 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Applications of the Lower and Upper Bound Theorems of Plasticity to
Collapse of Circular Foundations
C.M. Martin1 & M.F. Randolph
Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The University of Western Australia, Australia
1
Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University, UK (from October 2000)

ABSTRACT: The bound theorems of plasticity have proved a powerful tool in establishing design methods
for the collapse of shallow foundations, buried anchor plates and other geotechnical structures. Closely brack-
eted upper and lower bound solutions (and in some cases, exact solutions) are now available for a wide range
of bearing capacity problems in plane strain. These solutions have been extended to circular geometries in
certain cases, often through numerical techniques involving the method of characteristics. With the growth in
the use of shallow foundations, suction-emplaced caissons, and vertically loaded anchors for offshore struc-
tures, there has been strong practical interest in the capacity of embedded foundations, both under purely ver-
tical loading, and also under combined vertical, moment and horizontal (V, M, H) loading. In turn, this has
generated renewed interest in developing plasticity solutions for these problems, taking due account of the
variation of shear strength with depth.

1 INTRODUCTION of the early solutions were based on approximate ad-

The trend in the offshore industry towards develop-
ments in deep water, with consequential focus on
skirted foundations and anchoring systems in gener-
ally soft clays and silts, has revived interest in estab-
lishing the ultimate capacity of embedded circular
foundations. Most practical applications involve
combinations of vertical (V), moment (M) and hori-
zontal (H) loading, and the construction of a three-
dimensional yield envelope in (V, M, H) space.
However, collapse under purely vertical loading is a
key aspect of much offshore design, and represents
the first step in establishing the full envelope.
While finite element methods offer a general-
purpose approach for evaluating the full load–
deformation response of foundation systems, much
design relies on a framework of bearing capacity
calculations, with limiting loads evaluated using
plasticity solutions derived from the classical lower
and upper bound theorems. In certain cases, exact
analytical solutions are possible, but generally it is
necessary to resort to numerical approaches, for ex-
ample using the method of characteristics or finite
element implementations of the bound theorems.
The basis of bearing capacity calculations for
foundations in ‘cohesive’ soils (more accurately
soils of low permeability where the concept of
undrained shear strength may be applied) was estab-
lished some fifty years ago, with the work of Me-
herhof (1951), Skempton (1951) and others. Many
justments of exact solutions, to allow for practical
features such as the foundation geometry (circular or
square, rather than strip) and depth of embedment.
Caisson foundations such as those used offshore
may have skirts that extend up to a diameter below
the seabed, penetrating through soil where the
strength increases with depth. The bearing capacity
of such foundations must therefore consider not only
the embedment ratio, d/D (where d is the skirt pene-
tration and D the foundation diameter), but also the
degree of strength non-homogeneity and the relative
roughness of the skirts.
Referring to Figure 1, the strength profile can be
idealised according to
su = sum + kz (1)
D
sum suo su
d Caisson
Soil shear strength:
su = sum + kz
z
Figure 1. Schematic of caisson and strength profile.
where sum is the strength at the seabed (mudline) and (a) (b) r, u
k is the strength gradient with depth, z. It is helpful
to normalise the bearing capacity, qu, by the strength σzz
at the effective base of the foundation: σ – su
θ α
q u = N c s uo = N c (s um + kd ) (2)
τrz
where Nc is a bearing capacity factor. σhh
σrr σ + su

2 THEORY β
characteristics
The bearing capacity analyses in this paper are based z, v at θ ± π/4
on the classical assumptions of rigid–perfectly plas-
tic soil behaviour, with yielding governed by the Figure 2. Axisymmetric stresses and characteristic directions.
Tresca criterion and an associated plastic flow rule.
All problems considered here involve axially sym-
metric geometry. Figure 2 defines the (r, z) coordi- ∂σ rr ∂τ rz σ rr − σ hh
nate system and the notation adopted for the various + + =0
non-zero components of stress (compression posi- ∂r ∂z r
(5)
tive) and velocity. The nature of the problems con- ∂τ rz ∂σ zz τ rz
+ + =γ
sidered is such that the soil self-weight does not af- ∂r ∂z r
fect the solutions, although for completeness it is
to yield two partial differential equations in σ and θ.
included in the governing equations below.
These are hyperbolic in type, with characteristic di-
rections given by
2.1 Lower bound stress fields
dr
The method of characteristics is a well-known tech- = tan (θ ± π 4 ) (6)
dz
nique for constructing statically admissible stress
fields in the solution of plasticity problems. Several The two families of characteristics are designated α
authors describe the development of the method for and β (Fig. 2b). In these directions σ and θ vary in
axially symmetric conditions (Shield 1955, Szcze- accordance with
pinski 1979, Houlsby & Wroth 1982a) and only a  ds s cos 2θ + ωsu 
brief summary is appropriate here. dσ ± 2su dθ =  ∓ u + u  dr +
Stresses in the meridional plane are assumed to  dz r 
(7)
satisfy the yield criterion (σmax – σmin = 2su). This al-  s sin 2θ 
lows the individual stress components σrr, σzz and τrz γ − u  dz
 r 
to be expressed in terms of two auxiliary variables,
σ and θ (see Fig. 2b): Equivalent versions of this equation are given by
Houlsby & Wroth (1982a) and Tani & Craig (1995),
σ rr = σ − su cos 2θ although the sign of dsu/dz was misprinted in the
σ zz = σ + s u cos 2θ (3) former. For the linearly increasing strength profile
τ rz = su sin 2θ considered here, dsu/dz is simply k.
Equations (6) and (7) can readily be implemented
The hoop stress σhh is usually equated (by assump- in finite difference form and used to solve the vari-
tion) with one or other of the principal stresses in the ous boundary value problems that arise in lower
meridional plane, i.e. bound bearing capacity analysis. Details of these
numerical methods and solution strategies are thor-
σ hh = σ + ωs u (4) oughly described elsewhere (see e.g. Shield 1955,
where ω = ±1 (this is the Haar/von Karman hypothe- Booker & Davis 1977, Szczepinski 1979).
sis). As discussed by Shield (1955), Houlsby &
Wroth (1982a) and others, the choice should be gov- 2.2 Upper bound velocity fields
erned by the expected direction of radial plastic
flow: ω = –1 if it is outward, ω = +1 if it is inward. A stress field constructed using the method of char-
Equations (3) and (4) may be substituted into the acteristics can also serve as the basis for a ‘consis-
equilibrium equations tent’ velocity field in which the principal strain rate
directions coincide with the principal stress direc-
tions, and the flow rule (here equivalent to the in-
compressibility condition) is satisfied. The deriva-
tion of the consistent velocity equations for axial
symmetry (Shield 1955, Szczepinski 1979, Houlsby
& Wroth 1982a) closely follows that of the familiar
Geiringer equations in plane strain. A pair of hyper-
bolic partial differential equations in u and v is ob-
tained, with characteristic directions coincident with
those of the stress field. Along the characteristics,
the velocity components vary according to
− udr
dusin (θ ± π 4) + dvcos(θ ± π 4) =
2rsin (θ ± π 4)
Numerical finite difference techniques, similar to
those employed when constructing the stress field,
are used to determine u and v throughout the plasti-
cally deforming region. Appropriate velocity bound-
ary conditions for smooth and rough foundations are
discussed by Shield (1955) and Eason & Shield
(1960) respectively. The extent of the plastically de-
forming region is identical to that of the ‘partial’
lower bound stress field (see below).
The form of the consistent velocity field is often
quite complex, and furthermore it does not always
lead to an optimal upper bound. A family of ‘inde-
pendent’ collapse mechanisms can be developed as
shown in Figure 3, and these are used extensively in
the examples that follow. The velocity fields in-
volved are very simple, consisting of a series of par-
allel streamlines along which the velocity decays
with 1/r (thus ensuring satisfaction of the incom-
pressibility requirement). Mechanisms of this type
have been used to obtain upper bound collapse loads
for a wide range of axially symmetric bearing capac-
ity problems (Levin 1955, Kusakabe et al. 1986, Hu
et al. 1999, Randolph et al. 2000).
In the present study, the Hill-type mechanism on
the left of Figure 3 is always critical for smooth-
based foundations, and is occasionally critical for
rough-based foundations (notably when the non-
homogeneity ratio kD/suo is larger than 1 or 2). The
Prandtl-type mechanism on the right usually gives a
better upper bound for rough-based foundations
when kD/suo is small. The inclination of the (conical)
exit region BDEC can be optimised, and varies from
about 45º at shallow embedment of the caisson to
90º (annular flow adjacent to the caisson) at deeper
embedments. The fan angle, ADB, is adjusted ac-
cordingly.
C E E C
D D
B ing Nc = 6.05. Other computations of this stress field
A B
Smooth base Rough base
Figure 3. Independent kinematic collapse mechanisms.
3 SURFACE FOUNDATIONS
The indentation of a semi-infinite Tresca medium by
a flat-ended circular punch is a fundamental axially
symmetric bearing capacity problem, which has
been widely investigated using both the method of
characteristics and independent upper bound analy-
sis. Studies utilising the former technique have uni-
(8) versally adopted the appropriate Haar/von Karman
assumption (ω = −1 in the present notation).
3.1 Homogeneous soil
For the simplest case of a perfectly smooth punch on
homogeneous material, Ishlinskii (1944) used a
graphical technique to construct the appropriate
mesh of stress characteristics and obtained a lower
bound solution of Nc = 5.68 for the average bearing
pressure. Shield (1955) obtained an almost identical
result of 5.69, using an iterative finite difference ap-
proach. More importantly, however, Shield showed
that the ‘partial’ stress field in the vicinity of the
punch could be extended throughout the half-space
in a statically admissible manner, thus establishing
the solution as a rigorous lower bound. He also
demonstrated that the consistent velocity field gave
principal strain rates ε that were properly associated
with the stress field throughout the deforming re-
gion, thus proving that the bearing capacity factor of
Nc = 5.69 was also an admissible upper bound (and
hence the exact solution).
This value has been confirmed subsequently by
several authors including Houlsby & Wroth (1983)
and Tani & Craig (1995). As part of the present
study, analyses with increasingly refined meshes of
characteristics have indicated that Nc = 5.689 to
three decimal places. The accuracy of Ishlinskii’s
original 5.68 is certainly remarkable. The value of
5.71 obtained by Meyerhof (1951) from numerical
integration of an approximate analytical expression
(unrelated to the method of characteristics) also
compares favourably with the exact solution. Opti-
misation of the independent upper bound mechanism
of Figure 3 gives Nc = 5.82, some 2% above the
method of characteristics solution. Levin (1955) ob-
tained an upper bound of 5.84 using a slightly sim-
pler mechanism.
Indentation by a perfectly rough circular punch
was first investigated by Eason & Shield (1960). Us-
ing numerical stress and velocity calculations based
on those of Shield (1955), a rigorous lower bound
and a coincident upper bound were again obtained,
the exact bearing capacity factor in this instance be-
have generally given the same result (Salençon &
Matar 1982, Houlsby & Wroth 1983), although Tani
& Craig (1995) have recently claimed a surprisingly
high lower bound of Nc = 6.34. This analysis appears
to have involved a faulty integration procedure, dis-
cussed below, and the present work has confirmed O A B
that the value of 6.05 is indeed exact (6.048 to three
decimal places). Meyerhof’s approximate result for a C (a) Nc (LB) = 7.56
perfectly rough punch was Nc = 6.18, about 2% D
above the exact solution. The best independent up-
per bound (Fig. 3) is also 6.18 for this problem.
Because Nc = 2 + π for a flat indenter in plane
strain, regardless of roughness, exact shape factors
for circular foundations on homogeneous, isotropic (b) Nc (UB) = 7.56
Tresca soil are 1.11 (smooth) and 1.18 (rough).
Clearly there is a sound theoretical basis for the
shape factors of about 1.2 that are commonly used in
bearing capacity formulae (e.g. Brinch Hansen 1970,
Vesic 1975). It should be noted, however, that most
real soils exhibit a degree of strength anisotropy, and (c) Nc (UB) = 8.08
this can have a surprisingly significant influence on
the bearing capacity in both plane strain and axial
Figure 4. Stress and velocity fields for smooth circular footing
symmetry (Booker & Davis 1972, Randolph 2000). on non-homogeneous soil (kD/sum = 4).
Further theoretical and numerical work in this area is
required.
O A B

3.2 Non-homogeneous soil Stress-

Davis & Booker (1973) studied the bearing capacity
of surface strip foundations on cohesive soil where
the strength increases linearly with depth. They used
the method of characteristics to obtain rigorous
lower bound and coincident upper bound solutions
for both smooth and rough footings, for all possible
values of the non-homogeneity ratio kB/sum (i.e. zero
to infinity). The method of characteristics has also
been used to investigate the corresponding problem
in axial symmetry, but no single study has been as
comprehensive. Houlsby & Wroth (1983) listed
bearing capacity factors for both smooth and rough
circular footings, but only for 0 ≤ kD/sum ≤ 10.
Salençon & Matar (1982) covered the full range of
kD/sum, but only for a fully rough interface. Tani &
Craig (1995) considered both smooth and rough
foundations on soil with 0 ≤ kD/sum ≤ 30, but their
rough footing results are erroneous. In all three cases
the Nc factors obtained from the method of charac-
teristics have been presented as lower bound col-
lapse loads, but they have not been formally estab-
lished as rigorous solutions by demonstrating that
the stress fields involved are extensible throughout
the soil mass. Nor have consistent velocity fields
been computed with a view to showing that the
lower bound solutions are upper bounds as well (and
are therefore exact).
An example of a more thorough approach is
given in Figures 4 and 5, for a smooth circular foot-
ing on soil with kD/sum = 4. The ‘partial’ field of
stress characteristics (Fig. 4a) gives a lower bound
bearing capacity – at this stage non-rigorous – of Nc
= 7.56. Having found the consistent velocity field
(Fig. 4b), the upper bound is computed by numerical
integration of the Tresca dissipation function
free
E
F
Stress-
free
σzz only
G
Figure 5. Extension of stress field of Figure 4(a).
dW = 2 s u ε max (9)
over each cell of the mesh. Velocity discontinuities
and/or dissipation at the soil–footing interface, al-
though not applicable in this particular example, are
handled by introducing degenerate cells. With suffi-
cient mesh refinement, it is found that the consistent
upper bound also converges to Nc = 7.56. Presuma-
bly the coincidence of lower and upper bounds could
also be verified by examining principal strain rates
throughout the mesh and checking for proper asso-
ciation with the stress field, as was done by Shield
(1955) for homogeneous material.
The best upper bound obtained from the inde-
pendent collapse mechanism is Nc = 8.08 (Fig. 4c).
This is 7% above the consistent upper bound, a
somewhat greater differential than the 2% observed
for homogeneous soil. Interestingly, however, the
accuracy of the independent upper bound eventually
improves again with increasing kD/sum, to the point
where it gives the exact bearing capacity of qu =
kD/6 (analogous to Davis & Booker’s qu = kB/4) as
sum approaches zero.
The final stage in establishing Nc = 7.56 as a rig-
orous exact solution is to demonstrate the extensibil-
ity of the stress field. As shown in Figure 5, the
mesh of characteristics can be extended using the
strategy of Shield (1955), based on that developed
by Bishop (1953) for plane strain conditions. The
extension field consists of a region where the stress
state is fully plastic (governed by the same equations
as the partial stress field), bounded by a stress free
region to the right of BE and columns of uniaxial
vertical stress below EFG, extending to z = ∞. The
heavy lines around the plastic region denote stati-
cally admissible stress discontinuities. A stress dis-
continuity also arises within the plastic region, just
above F. In this example the uniaxial stresses are
found to be acceptable (|σzz| ≤ 2su), but this is not the
case when kD/sum becomes very large. It is then nec-
essary to use a different type of extension based on
that of Cox et al. (1961), which was also adapted by
Davis & Booker (1973) for their work in plane
strain. It is always possible to perform a stress field
extension of one type or the other.
Figure 6 shows the analysis of a rough circular
footing on soil with kD/sum = 4. To calculate the
lower bound, it is sufficient to extend the mesh of
characteristics (Fig. 6a) as far as the final β charac-
teristic FD. Note however that the major principal
stress is not vertical along FD, except of course at D
on the axis of symmetry. When integrating stresses
over AFD to obtain the collapse load, it is therefore
essential to use an expression of the form
R Z
Qu = ∫ σ zz 2πrdr + ∫ τrz 2πrdz (10)
0 0
where Z is the distance OD. Tani & Craig (1995)
appear to have omitted the term involving τrz, which
is negative along FD using the sign convention of
Figure 2a. This explains why their Nc values for
rough footings are high, most noticeably when
kD/sum is small and the ‘false head’ region OFD is
large. When using equation (10) to integrate along
AFD it is tacitly assumed that the stress field could
be extended into OFD in a statically admissible
manner, if desired. In fact an alternative method of
calculating Qu is to perform such an extension and
truncate it along the footing boundary, allowing a
straightforward integration of σzz along OFA; this
was the method originally adopted by Eason &
Shield (1960) for homogeneous soil. Using either
technique a lower bound bearing capacity factor of
Nc = 8.74 is obtained. As above it can be shown that
the rough footing stress field is extensible, both for
kD/sum = 4 and for all possible values.
O F A E B
D (a) Nc (LB) = 8.74
C
(b) Nc (UB) = 8.74
(c) Nc (UB) = 9.71
Figure 6. Stress and velocity fields for rough circular footing
on non-homogeneous soil (kD/sum = 4).
The upper bound obtained from the consistent ve-
locity field (Fig. 6b) coincides with the lower bound
at Nc = 8.74. By contrast the best independent upper
bound (Fig. 6c) is Nc = 9.71, 11% above the exact
solution. Note that a Hill-type mechanism is critical
for this value of kD/sum, even though the foundation
is fully rough. As with the smooth footing, it is
found that the independent upper bound mechanism
gives its best results for large kD/sum, converging to
the exact solution (again qu = kD/6) as the mudline
strength sum → 0.
Shape factors for circular foundations on non-
homogeneous cohesive soil have been given by
various authors, based on either the method of char-
acteristics (Salençon & Matar 1982, Houlsby &
Wroth 1983, Tani & Craig 1995) or independent up-
per bound analysis (Kusakabe et al. 1986). It can
now be stated with confidence that shape factors for
Tresca soil derived from the method of characteris-
tics are exact, but as discussed above no fully com-
prehensive numerical study has been performed. An
unexpected result is that the shape factors for
smooth and rough footings drop below unity for
kD/sum values which exceed about 4 and 2 respec-
tively. They continue to drop as kD/sum increases,
slowly approaching the theoretical limit of 2/3 as sum
approaches zero, regardless of roughness. The tradi-
tional shape factor of 1.2 is obviously inappropriate
when the non-homogeneity ratio kD/sum is large, and
this is a situation frequently encountered offshore.
4 SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS O X

It is also possible to develop rigorous plasticity solu-

tions for the bearing capacity of caissons or skirted
circular foundations (Fig. 1). The soil enclosed by (a) Nc (LB) = 7.05
the caisson is normally assumed to be rigid for bear- Y
ing capacity analysis, and the base of the ‘equivalent
circular punch’ is taken to be fully rough. While
these assumptions are clearly appropriate for upper
bound analysis, they are questionable as far as a rig-
orous lower bound solution is concerned – there may
be difficulties in extending the stress field for a
rough ‘base’ into the skirt compartment, particularly
if the internal boundaries of the caisson are not fully
rough. In this paper, however, the usual assumption
of a fully rough interface at the skirt tip level will be
adopted, subject to a minor caveat regarding the rig-
(b) Nc (UB) = 11.86
our of the lower bounds so obtained.
Only axially symmetric geometry will be consid-
ered here, although it is of course possible to de-
velop lower and upper bound solutions for skirted
foundations in plane strain. Shape factors can then
be derived, but it is found that these are a function of
both the embedment ratio (d/D or d/B) and the non-
homogeneity ratio (kD/sum or kB/sum) such that a
compact presentation of results becomes difficult.

4.1 Homogeneous soil

Houlsby & Wroth (1982b) used the method of char-
acteristics to obtain lower bound solutions for the
bearing capacity of an embedded circular punch (0 ≤
d/D ≤ 1) with smooth sides and base. This work was
extended by Martin (1994) to include bases of full
and intermediate roughness (but smooth sides), for
embedment ratios of up to 2.5. Tani & Craig (1995)
developed lower bound solutions for the rough base
and rough sides case, but unfortunately they consid- (c) Nc (UB) = 8.90
ered only a very limited range of embedment (0 ≤
d/D ≤ 0.3). None of these analyses addressed the
question of stress field extensibility. Interestingly,
previous studies of the upper bound problem have Figure 7. Stress and velocity fields for circular caisson (d/D =
been focused on offshore applications, and have not 0.5, rough base, smooth sides) in homogeneous soil.
considered the case of homogeneous soil.
Figure 7a shows a typical mesh of stress charac-
teristics for a smooth-sided skirted foundation (d/D dation moves down, but there is no dissipation be-
= 0.5) in homogeneous soil. The lower bound bear- cause the interface is smooth.
ing capacity factor is Nc = 7.05, but the consistent The stress characteristic mesh (Fig. 7a) can be ex-
velocity field leads to an upper bound of Nc = 11.86 tended in the manner of Figure 5, and hence Nc =
(Fig. 7b). The discrepancy is surprisingly large, and 7.05 is a rigorous lower bound. However, the sig-
is essentially attributable to a conflict between the nificant separation between lower and upper bounds
direction of shearing stress and the direction of suggests that it may be possible to improve on the
shearing strain along the characteristic XY (which is ‘standard’ lower bound solution. This can indeed be
a velocity discontinuity). In this case, and for em- achieved, using an alternative stress field of the type
bedded foundations generally, the independent upper shown in Figure 8. The mesh of characteristics is
bound mechanism allows a much improved result, constructed by working from an artificial (straight)
Nc = 8.90 (Fig. 7c). Note that, in this example, soil free surface inclined at some angle to the horizontal
flows vertically upwards past the skirts as the foun- (cf. Meyerhof 1951). As this inclination is increased,
the calculated bearing capacity also increases, since
the α characteristics rotate through a larger angle
(see equation (7)). There is a limit on the allowable
inclination, however, due to the need to extend the
partial stress field throughout the soil mass, an as-
pect overlooked by Meyerhof.
In Figure 8 the artificial free surface is inclined at
47° since this is the maximum that allows an exten-
sion of the characteristic mesh to be accommodated
beneath the real free surface. In this instance an ex-
tension strategy based on that of Cox et al. (1961) is
convenient, and this is shown in Figure 9. Heavy
lines around the extended mesh denote statically
admissible discontinuities. Stresses to the right of EF
and FG extend to infinity as indicated, and do not
O ficial free surface inclination of 90° first becomes
Stress-
free B 47°
A C
Nc (LB) = 7.80
D smooth-sided circular foundation embedded in ho-
violate yield. This alternative lower bound solution
gives Nc = 7.80, a 10% improvement on the 7.05
which was obtained earlier, bracketing the exact so-
lution to within ±7%.
Figure 10a shows upper and lower bound bearing
capacity factors calculated in a similar fashion for
skirt length ratios 0 ≤ d/D ≤ 2. Over most of this
range the alternative lower bound gives a significant
improvement on the standard lower bound. The con-
sistent upper bound has not been plotted because the
independent solution is better (i.e. lower) for all but
the shallowest of embedments. There is reasonably
close bracketing of the true solution for embedments
up to about d/D = 1. The alternative lower bound
cuts off at Nc = 9.28 when d/D = 1.27, corresponding
to the point where the partial stress field for an arti-
extensible. This cutoff Nc value can be marginally
improved by adopting more complex variations of
the Haar/von Karman parameter ω (for example as a
function of the principal stress inclination θ) rather
than fixing it at ω = –1 when constructing the partial
stress field and its extension. Also shown in Figure
10a are the semi-empirical recommendations of
Skempton (1951) and Brinch Hansen (1970) for a

Figure 8. Alternative stress field for caisson of Figure 7. (a) Smooth sides
15
LB
O E 13 UB

B Alt. LB
σrr = σhh 11
only Nc
A 9

7
Brinch Hansen Skempton
5
F 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
d /D
(b) Rough sides
25
LB
UB
20
Alt. LB

N c 15

10
‘spokes’ of uniaxial stress
(cf. Cox et al. 1961)
5
G 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
d /D

Figure 10. Lower and upper bound solutions for rough-based

Figure 9. Extension of stress field of Figure 8. caissons embedded in homogeneous soil.
mogeneous cohesive soil. Although Brinch Hansen’s
Nc factors are much less conservative than those of
Skempton, they still plot below the alternative lower
bound.
Figure 10b shows bound solutions for a skirted (a) Nc (LB) = 9.34
foundation with rough sides in homogeneous soil. In
the alternative lower bound the soil adjacent to the
skirts is stress free (see Fig. 8), hence these Nc val-
ues are unchanged from the ones in Figure 10a. By
contrast the standard lower bound solution takes full
advantage of the rough skirts, mobilising an inter-
face shear stress of su over the entire depth d. Brack-
eting between the lower and upper bounds is again
fairly good up to around d/D = 1. Note that the bear-
ing capacity factors given in Figure 10b are inclu-
sive of interface shear stresses on the skirts, whereas (b) Nc (UB) = 15.95
Tani & Craig (1995) chose to report only the base
resistance component.
Hu et al. (1999) have reported results of finite
element analysis of embedded caissons, and noted
that an embedment ratio d/D = 1 marks the start of a
transition from surface failure, to a confined elasto-
plastic failure. Their results were for a rigidity index
of G/su = 167 (where G is the soil shear modulus)
and the transition depth will vary with this ratio. For
depths greater than this transition depth, the lower
and upper bounds are increasingly irrelevant, as the
bearing capacity is determined by a cavity expansion
limit pressure. At depths up to d/D = 1, the finite (c) Nc (UB) = 12.19
element results of Hu et al. (1999) lie close to mid-
way between the best lower and upper bounds
shown in Figure 10.

4.2 Non-homogeneous soil

Relevant lower bound solutions for circular skirted
foundations in non-homogeneous soil have been
published by Martin (1994) (smooth sides, 0 ≤ d/D ≤
2.5, 0 ≤ kD/sum ≤ 5) and Tani & Craig (1995) (rough
sides, 0 ≤ d/D ≤ 0.3, 0 ≤ kD/sum ≤ 30). The only
available upper bounds are those of Hu et al. (1998)
(smooth and rough sides, 0 ≤ d/D ≤ 0.5, su = kz) and
Hu et al. (1999) (smooth and rough sides, 0 ≤ d/D ≤
0.5, 2 ≤ kD/sum ≤ 30). A comprehensive numerical
study of both lower and upper bounds for 0 ≤ d/D ≤
2 and the full range of kD/sum is currently being un-
dertaken by the authors.
The case chosen for illustration here involves a
foundation with rough skirts (d/D = 0.5) in normally
consolidated soil (sum = 0, su = kz). As shown in Fig-
ure 11, the method of characteristics yields an (ex-
tensible) lower bound of Nc = 9.34 and a consistent
upper bound of Nc = 15.95. The ‘alternative’ lower
bound gives Nc = 9.27, marginally below the stan-
dard solution. Note that these are bearing capacity
factors with respect to suo, the strength at skirt tip
level (see equation (2)). The independent kinematic
mechanism gives an improved upper bound of Nc =
12.19 (Fig. 11c). Since the skirts are fully rough,
Figure 11. Stress and velocity fields for circular caisson (d/D =
0.5, rough base, rough sides) in soil with su = kz.
there is no advantage from an ‘annular’ flow mecha-
nism of the type shown in Figure 7c. The optimum
mechanism does, however, involve a fairly steep exit
angle, with a wedge of soil that remains stationary
with respect to the surrounding soil mass.
Corresponding solutions for other values of d/D
are shown in Figure 12 for smooth- and rough-sided
caissons. For the former, the alternative lower bound
offers some improvement over the standard lower
bound, and provides excellent bracketing up to about
d/D = 1.5. For rough-sided caissons, the alternative
lower bound is only optimal at very shallow em-
bedments. Comparing Figures 12a and 12b, it is in-
teresting to note that the assumed degree of skirt
roughness is not particularly crucial for normally
consolidated soil, in contrast to the situation for ho-
mogeneous soil (compare Figs 10a and 10b).
 (a) Smooth sides composed of two Haar/von Karman regions (ω = ±1)
15
separated by a buffer zone (Randolph et al. 2000) in
LB
which the meridional stress state is defined by
13 UB
σ = σo + γz + su z r
Alt. LB (11)
11 θ = 3π / 4
Nc
and the hoop stress by
9
σ hh = σo + γz (12)
7
Stresses in the buffer zone satisfy both equilibrium
and the yield criterion; there are statically admissible
5
jumps in σhh at each edge of the zone. The constant
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 σo defines an arbitrary reference value of σ on z = 0
d /D (cf. Randolph & Houlsby 1984). When building the
(b) Rough sides mesh, new α characteristics are initiated by enforc-
25 ing continuity of σ and θ (and thus of σrr, σzz and τrz)
LB between the buffer zone and the partially constructed
20
UB Haar/von Karman regions. The major principal
Alt. LB stress rotates from θ = 3π/4 in the buffer zone to θ =
0 underneath the plate and θ = 3π/2 above it. Inte-
N c 15 gration of the contact stresses leads to a lower bound
bearing capacity factor of Nc = 12.42. Extension of
10
the stress field to infinity (both below and above the
plate) can be achieved using the strategy developed
by Randolph et al. (2000) for their rigorous lower
5 bound analysis of a spherical penetrometer.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 The consistent velocity field for the smooth plate
d /D is computed in the usual fashion (Fig. 13b), and with
sufficient mesh refinement gives a converged upper
Figure 12. Lower and upper bound solutions for rough-based bound of Nc = 12.42. This is coincident with the
caissons embedded in non-homogeneous soil (su = kz).

ω = +1

Buffer zone
5 BURIED PLATE FOUNDATIONS

This section presents some new plasticity solutions

relating to the collapse of a deeply buried circular
plate foundation in cohesive soil. The soil mass is (a) Nc (LB) = 12.42
assumed to be homogeneous (uniform su) and of in-
finite extent. It is also assumed that there is no re- ω = –1
striction on the development of tensile stress,
whether in the soil itself or on the rear face of the
plate. While these assumptions allow a relatively
simple analysis using the method of characteristics,
several complicating factors may be important in a (b) Nc (UB) = 12.42
practical design situation (particularly one involving
uplift loading), including proximity to the free soil
surface, a non-homogeneous profile of su, and the
possibility of ‘breakaway’ behind the plate. Indeed,
it is an interesting academic question as to whether
breakaway affects the bearing capacity of a deeply
embedded plate, either in rigid-plastic or elasto-
plastic soil.
Consider first the case of a vanishingly thin plate
with a fully smooth surface. As shown in Figure 13a,
(c) Nc (UB) = 12.64
the appropriate mesh of characteristics is symmetri-
cal above and below the plate. The stress field is Figure 13. Stress and velocity fields for smooth plate.
lower bound and therefore represents the exact solu-
tion. Only half of the field is shown to allow a better
appreciation of the velocity profile across z = 0. As
would be expected, the flow of soil is heavily con-
centrated in the region close to the edge of the plate.
The independent upper bound mechanism (Fig. 13c)
yields a good result, Nc = 12.64, less than 2% above
the exact answer. This is despite the fact that the
width of the deforming region is nearly twice that of
the consistent velocity field.
Figure 14 shows the corresponding lower and up-
per bound solutions for a vanishingly thin, perfectly
rough circular plate. The bounds obtained from the
method of characteristics are again coincident, this
time giving an exact bearing capacity factor of Nc =
13.11. The lower bound stress field can be extended
into the surrounding soil mass using the same tech-
nique as for the smooth case. If the stress field is ex-
ω = +1
Buffer zone
ω = –1
(a) Nc (LB) = 13.11
(b) Nc (UB) = 13.11
(c) Nc (UB) = 13.31
Figure 14. Stress and velocity fields for rough plate.
tended into the ‘false head’ region it is found that the
maximum shear stress mobilised on the surface of
the plate is 0.76su, where the degenerate α character-
istic leaves the fan zone. Hence the interface need
not be completely rough in order for this exact solu-
tion to be applicable. The optimum independent col-
lapse mechanism for the rough plate (Fig. 14c) gives
an upper bound of Nc = 13.31, again less than 2%
above the exact solution.
The solution to the analogous problem in plane
strain may be developed analytically using the
method of characteristics. As noted by Meyerhof
(1951) the collapse load is Nc = 3π + 2 = 11.42, in-
dependent of the roughness of the plate. The fact
that this solution is exact does not appear to have
been formally established, with workers such as
Rowe (1978) and Merifield et al. (1999a) acknowl-
edging Nc = 11.42 as an upper bound but highlight-
ing the need for a rigorously extended lower bound
stress field (as opposed to Meyerhof's partial stress
field). In the course of the present work it has been
shown that the requisite extension can indeed be per-
formed, using either the Randolph & Houlsby
(1984) method or a plane strain version of the
Randolph et al. (2000) method. Details are given in a
forthcoming paper by the authors (Martin &
Randolph, 2000).
Exact shape factors for infinitely deep circular
plates in a homogeneous, isotropic Tresca material
are therefore 1.09 (smooth) and 1.15 (rough). It is
worth noting that on the basis of his approximate
stress field analysis, Meyerhof (1951) concluded that
the shape factor should be unity for a deeply buried
circular plate, independent of its roughness. While
this is clearly an erroneous result, at least within the
confines of the highly idealised plasticity problem
posed here, certain features of real soils (in particu-
lar strength anisotropy) may mean that a shape fac-
tor of 1.0 is actually quite appropriate in practice. As
noted by Randolph et al. (2000), the observed bear-
ing capacities of cylindrical and spherical penetro-
meters are in fact very similar in a wide range of soft
soils, despite theoretically predicted shape factors
(sphere ÷ cylinder) which average around 1.2 for
isotropic strength properties. A comparable experi-
mental investigation of plane strain and axisymmet-
ric ‘plate penetrometers’ would certainly be of inter-
est.
6 COMBINED LOADING
The bearing capacity of caissons under combined (V,
M, H) loading is of paramount importance for off-
shore applications. While rigorous bounds have been
developed for plane strain geometries (e.g. Salençon
& Pecker 1995, Houlsby & Puzrin 1999), corre-
sponding solutions for circular (or other) geometries
remain a significant challenge.
 1.2
1
Horizontal, τ /s u
0.8
FE sideswipe
0.6
Vertical UB
0.4
3-D (strips)
0.2
Factored 2-D
0
0 2 4 6
Vertical, N c = q u /s u
Figure 15. Yield envelopes in (V, H) space for rough circular
foundation on homogeneous soil.
While there is insufficient space to address this
topic in detail in the present paper, it is interesting to
consider how best to extend the plane strain solu-
tions to three dimensions, and the form of upper
bound collapse mechanisms under general loading.
At present, finite element based solutions must be
relied on, either through the techniques of Sloan
(1988, 1989) for rigid plasticity, which have recently
been extended to three-dimensional problems (Meri-
field et al. 1999b), or using conventional elasto-
plastic analysis.
Figure 15 shows an example of a yield envelope
in (V, H) space for a rough circular foundation rest-
ing on the surface of a homogeneous soil. Two rig-
orous upper bounds are indicated: a vertical cutoff at
a bearing capacity of 6.05su; and a three-dimensional
solution based on a series of parallel strips, each of
which deforms according to the classical Green
(1954) solution. The latter is a recent solution devel-
oped by Puzrin & Randolph (yet to be published).
Also shown in Figure 15 is a result from an
ABAQUS finite element analysis using the Fourier
mode for non-symmetric loading. A circular founda-
tion resting on homogeneous soil has been subjected
first to bearing failure under purely vertical load, and
then a ‘sideswipe’ horizontal displacement at fixed
vertical position. The computed vertical and hori-
zontal limits (normalised by su) are 5.91 and 1.03 re-
spectively, compared with exact values of 6.05 and
1. Interestingly, although it would be expected that
the sideswipe load path would tend to lie marginally
inside the true yield envelope (because of internal
plasticity within the soil mass), it actually crosses
the upper bound solution.
The final curve on Figure 15 is a scaled version
of the plane strain solution (Green 1954), where the
vertical load axis has been stretched by the shape
factor, 6.05/5.14 = 1.18. Does this represent a true
lower bound?
7 CONCLUSIONS
This paper has endeavoured to summarise available
bound solutions for axially symmetric foundations in
soil where the strength may vary linearly with depth.
Classical solutions stemming from the 1950s are put
in the context of more recent solutions, where im-
provements have been made in accuracy (due to
modern computer capabilities) and rigour (with new
techniques for lower and upper bound solutions).
Many previously published lower bounds have
8
not been rigorously proven by demonstrating exten-
sibility of the partial stress field. Methods of extend-
ing lower bound solutions using the method of char-
acteristics have been demonstrated here, for both
surface foundations and embedded caissons. The in-
troduction of an artificial free surface has been
shown to yield significantly improved lower bounds
for smooth-sided caissons.
For surface foundations, an upper bound mecha-
nism that is consistent with the lower bound stress
characteristics allows exact bearing capacities to be
evaluated. However, for embedded caissons, the
(apparently) consistent mechanism includes regions
where the shear strain rate is of opposite sign to the
lower bound shear stress, leading to very poor upper
bound estimates. Instead, a simple independent up-
per bound mechanism, with only two parameters to
be optimised, has been shown to furnish reasonably
bracketed solutions, with uncertainty bands gener-
ally better than ±10%.
The challenge for the future is to derive rigorous
bound solutions for circular and square foundations
under combined (V, M, H) loading. While the bear-
ing capacity may be ascertained on a case-by-case
basis from finite element analysis, an understanding
of the collapse mechanisms under combined loading
would be a major benefit in terms of permitting sim-
ple design calculations, particularly where the soil
stratigraphy is non-homogeneous.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described here forms part of the activities
of the Special Research Centre for Offshore Founda-
tion Systems, established and supported under the
Australian Research Council's Research Centres
Program. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
The authors would also like to thank Mr. A.
House for performing the ABAQUS analysis de-
picted in Figure 15.
REFERENCES Randolph, M.F. 2000. Effect of strength anisotropy on capacity
of foundations. Proc. John Booker Memorial Symp., Sydney
Bishop, J.F.W. 1953. On the complete solution to problems of (in print).
deformation of a plastic-rigid material. J. Mech. Phys. Sol- Randolph, M.F. & G.T. Houlsby 1984. The limiting pressure
ids 2: 43-53. on a circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil. Géotech-
Booker, J.R. & E.H. Davis 1972. A general treatment of plastic nique 34(4): 613-623.
anisotropy under conditions of plane strain. J. Mech. Phys. Randolph, M.F., C.M. Martin & Y. Hu 2000. Limiting resis-
Solids 20: 239-250. tance of a spherical penetrometer in cohesive material.
Booker, J.R. & E.H. Davis 1977. Stability analysis by plasticity Géotechnique 50(5): 573-582.
theory. In C.S. Desai & J.T. Christian (eds), Numerical Rowe, R.K. 1978. Soil–structure interaction analysis and its
methods in geotechnical engineering: 719-748. New York: application to the prediction of anchor behaviour. PhD the-
McGraw-Hill. sis, University of Sydney.
Brinch Hansen, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for Salençon, J. & M. Matar 1982. Capacité portante des fonda-
bearing capacity. Bulletin No. 28, Danish Geotechnical In- tions superficielles circulaires. Journal de Mécanique
stitute, Copenhagen: 5-11. théorique et appliquée 1(2): 237-267.
Cox, A.D., G. Eason & H.G. Hopkins 1961. Axially symmetric Salençon, J. & A. Pecker 1995. Ultimate bearing capacity of
plastic deformation in soils. Proc. R. Soc. London (Ser. A) shallow foundations under inclined and eccentric loads. I.
254: 1-45. Purely cohesive soil. Eur. J. Mech. (A) 14: 349-375.
Davis, E.H. & J.R. Booker 1973. The effect of increasing Shield, R.T. 1955. On the plastic flow of metals under condi-
strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays. tions of axial symmetry. Proc. R. Soc. London (Ser. A) 233:
Géotechnique 23(4): 551-563. 267-287.
Eason, G. & R.T. Shield 1960. The plastic indentation of a Skempton, A.W. 1951. The bearing capacity of clays. Proc.
semi-infinite solid by a perfectly rough circular punch. J. Building Research Congress, London 1: 180-189.
Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 11: 33-43. Sloan, S.W. 1988. Lower bound limit analysis using finite ele-
Green, A.P. 1954. The plastic yielding of metal junctions due ments and linear programming. Int. J. Num. & Anal. Meth.
to combined shear and pressure. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2: in Geomech. 12: 61-77.
197-211. Sloan, S.W. 1989. Upper bound limit analysis using finite ele-
Houlsby, G.T. & A.M. Puzrin 1999. The bearing capacity of a ments and linear programming. Int. J. Num. & Anal. Meth.
strip footing on clay under combined loading. Proc. R. Soc. in Geomech. 13: 263-282.
London (Ser. A) 455: 893-916. Szczepinski, W. 1979. Introduction to the mechanics of plastic
Houlsby, G.T. & C.P. Wroth 1982a. Direct solution of plastic- forming of metals. Warsaw: Polish Scientific.
ity problems in soils by the method of characteristics. Proc. Tani, K. & W.H. Craig 1995. Bearing capacity of circular
4th Int. Conf. on Num. Meth. in Geomech., Edmonton 3: foundations on soft clay of strength increasing with depth.
1059-1071. Soils and Foundations 35(4): 21-35.
Houlsby, G.T. & C.P. Wroth 1982b. Determination of Vesic, A.S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In
undrained strengths by cone penetration tests. Proc. 2nd H.F. Winterkorn & H.Y. Fang (eds), Foundation engineer-
Eur. Symp. on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam 2: 585-590. ing handbook: 121-147. New York: Van Nostrand.
Houlsby, G.T. & C.P. Wroth 1983. Calculation of stresses on
shallow penetrometers and footings. Proc. IUTAM / IUGG
Symp. on Seabed Mech., Newcastle upon Tyne: 107-112.
Hu, Y. & M.F. Randolph 1998. H-adaptive FE analysis of
bearing capacity of skirted foundations. Proc. Int. Conf. on
Offshore and Polar Eng., Montreal 1: 549-556.
Hu, Y., M.F. Randolph & P.G. Watson 1999. Bearing response
of skirted foundations on non-homogeneous soil. J. Geo-
tech. Eng. Div. ASCE 125(11): 924-935.
Ishlinskii, A.I. 1944. Osesimmetrichnaia zadacha teorii plas-
tichnosti i proba Brinellia. Prikl. Mat. i Mekh. 8(3): 201-
208.
Kusakabe, O., H. Suzuki & A. Nakase 1986. An upper-bound
calculation on bearing capacity of a circular footing on a
non-homogeneous clay. Soils and Foundations 26(3): 143-
148.
Levin, A. 1955. Indentation pressure of a smooth circular
punch. Quart. Appl. Math. 13: 381-389.
Martin, C.M. 1994. Physical and numerical modelling of off-
shore foundations under combined loads. D.Phil. thesis,
University of Oxford.
Martin, C.M. & M.F. Randolph 2000. Limit analysis of flow-
round penetrometers in clay. Submitted for publication.
Merifield, R.S., S.W. Sloan & H.S. Yu 1999a. Stability of plate
anchors in undrained clay. Res. Rept No. 174.02.1999, Dept
of Civil Eng., University of Newcastle, Australia.
Merifield, R.S., A. Lyamin, S.W. Sloan & H.S. Yu 1999b.
Three dimensional lower bound solutions for the stability of
plate anchors in clay. Res. Rept No. 178.02.1999, Dept of
Civil Eng., University of Newcastle, Australia.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1951. The ultimate bearing capacity of founda-
tions. Géotechnique 2(4): 301-332.

View publication stats