See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281135832

Design method for the undrained capacity of

skirted circular foundations under combined
loading: Effect of deformable soil plug

ARTICLE in GOTECHNIQUE AUGUST 2015

Impact Factor: 1.87 DOI: 10.1680/geot.14.P.200

READS

244

1 AUTHOR:

Cristina Vulpe
University of Western Australia
8 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Cristina Vulpe
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 19 March 2016
Vulpe, C. Gotechnique [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680=geot.14.P.200]

Design method for the undrained capacity of skirted circular foundations

under combined loading: effect of deformable soil plug
C. VULPE

The response of skirted circular foundations with rough and smooth soilskirt interface to combined
loading is investigated. The shape and size of the failure envelopes of the skirted circular foundations
under a practical range of embedment ratio, soil strength heterogeneity, soilskirt interface and level
of vertical mobilisation are compared to those of solid embedded circular foundations and skirted
strip foundations. The results show that both the foundation geometry and soil plug inside the
skirt compartment significantly influence the uniaxial capacity and the shape and size of the failure
envelopes. Approximating expressions for solid embedded foundations do not capture the shifting
eccentricity of the failure envelopes of the skirted circular foundations. A new approximating solution
for describing the failure envelope as a function of embedment ratio, soil strength heterogeneity and
soilskirt interface is proposed. Scaling factors accounting for the decreasing uniaxial capacity of
skirted foundations with smooth soilskirt interface are also defined.

KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; finite-element modelling; offshore engineering; soil=structure interaction

INTRODUCTION is not achieved, as has been proven by experimental research

In order to withstand environmental and in-service loads,
and to improve the fixity of the offshore applications, the
foundations of offshore structures are fitted with peripheral
steel skirts which penetrate the seabed, confining a soil plug.
The benefits of skirted foundations include the transmittal of
loads to deeper, stronger soils and an increased ability to
resist overturning loads (Kellezi et al., 2005, 2008; Jostad &
Andersen, 2006). The uplift capacity is also improved
through development of negative excess pore pressures
(suction) inside the skirt compartment (Puech et al., 1993;
Watson et al., 2000; Gourvenec et al., 2009).
Originally developed for applications in the offshore oil
and gas industry, skirted circular foundations (commonly
referred to as bucket foundations or suction caissons by
the offshore industry) have proven their versatility by being
recently implemented as an alternative foundation option
to monopiles for offshore wind turbines (Barari & Ibsen,
2012; Larsen et al., 2013; Kourkoulis et al., 2014; Skau &
Jostad, 2014) owing to their ease of installation and cost
effectiveness.
Skirted circular foundations are lowered onto the seabed
under their own weight and penetrated into the soil by
applying an under-pressure (suction) inside the skirt com-
partment until full contact with the soil is obtained.
Typically, these skirted foundations do not comprise internal
skirts and the soil plug confined inside the skirts behaves like
a deformable body.
An assumption often made in the design of skirted
foundations is the full adhesion between the soil and lateral
walls of the skirted foundations (Gourvenec & Randolph,
2003; Yun & Bransby, 2007; Gourvenec, 2008), which results
in the generation of optimistic ultimate limit states. Often,
owing to the nature of the fine-grained soil and the
installation process, the full bond between the skirt and soil
Manuscript received 7 October 2014; revised manuscript accepted
27 February 2015.
Discussion on this paper is welcomed by the editor.
*Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems and ARC Centre of
Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering, University of
Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
(House & Randolph, 2001; Andersen & Jostad, 2002; Mana
et al., 2012).
The extensive research on the capacity of skirted foun-
dations by means of numerical studies (Ukritchon et al.,
1998; Taiebat & Carter, 2000; Gourvenec, 2008; Bransby &
Yun, 2009; Gourvenec & Barnett, 2011; Vulpe et al., 2014)
to withstand combined vertical (V), horizontal (H)
and moment (M) loading (VHM) is represented by the de-
velopment of three-dimensional (3D) failure envelopes.
These failure envelopes explicitly take into account the
effect of foundation geometry, foundation embedment
ratio, soil heterogeneity and loading interaction (namely
horizontal-moment cross-coupling) on the size and shape of
the envelope. The majority of these studies were performed
under the assumption that the soil inside the skirt com-
partment acts as a rigid body with failure mechanisms falling
beneath the skirt depth. As such, most studies assumed either
embedded foundations (Bransby & Randolph, 1999; Yun &
Bransby, 2007; Gourvenec & Mana, 2011; Vulpe et al., 2014)
or surface foundations able to support unlimited tension
(Bransby & Randolph, 1998; Taiebat & Carter, 2000;
Gourvenec & Randolph, 2003; Gourvenec, 2007). Where
the skirts were physically modelled, plane-strain conditions
prevailed (Bransby & Yun, 2009; Gourvenec & Barnett,
2011; Barari & Ibsen, 2012). Only limited case studies on
skirted circular foundations were analysed: Kourkoulis et al.
(2014) investigated the response of two suction caissons
on two soil profiles; Bienen et al. (2012) undertook a case
study on the behaviour of hybrid skirted foundations, while
Vulpe et al. (2013) analysed the response of two skirted
spudcan foundations on two soil profiles. Furthermore, the
convoluted interaction between loading conditions, soil
strength heterogeneity, foundation type, foundation embed-
ment depth and soilstructure interaction results in complex
failure envelopes owing to shifting kinematics of soil failure
under realistic arbitrary load combinations. Consequently,
failure envelopes for skirted circular foundations described
by closed-form expressions have not been proposed to date.
In this study, a comprehensive series of small-strain finite-
element (FE) analyses modelling skirted circular foundations
with varied embedment ratio, soil strength heterogeneity,

1
2 DESIGN METHOD FOR THE UNDRAINED CAPACITY OF SKIRTED FUONDATIONS
soilskirt roughness interface and subjected to 3D loading D
were carried out.
The purpose of the work presented in the current study is

(a) to elaborate on the appropriateness of defining the skirt

compartment as a rigid body by showing that a rigid

soil plug inside the skirts compartment can overestimate
capacity
(b) to investigate the effect of soilstructure roughness
interface (i.e. soilskirt interface) on the bearing capa-
city of skirted circular foundations by showing that the
interface roughness represents an important factor in
the shape and size of the failure envelope
(c) to define a simple algebraic expression for the failure
envelopes of skirted circular foundations for a practical
range of embedment ratios, soil strength heterogeneities
and soilskirt interfaces.
Based on the outcomes resulting from points (a) and (b),
namely that both the shape and size of the failure envelopes
are misrepresented by available solutions for other type
of foundations, it is necessary to explicitly construct failure
envelopes (point (c)) for skirted circular foundations.
Finally, the combined capacity of a skirted strip foun-
dation with rough soilskirt interface (Gourvenec & Barnett,
2011), a solid embedded circular foundation with rough soil
structure interface (Vulpe et al., 2014) and skirted circular
foundations with both rough and smooth soilskirt interface
(current study) are compared where the same embedment
ratio, soil strength profile and vertical loading are applied.
FINITE-ELEMENT MODEL
All 3D small-strain FE analyses modelling skirted circular
foundations, carried out in this study, were performed using
Abaqus commercial FE computer software (Dassault
Systmes, 2012).
Model geometry, mesh and material parameters
Skirted circular foundations with embedment depth (d )
to foundation diameter (D) ratios of d=D [0, 010, 025,
050] and skirt thickness (t) to foundation diameter ratio
t=D 0005 for all embedment ratios were considered. Three-
dimensional FE meshes were used to model the circular
foundations. Owing to symmetry along the vertical centreline
of the foundation, only half of the problem was modelled. A
typical representation of the FE mesh is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The mesh boundary extends ten times the foundation dia-
meter both horizontally and vertically from the centreline of
the foundation to ensure foundation response independent
of boundary effects. The vertical boundaries prohibited
displacement around the mesh circumference and the base
of the mesh was fixed in all three directions.
The skirted foundations were represented as rigid bodies
with a single load reference point (RP) located at skirt tip
level along the centreline of the foundation. Since small-
strain FE analyses were considered, the installation process of
the skirted foundations was not modelled the foundations
were considered wished-in-place.
The soilskirt roughness interface was defined as follows:
the soilskirt internal side interface was prescribed as fully
bonded (accounting for undrained response, i.e. suction, to
uplift) while for the soilskirt outer side interface either a
fully bonded (i.e. rough in shear and no separation allowed)
or a fully smooth (no adhesion) interface was considered.
The soilskirt internal side interface was assumed fully
bonded based on centrifuge experimental evidence (Chen
10 D
10 D
Fig. 1. Example of FE mesh (d=D = 050)
& Randolph, 2007) and particle image velocimetry analyses
(Mana et al., 2012). Gaps along the soilskirt interface are
expected to form and remain open on overconsolidated soil
deposits (Britto & Kusakabe, 1982; Supachawarote et al.,
2005; Mana et al., 2013). Since only weak normally con-
solidated soil was considered in this study, the effect of gaps
along the external side was not investigated.
The fully bonded (rough) interface leads to an optimistic
assessment of failure. Provided that full adhesion is achieved
inside the skirt compartment, the ultimate limit state
response under fully smooth soilskirt external side interface
conditions is considered conservative. In reality, a level of
frictional contact is expected between the soil and the outer
side of the skirts, as demonstrated by experimental investi-
gations of skirted foundations on clay (House & Randolph,
2001; Andersen & Jostad, 2002; Chen & Randolph, 2007;
Mana et al., 2012, 2013). It is important to note that the
results in the current study would prove unconservative for
skirted foundations with soilskirt internal wall of inter-
mediate roughness or fully smooth.
The undrained shear strength of the normally consolidated
(NC) soil considered in this study was assumed as either
uniform or linearly increasing with depth and defined by
su sum kz 1
where sum is the shear strength at the mudline and k is the
shear strength gradient with depth z (Fig. 2). The degree of
soil strength heterogeneity can be expressed in terms of a
D
sum su0 su
d
RP
1
k
z
Fig. 2. Definition of notation for foundation geometry, reference point
and soil shear strength profile
 VULPE
dimensionless index as
kD
2 (Mult) capacities (i.e. obtained in the absence of other
sum
rendering the FE results applicable for a variety of NC soil
profiles with strength linearly increasing with depth and
skirted foundations of varied absolute dimensions. Values of
0 (uniform shear strength with depth), 6, 20, 60 and 100
(essentially NC) were considered.
The NC soil was modelled as a linear elastic perfectly
plastic material obeying Tresca failure criterion (i.e.
max su). The soil was prescribed an undrained Youngs
modulus linearly increasing with depth with constant
Eu=su 500, Poisson ratio 0499 and effective unit
weight 6 kN=m3, which are realistic values for a soft
marine clay. The submerged part of the foundation system,
namely the skirts, was prescribed identical effective unit
weight as the soil in order to obtain the net capacity of the
foundation independent of buoyancy effects.
3
Load paths
All pure vertical (Vult), horizontal (Hult) and moment
load components, for example V for H M 0, and referred
to herein as uniaxial capacities) were performed with
displacement-controlled probes applied to the RP until
failure was reached manifested through increasing dis-
placement under constant load. Only small displacement
excursions were necessary to reach the ultimate limit state.
General combined VHM loading was achieved by apply-
ing a vertical load as a direct force, after which a series of
constant-ratio displacement probes of translation (u) and
rotation () were applied to the RP. The applied vertical load
level was defined as a proportion of the uniaxial vertical
capacity (Vult) of either rough or smooth skirted foundation,
respectively. The vertical load level is described by v V=Vult,
where v took values of 0, 050 or 075. An example of a failure
envelope is presented in Fig. 3. In general, between ten
and 15 probe tests were required to satisfactorily construct
a failure envelope for each combination of level of vertical
load, soil strength heterogeneity index, embedment ratio and
soilskirt interface.

Envelope
Sign convention and notation
Constant displacement ratio probe Sign conventions for displacements and loads presented in
Mmax u
15
D
= 05 this study follow the Butterfield et al. (1997) recommen-
dations, as shown in Fig. 4. The notations adopted herein are
u summarised in Table 1. Maximum values of horizontal and
= 025
D
10 moment capacities (denoted Hmax and Mmax, respectively)
do not coincide with pure loading as a result of the positive
M/ADsu0

u
= 05 u
D
D
= 10 effect of cross-coupling between horizontal and moment
degrees of freedom. Bearing capacity factors for each load-
05 ing direction are derived from uniaxial bearing capacities
u
= 10 u with respect to the undrained shear strength at skirt tip level
D = 30
D
su0 sum kd.
Hmax
0
15 10 05 0 05 10 15
Validation
H/Asu0
The accuracy of the FE meshes was compared against
available theoretical solutions of ultimate limit states under
Fig. 3. Example of failure envelope using probe tests from FE pure vertical (Martin & Randolph, 2001; Martin, 2003),
analyses (d=D = 0, = 6, V = 0)
horizontal (H=Asu 1) and moment loading (Randolph &
Puzrin, 2003) for the surface foundations because of a lack
of exact solutions for skirted circular foundations. For the
range of soil heterogeneities studied, the FE results for pure
M vertical capacity agreed to within 2% of the theoretically
H V
RP exact solutions (Martin, 2003). The pure horizontal capacity
w RP resulted in good agreement for low-strength heterogeneity
indices but was increasingly overestimated (up to 10% for

u 100) with increasing soil strength heterogeneity as
ultimate limit state coincided with a thin layer of elements
Fig. 4. Sign convention and notation confining the failure mechanism. Pure moment capacity was

Table 1. Definition of notation

Vertical Horizontal Rotational

Displacement w u
Load V H M
Pure uniaxial capacity Vult Hult Mult
Maximum capacity Hmax Mmax
Normalised load v V=Vult h H=Hult m M=Mult
Bearing capacity factor for a skirted foundation NcV Vult=Asu0 NcH Hult=Asu0 NcM Mult=ADsu0
with rough soilskirt interface
smooth smooth smooth
Bearing capacity factor for a skirted foundation NcV NcH NcM
with smooth soilskirt interface
Scaling factor v NcV
smooth
=NcV h NcH
smooth
=NcH m NcM
smooth
=NcM

Note: where A D 2=4, su0 is undrained shear strength at foundation level.

4 DESIGN METHOD FOR THE UNDRAINED CAPACITY OF SKIRTED FUONDATIONS
slightly over-predicted (up to 10%) owing to representation 16 = 20
of a circular scoop failure mechanism with hexahedral
elements. The surface foundation mesh refinement strategy 14
consisted of continuously refining the mesh in the areas 12
where the failure mechanisms due to V, H and M loading are

Vertical capacity, NcV

experienced until no further improvement of the results was 10
obtained. Once the surface foundation mesh was validated,
the same meshing strategy was applied for the skirted foun- 8
dations, resulting in FE models with 50 000 elements Embedded foundation, rough interface
6
increasing to 75 000 elements as a function of both soil (Vulpe et al., 2014)
heterogeneity and embedment ratio. 4 Skirted foundation, rough interface
(current study)
2 Skirted foundation, smooth interface
RESULTS (current study)
0
Effect of deformable soil plug 0 01 02 03 04 05
Bearing capacity factors for skirted circular foundations Embedment ratio, d/D
(this study) and solid embedded foundations (Vulpe et al., (a)
2014) are shown in Fig. 5 for pure vertical, horizontal and
moment loading for d=D [0, 05] and a NC soil with 20. Embedded foundation, rough interface
40 = 20
The conservative case of a skirted foundation with fully (Vulpe et al., 2014)
smooth skirt external sides is also plotted for comparison. Skirted foundation, rough interface
The assumption that both foundation systems benefit from 3.5 (current study)

Horizontal capacity, NcH

similar capacities holds true for vertical loading direction as Skirted foundation, smooth interface
suggested by Fig. 5(a). The hypothesis is further considered 30 (current study)
by investigating the shape and size of the failure mechanisms
in Fig. 6. The failure mechanisms are illustrated as total 25
displacement vectors that accompany failure for all uniaxial
ultimate loads. A Prandtl mechanism governs failure in the 20
vertical direction, the deformation mechanisms bearing the
same shape and size irrespective of foundation type. Thus,
15
pure vertical bearing capacity may be determined by either a
skirted or solid embedded foundation. When compared to
the above cases, the skirted foundation with fully smooth 0
0 01 02 03 04 05
soilskirt interface, although the same mechanisms of soil
Embedment ratio, d/D
failure prevail, reports slightly lower vertical ultimate limit
(b)
states as a consequence of zero work input by the external
sides against failure loads.
Figure 5(b) and Fig. 6 show that both rough skirted 30 Embedded foundation, rough interface = 20
(Vulpe et al., 2014)
foundations and solid embedded foundations return similar
capacities against horizontal loading. Small inverted scoop Skirted foundation, rough interface
25 (current study)
mechanisms are expected for rough skirted foundations of
Moment capacity, NcM

low embedment ratios and high soil heterogeneity, and the Skirted foundation, smooth interface
resulting horizontal bearing capacity is only slightly lower (current study)
20
than for an embedded circular foundation around 8%
smaller for d=D 01 and 100.
Smooth skirted foundations report lower horizontal 15
capacities compared to the rough skirted foundations for
all embedment ratios and soil heterogeneities investigated.
10
Lowest horizontal capacities are obtained for smooth skirted
foundations with d=D 01 on soil with . 0. The difference
in horizontal bearing capacity between smooth and rough 05
skirted foundations decreases with increasing embedment 0 01 02 03 04 05
ratio. Fig. 7 allows explanation for this: the kinematic mech- Embedment ratio, d/D
anism at failure for d=D 010 involves an inverted scoop (c)
reaching higher into the skirt compartment with increasing
soil heterogeneity, while longer skirts (d=D . 01) and low Fig. 5. Comparison of uniaxial bearing capacity factors between
either reduce or inhibit this effect with minimal soil failure embedded foundations (with rough soilstructure interface) and
penetration within the skirts for d=D 025 and , 20. skirted foundations (with rough and smooth soilskirt interface) for
(a) pure vertical loading, (b) pure horizontal loading and (c) pure
Figure 5(c) summarises the uniaxial moment capacities
moment loading
for solid embedded circular foundations and rough and fully
smooth skirted circular foundations. All skirted foundations
report lower moment capacities than the solid embedded with a centre of rotation above the foundation is observed for
foundations and it is not conservative to assume a solid plug the solid foundation. The fully smooth skirt outer side does
inside the skirt compartment. The results are also investi- not contribute to load shedding, resulting in a significant
gated from a kinematics to failure perspective in Fig. 6. The part of the loading being transferred to skirt tip level. This
difference in failure mechanisms is obvious an internal leads to a more pronounced internal scoop mechanism for
scoop mechanism with a rotation point beneath the foun- the smooth skirted foundation, which reports the lowest
dation develops for the skirted foundation (failure is pushed moment capacities (up to 35% lower than the rough skirted
upwards in shallower weaker soil), while an outward scoop foundation for d=D 050 and 20).
 VULPE 5
d/D = 050 Skirted foundation Embedded foundation Skirted foundation
= 20 Rough interface Rough interface Smooth interface

Vult

Hult

Mult

Fig. 6. Comparison of the failure mechanisms (shown as total displacement vectors) under uniaxial loading between embedded foundations (with
rough soilskirt interface) and skirted foundations (with rough and smooth soilskirt interface)

Hult =0 = 20 = 100

d/D = 010

d/D = 025

d/D = 050

Fig. 7. Comparison of failure mechanisms (shown as total displacement vectors) under uniaxial horizontal loading (Hult) for discrete levels of
embedment ratio d=D = 010, 025, 050 and soil strength heterogeneity index = 0, 20, 100 for the fully smooth skirted foundation

The combined VHM capacity of skirted foundations is Skirted foundation, rough interface (current study)
next compared to that of solid embedded solutions in Fig. 8. Embedded foundation, rough interface (Vulpe et al., 2014)
As noted by Bransby & Yun (2009), both the shape and size
of the failure envelope for a skirted foundation differ from = 60 15 d/D = 010
that of an embedded foundation, especially for foundation V/Vult = 0 d/D = 050
systems with low embedment ratios. All failure mechanisms
contain a rotational () component to failure (except for the
abscissa apex point) and moment capacity has been shown to 10
m/m*

be sensitive to foundation type.

The above observations showed that uniaxial vertical and
horizontal capacities of rough skirted foundations may be
05
determined from solid embedded counterparts, although
caution should be exercised for skirted foundations with low
embedment ratio on soil with high-strength heterogeneity.
Instead, pure moment capacities and combined VHM capa- 0
cities of solid embedded foundations might represent an 15 10 05 0 05 10 15
optimistic idealisation of the true skirted foundations response h/h*
to collapse loads. At the same time, the soilskirt roughness
interface may greatly influence the foundation capacity. Fig. 8. Effect of deformable soil plug on size and shape of the VHM
Therefore, it is important to explicitly define bearing capacity failure envelope
factors and failure envelopes for skirted circular foundations.

1951; Meyerhof, 1953; Hansen, 1970) but has proven to be

Uniaxial capacity a simple and convenient tool (Bransby & Randolph, 1999;
The use of depth factors in determining the contribution Gourvenec, 2008). As such, the current study predicted
of embedment ratio to bearing capacity with respect to uniaxial capacity in terms of depth factors, dcV, dcH and
the surface foundation capacities is not new (Skempton, dcM, and defined them as a function of given degree of soil
6 DESIGN METHOD FOR THE UNDRAINED CAPACITY OF SKIRTED FUONDATIONS
strength heterogeneity kD=sum. The method, although 20 Rough interface
available in Vulpe et al. (2014), is reproduced in the current
paper for the readers convenience. A series of scaling factors = 0, 6, 20, 60, 100
are then introduced to account for the effect of smooth 15
soilskirt interface on the uniaxial bearing capacity.

Depth factor, dcv

The methodology in defining an approximating expression
to create failure envelopes for the range of embedment
10
ratio, soil strength heterogeneity, soilskirt interface and level
of vertical mobilisation follows the one implemented by
Gourvenec & Barnett (2011) for skirted strip foundations
and Vulpe et al. (2014) for solid embedded foundation 05
(both cases considered only rough soilskirt interface). It was
chosen for its accuracy and ease of application. The results
are presented through simple approximating formulae, en- 0
abling prediction of generalised failure envelopes for the 0 01 02 03 04 05
extensive range of conditions considered. The methodology Embedment ratio, d/D
is adapted for skirted circular foundations and the effect of (a)
the soilskirt interface is highlighted.
5 Rough interface

= 0, 6, 20, 60, 100

Rough soilskirt interface. The depth factors, dcV, dcH and 4
dcM, are defined as follows

Depth factor, dcH

NcV d=D; 3
dcV for vertical bearing capacity 3
NcV d=D0;
2
NcHd=D;
dcH for horizontal capacity 4
NcHd=D0; 1

and
0
NcMd=D; 0 01 02 03 04 05
dcM for moment capacity 5 Embedment ratio, d/D
NcMd=D0;
(b)
where NcV(d=D,), NcH(d=D,) and NcM(d=D,) are the capacity
factors for any given embedment ratio d=D and soil strength 25 Rough interface
heterogeneity index , and generically called NcV, NcH and
NcM (see Table 1). The depth factors for rough skirted = 0, 6, 20, 60, 100
20
foundations with embedment ratios 0  d=D  05 and
0   100 are illustrated in Fig. 9 and also summarised
Depth factor, dcM

in Table 2 for user convenience. dcV and dcH from the 15

current study differ by around 5% when compared to the
depth factors for solid embedded circular foundations (Vulpe 10
et al., 2014). dcM is highly dependent on foundation type and
differs by up to 37% from the solid embedded foundation
05
counterpart.
NcV(d=D 0,), namely the vertical bearing capacity factor
for a surface circular foundation with soil strength hetero- 0
geneity index, , can be determined from any of the available 0 01 02 03 04 05
solutions in the literature such as the exact analytical sol- Embedment ratio, d/D
utions for a limited range of (Houlsby & Wroth, 1983), (c)
from numerical solutions (Gourvenec & Mana, 2011) or
from the numerical limit analysis freeware ABC (Martin, Fig. 9. Proposed depth factors for uniaxial loading: (a) vertical
capacity; (b) horizontal capacity; (c) moment capacity
2003) since all invariably result in a similar relationship,
which can be approximated through
with NcM(d=D 0, 0) 067, from the upper bound solution
NcV d=D0; given by Randolph & Puzrin (2003).
FV 1 009076 6
NcV d=D0;0 The resulting uniaxial bearing capacity factors as a func-
tion of depth factors, and summarised in Table 3 and Fig. 10,
with NcV(d=D 0, 0) 605, the exact solution for a rough show good agreement with the FE results.
circular foundation on Tresca material (Cox et al., 1961). NcH
(d=D 0,) 1 irrespective of soil heterogeneity index since
pure horizontal load capacity of a surface foundation is Smooth soilskirt interface. The effect of skirt roughness
governed by the mudline shear strength (sum). NcM(d=D 0,) interface on the uniaxial bearing capacity of skirted foun-
results from the FE analyses solutions and is determined dation is non-negligible (see Fig. 5) with capacities falling to
as a function of soil strength heterogeneity ratio as up to 35% lower for moment capacity for the d=D and
NcMd=D0; analysed in the current study. The uniaxial bearing capacity
FM 1 021074 7 factors for the smooth skirted foundations (NcVsmooth smooth
, NcH ,
NcMd=D0;0 smooth
NcM ) can be determined from the rough skirted
 VULPE 7
foundations counterparts as a function of a scaling factor for  
d
each direction of loading as h a2 b2 12
D
smooth
NcV v NcV for vertical bearing capacity 8 with a2 0008 149 and b2 1 for 0  d=D , 01
and a2 00005 011 and b2 00005 082 for 01 
smooth
NcH h NcH for horizontal capacity 9 d=D  05
 2  
d d
smooth
NcM m NcM for moment capacity 10 m a3 b3 1 13
D D
where with a3 0004 167 and b3 000002 2  00046 
 2   14 for 0  d=D  05.
d d
v a1 b1 1 11
D D
40 Rough interface
with a1 00024 06 and b1 000006 2 0008  Fit
08 for 0  d=D  05 35 =0
30 =6

Vertical capacity, NcV

Table 2. Depth factors for uniaxial vertical, horizontal and moment 25 = 20
capacity of the skirted circular foundation with rough soilskirt
interface, where dc = Nc(d=D,)=Nc(d=D = 0,) 20 = 60

d=D kD=sum dcV dcH dcM 15 = 100

0 0 1 1 1 10
6 1 1 1
5
20 1 1 1
60 1 1 1 0
100 1 1 1 0 01 02 03 04 05
01 0 119 178 119 Embedment ratio, d/D
6 103 164 090 (a)
20 072 144 056
60 042 125 029 5 Rough interface
100 030 120 020
Fit
025 0 144 290 150
6 109 250 083 =0
Horizontal capacity, NcH

4
20 072 221 046 =6
60 041 204 024
100 029 201 017 = 20
3
05 0 177 417 220 = 60
6 114 331 102
20 073 300 056 = 100
60 041 282 030 2
100 029 280 022

0
Table 3. Uniaxial capacity factors for skirted circular foundations 0 01 02 03 04 05
with rough soilskirt interface Embedment ratio, d/D
(b)
d=D kD=sum NcV NcH NcM
6 Rough interface Fit
0 0 605 1 067
6 985 1 119 =0
5
20 1548 1 192 =6
Moment capacity, NcM

60 2769 1 349
100 3788 1 477 4 = 20
01 0 721 178 080 = 60
6 1013 164 107 3
20 1116 144 107 = 100
60 1161 125 100 2
100 1145 120 095
025 0 871 290 101 1
6 1073 250 099
20 1108 221 088 0
60 1124 204 084 0 01 02 03 04 05
100 1104 201 081 Embedment ratio, d/D
05 0 1069 417 148 (c)
6 1122 331 121
20 1134 300 107 Fig. 10. Uniaxial bearing capacity factors for skirted circular
60 1139 282 105 foundations with rough soilskirt interface: comparison between FE
100 1116 280 103 results (discrete marker points) and fit (solid line) for (a) vertical
capacity, (b) horizontal capacity and (c) moment capacity
8 DESIGN METHOD FOR THE UNDRAINED CAPACITY OF SKIRTED FUONDATIONS
The scaling factors v, h and m are graphically rep-
resented in Fig. 11. The resulting bearing capacity factors for
fully smooth skirted circular foundations are summarised in
Table 4. The approximating expressions (equations (8)(13))
provide a good fit of the numerical results, as seen in Fig. 12.
Combined VHM capacity
Failure mechanisms. Two-dimensional slices in the HM
plane of 3D VHM failure envelopes are shown in Fig. 13 in
10
09
Scaling factor, v
normalised h=h*m=m* space at a discrete level of vertical
load mobilisation v 075 (h* and m* are defined later in
equations (15) and (16)). Fig. 13 showcases the complex
shape of the failure envelopes and their dependence on
foundation embedment ratio (Fig. 13(a)), soil strength
heterogeneity (Fig. 13(b)) and soilskirt interface (Fig. 13(c)).
Probe tests of u=D 05 and 05 are plotted in Figs 13(a)
13(c) along with their associated mechanisms of soil deforma-
tion at failure. The end points of the probe tests are denoted A
for the right-hand side of the VHM failure envelope and B for
the left-hand side. The subscripts make reference to either
embedment ratio, soil strength heterogeneity index or soilskirt
interface. For example, A6 represents the failure point on
the right-hand side of the envelope for the skirted foundation
with 6. The changing shape and size of the envelopes

is explained through the kinematic mechanisms at failure

(shown as total displacement vectors).
08 Embedment ratio significantly influences the shape of the
failure envelope with skirted foundations of low aspect ratio
(d=D 01) displaying maximum moment capacity in com-
07 = 0, 6, 20, 60, 100 bination with negative horizontal load (i.e. the failure
envelope has a negative eccentricity), as also noticed by
Bransby & Yun (2009). With increasing embedment ratio, the
shape of the failure envelope shifts towards a positive
06
0 01 02 03 04 05
eccentricity. In the right-hand side of the failure envelope,
Embedment ratio, d/D
the HM cross-coupling results in maximum moment for
d=D 050 with minimum moment observed for d=D 010.
(a)
For low embedment ratios, the soil is sheared inside the skirt
compartment (the failure mechanisms for failure points A010
10 and A025 display inverted scoop soil deformations) consider-
ably reducing the capacity. In the left-hand side of the failure
envelope, the HM cross-coupling induces a maximum
= 0, 6, 20, 60, 100 moment for skirted foundations of low embedment ratios. In
09
this case, the negative horizontal load results in a significant
Scaling factor, h

anti-clockwise rotation overbalancing the effect of the

moment load (B010 represents an asymmetric wedge mech-
08
anism) and this occurrence decreases with increasing d=D.
The effect of soil heterogeneity on the shape (eccentricity)
of the failure envelope is illustrated in Fig. 13(b). The
07 negative eccentricity (HM space) of the failure envelope
increases with increasing soil strength heterogeneity index ,
whereas the positive eccentricity (HM cross-coupling)
06
decreases with increasing . For high values of , the soil
0 01 02 03 04 05
Embedment ratio, d/D Table 4. Uniaxial capacity factors for skirted circular foundations
(b) with smooth soilskirt interface

10 d=D kD=sum NcV NcH NcM

0 0 605 1 067
6 985 1 119
09 20 1548 1 192
= 0, 6, 20, 60, 100
Scaling factor, m

60 2769 1 349
100 3788 1 477
08 01 0 664 148 070
6 933 136 093
20 1035 118 093
60 1082 100 086
07 100 1070 094 082
025 0 722 246 076
6 925 211 074
06 20 977 186 065
0 01 02 03 04 05 60 1001 168 060
Embedment ratio, d/D 100 985 163 058
(c) 05 0 791 365 106
6 910 289 086
Fig. 11. Scaling factors for determining the bearing capacity factors 20 933 261 075
of skirted circular foundations with smooth soilskirt interface under: 60 946 243 071
(a) pure vertical loading, (b) pure horizontal loading and (c) pure 100 929 238 069
moment loading
 VULPE 9
40
Smooth interface Fit skirt (Ar) compared to the smooth skirted foundation (As),
thus increasing the size of the failure envelope.
35 =0 Embedment ratio and soil strength heterogeneity have the
30 =6 greatest influence on the shape and size of the failure
Vertical capacity, Ncv

envelopes (Figs 13(a) and 13(b)), while the influence of the

25 = 20 soilskirt roughness mobilisation is secondary (Fig. 13(c)).
= 60 The change in eccentricity of the failure envelopes (due to
20
horizontal and moment loading cross-coupling) is associated
= 100 with embedment ratio and soil strength heterogeneity. The
15
roughness of the skirts influences only the size of the failure
10 envelope with no input on the shape change.
5
Lastly, Fig. 14 shows the effect of level of vertical load on
the failure envelopes. It is noticed that the vertical load does
0 not affect the envelope shape. In fact, only the size of skirted
0 01 02 03 04 05 foundations with low embedment ratio and soil strength
Embedment ratio, d/D heterogeneity is dependent on level of vertical load. The
(a) effect diminishes with increasing d=D and .
It can be concluded that it is necessary to define failure
6 Smooth interface envelopes as a function of all varying parameters considered
Fit in this study: embedment ratio, soil strength heterogeneity
5 index and soilskirt interface. As seen in Fig. 8, the defor-
=0
Horizontal capacity, NcH

mable soil inside the skirt compartment must be taken into

4 =6 account because the combined VHM capacities of solid em-
= 20 bedded foundations often represent an optimistic idealisation
3 of the true skirted foundations response to collapse loads.
= 60
2 = 100

Approximating expression. Based on the above obser-

1
vations, an approximating expression for the VHM failure
envelopes of skirted circular foundations is proposed as a
0
0 01 02 03 04 05
function of embedment ratio, soil shear strength hetero-
Embedment ratio, d/D
geneity index and soilskirt interface. The approximation
(b)
is defined by an elliptical expression proposed by Gourvenec
& Barnett (2011) and Vulpe et al. (2014) for skirted strip
Fit
foundations and embedded foundations, respectively
6 Smooth interface
   
h
=0   m 2 hm 1 14
5  h
 m
h
m

=6
Moment capacity, NcM

4 = 20 where and (summarised in Table 5 and Table 6 for the

rough and smooth interfaces, respectively) are fitting par-
= 60
3 ameters dependent on the foundation embedment ratio, soil
= 100 shear strength heterogeneity index and soilskirt interface.
2 Owing to the complex behaviour of the skirted foundations
under VHM loading with respect to soilskirt interface (a
1 consistent trend of the size of the failure envelope over the
range of embedment ratio and soil strength heterogeneity for
0 both rough and smooth skirted foundation was not observed)
0 01 02 03 04 05 a scaling factor of the type derived for uniaxial capacities
Embedment ratio, d/D could not be formulated. The fitting parameters can be
(c) interpolated for intermediate values of foundation embed-
ment ratio and shear strength heterogeneity index from
Fig. 12. Uniaxial bearing capacity factors for skirted foundations Table 5 and Table 6 for either rough or fully smooth skirted
with smooth soilskirt interface: comparison between FE results foundations. The effect of the vertical mobilisation, although
(discrete marker points) and fit (solid line) for (a) vertical capacity, (b)
neglected in equation (14), is taken into account through h*
horizontal capacity and (c) moment capacity
and m*

h
1  vq 15
displacement follows an asymmetric wedge failure mechan-
ism (B20) similar to B010 and again the maximum moment is m
1  vp 16
sustained with negative horizontal load.
Figure 13(c) compares the failure envelopes as a function with p 212 and q 414. h* and m* represent the lowest
of soilskirt interface for the same level of vertical load, soil horizontal or moment normalised loads, resulted from FE
heterogeneity and embedment ratio. As expected, the size of analyses, obtained in conjunction with a known applied
the failure envelope for the fully smooth interface is lower vertical load. They are defined over the range of d=D and
than that for the rough interface. While both foundations investigated in the current study.
display similar behaviour in HM space (as illustrated by Br Values of hmax=h *, where hmax represents the maximum
and Bs), the rough skirted foundation benefits from an horizontal mobilisation as a result of HM or HM cross-
additional deep wedge mechanism around the left side of the coupling, which are required to satisfactorily reproduce
10 DESIGN METHOD FOR THE UNDRAINED CAPACITY OF SKIRTED FUONDATIONS
B050 A050
d/D = 010 Rough interface
15
d/D = 025 = 60
d/D = 050 V/Vult = 075
Probe test

B010 10 A050
B025 A025

m/m*
B025 A025
A010
05
B050

B010 A010
0
15 10 05 0 05 10 15
h/h*

(a)

B0 Probe test Rough interface A0

15
=0 d/D = 010
=6 V/Vult = 075
= 20

10
B20
B6 A6
m/m*

B6 A0
A20 A6
B0
05

B20 A20

0
15 10 05 0 05 10 15
h/h*
(b)

Rough interface d/D = 050

Smooth interface 15 = 60
Br Ar
Probe test V/Vult = 075

10 Ar
m/m*

As
Bs As
05
Br
Bs

0
15 10 05 0 05 10 15
h/h*
(c)

Fig. 13. Effect on shape and size of VHM failure envelopes of varying: (a) foundation embedment ratio, d=D; (b) soil strength heterogeneity
index, = kD=sum; (c) soilskirt interface

Rough interface Rough interface = 0, 6, 20, 60, 100

15
d/D = 010 d/D = 050 15
V/Vult = 0 V/Vult = 0
V/Vult = 075 = 0, 6, 20, 60, 100
V/Vult = 075

10
10
m/m*
m/m*

05 05

0 0
15 10 05 0 05 10 15 15 10 05 0 05 10 15
h/h* h/h*

Fig. 14. Effect of level of vertical load on the size of the failure envelope
 VULPE 11
Table 5. Fitting parameters for approximating expression for VHM envelope under vertical load mobilisation 0  V=Vult  1 for skirted circular
foundations with rough soilskirt interface

d=D

0 01 025 05 0 01 025 05

0 163 189 210 183 005 016 044 066

6 200 170 215 196 006 008 022 053
20 246 166 210 204 001 027 011 049
60 289 175 210 203 013 040 007 046
100 312 176 211 203 013 044 007 046

Table 6. Fitting parameters for approximating expression for VHM envelope under vertical load mobilisation 0  V=Vult  1 for skirted circular
foundations with smooth soilskirt interface

d=D

0 01 025 05 0 01 025 05

0 163 194 197 173 005 001 026 058

6 200 165 211 176 006 026 001 042
20 246 166 216 194 001 040 013 033
60 289 176 211 193 013 053 020 030
100 312 182 229 194 013 056 018 030

the shape of the failure envelopes, are given in Table 7 and Table 7. Values of hmax=h* for vertical load mobilisation
Table 8 for the rough and smooth interfaces, respectively. 0  V=Vult  1 for skirted circular foundations with rough soilskirt
The ability of the approximating expression to capture interface
the changing size and shape of the failure envelopes of the
skirted foundations with respect to embedment ratio, soil
strength heterogeneity and soilskirt interface is shown in
d=D 0 6 20 60 100
Fig. 15. The close fit between the FE results and the curve fits
(equation (14)) shows that the reconstruction of the failure 0 1 1 1 1 1
envelope will incur almost no error for a vertical mobilisation 01 1 1 1 107 110
v 075. The approximating expression is only slightly con- 025 111 103 101 1 1
servative for low levels of v [0, 05] for skirted foundations 05 137 117 115 113 112
of high embedment ratio d=D resting on soil with strength
heterogeneity . 0 (heterogeneous soil), but becomes increas-
ingly conservative for d=D  010 and 0 (homogeneous
soil). Nonetheless, the predictions of ultimate limit states Table 8. Values of hmax=h* for vertical load mobilisation
under combined VHM loading using equation (14) are con- 0  V=Vult  1 for skirted circular foundations with smooth soil
skirt interface
siderably less conservative than predictions resulting from the
industry recommended practice for offshore shallow foun-
dation design (DNV, 1992; API, 2000; ISO, 2003) based on
classical bearing capacity theory (as seen explicitly for ISO d=D 0 6 20 60 100
(2003) in Ukritchon et al. (1998) and Gourvenec & Barnett
(2011)). 0 1 1 1 1 1
01 1 1 109 119 122
025 102 1 1 1 1
COMPARISON OF APPROXIMATING SOLUTIONS 05 117 103 101 101 101
This study explicitly showed how embedment ratio, soil
strength heterogeneity and soilstructure interface can both
independently and in combination affect the response of a soilskirt interface (Vulpe et al., 2014) and two skirted
foundation to either uniaxial or combined loading. At the circular foundations (one with rough soilskirt interface and
same time, different foundation types (i.e. strip, solid em- the other with smooth interface) are compared where the
bedded or skirted foundations) behave distinctly under same level of embedment ratio and soil strength heterogen-
identical soil conditions and subjected to the same level of eity index are considered.
VHM loading. The importance of choosing appropriate Figure 16 summarises the moment capacity of all foun-
approximating solutions for the desired type of foundation dations with varying embedment ratio for a soil strength
geometry is further made clear in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17. The index 5. The significant scatter in the solutions is
approximating equations for the failure envelopes of a skirted evident. The combined VHM capacity is next examined for
strip foundation with rough soilskirt interface (Gourvenec solid embedded circular foundations and skirted circular
& Barnett, 2011), a solid embedded foundation with rough foundations; approximating expressions for skirted strip
12 DESIGN METHOD FOR THE UNDRAINED CAPACITY OF SKIRTED FUONDATIONS
Rough interface FE results Rough interface 15 FE results
15
d/D = 010 d/D = 025
Curve fit Curve fit
V/Vult = 075 V/Vult = 075
= 0, 6, 20, 60, 100
= 0, 6, 20, 60, 100

10 10
m/m*

m/m*
05 05

0 0
15 10 05 0 05 10 15 15 10 05 0 05 10 15
h/h*v h/h*v

FE results Smooth interface 15 FE results

Smooth interface 15
d/D = 010 d/D = 025 Curve fit
Curve fit
V/Vult = 075 V/Vult = 075

= 0, 6, 20, 60, 100

= 0, 6, 20, 60, 100
10 10

m/m*
m/m*

05 05

0 0
15 10 05 0 05 10 15 15 10 05 0 05 10 15
h/h*v h/h*v

Fig. 15. Comparison of selected failure envelopes of skirted circular foundations with rough and smooth soilskirt interface predicted by FE
analyses (broken lines) and approximating expression (solid lines) (equation (14)

Skirted circular foundations, rough soilskirt interface

Skirted circular foundations, rough soilskirt interface (current study)
(current study)
Skirted circular foundations, smooth soilskirt interface
Skirted circular foundations, smooth soilskirt interface
(current study)
(current study)
Solid embedded foundations (Vulpe et al., 2014)
Solid embedded foundations (Vulpe et al., 2014)
ISO (2003)
Skirted strip foundations (Gourvenec & Barnett, 2011) d/D = 012
20 = 30
10 V/Vult = 027

15
m/m*
NcM

10 05

05

=5

0 0
0 01 02 03 04 05 15 1 05 0 05 10 15
Embedment ratio, d/D h/h*v

Fig. 16. Comparison of different available solutions for determining Fig. 17. Comparison of different available approximating expressions
the pure moment capacity for determining the combined VHM capacity
 VULPE 13
Table 9. Summary of proposed procedure

Step Activity Reference

Step 1 Evaluate d=D, su0 and kD=sum for given foundation geometry and soil strength profile
Step 2 Calculate Fv, dcV, NcV and Vult (for skirted foundations with rough soilskirt interface) Equations (6), (3) and Table 1
Step 2 Calculate v, NcV
smooth
and Vult (for skirted foundations with fully smooth soilskirt interface) Equations (11) and (8)
Step 3 Calculate vertical mobilisation ratio v V=Vult
Step 4 Calculate h* and m* Equations (15) and (16)
Step 5 Choose exact fitting parameters and for a skirted foundation with either rough or smooth Table 5 and Table 6
soilskirt interface
Step 6 Plot normalised h*m* envelope for given v (for constant intervals of h solve for m)
Step 7 Calculate NcH and NcM (in absence of other loads or constraints) (for skirted foundations with Equations (7), (4) and (5)
rough soilskirt interface) and Table 1
Step 7 Calculate h, m, NcHsmooth smooth
and NcM (for skirted foundations with fully smooth soilskirt Equations (12), (13), (9)
interface) and (10)
Step 8 Calculate H*=Asu0 and M*=ADsu0 at given vertical load level, that is, h* and m* multiplied by
smooth smooth
NcH and NcM or NcH and NcM , respectively
Step 9 Convert h*m* envelope to dimensionless load space, that is h=(H*=Asu0) and m=(M*=ADsu0)

foundations are only available for soils with  6. The only
variable in the results from Fig. 17 is the foundation type,
namely the approximation expression used, all other things
being equal: foundations with embedment ratio d=D 012
resting on soil with 30 and subjected to a vertical load
V 6 kN. The results are further compared to the industry
guideline solution from ISO (2003). It is noteworthy that
all approximating expressions lead to distinct failure
envelopes the solid embedded foundation solution does
not capture the negative eccentricity experienced by the
skirted circular foundations. As expected, the ISO (2003)
solution returns the most conservative approximation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A series of small-strain FE analyses were carried out
to explicitly investigate the effect of varying embedment
ratio, soil strength heterogeneity index, soilskirt interface
and level of vertical mobilisation on the combined capacity
of skirted circular foundations. The effect of all varying para-
meters was quantified through a simple algebraic approxi-
mation expression and explained through the kinematic
mechanisms of soil deformation at failure.
The outcomes of this study are summarised as follows.
(a) The behaviour of skirted foundations differs from that
of embedded foundations. An idealisation of the skirt
compartment as a rigid body would lead to the over-
estimation of the moment capacities, as failure of the
soil inside the skirt compartment would not be taken
into account.
(b) Uniaxial bearing capacity factors are proposed through
depth factors.
(c) Scaling factors, defining the effect of soilskirt interface
on uniaxial bearing capacities, are formulated as a
function of embedment ratio and the soil strength
heterogeneity index. No scaling factor for the combined
VHM failure envelope was derived owing to the
complex interaction of embedment ratio, soil strength
heterogeneity index and level of vertical mobilisation
for either rough or fully smooth skirted foundations.
(d) The shape of the normalised failure envelope signifi-
cantly varies with foundation embedment ratio and soil
strength heterogeneity index.
(e) The size of the normalised failure envelope varies
with foundation embedment ratio, soil strength hetero-
geneity index, soilskirt interface and, to a lesser extent,
level of vertical load.
(f) The failure envelope of the skirted circular foun-
dation cannot be approximated by a solid embedded
circular foundation counterpart. The changes in size
and shape of the failure envelopes are greatly affected
by the presence of the deformable soil plug inside
the skirt compartment. The negative eccentricity of the
failure envelope for low levels of embedment ratio are
not captured by the approximating expression for solid
embedded circular foundations.
(g) A single algebraic expression is proposed to approxi-
mate failure envelopes as a function of embedment
ratio, soil strength heterogeneity index, soilskirt inter-
face and level of vertical load (the latter indirectly
through h* and m*).
The failure envelope methodology presented here (summar-
ised in Table 9) for prediction of ultimate limit states under
multi-directional loading is well suited for implementation
in an automated calculation tool. Such a tool enables fast
derivation of failure envelopes of skirted circular foundations
with varying embedment ratio, soil strength heterogeneity
index, soilskirt interface and vertical mobilisation. It avoids
the necessity to perform a large number of time-consuming
3D FE analyses required to otherwise reproduce the failure
envelopes. The results can be used to optimise foundation
geometry for a given set of design loads and shear strength
profile or to evaluate load or material factors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work forms part of the activities of the Centre for
Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS), currently supported
as a node of the Australian Research Council Centre of
Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering
(ID CE110001009). This support is gratefully acknowledged.
The author is also grateful for the input provided by Mr Alex
Cornelius and Dr Scott Draper.
NOTATION
A cross-sectional plan area of foundation
D foundation diameter
d skirt length
dcV, dcH, dcM depth factors
Eu Youngs modulus
H horizontal load
Hult uniaxial horizontal capacity
k shear strength gradient
M moment load
14 DESIGN METHOD FOR THE UNDRAINED CAPACITY OF SKIRTED FUONDATIONS
Mult uniaxial moment capacity
smooth
NcV, NcH, NcM,NcV , bearing capacity factors
smooth smooth
NcH , NcM
su shear strength
sum shear strength at mudline
V vertical load
Vult uniaxial vertical capacity
z depth
effective unit weight
v, h, m scaling factors
soil heterogeneity index
Poisson ratio
REFERENCES
Andersen, K. H. & Jostad, H. P. (2002). Shear strength along
outside wall of suction anchors in clay. Proceedings of the
31st offshore technology conference, Houston, TX, paper OTC
10824.
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2000). API RP 2A:
Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing
offshore platforms, 21st edn. Washington, DC, USA: American
Petroleum Institute.
Barari, A. & Ibsen, L. B. (2012). Undrained response of bucket
foundations to moment loading. Appl. Ocean Res. 36, 1221.
Bienen, B., Gaudin, C., Cassidy, M. J., Rausch, L., Purwana, O. A.
& Krisdani, H. (2012). Numerical modelling of a hybrid skirted
foundation under combined loading. Comput. Geotech 45,
127139
Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). Combined loading
of skirted foundations. Gotechnique 48, No. 5, 637655, http:==
dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.1998.48.5.637.
Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1999). The effect of embedment
depth on the undrained response of skirted foundations to
combined loading. Soils Found. 39, No. 4, 1933.
Bransby, M. F. & Yun, G. J. (2009). The undrained capacity of
skirted strip foundations under combined loading. Gotechnique
59, No. 2, 115125, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.2007.
00098.
Britto, A. M. & Kusakabe, O. (1982). Stability of unsupported
axisymmetric excavations in soft clay. Gotechnique 32, No. 3,
261270, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.1982.32.3.261.
Butterfield, R., Houlsby, G. T. & Gottardi, G. (1997). Standardised
sign conventions and notation for generally loaded foundations.
Gotechnique 47, No. 5, 10511052, http:==dx.doi.org=10.
1680=geot.1997.47.5.1051.
Chen, W. & Randolph, M. F. (2007). External radial stress changes
and axial capacity for suction caissons in soft clay. Gotechnique
57, No. 6, 499511, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.2007.57.
6.499.
Cox, A. D., Eason, G. & Hopkins, H. G. (1961). Axially symmetric
plastic deformation in soils. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 254,
No. 1036, 145).
Dassault Systmes (2012). Abaqus analysis users manual.
Providence, RI, USA: Simulia Corp.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (1992). Foundations, classifications notes
no. 30.4. Oslo, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.
Gourvenec, S. (2007). Failure envelopes for offshore shallow foun-
dations under general loading. Gotechnique 57, No. 9, 715728,
http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.2007.57.9.715.
Gourvenec, S. (2008). Effect of embedment on the undrained
capacity of shallow foundations under general loading.
Gotechnique 58, No. 3, 177185, http:==dx.doi.org=10.
1680=geot.2008.58.3.177.
Gourvenec, S. & Barnett, S. (2011). Undrained failure envelope
for skirted foundations under general loading. Gotechnique 61,
No. 3, 263270, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.9.T.027.
Gourvenec, S. & Mana, D. K. S. (2011). Undrained vertical
bearing capacity factors for shallow foundations. Gotechnique
Lett. 1, OctoberDecember, 101108, http:==dx.doi.
org=10.1680=geolett.11.00026.
Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M. F. (2003). Effect of strength
non-homogeneity on the shape and failure envelopes for com-
bined loading of strip and circular foundations on clay.
Gotechnique 53, No. 6, 575586, http:==dx.doi.org=10.
1680=geot.2003.53.6.575.
Gourvenec, S., Acosta-Martinez, H. E. & Randolph, M. F. (2009).
Experimental study of uplift resistance of shallow skirted
foundations in clay under transient and sustained concentric
loading. Gotechnique 59, No. 6, 525537, http:==dx.doi.
org=10.1680=geot.2007.00108.
Hansen, J. B. (1970). A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity, Bulletin 28, pp. 511. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish
Geotechnical Institute.
Houlsby, G. T. & Wroth, C. P. (1983). Calculation of stresses
on shallow penetrometers and footings. Proceedings of
IUTAM=IUGG seabed mechanics, Newcastle, pp. 107112.
House, A. R. & Randolph, M. F. (2001). Installation and pull-out
capacity of stiffened suction caissons in cohesive sediments.
Proceedings of the 11th international offshore and polar
engineering conference, Stavanger, Norway, vol. 2, pp. 574580.
ISO (International Standardisation Organisation) (2003).
ISO 19901-4: Petroleum and natural gas industries specific
requirements for offshore structures Part 4: Geotechnical
and foundation design considerations, 1st edn. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Standardisation Organisation.
Jostad, H. P. & Andersen, K. H. (2006). Potential benefits of using
skirted foundations for jackup platforms. Proceedings of the
offshore technology conference, Houston, TX, paper, OTC
18016.
Kellezi, L., Hofstede, H. W. L. & Hansen, P. B.
(2005). Jack-up footing penetration and fixity analyses.
Proceedings of the 1st international symposium frontiers
in offshore geomechanics (ISFOG), Perth, Australia,
pp. 559565.
Kellezi, L., Kudsk, G. & Hofstede, H. W. L. (2008). Skirted footings
capacity for combined loads and layered soil conditions. In
Foundations: Proceedings of the 2nd British Geotechnical
Association international conference on foundations (eds
M. J. Brown, M. F. Bransby, A. J. Brennan and J. Knappett),
vol. 1, pp. 923935. Dundee, UK: HIS Press.
Kourkoulis, R. S., Lekkakis, P. C., Gelagoti, F. M. & Kaynia, A. M.
(2014). Suction caisson foundations for offshore wind turbines
subjected to wave and earthquake loading: effect of soil
foundation interface. Gotechnique 64, No. 3, 171185, http:==
dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.12.P.179.
Larsen, K. A., Ibsen, L. B. & Barari, A. (2013). Modified
expression for the failure criterion of bucket foundations
subjected to combined loading. Can. Geotech. J. 50,
No. 12, 12501259.
Mana, D. K. S., Gourvenec, S., Randolph, M. F. & Hossain, M. S.
(2012). Failure mechanisms of skirted foundations in uplift
and compression. Int. J. Phys. Modelling Geotech. 12, No. 2,
4762.
Mana, D. K. S., Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M. F. (2013).
Experimental investigation of reverse end bearing of offshore
shallow foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 50, No. 10, 10221033.
Martin, C. M. (2003). New software for rigorous bearing
capacity calculations. Proceedings of the British Geotechnical
Association international conference on foundations, Dundee,
pp. 581592.
Martin, C. M. & Randolph, M. F. (2001). Applications of the lower
and upper bound theorems of plasticity to collapse of circular
foundations. Proceedings of the 10th international conference
of the International Association of Computer Methods
and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), Tucson, vol. 2,
pp. 14171428.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations
under eccentric and inclined loads. Proceedings of the
3rd international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, Zurich, vol. 1, pp. 440445.
Puech, A., Iorio, J.-P., Garnier, J. & Foray, P. (1993). Experimental
study of suction effects under mudmat type foundations.
Proceedings of Canadian conference on marine geotechnical
engineering, St Johns, Newfoundland, vol. 3, pp. 10621080.
Randolph, M. F. & Puzrin, A. M. (2003). Upper bound limit
analysis of circular foundations on clay under general loading.
Gotechnique 53, No. 9, 785796, http:==dx.doi.org=
10.1680=geot.2003.53.9.785.
Skau, K. S. & Jostad, H. P. (2014). Application of the
NGI-procedure for design of bucket foundations for
offshore wind farms. Proceedings of the 24th international
 VULPE
ocean and polar engineering conference, Busan, Korea,
pp. 189198.
Skempton, A. W. (1951). The bearing capacity of clays. Proceedings
of the building and research congress, London, vol. 1,
pp. 180189.
Supachawarote, C., Randolph, M. F. & Gourvenec, S. (2005). The
effect of crack formation on the inclined pullout capacity of
suction caissons. Proceedings of the International Association of
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics conference,
Turin, Italy, pp. 577584. Rotterdam, the Netherlands:
Balkema.
Taiebat, H. A. & Carter, J. P. (2000). Numerical studies of
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohesive
soil subjected to combined loading. Gotechnique 50,
No. 4, 409418, http:==dx.doi.org=10.1680=geot.2000.50.4.
409.
15
Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A. J. & Sloan, S. W. (1998). Undrained
limit analysis for combined loading of strip footings on clay.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 124, No. 3, 265276.
Vulpe, C., Bienen, B. & Gaudin, C. (2013). Predicting the undrained
capacity of skirted spudcans under combined loading. Ocean
Engng 74, 178188.
Vulpe, C., Gourvenec, S. & Power, M. (2014). A generalised failure
envelope for undrained capacity of circular shallow foundations
under general loading. Gotechnique Lett. 4, No. 3, 187196.
Watson, P. G., Randolph, M. F. & Bransby, M. F. (2000). Combined
lateral and vertical loading of caisson foundations. Proceedings
of the annual offshore technology conference, Houston, TX,
paper OTC 12195.
Yun, G. & Bransby, M. F. (2007). The horizontal-moment capacity
of embedded foundations in undrained soil. Can. Geotech. J. 44,
No. 4, 409427.