Gourvenec, S. & Barnett, S. (2011). Geotechnique 61, No. 3, 263270 [doi: 10.1680/geot.9.T.

027]

TECHNICAL NOTE

Undrained failure envelope for skirted foundations under general loading

S . G O U RV E N E C a n d S . BA R N E T T Three-dimensional failure envelopes can be used to dene the bearing capacity and proximity to failure of shallow foundations under general vertical, horizontal and moment loading (V, H, M/B). Different structures, and different load cases for the same structure, cover varying domains of (6V, 6H, 6M/B) load space; therefore, a fully encompassing failure envelope in (V, H, M/B) load space is a useful tool to dene ultimate limit states for design. In this technical note, a closed-form expression is proposed that enables prediction of undrained bearing capacity of skirted foundations under general in-plane loading, valid for a range of embedment ratios and soil shear strength heterogeneities.
KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; footings/foundations; numerical modelling

Des enveloppes deffondrement tridimensionnelles peu vent etre utilisees pour denir la force portante et la proximite deffondrement de fondations supercielles sou` mises a des charges verticales, horizontales et de moment (V, H, M/B). Differentes structures, et differents cas de charge pour la meme structure, couvrent differents domaines de lespace de charge (6V, 6H, 6M/B); de ce fait, une enveloppe deffondrement globale dans lespace de charge (V, H, M/B) est un outil dune grande utilite pour denir des etats limites extremes pour letude. Dans la presente communication technique, on propose une ` expression a forme close permettant de predire la force ` ` portante non drainee de fondations a jupe soumises a des charges au meme plan valable pour une serie de ratios denfouissement et dheterogeneites de resistance au cisaillement du sol.

INTRODUCTION The benets of three-dimensional failure envelopes over classical bearing capacity theory have been widely discussed by Gottardi & Buttereld (1993), Gourvenec & Randolph (2003) and others, and include (a) explicit consideration of (H, M/B) interaction as opposed to linear superposition of load inclination and load eccentricity (b) coupling of the horizontal and moment degrees of freedom for embedded foundations as opposed to a depth factor, the latter in effect leading to isotropic expansion of the failure envelope (c) concurrent consideration of foundation geometry, embedment and soil strength prole as opposed to the superposition of independent factors (d ) provision for uplift resistance for skirted foundations at low vertical loads as opposed to the assumption of lift-off under overturning moment at vertical loads less than half the ultimate uniaxial capacity (V/ Vult , 0.5) implied by the effective area method (Meyerhof, 1953) (e) an indication of the proximity to failure in terms of changes in individual load components as opposed to a reduction in vertical bearing pressure. Failure envelopes are particularly relevant to offshore shallow foundations, which are typically three-dimensional, embedded, founded in soils with heterogenous shear strength and are subject to signicant horizontal load and moment owing to harsh environmental forces. Embedment of offshore shallow foundations is achieved with skirts that
Manuscript received 11 November 2009; revised manuscript accepted 21 June 2010. Published online ahead of print 3 December 2010. Discussion on this paper closes on 1 August 2011, for further details see p. ii. Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Perth, Western Australia

penetrate into the seabed conning a soil plug. Negative excess pore pressures can develop within the soil plug during undrained uplift (owing to overturning or the buoyancy of a oating structure) that enables mobilisation of reverse end bearing. These features of offshore foundations cause classical bearing capacity theory typically to underpredict foundation capacity and make the use of explicitly derived failure envelopes an attractive alternative for design. Three-dimensional failure envelopes have been derived for various shallow foundation boundary conditions including strip, circular and rectangular plan geometry; surface foundations with a zero- and unlimited-tension foundationsoil interface (the latter condition intended conceptually to represent foundation skirts); different types of embedment (rigid plug or skirted, i.e. deformable soil plug) and different levels of embedment; uniform and linearly increasing shear strength proles; and undrained and drained conditions (e.g. Martin, 1994; Gottardi et al., 1999; Ukritchon et al., 1998; Bransby & Randolph, 1998; 1999; Taiebat & Carter, 2000; 2002; Gourvenec & Randolph, 2003; Gourvenec, 2007a; 2007b; 2008; Bransby & Yun, 2009). However, few failure envelopes have been described by a closed-form solution, f (V H, M/B), to make them accessible for routine design use. , The complex shape of the envelopes, and the dependence of size and shape on, for example, foundation geometry, embedment ratio and shear strength prole, is not conducive to the derivation of a closed-form expression. Those that have been described by a closed-form expression are limited to surface foundations, with either a zero- or unlimited-tension foundationsoil interface, or nominal embedment, and limited shear strength prole (Martin, 1994; Bransby & Randolph, 1998; 1999; Gottardi et al., 1999; Taiebat & Carter, 2002; Gourvenec, 2007a). In this technical note, a closed-form expression is proposed that enables prediction of undrained bearing capacity of skirted foundations under general in-plane loading, valid for a range of embedment ratios and soil shear strength heterogeneities. 263

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

264

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT

B t RP D 5B

FINITE-ELEMENT MODEL Small-displacement nite-element analyses (FEAs) were carried out with the commercially available software Abaqus.

5B

Model geometry and soil conditions Skirted foundations with embedment depth to foundation breadth ratios D/B of 0 (surface), 0.25, 0.5 and 1 were considered under conditions of plane strain with a skirt thickness ratio (t/B) of 0.003, based on industry practice. Plane strain conditions were adopted to allow comparison with existing analytical and numerical solutions. In reality skirted foundations are three-dimensional, but it was considered that plan geometry is secondary to embedment and soil strength prole in terms of the effect on the size and shape of the failure envelope. The undrained shear strength of the soil was assumed to be either uniform with depth or to increase linearly with depth according to su sum + kz, where sum is the shear strength at the mudline and k is the shear strength gradient with depth, z. The degree of heterogeneity is described by the dimensionless parameter k kB/sum and values of 0 (uniform), 1, 2 and 6 were considered. The soil was modelled as linear elastic, Tresca plastic with an effective unit weight of 6 kN/m3 , Poissons ratio of 0.49 and undrained Youngs modulus to undrained shear strength ratio of 500. A reference point (RP) for loads and displacements was taken at foundation level along the midline of the foundation. Fig. 1 illustrates the foundation geometry, nomenclature for loads and displacements, and soil conditions modelled.

Fig. 2. Finite-element mesh, D/B

0. 5

translation and rotation (w, u, ) respectively were applied to the reference point (RP). For general (V, H, M/B) loading, a proportion of the ultimate uniaxial vertical capacity was imposed as a direct force, and the horizontal load and moment components were applied as constant displacement ratio probes (u/). The terminating points of the individual load paths were used to construct two-dimensional slices in planes of horizontal and moment load through the threedimensional failure envelope at intervals of constant vertical load; a logical presentation of results as typically vertical load is known, given by the self-weight of the structure and foundation system, while the horizontal and moment loads are variable and inter-related, derived from the environmental forces. RESULTS Uniaxial capacity Figure 3 shows the variation in ultimate vertical, horizontal and moment capacity, expressed in terms of bearing capacity factors, as a function of embedment ratio for each soil shear strength prole. Ultimate capacity refers to pure loading, for example Vult with H 0, M 0 and the bearing capacity factors are calculated in terms of the undrained shear strength at foundation level su0 . The capacities presented in Fig. 3 are independent of soil weight since the weight of the soil plug cancels the (usually present) overburden term (apart from a small contribution owing to the presence of the skirts) and the fully bonded foundationsoil interface forces a symmetrical failure mechanism under horizontal load or moment. The weight of the soil displaced proud of the original mudline owing to the volume of soil displaced during installation of the foundation (i.e. Archimedes effect) should be accounted for. In the case of the FEAs, the foundation was in place at the start of the analyses with an undisturbed, horizontal, mudline. Ultimate capacity for homogeneous soil strength (k 0) predicted from upper bounds (Bransby & Randolph, 1999; Bransby & Yun, 2009) are also shown in Fig. 3 and equal or predict higher values than the FEA, validating the model. The bearing capacity factors shown in Fig. 3 can be calculated through depth factors, d cV (NcV( D= B) = NcV( D= B0) ), d cH (NcH( D= B) =NcH( D=B0) ) and d cM (NcM( D= B) =NcM( D= B0) ), which can be expressed with coefcients dened as a function of k d cV 1 a1    2 D D a2 B B (1)

Finite-element mesh An example mesh is shown in Fig. 2. Similar mesh discretisation was adopted for each of the different embedment ratios. The external boundaries were set sufciently remotely so as not to affect the response of the foundation and restricted from out-of-plane displacement. The foundations were modelled as rigid bodies, rough in shear and perfectly bonded at the foundationsoil interface. Secondorder, reduced integration, quadrilateral, hybrid continuum elements were used to model the soil.

Scope of loading Each analysis followed a single displacement-controlled load path to failure. For pure vertical, horizontal and moment loading (V, H, M/B), vertical translation, horizontal

B sum su0 su

D t RP 1 k z

where a1 0:8890 0:2002k 0:0039k2

Fig. 1. Foundation geometry and soil conditions

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

12

UNDRAINED FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS UNDER GENERAL LOADING    2 D D c2 d cM 1 c1 B B 11

k
0, 1, 2, 6

265

(3)

10

where c1 1:0600 0:5252k 0:0226k2 c2 1:3109 0:04338k 0:0766k2 NcV( D= B 0) can be expressed as a function of k based on a curve t from the FEA or lower bound solution (Davis & Booker, 1973). For the range of heterogeneity considered here, 0 , k , 6, from the FEA   NcV(k) FV (4a) 1 0:30k 0:018k2 NcV(k0) or from the lower bound solution   NcV(k) FV 1 0:26k 0:015k2 NcV(k0)

Vult /Bsu0

9 8 7 6 5 0 025 050 D/B 075 100

UB, k 0 (Bransby & Randolph, 1999)

(4b)

Hult /Bsu0

k
2

0, 1, 2, 6

1 0 0 025 050 D/B 30 075 100 UB, k 0 (Bransby & Yun, 2009)

NcV(k 0) 5.14 for D/B 0 from the exact analytical solution (Prandtl, 1921). NcH( D= B 0) 1.0 since sliding failure governs independent of k (and equation (2) also denes NcH( D= B) ): NcM( D= B 0) can be expressed as a function of k based on a curve t from the FEA or upper bound solution (Gourvenec & Randolph, 2003). From the FEA or the upper bound for 0 , k , 6, bearing capacity varies linearly with heterogeneity   NcM(k) FM (5) 1 0:2396k 0:0067k2 NcM(k0) Murff & Hamilton (1993) set out the plastic work calculation for a rotational scoop, dened by a segment of a cylinder for plane strain conditions, that gives an optimum upper bound NcM(k0) 0.69 for a plane strain footing resting on the surface of a homogeneous Tresca material (Randolph & Puzrin, 2003). Equations (1)(5) provide bearing capacity factors with an absolute average deviation of less than 2% from the nite-element solutions. The equations should not be extrapolated for conditions outside those from which they were derived, that is for the soil conditions and foundation geometry considered in this study. VHM capacity Figures 47 show failure envelopes in planes of HM expressed as bearing capacity factors at intervals of constant vertical load (expressed as a proportion of the ultimate capacity, v V/Vult ). An upper bound solution for k 0, V 0, D/B 1 (Bransby & Yun, 2009) validates the numerical analyses. Coupling of the horizontal and moment degrees of freedom of the embedded foundations leads to obliqueness of the failure envelopes. The effect of the coupling increases with increasing embedment but reduces with increasing soil strength heterogeneity, as the failure mechanism is pushed up into the weaker near-surface soil. The shape and size of the failure envelopes are dependent on the level of vertical load, embedment ratio and degree of soil heterogeneity. However, for a given embedment ratio the shape of the failure envelope in the (H, M/B) plane is less dependent on the level of vertical load and the degree of soil strength heterogeneity, particularly for D/B . 0. Taking advantage of this feature enables a conservative approximating expression to be tted to the envelopes.

25

20

Mult /B 2su0

k
15

0, 1, 2, 6

10

05

UB, k 0 (Bransby & Randolph, 1999; Bransby & Yun, 2009) 0 025 050 D/B 075 100

Fig. 3. Bearing capacity factors as a function of embedment ratio and soil strength heterogeneity

a2 0:2194 0:0800k 0:0281k2    2 D D b2 d cH 1 b1 B B where b1 4:5582 0:1124k 0:0042k2 b2 1:7386 0:3467k 0:0549k2

(2)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

266
M/B 2su0
08

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT

M/B 2su0
15 15 12 10 08 05 04 06 04 02 0 05 05 15 H/Bsu0 (b) UB (Bransby & Yun, 2009)

v 06

02 09 0 15 10 05 0 H/Bsu0 (a)

v 075

05

10

25

25

M/B 2su0

20

M/B 2su0
4

15 3 10 2

05

0 3 2 1 0 1 H/Bsu0 (c) 2 3 4 2

0 0 H/Bsu0 (d) 2 4 6

Fig. 4. VHM failure envelopes for k

0: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

0.5; (d) D/B

M /B 2su0

M /B 2su0
v 0 05

12 10 08 06 04 02 09 0

14 12 10 08 06 04

v 075

02 0 05 H/Bsu0 (b)

15

10

05

0 H/Bsu0 (a)

05

10

15

25

15

05

15

25

M /B 2su0

18 16 14 12 10 08 06 04 02 0

M /B su0

35 30 25 20 15 10 05 0

1 H/Bsu0 (c)

0 1 H/Bsu0 (d)

Fig. 5. VHM failure envelopes for k

1: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

0.5; (d) D/B

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

UNDRAINED FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS UNDER GENERAL LOADING

M /B 2su0
12 v 10 08 06 04 02 09 0 15 075 0 H/Bsu0 (a) 16 14 12 10 08 06 04 02 0 3 2 1 0 1 H/Bsu0 (c) 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 05 0 0 1 H/Bsu0 (d) 2 3 4 5 20 15 10 075 15 25 15 0 05 05 H/Bsu0 (b) 15 25 05 0 10 08 06

267

M /B 2su0
v 075

14

14 12

04 02

M /B 2su0

M /B 2su0

30 25

Fig. 6. VHM failure envelopes for k

2: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

0.5; (d) D/B

M /B 2su0

M /B 2su0
v 0 05

18 16 14 12 10

12 10 08 06 04 02 0 05 05 H/Bsu0 (b)

08 06 04 02 0 15 10 05 0 H/Bsu0 (a) 14 12 10 08 06 04 05 02 0 3 2 1 0 H/Bsu0 (c) 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 H/Bsu0 (d) 15 05 10 15 25 15

09

075

15

25

M /B 2su0

M /B 2su0

25

20

10

Fig. 7. VHM failure envelopes for k

6: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

0.5; (d) D/B

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

268

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT    2 :30 1:05 D 0:55 D 1 B B    2 D D 0:67 0:15 1:45 B B (9) (10)

Approximating expression A conservative t to the failure envelopes can be described by the elliptical expression  h h   m m  hm 2 h m   1 (6)

where h ( H= H ult ), m (M=M ult ) and h and m are functions of v (V =Vult ) that describe the shape of the failure envelopes in vh and vm space respectively (equations (7) and (8)). The shape of the failure envelopes in planes of VH (M 0) and VM (H 0) are dependent on embedment ratio and degree of heterogeneity. Fig. 8 shows two-dimensional projections of the failure envelopes in normalised vh and vm load space for 0 , D/B , 1, 0 , k , 6. The curves are reasonably closely banded irrespective of embedment ratio or soil strength heterogeneity although a general trend of contraction with increasing embedment ratio and increasing degree of heterogeneity was observed. A conservative curve t to the lower limit of capacity in vh (m 0) and vm (h 0) load space can be dened by cubic polynomials h 1 0:217v 1:009v2 1:792v3 m 1 0:112v 0:535v2 1:423v3 (7) (8)

Figure 9 illustrates the failure envelopes derived from the FEA for D/B 1 compared with the approximating expression given by equation (6). The nite-element data are reasonably closely banded irrespective of the level of vertical load, embedment ratio and degree of soil strength heterogeneity and equation (6) describes a single conservative, that is lower limit, to the nite-element data. The area of greatest conservatism is concentrated in the region of maximum moment. Figure 9(b) shows the failure envelopes in normalised hm space in order to illustrate use of the expression to describe envelopes at discrete intervals of vertical load (as in Figs 4 7) and indicates which regions of the curve t are most conservative. The approximating expression describes the inner boundary of each set of failure envelopes at each level of vertical load over the range 0 , v , 1. The approximating expression becomes increasingly conservative as vertical bearing failure is approached (i.e. v ! 1), although, it should be borne in mind that loading scenarios close to ultimate
20

m/m*
15 10

The exponent and constant are tting parameters which vary with embedment ratio and can be described by quadratic polynomials
10

08

D / B 0, 025, 05, 10 k 0, 1, 2, 6

Equation (6)

Equation (7)
H / Hult
06

05
04

0
02

10

05

0 h /h* (a)

05

10

15

0 0

02

04
v

06
V /Vult

08

10
M /Mult

20

0, 1, 2, 6

10

D / B 0, 025, 05, 10 k 0, 1, 2, 6

15

v 08 Equation (8)
10

0 05

v v

M / Mult

06
05

075 09

v 04
0 10

02

05

0
h

05
H /Hult (b)

10

15

0 0 02 04 v 06 V /Vult 08 10

Fig. 8. Two-dimensional projections of failure envelopes in normalised vh and vm space (broken lines) and conservative curve t (solid line)

Fig. 9. Example of normalised failure envelopes and approximating expression (bold line) for D/B 1. (The failure envelopes for v 0 and v 0.5 in Fig. 9(b) overlap for the range of conditions considered. For clarity, the envelopes for v 0 are shown by ne solid lines as opposed to broken lines as used for the other levels of vertical load.)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

UNDRAINED FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS UNDER GENERAL LOADING vertical bearing capacity are less relevant for typical designs. Although the approximating expression provides a conservative prediction of capacity, it is less conservative than prediction from classical bearing capacity theory. This is illustrated in Fig. 10, based on the bearing capacity equations and modication factors set out by the ISO (2003). While slightly different factors are recommended by different regulatory bodies (e.g. DNV (1992) and API (2000)), all the methods are based on the same principle of applying modication factors to Terzaghis classical solution for vertical failure of a surface strip footing resting on a uniform Tresca material to account for non-verticality of load, foundation embedment, foundation shape and soil strength heterogeneity. The failure envelope from classical bearing capacity theory was derived by solving for limiting horizontal load for given load eccentricity and limiting vertical capacity. The resulting envelope is essentially linear in the HM plane and isotropically expands or contracts, that is the shape remains unchanged, with level of vertical load, degree of soil strength heterogeneity and embedment ratio. The approximating expression, given by equation (6), takes account of anisotropic expansion with increasing embedment ratio, although neglects changes in shape of the normalised failure envelope with level of vertical load and degree of soil strength heterogeneity which have been shown by the results presented here to be of secondary signicance compared with embedment. The classical approach increasingly under-predicts bearing capacity with increasing embedment owing to neglecting coupling between the horizontal and moment degrees of freedom. Further under-prediction is introduced at low vertical loads as the classical approach neglects uplift resistance provided by passive suctions within the soil plug.

269

(a) the ultimate limit states, Vult , Hult and Mult , that provide the apex points of the failure envelope, and (b) the shape of the normalised failure envelope as f [(V =Vult ), ( H= H ult ), (M=M ult )]. The nite-element results show that size and shape of failure envelopes for shallow foundations under general loading are dependent on load combination, embedment ratio and degree of soil strength heterogeneity. However, for a given embedment ratio, the shape of the failure envelope in the (H, M/B) plane is most dependent on embedment ratio, while the level of vertical load and the degree of soil strength heterogeneity have a secondary effect. The conservative curve t takes advantage of this nding dening a normalised failure envelope dependent only on embedment ratio. While the approximating expression presented in this technical note is conservative, it is considerably less conservative than classical bearing capacity theory, particularly at low vertical loads and as embedment ratio increases.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work described in this note forms part of the activities of the Special Research Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, established under the Australian Research Councils Research Centres Program. The work presented in this note was supported through grant DP0988904. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2000). API RP 2A: Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing offshore platforms, 21st edn. Washington: American Petroleum Institute. Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). Combined loading of skirted foundations. Geotechnique 48, No. 5, 637655, doi: 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. Geotechnique 59, No, 2, 115125, doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.00098. Davis, E. H. & Booker, J. R. (1973). The effect of increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays. Geotechnique 23, No. 4, 551563, doi: 10.1680/geot.1973.23.4.551. DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (1992). Foundations, Classication notes No. 30.4. Oslo: Det Norske Veritas. Gottardi, G. & Buttereld, R. (1993). On the bearing capacity of surface footings on sand under general planar load. Soils Found. 33, No. 3, 6879. Gottardi, G., Houlsby, G. T. & Buttereld, R. (1999). Plastic response of circular footings on sand under general planar loading. Geotechnique 49, No. 4, 453469, doi: 10.1680/ geot.1999.49.4.453. Gourvenec, S. (2007a). Shape effects on the capacity of rectangular footings under general loading. Geotechnique 57, No. 8, 637 646, doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.57.8.637. Gourvenec, S. (2007b). Failure envelopes for offshore shallow foundation under general loading. Geotechnique 57, No. 9, 715727, doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.57.9.715. Gourvenec, S. (2008). Effect of embedment on the undrained capacity of shallow foundations under general loading. Geotechnique 58, No. 3, 177185, doi: 10.1680/geot.2008.58.3.177. Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M. R. (2003). Effect of strength nonhomogeneity on the shape and failure envelopes for combined loading of strip and circular foundations on clay. Geotechnique 53, No. 6, 575586, doi: 10.1680/geot.2003.53.6.575. ISO (International Standardisation Organisation) (2003). ISO 199014: Petroleum and natural gas industries specic requirements for offshore structures Part 4: Geotechnical and foundation

CONCLUDING REMARKS An approximating expression has been proposed for prediction of undrained bearing capacity of skirted foundations under general in-plane loading, valid for a range of embedment ratio 0 , D/B , 1 and soil shear strength heterogeneity 0 , k kB/sum , 6. Closed-form expressions are presented as a function of embedment ratio and soil strength heterogeneity that enable prediction of

14 12 10 08 06 04 02 0 10

D/B

025, 05, 10

05

m /m*

0 h /h*

05

10

15

Fig. 10. Comparison of failure envelopes from approximating expression, equation (6), (solid lines) and classical bearing capacity theory (broken line)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

270

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT

analysis of circular foundations on clay under general loading. Geotechnique 53, No. 9, 785796, doi: 10.1680/geot.2003.53. 9.785. Taiebat, H. A. & Carter, J. P. (2000). Numerical studies of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohesive soil subjected to combined loading. Geotechnique 50, No. 4, 409 418, doi: 10.1680/geot.2000.50.4.409. Taiebat, H. A. & Carter, J. P. (2002). Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations on undrained clay subjected to eccentric loads. Geotechnique 52, No. 1, 6164, doi: 10.1680/geot. 2002.52.1.61. Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A. J. & Sloan, S. W. (1998). Undrained limit analysis for combined loading of strip footings on clay. J. Geo. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 124, No. 3, 265276.

design considerations, 1st edn. Geneva: International Standardisation Organisation. Martin, C. M. (1994). Physical and numerical modelling of offshore foundations under combined loads. DPhil. thesis, University of Oxford. Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. SMFE, Zurich 1: 440445. Murff, J. D. & Hamilton, J. M. (1993). P-ultimate for undrained analysis of laterally loaded piles. J. Geo. Engng Div., ASCE 119, No. 1, 91107. Prandtl, L. (1921). Eindringungsfestigkeit und festigkeit von schneiden. Angew. Math. U. Mech 1. No. 15, 1520. Randolph, M. F. & Puzrin, A. M (2003). Upper bound limit

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 130.95.140.24 On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43