Gourvenec, S. et al. (2009). Geotechnique 59, No. 6, 525537 [doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.

00108]

Experimental study of uplift resistance of shallow skirted foundations in clay under transient and sustained concentric loading
S . G O U RV E N E C , H . E . AC O S TA - M A RT I N E Z a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H Wind, wave and current forces cause signicant overturning loads to be transmitted to foundation systems of xed-bottom offshore structures, while buoyancy forces, in conjunction with environmental loading, impart direct tensile loads to foundations of oating facilities. Shallow skirted foundations are a potentially attractive foundation solution when overturning or tension loading is signicant, as suctions mobilised within the soil plug provide tensile resistance. While passive suctions are maintained, undrained reverse end bearing will govern failure providing enhanced uplift resistance compared with vented pull-out of the foundation unit (with or without the soil plug), governed by skirt/soil friction. Currently uncertainty exists over the limiting ratio of skirt depth to foundation diameter to mobilise undrained reverse end bearing and the duration over which passive suctions can be sustained. This paper reports results from beam centrifuge tests investigating the response of shallow skirted foundations in lightly over-consolidated clay to concentric transient and sustained uplift. Les forces du vent, des vagues et des courants determinent la transmission de charges de basculement signica` tives sur des systemes de fondations de structures ` offshore a fond xe, tandis que des forces de ascensionnelles, conjointement avec des charges environnementales, appliquent des efforts de tension directs sur les fonda` tions dinstallations ottantes. Les fondations a jupe peu profondes sont des solutions potentiellement attrayantes pour les fondations, en presence de charges de basculement et de traction signicatives, car les forces daspira tion mobilisees au sein du bouchon de sol offrent une ` resistance a la traction. Tant que les forces daspiration ` passives se maintiennent, la resistance inverse a la pointe non drainee determinera la rupture, en presentant une ` ` resistance superieure au soulevement par rapport a la remontee aeree des fondations (avec ou sans bouchon de ` sol), sous leffet de la friction jupe/sol. On releve actuellement une certaine incertitude concernant le ratio limite ` de la profondeur de la jupe sur le diametre des fonda ` tions, pour mobiliser la resistance inverse a la pointe non drainee et la duree de la periode au cours de laquelle ces forces daspiration passives peuvent etre soutenues. La presente communication presente des resultats de tests centrifuges sur poutre effectues pour examiner la reac` tion de fondations a jupe peu profondes, dans de largile consolidee par precompression, aux remontees concentriques transitoires et continues.

KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; footings/foundations; model tests; offshore engineering

INTRODUCTION Skirted foundations, also referred to as bucket or plated foundations, are steel or concrete foundations with a thin circumferential skirt beneath the periphery that penetrates the seabed conning a soil plug. Often an arrangement of internal skirts will be provided to enhance the stiffness of the foundation unit and ensure uniform deformation of the soil plug down to the level of the skirt tip. Skirted foundations usually refer to shallow foundations, with an embedment ratio, that is skirt depth to foundation diameter ratio, d/D, less than 2 (caisson is applied to similar foundations with larger embedment to diameter aspect ratios, typically between 3 and 8 (Andersen et al., 2005). The benet of skirted foundations over conventional embedded foundations lies in their ability to resist uplift owing to negative excess pore water pressure (i.e. suction) developed within the conned soil plug. If passive suctions can be maintained, reverse end bearing will govern uplift resistance. If negative excess pore water pressures dissipate, the uplift resistance of the foundation will be reduced to the weight of the foundation and the lesser of the sum of the inner and outer skirt friction or the sum of the outer skirt friction and the weight of the soil plug. Uncertainties regardManuscript received 20 June 2007; revised manuscript accepted 30 October 2008. Published online ahead of print 18 February 2009. Discussion on this paper is welcomed by the editor. Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

ing the uplift resistance of skirted foundations include whether the undrained bearing capacity factor is similar in tension and compression, the appropriate friction ratio to dene the proportion of undrained shear strength mobilised for shaft friction and the relationship between the duration of applied load and degradation of holding resistance. The current paper presents results from beam centrifuge tests on shallow skirted foundations of two embedment ratios, founded in lightly over-consolidated clay and subjected to both undrained and sustained concentric vertical uplift. Results from six undrained uplift tests and 11 sustained uplift tests following consolidation at varying stress levels over varying durations are reported. BACKGROUND Classical theory suggests the undrained uplift reverse end bearing capacity of a skirted foundation can be estimated by Vult Nc su A W 9 (1) where Nc is a bearing capacity factor (accounting for foundation shape and embedment), su is the undrained shear strength of the soil, A is the cross-sectional area of the foundation and W9 is the submerged weight of the foundation. The weight of the soil plug effectively cancels out the overburden term that is normally present in the classical bearing capacity equation. Embedment is conventionally accounted for by modifying 525

526

GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH lines acknowledge that temporary suctions caused by dynamic loads may allow greater capacities to be mobilised, because the effect is temporary they advise it should not be accounted for in design unless substantiated by appropriate analysis or experimentation. The results reported in this paper provide quantitative data concerning the response of shallow skirted foundations under transient and sustained uplift as a function of embedment ratio, stress level and duration of consolidation prior to uplift, and the magnitude and duration of applied uplift. A selection of preliminary results from some of the tests has been previously reported by Gourvenec et al. (2007). EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP Apparatus The tests were carried out in the beam centrifuge at the Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems at the University of Western Australia (COFS-UWA), which has a nominal radius of 1.8 m (Randolph et al., 1991). The strongbox has dimensions 0.650 m by 0.390 m in plan and 0.325 m deep with a maximum payload of 200 kg at 200 g. The tests reported in this paper were carried out at 167 g providing a testing area in excess of 7000 m2 . Two shallow skirted foundation models were fabricated with skirt depth to foundation diameter ratios d/D 0.15 and 0.3. In each case, the base plate was fabricated from aluminium to minimise the weight of the foundation and the skirts and stiffeners were fabricated from stainless steel to prevent buckling. The models comprised a circular plate equipped with a peripheral skirt and internal cruciform stiffener (to a level ush with the peripheral skirt). The skirt thickness to foundation diameter ratio of t/D 0.01 was chosen as a compromise between typical ratios of ,0.005 for skirted foundations employed in the eld (Randolph et al., 2005; Bye et al., 1995), and practical fabrication limits for the models. The foundation models were left unnished (i.e. not painted) and therefore would be expected to be partially rough, with an interface friction angle of about 188 (Chen & Randolph, 2007). The four compartments formed by the internal stiffener were connected by a small hole at the cross-over to allow for drainage during installation through a single vent in the base plate. Details of the foundation geometry at model and prototype scale are summarised in Table 1. Instrumentation The models were equipped with total pressure and pore pressure measurement instrumentation to monitor conditions under the base plate, along the skirt and at foundation level. A schematic of the models indicating the position of the instrumentation is shown in Fig. 1. Two miniature pore pressure transducers (PPT) were encased in a housing attached to the cruciform stiffener to provide pore pressure measurements at skirt tip level. The incorporation of transducers into the model has some short-

the bearing capacity factor for a surface foundation by a depth factor, dc . Classical bearing capacity theory incorporates empirical and semi-empirical depth factors based on undrained uniaxial compressive failure of a smooth-sided circular foundation (Skempton, 1951; Brinch Hansen, 1970; Vesic, 1975) although these are widely applied across a range of foundation geometry and interface roughness. These historical factors have recently been challenged by analytical and numerical studies accounting explicitly for foundation geometry, soil strength prole and foundation/soil interface conditions (Martin & Randolph, 2001; Houlsby & Martin, 2003; Salgado et al., 2004; Edwards et al., 2005). Despite renement of undrained bearing capacity factors, it is unclear whether similar factors are appropriate in tension and compression. Experimental studies have investigated undrained uplift capacity, although typically of deeper skirted foundations (d/D . 2) and often at 1 g (e.g. Fuglsang & Steensen-Bach, 1991; Steensen-Bach, 1992; Puech et al., 1993; Clukey & Morrison, 1993; Rao et al., 1997; Watson et al., 2000; Randolph & House, 2002; Luke et al., 2005). Small-scale laboratory-oor tests are limited by unrealistically low soil stresses relative to the shear strength at foundation level for prototype conditions, a signicant limitation, particularly for problems involving uplift. For the case of skirted foundations, low soil stresses allow a tension crack to develop at skirt tip level leading to pull-out of the soil plug rather than enabling reverse end bearing to be mobilised. Considering previous centrifuge studies investigating transient uplift of skirted foundations in clay, some report reverse end bearing resistance very similar to that in compression, while others report a reduced tensile resistance. Puech et al. (1993) report centrifuge tests of skirted mudmats for temporary foundations (d/D 0.18) and propose that for shallow skirted foundations in soft sediments in signicant water depths, reverse end bearing can be expected. Watson et al. (2000) report centrifuge tests of shallow skirted foundations (d/D 0.5) in normally consolidated kaolin in which tensile and compression capacities were indistinguishable. In contrast Clukey & Morrison (1993) report centrifuge tests of skirted foundations with d/D 2, in normally consolidated clay, in which bearing capacity factors in tension of about 80% that in compression were observed. Bearing capacity in undrained uplift may be less than that in compression, or the reduced end bearing may be attributable to partial drainage and dissipation of negative excess pore pressures during swelling of the soil in uplift. Further investigation is required before rm conclusions can be drawn. The pull-out capacity of longer skirted caissons under sustained loading has received some attention (e.g. Clukey et al., 1995; Randolph & House, 2002; Clukey & Phillips, 2002; Clukey et al. 2004), although in all cases d/D > 2. Both numerical analysis and centrifuge model tests have shown that sustained loads may be maintained for years for caisson foundations with large d/D. For example, Clukey et al. (2004) considered suction caissons with length to diameter aspect ratios between 3.9 and 7 in Gulf of Mexico soft clay and report negligible reduction in capacity for holding times of up to 100 days, while sustained loads between 65% and 75% of the undrained capacity were held indenitely with only minimal displacements. Sustained pull-out of shorter skirted foundations has not been considered previously, although it is arguably more critical with shorter drainage path lengths leading to more rapid dissipation of suctions. In general there is uncertainty over, and no formal guidance regarding, the timescale for which tensile stresses can be sustained beneath a skirted foundation. Although guide-

Table 1. Foundation geometry Model: m Plate diameter D Plate thickness Skirt depth d Skirt thickness t Stiffener thickness 0.12 0.005 0.018 0.036 0.0012 0.0009 Prototype: m 20 0.835 3.0 6.0 0.20 0.15

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY

Stiffener TPT-lid

527

Drainage valve

PPT-lid

20 m (a) 083 See detail (c) Drainage Inter-cell PPT-lidTPT-lid valve drainage (b)

Model d/D

015

Model d/D

030

gradual loss of uplift capacity and to detect differences in pore water pressure dissipation under eccentric uplift, planned in a future set of tests. Diametrically opposed pairs of total pressure transducers (TPTs) were set into the external face of the peripheral skirt to monitor variations of total radial stress acting against the skirt. The external face of the TPT was set ush with the external face of the skirt. A single pair of TPTs was mounted on the shorter skirted model (d/D 0.15) and two levels (on the same diametric section) were mounted on the longer skirted model (d/D 0.3). The upper level of TPTs on the longer skirted model was positioned at the same distance below the base plate as the TPTs on the shorter skirted model. A PPT and TPT were set into the underside of the foundation base plate. The PPT was positioned to identify excess pore pressures within the skirted cavity during installation in order to ascertain if drainage was able to take place sufciently quickly. The TPT acted as a backup for pore pressure measurements prior to touchdown of the base plate, to assess when contact between the soil and base plate occurred during installation and if separation occurred during transient or sustained uplift. Load and displacement application and measurement The models were attached by a rigid arm to a onedimensional actuator allowing load or displacement control via a 3 kN load cell and a 25 mm stroke linear displacement transducer (LDT). Load or displacement control was achieved with a software feedback loop using output from the load cell or LDT from data recorded at a typical frequency of 10 Hz during testing. Soil sample The tests were carried out in a lightly over-consolidated kaolin clay prepared from slurry in a consolidation press at 1 g. The sample was incrementally loaded to a maximum vertical stress of 150 kPa over 11 days, held for a maximum of 4 days to avoid viscous, creep and secondary compression effects, and subsequently incrementally unloaded to 40 kPa over a further 4 days. The sample was then moved to the centrifuge and reconsolidated at 167 g with an average 0.17 m head of surface water, producing a total stress of 280 kPa on the soil surface serving as backpressure for negative increments in pore pressure, sufcient to prevent cavitation. The surface water level was maintained constant during the testing by way of a hose to compensate for evaporation effects. Test results are reported in terms of excess pressures (i.e. the hydrostatic pressure has been deducted from the measured pressure) such that the reported results are independent of the head of surface water. One-dimensional consolidation tests in a standard oedometer were carried out as part of this study to accompany the centrifuge tests. The samples were prepared from the same material used for the centrifuge sample and consolidated to the same maximum stress level. The ndings of the oedometer tests are summarised in Table 2. The mechanical

TPT

20 m 30 m 10 m TPT

25 m 15 m

60 m

(c)

02 m

Drainage valve

PPT-lid PPTs at skirt tip level (in housing)

Stiffener

TPT-lid Inter-cell drainage

Dimensions given for equivalent prototype foundation (d)

Fig. 1. Foundation geometry and location of model instrumentation: (a) plan viewtop; (b) elevation; (c) skirt details; (d) plan viewbase

comings, particularly remoulding soil within the plug owing to local failure around the housing during installation. It was, however, considered more reliable to attach the transducers to the model than trying to pre-embed transducers within the body of the soil. The latter is a complex process when preparing samples from slurry and moreover when several tests are carried out at different sites and different elevations in the same strong box. The main purposes of PPTs at tip level were to provide information about the
Table 2. Kaolin properties Bulk unit weight : kN/m3 Initial void ratio e0 (at v 1 kPa) 9 Coefcient of compression Cc (e/log10 v ) 9 1D modulus E9 (MPa) ( v /v ) 9 o Coefcient of consolidation cv : m2 /year Coefcient of permeability k: m/s

16.5 1.267 0.47 Varying between 1.2 in the OC range to 7.5 in the NC range (i.e. v . 150 kPa) 9 14 over 0 , v kPa , 200 9 1.131010 5.13109 (assuming constant E9 7.5 MPa) o

528

GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH 1992; Chen, 2005). Values towards the lower end of the range are expected for remoulded and/or articial materials (Mayne 2001) as is the case with the kaolin clay reported here. The undrained shear strength prole derived from the measured T-bar resistance falls below the prole predicted by equation (2) for depths up to approximately two T-bar diameters (DT-bar ). The apparent under-prediction is likely attributable to the constant T-bar factor (NT-bar 10.5) adopted in the derivation of the undrained shear strength. Comparing the shear strength proles predicted by equation (2) and by the T-bar suggests the T-bar factor increases from around 6.3 at a depth of 0.5DT-bar to 10.5 at a depth equal to 2DT-bar. Testing programme The testing programme consisted of six undrained uplift tests and 11 sustained uplift tests at eight sites over two samples. The shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, was tested in the rst sample, box 1 (B1) at ve sites, over a period of ten days. The longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, was tested in the second sample, box 2 (B2) at three sites over a period of 12 days. Each test involved jacked, vented installation in-ight followed by a period of reconsolidation at constant vertical stress prior to undrained and/or sustained concentric uplift. The programme of testing is summarised in Table 3. Stress and displacement time histories are illustrated in Fig. 3 during (a) installation, (b) consolidation following installation and (c) sustained uplift for test B2T1. The foundation models were installed at a constant rate of displacement v 0.1 mm/s. The rate of installation was chosen to allow precise control over the procedure (which took place over several minutes) and was not intended to represent eld conditions. The installation rate of 0.1 mm/s in the centrifuge corresponds to installation times of two and four months at prototype scale for the foundations with embedment ratios d/D 0.15 and 0.3 respectively. Installation in the eld may take place over several hours, corresponding to only one or two seconds in the centrifuge. Taking a representative coefcient of consolidation, cv(av) 2.6 m2 /year, and representative drainage path length as the diameter of the foundation, the installation rate corresponds to a dimensionless velocity v vD/cv 145, indicating undrained conditions with respect to the entire foundation. Taking the representative drainage path length as the average thickness of the tip bearing area of the skirt and stiffener, t, gives a dimensionless velocity v vt/cv ,1, indicating partial consolidation during installation in the vicinity of the skirts (Finnie & Randolph, 1994). The base plate was vented during installation to allow water egress during penetration. Once installation was completed the base plate was sealed while the foundation was held at the nal installation load to allow dissipation of the excess pore pressures generated during installation. Observations of settlement of the foundation during this reconsolidation period ensured that near-complete primary (re)consolidation was achieved following installation in each test (as shown by the time settlement relationship illustrated in Fig. 3(b)). Settlement of the foundation reached an almost steady state within fty years, or expressed in terms of a dimensionless time factor T cv t/D2 , 0.325, based on a representative coefcient of consolidation cv(av) 2.6 m2 /year. Following the period of reconsolidation the uplift resistance of the foundation was investigated under transient and/or sustained loading. Undrained uplift tests were displacement controlled at a constant rate v 0.1 mm/s, ensuring undrained conditions with respect to the entire foundation (v vD/cv 145, where D is the foundation diameter), while local drainage

properties identied in these tests are similar to those previously reported for the kaolin used at COFS-UWA (Stewart, 1992; Chen, 2005) The shear strength prole of the centrifuge samples was measured in-ight with a T-bar penetrometer (Stewart & Randolph, 1991). The tests were carried out at a rate of 1 mm/s to ensure undrained conditions. In terms of the dimensionless velocity group v vL/cv , where v is the velocity of T-bar penetration, L is the appropriate length dimension of the drainage path and cv is a representative value of the coefcient of consolidation, a value above 30 indicates undrained behaviour dominates (, 0.1 corresponds to drained conditions) (Finnie & Randolph, 1994; Randolph & Hope, 2004). Taking the drainage path length as the T-bar diameter, DT-bar 0.005 m, and a representative value of the coefcient of consolidation cv(av) 2.6 m2 /year, based on the vertical stress at skirt tip level, gives a dimensionless velocity v of 60. T-bar tests were carried out across the sample and periodically over the duration of the testing programme to verify the samples were uniform and fully consolidated. Shear strength proles derived from the T-bar tests are shown in Fig. 2. The shear strength proles were calculated based on a constant T-bar factor, NT-bar 10.5 (Stewart & Randolph, 1994) although a slightly lower T-bar factor would be anticipated near the surface where full ow around is not established (Barbosa-Cruz & Randolph, 2005). The ratio of undrained shear strength to effective over9 burden (su = v0 ) has been related to the over-consolidation ratio (OCR) theoretically (Wroth, 1984) and experimentally (Ladd, 1991) leading to the expression !m     su su vm 9 a OCR m (2) v0 OC 9 v0 NC v0 9 9 9 where v0 is the effective vertical stress, vm is the pre9 consolidation stress and a and m are constants. a refers to the strength ratio for a normally consolidated prole and m determines the rate of increase in strength ratio with OCR. For the conditions in these tests ( vm 150 kPa), a factor 9 of a 0.185 and exponent m 0.7 provide a good t to the measured shear strength data. These constants are similar to those identied in previous tests in kaolin at COFS-UWA and to reported ranges for natural clays of 0.17 , a , 0.24 and 0.65 , m , 0.80 (Mayne & Kulhawy, 1982; Stewart,
Undrained shear strength, su: kPa 8 12 16 20 24 su v0a[ vm / v0 ]
m

4 2 DT-bar

28

2 Model 1 d/D 015 Model 2 d/D 030

Prototype depth, z: m

Level of skirt tip

Box # 1 Box # 2

10

a 0185 m 07 vm 150 kPa v0 z 65 kN/m 3

12

14

Fig. 2. Shear strength prole from T-bar tests

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY

0

529

Table 3. Testing programme Reference Box 1; d/D 0.15 B1T1 B1T2_1 B1T2_2 B1T2_3 B1T3_1 B1T3_2 B1T4 B1T5_1 B1T5_2 B1T5_3 Box 2; d/D 0.3 B2T1_1 B2T1_2 B2T1_3 B2T2 B2T3_1 B2T3_2 B2T3 Undrained (to w/D 0.02) # tc 5 h (15.9 y) Sustained 0.3Vu # tc 14 h (44.6 y) Sustained 0.6Vu Undrained (to UC) (Consolidation stress , 2Q) Sustained 0.3Vu # tc 16 h (50.9 y) Sustained 0.6Vu # tc 6.7 h (21.3 y) Undrained (to UC) Undrained (to w/D 0.02) Sustained 0.6Vu # tc 0 Sustained 0.3Vu # tc 0 Sustained 0.3Vu Sustained 0.6Vu # tc 4 h (12.7 y) Sustained 0.3Vu (Consolidation stress , 2Q) Undrained (to UC) Undrained (to w/D 0.02) # tc 16.0 h (50.9 y) Sustained 0.3Vu # tc 5.5 h (17.5 y) Sustained 0.1Vu Test sequence

Stress: kPa

20 40 60 0

Touch-down (skirt tip) Touch-down (base plate) 1 2 3 4 5

Tip penetration: m

0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 Prototype time, tp: months (a) 4 5 Touch-down Penetration rate: vmodel 01 mm/s

40

Stress: kPa

45 50 55 60 0 10 20 30 40 50

Tip penetration: m

57 58 59 60 61 0 10 20 30 Prototype time, tp: years (b) 40 50 Consolidation settlement

B Box reference, T test reference, tc consolidation time (h hours, y years), Vu uplift resistance mobilised at w/D 0.02, w/D relative uplift displacement, UC ultimate capacity, consolidation stress , Q unless otherwise stated, Q installation resistance

60 40 20 0 20 40 60 0 50 51 52 53 54 55 0

Stress: kPa

03 Vu Reconsolidation

10

20

30

40

50

60

was likely in the vicinity of the skirt tips and stiffener (v vt/cv , 1, taking t as the average thickness of the tip bearing area of the skirt and stiffener), as described above for installation. Six undrained uplift tests were carried out; three with the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15 (prexed B1: B1T1, B1T4 and B1T5) and three with the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3 (prexed B2: B2T1, B2T2 and B2T3). Three tests (B1T1, B1T5 and B2T1) were limited to a relative vertical displacement w/D 0.02, in order to protect the site to enable subsequent sustained load tests. The remaining three undrained uplift tests (B1T4, B2T2 and B2T3) were continued to larger displacement to investigate ultimate uplift capacity. Sustained uplift was applied through load control, by imposing a selected proportion of the undrained uplift resistance mobilised at the limiting displacement criterion w/D 0.02. Sequences of tests were carried out at a single site to optimise the testing programme. Consecutive uplift tests were carried out immediately following a previous uplift test, immediately following reinstallation or (more typically) following reinstallation and a period of reconsolidation sufcient to achieve a relatively steady state. Periods of intermediate consolidation varied from 12 years to 50 years (as seen in Table 3), or in terms of the dimensionless time

Tip penetration: m

Tip level at end of reconsolidation following preceding undrained uplift 10 20 30 40 50 60

Prototype time, tp: months (c)

Fig. 3. Time histories for: (a) installation; (b) consolidation following installation; (c) sustained uplift (test B2T1)

factor, 0.083 , T , 0.325. In selected cases, consecutive uplift tests were carried out without an intermediate period of reconsolidation in order to assess the effect of the degree of consolidation on uplift resistance. Reinstallation between consecutive tests was achieved through load control to the original installation load, noting that in most cases the foundation did not return to the embedment depth prior to the preceding test due to swelling of the soil during the initial uplift, therefore the embedded depth of the foundation was slightly reduced in subsequent tests (as seen in Fig. 3(c)). Reinstallation took place with the base plate sealed since displacements were small (w/D < 0.02).

530

GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH predicted from the sum of tip bearing and skirt friction through the simple relationship (3) Q Nc(tip) su(tip) 9z Atip su(av) Asurface where Nc(tip) is a bearing capacity factor for tip resistance, su(tip) and su(av) are respectively the undrained shear strength at tip level and averaged over the embedment depth and is a friction ratio dening the limiting friction along the skirt/ soil interface as a proportion of the shear strength of the soil mass. Atip is the sum of the skirt and stiffener end bearing area and Asurface is the sum of the surface areas of the inner and outer skirt and stiffener. For undrained conditions a bearing capacity factor for tip resistance Nc(tip) 7.5 is commonly adopted, based on analogous conditions of a deeply embedded strip (Randolph et al., 2005; Andersen et al., 2005). Owing to the low rate of installation in the centrifuge tests, v ,1, partial consolidation in the vicinity of the skirt tips would be expected to lead to increased tip resistance. Randolph & Hope (2004) indicate doubling of resistance for a normalised velocity v vt/cv ,1. The undrained shear strength at skirt tip level su(tip) was 14.5 kPa for the tests with the shorter skirted foundation, d/ D 0.15, in box 1 and 20.0 kPa for the tests with the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3 in box 2 (Fig. 2). The average undrained shear strength over the depth of the skirts, su(av) was 11.5 kPa and 14.2 kPa for d/D 0.15 and 0.3 respectively, determined from the integral of equation (2) zd v0 a vm = v0 m dz 9 9 9 (4) su(av) z0 d Comparing the observed prole of the measured installation resistance prior to touchdown of the base plate with equation (3) indicates an interface friction ratio ,0.3, similar to that reported by Chen (2005) for partially drained conditions and a lightly over-consolidated kaolin clay. Installation resistance of 18 and 36 kPa was measured just before contact of the base plate for the foundations with embedment ratios d/D 0.15 and 0.30 respectively. Excess pore pressures measured with the PPTs at skirt tip level are also shown in Fig. 4. Readings from the two sensors during each test were consistent, although it is noteworthy that they were around four times greater than the average installation resistance indicated by the load cell. It is likely that the measured pore pressures relate to a local bearing failure around the housing of the PPTs. Changes in total vertical stress and excess pore water pressures during installation, measured by the TPT and PPT located on the underside of the base plate, are shown in Fig. 5. Excess pore water pressures were not developed beneath the base plate during penetration of the skirts, indicating that drainage provision in the model was adequate. Both sensors indicated touchdown of the baseplate with a rapid increase in pressure. The PPT always recorded contact with the soil surface slightly after the TPT as the PPT was slightly recessed (0.001 m) into the underside of the base plate while the TPT was ush with the underside of the base plate (see Fig. 1(b)). Termination of the PPT and TPT curves in Fig. 5 corresponds to the same point in time, with the higher nal contact stress recorded by the TPT owing to the additional increment of embedment. Figure 6 shows the total radial stress measured during installation by the TPTs located along the skirt. The changes in gradient correspond to the change in surrounding media from water to soil adjacent to the mid-point of the sensor. Similar readings were observed in all tests and the similarity

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Installation response Figure 4 shows installation resistance measured by the load cell and excess pore pressures measured by the PPTs at skirt tip level. The load cell measurement, Q, has been divided by the plan area of the foundation, A, to give installation resistance in terms of stress. Touchdown of the foundation base plate, at a relative embedment z/D is evident from the rapid increase in the load cell and PPT readings. One of the tests with the longer skirted foundation was loaded some way beyond touchdown to achieve a higher consolidation pressure, indicated by the longer tail of the curve in Fig. 4 (test B2T3, see Table 3). The nal installation load was maintained during the subsequent consolidation stage and was re-established for periods of intermediate reconsolidation between consecutive tests carried out at the same site. Installation data for one of the tests on the shorter skirted foundation, test B1T4, is not shown as accidental dynamic installation occurred after the thread connection of the model with the actuator sheared in-ight. As a result consolidation took place under the submerged weight of the model, equal to approximately twice the consolidation pressure in the other tests with the shorter skirted foundation, B1T1 and B1T5. Installation of the foundations was accompanied by 1 or 2 mm plug heave occurring with the shorter and longer skirted foundations respectively (i.e. corresponding to embedment of ,95% of the total skirt length). An exception was observed in one of the tests with the shorter skirted foundation, test B1T5, in which 2 mm of plug heave was observed, corresponding to embedment of ,90% of the total skirt length. The internal stiffeners and PPT casings represent about 3.5% of the internal area of the foundation, while the skirt represents about 4%. Assuming for these short skirts that the wall thickness is accommodated equally by inward and outward ow of the soil (Chen & Randolph, 2007), a heave ratio [(portion of volume of caisson wall accommodated by ow into the plug + volume of stiffener and internal protuberances)/volume previously occupied by soil] of around 5% would be expected. The lower embedment achieved in test B1T5 may reect more localised heave in the vicinity of the PPT casings. Considering the installation resistance dened by the load cell data, good repeatability was observed during installation. The slightly higher installation resistance for the longer skirted foundation for relative embedment z/D < 0.15 corresponds to the higher undrained shear strength in box 2 (see Fig. 2). The installation resistance of a skirted foundation can be
Installation resistance (Q/A) and excess pore pressure (u): kPa 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 000

Normalised embedment, z/D

PPTs at skirt tip 010 015 020 025 030 End of B2T1 & B2T2 Load cell 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 4. Installation resistance and excess pore pressure at skirt tip level during installation

Prototype embedment, z: m

005

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY

Change in total vertical stress (v) and excess pore pressure (u): kPa 0 20 40 60 80 100 000 0

531

010 015 020

d/D

015

TPT-lid

2 3 4

PPT-lid

d/D 025 030

030 TPT-lid 5 6

PPT-lid

Fig. 5. Changes in total stress and excess pore pressure beneath top cap during installation
Change in total radial stress, t: kPa 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 d/D 015 030
d/D 0.15

5 000

45

50 0 1 2

Normalised embedment, z/D

005 010 015 020 025 030

d/D

0.30

TPTupper TPTlower

3 4 5 6

Fig. 6. Radial stresses on skirts during installation

of readings from the diametrically opposed pairs of sensors conrmed the verticality of the foundation during installation. The magnitude of total radial stress following installation falls within the range expected from semi-empirical and theoretical calculations, for example, the NGI method (Andersen & Jostad, 2002), or cavity expansion formulations such as proposed by Randolph (2003) respectively.

Undrained uplift response Figure 7 shows the undrained uplift resistance measured by the load cell plotted against relative uplift displacement w/D. Uplift resistance has been taken as the load cell reading, divided by the plan area of the foundation. Three
10 9 B2T2 B1T4
20 B1T5 16 12 08 04 00 160 120 80 40 0 40 B1T4 B2T2 B2T1 B2T3 02 01 00 80 120 B1T1 03 04

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 200 150 End of B2T1 B2T3

16 12 08 04

Uplift B1T5 B1T1

d/D 015 030 B2T3

00 100 50 0 50 100 Uplift resistance, Vu/A: kPa

Fig. 7. Undrained uplift resistance

Prototype uplift displacement, w: m

20

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

Prototype embedment, z: m

TPTupper

Prototype embedment, z: m

005

tests with the shorter skirted foundation (prexed B1: B1T1, B1T4 and B1T5) and three tests with the longer skirted foundation (prexed B2: B2T1, B2T2 and B2T3) are shown. The inset shows a detailed view of the loaddisplacement response up to a relative displacement w/D 0.02, the prescribed limiting displacement criterion for tests that were not continued to mobilisation of ultimate capacity. The shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, appeared to be close to ultimate capacity by a relative displacement w/D 0.02 (tests B1T1, B1T4 and B1T5), while by contrast the longer skirted foundation was still developing resistance at w/D 0.02 (tests B2T1, B2T2 and B2T3), reaching ultimate capacity at a relative displacement of around w/D 0.1. Greater uplift resistance was achieved with the longer skirted foundation as would be expected. Following consolidation at a stress level close to the installation resistance, a doubling of the skirt depth to diameter ratio from d/D 0.15 to 0.3 led to a 150% increase in uplift resistance mobilised at a relative displacement w/D 0.02 (comparing B1T1 and B1T5 with B2T1 and B2T2) or a 250% increase comparing ultimate capacity (B1T1 and B2T2). The magnitude of the consolidation stress appeared to have a signicant effect on the ultimate uplift resistance of the shorter skirted foundation, with a two-fold increase in consolidation stress leading to more than a two-fold increase in uplift capacity (comparing B1T1 or B1T5 with B1T4). The effect of the magnitude of consolidation stress appeared to be less signicant for the longer skirted foundation with a twofold increase in consolidation stress leading to only an 8% increase in ultimate capacity (comparing B2T2 with B2T3). Test B2T3 was carried out following a sequence of sustained load tests which may have softened the soil, whereas the other undrained uplift tests were carried out in virgin sites (see Table 3). The dynamic installation in test B1T4 may also have affected the subsequent uplift resistance. In terms of bearing capacity factor Nc Vu /Asu(tip) , taking the undrained shear strength at skirt tip level su(tip) 14.5 kPa for the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, from box 1 and 20.0 kPa for the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, from box 2 (see Fig. 2), gives Nc 3.60 and 8.90 for the foundations with d/D 0.15 and 0.3 respectively. It is interesting to compare the bearing capacity factors derived from the centrifuge tests with available theoretical solutions for bearing capacity factors. Houlsby & Martin (2003) present bearing capacity factors calculated by the method of characteristics for rigid circular foundations with smooth sides and a rough base that are relevant for comparison with this study. Houlsby & Martin (2003) also present bearing capacity factors for intermediate base roughness, although a rough interface is most appropriate for the soil/soil interface across the base of a skirted foundation. In the theoretical solutions, the soil was assumed to be weightless and with yield determined by the Tresca criterion. The soil was taken to be isotropic, but both homogeneous and heterogeneous soil strength proles were considered. For the heterogeneous conditions, the undrained shear strength, su , was dened as varying linearly with depth in terms of a heterogeneity coefcient kD/sum , where k is the gradient of the undrained shear strength prole, D is the diameter of the foundation and sum is the undrained shear strength at the mudline. For the conditions in this study, the heterogeneity coefcient lies in the region of 4 to 5 (taking sum , 8 kPa, k in the range , 2 kPa/m close to the surface, reducing to , 1.5 kPa/m for 0.15 , z/D , 0.3 and D 20 m), giving Nc , 8 to 8.5 for both the foundation embedment ratios considered (a similar Nc is to be expected given the relatively shallow embedment ratio of both foundations). Assuming uniform

Normalised embedment, z/D

532

GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH the applied load carried by friction along the skirts, which is up to 30% in some tests. The point of separation between the soil plug and the underside of the base plate was clear in Test B1T1 with no further increase in pressure observed

undrained soil strength with depth (i.e. kD/sum 0), a lower bearing capacity factor, Nc , 6.5, is predicted, although as for the heterogenous condition, a similar value is predicted over the range of foundation embedment ratios considered in this study. The theoretical bearing capacity predictions may be expected to lie on the low side given the assumption of frictionless skirts in contrast to the partial roughness of the skirts of the physical models. Comparing the bearing capacity factors from the measured uplift resistance from the centrifuge tests with the theoretical predictions indicates the ultimate measured capacity of the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, was less than 50% of the theoretical end bearing capacity, while the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, mobilised full (theoretical) reverse end bearing capacity. Recent tests at COFS-UWA indicated a bearing capacity factor in compression Nc , 13 for d/D 0.3 under similar conditions as this series of tests (Acosta-Martinez et al., 2008). Comparing with the bearing capacity factor in uplift from this study, Nc , 8.9, indicates undrained uplift capacity of approximately 70% of the compression capacity was mobilised (similar to observations reported by Clukey & Morrison (1993)). It is noteworthy that the experimental bearing capacity in compression is around 60% greater than the theoretical prediction (Houlsby & Martin, 2003), highlighting the degree of inuence of the soil strength prole and skirt interface roughness on bearing capacity. Experimental results are not available for the shorter skirted foundation, but if a similar bearing capacity factor as observed for the longer skirted foundation is assumed (as indicated by the theoretical bearing capacity factors), ultimate resistance measured in uplift with the shorter skirted foundation was possibly as low as 30% of the compressive end bearing capacity. Examination of the soil surface after testing indicated local shear governed failure of the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, with cracking observed near the skirt, , 0.1D0.15D from the perimeter, and concentrated on the side of the PPT housings. Conversely, a reverse end bearing mechanism was evident for the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, with the soil plug proud of the surface and a circumferential crack , 0.3D0.4D from the footprint. Photographs of the observed mechanisms are shown in Fig. 8. Figure 9 shows excess pore pressures measured by the PPTs at skirt tip level plotted against relative uplift displacement. The load paths begin at a state of almost zero excess pore pressure, indicating the duration of consolidation was sufcient for full dissipation of excess pore pressures developed during installation (Fig. 4). During uplift the two sensors recorded consistent values in each test other than in B2T3 where some instability was observed in one of the sensors. The PPT readings suggested higher uplift resistance than indicated by the load cell readings, and as noted with respect to the installation response, it is likely that during uplift the excess pore pressures measured at skirt tip level relate to a local failure around the housing and not the global behaviour of the foundation. (The PPTs at skirt tip level were damaged during the accidental dynamic installation and no data were available for test B1T4.) Figure 10 shows excess pore pressures and change in total vertical stress from the PPTs and TPTs located beneath the base plate during undrained uplift. During all tests a gradual drawing in of water into the cavity occurred from the start of the test and the PPT and TPT readings are similar. Some excess pore pressure was present under the base plate at the start of uplift, particularly when consolidation had taken place at higher stress levels. Comparing the TPT measurements beneath the base plate with the load cell readings (Fig. 7) provides an indication of the proportion of

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8. Failure modes observed in undrained uplift: (a) local shear mechanism; d/D 0.15 (test B1T1); (b) reverse end bearing mechanism; d/D 0.30 (test B2T1)

20 B3T4

B2T1 B1T5

04 03

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

8 7 6 5 4 3 d/D 1 015 030 0 450 400 2 B2T3

B3T4

15 10 05 B1T1 00 400 300 200 100 0 B2T3

16

02 01 00

12

B2T1

u from pairs of B1T1 PPTs at skirt tip B1T5

08

04

00 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 50

Excess pore pressure, u: kPa

Fig. 9. Pore pressure generation at skirt tip during undrained uplift

Prototype uplift displacement, w: m

10

20

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY

8 B1T4
20 16

533

16

30

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 B2T1 PPT-lid TPT-lid 140 120 100 B2T2 B2T3

B2T3

04 B1T5 03

Prototype uplift displacement, w: m

G1 V/Vu 25

06

B1T 2_3

02 08 04 00 100 80 01 B1T4 B1T1 60 40 20 0 20 40 00

08

15 10 05 00

B1

T2_

20

B1T2_1 B1T3 _1

12 B2T2

12

B1

T3

_2 5_ 2

T B1
03 C F1

V/Vu B

A D D V/Vu 0 40 80 120

B1T1

B1T5

d/D 015 030

04

Vu: uplift capacity at w/D (see Fig. 7) 01 160 200 240 280

002 B1T5_3

00 320 360 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 Prototype time, tp: days (a) 30 G2

Change in total vertical stress (v) and excess pore presssure (u): kPa

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

Fig. 10. Change in total stress and excess pore pressure beneath base plate during undrained uplift

25 V/Vu 060

with continued uplift. A gradual increase in pressure was observed until the end of the other tests. Figure 11 shows examples of readings from the TPTs located along the skirt during undrained uplift from tests with both foundations. In each case, the negative excess pore pressure generated during transient uplift gives rise to a temporary increase of total radial stress. A similar magnitude of radial stress was recorded by TPTs located at the same level in the two models and similarity of readings from each diametric pair of TPTs conrmed verticality of the foundation during uplift.

B2T 1_3

B2

15 10 05

T3_

20

E F2 V/Vu 030 120

B2T3_1

B2T1

_2
002

00 0 40 80

Vu: uplift capacity at w/D (see Fig. 7) 160 200 240 280

320

360

Prototype time, tp: days (b)

Fig. 12. Time histories of sustained uplift tests: (a) d/D (b) d/D 0.3

0.15;

Sustained uplift response: load and displacement time histories Time histories for each sustained load test are presented in Fig. 12 in terms of relative uplift displacement against prototype time for a year following application of the uplift load. Eleven sustained load tests were carried out; seven with the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15 (Fig. 12(a)) and four with the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3 (Fig. 12(b)). The position in a sequence of the sustained uplift test is indicated by the number following the underscore in the test label, for example B1T2_1 is the rst sustained test in the series at that site, followed by tests B1T2_2 and B1T2_3 respectively at the same site. Sustained loads of 10%, 30% and 60% of the undrained uplift resistance, Vu , mobilised at a relative displacement w/ D 0.02, were considered. For the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, this corresponded to the ultimate undrained
Prototype uplift displacement, w: m
20 04 B1T5_1 16 12 08 04 00 0 10 20 30 40 01 d/D 015 030 50 TPTd/D
015

Uplift displacement, w/D: %

B2T1_1 03 TPTd/D 03 (upper level) TPTd/D 03 (lower level)

02

00

Total radial stress, r: kPa

Fig. 11. Radial stresses on skirts during undrained uplift

uplift capacity. For the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, the undrained uplift resistance Vu mobilised at a relative displacement w/D 0.02 corresponded to approximately 75% of the ultimate undrained uplift capacity. Expressed with respect to the ultimate undrained uplift capacity, the proportional uplift loads labelled as 0.3Vu and 0.6Vu in Fig. 12 correspond to 0.22VuULT and 0.45VuULT respectively (a 0.1Vu load was not investigated for the foundation with embedment ratio d/D 0.3). The displacement response to a sustained load was essentially bilinear over the range of displacement considered, with immediate displacement followed by time-dependent displacement at a constant rate. The magnitude of immediate displacement increased with increased magnitude of load, as would be expected. A reduction in immediate displacements may usually be expected with increasing consolidation stress as a result of increasing stiffness. For uplift following consolidation the relationship is not straightforward, however, as the magnitude of the stress increment during the load path reversal increases with higher consolidation stress. This may account for the large immediate displacements observed in some of the tests carried out from the higher consolidation stress levels, particularly for the tests involving higher levels of uplift load for which the stress increment was large (B2T3_2). Tests without a period of consolidation prior to uplift did not exhibit immediate displacements (B1T2_2, B1T2_3 and B1T5_4.) Repeatability of the tests was conrmed by comparison of the timedisplacement response of tests in which conditions were identical, for example, tests B1T2_1 and B1T3_1 (A in Fig. 12(a)), were both carried out with the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, subjected to an uplift load of 0.6Vu and in both cases were the rst test in a sequence (_1).

Excess pore pressure (u) and total stress (v) under base plate: kPa

GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH under the higher load of 0.6Vu (G1 and G2 in Figs 12(a) and Effect of consolidation. The benecial effect of prior consolidation on sustained uplift capacity is evident compar(b) respectively, that is comparing tests B1T2_1 or B1T3_1 ing the timedisplacement response from tests B1T2_2 or with B2T1_3). B1T2_3 and B1T3_2, (B in Fig. 12(a)), which were both carried out with the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15 and subjected to an uplift load of 0.3Vu. Tests B1T2_2 and Pore pressure and radial stress response. Figures 13, 14 and B1T2_3 immediately followed previous load tests (i.e. 15 respectively show time histories for the year following without an intermediate period of consolidation) whereas application of the uplift load of the change in vertical stress test B1T3_2 followed a 12 year period of consolidation and excess pore pressure measured under the base plate, the (T 0.083). Displacement occurred around three times more excess pore pressure measured at skirt tip level, and the slowly when a period of consolidation had preceded uplift. change in radial stress for two selected tests, B1T2_2 and Limited additional benet was observed with continued B2T1_2, for d/D 0.15 and 0.3 respectively with V 0.3Vu increase in the period of consolidation prior to uplift for T . 0.083. This is evident by comparing tests B1T3_2 (as described above) and B1T5_2 (C in Fig. 12(a)); both carried 20 d/D V/Vu 03 015 out with the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15 and 030 10 subjected to an uplift load of 0.3Vu, but carried out following d/D 015 B1T2_2 12 years (T 0.083) and 50 years (T 0.325) of consolida0 PPT tion respectively. The additional 38 years (T 0.242) of d/D 030 B2T1_2 PPT consolidation prior to sustained uplift in test B1T5_2, repre10 senting more than a four-fold increase in consolidation time, TPT provided only a further 12% reduction in the rate of 20 TPT displacement.
534
30 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360

Total radial stress, r: kPa

Effect of magnitude of uplift load. The effect of the magnitude of the uplift load on the rate of displacement was more signicant for the foundation with the smaller embedment ratio, as would be expected. Considering the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15, under proportional loads of 10%, 30% and 60% of the undrained uplift resistance Vu (D in Fig. 12(a), i.e. tests B1T5_3 with B1T5_2 or B1T3_2 and B1T2_1 or B1T3_1), a 15-fold increase in the rate of displacement is observed with a 20% increase in load, from 0.1Vu to 0.3Vu , and a further 15-fold increase in the rate of displacement with a further 30% increase in load, from 0.3Vu to 0.6Vu; corresponding to rates of displacement of 0.04 m/year, 0.6 m/year and 9 m/ year for loads of 0.1Vu, 0.3Vu and 0.6Vu respectively. A load equal to 0.1Vu was sustained for over ten years (in prototype time) without a change in the rate of displacement (B1T5_3). For the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, a ten-fold increase in the rate of displacement was observed, from 0.2 m/year to 2.0 m/year with a 30% increase in load from 0.3Vu to 0.6Vu , compared with the 15-fold increase observed with the shorter skirted foundation. Considering the rate of displacement in terms of absolute load, V (rather than proportional load V/Vu ), the load cases 0.6Vu for d/D 0.15 (A in Fig. 12(a), i.e. tests B1T2_1 or B1T3_1) and 0.3Vu for d/D 0.3 (F2 in Fig. 12(b), i.e. test B2T1_2) are most similar. Although the load applied to the shorter skirted foundation is only 65% of that applied to the longer skirted foundation, a 50-fold reduction in the rate of displacement is evident with the foundation with greater embedment ratio. The higher consolidation stress in test B2T3 had little effect on the rate of displacement initially, but the rate appeared to slow with increasing time. Effect of embedment ratio. The effect of embedment ratio on sustained uplift capacity is evident by comparing the response of the two foundations subjected to the same proportional load, V/Vu. For example, tests B1T3_2 or B1T5_2 (F1 in Fig. 12(a)) carried out on the shorter skirted foundation, d/ D 0.15, with B2T1_2 (F2 in Fig. 12(b)) carried out on the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, in both cases subjected to an uplift load of 0.3Vu. In this case a doubling of the embedment ratio led to a three-fold reduction in the rate of displacement. A 50% greater reduction in the rate of displacement was observed between the two foundations

Prototype time, tp: days

Fig. 13. Change in total stress and excess pore pressure beneath base plate during sustained uplift
20

Excess pore pressure utip: kPa

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 40 80 120 160 200 d/D 030 B2T1_2 d/D 015 B1T2_2 V/Vu 03

u from pairs of PPTs at skirt tip

d/D 015 030

240

280

320

360

Prototype time, tp: days

Fig. 14. Excess pore pressure at skirt tip level during sustained uplift
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 d/D 030 d/D 015 B2T1_2 B1T2_2 TPTs (deeper level) d/D 015 030

TPTs (upper level)

Prototype time, tp: days

Fig. 15. Radial stress during sustained uplift

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY

002

535

in both. The sensors were largely stable over the period of all the sustained uplift tests. Figure 13 shows an initial change in magnitude of excess pore pressure and total stress under the base plate due to the applied uplift load. In B2T1_2, negative excess pore pressure temporarily reduced owing to relaxation of the soil close to the interface with the base plate before stabilising (typically within 20 days) after which suction remained almost constant. In tests that immediately followed a previous test, that is with no intermediate consolidation, the period of relaxation of the soil in the period following the applied uplift was not observed, as seen for B1T2_2 in Fig. 13. Figure 14 shows evidence of continued dissipation of excess pore pressures at skirt tip level during sustained loading in test B2T1_2, but as noted previously the readings represented local drainage around the PPT housing rather than a reection of the overall behaviour of the foundation. Dissipation was not evident in B1T2_2 in which the level of suction appeared to remain constant for the duration of the test. Figure 15 shows the total radial stress along the skirts measured during uplift, by the pairs of diametrically opposed TPTs set ush with the external face of the skirt. Following an initial change in radial stress owing to the applied uplift load, the sensors close to the tip indicate the radial stress gradually diminished throughout the test, while the higher level of sensors on the longer skirted foundation recorded a more constant level of radial stress over the duration of the sustained load. The observed reduction in radial stress from the lower sensors may reect gradual reduction in the local effective stress levels in the vicinity of the caisson base during sustained uplift. Sustained uplift response: degradation of uplift resistance with time Figures 16(a) and (b) show the results from the sustained uplift tests in terms of degradation of uplift resistance with time under sustained load for three discrete intervals of relative time-dependent displacements wt /D 0.005, 0.01 and 0.02. Time-dependent displacements were taken as the difference between total displacement and immediate displacement. Figure 16(a) represents the time-dependent degradation of uplift resistance based on uplift loads of 10%, 30% and 60% of the undrained uplift resistance, Vu , mobilised at the limiting displacement criterion wt /D 0.02. Fig. 16(b) shows the time-dependent degradation of uplift resistance based on uplift loads expressed as a proportion of the ultimate undrained uplift capacity, VuULT (synonymous to Fig. 16(a) for the shorter skirted foundation, d/D 0.15). V/Vu 1 and V/VuULT 1 correspond to the undrained uplift resistance mobilised at relative displacements wt /D 0.005, 0.01 and 0.02 and the ultimate uplift capacity respectively. The corresponding time values were calculated from the constant displacement rate (v 0.1 mm/s) in the undrained uplift tests. Trend lines are indicated through the results of the tests that followed a period of signicant consolidation (i.e. T > 0.083) prior to uplift. The trend lines allow approximate interpolation of the relationship between degradation of uplift resistance and time, although more data points at other load levels would be benecial. The separation between the trendlines is uniform since rates of displacement under sustained load were constant (as seen in Fig. 12). Uplift resistance diminished more rapidly under higher loads, as would be expected. The shorter skirted foundation, with an embedment ratio d/D 0.15, sustained a load of 60% of the undrained uplift capacity for up to two weeks, or a load of 30% of the undrained uplift capacity for up to six

10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 1 10

Normalised uplift resistance, V/Vu w/D

1 month wt /D

1 year 2 y

5 y 10 y 25 y

0005, 001 and 002 d/D 015 (t c 030

0)

(preload)

100 Prototype time, tp: days (a)

1000

10 000

Normalised uplift resistance, V/Vu ULT

10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 1 10

1 month wt /D

1 year 2 y

5 y 10 y 25 y

0005, 001 and 002 d/D 015 (t c 030

0)

(preload)

100 Prototype time, tp: days (b)

1000

10 000

Fig. 16. Degradation of uplift resistance with time: (a) uplift resistance mobilised at limiting displacement, wt /D 0.02; (b) uplift resistance at ultimate capacity VuULT

months without relative time-dependent displacement exceeding wt /D 0.02. Loads of 10% of the undrained uplift capacity could be sustained for several years. The effect of the degree of consolidation prior to uplift on the duration over which loads can be sustained is evident from the offset of the data points referring to those tests with no consolidation prior to uplift, tc 0. Considering the longer skirted foundation, with an embedment ratio d/D 0.3, loads of 60% or 30% of the undrained uplift resistance mobilised at a relative displacement wt / D 0.02, or 45% and 22% of the ultimate undrained uplift capacity could be sustained for two months or two years respectively without relative time-dependent displacement exceeding wt /D 0.02. The overlapping of the trendlines results from the linear interpolation and is somewhat misleading. Nonetheless, closer banding of the data points in Fig. 16(b) suggests embedment ratio affects the degradation of uplift resistance less when uplift loads are expressed in terms of ultimate capacity, VuULT, as opposed to mobilised resistance dened by a limiting displacement, Vu . The type of curve shown in Fig. 16 has been reported for longer skirted suction caisson foundations with embedment ratios d/D ranging between 3.9 and 7 (Clukey et al., 2004). A less onerous relative displacement criterion w/D 0.1 was adopted in that study as loss of embedment becomes less signicant with increasing embedment ratio. As would be expected, reported holding times were considerably greater than in this study; loads approaching the undrained capacity were maintained for several months and loads between 0.65Vu and 0.75Vu were sustained indenitely. Considering the ve-fold increase in the limiting displacement criterion and (average) 25-fold increase in embedment ratio, it would

536

GOURVENEC, ACOSTA-MARTINEZ AND RANDOLPH effect becoming more evident at higher load levels. A doubling of the embedment ratio from d/D 0.15 to 0.3 led to a three-fold reduction in the rate of displacements under an uplift load of 0.3Vu compared with a four and a half-fold reduction under a load of 0.6Vu. In terms of absolute loads, the effect on the rate of displacement with increase in embedment ratio was signicant; an increase in embedment ratio from d/ D 0.15 to 0.3 reduced the rate of displacements by an order of magnitude. (h) A period of consolidation sufcient to achieve a relatively steady state, following installation or a previous loading event and prior to sustained uplift, was benecial in terms of reducing the subsequent rate of displacement under sustained uplift. For example, a three-fold difference in the rate of displacement was observed comparing the sustained uplift response (of the same foundation and under the same load) when a period of consolidation to achieve a relatively steady state preceded uplift compared with uplift immediately following a preceding uplift test. In this study T > 0.083 was sufcient to benet from a period of consolidation and further increase in the period of consolidation had minimal benet. (i) Considering the duration over which uplift loading can be sustained, loads of 60% of the undrained uplift resistance, based on a limiting time-dependent displacement criterion wt /D 0.02, were sustained for two weeks or two months by the skirted foundations with embedment ratios d/D 0.15 and 0.3 respectively, while loads of 30% of the undrained uplift resistance could be sustained for six months or two years by the foundations with embedment ratios d/D 0.15 and 0.3 respectively. Loads of less than 10% of the undrained uplift resistance were sustained for several years without signicant displacement. Further work is required to quantify general guidance for the reliance on passive suctions for shallow skirted foundations. In particular further investigation of the effect of consolidation stress level on subsequent uplift response and under a wider variety of uplift loads would be benecial. Further tests are underway at the Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems investigating these issues and also the effect of cyclic loading, load eccentricity and gapping along the skirt on transient and sustained uplift capacity.

seem that the rate of increase in uplift capacity reduces with increasing embedment ratio.

CONCLUDING REMARKS This study has shown the potential application of shallow skirted foundations to provide uplift resistance over timescales appropriate to operational conditions of various offshore systems. For the conditions considered in this study, of shallow skirted foundations in lightly over-consolidated soft clay, the following remarks can be made. (a) A reliable and stable response of the model and the sensors was observed during installation, transient loading, sustained loading and prolonged periods of consolidation. The sensors (i) conrmed that excess pore pressures were not developed during installation, (ii) indicated the instance of touchdown or separation of the base plate with the soil and (iii) conrmed both installation and uplift were concentric. The model instrumentation was selected with the extension of this study to eccentric loading in mind and their interpretation under concentric load was limited. It was unfortunate that the housing of the PPTs mounted at skirt tip level led to a local response during installation and uplift rather than monitoring the overall behaviour of the foundation. In the future, with further developments in sensor technology, it may be possible to mount PPTs on the face of the stiffener in a similar arrangement to the TPTs recessed in the skirt face. (b) Measured installation resistance was repeatable and well predicted by simple theoretical expressions indicating a soil/skirt interface friction ratio , 0.3. Observations of plug heave indicated a 50:50 split between inward and outward ow of soil during skirt penetration, independent of embedment ratio. (c) The loaddisplacement response of the shorter skirted foundation, with an embedment ratio of d/D 0.15, indicated ultimate undrained uplift capacity was mobilised at relatively small displacements, w/D < 0.02. Ultimate capacity was mobilised with the longer skirted foundation, d/D 0.3, at larger relative displacements, w/D , 0.1. The relative displacement required to mobilise ultimate capacity appeared to be independent of the consolidation stress level. (d ) Doubling the foundation embedment ratio, d/D, from 0.15 to 0.3 led to a 150% increase in undrained uplift resistance measured at a relative displacement w/ D 0.02, Vu , and a 250% increase in ultimate uplift capacity, VuULT. (e) Bearing capacity factors, Nc , for undrained uplift of 3.6 and 8.9 were recorded for the foundations with embedment ratios d/D 0.15 and 0.3 respectively. Comparison with theoretical bearing capacity factors and other centrifuge tests indicated between 30% and 50% of reverse end bearing capacity was mobilised for the foundation with an embedment ratio d/D 0.15 and 70100% of reverse end bearing was mobilised for the foundation with an embedment ratio d/D 0.3. ( f ) Local shear failure was observed following undrained uplift of the shorter skirted foundation, with the embedment ratio d/D 0.15, while general shear, reverse end bearing failure was observed for the longer skirted foundation with embedment ratio d/D 0.3. These visual observations supported the conclusions drawn from the values of measured uplift resistance. (g) In sustained uplift under a constant proportional load (V/Vu ), a slower rate of displacement was observed for the foundation with greater embedment ratio, with the

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work described here forms part of the activities of the Special Research Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, established under the Australian Research Councils Research Centres Program, and now supported through grants FF0561473 and DP0665958 and Centre of Excellence funding from the State of Western Australia. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Don Herley, Senior Beam Technician and Shane De Catania, Electronics Technician for their assistance during the tests.

REFERENCES
Acosta-Martinez, H. E., Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M. F. (2008). An experimental investigation of a shallow skirted foundation under compression and tension. Soil Found. 48, No. 2, 253260. Andersen, K. H. & Jostad, H. P. (2002). Shear strength along outside wall of suction anchors in clay after installation. Pro-

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF UPLIFT RESISTANCE OF SHALLOW SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS IN CLAY

ceedings of the international offshore and polar engineering conference, ISOPE, pp. 785794. Andersen, K. H., Murff, J. D., Randolph, M. F., Clukey, E., Erbrich, C. T., Jostad H. P., Hansen, B., Aubeny, C. P., Sharma, P. & Supachawarote, C. (2005). Suction anchors for deepwater applications. Proceedings of the international symposium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics (ISFOG), Perth, pp. 330. Barbosa-Cruz, E. R. & Randolph, M. F. (2005). Bearing capacity and large penetration of a cylindrical object at shallow embedment. Proceedings of the international symposium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics ISFOG, Perth, pp. 615621. Brinch Hansen, J. (1970). A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Danish Geotech. Inst. No. 28, 511. Bye, A., Erbrich, C., Rognlien, B. & Tjelta, T. I. (1995). Geotechnical design of bucket foundations. Proc. Annual Offshore Technol. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 7793. Chen, W. (2005). Uniaxial behaviour of suction caissons in soft deposits in deepwater. PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia. Chen, W. & Randolph, M. F. (2007). Radial stress changes and axial capacity for suction caissons in soft clay. Geotechnique 57, No. 6, 499511. Clukey, E.C. & Morrison, J. (1993). A centrifuge and analytical study to evaluate suction caissons for TLP applications in the Gulf of Mexico. In Design and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and Piers in Soil and Soft Rock. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 38, pp. 141156. Clukey E. C., Morrison, M. J., Garnier, J. & Corte, J. F. (1995).The response of suction caissons in normally consolidated clays to cyclic TLP loading conditions. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 7796. Clukey, E. C. & Phillips, R. (2002). Centrifuge model tests to verify suction caisson capacities for taut and semi-taut legged mooring systems. Proceedings of deep offshore technical international conference, New Orleans, pp. 116. Clukey, E. C., Templeton, J. S., Randolph, M. F. & Phillips, R. A. (2004). Suction caisson response under sustained loop-current loads. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 16843. Edwards, D. H., Zravkovic, L. and Potts, D. M. (2005). Depth factors for undrained bearing capacity. Geotechnique 55, No. 10, 755758. Finnie, I. M. S. & Randolph, M. F. (1994). Punch-through and liquefaction induced failure of shallow foundations on calcareous sediments. Proc. Int. Conf. Behaviour of Offshore Structures (BOSS), 217230. Fuglsang, L. D. & Steensen-Bach, J. O. (1991). Breakout resistance of suction piles in clay. Proc. Int. Conf. On Centrifuge Modelling: Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, 163159. Gourvenec, S. (2008). Undrained bearing capacity of embedded footings under general loading. Geotechnique 58, No. 3, 177185. Gourvenec, S., Randolph, M. F. & Kingsnorth, O. (2006) Undrained bearing capacity of square and rectangular footings. Int. J. Geomech. 6, No. 3, 147157. Gourvenec, S., Acosta-Martinez, H. E. & Randolph, M. F. (2007). Bucket foundations for offshore oil and gas facilities. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Offshore Site Investigation and Geotech. Soc. Underwater Technol., London, 479484. Houlsby, G. T. & Martin, C. M. (2003). Undrained bearing capacity factors for conical footings on clay. Geotechnique 53, No. 5, 513520. Ladd, C. C. (1991). Stability evaluation during staged construction. 22nd Terzaghi Lecture, J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 117, No. 4, 540615. Luke, A. M., Rauch, A. F., Olson, R. E. & Mecham, E. C. (2005).

537

Components of suction caisson capacity measured in axial pullout tests. Ocean Engng, No. 32, 878891. Martin, C. M. & Randolph, M. F. (2001). Applications of the lower and upper bounds theorems of plasticity to collapse of circular foundations. Proceedings of international conference on computer methods and advanced geomechanics, Tuscon, Vol. 2, 1417 1428. Mayne, P. W. (2001). Stress-strain-strength-ow parameters from enhanced in-situ tests. Proceedings of an International Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties & Case Histories (In-Situ 2001), Bali, Indonesia 2747. Mayne, P. W. & Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). K0 -OCR relationships in soils. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 108, No. 6, 851872. 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, 10621080. Randolph, M. F. (2003). Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. 43rd Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique 53, No. 10, 847 875. Randolph, M. F. Cassidy, M. J., Gourvenec, S. & Erbrich, C. T. (2005). The challenges of offshore geotechnical engineering (Keynote). Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Soil Mechanics and geotechnical engineering (ISSMGE), Vol. 1, pp. 123176. Osaka, Japan: Balkema. Randolph, M. F. & Hope, S. (2004). Effect of cone velocity on cone resistance and excess pore pressures. Proc. Int. Symp. Engng Practice and Performance of Soft Deposits, Osaka, 147 152. Randolph, M. F. & House, A. R. (2002). Analysis of suction caisson capacity in clay. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 14236. Randolph, M. F., Jewell, R. J., Stone, K. J. L. & Brown, T. A. (1991). Establishing a new centrifuge facility. Proc. Int. Conf. on Centrifuge Modelling, Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, 39. Rao, S. N., Ravi, R. & Ganapathy, C. (1997). Pullout behaviour of model suction anchors in soft marine clays. Proc. Int. Offshore and Polar Engng Conf., ISOPE 97, Honolulu 1, 740744. Salgado, R., Lyamin, A. V., Sloan, S. W. & Yu, H. S. (2004). Twoand three-dimensional bearing capacity of foundations in clay. Geotechnique 54, No. 5, 297306. Skempton, A. W. (1951). The bearing capacity of clays. Proceedings of the building and research congress, London, Vol. 1, pp. 180189. Steensen-Bach, J. O. (1992). Recent model tests with suction piles in clay and sand. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 6882. Stewart, D. P. (1992). Lateral loading of pile bridge abutments due to embankment construction. PhD thesis, University of Western Australia. Stewart, D. P. & Randolph, M. F. (1991). A new site investigation tool for the centrifuge. Proc. Int. Conf. on Centrifuge Modelling: Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, 531538. Stewart, D. P. and Randolph, M. F. (1994). T-bar penetration testing in soft clay. J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE 120, No. 12, 2230 2235. Vesic, A. S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In Foundation engineering handbook (eds H. F. Winterkorn & H. Y. Fang), pp. 121147. New York: Van Nostrand. Watson, P. G., Randolph, M. F. & Bransby, M. F. (2000). Combined lateral and vertical loading of caisson foundations. Proc. Annual Offshore Tech. Conf., Houston, Paper OTC 12195. Wroth, C. P. (1984). The interpretation of in-situ soil tests. 24th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique 34, No. 4, 449489.