Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). GeÂotechnique 48, No.
5, 637±655
Combined loading of skirted foundations
M . F. B R A N S B Y  a n d M . F. R A N D O L P H 
The response of skirted offshore foundations to
combined vertical (V), moment (M) and hori-
zontal (H) loading has been studied using two-
dimensional ®nite-element analysis and upper-
bound plasticity analysis assuming the soil to be
undrained. New information has been gained
about the shape of the yield locus and the soil
deformation mechanisms occurring at yield from
the ®nite-element analysis. The shape of the
yield locus was found to be similar to that
predicted by previous workers in V±M and V±
H space but differed signi®cantly in M±H space.
This behaviour is explained using upper-bound
plasticity mechanisms suggested by the soil de-
formation mechanisms calculated in the ®nite
element analysis. This procedure is then used to
give a good approximation to the shape of the
yield locus and thus may form the basis for
future design methods. Additionally, a simplify-
ing transformation is suggested for the yield
locus in H±M space based on plasticity analysis,
which allows use of simple mathematical expres-
sions to form a design envelope.
KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; footings/foundations;
numerical modelling and analysis; plasticity.
INTRODUCTION
Offshore structures may consist of multiple shallow
foundations which act together in consort (e.g.
jack-up rigs and tension leg platforms) or single
shallow foundations (e.g. gravity based platforms).
Both of these types of foundations undergo com-
bined vertical (V), moment (M) and horizontal (H)
loading due to environmental loadings on the
superstructure. In order to predict the behaviour of
an entire offshore structure the response of these
individual foundations to this combined loading
must be understood.
The bearing capacity of shallow foundations
Manuscript received 14 April 1997; revised manuscript
accepted 4 February 1998.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 January 1999; for
further details see p. ii.
 University of Western Australia, Nedlands.
637
Nous eÂtudions la reÂponse de fondations offshore
aÁ jupe aÁ une combinaison de charge verticale
(V), instantaneÂe (M) et horizontale (H) en utili-
sant des analyses d'eÂleÂments ®nis en deux di-
mensions et une analyse de plasticite de limite
supeÂrieure en supposant un sol non draineÂ. Nous
tirons de l'analyse d'eÂleÂments ®nis de nouveaux
renseignements sur la forme du lieu d'eÂlasticiteÂ
limite et sur les meÂcanismes de deÂformation du
sol qui se produisent aÁ la limite eÂlastique. La
forme du lieu se reÂveÁle comme similaire aÁ celle
preÂsageÂe par les travaux preÂceÂdents dans les
espaces V±M et V±H mais consideÂrablement
diffeÂrente dans l'espace M±H. Nous expliquons
ce comportement en utilisant les meÂcanismes de
plasticite de limite supeÂrieure qui sont suggeÂreÂs
par les meÂcanismes de deÂformation du sol cal-
culeÂs dans l'analyse d'eÂleÂments ®nis. Cette pro-
ceÂdure est alors utiliseÂe pour donner une bonne
approximation de la forme du lieu qui pourra
ainsi former la base des futures meÂthodes de
design. De plus, nous suggeÂrons une transforma-
tion simpli®catrice pour le lieu d'eÂlasticite limite
dans l'espace H±M sur la base de l'analyse de
plasticite qui permet l'utilisation d'expressions
matheÂmatiques simples pour former une envel-
oppe de design.
undergoing combined vertical, horizontal and mo-
ment loadings has long been a fundamental soil
mechanics research problem. Solutions have gener-
ally been based on plasticity (e.g. Hill, 1950;
Prandtl, 1921) or use approximate/empirical meth-
ods (e.g. Meyerhof, 1953; Hansen, 1970). Recent
research workers working on the problem in refer-
ence to offshore foundation behaviour (e.g. Tan,
1990; Murff, 1994; Butter®eld & Gottardi, 1995;
Houlsby & Martin, 1992; Dean et al., 1992;
Salencon & Pecker, 1995; Ngo-Tran, 1996) have
analysed the combined loading response of shallow
foundations using plasticity methods. Yield loci in
V±M±H space have been deduced for different
foundation systems in different soil types. A yield
surface is introduced whereby
 
V M H
f , , ˆ0 (1)
As AsD As
where A is the area of the foundation, D its
638 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH

diameter or breadth, s is a representative soil
strength or effective stress, and V, M and H are
the total vertical, moment and horizontal forces
applied to the soil by the footing. Associated
plasticity is often assumed so that this yield surface
also describes a plastic potential de®ning the rela-
tive magnitudes of the incremental plastic displace-
ments during elastoplastic yielding (e.g. Murff,
1994) although Tan (1990) required a separate
plastic potential to describe spudcan behaviour in
sand. To use the normality relationships the load
and displacement de®nitions must form work con-
jugate pairs so that normalized total system work,
W, is written as
     
W V äv M H äh
ˆ ‡ äè ‡ (2)
ADs As D ADs As D
where äv=D is the normalized incremental verti-
cal footing displacement, äh=D is the normalized
incremental horizontal displacement and äè is the
incremental footing rotation, and these displace-
ments are measured at the same point at which
the loads are taken to act. The yield locus
describes an isotropic work hardening surface of
size linked to the vertical bearing capacity. With-
in the yield surface, behaviour is usually assumed
to be linear elastic (Bell et al., 1991; Martin,
1994).
Previous workers have investigated either ¯at
footing or spudcan behaviour in drained or par-
tially drained sand (e.g. Butter®eld & Gottardi,
1995; Tan, 1990) or spudcan behaviour in un-
drained clay (Houlsby & Martin, 1992). In both
cases there is no resistance to uplift loading, and
so the yield envelope appears as plotted in Figs
1(a) and 1(b) with M max and H max occurring
when V =V0  0:4ÿ0:5: Because there is detach-
ment of the footing from the soil during moment
loading, normality is not observed. Tan (1990)
studied this, and devised three elastoplastic mod-
els, each with different forms of plastic potential,
which were used successfully to predict footing
response.
Recently, various empirical curve ®ts have been
suggested for the shape of the yield locus based on
centrifuge or 1 g model test data (Martin, 1994;
Murff, 1994; Dean et al., 1992). Murff (1994)
suggested a form of associated yield surface of
size given by its intercept on the M ˆ 0, H ˆ 0

H
M /D Moment, M /D M0 Normality:
Yield envelope
δθ
δv/D

V/V0 5 0.5 V0

V0
V Murff (1994)

(a) (b)

M Murff (1994) M0
Butterfield
& Martin (1994)
Gottardi
(1995)

2Vt V0 V
H

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Yield envelope approach to combined loading response of footings. (a) 3D view of the combined loading
failure envelope (after Butter®eld and Ticof, 1979). (b) Cross-section of the yield locus in V±M space ( H ˆ 0). (c)
Cross-section of the yield locus in V±H space (V ˆ V0 =2). (d) Cross-section of the yield locus in V±M space
( H ˆ 0); skirted foundation (V0 ˆ ÿVt )
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
axis designated as the ultimate vertical load V0 .
The yield locus is given as
 2   Murff's (1994) relationship (equation (3)) gives a
V Vt V Vt
f ˆ ÿ 1‡ ‡
V0 V0 V0 V 0
"    #0:5
H 2 M 2
‡ ‡ ˆ0 (3)
H0 M0
where Vt is the normalized bearing capacity under
purely vertical tension and H 0 and M 0 are the
ultimate horizontal load and moment, respectively.
This is plotted in Fig. 1(b) for Vt ˆ 0.
Skirted shallow foundations (or bucket founda-
tions) are being used increasingly in areas such as
the North Sea (Tjelta & Haaland, 1993), and there
is increasing interest in their use on the North-West
Shelf in Western Australia as they provide uplift
resistance and transfer loads below the surface
without the expense of pile driving. They consist
of shallow foundations with thin skirts at the
circumference which penetrate the soil vertically to
a depth d, and therefore the foundation appears
like an upturned bucket of diameter D and height
d. They may form groups of buckets as in the
corners of a jacket structure or a single large
footing for a gravity base platform. The presence
of the skirt alters the behaviour of the foundation
signi®cantly compared to ¯at or conical founda-
tions. Suctions develop when uplift loadings are
applied so that there is an uplift capacity, and
bearing capacity in compression is increased be-
cause the soil within the skirts is con®ned, forcing
the failure down to the level of the skirt tips.
Because skirted foundations are able to resist
uplift loading, they may resist moment loading
even when V , 0, and there will be no detachment
of the footing from the soil surface. Initial centri-
Environmental
loading H
V
Undrained shear strength
Su0
Skirt length, d
Footing
breadth/diameter, D
Depth, z
(a)
Relative homogeneity: kD /su0 (=D /d for skirted foundations)
Fig. 2. Offshore skirted foundation geometry. (a) Prototype foundation. (b) Equivalent surface foundation
639
fuge test results (Watson & Randolph, 1997a) sug-
gest that the ultimate uplift load, Vt  ÿV0 and so
yield locus symmetrical about the V ˆ 0 axis (Fig.
1(d)). Existence of this symmetry is supported by
results of yield locus probes in V±H space by
Watson & Randolph (1997b), but the detailed
shape of the yield locus has not been investigated.
One of the main motivations behind the present
work is the behaviour of skirted foundations in the
normally consolidated calcareous sediments typical
of the North-West Shelf in Western Australia.
However, due to the consolidation characteristics
of these ®ne grained sediments, environmental
loading periods provoke undrained soil behaviour
and so the system behaviour will be applicable to
more general undrained soil conditions.
GEOMETRY OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
Investigation into seabed properties of the outer
North-West Shelf suggests that the soil is normally
consolidated, with undrained shear strength su that
varies proportionally with depth z. This is ex-
pressed as
su ˆ kz (4)
where k is the undrained shear strength gradient.
A shallow foundation resting on the surface of
this soil would have a small bearing capacity, and
large footing settlement would occur before signi®-
cant bearing capacity could be achieved. Alterna-
tively, deep foundations would be required. Tani &
Craig (1995) and Watson & Randolph (1997a)
suggest that foundations with skirts of length d
transfer the footing load to the skirt tips when the
soil undrained shear strength su0 ˆ kd, and so the
bearing capacity will be related to su0 (Fig. 2).
Loads
V Displacements
M v
Su
θ
h
H
kz
Moment reference point, 'O'
(b)
640 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH
Tani & Craig (1995) proposed that the behaviour
of the skirted foundation in undrained soil with
shear strength proportional to depth can be ap-
proximated by analysing a foundation on the soil
surface but with the soil shear strength pro®le
described by su ˆ su0 ‡ kz (Fig. 2). This ®nding
was a result of comparison of different lower-
bound plasticity analyses of the vertical bearing
capacity of embedded foundations in soil with
undrained shear strength proportional to depth. The
conclusion suggests that soil above the level of the
footing base does not increase the bearing capacity
of the footing signi®cantly. Centrifuge tests suggest
that this assumption is reasonable for the initial
bearing capacity for skirts less than about 30% of
the foundation width (Tani & Craig, 1995; Watson
& Randolph, 1997a), but there is increasing bene®t
from the overlying material for deeper skirts or
after signi®cant penetration.
Beneath the skirt tips the undrained shear
strength of the soil is increasing at a rate k, and
this will affect the bearing capacity of the founda-
tion. A dimensionless soil non-homogeneity factor
kD=su0 is introduced to describe this variation with
depth. For a skirted foundation when su0 ˆ kd then
kD=su0  D=d.
Skirted foundations may be approximated as
circular in plan. To understand the behaviour of a
circular foundation undergoing vertical, moment
and horizontal loading, three-dimensional (3D)
analysis is required. Initial ®nite-element analysis
of both circular footings and in®nitely long strip
footings suggests that their behaviour is similar.
This is illustrated in Fig. 3, which shows normal-
1.2
1
0.8
Horizontal load, H /H0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0 .2 0.4
Vertical load, V /V0
Fig. 3. Combined V±H loading response of footings: strip footing and circular footing
ized yield loci produced from 2D and 3D ®nite-
element analyses in elastic, perfectly plastic soil.
The normalized shapes are very similar, although
the actual limit loads, V0 , M 0 and H 0, will depend
on the geometry of the foundation. As the same
types of behaviour of circular footings may be
observed by analysing a strip footing, detailed
analysis of the strip footing will lead to insight
applicable to the understanding of circular footing
behaviour but requiring signi®cantly less comput-
ing capacity and processing time. In addition,
upper-bound plasticity mechanisms are much sim-
pler to develop for the strip footing case. There-
fore, ®ndings from a ®nite-element study of a strip
footing are reported in this paper. Naturally, exten-
sion of the results from the strip footing to more
general 3D geometries will require allowance for
the different geometry, in that the soil deformation
mechanisms will be changed, but it is likely that
the design methods for each geometry will differ
only slightly.
FINITE-ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Geometry and soil model
The strip footing geometry is shown in Fig. 2b.
The footing was assumed to be rigid, rough and of
breadth D, resting on the soil surface. It was
considered to be in®nitely long to enable plane
strain analysis. The soil was modelled as an elas-
tic-plastic Tresca material with an undrained shear
strength pro®le described using su ˆ su0 ‡ kz,
where the ratio kD=su0 was varied to investigate
footing behaviour in soils with different undrained
Circular footing
Strip footing
0.6 0.8 1 1.2
kD /su0 5 6
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
shear strength non-homogeneity. However, most
analyses were carried out with kD=su0 ˆ 6 unless
the effect of kD=su0 variation was being studied
speci®cally. Hence, unless otherwise stated in the
text, kD=su0 ˆ 6. This particular value of non-
homogeneity factor was chosen as it led to me-
chanistic behaviour typical for a wide range of
kD=su0 values. The rigidity index for the soil was
taken as G=su ˆ 200, but the ®ndings of the analy-
sis will be independent of soil stiffness as only
ultimate behaviour is investigated. This simple soil
model approximated the soil behaviour appropri-
ately for investigation of the system failure (yield)
locus but would have to be re®ned for investigation
of prefailure behaviour.
Footing loads and displacements are as de®ned
in Fig. 2b. The reference point for moment (and
vertical displacement) is in the centre of the foot-
ing at the soil±footing interface. The position of
this reference point will affect the results (Martin,
1994; Butter®eld & Gottardi, 1995).
Finite-element analysis was carried out using
CRISP90 (Britto & Gunn, 1990) on a 5DX133
personal computer, and the ®nite-element mesh
consisted of 472 cubic strain triangles with ten
elements across the width of the footing. Rigid
vertical boundaries were placed 2´5D from the
edge of the footing while a rigid base was also
2´5D below the footing. Although the position of
these rigid boundaries would affect the stiffness of
the foundation during initial (elastic) loading, the
failure loads will be unaffected as the failure soil
deformation mechanisms occur close to the foot-
ing. A consolidation analysis was carried out with
small-time increments and low-permeability soil so
that the soil behaviour was undrained.
Aims
The aim of the series of ®nite-element analyses
was to investigate the yield locus for the strip
footing in V±M±H space. Of special interest was
the shape of the yield locus, the soil deformation
mechanisms occurring at yield and whether nor-
mality applied. The shape of the yield locus was
also to be compared with those presently recom-
mended.
Probing the yield locus
Displacement controlled events were found to be
more suitable for probing the yield locus than
stress controlled probes as discussed by Bransby &
Randolph (1997a).
Two types of displacement probes were carried
out. In the ®rst, a single probe was carried out
from a state of zero load at a constant ratio of
v=D:è:h=D until the footing loading did not vary
with increased displacement. By choosing a given
641
ratio of v=D:è:h=D (e.g. (h=D)=(v=D) ˆ 3, è ˆ 0
as shown later in Fig. 6) both the shape of the
yield locus and direction of plastic incremental
displacement vector could be ascertained at failure.
The second type of displacement probe follows
that used by Tan (1990) during his centrifuge
tests, and is known as a `side-swipe' test. It
consisted of two stages. In the ®rst stage (e.g. OA
in Fig. 6) a given displacement (typically vertical)
was prescribed to the footing from the zero load
state until ultimate load was reached. Then a
second displacement probe (AB in Fig. 6) was
applied from this load state, during which the
vertical displacement increment äv ˆ 0. The pre-
mise of the test is that because elastic stiffnesses
are much greater than plastic stiffnesses, the stress
path in the second stage will almost exactly
follow the shape of the yield locus as negligible
expansion of the yield locus will be required to
balance the small elastic deformation. This means
that the shape of the yield locus (on a certain
plane in V±M±H space) may be determined in
one test. In small-strain ®nite-element analysis,
once ultimate vertical load is reached there is no
further increase in vertical load with increased
footing penetration. Hence, the plastic stiffness at
yield is zero and so there is no increase in yield
locus size as the side-swipe test progresses. How-
ever, because elastoplastic yielding occurs within
the yield locus, the side-swipe test tracks a load
path marginally inside the yield locus. This is
because plastic displacements occurring within the
global yield locus balance the elastic displace-
ments along an internal load path to give äv ˆ 0
(Houlsby, 1997).
UPPER-BOUND PLASTICITY ANALYSIS
Methodology
Upper-bound plasticity calculations were carried
out in order to provide independent estimates of
the yield locus. The collapse mechanisms were
based on those calculated in the ®nite-element
analysis at different combinations of load. How-
ever, by the nature of the upper bound approach
the calculated yield locus will lie on or outside the
true locus.
For any given two load components, e.g. V and
M, a kinematic mechanism with associated work
dissipation was used to give a prediction of the
unknown load, e.g. H, at failure. The procedure
was repeated with different mechanisms until a
mimimum upper bound value of the unknown load
was obtained for the speci®ed loading. This was
then repeated for a range of loads in order to
describe the upper-bound yield locus. Plasticity
theorems state that normality will be obeyed on
the deduced yield locus and the yield locus must
be convex (Chen, 1975).
642 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH

Mechanisms
Speci®c forms of mechanisms were suggested δv
by results from the ®nite-element analysis. How- R δθ
ever, all the mechanisms used were based on two L
2f δh
different component mechanisms: the `scoop' me- e

chanism (Fig. 4(a)) and the `wedge' mechanism M D

α β
(Fig. 4(b)). The equations for work dissipation in K
J
A C B G
the soil for these mechanisms are given in a more I
E
F
detailed report (Bransby & Randolph, 1997b).
D
The global mechanism comprised combinations Wedge Scoop Wedge
of the scoop and wedge mechanisms, as shown in
Fig. 5(a). The wedge angles á and â, eccentricities (a)
e and f , and scoop rotation centre height L could
all be varied in order to ®nd the lowest collapse
load. In addition, the footing displacement (in
particular, the horizontal displacement, äh) could δv
R
be varied, while retaining compatibility of vertical δθ
displacements.
L δh
The general mechanism encompasses a number f e
of simpler mechanisms. For example, as the eccen- D
tricities e and f decrease ( f becoming more nega- J A C B
β G
tive) the central scoop mechanism may be E F
`eliminated'. The resulting two wedges may both
move downwards (for example, for purely vertical Scoop
D
Wedge
load) or one wedge may move upwards as the
footing rotates. A particular degenerate form of the
mechanism is shown in Fig. 5(b), where one wedge (b)
is eliminated, leaving just the scoop and a single
wedge. The scoop may extend beyond the edge of Fig. 5. Combined `wedge±scoop' mechanisms. (a)
`Wedge±scoop±wedge' mechanism. (b) `Scoop±wedge'
mechanism
O

the footing, so that the eccentricity f becomes

positive.
η R
L
δθ
V±H LOAD SPACE (INCLINED LOADING)
δh Finite-element results
The yield envelope was probed using both hor-
A C B izontal side-swipe tests and constant displacement
D ratio tests (probes). In the side-swipe test the initial
w probe was a vertical displacement probe with no
rotation or horizontal displacement, v=D ˆ 0:083,
(a) h=D ˆ 0, è ˆ 0 (OA in Fig. 6), which allowed
calculation of V0 . The horizontal side-swipe was
carried out with displacement increments äv=D ˆ
δθ 0, äh=D ˆ 0:083, äè ˆ 0 (AB in Fig. 6), and the
w stress path approximated the shape of the yield
V1 locus in V±H space.
δh
A The ultimate vertical load, V0 , was compared
B α
E
with solutions from plasticity analyses. Lower-
D bound analyses from Davis & Booker (1973) and
C
Tani & Craig (1995) predict that V0 =Dsu0 ˆ 10:49
(b)
when kD=su0 ˆ 6, whereas Houlsby & Wroth
(1983) found V0 =Dsu0 ˆ 10:37. These compare
Fig. 4. Component upper bound plasticity mechan- well with V0 =Dsu0 ˆ 10:7 obtained from the ®nite-
isms. (a) The `scoop' mechanism. (b) The `wedge' element analysis. Equally, the measured ultimate
mechanism horizontal load H 0 =Asu0 ˆ 1:034 compares well
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
1.2
C B
1
0.8
Horizontal load, H /Dsu0
0.6 Probe,
h /v 5 3
0.4
0.2
‘Side swipe’ (h, θ 50)
O
0
0 2
kD /su0 56
Fig. 6. Yield locus under V±H loading (M  0)
with the exact solution H=Asu0 ˆ 1. Even closer
agreement with the maximum horizontal load
could have been achieved using interface elements
or more elements beneath the surface of the foot-
ing, but the degree of accuracy was considered
acceptable.
During the displacement probe from the origin
with h=v ˆ 3, the stress path reaches the yield
locus near C in Fig. 6, and follows the yield locus
until stresses no longer change at `D'. When on
the yield locus, the incremental horizontal displace-
ment äh=D ˆ ähe =D ‡ ähp =D and äv=D ˆ äve =
D ‡ ävp =D, where the superscripts `e' and `p'
represent elastic and plastic deformations, respec-
tively. Hence, the elastic deformation balances the
plastic deformations, ähp =ävp , dictated by the
plastic potential so that äh=äv is as prescribed by
the external displacements. When stabilized (at D)
on the yield locus, elastic displacement increments
are zero as there is no load change (ÄV ,
Ä H, ÄM ˆ 0) and so ähp =ävp ˆ äh=äv. Hence,
the direction of the plastic displacement increment
at the ®nal failure point is known.
Displacement probes with a range of different
displacement ratios (h=v) were carried out to in-
vestigate the plastic displacement increment vector
at different points on the yield locus and to exam-
ine the accuracy of the side-swipe test (Fig. 7).
The probe tests suggest that the side-swipe test
follows a load path just within the yield locus. For
a given vertical load, the side swipe underestimates
the amount of horizontal load sustained by ap-
proximately 5% of H 0 . For most conditions this
may be considered to be a negligible difference,
643
δv /D 50
h /v 5 3
Murff (1994)
D
‘Side swipe’ , Equation (11),
δv 5 0 n 5 5, m 5 2.5,
p 5 2,
4 6 8 10 12
Vertical load, V /Dsu0
supporting previous experimental work (Tan, 1990;
Martin, 1994; Watson & Randolph, 1997b), but
suggests that probe tests are required for veri®ca-
tion of the shape of a yield locus determined soley
by side-swipe tests.
Knowledge of the direction of the plastic dis-
placement increment vector at different points on
the yield locus, obtained by the different probe
tests, allows investigation of normality. Fig. 7 com-
pares the gradient of the yield locus with plastic
displacement increment ratio obtained from the
end-points of different probes. Normality holds.
As the elastic displacements become negligible
at the stabilization point on the yield locus during
displacement probe tests, the incremental soil dis-
placements will be those for the plastic failure
mechanism, and the soil deformation mechanism at
that point on the yield locus can be found. Soil
deformation mechanisms at different points on the
yield locus are shown in Fig. 8, and show that
there are clearly different mechanisms on different
sections. On the ¯at section of the yield locus
when H= H 0  1 the deformation mechanism is
that of simple sliding of the footing over the soil
(as it must be if normality is obeyed as äv  0.)
However, when H  0, a type of double-wedge
mechanism is seen, with soil being pushed out in
two Prandtl-type wedges so that the soil deforma-
tion mechanism remains in the softer upper layers
immediately beneath the foundation. At intermedi-
ate points along the yield locus an asymmetrical
double-wedge mechanism prevails, with the footing
moving with the soil in the larger wedge zone
(Fig. 8). This mechanism is more symmetrical (like
644 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH

1.2 Final point of displacement

probe with h /v 5 6

1
h /v 5 4

Note: gradients of yield locus if normality

20.167
Horizontal load, H /Dsu0

0.8 holds are shown. Normals would not appear

as such due to the distorted V–H scale
20.25
h /v 5 3
0.6

20.33
0.4 ‘Side swipe’ h /v 5 2
δv 5 0
20.5
0.2

kD /su0 5 6 ‘Side swipe’ (h,θ 5 0)

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vertical load, H /Dsu0

Fig. 7. Investigation of normality under V±H loading (M  0)

δh /δv 56 δh /δv 5 3

3.85 m 3.2 m

148
448 98 408
δh /δv 56 δh /δv 5 3.9

1.2
Yield locus: double–wedge mechanism FE probe
1 h /v 5 6
Horizontal load, H /Dsu0

0.8 8.7

6
0.6 h /v 5 3 δh /δv 5 0
3.9
0.4
3.03 V
0.2 h /v 5 2
FE yield locus
0 298
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 δh /δv 5 0
Vertical load, V /Dsu0
kD /su0 5 6

Fig. 8. Comparison of ®nite-element and upper-bound displacement mechanisms under V±H loading (M  0;
D ˆ 12 m)
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
the H ˆ 0 mechanism) when H=V reduces, and
more asymmetrical (approaching the H= H 0 ˆ 1
mechanism) as H=V increases.
The shape of the yield locus
The shape of the yield locus is compared to
Murff's (1994) equation (3). If Vt ˆ ÿV0 (as sug-
gested by results from Watson & Randolph (1997a);
and implicit in the ®nite-element boundary condi-
tions) Murff's (1994) equation simpli®es to
 2 "    #0:5
V H 2 M 2
f ˆ ÿ1 ‡ ‡ ˆ 0 (5)
V0 H0 M0
where H 0 is the ultimate horizontal force when
M ˆ 0 and V ˆ 0 and M 0 is the ultimate moment
when V ˆ 0 and H ˆ 0. This expression is plotted
in Fig. 6 (for M ˆ 0), and using the V0 and H 0
values from the ®nite-element analysis. This gives
a very conservative approximation to the observed
yield locus. As shown later, an improved ®t can be
obtained by increasing the power of H= H 0 to 5.
645
soil deformation mechanisms and the upper-bound
deformation mechanisms at three points along the
yield locus. The plastic deformation mechanisms
re¯ect the changing soil deformation mechanisms
along the yield locus, con®rming the suitability of
the mechanism chosen.
As a check to the upper-bound methodology,
and to assess its suitability to predict the shape of
the yield locus in more general soil conditions, the
double-wedge mechanism was used to predict the
shape of the yield locus in V±H space for homo-
geneous soil (i.e. kD=su0 ˆ 0), for which a theo-
rectically exact solution exists. The deduced yield
locus is shown in Fig. 9 alongside Green's (1954)
solution. There is almost exact agreement between
the upper-bound analysis and the theoretical solu-
tion.
A side-swipe ®nite-element analysis was also car-
ried out for homogeneous soil, and is shown as
`AB' in Fig. 9. It suggests that, for this soil pro®le,
the side-swipe test underestimated the size of the
yield locus only slightly.

(V±M) LOAD SPACE (ECCENTRIC LOADING)

Upper-bound plasticity analysis
The mechanism used in V±H space was the
double-wedge mechanism: a form of the mechan-
ism shown in Fig. 5(a) but with a scoop of zero
width. The computed yield locus agrees well with
that obtained from the ®nite-element analyses (Fig.
8). Fig. 8 compares the ®nite-element calculated
Finite-element results
Similar probes were carried out in V±M load
space as for the investigation of V±H space except
that the rotational side-swipe tests consisted of
a vertical penetration, V =D ˆ 0:083(è, h=D ˆ 0)
followed by a rotation of è ˆ 0:0167 rad with äv=
D ˆ 0 and äh unconstrained ( H ˆ 0). The main

1.2

1 B
kD /su0 5 0

0.8 Using Green's (1954) solution

Horizontal load, H /Dsu0

0.6
Upper-bound yield locus
using double-wedge mechanism

0.4

0.2
Upper bound Green’s solution Side-swipe test

A
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vertical load, V /Dsu0

Fig. 9. Yield locus under V±H loading (M  0)

646 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH

®ndings are summarized in Fig. 10, and show the mechanism gives a very good ®t to the yield locus.
deduced yield locus, displacement probes and soil A detailed comparison of the soil deformation
displacement mechanisms on the yield surface. mechanisms in the ®nite-element analysis and the
Again, normality holds on the yield locus. As for optimum plastic mechanism at different points on
V±H space, the side-swipe load path test remains the yield locus reveals that the deformation me-
slightly within the yield locus as deduced from the chanisms are similar.
displacement probes, but the error is much smaller
than previously.
At the ultimate moment when H ˆ 0, M= HORIZONTAL±MOMENT (H±M) LOAD SPACE
D2 su0 ˆ 1:449. This compares well with the upper- Finite-element results (V ˆ 0)
bound value of M=D2 su ˆ 1:491 predicted using Probes similar to those carried out for V±H and
the plastic scoop mechanism shown later in Fig. 13. V±M space revealed that the maximum moment
The soil deformation mechanisms along the that the footing could sustain did not occur when
yield locus showed the same `family' of different H ˆ 0 but when there was a combination of posi-
mechanisms on different parts of the yield locus. tive horizontal load and moment. To reach the true
When V  0 the simple scoop-type mechanism ultimate moment a probe from the origin with
prevailed, when M  0 the simple symmetrical è . 0, h ˆ 0 was required (OAB in Fig. 12) during
double-wedge mechanism occurred, while at inter- which H increased. Once the yield locus was
mediate points along the yield locus an intermedi- reached (at A) the stress path followed the yield
ate combined scoop and wedge mechanism locus (AB in Fig. 12). At the true ultimate moment
prevailed (Fig. 10). M u (B in Fig. 12) normality applies as äh ˆ 0,
and the soil deformation mechanism is shown in
Fig. 13. Following this probe, two different side-
Shape of the yield locus swipe tests were carried out with äè ˆ 0. When
Murff's (1994) equation with H ˆ 0 gives a äh . 0 the side swipe probed the yield locus for
good, though slightly conservative, ®t to the shape increasing values of H (BD in Fig. 12), whereas
of the yield envelope when the observed V0 and when äh , 0 the yield locus was probed decreas-
M 0 values were used (Fig. 10). ing H (BC in Fig. 12). These two side-swipe tests
allowed approximation of the entire yield locus in
M±H space with V ˆ 0.
Upper-bound plasticity analysis To con®rm the shape of the yield locus and to
The combined scoop-wedge deformation me- investigate normality and the soil deformation me-
chanism (Fig. 5(b)) was used to predict the shape chanisms occurring on the yield surface, constant
of the yield locus in V±M space (Fig. 11). The displacement ratio probes were also carried out.

δθ
5 10
δv /D
δv /D 5 0

1.5
C
B
Moment load, M /D 2su0

θ
5 10
v /D δθ
55
1 δv /D

Murff (1994)
0.5 θ
55
v /D Side swipe
δv 5 0

δθ
50
δv /D
0 A
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vertical load, V /Dsu0

Fig. 10. Yield locus and displacement mechanisms under V±M loading ( H ˆ 0)
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS 647

f e
L
2

α
θ
5 4/(1 2 2e /D 1 2f /D)
v /D
1.5
Scoop–wedge mechanism
Moment, M /D 2Su

Final point of
displacement
1 probe with θ
5 10
v /D
θ
53
θ v /D
5 00
v /D
0.5

θ
55
v /D
Side swipe
0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vertical load, V /DSu kD /su0 5 6

Fig. 11. Yield locus an plastic displacement mechanism under V±M loading (M  0)

δh 5 0

Likely yield Mo B
A θ
locus 51
h /D Side swipe,
1.5 E
δθ 5 0,
θ δh . 0
5 22
Moment load, M /D 2su0

h /D Side swipe
from E
F
1 side swipe,
δθ 5 0,
δh , 0 H50
δh 5 0 C

0.5
D

θ θ
5 22 51
h /D h /D
O
0
21 20.5 0 0.5 1
Horizontal load, H /Dsu0 kD /su0 5 6

Fig. 12. Yield locus under H±M loading (V  0)

Fig. 12 shows the results from one probe with ing the horizontal displacement while rotation was
è=(h=D) ˆ 1 which investigates a section of the prescribed) in order to obtain M 0 . The results
yield locus with H . 0 and another probe with con®rmed the approximate shape of the yield locus
è=(h=D) ˆ ÿ2 which investigates the yield locus found during the side-swipe tests but showed that
with H , 0. A seperate displacement probe (OE) the side-swipe test slightly underestimated the size
was carried out with H ˆ 0 (set by not constrain- of the true yield locus especially for small magni-
648 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH

tudes of H. However, the probes suggested that assumed that the mechanism was symmetrical
normality held as before. about the centre line of the footing, and so there
Preliminary testing with H ˆ 0, è . 0 and then were only four variables to ®nd the minimum
a side swipe with äè ˆ 0, äh=D . 0 failed to show moment for any given horizontal loading: half-
the existence of the true peak moment. Instead, the width of the scoop, e, height of the scoop centre
maximum moment, M 0 with H ˆ 0, V ˆ 0 was of rotation, L, angle of the wedges, â, and horizon-
reached in the initial probe (E in Fig. 12) and the tal footing displacement, h. Work equations for this
side swipe then missed the corner of the yield deformation mechanism are given in Bransby &
locus as elastic behaviour was seen with little Randolph (1997b). This mechanism was used to
change in M until the yield locus was reached calculate a second approximation to the yield locus
(dotted line `EF' in Fig. 12). This suggests that the (Fig. 13). As a further cut-off, when j H=Asu0 j > 1
true moment peak could be missed in an experi- a simple slip mechanism would prevail, and this
mental investigation so that the yield locus would was used as an additional bound to the yield locus.
appear almost symmetrical. Using the three different plastic deformation
mechanisms allowed the shape of the yield locus
to be approximated very closely (Fig. 13), and the
Upper-bound plasticity analysis soil deformation mechanisms calculated on the
The soil deformation mechanisms calculated on yield locus in the ®nite-element analysis show
the yield locus in the ®nite-element analyses sug- good agreement.
gest two different upper bound plasticity mechan-
isms. The ®rst is the scoop mechanism (Fig. 13)
previously used to calculate ultimate moment and a The shape of the yield locus
particular form of the scoop±wedge mechanism The eccentricity of the yield locus in M±H
used in V±M space with e ˆ D=2 and f ˆ 0. For space implies that, if symmetric relationships of
any given horizontal load, L was varied to give the the form suggested by Murff (1994) are to be used,
minimum moment, and so a yield locus was ob- the reference point for moments must be chosen
tained (Fig. 13). The second mechanism consists of with some care. Eccentricities of the yield locus in
a scoop and two wedges, as suggested by the soil H±M space have been previously observed by
deformation mechanisms calculated close to ulti- Butter®eld & Gottardi (1995) and Martin (1994)
mate moment during ®nite-element analysis. It was for a range of different V =V0 sections of the yield

δθ
5 22
δh /D
δh 5 0
O
L 5 8.1 m L 5 3.25m e 5 5.53m

δθ β 5 678
δθ 5 24
5 21.5 δh /D
δh /D Scoop mechanism
Wedge–scoop–wedge mechanism

2
kD/su0 5 6 θ
5 0.5
h /D
1.5
Moment, M /D 2 su0

θ
1 δθ 51
5` h /D
δh/D δθ
Probe end-point 51 L 5 1.71m
0.5 δh /D δθ 5 0 e 5 3.65m
with δθ
5 22
δh/D
0 . θ β 5 288
21 20 5 0 0.5 1 5 1.25
Horizontal load, H /Dsu0 h /D

Fig. 13. Comparison between ®nite-element and upper-bound deformation mechanisms under H±M loading
(D ˆ 12 m)
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
locus. Martin analysed spudcan foundations in soft
clays, and found an eccentricity in the same direc-
tion (Fig. 1(c)), which he suggested was due to the
kinematics of the system, shape of the footing and
the normality property, although exact normality
may well not have occurred due to detachment of
the footing from the soil at low vertical loads.
Butter®eld & Gottardi (1995) studied strip footings
on drained sand, and found that the eccentricity of
the yield locus was different from that observed
here with maximum moment sustained with small
negative horizontal loads (Fig. 1(c)). They sug-
gested rede®ning the position of the moment refer-
ence point to a point below the footing so that the
yield locus was symmetrical about the H ˆ 0 axis
although no attempt was made to justify this trans-
formation theoretically.
The yield locus found in this investigation dif-
fers from both the investigations previously men-
tioned in that there is an almost straight section
when H  0. This section was investigated further
by varying the soil non-homogeneity factor kD=su0
and carrying out side-swipe tests for each soil
condition. The effect of this variation is shown in
Fig. 14, and it can be seen that as the soil non-
homogeneity increases (i.e. kD=su0 increases) so
too does the gradient of the straight section of the
yield locus in H±M space.
Normality implies that a single soil deformation
mechanism prevails on any straight section of the
yield locus. For the straight section with H  0 in
H±M space the mechanism occurring is the scoop
2 kD /su0 5 10
1.5
Moment, M /D 2 su0
1
0.5
0
21 20.5
Horizontal load, H /Dsu0
Fig. 14. Yield loci for varying kD=Su values under H±M loading (V  0)
649
mechanism shown in Fig. 13. For a given kD=su0
value an optimum scoop mechanism can be found
using this plastic mechanism by varying the height
of the point of rotation above the base of the
footing (distance L in Fig. 13) until a mimimum
moment, M 0 , is found (with H, V ˆ 0). Values of
M 0 and L=D from this analysis are plotted against
kD=su0 in Fig. 15 together with the ®nite-element
measured M 0 . Agreement is good between theory
and ®nite-element analysis, given that the side-
swipe tests generally underestimate the size of the
yield locus and thus give a lower estimate of M 0
(e.g. Fig. 12).
The gradient of the yield locus at H ˆ 0 can be
calculated using the scoop mechanism, which gave
the optimum moment (M 0 ) even without the as-
sumption of normality. The work dissipated, W , in
the slip plane of the scoop mechanism is equated
to the work input by external loading. For the
general loading case then
V äv ‡ M äè ‡ H äh ˆ äW (7)
For a single-scoop mechanism the work dissipation
per unit rotation, äW =äè(ˆ M 0 ), remains constant,
and when the footing remains attached to the soil
in the scoop then äh ˆ ÿäè L and äv ˆ 0. Hence
equation (7) simpli®es to
M ˆ M 0 ‡ HL (8)
and so the yield locus in M±H space will have
gradient L for this single deformation mechanism.
In normalized M±H space then
kD /su0 5 6
kD /su0 5 3
kD /su0 5 1.2
kD /su0 5 0
0 0.5 1
650 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH

M /D 2su0 Max.
moment, Mu

M0
L /D

H /Dsu0

3 0.6

Gradient M /DH (FE)

2.5 0.5
Mu (theory)
L /D (theory) M0 (theory)

L/D, gradient M/HD

2 0.4
M /D 2 su0

O Scoop
mechanism
1.5 0.3
L
M0
Moment, M0 (FE)
1 0.2

Max. moment, Mu (FE)

B
0.5 0.1
0 5 10 15 20
kD /su0

Fig. 15. Scoop mechanism under H±M loading (V  0): comparison with ®nite-element
results

M M0 L H on the superstructure above the footing will

ˆ ‡
ADsu ADsu D Asu
and so the straight-line section of the yield loci in
normalized M±H space (Figs 12 and 14) should
have gradient (d(M=D)=d H ˆ)L=D. These gradi-
ents are plotted for a range of kD=su0 values in
Fig. 15 and compare well with the theoretically
derived L=D values.
Use of the normality property suggests that the
yield locus will have the same gradient because the
kinematics of the scoop mechanism gives äh ˆ
ÿL äè, which is equivalent to äè=(äh=D) ˆ
ÿD=L. Therefore, the gradient of the plastic poten-
tial, and hence yield locus, must be L=D as
determined above.
H±M load space (varying V =V0 )
For foundations comprising a single footing,
such as in gravity-based platforms, the vertical
loading on the footing is almost constant
throughout environmental loading periods and will
equal the (generally large) weight of the platform
above. Hence, environmental conditions will result
in loading in one plane of ®xed V =V0 in V±M±
H space. Therefore, for design, yield loci will be
required in H±M space for different values of
V =V0 . Indeed, environmental horizontal loadings
(9)
produce positive horizontal and moment loadings
on the footing so that it is only this quadrant of
the yield locus that is critical for design.
Side-swipe tests were carried out in M±H space
for varying V =V0 values for the foundation with
kD=su0 ˆ 6. In order to remain at approximately
constant V =V0 during the moment side swipe, a
vertical displacement increment was applied during
the test. For the side-swipe OABC (Fig. 16) the
initial displacement probe (OA) had v=D ˆ
0:00125, h=D ˆ è ˆ 0, which was followed by
probe from state A, AB with äè ˆ 0:00119,
äv=D ˆ 0:00238, äh ˆ 0 and then äh=D ˆ
ÿ0:0167, äv=D ˆ 0:00139, äè ˆ 0 (BC). A sec-
ond side swipe but with äv ˆ 0 during the last two
stages of the test is shown in Fig. 16 (OAB9C9).
The line plots above the previous side-swipe test
because V reduces during the test. Due to the
dif®culty of conducting accurate displacement
probes for ®xed vertical loads, stress-controlled
tests were also carried out. Fig. 16 shows results
from tests with initial vertical stress probes (with
V =V0 ˆ 0:75) followed by M±H stress probes with
ÄV ˆ 0. Due to prefailure yield, the position of
the yield locus is dif®cult to ascertain, and so
bounds to its probable position are given to allow
for this uncertainty.
The yield locus at V =V0 ˆ 0:75 displays a simi-
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS 651

V50
Wedge–scoop–wedge
1.5 mechanism
Scoop–wedge
mechanism
Moment load, M /D 2 su0

1 V /V0 5 0.75 Wedge–scoop–wedge

Scoop–wedge mechanism
mechanism
B′
B

Side–swipe
tests
0.5 Double–wedge
mechanism

FE stress probes
C′ (regions of failure)

O, A
0
21 20.5 0 0.5 1
Horizontal load, H /Dsu0

Fig. 16. Yield loci under H±M loading (V ˆ 0, V =V0 ˆ 0:75)

lar eccentricity to the yield locus at V ˆ 0, and so
similar upper-bound mechanisms were used to
estimate the position of the yield locus (Fig. 16).
The mechanisms capture the shape of the yield
locus but slightly overpredict its magnitude. This
suggests that the mechanisms may be used to
predict fully the shape of the yield locus in V±M±
H space.
agreement at H ˆ 0 is due to the side-swipe tests
remaining within the yield loci.
The shape of the M  ÿ H plot is almost symme-
trical about H ˆ 0 (Fig. 17), suggesting that a
curve ®t similar to the expression suggested by
Murff would be appropriate for description of the
yield locus in V±M±H space:
2 3
 !2   ! m  ! n 1= p
V  M   H 
f ˆ   ÿ1 ‡ 4   ‡   5
V 0 M  H 
0 0
SIMPLIFYING TRANSFORMATION AND DESIGN
CURVE RECOMMENDATION (11)
The scoop mechanism observed on the yield
locus suggests that the type of simplifying transfor- When H= H 0 , 0 the M  ÿ H lines diverge with
mation suggested by Butter®eld & Gottardi (1995) reducing kD=su0 , suggesting that n and m increas-
would allow simpler expression of the yield locus. ing with kD=su0 may approximate closely the yield
Indeed, if the reference point for moment loading locus for design use. Equation (11) has been used
is changed to the rotation centre for the scoop (i.e. with n ˆ 5, m ˆ 2:5 and p ˆ 2 and L=D ˆ 0:545
at a height L above the base of the footing), then and M 0 ˆ 1:426 as calculated using the plastic
the new moment is given by scoop analysis to produce the approximation to the
yield surface for kD=su0 ˆ 6 (Fig. 18). A good ®t
M M L H results, with the poorest agreement in the M ˆ 0
ˆ ÿ (10) plane.
ADsu0 ADsu D Asu
An alternative expression for the yield locus in
and a plot of M  against H should have a hori- V±M±H space is suggested below:
zontal section at H ˆ 0. M  =M 0 is plotted against  !2:5  !1=3   !
H= H 0 when V ˆ 0 for a range of kD=su0 values V   H  M 
f ˆ    ÿ 1ÿ   1 ÿ  
in Fig. 17, where the values of L=D and M 0 were V0 H0  M0 
calculated using the plastic scoop mechanism (Fig.
 !  !5
13). As expected, the yield loci plot close to a 1  M    H 
 
unique line of zero gradient when H  0 but ‡ (12)
diverge as j H= H 0 j increases. The lack of exact 2  M0   H0 
652 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH

1
kD /su0 5 10

kD /su0 5 0
0.8
Moment, M */M0 5 (M2LH )/ M0

kD /su0 5 1.2

0.6
kD /su0 5 6 kD /su0 5 3

kD /su0 5 6

0.4

0.2

NB: theoretical values of L/D and M0 from

plastic scoop mechanism

0
21 20.5 0 0.5 1
Horizontal load, H /H0

Fig. 17. Normalized yield loci for varying kD=Su under H±M loading (V  0)

1.8
1.6 1.6 V50
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
H50
M /ADsu0

1 1
M /ADsu0

0.8 0.8
V /V0 5 0.75
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
0.2
0.2 kD /su0 5 6
0
0 21.5 21 20.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
V /Dsu0 H /Dsu0

1.2

1 FE analysis
l/p
2  m n
0.8  V   M * H  
f5  211    1  
 M0 H0 
H /Dsu0

Curve fit V0
0.6 M50
0.4
From plasticity analysis: Curve fit:
0.2 L /D 5 0.454 n55
M0 5 1.426 m 5 2.5
0 p52
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
V /Dsu0

Fig. 18. Curve ®t to yield locus in V±M±H space (modi®ed Murff equation)
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
The expression allows separation of the curve
®tting in the V±H and V±M planes as well as
including a separate expression for the curvature of
the yield locus in the M±H plane. The ®t to the
yield locus in V±M±H space (Fig. 19) is good and
better than that using the modi®ed Murff (1994)
equation in V±H space.
Both equations (11) and (12) are simple arbi-
trary curve ®ts to a complex yield surface. Many
other equations may ®t the yield loci equally well.
However, the accuracy of the above two curve ®ts
suggests that curve ®tting the data with the simpli-
fying transformation may allow simple approxima-
tion of the yield locus.
IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN
Use of the upper-bound plastic deformation
mechanisms to calculate yield loci for soils with
different kD=su0 pro®les should allow close ap-
proximation of the yield locus for different un-
drained soil shear strength non-homogeneity
pro®les. Furthermore, this method coupled with
further ®nite element analysis to identify important
deformation mechanisms for different foundation
geometries and stratigraphies should allow estima-
tion of yield loci for many different skirted founda-
tion systems.
It has been demonstrated that use of a simplify-
653
ing moment transformation based on plasticity
analysis together with a design curve modi®ed
from the form suggested by Murff (1994) allows
good prediction of yield locus shape for skirted
foundations. Allowing for the increase of moment
capacity as horizontal load increases should result
in less conservative and therefore less costly foun-
dation design.
Although normality has been shown to hold for
the system and soil considered, there will be
separate yield loci and plastic potential required
for any system with partial drainage or if there is
detachment of the footing from the soil surface.
This will be the case with foundations resting on
the surface of clay or sand and explains the dis-
parity between the results presented in this paper
and, for example, the ®ndings of Tan (1990). The
lack of detachment with skirted foundations due to
the suctions developed within the skirts leads to
the normality property and easier modelling of the
foundation response.
Inevitably, approximation to the 3D yield loci
such as the expressions in equations (11) and (12)
fail to capture abrupt changes in collapse mechan-
ism that occur for particular loading combinations.
However, at conceptual stages of design, such
approximations offer a powerful framework for
sizing alternative foundations with minimal compu-
tational effort.

1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 H50 1.2
M /ADsu0

1 1
0.8 0.8
M /ADsu0

0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 V50
0.2 kD /su0 5 6 0.2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 21.5 21 20.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
V/Dsu0 H /Dsu0

1.2
FE analysis
1

0.8 2.5 5
Curve fit V   H  1/ 3  M*  1  M*   H 
H /Dsu0

f 5   2 12 12 12
0.6 V0 H 0   M0  2  M0   H 0 

0.4
From plasticity analysis:
0.2 M50 L /D 5 0.454
M0 5 1.426
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
V/Dsu0

Fig. 19. Curve ®t to yield locus in V±M±H space (equation (12))

654 BRANSBY AND RANDOLPH
CONCLUSIONS
To gain insight into the response of individual
skirted foundations to combined vertical, horizontal
and moment loadings, a ®nite-element study was
undertaken for a strip footing in undrained soil
with shear strength increasing linearly with depth.
Plasticity mechanisms were also developed for dif-
ferent combinations of vertical, horizontal and mo-
ment loading.
Displacement probes and `side-swipe' tests simi-
lar to those conducted when model testing enabled
investigation of the shape of the failure locus in
V±M±H space and the soil deformation mechan-
isms occurring at different points on the yield
locus.
Footing displacements were found to obey nor-
mality on the yield locus. This was a result of the
lack of detachment between the footing and the
soil and the plastic associative material law (Tres-
ca) used to describe the soil.
Soil deformation mechanisms on the yield locus
were calculated by ®nite-element analysis, and
upper-bound plasticity analysis using similar me-
chanisms gave good approximations to the yield
locus obtained from ®nite element analyses. Such
upper-bound calculations allow prediction of yield
loci for different soil undrained shear strength pro-
®les and suggest a similar procedure should be
carried out with different geometries and extreme
soil strength pro®les.
The yield locus was found to be eccentric in H±
M space with the maximum moment sustained
with a signi®cant amount of horizontal load.
Hence, previously recommended expressions for
the yield loci and plastic potentials of shallow
foundations may not be suitable for use with
skirted foundations. The eccentricity of the yield
locus was found to be due to the kinematics of the
soil deformation mechanism when V , H ˆ 0.
The plastic analysis of the behaviour in H±M
space suggested a simplifying transformation of the
type proposed by Butter®eld & Gottardi (1995) to
correct the eccentricity of the yield locus. The
correction is linked to the kinematics of the plastic
soil deformation mechanism when H ˆ 0. Preli-
minary expressions are suggested to describe the
shape of the eccentric yield locus in H±M space
based on plasticity analysis.
In conclusion, the study of this simple founda-
tion led to knowledge about the yield locus and
soil deformation mechanisms which suggest im-
proved design methods for shallow foundations.
Later, similar analyses of more realistic (3D) geo-
metries with complex soil models and foundation
loadings will allow further advances in the under-
standing of the combined loading response of
skirted foundations to be made, but the behaviour
is expected to be mechanistically similar to that
observed with the simple strip footing.
REFERENCES
Bell, R. W., Houlsby, G. T. & Burd, H. J. (1991). Finite
element analysis of axisymmetric footings subjected to
combined loads. Proceedings of the International con-
ference on computer methods and advances in geome-
chanics, Cairns, Australia, vol. 3. pp. 1765±1770.
Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1997a). Shallow
foundations subject to combined loadings. Proc. 9th
Int. Conf. Comput. Methods Adv. Geomech. Wuhan 3,
1947±1952.
Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1997b). Combined
loading of skirted foundations, Geomechanics Group
Report G1269. Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
versity of Western Australia.
Britto, A. M. & Gunn, M. J. (1990). CRISP90. User's and
programmers's guide.
Butter®eld, R. & Gottardi, G. (1995). Simplifying Trans-
formations for the Analysis of Shallow Foundations
on Sand. Proc. 5th Int. Offshore Polar Engng Conf.,
The Hague, 534±538.
Butter®eld, R. & Ticof, J. (1979). The use of physical
models in design. Discussion. Proc. 7th Eur. Conf.
Soil Mech, Brighton 4.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity.
New York: Elsevier.
Davis, E. H. & Booker, J. R. (1973). The effect of
increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity
of clays. Geotechnique 23, No. 4, 551±563.
Dean, E. T. R., James, R. G., Schol®eld, A. N., Tan,
F. S. C. & Tsukamoto, Y. (1992). The bearing capa-
city of conical footings on sand in relation to the
behaviour of spudcan footings of jack-ups. Proceed-
ings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium `Predictive
soil mechanics', Oxford, pp. 230±253.
Green, A. P. (1954). Plastic yielding of metal junctions
due to combined shear and pressure. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, 2, No. 3, 197±211.
Hansen, J. B. (1970). A revised and extended formula for
bearing capacity, Bulletin 28, pp. 5±11. Copenhagen:
Danish Geotechnical Institute.
Hill, R. (1950). The mathematical theory of plasticity.
Oxford: Clarenden Press.
Houlsby, G. T. (1997). Private communication.
Houlsby, G. T. & Martin, C. M. (1992). Modelling of the
behaviour of foundations of jack-up units on clay.
Proceedings of the Wroth Memorial Symposium `Pre-
dictive soil mechanics', Oxford, pp. 339±358.
Houlsby, G. T. & Wroth, C. P. (1983). Calculation of
stresses on shallow penetrometers and footings. Pro-
ceedings of the IUTAM/IUGG symposium on seabed
mechanics, Newcastle, Sept. pp. 107±112.
Martin, C. M. (1994). Physical and numerical modelling
of offshore foundations under combined loads. D.Phil
thesis, University of Oxford.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). The bearing capacity of footings
under eccentric and inclined loads, Proc. 3rd
ICSMFE, Zurich, 440±445.
Murff, J. D. (1994). Limit analysis of multi-footing foun-
dation systems. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Comput. Methods.
Adv. Geomech. Morgantown 1, 223±244.
Ngo-Tran, C. L. (1996). The analysis of offshore founda-
tions subjected to combined loading. D.Phil thesis,
University of Oxford.
Prandtl, G. (1921). Eindringungsfestigkeit und festigkeit
von schneiden, Angew. Math. U. Mech. 1, 15.
 COMBINED LOADING OF SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS
Salencon, J. & Pecker, A. (1995). Ultimate bearing capa-
city of shallow foundations under inclined and ec-
centric loads. Part 1: purely cohesive soil. Eur. J.
Mech. A/Solids, 14, No. 3, 349±375.
Tan, F. S. (1990). Centrifuge and theoretical modelling of
conical footings on sand. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Cambridge.
Tani, K & Craig, W. H. (1995). Bearing capacity of
circular foundations on soft clay of strength increasing
with depth. Soils Found. 35, No. 4, 21±35.
Tjelta, T. I. & Haaland, G. (1993). Novel foundation
655
concept for a jacket ®nding its place. Offshore Site
Investigation and foundation behaviour, vol. 28, pp.
717±728. Society for Underwater Technology.
Watson, P. G. & Randolph, M. F. (1997a). Vertical
capacity of caisson foundations in calcareous sedi-
ments. Proc. 7th Int. Offshore Polar Engng Conf.,
Honolulu 1, 784±790.
Watson, P. G. & Randolph, M. F. (1997b). A yield
envelope design approach for caisson foundations in
calcareous sediments. Proceedings of BOSS `97, The
Hague, vol. 1, pp. 259±273.