See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262453725

A Failure Surface for Caisson Foundations in

Undrained Soils

Conference Paper · August 2005

DOI: 10.1201/NOE0415390637.ch25

CITATIONS READS

3 284

2 authors:

Hossein A. Taiebat John P. Carter

UNSW Sydney University of Newcastle
34 PUBLICATIONS 354 CITATIONS 415 PUBLICATIONS 4,316 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Mechanics of soft soils View project

Third Medium Contact Mechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John P. Carter on 16 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A failure surface for caisson foundations in undrained soils
H. A. Taiebat
University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia
J. P. Carter
The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a series of numerical analyses of caisson foundations embed-
ded in a homogeneous soil deforming under undrained conditions. The performance of a typical caisson
foundation under separate axial, torsional and lateral forces is investigated, followed by the interaction of
these forces with each other. The lateral force is applied at various points along the skirt of the caisson so that
the effects of overturning moments are also included in the analyses. The ultimate capacity of the caisson
under combined loading is presented in the form of failure envelopes in the axial-lateral, axial-torsional and
lateral-torsional loading planes and the axial-lateral-torsional loading space. The results of this study show
that although the capacity of the caisson under lateral load depends on the location of the padeye along the
caisson skirt, a unique failure envelope, in a non-dimensional form, can be presented for the caisson regard-
less of the location of the padeye.

1 INTRODUCTION eral and torsional loading. Acting as a part of moor-

Over the last two decades caisson foundations have
been used increasingly in marine environments for
temporary or permanent mooring of floating off-
shore facilities, for tension leg platforms as well as
for gravity based structures. Recently, their use has
also been proposed for foundations for offshore
wind turbines. They are considered as particularly
reliable and cost-effective alternatives to more
conventional mooring systems in deep and ultra
deep waters. They have advantages over other
conventional offshore anchoring systems because of
their large bearing capacity and the efficiency of
their installation. Caisson foundations have
typically a large diameter and a wide range of
length-to-diameter ratios, so they provide relatively
large lateral and axial capacity. A caisson can
partially penetrate into the soil under its own weight.
Further penetration is usually facilitated by pumping
water out of the caisson chamber, thus applying
suction inside the caisson. The difference between
the external and internal fluid pressures acts as an
external surcharge pushing the caisson into the soil.
This simple installation procedure is probably the
greatest advantage of caisson foundations over pile
foundations. A suction caisson can be withdrawn
later by applying a positive pressure inside the
chamber to help pull it out of the soil.
In the marine environment caisson foundations
are subjected to various combinations of axial, lat-
ing system, a caisson foundation is predominantly
subjected to axial and lateral loading, transferred
from a mooring line to a padeye on the caisson wall.
Any misalignment of the padeye or any change in
the direction of the mooring line also induces tor-
sional (twisting) loads on the caisson. Caisson
foundations are often subjected to overturning mo-
ments; the effects of which are often considered by
appropriately selecting the point of application of the
horizontal load along the skirt of the foundations.
The response of caisson foundations to axial and
lateral loads has been studied previously. The focus
of some earlier research (e.g., Bransby & Randolph,
1997, 1998, Bransby, 2001) has been on the capacity
mobilized at the tip of the caisson, ignoring the
resistance of its skirt. In other research (e.g., Suku-
maran et al, 1999, Zdravkovic et al, 2001, Deng &
Carter, 1999, 2002, Deng et al, 2001) resistances of
both the tip and the skirt of the caissons have been
considered. The effects of torsional loads on the
axial and lateral capacities of caissons have also
been investigated by Taiebat & Cater (2004), where
it was shown that, in general, torsional loads reduce
the axial capacity and lateral resistance of cylindrical
caisson foundations.
In this study a series of finite element analyses
was performed in order to obtain an insight into the
interaction of axial, lateral and torsional loading and
the capacity of caisson foundations under combina-
tions of these loads. Since the main aim of this
study was to investigate the overall interaction of
these forces, the problem was solved primarily for a D
typical caisson with a length-to-diameter (aspect)
ratio of 2. This is within the typical range encoun-
tered in practice. A limited number of analyses was
also performed for a caisson with an aspect ratio of L
4, to investigate the effects of the aspect ratio on the
overall behaviour of the caisson foundations.

2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 3.5L

The typical caisson foundation considered here has a

diameter D and a length L, and is embedded in a
homogeneous soil that deforms under undrained
conditions. It was assumed that the soil obeys the
Tresca failure criterion. It has a uniform undrained
shear strength of su and an undrained Young’s 8D
Figure 1: Finite element mesh and geometry of the problem
modulus Eu = 300 su. A Poisson’s ratio of ν ≈ 0.5
(= 0.49) was assumed for the soil to approximate the
analysis. Details of the semi-analytical method used
constant volume response under undrained condi-
in this study may be found in Taiebat and Carter
tions. The rigidity index G/su is therefore equal to
(2001).
100, where G is the elastic shear modulus of the soil.
All analyses were performed under “displace-
The caisson material has a Young’s modulus of
ment-defined” conditions, where a vertical or tor-
Ec = 1000 Eu.
sional displacement was applied to the foundation at
The geometry of the problem under investigation
the ground level, or a lateral displacement was ap-
is axi-symmetric, but generally the loading is of
plied at various locations along the skirt of the foun-
course non-symmetric. The axi-symmetric nature of
dation, above or below the ground level. A
the geometry was exploited to achieve economies in
combination of two or three components of dis-
obtaining the finite element solutions. The finite
placement was also applied to the foundations to
element mesh used in the analyses has 12 wedges of
investigate their behaviour under combined loading.
elements in the circumferential direction. Each
It is assumed that the loads are applied at a rate
wedge of the typical caisson consists of 304
sufficiently rapid that the surrounding soil deforms
isoparametric (20 nodes) brick elements. A thin
under undrained conditions. No provision has been
layer of elements has been used around and under
made to model any separation or de-bonding that
the caisson in order to capture the effects of shearing
may occur between the soil and the foundation.
close to the foundation. A schematic representation
of six of the wedges, i.e., half of the three-
dimensional finite element mesh used in the analyses
3 FINITE ELEMENT RESULTS
of the typical caisson, is shown in Figure 1, which
also defines the overall geometry of the finite ele-
The resistance of the caisson foundation under each
ment model. Of course, a finer mesh may be used to
individual component of loading, i.e., axial, lateral
obtain a more accurate finite element solution to the
or torsional loading, is presented in this section.
problem in hand. However, as the main aim of this
study was to find the overall interaction of the forces
at foundation failure, this finite element mesh was 3.1 Axial resistance
considered satisfactory.
The axial bearing capacity of a caisson foundation in
The small strain formulation used for these analy-
undrained soil, Vu, can be approximated using the
ses is based on the “semi-analytical” approach in
conventional method of bearing capacity calculation,
finite element modelling described by Zienkiewicz
e.g., from the equation suggested by Vesic (1975),
& Taylor (1989), which is an efficient tool for three-
as:
dimensional problems. A semi-analytical finite
element method, based on representation of nodal Vu = ζs . ζd . Nc . A . su (1)
variables in terms of discrete Fourier series, has been
integrated into the finite element code AFENA where A is the plan area of the caisson, Nc is the
(Carter and Balaam, 1995). Application of this bearing capacity factor for a strip footing corre-
method in the analyses of three-dimensional prob- sponding to the undrained shear strength of the soil,
lems has shown a considerable reduction in compu- ζs and ζd are factors that include the effects of the
tational time, compared with a straightforward 3-D shape of the footing and the effects of embedment of
the foundation. The bearing capacity factor for 30

undrained soil Nc = (2+π). The shape factor for a

25
circular footing is usually suggested as ζs = 1.2. The

Vertical load / (A . Su)

embedment factor for a circular footing has been 20
suggested as ζd = 1 + 0.4 tan-1(L/D); for the case of D
L/D = 2, the embedment factor is ζs = 1.443 and for 15

L/D = 4, the embedment factor is ζs = 1.530. There- 10

-
+V
L/D=4
fore, for the special cases considered here the axial L/D=2 L

load capacity of a buried circular footing is given by 5

the conventional method as Vu = 8.9 A su for L/D = 2 0

and Vu = 9.4 A su for L/D = 4. The effects of the 0 10 20 30 40 50
adhesion developed on the caisson skirt are not Vertical Displacement . G / (D . Su)

included in this method. Figure 2: Caisson response under axial loading

Deng and Carter (1999) recognised the effect of
adhesion developed on the skirt of the foundation
and suggested an equation for the uplift capacity of
caisson foundations in an undrained homogeneous
soil as:
Vu = Np . ζs . ζce .A . su (2)
where Np ≈ 9.0 is the uplift capacity factor and
ζce = 1 + 0.4 (L/D). Equation (2) results in an uplift
capacity of 19.44 A su and 28.08 A su for caissons
with L/D of 2 and 4, respectively. It should be noted
that the uplift capacity problem of a caisson in soil
deforming under undrained conditions is a reverse
bearing capacity problem and can be treated simi-
larly (e.g., Anderson et al, 1993). Therefore, Equa-
tion (2) can equally be used to calculate the
compressive bearing capacity of caisson founda-
tions. The results of the finite element analysis also
do not indicate any significant change in the axial
capacity when the direction of loading is reversed.
The results of the finite element analyses of the
caissons under axial loads are presented in Figure 2.
The response is approximately linear at the begin-
ning of loading where about 65% of the ultimate
axial resistance is mobilized. After a rapid bend in
the load-deflection curve, the rate of increase in the
resistance reduces significantly. At a relatively large
displacement the increase in the resistance becomes
insignificant and the ultimate load is approached.
The ultimate axial resistances of the caisson pre-
dicted by the finite element analysis, at vertical
displacements of about 50% of the caisson diameter,
are 18.4 A su for the caisson with L/D = 2 and
26.6 A su for L/D = 4. These values are slightly
smaller than those predicted by Equation (2). If the
Hu = Nh . L . D . su (3)
where Hu is the ultimate lateral capacity of the cais-
son and Nh is defined as the lateral capacity factor.
Deng and Carter (1999) suggested a lateral capacity
factor that is a function of the point where the load is
applied. For lateral load applied at the surface Deng
and Carter suggested Nh = 4.8.
The results of the finite element analysis of the
caisson subjected to lateral loading applied at the
ground level are presented in Figure 3. Lateral
capacity factors of Nh = 4.0 and 4.20 are obtained
for L/D of 2 and 4, respectively. Note that the lat-
eral displacements are normalised here with respect
to L, the skirt length, indicating a larger final lateral
displacement for the caisson with L/D = 4.
The resistance of a caisson against lateral load
depends on the location of the padeye, as any eccen-
tricity of the lateral load applies an overturning
moment on the caisson. The variation of the lateral
resistance of caissons with the point of load applica-
tion is presented in Figure 4. In this figure z repre-
sent the coordinate of the load application point,
with its negative sign indicating that the point is
below the ground level. The responses of the two
caissons considered here are very similar; as L/D
increases the depth of the maximum lateral resis-
tance shifts slightly upward, toward the ground
level. The maximum lateral resistances occur when
the lateral load is applied at about 0.6L below the
ground level.
4.0

skirt adhesion, πDLsu, is added to the capacity pre- D

dicted by the conventional method, equation (1), the 3.0
H / (D. L. su)

H
results will be 16.9 A su and 25.4 A su for L/D of 2 L/D=4 L
and 4, respectively. These values are closer to those 2.0
L/D=2
predicted by the finite element analyses.
1.0

3.2 Lateral resistance 0.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
The lateral resistance of a caisson foundation in an Displacement . G / (L . su)
undrained homogeneous soil can be given as: Figure 3: Caisson response under lateral loading
 2.0 radians, after which the resistance remains constant.
The ultimate torsional resistances predicted by the
finite element analyses are 3.40 su D3 and 6.53 su D3
for L/D of 2 and 4, respectively, in excellent agree-
1.5
ment with the theoretical values obtained using
Equation 4.

1.0
4 FIALURE ENVELOPES

L/D=2 In order to evaluate the interaction between different

z/L

0.5
L/D=4
components of loading, a series of finite element
analyses was performed using different ratios of the
vertical and lateral displacements and rotation of the
0.0
caisson. For each loading case the ultimate axial
capacity is reached at a vertical displacement equal
to about 50% of the diameter of the caisson, while
-0.5 the ultimate torsional and lateral capacities are ob-
tained at displacements equal to approximately 20%
of the diameter. The results of the finite element
-1.0
analyses will be presented in the form of two-
0 3 6 9 12 dimensional failure loci in axial-lateral, axial-
H / (D. L. su)
torsional, lateral-torsional loading planes, followed
by a non-dimensional 3-D failure surface.
Figure 4: Lateral resistance versus the load application point

4.1 Axial-lateral failure plane

3.3 Torsional resistance
Assuming the full value of the undrained shear
strength of the soil is mobilized as a shear stress at
the caisson-soil interface, the theoretical value for
the ultimate torsional capacity of a caisson founda-
tion, Tu, can be calculated as the sum of the base
resistance and the shaft resistance, i.e.,
L D
Tu = s u πD 2  +  .
 2 12 
Equation (4) gives the ultimate torsional capacities
of 3.402 su D3 and 6.545 su D3 for caissons with L/D
of 2 and 4, respectively.
The load deflection curves predicted by the finite
element analyses of the caissons under torsional
loading are presented in Figure 5. The response of
each caisson is virtually elastic-perfectly-plastic.
The torsional resistance increases linearly to its
ultimate value at a rotation of about 0.006 to 0.008
7.0
6.0
5.0
D
T / (D . su)
Failure loci for caissons with L/D = 2 subject to
combinations of axial and lateral forces, applied at
different points along the caisson skirt below and
above the ground level, are presented in Figure 6.
As explained previously, the lateral capacity of the
caisson depends on the point of application of the
load. A non-dimensional form of the failure loci can
be obtained using the maximum lateral capacity at
(4) any point, Hmax, and the maximum axial capacity,
Vmax, as the normalisation factors. These non-
dimensional failure loci are presented in Figure 7.
Included in this figure is a normalised failure locus
for the caisson with L/D = 4, where the lateral load
is applied at the ground level. It can be seen that all
the failure loci are very close to each other and the
discrepancies between different failure loci are
almost insignificant. Therefore it may be concluded
that for most practical purposes and for any caisson
a unique normalised failure locus in the axial-lateral
20
z / L = 1.0
18
z / L = 0.5
16 z / L = 0.0
14 D z / L = -0.6
12 z / L = -1.0
Vu / (A.su)

- V z
4.0 10 +
3

T H
3.0 T 8 L

L 6
2.0 L/D=4 4

1.0 L/D=2 2
0
0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Hu / (D . L . Su)
Rotation . G / su
Figure 6: Failure locus in the axial-lateral loading plane for
Figure 5: Caisson response under torsional loading caissons with L/D = 2
 1.0 application. The ultimate lateral and torsional forces
0.9 are normalised by their maximum values, Hmax and
0.8
Tmax, which can be obtained for pure torsional and
0.7
D
pure lateral loading at different points of load appli-
0.6 z/L= 1.0, D/L=2 cation. Figure 9 shows that as the torsional force
Vu / Vmax

0.5
0.4
- V
+
z z/L= 0.5, D/L=2
increases to its maximum value, the lateral resis-
z/L= 0.0, D/L=2
0.3 L
H
z/L=-0.6, D/L=2
tance of the foundation decreases to about 60% of its
0.2 z/L=-1.0, D/L=2
maximum value. For lateral loads lower than about
0.1 z/L= 0.0, D/L=4 0.6 Hmax, torsional displacements govern the failure
0.0 mechanism of the caisson foundation.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Hu / Hmax
1
Figure 7: non-dimensional failure locus in the axial-lateral
loading plane 0.8
z

Hu / Hmax
loading plane can be found which is representative of 0.6 T
H
L
all failure loci for caissons with L/D = 2. Further- z / L= 0.0
0.4 z / L=-0.6
more, this failure locus may also be applicable to z / L=-1.0
caissons with other aspect ratios, although this point 0.2
warrants further investigation.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
4.2 Axial-torsional failure plane Tu / Tmax

Figure 9: Failure locus in lateral-torsional loading plane

A normalised failure locus for the caisson with
L/D = 2 subjected to combinations of axial and
torsional forces is presented in Figure 8. In this
figure, the axial and torsional forces are normalised
by their maximum values, Vmax and Tmax, obtained
under either pure axial or pure torsional loading. It
is noted that these are small strain results and in
reality the ultimate axial capacity may increase
slightly at larger vertical displacements.
The failure locus presented in Figure 8 shows that
torsional forces have a very significant effect on the
axial capacity of the caisson. When much of the
shearing strength around and under the caisson is
mobilized by torsion, the axial capacity of the foun-
dation reduces significantly. For axial loads lower
than about 0.6 Vmax, torsional displacements govern
the failure mechanism of the caisson foundation.
1
0.8
-
+V
Vu / Vmax
4.4 Axial-lateral-torsional failure surface
A series of finite element analyses was performed on
the typical caisson with L/D = 2 in order to obtain a
general failure surface for the foundation. Various
combinations of axial, lateral and torsional dis-
placements were applied to the foundation. In all
the analyses the horizontal load was applied at the
ground level, i.e., z/L = 0. The three-dimensional
failure surface was constructed based on a triangula-
tion scheme of linear interpolation between com-
puted data points.
A three-dimensional image of the failure enve-
lope for the caisson in the axial-lateral-torsional
loading space is presented in Figure 10. Only half of
the failure envelope is shown as the uplift capacity
problem of a caisson in clay soils deforming under
undrained conditions is merely a reverse bearing
capacity problem. Representation of the failure loci
in the VHT loading space is shown in Figure 11,

0.6
where contours of equal torsional load are presented.
T
0.4
In these figures all loads are normalised by their
maximum values, Vmax, Hmax and Tmax, obtained
0.2 under purely axial, lateral and torsional loading.
As shown in the previous sections, a single non-
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
dimensional failure envelope in the HT or VT load-
Tu / Tmax ing planes can be used for the foundation regardless
Figure 8: Failure locus in the axial-torsional loading plane of the point of the application of the lateral load.
Therefore, the failure surface obtained for z/L = 0,
and shown in Figure 10, can be used for other values
4.3 Lateral-torsional failure plane
of z/L. Furthermore, based on the results of the
The ultimate response of the caisson foundation, limited study performed here on the effects of the
with L/D = 2, to different combinations of lateral aspect ratio of the caisson foundation, it was shown
and torsional deformations is presented in Figure 9 that the non-dimensional failure planes of the cais-
as failure loci for 3 different points of lateral load son with L/D = 4 are very similar to those of the
caisson with L/D = 2. Therefore, the shapes of the 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
failure envelopes for foundations with various aspect
ratios are probably very similar to the non- The research described in this paper was conducted
dimensional 3-D failure envelope shown in Fig- as part of the work of the Special Research Centre
ure 10. for Offshore Foundation Systems, established and
supported under the Australian Research Council's
Research Centres Program. The support of the Cen-
tre for Geotechnical Research at the University of
1.0

0.8
Sydney is also gratefully acknowledged.
V 0.6
Vmax 0.4
0.2 REFERENCES
0.0
-0.8 0.8

-0.4 0.4
Anderson, K. H., Dyvik, R., Schoder, K., Hansteen, O. E., &
0.0 0.0
Bysveen, S. 1993. Field test of anchors in clay, II: Prediction
V/Vmax 0.4 -0.4 H/Hmax and interpretation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
0.8 -0.8 ASCE, 119, 532-1549.
Figure 10: Three-dimensional failure envelope in non- Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. 1997. Finite element model-
dimensional load space ling of skirted strip footings subjected to combined loadings.
Proc. 7th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
1.0
T/Tmax Honolulu, USA, 791-796.
0.6 0.5 0.0
0.8 0.7
0.8 Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. 1998. Combined loading of
0.6 0.9 skirted foundations. Géotechnique. 48(5), 637-655.
0.95

0.4
Bransby, M. F. 2001. Finite element analysis of jacket struc-
0.99 tures with bucket foundations. Proc. 10th Int. Conference on
0.2 Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics.
V 1.0
Vmax 0.0 Carter J. P. & Balaam N. P. 1995. AFENA user’s manual.
Version 5, Centre for Geotechnical Research, The University
-0.2 of Sydney, Australia.
-0.4 Deng, W. & Carter, J., P. 1999. Analysis of suction caissons in
uniform soils subjected to inclined uplift loading. Report No.
-0.6
R798, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of
-0.8 Sydney, Australia.
-1.0 Deng, W., Carter, J. P. & Taiebat, H. A. 2001. Prediction of the
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Lateral Capacity of Suction Caissons, Keynote Lecture,
H/Hmax Proc.10th Int. Conference on Computer Methods and Advances
Figure 11: Failure loci in the non-dimensional VHT space in Geomechanics, 1, 33-38.
Deng, W. & Carter, J. P. 2002 A theoretical study of the
vertical uplift capacity of suction caissons. Int. J. of Offshore
5 CONCLUSIONS and Polar Engineering.,12(2), 89-97.

Results of a numerical study of the capacity of cais- Sukumaran, B., McCarron, W. O., Jeanjean, P. & Abouseeda,
son foundations under axial, lateral, and torsional H. 1999. Efficient finite element techniques for limit analysis
of suction caissons under lateral loads. Computers and Geo-
loads have been presented. Failure envelopes were technics. 24, 89-107.
presented in non-dimensional form and it has been
shown that a single non-dimensional failure enve- Taiebat, H. A. & Carter, J. P. 2001. A semi-analytical finite
element method for three-dimensional consolidation analysis.
lope can be obtained for the foundation in the differ-
Computer and Geotechnics. 28, 55-78.
ent loading planes. The limited study performed
here did not indicate significant changes in the shape Taiebat, H. A. & Cater. 2004. Effects of torsion on caisson
of the failure envelopes for caisson foundations with capacity in clay. Proc. 9th Australia New Zealand Conference
on Geomechanics. 1, 130-136.
different aspect ratios. It can be tentatively con-
cluded that the non-dimensional failure surface Vesic, A. S. 1975. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations,
obtained in this study may be useful for caissons Foundation Engineering Handbook, Eds Winterkorn & Fang,
with various aspect ratios. Having the maximum Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 121-147.
resistances of a caisson foundation against purely Zienkiewicz, O. C. and Taylor, R. L. 1989. The Finite Element
axial, lateral and torsional loading, the resistance of Method. 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
the foundation against any combination of the axial,
lateral and torsional loading can be obtained using
the general failure envelope presented here.

View publication stats