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

027]

TECHNICAL NOTE

Undrained failure envelope for skirted foundations under general loading

S . G O U RV E N E C a n d S . BA R N E T T
Des enveloppes deffondrement tridimensionnelles peuvent etre utilisees pour definir la force portante et la
proximite deffondrement de fondations superficielles soumises a` des charges verticales, horizontales et de moment
(V, H, M/B). Differentes structures, et differents cas de
charge pour la meme structure, couvrent differents domaines de lespace de charge (6V, 6H, 6M/B); de ce
fait, une enveloppe deffondrement globale dans lespace
de charge (V, H, M/B) est un outil dune grande utilite
pour definir des etats limites extremes pour letude. Dans
la presente communication technique, on propose une
expression a` forme close permettant de predire la force
portante non drainee de fondations a` jupe soumises a` des
charges au meme plan valable pour une serie de ratios
denfouissement et dheterogeneites de resistance au cisaillement du sol.

Three-dimensional failure envelopes can be used to define

the bearing capacity and proximity to failure of shallow
foundations under general vertical, horizontal and moment loading (V, H, M/B). Different structures, and different load cases for the same structure, cover varying
domains of (6V, 6H, 6M/B) load space; therefore, a
fully encompassing failure envelope in (V, H, M/B) load
space is a useful tool to define ultimate limit states for
design. In this technical note, a closed-form expression is
proposed that enables prediction of undrained bearing
capacity of skirted foundations under general in-plane
loading, valid for a range of embedment ratios and soil
shear strength heterogeneities.
KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; footings/foundations; numerical
modelling

penetrate into the seabed confining a soil plug. Negative

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

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

263
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT

264

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

5B
D

t
RP

5B

Model geometry and soil conditions

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

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

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

B
sum

su0

su

D
t
RP

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

translation and rotation (w, u, ) respectively were applied to

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

d cV 1 a1
k
z

0. 5

 
 2
D
D
a2
B
B

where

Fig. 1. Foundation geometry and soil conditions

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

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

(1)

UNDRAINED FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS UNDER GENERAL LOADING

 
 2
D
D
c2
d cM 1 c1
B
B
11

265

12

(3)

k 0, 1, 2, 6

where

Vult /Bsu0

10

c1 1:0600
0:5252k 0:0226k2

c2 1:3109
0:04338k 0:0766k2

9
8
7

UB, k 0
(Bransby & Randolph, 1999)

6
5
025

050

075

100

D/B

or from the lower bound solution



NcV(k)
FV
1 0:26k
0:015k2
NcV(k0)

Hult /Bsu0

k 0, 1, 2, 6
2

1
UB, k 0 (Bransby & Yun, 2009)

0
0

025

050

075

100

Murff & Hamilton (1993) set out the plastic work calculation for a rotational scoop, defined by a segment of a
cylinder for plane strain conditions, that gives an optimum
upper bound NcM(k0) 0.69 for a plane strain footing resting
on the surface of a homogeneous Tresca material (Randolph
& Puzrin, 2003).
Equations (1)(5) provide bearing capacity factors with
an absolute average deviation of less than 2% from the
finite-element solutions. The equations should not be extrapolated for conditions outside those from which they were
derived, that is for the soil conditions and foundation
geometry considered in this study.

D/B
30

25

k 0, 1, 2, 6

Mult /B 2su0

20

15

10

05

UB, k 0 (Bransby & Randolph,

1999; Bransby & Yun, 2009)

0
0

025

050

075

100

D/B

Fig. 3. Bearing capacity factors as a function of embedment

ratio and soil strength heterogeneity

a2
0:2194
0:0800k 0:0281k2

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

(4b)

NcV(k 0) 5.14 for D/B 0 from the exact analytical solution (Prandtl, 1921). NcH( D= B 0) 1.0 since sliding failure
governs independent of k (and equation (2) also defines
NcH( D= B) ): NcM( D= B 0) can be expressed as a function of k
based on a curve fit from the FEA or upper bound solution
(Gourvenec & Randolph, 2003). From the FEA or the upper
bound for 0 , k , 6, bearing capacity varies linearly with
heterogeneity


NcM(k)
FM
(5)
1 0:2396k
0:0067k2
NcM(k0)

NcV( D= B 0) can be expressed as a function of k based on a

curve fit from the FEA or lower bound solution (Davis &
Booker, 1973). For the range of heterogeneity considered
here, 0 , k , 6, from the FEA


NcV(k)
FV
(4a)
1 0:30k
0:018k2
NcV(k0)

(2)

VHM capacity
Figures 47 show failure envelopes in planes of HM
expressed as bearing capacity factors at intervals of constant
vertical load (expressed as a proportion of the ultimate
capacity, v V/Vult ). An upper bound solution for k 0,
V 0, D/B 1 (Bransby & Yun, 2009) validates the numerical analyses.
Coupling of the horizontal and moment degrees of freedom of the embedded foundations leads to obliqueness of
the failure envelopes. The effect of the coupling increases
with increasing embedment but reduces with increasing soil
strength heterogeneity, as the failure mechanism is pushed
up into the weaker near-surface soil.
The shape and size of the failure envelopes are dependent
on the level of vertical load, embedment ratio and degree of
soil heterogeneity. However, for a given embedment ratio the
shape of the failure envelope in the (H, M/B) plane is less
dependent on the level of vertical load and the degree of
soil strength heterogeneity, particularly for D/B . 0. Taking
advantage of this feature enables a conservative approximating expression to be fitted to the envelopes.

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT

12

M/B 2su0

M/B 2su0

266
08

v0

10

06
08
05
06

04

v
04

075

02

02

09
0

05

0
H/Bsu0
(a)

05

10

15

0
05
05
15
H/Bsu0
(b)
UB (Bransby & Yun, 2009)

15

25

M/B 2su0

10

M/B 2su0

15

20

25

15
3
10
2

05

0
0

Fig. 4. VHM failure envelopes for k

0: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

0.5; (d) D/B

M /B 2su0

M /B 2su0

H/Bsu0
(d)

H/Bsu0
(c)

12
10
v0

14
12
10

08

08
06

05

06

04

04
075

02

02

09
15

10

05

05

10

15

0
05

15

25

15

25

M /B su0

18

35

M /B 2su0

05

H/Bsu0
(b)

H/Bsu0
(a)
16

30

14
25

12
10

20

08

15

06

10

04
05

02
3

0
0

H/Bsu0
(c)

Fig. 5. VHM failure envelopes for k

1: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

0
0
1
H/Bsu0
(d)

0.5; (d) D/B

14

14

M /B 2su0

M /B 2su0

UNDRAINED FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS UNDER GENERAL LOADING

12

12

v0

10

10

08

05

08

06

04

06
v

04

075

02

02
09

075

0
H/Bsu0
(a)

075

15

25

16

M /B 2su0

0
05
05
H/Bsu0
(b)

15

M /B 2su0

15

14

15

25

30
25

12
20

10

15

08
06

10

04
05

02
3

0
1
H/Bsu0
(d)

H/Bsu0
(c)

2: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

0.5; (d) D/B

M /B 2su0

M /B 2su0

Fig. 6. VHM failure envelopes for k

18
16
14

12
10

v0
08

12
10
05

06

08
v

06
04

0
0
H/Bsu0
(a)
14

05

10

15

25

0
05
05
H/Bsu0
(b)

15

M /B 2su0

05

M /B 2su0

10

02

09

02
15

04

075

12

15

25

25

20
10
15

08
06

10

04
05
02

0
0

H/Bsu0
(c)

Fig. 7. VHM failure envelopes for k

0
0

H/Bsu0
(d)

6: (a) D/B

0; (b) D/B

0.25; (c) D/B

0.5; (d) D/B

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

267

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT

268

Approximating expression
A conservative fit to the failure envelopes can be described by the elliptical expression


h
h

m
m

hm
2
 
h m


1

(6)

where h ( H= H ult ), m (M=M ult ) and h and m are

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

(7)
(8)

 
 2
D
D
:
:
:

0 55
1 30 1 05
B
B
 
 2
D
D
0:67

0:15
1:45
B
B

(10)

Figure 9 illustrates the failure envelopes derived from the

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

The exponent and constant
are fitting parameters which

vary with embedment ratio and can be described by quadratic polynomials

m/m*

20

15

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

10

(9)

10

08

Equation (6)

h H / Hult

Equation (7)
06

05
04

0
10

02

05

05

10

15

h /h*
(a)
0

02

04

06

08

10

m M /Mult

v V /Vult

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

10

20

k 0, 1, 2, 6

15

v0
08

v 05

10

m M / Mult

Equation (8)

v 075

06
05

v 09
04
0
10

02

05

05

10

15

h H /Hult
(b)

0
0

02

04
06
v V /Vult

08

10

Fig. 8. Two-dimensional projections of failure envelopes in

normalised vh and vm space (broken lines) and conservative
curve fit (solid line)

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

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

UNDRAINED FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR SKIRTED FOUNDATIONS UNDER GENERAL LOADING

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

m /m*

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

D/B 025, 05, 10

14
12
10
08
06
04
02
0

10

05

05

10

15

h /h*

Fig. 10. Comparison of failure envelopes from approximating

expression, equation (6), (solid lines) and classical bearing
capacity theory (broken line)

269

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

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

REFERENCES
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2000). API RP 2A: Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing offshore platforms, 21st edn. Washington: American Petroleum
Institute.
Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1998). Combined loading of
skirted foundations. Geotechnique 48, No. 5, 637655, doi:
10.1680/geot.1998.48.5.637.
Bransby, M. F. & Randolph, M. F. (1999). The effect of embedment
depth on the undrained response of skirted foundations to combined loading. Soils Found. 39, No. 4, 1933.
Bransby, M. F. & Yun, G. J. (2009). The undrained capacity of
skirted strip foundations under combined loading. Geotechnique
59, No, 2, 115125, doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.00098.
Davis, E. H. & Booker, J. R. (1973). The effect of increasing
strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays. Geotechnique 23, No. 4, 551563, doi: 10.1680/geot.1973.23.4.551.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) (1992). Foundations, Classification notes
No. 30.4. Oslo: Det Norske Veritas.
Gottardi, G. & Butterfield, R. (1993). On the bearing capacity of
surface footings on sand under general planar load. Soils Found.
33, No. 3, 6879.
Gottardi, G., Houlsby, G. T. & Butterfield, R. (1999). Plastic
response of circular footings on sand under general planar
loading. Geotechnique 49, No. 4, 453469, doi: 10.1680/
geot.1999.49.4.453.
Gourvenec, S. (2007a). Shape effects on the capacity of rectangular
footings under general loading. Geotechnique 57, No. 8, 637
646, doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.57.8.637.
Gourvenec, S. (2007b). Failure envelopes for offshore shallow
foundation under general loading. Geotechnique 57, No. 9,
715727, doi: 10.1680/geot.2007.57.9.715.
Gourvenec, S. (2008). Effect of embedment on the undrained
capacity of shallow foundations under general loading. Geotechnique 58, No. 3, 177185, doi: 10.1680/geot.2008.58.3.177.
Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M. R. (2003). Effect of strength nonhomogeneity on the shape and failure envelopes for combined
loading of strip and circular foundations on clay. Geotechnique
53, No. 6, 575586, doi: 10.1680/geot.2003.53.6.575.
ISO (International Standardisation Organisation) (2003). ISO 199014: Petroleum and natural gas industries specific requirements
for offshore structures Part 4: Geotechnical and foundation

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43

270

GOURVENEC AND BARNETT

design considerations, 1st edn. Geneva: International Standardisation Organisation.

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

analysis of circular foundations on clay under general loading.

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

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 130.95.140.24
On: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:42:43