OTC-27703-MS

A Toolbox for Optimizing Geotechnical Design of Subsea Foundations

S. M. Gourvenec, X. Feng, M. F. Randolph, and D. J. White, University of Western Australia

Copyright 2017, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 14 May 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a toolbox for optimizing geotechnical design of subsea foundations. The geotechnical
design challenge of subsea shallow foundations is to withstand greater dead and operational loads on
soft seabeds without increasing the footprint size or weight. The motivation is to reduce costs associated
with installation for example eliminating the need for a heavy-lift vessel to place foundation units
alone if handling limits of pipe-laying vessels are exceeded whilst providing acceptable in-service
reliability. The tools presented focus on prediction of undrained seabed response and are intended for deep
water developments on fine grained seabeds, as this scenario presents a significant challenge in terms
of minimizing subsea foundation footprints. The toolbox addresses optimization of geotechnical subsea
foundation performance through four aspects: (i) optimizing the analysis methodology, (ii) modifying the
foundation configuration, (iii) improving the site characterisation data as input to the design, and (iv)
altering the basis of design. The research presented derives from a combination of physical model testing
in a geotechnical centrifuge, numerical analysis and theoretical modelling. The methods, procedures and
processes are presented in terms of design equations, theoretical frameworks or design charts, many of
which are freely available as web-based applications. Worked examples throughout the paper demonstrate
the efficiencies in terms of footprint area to be realized through adoption of these tools.

Introduction
Context
This paper considers shallow foundations for subsea structures, such as manifolds, pipeline end
terminations, in line structures, buckle initiators and mudmats to mitigate pipeline walking. Subsea shallow
foundations supporting these structures are typically subject to complex loading which is cyclic or periodic
and often in six degrees of freedom, deriving from installation, operational and environmental actions
(Figure 1). Installation and operational loads often govern the design for subsea shallow foundations and
differ from environmental loading in that they are displacement sensitive i.e. that compliance in the system,
for example displacement of a pipeline, spool or the foundation itself, will relieve the load that results from
connector misalignment or pipeline expansion. Loading on subsea foundations from pipeline expansion and
contraction also differs from environmental loading, with cyclic periods that are orders of magnitude longer
than storm loading. These allow for excess pore pressure dissipation during or between loading cycles that
2 OTC-27703-MS

can lead to cyclic hardening rather than cyclic degradation of the supporting seabed. These aspects of loading
of subsea foundations offer opportunities for optimization of foundation design that are not applicable to
shallow foundation design for conventional fixed platforms.

Figure 1Complex loading in six degrees of freedom applied to a subsea shallow foundation

The term shallow foundation is typically taken to refer to foundation embedment depth to width ratio
d/B 0.5, but in some cases is used for foundations with embedment ratios up to 1. Design guidance for
shallow foundations for offshore structures is provided in API RP 2GEO and ISO 19901-4 (API 2011, ISO
2016) both of which recommend classical bearing capacity theory (based essentially on Brinch-Hansen
1970). Guidance was originally intended for mudmats for temporary support of jackets but with the shift
of the industry toward subsea developments in deep waters, both the ISO 19901-4 and API RP 2GEO
standards are now used for designing skirted and unskirted foundations for temporary and permanent support
of subsea structures (Colliat et al. 2017). Fields in deep water are typically characterized by soft seabed
deposits, with deep reservoirs that lead to high product temperatures and larger pipeline expansion loads.
Also, there is increasing adoption of subsea processing, with additional equipment placed at the seabed.
Together, these trends are leading to very large subsea foundation requirements when designed according
to classical bearing capacity principles and a design philosophy intended for fixed structures. Change
in analysis philosophy and method are required in response to the change in circumstances. Novel site
investigation tools and robust interpretation methods are also required to accurately characterise the very
weak near surface deposits that are of most significance to shallow foundations, which may only penetrate
into the top one or two meters of the seabed.
This paper addresses optimization of geotechnical design of shallowly embedded foundations with
embedment ratio d/B 0.3, typical of many subsea structures. A hybrid subsea foundation, comprising a
mudmat augmented with a deep foundation component (pinpiles or suction caissons) is also considered.
A toolbox approach to optimization is presented, as outlined in the following section; for a given project,
different combinations of tools may be most valuable.

Toolbox approach
A range of geotechnical aspects of shallow foundation design can be considered to reduce the minimum
required foundation footprint, which may involve ensuring the most appropriate analysis method is used,
the optimal foundation configuration is adopted, the most accurate and appropriate geotechnical design
parameters are used or challenging the basis of design. Various tools exist to assist each aspect and the
toolbox approach is intended to capture the notion that a range of different tools can be drawn on to optimize
a design for a particular field situation. Not all tools may be applicable to a given design, but typically many
can prove useful for a single design.
OTC-27703-MS 3

The toolbox presented in this paper is divided into four compartments (Figure 2) although multiple tools
from any compartment could be applied to optimize the foundation footprint for a particular field situation.
The four compartments are:

Analysis methodology - Optimization of the geotechnical capacity assessment methodology.

The failure envelope approach is presented as a simple but powerful alternative to classical
bearing capacity theory for prediction of ultimate limit states of shallow foundations under multi-
directional loading.
Foundation configuration - Optimization of the configuration of the foundation through, for
example, a sealed top plate, embedment via external skirts, provision of the optimal number of
internal skirts, or augmentation with pinpiles or suction caissons.
Geotechnical input - Optimisation of the geotechnical parameters input into the selected
assessment methodology through, for example, improving the quality of near surface site
investigation data, taking account of surficial crusts, and by relying on consolidation strength gains
following placement of the foundation.
Basis of design - Optimisation of the basis of design by, for example, challenging the conventional
but conservative paradigm that foundations should remain permanently within tight displacement
criteria, instead adopting an alternative solution of tolerable mobility taking advantage of the
displacement-sensitive nature of loading on a subsea foundation and compliance in the foundation/
structure/spool system.

Figure 2Schematic illustration of toolbox for optimization of geotechnical subsea shallow foundation design

Hypothetical design example

A hypothetical example of a rectangular 2:1 skirted shallow foundation on a normally consolidated fine
grained seabed is used throughout this paper to illustrate potential efficiencies in terms of footprint area to
be realized through adoption of the various tools presented. The loading and seabed conditions adopted are
illustrated in Figure 3 and quantified in Table 1 along with the nominal constraint on the foundation length
to breadth aspect ratio. Details particular to each example are described in the relevant section in the paper.
4 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 3Nomenclature for subsea foundation and seabed conditions

Table 1Input for subsea foundation design example (unfactored soil strength and loads)

Foundation aspect ratio, B/L 0.5 Vertical load, V: kN 436 Material factor, s 1.5

Mudline strength, sum: kPa 1.0 Horizontal load, Hx: kN 48 Live load factor, L 1.1

Strength gradient, k: kPa/m 1.0 Horizontal load, Hy: kN 67 Dead load factor, D 1.35

Soil unit weight, ': kN/m3 5.0 Moment, Mx: kNm 335

Coefficient of consolidation, cv: m /yr

2 20 Moment, My: kNm 311

Torsion, T: kNm 192

Analysis methodology
The tools considered in the analysis methodology compartment of the toolbox are classical bearing
capacity theory and the failure envelope approach (Figure 4). Alternative methodologies, not considered
in this paper, might include bespoke numerical analyses (particularly if seabed conditions are complex
and cannot be captured by idealized boundary conditions of existing failure envelopes or classical bearing
capacity theory equations). All of the methodologies could be applied in a stochastic or probabilistic way
(Fenton & Griffiths 2007, Nadim & Lacasse 2013) to achieve a reliability-based design. The use of bespoke
numerical analyses, does however provide a practical limitation on the number of realizations that can be
analyzed within a practical timeframe, whereas classical theory or failure envelope calculations require
effectively zero calculation time.

Figure 4Potential tools available for optimizing analysis methodology

Classical bearing capacity theory

Classical bearing capacity theory (Terzaghi 1943, Brinch-Hansen, 1970, Vesic 1975) is typically adopted
for subsea shallow foundation design (API 2011, ISO 2016). The method involves superposition of
multiple modification factors to transform the exact solution for vertical capacity of an infinite strip surface
foundation on a uniform homogeneous half-space. The transformation aims to account for more realistic
OTC-27703-MS 5

field conditions of non-vertical loading, three-dimensional foundation shape, foundation embedment and
soil strength heterogeneity. Shortcomings of the classical bearing capacity approach for application to subsea
shallow foundations are illustrated in Figure 5, and include that:
a. the approach uses linear superposition of separate modification factors to account for load inclination
and eccentricity does not capture the true coupling of horizontal and moment interaction leading
to under prediction of load carrying capacity (Ukritchon et al. 1998, Gourvenec & Randolph 2003,
Gourvenec 2007, Taiebat & Carter 2010, Shen et al. 2016a,b);
b. the approach gives only the single equivalent allowable vertical load, Vmax, adjusted to account for
horizontal load and moment, such that points A and A'; differ on the vertical load axis by the required
FOS. This gives no indication of the effect of a change in any individual load component on the
proximity to failure. The failure envelope allows better appreciation of the actual proximity to failure
and the factor of safety when determined in relation to the load path created by the uncertain or
fluctuating load components (e.g. path OAA);
c. the approach uses the effective width principle adopted to account for moment does not allow for
transient tensile resistance (reverse end bearing capacity), which is in practice mobilized by generation
of negative excess pore pressures, and can lead to greater moment capacity at low mobilized vertical
capacity (Clukey & Morrison 1993, Watson et al. 2000, Acosta-Martinez et al. 2008, Gourvenec et
al. 2009, Mana et al. 2013).

Figure 5Illustration of shortcomings of classical bearing capacity theory for offshore shallow foundations

Classical bearing capacity theory also does not account for torsion, which is often a significant load
component on subsea foundations due to lateral eccentricity of operational loading from attached pipelines
and spools.

Failure envelope approach

An alternative method for prediction of multi-directional capacity of shallow foundations is the failure
envelope approach. Failure envelopes describe a surface in multi-directional load space that defines the
combinations of loads that will cause failure. A load state that falls within a failure envelope is permissible
while a load state that falls outside a failure envelope is non-permissible. A load state that falls on the failure
envelope indicates a factor of safety of 1, i.e. all available capacity is mobilized. Failure envelopes can
be represented as three-dimensional surfaces or two-dimensional slices through the surface in any plane
(Figure 6). Often failure envelopes for shallow foundations are presented as two-dimensional slices in the
horizontal and moment plane at constant intervals of vertical load, since the vertical load is typically derived
from the self-weight and moment is derived from eccentricity of the applied horizontal load.
6 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 6Failure envelope representation of multi-directional loading and capacity of a shallow foundation

Benefits of the failure envelope approach over classical bearing capacity theory for application to subsea
shallow foundations include overcoming limitations (a) (c) listed above, specifically that
a. the approach accounts for inclination and eccentricity of loading by defining capacities under pure
moment and horizontal loading (which form apex points of the envelope), rather than by adjustment
of the vertical capacity,
b. the approach allows visual or analytical evaluation of the proximity to failure and factor of safety
against any combination of loads for example, load paths representing factored combinations of any
or all of the live and dead loads can be compared with a single failure envelope. A failure envelope
illustrates visually whether a given load is favourable or unfavourable, from the direction of the load
path relative to the envelope.
c. the approach does not require the effective area principle (since moment capacity is defined directly),
and solutions exist for both full tension and zero tension assumptions at the foundation-soil interface.
Additional advantages of failure envelope methods are that:

the applied loads in six degrees of freedom, V, Hx, Hy, Mx, My, T are used explicitly as inputs,
making book-keeping easier, and are compared with their equivalent uniaxial capacities in the
evaluation;
published failure envelopes explicitly include modifications of the uniaxial capacities for specific
foundation geometry, for example foundation shape, aspect ratio and embedment ratio (B/L, d/B);
published failure envelope also offer explicit modification to account for shear strength profile,
including the presence of features such as a surface crust;
published failure envelopes include provision for, if appropriate, tension capacity at low vertical
loads; and
the approach also provides an indication of the displacement path at failure through the principle
of normality.
A key advantage of the failure envelope approach is realized if the shape of the normalised failure
envelope and the multi-directional uniaxial capacities can be described as continuous functions of the input
parameters, and this is now the case for most practical scenarios. With failure envelopes described by
algebraic expressions, automated iteration can identify an optimized solution in terms of any of the input
parameters most usefully by minimising the foundation breadth, area or weight while maintaining a
specified material factor, or global factor of safety. This feature can remove the need for numerous ad hoc
analyses (whether classical bearing capacity calculations or numerical analysis) that are otherwise required
to home in on an optimal solution.
Typically, a foundation capacity calculation addresses the question "for given foundation geometry,
loading and soil conditions, is the factor of safety adequate?". This is the question that can be answered
by classical bearing capacity theory or ad hoc numerical analyses. A more rational design question is
"what foundation size or embedment ratio is required to ensure the required factor of safety (or target
OTC-27703-MS 7

reliability)". This latter question is most directly answered through the failure envelope method, in which
the failure envelopes and uniaxial capacities are defined by continuous functions of the input variables.
The failure envelope approach can answer this more rational design question very efficiently. The shape
of the normalized failure envelope and the ultimate limit states for each load component are described
by a set of equations formulated as a function of a limited set of dimensionless quantities to describe the
foundation and soil conditions (e.g. foundation aspect ratio B/L, embedment ratio d/B and soil strength
heterogeneity ratio kB/su0) and the independent load components (e.g. V, Hx, Hy, Mx, My, T). The set of
equations defining the failure envelope and ultimate limit states for each load component can be iterated
automatically to output the minimum required foundation breadth, or embedment ratio. In contrast, classical
bearing capacity theory requires superposition of numerous, often inter-related, modification factors in
conjunction with the effective area method to account for given foundation and soil conditions. These are in
the most part presented in the form of tables and graphs without trends that are conducive to description by a
single algebraic function. These features of classical bearing capacity theory prevent efficient iteration and
optimization. In contrast, the failure envelope approach can be fully automated to solve for the minimum
breadth for a target material factor, or any other objective.
Furthermore, the efficiency and generality of the failure envelope approach is amenable to Monte
Carlo methods of capacity analysis. These incorporate uncertainties in loads and material properties to
provide a distribution of responses that allows the foundation to be optimized to a target reliability. Indeed,
probabilistic methods using failure envelopes are very widely used to assess the bearing capacity of
pipelines, since in this application the full range of expected capacity is to be predicted, rather than the
pipeline being sized to some required factor of safety (White et al. 2015).
The failure envelope approach for shallow foundations is not in itself new and numerous failure envelopes
have been identified for a range of foundation and soil conditions (Roscoe & Schofield 1957, Butterfield
& Ticof 1979, Nova & Montrasio 1991, Butterfield & Gottardi 1994, Martin 1994, Ukritchon et al.
1998, Bransby & Randolph 1998, Yun & Bransby 2007, Bransby & Yun 2009, Taiebat & Carter 2000,
Gourvenec & Randolph 2003, Gourvenec 2008). However, the recent development of a failure envelope-
based framework for prediction of capacity under multi-directional loading (i.e. covering loading in all six
degrees of freedom) is a powerful advance (Gourvenec 2007a,b, Gourvenec & Barnett 2011, Vulpe et al.
2014, Feng et al. 2014a, 2015, Feng & Gourvenec 2015, Shen et al. 2015, 2016, Vulpe et al. 2016a,b).
Meanwhile, the authors and others working in this area have striven for consistency throughout this body
of work, so that the analytical solutions for the envelopes are consistent and compatible, meaning that the
aggregated body of work provides a highly general tool for practitioners. The inclusion of an annexure
on the failure envelope approach in the most recent revisions of the API and ISO guidance for shallow
foundations (API 2011, ISO 2016) indicates an increasing acceptance of the failure envelope method as an
alternative to classical bearing capacity theory. We are also aware of many software tools based on this body
of work that are in use in operators and consultants worldwide.
Figure 7 illustrates the effect of analysis methodology on the minimum required footprint for a rectangular
2:1 surface foundation resting on a normally consolidated fine grained seabed, with the seabed and loading
conditions defined for the hypothetical example case set out in Table 1. The figure compares the minimum
footprint area predicted by classical bearing capacity theory and by the failure envelope method representing
the same boundary conditions and inputs. The failure envelope solution models a zero tension interface,
relevant to a perforated or unsealed foundation, as implicit in the effective width approach adopted in
classical bearing capacity theory. The failure envelope formulation is presented in detail by Shen et al.
(2016b). The required area of the footprint is reduced by 15% using the failure envelope method compared
with classical bearing capacity theory for the same conditions. The efficiency in the design outcome arises
from the more realistic interaction of the horizontal and moment degrees of freedom captured by the failure
envelope method compared with classical bearing capacity theory, as illustrated in Figure 5a.
8 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 7Comparison of minimum required foundation footprint predicted by classical bearing capacity
theory and the failure envelope method assuming a zero tension interface for the design example

A calculation tool based on the failure envelope formulation for a zero tension interface, used in the
example, is freely available as a web application through www.webappsforengineers.com. A screen capture
from the calculation page is shown in Figure 8. Note the "optimize" button on the right side of the screen
that automatically iterates the failure envelope equations to determine the minimum breadth to satisfy the
failure envelope criterion. All input is user-defined (see the far left column) and the calculation runs in less
than 2 seconds on a standard personal computer or laptop. It can be seen that the tool can also calculate
failure envelopes, or optimized solutions based on foundation breadth or material factor, for the case of
an unlimited tension interface, which is considered in the following section along with other aspects of
foundation configuration.
OTC-27703-MS 9

Figure 8Screen shot of web app tool for prediction of 6 dof capacity of rectangular shallow foundation

Failure envelopes have been developed for a range of more complex boundary conditions than can be
captured by classical bearing capacity theory, for example to account for an unlimited tension interface,
foundation embedment, provision of pinpiles, presence of a crust, and consolidated undrained shear strength.
The potential reduction in foundation footprint as a result of capturing these features is illustrated later in
the paper.
10 OTC-27703-MS

Foundation configuration
The tools considered in the foundation configuration compartment of the toolbox include a sealed top
plate, provision of skirts to achieve embedment, the minimum spacing of skirts to ensure optimal capacity
and augmenting the foundation with pinpiles or suctions caissons (Figure 9).

Figure 9Potential tools available for optimizing foundation configuration

Unlimited tension interface

The effective area method (Meyerhof 1953), which is conventionally used to capture the effect of
overturning moment on foundation capacity, implies a zero tension interface between the underside of
foundation top plate and the soil, such that a foundation will lift-off the free surface under applied moment
in conjunction with low vertical load mobilization. In contrast, offshore shallow foundations can mobilize
transient tension due to negative excess pore pressure developed between the underside of the foundation
top plate and the seabed, providing moment resistance at low vertical load mobilization (Clukey & Morrison
1993, Watson et al. 2000, Acosta-Martinez et al. 2008, Gourvenec et al. 2009, Mana et al. 2013). The
foundation top plate must be sealed in order for negative excess pore pressures to be fully sustained
i.e. no direct path between the underside of the foundation top plate and the free water. Transient tensile
resistance has been observed for surface foundations (Rattley et al. 2008) while foundation skirts extend
the duration over which transient tensile resistance due to negative excess pore pressure can be relied on
(Acosta-Martinez et al. 2012, Li et al. 2013, Mana et al. 2014, Gourvenec et al. 2015).
Offshore skirted foundations have often been modelled as surface plates with an unlimited tension
interface at a reduced mudline, as illustrated in Figure 10, to represent the transient tensile resistance that
can be mobilized across the base plate due to negative excess pore pressures (Tani & Craig 1995, Bransby
& Randolph 1998, Gourvenec & Randolph 2003). Skirts are not physically represented, simplifying the
analysis, while enabling the resulting tension resistance to be captured.

Figure 10Conceptual representation of a sealed skirted foundation as a surface plate with unlimited tension interface

Figure 11 compares failure envelopes for the minimum foundation footprint for a surface foundation with
a zero tension interface (ZTI) and unlimited tension interface (UTI) for the hypothetical scenario set out
in Table 1. Figure 11a shows the optimized footprint for the UTI and Figure 11b for the ZTI. The single
data marker indicates the factored resultant design load. Failure envelopes for both interface conditions are
shown in each figure to indicate the potential difference in capacity as a result of interface condition for the
OTC-27703-MS 11

same foundation footprint. Only a 5% reduction in minimum required footprint is realized with the unlimited
tension interface condition in this case since horizontal loading is dominant. Greater efficiency in foundation
footprint applies when there is a higher mobilized moment, i.e. along a steeper load path (considering the
representation in Figure 11). In this region the gap between the two failure envelopes is greater. Figure 12
illustrates the minimum foundation footprint for the two interface conditions for the hypothetical scenario.

Figure 11Effect of foundation-soil tension interface condition on capacity and minimum foundation size for design example

Figure 12Effect of foundation-soil interface tension condition

on minimum required foundation footprint for the design example

Foundation embedment
Foundation embedment, typically achieved with foundation skirts, transfers the applied foundation loading
to deeper, stronger soil, increasing multi-directional load carrying capacity and reducing multi-directional
displacements, as well as enabling transient tensile resistance to be mobilized across a sealed foundation
plate. The failure envelopes shown in Figure 13 indicate the change of size and shape of the failure envelope
as a function of embedment ratio. Increased size indicates increased load carrying capacity with increasing
embedment ratio, while the changing shape is from coupling of the horizontal and moment degrees of
freedom, i.e. the changing load interaction. Failure envelopes for shallowly embedded foundations along
with approximating expressions to describe the shape and size of the failure envelopes, have been published
for a range of foundation shapes, soil strength profiles and loading conditions i.e. planar or in 6 degrees of
12 OTC-27703-MS

freedom (e.g. Yun & Bransby 2007, Bransby & Yun 2009, Gourvenec 2008, Gourvenec & Barnett 2011,
Vulpe et al. 2014, Feng et al. 2014a, 2015).

Figure 13Effect of foundation embedment on shape and size of multi-directional loading failure envelope

Particularly relevant to the analysis of subsea foundations is a failure envelope formulation for rectangular
2:1 shallowly embedded (d/B 0.3) foundations under loading in six degrees of freedom for a range of
linearly-increasing undrained soil strength profiles presented by Feng et al. (2014a). The formulation defines
a single algebraic expression to describe the shape of the normalized failure envelope in resultant H, M
space, acting at any angle to the orthogonal axes of the foundation, adjusted for mobilized torsion. The
change in shape of the failure envelope as a function of vertical load is minimal for realistic mobilized
vertical capacity for subsea shallow foundations, V/Vuu 0.5, and also for the realistic range of embedment
ratios considered. The normalized failure envelope is illustrated in Figure 14 and the approximating
expression describing the shape of the envelope is given in Equation 1. The expressions for uniaxial vertical,
biaxial horizontal, biaxial moments and torsional capacities are presented in Feng et al. (2014a) and are
freely available through the web application www.webappsforengineers.com.

Figure 14Failure envelopes for multi-directional load capacity in six degrees of

freedom of a rectangular 2:1 shallow foundation with unlimited tension interface
OTC-27703-MS 13

(1)

where:

Figure 15 compares the minimum foundation footprint predicted by the failure envelope method for a
range of embedment ratios, d/B for the design example set out in Table 1. For an embedment ratio d/B = 0.3,
a foundation footprint area of just 30% of that for a surface foundation is required and the minimum footprint
area is reduced by 50% and 65% of that required for a surface foundation by considering embedment ratios
of 0.1 and 0.2 respectively. Figure 15 indicates the minimum foundation footprint assuming the maximum
available capacity from the embedment is mobilized, which relies on the minimum number of internal skirts
to be provided. This consideration is discussed further in the following section.

Figure 15Effect of embedment on minimum required foundation footprint for the design example

Skirt spacing
External and internal skirts, illustrated schematically in Figure 16, provide structural stiffness to a shallow
foundation and assist in transferring foundation loads to deeper stronger soil improving the load carrying
capacity and reducing foundation displacement under uniaxial or multi-directional loading. Internal skirts,
or shear keys, must be sufficiently closely spaced to prevent an internal failure mechanism developing
within the soil confined by the skirts, reducing the load carrying capacity of the foundation (Mana et al.
2013, Feng & Gourvenec 2013, Feng et al. 2014b).
14 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 16Schematic of external and internal skirts of a subsea shallow foundation

Figure 17 indicates different kinematic mechanisms that govern geotechnical failure of a rectangular
foundation under multi-directional loading as a function of the number of internal skirts provided and the
associated effect on load carrying capacity, defined by failure envelopes. The failure envelopes show that
considerable increase in capacity is realized by the inclusion of two internal skirts, but diminishing returns
are evident with inclusion of more than three. Careful design is needed in determining the optimal number
(or spacing) of skirts, trading off the gain in capacity with the cost of fabrication and installation of a
foundation with additional skirts (Bransby et al. 2015). Recognition of the potential reduction in capacity of
an embedded foundation below that predicted assuming a rigid plug is necessary. Guidance on the number
of equally spaced internal skirts to mobilize maximum capacity, such that the soil plug confined by the
foundation skirts displaces as a rigid body, can be provided as design charts such as indicated in Figure 18.
The findings shown in Figure 17 and 18 are based on numerical analyses presented in Feng et al. (2014b).

Figure 17Effect of number of internal skirts on kinematic failure mechanism and

associated foundation capacity under multi-directional loading; normally consolidated clay
OTC-27703-MS 15

Figure 18Design charts providing guidance on required number of

internal skirts to mobilize maximum capacity; example for 0.25 < V/Vult 0.5

Augmentation with pinpiles or suction caissons

The horizontal, torsional and moment capacity of a subsea shallow foundation can be enhanced by
augmenting with a deeper foundation component such as pinpiles or suction caissons sometimes referred
to as a hybrid subsea foundation (Gaudin et al. 2012, Dimmock et al. 2013, Demel et al. 2016). The concept
with pinpiles typically involves four corner pinpiles while the suction caisson concept involves a single
or pair of suction caissons along the central mat axis. For the pinpile case, the mat would be laid on the
seabed and the piles then jacked through tapered slots in the corners of the mat, with a locking cap to restrain
the pile head from vertical displacement while allowing pile rotation. For the suction caisson case, the mat
and caissons would be installed as a unit, and require suction installation equipment and a grouting spread
offshore. The pinpile option, illustrated in Figure 19, is explored further here.

Figure 19Hybrid subsea foundation with corner pinpiles (a) schematic and (b) finite element mesh

Centrifuge modelling has assessed the viability and potential gains in capacity of a mudmat foundation
augmented with corner pinpiles (Gaudin et al. 2012) and a simplified lower-bound approach has been
developed for predicting capacity whereby the mat carries the entire vertical design load and the pile group
carries the entire sliding and torsional loads (Dimmock et al. 2013). The moment is shared between the mat
and the piles through the effective width method and a push-pull mechanism respectively. A methodology
has also been developed to address fully combined load response in six degrees of freedom and load-sharing
of the mat and pile group when acting in concert (Randolph et al. 2012). A mudmat augmented with corner
16 OTC-27703-MS

pinpiles has been reported as a cost-effective mitigation solution against pipeline walking on a project
offshore West Africa (Demel et al. 2016).
Figure 20 illustrates the approach of load sharing between a mat and pinpiles to optimize the mat geometry
using the example data provided in Table 1 for a mat with embedment ratio d/B = 0.1 and an unlimited
tension interface. Failure envelopes are shown for the mat and pile group separately with a proportion of
the applied loads allocated to either the mat or pile group. In this case, 80% of the vertical load, 20%
of the horizontal load and torsion and 40% of the moment was allocated to the mat with the remaining
loads allocated to the pile group. The load-sharing proportions are user-defined and can be modified to
accommodate restrictions on either mat or pile group geometry, but may also be optimised automatically.
The allocated design loads lie on the respective failure envelopes indicating that the optimal geometry (given
that loads and soil strength are factored). The grey data point indicates the total design load allocated to
either the mat or the pile group, clearly showing the stress state is impermissible, falling outside the failure
envelopes. The reduction in foundation footprint by adopting pinpiles for this hypothetical case is illustrated
in Figure 21 showing that the required footprint area of the unpiled mat is 78 m2, compared with 45 m2 for
a mudmat augmented with corner pinpiles 1.0 m in diameter and 6.0 m in length, a reduction in foundation
area of 43%.

Figure 20Optimization of foundation footprint by load sharing between a mudmat and pile group
acting in concert; black data point = allocated load share, grey data point = total design load

Figure 21Effect of pinpiles on minimum required foundation footprint for the design example

A calculation tool to assist sizing of a mudmat and pile group under loading in six degrees of freedom
for idealised seabed conditions is available as a web application at www.webappsforengineers.com. The
method is based on the failure envelope approach and as such enables automated iteration to determine the
OTC-27703-MS 17

optimal mat size as well as sensitivity analysis of user-defined mat and pile geometry. A screen capture of
the calculation tool is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22Screen shot of web app tool for prediction of 6 dof capacity of rectangular hybrid subsea foundation

Geotechnical input
The tools in the geotechnical input compartment of the toolbox involve using the most appropriate
geotechnical site investigation data as input into the selected analysis method, such as those outlined in the
18 OTC-27703-MS

previous sections. Three areas of optimizing geotechnical input are considered here: (i) determination of
reliable near surface material properties; (ii) capturing seabed features, such as near surface higher strength
crusts; and (iii) considering the whole-life response of the seabed to the loading applied during installation
and the operation of a development. The geotechnical input tools considered are summarized in Figure 23.

Figure 23Potential tools available for optimizing geotechnical input

Near-surface site investigation data

Foundation design calculations rely on the soil parameters determined from the sampling and testing
performed for site characterization. There is often a particular emphasis on the upper few meters, or indeed
the upper fraction of a meter for small shallowly-skirted or unskirted foundations. A small difference in
undrained strength close to the mudline can have a significant influence on the required foundation size, as
illustrated at the end of this section. Also, uncertainty in consolidation coefficient and drainage rate may led
to unnecessary conservatism in the range of drainage conditions that need to be considered in foundation
design or the level of consolidation-induced strength gain that can be relied on. It is therefore valuable
to minimize uncertainty and inaccuracy in the design ranges of near-surface strength and consolidation
coefficient.
Conventional practice of site characterization for subsea foundation design varies between regions and
is affected by vessel and equipment availability, but can be summarized as follows:

The primary soil parameter is the in situ strength profile, which is typically determined from
cone penetrometer tests that are interpreted via an appropriate cone factor Nkt to define the in situ
strength. Nkt is found to vary between soils so a range of values is often adopted, or it is calibrated
based on lab testing or other in situ tests such as the vane.
Additional key parameters that can be derived from in situ tests include the consolidation
coefficient sometimes derived from CPT dissipations or instead from lab tests.
Laboratory testing of tube samples allows other parameters to be estimated, including the interface
strength relevant to foundation sliding and also compression parameters for settlement
estimation.
Zones of similar soil conditions are defined in the ground model and results within each zone are
collated together.
Interpretation of these results leads to low and high estimates (or bounds) of the parameters for
design use.
The latest advances in offshore site characterization that go beyond conventional practice are discussed
in Randolph (2016). These advances assist foundation design by providing estimates of the relevant soil
parameters that are (i) more accurate (i.e. as close to the true value as possible), (ii) more precise (i.e.
with minimal range between low and high estimates), and (iii) are gathered as rapidly and cost-effectively
as possible. These advances include the following toolbox of strategies, which are each described briefly
below:
OTC-27703-MS 19

Perform a greater quantity of in situ tests, using novel time-efficient means. This reduces the need
to combine scattered data from widely-spaced locations, yielding a wide range between low and
high estimates.
Perform novel embedded penetrometer tests using the latest protocols for execution and
interpretation.
Perform novel types of surface penetrometer test such as the hemiball and toroid penetrometers.
These give additional information including interface strength properties.
Perform specific laboratory interface strength tests, to better characterize the foundation sliding
resistance.
Ensure best practices are used to determine design profiles, including the selection of characteristic
design values
Perform a greater quantity of in situ tests. New technologies for performing in situ tests and sampling
allow a greater number of tests to be performed in a given time period. These include seabed frames that
combine sampling and penetrometer testing, penetrometers that can be deployed via free fall without the
need for a seabed frame, and the use of on-deck penetrometer testing in box cores.
Borel et al. (2010) describe an integrated system that comprises a seabed frame mounted with various
tools to perform sampling and different types of in situ test in one deployment from a relatively small
survey vessel. The system can take samples of up to 2 m length and carry out penetrometer testing to 3 m
depth. It is deployed via a single umbilical cable and need not be recovered to deck between test locations.
Sampling and penetrometer testing directly into box cores (e.g. Puech et al. 2011) is an even simpler method
of gathering near-surface strength parameters, but the results are limited to only the upper half a meter or so.
A greater depth below seabed can be explored efficiently via free fall tools that can perform sampling
or penetrometer testing. These include large-diameter free fall samplers that can recover up to 30 m long
samples in soft clay (Borel et al. 2005), and free fall cone penetrometers, some of which have the advantage
of performing the test in two stages (Young et al. 2011),. The initial stage is in free fall mode, recording all
the standard CPT parameters including tip and friction sleeve resistance and shoulder pore pressure, and is
followed by a static 20 mm/s jacked stage to a final depth of typically 20-40 m. The data at either side of the
transition can be compared to confirm any correction required to the dynamic data to allow for rate effects.
Shorter free fall CPTs that involve only a dynamic deceleration stage, before recovery and reployment are
also in commercial use. Interpretation of free fall CPT results to derive a design strength profile requires
careful elimination of rate and drag effects, ideally based on the measured tip resistance rather than simply
using the deceleration of the body (Chow et al. 2017).
These technologies offer the opportunity to increase the number of penetrometer profiles used to
characterize a site. Smart selection of the location of these tests can benefit the zonation process and selection
of design parameters. If closely-spaced tests are performed at a spacing less than the size of the planned
subsea foundation the results can be used to resolve whether the scatter seen over the entire soil zone
represents either (i) large-scale spatial variability in soil strength, (ii) foundation-scale spatial variability
in soil strength or (iii) random variability in the test result (Bransby et al. 2015). If two tests in the same
footprint give overlapping profiles, then (ii) and (iii) are minimal and the results from elsewhere in the same
soil zone can be given less weight in the design, whereas if the two tests differ significantly, effects (ii) and/
or (iii) are significant and the other results from the same zone should also contribute weight to the design
profile (and additional tests in the same footprint might reduce the uncertainty further).
Perform novel embedded penetrometer tests. Research over the past ten years has widened the capabilities
and acceptance of full flow penetrometers such as the T-bar and piezoball. The attributes of these devices
including their advantages over the cone penetrometer for characterization of soft soils are well-documented
elsewhere (Randolph 2004, Lunne et al. 2011). The piezoball is gaining wider use with variants now being
offered by the major contractors. The piezoball allows the widest range of soil parameters to be determined
20 OTC-27703-MS

from a single in situ test. As well as providing a profile of intact strength, it can be used for both dissipation
tests (to determine coefficient of consolidation) and cyclic tests (to determine remoulded strength). Solutions
to interpret the pore pressure dissipation response to determine the consolidation coefficient have been
derived numerically (Mahmoodzadeh et al. 2015) and validated via field measurements (Colreavy et al.
2015). Near-surface corrections to the bearing factor, Nball, have been proposed to allow for the shallow soil
flow mechanism (Morton et al. 2015).
Perform novel types of surface penetrometer test. A new class of penetrometer has been proposed for
very-near surface soil parameters, primarily for pipeline design but with applicability to foundations. These
hemiball and toroidal penetrometers are illustrated in Figure 24.

Figure 24Surface penetrometers for determination of near-surface soil parameters

The concept of these devices is that the test includes a vertical penetration stage followed by one or
more stages of rotation under maintained vertical load. In this way, soil-interface failure occurs, with
the resistance measured by the torque on the device. Dissipation stages can be included to allow the
consolidation coefficient to be determined. The rotational stages can be performed such that both drained and
undrained interface strengths are derived. The vertical penetration stage can be interpreted via conventional
bearing capacity theory to determine soil strength (Yan et al. 2011, Stanier & White 2015) and the rotational
stages can be interpreted in a similar way to axial pipeline movement (Randolph et al. 2012). Additional
vertical penetration stages performed after a consolidation period also allow the change in strength resulting
from consolidation to be assessed. Versions of these penetrometers scaled for use in box cores have been
successfully trialled within the RIGSS JIP (www.rigssjip.com, White et al. 2017). Larger versions for
deployment at the seabed will allow a deeper zone of soil to be characterized.
Perform specific laboratory interface strength tests. Some aspects of optimized foundations rely on
accurate assessment of the foundation underbase roughness. This is particularly critical for foundations that
are designed for on-seabed sliding. Accurate assessment of the interface friction coefficient including its
variation with drainage condition is important in this case. Laboratory interface shear tests can be valuable
in this case, and recent improvements in the protocols for performing and executing these tests have been
developed, motivated by pipeline friction assessments. Modified direct shear devices that minimize machine
friction and allow episodic shearing i.e cycles interspersed with consolidation stages are available and
several laboratories worldwide (White et al. 2012, Meyer et al. 2015). A test program using the appropriate
interface material allows the expected range of sliding friction and its variation with drainage condition to
be assessed.
Ensure best practices are used to determine design profiles. Design strength profiles should give
weighting to the most reliable of the various sources of strength data and should also focus on the depth
of interest. This means multiple strength profiles may be derived for the design of different structures. A
typical site investigation might involve penetrometer tests to a depth relevant for anchoring systems or piles,
OTC-27703-MS 21

and so a design strength profile might be chosen as a linear trend to 20 or 50 meters below seabed. However,
such profiles might underestimate or overestimate the strength in the upper few meters, which is irrelevant
to the performance of an anchor or pile, but is critical to shallow foundation design. Strength profiles such
as those shown in Figure 25 reveal strength gradients of 10-40 kPa/m in the upper meter of the seabed, but
in all cases the general profile at greater depth is a gradient of 1-3 kPa/m.

Figure 25Examples of deepwater soft clay strength profiles showing near-surface patterns

The example project used in Figure 25a has sufficient strength profiles for a statistical analysis to be
performed on the collated strength profiles. This allows the design characteristic strength profile to be
determined statistically, following the intent of some recent codes. For example, DNV (2012) translate the
qualitative definition of the design characteristic value as "a conservatively assessed mean value" or "a
cautiously estimated mean value" into an estimate of the mean that has a 95% percent chance of being
below the true mean. This definition can be applied to the collated site investigation data using the theory of
random variables, and it allows a value to be assigned to additional data (e.g. to estimate what improvement
in design strength could eventuate from performing additional tests). As more data points are added, the
95% confidence value becomes closer to the statistical mean of the measurements.
The design example, set out in Table 1, with an embedment ratio d/B = 0.1 is used to illustrate the effect of
accurate seabed strength determination through calculation of the minimum required foundation footprint
as a function of mudline strength. Figure 26 compares the required minimum foundation footprint assuming
mudline strengths between 0 and 3 kPa i.e. representing very weak material - to illustrate the importance
of accurate and precise near surface site investigation data on shallow foundation design outcomes. The
gradient of shear strength was taken as 1 kPa/m for all cases, and all cases were predicted using the failure
envelope method assuming an unlimited tension interface (Feng et al. 2014a). Figure 27 shows an alternative
representation of the reduction in foundation footprint area as a function of mudline strength, sum. The simple
analysis indicates that foundation area can be reduced by 70% if a mudline strength of 3 kPa is adopted rather
than assuming a perfectly normally consolidated strength profile with a zero strength mudline intercept.
22 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 26Effect of mudline shear strength on minimum required foundation footprint for the design example

Figure 27Required foundation footprint area as a function of mudline strength for the design example

Surface crust
Surficial crusts overlying otherwise normally consolidated deep water clays with a shear strength an order
of magnitude greater than the underlying material, such as indicated in Figure 28, have been observed
in various offshore locations (Ehlers et al. 2005, Demel et al. 2016). Capturing the effect of a stronger
surface crust in prediction of subsea shallow foundation capacity can have a significant impact on the
required foundation footprint. A failure envelope approach for soft deepwater deposits with a surficial crust
was proposed by Feng et al. (2015). Capacity was shown to be a complex function of the ratio of crust
thickness to both foundation breadth and foundation embedment, and the ratio of the strength in the crust
to the underlying soft layer. A range of algebraic equations was formulated to capture the shape of the
normalized failure envelope and the multi-directional uniaxial capacities as a function of normalized crust
thickness, foundation embedment ratio and the relative shear strengths in the crust and underlying soft
layer, enabling automated optimization of footprint size. The idealized form of the soil profiles available
in the failure envelope tool and the dimensionless groups considered are shown in Figure 29. Figure 30
illustrates the effect of the presence of a crust on failure envelopes and minimum required foundation size.
Figure 30a shows an idealized soil profile with a crust overlying a normally consolidated material with a
linearly increasing shear strength with depth and three linearly increasing strength profiles without a crust:
(1) a normally consolidated profile, su = 1z kPa; (2) the strength profile from the example case set out in
Table 1, su = 1+ 1z kPa, with a higher mudline intercept to acknowledge the stronger surficial layer; and
OTC-27703-MS 23

(3) an intermediate profile, su = 1+ 0.8z kPa, with the non-zero mudline intercept but smaller gradient of
increase with depth to coincide with the strength of crustal profile at a depth z = 5 m. Figure 30b shows
failure envelopes for the minimum required foundation size for each of the strength profiles, indicating the
significant potential reduction in footprint if the presence of the crust is relied on. Figure 31 compares the
minimum required footprint area for each of the strength profiles shown in Figure 30a showing that a 50%
reduction in foundation footprint can be realized if the crust is relied on for the design example considered.

Figure 28Observed surficial seabed crust

Figure 29Modelled seabed crust profile

24 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 30Modelled shear strength profile, effect of a surface crust on failure envelopes and foundation footprint

Figure 31Effect of a surface crust on minimum required foundation footprint for design example

Whole-life response
Geotechnical design guidelines for shallow foundations are typically based on the in situ seabed strength
reduced to take account of cyclic load degradation, in conjunction with the peak design load. This philosophy
emerged from the design of fixed platforms subjected to storm loading. However, the sequence and time
scale of loading on a subsea shallow foundation differs markedly from that on a shallow foundation beneath
a fixed platform and as a result the seabed response will also be markedly different. Scrutiny of the whole-
life loading regime and associated seabed response enables benefits of consolidation to be incorporated into
the geotechnical design. On soft clay and silt, consolidation enhances soil strength and efficiencies in subsea
foundation design can therefore be realized if the consolidation-induced strength gains can be banked, i.e.
it may be possible to rely on a higher value of undrained shear strength than measured in situ. Seabed
strength gains may result from consolidation under the foundation self-weight or preload, consolidation
under horizontal preload or operational processes that involve periodic shearing with intervening periods
of consolidation.
The time lapse between installation of a subsea structure and operation of the field may range from a few
months to over a year, during which time significant gains in shear strength may be achieved, depending
on the consolidation properties of the sediment. Gains in shallow foundation capacity as a result of self-
OTC-27703-MS 25

weight consolidation of the soil have been reported from numerical studies (e.g. Bransby 2002, Zdravkovic
et al. 2003, Gourvenec et al. 2014, Feng & Gourvenec 2015, Vulpe et al. 2016a,b); from experimental
observations (Watson et al. 2000, Randolph & Erbrich 2000, Lehane & Gaudin 2005, Vulpe & White
2014); and from field tests (Lehane & Jardine 2003). Systematic numerical studies that have reached
generalized conclusions are reported by Gourvenec et al. (2014), Feng & Gourvenec (2015), and Vulpe et
al. (2016a). This work has demonstrated the effects on foundation bearing capacity failure envelope of over
consolidation ratio, the level of previous sustained (preload) and degree of consolidation for a range of
shallow foundation geometry.
A theoretical predictive framework based on critical state soil mechanics principles has been developed
and validated against numerical analyses of strip and circular surface foundations presented by Gourvenec
et al. (2014) and subsequently applied to prediction of consolidated gains in multi-directional capacity of
shallow foundations with various boundary conditions (Feng & Gourvenec 2015, Vulpe et al. 2016) and
lateral break out of deepwater pipelines (Chatterjee et al. 2014).
The theoretical framework considers the zone of soil affected by the self-weight preload as a lumped
element and traditional critical state relationships between changes in effective stress, void ratio and shear
strength are adopted. This enables the traditional critical state approach, which answers the question "what
is the change in shear strength of an element of soil with a given stress history", to be recast to address the
question "what is the change in bearing capacity of a foundation with a given loading history?". The same
patterns of changing soil element strength from applied stress are seen in the changing bearing capacity
in each direction, V, H and M as a result of sustained loading.
For normally consolidated conditions, in which all of the applied stress causes plastic compression of
the soil, the proportional gain in undrained capacity due to self-weight loading and full consolidation is a
linear function of the normally consolidated undrained strength ratio R, the vertical preload as a proportion
of the unconsolidated undrained capacity Vp/Vuu and the vertical bearing capacity factor for undrained
unconsolidated conditions, Ncv.

(2)

where Fcu,_max represents the maximum undrained capacity, i.e. after full consolidation, in any loading
direction, e.g. , , ; and f and fsu are stress and strength factors to account for the non-
uniform distribution of stress beneath the foundation (and to account for the vertical rather than mean stress
being considered) and for the non-uniform distribution of the increase in shear strength in the zone of soil
that controls the consolidated capacity. The stress and strength factors, f and fsu, can be defined uniquely
for given foundation geometry and operational loading path following vertical preloading. In normally
consolidation conditions they are lumped together as a single factor ffsu but the original paper on this
approach (Gourvenec et al. 2014) dealt with over-consolidated conditions, for which separate factors are
required.
This method for predicting consolidation bearing capacity has been applied to a range of foundation and
pipeline problems under multi-directional loading (Gourvenec et al. 2014, Chatterjee et al. 2014, Feng &
Gourvenec 2015, Vulpe et al. 2016a). The factors for a rectangular 2:1 subsea foundation are given in Table
2 with the corresponding responses shown in Figure 32. Ncv can be determined from either classical bearing
capacity theory or from numerical and analytical solutions for various boundary conditions (e.g. Martin &
Randolph 2001, Gourvenec & Mana 2011, Feng et al. 2014a).
26 OTC-27703-MS

Table 2ffsu direction-dependent factors for Equation (1)) to predict multi-

directional consolidated undrained capacities of a rectangular 2:1 mudmat

V Hx Hy Mx My T

0.439 0.919 0.919 0.345 0.538 1.071

Figure 32Gain in uniaxial capacities due to self-weight consolidation and full

primary consolidation of a rectangular 2:1 surface foundation (R = 0.285 Ncv = 7.56)

Figure 32 shows gains in uniaxial capacities of a rectangular 2:1 shallow foundation resting on a normally
consolidated deposit following vertical self-weight preloading and full primary consolidation, predicted
from finite element analyses (data markers) and the theoretical framework (line). The horizontal and
torsional capacities show the greatest gains with more moderate increases in vertical and moment capacity. It
is intuitive that the greatest gains in capacity can be achieved under load paths associated with near-surface
kinematic mechanisms where the applied stress and therefore the gains in shear strength are greatest.
The relative gain in capacity is a function of the extent of interaction between the zone of soil of enhanced
shear strength and the zone of soil involved in the kinematic mechanism accompanying failure, as illustrated
in Figure 33. Gain in capacity is also a weak function of foundation flexibility and the resulting distribution
of the applied load. Stress concentrations around the edges of a rigid foundation can result in larger near-
surface post-consolidation strength gain in the zone of soil relevant to the subsequent failure mechanism
than beneath a more flexible foundation (Feng & Gourvenec 2017a).

Figure 33Interaction between zone of improved shear strength (contours) and kinematic failure
mechanisms (velocity vectors) under pure vertical, horizontal and moment load paths for a surface foundation

Field situations often preclude full primary consolidation taking place prior to operational loading with
only partial consolidation likely to take place. Finite element analyses have shown that the proportion of
the fully consolidated gain in uniaxial multi-directional capacity of shallow foundations can be related
to the degree of consolidation through simple power law functions (Feng & Gourvenec 2015) or a
lower-bound linear 1:1 relationship can be assumed for a lower limit prediction (Gourvenec et al. 2014),
generalizing earlier observations reported by Bransby (2002). Furthermore, the normalized failure envelope
for undrained (unconsolidated) loading in six degrees of freedom has been shown to scale proportionally
with both relative preload and degree of consolidation, as illustrated in Figure 34 (Feng & Gourvenec 2015).
OTC-27703-MS 27

These solutions have been derived using the Modified Cam clay model, and the observed gains in strength
agree with model testing observations from centrifuge modelling using kaolin clay. However, the influence
of consolidation on the strength of a particular natural soil may differ from this experience, and further
validation of the approach is required for unusual soils.

Figure 34Scaling combined load capacity as a function of (a) relative

preload and (b) degree of consolidation (Feng & Gourvenec 2015)

Figure 35 and 36 indicate the effect of relying on the enhanced undrained shear strength due to self-
weight consolidation on the minimum required foundation footprint for the design scenario set out in Table
1, considering a surface foundation (d/B = 0). The minimum foundation footprint is defined as a function of
the duration between foundation set-down and the application of operational HMT loads. In this example,
the self-weight load is kept constant irrespective of the foundation size. This is an idealisation, as the total
self-weight would be expected to reduce as foundation size reduced, although not in proportion since the
component of self-weight of the structure being supported would remain constant. The foundation footprint
area can be reduced by over a half depending on the time lag between set-down and operation. This effect is
akin to the staged construction of embankments on soft clay, where the gain in stability from consolidation
under the early lifts is relied on for the embankment to be stable at greater heights. For this example, with
coefficient of consolidation cv = 20 m2/yr, the greatest reduction in footprint area are achieved in the first
month or two after set-down. It is noted that the time for gain in foundation capacity to be realized is
intrinsically linked to the value of the coefficient of consolidation of the near surface soil, reinforcing the
28 OTC-27703-MS

importance of high quality near surface geotechnical site investigation data, as outlined in the previous
section.

Figure 35Effect of allowing for consolidation and undrained strength gain under the
foundation self-weight on minimum required foundation footprint for the design example, d/B = 0

Figure 36Required foundation footprint area as a function of duration of self-

weight consolidation prior to operational HMT loading for the design example

The theoretical framework outlined above is easily programmable into a simple calculation tool
providing a quick and easy methodology for predicting consolidated undrained resistances. A tool for
predicting consolidated gains in multi-directional capacity of a rectangular 2:1 shallow subsea foundation,
based on the formulation presented by Feng & Gourvenec (2015) is freely available on the platform
www.webappsforengineers.com. A screen shot of the online tool is shown in Figure 37. As with the other
failure envelope tools demonstrated in this paper, this tool includes the optimize feature to automatically
iterate the failure envelope equations to determine the minimum foundation breadth or material factor.
OTC-27703-MS 29

Figure 37Web app tool for prediction of consolidated undrained 6 dof capacity of rectangular subsea foundations

A gain in the seabed strength and a corresponding increase in foundation capacity can also be derived from
dissipation of excess pore pressures induced by a horizontal preload, which may derive from misalignment
of connections or hydrotesting of an attached pipeline. For the case of a sustained horizontal load prior to
operation, gains in seabed strength from dissipation of the pore pressures induced by the horizontal load can
be superposed on those from self-weight consolidation (Feng & Gourvenec 2017b). Figure 38 illustrates
the potential gain in undrained horizontal capacity of a rectangular 2:1 shallow foundation under vertical
and horizontal preloading and full consolidation showing that horizontal capacity can be increased by up
to 20% compared to that under self-weight consolidation alone, for the same vertical preload. The lower
limit to the set of curves, i.e. under self-weight consolidation only, is identical to the Hx, Hy data series in
Figure 32, and can be predicted by Equation 2. The solid and broken lines indicate the increased capacity
as a function of horizontal preload defined as a proportion of the undrained horizontal capacity determined
30 OTC-27703-MS

from the in situ strength, Hp/Huu. The data points at the left end of the broken lines represent horizontal
preloading greater than Huu, achievable because the gain in undrained shear strength due to self-weight
preload and consolidation increases the undrained horizontal capacity compared to that in the in situ state
prior to placement of the foundation.

Figure 38Effect of horizontal preload on consolidated undrained sliding capacity

Figure 39 shows the gain in lateral capacity of a shallow skirted square mudmat founded in normally
consolidated kaolin clay, subjected to episodic horizontal loading with periods of intervening consolidation,
from centrifuge modelling. The sequence of episodic horizontal load may arise from axial walking of a
pipeline, although the modelled sequence of uniform load cycles is highly idealised. The loads are shown
normalised by the unconsolidated undrained horizontal capacity, Huu. Two initial tests were performed to
identify this capacity, and also the capacity after consolidation under the self-weight of the foundation.
This effect gave an almost doubling of the capacity, as marked on the left of Figure 38b. This is in good
agreement with predictions from the theoretical framework outlined above (Equation 2) (Gourvenec et al.
2014, Feng & Gourvenec 2015).

Figure 39Episodic cycling of a skirted mudmat with pre-failure horizontal loading and intervening consolidation
OTC-27703-MS 31

Having measured this capacity, an operating load was adopted as two-thirds of this capacity, and was
applied for a total of 10 cycles each with intervening periods of consolidation, before the foundation
was pushed to failure to measure the capacity enhancement. Each cycles caused <50 mm of foundation
movement, at prototype scale, so the foundation did not fail. Different periods of consolidation were
permitted between cycles and the greatest gains are related to the longer periods of intervening consolidation
(as would be expected). Capacities of up to three times the initial horizontal capacity were observed (shown
on the right of Figure 39b). These experimental results confirm the trends of increasing bearing capacity
that can result from consolidation under sustained loads, either from the self-weight of the structure and
foundation acting vertically, or from in-service sustained loads that act in other directions.

Basis of design
The tools in the basis of design compartment of the toolbox involve challenging traditional paradigms
of geotechnical foundation design; (i) acknowledging that subsea foundations are subject to a combination
of load and displacement-derived actions, such that compliance in the system will relieve displacement-
sensitive loads, and (ii) that subsea foundations need not be designed to remain stationary, requiring
reassessment of what constitutes failure of a shallow subsea foundation. These ideas feed back into the area
of performance based design, which is a widely-used philosophy in geotechnical earthquake engineering.
The basis of design tools considered in this paper are summarized in Figure 40.

Figure 40Potential tools available for optimizing the basis of design

Displacement sensitive loading

Loading on subsea shallow foundations that derives from misalignment of attached pipelines or spools,
or from pipeline thermal expansion and contraction are displacement-sensitive. Compliance in the system,
whether through deflection of a spool or pipeline, or displacement of the foundation, will relieve the load.
Foundation footprints can then be optimized by reducing the displacement-sensitive design loads to account
for the displacement of the foundation. Figure 41 illustrates the relief of loading transmitted to the soil by
accepting some displacement. The current design approach is represented by point A. In this case the design
loads are generated based on an assumption that the foundation is fixed, and the foundation is then sized.
In some cases a small reduction in load may be considered (point A).
32 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 41Effect of displacement-sensitive actions on loads transmitted to the seabed

A potential design basis that takes greater advantage of the displacement-sensitive loading and system
compliance is represented by point B. This illustrates a far smaller foundation, which mobilizes the full
bearing (or bearing-sliding) capacity and then displaces until the applied load falls to equal that capacity.
So long as these displacements can be tolerated by the connected pipelines, spools and other equipment,
then the foundation is fit for purpose. To take advantage of this soil-structure interaction in practice requires
coordination between disciplines. It cannot be achieved with separate design silos for foundations, structures
and pipelines which interchange loads (not stiffnesses) across their boundaries. Instead an integrated
design approach, in which the interfaces between the different elements are represented properly. An
integrated design strategy could then take advantage of pipeline and spool compliance in reducing the
design foundation loads with some tolerable foundation movement occurring. Tolerable mobility of subsea
foundations is explored in more detail in the following section.

Tolerable mobility
The earlier discussion on consolidation-induced changes in soil strength showed that pre-failure foundation
movements can lead to a change in capacity (Figure 39). The discussion around Figure 41 allows for loads
to be relieved if some level of foundation movement is tolerated. The effects are combined and extended in
the concept of a sliding foundation which is designed to move a significant distance across the seabed in
response to the applied design loads. This concept is convenient for structures that can tolerate movements
and where those movements relieve some or all of the applied loads, such as pipeline termination structures.
Early applications of this solution are described by Cathie et al. (2008) and recent work to predict the
resulting sliding resistance and foundation settlement includes contributions by Cocjin et al. (2014), Deeks
et al. (2014), Stuyts et al. (2015) and Feng & Gourvenec (2016).
The concept of a tolerably mobile, or sliding, foundation is illustrated in Figure 42. For this design
approach, the foundation capacity may require to be minimized, not maximized, in order to relieve the load
in the attached pipeline. Also, settlement and tilt of the foundation are important design criteria, as they
impose bending in the attached pipes and spools.

Figure 42Schematic representation of mode of operation of a tolerably mobile subsea mudmat

OTC-27703-MS 33

Typical behavior during large amplitude horizontal movement of a sliding foundation is shown in Figure
43. In this study the foundation had no skirts, and sloping edges on the leading and trailing ends. The
foundation consolidated under self-weight (prior to 40 cycles of large amplitude horizontal sliding. A
prototype period of 3 months was permitted between cycles of sliding to reflect a typical but idealized field
condition. The horizontal resistance stabilized at a maximum of approximately three times the capacity
based on initial sliding resistance. Settlements continued to accumulate after the sliding resistance had
stabilized. After the test, moisture content measurements were taken in the foundation footprint which
confirmed that the settlement was caused predominantly by consolidation and contraction of the underlying
soil.

Figure 43Response of a sliding foundation

Models to capture this behavior have been developed using a critical state-type framework (Cocjin et
al. 2017, Corti et al. 2017). The foundation soil is idealized as a one-dimensional column of soil elements.
The foundation applies a vertical total stress at the mudline and during each sliding motion a horizontal
shear stress is also applied. The underlying column of soil elements respond according to a simple form of
critical state model. Elastic solutions are used to define the shear and normal stresses at each depth. The
shear stresses cause excess pore pressure to be generated according to the current state of the soil relative
to the critical state line. Dissipation of the pore pressure over time leads to a gain in strength and also an
accumulation of foundation settlement. The framework is described in detail by Cocjin et al. (2017). It
can be applied in a cycle-by-cycle manner, solving for the response at each soil element to determine the
cumulative change in void ratio and the variation in shear stress and settlement at the soil surface. The
framework can match both the changing soil strength and the soil contraction and foundation settlement
seen in centrifuge model tests (Figure 43b). Results from a typical analysis are given in Figure 44, showing
the cyclic evolution in shear stress and undrained strength beneath the foundation (Figure 42a), and the
stress path in the soil element immediately beneath the foundation (Figure 44b).
34 OTC-27703-MS

Figure 44Cyclic analysis of a sliding foundation

This approach is essentially an extension of the oedometer method of foundation settlement analysis,
which considers shearing as well as one-dimensional compression. The approach can incorporate additional
levels of complexity if required. For example, the normal compression and critical state lines can be curved
and the critical state line can migrate to a lower voids ratio under cyclic loading both of these effects are
observed in soil element tests.
This type of analysis tool allows rapid assessment of sliding foundation behavior and addresses the
challenge of predicting settlements, which can be the controlling limit state for this type of foundation.
One of the insights provided by the model is the influence of foundation underbase roughness on both the
sliding resistance and also the accumulation of consolidation settlement. A smoother foundation base, which
mobilizes only a fraction of the undrained strength of the adjacent soil, leads to lower sliding resistance
and also less foundation settlement. This is because the lower sliding resistance at the foundation leads to
reduced shear stresses in the foundation soil, and therefore less excess pore pressure and less consolidation
settlement.
Figure 45 shows an example set of results covering a range of underbase adhesion factor (so that
the sliding shear stress, = su where su is the current undrained strength of the soil in contact with
the foundation). The sliding resistance is expressed as a friction coefficient and rises with cycles due to
consolidation and strengthening of the soil immediately beneath the foundation. The rise in strength is more
rapid for the rougher foundation, due to the greater level of excess pore pressure generated (and therefore
dissipated with time). The same trend is evident in the settlement response, but the relative reduction varies
with time. For example, the fully rough foundation ( = 1) has >3 times the settlement of the half rough (
= 0.5) case after 10 cycles, but only twice the settlement after 30 cycles. An additional case shown on Figure
45 has a lower coefficient of consolidation by a factor 10. This leads to a delay in the rise in sliding resistance
and settlement, although not simply in proportion to cv.
OTC-27703-MS 35

Figure 45Example analyses of sliding foundation response showing influence of underbase roughness

The subtle trends evident in Figure 45 are due to the non-linear dissipation of pore pressure with time,
and the non-linear variations in stiffness with effective stress and in shear stress with depth. However, the
one-dimensional model is a simple tool that combines these effects to allow design estimates to be made.

Web app platform

Several of the tools illustrated in this paper, along with others not related to shallow foundations, are
provided through a free online platform www.webappsforengineers.com. The landing page for the web apps
is shown in Figure 46. Examples of the interface for a selection of the tools used in this paper have been
shown in the various sections. The primary purpose of the web apps is intended as a vehicle for dissemination
of research and as a teaching tool.

Figure 46Screen capture of web app landing page www.webappsforengineers.com

36 OTC-27703-MS

Concluding remarks
This paper has presented a range of tools for geotechnical engineers to assist in minimizing footprint
area of shallow subsea foundations, thus reducing costs and installation time. The tools are grouped
in a notional toolbox according to the aspect of geotechnical subsea foundation design addressed, (i)
analysis methodology, (ii) foundation configuration, (iii) geotechnical input, and (iv) basis of design. Not
all tools may be applicable to a given design, but typically many can prove useful for a single design. A
hypothetical case study is used to illustrate potential efficiencies in terms of footprint area available with
the tools presented. Footprint area has been shown to be more than halved in some cases. In other cases,
efficiencies are more modest. Several of the tools presented are freely available as a web application at
www.webappsforengineers.com.

Acknowledgements
This work forms part of the activities of the Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems (COFS), supported as
a node of the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering
(CE110001009). The work is being continued as part of the Industrial Transformation Research Hub in
Offshore Floating Facilities, supported by Shell, Woodside, Lloyds Register and Bureau Veritas (ARC grant
IH140100012). The third author is supported by the Fugro Chair in Geotechnics at UWA and the fourth
author is supported by the Shell EMI Chair in Offshore Engineering, also at UWA. Dr Sam Stanier of UWA
contributed to the analysis shown in Figures 43-44.

References
Acosta-Martinez, H.E., Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M.F. (2012). Centrifuge study of undrained capacity of a
skirted foundation under eccentric transient and sustained uplift loading. Gotechnique, 62(4): 317328. 10.1680/
geot.9.P.027.
Acosta-Martinez, H.E., Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M.F. (2008). An experimental investigation of a shallow skirted
foundation under compression and tension. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 48, No. 2, 253260.
API (2011). Recommended Practice 2GEO Geotechnical and Foundation Design Considerations - 1st Edition.
Washington, American Petroleum Institute.
Borel, S., Puech, A., Dendani, H. & Colliat, J-F. (2005). Deepwater geotechnical site investigation practice in the Gulf of
Guinea. Proc. Int. Symp. On Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics. 921926
Borel, D., Puech, A. & Po, S. (2010). A site investigation strategy to obtain fast-track shear strength design parameters in
deep water soils. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Perth, 253258.
Bransby, M.F. (2002). The undrained inclined load capacity of shallow foundations after consolidation under vertical
loads. In Proc. 8th Numer. Models in Geomech. (NUMOG), Rome, 431437.
Bransby, M.F. & Yun, G. (2009). The undrained capacity of skirted foundations. Gotechnique 59(2): 115125.
Bransby, M.F. & Randolph, M.F. (1998). Combined loading of skirted foundations. Gotechnique 48(5): 637655.
Bransby, M.F. Whilte, D.J & Xie, Y. (2015) Strategies for quantifying the installation reliability of skirted subsea
foundations. Proc 34th Intl. Conference on Ocean, Maritime and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Newfoundland.
OMAE2015-42340.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1970) A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. The Danish Geotechnical Institute,
Copenhagen 98: 511.
Butterfield, R. & Ticof, J. (1979). Design parameters for granular soils (discussion contribution). Proc. European Conf.
Soil Mech. and Fndn Engng (ICSMFE), Brighton, 4: 259261.
Cathie, D., Morgan, N. and Jaeck, C. (2008). Design of sliding foundations for subsea structures. Proc. BGA International
Conference on Foundations. Dundee, Scotland, pp. 2427.
Chatterjee, S., Gourvenec, S. & White D.J. (2014). Assessment of the consolidated breakout response of partially
embedded seabed pipelines. Gotechnique, 10.1680/geot.13.P.215. 64(5): 391399.
Chow, S.H., O'Loughlin, C.D., White, D.J. & Randolph, M.F. (2016). An extended interpretation of the free-fall piezocone
test in clay. Accepted for publication, in press. Gotechnique.
Clukey, E.C. & Morrison, J. (1993). A centrifuge and analytical study to evaluate suction caissons for TLP applications
in the Gulf of Mexico. In Design and Performance of Deep Foundations: Piles and piers in soil and soft rock, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication 38: 141156.
OTC-27703-MS 37

Cocjin, M, Gourvenec, S, White, D.J & Randolph, M.F. (2017). Theoretical framework for predicting the response of
tolerably mobile subsea installations Gotechnique, ahead of print 10.1680/jgeot.16.P.137.
Cocjin, M, Gourvenec, S, White, D.J & Randolph M.F. (2014). Tolerably mobile subsea foundations Observations of
performance. Gotechnique 64(11):895909.
Colliat, J-L, Gourvenec, S., Morgan, N., Clukey, E., Schroeder, K., Ruinen, R., Lacasse, S. & Little, R. (2017). The new
standard ISO 19901-4 for geotechnical and foundation design considerations, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Offshore Site
Investigation and Geotechnics (OSIG), London, UK.
Colreavy, C, O'Loughlin, C & Randolph, M (2016). Estimating consolidation parameters from field piezoball tests
Gotechnique, 66(4): 333343.
Corti, R., Gourvenec, S., Randolph, M.F. & Diambra A. (2017). Application of a memory surface model to predict whole-
life settlements of a sliding foundation. Computers & Geotechnics (accepted)
Deeks, A., Zhou, H., Krisdani, H., Bransby, M.F. & Watson, P. (2014). Design of direct on-seabed sliding foundation.
Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. Ocean, Offshore & Arctic Eng. San Fran., USA
DeJong, J. et al. (34 authors) (2013). Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress, opportunities
and challenges. Gotechnique 63(4), 287301.
Demel, J, Wallerand, R., Rebours, N., Cafi, M., Grelon, F., Mencarelli, G., Gioielli, P. & Olayera, O. (2016). Pipeline
walking mitigation by Anchor In-Line Structures with the use of a Hybrid Subsea Foundation on Erha North Phase
2, OTC-27295
Dimmock, P., Clukey, E.C., Randolph, M.F., Gaudin, C. & Murff, J.D. (2013). Hybrid subsea foundations for subsea
equipment. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, 129(12):21822192.
DNV (2012) Statistical representation of soils data. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C-207. January 2012.
Ehlers, C., Chen, J., Roberts, H. & Lee, Y. (2005) The origin of near-seafloor crust zones in deepwater. In Proc. of the 1st
Int. Symp. on Front. in Offshore Geotech. (ISFOG 2005). Perth, Australia, pp. 927934.
Feng, X. & Gourvenec, S. (2017a) Effect of foundation flexibility on consolidation gains in undrained capacity. In Proc.
8th Int. Conf. Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, Society for Underwater Technology, London, UK.
Feng, X. & Gourvenec, S. (2017b). Improving subsea mudmat efficiency through self-weight and pre-operational
horizontal loading and consolidation (under review).
Feng, X. & Gourvenec, S. (2016). Whole-life cyclic shearing and reconsolidation around a mobile foundation.
Gotechnique, 66(6):490499.
Feng, X. & Gourvenec, S. (2015). Consolidated undrained load-carrying capacity of mudmats under combined loading
in six degrees-of-freedom. Gotechnique, 65(7): 563575. doi: 10.1680/geot./14-P-090
Feng, X. & Gourvenec, S. (2013) Optimal shear key interval for offshore shallow foundations. Proc 31st Intl. Conference
on Ocean and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Nantes, France.
Feng, X., Gourvenec, S., Randolph, M.F., Wallerand, R. & Dimmock, P. (2015). Effect of a surficial crust on mudmat
capacity under fully three-dimensional loading. Gotechnique 65(7): 590603. 10.1680/geot./14-P-167
Feng, X., Randolph, M. F., Gourvenec, S. & Wallerand, R. (2014a). Design approach for rectangular mudmats under fully
three dimensional loading, Gotechnique 64(1): 5163. doi 10.1680/geot.13.P.051
Feng, X., Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M.F. (2014b). Optimal skirt spacing for subsea mudmats under loading in six degrees
of freedom. Applied Ocean Research, 48, October, 1020. 10.1016/j.apor.2014.07.006
Gaudin, C., Randolph, M.F., Feng, X., Clukey, E.C. & Dimmock, P. (2012). Centrifuge modelling of a hybrid foundation
for subsea equipment. In Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, Society for Underwater
Technology, London, UK, 411420.
Gourvenec, S. (2008). Undrained bearing capacity of embedded footings under general loading. Gotechnique 58(3):
177185.
Gourvenec, S. (2007a). Shape effects on the capacity of rectangular footings under general loading. Gotechnique 57(8):
637646.
Gourvenec, S. (2007b). Failure envelopes for offshore shallow foundation under general loading. Gotechnique 57(9):
715727.
Gourvenec, S. & Mana, D.K.S (2011) Undrained vertical bearing capacity factors for shallow foundations. Gotechnique
Letters, doi: 10.1680/geolett.11.00026.
Gourvenec, S. & Barnett, S. (2011). Undrained failure envelope for skirted foundations under general loading.
Gotechnique, 61(3): 263270. doi: 10.1680/geot.9.T.027.
Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M. (2003). Effect of strength non-homogeneity on the shape of failure envelopes for combined
loading of strip and circular foundations on clay. Gotechnique 53(6):575586.
Gourvenec, S., Vulpe, C. & Murthy, T. (2014). A method for predicting the consolidated undrained capacity of shallow
foundations on clay. Gotechnique, 64(3), 215225, doi 10.1680/geot.13.P.101.
38 OTC-27703-MS

Gourvenec, S., Neubecker, S., Senders, M., White, D.J., Gaudin, C. & O'Loughlin C.D. (2015). Performance of a shallow
skirted foundation for TLP mooring in carbonate silt. Proc. Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG).
257262
Gourvenec, S., Acosta-Martinez, H.E. & Randolph, M.F. (2009). Experimental study of uplift resistance of shallow skirted
foundations in clay under concentric transient and sustained loading. Gotechnique 59(6): 525537.
Griffiths, D.V. & Fenton, G.A. (Eds.) (2007). Probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineering, Springer-Verlag Wien
10.1007/978-3-211-73366-0.
ISO (2016). ISO19901-4: Petroleum and natural gas industries specific requirements for Offshore Structures - Part 4:
Geotechnical and foundation design considerations - 2ndEdition. Geneva, International Standards Organisation.
Lehane, B.M. & Gaudin, C. (2005). Effects of drained pre-loading on the performance of shallow foundations on over
consolidated clay. In Proc. of the 24th Int. Conf. on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2005), ASME,
Halkidiki, Greece, pp. 891896.
Lehane, B. & Jardine, R.J. (2003). Effects of long-term pre-loading on the performance of a footing on clay. Gotechnique,
53(8), pp.689695.
Li, X., Gaudin, C., Tian, Y. & Cassidy, M. J. (2013). Effect of perforations on uplift capacity of skirted foundations on
clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 51(3):322331
Lunne, T., Andersen, K.H., Low, H.E., Randolph, M.F. and Sjursen, M.A. (2011). Guidelines for offshore in situ testing
and interpretation in deepwater soft clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48: 543556.
Mahmoodzadeh, H., Wang, D. and Randolph, M.F. (2015). Interpretation of piezoball dissipation testing in clay.
Gotechnique, 65(10): 831842.
Mana, D.K.S, Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M.F. (2014). Numerical modelling of seepage beneath skirted foundations
subjected to vertical uplift. Computers and Geotechnics, 55: 150157. DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.08.007
Mana, D.K.S, Gourvenec, S. & Randolph, M.F. (2013). An experimental investigation of reverse end bearing of skirted
foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(10): 10221033, 10.1139/cgj-2012-0428
Mana, D.K.S, Gourvenec, S. & Martin, C.M. (2013). Critical skirt spacing for shallow foundations under general loading.
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000882,
139(9):15541566.
Martin, C.M. & Randolph, M.F. (2001). Applications of the lower and upper bound theorems of plasticity to collapse of
circular foundations. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Int. Assoc. of Computer Methods and Advances in Geomech (IACMAG),
Tucson 2, 14171428.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads. Proc. Int. Conf. Soils
Mech. and Fdn Engng (ICSMFE), Zurich, 1: 440445.
Morton, J.P., O'Loughlin C.D. & White D.J. (2014). Strength assessment during shallow penetration of a sphere in clay.
Gotechnique Letters 4:262266
Lacasse, S. & Nadim, F. (2013). Probabilistic Geotechnical Analyses For Offshore Facilities. Proc. International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper number SOAP-6.
Meyer, V., Dyvik, R. & White, D.J. (2015). Direct shear interface tests for pipe-soil friction factor assessment. Proc. 3rd
Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG), Oslo, Norway. 423428
Nova, R. & Montrasio, L. (1991). Settlements of shallow foundations on sand. Gotechnique 41(2): 243256.
Puech, A., Orozco-Calderon, M. & Foray, P. (2011). Mini T-bar testing at shallow penetration. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. On
Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics, Perth, Australia. 305310
Randolph, M.F & Erbrich, C.T. (2000). Design of shallow foundations for calcareous sediments. In Proc. Engng for
Calcareous Sediments. Ed. Al-Shafei, Balkema (2): 361378.
Randolph, M.F. (2004). Characterisation of soft sediments for offshore applications. 2nd International Site
Characterization Conference, Porto, Portugal, 1:209232.
Randolph, M.F., Gourvenec, S. & Feng, X. (2012). Hybrid foundation design under general multi-dimensional loading,
Design method for hybrid foundations. Report to Subsea 7 & BP.
Randolph, M.F., White, D.J. & Yan, Y. (2012). Modelling the axial soil resistance on deepwater pipelines. Gotechnique
62(9): 837846.
Randolph, M.F. (2016). New tools and direction for offshore site investigation. Australian Geomechanics 51(4) 8192.
Rattley, M.J. Richards, D.J. & Lehane, B.M. (2008). Uplift performance of transmission tower foundations embedded
in clay. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 134 (4): 531540. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:4(531)
Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N. & Wroth, C.P. (1958). On the yielding of soils. Gotechnique 8(1): 2252.
Shen, Z., Feng, X. & Gourvenec, S. (2016b). Effect of interface condition on the undrained capacity of subsea
mudmats under six degree-of-freedom loading, Gotechnique (Published Online: October 10, 2016 DOI: 10.1680/
jgeot.16.P.097)
OTC-27703-MS 39

Shen, Z., Feng, X. & Gourvenec, S. (2016a). Undrained capacity of surface foundations with zero-tension interface under
planar V-H-M loading, Computers in Geotechnics, 73: 4757
Stanier, S. & White D.J. (2015). Shallow penetrometer penetration resistance. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. 141(3), 04014117. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001257
Stuyts, B., Wallerand, R. & Brown, N. (2015). A framework for the design of sliding mudmat foundations. Proc. Int.
Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG), Oslo.
Tani, K. & Craig, W.H. (1995). Bearing capacity of circular foundations on soft clay of strength increasing with depth.
Soils and Foundations 35(2): 3747.
Taiebat, H. & Carter, J. (2010). A failure surface for circular footings on cohesive soils. Gotechnique 60(4):265273.
Taiebat, H.A. & Carter, J.P. (2000). Numerical studies of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohesive soil
subjected to combined loading. Gotechnique 50(4): 409418.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics Wiley, New York.
Ukritchon, B., Whittle, A. J. & Sloan, S. W. (1998). Undrained limit analyses for combined loading of strip footings on
clay. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(3):265276.
Vesic, A.S. (1975). Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In Foundation Engineering Handbook (ed. Winterkorn, H.F.
and Fang, H.Y.), Van Nostrand, New York, 121147.
Vulpe, C. & White, D.J. (2014). The effect of prior loading cycles on the vertical bearing capacity of clay: an experimental
study. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 14(4): 8898. dx.doi.org/10.1680/ijpmg.14.00013
Vulpe, C., Gourvenec, S. & Cornelius, A. (2016a). Effect of embedment on consolidated undrained capacity of skirted
circular foundations in soft clay under planar loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 10.1139/cgj-2016-0265
Vulpe, C., Gourvenec, S. Leman, B. & Fung, K.N. (2016b) Failure envelopes for consolidated undrained capacity of strip
and circular surface foundations. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(8), August
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001498)
Vulpe, C., Gourvenec, S. & Power, M. (2014). A generalized failure envelope for undrained capacity of circular
shallow foundations under general loading. Gotechnique Letters, Volume 4, Issue July September. 10.1680/
geolett.14.00010.
Watson, P. G., Randolph, M. F. & Bransby, M. F. (2000). Combined lateral and vertical loading of caisson foundations.
Proc.32nd Offshore Technology Conference, Houston; OTC-12195-MS.
White, D.J., Campbell, M.E., Boylan, N.P. & Bransby, M.F. (2012). A new framework for axial pipe-soil interaction
illustrated by shear box tests on carbonate soils. Proc. Int. Conf. on Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics. SUT.
379387
White, D.J., Westgate, Z.J. & Tian, Y. (2014). Pipeline lateral buckling: Realistic modelling of geotechnical variability
and uncertainty. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. OTC-25286-MS
White D.J., Westgate Z., Ballard J-C, de Brier C. & Bransby M.F. (2015). Best practice geotechnical characterization and
pipe-soil interaction analysis for HPHT flowline design. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference. Houston. OTC26026-
MS
Yan, Y., White, D.J. & Randolph, M.F. (2011). Investigations into novel shallow penetrometers for fine-grained soils.
Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics. Perth, Australia. 321326
Young, A.G., Bernard, B.B., Remmes, B.D., Babb, L.V. & Brooks, J.M. (2011). "CPT Stinger" - An Innovative Method to
Obtain CPT Data for Integrated Geoscience Studies. Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. OTC-21569-
MS.
Yun, G. & Bransby, M.F. (2007). The horizontal-moment capacity of embedded foundations in undrained soil. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 44(4): 409424.
Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D.M. & Jackson, C. (2003). Numerical study of the effect of preloading on undrained bearing
capacity. International Journal of Geomechanics. ASCE, September, 110.