Houlsby, G. T. & Cassidy, M. J. (2002). GeÂotechnique 52, No.
2, 117±129
A plasticity model for the behaviour of footings on sand under combined
loading
G . T. H O U L S B Y  a n d M . J. C A S S I DY {
A complete theoretical model is described for the behaviour
of rigid circular footings on sand, when subjected to com-
bined vertical, horizontal and moment loading. The model,
which is expressed in terms of work-hardening plasticity
theory, is based on a series of tests speci®cally designed to
allow evaluation of the various components of the theory.
The model makes use of the force resultants and the
corresponding displacements of the footing, and allows pre-
dictions of response to be made for any load or displacement
combination. It is veri®ed by comparison with the database
of tests. The use of the model is then illustrated by some
demonstration calculations for the response of a jack-up unit
on sand. This example illustrates the principal purpose of
the development, which is to allow a realistic modelling of
foundation behaviour to be included as an integral part of a
structural analysis.
KEYWORDS: footings/foundations; model tests; numerical model-
ling and analysis; offshore engineering; plasticity; sands
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to describe a theoretical model,
based on strain-hardening plasticity theory, which is capable of
describing the behaviour of a circular footing on sand when it
is subjected to all possible combinations of drained vertical,
horizontal and moment loading. The motivation for this work
comes principally from the offshore industry, speci®cally arising
from the problem of assessment of jack-up units under extreme
loading. The applications are, however, much broader, since the
model could be applied to many instances of combined loading
of a footing on sand.
Structural engineers carry out detailed analyses of jack-up
units, and ask geotechnical engineers to provide them with the
values of spring stiffnesses to model the foundations. Geotech-
nical engineers tend to take the view that such a simplistic view
of foundation behaviour is unrealistic. Unfortunately, however,
they often describe the complexities and non-linearities of
foundation behaviour by a series of ad hoc procedures, which a
structural engineer cannot implement within a standard analysis.
The purpose of the model described here is to provide a means
by which the structural and geotechnical engineers can commu-
nicate. Geotechnical engineers must be prepared to re-cast their
knowledge of foundation behaviour within a terminology (plas-
ticity theory) that is amenable to numerical analysis. Structural
engineers must accept that soil behaviour cannot be described
merely by `springs', but can be accommodated if they are
prepared to use strain-hardening plasticity theory within their
analyses.
The ad hoc procedures for describing foundation behaviour
under combined loading have their roots in the work on bearing
capacity by Meyerhof (1953), and are typi®ed by the procedures
described by Brinch Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1973). These
methods are adequate for predicting failure under combined
Manuscript received 27 February 2001; revised manuscript accepted 1
November 2001.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 September 2002, for further details
see p. ii.
 Department of Offshore Engineering, Oxford University, UK.
{ Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems, University of Western
Australia (formerly at Oxford University).
117
Nous deÂcrivons un modeÁle theÂorique complet pour le com-
portement d'assises circulaires rigides sur du sable quand
ces assises sont soumises aÁ une charge combineÂe verticale,
horizontale et de moment. Le modeÁle, qui est exprime en
terme de theÂorie de plasticite de durcissement aÁ froid, est
base sur une seÂrie d'essais (publieÂs par Gottardi et al, 1999)
speÂci®quement concËus pour permettre l'eÂvaluation des divers
composants de la theÂorie. Le modeÁle utilise les reÂsultantes
des forces et le deÂplacement correspondant de l'assise et
permet de preÂdire la reÂponse aÁ faire pour toute combinaison
de charge ou de deÂplacement. Il est veÂri®e par des compar-
aisons avec la base de donneÂes de tests. Nous illustrons
ensuite l'utilisation du modeÁle par quelques calculs de deÂ-
monstration pour la reÂponse d'une unite auto-eÂleÂvatrice sur
du sable. Cet exemple illustre le but principal du deÂveloppe-
ment, qui est de permettre une modeÂlisation reÂaliste du
comportement des fondations, modeÂlisation qui fera partie
inteÂgrante d'une analyse structurale.
loads, but they are unsuitable for numerical analysis, principally
because they formulate the problem using a series of factors
applied to the bearing capacity formula for vertical loading,
modifying it to account for horizontal and moment loading.
This renders the analysis unsuitable for direct inclusion in
numerical analysis programs. Furthermore the conventional ana-
lyses pay no attention to the issue of plastic strains pre-failure,
since they treat only the failure problem.
An alternative is to address the problem directly as one of
loading within a three-dimensional (V , M, H) load space, and
to explore, for instance, the shape of the yield surface in this
space. This approach was pioneered by Roscoe & Scho®eld
(1956), who were also concerned with a problem of soil±
structure interaction: that of calculating the fully plastic moment
resistance of a short pier foundation for a steel framework. The
general framework of plotting load paths in (V, M, H) space has
been adopted by the offshore industry, but the formulae used to
derive the failure surfaces are often based on the shape and
inclination factor approach (see e.g. Hambly & Nicholson,
1991).
Recently there has been considerable interest in the develop-
ment of models based on plasticity theory, and on the experi-
mental work necessary to support this approach (e.g.
Schotmann, 1989; Nova & Montrasio, 1991: Gottardi & Butter-
®eld, 1993, 1995; Houlsby & Martin, 1992; Martin, 1994). The
model described here is intended for the description of drained
loading of a circular foundation on dense sand, subjected to an
arbitrary combination of vertical, horizontal and moment loads.
It is complete in the sense that any load or deformation path
can be applied to the footing and the corresponding unknowns
(deformations or loads) calculated. The model is based on
experimental data by Gottardi & Houlsby (1995) and Gottardi
et al. (1999).
The loading of a footing clearly results in a complex state of
stresses in the soil. In the approach used here the response of
the foundation is, however, expressed purely in terms of force
resultants (V , M, H) on the footing. This simpli®cation is very
convenient, especially as it allows the model to be coupled
directly to a numerical analysis of a structure. It is directly
analogous to the use of force resultants (tension, bending
moment and shear force) in the analysis of beams and columns.
118 HOULSBY AND CASSIDY
However, it obscures some of the detailed response of the
footingÐfor instance the fact that a real footing probably does
not exhibit a truly `elastic' response of the sort employed within
the model for certain load combinations. Nevertheless, it proves

Variation according to equation (10) and ám1 ˆ 2:15

to be a useful idealisation.

Variation according to equation (9) and áh1 ˆ 2:5

OUTLINE OF THE MODEL

Maximum value of M=2RV0 on H ˆ 0

Before giving the detailed mathematical form of the expres-

Maximum value of H=V0 on M ˆ 0

sions used (see the next section), it is worth describing the

â1 ˆ â2 ˆ 1 gives parabolic section

â1 ˆ â2 ˆ 1 gives parabolic section
model in outline.

Notes
The principal concept adopted is that at any penetration of a
foundation into the soil, a yield surface in (V , M, H) space will
be established. Any changes of load within this surface will
result only in elastic deformation. Load points that touch the
surface can also result in plastic deformation. Although the

For equation (2)

shape of this surface is assumed constant, the size may vary,
with the yield surface expanding as the footing is pushed further
into the soil. For simplicity the expansion of the yield surface is
taken solely as a function of the plastic component of the
vertical deformation.
The model is thus one of the strain-hardening plasticity type.
The precise form of the hardening law is speci®ed by a
relationship between the size of the yield surface and the plastic

Typical value
vertical deformation.

20 kN/m3

1´0±2´15

150±300
1´0±2´5
Various

0´0316
0´14
0´116
0´086

0´125
0´144
0´2
Within the yield surface, where the deformation is assumed

2´65

0´46

0´90
0´99
0´55
0´65
400

2´3
as elastic, the behaviour is speci®ed by a set of elastic con-
stants.
Finally a statement must be made about the ¯ow rule, which
determines the ratio between the plastic strains. The simplest
type of ¯ow rule is `associated ¯ow', in which the plastic
potential is the same as the yield surface. In this model a slight

1:0 , a , 1:0
Constraints

variation is used in that the shape of the yield surface and

â 1 < 1 :0
â 2 < 1 :0
â 3 < 1 :0
â 4 < 1 :0
plastic potential are described by similar mathematical expres-
sions but with different parameter values. It is necessary to
introduce these parameters if the modelling of plastic vertical
deformations is to be at all reasonable.
There is a striking analogy between the structure of the
proposed model and that of constitutive models based on
critical-state concepts. In the analogy the vertical load plays the
same role as the mean normal stress, p9, the horizontal load or
the moment are equivalent to deviator stress, q, and the vertical
Elastic stiffness factor (horizontal/moment coupling)

penetration plays the same role (with a change of sign) as the Curvature factor for plastic potential (high stress)
Curvature factor for plastic potential (low stress)

voids ratio or speci®c volume. The analogy is pursued in more

Curvature factor for yield surface (high stress)
Curvature factor for yield surface (low stress)

detail by Houlsby & Martin (1992) and Martin (1994).

Dimensionless plastic penetration at peak

Dimension of yield surface (horizontal)
Dimension of yield surface (moment)

Rate of change in association factors

Explanation

DETAILS OF THE MODEL

Elastic stiffness factor (horizontal)

The model described here is known as Model C (Models A

Elastic stiffness factor (moment)
Elastic stiffness factor (vertical)

Bearing capacity factor (peak)

and B were developed by Martin (1994) for footings on clay).

Association factor (horizontal)

Initial plastic stiffness factor

Eccentricity of yield surface

Association factor (moment)

The sign conventions and nomenclature used in the following

are those suggested by Butter®eld et al. (1997) and are shown
Shear modulus factor

in Fig. 1. Typical parameter values for Model C are presented

Unit weight of soil

in Table 1.
Footing radius

Reference point
Table 1. Properties used in Model C
Dimension

Current position
w
F/L3
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
L

M
H

θ
u
Constant

V
ám

Nã
m0
km

áh

Fig. 1. Sign conventions for load and displacement

kv
kh

h0
kc

â1
â2
â3
â4

äp
k9
R

g
ã

f
 PLASTICITY MODEL FOR FOOTINGS ON SAND 119
Elastic behaviour M/2R
The elastic relationship between the increments of load (dV,
dM, d H) and the corresponding elastic displacements (dwe ,
dèe , due ) is
2 3 2 32 3
dV kv 0 0 dwe
4 dM=2R 5 ˆ 2RG4 0 k m k c 54 2Rdèe 5 (1)
dH 0 kc kh due
H

where R is the radius of the footing, G is a representative shear

modulus, and k v, k m , k h , k c are dimensionless constants. The
values of these constants may be derived using, for instance,
®nite element analysis of a footing (Bell, 1991; Ngo Tran,
1996), and typical values are given in Table 1. The values of
the dimensionless constants depend on the geometry of the
footing (e.g. cone angle and depth of embedment) as well as
the Poisson's ratio for the sand.
An appropriate value of G is one of the most dif®cult
parameters to establish for the model. Recognising that the
mobilised shear stiffness is strongly dependent on the shear
strain, the value has to be a compromise one that is representa-
tive of typical strains in the soil. It has been determined here by
®tting of overall curves to experimental data. The shear mod-
ulus also depends on stress level, and is typically proportional
to approximately the square root of the mean effective stress. It
is convenient therefore to estimate the shear modulus through
use of a formula such as
s
G V
ˆg (2)
pa Apa
where pa is atmospheric pressure, V is a representative vertical
load on the foundation, A ˆ ðr 2 is the plan area of the
foundation, and g is a dimensionless constant. A typical value
of g is approximately 400 for medium dense sand, but would
be expected to depend mildly on the relative density. Note that
equation (2) represents a different scaling relationship than was
used in Cassidy (1999), and is suggested on the basis of more
recent work.
V
Fig. 2. Shape of yield surface
(V , M, H) ˆ (V0 , 0, 0). The shape of the surface is determined
by the two parameters h0 and m0, which determine the ratios of
H=V and M=2RV at the widest section of the surface, which
occurs at V ˆ V0 =2.
The factor a in equation (3) allows the ellipse to become
eccentric (that is, the principal axes are no longer aligned with
the H- and M-axes). This is necessary for accurate modelling
of the experimental data, and accounts for the fact that if, for
instance, the footing is subjected to a horizontal load from left
to right, a clockwise moment will produce a different response
from an anticlockwise moment. The factors â1 and â2 are
introduced following Nova & Montrasio (1991). They have two
advantages: (a) the position of the maximum size of the
elliptical section can be moved from V ˆ V0 =2 to
V ˆ â2 V0 =( â1 ‡ â2 ), thus ®tting experimental data better; and
(b) by choosing â1 , 1 and â2 , 1 the sharp points on the
surface at V ˆ 0 and V ˆ V0 can be eliminated, which has
advantages in the numerical implementation of the model. If
â1 ˆ â2 ˆ 0:5 the yield surface becomes an ellipsoid. The
factor â12 in equation (2) is simply so that h0 and m0 retain
their original meanings.

Yield surface Strain hardening

The yield surface is most conveniently expressed in dimen- The form of the strain-hardening expression can be deter-
sionless terms, using the variables v ˆ V =V0 , m ˆ M=2RV0 , mined from a vertical load±penetration curve, since for pure
h ˆ H=V0 , where V0 is the parameter that de®nes the size of vertical loading V0 ˆ V . Typical load±penetration curves are
the yield surface. The chosen form of the surface that ®ts the shown in Fig. 3, showing a peak in the load±penetration curve
observed behaviour of footings well is that used by Martin for the dense sand tested by Gottardi & Houlsby (1995). An
(1994): expression that ®ts the data well, and which is shown in Fig. 3,
 2  2 is
h m h m kw
f ˆ ‡ 2a â12 (í)2â1 (1 í)2â2 ˆ 0 V0 ˆ   p   (5)
h0 m0 h0 m0 
kwpm wp wp 2
(3) 1‡ 2 ‡
V0m wpm wpm
where the factor
!2 where k is an initial plastic stiffness, wp is the plastic compo-
( â1 ‡ â2 )â1 ‡â2 nent of the vertical penetration, V0m is the peak value of V 0 ,
â12 ˆ and wpm is the value of wp at this peak. No special signi®cance
( â1 )â1 ( â2 )â2 is attached to this particular form of the ®t to the vertical load±
is introduced so that h0 and m0 have simple physical interpreta- penetration response, and alternative expressions that ®tted other
tions. This surface may seem unnecessarily complicated, and it experimental data could also be appropriate.
is perhaps useful to consider a simpli®ed form in which a ˆ 0 A formula that models post-peak work softening as well as
and â1 ˆ â2 ˆ 1: pre-peak performance was essential. However, equation (5)
 2  2 unrealistically implies V0 ! 0 as wp ! 1. Therefore it can be
h m used only for a limited range of penetrations. It is assumed that
f ˆ ‡ 16í 2 (1 í)2 ˆ 0 (4) for most properly designed foundations on dense sand, loading
h0 m0
post-peak would not be expected; however, for a complete
It is straightforward to show that this is a `rugby ball' shaped model capable of ®tting post-peak behaviour more realistically,
surface that is elliptical in section on planes at constant V , and equation (3) can be altered to
  
parabolic on any section including the V -axis: see Fig. 2. fp wp 2
Although there is some theoretical justi®cation for this choice kw p ‡ V0m
1 fp wpm
of shape (particularly in the (V , M) plane), it is largely chosen V0 ˆ       (6)
empirically. The size of the surface is determined by the point kwpm wp 1 wp 2
1‡ 2 ‡
on the surface at maximum V value, which is given by V0m wpm 1 fp wpm
120 HOULSBY AND CASSIDY
2500
2000
1500
V: N
1000
500
0
–1 0 1 2 3
Fig. 3. Theoretical ®t of the vertical load tests
where f p is a dimensionless constant that describes the limiting
magnitude of vertical load as a proportion of V0m (that is,
V0 ! f p V0m as wp ! 1). It is possible to use the same
parametric values of k, V0m and wpm as in equation (5). For
realistic footing designs in which it was not required to describe
softening, a much simpler equation than equation (6) could be
used. The precise form of this equation is not in fact central to
the model; all that is required is a convenient expression that
®ts observed data and de®nes V0 as a function of wp .
Plastic potential
In the (M=2R, H) plane an associated ¯ow rule is found to
model the ratios between the plastic displacements well, but this
is not the case in the (V , M=2R) or (V , H) planes, for which
an associated ¯ow rule is found to predict unrealistically large
vertical displacements. A plastic potential different from the
yield surface must therefore be speci®ed. A convenient expres-
sion is, however, very similar to that used for the yield surface:
 2  2
h9 m9 h9 m9
gˆ ‡ 2a á2v â34 …í9†2â3 …1 í9†2â4 ˆ 0
h0 m0 h0 m0
(7)
where
!2
( â3 ‡ â4 )( â3 ‡â4 )
â34 ˆ
( â 3 )â 3 ( â 4 )â 4
and áv is an association parameter (associated ¯ow is given by
áv ˆ 1:0). Note that the condition g ˆ 0 is used to de®ne a
dummy parameter V 09 which gives the intersection of the plastic
potential with the V -axis. The primed parameters are de®ned by
v9 ˆ V =V 0 9, m9 ˆ M=2RV 0 9 and h9 ˆ H=V 0 9. Factors â3 and
â4 have been introduced, which can be chosen independently
from â1 and â2 . The association parameter áv allows for
variation of the vertical displacement magnitude, with values
greater than 1´0 resulting in the increase of the vertical displa-
cements. It also controls the position of the `parallel point' as
de®ned by Tan (1990), which is the point on the yield locus at
which the footing could rotate (or move sideways) at constant
vertical load and with no further vertical deformation. Accurate
prediction of this point is important as it describes the transition
between settlement and heave of the footing and where sliding
failures will occur. In the analogy with critical-state models, this
point plays the same role as the critical state. When associated
¯ow is used (áv ˆ 1, â3 ˆ â1 , â4 ˆ â2 ) the parallel point
occurs at í ˆ â2 =( â1 ‡ â2 ): that is, the largest constant vertical
Experiments
Theory
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
wp: mm
load section of the yield surface. As áv is decreased the
position of the parallel point moves to a lower value of vertical
load, but the exact expression for the value of í becomes very
complex. The modelling of realistic vertical displacements and
of the position of the parallel point are linked, and with only
one parameter it is dif®cult to model both adequately.
Increasing h0 or m0 with two association factors, rather than
scaling the vertical component, enables the plastic potential's
shape to change in the radial plane. This consequently changes
radial plastic displacements. This method has the advantage of
more ¯exibility in modelling subtle differences between hori-
zontal and moment loading results. Using two association
factors the plastic potential may be de®ned as
 2  2
h9 m9 h9m9
gˆ ‡ 2a
áh h0 ám m0 áh ám h0 m0
â34 (í9)2â3 (1 í9)2â4 ˆ 0 (8)
If áh and ám are constant and equal, equation (7) is equiva-
lent to equation (8) for the same value of áv .
In fact it was found that experimental data can be ®tted well
only if the áh and ám factors are themselves taken as variable.
The values of áh and ám that best ®t both the radial displace-
ment and constant V tests of Gottardi & Houlsby (1995) were
found to be hyperbolic functions of plastic displacement his-
tories:
k9 ‡ áh1 (up =wp )
áh ˆ (9)
k9 ‡ (up =wp )
k9 ‡ ám1 (2Rèp =wp )
ám ˆ (10)
k9 ‡ (2Rèp =wp )
where k9 determines the rate of change of the association
factors. For no previous radial displacements, áh and ám equate
to 1 and associated ¯ow is assumed. The rates at which áh and
ám vary in Model C are depicted in Fig. 4. With the plastic
potential de®ned as in equation (6), the following values were
evaluated:
â3 ˆ 0:55; â4 ˆ 0:65; á h1 ˆ 2:5; á m1 ˆ 2:15; k9 ˆ 0:125
Further details of the development of the plastic potential in
equation (8) and comparisons between the theory and experi-
mental data can be found in Cassidy (1999).
Partially drained behaviour
The model described above is based on data from tests on
dry sand, and thus describes fully drained behaviour. For
 PLASTICITY MODEL FOR FOOTINGS ON SAND
3·0
αh
2·5
2·0 αm
αh orαm
1·5
1·0 Horizontal
Moment
0·5
0 2000
0 1 2 3 4
up/wp or 2Rθp/wp
Fig. 4. Rates of variation of áh and ám in Model C
realistic loading times of large offshore foundations, partially
drained behaviour is expected, and the above model would need
to be modi®ed to take into account the transient pore pressures
beneath the foundation. Both Mangal (1999) and Byrne (2000)
have carried out model tests equivalent to those used here, but
on saturated sand and at loading rates where partially drained
behaviour occurs. They record that loading rate has remarkably
little effect on the load±deformation response, so that the
current model provides a reasonable starting point for descrip-
tion of partially drained behaviour. Some caution is of course
necessary if there is any possibility that the magnitude of the
transient pore pressures might be suf®cient to induce liquefac-
tion phenomena.
RETROSPECTIVE MODELLING OF EXPERIMENTS
To investigate the capabilities of Model C to model footing
behaviour, numerical simulations were carried out for a number
of representative experiments. In each of these simulations the
measured values of three of the measured quantities (e.g. the
displacements) were taken as input, and the other three quanti-
ties (e.g. the loads) were calculated as output for comparison
with the experiments. No idealisation of the experimental input
data was carried out, so that the input values contain all the
minor ¯uctuations associated with experimental measurements.
The program used to implement Model C is able to handle such
perturbations.
The simulations are carried out for the tests reported by
Gottardi & Houlsby (1995), using a 100 mm diameter footing
on medium dense Leighton Buzzard sand. These are the same
tests that were used for the development of Model C, so that
the quality of the ®t is of course expected to be good. The
purpose of this exercise is, however, twofold: (a) to demonstrate
that Model C can be implemented numerically, and used to
simulate footing behaviour; and (b) to assess the overall cap-
ability of the model to capture the salient features of the
original data.
Vertical penetration test
Figure 5(a) shows the experimental results for a vertical
penetration test. Fig. 5(b) is a simulation of this same test in
which the measured displacement is taken as input, and the
vertical load calculated. Model C gives loads that accurately
represent the original test, and this is principally a test of the
chosen strain-hardening law. The three vertical unload/reload
loops pre-peak are modelled well, although Model C does not
re¯ect the hysteresis that occurs in the experimental results.
This does make a slight, but not too signi®cant, reduction in
the displacements compared with their corresponding loads.
The Model C program predicts the location of the existing
yield surface when being reloaded in an unload±reload loop. It
does not overshoot the yield surface because of a bisection
algorithm used to determine the proportion of the increment
that is elastic, with the remaining proportion allocated as
elastoplastic.
121
2500
2000
1500
V: N
1000
500
0
(a)
2500
1500
V: N
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
w: mm
(b)
Fig. 5. Retrospective simulation of vertical penetration test
In each of Figs 6±Fig. 11 following, (a) and (b) represent the
measured experimental data, and (c) and (d) represent the
Model C simulation.
Moment and horizontal swipe tests from V  1600 N
In a swipe test the footing is load-controlled in the vertical
direction until it reaches a prescribed load, in this case
V  1600 N. Rotation or horizontal displacement is then ap-
plied to the footing with the trace corresponding to a track
along the yield surface, appropriate for that embedment.
Figure 6 represents a moment swipe starting at V  1600 N.
Prior to the swipe the footing is loaded in the purely vertical
direction with only small amounts of horizontal and moment
load being developed. However, for clarity, only the swipe has
been plotted. Model C simulates the magnitude of peak moment
adequately, reaching a value just over M=2R ˆ 150 N. The
numerical peak moment in Fig. 6(d) and the experimental peak
moment in Fig. 6(b) occurred at the same vertical load.
Additionally, Figs 6(a) and (c) show that the amount of rotation
before the peak was modelled accurately. However, in this test
Model C locates the `parallel point' slightly lower than the
experiment (point A in Fig. 6(d)). In the Model C simulation in
Fig. 6(d) movement back along the yield surface can be seen to
occur, for instance at V  800 N and again at V  600 N.
Figure 7 represents an equivalent swipe, but in the horizontal
direction, with Model C load-controlled to V  1600 N and
then displacement-controlled for the swipe. The program models
the track along the yield surface very well, with the peak
horizontal load almost exactly matching that of the experiment
at just over 200 N. Fig. 7(c) shows Model C predicting a very
similar displacement path to the experiments (Fig. 7(a)), verify-
ing the ¯ow rule for this case. The simulation stops tracking at
around the same horizontal and vertical load levels, indicating
accurate prediction of the `parallel point' in the horizontal
plane. Further justi®cation of the use of two independent
association factors (áh and ám ) in the ¯ow rule is given by the
more accurate prediction of the `parallel point' for both the
moment and horizontal swipes than would be possible if there
were only one.
Moment and horizontal swipe tests from V  200 N
Figure 8 represents moment and horizontal swipes starting at
V  200 N, highlighting the yield surface at low vertical loads.
In order to depict the experiments, Model C is load-controlled
to V  1600 N and then unloaded to V  200 N, before being
displacement-controlled throughout the swipe. Figs 8(a) and (c)
show that at low vertical loads both the experimental results
and Model C depict work-hardening, with Model C simulating
122 HOULSBY AND CASSIDY
200

150

100
M/2R: N

50

–50
(a) (b)
200

150
A
100
M/2R: N

50

–50
–1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
2Rθ: mm V: N
(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Retrospective simulation of moment swipe test

250

200

150
H: N

100

50

–50
(a) (b)
250

200

150
H: N

100

50

–50
–1 0 1 2 3 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
u: mm V: N
(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Retrospective simulation of horizontal swipe test

the experiment well. This was not the case horizontally. Fig. and horizontal load (B ! C). This implies work-softening of
8(b) shows that the experiment elastically loads in the horizon- the sample. Model C simulates the elastic horizontal loading
tal direction before yielding occurs at H  80 N (A ! B), and very well, predicting the yield surface at the same position (line
then tracks along the yield surface with a reduction in vertical segment A ! B on Fig. 8(d)). However, it then predicts that
 PLASTICITY MODEL FOR FOOTINGS ON SAND
200
150
100
M/2R: N
50
0
–50
(a)
200
150
100
M/2R: N
50
0
–50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
V: N
(c)
Fig. 8. Retrospective simulation of swipe test from V 200 N
work-hardening will occur, with increasing vertical and horizon-
tal load tracking up around the yield surface. This is consistent
with, and entirely related to, Model C's prediction of the
parallel point from a swipe at 1600 N. Nevertheless, it does
indicate that Model C's ¯ow rule will not always follow the
experimental performance.
Constant vertical load tests
The constant V tests as shown in Figs 9 and 10 are simulated
with full load control to V  1600 N, before the vertical load is
held constant at around that value (with slight ¯uctuations
according to the experimental data), while horizontal and mo-
ment displacement control models an excursion. The constant V
tests involve the expansion and then later contraction of the
yield surface. Figs 9(c) and Fig 10(c) show that Model C
models expanding yield surfaces reasonably well, reaching a
similar peak for horizontal and moment load as the experimen-
tal values. Once the peak value has been reached, the Model C
surface then contracts back as predicted by the post-peak per-
formance of the hardening law. Fig. 9(c) shows that for the
predominately moment case this post-peak performance is ade-
quately modelled, although the experimental data did not con-
tinue until M=2R ˆ 0. However, in the horizontal constant V
test the experiment did continue until H ˆ 0, but this was not
reproduced by the simulation program, with the surprising result
of increasing H occurring at the end of the test (du . 4 mm at
point A on Fig. 10(c)). The cause of this rise in H in the
numerical simulation is a rapid decrease in the experimentally
recorded vertical load, which was used as input. Between point
A and the end of the test, V falls from approximately 1600 N
to 1400 N. If V were held constant at 1600 N, Model C would
simulate the horizontal load decreasing back to zero, as would
be theoretically expected during a constant V test. This is a
good example showing that prediction in Model C is very
sensitive to the value of V near the peak value of capacity.
Figures 9(d) and Fig. 10(d) show that the ¯ow rule satisfacto-
rily predicts the vertical displacements when compared with the
123
B
C
A
(b)
C
A
1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
V: N
(d)
horizontal or rotational displacements, which are part of the
input. Fig. 9(d) shows a slight over-prediction in vertical
displacements, indicating that for this case the plastic potential's
surface is too steep, or too normal when compared with the
V 9 axis. However, with Fig. 10(d) showing a slight under-
prediction, the ¯ow rule is predicting balanced results.
Radial displacement tests
Constant gradients of horizontal to vertical and moment to
vertical displacement were used as inputs to simulate horizontal
and moment radial displacement tests. The resultant experimen-
tal moment and horizontal loads and Model C predictions are
shown in Figs 11 and 12 respectively, noting that (a) represents
the measured experimental data and (b) the Model C simulation.
The simulations are of similar gradient, implying that the Model
C ¯ow rule is performing well. The noise that can be seen in
Figs 11(b) and Fig. 12(b) is due to the ¯uctuations that occur in
the real experimental input data.
APPLICATION OF MODEL C TO A JACK-UP UNIT
The advantage of Model C is that it uses strain-hardening
plasticity theory, which can be easily implemented within a
conventional structural analysis program. To show this an
example analysis of a jack-up unit, a typical application in the
offshore industry, is outlined. Conventionally the foundations
for a jack-up platform are represented as pinned, or at best by
linear, springs. This is an over-simpli®cation of foundation
behaviour, and can therefore lead to over-conservative design.
Model C represents an important advance from this type of
analysis, as it calculates a non-linear stiffness matrix based on
measured soil behaviour under combined loads. In the following
example a three-legged jack-up has been idealised as a plane
frame with Model C footings making up one component of a
realistic representation of the structure, foundations and environ-
mental loading. The model representing the idealised jack-up is
shown in Fig. 13.
124 HOULSBY AND CASSIDY
250
200
150
M/2R: N
100
50
–50
(a)
0
3
M/2R: N
8
–1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2Rθ: mm
(c)
Fig. 9. Retrospective simulation of constant V test
For the modelling of jack-up response, structural non-linear-
ities must be considered if reasonable accuracy is to be
achieved. In this analysis P±Ä and Euler effects are both
accounted for by using Oran's (1973) formulation of beam
column theory to specify the stiffness matrix, with additional
modi®cations to produce the additional end rotations on the
beam due to the presence of shear (see Martin, 1994). The
stiffness matrix is derived in incremental form, as the structural
response is path dependent. The dynamic equations of motion
are solved in the time domain using the Newmark ⠈ 0:25,
ä ˆ 0:5 numerical step-by-step direct integration technique.
Two examples of environmental wave loading were used; the
®rst being NewWave theory (Tromans et al., 1991) and the
second a constrained NewWave in a background random sea
state (Taylor et al., 1995). These theories are a signi®cant
advance on conventional deterministic wave theories as they
account for the spectral composition and randomness found in
the ocean. In the derivation of the wave kinematics Wheeler
stretching was used. Hydrodynamic loading was evaluated using
the extended Morison's equation, including relative motion
effects, integrated to the moving free surface. In the examples
the environmental force was purely wave loading with no
current or wind.
Figure 14 shows the surface elevation of a NewWave in the
time domain for both jack-up legs with the wave focused on the
upwave leg at the reference time (t ˆ 0 s). The sea-state can be
described by the Pierson Moskowitz wave energy spectrum,
(b)
6 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2Rθ: mm
(d)
with a signi®cant wave height ( H s ) of 12 m and a mean zero
crossing period (TZ ) of 10 s.
The corresponding horizontal deck displacements due to this
NewWave are shown in Fig. 15 for three foundation cases:
pinned, Model C, and linear springs. Pinned footings represent
in®nite horizontal and vertical stiffness, but no rotational
stiffness. Model C is the strain-hardening plasticity model for
sand described in this paper, and linear springs use ®nite
stiffness values as in the elastic region of the Model C case
(equation (1)). Though only deck displacements have been
shown, any other measure of structural response could be
determined. After the NewWave passes, the rig can be seen to
be vibrating in its natural mode. With increased rotational
®xity the natural periods decrease, with approximate values of
9 s, 5 s and 5 s for the pinned, Model C and linear springs
respectively. In this example the load combinations on the
Model C footings were contained entirely within the yield
surface, thus giving a response identical to the linear spring
case. By increasing the NewWave crest amplitude to á ˆ 15 m
or á ˆ 18 m, as shown in Fig. 16, the increased loading
caused plastic displacements in the Model C footings, shifting
the entire foundations and leaving a permanent offset in the
displacement of the deck. This yielding of the sand footings
occurred during the peak of the NewWave. This direct indica-
tion of yielding is a major bene®t in using elastoplastic
formulations for the spud-can footings. The natural period after
this event may also be modi®ed by the plastic behaviour.
 PLASTICITY MODEL FOR FOOTINGS ON SAND 125
250

200

150
H: N

100

50

–50

(a) (b)
0

3
M/2R: N

8
–1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
u: mm u: mm
(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Retrospective simulation of constant V test

250

200

150
M/2R: N

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
V: N V: N
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Retrospective simulation of radial displacement test

Figure 17 illustrates the surface elevation of a NewWave with a
crest elevation of 15 m embedded in a random sea characterised
by H S ˆ 12 m and TZ ˆ 10 s. The wave has been constrained,
such that at about 59´34 s its peak collides with the upwave leg
of the jack-up; the surface elevation for the downwave is also
displayed. The corresponding deck displacements with time are
shown in Fig. 18 for the pinned, Model C and linear spring
foundation assumptions. For this example, the peak displace-
ments have been increased compared with just the equivalent
NewWave (Fig. 16). This is due to the random background and
the structural memory it causes; displaying that for dynamically
sensitive structures, such as jack-ups, the response is conditional
not only on the present applied load, but also on the load
history. As was the case for a jack-up loaded exclusively by a
126 HOULSBY AND CASSIDY
250

200

150
H: N

100

50

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
V: N V: N
(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Retrospective simulation of radial displacement test

Upwave Downwave
51·96 m

Values:
35·2 m
For a single leg:

E = 200 GPa
I = 15 m4
A = 0·6 m2
M = 1·93 × 106 kg
As = 0·04 m2
G = 80 GPa
Two legs DE = 8·44 m
Mean water depth 90 m

Ah = 3·94 m2
Cd = 1·1
Cm = 2·0

For hull:
80 m
I = 150 m4
As = 0·2 m2
M = 16·1 × 106 kg
Single leg
For spud-cans:

R = 10 m

Structural damping 2%
of crucial

Fig. 13. General layout of idealised jack-up used in the analyses

NewWave, the assumption of pinned footings is clearly illu- CONCLUSIONS

strated in Fig. 17 as overly conservative. The linear springs can
be seen to yield lower displacements than the Model C footing
owing to the greater stiffness exhibited. In addition, Model C
indicates a permanent horizontal displacement of the jack-up
due to the passage of this extreme wave.
These two examples show that Model C offers a method for
structural analysis with realistic soil±structure interaction. Mod-
el C has the ¯exibility to account for complex loading schemes
and dynamic response, and represents realistic non-linear stiff-
ness of circular footings on dense sand. In a recent project
Model C has been successfully used in ®tting a number of case
records of the response of jack-up units in the North Sea.
Based on a series of experiments performed at the University
of Oxford by Gottardi & Houlsby (1995), this paper details a
work-hardening plasticity model entitled Model C that has been
developed to represent circular footings on sand. The yield
surface, ¯ow rule and hardening law of Model C are all
empirically determined to ®t the experimental data. Stiffness
factors derived from three-dimensional ®nite element analyses
are used to describe elastic behaviour within the yield surface.
In order to investigate the predictive capabilities of Model C,
a number of experimental tests were chosen for numerical
simulation, with the experimental data resulting from the model
tests incorporated as input for the numerical simulation. These
 PLASTICITY MODEL FOR FOOTINGS ON SAND 127
12
Upwave leg
Hs = 12 m
8 Tz = 10 s Downwave leg
α = 12 m
Surface elevation: m

–4
Upwave Downwave
leg leg
–8

x=0m x = 51·96 m
–12
–60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60
Time: s

Fig. 14. NewWave surface elevation at the upwave and downwave legs

1·0
Pinned
0·8
Model C and linear springs
Horizontal deck displacements: m

0·6

0·4

0·2

–0·2

–0·4

–0·6

–0·8
–60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60
Time: s

Fig. 15. Horizontal deck displacements due to the NewWave loading

1·0

0·8
Horizontal deck displacements: m

0·6
α = 18 m
0·4

0·2 α = 15 m

0
α = 12 m
–0·2

–0·4

–0·6

–0·8
–60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60
Time: s

Fig. 16. Horizontal deck displacements due to increasing amplitude NewWaves

tests represented the varying nature of the load and displace- The experimental evidence of Gottardi & Houlsby (1995) did
ment paths imposed upon the model footing during the testing not support the application of associated ¯ow in Model C, and
regime. It has been shown that Model C adequately provides all a plastic potential function, g, was de®ned. Model C's plastic
the requirements of a work-hardening plasticity theory to model potential is de®ned by ®ve parameters, arguably an overly
the available experimental data. complex arrangement to explain the ¯ow rule of shallow
128 HOULSBY AND CASSIDY
15
Upwave leg
Hs = 12 m
10 Tz = 10 s
α = 15 m Downwave leg

5
Surface elevation: m

–5
Upwave Downwave
leg leg
–10

x=0m x = 51·96 m
–15
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time: s

Fig. 17. Surface elevations at the upwave and downwave legs for a constrained NewWave

1·6
Pinned
1·2 Model C
Horizontal deck displacements: m

Linear springs
0·8

0·4

–0·4

–0·8

–1·2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time: s

Fig. 18. Horizontal deck displacements due to the constrained NewWave

circular footings. However, systematic variation of the associa- Within the offshore industry, Model C represents a signi®cant
tion factors makes it possible to model the differences caused advance in the response analysis of jack-up units. When com-
by the loading direction, resulting in greater con®dence in the pared with techniques widely used in the jack-up industry, a
ability to model a real load path. Furthermore, with uncoupled signi®cantly different response is found, as was shown in this
horizontal and moment association factors, greater ¯exibility in paper. An extension to Model C to account for the conical
the modelling of the location of the parallel point is possible. shape of spud-can footings has been suggested in Cassidy
As a less complicated alternative, with only three parameters, a (1999).
compromise solution with constant association factors could be
used. This is outlined in Cassidy (1999) and has the values
â3 ˆ 0:55, â4 ˆ 0:65 and áh ˆ ám ˆ 2:05. Further physical
experimentation, especially at low radial to vertical load levels, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
could lead to a more accurately de®ned, and perhaps a less The experimental work on which this paper is based was
complex, ¯ow rule. carried out in cooperation with Dr G. Gottardi of the University
Model C has been developed from monotonic loading tests of Bologna. Support from the Rhodes Trust for the second
on sand. However, for the analysis of offshore structures, author is gratefully acknowledged.
loading rates and cyclic loading are both important. The
strength of the sand foundation is related to the rate of the
applied load and the degree of drainage of developed pore
NOTATION
pressures. Furthermore, reversal of load paths and cyclic behav- a eccentricity factor for yield surface
iour (as can be expected in an ocean environment) can cause f yield surface
reduction of the strength in the soil. The next step in formulat- f p softening parameter
ing a more advanced plasticity model is to account for these g shear modulus factor
effects. However, Model C has reached a stage in its develop- g plastic potential
ment where it can be con®dently implemented as a realistic G shear modulus
soil±structure model for dense sand. h0 dimensionless size factor for yield surface
 PLASTICITY MODEL FOR FOOTINGS ON SAND
h, h9 dimensionless horizontal load, modi®ed dimensionless
horizontal load in plastic potential
H horizontal load
H S signi®cant wave height
k hardening parameter
k9 constant in expression for association factors
k v , k m , k h , k c elastic stiffness factors
v, v9 dimensionless vertical load, modi®ed dimensionless
vertical load in plastic potential
m0 dimensionless size factor for yield surface
M moment
pa atmospheric pressure
R foundation radius
u horizontal displacement
m, m9 dimensionless moment, modi®ed dimensionless
moment in plastic potential
TZ mean zero crossing period
V hertical load
V0 dimension of yield surface in V-direction (maximum
past vertical load for pure vertical loading)
V0 9 dummy size parameter for plastic potential
V0m peak value of V0
w vertical displacement
wpm value of wp at V0 ˆ V0m
á wave crest amplitude
áv , ám , áh association factors
ám1 , áh1 limiting values of association factors
â1 , â2 , â12 shaping factors for yield surface
â3 , â4 , â34 shaping factors for plastic potential
è rotation
Subscripts
e elastic
p plastic
REFERENCES
Bell, R. W. (1991). The analysis of offshore foundations subjected to
combined loading. MSc thesis, Oxford University.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1970). A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity. Bulletin No. 98, pp. 5±11. Copenhagen: Danish Geotechni-
cal Institute.
Butter®eld, R., Houlsby, G. T. and Gottardi, G. (1997). Standardized
sign conventions and notation for generally loaded foundations.
GeÂotechnique 47, No. 5, 1051±1054.
Byrne, B. W. (2000). Investigations of suction caissons in dense sand.
DPhil thesis, Oxford University.
Cassidy, M. J. (1999). Non-linear analysis of jack-up structures sub-
jected to random waves. DPhil thesis, Oxford University.
129
Gottardi, G. & Butter®eld, R. (1993). On the bearing capacity of surface
footings on sand under general planar loads. Soils Found. 33, No. 3,
68±79.
Gottardi, G. & Butter®eld, R. (1995). The displacement of a model rigid
surface footing on dense sand under general planar loading. Soils
Found. 35, No. 3, 71±82.
Gottardi, G. & Houlsby, G. T. (1995). Model tests of circular footings
on sand subjected to combined loads, OUEL Report No. 2071/95.
Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University.
Gottardi, G., Houlsby, G. T. & Butter®eld, R. (1999). The plastic
response of circular footings on sand under general planar loading.
GeÂotechnique 49, No. 4, 453±470.
Hambly, E. C. & Nicholson, B. A. (1991). Jackup dynamic stability
under extreme storm conditions, Proc. 23rd Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, OTC 6466.
Houlsby, G. T. & Martin, C. M. (1992). Modelling of the behaviour of
foundations of jack-up units on clay. Proceedings of the Wroth
Memorial Symposium, Predictive Soil Mechanics, Oxford, July,
pp. 339±358.
Mangal, J. K (1999). Partially drained loading of shallow foundations
on sand. DPhil thesis, Oxford University.
Martin, C. M. (1994). Physical and numerical modelling of off-
shore foundations under combined loads. DPhil thesis, Oxford
University.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations under
eccentric and inclined loads. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Engng, Zurich 1, 440±445.
Ngo-Tran, C. L. (1996). The analysis of offshore foundations subjected
to combined loading. DPhil thesis, Oxford University.
Nova, R. & Montrasio, L. (1991). Settlements of shallow foundations on
sand. GeÂotechnique 41, No. 2, 243±256.
Oran, C. (1973). Tangent stiffness in plane frames. J. Struct. Engng
Div., ASCE 99, No. ST6, 973±985.
Roscoe, K. H. & Scho®eld, A. N.(1956). The stability of short pier
foundations in sand. Br. Weld. J., August, 343±354.
Schotmann, G. J. M. (1989). The effects of displacements on the
stability of jackup spudcan foundations. Proc. 21st Offshore Technol-
ogy Conf., Houston, OTC 6026
Tan, F. S .C. (1990). Centrifuge and theoretical modelling of conical
footings on sand. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
Taylor, P. H., Jonathon, P. & Harland, L. A. (1995). Time domain
simulation of jack-up dynamics with the extremes of a Gaussian
process. Proc.14th Conf. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Structures
(OMAE), Copenhagen 1-A, 313±319.
Tromans, P. S., Anaturk, A. R. & Hagemeijer, P. (1991). A new model
for the kinematics of large ocean waves: applications as a design
wave. Proc. ISOPE-91 Conf. Edinburgh, 3, 64±71.
Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Engng Div., ASCE 99, No. SM1, 45±73.