Appendix A of the PIANC PTCII WG28 Subgroup A report

Static bearing capacity limit state equations for monolithic caissons

and rubble mound breakwater parapet walls.
J. Dalsgaard Sørensen and H. F. Burcharth
Aalborg University, Denmark

(1) Introduction

This annex provides the limit state equations for 10 important foundation rupture constellations
related to monolithic caissons and rubble mound breakwater parapet walls. The limit state equa-
tions are formulated as

g = Ws − Wd ≥ 0 (A1)

where Ws is the work of the stabilizing forces and Wd is the work of the destabilizing forces. In
general for a specific design the minimum value of g must be larger than 0 in order to obtain sta-
bility. If this is not the case, the design must be changed. The limit state equations are represent-
ing static load situations and do not cover earthquake loadings involving inertia forces. The dy-
namic effect – if any – of wave loadings might be taken into account by applying a dynamic load
factor to the maximum load to obtain an equivalent static load.

Possible soil strength degradation due to cyclic loadings has to be taken into account.

The wave induced loadings on the front and the base plate of the structures are determined either
from formulae or from model tests.

The waves generate pore pressure gradients in the rubble foundation and in the subsoil. The re-
sulting horizontal component of the pore pressure acting on the rupture boundary has to be taken
into account and included in the limit state equations. An approximate model for the resulting
horizontal pore pressure FHU is shown in Fig. A1.

 1 2 B z − hII / tan θ 
FHU = min.  pu hII  (A2)
2 B 
where

B is the width of caisson

Bz is the effective width of the caisson base plate
pu is the wave induced uplift pressure at the edge of the caisson
θ is the angle between the caisson base and the rupture plane

In the model for estimation of the resulting horizontal pore pressure FHU it is assumed that the
uplift pressure on the base plate is varying linearly from pu at the front to zero at the back of the
A1
structure. Moreover, it is assumed that the pressure is identical at all levels in the rubble founda-
tion vertically beneath the base plate. Further, it is assumed that the horizontal pore pressure gra-
dients are negligible in subsoils consisting of sand or clay due to the very significant pore pres-
sure attenuation with depth related to windgenerated waves.

Figure A1: Illustration of simple model for estimation of wave induced horizontal pore pressure
along rupture boundaries.

The same model eq A2, might be used also in the case of breakwater parapet wall superstructures
if the wave induced pore pressure acts on the base plate. This will be the case if high water and/or
wave induced internal set-up raise the phreatic surface in the rubble to levels higher than the un-
derside of the base plate.

The limit state equations are restricted to the two-dimensional case and is based on the upper
bound theorem of classical plasticity theory where an associated flow rule is assumed. However,
this rule is not satisfied for friction materials like sand and quarry stones for which the friction
angle and the dilation angle are different. In order to overcome the problem, the following re-
duced effective friction angle φd is used, see Hansen (1979),

sin ϕ' cos ψ

tan ϕ d = (A3)
1 − sin ϕ' sin ψ

where

A2
 φ’ is the effective friction angle
ψ is the dilation angle

In the bearing capacity calculations the rubble mound quarry rock can be regarded fully drained
due to the large permeability. The soil strength is then characterized by φd, defined in eq A3 . The
sea bed soil is normally either clay, silt or sand. In the case of clay, silt and fine sand the soil
should be considered undrained during wave loadings. Coarse sand might either be drained, par-
tially drained or non-drained dependent on the actual soil and loading conditions. For undrained
conditions the soil strength is characterized by the undrained shear strength, cu. For drained sub-
soils φd is used as strength parameter. In the following distingtion is made between undrained and
drained subsoil conditions as one set of limit state equation is given for each condition.

2) Failure modes

Fig. A2 provides an overview of the failure modes for which limit state equations are presented.

A3
Fig. A2: Important geotechnical failure modes for monolithic caissons and rubble mound break-
water parapet walls.

(3) Limit state equations

The limit state equations presented in the following are partly reproduced from Dalsgaard Søren-
sen and Burcharth (2000).

A4
1 Sliding between caisson and bedding layer/rubble foundation – failure mode 1

Figure A3. Sliding failure between caisson and bedding layer/rubble foundation.

Failure mechanism: horizontal sliding on the bedding layer

Limit state function:

g = ( FG − FU ) tan µ − FH (A4)

where:
FG weight of caisson reduced for buoyancy
FU wave induced uplift
FH horizontal wave force
tan µ = friction coefficient f if sliding occurs between concrete base plate and the bedding
layer
tan µ = ω 1V = tan ϕ d1 if sliding occurs entirely in the rubble mound, see figure 3.
ϕd1 reduced effective angle of friction of the rubble mound

Figure A4 Displacement field if sliding occurs entirely in the rubble mound.

2 Failure in rubble mound – failure mode 2

A5
Figure A5. Failure in rubble mound.

The effective width Bz of the caisson is determined such that the resultant force R acts on the
base at a distance B z / 2 from the heel of the caisson, see figure.

Failure mechanism: unit displacement along the line AB.

Area of zone 1:

1 π
A1 = ( Bz + a ) 2 (cosθ sin θ + sin 2 θ tan( + θ − tan −1 (hII / b))) (A5)
2 2

Figure A6. Displacement field.

Displacements: The displacement field for zone 1 is shown in figure 5. With a unit displacement
δ = 1 along AB the displacements become:

1
ω1 = (A6)
cos(ϕ d1 )
cos(ϕ d1 − θ )
ω 1H = (A7)
cos(ϕ d1 )
sin(ϕ d1 − θ )
ω 1V = (A8)
cos(ϕ d1 )

Optimization problem:
Optimization variable:
θ angle of rupture line

Constraint:

A6
  hII 
0 ≤ θ ≤ tan −1   : rupture line should be in the rubble mound
 Bz + a + b 

The horizontal pore pressure force is taken as:

1 B z2
FHU = p u tanθ (A9)
2 B
where

B width of caisson
Pu pressure at seaward edge of base plate

Limit state function:

g = (γ s − γ w ) A1ω 1V + ( FG − FU )ω 1V − ( FH + FHU )ω 1H (A10)

where:
FG weight of caisson reduced for buoyancy
FU wave induced uplift
FH horizontal wave force
FHU horizontal pore pressure force
γ s specific weight of rubble material
γ w specific weight of water

3 Failure in rubble mound and sliding along top of subsoil (clay / sand) – failure mode 3

Figure A7. Failure in rubble mound and rubble mound subsoil interface.

Failure mechanism: unit displacement δ = 1 along top of subsoil, line BC .

Geometrical quantities:
hII
l BC = Bz + a + b − length of BC
tanϕ d1

A7
Area of zone 1:
1 1 hII2 hII
A1 = bhII + + ( Bz + a − )hII
2 2 tan ϕ d1 tan ϕ d1

The horizontal pore pressure force becomes (it is assumed that point B is below the caisson) :

1  2 Bz − hII / tan ϕ d1 
FHU = pu  hII
2  B  (A11)

Limit state function for sand subsoil:

g = (γ s − γ w ) A1 tan ϕ d 2 + ( FG − FU ) tan ϕ d 2 − ( FH + FHU ) (A12)

where

ϕ d 2 friction angle of sand subsoil

Limit state function for clay subsoil:

g = l BC cu − ( FH + FHU ) (A13)

where
cu undrained shear strength of clay

4 Failure in rubble mound – failure mode 4

Figure A8. Failure in rubble mound.

A8
Figure A9. Detailed geometry of zone 3.

Failure mechanism: unit displacement δ = 1 along line AB.

Geometrical quantities:
sin θ
rBD = Bz length of BD
cosϕ d1

α tan ϕd1
rCD = rBD e length of CD

cos(θ − ϕ d1 )
l AB = Bz length of AB
cosϕ d1

π
ξ= − ϕd1 − α + θ angle CDF
2

 hII 
β = tan −1  
 c 

rCD sin(ξ − β )
∆a =
sin( β )
(a + ∆a ) sin β
lCE = length of CE
sin( β + α − θ )
a sin(θ − α )
∆rCD =
cosϕ d1

l EF =
1
(
B sin θe
sin( β + α − θ ) z
α tan ϕd1
+ a sin(θ − α ) ) length of EF

A9
Figure A10. Displacement diagram.

Displacements: The displacement field for zone 1,2 and 3 are shown in figure 9. With a unit dis-
placement δ = 1 along AB the displacements become:

1
ω1 = (A14)
cos ϕ d1

sin(ϕd1 − θ )
ω1V = (A15)
cosϕd1

cos(ϕd1 − θ )
ω1H = (A16)
cosϕd1

τ tan ϕd1
ω2V (r , τ ) = ω1e sin(ϕd1 − θ + τ ) 0≤τ ≤α ; 0 ≤ r ≤ rCD (A17)

α tan ϕd1
ω 3 = ω1e (A18)

sin(ϕ d1 + α − θ ) α tan ϕd1

ω 3V = ω 3 sin(ϕ d1 + α − θ ) = e (A19)
cosϕ d1

Area of zone 1:
1 π
A1 = rBD l AB sin( − ϕ d1 ) (A20)
2 2

Work from selfweight in zone 1:

W1 = (γ s − γ w ) A1ω1V (A21)

Work from selfweight in zone 2:

A10
 rCD α
W2 = (γ s − γ w ) ∫ ∫ ω 2V (r , τ )rdrdτ
0 0
2
= (γ s − γ w )ω 1 2
rCD
2 tan ϕ d1 + 2
[e
α tan ϕ d1
( tan ϕ d
1 )
sin(ϕ d1 − θ + α ) − cos(ϕ d1 − θ + α ) −

( tan ϕ d 1
sin(ϕ d1 − θ ) − cos(ϕ d1 − θ ) ] )
(A22)

Area of zone 3:
1 1
A3 = arCD sin ξ + lCE l EF sin( β − θ + α ) (A23)
2 2

Work from selfweight in zone 3:

W3 = (γ s − γ w ) A3ω3V (A24)

Optimization problem:
Optimization variables:
θ angle of rupture line
α angle of zone 2

Constraints:
0≤θ
0≤α ≤θ
β +α −θ > 0

The horizontal pore pressure force becomes:

2
1 Bz
FHU = p u tanθ (A25)
2 B

Limit state function :

g = W1 + W2 + W3 + ( FG − FU )ω 1V − ( FH + FHU )ω 1H (A26)

A11
5 Failure in rubble mound and drained subsoil – failure mode 5

Figure (A11). Failure in rubble mound and drained subsoil.

Figure (A12). Detailed geometry of zone 4.

Failure mechanism: sliding along line AB.

Geometrical quantities:
h
l AB = II length of AB
sinθ
 hII 
θ0 = tan −1   angle AFB
 Bz − l AB −hII 
2 2

θ1 = π − θ − θ0 angle ABF
θ2 = π − (θ1 + ϕ d1 − ϕ d2 ) angle CBF
π ϕd1
θ3 = − angle DFG
4 2
π
θ4 = π − (θ2 + − ϕd2 ) angle BFC
2
θ5 = π − θ3 − θ4 − θ0 angle CFD
 h 
θ 6 = tan −1  II  angle GFH
 a + b

A12
 sin θ
l BF = Bz length of BF
sin θ1
sin θ2
rCF = l BF length of CF
π
sin( − ϕ d2 )
2
θ5 tan ϕd1
rDF = rCF e length of DF
hII
l D' F = length of D’F
π ϕd
cos( + 2 )
4 2
l DD' = rDF − l D' F length of DD’

π
sin( + ϕ d2 )
l D' E = l DD' 2 length of D’E
π ϕd
sin( − 2 )
4 2

l FH = (l FG + sH II ) 2 + H II2 length of FH

Figure (A13). Displacement diagram for zone 1.

Figure (A14). Displacement diagram for zone 3.

Displacements: The displacement field for zone 1,2, 3 and 4 are shown in figure 12 and 13 with a
unit displacement δ = 1 along AB the displacements become:

1
ω1 = (A27)
cos ϕ d1

A13
 sin(ϕd1 − θ )
ω1V = (A28)
cosϕd1

cos(ϕd1 − θ )
ω1H = (A29)
cosϕd1

ω2V = ω1V (A30)

τ tan ϕ d 2
ω 3V (r , τ ) = ω 1e sin(ϕ d1 − θ + τ ) 0 ≤ τ ≤ θ5 ; 0 ≤ r ≤ rDF (A31)

θ5 tan ϕd 2
ω 4 = ω1e (A32)

sin(ϕ d1 + θ 5 − θ ) θ 5 tan ϕ d2
ω 4V = ω 4 sin(ϕ d1 + θ 5 − θ ) = e (A33)
cosϕ d1

Area of zone 1:
1
A1 = Bz hII (A34)
2

Work from selfweight in zone 1:

W1 = (γ s − γ w ) A1ω1V (A35)

Area of zone 2:
1
A2 = l BF rCF sinθ 4 (A36)
2

Work from selfweight in zone 2:

A14
 W2 = (γ s − γ w ) A2ω2V (A37)

Work from selfweight in zone 3:

rDF θ 5
W3 = (γ s − γ w ) ∫ ∫ ω 3V (r , τ )rdrdτ
0 0
2
= (γ s − γ w )ω 1
rDF
2
2 tan ϕ d2 + 2
[e
θ 5 tan ϕ d 2
( tan ϕ d 2 )
sin(ϕ d1 − θ + θ 5 ) − cos(ϕ d1 − θ + θ 5 ) −

( tan ϕ d 2
sin(ϕ d1 − θ ) − cos(ϕ d1 − θ ) ] )
(A38)

Area of zone 4:
1 1 1 π ϕd
A4 = l FH a sin θ 6 + l FH (rDF − l DD' ) sin(θ 3 − θ 6 ) + l D' E l DD' sin( − 2 ) (A39)
2 2 2 4 2

Work from selfweight in zone 4:

W4 = (γ s − γ w ) A4ω4V (A40)

Optimization problem:
Optimization variable:
θ angle of rupture line

Constraints:
h 
tan −1  II  ≤ θ rupture line should enter the subsoil
 Bz 

The horizontal pore pressure force becomes:

1  2 Bz − hII / tan θ 
FHU = pu   hII (A41)
2  B 

Limit state function :

A15
 g = W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 + ( FG − FU )ω 1V − ( FH + FHU )ω 1H (A42)

6 Failure in rubble mound and drained subsoil – failure mode 6

Figure (A15). Failure in rubble mound and drained subsoil.

Figure (A16). Detailed geometry of zone 4.

Failure mechanism: sliding along line AB.

Geometrical quantities:
h
l AB = II length of AB
sinθ
 hII 
θ0 = tan −1   angle AIB
 Bz − l AB
2
− hII2 
θ1 = π − θ − θ0 angle ABI
θ2 = π − (θ1 + ϕ d1 − ϕ d2 ) angle CBI
π ϕd1
θ3 = − angle DIG
4 2
π
θ4 = π − (θ2 + − ϕd2 ) angle BIC
2
θ5 = π − θ3 − θ4 − θ0 angle CID

A16
  h 
θ 6 = tan −1  II  angle GIH
 a + b
π ϕd
θ7 = − 2 angle DEH
4 2

sin θ
l BI = Bz length of BI
sin θ1
sin θ2
rCI = l BI length of CI
π
sin( − ϕ d2 )
2
θ5 tan ϕd1
rDI = rCI e length of DI
hII
l D' I = length of D’I
π ϕd
cos( + 2 )
4 2
l DD' = rDI − l D' I length of DD’
π
sin( + ϕ d2 )
l D' F ' = l DD' 2 length of D’F’
π ϕ d2
sin( − )
4 2

lGI = hII2 + (a + b) 2 length of GI

sin(θ7 − θ6 )
l D'G = lGI length of D’G
sin(θ7 )
lGF ' = l D' F ' − l D'G length of GF’
sin(θ 7 )
lGE = lGF ' length of GE
π
sin( − ϕ d2 )
2
θ7 tan ϕd 2
rGF = lGE e length of GF

Displacements: The displacement field for zone 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are shown in figures A17 and
A18 With a unit displacement δ = 1 along AB the displacements become:

A17
Figure (A17). Displacement diagram for zone 1.

Figure (A18). Displacement diagram for zone 3.

1
ω1 = (A43)
cos ϕ d1

sin(ϕd1 − θ )
ω1V = (A44)
cosϕd1

cos(ϕd1 − θ )
ω1H = (A45)
cosϕd1

ω2V = ω1V (A46)

τ tan ϕ d 2
ω 3V (r , τ ) = ω 1e sin(ϕ d1 − θ + τ ) 0 ≤ τ ≤ θ5 ; 0 ≤ r ≤ rDI (A47)

θ5 tan ϕd 2
ω 4 = ω1e (A48)

A18
 sin(ϕ d1 + θ5 − θ ) θ5 tan ϕd2
ω 4V = ω 4 sin(ϕ d1 + θ5 − θ ) = e (A49)
cosϕ d1

τ tan ϕd 2
ω5V (r , τ ) = ω4 e sin(ϕd1 − θ + θ5 + τ ) 0 ≤ τ ≤ θ7 ; 0 ≤ r ≤ rGF (A50)

Area of zone 1:
1
A1 = Bz hII (A51)
2

Work from selfweight in zone 1:

W1 = (γ s − γ w ) A1ω1V (A52)

Area of zone 2:
1
A2 = l BI rCI sinθ4 (A53)
2

Work from selfweight in zone 2:

W2 = (γ s − γ w ) A2ω2V (A54)

Work from selfweight in zone 3:

rDI θ 5
W3 = (γ s − γ w ) ∫ ∫ ω 3V (r , τ )rdrdτ
0 0
2
= (γ s − γ w )ω 1 2
rDI
2 tan ϕ d2 + 2
[e
θ 5 tan ϕ d2
( tan ϕ d 2 )
sin(ϕ d1 − θ + θ 5 ) − cos(ϕ d1 − θ + θ 5 ) −

( tan ϕ d 2
sin(ϕ d1 − θ ) − cos(ϕ d1 − θ ) ] )
(A55)

Area of zone 4:
1 1 1 π ϕd 1
A4 = lGI l IH sin θ6 + l IH (rDI − l DD' ) sin(θ7 − θ6 ) + l D ' F ' l DD' sin( − 2 ) − lGF ' lGE sin θ7
2 2 2 4 2 2

(A56)

A19
Work from selfweight in zone 4:

W4 = (γ s − γ w ) A4ω4V (A57)

Work from selfweight in zone 5:

rGF θ7
W5 = (γ s − γ w ) ∫ ∫ ω5V (r , τ )rdrdτ
0 0
2
= (γ s − γ w )ω 4 2
rGF
2 tan ϕ d2 + 2
[e
θ7 tan ϕd 2
( tan ϕ d2 )
sin(ϕ d1 + θ5 − θ + θ7 ) − cos(ϕ d1 + θ5 − θ + θ7 ) −

( tan ϕ d2 sin(ϕ d1 + θ5 − θ ) − cos(ϕ d1 + θ5 − θ ) ] )

(A58)

Optimization problem:
Optimization variable:
θ angle of rupture line

Constraint:
h 
tan −1  II  ≤ θ rupture line should enter the subsoil
 Bz 

The horizontal pore pressure force becomes:

1  2 Bz − hII / tan θ 
FHU = pu   hII (A59)
2  B 

Limit state function :

g = W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 + W5 + ( FG − FU )ω 1V − ( FH + FHU )ω 1H (A60)

A20
7 Failure in rubble mound and undrained subsoil – failure mode 7

Figure (A19). Failure in rubble mound and in undrained subsoil.

Failure mechanism: unit displacement δ = 1 along the line BC.

Geometrical quantities:
hII
l BF = Bz + a + b − length of BF
tan(θ + ϕ d1 )

l BC = l BF cosθ length of BC

rCF = l BF sinθ length of CF

l DE = rCF length of DE

Internal work from rupture along BC

lBC
W1 = ∫ cu ( s)ds (A61)
0

where
cu ( s) undrained shear strength of subsoil as function of distance s

Internal work from rupture along CD

π
rCF ( +θ )
4
W2 = ∫ cu ( s)ds (A62)
0

Internal work from rupture along DE

A21
 lDE
W3 = ∫ cu ( s)ds (A63)
0

Internal work from Prandl rupture zone 2

π
rCF ( 4 +θ )
W4 = ∫ ∫ cu ( s, τ )dsdτ (A64)
0 0

Area of zone 4:

1 1
A4 = ( Bz + a )hII + l BF hII (A65)
2 2

Work from selfweight in zone 4:

W5 = (γ s − γ w ) A4 sinθ (A66)

Optimization problem:

Optimization variable:
θ angle of rupture line

Constraint:
0≤θ

The horizontal pore pressure force becomes:

1  2 Bz − hII / tan(ϕ d1 + θ ) 
FHU = pu   hII (A67)
2  B 

Limit state function:

g = W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 + W5 − ( FG − FU ) sin θ − ( FH + FHU ) cosθ (A68)

8 Failure in rubble mound and undrained subsoil – failure mode 8

A22
Figure (A20). Failure in rubble mound and in undrained subsoil.

Failure mechanism: unit rotation β = 1 about point D.

Geometrical quantities:

2 2
rAD = xD + yD length of AD

 B + a + b − xD 
α = tan −1  z  angle
 hII + y D 

 yD 
ξ = tan −1   angle
 xD 

π
θ= −α −ξ angle
2

θ tan ϕ d1
rBD = rAD e length of BD

l BC = 2( y D + hII ) tanα length of BC

l AE = Bz + a + b − l BC length of AE

Area of zone 1 (approximately):

1
A1 = hII l AE (A69)
2

Work from selfweight in zone 1:

A23
 2
W1 = (γ s − γ w ) A1 ( x D − l AE ) (A70)
3

Area of zone 2:

A2 = hII (l BC − b) (A71)

Work from selfweight in zone 2:

W2 = (γ s − γ w ) A2 b (A72)

Area of zone 3:

1
A3 = bhII (A73)
2

Work from selfweight in zone 3:

1 2
W3 = (γ s − γ w ) A3 ( l BC − b) (A74)
2 3

Internal work from rupture along circle BC

2α
W4 = rBD ∫ cu (τ rBD )dτ (A75)
0

Optimization problem:
Optimization variables:
x D x-coordinate of point D
y D y-coordinate of point D

Constraints:
yD ≥ 0
Bz
2
≤ x D ≤ Bz + a + b
rBD cosα = y D + hII
α ≥0
θ≥0

The horizontal pore pressure force becomes:

A24
 1  2 B z − l AE 
FHU = pu   l AE tanθ (A76)
2  B 

Limit state function

1
g = W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 − ( FG − FU )( x D − B z ) − ( FH + FHU ) y D (A77)
2

9 Failure in rubble mound – failure mode 9

Figure (A21). Failure in rubble mound.

The failure mechanism and the limit state function correspond to failure mode (3) for caisson
structures. The selfweight of the soil .zone must be adjusted if fully submerged at the limit of the
wave loading.

10 Failure in rubble mound – failure mode 10

Figure (A22)-. Failure in rubble mound

The failure mechanism and the limit state function correspond to failure mode (4) for caisson
structures. The selfweight of the soil zones must be adjusted if the rubble is not fully submerged
at the time of the wave loading.

REFERENCER

A25
Dalsgaard Sørensen, J. and Burcharth, H. F. (2000). Reliability analysis of geotechnical failure
modes for vertical wall breakwaters. Reliability in Geotechnics 26 (2000) 225-245.

Hansen, B. (1979). Deviation and use of friction angles. Proc. Int. Conf. VII ECSMFE, Brighton,
U.K.

A26