Indian Geotechnical Conference 2010, GEOtrendz

December 1618, 2010

IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay

A Realistic Way to Obtain Equivalent Youngs

Modulus of Layered Soil

Brahma, P. Mukherjee, S.P.1

Technical Director Professor
e-mail:fargoconsultants@gmail.com e-mail: sibapmukh@yahoo.co.in

Fargo Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata

ABSTRACT
For estimation of immediate settlement of layered soil deposits the current practice uses thickness weighted
average of Youngs Modulus. This method appears to be acceptable if the soils of different layers have strength of
similar order. However, this method tends to conceal the influence of weaker soils in presence of a stronger layer
as has been shown with typical examples in this paper. A method has also been outlined in this paper to estimate
an equivalent modulus of elasticity for layered soil using weighted harmonic mean in respect of thickness.

1. INTRODUCTION
Immediate settlement is caused by lateral strain due to
applied load. The formula for immediate settlement is based
on lateral strain and is meant for homogeneous soil. But in
Nature homogeneous soil deposit is very rare. Therefore,
the geotechnical engineers often encounter the problem of
determining immediate settlement in layered soil
particularly for a large size foundation when the pressure
bulb goes far deep into the soil. Immediate settlement
calculations for layered soils are not clearly addressed in
the available literature compared to homogeneous layers.
Correlations for estimation of modulus of elasticity for
cohesive soils with respect to undrained shear strength
values (Bowles 1997) and for non-cohesive soils with
respect to N (SPT) values is well documented (Som and
Das 2003) Current practice uses thickness weighted
average for estimation of equivalent modulus of elasticity
(Som and Das 2003). This method appears to be acceptable
if the soils of different layers having strength of similar
order. However, this method tends to mask the influence
of weaker soils in presence of a stronger layer as has been
shown with typical examples in this paper. A method has
also been outlined in this paper to estimate an equivalent
modulus of elasticity for layered soil using thickness
weighted harmonic mean. It is shown with typical examples
that the weighted harmonic mean yields better results than
the direct weighted average method particularly when the
strength of successive soil layers vary in a very wide range.
The method has been proved reasonable with the help of
application of stress-strain relationship for composite
bodies. The paper highlights the usefulness of weighted
harmonic mean method for estimation of equivalent
Youngs Modulus in case of layered soil deposit.
2. ELASTIC SETTLEMENT ESTIMATION
Estimation of foundation settlement for structures is of
major importance to limit the settlement of structures within
tolerance levels, which affects the allowable bearing
capacity. Settlement comprises of two components i.e.
immediate (elastic) settlement and long-term
(consolidation) settlement. The calculation for immediate
settlement for homogeneous soil layer is carried out using
the following formula (Terzaghi 1943):
Si = (12) / (1)
where,
Si = Immediate settlement
= Poissons ratio
= Influence factor
= Width of foundation
= Applied pressure
= Modulus of elasticity
Correlation for estimation of modulus of elasticity/Youngs
Modulus (E) for cohesive soils and non-cohesive soils is
available in existing literature Youngs Modulus may be
obtained from the following correlations (Bowles 1997)
306
E = 600 cu (2)
where, cu in the undrained cohesion.
And for non-cohesive soils modulus of elasticity can
be estimated from the correlation provided below:
E = 750 + 80 N t/m2
where, N is the SPT value
3. CURRENT PRACTICE FOR EVALUATION OF
EQUIVALENT MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
For large foundations the pressure bulb extends deep into
the sub-soil hence the estimation of equivalent E for the
various soil layers into which the pressure bulb extends
into is needed. The normal practice is to use a weighted
average of the modulus of elasticity of the various layers
encountered within the depth of influence
Eeq = Hi Ei / Hi (4)
where, Eeq= Equivalent modulus of elasticity,
Hi = Thickness of layer, Ei = Modulus of elasticity of layer
This method of obtaining equivalent modulus of elasticity
is acceptable as long as the variation of individual layers is
comparable. However, if there is wide variation in the
values, the evaluated modulus of elasticity is not
appropriate, since the soils with higher modulus of elasticity
tend to mask the effect of the weaker soil layer. This can
lead to under estimation of immediate settlement values.
4. BASIC CONCEPTS OF EQUIVALENT
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
An attempt has been made to determine equivalent modulus
of elasticity for a series of welded circular rods of different
materials. Although the method takes care of only
longitudinal strain but for lateral strain also variation of E
appears to be of similar trend since the term comes in
denominator. This method has been based on the theory of
elasticity. In Fig.1 a few metal circular rods are welded
end to end and a weight is hung from the last piece of rod.
The top of the system is fixed.
L e n g th = L : M o d u lu s = E
1 1
L e n g th = L 2 : M o d u lu s = E
L e n g th = L : M o d u lu s = E
3 3
L e n g th = L 4 : M o d u lu s = E
L e n g th = L 5 : M o d u lu s = E
W e ig h t = W
Fig. 1: Illustration for Formulation of Equivalent
Modulus of Elasticity
P. Brahma and S.P. Mukherjee
The elongation of each metal rod is estimated using
the following equation,
E = / (5)
being the stress developed in each of the metal rods = W/
(3) A where, W is the weight and A is the cross-sectional area
and is the strain.
Elongation (L) is given by
L = L = L /E (6)
Hence, elongation of each rod section can be
represented by
Li = Li / Ei (7)
Where Li = Elongation of ith rod, Li = Length of ith
rod, = Stress in the rod
Total elongation (L) for the all the rods is calculated
as Li.
Therefore, total elongation = (Li/Ei) (8)
Let Eeq be the equivalent E for the composite rod.
Hence elongation for the composite rod can be expressed
as L = ?Li/Eeq.
Since the total elongation is constant,
Li/Eeq = (Li/Ei) (9)
Therefore,
Eeq = Li/ (Li/Ei) (10)
Thus, the equivalent modulus of elasticity is the
weighted harmonic mean of the individual rods modulus
of elasticity. This concept may be equally considered
rational in case where the lateral strain is causing the
deformation.
5. COMPARISON OF THE TWO METHODS OF
CALCULATION
In the first example it will be demonstrated that if the
underlying layers are of comparable strength then the
estimated immediate settlement using the current practice
of calculating equivalent modulus of elasticity and the
proposed method of calculating modulus of elasticity will
yield approximately results of similar order. Whereas in
the second example the strength of the underlying layers
2
are not comparable and the immediate settlement calculated
from the two methods vary widely.
A square footing with dimension of 4.0m is placed at
a depth of 1.5m below ground level. Bearing pressure on
4
the footing is 15t/m2. The Poissons ratio = 0.3 and Influence
factor for centre of square footing has been taken as 1.12
5
(Som and Das, 2003). The following examples demonstrate
typical cases for non-cohesive soil. Non-cohesive soils have
been chosen for the study since immediate settlement is
predominant for such type of soils.
A Realistic Way to Obtain Equivalent Youngs Modulus of Layered Soil 307

Example 1: The degree of compactness of sand layers Layer 1:

increases with depth. Fig. 2 presents corrected N value and
thickness of the sand layers.
Fig. 2: Illustration of Example 1.
Layer 1:
Thickness of layer within zone of influence = 2.5m
E = 750 + 80 x 35 = 3550 t/m2
Layer 2:
Thickness of layer within zone of influence = 2.0m
E = 750 + 80 x 40 = 3950 t/m2
Layer 3:
Thickness of layer within zone of influence = 3.5m
E = 750 + 80 x 50 = 4750 t/m2
As per current practice:
Equivalent E = (2.5 x 3550 + 2.0 x 3950 + 3.5 x 4750) /
(2.5 + 2.0 + 3.5) = 4175 t/m2
After substituting values into equation (1) immediate
settlement is calculated to be 14.6mm
As per suggested method:
Equivalent E = (2.5+2.0+3.5)/[ (2.5/3550) + (2.0/3950) +
(3.5/4750)] = 4108 t/m2
After substituting values into eqn (1) immediate settlement
is calculated to be 14.9mm.
Thus the settlements calculated are almost identical.
Example 2: The properties for Layer-1 of Example 1 have
Thickness of layer within zone of influence = 2.5m
E = 750 + 80 x 10 = 1550 t/m2
Layer 2:
Thickness of layer within zone of influence = 2.0m
E = 750 + 80 x 40 = 3950 t/m2
Layer 3:
Thickness of layer within zone of influence = 3.5m
E = 750 + 80 x 50 = 4750 t/m2
As per current practice:
Equivalent E= (2.5 x 1550 + 2.0 x 3950 + 3.5 x 4750) /
(2.5 + 2.0 + 3.5) = 3550 t/m2
After substituting values into eqn (1) immediate settlement
is calculated to be 17.2mm
As per suggested method:
Equivalent E= (2.5+2.0+3.5)/[ (2.5/1550) + (2.0/3950) +
(3.5/4750)] = 2801 t/m2
After substituting values into eqn (1) immediate settlement
is calculated to be 21.8mm. Thus the settlement calculated
using current practice is lower than the suggested method
by almost 26.7%.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison of the equivalent modulus of elasticity using
the two methods were carried out for various ratios of
modulus of elasticity and various ratio of thickness for a
two layered system. The ratio of E obtained by proposed
method to that obtained by current practice (Eproposed method/
E current practice) has been plotted against ratio of thickness (H2/
H1) for different values of E2/E1 The results are plotted in
Fig 4. Here E 1 =Modulus of elasticity of Layer 1,
H1=Thickness of Layer 1, E2= Modulus of elasticity of Layer
2 and H2= Thickness of Layer 2.
Eproposed method /Ecurrent practice

1.00
been changed from a dense to loose sand.(Fig 3). Properties
of Layer 2 and Layer 3 are same as in Example 1. The size
of footing and depth of foundation has not been altered in 0.75
order have the same depth of influence for both the
examples. Properties of Layer 1 have been altered to
demonstrate that influence of a weaker layer is masked by
0.50
the presence of strong layers within the zone of influence. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
H2/H1

E2/E1=0.2 E2/E1=0.25
E2/E1=0.3333 E2/E1=0.5
E2/E1=1

Fig. 4: Variation of (Eproposed method/E current practice) vs. (H2/H 1) for

Various (E 2/E 1) Ratios
It may be observed from Fig. 4 that the ratio of modulus
of elasticity calculated from the two methods is at its lowest
Fig. 3: Illustration of Example 2.
308
when the thickness of the two layers is same. The value of
Eproposed method/E current practice decreases when the H2/H1 ratio
approaches the value of 1 and increases when the H2/H1
ratio increased beyond the value of 1. The Fig. 4 also
suggests that for a given value of H2/H1 the ratio Eproposed
method
/Ecurrent practice increases with increase of E2/E1 ratio. The
graph also illustrates that the current method of estimation
of equivalent E, always overestimates the equivalent
modulus of elasticity for layered soil deposits, which will
in turn lead to underestimation of immediate settlement of
foundations. This may overestimate the bearing capacity
of the foundation.
7. CONCLUSIONS
1. Determination of Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity
of layered soil deposits appears to be rational if
thickness weighted harmonic mean of individual
modulus of elasticity is obtained instead of
arithmetic mean.
P. Brahma and S.P. Mukherjee
2. Thickness weighted arithmetic mean of modulus
of elasticity always underestimates the immediate
settlement in comparison to settlement obtained
from thickness weighted harmonic mean of
modulus of elasticity. Underestimation of
settlement may lead to overestimation of bearing
capacity of foundations.
REFERENCES
Bowles, J. (1997). Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th
Ed., The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, 308.
Som, N.N., and S. C. Das (2003). Theory and Practice of
Foundation Design. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
43.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., 510.