17 views

Uploaded by erick peñaloza

© All Rights Reserved

- Handbook Review Temporaywork Deep Excavation
- Basic Soil Properties From CPT in Bangkok Clay for Highway Design
- Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building Basements
- 11046697
- Design of Wall _09
- cover
- DeepFoundBC
- OISD-STD-230
- CE Catalogue 14-15 Batch
- earthquake
- Design and Evaluation of Tailings Dams
- Foundations Study Guide
- US MIL Directional Drilling 6
- Seepage Control at Dams
- Chapter 10- WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual
- 2014_Pullout resistance of granular anchors in clay for undrianed condition_Soils and Foundations.pdf
- Geological Terrain Mapping
- Keynote 003
- anudeep ppt
- C.V

You are on page 1of 33

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

shallow foundations on granular soil

Braja M. Das

Dean Emeritus, California State University, Sacramento, U.S.A., brajamdas@gmail.com

Cavit Atalar

Department of Civil Engineering, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus, catalar@neu.edu.tr

Dept. Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Incheon, Incheon, Korea,

ecshin@incheon.ac.kr

KEYWORDS: Cone penetration test, elastic settlement, granular soil, shallow foundation, standard

penetration test

settlement of shallow foundations supported by granular soil are presented and compared. The

discrepancies between the observed and the predicted settlement are primarily due to the inability to

estimate the modulus of elasticity of soil using the results of the standard penetration tests and/or

cone penetration tests. Based on the procedures available at this time, recommendations have been

made for the best estimation of settlement of foundations.

1 INTRODUCTION

The estimation of settlement of shallow foundations is an important topic in the design and

construction of buildings and other related structures. In general, settlement of a foundation consists

of two major componentselastic settlement (Se) and consolidation settlement (Sc). In turn, the

consolidation settlement of a submerged clay layer has two parts; that is, the contribution of primary

consolidation settlement (Sp) and that due to secondary consolidation (Ss). For a foundation supported

by granular soil within the zone of influence of stress distribution, the elastic settlement is the only

component that needs consideration. This paper is a general overview of various aspects of the

elastic settlement of shallow foundations supported by granular soil deposits. During the last fifty

years or so, a number of procedures have been developed to predict elastic settlement; however, there

is a lack of a reliable standardized procedure.

Various methods to calculate the elastic settlement available at the present time can be divided into

two general categories. They are as follows:

1. Methods Based on Observed Settlement of Structures and Full Scale Prototypes. These methods

are empirical or semi-empirical in nature and are correlated with the results of the standard in

situ tests such as the standard penetration test (SPT), the cone penetration test (CPT), the flat

dilatometer test, and the Pressuremeter test (PMT). The procedures usually referred to in practice

now are those developed by Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967), Meyerhof (1956, 1965), DeBeer

9

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

and Martens (1957), Hough (1969), Peck and Bazaraa (1969), Schmertmann (1970),

Schmertmann et al. (1978), Burland and Burbidge (1985), Briaud (2007), and Lee et al. (2008).

2. Methods Based on Theoretical Relationships Derived from the Theory of Elasticity. The

relationships for settlement calculation available in this category contain the term modulus of

elasticity (Es).

The general outline for some of these methods is given in the following sections.

Terzaghi and Peck (1948) proposed the following empirical relationship between the settlement (Se)

of a prototype foundation measuring BB in plan and the settlement of a test plate [Se(1)] measuring

B1B1 loaded to the same intensity

Se 4

= (1)

S e (1) B1 2

1 +

B

Although a full-sized footing can be used for a load test, the normal practice is to employ a plate of

the order of 0.3 m to 1 m. Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) provided the results of 14 sets of load

settlement tests. This is shown in Figure 1 along with the plot of Eq. (1). For these tests, B1 was 0.35

m for circular plates and 0.32 m for square plates. It is obvious from Figure 1 that, although the

general trend is correct, Eq. (1) represents approximately the lower limit of the field test results.

Bazaraa (1967) also provided several field test results. Figure 2 shows the plot of Se/Se(1) versus B/B1

for all tests results provide by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) and Bazaraa (1967) as compiled by

DAppolonia et al. (1970). The overall results with the expanded data base are similar to those in

Figure 1 as they relate to Eq. (1).

Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967) proposed a correlation for the allowable bearing capacity,

standard penetration number (N60), and the width of the foundation (B) corresponding to a 25 -mm

settlement based on the observation given by Eq. (1). This correlation is shown in Figure 3. The

curves shown in Figure 3 can be approximated by the relation

2

3q B

Se (mm) = (2)

N 60 B + 0.3

B = width of foundation (m)

If corrections for ground water table location and depth of embedment are included, then Eq. (2)

takes the form

2

3q B

Se = CW CD (3)

N 60 B + 0.3

CD = correction for depth of embedment = 1 (Df /4B)

Df = depth of embedment

The magnitude of CW is equal to 1.0 if the depth of water table is greater than or equal to 2B

below the foundation, and it is equal to 2.0 if the depth of water table is less than or equal to B below

the foundation. The N60 value that is to be used in Eqs. (2) and (3) should be the average value of N60

up to a depth of about 3B to 4B measured from the bottom of the foundation.

10

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

Figure 1 Variation of Se/Se(1) versus B/B1 from the load settlement results of Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963)

(Note: B1 = 0.36 m for circular plates and 0.32 m for square plates).

Figure 2 Variation of Se/Se(1) versus B/B1 based on the data of Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) and Bazaraa

(1967) (adapted from DAppolonia et al., 1970).

Jayapalan and Boehm (1986) and Papadopoulos (1992) summarized the case histories of 79

foundations. Sivakugan et al (1998) used those case histories to compare with the settlement

predicted by the Terzaghi and Peck method. This comparison is shown in Figure 4. It can be seen

from this figure that, in general, the predicted settlements were significantly higher than those

observed. The average value of Se(predicted)/Se(observed) 2.18.

Similar observations were also made by Bazaraa (1967). With B1 = 0.3 m, Eq. (1) can be

rewritten as

11

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Figure 3. Terzaghi and Pecks (1948, 1967) recommendation for allowable bearing capacity for 25-mm

settlement variation with B and N60.

2

Se

= 4

B

Se (1) B + 0.3

or

B = 1 Se

2

(4)

B + 0.3 4 Se (1)

3q 1 Se

Se =

N 60 4 Se (1)

or

q N 60

= (5)

Se (1) 0.75

Bazaraa (1967) plotted a large number of plate load test results (B1 = 0.3 m) in the form of q/Se(1)

versus N60 as shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the relationship given by Eq. (5) is very

conservative. In fact, q/Se(1) versus N60/0.5 will more closely represent the lower limiting condition.

12

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

Figure 4. Sivakugan et al.s (1998) comparison of predicted with observed settlement for 79 foundations

predicted settlement based on Terzaghi and Peck method (1948, 1967).

4 MEYERHOFS METHOD

In 1956, Meyerhof proposed relationships for the elastic settlement of foundations on granular soil

similar to Eq. (2). In 1965 he compared the predicted (by the relationships proposed in 1956) and

observed settlements of eight structures and suggested that the allowable pressure (q) for a desired

magnitude of Se can be increased by 50% compared to what he recommended in 1956. The revised

relationships including the correction factors for water table location (CW) and depth of embedment

(CD) can be expressed as

13

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

1.25q

S e = CW C D (for B 1.22 m) (6)

N 60

and

2

2q B

Se = CW CD (for B > 1.22 m) (7)

N 60 B + 0.3

CW = 1.0 (8)

and

Df

CD = 1.0 (9)

4B

If these equations are used to predict the settlement of the 79 foundations shown in Figure 4, then we

will obtain Se(predicted)/Se(observed) 1.46. Hence, the predicted settlements will overestimate the

observed values by about 50% on the average.

Table 1 shows the comparison of the maximum observed settlements of mat foundations

considered by Meyerhof (1965) and the settlements predicted by Eq. (7). The ratios of the predicted

to observed settlements are generally in the range of 0.8 to 2. This is also what Meyerhof concluded

in his 1965 paper.

Table 1. Comparison of observed maximum settlements provided by Meyerhof (1965) for eight mat

foundations with those predicted by Eq. (7)

Maximum Se(predicted) S e ( predicted)

B Average q Se(observed) by Eq. (7)

Structure (m) N60 (kN/m2) (mm) (mm) S e ( observed )

T. Edison, Sao Paulo 18.3 15 229.8 15.24 29.66 1.95

Banco do Brasil, Sao Paulo 22.9 18 239.4 27.94 25.74 0.99

Iparanga, Sao Paulo 9.15 9 220.2 35.56 45.88 1.29

C.B.I. Esplanada, Sao Paulo 14.6 22 383.0 27.94 33.43 1.20

Riscala, Sao Paulo 3.96 20 229.8 12.70 19.86 1.56

Thyssen, Dusseldorf 22.6 25 239.4 24.13 18.65 0.77

Ministry, Dusseldorf 15.9 20 220.4 21.59 21.23 0.98

Chimney, Cologne 20.4 10 172.4 10.16 33.49 3.30

Average 1.5

DeBeer and Martens (1957) and DeBeer (1965) proposed the following relationship to estimate the

elastic settlement of a foundation

2.3 +

Se = log10 o H (10)

C o

o = effective overburden pressure at the depth considered

= increase in pressure at that depth due to foundation loading

H = thickness of the layer considered

The value of C can be approximated as

14

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

qc

C 1.5 (11)

o

where qc = cone penetration resistance.

Equation (10) is essentially in the form of the relationship for estimating the consolidation

settlement of normally consolidated clay. We can rewrite Eq. (10) as

Cc +

Se = H log10 o (12)

1 + eo o

Cc

where = 1.5 o (13)

1 + eo qc

Cc = compression index

eo = in situ void ratio

For the field cases considered by DeBeer and Martens (1957), the average ratio of predicted to

observed settlement was about 1.9. DeBeer (1965) further observed that the above stated method

only applies to normally consolidated sands. For overconsolidated sand, a reduction factor needs to

be applied which can be obtained from cyclic loading tests carried out in an oedometer. Hough

(1969) expressed Cc in Eq. (12) as

Cc = a ( eo b) (14)

Value of constant

Type of soil

a b*

Uniform cohesionless material (uniformity coefficient Cu 2)

Clean gravel 0.05 0.50

Coarse sand 0.06 0.50

Medium sand 0.07 0.50

Fine sand 0.08 0.50

Inorganic silt 0.10 0.50

Well-graded cohesionless soil

Silty sand and gravel 0.09 0.20

Clean, coarse to fine sand 0.12 0.35

Coarse to fine silty sand 0.15 0.25

Sandy silt (inorganic) 0.18 0.25

*

The value of the constant b should be taken as emin whenever the latter is known

or can conveniently be determined. Otherwise, use tabulated values as a rough

approximation.

Peck and Bazaraa (1969) recognized that the original Terzaghi and Peck method in Section 3 was

overly conservative and revised Eq. (3) to the following form

2

2q B

Se = CW CD (15)

( N1 )60 B + 0.3

15

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

CW = (16)

o at 0.5B below the bottom of the foundation

o = effective overburden pressure

0 .5

D

CD = 1.0 0.4 f (17)

q

The relationships for (N1)60 are as follow:

4 N 60

( N 1 ) 60 = (for o 75 kN/m2 ) (18)

1 + 0.04 o

and

4 N 60

( N 1 )60 = (for o > 75 kN/m2 ) (19)

3.25 + 0.01 o

DAppolonia et al. (1970) compared the observed settlement of several shallow foundations from

several structures in Indiana (USA) with those estimated using the Peck and Bazaraa method, and

this is shown in Figure 6. It can be seen from this figure that the calculated settlement from theory

greatly overestimates the observed settlement. It appears that this solution will provide nearly the

level of settlement that was obtained from Meyerhofs revised relationships (Section 5).

Figure 6 Plot of measured versus predicted settlement based on Peck and Bazaraas method (adapted from

DAppolonia et al., 1970).

Based on the theory of elasticity, the equation for vertical strain z at a depth below the center of a

flexible circular load of diameter B, can be given as

q(1 + s )

z= [(1 2 s ) A + B]

Es

16

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

or

z Es

Iz = = (1 + s )[(1 2 s ) A + B ] (20)

q

q = load per unit area

Es = modulus of elasticity

s = Poissons ratio

Iz = strain influence factor

Figure 7 shows the variation of Iz with depth based on Eq. (20) for s = 0.4 and 0.5. The

experimental results of Eggestad (1963) for variation of Iz are also given in this figure. Considering

both the theoretical and experimental results cited in Figure 7, Schmertmann (1970) proposed a

simplified distribution of Iz with depth that is generally referred to as 2B0.6Iz distribution and it is

also shown in Figure 7. According to the simplified method,

2B Iz

Se = C1C2 q z (21)

o Es

q

C1 = correction factor for embedment of foundation = 1 0.5 o (22)

q

qo = effective overburden pressure at the level of the foundation

t

C2 = correction factor to account for creep in soil = 1 + 0.2 log (23)

0.1

t = time, in years

For use in Eq. (21) and the strain influence factor shown in Figure 7, it was recommended that

E S = 2 qc (24)

Figure 7 Theoretical and experimental distribution of vertical strain influence factor below the center of a

circular loaded area (based on Schmertmann, 1970).

17

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Figure 8 Sivakugan et al.s comparison (1998) of predicted and observed settlements from 79 foundations

predicted settlement based on 2B0.6Iz procedure.

Figure 9 Revised strain influence factor diagram suggested by Schmertmann et al. (1978).

Sivakugan et al. (1998) used the case histories of the 79 foundations given in Figure 4 and

compared those with the settlements obtained using the strain influence factor shown in Figure 7 and

Eq. (21), and this is shown in Figure 8. From this figure, it can be seen that se(predicted)/Se(observed) 3.39.

Schmertmann et al. (1978) modified the strain influence factor variation (2B0.6Iz) shown in

Figure 7. The revised distribution is shown in Figure 9 for use in Eqs. (21)(23). According to this,

For square or circular foundations:

Iz = 0.1 at z = 0

Iz(peak) at z = zp = 0.5B

Iz = 0 at z = zo = 2B

For foundations with L/B 10:

Iz = 0.2 at z = 0

Iz(peak) at z = zp = B

Iz = 0 at z = zo = 4B

where L = length of foundation. For L/B between 1 and 10, interpolation can be done. Also

18

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

0.5

q

I z ( peak ) = 0.5 + 0.1 (25)

o

The value of o in Eq. (25) is the effective overburden pressure at a depth where Iz(peak) occurs.

Salgado (2008) gave the following interpolation for Iz at z = 0, zp, and zo (for L/B = 1 to L/B 10.

L

I z ( at z =0 ) = 0.1 + 0.0111 0.2 (26)

B

zp L

= 0.5 + 0.0555 1 1 (27)

B B

zo L

= 2 + 0.222 1 4 (28)

B B

Noting that stiffness is about 40% larger for plane strain compared to axisymmetric loading,

Schmertmann et al. (1978) recommended that.

and

With the modified strain-influence factor diagram,

z = zo Iz

S e = C1C2 z (31)

z =0 Es

The modified strain influence factor and Eqs. (29) and (30) will definitely reduce the average ratio of

predicted to observed settlement. However, it may still overestimate the actual elastic settlement in

the field.

More recently some modifications have been proposed to the strain-influence factor diagram

suggested by Schmertmann et al. (1978). Two of these suggestions are discussed below.

The modification suggested by Terzaghi et al. (1996) is shown in Figure 10. For this case, for surface

foundation condition (that is, Df/B = 0)

Iz = 0.2 at z = 0

Iz = Iz(peak) = 0.6 at z = zp = 0.5B

Iz = 0 at z = zo

L

zo = 2 1 + log 4 (32)

B

For Df/B > 0, Iz should be modified to I z . Figure 11 shows the variation of I z / I z with Df/B.

19

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

z = zo I z

Se = q z (33)

z =0 Es

0.1 t

Screep = zo log days (34)

qc 1 day

20

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

(MN/m2)

It has also been suggested that

Es( L / B ) L

= 1 + 0.4 log 1.4 (35)

E s ( L / B =1) B

Figure 12 shows the plot of Es versus qc from 81 foundations and 92 plate load tests on which Eq.

(36) has been established. The magnitude of Es recommended by Eq. (36) is about 40% higher than

that obtained from Eq. (29). Figure 13 shows a comparison of the end-of-construction predicted

[using Eqs. (33), (35) and (36)] and measured settlement of foundations on sand and gravelly soils

(Terzaghi et al., 1996).

Figure 12 Correlation between Es and qc for square and circularly loaded areas [adapted from Terzaghi et al.

(1996)].

Figure 13 Comparison of end of construction predicted and measured Se of foundations on sand and gravelly

soils based on Eqs. (33), (35) and (36) [adapted from Terzaghi et al. (1996)].

21

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Based on finite element analysis, Lee et al. (2008) suggested the following modifications to the strain

influence factor diagram suggested by Schmertmann et al. (1978). This assumes that Iz(peak) and Iz at z

= 0 is the same as given by Eqs. (25) and (26). However Eqs. (27) and (28) are modified as

zp L L

= 0.5 + 0.11 1 with a maximum of 1 at = 6 (37)

B B B

zo L L

= 0.95 cos 1 + 3 with a maximum at = 6 (38)

B 5 B B

With these modifications, the elastic settlement can be calculated using Eq. (21).

Burland and Burbidge (1985) proposed a method for calculating the elastic settlement of sandy soil

using the field standard penetration number N60. The method can be summarized as follows:

Obtain the field penetration numbers (N60) with depth at the location of the foundation. The

following adjustments of N60 may be necessary, depending on the field conditions:

For fine sand or silty sand below the ground water table and N60 > 15,

N 60(a) 15 + 0.5( N 60 15) (40)

In determining the depth of stress influence, the following three cases may arise:

Case I. If N60 [or N60(a)] is approximately constant with depth, calculate z' from

0 .75

z B

= 1.4 (41)

BR BR

B = width of the actual foundation (m)

Case II. If N60 [or N60(a)] is increasing with depth, use Eq. (41) to calculate z'.

Case III. If N60 [or N60(a)] is decreasing with depth, calculate z' = 2B and z' = distance from the

bottom of the foundation to the bottom of the soft soil layer (= z"). Use z' = 2B or z' = z" (whichever

is smaller).

22

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

H H

= 2 1 (42)

z z

A. For normally consolidated soil

2

L

Se 1.71 1.25 B B

0 .7

q

= 0.14 (43)

1.4

BR [

N 60 orN 60(a) ] 0.25 + L

BR pa

B

pa = atmospheric pressure ( 100 kN/m2)

B. For overconsolidated soil (q c ; where c = overconsolidation pressure)

2

L

Se 0.57 1.25 B B

0 .7

q

= 0.047 (44)

1.4

BR [

N 60 or N 60(a) ] 0.25 + L

BR pa

B

2

L

Se 0.57 1.25 B B

0 .7

q 0.67 c

= 0.14 (45)

1.4

BR [

N 60 or N 60(a) ] 0.25 + L BR pa

B

Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) used a probabilistic approach to compare the predicted settlements

obtained by the methods of Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967), Schmertmann et al. (1970), and Burland

and Burbidge (1985). Table 3 gives a summary of their studythat is, predicted settlement versus

the probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field. This shows that the method of Burland

and Burbidge (1985), although conservative, is a substantially improved technique to estimate elastic

settlement.

(PMT)

Briaud (2007) presented a method based on field Pressuremeter tests to develop a load-settlement

curve for a given foundation from which the elastic settlement at a given load intensity can be

estimated. This takes into account the foundation load eccentricity, load inclination, and the location

23

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Predicted Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in field

settlement Terzaghi and Peck Schmertmann et al. Burland and

(mm) (1948, 1967) (1970) Burbidge (1985)

1 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.03

10 0.00 0.02 0.15

15 0.09 0.13 0.25

20 0.20 0.20 0.34

25 0.26 0.27 0.42

30 0.31 0.32 0.49

35 0.35 0.37 0.55

40 0.387 0.42 0.61

Compiled from Sivakugan and Johnson (2004)

of the foundation on a slope (Figure 14). Following is a step-by-step procedure of the procedure

suggested by Briaud (2007).

1. Conduct several Pressuremeter tests at the site at various depths.

2. Plot the PMT curves as pressure pp on the cavity wall versus relative increase in cavity radius

R/Ro. Extend the straight line part of the PMT curve to zero pressure and shift the vertical axis

to the value of R/Ro where that strain line portion intersects the horizontal axis (Figure 15).

3. Plot the strain influence factor diagram proposed by Schmertmann et al. (1978) for the

foundation. Based on the pp versus R/Ro diagrams (Step 2) and the location of the depth of the

tests, develop a mean plot of pp versus R/Ro as shown in Figure 16.

The mean pp for a given R/Ro can be given as

A1 A A

p p ( mean ) = p p (1) + 2 p p ( 2 ) + 3 p p ( 3) + . . . (46)

A A A

where A1, A2, A3, . . . are the areas tributary to each test under the influence diagram

A = total area of the strain-influence factor diagram

24

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

4. Convert the plot of pp(mean) versus R/Ro plot to q versus Se/B plot using the following equations.

q = ( )( f L / B f e f f ,d ) p p ( mean ) (47)

Se R

= 0.24 (48)

B Ro

B

f B / L = shape factor = 0.8 + 0.2 (49)

L

e

f e = load eccentricity factor = 1 0.33 (center) (50)

B

0.5

e

fe = 1 (edge) (51)

B

25

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

(degrees)

f = inclination factor = 1 (center) (52)

90

0.5

(degrees)

f = 1 (edge) (53)

360

0.1

d

f ,d = slope factor = 0.81 + (3 : 1 slope) (54)

B

0.15

d

f ,d = 0.71 + (2 : 1 slope) (55)

B

5. Based on the load-settlement diagram developed in Step 4, obtain the actual Se(maximum) which

corresponds to the actual intensity of load q to which the foundation will be subjected.

6. To account for creep over the life-span of the structure,

0.3

t

Se (t ) Se (maximum) (56)

t1

Se(maximum) = settlement obtained from Step 5

t = time, in minutes

t1 = reference time = 1 minute

Based on the observations made on elastic settlement calculation using empirical correlations and the

wide range in the predictions obtained, it is desirable to consider alternative solutions based on the

theory of elasticity. With that in mind, Figure 18 shows a schematic diagram of the elastic settlement

profile for a flexible and rigid foundation. The shallow foundation measures BL in plan and is

located at a depth Df below the ground surface. A rock layer (or a rigid layer) is located at a depth H

below the bottom of the foundation.

26

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

Theoretically, if the foundation is perfectly flexible (Figure 18), the settlement may be expressed as

(see Bowles, 1987)

1 s2

S e = q( B ) IsI f (57)

Es

s = Poissons ratio of soil

Es = average modulus of elasticity of the soil under the foundation, measured from z =

0 to about z = 4B

B' = B/2 for center of foundation (= B for corner of foundation)

1 2 s

Is = shape factor (Steinbrenner, 1934) = F1 + F2 (58)

1 s

1

F1 = ( A0 + A1 ) (59)

n

F2 = tan 1 A2 (60)

2

(1 + )

m2 + 1 m2 + n2

A0 = m ln

(

m 1+ m + n2 +1

2

) (61)

A1 = ln

(m + )

m2 + 1 1 + n2

(62)

m + m + n2 +1

2

m

A2 = (63)

n + m2 + n2 + 1

Df L

I f = depth factor (Fox, 1948) = f , s , and (64)

B B

' = a factor that depends on the location below the foundation where settlement is being

calculated

To calculate settlement at the center of the foundation, we use

27

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

= 4 (65)

L

m= (66)

B

and

H

n= (67)

B

2

=1 (68)

L

m=

B

and

H

n=

B

The variations of F1 and F2 with m and n are given Tables 4 and 5. Based on the works of Fox

(1948), the variations of depth factor If for s = 0.3 and 0.4 and L/B have been determined by Bowles

(1987) and are given in Table 6. Note that If is not a function of H/B.

Due to the non-homogeneous nature of a soil deposit, the magnitude of Es may vary with depth.

For that reason, Bowles (1987) recommended

E s ( i ) z

Es = (69)

z

z = 5B or H (if H < 5B)

Bowles (1987) also recommended that

Bowles (1987) compared this theory with 12 case histories that provided reasonable good results.

28

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

m

n

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.25 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.50 0.049 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.041 0.040 0.038 0.038 0.037 0.037

0.75 0.095 0.090 0.087 0.084 0.082 0.080 0.077 0.076 0.074 0.074

1.00 0.142 0.138 0.134 0.130 0.127 0.125 0.121 0.118 0.116 0.115

1.25 0.186 0.183 0.179 0.176 0.173 0.170 0.165 0.161 0.158 0.157

1.50 0.224 0.224 0.222 0.219 0.216 0.213 0.207 0.203 0.199 0.197

1.75 0.257 0.259 0.259 0.258 0.255 0.253 0.247 0.242 0.238 0.235

2.00 0.285 0.290 0.292 0.292 0.291 0.289 0.284 0.279 0.275 0.271

2.25 0.309 0.317 0.321 0.323 0.323 0.322 0.317 0.313 0.308 0.305

2.50 0.330 0.341 0.347 0.350 0.351 0.351 0.348 0.344 0.340 0.336

2.75 0.348 0.361 0.369 0.374 0.377 0.378 0.377 0.373 0.369 0.365

3.00 0.363 0.379 0.389 0.396 0.400 0.402 0.402 0.400 0.396 0.392

3.25 0.376 0.394 0.406 0.415 0.420 0.423 0.426 0.424 0.421 0.418

3.50 0.388 0.408 0.422 0.431 0.438 0.442 0.447 0.447 0.444 0.441

3.75 0.399 0.420 0.436 0.447 0.454 0.460 0.467 0.458 0.466 0.464

4.00 0.408 0.431 0.448 0.460 0.469 0.476 0.484 0.487 0.486 0.484

4.25 0.417 0.440 0.458 0.472 0.481 0.484 0.495 0.514 0.515 0.515

4.50 0.424 0.450 0.469 0.484 0.495 0.503 0.516 0.521 0.522 0.522

4.75 0.431 0.458 0.478 0.494 0.506 0.515 0.530 0.536 0539 0.539

5.00 0.437 0.465 0.487 0.503 0.516 0.526 0.543 0.551 0.554 0.554

5.25 0.443 0.472 0.494 0.512 0.526 0.537 0.555 0.564 0.568 0.569

5.50 0.448 0.478 0.501 0.520 0.534 0.546 0.566 0.576 0.581 0.584

5.75 0.453 0.483 0.508 0.527 0.542 0.555 0.576 0.588 0.594 0.597

6.00 0.457 0.489 0.514 0.534 0.550 0.563 0.585 0.598 0.606 0.609

6.25 0.461 0.493 0.519 0.540 0.557 0.570 0.594 0.609 0.617 0.621

6.50 0.465 0.498 0.524 0.546 0.563 0.577 0.603 0.618 0.627 0.632

6.75 0.468 0.502 0.529 0.551 0.569 0.584 0.610 0.627 0.637 0.643

7.00 0.471 0.506 0.533 0.556 0.575 0.590 0.618 0.635 0.646 0.653

7.25 0.474 0.509 0.538 0.561 0.580 0.596 0.625 0.643 0.655 0.662

7.50 0.477 0.513 0.541 0.565 0.585 0.601 0.631 0.650 0.663 0.671

7.75 0.480 0.516 0.545 0.569 0.589 0.606 0.637 0.658 0.671 0.680

8.00 0.482 0.519 0.549 0.573 0.594 0.611 0.643 0.664 0.678 0.688

8.25 0.485 0.522 0.552 0.577 0.598 0.615 0.648 0.670 0.685 0.695

8.50 0.487 0.524 0.555 0.580 0.601 0.619 0.653 0.676 0.692 0.703

8.75 0.489 0.527 0.558 0.583 0.605 0.623 0.658 0.682 0.698 0.710

9.00 0.491 0.529 0.560 0.587 0.609 0.627 0.663 0.687 0.705 0.716

9.25 0.493 0.531 0.563 0.589 0.612 0.631 0.667 0.693 0.710 0.723

9.50 0.495 0.533 0.565 0.592 0.615 0.634 0.671 0.697 0.716 0.719

9.75 0.496 0.536 0.568 0.595 0.618 0.638 0.675 0.702 0.721 0.735

10.00 0.498 0.537 0.570 0.597 0.621 0.641 0.679 0.707 0.726 0.740

20.00 0.529 0.575 0.614 0.647 0.677 0.702 0.756 0.797 0.830 0.858

50.00 0.548 0.598 0.640 0.678 0.711 0.740 0.803 0.853 0.895 0.931

100.00 0.555 0.605 0.649 0.688 0.722 0.753 0.819 0.872 0.918 0.956

29

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Table 4. (Continued)

m

n

4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0

0.25 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.50 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036

0.75 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071

1.00 0.114 0.113 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.111 0.111 0.110 0.110 0.110

1.25 0.155 0.154 0.153 0.152 0.152 0.151 0.151 0.150 0.150 0.150

1.50 0.195 0.194 0.192 0.191 0.190 0.190 0.189 0.188 0.188 0.188

1.75 0.233 0.232 0.229 0.228 0.227 0.226 0.225 0.223 0.223 0.223

2.00 0.269 0.267 0.264 0.262 0.261 0.260 0.259 0.257 0.256 0.256

2.25 0.302 0.300 0.296 0.294 0.293 0.291 0.291 0.287 0.287 0.287

2.50 0.333 0.331 0.327 0.324 0.322 0.321 0.320 0.316 0.315 0.315

2.75 0.362 0.359 0.355 0.352 0.350 0.348 0.347 0.343 0.342 0.342

3.00 0.389 0.386 0.382 0.378 0.376 0.374 0.373 0.368 0.367 0.367

3.25 0.415 0.412 0.407 0.403 0.401 0.399 0.397 0.391 0.390 0.390

3.50 0.438 0.435 0.430 0.427 0.424 0.421 0.420 0.413 0.412 0.411

3.75 0.461 0.458 0.453 0.449 0.446 0.443 0.441 0.433 0.432 0.432

4.00 0.482 0.479 0.474 0.470 0.466 0.464 0.462 0.453 0.451 0.451

4.25 0.516 0.496 0.484 0.473 0.471 0.471 0.470 0.468 0.462 0.460

4.50 0.520 0.517 0.513 0.508 0.505 0.502 0.499 0.489 0.487 0.487

4.75 0.537 0.535 0.530 0.526 0.523 0.519 0.517 0.506 0.504 0.503

5.00 0.554 0.552 0.548 0.543 0.540 0.536 0.534 0.522 0.519 0.519

5.25 0.569 0.568 0.564 0.560 0.556 0.553 0.550 0.537 0.534 0.534

5.50 0.584 0.583 0.579 0.575 0.571 0.568 0.585 0.551 0.549 0.548

5.75 0.597 0.597 0.594 0.590 0.586 0.583 0.580 0.565 0.583 0.562

6.00 0.611 0.610 0.608 0.604 0.601 0.598 0.595 0.579 0.576 0.575

6.25 0.623 0.623 0.621 0.618 0.615 0.611 0.608 0.592 0.589 0.588

6.50 0.635 0.635 0.634 0.631 0.628 0.625 0.622 0.605 0.601 0.600

6.75 0.646 0.647 0.646 0.644 0.641 0.637 0.634 0.617 0.613 0.612

7.00 0.656 0.658 0.658 0.656 0.653 0.650 0.647 0.628 0.624 0.623

7.25 0.666 0.669 0.669 0.668 0.665 0.662 0.659 0.640 0.635 0.634

7.50 0.676 0.679 0.680 0.679 0.676 0.673 0.670 0.651 0.646 0.645

7.75 0.685 0.688 0.690 0.689 0.687 0.684 0.681 0.661 0.656 0.655

8.00 0.694 0.697 0.700 0.700 0.698 0.695 0.692 0.672 0.666 0.665

8.25 0.702 0.706 0.710 0.710 0.708 0.705 0.703 0.682 0.676 0.675

8.50 0.710 0.714 0.719 0.719 0.718 0.715 0.713 0.692 0.686 0.684

8.75 0.717 0.722 0.727 0.728 0.727 0.725 0.723 0.701 0.695 0.693

9.00 0.725 0.730 0.736 0.737 0.736 0.735 0.732 0.710 0.704 0.702

9.25 0.731 0.737 0.744 0.746 0.745 0.744 0.742 0.719 0.713 0.711

9.50 0.738 0.744 0.752 0.754 0.754 0.753 0.751 0.728 0.721 0.719

9.75 0.744 0.751 0.759 0.762 0.762 0.761 0.759 0.737 0.729 0.727

10.00 0.750 0.758 0.766 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.768 0.745 0.738 0.735

20.00 0.878 0.896 0.925 0.945 0.959 0.969 0.977 0.982 0.965 0.957

50.00 0.962 0.989 1.034 1.070 1.100 1.125 1.146 1.265 1.279 1.261

100.00 0.990 1.020 1.072 1.114 1.150 1.182 1.209 1.408 1.489 1.499

30

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

m

n 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.25 0.049 0.050 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052

0.50 0.074 0.077 0.080 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.086 0.086 0.087 0.087

0.75 0.083 0.089 0.093 0.097 0.099 0.101 0.104 0.106 0.107 0.108

1.00 0.083 0.091 0.098 0.102 0.106 0.109 0.114 0.117 0.119 0.120

1.25 0.080 0.089 0.096 0.102 0.107 0.111 0.118 0.122 0.125 0.127

1.50 0.075 0.084 0.093 0.099 0.105 0.110 0.118 0.124 0.128 0.130

1.75 0.069 0.079 0.088 0.095 0.101 0.107 0.117 0.123 0.128 0.131

2.00 0.064 0.074 0.083 0.090 0.097 0.102 0.114 0.121 0.127 0.131

2.25 0.059 0.069 0.077 0.085 0.092 0.098 0.110 0.119 0.125 0.130

2.50 0.055 0.064 0.073 0.080 0.087 0.093 0.106 0.115 0.122 0.127

2.75 0.051 0.060 0.068 0.076 0.082 0.089 0.102 0.111 0.119 0.125

3.00 0.048 0.056 0.064 0.071 0.078 0.084 0.097 0.108 0.116 0.122

3.25 0.045 0.053 0.060 0.067 0.074 0.080 0.093 0.104 0.112 0.119

3.50 0.042 0.050 0.057 0.068 0.070 0.076 0.089 0.100 0.109 0.116

3.75 0.040 0.047 0.054 0.060 0.067 0.073 0.086 0.096 0.105 0.113

4.00 0.037 0.044 0.051 0.057 0.063 0.069 0.082 0.093 0.102 0.110

4.25 0.036 0.042 0.049 0.055 0.061 0.066 0.079 0.090 0.099 0.107

4.50 0.034 0.040 0.046 0.052 0.058 0.063 0.076 0.086 0.096 0.104

4.75 0.032 0.038 0.044 0.050 0.055 0.061 0.073 0.083 0.093 0.101

5.00 0.031 0.036 0.042 0.048 0.053 0.058 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.098

5.25 0.029 0.035 0.040 0.046 0.051 0.056 0.067 0.078 0.087 0.095

5.50 0.028 0.033 0.039 0.044 0.049 0.054 0.065 0.075 0.084 0.092

5.75 0.027 0.032 0.037 0.042 0.047 0.052 0.063 0.073 0.082 0.090

6.00 0.026 0.031 0.036 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.079 0.087

6.25 0.025 0.030 0.034 0.039 0.044 0.048 0.058 0.068 0.077 0.085

6.50 0.024 0.029 0.033 0.038 0.042 0.046 0.056 0.066 0.075 0.083

6.75 0.023 0.028 0.032 0.036 0.041 0.045 0.055 0.064 0.073 0.080

7.00 0.022 0.027 0.031 0.035 0.039 0.043 0.053 0.062 0.071 0.078

7.25 0.022 0.026 0.030 0.034 0.038 0.042 0.051 0.060 0.069 0.076

7.50 0.021 0.025 0.029 0.033 0.037 0.041 0.050 0.059 0.067 0.074

7.75 0.020 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.036 0.039 0.048 0.057 0.065 0.072

8.00 0.020 0.023 0.027 0.031 0.035 0.038 0.047 0.055 0.063 0.071

8.25 0.019 0.023 0.026 0.030 0.034 0.037 0.046 0.054 0.062 0.069

8.50 0.018 0.022 0.026 0.029 0.033 0.036 0.045 0.053 0.060 0.067

8.75 0.018 0.021 0.025 0.028 0.032 0.035 0.043 0.051 0.059 0.066

9.00 0.017 0.021 0.024 0.028 0.031 0.034 0.042 0.050 0.057 0.064

9.25 0.017 0.020 0.024 0.027 0.030 0.033 0.041 0.049 0.056 0.063

9.50 0.017 0.020 0.023 0.026 0.029 0.033 0.040 0.048 0.055 0.061

9.75 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.026 0.029 0.032 0.039 0.047 0.054 0.060

10.00 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.038 0.046 0.052 0.059

20.00 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.020 0.024 0.027 0.031

50.00 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013

100.00 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006

31

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Table 5. (continued)

m

n 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0

0.25 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053

0.50 0.087 0.087 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088

0.75 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.111 0.111 0.111

1.00 0.121 0.122 0.123 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.125 0.125 0.125

1.25 0.128 0.130 0.131 0.132 0.132 0.133 0.133 0.134 0.134 0.134

1.50 0.132 0.134 0.136 0.137 0.138 0.138 0.139 0.140 0.140 0.140

1.75 0.134 0.136 0.138 0.140 0.141 0.142 0.142 0.144 0.144 0.145

2.00 0.134 0.136 0.139 0.141 0.143 0.144 0.145 0.147 0.147 0.148

2.25 0.133 0.136 0.140 0.142 0.144 0.145 0.146 0.149 0.150 0.150

2.50 0.132 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.144 0.146 0.147 0.151 0.151 0.151

2.75 0.130 0.133 0.138 0.142 0.144 0.146 0.147 0.152 0.152 0.153

3.00 0.127 0.131 0.137 0.141 0.144 0.145 0.147 0.152 0.153 0.154

3.25 0.125 0.129 0.135 0.140 0.143 0.145 0.147 0.153 0.154 0.154

3.50 0.122 0.126 0.133 0.138 0.142 0.144 0.146 0.153 0.155 0.155

3.75 0.119 0.124 0.131 0.137 0.141 0.143 0.145 0.154 0.155 0.155

4.00 0.116 0.121 0.129 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.145 0.154 0.155 0.156

4.25 0.113 0.119 0.127 0.133 0.138 0.141 0.144 0.154 0.156 0.156

4.50 0.110 0.116 0.125 0.131 0.136 0.140 0.143 0.154 0.156 0.156

4.75 0.107 0.113 0.123 0.130 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.154 0.156 0.157

5.00 0.105 0.111 0.120 0.128 0.133 0.137 0.140 0.154 0.156 0.157

5.25 0.102 0.108 0.118 0.126 0.131 0.136 0.139 0.154 0.156 0.157

5.50 0.099 0.106 0.116 0.124 0.130 0.134 0.138 0.154 0.156 0.157

5.75 0.097 0.103 0.113 0.122 0.128 0.133 0.136 0.154 0.157 0.157

6.00 0.094 0.101 0.111 0.120 0.126 0.131 0.135 0.153 0.157 0.157

6.25 0.092 0.098 0.109 0.118 0.124 0.129 0.134 0.153 0.157 0.158

6.50 0.090 0.096 0.107 0.116 0.122 0.128 0.132 0.153 0.157 0.158

6.75 0.087 0.094 0.105 0.114 0.121 0.126 0.131 0.153 0.157 0.158

7.00 0.085 0.092 0.103 0.112 0.119 0.125 0.129 0.152 0.157 0.158

7.25 0.083 0.090 0.101 0.110 0.117 0.123 0.128 0.152 0.157 0.158

7.50 0.081 0.088 0.099 0.108 0.115 0.121 0.126 0.152 0.156 0.158

7.75 0.079 0.086 0.097 0.106 0.114 0.120 0.125 0.151 0.156 0.158

8.00 0.077 0.084 0.095 0.104 0.112 0.118 0.124 0.151 0.156 0.158

8.25 0.076 0.082 0.093 0.102 0.110 0.117 0.122 0.150 0.156 0.158

8.50 0.074 0.080 0.091 0.101 0.108 0.115 0.121 0.150 0.156 0.158

8.75 0.072 0.078 0.089 0.099 0.107 0.114 0.119 0.150 0.156 0.158

9.00 0.071 0.077 0.888 0.097 0.105 0.112 0.118 0.149 0.156 0.158

9.25 0.069 0.075 0.086 0.096 0.104 0.110 0.116 0.149 0.156 0.158

9.50 0.068 0.074 0.085 0.094 0.102 0.109 0.115 0.148 0.156 0.158

9.75 0.066 0.072 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.107 0.113 0.148 0.156 0.158

10.00 0.065 0.071 0.082 0.091 0.099 0.106 0.112 0.147 0.156 0.158

20.00 0.035 0.039 0.046 0.053 0.059 0.065 0.071 0.124 0.148 0.156

50.00 0.014 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.071 0.113 0.142

100.00 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.039 0.071 0.113

32

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

L/B

Df/B 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 5.0

Poissons ratio s = 0.30

0.05 0.979 0.981 0.982 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.990

0.10 0.954 0.958 0.962 0.964 0.966 0.968 0.977

0.20 0.902 0.911 0.917 0.923 0.927 0.930 0.951

0.40 0.808 0.823 0.834 0.843 0.851 0.857 0.899

0.60 0.738 0.754 0.767 0.778 0.788 0.796 0.852

0.80 0.687 0.703 0.716 0.728 0.738 0.747 0.813

1.00 0.650 0.665 0.678 0.689 0.700 0.709 0.780

2.00 0.562 0.571 0.580 0.588 0.596 0.603 0.675

Poissons ratio s = 0.40

0.05 0.989 0.990 0.991 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.995

0.10 0.973 0.976 0.978 0.980 0.981 0.982 0.988

0.20 0.932 0.940 0.945 0.949 0.952 0.955 0.970

0.40 0.848 0.862 0.872 0.881 0.887 0.893 0.927

0.60 0.779 0.795 0.808 0.819 0.828 0.836 0.886

0.80 0.727 0.743 0.757 0.769 0.779 0.788 0.849

1.00 0.689 0.704 0.718 0.730 0.740 0.749 0.818

2.00 0.596 0.606 0.615 0.624 0.632 0.640 0.714

*

Adapted from Bowles (1987)

Mayne and Poulos (1999) presented an improved formula for calculating the elastic settlement of

foundations. The formula takes into account the rigidity of the foundation, the depth of embedment

of the foundation, the increase in the modulus of elasticity of the soil with depth, and the location of

rigid layers at a limited depth. To use the equation of Mayne and Poulos, one needs to determine the

equivalent diameter Be of a rectangular foundation, or

4 BL

Be = (72)

Be = B (73)

Figure 19 shows a foundation with an equivalent diameter Be located at a depth Df below the

ground surface. Let the thickness of the foundation be t and the modulus of elasticity of the

foundation material be Ef. A rigid layer is located at a depth H below the bottom of the foundation.

33

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

E s = Eo + kz (74)

With the preceding parameters defined, the elastic settlement below the center of the foundation

is

Se =

qBe I G I R I E

(1 s2 ) (75)

Eo

E H

where I G = influence factor for the variation of E s with depth = f = o ,

kBe Be

IR = foundation rigidity correction factor

IE = foundation embedment correction factor

Figure 20 shows the variation of IG with = Eo/kBe and H/Be. The foundation rigidity correction

factor can be expressed as

1

IR = + (76)

4

Ef 2t 3

4.6 + 10

E + Be k Be

o

2

Similarly, the embedment correction factor is

1

IE = 1 (77)

B

3.5 exp(1.22 s 0.4) e + 1.6

Df

Figures 21 and 22 show the variation of IR with IE as a function of the terms expressed in Eqs.

(76) and (77).

34

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) proposed a method to estimate the elastic settlement that takes into

account the variation of the modulus of elasticity of soil with the strain level. This method is also

described by Berardi et al. (1991). According to this procedure,

qB

Se = I s (78)

Es

Es = modulus of elasticity of soil

The variation of Is (Tsytovich, 1951) with Poissons ratio s = 0.15 is given in Table 7.

Table 7. Variation of Is

Depth of influence HI /B

L/B 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

1 0.35 0.56 0.63 0.69

2 0.39 0.65 0.76 0.88

3 0.40 0.67 0.81 0.96

5 0.41 0.68 0.84 0.99

10 0.42 0.71 0.89 1.06

35

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

Using analytical and numerical evaluations, Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) have shown that, for a

circular foundation,

where H25 = depth from the bottom of the foundation below which the residual settlement is 25% of

the total settlement

The above implies that H25 2.5B for practically all foundations. Thus the depth of influence HI can

be taken to be H25. The modulus of elasticity Es in Eq. (78) can be evaluated as (Janbu, 1963)

0 .5

+ 0.5

E s = K E pa o (81)

pa

o and ' = effective overburden pressure and net effective stress increase due to the

foundation loading, respectively, at a depth B/2 below the foundation

KE = dimensionless modulus number

After reanalyzing the performance of 130 structures foundations on predominantly silica sand as

reported by Burland and Burbidge (1985), Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) obtained the variation of

KE with the relative density Dr at Se/B = 0.1% and KE at varying strain levels. Figures 23 and 24 show

the average variation of KE with Dr at Se/B = 0.1% and K E ( Se /B ) / K E ( Se /B =0 .1%) with Se/B.

In order to estimate the elastic settlement of the foundation, an iterative procedure is suggested

which can be described as follows:

1. Determine the variation of the blow count N60 from standard penetration tests within the zone of

influence, that is H25.

2. Determine the corrected blow count (N1)60 as

2

( N1 )60 = N 60 (82)

1 + 0.01 o

3. Determine the average corrected blow count from standard penetration tests (N 1 ) 60 and hence the

average relative density as

0.5

N

Dr = 1 (83)

60

4. With a known value of Dr, determine K E ( Se /B =0 .1%) from Figure 23 and hence Es from Eq. (81) for

Se/B = 0.1%

5. With the known value of Es (Step 4), the magnitude of Se can be calculated from Eq. (78).

6. If the calculated Se/B is not the same as the assumed value, then use the calculated value of Se/B

from Step 5 and Figure 24 to estimate a revised K E ( Se /B ) . This value can now be used in Eqs. (81)

and (78) to obtain a revised Se. The iterative procedures can be continued until the assumed and

calculated values are the same.

36

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

Figure 23 Variation of KE with Dr and N60 (adapted from Berardi and Lancellotta, 1991).

Figure 24 Plot of K E ( Se /B ) / K E ( Se /B =0 .1%) with Se/B (adapted from Berardi and Lancellotta, 1991).

Based on a probabilistic study conducted by Sivakugan and Johnson (2004), the probability of

exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field for various predicted settlement levels using the iteration

procedure of Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) is shown in Table 8. When compared with Table 3, this

shows a promise of improved prediction in elastic settlement.

Table 8. Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in the fieldprocedure of Berardi and Lancellotta (1991)

(based on Sivakugan and Johnson, 2004)

Predicted settlement Probability of exceeding 25 mm in the field

(mm) (%)

1 6

5 19

10 32

15 43

20 52

25 60

30 66

35 72

40 77

37

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

A general review of the major developments over the last sixty years for estimating elastic settlement

of shallow foundations on granular soil is presented. Based on the above review, the following

general observations can be made.

1. Meyerhofs relationship (1965) is fairly simple to use. It will probably yield predicted

settlements that are 50% higher on the average than those observed in the field. Peck and

Bazaraas method (1969) provides results that are almost similar to those obtained from

Meyerhofs method (1965).

2. Burland and Burbidges solution (1985) will provide more reasonable estimations of Se than

those obtained from the solution of Meyerhof (1965). However it will be difficult to determine

the overconsolidation ratio and the preconsolidation pressure for granular soils from field

exploration.

3. The modified strain influence factor diagrams presented by Schmertmann et al. (1978), Terzaghi

et al. (1996), and Lee et al. (2008) will all provide reasonable estimations of the elastic

settlement provided a more realistic value of Es is assumed in the calculation. The authors feel

that the empirical relationships for Es provided by Eqs. (35) and (36) are more reasonable.

4. The relationships for Es provided by Eqs. (35) and (36) are based on the field cone penetration

resistance. These equations can be converted to expressions in terms of N60 and D50 (mean grain

size). Figure 25 shows some of the relationships available in the literature. Based on the data of

Burland and Burbidge et al. (1985)

qc

pa = 8D 0.305 (84)

50

N 60

Based on the data of Robertson and Campanella (1983) and Seed and DeAlba (1986)

qc

pa = 6D 0.228 (85)

50

N 60

qc

pa = 7.6429 D 0.26 (86)

50

N 60

D50 = mean grain size, in mm.

5. The procedure for developing the load-settlement plot based on Pressuremeter tests is a versatile

technique; however, the cost effectiveness should be taken into account.

6. Relationships for elastic settlement using the theory of elasticity will be equally as good as the

other methods, provided a realistic value of Es is adopted. This can be accomplished using the

iteration method suggested by Berardi and Lancellotta (1991). In lieu of that, the Es relationship

given by Terzaghi et al. (1996) can be used.

38

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

Figure 25 Variation of (qc/pa)/N60 with D50. (a) Adapted from Terzaghi et al. (1996); (b) Adapted from

Anagnostopoulos, 2003).

In his landmark paper in 1927 entitled The Science of Foundations, Karl Terzaghi wrote

Foundation problems, throughout, are of such character that a strictly theoretical mathematical

treatment will always be impossible. The only way to handle them efficiently consists of finding out,

first, what has happened on preceding jobs of a similar character; next, the kind of soil on which the

operations were performed; and, finally, why the operations have lead to certain results. By

systematically accumulating such knowledge, the empirical data being well defined by the results of

adequate soil investigations, foundation engineering could be developed into a semi-empirical

science, . . . .

What is presented in this paper is a systematic accumulation of knowledge and data over the past

sixty years. In summary, the parameters for comparing settlement prediction methods are accuracy

and reliability. Reliability is the probability that the actual settlement would be less than that

computed by a specific method. In choosing a method for design, it all comes down to keeping a

critical balance between reliability and accuracy which can be difficult at times knowing the non-

homogeneous nature of soil in general. We cannot be over-conservative but, at the same time, not be

accurate. We need to keep in mind what Karl Terzaghi said in the 45th James Forrest Lecture at the

Institute of Civil Engineers in London: Foundation failures that occur are not longer an act of

God.

39

d

2n International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

28-30 May 2009, Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus

REFERENCES

Anagostopoulos, A., Kourkis, G., Sabatakakis, N. & Tsiambaos, G. 2003. Empirical correlation of soil

parameters based on cone penetration tests (CPT) for Greek soils. Geotechnical and Geological

Engineering, 21(4): 377-387.

Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. 1967. Use of the standard penetration test for estimating settlements of shallow foundations

on sand. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.

Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M. & Lancellotta, R. 1991. Settlement of shallow foundations in sands: selection of

stiffness on the basis of penetration resistance. Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991, Geotechnical

Special Publication 27, ASCE, 185-200.

Berardi, R. & Lancellotta, R. 1991. Stiffness of granular soil from field performance. Geotechnique, 41(1):

149-157.

Bjerrum, L. & Eggestad, A. 1963. Interpretation of load test on sand. Proceedings, European Conference on

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, West Germany, 1: 199.

Bowles, J.E. 1987. Elastic foundation settlement on sand deposits. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

ASCE, 113(8): 846-860.

Briaud, J.L. 2007. Spread footing on sand: load settlement curve approach. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133(8): 905-920.

Burland, J.B. & Burbidge, M.C. 1985. Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel. Proceedings, Institution

of Civil Engineers, 78(1): 1325-1381.

DAppolonia, D.J., DAppolonia, E. & Brissette, R.F. 1970. Settlement of spread footings on sand: closure.

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(2): 754-762.

DeBeer, E.E. 1965. Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations on sand. Proceedings, Symposium

on Bearing Capacity Settlement of Foundations, Duke University, Durham, N.C., 15-33.

DeBeer, E. & Martens, A. 1957. Method of computation of an upper limit for the influence of heterogeneity of

sand layers in the settlement of bridges. Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, London, 1: 275-281.

Eggestad, A. 1963. Deformation measurements below a model footing on the surface of dry sand. Proceedings,

European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, 1: 233-239.

Fox, E.N. 1948. The mean elastic settlement of a uniformly loaded area at a depth below the ground surface.

Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, 1:

129-132.

Hough, B.K. 1969. Basic Soils Engineering, Ronald Press, New York.

Janbu, N. 1963. Soil compressibility as determined from oedometer and triaxial tests. Proceedings, European

Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, 1: 19-24.

Jeyapalan, J.K. & Boehm, R. 1986. Procedures for predicting settlements in sands. In W. O. Martin (ed.),

Settlements of Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: Design and Performance, ASCE, Seattle, 1-22.

Lee, J., Eun, J., Prezzi, M. & Salgado, R. 2008. Strain influence diagrams for settlement estimation of both

isolated and multiple footings in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,

134(4): 417-427.

Mayne, P.W. & Poulos, H.G. 1999. Approximate displacement influence factors for elastic shallow

foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(6): 453-460.

Meyerhof, G.G. 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. Journal of the Soil

Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 82(1): 1-19.

Meyerhof, G.G. 1965. Shallow foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,

91(2): 21-31.

Papadopoulos, B.P. 1992. Settlements of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ASCE, 118(3): 377-393.

Peck, R.B. & Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. 1969. Discussion of paper by DAppolonia et al, Journal of the Soil Mechanics

and Foundations Division, ASCE, 95(3): 305-309.

Robertson, P.K. & Campanella, R.G. 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration tests: part I: sand. Canadian

Geotechnical Journal, 29(4): 718-733.

Salgado, R. 2008. The Engineering of Foundations, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Schmertmann, J.H. 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement over sand. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and

Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(3): 1011-1043.

Schmertmann, J.H., Hartmann, J.P. & Brown, P.R. 1978. Improved strain influence factor diagrams. Journal of

the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(8): 1131-1135.

Seed, H.B. & DeAlba, P. 1986. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands.

Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference of Use of In Situ Testing in Geotechnical Engineering,

Geotechnical Special Publication 6, Blacksburg, 281-302.

Sivakugan, N., Eckersley, J.D. & Li, H. 1998. Settlement predictions using neural networks. Australian Civil

Engineering Transactions, CE40: 49-52

40

Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil

Das, B.M., Atalar, C. & Shin, E.C.

Sivakugan, N. & Johnson, K. 2004. Settlement prediction in granular soils: a probabilistic approach.

Geotechnique, 54(7): 499-502.

Skempton, A.W. 1985. Standard penetration test procedures and the effect in sands of overburden pressure,

relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36(3): 425-447.

Steinbrenner, W. 1934. Tafeln zur setzungsberschnung. Die Strasse, 1: 121-124.

Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1st Edition, John Wiley and Sons,

New York.

Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons,

New York.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. & Mesri G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition, John Wiley &

Sons, New York.

Tsytovich, N.A. 1951. Soil Mechanics, Ed. Stroitielstvo i Archiketura, Moscow (in Russian).

Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons,

New York.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. & Mesri G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition, John Wiley &

Sons, New York.

Tsytovich, N.A. 1951. Soil Mechanics, Ed. Stroitielstvo i Archiketura, Moscow (in Russian).

41

- Handbook Review Temporaywork Deep ExcavationUploaded byKen Liew
- Basic Soil Properties From CPT in Bangkok Clay for Highway DesignUploaded bytangkokhong
- Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building BasementsUploaded byNicole Carrillo
- 11046697Uploaded byAli Al Rubaie
- coverUploaded byQ8123
- Design of Wall _09Uploaded byRahul
- DeepFoundBCUploaded byFarhan Khan
- OISD-STD-230Uploaded byminesmurali7115
- CE Catalogue 14-15 BatchUploaded byVara Prasad
- earthquakeUploaded byapi-357721729
- Design and Evaluation of Tailings DamsUploaded byTessfaye Wolde Gebretsadik
- Foundations Study GuideUploaded bybooboosdad
- US MIL Directional Drilling 6Uploaded byBigBaby Julian
- Seepage Control at DamsUploaded byVSMS8678
- Chapter 10- WSDOT Geotechnical Design ManualUploaded bytryabcdef
- 2014_Pullout resistance of granular anchors in clay for undrianed condition_Soils and Foundations.pdfUploaded byAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Geological Terrain MappingUploaded byAhmad Khairut Termizi Mohd Daud
- Keynote 003Uploaded byanar
- anudeep pptUploaded byPUSPENDU MANDAL
- C.VUploaded byAmr Elmansy Helal
- Effect of Ground Motion Characteristics on the Seismic Performance of Retaining Walls With Tire Waste CushionUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- rendimiento.pdfUploaded byLuis Tini
- Foundation HU Lec 5 - CopyUploaded byzeru3261172
- PresaUploaded byJose
- 131Uploaded bySohail Hanif
- 11-30 notesUploaded byBrandin Lawrence
- Sample Structure Boring Log SheetsUploaded byVinod Gupta
- ObertUploaded byAdi Sutrisno
- earthquake in the philippines.docxUploaded byLeyou Nesanad
- A Cele Rogram AsUploaded byGale Ronaldo Herrera Rodriguez

- Evaluation of Mode-I Inter Laminar Fracture Toughness for Fiber Reinforced Composite MaterialsUploaded byn_kosmas
- ABAQUS Tutorial-steel PlateUploaded byRabee Shammas
- Falguera Et Al 2010. (Jugo de Mandarina)Uploaded byRudy Garcia
- TNT ref1Uploaded byBrittany Lane
- 1-s2.0-S0928493115303222-main (1)Uploaded byRoxana Cristina Popescu
- INSTRUMENTACION PAVIMENTOS ASFALTICOSUploaded byPedro Pablo Ortiz
- Crack-Width.xlsUploaded byBalaji Hari
- Influence of Local Wall Thinning on Elastic Shakedown boundary of Pipe Bend.docUploaded byMohammed Eljammal
- Duaso Test YourselfUploaded bySharmaine Cruzat Austria
- Acrylic as a Structural MaterialUploaded bya9319152
- Design of Rockbolt and Shotcrete for Tunnel in JointedUploaded byOrlendo Karly
- M.SC SYLLABUS(J.U)Uploaded bynunukanta
- Rock PhysicsUploaded byMazhar Badr
- Tunnel DesignUploaded bycosmin05
- IRC_022-1986Uploaded byharivennela
- 13_3277.pdfUploaded byVaibhav
- l. Ingeniería Sísmica Basada en el Desempeño Convencional vs. Enfoques Innovadores BERTERO.pdfUploaded bySnjder Prince
- Tabla de Desplazamientos y Giros en VigasUploaded byGerman Pinasco
- atomskUploaded byhsansilva
- Shell 181Uploaded byAkshay Naik
- Simple Note Physics Form 5Uploaded byarinanajiha
- Ultimate Design MethodUploaded byCris John Ferenal
- GeophoneUploaded bybloomdido
- Chap 12 With Appendix 29 August 2012Uploaded byriz2010
- 4. Abaqus tutorial 3d.pdfUploaded byFredy Picauly
- OCR Physics A: MechanicsUploaded byNiamh McNabb
- Strength MaterialUploaded bymaka2005
- 17871565_2Uploaded bysepidka
- 101 - CopyUploaded byPathipati Narasimharao
- Standart Iso 13314Uploaded byKitana Handa