COMPUTATION OF BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENTS

FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

BEARING CAPACITY:

The bearing capacity of a shallow foundation can be defined as the maximum value of the load applied,
for which no point of the subsoil reaches failure point (Frolich method) or else for which failure extends
to a considerable volume of soil (Prandtl method and successive).
Prandtl, has studied the problem of failure of an elastic half-space due to a load applied on its surface
with reference to steel, characterizing the resistance to failure with a law of the type:

 = c +   tan  valid for soils as well

Prandtl assumes:

 Weightless material, therefore =0

 Rigid - plastic behaviour
 Resistance to failure stated as: =c +   tan
 Uniform vertical load applied to an infinitely long strip of width 2b (Plane strain case)
 No tangential stresses on interface between load strip and bearing surface.
 No overload the edges of the foundation (q'=0)

Upon failure the yield of the material within the space GFBCD is verified.

Within the triangle AEB failure occurs according to two families of straight segments inclined by 45°+/2
to the horizontal.
Within zones ABF and EBC failure occurs along two families of lines, the ones made up of straight lines
passing through points A and E, and the other consisting of arcs of families of logarithmic spirals. The
poles of these are points A and E. In the triangles AFG and ECD failure occurs along segments inclined
at ±(45°+ /2 ) to the vertical.

Solution of Prandtl

Having thus identified the soil tending to failure by application of the ultimate load, this can be calculated
expressing the equilibrium between the forces acting in any volume of soil whose base is delimited by
whichever slip surface.

Thus one reaches the equation q =B  c, where the coefficient B depends only upon the soil’s angle of
friction .


B  cot g e
 tan  2

tan ( 45   / 2)  1

For  =0 coefficient B is 5.14, and therefore q=5.14  c.

In the alternate case, namely that where the soil is cohesionless (c=0, 0) q=0 so that according to
Prandtl it would not be possible to apply any load to cohesionless soils.

Based on this theory, admittedly of little practical value, all the various investigations and developments
have proceeded.
Terzaghi’s method (1955)
Terzaghi, continues on the same lines as Caquot but adds modifications to take into account of the real
characteristics of the foundation-soil system.
Under the action of the load transmitted by the foundation, the soil at the contact with the foundation
tends to move laterally, but is restrained in this by the tangential resistances that develop between the
soil and the foundation. This results in a change of the stress state in the ground placed directly below
the foundation.
Terzaghi assigns to the sides AB and EB of Prandtl’s wedge, an inclination  to the horizontal, assigning
to this a value as a function of the mechanical characteristics of the soil at the contact soil-foundation.
Thus =0 for soil below the foundation is reviewed assuming that the failure surfaces remain unaltered,
the expression for ultimate load becomes:
q =A    h + B  c + C   b

in which, is a coefficient that is a function of the angle of friction  of the soil below the footing and of
the angle  defined above, and b is the half width of the strip.
Further on the basis of experimental data, Terzaghi introduces factors due to the shape of the foundation.
Again Terzaghi refines the original hypothesis of Prandtl who considered the behaviour of soil as rigid–
plastic.
Terzaghi instead assigns such behaviour only to very compact soils. In these soils the curve
loads/settlements is at first linear, followed by a short curved segment (elastic-plastic behavior). Failure
is instantaneous and the value of the ultimate load is easily identifiable (general failure).
In a very loose soil however the relation loads/settlements has an accentuated curved line even at low
levels of load due to a progressive failure of the soil (local failure) and thus the identification of ultimate
load is not so clear like for compact soils..
For very loose soils therefore Terzaghi introduces in the previous formula the reduced values for the
mechanical properties of the soil:

tanred = 2/3 tanand cred= 2/3c

Thus Terzaghi’s formula becomes:

qult = c  Nc  sc +   D  Nq + 0.5    B  N s

Meyerhof (1963)
Meyerhof proposed a formula for calculation of bearing capacity similar to the one proposed by Terzaghi
but introducing further foundation shape coefficients.
He introduced a coefficient sq' that multiplies the Nq factor; depth factors di and inclination factors ii for
the cases where the load line is inclined to the vertical.
Meyerhof obtained the N factors by making trials on a number of BF arcs (see Prandtl mechanism) whilst
shear along AF was given approximate values.
The N factors are given below together with the complete formula:

Vertical load qult = c  Nc  sc  dc+   D  Nq sq dq+ 0.5BN s d

Inclined load qul t=c  Nc  ic  dc+   D Nq  iq  dq + 0.5 B  Nid

Hansen (1970)
Hansen’s formula is a further extension on Meyerhof’s. The additions consists in the introduction of bi
that accounts for the possible inclination of the footing to the horizontal and a factor gi for inclined
soil surface
Hansen’s formula is valid for whatever ratio D/B and therefore for both surface and deep foundations,
however the author introduces coefficients to compensate for the otherwise excessive increment in
limit load with increased depth.
Vesic (1975)
Vesic proposes a formula that is analogous to Hansen’s with Nq and Nc as per Meyerhof and N as below:

N=2(Nq+1) x tan()

Shape and depth factors are the same as Hansen’s but there are differences in load inclination, ground
inclination and footing inclination factors.

Brich-Hansen (EC 7 – EC 8)
In order that a foundation may safely sustain the projected load in regard to general failure for all
combinations of load relative to the ultimate limit state, the following must be satisfied:

Vd ≤ Rd

Where Vd is the design load at ultimate limit state normal to the footing, including the weight of the
foundation itself and Rd is the foundation design bearing capacity for normal loads, also taking into account
eccentric and inclined loads. When estimating Rd for fine grained soils short and long term situations should
be considered.
Bearing capacity in drained conditions is calculated by:
R/A’ = (2 + ) cu sc ic + q
Where:
A’ = B’ L’ - Design effective foundation area. Where eccentric loads are involved, use the
reduced area at whose center the load is applied.
Cu - Undrained cohesion
Q- Total lithostatic pressure on bearing surface
Sc - Foundation shape factor
sc = 1 + 0,2 (B’/L’) rectangular shapes
sc = 1,2 square or circular shapes
ic Correction factor for inclination due to a load H


i c  0,5 1  1  H / A' c u 
Design bearing capacity in drained conditions is calculated as follows:.
R
'
 c '  N c  sc  ic  q '  N q  sq  iq  0.5   '  B '  N  s  i
A
Where:
N q  e  tan ' tan 2 45  ' / 2 
 
N c  N q  1 cot '
 
N   2  N q  1 tan '
Shape factors:

s q  1  B' / L' sin  ' Rectangular shape

s q  1  sin  '
s   1  0,3B' / L'
s   0,7
 
sc  sq  Nq 1 / Nq 1
Square or circular shape
Rectangular shape
Square or circular shape
 Rectangular, square, or circular shape.
Resultant inclination factors due to a horizontal load H
i q  1  H / V  A' c'  cot ' 
m

i  1  H / V  A' c'  cot ' 

m 1

 
ic  i q  N q  1 / N q  1 
Where:
  B ' 
2   L' 
 
m  mB   with H//B'
  B ' 
1   L' 
  
  L' 
2   B ' 
 
m  mL   with H//L'
  L' 
1   B ' 
  
If H forms an angle θ with the direction of L’ , the exponent “m” is calculated using the following
expression:
m  m  m L cos 2   m B sin 2 
In addition to the correction factors reported in the table above will also be considered the ones
complementary to the depth of the bearing surface and to the inclination of the bearing surface and ground
surface (Hansen).

Sliding considerations
The stability of a foundation should be verified with reference to collapse due to sliding as well as to general
failure. For collapse due to sliding, the resistance is calculated as the sum of the adhesion component and
the soil-foundation friction component.
Lateral resistance arising from passive thrust of the soil can be taken into account using a percentage
supplied by the user. Resistance due to friction and adhesion is calculated with the expression:
FRd = Nsd tan+ca A’
In which Nsd is the value of the vertical force,  is the angle of shearing resistance at the base of the
foundation, ca is the foundation-soil adhesion, and A is the effective foundation area. There where
eccentric loads are involved, use the reduced area at whose centre the load is applied

ELASTIC SETTLEMENTS:
The settlement of a rectangular foundation of size B × L on the surface of an elastic support may be
calculated by use of an elasticity theory based formula (Timoshenko and Goodier (1951)):

1  2  1  2 
H  q B '  I  I I (1)
0 Es  1 1   2  F
where:
q0 Intensity of contact pressure.
B' Minimum size of reactant area.
E &  Elasticity parameters for soil.
Ii Influence factors that depend on: L'/B', thickness of layer H, Poisson’s ratio , base depth D;

Coefficients I1 & I2 may be calculated using Steinbrenner (1934) (see Bowles), as functions of the
relation L'/B' & H/B, using B'=B/2 and L'=L/2 for coefficients relative to the centre and B'=B & L'=L
for coefficients relative to the edge.

Influence factor IF is due to Fox (1948), and suggests that settlement is reduced with depth, depending
on Poisson’s ratio , and of the ratio L/B.

In order to simplify the equation (1) the coefficient IS is introduced

1  2
I I  I
S 1 1  2

Relationship (1) can be written as:

1  2
H  q B ' I I
0 E S F
S

Better approximation of settlement can be obtained by dividing the base such that the point of settlement is
at the corner or common corner of more rectangles. In practice one multiplies by 4 for settlements at the
centre and by 1 for edge settlement.
In settlement calculation the depth of pressure’s bulb is assumed to be 5B. If the substrate is rocky the depth
is greater. For this purpose any layer that has a value of E 10 times greater than the one above it is considered
to be rocky.
Elasticity modulus for layered terrains is calculated as a weighted average of elasticity moduli of the layers
involved by the immediate settlement

OEDOMETRIC SETTLEMENTS:
The computation of settlement with confined oedometric approach permits the evaluation of
monodimensional settlement, produced by stresses induced by the application of a load in conditions of
inhibited lateral expansion.
However the computation with this method is to be considered empiric rather than theoretic. Nonetheless
the ease of use and of controlling the influence of the various parameters involved make of this a very
widespread method.
The process of settlement calculation goes through two phases:
a) Calculation of vertical stresses induced at various depths applying the theory of elasticity
b) Evaluation of compression parameters through an oedometric test

With reference to the confined consolidation test settlement is derived by:

'
  v
    RR  log v0
0 '
v0
If the soil is overconsolidated (OCR>1), that is if the increment of stresses due to application of load does
 '   v <’ ).
not cause preconsolidation pressure to exceed ’p ( v 0 p
If on the other hand the soil is normally consolidated, (
 v' 0 =’ ) deformation occurs in the compression
p
interval of and the settlement is calculated as:

'
  v
    CR  log v0
0 '
v0
where:
RR Recompression ratio
CR Compression ratio
H0 Initial layer thickness
’v0 Effective vertical stress before application of load
v Increment in vertical stress due to application of load
As an alternative to parameters RR & CR one can refer to the oedometric modulus M, however in such
case it will be necessary to use judgment in selecting the value to use taking account of the stress interval (
 v' 0   v ) significant for the problem in question.

The correct application of this approach requires:

 Subdivision of compressible layers into smaller ones (max. 2.00m);
 An estimate of the oedometric modulus for each layer;
 Computation of settlement as a sum of the contribution of each subdivision of small layers.

Many use the formulas above to calculate settlement both for clays and sands with fine to medium
granularity as the elasticity modulus is derived directly from consolidation tests. However for soils with a
coarser grain, the dimensions of oedometric testers are not very significant for the global behaviour of the
layer and for sands it is advisable to use penetration tests either static or dynamic.

Secondary settlement
Secondary settlement is calculated by the expression:
T
 s   c  C  log
T
100

where:
Hc is the height of the layer in phase of consolidation;
C is the coefficient of secondary consolidation as vector of the secondary portion of the curve
Settlement-logarith time;
T time for which the settlement is required;
T100 time for the completion of primary settlement.

Schmertmann settlements
Schmertmann (1970) proposed an alternative method of calculating settlement as related to the variation to
the pressure bulb on deformation.
Thus Schmertmann proposes a triangular deformation diagram where the depth at which significant
deformation occurs is 4B for strip foundations and 2B for square or circular foundations. With this
approach settlement is expressed by the following expression:

I  z
w  C  C  q   z
1 2 E

Where:
q is the net load applied to the foundation;
Iz is a deformation factor whose value is null at depth 4B or 2B respectively for Strip or Round/Square
foundations.

0 .5
 
 q 
I z max  0.5  0.1   
 ' 
 vi 

where
’vi is the effective vertical stress at depths of B/2 for round or square foundations and at depth B for
strip foundations
Ei is the modulus of soil deformation for the i-th layer considered in the calculation;
zi is the depth of i-th layer;
C1 & C2 are two correction factors.
Modulus Ei is assumed as 2.5 qc for square/round foundations and 3.5 qc for strip foundations. For
intermediate cases the value is interpolated dependent on the relation L/B.
The term qc in the determination of Ei is the CPT tip resistance.
The expressions for C1 and C2 are:

'
C1  1  0.5  v0  0.5
q

That accounts for footing depth

t
C  1  0.2  log
2 0 .1

That accounts for the deformations, different in time, due to secondary effect.
Where t represents the time in years, after completion of the structure, for which settlement is calculated.

Burland and Burbidge settlements

There where dynamic penetration test results are available, it is possible to rely on Burland and Burbidge
(1985) method for settlement computation for which an index of compressibility Ic is correlated to the result
NSPT of the dynamic penetration test. The formula proposed by the authors is:
  
S  f S  f H  f t   'v0  B 0.7  I C / 3  q '   'v0  B 0.7  I C 
Where:
q' - gross effective pressure;
’v0 - effective vertical stress at footing depth;
B- width of the foundation;
Ic - compressibility index;
fs, fH, ft - correction factors that account respectively for the form, compressible layer thickness and
time, for the viscous component

Ic, compressibility index is related to the average value NAV of NSPT at a significant depth zi:
1.706
IC 
N1AV
.4

As regards the NSPT values to use in calculating the average NAV, it is opportune to remember that values
should be corrected for sands with silt content under the water table and NSPT >15 as indicated by Terzaghi
& Peck (1948):
Nc = 15 + 0.5 (Nspt -15)
Where Nc is the corrected value to use in calculation.
For gravel or gravelly sandy deposits, the corrected value is:
Nc = 1.25 Nspt
For correction factors fS, fH ed ft the expressions are:
2
 1.25  L / B 
fS   
 L / B  0.25 
H  H
fH   2  
zi  z i 
 t
f t  1  R 3  R  log 
 3
Where
t time in years > 3
R3 a constant of value 0.3 for static loads and 0.7 for dynamic loads
R a constant of value 0.2 for static loads and 0.8 for dynamic loads
SIMULATION ON GEOSTRU-2018:
MAIN PARAMETERS

Normative D.M. 88/96

Foundation width 4.0 m
Foundation length 4.0 m
Depth of bearing surface 4.0 m
Embedded height 2.0 m
GWT depth 2.0

SOIL STRATIGRAPHY

Layer Unit Saturat Angle Cohe Und Elastic Oedom Poiss Index of Index of
thickne weight ed unit of sion raine modulu etric on primar secondar
ss [kN/m³] weight frictio[kN/ d s modulu Rati y y
[m] [kN/m³] n m²] cohe [kN/m²] s o consolid compress
[°] sion [kN/m²] ation ion
[kN/ [cmq/s]
m²]
2.0 18.63 20.59 15.0 1.96 0.0 2499.72 2599.74 0.35 0.003 0.04
5.0 18.14 19.61 16.0 0.0 35.3 0.0 4314.93 0.45 0.04 0.04

Design loads acting on foundation

Nr. Combinatio Design N Mx My Hx Hy Type
n name normal [kN] [kN·m] [kN·m] [kN] [kN]
stress
[kN/m²]
1 A1+M1+R1 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Design
2 A2+M2+R2 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Design
3 S.L.E. 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Servicea
bility

Earthquake + Partial coef. soil geotechnical parameters + Resistances

Nr Seismic Tangent Effective Undrain Unit Overbur Red. Red.
correction to angle cohesion ed weight den unit Coef. Coef.
of cohesion in weight Vertical Horizont
shearing foundati bearing al
resistanc on capacity bearing
e angle capacity
1 No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 No 1.25 1.25 1.4 1 1 1.8 1.1
3 No 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Foundation bearing capacity combination...a2+m2+r2
Author: Brinch - Hansen 1970

Bearing capacity [Qult] 161.22 kN/m²

Design resistance[Rd] 89.57 kN/m²
Pressure [Ed] 10.0 kN/m²
Safety factor [Fs=Qult/Ed] 16.12
Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Bowle's subgrade coefficient (1982)

Costante di Winkler 6448.97 kN/m³

A1+M1+R1

Author: HANSEN (1970) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 0.22
Depth factor [Dc] 0.05
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 229.48 kN/m²
Design resistance 229.48 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: TERZAGHI (1955) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.7
Form factor [Sc] 1.3
Form factor [Sg] 0.6
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 258.46 kN/m²
Design resistance 258.46 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: MEYERHOF (1963) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 1.22
Depth factor [Dc] 1.03
Load inclination factor [Ic] 1.0
Form factor [Sq] 1.0
Depth factor [Dq] 1.0
Load inclination factor [Iq] 1.0
Form factor [Sg] 1.0
Depth factor [Dg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 226.22 kN/m²
Design resistance 226.22 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: VESIC (1975) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 0.22
Depth factor [Dc] 0.05
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 229.48 kN/m²
Design resistance 229.48 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: Brinch - Hansen 1970 (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 1.2
Depth factor [Dc] 1.0
Load inclination factor [Ic] 1.0
Slope inclination factor [Gc] 1.0
Base inclination factor [Bc] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 218.26 kN/m²
Design resistance 218.26 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

A2+M2+R2

Author: HANSEN (1970) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 0.22
Depth factor [Dc] 0.05
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 169.23 kN/m²
Design resistance 94.02 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: TERZAGHI (1955) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.7
Form factor [Sc] 1.3
Form factor [Sg] 0.6
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 189.94 kN/m²
Design resistance 105.52 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: MEYERHOF (1963) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 1.22
Depth factor [Dc] 1.03
Load inclination factor [Ic] 1.0
Form factor [Sq] 1.0
Depth factor [Dq] 1.0
Load inclination factor [Iq] 1.0
Form factor [Sg] 1.0
Depth factor [Dg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 166.91 kN/m²
Design resistance 92.73 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: VESIC (1975) (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 0.22
Depth factor [Dc] 0.05
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 169.23 kN/m²
Design resistance 94.02 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

Author: Brinch - Hansen 1970 (Undrained conditions)

Factor [Nq] 1.0

Factor [Nc] 5.14
Form factor [Sc] 1.2
Depth factor [Dc] 1.0
Load inclination factor [Ic] 1.0
Slope inclination factor [Gc] 1.0
Base inclination factor [Bc] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zq] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zg] 1.0
Inertial factor of seismic correction [zc] 1.0
Bearing capacity 161.22 kN/m²
Design resistance 89.57 kN/m²

Verification conditions [Ed<=Rd] Verified

SETTLEMENTS FOR EVERY LAYER

Oedometric settlement calculated with: Terzaghi's logarithmic method

Design normal stress 22.0 kN/m²

Settlement after T years 2.0
Distance 11.85 m
Angle 66.70 °
Total settlement 27.74 cm

Z: Average layer depth; Dp: Pressure increment; Wc: Consolidation settlement; Ws:Secondary settlement;
Wt: Total settlement.

Z Pressure Dp Wc Ws Wt
Layer Method
(m) (kN/m²) (kN/m²) (cm) (cm) (cm)
1 1.75 32.603 0.001 Oedometric 0 0.6 0.6
2 2.8 49.271 0.177 Oedometric 0.01 1.93 1.94
3 4.6 67.216 1.694 Oedometric 0.05 2.41 2.46
4 6.7 88.103 4.594 Oedometric 0.36 2.64 3
5 8.7 107.709 7.06 Oedometric 0.36 2.16 2.52
6 10.1 121.923 8.328 Oedometric 0.1 1.2 1.3
7 11.2 133.49 9.056 Oedometric 0.22 1.44 1.66
8 12.6 146.884 9.686 Oedometric 0.18 1.92 2.1
9 14.5 164.028 10.111 Oedometric 0.17 2.65 2.82
10 16.3 180.472 10.177 Oedometric 0.1 1.68 1.78
11 18.7 202.331 9.927 Oedometric 0.25 4.09 4.34
12 21.6 228.845 9.329 Oedometric 0.13 2.89 3.02
13 23.9 251.882 8.746 Oedometric 0.2 -- 0.2
Layer's settlement progress over time ...1 Wt=0.6 cm
Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.06 10 1.188272
0.12 20 4.845679
0.18 30 10.91049
0.24 40 19.44444
0.3 50 30.24691
0.36 60 44.1358
0.42 70 62.19136
0.48 80 87.49999
0.54 90 130.8642
0.6 100 154.321

Layer's settlement progress over time ...2 Wt=1.94 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.194 10 0.057037
0.388 20 0.232593
0.582 30 0.523704
0.776 40 0.933333
0.97 50 1.451852
1.164 60 2.118519
1.358 70 2.985185
1.552 80 4.2
1.746 90 6.281482
1.94 100 7.407408

Layer's settlement progress over time ...3 Wt=2.46 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.246 10 0.08912
0.492 20 0.363426
0.738 30 0.818287
0.984 40 1.458333
1.23 50 2.268518
1.476 60 3.310185
1.722 70 4.664352
1.968 80 6.5625
2.214 90 9.814815
2.46 100 11.57407

Layer's settlement progress over time ...4 Wt=3.0 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.3 10 0.107836
0.6 20 0.439745
0.9 30 0.990127
1.2 40 1.764583
1.5 50 2.744908
1.8 60 4.005324
2.1 70 5.643866
2.4 80 7.940625
2.7 90 11.87593
Layer's settlement progress over time ...5 Wt=2.52 cm
Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.252 10 0.072188
0.504 20 0.294375
0.756 30 0.662813
1.008 40 1.18125
1.26 50 1.8375
1.512 60 2.68125
1.764 70 3.778125
2.016 80 5.315625
2.268 90 7.95
2.52 100 9.375

Layer's settlement progress over time ...6 Wt=1.3 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.13 10 0.02228
0.26 20 0.090856
0.39 30 0.204572
0.52 40 0.364583
0.65 50 0.56713
0.78 60 0.827546
0.91 70 1.166088
1.04 80 1.640625
1.17 90 2.453704
1.3 100 2.893519

Layer's settlement progress over time ...7 Wt=1.66 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.166 10 0.032083
0.332 20 0.130833
0.498 30 0.294583
0.664 40 0.525
0.83 50 0.816667
0.996 60 1.191667
1.162 70 1.679167
1.328 80 2.3625
1.494 90 3.533334
1.66 100 4.166667

Layer's settlement progress over time ...8 Wt=2.1 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.21 10 0.057037
0.42 20 0.232593
0.63 30 0.523704
0.84 40 0.933333
1.05 50 1.451852
1.26 60 2.118519
1.47 70 2.985185
1.68 80 4.2
1.89 90 6.281482
Layer's settlement progress over time ...9 Wt=2.82 cm
Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.282 10 0.107836
0.564 20 0.439745
0.846 30 0.990127
1.128 40 1.764583
1.41 50 2.744908
1.692 60 4.005324
1.974 70 5.643866
2.256 80 7.940625
2.538 90 11.87593
2.82 100 14.00463

Layer's settlement progress over time ...10 Wt=1.78 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.178 10 0.043669
0.356 20 0.178079
0.534 30 0.400961
0.712 40 0.714583
0.89 50 1.111574
1.068 60 1.621991
1.246 70 2.285532
1.424 80 3.215625
1.602 90 4.809259
1.78 100 5.671296

Layer's settlement progress over time ...11 Wt=4.34 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.434 10 0.257558
0.868 20 1.050301
1.302 30 2.36485
1.736 40 4.214584
2.17 50 6.556019
2.604 60 9.566437
3.038 70 13.47998
3.472 80 18.96563
3.906 90 28.36482
4.34 100 33.44908

Layer's settlement progress over time ...12 Wt=3.02 cm

Settlement % Ced Time
[cm] days
0.302 10 0.128333
0.604 20 0.523333
0.906 30 1.178333
1.208 40 2.1
1.51 50 3.266667
1.812 60 4.766667
2.114 70 6.716667
2.416 80 9.450001
2.718 90 14.13333
LIQUEFACTION VERIFICATION - Method C.N.R. - GNDT from Seed and Idriss

Svo: Total confined stress; S'vo: Effective confined stress; T: Cyclic tangential stress; R: Soil resistance to
liquefaction; Fs: Safety coefficient

Layer Layer Nspt Nspt' Svo S'vo T R Fs

depth (kN/m²) (kN/m²)
(m)
1 2.00 6.00 9.444 37.265 37.265 0.006 0.196 31.11
8 13.40 7.00 5.239 261.000 154.106 0.009 0.145 16.50
9 15.60 17.00 11.682 302.426 173.956 0.009 0.210 24.23
10 17.00 23.00 14.999 329.193 186.994 0.009 0.317 37.14
11 20.40 17.00 9.898 393.214 217.672 0.008 0.181 22.16
12 22.80 27.00 14.583 439.102 240.023 0.008 0.321 40.99

VERTICAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION

PRESSURE BULB