Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 157
April 2004 Issue GE2
Pages 65–75

Paper 13500
Received 17/09/2003
Accepted 02/12/2003
Keywords: J. A. Charles H. D. Skinner
buildings, structure & design/ Building Research Building Research
foundations/geotechnical Establishment, Watford, UK Establishment, Watford, UK
engineering

Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings

J. A. Charles and H. D. Skinner

Where deep foundations are not an economically viable
solution, foundation problems may occur at low-rise
housing developments on poor ground. It is usually
feasible to provide a raft foundation relatively cheaply
for lightly loaded buildings. When differential settlement
occurs, foundations of adequate stiffness will cause the
building to tilt as a rigid body, and will prevent significant
distortion of the building and consequent cracking of the
walls. A number of case histories of tilted buildings are
presented to illustrate the magnitude of tilt that has
been observed with different ground conditions, and the
remedial actions that have been undertaken.
Noticeability is a key factor in assessing the acceptability
of tilt for low-rise residential buildings and their
occupants, and tilt typically is noticed when it is in the
region of 1/250 to 1/200. Where tilts of the magnitude of
1/100 or greater are measured, or the measured rate of
increase of tilt indicates that this degree of tilt will be
exceeded, some remedial action should be taken, which
is likely to include re-levelling the building.
NOTATION
B breadth of building
H height of building
L length of building
s settlement
˜s differential settlement
x design horizontal distance to be spanned by foundation
Æf tilt of foundations
Æw tilt of wall

angular distortion
˜ relative vertical displacement
˜/L deflection ratio
The most acute foundation problems on poor ground are often
associated with small low-rise buildings, such as detached and
semi-detached houses, where deep foundations are not an
economically viable solution. It is usually feasible to provide a
raft foundation for such lightly loaded buildings relatively
cheaply. When differential settlement occurs, foundations of
adequate stiffness will cause the building to tilt as a ‘rigid’
body and will prevent significant distortion of the building and
consequent cracking of the walls. The raft should also be
designed to resist horizontal tensile forces. The remaining
concern for this type of stiff foundation is whether the building
will tilt to an unacceptable degree. The issues of acceptability
and tolerabilty of tilt are particularly acute for low-rise
housing, and relatively small tilts will be unacceptable. Fig. 1
shows a house with noticeable tilt but no obvious signs of
structural damage.
This paper is concerned primarily with tilt of low-rise
buildings, particularly housing. Excessive tilt is likely to be of
increasing concern for low-rise housing owing to developments
in foundation design associated with the shortage of good
building land and the need to provide safe and economic
foundations on more marginal ground. First, the relationships
between total settlement, differential settlement, distortion and
tilt are examined. Then the factors affecting the acceptability
of tilt are explored and illustrated by a number of case

1. INTRODUCTION
Where foundation movement occurs, a building may suffer
both distortion and tilt. With chimneys, towers and tall
buildings, the relatively large ratio of height (H) to length (L) of
the structure usually ensures a predominantly rigid body
rotation, although some distortion of the structure may also
occur. Tilt associated with differential foundation settlement is
an obvious hazard for masonry towers and chimneys because it
could cause the structure to fall over. Where low-rise buildings
suffer differential settlement, it is commonly distortion rather
Fig. 1. A house that has suffered tilt but shows no obvious
than tilt that causes concern. Tilt is unlikely to be so severe signs of structural damage
that the whole building is in danger of toppling over.

Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings Charles • Skinner 65
 histories. Some limiting values for tilt are proposed, and their
implications for new construction and existing buildings are
discussed.
2. SETTLEMENT, DISTORTION AND TILT
Foundation movement in the form of settlement (s) is normally
quantified in terms of differential settlement (˜s), which is the
maximum vertical displacement of one part of the structure
with respect to another. Clearly, heave could cause the same
type of vertical displacement but, as settlement is more
common than heave, such foundation movements are described
as differential settlement throughout the paper. Six types of
foundation settlement are defined in Table 1 and illustrated in
Fig. 2 for a small building, such as a pair of semi-detached
houses. Settlement is measured at three locations (A, B, C)
along the length of the building. Fig. 2 shows the relationship
between settlement, distortion and tilt in the different types of
foundation movement.
(i) Uniform settlement. A building should not be adversely
affected by uniform settlement. However, there could be
problems with connections for services if the ground
surrounding the structure does not undergo settlement of
the same magnitude as the building.
(ii) Uniform tilt. The foundation tilt (Æf ) is given by
sC
sA
1 Æf ¼
LAC
A small uniform tilt of the foundation should not distort a
building, but excessive tilt may cause structural damage,

Type Settlement Tilt Distortion Settlement (s)

(i) Uniform None None sA ¼ sB ¼ sC

(ii) Non-uniform Uniform None sC – sA ¼ (LAC /LAB )(sB – sA )
(iii) Non-uniform None Sagging sA ¼ sC
sA , sB
(iv) Non-uniform None Hogging sA ¼ sC
sA . sB
(v) Non-uniform Non-uniform Sagging sA 6¼ sC
sC – sA , (LAC /LAB )(sB – sA )
(vi) Non-uniform Non-uniform Hogging sA 6¼ sC
sC – sA . (LAC /LAB )(sB – sA )

Table 1. Types of foundation settlement

LAC

LAB LBC

A B C
sA sB sC
Type (i)

Type (ii)

Type (iii)

Type (iv)

Type (v)

β ∆
Type (vi)

Fig. 2. Basic types of foundation settlement

66 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings Charles • Skinner
 and some tall structures could become unstable. Processes
taking place in a building can be affected by tilt of the
foundations. Where a building and its foundations behave
as a rigid box, the out-of-plumb of the walls (Æw ) will be of
equal magnitude to the tilt of the foundations (Æf ), but in
practice this is unlikely because significant foundation tilt
will cause some distortion of the structure.
(iii, iv) Distortion without tilt. Distortion can cause serious
damage to a structure. With traditional brick and
masonry buildings, damage will be much more severe
where ground deformations give rise to upward
bending (type (iv)), known as hogging, rather than the
downward bending that occurs in sagging (type (iii)).
The cracking of walls is also dependent on a number of
other factors, including the length-to-height ratio of
the wall (L/H).
(v, vi) Distortion and tilt. In most practical situations,
settlement will cause both distortion and tilt, as shown
in types (v) and (vi). The situation where tilt
predominates and distortion is a minor effect is the
subject of this paper.
Distortion can be defined in various ways using parameters
such as angular distortion and deflection ratio. Angular
distortion,
, or relative rotation as it is sometimes called, is
defined as the differential settlement between two points
divided by the distance between them, less the tilt, where tilt is
defined as the rotation of the whole building. In type (v), the
angular distortion of the length LAB of the building will be
sB
sA sC
sA
2
¼

LAB LAC
The most meaningful distortion parameter in the context of
cracking walls is the deflection ratio, which is defined as the
maximum vertical displacement, ˜, relative to the straight line
connecting two points divided by the length, L, between those
two points. In type (v), the maximum deflection ratio of the
building will be
˜ sC þ sA
2sB
3 ¼
L 2LAC
For the particular case where LAB ¼ LBC ¼ 0.5 LAC , and ignoring
the sign conventions for the two types of distortion parameter,
˜ an impact on a building and its occupants that differs markedly
4
¼2
L
The six types of settlement illustrated in Fig. 2 are simplified
representations of actual foundation movements. Buildings
may well suffer differential movements across their breadth as
well as their length. Furthermore, long buildings are likely to
suffer more complex patterns of foundation deformation in
which part of the building undergoes sagging and part
undergoes hogging. The foundation deformations will be a
function of soil–structure interaction in which the ground
conditions, the foundation loadings and the stiffness of the
building and its foundation will all have an effect.
Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings
Angular distortion, deflection ratio and tilt are the parameters
that will largely govern the acceptability of foundation
movement, but they are difficult to predict at the design stage.
Consequently there have been attempts to relate these
parameters to total settlement, which can be estimated with
greater confidence. However, the general validity of
correlations between distortion, differential settlement and total
settlement is questionable. On very variable filled ground, the
differential settlement may be almost as large as the magnitude
of the total settlement.
3. FACTORS AFFECTING ACCEPTABILITY OF TILT
The significance of foundation movement is dependent on the
magnitude of foundation movement that is tolerable for
buildings and their occupiers, and this is a complex function of
the following factors:
(a) the purpose of the building
(b) the ownership of the building
(c) the type of building superstucture
(d) the type of foundations
(e) the nature of the ground conditions.
The consequences of unacceptable ground movements can be
grouped as follows:
(a) Aesthetic: the appearance of the building is adversely
affected.
(b) Serviceability: some function of the building, or services
such as drains, gas and water supply pipes, is impaired.
(c) Stability: there is a danger of collapse of the building or
some part of it.
Once ground movements become noticeable this can affect the
resale value of domestic property, even though there are no
significant aesthetic effects, let alone serviceability or
instability problems. Noticeability is therefore an important
consideration.
In view of this complexity, it is not surprising that, despite the
large number of studies of the acceptability of foundation
1–7
movements, it is still difficult to give widely applicable
general guidelines on acceptable ground movements.
Furthermore, these studies have been principally concerned
with damage to buildings resulting from distortion, and the
problems associated with tilt have received much less attention.
With a stiff foundation, progressive foundation movement has
from the structural distortion and damage commonly
associated with differential settlement.
Where a building distorts, damage becomes visible in the form
of cracks in the brick walls and by doors and windows
jamming. As ground movements increase, so do the widths of
the cracks. Fig. 3 illustrates the cracking that occurs when a
building deforms in a hogging mode. This has been taken from
8
BRE Digest 251, which has provided guidance relating
severity to the observed damage in the form of ease of repair
and crack width.
Where the building tilts without distortion, much larger
Charles • Skinner 67
 Structure or component Tilt

9
Radar system 1/50 000
10
Satellite antenna tower 1/6000
11
Machine operation: turbine 1/5000
12
Warehouse high racking 1/2000
13
Wide cracks Concrete tanks 1/500
11
Crane rails 1/333
11
Chimneys, towers 1/250
11
Stacking of goods 1/100
11
Floor drainage 1/100–1/50

Table 2. Limit values of tilt for different types of structure

Narrow cracks

Hogging mode
in tilt limits for different buildings and applications is
illustrated in Table 2.

Fig. 3. Distortion and cracking caused by hogging
In most of the cases listed in Table 2, the problem is associated
with the tilt of the floor or foundations of the structure. For
buildings containing some types of specialist equipment there
is a very small tolerance of tilt (e.g. a tilt criterion of 1/2000
for a warehouse containing high racking). The necessity of
such small tolerances needs to be critically examined, because
they are likely to require expensive foundation solutions.

For chimneys and towers the amount by which the walls are
out of plumb is critical. The limit value of 1/250 for chimneys
and towers in Table 2 is very much smaller than the actual
inclination to the vertical of the world’s most famous tilting
αw structure, the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Prior to recent
αf

∆s stabilisation works, the tilt of the foundations of the tower

L
Fig. 4. House on stiff raft foundation undergoing tilt
movements can occur without noticeable effects. This is
advantageous in many respects, but there may not be such
clear forewarning of impending and developing problems.
Fig. 4 illustrates a building on a stiff raft foundation that has
undergone differential settlement, ˜s, over the length of the
building, L, which has resulted in the raft foundation tilting at
an angle Æf to the horizontal.
Where differential ground movement causes a building to tilt
as a rigid body with little if any deformation or cracking of the
walls, it is necessary to decide at what points the tilt will
become unacceptable from an aesthetic, serviceability or
stability standpoint. The problems caused by tilt, and hence the
tolerability of tilt, will depend on the type of building and its
purpose.
The maximum tilt of a free-standing wall or tower prior to
toppling can be calculated by a simple stability calculation, but
the critical tilt at which collapse of a building occurs depends
on several factors, including the extent to which the walls of
the building are tied together. The limiting factors for tolerable
tilt of a building are usually related to noticeability and
serviceability rather than ultimate collapse. The wide variation
reached an angle of 5.58 (1/10)!
Standards and regulations could also have a major effect on
acceptability of tilt, but published limit values of tilt are not
common. The Building Regulations, which impose minimum
standards relating to design, workmanship and materials for
building work in England and Wales, put emphasis on
functional requirements, and no criteria are specified for
tolerable distortion or tilt of buildings. Two British
14, 15
Standards that form codes of practice for foundations for
buildings are equally reticent, providing no guidance on
tolerable foundation movements. Some authorities in the
16, 17 18
USA and Canada have quoted acceptable foundation
deflections and tilt for brick dwellings ranging from 1/240 to
1/330.
4. CASE HISTORIES
The mechanisms of ground movement and the building
response are so complex, and ground conditions and structures
are so varied, that case histories provide the most useful
guidance on tolerable tilt. Although settlement observations on
buildings are relatively common, the number of examples
where the following features are found is limited:
(a) reliable and accurate settlement measurements
(b) sufficient monitoring points around the building to
distinguish between tilt and distortion
(c) monitoring continued over an adequate period of time
(d) knowledge of the ground conditions, foundations and
superstructure.

68 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings Charles • Skinner
Table 3 summarises some case histories of low-rise brick
buildings including detached, semi-detached and terraced
houses. The cases cover a range of ground conditions including
opencast mining backfill, peat, shrinkable clay and mining
Ground level
subsidence.

4.1. Case 1

610 mm
In 1963, 24 semi-detached houses were built with four different
types of foundation, ranging from strip footings to a raft with
19, 20
deep reinforced edge beams as shown in Fig. 5. Over a
10-year period, the maximum observed settlement was 0.18 m.
Although the maximum tilt experienced by any of the
buildings was 1/100, a gable wall suffered differential
settlement of 0.13 m over a distance of 8.5 m (1/54). The wall
remained intact, but the roof gutter overflowed at the end
(a)
opposite the downpipe. Although there was no clear
relationship between type of foundation and observed
settlement behaviour, a comparison of two pairs of semi-
detached houses with similar large settlements indicates that
whereas the pair of houses on strip footing suffered minor
cracking of brickwork (the width of cracks was less than 2 mm)
and severe tilt of a gable wall, the pair of houses on the raft
foundation did not. Ground level

4.2. Case 2
Several different forms of ground treatment were used at this
610 mm

20, 21
experimental site prior to housing development in 1975.
The performance of houses built on pre-loaded opencast
backfill has been particularly satisfactory, whereas the houses
built on pre-inundated ground have settled most. Although
inundation from the surface via trenches proved unsuccessful
as a means of adequately pretreating the ground, it
demonstrated that water penetrating into the backfill from the
ground surface could be a major hazard to buildings. (b)
Maximum tilt occurred on the inundation area, where one of
the buildings has a tilt of 1/110. This was noticeable, and there Fig. 5. Two of the foundation types used at case 1: (a) type A,
strip footing; (b) type D, raft with deep reinforced edge
was some minor cracking of the brickwork. However, the
beams
damage was not severe, being regarded as category 2 or 3 in

Location Building type Plan area, Foundations Ground s: m Æf Damage

L 3 B: m conditions

1 White Post Court, Semi-detached 16 3 8 Traditional strip Opencast backfill 0.18 1/100 Slight
Corby
2 Snatchill, Corby Detached 836 Trench fill Opencast backfill 0.15 1/110 Slight
3 Ilkeston Terraced 23 3 9 Raft with edge Opencast backfill 0.3 1/65 Major; demolition
beam
4 West Midlands Detached 9 3 9 Raft Opencast backfill 0.3 1/33 Slight; underpinned
5 West Midlands Semi-detached 12 3 10 Raft with edge Collapse of 1.5 1/18 Demolition due to
beams limestone mine excessive tilt
6 Moston, Terraced 29 3 6 Raft + vibro Fill 0.08 1/680 None
Manchester
7 Bathgate, West Mining 0.3 1/63 Demolition
Lothian subsidence
8 Leigh, Lancashire Semi-detached 12 3 7 Raft Mining 0.1 1/400 Serious cracking
subsidence and overall; and distortion
shrinkable clay 1/150 local
9 North-west Flats 15 3 7 Reinforced strip Peat 0.35 1/50 Distortion and
England footings cracking
10 Hemel Hempstead Semi-detached 12 3 7 Trench fill Stiff clay 0.01 1/2000 Minor cracking

Table 3. Maximum settlement (s) and tilt (Æf ) of low-rise housing

Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings Charles • Skinner 69
 8
the BRE damage classification. The development of tilt at the
detached house is shown in Fig. 6. The maximum tilt measured
at any of the other houses was 1/410.
4.3. Case 3
A block of eight two-storey houses at Ilkeston was completed
20
in February 1973. The block had a movement joint in the
middle and was built on a 0.18 m thick mesh-reinforced
concrete raft with 0.6 m deep edge beams. Settlement was soon
evident, and although underpinning and pressure grouting
were carried out, movements continued. Damage was
principally in the form of distortion and cracking of brickwork.
Although the average tilt along the length of the block was not
particularly large, by the end of January 1974 floor levels
showed a maximum differential settlement of 0.14 m across the
9 m wide block (1/65), and the east wall was 0.065 m (1/80) out
of plumb. A field inundation test confirmed that water
penetrating into the fill through drain trenches could cause
collapse compression within the backfill. The block was never
occupied, and was demolished in 1982.
4.4. Case 4
Very large settlements of houses built on opencast backfill
occurred over the 9 m width of a detached house; tilts reached
22
about 300 mm (1/33). The houses were built on reinforced
raft foundations, and experienced little if any cracking and
damage. Piles were installed and the houses jacked back to
level.
4.5. Case 5
A number of houses were affected by the collapse of a
limestone mine in 1988. In addition to a settlement of 1.5 m,
large compressive and tensile ground strains occurred, and
ground tilts ranged from 1/18 to 1/65. The main structures of
the houses showed little crack damage, but extensions on less
substantial foundations were seriously damaged. Twelve semi-
detached houses had to be demolished owing to lack of
serviceability associated with the excessive tilt.
4.6. Case 6
Some 29 m long terraced housing units were built over an
23
infilled valley with a maximum depth of fill of 15 m. The fill
was improved by the installation of vibro stone columns prior
to building. Lightly reinforced concrete rafts with 0.6 m deep
1975 1980 1985 1990
0 The case histories in Table 3 are all located in Great Britain.
Tilt
Maximum settlement: mm
50
100
Settlement
150
Fig. 6. Development of tilt at a detached house
70 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2
reinforced edge beams were used. Settlements were small at
this successful development.
4.7. Case 7
Following a severe mining subsidence problem in 1975,
housing redevelopment was based on small independent units
24
with a recommended length limit of 11 m. Rigid construction
was considered the most appropriate solution, with strong raft
foundations that would tilt without distortion. The
superstructure was required to be fairly rigid to eliminate
secondary distortions during tilting. Two alternative rafts were
designed: a simple raft that would require underpinning prior
to re-levelling, and a more expensive jackable raft based on a
three-point pad system.
4.8. Case 8
A semi-detached house built on a 0.15 m deep raft suffered
serious distortion and cracking. Ground movements have been
attributed to three causes:
25
(a) longwall mining subsidence
(b) eccentric loading of the thickened portion of the
foundation raft under the gable end
(c) removal of moisture by an ash tree.
The building damage was primarily associated with hogging
deformation.
4.9. Case 9
The settlement of some two-storey blocks of flats is believed to
be associated with the presence of a peat layer varying from
26
1.3 m to 2.6 m deep. Despite the reinforced concrete strip
footings, distortion and cracking of the brickwork occurred.
The maximum tilt of a gable wall was about 1/50. Reinforced
concrete strip footings are 1 m wide 3 0.225 m deep under the
cavity walls.
4.10. Case 10
Trench-fill foundations were used for a pair of semi-detached
27
houses built on stiff clay. Settlement at one corner has been
influenced by the growth of a nearby ash tree. After 36 years,
the maximum settlement is only 14 mm and the maximum
overall tilt is only 1/2000, but deformation of one gable end
has caused minor cracking of the exterior brickwork. The
deflection ratio is 1/2500 in hogging.
1995
1/100 Data from other countries can be helpful, although the form of
1/200
1/300 house construction is often quite different. Several thousand
1/400 rafts have been used in housing developments on filled ground
1/500 28
in the Melbourne area with very few known failures. Internal
stiffening beams have been typically at 4 m centres. Where
Tilt
there are internal stiffening beams in both directions, raft
foundations are sometimes described as waffle foundations.
1/1000
A survey of ten 60–80-year-old two-storey housing blocks in
Ottawa built on sensitive clay showed differential settlements
1/1500 greater than 0.15 m, with some buildings tilted as a unit; the
tilt and related severity of damage were as follows: 1/180, no
damage; 1/120, slight damage; 1/90, moderate damage; 1/50,
29
heavy or severe damage.
Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings Charles • Skinner
There have been substantial housing developments on infilled
sites in the USA, particularly in southern California. The
performance of two tilted detached houses built on fill can be
contrasted.
A house at San Clemente was built on a post-tensioned raft
30, 31
with perimeter edge beams; the differential foundation
movement was 120 mm over 21 m (1/175), and there was
architectural damage only.
A house that was built in 1974 had a lightly reinforced raft
31
foundation. The large settlement, which occurred over some
10 years, was roughly in proportion to the depth of fill:
200 mm of differential settlement occurred over 20 m (1/100).
Serious damage included foundation cracks, interior wallboard
cracks, racked door frames, and separation of the house from
the garage.
5. FINDINGS FROM CASE HISTORIES
The case histories provide useful indications of the tolerability
of tilt and the need for remedial action. For those cases where
tilt was the predominant form of movement, tolerability can be
summarised as follows:
(a) In cases 4, 5, 7 and 9, where the tilt of the buildings ranges
from 1/18 to 1/65, the tilt was regarded as intolerable.
(b) In cases 1 and 2, where the tilt of the buildings has reached
the order of 1/100, the tilt has been noticed, but as yet no
remedial action has been called for.
(c) In case 6 the tilt of 1/680 had not been noticed.
The remedial actions were as follows:
(a) In case 3 the terraced housing showed considerable
damage, as the raft construction was not sufficiently robust
to prevent distortion of the long building. As a
consequence, the building was demolished, although the
tilt was relatively small.
(b) In case 5 the rafts were sufficiently stiff to ensure that the
predominant movement mode was tilting, and the
maximum tilt was 1/18. Cracking of walls was slight, and
the excessive tilt was the crucial issue. Compensation
grouting was considered, but not implemented owing to
the risk of further movements. The buildings were
demolished.
(c) In case 4 the houses were built on reinforced raft
foundations, and experienced little if any cracking and
damage despite the large tilt (1/33). Piles were installed and
the houses jacked back to level.
It is difficult to deduce from case histories how stiff the
foundations need to be to ensure that the structure only tilts
and does not distort. Where a building tilts without significant
distortion there are two possible explanations:
(a) The foundations may have been sufficiently stiff to prevent
any distortion of the building.
(b) The ground movements may have been such that no
distortion of the building would have occurred even with
flexible foundations.
In case 5, where movements were particularly large, the stiff
Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings
raft foundations, which proved adequate, comprised a 0.3 m
thick concrete slab reinforced by a 0.15 m 3 0.15 m mesh of
5 mm steel, supported by 0.55 m deep edge beams.
In cases 3, 8 and 9 the foundations did not prevent distortion
and cracking.
(a) At case 3 the eight-unit housing block had a movement
joint in the middle of the block, but even so the length of a
half-block was 23 m. The houses were built on a 0.18 m
thick mesh reinforced concrete raft with 0.6 m deep edge
beams. However, no normal house raft foundation would
be adequate for a structure of this length.
(b) At case 9 the blocks of four flats were 15 m long, but the
reinforced concrete strip footings were only 225 mm deep.
Analyses of the differential movements of lightly reinforced
raft foundations for one- and two-storey detached houses in
the USA have shown that damage was related to angular
distortion, which indicates that the rafts generally were not
32
sufficiently stiff to prevent such distortion. The rafts, which
are referred to as ‘slab-on-grade’, were generally 100 mm thick,
reinforced with welded wire mesh, with deepened reinforced
footings under load-bearing walls. A subsequent analysis of
damage to houses of wood frame construction built on rafts in
33
the USA also related level of damage to angular distortion.
Problems with raft foundations for houses on expansive soils
in southern California occurred where reliance was placed on
reducing the effects of expansive soils through the use of
deepened footings and pre-soaking the ground rather than
34
making the foundation strong enough to resist the forces.
6. PROPOSED INDICATIVE VALUES FOR
ACCEPTABILITY OF TILT
Based on the case histories, some indicative values of tilt for
low-rise dwellings are summarised in Table 4. The values of tilt
are applicable to the tilt of a whole building, and hence both
floors and walls; they are not relevant to the situation where
one wall of a building leans or bows outwards owing to
processes unrelated to foundation movement. In such situations
the wall can usually be stabilised by means of tie bars.
Although Table 4 is relevant to both new and existing low-rise
buildings, it can do no more than provide an indication of
typical values of tilt at various stages from design to remedial
work. It is based largely on the performance of two-storey
buildings, and therefore may be slightly conservative for
single-storey buildings, but less so for three-storey buildings.
Noticeability is crucial to acceptability for low-rise residential
buildings, particularly where there are owner-occupiers.
However, the powers of observation of occupiers show
considerable differences, and the sensitivity to tilt will differ
between individuals. Where mining subsidence is
commonplace, a small tilt is less likely to be noticed and more
likely to be tolerated than in other parts of the country.
Tilt of walls and floors of low-rise buildings typically is noticed
when it is in the region of 1/250 to 1/200. Problems associated
with serviceability are unlikely until a considerably greater tilt
occurs, and structural distress may not occur until a tilt of
1/50, but in terms of the resale value of a house perception is
the key factor, and when a tilt of 1/250 is noticed there may be
Charles • Skinner 71
 Classification Tilt Comment

Design limit value 1/400 The maximum acceptable differential settlement across the building is related to the design limit
value for tilt. If the building is likely to tilt more than this limit value, ground treatment or deep
foundations may be required.
Noticeability 1/250 The point at which the tilt of a building becomes noticeable will depend on the type and
purpose of the building, and the powers of observation and perception of the occupiers. Tilt of
low-rise housing typically is noticed when it is in the region of 1/250 to 1/200.
Monitoring 1/250 When tilt is noticed it is advisable to make some measurements to confirm that the building has
tilted. If the measured tilt is greater than 1/250, monitoring should be carried out to determine
whether the tilt is increasing.
Remedial action 1/100 Where tilts of this magnitude are measured, or the measured rate of increase of tilt indicates
that this degree of tilt will be exceeded, some remedial action should be taken. This is likely to
include re-levelling the building, perhaps by grouting or underpinning and jacking.
Ultimate limit 1/50 If tilt reaches this level, the building may be regarded as in a dangerous condition, and remedial
action either to re-level or demolish the building will be required urgently.

Table 4. Indicative values for tilt of low-rise housing

perceived to be a problem. Serviceability problems can include
doors swinging open, and drainage falls becoming insufficient.
At larger tilts some cracking of brickwork may occur.
A suitable limit for design purposes in a typical case is 1/400,
which has a reasonable margin on the likely noticeability limit
of 1/250. For a building with a length of 8 m, a 1/400 tilt
corresponds to a differential settlement of 20 mm. A smaller
design limit value would be impractical for most low-rise
dwellings.
If the estimated tilt is greater than the design limit of 1/400,
the foundation design and construction layout need to be
reconsidered. It may be appropriate to consider some form of
ground treatment prior to construction of the raft foundation:
there are a number of widely available treatment processes,
and specialist geotechnical advice should be obtained on their
suitability for particular site conditions and requirements. At
some sites, where predicted ground movements are very large,
it may be concluded that shallow foundations are not
appropriate.
7. IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN OF NEW BUILDINGS
Where low-rise housing is to be located on a site with poor soil
conditions and foundation settlement is likely to be more than,
say, 20 mm, and where deep foundations are not an
economically viable solution, the provision of stiff foundations
for the houses may be an attractive approach. Two aspects of
foundation design for new buildings need to be addressed: the
design of an adequately stiff raft foundation, and the
avoidance of excessive tilt.
provision should be made to reduce the risk of damage to
underground services where they enter the building.
A stiff raft for low-rise housing usually takes the form of a
composite slab with the foundation slab acting as a tie between
the edge beams and internal ground beams, as shown
diagrammatically in Fig. 7. The detailed structural design of
such a reinforced concrete foundation for particular ground
deformations is not a simple task, and different design
methods, embodying different assumptions, can give quite
35
different depths for the edge and internal beams. Raft
foundations should be designed by an appropriately qualified
civil or structural engineer. Current practice on fill sites is to
design the foundation such that, although the foundation slab
is cast on the ground, a distance x can be spanned and a
distance x/2 at the edge of the building can act as a
36, 37
cantilever, as illustrated in Fig. 8. The ideal solution would
be that x ¼ L, the length of the building, but this will be
prohibitively expensive. However, the commonly adopted
values of x, which are in the range 3–4 m, appear to have been
generally satisfactory for small buildings. In most cases a
ground beam depth of 0.6 m is adequate. The foundation slab
is typically 0.2 m deep.
It is necessary to check that the stiff raft will not tilt beyond
the design limit value. Some of the more common causes of
large ground movement are:
(a) consolidation of soft clays and organic soils
(b) collapse compression of poorly compacted fills on wetting

The objective is to design foundations sufficiently stiff to

ensure that differential settlement results in the building
undergoing a rigid body rotation rather than distortion. The
extra cost incurred by providing stiff foundations is usually not
great in relation to the selling price of a house and the
consequences of the building damage that could occur if such
foundations are not provided. This approach to foundation
design should largely eliminate distortion and cracking of Fig. 7. Typical raft foundation
buildings unless ground movements become large. Appropriate

72 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings Charles • Skinner

(a)
x
(b)
x/2
Fig. 8. Design criteria for raft foundation
(c) volume changes in clay soils
(d) mining subsidence
(e) instability of sloping ground.
Information on these and other causes of ground movement
8
can be found in BRE Digest 251, and in the Institution of
38
Structural Engineers’ Subsidence of Low-Rise Buildings. The
differential settlement that could occur during the lifetime of
the building should be estimated, and from this the possible tilt
can be calculated. A credible estimate of settlement and tilt
requires an appropriate site investigation.
8. IMPLICATIONS FOR TILT OF EXISTING
BUILDINGS
Where it is noticed that a building appears to be tilting,
measurements should be made to confirm whether there is
significant tilt and, if there is, to assess the likelihood of the tilt
increasing.
Level measurements around a readily identifiable feature such
as a course of masonry or the damp proof course (dpc) can
provide an estimate of the amount by which the foundation is
out of level. However, the particular feature that is surveyed
may have been built out of level. It can be assumed that most
detached and semi-detached pairs of houses will not be out of
39
level by more than 15 mm at the time of construction.
The amount by which walls are out of plumb can be measured
using a plumb bob and ruler or an optical instrument. An
external masonry wall of a two-storey building should not be
out of plumb by more than 20 mm at the time of building, and
39
many buildings will be better than this. For a single-storey
building this may be reduced to 10 mm.
The potential errors in the estimation of tilt due to initial out-
of-level of brickwork courses and out-of-plumb of walls are
large compared with the noticeability level of tilt. However,
where the measurements on opposite walls of the building
show similar results, and the out-of-level measurements are
similar to the out-of-plumb measurements, it may be
concluded that the measurements give a reasonable estimate of
the tilt.
Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings
Where the initial survey confirms that the building has a tilt
greater than 1/250, it is suggested that monitoring should be
carried out to determine whether there is progressive ground
movement. To determine the rate of settlement over a reasonably
short timescale requires precise levelling equipment and stable
reference datums. Levelling stations should be installed at dpc
level at sufficient points around the building to establish the form
that the differential settlement is taking. The results of the
monitoring should make it possible to determine that no further
increase in tilt is occurring, or that tilt is varying in a cyclic
manner, probably associated with seasonal changes in water
content of the soil, or that tilt is progressively increasing. Where
the degree of cyclic movement has to be assessed, monitoring
should be carried out over a minimum period of 12 months. It is
imperative to identify the principal cause of the ground
movement, and an appropriate site investigation is required. The
matrix shown in Table 5, which has been proposed as an aid in
40
evaluating the significance of cracks in low-rise buildings, may
also be useful in assessing the significance of tilting.
Where no further increase in tilt is occurring, or the tilt is
varying in a cyclic manner, the maximum tilt that the building
is likely to suffer should have occurred already. Where the
movement is progressive, the monitored rate of movement
should be interpreted in the light of the most probable cause of
the movement, and an estimate of the maximum tilt should be
made. Fig. 6 shows the development of tilt at the detached
house in case 2. The house was built in 1975, and two years
later was tilting at 1/250. Ten years after construction the tilt
was 1/120, and appears to have stabilised at 1/110.
For low-rise residential buildings where progressive ground
movement is taking place, remedial action is likely to be
required when tilt has reached 1/100. Where the tilt is smaller
than this, but is increasing and will reach 1/100, it may be
technically easier and less costly to deal with the problem
earlier rather than later, particularly where the stiffness of the
foundation is indeterminate, and a lower trigger level may be
appropriate. The objectives of remedial action include:
(a) re-levelling the building
(b) ensuring structural integrity
(c) ground modification to address the cause of the foundation
movements.
When ground movements appear to have ceased, re-levelling
the structure and ensuring structural integrity may be the
principal concerns. If there is ongoing ground movement, some
form of ground improvement may be the initial requirement.
Consequences of Type of ground movement
ground movement
Ceased Cyclic Progressive
Aesthetic
Serviceability
Stability
Table 5. Decision matrix for assessing the significance of
tilting, using the measured or predicted tilt
Charles • Skinner 73
 Where ground movement has caused a low-rise building with a
stiff foundation to tilt without noticeable distortion, the
appropriate remedial action is to re-level the building. Possible
methods include grouting or underpinning and jacking.
Appropriate specialists will be required for the work. Where the
structure is re-levelled by injection grouting, careful
monitoring of foundation levels will be required as grouting
proceeds. If re-levelling can be achieved, then there may be
little else needed to rectify in the building, as cracks in walls
and other signs of distortion should be very minor. In some
cases it may be advisable to enhance structural integrity by
introducing masonry reinforcement, wall plates and ties.
Some form of ground treatment may be needed to address the
cause of the foundation movements. This type of remedial
action is required where there are significant ongoing ground
movements, for example due to settlement of fill, or where
some vulnerability to future movement is identified, for
example the presence of mining cavities. Grouting may be used
41
to improve the stiffness of the ground or to fill cavities.
Monitoring should be continued during and after treatment to
verify the effectiveness of the remedial works.
Where a building suffers distortion, underpinning is often used
to extend the foundations downwards into stiffer and more
stable ground, thereby reducing the potential for further
movement. However, underpinning on its own will not be
adequate for a building that suffers excessive tilt. Re-levelling
of the structure will be required, but may not always be
practicable, and much depends on the causes of ground
movement and the extent to which the foundation movement
is progressive. Also, it may be difficult to determine whether
the foundations are sufficiently stiff and strong to survive the
planned remedial action. An absence of building distortion
does not guarantee a stiff foundation, as the tilt could be due
to the intrinsic form of the ground movement. With low-rise
buildings the cost of remedial work could exceed the cost of
demolition and rebuilding.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Tilt of low-rise buildings and, particularly, low-rise housing
is likely to be of increasing concern owing to developments
in foundation design linked to the shortage of good building
land and the consequent necessity of siting new housing
developments on more marginal ground. For low-rise
residential buildings, noticeability is a key factor. The point
at which the tilt of a building becomes noticeable will
depend on the type and purpose of the building, and the
powers of observation and perception of the occupiers. Tilt of
low-rise housing typically is noticed when it is in the region
of 1/250 to 1/200. Where tilts of the magnitude of 1/100 or
greater are measured, or the measured rate of increase of tilt
indicates that this degree of tilt will be exceeded, some
remedial action is likely to be required. This will include re-
levelling the building, perhaps by grouting or underpinning
and jacking.
10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research project on the settlement and tilting of domestic
buildings on difficult ground has been carried out by BRE
under the Safety and Health in Buildings Theme of the research
programme of ODPM Building Regulations Division. This paper
74 Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings
and a BRE Digest have been prepared as part of that project.
During the course of the project advice was received from
many sources, including Tony Boobier (Royal and Sun
Alliance), Berenice Chan (Institution of Structural Engineers),
Roger Johnson (Avongard), Brian Pailing (Nicholls Colton
Geotechnical), Tim Freeman (Geoserve), Roger Thompson (Edge
Consultants), and Barry Slocombe (Keller).
REFERENCES
1. SKEMPTON A. W. and MACDONALD D. H. The allowable
settlements of buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Part III, 1956, 5, 727–768.
2. POLSHIN D. E. and TOKAR R. A. Maximum allowable non-
uniform settlement of structures. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, London, 1957, 1, 402–405.
3. FELD J. Tolerance of structures to settlement. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 1965, 91,
No. SM3, 63–77.
4. BURLAND J. B. and WROTH C. P. Settlement of buildings and
associated damage. Settlement of Structures: Proceedings of
a Conference Organised by the British Geotechnical Society.
Pentech Press, London, 1975, pp. 611–654.
5. BOSCARDIN M. D. and CORDING E. J. Building response to
excavation-induced settlement. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 1989, 115, No. 1, 1–21.
6. WAHLS H. E. Tolerable deformations. In Vertical and
Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments.
ASCE, 1994, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40,
Vol. 2, pp 1611–1628.
7. BOONE S. J. Ground-movement-related building damage.
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1996, 122,
No. 11, 886–896.
8. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Assessment of Damage
in Low-Rise Buildings. BRE, Garston, 1995, BRE Digest
251.
9. LAMBE T. W. and WHITMAN R. V. Soil Mechanics, SI version.
Wiley, New York, 1979.
10. D’ELIA B. and GRISOLIA M. On the behaviour of a partially
floating foundation on normally consolidated silty clays.
Settlement of Structures: Proceedings of a Conference
Organised by the British Geotechnical Society. Pentech
Press, London, 1975, pp. 91–98.
11. SOWERS G. F. Shallow foundations. In Foundation
Engineering (LEONARDS G. A. (ed.)). McGraw-Hill, New York,
1962, pp. 525–632.
12. CHARLES J. A. and WATTS K. S. Treated Ground: Engineering
Properties and Performance. Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, 2002, CIRIA Report
C572.
13. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Flat-Bottomed, Vertical,
Cylindrical Storage Tanks for Low-Temperature Service.
Part 3: Recommendations for the Design and Construction
of Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete Tanks and Tank
Foundations, and for the Design and Installation of Tank
Insulation, Tank Liners and Tank Coatings. BSI, Milton
Keynes, 1993, BS 7777: Part 3.
14. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Code of Practice for
Foundations. BSI, Milton Keynes, 1986, BS 8004.
15. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. British Standard for
Structural Design of Low-Rise Buildings. Part 1: Code of
Practice for Stability, Site Investigation, Foundations and
Charles • Skinner
 Ground Floor Slabs for Housing. BSI, Milton Keynes, 1995,
BS 8103: Part 1.
16. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS. Uniform
Building Code. International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California, 1991.
17. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. Building Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete. American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, ACI 318-89 (revised 1992).
18. CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY. Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual. Part 2: Shallow Foundations.
Canadian Geotechnical Society, Alliston, Ontario, 1978.
19. PENMAN A. D. M. and GODWIN E. W. (1975). Settlement of
experimental houses on land left by opencast mining at
Corby. Settlement of Structures: Proceedings of a
Conference Organised by the British Geotechnical Society.
Pentech Press, London, 1975, pp. 53–61.
20. CHARLES J. A. and WATTS K. S. Building on Fill:
Geotechnical Aspects, 2nd edn. Building Research
Establishment, Garston, 2001, Report BR 424.
21. BURFORD D. and CHARLES J. A. Long-term performance of
houses built on opencast ironstone mining backfill at
Corby, 1975–1990. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff,
1991, 4, 54–67.
22. THOMPSON R. P. The value of timely hazard identification.
Proceedings of a Seminar on the Value of Geotechnics in
Construction. CRC, London, 1998, pp. 3–11.
23. GRAY J. and THOMSON G. Some observations on settlements
of houses on treated urban fill. Proceedings of a
Symposium on Engineering Behaviour of Industrial and
Urban Fill, Birmingham, 1979, pp. E51–E56.
24. CARTER P., JARMAN D. and SNEDDON M. Mining subsidence
in Bathgate: a town study. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Ground Movements and
Structures, Cardiff, 1980, 101–124.
25. BARNES G. E. Diagnosis of structural damage and
movement due to more than one cause. Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, St Louis, 1988, 2, 1229–1232.
26. WILSON J. G., GARWOOD T. G. and SARSBY R. W. The
settlement of low-rise buildings constructed over peat.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Ground
Movements and Structures, Cardiff, 1984, 526–538.
27. BURFORD D. Long-term settlement of a pair of semi-
detached houses built on stiff clay. Proceedings of the
Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 October 2004: email: mary.henderson@ice.org.uk;
fax: þ44 (0)20 7799 1325; or post to Mary Henderson, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1–7 Great George Street,
London SW1P 3AA.
Geotechnical Engineering 157 Issue GE2 Settlement and tilt of low-rise buildings
Institution of Civil Engineers—Municipal Engineer, 1993,
98, 107–114.
28. HOLLAND J. E. and LAWRANCE C. E. Behaviour and design of
housing slabs on filling. Proceedings of the 3rd Australia–
New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Wellington,
1980, 1, 25–31.
29. BOZOZUK M. Soil shrinkage damages shallow foundations in
Ottawa. Engineering Journal (Canada), 1963, 45, No. 7, 33
(reported in ref. 3).
30. DAY R. W. Settlement behaviour of post-tensioned slab-on-
grade. ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 1998, 12, No. 2, 56–61.
31. DAY R. W. Forensic Geotechnical and Foundation
Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999.
32. DAY R. W. Differential movement of slab-on-grade
structures. ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 1990, 4, No. 4, 236–241.
33. MARSH E. T. and THOENY S. A. Damage and distortion
criteria for residential slab-on-grade structures. ASCE
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 1999, 13,
No. 3, 121–127.
34. DAY R. W. Performance of slab-on-grade foundations on
expansive soil. ASCE Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, 1994, 8, No. 2, 129–138.
35. PIDGEON J. T. A comparison of existing methods for the
design of stiffened raft foundations on expansive soils.
Proceedings of the 7th Regional Conference for Africa on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Accra, 1980,
277–290.
36. ATKINSON M. F. Structural Foundations Manual for Low-
Rise Buildings. E & FN Spon, London, 1993.
37. CURTIN W. G., SHAW G., PARKINSON G. I. and GOLDING J. M.
Structural Foundation Designers’ Manual. Blackwell,
Oxford, 1994.
38. INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. Subsidence of
Low-Rise Buildings: A Guide for Professionals and Property
Owners, 2nd edn. Institution of Structural Engineers,
London, 2000.
39. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Simple Measuring and
Monitoring of Movement in Low-Rise Buildings. Part 2:
Settlement, Heave and Out-of-Plumb. Building Research
Establishment, Garston, 1995, BRE Digest 344.
40. JOHNSON R. W. The significance of cracks in buildings. The
Structural Engineer, 15 October 2002, 80, No. 20, 19–22.
41. GREENWOOD D. Underpinning by grouting. Ground
Engineering, 1987, 20, No. 3, 21–32.
Charles • Skinner 75