Case Study #5 – Wisconsin Settlement

Divyanshu Lal and Ben Alonzo

Date of Submission: May 21, 2021
1. Introduction
Case study #5 involves analyzing the excessive settlement of an approximately 100,000 sq ft. building
constructed as an addition to a commercial toy manufacturing facility located in Madison, Wisconsin. The
addition was constructed in about 1994-1995 (Figure 1). In 3 years after construction, the southeast corner
of the building had settled approximately 17 inches. The original design consultant was hired to assess the
situation and determined that the settlement had ceased; however, it was later determined that the
settlement had not ceased and could hinder remediation strategies. This report discusses the issue and
presents an analysis to determine the total amount of expected settlement and the time to reach 90%
settlement.

SB-1

SB-2

SB-3

Figure 1 – Overall Site Plan of Facility Figure 2 – Boring Locations

2.
Problem Statement
The foundation for the building addition was constructed using the same shallow foundation design
criteria used for the original facility. However, an incomplete assessment of the design and subsurface
conditions resulted in an excessive settlement in the southeastern portion of the building.
Three borings drilled at the addition site (Figure 2) indicate that the soil types consist of glacial deposits
composed of a 0.5-ft layer of low permeability, medium-dense, silty sand; a 17.5-ft layer of soft organic
silty clay; and a 43-ft layer of very soft, silty clay with sand varves. The unaccounted-for soft soils were
not encountered in the original building areas, which likely led to the excess settlement of 17-inches.
 Figure 3 – Column 17A Settlement Observed from
Figure 3 above shows settlement of column 17A,
located in the southeast corner of the addition, during the interval from 1995 to 1998. The consultants
performing the settlement survey concluded that measurements taken from 1995 to 1998 indicate that
settlement had been completed. However, further examination of the survey data and notes showed that
survey work was performed incorrectly. Specifically, it was determined that the surveying team set up
their bench mark in the area of the building where the settlement was occurring. This error in the
measurement process gave the appearance that settlement was completed.
The following section presents an analysis of total settlement and time to reach 90% settlement based on
the subsurface stratigraphy provided in class (Figure 4).
3. Summary of Settlement Analysis Calculations

Assumptions and Given Information

Fill Thickness 8 ft
Unit Weight of Fill (lb/ft³) 125
Two layers beneath fill (upper/lower)
Building load (1.5 tons/ft²) 3000 lb/ft²
Layers Below Fill Layer 1 Layer 2
Unit weight (lb/ft³) 140 140
Depth at Midpoint 8.75 21.5
eo 1.3 0.9
Cc 0.55 0.35
Cv 15 45
Thickness (ft) 17.5 43
Figure 4 – Site Stratigraphy

Settlement Calculation

Layer 1 Stress σ ' (¿ midpoint )=σ−u=( 8.75∗140 )−( 8.75∗62.4 ) = 679

Layer 2 Stress σ ' ( ¿ midpoint )=σ −u=( 17.5∗140 ) + ( 21.5∗115 ) −( 39∗62.4 )= 2489

Building and Fill Load Δ σ=1500+(10∗125) =2750

Cc σ ' c+ Δσ
Settlement ( δ)=H log ⁡( ) , (assuming normally consolidated soil)
1+e 0 σ' c
 0.55 679+2750 0.35 2489+2750
Settlement (δ )=
1+ 1.3
(17.5)∗log (
679
+
1+0.9 )
(43)∗log
2489 (
= 5.5 ft )
Time requirement for 90 percent consolidation

Parameter Value
Tv 0.848
H (2-way drainage) (17.5+43)/2 = 30.25
Cv (weighted) 36
2 2
Tv H ⅆr0.848∗30.25
t90 ¿ = =¿ 21.6 years
cv 36

4. Causal Analysis Discussion

The analysis above suggests that performing a thorough settlement analysis could have prevented the
unexpected excessive settlement seen throughout the building addition. More importantly, however, the
analysis above indicates that substantial settlement of the building remains.
The following measures should be taken to address the issues identified above:

 Supplement the site geology and geotechnical characterization with additional investigation
borings;
 Consider retrofitting the building addition with a deep foundation system or an equivalent system
that eliminates the detrimental additional settlement indicated by the investigation described
herein.

5. Lessons Learned
The following lessons were learned from the authors of this case history report:
 The importance of having a thorough understanding of site geology and being able to address the
implications of that geology in a practical and economical way.
 Performing a thorough settlement analysis and evaluating all site conditions using multiple levels of
review to confirm proposed design criteria is essential to preventing foundation failure of a building.
 Proper training, including education and training in survey work in this example, is crucial to
accurately depict potential issues associated with any project.
 Performing comprehensive characterization of a site and supplementing that characterization with
additional measures is invaluable.

6. References
Hendron, D.M. (2021). Wisconsin Settlement [Power Point Slides]. McCormick School of Engineering,
Northwestern University. https://canvas.northwestern.edu/courses/139764/files/11382149?
module_item_id=1927964
Das, B.M. (2019). Advanced Soil Mechanics (Fifth Edition). CRC Press: Taylor & Francis Group, pages
633 – 673.