An analysis on allowable settlements of structures G, RICCERI, M. SORANZO* Austuct: This paper examines allowable settlements of structures built blished in the last 25 years. Italy, the results of which have been pu- Sixty-nine structures of various types with both superficial and deep foundations in cohesive, granular and layered soils fare analysed. Alter a brief stateof-theart of the various methods used to approach the problem, various cases are examined with re- ference to the models proposed by Skempton and MacDonald. ‘The good correlation between maximum settlement and anzular distorsion allowed prefiminary elements for an evalua tion of admissible deformations on the basis of settlement calculations. 1, Introduction The observation of the settlement of structu- res and possible consequent damage is undoub- tedly a valid method of evaluating the limits within which certain types of structure may accept deformations without weaknesses which may jeopardize or restrict their use. The principal disadvantages of this method of investigation are the subjectivity of damage evaluation and the difficulty of assessing which limits influence possible defects or construc: tion typologies rather than the extent of set- tlement in a particular damaged structure. Undoubtedly, the conclusions which may be drawn from a set of data must be formulated with great caution, due to the fact that the problem of the soil/structure interaction is extremely complex and influenced by a high number of parameters. However, at least as fer as the field of values is concerned, investigations on real-size models certainly supply valid results, especially if a high number of observations are made. This study forms part of this approach and aims at extending knowledge on kriown cases by means of an analysis oi Italian structures, details of which have been published in the literature,” 2. Aims of this ‘study Load application during building modifies the tensional conditions initially present in the subsoil and causes a state of deformation, whose sum on the surface, measured vertically, is called « settlement ». Settlements occurring during the life of the * Istituto di Costruzioni Marittime © di Geotecnica, Fa colt di Ingegneria, Universita di Padova. structure (ie., during and after its construc- tion) are « admissible » when they are tolera- ted by its architectural, static and planning elements. However, other factors may inter- vene in defining the criterion on which allowa- ble settlement is based, such as aesthetic, psy- chological, legal and economic factors. The pre- sence of cracks in the plasterwork of a house may be hardly significant from the structural viewpoint, but it may be of great importance from the aesthetic, psychological and econo- mic viewpoints and may affect its price per square meter. TOMLINSON, DriscoL and Burianp [1978] have attempted to define visible damage in walls by correlating them with the degree of difficulty required to repair them. They defi- ned five categories of damage, ranging from opening of cracks in wall coatings and walls between 0.1 mm and more than 25 mm. International bibliographies show that ma- ny authors have considered the problem of settlement admissibility and have proposed va- rious original approaches. Tn many cases, the type of superstructures, foundation and soil were examined. In date order, important conceptual contributions ha- ve been supplied by MrverHor [1947, 1953], SKEMPTON and MacDoNatb [1956], PousiiiN and Toxar [1957], Bsrrrum [1963], Burtanp and Wrorn [1974] and Burianp, BromMs and Dr Me11o [1977]. Some authors have alse confir- med, extended or limited, and generaiized the above studies, sometimes amplifying existing case histories. Of these, Grant et al. [1974] substantially confirmed the studies of Skem- pton and MacDonald, while Wants [1981] ge- neralized the approach of Skempton and Mac Donald, homogeneizing it with the theories of Polshin, Tokar and Burland. y 177Studies on the behaviour of real structures, often taken from the literature, are of great importance, since they supply data allowing verification of concepts and theories proposed. The aim of this work is to insert Italian cases, obtained from archive data and publi- shed studies, into the context of the above- quoted experience, with the aim of evaluating aspects showing analogies, possible discrepan- cies, or original and significant features. 3. Definitions and synthesis of main historical developments Various methods have been proposed for quantifying the extent and type of settlement. Each method requires the definition of cha- racteristic terms necessary in order to develop the problem. It is therefore necessary, when synthetizing these researches, to find common definitions for the main terms used. Fig. 1. « Reference situation utilized to define settlement Fig. 1 - Definizioni di cedimento. Referring to Fig. 1, showing 5 points ranging from an original position (A-E) to a transiated position (A°E}); we may define the following terms: — settlement 9: vertical movement down- wards of a particular point. Maximum settle- ment Pm, refers to point Cle); — differential settlement 8: difference be- tween settlement of any two points. Maximum differential settlement refers to point A and C: Bmax = Pamax —~ Prin = Been — rotation w: rigid movement of the whole: structure.. This is a concept usttally applied 178 t» continuous foundations. In the case shown in Fig. 1, = arctan (Gpas/Las). The term «tilt» is sometimes used; — slope a gradient between two successive points defined as 8pun/Lus; the term introduced by Poxsiin and Tokar [1957]. The term angu- lar distorsion is often used [SkeapTox and Mac- Dowatp, 1956; BrerruM, 1953]. If necessary, the effect due to rotation is subtracted from the stope; —~ relative deflection A: maximum move- ment from a straight line joining two reference points (see Fig. 1b); — curvature: A/L (also called deflexion ra- tio): this is the ratio between relative deflexion and the reference stretch examined. The term curvature of the deflection curve was initially proposed by Horn and Lanse [1963]; the de- flexion ratio was proposed by PoisiiN and ‘Tokar [1957] and used by Burtaxp and WrorH (1974), ‘The total deformation of a foundation or structure may be subdivided into several parts, separating the various factors contributing to «settlement » according to the above concepts. For example, Fig. 2 shows that total move- ment may be subdivided into the sum of uni- form settlement, rotation, and curvatare. It should be noted how the concepts « curvature » and « slope » are linked. It is generally agreed that uniform settle- ment is not responsible for damage to the su- perstructure, although strong settlements (p > > 150 mm) may cause weakness in facility connection (drains, gas pipelines, etc.). The ri- gid rotation of a structure is often not tolera- ted when it may be seen. In high buildings, this may occur with rotation of about 1/250 [Brerrum, 1963], although many authors do not consider that rigid rotation is responsible for structural damage. This view is under di- Fig. 2.» Various components of «settlement», Fig. 2. - Varie componenti del « cedimento »,scussion, due to the fact that rotation may be associated with redistribution of stresses acting on the foundation plane, with possible repercussions on the superstructure, especially for framed structures founded on isolated plinths [Lronarns, 1975]. Research-workers ge- nerally agree that criteria based on maximum, slope (ie, on maximum angular distorsion) and maximum curvature (ic., maximum ratio of deflexion) are the most important when analysing the admissibility of movements in relation to superstructure problems. Referring to angular distorsion, on the basis, of their data from 98 civil and industrial buil- dings, Skempton and MacDonald suggest the characteristic limits shown in Table I. A particularly extensive experimental study was conducted by Bozozux [1962] on 574 civil monotype buildings in Ottawa (Canada). These buildings were all two-and-a-half storeys high, built in veneer brick load-bearing walls with superficial foundations. Sixty to eighty years after building their state of damage (when pre- sent) was observed. Settlement was mainly duc to soil drying. The main results of this study are summarized in Table IL This type of approach, already criticized by ‘Trzacttt [1956] and which, according to Frp [1965], is difficult to generalize, was not only maintained but even developed by BseRrum {1963} and Granr er al. [1974] and by many contributions by Mevertor 1953, 1977, 1979] Table if shows the characteristic admissi- ble and danger limits proposed by Bjerrum and Meyerhof. However, these values must not be considered rigid design rules, but rather as indications for useful comparisons, seeing that «cach building: or structure should be treated on its own merits, for its performance will de- pend on a large number of factors including construction materials, method and form of construction, type of cladding and brittleness of finishes » [Bur.anp, 1977). Other limits have been proposed using the parameter of curvature 4/L (or deflexion ra- tio). In this case, referring to load-bearing brick walls, Polshin and Tokar took into ac- count structural stiffness on the basis of wall sizing and type of building. Meyerhof pointed out that the geometry of the deformation of walls is fundamental to the problem of the soil/structure interaction. Relative positive deflexion (as in stretch AD’ in Fig. 1) are less dangerous than nega- tive ones (C-E’: Fig. 1). Taos 1 doses, Characters station 1300 1/150 Structural damage to the stanchions and ‘beams 1/500 Design timit to avoid cracking: 1/1000 Design timit to avoid any settlement da- sage 5 Tame tt Scitament ee a a me sage 4) tess than 5 1/180 No damage ») S<0>10 1/120 stight 6) <> 15 1/80 Moderate 4) more than 15 150 Heavy and (@) severe Tame 11h ieee nage or allonsbie criteria 1/750 Limit_ where difficulties with machinery ‘sensitive to settlement are to be feared 1/600 Limit of danger for frames with diagonals 150) Safe timit for buildings where cracking is ‘not permissible (safe limit for reinior- ‘ced load bearing walls) 1/300 Limit where first cracking in pane! walls is to be expected; limit where difficul ties with overhead eranes are to be ex ected 1250 Limit where tilting of high, rigid buildings ‘might become visible (danger limit for panel walls of frame buildings and rein- forced load:bearing walls; safe limit for ‘open steel storage tanks and tlt of high rigid strucures) 1/190 Considerable cracking in panel walls and. ‘brick walls; safe limit for flexible brick walls, wich h/L_ 1/9; mit where struc tural’ damage of general buildings is to be feared (danger limit for open steel and reinforced concrete frames, steel Storage tanks and tit of “high rigid Structures; safe Timit for statically de- terminate structures and retaining walls) 110) Danger limit. for statically determinate Structures and retaining walls Barnnunt [1963]: Data outside brackets Mevssior® (1979): Data in brackets 179Tame IV Relative defection of plain ‘gee ae Desrotion of “Schaal samaivaie anand, lay inh, plaic a) For multi-storey dwel Tings "and civil bull ings at L/Hs3 0.0003 0.04 at /H = 5 0.0005 oo (L=iength of deflected part of wall; Hhelght Of wall from founda: tion footing) b) For onestorey mills 00010 0010 (rom Pousti and Torx, 1957) Deflection ratio ‘Type of limit and structure 1/1500 Danger limit for sasging unrein forced load-bearing walls 12500 Safe limit for sagging unre Toreed load-bearing walls; ger limit for hogging unrein- Torced load bearing. walls 15000 Safe limit “for hogging unrein forced. load-bearing. walls, from Meveevor, 1979) This type of approach has also been recon- firmed by the developments of Burtanp and ‘Wrortt [1974] and must.in any case be asso- ciated to the maximum tensile strain of struc- tural materials, a concept already introduced by MeverHor in 1956, The definition .of this physical characteristic is not as simple as it may appear at first sight, and depends on the overall behaviour of the walls (ic., material composing the bricks used, their size, mecha- nical features, type of mortar, its thickness, physical characteristics, etc.). Table IV shows the significant curvature va- lue supplied by the above authors. Starting from the above concepts, they tried or identify a range of maximum or admissible values for maximum or average settlements in relation to type of structure (ie, stiffness and tise) and foundation soil. These settlements are thus those to which certain characteristic slope and curvature values are associated Table V summarizes some important results deriving from the studies and concepts of well- known authors. It should be noted that miost authors consider that, although the type of foundation soil may sometimes be ignored, «ordinary» structures may tolerate settle- 180 ments of 410 cm. To obtain the admissible settlements from Polshin and Tokar's data, we reduced the average limit values, dividing them by a coefficient of 1.5 (shown in brackets in Table V/B) Tame V/A Race a dation Reference ‘co 25 sand ‘Texaactu’ and Poe (1967) 50 a ‘Tontuinson (1980), 40 1 fsolated”— Skexcrow and MeDowaty 11956) 4565» continuous 5 > 65. clay isolated 5 > 65.100 “s _ continuous z > Isolated foundation = plinths and beams Continuous foundation = slabs and rafts Tans VB ten Kind of biting & ope AE i of ea ‘ie 1 Buildings with isin brick walls on Continous nd scparate founda Stone with weal emgts tal feighe HGH counted rom four dation footing wns 28 865 ets 06 2 Buildings with brick walls, reinfor- fed with reinforced. coverete or felntoreea “brick ‘belts aot” de pending on ratto of L/H} 549 3 Frame buiings 065) 4 Solid” reinforced concrete founds: tions of blast furnaces, smoke Stacks, silos, water towers, ete. 30 (20) Grom Posi and Toxse, 1967) 4, Measurements of settlements in italian struc- tures This section reports measurements of settle- ments and damage (when present) on structu- res built in Italy, details of which have been published in the last 25 years. The structures are of various types, stiffnesses and uses; exa- mined here are structures in steel, load-bearing brick walls and reinforced concrete, with shal- low and deep foundations in granular, cohesive or layered soils.The range: of stiffnesses is very large and goes from flexible structures (steel oil tanks), intermediatestifiness office and industrial buildings, to higi-stiffness structures (reinfor- ced concrete cellular silos) ‘The behaviour of a total of 69 structures was examined, in 15 of which damage was ob- served (rotation was considered as damage for stiff structures). Damage measurement was that indicated by the author of the report in question; in this sense this observation, among the data reported, is the only one which may be subjective. Table VI summarizes the main data of the cases studied, with reference numbers repor- ted in the first column. The following columns show: type of building, structural material, type of foundation, width of building, type of soil, maximum settlement, 8¢/L ratio, maximum differential settlement, and possible damage. It should be noted that no structures with isolated foundations were examined here. As preliminary analysis, maximum settlement (enn) expressed as a function of angular distor. sion (59/L) without differentiating the type of structure, foundation or soil, are reported in a single logarithmic plane (Fig. 3). The gene- ral trend reported in Fig. 3 shows good corre- lation between maximum settlement and angu- lar distorsion. This circumstance confirms Skempton and MacDonald's observations on the possibility of indicating admissible settlements for structu- res not only in terms of 59/L. but also using a more practical criterion based on maximum settlement. In this context, a preliminary observation is that all the structures with settlements grea- ter than 20 cm underwent damage, as already reported by Skempton and MacDonald refei ring to structures on clays with maximum set- tlements of 7” (18 cm). However, this indica tion is only approximate and cannot therefore be used rigidly. This is because the steel oil tanks examined tolerated settlements greater than those indicated, and those which under- went damage had foundations in concrete of far greater stiffness than that of the super- structure. There are also cases of structures which underwent damage although their maxi- mum settlements were only about 10 cm. The maximum value of angular distorsion corresponding to 9'= 20 cm is 1/650, slightly less than the limit suggested by Skempton and MacDonald. We therefore examined Skempton and Mac Donalds's original data, shown in Fig. 4. For comparison, this figure groups all the data re- ported in the above author's paper, only ex- cluding those with maximum settlement of less than 1 cm, without reference to the type of superstructure, foundation, or soil The correlation between 9 and 6p/L is al- ways welldefined and clear. The slope of their straight line is smaller, due to the weight of the value of angular distorsions in cases with maximum settlements of less than 5 cm, mainly referring to structures founded on sand. Other factors which may have affected the re- sults are: the presence of a number of struc- tures (tower and steel tanks) with settlements greater than 90 cm which have not been con- sidered in the above mentioned paper. Howe- ver, in this case too, of the 19 structures with settlements greater than 20 cm, only 2 were not damaged and for them, as in the cases of Fig. 3, all the data are plotted in the quadrant bounded by straight lines p=20 cm and 6p/) =0.003 Figs. 5 and 6 show respectively cases ana. lysed showing type 0 foundation and nature of foundation soil. The behaviour of the va- tious types of structures seem to be indepen- dent of these two factors. ‘The independence of the typé of foundation confirms the views of Skempton and MacDo- nald and Grant et al.: as regards the nature of foundation soils, it shoutd be noted that the majority of structures examined were built on layered soils. Fig. 7, showing the 8 (maximum differen- tial settlement) as a funetion of 89/1 in a lo- garithmic plane, again shows good correlation between parameters and independence of the trend on structural type of foundations aad type of soil. Above the continuous fine, with the exception of the oil tanks, almost all the structures underwent damage. 5. Conclusive remarks In 1955 Skempton and MacDonald identified the parameter 8p/L as the fundamental ele ment on which to judge maximum admissible settlements for structures. This criterion was later confirmed in the works of Grant ef al. [1975] and Watsst [1981]. Another important approach to the problem was that of BURLAND and Wrorit [1974], based on the criterion of maximum tensile strains. 181syoig uh ‘Buryoeu9 vs 1 on d s PIG 240, © ut 1 sot a @ sua oF 1 ose a ou ‘naos qumid somog —@ st 1 ost a s us wens (ot so 1 oor a OW Aus 1 st 9 sw « ou PIA WOH +0 u+9 oo a ou crc) © $0 i> ow a aE Ia auigim mens @ zo 14> ow a Du caecear a TH ro ow a 24 ts wes (ea zu 2 vi 4 ou piasuo ew WS our 4 ou pia 2wo oF supper 1 0 Oy s sueld samod 6 aa sey sz0 4 ox x ou 6 e = 1 ow 2 ou + @ = 4 ou x Du «+ @ cro 1 ost x ou si @ so 4 on a Es pia wo. ee wo 1 ww a ou ois ok auyoes wren ows = wo 41 = wisoiss pans @ 1 ot xa pIaswo 8g swe s .. @ Ss we s a 1 ws s . © tung pur soiuso usantog (0 om 1 ois s : @ ateuep son w2poom + sneeq sey (1) "ong om 1s s myo @e supe w= wo or = waaise (9 Tes @ 4 xa « Pia wouo sz 1 mata ou Ia auqem was a 1 a € . @ ut 1 q @ soouny ot MS a a ‘SaPIMG 7040 © 7 1 a a vaaes ued zomog © a 1 a s ie urs 6 1 a s Tm urs @ sun va 1 a s we TO er Bronte = = oo ox 1ON soma = Sy Se repamog ME acy supa SN TA ney,‘posaKer = 7 “um = 4 “smERT 40 pues = g ‘A2KEP = 9 22647 Tog fem uBeAUeTD = Ma stoMEpLMog syem ¥o:2q= q "sIBIOUCS peouojuer = Gy "TeoIs = g TOUOOY AMPLE oxy nyer=y ‘oreoq seus = gy “ye PAs ua N= aun og lait ove ia ovat atu ou yamor sae atemep Soot Sh 1 ower q ou an remannis 8 ont ow 2 oor a s pia wisnpyy—@ pue Sune sx Pont ots 1 see ay s we (eR s oz 2 su ay s o- «7 8 se 2 se ay s co a oe 2 su ay s 2 as We 2 se ay s fe Gg Fi 2 sue av s 6 @ 0 sw a si ay s «© © 6 ea 2 s8 av s «6 (az ou yar o5te) a cd 2 ow ay s << @ swag pue seuss usamag (C) B oz 1 ow av s weno = é 1 oor ua a «os @ 0 oot 1 ot x on Paso | (eT faye se Son se ot oat 1 ror ¥ a so « ® san st ewe a v6 x a s9M0} [eOHOISTHE ez Ce s 00s av ou ees soreM a sy = a z og ay s ete) so SOT 1 ose av s ss @ ot ont q se av 8 wen vo | ite s cue a OB « or wit 08 09 a s ons - - - 1 908 fe ss - ad = 1 96 s so see west gt ans v6 ay ie so 1 Paioedure> uo (4) = = s re ay s a you bn ott s ow av s He) 10 oo omueest eS 2 ow x ou ‘euuoiny co set SB a ow av 8 + @ ott seit SSE 1 zis ay s se Cee wi ese 1 zis are s ce 6 use wt os a vis ate s < © ‘meoq puE sajua9 uaamiag (2) auppen — Opgz st THs 1 zis att s wat | O GH OW Ost sz u Ou ~ @ Bupyoes9 (gf ou “Jax ose) Bon oss gelt 608 1 se a ou ons (eatvem) | omacceauona hepa tee 0,0001 + 0001 01 on Pax fem 100] _10) 184 bore Fig, 3. Maximum settlements of structures as a function of angular distorsions. Fig, 3. - Massimi cedimenti di strutture in funtione delle disiorsioni angotari. ee = Aerommeom ne onena wore t wd oy t ab “ia 7 225 001 on dort Fig. 4. - Skempton, MacDonald’s Data. Fig, 4, - Dati di Skempton MacDonald,nas oa 100 ~ { \ f pr oyd : 10 I ° cw } ommacco outa 4 a ° FOUNDATION TYPE: i 3 grow 1 : seh tee a ped \0001 0.001 601 04 bot Fig. 5. - Corelation between fou and W/L. for deep and shallow foundations. Fig. 5. - Correlazione tra W/L per fondazigni profonde & superficial — ae aa Bb tae on h 100 i: 4 ! oe 4 u | . rod _10) . co ef . ‘A CLAY 7 . a SAND. a 9001 3001 oor 08 Fig. 6, - Correlations betsieen gm and 5/1 for different foundation sols, Fig. 6.- Correlazione tr fe te/L per differenti terreni di fondazione, 185,60, (em) 100} 10 oe 7 tage t5e028ctiee Bpaet ee po et tafe Ont [in oe 0.0001 0,001 01 on dort Fig. 7. - Maximum differential settlements of structures as a function of angular distorsions. Fig. 7. - Massimi cedimenti diferenciali di strutture in funzione delle distorsioni angolar The data reported in the literature on the cases examined allowed study of the problem by using the first of the two criteria. In ef- fect, in almost all the publications examined, there are very few elements allowing evalution of parameters required for application of the second criterion of analysis. Our analysis showed significant correlation between maximum settlement and angular dis- tortions. This shows that the admissibility of deformation may be expressed on the basis of the value of maximum settlement calculated, rather than attempting an estimate of the an- gular distorsion, which is definitely more ‘complex, . The calculated values may highlight possible problems and reveal the necessity for extend- ing study on the case in question. One method of approaching the problem, 186 already suggested by Coo:iNnc [1956] is that of calculating settlement in the preliminary hy- pothesis of a flexible structure and, according to the values found, judging the admissibility of settlement or, alternatively, the necessity of going decper into the problem. On the basis of observations carried out, settlements of Jess than 8 cm should not lead to serious problems. Settlements of more than 20 cm are not tolerated by traditional structu- res and damage should be anticipated, the extent of which depends on the relative oil/structure stiffness. Foreseeable damage can also be accept- ed in relation to the structure's destined use. For settlements of between 8 and 20 cm, further tests on the interaction between soil and structure must be carried out. It should be borne in mind that settlement calculation may involve an error of up to 50%Rep Ere ers so that, as suggested by Mcyerhof, a maximum safety factor of 1.5 should be adopted. The values indicated here: should of course be understood as useful indications and not as rigid design rules. Moreover, special struc- tures may differ — sometimes markedly — from the behaviours indicated and may be planned to tolerate higher settlements. REFERENCES, Bromus L. (1963) - Contribucion 10 the discussion. Sect 6, 6th ECSALEKE, Wiesbaden, Vol. 2, pp. 135137 ‘BytozUK M. (1982) - Soil Shrinkage Damages Shallow Foun. dations at Ottawa. Engincering Journal, Vol. 45, No. 7. Canada, pp. 3337, Bunuxn J.B. (1977) - Discussion. Proc. 9th LCSMFE., Tokyo, Vol. 3, p. 3 Romtano J. B., Brows B.B, De Matto V, FB. (1978) - Be haviour of Foundations and Structures, Proc. 9th LCS. MEE, Tokyo, Vol. 2, pp. 49550. ‘Buniano J.B, WaotiC,, (974) - Settlement of Buildings ‘and Associated Damage. State of the Art Review. Proc. Conf, Settl of Structures, Cambridge, pp. 611654. CootaN 1. F. (1956) = Discussion on The Allowable Settle. iments of Buildings, Proc. LCE., Vol. 5, pp. 762700. Fun J. (1965) - Tolerance of Structures to Settlement, ASCE, SM.FD., Confereze on «The Design of Four dations for Control of Settlements +, Evanston, 1 pp, 55558. Gaunt R., CHMISTIAN J,77, VaNncncxe E.H, (974) - Diffe ‘ential ‘Settlement of Buildings. Proceedings ASCE, Vol 100, G19, pp. 973591, Hloes’ HM, Lane TW. (196) - Settlement of Buildings fon the MIT Campus, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 9, SMS, pp. 181- 5. Leoxinos G.A. (1979) - Discussion on Differential Settle. ment of Buildings by Grant R, Christian 3.7, Van marke E-H., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 101, GIT, pp. 700-702, Muyernor G.G_(197) = The Settlement Analysis of Builds ing frames. Struct. Engr., Vol. 2, pp, 39-48, ‘Meverior G.G. (1953) - Some Recent Foundation Research ‘and its Application to Design. Struct. Engr., Vol. 31, pp. 151167 Mevemar G.G. (1956) - Discussion on The Allowable Sett- lements of Buildings, Proc. LC-E., Val. §, pp. TIA. Mevemoe G.G. (197) » On Allowable Deformation of Pour: dation and Structures and Criteria-for Acceptable and Unacceptable Damage. Proc. th LCSMEE, Toyo, Vol. 3, pp. 380381 Meveesor G.G. (ID) - Soil Structures Interaction and Foundation. General Report, 6th Panam, Conf. SM.F-E., Lima, Vol. J, pp. 100.10, Poisinx D.F,, Toe R.A. (1957) - Maximum Allowable ‘NonUniform Settlement of Structures, 4th LCSMA E. London, Vol. 1, pp. 402405 ‘Skayprox’ A.W., MacDonatn D.H. (1956) - The Atfowable Setslemenis of Buildings. Proc. LEE., Vol, 5, pp. T2168. Tarzacin K. (1986) - Discussion on The Allowable Seite ‘ments of Buildings. Proc. LCE., Vol. §, pp. TIST7 ‘Tewaagin K., Pek RB, (1988) - Soil Mechanics ix Engi neering Practice. 1st ed., J. Wiley and Sons, New York TortLpvsox M.J (1980) - Foundation Design and Construc tion, 4th ed., Pitman Intern., London. ‘Tostuawson M.Z., Driscon. R,, BURLAND J. (1918) ~ Four dation of Low-Rise Buitdings. The Structural Engineer, Vol, S6A, pp. 251473 Was HE, (1981) - Tolerable Settlement of Buildings Pros. ASCE, Vol. 107, GTit, pp, 1489-1508, BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 Vener C. (1961) - Osservaioni se! comportamento nel tempo delle fondaziont della centrale termocletirca di Porto Corsini della S.A.D.E.-¢ loro confronto con le previsioni di progetto. Proc. V Congresto di Geotee nica, AG.L, Palermo, Geotecnica, pp. 163 84 2 Ynrreux R. (1961) - Ricerca sui cedimenti dfferenciali det piano di posa di un edifcio. Proc. V Convegno di Geotccnica, AGI, Palermo, Geoteenica, pp. 626). 3 Covonteo P. Ci96i) = Osservazioné sul comportamento del- le opere di foméazione di serbatoi per petvoli a Porto Marghera (Venezia). Proc. V Convegno di Geotecnica, AGL, Palermo, Geoternica, pp. 215219, 4 Jnerenit R,, MaLavont E. (1968) - Cedimenti di grandi ser- bbatoicilindrici fondati su sabbia. Geotecnica, pp. 3649. ‘5 Marimurrt G. (1955) - Considerazioni sui problemi di sce ofondazione. L'ingegnere, Vol. 5, pp. 21. 6 Jnrrais R. (1965) » Settlement Studies of Some Structie ves in South Staly. Proc. 6th LCSMPE., Montreal, Vol. 2, pp. 8892. 7 Covonino'P., FauLia G. (1956) - Terreni ed opere di fon- dazione nel porto industriale di Venetia Marghera, Geoteeniea, pp. 345. 8 Marmeors1 G. (1968)'- Consideraziont sul comportemento delle strutture di fondazione di 5 edifici dt nuova co- Struzione. Proc. IV Convegno di Geoteenica, AGL, Genova, 7115, pp. HI. 9 Nucemat C. (1968) = Considerazioni sul comportamento del terreno e delle-strutiure di jondacione della Con- trate termoeletirica di Pusina, Proc. IX Convegno di Geotecnice, AGI, Genova, THIS, pp, 16, 10 Joversas R. (1968) ~ Tnfluenca delta rigidita detta sovra- struttura sulla distribuzione de! piano di posa di wn edificio. Geoteenica, pp. 711 11 Meany G, Canesiir A. (968) - Grattacielo Alitalia in Ro- maEUR. Studio delle fondazioni dirette e controlia dei cedimenti. Proc. IX Convegno di Geatecnica, A.G.L, Genova, T.I3, pp. 121 12 Tumuscit C. (1968) - Cedimenti diferencia di uma cen trale termoclettrica. RAG, Vol. 2, pp. T6St 13 Gamn G,, Brugrro U. (1968) ££ comportamento geotec nico di un silo a 100000 + @ Porto Marghera. Proc. X Goneeeno i Geotenia, AGL, Genova, TIT, pp 14 Catamest G_ (1968) - Comportamento di un alta edificio fondaio su agile sovraconsolidate. RIG., Vol. 2, pp. S76, 15 ADPUNDIND ML, JaMTOLKOWSKE M, (1968):- Foundation for @ 200 m High Chimney on a Clayey Silt. Proc. Tth LESMEE, Mexico City, Vol. 2, pp. 915 16 ApveNo1so ML, Acosrivertr A, (19TH) = Osservationi sul ‘comportamento nel tempo delle opere principali della entrale di Porto Marghera in relazione al consolida- ‘mento det terreno. L'Enersia Eletrica, Vol. 8, pp. 295 am. 17 Couonto P., Riccust G. (1973) - Behaviour of Structures and allowable Seivlements. Proc. 8th LCSMEE., Mo- Seow, Yol. 2, pp. «753. 18 DEUA B., Gacsouin M. (1979 - On the Behaviour of a Partially Floating Foundation on Normally consolida- ted Silty Clays, Proc. Conf. Setil, of Structures, Cam bridge, pp. 91:98. 19 Bauoxt L., Ganassino A, Jnurnxowser M. (1976 - Diffe- ential Sertlements of Petroteam Steet (Tanks), Proc. Conf. Seti of Structures, Cambridge, pp. 323228, 2 Ausssr R., Cécoal1 C. (1978) - Gruppi di pal: indagini ‘perimentali in vera grandezza e loro interpretazione RLG,, Vol. 8, pp. 142157 21 RroceRt G. (1918) = Fondavioni di serbatoi metatici RIG, Vol. 8, pp. 124133 22 Cownuwo P., Mazzatar P., ZaNovento A. (2978) - Osserva iont sul comporiamente geotecnico e strutturale di 187due serbatoicilindricé per aequa. R.LG., Vol. 9, pp. 162 1. 23 Sanenousst P., Riccawt G., Seutstr F. (1976) » Considera- ioni storiche, gootecniche e statiche sulla torre di Pisa, Bollettino degli Ingeeneri, anno XXIV, No 89, pp. 731 2% BeaTAccIT L,, Borracent P,, Jnciouxowskr M. (1980) - Ce ddimenti di fondavione del campanile di Aquileia do- cumentati dalla deformazione di un mosaico preesi- stent, Proc. XIV Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica, AGL, Firenze, Vol. 1, pp. 1724. 25 VentUna P. (1980) = Analisi sperimentale dellnterazione ferreno-struttura nel consolidamento di edifci. Proc. XIV Convegno Naziodale di Geoteciica, Firenze, Vol. 1, pp. 239297. 26 Hoos’ U,, Janeiotxowsks M.B., Laxciuuorta R., Pasvis E. ((983)"- Behaviour of Oil Tanks on Soft cohesive Ground improved bY vertical Drains. Proc. &th ECS. MEE, Helsinki, Vol. 2, pp. 627632. 27 Hine, Taatouxowskr MB, Laxcuuorta R., Panis 98)". Performance of Large Oil Tanks on soft Ground, Proc. Intern. Conf, on Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment, LC.E., London, pp. 125132. 28 Couseuir F., Mazavowro A, Pasviariiio P., Sotnzo M. (0985) = Ammissibilita. dei cedimenti di sovrastruture di Jondacioni in costrucion! industrial! e civil. Proc: Convegno IACP, Riva del Garda, pp. $978. SOMMARIO Anolist dei cediment! ammissibi nelle strutture Nelf'articolo si considera una estesa casistica di strut ture realizzate ia Ttalia prendendo in esame fammiss! bilita dei cedimenti in relazione alla tipologia delle strut ture in clevavione, delle opere di fondazione e del tipo di ben noto infatti che Yosservazione det cedimenti e degli eventuali danni in strutture costituisce un valido me todo per valutare j limiti entro # quali un certo manufat- to pub accettare deformazioni, er sviluppare questo tema si presenta nel paragrafo 2 fe 3 lo stato dell'arte desunto dalla letteratura internazi- nale. Nel paragrafo 3 in particolare si definisce la termi nologia generale chiarendone Vevaluzione storica. 'Si-definiscono cosi: il cedimento, il cediménto differen ale, Ia yotazione, la pendenza (distorsione angolare), Vin flessione relativa © la curvatura (rapporto di inflessfone). TT principali risultati «storici» soma presentati nelle t belle I, 11, 11, IV eV, che permettono una chiara vi sione sintetica ‘dei limiti di ammissibilita dei cedimenti facendo diferimento ai termini precedentemente defintl Dopo questa fase di introduzione al problema vengoro analiza, vel paragrafo 4, I rilievi dei cedimenti e danti, ‘quando presenti, reativi a strutture realizzate in Talia, Pubblicall negli wltimi 25 anni, Si tratta di strutture di vvario tipo, di diverse rigideze ¢ destinazione dus. Vengono prese in esame struture metalliche, in mora ‘ura portante ed in cemento armato, con fondazioni sir perfciali € profonde in terreni granulari, coesivi 0 stra {ificat Ti compo delle rigiderze @ molto ampio e va da strut- ture fessibili (serbatoi metallic) a strutture di rigidezza intermedia (edifici civili ¢ industrial) fino a strutture di levara rigidezza (sili cellular in eat). Complessivamente & stato esaminato il comportamento 44 69 strutture in.15 delle quali sono stati osservati danni (anche la rotarione & stata considerata danno per le strut ture rigide). IL rilievo dei danni & quello indicato dall'au tore dell'articolo; in questo senso tale osservazione & Vunica, tra I dati riportati, che pud risentire di un giv dizio soggettivo. {in tab, TV sono riassunti in modo schematico i prin- 188 Cipali dati che earatterizzano i casi studiati con te indi- ‘cavioni bibliografiche riportate nella prima colonna, Come prima analisi sono stati riportati in un piano to- ritmico (fig. 3) 1 massimo eedimento (Grn) espresso in famtione della distorsione angolare (y/L) per tutie le strutture, Dallandamento generale riportate si nota una buona correlazione tra cedimento massimo e distorsione ango- tare. ‘Tale circastanza conferma quanto gid asserito da Skem ppton © McDonald sulla possiblita di indicare i cedimenti ammissibili per le strutture non solo in termini di f/l. ima anche eon un pi pratica eriterio basato sul cedimento ‘Si€ notato infatti che tutte le strutture che hanno avuto tun cedimento superiore ai 20 em hanno subito dei danni. Tale indieazione & di larga massima e non pud quindi co- stituire un criterio rigido, Infatti i serbatot metallic! hanno tollerato cedimenti su- periori di un ordine di grandezza a quelli indicatl; tra i Serbatoi metallic quelli ehe hanno subito danni avevano fondazioni in calcestrazso di rigideza ben, maggiore quella della. sovrastruttura, Inoltre esistono casi di struture con cedimenti_ massé- mi delfordine di dieci cm che hanno invece subito dei dant Il valore limite della distorsione angolare corrisponden- te a tom = 20 cm € di 1/650 che risulta di poco inferiore al limite suggerito da Skempton ¢ McDonald, Nelle figure 5 ¢ 6 sono rispettivamente riportati i casi nalizzati con le indicsvioni della. tipologia delle fonda- oui e della natura dei terreni di fondazione ‘Si pud osservare che il comportamento dei vari tipi di struttura sembra essere ‘ndipendente da questi ultimi due fattori. Lindipendenza della tipologia di fondazione con ferma quanto pia indicato da Skempton e McDonald, Grant et al, per quanto riguarda la natura del terreni i fondazione va segnalato che in prevalenza sono stati fesaminati casi relativi a torrent stratiieat T dati riportati in letteratura sui casi esaminati hanno permesso Io studio del problema utilizzando il eriterio di Skempton © Mac Donald; in quasi tutte Je pubblicazioni fesaminate mancano infatti git elementi utili per valutare { parametri richiesti per 'applieazione del eriterio di ana- isi proposto da Burland e Wroth, Lanalisi effettuata ha mostrato una buona correlazione tra cedimento massimo e distorsioni angola. Cio indica Io possibilita di poter esprimere Vammissibi- ith di na deformazione in base al valore del cedimento ‘massimo calealato piuttosto che tentare una stima dell distorsione angolare che risulta decisamente pit! complessa. Tl valore ealcolato pud costituire una valida indicazione preliminare sui problemi che possono presentarsi e sulla nevessita di dover approfondire ed estendere lo studio del ‘Sulla base del ‘osservazioni eseguite si pud ritenere che un cedimento inferiore agli 8 cm non sia tale da far insorgere sensibili problemi. Cedimenti magziori di 20 cm non vengono tollerati dalle tradizionalistrutture; sono ‘Guindi da prevedersi dei danni la oui entita dipende dalla rigidezza relative terreno-struttura. I prevedibili danni pos sono essere anche accettsts in relazione alla destinazione uso della. struttura, Per i cedimenti intermedi ® necessario procedese ad un pia approfondito esame sulla interazione tra terreno € Strutturs. Bisogna tener presente che il calcolo dei cedi- ment pud essere errato del 5096, sara quindi opportune adottare, come suggerito da Meyerhof un valoge minimo del coeffciente di sicurezza pari a 15. ‘Sk avverte che i valori qui indicati devono essere in- tesi come utili indicazioni e non come rigide regole di progetto e che strutture particolari possono discostarsi, anche notevolmente, dai comportamenti indicati © posso- no essere progeltate per sopportare cedimenti pit elevati