Behaviour of Foundations and Structures
Comportement des Fondations et des Structures
J.B. BURLAND Head Geotechnics Div., Building Research Establishment Garston, Herts, U.K.
B.B. BROMS Prof. of Soil and Rock Mech., Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
V.F.B. DE MELLO Prof. of Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
TODUTION
The title chosen for Session II embraces a vast rnge
of topics nd speoialities and it has been neoessary
to restrict severely the sope of this Rview.
Althouh parts of the Review re applicable to a wide
rnge of structures the General Reporter and his
collaborators hve decided to concentrate attention
on the settlement of buildings nd structres (ie
silos, bridges nd power stations, etc). ven with­
in this restricted field the Authors are only too
conscious of the very narrow coverage that they hve
given to the subject. For emple, it has not been
ossible to disouss deep basements. vey effort
has been made to cover recent avnces in soil mecha­
nics, but al�s with a view to aiding desin deci­
sions. The Rview is aimed at practising engineers
but a onscious effort has been made to void offe­
ing simple 'rules' as these often inhibit continued
develoment whereas our aim is to encourage it.
CR 1 - PRBLE
1.1 0'E OATION DSIGN
For a start we should note that a fairly hih percen­
tage of foundations are specified strictly on the
basis of local routines or regulations in which the
soil mechnics expert does not intervene. Moreover,
the vast majority of these desins are sufficiently
suooessful not to call for the specialist's advice on
remedial measures. Althouh local practice often
results in considerably ovedesined foundations,
there are also nmerous cases where the 'educated
uess' based on routine 'index' tests is likely to
have at least the sme certainty of success, in tems
of economy nd perfomnce, as a more fomal desin
based on quntitative sdil testing nd nalysis.
This all points to the faot that testing nd comput­
tion fom only one aspect of foundation desin.
A olose study of local practice or experience pro­
vides direct evidence of what can be achieved nd
sometimes of what cnnot. To the experienced engi­
neer the infomation on be of more direct value in
desin thn accurately detemined soil parmeters
*
The sbject was overed at the Sixth Europen Con-
ference on SFE, Vienna (1976) and the Institution
of Structural ngineers, London (1975) hve issued a
comprehensive report on the Desin and Construction
of Deep Basements.
since it carries with it so many facets of the beha­
viour of the round and structure which cn never be
cSloulated. More valuable still is local experience
based on quntitative observations of perfomnce.
These offer the prospect of 'back analysis' followed
by 'calibration' of the ground nd the methode used in
exploring it. The value of regional or looal studies
of this type will be discussed in Chapter 6. When
properly interpreted they offer the best prospect of
ood routine desin procedures.
We must now look at the limitations of this approach.
The principal body of experience arises from box-like
structures, of base to heiht ratio from one half to
three, with reularly distributed coluns so that
column loadings vary by no more than approximately one
half to twioe the average. The dead load is applied
slowly before the sensitive finishes. The real live
loading is usually only 15 to 30 per cent of the dead
load and is applied relatively slowly. The degree of
empiricism in our foundation practices is immediately
exosed when one exmines under what conditions pro­
lems have arisen. requently they involve a sinif­
icant deprture from routine conditione of loding or
type of structure (leaving aside unexpected ground
conditione). Sometmes the problem arises because of
a blak nawareness of the importnce of the changed
ondition. However, there is . sufficient number of
exmples of problems where there was such n awareness
to nderline our inability to extpolate too far from.
the limited universe of satisfactory routine
experience.
In routine foundation desin the actual loads are
often sinificntly lese than the desin loads (be­
cause of codes and obvious limit nalysis require­
ments). Thus it will be understood why foundation
problems seem to be most frequently associated with
tnks, silos nd industrial units, all of which in­
volve very hih ratios of live to dead loads. In
these cases the live loads reach their desin values,
are frequently applied rapidly and usually as •soft
loads' with no possibility of redistribution or atten­
uation as differential deformations develop. .The
difficulty of estimating settlements is emphasised by
the fact that the majority of problems arise from
buildings with reatly differentiated column lodins,
or tall buildings which tilt excessively {eg Leonhardt
1973).
It is therefore necessy to caution the general
practitioner against the expectation that routine
prescriptions cn be satisfactorily applied to unusual
structures nd conditione of loading. Predicted
495
settlements m� be so sinificantly in error that
damage m� occur.
1.2 SITE STIGATION
The prime requirement for eucoessful foundation
desin is nd alwys will be a ood site investig­
tion carried out with a nowledge of the requirements
of the proposed structure. This entailel
(1) A nowledge of the soil profile nd round
water onditions across the site set in the ontext
of the local geoloy nd tied in with local experi­
ence (eg Ohski nd Suchi, 1973; Johansson,
1970). This can usually only be achieved by visiting
the site.
(2) A detailed nd systematic description of the
soil in each stratm in tems of its visual and ta­
tile properties. This should preferably be oupled
with routine in-situ indicator tests, such as the
Stndrd Penetration Test (SPT) and the Static Cone
Resistnce (SCR), for ease of correlation with local
experience nd practice. Because of the empirical
nature of the tests it is important that they are
carried out in a stndard mnner and it is essential
to calibrate the results against non round condi­
tions.
(3) n estimate or detemination of the mechanical
poperties of the relevnt strata.
Where appropriate, trial pits or shafts should be ex­
cvated nd the soil emined nd systematically des­
cribed in-situ. If smpling is carried out evey
sample, whether it is tested or not, should be exa­
mined nd described. Jennings et al (1973) hve
given vluable uidelines for routine soil descri­
tion. The British Stndards Institution have
recently issued a rt revised stndard Code of
Practice for Site Investigations in which detailed
uidnce is given on the description of soils nd
rooks. Rowe (1972) has emphasised the importance of
soil fabric in controlling its mass properties nd
outlines methods of recording it. A valuable manual
on subsurface ivestiations has been published by
the ASCE (Seviger, 1972) and reference should be made
to the subsequent discussion.
Much effort has gone into attempting to establish
orrelations between the results of ST and SCR tests
nd fundmental soil parameters and even soil types.
This Review is hardly the place to discuss these
matters which have been treated in depth by many
authors (eg de Mello, 1971; Snglerat, 1972; and at
the uropen Symposium on Penetration Testing, Stock­
holm, 1974). However, two coments are perhaps in
order. Firstly, the practising engineer should al­
ways use prameters derived in this mnner with the
greatest caution, bering in mind the multiple corr­
lations and wide scatter of results often involved.
Secondly, there cn be no doubt that the results of
these nd other in-situ indicator tests, when used in
the ontext of well established local experience nd
proven round onditions, hve proved immensely su­
oessful - for example in Brazil (de Mello, 1971,
1975a).
It is probably not overstating the case to say that
in 95 ases out of 10 the decisions as to the type
nd depth of foundations can be made primrily on the
basis of (1) nd (2) above. Moreover, the plnning
496
of construction procedures depends heavily on this
infomation. Of course, n m ost situations it is
prudent to carry out tests nd calculations to co­
firm the decision. Altenatively n hie search for
n eonomic solution the engineer will resort to de­
tailed nalysis to help him choose between vrious
schemes.
No amont of laboratory testing or sophisticated cal­
culations can compensate for a lack of nowledge
about the soil profile. Yet, there is n increasing
tendency to desin on the basis of nmbers contained
in soil investigation reports in the mistken belief
that these re a faithful representation of the pro­
perties of the ground. There is no doubt that a
sond nderstnding of the factors influencing the
mechanical properties of the round is essential.
owever, these must be coupled with an awareness of
the limitations of theories and testing techniques
baaed on experience in the field nd n intimate
nowledge of the onditions on a given site. Peck
(1974) in the Seond Nabor Carrillo Lecture outlines
a nmber of case histories which underline the above
rmarks in a most instructive and challenging manner.
1.3 DO�TION PROPTIS OF TE SOIL
The detailed properties of the rond and their de­
temination is dealt with in Session I of the Confe­
ence. Our concen here is mainly with the reliabil­
ity of such deteminations nd their application in
analysis and desin of foundations. It is vey
doubtful whether there have been sinificnt changes
in outine laboratory testing procedures in the last
eiht years, although the use of special testing
methods (eg stress-path methods) are beoming more
widespread.
What is beoming clearer is that the application of
trditional undisturbed smpling nd laboratoy test-·
ing techniques is limited both ll aoouraoy nd n the
rnge of types of round that cn be studied. The
difficulty of accurate prediction on the basis of
laboratoy tests hve been emphasised by Pek (1965),
de Mello (1972), Lmbe (1973), Burlnd (1973) nd my
others. One only has to emine a few exposures in
�aterials such as residual soils, stiff fissured
cl�s, tills, highly lminated mudstones or laoustrian
deposits etc to appreciate the limited rnge of mate­
rials for which the mass in-situ defomation and on­
solidation properties cn be realistically detemined
in the laboratory. The act of sampling such mate­
rials often so totally alters their structure nd con­
sistency that even a visual description cn be rossly
misleading. In certain circumstnces the problems
cn be partially overcome by testing much lrger
smples (Rowe, 1972; Hnsbo nd Torstensson, 1971).
In other cases resort to large in-situ tests (Burland
and Lord, 1969; Marsland, 1971) or back nalysis of
existing structures is the only altenative if reaso­
ably representative deformation parameters are re­
quired (Ward nd Burland, 1913; Breth nd Amnn,
1974).
ren where undisturbed sampling and laboratory test­
ing procedures are appropriate one s to question
the accuracies of prediction that hve sometimes been
claimed. The methods re moderately expensive nd
time consuming so that usually insufficient tests are
perfomed to pemit adequate statistical treatment.
�oreover, when one considers the precision which is
required to predict the ompression of a 5 m thick
compressible layer (s�), and tkes into aooount the
difficulties of sampling, testing nd inherent hete­
rogeneity, the chances of the error being consistent­
ly less thn 0 m seem unrealistic. There is,
therefore, a reat need for a proper statistical and
probabilistic treament of test results oupled with
objective omarisons with field measurements prefe­
ably on the bsis of Class A predictions (Lmbe,
1973).
One detects a feeling amonst mny soil mechanics
experts nd academicins that it is necessary to con­
vey to the structural engineer nd client the sme
degree of apparent nalytical precision which nder­
lies much structural desin (Burland, 1975). Such
precision in structural engineering is ueuall� more
apprent than real (Peak, 1965; Golder, 1971).
Morever, it would probably be doing a sevice to the
civil engineering profession if foundation engineers
mde a point of assessing objectively the bounds and
confidence limits of their predictions without feel­
ings of guilt or inferiority. They have, after all,
to deal with by far the most complex and vriable
material omposing the total structure and they have
usually d no •s�t in its specification, mnufa­
ture or placementl Indeed such an attitude may do
much to improve the total desin of buildings nd
stuctures in tems of seviceability.
•
1 4 BEARfG CAPACIY AD ALLWABLE PRSSURS
Very few additional bering caacity foulae have
been published over the last few years. This m� be
interpreted as a wider reconition nd demonstration
that failure considerations are seldom the conditio­
ing ones - particularly as lods and fondation areas
et larger. It is only for a limited rnge of
intemediate plasticity soil (de Mello, 1969) or d
brittle materials that bering failure is likely to
be the conditioning factor. At the extrme of oh­
sionless snds the very hih stress required for bea­
ing failure shifts the limiting ondition to settl­
ment (Peak, 1973) nd at the extreme of higher plast­
icity soils the problems of large settlments are o­
viously onditioning.
The situation is rather different for my pile
foundations where, beause the lods are trnmitted
in shear to the soil n/or in bearing over a rel­
tively small area the settlements approaching lti­
mate load are often quite mall. This also applies
to footings on brittle fissured materials. It is, of
ourse, always necessary to exercise care in the
classic situation in which footings or piles are
founded in a stiff l�er overlying a wek l�er
(Meyerhof, 1974bl Mitchell et al, 1972).
Golder (1969) hs ointed out that from a strictly
practical oint of view enouh is nown to avoid
bering capacity failures ·for •average' buildings on
•verae' soils. It is probably true to say that
the biggest problem confronting the practitioner is
in the detemination of the appopriate strength par­
meters. This problem becomes critical when consider­
ing structres operating at low factors of safety
such as embments nd tanks on oor round and
which re outside the scope of the Report. However,
as noted previously, particular cre should be exe­
cised for structures with hih live-todead ratios
(silos, bridges, water towers, etc), since it is
round these that bearing capacity failures have co­
centrated n the past.
The difficulty of selectng appropriate strength par­
meters arises in art from the problem of testing a
representative volume of soil. However, it is also
due to the fact that recent theoretical and experi­
mental studies have drawn attention to the imortnce
of pre- and post-pek stress-strain behviour in de­
termining the collapse ondition (eg Hoeg, 1972). It
is naturl therefore that we should expect a pause
while workers switch their attention from the classic,
hihly idealised rigid-plastic limit equilibrim
studies of stability to the more realistic, but much
more difficult study of the influence of defomation
on collapse. A number of recent symposia on the
topic attest to the rapid developments tking place
in this subject (Palmer, 19731 Valliappn et al,
19751 Desai, 1976).
Finally, it is mportant to emphasise that althoh
settlement is usually the conditioning factor in the
choice of foundation the detailed nlysis of the ma­
nitude nd distribution of settlement is difficult
and unreliable. Hence the preliminary sizing of
individul footings nd piers is best crried out
using a simple approach such as a fixed allowable pre­
sure (q )t constant factor of safety (qul�/q), or
a
'equal settlement' (/D) - see Burland nd Wroth
(197, section 13) and Poulos (1974). A detailed
analysis m� then be carried out to chek the distri­
bution of settlements and if necessay adjust the
sizes in critical areas.
1 5
• TE BHAVIOUR OF OATIONS ND STRUCTUS
- A CALLNGE
We have seen that in routine work the practitioner is
not unduly concened with the difficulties of estim­
tng settlements nd defomations provided he has
satisfied himself that the round conditions are in
accodnce with locl eperience. Homogeneity wit­
in a given stratm is usually much better than tests
and nmbers would indicate because defomations are,
fortnately, dependent on the statistics of verages.
Hence within a given foundation the behviour is usu­
ally surprisinly reproducible nd often permits a
sinificnt trnsfer of experience from one site to
nother. Moreover, as regards acceptable perfo­
ance, the practitioner cn nomally ensure, on the
basis of past eperience, that undesirable dmae will
not ooor. This is tecnically nd statistically a
�h easier task than predicting what --will occur (de
Mello, 1975b).
It is when unusual or nique problems arise that the
present inadequacies of soil mechnics are brouht to
liht. ut in simple tems, present techniques do
not llow the engineer to estimate, with the deree of
certainty which present rules often deand, how much
a building or structre will settle nd what the dis­
tortion will be. qually, neither the rchitect nor
the structral engineer is able to predict with y
reater deree of certainty how much distortion cn
be tolerated without unacceptable dmage. nder
these circumstnces consevatism is both inevitable
and prdent. It should be noted that it is easier
to achieve areement between predicted nd obseved
settlements when both tend to zero.
Soil mechnics and foundation engneering must ther­
fore face up to some imortnt chllengesl
(1), The clear, concise nd ystematic description of
the soil profile in tems of its visual and tactile
497
 properties (including structure and fabric) must be
given greater emphasis in teaching and in practice,
How my new civil engineering graduates n adequa­
tely describe a soil profile?
(2) The reliable determination of the properties of
my types of gound demnds the development of accu­
rate in-situ testing devices which IBt be robust nd
easy,to use f they are to find widespread applica­
tion,
(3) Whatever the method of teat the successful
application of teet results urgently requires reater
use of statistics and probability methode if the a­
uracies of the methode are to be assessed nd obje­
tive confidence limite are to be placed on predi­
tions.
(4) Successful nd economic desin nd construction
cn only result if the building, including ita fon­
dations, structure d finishes, is treated as a
whole, This requires a nowledge of the total beha­
viour of buildings and a realistic appraisal of accu­
racies that n be achieved in desin nd construc­
tion. The foundation engineer has n importnt role
to ply nd may, indeed, have o force the issue by
onfronting the arties ivolved with the economic
consequences of 'desin in watertight ompartments•.
A fr�ented approach to desin usually leds to n
uneconomic stucture nd is frequently a major co­
tributing factor to failure (Teohebotrioff1 1973 -
pae 17).
(5) Finally, proress in desin nd onstruction
techniques and the accmulation of experience depends
on the objective assessment of results, This re­
quires frequent careful monitoring of the behviour
of foundations d structures - a subject which will
be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6,
CHTER 2 - SERVICBILITrt DAMAGE D LIMITNG
STLT
Compared with the literature on the prediction of
foundation movements, the influence of such movements
on the function nd serviceability of structures nd
buildings has received little attention, Yet major
nd costly decisions are frequently tken on the de­
sign of the fondations purely on the basis of rather
arbitrry limiting total nd differential settlments.
This Chapter is primrily oncened with serviceabil­
ity, movements nd dmage of buildings. In the
final Section empirical uides on limitng settle­
mente re discussed, The nalysis of differential
settlements, taking account of soil-structure inter­
action, is dealt with in Chapter 5•
2, 1 SERVICBILITY
As ointed out by Burland and Wroth (1974) the pro­
lem of limiting settlements and soil-structure inter­
action is a t of the much wider problem of se­
viceability and structural interaction. Little pro­
ress has been made on this global problem for a n­
ber of reasons, Some of these area
(1) Serviceability is very subjective nd depends
both on the function of the building, the reaction of
the user nd owner nd economic factors such as value,
insurnce over, and the importnce of prime cost.
498
(2) Buildings vy one from another n such features
as purpose, structurl fom, building materials, con­
struction details and fnishes,
(3) Buildings, including foundations, seldom perform
as desined becuse of the my simplifying assm­
tions that hve to be made re.rdin � the properties of
the round and the total structure �see Section 5,1),
As well as depending on loading d settlement, defor­
mation results from such factors as oreep1 shrinkage,
temperature change nd moisture chnge, A Conference
on Desin for Movement in Buildins* (1969) quotes
may cases of dmage which result from mvements other
thn those of the foundations, It is clear that
engineers are in no better position to eetima·�e such
movements than they are for calculating settlements
(Budgen1 1969).
Another aspect of the problem which engineers may
overlook is that a certain amount of cracking is often
nvoidable if the building is to be economic (Peck,
Deere nd Capacete, 1956), Little (1969) has esti­
mated that in the oaae of one particulr type of buil­
ding the ost of preventing cracking by limiting move­
ments in the structure nd foundations could easily
exceed 10 per cent of the total building ost, i.e.
more than the costs of the foundatioas themselves in
my cases, It is nteresting that in the Conference
men·tioned above, oerous examples •e quoted of aim;.
ple design and construction expedients. which permit
the accommodation of movement without damage. The ma­
jority of these are relatively inexpensive nd it is
probable that significant overall economies could be
achieved, as well as improved serviceability, if buil­
dings were designed with the accommodation of movement
in mi.nd, This approach also has the advantage that it
avoids the problem of precisely estimating the mani­
tudes of movement.
An outstnding eample of the benefits that n accrue
when the fondation engineer,. structral engineer nd
architect combine is the British CLASP system of indu­
strialised buildin � which s evolvd to cope with
mining subsidence � Lacey nd Swain, 1957; Wd, 1974).
The intriuing feature of the CASP system, which is
now widely used throuhout Britain nd urope, is that
it is no more expensive thn traditional building
methode on stable ound, Another useful emple of
such cooperation is cited by Cowley et al (1974) in
which structural fleibility s simply and success­
fully nororated in the structure of some cold
stores thereby eliminating expensive piled found­
tions.
The foundation engineer aa a responsibility to pro­
vide n eonomic foundation which will ensure that
the structure fulfils its fUnction. In doing so he
must not only understnd the properties of the rond
but he also needs to now how the building will r­
sond to defomation nd what the consequences of such
deformation will be o its f unction. There are
sina that the pro!lem of serviceability is receiving
increasing attention (eg draft SO 435611976) d the
foundation engineer has an imortnt role to play.
Previous work has often suffered from a lak of clear
defnitions nd because these re felt to be essential
to future dveloment some space is devoted to the
definitions of round movement nd classification of
dmage.
Desin fo� Movement in Buildings - Concrete Society,
London (1969).
 2.2 DFNITIONS OF GROND D FOUNDATION MOT
A study of the literature reveals a wide variety of
onfusing symbols and terminoloy describing founda­
tion movements. Burland nd Wroth (1974) proposed a
consistent set of definitions based on the nown (or
predicted) displacements of a number of discrete
points. Care was taken to ensure that the terms do
not prejudice � conclusions about the distortions
of the building itself since these depend on a large
number of additional factors such as size, details of (a) Definitions of settlement p, relative settlement >P,
construction, materials, time, eto. The proposed rotation a and angular strain .
terms are illustrated in Fig 1 for the settlement of
a number of discrete points on a foundation. The
J I
L Ao
details of the foundation nd superstructure are A;J
deliberately not specified so as to emphasise the ex­
tent to which judgement and a nowledge of the stru­
ture is needed in interpreting settlment observa­
tions or predictions. The terms are defined in de­
tail by Burlnd nd Wroth (1974) and will only be
-- ----
discussed briefly herel
(b) Definitions of relative deflection u and deflection
(i) Settlement p nd differential or relative ratio u/L
settlement 6 p are illustrated in Fig 1(a). Upward
movement is temed� and denoted by Ph•
(ii) Rotation e is the chanf! in radient of a line A B c D
joining two reference points (eg AB in Fig 1(a)). • • • •

(iii) Anlar strain is denoted by t. The angular

strain at B is given byl
5 �A h �c
tB , LAB + �C
It is positive if it produces 'sag' or upward conca­
vity nd negative if it produces 'hog' or downward
concvity. Angular strain is particularly use.
for predicting crack widths in buildings in which
movement occurs at existng oracks or lines of weak­
ness.
(iv) Relative deflection (relative sag or relative
hog) :. is the displacment relative to the line con­
necting two reference points a distnce L apart (see
Fig 1 (b)). The sin convention is the same as in
(c) Definitions of tilt wand relative rotation
(angular distortion) p
Fig 1 Definitions of foundation movement.
although 'angular distortion' miht be retained for
nown cases of shear distortion. If a smooth profile
is dran between the reference ponts n Fig 1(o) the
maximum relative rotation will be larger than indi­
cated.
(viii) Horizontal displacement u be of import­ n

(iii). ance. A chnge of length 6 L over a length L gives

rise to an vere strain e 5 L/L. •

(v) Deflection ratio (sagging ratio or hogging

ratio) is denoted by .jL. When a smooth profile is
drn between a number of reference points consider­
able judgement is often needed in estimating the max­
imm value of A/L. It should be noted that when the
defomed profile is ap �roximately circular the curv­
ture is given by 8 A/L . •
(vi) J. is denoted by � and describes the rigid
body rotation of the structure or a well defined part
of it. Fiure 1(o) shows how the tilt might· be
estimated if the points were located on a raft founda­
tion. This might be quite nappropriate for a frme
building on separate footings.
(vii) Relative rotation (nular distortion) � ie
the rotation of the line joinin� o reference points
relative to the tilt (see Fig 1(o)). The term
'angular distortion' was defined by Skempton and Mao­
Donald nd is now widely used. However, its use ­
plies shear distortion within the building and while
this m� be the case for frame buildings it is not
necessarily the case for structures in general. For
this reason the term 'relative rotation' is preferred
The above definitions only apply to 'in planet defor­
mation nd no attempt has been made to define three­
dimensonal behaviour.
2.3 LIMITNG MOMNS D DAMAGE
Golder ( 1971) posed a number of very importnt ques­
tions on limiting settlement, the most important per­
haps being who does the limiting& The building code?
The architect? The structural engineer? The founda­
tion engneer? The client, owner or occupier? The
insurnce assessor or finncing orgnisation?
Zeevaert (1973) discusses the role of these parties
nd the engineer would do well to ponder them when
settlement is n important consideration in foundation
desin.
There are basically three criteria which have to be
satisfied when oonsiderin � limiting movements&
(i) visual appearance; (ii) serviceability or fun­
tion; and (iii) stability. Skempton and MacDonald
(1956) concluded that for the majority of buildings
the allowable settlement is govened more by

499
 I
t

architectural damage than by overstressing of the
structure nd in this Review we are concened prim..
rily with (i) and (ii),
2.3.1 Movments affectng visual pearnces
Visible deviation of members from the vertical or
horizontal will often cause subjective feelings that
are unpleasant and possibly alaming. Persons vary
in their appraisal of relative movement and are often
uided by neihbouring or adjacent buildings or mem­
bers. There seems to be wide acceptnce that gene­
ral deviations from the vertical or horizontal in
excess of about 1/250 are likely to be noticed, For
horizontal members it is suggested that a local slope
exceedng 1/10 would be clearly visible as would a
deflection ratio ./L of more thn about 1/250.
Whether such movements become limiting depends on the
fnction of the building (see Moretto, 1971).
2.3.2 Visible dames As mentioned previously
dmage is difficult to quntify as it depends on su­
jective criteria, Moreover, dame which is accept­
able in one region or one type of building miht be
quite unacceptable in nother. Nevertheless, if
proress is to be made in assessing limiting found-­
tion movements nd desining to criteria of service­
ability it is necessay to dvelop some system for
classifying derees of dmage. It is probable that
f a simple system were widely adopted some of the
more extreme reactions towads y fom of visible
dmage miht be assuaged. Jennins nd Kerrich
(1962), n an mortnt study of the eonomic conse­
quences of the heave of buildings on swelling olys,
dvised a smple classification of damage related
principally to ease of repair. The U.K. National
Coal Board (1975) have published a simple classific­
tion of subsidence damage which is based on wide
experience, MacLeod nd Littlejohn (1974) proposed
a classification which is based on the Coal Bord's
recomendations.
Table I has been developed from the above work. A
five-point classification has been adopteds very
sliht, sliht, moderate, severe nd vey severe,
Following Jenings nd Kerrich (1962) emphasis is
laid on ease of repair. Approximate orak widths
are listed and are intended merely as n additional
indicator rather than a direot measure of the degree
of damage, The widths re based on the views of en­
gineers who have had experience in the observation of
building performnce nd the reaction of occupants.
It must be emphasised that the classification in
Table I relates only to visible or aesthetic dmae,
n situations where oraoking may pemit corrosion or
allow penetration or lekage of liquids or ases the
criteria are, of corse, much more stringent as re
those for reinforced concrete (Ny, 1968),
2.3.3 Movments affecting functions Often the pa­
ticular fnction of the building or one of its servi­
ces will dictate limitng movements, eg overhed
crnes, lifts,precision machinery, drains, etc. The
engineer should question vey deeply such lmiting
movements as they are sometimes stiplated arbitrri­
ly nd if adhered to n have a profound influence on
the cost of foundations (Peak, 1965). Altenatively
the provision of smple adjustments will often ove­
come the difficulties.

TABLE I - Classification of visible dmage to walls with particular reference to ease of repair of plaster and
brickwork or masonry.

Deree of Description of typical dmage+ Approximate

dme (ase of repair is underlined) orak width
D

Hairline cracks of lees then about 0,1 mm are classed as negligible.

1. Vey Fine cracks which cn easil� be treated during nomal decoration. Perhaps *
sliht isolated slight fractre in building. Cracks in extenal brickwork )1
visible on close inspection.
2. Sliht Cracks eaeil� filled. Rdecoration robabl� re�ired. Sveral slight *
fractures showing inside of building. Cracks are visible extenally and )5
some re-2intin; : be re�ired extenal!� to ensure weathertihtnsss.
oors nd windows m� stick slihtly.
3· Moderate be craks rre some olenini up nd n be latched b� a masol• R- *
trent cracks n be masked b� suitable linin�. Re!ointing of etenl 5 to 15
or a number of
brickwork nd 2ssibl� a small mont of brickwork to be replaced. Doors cracks
nd windows sticking. Sevice pipes m� fracture, Weathertightness often
impaired. � 3
*
4. Svere Extensive reair work nvolvin: brekinOut nd reDlaon£ sections of 15 to 25
walle1 especial!� over doors nd windo�s. Windows and door frmes dis- but also deppnds
torted, floor sloping noticeably. Walls leaning or bulging noticeably, on nmber of
some loss of bearing n bems. Service pipes disrupted. cracks
*
5 · Very This reguires a major re!ir job ivolvinglartial or complete re-building. usually> 25
severe Bems lose bearing, walls lean badly d require shoring. Windows broken but depends on
with distortion. Danger of instability. nmber of cracks
n assessing the deree of damage account must be tken of its location in the buildwg or structre,
"1
*crack width is only one aspect of damage and should not be used on its own as a direct measre of it.

500
2.4 PRVIOW WOK ON LMITNG DFOMATIONS OF
BUILDNS
Most of the recent contributions to the subject of
allowable defomations of structures have emphasised
that it is impossible to 1� down specific uidelines
for limiting differential displacements in relation
to damage nd that each structure must be treated on
its merits (eg Feld, 1965; Moretto, 1971; and Wroth,
1976a). Nevertheless the engineer has to rely
hevily on simple uidelnes based on previous case
histories. In doing so it is importnt that he
should be awre of the types of buildings studied,
the criteria used in assessing perfomance and the
variability of the data on which the uidelines are
based.
The best nown study leading to recommendations on
allowable differential settlements of structures is
that of Skempton and MacDonald (1956) and guidance
for desin has been based largely on this work. It
as concluded that the limiting vlue of relative
rotation (ngulr distortion) � to cause cracking in
walls and Partitions is 1/300 and that values in ex­
,
cess of 1/500 should be voided. The limiting value
of � to cause structural dmage is 1/150. Subse­
quently Bjerrum (1963) supplemented these recomenda­
tions by relating the manitude of relative rotation
to various serviceability lmits.
Skempton and MacDonald's work is undoubtedly a mile­
stone in the develoment of the subject nd is still
referred to widely. However, there is a tendency to
follow the uidelines blindly with little or no
account being tken of the limited rne of structures
studied or the riteria that were used to define
limiting defomations. Five importnt oints should
be noted about Skempton nd MacDonald's studies!
1. They were limited to traditional steel and rein­
forced concrete rme buildings nd to a few load­
bering briok wall buildings. Moreover, the d�ect
vidence is based on seven frme buildings (five un­
damaged nd o damaed) and seven load-bearing brick
wall buildings (six of them quoted by Terzahi, 1935)
and only one of which was dmaed. The remaining
data re based on indirect evidence in which
(i) settlement dmage is reported but not specified
in detail, or (ii) so far as is nown no settlement
dmage had occrred. Indirect evidence is given for
only five load-bearing brik wall buildings - all of
them dmaged. The lmitations of the data nd the
tentative nature of the onclusions were emphasised
by Skempton nd MacDonald in their paper but these
qualifications are seldom emphasised in text books nd
desin recomendations. It is evident that the data
for load-bearing walls is particularly limited.
2. The criterion used for limiting defomation is
the maximm relative rotation (ngular distortion) �.
As noted previously this choice implies that dmage
results from shear distortion within the building
which is not necessarily the case. Wd (1956)
questioned the use of this criterion.
3• No classification of degree of dmage was used
other thn 'rchitectural•, 'functional' nd 'stru­
tral'•
4. Althouh it is the cladding and finishes that
were generally dmaged the quoted values of relative
rotation � re total values and not necessarily those
occurring subsequent to the application of the fni­
shes. For load-bearing walls the total values of �
re the relevnt values. However, for frame build­
ings the finishes will usually not be applied until
some settlement has occurred. In my cases there­
fore the limiting values of � mY be sinificntly
less than the total values.
5• The limiting values of relative rotation � for
structural dmage in frme buildings are for struc­
tural members of average dmensions. hey do not
apply to exceptionally large nd stiff bems or
columns where the limiting values of ngular distor­
tion m� be much less and must be valuated by stru­
tural analysis.
Polshin and Tokar (1957) discussed the question of
allowable deformations nd settlements nd defined
three criteria (using the termnoloy defined in this
paper) 1 relative rotation �; deflection ratio ../L;
average settlement. The limiting values of these
three quntities adopted by the 1955 Building Code of
the USSR were then listed. It is of particulr
interest to note that frame structures were treated
separately from contnuous load-bearing brickwall
buildings. Recomended maximm relative rotations
vary from 1/500 for steel nd concrete frme infilled
structures to 1/20 where there is no nfill or no
dnger of dmage to cladding. These values are
clearly in line with Skempton nd MacDonald's reco­
mendations.
Much stricter criteria were laid down for load-bearing
brick walls. For ratios of length L to height H less
thn 3 the maxm deflection ratio A/L are 0.3 x
10-3 and 0. 4 x 10-3 for snd nd soft cl� respective­
ly. For L/H ratios reater th� 5 the orresponding
deflection ratios are 0.5 x 1o-3 and 0.7 x 1o-3. In
their paper, Polshn and Tokar mads use of o import­
nt onoepts1 (i) the L/H ratio of the building or
wall, and (ii) the concept of limiting tensile strain
before cracking. Using a lmiting tensile strain of
0.05 per cent the limiting relationship between L/H
nd deflection ratio ../L was presented nd was shown
to be n ood areement with a nmber of cracked and
ncraoked brick buildings. The above recomendations
for load-bearing brick walls are based on a require­
ment for no cracking so that if adhered to the degree
of dmage would be unlikely to exceed 'very sliht'
(see Table I).
It is noteworty that Meyerhof (1953) also treated
frmed buildings nd lod-bearing brick walls sepa­
ately. He. recommended limiting relative rotations of
1/300 for open frmes, 1/100 for infilled frmes and
A/L . 1/200 for load-bearing walls or continuous
brick cladding.
Grnt, Christin nd Vmarcke (1974) carried out a
literature survey aimed at u-dating Skempton nd Ma­
Donald's work. Data for 68 frme buildings, mny of
moden construction, were added to the original data
nd appear to confim that a relative rotation � •
1/30 is a reasonable dmage limit. Only five addi­
tional load-bering wall buildings were included nd
four of these were dmaged. Hence the conclusion by
Grnt et al that the dmage limit of � 1/300 is co­
.
fimed for load-bearing walls must be treated with
caution - prticularly in view of Polshin and Tokar's
much more conservative recommendations.
501
2.5 CT WOK ON DTL DAMAGE CRITERIA
The limiting damage criteria discussed in the previ­
ous section m� be useful general guides but are un­ 9o o o o o o m
satisfactory for a number of reasons. They are 0 ' OOOOP
based on obsevations and are therefore essentially
empirical and n offer no insiht into the cause of Actual building

dmage. They onnot be used for nusual structures L

or unusual materils. Perhaps most important of all

H[
they do not encourage the engineer to emine the
details of the structure nd finishes with a view to
checking seviceability.
2.5.1 LimitinR tensile strains With these limit­
(a)
-- �
Bea m - s1m ple 1deah zat1o n of bL11IdHl9

--; I, �
tions in mind Burlnd and Wroth (1974) suggested that Deflected shape of solfit
a more fundmental criterion for damage was required of beam
nd put ford the idea that a criterion related to
visible cracking would be useul since tensile crac­
ing is so often associated with settlment dmage.
Following the work of Polshin and Tokar (1957) they
assumed that the onset of visible cracking in a given (b)
material was associated with a limiting tensile Bending deformation with crac in k g due
strain &lim (Burland and Wroth used the symbol &crit). t o direct tensile strain

Leving aside for the tme being the question of what

values to assin to it, the application of the concept
of limiting tensile strain n be illustrated by
applying it to the cracking of a simple bem (which
m� be thouht of as representing a building - see {c)
Fig 2a}. It is assmed that the deflected shape of
the beam is non. The problem is to define the de­ Shear deformation with cracking due
flection criteria for initial cracking when the limit­ to diagonal tensile strain
ing tensile strain is reached at some point within
the bem. o possible extreme modes of deformation, Fig 2 Cracking of a simple bem in bending and
bending only nd shearing only, are shown in Figs 2b in shear.
nd 2o. It is immediately obvious that the limiting
deflection for initial cracking of a simple bem will
depend on the ratio of L/H and on the relative stiff­
ness of the bem in sher nd in bending.
It n be shon that for a given deflection 6 the max­ axis (nd hence I).
imum tensile strains are not very sensitive to the
precise fom of loading. Timoshenko (1957) gives the For an isotropic bem (E/0 � 2.5) with neutral axis
expression for the central deflection of a centrally in the middle the limiting relationship between
loaded beam of unit thicness in both shear nd bend­ 6/L.&ln and L/H is given by cuve 1 in Fig 3.
[
ing ass
A a 1+-.18 - I .-E] (2.1)
• • • • • • • •

L2 H G

where E is Young's modulusr G is the shear modulus;

d I is the moment of nertia. -
--
--- -- - --- - ------ ®
15 -
--- -
quation (2.1) my be written in tems of the maximum
extreme fibre strain �( mx) as followes
10 )

6
L '
L
& b(max) ;
•
[1+- I E]
18 .-
2 H .-
0 • • • • (2.2) 05 . ----
-
®
L ·.._� -�-·---·-·
Similrly for the maximum diaonal strain &d(max) 0 3 6
(2.1) becomess· q.
H
A
L •
. L2 H
&d(max) � + m . I E •
OJ <2·3)
• • ••
Key -- ) E/G
® E/G
=

=
2·5: na.at middle; bending strain critical
12·5; na.at middle;diagonal strain critical

--- @ E/G = 05; na at bottom;hogging

By setting &(max) &(lim) equations (2.2) and (2.3)
a

define the limiting values of 6/L for craking of

simple beams in bending nd in shear. It is evident
that for a given vlue of &lim the limiting value A/L
(whichever is the lowest from eqns (2.2) and (2.3)) Fig 3 Influence of E/0 on the oraoking of a simple
depends on L/H, E/G and the position of the neutral rectngular bem.

502
For a beam which has a relatively low st iffne ss in 40 Key
Frnme buildings
shear (E/G ' 12.5)the limiting relationship is given (a) o No damage
• Slight damage
by curve 2. A particularly important case is that b X X Severe dAmage
-
; 3-0
of a bem which is relatively \tek in bending nd
lthioh is subjected to hogging such that its neutral
axis is at the bottom. Curve 3
sho�1s the limiting
%·� 2·0
relationship for such a bem (E/G ' 0.5).
These
·,
�
curves serve to illustrate that even for simple bems � 10
the l imiting deflection ratio causing cracking n
vary over wide limits.
0 6 L/H

Burlnd nd Wroth carried out a preliminary suvey of lbl loadbearing wal s l

data for cracking of infill frames and masonry walls
4 Polshin and Tokar
and concluded that the rnge of values of average ten­
_ J 3·1 x16' 119571

-.......
g 5 Wood 119521
sile strain at the onset of visible cracking for a ( 6 Burhouse {19 G9)
1-5
--
---
variety of common building materials was remarably 7 Breth and

small . For bricwork nd blocwork set in cement �·� 1·0

--
-- -
!��� 8 Mor ton a1d Au
Chambossc (1974)

mortr &lim lies between 0.05

nd 0.1
per cent, while
119741

- �.
9 Horn and Lambe
119641
for reinforced concrete having a wide rnge of 10 Tschebotariof I
o
0.03 0.05 5
1
strengths the values lie between and per ·
119381
cent.
oB o7 04 Pols hin and Tokar

-
In order to assess the potential value of the limit­ 0 2 4 L/H
20 --,
ing tensile strain approach in estimating the onset of (C) Hogging of loadbearing walls
l1 Cheney and Burford (1974}
cracking in buildings , Burlnd and Wroth compared the 12 Samuels and Cheney ll974)
( 13 Rigby and Ocl<cma (1952)
lmiting criteria obtained from the analysis of simple

%
1-5
14 Littlejohn (1974}
beams with observations of the behviour of a number
of buildings - many of them of moden construction. .2 1-0
For this comparison a value of limiting tensile strain ?
'
c
&lim a 0.075per cent s used. The buildins were ,
classified as frame , load-bearing wall undergoing a� � 0·5
:
ging and load-bering wall undergoing hogging.
Fiures 4(a) ) )
( b and ( c show the comparison with
cuves (2), � 1)and (3) respectively from Fig Also3. 0 3 12 13 L/H

shown is the criterion of limiting relative rotation

� a 1/300and the limiting relationship proposed by
Fig 4 Relationship between and for buildings . /L L/H
sho�ing various degrees of dmage - points
Polshin and Tokar for load-bearing walls. Inspite of
without nmbers refer to data given by Grnt
its simplicity the nalysis based on tensile strain
reflects the major trends in the observations . In
et al, 1972;
Burland and Wroth, 1974).
particular the prediction is bone out that load­ soft bricks and l e n mortar n substntially reduce
bearing walls, especially when subjected to hogging, cracking, ie it raises the value of £
· lim•
are more susceptible to dmage than frame buildings
�1hich are relatively flexible in shear. Clearly Limiting strain is preferred to a 'not ional 1 tensile
there is scope for more realistic analysis of actual strength as its value does not appear to vry a great
structures using numerical methods of nalysis. It is deal for a wide rnge of types nd strengths of comon
hoped that the success of the present over-simplified building materials . Moreover it retains a physical
approach will stimulate further work along these lines. sinificnce after cracking which •strength' does not.

At this point it is necessary to emphasise that limit­ 2.5.2 Crack propaation& The onset of visible
ing tensile strain is not a fUndmental material pro­ cracking does not necessarily represent a limit of
perty like tensile strength. Mainstone has (1974) serviceability. Provided the cracking is controlled,
pointed out that local strains during the early stages as in a reinforced concrete bem, it my be acceptable
of crack develoment are much smaller than the values to allow defomation to continue well beyond the ini­
of &lim used by Burland,nd Wroth. Hence 'limiting tiation of cracking. Cases where the propagation of
tensile strain' should be regarded as a measure of initial cracks my be fairly well controlled are
seviceability which, when used in conjunction with an framed structures with panel walls and reinforced
elastic analysis, aids the engineer in deciding load-bearing structures. nreinforced load-bearing
whether his building is likely to develop visible walls underoing sagging under the restraining action
cracks nd where the critical localities miht be. of the foundations my also fall into this cateory.
The advntages of the approach over traditional empi­ However, Ward (1956)
has rn attention to such a
rical rules lmiting deformat ions are: case where slip along the bitumen dmp proof cpurse
resulted in extensive cracking in the overlying brick­
(1) It n be applied to complex structures employ­ work.
ing well established stress analysis techniques;
n important mode of defomation where uncontrolled
(2) It mkes explicit the fact that dmage can be cracking cn occur is that of hogging of nreinforced
controlled by paying attention to the modes of defo­ load-bearing \tOlls. Once a crack forms at the top of
ation within the building structure and fabric; the wall there is nothing to stop it propagating do­
wards. The difference in cracking due to hogging nd
(3) The limiting value n be varied to tke account sagging is illustrated in Fig where the two model 5
of differing materials and serviceability limit states, walls hve experienced similar manitudes of relative
e . g . Girault (1964) has pointed out that the use of deflection.

503
 One of the most obvious facts facing ayone attempting
to work in this important subject is the almost total
lack of really well-documented case histories of
damage , ntil a number of such case histories beome
available for a variety of building types the tempta­
tion to lay down definitive rules on limiting defoma­
tion should be resisted as these will tend to inhibit
future developments, It is much more important that
I I the basic factors are identified and appreciated by
'
engineers, In Section of this Review a few case
6,4
I I I
' I I
histories are given to illustrate various aspeots of
� the problem,

2,6 OTE GUID> ON LMITING SI'TLINT

The assessment of limiting settlements of structures

is even more complex than that of limiting defomat ion
as it brings in the behaviour of the ground and its
interaction with the structure, The problem is
essentially one of estimating the maximum relative
deflect ions and rotations likely to be experienced by
• . .11 1 1:
1 1 r the structure and analytical methode of doing this are
I _L I I discussed in Chapter Nevertheless, the practising
5·
- I I-I 1
•

� engineer needs to now when it is reasonable for him

to proceed in a routine manner and for this he uses
simple uidelines based on previous experience,

Fig 5 Crackng of model brick walls due to sagging

All too often such uidelines are interpreted as pro­
nd hogging.
viding rigid rules for 'allowable maximum settlement s �
Terzaghi issued a stern warning against such
( 1 956)
Kerisel has rn attention to the growng
(1975) propo sals , The problem is to provide safe simple
problem of old buildings near tunnel s , excvations or
uides without inhibiting the search for optimum solu­
new heavy buildings . The emples he quotes empha­
tions when appropriate , It is therefore suggested
sise the vulnerability of old buildings to the convex
that the term 'Routine Limits' be used when such
defomations that o c cur. He suggests that the crit­
uidelines are proposed,
ical radius of vature for old buildings subject to

This is in
D'Appolonia
]197 1 ) 1
hoggng is four times that for frmed buildil?gs •
eement with the results given n F1g
D8llerl et al
.
nd Burland
( 1 976)
4, Following Terzaghi and Peck foundations on
( 1 98),
sand will be treated separately from those on clyey
soils, Such a division does, of course, leave out a
nd Hncook give detailed measurements of co­
1 977) wide range of types of ground for which the engineer
vex defomations alonside deep excavations. In
must use his judgement and experience,
these circumstnces tensile strains in the ground may
be just as sinificnt in contributing to damage ,
2,6,1 Sander Terzaghi and Peck suggested
(198)
that foroiinge on sand the differential settlement
Recently Green, MacLeod nd Stark successfully
( 1976) is unlikely to exceed per oent of the maximum set­
75
nalysed cracking of brick structures employing a
tlement and since most ordinary structures cn with­
finite element method incorporating a brittle limit­
stand m of differential settlement between adja­
20
ing tension material. rlhile such an approach is far
cent columns , a limiting maximum settlement of about
too complex for routine desin purposes, it offers a
25 m was recomended, For raft foundations the
useful adjunct to future research on the relation­
limiting maximum settlement was increased to mm, 50
ships between movement nd dmage in buildings,
Littlejohn describes some important experi­
( 1974) Skempton and MacDonald correlated measured
(1956)
ments on the cracking of brick walls subject to min­
maximum relative rotation (anular distortion) P with
ing subsidence, Such studies are essential to a
total and differential settlement for eleven buildings
proper nderstndng of the mechanisms of cracking
founded on sand, They concluded that for a safe limit
due to foundation movement.
of p a the limiting maximum differential settle­
1 /00
ment is about mm and the limiting � settlements
25
2.5.3 Discussions The studies referred to in this
are about 0 mm for isolated foundat ions and 0 m to
section have seved to emphasise the compiexity of
65 mm for raft foundations, The following features
the problem of allowable movments nd associated
should be notedr
dmage , The simple naloue of a uniform rectngu­
lr bem demonstrates that the limiting relative de­
(1) In sands settlement tkes place rapidly under
flection will depend on the brittleness of the build­
load, Henoe for frme buildings , where often a si­
ing material, the length to heiht ratio, the rela­
nificant proportion of the load is applied prior to
tive stiffness in shear and bending and the mode of
the appl ication of the cladding and finishe s , the
deformation (sagging or hogging), In addition the
above uides may be onservative,
propagation of cracks will depend on the degree of
tensile restraint built nto the structure and its
(2) No cases of dmage to buildings founded on sand
foundation, All these factors point to frame build­
were reported by Skempton and MacDonald* or Grant et
ings with panel walls being abl e to sustain much lar­
ger relative deflections without severe dmage than
*An extreme case of a building which settled m 630
unrenforced load-bearing walls. The evidence pre­
was presented, but this appears to be quite exce­
sented in Fig 4 suports these conclusions,
tional (Terzaghi1 1956),

504
 al ( 1 972).
(3) Terzaghi ( 1 956) stated that he new of no buil­
ding founded on sand that had settled more than 75 mm.
Of the 37 settlement results reported by Bjerrum
( 1 963) only one exceeded 75 m and the majority were
less thn 0 mm. None of the cases reported by
Meyerhof (1965 ) , or Schultze and Sherif ( 1 973) ex­
ceeded 35 mm.
Therefore few problems should be encountered with
routine buildings founded on deep layers of sand.
Difficulties have occurred when vibration has tken
place due to machinery and traffic or due to nearby
construction. Also sinificant settlements cn
occur due to lar � fluctuations in load as with silos
(Nonveiler, 1963). Finally, it should be noted that
even small quantities of organic matter or silt and
cly increase the compressibility, and its variabil­
ity, sinificantly.
2.6.2 Clayey soils& Using similar procedres to
those described previously Skempton and MacDonald
concluded that for foundations on clay the desin
limit for maximum differential settlement is about
0 mm. The recommended desin limite for total
settlements are about 65 mm for isolated fo�iona
and 65 mm to 100 m for rafts. These recommenda­
tions were criticized by Terzaghi on the grounds that
the relationship between maximum relative rotation �
and maximum settlement in clys is dependent on too
my factors for a single value to be assined to it.
Grant , Christin and Vanmarcke have added a number of
case records to the original data. These confim that
there is no simple correlation between maximum rela­
tive rotation and maximum settlement in clays.
Nevertheless, we must consider whether Skempton and
MacDonald's recommendations are acceptable as routine
limiting values.
Fiure 6 shows the maximum differential settlements
b max plotted against maximum settlements Pmax for&
(a) frme buildings on isolated foundations nd (b)
buildings with raft foundations. Much of the data
have been tken from Skempton and MacDonald (1956)
and Grnt et al (1972) nd the remainder from recent
papers. As far as possible cases have been excluded
where the thicness of the compressible strata varied
or where the loading intensity was sinificantly no­
uniform. A distinction has been rn between
buildings founded directly on olayey soils and those
founded on a stiff lyer overlying the clay stratum.
In Fig 6(b) (raft foundations) frme buildings are
distinuished from buildings of load-bearing wall
construction. The fiures against some of the
points refer to the number of storeys. Buildings
showing sliht to moderate dmage are ndicated by
full points and those showing severe damage by
crosses. Fi � e 6 is similar to one given by
Bjerrum ( 1 963) and his suggested upper limit curves
for flexible structures nd rigid structures have
been incorporated. The following features are par­
ticular noteworthy&
(1) In both Figs 6{a) and 6(b) the ratio between
maximum differential settlement and the maximum
settlement ( b ma/Pmax) is less for buildings
founded on a stiff overlying layer thn for those
founded directly on olay.
(2) Bjerrum•s upper limit · ourves for flexible and
rigid structures appear to be confimed for undamaged
buildings, but it is of interest to note that many of
the results for dmaged buildings lie above the curve .
(3) In Fig 6{a) some cases of slight dmage to buil­
dings on isolated foundations are reported for differ­
ential settlements in excess of 50 mm and total
-
---
tments in excess of 150 m.
(4) In contrast damage to buildings on rafts (Fig
6b) has not been reported for differential settlements
and total settlements leas than 1 25 mm nd 250 m re­
speo�y. Even these are not truly representative
as one building is reported as being _founded on fill
nd the Charity Hospital has distinctly non-uniform
loading. Hhat is very clear from Fig 6(b) is that
mny buildings on rafts have undergone substantial
total settlements with no reported dmage .
It must be emphasised that the diagrams are baaed on
limited data for unifomly loaded buildings founded on
unifom clayey strata. They indicate some of the
factors influencing performance for these conditions.
The full arrows represent the desin limits suggested
by Skempton and �lacDonald ( 1956)
• The dashed arrows
indicate some maximum average settlements pemitted
by the 1962 SSR Building Code (see Tschebotarioff,
1973 - Table -4) . It is not the purpose of this
Review to suggest altenative guides. What is clear
from Fiure 6 is that there are a number of exmples
of undamaged buildings that have settled more than
the limits given by Skempton and MacDonald and the
SSR Building Code. The recommendations made by
Skempton and MacDonald, particularly as regards
differential settlements, are probably reasonable s
'routine limit s • . However, provided it can be demon­
strated that the deflection ratios 1/L or relative
rotation � (see Section 2.2) will be within tolerable
limits there appears to be no reason why larger total
and differential settlements should not be accepted.
Methods of calculating :./L, making due allowance for
the stiffness of the superstructure, re discussed in
Chapter 5· For many stiff buildings on uniform
round the limiting settlements are likely to be gov­
ened more by considerations of tilt, dmage to ser­
vices entering the building or the influence on adja­
cent structures than of damage to the building itself.
2.6.3 General remarks: The discussion has only
covered limiting settlements on sand and unifom clay­
ey soils. Clearly this leaves out the majority of
ground conditions, including alluvia, silts, loess,
fill, peat and a wide range of residual soils. For
most of these soils there is no short cut to estimat­
ing the probable maximum distortions of the structur�
Estimates have to be made of the degree of hetero­
geneity of the ground and its influence on the struc­
ture using such techniques as are expedient to the
job in hand including past experience, borings ,
probing, in-situ and laboratory testing and analysis,
detailed settlement analysis and the influence of
structural stiffness. It is also necessary to take
account of the proposed foundation construction
method, particularly if excavation is envisaged, as
it will often radically affect the compressibility of
the underlying ground. Cases of damage hve result­
ed from the induced vertical stresses in the ground
locally exceeding the preconsolidation pressure (eg
Vargas, 1955). A case history of such an instnce
is given n Seotion 6.4. In such cases the stiff­
ness and strength of the structure must be sufficient
to resist the local increase in compressibility of
the ground.
505
 (at Frame buildings on isolated foundalions
r
25·-
,
-
(
/
e
(
g 200
c
.
� 150
i
�

¥ 100
�
0

� 50

� - � � � � � � �
I
: Max setllemenl (mmt

(b) Buildings on raft foundalions

---------------- ---------
400 � ,
K EY
•-

Frame lood-btlll9
M
350 Clay Jt surface 0

Sltghl to moderatt
damlge
(
300 (
S111f surface la·er H H
e X (

]
Se\tre damage
g Nun1ber of storc,s 010

Mec�d
250
des•gn I mrts
S..empton and
( I:N�<tyto,p.!tll
,. 1962 USSR Bur:rng code
�
� 200

Ig 150
.
� -sttrc lures 1963)
Ma� for ng-d
18;euum
l
100

50 ..

310

250 300 350 40 450 500 550 600

Max settlemen1 (mm}

Fig 6 Performance of buildings on clayey soils

This discussion on limiting settlements hae also been
confined to simple routine structures. The routine
uides described above shold never be applied indis­
criminately to buildings and structures which are in
any way out of the ordinary or for which the loading
intensity is markedly non-uniform. Finally, it must
always be bone in mind that the foundations & under­
lying round are a part of the structure nd often an
economic solution to a differential settlement problem
cn be found by suitable desin and detailing of the
structural members and finishes . This applies par­
ticularly to bridges , where a high percentage of the
total cost of the structure (often over 50 per cent)
can o into fcund.aticns desined to satisfy stringent
differen·tial settlement criteria. For each ne'f
structure the engineer is well advised to consider
the questions listed in Section 2.3 as to who is
limiting the settlements and wy.
CHAPTER 3 STTLNT PRDICTION
In 1974 the British Geotechnical Society organised a
Conference on the Settlement of Structures at Cam­
bridge niversity. Besides containing a wealth of
information in the papers and discussions the Procee­
dings contain very comprehensive state of the art
reviews on settlement in granular soils (Sutherland,
1974) 1 normally consolidated and lihtly overconsoli­
dated cohesive materials (Simons 1974) 1 heavily over­
consolidated cohesive materials ,�Butler, 1974) and
rocks (Hobbs, 1974). This Chapter will deal with the
more theoretical problems of settlement nalyses draw­
ing on the above work where necessary. The object of
this Chapter is to demonstrate that simple traditional
settlement calculations re usually adequate for pra­
tical purposes provided the appropriate i-situ soil
properties have been obtained.
3. 1 CRT 'HODS
In this Review attention is devoted to foundations for
nomal buildings and structures where the factor of
safety against general bearing capacity failure is
greater than about 2.5. The analysis of the behavi­
our of footings and embankments for lower factors of
safety present special problems which fall outside the
scope of this Review.
The total settlement is defined as Pt nd for satura­
ted ola�s {neglecting secondary settlements for the
present) is made up of an undrained component u and a
consolidation component p0 such that1
Pt Pu + Po ( 3.1) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

506
The situation for unsaturated soils can be complex as
chnges in moisture content subsequent to constru­
tion may give rise to heave or additional settlement.
However, provided the soil moisture suction is not
hih onventional methods cn be used to estimate P •
t
For the classical onedimensional method (Terzaghi,
1 9 43) the vertical strain & v in each successive
l�er b h beneath the foundation is calculated from
the express ionz b & a �- • �a· z
v --y
where v is the coefficient of volume compressi­
ility for the rnge in vertical effective pressure
at zo to o• + A o•
zo �. The total settlement i s then
obtained by smmation to givez
P
od . � V • .o'z •
bh • • • • • • ( 3 . 2)
*
where Pod (the one-dmensional settlement) is
assumed equal to the total settlement P • May
t with depth due to self-weight , non-linear stress­
authors hve rmarked that the use of onedimensional
methods for thick beds of compressible soils is ina­
curate since substntial lateral displacements cn
occur. Skempton, Pek nd MaDonald ( 1 955) reco­
nised that the ndrained settlement u could be si­
nificnt nd by accepting that Pt a Pod suggested
that the consolidation settlment was given byz
P (3.3)
d - Pu
a p • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
c plex material properties, including anisotropy, non­
where P is calculated from elastic displacment
u
theory. Meyerhof ( 1 956) and Alderman ( 1 956) sugges­
ted that it was more accurate to set
p0 � p0d .
Skempton ( 1 957) indicated that eq.(3.3) was only a
rough nd ready method. In the sme year Skempton
nd Bjerrum ( 1 957) propos� a new method of est imat­
ing p by applying a correction factor � to p to
d yardstick aainst which to judge the reliability of
tke iocount of the manitude of the pore pregsure
set up beneath the foundation during undrained load­
ing nd which is dissipated during consolidation.
The total settlment is therefore given byz
P • P +� • P • • • • • • • • • • • • ( 3 . 4)
t u od
This method is widely used d oves of � versus the
pore pressure coefficient A for circular nd strip
footie are given in most moden text books .
Skempton ( 1 957) suggested that in due course settle­
ment nalysis would probably be carried out by mens
of triaxial tests in which appropriate principal
stresses are applied first under undrained conditions
d then allowing drainage . This is the basis of
the stress-path method of testing (Lmbe, 1964). The
vertical strains are measured during the undrained
stages nd enough test� are carried out to permit the
smmation of the vertical strains over an appropriate
depth to give the initial nd total settlements.
A vriation of this method has been proposed by Davis
nd Poulos ( 1 963) and ( 1 968) with similar approaches
by Kerisel and Quatre (1968), Egorov et al ( 1 957) nd
Sulkje and Savino (1963). The measured vertical and
volmetric strains are interpreted in tems of equi­
valent undrained nd drained elastic constnts ut
ut E ' nd v• . The initial and total settlements
are then obtained by smmating the vertical strain as
follows a
* 3.2
p is preferred to p d as the onedimensional
sg%tlement can be prearcted using other methods
besides the oedometer test .
p al&ev l� [
x o h" az - v (ox + oy >] &h • • • • • (3.5)
using the appropriate undrained o r drained values of
E and v. Altenatively the constnts are used in
conjunction with elastic displacement theory. Simons
nd Som ( 1 969) have used a sophisticated fom of
stress path testing to evaluate the settlement of
foundations on London Clay .
Corbunov-Ponadov nd Davydov ( 1 973) give a detailed
account of the approach to settlement prediction in
the SSR. xtensive use is made of the theory of
elasticity employing a modulus of deformation often
determined by means of in-situ plate tests. In order
to simplify the cal culations many authors have sought
to develop elastic displacement methods using n
'equivalent ' homogeneous layer to represent the real
situation in which the displacements die away rapidly
strain behaviour nd threshold stress effects.
The advent of powerful numerical methods of analysis,
in articulr the finite element method, has made it
possible to solve a wide rnge of boundy value pro­
lems given the appropriate constitutive relationships.
The methods can handle .complicated geometry and load­
ing conditions, the influence of self-weiht nd com­
homogeneity and non-linearity. The methods are find­
ing increased use in settlement analysis.
When faced with such a wide range of altenative
approaches to settlement analysis the average practi­
sing engineer can be forgiven for feeling somewhat
confused. Although the subject appears to have made
progress over the last few years there is really no
the various methods. One thing is clear, as the
methods of analysis have become more sophisticated so
too have the testing procedures which are needed to
supply the soil prmeters. From a purely practical
point of view one must ask whether such sophistica­
tion is necessary nd, indeed, whether greater accu­
racy is in fact achieved.
There is a rowing need for objective assessments to
be made of the accuracy of the various methods of
settlement nalysis under rigorous condit ions. One of
the difficulties in the past has been that the methods
of testing have been intimately liked with the ana­
lytical method so that it has been difficult to iso­
late inaccuracies in sampling d testing from the
limitations_ of the analyses. In recent years suffi­
cient proress has been made llith the development of
nalytical te chniques and realistic constitutive
relationships to attempt here a preliminary assessment
of the accuracy of current analyt ical methods. To
the practical engineer much of this may appear some­
what academic. However, the conclus ions , which are
given at the end of the Chapter ! of practical si­
nificance . The main conclusion is that the errors
introduced by the simple classical methods of analy­
sis are small ocmpred with those that can occur
during smpling nd testing. Hence the emphasis
should be on the accurate detemination of simple
parmeters, such as onedimensional ocmpressibility,
coupled with simple calculations .
STRSS DISTRBUTION
A pre-requisite for accurate settlement (or indeed
507
any displacement ) prediction is a nowledge of the
initial and subsequent stresses. Most texts on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering outline methods
of calculating changes in vertical stress using
linear, homogeneous, isotropic elastic theory. An o­
vious and importnt question is the extent to which
the departure of real soils from such ideal behaviour
influences the stress distributions beneath founda­
tions. My soils patently do not satisfy the ass­
ptions of simple liner elasticity nd engineers feel
uneasy about applying a method which, at first siht,
appears to rest on suoh poor assumptions. As a re­
sult of recent analytical and experimental work we
has been in pavement desin llhere extreme foms of
r
no-homogeneity exist. Poulos nd Davis ( 1 974) s­
marise the results of Fox, L ( 1948) for a two-layer sys­
tem which provide a useful insight into the influence
of lyer thicness and relative stiffness on the dis­
triution of stress. Reductions in stiffness near
the surface do not greatly influence the vertical
stresses ( Oiroud1 1970). However, the presence of a
stiff upper layer has a mrked influence on the dis­
tribution of vertical stress. Fiure 8 shows the
vertical and horizontal distribution of stress be­
neath the centre of a circular load for three thick­
nesses of the upper layer when E1/E2 10, It is a

are in a better position to assess the errors evident that the vertical stress distributions differ
involved. sinificantly from Boussinesq. Althouh approximate
methods exist to allow for this (Palmer and Barber
3.2.1 Non-linearity! Morgensten and Phukan (1968) 190) the value of E1/E2 is difficult to assess so
studied the stress chnges in a homogeneous non-linear that, in practice, the calculated vertical stress
elastic foundation. They noted that the vertical chnges m� be sinificntly in error.
stress chnges are essentially independent of the
stress-strain relation used in the analysis as shown '"z/q ; '"xjq
in Fig 7 • Howver the horizontal stress changes
proved very sensitive to non-linearity. H�eg1
---�·
Christian and Whitman ( 1 968) reached similar conclu­
sions for n elastio- perfectly plastic material which
confoms to the classic plastic flow laws during -
/
yield. /
/
/
/
Distance from centre /
- /
/
0 1
/
q = 0·7
I
/
I /

I
I
II I
I I
-

ta
I'I II I1 I
2 I
zja
I
I _I . 1I II
I I _ -
1
I I I I IIIII lfCq
!zfq I I I 1
I I I
I I E1
I I 7
I I I Adhesive/ E2
3 I II interface

I I
I 1 El
I I
- Boussinesq
- = 10
• E2
II
Model 1
Model 2 :I 171= 172 =0·5
I I
I I - Boussinesq
II
1·0 ---.J II
4
I
II

Fig 7 Vertical stress distribution for three stresp­

strain relations (�!orgenstern & hkn, 1968) .
3.2.2 Non-homoeneity! Another importnt assum­
tion that is frequently made is that of homogeneity.
Clearly this is a poor assumption for mny practical
situations whe.re the soils are frequently layered and
have stiffness properties which vry markedly with
depth or in plan, Sovine ( 1961 ) nd many others
have shon that the presence of an underlying rigid
layer tends to concentrate the stresses some�1hat be­
neath the loaded area, but the effect is not very pro­
nounced, The horizontal stress chnges are more se­
sitive to the presence of a rigid stratum, particulr­
ly for high Poisson's ratios,
May solutions exist for the stress distributions
within multi-l�er systems and their main application
Fig 8 Influence of a stiff upper l�er (nifom
circular load) .
A comon form of heterogeneity, and one that .has only
recently received detailed attention, is that in which
the stiffness increases continuously with depth,
Gibson ( 1974 ) presents n extensive biblioraphy dea­
ling with this topic, Fire 9 shows the stress dis­
tribution for a unifom strip load on n elastic iso­
tropic half space of constant Poissons' ratio nd
Young's modulus increasing linearly with de pth from
zero at the surface (Gibson d Sills, 1971 ) . The
vertical stresses n be seen to be slihtly dependent
on Poisson's ratio whereas the horizontal stresses re

508
 3

z/b

zja 2

- J= Y2 (also Boussinesq )
- - - - J= j3
3 - Boussinesq
6
- - - J= 0

J________________J

Fig 9 Stress distribution beneath uniform strip

load on non-homogeneous half space
4 --�-
{Gibson nd Sills, 1971 ) .

extremely sensitive to Poisson's ratio. This n be Fig 10 Influence of nisotrop on vertical stresses
�
contrasted with the homogeneous case where the (unifom circular load)
stresses are independent of Poisson's ratio .
change beneath the centre of a unifom circulr load
3.2.3 Anisotroya Gerrrd and Harrison { 1 970a and
b ) have made a major contribution to the study of where, for simplicity, H
EiEv
�
on a homogeneous cross-anisotropic elastic material
. o. For n isotro-
foundat ions on cross-anisotropic materials, providing
compl ete solutions to a wide rnge of loding condi­
tions for strip and circulr footings . The solu­
pic material • 1 and 0
this i s represented by the ��
. t (for v • 0 and
ine (Boussin s . The
dotted line is for a fair�y etreme value of
tions are in mathematical fom and re somewhat ­ but maintaining �V a �.
r '3
The chain dotted ine is
bersome, for f;, a 3 and a;;v " 1 . It is evident that
changes n the shear modUlus GVH ' which is a complete­
A cross-anisotropic material is characterised by the ly independent parmeter, have a reater influence on
following five elastic parmetersa the vertical stresses than do vriations in horizon­
tal stiffness U • Yet G is seldom measured and we
VH
Yong' s modulus in vertical and horizontal have little noledge of tlie rnge of values of Gv/y
planes that might be expected for soils.
Poisson's ratio for effect of vertical
strain on horizontal strain 3.2.4 Discussiona n this section we have exmined
Poisson's ratio for effect of horizontal briefly the influence of such factors as no-lineari­
strain on complementy horizontal strain ty, non-homogeneity nd anisotropy on the distribution
• Shear modulus in vertical plane , of stress induced by simple surface loads . With the
advent of the finite element method it would be simple
In addition it is covenient to definea to ry out much more exhaustive studies. However,
for practical purposes enouh has been done to demo­
n . ;
� (. ;;
VHV ) ................... . strate that for m� round conditions the Boussinesq
equations give a reasonably accurate distribution of
vertical stress change s . We note, however, that the
nd m . . . • . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . vertical changes are difficult to estimate accurately
for a stiff layer overlying a more compressible layer
1
(for n isotropic material m
• 2 (1 + v) ) . nd there is some uncertainty for crossnisotropic
soils where the distribution of vertical stress is
It is notworthy that OH is a completely independent sensitive to vriations in GVH .
vriable apart from being no-negative (see for
eample Hooper, 1976). The situation is by no means so straight forward for
the horizontal stresses. It is well nown that the
Fiure 1 0 shows the distribution of vertical stress

509
horizontal stress chnge is dependent on Poisson's
ratio and the presence of non-homogeneity increases
this sensitivity. loreover, non-l inearity has a pro­
found influence. Hence the Bouseinesq equations are
unlikely to give accurate estimates of chnges in
horizontal stress.
These conclusions are supported by Moran nd Gerrard
(1971) who summrise the results of model oiroular
loading tests on sand carried out by a number of wo­
kers. The results of vertical stress measurements
are surprisingly well predicted by simple elastic
theory. However, the radial and tangential stresses
show a wide vriation in measred values and may be
rossly over- or underestimated by theory.
Finally, although emphsis has been given to surface
loads, attention should be given to loads at the base
of open excvations (Leonrda , 1968).
Fire 11
shows the increase in vertical stresses beneath the
centre line of a strip load at the base of an open
excavat ion. The departure from the Boussinesq dis­
tribution is nalogous to the depth correction factor
for settlement (Fox, E N 1948)1
but the open excava­
tion is more complex (Burland, 1 969 b)
and has re­
ceived the detailed study it merits.
-- Boussinesq
z/H
- - - - E xcavation
analysis
z
Fig 1 1 Vertical stresses beneath stri� load
at base of excavation (B/H a 1).
STSSSTAi Oim
In order to assess the acuray of urrent theoreti­
cal methods of estimating settlement we ust first
look briefly at some of the assumptions that are made
about the stress-strain behaviour of soils.
Frequently elastic formulations are assumed. nherent
in ay elastic fomulation, whether linear or non­
linear, are the assumptions: ( i ) that the behaviour
is stress-path independent ; and (ii) that the orien­
tation of the axes of the increments of principal
strain is a function only of the orientation and m­
netude of the increments of principal stress and is
510
independent of the � stress.
In contrast for non-elastic materials (eg plastic,
viscous, etc): ( i ) the behaviour is stress-path de­
pendent nd (ii) the orientation of the principal
strain incrments is usually dependent on both the
stress increments nd the total stress. The orient­
tion of the principal str�s of importance when
sinificnt rotations of principal stress are likely
to ocr.
For most foundations the initial i-situ principal
stresses will usually be near enough vertical and
horizontal unless the ground is sloping steeply or
the depositional or tectonic history is complex.
Moreover, for vertically loaded foundations the dire­
tions of the major principal stress-increments appear
to rmain sensibly vertical beneath the major portion
of the loaded rea irrespective of whether the mate­
rial is elastic or plastic (eg Hajid nd Craig,
1971). Hence, for the case of vertically loaded
foundations the axes of stress and strain are usually
coincident and a major difference between elastic nd
other types of material does not rise. The situa­
tion is clearly very much more complex for foundat ions
subject to inclined loads, where sinificnt rotations
of principal stress occur.
Therefore the stress condit ions beneath vertically
loaded foundations are particularly •smple' nd rela­
tively simple constitutive laws are dequate to repre­
sent soil behaviour. Apart from the quntitative
relationships between stress nd strain the question
of whether the soil is stress-path dependent is pe­
haps the most imortnt characteristic that needs to
be considered.
uring the last two decades work has been going on at
my centres to develop constitutive relationships for
soils using the concepts of elasticity and plasticity.
We lrlll now emine the accuray of current theoreti­
cal methods for settlement prediction first for elas­
tic materials and secondly for plastic materials.
3. 4 TL S'LNT ON ELASTIC SOILS
n the liht of the above nd in the context of
settlement calculations 'elastic soilsl are those
whose resonse to a given chnge in effective stress
is, for practical purpo ses, independent of the stress­
ath over the rnge of stresses encountered. Hence
no-liner or irrecoverable behaviour does not neces­
srily preclude the use of elastic stress-strain fo­
mulations. n imortnt orollary is that the total
settlement on n elastic soil is the same for slow
9drainedt loading as for undrained loading followed
by onsolidation. Wroth (1971 ) s able to demo­
strate that the shear modulus G of ndisturbed speci­
mens of London Clay, while being a fnction of the
mean normal stress nd the overconsolidation rat io, is
the sme for drained nd undrained tests. It ie pro­
able that a wide rnge of overconsolidated soils n
be treated as telastiot for predicting settlements of
foundations at normal factors of safety.
3.4.1 Homoeneous isotropic asel For an elastic
isotropic soil skeleton the stress-strain behviour
in terms of effective stresses is tully defined by
the effective Young's modulus E' nd effective
Poisson's ratio vt. A drained onedimensional test
(eg oedometer test) on the material gives the volumet­
ric oompressibilityr

• • • • • • • • • • • • •
We can now exmine the aouracy of the coventional
onedmensional method for calculatinf the total
settlement of a unifom circular load of radius a
and u1teneity q, on a homogeneous isotropic elastic
half space. The eact total settlement of the cen­
tre iaa
have given exact solutions for a variety of loading
(3.8) condit ione on stripe and circular areas on the surface
of anisotropic soils, Hooper ( 1 975) has presented a
useful summary of the settlement of circular loaded
areas on a cross-anisotropic medium .
As for the isotropic case we can examine the accuracy
of the onventional one-dimensional analysis for esti­
mating the total settlement of the centre of a unifom

a 2 q a
(tv•
2
) ••.......
circular load on the surface of a cross-anisotropic
half apace (refer to Section 3 , 2 , 3 for the definition
Pt(eaot)
of the elastic parameters ) .
For the coventional one-dimensional methods

J The exact total settlement i s given by Hooper ( 1 975)1

)
m • , o ,h 2 q. a .m . . . . (3.10)
(1 - v•H2)
a .
v z v
0
Comparing the onedimensionl method with the eact
Pt
. 2 q a •
E'v
I
w
• • • • • • • • ( 3 . 1 2)

method we gets where I is a settlement lfluenoe factor,

w
The expression for I is a complicated function of
w
Pod
.
1 - 2 yt .. ..... F'fE'v• GvfE'v• v•H and v•H and will not be given
Pt(eaot) (1 - yt) 2 here,

It is vident that p0 /p ) 0 , 9 for

t
v•
< 0.25. Davis The relationships between I and
values of G,_./E•v
for various
are plott�d in Fig 1 3 for v•H a
E'fE'v
nd Poulos ( 1 968) havi extended the above nalysis to
v• H a 0 , vThe black square represents the isotropic
soil layers of vrious depths and their results re
oonaition,
shown in Fig 1 2 . For most practical cases the co­
ventional onedimensional method will give total
settlements which re within 10 per cent of the eact
solution provided v• is less thn about 0 . 3 . There
1-8
is considerable evidence to show that for may over­ .__ m'=O·l
consolidated clayey . soils , soft rocks nd cohesion­ 1·6
less materials v• < 0 , 3 for the stress ranges ivol-
1-4
ved ( eg lroth, 1971; Burland and Lord1 1969;
Wong and Nitchell, 1975; Charles, 1976). 1·2 --- m' =0·25
l w 1-0
m'=0·5
0·8 -- -- - - - - -

m'=1·0
0·6
m'=10·0
0· 4

0·2
0
0 4 5 6
n' = E H/E v
l�vH = O = �HHl

Fig 1 3 Settlement influence factor I for a nifom

circular load on a cross-anie�tropic
'elastic' soil,

It is evident that I is sensitive not only to E'f

E'v but also to G,"
, �' • / v
Values of for soils E• ../E•v
appear to lie in l� e range of 0,5 to 5.f. However,
0 as pointed out prviously, there is almost no inform­
tion on G,_./E'v•
I is also sensitive to Poisson's
ratio, fa dotted fine in Fig 1 3 corresponds to
v•H • 0 , 2 and v•H . o.25 (with m' . 0 . 5 ) which re
Fig 1 2 Relationship between p
0 pt �
nd a/h for a thou �ht to be extreme values for London Clay (Hooper,
.
unifom circular load on an isotropic 'elas­ 1 n5 J .
tio1 soil (Poulos and Davis, 1968),
The conventional onedimensional analysis baaed on the
3 . 4, 2 Homoeneous cross-anisotropic elastic soils vertical Bouseinesq stress distribution remains as
A legitimate criticism of much settlement theory is given in equation ( 3 . 1 0 ) , However, the volume com­
that it neglects the influence of anisotropy. Recent pressibility from a drained onedimensional teat is:
publications by Gerrard and Harrison ( 1 970a and b)
1 n
m .
t
(1 - 2 vtH2 1
' ) . . . . . . . . (3,13)
v ' -
V
v•H
*
The onclusion also holds for other shapes of
loaded area, Fiure 1 4 shows the accuracy of various methods of
calculating the total settlement . urves ( 1 ) and ( 2)

51 1
 1·5

1·4

1·3
-

- ·
.
· ··
.
···
·
··
·
· ·
···
····
··
··
·· · ·······--·"
· · ·
·····

··
: ··
·
·

· ·
.·
.
·

- ®
- -::-=-
c 1-2 -
"
E �
------ - ®
'
> C

�' -�
H
..:" ..�·�--
.
- -- =
.. - -
�; >»·� --._
....
Soil
2'
1·0

�
properties

�� " 0
m':0·5
0·9
�vH · �lH
� '
> X
�- � 0·8
@--- Stresspath 0 · 2 0· 25

{Oedometer
w w
)-- Oedomeler 0 · 2 ·0·25
D

}
0·7 - -- - - 0 0
-- ······
stress path
· ·
@ Skempton & 0· 2 ·0·25
®---- Bjerrum
06
0 0

0·5
0 2 3 4 5 6

n': EH/Ev

Fig 1 4 Accuray of various methods of settlement nalysis for a unifom circular load on a cross-anisotropic
'elastic' soil.

represent the relationshi p between p �Pt for ( i) given in Fi � 1 4 are for G/E'v . 0.5. If1 as seems
yt . yt 01 and ( ii) yt
a
o.� and v•H . a likely, G fE'v increases with E• ./E'v the overpredic­
0�5, boH for m' 0·5· a
H
I¥ is interesting to note tion of e ¥tlement by all the met�ode would be worse,
that for 0 . 5 ( n ' ( 5 the onedimensional method but the classical onedimensional method would still
gives results which are always within 1 5 per cent of give the most accurate result.
the eact solution.
3 . 4.3 Non-homoeneous elastic soil: In Section
Curves ( 1 ) and (3) correspond to the simple elastic 3 . 2 . 2 it �ms concluded that non-homogeneity in the
displacement method using equivalent values of the form of increasing stiffness with depth had only a
isotropic parmeters E' and v• detemined from theo­ minor influence on the vertical stress distribution.
retical stress-path teste at a depth of z/a 1 • The reverse ie true for settlement. For a given ver­
(following the recommendations of Davis and Poulos, tical stress the vertical strain at y depth is pri­
1968). For vtH . vt 0 the stress path method
a marily dependent on E' v and G' • Hence unless the
is almost ident1cal to�e classical onedimensional distribution of stiffness with·VH nepth is nown, ­
method. However, for v• H . 0 . 2, v• , 0 . 25 ticularly near the underside of the foundation, there
( curve 3) the stress patn method is m� less accurate is little hope of accurate settlement prediction. A
than the onedimensional method ( curve 2 ) . common form of non-homogeneity is one in which the
stiffness increases linearly with depth such that
We may also compare the exact solution with the pre­ E' E' + z .
a
Carrier and Christin ( 1913) give the
diction using Skempton's and Bjerrum 's method. This reeults0of a parametric study of the settlement of a
requires a nowledge of the pore pressure parameter A smooth rigid circular plate on such a material.
which is given by the epressions Butler ( 1 974) gives useful influence curves for the
settlement of the corner of a unifomly loaded rectan­
1 - 2 vtH
gle on the surface of this type of material •
A " 1 - 4 yt
H
+ (1 - yt nt • • • • • • • • ( 3 . 1 4)
The accuray of the onedimensional method for the
Knowing the relationship bet11een . and A (eg Scott, above material may be assessed by comparin� it with
1 963 - Fig 6 . 1 5) the estimated values for the consol­ some numerical results obtained by Hooper ( 1 975) .
idation settlement p0 ( . L •Pod ) are easily obtained. Table II .gives the calculated total settlements of the
The estimated total settlement requires a nowledge centre of a circular area of 1 5 m radius, loaded uni­
of the undrained settlement p 11hich ie nomally cal­ formly to 100 kN/m2 and resting on a cross-anisotropic
culated using isotropic elast�o displacement theory non-homogeneous elasti 2 layer 97.5 m deep for which
with the appropriate equivalent value of E (the un­ E'v , 6.7 + 4. 44z N/m • The values of p d were ob­
drained value of Young's modulus) . Cve} ( 4) nd ta1ned using the Boussinesq vertical stresg distribu­
(5) in Fig 1 4 compare the estimated total settlements tion.
using the Skempton nd Bjerrum method with the exact
solutions. Like the stress-path method, the TABLE II
Skempton and Bjerrum method is less accurate than the
classical one-dimensional metiod and tends to over­ Et Gt
predict the total settlement. All the comparisons H H
v•
H
v•H Pt (m ) Pod (m )
" v lv
*
Cves 2, 3 and 5 give overestimates of settlement
��h�n E' /� 'v . 1 because the Poisson's ratios are 1 0.5 0 0 67 . 5 58.2
H
JnsotroplCo 1 0.)85 0.3 0.3 53.6 43. 2
2.5 0.77 0 0.35 62.8 58.2

512
It is evident that the classical onedimensional ana­ 1·0---,
lysis tends to underestimate the total settlement but
is acceptable for practical purposes, An equivalent
stress-path analysis or Sksmpton and Bjerrum analysis
was not considered practical because of the number of
layers that would have to be analysed to adequately
account for the variation of stiffness with depth,
3 . 4.4 Conolusionr For soils which are approxima­
tely elastic in their response to monotonically in­
creasing stresses, total settlements obtained from the
classical onedimensional method of analysis compare
very favourably with values obtained from more
sophisticated methods,
3, 5 POPORTION OF DIEDIATE O TL S'TL>NT ON
LASTIC SOIL
As pointed out by Burland and Wroth ( 1 974) it is im­
portant to establish what proportion of the total 0 0
0 0·5
settlement will occur before the finishes are applied ajh

uf
h/a
to a building since it is usually the finishes which Fig 15 Relationship between p pt and a/h for a
are dmaged by settlement. unifom cirular load on n isotropic
'elastic' soil (Poulos and Davis, 1968),
It is customary to use undrained elastic displacement
theory to estimate the immediate settlements, Since
we are only concened with normal factors of safety
the question of local yield will not usually need to 0 ·7 ---,
be considered (Davis and Poulos ( 1 968); D'Appolonia, 0·6
et al ( 1 971 ) ) , The accurate measurement of the un­
drained stiffness of a soil presents many problems. 0·5
Moreover, it is difficult to take account of such 04
features as non-homogeneity and anisotropy in ny
simple undrained analysis,
-- )�H:)�H: O
For elastic materials there are clearly defined rela­
tionships between the drained and undrained para­ ---- -)�H =0·2, )�H = -0·25
meters which can be used to estimate the proportion
of immediate to total settlement p pt
' f
We will in­
vestigate this proportion for various conditions.
---6
n'= E�/Ev
3 . 5, 1
/
�moeneous isotropic elastic soilr The
shear modulus G is independent of the drainage con­
dition so thats
Fig 1 6 Relationship between p pt nd E' E'v for
�
a uniform circular lo on a cross-
f
E E
anisotropic 'elastic' soil.
u . 20
_ • • • • • • • • • • ( 3 . 1 5)
1 +
u - 5
y (See Section 3 . 2 . 3 for definitions) . Fiure 1 6 shows
Hence for any deep homogeneous layer the proportion t uf
the relationship between p p and nt for m t . 0,5 and
0 . 2 , Y1H
uf
p pt of y loaded area iss �
m' . 1 .0. The dotted line is for yt . a a

0,25 and mt . 0 . 5 (London Clay ) . is eviden�·that

p the effect of increasing nisotropy is to reduce
� •
2
1 ) ............ .... (3.16) uf
P Pt •
3 , 5 ,3 Non-homo neous elastic soils Burlnd and
avis nd Poulos ( 1 968) have extended the nalysis for /roth ( 1 97 have studied the influence of increasing
u/
unifomly loaded circular areas on soil layers of va­ stiffness with depth on the ratio P Pt for a rigid
rious depths and the.r results are given in Fig 1 5 ,
Clearly pfp i s dependent on the geomety o f the circular footing. Fiure 17 shows the relationship
between pfp and the measure of no-homo �neity
m
problem. s ilar results may be obtained for other k
E •/D for v ious values of y t . As E 'fD decreases
shapes of loaded area, s8 does the value of PuiPt It is of �nterest to
•

3 . 5 . 2 Homoeneous cross-anisotropic elastic soils

note that the value of E ·•jD for n average high­
The relationships between the drained and undrained rise block of flats on Logdon Clay appears to be about
0,1 .
parmeters for a cross-anisotropic soil are much more
complex than for the isotropic case and re given in
3 , 5 , 4 Discussions Fbr deep layers of overconsoli­
/ u.
ull by ooper ( 1 975) . For the special case of
0 . ytH it can be shown that p p for a uni­ dated soils the ratio P Pt is unlikely to exceed
� Y
yt •

fo y loaded circular area on a deep a

t
yer is given about 0.7. For increasing non-homogeneity and aniso­
bys tropy the ratio will decrease and my be as 1011 as
0,25 in extreme cases, The ratio will also decrease
as the relative thicness of the compressible layer
• • • • • (3.17) decreases .

513
 10

(a)

o�a I
I
\
\
\
\
06
'

�:
A \
. e
�'· �
Pu
. ..._
- v· .
compress1on
.
line
o�4

r-1
·� �
\
c
02 ....

0
10 10 0·1 001 0001

E�/kD

Fig 17 Relationship between pfp and E' fkD for a

t o
rigid circular load on a non-homogeneous
9elastic' soil. (b)

Simons and Som ( 1970) analysed 12 case records of

settlement of major structures on overconsolidated
clays and quoted a rllge of values for the ratio of
the end of construction settlements to the total
settlements from 0.32 to 0, 7 4 with an average of
0. 58. Morton and Au ( 197 4) have studied eiht case
records of buildings on London Cly lld quote a rllge
of 0 , 4 to 0,82 with an verage of 0,63. Breth lld
mnn ( 197 4) report similar results for Frnkfurt
Cly as do De Jong et al (1971 nd 1974) for a dense
till. For most of these cases consolidation took
place rapidly lld the end of construction settlements
Pi probably include some consolidation. These and
many other data for stiff clayey soils support the
findings of the elastic nalyses outlined here.
36 TOR'ICAL SEI'LS ON SO' YIELDNG SOILS
For soft nomally consolidated soils the elastic
assumptions of stress-path independent behaviour are
clerly not valid. ver the last t1ro decades con­
siderable proress has been made at Cmbridge niver­
sity nd other centres on the development of consti­
tutive relationships for soft olys using the con­
cepts of work hardening plasticity. The detailed
constitutive relationships for these ideal •cam-Clay '
models are given by Schofield and 'lroth (1968)1
Roscoe and Burlnd ( 1 968) lld Burland (1971 ) and will
not be repeated here.
Fiure 18(a) illustrates the behaviour of a sample
of l ightly overconsolidated 'ideal' clay undergoing
onedimensional compression. In keeping with clas­
sical soil mechnics the slopes B and BC are chara­
terised by the sHelling index Cs and the compression
index C c respectively n the 'ideal' models , Atten­
tion should be drawn to the point B t in Fig 18(b)
which corresponds to the preconsolidation pressure
or 'yield' point B in Fig 18(a). B • lies on a
'yield locus' J 'B'K' lld provided the stress changes
applied to the soil at its initial state A t do not
fall outside J'B'K'1 the strains will be smal l . The
existence of such a yield locus in natural soft
clays is strikingly illustrated by Mitchell ( 1 970)
and Crooks and Grham (1 976) and also by the well­
defined values of p obtained from many careful in­
c
vestigations on the compressibility of soft clays .
Fig 18
Bjerrum (1972) has discussed the existence of a
'critical' shear stress whioh governs when the stru­
ture of the clay starts to brek down causing large
settlements. There can be little doubt that he had
in mind a form of 'yield locust which is central to
the 'Cam-Clay t mode l . Once the stresses oross the
'yield loous' lrge irrecoverable strains occur and
the soil is said to be 'yielding'•
The model can be used for predict ing strains nd pore
pressures dveloped during 'yielding•. For example 1
the stress-path A'B'C' in Fig 18(b) corresponds to
the onedimensional compression test nd the ideal
model gives reasonable predictions of the tat rest•
pressure coefficient K (and1 of course, recovers the
2
e v ot1 curve in Fig 1�(a) ) . The stress-paths D'E'
and H'I' correspond to predicted undrained tests
following onedimensional consolidation to D' nd H'
respectively. Voids ratio changes are obtained
using the approach first outlined by Rendulic ( 1 936)
nd sher strains are obtained from the incremental
flo-r laws of plasticity. Thus for ny non effe­
tive stress path (eg DtGtFt) the volumetric and shear
strains ll be evaluated. The Ca-Cly model n be
completely defined by the three prameters C01 Cs and
¢ • , althouh it can be improved with additional r­
meters.
Simpson ( 1971 ) 1 Naylor nd Zienkie1ioz ( 1971 ) and
Ohta et 1 ( 1975) have illustrated the use of the
model using the finite element method, Burlnd
(1971) has successfully used the model to predict

514
pore pressures and vertical and lateral displacements
beneath embments on soft natural clys, Wroth Load on footing kN
and Simpson ( 1 972) nd Wroth ( 1 976b) have successful­
ly used the model to estimate the deformations and 0 400 800 1200
stability of embaments on soft natural clays, It .
....
appears that the CCl� models provide a self­ ..,,.._' '
consistent nd realistic idealization of mny natural o,

soft ol�s, at least for predicting pore pressures

nd displacements beneath vertically loaded areas,
0 ·1
" o
,
Oe�on'eter

'\'c"
E
Predicted values of consolidation settlement p 0 o­ ..
c 0·2
tained from the C-Cl� model nd p d from the clas­ ll
sical onedmensional analysis have �sen found to be
. 0'
E
ll
in good agreement for undrained factors of safety in ;

excess of three (Burlnd, 1969� 0hta and Rata, 1973).

perimental support for the conclusion that Pod is
�
)
l
0·3
.
/" '0
c
approximately equal to Pc for nomally onsolidated ·.
0
clay is provided by some model tests described by 0
Burland (1971 ) , Fiure 19 shows the relationship
..
0·4
Finite element /
between settlement nd average footing pressure for critical state analysis
two model strip footings. The results are compred 05
with the onedimensional analysis nd •cClay' pre­
dictions, For ndrained factors of safety reater
thn about 3 the onedimensional predictions are with­
in 10 per cent of the measured settlements , Penman 0·6 --'-
nd Watson ( 1963) obtained very similar results from
a tnk test on soft silty clay. Fig 0 Predicted consolidation settlements of a
lihtly overconsolidated clay (Naylor 197 1 ) ,
Net average fotig pressure (kn21
50 100 150 200 250
It will be noted that whereas for elastic materials
we find that Pod ; Pt for yielding materials Pod q
p • In order to calCulate Pu it is necessary to
Undrained
bearig capacity
m�asure the undrained stiffness % nd Simons ( 197 4)
has stressed the difficulties of making an accurate
2
detemination. He also shows that resort to empiri­
cal correlations lith the undrained strength cu is
nreliable since values of /u hve been found to
lie between 0 and 300 (see also D'Appolonia et al,
1971 ) , From a practical point of view the difficul­
ty of estimating Pu will not normally be of reat
concen because generally it ·dll be only a small
proportion of the total settlement.
G Foting test A
Smons and Som ( 1970) have reviewed nine case histo­
- •

-4-
Fotig test B
heoret:al
Oemeter
Fig 1 9 Predicted nd observed consolidation settl­
ments for model footings (Burland, 1971 ) ,
The explnation for this behaviour lies in the fact
that as the soil is in a state of 'yieldV it will
tend to continue to defom one-dimensionally under
the dominant influence of the in-situ tat rest• pres­
sures when the footing. pressures are relatively low.
It is of interest to note that, following large ini­
tial horizontal displacements, consolidation beneath
the test embment at Ska deby described by Holtz
nd Lindskog ( 1 972) appears to be taking place
approximately onedimensionally.
So far we have onsidered 'elastic' soils and 'plas­
tic' soils separately. However, the majority of
soft soils exhibit a tpreconsolidation effect •
(Bjerrum, 1972). Naylor ( 1 971 ) has carried out a
finite element settlement analysis for such a case
using a Cm-Cl� ( critical state) model. Fiure 20
shows the result of the nalysis. It can be seen
that prior to 'yield' the onedimensional method is
in excellent agreement with the nalytical result
and subsequently, during 'yield', tends to underpre­
dict the settlement e noted previously.
ries of buildings on nomally consolidated clays nd
find ratios of the settlement during construction to
the total settlement ranging from 0.077 to 0.212 with
an average of 0,156. Since sinificnt consolida­
tion may well have tken place during construction it
is probable that the value of pfpt liill normally be
less than 0 , 1 for soft clays ,
3.7 RATE OF SETL'
The time-settlement behviour of foundations has been
thorouhly treated by a number of authors particular­
ly at the previous t�1o Conferences of this Intena­
tional Society (Scott and Ko, 1969; de Mello, 1969;
Poorooshasb, 1969; and Gorbunov-Possadov, 1973). It
is outside the scope of this Revie11 to attempt to
deal with this question in detail .
A s regards the prediction of consolidation settle­
ments the solutions given by Davis and Poulos ( 1 972)
and Schiffman and Gibson ( 1 964) are sufficient for
most routine practical prposes. For more complex
non-homogeneous or non-linear problems resort must
often be made to some form of numerical analysis.
Schiffman et al ( 1 969) discuss altenative forms of
analysis and give numerous references to specific
problems·. The simpler type of solution is one in

515
 which the equations ovening the diffusion of the
pore fluid are not coupled to the equations ovening
the deformations of the soil. Solutions of this
type are readily solved using numerical techniques .
For example , Murr� (1973) describes a numerical
method for predicting the twodimensional consolida­
tion of multi-lyered soils for a wide rnge of load­
ing conditions and non-linear consolidation para­
meters.
The more realistic, but much more difficult, type of
analysis is one in which the equations govening de­
formation and fluid flow are linked in such a way
that equilibrium and continuity are satisfied at all
times in both the solid and the fluid phase s .
and Hilson ( 1969) were amonst the first to propose
a satisfactory threedimensional finite element for­
mulation. Following these procedures Hng et al
( 1 971 ) obtained excellent agreement with some closed
fom solutions for a porous elastic medium.
and Hobbs (1976) have developed a no-linear elastic
finite element prorm, based on Biot•s equations,
which allows for simultneous chnges in geometry
{ e g the onstruction of an emba
ment ) and soil pro­
perties. Recently Small et al { 1 976 ) have developed
a finite element method of analysing an elasto­
plastio permeable material with cohesion and fri­
tion. The method is used to study the behaviour of
a strip footing loaded to failure at different rates .
These developments are exciting and offer valuable
insight into the mechanisms of behaviour during con­
solidation. Ho�1ever1 inspite of the rapid theore­
tical developments taking place the reliability of
predictions of the rate of settlement of foundations
is poor. The main source of error is in the dete­
mination of the in-situ pemeability of the soil.
Frequently measured rates of settlement of structures
are very much higher than predicted even �hen t10- nd
three-dimensional theories are used.
Ro1e ( 1 968 nd 1972) demonstrates that the permeabil­
ity of a deposit is sinificantly dependent on its
fabric. Thin layers of sand nd silt, roots nd
fissures cn result in the overall in-situ pemeabil- .
ity being many tmes greater than that measured on
routine samples in the laboratory. Disturbance of
the soil during smpling may further reduce its natu­
ral pemeability.
Rowe and Barden ( 1966) dveloped n hydraulic oedome­
ter to enable more reliable measrements of the per­
meability k and coefficient of consolidation v to be
made . The use of in-situ permeability tests coupled
with laboratory values of ompressibility appear to
give reasonable values of c • Lewis et al
Y
compare observed consolidat on histories of seven
embaments with predictions using this approach and
obtain remarkably good areement when predictions
based on routine laboratory tests overestimate the
time by up to a factor of 0. Reference should be
made to the Proceedings of the Conference on InSitu
Investigations in Soils and Rocks , London,
a full discussion on the in-situ detemination of the
consolidation characteristics of soils.
Simons ( 1 974) has discussed the problem of seconday
compression at some length and referred to the most
recent r10rk on the topic. Mesri ( 1973) has discussed
mny of the factors influencing the coefficient of
secondary compression. From a practical viePoint
there is as yet little than n be added to the
516
traditional highly empirical procedures of detemin­
ing the coefficient of secondary consolidation c
�
from oedometer time-settlement curve s . Crawford nd
Sutherland (197 1 ) give details of one of the longest
records of building settlements nown to exist and
obtain good correlation between the observed seconda­
ry settlement and those computed from laboratory
tests. Leonarda (1973)
draws attention to some of
the implicit assumptions made in achieving this corre­
lation.
Progress is being made on the theoretical aspects of
secondary compression and consolidation. n instruc­
tive paper by Hawley and Borin ( 1 973) should help to
Sandhu clarify certain misconceptions about se ondary com­
pression. It is importnt to distinuish between
'compression' and 'consolidation'; compression being
a property of the soil skeleton and consolidation re­
sulting from the flow of fluid through the voids of
Smith the soil. Any tendeny for the soil skeleton to
compress whether it is due to the action of increased
effective pressure or creep in the skeleton will
cause the pore fluid to be expelled thereby creating
a ore pressure radient.
In the past 'secondary consolidation' has often been
described as compression that ontinues after the ex­
cess pore pressures have dissipated. This .n be
misleading. Secondary compression on clearly tke
place in the presence of an excess pore pressure gra­
dient and indeed will contribute to its cause. For
thin laboratory specimens rainage tkes plaoe rapid­
ly and little se condary compression occurs during
'primary ' compression. However, for thick layers of
clay drainage takes place slowly nd an element some
distance from a drainage boundary will experience a
relatively slow increase in effective stress. If �he
soil skeleton is sinificntly rate dependent secon­
dary compression of the sme order as the primary
compression my well tke place concurrently. Berre
and Iversen ( 1972) illustrate this process with some
excellent laboratory experiments on Drmmen clay.
Mathematical models have been developed to handle
onedimensional consolidation involving timedepen­
dent and rate sensitive compression (Sukl j e 1 1963 and
1969; Garlanger1 1972 l Berry and Poskitt
t
1972;
Hawley and Borin, 1973J• Garlanger ( 1 972} has
developed a numerical procedure for handling the time
p
dependent com ression of the types described by
Bjerrum ( 1 967). The method gives remarkable agree­
ment with the overall strains and mid-plane pore
pressures measured by Berra and Iversen and {1972)
Garlange� further obtains good estimates of the
settlement-time histories of three buildings on
(1 976) Drmmen clay.
Inspite of these develoments the engineer is still
faced with a difficult problem in attempting to
estimate the mount of secondary compression. It is
by no means certain, indeed it is most unlikely, that
all soft clays have similar characteristics to the
19701 for Drmmen cly (Leonarda, 1972). A laboratory deter­
mination of a preconeolidation pressure which is si­
nificantly reater than the previous maximum ove­
burden pressure is no uarntee that the soil will
exhibit large delayed compressions. Simons ( 1 974)
concludes that the best guide to the fom nd magni­
tude of secondary compression is still local
experience.
3.8 SETTLINT OF GRANLAR MATERIALS
The engineer is presented with a dilemma when estima­
ting settlements on granular materials. Over the
last decade a number of procedures have been devel­
oped and it is a difficult task for the general pra­
titioner to decide which one to use. Current tech­
niques are based on plate loading tests, Standard
Penetration Tests or Static Cone Tests. No attempt
will be made to summarise all the methods as this has
been done very thoroughly by Sutherland ( 1 974). How­
ever, it seems appropriate to mke a few general ob­
sevations.
At the present time no reliable method appears to
exist for extrapolating the settlement of a standard
plate to the settlement of a prototype footing
(D'Appolonia et al, 1968; Sutherland, 1974). How­
ever the use of plate tests at various depths to
evaluate the stiffness profile, though expensive, is
likely to be more successful (Sohmertmnn, 1970;
Janbu, 1973), The development of these nd other
direct methods of measuring compressibility at depth
is an imortnt task.
The interpretation of penetration test results has a
number of inherent difficulties. In the first place
they do not readily reflect the stress-history (and
hence the in-situ stresses) of the site - a factor
which has a major influence on compressibility (de
Mello, 1971 nd 1975; Rowe, 1974 and Leonarda, 1974),
Moreover, penetration tests give notoriously erratic
results as do small plate loading tests. Hence y
attempt at correlation requires rigorous statistical
analysis (de Mello, 1971 ) . Yet few authors do more
than plot representative values of one variable
against �epresentative values of the other often
without even stating how these representative values
were obtained (is mean, lower limit etc), A notable
exception is t�e paper by Schultze nd Sherif ( 1 973).
Their very thorough analysis of settlement data cer­
tainly deserves close study.
The present unsatisfactory •state of the art' is
adequately portrayed in Simons and lenzies1 ( 1 975)
book in which various methods are used to calculate
the settlement for a simple illustrative emple.
The six most u-to-date procedures give settlements
rnging from 5 m to 28 m even when the representa­
tive penetration results are stipulated. Presumably
.the range would be even wider in practice where the
engineer has, in addition, to interpret the data from
the penetration tests.
In these circumstances it seems appropriate to go
back to the vailable field measurements of settle­
ment to see whether a simpler picture emerges which
is lese dependent on quantitative correlations with
erratic penetration tests.
Adopting this very simple approach the results of a
large number of settlement observations on footings
and rafts have been plotted in Fig 21 as settlement
per unit pressure (p/q) against B. In each case the
sand is broadly classified as loose, medium dense or
dense either on the basis of a visual description or
the average ST value, The following references were
used in assembling the data: Bjerrum and Eggestad
(1963), Parry (1971 ) Davisson nd Salley ( 1 972) 1
Garga nd Quin ( 1 974Jt , Morton ( 1 974) and Schultze and
Sherif ( 1 973). The points in Fig 21 1�hich are con­
nected by thin full lines are for different sizes of
100 10
Key N
o Loose ( 10
U ��end��m 10·30
x Oense ) 30
1bL1-:1o
�:·3 _
l _; - --'!
1o--- 10::
o----'
-';; o·;
10� o-'
Breadth B (m}
Fig 21 Observed settlement of footings on sand
of various relative densities.
foundation at the sme site - all of them quoted by
Bjerrum and Eggestd.* No account has been tken of
such factors as the water table , depth of loaded area
nd geometry. These factors, which are included by
Schultze and Sherif together with Meigh's (1975) su­
gestion that the settlement is influenced by grain
size and rading, probably contribute to the spread of
results.
As is to be expected there are no clear boundries
between the three relative densities. Nevertheless,
it is possible to dra1� reasonably well defined empiri­
cal upper limits for dense sands and medium dense
sands as shown by the full line and dotted line re­
spectively in Fig 21 . It would be unwise to attempt·
to define equivalent •average ' relationships as the
data are probably not representative . However the
spread of the results should aid the engneer in de­
ciding what proportion of the upper limit settlements
he will use for a prticular analysis or design. For
example , when calculating a 'probable' settlement he
may elect to work to half the upper limit values in
which case the likely maxmum settlment will not no­
mally exceed about 1 ,5 times the 'probable ' value ,
The assumption that p is proportional to q is often
surprisingly accurate but engineers using the method
should ensure that the pressures do not exceed the
limit of proportionality.
Considering the wide variety of sources and quality
of data the scatter of the results, particularly for
the medium dense and dense materials, is remarkably
small. It . would be premature to treat the uppermost
curve (marked L) in Fig 21 as an 'upper l imit ' line
for loose sands. �luch of the data relate to a fine
slightly oranic snd with a orosity of 45 per cent
(Bjerrum and Eggestad, 1963), which is certainly very
loose. Such a material would not normally be used
for founding a building on without treatment. Curve
L may be useful in the preliminary assessment of the
settlement of structures such as storage tanks ·on
loose sand.
The difficulties of extrapolating the settlement of a
stndard plate (0.3 m) to the settlement of a proto-
*Case 2 from Bjerrum and Eggestd's paper is des-
scribed as 'dens e • , but this is thouht to be
anomalous as the results re in such good agreement
with others described as 'loose e .
517
type footing were mentioned earlier. It is olear
from Fig 21 that the trends are not established at
B a 0.3 m nd that tests with B ' 1 m are likely to be
more successful. Indeed, plotting the measured value
f
of p q from a plate test on Fig 21 and extrapolating
the >nstant proportion to an appropriate 'trend'
line may prove to be a simple and reliable predi­
tion method.
Figure 21 m� prove useful to the practitioner en­
gaged on routine desin. If a more rigorous analysis
is required Schultze nd Sherif's method offers a
more complete approach. Their statistical analysis
gives confidence limite of ± 0 per cent. The follow­
ing remarks by Sutherland (1974) seem appropriates
'Before a desiner becomes entangled in the details
of predicting settlement (in sand) he must clearly
satisfy himself whether a real problem actually
exists nd ascertain �1hat advntages and economies
can result from refinements in settlement prediction�
It will be noted that little has been said about
silts. There cn be no question that loose silts are
difficult foundation materials and Terzaghi nd Peck
( 1 967) remark that they re even less suitable for
supporting footings than soft nomally consolidated
cly. For medium and dense silts the procedure re­
commended by Terzaghi and Peck is to treat the non­
plastic types in the same way a s for sands and those
with plasticity as for clys.
3.9 CONCLDING AS
The main object has been to emine the accuray of
the traditional simple methods of settlement analysis
for foundations having a factor of safety � 2. 5
against general bearing capacity failure . The de­
tailed discussion has been of a theoretical nature as
it has been necessary to deal with omplex material
behaviour. However the conclusions are simple and
practical a
( 1 ) For a wide rnge of conditions including non­
homogeneity, non-linearity and anisotropy the changes
in vertical stress are given with sufficient accuracy
by the Boussinesq equations. The stresses my how­
ever be rossly in error when there is a stiff over­
lying lyer or for nisotropic properties in which
o;n,/y differs sinificantly from the isotropic valu�
�¥
s ess distributions for open excavations and lateral
non-homogeneity require further study .
(2) Horizontal stress changes are very sensitive to
a number of variables and are difficult to estimate
reliably.
(3) For soils which are approximately 'elastic' in
their response to vertical loads ( i e the total
settlement is stress-path independent - see Sections
3 . 3 and 3 . 4) the simple classical onedimensional
method of nalysis n be used to calculate the �
settlements as accurately as many of the more sophis­
ticated current methods. For these soils the ­
drained settlement will usually be between 2/3 and
1j3 the total settlement.
* *
It is possible that the initially steeper •trend'
lines relate to normally consolidated sands , while
the flatter, straihter ones relate to overconsoli­
dated snds.
518
( 4) For soft 'yielding' soils it appears that the
classical onedimensional method of analysis can be
used to calculate the consolidation settlements with
sufficient accuracy . The undrained settlements are
difficult to estimate but in y case they are unlike­
ly to exceed 10 to 1 5 per cent of the total settl­
ment.
(5) It will• be noted that we have been concened
with analys is and not testingprocedures which is out­
side the scope of this Review. Nevertheless, the two
are intimat ely liked and it cn be concluded that
testing should be aimed at establishing accurately the
simple in-�itu parmeters. The most important appear
to be the onedimensional ompressibility y or the
equivalent effective vertical Young's modulus E'v �
the variation with depth. There can be little hope
of obtaining an accurate estimate of total settlement
,ithout this information.
(6) Although the use of simple parameters is reco­
mended their determination may be difficult and com­
plex. Compressibility is usually very sensitive to
the in-situ stress condit ion, stress changes and
sample disturbance. For soft clays Bjerrum ( 1 972) has
outlined procedures for crrying out oedometer tests.
(7) For stiff materials the situation is far from
clear as it is very difficult to obtain undisturbed
samples and the in-situ stress conditions are diffi­
cult to estimate accurately. �loreover in Section
3 . 4.2 it ISS shon that the value of GVH' which is
seldom measured, is at least as important in its in­
fluence on settlement as J• In these circumstances
there appear to be many advntages in developing in­
situ methods of detemining the deformation parmeter�
For eample, i-situ plate loading tests crried out
at various depths include the influence of the in-situ
stresses and of GVH nd J and this may be n import­
ant factor in expH .ining Hhy such tests often give
much hi�her values of V than laboratory determina­
*
tions � eg Marsland, 1971; Gorbuno-Poesadov and
Dvydov, 1973; Brlnd, 1973) - see also Sect ion 6.3
o f this Review.
(8 ) For granular materials there is a need to re­
appraise present methods of settlement prediction
based on probing tests employing rigorous statistical
methods. The work of Schultze and Sherif ( 1 973) is
promising in this respect. For large projects me�hods
based on the direct measurement of compressibility
)
(eg loading tests or lrge plate teste are probably
the most reliable . For routine work the use of the
empirical ·results assembled in Fig 21 is simple and
probably accurate enouh.
CHTER 4 - PILE FOATIONS
4.1 DSIGN PRNCIPLS
Chapter 4 is concened with methods of calculating
settlements of single piles and pile roups at applied
lods Hhioh are less than half to one-third the ulti­
mate bearing capacity. The ultimate bearing capacity
Prelminary analysis of in-situ measurements suggest
that in London Clay ofV is sinificntly reater
than the equivalent isotropic value
(Cooke, 1976 -
Private omunication) .
of piles is not dealt with in this Review. Neither
is the behaviour of piles under lateral load which
was dealt with at the 5th uropen Conference in
Madrid (1972). It should perhaps be emphas ised in
passing that in may cases where pile supported
structures have been damaged the cause can be traced
to falty �rornnship during installation. For exam­
ple cast-in-situ piles have been damaged by necking
of the concrete during the <rithdrawal of the prote­
tive casing. Spliced timber piles have in several
oases separated due to the heave caused by the driv­
ing of adjacent piles (�lassarch, 1976). Similarly
heave has also lifted driven piles so that settle­
ments occurred when the structure was erected.
llay pile groups are still desined today ( 1977) as
if the piles act ndividually as struts with little
or no allowance for the contribution made by the soil
between the piles. The settlement is normally cal­
culated from the assumption that end bearng piles
are rigidly supported at the toe nd that floating
piles are rigidly supported at the centre or the
lower third point.
Part of the reluctnce of the desiner to utilize the
soil between the piles in a pile roup has been the
limited nowledge of the interaction of the individu­
al piles in a pile group and the soil enclosed by the
piles and how consolidation and creep etc in the soil
affects this interaction. It is well nown that the
remoulding of the soil that tkes place during
driving in articularly sensitive clay or the compa­
tion causd by pile riving in cohesionless soils can
have a pronounced effect on the behaviour of friction
piles as pointed out, for example, by Meyerhof (1959).
In the desin of pile foundations it is important to
now the properties of the soil both above and below
the foundation level. The properties above the
foundation level are importnt because of the diffi­
ulties which cn be encountered during installation
(for emple the driving of steel, timber nd precast
concrete piles ) . ynamic nd static penetrometers
are used extensively, prticularly in urope, to
detemine the length and the bearing capacity of end
bering piles nd of friction piles. In cohesionless
soils it is also possible with dynamic penetration
tests, to get n indication of the driving resistance
of piles. Vane tests are commonly used to detemine
the bearing capacity of friction piles in fine-grained
cohesive soils. For large diameter bored piles plate
load and pressiometer tests are used frequently to
predict the settlements because of the high bearing
capacity of such piles and the hih costs of a load
test. The bearing capacity of driven piles is fre­
quently checked with load tests as discussed by
Fellenius ( 1 975) .
4. 2 PIL� AS 'S'LNT DUCS
In my situations the decision to use piles is taken,
not because of a lack of bearing capacity in the near
surface strata, but because the settlements of foot­
ings or rafts are deemed to be too large . The purpose
of such a piled foundation is to decrease settlements
to tolerable mounts nd they may therefore be temed
•settlement reducing piles•. Frequently it is only
necessary to reduce the settlements slightly or local­
ly to void damage to the superstructure as pointed
out by Simons ( 1 976) . In these circumstances the
settlements will often be sufficient to mobilize the
full load-carrying capacity of a pile. Hence, in
order for piles to act economically as •settlement
reducers' their load-settlement behaviour should be
such that relatively large settlements cn be accep­
ted without a sinificant reduction in load carrying
capacity, ie their behaviour should be 9ductile1•
The duct ility of piles which have been driven to a
stratum such as bedrock or dense grvel is lo�r, espe­
cially if the piles are of prestressed concrete , as
the compressive strength of the pile material (pile
failure) l1ill probably be exceeded if the pile is
forced to settle sinificantly. However, the ulti­
mate bearing capacity of floating piles is normally
vened by the strength of the surrounding soil
�
(soil failure) and the load-carrying capacity does
not usually decrease sharply even when the settlement
of the pile is large . In this case it should be
possible to carry a substantial part of the vertical
applied load from a pile cap or raft in the soil bet­
een the piles. It is however essential that there
should be suitable factors of safety aainst failure
of the pile section and failure of the pile cap or
superstructure in case the soil has a greater shear
strength than predicted.
The number of piles which are required to reduce the
settlements to an acceptable level \fill often be rela­
tively small and hence the spacing of the piles •rith­
in a given pile group can in that case be large . The
group action •rill be less pronounced compared with a
conventional pile foundation �rhere the spacing of the
piles is relatively smal l .
Traditionally engineers engaged in pile group desin
have asked themselves 'How my piles are required to
carry the weight of the building? ' • \hen settlement
is the conditioning factor in the cho ice of piles de­
siners should perhaps be asking the question: 'How
many piles are required to reduce the settlements to
an acceptable amount ? • The number of piles in nswer
to the second question is invariably sinificntly
less than in ans-rer to the first question, provided
it is accepted that the load-carrying capacity of
each pile will probably be fully mobilized.
This desin approach using piles as settlement redu­
cers still has to be fully developed and •rill not be
pursued further in this Rev iew. Besides the prospect
of considerable svings it has the merit of encoura­
ging the engineer to eamine closely the basis of a
decision to use piles. The use of piles as settle­
ment reducers should also help to resolve the diffic­
ult problem of pile desin at the base of excavat ions
{Simons, 1976 ) .
4. 3 SI'TL.I�NT OF PIL� - GNEAL CONSIDE;Al'IONS
Several methods hve been developed to calculate the
settlement of single piles and of pile groups . The
settlement and load distribution of structures su­
ported by end bearing piles is often calculated from
the assumption that the soil located above the· pile
point does not affect the settlements or contribute
to the bearing capacity. The settlement of groups
made up of friction piles is often calculated using
traditional methods in \'lhich the stress increase i s
detemined from elastic theory and the compressibili­
ty of the soil is evaluated from laboratory or in­
situ tests. The axial deformation required to mobil­
ize the shaft resistnce of a single pile is small ( a
few millimetres) compared with the end resistance.
Therefore the settlement of a single friction pile
519
will often be small compared �lith an end bearing pile
at the same relative load (Q/� . ,t ) ' The settlement
ratio (the settlement of the plte roup compared with
the settlement of a single pile for a given load per
pile) will on the other hand be larger for friction
piles than for end bearing piles,
The settlement of single piles nd of pile groups n elasticity of the soil; and
be analysed (Poulos, 1 974 a) by methods based onl
(a} theory of elasticity (Mindlin, 1936);
(b) step integration using data from load tests
(Coyle and Reese, 1966);
( o} finite element analysis (eg Ellison and d'Appo­
lonia, 1 97 1 ; Naylor nd Hooper, 1975 ) ,
In the elastic methods based on Mindlin's equations
it is assumed that the soil behaves as an ideal elas­
tic material with a constant modulus of elasticity
and a hih tensile strength, This approach has been
used by eg d'Appolonia and Romualdi ( 1 963), Thuman
nd d'Appolonia ( 1 965), Poulos and Davis ( 1 968)
Mattes and Poulos ( 1 969) and Poulos and l!attes �� 1969).
These methods normally do not take into account the
slip that n take place along the shaft even at
relatively lo�1 load levels or the low tensile
strength of the soil as pointed out by Ellison et al
( 1 971) and Boulon et al ( 1 976} , Both factors affect
the stress distribution in the soil and thus the
soil-pile interaction, The group effect is as a
result overestimated, The real settlement of the
pile group will nomally be less thn that estimated
from load tests on single piles and extrapolated
using the group settlement ratio calculated from
elastic theory,
The step integration method by Seed and Reese ( 1 957)
and by Coyle nd Reese ( 1 966) is based on the asswn­
tion that the movement of a point at the surface of a
pile depends only on the shear stress at that parti­
cular point and that the stresses elsewhere do not
affect the movement (Poulos, 1974),
In the finite element method non-linear and time­
dependent stress-strain relationships can be consi­
dered, For routine work it is tod� ( 1 977) only
practical to solve twodimensional or axially-syme­
tric problems due to the hih coste of three­
dimensional programs,
The method used for the installation of the piles
will have a pronounced effect on the settlements,
Pile driving and excavation affect the initial stress
conditions in the round as well as the compressibil­
ity of the soil, Also the construction sequence is
important , Heave and the settlement will be reduced
if piles are installed before the excavation (Butler,
1974), It is necessary to consider these changes
when the settlements are calculated, The settlement
of pile groups is sometimes evaluated from load tests
on single piles, Such load tests cn sometimes be
misleading since the settlement of a pile group is
affected by the load trnsfer along the piles, The
group settlement factor is also affected by soil type,
size and shape of the pile roup and the method of
construction as pointed out by Leonarda ( 1 972 ) , The
present nm'lledge about the effects of these and
other factors is very limited, Further studies of
particularly well instrumented ull size pile roups
are needed (Koizumi and Ito, 1967),
4,4 SNGLE PILS
The settlement Ps of a single pile in an elastic
520
medium can according to Poulos and Davis ( 1 968) be
evaluated from the relationship:
Ps = - Ip . .. . . . . . . . . .
........ .. ( 4. 1 )
S
where L is the pile length; Es is the modulus of
I is an influence
factor which is a function of theprelative pile length
L/D. n average value of 1 ,8 can be used for routim
estimates, The deflection will thus decrease llith
increasing pile length, Poulos ( 1 974) points out
that the load-settlement relationship is substantial­
ly linear up to 50 to 70 per cent of the failure load
when the L/D ratio is larger than 20, It should be
emphasised that the shear stress is not uniformly
distributed along the pile nd that the shear
strength of the soil can locally be exceeded even
when the applied lod is relatively low,
Numerical methods hve also been developed where the
stress-strain properties detemined by triaxial tests
are used in the analysis (Coyle and Reese, 1 966),
Also the results from pressiometer tests hve been
used to calculate the settlements of single piles
(Gmbin, 1963; Cassan, 1 966 and 1968),
The shape of a pile affects its settlement, The
settlement of a bored pile l'lith an enlarged base will
be larger at the sme relative load (/Qult ) than
that for a pile lithout an enlarged base as pointed
out by lfuitaker and Cooke ( 1966), At the sme applied
load the settlement will decrease lith increasing
dimeter of the base, This effect decreases with
increasing pile length, The effect is small when
the L/D ratio is larger than about 25 as has been
shown by Poulos and Davis ( 1 968) and by l!attes and
Poulos ( 1 968) , For a given degree of mobilization
of the shaft resistance the settlement increases with
the shaft dimeter, The shear resistance is mobil­
ized fully �1hen the settlement is 0,5 to 1 ,0 per cent
of the shaft diameter, The settlement, when the
base resistance is fully mobilized, corresponds to 10
to 15 per cent of the base dimeter,
The settlement for bored piles with enlarged bases
n be estimated from the following semi-empirical .
relationship:
pS . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ( 4. 2 )
where q is the contact pressure at the base nd �
is the �ase diameter (Durland et al, 1966; Burland
and Cooke, 1974), It has been assumed that the pile
length is at least six times the dineter of the bas�
Normally the settlement is large enough to fully
mobilize the shaft resistance , The given relation­
ship represents n upper 1 imit . Iiith good supervi­
sion and wormanship the settlement can be reduced to
about half of that calculated from eq ( 4, 2 ) ,
4,5 PILE GROUPS N COSIVE SOILS
The settlement of a pile group in clay 1ill generally
be much larger than the settlement of a single pile
at the same pile load, The initial settlement of a
pile roup is often calculated from elastic theory
using a modulus of elasticity, which is either con­
stant or varies linearly �lith depth,
For a riven pile high excess pore ��ter pressures
develop in soft normally consolidated clays during
driving. These pore �1ater pressures can locally ex­
ceed the total overburden pressure close to a pile.
The local excess pore 1�ater pressures diss ipate
rapidly 1i th time due to the local radial cracks
which develop around the piles as reported by d'Appo­
lonia and Lambe ( 1 97 1 ) and by Massarsch ( 1 976 ) . The
radial cracks close 11hen the pore ,.ater pressure cor­
responds to the total initial lateral pressure in the
soil.
The undrained shear strength of the clay around the
driven piles increases gradually �lith time as the
water content gradually decreases. Piles in soft
normally consolidated clay will 1ith time be surroun­
ded by a shell of medium to stiff cly which increa­
ses the effective diameter of the piles and reduces
both the initial and the time dependent settlements.
The reconsolidation of the soil is nomally completed
after 1 to 3 months for precast concrete piles and
after about one month for t imber piles. Considerably
shorter time is generally required for overconsolida­
ted clays. The disturbance caused by pile driving
extends only a fe�1 pile diameters beloH the pile
points . When the group effect is calculated the
properties of the undisturbed soil beloH the pile
group should be used in the analysis .
he initial settlement of friction piles in a deep
layer of normally or sl ihtly overconsolidated clay
is generally small in comparison with the time depen­
dent settlement (often lese than 25 per cent of the
total settlement ) . The initial settlement for ove­
consolidated clays cn on the other hand exceed �
per cent of the total settlement of a pile group.
Calculations based on elastic theory indicate that
even for a large pile roup the initial settlement is
between 60 and 70 per cent of the total settlement
( Poulos , 1968). This has been substant iated by
measurements reported by �lorton and Au ( 1974).
The timedependent settlements due to consolidation
of the soil mainly below the pile group occur rapidly
11hen the soil is overconsolidated. However, Booker
and Poulos ( 1 976) suggest that the time dependent
settlement due to creep can be large even when the
settlement due to consolidation is small.
4.5.1 The use of the settlement ratio: The initi­
al settlement of a pile roup in clay is often pre­
dicted by means of settlement ratios obtained from
methods based on the theoy of elasticity (Davis nd
Poulos1 1 968 and 1972; Poulos, 1 968; lattes and
Poulos , 1969; Butterfield and Bnerj ee, 1971a1 and
1971b; and by Banerjee, 19751 1976). Poulos ( 1 968)
found that the settlement of a single pile in n
elastic medium at L/D a 25 is increased by about 45
per cent by an adjacent pile at the sme depth when
the pile spacing is 5D and by about 65 per cent at
D as shown in Fig 22. The settlement of a pile
roup n therefore be calculated by superposition.
Doroskevich and Bartolomey ( 1 965) have used l!indlin' s
solution t o analyse the settlement o f six pile­
supported structures in the SSR. The agreement
between measured and calculated settlements was good.
The authors did not describe how the different para­
meters were evaluated which were used in the analy­
sis. On the other hnd load tests on two carefully
instrumented piles in London Clay (Cooke nd Price,
1 973J Cooke, 1 974) indicate that the group effect is
considerably less thn that calculated by the homoe­
neous elastic method. The spacing of the piles was
three pile dimeters. The settlement ratio Tas
2·0
i
: 1-8 L
0
·;
� l6 Llo' Too , s �
.
c
)
E 1·4 25
)
:; v =0·5
)
)
1·2
1·0
0 2 3 4 5
0·2 0·1 0
% %
Fig 22 Settlement ratio for pile groups (Poulos,
1 968)
approximately 1 . 2 compared 1ith a calculated value of
1 .6 . Cooke ( 1 974) pointed out that the theoretical
analysis tends to overestimate the interaction between
the piles.
wo cases are normally considered when the settlement
of a pile group is calculated. In the first case the
load on all the piles is equal ( flexible pile cap ) .
The settlement o f the different piles n then be
calculated from Fig 22. The second case is when the
settlement of all the piles is equal (rigid pile cap}
and a number of simultaneous equations then have to
be solved. The settlement determined from a load test
on a single pile cannot strictly be used in the cal­
culations because the settlement of a single pile is
mainly govened by the defomat ion properties of the
disturbed zone round a pile and by local slip while
the roup effect is mainly ovened by the defomation
properties of the undisturbed soil around nd below
the pile roup. Hence considerable caution is needed
in applying the results of tests on single piles.
The settlement of a pile roup at a given total load
depends mainly on the width of the pile roup. The
settlement ratio increases tlith decreasing pile spa­
ing, with increasing number of piles in the pile
roup and 11ith increasng pile length. For pile
roups with more than about 1 6 piles the settlement
ratio will increase approximately with n, where n
is the number of piles in the pile group at a given
pile spacing. n analysis indicates that the stiff­
ness of the piles and of the pile cap as well as the
number of piles in the pile group has only a small
effect on the settl ement ratio. In order to de­
crease the settlements, it is better to increase the
spacing of the piles and the pile length than to ­
crease the number of piles without changing the size
of the pile cap.
4.5.2 Consolidation settlements: The time depen­
dent settlements are normally calculated as indicated
in Fig 23. It is generally assumed in the calcul­
tions that the load in the pile group is transferred
to the underlying soil at the liter third point nd
that the load is distributed uniformly over an area
enclosed by the pile group. The load distribution
below the third point is often calculated by the
Boussinesq ts equation or by the 1 : 2method. The soil
beloT the lo11er third point is divided into layers .
The compression of each layer is then calculated
seprately. The total settlement corresponds to the
sum of the settlement of the different layers . The
521

Fig 23 Calculation of the timedependent settlements
compressibility of the soil below the pile roup will
thus hve a large effect on the settlements. If a
compressible lyer is located belo�r the piles ;he
settlement of the pile group can be even larger than
that of a spread footing located at the ground su­
face.
Bjerrum et al ( 1 957) and Yu et al ( 1965) report that
the actual settlements hve exceeded the settlements
calculated by the method described above. The aree­
ment improved when the applied load �,as assumed to be
transferred to the bottom of the pile roup. Similar
results hve also been reported by Girault ( 1 972) for
several buildings in Nexico City. Clearly the mecha­
nism of load transfer to the surrounding soil depends
on the soil profile. For pile groups Hhere the indi­
vidual piles hve been driven through a layer of soft
normally consolidated clay { say) into a layer of
stiff clay most of the load will be carried by the
stiff olay olose to the bottom of the piles. A simi­
lar load distribution 1iill be obtained when the com­
pressibility of the soil decreases 1iith depth or the
thicness of the compressible layer below the pile
group is small {less thn the width of the pile roup
or the length of the piles) . For small pile groups
�rhere the width is less than the pile length and the
compressibility of the soil is approximately constant
with depth, the load in the piles will be trnsferred
to the surronding soil more uniformly with depth.
Davis and Poulos ( 1 972) sho�r that the settlement of a
pile roup is affected by the pile cap. Calculations
by Butterfield and Banerjee (1971b) assuming elastic
behaviour indicate that 0 to 60 per cent of the
applied load will normally be transferred from the
pile cap to the soil bet'leen the piles. The part
carried by the soil between the piles 1iill increase
with increasing size of the pile group and with in­
creasing pile spacing.
Hight and Green ( 1976) report that for a 70 m high
office building in London which is partly supported
on a raft and partly on cast-in-place bored piles in
the London Clay that about 65 per cent of the dead
load was carried by the piles and 35 per cent by the
soil between the piles. Similar results have also
been reported by Hooper ( 1 973a, 1 973b) for another
office building in London. Hanebo et al ( 1 973)
found for a pile-supported raft in a soft nomally
consolidated clay in S11eden that the applied load on
the raft Has mainly transferred to the underlying
soil through the raft by direct contact.
522
4·5•3 Rate of settlements The settlement rate can
in general only be estimated approximately because
of the difficulty of establishing the local drainage
conditions . here are indications that radial
cracks form in the soil around the piles during pile
driving which increases the consolidation rate of the
soil {Massarsch, 1976 ) .
The settlement o f a pile roup in normally consolid­
ted clays with lo11 permeability is frequently esti­
mated from the assumption that the drainage effect of
timber piles is equivalent to that of a pervious
layer located at the lo�rer third point of the pile
group (Torstensson, 1971 ) . A similar effect is ex­
pected for concrete piles.
The permeability of most soils is higher in the hori­
tal than in the vertical direction. For the normally
consolidated clays 11hich are common in S1reden the
ratio of the permeability in the horizontal and ver­
tical directions is typically 2 to 5• The remoulding
of the soil by the driving reduces the difference of
the pemeability.
4.5 . 4 Differential settlementss One important
function of friction piles in clay is to reduce the
differential settlements. >lorton and Au ( 1 975) re­
port that for cast-in-place piles in stiff fissured
clay the differential settlements were about 25 per
cent of the maximum settlements . This effect n be
estimated as indicated in Fig 24. The maximum angu­
lar distortion of the soil along the perimeter of the
pile group can be estimated from the followin � rel­
tionship based on elastic theory (Broms, 1976)1
sav 2 ( 1 + v) s
1 . a . av
•• • •• • • •
( 4.3)
S
where s is the average shear stress along the peri­
meter ofv the pile group, E and G . the modulus of
s s
elasticity and the shear modulus respectively of the
soil and v is Poisson's ratio. The angular distor­
tion will thus depend on the average shear stress
along the perimeter of the pile group nd on the load
distribution within the pile group. Imediately af­
ter loading the largest part of the applied load will
be carried by the surronding soil along the peri­
meter of the pile roup and only a small part will be
transferred to the underlying soil at the bottom of
the pile roup. The part transferred through the
bottom of the block reinforced with piles will i­
crease with increasing depth of the pile group nd
with decreasing axial stiffness of the piles. Appro­
ximate calculations based on elastic theory indicate
that about 0 to 90 per cent of the applied load will
be carried � skin friction along the perimeter of a
pile with DfB D a
1 . 0 and v 0.5. For desin pur­
poses it is suggested that the average shear stress
should be calculated from the assumption that the
total load is transferred to the soil along the peri­
meter of the pile group.
In Fig 25 the settlements of two areas with and with­
out piles have been comared. The piles consisted
in this case of 6 m long lime columns, 0.5 m diameter
which were installed at a spacing of 1 . 4 m. The
total thicness of the soft nomally consolidated
clay at the test site was about 1 5 m. The surface
settlements outside the area reinforced with lime
piles was large comared with the reference area.
These large surface settlements indicate that a large
part of the applied load was trnsferred to the
 surrounding soil along the perimeter of the pile
a
group. The deree of consolidation of the area with
lime columns was almost 100 per cent after two years
while the degree of consolidation of the reference
area was about 25 per cent, The maximum change of
elope of the area with lime piles after two years was
about 10 per cent of that of the reference area. The
maximm differential settlements corresponded to a
5• ?
2IB CIL 1 t shear modulus (0 8 ) for the nomally consolidated clay
of 10 u : The reduction of the total settlements
•

l t
� I
was about 50 per cent. The lime columns had in this
case a much larger effect on the differential settle­
1
_
ments than on the total settlements.
quation ( 4�3) can be rewritten as:

Ia)
�J�,--�B�x�
I
C -�- I
3 Es
sajcu . 2 c (1 + v) ( 4. 4)
• • • • • • . • • • • • • •

u
n • . = 2sllov) At E8 300 cu , v 0 , 5 and p
. . . 1/300, then s /u .
Shear deformation
1• G E 0.33. By limiting the verage shear stress Yong
the perimeter to 0,33 u the maximum angle change will
be less than 1/30. For a building this will be in­
fluenced by the stiffness of the superstructure as
well. The differential and total settlements are to
a large extent affected by the construction procedur�
For exmple, the settlements can be reduced appreci­
ably if the piles are driven before the soil above
the foundation level has been excavated. The piles
will then restrict the bottom heave during the un­
loading. Also the order of the driving of the piles
lbl
is important, The soil is pushed in the direction
of the driving. The remoulding of the soil and the
Fig 24 Differential settlements of a pile group decrease of the shear strength will thus be the lar­
(Broms , 1 976) gest around and in front of the piles that are driven

Area with lime columns

10 Reference area
0 Scale 5m

6
Depth m Settlement , em

7cm

Fig 25 Settlements of two areas with and without l�1e columns ( Broms, 1976 ) ,

523
 \'

last, The earth pressure in the soil may even cor­

respond to passive earth pressure when the pile group
is large,
200

J�/ - ..-..,=
.

4.6 COSIONLSS SOILS ..

150

+-
The compaction that tkes place in loose sand during
pile driving has a large effect on the bearing capa­ z I
<
- --- -
I
city and settlements o f pile groups as pointed out by 0 I
3
Meyerhof (19591 1976). There is a substantial dif­
ference in settlements between buried and driven ,
100
:·
,, /
piles. Vesic ( 1 969) reports, for example , that the
settlements of driven piles were less than 1 j10th of 50
/
' /
I
those of buried piers when the relative density of I
I
the sand was low. When the relative density was 0
per cent the ratio was about eight . The initial
2 4 6 B
settlement of a pile group in snd is generally large
in comparison with the time dependent settlement Settlement mm
which is normally neglected in calculat ions.

Semi-empirical methods have been proposed to calcul­ Pile group : gg

ate the settlements of pile groups in sand. Large
deviations can be expected when the conditions at a
particular site deviate from those at which the method
was derived,
Methods based on the theory of elasticity (Mindl in's
solution) have been proposed to calculate the initial
settlements of pile groups in sand, Koerner and
Partes ( 1 974) have compared calculated and observed
settlements of a structure supported on Franki-type
cased piles using elastic theory. The soil modulus
was evaluated from drained triaxial tests on recom­
pacted samples. The agreement between calculated and
measured values ��s satisfactory, however, Kovacs and
Leonarda ( 1 975) point out in a discussion to the
article that the evaluat ion of the elastic constants
which are used in the analysis are very uncertain .
The finite element method (FM) has been used to n­
lyse the settl ement of pile groups but Boulon et al
Load kN
E settlement of 0 per cent. The corresponding measured
E
2 N
·.
..
0 8
Width : 100mm
Pile length : 2000mm
Soil : fine sand
]'ig 27 Settlement of pile groups in sand
(Kezdi1 1957)
( 1 976) have pointed out that the local slip between
the piles and the surrounding soil has an important
effect.
Comparisons with available test data indicate that
often the calculated settlement of a pile group �Till
be too large when a modulus of elasticity which is
constant with depth is used in the analysis. It
should be pointed out that results from only a few
well instrumented load tests on pile roups in sand
are vailable, In Fig 26 the settlements o f the sur­
rounding piles is sho1m when the centre pile of a pile
group consisting of five piles �1as loaded (Kezdi1
1 960) , The spacing of the piles was D. At low
load levels the settlement of the unloaded piles in­
creased almost linearly with applied load. The o­
8 served settlement of Pile 2 was about 3 per cent of
0 E
E that of the loaded pile compared with a calculated
)
0 settlement of Pile 3 was about 1 per cent compared
0·04
'
c
with a calculated value o f 30 per cent based on elas­
tic theory (see Fig 22) .
0·08 ·.
2

Load tests by Berezantzev et al ( 1 961 ) indicate that

c
)
0
..
c
the settlements of pile groups in fine sand will in­
- 0·12
E ) crease almost linearly �Tith the equival ent width given
�
.. 12- E by the square root o f the loaded area, It is thus
)
)
)
:; assumed that the settlement o f a pile group is inde­
;
) pendent of the spacing and the diameter of the piles.
16 0 · 16 Vesic ( 1 9681 1969) found from an nalysis of data re­
ported by Berezantzev et al ( 1 968) and from his own
30 _ investigations that the settlement o f a pile roup is
Pile group : 2° -,- 4 0 approximately proportional to , �There B .is the ·
1 .
width of the pile group and D is the pile dimeter.

4°' Loaded pile

Vesic ( 1 975) points out that this equat ion is based
50
on tests 11ith piles �Tith a L/D ratio of 1 4. The
Pile diameter : 33mm scatter of available test data is1 ho'lever1 large .
The proposed relationships between the group settle­
Pile length : 500 mm
ment ratio and the Hidth of the pile group is there­
Soil : compacted sand fore uncertain.

Fig 26 Settlement of piles adjacent to a load test Skempton ( 1 953) has found that the settlement of a
in sand (Kezdi1 1 960) pile roup in sand is mainly affected by the width of

524
the pile group as expressed by the following equation
[�:i]
2 0 times the statio penetration resistance .
( 4.5)
• • • • • • • • • • •
where B is the width of the pile group in metres.
�leyerhof ( 1959) has modified this relationship to
take account of the spacing of the piles:
� c
s/D 5 - )
• • • • • • •
Pa 1 + /r
where a is the spacing of the piles, D is the pile
diameter and r is the number of rows in the pile
group.
The compaction that takes place in loose sand during
the driving affects the ultimate bearing capacity and
the settlement as indicated by test data reported by
Kezdi ( 1 957) 1 Sowers et al ( 1 961 ) and Berezantzev et
al (1961 ) . It can be seen from Fig 27 that the
settlement of a pile group consisting of four piles
at the sme total load decreases with decreasing
pile spacing and that this decrease is mainly caused
by an increase of the ultimate strength with decreas­
ing pile spacing. Model tests carried out by Hanna
(1963 ) indicate that the settlement ratio decreases
with increasing load level and with decreasing length
/width ratio of the pile group.
Available test data seem to indicate that the settle­
ments of a pile group can be overestimated by the
methods mentioned above when the piles have been dri­
ven through a layer of soft clay into an underlying
layer of sand or gravel and the applied load is main­
ly crried by the pile point rather than the skin
friction (Broms1 19671 1972 and 1976). Similar con­
clusions have also been dran by Leonarda ( 1 972) and
Vesio ( 1 975) from n nalysis of the test data re p or­
ted by Berezantzev et al ( 1 961 ) . Leonarda (1972)
points out that the correlation of the settlement
ratio with pile geometry cn be misleading if infor­
mation of the relative load transfer (shaft and point
resistance) is not available .
The settlements o f pile roups in cohesionless soils
n also be calculated from the results from static
penetration tests. The pile group is assumed to be
equivalent to a raft located at the lower third point
of the piles. The soil below the equivalent raft is
divided into layers and the compression of each layer
is calculated separately. Altenatively the approxi­
mate empirical method shown in Fig 21 can be used.
The compressibility index of the soil is evaluated
from the relationship (DeBeer and Martens, 1957)1
• . . . • . . . . . . . . .
where q 0 is the average penetration resistance of the
different layers and p'0 is the effective overburden
pressure at the centre of the layer. Comparisons
with test data indicate that the total settlements as
calculated by this method will be two to three times
larger than the actual settlement. However Parker and
B�liss ( 1 970) have used this method to check the
settlements of four sugar silos and the agreement
between calculated and measured settlements was satis­
factory.
Vesio ( 1 968) has suggested from a comparison with
test data that the value of E to be used in cal­
culating settlements of buried piles is 6 to 9
times the static penetration resistance. For driven
or jacked piles, the value of E �1ill bo 25 to
The settlement o f a pile roup in sand n be estima­
ted consevatively from the results of Standard Pene­
tration Tests (SPT) . The following relationship can
be used (Meyerhof 1 197 4 a, 1976) 1
0.9 q f I
c
( 4 . 8)
( 4. 6) Proup N • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
11here pgroup is the settlement of the pile group in
mm 1 B is the width of the pile group in m1
q is the net foundation pressure in kPa and N is the
verage corrected stndard penetration resistance
(blows/300 mm) don to a depth which is equal to the
width of the pile group below the bottom of the pile
group. I is an influence factor which can be evalu­
ated by the expression:
I . ( 1 - D •/8B) ) 0.5 • • • • • • • • • • • • • ( 4.9)
For silty sand the settlement is expected to be equal
to twice the settlement calculated by the equation
given above . A comprison with test data indicates
that the settlement estimated by eq (4.8) will be
somewhat larger than the actual settlement.
The settlements can also be estimated from static
penetration tests (Meyerhof 1 197 4)
Pgroup . � � • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ( 4.10)
where q c is the verage cone resistnce down to a
depth equal to the width of the pile roup ( the seat
of the settlements) . If the sand is overconsolida­
ted the settlements of the pile group will be ove­
estimated by eq ( 4.10) as well as in the case when
the thicness of the sand layer bel01t the pile group
is less than the width of the group. In that case
the calculated settlement m� be reduced in propor­
tion to the thicness of the compressible layer.
Considerable uncertainty is connected with the calcu­
lations of the settlements of pile groups in cohe­
sionless soils. he presently vailable methods are
not satisfactory as pointed out by Kovacs nd
Leonarda (1975) . The main difficulties are the ev­
luation of the soil properties from the field and
laboratory tests, which are used in the different
desin methods, the chnges of the soil properties
that tke place during driving or excavation and how
these changes n be tken into account . The compa­
tion that takes place during pile riving will reduce
the settlements appreciably compared with those for
bored piles. With presently available methods only
( 4.7) rouh estimates of this reduction can be made •
Only a few investigations have been concened \lith
the differential settlements of pile groups. Test
data suggest that friction piles will have a larger
effect on the differential settlements than on the
total settlements.
CHAPTER 5 - SOIL/STRUCTURE iTERATION
So far in this Review \le have dealt \lith the behaviour
of buildings and structures (Chapter 2) and the beha­
viour of foundations and the underlying ground (Cha­
ters 3 nd 4) It is the interaction bet1teen the tIO
•
which ultimately determine the success or otherwise
525
 of the total structure. l'he subject IBS discussed hve t o be desined to withstand any likely manitude
briefly in Chapter 2 when routine limiting settlements and distribution of loads . Often all the attention
were considered . In this Chapter some analytical in structural desin is devoted to the sizing of in­
/
aspects of soil structure nteraction 1·1ill be presen­ dividual members with little or no analysis of the
ted briefly. Ho1·1ever, in discussing a subject of overall structure.
this complexity it is essential that the idealizations
that are being made should be thoroughly understood. 5 . 1 .6 Structural properties: The materials compo­
Reference should also be made to a valuable discussion sng the building or structure are probably somewhat
on this topic by Peck ( 1 965). easier to model than the ground. Nevertheless, the
stress deformation properties of the various compo­
5.1 IDLIZATION D RLI'PY nents that make up a building are complex, particu­
larly with regrd to creep, thermal and moisture
Analytical methods have been developing so rapidly effects. J�oreover the actual properties tas built Q
over the last fe1-1 years that it lill soon be possible undoubtedly differ sinificantly from those that are
to solve most boundary value problems in structural specified.
mechanics given (i ) the eometY; ( ii ) the material
properties and ( iii ) the loading. Yet even �lith un­ It is evident from the foregoing that even if engi­
limited analytical po�1er at their disposal engineers neers were in ossession of unlimited analytical
would not be very much better off than at present power the uncertainties n both the soil and the
l'lhen attempting to desin for soil-structure inter­ superstructure are so great that precision in the
action. It is worth considering briefly some of the prediction of behaviour would be unlikely to improve
idealizations that have to be made under the above sinificntly. As in so mlly fields of engineering,
three headings , dealing first with the soil and analysis is only one of the many tools required in
secondly with the superstructure: desining for soil-structure interaction. In most
circumstnces the real value of nalysis will be in
5.1 . 1 Soil eometY: very foundation problem en­ assisting the engineer to place bounds on likely ove­
tails a site investigation and on the basis of very all behaviour or in assessing the influence of vari­
limited data judgements and idealizations have to be ous detailed construction features, eg a local stiff­
made about the continuity and thicness of the vari­ ening due to a deep beam or a shear wall ( say ) .
ous strata. In most cases the cost of drilling
sufficient boreholes to adequately define the 5.2 TE CONSTRUCTION S.UNCE
y of the round is prohibitive and it is sel­
eometr
dom that the engineer has more than an approximate Fiure 28 is a smple diagrmmatic representation of
model. the net loading and settlements of a simple frme
buildng founded on a raft during nd subsequent to
5 . 1 .2 Soil properties: The difficult ies of obtai­ construct ion. Durng excvation some uplift of the
ning reasonable in-situ values of compressibility, soil will occur. The raft will then be constructed
undrained stiffness and pemeability have been empha­ and will be nfluenced by the differential settlements
sised in this Revief• Such 'simple' proper·ties may thereafter. As the structural load is applied short­
be adequate for settlement calculations but detailed tem settlements tke place, the part of the structure
behaviour, such as local pressure distributions and in existence distorts nd the overall stifness gra­
relative displacements, is much more sensitive to the dually ncrease s . The oladding is then added nd
form of the stress-strain-time properties of the soil this may substantially increase the stiffness of the
and their local variations . The task of accurately buildng. Fnally, the live load is applied, It
ascertaining realistic in-situ constitutive relations will be noted that not all the components of the buil­
of most natural soils and the variations with depth ding are subject to the sme relative deflections,
and pln is formidable. The relative deflections eperienced by the raft will
c
0 � l "0
5 . 1 .3 Resultant foundation loads: The resultnt ·� > c ,
> 0 Q
loads ( as opposed to their distribution ) acting on a '
)
i
2 0
' ,
. ( -�
foundation are usually reasonably well defined. The w i u '
greatest difficulties arise for structures subject to
dynamic forces, eg \·Taves, earthquakes, etc. For rou­
tine buildings the largest uncertainty is the precise
order in which the loads are applied, eg the method
of excavat ion or order of construction.

5.1 . 4 Structural eometY: The final geometry is

usually accurately specified.
important areas of uncertainty.
However, there are two
The first is the
% 6 (Cladding and finishes)
- --- --- 6 (Raft and lower levels
geometry at any given time during construction - this -
of structure)
lill have a sinificant influence on the distribution
of forces. The second is the way the various elements
are connected together. In practice the degree of Pi (approx)
fixity at joints is uncertain and cladding and infill
panels have varying derees of fit. The overall
stiffness of a structure is therefore difficult to
assess \lith any accuracy.
Pt

p
5.1 • 5 Structural loading: nlike the resultant
foundation loads the structural loading usually can­ Fig 28 Settlements nd relative deflectios during
not be ascertaned accurately. Individual members nd subsequent to construction,

526
be the largest. Those eperienced by the structural
!Smbers will vary with location and level in the
building. The shaded portion in Fig 28 represents
the relative deflections affecting the cladding,
partitions and finishes and are therefore the cause
of ny arohiteotural damage .
It is evident from Fig 28 that the likelihood of
damage �lill diminish the larger the proportion of
immediate to lon-tem settlement P!Pt t the smaller
the ratio of live to dead load and the later the
stage at which the fnishes etc are applied. It
should be noted that the proportion of immediate to
long-tem settlement is influenced by the net in­
crease in effective stress and the amount -consoli­
dation taking place during construction as �rell as
the faotors discussed in Section 3 . 4. It is frequent­
ly stated that the building materials are less prone
to dmage when distortions develop over a long period
and this appe<s reasonable , although Grnt et al
(1972) found little direct evidence to support it.
5.3 TE NFL:lCE OF NON-HO.IGNEITY
In Section 3.2.2 the influence of varying stiffness
�rith depth as discussed. This type of non-homogen­
eity has a vey important influence on the form and
extent of the •settlement bowl ' around a loaded area,
For eample, Terzahi (1 943, p 426) shows that an
underlying rigid stratum concentrates the surface
movements around the loaded area, Gibson { 1 967,
1974) noted a similar effect for increasing stiffness
-rith depth. Conversely a stiff overlying layer liill
disperse the settlements further from the loaded
area. In Section 6,3 some field obsevations con­
firming these findings are presented. The sensitivi­
ty of surface settlements to non-homogeneity clearly
has to be taken into account in any soil-structure
interaction analysis. Lateral variations of compres­
sibility are clearly sinificant, but surprisingly
little work has been done on the influence of this
form of non-homogeneity on stress distributions be­
neath loaded areas .
5 4
• ANALYSIS OF SOIL/STRTURE NERATION
It is important to distinuish bet,;een t1·ro broad o­
jectives in carrying out soil-structure interaction
analyses: Firstly, and perhaps of most concen to
the general practitioner, is the need to estimate the
form and manitude of the relative deflections, This
information is used to assess the likelihood of
dmae and to investigate the merits of altenative
foundation and structural solutions, Second, the
much more specialised �equirement of calculating the
distribution of forces and stresses Hithin the struc­
tre,
The second requirement entails a degree of sophistic­
ation and complexity my times greater than the
first.
5 , 4. 1 Relative deflections of equivalent raft
foundations: In 1969 Golder pointed out that engi­
neers can estimate the settlements for a perfectly
flexible load or they can estimate the average
settlement of a rigid load, but in between these
limits the foundation engineer can say nothing. ­
ing the last eiht years progress has been made but
simple practical techniques are urgently required for
filling this gap, ntil this is done the noHledge
that is being accumulated on the observed behaviour
of buildings will be difficult to apply. De lello
( 1 969) has emphasised the lack of logic in relating
such information to computed differential settlements
which neglect the stiffness of the structures .
A first approach i s t o represent the building by a
simple equivalent raft having a similar overall stiff­
ness. Gorbnov-Possadov and Davydov (1973) and
raser (1976) have summarised the development of the
stuey of beams and rafts on elastic foundations. Hith
the advent of electronic digital computers consider­
able progress has been made in the stuey of beams and
rafts on elastic and inelastic ground, An important
factor is the stiffness of the raft in relation to
the stiffness of the round and this ratio is denoted
by v • It can be sho1m that for a simple rectangu­
lar raft of length L and breadth B resting on a homo­
geneous elastic half space the relative stiffness:
E .I ( 1 - V 2 )
r r s
Kr a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
(5.1)
E B3
s
E
a :
E
s
l·lhere the subscripts r and s refer to the raft nd
soil respectively, Ir is the moment of inertia of the
raft per unit length and t is the thicness of the
raft . It is important to note that various expres­
sions for relative stiffi1ess differ in the choice of
proportionality constant , In general 'B' may be
thought of as a characteristic dimension, \·/hen refer­
ring to a specific value of relative stiffness it is
ah1ays necessary to define Kr '
Bro�m ( 1969a1 b and 197 4) has studied the case of a
uniformly loaded circular raft in frictionless con­
tact with an elastic half space, Hooper ( 1 974, 1975)
has used the finite element method to stuey the same
problem for the case of adhesive contact and parabolic
loading as lrell as uniform loading. These authors
present the results as curves of total and differen­
tial settlement and bending moment against relative
stiffness � lrhich is defined as:
2
E (1
r
-
s )
V
t
3
-
( a)
E
s
where tat is the radius, A notable feature revealed
by these studies is the fairly small range of �
values for �rhich the raft changes from being very
flexible to very stiff, ''hus from Bro1m's results
it appears that for Kr � 0,08 the raft is for practi­
cal purposes_ flexible, whereas for v � 5.0 the raft
is rigid, A result of this type is of considerable
practical value as it can be used to assess the like­
ly sinificance of the stiffness of the superstruc­
ture in evaluating the relative settlements,
Non-circular rafts of varying stiffness can be hand­
led by the method first outlined by Cheung and
Zienkie�licz ( 1965) in which the raft is idealised by
means of finite elements l�hich are in contact Hith an
elastic continuum. Cheung and Zienkie1dcz used the
Boussinesq equation to derive the stiffness of the
soil, Cheung nd Nag ( 1 968) and Svec and GladHell
( 1 973) describe refinements to the approach. The
method has been extended by l�ood and Larnach ( 197 4,
1975) to include non-homogeneity, anisotropy and non­
linearity of the soil based on the assumption that
the stress distribution 1-lithin the soil is the same
as for a homogeneous half space, In Section 3.2 this
527
 was shown to be a reasonable assumption for the ver­
tical stresses, except for stiff surface layers over­
lying soft layers, Hence some care is needed when
applying the method to this case, Hooper and Wood
( 1976) obtained satisfactory areement 1·1ith exact
values over a �1ide range of soil heterogeneity,
Hardle and raser ( 1 974) use a more precise procedure
based on the eact stress distribution within a lay­
ered anisotropic elastic soil, Using this method
Fraser and Wardle ( 1 976) eamine the behaviour of
smooth uniformly loaded rectangular rafts of y
rigidity restng on a homogeneous elastic lyer
underlain by a rough rigid base, Graphical solutions
are presented of the vertical displacements at the
centre, mid-edges and coner of the raft and the max­
imum bending moment in the raft ,
Some typical results of relative deflections are
given in Fig 29 for a raft with L/B . 2 on a semi­
infinite half space, The stiffness factor is
defined by:
4 E (1
r servations on four buildings in the city of Santos,
Kr
3 E (1 - ( 5. 4)
• • • • • • • • • •
It can be seen from Fig 29 that the most rapid chan­
ges in performance is n the range of 0,05 < K < 1
for lAB nd 0 , 1 ( Kr < 1 0 for lAc and lD' Warlle and
raser include charts which allo1� for �e depth of
the elastic layer, They also outline approximate
methods for dealing with a multi-layered soil system
by means of a simple equivalent layer,
Charts of the type developed by Fraser and Wardle
should prove valuable for routne desin purposes or
for preliminary desin prior to a complete analysis,
The stiffness of the superstructure can be included
in this type of simple analysis using the approximate
methods outlined by Meyerhof (1 953) for estimating
the equivalent flexural rigidity of a frame super­
structure including panels and shear walls, This
method 1�s endorsed by the American Concrete Insti­
tute, Committee No 436 in its report •su�gested pro­
cedures for combined footings and mats' (de Simone ,
1966).
The value of a simple approach of this type is illus­
trated by the results of vey complete settlement o­

Brazil, presented by Nachado ( 1 961 ) , The buildings

s were of reinforced concrete frme construction 1 2 to
The settlements are given by: 1 4 storeys in heiht founded on sand overlying a soft
1 y 2 - clay lyer, Detailed estimates of the total and
p q,B -�:: .S_ I (5.5)
• • • • • • • • • • • differential settlements were made using traditional
Es methods assuming a flexible loaded area, Figure 30
shows the predicted and obseved settlement profiles
where I is an influence factor obtained from Fig 29. along the major and minor axes of three of the build­
p and I can have the following subscripts:
ings, It is evident that the predicted average total
settlements are in fair agreement with the observed
A, B, C and D - associated with settlement of the values , t the differential settlements are serious­
pont ly overestimated,
AB1 AC, etc associated with the differential
settlement between the tHo points .
Comparison of the predicted values of deflection �/L
1-6---, 1'1ith routine limits (eg Fig 4(a)) would have led to
the conclusions that serious dmage 11ould ooour, Ho�
lA Lfs = 2 ever, the mea�ured deflection ratios �1ere all 1'1ithin
D/s = o tolerable limits, nfortunately the structural de­
1-4
tails of the buildings 1/ere not given by Machado so
that estimates of the relative stiffnesses cannot be
made 1·1ith y accuray (Tsytovich, 1961 ) , However,
1-2 simple calulations suggest that the relative stiff­
Is neeses K neglecting cladding must have been at least
0,5 ihich1 from Fig 291 �1ould lead to reductions of
1-0
A/L across the breadth of the buildings of at least a
Io factor of 4, In all probability considerably larger
reductions 1·10uld have been calculated if account were

ll
tken of the stiff upper sand layer, cladding etc,
I 0·8 Ic . B
Further field studies of this type are required to
lAc
study the influence of superstructure stiffness on
relative deflections ( eg Rabiuovioi1 1970),
0·6 D C For more complex conditions such as non-homogeneous
lAo
round, buildings hioh are non-rectngular in plan
or non-uniform loadings, computer prorams of the
0 ·4 JAB type developed b;y Larnach and Hood ( 1 974) and Fraser
nd Hardle ( 1 97 4) can be used to carry out. simplified
calculations to estimate the deflection ratios. he
0·2
deformed profiles can then be used to: (i) locate
areas of hih tensile strain (see Section 2,5 ) 1 or
(ii) compare directly with field evidence of the type
given in Fig 41 or (iii) compare Hith routine limit­
0 ing values of the type discussed in Section 2,4,
0·0001 0001 001 01 10 100
K,
5 , 4,2 Detailed analysis: As mentioned previously a
Fig 29 Settlement and differential settlement in­ hiher order of sophistication is required if detail­
fluence factors for a rectanular raft on n ed analysis of forces and stresses acting on founda­
elastic half space (�'raser nd Wardle1 1 976) tions and structural members is required, Nmerous

528
 15 storeys
•,1 •· �
BuH ing A

��L
II
. 12·3m - -i
< - 35·6 m , ,.

Major axis Minor axis

'
-
E 100 , / Flexible load 2 3 x103 2·6x10 3
E
� �
- -- prediction
-3 -3
- Measured . . . . . . . . . . . 0·39xl0 0·77x10
.._ _ _ _ _ _ .... ' ....__ .."

200
Major axis Minor axis
12 storeys Building C
1.' ... ; '/
h III
- -- - 33·5m
, 1- - 190m - -J �L
200
Major axis Minor axis
�400
�
-
--- --- Flexible load . 4·6x10 3 9·6x10 3
' /
prediction
�� " -3
� ' -3
600 ' � - Measured . . . . . . . . . . . . 096x10 0·95x10
.._ _ _ _ ..
--
----- - ------
800
Major axis Minor axis

12 storeys Building D
I· ·I
ll
--- 39·8 m - , 1- - · 156m--j
��L
200

� ' Major axis Minor axis

'
400 -3
'
-3
.7 I
- - - Flexible load . . . . . . . . . . 7·8x10
, /
10·3x10
' ', '
- ��
prediction
, ..
__ ..- .._ _ _ .., -3
_____
600 -
- Measured . . . . . . . . . . . . 0·6x10 0·75 x10 3
Major axis Minor axis

Fig 30 Obseved settlement profiles of three buildings in Santos, Brazil ( Machado, 1961 ) compared \�ith
predictions using flexible loads.

studies of this type have been carried out often placed on the problem. So often papers are published
using springs to represent the soil but more recent­ sho�ring pressure distributions or bending moment dis­
ly using more realistic models. The finite element tributions with no indication of the sensitivity of

(
idealization is particularly suited to the solution these to the various assumptions . It is not infre­

)
of plns or axisymmetric problems eg Smith, 1 970; quent that a foundat ion \�hich is epected to 'sag'

( )
Hooper, 1 973 . However, only the simplest of struc­ actually experiences 'hogging' and an example of such
tures n be nalysed in this way and resort must a case is given in Section 6 . 4 see also rb, 1963 .
usually be mads to a threedimensional analysis.

( ) ( )
Recent examples are given by King and Chandrasekaran

D STRUCTURS
197 a and b and Majid and Gunnell 1 976 , 1·rho have CA.'ER 6 - ofONITORiG 'l'E BHAVIOUR OF FODATIONS
studied the influence of soil-structure interaction
on the bending moments in frame structures.
Instrumentation of earth structures has beome accep-

( )
The use of half-space or layer theory coupled \ith a . ted practice. Indeed, field instrumentation is no1r

( )
suitable idealization of the structure offers many so widely and extensively carried out that Peck 1 973

( )
advantages Fraser nd lardle, 1976 . !eyerhof felt it necessary to wn against carrying it to ex­
1 9 47 obtained results for a simple plane frame us­ cess. Ho\�ever, in contrast to most other types of
ing this approach and recently studies of increasing structure the instrumentation of buildings has been
sophistication have been reported including time very restricted apart from simple settlement observa­

(
effects, non-linearity and change of stiffness during tions. The explanation is undoubtedly that the rela­

( )
construction eg Sommer, 1965; Heil, 1969; Lanach , tive cost of instrumentation is much greater for a
1970; De Jong and Morgensten, 1 971 ; Larnach and building than for a dam say . Nevertheless, in most

)
Hood, 1 972; Klepikov et al, 1973; Binder and Orti­ countries the overall investment in building constru­
gosa, 1 975; and Brown, 1 975b . Very general computer tion is at least as great as in major civil engineer­

( )
programs have been \�itten employing these methods ing orks. A better understanding of the behaviour
�lardle and Fraser, 1975; Larnach and Hood1 1974 of the ground and its interaction \·rith foundat ion and
which n handle rafts and footings of arbitrary structure must lead to better design and the prospect
shape and rigidity and superstructures made up of of reductions in overall expenditure.
plate and beam elements . It is to be hoped that in
the near future the influence of pile roups will be 6.1 INSTRll�
included perhaps by means of equivalent rafts which
include shear deformat ions as �rell as bending. It goes �ri thout saying that successful field measure­
ments n only be made if the instruments are ade­
Programs of this type should prove very useful to the quate. They should be simple , reliable , stable,
engineer �rishing to investigate special soil-struc­ cheap and easy to install and use and above all
ture interaction problems in detail. Ho\�ever, in robust and durable. The measurements require careful
doing so he should always bear in mind the limit­ planning, preferably at the desin stage , so that all
tions in no1�ledge about the ground and structure the parties involved are fully aware of what is being
listed at the beginning of the Chapter. �enever done. One person should be responsible for the or­
possible, sensitivity studies should be carried out dering, acceptance, installallation, reading and
so that realistic upper nd lower bounds can be maintenance of the equipment . Having made all the

529
 plns, success depends on the dedication and perse­
verance of the staff carrying out the work.
6.1 . 1 Measurement of vertical movement 1 There n
be no arument that the precise level is an essential
instrument for field measurements . The techniques
and organisation of settlement measurements have been
discussed by Cheney ( 1973) who also describes simple
and unobtrusive levelling stations nd datums, The
provision of deep datums is very expensive nd is
not always necessay. In many cases levelling sta­
tions on nearby structures which are founded below
the depth of seasonal influence nd have been n
existence for a nmber of years re adequate, but at
least two nd preferably three such datums should be
used,
The evaluation of the underlying soil properties from
surface settlements is not straight foward and Lmbe
( 1 973) has one so far as to state that such measure­
ments are often of little or no value . The value of
settlement obsevations is reatly enhnced if the
compression of vrious discrete l�ers beneath the
fondation is also measured. Not only is the prin­
cipal seat of movement revealed but also an accurate
calculation of the in-situ compressibility of the
various strata can be made. Exmples of field mea­
surements of this t� e re given by Ge� rov nd
Nichiporovioh ( 1 96 1 ) 1 Ward et al ( 1 968) 1 Dalmatov et
al ( 1 973) , Kriegel nd Wiesner (1973), Egorov et al
( 1 97 4) and Breth nd Amann (1974). When combined
with pore pressure measurements the in-situ consoli­
dation properties of the round at various depths n
also be determined,
A wide vriety of instruments are used for measure­
ment of settlement at depth and can take the form of
rods (or concentric tubes) anchored at vrious depths
and extending to the srface in sleeved boreholes or
multi-point extensometer tubes. The latter are less
prone to dmage and n be used to reat depths .
Vrious forms of simple and precise multi-point bore­
hole extensometer have been described by Burland et
al ( 1 972) , Mrsland and Quarterman ( 1 974) and Smith
and Burland ( 1976 ) . �!ulti-point borehole extensome­
ters can be used both as deep datums and as movement
points at various depths beneath a foundation (Fig
3 1 a and b ) . They re well suited to the measurement
of heave at various depths beneath excvations as the
upper measuring points can be located in ground which
...
.---··--····- ............. ..
t�
� �� ����---_-_·_ : ���---_-.-����
(a) (b) ( c)
r
Fig 31 Ap lication of multipoint extensometers as
( a deep datum, (b) settlement oins and
( c heve points .
530
is to be excavated �1hile the lower points are safe
from disturbnce (Fig 31o) . Reoent examples of the
use of borehole extensometers in deep excavations are
given by Smm and Busbridge ( 1 976) 1 Parkinson and
Fenoux ( 1 976 ) 1 Tomono 1 urai and Okada ( 1 976) and
Burland nd Hancock ( 1 977).
6 . 1 .2 Measurement of horizontal movement! The ­
portnce of horizontal movement in foundation perfor­
mnce is often overlooked. Relative horizontal dis­
placements of the ground are particularly sinificant
round excavations, areas of subsidence, and founda­
tions subjected to lateral load. Burland and Moore
( 1 973) and Littlejohn ( 1 973) have described techni­
ques for the measurement of horizontal displacements.
As for vertical movement the value of the results is
greatly enhanced if horizontal movements are measured
at various depths as well as at the surface.
6 . 1 , 3 Measurement of loadl Measurements of loads
are clearly of reat imortance in any soil/structure
interaction study. The principal techniques of load
measurement are well understood, but the vey hostile
environments and long time scales involved with moni­
toring of foundations often make such measurements
difficult and expensive. Load cells have to be ex­
ceptionally stable and imune from the effects of
moisture, rust and chemical attaok. Hanna ( 1973)
describes the basic features of a number of load cells
1rhich hve apparently been used successfully in
foundation instrumentation. It would appear that
load cells ivolving vibration wire strain auges (eg
Cooling and Ward ( 1 953) 1 Sutherland and Lindsay (1961)
offer the best prospects of lon-tem stability
coupled with a reasonable chance of successful insu­
lation from enviromental attack. The direct mea­
surement of load in the superstructure does not nor­
mally present the sme environmental and access dif­
ficulties . However, the interpretation of strain
gauges embedded in concrete members is far from
straight fonrard s corrections hve to be made for
temperature, creep and shrinkage effects (see for ex­
ample Swamy and Potter, 1976; Bate and Lewsley1 1969
and Elvery1 1 966) .
If accurate assessments of loads coming onto founda­
tions are to be made it is preferable to introduce
load oells into the members at foundation level.
There is a need for the develoment of a simple load
cell that measures shear, bending and axial load and
which cn be introduced into a concrete coln at its
base. The measurement of loads in steel members does
not present the same difficulties (Hood and Mainstone
1 955) ·
..
6.1 . 4 Measurement of pressure: The measurement of
j
pressure is still one of the most difficult under­
tkings in soil mechanics nd the reliable determina­
tion of foundation pressures is no exception. The
presence of a rigid boundary presents special prob­
lems and pressure cells developed for embedm�nt in
fill may not be the most suitable (Arthur, 19731
Green, 1973 ) . Particular attention must b e given to
mounting and calibrating such cells which are very
sensitive to pressure distribution across the active
face. In general load cells which measure the total
resultnt foroe through a stiff face acting on a
'piston' are thought to be preferable to softer dia­
phragm or hydraulic oells and Hooper ( 1 973) describes
the successful use of such load cells . den e t al
( 1 973) appear to have had considerable success 11ith
the use of hydraulic cells to measure contact
pressures belOII a foundation raft. Hight and Green
( 1 976) refer to the uncertainties in the calibration
of such cells. Gerrard et al ( 1 971 ) outline a very
comprehensive scheme for instrumenting a number of
buildings n Perth, Australia, using a wide range of
instruments.
6 . 1 . 5 Hovements in buildins: n important aspect
of the measurement of the behaviour of structures is
the recording of dmage. This is best done by hih
quality photographs and by making detailed notes d
sketches of the crack pattens sho�1ing crack widths .
The monitoring of changes in crack lidth cn be ­
ried out using smple Demeo gauges (Morice and Base,
1953)1 or by mounting trnsducers across the cracks.
The precise measurement of lon-tem movements with­
in buildings is difficult nd vey few examples of
such measurements appear to exist (Budgen1 1969).
6.2 RGIONAL STUDIS OF FOUNDATION BHAVIOUR
arly examples of regional studies of the settlements
of buildins are those carried out in Sao Paulo,
Brazil (Pichler, 1948 { Rios and Pacheco Silva, 1948;
Vargas , 1948 and 19551 • These papers are notable
for the vey thorough treatment given to the geoloy
of the region. The 1955 paper by Vargas was particu­
larly sinificnt as it drew attention to the - .
portnce of the pre-consolidation pressure, p01 or
'yield point' as Vrgas called it, in determining
the manitude of settlements on clays . Further out­
standing emples of very complete studies are given
by Teixeira ( 1 959) and Machado ( 1 961 ) for the settle­
ment of buildings in Santos, Brazil.
One of the best no1m regional studies is that des­
cribed by Bjerrum ( 1 967) . He demonstrated conclu­
sively that careful measurements of the behviour of
buildings in a given region can uide the futre
desin of structures in that region and provide the
necessay stmulus for research on the in-situ pro­
perties of the round. Bjerrum was able to relate
the manitude d rate of settlements of buildings
on Drmmen Clay to the ratio lp'f(p'0 - p'0) where
�P' is the net ncrease in effective pressure, P' c
is the initial in-situ vertical effective pressure
and P 'o is the preconsolidation pressure measured in
the oedometer. Foss ( 1 969) has described the appli­
cation of Bjerrum•s results to the settlement analy­
sis of three buildins in Drmmen.
The difficulty of applying the concepts developed
for one region to another region is emphasised by
the fact that Nordin and Swensson ( 1 974) observed
the settlement of structures n Sweden which gave a
completely different �tten of behaviour from the
Drammen Cly n that even at values of A p'f( p ' -p')
approaching nity the drained settlements were0sma�l
and took place rapidly.
Resendiz et al ( 1 967) describe a valuable field
study of the elastic properties of saturated clays in
Mexico City. Simons ( 1 974) has concluded that for
normally nd lihtly overconsolidated clays at the
present tme laboratory studies alone will not allow
accurate settlement predictions to be made. Lon­
term regional studies are vitally necessary to deter­
mine in particular: ( 1 ) whether n the field primary
consolidation and/or secondary settlement �1ill de­
velop over a long period of time; and {2) whether a
threshold level exists above which large and poten­
tially dangerous settlements will be experienced.
Butler ( 1 9'1 4) analysed 29 case histories of se·btlement
of buildings founded on stiff clays in southern
Britain. He used a simple drained elastic analysis
�lith vt ' 0 . 1 and included the influence of increasing
stiffness with depth. By setting Young's modulus
E1 = 130 cu (; 1/my) he obtained predicted total
settlements varying from approximately 70 per cent to
1 25 per cent of the observed settlements. There is
usually a wide scatter of cu values for stiff fissured
clays and considerable judgement is needed in obtain­
ing representative values. It is essential in future
studies of this type that the statistical procedures
used for obtaining the representative values are
clearly specified.
A particularly important conclusion to be dra1m for
the stiff clays studied by Butler is that consolida­
tion settlements take place much more rapidly than
predicted from oedometer tests. As a general rule it
appears that 95 per cent of the settlement is complete
after about 10 years and frequently it takes place
more rapidly than this. In contrast there is some
vidence to sho'1 that sHelling of the London Cly due
to reduction in load takes place over much longer
periods (liard and Burland, 1973).
Breth and Amann ( 197 4) have assembled sl�tlement data
from a study of eight buildings on Fr�urt Clay.
The material is very similar in its behaviour to the
stiff British clays. The relationships bet1·1een net
bearing pressure and settlement are almost identical
(Sullivan, 197 4) 1 the immediate settlements are bet�l­
een 45 per cent and 70 per cent of the total settle­
ments, and 95 per cent of the total settlement is
usually achieved within about 3 years of completion
of a building. Steinfeld ( 1 968) has referred to the
value of case records in Hamburg.
Heasurements of the heave and settlement of tall
buildings on dense sandy clay till in Edmonton,
Alberta, have been reported by De Jong et al (1971 )
and ( 1973 ) . The studies sho-1 that : ( i) over 80 per
cent of the heave and settlement response ocurs dur­
ing the construction period; ( ii) settlement is prac­
tically complete after approximately one year � (iii)
deduced values of E1 decrease from 7380 kg/em to
2110 k / cm 2 as the bearQg pressures increase from
1 . 2 k /cm 2 to 1 1 . 5 k/cm2 ; and ( iv) values of com­
pressibility determined from laboratory tests overpre­
dict settlements by bet�1een 10 and 30 times.
Weak rock often represents a sort of twilight zone
between soils and hard rock and quantitative informa­
tion on them has been notably lacking. !eigh ( 1 976)
gives a wealth of information arising out of studies
of the settlement of major structures on the soft
Triassic rocks in Britain. These studies emphasise
the difficulties of making accurate settlement predic­
tions in weak rocks. The best prospects for success
appear to 1 ie first in developing an understanding of
the depositional environment and subsequent geological
history of the material ; secondly, in a careful
visual exmination and logging of the complete profile
and thirdly, in carrying out in-situ tests (or labora­
tory tests if all else fails) on suspect strata. As
experience of the settlement of structures develops
in a region, particularly if it is based on these
three principles, less reliance has to be placed on
expensive quantitative tests. Experience on the
Chalk in Britain has developed along the above lines
over the last decade (Hobbs, 1974; Burland, 1976)
with the result that considerable economies have been
531

10
J $
0
Fig 32 Location of anchor points and settlement distribution beneath
(Breth and Amann, 19741 nd Breth, 1974)
made in the cost of foundations.
6.3 STDIS OF SOIL DISPLACNS BATH AND
AROUND FOATIONS
Breth ( 1 974) presents the measured settlements at
various depths beneath a nuclear reactor with a 60 m
dimeter raft founded on granular materials extending
to greath depth. The measured distribution of
settlement �dth depth revealed that the compression
of the sand was concentrated almost entirely in the
top 20 m. A similar distribution of vertical strain
is indicated by the measurements made by nn ( 1 974) .
These measured strain distributions differ from that
adopted by Schmertmann ( 1 970) who assumes it to be
zero at the surface, increasing to a maximum at a
depth equal to half the �1idth of the foundation. More
observations of settlement at depth beneath founda­
tions of various sizes are required on snd to iden- ·
tify the correct strain distributions and their depen­
dence on foundation size.
Breth and Amann ( 1 974) measured the distribution of
settlement with depth beneath the AFE building n
Frkfurt Clay. The distribution is sho\m in Fig 32
and it can be seen that the settlements reduce very
tnuch more rapidly with depth than for the homogeneous
elastic case, Moreover, the observed settlement
distribution corresponds closely to a l inearly increa­
sing stiffness with depth, Measurements of this type
will be valuable in the future desin of structures
on Frankfurt Cly and n be used not only for esti­
mating settlements, but also for deciding on suitable
depths and types of foundation. The measurements �1ere
originally undertaken because of the difficulty of
making reliable laboratory measurements on the
material ,
Cole and Burland ( 1 972) baok analysed the variation
of Eu with depth for London Clay from measurements of
retaining &11 movements around a deep excavation.
The deduced stiffness profile has been successfully
used in the desin of other deep excavations in the
London Clay1 the most notable being the deep under­
ground oar park at the Houses of Parliment (Burland
532
settlement s / s 10101 ( '/, I
10 20 0 10 o 0 0 80 0 00
l---�
v
/"
�_E =
...-
40 (1·0· 8�27 /
/' r i r const = 225
v
Ec / cml
/
/ ---8 • .lm1
I / f/l
I
settlement readings
selllement analysis
-•- stresses after Steinbrenner
V=O
E building, Frkfurt
and Hancook1 1977) where it was necessary to make
accurate estimates of the movements of the round sur­
face outside the excavation.
Measurements of settlement at depth are invaluable for
checking the accuracy of laboratory or in-situ dete­
minations of compressibility (Nikitin et al1 1970;
Kriegel and \Hesner1 1973 ) . Bauer et al ( 1976) pre­
sent measurements of displacement at various depths
beneath footings on a fissured cly. They also con­
ducted a programme of undrained triaxial tests of va­
rious types, vertical and horizontal plate bearing
tests and pressuremeter tests. It is evident from
the results that the values of undrained deformation,
�1 obtained from the laboratory tests were between
0.2 and 0 . 5 times the values obtained from a test
footing. The corresponding ratios for pressuremeter
tests nd for plate loading tests �1ere 0,3 to 0,5 and
0.5 to 0,7 respectively. It �1as also found that the
values of compressibility deduced from the standard
oedometer test grossly overestimated the consolidation
settlements. These findings are consistent with the
general body of experience on overoonsolidated clays
and weak rocks \lhioh indicate that the stiffnesses
obtained from routine laboratory tests can be very
much lo\/er than the true in-situ values and that more
reliabl.e values n be obtained from plate loading
tests, The obsevations that the major settlements
are often concentrated immediately beneath the founda­
tions over a depth of approximately B/2 suggest that
much more emphasis should be placed on measuring the
soil properties in this region.
Often the major dmage occurring during construction
tkes place n adjacent buildings . Hence ·studies of
the movement of the ground around foundations are
needed, As mentioned in Section 5.3, the effect of
increasing stiffness with depth is to localize the
ground surface settlements around the loaded area
much more than the simple Boussinsq theory predicts.
Burland et al (1973) provide field evidence to support
this. Breth and Amann ( 1 974) comment that in the
Frankfurt Clay1 �1hich exhibits marked increasing
stiffness \lith depth, the settlement depression is
very localised.
For a stiff layer overlying more compressible layers
surface movements will extend further aw� from the
loaded area than predicted by the Boussinesq theory,
Dalmatov et al ( 1 9'(3) present the results of measure­
ments of vertical displacement beneath and around
footings founded on a layer of sand overlying soft
soils. The analysis of the settlement observations
suggest that the sand ·las five to ten times stiffer
than the overlying soil. The measured surface
settlements died 1y much less rapidly with distance
from the loaded rea than predicted

6,4 THO SE ECORDS OF oAGE

Although a number of settlement records exist in

�1hich damage has been reported there are few studies
in which the development of the damage with increas­
ing foundation movement has been accurately recorded,
In this Section t·10 recent case histories will be
described with a vie�1 to demonstrating the value of
such studies, Observations for lhich damage does not
120
occur are, of course, important but , fortunately,
there are a number of such records and the lessons to
be lened from them are not so explicit as /hen
damage is recorded.
6 . 4.1 Cracking of silo columnsl Burlnd and
Davidson (1976) give a detailed case history of
damage to some silos due to differential foundation
movements, The four silos were founded on 0 m di­
meter rafts, 1 ,2 m thick, resting on soft chalk, This
material has a rather similar behaviour to a highly
HE /SW P10folt
pemeable, lightly overconsolidated clay in that it
exhibits a 'yield point' nder increasing vertical NW I$ ( Ptolole

pressure (Burland and Lord, 1969). Fiure 33 shows a

typical pressure-settlement relationship for one of
the silos nd it n be seen that the applied pres­ Fig 3 4 Deflected shapes of rat foundations normal
sure exceeded the yield point. ven so, the total to and parallel to axis of silo complex
settlement is by no means excessive. Fiure 34 shols (Burland and Davidson, 1976),
a cross-section throuh the suporting structure of
the silos, together with the deflected shapes of the
rafts . All the silos showed distinct hogging; Silo 1
also underwent some tilting, The ivestigation Outside face
Srlo ffoor level �
showed that hairline cracks developed in many of the

e" ? �
��
--, ..
columns at a deflection ratio ./L . 0 , 45 x 1o-3 and ,y
''
by the tme ../L had increased to 0,6 x 1 0-3 the '� Inside fae
u

cracking was severe enough (taking account of the

large loads carried by the columns) for the engineers
�� xt
I

�
to install temporary props. The maximum deflection ---
-�
ratio was 1 ,07 x 1o-3 and Fig 35 shols a sketch of
�
._.
one of the damaged columns corresponding to this
value of A/L. ven though these relative deflections r r 0
'
x
N
'
Outsrdo rns:de
face face

AVERAi£ 8EAAUG PRESSURE· KN /m1

'
'
'
'
'
'
' Raft foundalion
'
\
�

Fig 35 Typical cracked column in Silo 2 (Burland

nd Davidson, 1976 ) .

are within currently accepted limits the damage �s

considered severe enough to warrnt expensive reme­
dial measures,

Fig 33 Relationship bet�teen bearing pressure and A simple analysis of the structure reveals that it
average settlement for a silo on soft chalk had a low relative stiffness (see Section 5.4. 1 ) , n
(Burland and Dvidson, 1976 ) , the other hand it is evident from Fig 34 that the

533
short large diameter reinforced concrete columns made
the stucture 'brittle' and sensitive to differential
settlement. Thus the structure has little inherent
stiffness to resist differential settlements and at
the sme time no 'ductility' to absorb the deforma­
tions without damage .
In Chapter 1
attention s drawn to the rather speci­
l natre of silos. Nevertheless, there are import­
nt lessons to be leaned from the case history, par­
t iculrly as this type of desin for silos is common
throuhout the world. ( D eere and Davisson ( 1961 ) and
Colombo and Ricceri ( 1 973) have reported cracking in
reinforced concrete colmns supporting some silos and
the General Reporter has come across other cases of
smilar damage. )
Having recognised the problem a number of solutions
are possible for future desins. In principle these
could involve limiting settlements (eg using piles ) ,
increasing the relative stiffness of the structure
(eg thickening the raft or introducing shear \alla)
or reducing the sensitivity of the structure to rela­
tive displacements (eg use steel columns or incorpo­
rate hinge s ) . It appears that for ground conditions
similar to those encountered in this case the most
satisfactory approach �ould be to modify the struc­
tural desin rather than resort to a more expensive
foundation solution. Although more conventional
buildings will not normlly be as sensitive to
differential settlement this case history emphas ises
the care that must be exercised when stiff or brittle
elements (particular if they are load-bearing) are
introduced into an othen�ise flexible structure.
6 . 4.2 n brickY1ork due t o ho ' n : Cheney
nd Burford 197 describe n interesting case of
damage to a three-storey office building of load­
bearing brick lhich 1·.s subjected to both hogging and
sagging modes of deformation due to a swelling clay
subsoil. Careful records of foundation displacements
East elevation - horizontal component of cracl< widths (mm) at March
02
8·3m
0 Recorded measurement
• 'Micro' crack < 0·2 mm
M
20
�
: 15
,
E 10
�
E
;;
u
·;
� ---
Fig 36 Foundation movements and corresponding cracking in a three-storey office building
(Cheney and Burford , 1974)
534
nd cracking have been maintained over 17 years since
the start of construction.
Fiure 36 sho1�s an elevation of one side of the buil­
ding 1�ith the foundation movements plotted beneath it.
The left hand end of the building has been subjected
to a hogging mode of defomation whereas the right
hand end has undergQne sagging. The mximum hogging
ratio is 0.84 x 10.j and the maximum sagging ratio is
0.38 x 1-3 . Damage is confined exclusively to the
portion of the building undergoing hogging and tkes
the fom of cracks radiating out1ards and upwards
from the region of maximum curvature of the founda­
tions. The crack 1�idths are greatest at roof level .
The dmage 1·1as classified as 'sliht' to 'moderat e '
according t o Table I . Some disruption of electrical
conduits occurred, concrete floors cracked nd inte­
nal repairs were necessary.
The broken line at the bottom of Fig 36 corresponds
to the movements 'lhen the building occupants on the
top storey began to complain of drafts , leaks and
broken �indOIISo The hogging ratio at this stage �1.s
0.65 x 1o-3 . The hogging ratio corresponding to maxi­
mum crack �lidths in the upper storey of about mm 5 .o
o.p
( sliht damage ) �las o3
X 1 - . It should be noted
that no visible cracking had occurred for a sagging
ratio of 0.38 x 10-3 1·1hich provides field evidence
confiming that load-bearing �1all s are more sensitive
to hogging thn to sagging.
The main benefits of detailed studies of this type
are that they provide infomat ion on the 1�ay damage
develops in a building, they allow correlations bet­
een degrees of damage nd magnitudes of relative dis­
placement and they dra1� attention to unsuspected
weanesses in desin and detailing.
6.5 PRESENTATION D PUBLICATION OF CASE HISTORIS
n this Chapter some of the benefits to be had from
1974
D D
D D
D D
02
0 Metres 10
p
-- - - - R
-- --- ---
field studies have been discussed, The importance of
publishing comprehensive case records cannot be ove­
st�ted, 'rhey provide the means of assessing the reli­
ability of prediction methods, they give guidance to
practitioners Hho are faced 1·1ith the desin of found­
ations and structures in similar circumstances, they
can be used to develop an understanding of hoH struc­
tures interact 1·1ith the ground and dra�1 attention to
wenesses in design nd construction, In short, �tell
documented case studies provide the recorded prece­
dents Hhich are so valuable in developing the art of
foundation engineering,
The value of published case histories ie often dimi­
nished because vital information is missing, The
follo�1ing nformation that should be included in any
report or publ ication tlhenever possible is:
(1) A detailed profile of the ground and round­
�tater conditions and the variations underlying the
structure , A detailed description of the soil inclu­
ding onsistency, structure , fabric1 Atterburg
limits etc,
(2) The results of penetrometer and other routine
n-situ index tests,
(3) A description o f sampling equiment and methode,
( 4) Laboratory results giving details of test pro­
cedures, Typical stress-stran curves and if •aver­
age' results are given the spread of the data should
also be given in statistical tems,
(5) Detailed results o f in-situ tests,
(6) Details of all instrumentation, methods of
calibration and an objective assessment of accuracy,
(7) Details of the structure and foundations inclu­
ding plans, cross-section, loads (desin and actual )
and construction sequence,
(8) Displacement, pressure nd load measurements,
including closing errors and discrepancies between
datums, As 1·1ell as presenting this informat ion in
the form of curves it is helpful to tabulate the
results ,
(9) A detailed record should be kept o f the perfo­
mance of the structure nd finishes, This n best
be done by highgrade photography and carefully anno­
tated sketches,
The question arises as to what buildings are 'lorth
instrumenting, There is a strong case for specifying
simple levelling stations to be installed as a rou­
tne on all buildings , The habit of monitoring the
performance of buildings needs to be established as
this is the one sure 1y of keeping design assm­
tions continually under review and developing a rea­
listic appreciation of the confidence limits that n
be placed on predictions, The follo11ing may serve as
a uide on the types of structure for which it is
worth making special efforts:
(i) Large structures for which there will be parti­
cularly comprehensive soils investigations,
( ii ) Structures that are simple in plan or that arc
founded on uniform ground as this makes for ease of
interpretation and comparison 1ith test results,
( iii) Structures founded in soil strata for which
there is little or no previous experience in the
region,
( iv) Structures for which there are local high on­
centrations of load ,,here differentioal settlement
might be troublesome,
(v) Structures that are subject to large fluctua-
tions in load,
(vi) Existing structures that may be adversely
affected by proposed works nearby,
(vii) Structures 11here movement has already tken
place and ,.,here there is reason to suspect that move­
ment is continuing nd my lead to some measure of
failure.
(viii) Often the adequacy of foundations is brought
into question after they hve been constructed, The
possibility of carrying out a full-scale loading test
should ahtays be considered , These n be quicker
and cheaper than extensive soil tests nd the case
history described by Leonarda (1972) attests their
value ,
In all these cases efforts should be made not only to
measure foundation movements but also movements at
depth and around the structure , Althouh some civil
engneerng and building ontractors may well be
interested in carrying out the work themselves, co­
tinuity and expert ise will be more readily available
from organisations such as local authorit ies, consul­
tants nd research or teaching establishments, Any
organisation of this type which sets out to assemble
detailed case histories n a given locality or region
will be rendering the profession a great service,
CHATER 7 - AN CONCLUSIONS
The subject dealt with in this Review is exceptional­
ly wide ranging and the Authors are all too conscious
of the many omissions both in coverage and in refer­
ences to notable work , Nevertheless it is hoped that
the Review gives at least a flavour of the existing
state of the art and broad indications of future
developments . A few of the most important conclu­
sions are listed as folloi'ISI
(1) A prime requirement for successful foundation
desin nd construction will always be a nowledge of
the soil profile and groundwater conditions acro ss
the site, · No amount of detailed laboratory testing
or sophisticated analysis n com ensate for a lack
p
of such nowledge (cf Sect ion 1 , 2) ,
(2) There are many reasons as to why accurate pre­
diction of the settlement of foundations is normal ly
not possible, It is more important that realistic
confidence limits should be placed on predictions,
More attention should therefore be given to the use
of statistics in handling and reporting test results,
There are all too may examples of empirical correl­
tions ( e g u = 500 Cu i 1/mv � 1 0 c etc) where
nothing is stated about the spread o¥ the data, the
conditions under which the parameters were determined
or the degree of correlation ( c f Sections 1 .3 and
3. 7 ) .
(3) Settlement damage i s only one aspect o f the
535
 1·1 ider problem of serviceability of buildings. The (7) When desining pile groups purely t o reduce
problem of coping 1�ith differential settlement, as settlements to tolerable amounts 1 consideration should
with creep, shrinkage and structural deflections, may be given to using the fully mobilized load carrying
frequently be solved by designing the building, and capacity of piles. If this approach is adopted care
in particular the cladding and partitions, to accom­ must be taken to ensure that the lod-settlement cha­
modate movements rather than to resist them. Success­ racteristics of the piles are 'ductile' and that there
ful and economic desin and construction of the total is a suitable factor of safetr against failure of the
structure require cooperation between foundation­ pile material ( of S e ction 4. 2) .
gineer1 structural engineer and architect from the
earliest stages of planning ( cf Sections 1 .5 and 2 . 1 ). (8) Friction pile groups desined by conventional
methods can be very effective in reducing differential
( 4) rogress in the study of the behaviour of fon­ settlements ( of Section 4.5 . 4) .
dations and structures Hill be aided by adopting
clear defnitions of foundation movements and simple (9) Present methods of evaluating settlements of
classifications of degrees of dmage . The schemes footings , rafts nd pile groups on cohesionless soils
outlined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are offered as a are not satisfactory due to difficult ies in evaluating
basis for discussion �1ith a view to further develop­ the in-situ properties and in assessing the influence
ment. of pile driving etc. Ho1ever1 settlements take place
rapidly and for medium dense to dense sands �1ill us­
(5) The concept of limiting tensile strain is in­ ally be fairly small ( of Sections 3.8 and 4.6 ) .
troduced in Section 2.5 as a means of gaining insight
into some of the factors influencing limiting defle­ (10) The many assumptions and idealizations that have
tions in buildings . It is demonstrated by means of to be made in a soil-structure nteraction analysis
a simple illustrative analysis and a number of obser­ are listed in Section 5.1. Interactive nalysis can
vations of the performance of buildings that the be used at a relatively humble level to improve esti­
limiting relative deflections are sinificantly de­ mates of differential settlement or at a much more
pendent on (i) the length to height ratio; ( i i ) re­ sophisticated level to calculate load and pressure
lative stiffness in shear and in bending; ( iii ) the distributions within structures. The former can be
degree of tensile restraint built into the structure; achieved by representing the structure and its fini­
and ( iv ) the mode of deformation ( eg hogging or sa­ shes by a simple equivalent raft ( of Section 5 . 4. 1 ) .
ging) . Techniques are no1� available for carrying out more
detailed interactive nalysis but this should be n­
.
(6) Chapter 3 contains a theoretical study of the dertken with considerable caution because of the
accuracy of settlement calculations. It is concluded severe limitations of no�rledge about the properties
that for factors of safety greater than about 2.5 the of the ground and structur e .
errors introduced by the smple classical onedimen­
sional method of calculating total settlement are usu­ (11) The Review has underlined the dependence of the
ally small compared �lith thosiat n occur during engineer on field observations for his understanding
smpling and testing. Hence the emphas is should be on of the behaviour both of the ground and of structures.
the accurate detemination of simple parameters, such The importance of regional studies of settlement has
as one-dimensional compressibility, at a number of been amply demonstrated. A better understnding of
depths. There is a continung nd urgent need for soil-structure interaction requires detailed measure­
the development nd improvement of laboratory and in­ ments of ground behaviour beneath and around founda­
situ procedures for measuring the representative in­ tions coupled �rith careful obsevations of the beh­
situ properties of the grond in the mass. viour of the superstructure. Examples of such studies
are given in Chapter 6.

Ro'ERNCS

ADEN, J K ( 1 956): Discussion o n paper by 345-350 ·

Skempton et al "Settl ement analysis of six struc­
tures in Chicago and London". Pro c Instn Civ Engrs 1 BAUER, G E et l ( 1 976) : Predicted nd observed foot­
5, 1 , pp 168-170. ing settlements n a fissured clay . Conf Perf Build
Struct1 Glasow, Pentech Press, London, pp 287-302.
ARTHUR1 J R F (1973 ) : General Report - Session 1.
Symp Field Instrumention1 Butter11orths1 London, pp BERZANT'lEV 1 V G 1 V S HRIS''OFOROV and V N GOLUBKOV 1
51Q-516 . ( 1 961 ) : Load bearing capacity and deformation of
piled foundations. Proc 5 Int Conf Soil lech &
B'l'E1 S C C and C S LE'o·ISLE¥ ( 1 969) : nvironmental I•'ound lig1 vol 21 pp 1 1-1 5 .
changes, temperature creep and shrinkage in concrete
structures. Symp Desin for Movement in Buildings, BERRE1 T and K IVESEN ( 1 972) : Oedometer tests with
Conore Soc, London. different specimen heights on a clay exhibiting
large secondary compression. Geotechnique1 221 1 1
BAliEJEE1 P K ( 1975): Effect of the pile cap on the pp 53-70.
load-displacement behaviour of pile groups Nhen sub­
j e cted to eccentric vertical loads. Proc 2 Austr­ BBRY1 P L and T J POSKI' ( 1 972) : The consol id-­
Ne\·1 Zealand Conf on Goomechnics1 Brisbane , July tion of peat. Geotechnique1 221 1 1 pp 27-52.
1975·
BINDER, K aml P de Ortigosa ( 1 975): Influencia de
BUEJEE1 P D ( 1 976 ) : Analysis of vertical pile asentarnientos diferenciales en un mrco espacial:
groups embedded in non-homogeneous soil. Proc 6 parte I I . Revista del IDIl·l 1 vol 1 41 '1 1 pp 1-26.
.uropean Conf Soil leoh & }'ound ng, vol 1 . 21 pp

536
JERRUI, L ( 1 963) : Discussion Proc r Conf SE,
1/iesbaden, vol 2 , p 135,
JERRJi, L ( 1 967): ngineering geoloy of NOII'Iegian
normally consolidated marine clays as related to
settlements of buildings , 7th Rankine Lecture,
Geoteohnique, 17, pp 81-1 18,
JERJ� , L ( 1 972) : Enbaments on soft round, Proc
Spec Conf on Performance of arth and Earth-support­
ed Structures, Purdue, vol 2, pp 1-54.
JERIDI , L and A EGGSTAD ( 1 963 ) : Interpretation of
loading tests on snd, hr Conf Stl•'E, oliesbaden,
vol 1 7 pp 1 99-204,
JEHRU.I, L, H JBNSOI< and C OST..WELD, ( 1957): The
settlement of a bridge abutment on friction piles,
Proc 4 Int Conf Si&FE, vol 2, pp 1 4-18,
BOBRICKY1 G and S LEPIKOV ( 1 975): Effectivnyj me­
tod zadaci vzaimodejstvija fundamenta s nadfunda­
mentnoj konstrukciej, Osnov Fund l•lech Grunt , 1 7 7
1 , pp 9-12,
BOOKER, J R and H G POULOS ( 1 976) : Analysis of
creep settlement of pile foundations, Jnl Geotech
Eng Div, Proc ASCE, vol 1027 no GT17 pp 1-14,
BOULON, �I et al ( 1 976) : Tassements e t force por­
tante limite des pieux en milieu ulverulent, Proc
6th .r Conf SE, vol 1 ,2, pp 3'71-382,
"TH, H and P >NN ( 1 974) : Time-settlement and
Bli
settlement distribution �lith depth in ''rkfurt
clay, Proc Conf on Settlement of Structures, Cam­
bridge, Pentech Press 1975, pp 1 41-154.
BR.TH, H and G C�BOSSE � 974): Settlement behaviour
of buildings above subNay tnnels in ''rankfurt clay,
Proo Conf Settlement of Structures, Cambridge ,
Pentech Press, London, pp 32-336,
BOMS, B ( 1967): Bearing capacity of pile groups( in
Swedish), SHedish Geotech Inst, reprints and pre­
liminary reports no 187 35 PP•
BROI·fS, B B ( 1 972) : Settlement of pile groups. Proc
of Spec Conf on Performance of arth and Earth­
supported Structures, Purdue niv, June 1 1-1 47 1972
vol 3, pp 181-199.
BRONS, B B ( 1 976): Pile foundations - Pile groups,
Proc 6 European Conf SE, vol 2 , 1 , pp 103-132,
BRO�m, P T ( 1 969a) : Numerical analyses of uniformly
loaded circular rafts on elastic layers of finite
depth, Geotechnique, 19, 27 pp 301-306 ,
BOliN, P T ( 1 969b) 1 Numerical analyses of uniformly
loaded circular rafts on deep elastic foundations,
Geotechnique, 19, 3 , pp 399- 404,
BO·IN, P T ( 1 974) 1 Influence of soil inhomogeneity
on raft behaviour. Soils and Foundations, 14, 1 ,
pp 61-70.
BOliN, P T ( 1 975a) l Strip footing 11ith concentrated
loads on deep elastic foundations, Geotechnical
Engg, 6 , 1 , pp 1-13.
BRO�, P T ( 1 975b)1 The sinificance of structure-
foundation interaction, Proc 2nd Austr-Nel Zealand
Conf on Geomeohanics, Brisbane , pp 79-82,
BRITISH S'fANDARDS INSl'ITTION ( 1 976) : Draft Standard
Code of Practice for Site Investigations , Document
76/11 937 DC,
BGN t VI E J ( 1 969) 1 Loading - dead, live and 1ind,
Proc Symp Desin for Movement in Buildings , The
Concrete Soc, London,
BURHOllE , P ( 1 969) : Composite action betHeen brick
panel 11alls and their supporting beams, Proc Instn
Civ ngrs, vol 43, pp 175-194,
BURLAND, J B ( 1 969a)a Deformation of soft clay beneath
loaded areas, Proc 7th Int Conf SE, Mexico, 1 ,
PP 55-63,
BURLAND, J B ( 1 969b): Discussion on Session A, Proo
Conf In-situ Investigations in Soils and Rocks ,
Brit Geotech Soc, London, p 62,
BURLAND, J B ( 1 971 ) : A method of estimating the pore
pressures and displacements beneath embanments on
soft natural clay deposits, Proc Roscoe !•!em Symp,
Foulis, pp 505-536 ,
BD, J B ( 1 973): Discussion - Session 1 , Proc
8th Int Conf SE, loscO17 vol 4,2 , pp 12-14,
BD, J B ( 1 975)1 Some eamples of the influence
of field measurements on foundation desin and con­
struction, Guest Lecture, Proc 6th Reg Conf Africa
SE7 Durban, 2, pp 267-284,
BD, J B, F G BUTLER and P DN!CAN ( 1966): The
behaviour and desin of large bored piles in stiff
clay, Proo Large Bored Piles, Instn Civ ngrs,
London, pp 51-7 1 ,
BURLAND, J B and R 1 COOKE ( 1974): The design of
bored piles, Ground ngg, vol 7 , no 4, July 1 9'14,
pp 2-30, 33-35.
BD, J B and 1 DAVDSON ( 1 976)1 A case study of
cracking of columns supporting a silo due to differ­
ential foundation settlement, Proo Conf on Perfor­
mance of Building Structures, Glasgow, Pentech Press
London,
BD, J B nd R J R HANCOCK ( 1 977) 1 Geotechnical
espects of the desin for the underground car park
at the Palace of Hestminster, London, The Struct
Engr (in the press),
BURLAND, J B nd J A LORD ( 1969) 1 The load-deforma­
tion behaviour of ·Iiddle Chalk at olundford, Norfolk:
a comprison bet1een full-scale performance and in­
situ laboratory measurements, Proc Conf In-situ
Investigations in Soils and Rooks1 London 1970.
BURLAND, J B and J F A MOORE ( 1 973) : The measurement
of round displacement around deep excvations,
Symp on Field Instrumentation, ButteIiOrths, London,
pp 7-84.
BURLAND, J B, J F A IOORE and P D K So!ITH ( 1972): A
simple and precise borehole extensometer. Geoteoh­
nique, 22, pp 1 7 -177,
BD, J B, G C SILLS and R E GBSON ( 1 973): A
537
 field and theoretical study of the influence of non­
homogeneity on settlement. Proc 8th Int Conf SI•FE1
NoscoN1 vol 1 . ]1 pp 39-46 .
BD, J B and C P \'/ROTH ( 1 9 7 4): Settlement of
buildings and associated damage , State-cf-the-Art
Review. Proc Conf Settlement of Structures, Cam­
bridge, Pentech Press, London, pp 6 1 1 -654.
BUTLER1 F G ( 1 974) : Heavily overconolidated cohesive
materials , State of the Art Revier, Conf Settle­
ment of Structures, Cambridge , Pentech Pres s , London
pp 531-578.
B'rERFILD1 R and P K BANEJEE ( 1 97 1 a ) : Elastic
nalysis of compressible piles and pile groups,
Geotechnique 1 vol 2 1 1 no 1 1 pp 43-60.
BUl'ERFILD1 R and P K BNERJEE ( 1 97 1 b ) : Problem of
pile grou-pile cap interact ion. Geotechnique1 vol
21 1 no 21 pp 13-142,
CARRIER, 1 D nd J T CHRISTIAN ( 1 973 ) : Rigid circu­
lar plate resting on a no-homogeneous elastic half
space. Geotechnique1 vol 231 pp 67-84.
CASSN1 l ( 1 966 ) : Le tassement des pieux; Synthase
des recherches recentes et essais comparatifs,
Sols:Soils1 vol 5 1 no 1 - 1 9 1 pp 43-58.
CASSN1 l ( 1 968): Le tassement des pieux; Synthase
des recherches recentes et essais comparatifs,
Sols:Soils1 vol 6, no 201 pp 23-38.
CHARLS , J A ( 1 976 ) : The use of onedmensional com­
pression tests and elastic theory in predicting
deformations of rockfill embments . Can Geotech
Jnl1 1 3 1 31 pp 189-20 .
CHENEY, J E ( 1 973 ) : Techniques and equipment using
the suveyor's level for accurate measurement of
building movement . Symp on Field Instrumentation,
Butten1orths1 London, pp 85-99 .
CDih'Y 1 J E and D BURFORD ( 197 4): Dmaging uplift
to a three-storey office block constructed on a clay
soil follo1ing removal of trees, Proc Conf Settle­
ment of Structures, Cambridge , Pentech Press, London
pp 337-343.
CEUNG 1 Y K and D K NAG ( 1 968) 1 Plates and bems on
elastic foundat ions - linear nd non-linear behavi­
our, Geotechnique 1 vol 181 no 21 pp 250-260,
CHEUNG, Y K and 0 C ZIENKI�iiCZ ( 1 965) 1 Plates and
tanks on elastic foundations - an application of
finite element method, Int Jnl Solids Struct1 vol
no 41 pp 451-46 1 ,
COLE1 K 1 and J B BURLND ( 1 97 2 ) 1 Observation of
retaining Hall movements associated Hith a large
excavat ion, Proc 5th Eur Conf S'E1 �!adrid1 vol 1 1
pp 445-453 ·
COLONB01 P and G RICCERI ( 1 973) : Behaviour of struc­
tures and allo1·1able settlements. Proc 8th Int Conf
SMFE1 vol 1 ,3 1 pp 47-53 ·
COOKE1 R 1 ( 197 4 a ) : Piled foundat ions: A survey of
research at the Building Research Station, Build­
ing Research Establishment Current Paper CP2 /741
10 PP•
538
COOKE, R H ( 1 974 b ) 1 The settlement of friction pile
foundations, Proc Conf Tall Buildings , Kuala Lumpur1
Dec 19741 no 31 pp 7-1 9.
COOKE1 R 1·/ and G PRICE ( 197 3) 1 Strains and displace­
ments around friction piles, Proc 8th Int Conf SM&
l"E1 losco1·11 vol 2 , 1 1 pp 53-60 .
COOLNG 1 L F and H H HARD ( 1 953) 1 l·leasurements of
loads nd strains in earth supporting structures ,
Proc 3rd Int Conf SE1 Zurich, pp 162-166.
COHLI.Y1 B E1 E G HAGGAR and li J LANACH ( 197 4) I A
comparison bet�1een the observed and estimated settle­
ments of three large cold stores n Grimsby, Proc
Conf Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, Pentech
Press, London , pp 7-0,
COYLE, H l and L C RSE ( 1966) 1 Load trnsfer for
axially loaded piles in clay. Proc ASCE1 vol 921
no Sli21 pp 1-26,
CAI'FORD1 C B and J G STERLND ( 1971 ) : The mpress
Hot e l 1 Victoria, British Colmbia. Sixty-five Years
of Foundation Settlement s . Canad Geotech Jnl1 vol
8, pp 77-93.
CROKS, J H A and J GRHA1·1 ( 1 976): Geotechnical pro­
perties of the Belfast estuarine deposits. Geote ch­
nique1 vol 261 no 21 pp 293-315.
DAIJ·iATOV1 B I et al ( 1 973 ) : Investigation of soil
deformat ion in foundation beds of structures. Proc
8th Int Conf SE1 !osco\�1 vol 1 . ]1 pp 5-60.
D'APPOLONIA1 D J ( 1 97 1 ) 1 Effects of foundation con­
struction on nearby structures. Proo 4th Panam
Conf SI•FE1 vol 1 1 pp 189-236.
D'APFOLNIA 1D J 1 E D'APPLONJA and R F BRISErTE ( 1 968)
Settlement of spread footings on sand, Pro c ASCE1
Jnl Soil Nech Found Div1 no Sol3 1 pp 73-760,
D tAPPLONIA1 D J and T 1 WBE ( 1971 ) : Performance of
four foundations on end-bearing piles, Jnl Soil
l•lech Found Div 1 Proc ;CE1 vol 971 no Sl�1 1 pp 77-93.
D'APPOLONIA1 H G POULOS and C C LADD ( 1 97 1 ) : Initial
settlement of structures on clay. Jnl Soil Hech
Found Div1 ASCE1 vol 971 no Sl41 0 1 pp 135-1377.
D'APPLOHIA1 E and J P OI·IALDI ( 1963): Load transfer
in end-bearing steel �piles, Jnl Soil olech F'ound
Div 1 Proc ASCE1 vol 931 no SM21 pp 1-25,
DAVIS1 E H and H G POULOS ( 1 963 ) : Triaxial testing
and three dimensional settlement nalysis. Proc 4th
Austr-Ne�1 Zealand Conf Sl•!&l£1 Adelaide, pp 233-243 .
DAVIS, E H nd H G POULOS ( 1 968): The use of elastic
theory for settlement prediction under three dimen­
sional conditions. Geotechnique 1 vol 181 no 1 1 pp
67-91 .
DAVIS , E H nd H G POULOS ( 1 97 2 ) : Hate of settlement
under threedimensional conditions, Geotechnique 1
vol 221 no 1 1 pp 95-1 1 4,
DAVISSON , �! 'P ( 1 97 2 ) 1 Settlement histories of t110
pile supported grain silos. Proc Conf on Perfor­
mance Earth-supported Structures 1 Purdue niv 1 vol
part 2 1 pp 1 1 55-1 167 .
DAVISSON, ! T and J R SALLEY ( 1 972)%Settlement his­
tories of four large tanks on sand. Proc Spec Conf
Perf Earth and Earth-supported Structures, Purdue,
ASCE1 pp 981-996.
de BEER, E E and A o!Ai'NS ( 1957) 1 l•!ethod of compu­
tation of an upper limit for the influence of the
heterogeneity of sand layers on the settlement of
bridges • Proc 4th Int Conf S'E1 vol 1 1 pp 7-
282.
DERE, D U and !<! T DAVISSON ( 1 961 ) : Behaviour of
grain elevator foundations subjected to cyclic load­
ing. Proc 5th Int Conf Sl·l<E1 vol 1 1 pp 629-633.
DE JON01 J and M C HARRIS ( 1971 ) 1 Settlements of t1·10
multistorey buildings in Edmonton. Can Geotech Jnl1
vol 81 no 21 pp 217-235·
DE JON0 1 J and N R l.ORGNSTEN (1971 )1 The influence
of structural rigidity on the foundation loads of
the N tower, dmonton. Canad Geotech Jnl1 vol 81
no 41 PP 527-537 •
DE JONG, J and N R MORGNSTEN ( 1 97 3 ) : Heave and
settlement of two tall building foundations n Ed­
monton, Alberta. Canad Geotch Jnl1 vol 101 no 21
pp 261-281 .
de l!ELL01 V F B ( 1969) 1 Foundations of buildings in
clay. State of the art report. Proc 7th Int Conf
SMFE 1 Mexico, Special vol1 pp 49-136.
de lELL01 V F B ( 1 97 1 ) : The Standard Penetration
Test. State of the art reviel·l · Proc 4th Panam Conf
S��, Puerto Ric1 vol 1 1 pp 1-86.
de �L01 V F B ( 1 97 2 ) : Thouhts o n soil engineering
applicable to residual soils. Proc 3rd Southeast
Asian Conf on Soil ng1 Hong Kong, pp 5-0.
de ��LLO, V F B ( 1 975a)1 Discussion - Session 3 .
Proc 6th Regional Conf for Africa S!E1 vol 2 1 pp
105-106.
de o!LLO, V F B ( 1 975b ) 1 The philosophy of statis­
tics and probabil ity applied in soil mechanics -
General Report. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Statistics
and Probability Applied to Civil ngineering.
Stuttgart .
DSAI, C S ( 1 976 ) 1 ditor nd lnt Conf Num Methods
in Oeomechanics1 Bla�ksburg1 ASCE1 Ne�1 York.
de S!ONE, S V ( 1 966 ) : Suggested dein procedures
for combined footings and mats. Jnl m Concr Inst1
Oct 19661 pp 1041-1057•
de SU!NE, S V and J P GOULD ( 1972) 1 Performance of
t�10 mat foundations on Boston Blue Clay. Proc Spec
Conf on Performance of Earth and arth-supported
Structures, Purdue , vol 1 . 21 pp 953-980.
DOLLERL 1 A , A HONDL and E PROKSCH ( 1 976 ) : Der ­
Bahn Bau ld die Massnahmen zum Schutz des Stephans­
domas. Proc 6th r Conf SFE1 vol 1 . 1 , pp 1 1 9-
1 26 .
OROSVICH1 N M and BARTOLmlEY, AA ( 1 96 5 ) : Dis­
cussion. roc 6th Int Conf SHE1 vol 3 1 pp 48-
485.
DNN, C S ( 1 97 4) 1 Settlement of a large raft founda­
tion on snd. Conf Settlement of Structures, Cam­
bridge, Pentech Press, London, pp 1 -21 .
DN1 W J 1 0 C icROSTIE and J S HALL ( 1973) I Measured
contact pressures below raft supporting a stiff
building. Canad Geotech Jnl1 vol 1 0 1 pp 180-192.
GOROV1 K E, 0 V KITAJKINA and A N CEVJKO ( 1 97 4 ) 1
Investigation o f layer by layer defomation o f soil�
Proc 4th Dnube Gonf Sl·�, vol 1 1 pp 161-167.
EOROV t K E1 P G K>!IN t and B P POPOV ( 1957) IThe
observed settlements of buildings as compared 111th
preliminary calculation. Proc 4th Int Conf SlFE1
London, vol 1 1 pp 291-296 .
ELLISON, R D1 E D1APPLONIA and G R THIES ( 1 971 ) :
Load deformation mechanism for bored piles. Jnl
Soil Mech Div1 ASCE1 vol 971 no S�l41 pp 661678.
ELVRY t R H ( 1 96 6 ) : Problems associated l·lith the
field measurement of stresses in concrete struc�ures
Conf Stresses in Service, lnst Civ ngrs1 London,
pp 43-55·
B , Ch (1963 ) : Setzungsmessungen an einem Hochhaus.
Proc r Conf S&FE1 Hiesbaden1 vol 1 1 pp 241-243.
FLD, J ( 1 96 5 ) : Tolernce of structures to settle­
ment. Jnl SI Div1 ASCE1 14ay1 pp 63-7'7·
PELLUUS1 B H ( 1 97 5 ) 1 ''est loading of piles and ne1·1
proof testing procedure. Jnl Geotech Div1 Proc ASCE
vol 101 1 no GT91 pp 855-869.
Settlement damage to a concrete­
FJELD, S ( 1 963 ) :
framed structures. Proc Europ Conf Sl·:FE1 Hiesbaden
vol 1 1 p 391 .
Oss, I ( 1 969) 1 S econdary settlements of buildings
on Drammen1 Norway. Proc 7th Int Conf Sh!E1 vol 21
pp 99-106.
OX1 E N ( 1 948) : The mean elastic settl ement of
uniformly loaded area at a depth below ground sur­
face. Proc 2nd Int Conf Sl·�, Rotterdam, vol 1 ,
p 129.
��x, L ( 1 9 48 ) : Computation of traffic stresses in a
smple road structure. Proc nd nt Conf S�&FE1
vol 21 pp 236-246.
F'RASBH, R A ( 1976 ) : Outline of solutions available
for the desin of raft foundat ions. Div App Gao­
mechanics Tech Paper no 251 CSIR01 Australia.
FRASER, R A and L J 1·/ARDLB ( 1976): Numerical analy­
sis of rectangular rafts on layered foundat ions.
Geotechnique , vol 26, no 4, pp 6 1 3630.
GAl·ilN1 l Ph ( 1 963 ) :
Calcul du tassement d'une
fondation profende en fonction de resultats pressio­
metriques . Sols:Soils1 vol 21 no 7 1 pp 1 1-3 1 .
GARCA 1 V K and J T QlfN ( 1 97 4) : An investigation
on settlements of direct foundat ions on sand. Proc
Conf Settlement of Structures, Cambridge , Pentech
Press, London, pp 22-36.
GARLANGBR1 J E ( 1 97 2 ) 1 'l'he consolidation of soils
exhibiting creep under constant effective stress.
539
 Geotechnique 1 vol 221 no 1 1 pp 71-78.
GERRARD, C N and \·1 J HARRISON ( 1 970a) : Circular loads
applied to a cross-anisotropic half space, CSIRO
Austral ia, Div App Geomech1 •rech Paper no 8 ,
GERHARD, C ! and H J RRISON ( 1 970b ) : Stresses and
displacements in a loaded orthorhombic half-space ,
CSIRO Austral ia, Div App Geomech1 ''ech Paper n o 9 ·
GERRARD1 C 1•1 1 1·1 KURZl·iE, D C ANDRUIS and R TOPP
( 1 97 1 ) : Instrumentation o f raft foundations in
Perth, Proc 1 st Aus-Ne1·1 Zealand Conf Geomechanics1
vol 1 1 pp 361-368,
GIBSON, R E ( 1 967 ) : Some results concening dis­
placements and stresses in a non-homogeneous elastic
· half-space , Geotechnique 1 vol 1 7 1 no 1 1 pp 5-67,
GB�ON1 R E ( 1 974): The analyt ical method in soil
mechanics. 1 4th Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique 1 vol
241 no 21 pp 1 1 5-139.
GBSON, R E and G C SILLS ( 1 97 1 ) : Some results con­
cening the plane deformat ion of a non-homogeneous
elastic half-space, Proc Roscoe lem Symp1 Cambridge
Foul is1 pp 56-572.
GIRALT1 P ( 1 964): Discussion on a paper : 'Tolerance
of structures to settlement' by J Feld, ASCE Conf on
Design of F'oundat ions for Control of Settlement,
1ranston,
GIRAULT1 P ( 1 972): Settl ement of some piled found­
tions in lexico, Proc Spec Conf Performance of
arth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue Univ1
June 1 1 -1 41 vol 1 1 part 21 pp 1 1 85-1205,
GIROUD1 J P ( 1 970): The problem of elasticity in
settlement calculation for foundat ion desin. Proc
4th Congr Brazil Soc SE1 Rio de Jane iro, vol 1 1
no 21 V-1-V-9,
OLDR1 H Q ( 1 969): Panel Discussion - Session 2,
Proc 7th Int Conf SN''E1 fexico1 vol 31 pp 22'/-230,
GOLDr:R1 H Q ( 1 97 1 ) : The allo11able settlement of
structures, State of the art revie1·1 . Proc 4th
Panman Conf SF'B1 Puerto Hi co 1 vol 1 1 pp 171-187.
GODU:OV-POSSADOV1 l•l I and S S DAVYDOV ( 1 973):
Interaction of soil bases a..d structures , Proc 8th
lnt Conf SI•E1 losco1·11 vol 21 pp 4·1-92,
Gll.H'l'1 R1 J T GHRISTIAl and B H 1/ANNARCE ( 1 97 2 ) :
'l'olerance of buildings t o differential settlements ,
Soils Publicatio.. no 3 1 5 1 Dept o f Civ lg1 IHT.
GRANT1 R1 J '' CHHISl'H and � ll VAJI"WtRCKE: ( 1 974):
Differential settlement of buildin,"B . Proc ASGE1
vol 1001 no G'l'91 pp 973-9 9 1 .
GHh�N, G E ( 1 973 ) : General Heport - Sess ion 2 . Symp
l�ield Instrumentatio!1 Butten10rths1 London, pp
517-526.
GREGESJII 1 0 S 1 G AAS1 and : DiBlAGIO ('1973): Lold
tests on friction piles in loose sand, Proc 8th
Int Gonf sJ.;1 vol 2 , 1 1 Noscor11 pp 109-1 1 7 ,
HAlnfA1 '1' H ( 1 963 ) : l·jodel studies of foundat ion
groups in sand , Geotechnique1 vol 1 3 1 pp 33-351 .
540
H:NA1 '1' H ( 1 973 ) : Foundation instrumentat ion. Trans
Tech Pub 1 SA,
HANSBO 1 S 1 E Hi1·NN and J NOS SSON ( 1973) : �stra
Nordstaden1 Gothenburg, J.'xperiences concerning a
difficult foundation problem and its unorthodox
solution, Proc 8th Int Conf Sl·<'E1 vol 2 , 2 1 pp 10-
1 1 0,
HAJISB01 S and B A TOHSTE
NSSON ( 1971 ) : Stttningar vid
grundlaggning pR morn, Byggmtstaren , vol 501 no 41
pp 8-1 4.
HA'ILE' p J G and D L BORN ( 1 97 3 ) : A unified theory
for the consolidation of clays, Proc 8th Int Conf
SNI•'E1 J.Iosco'11 vol 1 . 3 1 pp 107-1 1 9 .
l�IL1 H ( 1 969) : Studies on the structural rigidity
of reinforced concrete building frames on clay,
Proc 7th Int Conf SF'E1 Jlexico1 vol 21 pp 1 1 -1 21 ,
HlG' 1 D H and P A GREN ( 1 976 ) : The performance of
a piled-raft foundation for a tall building in Lon­
don, Proc 6th Europ Conf SlFE 1 vol 1 , 21 pp 467-47.
HOBBS1 N B ( 1 974): The factors affecting the predic­
tion of the settlements of structures on rock -
State of the Art Revie�r. Conf Settl ement of Struc­
tures , Cambridge, Pentech Press, London, pp 579-6 1 0 .
HOEG1 K ( 1 97 2 ) : Finite element analysis of strain­
softening material, Proc ASCE1 Jnl GF Div1 vol 981
No S1 1 pp 43-58,
HOEG1 K 1 J T CRISTIAN nd R V HHII•N ( 1968):
Settlement of strip load on elastic-plastic soil.
Jnl Soil .lech <'ound Div ASCB1 vol 941 pp431-446.
HOLTZ1 R D and G LirDSK00 ( 1 972): Soil movements
bel01·1 test embanment, Proc Spec Conf on Perfor­
ance of arth and arth-supported Structures, Purdue
vol 1 . 1 1 pp 273-284.
HOLTZER1 T L1 K HOEG and K ARULANANDAN ( 1 973 ) : xcess
pore pressures during undrained clay creep, Cnad
Geotech Jnl1 vol 1 0 1 no 1 1 pp 1 2-24,
HOOPER1 J A ( 1 973 ) : Observations on the behaviour of
a piled-raft foundat ion on London Cly, Proc Inst
Civ �ngrs1 vol 551 pp 855-877 •
HOOPER1 J A ( 1 973a): Field instrumentation for lon­
term measurement of pile load and raft contact
pressure, Civ lg & Pub Hks Rev , .lay 1 91 3 1 pp
438-446 .
HOOPER1 J A ( 1 973b ) : Observations on the behaviour
of a piled-raft foundation on London Clay. Proc
Instn Civ �'nrs1 vol 551 part 2, Dec, pp 85-877 •
HOOPER1 J A ( 1 974): Analysis o f a circular raft n
ahesive contact with a thick elastic layer, Ceo­
te chnique , vol 241 no 41 pp 561-580.
HOOPER1 J A ( 1 97 5 ) : Elastic settlement of a circular
raft in adhesive contact Hith a transversely iso­
tropic medium, Geotechnique1 vol 25, no 4, pp 691-
71 1 ,
HOOPERp J A ( 1 976): Reply to discussion on paper
'Elastic settlement of a circular raft in adhesive
contact 1ith a trnsversely isotropic medium t .
 Geotechnique 1 vol 261 no 31 pp 541 .
HOOPER, J A and L A HOOD ( 1976): Foundation analysis
of a cross-1·rall structure. Proc Conf Perf of Buildg
Structures, Glasgor1 Pentech Press, pp 229-248.
HON, H l and T / fiE ( 1 964): Settlement of build­
ings on the .IIT Campus . Pro c ASCE1 vol 901 no SH51
pp 181-195·
WANG , C T , N R o!ORGNSTE!f and D H l·!URRAY ( 1 971 ) :
n solutions of plane strain consolidation problems
by finite element methods. Canad Geotech Jnl1 vol 8
pp 109-1 18.
JANBU1 N n d K SNSET ( 1 973) 1 Field compressometer
- principles nd applications. Proc 8th Int Conf
SFE, �loscow, vol 1 . 1 1 pp 191-198.
JNNNGS t J E 1 A B A BRNK and A A B WILLIMS ( 1973) 1
Revised uide to soil profiling for civil engineer­
ing purposes n Southen Africa. Trns SA Inst Civ
ngrs1 vol 1 5 , no 1 1 pp 3-1 2.
JNNNGS t J E and J E ERRICH ( 1962): The heaving of
buildings and the associated economic consequences,
with particular reference to the Orange ree State
Goldfields. The Civ ngr in Sth Africa, 5 : 5 : 1 22.
JOHANSSON, B ( 1 970) larkproblem i Storstockhahn­
somrSdet. ByggmHstaren, vol 491 no 6 1 pp 7-14.
KERISL1 J ( 1 975)1 Old structures in relation to
soil conditions . 1 5th Rankine Lecture. Geotech­
nique , vol 251 no 3 , pp 433-483.
KERISL, J and l QUATRE (1968): Settlements under
foundations. Civ ng Pub Wks Rev , olay.June.
DI1 A ( 1 957 ) :
Bearing capacity of piles and pile
groups. Proc 4th Int Conf SFE1 vol 21 pp 46-51 .
DI1 A ( 1 960)1 Bemerkungen zur Frage der Tra­
f.higkeit von Pfahlgruppen. Symp on Pile Foundatns1
Stockholm, pp 89-96.
KING1 G J H and V S CHANDASKAAN ( 1 97a): Inter­
active analysis of a rafted multistorey space frame
resting on n inhomogeneous clay stratum. Proc Conf
E !eth ngg1 niv NS/1 pp 493-509 •
KNG1 G J H and V S CHANDASAAN (197b): An
assessment o f the effects of interaction betleen a
structre and its foundat ion. Conf Settlement of
Structures, Cambridge , Pentech Press, London 1 pp
36-383.
KISHDA1 H (1967): Ultimate bearing capacity of
piles driven into loose sand. Soils nd Foundat ions,
vol 7, no 3, pp 20-29.
LEPKOV1 S N st al (1973): Analysis of the founda­
tion slabs and upper structure interact ion. Proc
8th Int Conf SE1 !osco�r, vol 1 .3 , pp 1 27-1 32.
KOENER, R i and A PAOS ( 197 4) I Settlement of
building on pile foundation in snd. Jnl Geot Div1
ASCE, vol 101 no GT3 1 pp 26-278.
KOIZUMI1 Y and K ITO ( 1 967 ) 1 Field tests 1rith regard
to pile driving and bearing caacity of piled foun­
dat ions. Soils and Foundat ions, vol 7 1 no 3 1 pp
KOVACS1 / D and G A LDNARDS (1975): Settlement of
buildings on pile foundation in sand. Jnl Geot Div
Proc ASCE vol 101 1 no GT21 pp 209-21 1 .
KREGL , H J nd H 11 /IESNER ( 1973): Problems of
stress-strain conditions in subsoil. Pro c 8th Int
Conf Sl·&FE1 vol 1 .3 1 pp 133-141 .
LACE¥, / D and H T S�IAll ( 1957 ) : Design for mining
subsidence. Architects Jnl1 vol 1261 pp 557-570.
LA!·DE, 'l' 1 ( 1 964): l•lethods of estimating settlement.
Jnl Soil Hech Found Div1 ASCE1 vol 901 no SN51 pp
43-67 .
Ll•iE1 T H ( 1973) : Predictions in soil engineering.
Geotechnique1 vol 231pp 1 51-202.
LANACH, 1 J ( 1970 ) : Computation o f settlements in
building frames. Civ igg Pub \·lks Rev, vol 651 pp
100-1043.
LANACH1 1 J and L A HOD ( 1972): The effect of soil­
structure interaction on settlements . Int Symp Comp
Desin1 Dept ng1 Har�rick Univ .
LDNARDS , G A (1968): Predicting settlement of buil­
dings on cly soils. Soil l•!ech Lecture Ser, Founda­
tion Eng, Evanston, Illinois.
LONARS, G A (1972): Settlement of pile foundations
in granular soil. Proc Spec Conf Performance of
arth nd Earthsupported Structures 1 Purdue Univ1
vol 1 1 part 21 pp 1 1 69-1 184.
LDNARDS1 G A ( 1972): Discussion on Shal101, Founda­
tions . Proc Spec Conf n Performance of arth and
arth-supported Structures , Purdue, vol 3 1 pp 1 69-
173.
LIDNAS , G A ( 1 973): Discussion on paper by Cral·l­
ford and Sutherland ( 1 97 1 ) : Canad Geotech Jnl1 vol
10, pp 1 20-1 22.
LONARDS 1 G A (197 4) : Discussion - Sess ion 1 . Proc
Conf Settlement of Structures, Cambridge , Pentech
Press, London , p 669.
LONA' 1 G ( 1973): Setzungskorrekturen an einem m
l'rankfurter Ton gerundeten Hochhaus . Dt Ges rd-u
Grundb 1 Essen, pp 211-218.
LIHS1 H A1 .R T MURAY and I F SYMONS (1 9.(6 ) : Settl­
ments and stability of embanments constructed on
soft alluvial soils. Proc Instn Civ Engrs1 part 21
vol 591 PP 571-593.
LIT.rLE1 ol E R ( 1 969) 1 Discussion - Session 6. Proc
Symp on Desin for �lovement in Buildings . The Con­
cre·�e Soc, London.
LITTLEJO!f1 G S ( 1 97 3 ) : l·lonitoring foundation move­
ments in relation to adjacent ground. Ground Eng1
vol 6 1 no 4, pp 17-22.
Ll'rTLMON, G S ( 1 97 4) : Observat ions of brick �ralls
subjected to mining subsidence. Proc Con' on
Settlement of Structures, Cambridge , Pentecl1 Pre ss,
London, pp 384-393.
541
 l·lACHAD01 J ( 1 961 ) : Settl ement of structures in the
city of Santos, Brazil. Proc 5th Int Conf S!'E1
Paris, vol 1 1 pp 7 1 9-725.
MacLI:'D1 I A and G S LI'L:&JOHN ( 1 9'( 4): Discussion
on Session 5· Conf Settlement of Structures, Cam­
bridge, Pentech Press , London, pp 792-795.
MAINSTONE1 R J ( 1 97 4) :
Discussion - Session 5· Proc
Conf Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, Pentech
Press, London, p 771 .
l·lAJID1 K I and J S CAIG ( 1 97 1 ) : n incremental
finite element analysis of structural interaction
�rith soil of non-linear properties. Proc Symp Int
of Struct and Found1 Birminghm , pp 131-1 45 •
l!AJID1 K I and l·l D GUNNELL ( 1976): A theoretical and
experimental investigation into soil-structure
interaction. Geotechnique1 vol 261 no 21 pp 331 -350
l•Al'SUR1 C I and A H HNTER ( 1 970): Pile tests -
Arkansas River Project. Jnl Soil l•lech Pound Div 1
ASCB1 no Sl•l51 pp 1 5 45-1582.
.!ARSLD1 A ( 1 971 ) : Large in-situ tests to measure
the properties of stiff fissured clys. Proc 1 st
Austl'-Ne1-1 Zealand Conf on Geomechanics1 lelbone1
pp 1 80-1 89.
l·iARSLAND1 A and R QUATERIAlf ( 1 9'( 4): Purther
developments of multipoint manetic extensometers
for use in highly compressible ground. Geotechnique
vol 241 pp 429-433 •
!ASASCH1 K R ( 1976): Soil movements caused by pile
driving in clay . Commission on Pile Res, Royal
S1·redish Acad of Eng Sci1 Report 51 1 Stockholm,
261 PP•
iAT'l' S1 N S and H G POULOS ( 1 969) :
Settlement of
single compressible pile. Jnl Soil !olech Found Div1
Proc ASCE1 vol 951 no Sll1 1 pp 189-207 •
lEIGH1 A C ( 1 975) : Soil Mechanics. Civ lg Ref
Book1 Chapter 81 He1mes-Buttel·1orths1 London.
!EIGH1 A G ( 1 976 ) : The Triassic rocks , 1·rith parti­
cular reference to predicted and obserbed perfol'­
mance of some major foundations. 16th Rankine
Lecture . Geotechnique1 vol 261 no31 pp 391-452.
o!SRI1 G ( 1 973 ) : Coefficient of secondary compres­
sion. Jnl Soil Mech Found Div 1 ASCE1 vol 991 no
S!1 1 pp 123-137•
l·YERHOF1 G ( 1 947) : The settlement analysis of
building frames . Struc Engr1 vol 251 pp 369-09.
loi.ERHOF1 G G ( 1 953): Some recent foundation
research and its application to desin. Struct
Engr1 vol 3 1 1 pp 151-167.
o!EYERHOF1 G G ( 1 956): Discussion on paper by
Skempton et al 'Settlement u1lysis of six struc­
tures in Chicago and London 9 . Proc Instn Civ Engrs
vol 5 1 no 1 1 p 170.
MERH<' 1 G G ( 1959): Compact ion of sand at)d be'­
ing capacity of piles. Jnl Soil iech Found Div1
Proc ASCE1 vol 851 no SM61 pp 1-30.
542
HEERHOF1 G G ( 1 965 ) 1 Shallo�r foundat ions. Jnl Soil
l•!ech Found Div1 ASCE1 vol 91 1 no Sl21 pp 21-31 .
lEYERHO<'1 G G ( 197 4a}l Penetration testing in count­
ries outside Europe. Proc European Symp Penetration
Testing, Stockholm, vol 2 . 1 1 pp -8.
l·ERHOF 1 0 G ( 197 4b)a ltnate bearing capaoity of
footings on sand layer overlying clay. Canad Geot
Jnl1 vol 1 1 1 no 21 pp 223-229.
NEYERHOF1 G G ( 1 976 ) :Bearing capacity and settle­
ment of pile foundat ions. Jnl Geot Div1 Pro c ASCE1
vol 1021 no GT3 1 pp 1 97-228.
NNDLN1 R D ( 1 936) : Force at a point in the intel'­
ior of a semi-infinite solid. Physics, vol 7 1 olay
1936, pp 1 95-202.
M''CHLL 1 R J ( 1 970) : On the yielding and mechanical
strength of Leda cl�. Canad Geoteoh Jnl1 vol 7 1
pp 297-3 1 2 .
!TCHLL 1 R J 1 D A SANGREY nd G S BB ( 1 97 2 ) 1
Foundat ions i n the crust of sensitive clay deposits.
Proc Spec Conf Performance of arth and arth­
Supported Structures, Purdue, vol 1 . 2 1 pp 1051-1072.
lo!O01 0 ( 1 971 ) :
Discussion - Session 3. Proc 4th
Panam Conf SE1 Puerto Rioo1 vol 3 1 pp 156-166.
l·lORICE1 P B and G D BASE ( 1 95 3 ) : The desin and use
of a demountable mechanical strain gauge for con­
crete structures. !ag Concr Res, vol 5 1 no 1 3 1 pp
37-42·
!ORGAN1 J R and C H GERRARD ( 1 97 1 ): Behaviour of
snds under surface loads. Proc ASCE1 vol 971 no
SN61
l·IORGNSTEN1 N R and A L T PN ( 1 968): Stresses
and displacements in a homogeneous non-linear
foundat ion. Proc Int Symp Rock !ech1 !adrid1 pp
313-320.
�IORTON1 K ( 197 4) 1 Discussion - Session 1 . Proo Conf
Settlement Structures, Cmbridge , Pentech Press,
London, pp 66-665.
MORON 1 K and E1 AU ( 1 974)1 Settl ement observations
on eiht structures in London. Proc Conf Settle­
ment of Structures, Cmbridge , Pentech Press, Lon­
don, pp 1 83-203 .
MRAY , R T ( 1 973 ) 1 Computer program for multi­
l�er soil settlement. Civ ng Pub Wks Rev , vol 68
pp 809; 1086-1097 ·
ATIONAL COAL OARD ( 1 97 5 ) : Subsidence ngineers
Handbook. National Coal Board Production Dept, K.
NAYLOR1 D J ( 1 97 1 ) : Discussion - Sess ion 5 · Proc
Roscoe Mem Symp1 Cambridge , Foulis1 pp 61 1-617.
NAYLOR1 D J and J A HOPER ( 1 975) : n effective
Stress finite element nalysis to predict the short
and lon-term behaviour at a piled raft foundat ion
on London Clay. Conf Settlement of Structures,
Pentech Press, pp 39-02.
NAYLOR D J and 0 C ZIKI\IICZ ( 1971 )I Settl ement
analysis of a strip footing using a critical state
 model in conjunction with finite elements , Proc PEI·IAN1 A D J.l and G H HATSOi ( 1 963 ) : Settl ement ob­
Symp Int Struct and Foudn1 Birmingham , pp 93-107, servations on an oil tank , Proc br Conf Sl·l<'}; ,
Vliesbaden1 vol 1 1 pp 1 63-1 7 1 ,
NAHY1 E G ( 1 968) : Crack control in reinforced con­
crete structures, ACI Jnl1 Oct 19681 pp 825-836 , PICLER1 E ( 1 �48): Regional study of the soils fro1n
Sao Paulo, Braz i l . Proc 2nd Int Conf Sl·liE1 vol 3 1
NIKITN t N V 1 A I �IUHALCUK and V I TRAVi ( 1970) ; p 222,
Issledovanie osadok fundamenta televizionoj basni v
Ostakino , Osnov Fund �lech Grunt , vol 1 21 no 21 pp POLSHIN 1 D : and R A TOKAR ( 195() 1 .Iaximum alloHable
32-35· non-unifom settlement of structurs , Proc 4th Int
Conf Sl•-"'E1 vol 1 1 p 02,
NOEILLER, E ( 1 963 ) : Settlement of a grain silo on
fine sand, r Conf S�FE, Hiesbaden, vol 1 1 p 285, POOROSHASB 1 H P ( 1 969 ) : Advances in consolidation
theories for clays. Proc 7th Int Conf Sl��. vol 31
NORDN, 0 and L SVNSSON ( 1 97 4) : Settlement of buil­ pp 491-497·
dings founded on lihtly overconsolidated clay in
�/esten SNeden, Conf Settlement of Structures, Cam­ POULOS 1 H C ( 1 968 ) : Analysis of the settlement of
bridge, Pentech Press, London, pp 1 1 6-122, pile groups , Geotechnique1 vol 1 8 1 no 41 pp 449-�( 1 ,

OSAKI, Y nd 0 SAKAGUCHI ( 1 973 ) : Major types of POULOS1 H G ( 1 97 2 ) : Load�settl ement prediction for
soil deposits in urban areas in Jaan , Soils and piles and piers, Jnl Soil llech l�ound Div 1 ASCE1 vol
Foundations, vol 1 3 1 no 2 1 pp 49-65· 981 no 81·19 1 pp 879-897 .

OHTA, H and S HATA ( 1 97 3 ) : Immediate nd consolida­ POULOS 1 H G ('1974a)& Some recent developments ir• the
tion defonnations of clay, Proc 8th Int Conf SE theoretical analysis of pile behaviour, Soil Necha­
Moscow, vol 1 . ) 1 pp 193-196. nics - Ne1·1 Horizons, K Lee, ed. He1mes-ButterHorths
London, pp 237-Zf9·
OHTA 1 H1 S YOSHITANI and S HATA ( 1 97 5 ) : Anisotropic
stress-strain relationship of clay and its applica­ POULOS , H G ( 1 97 4 b ) & Settlement analysis of structural
tion to finite element analysis, Soils and Founda­ foundation systems, niv of Sydney , School of Civ
tions, vol 1 5 , no 41 pp 61-79• Eng, Res Report R248,

PA1J!ER1 A C ( 1 93 ) : ditor, Proc Symp on the Role POLOS 1 H G and E H DAVIS ( 1 968 ) : l'he settlement be­
of Plasticity in Soil Mechanics, Cambridge niv. haviour of single axially loaded piles and piers,
Geotechnique1 vol 1 8 1 no 31 pp 351-37 1 .
PALMER, L A nd E S BARBER ( 1 9) ) 1 Soil displacement
under a circular loaded area, Proc High Res Board , POULOS1 H G and E H DAVIS ( 1 97 4 ) : t�astic solutions
vol 201 pp 279-286; 3 1 9-332, for soil and rock mechanics, J Iiley & Sons, Nel'l
York ,
PARER, A S nd F V S BAYLISS ( 1 97Q) : The settl ement
behviour of a group of large silos on piled founda­ POULOS 1 H G and H S IA'S ( 1 969) : 'l'he behaviour of
tions, Proc Conf Behaviour of Piles, Instn Civ axially loaded end-bearing piles, Geotechnique1 vol
ngrs 1 pp 59-69 • 19, pp 285-300 .

PARKNSON, J J nd G Y FNOUX ( 1976) 1 Bottom heave RABL�OVICI1 A ( 1 970 ) : Action reciproque entre l.
of excavation in urban site, Proc 6th r Conf structure et le sol de 'ondation, Bull Teclm
SE1 vol 1 , 2 1 pp 641-66, Suisse Rom , vol 961 no 9 1 pp 1 3 1 - 1 3 7 •

PARRY, R H G ( 1 971 ) 1 A direct method of estimating RESE1 L C ( 1 964) : Load versus settlement for an
settlements in sands from SPr values , Proc Symp Int axially loaded pile, Proc Symp on Bearing Capacity
Struct and Found , Bimingham , pp 29-37 , of Piles, Central Bldg Hes Inst, Roorkee1 Indi.1
part 21 pp 18-38.
PECK, R B ( 1 96 5 ) : Bearing capacity and settlement:
Certainties and unce�ainties, Proc Symp Bearing Rendul ic1 L' ( 1 936 ) : Relation betNeen void ratio and
Capacity and Settlement of Foundat ions, Duke Univ 1 effective principal stresses for . remoulded silty
pp 38. clay, Proc 1 st Int Conf SNl�E, vol 31 pp 48-51 ,

PECK, R B ( 1 969) : Deep excavations and tunelling in RSNDIZ, D1 J A NI.TO and J FI;ROA ( 1 967 ) : 'l'he
soft groundZ state of the art report, Proc 7th Int elastic properties of satrated clays from field and
Conf SE1 Mexico, Spec vol1 pp 225-290 , laboratory measurements . Proc 3rd Panam Conf Sl8<'.:,
Venezuel., vol 1 1 pp 443-46 6 ,
PECK, R P ( 1 97 3 ) 1 Presidential Address, 8th Int
Conf SI•FE1 l·losoo1·11 vol 4, 1 , pp 1 56-1 59, RIGBY, C A and D�� ( 1 952) : Crack-resistant hous­
ing. Pub Hks of South Africa, vol 21 no 95·
PECK , R ( 1 97 4): The selection of soil parameters for
the desin of foundations, Second Nabor Carrillo RIOS1 L and F PACHEO SILVA ( 1 9 48): Foundations in
Lecture , Sociedad Maxicana de .Iecanica de Suelos, Do1mto1m 1 Sao Paulo, Braz i l . Proc 2nd Int Conf Sl·&
FE1 vol 41 p 69.
PECK, R B 1 D U D1�RE and J L CAPAC1TE ( 1 956 ) : Dis­
cussion on paper by Skempton 1 A \·/ and .lacDonald1 D H Hl�N, S ( 1 97 4 ) : Issledova.nic vzaimnodejstvija
'The allOI·table settlements of buildings ' , Proc svjazevogo karkas. zdanij.1 fundamentno j plity i
Instn Civ ngrs 1 part 3 1 vol 5 1 p 778. runtovoo osnova.nija, Osnov Fund lech Grunt 1 1 6 16-9.

543
 OSCOE, K H nd J B BUD ( 1968): On the general­ SU!ONS, N ( 1 976) 1
Discussion. 'l'he Structural nr ,
ised stress-strain behaviour of '�et• clay, Symp vol 54, no 8, p 301 .
Eng Plasticity, Cmbrid6 , pp 535-6 1 0 ,
SUIONS , N E and B K NZIS ( 1 97 5 ) : A short course in
OHE, P 1·1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 'l'he influence of geological fea­ foundation engineering. IPC Science and Tech Press.
tures of clay deposits on the desin and performance
of sand drains. Proc Instn Civ �grs, Supplement , S!ONS , f E and N N SOl•! ( 1 969) 1 The influence of
pp 1-72. lateral stresses on the stress defomation character­
istics of London Clay. Proc 7th Int Conf Sl·�,
OI·IE, P 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : he relevnce of soil fabric to l•!exico, vol 1 1 pp 369-377 .
site investigation practice, 1 2th Rankine Lecture.
Geotechnique 1 vol 221 no 21 pp 1 95-300 . SDIONS , N E and N N So! { 1 97 0 ) : Settlement of struc­
tures on clay 11ith partiular emphasis on London Cly
ROI'IB, P H ( 197 4):
Disussion - Session 1 , Proc Conf CIRIA Report 22, London,
Settlement of Structures , Cambridge, Pentech Press,
London, p 670. SIHSON, B ( 1 97 1 ) 1 Discussion - Session 5• Pro c
Roscoe r.em Symp1 Cambridge . Foul i s , pp 609-61 1 ,
O\·IE, P 1 and L BARDlll ( 1 965) : A ne1·1 consolidation
cell, Geotechniqu e 1 vol 16, pp 1 6 2-170, SK»·IP'ON, A \'/ ( 1 953 ) : Discussion on piles and pile
foundations, Proc 3rd Int Conf Sl•&FE1 vol 31 p 172.
SELS, S G and J E ClEY ( 1 974): Lon,..tcm heave
of a building on clay due to tree removal . Proc SKJ�ON, A H ( 1 957 ) 1 Discussion - Session 5 • Proc
Conf Settlement of Structure s , Cmbridge , Pentech 4th Int Conf Sl·FE1 vol 31 pp 1 59-150,
Press, London, 2 1 2-220 .
SKU!PON t A �I and L JERRU! ( 1 9 5 7 ) : A contribution
SANDHU, R S and E L HILSON ( 1 96 9 ) : Finite element to the settlement analysis of foundat ions on clay,
analysis of seepage in elastic media. Pro c ASCE1 Geotechnique, vol 71 no 41 pp 16-178.
vol 951 no M31 pp 641-652.
SKl•TOlf t A 1 and D 'H MaLD ( 1 956 ) : AllOiable
SANGLERA'' , G ( 1 9 7 2 ) : The penetrometer and soil settlement of buildings . Proc Instn Civ ngrs1
eploration. Elsevier-North Holland, 6 4 PP• part 31 vol 51 pp 727-768,

SCHNER'.!llN, J H ( 1 970) 1 Static cone to compute SK!'oN, A H, R B PECK and D H .laDONALD ( 1955) I
static settlement over sand. Jnl Soil oiech Found Settl ement analyses of six structures in Chicago and
Div1 ASCE1 vol 961 no SH31 pp 1 0 1 1-1043. London . Proc Instn Civ ngrs, vol 4, no 41 p 525,

!JCHOFIELD, A N and C P 1'/ROTH (1968): Critical State S�IALL 1 J c, J R BOOKER and E H DAVIS ( 1976): Elasto­
Soil llechanic s , .!cGra1'1-Hil1 1 London. plastic consolidation of soil, Int Jnl Solids
Structures , vol 1 2 , pp 43 1-448.
SCHULTZE, E and G SERIF ( 1 973 ) : Prediction of
settlements from evaluated settlement observations SMITH, I l ( 1 9 7 0 ) : A finite element approach to
for sand. Proc 8th Int Conf S��, vol 1 . 3 , pp elastic soil-structure interaction, Canad Geotech
22-230. Jnl, vol 7 , no 2, pp 95-1 05.

STT, R <' ( 1 963 ) : Principles of Soil �lechanics. S.IITH 1 I i and R HOBBS ( 1 976 ) : Biot analysis of con­
Addison-/esley b Co. solidation beneath embments . Geotechnique , vol
26, no 1 , pp 1 49-1 7 1 ,
SCOTT, R and H Y KO ( 1 96 9 ) : Stress deformation nd
stren�h characteristics - State of the Art Report . SI'l'H1 P D K and J a BULD ( 1976): Performnce of
Proc 7th Int Conf SlPE1 Nexico, Spec vol1 pp 1 - 47 . a high precision multi-point borehole extensometer
in soft rock. Canad Geotech Jnl, vol 1 3 1 no 2, pp
SCHFNt R L , A T CN nd J C JORDI'I ( 1 969) : n 172-176.
analysis of consolidation theories. Proc ASCE1 Jnl
Soil Nech Pound Div, vol 95, pp 28-3 1 2 , SOHl·IER, H ( 1 965) : A method for the calculat ion of
settl ements , contact pressures, and bending moments
SCHIFFMAN t R and R GBSON ( 196 4 ) : Consolidation of in a foundat ion including the influence of the
· non-homogeneous clay lyers. Proc ASCE, Jnl Soil flexural rigidity of the super-structure. · Proc 6th
J.lech Found Div, vol 90, no Sl·15 1 pp 1 , Int Conf Sl·l'E , l•lontreal, vol 2 , pp1 97-201 ,

SED, H D and L C RESE ( 1 957 ) : The action of soft SOVNC 1 I ( 1 961 ) : Stresses and displacements in a
clay along friction piles. Trns ASCE, vol 1 22, limited layer of uniform thicness, resting on a
pp 731-754· rigid base and subjected to an uniformly d·istributed
flexible load of rectanular shape. Proc 5th Int
snm, K F and J R B3BRIGE ( 1 976 ) : 3 1 m deep exc­ Conf Sl·FE, vol 1 , pp 823-827,
vation for construction of Brton nchorage of
Humber Bridge. Proc 6th r Conf SE, Vienna, SOI·/ES f G F, C B !ATN, L L \'/ILSOll and ! FA.SOLD
vol 1 , 2 1 pp 651-656, ( 1 961 ) : The bearing capacity of friction pile
roups in homogeneous clay from model studies, Proc
S!ONS , N E ( 1 97 4) : Normally consolidated and 5th nt Conf SE, vol 2, pp 1 55-159,
lightly over-consolidated cohesive materials : State
of the Art Revie11. Conf Settlement of Structures, STEN<.'LD, K ( 1 968 ) 1 Zur GrUndung von 6-eschossi­
Cmbridge, Pentech Press, London, pp 500-530 , gen Hochhusen in Hmburg, Dt Ges Erd-u Grundb ,

544
 Essen1 pp 35-1 03, of buildinJ founded on river alluvium. Proc Conf
Settlement of' Structures, Cambridge , Pentech Pre:;s1
SfLJE1 L ( 1 9 5 7 ) : 'l'he analysis of the consolidation London, pp 425-442.
process by the isotache method, Proc 4th Int Conf
Sl•B1 London, vol 1 1 pp 20-206, 'lOl�ON0 1 J.I1 .j KAKURAI and l•l OKADA ( 1 9'1 6 ) : Ground and
structure behaviour ouserved during the period of
SLJE1 L ( 1 96 9 ) : Rheological aspects of soil mecha­ construction of a large tmderround structure uy
nics, Hil ey-Interscience1 London, reverse pro cess, 'l'akenaka 'l'ech Re�; Report no 1 ) 1
Takenaka Komuten C o Ltd, Osaka,
SUKLB1 L and I SOVNC ( 1 963 ) : An applied analysis of
distortional displacements of normally consolidated 'l'ORS•ru�SSON, B A ( 1 97 1 ) : Settlements o f structures
clays, Proc r Conf SNFE1 Hiesbaden1 vol 1 1 pp founded on floating piles, Byggm!btnren1 vol 501
193-198. no 51 pp 1 0-1 7 1 Stockholm,

SULLIVAN, A ( 1 97 4 ) : Discussion - Session 3, Conf TSCHBO'l'ARIOl<'1 G P ( 1 9 /P ) : Settlement studies o f

Settlement of Structures, Cmbridge , Pentech Pres s , structures i n Eypt. Proc ASCB1 pp 91 9-972.
London, pp 733-734.
TSCHKBO'rARIo'F1 G P ( 1 97 3 ) : <'oundat ions1 RetaininG
SurERLAND 1 H B ( 1 97 4) 1 Granular materials - State and arth Structures, .lcGrat·l Hill Book Co,
of the Art Report, Proc Conf Settlement of Struc­
tures, Cambridge , Pentech Press, London , pp 4'/3- 499· S'OVICH 1 N A ( 1 96 1 ) : C:eneral Report - Division 3/ll
Proc 5th Int Conf SI•&FE1 vol 2 1 pp 82-835·
SurEPLAliD 1 H and J A LINDSAY ( 1961 ) : The measure­
ment o f load distribution under ttro adjacent column VALLIAPAN1 S 1 S HAN nd I K LB ( 1 9 7 5 ) : ditors.
footings, Proc 5th Int Conf Sl•i&FE1 Paris, vol 1 1 Soil l·!echanics - Recent Developments, Univ NeN
pp 82-835· South �/ales, Australia.

SVEC 1 0 J and G ! L GLADHELL ( 1 97 3 ) : A triangular VARGAS 1 �i ( 1 98): Building settlement observations

plate bendina element for contact problems, Int Jnl in Sao Paulo, Proc 2nd Int Conf SI·FE1 vol '11 p 1 3 .
Solids Struct1 vol 91 pp 435-446.
VAlGAS 1 l·i ( 1 9 5 5 ) : Poundation of structures o n over­
SII•IY1 R N and N l A TTER ( 1 9 7 6 ) : Lon--term move­ consolidated clay layers in Sao Paulo, Geotecru1ique
ments in an eight-storey reinforced concrete stru­ vol 51 pp 253-266,
ture, Conf Perf Building Structures, Glaso1·1 1
Pentech Press, London, pp 420-429, VARGAS 1 ! and F P SILVA ( 1 9" ( 3 ) : Settlement of tall
buildings in Sao Paulo and Santos , Proc Panam Ree
S mGER1 H F ( 1 97 2 ) : Subsurface investigations for Con On Tal l Buildings, Porto Alegre ,
desin and construction of' foundat ions of buildings,
Task Committee for Fovnd.t ion Desin .lanual of the SIC1 A S ( 1 97 3 ) : Contribution to discussion ­
Soil �leoh and Foundat ions Div, Jnl Sl•U;• Div1 ASCB1 Session 2 , Proc 8th Int Conf S!F'<; , vol 4. 2 1 pp
vol 981 nos �.l5Sl�8. 51-52.

TEIXEIRA , A H ( 1 959 ) : Typical suosoil conditions and. VESIC1 A S ( 1 96 8 ) : Load transfer, lateral loads and
settlement problems in Santos, Braz i l , 1 s t Panam group action of deep fotmdations, Symp on Perf of
Conf SM&FE1 l·lexico 1 vol 1 1 pp 1 49-21 5 , Deep <'oundations1 Spec Tech b 441 AS'l'i 1 pp 5-1 4,

l'EJ CHiAl 1 A �· { 1 97 3 ) : l•!odel investigations o f pile VSIC1 A S ( 1 96 9 ) : F;xperimento 1ith instrumented

groups in sand , Jnl Soil l•leoh <'ound Div ASCB1 vol 99 pile groups in sand, AST.i Spec Pub no 44'11 pp 177-
no Sl·l 2 1 pp 1 99-2 1 7 . 222,

TERZAGHI1 K ( 1 93 5 ) : The actual factor of safety in VSIC1 A S ( 1 9 7 5 ) : Principles of pile foundation

foundations, Struc ng, vol 1 3 1 p 126, design, Duke lh1iv 1 Soil .iech Series no 381 46 PP•

•rERZAGHI1 K ( 1 9/f3 ) : 'rheoretical Soil �!echanics, I·IAD1 H H ( 1 9 5 6 ) : Discussion on paper by Skempton

John \-I iley and Sons, NeN York , and MacDonald ''I'he allo1able settlement of buildings'
Pro c Instn Civ Engrs1 part 3 1 vol 5 1 pp '(82,
TERZAGIU 1 K ( 1 956 ) : Discussion on paper by Skempton
and l•lacDonald 'The allo-1able settlements o f buil­ 14ARD1 1·1 H ( 1 9'(4): Discussion on Session 5 · Conf on
1
dings , Proc Instn Civ l.'ngrs 1 part 3 1 vol 5 1 p T/ 5 • Settlement of Structures, Cambridgs 1 Pentech Press,
London, pp 795-796 ,
TERZAGHI 1 K and H B PECK ( "1967 ) : Soil J.lechanics in
Engineering PraCtice, \·Iiley, Nel'/ York , \·IARD1 H 111 J B BURLD and R 1 GALLOIS ( 1 968) ; Geo­
technical assessment of a site at .ltmdford1 Norfolk,
THUHiAN 1 A G and E D'APPOLONIA ( 1 965) : Computed for a large proton accelerator, Geotechnique1 vol
movement o f friction and end-bearing piles embedded 1 8 , pp 399-43 1 .
in uniform and stratified soils, Proc 6th Int Conf
SI•:1 l•!ontreal1 vol 21 pp 323-32'/ , HARD 1 H H and J B BURLAND ( 1 97 3 ) : The use of ound
strain measurements in civil engineering. Phil
TmOSK0 1 S ( 1 957 ) 1 Strength of Materials - Part 1 Trans Roy Soc1 London A1 vol 'Zl 41 pp 421-428,
D van Nostrand Co Inc1 London ,
NARDLE1 L J and R A FR\SER ( 197 4 ) : Finite element
THORBUNv S and R S L l·!oVICAR ( 1 97 4 ) : The perfomance analysis of a plate on a layered cross-anisotropic

545
 foundation, Conf "inite Element Methods in Eng1
niv NSi·/1 pp 56-578,
\�HITAER 1 T and R \·/ OOE ( 1 966 ) : An vest igation
of the shaft and base resistnce of large bored
piles in London Clay, Proc Large Bored Piles, Instn
Civ Engrs 1 London, pp 7-50·
\'lONG, P K K and R J o!ITCLL ( 1 97 5 ) : Yielding and
plastic flovl of sensitive cemented clay, Geotech­
nique, vol 251 no 41 pp 763-782,
HOOD1 L A and �I J LANACH ( 1 974} : The effects of
soil-structure interaction on raft foundat ions,
Proc Con£ Settlement of Structures, Cambridge,
Pentech Press, London, pp 460-470 ,
\'IOOD1 L A and 1 J ANACH ( 1 975} : The interactive
behaviour of a soil-structure system and its effect
on settlement, Symp Analysis Soil Behaviour and ita
Application to Geotechnical Structures, niv NSW ,
WOOD, R H ( 1 952): Studies n composite construction,
Part 1 1 National Building Studies , Res paper 1 3 1
London MSO.
WOD, R H nd R J MANSTONE ( 1 955 ) 1 Stress measure­
ments in the steel frme of the new Govement
Offices, Hhitehall Gardens, Proc Con£ on the Corre­
lation betv1een Calc and Obs Stresses and Disp in
Structures, Instn Civ nrs, London, pp 7-106,
546
HOTH 1 C P ( 1 97 1 ) : Some aspects of the elastic beha­
viour of overconsolidated clay. Proc Roscoe lem
Symp, Fouli s , pp 347-361 ,
HRO''H1 C P ( 1 976a}: General Report to Session 3/A ,
Conf Performance of Building Structures , Glasgo1�,
Pentech Press, London.
HROTH1 C P (1976b) 1 The predicted performance of soft
cly under a trial embment loading based on the
Cam-clay model , 'Finite Elements in Geomechanics'
editor G Gudehus, J Hiley & Son Ltd.
HRO'rH, C P and B SD!SON ( 1 97 2 } : n induced failure
at a trial embment : Part 21 Finite Element Com­
putations , Proc Spec Con£ on Perfomance of arth
and arthSupported Structures , Purdue, vol 1 , 1 1
pp 65-79·
YEOOROV1 K E and A NICHIPOROVICH ( 1 96 1 ) : Research
on the deflection of foundations. Proc 5th Int Con£
SE, Paris, vol 1 1 pp 861-866,
YU1 T 1·1 1 H Y SHU and Y X OliG ( 1 96 5 ) 1 Settlement
analysis of pile foundations in Shanghai . Proc 6th
Int Conf SHl�E, vol 2, pp 356-359,
ZE1VAERT1 L ( 1 973 ) : Foundation Engineering for
Difficult Subsoil Conditions. van Nostrand Reinhold
Co, Ne1·1 York ,