Sivakugan, N. & Johnson, K. (2004). Géotechnique 54, No.
7, 499–502
TECHNICAL NOTE
Settlement predictions in granular soils: a probabilistic approach
N. S I VAK U G A N * a n d K . J O H N S O N †
KEYWORDS: footings/foundations; design; settlement
INTRODUCTION
It is believed that, for typical shallow foundations in gran-
ular soils, settlement considerations are more critical than
bearing capacity considerations, especially when the founda-
tion width is greater than 1.5 m (Jeyapalan & Boehm, 1986;
Tan & Duncan, 1991; Berardi & Lancellotta, 1994). The
settlement prediction exercise in Texas, USA, in 1994 clearly
demonstrated the inadequacy of the current state of the art
of settlement prediction (Briaud & Gibbens, 1994). In spite
of having abundant soil data through extensive laboratory
and in-situ tests, the predictions were quite poor. In a typical
design situation, where the engineer has only access to very
limited soil data, the problems can only be compounded.
Probabilistic/reliability studies and risk assessments have
become increasingly popular in geotechnical engineering
over the past few decades. Geotechnical engineers will
continue to use their preferred settlement prediction meth-
ods, but some guidance on the risk associated with the
predictions will be very valuable. The objective of this note
is to propose a simple probabilistic model with design
charts, for four different settlement prediction methods,
which enable the designer to quantify the probability that
the settlement will exceed a specific limiting value. For the
same input data, the settlement predictions can be quite
different depending on the method employed. At present
there is no rational procedure for comparing these different
predictions. The probabilistic design charts proposed herein
will provide a baseline from which all settlement prediction
methods can be compared against each other.
CURRENT STATE OF THE ART
Traditional settlement prediction methods recognise that
applied soil pressure, soil stiffness and foundation width are
the most important factors affecting settlements. Two other
factors that contribute to a lesser extent are the shape and
depth of the foundation. The most difficult part in the
settlement prediction exercise is assigning appropriate values
for the soil stiffness.
The poor state of the art for prediction of settlements in
granular soils is well documented in the literature. Douglas
(1986) reported the existence of more than 40 different
methods for predicting settlements in granular soils. There is
still no unanimous agreement on which method is the best.
Geotechnical engineers often have their preferred methods
based on their beliefs. For example, in the Settlement ’94
prediction session held in Texas, the 31 international experts
Manuscript received 2 December 2003; revised manuscript accepted
25 March 2004.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 April 2005, for further details
see p. ii.
* Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, James Cook
University, Townsvillle, Australia.
† Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd, Townsville, Australia.
499
used 22 different methods: the most popular ones among the
consultants were the Schmertmann et al. (1978) and Burland
& Burbidge (1985) methods, whereas the academics pre-
ferred finite element methods.
Settlements computed by different methods had been com-
pared against measured settlements by several researchers
(Jeyapalan & Boehm, 1986; Tan & Duncan, 1991;
Papadopoulos, 1992; Berardi & Lancellotta, 1994; Sivakugan
et al., 1998). Substantial scatter was reported for all meth-
ods. The scatter may be due to the randomness associated
with the soils, to inaccuracies in the prediction model, or to
the soil stiffness derived from the penetration resistance
using empirical correlations. Berardi et al. (1991) attributed
some of these differences to the fact that in most cases the
settlements were so small that they were not measured
precisely. In addition, some of the settlement records re-
ported in these analyses used estimated soil pressures
(D’Appolonia et al., 1968). In view of the significant scatter
in the predictions, Sivakugan et al. (1998) proposed artificial
neural networks as an effective tool for predicting settle-
ments of shallow foundations in granular soils. Once trained
by the data from literature, the method gave predictions
better than most traditional methods.
The three most popular settlement prediction methods are
those proposed by Terzaghi & Peck (1967), Schmertmann
et al. (1978), and Burland & Burbidge (1985). In these three
methods the soil stiffness is taken into account through the
penetration resistance from the standard penetration test in
the form of blow count, or from the cone penetration test in
the form of cone resistance. The same stiffness would be
used for any strain level. Noting the fact that the soil
stiffness decreases with strain level, Berardi & Lancellotta
(1994) proposed a new iterative procedure whereby it is
possible to account for the strain level beneath the founda-
tion and use appropriate values for the soil stiffness.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Sivakugan & Johnson (2002) carried out a statistical
analysis on settlements predicted by the above four methods.
They showed that the settlement ratio, defined as the ratio of
predicted to actual settlements, follows a beta distribution,
and presented histograms along with the beta distribution
parameters. The probability density function of a random
variable X following a beta distribution is given by
ˆ(Æ þ
) 1
f (X ) ¼ (x
a)Æ
1 (b
x)

1 ,
ˆ(Æ)ˆ(
) (b
a)Æþ

1
for a < x < b (1)
where ˆ is the gamma function, defined as
ð1
ˆ(
) ¼ x

1 e
x dx
0
Here a and b are the minimum and maximum possible
values for x. The advantage of the beta distribution is that it
allows lower and upper limits and skewness to be associated
500
with the random variable X, and enables a more realistic
distribution to be fitted to a given set of data. Further,
previous studies by Berardi & Lancellotta (1994) showed
clearly that settlement ratios are better modelled by the beta
distribution than by the log-normal or other distributions.
Using the parameters given by Sivakugan & Johnson
(2002), and the procedures described by Harr (1977) for
computing gamma functions, the following probability den-
sity functions were determined for the four settlement pre-
diction methods:
Berardi & Lancellotta:
: :
f (x) ¼ 0:0499x
0 21 (4:33
x)1 65
Burland & Burbidge:

0:09
f (x) ¼ 0:0142(x
0:16) (6
x)
for 0:16 < x < 6:00
Terzaghi and Peck:
: :
f (x) ¼ 0:0251(x
0:55)
0 51 (14:29
x)0 77
for 0:55 < x < 14:29
Schmertmann et al.:
: :
f (x) ¼ 0:0046(x
0:39)
0 29 (11:3
x)1 72
for 0:39 < x < 11:3
Here x is the value taken by the settlement ratio X, which is
a random variable. The lower and upper bounds, a and b,
are simply the minimum and maximum settlement ratios
observed within the settlement records. These probability
density functions are plotted along with the histograms in
Fig. 1. All four probability distributions are of reverse-J
shape, strongly skewed to the right, taking the maximum
value of 1 at x ¼ a.
SIVAKUGAN AND JOHNSON
PROBABILISTIC DESIGN CHARTS
The probability of failure, pf , can be defined as the
probability that the actual settlement will exceed the speci-
fied limiting value. When the predicted settlement is S, and
the measured settlement is Y, the settlement ratio X (¼ S/Y)
is a random variable modelled by the probability distribu-
tions given in equations (2)–(5). If the limiting value is
25 mm, the probability of failure, pf , is given by
pf ¼ p[Y > 25] ¼ p[S=X > 25] ¼ p[X < S=25]
For example, when the settlement predicted using the Terza-
ghi & Peck method is 35 mm,
for 0 < x < 4:33 (2) pf ¼ p[X < 35=25] ¼ p[X < 1:4]
Using the BETADIST function in Microsoft Excel 2000,
2:03 with the beta distribution parameters for the Terzaghi &
Peck method given in Sivakugan & Johnson (2002), pf ¼
(3) 0.35. Here, the BETADIST function gives the probability of
X being less than the specified value, which is 1.4.
For a series of different values of S, and different limiting
settlement values, pf values were determined, and this was
repeated for all four settlement prediction methods. The
(4) values of pf were plotted against the predicted settlement, as
shown in Figs 2–5. From the settlement predicted by any
one of these four methods, one can obtain the probability
( pf ) that the actual settlement will be greater than a limiting
(5) value, using this chart. Limiting values in a wide range of
15–40 mm are considered in developing the design charts.
As the 25 mm limit is the most common, this curve is
shown darker. Most of the discussion hereafter, unless stated
otherwise, is based solely on the limiting settlement of
25 mm.
The computed settlement value can have quite a different
meaning depending on the settlement prediction method
used. For the same predicted settlement, the probability of
exceeding the limiting settlement can vary significantly,

1·4 66·08 1·4 66·08

Probability density function

1·2 56·64
Probability density function

1·2 56·64
1 47·2 1 47·2
Frequency

Frequency
0·8 37·76 0·8 37·76
0·6 28·32
0·6 28·32
0·4 18·88
0·4 18·88
0·2 9·44
0·2 9·44
0 0
0 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 0
Predicted settlement/Actual settlement 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

(a) Predicted settlement/Actual settlement

(b)
1·4 66·08
1·4 66·08
Probability density function

1·2 56·64
Probability density function

1·2 56·64
1 47·2
1 47·2
Frequency

Frequency

0·8 37·76
0·8 37·76
0·6 28·32
0·6 28·32
0·4 18·88
0·4 18·88
0·2 9·44
0·2 9·44
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Predicted settlement/Actual settlement Predicted settlement/Actual settlement
(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Histograms and beta distributions for the settlement ratios: (a) Terzaghi & Peck (1967); (b) Schmertmann et al. (1978); (c)
Burland & Burbidge (1985); (d) Berardi & Lancellotta (1994)
 SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS IN GRANULAR SOILS 501
1·0 1·0

0·9 0·9

0·8 0·8
Allowable settlement limit ⫽ 15 mm

p [actual field settlement ⬎ allowable limit]

p [actual field settlement ⬎ allowable limit]

0·7 0·7
20 mm

0·6 0·6
25 mm

0·5 Allowable settlement limit ⫽ 15 mm 0·5

30 mm

20 mm 35 mm
0·4 0·4
40 mm
25 mm
0·3 30 mm 0·3
35 mm
40 mm 0·2
0·2

0·1 0·1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Predicted settlement: mm
Predicted settlement: mm

Fig. 4. Design chart for Burland & Burbidge (1985) method

Fig. 2. Design chart for Terzaghi & Peck (1967) method

1·0 1·0

0·9 0·9 Allowable settlement limit ⫽ 15 mm

0·8 0·8 20 mm
p [actual field settlement ⬎ allowable limit]
p [actual field settlement ⬎ allowable limit]

25 mm
0·7 0·7
30 mm

0·6 0·6 35 mm
Allowable settlement limit ⫽ 15 mm 40 mm
0·5 0·5

0·4 20 mm 0·4

25 mm
0·3 0·3
30 mm
35 mm
0·2 40 mm 0·2

0·1 0·1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Predicted settlement: mm Predicted settlement: mm

Fig. 3. Design chart for Schmertmann et al. (1978) method Fig. 5. Design chart for Berardi & Lancellotta (1994) method

depending on the selected method. This is illustrated in probability that the actual settlement in the field will exceed
Table 1, where probability values of the field settlement 25 mm.
exceeding 25 mm are shown for the four methods. For It can be seen from Figs 2–5 that Terzaghi & Peck’s
example, a 20 mm settlement computed by the Terzaghi & method is the most conservative of the four. For example,
Peck or Schmertmann et al. method implies a 0.20 (20%) when the method predicts 25 mm settlement, there is only a
probability that the actual settlement in the field is greater 0.26 (26%) probability that the actual settlement will exceed
than 25 mm. If the same settlement of 20 mm is estimated 25 mm. On the other hand, the more sophisticated Berardi &
using Berardi & Lancellotta method, there is a 0.52 (52%) Lancellotta method gives predictions closer to the actual
502 SIVAKUGAN AND JOHNSON
Table 1. Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field
Predicted Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in field
settlement:
mm Terzaghi Schmertmann Burland & Berardi &
& Peck et al. Burbidge Lancellotta
1 0 0 0 0.06
5 0 0 0.03 0.19
10 0 0.02 0.15 0.32
15 0.09 0.13 0.25 0.43
20 0.20 0.20 0.34 0.52
25 0.26 0.27 0.42 0.60
30 0.31 0.32 0.49 0.66
35 0.35 0.37 0.55 0.72
40 0.387 0.42 0.61 0.77

values. Here, a 25 mm prediction implies that there is a 0.60 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

(60%) probability that the actual settlement will exceed
25 mm. For predicted settlements up to about 40 mm the
Terzaghi & Peck and Schmertmann et al. methods have
similar levels of probability that the actual settlement in the
field will exceed 25 mm.
This research was funded by the Australian Research
Council and DETYA, and their financial support is gratefully
acknowledged.

CONCLUSION
The design of shallow foundations in granular soils is
generally governed by the settlement criteria rather than by
the bearing capacity. Typically, the foundations are designed
such that the settlements are limited to 25 mm. There is
substantial uncertainty associated with the different settle-
ment prediction methods; most of the time the predicted
settlement greatly exceeds the actual settlement in the field.
Unless the uncertainty is quantified, there is a tendency for
designers to design the foundation conservatively. Therefore
any attempt to quantify the uncertainty in the different
settlement prediction methods will be well received by
geotechnical engineers and researchers.
Using an extensive database of settlement records, it is
shown in this paper that, for the four settlement prediction
methods reviewed, the ratio of predicted to measured settle-
ment, defined as the settlement ratio, follows a reverse
J-shaped beta distribution with a strong skew to the right.
Using the beta distribution parameters, separate design charts
were developed for the four methods, which enable the
designer to estimate the probability that the actual settlement
in the field will exceed a certain limiting value. In addition
to the traditional 25 mm limiting value of settlement in
granular soils, other values from 15 mm to 40 mm limits are
considered, which gives the user an option, especially in the
case of unconventional structures where different settlement
limits may be recommended.
The proposed design charts are based on settlement
records representing a wide range of footings, well docu-
mented in the literature. In using the design charts, it should
be assumed that the reliability and uncertainty associated
with the current input parameters, including the field data,
are comparable to the settlement records. The uncertainties
associated with the different settlement methods have been
built into the proposed design chart, which would become a
very valuable tool in the design of shallow foundations. The
probabilistic approach proposed herein can be extended to
include other settlement prediction methods as well.
REFERENCES
Berardi, R. & Lancellotta, R. (1994). Prediction of settlements of
footings on sand: accuracy and reliability. Proceedings of Settle-
ment ’94, 1, 640–651.
Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M. & Lancellotta, R. (1991). Settlement
of shallow foundations in sands: selection of stiffness on the
basis of penetration resistance. Geotechnical Engineering Con-
gress 1991, Geotechnical Special Publication 27, 185–200.
Briaud, J.-L. & Gibbens, R. M. (1994). Predicted and measured
behaviour of five spread footings on sand, Geotechnical Special
Publication 41. Texas: ASCE.
Burland, J. B. & Burbidge, M. C. (1985). Settlement of foundations
on sand and gravel. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 78, No. 1, 1325–
1381.
D’Appolonia, D. J., D’Appolonia, E. & Brissette, R. F. (1968).
Settlement of spread footings on sand. J. Soil Mech. Found.
Div., ASCE 94, No. SM3, 735–760.
Douglas, D. J. (1986). State-of-the-art. Ground Engng 19, No. 2,
2–6.
Harr, M. E. (1977). Mechanics of particulate media. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Jeyapalan, J. K. & Boehm, R. (1986). Procedures for predicting
settlements in sands. In Settlements of shallow foundations on
cohesionless soils: design and performance, (ed. W. O. Martin)
pp. 1–22. Seattle: ASCE.
Papadopoulos, B. P. (1992). Settlements of shallow foundations
on cohesionless soils. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 118, No. 3,
377–393.
Schmertmann, J. H., Hartmann, J. P. & Brown, P. R. (1978).
Improved strain influence factor diagrams. J. Geotech. Engng
Div., ASCE 104, No. 8, 1131–1135.
Sivakugan, N. & Johnson, K. (2002). Probabilistic design chart for
settlements of shallow foundations in granular soils. Aust. Civ.
Engng Trans. CE 43, 19–24.
Sivakugan, N., Eckersley, J. D. & Li, H. (1998). Settlement predic-
tions using neural networks. Aust. Civ. Engng Trans. CE40,
49–52.
Tan, C. K. & Duncan, J. M. (1991). Settlement of footings on
sands: accuracy and reliability. Proc. Geotech. Engng Cong.
1991, Colorado 1, 446–455.
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering
practice, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.