You are on page 1of 11

19

Braja M. Das* 1 and Nagaratnam Sivakugan 2

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview

ABSTRACT: The main objective of this paper is to review the cur rent state-of-the-art for predicting settlements of shallow foundations in granular soils. The traditional settlement prediction methods are critically reviewed. The Settlement ’94 predic- tion session held in Texas clearly showed the deficiencies in the present settlement prediction methods, which generally over- estimate the settlements and underestimate the allowable pressures, making the foundation designs very conservative. Some recent developments, including two deterministic methods and a probabilistic approach, are discussed as they have significant potential to improve the current state-of-the-art. Several empirical correlations relating the modulus of elasticity of soil and penetration resistances and standard penetration and cone penetration tests are summarized.

KEYWORDS: Shallow foundations, granular soils, settlements, empirical correlations, Settlement ’94

1. INTRODUCTION

Shallow foundations are generally designed to satisfy bearing capacity and settlement criteria. The bearing capacity crite- rion stipulates that there is adequate safety against bearing capacity failure beneath the foundation, and a factor of safety of three is generally used on the computed ultimate bearing capacity. Settlement criterion is to ensure that the settlement is within tolerable limits. It is commonly believed that the settlement criterion is more critical than the bearing capacity one in the designs of shallow foundations, especially for foundation width greater than 1.5 m, which is often the case. By limiting the total set- tlements, differential settlements and any subsequent dis- tresses to the structure are limited. Generally the settlements of shallow foundations such as pad or strip footings are lim- ited to 25 mm (Terzaghi et al. 1996). Douglas (1986) reported the existence of more than 40 different methods for estimating settlements in granular soils. All these methods recognize that the applied pressure, soil stiffness and the foundation width are the three most impor- tant variables affecting the settlements in granular soils. Soil stiffness is often quantified indirectly through penetration

*Corresponding Author

1 Geotechnical Engineer, Henderson, Nevada 89044 USA, e-mail: brajam- das@gmail.com

2 Associate Professor and Head of Civil and Environmental Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, AUSTRALIA, siva.sivakugan@jcu.edu.au

resistance such as blow count from standard penetration test or tip resistance from cone penetration test. The objective of this paper is to present the current state-of-the-art for com- puting settlements of shallow foundations on granular soils, discuss some of the popular methods and review the empiri- cal correlations for estimating the soil stiffness.

2. CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-ART

The most popular methods for settlement predictions, dis- cussed commonly in text books, are the ones proposed by Terzaghi and Peck (1948), Schmertmann (1970), Schmertmann et al. (1978) and Burland and Burbidge (1985). Meyerhof (1956) and Peck and Bazaraa (1969) meth- ods are similar to the one proposed by Terzaghi and Peck (1948). Two of the more recent methods are after Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) and Mayne and Poulos (1999). Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) proposed a probabilistic approach quan- tifying the uncertainties associated with the settlement pre- diction methods. Computed and measured settlements of full-scale foot- ings have been compared by Jeyapalan and Boehm (1986), Papadopoulos (1992) and Sivakugan et al. (1998). The mes- sage is loud and clear that the predictions are generally signif- icantly greater than the measured values. Based on 79 case histories of shallow foundations, Sivakugan et al. (1998) showed that Terzaghi and Peck (1948) method overestimates the settlements by 218% and Schmertmann (1970) method overestimates the settlements by 339%.

20

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Calculated settlement Settlement ratio (x) = Measured settlement Reliability
Calculated
settlement
Settlement
ratio
(x)
=
Measured
settlement
Reliability

1
X

ratio (x) = Measured settlement Reliability — 1 X bility among all methods. Terzaghi and Peck

bility among all methods. Terzaghi and Peck (1948) and Schmertmann (1970) methods appear to have high reliability

and poor accuracy, reflecting their conservativeness. On the

other hand, Burland and Burbidge (1985) and Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) methods have good accuracy, with values close to unity, but low reliability.

f x (x)

2.2 Settlement ’94 Prediction Session

Briaud and Gibbens (1994) documented the class A settle- ment prediction session held at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas in 1994, where 16 academics and 15 consultants participated. An extensive site investigation involving 7 cone penetration tests, 6 standard penetration

tests, 4 dilatometer tests, 4 pressuremeter tests, 4 cross hole
X

tests, 3 bore hole shear tests and a step blade test was carried out at a 12 m 18 m site, where five different square pad footings were to be load tested to failure at a future date. Laboratory test data including maximum/minimum densi-

ties, specific gravity of the grains, natural water content, void

ratio, densities and friction angles were also available for sand samples taken from 0.6 m and 3.0 m depths. The soil profile consisted predominantly of sands. The soil data were avail-

able to all participants, who were asked to predict the loads,

Q 25 and Q 150 , which would make the five footings settle by 25

Accuracy

Figure 1. Accuracy and reliability in settlement predictions.

2.1 Accuracy and Reliability of the Different

Methods

Tan and Duncan (1991) defined two parameters for compar- ing settlement prediction methods: accuracy and reliability . Accuracy is how close the predic tions by a specific method are to the measured values, and is defined as the average value of the ratio of the calculated to measured settlements. Reliability is the probability that the actual settlements would be less than those computed by a specific method. It is a measure of conservativeness of a settlement prediction method. The probabilistic representation of these two terms, accuracy and reliability, is shown in Figure 1. Here, settlement ratio (x) is defined as the ratio of calculated to measured set- tlements. A good method should have accuracy closer to 1 and reliability closer to 100%. Tan and Duncan (1991) found that there is generally a trade-off between accuracy and relia-

mm

and 150 mm, respectively. Q 25 is the allowable footing

load

satisfying the settlement criterion, and Q 150 is more or

less the failure load corresponding to ultimate bearing capac-

ity. The predicted and measured Q 25 and Q 150 values are summarized in Table 1. Also shown in the table are the values of measured Q 150 divided by the safety factors of 2.5 and 3,

which are the allowable foot ing loads that satisfy the bearing capacity criterion. It is interesting to note that in all five foot-

ings,

these allowable loads satisfying bearing capacity crite-

rion

are reached before the loads corresponding to settlement

criterion. In other words, bearing capacity considerations

Table 1. Predicted and measured values of Q 25 and Q 150

Footing dimensions (m)

 

1.0 × 1.0

1.5 × 1.5

2.5 × 2.5

3.0 × 3.0

3.0 × 3.0

Q 25 :

Measured (kN):

850

1500

3600

5200

4500

Predicted/Measured:

Range

0.07-1.29

0.08-1.73

0.08-1.19

0.08-1.23

0.09-1.24

 

Mean

0.71

0.84

0.68

0.69

0.70

Std.dev.

0.30

0.60

0.29

0.28

0.35

Q 150 :

Measured (kN):

1740

3400

7100

10250

9000

Predicted/Measured:

Range

0.12-2.28

0.12-3.34

0.15-2.32

0.15-2.51

0.15-3.11

 

Mean

0.65

0.81

0.99

1.08

1.12

Std.dev.

0.45

0.64

0.55

0.59

0.69

Q 150/ 2.5 (Allowable load with FS = 2.5) Q 150/ 3.0 (Allowable load with FS = 3.0)

 

696

1360

2840

4100

3600

580

1133

2367

3417

3000

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview

21

(mm)

Settlement

govern the failure of all footings, as opposed to the common belief that the settlement considerations are more critical. This is probably due to the overestimations in the settlement prediction methods that result in underestimation of the allowable pressures. A total of 22 different methods were used by the partici- pants, with Schmertmann (1970, 1978), Burland and Burbidge (1985) and finite element analysis being more pop- ular. Table 1 shows that the quality of predictions were better for Q 150 than Q 25 , emphasizing the poor state-of-the-art for settlement predictions of shallow foundations in sands.

3. TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PREDICTION METHODS

The traditional settlement prediction methods that were widely used over the past two decades or more are discussed in this section. These methods are discussed in great detail in several foundation engineering text books.

3.1 Terzaghi and Peck (1948) and Related

Methods

Terzaghi and Peck (1948) proposed the first rational method for estimating the settlement of a square footing on granular soils. They carried out plate load tests using a 300 mm square plate on sands with N 60 = 10, 30 and 50 respectively and the pressure-settlement plots are shown in Figure 2. Here, N 60 is the blow count from standard penetration test, not corrected for overburden stress. They related the settlement of a B meter wide square footing (δ footing ) to that of a 300 mm plate (δ plate ) by the following equation:

δ

=

δ

footingplate

×

2

B

2

D

f

B +

0

.

3

4

B

1

(1)

The last term in Eq. 1 accounts for the depth of embedment. Presence of water table in the vicinity of the footing is reflected in the blow count and therefore a separate correc- tion for water table is not warranted. Nevertheless, rise of water table, while in service, can reduce the stiffness and pro- duce additional settlements. Meyerhof (1965) noted the conservativeness in his previ- ous method (Meyerhof, 1956) and the modified expression for the settlement is:

δ footing

δ footing

(mm)

=

1

.(q 33

kPa

)

N

60

(mm)

=

0

.(q 53

kPa

)

2 B

N

60

B +

0.3

2

for

B

for

B

1.22

>

1.22

m

(2)

(3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

100

200

300

Applied

400

pressure

(kPa)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 =

Loose

Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 = 30
Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 = 30
Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 = 30
Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 = 30

Very

Dense

dense

N 60

=

50

Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 = 30
Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 = 30
Loose Very Dense dense N 60 = 50 Medium N 60 = N 60 = 30

Medium

N 60

=

N 60

=

30

10

Figure 2. Pressure-settlement plot of a 300 mm square plate in sands with N 60 = 10, 30 and 50 (load test data from Late Professor G.A. Leonards).

When correction for depth of embedment is taken into account, Eqs. (2) and (3) would become:

δ footing

(mm)

=

1

.(q 33

kPa

)

1

D

f

N

60

4

B

for

δ footing

(mm)

=

0

.(q 53

kPa

)

2 B

N

60

B +

0.3

2

D

1

ff

4

B

B

for

1.22

B

>

m

1.22

m

(4)

(5)

Peck and Bazaraa (1969) methods adopt Eq. (3), replacing N 60 with (N 1 ) 60 blow count from standard penetration test corrected for overburden stress. The settlement should then be multiplied by water table correction and depth correction. Thus,

δ footing

where

(mm)

= C

W

C

D

0

.(

53

q

kPa

)

2 B

⎞⎞

(

N

1

)

60

B +

0.3

2

C

W

=

σ

at

0.5

B

below

the

bottom

of

the

foundattion

 

o

σ

at

0.5

B

below

the

bottom

of

the

fo

uundation

o

(6)

(7)

σ o = total overburden stress σ´ o = effective overburden stress

C

D

=

10

.

04

.

γ D

f

q


0

.

5

(8)

γ = unit weight of soil The relationships for (N 1 ) 60 are:

and

(

N

1

)

60

=

4 N

60

1

+

0.0

4

σ

o

(for

σ

′ ≤

o

75

kN/m

2 )

(9)

22

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Q l 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 l
Q
l
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
l z
l z
z
0
0
0
B
0.5 B
0.5 B
0.5 B
B
B
B
peak
l z
(see
Eq
14)
2 B
2 B
2 B
3 B
3 B
3 B
4 B
4 B
4 B
(c)
Terzaghi
et
al.
(1996)
(a)
Schmertmann
(1970)
(b)
Schmertmann
et
al.
(1978)
z
z
z
Figure 3. I z – z variation: (a) Schmertmann (1970), (b) Schmertmann et al. (1978), (c) Terzaghi et al. (1996).
4 N
σ
2
60
(10)
o
(12)
(
N
)
=
(for
σ
75
kN/m
)
′ >
C
= 1 −
05
.
0.5
1
60
oo
1
3.25
+
0.01σ
q
o
net
While Meyerhof (1965) and Peck and Bazaraa (1969) expres-
sions imply that the settlement is proportional to the applied
pressure, the load test data (Figure 2) clearly show that this is
not the case in loose and medium sands. It can also be seen
that δ footing /δ plate increases with B, and takes the maximum
of 4 at very large B.
These methods were originally developed for square
footings, but are valid for strip footings too. The higher set-
tlement due to deeper influence zone is compensated by the
increase in the soil stiffness due the plane strain situation.
t
′ ⎞
C
=
1
+
02
.
log
2
0
. 1
(13)
3.2 Schmertmann (1970) and Related Methods
Schmertmann (1970) proposed a simple semi-empirical
expression, based on elastic analysis and supported by model
tests and finite element analysis, to estimate the settlement of
a footing on granular soil as:
Here, σ′ o = effective overburden stress at the foundation
level, q net = net applied pressure at foundation level, and t′ =
time since loading in years. The variation of the influence fac-
tor I z with depth is represented by the “2 B-0.6 diagram”
shown in Figure 3a. The modulus of elasticity (E) is estimated
from the cone resistance from a static cone penetration test as
E = 2 q c .
Schmertmann et al. (1978) made some modifications to
the above method, with new influence factors as shown in
Figure 3b, separating square and strip footings. The influence
factor peaks at a depth of 0.5B for square footing and B for
strip footing, and the peak values are given by:
q
net
(14)
I
=
05
.
+
01
.
z
,
peak
z
= 2
B
σ
I
dz
o
z
(11)
=
CCq
δ footing
1
2
net
E
z
= 0
where C1 and C2 are the depth and time correction factors
given by:
where σ′ o is computed at the depth where I z,peak occurs.
Noting that the stiffness is about 40% larger for plane strain
compared to axisymmetric loading, they suggested that E =
2.5 qc for square footings and E s = 3.5q c for strip footings. For
B/L
= 1
B/L
= 1
B/L
= 0
0
<
B/L
< 1
B/L
= 0

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview

23

rectangular footings, the settlements should be computed for square and strip footing of the same width, and interpolated on the basis of B/L (L = length of footing). Terzaghi et al. (1996) simplified this further and sug- gested influence factors as shown in Figure 3c. Here, I z, peak = 0.6 for both square and strip. For rectangular footing, the depth of influence (see Figure 3c) can be computed as:

z

I

=

2

B


1

+

log

L

B

(15)

3.3 Burland & Burbidge (1985) Method

Burland and Burbidge (1985) proposed a semi-empirical method, using the blow counts from standard penetration test, based on the review of an extensive database of settle- ment records of shallow foundations for buildings, tanks and embankments on granular soils. They noted that the influ- ence depth of the footing, z I , is approximately B 0.7 , where B and z I are in meters. They recommend increasing N 60 by 25% in gravel or sandy gravel. For fine sands and silty sands below water table, where N 60 >15, driving of the split spoon sampler can dilate the sands which can produce negative pore water pressures that would increase the effective stresses and hence overesti- mate the blow counts. Here, Terzaghi’s correction given below should be applied:

N 60,corrected = 15 + 0.5(N 60 – 15)

(16)

The compressibility of the soil was represented by a com- pressibility index ( I c ), defined as:

I

c

=

1

.

71

N

1

.

4

60

(17)

where I c is in MPa -1 , and N 60 is the average value of N 60

within the influence depth z I . For overconsolidated granular soils, I c is 1/3 of what is given in Eq. (17). Burland and Burbidge (1985) suggested that the settle- ment can be estimated from:

δ footing = q net I c z I

(18)

In normally consolidated granular soils, Eq. (18) becomes:

δ footing

=

q

net

1

.

71

N

1

.

4

60

B

0

.

7

(19)

In overconsolidated granular soils, with preconsolidation pressure of σ′ p , Eq. (19) becomes:

δ

footing

=

1

q

1

. 71

B

3

net

N

1

. 4

60

0

. 7

if

q

σ

p

(20)

δ

footing

=

q net

2

σ


1

. 71

0
B

3

p

N

1

. 4

60

. 7

i ff

q

σ

p

(21)

The settlements estimated as above apply for square foot- ings. For rectangular or strip footings, the settlements have to be multiplied by the following factor (f s ):

f

s

=


1

.

25

L

/

B

0

.

25

+

L

/

B

2

(22)

The settlements estimated above imply that there is gran- ular soil at least to a depth of z I . If the thickness (H s ) of the granular layer below the footing is less than the influence depth, the settlements have to be multiplied by the following reduction factor (f l ):

f

l

=

H

s

2

H

s

z

I

z

I

(23)

Burland and Burbidge (1985) noted some time-depend- ent settlements of the footings, and suggested a multiplica- tion factor (f t ) given by:

f

t

=+

1

RR

3

+

t

log

t

3

(24)

where R 3 takes into consideration the time dependent settle- ment during the first three years of loading, and the last com- ponent accounts for the time-dependent settlement that takes place after the first three years at a slower rate. Suggested values for R 3 and R t are 0.3-0.7 and 0.2-0.8 respectively. The lower end of the range is applicable for static loads and the upper end for fluctuating loads such as bridges, silos, and tall chimneys.

4. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SETTLEMENT

PREDICTION METHODS

Two recent methods that appear to give better settlement pre- dictions are the ones proposed by Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) and Mayne and Poulos (1999). These two methods are briefly discussed below. Sivakugan and Johnson’s (2004) probabilistic approach is an effective way of quantifying the risk associated with the settlement prediction methods.

4.1 Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) Method

Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) proposed a method to esti- mate the elastic settlement which takes into account the vari- ation of the modulus of elasticity of soil with the strain level. This method is also described by Berardi et al. (1991). According to this procedure:

δ footing

=

I

q

net

B

s
E

(25)

24

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2. Variation of I s

Depth of influence, z I

B

L/B

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1

0.35

0.56

0.63

0.69

2

0.39

0.65

0.76

0.88

3

0.40

0.67

0.81

0.96

5

0.41

0.68

0.84

0.89

10

0.42

0.71

0.89

1.06

where I s = influence factor for a rigid footing (Tsytovich, 1951) and E = modulus of elasticity of soil. The variation of I s (Tsytovich, 1951) with Poisson’s ratio v = 0.15 is given in Table 2. Analytical and numerical evaluations have shown that, for circular and square footings, the depth z 25 below the foot- ing beyond which the residual settlement is about 25% of the surface settlement can be taken as 0.8 to 1.3B. For strip foot- ings ( L/B 10), z 25 is about 50 to 70% more as compared to that for square footings. Thus the depth of influence z I can be taken to be z 25 . The modulus of elasticity E in Eq. (25) can be evaluated as:

E

=

Kp

E

a

σ

+

0

.

5

Δ

σ

o

p

a

0

.

5

(26)

where p a = atmospheric pressure, σ′ o and Δσ′ = effective overburden stress and net effective stress increase due to the foundation loading, respectively, at a depth B/2 below the foundation, and K E = nondimensional modulus number. After reanalyzing the performance of 130 structures found on predominantly silica sand as reported by Burland and Burbidge (1986), Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) obtained the variation of K E with the relative density D r at δ /B = 0.1% and K E at varying strain levels. Figures 4a and 4b show the average variation of K E with D r and

[K E(δ/B) /K E( δ/B =0.1%) ] with δ/B

In order to estimate the elastic settlement of the footing, an iterative procedure is suggested, which can be described as follows:

A. Determine the variation of the blow count from standard penetration test N 60 within the zone of influence, that is z 25 .

B. Determine the corrected blow count ( N 1 ) 60 as:

( N

1

)

60

=

N

60

2

1

+ σ

o

(27)

where σ′ o = vertical effective stress

C. Determine the average corrected blow count from

standard penetration test ( N 1 ) 60 and hence the

average relative density as:

D

r

= ⎛


0 . 5 N ⎞ 1 ⎟ 60 ⎠
0
. 5
N
1
60

(28)

D. With known D r , determine K E (δ/B = 0.1%) from Figure 4a and, hence, E from Eq. (26) for δ/B =

0.1%.

E. With the known value of E from Step D, the mag- nitude of elastic settlement δ footing can be calcu- lated from Eq. (25).

F. If the calculated δ/B is not the same as the assumed δ/B , then use the calculated δ/B from Step E and use Figure 4b to estimate a revised K E (δ/B) . This value can now be used in Eqs. (26) and (25) to obtain a revised δ footing . This iterative procedure can be continued until the assumed and calculated δ footing is the same.

and calculated δ f o o t i n g is the same. (a) Variation of

(a) Variation of K E with D r for δ/B = 0.1%. (b) Variation of

[K E(δ/B) /K E ( δ/B = 0.1%) ] with δ/B (adapted from Berardi and Lancellotta,

1991).

Figure 4.

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview

25

4.2 Mayne and Poulos (1999) Method

Mayne and Poulos (1999) provided a general relationship for elastic settlement calculation of footings using displacement influence factors derived from elasticity continuum theory. Here, it is assumed that the soil stiffness increases linearly with depth, from a value of E o at footing level. According to this theory (Figure 5a):

where

δ

footing

=

q

net

BI

I

I

GFE

(1

− ν

2

)

E

o

(29)

B ′ = ⎛

4 BL

π


0

.

5

= equivalent diameter of a rectangular

footing

ν =Poisson’s ratio of soil

I G =displacement influence factor (Figure 5b) I E =settlement coefficient factor to account for depth

of embedment I F =rigidity coefficient factor

The relationships to estimate I E and I F are:

I

E

I

F

=

=

1

1

π

4

3.5

exp(1.22

ν

0.4)

B

+

 

1

D

f

+

4

6

10

E

f

2

t

3

 

.

+

E

+

B

k

B

 

o

2

 

1.6

⎤ ⎥⎥

(30)

(31)

where E f = modulus of elasticity of the footing material (which is, in most cases, reinforced concrete), t = footing thickness, and k = increase in soil stiffness per unit depth (i.e., E = E o + kz). The above procedure will give good results pro- vided the modulus of elasticity of soil is predicted reasonably well.

4.3 Sivakugan and Johnson’s (2004)

Probabilistic Approach

Noting the different degrees of scatter associated with the set- tlement prediction methods, a probabilistic approach is more appropriate than the traditional deterministic methods. The magnitude of settlement can have different meaning depend- ing on which method was used for the computations. Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) developed a probabilistic framework, based on the settlement records in the literature, to quantify the risk associated with the settlement prediction methods. They proposed probabilistic design charts, for four

B´ q net D f t E f E o Compressible E = soil layer
q
net
D f
t
E f
E o
Compressible
E =
soil layer
H
s
E o + kz
E
v
Rigid Layer
Depth, z

E

(a) 1.0 10.0 >30 5.0 0.8 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 H s lB´
(a)
1.0
10.0
>30
5.0
0.8
2.0
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
H s lB´ = 0.2
0
0.01
0.1
1
10
100

E o lkB´

(b)

Figure 5. Solution of Mayne and Poulos: (a) Footing on a compressible layer; (b) Variation of I G with E o /kBand H s /B.

different settlement prediction methods, which enable the designer to quantify the probability that the actual settlement will exceed a specific limiting value. The design chart for lim- iting settlement value of 25 mm is shown in Figure 6. It can be seen from Figure 6 that when the settlement estimated by Terzaghi and Peck or Schmertmann et al. method is 25 mm, there is only 26% probability that the actual settlement will exceed 25 mm, demonstrating their conservativeness. The Burland and Burbidge method is a clear improvement on the quality of predictions, and the Berardi and Lancellotta method improves this even further.

26

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

mm)

25

exceed

will

settlement

(actual

p

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T

Lancellotta

&

Burbidge

Berardi

&

Burland

al.

et

Schmertmann

Peck

&

erzaghi

T

& erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
Lancellotta & Burbidge Berardi & Burland al. et Schmertmann Peck & erzaghi T
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Predicted settlement
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Predicted
settlement
(mm)
Figure 6. Probabilistic design chart.
Table 3. Correlations between E and N 60 for granular soils
Reference
Relationship
Soil type
0
.
522
⎞ ⎛
σ
σ
σ
o
oo
o
Schultze and Melzer (1965)
Dry sand
E
=
246
.
2
log
N
263
.
4
+
375
.
6
±
57
.
6
for
0
12
.
60
p
p
p
⎠ ⎝
a
a
a
E
Sand
= 5
(
N
+
15
)
60
p
a
Webb (1969)
E
Clayey sand
= 3
.(
33
N
+
5
)
60
p
a
E
Sand
2
Ferrent (1963)
= 751
.(
ν
)
N
60
p
a
E
=+
40
CN
(
6
)
for
N
>
15
60
60
p
a
Begemann (1974)
C = 3 for silt with sand and
12 for gravel with sand
Silt with sand to
gravel with sand
E
=+
40
C
(
N
+
6
)
for
N
<
15
60
60
p
a
E
Sand
Trofimenkov (1974)
=
(350
to
500)
log
N
60
p
a
α
=
5
for
sand
with
fines;
10
for
cllean
normally
E
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)
Sand
= α N
60
p
consolidated
sands;
and
15
forr
clean
overconsolidated
sands
a

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview

27

Table 4. Correlations between E and q c for granular soils

Reference

Relationship

Soil type

Schultze and Melzer (1965)

E =

301.1log

q

c

σ

o

+

382.3

p

a

60.3

±

50.3

⎞ ⎛

σ

o

0.522

σ

o

⎠ ⎝

p

aa

p

a

for

0

0.8

Dry sand

 

E/q c = 2.5( q c + 30)

Sand below water table Clayey sand below water table

Webb (1969)

E/q c = 1.67( q c + 15)

Buisman (1940)

E = 1.5 q c

Sand

Schmertmann (1970)

E = 2 q c

Sand

Schmertmann et al. (1978)

E = 2 q c (axisymmetric loading)

E = 3.5 q c (axisymmetric loading)

Normally consolidated sand

Vesic (1970)

E = 2(1 + D 2 r ) q c

 

Sand

Bachelier and Parez (1965)

E = αq c

α = 0.8 to 0.9 for pure sand; 1.3 to 1.9 for silty sand; 3.8 to 5.7 for clayey sand; and 7.7 for soft clay

All soils

DeBeer (1965)

E = 1.5 q c

 

Sand

 

E

= 1.5 q c (for q c > 3 MN/m 2 )

 

DeBeer (1974)

E = 3 q c (for q c < 3 MN/m 2 )

Sand (Greek practice)

E

= αq c (1.5 < α < 2)

Sand (U.K. practice)

Trofimenkov (1964)

E = 2.5 q c

 

Sand (lower limit)

Trofimenkov (1974)

E = 3 q c

 

Sand

(USSR practice)

E

= 7 q c

Clay

Thomas (1968)

E = αq c (α = 3 to 12)

 

Sand

Bogdanovi (1973)

E = 1.5 q c (for q c > 4 MN/m 2 )

Sand and sandy gravel

E

= 1.5 to 1.8q c (for 2 MN/m 2 < q c < 4 MN/m 2 )

Silty saturated sand

E

= 1.8 to 2.5q c (for 1 MN/m 2 < q c < 2 MN/m 2 )

Clayey silt with silty sand, and silty saturated sand with silt

E

= 2.5 to 3.0q c (for 0.5 MN/m 2 < qc < 1 MN/m 2 )

5. EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS FOR MODULUS

OF ELASTICITY, E

One of the main factors that contribute to the uncertainty in settlement predictions is our inability to quantify the soil stiffness correctly. Soil stiffness, measured by the modulus of elasticity, is generally quantified indirectly through the pene- tration resistances from standard penetration or cone pene- tration tests. The various empirical correlations relating N 60 and q c to E are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The current state-of-the-art for predictions of the settlements of shallow foundations in granular soils is discussed. The Settlement 94 prediction session held in Texas clearly showed the deficiencies in the current state-of-the-art, where the pre- dictions from the 31 international experts varied in a wide range. In spite of having access to the full data from a rigor-

ous site investigation program, their predictions of Q 25 , the load required to produce 25 mm settlement, were signifi- cantly less than what was measured, implying that the settle- ments were overestimated in general. In reality, the geotechnical engineer has access to very limited data from the field, and the quality of predictions can only be worse. The load test data for the five footings at the above pre- diction sessions showed that, provided the factor of safety is greater than 2.5, bearing capacity considerations are more critical than the settlement criterion. It is the poor state-of- the-art for settlement predictions, which results in overesti- mation of the settlements and underestimations of the allowable pressures, which leads one to believe that the settle- ment criterion generally governs the design of shallow foun- dations in granular soils. The traditional settlement prediction methods, including Terzaghi and Peck (1948), Schmertmann (1970) and Burland and Burbidge (1985) are discussed. Two of the most recent methods, proposed by Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) and Mayne and Poulos (1999) appear to give better and more

28

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

realistic settlement predictions. The probabilistic design chart presented by Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) can be used to estimate the probability that the actual settlement will exceed 25 mm in the field, based on the settlements estimated from the traditional methods. Several empirical correlations relating the modulus of elasticity of soil to blow count from a standard penetration test and cone resistance from a cone penetration test are dis- cussed. These correlations are quite useful in assessing the soil stiffness, which is required in the settlement computations.

REFERENCES

Bachelier, M., and Parez, L. (1965). “Contribution to the study of soil compressibility by means of a cone pen- etrometer.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. Found. Eng. , Montreal, 2, 3-7. Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Settlement of shallow foundations in sand: selection of stiffness of the basis of penetration resistance.” Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Geotech. Special Pub. 27, ASCE, 185-200.

Berardi, R., and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Stiffness of granular soil from field performance.” Geotechnique, 41(1), 149-

157.

Begemann, H.K.S. (1974). “General report for Central and Western Europe.” Proc., European Symp. on Penetration Testing , Stockholm. Bogdanovi_, L. (1973). “Settlement of stiff structures (silos) founded on soft soil with low penetration resistance.” Transactions , SR Institute of Testing and Materials, Belgrade, 34. Briaud, J-L., and Gibbens, R.M. (1994). “Predicted and meas- ured behaviour of five spread footings on sand.” ASCE, Geotech. Special Pub. 41, 255 pp. Buisman, A.S.K. (1940). Groundmechania , Waltman, Delft, The Netherlands. Burland, J.B., and Burbidge, M.C. (1985). “Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel.” Proc., Institution of Civil Engineers, 78(1), 1325-1381, 1985. DeBeer, E.E. (1965). “Bearing capacity and settlement of shal- low foundations on sand.” Proc., Symp. On Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations , Duke University, Durham, NC, 15-33. DeBeer, E.E. (1974). “Interpretation of the results of static penetration tests.” Group IV Report: European Symp. on Penetration Testing, Stockholm, Sweden. Douglas, D.J. (1986). “State-of-the-art.” Ground engineering, 19(2), 2-6

Ferrent, T.A. (1963). “The prediction of field verification of settlements on cohesionless soils.” Proc., 4thAustralia- New Zealand Conf.on Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 11-17. Jeyapalan, J.K., and Boehm, R. (1986). “Procedures for pre- dicting settlements in sands.” Settlements of Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: Design and Performance, Ed. W.O. Martin, ASCE, Seattle, 1-22. Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design, Final Report (EL- 6800) submitted to Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California. Mayne, P.W., and Poulos, H.G. (1999). “Approximate dis- placement influence factors for elastic shallow founda- tions.” J. Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 125(6),

453-460.

Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). “Penetration tests and bearing capac- ity of cohesionless soils.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 82(1), 1-19. Meyerhof, G.G. (1965). “Shallow foundations.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 91(SM2), 21-31. Papadopoulos, B.P. (1992). “Settlements of shallow founda- tions on cohesionless soils.” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 118(3), 377-393. Peck, R.B., and Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. (1969). “Discussion of Settlement of spread-footings on sand.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 95(SM3), 305-309. Schmertmann, J.H. (1970). “Static cone to compute static set- tlement over sand.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 96(3), 1011-1043. Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P., and Brown, P.R. (1978). “Improved strain influence factor diagrams.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 104(8), 1131-1135. Schultze, E., and Melzer, K.J. (1965). “The determination of the density and the modulus of compressibility of non- cohesive soils by soundings.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Montreal, 1, 354-358. Sivakugan, N., Eckersley, J., and Li, H. (1998). “Settlement predictions using neural networks.” Australian Civil Eng. Transactions , CE40, 49-52. Sivakugan, N., and Johnson, K. (2004). “Settlement predic- tions in granular soils: a probabilistic approach.” Geotechnique, 54(7), 499-502. Tan, C.K., and Duncan, J.M. (1991). “Settlement of footings on sands: accuracy and reliability.” Proc., Geotech. Eng. Congress 1991, Colorado, 1, 446-455. Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engi- neering practice, 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview

29

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. Thomas, D. (1968). “Deep sounding test results and the set- tlement on normally consolidated sand.” Geotechnique, 18, 472-488. Trofimenkov, Y.G. (1964). Field methods for testing the struc- tural properties of soils, Building Literature Publishing House, Moscow. Trofimenkov, Y.G. (1974). “Penetration testing in Western Europe.” Proc., European Symp. on Penetration Testing , Stockholm, Sweden. Tsytovich, N.A. (1951). Soil mechanics, Ed. Stroitielstvo i Archiketura, Moscow (in Russian). Vesic, A.S. (1970). “Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee River site.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 96(2), 561-

584.

Webb, D.L. (1969). “Settlement of structures on deep alluvial sandy sediments in Durban, South Africa.” Proceedings, Conf. on In Situ Behaviour of Soil and Rock, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 181-188.