UMUDIKE JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (UJET), VOL. 4 NO.

3, DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 53 – 62

FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA

1*Salahudeen A. B., 2Eberemu A. O., 2Ijimdiya T. S. and 2Osinubi K. J.

1Department of Civil Engineering, University of Jos, Jos. 2Department of Civil Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University,
Nigeria Zaria. Nigeria

*Corresponding email: basalahudeen@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Standard penetration test (SPT) results obtained from the six geo-political zones of Nigeria were used to correlate soil properties
and evaluate foundation bearing capacity and settlement characteristics using some conventional empirical/analytical models and
numerical modelling. The SPT N-values were corrected to the standard average energy of 60 % (N60) before the soil properties
were evaluated. Prediction of soil properties was carried out for 100 kN/m2 applied foundation pressure at nine footing embedment
depths (i.e., 0.6, 2.1, 3.6, 5.1, 6.6, 8.1, 9.6, 11.1 and 12.6 m). Numerical analysis using Plaxis 3D, a finite element code, showed
that the analytical/empirical methods for estimating allowable bearing pressure and settlement of shallow foundations gave
acceptable results. Also, the results obtained show that the susceptibility of soils in Nigeria to compression is highest in the South
- South (SS) geo-political zone and decreased in the order South - West (SW), South - East (SE), North - East (NE), North - West
(NW) and North - Central (NC). Average bearing capacity values in the ranges 150 – 350, 130 – 260, 135 – 310, 135 – 260, 100
– 200 and 120 – 230 kN/m2 , were determined at embedment depths in the range 0.6 - 3.6 m for NC, NE, NW, SE, SS and SW
geopolitical zones, respectively. The bearing capacity values can be used as first approximation of foundation bearing capacity
but do not preclude the use of site specific data.

Keywords: Bearing capacity, Foundation, Numerical modelling, Plaxis 3D, Settlement, Standard penetration test

1.0 INTRODUCTION For successful analyses to be performed, the behaviour of

Footing settlement in soil deposits and bearing capacity are
often estimated using the results of in-situ tests, mainly the
standard penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration
test (CPT). In this approach, the soil stiffness is estimated
from measured penetration resistance in terms of either the
SPT blow count N or the cone resistance qc (Hussein, 2011;
Abdou and Mahmoud, 2013; Das, 2014). Between these two
most popular methods, the SPT is the most widely used. The
great merit of the test and the main reason for its widespread
use is that it is simple and inexpensive (Lee and Salgado,
2002). There are several methods available for the
calculation of footing settlements and bearing capacities
using SPT results. Most of these methods are based on
elasticity and thus focus on determination of soil
compressibility with consideration of footing size. Bowles
(1996) stated that 85–90 % of conventional foundation
design in North and South America is made using SPT
results. SPT data have been used in correlations with unit
weight, relative density, angle of internal friction and
unconfined compressive strength (Kulhawy and Mayne,
1990; Johnson et al., 2015).
soil should be modelled realistically. It is usually observed
that soil shows non-linear stress-strain behaviour from the
early stages of loading. The hyperbolic family of soil models
has been often used to describe the nonlinear soil behaviour
observed from the early stages of loading (Salahudeen and
Sadeeq, 2017). Although hyperbolic soil models may not
satisfy energy conservatism, they have been applied
extensively and successfully in various nonlinear soil
behaviour problems (Al-Jabban, 2013). This is mainly due to
their suitability for numerical implementation and to the clear
relationship between soil parameters and observed stress-
strain curves (Lee and Salgado, 2002; Ahmed, 2013).
Numerical modelling is a powerful mathematical tool that
makes it possible to solve complex engineering problems. A
model in this concern is a structure or framework designed
to symbolise a physical concept or phenomenon. The finite
element method (FEM) is a well established numerical
analysis technique used widely in many civil engineering
applications both for research and the design of real
engineering problems (Ornek et al., 2012; Klemencic et al.,
2012)). The constitutive behaviour of soils can be
successfully modelled with numerical analyses. The finite

UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com Page 53

FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA
element method is one of the mathematical methods in
which continuous media is divided into finite elements with
different geometries. It provides the advantage of idealizing
the material behaviour of the soil, which is non-linear with
plastic deformations and is stress-path dependent, in a more
rational manner (Ornek et al., 2012).
Housing demands due to the growing population and
migration of people to urban areas in Nigeria has drastically
increased. Consequently, the depletion of land suitable for
building constructions and construction on less desirable
soils such as soft saturated clays and silts has becomes
inevitable (Osinubi, 1992). These demands require
alternative construction methods that provide fast, safe and
affordable quality housing. Some Nigerian soils are
problematic and create serious threats and adverse effects
to foundations of structures and the structures themselves.
These problems are more prominent in the southern part of
the country. These soil problems have led to excessive
settlement, tilting and collapse of many buildings not only in
Nigeria but also around the world (Salahudeen and
Aghayan, 2018).
Numerical modelling method that better represents soil
constitutive behaviour is required to develop an improved
approximation of foundation soil bearing capacity and
settlement. Also, there is need to investigate and determine
the most appropriate methods that are most suitable to
Nigerian soil peculiarities and distinctions based on SPT
results. SPT been the most common and economical
geotechnical field test used in Nigeria. The study focused on
the prediction of foundation soil bearing capacity and
settlement based on SPT N-values using analytical models
and Plaxis 3D numerical modelling in the six geo-political
zones of Nigeria. The specific objectives were to estimate
the bearing capacity and settlement of foundation soils in
Nigeria from measured penetration resistance in terms of the
SPT corrected N-values at varying depths. Also, to evaluate
design equations for foundation settlements using different
constitutive models based on SPT results. The study also
aimed to model foundation settlement numerically using
PLAXIS 3D software and compare the results of the
empirical/analytical methods with those of numerical
analysis.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The study made use of standard penetration test (SPT) data
(using Donut hammer type) collected from 4181 test holes
(37629 data sets). Computations were made based on the
average values that reliably represents each state and the
UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com
SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018
average of the states was used for each of the zones.
Bearing capacity and foundation settlement estimations
were made at depths of 0.6, 2.1, 3.6, 5.1, 6.6, 8.1, 9.6, 11.1
and 12.6 m and settlement was determined for100 kN/m2
applied foundation pressure.
Based on empirical/analytical methods, bearing capacity
and foundation settlement estimations were performed
using the most commonly used models listed in Tables A1
and A2 in the Appendix. On the other hand, numerical
analysis of foundation settlement and bearing capacity were
performed using 3-D non-linear finite element analysis
software, Plaxis, which uses finite element method (FEM) for
deformation analysis and modelling of geotechnical
problems.
The input data in Plaxis are index, elastic and strength
parameters obtained from the processed SPT N-values. The
software portfolio includes simulation of soil and soil-
structure interaction. Plaxis 3D Foundation is a three-
dimensional Plaxis programme and advanced of the 2D
version, developed for the analysis of foundation
constructions including raft foundations and offshore
structures. The foundation geometry was modelled using a
top view approach. The input of soil data, structures,
construction stages, loads and boundary conditions was
based on convenient computer aided design (CAD) drawing
procedures, which allows for a detailed and accurate
modelling of the major geometry. From this geometry a 3D
finite element mesh ws generated.
Soil layers were defined by means of boreholes. Structures
were defined in horizontal work planes. Plaxis 3D
Foundation programme allows for an automatic generation
of unstructured 2D finite element meshes based on the top
view. From this 2D mesh, a 3D mesh is automatically
generated, taking into account the soil stratigraphy and
structure levels as defined in the bore holes and work
planes. The Plaxis postprocessor has enhanced 3D
graphical features for displaying computational results.
Exact values of displacements, stresses, strains and
structural forces can be obtained from the output tables. A
special tool is available for drawing load-displacement
curves, stress paths and stress-strain diagrams. Particularly
the visualization of stress paths provides a valuable insight
into local soil behaviour and enables a detailed analysis of
the results of a Plaxis 3D Foundation calculation (Plaxis 3D
Manual, 2010).The chart of the steps involved in developing
the numerical model is shown in Fig. 1.
Page 54
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018

Figure 1: Chart depicting the steps involved in developing the numerical models

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 100

90 NC NE NW
Corrected SPT N-values (N60)
CORRECTED SPT N-VALUE (N60 )

80
A correction to average energy ratio of 60 % (N60) is required 70 SE SS SW
to SPT N-values because of the greater confinement caused 60
by the increasing overburden pressure (Bezgin, 2010) The 50
correction factors used in this study are those proposed by 40
Das (2011) to standardize the field penetration number as a 30
function of the input driving energy and its dissipation around 20
the sampler into the surrounding soil. The variation of N60 10
with depth of test is shown in Figure 2. N60 increased with 0
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6
depth having the highest value of 89.25 in North - Central
(NC) zone and decreased in the order of North - Central BORING DEPTH (m)

(NC), North - West (NW), North - East (NE), South - East
(SE), South - West (SW) and South - South (SS) zone with
a value of 48.20. This underscores the fact that the soils in
the southern part of Nigeria are sedimentary in nature, while
those of the north are crystalline from the basement complex
(Ola, 1983). N60 values are needed for more accurate design
analyses and have less variability or scatter due to test
method.
Bearing Capacity
Based on field test results, the bearing capacities of shallow
foundations are determined in terms of the allowable bearing
pressures while those of deep foundations (piles) are given
in terms of the ultimate bearing capacity.
Figure 2: Variation of corrected N-values with boring
depth
This is because settlement (service limit) controls the
allowable bearing capacity in design of shallow foundations
while the ultimate limit (shear failure) usually controls the
allowable bearing capacity in deep foundations design (Al-
Jabban, 2013). For the allowable bearing pressures of
shallow foundations, footing plan dimensions of 2 m x 2 m x
0.4 m for length, breadth and height, respectively, were
assumed with safety factor of 3.0. Variations of allowable
bearing capacity with boring depths are shown in Figures 3
- 8. Based on the method proposed by Meyerhof (1974) and
Plaxis, foundation pressures in the ranges 150 – 350, 130 –

UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com Page 55

FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018

260, 135 – 310, 135 – 260, 100 – 200 and 120 – 230 kN/m2 1800
Teng 1969 Peck et al. 1974
were determined at shallow depths in the range 0.6 - 3.6 m

ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY (kN/m2)

1600
Meyerhof 1974 Bowles 1996
for NC, NE, NW, SE, SS and SW zones, respectively.. 1400
Terzaghi et al. 1996 Plaxis
1200
2000
Teng 1969 Peck et al.1974 1000
1800
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY (kN/m2)

Meyerhof 1974 Bowles 1996 800

1600
Terzaghi et al. 1996 Plaxis 600
1400
400
1200
200
1000
0
800
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6
600
FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)
400
200
Figure 6: Variation of allowable bearing pressure with
0
boring depth (South East zone)
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6 1200
Teng 1969 Peck et al. 1974
FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY (kN/m2)

1000 Meyerhof 1974 Bowles 1996
Figure 3: Variation of allowable bearing pressure with Terzaghi et al. 1996 Plaxis
800
boring depth (North Central zone)
2000 600
Teng 1969 Peck et al. 1974
1800
400
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY (kN/m2)

Meyerhof 1974 Bowles 1996

1600
Terzaghi et al. 1996 Plaxis 200
1400

1200 0
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6
1000
FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)
800

600
Figure 7: Variation of allowable bearing pressure with
400
boring depth (South South zone)
1400
200
Teng 1969 Peck et al. 1974
1200
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY (kN/m 2 )

0 Meyerhof 1974 Bowles 1996

0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6 1000 Terzaghi et al. 1996 Plaxis

FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m) 800

Figure 4: Variation of allowable bearing pressure with 600

boring depth (North East zone) 400

2000
Teng 1969 Peck et al. 1974 200
1800
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY (kN/m2)

Meyerhof 1974 Bowles 1996

1600 0
Terzaghi et al. 1996 Plaxis 0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6
1400

1200 FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

Figure 8: Variation of allowable bearing pressure with

1000

800

600
boring depth (South West zone)
400

200
Elastic Settlement of Foundations
0 Variations of elastic settlement of foundations with boring
depth are shown in Figs 9 - 14. For the elastic settlement of
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6

shallow foundations, plan dimensions of 2 m x 2 m x 0.4 m

FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

Figure 5: Variation of allowable bearing pressure with boring depth for length, breadth and height, respectively, were assumed.
(North West zone)
The figures show the different empirical/analytical models
commonly used in computing elastic settlement of shallow
foundations. The N60 values indicate that settlement values
will be high (based on 25 mm maximum allowable limiting
value recommended by Eurocode 7) in the South - South

UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com Page 56

FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018

zone because of relatively low N60 values in the region as 80

Jambu et al. 1956 Terzaghi and Peck 1967

confirmed in the elastic settlement results. The recorded 70

Schmertmann 1970

Meyerhof 1974
Schultze and Sherif 1973

Schmertmann et al 1978

trend is consistent with the observations reported by Rasin 60

Timosheako and Goodier 1982 Burland and Burbidge 1985

(2009). A comparison carried out by Shahin et al. (2000)

Bowles 1987 Anagnostropolous 1991

CFEM 1992 Papadopoulos 1992

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT (mm)

50
based on field measurement and artificial neural networks Terzaghi et al. 1996 Mayne and Poulos 1999

(ANN) results of the methods proposed by Schmertmann 40 Anderson et al. 2007 Plaxis 3D

(1970), Schltze and Sherif (1973) and Meyerhof (1974) rated 30

the Schltze and Sherif (1973) method as the best for 20

estimating shallow foundation settlements. However, based 10

on the results recorded in this study, a comparison of the

fifteen empirical/analytical methods considered with the
0
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6

numerical modelling results showed that the Schmertmann FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

et al. (1978), Burland and Burbidge (1985), Canadian Figure 11: Variation of elastic settlement with
Foundation engineering Manual (CFEM) (1992) as well as embedment depth (North West zone)
the Mayne and Poulos (1999) methods gave good
estimations of foundation settlement.
80
Jambu et al. 1956 Terzaghi and Peck 1967
70 Schmertmann 1970 Schultze and Sherif 1973
70

Jambu et al. 1956 Terzaghi and Peck 1967 Meyerhof 1974 Schmertmann et al. 1978

60 Schmertmann 1970 Schultze and Sherif 1973 60 Timosheako and Goodi er 1982 Burland and Burbidge 1985

Meyerhof 1974 Schmertmann et al. 1978 Bowles 1987 Anagnostropolous 1991

Timosheako and Goodier 1982 Burland and Burbidge 1985 CFEM 1992 Papadopoulos 1992
50
50
ELASTIC SETTLEMENT (mm)

Bowles 1987 Anagnostropolous 1991

Terzaghi et al. 1996 Mayne and Poulos 1999
CFEM 1992 Papadopoulos 1992
ELASTIC SETTLEMENT (mm)

40 Anderson et al. 2007 Plaxis 3D

Terzaghi et al. 1996 Mayne and Poulos 1999
40
Anderson et al. 2007 Plaxis 3D
30

30
20

20
10

10 0
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6

FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

0

Figure 12: Variation of elastic settlement with

0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6

FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

embedment depth (South East zone)

Figure 9: Variation of elastic settlement with
embedment depth (North Central zone) 100
Jambu et al. 1956 Terzaghi and Peck 1967
90
Schmertmann 1970 Schiltze and Sherif 1973

80 80 Meyerhof 1974 Schmertmann et al. 1978

Jambu et al. 1956 Terzaghi and Peck 1967 Timosheako and Goodier 1982 Burland and Burbidge 1985
Schmertmann 1970 Schultze and Sherif 1973
70
70 Bowles 1987 Anagnostropolous 1991
Meyerhof 1974 Schmertmann et al. 1978
ELASTIC SETTLEMENT (mm)

60 CFEM 1992 Papadopoulos 1992

Timosheako and Goodi er 1982 Burland and Burbidge 1985
60 Bowles 1987 Anagnostropolous 1991 Terzaghi et al. 1996 Mayne and Poulos 1999
50
CFEM 1992 Papadopoulos 1992
Anderson et al. 2007 Plaxis 3D
Terzaghi et al. 1996 Mayne and Poulos 1999
50 40
Anderson et a l. 2007 Plaxis 3D
ELASTIC SETTLEMENT (mm)

30
40

20
30
10

20 0
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6

10
FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

0
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6
Figure 13: Variation of elastic settlement with
FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)
embedment depth (South South zone)
Figure 10: Variation of elastic settlement with
embedment depth (North East zone)

UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com Page 57

FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018

90
Jambu et al. 1956 Terzaghi and Peck 1967

80 Schmertmann 1970 Schultze and Sherif 1973

Meyerhof 1974 Schmertmann et al. 1978

70
Timosheako and Goodier 1982 Burland and Burbidge 1985

Bowles 1987 Anagnostropolous 1991

60
ELASTIC SETTLEMENT (mm)

CFEM 1992 Papadopoulos 1992

50 Terzaghi et al. 1996 Mayne and Poulos 1999

Anderson et al. 2007 Plaxis 3D

40

30

20

10

0
0.6 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.6

FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT DEPTH (m)

Figure 14: Variation of elastic settlement with Figure 17: Numerical analysis result of settlement at
embedment depth (South West zone) 0.6 m embedment depth

The numerical analysis results of soil body deformation, 4.0 CONCLUSION

stress distribution and settlement respectively at collapse of The study carried out made use of SPT N-values corrected
the soil body for South-South zone only at 0.6 m depth of to the standard average energy of 60 % (N60) as input data
embedment are shown in Figs 15 - 17. These figures are in analytical/empirical and numerical models for the
presented to show the different soil layers and position of the prediction of foundation settlement and bearing capacity in
footing within the soil models. They are the same for the the six geo-political zones of Nigeria. Footing geometry of 2
remaining five zones except for the bearing capacity and m x 2 m x 0.4 m and 100 kN/m2 applied foundation pressure
settlement values which have been presented in Figs 3 - 14. at embedment depths of 0.6, 2.1, 3.6, 5.1, 6.6, 8.1, 9.6, 11.1
and 12.6 m were adopted. It is note worthy that this
conclusion is completely based on the average values of
available SPT data obtained randomly from construction
sites of clients by a private geotechnical consultant firm
which may not be exhaustive.

Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can

be made.
a) Allowable bearing pressures in the ranges 150 –
350, 130 – 260, 135 – 310, 135 – 260, 100 – 200
and 120 – 230 kN/m2 obtained using the Meyerhof
Figure 15: Numerical analysis mesh showing method at embedment depths in the range 0.6 -
deformation of the soil body at 0.6 m embedment depth 3.6 m are adequate for the soils in NC, NE, NW,
SE, SS and SW zones, respectively. The values
are very close with those of numerical analysis
using Plaxis 3D.
b) The elastic settlement values show that the
susceptibility of soils to compression is highest in
the South - South (SS) geo-political zone and the
value decreased in the order South - West (SW),
South - East (SE), North - East (NE), North - West
(NW) and North - Central (NC) geo-political zone.
c) A comparison of the bearing capacity results
obtained using the five empirical/analytical
methods considered in this study with those of
Figure 16: Numerical analysis result of stress
numerical modelling showed that methods
distribution at 0.6 m embedment depth
proposed by Meyerhof (1974) and Peck et al.

UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com Page 58

FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA
(1974) gave good estimations of bearing capacity
of foundation soils.
d) A comparison of elastic settlement results
obtained using the fifteen empirical/analytical
methods considered in this study with those of
numerical modelling showed that methods
proposed by Schmertmannet al. (1978), Burland
and Burbidge (1985), Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual (CFEM) (1992) as well as the
Mayne and Poulos (1999) gave good estimations
of foundation settlement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the study carried out, the following
are hereby recommended for the six geo-political zones of
Nigeria:
a) Foundations should be placed at a minimum depth
of 1.0 m to avoid excessive settlement.
b) Results of the study can be used as first
approximation of foundation bearing capacity and
settlement but does not preclude the use of site
specific data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the
Management of In-depth Engineering Limited, Kaduna,
Nigeria that provided the standard penetration test data used
in the study. The assistance of Dr. M. Jalili of Islamic Azad
University, Semnan, Iran with respect to training on the use
of Plaxis software is acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Abdou, M. and Mahmoud, N. A. (2013). “Reliability of using
standard penetration test (SPT) in predicting
properties of silty clay with sand soil”. International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
(IJCSE), Vol. 3, No 3, 545-556.
Ahmed, A. Y. (2013). “Reliability analysis of settlement for
shallow foundations in bridges.” A published
dissertation of the Faculty of Graduate College,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln Nebraska. UMI
dissertation publishing, USA.
Al-Jabban, M. J. W. (2013). “Estimation of Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) of Hilla City-Iraq by
Using GPS Coordination”. Jordan Journal of
Civil Engineering (JJCE), Volume 7, No. 2, 133-
145.
UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com
SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018
Anagnostopoulos, A. G., Papadopoulos, B. P. and
Kavvadas, M. J. (1991). “SPT and compressibility
of cohesionless soils.” Proceedings of the 2nd
European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Amsterdam.
Anderson B. J., Townsend F. C. and Rahelison L. (2007).
“Load testing and settlement prediction of shallow
foundation.”Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. Vol 133,
No 12 pp 1494-1502.
Bezgin, O. (2010). “An insight into the theoretical
background of: Soil structure interaction analysis
of deep foundations”. A technical report, Istanbul.
Bowles, J. E. (1987). Elastic foundation settlement on sand
deposits. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 113(8): 846-860.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design,
5thEdition. McGraw-Hill, USA.
Burland, J.B. and Burbidge, M.C. (1985). “Settlement of
foundations on sand and gravel.”Proceedings of
Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, Vol. 78, 1325-
1381.
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1992). Third
edition, BiTech, Publishers Ltd. Richmond,
Canada.
Das, B. M. (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering, SI,
Seventh Edition. Cengage Learning. USA.
Das, B. M. (2014). “Elastic settlement of shallow foundations
on granular soil: a critical review.” A research
report, California State University, Sacramento
Henderson, Nevada, U.S.A.
Hussein, H. M. A. (2011). “Effects of Flexural Rigidity and
Soil Modulus on the Linear Static Analysis of Raft
Foundations.” Journal of Babylon University, Pure
and Applied Science, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 740-752.
Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L. and Kjaernsli, B. (1956).
“VeiledningvedLosningavFundamentering-
soppgaver.” Publication 16, Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, pp. 30–32, 1956.
Johnson, K., Christensen, M., Sivakugan, N. and
Karunasena, W. (2015). Simulating the Response of
Shallow Foundations using Finite Element
Page 59
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA
Modelling. Australian Civil Engineering
Transactions, pp. 1 - 6.
Klemencic, R., McFarlane, I.S., Hawkins, N. M. And
Nikolaou, S. (2012). “Seismic design of
reinforced concrete mat foundations”. NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Brief, No. 7 NIST
GCR 12-917-22.
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,
Califonia.
Lee, J. and Salgado, R. (2002). “Estimation of footing
settlement in sand”. The International Journal of
Geomechanics, Volume 2, Number 1, 1–28.
Mayne, P. W. and Poulos, H. G. (1999). “Approximate
displacement influence factors for elastic shallow
foundations”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125 No.
6, 453-460.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1974). "Penetration Testing Outside
Europe: General Report", Proceedings of the
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol
2.1, pp 40-48. Available from National Swedish
Institute for Building Research, P. O. Box 785, S-
801-29-GAVLEÄ, Sweden.
Ola, S. A. (1983). Tropical Soils of Nigeria in Engineering
Practice. A.A, Balkema/Rotterdam Edition,
Netherlands.
Ornek, M., Demir, A., Laman, M. and Yildiz, A. (2012).
“Numerical analysis of circular footings on natural
clay stabilized with a granular fill”. Acta
geotechnica slovenica, No. 1, 61-75.
Osinubi, K. J. (1992). ‘A method for estimating settlement of
weak soils in reclaimed bases.’ The nNigerian
Engineer, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 41 - 50.
Papadopoulos, B.P. (1992). “Settlements of shallow
foundations on cohesionless soils”. J. Geotech.
Eng., ASCE, 118(3), 377-393.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974).
Foundation Engineering, 2nd edition, Wiley, New
York.
UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com
SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018
PLAXIS 3D manual (2010). Plaxis 3D-Version 1.6 edited by
Brinkgreve R. B. J. Delft University of Technology
and PLAXIS b.v., The Netherland.
Rasin, D. (2009). “Observed and predicted settlement of
shallow foundation.” 2nd International Conference
on New Developments in Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Near East University,
Nicosia, North Cyprus.pp. 590-597.
Salahudeen, A. B. and Aghayan, S. (2018). Settlement
Modelling of Raft Footing Founded on
Oferekpe/Abakaliki Shale in South East Region of
Nigeria, Journal of Computational Engineering
and Physical Modeling, DOI
10.22115/CEPM.2018.116754.1009, Vol. 1, No.
1, Pp. 68 - 82.
Salahudeen, A. B. and Sadeeq, J. A. (2017). Investigation of
shallow foundation soil bearing capacity and
settlement characteristics of Minna City Centre
development site using Plaxis 2D software and
empirical formulations. Nigerian Journal of
Technology (NIJOTECH), Vol. 36 No. 3, Pp. 663 –
670.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1970). Static cone to compute static
settlement over sand. Journal of Soil Mechanics
and FoundationsDivision ASCE 96(SM3), 7302–
1043.
Schmertmann J.H., Hartman J.P., and Brown P.R. (1978).
“Improved strain influence factor diagrams”.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Division,
ASCE, Vol. 104 No. 8, 1131-1135.
Schultze, E. and G. Sherif (1973). “Prediction of settlements
fromevaluated settlement observations for sand”.
In Proc., 8th Int.Conf. On Soil Mech. & Found.
Engrg. Volume 1(3), pp.225–230.
Shahin, M. A. Jaksa, M. B. and H. R. Maier (2000).
“Predicting the settlement of shallow foundations
on cohesionless soils using back-propagation
neural networks”. Research Report R167,
University of Adelaide, Department of Civil
&Environmental Engineering.
Teng W.C. (1962). Foundation Design. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
New Jersey.
Page 60
FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018

Terzaghi K. and Peck R. B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in

Engineering Practice, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Table A2: Empirical/analytical models for elastic
New York.
settlement analysis
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Model
S/N References
Mechanics in Engineering Practice. (Third
edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York, 549.
1 Janbu et al. (1956)
Timoshenko, S. P. and Goodier, J. N. (1982). “Theory of
elasticity.” Third edition, pp. 398-409, New York, 2 Terzaghi and Peck (1967)
McGraw-Hill, USA.
3 Schmertmann (1970)

APPENDIX
4 Schultze and Sherif (1973)
Table A1: Empirical/analytical models for soil bearing
capacity analysis
Property Model References 5 Meyerhof (1974)
Seed et al.
Corrected (1985) and
N-value Skempton
6 Schmertmann et al. (1978)
(1986).

Teng
Timoshenko and Goodier
(1969) 7
(1982)
Meyerhof
Allowable (1974)
Burland and Burbidge
8
bearing (1985)
pressure of Peck et al.
shallow (1974) 9 Bowles (1987)
foundation
s Bowles Anagnostropolous et al.
10
(1996) (1991)
Canadian Foundation
Terzaghi et 11
al. (1996)
Engineering Manual (1992)

12 Papadopoulos (1992)
Meyerhof
Bearing (1976)
capacity of 13 Terzaghi et al. (1996)
piles Briaud et
al. (1985)
14 Mayne and Poulos (1999)

15 Anderson et al. (2007)

Total
*Vesic Abbreviations
(1977)
settlement N60 = Corrected standard penetration number for
**Das
of piles
(2011) field conditions

= N60 correction for overburden pressure

N = Measured penetration number (N-value)

UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com Page 61

FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT AND BEARING CAPACITY IN THE SIX GEO-POLITICAL ZONES OF NIGERIA SALAHUDEEN et al, 2018

ȠH = Hammer efficiency (%) B = Width of foundation (m)

ȠB = Correction for borehole diameter Df = Depth of embedment (m)

ȠS = Sampler correction q = Net effective pressure applied at the level of the

foundation (kN/m2)
ȠR = Correction for rod length
𝛔10 = Effective overburden pressure in kN/m2 N60(a) = Adjusted N60 value
Pa = Atmospheric pressure = 100 kN/m2 BR = Reference width = 0.3 m
Pa = Atmospheric pressure = 100 kN/m2 H = Thickness of the compressible layer (m)
Es = Elastic modulus of soil L = Length of foundation (m)
𝜇 = Poisson’s ratio of soil
= Elastic settlement of piles
qn= Net pressure on the foundation (kN/m2)

Es = Appropriate value of elastic modulus of soil = Settlement of pile caused by the load at
(kN/m2) the pile tip

q = Applied foundation pressure (kN/m2)

= Settlement of pile caused by the load
Se = Elastic settlement (mm) transmitted along the pile shaft

q = Applied foundation pressure (kN/m2)

UJET VOL. 4, NO. 3, DECEMBER 2018 www.ujetmouau.com Page 62