KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2011) 15(1):77-89 Geotechnical Engineering

DOI 10.1007/s12205-011-1028-9
www.springer.com/12205

Developments in Elastic Settlement Estimation Procedures

for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil
Eun Chul Shin* and Braja M. Das**
Received October 14, 2009/Revised February 4, 2010 /Accepted April 6, 2010

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

Developments in major procedures available in the literature relating to elastic settlement of shallow foundations supported by
granular soil are presented and compared. The discrepancies between the observed and the predicted settlement are primarily due to
the inability to estimate the modulus of elasticity of soil using the results of the standard penetration tests and/or cone penetration
tests. Based on the procedures available at this time, recommendations have been made for the best estimation of settlement of
foundations.
Keywords: cone penetration test, elastic settlement, granular soil, shallow foundation, standard penetration test
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction Test (PMT). The procedures usually referred to in practice now

The estimation of settlement of shallow foundations is an
important topic in the design and construction of buildings and
other related structures. In general, settlement of a foundation
consists of two major components—elastic settlement (Se) and
consolidation settlement (Sc). In turn, the consolidation settlement
of a submerged clay layer has two parts; that is, the contribution
of primary consolidation settlement (Sp) and that due to secondary
consolidation (Ss). For a foundation supported by granular soil
within the zone of influence of stress distribution, the elastic
settlement is the only component that needs consideration. This
paper is a general overview of various aspects of the elastic
settlement of shallow foundations supported by granular soil
deposits. During the last fifty years or so, a number of procedures
have been developed to predict elastic settlement; however, there
is a lack of a reliable standardized procedure.
2. Elastic Settlement Calculation Procedures-gen-
eral
Various methods to calculate the elastic settlement available at
the present time can be divided into two general categories. They
are as follows:
Methods Based on Observed Settlement of Structures and Full
Scale Prototypes. These methods are empirical or semi-empirical
in nature and are correlated with the results of the standard in situ
tests such as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), the Cone Pene-
tration Test (CPT), the flat dilatometer test, and the Pressuremeter
are those developed by Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967), Meyerhof
(1956, 1965), DeBeer and Martens (1957), Hough (1969), Peck
and Bazaraa (1969), Schmertmann (1970), Schmertmann et al.
(1978), Burland and Burbidge (1985), Briaud (2007), and Lee et
al. (2008).
Methods Based on Theoretical Relationships Derived from the
Theory of Elasticity. The relationships for settlement calculation
available in this category contain the term modulus of elasticity
(Es).
The general outline for some of these methods is given in the
following sections.
3. Methods based on Observed Settlement
3.1 Terzaghi and Peck’s Method
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) proposed the following empirical
relationship between the settlement (Se) of a prototype foundation
measuring B×B in plan and the settlement of a test plate [Se(1)]
measuring B1×B1 loaded to the same intensity:
Se 4
- = -------------------------------
-------- (1)
Se (1 ) [ 1 + ( B1 ⁄ B ) 2 ]
Although a full-sized footing can be used for a load test, the
normal practice is to employ a plate of the order of 0.3 m to 1 m.
Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) provided the results of 14 sets of
load settlement tests. This is shown in Fig. 1 along with the plot
of Eq. (1). For these tests, B1 was 0.35 m for circular plates and
0.32 m for square plates. It is obvious from Fig. 1 that, although

*Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Incheon, Incheon 406-772, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail: ecshin@incheon.ac.kr)
**Dean Emeritus, California State University, Sacramento Henderson, Nevada 89044, USA (E-mail: brajamdas@gmail.com)

− 77 −
 Eun Chul Shin and Braja M. Das

Fig. 1. Variation of Se/Se(1) versus B/B1 from the Load Settlement

Results of Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) (Note: B1 = 0.36 m
for circular plates and 0.32 m for square plates)

Fig. 3. Terzaghi and Peck’s (1948, 1967) Recommendation for

Allowable Bearing Capacity for 25 mm Settlement Variation
with B and N60.

B = width of foundation (m)

If corrections for ground water table location and depth of
embedment are included, then Eq. (2) takes the form:
2
3q B
S e = CW CD ------- ⎛ ----------------⎞ (3)
N60 ⎝ B + 0.3⎠
Where, CD = Correction for depth of embedment = 1 – (Df /4B)
CW = Ground water table correction
Df = Depth of embedment
The magnitude of CW is equal to 1.0 if the depth of water table
Fig. 2. Variation of Se/Se(1) versus B/B1 based on the Data of Bjer- is greater than or equal to 2B below the foundation, and it is
rum and Eggestad (1963) and Bazaraa (1967) (Adapted equal to 2.0 if the depth of water table is less than or equal to B
from D’Appolonia et al., 1970)
below the foundation. The N60 value that is to be used in Eqs. (2)
and (3) should be the average value of N60 up to a depth of about
the general trend is correct, Eq. (1) represents approximately the 3B to 4B measured from the bottom of the foundation.
lower limit of the field test results. Bazaraa (1967) also provided Jeyapalan and Boehm (1986) and Papadopoulos (1992) sum-
several field test results. Fig. 2 shows the plot of Se/Se(1) versus B/ marized the case histories of 79 foundations. Sivakugan et al
B1 for all tests results provide by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) (1998) used those case histories to compare with the settlement
and Bazaraa (1967) as compiled by D’Appolonia et al. (1970). predicted by the Terzaghi and Peck method. This comparison is
The overall results with the expanded data base are similar to shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen from this figure that, in general,
those in Fig. 1 as they relate to Eq. (1). the predicted settlements were significantly higher than those
Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967) proposed a correlation for the observed. The average value of Se(predicted)/Se(observed) ≈ 2.18.
allowable bearing capacity, standard penetration number (N60), Similar observations were also made by Bazaraa (1967). With
and the width of the foundation (B) corresponding to a 25 mm B1 = 0.3 m, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as:
settlement based on the observation given by Eq. (1). This correl- 2
Se B
ation is shown in Fig. 3. The curves shown in Fig. 3 can be - = 4 ⎛ ----------------⎞
--------
S e(1 ) ⎝ B + 0.3⎠
approximated by the relation:
2 or
3q B
Se ( mm ) = ------- ⎛ ----------------⎞ (2)
N60 ⎝ B + 0.3⎠ B ⎞ 2 1 ⎛ Se ⎞
⎛ ---------------
- = --- --------- (4)
⎝ B + 0.3⎠ 4 ⎝ Se(1)⎠
where, q = bearing pressure in kN/m2

− 78 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Developments in Elastic Settlement Estimation Procedures for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil

Fig. 4. Sivakugan et al.'s (1998) Comparison of Predicted with

Observed Settlement for 79 Foundations - Predicted Settle-
ment based on Terzaghi and Peck Method (1948, 1967)

Combining Eqs. (2) and (4): Fig. 5. Bazaraa’s Plate Load Test Results Plot of q/Se(1) versus N60

3q 1 Se ⎞
Se = ⎛ -------⎞ --- ⎛ --------
-
⎝ N60⎠ 4 ⎝ Se(1)⎠
tion factors for water table location (CW) and depth of embed-
or ment (CD) can be expressed as:
N
q - --------- 1.25q
-------- = 60- (5) Se = Cw CD ------------- (for B ≤ 1.22 m) (6)
Se(1) 0.75 N60
Bazaraa (1967) plotted a large number of plate load test results and
(B1 = 0.3 m) in the form of q/Se(1) versus N60 as shown in Fig. 5. It 2q B 2

can be seen that the relationship given by Eq. (5) is very con- Se = Cw CD ------- ⎛ ----------------⎞ (for B ≤ 1.22 m) (7)
N60 ⎝ B + 0.3⎠
servative. In fact, q/Se(1) versus N60/0.5 will more closely repre-
sent the lower limiting condition. Cw = 1.0 (8)
and
3.2 Meyerhof’s Method
D
In 1956, Meyerhof proposed relationships for the elastic CD = 1.0 – ------f (9)
4B
settlement of foundations on granular soil similar to Eq. (2). In
1965 he compared the predicted (by the relationships proposed If these equations are used to predict the settlement of the 79
in 1956) and observed settlements of eight structures and foundations shown in Fig. 4, then we will obtain Se(predicted)/
suggested that the allowable pressure (q) for a desired magnitude Se(observed) ≈ 1.46. Hence, the predicted settlements will overesti-
of Se can be increased by 50% compared to what he recom- mate the observed values by about 50% on the average.
mended in 1956. The revised relationships including the correc- Table 1 shows the comparison of the maximum observed

Table 1. Comparison of Observed Maximum Settlements Provided by Meyerhof (1965) for Eight Mat Foundations with those Predicted
by Eq. (7)
B Average q Maximum Se(predicted)
Structure Se(predicted)/Se(observed)
(m) N60 (kN/m2) Se(observed) (mm) by Eq. (7) (mm)
T. Edison, Sao Paulo 18.3 15 229.8 15.24 29.66 1.95
Banco do Brasil, Sao Paulo 22.9 18 239.4 27.94 25.74 0.99
Iparanga, Sao Paulo 9.15 9 220.2 35.56 45.88 1.29
C.B.I. Esplanada, Sao Paulo 14.6 22 383.0 27.94 33.43 1.20
Riscala, Sao Paulo 3.96 20 229.8 12.70 19.86 1.56
Thyssen, Dusseldorf 22.6 25 239.4 24.13 18.65 0.77
Ministry, Dusseldorf 15.9 20 220.4 21.59 21.23 0.98
Chimney, Cologne 20.4 10 172.4 10.16 33.49 3.30
Average ≈ 1.5

Vol. 15, No. 1 / January 2011 − 79 −

 Eun Chul Shin and Braja M. Das

settlements of mat foundations considered by Meyerhof (1965) nearly the level of settlement that was obtained from Meyerhof’s
and the settlements predicted by Eq. (7). The ratios of the revised relationships (Section 5).
predicted to observed settlements are generally in the range of
0.8 to 2. This is also what Meyerhof concluded in his 1965 paper. 3.4 Strain Influence Factor Method
Based on the theory of elasticity, the equation for vertical strain
3.3 The Method of Peck and Bazaraa ε z at a depth below the center of a flexible circular load of
Peck and Bazaraa (1969) recognized that the original Terzaghi diameter B, can be given as:
and Peck method in Section 3.1 was overly conservative and
q ( 1 + µs )
revised Eq. (3) to the following form: εz = -------------------- [ ( 1 – 2 µs )A' + B' ]
Es
2
2q B
Se = Cw CD -------------- ⎛ ----------------⎞ (10) or
( N1 )60 ⎝ B + 0.3⎠
εz Es
where, Se is in mm, q is in kN/m2, and B is in m. - = ( 1 + µs ) [ ( 1 – 2 µs )A' + B' ]
Iz = -------- (15)
q
(N1)60 = corrected standard penetration number
where, A' and B' = f (z/B)
σ
CW = -----o- (11) Es = Modulus of elasticity
σ 'o
Iz = Strain influence factor
σ o = total overburden pressure q = Load per unit area
σ 'o = effective overburden pressure µs = Poisson’s ratio
γD 0.5
Fig. 7 shows the variation of Iz with depth based on Eq. (15)
CD = 1.0 – 0.4 ⎛⎝ --------f⎞⎠ (12)
q for µs = 0.4 and 0.5. The experimental results of Eggestad (1963)
for variation of Iz are also given in this figure. Considering both the
γ = unit weight of soil
theoretical and experimental results cited in Fig. 7, Schmertmann
The relationships for (N1)60 are as follow: (1970) proposed a simplified distribution of Iz with depth that is
generally referred to as 2B–0.6Iz distribution and it is also shown
4N60
( N1 )60 = ------------------------
- (for σ 'o ≤ 75 kN/m2) (13) in Fig. 7. According to the simplified method,
1 + 0.04σ 'o
2B I
and Se = C1 C2 q ∑ ----z- ∆z (16)
o Es
4N60
( N1 )60 = --------------------------------
- (for σ 'o > 75 kN/m2) (14) where, q = net effective pressure applied at the level of the
3.25 + 0.01σ 'o
foundation
where, σ 'o is the effective overburden pressure (kN/m2). C1 = correction factor for embedment of foundation
= 1 − 0.5(qo/q) (17)
D’Appolonia et al. (1970) compared the observed settlement
of several shallow foundations from several structures in Indiana
(USA) with those estimated using the Peck and Bazaraa method,
and this is shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen from this figure that the
calculated settlement from theory greatly overestimates the
observed settlement. It appears that this solution will provide

Fig. 6. Plot of Measured versus Predicted Settlement based on Fig. 7. Theoretical and Experimental Distribution of Vertical Strain
Peck and Bazaraa’s Method (Adapted from D’Appolonia et Influence Factor below the Center of a Circular Loaded
al., 1970) Area (Based on Schmertmann, 1970)

− 80 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Developments in Elastic Settlement Estimation Procedures for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil

qo = effective overburden pressure at the level of the Iz(peak) at z = zp = 0.5B

foundation Iz = 0 at z = zo = 2B
C2 = correction factor to account for creep in soil
For foundation with L/B ≥ 10:
C2 = 1+0.2log(t/0.1) (18)
Iz = 0.2 at z = 0
t = time, in years
Iz(peak) at z = zp = B
For use in Eq. (16) and the strain influence factor shown in Fig. Iz = 0 at z = zo = 4B
7, it was recommended that:
where, L = length of foundation. For L/B between 1 and 10,
ES = 2qc (19) interpolation can be done. Also,
where, qc = cone penetration resistance q 0.5
Iz(peak ) = 0.5 + 0.1 ⎛ ------⎞ (20)
Sivakugan et al. (1998) used the case histories of the 79 foun- ⎝ σ 'o⎠
dations given in Fig. 4 and compared those with the settlements
The value of σ 'o in Eq. (20) is the effective overburden pres-
obtained using the strain influence factor shown in Fig. 7 and Eq.
sure at a depth where Iz(peak) occurs.
(16), and this is shown in Fig. 8. From this figure, it can be seen
Salgado (2008) gave the following interpolation for Iz at z = 0,
that se(predicted)/Se(observed) ≈ 3.39.
zp, and zo (for L/B = 1 to L/B ≥ 10).
Schmertmann et al. (1978) modified the strain influence factor
variation (2B–0.6Iz) shown in Fig. 7. The revised distribution is L
Iz(at z = 0) = 0.1 + 0.0111 ⎛⎝ ---⎞⎠ ≤ 0.2 (21)
shown in Fig. 9 for use in Eqs. (16)-(18). According to this, B
zp L
For square or circular foundation: ---- = 0.5 + 0.0555 ⎛ --- – 1⎞ ≤ 1 (22)
B ⎝B ⎠
Iz = 0.1 at z = 0
z
----o = 2 + 0.222 ⎛ --L- – 1⎞ ≤ 4 (23)
B ⎝B ⎠
Noting that stiffness is about 40% larger for plane strain com-
pared to axisymmetric loading, Schmertmann et al. (1978) re-
commended that:
Es = 2.5qc (for square and circular foundations) (24)
and
Es = 3.5qc (for strip foundation) (25)
With the modified strain-influence factor diagram,
z=z
I o

Se = C1 C2 ∑ ----z- ∆z (26)
E
z=0 s

Fig. 8. Sivakugan et al.'s (1998) Comparison of Predicted and
Observed Settlements from 79 Foundations Predicted Set-
tlement Based on 2B-0.6Iz Procedure
The modified strain influence factor and Eqs. (24) and (25)
will definitely reduce the average ratio of predicted to observed
settlement. However, it may still overestimate the actual elastic
settlement in the field.

3.5 Recent Modifications in Strain-influence Factor Dia-

grams
More recently some modifications have been proposed to the
strain-influence factor diagram suggested by Schmertmann et al.
(1978). Two of these suggestions are discussed below:

3.5.1 Modification Suggested by Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri

(1996)
The modification suggested by Terzaghi et al. (1996) is shown
in Fig. 10. For this case, for surface foundation condition (that is,
Df /B = 0):

Fig. 9. Revised Strain Influence Factor Diagram Suggested by Iz = 0.2 at z = 0

Schmertmann et al. (1978) Iz = Iz(peak) = 0.6 at z = zp = 0.5B

Vol. 15, No. 1 / January 2011 − 81 −

 Eun Chul Shin and Braja M. Das

ES (L ⁄ B ) L
- = 1 + 0.4log ⎛ ---⎞ ≤ 1.4
------------------ (30)
ES (L ⁄ B = 1) ⎝ B⎠

where, ES(L ⁄ B = 1) = 3.5qc (31)

Fig. 12 shows the plot of Es versus qc from 81 foundations and

92 plate load tests on which Eq. (31) has been established. The
magnitude of Es recommended by Eq. (31) is about 40% higher
than that obtained from Eq. (24). Fig. 13 shows a comparison of
the end-of-construction predicted [using Eqs. (28), (30) and (31)]
and measured settlement of foundations on sand and gravelly
soils (Terzaghi et al., 1996).

3.5.2 Modification Suggested by Lee et al. (2008)

Based on finite element analysis, Lee et al. (2008) suggested
the following modifications to the strain influence factor diagram
suggested by Schmertmann et al. (1978). This assumes that Iz(peak)

Fig. 10. Strain Influence Diagram Suggested by Terzaghi et al.

(1996)

Iz = 0 at z = zo

L
z0 = 2 1 + log ⎛ ---⎞ ≤ 4 (27)
⎝ B⎠

For Df /B > 0, Iz should be modified to I 'z. Fig. 11 shows the

variation of I 'z ⁄ Iz with Df /B.
The end of construction settlement can be estimated as:
z=z
I' o
Se = q ∑ -----z ∆z (28)
E
z=0 s Fig. 12. Correlation between Es and qc for Square and Circularly
Loaded Areas [Adapted from Terzaghi et al. (1996)]
The settlement due to creep can be calculated as:

0.1 tdays ⎞
Screep = ⎛ -------⎞ zo log ⎛ ----------- (29)
⎝ qc ⎠ ⎝ 1day⎠

where, qc = weighted mean value of measured qc values of

sublayers between z = 0 and z = zo (MN/m2)
It has also been suggested that:

Fig. 13. Comparison of End of Construction Predicted and Mea-

sured Se of Foundations on Sand and Gravelly Soils based
on Eqs. (33), (35) and (36) [Adapted from Terzaghi et al.
Fig. 11. Variation of I'z /Iz with Df /B (after Terzaghi et al., 1996) (1996)]

− 82 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Developments in Elastic Settlement Estimation Procedures for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil

and Iz at z = 0 is the same as given by Eqs. (20) and (21).

L 2
However Eqs. (22) and (23) are modified as: 1.25 ⎛ ---⎞
S ⎧ 1.71 ⎫ ⎝ B⎠ B ⎞ 0.7 ⎛ q ⎞
-----e- = 0.14 α ⎨ ---------------------------------
- -----------------------
- ⎛ -----
- ---- (38)
zp BR ⎬ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ pa⎠
⎛ --L-⎞ – 1 ⎩ [ N60 orN60(a) ] ⎭ 0.25 + ⎛ --L-⎞ BR
14
---- = 0.5 + 0.11 (32)
B ⎝ B⎠ ⎝ B⎠
≤ with a maximum of 1 at L/B = 6 where, L = length of the foundation
pa = atmospheric pressure (≈ 100 kN/m2)
⎧ ⎛L ⎞ ⎫
---- = 0.95cos ⎨ π
zo
--- --- – 1 – π ⎬ + 3 (33)
B 5 ⎝B ⎠
⎩ ⎭ B. For overconsolidated soil (q ≤ σ 'c; where σ 'c = overconsoli-
dation pressure)
With these modifications, the elastic settlement can be calcul- L 2
1.25 ⎛ ---⎞
ated using Eq. (16). S ⎧ 0.57 ⎫ ⎝ B⎠ ⎛ B ⎞ 0.7 ⎛ q ⎞
-----e- = 0.047 α ⎨ ---------------------------------
- ⎬ - ------
----------------------- ---- (39)
BR ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ pa⎠
⎩ [ N60 orN60 (a ) ] ⎭ 0.25 + ⎛ --L-⎞ BR
14

3.6 Method of Burland and Burbidge (1985) ⎝ B⎠

Burland and Burbidge (1985) proposed a method for calcul-
ating the elastic settlement of sandy soil using the field standard
C. For overconsolidated soil (q > σ 'c)
penetration number N60. The method can be summarized as
follows: L 2
1.25 ⎛ ---⎞
Obtain the field penetration numbers (N60) with depth at the S ⎧ 0.57 ⎫ ⎝ B⎠ B 0.7 q – 0.67σ '
- ------------------------ ⎛ ------⎞ ⎛ ------------------------c ⎞
-----e- = 0.14 α ⎨ ---------------------------------
14 ⎬
location of the foundation. The following adjustments of N60 BR ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎩ [ N60 orN60(a) ] ⎭ 0.25 + ⎛ --L-⎞ BR pa
may be necessary, depending on the field conditions: ⎝ B⎠
For gravel or sandy gravel,
(40)
N60 (a ) ≈ 1.25N60 (34)
Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) used a probabilistic approach
For fine sand or silty sand below the ground water table and to compare the predicted settlements obtained by the methods of
N60 > 15, Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967), Schmertmann et al. (1970), and
Burland and Burbidge (1985). Table 2 gives a summary of their
N60 (a ) ≈ 15 + 0.5 ( N60 – 15 ) (35)
study-that is, predicted settlement versus the probability of ex-
where, N60(a) = adjusted N60 value ceeding 25 mm settlement in the field. This shows that the
method of Burland and Burbidge (1985), although conservative,
In determining the depth of stress influence, the following
is a substantially improved technique to estimate elastic settle-
three cases may arise:
ment.
Case I. If N60 [or N60(a)] is approximately constant with depth,
calculate z' from: 4. Theory of Elasticity
0.75
z' B
------ = 1.4 ⎛ ------⎞ (36) 4.1 Steinbrenner’s (1934) and Fox’s (1948) Theory
BR ⎝ BR⎠
Based on the observations made on elastic settlement calcula-
where, BR = reference width = 0.3 m tion using empirical correlations and the wide range in the pre-
B = width of the actual foundation (m) dictions obtained, it is desirable to consider alternative solutions
based on the theory of elasticity. With that in mind, Fig. 14 shows a
Case II. If N60 [or N60(a)] is increasing with depth, use Eq. (36)
to calculate z'.
Table 2. Probability of Exceeding 25 mm Settlement in the Field
Case III. If N60 [or N60(a)] is decreasing with depth, calculate z' =
2B and z' = distance from the bottom of the foundation to the Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in field
Predicted
bottom of the soft soil layer (=z"). Use z' = 2B or z' = z" (whichever settlement Terzaghi and Schmertmann
Burland and
is smaller). (mm) Peck et al.
Burbidge (1985)
(1948, 1967) (1970)
The correction factor α is given as: 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.03
H H
α = ---- ⎛⎝ 2 – ----⎞⎠ ≤ 1 (37) 10
15
0.00
0.09
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.25
z' z'
20 0.20 0.20 0.34
where, H = thickness of the compressible layer 25 0.26 0.27 0.42
30 0.31 0.32 0.49
The elastic settlement of the foundation Se can be calculated as: 35 0.35 0.37 0.55
40 0.387 0.42 0.61

A. For normally consolidated soil Compiled from Sivakugan and Johnson (2004).

Vol. 15, No. 1 / January 2011 − 83 −

 Eun Chul Shin and Braja M. Das

α ' = a factor that depends on the location below the foundation

where settlement is being calculated.
To calculate settlement at the center of the foundation, we use:
α' = 4 (49)
L
m = --- (50)
B
and
H
n = -------- (51)
⎛B ---⎞
⎝ 2⎠

Fig. 14. Settlement Profile for Shallow Flexible and Rigid Founda- To calculate settlement at a corner of the foundation,
tion
α' = 1 (52)
schematic diagram of the elastic settlement profile for a flexible L
m = ---
and rigid foundation. The shallow foundation measures B×L in B
plan and is located at a depth Df below the ground surface. A
and
rock layer (or a rigid layer) is located at a depth H below the
bottom of the foundation. H
n = ----
Theoretically, if the foundation is perfectly flexible (Fig. 14), B
the settlement may be expressed as (see Bowles, 1987):
Based on the works of Fox (1948), the variations of depth
1 – µ2 factor If for µs= 0.3 and 0.4 and L/B have been determined by
Se = q ( α'B' ) ------------s- Is If (41)
Es Bowles (1987) and are given in Table 3. Note that If is not a
function of H/B.
where, B' = B/2 for center of foundation (= B for corner of
Due to the non-homogeneous nature of a soil deposit, the
foundation)
magnitude of Es may vary with depth. For that reason, Bowles
Es = Average modulus of elasticity of the soil under
(1987) recommended:
the foundation, measured from z = 0 to about z =
4B ∑ E s ( i ) ∆z
Es = -------------------- (53)
ms = Poisson’s ratio of soil z
q = Net applied pressure on the foundation
where, Es(i) = Soil modulus within the depth ∆z
Is = shape factor (Steinbrenner, 1934) z = 5B or H (if H < 5B)
1 – 2µ Bowles (1987) also recommended that:
= F1 + ----------------s F2 (42)
1 – µs
Es = 500 ( N60 + 15 ) kN/m2 (54)
1
F1 = --- ( A0 + A1 ) (43) The elastic settlement of a rigid foundation can be estimated as
π
n S e(rigid) ≈ 0.93Se(flexible, center) (55)
F2 = ------ tan–1 A2 (44)
2π
Bowles (1987) compared this theory with 12 case histories that
2 2 2
(1 + m + 1) m + n provided reasonable good results.
A0 = mln --------------------------------------------------- (45)
2 2
m(1 + m + n + 1)
4.2 Analysis of Mayne and Poulos based on Theory of Elas-
2 2
(m + m + 1) 1 + n ticity
A1 = ln ------------------------------------------------- (46)
m+ m +n +1
2 2 Mayne and Poulos (1999) presented an improved formula for
calculating the elastic settlement of foundations. The formula
m
A2 = ------------------------------------ (47) takes into account the rigidity of the foundation, the depth of
2 2
n+ m +n +1 embedment of the foundation, the increase in the modulus of
elasticity of the soil with depth, and the location of rigid layers at
If = depthfactor (Fox, 1948)
a limited depth. To use the equation of Mayne and Poulos, one
D L needs to determine the equivalent diameter Be of a rectangular
= f ⎛ -----f, µ3, and ---⎞ (48)
⎝B B⎠ foundation, or:

− 84 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Developments in Elastic Settlement Estimation Procedures for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil

Table 3. Variation of If (Fox, 1948)*

L/B
Df/B
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 5.0
Poisson’s ratio µ s = 0.30
0.05 0.979 0.981 0.982 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.990
0.10 0.954 0.958 0.962 0.964 0.966 0.968 0.977
0.20 0.902 0.911 0.917 0.923 0.927 0.930 0.951
0.40 0.808 0.823 0.834 0.843 0.851 0.857 0.899
0.60 0.738 0.754 0.767 0.778 0.788 0.796 0.852
0.80 0.687 0.703 0.716 0.728 0.738 0.747 0.813
1.00 0.650 0.665 0.678 0.689 0.700 0.709 0.780
2.00 0.562 0.571 0.580 0.588 0.596 0.603 0.675
Poisson’s ratio µ s = 0.40
0.05 0.989 0.990 0.991 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.995
0.10 0.973 0.976 0.978 0.980 0.981 0.982 0.988
0.20 0.932 0.940 0.945 0.949 0.952 0.955 0.970
0.40 0.848 0.862 0.872 0.881 0.887 0.893 0.927
0.60 0.779 0.795 0.808 0.819 0.828 0.836 0.886
0.80 0.727 0.743 0.757 0.769 0.779 0.788 0.849
1.00 0.689 0.704 0.718 0.730 0.740 0.749 0.818
2.00 0.596 0.606 0.615 0.624 0.632 0.640 0.714
* Adapted from Bowles (1987)

below the center of the foundation is:

4BL
Be = ---------- (56)
π qBe IG IR IE
- ( 1 – µs2 )
Se = --------------------- (59)
Eo
For circular foundations,
IG = influence factor for the variation of Es
Be = B (57)
Where,
where, B = diameter of foundation
Fig. 15 shows a foundation with an equivalent diameter Be EO H ⎞
with depth= f ⎛ β = -------
-, -----
located at a depth Df below the ground surface. Let the thickness ⎝ kBe Be⎠
of the foundation be t and the modulus of elasticity of the
IE = Foundation embedment correction factor
foundation material be Ef. A rigid layer is located at a depth H
IR = Foundation rigidity correction factor
below the bottom of the foundation.
Fig. 16 shows the variation of IG with β = Eo/kBe and H/Be. The
The modulus of elasticity of the compressible soil layer can be
foundation rigidity correction factor can be expressed as:
given as
π 1
Es = Eo + kz (58) IR = --- + ------------------------------------------------------------------3 (60)
4 Ef 2t
4.6 + 10 ⎛ ---------------------------- -⎞ ⎛ -----⎞
where k = rate of increase in Es with depth (kN/m2/m) ⎝ Eo + ( Be ⁄ 2 )k⎠ ⎝ Be⎠
With the preceding parameters defined, the elastic settlement

Fig. 15. Mayne and Poulos’ Procedure (1999) for Settlement Cal-
culation Fig. 16. Variation of IG with β

Vol. 15, No. 1 / January 2011 − 85 −

 Eun Chul Shin and Braja M. Das

Similarly, the embedment correction factor is: Table 4. Variation of Is

Depth of influence HI /B
1 L/B
IE = 1 – ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (61)
B 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
3.5exp ( 1.22 µs – 0.4 ) ⎛ -----e + 1.6⎞
⎝ Df ⎠ 1 0.35 0.56 0.63 0.69
2 0.39 0.65 0.76 0.88
Figs. 17 and 18 show the variation of IR with IE as a function of 3 0.40 0.67 0.81 0.96
the terms expressed in Eqs. (60) and (61). 5 0.41 0.68 0.84 0.99
10 0.42 0.71 0.89 1.06

4.3 Berardi and Lancellotta’s Method

Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) proposed a method to estimate the Es = modulus of elasticity of soil
elastic settlement that takes into account the variation of the
The variation of Is (Tsytovich, 1951) with Poisson’s ratio µ s =
modulus of elasticity of soil with the strain level. This method is
0.15 is given in Table 4.
also described by Berardi et al. (1991). According to this procedure,
Using analytical and numerical evaluations, Berardi and
qB Lancellotta (1991) have shown that, for a circular foundation,
Se = Is ------ (62)
Es
H 25 = ( 0.8 to 1.3 )B (63)
where, Is = influence factor for a rigid foundation (Tsytovich,
For plane strain condition (that is, L/B 10),
1951)
H 25 = ( 1.5 to 1.7 )H 25( circle) (64)
where, H25 = depth from the bottom of the foundation below
which the residual settlement is 25% of the total
settlement
The above implies that H25≤2.5B for practically all founda-
tions. Thus the depth of influence HI can be taken to be H25. The
modulus of elasticity Es in Eq. (62) can be evaluated as (Janbu,
1963):
σ 'o + 0.5∆σ '⎞ 0.5
Es = KE pa ⎛ --------------------------- (65)
⎝ pa ⎠
where, pa = atmospheric pressure
σ 'o and ∆σ ' = effective overburden pressure and net effective
stress increase due to the foundation loading,
respectively, at a depth B/2 below the foundation
KE = dimensionless modulus number
Fig. 17. Variation of IR with KF
After reanalyzing the performance of 130 structures founda-
tions on predominantly silica sand as reported by Burland and
Burbidge (1985), Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) obtained the
variation of KE with the relative density Dr at Se/B = 0.1% and KE
at varying strain levels. Figs. 19 and 20 show the average variat-
ion of KE with Dr at Se/B = 0.1% and KE(S ⁄ B) / KE(S ⁄ B = 0.1%) with
e e

Se/B.
In order to estimate the elastic settlement of the foundation, an
iterative procedure is suggested which can be described as
follows:
Step. 1 Determine the variation of the blow count N60 from
standard penetration tests within the zone of influence, that is
H25.
Step. 2 Determine the corrected blow count (N1)60 as:
2
( N1 )60 = N60 ⎛ -------------------------⎞ (66)
⎝ 1 + 0.01σ 'o ⎠
where, σ o' = vertical effective stress in kN/m2
Fig. 18. Variation of IE with µ s and Df /Be Step. 3 Determine the average corrected blow count from

− 86 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Developments in Elastic Settlement Estimation Procedures for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil

Table 5. Probability of Exceeding 25 mm Settlement in the Field

Procedure of Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) (Based on
Sivakugan and Johnson, 2004)
Predicted settlement Probability of exceeding
(mm) 25 mm in the field (%)
1 6
5 19
10 32
15 43
20 52
25 60
30 66
35 72
40 77

Fig. 19.Variation of KE with Dr and N60 (adapted from Berardi and

Lancellotta, 1991)
Fig. 20.Plot of KE(Se/B)/KE(Se/B=0.1%) with Se/B (adapted from Berardi
and Lancellotta, 1991)
standard penetration tests (N1)60 and hence the average relative
density as:
0.5
N
Dr = ⎛ ------1⎞ (67)
⎝ 60⎠
Step. 4 With a known value of Dr, determine KE(Se/B=0.1%) from
Fig. 19 and hence Es from Eq. (65) for Se/B = 0.1%
Step. 5 With the known value of Es (Step 4), the magnitude of
Se can be calculated from Eq. (62).
Step. 6 If the calculated Se/B is not the same as the assumed
value, then use the calculated value of Se/B from Step 5 and Fig. 20
to estimate a revised KE(Se/B). This value can now be used in Eqs.
(65) and (62) to obtain a revised Se. The iterative procedures can be
continued until the assumed and calculated values are the same.
Based on a probabilistic study conducted by Sivakugan and
Johnson (2004), the probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement
in the field for various predicted settlement levels using the
iteration procedure of Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) is shown in
Table 5. When compared with Table 2, this shows a promise of
improved prediction in elastic settlement.
years for estimating elastic settlement of shallow foundations on
granular soil is presented. Based on the above review, the
following general observations can be made.
(1) Meyerhof’s relationship (1965) is fairly simple to use. It will
probably yield predicted settlements that are 50% higher on
the average than those observed in the field. Peck and
Bazaraa’s method (1969) provides results that are almost
similar to those obtained from Meyerhof’s method (1965).
(2) Burland and Burbidge’s solution (1985) will provide more
reasonable estimations of Se than those obtained from the
solution of Meyerhof (1965). However it will be difficult to
determine the overconsolidation ratio and the preconsolida-
tion pressure for granular soils from field exploration.
(3) The modified strain influence factor diagrams presented by
Schmertmann et al. (1978), Terzaghi et al. (1996), and Lee
et al. (2008) will all provide reasonable estimations of the
elastic settlement provided a more realistic value of Es is
assumed in the calculation. The authors feel that the empi-
rical relationships for Es provided by Eqs. (30) and (31) are
more reasonable.
(4) The relationships for Es provided by Eqs. (30) and (31) are
based on the field cone penetration resistance. These equa-
tions can be converted to expressions in terms of N60 and D50
(mean grain size). Fig. 21 shows some of the relationships
available in the literature. Based on the data of Burland and
Burbidge (1985):
q c⎞
⎛ ----
⎝ pa⎠
---------- = 8D50
0.305 (68)
N60
Based on the data of Robertson and Campanella (1983) and
Seed and DeAlba (1986):
q c⎞
⎛ ----
⎝ pa⎠
---------- = 6D50
0.228
(69)
N60
Based on the data of Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003):

5. Conclusions q c⎞
⎛ ----
⎝ pa⎠
---------- = 7.6429D50
0.26 (70)
A general review of the major developments over the last sixty N60

Vol. 15, No. 1 / January 2011 − 87 −

 Eun Chul Shin and Braja M. Das
Fig. 21. Variation of (qc/pa)/N60 with D50: (a) Adapted from Terzaghi
et al. (1996), (b) Adapted from Anagnostopoulos et al.,
2003)
where, D50 = Mean grain size, in mm.
pa = Atmospheric pressure (same unit as qc)
(5) Relationships for elastic settlement using the theory of elas-
ticity will be equally as good as the other methods, provided
a realistic value of Es is adopted. This can be accomplished
using the iteration method suggested by Berardi and
Lancellotta (1991). In lieu of that, the Es relationship given
by Terzaghi et al. (1996) can be used.
What is presented in this paper is a systematic accumulation of
knowledge and data over the past sixty years. In summary, the
parameters for comparing settlement prediction methods are
accuracy and reliability. Reliability is the probability that the
actual settlement would be less than that computed by a specific
method. In choosing a method for design, it all comes down to
keeping a critical balance between reliability and accuracy which
can be difficult at times knowing the non-homogeneous nature of
soil in general. We cannot be over-conservative but, at the same
time, not be accurate. We need to keep in mind what Karl
− 88 −
Terzaghi said in the 45th James Forrest Lecture at the Institute of
Civil Engineers in London: “Foundation failures that occur are
not longer ‘an act of God’.”
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the University of Incheon
Reserch Grant in 2008.
References
Anagnostopoulos, A., Kourkis, G., Sabatakakis, N., and Tsiambaos, G.
(2003). “Empirical correlation of soil parameters based on Cone
Penetration Tests (CPT) for Greek soils.” Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 377-387.
Bazaraa, A. R. S. S. (1967). Use of the standard penetration test for
estimating settlements of shallow foundations on sand, PhD Thesis,
University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Settlement
of shallow foundations in sands: Selection of stiffness on the basis of
penetration resistance.” Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991,
Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, Vol. 27, pp. 185-200.
Berardi, R. and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Stiffness of granular soil from
field performance.” Geotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 149-157.
Bjerrum, L. and Eggestad, A. (1963). “Interpretation of load test on
sand.” Proceedings, European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, West Germany, Vol. 1, p. 199.
Bowles, J. E. (1987). “Elastic foundation settlement on sand deposits.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp.
846-860.
Briaud, J. L. (2007). “Spread footing on sand: Load settlement curve
approach.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 8, pp. 905-920.
Burland, J. B. and Burbidge, M. C. (1985). “Settlement of foundations
on sand and gravel.” Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 1325-1381.
D’Appolonia, D. J., D’Appolonia, E., and Brissette, R. F. (1970).
“Settlement of spread footings on sand: Closure.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp.
754-762.
DeBeer, E. and Martens, A. (1957). “Method of computation of an
upper limit for the influence of heterogeneity of sand layers in the
settlement of bridges.” Proceedings, 4th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, Vol. 1, pp.
275-281.
Eggestad, A. (1963). “Deformation measurements below a model
footing on the surface of dry sand.” Proceedings, European Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden,
Vol. 1, pp. 233-239.
Fox, E. N. (1948). “The mean elastic settlement of a uniformly loaded
area at a depth below the ground surface.” Proceedings, 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 129-132.
Hough, B. K. (1969). Basic soils engineering, Ronald Press, New York.
Janbu, N. (1963). “Soil compressibility as determined from oedometer
and triaxial tests.” Proceedings, European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, Vol. 1, pp. 19-
24.
Jeyapalan, J. K. and Boehm, R. (1986). “Procedures for predicting
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Developments in Elastic Settlement Estimation Procedures for Shallow Foundations on Granular Soil
settlements in sands.” In W. O. Martin (ed.), Settlements of Shallow
Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: Design and Performance,
ASCE, Seattle, pp. 1-22.
Lee, J., Eun, J., Prezzi, M., and Salgado, R. (2008). “Strain influence
diagrams for settlement estimation of both isolated and multiple
footings in sand.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 4, pp. 417-427.
Mayne, P. W. and Poulos, H. G. (1999). “Approximate displacement
influence factors for elastic shallow foundations.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125,
No. 6, pp. 453-460.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1956). “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of
cohesionless soils.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1965). “Shallow foundations.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 21-
31.
Papadopoulos, B. P. (1992). “Settlements of shallow foundations on
cohesionless soils.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 377-393.
Peck, R. B. and Bazaraa, A. R. S. S. (1969). “Discussion of paper by
D’Appolonia et al.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 305-309.
Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R. G. (1983). “Interpretation of cone
penetration tests: Part I: Sand.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 718-733.
Salgado, R. (2008). The engineering of foundations, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1970). “Static cone to compute static settlement
over sand.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Vol. 15, No. 1 / January 2011 − 89 −
Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 1011-1043.
Schmertmann, J. H., Hartmann, J. P., and Brown, P. R. (1978). “Improv-
ed strain influence factor diagrams.” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. 8, pp. 1131-1135.
Seed, H. B. and DeAlba, P. (1986). “Use of SPT and CPT tests for
evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands.” Proceedings, ASCE
Specialty Conference of Use of In Situ Testing in Geotecnical
Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication 6, Blackburg, pp.
281-302.
Sivakugan, N., Eckersley, J. D., and Li, H. (1998). “Settlement predic-
tions using neural networks.” Australian Civil Engineering Transac-
tions, Vol. CE40, pp. 49-52.
Sivakugan, N. and Johnson, K. (2004). “Settlement prediction in
granular soils: A probabilistic approach.” Geotechnique, Vol. 54,
No. 7, pp. 499-502.
Skempton, A. W. (1985). “Standard penetration test procedures and the
effect in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size,
aging and overconsolidation.” Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.
425-447.
Steinbrenner, W. (1934). “Tafeln zur setzungsberschnung.” Die Strasse,
Vol. 1, pp. 121-124.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engineering
practice, 1st Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering
practice, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in
engineering practice, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Tsytovich, N. A. (1951). Soil mechanics, Ed. Stroitielstvo i Archiketura,
Moscow (in Russian).