NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

Module 6
Lecture 37
Evaluation of Soil Settlement - 3
Topics
1.2.4 Settlement Prediction in Sand by Empirical Correlation
1.2.5 Calculation of Immediate Settlement in Granular Soil Using Simplified
Strain Influence Factor
1.2.4 Settlement Prediction in Sand by Empirical Correlation
Based on several field load tests, Terzaghi and Peck (1967) suggested that for similar intensities of load q on
a footing where is the settlement of a footing with width B and (1) is the settlement of a smaller footing
with width 1 . The value of 1 is usually taken as 1 ft.
=

+1

(1)

(30)

Table 6 Youngs modulus for vertical static compression of sand from standard penetration number
(After Mitchell and Gardner 1975).
Reference
Schultze and
Meizer (1965)

Relationship*
= 0.522 /2
= 246.2 log 26.34 + 375.6
57.6
0 < < 1.2 /2
= effective overburden pressure

Soil types
Dry sand

Webb (1969)

= 5 + 15 ton/ 2
= 10/3 + 5 ton/ 2

Sand
Clayey sand

Farrent (1963)

= 40 + 6 /2
> 15
= + 6 /2 > 15

Trofimenkov
(1974)

= 350 500 log /2

Silt with
sand to
gravel with
sand
Sand

Basis
Penetration tests in
field and in test shaft.
Compressibility
based on
, , and
(Schultze and
Moussa. (1961)
Screw plate tests

Remarks
Correlation
coefficient
=
0.730 for 77 tests

Below water table

Used in Greece

U.S.S.R. practice

Table 7 Equivalent Youngs modulus for vertical static compression of sand-static cone resistance
(After Mitchell and Gardner 1975).
Reference
Buisman (1940)
Trofimenkov

Relationship
= 1.5

Soil type
Sands

= 2.5

Sand

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

Remarks
Overpredicts settlements by a
factor of about 2
Lower limit
1

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

(1964)
De Beer (1967)

= 100 + 5
= 1.5

Schultze
and
Meizer (1965)

Bachelier
Parez (1965)

= 310.1 log 382.3 60.3

50.3
= effective overburden pressure
and
=
= 0.8 0.9
= 1.3 1.9
= 3.8 5.7
= 7.7
=
= 3 12

Thomas (1968)

Webb (1969)

1
0.522

1
2
1
= 2

+ 30 / 2
+ 15 / 2

Vesic (1970)

= 2(1 + 3 )
= relative density

Schmertmann
(1970)
Bogdanovic
(1973)

= 2

Schmertmann
(1974)

=
> 40 /2
= 1.5
20 < < 40
= 1.5 1.8
10 < < 20
= 1.8 2.5
5 < < 10
= 2.5 3.0

= 2.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

Sand
Dry sand

Average
Overpredicts settlements by a
factor of 2
Based on field and lab
penetration tests-compressibility
based on , and
Correlation
coefficient
=
0.778 for 90 tests valid for o =
0 0.8 kg/cm2

Pure sand
Silty
sand
Clayey
sand
Soft clay
3 sands

Based on penetration and

compression tests in large
chambers.
Lower
values
of
at higher values of :
attributed to grain crushing

Sand
below
water
table
Clayey
sand
below
water
table
Sand

Based on screw plate tests:

correlated will with settlement of
oil tanks

Sand

Based on pile load tests and

assumptions concerning state of
stress
Based on screw plate tests

Sand,
sandy
gravels
Silty
saturated
sands
Clayey
silts with
silty sand
and silty
saturated
sands
with silt
NC sands / = 1 2, axisymmetric
NC sands / 10, plane strain
2

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

De Beer (1974)

= 3.5
= 1.6 8
= 1.5 , > 30 /2
= 3 , < 30 /2
> 1.5 , = 2
= 1.9
1
= 2 + 3200 /2 )
1

= 2 + 1600 /2 )
= , 1.5 < < 2

Trofimenkov
(1974)

= 3
= 7

Sand
Sand

Bulgarian practice
Greek practice

Sand
Sand
Fine to
medium
sand
Clayey
sands,
<
15%
Sand
Sands
Clays

Italian practice
South African practice
U. K. practice

U. S. S.R. practice

Table 8 Values of from various case studies of immediate settlement (After Appolonia, H. G. Poulos,
and C. C. Ladd 1971).
Clay properties
Sensitivity
Overconsolidation
ratio
2
3.5

,
/2

Source of

7,600

1,200

CIU

2.5

990

1,000
1,200

Field vane
CIU

100

1.7

880

1,000
1,100

Field vane
CIU

14

1.5

1,300

1,200
1,700

Field vane
Bearing
capacity

Portsmouty: Highway
embankment

15

10

1.3

3,000

2,000
1,700

Boston: Highway
embankment
Drammen: Circular load
test
Kawasaki: Circular load
test
Venezuela: Oil tanks
Maine: Rectangular load
test

24

28

10

1.5
1.0
1.4

10,000
13,000
3,200

38

63

1.0

2,200

1,600
1,200
1,400
1,100
400

37
332

82
4

1.0
1.5 to 4.5

5.00
100 to 200

Field vane
Bearing
capacity
Field vane

Field vane

Field vane
CIU
CIU
UU and
Bearing
capacity

No.

Location of structure

Plasticity
index

Oslo: Nine-story
building
Asrum I: Circular load

15
16

100

Asrum II: Circular load

test

14

Mastemyr: Circular load

test

7
8
9
10

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

800
80 to
160

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

Equation (30) can be rewritten in the form

(1)

= (1+

(31)

2
1 /)

DAppolonia et al. (1970) compared the above equation with several field experiments conducted by
Bjerrum and Eggstad (1963) and Bazaraa (1967). The results of the comparison are shown in Figure 6. 15.
It appears that the relationship gives the general trend; however, there appears to be a wide scattering of
points.

Figure 6.15 Comparison of field test results with equation (31). (After D. J. DAppolonia, E.
DAppolonia, and R. F. Brisette, discussion on Settlement of Spread Footings on Sand, J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., ASCE, vol. 96, 1970)

Using the standard penetration resistance obtained from field explorations, Meyerhof (1965) proposed the
following relationships for settlement calculations in sand:
=

And =

for 4
6

+1

for > 4

(32a)
(32b)

Where
= intensity of applied load, kip/ft 2
= width of footing, ft
= settlement, in
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

= standard penetration number

Figure 6.16 shows a comparison of the observed settlements to those obtained through equation (32). It
appears that the predicted settlements are rather conservative. Bowles (1977) suggested that for a more
reasonable agreement equation (32) can be modified as
=

2.5

for 4

And =

+1

for > 4

(33a)
(33b)

In a later work, based on the analysis of the field data of Schultze and Sherif (1973), Meyerhof (1974) gave
the following empirical correlations for settlement of shallow foundations:

Figure 6.16 Comparison of observed settlement to that calculated from equation (32).
(After Meyerhof 1965)
=

(for sand and gravel)

(34a)

(for silty sand)

(34b)

Where
= settlement, in
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

= intensity of applied load, ton/ft 2

= width of footing, in

1.2.5 Calculation of Immediate Settlement in Granular Soil Using Simplified

Strain Influence Factor
The equation for vertical strain under the center of a flexible circular load was given in equation (5) as
where is the strain influence factor.
=

(1+)

Or =

[ 1 2 + ]
= 1 + [ 1 2 + ]

(35)

Figure 6.17 shows the variation of with depth based on equation (35) for v equal to 0.4 and 0.5 also.
According to this simplified strain-influence factor method, the immediate settlement of a foundation can be
calculated as where 1 is the correction factor for the depth of embedment of foundation, and 2 is a
correction factor to account for the creep n soil. The factors 1 and 2 are given by the following equations:
= 1 2

2
0

1 = 1 0.5

(36)
(37)

Where = effective overburden pressure at foundation level

= net foundation pressure increase = q1 q o
1 = average pressure of foundation against soil
2 = 1 + 0.2

0.1

(38)

Where t is time, in years.

Below is an example for using equation (36) which was given in Schmertmanns 1970 paper.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 6.17 Theoretical and experimental distribution of vertical strain influence factor below the center of
a circular loaded area. (after J. Schmertmann,1970)

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur