Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

19

1
2
Braja M. Das* and Nagaratnam Sivakugan

Settlements of shallow foundations on


granular soil an overview
ABSTRACT: The main objective of this paper is to review the current state-of-the-art for predicting settlements of shallow
foundations in granular soils. The traditional settlement prediction methods are critically reviewed. The Settlement 94 prediction session held in Texas clearly showed the deficiencies in the present settlement prediction methods, which generally overestimate 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 criterion 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 settlements, differential settlements and any subsequent distresses to the structure are limited. Generally the settlements
of shallow foundations such as pad or strip footings are limited 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 important variables affecting the settlements in granular soils. Soil
stiffness is often quantified indirectly through penetration
*Corresponding Author
1Geotechnical Engineer, Henderson, Nevada 89044 USA, e-mail: brajamdas@gmail.com
2Associate Professor and Head of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, AUSTRALIA,
siva.sivakugan@jcu.edu.au

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2007) 1: (1929)


DOI 10.3328/IJGE.2007.01.01.19-29

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 computing settlements of shallow foundations on granular soils,
discuss some of the popular methods and review the empirical correlations for estimating the soil stiffness.

2. CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-ART
The most popular methods for settlement predictions, discussed 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) methods 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 quantifying the uncertainties associated with the settlement prediction methods.
Computed and measured settlements of full-scale footings have been compared by Jeyapalan and Boehm (1986),
Papadopoulos (1992) and Sivakugan et al. (1998). The message is loud and clear that the predictions are generally significantly 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%.
J. Ross Publishing, Inc. 2007

20 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

fx(x)

Settlement ratio (x) =

Calculated settlement
Measured settlement

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.

2.2 Settlement 94 Prediction Session

Reliability

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 comparing settlement prediction methods: accuracy and reliability.
Accuracy is how close the predictions 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 settlements. 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-

Briaud and Gibbens (1994) documented the class A settlement 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
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 densities, 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 available to all participants, who were asked to predict the loads,
Q25 and Q150, which would make the five footings settle by 25
mm and 150 mm, respectively. Q25 is the allowable footing
load satisfying the settlement criterion, and Q150 is more or
less the failure load corresponding to ultimate bearing capacity. The predicted and measured Q25 and Q150 values are
summarized in Table 1. Also shown in the table are the values
of measured Q150 divided by the safety factors of 2.5 and 3,
which are the allowable footing loads that satisfy the bearing
capacity criterion. It is interesting to note that in all five footings, these allowable loads satisfying bearing capacity criterion are reached before the loads corresponding to settlement
criterion. In other words, bearing capacity considerations

Table 1. Predicted and measured values of Q25 and Q150


1.0 1.0

Footing dimensions (m)


Q25:

Measured (kN):
Predicted/Measured:

Q150:

1.5 1.5

2.5 2.5

3.0 3.0

3.0 3.0

850

1500

3600

5200

4500

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

Measured (kN):

1740

3400

7100

10250

9000

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

Q150/2.5 (Allowable load with FS = 2.5)

696

1360

2840

4100

3600

Q150/3.0 (Allowable load with FS = 3.0)

580

1133

2367

3417

3000

Predicted/Measured:

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil an overview 21

Applied pressure (kPa)


0

100

200

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 N60 = 10, 30 and 50 respectively and the
pressure-settlement plots are shown in Figure 2. Here, N60 is
the blow count from standard penetration test, not corrected
for overburden stress. They related the settlement of a B
meter wide square footing (footing) to that of a 300 mm plate
(plate) by the following equation:
(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 correction for water table is not warranted. Nevertheless, rise of
water table, while in service, can reduce the stiffness and produce additional settlements.
Meyerhof (1965) noted the conservativeness in his previous method (Meyerhof, 1956) and the modified expression
for the settlement is:

footing (mm) =
footing (mm) =

1.33q(kPa)
N 60

0.53q(kPa) 2B
B + 0.3
N 60

for B 1.22

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Very dense
Dense
N60 = 50

20
Medium
30
Loose
40
50

N60 = 30

N60 = 10

Figure 2. Pressure-settlement plot of a 300 mm square plate in sands


with N60 = 10, 30 and 50 (load test data from Late Professor G.A.
Leonards).

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.

2
2B D f
footing = plate
1
B + 0.3 4B

400

10

60

3. TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PREDICTION


METHODS

300

Settlement (mm)

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 participants, with Schmertmann (1970, 1978), Burland and
Burbidge (1985) and finite element analysis being more popular. Table 1 shows that the quality of predictions were better
for Q150 than Q25, emphasizing the poor state-of-the-art for
settlement predictions of shallow foundations in sands.

When correction for depth of embedment is taken into


account, Eqs. (2) and (3) would become:
footing (mm) =

footing (mm) =

Df
1 4B

for B 1.22 m

2
0.53q(kPa) 2B D f
B + 0.3 1 4B for B > 1.22 m
N 60

(4)

(5)

Peck and Bazaraa (1969) methods adopt Eq. (3), replacing


N60 with (N1)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,

0.53q(kPa) 2B
footing (mm) = CW C D
(N1 )60 B + 0.3

(6)

where
CW =

o at 0.5B below the bottom of the foundattion


(7)
o at 0.5B below the bottom of the foundation

o = total overburden stress


o= effective overburden stress

Df
C D = 1.0 0.4

0.5

(8)

= unit weight of soil


The relationships for (N1)60 are:

(2)

(N1 )60 =

for B > 1.22 m (3)

1.33q(kPa)
N 60

and

4N 60
(for o 75 kN/m2 )
1 + 0.04 o

(9)

22 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Q
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

lz

0.2

0.4

0.6

lz

0.5B

0.5B

0.5B

0.2

0.4

0.6

lz

B/

=
L

B/

lz peak

3B

3B

2B

0<

2B

4B

3B

4B
(a) Schmertmann (1970)

B/L

=0

B/L

=0

2B

B/

L<

(see Eq 14)

4B
(c) Terzaghi et al. (1996)

(b) Schmertmann et al. (1978)


z

Figure 3. Iz z variation: (a) Schmertmann (1970), (b) Schmertmann et al. (1978), (c) Terzaghi et al. (1996).

(N1 )60 =

4N 60
(for o > 75 kN/m 2 )
3.25 + 0.01 o

(10)

While Meyerhof (1965) and Peck and Bazaraa (1969) expressions 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 footing/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 settlement due to deeper influence zone is compensated by the
increase in the soil stiffness due the plane strain situation.

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:
z =2B

footing = C1C2qnet
z =0

I z dz
E

C1 = 1 0.5

o
0.5
qnet

t
C2 = 1 + 0.2 log
0.1

where C1 and C2 are the depth and time correction factors


given by:

(13)

Here, o = effective overburden stress at the foundation


level, qnet = net applied pressure at foundation level, and t =
time since loading in years. The variation of the influence factor Iz with depth is represented by the 2B-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 = 2qc.
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:

I z ,peak = 0.5 + 0.1


(11)

(12)

qnet
o

(14)

where o is computed at the depth where Iz,peak occurs.


Noting that the stiffness is about 40% larger for plane strain
compared to axisymmetric loading, they suggested that E =
2.5qc for square footings and Es = 3.5qc for strip footings. For

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 suggested influence factors as shown in Figure 3c. Here, Iz,peak =
0.6 for both square and strip. For rectangular footing, the
depth of influence (see Figure 3c) can be computed as:

z I = 2B 1 + log

(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 settlement records of shallow foundations for buildings, tanks and
embankments on granular soils. They noted that the influence depth of the footing, zI, is approximately B0.7, where B
and zI are in meters.
They recommend increasing N60 by 25% in gravel or
sandy gravel. For fine sands and silty sands below water table,
where N60 >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 overestimate the blow counts. Here, Terzaghis correction given
below should be applied:
N60,corrected = 15 + 0.5(N60 15)

(16)

The compressibility of the soil was represented by a compressibility index (Ic), defined as:
Ic =

1.71
1.4
N 60

(17)

where Ic is in MPa-1, and N60 is the average value of N60


within the influence depth zI. For overconsolidated granular
soils, Ic is 1/3 of what is given in Eq. (17).
Burland and Burbidge (1985) suggested that the settlement can be estimated from:
footing = qnetIczI

(18)

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


footing

1.71
= qnet 1.4 B 0.7
N 60

(19)

In overconsolidated granular soils, with preconsolidation


pressure of p, Eq. (19) becomes:
1
1.71
footing = qnet 1.4 B 0.7
3
N 60

if q p

(20)

2 1.71

footing = qnet p 1.4 B 0.7 if q p

3 N 60

(21)

The settlements estimated as above apply for square footings. For rectangular or strip footings, the settlements have to
be multiplied by the following factor (fs):
1.25 L / B
fs =
0.25 + L / B

(22)

The settlements estimated above imply that there is granular soil at least to a depth of zI. If the thickness (Hs) of the
granular layer below the footing is less than the influence
depth, the settlements have to be multiplied by the following
reduction factor (fl):
fl =

Hs
H
2 s

zI
zI

(23)

Burland and Burbidge (1985) noted some time-dependent settlements of the footings, and suggested a multiplication factor (ft) given by:
t
(24)
3
where R3 takes into consideration the time dependent settlement during the first three years of loading, and the last component accounts for the time-dependent settlement that
takes place after the first three years at a slower rate. Suggested
values for R3 and Rt 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.
ft = 1 + R3 + Rt log

4. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SETTLEMENT


PREDICTION METHODS
Two recent methods that appear to give better settlement predictions are the ones proposed by Berardi and Lancellotta
(1991) and Mayne and Poulos (1999). These two methods are
briefly discussed below. Sivakugan and Johnsons (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 estimate the elastic settlement which takes into account the variation 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:
q B
footing = I s net
E
(25)

24 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2. Variation of Is

C. Determine the average corrected blow count from

standard penetration test (N1)60 and hence the


average relative density as:

Depth of influence, zI
B
L/B

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.35

0.56

0.63

0.69

0.39

0.65

0.76

0.88

0.40

0.67

0.81

0.96

0.41

0.68

0.84

0.89

10

0.42

0.71

0.89

1.06

where Is = influence factor for a rigid footing (Tsytovich,


1951) and E = modulus of elasticity of soil. The variation of
Is (Tsytovich, 1951) with Poissons ratio v = 0.15 is given in
Table 2.
Analytical and numerical evaluations have shown that,
for circular and square footings, the depth z25 below the footing beyond which the residual settlement is about 25% of the
surface settlement can be taken as 0.8 to 1.3B. For strip footings (L/B 10), z25 is about 50 to 70% more as compared to
that for square footings. Thus the depth of influence zI can be
taken to be z25. The modulus of elasticity E in Eq. (25) can be
evaluated as:
+ 0.5
E = K E pa o

pa

N
Dr = 1
60

0.5

(28)

D. With known Dr, determine KE(/B = 0.1%) from


Figure 4a and, hence, E from Eq. (26) for /B =
0.1%.
E. With the known value of E from Step D, the magnitude of elastic settlement footing can be calculated from Eq. (25).
F. If the calculated /B is not the same as the assumed
/B, then use the calculated /B from Step E and
use Figure 4b to estimate a revised KE(/B). This
value can now be used in Eqs. (26) and (25) to
obtain a revised footing. This iterative procedure
can be continued until the assumed and calculated
footing is the same.

0.5

(26)

where pa = atmospheric pressure, o and = effective


overburden stress and net effective stress increase due to the
foundation loading, respectively, at a depth B/2 below the
foundation, and KE = 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 KE with the relative density Dr
at /B = 0.1% and KE at varying strain levels. Figures 4a and
4b show the average variation of KE with Dr and
[KE(/B)/KE(/B=0.1%)] with /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 N60 within the zone of
influence, that is z25.
B. Determine the corrected blow count (N1)60 as:
2
(N1 )60 = N 60
1 + o

where o = vertical effective stress

(27)
Figure 4. (a) Variation of KE with Dr for /B = 0.1%. (b) Variation of
[KE(/B)/KE(/B = 0.1%)] with /B (adapted from Berardi and Lancellotta,
1991).

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil an overview 25

4.2 Mayne and Poulos (1999) Method

B
qnet

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 Eo at footing level. According to
this theory (Figure 5a):

footing =

4BL
where B =

IG
IE
IF

qnet B IG IF IE (1 2 )
Eo

(29)

E
E=
Eo + kz

Rigid Layer
Depth, z

0.5

(a)

The relationships to estimate IE and IF are:

3.5 exp(1.22 0.4) + 1.6

D f

1.0
>30

10.0
5.0

0.8
2.0
1.0

0.6
G

IF = +
4

Eo

Compressible
soil layer
Hs
E
v

= equivalent diameter of a rectangular


footing
=Poissons ratio of soil
=displacement influence factor (Figure 5b)
=settlement coefficient factor to account for depth
of embedment
=rigidity coefficient factor

IE = 1

Df

Ef

0.4

0.5

(30)
0.2
Hs lB = 0.2

3
E f 2t
4.6 + 10
B B
Eo + k

(31)

where Ef = 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 = Eo + kz). The above procedure will give good results provided the modulus of elasticity of soil is predicted reasonably
well.

4.3 Sivakugan and Johnsons (2004)


Probabilistic Approach
Noting the different degrees of scatter associated with the settlement prediction methods, a probabilistic approach is more
appropriate than the traditional deterministic methods. The
magnitude of settlement can have different meaning depending 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

0
0.01

0.1

1
Eo lkB

10

100

(b)
Figure 5. Solution of Mayne and Poulos: (a) Footing on a compressible
layer; (b) Variation of IG with Eo/kB and Hs/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 limiting 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

p (actual settlement will exceed 25 mm)

0.9
0.8

ta

llot

0.7

&
rdi

ce
Lan

nd

rla
Bu

0.5

idg

ra
Be

0.6

urb
&B

nn e

a
ertm

m
Sch

0.4

t al.

i & Pec

h
Terzag

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

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 N60 for granular soils


Reference

Schultze and Melzer (1965)

Webb (1969)

Ferrent (1963)

Begemann (1974)

Relationship

Soil type

E = 246.2 log N 60 263.4 o + 375.6 57.6 o


pa

pa

0.522

for 0

o
1.2
pa

Dry sand

E
= 5(N 60 + 15)
pa

Sand

E
= 3.33(N 60 + 5)
pa

Clayey sand

E
= 7.5(1 2 )N 60
pa

Sand

E
= 40 + C(N 60 6) for N 60 > 15
pa
E
= 40 + C(N 60 + 6) for N 60 <15
pa

Trofimenkov (1974)

E
= (350 to 500) log N 60
pa

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990)

E
= N 60
pa

C = 3 for silt with sand and


12 for gravel with sand

= 5 for sand with fines; 10 for cllean normally


consolidated sands; and 15 forr clean overconsolidated sands

Silt with sand to


gravel with sand

Sand

Sand

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil an overview 27

Table 4. Correlations between E and qc for granular soils


Reference

Schultze and Melzer (1965)

Relationship

E = 301.1logqc 382.3 o +60.350.3 o


pa

pa

Soil type
0.522

for 0

o
pa

0.8

E/qc = 2.5(qc + 30)

Dry sand

E/qc = 1.67(qc + 15)

Sand below water table


Clayey sand below water table

Buisman (1940)

E = 1.5qc

Sand

Schmertmann (1970)

E = 2qc

Sand

Schmertmann et al. (1978)

E = 2qc (axisymmetric loading)


E = 3.5qc (axisymmetric loading)

Normally consolidated sand

Vesic (1970)

E = 2(1 + D2r ) qc

Sand

Bachelier and Parez (1965)

E = qc

DeBeer (1965)

E = 1.5qc

Webb (1969)

E = 1.5qc (for qc> 3

= 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
Sand

MN/m2)

E = 3qc (for qc < 3 MN/m2)


E = qc (1.5 < < 2)

Sand (Greek practice)

Trofimenkov (1964)

E = 2.5qc

Sand (lower limit)

Trofimenkov (1974)

E = 3qc
E = 7qc

Sand
Clay

Thomas (1968)

E = qc ( = 3 to 12)

DeBeer (1974)

Bogdanovi (1973)

E = 1.5qc (for qc > 4

Sand (U.K. practice)

Sand

MN/m2)

E = 1.5 to 1.8qc (for 2

(USSR practice)

MN/m2

Sand and sandy gravel


< qc < 4

MN/m2)

E = 1.8 to 2.5qc(for 1 MN/m2 < qc < 2 MN/m2)


E = 2.5 to 3.0qc(for 0.5 MN/m2 < qc < 1 MN/m2)

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 penetration resistances from standard penetration or cone penetration tests. The various empirical correlations relating N60
and qc 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 predictions from the 31 international experts varied in a wide
range. In spite of having access to the full data from a rigor-

Silty saturated sand


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

ous site investigation program, their predictions of Q25, the


load required to produce 25 mm settlement, were significantly less than what was measured, implying that the settlements 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 prediction 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-ofthe-art for settlement predictions, which results in overestimation of the settlements and underestimations of the
allowable pressures, which leads one to believe that the settlement criterion generally governs the design of shallow foundations 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 discussed. 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 penetrometer. 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), 149157.
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 measured 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 shallow 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., 4thAustraliaNew Zealand Conf.on Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 11-17.
Jeyapalan, J.K., and Boehm, R. (1986). Procedures for predicting 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 (EL6800) submitted to Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), Palo Alto, California.
Mayne, P.W., and Poulos, H.G. (1999). Approximate displacement influence factors for elastic shallow foundations. J. Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 125(6),
453-460.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). Penetration tests and bearing capacity 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 foundations 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 settlement 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 noncohesive 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 predictions 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 engineering 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 settlement on normally consolidated sand. Geotechnique,
18, 472-488.
Trofimenkov, Y.G. (1964). Field methods for testing the structural 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), 561584.
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.

Potrebbero piacerti anche