Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
2
Braja M. Das* and Nagaratnam Sivakugan
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
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
fx(x)
Calculated settlement
Measured settlement
Reliability
Accuracy
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
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
696
1360
2840
4100
3600
580
1133
2367
3417
3000
Predicted/Measured:
100
200
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
2
2B D f
footing = plate
1
B + 0.3 4B
400
10
60
300
Settlement (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)
0.53q(kPa) 2B
footing (mm) = CW C D
(N1 )60 B + 0.3
(6)
where
CW =
Df
C D = 1.0 0.4
0.5
(8)
(2)
(N1 )60 =
1.33q(kPa)
N 60
and
4N 60
(for o 75 kN/m2 )
1 + 0.04 o
(9)
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)
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.
footing = C1C2qnet
z =0
I z dz
E
C1 = 1 0.5
o
0.5
qnet
t
C2 = 1 + 0.2 log
0.1
(13)
(12)
qnet
o
(14)
z I = 2B 1 + log
(15)
(16)
The compressibility of the soil was represented by a compressibility index (Ic), defined as:
Ic =
1.71
1.4
N 60
(17)
(18)
1.71
= qnet 1.4 B 0.7
N 60
(19)
if q p
(20)
2 1.71
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
Table 2. Variation of Is
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
pa
N
Dr = 1
60
0.5
(28)
0.5
(26)
(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).
B
qnet
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)
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
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)
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.
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
Webb (1969)
Ferrent (1963)
Begemann (1974)
Relationship
Soil type
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
E
= N 60
pa
Sand
Sand
Relationship
pa
Soil type
0.522
for 0
o
pa
0.8
Dry sand
Buisman (1940)
E = 1.5qc
Sand
Schmertmann (1970)
E = 2qc
Sand
Vesic (1970)
E = 2(1 + D2r ) qc
Sand
E = qc
DeBeer (1965)
E = 1.5qc
Webb (1969)
= 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)
Trofimenkov (1964)
E = 2.5qc
Trofimenkov (1974)
E = 3qc
E = 7qc
Sand
Clay
Thomas (1968)
E = qc ( = 3 to 12)
DeBeer (1974)
Bogdanovi (1973)
Sand
MN/m2)
(USSR practice)
MN/m2
MN/m2)
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