PAPER

SeI, eraIenI: 100

an~ 80

ieaveoi'verconso
i~ aI:et E
60

c aIfs- o 40


E|r

Finite element method (exact soluhon)

a simplified non-linear method

One dimensional
Stress path method
method

Skempton & Bjerrum method

of calculation 20

Part two of the paper by AS O'rien and P Sharp, 0I

1000 100 10 1.0
Mott MacDonald.
SN(ness tune(ion E'ut(r4(8H

Hyet~as
" ~~~ m
n this, the second part of their paper, O'rien and Sharp discuss the taft Isaiah=-
miasma=
proposed method and in an appendix give a worked example of cal- ~ohNeeekly~tNLMa4(jzrN(aal
t culation of total settlement. A notation table was published with the
first part of this paper in the October issue of GE.

Discussion
It is recognised that the stress strain behaviour of soils is highly
complex' The proposed method does not attempt to be comprehensive
in the way it models soil behaviour, or mathematically rigorous, since
this would preclude a simple approach appropriate for routine
applications.
Nevertheless, it is believed that the proposed method allows a rational
framework to be developed to take account of non-linear stress strain
behaviour. The method is based on conventional theories and
terminology which should be familiar to experienced geotechnical
engineers. The approach can be readily utilised within a computer
program; the iterative calculations are generally performed within a
few seconds.
With experience in using the method, further refinements can be
readily taken into account; for example, the magnitude of drained
Young's modulus could be related to mean effective stress raised to a
power of between 0.5 and 1.0 dependent on strain magnitude (to account
for the observation that at small strains Young's modulus is typically a
function of the square root of mean effective stress, whereas at large
strains Young's modulus is proportional to mean effective stress" ~), the
influence of anisotropy could also be studied in more detail". An
example of the calculation procedure is presented in Appendix A (see
page 53). This comprises the calculation of total settlement for a circular
footing. As discussed below, the key assumptions are believed to be valid
for most sub-structures which have an adequate factor of safety (in
excess of two) against bearing capacity failure.
The key assumptions may be summarised as follows:
~ isotropic linear elastic theory provides reasonable predictions of
stress changes within the soil mass;
~ for undrained loading horizontal and shear strains are negligible
compared with vertical compressive strains. The influence of
anisotropy is relatively small and ignoring it provides predictions which
are conservative, but not excessively so;
~ for drained loading, the one-dimensional method provides realistic
predictions of total settlement for most practical situations which
usually involve increasing stiffness with depth and stiffness anisotropy.
Stress changes
A wide range of solutions have been published for calculating stress
changes within elastic media. These solutions normally assume the soil
is:
~ isotropic;
~ linear elastic;
~ homogenous;
~ a semi-infinite compressible layer.
Several researchers have assessed the errors associated with the
above assumptions. These include:
~ onset of yielding, ie plasticity, Morgernstern and Phukan 1968'a;
~ non-linear elasticity Jardine et al 1986";
~ soil layering, eg stiffer layer overlying softer layer, Poulos and Davis
1974is.
~ stiffness increasing with depth, Gibson 1971aa;
~ anisotropy, Gerrard and Harrison 197(P.
The main conclusions from these studies may be summarised as
follows:
~ Where the Poisson's ratio is equal to 0.5 (ie undrained loading), then
the vertical and horizontal stress changes calculated by conventional
linear elastic theory are reasonably accurate. The exceptions are if a
stiff layer overlies a less stiff layer and if the stiffness ratio G'h/E',
departs significantly from the isotropic value of 0.4. For the former
case published solutions are available which can be readily utilised,
Poulos and Davis 1974. For the latter case, as discussed later,
compensating errors mean that any inaccuracies associated with
isotropic linear elastic theory will lead to an insignificant overall
error in calculating settlement (or heave). Typically such errors are less
than about 10%.
~ For drained loading, when the Poisson's ratio is less than 0.5 (generally
between 0.1 and 0.2 for overconsolidated clays), the horizontal stress
changes given by conventional theories are significantly in error. In
particular, for the common situation of soil stiffness increasing with
depth, the actual horizontal stress changes are much smaller than those
given by conventional linear elastic theory. Horizontal stress changes

GROUND ENGINEERING NOVEMBER 2001

 PAPER

Tatde 1:Parameters used for INustraeue cahuhthus

Cahuheouuudhod tfoNcatdehruaathucahuhtad Seetschuhalparameters

Proposed undrained NL1: E/C= 450 at 0.1%vertical strain. Variation of E/C
with vertical strain, see Figure 5
Proposed undrained NL2: E/C= 650 at 0.1%vertical strain. Variation of E/C
with vertical strain, see Figure 5
Proposed total NLD1: E'/C= 250 at 0.1%vertical strain. Variation of E'/C
with vertical strain, see Figure 5. K, = 1.5,uniform with depth
Proposed total NLD2:E'/C= 350 at 0.1%vertical strain. Variation of E'/C
with vertical strain, see Figure 5. K, = 1.5,uniform with depth

Geostructural mechanism undrained C =aY wherea=682andb=0.5

Stroud, 1988 total c' 10kN/m' = 22'PT'N' C/4.5
Stroud, 1988 total c'20kN/m' =28'PT'N' C/5.5

1. Proposed method: 2. Skempton & 3. Lrwar Elasbc Methods,

Non Linear methods: Linear elastic methods:
Site NL1 Eu/Cu = 450
0.)S vertical
Bjerrum method including:
Proposed method, NL1 isotropic elastic
at
E'/Cu =250 at
strain,
0.)S
Method 1: E proportional to Cu
Method 2: E increases linearly
Proposed method, NL2
Homogeneous
Isotropic elastic, Young's modulus
vertical strain refer to Table 1 with depth, Bath(s method, ) 975 Geostructural mechanism increasing linearly with depth
Method 3: Homogeneous linear
a=682, b=0.5 (Butler's method)
elashc Eu=53MN/m'onstant
wilh depth
Isotropic elastic, norWinear
Young's modulus at increase of Young's modulus with
Adopted Cu proSe the same
0.1)k vertical strain (MN/mz) as that shownin1 depth (Eu/Cu =400)
0 25 50 75 100 125 200
i

Coefficient of volume Young's modulus E

Undrained shear strength (hN/mz) compressibility (mZ/MN) (MN/mzl
g 150
100 200 300 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 00 25 50 75 100

~ 100
Note:
10 10 10
E Refer to Fig 8 and
f so Table 1
for summary of parameters
used for analysis
20 20 20 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
gical
'r=0.6

30


Cu
Eil/Cu
E'/Cu
~
~250
30 30

'u
--
Eu/Cu
E'/Cu
~400
~130
ttutfer's method
waaeyms ~
Lyeeeee~
hS)usL
wv,.
~ereoww~ ~

E (1975)
~ -- Homogeneous

during drained loading are not used by the proposed method. However,
the vertical stress changes (which are used by the proposed method for
calculating total deformation) are reasonably accurate for most real
situations.
Undrained loading
Lee and Rowe 1989ae have reviewed the role of anisotropy in undrained
settlement predictions. For foundations with an adequate factor of
safety against bearing capacity failure, they demonstrated that the
ground deformation mechanism is related primarily to vertical
compressive strain. Horizontal and shear strains are generally quite
small, with a localised area of moderately high shear strains adjacent to
the edge of the loaded area. For overconsolidated clays, the error
involved in the assumption of isotropy would lead to an overprediction
of settlement of less than 20%, and typically less than 10%. Hence the
assumptions inherent in the use of equation 9 that vertical strain is the
dominant strain component (and hence the effect of other strain
components can be ignored for the purposes of iteration) and that the
soil is isotropic should lead to insignificant error.
Drained loading
Burland et al 1977" demonstrated that the one-dimensional method
gives predictions of total settlement (for vertically loaded foundations
on overconsolidated clays) which are as good as and usually better than
more sophisticated methods, for example Figure 7 after Nyaoro 1983~.
For elastic soils, the one-dimensional method gives total (ie undrained
plus time dependent) settlement if the drained elastic modulus is used.
Some lllustrathre calculations of the proposedmethod
compared with other techniques
To illustrate the application of the proposed method, some illustrative
calculations have been performed and are compared with other
calculation methods. The parameters which have been utilised are
summarised on Figure 8 and Table 1. In particular, comparisons are
made with the geostructural mechanism approach for the prediction of
undrained movement of clays which has been developed at Cambridge
University, Bolton and Sun 1991~. This uses the concept of mobilised
strength and a power law curve is used to represent the non-linear stress
strain behaviour of the soil. The power law constants used for the
geostructural calculations provide a similar stress strain curve to NL1
(Sun 1991~).The curve NL1 may be regarded as "typical", whereas curve
NL2 approaches the upper bound of the data reported by O'rien et al,
1992, Figure 1. Predictions of total settlement by the proposed method
are compared with a non-linear method proposed by Stroud, 1988".
The geostructural mechanism approach was developed from a
programme of research which included the back analysis of undrained
movements observed during model foundation loading experiments
performed within a centrifuge. The non-linear method proposed by
Stroud was based on the back analysis of case histories of total
settlement.
Undrained settlement of rigid raft
The relationship between undrained settlement and bearing pressure
predicted by various methods is given on Figure 9 for a relatively large
(20 m x 20 m) rigid raft founded at the surface of an overconsolidated clay

GROUND ENGINEERING NOVEMBER 2001

 PAPER
layer. There are two methods which attempt to model non-linear stress
strain behaviour, the proposed method and the geostructural
mechanism approach; the others assume linear elastic behaviour. The
proposed method (using curve NL1) gives similar predictions to the
geostructural mechanism approach for bearing pressures less than
150kN/m'. For pressures less than about 125kN/m'he linear elastic
methods overpredict settlement compared with the non-linear methods,
and for pressures less than about 50kN/m the linear elastic methods
overpredict settlement by more than a factor of two. The predictions for
the stress strain curve NL2 emphasises the fact that current empirically
derived linear elastic methods and their associated parameters can be
grossly conservative for some overconsolidated clays.
Total settlement of rigid raft
Figure 10 summarises the predicted relationship between bearing
pressure and total settlement. The two non-linear methods (Stroud, 1988
and the proposed method) give similar predictions of total settlement,
which are generally less than those given by linear elastic methods,
particularly for pressures less than 75kN/m2. For relatively stiff clays
(eg NLD2), the total settlements predicted by the non-linear methods are
about 25% to 50% of those given by the linear elastic methods, for
pressures less than 100kN/m'. In routine practice, the "allowable"
bearing pressure (q,) is often defined as the bearing pressure at which
total settlement equals 25mm. Using this criterion, the linear elastic and
Skempton and Bjerrum methods would suggest a q, value of about
30kN/m', whereas the proposed method would indicate a q, value of
about 60kN/m'using curve NLD1) and about 85kN/m'using curve
NLD2).
Settlement beneath and adjacent to a rigid raft
Figures ll and 12 summarise normalised undrained subsurface
settlement beneath a rigid raft and normalised total surface settlement
adjacent to a rigid raft. The proposed method correctly predicts the
features of behaviour identified from field observations and from non-
linear finite element studies; refer to Figures 2 and 3. These are:
~ settlement is concentrated closer to the loaded boundary than linear
elastic methods predict;
~ as bearing pressure is increased, settlement increases by a
proportionately greater amount;
~ as bearing pressure is increased, normalised settlements become
concentrated closer to the loaded boundary.
Heave compared with settlement
Table 2 compares the heave calculated for a net reduction in stress of
160kN/m2 with the settlement calculated for a net increase of stress of
160kN/m'at the centre of a 20m wide, infinitely long strip). The
calculated total heave is about 150mm compared with 100mm total
settlement, and the time dependent heave is 110mm compared with
60mm time dependent settlement. The ratio R = 5/5M is significantly
greater for settlement than for heave, similar to that observed in
practice. This effect is purely due to the differences in average mean
effective stress which are prevalent during drained unloading compared
with drained loading, and which, in turn, influence the mobilised
OhianSIOns
(m)
Infinitely 20 +160
long strip
above 20
as above +160
-160
Parameters used for analysis:
Bulk density = 20kN/m3. Original water table 3m below ground level
Depth of compressible strata 30m
Relationship between normalised stiffnes and strain level, refer to Figure 5
Variation of Cwith depth, refer to Figure 8
E/C=450 at 0.1%shear strain. E /C= 250 at 0.1%shear strain
k = 0.9, K = 1.5,v = 0.15
drained Young's modulus. Hence, application of the proposed method
assists in explaining much of the differences which have been observed
in the way heave and settlement develop. Stress path and recent stress
history effects have not been taken into account, although in practice
these may also lead to differences in the magnitude of heave and
settlement for a given change in net bearing pressure. In this
comparison, it has been assumed that there has been no change in
equilibrium pore water pressure. It should be noted that the magnitude
of settlement or heave is sensitive to this assumption. If it is believed
that the drainage boundary conditions may change significantly as a
result of foundation construction, then it may be prudent to carry out
seepage analyses, so that the change in equilibrium pore water pressure
can be quantified and incorporated within the analysis.
Negative skin friction on piles
The application of the proposed method to a soil-structure interaction
problem, that of negative skin friction on "floating" piles, is illustrated
on Figure 13. This is a common situation when bridge abutments are
founded within overconsolidated clays. Due to near surface weathering,
skin friction piles are often required in order to found at depth in
unweathered material. Adjacent embankment loading causes some
negative skin friction to develop. Intuitively, experienced engineers
would anticipate that the magnitude of negative skin friction due to
settlement of overconsolidated clays would be negligible. However,
conventional linear elastic methods predict that significant negative
skin friction forces will develop. For the example shown on Figure 13, the
negative skin friction forces predicted by the proposed method are about
7.5 times smaller than those forces predicted by linear elastic methods.
The difference is mainly due to the fact that the proposed method
calculates subsurface settlement decreasing more rapidly with depth
than the linear elastic method. Hence, the "neutral point" (ie the depth at
which pile settlement equals ground settlement) is predicted by the
proposed method to be at a shallower depth than that predicted by linear
elastic methods.
Condnslons
(1) The stress-strain behaviour of overconsolidated clays is highly non-
linear, such that the selection of appropriate "linear elastic" moduli for
calculations of settlement or heave is very difficult.
(2) A method is proposed in this paper which allows the non-linear stress
strain characteristics of overconsolidated clays to be modelled in a
rational manner, and enables undrained and total settlement (or heave)
to be calculated. Uniform and non-uniform (soil-layering) increases of
stiffness with depth, foundations of varying shape, rigidity and loading
intensity can be analysed. Surface and subsurface settlement (or heave)
adjacent to and beneath the foundations can be assessed. For predictions
of total settlement or heave, the effect of changes in equilibrium pore
water pressure (due to, for example, construction of drains) can be
readily assessed.
(3) Field observations and non-linear finite element studies indicate
that:
Setl4eisnt/heave(iim) L SIHIIIS
60 E'proportionaltop's
110
E'proportionaltop''ssumedto
123
123 have no effect on
E'olea
GROUND ENGINEERING NOVEMBER 2001
 PAPER

Non hnear methods: Linear elastic methods; Rgure 1 0 (LEFIJ:Total Normahsed undrained settlement (Sz/So)
Proposed method, NLD) ~ Homogeneous isotropic elastic setgement-bearing pressure 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Proposed method, NLD2 i Isotropic elastic, Young s modulus relatlonshlps, comparison 0
0
Strand's method, mcreasing hneariy with depth between exlsgng and proposed
c'= pkPa, (y= 22 (Butler s method)
1
IINthods.
Stroud s method, ~ Isotropic elastic, non-linear
c =20kPa, () =28 increase of Young s modulus 0.2
with depth (E'v/Co=130)
- Blerrum
X Skempton

0.4'50

0.6;

E 0.8'

~ 100

'f
r1
1.0

1.2r
50
parameters used for analysis
2. The two linear elastic analyses plot as
the same hne, smce this is a normaksed plot l

1.4
aq(kN/m2) So(mm) ( Foundation 'nalysis
geometry

'
Non(inearNL)
0 20m 8 20m
0 50 100 12.3
100 As above As above
Rgwe11(RISHI):Subsurface
Total settlement (mm) Lmear elastic
undrained setgmnent benealh 150 24 As above

'6
'u/Du=400

the cenhe of a Itgld square raft, I

100 As above As above
comparhon between Sneer r
,

ehssgc and proposed melhod.

X
Normahsed distance from foundation Total settlement (mm)
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Di 0)

Ql 0.2
E
CD
K
1l
Ul
0.4
lu

ill 0.6
m
CD
E
O 0.8
10 i
E
1.0
K
nt
aq (kN/m2) go (mm) Foundation Analysis co
geometry
Square Proposed method 15
100 ,
55 L=B=20m NLD1

100, 74, As above i

Linear elastic
F v/Cu 130

Figure 1 2:Swface hrlal setgenumtadJacent toe rlgld square

20.
raft, compaafson between Sneer ehsgc and proposedmethed.

25'nalaysis Pile Length of pile Negative skin

Flgwe13 (RIRHfJ: Subswhce
i

location affected (m) fnction (kN)

setgement wHhln a pge group due , Proposed method ).Ck 5.5 1560
to adJacent embanhment loading, Lmear elastic ).('L 12 4434
comparison between Rnear-
Proposed method Average per pile within group 173
elastlc and proposed method.
Linear elastic ',Average per pile within group) 1337

GROUND ENG)NEER)NG NOVEN(BER 2001

 PAPER

~ surface and subsurface settlements adjacent to and beneath Acknowledgements

foundations are concentrated closer to the loaded boundary than linear The authors wish to thank their colleagues at Mott MacDonald,
elastic methods predict; particularly Bill Rankin, Ron Williams and Alan Powderham for their
~ as bearing pressure is increased, foundation settlement increases by a comments on an early draft of the paper. Special thanks to John
proportionately greater amount; McCallum for developing modern software to replace the antique
~ as bearing pressure increases normalised settlement is concentrated created by the authors, and to Rob Jessep and Jeanette Chang for
closer to the loaded boundary; reviewing and testing the software. Finally, thanks to Debbie Tassell for
~ for a given net change in effective pressure, time dependent heave due drafting the figures.
to unloading is significantly greater than time dependent settlement due
to loading. Errata
(4) The features of behaviour described in (3) above are correctly Norma(ised subsurface settlement 5z/50 Normahsed distance X/R
predicted by the proposed method. In addition, the proposed method is
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
quite flexible in its range of application. These include soil-structure 0
interaction problems, such as negative skin friction on piles. For this 0.2
type of problem the proposed method predicts significantly smaller (and 1.0
0.4
it is believed more realistic) negative skin friction forces than linear
elastic methods. Other problems, such as heave induced pile tension, can 2.0
0.6
be readily assessed. Compared with other "simplified" non-linear 0.8
methods, the proposed method can be applied to a significantly wider 3.0 1.0
range of problems. b. Profiles of normalised surface settlement
adlacent to a ngid footing
4.0
(5) The proposed method allows modern ground investigation test data
to be utilised for routine design purposes.
The proposed method is considered to be a practical means of
5.0

Noir(inear, Fs = 2.0

overcoming some of the difficulties which are currently encountered by

foundation engineers. These difficulties include conventional methods
a. Profiles of normalised subsurface
settlement for a ngid footing Nor)linear,
Linear elastic
Fs = 3.3

which assume unrealistic ground behaviour (ie linear elastic) and Figure 4, amended.
complex non-linear finite element techniques which can be difficult to
understand and validate, and time consuming to use. In overcoming In the first part of this paper (GE October 2001) elements of the key for
these difficulties, it is believed that the proposed method is particularly Figure 4 were transposed. The correct version appears above.
suited to the fields of design and build, and value engineering where In the same issue, Figure 6, Box 8 on the right-hand flow chart
there is a need for cost-effective, rapid (ie simple) and realistic should read: Calculate profile of correct E'c with depth, at normalising
evaluations of ground movements. strain magnitude and average mean effective stress. Box 9 should read:
The application of the intended method, as with any calculation Calculate strain with each of 'n'ayers.
technique, needs to be carefully considered. However, it is believed that
it will be a useful additional tool for foundation engineers. As with more
sophisticated "mathematically rigorous" numerical techniques, the
reliability of the calculation is mainly dependent upon an appropriate
choice of input parameters. The inaccuracies associated with some of
the simplifying assumptions are unlikely to be significant for the
majority of substructures founded on overconsolidated clays, which
usually have a factor of safety against bearing capacity failure in excess
of two.

References (continued from October Issue)

20F Tatsuoka, RJ Jardine. D Lo Presti. HD Benedetto, T Kodaka (1997). Theme lecture,
Characterising the pre failure deformation properties of geomaterials. 14th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Volume 4, p2129 to
2164.
21 CP Wroth, MF Randolph, GT Houlsby and M Fahey (1979). A review of the engineering
properties of soils with particular reference to the shear strain. Oxford University Report
No 1523/84.
22 G Viggiani. JH Atkinson (1995). Stiffness of fine grained soil at very small strains.
Geotechnique, Vol45, No2, p249 to 265, June 1995.
23 NR Morgernstern and ALT Phukan (1968). Stresses and displacements in a
homogeneous non linear foundation. Proc Int Symp Rock Mech, Madrid, pp313 to 320.
24 RE Gibson and GC Sills (1975). Some results concerning the plane deformation of a non-
homogeneous elastic half-space. Proc Roscoe Memorial Symp on Stress-Strain Behaviour
of Soils, Cambridge. Foulis. pp564to5i2.
25 CM Gerrard and WJ Harrison (1970). Circular loads applied to a cross anisotropic half
space. CSIRO.Australia. Division of Applied Geomechanics, Technical Paper8.
26 KM Lee and RK Rowe (1989).De formations caused by surface loading and tunnelling: the
role of elastic anisotropy Geotechnique. Vol39, Nol. pp125 to 140.
2i JB Burland, BB Broms and VFB DeMelfo O977). Behaviour of foundations and
structures. Proc 9th ICSMFE. Tokyo. Vol 2. pp495 to 546.
28FK Nyaoro(1983). Mac Dissertation. Imperial College.
29 MD Bolton and HW Sun (1991). The behaviour of bridge abutments on spread
foundations. Proc 10th ICSMFE. Florence.
30 HW Sun (1991).Private communication, March 1991.
31 MA Stroud (1988). The Standard Penetration Test - its application and interpretation.
Penetration Testing in the UK, Proc ICE Conf Birmingham. pp29 to 49.
32 FG Butler (1975).Heavily overconsolidated materials: a state of the art review Proc Conf
on Settlement of Structures. Cambridge, pp531 to 578 Pentech Press, London.
33 AW Skempton. RB Peck, DH MacDonald (1955). Settlement analyses of six structures in
Chicagoand London. Proc ICE. Vol53.p525-544.
34 RB Hyde and BA Leach (19i5). Settlement at Didcot Power Station. Proc Conf on
Settlementof Structures. Cambridge,p169-176.PentechPress, London.
35 H Breth and P Amann (19i5).Time settlement anti set tleinent distribution with depth in
Frankfurt Clay. Proc Conf on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, p 141 to 154. Pentech
Press, London.
36 IF Symons and P Tedd (1989). Behaviour of a propped embedded retaining wall at Bell
Common Tunnel in the longer term. Geotechnique Vol39. No4. p701 to 710.
37 J May (1975). Heave on a deep basement in the London Clay. Proc Conf on Settlement of
Structures, Cambridge, p177 to 182. Pentech Press. London.
38 DFT Nash, ML Lings and CWW Ng (1996). Observed heave and swelling beneath a deep
excavation in Gault Clay. Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft
ground. Proc of Int Symposium. City Univ London.

52 GROUND FNGINI)ERIN( NOVEMBER 2001

 PAPER

Appendix A: Example calculation of total settlement by the proposed method

Based on the proposed iterative procedure, this appendix presents an Calculation of total settlement
example calculation of total settlement. For the sake of brevity, an For the third sub-layer (i=3), the hand calculation is set out below:
example calculation of undrained settlement is not presented, but the
same principles would apply. This example considers the total Stage I: Calculation of corrected drained secant Young's modulus, E'
settlement calculation for one sub-layer within the total depth of Stage 2: Iterations in order to achieve strain compatibility between
compressible soil. In the same manner as for conventional elastic relationship presented by line NLDI iFigure 5) and Equation 5.
settlement calculations, the total settlement for the full depth of
compressible soil would be derived from the summation of the Z3 vs Po03 vt Pa,3 Pa03 Pc3 Ec,
03 Ec,c)
individual sub-layer settlements. (Equation (Ref 15) (Equation (Equation
Foundation configuration E2) El) 17)
(m) (kN/ms) (kN/m') (kN/ms) (kN/ms) (kN/nts) (MN/ms) (MN/mo)
Consider a flexible circular footing with radius R = 5m, and net
foundation loading = +lppkN/ms. Take foundation level at ground
surface. In this situation, no corrections for depth or rigidity of the 1.59 16.20 21.60 97.22 43.47 2.01 22.03 44.28
foundation are required.
The sub-layer of soil is located between depths of 1.15m and 2.03m
below ground surface. For this example, the sub-layer is the third such For the first iteration, assume a starting value, e'=0.1 %,
"3(tst)
layer in the problem definition (i= 3).
Effective stress conditions Firstiteration
The presented example is for a soil of uniform bulk density = 20kN/m', e.
and for hydrostatic pore water pressure conditions with the water table E'from
stage I) (Equatton 5)
at ground level. Consider K, = 1.5,and v' 0.15. (MN/m') 0/

The increase in vertical effective stress in each soil layer from the 44.28 0.197
foundation loading is based on linear elastic theory (Poulos & Davis,
1974"), and it is assumed that there is no net change in the pore water Comparing the starting strain and first computed strain for
pressure profile (lou,. = 0 in all layers). compatibility, there isa difference greater than 10%.
From Equation 16, the average mean effective stress for each soil layer i,
p',, for a load increment of htr',I is given by
t
Second iteration
Consider a new strain level equal to the numerical average of the start
p', = p',, + 0.225ho ' (E 1) and first computed strain:
= (0.197+0.1)/2
3(2nd)
where p 9
(1+2K/ Second iteration
oi
(E2)
E', R10.)tg. E',
3(cal)
"sand) vstca)>
Stiffness parameters (from stage I) (Figure 5) (R. E'o} (Equat ton 5)
(MN/m') (go) (-) (MN/re') "o
Consider the situation in which the stiffness properties of the soil have
been normalised with respect to undrained shear strength, and the
stiffness versus depth profile for the site is to be derived from the profile 44.28 0.149 0.876 38.79 0.226
of undrained shear strength with depth.
The variation of initial stiffness with depth is based on the Cprofile The difference between the starting and calculated strain levels for the
of Figure 8, and considering E',/C= 250 for an initial strain level of second iteration is still greater than 10%.
0.1 %.The derivation of the initial stiffness profile with depth is:
Third iteration
Undrained shear IniUal drained secant In view of the very small degree of convergence to the solution,
shungth Young's modulus consider the average of the first and second calculated strains:
at 0.1%slraln
z (m) Cu E o(0.1'o) 0'= (0.226 + 0.197)/2
kN/m'5
= 0.211%
MN/m'8.75
0
3 100 25 However, now consider the series of starting strain levels, 0.1%,0.149%,
30 228 57 and 0.211%.There is little convergence in this series. Hence, consider:

The variation of normalised drained secant Young's modulus with e', = (0.211+ (0.211-0.149)
'3(3rd)
strain is taken from Figure 5. In order to obtain sufficiently accurate 0.273%
values of normalised secant Young's modulus for particular values of
strain, it is recommended that each straight line segment (other than
the upper and lower threshold limits) of the "curve" is represented by a
straight line equation as follows:
Third iteration
E'' c3
(from stage I)
v3(3rd) ~ .0 273
(Figures)
..E'.3(cal)
(R.E')
v3(cav
(Equation5)
(MN/m') (") (-) (MN/ms) 'o
Let Re: E e. / E 0 I ~ at the required strain value, e.

44.28 0.273 0.688 30.46 0.287

If (et, R,), (e, R2) are the ordinates of the straight line segment, then:
R,=R,+(R 1))oa( I ) (whereet<a <esandR,>R2) (E3) The starting and calculated strain for the third iteration agree within
IOg(et/02) 10%. Take the solution strain to be (0.287 + 0.273)/2, or 0.280%. From
Figure 5, R ~,=0.681.
For example, in Figure 5, consider the segment of curve NLD1 for
normalised drained stiffness between e. = 0.1% and e = 0.5%. Then, Then: E'g 0) 0 681E cs
(ev R,), (e, R ) = (0.1, 1.0), (0.5, 0.5). Hence, from Equation E3, the = 30.1
equation of the segment is as follows:
MN/m'nd

the sub-layer displacement 5p = 0.280% . H

R 1 p+ (-0.51og(0.1/e)) = 2.51nnl
-0.699
This can be compared with the "true" solution undertaken by
Then for an example strain of say 0 = 0.2%, the corresponding computer. After 20 iterations, the solution strain level = 0.298 %, giving
normalised secant Young's modulus Ro 2~ = 0.78 E'3(mon) 29.3MN/m'and+ 3 = 2.6mm.

GROUND ENGINEERING NOVEMBER 2001