Quick assessment of ground settlement limits to restrict building

damage to “Slight” category

M. RIZWAN MUZZAMMIL
Geotechnical Engineer, Mott MacDonald Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore
rizwan.muzzammil@mottmac.sg, rizwan.muzzammil@gmail.com

Abstract
Earth retaining systems (ERS) are installed in order to facilitate excavations for the construction of underground
transport infrastructure. The design and cost of an ERS can be highly dependent on the likely damage to nearby
buildings caused by the excavation induced ground settlement. A safe ground settlement limit needs to be established
in order to minimize damage to existing buildings.
At present there is no direct method to determine the limiting ground settlement for a safe level of building dam-
age. In current design practice a preliminary level of building damage is determined using the estimated ground
settlement which is based on the ERS design. An acceptable level of building damage is obtained through an itera-
tive process of redesigning the ERS. This approach results in suboptimal design and cost. It is also time inefficient.
This paper presents a new concept of “Settlement Limit Curves”. These curves show the relationships between
ground settlement, excavation depth and proximity to the retaining wall for the “Slight” building damage category.
Reference to these curves will enable the design engineer to quickly and accurately determine the limiting ground
settlement in order to restrict a building to “Slight” damage. The ERS may then be optimally designed using this
information.
The curves may also be used as a preliminary damage assessment tool to quickly identify en masse, by proximity
to the excavation, the buildings that exceed the “Slight” damage category. This function may be interpreted as a
middle ground between the commonly used Stage I and II damage assessment procedures. This information may also
be used as a guideline for planning the least damaging routes and positions for future underground infrastructure.
Keywords: building damage; foundations; settlement; limiting strain; retaining systems
tion can then be used to produce an optimum design of
INTRODUCTION the earth retaining system.
The design and cost of an earth retaining system for The curves also show the distances at which build-
excavations can be highly dependent on the likely dam- ings are subject to a damage category that is greater than
age to nearby buildings caused by the excavation in- “Slight”. Using this information it is possible to identify
duced ground settlement. en masse, the buildings that are outside an acceptable
damage limit by proximity to the excavation. This func-
The method of building damage assessment in-
tion may be interpreted as a middle ground between the
volves a prediction of the ground settlement profile
commonly used Stage I and II damage assessment pro-
based on the retaining wall deflection. The settlement
cedures [2]. This information may also serve as a guide-
profile is used to calculate the building deflection ratio
line for planning the least damaging routes and positions
and horizontal strain. This information is then used to
for future underground transport infrastructure.
determine the building damage category by reference to
damage interaction charts (limiting tensile strain proce-
dure [1]). An acceptable level of building damage (usu- METHOD OF CURVE DEVELOPMENT
ally “Slight”) is obtained through an iterative process of The development of the Settlement Limit Curves can be
redesigning the earth retaining system. This approach broken down into the following processes.
may result in suboptimal design and cost. It is also time
inefficient.
Calculation of Ground Movements:
This can be improved if the limiting ground settle-
ment for a safe level of building damage is determin- 1. Determine the shape of the ground settlement pro-
able. At present there is no direct method to obtain this file based on the type of retaining wall deflection.
limit. 2. Formulate the settlement profile.
The above problems are solved by a new concept of
computer generated “Settlement Limit Curves”. These Assessment of Building Damage:
curves show the relationships between ground settle- The method of building damage assessment is based on
ment, excavation depth and proximity to the retaining the limiting tensile strain approach [1]. This method is
wall for the “Slight” building damage category. Refer- described as follows.
ence to these curves will enable the engineer to quickly
1. Identify the zones of hogging and sagging settle-
and accurately determine the limiting ground settlement
ment underneath the building.
at the retaining wall in order to restrict the damage cate-
gory of an affected building to “Slight”. This informa- 2. Calculate the horizontal and vertical movements of
ground corresponding to the hogging and sagging
settlement zones.
3. Use the ground movement information to calculate
the building deflection ratios and horizontal strains.
4. Produce the damage category interaction charts. Retaining
5. Plot the building deflection ratios and horizontal Wall Spandrel
strains onto the interaction charts and hence deter- settlement
mine the damage category of the building. profile

These processes have been described in greater detail in Excavation

the following sections.

CURVE DEFINITIONS
The definitions of the parameters used for the Settlement Figure 2: Spandrel Profile Shape Scenario 1
Limit Curves are shown in Figure 1 below.
The affected building is of length L and height H,
and is at a distance X from the retaining wall. The retain-
ing wall supports an excavation of depth D. δvwall is the Retaining
Wall
settlement at the wall for either the spandrel or concave Spandrel
shape of settlement profile. The trough width of ground settlement
profile
settlement is W.
Excavation
W
X L

H Building Figure 3: Spandrel Profile Shape Scenario 2

Retaining Wall The concave shape of settlement profile generally oc-
curs in the following situations.
δvwall W 1. Figure 4: The magnitude of wall deflection at the
Spandrel initial stages of excavation is less than at subsequent
D settlement stages.
profile
2. Figure 5: There is additional cantilever wall deflec-
Excavation Concave tion for the above situation.
settlement 3. Figure 6: The wall deflection at the initial stages of
profile
excavation is restrained by an installation support.
Figure 1: Settlement Limit Curve Parameters

CALCULATION OF GROUND
Retaining
MOVEMENTS
Wall
Concave
Shape of the Settlement Profile settlement
profile
The settlement profile induced by an excavation may Excavation
assume either a spandrel or concave shape depending on W
the type of retaining wall deflection [3].
The spandrel shape of profile generally occurs in
the following situations. Figure 4: Concave Profile Shape Scenario 1
1. Figure 2: The retaining wall has a cantilever-type
deflection.
2. Figure 3: The magnitude of wall deflection at the
initial stage of excavation is greater than at subse-
quent stages.
 W is the trough width or extent of settlement, and is
based on the geology of ground. W is varied between 2.5
and 3.0 for this assessment. T is a parameter that con-
trols the shape of the settlement profile. T is fixed at 1.5
Retaining
Wall
for this assessment.
Concave The formula for the horizontal ground movement is
settlement as follows.
profile
Excavation   y 
H ( y ) = αS ( y ) 1 + T   (2)
W  W 
Where H(y) is the horizontal ground movement at a dis-
tance y from the wall, and α = 0.75.
Figure 5: Concave Profile Shape Scenario 2
y

Retaining Wall
W
Retaining H(y)
Wall S(y)
Concave
settlement Excavation δhwall = 0.75δvmax
profile
Excavation δvwall = δvmax
W

Figure 6: Concave Profile Shape Scenario 3 Figure 7: Spandrel Settlement Profile

Formulation of the Settlement Profile The Concave Settlement Profile:

The Spandrel Settlement Profile:
The shape of the spandrel settlement profile used for this
assessment draws on [4] and [5]. The profile used is a
reformulation of the Normal distribution curve that is
commonly used for bored tunnel induced settlement.
This curve utilises the hogging limb so that the point of
inflexion coincides with the excavation. Figure 7 shows
the spandrel profile. The formula is as follows.
1 1
y 
2
 −  1+T  
 2 2 W  
S ( y ) = δ vwall e (1)
Where S(y) is the settlement at a distance y from the
wall.
δvwall is the settlement at the wall.
δvmax is the maximum settlement.
δhwall is the horizontal ground movement at the wall.
The shape of concave settlement profile used for this
assessment is based on [6]. This paper describes the
vertical ground movement as a curve that fits the follow-
ing tri-linear shape (see Figure 8).
1. The settlement at the wall δvwall is equal to 0.5δvmax
2. The maximum settlement δvmax is at a distance of
0.5D from the wall
3. The settlement reduces to 0.1δvmax at a distance of
2.0D from the wall.
4. The settlement at a distance of 4.0D is negligible.
The vertical ground movement is formulated using
a Normal distribution curve. It is not possible to fit a
single Normal distribution curve to all points described
in the tri-linear shape. The curve is therefore split into
two parts. The first part is for 0 ≤ y < 0.5D, and the sec-
ond part for 0.5D ≤ y ≤ 4.0D. Both curve parts are ad-
justed through factors to fit the tri-linear shape.
There is very little literature available on the hori-
zontal ground movement for the concave profile and
hence the following assumptions are made.
 The horizontal movement at the wall is assumed to the hogging zone by points B and C. The two zones of
be zero. The maximum movement δhmax is equal to settlement are separated by a point of inflexion.
0.75δvmax. The formula for horizontal ground movement
is as follows. Determine Ground Movements for the Zones
y The vertical and horizontal movements that correspond
H ( y) = κ S ( y) (3)
to the settlement zones are then determined.
D
L
Where κ = 0.3870

Figure 8 shows the concave profile. It should be noted

that the vertical ground movement produces a point of
inflexion at 0.167D from the wall. The settlement from H
Building
the wall to this point of inflexion exhibits a hogging
shape. It is uncertain if this characteristic is accurate. A B C
The formulation of concave settlement is therefore a
Relative Deflection
necessary area of further research and discussion. ∆BC
β Relative Deflection
y ∆AB
4D Vertical
Ground Point of
2D Movement
HA HB Inflexion HC
0.5D SA SB SC
0.167D
LAB LBC
Sagging Hogging
0.1δvmax Zone Zone
Retaining Figure 9: Illustration of Building Dimensions and Ground
Hsieh and Ou (1998)
Wall Parameters
Tri-linear shape
H(y)
D
The vertical movements for the sagging settlement zone
δhmax = 0.75δvmax are SA and SB, and the horizontal movements are HA and
Excavation S(y) HB. The vertical movements for the hogging zone are SB
δvmax and SC, and the corresponding horizontal movements are
HB and HC.
Point of inflexion
Calculate Deflection Ratio and Horizontal Strain
Figure 8: Concave Settlement Profile The building deflection ratios ∆/L and horizontal strains
εh are then calculated. The deflection ratio is calculated
by obtaining the relative deflection ∆ (see Figure 9). The
ASSESSING BUILDING DAMAGE
relative deflection is best obtained through numerical
The methodology of damage assessment is based on the methods.
limiting tensile strain approach [1], which is in turn The deflection ratio for the sagging zone is ∆AB/LAB
based on [7] and [8]. In this method the building is and for the hogging zone is ∆BC/LBC. The horizontal
modeled as a weightless, linear-elastic, isotropic beam strain for the sagging zone is (HB-HA)/LAB and for the
of height H and length L. The height of the beam is hogging zone is (HC-HB)/LBC.
equal to the distance from the foundation of the building
to the eaves while ignoring the roof. The length of the Develop Damage Interaction Charts
beam is equal to the length of the building. The building
The deflection ratios and horizontal strains are plotted
dimensions and ground parameters used for the calcula-
onto damage interaction charts in order to determine the
tion of damage are illustrated in Figure 9. The method of
building damage category. The definitions of the dam-
assessment is as follows.
age categories are based on [9]. Each category of dam-
age corresponds to a limiting tensile strain. These limit-
Identify the Settlement Zones ing strains are reproduced in Table 1.
The first step in the damage assessment process is the
identification of the hogging and sagging zones of set-
tlement profile underneath the building. A building sub-
ject to hogging and sagging zones is shown in Figure 9.
The sagging zone is described by points A and B, and
Table 1: Relationship between Damage Category and Limiting And as follows for the shear mode, by using Mohr’s
Tensile Strain, εlim circle of strain with v = 0.3.
(Reproduced from [2]. Originally proposed in [7]) 1
[
ε dt = 0.35ε h + (0.65ε h )2 + ε d2 2 ](7)
Category Normal degree Limiting tensile strain
Where εbt is the total bending strain and εdt is total shear
of Damage of severity (εlim %)
strain.
Equations (4) to (7) may be used to produce dam-
0 Negligible 0 – 0.05
age interaction charts by substituting in the damage cat-
1 Very Slight 0.05 – 0.075 egory limiting tensile strains εlim (Table 1).
2 Slight 0.075 – 0.15 Damage limit charts that take into consideration the
3 Moderate 0.15 – 0.3
horizontal ground strains were first presented in [7] for a
ratio of L/H = 1 in terms of angular distortion β and
Severe to Very
4 > 0.3 horizontal strain εh. Reference [1] expanded on this
Severe
study by presenting damage interaction charts for the
L/H = 1 case in relation to ∆/L and εh.
In order to produce the damage interaction charts, the The steps for developing the damage interaction
relationships between the deflection ratio and the vari- charts are as follows.
ous building strains must be defined. These relationships 1. Substitute the limiting strain limits εlim in Table 1
are described in [9] and are reproduced below.
for εbt and εdt into (4) to (7).
The equation for deflection ratio and bending strain
2. Calculate εb and εd for a given εh.
is as follows.
3. Calculate the governing value of ∆/L.
∆  L 3IE 
= + ε b (4)
L 12t 2tLHG  Damage interaction charts for a building of L/H = 1 are
And the equation for deflection ratio and shear strain is shown in Figure 10 below.
as follows. 0.005 Bending 0.005
Hogging Sagging
∆  HL2G  Shear
= 1 + ε d 0.004 0.004
Deflection Ratio ∆/L

(5) Severe
L  18IE  Moderate
Slight
0.003 Very Slight 0.003
Where εb is the bending strain and εd is the shear strain. I Negligible

0.002 0.002
is the second moment of inertia of the beam and t is the
distance to the extreme fiber from the neutral axis. 0.001 0.001
For a building within a sagging zone, the neutral
0 0
axis is at the centre of the building and I and t are H3/12
-1.2% -0.8% -0.4% 0.0% 0.4% -1.2% -0.8% -0.4% 0.0% 0.4%
and H/2 respectively. For a building within a hogging
zone, the neutral axis is at the bottom of the building and Horizontal Strain εh
I and t are H3/3 and H respectively. Figure 10: Damage Interaction Curves for L/H = 1
E and G are the Young’s modulus and shear mod-
ulus of the beam. E/G = 2(1+v), where v is the Poisson’s Figure 10-Left is the same chart as that which is pre-
ratio. v is assumed to be 0.3 and therefore E/G is 2.6. sented in [1]. However the figure in [1] shows the curves
This was used in [7] for brick masonry buildings. In for tensile strains only. The above presented figure
practice, masonry is not isotropic due to openings in the shows the curves for the full range of compressive and
buildings such as windows and doors. Hence E/G is tensile strains.
likely to be greater than 2.6. However it is more conser- Each line on the charts represents a building dam-
vative to use a low E/G as it represents a stiffer and less age category. The point at which the shape alters from a
flexible building that is more susceptible to damage. curve to a straight line represents the transition from
The above equations are for pure bending and shear damage governed by bending strains to damage gov-
strain only and ignore the contribution of horizontal erned by shear.
ground strain εh. The horizontal ground strain is there-
fore incorporated in the following manner for the bend- Determining the Damage Category
ing mode through superposition. The deflection ratios and horizontal strains are plotted
onto the damage interaction charts. The damage cate-
ε bt = ε b + ε h (6) gory of the building will depend on the position of the
points relative to the individual damage category curves.
 Spandrel Profile: W/D = 2.5, T = 1.5, δhwall/δvwall = 0.75
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT LIMIT CURVES 450

Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

400 D = 4m

Curve Development Methodology 350 D = 12m

300
The Settlement Limit Curves are developed in the fol- D = 24m
lowing manner. For an excavation of depth D, the build- 250

ing proximity X was varied from 0 to 50m and the limit- 200

ing settlement at the wall δvwall was varied from 0 to 150

450mm. For each X and a starting high value of δvwall, 100

the ground movement is calculated. Next the corre- 50

sponding deflection ratios and horizontal strains are 0

0 10 20 30 40 50
calculated. The damage category is then determined by
Distance to Front of Building X (m)
plotting this information onto damage interaction charts.
δvwall is reduced incrementally until a damage category Figure 11: Building Length: L = 5m, H = 5m
of “Slight” is achieved. At this point the δvwall is re- 450

Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

corded. The process is then repeated for the next X. D = 4m
400
In order to produce a good resolution of output data D = 12m
350
the accuracy of δvwall and X are set to 0.05mm and 0.2m
300 D = 24m
respectively. The process is facilitated by the use of
250
software developed by the author.
200
150
Parametric Variations
100
The parametric variations considered for this study are
50
shown in Table 2. The parameters were chosen by tak-
0
ing into consideration the characteristics of typical shal- 0 10 20 30 40 50
low foundation shop-houses and ground conditions Distance to Front of Building X (m)
found in Singapore. The building lengths chosen are 5,
10 and 15m. The height is fixed at 5m. Figure 12: Building Length: L = 10m, H = 5m
Curves for the spandrel profile are developed for 450
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

D = 4m
trough widths of 2.5 and 3.0 that represent stiff and very 400

soft geological materials respectively. The curves are 350 D = 12m

calculated for excavation depths of 4m, 12m and 24m. 300 D = 24m
250
Table 2: Parametric Variations 200
150
Building
100
Figure No. Parameters Ground Parameters
50
L (m)
0
Figure 11 5 0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 12 10 Spandrel: W/D=2.5 Distance to Front of Building X (m)

Figure 13 15 Figure 13: Building Length: L = 15m, H = 5m

Figure 14 5 Spandrel Profile: W/D = 3.0, T = 1.5, δhwall/δvwall = 0.75
Figure 15 10 Spandrel: W/D=3.0
450
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

D = 4m
Figure 16 15 400
D = 12m
Figure 18 5 350
300 D = 24m
Figure 19 10 Concave Profile
250
Figure 20 15
200
150
Results 100
69mm
The computed Settlement Limit Curves for the parame- 50
20m See Worked Example
ters considered are as follows. 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance to Front of Building X (m)

Figure 14: Building Length: L = 5m, H = 5m

 450 0.30%

Deflection Ratio or Horizontal Strain

Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

400 D = 4m
0.25%
350 D = 12m
Horizontal Strain, εh
300 D = 24m 0.20%
250
0.15%
200
150mm
150 0.10%
See Worked Example
100
0.05%
50 Deflection Ratio, ∆/L
15m 48.2m
0 0.00%
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance to Front of Building X (m)
Distance to Front of Building X (m)
Figure 15: Building Length: L = 10m, H = 5m
Figure 17: Variation in Deflection Ratio and Horizontal Strain
450 for L = 10m and D = 12m
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

400 D = 4m

350 D = 12m Concave Profile: δhmax/δvmax = 0.75, W/D = 4.0

300 450

Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

D = 24m
D = 4m
250 400

350 D = 12m
200
150 300 D = 24m

100 250

50 200

0 150
0 10 20 30 40 50
100
Distance to Front of Building X (m) 50
Figure 16: Building Length: L = 15m, H = 5m 0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Observations on the Spandrel Based Curves Distance to Front of Building X (m)

In general the curves show a parabolic shape with mini- Figure 18: Building Length: L = 5m, H = 5m
mum point occurring at a distance away from the exca- 450
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

vation. The minimum point moves away from the retain- 400 D = 4m

ing wall as the excavation depth increases. This point 350 D = 12m
represents the building proximity at which the risk of 300 D = 24m
damage is greatest. 250
The change in trough width ratio from 2.5 to 3.0 re- 200
sults in an increase in allowable settlement (less dam- 150
age) closer to the wall but lower allowable settlement 100
values (greater damage) at a distance away. This is con- 50
sistent with the general understanding of the effect of the 0
wider settlement trough. 0 10 20 30 40 50
Some conventional thought is challenged by the Distance to Front of Building X (m)
spandrel based curves. This is because the allowable Figure 19: Building Length: L = 10m, H = 5m
settlement, particularly for deeper excavation depths,
450
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

increases as the building proximity reduces. This is D = 4m

400
counterintuitive as it implies that the risk of building
350 D = 12m
damage is less when closer to the excavation.
300 D = 24m
The phenomenon may be investigated by consider-
250
ing the building deflection ratio and horizontal strain.
200
Figure 17 shows the variation in deflection ratio and
horizontal strain for a building of length 10m and height 150

5m, subject to an excavation depth of 12m. It may be 100

observed that both variables peak at an approximate 50

distance of 10m from the excavation. These peaks match 0

0 10 20 30 40 50
closely with, and may therefore be correlated to, the
Distance to Front of Building X (m)
observed low point of the D = 12m curve in Figure 15.
Figure 20: Building Length: L = 15m, H = 5m
Observations on the Concave Based Curves
It should be noted that several assumptions are made in
the formulation of concave settlement. The produced
curves are mainly to demonstrate the concepts presented
in this paper and to encourage further research and dis-
cussion.
In general the concave curves show the develop-
ment of several peaks. The peaks indicate a “safe” re-
gion where buildings are less susceptible to damage. It
may also be observed that the allowable settlement val-
ues are lower when compared to the spandrel based
curves and therefore implies that the concave settlement
profile is more damaging to buildings.
General Usage Information
In order to use the Settlement Limit Curves the follow-
ing information must be known.
Ground Parameters:
1. Shape of the ground settlement profile: That is, the
spandrel or concave profile.
2. Excavation depth D and trough width ratio W/D
based on the geology.
Building Parameters:
1. Building length L and height H.
2. Ratio of Young’s modulus to Shear modulus E/G.
The curves presented are for an E/G of 2.6 which is
conservative.
3. Distance to the front of the building from the retain-
ing wall X.
4. Foundation Considerations:
a. Mixed foundations: Buildings on mixed foundations
are susceptible to damage due to differential move-
ments caused by an unmoving deep foundation and
a settling shallow foundation. The curves are there-
fore not suitable in estimating damage to mixed
foundation buildings.
b. Ground beams: Building foundations that contain
ground beams can influence building damage. This
is further discussed in the sensitivity study sections
that follow.
Earth Retaining System Design: Worked Example
The Settlement Limit Curves can be used to determine
the allowable settlement at the retaining wall in order to
restrict damage to the “Slight” category. A worked ex-
ample is presented below.
A building of length L = 10m and height H = 5m
lies at a distance X = 20m from an excavation of depth
D = 12m.
The deflection of the retaining wall is predicted to
result in a spandrel settlement profile. The ground geol-
ogy is made up of soft clay, and therefore a trough width
ratio of W/D = 3.0 is adopted.
The appropriate figure for this assessment is Figure
14. By referring to the D = 12m curve, the allowable
settlement at the wall δvwall is approximately 69mm. A
settlement at the wall of more than this value will result
in a building damage that is greater than the “Slight”
damage category.
The maximum deflection of the wall may be ap-
proximately equaled to the maximum settlement at the
wall [6], [10]. The earth retaining system for this exca-
vation may therefore be designed optimally by imposing
a maximum wall deflection limit of up to 69mm.
Preliminary Damage Assessments: Worked Example
The curves may also be used to perform preliminary
damage assessments for buildings affected by an exist-
ing earth retaining system design. Consider the follow-
ing example.
The estimated movement of the retaining wall of an
existing earth retaining system is 150mm. The settle-
ment at the wall is taken as equal to the same. The exca-
vation depth is 24m. The type of wall deflection is pre-
dicted to result in a spandrel settlement profile. The
ground geology is made up of soft clay, and therefore a
trough width ratio of W/D = 3.0 is adopted. The affected
buildings are 10m in length.
By referring to Figure 15 and the D = 24m curve, it
may be observed that for this wall settlement the build-
ing proximities that are at risk ranges from 15m to 49m.
Buildings that are within these ranges are subject to a
damage category greater than “Slight” and therefore
should be assessed in greater detail.
The implementation of the curve in this way may be
interpreted as a middle ground between the commonly
used Stage I and II damage assessment methodologies
[2].
Infrastructure Planning
As described in the previous section the curves present
information on the building proximities that are at risk
due to excavation induced settlement.
Infrastructure planners may use this information to
identify the positions of future excavations where the
impact to existing buildings is likely to be minimal.
Sensitivity to Building Height
The sensitivity of the curves with respect to the change
in building height was investigated. Figure 21 shows
curves produced for buildings of L/H ratios of 0.1, 0.5, 1
and 2, for a building of length 10m and excavation
depths of 4m and 24m.
 450 The curves for the concave profile are presented in
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

400 D = 4m Figure 23 below.

350
L/H (left to right): 0.1 to 2.0 450

Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

Arrows indicate curve
300 400
transformation due to
250 350 D = 4m reduction in horizontal
D = 24m movements
200 L/H (top to bottom): 0.1 to 2.0 300

150 250

100 200

50 150

0 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 50
Distance to Front of Building X (m) D = 24m
0
Figure 21: Sensitivity to Building Height 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance to Front of Building (m)

The following observations are made: Figure 23: Sensitivity to Ground Beams for Concave Profile
1. The curves do not vary significantly with respect to
a change in the height of the building. It may be observed that the change in allowable settle-
2. A building of lower height produces a curve that is ment is less significant compared with the spandrel
marginally lower. Therefore buildings of lower based curves. The horizontal ground movements in the
height are more susceptible to damage. concave profile produce compressive strains for dis-
It is therefore conservative to assume a building of low- tances closer to the excavation. In general the reduction
er height when referring to the curves. in compressive strains help to mitigate building damage.
However, a higher damage category may occur for a
Sensitivity to Ground Beams situation where a building is subject to a high deflection
ratio, and the damage shifts from being governed by
The sensitivity of the curves with respect to the influ-
bending strains to shear strains (see Figure 10-Right).
ence of ground beams was investigated. Ground beams
are a common feature in building foundations and offer
Sensitivity to Shape of Spandrel Profile
restraint in the horizontal plane. This restraint serves to
mitigate the development of building horizontal strains. The parameter T controls the curvature of the spandrel
In order to model the influence of ground beams, settlement curve. A higher T produces a settlement
the horizontal ground movements for the spandrel and shape with tighter curvature but smaller settlements at a
concave profile are reduced by 80% to δhmax/δvmax= 0.15. distance away from the wall. Figure 24 shows the varia-
The building length is 10m. The curves for the spandrel tion in settlement profiles for T = 1.5 and T = 2.0.
profile are presented in Figure 22.
450
0.0
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)

400 -0.2
Arrows indicate curve
Normalized Settlement

350 H(y) for T = 2.0

transformation due to
300 reduction in horizontal
-0.4
250 movements H(y) for T = 1.5
-0.6
200 S(y) for T = 2.0
150 -0.8
100 D = 24m S(y) for T = 1.5
-1.0
50 D = 12m
0
D = 4m -1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4
Distance to Front of Building (m) Trough Width W/D
Figure 22: Sensitivity to Ground Beams for Spandrel Profile Figure 24: Spandrel Curve for T = 1.5 and T = 2.0

It may be observed that restricting the horizontal ground The sensitivity of the damage curves with respect to T is
movement increases the allowable settlement, thereby shown in Figure 25 below for the case of a building of
causing the spandrel based curves to translate upwards. L/H = 1, L = 5m and spandrel profile with W/D = 2.5.
There appears to be no significant change to the shape
of the curve. The increase in allowable settlement indi-
cates that the presence of ground beams help to improve
the resistance of the building to damage.
 450
Settlement at the Wall δvwall (mm)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 building damage due to bored tunnelling, Geotech-
0 10
Distance to Front of Building (m)
Figure 25: Curve Sensitivity to T
It may be observed that when the building is close to the
excavation, the allowable settlement for the T = 2.0
curve is marginally less and hence more damaging than
the T = 1.5 curve. The situation is reversed away from
the wall.
For this study T is set to 1.5 in order to produce a
more conservative estimation of damage for buildings at
a distance away from the retaining wall.
CONCLUSIONS
The Settlement Limit Curves improve the understanding
of the relationships between building damage, ground
settlement and excavations. The curve uses and applica-
tion for optimum earth retaining system design, prelimi-
nary building damage assessments and infrastructure
planning are explained.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge and thank Dr. Nicho-
las Mace, for his invaluable advice and helpful sugges-
tions in the composition of this paper, and Mr. Jonathan
McCallum for his contributions in the formulation of
concave settlement and critical review of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] J.B. Burland, Assessment of risk of damage to
buildings due to tunnelling and excavations, Invited
T = 2.0
special lecture to IS-Tokyo ’95: 1st International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineer-
ing (1995).
T = 1.5 [2] R.J. Mair, R.N. Taylor and J.B. Burland, Prediction
of ground movements and assessments of risk and
20 30 40 50 nical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft
Ground (eds R.J Mair and R.N Taylor), Balkema,
pp 713-718 (1996).
[3] C.Y. Ou, P.G. Hsieh and D.C. Chiou, Characteris-
tics of ground surface settlement, Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, 30(5):758-767 (1993).
[4] R.B. Peck, Deep excavation and tunnelling in soft
ground, In Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, State-of-the-Art-Volume, Mexico City,
pp. 225-290 (1969).
[5] M.P. O’Reilly and B.M. New, Settlements above
tunnels in United Kingdom – their magnitude and
prediction, Tunneling ’82, pp. 173-181, London,
IMM (1982).
[6] P.G. Hsieh and C.Y. Ou, Shape of Ground Surface
Settlement Profiles Caused by Excavation, Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 35:1004-1017 (1998).
[7] M.D. Boscardin and E.J. Cording, Building re-
sponse to excavation induced settlement, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, 115;1;1-21
(1989).
[8] J.B. Burland and C.P. Wroth, Settlement of build-
ings and associated damage. SOA Review, Conf.
Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, Pentech Press.
London, pp 611-654 (1974).
[9] J.B. Burland, B. Broms and V.F.B. De Mello, Be-
haviour of foundations and structures – SOA Re-
port, Session 2, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. SMFE, Tokyo,
2;495-546 (1977).
[10] A.I Mana and G.W. Clough, Prediction of move-
ments for braced cut in clay, Journal of the Geo-
technical Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(GT8):
759-777 (1981).