Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, Part 1, 1985,78, Dec.

, 1325-1381
8917 GROUND ENGINEERING GROUP

Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel

J. B. BURLAND, PhD, DSc(Eng), FEng, FICE, MIStructE

M. C . BURBIDGE, BSc,MSc,DIC, FGSt

The Paper describes the analysis of over 200 records of settlement of foundations, tanks and
embankments on sands and gravels. A remarkably simple picture has emerged relating the
settlement to the bearing pressure, the breadth of loaded area and the average SPT blow
count or cone resistance over the depth of influence. The influence of a number of factors
such as shape and depth of foundation, depth of water table, grain size and time have been
investigated. The Paper first briefly describes the application
of the results to the prediction
of settlement with particular emphasis on the limits of accuracy. Paragraphs 6 2 4 are self
contained and may be used on their own for design purposes. The Paper follows this with a
detailed account of the analysis of the case records.

Notation
radius of loaded area
foundation subgrade compressibility(ApJAq‘),mm/(kN/m2)
most probable value ofa,
width of loaded area,m
depth of founding level
effective Young’s modulus
correction factor for thickness
of sand layer
correction factor for shape
correction factor for time
thickness of sand layer
depth of water table below founding level
index of compressibility (ar/BO”)
rate of increase of Young’s modulus with depth
length of loaded area
volume compressibility from oedometer test
average SPT blow count over the depth of influence
corrected valueof SPT blow count
average bearing pressure,kN/m2
cone resistance, MN/m2
time-dependent settlement (expressed as a proportion of pi) occurring during first 3
years after construction
time-dependent settlement (expressed as a proportion ofpi) occurring each log cycle
of time after3 years
defined in equation (14)
most probable value ofT

Ordinary meeting, 5.30 pm., 25 February 1986. Written discussion closes 14 March 1986.
For further details seep. (ii).
*Imperial Collegeof Science and Technology.
?E. J. Wilson, Consulting Engineering Geologist.
l325
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
t time in years
ZI depth of influence of loaded area
V‘ effective Poisson’s ratio
Pr final measurement of settlement
Pi settlement at the end of construction or completionof loading
PI settlement at time t after completion of loading
U standard deviation
maximum previous effective overburden pressure,
kN/mZ

Introduction
Numerous methods of predicting settlement of foundations on sands and gravels
have been published-many more methods than for clays. The reason lies in the
extreme difliculty of obtaining undisturbed samples for the laboratory determi-
nation of compressibility under appropriate conditionsof stress and stress history.
Hence resort has been made to the interpretation of field in situ tests such as the
standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test and plate loading test, and
much of the literature has been devoted to such interpretations. This extensive
literature will not be reviewed here as it has been adequately covered by Suther-
land,’ Simons and Menzies’ and N i ~ o n . ~
2. The practical importance of the problem was perhaps put in perspective by
Terzaghi4 when he stated that all buildings resting on sand which were known to
him had settled less than 75 mm (3 in) whereas the settlement of buildings on clay
foundations quite oftenexceeded 500mm (20 in). This statement providedthe
impetus for the study described in the present Paper in which a large number of
caserecords of settlement onsandsand gravelshavebeenassembled by
Burbidge’.
3. The essential details of most of these case records are tabulated in Appendix
1 of the present Paper and the associated references are given in Appendix 2. The
case record numberingused by Burbidge has been retainedfor ease of reference.
4. The prime objective of the study was to check whether the above statement
of Terzaghi’s still held true and reference to Appendix 1 shows that, with a few
exceptions, it does for buildings. However, settlements well in excess of 75mm
have been recorded fortanks and embankments onvery loose sands. Inview of the
small settlements usually experienced with sands and gravels the second objective
of the study was to analyse the data on actual observations of settlement employ-
ing a minimum of interpretation to see if a simple and useful picture emerged. A
preliminary study of this type was undertaken by Burland et aL6 and a similar but
more detailed approach is described here.
5. The picture that has emerged from the statistical analysis of over 200 cases
is remarkably simple and gives a range of settlements which is generally less than
the range of predictions offered by the current commonly accepted methods.’ A
brief description of the method and its application is given first, followed by a
detailed account of the analysis of the settlement records.

Settlement prediction
6. Theoutcome of theanalysis of thelarge number of settlementrecords
summarized in Appendix 1 is presented first, inthe form of a simple direct method
of settlement prediction. Paragraphs 6 2 4 are self contained and can be used on
their own for design purposes. However, frequent cross-referencesare made to the
work described later,so that thebasis of the various assumptions canbe studied.
1326
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL
Determination of the foundation subgrade compressibility
7. The nub of the method is the empirical relationship which has been estab-
lished between the slopeof the pressure-settlement relationship for thefoundation
(ApJAq'),the breadth of the foundation B and the average SPT blow count over
the depth of influence of the foundation. The quantity ApJAq' is the foundation
subgrade compressibility, denoted by a , , andthe units are mm/(kN/m*). The
relationship is shown in Fig. 1, where u , / B " ~is plotted against N on double log
axes. The quantity u , / B " ~is denoted as I,, the compressibility index. The full line
in Fig. 1 has been derived from a regression analysis of over 200 settlement records
on sand and gravel. The chain dotted lines approximate to two standard devi-
ations above and below the mean line. Mathematically the regression line isgiven
by

with a coefficient of correlation of 0.848.

8. The following features should be noted about Fig. 1.
(a) a, is the subgrade compressibility for a normally consolidated sand or
gravel. In 8 6 4 7 2 it is shown that the relationship between bearing
pressure and settlement is approximately linear for normally consoli-
dated granular materials for factors of safety against bearing capacity
failure of 3 or more. When the material is overconsolidated or loaded at
the base of an excavation, the values of a, and I , are reduced by a factor
of 3 for pressure changes below the effective preconsolidation pressure
4 0 '

(b) The SPTblow count is not corrected for effective overburden pressure and
the horizontalaxis is therefore not strictly a measure of relative density.
Instead a new classification is proposed in which ranges of uncorrected
N values are assigned to compressibilitygrades. Thecorrelation
between N and compressibility grade is given in Table 1 and in Fig. 1.
The concept of compressibility grades proved particularly valuable in
the analysis described inQ 26 et seq.
(c) Although the N values are not corrected for overburden pressure it is
necessary to make certain other corrections. It is shown in Section 8.5
that for very fine and silty sand below the water table the correction
proposed by Terzaghi and Peck' gives improved results, i.e. when N is
greater than 15
N' = 15 + 0.5(N - 15) (2)
where N' is the corrected value of N . When the material consists of
gravel or sandy gravel it is shown in $9 103-106 that a correction should
be applied such that
N' = 1.25 X N (3)
( d ) The results of cone penetration tests may be converted to equivalent N
values using Fig.2, where q,/N is related to grain size (qcis in MN/m2).
(e) The results of plate loading tests may be related to compressibility grade
using themethods described in 47-50. Care must beusedin the
application of equation ( l ) in conjunction with plate loading test results
1327
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

AP
a, = 4mm/(kN/m2)
W

B in metres

Compresslbllity grades

0.1 ‘1 I l I I I I I I I
10
I I I I I I I I I
100
SPT
Fig. 1. Relationship between compressibility ( I , ) and mean SPT blow count (m)
over depth of influence. Chain dotted linesshow upper and lower limits (see Figs 22
and 2 3 )

Table 1. Classijcation of compressibility of normally

tonsolidated sandsand gravels withS P T blow count

Compressibility grade No. of blows N* Interval

<4 3
4-8 5
9-15 7
IV 1C 2 5 10
111 2640 15
I1 41-60 20
r ~
> 60
* Uncorrected for overburden pressure.
1328
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL

/
20- /-
0
--
X
10-
:
W -
E -

/-
/-
’ oh2 0.06
I
0.2 0.6
Partlcle sue: mm
I I
20
I
6.0

Medium] Coarse I Fine I Medlum I Coarse I Fme IMediurn

Silt I Sand Gravel

Fig. 2. Relationship between q J N and grain size. Values of N are not correctedfor
overburden pressure

since as B increases the value of N will often increase as well due to the
associated increase in the depthof influence.

Depth of influence and the derivationof I?

9. An important feature of the method is the assessment of the depth of influ-
ence z, of the foundation. This is discussed in detail in & 51-63 where it is shown
that, when N increases with depth, the relative depth of influence (z/B), decreases
significantly as the breadth of the foundation increases. Although the depth of
influence depends on manyfactors, for present purposes it is assumed to be given
by the full line in Fig. 3 for cases where N increases or is constant with depth.
Where N shows a consistent decrease with depth the depthof influence is taken as
2B or the bottomof the soft layer, whichever is the lesser. The value of N for use in
Fig. 1 or equation (1) is given by the arithmetic mean of the measured N values
over the depthof influence.

Calculation of settlement
10. For a normally consolidated sand the immediate average settlement pi at
the endof construction, correspondingto theaverage effective foundation pressure
q’, is given by
pi = q’ X B’” X I, (4)
where pi is in mm, q’ in kN/m2 andB in metres. Values of I , corresponding to the
best estimate and the upper and lower limits are obtained fromFig. 1.
11. For an over consolidated sand, or for loading at the base of an excavation,
for which the maximum previouseffective overburden pressureis U:,,the average
end of construction settlement pi corresponding to the average gross effective
pressure q’ (where q’ > aka) is made upof two components as follows
1329
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

’ O f

B: m
Fig. 3. Relationship between breadth of loaded area B and depth of influence z,
(within which75% of the settlement takes place)

= (q‘ - &,)B0’7 X l , mm (54

When q’ is less than otothe aboveexpression becomes

pi = q’ X B’” X 1, mm
- (5b)
3

Corrections for depth offounding, depth of water table, shape and thicknessof layer
12. In # 91-106 a statistical analysis of the influence of the above factors is
described for foundations with depth ratios D / B < 3. It is shown that, within the
limits of accuracy of the analysis, there is no obvious correlation between D/B and
settlement. This result agrees with the results of DAppolonia et al.’ who found
from the analysis of a number of results on one site that only a 12% reduction in
settlement occurred when D / B increased from 0.5 to 1.0.
13. It is also concluded that the level of the water table beneath the founding
level does not have a statistically significant influenceon thesettlement. This result
appears to support Meyerhofsg view that theeffect of the water tableis reflected in
the measured blow count. Thus water table changes subsequent to the determi-
nation of I? may have some influence on settlement.
14. Thestatisticalanalysisindicatesthatthere is asignificantcorrelation
1330
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONS O N SANDANDGRAVEL
between settlement and LIB (the length-to-breadth ratio of the foundation). The
correction factor is quite small and be
canexpressed as

where p i ( L / B > 1) =f,X pi(L/B = 1). It can be seen thatf, tends to 1.56 as LIB
tends to infinity.
15. There were insufficient data to study the influence of the thickness of the
sand or gravel layer beneath the foundation (H,) but it is recommended that when
H , is less than z, (the depthof influence) a correctionf,should be applied suchthat

ZI

Time-dependent settlement
16. The case records referred to in $9 107-115 indicate quite clearly that foun-
dationsonsandsandgravelsexhibittime-dependentsettlement.However,no
distinct pattern emerges. In some cases the time-dependent process appears to be
,more orless continuous, with the settlement followingan approximately linear log
time relationship (after an initial transition period). In other cases the process
appears to be stepwise with quiescent periods of up to 3 years interspersed with
periods of significant ratesof settlement.
17. The records show very clearly that foundations subject to fluctuating loads
suchastallchimneys,bridges, silos and turbinesexhibitmuchlargertime-
dependent settlements than those subject onlyto staticloads.
18. The results suggest that the time correction factor for the settlement (p,) at
any time t , when t is 3 years or moreafter the endof construction, is given by

Pi
where f, is the correction factor for time, t > 3 years, R , is the time-dependent
settlement (expressed as aproportion of pi) that takesplace during thefirst 3 years
after construction and R, is the time-dependent settlement (expressedas a propor-
tion of pi) that takesplace each logcycle of time after3 years.
19. For static loads conservative values of R , and R, are 0.3 and 0.2 respec-
tively. Thus at t = 30 years,f, = 1.5. For fluctuating loads conservative values of
R , and R, are 0.7 and 0.8 respectively so that att = 30 years,f, = 2.5.

Summary
20. In summary the average settlement of a foundation at the end of construc-
tion and then at anytime t, 3 or more years after the end of construction, may be
expressed by the following equations:
pi =f,x f i X [(q’ - fo:,) X B’” X I,] mm (94
and

where q’ is theaveragegross effective appliedpressure (kN/mZ), cr:, isthe

1331
B U R L A N DA N DB U R B I D G E
maximum previous effective overburden pressure (kN/m2), B is the breadth in
metres, I, is the compressibility index obtained from Fig. 1 or equation (l),f, is a
shape correction factor given by equation (6), f , is a correction factor for the
thickness of the sand layer given by equation (7) andf; is a time factor given by
equation (8).
21. The probable limits of accuracy of equation (9a) can be assessed from the
upper and lower limits of I, given in Fig. 1 and it may be necessary to take these
into accountin the design.
22. It must be emphasized that the factor of safety against bearing capacity
failure should always be checked in addition to the settlement. If the factor of
safety is less than about 3 the pressure settlement curve maybe non-linear and the
method will underestimate thesettlement.
23. Furthermore, the method has been based on case studies with quartzitic
sandand graveldeposits.Siteswherecoral(calcite)orothermineralogically
unusual sand and gravel deposits are encountered should not be analysed by this
method unless the deformation properties of these deposits can be demonstrated
to be similar to quartzitic deposits.
24. Themethod is well suited for routinedesignpurpases.However,it is
suggested that, for major projects, or those where the proposed structurehas strict
permissible total ordifferential settlements, other well-establishedmethods of esti-
mating the settlement are also used as a check. On such projects it may prove
valuable to refer to the case studies listedin Appendix 2 in which similar structures
or ground conditions are involved. In general it seems unlikely that the limits of
accuracy can be significantly improved unless resort is made to the direct determi-
nation of in situ compressibility.
25. In conclusion itis appropriate to bear in mind the following remarks by
Sutherland
‘Before a designer becomes entangled in the details of predicting settlement
(in sand) he must satisfy himself whether a real problem actually exists and
ascertainwhatadvantagesandeconomiescanresultfromrefinements in
settlement prediction.’

Analysis of case recordsof settlement on sands and gravels

26. The object of thestudy described in thissection of thePaper was to
assemble as muchdata as possible on actualfield observations of settlement with a
minimum of interpretation to see if a simple picture emerged.The most important
factors controlling settlement p are the effective bearing pressure q‘, the breadth B
of the loaded area and the compressibility of the ground withinthe depth of
influence of the loaded area. There are many other factors influencing settlement
such as depth of founding, geometry of the loaded area, depthof water table, time
etc. These factors were felt to be secondary compared with the above three prin-
cipal factors and could be examined separately after the main trends had been
established.
27. For any case record the quantities p, q’ and B are well defined. Thus, in
their preliminary study Burland er al.6 chose to correlate p / q with B. The com-
pressibility characteristics of the ground are much more difficult to define and
Burland et al. only distinguished between three categories of granular material:
loose, medium dense and dense. In the present study the same basic approach is
adopted but a morerefined method of classifying the compressibility of sands and
1332
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL
gravels has been found to be justified. Moreover,it has proved necessary to
consider in some detail the depth within which the compressibility significantly
influences the settlement (i.e. the depth of influence z,) and also the validity of the
assumption of a linear pressuresettlement relationship. These matters are dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs as a preliminary to the presentation of the
analysis of the caserecords.

The standard penetration test ( S P T ) as a measure of compressibility

28. For the majority of the case records assembled for this study the ground
conditions were investigated using the standard penetration test (SPT). For this
reason, and because it is a test which is widely used, it was decided to use the SPT
blow count asa measure of the compressibility of granular soils. Nevertheless, it is
of the utmost importance to appreciate the limitations both of the test itself and
the correlationof its results with compressibility.”
29. The standard penetration test. At present the two most widely used stan-
dards are BS 1377: 197511 and ASTM D1586-67.” The testing procedures are
broadly similar, and outside the UK and the USA one of these two standards is
normally used. An important exception to the general SPT procedureis in Brazil
where the Mohr-Geotecnica sampleris extensively used.
30. There are numerous details of the test and its operation which are not
standard.13 For example, there are considerabledifferences in the dimensions and
lengths of drilling rod used in the test.Also, thedrivingtechniquecan vary
significantly. The British and European standardsspecify the use of a trip hammer
whereas American practice is to operate the driving weight manually using a
cathead. Other factorswhich can influence the N value are the diameterof casing,
the conditionof the driving shoe, the type of boring rig and the method of cleaning
the base of the borehole.According to Schmertmann14 almost all samplers used in
the USA haveenlargedinternaldiameters to hold a liner. However, they are
frequently used without a liner, which leads to a significant reduction in the N
value. Over and above all these factors the crucial importance of maintaining an
adequate level of water in the borehole mustof course be emphasized.
31. It has always been recognized that the SPT is an empirical test. It is a test
which will have to become completely standardized if its use as a yardstick for
judging in situ properties, suchas compressibility, is to be enhanced. The need for
standardization has been emphasized by Nixon3 who calls for the international
use of the 1977 ISSMFE ‘Report of the Sub-Committee on Penetration Test for
use in Europe’.15 Any future changes or standardization in the test that do take
place should not deviate significantly from present procedures, so that experience
already gained from the test is not lost.
32. Influence ofgrain size. The effects of grain properties, such as angularity
and uniformity coefficient, on SPT resistance have not been adequately studied.
Holubec and D’Appolonia16 suggest that the SPT is influenced by the angularity
of granular soil. Gibbs and Holtz” found that the grain size had some influence.
Tests on dryloose sands showed that theN value for coarse sand was marginally
higher than for fine sand at the same relative density and overburden pressure.
However, for dense sand there was no appreciable difference between fine and
coarse sands. D’Appolonia and D’Appolonia’’ concluded that the particle size
does not appear to have a major influence provided gravel sizes are notpresent.
33. Influence of submergence. Schultze and M e n ~ e n b a c h and
‘ ~ Bazaraa” have
shown that the SPT resistance for coarsesandand gravel is not affectedby
1333
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
submergence. Terzaghi and Peck’ recommend that for dense ( N > 15), fine or silty
sands beneath the water table, the measured N values should be reduced, and put
forward thefollowing procedure
N’ = 15 + 0.5(N - 15) (2)
34. This proposal appears to be contradicted by the results of some laboratory
tests of Gibbs and Holtz” and Schultz and Melzer.*’ However, Bazaraa” con-
cluded from analysis of a large number of results of SPT tests within l m above
and below the water table that theeffect of submergence on penetration resistance
on very fine or silty sand is generallyto increase the blow count.On the basis of his
results he suggested thatthe measured N values should be corrected by the
formula
N = 0.6 X N ( 10)
35. InJuence of overburden pressure. Although SPT resistance for a granular
soil is likely to be dependent on a number of factors it appears that the twomost
important ones are the relativedensity and the effective overburden pressure.
Thus, in order to assess the relative density, numerous methods have been pro-
posed for correcting the SPT blow count to a standard overburden pressure (e.g.
those of Gibbs and Holtz”,Bazaraa2’ and Thorburn2*).
36. Turningnowto compressibility, laboratory tests by D a r a m ~ l ashow ~~
that, for a given K O stress history, the two most important factors influencing the
vertical compressibility are relative density and stress level-the same as for SPT
resistance.
37. It therefore appears that, in attempting to correlate compressibility with
SPT blow count, the effect of overburden pressure should not be eliminated since
it has an importantinfluence on both. Hence no correction for overburden press-
ure was usedin this study. However,it is recognized that the SPTblow count does
not, on its own, reflect the previous consolidation history of a deposit to any
significant extentand theeffect of this hasto be accounted for separately.
38. Cornpressibility grade in terms of S P T . Terzaghi’sZ4 descriptive correlation
between the ‘relative density’ and N value was originally based on the Terzaghi
and Peck allowable bearing pressure chart and theterms were therefore originally
used as qualitative measures of compressibility. Since their original introduction
the influence of overburden pressure on blow count has been recognized, as dis-
cussed under the previous sub-heading. Moreover, when an attempt was made to
correlate foundation compressibility a, from the case records given in Appendix 1
with ‘ relative density ’, it was found that the rangeof compressibilities associated
with each density zone was very uneven. It will become apparent that any descrip-
tive classification of compressibility based on SPT requires a scale in which the
range of N values associated with each ‘zone’ or ‘grade’ increases approximately
exponentially to give an even spread of a, values.
39. A new descriptivecorrelationbetween SPT and compressibility of nor-
mally consolidated granularmaterials has been introduced and is given in Table 1.
The opportunity has been taken to dispense with the terminology of ‘relative
density’ and replace it witha number of ‘ compressibility grades ’ which, since they
relate to uncorrected blow count, are a function both of relativedensity and
overburden pressure.
40. It must be emphasized that the SPT blow count can never be anything
more than a crude indicator of compressibility, even when restricted to normally
1334
 S E T T L E M E N TO FF O U N D A T I O N SO NS A N DA N DG R A V E L
consolidated sands (as in Table 1) and when the procedures are perfectly stan-
dardized.

The relationship betweenS P T and other tests

41. As discussed in Q$ 2 8 4 0 , the SPT resistance is used as a measure of com-
pressibility in the present study. However, for many of the case records given in
Appendix 1, no standard penetration tests were carried out. In order to make use
of these case recordsit has been necessary to attempt to correlate SPT blow count
with other tests, the three main ones being cone penetration tests, oedometer tests
and plate loading tests. It is recognized that the correlations are only approximate.
Nevertheless, isit important to relate
these widely used tests to the
‘compressibility grade’ if the resultsof the present study are tobe generally useful.
42. Cone penetrationtests. MeyerhoP5 investigatedtherelationshipbetween
N value and staticcone resistance qc for a number of sites, mainlyfor fine and silty
sands andsuggested that
q, = 4.4N
where qc is in kgf/cm2.This relationship was found to be independent of density.
43. Meigh and Nixon,26Rodin” and Sutherland” have shown that the above
relationship is restricted to fine and silty sands and that the ratio q c / N increases
with grain size. Burbidge’ collected together the original data used by the above
workers,together with other results,includingthoseassociated with thecase
records referred to in this Paper. Following the work of T h ~ r b u r n , ’these
~ data
have been correlated with average grain size and were found to be within the zones
shown in Fig. 2. For the case records from Brazil the measured blow counts were
reduced by afactor of 0.7.30*31 The resultsconfirm that thedensityhaslittle
influence on q J N although there is a slight trend for loose sands to lie towards the
upper limit of the scatter of the results.
44. Oedometer tests. The oedometertestisthemostcommonly used labor-
atory test for estimating settlements on sands. In Poland and Russia it is fairly
frequently used but outside these countriesit has been less popular.
45. The major difficulty with oedometer tests, as with other laboratory tests on
granular soil, is obtaining undisturbed samples. It has been found that fine sands
are generally not as prone to mechanical disturbance as coarse sand and where
representative samples have been carefully hand cut from excavations oedometer
tests have been reasonably successful.
46. About a quarter of the case studies found in the literature contain oedome-
ter results. The opportunity was taken to compare m, values from such tests with
N values for sites where the two testswere made. Average N values were obtained
over a depth range of 5-15 m and were compared with values ofm, evaluated for a
loading intensity of 100 kN/m2. Fig. 4 shows the results of the comparison for
eight sites. The number against each point refers to the appropriate case number
given in Appendix 1. Seven of the cases are for fine sand. Many more data are
required before any firm conclusions can be drawn about therelationship between
m, and N . For the purposes of this study the full line in Fig. 4 was used to assess
the compressibilitygrade from oedometer results.
47. Plateloadingtests. Terzaghi and Peck7 publisheda diagram showing a
collective pressure-settlement chart for 0.3 m (1 ft) square plates bearing on loose
to very dense sand strata above the groundwater table. At the time when the chart
was constructed only limited plate bearing testdata were available and, moreover,
1335
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

O°F

0Fine sand
8Medlum sand

I I I I I , 1 1 1 , I I I 1 I l l , , I I I I I
05 0.1 0-05 0 01 0.005 0,001
m, mz/MN (at U"' = 100 kN/mz)
Fig. 4. Relationship of N with m, (numbers referto case records in Appendix I )

the corresponding SPT values were probably from two different sized spoons. It
was thereforedecided to construct an updated version of the chart using the
compressibility grading classification. Data were collected from the case records
examined by B ~ r b i d g e Bazaraa,"
,~ Meigh and Nixon26 andR ~ d i n . ~ ~
48. The resulting charts are shown in Fig. 5 and they relate to three size ranges
of plate: 0.254.4 m, 04-0.7 m and 0.7-1.2 m. The scatter of results on which
these charts are based is large but tends to decrease with larger plates. In compil-
ing the charts no difference was apparent between tests on dry and moist sands. A
few test results were availablefor which the water table was at a depthof less than
B and these showed considerably larger settlements than for dry sand. The influ-
ence of the depth of water table is discussed in $9 98-101 where it is shown that the
results of plate tests with H J B > 1 correlate well with the data for larger loaded
areas andhigh water tables.
49. Despite theapproximatenature of Fig. 5 severalinterestingfeatures
emerge.
(a) The larger the plates the greater the linear range and the lower the curva-
ture of the pressure-settlement curves.
(b) For any given pressure and compressibility grade, settlement increases
with platesize.
(c) The initial tangent slopes to the pressure-settlement curves become more
distinct with increasing plate size. Thus, for the smallest size of plate,
bedding errorsandminor densityvariationswouldleadtoserious
errors in interpretation.
50. Meigh32 has suggested that the grain size and grading of sands could be
important factors influencing their compressibility under a test plate. While con-
structing the charts in Fig. 5 no discernible relationship with grain size could be
found, a conclusion also reached by Terzaghi and Peck.7 In the case of gravels and
gravelly sands the datawere found to be only in the zones for grade IV and better
with little correlation withSPT blow count.
1336
 S E T T L E M E N T O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDAND GRAVEL

Bearlng pressure: kN/m2

B = 0.25 m-0 4 m
(a)

E
E

(C)

Fig. 5. Charts for assessing the compressibility grade

of sand from plate loading tests
carried out at shallow depthor in the baseof wide excavations

1337
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
Depth of influence
51. Guidance varies on the depth of influence beneath a loaded area on sand.
Terzaghi and Peck' recommend taking the average blow count over a depth equal
to the breadth B. Parry33 takes the depth of influence equal to 2B but places
greater emphasis on the N values immediately below the foundation.
52. S ~ h r n e r t m a n nalso
~ ~ takes the depth of influence equal to 2 B and uses a
simpleinfluence diagram to obtain the distribution of verticalstrain.Intheir
statistical analysis of a number of settlement observations Schultze and Sherir5
took the depthof influence equal to2B.
53. For a uniformly distributed circular load on an isotropic elastic half space
the depth of influence is usually taken as 2B. The settlement at this depth is about
25% of the surface settlement. Hence,for practical purposes, the depth ofinfluence
may be assumed to be the depth at which the settlement is 25% of the surface
settlement and is denoted by zI (or the relative depth of influence (z/B),).
54. There are not many experimental data for assessing the depth of influence
for foundations on sand and muchof the data are from model tests. Morgan and
G e ~ ~ a plot
r d ~ the~ distributions of vertical displacement with depth for a number
of tests on model footings ranging from 0.2 m to 0.9 m in diameter. The 25%
settlementpointscorrespondto ( z / B ) , varyingfrom 1.8 to 1-13. Breth et d 3 '
measured the settlement distributions beneath 1.0 mdia.footings on carefully
prepared beds of very loose medium to coarsedried sand. An approximately linear
distribution of settlement with depth for all the tests was observed with 25% of the
surface settlement occurringat (z/B),equal to about1.5.
55. Turning now to the field measurements,Shvets a n d K u l c h i t ~ k i i ~mea-
~
sured the settlementdistributionbeneath l msquare plates ontwo alluvial
soils-a slightly silty sandy gravel and a very silty slightly gravelly sand. The
results are given in Fig. 6 and it can be seen that the 25% settlement point occurs
between ( z / B ) ,equal to0.8 and 0.6.
56. Figure 7 shows the normalized distribution of measured settlement with
z / B beneath five buildings on deeplayers of sand. Theresults from Nikitin et al.39
are from a 61 m dia. ring foundation for a television tower (Case 63). Within the
main ring were footings for a service tower along with a second foundation ring.
The whole foundation complex occupied most of the area and maybe treated as a
single entity. The soil profile consisted of 20 m of dense to very dense sand, 15 m of
stiff to very stiff clay, followedby rock. Reference points were located at depthsof 6
m, 12 m and 25 m below the foundation. The maximum observed settlement of the
foundation was 37.8mm, of which at least 19.5 mmtook place inthe clay.
Eighty-five per cent of the compression of the sand tookplace in the top 12 m, i.e.
for z / B equal to 0.2. The results plotted in Fig. 7 relate only to the immediate
compression of the sand.
57. The resultsfromBreth and Chambosse4' arefor a reactorbuilding at
Biblis, Germany (Case 27). The settlement distribution was measured down a
borehole 1.8 m to one side of the 60 m dia. circular raft foundation. The ground
conditions beneath the foundations consisted of 7 m of dense gravelly sand, 48 m
of dense tovery dense fineand medium sand, followed by a great depth of very stiff
clayey silt. When the settlement of the raft had reached 40 mm the surface settle-
ment of the instrument was 1 3 3 mm. Near the surface the settlement decreased
very rapidly with depth, decreasing to 5 mm at z / B equal to 0.25. Thereafter it
decreased more slowly, becoming about 2.5mm at a depth of 57 m at the top of
the silt layer. The normalized settlement distribution shown by the curve labelled
1338
SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONS O N S A N D A N D GRAVEL

1339
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
(27) in Fig. 7 is for the sand layer only. Although no measurements were made
beneath the centre of the raft it is clear that most of the settlement takes place
above zjB equal to0.25.
58. The results presented by Dunn41 are for a nuclear power station founded
on a raft 55 m wide and 101 m long (Case 32). The underlying ground consists of
31 m of very dense fine beach sand overlying stiff silty clays and dense silt. Five
settlement plates were located at various levels in a borehole beneath the raft, with
the deepest plate being at a depth of about 12 m. Curve (32) shows the observed
settlement distribution. Undoubtedly some settlementwill have taken place in the
underlying clays and silts, inwhich case the settlementsin the sandwould diminish
more rapidly than shown by the curve.
59. Curves A and B in Fig. 7 show the settlement distribution beneath two
buildings in Berlin Kriegeland W e i ~ n e r The
~ ~ .detailed normalized distribution of
settlement varied with the magnitude of the loading. The points show the extreme
values and the curveshave been drawn through the mean values. It must be
emphasized that very little information is given by Kriegel and Weisner about the
ground conditions for these two buildings except that the sand is 4&50 m deep
and is of medium density. Clay layersare frequently encountered in Berlin and the
possibility of a deep clay layerat this site should not be ruled out thereby reducing
the valuesof (zjB),.
60. InFig. 8 thevalues of ( Z / B ) corresponding
~ to p/po = 25% have been
plotted against breadth for the various model studies and field measurements. It
can be seen that, although the scatteris large, there is a marked tendency for (z/B),
to decrease as thebreadth increases.
61. It should be emphasized that the depth of influence corresponding to a
given value of B will not be unique and will depend on the variation of stiffness
with depth.Neverthelesstheresults given inFig. 8 indicate atrend which is
B: m
0.1 1 10 100
01

I .Case 63
*Case 27

Shvets and

Kriegel and Weisner4*

Non-homogeneous
elastic

Breth er a / 37

Melbourne Series II

2-OL
Fig. 8. Relationship between measured depth ofinJuence z, andfoundation breadth.
Full line is takenfrom Fig. 9 and isjitted at B = 0-2m assuming that Ebjak = 10
1340
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL
broadly in accordance with theory for a non-homogeneouslayerhaving an
increasing Young's modulus with depth. Fig. 9 shows the normalized distribution
of settlement with z/2a beneath the centreof a rigid rough circular load of radius a
on a Gibsonsolid for various values of Eb/ak (the results were obtained by means
of a finite element analysis). For a given value of EL and k it is clear that as a
increases the relativedepth of influence (z/2a),decreases. The full line in Fig.8 was
PlPO' %

0.

m
1.

1.

1,' = 1/3

2.

Fig. 9. Distribution oj'settlement with depth for a circular rough rigid foundation
resting on an isotropic non-homogeneous elastic soil
1341
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
derived from Fig. 9 and was fitted at a breadth of 0.2 m corresponding to avalue
of Eb/ak equal to 10. Garga and Q ~ i give n ~a similar
~ relationshipfor the depth of
strain influence fora non-homogeneouslayer.
62. Many more measurementsareneeded of thedistribution of settlement
with depth beneath foundations on granular soils both from the point of view of
establishing the depth of influence and, of more importance, for studying the in
situ deformation properties. For the purposes of this study the full line in Fig. 8
was used as a rough guide to the depth of influence when N is constant or
increases with depth. In a very few cases N decreased with depth and in these
instances the best fit to the general trends of the data was obtained by taking the
depth of influence equal to2B.
63. The arithmetic mean of the SPT blow count ( N ) over the depthof influence
was used to obtain the compressibility grade of the foundation subgrade. The full
line in Fig. 8 when plotted as B against zI on double log axes forms a straight line
as given in Fig.3.

Pressure-settlement relationship
64. Most of the current methodsof settlement prediction on sandsassume that
therelationshipbetweenbearingpressureandsettlementislinearoverthe
working range of stresses. S ~ h u l t z eand
~ ~Shultze and SheriP5 conclude from the
study of a number of case records that the pressuresettlement relationship is
linear over the periodof construction. It has already been noted from Fig. 5 that as
the size of test plates is increased the initial portion of the pressure-settlement
curve becomes more linear.
65. A number of the caserecordscollected by Burbidge’ contain complete
pressuresettlement data and make possible a study covering a range of ground
conditions, foundation dimensions and bearing pressures. Five examples will be
given.
66. Case 27 is a nuclear reactor founded at a depthof 5 m on a 3 m thick60 m
dia. raft.The underlying ground consists of 60m of dense sand andgravel, assessed
as grade 11, overlying Tertiary sands and clays. The net pressure against average
settlement relationship for the reactor is shown in Fig. 10 and is, for all practical
purposes, linear.
67. Case 51 consists of two 12 storey towers each founded on four 5 m deep
footings 4 m wide and 7 m long. The underlying ground consists of 7 m of dense
sandy gravel over weathered sandstone. SPT tests on the gravel indicate that it is
of grade 111. The net pressuresettlement curves for the four outermost footings
are shown in Fig. 11. Settlement observations only began once the pressure had
reached 134 kN/mZ.Three of thefootingsexhibitedlittlesettlement uptoa
bearing pressure of 223 kN/mZ butthereafter the relationships are again linear for
all practical purposes. This case is of interest since the bearing pressures exceed
500 kN/mZ.
68. Case 60A is an 18 storey reinforced concrete building founded on a 1-2 m
thick raft. The raft is 22.9 m X 32.6 m and is founded at a depth of 3 m. The
underlying ground consists of fine to medium sands to great depthwith the top 7
m compacted by vibroflotation to grade IV. Settlement observations were started
at a gross pressure of 55 kN/m2. It canbe seen from Fig. 12 that the initial portion
of the pressure-settlement curve islinear butat higherpressuresthecurve
steepens. This is thought to be due to time dependent settlements occurring during
the slow applicationof load near the end of construction.
1342
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONS O N SANDANDGRAVEL
Net bearing pressure: kN/m2
0 100 200 300 400 500

10-
F
20 -

30 -

40 -

50 -
Fig. IO. Case 27. Nuclear reactor founded at 5 m depth on dense sand and gravel
assessed as grade I1 (N = 41-60)

Net bearing pressure: kN/m2

'B--&

rU
I
m- & B-: 1 4 m

Im-
F
- P:Footlngs
H
Fig. II. Case 51. T w o tower blocks each founded on four 5 m deep footings resting
on sandy gravel assessed as grade111 ( N = 2 6 4 0 )
1343
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
Gross bearlng pressure: kN/mz

9 . * 2 : - \ "A

Fig. 12. Case 60A. An 18 storey building on a raft founded at a depth of 3 m onjine
to medium sands assessed on grade IV ( N = 16-25)
69. Case 41 is a 10 storey building founded on a raft at the centre surrounded
by pad footings. The raft is 11.0 m wide and 33.4 m long, and is founded at a depth
of 5 m. The footings are also founded at a depth of 5 m. The underlying ground
consists of 12.4 m of sand, assessed from SPT values as grade IV, over stiff clay.
Settlement observations were begun when the gross pressure on the raft was 38
kN/m2. The pressure-settlement relationship for the raft is shown by the full line
in Fig. 13. Once the gross pressure exceeds the initial vertical effective pressure a
:
,
the curve becomes significantly steeper. The broken line is for a 4.1 m square
footingadjacenttotheraft.Settlementreadingsonlybegan when thegross
bearingpressure was largerthanthe effective overburden pressure, andthe
pressure-settlement relationship can be seen to be linear.
70. Case 69 is for a building in north-west Berlin which is founded on a 5.5
m X 6.5 m raft on sand of grade V. Although the precise depth of founding is not
known it is presumed to be between 2 and 3 m. The pressure-settlement relation-
ship is plottedinFig. 14 and itis evident thatthere is amarked change of
curvature over the initial portion of the pressuresettlement curve, after which it is
linear.
71. The casesdiscussedin $5 64-72 include sandsand gravelswithgrades
ranging from I1 to V, foundation widths ranging from 4 m to 60 m and bearing
pressures up to 500 kN/m2. All the deposits are believed to be normally consoli-
dated. It can be concluded that for pressuresin excess of theinitial effective
overburden pressurethe pressuresettlementrelationship is, for practicalpur-
poses, linear. For pressures less than the initial effective overburden pressure the
compressibility is reduced by a factor of 2 to4. Observations presented by Dunn4'
on the settlement of theDungeness B nuclearpowerstation(Case 32) are in
agreement with this conclusion. DAppolonia et al.45 deduced that the modulus
1344
 SETTLEMENT O F F O U N D A T I O N S ONSANDANDGRAVEL
Gross bearlng pressure. k N / m 2
150 1000 50 200
I

2-
\
\
4-

\
\
\
E 8- \

E \

g 10- \
m \
m 12-

‘F
14-
\
\
\
\
\
16- \
\
Rafl b
18
1
l 8 5- Footing

l -774
. m
+

wE i‘
v
m ’
33.4 m X 11-0 m
I

I
I
Footlng
4.1 m square
Fig. 13. Case 41. A 10 storey building founded at a depthof 5 m, partly on a raji and
partly onfootings, on sand assessed as gradeIV (m
= 16-25)

[ M = E’/(l - v’’)] for a preloaded sand was approximately twice that of a nor-
mally consolidated sand.
72. The conclusion that compressibility is reduced at pressuresbelowthe
maximum previous overburden pressure is at variance with the conclusions of
S ~ h u l t z e Sherif,46
,~~ and Schultze and Sherif3* who conclude that the pressure-
settlement curve is uninfluenced by the removal of overburden pressure. A study of
the observations presented by S c h ~ l t z e ~ reveals
~ . ~ ’ the following. First, rather
large time corrections have been applied to the settlement observations, and sec-
ondly, in many instances excavation for the raft foundations took place below the
water table. If the uncorrected settlement observations are used and the gross total
pressures towards the end of construction are reduced by the hydrostatic uplift of
the groundwater then the pressure-settlement relationships reveal small but dis-
cerniblepreconsolidationpressures. For example, the results for Case 83 are
plotted in Fig. 15 and a kink in the vicinity of the effective overburden pressure is
apparent, giving a change of slope of about 2.

Relationship between foundation subgrade compressibilityand breadth

73. In $8 6 4 7 2 it was shown that the slope of the pressure-settlement curve
Ap/Aq‘ (equal to a,, the foundation subgrade compressibility) is approximately
1345
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
Bearing pressure: kN/mz
0 100 200
I

L 5 . 5 m-+
10-
E
E
C
m

.-.
+

3
m
m

2 30-

40-
Fig. 14. Case 69. Building founded on raft at a depth of 2-3 m on sand of grade V
(m = 9-15)

Gross bearmg pressure. kN/m*

0 ,.l 00 200
I I

E
E
C

=E
I
10-
m
W
m
m
E
k

20 -

Fig. 1.5. Case 83. Building founded on 1716

a m X 84.0 m raft at a depth of 10.7 m in
sand and gravel assessed as grade I V (N = 16-25). Water table at 8.5 m depth
below ground level
1346
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONS O N SANDANDGRAVEL
constant for normally consolidated sands and gravels. In Appendix 1 the impor-
tant details of each of the case records referred to in the present Paper are sum-
marized. Where the detailed pressure-settlement relationship was available the
virgin portion of the curve was used to determine Ap/Aq’. Where the pressure-
settlement relationship was not available and only the immediate settlement and
the gross effective pressures are given the assumptionwas made that thereloading
curve up to theeffective overburden pressure a:, has a slope equal to one-third of
the virgin curve. Thus thevalue of Ap/Aq’ is given by

74. In many cases (e.g. for most footings) only the net bearing pressure and
immediate settlement were known, in which case values of pJqh,, are given.
75. Relationshipbetweena, and B. As stated in 26 and 27, the approach to
analysing the case records is similar to that adopted by Burland et namely, to
correlate the valuesof foundation subgradecompressibility a, given in Appendix 1
with the breadthB for each compressibility grade.
76. In Figs 16 to 20 the measured values of foundation subgrade compress-
ibility a, (mm/(kN/m2) are plottedagainst B (metres) on double logaxes for
compressibility grades I1 to VI. It can be seen that for each grade the majority of
the observations give a well-defined linear correlation between loga, and log B. A
few of the cases lie outside the general spread of the results. In Fig. 16 (grade 11)
Cases 29 and 32 lie well above the scatterof the results. Case 29 is the 93 m dia. oil
storage tank in the Ekofisk Field of the North Sea. The soil profile showsthat the
sand is underlain at a depthof 26 m by a 50 m thick stratum of hard clay. It seems
very probable thatsignificant settlementstook place within this clay stratum.
77. Case 32 is the Dungeness B nuclear power station in Kent, England, which
is founded on fine sand. It will be shown later that there is some evidence fromthe
present study to suggest that SPT blow counts on submerged fine sand give N
values which are too high and should be reduced in accordance with the rec-
ommendations of Terzaghi and Peck (see 33 and 34). On this basis the value of
N for Case 32 decreases from 60 to 36; this falls within compressibility grade 111
and is plotted in Fig. 17, where itlies within the spread of the results.
78. In Fig. 19 (compressibility grade V) Case 85 lies well below the spread of
the results. This case is a chimney for a power station at Cologne, Germany,
reported by S c h ~ l t z e . ~ The
~ . ~ SPT
’ results were consistently less than 10 below
the water table and, in view of the small settlement of the structure, it can only be
concluded that the SPT results are unreliable. Parry33 also noted the anomalous
results from this case.
79. In Fig. 20 (compressibility grade VI) Case 79B lies above the spread of the
results. Cases 79A and B consist of two preload embankments next to each other,
being 8 m and 11 m high respectively. A study of the pressure-settlement curves
for each embankment shows that Case 79B had a steeperpressure-settlement
curvefromthe start of loading and that the much largervalue of a, cannot
therefore be attributed to local yielding under the higher embankment. It appears
that thecompressibility of the soil for Case 79B corresponds to gradeVII, which is
consistent with some of the cone test resultson the site.
80. In Figs 1 6 2 0 the broken lines drawn through the points have been fitted
using linear regression of log a, on log B. The cases discussed previously which lie
1347
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

Regresslon line of log a, on log B

,
Compressiblllty grade II (m
= 41-60)

Breadth: m
Fig. 16. Relationship between a,and B for compressibility grade I I (S = 4 1 6 0 )

outside the spread of the results have not been included in the analysis. For the
grade I1 results in Fig. 16 the regression line is heavily weighted by the relatively
large number of cases for B less than 3 m and theparallel chain dotted line is felt to
be more realistic.
81. Table 2 lists the slope, correlation coeficient and standard error for each
regression line in Figs 1&20. In all cases the correlation coefficient exceeds 0.8.
The standard error for a, varies from x1.46 to x1.9 with a tendency to increase as
the compressibility increases.
82. A particularly significant feature to note in Table 2 is the similarity in the
slopes of the regression lines. The weighted average of the slopes is 0.704 (the
weighting takes account of the correlation coefficient and the number of cases
1348
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL

_ _ _ Regression lme of log a, on log B

Compressibllity grade 1 1 1 (m=26-40)

I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I > / I

01' ' l ; 10 100

Breadth: m
Fig. 17. Relationship between a, and B for compressibility grade 111 (m = 2640)

associated with eachregressionline) and the greatestdeviationsfromthis are

+20% and - 14%. It therefore appears that the slopeisindependent of the
compressibility grade-an observation which leads to considerable simplifications
in the subsequentanalysis.
83. In Fig. 21 the regression lines for each compressibility grade are shown as
broken lines. The full lines all have slopesof 0.7 and their locations havebeen fixed
by a least-squares analysis of the deviations of log a,. They are termed ' adjusted
mean lines '.
84. Comparison of the adjusted mean lines in Fig. 21 with the observations
reveals an interesting result. It transpires that the adjusted mean line forany given
grade forms a reasonable upper bound for the next grade up and a reasonable
1349
BURLAND AND BURBIDGE

- - - Regression line of log a, on log B

Compressiblllty grade IV (r
= 16-25)

7
0.l1 10
Breadth: m
100

Fig. 18. Relationship between a, and B for compressibility grade I V (N = 16-25)

lower bound for the next grade down. This is illustrated in Fig. 17 for grade 111
compressibility. The adjusted mean lines for grades IV and I1 are shown chain
dotted and are seen to form very reasonable upper and lower limits to the spread
of the results. Upper and lower limit lines for the other compressibility grades have
been obtained in the same way and are shown by chain dotted lines in the appro-
priatefigures. In general the limit lines shown in Figs 16-20 correspond to a
spread of rather less than plus or minus two standard errors from the regression
line for each grade. Very few of the results lie above the upper limit lines whereas
rather more lie below the lower limit lines, particularly for values of B less than
about 3 m. Thus Fig. 21 forms a convenient summary of the data and could be
1350
 SETTLEMENTOFFOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL

-- - Regression line of log a, on log E

Cornpressibility grade V ( N = 9-1 5)

O1 d 1 10
Breadth: m
100

Fig. 19. Relationship between a,and B for compressibility gradeV (N = 9-15)

Table 2. Analysis of r,egression lines in Figs16 to 20
Grade No. of Slope m Correlation
cases coefficient

I1 19 0.669 0.89 X 1.60 0.620 X 10-’

111 45 0.710 0.91 X 1.46 1.279 X 10-’
IV 68 0.592 0.82 X 1.60 2.168 X 10-’
V 39 0.833 0.84 X 1.90 5.585 X 10-’
VI 27 0.805 0.86 X 1.79 14.656 X 10-*
Weightedaverage = 0.704 I
* at is in mm/(kN/m’); B is in metres.

used for design purposes.

85. It is of theutmost importance to recognize that the regression lines or
adjusted mean lines cannot be used for extrapolating the settlement for a small
footing to a larger one. By increasing the breadth of the footing the depth of
influence is increased and this may well result in an upgrading of the compress-
ibility grade.
86. Relationship between a , , B and N.The equation for the adjusted mean lines
1351
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

1 ooop
L

179'B ,,/

/ /
/

1-

- _-- Regression line of log a, on log B

- Compressibility grade VI ( N = 4-8)

I , 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I l l 1
O1 I I I I 1
' l ; 10 100
Breadth: m
Fig. 20. Relationship between a,and B for compressibility grade VI (N =4 3)

1352
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL

1 I I 1 8 8 ,

10 100
Breadth. m
Fig. 21. Relationship between a , , B and compressibility grade showing mean lines
and upper and lower limits

1353
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
in Fig. 21 isgiven by
log a, = m X log B + C(#)
where the slope m = 0.7. The term C ( N )is a function of the compressibility grade
and hence of the mean SPT blow count N . The value of C corresponding to a
particular compressibility grade is given by the intercept of the appropriate adjust-
ed mean line withthe a, axis (i.e. when B = 1 m). Hence

a, = log p
C ( N ) = log - a, (= log I,)
B"
where I, is termed thecompressibility index.
87. In Table 2 the values of u,/B"~(= I , ) for each compressibility grade are
listed and in Fig. 22 they are plotted as open points against on double log axes.
The upper and lower limits for each compressibility grade are also shown. It cay
be seen that there is an approximatelylinear relationship betweenl_ogI, and log N
and the reason for having a progressively increasing interval in N for successive
compressibility grades nowbecomes apparent. The spreadof I , between the upper
and lower limits increases from a factor of about four for grade I1 to about eight
for grade VI.
88. In view of the apparently linear relationship between log I, and log R an
independent regression analysis was carried out on all the cases in Appendix 1 for
which SPT or cone test data are available. The results of the analysis are given in
Fig. 23. The regression line for log( u J B " ~ on
) log is shown as afull line. It has a
slope of - 1.43 and an intercept on the N = 1 axis of I , = 1.7. The coefficient of
correlation is 04348.
89. The regression line in Fig. 23 has been plotted in Fig. 22 and is seen to
agree well with the points for each compressibility grade. Mean upper and lower
limit lines have also been drawn in as chain dottedlines and arereproduced in Fig.
23. It can be seen that most of the individual cases lie between these limitlines and
the majority of those that do not arefor B less than 3 m, for which the scatter is
somewhat larger.
90. Thus Fig. 22 is a more compact form of Fig. 21 and can be used for design
purposes-see @ 7 and8.

The influence of various factors on settlement

91. The collection of a relatively large set of data such as is given in Appendix
1 makes it possible to study statistically the influence of various factors on the
immediate settlementof loaded areas on granular materials.
92. The regression line in Fig. 23 can be represented by the expression

where
the
figure
brackets
in represents one
standard
error.
Denoting
IO~(N"~/B''~ X )a, X 10' as T , the value of T for each case given in Appendix 1
may be calculated. Fig. 24 shows a histogram of T for the complete data set which
can be seen to be approximately normally distributed. The mean value of T is
denoted by and is equal to 2.232. For any given foundation the best estimate of
the foundationcompressibility ii, is given by
1354
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONS ON SAND AND GRAVEL

t Cornpressibility grades

1 I 1 I , I , , I I 1 I 1 I l l ,
1 10- 100
SPT N
Fig. 22. Relationship between compressibility indexI , and compressibility grade-
derivedfrom Fig,21

94. The deviation of any measured value of a, from the best estimate may be 71,
expressed as aJ2, or G,/a,. The values of aJ2, and 2,/a, corresponding to one
1355
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
lOOr

--- Upper and lower limlt llnes

from Fig. 22

D B33 m
oB<3rn

0.1 I1 I I I I I , I
10
, I I I I I I I l l
100
SPT N
Fig. 23. Relationship between compressibility index I , and N for all cases in which
SPT or cone tests were carried out

standard deviation from ii, are both 1.82. Hence any statistical analysis will only
detect major influences on a, and care must be taken not to read too much into
minor trends.
95. It is assumed that the majorfactors influencing a, (apart from N and B) are
the length L, the depth D,the depth of the water table H , and the thickness of the
1356
 SETTLEMENTOFFOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL
30r

Fig. 24. Frequency distribution of the settlement observationsfor all the cases

sand layer beneath the foundation H , . Each of these parameters will be studied
separately.
96. Influence of LIB. In Fig. 25 values of a,/ii, have been plotted for various
values of LIB for those cases in which DIB < 0.25, H,/B < 0.2 and H J B > 2. The
chain dotted lines correspond to one standard deviation either side of the mean. It
can be seen that the measured values of a, are larger than 2, for the majority of
cases, indicating a positive correlationbetween LIB and a , . However, the influence
of LIB is not large and it would appear that the average valueof a,/ii, is unlikely to
exceed about 1.5 at LIB equal to 5. Although there are very few observations for
larger values of LIB the results do not point to any further increase in the average
value of a,/ii, beyond about 1.6. For comparison therelationship for homogeneous
elastic theory is shown as a broken line and isseen to give significantly larger
averagevalues of a,& than observed. The full line in Fig. 25 isgivenby the
empirical expression

which appears to represent the observed trend reasonably well and tends to 1.56
as LIB tends to infinity.
97. Influence of DIB. InFig. 26 observed values of a,& have been plotted
against DIB for the cases in which LIB < 1.5, H,/B < 0 . 2 and H J B > 2. There are
a number of observations for D / B < 0.3 but relatively fewfor larger values. It
appears that there is no obvious correlation between a,/ii, and DIB for DIB 3. In
their analysis of a large number of observations on one site DAppolonia et aL8
report only a 12% reduction in settlement as DIB increases from 0.5 to 1.0. Such a
variation is too small to detect in relation to the scatter of the results presented
1357
B U R L A N DA N DB U R B I D G E
a,/%,
t

,I'
2 c -

Z,/a,

Fig. 25. Influence of LIB on foundation subgrade compressibility

a,

0
.- 0 0

I OB 2 3 m

Zf/al
Fig. 26. Influence of DIB onfoundation subgrade compressibilityaf

here and supports theconclusion that theinfluence of DIB is small.

98. InJluence of depth of water table H,. There are differing opinions about the
influence of the depth of the water table on settlement. For example Terzaghi and
Peck' assume that for a deepwater table the settlementof a foundationis half that
for a water table at founding level. However, MeyerhoP recommends that the
presence of the groundwater table shouldbe ignored on the basis that its effect is
already reflected inthe SPTblow count.
99. In the following analysis a distinction is drawn between results from build-
ing foundations andresults from plate loading tests. It can be seen from Appendix
1358
 GRAVEL

30-
H,/B > 1

0s 20-
I No of values = 24
i; I T(mean = 2.103
c U = 0.215
a,
3
U ($af) mean = 1.34
10-

I
l
I L
1.0 2.0 ‘ 3-0
n1.4
T = log - X a, X 10’
~ 0 . 7

(b)
Fig. 27. ( a ) Frequency distribution of settlement observationsfor buildings with H ,
greater than 5 m; ( b ) frequency distribution of settlement observations for plate
loading tests withH,/B greater than unity

1 that, forthemajority of building foundations, embankments and tanks, the

water table is close to founding level. Hence it is possible to analyse the results of
those cases where the water tableis deep (taken as greater than5 m) and compare
them with the whole data set. There are 15 cases which fall into this category and
Fig. 27(a) shows the frequency distributionof T . The mean valueof T for this data
set (given by the full line) is 2.176 and the standard deviation 0 is 0.187. These
values may be compared with the corresponding values for the complete data set,
which are = 2.232 (shown by the broken line) and U = 0263. The average value
of aJa, = 1.13, i.e. the settlements of the foundations with deep water tables are,
on average, only 13% less than the best estimates from the wholedata set. It must
1359
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
be concluded from the above analysis that the level of the water table has no
significant influence on the value of a, for building foundations.
100. Almost all the plate loading tests listed in Appendix 1 have H J B > 1.
Fig. 27(b) shows the frequency distribution of T for 24 plate tests with H,/B > 1.
The mean valueof T for this data set is 2.103 and the standard deviationis 0.215.
The average value of ii,/a, is 1.34. Thus the settlements of the plates are, on
average, 25% less than the best estimates. However, the loading of the plates was
carried out in less than a day, whereas the loading of the building foundations
usually took place over a year or more. It will become evident later in the Paper
that significant time-dependent settlements occur on sand. Hence thefact that a,
from the plate tests is less than ii, is not surprising and can be attributed prin-
cipally to time effects.
101. It appears from this study that the position of the water table has only a
small influence on the value of T . It is important to emphasize thatthis conclusion
must not be taken to imply that the positionof the water table does notinfluence
the settlement. Whatit does do is to confirm Meyerhofsview that the effect of the
watertable is probably reflected in thevalue of N. If awatertablechanges
subsequent to the determination of the N values the settlements maydiffer appre-
ciably from the predicted values.
102. Influence of thickness of sand layer. A few of the cases given in Appendix 1
have a thicknessof sand layer H , beneath the foundationof less than 2B. As might
be expected there is a tendency for the values of a, to lie below iir but there are
insufficient cases for any useful trend to emerge. It is suggested that, for design
purposes, the predicted value of a, should be reduced by the factor

when H, z, where zI is the depth of influence given by Fig. 3.

103. Influence ofgrain size on N. It is generally accepted that grain size does
not have a major influence on the number of blows in an SPT. Two soil types
where uncertainties exist are fine sands or silty sands below the water table, and
gravelly soils, as discussed in @ 33 and 34, and 9 32 respectively.
104. Finesandsandsiltysands.InFig. 28 theblackpoints refer tothe
observed settlements of foundations on fine sands andsilty sands for which N was
evaluated from SPT tests below the water table. In §$ 33 and 34, two methods of
correcting for submergence for fine sands were mentioned, Terzaghi and Peck'
and Bazaraa." The open points in Fig. 28 refer to corrected blow counts N' where
+
N' = 15 0.5(N - 15), as proposed by Terzaghi and Peck. It can be seen that
only five cases are affected and only two of them (32 and 64) significantlyso. The
effect of the correction is to bring these two cases closer to the mean regressionline
taken from Fig. 23. Application of the Bazaraa correction (W = 0.6N) translates
all the points significantlyto the left, which results in a poorer overall correlation.
Therefore on the basis of the limited evidence available it appears that the SPT
correctionproposed by TerzaghiandPeckforsubmerged fine or siltysands
results in an improved assessmentof compressibility.
105. Gravel and gravelly sands. Fig. 29 shows a plot of I , against N for all the
cases involving gravel, sandy gravel and gravel/sand.By inspection it can be seen
that the meanof the points tends lie to to theleft of the meanregression line for the
complete data set. This is confirmed by a statistical analysis of the results, which
1360
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL

.N
O N' = 15 + %(N-15)
\
B I 1 1 1 I l , , I I I I I I I I J
10 100
SPT i? and

Fig. 28. Relationship between compressibility indexI , and N for submergedfine and
silty sands

gives a mean value of T = 2.085 and U = 0.246 compared with = 2.232 and
3 = 0.263 for the whole data set. It is a simple matter to show that T',,,, can be
made equal to by correcting the N values such that N' = 1.25 X N . This is a
fairly small correction and in many cases could perhaps be neglected. It is worth
noting that the lowest value of N for the case records involving gravel is 13 and
more data arerequired for lower valuesof N .
106. Inherent variability. Natural deposits of granular soils are inherently vari-
able, both laterally and vertically:thevariability will differ from one site to
1361
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

t 0 6 2 3 m
o 6 < 3 m

t
\

0.1
1 10 ? 00
SPT
Fig. 29. Relationship between compressibility index I , and A for gravels and sandy
gravels
another. Effects of different foundation geometries and loadings have made it
difficult to isolate the effects of inherent variability on the settlement of separate
foundationsata given site. Thepresentstudyindicatesthatthe influence of
geometry and load can be largely eliminatedby expressing the measurements from
a given site as the quantity T . The variation in T for a given site is then a measure
of the inherent variabilityof the settlement characteristicsof the site. Fig.30 shows
a plot of TIT mean for all the cases where more than one foundationwas observed
at a given site. The measured settlements generallylie between about 50% of the
average, although on some sites it is less than f20%. Therefore, given perfect
1362
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONS O N SANDANDGRAVEL

Fig. 30. Investigations into the inherent variability of settlement characteristics at a

number of sites

methods of measuring the compression characteristics of granular deposits and

predicting settlement, one could normally expect differences of up to a factor of
about 3 in the actual settlements, depending on the site conditions. The methodof
correlating foundation compressibilitywith compressibility grade given in Fig. 22
gives differences varying between factors of 4 to 8. Thus there is still room for
considerable improvement in predictive methods but the limitations of inherent
variability should always be borne in mind.

Time-dependent settlement
107. As pointed out by S ~ h m e r t m a n n ,it~ is
~ notcommonto consider the
time-dependent settlement of sand. However, all the case records reported here
which have measurements subsequent to completion of construction show time-
dependent settlement, as can be seen from Appendix 1. However, of the 27 cases
given in Appendix 1, 14 have to be treated with caution owing to the presence of
clay or silt layers beneath the loaded area or owing to the fact that the sand has
been recently placed. Moreover, for a number of the remaining cases the periods
over which time-dependentsettlementmeasurementshavebeenmeasured are
relatively short anddo not give a clear pattern of behaviour.
108. Fortunately,a very complete set of settlementobservationshas been
published by Bolenski4* for ten structures founded on sand in Warsaw (Cases 16
1363
BURLAND AND BURBIDGE
to 25). Bolenski, who was not in fact an engineer, while working for the Polish
Building Research Institute, and later, as a hobby, collected settlement data on
structures over a period of about 20 years. In view of the length of the records
(some over 16 years) they are invaluable for studying the time-dependent settle-
ment of foundations on sand.
100. In Fig. 31 the measurements on four buildings in Warsaw (Cases22 to 25)
are plotted in termsof pJpi against log time after completion of construction (pi is
the settlement at completionof construction and pt is the settlement at timet after
construction). In spite of the length of the settlement records no clear pattern
emerges. Cases 22 and 25 appear to show continuing settlement which is approx-
imately linearwith the logarithmof time. However, Cases23 and 24 show stepwise
behaviour with long periods of little settlement followed by sudden downward
movement.
110. Bolenski also presented long case records of settlement of chimneys on
sand and these show markedly more time-dependent behaviour than buildings. In
Fig. 32 the results for three chimneys (Cases16 and 19) are plotted aspJpi against
log time. Case19 shows linear settlementwith the logarithm of time but cases 16A
and B again show stepwise behaviour. By comparing Figs3 1 and 32 it can be seen
that the chimneys reach much larger values of pJpi than the buildings and also
show a more rapid rate of settlement. The reasonfor this is thought to be due to
the action of wind inducing fluctuating bearing pressures on the sand. Bolenski
also reports some recordsof settlement of turbine foundationswhich show similar
characteristics to the chimneys andwhich were undoubtedly subjected to fluctuat-
ing loads. The stepwise nature of the timesettlement characteristic of some of the
structures may be due to perturbationsin loading (possibly minor seismic events)
triggering grain slip within the mass of the sand.
1 1 1. If it is assumed that the settlement pI at times greater than 3 years after
construction increases linearly with log time then
PI = Pi + A P +~ Apt log(t/3)

100
1 .o
-
Time after completion of construction: days
500 1000
I , l I
5000
,

1.3 i
Fig. 31. Timesettlement characteristics of four buildings in Warsaw observed by
Bolenski4'
1364
 SETTLEMENTOFFOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL
where t is the time in years after completion of construction and is 3, A p , is the
increase in settlement during the first 3 years and Apt is the increase in settlement
per logcycle of time after 3years.
Dividing by pi

PI
-= 1 + R , + R , log(t/3)
Pi
where R , is the propprtional increase in settlement during the first 3 years, and R,
is the proportionalincrease in settlement per log cycle of time after3 years.
112. In Table 3 thevalues of R , and R, are listed for the relevantcases. There is
no obvious correlation with soil type. Case 51 consists of eight large footings on
gravel and it can be seen that the values of R , and R, have a wide range even on
the same site.

Time after completion of construction: days

1 1000 10 000
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 l I I I l l

\
Fig. 32. Time-settlement characteristics of three chimneys in Warsaw observed by
Bolenski4*
1365
B U R L A N DA N DB U R B I D G E
113. A conservative interpretation of Table 3 leads to the following expression
for buildings
p' -- 1.3 + 0.2 log(t/3)
_
Pi
and for chimneys

= 1.7 + 0.8 log(t/3)

Pi
114. The latter expression may be appropriate for other foundations subject to
fluctuating loads such as bridge abutments and silos. Another way of interpreting
the above expressions is that after 30 years p' = 1 . 5 for
~ ~buildings and p' = 2 . 5 ~ ~
for chimneys.
115. The above expressionshavebeenderived from limited data which are
mainly restricted to grade 111 sand and gravel. Clearly, there is a need for more
post-construction settlement observations over a period of years.

Discussion and conclusions

116. No attempt is made here tocomparethe results of thecorrelations
derived in this Paper with predictions of other methods. To doso would require a
case-by-case comparison. The confidence limits of the correlation summarized in
Fig. 1 are large and are believed principally to reflect the limitations of the SPT,
cone penetration test and other indirect methods for assessing the compressibility
of granular materials. Most other methods of settlementprediction, although
more analytically based, rely on such indirect methods of assessing compressibility
and will therefore also have wide confidence limits. Recognition of this and of the
variability inherent on anysite, is important in the design process.

Table 3. Time-dependent settlement offoundations on sand and gravel*

~~ ~

Case Grade Principal soil type ti R3 R,

(loading
period in
I days)
Buildings
22 111 Fine/medium sand 751 0.11 0.23
23 111 Clayey silty sand 334 0.30 0
24 111 Silty fine sand 355 0.26 0
25 I1 I Fine sand 894 0.14 0.21
51 I1 I Gravel 880 0.37t 0.17f
83 IV Sand/gravel 822 0.13 0.13
84 V Sand-gravel 488 0.05 0.07
Chimneys
Medium sand 1208 0.55 0.85
Medium sand 542 0.35 0.53
19 Fine silty sand 61 1.oo 0.67

* Note: pJpj = 1 + R , + R , log(@) with t in years-see equation (8).

t mean of range O.OM.62.
1Mean of range 0.02-0.4.
1366
 SETTLEMENTOFFOUNDATIONS O N SANDANDGRAVEL
117. Schultze and carried outa similar
correlation
the
one
to
described here usinga multi-correlation technique. Their data base was very much
more limited than in this study and was largely dominated by cases with N equal
to 20 and N equal to 30. Nevertheless itis of interest to compare theresults of their
correlation with the one derived here. For a square footing resting on the surface
of a deep sandlayer Schultzeand Sherifsresults maybe expressed as
0.364 X El’’
a, = N0.87

which may be compared with equation (1 5)

1.706 X
a, = N1.4

118. The two equations are compared in Fig. 33 for E = 3 m and E = 30 m

and agree reasonably well for footings up to about 5 m wide. For larger founda-
tions equation (15) gives significantly larger settlements. The difference in slope
between the two relationships is probably due to thefact that in equation (18) is
determined over a much greater depth (2E) than for equation (15). It should also
be noted that Schultze and Sherif arrived at much larger shape and depthcorrec-
tion factors than were obtained in the present study.
119. The following conclusions can be drawn from the study described in this
Paper.
(a) The results of a statistical analysis of over 200 case records of settlement
on sands andgravels has resultedin a simple correlationbetween a, (the
foundation subgrade compressibility), E and A, the average SPT blow
count over the depth of influence. The standard error of a, varies from
about (x/+)1.5 for N greater than 25 to (x/+)1.8 for N less than
about 10. Thus the accuracy of the correlation is not particularly high
but, in view of the small settlements that are usually involved, it is good
enough for most practical purposes. However, it is recommended that
other widely accepted methods are also used as acheck.
(b) If more precise predictions of settlement on granular soils are required
they must be based on direct methods of determining in situ compress-
ibility and not on indirect methods such as the cone and SPT. It is
hoped that the results of this study will serve to stimulate the develop-
ment of such methods while at thesametimeprovidingasimple
approach for routine design purposes.
(c) The available experimental evidence suggests that the relative depth of
influence ( z / E ) ,beneath a foundationdecreases significantly as the value
of B increases. There is an urgent need for field measurements of settle-
ment at various depths beneath loaded areas to establish not only the
depth of influence but also the in situ compressibility of granular soils
with depth.
( d ) For normally consolidated sands the relationship between the effective
foundation pressure and settlement is approximately linear up to about
one-third of the bearing capacity. The effect of overconsolidation and
loading at the base of excavations is to reduce the foundation subgrade
compressibility for bearing pressures below the effective preconsolida-
tion pressure.
1367
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

‘ \ \

t- Equation (1 5)
- - - Schultze and
Sherif35

1-
-
-
-
I 1 I l l 1 1 I I I I l l 1 1
10 -
N
100

Fig. 33. Comparison between the correlation between a,and N derived in the Paper
with that obtained by Schultze
and Sherif3’

( e ) Using the complete data set as a basis for comparison it appears that for
DIE 3 the depth of founding and the level of the water table do not
have a significant influence on a , . However, the effect of increasing L/B
is to increase a, by up to about50%.
cf) Ithas been shownthatthe Terzaghi and Peck recommendations for
correcting the SPTblow count for submerged dense finesands andsilty
sands give an improved correlation.Similarly, an analysis of all the case
records involving gravelsand sandygravels indicates that the SPTblow
count should be increased by a factor of about 1.25 for the purpose of
assessing the compressibility.
( g ) An analysis of the results from a number of sites where the settlement of
two or more foundations hasbeen observed indicates that the inherent
1368
 SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS ON SAND AND GRAVEL
variability of the groundfrequently gives rise to settlements which differ
from the mean by a factor of 1.5 or more. This finding gives support to
Terzaghi's4 statement that the settlements of uniformly loaded areas on
natural sand stratavary erratically.
(h) The field measurements show that time-dependent settlements take place
on sands andgravels. For static loads this additional settlement is fairly
small and may reach 50% of the end of construction settlement after
about 30 years. For fluctuating loads the time-dependent settlements
are muchlarger.

Appendix 1. Details of case records and measurements

120. Table 4 gives details of the various case records referredto in the Paper. For ease of
reference the numbering of the records is the same as that used by B~rbidge,~ although for
various reasons not all his cases have been used.An explanation of some of the columns is
given below:
Column 3 R, meanvaluesof N overthedepth of influence(see 51-63).
Column 4 grade,
Table
see 1.
Column 5 method, SPT,
standardpenetrationtest;
C,
static
cone
penetration
test; Oed, oedometer; P, plate loading test.
Columns 6 8 B = breadth; L = length; D = depth offounding.
Column 9 H , , depth of water
tablebeneath
foundinglevel.
Column 10 H , , thickness of
sand or gravel
stratum.
Columns 11-13 qsrossisthegrossbearingpressure at foundinglevel; qbe, isthenet
effective bearing pressureat founding level;A&, is the known change
in Qbd '

Column 14 p i , observed average settlementat the end of construction.*

Column 15 Api , observedincreaseinaveragesettlementdueto Aqbe,.
Column 17 ApJAq', obtainedfromcolumns 13 and 15 or fromslopeofpressure-
settlement curveor from equation(1 1).
Column 18 t i , length of construction or loading period.
Columns 19 and 20 total final settlement p, and corresponding time t, since start ofcon-
struction or loading.

*When only the edge settlement of a tank has been measured a factor 1.1of
has been applied
for tanks upto 40 m in diameter and a factor of 1.2 for diameters above
40 m.5

1369
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE

Table 4. Details of case records

-
(2)
Principal soil
type
(g
N
14)
Grade
(5)
Method
T T (11) (1.2)
Foundatlon press.
kN/m'
(I!

B L D 4.d
- _.
q,roll

I Fine 10 coarse
sand 28 111 SPT 0 1.5 193
2 Fine sand 17 IV SPT I .2 7.3 150 I30
3lA Sand 8 VI C I I .6 52
318 Sand 8 VI C I I -6 52
61P Sand 30 111 C 2.8 - 1.5 I62
6lR Sand 30 111 C 3.6 - 2.3 162
71A Sand 35 111 C 2.85 - 1.6 93
71p Sand 38 111 C 2.85 - 1.6 140
8lB Silty sand 10 V C 2.5 0.5 93
81P Silty sand 10 V C 2.0 0 147
9 1 ~ Sand 60 I1 C 3.0 - 284
96 Sand 60 11 C 3.0 - 284
l21A Silty sand 17 IV C 2.6 - 0.5 121
13/A Sdty fine sand 15 V C 0 I .o 80
I3jB Silty fine sand 15 V C 0 I .o 60
I 3jc Silty fine sand I5 V C 0 I .o 78
14 Fme sand 7 VI C 0 0 I64
15," Sand 6 VI C I .o 2 74
1517 Sand 6 VI C I .o 2 64
15/17 Sand 6 VI C I .o I .6 75
l5/8-l8 Sand 6 VI C 1-2.6 2 70-86
I6/A Medium sand ~
111 Oed 4.0 - 1.0 196 I l8
I6jB Medium sand - 111 Oed 3.7 - 0.7 196 I26
19 Fine silty sand - 111 OCd 6 0.5 245 I43
20;A Finelmedium sand - 111 Ocd 22 0.7 151 I l4
20/B Finetmedium sand - 111 Oed 2.3 0.6 151 I12
21 Fine/medium sand - 111 OCd 4.0 2.2 245 I77
22 Finelmedium sand ~
111 Oed 2.7 - 1.7 140 77
23 Clayey silty sand - 111 OCd 3-0-5.0 3.2 I34 66
24 Silty fine sand - 111 Oed 2.2 0.7 I47 I10
25 Fme sand - 111 OCd 2-8 2.6 I80 I32
27 Gravelly sand 47 11 C 5.2 - 3.7 417
29 Finelmedium sand - 11 - 0 0
3011-7 Finelrnedium sand 20 IV SPT 1.5 4 23 I

3018 Fine/medlum sand 20 IV SFT 1-7 4 247

30p- I5 Fine/medium sand 20 IV S PT 1.8 4 139-290

30/16-18 Finelmedium sand 20 IV S PT 2.0 4 97-225

30119-30 Fine/medium sand 20 IV SPT 2. I 4 102-161

30/3 l -32 Fine/medium sand 20 IV SFT 2.3 4 113-166

3013343 Fine/mediurn sand 20 IV SPT 2-5 4 97-199
30144 Finelmedium sand 20 IV SPT 2.6 4 I39
30145 Finclmedium sand 20 IV SPT 3.0 4 161
30146 Finelmcdium sand 20 IV SPT 32 4 I50
30/4748 Finelmedium sand 21 IV SPT 3.4 4 113
30/49-50 Fine/medlum sand 22 IV SPT 3.5 4 I77
3o/c FlncJmedium sand - I1 P 0.6 -~ 215
3I/A Fme/mcdiurn sand 21 IV S PT 0 S 6 I66
3118 Flneimedlum sand 19 IV S PT 0 LL6 I56
3 I/C Fine/medium sand 17 v S PT 0 0-6 I54
3 I/D F!ne/medium sand 20 IV S PT 0 0-6 24 I
32 Flne sand 60 I1 S PT 9.7 - 7.2 289
33lA Fme sand - IV P 5.0 0 294 209
3318 Fine sand - IV P 45 0.5 147 70
33ic Flnc/mcd!um sand - IV P 4-0 10 186 I l8
34 Sandigravel - 111 P 490
35!A Medium sand II V 5 PT 0 06 I82
35/B Medium sand II V S PT 0 06 I58
36 Sand 25 IV FPT 0.1 3.7 I80
37 Gravelly sand 60 I SPT 20.9 -9 2 500

38 Medium sand I2 V SPT 1.5 0

39/0 Medlum sand 21 IV SPT 5.0 10.0
39JC Medium sand 21 IV SPT 5.0 10-0
39iP Medlum sand 16 IV j PT 0 10.0 254

39/P Medium sand 16 IV $PT 0 10 0 245

- - -

1370
 S E T T L E M E N T OF F O U N D A T I O N S O N S A N D A N D G R A V E L

-
(14) (18)

P,* I, , Remarks
mm days
-
18 9.3 Centre settlement
22 16.9 Edge settlement X 1 . 1
20 38.5 loo0
35 67.3 loo0
10.5 6. 5 m
11.0 S. I m
6.5 7.0 1800
3.0 2.1 I800
8 8.6 500
12 8.2 500
I 0.35 1100 Bridge piers founded in base of 3-8 m deep cuttmg
3 0.88 I 100 Bridge piers founded in base of 3.8 m deep cuttlng
6-12 5.0-16.5 300
52 77.5 400
80 I33 -
7 9 I
143 87.2 120 Measured edge settlement 130mm
74 100 - Poorly graded sand, some thin layers of clay and silt
50-90 78-141 - Poorly graded sand, some thin layers of clay and silt
75 123 - Poorly graded sand, some thin layers of clay and silt
84121 112-173 - Poorly graded sand, some thin layers of clay and silt
7.2 1208 ApplAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure)
10.1 542 AplAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure)
5.4 61 ApplAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure)
17.3 522 ApplAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure), clay underlying sand
14.5 500 ApjAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure), clay underlying sand
21.1 1400 AplAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure), clay underlying sand
10.1 751 ApplAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure)
3.3 334 ApplAq' (corrected for 0.b. pressure)
8-6 355 AplAq'(correc1ed for 0.b. pressure), clayey silly sand below 12.1 m
12.5 894 WAq'
45 880 ApjAq' from slope of pressure-settlement curve. Stiff to very stiff
sandy clay below 60m
6 Hard clay below 26m
81 3.4 1460 Range of p , = 6 . 6 1 I . 2 m m p/q'
; = 2.847
(mean) mean)
12.2 4-9 I460
10-4 4.6 I460
(mean) mean)
75 5. I I460
(mean) mean)
7.I 4.9 I460
(mean) mean)
5- 1-8. I 4.54.9 I460
8.7 6. I I460
9.4 6.8 1460
10.2 6.3 I460
14.5 9.7 I460
4-1-5.1 3.6-5.1 1460
7.6-8.5 4.3-5.0 1460
I .7 0.8 I
80 40.2 ~
Occasional clay bands
90 57.7 - Occasional clay bands
100 w.9 - Occasional clay bands
131 54 - Occasional clay bands
65 2821 Stiff silly clays below 21.3 m. ApplAq' from slope of q' v. p curve
4s 1500 Clay ll-14m. mar1 below 14m. AplAq' corrected for 0.b. pressure
24 I820 clay below 1 I m. AplAq' corrected for 0.b. pressure ( p , = 3 mm at depth = 14.5 m)
25 I820 Clay below 12.5m. AplAq' corrected for 0.b. pressure.
14 2.9
232 I28 52 9.6-1 1 . 1 m limestone; l I 1-16.1 m very stiffsilty clay
I96 I24 30 9 . 6 1 1 . 1 m Imestone: 11.1-16.1 m very st~ffsiltyclay
39 4 21.9 7.&9.1 m stiBclay. Below 9.1 m Gneiss bedrock
15 761 hpJAq' from pressure-seltlemenl curve

Boreholes 3 and 6 used for SPT

Boreholes 3 and 6 used for SPT
11.0 4.5 I I2 plate tests: p = 6.3-20.5mm: plq' = 2.68.4
(mean) man)
99 4-0 I i plate tests: p = 7.0-14-Omm: pplq' = 2 9-57
(mean) nean)

1371
Table 4. Continued
-
Case
no.
(1) (2)
Princlpal soil
tYF
( >)

-
N Grade
(4) (5)
Method
T B
T T
-
Ysru...
-
q"d
- Aq'
-
40 Fine sand 12 V C 220
41 Medium sand 22 IV S PT 55 7
43/A Sand - 11 Oed l44
4318 Sand - 11 Oed 144
44/PI Medium sand 35 111 S PT I50
44/P2 Medium sand 50 11 SPT I50
44/MI Medium sand 28 111 SPT I50
44/M 3 Medium sand 45 11 S PT I50
45/A Fine to coarse sand 18 IV CISPT 193
45jB Fine to coarse sand I8 IV c/sPT 193
45JC Fine to coarse sand I8 IV CjSPT 193
47/A Sand with gravel 29 111 S PT 215
4718 Sand with gravel 26 111 SPT 215
47/c Sand wlth gravel 18 V SPT 215
48 Medium sand 30 111 SPT 270
49 Medium sand 6 VI C 75
5O/A Silty fine sand 20 IV SPT 41
50/B Silty fine sand 20 IV SPT 33
51/A to H Gravel 37 111 SPT SI8

52lC Sandlgravel 50 11 SPT 300

52/H Sand/gravcl 50 11 SPT 300
52/A3 Sandlgravcl 30 111 SPT 300
52/D3 Sand/gravel 20 IV S PT 300
52/J Sand/graveI 20 IV SPT 300
53 Sllty sand I2 V C 91
56jB Fine sand - V Oed 171
5610 Fine sand - V Oed 171
57 Fine sand 6 VI C I23

58/A Sandy gravel 13 V SPT 78

5818 Sandy gravel 13 V SPT 77
%/C Sandy gravel 13 V SPT 77
59/A Fine to
medium sand 35 Ill C I67
59/B Fine to
medium sand 25 IV C 230
59jC Fine to
medium sand 25 IV C 230
59/D Fine to
medium sand 25 IV C 284
59lE Fine to
medium sand 35 111 C 195
59/F Fine to
medium sand 35 111 C RI
59jG Fine to
medium sand 25 1v C 226
59lH Fine to
medium sand 25 IV 2 50
5911 Fine to
medium sand 25 IV 250
5911 Fine to
medium sand 25 IV !94
59/K Fine to
medium sand 25 IV 206
59/M Fine to
medium sand 40 111 !94
59/N Fine to
medium sand 40 111 104
59/0 Fine to
medium sand 40 111 !04
59/P Fine to
medium sand 40 111 104
W Q Fine to
medium sand 40 111 104
59/R Fine 10
medium sand 40 111 I04
W A Fine to
medium sand 30 IV I65
6018 Fine to
medium sand 30 IV I48
W C Fine to
medium sand 25 IV 96
61/A Fine sand 34 111 !20
61lB Compacted
moist sand 15 11 64
61/CI Compacted
moist sand 15 V l39
61jC2 Compacted
moist sand $5 V 184
63 Sand and loam - I1 > 200
W C Fine sand 23 IV IPT 140 I60
65 Sandlgravel 25 111 ;PT '20
66/A Fine sand I2 V ;PT 68
66/B Fine sand I2 V ;PT 88
69lA Coarse sand - VI , 44
69/B Coarse sand - VI , 41
70 Fine to
- >
medium sand V
-
37

1372
(18) (20)

l,, lr 3

days days Remarks

- -
Firm silly clay below 26.7111. Grade determmed over (:/BJl = I
600 Stiff clay below 12.5m
Treated by vibroflotation to 7.5m depth. Limestone below l5 2 m
Treated by vibroflotation to 7.5m depth. Limestone below 15.2m

Compacted by vibroflotation

Compacted by vibroflotatlon
488 853 AplAq' from slope of q' v. p curve. Firm clay below 19.2 m
580 853 AplAq' from slope of q' v. p curve. Flrm clay below 19.2 m
488 853 AplAq' lrom slope 01 q' v. p curve. Flrm clay below 19.2 m
I
1
1
7 30 Ap/Aq' corrected for 0.b. pressure
15 Moraine below 8.7 m
207 Low values of SPT below W.T. due to boiling
207
880 1838 AplAq' from slope of q v. p curve. ApIAq' = 1.542

l
I
1
1
I
Sandstone below 7.1 m

loo0

125
125 Pressure Increased to 91 kNlm' without lurther settlement
I25 Pressure increased to 107kN/m2 without further settlement

ApIAq' corrected for o.b. pressure

AplAq' corrected for 0.b. pressure

304 AplAq' from slope of pressure-settlement curve

366 AplAq' from slope of pressuresettlement curve

I Model tests
1 Model tests

I Model tests

1 Model tests

1 Model tests
1220 2020 Settlement measured over depth of sand layer
520 AplAq' from slope of pressure-settlement curve
l
47 257 StiR clay bclow 5.3m
47 257 Stiff clay below 5.3 m

1373
B U R L A N D AND B U R B I D G E

Table 4. Continued
(1) (2) )!( (5) (4) (7) (8)(6) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Case Prlnclpal soil N Grade Method Dimensions, m 4 H, Foundation press,
no. type m m k N/m'
B L D 4.ro.. *:er 4'

71 Fine sand - VI P 1.5 Strip 2.3 Shallow ~12.8 78

72 Fine sand - v1 P 3.5 3.5- - $B 187
73 Fme/medlum sand - V P 3.0 3.0 - - ~B I57
74 Fine/medium sand - IV .3 2.8 3.0 - Shallow S I5 216
75 Fine sand - 111 4.8 56 - ~- I96
76 Fine/coarse sand 20 IV SPT 22.5 65.0 10.0 -2.5 2 30 245-295
77 Medlum sand M) II SPT 10.04 - 1.5 10 12.0 240
78.4 Silly fine sand 5 VI C 20.0 20.0 3.0 -I 32 85
sand 788 5 SdtyVfine
I C 20.0 20.03.0 -I 45 85
79/A Fine sand/silt 5 VI c 20.0 27-S0 0 40 130
7918 5 FineVIsandisill c 27.5 27.5 0 0 40 I76
80 Sandy gravel 36 111 C 41.2 41.2 10.0 -5.5 13 158 34
8ljC Flne sand 5 VI c 0.9 0.9 0.3 Deep - I33
81/D Fme sand 6 VI C 0.9 0-9 0.9 Deep -- I l3
8I/E Fine sand 7 VI c I2 1.2 0.2 Deep - 199
81/F Fine sand 8 VI c 1.2 1.2 0.9 Deep - 268
B3 Sandigravel 20 IV SPT 17.6 84 0 10.7 -2.2 237 240
84 Sand'gravel 14 V SPT 16.0 43.0 7.3 -I 8 223 228
85 Gravelisand 10 V SPT 20.5q5 - 3.5 25 226 173
86 Sandigravel 26 111 SPT 14.5 14.5 3.5 1.5 21 5 255
B7 34 111 SPT - 5.3 -2.5 8.2 216
Sandigravel 33.06
89/A Sandigravel 37 111 SPT 10.7 2.6 1.0 ~
5. l 293
91 Sand 27 111 SPT 24.44 - 0 - .- I20
92/A Sand 50 2.4II 2.4 2.1SPT - - 584
92iB Sand 50 II SPT 2.1 2-1 I 5 ~ __ 697
92iC Sand 50 11 SPT I8 1.5 2.8 - ~
575
92fD Sand 50 I1 SPT 2-1 2.4 3-0 - - 584
92/E Sand 50 3.0I1 SPT 2-1 4.1 - ~
347
93/A Sand 5 V1 SPT 8.2 61-0 - - - 35
93/B Sand 5 VI SPT I 8 Strip - - ~
45
94/A Flneicoarse sand 18 IV SPT 30.2 308 27 6.5 22 3 386
94/B Sandigravel 50 II SPT 3.8 Strip 7.0 6.0 383 17.0
95iA Silty fine sand - IV Oed 2-5 30 0.4 3-7 10.0 220
9SjB Sllty fine sand ~
IV Oed 2.5 3.0 37 0.4 10.0 220
96/A Silly fine sand - V Oed 2.3 3-4 2-5 I 6 13.0 I20
96iB Silly fine sand - V Oed 2 3 2.7 2.5 16 130 I10
96JC - V Oed 23 3.4 1.5 2-6 13.0 I10
Medlum Qnd
96/D Medium sand - V Oed 2.8 33 1-5 2.6 13.0 v0
97/P Fme sand 7 VI SPT 6.0 6.0 0 0-9 18.0 190
97/E Flne sand 7 VI SPT 20.0 20-0 0 0.9 18.0 145
98:A Fine sand 4 VI c 28 14.0 I0 - 10.0 I42
98/B Fine sand 4 VI c 14.5 3.3 1.0 - 10.0 99
I00 Fine medlum sand - IV Oed 18.0 26.0 1-5-3.5 10 > 18 140

1374
 S E T T L E M E N T O F F O U N D A T I O N S O N S A N DA N DG R A V E L

(18)

l,.
days Remarks
~

9.5 15.2 AplAq' from slope of pressure-settlement curve

4.9 26.2
16.2 10-3 AplAq' from pressure-settlement curve
5.8 4.7 ApplAq' from pressure-settlement curve
5-0 2.6
15-18 10-5-19.7 700 AplAq' corrected for 0.b. pressure
7-0 2.9 696 Limestone below 12m. Sand compacted to 5 m depth
I l6 231 854 ApjAq' Corrected for 0.h. pressure
81 I65 752 AplAq' corrected for o.h. pressure
139-368 107-283 12 219487 100
993-1401 5W796 40 1225.1355 160
10 11.8 ApjAq' from pressure-settlement curve
76 5.7 I
6.4 57 I
13-0 6.5 I
I? 7 4.7 I
21.2 11.4 822 23.3 I462 AplAq' from pressurC-seltlemenl curve
179 7.5 488 18.6 I l58 AplAq' from pressure-settlement curve
X0 46 195 Settlements suggest grade I I . Suspect SPT results
l5 5 6.I ApfAq' from pressure-settlement curve. Stiff clay below 21.5rn
434 20.5 532 ApjAq' from pressure-settlement curve. Clayey sllt 8-2-15.7m
10.9 3.7
14 3 11.9 7
4.4 0.7 I
2.3 0.33 1
27 0 47 1
46 0.79 I
18 0.52 I
19 54.3
25 55 6
91 6 25.9 350 AplAq' corrected for 0.b. pressure
4.x 1.6 AplAq' corrected for 0.h. pressure
15 x.9 AplAq' from pressuresettlement curve. Hydraulic sand fill
10 7.7 AplAq' from pressure-settlement curve. Hydraulic sand fill
I2 10.0 790 18 I020 Hydraullc sand fill
IX 164 I594 Hydraulic sand fill
17 15.5 790 22 I594 Hydraulic sand fill
17 18.9 546 24 1594 Hydraulic sand fill
74 59 ApjAq' from pressure settlement curve
I20 83
97 68 500 Overconsolidaled clay below IOm
37 37 500 Overconsol~datedclay below IOm
27 2 20-8 39I 36.9 A d A a from Dressure settlement curve. Comoacted sand fill

1375
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
Appendix 2. Case recordsstructures, geology and references
Case Structure Bearing strata Reference
1 Steel tank Recent and Pleistocene sands Baker49
2 Steel tank Recent and Pleistocene sand Baker4’
3 Bridge Recent and Eocene sands de BeerSo
6 Bridge Recent alluvial/Eocene sands de Beerso
7 Bridge Eocene sand de BeerSo
8 Bridge Eocene sand de BeerSo
9 Bridge Eocene sand de Beer5’
12 Bridge Recent river/Eocene sands de Beer”
13 Embankments Recent river sand Bjerrum”
14 Steel tank Recent river sand Bjerrum”
15 14 storey Quaternary river sand Bogdanovic et al.”
building
16 lOOm high Recent river sand Bolenski4’
chimneys
19 Chimneys Pleistocene lacustrine sands Bolenski4’
20 11 storey Recent river sands Bolenski4’
buildings
21 22 storey Pleistocene river sands Bolenski4’
building
22 11 storey Recent river sands Bolenski4’
building
23 9 storey Pleistocene river sands Bolenski4’
building
24 11 storey Pleistocene lake sands Bolenski4’
building
25 12 storey Pleistocene river sands Bolenski4’
buildings
27 Nuclear Pleistocene river sands Breth and C h a m b ~ s s e ~ ~
reactor
29 Concrete tank Pleistocene sands Clausen et
30 Steel mill Recent beachldune sands DAppolonia et aL8
31 Steel tank Recent river sand and Davisson and Salley5’
gravel
32 Nuclear Recent beach sand Dunn41
reactor
33 Chimneys Quaternary sand Egorov and PopovaS6
120/250 m
34 Silo Pleistocene river sand/gravel Bjerrum and Eggestad5’
35 Steel tanks Quaternary beach sand Farrent”
36 Silo Quaternary beach sand FarrentSE
37 Nuclear Paleocene/Cretaceous sand Fischer et aLS9
reactor
38 Building Quaternary beachldune sand Frost6’
39 Steel mill Recent river sand Garga and Q ~ i n ~ ~
complex
40 22 storey Recent marine sand Geilly et
building
41 10 storey Recent dune sand Glick6’
building
43 Steel tanks Compacted Cainozoic sand Greenwood and T a i P
44 Test footings Pleistocene river/dune sand Greenwood and T a i P
45 20 storey Recent beach and lagoon sands Grimes and C a n t l a ~ ~ ~
buildings
47 Plate tests Pleistocene river sand Bazaraa”
1376
 SETTLEMENT O F FOUNDATIONS ON SAND AND GRAVEL
48 13 storey Tertiary sand K~rngold~~
buildings
49 Embankment Hydraulic sand fill Lagging and Eresund66
50 Concrete tank Quaternary marine sands Langfelder and J ~ h n s t o n ~ ~
51 12 storey Pleistocene river sand/ Levy and Morton6*
buildings gravel
52 Plate tests Quaternary river sand/ Levy and Morton6'
gravel
53 Bridge Recent river/Eocene sand Marivoet6'
56 Bridge Recent river/Eocene sands Marivoet6'
57 10 storey Recent coastal sands Martins et al.70
building
58 Factory Pleistocene river gravel Meigh and NixonZ6
building
59 Various Pleistocene river sand Muhs and Kah17'
60 18 storey Pleistocene river sand Muhs and Weiss7'
buildings
61 Test footings Pleistocene river sand Muhs7'
63 533 m tower Pleistocene river/ Nikitin et al."
Jurassic sand
64 Silos Recent marine sand N~nveiler~~
65 Plate test - Oweis7'
66 2 storey Pleistocene river sand Bazaraa"
building
6%75
~~ Buildings Quaternary river sand pre~s~~.~'
76 25 storey Tertiary sand Rios and Silva7'
buildings
77 Concrete tank Recent aeolian sand Ronan7'
(compacted)
78 10 storey Quaternary river sands Sanderat et al.''
buildings
79 Embankments Quaternary river sands Sanderat et al."
80 Building Recent river gravel Sanglerat et al."'
81 Plate tests Recent coastal/river S~hmertrnann'~
sand
83 30 storey Pleistocene river/ Sch~ltze~~.~~
building Tertiary sand
84 20 storey Pleistocene river/ Sch~ltze~~.~~
building Tertiary sand
85 120 m chimney Recent/Pleistocene/ S~hultze~~.~~
Tertiary sand
86 120 m chimney Pleistocene river sand/ S~hultze~~
gravel
87 Nuclear Pleistocene river/ S~hultze~~
reactor Tertiary sand
89 Buildings Quaternary deposits Schultze and Sherif"
91 Steel tank Quaternary coastal sand Thorne"
92 Machine hall Quaternary coastal sand Thorne''
93 3 storey Recent dune sand Tomlinsona2
buildings
94 5 storey Quaternary deposit Tschebotario@'
buildings
95 1 storey Recent river sand V~tjakov'~
frame
building

1377
 BURLAND AND BURBIDGE
96 1 storey
Recent
sand/
river Votjakov”
fill frame
building
Footingi
Quaternary
97 marine
sand Webba6
embankment
Bridge 98 Recent sand Wennerstrand”
100 storey
9 Pleistocene river/ Zakharenkov”
sands
building
aeolian
References
1.SUTHERLANDH.B. Granularmaterials(reviewpaper), Proc.ConJ the Settlement of
Structures, Cambridge,Pentech Press, 1974,473-499.
2. SIMONS, N. E.and MENZIES B. K. A short course in foundation engineering.IPC Science
and Technology Press, 1976.
3. NIXON I.K. Standard penetration test state-of-the-art-report. 2nd European Symposium
on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam,24-27 May 1982, Balkema.
4. TERZAGHI K. Discussion on paper by Skempton and MacDonald: Theallowable settle-
ments of buildings.Proc. Znstn Civ. Engrs, 1956, Part 3,5775.
5. BURBIDGE,M.A case study reviewof settlementson granularsoil. MSc/Dissertation,
Imperial College, Universityof London, 1982.
6.BURLANDJ. B. et al.Behaviouroffoundationsandstructures: State of ArtReport,
session 2. Proc. 9th int. ConJ Soil Mech. Foundation Engng,Tokyo, 1977,2,495-546.
7. TERZAGHIK. and PECKR. B. Soilmechanicsinengineering practice, lst/2nd ed. John
Wiley, New York, 1948/1967.
8. DAPPOLONIA D. J. et al. Settlement of spread footings in sand. J . Soil Mech. Fdns. Diu.
Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1968,94, SM3,735-760.
9. MEYERHOF, G. G.Shallow foundations,J . Soil Mech. Fdns Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs, 1965,
91, SM2,21-31.
10. CLAYTON C. R. I. et al. Dynamic penetration resistance and the prediction of the com-
pressibility of a fine-grained sand-a laboratory study. Ghotechnique, 1985, 35, No. 1,
19-31.
11. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Methods oftests forsoils for civil engineering purposes:
Test 18, Determination of the penetration resistance using the split barrel sampler.British
Standards Institution, London, 1975, BS 1377,103-104.
12. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTINGAND MATERIALS. 158667 Standard method for pen-
etration test and split barrel sampling of soil.Book of Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia,
1967,part 19.
13. FLETCHER G. F. A. Standard penetration test: itsuses and abuses J . Soil Mech. Fdns Diu.
Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1965.91, SM4,67-75.
14. SCHMERTMANN J. H. 1979, Statics of SPT. J . Geotech. Engng Diu. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs,
1979,105, GT5,655-670.
15. INTERNATIONALSOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING. Report of
theSub-Committeeon the Penetration Test for Use inEurope. ISSMFE,1977, 3,
95-120.
16. HOLUBEC, I. and DAPPOLONIA Effect E. of partical shape on the engineering properties
of granularsoils. Proc.Symp.Eval. Rel. Dens. AmericanSocietyforTestingand
Materials, Philadelphia, 1972, Special Technical Publication 523,314-318.
17. GIBBSH. J. and HOLTZ W.G. Research on determing the density of sands by spoon
penetration testing. proc. 4th Znt. Con& Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, London, 1957, 1,
35-39.
18. DAPPOLONIA D. J. and D’APFQLONIA E. Useof the SPT to estimatesettlement of
footings on sand.Symp. on Foundations onInterbedded Sands, CSIRO, Perth, 1970.
19. SCHULTZE E.and MENZENBACH K. J. Standard penetration test and compressibility of
soils. Proc. 5th Znt ConJ Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Paris,1961,1,52?.
20. BAZARAA A. R. S. S. Use of the standard penetration test for estimating settlements of
shallowfoundations on sand. PhD thesis, Universityof Illinois, Urbana, 1967.
1378
 SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS O N SANDANDGRAVEL
21. SCHULTZE E. and MELZER K.J. The determination of the density and the modulus of
compressibilityofnon-cohesivesoilbysoundings. proc. 6th Int. Conf Soil Mech.
Foundation Engng, Montreal,1965,1,354-358.
22. THORBURN S. Tentativecorrectionchartforthestandardpenetrationtestinnon-
cohesive soils.Ciu. Engng Publ. W k s Reu., 1963, June, 752-753.
23. DARAMOLA 0.The inyuence of stress history on the deformation of sand. PhD thesis,
Imperial College, University of London, 1978.
24. TERZAGHI K. Recent trends in subsoil exploration. Proc. 7th ConJ Soil Mech. Foundation
Engng, Texas, 1947,l-15.
25. MEYERHOF G. G. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. J . Soil
Mech. FdnsDiu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs, 1956,82, SMI,Paper 866,l-19.
26. MEIGH A. C. and NIXON I. K. Comparison of in-situ tests for granular soilsProc. 5th Int.
Conf Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Paris,1969,1,499-507.
27. RODINS. Experienceswithpenetrometerswithparticularreferencetothestandard
penetrationtest. Proc. 5th Int. Conf Soil Mech.FoundationEngng,Paris, 1961, 1,
517-521.
28. SUTHERLAND H. B. The use of in-situ tests to estimate the allowable bearing pressure of
cohesionless soils.Struct. Engr, 1963,41,85-92.
29. THORBURN, S. Discussion on paper by Thorburn and Macvicar. Proc. Conf on Behau-
iour of Piles, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1971,53-54.
30. VARGASM. Foundations ofla11 buildings on sand in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Proc. 5th Int.
Con6 Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Paris,1961,1,841-843.
31. SANGLERATThe A. penetrometer and soil exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam,1972.
32. MEIGH, A. C. Discussionon: Settlements on granular soils, observations, and compari-
sonwithprediction. Proc.European Conf Soil Wiesbaden, 1963, Mech.Foundation
Engng, 2, ?l-72.
33. PARRY R. H. G. A direct method of estimatine settlements in sand from SPT values.
Proc. Symp. on the Interaction of Structure andFoundation,Birmingham, 1971, Midland
Soil Mechanicsand Engineering Society,29-37.
Fdns Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs, 1970, W,SM3,lOll-1043.
35. SCHULTZE and E. SHERIF G. Prediction of settlements from evaluated settlement observa-
tions for sand. Proc. 8th Int. Conf Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Moscow, 1973, 1.3,
225230.
36. MORGAN J. R. and GERRARD C. M. Behaviour of sands under surface loads. J . Soil Mech.
Fdns Diu. Am. Soc.Ciu. Engrs, 1971,97, SM6.
37. BRETHH., et al. Settlement of Shallow Footings (Zur Setzung von Flachgrundungen).
Vort. Baugrundtag. Dt. Ges. Erd-u. Grundb. 1976, Sept.,Nurnberg, F.R.Germany,
603-626.
38. SHVETSV.B. and KULCHITSKII G. B. Experimental investigation of the depth of com-
pressed soil foundation stratum under a plate. Osnou. fund. mekh. Grunt., 1970, Jan-
Feb, No. 1, 1C~12.
39. NIKITINN. V. Issledovanie osadokfundametatelevizionnoj
basni v Ostakino
(Investigation of foundation settlement of a television tower at Ostakino). Osnou. Fund.
Mekh. Grunt., 1970, Mar.-Apr., No. 2,32-38.
40. BRETH H. and CHAMBOSSE G. (1974) Settlement distribution in the subsoil underneath a
nuclear reactor. 1974, Conf Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, Pentech Press, 1974,
1&13.
41. DUNN C. S. Settlement of a large raft foundation on sand. Con$ Settlement of Structures,
Cambridge, Pentech Press, 1974,1421,
42. KRIEGEL H. J. and WEISNER H. H. (1973):Problems of stress-strain conditions in subsoil.
Proc. 8th Int.conf soil Mech. FoundationEngineering, Moscow, 1973,1.3,133-141.
43. GARGA V. K. and QUIN J.T. An investigation on settlements of direct foundations on
sand. Conf Settlement of Structures, Cambridge,1974,22-35.
44. SCHULTZEE.BeispielefurSetzungsbeobachtungeninbindigenundnichtbindigen
Boden. (Examples of settlement observations in cohesive and non-cohesiveProc. soils).
3rd European Conf Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Wiesbaden, 1963,1,143-162.
1379
BURLANDANDBURBIDGE
45. DAPFQLONIA D. J., et al. Discussion on settlement of spread footings on sand. J . Soil
Mech. Fdns Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs, 1970,960, SM2,754-761.
46. SHERIF G. Setzungsmessungen an Industrie und Hochbauten und ihre Auswertung. Bull
Inst. Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Tech. Uniu., Aachen, 1973.
47. SCHULTZE E. Probleme bei der Auswertung von Setzungsmessunger (Problems in the
analysis of settlement measurements).Vortrage Der Baugrundtagung, Essen, 1962,343-
381.
48. BOLENSKI M. Osiadania now0 wznoszonych budowliW zaleznosci of podloza grunto-
wego:Wyniki20-letnichBadan W InstytucieTechnikiBudowlanej,(Settlement of
constructions newly erected and typeof subsoil: The resultsof 20 years studies carried
out in the Building Research Institute). Prace Instytutu Techniki Budowlanej, War-
szawa, 1973.
49. BAKER C.N. (1965) Discussion. Shallow foundations. J . Soil Mech. Fdns Diu. Am. Soc.
Ciu. Engrs, 1965,91, SM6, 119-121.
50. DE BEERE.Settlementrecordsofbridgesfoundedonsand. Proc. 2nd Int. Con$ Soil
Mech. Foundation Engng, Rotterdam,1948,2, 1 1 1-121.
51. BJERRUM L. Development of an industrial site on a silty sand deposit. Author’s notes
from a series of two lectures presented at Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology,1962.
52. BJERRUM L. Secondary settlements of structures subjected to large variations in live load.
Symp. on Rheology and Soil Mechanics, Grenoble, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1964, 4 6 G
471.
53. BOGDANOVICetL.al. Comparison of the calculated and measured settlements of build-
ings in New Belgrade. Proc. European Con$ Soil Mech. Foundation Enyng, Wiesbaden,
1963,1,205-2 13.
54. CLAUSEN C. J. F. et al. (1975) ObservedbehaviouroftheEkofiskoilstoragetank
foundation. 7th Ann.Offshore Technol. Con/., Houston, Texas, May1975,3, OTC 2373,
399413.
55. DAVISSON, M. T. and SALLEY J. R. Settlement histories of four large tanks on sand. Proc.
Conf: onPerformance of Earth and Earth-supported Structures, Purdue University, June
1972, American Society of Civil Engineers special conf., 1, Part 2,981-996.
56. EGOROV K. E.and POPOVA 0. V. Comparison of computed and factual settlements of
high smoke stack foundations. Proc. 4th Asian Con$ Soil Mech. Foundation Engng,
1971,1,9-15.
57. BJERRUM L. and EGGESTAD A. Interpretation of a loading test on sand. Proc. European
Con$ Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Wiesbaden,1963,1,199-204.
58. FARRENT T. A. The prediction andfield verifications of settlements on cohesionless soils.
Proc. 4th Aust.-N.Z. Con$ Soil. Mech. Foundation Engng, Adelaide,1963,ll-17.
59. FISCHER J. A. et al. Settlement of a large mat on sand. Proc. Conf: on Performance of
Earth and Earth-supported Structures, Purdue University, June1972, American Society
of Civil Engineers special conf., 1, No. 2,997-1018.
60. FROST,R. J. (1970) Discussion to SessionNo. I, Symp.onFounds.onInterbedded
Sands, Perth, p.45.
61. GEILLY J. et al. Settlements of two buildings supported on rafts: comparison with pre-
dicted settlement calculated from static cone penetrometer data. Con/. Settlement of
Structures, Cambridge, 1974,3741.
62. CLICK G. L. Settlement study of main road department building Symp. on Foundations
on Interbedded Sands, CSIRO, Perth, 1970,87-93.
63. GREENWOODA. D.and TAITJ. B. Prediction of foundations on sands.Symp. on Founda-
tions on Interbedded Sands,CSIRO, Perth, 1970,23-33.
64. CRIMES A. S. and CANTLAY W. G. A twenty storey ofice block in Nigeria founded on
loose sand.Struct. Engr,1965,43,45-57.
65. KORNGOLD L. Immeuble CBI Esplanada aSao Paulo. Lhrchitecture d’aujourd‘hui, No.
21,7542.
66. LAGGING L. B. and ERESUND B. (1974) Provbelastning av sandfyllning (Test loading of a
hydraulic sand fill).Swedish Nat. Res.Rep., 1974, No. R46,221-227.

1380
 SETTLEMENTOFFOUNDATIONSONSANDANDGRAVEL
67. LANCFELDERand J. JOHNSTON D. W. Settlement of two tauks on loose cohesionless soil.
Proc. 4th Pan Am.Con$ Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, 2,15-25.
68. LEVYJ. F. and MORTON K. Loading tests and settlement observations on granular soils.
con5 Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, 1974,43-52.
69. MARIVOET L. Observation des tassements de ponts a fondation directe (Settlement obser-
vation on bridges built on shallow foundations).Proc. 3rd Int. Conf: Soil Mech. Foun-
dation Engng, Zurich,1,418-430.
70. MARTINS J. B. et al. Settlement of a ten-storeyed building. Proc. European Con$ Soil
Mech. Foundation Engng, 1963,1,313-317.
71. MUHS H.and KAHL H. Tragfahigkeit und setzungen sandiger Boden. Berichte Bauforsch.
1961, 18.
72. MUHS H. and WEIS K. Die Berechnung der Bauwekssteifigkeit von Hochhausern aus
den Ergebnissen von Setzungsbeocachtungen (The calculation of building stability of
tower houses from the results of settlement observation). Bautechnik, 1963, 11, 377-
382.
73. MUHSH. et al. DiezulassigeBelastungvonSandaufgrandneuererVersucheund
Erkenntnisse. Bautechnik, 1963,10-11,0ct.-Nov., 130-147.
74. NONVEILLER E. Settlement of a grain silo on fine sand. Proc. European Con$ Soil Mech.
Foundation Engng, Wiesbaden,1963,1285-299.
75. OWEISI. S. Equivalent linear model for predicting settlements of sand bases. J . Geotech.
Engng Diu.Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs,1979,105, GT12,1525-1544.
76. PRESSH. Baugrundprobebelastungen, ihre Auswertung und die den Bauwerken gerness-
enensetzungen(Buildinggroundtestloads.Theirevaluation andthesettlements
measured on the buildings).Bautechnik, 1932,10, No. 30,391-395.
77. PRESSH. Setzungsbeobachtungen (Settlement observations). Bautechnik, 1938,16, No. 2,
2627.
78. RIOS,L. and SILVAF. P. (1948) Foundations in downtown, Brazil. proc. 2nd. Int. Conf:
Soil Mech. Foundation Engng,Rotterdam, 1948,4,69-72.
79. RONANS . R. Heavy structures founded in aeolian soils. Proc. 3rd Aust-N.Z. Con$ on
Geomechanics, Wellington,1980,1,3944.
80. SANCLERAT G. et al. Controle in situ des previsions de tassements basees sur les essais de
penetration statique (pour 79 ouvrages sur 17 sites differents) (In situ checkof settle-
ment predictions based on static penetration tests). Ann. Inst. Techn. Bat. Trav.Publ.,
1979, No. 369, Feb., 31-50.
81. THORNEC.P. Discussion to Session 1. Symp. on Foundations on InterbeddedSands,
CSIRO, Perth, 1970,47-50.
82. TOMLINKIN M.FoundationJ. design and construction, Pitman, 1969, London, 212.
83. TSCHEBOTARIOFF G. P. Soil mechanics, foundations and earth structures. McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1951,44and 155.
84. VOTJAKOV I. Iz opyta stroitelstva proizvodstvennogo korpusa na manyvnych gruntach
(From the experience of constructing an industrial building on hydraulic fill). Osnou.
Fund. Mekh. Grunt.,1974, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., 7-9.
85. VOTJAKOV, I. Iz opyta stroitelstva proizvodstvennogo korpusa na namyvynch gruntach.
Osnov. Fund. Mekh. Grunt,1977,19, No. 5,29-30.
86. WEBBD. L. Settlement of structures on deep alluvial sandy sediments in Durban, South
Africa. Conf: on In-situ Investigations in Soils and Rocks, British Geotechnical Society,
London, 1969,181-188.
87. WENNERSTRAND J. Comparison of predicted settlements for a fine sand. Proc. 7th Euro-
pean Con$ Soil Mech. Foundation Engng, Brighton,1979,2,295-298.
88. WHITMAN R. V. et al. Performance of foundation for ALTAIR radar. J . Soil Mech. Fdns
Diu. Am.Soc. Ciu. Engrs, 1971,97, SM1, 1-18.
89. ZAKHARENKOVM.M.Opytstroitel'stvadevjatietamogodomonapescanojpoduske
(Experience with the construction of a nine-storey building on a sand fill).Osnou. Fund.
Mekh. Grunt.,1969, No. 4, July-Aug., 34-35.

1381