ELASTIC FOUNDATION SETTLEMENTS

ON SAND DEPOSITS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Joseph E. Bowles, 1 F. ASCE

ABSTRACT: A method for computing the elastic settlement of a foundation on

a sand deposit using the conventional elastic settlement, but adjusting the set-
tlement influence factor as computed by Steinbrenner to a reduced influence
depth is proposed. The reduced influence depth is based on observations of
strain profiles and the Boussinesq stress profile. It is suggested this reduced
influence depth be taken as a maximum of 5B but not more than the stratum
depth. A number of settlement cases are examined using this procedure and
empirical equations for the stress-strain modulus Es are suggested. The cases
examined show very good results using this suggested method.

INTRODUCTION

Static foundation settlements over sand are most commonly computed

by one of two methods: (1) Using a formulation of the Boussinesq equa-
tion with an influence factor Is to account for stratum depth and foun-
dation shape; (2) Using a method proposed by Schmertmann (1970) based
on an extensive study of elastic settlements on sand. This method is
empirical and based on assuming a triangular strain profile in a depth
of approximately 2X foundation width beneath the foundation. The in-
fluence factor commonly used in the first method is that usually credited
to Steinbrenner (1934) and generally introduced by Terzaghi (1943). The
original equations of Steinbrenner are not readily available but can be
found in Terzaghi (1943, p. 424) and in Bowles (1982, p. 185). The full
form of the equations includes ratios of foundation length/foundation
width (L/B), depth of elastic layer/foundation width (H/B), and Poisson
ratio p.. Since the Steinbrenner factors were for a surface foundation, Fox
(1948) suggested a factor If to account for reduced settlement when the
foundation base is at some depth D below the ground surface.
The general equation for static settlement AH for a foundation with a
contact pressure Aq on an elastic medium, and including the above in-
fluence factors, is:

AH = AcjB'l^IJf (1)

in which terms have been or will be subsequently defined. This equation

theoretically applies to a foundation at any depth below the ground sur-
face, although most users limit the embedment depth D to under 2x
foundation base width. Most users of Eq. 1 claim a computed settlement
in excess (often by a factor of 2 or more) of observed settlements.
Christian and Carrier (1978) made a finite-element study of settle-
ments using a form of Eq. 1 and concluded that a series of charts pub-
' O w n e r , Engrg. C o m p u t e r Software, 1605 W. Candletree Dr., Peoria, IL 61614.
Note.—Discussion o p e n until January 1, 1988. To extend the closing date one
m o n t h , a written request m u s t be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this p a p e r w a s submitted for review a n d possible publication on
January 6, 1986. This p a p e r is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 113, N o . 8, August, 1987. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/87/0008-0846/$01.00. Pa-
per No. 21705.

846

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 lished by Janbu, et al. (1956) for the influence factors of Eq. 1 would
generally over-estimate the settlement. These charts used the Poisson
ratio X
| = 0.5 but included an If contribution. It appeared from this study
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that the Steinbrenner factor Is might be incorrect; however, Taylor and

Matyas (1983) concluded that this factor was satisfactory.
This paper reexamines Eq. 1 to see if it can give reasonably reliable
results without having to adjust the elastic parameters substantially. This
is particularly desirable as the equation has a theoretical basis and is
both simple and widely used.

STEINBRENNER'S INFLUENCE FACTOR

The Steinbrenner (1934) equations given below from Bowles (1982) are
for a frame of reference and have been divided both for ease of use and
for computer programming to extend Table 1 if desired.

(1 + Vm 2 + l)Vm 2 + n2
AQ = m In =—;
m(l + Vm 2 + n2 + 1)
(m + Vm 2 + l ) V l + n2
Ai = In —;
m + Vm2 + n2 + 1
m
A2 = ;
ri\/m2 + n2 + 1

F1 = - (A0 + A1); F2 = ^- tan" 1 (A2)

TT 2lT

The Steinbrenner shape or influence1 factor Is is defined as

1 - 2p,
h = F1+ * F2 (2)
1 - (j.
in which m = L'/B'; n = H/B'; B' = B/2 for footing center F, and B' =
B for footing corner F,; L' = L/2 for footing center F, and L for footing
corner F,; L, B = footing plan dimensions with B S L; H = thickness of
elastic stratum over which the strain is integrated to produce the settle-
ment AH; and \x, = Poisson ratio of soil underlying foundation.
The contribution of F2 in Eq. 2 is sometimes neglected as a compu-
tational convenience. For p, = 0.5 or for H —* °° the contribution is zero
to very nearly zero, however, for |JL in the range of 0.25-0.4 and H «
°° the F2 contribution may not be negligible.

FOUNDATION DEPTH EFFECT

Fox (1948) developed equations which contain the Poisson ratio as well
as the L/B and D/B ratios to produce an influence factor (here called If)
to adjust surface settlements to allow for embedment depth D. The depth
of soil beneath the base of the foundation is not a parameter in the Fox
847

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 TABLE 1.—Settlement Equation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

H/B 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
0.5
F, 0.049 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.041 0.040 0.038 0.038 0.037
F2 0.074 0.077 0.080 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.086 0.087
0.8
Fi 0.104 0.100 0.096 0.093 0.091 0.089 0.086 0.084 0.083
h 0.083 0.090 0.095 0.098 0.101 0.103 0.107 0.109 0.110
1.0
Fi 0.142 0.138 0.134 0.130 0.127 0.125 0.121 0.118 0.116
F2 0.083 0.091 0.098 0.102 0,106 0.109 0.114 0.117 0.119
2.0
Ft 0.285 0.290 0.292 0.292 0.291 0.289 0.284 0.279 0.275
F2 0.064 0.074 0.083 0.090 0.097 0.102 0.114 0.121 0.127
4.0
Ft 0.408 0.431 0.448 0.460 0.469 0.476 0.484 0.487 0.486
F2 0.037 0.044 0.051 0.057 0.063 0.069 0.082 0.093 0.102
6.0
F, 0.457 0.489 0.514 0.534 0.550 0.563 0.585 0.598 0.606
F2 0.026 0.031 0.036 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.079
8.0
Ft 0.482 0.519 0.549 0.573 0.594 0.611 0.643 0.664 0.678
F2 0.020 0.023 0.027 0.031 0.035 0.038 0.Q47 0.055 0.063
10.0
F, 0.498 0.537 0.570 0.597 0.621 0.641 0.679 0.707 0.726
F2 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.038 0.046 0.052
12.0
F, 0.508 0.550 0.585 0.614 0.639 0.661 0.704 0.736 0.760
F2 0.013 0.016 0.018 0.021 0.024 0.026 0.032 0.038 0.044
100.0
Fi 0.555 0.605 0.649 0.688 0.722 0.753 0.819 0.872 0.918
Fa 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
1,000.0
Fi 0.560 0.612 0.657 0.697 0.733 0.765 0.833 0.890 0.938
F2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

equations. Table 2 gives values of If for several values of (i, and for sev-
eral L/B and D/B ratios applicable for shallow foundations.

STRAIN PROFILES AND SCHMERTMANN METHOD

Schmertmann (1970) plotted strain profiles from several sources and

concluded that a triangular diagram could be used as a simplified ap-
proximation for settlement computations. A numerical integration of the
strain profile is, of course, the settlement.
A finite element analysis, strain measurements of others, and a the-
oretical solution by Ahlvin and Ulery (1962) was used by Schmertmann
to obtain his strain influence triangle. The strain values of Ahlvin and
Ulery for several values of JUL and depth are given in Table 3. The values
of Iz are obtained from tables given by Ahlvin and Ulery for use in an
equation given by them for vertical strain ez as
848

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 Influence Factors Fi and F2
L/B
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0
(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

0.037 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
0.087 0.087 0.087 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088

0.082 0.081 0.081 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079
0.111 0.112 0.112 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114

0.115 0.114 0.113 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.111 0.111 0.110 0.110 0.110
0.120 0.121 0.122 0.123 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.125 0.125 0.125

0.271 0.269 0.267 0.264 0.262 0.261 0.260 0.259 0.257 0.256 0.256
0.131 0.134 0.136 0.139 0.141 0.143 0.144 0.145 0.147 0.147 0.148

0.484 0.482 0.479 0.474 0.470 0.466 0.464 0.462 0.453 0.451 0.451
0.110 0.116 0.121 0.129 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.145 0.154 0.155 0.156

0.609 0.611 0.610 0.608 0.604 0.601 0.598 0.595 0.579 0.576 0.575
0.087 0.094 0.101 0.111 0.120 0.126 0.131 0.135 0.153 0.157 0.157

0.688 0.694 0.697 0.700 0.700 0.698 0.695 0.692 0.672 0.666 0.665
0.071 0.077 0.084 0.095 0.104 0.112 0.118 0.124 0.151 0.156 0.158

0.740 0.750 0.758 0.766 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.768 0.745 0.738 0.735
0.059 0.065 0.071 0.082 0.091 0.099 0.106 0.112 0.147 0.156 0.158

0.777 0.791 0.801 0.815 0.823 0.826 0.828 0.828 0.806 0.796 0.793
0.050 0.056 0.061 0.071 0.080 0.088 0.095 0.102 0.143 0.154 0.158

0.956 0.990 1.020 1.072 1.114 1.150 1.182 1.209 1.408 1.489 1.499
0.006 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.039 0.071 0.113

0.979 1.016 1.049 1.106 1.154 1.196 1.233 1.266 1.548 1.752 1.941
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.016

Ag A<?
(1 + ,i)[(l - 2|x)A3 + A,] L (3)

in which A3 and A4 are the Ahlvin and Ulery tabulated factors A and B
for a round base of radius r. From the strain plots noted above and using
the Ahlvin and Ulery Iz values for \i = 0.4 and 0.5, Schmertmann se-
lected a strain influence triangle of base = critical influence depth = 2B
(or 4r) and height = strain factor Iz = 0.6. One may also obtain a strain
profile from Timoshenko and Goodier (1951, p. 365) as in Table 4. Hooke's
law can be used to obtain the vertical strain as

1
6 Z = — (<T; - (Iff* - (XCTy) (4)

which for ax = ay = Kuz gives

849

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

i 1% NO tN. 0 0 I N I N on ON " * NO o IN T-t ON CO o in on © I N ON oo -^ NO fN
2 O -=* 1% •
o (N NO (N
* IN i n • ^ t-t O ON on I N t N CO ON CO m cn i n -#
in ir- ON
O
O N ON 0 0 IN, IN, N O
o o o o o o
in
o
ON ON ON 0 0 t N
O o O o O
"#
tN
o
I N NO
O O
ON ON ON 0 0 0 0
O o o O o
CO I N NO
o o o
ON ON ON ON CO
O © o ©
00
3
©
IN ON ON ON ON ON CO o o
o © O © O
IN
©
o> © © o © ©
c
B
o
Si. en IN. ON N O I N NO o IN on o I N NO I N <N CO on ON © CO NO
CN NO NO ON IN, -tf on ON CM I N CO CO ON ON K CN IN, CN CO E N
SS "tf
NO
g "# o o o o ^ ••#
o\ ON 00 NO NO in ON ON 0 0 K NO N O i n ON ON O N 0 0 I N . IN IN NO ON ON ON 0 0 00 IN IN. NO ON ON O N ON CO CO I N NO
JC O o o o o o o o O o o o O o o o O oO o O o o o O O o © © O o o © o © © © o © ©
3
0
0)

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

3
NO
T-i IN.
<N NO NO on r O ON ON
0 0 on
NO
on
00
IN 00 00
S NO t N
NT)
on o NO
00
IN.
•^ co
0 0 CO
ON
"* a
NO I N . I N t N
on m on
O 2S ON
o o
CO NO
o
in -*
o o
ON ON 0
o
0
o
IN
o
NO N O
o o
m
o
ON ON ON oo IN. I N IN. m ON ON ON CO 0 0
o o o
ON ON ON ON 0 0 0 0 I N NO
•t— O © O O O O o o o o O
o o © © © © © © © © © © © © O
so
&.
o
O.OC

T-H CO rf
*- m
u
eo
UL CQ
»g II ON ON 0 0
a IN
IN
NO I N .
tN
NO NO i n
rsi
^

O
II
IN
-#
IN
ON ON 0 0
ON
IN
NO
IN. NO N O in

o
II
5! CO on ON 0 0
f N CO 0 0
"*
ON ON ON 0 0 IN. I N NO m

O
II
©
ON ON ON 0 0
T-H
oo t N
ON ©
t N NO
*tf o
II
on fN CM NO I N rN
ON
ON ON ON ON CO 0 0
NO CO
I N NO
• C -J

s Ratio
?atio

o o o o o o o o o o o

atio
o o o o oo O o
o o o n o o o o o

atio
O O © © o o © © © o o o ©
o s
3
CO
Cd
CO
$
cn &
in
T3
d IN. o NO
c
©
££ o
IN IN
NO -^ \0 **
t N OO c in o on on NO
NT) m NO
NO CO
3
IN
•* IN. NO C
o ON
on <N cn I N o o i n
IN in
c
o
CO I N
ON ON NO © • ^ ON i n ^
^£ (A ON ON 0 0
"#*#IN, NO N O
m ^ cn ON ON 0 0 I N NO M3 N O i n CO ON ON ON 0 0 I N I N NO in cn ON
«# o
ON ON CO 0 0 I N t N NO in ON ON ON ON CO I N t N vo

Fois

Pois
**
c "3 o o o o o O o o o o o o o © o o o o o o O O © o © o © o © o ©
*0
o © o O © © © o
o Ou. PH PH
E
Of
Ttt r - t on I S <N O CO NO ( N NO ON i n o on ro rjt \0 © NO ON • < *
«s i n rH in NO I N NO <N i n i n m ON O on i n CN o NO I N
O NO ©
IN
iN
NO
IN O CO
ON ON 0 0 rs on ON NO ON on
& ~s o O o o o o
t N NO NO i n * *
o o
ON O N 0 0
o O o
NO
m in
o o o o o
ON
O
ON ON 0 0
o o o O
IN
O
NO m
o ©
ON ON ON 0 0 t N
o © o © o
-*
IN
©
IN.
o
^3
©
ON o->
o o
ON
©
00
© ©
tN
o
I N NO
© O
*~*
CD
Sg
^•JS -* © i n ON 0 0 ON yo ^ nn O N CO c N no IN. ON NO t N 0 0 O NO 0 0
a CO ( N
§1
£OJ
°s ON
O

O
o\ 0 0
o o
rH
CN
O o
0 0 Tji \D
NO i n i n *«*
o o o o
T-H
ON ON 0 0
O o
tN
o o
1-H
NO NO
o o
m «*
o
IN i n o o
ON ON ON
O o o O o
00
o
i n NO
NO w
© o
on
ON O N ON CO
© © O O o
tN
©

0 0 ON
NO
o
in
o
ON
ON on
© o
NO
ON ON 0on
O
0 CO t N
© © ©
I N NO
© ©
- -o
J.
W c3
.. o in © o © o © o o o o o o o o o © o © o o o o in © o © © © © o
ra ^
as
§i Q
~
o T-H
o o
(N
O -*
o o o TH (N
o
o
rH
o o o
<N r p NO oo
o
o o i-t
o
CN
O
O
T-H
©
tN
O ©
NO
o
oo
© T-H f N ©
t-t
©
<N
© ©
so
o © T-H I N
O
©
T-t <N
© ©
•
O
* # NO 0 0
o ©
© ©
T-H t N
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
 e2 = - (1 - 2(xK) (4a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Using the Boussinesq stress profile (2nd column of Table 4) for a2 gives
a strain profile with the same shape as the stress profile.
The D'Appolonia, et al. (1968) stress-path strains used by Schmert-
mann as noted above can be alternatively interpreted to give a strain
profile not greatly different than the Boussinesq strain profile obtained
from using Hooke's stress-strain law. This includes an allowance for an
apparent discrepancy between the stress-strain and strain profile of the
D'Appolonia reference (Figs. 20 and 21).
From an examination of the data used by Schmertmann, and extend-
ing it to the Poisson ratio in the commonly used range of |x = 0.3 to 0.4
for sands, it appears that a triangle might not be the best shape that
could have been selected, although it is certainly a simple one to use.
The triangle appears better in the region of \i = 0.5, but that is ques-
tionable for sands. Even saturated materials such as clay, although com-
monly assumed to have a (x = 0.5, eventually distort as pore drainage
occurs so that \i is time-dependent. Since even fine sand has a much
larger permeability, using a Poisson ratio of 0.5 may be unwarranted.

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT EQUATION

The discussion to this point has been given as a reasonable justifica-

tion to reexamine Eq. 1 to see if its continued use is justified and how
it might be used to produce computed settlements that are more in
agreement with measured values (and so we do not need the measured
values in advance to produce the computational agreement). In using
Eq. 1 it appears that most users:

1. Take the H/B' ratio = °° regardless. This may be partly from the
use of published values for H/B = °° and the low availability of data
such as Table 1. Note in Table 1 that H/B > 500 gives about the same
value as H/B of any larger value.
2. Use only the Fi contribution to Is (which tends to slightly reduce
the computed settlement for large H/B ratios).

TABLE 3.—Strain Influence Factors I2 Based on Ahlvln and Ulery (1962) Coeffi-
cients for Selected Values of |x and Depth z
V-
Depth z r/z 0.30 0.40 0.50
(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
0 0 0.520 0.280 0.000
0.2r 0.4 0.743 0.624 0.480
0.25r 0.5 0.753 0.656 0.537
0.5r 1.0 0.612 0.577 0.530
0.75r 1.5 0.420 0.405 0.384
l.Or 2.0 0.287 0.280 0.268
2.0r 4.0 0.090 0.088 0.086

851

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 TABLE 4.—Bousslnesq Vertical Stress (<T„) Profile for Round Plate with B = Di-
ameter; Also Shown Are Vertical Strain (e„) Profiles Using Tlmoshenko and Good-
ler (1951, p. 365) Equation for Several Values of Poisson Ratio |x
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Strain, c
Z/B |i = 0.0 M. = 0.1 (i = 0.2 H = 0.3 |x = 0.4 (j, = 0.5
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
0.00 1.000 1.000 0.880 0.720 0.520 0.280 0.000
0.10 0.999 0.999 0.901 0.767 0.596 0.390 0.148
0.20 0.992 0.992 0.915 0.805 0.663 0.489 0.283
0.30 0.976 0.976 0.917 0.829 0.713 0.569 0.395
0.40 0.949 0.949 0.905 0.837 0.743 0.624 0.480
0.50 0.911 0.911 0.880 0.827 0.753 0.656 0.537
0.60 0.864 0.864 0.843 0.804 0.744 0.666 0.567
0.70 0.811 0.811 0.799 0.769 0.722 0.658 0.577
0.80 0.756 0.756 0.749 v 0.727 0.690 0.638 0.571
0.90 0.701 0.701 0.698 0.682 0.653 0.610 0.554
1.00 0.646 0.646 0.647 0.635 0.612 0.577 0.530
1.50 0.424 0.424 0.429 0.428 0.420 0.405 0.384
2.00 0.284 0.284 0.290 0.291 0.287 0.280 0.268
2.50 0.200 0.200 0.204 0.205 0.204 0.199 0.192
3.00 0.146 0.146 0.150 0.151 0.150 0.147 0.142
3.50 0.111 0.111 0.114 0.115 0.114 0.112 0.109
4.00 0.087 0.087 0.089 0.090 0.090 0.088 0.086
5.00 0.057 0.057 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.058 0.057

3. Do not use the Fox depth correction factor If.

4. Use an estimated value of Es based on the standard penetration test
(SPT) AT-value or cone penetration test (CPT) qc-value of resistance. Oc-
casionally other methods for Es are used, such as laboratory triaxial tests,
borehole pressuremeter tests, or some kind of seismic tests. The Poisson
ratio is usually taken as 0.3 for dry and wet sands and 0.4 to 0.45 for
saturated sands.

It is evident from Eq. 1 that the use of suitable values of Es, (A, IS and
If gives considerable control over the computed settlement AH.

SUGGESTED COMPUTATION PROCEDURE

From a study of the readily available Boussinesq pressure profiles

(Bowles 1984, p. 343), Schmertmann's (1970) strain profiles and those
that can be obtained from Tables 3 and 4 indicate that for all practical
purposes the soil mass below a depth of 4B-5B has little influence on
the foundation settlement. To have a settlement effect there must be a
measurable strain that can be integrated over a depth increment dz. For
strain to occur there must be a stress change. If this premise is accepted,
then we do not have an infinite depth of soil but rather one with a finite
depth of not over H — 5B, and the Steinbrenner influence factor Is with
the ratio H/B' has substantial significance.
From an examination of the stress and strain profiles, taking the depth
of influence as H = 5B seems reasonable and slightly conservative over
852

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 using H = 4B. This depth gives H/B' ratios for the foundation center of
2H/B = 10 and at a corner H/B' = H/B = 5. Obviously, if a hard stratum
is encountered before the depth 5B is reached, the depth H should be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to that point, Since "hard"—other than rock—is subjective, one must

use judgment: e.g., for rock use its depth, for SPT "refusal" use that
depth, for dense sand study the vertical profile and use some preset
ratio of N, qc or Es of the looser and dense adjacent layers. Alternatively,
one could use weighting factors to give more (or less) effect on the set-
tlement from strata in the zone of influence that are significantly more
loose or dense.
An additional rationale for using only a partial stratum depth is that
the stress-strain modulus Es generally increases with depth in homoge-
neous sand deposits and would be much larger at 5B than at the foun-
dation base. This consideration also suggests that one should use an
average value of Es over the depth H and not the value in the zone of
B to IB beneath the foundation. The author recommends a weighted
average rather than a simple averaging of values. The weighted average
is computed as
n

Additional weighting can be used as necessary with corresponding ad-

justments in both H{ and H. For example, if the i = 2 stratum of value
H = 2 m is considered to be twice as critical, then use H2 = 2 x 2 = 4
m and H becomes H + 2. If SPT or CPT data are used, substitute N or
qc for ES1 in Eq. 5.
While the Poisson ratio may depend on overburden pressure, density
and other factors, it is usual to use a single value for the zone of influ-
ence with the value estimated. Values cited previously are commonly
used. Because of measuring difficulties, the Poisson ratio is seldom de-
termined by soil tests; however, if you have test values they should be
used.

STEINBRENNER INFLUENCE FACTOR

The Steinbrenner influence factor is for the settlement of the corner

of a rectangular, flexible, uniformly loaded area of dimensions B' XL'.
There are four corner contributions making up the settlement of any
point beneath a foundation except the sides (two corner contributions)
or a corner. In most cases a side or centerpoint settlement is to be es-
timated.
The ratio L'/B' is always a 1. For round foundations one should con-
vert to an equivalent square to obtain Is.
The Steinbrenner equation can be solved for sufficient cases of L'/B'
and H/B' to produce a table (as Table 1) to minimize interpolation. In
use one locates the point of interest and subdivides the foundation plan
into sufficient rectangles with a common corner over the point of inter-
est. Each rectangle has an L'/B' and H/B' ratio to obtain a value of Is.
For that rectangle with the foundation contact pressure, E s , |x, and B',
853

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 a settlement AH can be computed. The final AH is the sum of AH from
the contributing rectangles, which should then be multiplied by the If
factor for the foundation D/B ratio to obtain the design value.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The Steinbrenner influence factors are for a flexible rectangle which is

the case for most practical foundations. A theoretical analysis by Ti-
moshenko and Goodier (1951, p. 372) indicated that a rigid round base
would settle about 93% of a flexible one. On this basis one can estimate
the settlement of a rigid base by computing the settlement of the flexible
base and taking 93%.

STRESS-STRAIN MODULUS £ S

The stress-strain modulus has a major influence on the computed elas-

tic settlement using any current analysis method. This value can be ob-
tained using any reasonable method. For sand, where sample recovery
is difficult for laboratory tests, some kind of in-situ test is used. Bowles
(1982, Table 5) tabulates empirical equations from several sources for use
with SPT (N) and CPT (qc) data to estimate Es. Values of Es computed
in the following discussion and shown in Table 5 that were not either
given in the cited references or obtained by other means such as seismic
tests were computed as follows:
Cone: Es = 2.5 to 3qc (units of qc)
SPT: Es = 10(N + 15) (units of ksf)
Cone multiplier values range from 1.5 to 8.0 in the literature and there
are a large number of SPT equations. However, the above are simple to

TABLE 5.—Comparison of Computed versus Measured Settlement for Number of

Cases Provided by Reference Sources Cited
Settlement (in.)
Nor Es Ap Com- Mea-
Reference H(ft) B (ft) L/B D/B 1c (ksf) » (ksf) ls h puted sured
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
D'Appolonia, et
al. (1968) 4B 12.5 1.6 0.5 25" 1,200 0.33 3.4 0.589 0.75 0.33 0.3-0.4
Schmertmann
(1970)
Case 1 5B 8.5 8.8 0.78 40 310 0.4 3.74 0.805 0.87 1.45 1.53
Case 2 5B 9.8 4.2 1.0 120 620 0.3 3.34 0.774 0.75 0.67 0.8-0.9
Case 5 5B 62.0 1.0 0.0 65 350 0.45 1.56 0.50 1.0 2.64 2.48
Case 6 B 87.0 2.2 0.1 90 230 0.3 4.14 0.349 0.98 11.7 10.6
Case 8 5B 2.0 1.0 0.55 18 110 0.3 2.28 0.51 0.6 0.35 0.27
Tschebotarioff
(1951) 0.8B 90.0 1.1 0.1 12" 270 0.3 7.2 0.152 0.95 3.9 3.9
Davisson and
Salley (1972) 90 124.0 1.0 0.0 12-30" 390 0.3 3.14 0.255 1.0 5.6 5.3
Fisher, et al.
(1972) 1,700 500.0 1.0 0.2 — 58,200 0.45 7.0 0.472 0.93 0.50 0.50
Webb and
Melvill (1971) 150 177.0 1.0 0.0 _ 1,100 0.3 4.5 0.161 1.0 1.27 1.50
Swiger (1974) 4B 32.0 1.0 0.0 _ 3,900 0.3 2.75 0.493 1.0 0.24 0.24
Kantey (1965) 3.5B 20.0 1.0 0.0 50 260 0.3 4.0 0.483 1.0 3.25 3.20
a
Af-value, otherwise is qc. Values not shown use other methods for Es.
Note: Units used consistent with references; 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 ksf = 50 kPa; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

854

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 use and seem reasonably reliable—particularly if they are adjusted for
any overconsolidation (increase Es by a factor from 1.5 to 3; see Robert-
son and Campanella 1983) or reduced for sands contaminated with com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pressible materials such as peat or marine shells.

Dynamic values of Es can be obtained using seismic-type field mea-
surements or laboratory methods. These are covered in some detail by
Woods (1978). A dynamic Es is on the order of 2.5-4 times the static
value used in Eq. 1. These dynamic/static Es ratios are inferred from
curves of Arango, et al. (1978). The reduction of the dynamic Es value
is necessary since tests show that the dynamic strain is on the order of
10~4% where static strains are on the order of 10_1%. Soil tends to be
less stiff at higher strain levels.
The weighting procedure described earlier can be used for stratified
sand deposits. Weight factors of 0.5, 2, 3 or more might be used for
relative weights for loose or hard layers in the influence depth.

APPLICATION OF PROCEDURE

The proposed method of using an influence depth not greater than

the sand thickness nor M ^ 5B will be illustrated using available pub-
lished data. Table 5 summarizes data from several sources which, to-
gether with the following brief discussion of cases, should enable the
reader to reproduce the computations for settlement AH shown in Col.
12.

D'Appolonia, et al. (1968)

This footing series was used by Schmertmann (1970, case 16) but the
original reference was used in preparing Table 5. Several footing sizes
were used in the reference but only a typical 12.5 x 20 ft footing is used
here. Both L/B and D/B ratios are those given in the reference. Inspec-
tion of the soil profile by the author and the footing size suggested using
H = 4B. The stress-strain modulus Es was computed based on an average
N = 25 in the depth H and using
£s = 3 x 10(25 + 15) = 1,200 ksf (6)
which compares well with approximately 1,200 ksf obtained from Fig.
44 of the closure. The factor 3 above was included since the sand was
reported to be either heavily overconsolidated or compacted where ex-
cavation occurred. Both the Poisson ratio and Aq were given in the ref-
erence with A*/ being the average of 40 and 70% of the 3 tsf design foot-
ing pressure.

Schmertmann (1970)
Cases labelled 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 are taken from Tables 2 and 3 of this
reference. Case 1 was rechecked with the original source and a weight-
ing of qc based on strata thicknesses was used. In cases 1, 2, 5 and 6,
the stress-strain modulus used Es = 2.5qc. A value of 3qc was used in
case 8 to account for qc being measured with very little overburden pres-
sure (depth of 0 to B below a 2 X 2 ft square plate). In this case one
might question the validity of using Eq. 1 to compute plate-load test
855

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 settlements because of scale effects and small measured values.
Case 5 used the Poisson ratio = 0.45 for the soil being saturated be-
neath the loaded area.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For case 6, Es was reduced 50% to account for the higher compressi-
bility of the sand with shell contaminations.
While Schmertmann used Es = 2qc in this reference, he later suggests
that the multiplier should be 2.5 for square and 3.5 for long footings
(Schmertmann 1978).

Tschebotarioff (1951)
This data was used by Schmertmann as case 9a, but the author re-
ferred back to the original source with a slightly different interpretation.
Inspection of the boring log indicated H = 0.8B. Using qc = 80 kg/cm 2
is reasonable; however, the SPT N-value is suggested since at the time
of this data collection cone penetration was a recent method and, more
importantly, it was stated in the reference that the sand was "loose."
Using an average value of N gives Es = 270 ksf. The contact pressure Aq
was given. The settlement of a corner of the foundation is computed
here since the reference gave a settlement plot indicating that the foun-
dation was somewhat rigid and tilted. The computed result included so
much estimation that it was not reduced 7% for the base being rigid.
In passing, note that there is reasonably good computed and mea-
sured settlement agreement using N but the CPT data require using Es
= 1.6qc to obtain a computational agreement similar to the measured
value.

Davisson and Salley (1972)

For tank A of the reference with a diameter = 140 ft, obtain an equiv-
alent B = 124 ft. From the paper take H = 90 ft, (JL = 0.3 and, for H/B'
= 1.5, compute ls = 0.255 and for the tank on the ground surface use If
= 1.
Compute Es using the given SPT data as follows: for a depth of 0-30
ft, N = 12 and Es = 10(12 + 15) = 270 ksf; for a depth of 30-90 ft, N =
30 and Es = 450 ksf. Note that there are zones of "refusal" in the 30-
90-ft depth. Obtain the simple weighted average of Es as
(30 x 270 + 60 X 450)
Es = ^ = 390 ksf (7)
w
90
Refer to Table 5 for Aq and the computed settlement using these data.
Fisher, et al. (1972)
The boring log displayed sand from a depth of about 77-1,800 ft. The
mat foundation was placed on the sand at a depth of 100 ft. The mat
width B = 500 ft gives D/B = 0.2. The sand was saturated, so take ^ =
0.45. The stress-strain modulus is computed from dynamic data using
the measured shear wave velocity as:

(8)
* - > / ? • • • •••
Using the given vs = 3,500 ft/s and soil density, p = 132/32.2 gives G
856

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 = 50,200 ksf. With this data the static value of Es can be computed as
Es = 0.40 X 50,200 X [2(1 + 0.45)] = 58,200 ksf , (9)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The 40% factor used here is in the range of 2.5-4 noted earlier (as also
suggested by Arango, et al. 1978; and Swiger 1974).

Webb and Melvill (1971)

Using data for tank 1108, the weighted value of Es is estimated as:
(2 x 30 x 3 + 40 x 8 + 30 x 10 + 50 x 12)
Es = 144 - — - = 1,100 ksf . . . (10)
180
The factor 144 converts the given values of Es in pounds per square inch
to ksf. The first layer uses a weight factor of 2 since the sand was "loose"
and this is immediate to the base. This gives the weighted H = 150 +
30 = 180 ft shown. The tank diameter of 200 ft is converted to an equiv-
alent square of B = 177 ft and [i = 0.3. The settlement is measured at
the tank edge, so use the corner of the equivalent square. With this,
obtain H/B' = 150/177 = 0.85 and Is is computed as 0.161 and for D/B
= 0 obtain If = 1.
The effective depth of 150 ft is selected from the soil profile by taking
the effective depth to the stratum where the given Es is 2+ that in the
depth from 100 to 150 feet.

Swiger (1974)
The information furnished indicated that the square mat had an area
of 985 sq ft, so use B = 32 X 32 ft with the given Aq = 2.75 ksf. A
benchmark had been installed at 120 ft so taking H = 4B seems proper.
Table 2 of the reference provided values of Es = 3,900 ksf and |x = 0.3.

Kantey (1965)
The boring log shows a hard clay layer at 65-70 ft depth overlying a
very dense sand and then bedrock. It is reasonable to take H = 70 ft (H/
B' = 7). The cone soundings show an approximate average of qc = 715
lb/sq in. (50 kg/cm 2 ) and, taking Es = 2.5qc, obtain Es = 260 ksf. Take
the Poisson ratio = 0.3 and for the 20 x 20 ft square plate compute Is
= 0.483 and If = 1 for D/B = 0.

ANALYSIS

Table 5 indicates that quite reasonable elastic settlements of founda-

tions over sand deposits can be computed that may correlate well with
future settlement observations.
The reader can readily verify the computations to produce the values
of Es and AH shown in Table 5. Adjusting data to make the computed
settlement agree with the measured values is minimal and well within
the range of parameters one would use in making a settlement com-
putation without the benefit of knowing in advance what one should
compute.
In all the examples, the stratum depth was a best estimate of the sand
layer, or of the sand layer(s) contributing a significant amount of settle-
857

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 ment. In the case where additional weighting was used, the weight fac-
tor is not unreasonable considering the "loose" sand was adjacent to the
foundation. The case of terminating the influence depth because the next
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stratum was over two times as stiff as the adjacent layer would seem
reasonable as well—particularly where the depth is such that the Bous-
sinesq stress would be quite low anyway.
In the examples, the stress-strain modulus does not seem excessively
manipulated. Basically the same equation was used for all cases with
adjustments made for overconsolidation and the presence of compress-
ible materials. The remaining manipulation was to obtain a "weighted"
average N or CPT value.
In most of the examples the Poisson ratio was already given, but this
factor does not generally affect the computed settlement significantly.
The examples illustrate that there is a need to reduce the Is factor ra-
tionally so that computed settlements are more in agreement with mea-
sured values.

SUMMARY

Use of the common elastic settlement equation for a foundation on

sand has been examined. It is shown by several examples taken from
published literature that this equation can given computed values in good
agreement with measured settlements. The examples have been suffi-
ciently referenced and discussed so that the reader may make an in-
dependent assessment of the computational reliability.
It is necessary to consider the actual depth of the sand or the depth
to firm strata, or a maximum influence depth of D = 5B to obtain the
computational agreement.
It is not necessary to make excessive adjustments in the elastic param-
eters Es and \L of the soil. It is shown by example that using CPT data
with a multiplier of 2.5-3.0 produces a reasonable value of stress-strain
modulus. For SPT data the equations Es = 10(N + 15) (ksf) and Es =
500(N + 15) (KPa) seem to provide adequate values. For either type of
field data, one must make some adjustment for overconsolidation, over-
burden pressure (if very low), and for the presence of compressible con-
taminants such as peat or shells.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

Ahlvin, R. G., and Ulery, H. H. (1962). "Tabulated values for determining the
complete pattern of stresses, strains, and deflections beneath a uniform load
on a homogeneous half space." Highway Research Board Bull. No. 342, 1-13.
Arango, I., Moriawaki, Y., and Brown, F. (1978). "In-situ and laboratory shear
velocity and modulus." Proc, ASCE Specialty Conference on Earthquake En-
gineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 1, 198-212.
Bowles, J. E. (1984). Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soils, 2nd ed., McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y., 578 pages.
Bowles, J. E. (1982). Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, N.Y., 815 pages.
Christian, J. T., and Carrier, W. D., III. (1978). "Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli's
chart reinterpreted." Canadian Geotech. J. 15(1), Feb., 123-128 (see also discus-
sion in Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4).
858

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 D'Appolonia, D. J., D'Appolonia, E. E., and Brissette, R. (1968). "Settlement of
spread footings on sand." /. So/7 Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 94(3), May, 735-
760 (also closure, 96(2), 1970, Fig. 44).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Davisson, M. T., and Salley, J. R. (1972). "Settlement histories of four large tanks
on sand." Proc, Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported
Structures, ASCE, Purdue Univ., Vol. 1, Part 2, 981-996.
Fischer, J. A., Dette, J. T., and Singh, H. (1972). "Settlement of a large mat on
sand." Proc, Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Struc-
tures, ASCE, Purdue Univ., Vol. 1, Part 2, 997-1018.
Fox, E. N. (1948). "The mean elastic settlement of a uniformly loaded area at a
depth below the ground surface." Proc, 2nd International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engrg., Rotterdam, Vol. 1, 129-132.
Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L., and Kjaernsli, B. (1956). Norwegian Geotech. Inst. Pub. No.
16, Oslo, Norway.
Kantey, B. A. (1965). "Session 5: shallow foundations and pavements." Proc,
6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Montreal, Canada, 3,
453-455.
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. (1983). "Interpretation of cone pene-
tration results, part 1: sand." Canadian Geotech. J., 20(4), 718-783.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1978). "Guidelines for cone penetration tests, U.S. De-
partment of Transportation." FHWA-TS-78-209, 49 pages.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1970). "Static cone to compute static settlement over sand."
/. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE 96(3), May, 1011-1012 (see also
closure in SM 12, 1971).
Steinbrenner, W. (1934). "Tafeln zur setzungsberschnung." Die Strasse, Vol. 1,
Oct., 121-124 (also in Library of Congress).
Swiger, W. F. (1974). "Evaluation of soil moduli." Proc, Conf. on Analysis and
Design in Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, Austin, Tex., Vol. 2, 79-92.
Taylor, B. B., and Matyas, E. L. (1983). "Influence factors for settlement esti-
mates of footings on finite layers." Canadian Geotech. J., 20(4), 832-835.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
N.Y., 510 pages.
Timoshenko, S., and Goodier, J. N. (1951). Theory of Elasticity, 2nd ed. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y., 506 pages (also in 3rd ed., 1970).
Tschebotarioff, G. P. (1973). Foundations, Retaining and Earth Structures, 2nd ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y., 43-55, 154-155 (also in 1st ed., 1951,
pp. 357, 379).
Webb, D. L., and Melvill, A. L. (1971). Discussion of "Static cone to compute
static settlement over sand," J. H. Schmertmann. /. Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dations Div., ASCE, 97(3), 587-589.
Woods, R. D. (1978). "Measurement of dynamic soil properties." Proc, ASCE
Specialty Conf. on Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dynamics, 1, 91-178.

APPINDIX II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

B,B' = foundation width;

D = depth of foundation base below g r o u n d surface;
Es = soil stress-strain modulus (or m o d u l u s of elasticity);
G = soil shear modulus, G = E s /[2(1 + |x)];
H = depth of compressible soil strata below foundation base;
AH = foundation settlement;
If = Fox settlement influence factor (as in Table 2);
Is = Steinbrenner settlement influence factor;
I2 = Schmertmann's strain factor;
K 5= ratio of lateral to vertical stress, K = ax/az;

859

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860

 L,U = foundation length, L g B;
m = ratio L'/B';
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 10/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N = standard penetration test blow count;

n = ratio H/B';
1c = cone penetration resistance;
Ag = foundation-to-soil contact pressure (footing pressure);
R,r = radius of round foundation;
e2 = vertical strain;
M- = Poisson's ratio; and
o-/ = stress, i = 3 coordinate axes (x,y,z).

860

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1987, 113(8): 846-860