Chapter 4

Immediate settlement and its

contribution to total settlement

4.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter the procedures to calculate vertical stress increments due to differ-
ent loads were described. Geotechnical design requires a structure to be safe and service-
able. In terms of serviceability you have studied issues related to consolidation settlement.
This chapter expands that understanding through an examination of the contribution of
immediate settlement to total settlement.

Total settlement is the sum of the immediate and the consolidation settlement. While
consolidation settlement is a long-term time-dependent settlement, immediate settlement
is a short term, instantaneous settlement that generally occurs during construction.

Although experimental data from oedometer tests does not distinguish between immedi-
ate and consolidation settlement, the distinction between these two types of settlement
is important. The combination of immediate and long-term settlement has significant
implication on construction stages. The fixing of a brittle façade, easily damaged by ex-
cessive settlement, may not be a problem if the major settlement occurs instantaneously,
i.e. during the construction phase and before the façade is fixed.

However, separating immediate from consolidation settlement is not the only issue when
considering consolidation data. In the oedometer the presence of a stiff circular ring sur-
rounding the sample inhibits lateral bulging (i.e. lateral strain is not possible, deformation
is one-dimensional). In real engineering scenarios, such as beneath a pad or raft footing,
ground movements can occur in two or even three dimensions. It is the immediate ad-
justment of the ground, in two or three dimensions, that we are interested in quantifying.
Calculation of settlement, in the same way as stress increments in the previous chapter is
largely based on elastic methods.

23
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

4.2 Total and differential settlement

Before studying how to calculate immediate and total settlement it is important to note
that total settlement can mask local variations (i.e. differential settlement). The distinc-
tion between differential and total settlement is important when considering the integrity
of a façade for example. While differential settlement may cause important damage, rel-
atively large total settlement may be tolerated. Note however that total settlement can
have an impact on the service connections if its magnitude is very large (i.e. drainage
systems, electrical and heating ducts, etc).

Figure 4.1: Effects of differential and total settlement on structures

In the case of pad footings, differential settlements arise from a combination of individual
column loadings and heterogeneous soil conditions. The same can be said of rafts, but to
a lesser extent because of the stiffening effect of the raft.

Intuitively, you can always design a very thick, reinforced, and very rigid raft that can be
able to support differing column loads and bridge underlying soft spots that naturally occur
in real soils. Note however that this involves a much greater expense. The resulting raft is
a lot heavier causing greater total settlement. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous
chapter, a rigid foundation can generate a quite different contact pressure distribution
depending on the nature of the soil (see Figure 4.2). The consequence of these contact
distributions are a non-uniform settlement profile.

4.2.1 Limiting values for differential settlement

At this stage is important to mention that tolerances for differential settlement are nor-
mally defined by deflection ratios and relative rotation as illustrated in Figure 4.3. The
difficulty of predicting differential settlement led to design based on observations of differ-
ential settlement as a function of total settlement.

In sands differential settlement rarely exceeds 75% of the maximum, and most structures
can withstand 20 mm of settlement. Therefore for pad foundations a maximum total

24
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

Figure 4.2: Effects of foundation stiffness on contact pressures for different soil types

Figure 4.3: Definition of deflection ratios and relative rotation caused by differential set-
tlement (Burland & Wroth 1975)

25
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

settlement of 25 mm has been postulated. For raft foundations the maximum settlement
was increased to 50 mm. In clays, the design limit for maximum differential settlement is
40 mm, with total settlement of 65 mm for isolated pads.

As further guidance Bjerrum (1963) pointed out that in terms of the angular distortion
as defined in Figure 4.3 structural damage is caused when δ/L = 6.6 × 10−3 and cracking
in walls is normally evident when δ/L = 2.0 × 10−3 .

4.3 Elasticity theory

Elasticity theory was mentioned in the context of the calculation of vertical stress incre-
ments in Chapter 7.3. It was pointed that the vertical stress increments were independent
of the material properties and depended only on the position of the point where the stress
increment was required. This gives confidence on the results provided by these methods
when calculation of stresses is performed.

A different picture is generated when calculation of strains (i.e. deformations or settle-

ment) is attempted. According to the simplest of elastic theories, Hooke’s law, the force
acting on a elastic spring is proportional to the displacement generated by that force.
Therefore:

F = kx (4.1)

where F is the force, k is constant of proportionality (material property of the spring) and
x is the resulting displacement. In soil mechanics terms the previous equation is normally
expressed in terms of stress and strain as:

∆σ
²= (4.2)
E

where ² is the strain, ∆σ is the stress increment and E is the Young’s modulus. The
Young’s modulus is similar to the spring constant k in Equation 4.1 and represents a soil
property as if the soil were a spring that can deform upon loading and unloading. In
more practical terms, Hooke’s law can be used to calculate consolidation settlements from
oedometer tests as:

S = ∆σmv H (4.3)

where mv is the coefficient of volume compressibility and H is the thickness of the sample.
However, as mentioned before, under a pad footing or a raft, incremental loadings are
two and sometimes three dimensional. This only complicates matters. Considering the
generalised (three dimensional) case of Hooke’s law:

26
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

1
²1 = (∆σ1 − ν∆σ2 − ν∆σ3 ) (4.4)
E

some confidence can be gained when determining σ1 and mv (which is related to E) from
oedometer tests, but under two or three dimensional stresses, what are σ2 , σ3 , ν and
E? A large amount of work has been done to give a reasonable prediction of settlements
considering these issues as discussed in the following sections.

4.4 Immediate settlement under footings

There are several approaches to calculate immediate settlements under footings. Different
approaches include variable assumptions. Furthermore, they are dependent on the type
of soil. Methods for the calculation of settlement on clays are presented first.

4.4.1 Terzaghi (1943) and Giroud (1968)

This method is normally used for the calculation of settlement on clays. Its definition
comes as a consequence of the elastic solution for the vertical stress increment under the
corner of an uniformly loaded area presented in Chapter 7.3. Therefore, the solution
provides the immediate settlement under the corner of a flexible foundation overlying an
infinite soil depth and it is calculated as:

¡ ¢
qB 1 − ν 2 Ip
si = (4.5)
E

where q is the applied stress, B is the width of the footing, ν is the Poisson’s ratio and
E is the elastic (Young’s) modulus. Influence factors Ip are obtained from the chart in
Figure 4.4 provided by (Terzaghi 1943) or Table 4.1 published by (Giroud 1968).

L/B Ip L/B Ip L/B Ip L/B Ip

1.0 0.561 1.6 0.698 2.4 0.822 5.0 1.052
1.1 0.588 1.7 0.716 2.5 0.835 6.0 1.110
1.2 0.613 1.8 0.734 3.0 0.892 7.0 1.159
1.3 0.636 1.9 0.750 3.5 0.940 8.0 1.201
1.4 0.658 2.0 0.766 4.0 0.982 9.0 1.239
1.5 0.679 2.2 0.795 4.5 1.019 10.0 1.272

Table 4.1: Influence factors for the calculation of immediate settlement (Giroud 1968)

Although the mathematical calculation of immediate settlement seems to be easy once the
influence factors are known, the major limitation of the method is the determination of
the stiffness modulus and Poisson’s ratio. From triaxial results, the stiffness modulus can
be found determining the slope of the line of a graph of axial strain vs deviatoric strain
as:

27
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

Figure 4.4: Influence factors for the calculation of immediate settlement under the corner
of a footing on the semi-infinite soil space

1
²1 = (σ1 − σ3 ) (4.6)
E

However, sample disturbance means moduli obtained in this way can be unreliable, there-
fore in-situ tests (i.e. plate loading tests) are often suggested. In the absence of experi-
mental results Tomlinson (1986) suggests the use of empirical ratios. A selection of these
parameters are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Soil E/cu Source

London clay (OC) 400 Butler
NC clay 500-1500 Bjerrum
Glacial till 348 Marsland
Glacial clay 548 Marsland

Table 4.2: Empirical ratios for the stiffness modulus (Tomlinson 1986)

Soil ν
Saturated clay 0.4-0.5
Unsaturated clay 0.1-0.3
Sandy clay 0.2-0.3
Silt 0.3-0.35
Dense sand 0.15-0.25

Table 4.3: Empirical values for Poisson’s ratio (Tomlinson 1986)

4.4.2 Steinbrenner (1934)

Infinite soil depths are by no means the only subsurface condition upon which founda-
tions are placed. Using the same general expression for immediate settlement as Terza-

28
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

Figure 4.5: Influence factors for the calculation of immediate settlement under the corner
of a footing on the finite soil space

ghi/Giroud, Steinbrenner (1934) calculated influence factors for shallow foundations lo-
cated on a finite soil depth D. There are two contributions to the influence factor; they
are F1 and F2 , both are dependent on L/B and D/B as illustrated in the chart presented
in Figure 4.5. They are combined to give:

1 − 2ν
Is = F1 + F2 (4.7)
1−ν

In this case, the same equation is used to calculate the immediate settlement. Consequently
the limitation related to the determination of the elastic (Young’s modulus) and Poisson’s
ratio remain the same.

4.4.3 Skempton and Bjerrum (1957)

As mentioned before, the heterogeneities in real soil profiles compromise the assumption
of zero lateral strain encountered in oedometer tests. The methods proposed by Terza-
ghi/Giroud and Steinbrenner can be used if this assumption is justified. Under certain
situations significant displacements can occur in two or three dimensions. Skempton &
Bjerrum (1957) addressed the problem on clayey soils through considering both the im-
mediate and consolidation settlement. That is:

st = si + sc (4.8)

where st is the total settlement, sc is the immediate settlement occurring during undrained
conditions (i.e. no volume change) as calculated in the previous sections, and sc is the con-
solidation settlement. Under undrained conditions, Poisson’s ratio is 0.5 and the stiffness
modulus E can be obtained from triaxial tests, in-situ tests or empirical correlations.

Skempton & Bjerrum (1957) proposed that the effect of lateral straining can be neglected in

29
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

the calculation of consolidation settlement, thus allowing the oedometer to continue as the
basis of the method. However, they stated that an adjustment for pore pressure changes
has to be included instead. These assumptions are the result of a physical sequence:

1. A vertical stress increment produces vertical strain and also lateral strain (bulging)

2. Bulging produces and increment in horizontal stress that in turn reduces the amount
of lateral straining produced by the vertical stress increment

Since there is deformation in the vertical and horizontal directions, the increase of vertical
stress will never be equal to the increment of pore water pressure during undrained con-
ditions. Therefore an adjustment accounting for this was required. The outcome of their
work was a modified expression for total settlement,

st = si + µsoed (4.9)

where µ is a settlement coefficient taking typical values as presented in Table 4.4. This
coefficient accounts for the adjustment in pore water pressure.

Soil µ
Soft, sensitive clays 1.0-1.2
Normally consolidated clays 0.6-1.0
Lightly overconsolidated clays 0.4-0.7
Heavily overconsolidated clays 0.3-0.35

Table 4.4: Typical values for the settlement coefficient µ

4.4.4 Burland and Burbidge (1985)00.

All the settlement prediction methods described in the previous sections are related to
clays. Numerous methods of predicting settlement of foundations on sands and gravels
have been published, many more than for clays. The reason for that is the inherent
difficulty to obtain undisturbed sand samples. As a consequence, most methods are based
on the interpretation of results of in-situ tests such as SPT, CPT and plate loading tests.

Burland & Burbidge (1985) compiled a large database of these in-situ tests results and
provided an empirical equation for the calculation of immediate settlement (in mm) in
sands and gravels as:

·µ ¶ ¸
2 0 0.7
si = fs × f1 × q − σv0 ×B × Ic (4.10)
3

where q is the uniform applied pressure (in kPa), σv00 is the maximum previous effective

stress (to account for normal or overconsolidated sands), B is the breadth of the footing
(in m) and Ic is a compressibility index which can be obtained from Figure 4.6. Note that

30
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

Ic is determined as a function of N the blow count from SPT tests. Therefore results from
SPT and plate loading tests must be modified accordingly. Furthermore fs is a shape
correction factor given by:

Figure 4.6: Influence factors for the calculation of immediate settlement in sands and
gravels (Burland & Burbidge 1985)

· ¸2
1.25L/B
fs = (4.11)
(L/B) + 0.25

where L is the length of the footing and B the breadth of the footing. The term f1 is a
correction factor for the thickness of the sand layer and is calculated as:

µ ¶
D D
f1 = 2− (4.12)
zi zi

where D is the thickness of the sand layer beneath the foundation and zi is the the depth
of influence obtained from Figure 4.7.

31
4. Immediate settlement and its contribution to total settlement

Figure 4.7: Depth of influence for the calculation of f1 (Burland & Burbidge 1985)

Note that an expression for the long term settlement was also proposed by Burland &
Burbidge (1985), therefore the total settlement, as a sum of the immediate and long-term
settlement can be estimated. Refer to Burland & Burbidge (1985) for further details.

32