Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/250211829
CITATIONS READS
42 4,911
2 authors, including:
Nagaratnam Sivakugan
James Cook University
197 PUBLICATIONS 2,104 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development and use of recycled plastic fibres in concrete applications View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nagaratnam Sivakugan on 11 October 2016.
1 2
Braja M. Das* and Nagaratnam Sivakugan
ABSTRACT: The main objective of this paper is to review the current state-of-the-art for predicting settlements of shallow
foundations in granular soils. The traditional settlement prediction methods are critically reviewed. The Settlement ’94 predic-
tion session held in Texas clearly showed the deficiencies in the present settlement prediction methods, which generally over-
estimate the settlements and underestimate the allowable pressures, making the foundation designs very conservative. Some
recent developments, including two deterministic methods and a probabilistic approach, are discussed as they have significant
potential to improve the current state-of-the-art. Several empirical correlations relating the modulus of elasticity of soil and
penetration resistances and standard penetration and cone penetration tests are summarized.
KEYWORDS: Shallow foundations, granular soils, settlements, empirical correlations, Settlement ’94
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2007) 1: (19–29) J. Ross Publishing, Inc. © 2007
DOI 10.3328/IJGE.2007.01.01.19-29
20 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Calculated settlement bility among all methods. Terzaghi and Peck (1948) and
Settlement ratio (x) =
fx(x) Measured settlement Schmertmann (1970) methods appear to have high reliability
and poor accuracy, reflecting their conservativeness. On the
other hand, Burland and Burbidge (1985) and Berardi and
Lancellotta (1991) methods have good accuracy, with values
close to unity, but low reliability.
Footing dimensions (m) 1.0 × 1.0 1.5 × 1.5 2.5 × 2.5 3.0 × 3.0 3.0 × 3.0
Q150/2.5 (Allowable load with FS = 2.5) 696 1360 2840 4100 3600
Q150/3.0 (Allowable load with FS = 3.0) 580 1133 2367 3417 3000
Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview 21
govern the failure of all footings, as opposed to the common Applied pressure (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
belief that the settlement considerations are more critical. 0
This is probably due to the overestimations in the settlement Very dense
prediction methods that result in underestimation of the 10
Dense
allowable pressures. N60 = 50
Settlement (mm)
20
A total of 22 different methods were used by the partici- Medium
pants, with Schmertmann (1970, 1978), Burland and 30
Burbidge (1985) and finite element analysis being more pop- Loose
40
ular. Table 1 shows that the quality of predictions were better
for Q150 than Q25, emphasizing the poor state-of-the-art for 50
settlement predictions of shallow foundations in sands. N60 = 30
N60 = 10
60
3. TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PREDICTION Figure 2. Pressure-settlement plot of a 300 mm square plate in sands
with N60 = 10, 30 and 50 (load test data from Late Professor G.A.
METHODS Leonards).
⎛ 2B ⎞ ⎛ D f ⎞
2
where
δ footing = δ plate × ⎜ 1−
⎝ B + 0.3 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 4B ⎟⎠
(1)
σ o at 0.5B below the bottom of the foundattion
CW = (7)
The last term in Eq. 1 accounts for the depth of embedment. σ o′ at 0.5B below the bottom of the foundation
Presence of water table in the vicinity of the footing is
σo = total overburden stress
reflected in the blow count and therefore a separate correc-
σ´o= effective overburden stress
tion for water table is not warranted. Nevertheless, rise of 0.5
water table, while in service, can reduce the stiffness and pro- ⎛ γ Df ⎞
C D = 1.0 − 0.4 ⎜ ⎟ (8)
duce additional settlements. ⎝ q ⎠
Meyerhof (1965) noted the conservativeness in his previ-
ous method (Meyerhof, 1956) and the modified expression γ = unit weight of soil
for the settlement is: The relationships for (N1)60 are:
1.33q(kPa) 4N 60
δ footing (mm) = for B ≤ 1.22 (2) (N1 )60 = (for σ o′ ≤ 75 kN/m2 )
N 60 1 + 0.04σ o′ (9)
2
0.53q(kPa) ⎛ 2B ⎞
δ footing (mm) = ⎜⎝ B + 0.3 ⎟⎠ for B > 1.22 m (3) and
N 60
22 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
1
B B B
=
L
1
B/
=
L
B/
lz peak
(see Eq 14)
1
L<
B/
2B 2B 2B
0<
=0
B/L
=0
B/L
3B 3B 3B
4B 4B 4B
(a) Schmertmann (1970) (b) Schmertmann et al. (1978) (c) Terzaghi et al. (1996)
z z z
Figure 3. Iz – z variation: (a) Schmertmann (1970), (b) Schmertmann et al. (1978), (c) Terzaghi et al. (1996).
4N 60 σ o′
(N1 )60 = (for σ ′o > 75 kN/m 2 ) (10) C1 = 1 − 0.5 ≥ 0.5 (12)
3.25 + 0.01σ ′o qnet
1.71
Ic = 1.4 (17) 4. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SETTLEMENT
N 60
PREDICTION METHODS
–
where Ic is in MPa-1, and N60 is the average value of N60 Two recent methods that appear to give better settlement pre-
within the influence depth zI. For overconsolidated granular dictions are the ones proposed by Berardi and Lancellotta
soils, Ic is 1/3 of what is given in Eq. (17). (1991) and Mayne and Poulos (1999). These two methods are
Burland and Burbidge (1985) suggested that the settle- briefly discussed below. Sivakugan and Johnson’s (2004)
ment can be estimated from: probabilistic approach is an effective way of quantifying the
δfooting = qnetIczI (18) risk associated with the settlement prediction methods.
In normally consolidated granular soils, Eq. (18) becomes: 4.1 Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) Method
1.71
δ footing = qnet 1.4 B 0.7 (19) Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) proposed a method to esti-
N 60 mate the elastic settlement which takes into account the vari-
ation of the modulus of elasticity of soil with the strain level.
In overconsolidated granular soils, with preconsolidation This method is also described by Berardi et al. (1991).
pressure of σ′p, Eq. (19) becomes: According to this procedure:
1 1.71 q B
δ footing = qnet 1.4 B 0.7 if q ≤ σ ′p (20) δ footing = I s net
3 N 60 E (25)
24 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Depth, z
0.5
⎛ 4BL ⎞ (a)
where B ′ = ⎜
⎝ π ⎟⎠
= equivalent diameter of a rectangular
1.0
footing 10.0
>30
ν =Poisson’s ratio of soil
5.0
IG =displacement influence factor (Figure 5b)
0.8
IE =settlement coefficient factor to account for depth 2.0
of embedment
IF =rigidity coefficient factor 1.0
0.6
The relationships to estimate IE and IF are:
G
1
IE = 1 − 0.4 0.5
⎡⎛ B ′ ⎞ ⎤ (30)
3.5 exp(1.22 ν − 0.4) ⎢⎜ ⎟ + 1.6 ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ D f ⎠ ⎥⎦ 0.2
Hs lB´ = 0.2
π 1
IF = +
4 ⎛ ⎞ 3
0
⎜ E f ⎟ ⎛ 2t ⎞ (31) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
4.6 + 10 ⎜
B ′ ⎟ ⎜⎝ B ′ ⎟⎠
Eo lkB´
⎜ Eo + k ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ (b)
where Ef = modulus of elasticity of the footing material Figure 5. Solution of Mayne and Poulos: (a) Footing on a compressible
(which is, in most cases, reinforced concrete), t = footing layer; (b) Variation of IG with Eo/kB′ and Hs/B′.
thickness, and k = increase in soil stiffness per unit depth (i.e.,
E = Eo + kz). The above procedure will give good results pro- different settlement prediction methods, which enable the
vided the modulus of elasticity of soil is predicted reasonably designer to quantify the probability that the actual settlement
well. will exceed a specific limiting value. The design chart for lim-
iting settlement value of 25 mm is shown in Figure 6.
4.3 Sivakugan and Johnson’s (2004) It can be seen from Figure 6 that when the settlement
Probabilistic Approach estimated by Terzaghi and Peck or Schmertmann et al.
method is 25 mm, there is only 26% probability that the
Noting the different degrees of scatter associated with the set- actual settlement will exceed 25 mm, demonstrating their
tlement prediction methods, a probabilistic approach is more conservativeness. The Burland and Burbidge method is a
appropriate than the traditional deterministic methods. The clear improvement on the quality of predictions, and the
magnitude of settlement can have different meaning depend- Berardi and Lancellotta method improves this even further.
ing on which method was used for the computations.
Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) developed a probabilistic
framework, based on the settlement records in the literature,
to quantify the risk associated with the settlement prediction
methods. They proposed probabilistic design charts, for four
26 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
0.9
p (actual settlement will exceed 25 mm)
0.8
ta
0.7 cellot
& Lan e
rardi idg
0.6 Be urb
&B
rla nd
Bu t al.
0.5
a nn e
m ertm
Sch k
0.4 h i & Pec
Terzag
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Predicted settlement (mm)
E
= 40 + C(N 60 − 6) for N 60 > 15
pa C = 3 for silt with sand and
Begemann (1974) Silt with sand to
E 12 for gravel with sand gravel with sand
= 40 + C(N 60 + 6) for N 60 <15
pa
E
Trofimenkov (1974) = (350 to 500) log N 60 Sand
pa
0.522
⎛ σ′ ⎞ ⎛ σ′ ⎞ σ o′
Schultze and Melzer (1965) E = ⎜ 301.1logqc – 382.3 o +60.3±50.3⎟ ⎜ o ⎟ for 0 0.8 Dry sand
⎝ pa ⎠ ⎝ pa ⎠ pa
Bogdanovi (1973) E = 1.5qc (for qc > 4 MN/m2) Sand and sandy gravel
E = 1.5 to 1.8qc (for 2 MN/m2 < qc < 4 MN/m2) Silty saturated sand
E = 1.8 to 2.5qc(for 1 MN/m2 < qc < 2 MN/m2) Clayey silt with silty sand, and
E = 2.5 to 3.0qc(for 0.5 MN/m2 < qc < 1 MN/m2) silty saturated sand with silt
5. EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS FOR MODULUS ous site investigation program, their predictions of Q25, the
OF ELASTICITY, E load required to produce 25 mm settlement, were signifi-
cantly less than what was measured, implying that the settle-
One of the main factors that contribute to the uncertainty in ments were overestimated in general. In reality, the
settlement predictions is our inability to quantify the soil geotechnical engineer has access to very limited data from the
stiffness correctly. Soil stiffness, measured by the modulus of field, and the quality of predictions can only be worse.
elasticity, is generally quantified indirectly through the pene- The load test data for the five footings at the above pre-
tration resistances from standard penetration or cone pene- diction sessions showed that, provided the factor of safety is
tration tests. The various empirical correlations relating N60 greater than 2.5, bearing capacity considerations are more
and qc to E are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 respectively. critical than the settlement criterion. It is the poor state-of-
the-art for settlement predictions, which results in overesti-
mation of the settlements and underestimations of the
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS allowable pressures, which leads one to believe that the settle-
ment criterion generally governs the design of shallow foun-
The current state-of-the-art for predictions of the settlements dations in granular soils.
of shallow foundations in granular soils is discussed. The The traditional settlement prediction methods, including
Settlement ′94 prediction session held in Texas clearly showed Terzaghi and Peck (1948), Schmertmann (1970) and Burland
the deficiencies in the current state-of-the-art, where the pre- and Burbidge (1985) are discussed. Two of the most recent
dictions from the 31 international experts varied in a wide methods, proposed by Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) and
range. In spite of having access to the full data from a rigor- Mayne and Poulos (1999) appear to give better and more
28 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
realistic settlement predictions. The probabilistic design chart Ferrent, T.A. (1963). “The prediction of field verification of
presented by Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) can be used to settlements on cohesionless soils.” Proc., 4thAustralia-
estimate the probability that the actual settlement will exceed New Zealand Conf.on Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 11-17.
25 mm in the field, based on the settlements estimated from Jeyapalan, J.K., and Boehm, R. (1986). “Procedures for pre-
the traditional methods. dicting settlements in sands.” Settlements of Shallow
Several empirical correlations relating the modulus of Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: Design and
elasticity of soil to blow count from a standard penetration Performance, Ed. W.O. Martin, ASCE, Seattle, 1-22.
test and cone resistance from a cone penetration test are dis- Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on estimating
cussed. These correlations are quite useful in assessing the soil soil properties for foundation design, Final Report (EL-
stiffness, which is required in the settlement computations. 6800) submitted to Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), Palo Alto, California.
Mayne, P.W., and Poulos, H.G. (1999). “Approximate dis-
REFERENCES placement influence factors for elastic shallow founda-
tions.” J. Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 125(6),
Bachelier, M., and Parez, L. (1965). “Contribution to the
453-460.
study of soil compressibility by means of a cone pen-
Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). “Penetration tests and bearing capac-
etrometer.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. Found. Eng.,
ity of cohesionless soils.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE,
Montreal, 2, 3-7.
82(1), 1-19.
Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R. (1991).
Meyerhof, G.G. (1965). “Shallow foundations.” J. Soil Mech.
“Settlement of shallow foundations in sand: selection of
Found. Div., ASCE, 91(SM2), 21-31.
stiffness of the basis of penetration resistance.”
Papadopoulos, B.P. (1992). “Settlements of shallow founda-
Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Geotech. Special
tions on cohesionless soils.” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE,
Pub. 27, ASCE, 185-200.
118(3), 377-393.
Berardi, R., and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Stiffness of granular
Peck, R.B., and Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. (1969). “Discussion of
soil from field performance.” Geotechnique, 41(1), 149-
Settlement of spread-footings on sand.” J. Soil Mech.
157.
Found. Div., ASCE, 95(SM3), 305-309.
Begemann, H.K.S. (1974). “General report for Central and
Schmertmann, J.H. (1970). “Static cone to compute static set-
Western Europe.” Proc., European Symp. on Penetration
tlement over sand.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE,
Testing, Stockholm.
96(3), 1011-1043.
Bogdanovi_, L. (1973). “Settlement of stiff structures (silos)
Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P., and Brown, P.R. (1978).
founded on soft soil with low penetration resistance.”
“Improved strain influence factor diagrams.” J. Geotech.
Transactions, SR Institute of Testing and Materials,
Eng. Div., ASCE, 104(8), 1131-1135.
Belgrade, 34.
Schultze, E., and Melzer, K.J. (1965). “The determination of
Briaud, J-L., and Gibbens, R.M. (1994). “Predicted and meas-
the density and the modulus of compressibility of non-
ured behaviour of five spread footings on sand.” ASCE,
cohesive soils by soundings.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. Soil
Geotech. Special Pub. 41, 255 pp.
Mech. Found. Eng., Montreal, 1, 354-358.
Buisman, A.S.K. (1940). Groundmechania, Waltman, Delft,
Sivakugan, N., Eckersley, J., and Li, H. (1998). “Settlement
The Netherlands.
predictions using neural networks.” Australian Civil Eng.
Burland, J.B., and Burbidge, M.C. (1985). “Settlement of
Transactions, CE40, 49-52.
foundations on sand and gravel.” Proc., Institution of
Sivakugan, N., and Johnson, K. (2004). “Settlement predic-
Civil Engineers, 78(1), 1325-1381, 1985.
tions in granular soils: a probabilistic approach.”
DeBeer, E.E. (1965). “Bearing capacity and settlement of shal-
Geotechnique, 54(7), 499-502.
low foundations on sand.” Proc., Symp. On Bearing
Tan, C.K., and Duncan, J.M. (1991). “Settlement of footings
Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke University,
on sands: accuracy and reliability.” Proc., Geotech. Eng.
Durham, NC, 15-33.
Congress 1991, Colorado, 1, 446-455.
DeBeer, E.E. (1974). “Interpretation of the results of static
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engi-
penetration tests.” Group IV Report: European Symp. on
neering practice, 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New
Penetration Testing, Stockholm, Sweden.
York.
Douglas, D.J. (1986). “State-of-the-art.” Ground engineering,
19(2), 2-6
Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview 29