European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering

ISSN: 1964-8189 (Print) 2116-7214 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20

Analytical model to predict building deflections

induced by ground movements

Bakri Basmaji, Olivier Deck & Marwan Al Heib

To cite this article: Bakri Basmaji, Olivier Deck & Marwan Al Heib (2017): Analytical model to
predict building deflections induced by ground movements, European Journal of Environmental and
Civil Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2017.1282382

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1282382

Published online: 10 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tece20

Download by: [University of Regina] Date: 01 March 2017, At: 05:27

European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1282382

Analytical model to predict building deflections induced by ground

movements
Bakri Basmajia*, Olivier Decka and Marwan Al Heibb
a
GeoRessources Laboratory, CNRS, CREGU, Ecole des Mines de Nancy, Université de Lorraine,
Nancy, France; bINERIS, Ecole des Mines de Nancy, Nancy, France
(Received 19 February 2016; accepted 10 January 2017)

The building relative deflection is a parameter used to assess the level of the damage
of the building when influenced by ground movements due to tunnelling or subsi-
dence. The goal of this paper is to improve an analytical model that can predict the
building-relevant relative deflection, induced by ground movements, by considering
the soil–structure interaction phenomena. The Pasternak model is investigated to take
into account the influence of the shear strain in the ground. The building is modelled
with a Euler–Bernoulli beam placed on an initially deflected ground equivalent to the
free-field ground movements. The static and the cinematic equilibrium of both the
ground and the building are calculated to assess the transmitted building deflection.
Mechanical parameters of the soil of the analytical models are discussed, and a
methodology is developed to determine their values. Final results are compared with
numerical finite element models (CESAR-LCPC) with a good agreement. They show
the importance of the shear deformation of the soil that must be taken into account
for a more confident prediction of the transmitted building deflection. To facilitate
the operational use of the results, an abacus, relating the deflection ratio to the
relative stiffness, is plotted.
Keywords: analytical model; Pasternak model; Winkler model; soil–structure
interaction; ground movement; deflection

Introduction
Ground movements may lead to significant building damage. A prediction of building
damage due to these ground movements is required in the case of engineering projects
(tunnelling excavation, underground cavity collapses). Free-field ground movements can
be predicted in free-field context (Kratzsch, 1983; National Coal Board, 1975; Peck,
1969; Whittaker & Reddish, 1989). However, these movements may be significantly
modified by the influence of the existing structures. The prediction of the final move-
ment transmitted to the structure in relation to free-field movements and soil–structure
interaction (SSI) is a key issue to assess the building damage, since the final building
deflection can be used to assess the building damage with a set of threshold values
(Boscardin & Cording, 1989).
Several methods may be used to study the behaviour of structures and their
vulnerability in areas with ground movements (mines or tunnels): empirical (Wagner &
Schumann, 1991; Yu, Karmis, Jarosz, & Haycocks, 1988), analytical, numerical and
experimental (Caudron, 2007; Hor, 2010; Lee & Bassett, 2007). Numerical methods are

*Corresponding author. Email: Bakri.Basmaji@univ-lorraine.fr

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 B. Basmaji et al.

used to understand the SSI phenomenon (Al Heib, 2008; Burd, Houlsby, Augarde, & Liu,
2000; Deck & Anirudh, 2010; Son & Cording, 2005, 2007) and to assess its
final deflection or the building damage (Franzius, Potts, & Burland, 2006; Potts &
Addenbrooke, 1997; Son & Cording, 2005). As a general result, these studies demonstrate
that the final building deflection is extremely dependent on the relative bending stiffness
between the ground and the structure. They have the advantage of considering complex
configurations but the disadvantage of not providing a general relationship for different
building types. Conversely, analytical methods do not consider complex configurations
but provide more general results (Deck & Singh, 2010). These methods have been devel-
oped to assess the final building deflection in relation to the stiffness of both ground and
structure, or the building damage in relation to the building deflection (Burland & Wroth,
1974). In these models, buildings are modelled as an equivalent beam, while the ground is
not taken into account or modelled with simple Winkler’s springs.
The improvement in the analytical calculation of the final building deflection in rela-
tion to the free-field ground deflection and SSI is the key point of this paper.

The deflection transmission ratio

In the following, Δ is the transmitted deflection of a building caused by a movement of
the soil, and Δ0 is the free-field deflection (Figure 1). Δ0 depends on the building length
L and the free-field ground movement profile. It corresponds to the building deflection
if assumed that the free-field ground movements are fully transmitted to the building
without any changes due to the SSI. It can then be assumed to be the maximal deflec-
tion that the building would experience, under the assumption that the whole ground
movement is transmitted. The building deflection Δ corresponds to the building deflec-
tion, taking into account the SSI phenomenon (Figure 1). The deflection transmission
ratio can be defined as Δ/Δ0, the values of which are expected between 0 and 1.

Estimation of the deflection transmission ratio

In the following, the value of Δ0 is assumed to be known. Depending on the ground
movement origin and the geological/geotechnical conditions, many methods can be used

Figure 1. Theoretical behaviour of a building due to ground curvature subsidence (R); (a) Defini-
tion of the free-field ground movement (Δ0) building deflection (Δ); (d) soft building on stiff
ground; and (e) and (f) stiffness of building relative to stiffness of the soil (phenomenon of SSI)
Deck and Singh (2010).
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 3

to assess its value. However, if one assumes that the free-field ground movement is
roughly circular under the building or a part of it, with a radius of curvature R, a
geometric relationship can be determined to calculate Δ0 (Kratzsch, 1983).
L2
D0 ¼ (1)
8R
L stands for the building length and R for the radius of the curvature of the free-field
ground movement.
The key point here is the assessment of the transmitted deflection Δ from the soil to
the structure that depends on soil and structure characteristics. Two kinds of methods
have been used to assess Δ/Δ0. The first is based on numerical modelling (Potts &
Addenbrooke, 1997), and it is mainly dedicated to the tunnelling induced ground move-
ments; the second is based on analytical modelling (Deck & Singh, 2010).
Based on numerical calculations in 2D, Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) introduced
the concept of the relative bending stiffness ρ1* (Equation (2)) to plot the transmission
ratio of the free-field deflection to the building Δ/Δ0.
16EI
q1 ¼ (2)
Eg  L4
where E is the building’s Young’s modulus, I is the second moment of area of the build-
ing, L is the length of the building, and Eg is the Young’s modulus of the ground.
The results of Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) highlight the importance of SSI to
reach an accurate assessment of the building deflection. Several studies based on the
same model were made by Franzius et al. (2006), who studied the influence of the
building weight on Potts’s resultants. They concluded that the load of the building alters
the deformation behaviour of the soil in two distinct zones: at tunnel depth, and in
proximity to the foundation of the building.
Goh and Mair (2011) studied the SSI for buildings affected by a tunnel in
Singapore. They used another definition of the relative bending stiffness as follows
(Equation (3)).
EI
q ¼ (3)
B  Eg  L3
where B is the building width. The Equation (3) of Goh and Mair (2011) will be
adopted in this paper for plotting the relation between the transmission ratio of
the deflection and the relative bending stiffness ratio (Equation (3)) because it appears
to be more suitable to synthesise the final analytical results on a curve.

The analytical model of Deck and Singh

Deck and Singh (2010) developed a soil–structure analytical model to calculate the final
building deflection in relation to Δ0 and the ground and building mechanical properties.
The building was presented by a Euler–Bernoulli beam and ground stiffness with the
Winkler’s model that consists on vertical spring with stiffness Kw without any interac-
tion between one another. The ground was modelled with an initial curvature corre-
sponding to Δ0 (Equation (1)). The final building deflection Δf was then calculated,
based on the final position and deformation of the beam required to get a static equilib-
rium under its own weight and the vertical ground reaction.
4 B. Basmaji et al.

This analytical model introduced by Deck and Singh (2010) will be referred to in the
following as the initial SSI Analytical Model (initial SSIAM). The main disadvantage is
that the Winkler model does not consider any interaction between the springs under the
building. It does not take into account the influence of soil settlement outside the loaded
area, which leads to discontinuities in the settlement profile when the applied load is also
discontinuous. The displacements of the soil out the building are supposed null, which is
not exact. The following investigated solution is the use of the Pasternak two parameters
soil model that takes into account interaction between adjacent springs. However, the fun-
damental problem of determining the elastic stiffness of the springs used is then put for-
ward. Several studies suggest that an expression of the coefficient of soil reaction depends
not only on the nature of the soil but also on the dimensions of the loading area (Biot,
1937; Bowles, 1996; Vesic, 1961). All of them were developed for the one-parameter
Winkler model and no relations are available for the Pasternak two-parameter model.

Objectives
The main objective of this study is to investigate the question of the deflection transmis-
sion ratio assessment with an analytical model derived from the model of Deck and
Singh (2010), by considering the influence of shear deformation in the soil using Paster-
nak’s model (1954) instead of Winkler’s one. A secondary objective deals with the justi-
fication of the values of the Winkler’s or Pasternak’s coefficients in relation to the real
elastic mechanical properties of the ground to determine the soil–structure settlement
due to underground movements.
Following sections first describe the analytical model that aims to take into account
the influence of the shear ground deformation on the results of the deflection transmis-
sion ratio. The two models, based on the Winkler’s (initial SSIAM) or Pasternak’s soil
model (new SSIAM), are described in parallel to highlight differences.
Then, a specific section is developed to address the question of the choice of param-
eters values for both Winkler and Pasternak models in relation to the thickness and the
mechanical properties of the ground and the building dimensions. In other words, this
section gives solutions to select the appropriate values of the Winkler’s and Pasternak’s
soil parameters (respectively Kw, or Kp and Gp) for a given case in order to make possi-
ble the comparison between the results got through the initial or new SSIAM.
Lastly, a detailed discussion is provided, together with a comparison between the
initial and the new SSIAM. Moreover, some comparisons with numerical results are
provided.

Analytical model and solution

Building model
The building is modelled by an elastic beam with a length L, height H, width B, and
Young’s modulus E (Figure 2). X is the horizontal axis with its origin at the building
mid-span. An elastic behaviour is adopted for the beam. This assumption means that the
building does not suffer significant damage. The analytical model is thus developed to
assess the transmission ratio of the free-field ground displacement that the building must
resist before suffering significant damage (Deck & Singh, 2010).
The applied forces on the beam are as follows: uniform vertical loads q, which pre-
sent the building weight and an external pressure p(x), correspond to the reaction of the
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 5

Figure 2. Definition of the building load q, ground reaction p(x) and building deflection y(x).

soil on the building (Figure 2). The deflection of the building can be calculated using
the Euler–Bernoulli differential equation (Equation (4)):
M ðxÞ
y00 ðxÞ ¼ (4)
EI
where E is the building’s Young’s modulus, I is the second moment of area of the cross
section (x), M(x) is the bending moment function at a distance x from the centre, and y
(x) is the vertical deflection of the building. Here, a downward displacement y(x) is con-
sidered positive.
A relationship between the shear forces V(x) and the bending moments (Equation
(5)) as well as between the shear forces, the external pressure p(x) and q (Equation (6))
can be stated as follows:
dM ðX Þ
V ðxÞ ¼ (5)
dx

dV ðX Þ
¼ q  pðxÞ (6)
dx
Equation (5) and (6) can be rewritten as Equation (7), which is the differential equation
of the building displacement as follows:
q pðxÞ
yð4Þ ðxÞ ¼  (7)
EI EI

Ground model
The ground reaction is presented by Pasternak’s model (1954), which describes the rela-
tionship between the external pressure p(x) and the vertical settlement of the soil w(x).
Compared to Winkler’s model (Equation (8)), the Pasternak model introduces an interac-
tion between the adjacent springs in Winkler’s model (Equation (9)) by connecting the
upper end of the springs by a layer that can be characterised by a stiffness Kp, and a
shear layer, characterised by a shear modulus Gp.
pðxÞ ¼ Kw  B  wðxÞ (8)
6 B. Basmaji et al.

pðxÞ ¼ Kp  B  wðxÞ  Gp  B  w00 ðxÞ (9)

Both a downward settlement and a downward pressure are considered positive (Figure 3).

When Gp is taken to be zero, the Pasternak model is equivalent to the Winkler

model. The Kw is used instead of Kp. It should be noted that if a given geotechnical
problem is modelled with each of the two models, i.e., Pasternak and Winkler, the val-
ues of Kp and Kw will be different, unless Gp is assumed to be equal to zero. Assess-
ment of these parameters is discussed in Section 3.
The influence of the shear layer is depicted in Figure 3. When using a uniform load
(q), Winkler’s model displays a uniform settlement with a discontinuity at the edge;
while Pasternak’s model displays a differential settlement under the building without
any discontinuities. When a local force F acts on a point (x) of a soil modelled by
Pasternak model, the slope curve w′(x) presents a discontinuity. Conversely, any discon-
tinuity of w′(x) must be associated to a local force. To overcome this problem, Equation
(9) must be completed with Equation (10).


F ¼ Gp w0left ðxÞ  w0right ðxÞ (10)

where w′left and w′right are the limit of the first derivatives of w(x) for x0− and x0+,
respectively and F the associated local force.
Figure 4 synthesises the different displacements, pressures and local forces for a
beam on an initial horizontal surface. w1(x) denotes the ground vertical displacement
out of the building (for x > L/2), when w denotes its vertical displacement under the
building. The vertical displacement of the building is split into two parts: a rigid and
uniform vertical displacement d and a vertical deflection y(x). Δi denotes the maximal
building deflection y(0) for an initially flat ground. When the soil is modelled by
Winkler model, Δi will be zero (Figures 3 and 4).
Regardless of the model used (Winkler or Pasternak), the behaviour of the ground
and the structure are modelled as an elastic material. The elastic ground behaviour is
consistent with ensuring building safety because the elastic–plastic behaviour would lead
to a decrease in the apparent ground stiffness and a decrease in the estimated transmis-
sion ratio (Deck & Singh, 2010).

Free-field ground movements

Free-field ground movements are assumed larger than the structure length so that the
ground curvature could be considered roughly constant over the building (Figure 1).

Figure 3. Structure on a soil modelled with the one parameter Winkler’s model or the two
parameters Pasternak’s model.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 7

Figure 4. Definition of parameters used to model the behaviour of a beam lying on an initial flat
ground.

When this assumption is not respected, a reduced length may be considered for the
building (Deck & Singh, 2010) compared different equations to model the free-field
ground movement (circular, second order polynomial and sinusoidal) and show that they
lead to similar results. The second polynomial function is then chosen here because it
leads to the simplest constitutive equations that adequately describe the SSI.
The free-field ground movement is defined by a function v(x) without any SSI
(Figure 5). Δ0 or R are the required initial data for the problem, which can be assessed
to predict all free-field ground movements (Kratzsch, 1983; Whittaker & Reddish,
1989).
   
4x2 L2 4x2
vðxÞ ¼ D0  1  2 ¼ 1 2 (11)
L 8R L

where R is the free-field ground radius of curvature under the beam, L is the length of
the beam, and x is the abscise, with x = 0 at the centre of the building and x = ±L/2 at
the edges.

Figure 5. Definition of the different parameters used into the modified analytical model of the
behaviour of a beam lying on curved ground.
8 B. Basmaji et al.

Analytical solution
The solutions of the initial (with Winkler) and new (with Pasternak) SSIAM require
combining the constitutive equations of the beam (Equation (7)), the ground (Equation
(9)) and the free-field ground movement (Equation (11)) to calculate the static equilib-
rium for both the ground and the beam.
Figure 5 presents the entire geometry of the problem for a sagging ground deflec-
tion. Different vertical displacements can be defined as follows:

v(x) corresponds to free field ground settlement due to an underground excavation.

w(x) corresponds to the additional vertical settlement of the ground induced by the
presence of the building under the building.
w1(x) corresponds to the vertical settlement of the ground surrounding the building
induced by the presence of the building.
y(x) corresponds to the vertical deflection of the building. The maximal building
deflection is then equal to Δ = y(0).
d corresponds to the rigid body vertical displacement of the building; d = w(+L/2,
–L/2).

The condition of non-interpenetration between the ground and the building requires
that for each point of contact, the following expression holds true (Figure 5):
yðxÞ ¼ wðxÞ  d þ vðxÞ (12)
In specific cases, a gap may exist under the building (Figure 1) and (Equation (12))
is no longer valid. Furthermore, a condition of strength at the interface between the
ground and the building is required to avoid any tensile pressures (Equation (13)). In
that case p(x) must be set to zero in Equations (7) and (9).
pðxÞ [ 0 (13)

Case with no gap

For this case, it is assumed that the ground pressure p(x) remains positive along the
whole building (Equation (13)). A combination of Equations (7), (9), (11) and (12)
provides the characteristic differential equation for the new SSIAM (Equation (14)) as
follows:
EI  wð4Þ ðxÞ  Gp  B  w00 ðxÞ þ Kp  B  wðxÞ ¼ q (14)
The analytical solution is expressed by Equation (15), which considers the symmetry of
the problem: w(x) = w(–x).
G p  k2 q
If \1 ) wðxÞ ¼ þ ðc1  elkx þ c2  elkx Þ  cosðb  k  xÞ
Kp Kp
þ ðc3  elkx þ c4  elkx Þ  sinðb  k  xÞ
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 9

pffiffiffi Kp pffi G p  k2 pffi Gp  k2
with k ¼ 4 ; l¼ ½1 þ ; b¼ ½1  ;
4  EI Kp Kp

Gp  k2 q
pdffi pffi   pffiffiffi pffiffiffi 

þ c1 e x þ e x þ c3 e ux þ e ux
d
If [ 1 ) wðxÞ ¼
Kp Kp
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Gp G2p  4EI  Kp Gp G2p  4EI  Kp
with d ¼  ;u ¼ þ (15)
2EI 2EI 2EI 2EI
Outside the building, EI = 0 and p(x) = 0. Then, the vertical settlement of the ground
can be calculated using Equation (16) as follows:
qffiffiffiffi
Kp

w1 ðxÞ ¼ c5 e
Gp
(16)
When there is a complete contact between the ground and the building, the problem is
symmetric: c1 = c2 and c3 = –c4 and the Equations (15) and (16) must satisfy four
boundary conditions to calculate the unknown constants, c1, c, c5 and d as well as the
final movement of the ground and building at each abscise. The four boundary condi-
tions BC can be stated as follows:

BC 1 – a null building deflection at the edges: y(L/2) = 0;

BC 2 – a null bending moment at the edges: y″(L/2) = 0;
BC 3 – a shear force at the building edge equal to the local force due to the discon-
tinuity of w′(x) at the abscise x = L/2 (Equation (10)); and
BC 4 – a continuity of the ground deflection at the edge of the beam: w(L/2) =
w1(L/2) of the ground at the end of the beam.

After determining the unknown constants, we can use Equation (12) to determine
the building deflection in each point as well as the maximum transmitted building
deflection Δf = y(0) in the middle of the building. However, the maximum deflection
must be reduced by a value Δi to only assess the actual effect of the free-field ground
movement over the building, where Δi corresponds to the initial deflection of the beam
on an initial flat ground. When the Winkler model is used, Δi is null. For the Pasternak
model, Δi can be computed as Δf, with v(x) fixed at zero. Lastly, the deflection transmis-
sion ratio Δ/Δ0 is calculated using Equation (17) as follows:
 
D=D0 ¼ Df  Di =D0 (17)

Case with a gap

For this case, it is assumed that the ground pressure p(x) is found negative somewhere
under the building when using equations of the previous case without any gap. This sit-
uation may be involved because of the important rigidity of the building or the ground,
the lightness of the building, or a small radius of the subsidence at the surface. If a gap
is required under the building (Figure 6), the beam deflection over the gap is calculated
from Equation (7) with p(x) = 0, and its final expression with taking into account the
symmetry of the problem is defined by Equation (18).
10 B. Basmaji et al.

Figure 6. Definition of the different parameters used into the modified analytical model of the
behaviour of a beam lying on curved ground (case of gap).

qx4
y1 ðxÞ ¼ þ c6 x2 þ c7 (18)
24EI

The Equation (19) corresponds to the final deflection of the building.

yðxÞ; if x [ C=2
yfinal ðxÞ ¼ (19)
y1 ðxÞ; if x\C=2
where C is the length of the gap under the building. The vertical settlement of the
ground under the gap is calculated from Equation (9) with p(x) = 0, and its final expres-
sion with taking into account the symmetry of the problem is defined by Equation (20):
0 qffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffi 1
Kp Kp
 þ
w2 ðxÞ ¼ c8 @e þe A
Gp Gp
(20)

The Equation (21) thus corresponds to the final ground settlement:

8
< w1 ðxÞ; if x [ L=2
wfinal ¼ wðxÞ; if C2 [ x [ L=2 (21)
:
w2 ðxÞ; if x\C=2
As the length of the gap C is unknown, there is 10 unknown parameters (c1 → c8, d
and C) and 6 additional boundary conditions are then added:
The new boundary conditions are as follows:

BC 5 – continuity of the building deflection y1(C/2) = y(C/2);

BC 6 – continuity of the building slope y1′(C/2) = y′(C/2);
BC 7 – continuity of bending moment in the beam y1″(C/2) = y″(C/2);
BC 8 – continuity of the ground deflection at x = C/2, w(C/2) = w2(C/2).
BC 9 – a shear force at x = C/2 equal to the local force due to the discontinuity of
w′(x) at the abscise
  x= C/2
 (Equation
  (10));
BC10 – d þ y C2 ¼ v C2 þ w C2

Results of the final deflection of the building are calculated by solving the equations
and boundary conditions with Mathematica® for specific values of the building and
ground mechanical parameters or dimensions.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 11

With 10 unknowns (c1 → c8, C and d), an initial value for C is given and the prob-
lem is solved for BC1 to BC9. A loop is then defined to increase or decrease the C
value in relation to the result given by BC10.

Selecting the parameters for Winkler’s and Pasternak’s models

Methodology
A key point of the analytical model is the justification of the parameters values used
into the Winkler’s and Pasternak’s models, as a function of the ground mechanical prop-
erties, in order to get realistic results. Several researchers Vesic (1961), Biot (1937),
Barden (1962, 1963) have attempted to develop a technique to evaluate the modulus of
the subgrade reaction of the soil Kw for the Winkler’s model. For example, Vesic (1961)
developed an analytical relation to calculate Kw. Instead of matching the bending
moments as Biot (1937) did, Vesic matched the maximum displacement of the beam in
both models and then Kw can be determined using the Equation (22). This relation
appears to be the most consistent with the analytical model that aims to assess the maxi-
mal building deflection rather than the maximal bending moment.
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s ffi
0:65 E g B4 Eg
Kw ¼ 12 (22)
B E b  I 1  m2
where Eg is the Young’s modulus of the soil and ν is Poisson’s ratio. Theses relations
could be used to calculate the modulus of the subgrade reaction of the soil Kw for the
initial analytical model based on the Winker’s model for the ground. However, they can
not be used into the modified analytical model based on the Pasternak’s model. Paster-
nak (1954) provided an in situ test method to determine the shear modulus. The lack of
existing analytical relations to assess the two parameters used in the Pasternak’s model
is then an important issue.
To compare the results got by the initial and new analytical models associated with
the same real ground mechanical properties Eg and ν, a method is required to assess
parameters for the two models by the same way (Figure 7).
The method of adjusting the model parameters {Kp, Gp} or Kw is based on a com-
parison of the ground deflection under uniform loads calculated using Winkler’s or
Pasternak’s models and Flamant’s theoretical solution of induced vertical settlement
(Figure 7).
From Boussinesq’s solution (1878), which determined the displacements in a semi-
infinite elastic medium induced by a point force applied on the ground (Equation (23)),
we can obtain the expression as follows:
 
2ð1 þ mÞF z2
uz1 ðx; y; zÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2ð1  mÞ þ 2 (23)
4pEg y2 þ x2 þ z2 y þ x2 þ z 2
where x and y are the two horizontal coordinates and z is the vertical coordinate, and F
is a concentrated vertical force. At the applied force in the surface where (x = 0, y = 0,
z = 0), the settlement uz1 = ∞. For a known thickness of the compressive soil h, the
vertical settlement uz2 at the surface can be calculated using Equation (24) as follows:
uz2 ðx; y; 0Þ ¼ uz1 ðx; y; 0Þ  uz1 ðx; y; hÞ (24)
12 B. Basmaji et al.

Figure 7. Illustration of the method of adjusting the model parameters {Kp, Gp} as a function of
the ground mechanical properties {Eg, ν}.

Flamant’s theory (1892) allows to calculate the settlement of the soil at a given depth h
induced by an infinite linear load p in the z direction (Equation (25)). This settlement is
obtained by integrating the solution of Boussinesq uz2 over the y range from –∞
to +∞, with the force F equal to the linear load p.
pð1þtÞðh2 þðh2 þx2 Þð1þtÞLogðx2 Þðh2 þx2 Þð1þtÞLogðh2 þx2 ÞÞ
uz3 ðx;hÞ ¼
Et pðh2 þx2 Þ
(25)
The vertical settlement of the ground under the force distributed with a width 2b along
the x direction and infinity in the y direction can then be calculated by integrating Equa-
tion (25) between –b and +b to obtain Equation (26) as follows:
Zxþb
uz4 ðx; hÞ ¼ uz3 ðu; hÞ  du (26)
xb

Equation (26) was verified and compared with a model carried out using CESAR code;
the difference in the curve settlement at the surface doesn’t exceed 10%.

Application to Winkler model

For Winkler’s model and the given values of Eg, h, b and ν = 0.3, we can calculate the
value of Kw to obtain a similar average settlement between Equations (8) and (26) as
shown in Equation (27)
uz4 ð0; hÞ þ uz4 ðb; hÞ
wð0Þ ¼ wðbÞ ¼ (27)
2
The value of Kw is determined to be independent of the load intensity p but dependent
on both b and h (b is the half of the length of the applied load, and h is the depth of
the considered soil). The depth of the soil can be selected from in situ observations, it
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 13

corresponds to the height of the flexible soil affected by the subsidence. Results are
plotted as a function of the length of the applied load L (b = L/2) and h; they are lin-
early dependent on Eg (Young’s modulus of the ground). Figure 8 presents the abacus
of Kw,1 for a unit Young’s modulus of the ground and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. For other
values of Eg, Kw,1 must be multiplied by Eg to obtain the relevant value of Kw.
 
Kw Eg ¼ Kw;1  Eg (28)

The obtained values of Kw appear to be substantially different than those calculated with
the formulas proposed in the literature (Equation (22)). The value of Kw.1 calculated
from the Abacus (Figure 8) is 20 times smaller than the value of Kw in the literature.
This important difference is explained by the criteria used for determining the value of
Kw. The principal difference with the Vesic’s method (Equation (22)) and the one

Figure 8. Abacus used to select the Winkler ground reaction modulus Kw,1 based on the half
width of the loaded zone b and the thickness h of the compressive ground for Eg = 1 MPa and
ν = 0.3.
14 B. Basmaji et al.

described here is that Vesic used a punctual force on an infinite beam while the calcula-
tion in this study was performed for distributed load acting directly on the ground.
In this study, the influence of the second moment of area of the beam cross section
is not considered. However, Imanzadeh, Denis and Marache (2011) developed a semi-
empirical method to study this influence and found that the second moment of area of
the beam cross section has a small influence over the modulus of the subgrade reaction.

Application to Pasternak’s model

The same method is used to determine the reaction modulus Kp,1 and the shear module
Gp,1 for Pasternak’s model. However, two conditions must be considered. Based on
Equation (9), Equation (29) describes the ground settlement under a uniform load q and
a width b (b = L/2) applied directly on the soil.
8 0 qffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffi 1 qffiffiffiffi
>
> Kp

Kp K
 Gpp b
> if 0\x\b ! wðxÞ ¼ q  q @e p þ e
> G x Gp x
Ae
>
>
< Kp 2K p

qffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffi 0 qffiffiffiffi 1 (29)

>
> Kp Kp Kp
>
>
 x  b 2
@e Gp  1A
b
> if x\b ! wðxÞ ¼ q
Gp Gp
>
: Kp e e

Equations (26) and (29), which correspond to the settlement calculated with Flamant’s
model and Pasternak’s model, respectively, are different. It is possible to calculate the
parameters of Pasternak’s Kp and Gp values by imposing the equality of these two equa-
tions for particular abscissas. The settlements obtained from these two models are equal-
ised for abscissa x = 0 (centre of the building) and x = b (edge of the building). These
two points are chosen because we aim to fairly assess the displacements and deflection
over the building length.
Thus, we have two equations with two unknowns: Kp and Gp. The results are again
determined to be linearly dependent on Eg (Young’s modulus of the ground). The results

Figure 9. Abacus used to determine the modulus of ground reaction Kp,1 (a) and Gp,1 (b) based
on the half width of the loaded zone b and the thickness h of the compressive ground for
Eg = 1 MPa and ν = 0.3.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 15

are provided in Figure 9 for an Eg = 1 MPa, a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 and different values
of thickness of the soil h and half building length b = L/2. The values of Kp,1 and Gp,1
are independent of the load intensity. For other values of Young’s modulus of the
ground, the values of Kp,1 and Gp,1 provided in the abacus for a unit Young’s modulus
must be multiplied by the Young’s modulus (Equations (30) and (31)).
 
Kp Eg ¼ Kp;1  Eg (30)

GpðEgÞ ¼ Gp;1  Eg (31)

where Kp,1 and Gp,1 are obtained from Figure 9 for a Young’s modulus of the ground
equal to 1 MPa.

Results and discussion

Result example
An example is investigated to illustrate the analytical models of a building with a soil
movement in the region of Lorraine in France. The properties of the building are
L = 15 m, H = 7.5 m after (Abdallah, 2009), and the building stiffness is EI = 5300
MN m2 for small establishment open to the public (Jahangir, Deck, & Masrouri, 2013).
The Young’s modulus of soil is 100 MPa, with an assumed equivalent homogeneous
thickness of 100 m and the free-field ground radius of curvatureis500 m.
Application of Figures 8 and 9 gives the parameters to be used with the Winkler’s
model (initial SSIAM) or Pasternak’s model (new SSIAM). The software Mathematica®
was used to solve the equations. Final results are shown in Figure 10. It can be seen
that a significant difference exists between the two solutions. The use of the Winkler
model with the initial SSIAM gives smaller results of the deflection transmission ratio,
which may appear unconservative.

Figure 10. Initial and final profiles of the soil before and after taking into account the influence
of SSI with the Pasternak’s model and with the Winkler’s model.
16 B. Basmaji et al.

General results
In this section, a range is selected for the different parameters. The length of the build-
ing L is selected to be between 7.5 and 30 m to be representative of individual buildings
and small residential buildings. The building stiffness EI is selected to be between
25,000 and 250,000 MN m2. These values correspond to an equivalent Young’s modu-
lus of the building between 1500 MPa (masonry with poor mortar) and 7500 MPa
(Davidovici, 1985) (for masonry solid wall) and inertia between 4 and 30 m4. These
values correspond to an equivalent wall of 1 m thickness with 3.5–7 m height. The
Young’s modulus of the ground is selected to be between 25 and 350 MPa to be repre-
sentative of a large range of soil. Ground curvature radius is chosen between 250 and
5000 m to be representative of a large amount of free-field ground movement.
Results of the deflection transmission ratio Δ/Δ0 is plotted on Figure 11 in relation
to the stiffness ratio ρ* defined by Goh and Mair (2011) (Equation (3)). This ratio gives
more regular results compared to the one of Potts and Addenbrooke (1997). Results of
Δ/Δ0 are limited to a maximal value for each value of ρ*. A detailed analysis of the
results shows that all points under this limit curve correspond to cases where a gap
occurs under the building.
The superior limit curve may overestimate the transmission ratio of the building deflec-
tion, because it does not take into account the possible existence of a gap under the building.

Figure 11. Deflection transmission ratio in relation with the relative bending stiffness ¼ E EIBL3 for
g
the new SSIAM based on the Pasternak’s model.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 17

Influence of the shear deformation in the ground over the limit curve
The limit curve of the transmitted ratio Δ/Δ0 in relation to the relative stiffness ratio is
plotted in Figure 12 for the initial and new SSIAM, i.e., without and with considering
the influence of shear deformation into the soil.
Shear deformations in the soil (with Pasternak’s model) significantly increase the
maximal possible value of the building deflection transmission ratio for the same rela-
tive stiffness ratio. The influence of the shear deformation into the soil must then be
taken into consideration to avoid an underestimation of the building transmitted deflec-
tion. For both the Winkler’s and Pasternak’s models, a void can be observed for rigid
buildings, stiff ground and large values of Δ0.

Comparison with a finite-element model

To verify the effectiveness of the analytical results thanks to the improvement of the
Deck and Singh model, a finite-element model is constructed. The numerical model
aims to reproduce a free-field ground curvature and to calculate the transmission ratio of
the free-field ground deflection. All calculations are performed using the finite-element
code CESAR-LCPC.

Figure 12. Limit curve of the deflection transmission ratio in relation to the relative bending
stiffness ratio ρ* = E EIBL3 got with the initial (based on Winkler’s model) or new analytical models
g
(based on Pasternak’s model).
18 B. Basmaji et al.

The proposed numerical model is performed in 2D using a plane strain hypothesis.

It consists of two elastic soil layers of L = 800 m in width. The thickness of the first
upper layer is h1 = 100 m, and the thickness of the second layer h2 = 25 m. The
Young’s modulus for the upper layer is variable and equal to 25 or 100 MPa, and Pois-
son’s ratio is 0.3. The Young’s modulus for the lower layer is 30000 MPa. It models a
rigid subgrade and allows the transmission of the deformation due to applied stresses on
the bottom boundary.
A beam is considered, lying on the ground. The length of the building is between
20 and 30 m, and the height is 3.5 m with uniform load of 10 kN/m2 and 7 m with uni-
form load of 25 kN/m2 to represent a building of one or two floors. Different values of
the Young modulus of the beam are considered, from 1000 to 25,000 MPa to investigate
a large range of the relative stiffness. The Poisson’s ratio is 0.2. A slip interface is mod-
elled between the ground and the building to only investigate the influence of the
ground curvature and avoid the influence of horizontal strains and shear stresses
between the ground and the building. The slip interface only allows the transfer of the
vertical stresses. A tensional strength equal to 1 MN/m2 is considered for the interface
failure criterion.
The boundary conditions can be stated as follows: null vertical displacement on the
right and left boundaries for the upper layer, and null vertical and horizontal displace-
ments on the right and left boundaries for the lower layer and a uniform downward dis-
tributed load imposed on the lower boundary to model the subsidence with a sagging
zone at the surface (Figure 13).
The value of the vertical applied force under the bottom layer is selected to change
the subsidence radius of the surface, as example of this subsidence radius from the used
models in this paper, for an applied stress of 10 MPa, the subsidence radius in the sur-
face is 1600 m for Young’s modulus of the upper layer equal 25 MPa, and 1800 m for
Young’s modulus of the upper layer of 100 MPa.
A first calculation is performed without the building to assess the free-field deflec-
tion Δ0. A second calculation is performed with the building but without any subsidence
to assess the initial deflection Δi caused by the building’s self-weight. Then, the bottom
boundary is fixed. A third calculation is performed with the building to assess the build-
ing deflection induced by the free-field ground movement. The deflection transmission
ratio can then be calculated using Equation (17).
The obtained results of the numerical modelling are provided in (Table 1). Sixteen
different simulations were conducted with identical geometries and different parameters
of Young’s modulus and soil pressure. In these results, some of them lead to a gap
under the building. These are cases (4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 16) for Pasternak and cases

Figure 13. Dimensions and boundary conditions of the numerical model.

 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 19

(2 and 6 to 16) for Winkler. A comparison between the new SSIAM (Pasternak), initial
SSIAM (Winkler) and the numerical results shows that the numerical results are closer
to the Pasternak’s results. The shear deformations in the ground must then be taken into
account to improve the prediction of the deflection transmission ratio.
More precisely, the Pasternak’s results overestimate the numerical ones, when the
Winkler’s results underestimate them. Discrepancy between the Pasternak’s and the
numerical results may be first the consequence of the interface behaviour that is not
taken into account in the analytical models. It may also be the consequence of the
method for calculating the Pasternak’s parameters, as seen in Section 3. There is a 10%
difference between the settlement of uz4 (Equation (29)) and the settlement calculated
by the numerical model. This difference leads to an analytical solution of the deflection
transmission ratio slightly different to the numerical one.
Figure 14 provides the numerical results in Table 1 compared with the two analyti-
cal curves got by using the Pasternak’s model and the Winkler’s model when no gap
occurs under the building. For most of the cases, the two curves can be interpreted as a
lower and upper bound of the building transmission ratio assessment. However, for a
given value of ρ*, a gap may occur depending on the value of the other parameters. A
more precise transmission ratio may be calculated with Δ = y1(0), but it is actually not
possible to plot a general curve in that case. Such a situation occurs with cases in
Table 1. At last, when there is a gap, the real transmission ratio is smaller to the one
estimated with the Pasternak’s curve in Figure 14 and an estimation based on this curve
appears to be conservative.
Mair (2013) plotted the transmission ratio derived from the centrifuge tests and from
the finite-element analyses of Potts and Addenbrook (1997) and Franzius et al. (2006)
against the relation of the relative bending stiffness. The obtained points fall into a
relatively narrow envelope. The Mair (2013) plotted the transmission ratio against the
relative bending stiffness of in situ measurements, as a response to tunnelling has been

Table 1. Comparaison of deflection transmission ratio estimated by numerical and nanlytical

model.
Properties of the building and soil Transmission ratio Δ/Δ0
L H q(MN/ E New Initial
Case Eg(MPa) (m) (m) m) (MPa) ρ* [3] Numerical SSIAM SSIAM
1 25 20 3.5 0.01 1000 0.016 0.35 0.51 0.07
2 25 30 3.5 0.01 1000 0.008 0.66 0.77 0.23
3 25 20 7 0.025 1000 0.144 0.08 0.12 0.01
4 25 30 7 0.025 1000 0.04 0.19 0.29 0.04
5 25 20 3.5 0.01 5000 0.088 0.1 0.12 0.02
6 25 30 3.5 0.01 5000 0.024 0.26 0.25 0.05
7 25 20 7 0.025 5000 0.712 0.03 0.03 0.002
8 25 30 7 0.025 5000 0.208 0.05 0.06 0.01
9 100 20 3.5 0.01 1000 0.008 0.69 0.76 0.15
10 100 30 3.5 0.01 1000 0.0016 0.88 0.94 0.36
11 100 20 7 0.025 1000 0.032 0.26 0.23 0.03
12 100 30 7 0.025 1000 0.008 0.05 0.11 0.02
13 100 20 3.5 0.01 5000 0.024 0.28 0.16 0.03
14 100 30 3.5 0.01 5000 0.008 0.29 0.33 0.07
15 100 20 7 0.025 5000 0.176 0.03 0.05 0.01
16 100 30 7 0.025 5000 0.056 0.0002 0.09 0.02
20 B. Basmaji et al.

Figure 14. Comparison between the results of Pasternak’s model, Winkler’s model and the
results using CESAR-LCPC code, ρ* = EI/(EgBL3).

measured for different buildings. He found that majority of the data fall into the same
envelope as found from centrifuge models tests and finite-element analyses (Figure 15).
By superposing the results of the analytical solution based on the model of
Pasternak, for a wide range of soil and building stiffness, with the solution proposed by
Mair (2013), we note that analytical results are almost between the two boundary lines

Figure 15. (a) Summery of finite element analyses by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) and
Franzius et al. (2006), (b) Field data of building responses to tunnelling.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 21

Figure 16. Transmission ration obtained from the analytical solution (Pasternak) compared avec
Mair solution.

of Mair (2013). This comparison confirms the effectiveness of the developed analytical
model (Figure 16).

Conclusion
An analytical model was developed based on the analytical model of Deck and Singh
(2010). The primary improvement in the analytical model is considering the influence
of shear deformation when assessing the building transmission ratio of the differential
settlement. This consideration is made possible by using Pasternak’s soil model instead
of Winkler’s soil model in the analytical model. For both soil models, a methodology
has been implemented to justify the parameter values Kw (for Winkler) and Kp and Gp
(for Pasternak) as a function of the elastic properties of the soil, the thickness of the
compressive ground layer and the building length.
A comparison of the results obtained by Winkler’s and Pasternak’s models, for iden-
tical soil and building characterisations, indicates significant differences that justify the
need to consider the shear deformations of the ground for an accurate assessment of the
final building deflection.
A comparison was performed between the analytical results and a set of numerical
models. This comparison indicates that the analytical model, based on the Pasternak’s
model, slightly overestimates the results of the deflection transmission ratio, while the
results based on Winkler’s model underestimate it. These two results may then be used
for an acceptable assessment of the final possible building deflection.
As a perspective, this research raises the question of the validity of the elastic
assumption for both the ground and the building. Influence of ground yielding and
building degradation will certainly have an influence that will have to be investigated.
22 B. Basmaji et al.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abdallah, M. (2009). Vulnérabilité des ouvrages en maçonnerie à des mouvements de terrain:
méthodologie d’analyse par méthodes statistiques et par plans d’expériences numériques sur
les données de la ville de Joeuf [Vulnerability of masonry structures to terrain movements:
Methodology of analysis by statistical methods and plans of numerical experiments on the
data of the Joeuf Town] Thèse de doctorat de l’Institut Polytechnique de Lorraine.
Al Heib, M. (2008). State of the art of the prediction methods of ground movements (subsidence
and sinkhole) for the mines in France. In T. Michel & H. Fournier (Eds.), Coal geology
research progress (pp. 53–76). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Barden, L. (1962). Distribution of contact pressure under foundations. Géotechnique, 12, 181–198.
Barden, L. (1963). The Winkler model and its application to soil. Structural Engineer, 41, 279–280.
Biot, M. A. (1937). Bending of infinite beams on an elastic foundation. Journal of Applied
Mechanics Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 59, A1–7.
Boscardin, M. D., & Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation‐induced settlement.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(1), 1–21.
Boussinesq, J. (1878). Equilibre d’élasticité d’un solide isotrope sans pesanteur, supportant différ-
ents poids [Equilibrium of elasticity of an isotropic solid without gravity, supporting different
weights]. (Vol. 86, pp. 1260–1263). Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des
Sciences, Paris.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design (5th ed., p. 1175). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Burd, H. J., Houlsby, G., Augarde, C., & Liu, G. (2000). Modelling tunnelling-induced settlement
of masonry buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engi-
neering, 143, 17–29.
Burland, J. B., & Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlement of buildings and associated damage. Conference
on the settlement of structures (pp. 611–654). London: Pentech Press.
Caudron, M. (2007). Etude expérimentale et numérique de l’interaction sol-structure lors de l’oc-
currence d’un fontis [Numerical and experimental modeling of the soil structure interaction
during sinkholes] (Thèse de Doctorat). Lyon: INSA.
Davidovici, X. (1985). Génie parasismique, presse de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées
[Earthquake engineering. presse de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées]. 6313–6620.
ISBN: 2-85978-083-1.
Deck, O., & Anirudh, H. (2010). Numerical study of the soil–structure interaction within mining
subsidence areas. Computers and Geotechnics, 37, 802–816.
Deck, O., & Singh, A. (2010). Analytical model for the prediction of building deflections induced
by ground movements. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 36, 62–84. doi:10.1002/nag.993
Flamant, A. (1892). Sur la répartition des pressions dans un solide rectangulaire chargé transver-
salement. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, 114, 1465.
Franzius, J. N., Potts, D. M., & Burland, J. B. (2006). The response of surface structures to tunnel
construction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering,
159, 3–17.
Goh, K. H., & Mair, R. J. (2011). Building damage assessment for deep excavations in Singapore
and the influence of building stiffness. Geotechnical Engineering, 42, 1–12. ISSN 0046-5828.
Hor, B. (2010). Évaluation et réduction des conséquences des mouvements de terrains sur le bâti:
approches expérimentale et numérique (Thèse de doctorat de). Lyon: INSA.
Imanzadeh, S., Denis, A., & Marache, A. (2011). Estimation de la variabilité du module de réac-
tion pour l’étude du comportement des semelles filantes sur sol élastique. [Estimate of the
variability of the reaction module to study the behavior of strip footings on eladtic soil]
29èmes rencontres universitaires de Génie Civil – AUGC (pp. 145–154). Tlemcen.
Jahangir, E., Deck, O., & Masrouri, F. (2013). An analytical model of soil-structure interaction
with swelling soils during droughts. Computers and Geotechnics, 54, 16–32. doi:10.1016/j.-
compgeo.2013.05.009
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 23

Kratzsch. (1983). Mining subsidence engineering. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 978-3-642-

81925-4.
Lee, Y. J., & Bassett, R. H. (2007). Influence zones for 2D pile–soil-tunnelling interaction based
on model test and numerical analysis. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 22,
325–342.
Mair, R. J. (2013). Tunnelling and deep excavations: Ground movements and their effects.
Proceedings of 15th european conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering –
geotechnics of hard soils – weak rocks (part 4) (pp. 39–70). IOS Press, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
National Coal Board. (1975). Subsidence engineering handbook. Chapter 6, 45–56. London.
Pasternak, P. L. (1954). On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means of two
constants. Moscow: URRS.
Peck, R. B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunnels in soft ground. Proceedings of the 7th interna-
tional conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering (pp. 225–290). Mexico City,
State of the Art Volume.
Potts, D. M., & Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). A structure’s influence on tunnelling-induced ground
movements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering,
125, 109–125.
Son, M., & Cording, E. J. (2005). Estimation of building damage due to excavation-induced ground
movements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, 162–177.
Son, M., & Cording, E. J. (2007). Evaluation of building stiffness for building response analysis
to excavation-induced ground movements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133, 995–1002.
Vesic, A. B. (1961). Beams on elastic subgrade and Winkler’s hypothesis. Proceedings of 5th
international conference on soil mechanic and foundation engineering (pp. 845–850). Paris.
Wagner, H., & Schumann, H. E. R. (1991). Surface effect of total coal seam extractions by under-
ground mining methods. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 91,
221–231.
Whittaker, B. N., & Reddish, D. J. (1989). Subsidence: Occurrence, prediction, control. Barking:
Elsevier.
Yu, Z., Karmis, M., Jarosz, A., & Haycocks, C. (1988). Development of damage criteria for
buildings affected by mining subsidence. Proceedings of the sixth annual workshop on mining
systems design and ground control (pp. 83–92), Fairbanks, Alaska.