0% found this document useful (0 votes)

62 views59 pages

Foundation Engineering

Uploaded by

Swasti Maharjan

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

62 views59 pages

Foundation Engineering

Uploaded by

Swasti Maharjan

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 59

Froilan Cajo B.

9
Settlement of Shallow Foundations

Rachata Kietsirikul/Shutterstock.com

9.1 Introduction 337

9.9 Settlement Estimation Using
9.2 Elastic Settlement of Shallow the L1 2 L2 Method 375

Foundation on Saturated
Clay ( ms 5 0.5) 337
9.10 Effect of the Rise of Water Table on
Elastic Settlement 378
9.3 Settlement Based on the Theory
of Elasticity 339
9.11 Primary Consolidation Settlement
Relationships 380
9.4 Improved Equation for Elastic
Settlement 350
9.12 Three-Dimensional Effect on Primary
Consolidation Settlement 382
9.5 Settlement of Sandy Soil: Use of
Strain Influence Factor 354
9.13 Settlement Due to Secondary
Consolidation 386
9.6 Settlement of Foundation on Sand
Based on Standard Penetration
9.14 Field Load Test 388
Resistance 361 9.15 Presumptive Bearing Capacity 389
9.7 Settlement Considering Soil Stiffness 9.16 Tolerable Settlement of
Variation with Stress Level 366 Buildings 390
9.8 Settlement Based on Pressuremeter 9.17 Summary 392
Test (PMT) 370 Problems 392
eferences 394
R
336

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B.

9.2 Elastic ttl m nt of hallow oundation on aturat d lay (m s 5 0.5) 337

Se
e
e
S
F
S
e
C
9.1 Introduction

T
he settlement process is different in granular and cohesive soil. In granular
soil, such as sand and gravel, the settlement occurs almost immediately upon
applying the load. This is referred to as immediate (or elastic) settlement
and is computed by using elastic theories. In clay, while there is a small immediate
(or elastic) settlement component, most of the settlement occurs during the
consolidation process, which includes primary and secondary consolidation.
The fundamentals of primary consolidation were summarized in Chapter 2. The
secondary consolidation is assumed to occur on completion of primary consolidation,
when the excess pore water pressure has fully dissipated. During the secondary
consolidation, the settlement continues indefinitely, due to the realignment of the clay
particles and the resulting change in the clay fabric. Primary consolidation settlement
is more significant than secondary settlement in inorganic clays and silty soil.
However, in organic soil, secondary consolidation settlement is more significant.
This chapter presents various theories presently available for estimating elastic
and consolidation settlements of shallow foundations. In computing the elastic
settlement, the modulus of elasticity (Es) and Poisson’s ratio (ms) are the two key
design parameters. The modulus of elasticity of the soil can vary over a wide range
(1–50 MPa), and it is often determined from in situ tests. Poisson’s ratio varies in the
range of 0–0.5. For all saturated clays subjected to undrained loading, which implies
no volume change, it can be shown from elastic analysis that ms 5 0.50.

9.2 Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundation

on Saturated Clay (ms 5 0.5)
Janbu et al. (1956) proposed an equation for evaluating the average settlement of
flexible foundations on saturated clay soil (Poisson’s ratio, ms 5 0.5). Referring to
Figure 9.1, this relationship can be expressed as

qo B
Se 5 A1A2 (9.1)
Es

where
A1 5 f (HyB, LyB)
A2 5 f (Df yB)
L 5 length of the foundation
B 5 width of the foundation
Df 5 depth of the foundation
H 5 depth of the bottom of the foundation to a rigid layer
qo 5 net load per unit area of the foundation
Christian and Carrier (1978) modified the values of A1 and A2 to some extent,
and these are presented in Figure 9.1.

CH
e
338 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
qo
Df

B
H

2.0
L /B 5 `
L /B 5 10

1.5 5

A1 1.0
2
Square
Circle
0.5

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
H/B

1.0

A2 0.9

0.8
0 5 10 15 20
Df /B

Figur 9.1 Values of A1 and A2 for elastic settlement calculation—Eq. (9.1) (Based on
e
Christian, J. T. and Carrier, W. D. (1978). “Janbu, Bjerrum and Kjaernsli’s chart reinterpreted,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 123–128)

The modulus of elasticity (Es) for saturated clays under undrained conditions can,
in general, be given as
Es 5 bcu (9.2)
where cu 5 undrained shear strength.
The parameter b is primarily a function of the plasticity index and overconsoli-
dation ratio (OCR). Table 9.1 provides a general range for b based on that proposed

abl 9.1 Range of b for Saturated Clay [Eq. (9.2)]a

T
e
b

Plasticity
index OCR 5 1 OCR 5 2 OCR 5 3 OCR 5 4 OCR 5 5
,30 1500–600 1380–500 1200–580 950–380 730–300
30 to 50 600–300 550–270 580–220 380–180 300–150
.50 300–150 270–120 220–100 180–90 150–75
a
Based on Duncan and Buchignani (1976)

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 339

Se
e
e
B
e
e
T
e
by Duncan and Buchignani (1976). In any case, proper judgment should be used in
selecting the magnitude of b.

Exampl 9.1

e
Consider a shallow foundation 2 m 3 1 m in plan in a saturated clay layer. A rigid
rock layer is located 8 m below the bottom of the foundation. Given:
Foundation: Df 5 1 m, qo 5 120 kN/m2
Clay: cu 5 150 kN/m2, OCR 5 2, and plasticity index, PI 5 35
Estimate the elastic settlement of the foundation.

olution

S
From Eq. (9.1),
qo B
Se 5 A1A2
Es

Given:
L 2
5 52
B 1
Df 1
5 51
B 1
H 8
5 58
B 1
Es 5 bcu

For OCR 5 2 and PI 5 35, the value of b ø 480 (Table 9.1). Hence,

Es 5 s480ds150d 5 72,000 kN/m2

Also, from Figure 9.1, A1 5 0.9 and A2 5 0.92. Hence,

qo B s120ds1d
Se 5 A1A2 5 s0.9ds0.92d 5 0.00138 m 5 1.38 mm
Es 72,000
■

Elastic Settlement in Granular Soil

9.3 Settlement Based on the Theory of Elasticity

In this section, the procedure to compute the elastic settlement in a granular soil is
discussed. Here, the soil is treated as an elastic continuum. The settlement profiles of
rigid and flexible foundations are shown in Figure 9.2. A flexible foundation applies
uniform pressure to the underlying soil, but its settlement is nonuniform. A rigid foun-
dation settles uniformly, but the pressure applied to the underlying soil is nonuniform.
In the first part of this section, an expression is developed for a flexible surface
foundation (Df 5 0) resting on an elastic half-space, as shown in Figure 9.3a. This is
further modified to account for
a. the presence of a rigid layer at a finite depth H (Figure 9.3b), and
b. embedment depth Df (Figure 9.3c).

CH
e
340 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Foundation B 3 L
qo Df

z Rigid Flexible
foundation foundation
settlement settlement H
s 5 Poisson s ratio
Es 5 Modulus of elasticity
Soil
Figur 9.2 Elastic settlement of
Rock

e
flexible and rigid foundations

B B B

qO qO qO
Df

Rigid layer Rigid layer

(a) (b) (c)

igur 9.3 Elastic settlement of a flexible foundation: (a) elastic half-space, (b) underlain
F
e
by a rigid layer, and (c) with embedment

Sur a Founda on on Ela Hal -Spa

f
ce
ti
s
stic
f
ce
For a flexible rectangular foundation of dimensions B 3 L lying on an elastic half-
space as shown in Figure 9.3a, the elastic settlement under a point on the foundation
is given by
qoB
Se 5 (1 2 m2s )I (9.3)
Es

where I is the influence factor that depends on the location of the point of interest on
the foundation. Here qo is the net pressure applied by the foundation to the underly-
ing soil, B is the width of the foundation, Es is the modulus of elasticity of the soil,
and ms is Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
Schleicher (1926) expressed the influence factor for the corner of a flexible
foundation as

3 1 2 4
1 1 1 Ïm92 1 1
Icorner 5 m9 ln 1 ln_m9 1 Ïm92 1 1+ (9.4)
p m9

where m9 5 L/B. The influence factors for the other locations on the foundation can
be determined by dividing the foundation into four rectangles and using the prin-
ciple of superposition. It can be deduced that the influence factor for the center is
twice that of the corner. The influence factors for the corner, center, midpoint of the
short side, and midpoint of the long side, as determined from Eq. (9.4), are shown
in Figure 9.4 for 1 # m9 # 1000. The values computed here are the same as those

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 341

Se
e
e
B
e
e
T
e
6

r
nte
Ce
4
s ide
o ng
in tl
po

Influence factor, I
id
M
3

side
sh ort
p oint
Mid
ner
2 Cor

0
1 10 100 1000
m9 5 L /B

igur 9.4 Variation of I versus m9 for a flexible foundation

F
e
reported by Poulos and Davis (1974), who refer the work of Giroud (1968). The au-
thors note that these values can be approximated as follows.
Corner: I 5 0.7283 log m9 1 0.5469 (9.5)
Center: I 5 1.4566 log m9 1 1.0939 (9.6)
Midpoint short side: I 5 0.7318 log m9 1 0.7617 (9.7)
Midpoint long side: I 5 1.4357 log m9 1 0.6894 (9.8)
The settlements under the center and the perimeter of a uniformly loaded flexible
circular foundation of diameter B are given by:

qoB
Center: Se 5 (1 2 m2s ) (9.9)
Es

qoB 2
Perimeter: Se 5 (1 2 m2s ) (9.10)
Es p

From Eqs. (9.9) and (9.10), it can be seen that the influence factors for the cen-
ter and a point on the perimeter of a flexible circular foundation are 1.00 and 2/p,
respectively.

CH
e
342 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
abl 9.2 Influence Factors to Compute Aver-

T
e

age Settlement of Flexible and Rigid
Foundation
m9 5 L/B Flexible Rigid
Circle 0.85 0.79
1 0.95 0.82
1.5 1.20 1.07
2 1.30 1.21
3 1.52 1.42
5 1.82 1.60
10 2.24 2.00
100 2.96 3.40

Flexible foundations apply uniform pressure and settle nonuniformly. Rigid

foundations apply nonuniform pressure and settle uniformly. Some influence factors
for estimating the average values of the settlements of flexible and rigid foundations,
as reported in the literature, are given in Table 9.2.
Based on the work of Timoshenko and Goodier (1951), Bowles (1987) sug-
gested that the settlement of the rigid foundation can be estimated as 93% of the
settlement computed for a flexible foundation under the center. The average values
of I reported by Giroud (1968) and Poulos and Davis (1974) suggest that the average
value of the settlement of a flexible foundation can be computed using 84–88% of
the I-value for the center.

E o a d ay r on S l m n
ffects
f
Rigi
L
e
the
ett
e
e
ts
o Sur a Founda on
f
f
ce
ti
s
When the soil is underlain by a rigid layer, as shown in Figure 9.3b, the settlement
computed by Eq. (9.3) has to be reduced. Steinbrenner (1934) suggested the follow-
ing expression for the influence factor for the corner of a rectangular flexible surface
foundation, taking into consideration the presence of the rigid layer, at depth of H
below the foundation and n9 5 H/B.

1 1 2 m 2F
1 2 2ms
Is 5 F1 1 2 (9.11)
s

where

1
F1 5 (A 1 A1) (9.12)
p 0

n9
F2 5 tan21 A2 (9.13)
2p

A0, A1, and A2 are given by

_1 1 Ïm92 1 1 + Ïm92 1 n92
A0 5 m9 ln (9.14)
m9_ 1 1 Ïm92 1 n92 1 1 +

_m9 1 Ïm92 1 1 + Ï1 1 n92

A1 5 ln (9.15)
m9 1 Ïm92 1 n92 1 1
m9
A2 5 (9.16)
n9 1 Ïm92 1 n92 1 1

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 343

Se
e
e
B
e
e
T
e
The influence factor determined using Eqs. (9.11) to (9.16) is for the corner of a uni-
formly loaded flexible rectangular surface foundation. The influence factor for any
other point on the foundation can be determined using the principle of superposition
as before. For H 5 `, n9 5 `, and Eqs. (9.14) to (9.16) become
1 1 Ïm92 1 1
A0 5 m9 ln (9.17)
m9
A1 5 ln _m9 1 Ïm92 1 1+ (9.18)

A2 5 0 (9.19)

Substituting these in Eqs. (9.12) and (9.13),

3 1 2 4
1 1 1 Ïm92 1 1
F1 5 m9 ln 1 ln _m9 1 Ïm92 1 1 + (9.20)
p m9

F2 5 0 (9.21)
Substituting Eqs. (9.20) and (9.21) in Eq. (9.11) gives the same expression we had
from Schleicher (1926) in Eq. (9.4). The variations of F1 and F2 [see Eqs. (9.12) to
(9.16)] with m9 and n9 are given in Tables 9.3 and 9.4.

E o Em dm n
ffect
f
be
e
t
When the foundation base is located at some depth beneath the ground level, the
embedment reduces the settlement further. Fox (1948) proposed the reduction
factor If to account for this reduction in settlement. The settlement computed
in Eq. (9.3) using the Schleicher (1926) or Steinbrenner (1934) influence
factors must be multiplied by If to account for the settlement reduction due
to embedment. If values for different values of Df /B, L /B, and ms are given in

Figure 9.5. Therefore, Eq. (9.3) becomes
qoB
Se 5 s1 2 m2s dIsIf (9.22)
Es
1
L/B = 1

0.9

0.8

If 0.7
s 5
0.5
0.4
0.6 0.3

0.1
0.5
0.0

0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Df /B
Figur 9.5 Variation of If with Df /B:
e
(a) L/B 5 1; (b) L/B 5 2; (c) L/B 5 5 (a)

CH
e
344 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
1
L/B = 2

0.9

0.8

s 5
0.5
If 0.7
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.1

0.0
0.5

0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Df /B
(b)

1
L/B = 5

0.9

0.8 s 5
0.5
0.4
0.3
If 0.7

0.1

0.6
0.0

0.5

0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Df /B
Figur 9.5 (Continued ) (c)
e
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B.

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 345

Se
e
e
B
e
e
T
e
T
abl 9.3 Variation of F1 with m9 and n9

e
m9
n9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.25 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
0.50 0.049 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.041 0.040 0.038 0.038 0.037 0.037
0.75 0.095 0.090 0.087 0.084 0.082 0.080 0.077 0.076 0.074 0.074
1.00 0.142 0.138 0.134 0.130 0.127 0.125 0.121 0.118 0.116 0.115
1.25 0.186 0.183 0.179 0.176 0.173 0.170 0.165 0.161 0.158 0.157
1.50 0.224 0.224 0.222 0.219 0.216 0.213 0.207 0.203 0.199 0.197
1.75 0.257 0.259 0.259 0.258 0.255 0.253 0.247 0.242 0.238 0.235
2.00 0.285 0.290 0.292 0.292 0.291 0.289 0.284 0.279 0.275 0.271
2.25 0.309 0.317 0.321 0.323 0.323 0.322 0.317 0.313 0.308 0.305
2.50 0.330 0.341 0.347 0.350 0.351 0.351 0.348 0.344 0.340 0.336
2.75 0.348 0.361 0.369 0.374 0.377 0.378 0.377 0.373 0.369 0.365
3.00 0.363 0.379 0.389 0.396 0.400 0.402 0.402 0.400 0.396 0.392
3.25 0.376 0.394 0.406 0.415 0.420 0.423 0.426 0.424 0.421 0.418
3.50 0.388 0.408 0.422 0.431 0.438 0.442 0.447 0.447 0.444 0.441
3.75 0.399 0.420 0.436 0.447 0.454 0.460 0.467 0.458 0.466 0.464
4.00 0.408 0.431 0.448 0.460 0.469 0.476 0.484 0.487 0.486 0.484
4.25 0.417 0.440 0.458 0.472 0.481 0.484 0.495 0.514 0.515 0.515
4.50 0.424 0.450 0.469 0.484 0.495 0.503 0.516 0.521 0.522 0.522
4.75 0.431 0.458 0.478 0.494 0.506 0.515 0.530 0.536 0.539 0.539
5.00 0.437 0.465 0.487 0.503 0.516 0.526 0.543 0.551 0.554 0.554
5.25 0.443 0.472 0.494 0.512 0.526 0.537 0.555 0.564 0.568 0.569
5.50 0.448 0.478 0.501 0.520 0.534 0.546 0.566 0.576 0.581 0.584
5.75 0.453 0.483 0.508 0.527 0.542 0.555 0.576 0.588 0.594 0.597
6.00 0.457 0.489 0.514 0.534 0.550 0.563 0.585 0.598 0.606 0.609
6.25 0.461 0.493 0.519 0.540 0.557 0.570 0.594 0.609 0.617 0.621
6.50 0.465 0.498 0.524 0.546 0.563 0.577 0.603 0.618 0.627 0.632
6.75 0.468 0.502 0.529 0.551 0.569 0.584 0.610 0.627 0.637 0.643
7.00 0.471 0.506 0.533 0.556 0.575 0.590 0.618 0.635 0.646 0.653
7.25 0.474 0.509 0.538 0.561 0.580 0.596 0.625 0.643 0.655 0.662
7.50 0.477 0.513 0.541 0.565 0.585 0.601 0.631 0.650 0.663 0.671
7.75 0.480 0.516 0.545 0.569 0.589 0.606 0.637 0.658 0.671 0.680
8.00 0.482 0.519 0.549 0.573 0.594 0.611 0.643 0.664 0.678 0.688
8.25 0.485 0.522 0.552 0.577 0.598 0.615 0.648 0.670 0.685 0.695
8.50 0.487 0.524 0.555 0.580 0.601 0.619 0.653 0.676 0.692 0.703
8.75 0.489 0.527 0.558 0.583 0.605 0.623 0.658 0.682 0.698 0.710
9.00 0.491 0.529 0.560 0.587 0.609 0.627 0.663 0.687 0.705 0.716
9.25 0.493 0.531 0.563 0.589 0.612 0.631 0.667 0.693 0.710 0.723
9.50 0.495 0.533 0.565 0.592 0.615 0.634 0.671 0.697 0.716 0.719
9.75 0.496 0.536 0.568 0.595 0.618 0.638 0.675 0.702 0.721 0.735
10.00 0.498 0.537 0.570 0.597 0.621 0.641 0.679 0.707 0.726 0.740
20.00 0.529 0.575 0.614 0.647 0.677 0.702 0.756 0.797 0.830 0.858
50.00 0.548 0.598 0.640 0.678 0.711 0.740 0.803 0.853 0.895 0.931
100.00 0.555 0.605 0.649 0.688 0.722 0.753 0.819 0.872 0.918 0.956
(Continued )

CH
e
346 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
abl 9.3 Variation of F1 with m9 and n9 (Continued )

T
e
m9
n9 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0
0.25 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
0.50 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
0.75 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
1.00 0.114 0.113 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.111 0.111 0.110 0.110 0.110
1.25 0.155 0.154 0.153 0.152 0.152 0.151 0.151 0.150 0.150 0.150
1.50 0.195 0.194 0.192 0.191 0.190 0.190 0.189 0.188 0.188 0.188
1.75 0.233 0.232 0.229 0.228 0.227 0.226 0.225 0.223 0.223 0.223
2.00 0.269 0.267 0.264 0.262 0.261 0.260 0.259 0.257 0.256 0.256
2.25 0.302 0.300 0.296 0.294 0.293 0.291 0.291 0.287 0.287 0.287
2.50 0.333 0.331 0.327 0.324 0.322 0.321 0.320 0.316 0.315 0.315
2.75 0.362 0.359 0.355 0.352 0.350 0.348 0.347 0.343 0.342 0.342
3.00 0.389 0.386 0.382 0.378 0.376 0.374 0.373 0.368 0.367 0.367
3.25 0.415 0.412 0.407 0.403 0.401 0.399 0.397 0.391 0.390 0.390
3.50 0.438 0.435 0.430 0.427 0.424 0.421 0.420 0.413 0.412 0.411
3.75 0.461 0.458 0.453 0.449 0.446 0.443 0.441 0.433 0.432 0.432
4.00 0.482 0.479 0.474 0.470 0.466 0.464 0.462 0.453 0.451 0.451
4.25 0.516 0.496 0.484 0.473 0.471 0.471 0.470 0.468 0.462 0.460
4.50 0.520 0.517 0.513 0.508 0.505 0.502 0.499 0.489 0.487 0.487
4.75 0.537 0.535 0.530 0.526 0.523 0.519 0.517 0.506 0.504 0.503
5.00 0.554 0.552 0.548 0.543 0.540 0.536 0.534 0.522 0.519 0.519
5.25 0.569 0.568 0.564 0.560 0.556 0.553 0.550 0.537 0.534 0.534
5.50 0.584 0.583 0.579 0.575 0.571 0.568 0.585 0.551 0.549 0.548
5.75 0.597 0.597 0.594 0.590 0.586 0.583 0.580 0.565 0.583 0.562
6.00 0.611 0.610 0.608 0.604 0.601 0.598 0.595 0.579 0.576 0.575
6.25 0.623 0.623 0.621 0.618 0.615 0.611 0.608 0.592 0.589 0.588
6.50 0.635 0.635 0.634 0.631 0.628 0.625 0.622 0.605 0.601 0.600
6.75 0.646 0.647 0.646 0.644 0.641 0.637 0.634 0.617 0.613 0.612
7.00 0.656 0.658 0.658 0.656 0.653 0.650 0.647 0.628 0.624 0.623
7.25 0.666 0.669 0.669 0.668 0.665 0.662 0.659 0.640 0.635 0.634
7.50 0.676 0.679 0.680 0.679 0.676 0.673 0.670 0.651 0.646 0.645
7.75 0.685 0.688 0.690 0.689 0.687 0.684 0.681 0.661 0.656 0.655
8.00 0.694 0.697 0.700 0.700 0.698 0.695 0.692 0.672 0.666 0.665
8.25 0.702 0.706 0.710 0.710 0.708 0.705 0.703 0.682 0.676 0.675
8.50 0.710 0.714 0.719 0.719 0.718 0.715 0.713 0.692 0.686 0.684
8.75 0.717 0.722 0.727 0.728 0.727 0.725 0.723 0.701 0.695 0.693
9.00 0.725 0.730 0.736 0.737 0.736 0.735 0.732 0.710 0.704 0.702
9.25 0.731 0.737 0.744 0.746 0.745 0.744 0.742 0.719 0.713 0.711
9.50 0.738 0.744 0.752 0.754 0.754 0.753 0.751 0.728 0.721 0.719
9.75 0.744 0.751 0.759 0.762 0.762 0.761 0.759 0.737 0.729 0.727
10.00 0.750 0.758 0.766 0.770 0.770 0.770 0.768 0.745 0.738 0.735
20.00 0.878 0.896 0.925 0.945 0.959 0.969 0.977 0.982 0.965 0.957
50.00 0.962 0.989 1.034 1.070 1.100 1.125 1.146 1.265 1.279 1.261
100.00 0.990 1.020 1.072 1.114 1.150 1.182 1.209 1.408 1.489 1.499

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 347

Se
e
e
B
e
e
T
e
abl 9.4 Variation of F2 with m9 and n9

T
e

m9
n9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.25 0.049 0.050 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052
0.50 0.074 0.077 0.080 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.086 0.086 0.0878 0.087
0.75 0.083 0.089 0.093 0.097 0.099 0.101 0.104 0.106 0.107 0.108
1.00 0.083 0.091 0.098 0.102 0.106 0.109 0.114 0.117 0.119 0.120
1.25 0.080 0.089 0.096 0.102 0.107 0.111 0.118 0.122 0.125 0.127
1.50 0.075 0.084 0.093 0.099 0.105 0.110 0.118 0.124 0.128 0.130
1.75 0.069 0.079 0.088 0.095 0.101 0.107 0.117 0.123 0.128 0.131
2.00 0.064 0.074 0.083 0.090 0.097 0.102 0.114 0.121 0.127 0.131
2.25 0.059 0.069 0.077 0.085 0.092 0.098 0.110 0.119 0.125 0.130
2.50 0.055 0.064 0.073 0.080 0.087 0.093 0.106 0.115 0.122 0.127
2.75 0.051 0.060 0.068 0.076 0.082 0.089 0.102 0.111 0.119 0.125
3.00 0.048 0.056 0.064 0.071 0.078 0.084 0.097 0.108 0.116 0.122
3.25 0.045 0.053 0.060 0.067 0.074 0.080 0.093 0.104 0.112 0.119
3.50 0.042 0.050 0.057 0.064 0.070 0.076 0.089 0.100 0.109 0.116
3.75 0.040 0.047 0.054 0.060 0.067 0.073 0.086 0.096 0.105 0.113
4.00 0.037 0.044 0.051 0.057 0.063 0.069 0.082 0.093 0.102 0.110
4.25 0.036 0.042 0.049 0.055 0.061 0.066 0.079 0.090 0.099 0.107
4.50 0.034 0.040 0.046 0.052 0.058 0.063 0.076 0.086 0.096 0.104
4.75 0.032 0.038 0.044 0.050 0.055 0.061 0.073 0.083 0.093 0.101
5.00 0.031 0.036 0.042 0.048 0.053 0.058 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.098
5.25 0.029 0.035 0.040 0.046 0.051 0.056 0.067 0.078 0.087 0.095
5.50 0.028 0.033 0.039 0.044 0.049 0.054 0.065 0.075 0.084 0.092
5.75 0.027 0.032 0.037 0.042 0.047 0.052 0.063 0.073 0.082 0.090
6.00 0.026 0.031 0.036 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.079 0.087
6.25 0.025 0.030 0.034 0.039 0.044 0.048 0.058 0.068 0.077 0.085
6.50 0.024 0.029 0.033 0.038 0.042 0.046 0.056 0.066 0.075 0.083
6.75 0.023 0.028 0.032 0.036 0.041 0.045 0.055 0.064 0.073 0.080
7.00 0.022 0.027 0.031 0.035 0.039 0.043 0.053 0.062 0.071 0.078
7.25 0.022 0.026 0.030 0.034 0.038 0.042 0.051 0.060 0.069 0.076
7.50 0.021 0.025 0.029 0.033 0.037 0.041 0.050 0.059 0.067 0.074
7.75 0.020 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.036 0.039 0.048 0.057 0.065 0.072
8.00 0.020 0.023 0.027 0.031 0.035 0.038 0.047 0.055 0.063 0.071
8.25 0.019 0.023 0.026 0.030 0.034 0.037 0.046 0.054 0.062 0.069
8.50 0.018 0.022 0.026 0.029 0.033 0.036 0.045 0.053 0.060 0.067
8.75 0.018 0.021 0.025 0.028 0.032 0.035 0.043 0.051 0.059 0.066
9.00 0.017 0.021 0.024 0.028 0.031 0.034 0.042 0.050 0.057 0.064
9.25 0.017 0.020 0.024 0.027 0.030 0.033 0.041 0.049 0.056 0.063
9.50 0.017 0.020 0.023 0.026 0.029 0.033 0.040 0.048 0.055 0.061
9.75 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.026 0.029 0.032 0.039 0.047 0.054 0.060
10.00 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.038 0.046 0.052 0.059
20.00 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.020 0.024 0.027 0.031
50.00 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013
100.00 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006
(Continued )

CH
e
348 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
abl 9.4 Variation of F2 with m9 and n9 (Continued)

T
e
m9

n9 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0
0.25 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053
0.50 0.087 0.087 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.088
0.75 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.111 0.111 0.111
1.00 0.121 0.122 0.123 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.125 0.125 0.125
1.25 0.128 0.130 0.131 0.132 0.132 0.133 0.133 0.134 0.134 0.134
1.50 0.132 0.134 0.136 0.137 0.138 0.138 0.139 0.140 0.140 0.140
1.75 0.134 0.136 0.138 0.140 0.141 0.142 0.142 0.144 0.144 0.145
2.00 0.134 0.136 0.139 0.141 0.143 0.144 0.145 0.147 0.147 0.148
2.25 0.133 0.136 0.140 0.142 0.144 0.145 0.146 0.149 0.150 0.150
2.50 0.132 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.144 0.146 0.147 0.151 0.151 0.151
2.75 0.130 0.133 0.138 0.142 0.144 0.146 0.147 0.152 0.152 0.153
3.00 0.127 0.131 0.137 0.141 0.144 0.145 0.147 0.152 0.153 0.154
3.25 0.125 0.129 0.135 0.140 0.143 0.145 0.147 0.153 0.154 0.154
3.50 0.122 0.126 0.133 0.138 0.142 0.144 0.146 0.153 0.155 0.155
3.75 0.119 0.124 0.131 0.137 0.141 0.143 0.145 0.154 0.155 0.155
4.00 0.116 0.121 0.129 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.145 0.154 0.155 0.156
4.25 0.113 0.119 0.127 0.133 0.138 0.141 0.144 0.154 0.156 0.156
4.50 0.110 0.116 0.125 0.131 0.136 0.140 0.143 0.154 0.156 0.156
4.75 0.107 0.113 0.123 0.130 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.154 0.156 0.157
5.00 0.105 0.111 0.120 0.128 0.133 0.137 0.140 0.154 0.156 0.157
5.25 0.102 0.108 0.118 0.126 0.131 0.136 0.139 0.154 0.156 0.157
5.50 0.099 0.106 0.116 0.124 0.130 0.134 0.138 0.154 0.156 0.157
5.75 0.097 0.103 0.113 0.122 0.128 0.133 0.136 0.154 0.157 0.157
6.00 0.094 0.101 0.111 0.120 0.126 0.131 0.135 0.153 0.157 0.157
6.25 0.092 0.098 0.109 0.118 0.124 0.129 0.134 0.153 0.157 0.158
6.50 0.090 0.096 0.107 0.116 0.122 0.128 0.132 0.153 0.157 0.158
6.75 0.087 0.094 0.105 0.114 0.121 0.126 0.131 0.153 0.157 0.158
7.00 0.085 0.092 0.103 0.112 0.119 0.125 0.129 0.152 0.157 0.158
7.25 0.083 0.090 0.101 0.110 0.117 0.123 0.128 0.152 0.157 0.158
7.50 0.081 0.088 0.099 0.108 0.115 0.121 0.126 0.152 0.156 0.158
7.75 0.079 0.086 0.097 0.106 0.114 0.120 0.125 0.151 0.156 0.158
8.00 0.077 0.084 0.095 0.104 0.112 0.118 0.124 0.151 0.156 0.158
8.25 0.076 0.082 0.093 0.102 0.110 0.117 0.122 0.150 0.156 0.158
8.50 0.074 0.080 0.091 0.101 0.108 0.115 0.121 0.150 0.156 0.158
8.75 0.072 0.078 0.089 0.099 0.107 0.114 0.119 0.150 0.156 0.158
9.00 0.071 0.077 0.088 0.097 0.105 0.112 0.118 0.149 0.156 0.158
9.25 0.069 0.075 0.086 0.096 0.104 0.110 0.116 0.149 0.156 0.158
9.50 0.068 0.074 0.085 0.094 0.102 0.109 0.115 0.148 0.156 0.158
9.75 0.066 0.072 0.083 0.092 0.100 0.107 0.113 0.148 0.156 0.158
10.00 0.065 0.071 0.082 0.091 0.099 0.106 0.112 0.147 0.156 0.158
20.00 0.035 0.039 0.046 0.053 0.059 0.065 0.071 0.124 0.148 0.156
50.00 0.014 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.025 0.028 0.031 0.071 0.113 0.142
100.00 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.039 0.071 0.113

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 349

Se
e
e
B
e
e
T
e
It is suggested that the settlement be computed for the surface foundations (Df 5 0)
using Eq. (9.3) and then multiplied by If to account for the embedment.
Due to the nonhomogeneous nature of soil deposits, the magnitude of Es may
vary with depth. For that reason, Bowles (1987) recommended using a weighted
average of Es in Eqs. (9.3) and (9.22), or
oEssid Dz
Es 5 (9.23)
z
where
Essid 5 soil modulus of elasticity within a depth Dz
z 5 H or 5B, whichever is smaller

Exampl 9.2

e
A flexible shallow foundation 1 m 3 2 m is shown in Figure 9.6. Calculate the elastic
settlement at the center of the foundation.

olution
S
We are given that B 5 1 m and L 5 2 m. Note that z 5 5 m 5 5B. From Eq. (9.23),
oEssid Dz
Es 5
z
s10,000ds2d 1 s8000ds1d 1 s12,000ds2d
5 5 10,400 kN/m2
5
For one of the four quarters of the foundation, B 5 0.5 m and L 5 1.0 m. Also, H 5
6.0 m (Note: The Steinbrenner factors in Tables 9.3 and 9.4 are for surface founda-
tions with Df 5 0.)

m9 5 L/B 5 2.0 and n9 5 H/B 5 12.0

From Table 9.3, F1 5 0.653, and from Table 9.4, F2 5 0.028.
From Eq. (9.11), with ms 5 0.3,

1 1 2 m 2F 5 0.653 1 11 21 22 30.30.32s0.028) 5 0.669

1 2 2ms
Is 5 F1 1 2
s

qo 5 150 kN/m2
1m

lm32m Es (kN/m2)
0

1 10,000
s 5 0.3
2
8000
3

4 12,000

Rock igur 9.6 Elastic settlement

F
e
z (m) below the center of a foundation

CH
e
350 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
For ms 5 0.3, L/B 5 2 and Df /B 5 1 (using B 5 1 m for the entire foundation); from
Figure 9.5b, If 5 0.71.
From Eq. (9.22) and considering the four quarters,
q0B
Se 5 s1 2 m2s dIs If
Es

s150ds0.5d
5 s1 2 0.32ds0.669 3 4ds0.71d 5 0.0124 m 5 12.4 mm
s10,400d
■

9.4 Improved Equation for Elastic Settlement
In 1999, Mayne and Poulos presented an improved formula for calculating the elastic
settlement of foundations. The formula takes into account the rigidity of the foun-
dation, the depth of embedment of the foundation, the increase in the modulus of
elasticity of the soil with depth, and the presence of a rigid layer at a limited depth.
To use Mayne and Poulos’ equation, one needs to determine the equivalent diameter
Be of a rectangular foundation, or

Be 5 Î 4BL
p
(9.24)

where
B 5 width of foundation
L 5 length of foundation
For circular foundations,

Be 5 B (9.25)

where B 5 diameter of foundation.

Figure 9.7 shows a foundation with an equivalent diameter Be located at a depth
Df below the ground surface. Let the thickness of the foundation be t and the modu-
lus of elasticity of the foundation material be Ef . A rigid layer is located at a depth H
below the bottom of the foundation. The modulus of elasticity of the compressible

soil layer can be given as

Es 5 Eo 1 kz (9.26)

Be
qo

Df
t Ef Eo
Es

Compressible
Es 5
soil layer H
Es Eo 1 kz
s

Rigid layer
igur 9.7 Improved equation for calcu-
F
e
lating elastic settlement: general parameters Depth, z

9.4 mprov d Equation for Elastic ttl m nt 351

I
e
Se
e
e
1.0
. 30 10.0
5.0
0.8
2.0

0.6 1.0

IG
0.4 0.5

0.2
H/Be 5 0.2

0
0.01 2 4 6 0.1 1 10 100
E
5 kBo (log scale)
Figur 9.8 Variation of IG with b e
e
With the preceding parameters defined, the elastic settlement below the center of the
foundation is

qo Be IG IF IE
Se 5 s1 2 m2s d (9.27)
Eo

where
IG 5 influence factor for the variation of Es with depth

1 2
Eo H
5f b5 ,
kBe Be
IF 5 foundation rigidity correction factor
IE 5 foundation embedment correction factor
Figure 9.8 shows the variation of IG with b 5 EoykBe and HyBe . The foundation
rigidity correction factor can be expressed as

p 1
IF 5 1 (9.28)

1 2
4
Ef
1B2t 2
3
4.6 1 10
Be e
Eo 1 k
2

Similarly, the embedment correction factor is

1
IE 5 1 2 (9.29)
1 2
Be
3.5 exps1.22ms 2 0.4d 1 1.6
Df

Figures 9.9 and 9.10 show the variation of IF and IE with terms expressed in
Eqs. (9.28) and (9.29).

CH
e
352 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
1.0

0.95

0.9

0.85

IF
( )( )
3
Ef 2t
0.8 KF 5 Be Be
Eo 1 k
2
5 Flexibility factor
0.75

0.7
Figur 9.9 Variation of rigidity correc-
0.001 2 4 0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0 100
e
tion factor IF with flexibility factor KF
[Eq. (9.28)] KF

1.0

0.95

0.9
s = 0.5
0.85 0.4
IE

0.3
0.2
0.8
0.1

0.75 0

0.7
Figur 9.10 Variation of 0 5 10 15 20
Df
e
embedment correction factor IE with DfyBe
[Eq (9.29)] Be

Exampl 9.3
e
For a shallow foundation supported by a silty sand, as shown in Figure 9.7,
Length 5 L 5 3 m
Width 5 B 5 1.5 m
Depth of foundation 5 Df 5 1.5 m
Thickness of foundation 5 t 5 0.3 m
Load per unit area 5 qo 5 240 kN/m2
Ef 5 16 3 106 kN/m2
The silty sand soil has the following properties:
H 5 3.7 m
ms 5 0.3

9.4 mprov d Equation for Elastic ttl m nt 353

I
e
Se
e
e
Eo 5 9700 kN/m2
k 5 575 kN/m2/m
Estimate the elastic settlement of the foundation.

olution

S
From Eq. (9.24), the equivalent diameter is

Be 5 Î Î 4BL
p
5
s4ds1.5ds3d
p
5 2.39 m

Eo 9700
b5 5 5 7.06
kBe s575ds2.39d

and

H 3.7
5 5 1.55
Be 2.39

From Figure 9.8, for b 5 7.06 and HyBe 5 1.55, the value of IG < 0.7. From
Eq. (9.28),

p 1
IF 5 1

1 21 2
4
Ef 2t 3
4.6 1 10
Be Be
Eo 1 k
2
p 1
5 1 5 0.789

3 43
4

4
16 3 106 s2d s0.3d 3
4.6 1 10
1 2
2.39 2.39
9700 1 s575d
2

From Eq. (9.29),

1
IE 5 1 2
1D 1 1.62
Be
3.5 exps1.22ms 2 0.4d
f

1
512 5 0.907
1 2
2.39
3.5 exp [s1.22ds0.3d 2 0.4] 1 1.6
1.5

From Eq. (9.27),

qoBeIGIFIE
Se 5 s1 2 m2s d
Eo

so, with qo 5 240 kN/m2, it follows that

s240ds2.39ds0.7ds0.789ds0.907d
Se 5 s1 2 0.32d < 0.02696 m < 27 mm
9700
■

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B. apt r

CH
e
354 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
9.5 Settlement of Sandy Soil: se of Strain

U
Influence Factor
Solu on o S m r mann al. (1978)

ti
f
ch
e
t
et
The settlement of granular soil can also be evaluated by the use of a semiempirical
strain influence factor proposed by Schmertmann et al. (1978). According to this
method (Figure 9.11), the settlement is

z2
Iz
Se 5 C1C2sq 2 qd o E Dz
0 s
(9.30)

where
Iz 5 strain influence factor
C1 5 a correction factor for the depth of foundation embedment
5 1 2 0.5 [qysq 2 qd]
C2 5 a correction factor to account for creep in soil
5 1 1 0.2 log stime in yearsy0.1d
q 5 stress at the level of the foundation
q 5 gDf 5 effective stress at the base of the foundation
Es 5 modulus of elasticity of soil
The recommended variation of the strain influence factor Iz for square (LyB 5 1)
or circular foundations and for foundations with LyB $ 10 is shown in Figure 9.11.
The Iz diagrams for 1 , LyB , 10 can be interpolated.

q Iz (m) Iz (m)
Df q = Df
0.1 Iz 0.2 Iz
qz9(1)
B z1 = 0.5B qz9(1)

z1 = B

z2 = 2B
L/B = 1
z (Square)
z
L/B $10
(Strip)

z2 = 4B
z

igur 9.11 Variation of strain influence factor with depth and LyB
F
e
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B.

9.5 ttl m nt of andy oil: s of train nflu nc actor 355

Se
e
e
S
S
U
e
S
I
e
e
F
Note that the maximum value of Iz [that is, Iz(m)] occurs at z 5 z1 and then re-
duces to zero at z 5 z2. The maximum value of Iz can be calculated as

Izsmd 5 0.5 1 0.1 Î q# 2 q

q9zs1d
(9.31)

where
q9z(1) 5 effective stress at a depth of z1 before construction of the foundation
The following relations are suggested by Salgado (2008) for interpolation of
Iz at z 5 0, z1yB, and z2yB for rectangular foundations.
●
Iz at z 5 0

●
Iz 5 0.1 1 0.0111 1BL 2 12 # 0.2 (9.32)

●
z1yB
●
1 2
z1 L
5 0.5 1 0.0555 2 1 # 1 (9.33)
B B
●
z2yB
●
1 2
z2 L
5 2 1 0.222 2 1 # 4 (9.34)
B B

Schmertmann et al. (1978) suggested that
Es 5 2.5qc (for square foundation) (9.35)

and
Es 5 3.5qc (for LyB $ 10) (9.36)

where qc is the cone penetration resistance.
It appears reasonable to write (Terzaghi et al., 1996)

1 2
L
Essrectangled 5 1 1 0.4 log E (9.37)
B sssquared

The procedure for calculating elastic settlement using Eq. (9.30) is given here
(Figure 9.12).
Step 1. Plot the foundation and the variation of Iz with depth to scale

(Figure 9.12a).
Step 2. Using the correlation from standard penetration resistance (N60) or

cone penetration resistance (qc), plot the actual variation of Es with
depth (Figure 9.12b).
Step 3. Approximate the actual variation of Es into a number of layers of

soil having a constant Es, such as Es (1), Es (2), . . . , Es (i ), . . . Es(n)
(Figure 9.12b).
Step 4. Divide the soil layer from z 5 0 to z 5 z 2 into a number of layers by

drawing horizontal lines. The number of layers will depend on the
break in continuity in the Iz and Es diagrams.
Iz
Step 5. Prepare a table (such as Table 9.5) to obtain o Dz.
Es
Step 6. Calculate C1 and C2.
Step 7. Calculate Se from Eq. (9.30).

CH
e
356 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
B

Es
Iz(1) Es(1)
Dz(1)
Step 4
z1

Dz(2) Iz(2) Es(2)

Iz(3) Step 3
z2

Iz(i)
Dz(i)
Step 1 Es(i)

Iz(n)
Dz(n) Es(n)
Step 2

Depth, z
igur 9.12 Procedure for calculation (a) Depth, z
F
e
of Se using the strain influence factor (b)

Iz
abl 9.5 Calculation of o Dz
Es
T
e

Layer Iz at the middle Iz
Dz
no. Dz Es of the layer Es

1 Dzs1d Ess1d Izs1d Izs1d

Dz1
Ess1d

2 Dzs2d Ess2d Izs2d

( ( ( (

i Dzsid Essid Izsid Izsid

Dzi
Essid

( ( ( ( (

n Dzsnd Essnd Izsnd Izsnd

Dzn
Essnd

Iz
o Dz
Es

Exampl 9.4
e
Consider a rectangular foundation 2 m 3 4 m in plan at a depth of 1.2 m in a sand
deposit, as shown in Figure 9.13a. Given: g 5 17.5 kN/m3, q– 5 145 kN/m2, and the
following approximated variation of qc with z:

9.5 ttl m nt of andy oil: s of train nflu nc actor 357

Se
e
e
S
S
U
e
S
I
e
e
F
z (m) qc (kN/m2)
0–0.5 2250
0.5–2.5 3430
2.5–6.0 2950

Estimate the elastic settlement of the foundation using the strain influence factor method.

olution

S
From Eq. (9.33),

1 2 1 2
z1 L 4
5 0.5 1 0.0555 2 1 5 0.5 1 0.0555 2 1 < 0.56
B B 2
z1 5 (0.56)(2) 5 1.12 m
From Eq. (9.34),

1 2
z2 L
5 2 1 0.222 2 1 5 2 1 0.222s2 2 1d 5 2.22
B B
z2 5 (2.22)(2) 5 4.44 m

From Eq. (9.32), at z 5 0,

Iz 5 0.1 1 0.0111 1BL 2 12 5 0.1 1 0.0111142 2 12 < 0.11

From Eq. (9.31),

Izsmd 5 0.5 1 0.1 Î q2q

qzs1d
9
5 0.5 1 0.1
145 2 s1.2 3 17.5d
s1.2 1 1.12ds17.5d 3 4
0.5
5 0.675

The plot of Iz versus z is shown in Figure 9.13c. Again, from Eq. (9.37),

1 2 3 1 24s2.5 3 q d 5 2.8q
L 4
Essrectangled 5 1 1 0.4 log E 5 1 1 0.4 log
B sssquared c c
2

q = 145 kN/m2
1.2 m = 17.5 kN/m3 Es (kN/m2)
0.11 0.675 Iz
B=2 m 6300 1
0.5 kN/m2 2
L=4 m 1.0
1.12

9604
2.0 3
z kN/m2
2.5
3.0
8260
(a) 4
kN/m2
4.0
4.44

5.0

z (m) z (m) (c)

igur 9.13 (b)
F
e
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B. apt r

CH
e
358 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Hence, the approximated variation of Es with z is as follows:

z (m) qc (kN/m2) Es (kN/m2)

0–0.5 2250 6300
0.5–2.5 3430 9604
2.5–6.0 2950 8260

The plot of Es versus z is shown in Figure 9.13b.

The soil layer is divided into four layers as shown in Figures 9.13b and 9.13c.
Now the following table can be prepared.

Iz at middle Iz
Dz (m3/kN)
Layer no. Dz (m) Es (kN/m2) of layer Es

1 0.50 6300 0.236 1.87 3 1025

2 0.62 9604 0.519 3.35 3 1025
3 1.38 9604 0.535 7.68 3 1025
4 1.94 8260 0.197 4.62 3 1025
o17.52 3 1025

Iz
Se 5 C1C2sq 2 qd o E Dz s

1q 2 q2 5 1 2 0.51145212 212 5 0.915

q
C1 5 1 2 0.5

Assume the time for creep is 10 years. So,

10.1 2 5 1.4
10
C2 5 1 1 0.2 log

Hence,
Se 5 (0.915)(1.4)(145 2 21)(17.52 3 1025) 5 2783 3 1025 m 5 27.83 mm
■

Solu on o T rza al. (1996)
ti
f
e
ghi
et
Terzaghi et al. (1996) proposed a slightly different form of the strain influence factor
diagram, as shown in Figure 9.14. According to Terzaghi et al. (1996),
At z 5 0, Iz 5 0.2 (for all LyB values)
At z 5 z1 5 0.5B, Iz 5 0.6 (for all LyB values)
At z 5 z2 5 2B, Iz 5 0 (for LyB 5 1)
At z 5 z2 5 4B, Iz 5 0 (for LyB $ 10)

For LyB between 1 and 10 (or . 10),

3 1 24(9.38)
z2 L
5 2 1 1 log
B B
The elastic settlement can be given as

3 4 1 1 day 2
z2 Iz 0.1 t days
Se 5 Cdsq 2 qd o E Dz 1 0.02 o sq Dzd
0 s c
z2 log (9.39)

z2
Postconstruction settlement

9.5 ttl m nt of andy oil: s of train nflu nc actor 359

Se
e
e
S
S
U
e
S
I
e
e
F
Iz (m) 5 0.6 Iz (m) 5 0.6

0.2 0.2
Iz Iz

z1 5 0.5B z1 5 0.5B

z2 5 2B

L 51
B
L $10
B

z2 5 4B

z z

igur 9.14 Strain influence factor diagram proposed by Terzaghi et al. (1996)
F
e
In Eq. (9.39), qc is in MN/m2.
The relationships for Es are

Es 5 3.5qc sfor square and circular foundationsd(9.40)

and

3
Essrectangulard 5 1 1 0.4 log 1BL 24E sssquared # 1.4Esssquared (9.41)

In Eq. (9.38), Cd is the depth factor. Table 9.6 gives the interpolated values of Cd for
values of DfyB.

abl 9.6 Variation of Cd with DfyB*

T
e
Df yB Cd
0.1 1
0.2 0.96
0.3 0.92
0.5 0.86
0.7 0.82
1.0 0.77
2.0 0.68
3.0 0.65
*Based on data from Terzaghi et al. (1996)

CH
e
360 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Exampl 9.5

e
Solve Example 9.4 using the method of Terzaghi et al. (1996).

olution

S
Given: LyB 5 4y2 5 2.
Figure 9.15a shows the plot of Iz with depth below the foundation. Note that

3 1 24 5 2f1 1 log s2dg 5 2.6

z2 L
5 2 1 1 log
B B
or

z2 5 s2.6dsBd 5 s2.6ds2d 5 5.2 m

Also, from Eqs. (9.40) and (9.41),

3
Es 5 1 1 0.4 log 1BL 24s3.5q d 5 31 1 0.4 log14224s3.5q d 5 3.92q
c c c

The following table can be prepared and shows the variation of Es with depth, which
is shown in Figure 9.15b.

z (m) qc (kN/m2) Es (kN/m2)

0−0.5 2250 8820
0.5−2.5 3430 14,445.6
2.5−6 2950 11,564

Again, Df yB 5 1.2y2 5 0.6. From Table 9.6, Cd ø 0.85.

z2 Iz
The following table is used to calculate o E Dz.
0 s

Iz at the middle Iz
Dz (m2/kN)
Layer no. D z (m) Es (kN/m2) of the layer Es

1 0.5 8820 0.3 1.7 3 1025

2 0.5 14,445.6 0.5 1.73 3 1025
3 1.5 14,445.6 0.493 5.12 3 1025
4 2.7 11,564 0.193 4.5 3 1025
o 13.06 3 1025 m2/kN

Thus,
z2 Iz
Cdsq 2 qd o E D 5 s0.85ds145 2 21ds13.06 3 10
0 s
z
25
d 5 1376.5 3 1025 m

Postconstruction creep is

3o 4 1 2
0.1 t days
0.02 z2 log
sqcDzd 1 day
z2

o sq Dzd 5 s2250 3 0.5d 1 s3430 3 2d 1 s2950 3 2.7d

c
z2 5.2
5 3067.3 kN/m2 < 3.07 MN/m2

9.6 ttl m nt of oundation on and as d on tandard n tration sistanc 361

Se
e
e
F
S
B
e
S
Pe
e
Re
e
0.2 Iz Es (kN/m2)
0
1 8820
0.5
2
1.0

14,445.6
3

2.5

4 11,564

5.2

z (m) z (m)
igur 9.15 (a) (b)
F
e
Hence, the elastic settlement is

33.07 4s5.2d log1 2

0.1 10 3 365 days
Se 5 1376.5 3 1025 1 0.02
1 day
25
5 2583.3 3 10 m
< 25.83 mm

Note: The magnitude of Se is about 93% of that found in Example 9.4. In Example 9.4,
the elastic settlement was about 19.88 mm, and settlement due to creep was about
7.95 mm. However, in Example 9.5, elastic settlement is about 13.77 mm, and the
settlement due to creep is about 12.07 mm. Thus the magnitude of creep settlement
is about 50% more in Example 9.5. However, the magnitude of elastic settlement in
Example 9.4 is about 30% more compared to that in Example 9.5. This is because of
the assumption of the Es − qc relationship.
■

Leonards (1986) and Holtz (1991) noted that the method of Schmertmann et al.
(1978) is based on settlement records from Florida, where sands are interbedded with
clays and silts that exhibit creep. In sands and gravels that do not contain any fines,
they suggest using C2 5 1.

9.6 Settlement of Foundation on Sand Based

on Standard enetration esistance
P
R
T rza and k’ od
e
ghi
Pec
s
Meth
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) proposed the first rational method for predicting settle-
ment of a shallow foundation in a granular soil. They related the elastic settlement

CH
e
362 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Net applied pressure (kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
Very dense
10
N60 5 50

Settlement (mm)
Medium Dense
30

Loose
40

50
N60 5 30
N60 5 10
60

igur 9.16 Settlement of 300 mm 3 300 mm plate (Load test data from Late
F
e
Professor G.A. Leonards, Purdue University)

of a square foundation (Se, foundation) of width B to the settlement of a 300 mm wide

square plate (Se, plate) under the same pressure by
Df
1 2 11 2 14 B 2
2
2B
Se, foundation 5 Se, plate (9.42)
B11
where B is in feet. In SI units, Eq. (9.42) becomes
Df
1 2 11 2 14 B 2
2
2B
Se, foundation 5 Se, plate (9.43)
B 1 0.3
where B is in meters.
In Eqs. (9.42) and (9.43), the last term takes into account the reduction in settle-
ment with the increase in foundation depth. Leonards (1986) suggested replacing 1/4
by 1/3, based on additional load test data. The values of Se, plate can be obtained from
Figure 9.16, which summarizes the plate loading test data given by Terzaghi and
Peck (1967). These load tests were carried out on thick deposits of normally consoli-
dated drained sand. This method was originally proposed for square foundations but
can be applied to rectangular and strip foundations with caution. The deeper influ-
ence zone and increase in the stresses within the underlying soil mass in the case of
rectangular or strip foundations are compensated by the increase in the soil stiffness.

Exampl 9.6
e
A 2.5 m square foundation placed at a depth of 1.5 m within a sandy soil applies a net
pressure of 120 kN/m2 to the underlying ground. The sand has g 5 18.5 kN/m3 and
N60 5 25. What would be the settlement?

olution
S
For net applied pressure 5 120 kN/m2 and N60 5 25; from Figure 9.16, Se, plate 5 4 mm.
From Eq. (9.43),
Df
1 2 11 2 13 B 2
2
2B
Se, foundation 5 Se, plate
B 1 0.3

5 s4d 1 2 1 3 2.5 2
2
2 3 2.5 1 1.5
12 3 5 10.2 mm
2.5 1 0.3
■

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B.

9.6 ttl m nt of oundation on and as d on tandard n tration sistanc 363

Se
e
e
F
S
B
e
S
Pe
e
Re
e
y r o ’ od

Me
e
h
f
s
Meth
Meyerhof (1956) proposed a correlation for the net bearing pressure for foundations
with the standard penetration resistance, N60. The net pressure has been defined as

qnet 5 q 2 gDf

where q is the stress at the level of the foundation.

For a long time in the past, the maximum allowable settlement for shallow foun-
dations has been taken as 25 mm (see Section 9.16). According to Meyerhof’s theory,
for 25 mm of estimated maximum settlement,
N60
qnetskN/m2d 5 sfor B # 1.22 md (9.44)
0.08

and

1 2
2
N60 B 1 0.3
qnetskN/m2d 5 sfor B . 1.22 md (9.45)
0.125 B

Since the time that Meyerhof proposed his original correlations, researchers
have observed that its results are rather conservative. Later, Meyerhof (1965)
suggested that the net allowable bearing pressure should be increased by about
50%. Bowles (1977) proposed that the modified form of the bearing equations
be expressed as

1 2
N60 Se
qnetskN/m2d 5 Fd sfor B # 1.22 md (9.46)
0.05 25

and

1 2 F 1252
2
N60 B 1 0.3 Se
qnetskN/m2d 5 d sfor B . 1.22 md (9.47)
0.08 B

where
Fd 5 depth factor 5 1 1 0.33(Df yB)
B 5 foundation width, in meters
Se 5 settlement, in mm
Hence,

1.25qnetskN/m2d
Sesmmd 5 sfor B # 1.22 md (9.48)
N60Fd

and

1 2
2qnetskN/m2d B 2
Sesmmd 5 sfor B . 1.22 md (9.49)
N60Fd B 1 0.3

The N60 referred to in the preceding equations is the standard penetration resistance
between the bottom of the foundation and 2B below the bottom.

CH
e
364 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Burland and Bur d ’ od

bi
ge
s
Meth
Burland and Burbidge (1985) proposed a method of calculating the elastic settlement
of sandy soil using the field standard penetration number, N60 . (See Chapter 3.) The
method can be summarized as follows:
1. Variation of Standard Penetration Number with Depth
Obtain the field penetration numbers sN60d with depth at the location of the
foundation. The following adjustments of N60 may be necessary, depending
on the field conditions:
For gravel or sandy gravel,
N60sad < 1.25 N60 (9.50)
For fine sand or silty sand below the groundwater table and N60 . 15,
N60sad < 15 1 0.5sN60 2 15d (9.51)
where N60sad 5 adjusted N60 value.
2. Determination of Depth of Stress Influence (z9)
In determining the depth of stress influence, the following three cases may
arise:
Case I. If N60 [or N60sad] is approximately constant with depth, calculate z9
from

1 2
0.75
z9 B
5 1.4 (9.52)
BR BR

where
BR 5 reference width 5 0.3 m sif B is in md
B 5 width of the actual foundation
Case II. If N60 [or N60sad] is increasing with depth, use Eq. (9.52) to
calculate z9.
Case III. If N60 [or N60sad] is decreasing with depth, z9 5 2B or depth to
the bottom of soft soil layer measured from the bottom of the foundation
(whichever is smaller).
3. Calculation of Elastic Settlement Se
The elastic settlement of the foundation, Se , can be calculated from

3 4
2

1 2 B q9
L
1.25
1B 2 1p 2
Se B 0.7
5 a1a2a3 (9.53)
0.25 1 1 2
BR L R a

where
a1 5 a constant
a2 5 compressibility index
a3 5 correction for the depth of influence
pa 5 atmospheric pressure 5 100 kN/m2
L 5 length of the foundation
Table 9.7 summarizes the values of q9, a1, a2, and a3 to be used in Eq. (9.53) for
various types of soils. Note that, in this table, N 60 or N 60(a) 5 average value of N60 or
N60(a) in the depth of stress influence.

9.6 ttl m nt of oundation on and as d on tandard n tration sistanc 365

Se
e
e
F
S
B
e
S
Pe
e
Re
e
abl 9.7 Summary of q9, a1, a2, and a3

T
e
Soil type q9 a1 a2 a3
Normally consolidated qnet 0.14 1.71
sand fN60 or N60sadg1.4

Overconsolidated qnet 0.047 0.57

H
a3 5
z9 1
22
H
z9 2
sand sqnet # s9cd fN60 or N60sadg 1.4 (if H # z9)
or a3 5 1 (if H . z9)
where
s9c 5 preconsolidation where H 5 depth of

pressure compressible layer
Overconsolidated qnet 2 0.67s9c 0.14 0.57
sand sqnet . s9cd fN60 or N60sadg1.4

Exampl 9.7
e
A shallow foundation measuring 1.75 m 3 1.75 m is to be constructed over a layer
of sand. Given Df 5 1 m; N60 is generally increasing with depth; N60 in the depth of
stress influence 5 10, qnet 5 120 kN/m2. The sand is normally consolidated. Estimate
the elastic settlement of the foundation. Use the Burland and Burbidge method.

olution
S
From Eq. (9.52),

1 2
z9 B 0.75
5 1.4
BR BR

Depth of stress influence,

1BB 2 11.75
0.3 2
0.75 0.75
z9 5 1.4 BR 5 s1.4ds0.3d < 1.58 m
R

From Eq. (9.53),

3 4
2

1 2 B q9 L
1.25
1B 2 1 p 2
Se B 0.7
5 a1a2a3
0.25 1 1 2
BR L R a

B
For normally consolidated sand (Table 9.7),
a1 5 0.14
1.71 1.71
a2 5 5 5 0.068
sN60d 1.4
s10d1.4
a3 5 1
q9 5 qnet 5 120 kN/m2
So,

3 4
2

1 2 1.75 120
1.75
s1.25d
1 0.3 2 11002
Se 1.75 0.7
5 s0.14ds0.068ds1d
0.25 1 1
1.75 2
0.3 1.75

Se < 0.0118 m 5 11.8 mm

■

CH
e
366 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Exampl 9.8

e
Solve Example 9.6 using Meyerhof’s method.

olution

S
From Eq. (9.49),

1 2
2qnet B 2
Se 5
sN60dsFdd B 1 0.3

Fd 5 1 1 0.33sDfyBd 5 1 1 0.33s1y1.75d 5 1.19

1 2 5 14.7 mm
s2ds120d 1.75 2
Se 5
s10ds1.19d 1.75 1 0.3
■

9.7 Settlement Considering Soil

Stiffness Variation with Stress evel

L
In most settlement prediction methods, the stiffness is determined from penetra-
tion tests, such as SPT or CPT, and a constant value is assumed for the modulus
of elasticity (e.g., Es 5 2.5qc). Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) recognized that the
soil stiffness varies with the stress level, with the modulus of elasticity decreas-
ing with increasing strain levels. They proposed an improved method for predict-
ing settlement; this method incorporates the stress level in determining the soil
stiffness.
Figure 9.17 shows a foundation resting on sand where the influence zone is ex-
tending to a depth Z below the foundation. Berardi et al. (1991) noted that Z varies in
the range of B22B. For square foundations Z 5 B, and for strip foundations Z 5 2B.
For rectangular foundations, Z can be logarithmically interpolated as

12
Z L
5 1 1 log (9.54)
B B

where L/B is limited to 10 in the case of a strip foundation.

Sand

Z
Influence zone

igur 9.17 Foundation and the influence zone

F
e
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B.

9.7 ttl m nt onsid ring oil tiffn ss ariation with tr ss v l 367

Se
e
e
C
e
S
S
e
V
S
e
Le
e
1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8 B/L = 0.1

0.2

(12 2s )I
0.333
0.7

1.0
0.6

Circle
0.5

0.4

0.3 igur 9.18 Variation of (1 2 m2s )I

F
e
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 with H/B and B/L (Based on Berardi
H/B et al., 1991)

From elastic analysis, the settlement of a foundation with dimensions B and L

resting on an elastic body is given by
qoB
Se 5 (1 2 m2s )I (9.55)
Es

where qo is the net applied pressure, B is the foundation width, Es is the modulus of
elasticity, ms is Poisson’s ratio, and I is the influence factor that depends on the di-
mensions of the foundation. Assuming Poisson’s ratio to be 0.15 and the foundation
to be rigid, values of (1 2 m2s )I are given in Figure 9.18. Here H is the depth of the
compressible soil stratum.
Application of the load to the foundation will increase the soil stiffness. Janbu
(1963) suggested that the modulus of elasticity can be written as

1 2
s9o 1 0.5Ds9o 0.5
Es 5 KE pa (9.56)
pa
where KE is a dimensionless modulus number for the sand which depends on the rela-
tive density, strain level, and the influence depth Z; s9o is the initial overburden pres-
sure at the center of the influence zone; Ds9o is the vertical effective stress increase at
the center of the influence zone due to the foundation load; and pa is the atmospheric
pressure (< 100 kN/m2).
According to Lancellotta (2009), at 0.1% strain level (Se /B)
KE, 0.1% 5 9.1Dr 1 92.5 sfor Z 5 Bd (9.57)
and
KE, 0.1% 5 11.44Dr 2 76.5 sfor Z 5 2Bd (9.58)
where Dr is the relative density of sand (%) (see Figure 9.19).

CH
e
368 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
1200
Z = B; KE,0.1% = 9.10Dr + 92.5
Z = 2B; KE,0.1% = 11.44Dr – 76.5
1000

Modulus number KE,0.1%

800

600

400

B 2B
Z= Z
=
200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative density, Dr (%)

igur 9.19 Variation of KE, 0.1% with relative density for Z 5 B and Z 5 2B (Based on
F
e
Lancellotta, 2009)

It is important to note that at Dr 5 60%, Eqs. (9.57) and (9.58) will give values of
KE, 0.1% as 638.5 and 609.9, respectively. Similarly, at Dr 5 80%, Eqs. (9.57) and
(9.58) will give KE, 0.1% as 820.5 and 838.7, respectively. These values of KE, 0.1% are
relatively close. Most of the foundations are analyzed within a range of Dr 5 60 to
80%. So, KE, 0.1% values for the range of Z 5 B and 2B can be reasonably interpo-
lated.
The magnitude of Dr can be estimated as (Skempton, 1986)

3 4
0.5
(N1)60
Dr 5 (9.59)
60

where (N1)60 is the average corrected standard penetration resistance in the zone of
influence [see Eq. (3.12)].
According to Berardi et al. (1991), the modulus number KE, at any other strain
level, can be estimated as (Berardi et al. 1991) (also see Figure 9.20)
KE Se
_ B %+
1 2
Se 20.7
5 0.008 (9.60)
KE,0.1% B

Based on the work of Berardi (1999), Lancellotta (2009) has suggested that

1 2
Es Se 20.7
5 0.008 (9.61)
Es,0.1% B

where Es,0.1% is the modulus of elasticity of sand when the vertical strain level ´v 5
Se /B 5 0.1%. The value of KE,0.1% determined from Figure 9.19 or Eqs. (9.57) and
(9.62) can be substituted into Eq. (9.56) for the estimation of Es,0.1.
Again, from Eqs. (9.55) and (9.61),

1 2
Se 0.3 125qo(1 2 m2s )I
5 (9.62)
B Es, 0.1%

9.7 ttl m nt onsid ring oil tiffn ss ariation with tr ss v l 369

Se
e
e
C
e
S
S
e
V
S
e
Le
e
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9

KE /KE,0.1%
0.8
0.7
0.6
KE /KE,0.1% = 0.008(Se /B)–0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Se /B (%)

igur 9.20 KEyKE,0.1% ratio versus Se/B (Based on Berardi et al., 1991)
F
e
Exampl 9.9
e
A 2 m 3 2 m square foundation placed on sand at a depth of 0.5 m carries a column
load of 1000 kN. The sand has a unit weight of 19 kN/m3 and (N1)60 of 28. Estimate
the settlement. Assume Poisson’s ratio of the sand to be 0.15.

olution
S
600
Refer to Figure 9.21. The applied pressure at the foundation level 5 5 150 kN/m2.

Î Î
232
(N1)60 28
From Eq. (9.59), Dr 5 5 5 0.683 or 68.3%. At X, s9o 5 1.5 3
60 60
150 3 2 3 2
19 5 28.5 kN/m2. At X, estimate that Ds9o 5 5 66.7 kN/m2 (based on
s2 1 1ds2 1 1d
the 2V:1H method; see Section 8.6). The influence depth Z 5 B 5 2.0 m.

600 kN

0.5 m

1.0 m

igur 9.21
F
e
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B. apt r

CH
e
370 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
From Figure 9.18, for H/B 5 1 and L/B 5 1, (1 2 m2s )I 5 0.56. Also, pa <
100 kN/m2.

1 2 51 2
s9o 1 0.5Ds9o 0.5 28.5 1 0.5 3 66.7 0.5
5 0.786
pa 100

For Dr 5 68.3% and Z 5 B, from Eq. (9.57), we obtain KE, 0.1% 5 714.03. From
Eq. (9.56),

1 2
s9o 1 0.5Ds9o 0.5
Es, 0.1% 5 KE, 0.1% pa 5 714.3 3 100 3 0.786 < 56,144 kN/m2
pa

Substituting these in Eq. (9.62),

1 2
Se 0.3
125 3 150 3 0.56
5 5 0.187
B 56,144

Therefore, Se /B 5 0.00375, and settlement 5 0.00374 3 2000 5 7.48 mm.

■

9.8 Settlement Based on ressuremeter
P
Test ( T)
PM
Briaud (2007) proposed a method based on pressuremeter tests (Section 3.22) from
which the load-settlement diagrams of foundations can be derived. The following is a
step-by-step procedure for performing the analysis.
Step 1. Conduct pressuremeter tests at varying depths at the desired loca-

tion and obtain plots of pp (pressure in the measuring cell for cavity
expansion; see Figure 3.31) versus DRyRo (Ro is the initial radius
of the PMT cavity, and DR is the increase in the cavity radius), as
shown in Figure 9.22a.
Step 2. Extend the straight line part of the PMT curve to zero pressure and shift

the vertical axis, as shown in Figure 9.22a. Re-zero the DRyRo axis.
Step 3. Draw a strain influence factor diagram for the desired foundation

(Section 9.5). Using all pressuremeter test curves within the depth
of influence, develop a mean PMT curve. Referring to Figure 9.22b,
this can be done as follows:
For each value of DRyRo, let the pp values be pp(1), pp(2), pp(3), . . . .

The mean value of pp can be obtained as

A1 A2 A3
ppsmd 5 pps1d 1 pps2d 1 pps3d 1 . . . (9.63)
A A A
where A1, A2, and A3 are the areas tributary to each test under the

strain influence factor diagram.

A 5 A1 1 A2 1 A3 1 . . . (9.64)

Step 4. Based on the results of Step 3, develop a mean pp(m) versus DRyRo plot

(Figure 9.22c).

9.8 ttl m nt as d on r ssur m t r st ( ) 371

Se
e
e
B
e
P
e
e
e
e
Te
PMT
pp

(a)

DR
New origin for DR Ro
Ro

Strain influence factor, Iz

A1 PMT
1

A2 2
(b)
A3
3

Depth, z
pp(m)

(c)

DR
Ro

igur 9.22 (a) Plot of pp versus DRyRo; (b) averaging the pressuremeter curves within the
F
e
foundation zone of influence; (c) plot of pp(m) versus DRyRo

Step 5. The mean PMT curve now can be used to develop the load-settlement

plot for the foundation via the following equations.

Se DR
5 0.24 (9.65)
B Ro

and

qo 5 fLyB fe fd fb,dGppsmd (9.66)

where
Se 5 elastic settlement of the foundation
B 5 width of foundation
L 5 length of foundation
qo 5 net load per unit area on the foundation
G 5 gamma function linking qo and ppsmd

CH
e
372 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Q
e

Foundation
B×L
d B
igur 9.23 Definition of parameters—

F
e
b, L, d, d, b, e, and b

fL/B 5 shape factor 5 0.8 1 0.2 1BL2 (9.67)

fe 5 eccentricity factor 5 1 2 0.33 1Be 2scenterd (9.68)

1Be 2
0.5
fe 5 eccentricity factor 5 1 2 sedged (9.69)

3 4 scenterd
2
dsdegd
fd 5 load inclination factor 5 1 2 (9.70)
90

3 4
0.5
dsdegd
fd 5 load inclination factor 5 1 2 sedged (9.71)
360

1 2
d 0.1
fb,d 5 slope factor 5 0.8 1 1 s3H:1V sloped (9.72)
B

1 2
d 0.15
fb,d 5 slope factor 5 0.7 1 1 s2H:1V sloped (9.73)
B

d 5 inclination of load with respect to the vertical

b 5 inclination of a slope with the horizontal if the foundation is located on

top of a slope
G d 5 distance of the edge of the foundation from the edge of the slope

0 1 2 3
0 The parameters d, b, d, and e are defined in Figure 9.23. Figure 9.24 shows the
DR
design plot for G with SeyB or 0.24 .
Ro
0.02
Step 6. Based on the values of ByL, eyB, d, and dyB, calculate the values of

fLyB, fe, fd, and fb, d as needed. Let

DR 0.04
4.2 Ro f 5 s fLyBds feds fdds fb,dd (9.74)
or
Se
B 0.06 Thus,

qo 5 f Gppsmd (9.75)
0.08

Step 7. Now prepare a table, as shown in Table 9.8.

0.1 Step 8. Complete Table 9.8 as follows:
a. Column 1—Assume several values of DRyRo.
Figur 9.24 Variation of G with b. Column 2—For given values of DRyRo, obtain pp(m) from
e
SeyB 5 0.24 DRyRo Figure 9.22c.

9.8 ttl m nt as d on r ssur m t r st ( ) 373

Se
e
e
B
e
P
e
e
e
e
Te
PMT
tabl 9.8 Calculations to Obtain the Load-Settlement Plot

e

DRyRo pp(m) SeyB Se G qo
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

c. Column 3—From Eq. (9.65), calculate the values of Se yB from

values of DRyRo given in Column 1.
d. Column 4—With known values of B, calculate the values of Se.
e. Column 5—From Figure 9.24, obtain the desired values of G.
f. Column 6—Use Eq. (9.75) to obtain qo.
g. Now plot a graph of Se (Column 4) versus qo (Column 6) from
which the magnitude of Se for a given qo can be determined.

Exampl 9.10
e
A foundation, shown in Figure 9.25a, with a width of 4 m and a length of 20 m
serves as a bridge abutment foundation. The soil is medium dense sand. A 16,000 kN

V = 16,000 kN

4m
H = 1600 kN 1
3

L = 20 m d=3 m

e = 0.13 m
B=4 m
(a)
1800
1600
1400
pp (m)
1200
pp (m) (kN/m2)

DR/Ro (kN/m2)
1000
0.002 50
800 0.005 150
0.01 250
600 0.02 450
400 0.04 800
0.07 1200
200 0.1 1400
0.2 1700
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
DR/Ro
(b) Figur 9.25
e
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B. apt r

CH
e
374 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
vertical load acts on the foundation. The active pressure on the abutment wall de-
velops a 1600 kN horizontal load. The resultant reaction force due to the verti-
cal and horizontal load is applied at an eccentricity of 0.13 m. PMT testing at the
site produced a mean pressuremeter curve characterizing the soil and is shown in
Figure 9.25b. What is the settlement at the current loading?

olution

S
Given: B 5 4 m, L 5 20 m, d 5 3 m, and slope 5 3H:1V. So

fLyB 5 0.8 1 0.2 1BL2 5 0.8 1 0.21204 2 5 0.84

fescenterd 5 1 2 0.33 1Be 2 5 1 2 0.3310.13
4 2
5 0.99

190d 2
2
fdscenterd 5 1 2

1HV2 5 tan 116,000 2 5 5.718
1600
d 5 tan21 21

15.71
90 2
2
fd 5 1 2 5 0.996

1 2 1 2
d 0.1 3 0.1
fb,d 5 0.8 1 1 5 0.8 1 1 5 0.846
B 4

f 5 fL /B fe fd fb,d 5 (0.84)(0.99)(0.996)(0.845) 5 0.7

Now the following table can be prepared.

pp(m)
DRyRo (kNym2) SeyB Se (mm) G qo (kNym2) Qo (MN)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
0.002 50 0.0005 2.0 2.27 79.45 6.36
0.005 150 0.0012 4.8 2.17 227.85 18.23
0.01 250 0.0024 9.6 2.07 362.25 28.98
0.02 450 0.0048 19.2 1.83 576.45 46.12
0.04 800 0.0096 38.4 1.40 784.00 62.72
0.07 1200 0.0168 67.2 1.17 982.8 78.62
0.10 1400 0.024 96.0 1.07 1048.6 83.89
0.20 1700 0.048 192.0 0.90 1071.0 85.68

Note: Columns 1 and 2: From Figure 9.25b

Column 3: (Column 1)(0.24) 5 Se yB
Column 4: (Column 3)(B 5 4000 mm) 5 Se
Column 5: From Figure 9.24
Column 6: f Gpp(m) 5 (0.7)(G)pp(m) 5 qo
Column 7: (Column 6)(B 3 L) 5 Qo

9.9 ttl m nt Estimation sing th L 1 – L 2 thod 375

Se
e
e
U
e
Me
Qo (MN)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
20
40
60
80

Se (mm)
100
120
140
160
180
200

Figur 9.26

e
Figure 9.26 shows the plot of Qo versus Se. From this plot it can be seen that for a
vertical loading of 16,000 kN (16 MN), the value of Se < 4.2 mm.
■

9.9 Settlement Estimation sing the L1 – L2

U
ethod
M
Akbas and Kulhawy (2009) evaluated 167 load–displacement relationships obtained
from field tests. Based on those tests, the general nature of the load (Q) versus settle-
ment (Se) is shown in Figure 9.27. Tangents are drawn to the initial and final portions
of the Q versus Se plot. In the figure, note that the load QL1occurs at a settlement level
of SesL1d 5 0.23B(%) and the load QL2occurs at SesL2d 5 5.39B (%). It is also important

QL2

Final linear
region

Transition
region

QL1
Initial linear
region

Se(L1) 5 0.23B (%) Se(L2) 5 5.39B (%) Se

igur 9.27 General nature of Q versus Se plot

CH
e
376 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
to note that QL2 is the ultimate load (Qu) on the foundation. Also, the mean plot of Q
versus Se can be expressed as:

1B2
Se
Q
5 (9.76)
0.691 2 1 1.68
Q L2 S e
B

where Se /B is in percent.

In order to find Q for a given settlement level, one needs to know Qu . This can
be done using Eq. (6.42) given in Section 6.9. Akbas and Kulhawy (2009) recom-
mended that
●
For B . 1 m [from Eq. (6.42) with c9 5 0]
●
QL2 5 Qu 5 312 gBN F g gs Fgd Fgc 1 qNq Fqs Fqd Fqc A 4 (9.77)

where
A 5 area of the foundation
●
For B # 1 m,
●
QL2 5 312gN F g gs Fgd Fgc 1 qNq Fqs Fqd Fqc A 4 (9.78)

Exampl 9.11
e
For a square foundation supported by a sand layer, the following are given:
Foundation: B 5 1.5 m; Df 5 1 m
Sand: g 5 16.5 kN/m3; f95 358; Gs 5 280 kN/m2
Load on foundation: Q 5 800 kN
Estimate:
a. SesL1d
b. SesL2d
c. Settlement Se with application of load Q 5 800 kN

olution
S
art a
P
s0.23ds1.5 3 1000d
SesL1d 5 0.23B s%d 5 5 3.45 mm
100
art b
P
s5.39ds1.5 3 1000d
SesL2d 5 5.39B s%d 5 5 80.85 mm
100
art c
P
B is greater than 1 m. Hence, from Eq. (9.77),

QL2 5 312gBN F g gs Fgd Fgc 1 qNq FqsFqd Fqc A 4

g 5 16.5 kN/m3; B 5 1.5 m; q 5 gDf 5 (16.5)(1) 5 16.5 kN/m2

9.9 ttl m nt Estimation sing th L 1 – L 2 thod 377

Se
e
e
U
e
Me
From Table 6.2, for f95 358, Ng 5 48.03 and Nq 5 33.3. From Table 6.3,

Fqs 5 1 1 1BL2 tan f9 5 1 1 11.5

1.5 2
tan 35 5 1.7

Fgs 5 1 2 0.4 1BL2 5 1 2 s0.4d11.5

1.5 2
5 0.6

Df
Fqd 5 1 1 2 tan f9s1 2 sin f9d2 1 B 2 5 1 1 2 tan 35s1 2 sin 35d 11.51 2 < 1.17 2

Fgd 5 1

In order to calculate Fqc and Fgc, refer to Eq. (6.43) (with c9 5 0):
Gs 280
Ir 5 5 5 24.23
q tan f9 s16.5ds tan 35d

From Eq. (6.44),

1
5 313.3 2 0.45 BL2 cot 145 2 2 246
f9
Irscrd 5 exp
2

5
1
2 5 313.3 2 0.45 1.5
exp
1.5 2 cot 145 2 246 5 119.3
35
2

So, Ir , Ir(cr). From Eq. (6.45),

5324.4 1 0.61BL24 tan f9 1 6

s3.07 sin f9ds log 2Ird
Fgc 5 Fqc 5 exp
1 1 sin f9

5324.4 1 0.611.5
1.5 24 6
s3.07 sin 35dslog 2 3 24.23d
5 exp tan 35 1
1 1 sin 35
5 0.461

Thus,

5 3 22
1
4
1
s16.5ds1.5ds48.03ds0.6ds1ds0.461d
QL2 s1.5 3 1.5d 5 1467.4 kN
1 s16.5ds33.3ds1.7ds1.7ds0.461d

Substituting the values of Q and QL2 in Eq. (9.76),

1B2
Se
800 S e
5 ; 5 1.467%
0.69 1 2 1 1.68
1467.4 S B e
B

1 2
1.5 3 1000
Se 5 s1.467d < 22.0 mm
100

■

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B. apt r

CH
e
378 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
9.10 Effect of the ise of Water Table

R
on Elastic Settlement
Terzaghi (1943) suggested that the submergence of soil mass reduces the soil stiff-
ness by about half, which in turn doubles the settlement. In most cases of foundation
design, it is considered that if the groundwater table is located 1.5B to 2B below the
bottom of the foundation, it will not have any effect on the settlement. The total elas-
tic settlement (S9e ) due to the rise of the groundwater table can be given as
S9e 5 SeCw(9.79)
where

Se 5 elastic settlement before the rise of groundwater table

Cw 5 water correction factor
The following are some empirical relationships for Cw (refer to Figure 9.28).
●
Peck, Hansen, and Thornburn (1974):
●
1
Cw 5 $1 (9.80)
1 2
Dw

0.5 1 0.5
Df 1 B
●
Teng (1982):
●
1forbasewater
of the foundation 2
1 table below the
Cw 5 #2 (9.81)
Dw 2 Df
0.5 1 0.5 1 B 2
●
Bowles (1977):
●
1D 1 B2(9.82)
Dw
Cw 5 2 2
f

In any case, these relationships could be considered approximate, since there is a lack
of agreement among geotechnical engineers about the true magnitude of Cw.

od o S a r ar al. (2014)
Meth
f
h
h
i
et
When the water table is present in the vicinity of the foundation, the unit weight of
the soil has to be reduced for calculation of bearing capacity. Any future rise in the

Groundwater table

Figur 9.28 Effect of rise of groundwater table on elastic settlement in granular soil
e
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B.

9.10 Eff ct of th is of at r abl on Elastic ttl m nt 379

e
e
R
e
W
e
T
e
Se
e
e
water table can reduce the ultimate bearing capacity. A future water table rise in the
vicinity of the foundation in granular soil can reduce the soil stiffness and, hence,
produce additional settlement. Terzaghi (1943) concluded that when the water table
rises from very deep to the foundation level, the settlement will be doubled in granu-
lar soil. Provided that the settlement is doubled when the entire sand layer beneath
the foundation is submerged, laboratory model test results and numerical modeling
work by Shahriar et al. (2014) show that the additional settlement produced by the
rise of water table to any height can be expressed as
Aw
Se, additional 5 S (9.83)
At e

where Se is the elastic settlement computed in dry soil, Aw is the area of the strain
influence diagram submerged due to water table rise, and At is the total area of the
strain influence diagram under the foundation. Example 9.13 shows the application
of this method.

Exampl e
9.12
Consider the shallow foundation given in Example 9.7. Due to flooding, the ground-
water table rose from Dw 5 4 m to 2 m (Figure 9.28). Estimate the total elastic settle-
ment S9e after the rise of the water table. Use Eq. (9.80).

olution
S
From Eq. (9.79),
S9e 5 SeCw
From Eq. (9.80),

1 1
Cw 5 5 5 1.158
1 2 1 2
Dw 2
0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5
Df 1 B 1 1 1.75

Hence,
Se9 5 s11.8 mmds1.158d 5 13.66 mm
■

Exampl 9.13
e
A pad foundation 2.5 m 3 2.5 m in plan, when placed at a depth of 1.5 m in sand, ap-
plies 175 kN/m2 pressure to the underlying ground. Given: g 5 18.0 kN/m3. Currently
the water table is at 6.5 m below the foundation, and the expected settlement is
15.0 mm. In the future, as the worst-case scenario, it is expected that the water table
could rise by 4.0 m, as shown in Figure 9.29a. What would be the total settlement of
the foundation if this occurs? Use Eq. (9.37).

olution
S
The influence factor diagram needs to be drawn first. From Eq. (9.31) and
Figure 9.11,

Izsmd 5 0.5 1 0.1 Î q2q

q9zs1d
5 0.5 1 0.1
Î 175 2 s18.0ds1.5d

s18.0d 1.5 1 3 1 24
2.5
2
5 0.67

CH
e
380 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
175 kN/m2
1.5 m Iz
0.1 0.67
2.5 m
2.5 m 1.25
Future W.T. 0.45
2.5 At
Aw

4.0 m
5.0

Current W.T.
z (m)
(a) (b)

igur 9.29
F
e
The Iz versus z diagram is shown in Figure 9.29b. Currently, the water table is
below the influence zone. Se 5 15.0 mm. The total area of the influence diagram
At is given by

At 5 10.10 12 0.672 3 1.25 1 12 3 0.67 3 3.75 5 1.738 m

1
Aw 5 3 2.5 3 0.45 5 0.563 m
2

From Eq. (9.83),

Aw 0.563
Se, additional 5 Se 5 3 15.0 5 4.9 mm
At 1.738

The total settlement would be 15.0 1 4.9 5 19.9 mm.

■

Consolidation Settlement

9.11 rimary Consolidation Settlement

P
elationships
R
As mentioned before, consolidation settlement occurs over time in saturated
clayey soil subjected to an increased load caused by construction of the founda-
tion. (See Figure 9.30.) On the basis of the one-dimensional consolidation settle-
ment equations given in Chapter 2, we write

Scspd 5 «z dz#
where
«z 5 vertical strain
De
5
1 1 eo

9.11 rimary onsolidation ttl m nt lationships 381

P
C
Se
e
e
Re
qo
Stress
increase,
D9

Groundwater table

D9t

Dm9
Clay layer Hc
Db9

Depth, z

Figur 9.30 Consolidation settlement calculation

e
De 5 change of void ratio
5 f ss9o , s9c , and Ds9d
So,

CcHc s9o 1 Ds9av (for normally consolidated

Scspd 5 log [Eq. (2.65)]
1 1 eo s9o clays)

CsHc s9o 1 Ds9av for overconsolidated clays
Scspd 5 log with s9o 1 Ds9av , s9c [Eq. (2.67)]
1 1 eo s9o

CsHc sc9 CcHc s9o 1 Ds9av for overconsolidated clays

Scspd 5 log 1 log [Eq. (2.69)]
1 1 eo s9o 1 1 eo s9c with s9o , s9c , s9o 1 Ds9av

where
s9o 5 average
effective pressure on the clay layer before the construction of
the foundation

Ds9av 5 average increase in effective pressure on the clay layer caused by the
construction of the foundation

s9c 5 preconsolidation pressure
eo 5 initial void ratio of the clay layer
Cc 5 compression index
Cs 5 swelling index
Hc 5 thickness of the clay layer
The procedures for determining the compression and swelling indexes were dis-
cussed in Chapter 2.

CH
e
382 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Note that the increase in effective pressure, Ds9, on the clay layer is not constant
with depth: The magnitude of Ds9 will decrease with the increase in depth measured
from the bottom of the foundation. However, the average increase in pressure may
be approximated by

Ds9av 5 16sDs9t 1 4Ds9m 1 Ds9bd (8.26)

where Ds9t , Ds9m , and Dsb9 are, respectively, the effective pressure increases at the
top, middle, and bottom of the clay layer that are caused by the construction of the
foundation.
The method of determining the pressure increase caused by various types of
foundation load using Boussinesq’s solution is discussed in Sections 8.2 through
8.10. Dsav
9 can also be directly obtained from the method presented in Section 8.9.

9.12 Three- imensional Effect on rimary

D
P
Consolidation Settlement
The consolidation settlement calculation presented in the preceding section is based
on Eqs. (2.65), (2.67), and (2.69). These equations, as shown in Chapter 2, are in turn
based on one-dimensional laboratory consolidation tests. The underlying assumption
is that the increase in pore water pressure, Du, immediately after application of the
load equals the increase in stress, Ds, at any depth. In this case,

#1 1 e #
De
Scspd2oed 5 dz 5 mvDs9s1d dz
o

where

Scspd2oed 5 one-dimensional consolidation settlement calculated by using

oedometer data and Eqs. (2.65), (2.67), and (2.69)
Ds9s1d 5 effective vertical stress increase
mv 5 volume coefficient of compressibility (see Chapter 2)

In the field, however, when a load is applied over a limited area on the ground
surface, such an assumption will not be correct. Consider the case of a circular
foundation on a clay layer, as shown in Figure 9.31. The vertical and the horizontal
stresses’ increase at a point in the layer immediately below the center of the founda-
tion are Dss1d and Dss3d , respectively. For a saturated clay, the pore water pressure
increase at that depth (see Chapter 2) is

Du 5 Dss3d 1 AfDss1d 2 Dss3dg (9.84)

Flexible
circular load

D(1) Clay
Hc z
D(3)

D(3)

igur 9.31 Circular foundation on a clay layer

9.12 hr - im nsional Eff ct on rimary onsolidation ttl m nt 383

T
ee
D
e
e
P
C
Se
e
e
where A 5 pore water pressure parameter. For this case, the consolidation settlement
considering three-dimensional effects is given by

# #
Scspd 5 mv Du dz 5 smvd{Dss3d 1 A[Dss1d 2 Dss3d]} dz (9.85)

Thus, we can write

Hc Hc

3# 4
Scspd # 0
mv Du dz # 0
Ds9s3d dz
Kcir 5 5 Hc 5 A 1 s1 2 Ad Hc (9.86)
Scspd2oed
#
0
mv Ds9s1d dz
0
Ds9s1d dz

where Kcir 5 settlement ratio for circular foundations.

The settlement ratio for a continuous foundation, Kstr , can be determined in a
manner similar to that for a circular foundation. The variation of Kcir and Kstr with A
and HcyB is given in Figure 9.32. (Note: B is the diameter of a circular foundation,
and B is the width of a continuous foundation.)
The preceding technique is generally referred to as the Skempton–Bjerrum
modification (1957) for a consolidation settlement calculation.

Leonards (1976) examined the correction factor Kcr for a three-dimensional con-
solidation effect in the field for a circular foundation located over overconsolidated
clay. Referring to Figure 9.31, we have

Scspd 5 KcrsOCd Scspd2oed (9.87)

where

1 2
B
KcirsOCd 5 f OCR, (9.88)
Hc
in which
s9c
OCR 5 overconsolidation ratio 5 (9.89)
s9o

1.0

0.25
H c/B =
0.8

0.25 0.5 1.0

0.5
Settlement ratio

0.6

2.0
1.0
0.4
2.0
Circular
0.2 foundation
Continuous
foundation
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Pore water pressure parameter, A

igur 9.32 Settlement ratios for circular sKcird and continuous sKstrd
F
e
foundations

CH
e
384 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
abl 9.9 Variation of KcirsOCd with OCR and ByHc

T
e
Kcir (OC)

OCR ByHc 5 4.0 ByHc 5 1.0 ByHc 5 0.2

1 1 1 1
2 0.986 0.957 0.929
3 0.972 0.914 0.842
4 0.964 0.871 0.771
5 0.950 0.829 0.707
6 0.943 0.800 0.643
7 0.929 0.757 0.586
8 0.914 0.729 0.529
9 0.900 0.700 0.493
10 0.886 0.671 0.457
11 0.871 0.643 0.429
12 0.864 0.629 0.414
13 0.857 0.614 0.400
14 0.850 0.607 0.386
15 0.843 0.600 0.371
16 0.843 0.600 0.357

where

s9c 5 preconsolidation pressure

s9o 5 present average effective pressure

The interpolated values of KcrsOCd from Leonard’s 1976 work are given in Table 9.9.

Exampl 9.14
e
A plan of a foundation 1 m 3 2 m is shown in Figure 9.33. Estimate the consolida-
tion settlement of the foundation, taking into account the three-dimensional effect.
Given: A 5 0.6.

q0 5 150 kN/m2
1m (net stress increase)

B3L5lm32m Sand
1.5 m 5 16.5 kN/m3
Groundwater table
Sand
0.5 m sat 5 17.5 kN/m3
Normally consolidated clay
5 16 kN/m3 ea 5 0.8
2.5 m
s 5 6000 kN/m2 Ce 5 0.32
s 5 0.5 Cs 5 0.09

igur 9.33 Calculation of primary consolidation settlement for a foundation

9.12 hr - im nsional Eff ct on rimary onsolidation ttl m nt 385

T
ee
D
e
e
P
C
Se
e
e
olution

S
The clay is normally consolidated. Thus,
CcHc s9o 1 Ds9av
Scspd2oed 5 log
1 1 eo s9o

s9o 5 s2.5ds16.5d 1 s0.5ds17.5 2 9.81d 1 s1.25ds16 2 9.81d

5 41.25 1 3.85 1 7.74 5 52.84 kN/m2

From Eq. (8.26),

Ds9av 5 16sDs9t 1 4Ds9m 1 Ds9bd

We divide the foundation into four quarters, compute the stress increase under a cor-
ner of each quarter using Eq. (8.10), and multiply by four. For each quarter, B 5 0.5 m
and L 5 1.0 m.

Location z (m) m 5 B/z n 5 L/z I Ds9 5 4qoI

Top 2.0 0.25 0.50 0.0475 28.5 5 Ds9t
Middle 3.25 0.154 0.308 < 0.0213 12.75 5 Ds9m
Bottom 4.5 0.111 0.222 < 0.0113 6.75 5 Ds9b

Now,
Ds9av 5 16 s28.5 1 4 3 12.75 1 6.75d 5 14.38 kN/m2
so

1 2
s0.32ds2.5d 52.84 1 14.38
Scspd2oed 5 log 5 0.0465 m
1 1 0.8 52.84
5 46.5 mm
Now assuming that the 2:1 method of stress increase (see Figure 8.9) holds, the area
of distribution of stress at the top of the clay layer will have dimensions
B9 5 width 5 B 1 z 5 1 1 (1.5 1 0.5) 5 3 m
and
L9 5 width 5 L 1 z 5 2 1 (1.5 1 0.5) 5 4 m

The diameter of an equivalent circular area, Beq, can be given as

p 2
Beq 5 B9L9
4
so that

Beq 5 Î 4B9L9
p
5 Î s4ds3ds4d
p
5 3.91 m

Also,
Hc 2.5
5 5 0.64
Beq 3.91
From Figure 9.32, for A 5 0.6 and HcyBeq 5 0.64, the magnitude of Kcr < 0.78.
Hence,

Se(p) 5 Kcir Se(p) – oed 5 (0.78)(46.5) < 36.3 mm

CH
e
386 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
9.13 Settlement ue to Secondary Consolidation

D
At the end of primary consolidation (i.e., after the complete dissipation of excess
pore water pressure), some settlement is observed that is due to the plastic adjust-
ment of soil fabrics. This stage of consolidation is called secondary consolidation. A
plot of deformation against the logarithm of time during secondary consolidation is
practically linear, as shown in Figure 9.34. From the figure, the secondary compres-
sion index can be defined as

De De
Ca 5 5 (9.90)
log t2 2 log t1 logst2yt1d

where
Ca 5 secondary compression index
De 5 change of void ratio
t1 , t2 5 time
The magnitude of the secondary consolidation can be calculated as

Scssd 5 C9aHc logst2yt1d (9.91)

where
C9a 5 Cays1 1 epd(9.92)
ep 5 void ratio at the end of primary consolidation
Hc 5 thickness of clay layer
Mesri (1973) correlated C9a with the natural moisture content (w) of several soil,
from which it appears that

C9a < 0.0001w (9.93)

where w 5 natural moisture content, in percent. For most overconsolidated soil, C9a
varies between 0.0005 to 0.001.
Mesri and Godlewski (1977) compiled the magnitude of CayCc (Cc 5 compression
index) for a number of soil. Based on their compilation, it can be summarized that
●
For inorganic clays and silts:
●
CayCc < 0.04 6 0.01

De
C 5
Void ratio, e

t
log t2
1

ep De

Figur 9.34 Variation of e

e
with log t under a given load
t1 t2 increment, and definition of
Time, t (log scale) secondary compression index

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B.

9.13 ttl m nt u to condary onsolidation 387

Se
e
e
D
e
Se
C
●
For organic clays and silts:

●
CayCc < 0.05 6 0.01
●
For peats:

●
CayCc < 0.075 6 0.01

Secondary consolidation settlement is more important in the case of all organic

and highly compressible inorganic soil. In overconsolidated inorganic clays, the sec-
ondary compression index is very small and of less practical significance.
There are several factors that might affect the magnitude of secondary consoli-
dation, some of which are not yet very clearly understood (Mesri, 1973). The ratio of
secondary to primary compression for a given thickness of soil layer is dependent on
the ratio of the stress increment, Ds9, to the initial effective overburden stress, so9 . For
small Ds9yso9 ratios, the secondary-to-primary compression ratio is larger.

Exampl 9.15
e
Refer to Example 9.14. Given for the clay layer: Ca 5 0.02. Estimate the total consoli-
dation settlement five years after the completion of the primary consolidation settle-
ment. (Note: Time for completion of primary consolidation settlement is 1.3 years.)

olution
S
From Eq. (2.53),
e1 2 e2
Cc 5
1 2
s92
log
s91
For this problem, e1 2 e2 5 De. Referring to Example 9.14, we have

s92 5 s9o 1 Ds9 5 52.84 1 14.38 5 67.22 kN/m2

s19 5 so9 5 52.84 kN/m2
Cc 5 0.32
Hence,

1 2 1 2
s9o 1 Ds 67.22
De 5 Cc log 5 0.32 log 5 0.0335
s9o 52.84

Given: eo 5 0.8. Hence,

ep 5 eo 2 e 5 0.8 2 0.0335 5 0.7665

From Eq. (9.92),

Ca 0.02
C9a 5 5 5 0.0113
1 1 ep 1 1 0.7665

From Eq. (9.91),

1t 2
t2
Scssd 5 C9a Hc log
1

Note: t1 5 1.3 years; t2 5 1.3 1 5 5 6.3 years.

Thus,

Scssd 5 s0.0113ds2.5 md log 16.3

1.3 2
5 0.0194 m 5 19.4 mm

CH
e
388 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
Total consolidation settlement is

36.3 mm 1 19.4 5 55.7 m

c
Example 9.14
(primary
consolidation
settlement)
■

9.14 Field oad Test

L
The ultimate load-bearing capacity of a foundation, as well as the allowable bearing
capacity based on tolerable settlement considerations, can be effectively determined
from the field load test, generally referred to as the plate load test. The plates that are
used for tests in the field are usually made of steel and are 25 mm thick and 150 mm
to 762 mm in diameter. Occasionally, square plates that are 305 mm 3 305 mm are
also used.
To conduct a plate load test, a hole is excavated with a minimum diameter of 4B
(B is the diameter of the test plate) to a depth of Df , the depth of the proposed founda-
tion. The plate is placed at the center of the hole, and a load that is about one-fourth
to one-fifth of the estimated ultimate load is applied to the plate in steps by means of
a jack. A schematic diagram of the test arrangement is shown in Figure 9.35a. During
each step of the application of the load, the settlement of the plate is observed on

dial gauges. At least one hour is allowed to elapse between each application. The test

should be conducted until failure, or at least until the plate has gone through 25 mm
of settlement. Figure 9.35b shows the nature of the load-settlement curve obtained
from such tests, from which the ultimate load per unit area can be determined. Figure
9.36 shows a plate load test conducted in the field.

Reaction
beam

Jack

Test plate Anchor

diameter pile
Dial 5B
gauge
At least
4B
(a)

Load/unit area

Figur 9.35 Plate load test:

e
Settlement (a) test arrangement; (b) nature of
(b) load-settlement curve

9.15 r sumptiv aring apacity 389

P
e
e
Be
C
igur 9.36 Plate load test in the field (Courtesy of Braja M. Das, Henderson, Nevada)
F
e
For tests in clay,
qusFd 5 qusPd (9.94)
where
qusFd 5 ultimate bearing capacity of the proposed foundation
qusPd 5 ultimate bearing capacity of the test plate
Equation (9.98) implies that the ultimate bearing capacity in clay is virtually inde-
pendent of the size of the plate.
For tests in sandy soil,
BF
qusFd 5 qusPd (9.95)
BP
where
BF 5 width of the foundation
BP 5 width of the test plate
The allowable bearing capacity of a foundation, based on settlement consider-
ations and for a given intensity of load, qo , is
BF
SF 5 SP sfor clayey soild (9.96)
BP
and
2

1 2
2BF
SF 5 SP sfor sandy soild (9.97)
BF 1 BP

9.15 resumptive Bearing Capacity

P
Several building codes (e.g., the Uniform Building Code, Chicago Building Code,
and New York City Building Code) specify the allowable bearing capacity of
foundations on various types of soil. For minor construction, they often provide

CH
e
390 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
fairly acceptable guidelines. However, these bearing capacity values are based
primarily on the visual classification of near-surface soil and generally do not
take into consideration factors such as the stress history of the soil, the location
of the water table, the depth of the foundation, and the tolerable settlement. So
for large construction projects, the codes’ presumptive values should be used
only as guides.

9.16 Tolerable Settlement of Buildings

The subsoil is often not homogeneous. In addition, the load transferred to the founda-
tion can vary widely. As a result, the settlement can vary between any two adjacent
columns. These differential settlements can induce additional moments and hence
bending stresses in the structural system that can cause damage to the structure. Early
stages of the damage are architectural, such as cracking of the plaster or partitions,
and those affecting alignments, serviceability, and aesthetics. More serious damage
includes structural cracks that can expose the reinforcements and lead to corrosion,
which can jeopardize the safety of the building.
The differential settlement and the angular distortion can cause structural dis-
tress when they are excessive. The angular distortion is defined as the ratio of the
differential settlement between two adjacent foundations to the span length. The
serviceability limit state can be threatened when the angular distortion reaches
a specific value in the range of 1/300 to 1/500. When it gets as high as 1/150
to 1/250, the ultimate limit state can also be threatened (O’Brien 2012). These
limiting values depend on the type of structure and the material of construction.
Tilt is different from angular distortion. It does not cause structural distress. The
Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy is an example of tilt that is on the order of 1/10.
There are structures that have undergone large total settlement but with insig-
nificant differential settlement, making them still functional. Even when there is
no structural damage, the total settlement can cause problems with utility lines,
drainage, and alignment.
It is difficult to predict the differential settlement due to the complicated soil–
structure interaction and redistribution of the loading during the differential settle-
ment. Therefore, a limit is generally placed on the total settlement in an attempt to
control the differential settlement. A rule of thumb is that the differential settlement
is less than 75% of the total settlement.
Limiting values for the settlement have been discussed in the literature since
the 1950s by Polshin and Tokar (1957) and Skempton and MacDonald (1956). The
settlement in clay is slower than in sand, occurring over many years; hence, the
structural system can gradually adjust to the settlement and sustain less damage.
Therefore, larger settlement is generally allowed in clay than in sand. Similarly, raft
foundations are subject to relatively lower differential settlement due to their rigidity
and, hence, can tolerate larger total settlement than pad foundations. The limiting
values for total settlement in routine design of shallow foundations (O’Brien, 2012;
Skempton and MacDonald, 1956) are as follows:
Pad foundations in clay 65 mm

Pad foundations in sand 40 mm

Raft foundations in clay 100 mm

Raft foundations in sand 65 mm

These limiting values are larger than those provided by Terzaghi and Peck (1948),
who suggested an allowable settlement limiting value of 25 mm for isolated founda-
tions and 50 mm for rafts.

9.16 ol rabl ttl m nt of uildings 391

T
e
e
Se
e
e
B
L

lAB
B C D
A E

A9 E9
max
ST (max) D9 DST (max)
D
C9
Figur 9.37 Definition
max

e
B9 of parameters for differential
settlement

Burland and Wroth (1974) defined some parameters relevant to foundation set-
tlement that are explained through Figure 9.37. The points A, B, C, D, and E represent
points on a raft foundation or isolated pad foundation that have settled to A9, B9, C9,
D9, and E9, respectively. The definitions of these parameters are as follows:
●
Settlement (ST)—Often known as total settlement, it is the downward move-
●
ment of a point.
●
Differential settlement (DST)—Difference in total settlement between two
●
points. Generally, two adjacent points are considered.
●
Angular distortion (b)—Ratio of the differential settlement to the distance
●
between the two points.
●
Tilt (v)—Rigid body rotation of the entire structure.
●
●
Relative deflection (D)—The vertical displacement from the tilt plane.
●
●
Deflection ratio (D/L)—Can be sagging or hogging. It provides a better
●
measure than angular distortion in quantifying structural distress. Unlike
angular distortion, the deflection ratio is not affected by tilt.
Bjerrum (1963) recommended the limiting angular distortion, bmax for various
structures, as shown in Table 9.10. If the maximum allowable values of bmax are
known, the magnitude of the allowable STsmaxd can be calculated with the use of the
foregoing correlations. The European Committee for Standardization has also provided
limiting values for serviceability and the maximum accepted foundation movements.
(See Table 9.11.)

abl 9.10
T
e
Category of potential damage bmax

Safe limit for flexible brick wall sLyH . 4d 1y150

Danger of structural damage to most buildings 1y150
Cracking of panel and brick walls 1y150
Visible tilting of high rigid buildings 1y250
First cracking of panel walls 1y300
Safe limit for no cracking of building 1y500
Danger to frames with diagonals 1y600

CH
e
392 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
abl 9.11 Recommendations of European Committee for Standardization on Differential Settlement Parameters

T
e
Item Parameter Magnitude Comments
Limiting values for ST 25 mm Isolated shallow foundation
serviceability 50 mm Raft foundation

(European Committee DST 5 mm Frames with rigid cladding
for Standardization, 10 mm Frames with flexible cladding

1994a) 20 mm Open frames

b 1y500 —
Maximum acceptable ST 50 Isolated shallow foundation
foundation movement DST 20 Isolated shallow foundation

(European Committee b ø1y500 —
for Standardization, 1994b)

9.17 Summary
Settlement plays an important role in the designs of shallow foundations. For the
structure to perform satisfactorily, the settlement of pad and strip foundations has to
be limited to specific values on the order of 25–65 mm. Therefore, a realistic estimate
of the settlement has to be made in every foundation design. Considering the rigid-
ity of the foundation and the difficulties in estimating the soil stiffness in the case of
granular soil, as well as other variables associated with the soil in general, predicting
future settlement accurately is a difficult task.
When soil mass is considered as an elastic continuum, it is important to note the
following:
●
Rigid foundations settle uniformly, but the pressure applied to the ground
●
is nonuniform. Flexible foundations apply uniform pressure to the ground,
and the settlement is nonuniform.
●
The immediate (or elastic) settlement of a rigid foundation can be estimated
●
as 93% of the settlement beneath the center of a flexible foundation.
Some methods for estimating the settlement beneath flexible and rigid foundations
were discussed. This was followed by the different settlement prediction methods
specifically developed for foundations on granular soil.
Settlement in clay soil includes three separate components: (a) immediate (or
elastic), (b) primary consolidation, and (c) secondary consolidation. The methods for
estimating these components were discussed in this chapter.

o
pr
blems
9.1 Refer to Figure 9.1, where a 2.0 m 3 3.0 m flexible founda- 9.3 A 2 m 3 4 m flexible foundation is placed on a granular soil
tion is placed in a saturated clay at 1.5 m depth. Bedrock lies with Df 5 0. The foundation applies a pressure qo 5
at 4.0 m below the foundation. The clay is overconsolidated 120 kN/m2. Assuming the soil mass to be infinitely thick,
with OCR 5 2, undrained shear strength 5 60 kN/m2, and with Es 5 15 MN/m2 and ms 5 0.1, determine the expected
plasticity index 5 45. If the pressure applied by the founda- settlement beneath the center of the foundation.
tion to the underlying soil is 80.0 kN/m2, determine the aver- 9.4 Redo Problem 9.3 for the situation where the same soil is
age elastic settlement. underlain by bedrock at 3.0 m below the surface.
9.2 For an elastic material, the bulk modulus (K) and Young’s 9.5 Redo Problem 9.4 with Df 5 1.0 m.
modulus (E) are related by
9.6 A 2.0 m 3 4.0 m flexible loaded area shown in Figure P9.6
1 applies a uniform pressure of 150 kN/m2 to the underlying
K5 E
3s1 2 2msd silty sand. Estimate the elastic settlement below the center
of the foundation.
For undrained loading, deduce that ms 5 0.5.

probl ms 393

e
resistance qc. Assuming g 5 18 kN/m3 and creep is at the
1.0 m end of ten years after construction, calculate the elastic
settlement of the foundation using the strain influence factor
2.0 m 3 4.0 m method. Use Eqs. (9.30) and (9.36).
9.11 Solve Problem 9.10 using Eqs. (9.39), (9.40), and (9.41).
3.0 m Silty sand 9.12 Find the settlement of a 2.0 m wide square foundation
Es 5 16 MN/m2, s 5 0.2 (Df 5 1.0 m) applying a net pressure of 150 kN/m2 to the
underlying sand, where N60 5 20 and g 5 18.5 kN/m3.
Use Eq. (9.43). In the last term of the equation, replace
1/4 by 1/3 (Leonards, 1986).
Bedrock
9.13 It is proposed to place a 3 m 3 3 m foundation at 2 m depth
in a sandy soil, where the average N60 is 25 and the unit
weight is 18 kN/m3. Using Meyerhof’s expressions pre-
igur 9.6
sented in Section 9.6, estimate the allowable net pressure
F
e
P
9.7 Refer to Figure 9.7. Estimate the elastic settlement of the that would give 30 mm of settlement.
foundation in sand for the following data using the method 9.14 A shallow foundation measuring 1 m 3 2 m in plan is to
of Mayne and Poulos [Eq. (9.27)]. be constructed over a normally consolidated sand layer.
Foundation: length L 5 3 m, width B 5 2 m, depth Df 5 1 m, Given: Df 5 1 m, N60 increases with depth, N60 (in the depth
of stress influence) 5 12, and qnet 5 153 kN/m2. Estimate

thickness t 5 0.25 m, Ef 5 25 3 103 MN/m2
Loading: net applied pressure qo 5 125 kN/m2 the elastic settlement using Burland and Burbidge’s method
Sand: H 5 3 m, ms 5 0.2, Eo 5 12 MN/m2, (Section 9.6).

k 5 400 kN/m2/m 9.15 A 2 m wide continuous foundation carrying a 260 kN/m
9.8 A plan calls for a square foundation measuring 3 m 3 3 m wall load is placed at a depth of 1.0 m in sand where the unit
supported by a layer of sand (see Figure 9.7). Let Df 5 1.5 m, weight is 19.0 kN/m3 and (N1)60 is 32. Assuming Poisson’s
t 5 0.25 m, Eo 5 16,000 kN/m2, k 5 400 kN/m2/m, ratio of 0.15, estimate the settlement of the foundation. Use
ms 5 0.3, H 5 20 m, Ef 5 15 3 106 kN/m2, and qo 5 the procedure outlined in Section 9.7.
150 kN/m2. Calculate the elastic settlement. Use Eq. (9.27). 9.16 A 2 m 3 2 m foundation carrying a 1000 kN column load
9.9 A 2 m wide square foundation is placed at a depth of 1.5 m, is placed at 1.0 m below the ground level in a sand where
in a very thick homogeneous sand deposit where qc 5 g 5 19 kN/m3 and (N1)60 5 25. Estimate the settlement
10 MN/m2 and g 5 18.5 kN/m3. The stress level at the foun- using the Berardi and Lancellotta method (1991) (Section 9.7).
dation is 140 kN/m2. Estimate the settlement in 25 years, Assume ms 5 0.15.
using the method of Schmertmann et al. [Eq. (9.30)]. How 9.17 Refer to Figure 9.23. For a foundation on a layer of sand,
much of this settlement is due to creep? given: B 5 1.52 m, L 5 3.05 m, d 5 1.52 m, b 5 26.6°,
9.10 A continuous foundation on a deposit of sand layer is shown in e 5 0.152 m, and d 5 10°. The pressuremeter testing at the
Figure P9.10 along with the variation of the cone penetration site produced a mean pressuremeter curve for which the pp(m)
versus ΔRyRo points are as follows.

DRyRo pp(m) (kN/m2)

1.5 m (1) (2)
q−5 195 kN/m2 0.002 49.68
qe (kN/m2)

0 0.004 166.68
2.5 m qc 5 1750
Sand
2 0.008 244.94
0.012 292.56
qc 5 3450 0.024 475.41
0.05 870.09
8 0.08 1225.79
0.1 1452.45
qc 5 2900
0.2 2550.24

14
What should be the magnitude of Qo for a settlement
(center) of 25 mm?
Depth (m)
9.18 A 3.0 m wide square foundation is placed at 1.5 m depth
in sand where g 5 18.5 kN/m3. The water table lies well
Figur 9.10 below the foundation level. Under the applied pressure of
e
P
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Froilan Cajo B. apt r

CH
e
394 9 ttl m nt of hallow oundations

Se
e
e
S
F
200 kN/m2 at the foundation level, the settlement recorded the rate of rise in the additional settlement with the
was 14.0 mm. It is expected that the water table will rise water table rise. Use the method of Shahriar et al. (2014)
in the future to unknown levels. Plot the expected (Section 9.10).
additional settlement against the water table rise. Discuss

refere
ces
Akbas, S. O. and Kulhawy, F. H. (2009). “Axial Compression of Footings in Cohesionless
Soils. I: Load-Settlement Behavior,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 135, No. 11, pp. 1562–1574.
Berardi, R. (1999). “Nonlinear Elastic Approaches in Foundation Design,” Proceedings, II
International Symposium on Pre-Failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials,
IS Torino 99, Eds., M. Jamiolkowski, R. Lancellotta, and D. Lo Presti, A.A. Balkema.,
pp. 733–740.
Berardi, R. and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Stiffness of Granular Soil from Field Performance,”
Geotechnique, Vol. 1, pp. 149–157.
Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Settlement of Shallow
Foundations in Sands: Selection of Stiffness on the Basis of Penetration Resistance,”
Proceedings, Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Boulder, Colorado, ASCE Geotechni-
cal Special Publication No. 27, 1, pp. 185–200.
Bjerrum, L. (1963). “Allowable Settlement of Structures,” Proceedings, European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wiesbaden, Germany, Vol. III, pp. 135–139.
Bowles, J. E. (1987). “Elastic Foundation Settlement on Sand Deposits,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 846–860.
Bowles, J. E. (1977). Foundation Analysis and Design, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Briaud, J. L. (2007). “Spread Footings in Sand: Load Settlement Curve Approach,” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil

Engineers, Vol. 133, No. 8, pp. 905–920.
Burland, J. B. and Burbidge, M. C. (1985). “Settlement of Foundations on Sand and
Gravel,” Proceedings, Institute of Civil Engineers, Part I, Vol. 7, pp. 1325–1381.

Burland, J. B. and Wroth, C. P. (1974). “Allowable and Differential Settlement of
Structures Including Damage and Soil-Structure Interaction,” Proceedings, Conference
on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge University, England, pp. 611–654.
Christian, J. T. and Carrier, W. D. (1978). “Janbu, Bjerrum, and Kjaernsli’s Chart
Reinterpreted,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 124–128.
Duncan, J. M. and Buchignani, A. N. (1976). An Engineering Manual for Settlement
Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

European Committee for Standardization (1994a). Basis of Design and Actions on
Structures, Eurocode 1, Brussels, Belgium.
European Committee for Standardization (1994b). Geotechnical Design, General
Rules—Part 1, Eurocode 7, Brussels, Belgium.
Fox, E. N. (1948). “The Mean Elastic Settlement of a Uniformly Loaded Area at a Depth be-
low the Ground Surface,” Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 129–132.
Giroud, J. P. (1968). “Settlement of Linearly Loaded Rectangular Area”, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 94,
No. SM4, pp. 813–831.
Holtz, R. D. (1991). “Stress Distribution and Settlement of Shallow Foundations,” Chapter
5, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Ed., H-Y. Fang, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, pp. 166–222.
Janbu, N. (1963). “Soil Compressibility as Determined by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests,”
Proceedings, III European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Wiesbaden, Germany, Vol. 1, pp. 19–25.
Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L., and Kjaernsli, B. (1956). “Veiledning vedlosning av fundamentering—
soppgaver,” Publication No. 18, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, pp. 30–32.
Lancellotta, R. (2009). Geotechnical Engineering, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, London.

Settlement
No ratings yet
Settlement
18 pages
Detailed Lesson Plan in Grade 8 Pythagorean Theorem
67% (3)
Detailed Lesson Plan in Grade 8 Pythagorean Theorem
5 pages
Braja M Das - Principles-of-Geotechnical-Engineering-5th-Ed - 262
No ratings yet
Braja M Das - Principles-of-Geotechnical-Engineering-5th-Ed - 262
52 pages
CVE6007 Wk3 Shallow Foundation - Settlement Analysis
No ratings yet
CVE6007 Wk3 Shallow Foundation - Settlement Analysis
76 pages
From Polymers To Plastics Van Der Vegt Ak VSSD 2002
100% (1)
From Polymers To Plastics Van Der Vegt Ak VSSD 2002
240 pages
Chapter 9 Settlement of Shallow Foundations - Das V9
No ratings yet
Chapter 9 Settlement of Shallow Foundations - Das V9
58 pages
04 Chapter 5 - Shallow Foundations-Allowable Bearing Capacity and Settlement-M
100% (2)
04 Chapter 5 - Shallow Foundations-Allowable Bearing Capacity and Settlement-M
68 pages
5.CE 483 Settlement 3rd 1444
No ratings yet
5.CE 483 Settlement 3rd 1444
82 pages
SETTL FDShallow 14 April 13
No ratings yet
SETTL FDShallow 14 April 13
64 pages
FDN Eng-Part 3-Print
No ratings yet
FDN Eng-Part 3-Print
91 pages
Soil Settlement Analysis Guide
No ratings yet
Soil Settlement Analysis Guide
41 pages
Settlement
No ratings yet
Settlement
30 pages
Chapter 8 Settlement of Shallow Foundations
No ratings yet
Chapter 8 Settlement of Shallow Foundations
43 pages
Geographical Information System: Unit 1 Fundementals of GIS
100% (6)
Geographical Information System: Unit 1 Fundementals of GIS
81 pages
Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior An Introduction To Theory and Research
No ratings yet
Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior An Introduction To Theory and Research
22 pages
Contact Pressure and Settlement Profile
No ratings yet
Contact Pressure and Settlement Profile
8 pages
Settlement of Shallow Foundations
No ratings yet
Settlement of Shallow Foundations
16 pages
Foundation Settlement Analysis
No ratings yet
Foundation Settlement Analysis
46 pages
Soil Mechanics Chapter 7.compressibility of Soil FULL
No ratings yet
Soil Mechanics Chapter 7.compressibility of Soil FULL
29 pages
Unit III Shallow Foundations-Sett.
No ratings yet
Unit III Shallow Foundations-Sett.
62 pages
New Lec 3
No ratings yet
New Lec 3
30 pages
Foundation Settlement Analysis
No ratings yet
Foundation Settlement Analysis
18 pages
CE366 Chapter 3 Settlement Section 2
100% (1)
CE366 Chapter 3 Settlement Section 2
26 pages
Engineering Foundation Insights
No ratings yet
Engineering Foundation Insights
45 pages
KH 4143 Week 6 Settlement in Shallow Foundations 2 AMT
No ratings yet
KH 4143 Week 6 Settlement in Shallow Foundations 2 AMT
30 pages
L09 - SF, Settlements
No ratings yet
L09 - SF, Settlements
39 pages
Notes 3 - Soil Compressibility For Shallow Foundations
No ratings yet
Notes 3 - Soil Compressibility For Shallow Foundations
56 pages
Chap 9 Settlment
No ratings yet
Chap 9 Settlment
34 pages
‎⁨شابتر ٩⁩
No ratings yet
‎⁨شابتر ٩⁩
60 pages
Topic 3 - Settlement
No ratings yet
Topic 3 - Settlement
47 pages
Cimentaciones Superficiales
No ratings yet
Cimentaciones Superficiales
34 pages
Chapter 4 - Part III - Stress and Settlement
No ratings yet
Chapter 4 - Part III - Stress and Settlement
31 pages
Shallow Foundations - Settlement and EC7
No ratings yet
Shallow Foundations - Settlement and EC7
18 pages
Settlement 01
No ratings yet
Settlement 01
31 pages
Chap 5
No ratings yet
Chap 5
30 pages
Shallow Foundation Settlement Guide
No ratings yet
Shallow Foundation Settlement Guide
22 pages
Foundation Settlement Insights
100% (3)
Foundation Settlement Insights
58 pages
CH5 Bearing Capcity
No ratings yet
CH5 Bearing Capcity
44 pages
Settlement Analysis in Soils
No ratings yet
Settlement Analysis in Soils
71 pages
5501 4 Shallow Foundations Settlement
No ratings yet
5501 4 Shallow Foundations Settlement
36 pages
CE441 - Lec05 - Settlement of Shallow Foundation
No ratings yet
CE441 - Lec05 - Settlement of Shallow Foundation
68 pages
Foundations 2
No ratings yet
Foundations 2
17 pages
Ejercicios Self Compassion
No ratings yet
Ejercicios Self Compassion
5 pages
Settlement of Shallow Foundations
No ratings yet
Settlement of Shallow Foundations
9 pages
Lecture 6 - Settlement - Shallow Foundation
No ratings yet
Lecture 6 - Settlement - Shallow Foundation
26 pages
Practice Problem #2: Spread of The Load of 2 Vertical To 1 Horizontal
No ratings yet
Practice Problem #2: Spread of The Load of 2 Vertical To 1 Horizontal
21 pages
Decision Theory
No ratings yet
Decision Theory
33 pages
AC7114-4 Rev G AUDIT CRITERIA FOR NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING FACILITY FILM RADIOGRAPHY SURVEY
100% (2)
AC7114-4 Rev G AUDIT CRITERIA FOR NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING FACILITY FILM RADIOGRAPHY SURVEY
21 pages
Shallow Foundations - Settlement
No ratings yet
Shallow Foundations - Settlement
24 pages
Solução Módulo de Elasticidade
No ratings yet
Solução Módulo de Elasticidade
9 pages
Proposal PKM New Lampu 2
No ratings yet
Proposal PKM New Lampu 2
25 pages
Chapter 4 - Settlement of Shallow Foundations
No ratings yet
Chapter 4 - Settlement of Shallow Foundations
16 pages
Ohms Law 14to16 Lesson-Plan
No ratings yet
Ohms Law 14to16 Lesson-Plan
3 pages
Shallow Foundation Settlement
No ratings yet
Shallow Foundation Settlement
17 pages
Thesis Fahrenheit 451 Essay
100% (2)
Thesis Fahrenheit 451 Essay
4 pages
Compressibility of Soil
No ratings yet
Compressibility of Soil
34 pages
Soil Settlement Analysis Guide
No ratings yet
Soil Settlement Analysis Guide
14 pages
Shallow Foundations Allowable Bearing Capacity & Settlement
No ratings yet
Shallow Foundations Allowable Bearing Capacity & Settlement
21 pages
Settlement and Consolidation: Usama Khalid Ph.D. in Civil Engineering Specialized in Geotechnical Engineering
No ratings yet
Settlement and Consolidation: Usama Khalid Ph.D. in Civil Engineering Specialized in Geotechnical Engineering
15 pages
ICC Audit: External Operations Review
No ratings yet
ICC Audit: External Operations Review
22 pages
Tomlinson - Settlement Calculation Ref
No ratings yet
Tomlinson - Settlement Calculation Ref
5 pages
Filling Order 2
100% (1)
Filling Order 2
52 pages
Analysis and Design of Diagrid Sturcture For HIGH RISE
No ratings yet
Analysis and Design of Diagrid Sturcture For HIGH RISE
10 pages
Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics
No ratings yet
Civil Engineering Soil Mechanics
55 pages
Massicotte Background-Working With Bion
No ratings yet
Massicotte Background-Working With Bion
6 pages
Jka421e Ap 2017-2018
No ratings yet
Jka421e Ap 2017-2018
5 pages
0s1 9MA0-32 Mechanics - Mock Set 1 Mark Scheme (Word)
No ratings yet
0s1 9MA0-32 Mechanics - Mock Set 1 Mark Scheme (Word)
13 pages
Lecture 01 Properties of Sea Water PDF
No ratings yet
Lecture 01 Properties of Sea Water PDF
6 pages
SC - Cost Rollup
No ratings yet
SC - Cost Rollup
6 pages
Hypothesis
No ratings yet
Hypothesis
3 pages
Circular Letter No.4623 - Information On Hybrid Meetings (Secretariat)
No ratings yet
Circular Letter No.4623 - Information On Hybrid Meetings (Secretariat)
6 pages
UN Sustainable Development Goals Overview
No ratings yet
UN Sustainable Development Goals Overview
12 pages
ISE 330 Introduction To Operations Research: Deterministic Models What Is Linear Programming?
No ratings yet
ISE 330 Introduction To Operations Research: Deterministic Models What Is Linear Programming?
5 pages
Internal Assessment
No ratings yet
Internal Assessment
3 pages
Sriya PPT 2.0
No ratings yet
Sriya PPT 2.0
16 pages
Settlement
100% (2)
Settlement
45 pages
Fiber Coupling Efficiency Doric Lenses
No ratings yet
Fiber Coupling Efficiency Doric Lenses
7 pages
Ejemplo de Curriculum Vitae
No ratings yet
Ejemplo de Curriculum Vitae
8 pages
ERP Project Management Plan
0% (1)
ERP Project Management Plan
25 pages
Settlement of Shallow Foundation
No ratings yet
Settlement of Shallow Foundation
18 pages
4 - Settlement of Shallow Foundations
100% (2)
4 - Settlement of Shallow Foundations
28 pages
Bakugan's Global Journey
No ratings yet
Bakugan's Global Journey
2 pages
California Academy For Lilminius (Cal) : Lesson Plan
No ratings yet
California Academy For Lilminius (Cal) : Lesson Plan
2 pages
Understanding Soil Settlement Types
No ratings yet
Understanding Soil Settlement Types
39 pages
Electroculture According To Rexresearch Part 3
No ratings yet
Electroculture According To Rexresearch Part 3
36 pages
Notes 3 - Soil Compressibility For Shallow Foundations
No ratings yet
Notes 3 - Soil Compressibility For Shallow Foundations
61 pages
Discussedlessonplan
No ratings yet
Discussedlessonplan
2 pages

Foundation Engineering

Uploaded by

Foundation Engineering

Uploaded by

Froilan Cajo B.

9.1 Introduction 337

9.2 Elastic ttl m nt of hallow oundation on aturat d lay (m s 5 0.5) 337

9.2 Elastic Settlement of Shallow Foundation

abl 9.1 Range of b for Saturated Clay [Eq. (9.2)]a

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 339

Es 5 s480ds150d 5 72,000 kN/m2

Also, from Figure 9.1, A1 5 0.9 and A2 5 0.92. Hence,

9.3 Settlement Based on the Theory of Elasticity

Rigid layer Rigid layer

Sur a Founda on on Ela Hal -Spa

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 341

igur 9.4 Variation of I versus m9 for a flexible foundation

Flexible foundations apply uniform pressure and settle nonuniformly. Rigid

A0, A1, and A2 are given by

_m9 1 Ïm92 1 1 + Ï1 1 n92

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 343

Substituting these in Eqs. (9.12) and (9.13),

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 345

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 347

9.3 ttl m nt as d on th h ory of Elasticity 349

m9 5 L/B 5 2.0 and n9 5 H/B 5 12.0

1 1 2 m 2F 5 0.653 1 11 21 22 30.30.32s0.028) 5 0.669

Rock igur 9.6 Elastic settlement

where B 5 diameter of foundation.

9.4 mprov d Equation for Elastic ttl m nt 351

Similarly, the embedment correction factor is

9.4 mprov d Equation for Elastic ttl m nt 353

From Eq. (9.29),

From Eq. (9.27),

so, with qo 5 240 kN/m2, it follows that

9.5 ttl m nt of andy oil: s of train nflu nc actor 355

Izsmd 5 0.5 1 0.1 Î q# 2 q

Dz(2) Iz(2) Es(2)

1 Dzs1d Ess1d Izs1d Izs1d

2 Dzs2d Ess2d Izs2d

i Dzsid Essid Izsid Izsid

n Dzsnd Essnd Izsnd Izsnd

9.5 ttl m nt of andy oil: s of train nflu nc actor 357

From Eq. (9.32), at z 5 0,

Iz 5 0.1 1 0.0111 1BL 2 12 5 0.1 1 0.0111142 2 12 < 0.11

Izsmd 5 0.5 1 0.1 Î q2q

z (m) z (m) (c)

z (m) qc (kN/m2) Es (kN/m2)

The plot of Es versus z is shown in Figure 9.13b.

1 0.50 6300 0.236 1.87 3 1025

1q 2 q2 5 1 2 0.51145212 212 5 0.915

Assume the time for creep is 10 years. So,

For LyB between 1 and 10 (or . 10),

9.5 ttl m nt of andy oil: s of train nflu nc actor 359

Es 5 3.5qc sfor square and circular foundationsd(9.40)

abl 9.6 Variation of Cd with DfyB*

3 1 24 5 2f1 1 log s2dg 5 2.6

z2 5 s2.6dsBd 5 s2.6ds2d 5 5.2 m

Also, from Eqs. (9.40) and (9.41),

z (m) qc (kN/m2) Es (kN/m2)

Again, Df yB 5 1.2y2 5 0.6. From Table 9.6, Cd ø 0.85.

1 0.5 8820 0.3 1.7 3 1025

o sq Dzd 5 s2250 3 0.5d 1 s3430 3 2d 1 s2950 3 2.7d

9.6 ttl m nt of oundation on and as d on tandard n tration sistanc 361

33.07 4s5.2d log1 2

9.6 Settlement of Foundation on Sand Based

of a square foundation (Se, foundation) of width B to the settlement of a 300 mm wide

9.6 ttl m nt of oundation on and as d on tandard n tration sistanc 363

where q is the stress at the level of the foundation.

9.6 ttl m nt of oundation on and as d on tandard n tration sistanc 365

Overconsolidated qnet 0.047 0.57

Depth of stress influence,

From Eq. (9.53),

Se < 0.0118 m 5 11.8 mm

Fd 5 1 1 0.33sDfyBd 5 1 1 0.33s1y1.75d 5 1.19

9.7 Settlement Considering Soil

where L/B is limited to 10 in the case of a strip foundation.

igur 9.17 Foundation and the influence zone

9.7 ttl m nt onsid ring oil tiffn ss ariation with tr ss v l 367

0.8 B/L = 0.1

Es 5 3.5qc sfor square and circular foundationsd(9.40)

Scspd2oed 5 one-dimensional consolidation settlement calculated by using