Settlement prediction of spread foundations

(i.e. strip/pad footings and rafts)

Accuracy of settlement predictions

4 footing tests (0.7m < B < 1.5m) in Perth Sand Prediction competition organised to estimate footing settlement of each footing at loads of 100 & 180kN; over 50 predictions received from around the world

Predictions of footing settlement at 100 kN and 180 kN

100 80

Score/100

60 40 20 0

Score of 100:average of 8 predictions are within 20% Score of 60: average of 8 predictions within 50% Score of 20: average of 8 predictions within a factor of 2 Negative score: average of 8 predictions off by more than a factor of 4

19 9 20 18 10 2 1 13 14 4 11 26 16 15 5 23 24 28 6 21 27 3 17 25 12 8 22 7

-20

Participiant number
Competition winner could only predict settlement to within a factor of about 2 !

Approaches to settlement prediction

1. Linear elastic half space (homogeneous) w = /4 qB (1-2)/E w0 = qB (1-2)/E wc= [(1-)qB/2G] I 2.

= /8 (1-)qB/G = (1-)qB/2G where I =f (L/B)

(rigid footing) (centre of flexible footing) (corner of flexible footing)

General linear elastic Use above formula and select E or G from standard correlations at depth = ZI/2 where ZI (m) = [B(m)]0.75 Burland & Burbridge SPT N method and Schmertmann CPT qc method E/G linearly increasing with depth e.g. G= Go + mz w0 = [qB/4G0] I (centre of flexible footing, where I = f (2Go/mB, ) Finite thickness of compressible soil, assume settlement distribution from maximum at footing level to 10% of this maximum at 2zI beneath footing and zero at 4zI beneath footing, where zI (m) = [B(m)]0.75 (Computer based) derivation of settlements in non-homogeneous elastic material using Boussinesqs equations Approximate non-linear analysis Measurement of (non-linear) stiffness in triaxial tests 1-D settlement prediction Approximate means of applying non-linear triaxial stiffness data to settlement prediction Approximate non-linear settlement prediction in cohesionless soils Stress-level and strain level dependent soil stiffness

3.

4.

Full non-linear analysis Use Finite Element (or Finite Difference) method and realistic soil constitutive model, incorporating stress and strain level dependence of stiffness, anisotropy etc.

Settlement of shallow foundations

For 'typical' loading beneath shallow foundations (of width B and under bearing pressure =q): Settlement (rigid foundation) Settlement (centre of flexible foundation) = (/4) qB (1-2)/Ev = 1.1 qB (1-2)/Ev

Where Ev is the equivalent drained Youngs modulus (Eeq) and: =0.2 Ev 5 qc or 2500 N60 (kPa) 750 N60 (kPa) or 2 qc 300 sutc 150 sutc (in natural cohesionless soils) (normally consolidated, unaged soils) (in high OCR clays) (in low OCR clays)

Alternatively the following plot from Baldi et al. (1988) is in popular use for sands:

E/qc =f (qc, stress history, stress level)

Using Burland & Burbidge SPT approach for sands and gravels
Empirical correlation based on backanalyses of over 200 case histories (Note nonproportional relationship between the applied stress and the foundation width)1.

w = fs fL [qn (2/3) vy]B0.7 Ic

w (mm) = settlement qn = net foundation pressure (=q v) in kPa vy = preconsolidation stress (kPa) Ic = 1.7/N1.4 N is the average SPT N value to depth = zI zI (m) = [B(m)]0.75 fs = shape correction factor [1.25 L/B/(L/B+0.25)]2 fl=creep correction factor (=1.5 for static loads and 2.5 for fluctuating loads)

Schmertmann (1970, 1978) method

=> w = C 2 qn

2B

Iz z E
0.6

where C 2 = 1 + log
Iz

t ( years ) 0.1

B/2 For shallow square footing

2B

Schmertmann recommends E=2 qc The creep correction factor (C2) is often used in conjunction with other settlement prediction methods

This arises because of the inherent non-linear stress-strain characteristic of soils

Example: Building with 8m column grid with SWL column load of 800 kN
SPT N
0 0 10 20 30

Soil stratum is clay Need to found footings at minimum depth of 0.5 to 0.75m to avoid seasonal effects Assume footing formation level at 1m depth Average N value 10 sutc (kPa) 5 x N =50 kPa (high OCR) Ev 300 sutc (equivalent linear modulus) Ev = 15000 kPa Assume =0.2

0.5

1.5 Depth (m)

2.5

3.5

To ensure satisfactory SLS, assume maximum tilt between column locations =1/400 and that adjacent column founded on hardspot i.e. footing for this column does not settle. Maximum allowable settlement = column spacing/400 = 20mm s= 0.02= (/4) B {Fcol/B2] (1 0.22)/15000 and Bmin=2m Check ULS for 2m square footing: q = 800/(22) = 200 kPa Typical g=0.5 and load factor (f) =1.35 Require 1.35 800 /22 =270 kPa to be less than g Nc sc dc su = 0.5 (2+) 1.2 1 50 = 154 kPa not OK Need to increase B to provide adequate FOS for ULS. The footings factor of safety will increase with time as the clay begins to drain under slow application of applied load from structure. Exercise: Repeat the above example assuming the soil stratum is sand. Compare the settlement given by the equation for a rigid punch with the settlement predicted by Burland & Burbridge.

Settlements in non-homogeneous elastic soil and beneath flexible foundations

Example: Determine the settlement beneath the centre and corner of a flexible raft
(20m 10m) under a building load of 20 MN on a clay with sutc=50 kPa underlain by intact rock at a depth of 10m. Estimate the settlement at a lateral distance of 30m from the centre of the foundation. 10m 10m 5m 5m

wc = (1-) qB I/2G Flexible raft q = 20000/ (20 10) = 100 kPa Eeq = 250sutc = 12500 kPa => Geq= 12500/[2(1+)] =5200 kPa for =0.2 For small (10m 5m) rectangular loaded area, L/B=2, I=0.766 (from table) Settlement at centre of raft in half space (w0) = 4 (rectangles) [ (1-0.2) 100 5 0.766/ (25200)] =0.118m = 118mm =wmax Settlement at corner of large rectangle in elastic half space (L/B=2); I also =0.766 = 1 (rectangle) [ (1-0.2) 100 10 0.766/ (25200)] =0.059m = 59mm =wcmax zI beneath foundation = 100.75 = 5.6m w =0.1 118mm at depth of 2 5.6= 11.2m w below 10m depth in elastic half-space = [0.1 + (1.2/11.2)0.9] = 0.2 wmax w at centre of raft = (1-0.2) wmax = 90 mm w at corner of raft = (1-0.2) wcmax = 47mm Approx. settlement (in linear elastic soil) at distance (s) of 30m from centre: [(1-)Q/(2G)]/s = [(1-0.2) 20000/ (2 x 5200 x )]/30 =0.016m = 16mm

Elastic Settlement prediction using Boussinesqs equations

Estimate equivalent linear elastic vertical and horizontal moduli for soil horizons beneath a uniformly loaded area. In the absence of additional information, assume Ev=Eh and calculate the vertical strain at the centre of each horizon from: z = [v /Ev ] [ 2h/ Ev] (1)

where v and h are determined at the mid-height of each soil horizon using Boussinesqs equations. The settlement at the foundation level is then calculated by summing the settlements of each soil horizon (=z z) from a point below the foundation where settlements are assumed to be zero up to the foundation level i.e. w = z z (2)

The settlement calculated beneath the centreline of the foundation may be reduced by (/4) to give the settlement of a rigid pad foundation. Instead of using Boussinesq equations (via computer programs such as OASYS VDISP), charts such as those given on page 22 may be used to estimate stress distributions. A Poissons ratio () of 0.2 is usually (conservatively) employed using equation (1). The approach is not recommended for calculating distributions of settlements at some distance from the loaded area because the assumption of linear elasticity often leads to under-prediction of settlement gradients and over-prediction of settlements.

lim <0.05% => no damage lim>0.3% => severe damage

Bending: w/(Llim) L/6H + 2H/3L

(neutral axis at H/2)

Shear: w/(Llim) 1 + L2/4H2

(neutral axis at H/2)

Classification system is based on ease of repair of plaster and brickwork or masonry. The Burland & Wroth (1974)

classification system is commonly used with categories 0,1,2,3,4 and 5. For Category 0 (negligible damage), hairline cracks (less than 0.1mm) are barely visible. For Category 2 (slight damage), re-decoration is probably required, crack widths are up to 5mm wide but are easily filled. For Category 4 (severe), windows and door frames are distorted, walls are leaning and/or bulging, crack widths are up to 25mm. Most damage occurs because cladding and finishes experience tensile strains. At strains in excess of 0.05% to 0.1% (measured over a gauge length of >1m), visible cracking occurs. At damage categories 0, 2 and 4, tensile strains are typically 0.025%, 0.1% and in excess of 0.3% respectively. The two expressions for /L given above are typical of a range of predictions summarised in Burland et al. (2004)

Tunnelling induced movements For bending in load bearing wall:

h/(Lhlim) 0.4 s/(Lslim) 1.5-3

=> Hogging is critical

EXAMPLE: The feasibility of employing a raft foundation for a 20 storey building

and a plan area of 100m 100m is to be investigated. The equivalent design soil shear modulus (with =0.3) was assessed as being: G= 29 +2z (MPa), where z is depth below the raft. Assume a design storey loading of 12 kPa, a raft thickness, Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio of 1.5m, 30 kN/mm2 and 0.3 respectively and an allowable maximum tensile strain of 0.05%. Using relationship w/(Lmax) = L/6H + 2H/3L and estimating H=80m=> w (allowable) = [100 (0.05/100) (100/480 + 160/300)]m = 37 mm Gross bearing pressure (q) at underside of raft = 20 12 + 1.5 24 = 276 kPa Raft zone of influence (zI) 1000.75 = 32m Average G 29 + 2 (zI/2) => G = 29 + 2 32/2 = 61 MPa Average E = 2 48000 (1+) = 160 MPa For flexible raft: Select I values for rectangular areas on homogeneous soil At raft centre: w = 4 [(1-0.3)(276 500.561) / (2 61000)]m = 178mm3 Mid-side : w = 2 [(1-0.3)(276500.766)/(2 61000)]m= 121mm Corner of raft: w = 1 [(1-0.3)(2761000.561)/(261000)]m = 89mm

For rigid raft : w =/4 qB (1-2)/E = /4 276 100 (1-0.32)/160000 = 123mm Differential along central axis = 178-121= 57mm > 37mm (allowable => need raft stiffness to reduce differential subject to Structural Engineers specification) Differential along side walls (centre to corner = 121-89 =32mm < 37mm allowed)4

3 4

Note: this approach implies w is 12% higher than the more commonly adopted expression, w=qB(1-2)/E Although, elastic solutions often under-estimate settlements on the periphery of actual foundations

To limit tensile strains within central area of raft, require w/wrigid < 37/123 = 0.30 From chart, require Krs >0.05 Krs for 1.5m thick raft (with Econcrete = 30,000 MPa) = 5.57 (30000/160) (100/100)0.5 (1.5/100)3 = 0.0035 < 0.05 For Krs =0.05 = 5.57 (30000/160) (100/100)0.5 (t/100)3 => Raft thickness, t, required = 3.6m Note that the raft flexibility is relatively high because L=100m For Krs=0.05 M/qL2 = 0.0025 where M is the bending moment per unit length

q=276 kPa, L=100m => M =0.0025 276 1002 = 6900 kNm/m Calculate steel requirement from M/bd2 i.e. Asteel = f (M/bd2, fc) M/bd2 = 6900/(1.0 3.62) = 532 kN/m2 = 0.532 N/mm2 => low/nominal steel required

Usual to employ soil-structure interaction (FE) analysis to optimise design

Approximate Non-linear settlement prediction methods

Measurement of (non-linear) stiffness in triaxial tests 1-D settlement prediction (data provided by Oedometer tests) Approximate means of applying non-linear triaxial stiffness data to settlement prediction Approximate non-linear settlement prediction in cohesionless soils Stress-level and strain level dependent soil stiffness

Generally unaccountable errors remains due to (a) difficulties in trimming the sample precisely, (b) play in connection between load cell and sample top cap and (c) bedding down ends of sample due to local surface irregularities

Effect of local vs. external strain measurement on inferred stiffness

140 120

Deviator stress (kPa)

100 80 60 40 20 0 0

Internal axial strain measurement

External axial strain measurement

0.5

Axial strain (%)

160

Secant Youngs modulus (MPa)

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.001 External strain measurement Internal strain measurement

0.01

0.1

10

Axial strain (%)

Used for triaxial testing Measures deviator stress Eliminates piston friction Very insensitive to transverse forces

Volume gauge

Example5: Estimate the mean settlement of a 50m 50m flexible raft with a bearing pressure of 80 kPa founded on the surface of a 15m thick layer of soft clay overlying rock. The available properties for the clay are as follows. Assume the water table is at ground level. w = 45%, LL=50%, Pl=20% vy =100 kPa throughout the layer Estimates: Assumption of 1-D is valid e 2.7w = 1.22 and b=w (2.7+1.22)/(1+1.22) = 17 kN/m3 Cc* = 0.256 eL -0.04 = 0.2562.70.5-0.04 =0.35 Cc 1.3Cc*=0.45, Cs0.2Cc*=0.07, C =0.05 Cc =0.0225 Clay when consolidated will mostly be at OCR=1, take cv =2m2/year Time for consolidation =7.52/2=28 years (assuming 2-way drainage)

Rock (assumed rigid & permeable)

Divide 15m layer into 3 5m thick sublayers Sublayer No. 1 2 3 z (at centre of sublayer) 2.5m 7.5m 12.5m vi (kPa) 17.5 52.5 87.5 vf(kPa) 97.5 132.5 167.5 vy (kPa) 100 100 100

Consolidation settlement (mm) = [(0.07/2.22) log(97.5/17.5)]5000 + [(0.07/2.22)log(100/52.5) +(0.45/2.22) log(132.5/100)]5000 + [(0.07/2.22)log(100/87.5) +(0.45/2.22) log(167.5/100)]5000 525mm

Creep over 100 year life of structure = (0.0225/2.22) 15000log(100/28) 84 mm Total settlement 610 mm

c.f. correlations presented earlier in the unit

Additional methods for predicting settlement of shallow foundations

Non-linear method for footings on clays: using triaxial (local strain) data
Derive equivalent modulus from high quality samples tested appropriately under triaxial conditions. For foundation of width, B, and settlement w, the equivalent modulus is approximately the same as secant modulus obtained in triaxial tests when the triaxial axial strain (v) is 2.5 times less than w/B. An iterative procedure is required: 1. 2. 3. 4. Estimate w/B Determine Eeq (E or Eu) at v =0.4(w/B) from triaxial stiffness data Calculate w from w=(/4)qB (1-2)/Eeq Calculate new w/B and return to step 2.

(see Tutorial example) Non-linear method for footings sands using in-situ test data Use is still made of elastic equation s/B = /4 q (1-2)/ Eeq, but Eeq is allowed to reduce as strain level (and s/B) increase. In addition a more realistic relationship between Eeq and qc is employed.
20 18 16 14 12
B=3m B=2.5m B=3m B=1m B=1.5m B=1.5m B=1m B=1m B=0.67m

Backfigured equivalent moduli (Eeq) from 9 test footings at two sites => Eeq reduces with s/B At given s/B, Eeq is not proportional to qc

Eeq/qc

10 8 6 4 2 0 0.01 Texas: Closed symbols Shenton Park: Open symbols

0.1

10

s/B (%)

400
B=3m B=2.5m B=3m B=1m B=1.5m B=1.5m B=1m B=1m SP B=0.67m SP

Eeq/ (qc0.25 'v00.5 pa0.25)

300

200

100 Texas: Closed symbols Shenton Park: Open symbols 0 0.01 0.1 1 10

s/B (%)

'v0 and qc are calculated at a depth below the footing of ZI/2, where ZI (m)= [B(m)]0.75 s 1 q q B C ' v 0 qc p a

E eq qc
0.25

' v 0.5 pa 0.25

E eq

A s/B

=>

where

A C = (1 2 ) 4

A~11 and C~250 in Perth (normally consolidated) dune sand A~19 and C~800 in aged alluvial Texas sand

Using the DMT to assess likely value of A and C

(These values depend on age, OCR of deposit etc e.g. see Baldi plot of E/qc) Expansion of membrane to s/D=1.8% Lift-off pressure =p0 Pressure at s/D=1.8% = p1 KD = (p0-u0)/v0 From elasticity ED=34.7 (p1-p0) Eeq for footing varies with ( ED/KD0.5) =>at s/B=1.8%, ratio of A values = ratio of ED/KD0.5 values e.g At Shenton Park sand, A =11 and average ED/KD0.5 value=4.5, A value at another site with DMT parameters of ED1 and KD1 = 11(ED1/KD10.5)/4.5

400

Eeq/ (qc0.25 'v00.5 pa0.25) = Eeq/

Texas 300

200 Shenton Park 100 75r

75

0 0.01

0.1

1.8%

10

s/B (%)

r = (ED1/KD10.5)/ (EDSP/KDSP0.5), where EDSP and KDSP are DMT parameters at Shenton Park

Creep settlement of footings in sand

The settlement of footings increases with time and a linear variation of settlement with the logarithm of time is usually observed i.e.
t sc = m ln t B ref
=> d ( sc / B ) = s = m n dt t

where sc is the settlement due to creep and m is a creep coefficient which increases with the levels of strength mobilisation. For footings on normally consolidated (Perth) sand, the following expression provided a good fit to footing settlement data (and also to creep occurring during stress hold tests in pressuremeter tests)
q m ~ 0.02 q f
2

q / q f < 0.7 with t ref = 2hours

The value of m for footings on overconsolidated sand may be expected to be less than one third of the value given by the above expression, while m for footings on normally consolidated sands subjected to drained cyclic loads is likely to be double that given by the same expression. The total settlement is the sum of the immediate and creep settlement:
1 s q + m1 B C ' q p v c a 0
2

q q f

t ( days ) ln ( 2 / 24)

Where m1=0.02 for typical Perth dune sand

Using stress and strain level dependent Youngs Modulus

1

el=0.0008%

n=1 r=0.1%

E'v/E0

0.5

n=0.7 r=0.01%

0 0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Axial strain (%)

E0/pa = AE F(e) (v/pa)0.5 F(e) = (2.17 e)2/(1+e) Esec = E0 _______________ 1 + (-el)n/(r-el)n for > el

r = Cr (h/pa)0.5 z = [v /Ev ] [ 2h/ Ev] s = z z

EXAMPLE: The CPT end resistances (qc) and shear wave velocities (Vs) measured in a SCPT at a sand site in Perth are shown below. The K0 value of the sand deposit, which has an in situ mean water content of 3%, may be assumed =1.0 and the void ratio limits are 0.8 and 0.4. A 10m 10m raft is to be founded at ground level.
(i) (ii) (iii) Assess the mean density and relative density of the sand. Derive a relationship between the very small strain elastic modulus (E0) of the material and the vertical effective stress. Estimate the settlement response at the centre of the raft at a maximum bearing pressure of 300 kPa assuming an elastic stress distribution beneath the raft. The secant Youngs modulus (Esec) for the sand may be obtained from the following expression derived from triaxial data: E0/ Esec = 1 + [(-el)/(r-el)]0.6 where is the vertical strain, el (the linear elastic limit) is 0.0001% and r (%) =0.01 (h/pa)0.5; r is the strain at which Esec/Eo= and h is the horizontal effective stress. Assume Poissons ratio values of 0.1 and 0.4 for very small strains and larger strains respectively.

Shear wave velocity (m/s)

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 100 200 300 0 2 4 0 5

CPT qc (MPa)
10 15 20 25 30

Perth sand

Depth (m)

Depth (m) (Rigid) siltstone

6 8 10 12 14 16

z = z qapp h = r qapp p= p qapp q = q qapp qapp = applied stress z = depth below centreline
R= Equivalent foundation radius

emax 0.8

emin 0.4

Dr 0.5

e 0.6

Sr 0.03 0.1325

b (kN/m3) b/w 1.706 16.73525

At small strains vo =0.1 qc (kPa) 0 7000 10000 14500 19000 18000 19000 20000 z (m) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13.5 p'='v (K0=1) 33.5 66.9 100.4 133.9 167.4 200.8 225.9 ('v/pa)0.5 0.578537 0.818175 1.002055 1.157074 1.293648 1.41712 1.503083

Dr 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.57 0.51 0.50 0.50

vs (m/s) 180 200 220 240 250 280 300

Go (MPa) 55 68 83 98 107 134 154

Eo/pa 1216 1501 1816 2162 2346 2942 3378

F(e) 1.54056 1.54056 1.54056 1.54056 1.54056 1.54056 1.54056

AE 1364.3 1191 1176.7 1212.7 1177 1347.8 1458.7

D 21018 18348 18128 18683 18132 20763 22472

Average Dr=0.5 Eo/pa= Eo (kPa)

Average 1275.5 1275*F(e)*('v/pa)0.5 = 2000('v/pa)0.5 for Dr=50% 19500 'v0.5 for Dr=50% with 'v in kPa

19649

Parts (i) and (ii)

Part (iii): Calculations shown for applied stress of 300 kPa

B a b D el (%) Cr v n Stress zmiddle 0.6 1.7 3.4 5.6 7.9 11.3 10 5.6419 16.7352 1 19500 1.00E-04 1.00E-02 0.4 0.6 300 kPa (1) z/a 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 1.4 2 z 1 1 0.9 0.66 0.5 0.28 h 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.05 0 z 1.13 1.13 2.26 2.26 2.26 4.51 'vi (kPa) 15 34 63 100 138 195 'hi (kPa) 15 34 63 100 138 195 'v 300 300 270 198 150 84 'h 240 180 90 45 15 0 'vm 165 184 198 199 213 237 'hm 135 124 108 123 146 195 Eo (kPa) 250817 264745 274147 275370 284717 300095 r (%) 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.014
'v 2v'h

(equivalent radius)

Circ ref

4.10E-03 8.65E-03 1.52E-02 8.68E-03 5.07E-03 1.40E-03

Esec (kPa) 26365 18028 13027 18653 27195 59951

Set =column (1)

s (mm) 5 10 34 20 11 6 Total 86mm

108 156 198 162 138 84

0.00409635 0.00865339 0.01519896 0.00868488 0.00507445 0.00140114