R. H. G. PARRY, M.A, PhD. FLGE, University of Cambridge ‘A direct method of estimating settlements in sand from S.P.T. values SYNOPSIS A simple method is presented for calculating s in the Standard Penetration Test. foundation below grade, the thickness of the c ettlenents directly from N values measured Factors taken into account include the depth of sompressible sand layer, stress changes in the ground due to filling or excavating, and ground water conditions. INTRODUCTION ‘The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a wholly empirical field test, but in the author's view it will give consistent res~ alts providing it is performed and inter- preted with care, In particular any cor- Felation between the SPT and soil behaviour Such as settlement or bearing capacity can only be expected to apply for one type of soil. In this paper studies are made in relation to free draining sands - i.e., Sands in which the pore pressure set up around the spoon by a blow of the hanmer are dissipated before the next blow is made. In the writer's view, too, the test should be carried out in boreholes of 0.1 m dia~ meter or les Existing methods of estimating settlements in sands from the SPT have developed from correlations made between the settlement of test plates in deep excavations and measur- ed SPT values in the underlying sand, des~ Gribed by Terzaghi and Peck (1948). Design charts were drawn up by Peck, Hanson and ‘Thornburn (1953) on the basis of extrapol- ating from test plate to full size found- ations using the formula: fa 4 @ a BF a+By) were bg = settlement of foundation of width 8 py = settlement of unit size test plate B= width of foundation B= width of test plate In the early use of this method the influ- ence of effective overburden pressure on measured SPT values was ignored, and as a result settlements were usually overestin- ated. The use of modified values of N was Suggested by Sutherland (1963) and Alpan (1964), and resulted in much better cor- relation with observed settlements. However, these methods still rely on Equation 1 which case records published by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1961) have shown can lead to large errors in estimating settlements. Another deficiency of the present methods is that no account is usually taken of stress changes in the ground due to site grading and foundation excavations. Any method Which ignores the influence of stress on soil deformation characteristics must be open to question. An example where stress changes due to site grading have been taken into account has been published by D'Appol- onia et al (1968). ‘The spr is ple method a simple test and demands a sim- Of interpretation. A method of estimating settlements is proposed here by the author which makes direct use of the measured blow count values of N rather than modified values. Justification for this comes from the fact that two of the most im- portant factors determining the modulus of Geformation of sand are the voids ratio and confining pressure. These two factors also have a major influence in determining N values, as shown by Gibbs and Holtz (1957). ‘The method described below also takes acc- ount of known stress changes in the ground occurring after site investigation, but be- fore or during the life of the structure. PROPOSED METHOD OF CALCULATING SETTLEMENTS It is known from field observations that foundation settlement, p, under working loads is governed by the width of the loaded area B, the magnitude of the bearing pres~ Sure q/and the deformation modulus of the soil, If it is assumed that measured N values and soil deformation characteristics both depend primarily on the voids ratio and the confining pressure in free draining Sands, and so may bear a direct relation- ship to each other, then a simple equation 29 16630 can be written which takes account of By q and deformation characteristics as follows= pead (2) Ma where a = a constant, and the SPr value N, is used in place of 4 deformation modulu: ‘This form of equation is assumed to apply where the load factor against shear failure of the foundation is at least 2.5. Eq.2 applies for surface loading or loading in backfilled excavations and the value of N, used in Eq.2 is a weighted average val- ul of N within the depth of significant stressing (about 28) below the foundation. A suggested method of obtaining this value, giving additional weight to values at shal- low depths below foundation level, is set out in Appendix A, Tt is also suggested in Appendix A that it is often sufficiently accurate tg take Ny as the value of N at a depth of 7% below Foundation level, if N values are varying fairly consistently with depth within the stressed zone. It does not follow from Eq.2 that the ratio of settlenent of two foundations with the Same unit load q and widths By and Bz will be in the direct proportion Bj/B,. Settle- ment of two foundations of widths B, and By would only be in the ratio of Bi/Bz where Newas constant with depth. INFLUENCE OF PERMANENT EXCAVATION, WATER TABLE AND THICKWESS OF COMPRESSIBLE SAND SERATON Permanent Excavation If a foundation is placed in a permanent excavation as shown in Fig.1 the stress at any point below the unloaded foundation is different to that when N was measured, ass~ tuning it was measured from natural ground surface. “This is not true if the foundation is placed in a completely back-filled ex- cavation and the arguments in this section apply only to the case of the permanent ex- cavation. q.2 can be used directly for the backfilled excavation, having due re~ gard to other possible modifying factors discussed below. FIG.1 Foundation geometry. Nz is obtained from measured values of N as des- cribed in Appendix A. Tt will be assumed here that N is directly proportional to the mean effective stress, py rather than the effective overburden pressure at a given relative density. The relationship between Nj, the true value of N after excavation, and N, before excav- ation is given by Eq.3, if the soil density remains constant. Py 3 No" Ma Be a where p = 1/3(o!+0i+03) P before excavation at depth BP below foundation level p after excavation and before applying foundation load, at depen 22 below foundation Level Putting _ 4, w cn = D-H and replacing Ny by Np in Bqg.3 gives: on og 6 TB, «6 Xa where N, is the weighted average of measur- ed.N values at the time of the site investigation, before the excavation is made, Values'of p, and p, are discussed below. If the relationship between horizontal eff- eftive stress 0, and vertical effective stress 0}, at any point is k,, then Po = V3 oy (+2 kg) :'+ at a depth below foundation level Po = 1/3 y'(D40.75 B) (142 ky) (7) the effective density of the where y' soil. ‘The at rest value of k, for sands which have not experienced preconsolidation pres- sures greater than the existing overburden is given to a good approximation by the Jaky (1948) equation: kel sing «@ for 9! = 30°, k, = 0.5 and for ¢* = 40%, ky = 0.36. Likely to occur under most field conditions, ‘and where the soil has experienced higher preconsolidation pressures or where there Bre ground water movements k, will be high~ er, and may theoretically © attain the full passive value, although this again is unlikely under most field conditions. ‘These are the minimum values 167It is suggested here that an average k, 0.5 should be assumed unless a more acc- urate value is known, i.e. from Eq.7 Po = 0-67 y* (D + 0,758) o Pe ‘The value of k, immediately below the base of an excavati8n will usually exceed the value before excavation and may attain values as high as the full passive value (e.g. 4.5 for ¢" = 40°), although this would ba unusual, It will be arbitrarily assumed here that k, increases linearly with excavation dep&h D as given by the expression: x, > co = O05 + 0.25 B oy ‘ase expression is assuned to apply when <2 <10. the value of py at a depth PE below an excavation depth D is given by: b 0,50 yeu + 0.25 B hos Po, , 7542) ees ay Pe a + 0.258) ‘This expression is plotted as C, against in Fag.2. D a 5:0) FIG. 2 Relationship between settlement factor C, and the ratio D/B where D is the depth of permanent foundation excavation and 5 is the width of the foundation. Water Table ‘The water table conditions must be consider- ed in using Eg.6, No correction is needed for surface footings or footings in back- 168 at filled excavations if the water table does not rise after the site investigation and during the life of the structure. If it is expected to rise, the measured N values should be reduced in direct proportion to the change in effective overburden in the field. If a permanent excavation is taken down below the water table, it will be necess- ary to draw the water down at least to the excavation level. The worst case then arises if loading is applied with water at this level. Taking a point 38 below found ation level (see Appendix a for signific- ance of this point), it can be shown that the vertical effective stress at this point before excavation is (taking yy = kY)t (op)y = Fo + dy + Bd and after excavation ist wy, $= 38 The ratio of these stresses, therefore, is 33, (yg _ +0, + 3%) ww ed But some of this is taken into account in factor Cy = i.e, an amount: Gp, +e moe (a2) 7 Dividing (12a) by (12b) gives c,, the amount settlements calculated from Eq.6 must be multiplied by to give a correction for the Presence of water = 1 + 3p where 000, <0 p+e Where D,, > D the appropriate equation can be found by assuming C, is given by Bq.13a with D, = Dy and c, = 1.0 where D, - D= 2B. (4. the water has an influence only within a depth of 25 below foundation level. Ass~ (3a) uming C, is linear between the above limits ives us D, (2B + D-D,) c= 1+ gieocrsiy where 0<(,-D)<2B Thickness of Compressible Sand stratum The thickness 7 of the compressible sand stratum below the foundation must be taken into account by multiplying the p values from Eq.6 by the factor C, where C, is plot~ ted against 1/B in Fig.3. ‘This curve has been determined on the assumption that in a uniform soil half the settlenent occurs within a depth of 38 below foundation level and the remaining half within a depth 32 to 2B below the foundation. (See appendix #A).