You are on page 1of 96

CE 5101 Lecture 5 CE 5101 Lecture 5 CE 5101 Lecture 5 CE 5101 Lecture 5 SETTLEMENTS SETTLEMENTS SETTLEMENTS SETTLEMENTS

and Stress Distribution and Stress Distribution and Stress Distribution and Stress Distribution
Sep 2013
Prof Harry Tan
9/11/2013 1
Outline
9/11/2013 2
Foundation Requirements
Elastic Stress Distribution
Concept of Effective Stress
Settlements of Soils - Immediate, Delayed,
and Creep Compression
Hand Calculations
SPREADSHEET Calculations (UNISETTLE)
Finite Element Analysis (PLAXIS)
Requirements for Foundation Design
Adequate Safety
(degree of utilisation of soil strength)
Acceptable Deformations
(Movements and Settlements limits)
9/11/2013 3
What is Adequate Safety
(Lambe and Whitman Pg 196)
A A
-2.000 -1.000 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000 11.000 12.000
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
Plastic Points
Pl astic Mohr-Coulomb poi nt Tensi on cut-off poi nt
E
Stress
Strain
2c
Failure Load = 866 kPa
E = 34.48 MN/m2
c=167.6 kN/m2
= 0.3
Yielded
Zone
9/11/2013 4
0 200 400 600 800 1.00E+03
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
Footing Load (kPa)
Footing CL Settlement [m]
Chart 1
Point A
Load vs Settlement Behaviour of Flexible
Footing
First
Yield
Local Shear
Failure
General Shear
Failure
Settlement (m)
Load (kPa)
9/11/2013 5
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Settlement (m)
Factor of Strength Reduction
Chart 2
Point A
Factor of Safety as Measure of Degree of
Utilisation of Soil Strength
FS = 4.338; q = 200 kPa; qult = 868 kPa
FS = 2.164; q = 400 kPa; qult = 866 kPa
FS = 1.291; q = 670 kPa; qult = 865 kPa
9/11/2013 6
What is Allowable Settlements
Effects on:
Appearance of Structure
Utility of Structure
Damage to Structure
9/11/2013 7
Types of Settlements

Uniform settlement
Non-uniform settlement
Angular distortion = /L

L
L

Angular distortion =
/(L/2)
9/11/2013 8
Allowable Settlements
Controlled by type of settlements (Sowers 1962)
Total settlements
Tilting
Differential settlements
9/11/2013 9
Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum, 1963)
1/150 - Considerable cracking in panel and brick walls, safe limit
for flexible brick wall h/l<1/4, limit where structural damage of
general buildings is to be feared
1/250 - Limit where tilting of high rigid buildings become visible
1/300 - Limit where first cracking in wall panel expected,
difficulties with overhead cranes expected
9/11/2013 10
1/500 - Safe limit for buildings where cracking is not
permissible
1/600 - Limit of danger for frames with diagonals
1/750 - Limits where difficulties with machinery sensitive to
settlements are to be feared (high tech plants)
Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum ,1963)
Max Distortion ( /L) vs Max Differential
Settlement :
1/500 vs 25 mm
1/300 vs 45 mm
1/200 vs 70 mm
1/100 vs 150 mm
For Stiff Footing,
Max Diff Sett = 1/4 Max Sett
For Flexible Footing,
Max Diff Sett = 1/2 Max Sett
Typical Foundation Design,
Max Diff Sett < 25 mm
9/11/2013 11
9/11/2013 12
Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum ,1963)
200 mm
350 mm
100 mm
Stiff Footing
max diff sett =1/4
max sett
Flexible Footing
max diff sett=1/2
max sett
9/11/2013 13
ER2010 Review Paper by
Ed Cording et al
Assessment of excavation-
induced building damage
Damage is due to combined
effects of:
Angular distortion;
Lateral strain
Bending strain
Basic Soil Phase Relationships
Air
Water
Solids
MASS VOLUME
0
Mw
Mt
Ms
Mw
Va
Vw
Vs
Vv
Vt
Densities (kg/m3)
Total, t = Mt/Vt
Dry, d = Ms/Vt
Solids, s = Ms/Vs
Water, t = Mw/Vw
Saturated, sat
= (Ms+Mw+ w Va)/Vt
Ratios
Water content, w = Mw/Ms
Void ratio, e = Vv/Vs
Porosity, n = Vv/Vt
Degree of saturation = Vw/Vv
9/11/2013 14
Basic Soil Phase Relationships
Define Vs=1, Vv=e
eS w = w s
Air
Water
Solids
MASS VOLUME
0
t
s
Mw
(1-e)S
eS
1
e
1+e
Densities (kg/m3)
Total, t = s (1+w)/(1+e)
= d (1+w)
Dry, d = s /(1+e)
Saturated, sat
= (Ms+Mw+ w Va)/Vt
Ratios
Water content, w = t/ d - 1
Void ratio, e = s/ d - 1
Porosity, n = e/(1+e)
Degree of saturation = S = w s / e w
9/11/2013 15
Common soil mineral densities
Mineral Type Solid Density, kg/m
3
Calcite 2800
Quartz 2670
Mica 2800
Pyrite 5000
Kaolinite 2650
Montmorillonite 2750
Illite 2700
9/11/2013 16
Typical range of saturated densities
Soil Type Saturated Density, kg/m
3
Sands;gravels 1900-2300
Silts 1500-1900
Soft Clays 1300-1800
Firm Clays 1600-2100
Peat 1000-1200
Organic Silt 1200-1900
Granular Fill 1800-2200
9/11/2013 17
The Textbooks on Foundations They come
no better
This is one of the few showing
more than one soil layer
9/11/2013 18
The Reality With a bit of needed W add-on
9/11/2013 19
The Reality Getting closer, at least
9/11/2013 20
So, with this food for thought,
on to the Fundamental
Principles
9/11/2013 21
Determining the effective stress is the key
to geotechnical analysis
The not-so-good method:
) 1 ( ' i
w t
=
9/11/2013 22
h = ' '
) ' ( ' h
z
=
= buoyant
unit weight
It is much better to determine, separately, the
total stress and the pore pressure. The
effective stress is then the total stress minus
the pore pressure.
u
z
= '
) ( h
z
=
9/11/2013 23
Determining pore pressure
u =
w
h
The height of the column of water (h; the head representing the water pressure) is
usually not the distance to the ground surface nor, even, the distance to the
groundwater table. For this reason, the height is usually referred to as the phreatic
height or the piezometric height to separate it from the depth below the groundwater
table or depth belowthe ground surface.
The pore pressure distribution is determined by applying the facts that
(1) in stationary conditions, the pore pressure distribution can be assumed to be linear
in each individual soil layer
(2) in pervious soil layers that are sandwiched between less pervious layers, the pore
pressure is hydrostatic (that is, the vertical gradient is unity)
SAND
Hydrostatic distribution
CLAY
Non-hydrostatic distribution,
but linear
SAND
Hydrostatic distribution
Artesian phreatic head
GW
DEPTH
PRESSURE
9/11/2013 24
Distribution of stress
below a a small load area
9/11/2013 25
) ( ) (
0
z L z B
L B
q q
z
+ +

=
The 2:1 method
The 2:1-method can only be used for distributions directly under the center
of the footprint of the loaded area. It cannot be used to combine (add)
stresses from adjacent load areas unless they all have the same center. it is
then only applicable under the area with the smallest footprint.
Boussinesq Method for stress from a
point load
9/11/2013 26
2 / 5 2 2
3
) ( 2
3
z r
z
Q q
z
+
=

Newmarks method for stress from a


loaded area
Newmark (1935) integrated the Boussinesq equation over a finite area and
obtained a relation for the stress under the corner of a uniformly loaded
rectangular area, for example, a footing
9/11/2013 27
4
0
C B A
I q q
z
+
= =
2 2 2 2
2 2
1
1 2
n m n m
n m mn
A
+ + +
+ +
=
1
2
2 2
2 2
+ +
+ +
=
n m
n m
B
(
(

+ +
+ +
=
2 2 2 2
2 2
1
1 2
arctan
n m n m
n m mn
C
m = x/z
n = y/z
x = length of the loaded area
y = width of the loaded area
z = depth to the point under the corner
where the stress is calculated
(1)
Eq. 1 does not result in correct stress values near the
ground surface. To represent the stress near the
ground surface, Newmarks integration applies an
additional equation:
9/11/2013 28

4
0
C B A
I q q
z
+
= =
For where: m
2
+ n
2
+ 1 m
2
n
2
(2)
Stress distribution below the center
of a square 3 m wide footing
0 20 40 60 80 100
-6
-4
-2
0
STRESS (KPa)
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
)
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
m and n (m = n)
I
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E

F
A
C
T
O
R
,


I
9/11/2013 29
Eq. (1)
Eq. (2)
Eq. (1)
Eq. (2)
Comparison between Boussinesq, Westergaard, and 2:1 distributions
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 25 50 75 100
STRESS (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
Boussinesq
Westergaard
2:1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 25 50 75 100
SETTLEMENT (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
Boussinesq
Westergaard
2:1
9/11/2013 30
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 25 50 75 100
STRESS (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
2:1
Westergaard
Boussinesq
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 25 50 75 100
SETTLEMENT (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
Boussinesq
Westergaard
2:1
9/11/2013 31
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 25 50 75 100
STRESS (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
2:1
Westergaard
Boussinesq
Characteristic
Point; 0.37b
from center
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 25 50 75 100
SETTLEMENT (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
Boussinesq
Westergaard
2:1
Characteristic
Point; 0.37b
from center
Below the characteristic point, stresses for flexible and stiff footings are equal
9/11/2013 32
Now, if the settlement distributions are so
similar, why do we persist in using
Boussinesq stress distribution instead of
the much simpler 2:1 distribution?
Because a footing is not alone in this world;
near by, there are other footings, and fills,
and excavation, etc., for example:
9/11/2013 33
The settlement imposed
outside the loaded
foundation is often critical
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 25 50 75 100
SETTLEMENT (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
Boussinesq
Outside Point
Boussinesq
Center Point
Loaded
area
9/11/2013 34
Calculations using Boussinesq distribution can be used to determine how stress
applied to the soil from one building may affect an adjacent existing building.
EXISTING
ADJACENT
BUILDING
NEW
BUILDING
WITH LARGE
LOAD OVER
FOOTPRINT
AREA
2 m 2 m 4 m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 20 40 60 80 100
STRESS (%)
D
E
P
T
H


(
m
)
STRESSES ADDED
TO THOSE UNDER
THE FOOTPRINT OF
THE ADJACENT
BUILDING
STRESSES
UNDER THE
FOOTPRINT
OT THE
LOADED
BUILDING
STRESSES
UNDER AREA
BETWEEN THE
TWO BUILDINGS
9/11/2013 35
Calculation of Stress Distribution
Depth
0
u
0

0

1
u
1

1
(m) (KPa) (KPa) (KPa (KPa) (KPa) (KPa)
Layer 1 Sandy silt = 2,000 kg/m
3
0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 30.0
GWT 1.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 48.4 0.0 48.4
2.00 40.0 10.0 30.0 66.9 10.0 56.9
3.00 60.0 20.0 40.0 85.6 20.0 65.6
4.00 80.0 30.0 50.0 104.3 30.0 74.3
Layer 2 Soft Clay = 1,700 kg/m3
4.00 80.0 30.0 50.0 104.3 30.0 74.3
5.00 97.0 40.0 57.0 120.1 43.5 76.6
6.00 114.0 50.0 64.0 136.0 57.1 79.0
7.00 131.0 60.0 71.0 152.0 70.6 81.4
8.00 148.0 70.0 78.0 168.1 84.1 84.0
9.00 165.0 80.0 85.0 184.2 97.6 86.6
10.00 182.0 90.0 92.0 200.4 111.2 89.2
11.00 199.0 100.0 99.0 216.6 124.7 91.9
12.00 216.0 110.0 106.0 232.9 138.2 94.6
13.00 233.0 120.0 113.0 249.2 151.8 97.4
14.00 250.0 130.0 120.0 265.6 165.3 100.3
15.00 267.0 140.0 127.0 281.9 178.8 103.1
16.00 284.0 150.0 134.0 298.4 192.4 106.0
17.00 301.0 160.0 141.0 314.8 205.9 109.0
18.00 318.0 170.0 148.0 331.3 219.4 111.9
19.00 335.0 180.0 155.0 347.9 232.9 114.9
20.00 352.0 190.0 162.0 364.4 246.5 117.9
21.00 369.0 200.0 169.0 381.0 260.0 121.0
Layer 3 Silty Sand = 2,100 kg/m3
21.00 369.0 200.0 169.0 381.0 260.0 121.0
22.00 390.0 210.0 180.0 401.6 270.0 131.6
23.00 411.0 220.0 191.0 422.2 280.0 142.2
24.00 432.0 230.0 202.0 442.8 290.0 152.8
25.00 453.0 240.0 213.0 463.4 300.0 163.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500
STRESS (KPa)
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
)
SAND
CLAY
SAND
9/11/2013 36
HYDROSTATIC PORE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
Calculation of Stress Distribution
STRESS DISTRIBUTION (2:1 METHOD) BELOW CENTER OF EARTH FILL (Calculations by means of UniSettle)
ORIGINAL CONDITION (no earth fill) FINAL CONDITION(with earth fill and artesian pore pressure in sand)
Depth
0
u
0

0

1
u
1

1
(m) (KPa) (KPa) (KPa (KPa) (KPa) (KPa)
Layer 1 Sandy silt = 2,000 kg/m
3
0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 30.0
GWT 1.00 20.0 0.0 20.0 48.4 0.0 48.4
2.00 40.0 10.0 30.0 66.9 10.0 56.9
3.00 60.0 20.0 40.0 85.6 20.0 65.6
4.00 80.0 30.0 50.0 104.3 30.0 74.3
Layer 2 Soft Clay = 1,700 kg/m3
4.00 80.0 30.0 50.0 104.3 30.0 74.3
5.00 97.0 40.0 57.0 120.1 43.5 76.6
6.00 114.0 50.0 64.0 136.0 57.1 79.0
7.00 131.0 60.0 71.0 152.0 70.6 81.4
8.00 148.0 70.0 78.0 168.1 84.1 84.0
9.00 165.0 80.0 85.0 184.2 97.6 86.6
10.00 182.0 90.0 92.0 200.4 111.2 89.2
11.00 199.0 100.0 99.0 216.6 124.7 91.9
12.00 216.0 110.0 106.0 232.9 138.2 94.6
13.00 233.0 120.0 113.0 249.2 151.8 97.4
14.00 250.0 130.0 120.0 265.6 165.3 100.3
15.00 267.0 140.0 127.0 281.9 178.8 103.1
16.00 284.0 150.0 134.0 298.4 192.4 106.0
17.00 301.0 160.0 141.0 314.8 205.9 109.0
18.00 318.0 170.0 148.0 331.3 219.4 111.9
19.00 335.0 180.0 155.0 347.9 232.9 114.9
20.00 352.0 190.0 162.0 364.4 246.5 117.9
21.00 369.0 200.0 169.0 381.0 260.0 121.0
Layer 3 Silty Sand = 2,100 kg/m3
21.00 369.0 200.0 169.0 381.0 260.0 121.0
22.00 390.0 210.0 180.0 401.6 270.0 131.6
23.00 411.0 220.0 191.0 422.2 280.0 142.2
24.00 432.0 230.0 202.0 442.8 290.0 152.8
25.00 453.0 240.0 213.0 463.4 300.0 163.4
9/11/2013 37
Aquifer with
artesian head
Stress Distribution
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500
STRESS (KPa)
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500
STRESS (KPa)
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
)
SAND
CLAY
SAND
Stress from Fill
Artesian Pore Pressure Head
9/11/2013 38
The distribution for the hydrostatic case
Effective Stress Concept
Effective stress = Total stress - Pore pressure
= - u
Unit weight = g (kN/m
3
)
g assumed to be 10 m
2
/s
Total vertical stress or overburden
stress,

z
=
t
.z
9/11/2013 39
Pore Water Pressure (PWP)
Pore water pressure u = u
w
= u
ss
+ u
exc
u
ss
= Steady state condition, hydrostatic or
steady seepage
u
exc
= Excess pwp due to soil loading
Buoyant unit weight


=
t
-
w
for hydrostatic condition


=
t
-
w
+ i
w
i = hydraulic gradient (head diff/ distance)
i is negative for upward artesian flow
9/11/2013 40
Elastic Stress Distribution with Depth
L
B
1(H):2(V)
z
L+z
B+z
Q
qo
qz
BL
Q
q
o
=
) )( ( z L z B
BL
q q
o z
+ +
=
Only can be used for stress at centre of
loaded area
Cannot use for combined effects of two or
more loaded areas, unless they have same
centres
9/11/2013 41
Boussinesq Distribution (1885)
Q
r
z
q
z
Assumes: isotropic linear elastic halfspace,
Poisson ratio = 0.5
For Point load Q kN
2 / 5 2 2
3
) ( 2
) 3 (
z r
z Q
q
z
+
=

Integrate for Line Load, P kN/m


2 2 2
3
) (
2
r z
z P
q
z
+
=

Integrate for Rectangular Area, get Fadums Influence Chart


Fig.1; for Circular Area, get Foster and Alvin Chart Fig.2
9/11/2013 42
Weastergaard Distribution (1938)
Q
r
z
q
z
Assumes: isotropic linear elastic halfspace,
Poisson ratio = 0, rigid horizontal layers
For Point load Q kN
2 / 3 2 2
) ) / ( 2 1 ( z r z
Q
q
z
+
=

Differences with Boussinesq is


small
For wide flexible loaded areas
Westergaard method is
preferred
9/11/2013 43
UniSettle 2.4 21 Jan 2000
EX02.STL page 1
Effective Stress Comparison, ( 4.11 , 8.11 )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOUSSINESQ WESTERGAARD 2:1
Depth Ini. Fin. Ini. Fin. Ini. Fin.
Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Layer 1 Any Soil 0. kg/m^3
0.00 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
0.10 97.9 0.0 89.3 0.0 93.7 0.0
0.20 94.3 0.0 79.4 0.0 87.9 0.0
0.30 89.4 0.0 71.4 0.0 82.6 0.0
0.40 83.2 0.0 64.4 0.0 77.9 0.0
0.50 76.8 0.0 58.4 0.0 73.5 0.0
0.60 70.9 0.0 53.2 0.0 69.4 0.0
0.70 65.6 0.0 48.9 0.0 65.7 0.0
0.80 61.1 0.0 45.1 0.0 62.3 0.0
0.90 57.2 0.0 41.9 0.0 59.2 0.0
1.00 53.7 0.0 39.1 0.0 56.3 0.0
1.10 50.8 0.0 36.7 0.0 53.5 0.0
1.20 48.1 0.0 34.5 0.0 51.0 0.0
1.30 45.8 0.0 32.5 0.0 48.7 0.0
1.40 43.7 0.0 30.8 0.0 46.5 0.0
1.50 41.7 0.0 29.2 0.0 44.4 0.0
1.60 40.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 42.5 0.0
1.70 38.3 0.0 26.4 0.0 40.7 0.0
1.80 36.8 0.0 25.2 0.0 39.1 0.0
1.90 35.4 0.0 24.1 0.0 37.5 0.0
2.00 34.0 0.0 23.0 0.0 36.0 0.0
Comparison of stresses under a
3m square footing below its
characteristic point
Characteristic point is point
where vertical stress is equal for
both rigid and flexible footing,
this point is located at 0.37B
and 0.37L from centre of
rectangular footing, or 0.37R of
circular footing
Results show that under
characteristic point 2:1 method
is similar to Boussinesq result
9/11/2013 44
A A
BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
-1.000 0. 000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6. 000
-0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
Effective mean str esses
Extreme eff ective mean stress -882.98* 10
- 3
kN/m
2
[ kN/m
2
]
A : -0.900
B : -0.850
C : -0.800
D : -0.750
E : -0.700
F : -0.650
G : -0.600
H : -0.550
I : -0.500
J : -0.450
K : -0.400
L : -0.350
M : -0.300
N : -0.250
O : -0.200
P : -0.150
Q : -0.100
R : -0.050
S : 0.000
T : 0.050
Elastic Stress Bulb for Circular Footing
9/11/2013 45
Elastic Settlement for Circular Flexible Load
q
R
D =
Surface settlements is given by Terzaghi,1943 as:
3 . ) , ( Fig see r f is I
I
E
qR

=
Edge settlement = 0.7 centre settlement
Centre settlement is :
footing Flexible for
E
R
q
z
) 1 ( 2
2
=
footing Rigid for
E
R
q
z
) 1 (
2
2

=
9/11/2013 46
Flexible and Rigid Footing
A A*
0. 08 0. 16 0. 24 0. 32 0.40 0. 48 0.56 0.64 0. 72 0.80 0. 88 0. 96 1.04
9. 76
9. 84
9. 92
10. 00
10. 08
10. 16
10. 24
10. 32
10. 40
10. 48
A
A
-0.300 -0.200 -0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.100
9.300
9.400
9.500
9.600
9.700
9.800
9.900
10.000
10.100
10.200
Flexible Footing
E=1000 kPa, =0, q=10 kPa, sett= 20 mm
- 0.300 - 0.200 -0.100 0.000 0. 100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.100
9.200
9.300
9.400
9.500
9.600
9.700
9.800
9.900
10.000
10.100
10.200
A A*
0. 08 0. 16 0.24 0. 32 0. 40 0. 48 0.56 0.64 0.72 0. 80 0. 88 0.96 1.04
9. 76
9. 84
9. 92
10. 00
10. 08
10. 16
10. 24
10. 32
10. 40
10. 48
Rigid Footing
E=1000 kPa, =0, q=10 kPa, sett= 16 mm
9/11/2013 47
Approximate Ratio at corner, centre and
edge to average settlement
Flexible Load Area Rigid
Footing
Foundation
Depth
Corner/
Ave
Edge/
Ave
Centre/
Ave
Rigid/
Ave
H/L=
0.6 0.9 1.2 0.9
H/L=1 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.8
H/L=1/4 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.8
9/11/2013 48
Elastic Settlement for Other Flexible Load
B
D =
Corner settlements is given by Terzaghi,1943 as:
4 . ) / (
) 1 (
2
Fig see L B f is I
I
E
qB


=
Points other than corner for any combination of
rectangles can be obtained by superposition
For centre of square loaded area:
) 1 ( 12 . 1
2
=
E
B
q
z
q
L
9/11/2013 49
Superpostion Principle for Rectangles
= + + +
z

- -
+
=
z

9/11/2013 50
Elastic Settlement for Other Flexible Load
For Flexible Rectangular Loaded area, Corner settlement ,
with finite depth of elastic layer, use Steinbrenner chart
5 .
) 2 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 (
2 1
2
2
1
2
2
Fig in given F and F
F F I
I
E
qB

+ =

=
B
Finite
D
q
L
9/11/2013 51
Equivalent Footings for Pile Groups Settlements
L
2/3L
2
1
Homogeneous
Clay
Equivalent Ftg
Ground level
L
2/3L
2
1
Soft Clay
Firm Layer
Equivalent Ftg
Ground level
9/11/2013 52
design analysis design analysis design analysis design analysis
is is is is
Settlement Settlement Settlement Settlement
9/11/2013 53
Movement, Settlement, and Creep
Movement occurs as a result of an increase of stress, but the term should be reserved
to deformation due to increase of total stress. Movement is the result of a transfer of
stress to the soil (the movement occurs as necessary to build up the resistance to the
load), and when the involved, or influenced, soil volume successively increases as the
stress increases. For example, when adding load increments to a pile or to a plate in a
static loading test (where, erroneously, the term "settlement" is often used). As a term,
movement is used when the involved, or influenced, soil volume increases as the load
increases.
Settlement is volume reduction of the subsoil as a consequence of an increase in
effective stress. It consists of the sum of "elastic" compression and deformation due to
consolidation. The elastic compression is the compression of the soil grains (soil
skeleton) and of any free gas present in the voids, The elastic compression is often
called "immediate settlement. It occurs quickly and is normally small (the
elastic compression is not associated with expulsion of water). The deformation due to
consolidation, on the other hand, is volume change due to the compression of the soil
structure associated with an expulsion of waterconsolidation. In the process, the
imposed stress, initially carried by the pore water, is transferred to the soil structure.
Consolidation occurs quickly in coarse-grained soils, but slowly in fine-grained soils. As
a term, settlement is used when the involved, or influenced, soil volume stays constant
as the effective stress increases.
9/11/2013 54
Movement, Settlement, and Creep
The term "settlement" is normally used for the deformation resulting from the
combined effect of load transfer, increase of effective stress, and creep during
long-term conditions. It is incorrect to use the term settlement to mean
movement due to increase of load such as in a loading test.
Creep is compression occurring without an increase of effective stress.
Creep is usually small, but may in some soils add significantly to the
compression of the soil skeleton and, thus, to the total deformation of the
soil. It is then acceptable to talk in terms of creep settlement.
9/11/2013 55
Strain
Linear Elastic Deformation (Hookes Law)
= induced strain in a soil layer
= imposed change of effective stress in the soil layer
E = elastic modulus of the soil layer (Youngs Modulus)
Youngs modulus is the modulus for when lateral expansion is allowed, which may be the case for soil loaded by a
small footing, but not when the load is applied over a large area. In the latter case, the lateral expansion is
constrained (or confined). The constrained modulus, D, is larger than the E-modulus. The constrained modulus is
also called the oedometer modulus. For ideally elastic soils, the ratio between D and E is:
9/11/2013 56
) 2 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 (

=
E
D
'
E
'


=
= Poissons ratio
Stress-Strain
9/11/2013 57
Stress-strain behavior is non-linear for most soils. The
non-linearity cannot be disregarded when analyzing
compressible soils, such as silts and clays, that is, the
elastic modulus approach is not appropriate for these soils.
Non-linear stress-strain behavior of compressible soils, is
conventionally modeled as follows.
where = strain induced by increase of effective stress from
0
to
1
C
c
= compression index
e
0
= void ratio

0
= original (or initial) effective stress

1
= final effective stress
CR = Compression Ratio = (MIT)
0
1
0
1
0
'
'
lg
'
'
lg
1

CR
e
C
c
=
+
=
0
1 e
C
CR
c
+
=
9/11/2013 58
In overconsolidated soils (most soils are)
9/11/2013 59
)
'
'
lg
'
'
lg (
1
1
1
0 0 p
c
p
cr
C C
e

+
+
=
where
p
= preconsolidation stress
C
cr
= re-compression index
The Janbu Method
] )
'
'
( )
'
'
[(
1
0 1
j
r
j
r
mj

=
9/11/2013 60
The Janbu tangent modulus approach, proposed by Janbu (1963; 1965; 1967; 1998),
and referenced by the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, CFEM (1985; 1992),
applies the same basic principles of linear and non-linear stress-strain behavior. The
method applies to all soils, clays as well as sand. By this method, the relation between
stress and strain is a function of two non-dimensional parameters which are unique for a
soil: a stress exponent, j, and a modulus number, m.
Janbus general relation is
where
r
is a reference stress = 100 KPa
j > 0
The Janbu Method
9/11/2013 61
Dense Coarse-Grained Soil j = 1
Cohesive Soil j = 0
Sandy or Silty Soils j = 0.5
0
1
'
'
ln
1

m
=
'
1
) ' ' (
1
0 1
= =
m m
'
2
1
) ' ' (
2
1
0 1
= =
m m
KPa
ksf
) ' ' (
5
1
0 1
=
m
p
m
' ' (
2
1
=
KPa
ksf
There are direct mathematical conversions
between m and the E and C
c
-e
0
2 2
0 0
69 . 0 2 lg 10 ln 1
3 . 2
1
10 ln

= =
+
=
+
=
c c
C
e
C
e
m
9/11/2013 62
For E given in units of KPa (and ksf), the relation between the
modulus number and the E-modulus is
m = E/100 (KPa)
m = E/2 (ksf)
For C
c
-e
0
, the relation to the modulus number is
Typical and Normally Conservative Virgin Modulus Numbers
SOIL TYPE MODULUS NUMBER STRESS EXP.
Till, very dense to dense 1,000 300 (j = 1)
Gravel 400 40 (j = 0.5)
Sand dense 400 250 (j = 0.5)
compact 250 150 - " -
loose 150 100 - " -
Silt dense 200 80 (j = 0.5)
compact 80 60 - " -
loose 60 40 - " -
Silty clay hard, stiff 60 20 (j = 0)
and stiff, firm 20 10 - -
Clayey silt soft 10 5 - -
Soft marine clays
and organic clays 20 5 (j = 0)
Peat 5 1 ( j= 0)
For clays and silts, the recompression modulus, m
r
, is often five to ten
times greater than the virgin modulus, m, listed in the table
9/11/2013 63
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
10 100 1,000 10,000
Stress (KPa) log scale
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o


(
-

-
)
m = 12
(CR = 0.18)
p'
c
0
5
10
15
20
25
10 100 1,000 10,000
Stress (KPa) log scale
S
t
r
a
i
n


(
%
)
p 10p
C
c
C
c
= 0.37
e
0
= 1.01 p'
c
p 2.718p
1/m
Slope = m = 12
Evaluation of compressibility from oedometer results
Void-Ratio vs. Stress and Strain vs. Stress Same test data
9/11/2013 64
Comparison between the C
c
/e
0
approach
and the Janbu method
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
VOID RATIO, e
0
C
O
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N

I
N
D
E
X
,

C
c
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
VOID RATIO, e
0
V
I
R
G
I
N

M
O
D
U
L
U
S

N
U
M
B
E
R
,

m
9/11/2013 65
Data from a 20 m thick sedimentary deposit of medium compressibility.
Do these values
indicate a
compressible soil, a
medium compressible
soil, or a non-
compressible soil?
The C
c
-e
0
approach implies that the the compressibility varies by 30

%.
However, the Janbu methods shows it to vary only by 10 %. The
modulus number, m, ranges from 18 through 22; It would be unusual to
find a clay with less variation.
What about Immediate Settlement
and Consolidation?
50
75
100
125
150
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
VOID RATIO, e
0
N
O
R
M
A
L
I
Z
E
D


C
c


(
%
)
50
75
100
125
150
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
VOID RATIO, e
0
N
O
R
M
A
L
I
Z
E
D


m


(
%
)
9/11/2013 66
CE 5101 - SETTLEMENTS AND 1D
Compression Theory
Settlements of Soils - Immediate, Delayed, and
Creep Compression
Delayed Consolidation Compression
mv method
e-logP method
Janbu method
Terzaghis Theory of 1D Consolidation
Effects of Drainage and Initial Stress Distribution
SPREADSHEET Calculations (UNISETTLE)
Finite Element Analysis (PLAXIS)
9/11/2013 67
Foundation Settlement Issues
How Much settlements will occur?
Interested in Ultimate settlements in fully drained
state, as well as long-term creep settlements
How Fast and how long will it take for most of
settlements to occur?
Involved Consolidation and Secondary
Compression theories to estimate rate of
settlements, and
Methods to accelerate settlements and minimise
long-term settlements
9/11/2013 68
Types of Ground Movements and Causes of
Settlements
Compaction - due to vibrations, pile driving, earthquake
Elastic Volumetric Settlement in OC Clay in recompression,
use E and or recompression index, C
r
or
Immediate or Undrained Settlement - Distortion without
volume change, use E
u
and
u
Moisture changes - Expansive soils, high LL and PI, high
swelling and shrinkage
Swell Potential (%) = 0.1(PI-10) log (s/p)
Effects of vegetation - related to moisture changes by root
system
Effects of GWT lowering - shrinkage ad consolidation
9/11/2013 69
Types of Ground Movements and Causes of
Settlements
Effects of temperatures - Frost heaving,
drying by furnace and boilers
Effects of seepage and scouring - Erosion by
piping, scouring and wind action, mineral
cement dissolved by GW eg limestone, rock
salts and chalk areas
Loss of lateral support - Footings beside
unsupported excavation, movement of natural
slopes and cuttings
Effects of mining subsidence - collapse of
ground cavities
Filled ground - settlements of the fill soils,
compaction, consolidation, and creep
9/11/2013 70
9/11/2013 71
Shrink/ swell potential is function of Clay Activity = %clay fraction/ PI
Swell Potential (%) = 0.1(PI-10) log (s/p)
Where s=suction before construction and p=final bearing pressure
1D Settlements
Soil deformations are of two types:
Distortion (change of shape 2D effects)
Compression (change of volume)
Components of Settlements:
n compressio secondary s
n compressio settlement ion consolidat s
distortion settlement immediate s where
s s s s
s
c
i
s c i t
=
=
=
+ + =
,
,
9/11/2013 72
Undrained Immediate Settlements
Distortion of clay layer:
Calculate by elastic theory eg Janbu
Chart
layer clay of ratio s Poisson'
layer clay of modulus Undrained E
B dth footong wi on load Average q
by Janbu factors ess dimensionl I and I
area loaded flexible for settlement immediate s where
E
qB
I I s
1 0
i
i
=
=
=
=
=
=

) 1 (
2
1 0
9/11/2013 73
Immediate Settlements in Clays by Janbu
9/11/2013 74
Example on Janbu Chart: Foundation 4x2m with q=150kPa,
located at 1m in Clay layer 5m thick with Eu=40MN/m2. Below
is second clay layer of 8m thickness and Eu=75 MN/m2.What
is average settlement under foundation? Assume =0.5
H
D
B
( (( ( ) )) ) mm 5 . 3 5 . 0 1
40
2 * 150
* 7 . 0 * 9 . 0 s
7 . 0 2, 4/2 L/B and 2 4/2 H/B
: MN/m 40 E with layer, clay upper Consider (1)
9 . 0 0.5, 1/2 D/B 2; 4/2 L/B Now
2
1 i
1
2
u
0
= == = = == =
= == = = == = = == = = == = = == =
= == =
= == = = == = = == = = == = = == =


( (( ( ) )) ) mm 3 . 2 5 . 0 1
75
2 * 150
* 85 . 0 * 9 . 0 s
85 . 0 2, 4/2 L/B and 6 12/2 H/B
: MN/m 75 E with combined, layers two Consider (2)
2
2 i
1
2
u
= == = = == =
= == = = == = = == = = == = = == =
= == =

( (( ( ) )) ) mm 9 . 1 5 . 0 1
75
2 * 150
* 7 . 0 * 9 . 0 s
7 . 0 2, 4/2 L/B and 2 4/2 H/B
: MN/m 75 E with layer, upper Consider (1)
2
3 i
1
2
u
= == = = == =
= == = = == = = == = = == = = == =
= == =

mm 3.9 1.9 - 2.3 5 . 3 s
s s s s
; inciple Pr ion Superposit By
i
3 i 2 i 1 i i
= == = + ++ + = == =
+ ++ + = == =
9/11/2013 75
1D Primary Consolidation Settlements
Time delayed Primary Consolidation Compression:
water
solids
0
e
1
e
0
H
H
) ( ) (

0 0
0
volume vertical c
0
volume vertical
H H H s
e 1
e
H
H


= = =
+
= =

=
'
v v
P where P), vs (e method m =
e
0
e
f
e
f
P
0
P
P
P
e
- ility compressib of coeffn a
v

= =
0
v
0
v
e 1
a
P
1
) e (1
e
- change volume of coeffn m
+ ++ +
= == =
+ ++ +
= == = = == =


0
0
v
c
0 v 0
0
c
H P
e 1
a
s
H P m H
e 1
e
s H




+ ++ +
= == =
= == =
+ ++ +
= == = = == =
9/11/2013 76
m
v
and Constrained Modulus D
For wide loaded area, get 1D compression
under Ko condition, elastic modulus to apply
is called the Constrained Modulus D defined
by:
( (( ( ) )) )
( (( ( ) )) )( (( ( ) )) )
0.35) ( ratio Poisson drained Soil
elasticity of modulus drained Soil E
change volume of t Coefficien m where
2 1 1
1 E
m
1
D
v
v
< << < = == =
= == =
= == =
+ ++ +

= == = = == =



9/11/2013 77
Sc by (e vs logP) Method
Normally Consolidated Clays - non-linear stress strain for soil,
but linear in logP
e
0
e
f
e
f
P
0
P
P log
index n compressio C
c
=
( (( ( ) )) )
0
f
c 0 f c
P
P
log C P log P log C e = == = = == =
0
f
0
c
0 c
P
P
log
e 1
C
H H s
+
= =
0
c
c
e 1
C
C CR Ratio, n Compressio
+ ++ +
= == = = == =

9/11/2013 78
Sc by (e vs logP) Method
Over-Consolidated Clays (P
f
< P
c
), Preconsolidation Pressure
e
0
e
f
e
f
P
0
P
P log
index n compressio C
c
=
( (( ( ) )) )
0
f
r 0 f r
P
P
log C P log P log C e = == = = == =
c r
0
f
0
r
0 c
C than smaller times 10 to 5 is C as
s settlement small
P
P
log
e 1
C
H H s
+ ++ +
= == = = == =
0
r
r
e 1
C
C RR , Ratio n compressio Re
+ ++ +
= == = = == =

c
P
index swelling C
index ion recompress C
s
r
=
=
9/11/2013 79
Sc by (e vs logP) Method
Over-Consolidated Clays (P
f
> P
c
), Preconsolidation Pressure
e
0
e
c
e
f
P
0
P
P log
c
C
( (( ( ) )) )
0
c
r 0 c r 1
P
P
log C P log P log C e = == = = == =
s settlement large mean will This
P
P
log C
P
P
log C
e 1
H
e 1
e e
H H s
c
f
c
0
c
r
0
0
0
2 1
0 c
)
`

+
+
=
+
+
= =


c
P
s r
C or C
f
e
( (( ( ) )) )
c
f
c c f c 2
P
P
log C P log P log C e = == = = == =
9/11/2013 80
Sc by Janbu Tangent Modulus Method
Canadian Foundation Manual 1985
Janbu (1963, 1965,1967,1998); For Cohesionless Soils; j>0
Theory is used in Program UniSettle (by UNISOFT, Canada)
( (( ( ) )) )
kPa 100 stress effective vertical Reference
test field or lab from obtained number, modulus Janbu m
exponent stress Janbu j
P stress effective vertical final
P stress effective vertical initial
stress effective vertical in change by induced strain vertical where
mj
1
get to Integrate m
'
M
,
r
f
,
f
0
,
0
v
j
,
r
,
0
j
,
r
,
f
v
j 1
'
r
'
'
r t
= == = = == =
= == =
= == =
= == = = == =
= == = = == =
= == =
( (( (
( (( (
( (( (

( (( (





| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |

| || |
| || |
| || |

| || |



\ \\ \
| || |
= == =
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
= == =


= == =















9/11/2013 81
Cohesionless Sands and Silts; j=0.5
Normally Consolidated Cohesionless Soils
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
= == =
= == =
= == =


,
0
,
f
v
,
r
5m
1

kPa 100
0.5 j
SOIL TYPE m
SAND DENSE 400-250
MEDIUM 250-150
LOOSE 150-100
SILT DENSE 200-80
MEDIUM 80-60
LOOSE 60-40
9/11/2013 82
Cohesionless Sands and Silts; j=0.5
Over-Consolidated Cohesionless Soils
m than larger times 10 to 5 usually is m number, modulus OC
kPa in pressure dation preconsoli
where
5m
1
5m
1

kPa 100
'
P
'
f
r
,
P
,
P
,
f
,
0
,
P
r
v
,
r
0.5 j ; for CASE
= == =
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
= == =
= == =
= == = > >> >



| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
= == =
= == =
= == =



,
0
,
f
r
v
,
r
'
p
'
f
5m
1

kPa, 100 ; for CASE
, 0.5 j
9/11/2013 83
Cohesive Soils; j=0
Normally Consolidated Clays
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |
| || |

| || |



\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |
| || |

| || |



\ \\ \
| || |
= == =
= == =
= == =
c
0
c
0
,
0
,
f
0
c
,
0
,
f
v
,
r
C
e 1
3 . 2
C
e 1
10 ln m
log
e 1
C
ln
m
1

kPa 100
0 j




SOIL TYPE m
SILTY
CLAYS
HARD,
STIFF
60-20
AND STIFF,
FIRM
20-10
CLAYEY
SILT
FIRM TO
SOFT
10-5
SOFT
MARINE
CLAYS
20-5
ORGANIC
CLAYS
10-3
PEAT 5-1
9/11/2013 84
Over-consolidated Clays; j=0
Over- Consolidated Clays
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |
| || |

| || |



\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
+ ++ +
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
= == =
| || |
| || |
| || |

| || |



\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ +
| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |
= == =
r
0
r
0
r
c
0
c
0
,
P
,
f
0
c
,
0
,
P
0
r
v
,
P
,
f
,
0
,
P
r
v
C
e 1
3 . 2
C
e 1
10 ln m and
C
e 1
3 . 2
C
e 1
10 ln m
log
e 1
C
log
e 1
C
ln
m
1
ln
m
1











9/11/2013 85
Linear Elastic Soil; j=1
( (( ( ) )) )
100
E
m
m 100 E , therefore
m 100
1
mj
1

,
0
,
f
j
,
r
,
0
j
,
r
,
f
v
= == =
= == =
= == =
( (( (
( (( (
( (( (

( (( (





| || |
| || |

| || |


\ \\ \
| || |

| || |
| || |
| || |

| || |



\ \\ \
| || |
= == =






9/11/2013 86
Janbu compared to e-logP
9/11/2013 87
Oedometer Results in linear scale by Janbu
9/11/2013 88
Calculation of Settlement
Determine soil profile to get initial effective stresses
Determine soil compressibility parameters, e-logP, Cc,
Cr and Pc OR Janbu modulus number, m and mr
Determine final effective stresses due to imposed loads,
excavations, fills, GWT changes etc
Divide each soil layer into sublayers, calculate strain
caused by change from initial to final effective stresses
in each sublayer
Calculate the settlement for each sublayer and the
accumulated settlement
9/11/2013 89
UNISETTLE Calculation of Settlement
9/11/2013 90
Hand Calculation
9/11/2013 91
UniSettle Input
9/11/2013 92
Input
Loading and Excavation
9/11/2013 93
Results
9/11/2013 94
Settlements Distribution
9/11/2013 95
Alternative Conditions
9/11/2013 96

You might also like