NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

Chapter 6 Lecture 37 Evaluation of Soil Settlement -3 Topics

1.2.4 Settlement Prediction in Sand by Empirical Correlation 1.2.5 Calculation of Immediate Settlement in Granular Soil Using Simplified Strain Influence Factor 1.2.4 Settlement Prediction in Sand by Empirical Correlation
Based on several field load tests, Terzaghi and Peck (1967) suggested that for similar intensities of load q on a footing where is the settlement of a footing with width B and (1) is the settlement of a smaller footing with width 1 . The value of 1 is usually taken as 1 ft. =
+1 2

(1)

(30)

Table 6 Youngs modulus for vertical static compression of sand from standard penetration number (After Mitchell and Gardner 1975).
Reference Schultze and Meizer (1965) Relationship* = 0.522 /2 = 246.2 log 26.34 + 375.6 57.6 0 < < 1.2 /2 = effective overburden pressure = 5 + 15 ton/ 2 = 10/3 + 5 ton/ 2 = 40 + 6 /2 > 15 = + 6 /2 > 15 = 350 500 log /2 Soil types Dry sand Basis Penetration tests in field and in test shaft. Compressibility based on , , and (Schultze and Moussa. (1961) Screw plate tests Remarks Correlation coefficient = 0.730 for 77 tests

Webb (1969)

Sand Clayey sand Silt with sand to gravel with sand Sand

Below water table

Farrent (1963)

Used in Greece

Trofimenkov (1974)

U.S.S.R. practice

Table 7 Equivalent Youngs modulus for vertical static compression of sand -static cone resistance (After Mitchell and Gardner 1975). Reference Buisman (1940) Trofimenkov (1964) De Beer (1967) Schultze and Meizer (1965) Relationship = 1.5 = 2.5 = 100 + 5 = 1.5 = 1 0.522 Soil type Sands Sand Sand Dry sand Remarks Overpredicts settlements by a factor of about 2 Lower limit Average Overpredicts settlements by a factor of 2 Based on field and lab penetration tests-compressibility
1

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

Bachelier Parez (1965)

= 310.1 log 382.3 60.3 50.3 = effective overburden pressure and = = 0.8 0.9 = 1.3 1.9 = 3.8 5.7 = 7.7 = = 3 12

based on , and Correlation coefficient = 0.778 for 90 tests valid for o = 0 0.8 kg/cm2 Pure sand Silty sand Clayey sand Soft clay 3 sands Based on penetration and compression tests in large chambers. Lower values of at higher values of : attributed to grain crushing Based on screw plate tests: correlated will with settlement of oil tanks

Thomas (1968)

Webb (1969)

1 2 1 = 2

+ 30 / 2 + 15 / 2

Vesic (1970)

= 2(1 + 3 ) = relative density = 2 = > 40 /2 = 1.5 20 < < 40 = 1.5 1.8 10 < < 20 = 1.8 2.5 5 < < 10 = 2.5 3.0

Sand below water table Clayey sand below water table Sand

Schmertmann (1970) Bogdanovic (1973)

Sand

Based on pile load tests and assumptions concerning state of stress Based on screw plate tests

Schmertmann (1974) De Beer (1974)

= 2. = 3.5 = 1.6 8 = 1.5 , > 30 /2 = 3 , < 30 /2 > 1.5 , = 2

Sand, sandy gravels Silty saturated sands Clayey silts with silty sand and silty saturated sands with silt NC sands / = 1 2, axisymmetric NC sands / 10, plane strain Sand Sand Sand Bulgarian practice Greek practice Italian practice
2

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

= + 1600 /2 ) = , 1.5 < < 2

1 2 1 2

= 1.9 + 3200 /2 )

Trofimenkov (1974)

= 3 = 7

Sand Fine to South African practice medium sand U. K. practice Clayey sands, < 15% Sand Sands U. S. S.R. practice Clays

Table 8 Values of from various case studies of immediate settlement (After Appolonia, H. G. Poulos, and C. C. Ladd 1971).
Clay properties Sensitivity

No.

Location of structure

Plasticity index

1 2

Oslo: Nine-story building Asrum I: Circular load

15 16

2 100

Overconsolidation ratio 3.5 2.5

, /2 7,600 990

Source of CIU Field vane CIU Field vane CIU

1,200 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,100

Asrum II: Circular load test

14

100

1.7

880

Mastemyr: Circular load test

14

1.5

1,300

1,200 1,700

Field vane Bearing capacity Field vane Bearing capacity Field vane Field vane Field vane CIU CIU UU and Bearing capacity

Portsmouty: Highway embankment Boston: Highway embankment Drammen: Circular load test Kawasaki: Circular load test Venezuela: Oil tanks Maine: Rectangular load test

15

10

1.3

3,000

2,000 1,700 1,600 1,200 1,400 1,100 400 800 80 to 160

6 7 8 9 10

24 28 38 37 332

5 10 63 82 4

1.5 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.5 to 4.5

10,000 13,000 3,200 2,200 5.00 100 to 200

Equation (30) can be rewritten in the form

(1)

= (1+

4
2 1 / )

(31)

DAppolonia et al. (1970) compared the above equation with several field experiments conducted by Bjerrum and Eggstad (1963) and Bazaraa (1967). The results of the comparison are shown in figure 15. It appears that the relationship gives the general trend; however, there appears to be a wide scattering of points.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 15 Comparison of field test results with equation (31). (After D. J. DAppolonia, E. DAppolonia, and R. F. Brisette, discussion on Settlement of Spread Footings on Sand, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, vol. 96, 1970)

Using the standard penetration resistance obtained from field explorations, Meyerhof (1965) proposed the following relationships for settlement calculations in sand: =
4

for 4
6 +1 2

(32a) (32b)

And = Where

for > 4

= intensity of applied load, kip/ft 2 = width of footing, ft = settlement, in = standard penetration number Figure 16 shows a comparison of the observed settlements to those obtained through equation (32). It appears that the predicted settlements are rather conservative. Bowles (1977) suggested that for a more reasonable agreement equation (32) can be modified as =
2.5

for 4
4 +1 2

(33a) (33b)

And =

for > 4

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

In a later work, based on the analysis of the field data of Schultze and Sherif (1973), Meyerhof (1974) gave the following empirical correlations for settlement of shallow foundations:

Figure 16 Comparison of observed settlement to that calculated from equation (32). (After Meyerhof 1965)

= =

2 2

(for sand and gravel) (for silty sand) (34b)

(34a)

Where = settlement, in = intensity of applied load, ton/ft 2 = width of footing, in

1.2.5 Calculation of Immediate Settlement in Granular Soil Using Simplified Strain Influence Factor
The equation for vertical strain under the center of a flexible circular load was given in equation (5) as where is the strain influence factor. =
(1+ )

[ 1 2 + ] = 1 + [ 1 2 + ] (35)

Or =

Figure 17 shows the variation of with depth based on equation (35) for v equal to 0.4 and 0.5 also. According to this simplified strain-influence factor method, the immediate settlement of a foundation can be calculated as where 1 is the correction factor for the depth of embedment of foundation, and 2 is a correction factor to account for the creep n soil. The factors 1 and 2 are given by the following equations: = 1 2
2 0

(36)
5

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

NPTEL- Advanced Geotechnical Engineering

1 = 1 0.5

(37)

Where = effective overburden pressure at foundation level = net foundation pressure increase = q1 q o 1 = average pressure of foundation against soil 2 = 1 + 0.2
0.1

(38)

Where t is time, in years. Below is an example for using equation (36) which was given in Schmertmanns 1970 paper.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur