ABSTRACT: Developments in major procedures available in the literature relating to elastic

settlement of shallow foundations supported by granular soil are presented and compared. The
discrepancies between the observed and the predicted settlement are primarily due to the inability
to estimate the modulus of elasticity of soil using the results of the standard penetration tests and/or
cone penetration tests. Based on the procedures available at this time, recommendations have been
made for the best estimation of settlement of foundations
KEY WORDS: Cone penetration test, elastic settlement, granular soil, shallow foundation,
standard penetration test


1 INTRODUCTION
The estimation of settlement of shallow foundations is an important topic in the design and
construction of buildings and other related structures. In general, settlement of a foundation
consists of two major componentselastic settlement (S
e
) and consolidation settlement (S
c
). In
turn, the consolidation settlement of a submerged clay layer has two parts; that is, the contribution
of primary consolidation settlement (S
p
) and that due to secondary consolidation (S
s
). For a
foundation supported by granular soil within the zone of influence of stress distribution, the elastic
settlement is the only component that needs consideration. This paper is a general overview of
various aspects of the elastic settlement of shallow foundations supported by granular soil deposits.
During the last fifty years or so, a number of procedures have been developed to predict elastic
settlement; however, there is a lack of a reliable standardized procedure.
2 ELASTIC SETTLEMENT CALCULATION PROCEDURESGENERAL
Various methods to calculate the elastic settlement available at the present time can be divided into
two general categories. They are as follows:

1. Methods Based on Observed Settlement of Structures and Full Scale Prototypes. These
methods are empirical or semi-empirical in nature and are correlated with the results of the
standard in situ tests such as the standard penetration test (SPT), the cone penetration test
Developments in elastic settlement estimation procedures for
shallow foundations on granular soil
Braja M. Das
Dean Emeritus, California State University, Sacramento
Henderson, Nevada, U.S.A.




(CPT), the flat dilatometer test, and the pressurementer test (PMT). The procedures usually
referred to in practice now are those developed by Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967), Meyerhof
(1956, 1965), DeBeer and Martens (1957), Hough (1969), Peck and Bazaraa (1969),
Schmertmann (1970), Schmertmann et al. (1978), Burland and Burbidge (1985), Briaud (2007),
and Lee et al. (2008).
2. Methods Based on Theoretical Relationships Derived from the Theory of Elasticity. The
relationships for settlement calculation available in this category contain the term modulus of
elasticity (E
s
).
The general outline for some of these methods is given in the following sections.
METHODS BASED ON OBSERVED SETTLEMENT
3 TERZAGHI AND PECKS METHOD
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) proposed the following empirical relationship between the settlement
(S
e
) of a prototype foundation measuring BB in plan and the settlement of a test plate [S
e(1)
]
measuring B
1
B
1
loaded to the same intensity


(
(

\
|
+
=
2
1
) 1 (
1
4
B
B
S
S
e
e
(1)

Although a full-sized footing can be used for a load test, the normal practice is to employ a plate of
the order of 0.3 m to 1 m. Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) provided the results of 14 sets of load
settlement tests. This is shown in Figure 1 along with the plot of Eq. (1). For these tests, B
1
was
0.35 m for circular plates and 0.32 m for square plates. It is obvious from Figure 1 that, although
the general trend is correct, Eq. (1) represents approximately the lower limit of the field test results.
Bazaraa (1967) also provided several field test results. Figure 2 shows the plot of S
e
/S
e(1)
versus
B/B
1
for all tests results provide by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) and Bazaraa (1967) as compiled
by DAppolonia et al. (1970). The overall results with the expanded data base are similar to those
in Figure 1 as they relate to Eq. (1).
Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967) proposed a correlation for the allowable bearing capacity,
standard penetration number (N
60
), and the width of the foundation (B) corresponding to a 25 -mm
settlement based on the observation given by Eq. (1). This correlation is shown in Figure 3. The
curves shown in Figure 3 can be approximated by the relation

2
60
3 0
3
(mm)
|

\
|
+
=
. B
B
N
q
S
e
(2)

where q = bearing pressure in kN/m
2

B = width of foundation (m)
If corrections for ground water table location and depth of embedment are included, then Eq. (2)
takes the form


2
60
3 0
3
|

\
|
+
=
. B
B
N
q
C C S
D W e
(3)

where C
W
= ground water table correction
C
D
= correction for depth of embedment = 1 (D
f
/4B)
D
f
= depth of embedment


Figure 1 Variation of S
e
/S
e(1)
versus B/B
1
from the load settlement results of Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963)
(Note: B
1
= 0.36 m for circular plates and 0.32 m for square plates).



Figure 2 Variation of S
e
/S
e(1)
versus B/B
1
based on the data of Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) and Bazaraa
(1967) (adapted from DAppolonia et al., 1970).


The magnitude of C
W
is equal to 1.0 if the depth of water table is greater than or equal to 2B below
the foundation, and it is equal to 2.0 if the depth of water table is less than or equal to B below the
foundation. The N
60
value that is to be used in Eqs. (2) and (3) should be the average value of N
60

up to a depth of about 3B to 4B measured from the bottom of the foundation.



Figure 3. Terzaghi and Pecks (1948, 1967) recommendation for allowable bearing capacity for 25-mm
settlement variation with B and N
60
.


Jayapalan and Boehm (1986) and Papadopoulos (1992) summarized the case histories of 79
foundations. Sivakugan et al (1998) used those case histories to compare with the settlement
predicted by the Terzaghi and Peck method. This comparison is shown in Figure 4. It can be seen
from this figure that, in general, the predicted settlements were significantly higher than those
observed. The average value of S
e(predicted)
/S
e(observed)
2.18.
Similar observations were also made by Bazaraa (1967). With B
1
= 0.3 m, Eq. (1) can be
rewritten as


2
) 1 (
3 0
4
|

\
|
+
=
. B
B
S
S
e
e


or


|
|

\
|
=
|

\
|
+
) 1 (
2
4
1
3 0
e
e
S
S
. B
B
(4)

Combining Eqs. (2) and (4)


|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
=
) 1 ( 60
4
1 3
e
e
e
S
S
N
q
S

or


75 0
60
) 1 (
.
N
S
q
e
= (5)


Figure 4. Sivakugan et al.s (1998) comparison of predicted with observed settlement for 79 foundations
predicted settlement based on Terzaghi and Peck method (1948, 1967).


Figure 5. Bazaraas plate load test resultsplot of q/S
e(1)
versus N
60
.


Bazaraa (1967) plotted a large number of plate load test results (B
1
= 0.3 m) in the form of q/S
e(1)

versus N
60
as shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the relationship given by Eq. (5) is very
conservative. In fact, q/S
e(1)
versus N
60
/0.5 will more closely represent the lower limiting condition.

4 MEYERHOFS METHOD
In 1956, Meyerhof proposed relationships for the elastic settlement of foundations on granular soil
similar to Eq. (2). In 1965 he compared the predicted (by the relationships proposed in 1956) and
observed settlements of eight structures and suggested that the allowable pressure (q) for a desired
magnitude of S
e
can be increased by 50% compared to what he recommended in 1956. The revised
relationships including the correction factors for water table location (C
W
) and depth of embedment
(C
D
) can be expressed as

m) 1.22 (for
25 1
60
= B
N
q .
C C S
D W e
(6)

and

m) 1.22 (for
3 0
2
2
60
>
|

\
|
+
= B
. B
B
N
q
C C S
D W e
(7)

0 . 1 =
W
C (8)

and


B
D
. C
f
D
4
0 1 = (9)

If these equations are used to predict the settlement of the 79 foundations shown in Figure 4, then
we will obtain S
e(predicted)
/S
e(observed)
1.46. Hence, the predicted settlements will overestimate the
observed values by about 50% on the average.
Table 1 shows the comparison of the maximum observed settlements of mat foundations
considered by Meyerhof (1965) and the settlements predicted by Eq. (7). The ratios of the predicted
to observed settlements are generally in the range of 0.8 to 2. This is also what Meyerhof concluded
in his 1965 paper.

Table 1. Comparison of observed maximum settlements provided by Meyerhof (1965) for eight mat
foundations with those predicted by Eq. (7)
Structure
B
(m)
Average
N
60

q
(kN/m
2
)
Maximum
S
e(observed)

(mm)
S
e(predicted)

by Eq. (7)
(mm)
) observed (
predicted) (
e
e
S
S

T. Edison, Sao Paulo
Banco do Brasil, Sao Paulo
Iparanga, Sao Paulo
C.B.I. Esplanada, Sao Paulo
Riscala, Sao Paulo
Thyssen, Dusseldorf
Ministry, Dusseldorf
Chimney, Cologne
18.3
22.9
9.15
14.6
3.96
22.6
15.9
20.4
15
18
9
22
20
25
20
10
229.8
239.4
220.2
383.0
229.8
239.4
220.4
172.4
15.24
27.94
35.56
27.94
12.70
24.13
21.59
10.16
29.66
25.74
45.88
33.43
19.86
18.65
21.23
33.49
1.95
0.99
1.29
1.20
1.56
0.77
0.98
3.30
Average 1.5

5 DE BEER AND MARTENS METHOD
DeBeer and Martens (1957) and DeBeer (1965) proposed the following relationship to estimate the
elastic settlement of a foundation

H

C
.
S
o
o
e
|
|

\
|

+
=
10
log
3 2
(10)

where C = a constant of proportionality

o
= effective overburden pressure at the depth considered
= increase in pressure at that depth due to foundation loading
H = thickness of the layer considered
The value of C can be approximated as
o
c

q
. C

5 1 (11)
where q
c
= cone penetration resistance.
Equation (10) is essentially in the form of the relationship for estimating the consolidation
settlement of normally consolidated clay. We can rewrite Eq. (10) as


|
|

\
|

+
+
=
o
o
o
c
e

H
e
C
S
10
log
1
(12)

where
|
|

\
|
=
+
c
o
o
c
q

e
C
5 . 1
1
(13)

C
c
= compression index
e
o
= in situ void ratio
For the field cases considered by DeBeer and Martens (1957), the average ratio of predicted to
observed settlement was about 1.9. DeBeer (1965) further observed that the above stated method
only applies to normally consolidated sands. For overconsolidated sand, a reduction factor needs to
be applied which can be obtained from cyclic loading tests carried out in an oedometer. Hough
(1969) expressed C
c
in Eq. (12) as

) ( b e a C
o c
= (14)

Approximate values of a and b are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Values of a and b from Eq. (14) (based on Hough, 1969)
Type of soil
Value of constant
a b
*
Uniform cohesionless material (uniformity coefficient C
u
2)
Clean gravel
Coarse sand
Medium sand
Fine sand
Inorganic silt

0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.10

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Well-graded cohesionless soil
Silty sand and gravel
Clean, coarse to fine sand
Coarse to fine silty sand
Sandy silt (inorganic)

0.09
0.12
0.15
0.18

0.20
0.35
0.25
0.25
*
The value of the constant b should be taken as e
min
whenever the latter is known or
can conveniently be determined. Otherwise, use tablulated values as a rough
approximation.


6 THE METHOD OF PECK AND BAZARAA
Peck and Bazaraa (1969) recognized that the original Terzaghi and Peck method in Section 3 was
overly conservative and revised Eq. (3) to the following form


2
60 1
3 0 ) (
2
|

\
|
+
=
. B
B
N
q
C C S
D W e
(15)

where S
e
is in mm, q is in kN/m
2
, and B is in m
(N
1
)
60
= corrected standard penetration number


foundation the of bottom below the 0.5 at
foundation the of bottom below the 0.5 at
B
B
C
o
o
W

= (16)


o
= total overburden pressure

o
= effective overburden pressure

5 0
4 0 0 1
.
f
D
q
D
. . C
|
|

\
|
= (17)
= unit weight of soil
The relationships for (N
1
)
60
are as follow:

) kN/m 75 (for
04 0 1
4
) (
2 60
60 1

+
=
o
o

.
N
N (18)

and

) kN/m 75 (for
01 0 25 3
4
) (
2 60
60 1
>
+
=
o
o

. .
N
N (19)

where
o
is the effective overburden pressure (kN/m
2
)
DAppolonia et al. (1970) compared the observed settlement of several shallow foundations
from several structures in Indiana (USA) with those estimated using the Peck and Bazaraa method,
and this is shown in Figure 6. It can be seen from this figure that the calculated settlement from
theory greatly overestimates the observed settlement. It appears that this solution will provide
nearly the level of settlement that was obtained from Meyerhofs revised relationships (Section 5).


Figure 6 Plot of measured versus predicted settlement based on Peck and Bazaraas method (adapted from
DAppolonia et al., 1970).

7 STRAIN INFLUENCE FACTOR METHOD
Based on the theory of elasticity, the equation for vertical strain
z
at a depth below the center of a
flexible circular load of diameter B, can be given as

[ ] B A
E
q

s
s
s
z
+
+
= ) 2 1 (
) 1 (


or

[ ] B A
q
E
I
s s
s z
z
+ + = = ) 2 1 ( ) 1 ( (20)

where A' and B' = f

(z/B)
q = load per unit area
E
s
= modulus of elasticity

s
= Poissons ratio
I
z
= strain influence factor
Figure 7 shows the variation of I
z
with depth based on Eq. (20) for
s
= 0.4 and 0.5. The
experimental results of Eggestad (1963) for variation of I
z
are also given in this figure. Considering
both the theoretical and experimental results cited in Figure 7, Schmertmann (1970) proposed a
simplified distribution of I
z
with depth that is generally referred to as 2B0.6I
z
distribution and it is
also shown in Figure 7. According to the simplified method,

z
E
I
q C C S
B
o
s
z
e
=
2
2 1
(21)

where q = net effective pressure applied at the level of the foundation
C
1
= correction factor for embedment of foundation =
q
q
.
o
5 0 1 (22)
q
o
= effective overburden pressure at the level of the foundation



Figure 7 Theoretical and experimental distribution of vertical strain influence factor below the center of a
circular loaded area (based on Schmertmann, 1970).

C
2
= correction factor to account for creep in soil =
|

\
|
+
1 0
log 2 0 1
.
t
. (23)
t = time, in years
For use in Eq. (21) and the strain influence factor shown in Figure 7, it was recommended that


c S
q E 2 = (24)

where q
c
= cone penetration resistance
Sivakugan et al. (1998) used the case histories of the 79 foundations given in Figure 4 and
compared those with the settlements obtained using the strain influence factor shown in Figure 7
and Eq. (21), and this is shown in Figure 8. From this figure, it can be seen that s
e(predicted)
/S
e(observed)

3.39.
Schmertmann et al. (1978) modified the strain influence factor variation (2B0.6I
z
) shown in
Figure 7. The revised distribution is shown in Figure 9 for use in Eqs. (21)(23). According to this,


Figure 8 Sivakugan et al.s comparison (1998) of predicted and observed settlements from 79 foundations
predicted settlement based on 2B0.6I
z
procedure.


Figure 9 Revised strain influence factor diagram suggested by Schmertmann et al. (1978).

For square or circular foundation:
I
z
= 0.1 at z = 0
I
z(peak)
at z = z
p
= 0.5B
I
z
= 0 at z = z
o
= 2B
For foundation with L/B 10:
I
z
= 0.2 at z = 0
I
z(peak)
at z = z
p
= B
I
z
= 0 at z = z
o
= 4B
where L = length of foundation. For L/B between 1 and 10, interpolation can be done. Also


5 . 0
) peak (
1 . 0 5 . 0
|
|

\
|

+ =
o
z
q
I

(25)

The value of
o
in Eq. (25) is the effective overburden pressure at a depth where I
z(peak)
occurs.
Salgado (2008) gave the following interpolation for I
z
at z = 0, z
p
, and z
o
(for L/B = 1 to L/B 10.

2 . 0 0111 . 0 1 . 0
) 0 at (

|

\
|
+ =
=
B
L
I
z z
(26)

1 1 0555 . 0 5 . 0
|

\
|
+ =
B
L
B
z
p
(27)

4 1 222 . 0 2
|

\
|
+ =
B
L
B
z
o
(28)

Noting that stiffness is about 40% larger for plane strain compared to axisymmetric loading,
Schmertmann et al. (1978) recommended that.

s) foundation circular and square (for 5 . 2
c s
q E = (29)

and

) foundation strip (for 5 . 3
c s
q E = (30)
With the modified strain-influence factor diagram,

z
E
I
C C S
o
z z
z
s
z
e
=
=
=0
2 1
(31)

The modified strain influence factor and Eqs. (29) and (30) will definitely reduce the average ratio
of predicted to observed settlement. However, it may still overestimate the actual elastic settlement
in the field.
8 RECENT MODIFICATIONS IN STRAIN-INFLUENCE FACTOR DIAGRAMS
More recently some modifications have been proposed to the strain-influence factor diagram
suggested by Schmertmann et al. (1978). Two of these suggestions are discussed below.


8.1 Modification Suggested by Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri (1996)
The modification suggested by Terzaghi et al. (1996) is shown in Figure 10. For this case, for
surface foundation condition (that is, D
f
/B = 0)

I
z
= 0.2 at z = 0
I
z
= I
z(peak)
= 0.6 at z = z
p
= 0.5B
I
z
= 0 at z = z
o



Figure 10 Strain influence diagram suggested by Terzaghi et al. (1996).


4 log 1 2
(

\
|
+ =
B
L
z
o
(32)

For D
f
/B > 0, I
z
should be modified to
z
I . Figure 11 shows the variation of
z z
I I / with D
f
/B.
The end of construction settlement can be estimated as

z
E
I
q S
o
z z
z
s
z
e


=
=
=0
(33)

The settlement due to creep can be calculated as


|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
=
day 1
log
1 . 0
days
creep
t
z
q
S
o
c
(34)

where
c
q = weighted mean value of measured q
c
values of sublayers between z = 0 and z = z
o

(MN/m
2
)
It has also been suggested that


Figure 11 Variation of
z z
I I / with D
f
/B (after Terzaghi et al. 1996).


4 . 1 log 4 . 0 1
) 1 / (
) / (

\
|
+ =
=
B
L
E
E
B L s
B L s
(35)


where
c B L s
q E 5 . 3
) 1 / (
=
=
(36)

Figure 12 shows the plot of E
s
versus q
c
from 81 foundations and 92 plate load tests on which
Eq. (36) has been established. The magnitude of E
s
recommended by Eq. (36) is about 40% higher
than that obtained from Eq. (29). Figure 13 shows a comparison of the end-of-construction
predicted [using Eqs. (33), (35) and (36)] and measured settlement of foundations on sand and
gravelly soils (Terzaghi et al., 1996).



Figure 12 Correlation between E
s
and q
c
for square and circularly loaded areas [adapted from Terzaghi et al.
(1996)].




Figure 13 Comparison of end of construction predicted and measured S
e
of foundations on sand and gravelly
soils based on Eqs. (33), (35) and (36) [adapted from Terzaghi et al. (1996)].
8.2 Modification Suggested by Lee et al. (2008)
Based on finite element analysis, Lee et al. (2008) suggested the following modifications to the
strain influence factor diagram suggested by Schmertmann et al. (1978). This assumes that I
z(peak)

and I
z
at z = 0 is the same as given by Eqs. (25) and (26). However Eqs. (27) and (28) are modified
as

6 at 1 of maximum a with 1 11 . 0 5 . 0 =
(

\
|
+ =
B
L
B
L
B
z
p
(37)

6 at maximum a with 3 1
5
cos 95 . 0 = +
)
`

\
|

=
B
L
B
L
B
z
o
(38)

With these modifications, the elastic settlement can be calculated using Eq. (21).
9 METHOD OF BURLAND AND BURBIDGE (1985)
Burland and Burbidge (1985) proposed a method for calculating the elastic settlement of sandy soil
using the field standard penetration number N
60
. The method can be summarized as follows:
9.1 Determination of Variation of Standard Penetration Number with Depth
Obtain the field penetration numbers (N
60
) with depth at the location of the foundation. The
following adjustments of N
60
may be necessary, depending on the field conditions:
For gravel or sandy gravel,


60 60(a)
25 . 1 N N (39)

For fine sand or silty sand below the ground water table and N
60
> 15,

) 15 ( 5 . 0 15
60 60(a)
+ N N (40)

where N
60(a)
= adjusted N
60
value
9.2 Determination of Depth of Stress Influence (z)
In determining the depth of stress influence, the following three cases may arise:
Case I. If N
60
[or N
60(a)
] is approximately constant with depth, calculate z' from


75 0
4 1
.
R R
B
B
.
B
z
|
|

\
|
=

(41)

where B
R
= reference width = 0.3 m
B = width of the actual foundation (m)
Case II. If N
60
[or N
60(a)
] is increasing with depth, use Eq. (41) to calculate z'.
Case III. If N
60
[or N
60(a)
] is decreasing with depth, calculate z' = 2B and z' = distance from the
bottom of the foundation to the bottom of the soft soil layer (= z"). Use z' = 2B or z' = z" (whichever
is smaller).
9.3 Determination of Depth of Stress Influence Correction Factor
The correction factor is given as

1 2
|

\
|

=
z
H
z
H
(42)

where H = thickness of the compressible layer
9.4 Calculation of Elastic Settlement
The elastic settlement of the foundation S
e
can be calculated as:
A. For normally consolidated soil


[ ]
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
(
(
(
(

\
|
+
|

\
|

=
a
.
R
.
(a)
R
e
p
q
B
B
B
L
.
B
L
.
N or N
.
.
B
S
7 0
2
4 1
60 60
25 0
25 1
71 1
14 0 (43)

where L = length of the foundation
p
a
= atmospheric pressure ( 100 kN/m
2
)
B. For overconsolidated soil (q
c
; where
c
= overconsolidation pressure)


[ ]
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
(
(
(
(

\
|
+
|

\
|

=
a
.
R
.
(a)
R
e
p
q
B
B
B
L
.
B
L
.
N or N
.
.
B
S
7 0
2
4 1
60 60
25 0
25 1
57 0
047 0 (44)

C. For overconsolidated soil (q >
c
)


[ ]
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
(
(
(
(

\
|
+
|

\
|

=
a
c
.
R
.
(a)
R
e
p
. q
B
B
B
L
.
B
L
.
N or N
.
.
B
S 67 0
25 0
25 1
57 0
14 0
7 0
2
4 1
60 60
(45)


Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) used a probabilistic approach to compare the predicted
settlements obtained by the methods of Terzaghi and Peck (1948, 1967), Schmertmann et al.
(1970), and Burland and Burbidge (1985). Table 3 gives a summary of their studythat is,
predicted settlement versus the probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field. This shows
that the method of Burland and Burbidge (1985), although conservative, is a substantially improved
technique to estimate elastic settlement.

Table 3. Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field
Predicted
settlement
(mm)
Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in field
Terzaghi and Peck
(1948, 1967)
Schmertmann et al.
(1970)
Burland and
Burbidge (1985)
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.20
0.26
0.31
0.35
0.387
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.27
0.32
0.37
0.42
0.00
0.03
0.15
0.25
0.34
0.42
0.49
0.55
0.61
Compiled from Sivakugan and Johnson (2004)
10 LOAD-SETTLEMENT CURVE APPROACH BASED ON PRESSUREMETER TESTS
(PMT)
Briaud (2007) presented a method based on field Pressuremeter tests to develop a load-settlement
curve for a given foundation from which the elastic settlement at a given load intensity can be
estimated. This takes into account the foundation load eccentricity, load inclination, and the
location of the foundation on a slope (Figure 14). Following is a step-by-step procedure of the
procedure suggested by Briaud (2007).
1. Conduct several Pressuremeter tests at the site at various depths.
2. Plot the PMT curves as pressure p
p
on the cavity wall versus relative increase in cavity radius
R/R
o
. Extend the straight line part of the PMT curve to zero pressure and shift the vertical axis
to the value of R/R
o
where that strain line portion intersects the horizontal axis (Figure 15).
3. Plot the strain influence factor diagram proposed by Schmertmann et al. (1978) for the
foundation. Based on the p
p
versus R/R
o
diagrams (Step 2) and the location of the depth of the
tests, develop a mean plot of p
p
versus R/R
o
as shown in Figure 16.
The mean p
p
for a given R/R
o
can be given as

. . .
) 3 (
3
) 2 (
2
) 1 (
1
) (
+ + + =
p p p mean p
p
A
A
p
A
A
p
A
A
p (46)

where A
1
, A
2
, A
3
, . . . are the areas tributary to each test under the influence diagram
A = total area of the strain-influence factor diagram



Figure 14 Pressuremeter test to obtain load-settlement curve.


Figure 15 Adjustment of field Pressuremeter test plot of p
p
versus R/R
o
.

4. Convert the plot of p
p(mean)
versus R/R
o
plot to q versus S
e
/B plot using the following
equations.

) ( , /
) )( (
mean p d e B L
p f f f f q

= (47)

o
e
R
R
B
S
= 24 . 0 (48)

where = Gamma function linking q and p
p(mean)
(see Figure 17)

|

\
|
+ = =
L
B
f
L B
2 . 0 8 . 0 factor shape
/
(49)
(center) 33 . 0 1 factor ty eccentrici load
|

\
|
= =
B
e
f
e
(50)



Figure 16 Development of the mean p
p
versus R/R
o
plot.


Figure 17 Variation of function.



(edge) 1
5 . 0
|

\
|
=
B
e
f
e
(51)
(center)
90
(degrees)
1 factor n inclinatio
(

= =

f (52)
(edge)
360
(degrees)
1
0.5
(

f (53)
slope) 1 : (3 1 8 . 0 factor slope
0.1
,
|

\
|
+ = =

B
d
f
d
(54)
slope) 1 : (2 1 7 . 0
0.15
,
|

\
|
+ =

B
d
f
d
(55)

5. Based on the load-settlement diagram developed in Step 4, obtain the actual S
e(maximum)
which
corresponds to the actual intensity of load q to which the foundation will be subjected.
6. To account for creep over the life-span of the structure,




3 . 0
1
(maximum)
) (
|
|

\
|

t
t
S t S
e e
(56)

where S
e
(t) = settlement after time t
S
e(maximum)
= settlement obtained from Step 5
t = time, in minutes
t
1
= reference time = 1 minute


SETTLEMENT CALCULATION BASED ON THEORY OF ELASTICITY
11 STEINBRENNERS (1934) AND FOXS (1948) THEORY
Based on the observations made on elastic settlement calculation using empirical correlations and
the wide range in the predictions obtained, it is desirable to consider alternative solutions based on
the theory of elasticity. With that in mind, Figure 18 shows a schematic diagram of the elastic
settlement profile for a flexible and rigid foundation. The shallow foundation measures BL in plan
and is located at a depth D
f
below the ground surface. A rock layer (or a rigid layer) is located at a
depth H below the bottom of the foundation.


Figure 18 Settlement profile for shallow flexible and rigid foundation.

Theoretically, if the foundation is perfectly flexible (Figure 18), the settlement may be expressed as
(see Bowles, 1987)


f s
s
s
e
I I
E

B q S
2
1
) (

= (57)

where q = net applied pressure on the foundation

s
= Poissons ratio of soil
E
s
= average modulus of elasticity of the soil under the foundation, measured from z =
0 to about z = 4B
B' = B/2 for center of foundation (= B for corner of foundation)
I
s
= shape factor (Steinbrenner, 1934) =
2 1
1
2 1
F

F
s
s

+ (58)

) (
1
1 0 1
A A

F + = (59)

2
1
2
tan
2
A

n
F

= (60)

( )
( ) 1 1
1 1
ln
2 2
2 2 2
0
+ + +
+ + +
=
n m m
n m m
m A (61)

( )
1
1 1
ln
2 2
2 2
1
+ + +
+ + +
=
n m m
n m m
A (62)

1
2 2
2
+ + +
=
n m n
m
A (63)

|
|

\
|
= =
B
L
B
D
f I
s
f
f
and , , 1948) (Fox, factor depth (64)
' = a factor that depends on the location below the foundation where settlement is being
calculated
To calculate settlement at the center of the foundation, we use

4 = (65)


B
L
m = (66)

and

|

\
|
=
2
B
H
n (67)

To calculate settlement at a corner of the foundation,

1 = (68)


B
L
m =

and

B
H
n =

The variations of F
1
and F
2
with m and n are given Tables 4 and 5. Based on the works of Fox
(1948), the variations of depth factor I
f
for
s
= 0.3 and 0.4 and L/B have been determined by
Bowles (1987) and are given in Table 6. Note that I
f
is not a function of H/B.

Table 4. Variation of F
1
with m and n

n
m
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
7.75
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.25
9.50
9.75
10.00
20.00
50.00
100.00
0.014
0.049
0.095
0.142
0.186
0.224
0.257
0.285
0.309
0.330
0.348
0.363
0.376
0.388
0.399
0.408
0.417
0.424
0.431
0.437
0.443
0.448
0.453
0.457
0.461
0.465
0.468
0.471
0.474
0.477
0.480
0.482
0.485
0.487
0.489
0.491
0.493
0.495
0.496
0.498
0.529
0.548
0.555
0.013
0.046
0.090
0.138
0.183
0.224
0.259
0.290
0.317
0.341
0.361
0.379
0.394
0.408
0.420
0.431
0.440
0.450
0.458
0.465
0.472
0.478
0.483
0.489
0.493
0.498
0.502
0.506
0.509
0.513
0.516
0.519
0.522
0.524
0.527
0.529
0.531
0.533
0.536
0.537
0.575
0.598
0.605
0.012
0.044
0.087
0.134
0.179
0.222
0.259
0.292
0.321
0.347
0.369
0.389
0.406
0.422
0.436
0.448
0.458
0.469
0.478
0.487
0.494
0.501
0.508
0.514
0.519
0.524
0.529
0.533
0.538
0.541
0.545
0.549
0.552
0.555
0.558
0.560
0.563
0.565
0.568
0.570
0.614
0.640
0.649
0.011
0.042
0.084
0.130
0.176
0.219
0.258
0.292
0.323
0.350
0.374
0.396
0.415
0.431
0.447
0.460
0.472
0.484
0.494
0.503
0.512
0.520
0.527
0.534
0.540
0.546
0.551
0.556
0.561
0.565
0.569
0.573
0.577
0.580
0.583
0.587
0.589
0.592
0.595
0.597
0.647
0.678
0.688
0.011
0.041
0.082
0.127
0.173
0.216
0.255
0.291
0.323
0.351
0.377
0.400
0.420
0.438
0.454
0.469
0.481
0.495
0.506
0.516
0.526
0.534
0.542
0.550
0.557
0.563
0.569
0.575
0.580
0.585
0.589
0.594
0.598
0.601
0.605
0.609
0.612
0.615
0.618
0.621
0.677
0.711
0.722
0.011
0.040
0.080
0.125
0.170
0.213
0.253
0.289
0.322
0.351
0.378
0.402
0.423
0.442
0.460
0.476
0.484
0.503
0.515
0.526
0.537
0.546
0.555
0.563
0.570
0.577
0.584
0.590
0.596
0.601
0.606
0.611
0.615
0.619
0.623
0.627
0.631
0.634
0.638
0.641
0.702
0.740
0.753
0.010
0.038
0.077
0.121
0.165
0.207
0.247
0.284
0.317
0.348
0.377
0.402
0.426
0.447
0.467
0.484
0.495
0.516
0.530
0.543
0.555
0.566
0.576
0.585
0.594
0.603
0.610
0.618
0.625
0.631
0.637
0.643
0.648
0.653
0.658
0.663
0.667
0.671
0.675
0.679
0.756
0.803
0.819
0.010
0.038
0.076
0.118
0.161
0.203
0.242
0.279
0.313
0.344
0.373
0.400
0.424
0.447
0.458
0.487
0.514
0.521
0.536
0.551
0.564
0.576
0.588
0.598
0.609
0.618
0.627
0.635
0.643
0.650
0.658
0.664
0.670
0.676
0.682
0.687
0.693
0.697
0.702
0.707
0.797
0.853
0.872
0.010
0.037
0.074
0.116
0.158
0.199
0.238
0.275
0.308
0.340
0.369
0.396
0.421
0.444
0.466
0.486
0.515
0.522
0539
0.554
0.568
0.581
0.594
0.606
0.617
0.627
0.637
0.646
0.655
0.663
0.671
0.678
0.685
0.692
0.698
0.705
0.710
0.716
0.721
0.726
0.830
0.895
0.918
0.010
0.037
0.074
0.115
0.157
0.197
0.235
0.271
0.305
0.336
0.365
0.392
0.418
0.441
0.464
0.484
0.515
0.522
0.539
0.554
0.569
0.584
0.597
0.609
0.621
0.632
0.643
0.653
0.662
0.671
0.680
0.688
0.695
0.703
0.710
0.716
0.723
0.719
0.735
0.740
0.858
0.931
0.956









Table 4. (Continued)

n
m
4.5 5.0 6.0 7.8 8.0 9.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
7.75
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.25
9.50
9.75
10.00
20.00
50.00
100.00
0.010
0.036
0.073
0.114
0.155
0.195
0.233
0.269
0.302
0.333
0.362
0.389
0.415
0.438
0.461
0.482
0.516
0.520
0.537
0.554
0.569
0.584
0.597
0.611
0.623
0.635
0.646
0.656
0.666
0.676
0.685
0.694
0.702
0.710
0.717
0.725
0.731
0.738
0.744
0.750
0.878
0.962
0.990
0.010
0.036
0.073
0.113
0.154
0.194
0.232
0.267
0.300
0.331
0.359
0.386
0.412
0.435
0.458
0.479
0.496
0.517
0.535
0.552
0.568
0.583
0.597
0.610
0.623
0.635
0.647
0.658
0.669
0.679
0.688
0.697
0.706
0.714
0.722
0.730
0.737
0.744
0.751
0.758
0.896
0.989
1.020
0.010
0.036
0.072
0.112
0.153
0.192
0.229
0.264
0.296
0.327
0.355
0.382
0.407
0.430
0.453
0.474
0.484
0.513
0.530
0.548
0.564
0.579
0.594
0.608
0.621
0.634
0.646
0.658
0.669
0.680
0.690
0.700
0.710
0.719
0.727
0.736
0.744
0.752
0.759
0.766
0.925
1.034
1.072
0.010
0.036
0.072
0.112
0.152
0.191
0.228
0.262
0.294
0.324
0.352
0.378
0.403
0.427
0.449
0.470
0.473
0.508
0.526
0.543
0.560
0.575
0.590
0.604
0.618
0.631
0.644
0.656
0.668
0.679
0.689
0.700
0.710
0.719
0.728
0.737
0.746
0.754
0.762
0.770
0.945
1.070
1.114
0.010
0.036
0.072
0.112
0.152
0.190
0.227
0.261
0.293
0.322
0.350
0.376
0.401
0.424
0.446
0.466
0.471
0.505
0.523
0.540
0.556
0.571
0.586
0.601
0.615
0.628
0.641
0.653
0.665
0.676
0.687
0.698
0.708
0.718
0.727
0.736
0.745
0.754
0.762
0.770
0.959
1.100
1.150
0.010
0.036
0.072
0.111
0.151
0.190
0.226
0.260
0.291
0.321
0.348
0.374
0.399
0.421
0.443
0.464
0.471
0.502
0.519
0.536
0.553
0.568
0.583
0.598
0.611
0.625
0.637
0.650
0.662
0.673
0.684
0.695
0.705
0.715
0.725
0.735
0.744
0.753
0.761
0.770
0.969
1.125
1.182
0.010
0.036
0.071
0.111
0.151
0.189
0.225
0.259
0.291
0.320
0.347
0.373
0.397
0.420
0.441
0.462
0.470
0.499
0.517
0.534
0.550
0.585
0.580
0.595
0.608
0.622
0.634
0.647
0.659
0.670
0.681
0.692
0.703
0.713
0.723
0.732
0.742
0.751
0.759
0.768
0.977
1.146
1.209
0.010
0.036
0.071
0.110
0.150
0.188
0.223
0.257
0.287
0.316
0.343
0.368
0.391
0.413
0.433
0.453
0.468
0.489
0.506
0.522
0.537
0.551
0.565
0.579
0.592
0.605
0.617
0.628
0.640
0.651
0.661
0.672
0.682
0.692
0.701
0.710
0.719
0.728
0.737
0.745
0.982
1.265
1.408
0.010
0.036
0.071
0.110
0.150
0.188
0.223
0.256
0.287
0.315
0.342
0.367
0.390
0.412
0.432
0.451
0.462
0.487
0.504
0.519
0.534
0.549
0.583
0.576
0.589
0.601
0.613
0.624
0.635
0.646
0.656
0.666
0.676
0.686
0.695
0.704
0.713
0.721
0.729
0.738
0.965
1.279
1.489
0.010
0.036
0.071
0.110
0.150
0.188
0.223
0.256
0.287
0.315
0.342
0.367
0.390
0.411
0.432
0.451
0.460
0.487
0.503
0.519
0.534
0.548
0.562
0.575
0.588
0.600
0.612
0.623
0.634
0.645
0.655
0.665
0.675
0.684
0.693
0.702
0.711
0.719
0.727
0.735
0.957
1.261
1.499





Table 5. Variation of F
2
with m and n


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









Table 5. (continued)


n
m
4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
7.75
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.25
9.50
9.75
10.00
20.00
50.00
100.00
0.053
0.087
0.109
0.121
0.128
0.132
0.134
0.134
0.133
0.132
0.130
0.127
0.125
0.122
0.119
0.116
0.113
0.110
0.107
0.105
0.102
0.099
0.097
0.094
0.092
0.090
0.087
0.085
0.083
0.081
0.079
0.077
0.076
0.074
0.072
0.071
0.069
0.068
0.066
0.065
0.035
0.014
0.007
0.053
0.087
0.109
0.122
0.130
0.134
0.136
0.136
0.136
0.135
0.133
0.131
0.129
0.126
0.124
0.121
0.119
0.116
0.113
0.111
0.108
0.106
0.103
0.101
0.098
0.096
0.094
0.092
0.090
0.088
0.086
0.084
0.082
0.080
0.078
0.077
0.075
0.074
0.072
0.071
0.039
0.016
0.008
0.053
0.088
0.109
0.123
0.131
0.136
0.138
0.139
0.140
0.139
0.138
0.137
0.135
0.133
0.131
0.129
0.127
0.125
0.123
0.120
0.118
0.116
0.113
0.111
0.109
0.107
0.105
0.103
0.101
0.099
0.097
0.095
0.093
0.091
0.089
0.888
0.086
0.085
0.083
0.082
0.046
0.019
0.010
0.053
0.088
0.110
0.123
0.132
0.137
0.140
0.141
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.141
0.140
0.138
0.137
0.135
0.133
0.131
0.130
0.128
0.126
0.124
0.122
0.120
0.118
0.116
0.114
0.112
0.110
0.108
0.106
0.104
0.102
0.101
0.099
0.097
0.096
0.094
0.092
0.091
0.053
0.022
0.011
0.053
0.088
0.110
0.124
0.132
0.138
0.141
0.143
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.143
0.142
0.141
0.139
0.138
0.136
0.135
0.133
0.131
0.130
0.128
0.126
0.124
0.122
0.121
0.119
0.117
0.115
0.114
0.112
0.110
0.108
0.107
0.105
0.104
0.102
0.100
0.099
0.059
0.025
0.013
0.053
0.088
0.110
0.124
0.133
0.138
0.142
0.144
0.145
0.146
0.146
0.145
0.145
0.144
0.143
0.142
0.141
0.140
0.139
0.137
0.136
0.134
0.133
0.131
0.129
0.128
0.126
0.125
0.123
0.121
0.120
0.118
0.117
0.115
0.114
0.112
0.110
0.109
0.107
0.106
0.065
0.028
0.014
0.053
0.088
0.110
0.124
0.133
0.139
0.142
0.145
0.146
0.147
0.147
0.147
0.147
0.146
0.145
0.145
0.144
0.143
0.142
0.140
0.139
0.138
0.136
0.135
0.134
0.132
0.131
0.129
0.128
0.126
0.125
0.124
0.122
0.121
0.119
0.118
0.116
0.115
0.113
0.112
0.071
0.031
0.016
0.053
0.088
0.111
0.125
0.134
0.140
0.144
0.147
0.149
0.151
0.152
0.152
0.153
0.153
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.153
0.153
0.153
0.153
0.152
0.152
0.152
0.151
0.151
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.149
0.149
0.148
0.148
0.147
0.124
0.071
0.039
0.053
0.088
0.111
0.125
0.134
0.140
0.144
0.147
0.150
0.151
0.152
0.153
0.154
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.148
0.113
0.071
0.053
0.088
0.111
0.125
0.134
0.140
0.145
0.148
0.150
0.151
0.153
0.154
0.154
0.155
0.155
0.156
0.156
0.156
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.157
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.158
0.156
0.142
0.113


Table 6. Variation of I
f
(Fox, 1948)
*

D
f
/B
L/B
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 5.0
Poissons ratio
s
= 0.30
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
2.00
0.979
0.954
0.902
0.808
0.738
0.687
0.650
0.562
0.981
0.958
0.911
0.823
0.754
0.703
0.665
0.571
0.982
0.962
0.917
0.834
0.767
0.716
0.678
0.580
0.983
0.964
0.923
0.843
0.778
0.728
0.689
0.588
0.984
0.966
0.927
0.851
0.788
0.738
0.700
0.596
0.985
0.968
0.930
0.857
0.796
0.747
0.709
0.603
0.990
0.977
0.951
0.899
0.852
0.813
0.780
0.675
Poissons ratio
s
= 0.40
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
2.00
0.989
0.973
0.932
0.848
0.779
0.727
0.689
0.596
0.990
0.976
0.940
0.862
0.795
0.743
0.704
0.606
0.991
0.978
0.945
0.872
0.808
0.757
0.718
0.615
0.992
0.980
0.949
0.881
0.819
0.769
0.730
0.624
0.992
0.981
0.952
0.887
0.828
0.779
0.740
0.632
0.993
0.982
0.955
0.893
0.836
0.788
0.749
0.640
0.995
0.988
0.970
0.927
0.886
0.849
0.818
0.714
*
Adapted from Bowles (1987)


Due to the non-homogeneous nature of a soil deposit, the magnitude of E
s
may vary with depth.
For that reason, Bowles (1987) recommended


z
z E
E
i s
s

=
) (
(69)

where E
s(i)
= soil modulus within the depth z
z = 5B or H (if H < 5B)
Bowles (1987) also recommended that


2
60
kN/m ) 15 ( 500 + = N E
s
(70)

The elastic settlement of a rigid foundation can be estimated as


center) (flexible, ) rigid (
93 . 0
e e
S S (71)

Bowles (1987) compared this theory with 12 case histories that provided reasonable good results.
12 ANALYSIS OF MAYNE AND POULOS BASED ON THEORY OF ELASTICITY
Mayne and Poulos (1999) presented an improved formula for calculating the elastic settlement of
foundations. The formula takes into account the rigidity of the foundation, the depth of embedment
of the foundation, the increase in the modulus of elasticity of the soil with depth, and the location of
rigid layers at a limited depth. To use the equation of Mayne and Poulos, one needs to determine
the equivalent diameter B
e
of a rectangular foundation, or

BL
B
e
4
= (72)


For circular foundations,

B B
e
= (73)

where B = diameter of foundation
Figure 19 shows a foundation with an equivalent diameter B
e
located at a depth D
f
below the
ground surface. Let the thickness of the foundation be t and the modulus of elasticity of the
foundation material be E
f
. A rigid layer is located at a depth H below the bottom of the foundation.


Figure 19 Mayne and Poulos procedure (1999) for settlement calculation.

The modulus of elasticity of the compressible soil layer can be given as

kz E E
o s
+ = (74)

where k = rate of increase in E
s
with depth (kN/m
2
/m)
With the preceding parameters defined, the elastic settlement below the center of the foundation
is

( )
2
1
s
o
E R G e
e

E
I I I qB
S = (75)
where
|
|

\
|
= = =
e
B
H
,
e
kB
o
E
f
s G
E I depth with of variation for the factor influence
I
R
= foundation rigidity correction factor
I
E
= foundation embedment correction factor
Figure 20 shows the variation of I
G
with = E
o
/kB
e
and H/B
e
. The foundation rigidity correction
factor can be expressed as


3
2
2
10 6 4
1
4
|
|

\
|
|
|
|
|

\
|
+
+
+ =
e
e
o
f
R
B
t
k
B
E
E
.

I (76)

Similarly, the embedment correction factor is


|
|

\
|
+
=
6 1 ) 4 0 22 1 ( exp 5 3
1
1
.
D
B
. . .
I
f
e
s
E
(77)

Figures 21 and 22 show the variation of I
R
with I
E
as a function of the terms expressed in Eqs.
(76) and (77).


Figure 20 Variation of I
G
with .


Figure 21 Variation of I
R
with K
F
.


Figure 22 Variation of I
E
with
s
and D
f
/B
e
.
13 BERARDI AND LANCELLOTTAS METHOD

Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) proposed a method to estimate the elastic settlement that takes into
account the variation of the modulus of elasticity of soil with the strain level. This method is also
described by Berardi et al. (1991). According to this procedure,



s
s e
E
qB
I S = (78)

where I
s
= influence factor for a rigid foundation (Tsytovich, 1951)
E
s
= modulus of elasticity of soil
The variation of I
s
(Tsytovich, 1951) with Poissons ratio
s
= 0.15 is given in Table 7.

Table 7. Variation of I
s


L/B
Depth of influence H
I
/B
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1
2
3
5
10
0.35
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.56
0.65
0.67
0.68
0.71
0.63
0.76
0.81
0.84
0.89
0.69
0.88
0.96
0.99
1.06

Using analytical and numberical evaluations, Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) have shown that,
for a circular foundation,

B H ) 3 . 1 to 8 . 0 (
25
= (79)

For plane strain condition (that is, L/B 10)


(circle) 25 25
) 1.7 to 1.5 ( H H = (80)

where H
25
= depth from the bottom of the foundation below which the residual settlement is 25%
of the total settlement
The above implies that H
25
2.5B for practically all foundations. Thus the depth of influence H
I

can be taken to be H
25
. The modulus of elasticity E
s
in Eq. (78) can be evaluated as (Janbu, 1963)


5 0
5 0
.
a
o
a E s
p
.
p K E
|
|

\
| +
= (81)

where p
a
= atmospheric pressure

o
and ' = effective overburden pressure and net effective stress increase due to the
foundation loading, respectively, at a depth B/2 below the foundation
K
E
= dimensionless modulus number
After reanalyzing the performance of 130 structures foundations on predominantly silica sand as
reported by Burland and Burbidge (1985), Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) obtained the variation of
K
E
with the relative density D
r
at S
e
/B = 0.1% and K
E
at varying strain levels. Figures 23 and 24
show the average variation of K
E
with D
r
at S
e
/B = 0.1% and
%) 1 0 / ( ) / (
/
. B S E B S E
e e
K K
=
with S
e
/B.
In order to estimate the elastic settlement of the foundation, an iterative procedure is suggested
which can be described as follows:
1. Determine the variation of the blow count N
60
from standard penetration tests within the zone
of influence, that is H
25
.
2. Determine the corrected blow count (N
1
)
60
as


|
|

\
|
+
=
o

N N
01 . 0 1
2
) (
60 60 1
(82)

where
o
= vertical effective stress in kN/m
2



Figure 23 Variation of K
E
with D
r
and N
60
(adapted from Berardi and Lancellotta, 1991).


Figure 24 Plot of
%) 1 0 / ( ) / (
/
. B S E B S E
e e
K K
=
with S
e
/B (adapted from Berardi and Lancellotta, 1991).

3. Determine the average corrected blow count from standard penetration tests
60 1
) (N and hence
the average relative density as


5 . 0
1
60
|
|

\
|
=
N
D
r
(83)

4. With a known value of D
r
, determine
%) 1 0 / ( . B S E
e
K
=
from Figure 23 and hence E
s
from Eq. (81)
for S
e
/B = 0.1%
5. With the known value of E
s
(Step 4), the magnitude of S
e
can be calculated from Eq. (78).
6. If the calculated S
e
/B is not the same as the assumed value, then use the calculated value of S
e
/B
from Step 5 and Figure 24 to estimate a revised
) / ( B S E
e
K . This value can now be used in Eqs.
(81) and (78) to obtain a revised S
e
. The iterative procedures can be continued until the
assumed and calculated values are the same.

Based on a probabilistic study conducted by Sivakugan and Johnson (2004), the probability of
exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field for various predicted settlement levels using the iteration
procedure of Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) is shown in Table 8. When compared with Table 3,
this shows a promise of improved prediction in elastic settlement.

Table 8. Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field
procedure of Berardi and Lancellotta (1991)
(based on Sivakugan and Johnson, 2004)
Predicted
settlement
(mm)
Probability of exceeding
25 mm in the field
(%)
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6
19
32
43
52
60
66
72
77

14 GENERAL COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
A general review of the major developments over the last sixty years for estimating elastic
settlement of shallow foundations on granular soil is presented. Based on the above review, the
following general observations can be made.
1. Meyerhofs relationship (1965) is fairly simple to use. It will probably yield predicted
settlements that are 50% higher on the average than those observed in the field. Peck and
Bazaraas method (1969) provides results that are almost similar to those obtained from
Meyerhofs method (1965).
2. Burland and Burbidges solution (1985) will provide more reasonable estimations of S
e
than
those obtained from the solution of Meyerhof (1965). However it will be difficult to determine
the overconsolidation ratio and the preconsolidation pressure for granular soils from field
exploration.
3. The modified strain influence factor diagrams presented by Schmertmann et al. (1978),
Terzaghi et al. (1996), and Lee et al. (2008) will all provide reasonable estimations of the
elastic settlement provided a more realistic value of E
s
is assumed in the calculation. The
authors feel that the empirical relationships for E
s
provided by Eqs. (35) and (36) are more
reasonable.
4. The relationships for E
s
provided by Eqs. (35) and (36) are based on the field cone penetration
resistance. These equations can be converted to expressions in terms of N
60
and D
50
(mean
grain size). Figure 25 shows some of the relationships available in the literature. Based on the
data of Burland and Burbidge et al. (1985)


305 . 0
50
60
8D
N
p
q
a
c
=
|
|

\
|
(84)

Based on the data of Robertson and Campanella (1983) and Seed and DeAlba (1986)



Figure 25 Variation of (q
c
/p
a
)/N
60
with D
50
. (a) Adapted from Terzaghi et al. (1996); (b) Adapted from
Anagnostopoulos, 2003).



228 . 0
50
60
6D
N
p
q
a
c
=
|
|

\
|
(85)

Based on the data of Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003)


26 . 0
50
60
6429 . 7 D
N
p
q
a
c
=
|
|

\
|
(86)

where p
a
= atmospheric pressure (same unit as q
c
)
D
50
= mean grain size, in mm.
5. The procedure for developing the load-settlement plot based on pressuremeter tests is a
versatile technique; however, the cost effectiveness should be taken into account.
6. Relationships for elastic settlement using the theory of elasticity will be equally as good as the
other methods, provided a realistic value of E
s
is adopted. This can be accomplished using the

iteration method suggested by Berardi and Lancellotta (1991). In lieu of that, the E
s
relationship
given by Terzaghi et al. (1996) can be used.
In his landmark paper in 1927 entitled The Science of Foundations, Karl Terzaghi wrote
Foundation problems, throughout, are of such character that a strictly theoretical mathematical
treatment will always be impossible. The only way to handle them efficiently consists of finding
out, first, what has happened on preceding jobs of a similar character; next, the kind of soil on
which the operations were performed; and, finally, why the operations have lead to certain results.
By systematically accumulating such knowledge, the empirical data being well defined by the
results of adequate soil investigations, foundation engineering could be developed into a semi-
empirical science, . . . .
What is presented in this paper is a systematic accumulation of knowledge and data over the
past sixty years. In summary, the parameters for comparing settlement prediction methods are
accuracy and reliability. Reliability is the probability that the actual settlement would be less than
that computed by a specific method. In choosing a method for design, it all comes down to keeping
a critical balance between reliability and accuracy which can be difficult at times knowing the non-
homogeneous nature of soil in general. We cannot be over-conservative but, at the same time, not
be accurate. We need to keep in mind what Karl Terzaghi said in the 45th James Forrest Lecture at
the Institute of Civil Engineers in London: Foundation failures that occur are not longer an act of
God.
REFERENCES
Anagostopoulos, A., Kourkis, G., Sabatakakis, N. & Tsiambaos, G. 2003. Empirical correlation of soil
parameters based on cone penetration tests (CPT) for Greek soils. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 21(4): 377-387.
Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. 1967. Use of the standard penetration test for estimating settlements of shallow
foundations on sand. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M. & Lancellotta, R. 1991. Settlement of shallow foundations in sands: selection
of stiffness on the basis of penetration resistance. Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991, Geotechnical
Special Publication 27, ASCE, 185-200.
Berardi, R. & Lancellotta, R. 1991. Stiffness of granular soil from field performance. Geotechnique, 41(1):
149-157.
Bjerrum, L. & Eggestad, A. 1963. Interpretation of load test on sand. Proceedings, European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, West Germany, 1: 199.
Bowles, J.E. 1987. Elastic foundation settlement on sand deposits. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 113(8): 846-860.
Briaud, J.L. 2007. Spread footing on sand: load settlement curve approach. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133(8): 905-920.
Burland, J.B. & Burbidge, M.C. 1985. Settlement of foundations on sand and gravel. Proceedings, Institution
of Civil Engineers, 78(1): 1325-1381.
DAppolonia, D.J., DAppolonia, E. & Brissette, R.F. 1970. Settlement of spread footings on sand: closure.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(2): 754-762.
DeBeer, E.E. 1965. Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations on sand. Proceedings,
Symposium on Bearing Capacity Settlement of Foundations, Duke University, Durham, N.C., 15-33.
DeBeer, E. & Martens, A. 1957. Method of computation of an upper limit for the influence of heterogeneity
of sand layers in the settlement of bridges. Proceedings, 4
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, London, 1: 275-281.
Eggestad, A. 1963. Deformation measurements below a model footing on the surface of dry sand.
Proceedings, European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, 1: 233-
239.
Fox, E.N. 1948. The mean elastic settlement of a uniformly loaded area at a depth below the ground surface.
Proceedings, 2
nd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, 1:
129-132.
Hough, B.K. 1969. Basic Soils Engineering, Ronald Press, New York.
Janbu, N. 1963. Soil compressibility as determined from oedometer and triaxial tests. Proceedings, European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Weisbaden, 1: 19-24.

Jeyapalan, J.K. & Boehm, R. 1986. Procedures for predicting settlements in sands. In W. O. Martin (ed.),
Settlements of Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: Design and Performance, ASCE, Seattle, 1-
22.
Lee, J., Eun, J., Prezzi, M. & Salgado, R. 2008. Strain influence diagrams for settlement estimation of both
isolated and multiple footings in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 134(4): 417-427.
Mayne, P.W. & Poulos, H.G. 1999. Approximate displacement influence factors for elastic shallow
foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 125(6): 453-460.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1956. Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 82(1): 1-19.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1965. Shallow foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
91(2): 21-31.
Papadopoulos, B.P. 1992. Settlements of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 118(3): 377-393.
Peck, R.B. & Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. 1969. Discussion of paper by DAppolonia et al, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 95(3): 305-309.
Robertson, P.K. & Campanella, R.G. 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration tests: part I: sand. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 29(4): 718-733.
Salgado, R. 2008. The Engineering of Foundations, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1970. Static cone to compute static settlement over sand. Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(3): 1011-1043.
Schmertmann, J.H., Hartmann, J.P. & Brown, P.R. 1978. Improved strain influence factor diagrams. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(8): 1131-1135.
Seed, H.B. & DeAlba, P. 1986. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands.
Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference of Use of In Situ Testing in Geotecnical Engineering,
Geotechnical Special Publication 6, Blackburg, 281-302.
Sivakugan, N., Eckersley, J.D. & Li, H. 1998. Settlement predictions using neural networks. Australian Civil
Engineering Transactions, CE40: 49-52
Sivakugan, N. & Johnson, K. 2004. Settlement prediction in granular soils: a probabilistic approach.
Geotechnique, 54(7): 499-502.
Skempton, A.W. 1985. Standard penetration test procedures and the effect in sands of overburden pressure,
relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 36(3): 425-447.
Steinbrenner, W. 1934. Tafeln zur setzungsberschnung. Die Strasse, 1: 121-124.
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1
st
Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. & Mesri G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Tsytovich, N.A. 1951. Soil Mechanics, Ed. Stroitielstvo i Archiketura, Moscow (in Russian).