PAPER

Se;: eiIIenI; 1500

London Clay, unweather

an( ~eave o
overconso ic a~:ec Eu
Cu
1000'00

c BIfs- Note
Curves NLI
illustrative c

a simplified non-linear method OL

0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 05 1.0
of calculation Vertical strain (%)

ByAS O'rien and P Sharp, Mott MacDonald Normahsed undrained settlement Sz/50
0 0.5 1.0
0

Introduction
Settlement at working load is usually the critical design consideration
for vertically loaded foundations on stiff overconsolidated clays.
Foundation settlement is usually calculated by assuming that the
ground behaves as a linear elastic material. The reliability of this
calculation is mainly dependent on an appropriate choice of elastic
modulus. 0.5 >-
However, modern laboratory testing techniques have identified the
highly non-linear stress strain characteristics of overconsolidated
clays, for example, refer to Jardine et al 1984'nd Figure 1'. This cc
explains the wide range of values for "linear elastic" moduli, which 'aCl
have been reported in the technical literature; for example E/Cu ratios oi

of between 150 and 1500 have been quoted in CIRIA SP 27'. As a result io
E
the selection of an appropriate value for a linear elastic modulus o
becomes a matter of considerable engineering judgement. The recent
1.0,
Ground Engineering article'xemplifies some of the difficulties that
engineers face in selecting appropriate deformation moduli.
An additional problem is that linear elasticity incorrectly predicts
the pattern of settlement adjacent to and beneath a loaded area. For
example, if total settlement of a structure is correctly predicted, set-
tlement at depth or remote from the structure will be incorrectly pre-
dicted. In view of these problems, the applicability of linear elastic cal-
culations for overconsolidated clays is limited. However, the alterna-
tives to conventional linear elastic calculations, such as non-linear 1.5
'ey:
finite element techniques, can be complex, expensive and time con- ao (kN/m ) Sofmml zfm) Foundation Formation Reference';
geometry
suming, requiring high level expertise and considerable engineering 250 18 3.3 agua gie,Baca iii Il egal g
interpretation.

'o
B=m L=BB',

Hence, there is a need for a simplified method which enables the 137 7 33 Ae ac e Ai ac e

engineer to gain an understanding of foundation deformation behav- 220 4 17 5 cacao

..ca
ua va
'aco"
iour under loads of varying intensity. This paper describes a method 2

ea e'actce ieeic e iceomc oi .".."'are a*eeoc Aoa

which enables the non-linear stress strain behaviour of overconsoli- o ace ai:
e

dated clays to be modelled in a manner which is relatively simple and

is appropriate for routine design calculations. The calculations are
most conveniently undertaken by computer. however, the method is
readily amenable to hand calculation. Undrained and total settlement
(or heave) can be calculated under foundation loading of any shape and
of varying intensity using a varying ground stiffness depth profile.
Background to proposed method
Field observations of ground movement
During the 1970s, the BRE performed several large scale plate loading
tests. Figure 2 shows settlement recorded beneath a 0.9 m diameter plate
test on London Clay. The data is shown in dimensionless form
(subsurface settlement divided by plate settlement at founding level) and
can be compared with the prediction of settlement within a
homogeneous linear elastic medium. The observed subsurface
settlements are quite localised, most settlement occurs within a depth of
about 0.6 times the plate diameter.
In contrast the linear elastic calculation predicts a significantly
greater depth of influence. Figure 2 also shows normalised subsurface
settlement recorded beneath a large building founded on glacial till of
low plasticity'. The pattern of settlement with depth is similar to that
for the plate test on London Clay, with most settlement occurring with-
in a depth of about 0.6 times the building width. An interesting feature
of this field data is that the building settlement increases by more than
a factor of 2.5, when bearing pressure increases by a factor of only
about 1.8. Also as bearing pressure is increased, normalised sub sur-
face settlement becomes concentrated closer to the building founda-
tion. Linear elastic calculations would not predict this pattern of
behaviour.
Figure 3 summarises some settlement and heave observations for
relatively large rigid structures founded on overconsolidated clays.
Reviews of published case histories of settlement of buildings con-
structed on overconsolidated clays by, for example, Simons and Som
1970', and Morton and Au 1975'ndicate that settlement at the end of
construction is about 60'o of the total settlement. Good case histories
of time dependent heave are, by comparison, relatively rare.
However, comparing the settlement case histories with those for
heave, it is apparent that for comparable foundation type, ground con-
ditions and net change in foundation pressure, time dependent heave

28 GRoLINI) ENGINI3ERING ocTOBER 2001

 PAPER

due to unloading is greater than time dependent settlement due to load-
ing. The fundamental difference in behaviour between the develop-
ment of settlement and heave is highlighted by comparing the ratio of
the end of construction movement to the time dependent movement,
R = 6u ih,d. The settlement records typically indicate R to vary between
1.4 and <2d.0. However, the records of heave indicate that R varies
between 0.4 and 0.8. Although incomplete records of time dependent
heave, the rates of heave described by Mettyear'nd Pierpointio (for
24m and 10m deep excavations in London Clay and Oxford Clay respec-
tively) provide additional evidence of the lower deformation moduli
mobilised beneath excavations.
in layer i (due to, for example, the installation of drainage measures
within the proposed foundation).
The drained secant Young's modulus, E',, is assumed to be dependent
on the average mean effective stress during the load increment (or
decrement) and the magnitude of vertical strain which the layer expe-
riences. For the latter, it is necessary to iterate equation 5 until the ver-
tical strain calculated for the layer is compatible with the strain
assumed for estimating E'I Following a successful iteration, the final
value of E',. is the mobilised drained secant Young's Modulus for layer
mob
equation 6, e', is calculated following a successful iteration,
i'rom

It is observed that compared to settlement, time dependent heave and then the cumulative total vertical displacement is calculated by
appears to develop over significantly longer periods of time. At the summing for all layers:
Shell Building, in central London, the rate of time dependent heave i=n
shows little sign of decreasing even though the excavation took place 6T =~ (e.'v H,) (6)
i=i
over 30 years ago, Burford 1992""-.In contrast, time dependent settle-
ment is generally found to be complete within about five to 10 years.
Calculation of undrained settlement, or heave
Previous analytical studies The undrained settlement, or heave, 6u is calculated from a modified
Figure 4 summarises the results of non-linear finite element studies for version of the classical elasticity equation:
a rigid footing, carried out by Jardine et al 1986". Compared to linear
elastic theory, the non-linear analysis predicts that settlement will
= 1 [3o, v(A<si + A<Tg)]H (7)
reduce more rapidly with depth, Figure 4(a). Also the non-linear model ll

predicts that as the factor of safety against bearing

capacity failure reduces, the normalised settlement
beneath the rigid footing becomes concentrated
R
closer to the loaded boundary. This pattern of I e Qy
80 Den
behaviour is similar to that identified from field
observations, Figure 2. Figure 4(b) shows E
normalised surface settlement adjacent to the rigid E
footing. Normalised surface settlements predicted by 60 i
non-linear elasticity are concentrated much closer to P
'.3<<

the rigid footing than those predicted by linear O I si re Heave

E 9
elasticity. 40
Qo
x Settlement
XR R Raft
Description of proposed non-linear method Piled raft
The estimation of settlement or heave involves three 20' Xv
R
m sp Secant piled cut
basic considerations: I and cover tunnel
I X
(a) the magnitude and distribution of stresses set up IXX e XR Indicates movement
still increasing
in the soil mass by the foundation loading;
(b) the immediate and long term stress-strain 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
properties of the soil mass in both depth and lateral
extent; Net change in pressure (kN/ma)
(c) the linking of (a) and (b) above, in order to
calculate strains, and hence displacements,
throughout the soil mass affected by foundation
loading.
An outline of the proposed non-linear method is
presented below. hwndnlondhnonolons SnnoolnndanlnodMano I)
Sfnodlh Lend& Opondfndinoifoanoad

Calculation of total settlement, or heave

Total settlement, or heave, 6is defined as follows
@4(1976i '.:-- ') ~~odd
6T-6 + 6ul

Total settlement, or heave, is calculated from a mod

ified version of the one-dimensional method:

"r mv-1<T'vH (2) e'=':QOdnn~(l~.-":=:-. -'-"':,-":-(ef)~M:-;;~.'-:<4%~

If the compressible stratum is divided into e:: IIIfdt)K~i~--::
.-.=='T,

n layers
then for layer i;
-
<a<trav):: .:-:,:-'eii .<-,:a<dl
~4~~ )sfo.=.'--, vn-.-'':
a

mv A<tv
i
H, (3) .et
e<<rauviec<a-ro,
'.-'. -"~~:: -:
v<n
<,:.,".'-455nr-.

From Henkel, 1971tH

mvvi
=k (4)
F,,i

Rearranging (3) and utilising (4):

:-;: 'i:":-::~M=-.=,':::;-
'=':~.-::-"4M'..-'v =.::=~;:-:,;,:-.':::::-,-!:
+::=-:=:'..

6) = k,3<r', = k,(3<r, - 3u,) (6)

H I
E I
E -:": 6<
* -.'<i~~&= -"ssa'm .Ww~j'zYg; 5~v$ .':d P'~ ~

The change in net vertical total stress, A<re, is cal-

culated from conventional isotropic linear'elastic
theory (for example Poulos and Davis 1974"), Au, is
the change in equilibrium pore water pressure with-

<IROLINI) VNOINKKRINO O<t POHHR 2001 29

 PAPER

Dividing the compressible strata into n layers, then for layer i:

1
5u, [A(r,. - v(kirh + Airh )]H, (8)
Normalised subsurface settlement az/rro
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0
Normaiised
2.0
distance X/R
3.0 4.0 5.0
u 0
From Equation 8: 0.2
1.0 0.4
euuut = 5uui = 1
[Aire - V (3(rh + Arrh )] (9) 0.6
ij 2i 2.0
H, Eu, 0.8
The undrained secant Young's modulus, Eu.,1 is assumed to be a func- 3.0 1.0
b. Profiles of normalised surface settlement
tion, only, of the vertical strain which layer i experiences. Mean effective adiacent to a ngid footing
4.0
stress during undrained loading (or unloading) is assumed to be con-
stant. Equation 9 has to be iterated until the vertical strain calculated for
the layer is compatible with the strain assumed for estimating Eu i .
5.0

Linear elastic

Following a successful iteration, the final calculated value of Eu. is then

the mobilised undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i, E.
I
a. Profiles of normalised subsurface
settlement for a rigid foobng Non-linear,

Non-linear,
Fs =
Fs =
3.3
2.0

a successful iteration eu,

UVi
is determined and the cumula- "i(mob)'ollowing

tive undrained vertical displacement is calculated for the compressible

strata:
i=n
8u = X (euu H,) (10)
i=i

Mobilised ground stiffness

The key element of the proposed method is the facility to allow for the
dependence of mobilised secant Young's modulus on the magnitude of 4.0,
strain (and additionally, in the case of drained modulus, on the d NL2
magnitude of mean effective stress). d NLD2
For the proposed method, the characterisation of ground stiffness 3.0 l
comprises two main elements:
(a) definition of the variation of secant Young's modulus (at a particular
strain magnitude) with depth;
(b) definition of the change in secant Young's modulus with changes in 2.0 L
the magnitude of vertical strain.
Typically in the absence of advanced insitu or laboratory test data,
the engineer can define the change in secant Young's modulus with shold
changes in strain magnitude by utilising published literature. Such 1.0
data is frequently normalised to allow data obtained for different sites,
depths and types of test to be compared in a rational way. This also
allows data for different soil types to be compared. The most common
normalising parameter is undrained shear strength, that is, it is often Qi0.005
0.002 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0
assumed that undrained, or drained, secant Young's modulus (at a par-
ticular strain magnitude) is proportional to Cu. Therefore, the engineer Vertical strain, r,(N) Logarithmic scale
may utilise a profile of Cu with depth in order to derive a correspond-
ing profile of secant Young's modulus (at a particular strain level).
However, it should be noted that stiffness profiles obtained by using Cu
as a normalising parameter may be less reliable than those which use
mean effective stress or the product of specific volume and mean effec-
tive stress as the normalising parameter. These normalising parame-
ters have been used by Jardinet and O'rien et al, 1992'.

Modification of drained secant Young's modulus for average

mean effective stress during loading
The drained secant Young's modulus is dependent upon the average (14)
mean effective stress during the load increment (or decrement).
Therefore, the variation of the initial drained secant Young's modulus, Hence the mean effective stress during a load increment (or decrement)
E ', with depth (for a particular strain magnitude) needs to be modified to for layer i may be expressed in terms of the change in vertical effective
take account of the increase (or decrease) in mean effective stress (with stress for layer i as follows:
depth) which occurs during drained loading (or unloading). The average
mean effective stress during the load increment (or decrement) is Rearranging Equation 11:
defined as follows:
Pa;=Po,+ ~p; (15)
pa = po+ pr 2
2
From equation 14, substituting for Ap'n Equation 15:
For isotropic elastic materials under one-dimensional loading, the
change in horizontal effective stress is related to the change in vertical (18)
effective stress by the Poisson's ratio: 8(1- v)
Hence, p',. can be calculated from a knowledge of only p', and 2(rr', In
v order to modify the initial drained secant Young's modulus to allow for
(12)
(1 v') the increase (or decrease) in mean effective stress, the initial drained
secant Young's modulus can be pro-rated as follows:
The increment or decrement of mean effective stress, Ap', can be relat-
ed to the change in vertical and horizontal effective stress as follows: Ec,=Eo i (17)
P oi
Ap: 1 (3(r + Ao ht + 3(rh2) (13)
3 From Equation 17, the variation E'c. of with depth under the specified
loading can be defined. It should be noted that the magnitude of F.' is
Then from Equation 12, substituting for Arr'h, and r1(r', in Equation 13: not usually unduly sensitive to the magnitude of p', assumed.

30 (iROI/NI) RN(;INKRR(N('(rTOI(KR 2001

 PAPER

Euo ) is adjusted to be compatible

Divide compressible with the average of the assumed and
strata into n layers
calculated strain magnitudes from
the first iteration. The adjusted
Calculate undrained Calculate total value is defined as E',<,) (or E,k).
settlement/heave settlement/heave
The calculation is repeated in subse-
quent iterations until the layer
0 Input profile of Euo with depth,
at normalising strain magnitude
Input profile of E o with depth,
at normahsing strain magnitude
strain e'v, (or e'uv,) is compatible with
the average strain value used to
and initial mean effectwe stress
derive E'ub (or E,,<b). To avoid
0 Input vanation of Eu with strain
Input profile of E with strain
numerical instability, maximum and
minimum threshold relative stiff-
0 Define loading intensity and
foundation geometry, calculate
Input profile of mean effectwe
with depth, pnor to loading,
stress
p o
ness values have to be defined,
Figure 5.
Say aah aah
with depth beneath point of interest
Define loading intensity and
Corrections to calculated
settlement/heave
04- Calculate strain within each
foundation geometry, calculate sa,
with depth beneath point of interest The corrections which are necessary
of n layers for refinement of the calculated
Input profile of change in equihbnum settlement or heave depend on the
0 t
M<id'<y Eu 0
'ompare calculated strain with
pore water pressure with depth. au level of sophistication which is
in accordAnce, strain assumed for Eu for layer i applied in using the methods
with ~2 Calculate change vertical effective
in
described above. At the most

L depth. aa v
for layer i stress with
rudimentary level, stress changes
06 - 'orlayeri, does
Calculate change in mean effective
within the soil mass may be
calculated strain equal calculated from simple Boussinesq
stress with depth, ao hence calcuate
assumed strain?-
profile of average mean effective stress theory for a uniformly distributed
with depth due to foundatron loading
yes load on a perfectly flexible foundation
Qg- f resting on the surface of a semi-
Calculate settlement/heave within layer Calculate profile of corrected E c with infinite medium. If this approach is
depth, at normalismg strain magnitude
and avergae due to foundation loading i adopted then for most real
Sum settlement/heave for n layers foundations corrections are required
i 9 to take account of:
Calculate strain within each of m
010 Apply correction factors for depth
layers ~ depth of foundation beneath
and ngidity of foundation surface;
Compare calculated strain with strain~
in
~ rigidity of foundation
assumed for E for layer i I
accordance,'ith
It is generally recognised that
Undrained settlement/heave 2
for layer i Fox'stg depth correction factors will
For layer i, does
lead to an under estimate of the actu-
No
calculated strain equal al settlement or heave for most foun-
assumed strain? dation substructures (except for
yes
piles), hence the depth factors rec-
f i 13 ommended by Burland" should be
Calculate settlement/heave within layer i

utilised. For perfectly rigid founda-

I
i

14 tions or those of intermediate stiff-

Sum settlement/heave for n layers
ness appropriate correction factors
15 are available, for example Poulos and
Apply correction factors for depth
and ngidity of foundation
Davis 1974, Fraser and Wardle 1976,
Hooper 1975'6'"". If vertical defor-
Total setttement/heave mations adjacent to or beneath struc-
tures of finite stiffness are required
then a more sophisticated approach
is required, either:
Variation of secant Young's modulus with vertical strain ~ predict stress changes within soil mass from appropriate elastic
The variation of undrained, or drained secant Young's modulus with solutions for structures of finite stiffness, Poulos and Davis 1974;
vertical strain is given by a user defined curve plotted as relative ~ use the concept of displacement compatibility along the structure to
stiffness versus log vertical strain, Figure 5. This curve may be derived predict the variation of contact stress at the sub structure/soil interface.
from modern laboratory or insitu testing or from data published in the This contact stress distribution (simplified as a series of uniformly
technical literature. The magnitude of normalised secant Young's loaded areas of varying intensity) can then be used to calculate
modulus at a particular strain magnitude is used as a basis for displacements within the soil mass, by using the principles of
identifying the relative change in secant Young's modulus with changes superposition to calculate stress changes at a particular point.
in strain. A simplified flow chart which summarises the key steps in calculat-
For example, in Figure 1, the value of Eu/Cu for curve NL1 at a strain ing both undrained and total vertical deformation by the proposed
of 0.1'o is 450. Similarly, at a strain level of 0.005'o, Eu/Cu equals 1542 method is presented in Figure 6.
and at 0.5oo strain, Eu/Cequals 167. Then, dividing these values with
respect to the value for the particular strain level of O.loo, a relative Part two of this paper will he published in the November issue.
stiffness versus log strain curve is derived for the complete range of
strain magnitudes, Figure 5 (curve NL1). For example, the relative stiff- References
nesses are 3.43 (1542/450) and 0.37 (167/450) for strain levels of 0.005 no 1. RJ Jardiue. MJ Symes and JB Burlaud <1984). The measurement of soil stiffness in the
tri asia 1 apparatus. Geo tech n i 0 ue, Vol. 34. No 3 pp 323 - 340.
and 0.5 /o respectively. 2. AS O'rien. C J Forbes-Kmg. PA Gildea and P Sharp (1992). Insitu stress and stiffness at
The absolute value of the normalising strain magnitude (0.1'o in seven overcousol idated clay and weak rock sites'. Parts I to 3. Ground Eng. Vol 23 Nos. 6-8.
this case) is not critical, it merely allows the iterative calculation to be 3. C J Padfreld and M J Sharrock (1983).Settlement of structures on clay soils. Construction
commenced. However, by choosing a normalising strain value within Industry Research & Information Association, Special Publication 2i, London.
4. Never mind chalk, what about the cheese. Ground Fngi neeri ng, p13, October 1999.
the range of expected strains for the problem, the number of iterations 5 A Mnrsland and BJ Eason (19i3). hleasurement of displacements in the ground belov:
can be minimised. The iterative solution is commenced by using the loaded plates in deep boreholes. Field Instrumentation in Geotechnical Engineering, BGS
value of E'c, (or Euo ) (at the normalising strain magnitude) in equation SymposiumMayi June 1973.
6. HJ Kriegel and HH Weisuer (1973).Problems of stress-strain conditions in subsoil. Proc.
5 (or equation 9). The strain in each layer is calculated and compared of 8th ICSMFE, Moscow Vol.2. pp.133 to 141.
with the assumed strain magnitude (used to derive E',, or Euo ). Using 7. Simous and Som (19i0). Settlement of structures on clay with particular emphasis on
the user-defined relative stiffness log strain curve the value for E',, (or London Clay. CIRIA report 22.
8. K Morton and E Au (1976), Settlement observations of eight structures in London. Proc.
GROUND ENGINFE)RING ocTDBER 2001 31
 PAPER
Conf. on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, pp183 to 203. Pentech Press. London.
9. NV Mettvear (1984). The short term behaviour of a deep cutting in London clay, '.4ISc
dissertation. Imperial College.
10. ND Pierpoint (1996). The prediction and back analysis of excavat>on behaviour in
OxfordClay'hDThesis. Sheffield University.
11.D Burford(1992) Private communication, kIarch 1992.
12. D Burford (1988). Heave of tunnels beneath the Shell Centre. London. 1939-1986.
Technical Note, Geb(ec)u>i que Vol 38, No.l. pp.136 to 137.
13. RJ Jardine, DM Potts. AB Fourie & JB Burland (1986). Studies of the influence of non-
linear stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Gdu(echnique, Vol.36,
No.3, pp377-396.
14. Henkel (1971).The relevance of laboratory measured parameters in tield studies. Proc.
Roscoe Nlemomal Symposium. pp669 676 ( ambri<lgv. Foul is
15. HG Poulos and EH Davis(1974). Elastic solut>ons for soil an<i rock mechanics. J vyfley.
16. EN Fox (19J8).The mean elastic settlement of a unit'ormly loaded area at depth belo>v
the ground surface. Proc 2nd ICShIFE, Rotterdam
17. JH Burland (1969).Discussion on Session A. Proc. Conf. on in situ investigations in soils
and rocks. Bmtish Geotechnical Society. London.
18. RA Fraser aml LJ Wardle (1976). Numerical analyi ot'<octangular rafts on layered
foundat>ons. (Ieo(echnivue, Vol.26. Nova pp.613 to 630.
19. JA Hooper (1976). Elastic settlement of a circular rett in a<ihesive contact <ith a
transverselv isotropic medium. Geo(echni<(ue. Vol.z >, No/L

Notation the normalising level of strain)

E adjusted value of undrained secant Young's modulus for
"i(ca I )
number of soil sub layers in order to compute ground layer i (for a calculated level of shear strain)
settlement/heave E final undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for
>(n>ob)
total thickness of compressible strata the solution strain level)
H, thickness of soil layer i Ee. secant Young's modulus at a strain 6
<r vertical effective stress Eo.i secant Young's modulus at 0.1 'v strain
<r vertical effective stress prior to foundation loading E'', drained secant Young's modulus for vertical loading
>urv net change in vertical total stress due to foundation drained secant Young's modulus for layer i
loading/unloading for layer i K rate of increase of E with depth
net change in vertical effective stress due to foundation E' initial drained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for the
loading/unloading and changes in equilibrium pore normalising level of strain)
water pressure <. corrected drained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for
A<t'v net change in vertical effective stress due to foundation the norma)ising level of strain and the average value of
loading/unloading and changes in equilibrium pore mean effective stress for the loading under
waterpressure,forlayeri(3'<7, = >ur,-ku,.) consideration)
>>u,. change in equilibrium pore water pressure in layer i, due E (-i) adjusted value of drained secant Young's modulus for
to drainage measures layer i (for a calculated level of shear strain)
<rbo horizontal effective stress prior to foundation loading )(mob) final drained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for the
A<rh, change in horizontal total stress in x horizontal direction solution strain level)
3<rhv change in horizontal total stress in y horizontal direction E'vd drained secant Young's modulus immediately beneath
3<rh
1>
change in horizontal total stress in x horizontal foundation (at load / unload boundary)
direction, for layer i drained secant Young's modulus for horizontal loading
a<rbv'>I change in horizontal total stress in y horizontal
direction, for layer i E'v,
shear modulus in vertical plane
change in horizontal radial total stress due to circular coefficient of volume compressibility for vertical
foundation loading / unloading, for layer i direction for layer i
K ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stress prior to k, constant which depends on the degree of stiffness
foundation loading = "bo / 0 anisotropy. For isotropic materials (with v'=0) k., = 1,
Po initial mean effective stress prior to foundation loading = typically for over consolidated clays k, = 0.9
<r
o s.
2<r b vertical strain for layer i (undrained loading/unloading)
euv>
P,, initial mean effective stress prior to foundation loading e total vertical strain for layer i (drained loading/
for layer i unloading)
P( final mean effective stress after application of the 7 shear strain
foundation loading and consolidation Su undrained settlement or heave
Ap' change in mean effective stress due to foundation loading Su. undrained settlement or heave, for layer i
(~p' p', - p'o) Su) time dependent settlement or heave
average value of the mean effective stress for the total settlement or heave
increment of foundation loading F>T total settlement or heave, for layer i
P. average value of the mean effective stress for the Ss total settlement at depth z
increment of foundation loading for layer i F>o total settlement at depth z = 0
C undrained shear strength Sx total settlement at depth z=0, at distance x from edge of
Cn> mobilised undrained shear strength due to foundation foundation
loading D depthof excavation
u undrained Poisson's ratio Z vertical depth below loaded/unloaded boundary
V drained Poisson's ratio (underside of foundation)
a,b power law constants for Bolton and Sun method, 1991 X horizontal distance from edge of foundation
c effective cohesion intercept width of loaded area
(<) effective angle of friction R radius of circular loaded area
E undrained secant Young's modulus L length of loaded area
Eu undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i SPT N uncorrected blow count for standard penetration test
E initial undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for

32 GR(iUNI) ENGINI')I RIN(1 ocTon(IR 2001