Shallow Foundations

Settlement
Stresses beneath shallow foundations
Under typical working loads, the applied vertical bearing
pressure applied by a shallow foundation to the underlying
soil will be much less than the bearing capacity.
If the stresses
beneath the
foundation are
known for an
applied bearing
pressure (q) then
the movements of
the foundation can
be determined from
the elastic material
properties.
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 2
 Point load

Boussinesq(1885) :
2.5
 
 
3Q  1 
 z 
2z 2   r  2  (8.40)
1    
  z  

Q  3r 2 z 1  2 

 r  
  
2  r 2  z 2 2.5 r 2  z 2  z r 2  z 2
  

(8.41)

 
   1  2 
Q z 1 

2  
 r 2  z 2 1.5 r 2  z 2  z
 
r z 
2

2  (8.42)

3Q  rz 2 
rz   

2  r 2  z 2
 2.5
 (8.43)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 3

Point load

Boussinesq(1885) :
2 .5
 
 
3Q  1 
 z 
2z 2   r  2 
1     (8.40)
  z  
Q
 z   2 IQ (8.45)
z 
where
 
 
3  1 
IQ 
2   r  2  (8.44)
1    
  z  

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 4

  
Point load Q
z   2 IQ whe re IQ 

3  1


z  2   r  
2
1    
  z  

Table 8.5 Influence factors (IQ) for vertical stress due to point load
r/z IQ r/z IQ r/z IQ
0.00 0.478 0.80 0.139 1.60 0.020
0.10 0.466 0.90 0.108 1.70 0.016
0.20 0.433 1.00 0.084 1.80 0.013
0.30 0.385 1.10 0.066 1.90 0.011
0.40 0.329 1.20 0.051 2.00 0.009
0.50 0.273 1.30 0.040 2.20 0.006
0.60 0.221 1.40 0.032 2.40 0.004
0.70 0.176 1.50 0.025 2.60 0.003

The stresses at a point due to more than one surface load are obtained by superposition.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 5

Line load

2Q  z3 
 z   
 
(8.46)
  x 2  z2 2


2Q  x 2 z 
 x   
 
(8.47)
  x 2  z2 2


2Q  xz 2 
 xz   
 
(8.48)
  x 2  z2 2



CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 6

Strip area carrying uniform pressure

 z    sin   cos  2 
q
(8.49)

 x    sin   cos  2
q
(8.50)

xz    sin   cos  2 
q
(8.51)


CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 7

Rectangular area carrying uniform
Fadum’s chart
pressure
z  qIqr (8.52)
z  qIqr

Iqr

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 8

Bulb of pressure

Square area

Strip area

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 9

Example 8.3
A rectangular foundation 6 m x 3 m carries a uniform
pressure of 300 kPa near the surface of a soil mass.
Determine the vertical stress at a depth of 3m below a
point A on the centre line 1.5 m outside a long edge of the
foundation.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 10

Example 8.3
Using the principle of superposition, solution is given by
(1) – (2):

For the two rectangles (1) carrying +300 kPa, m = 1.00

and n = 1.50, therefore Iqr = 0.193

For the two rectangles (2) carrying -300 kPa, m = 1.00 and
n = 0.50, therefore Iqr = 0.120

Hence,

z   qIqr  2  300  0.193   2300  0.120   44 kPa

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 11

Rectangular area carrying uniform
Fadum’s chart
pressure
z  qIqr (8.52)
z  qIqr

Iqr

m and n can be interchanged !

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 12

Settlements from elastic theory
Clay Sand

Flexible

Rigid

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 13

Settlements from elastic theory
Settlement profile depends on:

1.Soil type
2.Rigidity of foundation

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 14

Settlements from elastic theory
s
qB
E

1  I (8.53) 2
s

Table 8.6 Influence factors (Is) for vertical displacement under flexible and
rigid areas carrying uniform pressure
Shape of area Is (flexible) Is (rigid)
Centre Corner Average Average
Square (L/B = 1) 1.12 0.56 0.95 0.82
Rectangular L/B = 2 1.52 0.76 1.30 1.20
Rectangular L/B = 5 2.10 1.05 1.83 1.70
Rectangular L/B = 10 2.54 1.27 2.25 2.10
Rectangular L/B = 100 4.01 2.01 3.69 3.47
Circle 1.00 0.64 0.85 0.79

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 15

Example
A flexible foundation 4 m x 2 m carries a uniform pressure of 150 kPa
near the surface of a soil mass with E = 40 MPa and  = 0.5.
Determine the settlement at the centre the average settlement the
foundation.

L 4
For   2,
B 2
At centre,Is (flexible )  1.52
AverageIs (flexible )  1.30

Settlement at centre of foundation, s 

qB
E
 
1   2 Is 
150  2
40000
 
1  0.52 1.52  8.55 x10 3 m  8.55 mm

Averagesettlement, s 
qB
E
 
1   2 Is 
150  2
40000
 
1  0.52 1.30  7.17 x10 3 m  7.17 mm

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 16

Settlements from elastic theory
For the special case of
 = 0.5 (fully undrained
condition) and average
settlement under a
flexible area, Eq. 8.53
may be simplified to:

qB
s   01 (8.54)
E

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 17

 Example 8.4
A flexible foundation 4 m x 2 m carrying a uniform pressure of 150 kPa
is located at a depth of 1m in a layer of clay 5m thick for which the
value of Eu is 40 MPa. This layer is underlain by a second clay layer 8
m thick for which the value of Eu is 75 MPa. A hard stratum lies below
the second layer. Determine the average immediate settlement si
under the foundation.

d = 1m

H1 = 4m Clay 1, Eu = 40 kPa

H2 = 12m Clay 2, Eu = 75 kPa

Hard stratum

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 18

 Example 8.4
Using principle of superposition:

Clay 1, Eu = 40 kPa Clay 2, Eu = 75 kPa

Hard stratum Hard stratum
Clay 2, Eu = 75 kPa

Hard stratum
d 1 d 1 d 1
  0.5   0  0.94   0.5   0  0.94   0.5   0  0.94
B 2 B 2 B 2

H 4 L 4 H 12 L 4 H 4 L 4
  2,   2  1  0.60   6,   2  1  0.85   2,   2  1  0.60
B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2
qB qB qB
si1  01 si 2  01 si3  01
Eu Eu Eu
150  2 150  2 150  2
 0.94  0.60   4.2 mm  0.94  0.85   3.2 mm  0.94  0.60   2.3 mm
40e3 75e3 75e3
By superposition, si = si1+si2-si3 = 4.2 + 3.2 – 2.3 = 5 mm

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 19

Settlements from consolidation theory
1-D consolidation settlement can be predicted using oedometer tests.
In the oedometer tests, the lateral strain is zero and for this condition
the initial excess pore-water pressure is theoretically equal to the
increase in total vertical stress. In practice, many situations involve
significant lateral strain and the initial excess pore-water pressure is
dependent on the in-situ stress conditions.

Consideran element of soil under principal stresses,1 ,  2 , 3 .

If the major principal stress(1 ) is increasedby an amount 1
due to a shallow foundation, there will be an immediate increase
in pore - water pressureu1. The increasesin effective stressesare

'1  1  u1

'3  '2  u1

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 20

Settlements from consolidation theory
If the soil behavedas an elastic material during application of load,
reductionin volume of soil skeletonis given by

Cs V'1  '2  '3   Cs V1  3u1 

1 1
3 3

The reductionin pore spaceis

C v nVu1

Under undrainedcondition,this two volumes are equal,i.e.

Cs V1  3u1   C v nVu1

1
3
 
 
1 1    1 B
u1  
 Cv  
1 1
3 3
1  n  
  
 Cs  

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 21

Settlements from consolidation theory
However soil is not elastic and a more generalform is given by
u1  AB1 (8.55)
where A is a pore pressurecoefficient to be determined experimentally.

Note both A and B are more commonly known as Skempton's pore pressurecoefficients.

For a fully saturatedsoil, B  1,

u1  A1 (8.56)

For a 3 - D situation, the generalequationfor pore - water pressureresponseu to an

isotropicstressincrease3 togetherwith a deviatoricstressincrease( 1  3 )
is given by :
u  u 3  u1
 B3  AB1  3 
 B3  A 1  3  (8.57)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 22

Settlements from consolidation theory
If lateral strain is zero, immediate settlementis zero under undrainedsituation.
In caseswhere lateral strain is not zero, there will be immediate settlementin
addition to consolidation settlement. In the Skempton - Bjerrum method, the
totalsettlement(s) of a clay foundationis given by
s  si  s c

For a fully saturatedsoil,

 3 
u i  u  1 A  1  A  (8.58)
 1 
Note :
Types of clay A
u i  3 if A  0
Highly sensitive clays >1
u i  1 if A  1
Normally consolidated 0.5 to 1
Lightly overconsolidated 0 to 0.5
Heavily overconsolidated -0.5 to 1

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 23

Settlements from consolidation theory
In the oedometertest,
V e0  e1

V0 1  e0
dsoed e0  e1

dz 1  e0
 e  e  ' ' 
dsoed   0 1  1 0 dz
 '1 '0  1  e0 
 m v ' dz
soed  0H m v 1dz

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 24

Settlements from consolidation theory
By theSkempton - Bjerrum method,the consolidation settlementis given by
s c  0H m v u i dz
 3 
 0H m v u i 1 A  1  A dz
 1 
s c   cs oed (8.59)
where
 3 
H

0 v i 1 A
m u  1  A dz
 1 
c 
0 m v 1dz
H

If m v and A are assumedconstant with depth,

 c  A  1  A  (8.60)
where
0 3dz
H
 H
0 1dz

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 25

Settlements from consolidation theory

Figure 8.29 Settlement coefficient c (after Scott, 1963)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 26

Example 8.5
A footing 6 m square carrying a net pressure of 160 kPa is located at a
depth of 2 m in a deposit of stiff clay 17 m thick; a firm stratum lies
immediately below the clay. From oedometer tests on specimens of
the clay the value of mv was found to be 0.13 m3/MN, and from triaxial
tests the value of A was found to be 0.35. The undrained Young’s
modulus for the clay is estimated to be 55 MPa. Determine the total
settlement under the centre of the footing.

In this problem, there will be considerable lateral strain and therefore

there are immediate and consolidation settlement, i.e. si + sc. Use
Skempton-Bjerrum method.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 27

Example 8.5

Immediate settlement:
d 2
  0.33  0  0.95
B 6
H 15 L
  2.5,  1  1  0.55
B 6 B
qB 160  6
Hence,si  0i  0.95  0.55   9 mm
Eu 55e3

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 28

Example 8.5
Consolidation settlement:
Divide stiff clay into 5 sub - layers of thicknessh  3 m beneath the footing and use Fadum's chart :
'  qIqr  4  160  Iqr (kPa )
soed  m v ' h  0.13  '3  0.39 ' (mm )
Layer z (m) m,n Iqr ’ (kPa) soed (mm)
1 1.5 2.00 0.233 149 58.1
2 4.5 0.67 0.121 78 30.4
3 7.5 0.40 0.060 38 14.8
4 10.5 0.285 0.033 21 8.2
5 13.5 0.222 0.021 13 5.1
Ssoed 116.6

Using Scott (1963) chart :

D2 4 B2 4  62
Equating area B  2
D   6.77 m
4  
H 15
  2.2  c  0.55
D 6.77 Consolidation settlement, sc   cs oed  0.55  116 .6  64 mm
Total settlement, s  si  s c  9  64  73 mm

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 29

Settlement from in-situ test data
Due to extreme difficulty of obtaining undisturbed sand
samples for laboratory testing and to inherent
heterogeneity of sand deposits, foundation settlements on
coarse-grained soils are normally estimated by means of
correlations based on the results of in-situ tests such as
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration
Test (CPT).

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 30

SPT
63.5 kg drop hammer.
Need to correct to a reference energy
efficiency due to different hammer used
(N60).

Split –barrel
sampler
(hollow tube)

Seating Load 0.15m 1st Increment

0.15m 2nd Increment

N = No. of blows
over 0.3m 0.15m 3rd Increment
CPT

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 32

Analysis using SPT data
Burland and Burbidge (1985) carried out a statistical
analysis of over 200 settlement records of foundations on
sands and gravels. A relationship was established
between compressibility of the soil, width of the
foundation and average SPT blowcount ( N ) over the
depth of influence (zI) of the foundation.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 33

Analysis using SPT data
The depth of influence (zI)
of the foundation can be
estimated using Figure
8.31.

The compressibility index is related to

the averagevalue of the corrected
 
standardpenetration resistance N 60 :
1.71
Ic 
Figure 8.31 Relationship between
depth of influence and width of
 
N 60
1.4

foundation (Burland and Burbidge

1985)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 34

Analysis using SPT data
In the caseof fine sandsand silty sandsbelow the ground water table, need to correct
N if N  15 for the increasedresistancedue to negativeexcess pore - water pressure
set up during driving and unable to dissipateimmediately :

N'  15 
1
N  15 
2

For gravels and sandygravels,

N  1.25N

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 35

Analysis using SPT data
Settlement  Fs Fl Ft s
where
s  qB0.7 Ic for normally consolidated sand

 2  'max  preconsolidation pressure

s   q - 'max B0.7 Ic if q  'max 
 3 
I
s  qB0.7 c if q  'max  for overconsolidated sand
3
2
 L 
 1.25  H H
Fs   B  , Fl   2   if H  z I
 L  0.25  zI  zI 
 
B 
  t 
Ft  1  R 3  R t log  if t  3 years
  3 
R 3  0.3, R t  0.2 (Conservative estimate from Burland for static loading)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 36

 Analysis using CPT data
The estimate of settlement is
based on a simplified
distribution of vertical strain
under the centre, or centre-
line, of a shallow foundation 0 .5
expressed in the form of  qn 
I zp  0.5  0.1 
strain influence factor Iz   'p 
 
(Schmertmann 1970, 1978).

Lee et al. (2008):

zf 0    L   
 0.95 cos min  ,6   1    3
B  5  B   
zf 0  L  
 0.11min  ,6   1  0.5  1
B  B  

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 37

Analysis using CPT data
The settlement is based of a footing carying net pressure qn is given
as: Z
f 0 Iz
s  C1C2q n  z
0 E
where
'q
C1  correction factor for depth  1 - 0.5
qn
 t 
C 2  correction factor for creep  1  0.2log   Note : t in years
 0.1 

For normally consolidated sands,

E = 2.5qc for square foundations (L/B = 1)
E = 3.5qc for strip foundations (L/B ≥ 10)

For overconsolidated sands,

E = 5qc for square foundations (L/B = 1)
E = 7qc for strip foundations (L/B ≥ 10)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 38

Example 8.6
A footing 2.5 m x 2.5 m
supports a net foundation
pressure of 150 kPa at a
depth of 1.0 m in a deep
deposit of normally
consolidated fine sand of
unit weight 17 kN/m3. The
variation of cone resistance
with depth is shown in the
figure. Estimate the
settlement of the footing.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 39

Example 8.6
(1) Draw the strain influence
diagram

Peak value of strain Izp occurs at

B/2 below foundation level i.e.
at depth of 2.25 m
0.5
 qn 
I zp  0.5  0.1 
  'p 
 
0.5
 150 
 0.5  0.1   0.70
 17  2.25 

(2) Idealise the qc profile and

divide into layers from 0 to
zf0 = 2B

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 40

Example 8.6
(3) Calculate Izz/E for sublayers (E = 2.5qc):
Layer z (m) qc (MPa) E (MPa) Iz Izz/E
1 0.90 2.3 5.75 0.32 0.050
2 0.50 3.6 9.00 0.68 0.038
3 1.60 5.0 12.50 0.50 0.064
4 0.40 7.5 18.75 0.33 0.007
5 1.20 3.3 8.25 0.18 0.026
6 0.40 9.9 24.75 0.04 0.001
SIzz/E = 0.186

(4) Calculate correction factors: (5) Calculate settlement:

'q 1  17
C1  1 - 0.5  1  0.5  0.94 2B I
qn 150 s  C1C2q n  z
z  0.94  1  150  0.186  26 mm
0 E
 t 
C2  1  0.2log   1
 0.1 

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 41

Design for shallow foundation
To perform in a satisfactory way, the foundation must
meet two principal performance requirements (known
as limit states), namely:

1.such that its capacity or resistance is sufficient to

support the loads (actions) applied (i.e. so that it doesn’t
collapse) – strength - ULS
2.to avoid excessive deformation under these loads,
which might damage the supported structure or lead to
a loss of function – serviceability - SLS

Limit State Design

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 42

CP4: 2003 Foundation Design
(BS 8004:1986 Code of practice for foundations)
Eurocode Part Title Publication Singapore
Date National Annex
Publication
Date
SS EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7. Oct 2010 Dec 2010
Geotechnical design.
General rules
SS EN 1997-2 Eurocode 7. Oct 2010 Mar 2011
Geotechnical design.
Ground investigation
and testing

CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 43

 SS EN 1990 Eurocode 0 Basis of design

CV3301-LEC (2012)
SS EN 1991 Eurocode 1 Action on
structures
SS EN 1992 Eurocode 2 Design of
concrete structures
SS EN 1993 Eurocode 3 Design of steel
structures
SS EN 1994 Eurocode 4 Design of
composite steel and concrete structures

Lecture 2
SS EN 1995 Eurocode 5 Design of
timber structures
SS EN 1996 Eurocode 6 Design of
masonry structures

SS EN 1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical

design
2 PARTS

SS EN 1998 Eurocode 8 Design of

structure for earthquake resistance

SS EN 1999 Eurocode 8 Design of

aluminium alloy structures
44
44
 Design:
SS EN
1997-1
SS EN
1997-2

Ground
Execution Properties
Standards Geotechnical TC341
TC288 Standards
Projects

Other
structural ISO/CEN
Eurocode Standards
s e.g. SS
EN1993-
Part 5

CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 45

Basis of Geotechnical Design
Design Approaches
Design Approach 1

Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1

Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1
or
Combination 2: A2 “+” (M1 or M2) “+” R4 for axially loaded piles or
anchors
Design Approach 2
Combination : A1 “+” M1 “+” R2

Design Approach 3
Combination : (A1 or A2) “+” M1 “+” R3
A1 :on structural actions
A2 :on geotechnical actions

CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 46

 EC 7 – Limit state design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings & piles
Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 2 - piles
A1 M1 R1 A2 M2 R1 A2 M1 or M2 R4
Actions Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.0


Favourable 1.0 1.0 1.0
Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3 1.3
Soil tan f ' 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion, c' 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Undrained strength cu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Unconfined strength qu 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4
Weight g 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Spread footingsBearing 1.0 1.0
Sliding 1.0 1.0
Driven piles Base 1.0 1.7/1.5
Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.5/1.3
Total/combined 1.0 1.7/1.5
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.0/1.7
Bored piles Base 1.0 2.0/1.8
Shaft (compression) 1.0 1.6/1.4
Total/combined 1.0 2.0/1.7
Shaft in tension 1.0 2.0/1.8

Characteristic value

CV3301-LEC (2012) Lecture 2 47

Design at ULS
To satisfy ultimate limit state, the sum of the applied
actions (loads) Q on the foundation must be less than or
equal to the available resistance R which is dependent
on the material properties X:

 Q  R X 

To provide some margin of error associated with Q, R

and X, partial factors g (> 1.0) are applied:
X 
R  
 gX  Design values
 g AQ 
gR
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 48
Example 8.7
A foundation 2.0 m x 2.0 m is located at a depth of 1.5 m in a layered
clay of saturated unit weight 21 kN/m3. The characteristic undrained
shear strength is 160 kPa in the upper 2.5 m thick, and 80 kPa below.
The foundation supports existing dead load of 1000 kN, and is
subjected to a variable load of 500 kN. Additional floors are to be
added to the support structure which will increase the dead load
acting on the foundation. Determine the maximum allowable
additional dead load which can be supported by the foundation under
undrained conditions if it is to satisfy EC7 design approach 1 at ULS.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 49

Example 8.7
Let the unknown increase in dead load be QI, the total applied action
on the foundation is given by:

 Qg A  1000  QI   g A1   500  g A 2 
permanent variable
unfavourable unfavourable

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 50

Example 8.7
The resistance R (bearing capacity x area) is given by:

 
R  q f A f  s c N cc u  q A f
  
 s N  c u1    g d  A f
c c  g 
 g
 cu   g
R  

gR gR

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 51

Bearing Capacity Factors (Undrained)
For two layer soil,

Merifield et al. (1999) Merifield and Nguyen (2006)

Solid lines for UB, dashed lines for LB for square footings
H 2.5  1.5 c 160
For   0.5 and u1   2.0,
Note: in calculating qf, cu = cu1 B 2.0 cu2 80
Nc  3.53 and sc  1.41

CV3013-LEC (2013) Week 2 52

Example 8.7
The resistance R (bearing capacity x area) is given by:

R  q f A f  s c N cc u  q A f
  
 s N  c u1    g d  A f
c c   
  g cu   g g
R  

gR gR
  160   21 
1.41  3.52       1.5  2  2 
 g  g 
 cu   g 

gR
3176.4 126

g cu gg

gR

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 53

Example 8.7
To satisfy ULS:
3176.4 126

g cu gg
1000  QI   g A1   500  g A 2  
gR
Partial Factors Design Approach 1a Design Approach 1b
gA1 1.35 1.00
gA2 1.50 1.30
gcu 1.00 1.40
gg 1.00 1.00
gR 1.00 1.00
Maximum QI (kN) 891 745

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 54

Design at SLS
To satisfy serviceability limit state, the effect of the
applied actions EA (action effect) giving a settlement
must be less than or equal to a limiting value of the
action effect, CA (limiting settlement) :

EA  CA

After a foundation has been sized to satisfy ULS, the

settlement of the foundation (s = EA) is found and this
has to be less than the limiting settlement CA.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 55

Design at SLS
Normally limiting settlement CA is specified. In the event that
no CA is given, the following may be used:

For normal structures with isolated foundations – 50 mm

For normal structures with isolated foundations
in sands – 25 mm

Zhang and Ng (2005) suggested total settlements for

Building foundations – 125 mm

Bridge foundations – 135 mm

(Based on probabilistic study of a large number of

structures suffering various levels of serviceability damage)
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 56
Design at SLS
Generally the guidelines should be applied to normal,
routine structures and should not be applied to buildings or
structures which are out of the ordinary for which the
loading intensity is markedly non-uniform.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 57

Design at SLS
Larger settlements may be acceptable provided the total
settlements do not cause problems with services entering
the structure or causing tilt.

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 58

Design at SLS

Figure 10.2 Differential settlement, angular distortion and tilt.

CV3301- LEC (2012 updated) Lecture 3 59

Design at SLS
Table 10.1 Angular distortion limits for building structures
1/150 Structural damage of general building expected
1/300 Cracking in panel walls expected
Difficulties with overhead cranes
1/500 Limit for building in which crack is not permissible
1/600 Overstressing of structural frames with diagonals
1/750 Difficulties with machinery sensitive to settlement

CV3301- LEC (2012 updated) Lecture 3 60

Design at SLS
Table 10.2 Tilt limits for building structures
1/50 Building is likely to be structurally unsound, requiring re-
levelling or demolition
1/100 Floor drainage may not work, stacking of goods dangerous
1/250 Tilting of high-rise buildings (e.g. chimneys and towers) may
be visible
1/333 Difficulties with overhead cranes
1/400 Design limit value for low-rise housing
1/500 Maximum limit for monolithic concrete tanks
1/2000 Difficulties with high racking warehouses
1/5000 Maximum limit for machine foundations (e.g. power station
turbines)

CV3301- LEC (2012 updated) Lecture 3 61

Example 8.9
A square footing carrying an applied pressure of 250 kPa is to be
located at a depth of 1.5 m in a sand deposit, the ground water table
being 3.5 m below the surface. Values of standard penetration
resistance were determined as detailed in Table 8.14. Determine the
minimum width of the foundation if the settlement is limited to 25 mm.

Depth (m) N60 ’v (kPa) CN (N1)60

0.75 8 - - -
1.55 7 26 2.0 14
2.30 9 39 1.6 14
3.00 13 51 1.4 18
3.70 12 65 1.25 15
4.45 16 70 1.2 19
5.20 20 - - -

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 62

Analysis using SPT data
The depth of influence (zI)
of the foundation can be
estimated using Figure
8.31.

The compressibility index is related to

the averagevalue of the corrected
 
standardpenetration resistance N 60 :
1.71
Ic 
Figure 8.31 Relationship between
depth of influence and width of
 
N 60
1.4

foundation (Burland and Burbidge

1985)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 63

Analysis using SPT data
In the caseof fine sandsand silty sandsbelow the ground water table, need to correct
N if N  15 for the increasedresistancedue to negativeexcess pore - water pressure
set up during driving and unable to dissipateimmediately :

N'  15 
1
N  15 
2

For gravels and sandygravels,

N  1.25N

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 64

Analysis using SPT data
Settlement  Fs Fl Ft s
where
s  qB0.7 I c for normally consolidated sand

 2 
s   q - ' max  B0.7 I c if q  ' max  'max  preconsolidation pressure
 3 
I
s  qB0.7 c if q  ' max  for overconsolidated sand
3
2
 L 
 1.25  H  H
Fs   B  , Fl   2   if H  z I
 L  0.25  zI  zI 
 
B 
  t 
Ft  1  R 3  R t log  if t  3 years
  3 
R 3  0.3, R t  0.2 (Conservative estimate from Burland for staticloading)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 65

Example 8.9
1. Assume a value for B, say B = 3.00 m.

2. Based on B and Figure 8.31, determine depth of influence ZI gives

ZI =2.2 m

3. Determine average value of N60 between 1.5 m (foundation depth)

to 1.5+ZI =3.7 m.

N60 = (7+9+13+12)/4 = 10

4. Determine the compressibility index Ic

1.71 1.71
Ic    0.068
N 
60
1.4
10 
1.4

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 66

Example 8.9
5. Determine action effect EA (= s)

Settlement  Fs Fl Ft s
where
s  qB0.7 I c for normally consolidated sand  250  B0.7  0.068  17 B0.7 mm
2
 L 
 1.25  H H
Fs   B   1, Fl   2   if H  z I  1
 L  0.25  zI  zI 
 
B 
  t 
Ft  1  R 3  R t log  if t  3 years  1
  3 
R 3  0.3, R t  0.2 (Conservative estimate from Burland for staticloading)

CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 67

Example 8.9
6. Applying equation for SLS

E A  CA
17 B0.7  25
B  1.73 m
7. Repeat steps 2 to 6 with new B
new B
Iteration B (m) zI (m) N60 Ic
(m)
1 3.00 2.2 10 0.068 1.73
2 1.73 1.5 9 0.079 1.40
3 1.40 1.2 8 0.093 1.11
4 1.11 1.1 8 0.093 1.11
CV3013- LEC (2013) Week 3 68