Design Considerations, Bearing

capacity and Settlement

Associate Professor Leong Eng Choon
Office: N1-1C-80
Tel: 6790 4774
Email: [email protected]

1 CV6313/LEC/2
 The foundation design must satisfy the following
criteria:
• Factor of safety/Resistance w.r.t. collapse of
building or failure of the foundation is adequate
both during the construction and the life of the
structure
• Settlements at working load are sufficiently small
that they do not affect the function of the
building
• Adverse effects on adjacent structures and on
the environment are as small as possible during
construction as well as during the life of the
2
structure
CV6313/LEC/2
 SS EN1997-1 Section 6
6.2 Limit States ULS
ƒLoss of overall stability;
ƒBearing resistance failure, punching failure, squeezing;
ƒFailure by sliding
ƒCombined failure in the ground and in the structure;
ƒStructural failure due to foundation movement;
ƒExcessive settlements;
ƒExcessive heave due to swelling, frost and other
causes;
ƒUnacceptable vibrations.

SLS
3 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing Pressure
- contact pressure along the bottom of the foundation
- not necessary uniform and the actual distribution is
dependent on several factors such as:
• Eccentricity
• Magnitude of applied moment
• Structural rigidity of the foundation
• Stress-strain properties of the soil
• Roughness of the bottom of the foundation

4 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing pressure
100 kN

A = 2 m2

F 100kN
q= = 2
= 50 kN / m 2
= 50 kPa
A 2m

5 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing Pressure
- contact pressure along the bottom of the foundation
- not necessary uniform and the actual distribution is
dependent on several factors such as:
• Eccentricity
• Magnitude of applied moment
• Structural rigidity of the foundation
• Stress-strain properties of the soil
• Roughness of the bottom of the foundation

6 CV6313/LEC/2
 Distribution of bearing pressure
Clay Sand

Flexible

Rigid

Idealised
7 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing pressure
100 kN

A = 2 m2

F 100kN
q= = 2
= 50 kN / m 2
= 50 kPa
A 2m

Gross, effective and net bearing pressures?

8 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing pressure
Example: The mat foundation in the figure is 30 m wide, 50 m long
and 1.5m thick. The sum of the column and wall loads is 280 MN.
Compute the gross (q), effective (q’) and net bearing pressure (qn).

Gross Bearing Pressure

2m P + Wf
q=
4m
A
γ= 19 kN/m3
280000kN + 53100kN
γconc = 23.6 kN/m3 =
1500m 2
Wf = (30m)(50m)(1.5m)(23.6kN / m 3 )
= 222 kPa
= 53100 kN
u wD = (9.81kN / m 3 )(4m − 2m) = 19.6 kPa
A = (30m)(50m) = 1500 m 2
9 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing pressure
Example: The mat foundation in the figure is 30 m wide, 50 m long
and 1.5m thick. The sum of the column and wall loads is 280 MN.
Compute the average bearing pressure and the net bearing pressure.

Effective Bearing Pressure

2m q' = q − u wD
4m = 222 − 19.6
γ= 19 kN/m3
γconc = 23.6 kN/m3 = 202 kPa
Wf = (30m)(50m)(1.5m)(23.6kN / m 3 )
= 53100 kN
u wD = (9.81kN / m 3 )(4m − 2m) = 19.6 kPa
A = (30m)(50m) = 1500 m 2
10 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing pressure
Example: The mat foundation in the figure is 30 m wide, 50 m long
and 1.5m thick. The sum of the column and wall loads is 280 MN.
Compute the average bearing pressure and the net bearing pressure.

Net Bearing Pressure

2m q n = q − σ zD

4m = 222 kPa − (19 kN / m 3 )( 4 m )

γ= 19 kN/m3
γconc = 23.6 kN/m3 = 146 kPa
Wf = (30m)(50m)(1.5m)(23.6kN / m 3 ) q n = q '− σ'zD
= 53100 kN = 202 kPa −

u wD = (9.81kN / m )(4m − 2m) = 19.6 kPa

3 [(19 kN / m )(4m) − (9.8kN / m )(2m)]
3 3

= 146 kPa
A = (30m)(50m) = 1500 m 2

11 CV6313/LEC/2
12 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing Capacity
Ultimate bearing capacity, qult, is the least pressure
that would cause shear failure of the soil immediately
below or adjacent to a foundation.

Allowable bearing capacity, qa, is the maximum

pressure that may be applied to the soil such that:
• settlement is limited to a tolerable amount, and
• ultimate bearing capacity is not exceeded

13 CV6313/LEC/2
 Ultimate bearing capacity
Three modes of shear failure:

• General shear failure

• Local shear failure
• Punching shear failure

14 CV6313/LEC/2
 General shear failure

• continuous failure surfaces

• associated with soils of low compressibility
• tilting of foundation

15 CV6313/LEC/2
 Local shear failure

• significant soil compression

• partial development of slip surface, only slight heave
• associated with soils of high compressibility
• tilting of foundation is not expected
16 CV6313/LEC/2
 Punching shear failure

• shearing in vertical direction around the edges of

foundation
• no heaving of ground
• no tilting of foundation
17 CV6313/LEC/2
Which mode of bearing capacity failure?

18 CV6313/LEC/2
 • Shallow foundations in rock, undrained clays and
dense sands (Dr > 67%) are governed by the
general shear case
• Shallow foundations on loose to medium dense
sands (30% < Dr < 67%) are probably governed
by local shear
• Shallow foundations on very loose sand (Dr <
30%) are probably governed by punching shear.

19 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing capacity equations
Ultimate bearing capacity can be estimated from one of
many proposed bearing capacity equations, four of which
are listed here:

1. Terzaghi (1943)
2. Meyerhof (1951, 1963)
3. Hansen (1957, 1970)
4. Vesic (1973)
5. *Eurocode 7 – Annex D

20 CV6313/LEC/2
21 CV6313/LEC/2
 Terzaghi bearing capacity equation

Coduto (2001) suggested an approximation for N γ :

2(N q − 1) tan φ'
Nγ ≈
1 + 0.4 sin (4φ')

22 CV6313/LEC/2
 Meyerhof bearing capacity equation

23 CV6313/LEC/2
 Hansen bearing capacity equation

24 CV6313/LEC/2
 Vesic bearing capacity equation

25 CV6313/LEC/2
 Factors in bearing capacity equations

26 CV6313/LEC/2
 Factors in bearing capacity equations

27 CV6313/LEC/2
 Factors in bearing capacity equations

Bowles (1996) suggests:

2<α1<3
3<α2<4

28 CV6313/LEC/2
 Factors in bearing capacity equations

29 CV6313/LEC/2
 Hansen’s shape factors for inclined loading
icB B' icL L'
s'cB = 0.2 s'cL = 0.2
L' B'
N q icB B' N q icL L'
scB = 1 + scL = 1 +
N c L' N c B'
iqB B' iqL L'
sqB = 1 + sin φ sqL = 1 + sin φ
L' B'
i γB B' i γL L'
s γB = 1 − 0.4 s γ L = 1 − 0.4
i γL L' i γL B'

30 CV6313/LEC/2
 General observations of bearing capacity
equations:

• The cohesion term predominates in cohesive soil.

• The depth term (qNq) predominates in
cohesionless soils. Only a small D increases qult
substantially.
• The base width term (0.5γBNγ) provides some
increase in bearing capacity for both cohesive and
cohesionless soils.

31 CV6313/LEC/2
Example: Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of a mat
foundation measuring 15 m x 10 m on a saturated clay with cu
= 95 kN/m2, φ = 0, and Df = 2m using (a) Hansen’s bearing
capacity equation, (b) Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation,
and (c) Meyerhoff’s equation.

Using Hansen’s equation:

32 CV6313/LEC/2
Example: Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of a mat
foundation measuring 15 m x 10 m on a saturated clay with cu
= 95 kN/m2, φ = 0, and Df = 2m using (a) Hansen’s bearing
capacity equation, (b) Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation,
and (c) Meyerhoff’s equation.
B' ⎛ 10m ⎞
s c ' = 0.2 = 0.2⎜ ⎟ = 0.133
L' ⎝ 15m ⎠
D 2
= = 0.2 < 1
B 10
D
d c ' = 0.4k = 0.4 = 0.08
B
q ult = 5.14s u (1 + s c '+d c ') + q
q n = q ult − q = 5.14s u (1 + s c '+ d c ')
( )
= 5.14 95kN / m 3 (1 + 0.133 + 0.08) = 592.3kPa
33 CV6313/LEC/2
Example: Determine the net ultimate bearing capacity of a mat
foundation measuring 15 m x 10 m on a saturated clay with cu
= 95 kN/m2, φ = 0, and Df = 2m using (a) Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity equation, (b) Meyerhoff’s equation.
Using Terzaghi' s equation :
q ult = cN cs c + qN q
q n = q ult − q = cN cs c
⎡ ⎛ 10m ⎞⎤
( )
= 95kN / m 3 (5.7 )⎢1 + 0.3⎜ ⎟⎥ = 649.8kPa
⎣ ⎝ 15m ⎠⎦
Using Meyerhoff's quation :
q ult = 5.14s u s c d c + q
q n = q ult − q = 5.14s u s c d c

( ⎛
)B ⎞⎛ D⎞
= 5.14 95kN / m 3 ⎜1 + 0.2 ⎟⎜1 + 0.2 ⎟ = 575.5kPa
34 CV6313/LEC/2 ⎝ L ⎠⎝ B⎠
 Accuracy of Bearing Capacity Analyses

35 CV6313/LEC/2
Which bearing capacity equation to use?
Bowles (1996) recommended:
Use Best for
Terzaghi Very cohesive soils where D/B ≤ 1 or for a quick
estimate of qf to compare with other methods. Do
not use for foundations with moments and/or
horizontal forces or for tilted bases and/or sloping
ground.
Hansen, Meyerhof, Any situation that applies, depending on user
Vesic preference or familiarity with a particular method.

Hansen, Vesic When base is tilted; when foundation is on a

slope or when D/B > 1

36 CV6313/LEC/2
 Other Considerations

For local shear failure, Terzaghi (1943) proposed reducing

c and φ:

c* = 0.67c
φ* = tan −1
(0.67 tan φ)

37 CV6313/LEC/2
 Other Considerations (cont’d)
Bowles (1996) suggested that a reduction factor rγ be
applied to the BNγ term for B > 2m:
⎛B⎞
rγ = 1 − 0.25 log⎜ ⎟ B ≥ 2m
⎝2⎠
B=2.0m 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 100.0
rγ=1.0 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.82 0.75 0.57

Vesic (1973) recommended that depth factors di should not

be used for shallow foundations (D/B ≤ 1) because of the
uncertainties in quality of overburden.
38 CV6313/LEC/2
 Effects of Groundwater Table
Relevant only for effective stress analysis
y Case 1: Dw ≤ D
y Case 2: D < Dw < D+B
y Case 3: D+B ≤ Dw

⎡ ⎛ D − D ⎞⎤
γ' = γ − γ w γ ' = γ − γ w ⎢1 − ⎜ w ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ B ⎠⎦ γ' = γ
39 CV6313/LEC/2
Groundwater Effects
Effective stress analysis, φ' and c'
q 'ult = c' N cs c d ci c b c g c + σ'zD N q s q d q i q b q g q + 0.5γ ' BN γ s γ d γ i γ b γ g γ
q ult = q 'ult + u D

Total stress analysis, φT and c T ,

q ult = c T N cs c d ci c b c g c + σ zD N q s q d q i q b q g q + 0.5γBN γ s γ d γ i γ b γ g γ

CV6313/LEC/2 40
Example: A 30m x 50m mat foundation is proposed as shown compute
the ultimate bearing capacity using Vesic’s method
For φ' = 30 o : N q = 18.4, N γ = 22.4
σ'zD = γD − u = 185kPa
⎛ B⎞
s q = 1 + ⎜ ⎟ tan φ' = 1.35
⎝L⎠
⎛ B⎞
s γ = 1 − 0.4⎜ ⎟ = 0.76
⎝L⎠
D 10
k= = = 0.33
B 30
d q = 1 + 2k tan φ' (1 − sin φ') = 1.1
2

D w = 12m; D = 10m; B = 30m d γ = 1.0

∴ Case 2 : D < D w < D + B ⎛ B⎞
rγ = 1 − 0.25 log⎜ ⎟ = 0.71
⎡ ⎛ D − D ⎞⎤ ⎝2⎠
γ ' = γ − γ w ⎢1 − ⎜ w ⎟⎥ = 9.4kN / m
3

⎣ ⎝ B ⎠⎦ ∴ q ult = σ'zD N q s q d q + 0.5γ ' BN γ s γ d γ rγ

= 6759 kPa
41 CV6313/LEC/2
 Foundations with eccentric or moment
loads

42 CV6313/LEC/2
 Foundations with eccentric or moment
loads – 1-way

M B ⎛ P + Wf ⎞⎛ 6e ⎞
e= if e ≤ , qmin = ⎜ − uD ⎟⎜1− ⎟
P + Wf 6 ⎝ A ⎠⎝ B ⎠
⎛ P + Wf ⎞⎛ 6e ⎞
qmax = ⎜ − uD ⎟⎜1+ ⎟
⎝ A ⎠⎝ B ⎠
43 CV6313/LEC/2
 Eccentrically loaded foundations – 1 way
M
R e=
Q
B’ A' = 2S = B' L'
e
⎛R +e⎞
0.5
A' L’ L' = 2S⎜ ⎟
R2 ⎝ R −e⎠
B' R −e
B' = L'
R +e
R

πR 2 ⎡ ⎛ e ⎞⎤
where S = − ⎢e R 2 − e 2 + R 2 sin −1 ⎜ ⎟⎥
2 ⎣ ⎝ R ⎠⎦

44 CV6313/LEC/2
 Eccentrically loaded foundations – 2 way

M1
eL =
Q
M
eB = 2
Q
L' = L − 2e L
B' = B − 2e B

45 CV6313/LEC/2
Eccentrically loaded foundations
For Hansen or Vesic bearing capacity equation,
(a) Use B’ in γBNγ term
(b) Use B’ and L’ in computing shape factors
(c) Use actual B and L for all depth factors
For Meyerhof bearing capacity equation
Use q ult with a reduction factor R e i.e. q ult,design = R e q ult
e
For cohesive soils, R e = 1 − 2
B
e e
For cohesionless soils, R e = 1 − (0 < < 0.3)
B B
Alternatively,
(a) Use B' and L' to compute shape and depth factors
(b) Use B' in γBN γ term
CV6313/LEC/2 46
 Example: Determine qult for the 2m x 2m square footing shown below using
Hansen’s equation. Shape Factors : (B' = B)
N q B' i c,B
s c,B = 1 + = 1.329
Nc L
⎛ B' i q ,B ⎞
s q,B = 1 + sin φ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 1.285
⎝ L ⎠
For φ = 25o , ⎛ B' i γ ,B ⎞
s γ ,B = 1 + 0.4⎜ ⎟ = 0.808 > 0.6
N c = 20.7, N q = 10.7, N γ = 6.8 ⎜ Li ⎟
⎝ γ ,L ⎠
Depth factors :
Base Factors :
d γ = 1.0
η
d c = 1 + 0.4D / B = 1 + 0.4(D / B) = 1 + 0.4(0.3 / 2 ) = 1.06 b c,B = 1 − = 0.93
147 o
d q = 1 + 2 tan φ(1 − sin φ) (D / B) = 1.05
= exp(− 2η tan φ) = 0.849 (Note : η in radians)
2
b q ,B
Inclination Factors :
b γ ,B = exp(− 2.7η tan φ) = 0.802 (Note : η in radians)
use α1 = 3 and α 2 = 4,
⎡ ⎤
α1 Ground Factors :
0.5H B
i q ,B = ⎢1 − ⎥ = 0.675 All g i = 1.0
⎣ V + A f c a cot φ ⎦
⎡
= ⎢1 −
( )
0.7 − η / 450o H B ⎤
α2

= 0.481
i γ ,B ⎥ Therefore,
⎣ V + A f c a cot φ ⎦
i γ ,L = 1.0 (since H L = 0) q ult = cN cs c,Bd c,Bi c,B b c,B + qN q s q ,Bd q ,Bi q ,B b q ,B
1 − iq 1
i c,B = i q − = 0.641 + γB' N γ s γ ,Bd γ ,Bi γ ,B b γ ,B
Nq −1
2
47 CV6313/LEC/2
= 515.1 kPa
 Bearing capacity on layered soils
It is quite common to encounter sites with stratified soil
deposits. The rupture zone for foundation bases sited in these
deposits may extend through a few different soil layers and
some modification of qult is required.

48 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing capacity on layered soils (cont’d)
1. Evaluate bearing capacity using the Most conservative
lowest c’,φ’ and γ in the zone between
the bottom of the foundation and depth
B.
2. Use weighted values of c’,φ’ and γ Can be conservative or
based on the relative thickness of each unconservative
strata between the bottom of the depending on the
foundation and depth B. variations in properties of
the various soil strata
3. Consider a series of trial failure Most rigorous and also
surfaces beneath the foundation and the most tedious
evaluate the stresses on each surface
similar to those employed in slope
stability analyses.

49 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing capacity on layered soils (cont’d)

Consider 3 general cases:

Case 1 - Foundation base on layered clays (all φ = 0)

Case 2 - Foundation base on layered φ - c soils

Case 3 - Foundation base on layered sand and clay soils

(a) Sand overlying clay
(b) Clay overlying sand

50 CV6313/LEC/2
 Case 1 - Foundation base on layered clays
(all φ = 0)
Button (1953)

CV6313/LEC/2 51
Case 1 - Foundation base on layered clays
(all φ = 0) (cont’d)

CV6313/LEC/2 52
Case 2 - Foundation base on layered φ - c soils
1 ⎛ φ⎞
H= B tan ⎜ 45o + ⎟
2 ⎝ 2⎠
c1 , φ 1 or
h1
H=B
h2 H c2 , φ 2 n

h3 c3 , φ 3
∑c h i i
c avg = i =1
n

c4 , φ 4
∑h
i =1
i

∑h i tan φi
φavg = tan −1 i =1
n

∑h
i =1
i

CV6313/LEC/2 53
 Case 3 - Foundation base on layered sand and clay soils
(a) Sand overlying clay
(b) Clay overlying sand

For sand overlying clay, pPv K s tan φ pd1c

q 'ult = + + q"ult
1. Find qult for top stratum. A A
2. Find q’ult by assuming punching failure bounded by the
base perimeter and including the contribution of bearing
capacity q”ult from the lower clay layer.
CV6313/LEC/2
q ult = min (q ult , q 'ult )
54
 Case 3 - Foundation base on layered sand and clay soils
(a) Sand overlying clay
(b) Clay overlying sand

For clay overlying sand,

1. Find qult for top stratum.
2. Use Case 2 to find q’ult q ult = min (q ult , q 'ult )

55 CV6313/LEC/2
 Example: Given the mat foundation geometry as shown
in the figure below, what is the ultimate bearing capacity
using Hansen’s equation?
Using Hansen' s equation,
Top sand layer :
For φ = 34o , N q = 29.4, N γ = 28.7
s q = 1 + sin φ = 1 + sin(34o ) = 1.56
⎛ B⎞
s γ = 1 − 0.4⎜ ⎟ = 1 − 0.4 = 0.6
⎝L⎠
d q = 1 + 2 tan φ(1 − sin φ)
2 D
= 1.2
B
d γ = 1.0
q ult = qN q s q d q + 0.5γBN γ s γ d γ
= 1.5m(17.25kN/m 3 )(29.4)(1.56)(1.2)
+ 0.5(17.25kN/m 3 )(2)(28.7)(0.6)(1)
= 1721 kPa

56 CV6313/LEC/2
For clay,
N c = 5.14
⎛ B⎞
s c ' = 0.2⎜ ⎟ = 0.2, s q = 1.0
⎝L⎠
⎛D⎞ ⎛ 2.1 ⎞
d c ' = 0.4 tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ = 0.4 tan −1 ⎜ ⎟ = 0.32, d q = 1.0
⎝B⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
q ult " = cN c (1 + s c '+ d c ') + qN q s q d q = 75kPa (5.14)(1 + 0.2 + 0.32) + 2.1m(17.25kN / m 3 )(1)(1) = 622 kPa

Punching Shear
d1 h 2 0.6
Pv = qd1 + ∫ γhdh = 1.5m(17.25kN / m )(0.6m) + (17.25kN / m )( ) = 18.6 kN / m
3 3
0 2 0
K s ≈ K o = 1 − sin φ = 0.44

q ult ' =
pPv K s tan φ pd1c
+ + q ult " =
(4 x 2m )(18.6kN / m)(0.44) tan(34o )
+ 0 + 622
A A (2mx 2m)
= 633 kPa < q ult
∴ q ult = 633 kPa
57 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing capacity from SPT

SPT is widely used to determine the bearing capacity of soils directly. Bowles
(1996) had modified the allowable bearing capacity equations developed by
Meyerhof for 25mm settlement:
N N55 N70
qa = kd B ≤ F4
F1 F1 0.05 0.04
N ⎛ B + F3 ⎞
2
F2 0.08 0.06
qa = ⎜ ⎟ kd B > F4
F2 ⎝ B ⎠
F3 0.3 0.3
⎛ B + F3 ⎞
( Note for large B, ⎜ ⎟ → 1.0) F4 1.2 1.2
⎝ B ⎠
where q a is the allowable bearing pressure for 25mm settlement
D
K d = 1 + 0.33 ≤ 1.33
B
q a for settlement less than 25mm, q a ' , can be obtained using :
Δ
qa ' = qa
25mm
58 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing capacity from CPT

Meyerhof (1956) suggested that the allowable bearing capacity of

sand can be computed using the previous equations by making the
following substitution:

qc
N 55 ≅
4

where q c is in kg/cm 2

59 CV6313/LEC/2
 Bearing capacity from Plate Load Test

For clay : q ult(F) = q ult ( plate)

BF BF
For sand : q ult(F) = q ult(plate) provided <3
Bplate Bplate
60 CV6313/LEC/2
61 CV6313/LEC/2
 Factor of Safety

Factor of safety, FS is given by: F.S.

q ult − q (q ult )n Spread footings 2-3

FS = =
(qapplied )n (qapplied )n Mat foundations
Uplift
1.7-2.5
1.7-2.5
Bowles (1996)

CP4: 2003 Do not prescribed a factor of safety.

62 CV6313/LEC/2
 Factors affecting design factor of Safety

63 CV6313/LEC/2
 Eurocode 7 - Principles and
Application Rules
Principles:

- Preceded by letter “P”

- Are “general statements and definitions for
which there is no alternative, as well as
requirements and analytical models for which no
alternative is permitted.”
- Uses “shall” instead if “should” in the sentences
 Eurocode 7 - Principles and
Application Rules
Application Rules:

- No preceded by letter “P” i.e. all paragraphs that

are not principles
- “examples of generally recognized rules, which
comply with the Principles and satisfy their
requirements”
- Uses “should” or “may” in the sentences
 New language
EurocodesTerminology Meaning
Action Load
- Direct actions Forces applied to the structure
- Indirect actions Imposed deformations or accelerations
- Permanent direct action Dead load
- Variable direct action Imposed load
Resistance Capacity of a member/component/ground to withstand actions
without failure
Weight density Unit weight
Annex Appendix
Executed Constructed
 New language
EurocodesTerminology Meaning
Shall and Should Shall means “Must”, Should means “May”
Sustains Resists
Commas and dots Commas, instead of dots, are used as decimal points
Characteristic values of soil Design values of soil parameters
parameters
Design values of soil parameters Factored soil parameters
 Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3
Undrained conditions

= (π + 2 )c u k b cs ci c + q
R
qD =
A'
where
2α 1 ⎛⎜ H ⎞
⎟
bc = 1 − i c = ⎜1 + 1 −
(π + 2) 2⎝ A' c u ⎟
⎠
⎛ B' ⎞
s c = 1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟ − rectangle and H ≤ A' c u
⎝ L' ⎠
s c = 1.2 − circular

68 CV6313/LEC/2
 Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3
Drained conditions
R
qD = = c ' N c b c s c i c + q ' N q b q s q i q + 0. 5 γ ' N γ b γ s γ i γ
A'
where

69 CV6313/LEC/2
 Eurocode 7 – Annex D.3
Drained conditions (cont’d)
R
qD = = c ' N c b c s c i c + q ' N q b q s q i q + 0. 5 γ ' N γ b γ s γ i γ
A'
where

70 CV6313/LEC/2
 NA to SS EN 1997-1: 2010 NA.3.3
Annex D may be used. However, the sample
method given in SS EN 1997-1: 2010, Annex
D omits depth and ground inclination factors
which are commonly found in bearing
resistance formulations. The omission of the
depth factor errs on the side of safety, but the
omission of the ground inclination factor does
not. An alternative method to SS EN 1997-1:
2010, Annex D, including depth and ground
inclinations as appropriate, may be used.

71 CV6313/LEC/2
 EC 7 – Limit state design
Partial factors for limit states Design Approach 1 for footings & piles

{
Characteristic value

72 Lecture 2 CV3301-LEC (2010)

Type of test
F = field L = Laboratory

Test results and

Derived values

EN 1997-2
EN 1997-1
 SS-EN 1997-1 Characteristic values
(1) P The selection of characteristic values for geoetchnical parameters
shall be based on results and derived values from laboratory and field
tests, complemented by well-established experience.
(2) P The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be
selected as a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of
the limit state.
(5) Characteristic values can be lower values, which are less than the
most probable values, or upper values, which are greater.
(6) P For each calculation, the most unfavourable combination of lower
and upper values of independent parameters shall be used.
(7) The zone of the ground governing the behaviour of a geotechnical
structure at a limit state is usually much larger than a test sample or
the zone of ground affected in an in situ test. Consequently the value
of the governing parameter is often the mean of a range of values
covering a large surface or volume of the ground. The characteristic
value should be a cautious estimate of this mean value.

74 CV6313/LEC/2
75 CV6313/LEC/2 (From Simpson and Driscoll 1998)
 SS-EN 1997-1 Characteristic values
(10) If statistical methods are employed in the selection of characteristic
values for ground properties, such methods should differentiate
between local and regional sampling and should allow the use of a
priori knowledge of comparable ground properties.
(11) If statistical methods are used, the characteristic value should be
derived such that the calculated probability of a worse value governing
the occurrence of the limit state under consideration is not greater than
5%.
(12) P When using standard tables of characteristic values related to soil
investigation parameters, the characteristic value shall be selected as a
very cautious estimate.

76 CV6313/LEC/2
 At least 10
soil test
results

77 CV6313/LEC/2
 Tower Silo Foundations – A case study
Tower silos are tall farm
structures used to store
forage crops for feeding
cattle. The first tower silos
were small, predominantly
wooden structures. Over the
years silo builders have
improved the design and
construction of the above-
ground portion of silos but, in
contrast, very little has been
done to improve the
foundation. Some of these
recent structures are now fully
automated exceeding 31 m in
height, and have a storage
capacity of more than 2500
78 tons.
CV6313/LEC/2
A grain elevator shown in the figure is to be built on a rectangular
raft foundation that is 1.2m thick. The weight of the grain elevator
and raft imposes a uniform dead load of 67 kPa. If each metre
height of grains in the bin imposes a uniform live load of 5 kPa,
determine the maximum height of grains that can be loaded into
the bin if the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is to
be 2 and using Eurocode.

79 CV6313/LEC/2
 The subsoil condition for the grain elevator site is shown below.
Assume an average unit weight of 16.5 kN/m3 for the soil.

80 CV6313/LEC/2
 c1 = 42 kPa , c 2 = 33 kPa
c 2 33kPa
= = 0.78
c1 42kPa
T 5
= = 0.31
B 16
Using Button' s chart, N C = 4.86
Neglect depth factor, N CD = N C = 4.86
⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤
q ult = c1 N CD ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥ + γD
⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦
( )
= (42kPa )(4.86 )(1.048) + 16.5kN / m 3 (1.2m )
= 213.9kPa + 19.8kPa = 233.7 kPa

81 CV6313/LEC/2
Case 1 - Foundation base on layered clays
(all φ = 0) (cont’d)

CV6313/LEC/2 82
 q ult − γD
F= =2
qa
8m
213.9kPa
qa = = 107 kPa
2
Height of grains =
(107kPa - 67kPa ) = 8 m
5kPa/m

83 CV6313/LEC/2
 According to Eurocode 7 DA1 C1:
c1 = 42 kPa , c 2 = 33 kPa
c 2 33kPa
= = 0.78
c1 42kPa
T 5
= = 0.31
B 16
Using Button' s chart, N C = 4.86
Neglect depth factor, N CD = N C = 4.86
⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤
q ult = c1N CD ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥ + γD
⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦
( )
= (42kPa )(4.86 )(1.048) + 16.5kN / m 3 (1.2m )
= 213.9kPa + 19.8kPa = 233.7 kPa

84 CV6313/LEC/2
 According to Eurocode 7 DA1 C1:

q ult > 1.35q DL + 1.5q LL

213.9 − 1.35q DL 213.9 − 1.35(67 ) 16.46 m
q LL = = = 82.3 kPa
1.5 1.5
82.3
Height of grains = = 16.46 m
5kPa/m

85 CV6313/LEC/2
 According to Eurocode 7 DA1 C2:
c1 = 42 kPa , c 2 = 33 kPa
42 kPa 33 kPa
c1D = = 30 kPa , c 2D = = 23.6 kPa
1.4 1.4
c 2D 23.6kPa
= = 0.78
c1D 30kPa
T 5
= = 0.31
B 16
Using Button' s chart, N C = 4.86
Neglect depth factor, N CD = N C = 4.86
⎡ ⎛ B ⎞⎤ γ
q ult D = c1D N CD ⎢1 + 0.2⎜ ⎟⎥ + D
⎣ ⎝ L ⎠⎦ 1
( )
= (30kPa )(4.86 )(1.048) + 16.5kN / m 3 (1.2m )
= 152.8kPa + 19.8kPa = 172.6 kPa
86 CV6313/LEC/2
 According to Eurocode 7 DA1 C2:

q ult D > 1.0q DL + 1.3q LL

172.6 − 1.0q DL 172.6 − 1.0(67 ) 16.24 m
q LL = = = 81.2 kPa
1.3 1.3
81.2
Height of grains = = 16.24 m
5kPa/m

87 CV6313/LEC/2
 Settlement
In considering settlements of shallow foundations,
three questions must be answered:

1. How do we estimate movements of the

foundation for any given design?
2. What are the tolerable movements?
3. If the estimated movements are greater than
the tolerable movements, then what do we
do?

88 CV6313/LEC/2
 Components of Settlement
s = si + sc + ss

89 CV6313/LEC/2
 Immediate settlement, si

- takes place as load is applied or within a time

period of about 7 days. Immediate settlement
analyses are used for all fine-grained soils
including silts and clays with a degree of
saturation S ≤ 90% and for all coarse grained
soils with a large permeability k (about 10-3
m/s).

90 CV6313/LEC/2
 Consolidation settlement, sc
- time dependent, take months to years to
develop. Consolidation analyses are used for
all saturated or near saturated fine-grained
soils. In the estimate, both settlement and
the time required for most of the settlement
to occur are required.

Secondary settlement, ss

- due to creep (phenomenon is not clearly

understood), time dependent, only important
in highly organic soils.
91 CV6313/LEC/2
 Components of Settlement
s = si + sc + ss

92 CV6313/LEC/2
 Causes of settlement – Structural & Environmental
Structural Load
Environmental
Load

93 CV6313/LEC/2
 Steps in Settlement Analyses

1. Establish the soil profile including the location of the

groundwater table. Determine which layer or layers are
compressible. Compute the total stress, pwp and
effective stress profile with depth.

2. Estimate the magnitude and rate of application of the

loads applied to the foundation, both during
construction and during the estimated economic and
service life of the structure. In structures, the loads
applied to the foundation are normally provided by the
structural engineer or architect.

3. Estimate the change in stress with depth.

94 CV6313/LEC/2
 Steps in Settlement Analyses

4. Estimate the preconsolidation pressure. Compare with

the effective stress profile computed in (1). Determine if
the soil is normally consolidated or overconsolidated.

5. Calculate the consolidation settlements.

6. Estimate the time rate of consolidation settlements.

7. Estimate the rate of secondary compression.

8. If necessary, estimate the immediate settlement. If the

foundation soils are cohesive, use elastic theory. If
granular use empirical methods.

95 CV6313/LEC/2
 Immediate Settlement and Contact Stress

96 CV6313/LEC/2
 Contact Pressure under Mat Foundation

97 CV6313/LEC/2
 Immediate settlement – Cohesive soils
For a uniformly loaded circular or rectangular
areas near the surface of a relatively deep
stratum, the vertical settlement is:
⎛ 1 − ν s2 ⎞
s i = Cs qB⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ Es ⎠
Cs = Shape and rigidity factor
q = uniform load
B = width of foundation
ν s = Poisson' s ratio of soil
E s = Young' s modulus of soil
CV6313/LEC/2 98
 Cs for infinite depth

99 CV6313/LEC/2
 ∞

Cs for limited
depth over
Rigid Base

100 CV6313/LEC/2
 The settlement of the corner of a rectangular base of
dimensions B’ x L’ on the surface of an elastic half-space
can be computed from the Theory of Elasticity (Timoshenko
and Goodier 1951):
1 − ν s2 ⎛ 1 − 2ν ⎞
s i = qB' ⎜ I1 + I 2 ⎟I F
Es ⎝ 1− ν ⎠
This can be reduced to
1 − ν s2
s i = qB' mIs I F
Es
where m = no. of corners contributing to settlement
B
B' = for centre; = B for corner I i
2
L
L' = for centre; = L for corner I i
101 CV6313/LEC/2 2
102 CV6313/LEC/2
103
Depth Factor, IF

CV6313/LEC/2
 Bowles (1987) recommends:
Stratum depth actually causing settlement is not
at H/B →∞, but is actually either of the following:

1. Depth z = 5B where B = least dimension of

base
2. Depth to hard stratum. Take “hard” as that
where Es in the hard layer is 10 of adjacent
upper layer.

104 CV6313/LEC/2
 For mutilayered soil, use principle of superposition
or crudely use an average value for E:
n

∑H E i i
E avg = i =1
n

∑H
i =1
i

A more accurate method will be discussed in the later lectures.

105 CV6313/LEC/2
Immediate settlement of foundations on saturated clay

Janbu et al. (1956) proposed the

following equation to evaluate
the average settlement of
flexible foundations on saturated
clay soils :

δiav = μ1μ 2 qB
E

106 CV6313/LEC/2
 Immediate settlement of foundations on sandy
soils

For granular materials, confining pressure has a great

influence on the modulus and compressibility and thus
methods for computing immediate settlement in these
materials involve some empirical corrections.

107 CV6313/LEC/2
 Immediate Settlement and Contact Stress

108 CV6313/LEC/2
 Immediate settlement of foundations on sandy
soils
y Schmertmann’s Method (1970, 1978)
y Burland and Burbidge’s Method (1985)

109 CV6313/LEC/2
 Settlement of foundations on sandy soils
from CPT– Schmertmann et al. (1978)

Interpolate Izp for L/B between 1 and 10

∞
s i = ∫ ε z dz
z =0
B'Iz
s i = Δq ∫ dz
z =0 E
s

110 CV6313/LEC/2
 The zone of strain influence can be divided into several
homogeneous layers. For n number of homogeneous layers:

n
⎛ Iz ⎞
δi = C1C 2 C3 Δq ∑ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Δz i
i =1 ⎝ E s ⎠ i

⎛ σ 'v 0 ⎞
where C1 = 1 − 0.5⎜ ⎟ σ 'vo = effective in - situ overburden
⎜ Δq ⎟
⎝ ⎠ stress at foundation level
C 2 = 1 + 0.2 log
t ( years) Δq = net foundation pressure
0.1
L
C3 = 1.03 − 0.03 ≥ 0.73
B

111 CV6313/LEC/2
 Typical elastic parameters for various soils
Soil Type Es (MN/m2) ν
Loose sand 10 – 24 0.20 – 0.40
Medium dense sand 17 – 28 0.25 – 0.40
Dense sand 35 – 55 0.30 – 0.45
Silty sand 10 – 17 0.20 – 0.40
Sand and Gravel 69 – 173 0.15 – 0.35
Soft clay 4 – 21
0.20 – 0.50
Medium clay 21 – 41
Stiff clay 41 - 97

112 CV6313/LEC/2
CV6313/LEC/2 113
CV6313/LEC/2 114
 Example: The results of a CPT sounding is shown in the figure. The soils at this site consist of
young, normally consolidated sands with some interbedded silts. The groundwater table is a depth
of 2m below the ground surface. A 375 kN/m load is to be supported on a 2.5m x 30m footing to
be founded at a depth of 2.0 m. Compute the settlement of this footing immediately after
construction and 50 years after construction.

Use E s = 3.5q c
Use γ = 17 kN/m 3 above GWT and
20 kN/m 3 below GWT Iz

Depth of influence = D + 4B
I zp
= 2 + 4(2.5) = 12 m
P / b + Wf / b 375 + 118
q= −u = = 197 kPa
B 2.5
σ 'zp = 59 kPa and σ 'zD = 34 kPa
197 − 34
I zp = 0.5 + 0.1 = 0.666
59

115 CV6313/LEC/2
 Layer qc Es Iz Δz (m) Iz
Δz
No. (kg/cm2) (kPa) Es
1 20 6860 0.293 1 4.27E-05
2 30 10290 0.573 2 1.11E-04
3 41 14063 0.577 1 4.10E-05
4 68 23324 0.488 1 2.09E-05
5 90 30870 0.399 1 1.29E-05
6 58 19894 0.310 1 1.56E-05
7 108 37044 0.133 3 1.08E-05
Σ= 2.55E-04

116 CV6313/LEC/2
 ⎛ σ 'vo ⎞ ⎛ 34 ⎞
⎜
C1 = 1 − 0.5⎜ ⎟ = 1 − 0.5⎜ ⎟ = 0.896
⎟
⎝ Δq ⎠ ⎝ 197 − 34 ⎠
C 2 = 1.0
L
C3 = 1.03 − 0.03 = 0.67 < 0.73 ∴ use C 2 = 0.73
B
δi = (0.896)(1)(0.73)(197 − 34 )(2.55e − 4 ) = 27 mm

For t = 50 years,
⎛ 50 ⎞
C 2 = 1 + 0.2 log⎜ ⎟ = 1.54
⎝ 0.1 ⎠
δi = 27(1.54) = 42 mm

117 CV6313/LEC/2
 Settlement of foundations on sandy soils from SPT–
Burland and Burbidge (1985)
⎛ 2 ⎞
Si = f s f l f t I c B0.7 ⎜ q '− σ 'vo ⎟ For static loads, conservative values for R3 and
⎝ 3 ⎠ Rt are 0.3 and 0.2, respectively.
for q < σ 'vo , For fluctuating loads, conservative values for R3
Ic and Rt are 0.7 and 0.8, respectively.
Si = f s f l f t q' B0.7
3
⎡ 1.25(L / B) ⎤
2

where : f s = shape correction factor = ⎢ ⎥

⎣ (L / B) + 0.25 ⎦
Hs ⎛ H ⎞
f l = correction factor for thickness of sand layer = ⎜⎜ 2 − s ⎟⎟ for H s < Z I
ZI ⎝ ZI ⎠
⎛ t⎞
f t = time factor = ⎜1 + R 3 + R t log ⎟
⎝ 3⎠
R 3 = time - dependent settlement that occurs during first 3 years after construction.
R t = time - dependent settlement that takes place each log cycle of time after 3 years.
I c = compressibility index
118 CV6313/LEC/2
 1.71
Ic =
N1.4
where N = average N over depth Z I

Note:
1. N values not corrected for
overburden pressure
2. Correct N for sands below GWT:
Ncorr = 15 +0.5(N-15) N>15
3. Correct for gravel content:
Ncorr = 1.25N
119 CV6313/LEC/2
 Example: A mat foundation is to be constructed on a site with the soil profile
shown in the figure. Calculate the immediate settlement of the mat foundation,
8.5m x 7.5m, due to the sand and gravel layer. The mat foundation is founded at
a depth of 3m. The net foundation pressure is 360 kPa. The dense sand and
gravel layer shows an average SPT N of 40.

Correct N for gravel content :

N corr = 1.25 N = 1.25(40) = 50
∴ I c = 0.00715
⎡ 1.25(L / B) ⎤ ⎡ 1.25(8.5 / 7.5) ⎤
γ ' = 6kN / m 3 2 2

Shape factor f s = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ (8.5 / 7.5) + 0.25 ⎥ = 1.049

⎣ (L / B ) + 0 . 25 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
For B = 7.5m, Z I = 4.5m < H s = 6.0m
Hs ⎛ H ⎞
∴f I = ⎜⎜ 2 − s ⎟⎟ = 1
ZI ⎝ ZI ⎠
For immediate settlement, f t = 1.0
⎛ 2 ⎞
s i = f s f I f t I c B0.7 ⎜ q '− σ vo ' ⎟
⎝ 3 ⎠
⎡ ⎤
= 1.049(1)(1)(0.00715)(7.5) 0.7 ⎢360 − (18)⎥
2
⎣ 3 ⎦
CV6313/LEC/2
= 10.7 mm
120
 Consolidation settlement
If the loaded area is large compared to the thickness of the
compressible soil layer than the vertical strain essentially dominates
and the situation is one-dimensional.
Swelling line

Void ratio
σp ' Cr
OCR = Normal consolidation line
σi ' Cc

σi ' σp ' σf '

log (Effective stress)

H ⎧⎪ ⎛ σp ' ⎞ ⎛ σ f ' ⎞⎫⎪

Sc = ⎨C r log⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + C c log⎜ ⎟⎬
1 + e0 ⎪⎩ σ ⎜ σ ⎟
⎝ i ⎠
' ⎝ p ⎠⎪⎭
'
121 CV6313/LEC/2
CV6313/LEC/1
 Correlation equations for soil consolidation

122 CV6313/LEC/2
 Approximate thickness of soil layers for manual
computation of consolidation settlement

Approximate layer
Layer thickness
No. Axisymmetric Plane
strain
1 B/2 B
2 B 2B
3 2B 4B

123 CV6313/LEC/2
 SS EN 1997-1: 2004
6.6.2 Settlement
(5) The depth of the compressible soil layer to be considered when
calculating settlement should depend on the size and shape of the
foundation, the variation of soil stiffness with depth and the spacing
of foundation elements.

(6) This depth may be normally taken as the depth at which the
effective vertical stress due to the foundation load is 20% of the
effective overburden stress.

(7) For many cases this depth may also be roughly estimated as 1 to 2
times the foundation width, but may be reduced for lightly-loaded,
wider foundation rafts.

NOTE This approach is not valid for very soft soils.

124 CV6313/LEC/2
 Computation of stress for consolidation settlement
Boussinesq solution for uniformly loaded circular area: σ z = qI c

125 CV6313/LEC/2
Computation of stress for consolidation settlement (cont’d)

For uniformly loaded rectangular area: σ z = qI r

Boussinesq’s theory

Ir

126 CV6313/LEC/2
Computation of stress for consolidation settlement (cont’d)

Newmarks method: σ z = NqI Approximate 2:1 or 60o method:

127 CV6313/LEC/2
Example: Consider the mat foundation shown in the figure
below. Let Q = 25MN, B = 10m, L = 12m, Df = 1.5 m, x1 = 2m, x2
= 3m, and x3 = 4m. Estimate the average consolidation
settlement of the normally consolidated clay layer.

128 CV6313/LEC/2
Example: Consider the mat foundation shown in the figure
below. Let Q = 25MN, B = 10m, L = 12m, Df = 1.5 m, x1 = 2m, x2
= 3m, and x3 = 4m. Estimate the average consolidation
settlement of the normally consolidated clay layer.

(q applied )n = Q = 25000kN = 208.3kPa

LB 12mx10m
Average Δσ at centre of clay layer using 2 : 1 method,
Q
Δσ = = 77.4kPa
(L + 7m )(B + 7m )
σ o ' at centre of clay layer = (3.5)(16.2 ) + (3)(18.8 − 9.81) + (2 )(18.6 − 9.81)
= 101.25
σ f ' = σ o '+ Δσ = 178.7 kPa
⎛ σ f ' ⎞ 0.31 ⎛ 178.7 kPa ⎞
sc =
Cc
⎜
H log⎜ ⎟
⎟ = (4m ) log⎜ ⎟ = 0.17 m
1 + eo ⎝ σ o ' ⎠ 1 + 0.8 ⎝ 101.3kPa ⎠
129 CV6313/LEC/2
 Time rate of
consolidation settlement

Cv t
T=
H dr2
π 2
For U avg < 60%, T = U avg
4
For U avg > 60%, T = - 0.933log(1 - U avg ) − 0.085

130 CV6313/LEC/2
Example: A doubly-drained 12-m thick clay layer has a cv = 0.7m2/y. It is
estimated that there will be 75 mm of total settlement due to consolidation
of the clay layer. Determine the consolidation settlement after 3 years.

s c = 75 mm, H dr = 6 m
( )
c v t 0.7 m 2 / y (3)
T= 2 = = 0.0583
H (6m ) 2

U avg = 0.27
∴ s c at the end of 3 years = U avgs c = (0.27 )(75) = 20mm

131 CV6313/LEC/2
 Correction for 3-D effects

Skempton and Bjerrum (1973) proposed a method to account for the

3-D effects in consolidation settlement using Skempton’s pore
pressure parameter A:
u i = B[Δσ3 + A(Δσ1 − Δσ3 )] δ c = λδ odeo
For fully saturated soil, B = 1 ⎡ Δσ3 ⎤
Δσ
∫ v 1⎢
m
H
A + (1 − A )⎥dz
⎡ Δσ3 ⎤ 0
⎣ Δσ1 ⎦
i.e. u i = Δσ1 ⎢A + (1 − A )⎥ where λ =
⎣ Δσ1 ⎦ ∫0 m v Δσ1dz
H

δ odeo = ∫0 m v Δσ1dz
H

⎡ Δσ3 ⎤
δ c = ∫0 m v u i dz = ∫0 m v Δσ1 ⎢A +
H H
(1 − A )⎥dz
⎣ Δσ1 ⎦

132 CV6313/LEC/2
 Correction for 3-D effects (cont’d)

Δuw = B[Δσ3 + A(Δσ1 – Δσ3)]

Type of clays Af
Highly sensitive clays 0.75 to 1.5
NC clays 0.5 to 1.0
Compacted sandy clays 0.25 to 0.75
Lightly OC clays 0 to 0.5
Compacted clay-gravels -0.25 to 0.25
Highly OC clays -0.5 to 0
133 CV6313/LEC/2
 Correction for 3-D effects (cont’d)
λ

134 CV6313/LEC/2
 Secondary compression settlement

Secondary compression is the result of creep, viscous behaviour of the

clay-water system, the compression and decomposition of organic
matter, and other physical and chemical processes.

Characteristics of secondary compression:

•time-dependent settlement that occurs at essentially constant

effective stress
•rate of volume change not governed by rate of pwp dissipation and
therefore independent of layer thickness
•phenomenon is not clearly understood

135 CV6313/LEC/2
 Cα ⎛ t ⎞
ss = H log⎜ ⎟
1 + ep ⎜t ⎟
⎝ p⎠
or
⎛ t ⎞
s s = C αε H log⎜ ⎟
⎜t ⎟
⎝ p⎠
where t p corresponds to 100%
consolidation (use t 95 as t p )
T95 H 2 1.13H 2
tp = =
Cv Cv

136 CV6313/LEC/2
 Soil Cα/Cc
Organic silts 0.035-0.06
Amorphous and fibrous peat 0.035-0.085
Canadian muskeg 0.09-0.10
Leda clay (Canada) 0.03-0.06
Post-glacial Swedish clay 0.05-0.07
Soft blue clay (Victoria, B.C.) 0.03
Organic clays and silts 0.04-0.06
Sensitive clay, Portland ME 0.025-0.055
San Francisco Bay mud 0.04-0.06
New Liskeard (Canada) varved 0.03-0.06
clay
Mexico City clay 0.03-0.035
Hudson River silt 0.03-0.06
New Haven organic clay silt 0.04-0.075

137 CV6313/LEC/2
Example: A building is to be constructed over a 10 m thick clay deposit.
The natural water content of the clay is 105%. Assume sc is 30 cm and tp is
25 years, estimate the secondary compression that would occur from 25 to
50 years after construction.

For w n = 105%, C αε = 1.0% = 0.01

⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ 50 ⎞
s s = C αε H log ⎜ ⎟ = 0.01(10) log⎜ ⎟ = 30 mm
⎜t ⎟ ⎝ 25 ⎠
⎝ p⎠

138 CV6313/LEC/2
 Settlement of Shallow Foundations

Total Settlement
– change in foundation elevation
from the original unloaded
position to the final loaded
position.

Differential Settlement
– the difference in total
settlement between two
foundations or between two
points on a single foundation.
139 CV6313/LEC/2
 SS EN 1997-1:2004
6.6.2 Settlement
(12) Differential settlement calculations that ignore stiffness of the
structure tend to be over-predictions. An analysis of ground-
structure interaction may be used to justify reduced values of
differential settlements.

(14) For spread foundations on natural ground, it should be taken into

account that some differential settlement normally occurs even if
the calculation predicts uniform settlement only.

(15) The tilting of an eccentrically loaded foundation should be

estimated by assuming a linear bearing pressure distribution and
then calculating the settlement at the corner points of the
foundation, using the vertical stress distribution in the ground
beneath each corner point and the settlement calculation methods
described above.
140 CV6313/LEC/2
 Definitions:

s = settlement
δs = differential settlement
θ = rotation
α = angular strain
Δ = relative deflection
Δ/L = deflection ratio
ω = tilt
β = relative rotation, angular distortion

141 CV6313/LEC/2
 Problems encountered by structures that experienced
excessive total settlement

• Connections with existing structures – Sometimes new

structure may need to join existing structures. If the new
structure settles excessively, the elevations of the new
structure may not match those of the existing structure.
• Utility lines – If the structure settles excessively, the utility
connections can be sheared or distorted.
• Surface drainage – Settlement may change the drainage
patterns of the surface drainage and cause rain water to flow
into the structure instead.
• Access – Excessive settlement may impede vehicular or
people access to the structure.
• Aesthetics – Excessive settlement may cause aesthetic
problems long before they cause structural problems.
142 CV6313/LEC/2
 0.3048 m

0.1 degree

Not to scale

30-stories office building, 172 m in height, approximately 50 m square in plan

143 CV6313/LEC/2
Allowable total settlement

The foundation design must be such that the total settlement s

is less than the allowable total settlement sa.
Typical allowable total settlement
Type of structure sa (mm)
Office buildings 12 – 50 (25)
Heavy industrial buildings 25 – 75
Bridges 50

Eurocode 7 Annex H: Total settlements of up to 50 mm acceptable for normal

structures with isolated foundations. (Settlement should be specified by
designers)
144 CV6313/LEC/2
 Differential settlement
Differential settlement is more troublesome than total settlement as
they distort the structure and causes cracking of the walls and other
members, jamming in doors and windows, poor aesthetics, and other
problems.

145 CV6313/LEC/2
 Causes of differential settlement
y The soil profile may not be uniform across the
site
y The ratio between the actual load and the design
load may be different for each column
y The ratio of dead to live load may be different for
each column
y The as-built foundation dimensions may differ
from plan dimensions

146 CV6313/LEC/2
 Allowable differential settlement

In design, differential settlement sD should be less than the allowable

differential settlement sDa. The magnitude of sDa is dependent on many
factors, including the type and size of the structure, the properties of
the building materials and the subsurface soils, and the rate and
uniformity of the settlement.To compute sDa, use

s Da = βa S
where βa = allowable angular distortion
S = column spacing

147 CV6313/LEC/2
 Definitions:

s = settlement
δs = differential settlement
θ = rotation
α = angular strain
Δ = relative deflection
Δ/L = deflection ratio
ω = tilt
β = relative rotation, angular distortion

148 CV6313/LEC/2
 β

149 CV6313/LEC/2
 Eurocode 7 Annex H (Informative)

• Maximum acceptable relative rotations

β range from 1/2000 to 1/300
• Maximum relative rotation β of 1/500
acceptable for many structures
• Relative rotation β likely to cause a
ULS is about 1/150

150 CV6313/LEC/2
 Design values of sD/s for shallow foundations
Design value of sD/s
Predominant soil type below footing
Flexible Rigid
structure structure
Sandy

Natural Soils 0.9 0.7

Compacted fills of uniform thickness 0.5 0.4
underlain by stiff natural soils
Clayey

Natural Soils 0.8 0.5

Compacted fills of uniform thickness 0.4 0.3

underlain by stiff natural soils

151 CV6313/LEC/2
What if s > sa?

• Modify the foundation design

• Use deep foundation
• Improve the properties of the foundation soil
• Redesign the structure so that it is more tolerable
of settlements

152 CV6313/LEC/2
What if sD > sDa?
• Enlarge foundation such that differential
settlements are acceptable
• Increase rigidity of foundation system
• Redesign the superstructure so that it can tolerate
the larger differential settlement or that the
structural loads become lower or both
• Provide a method to lift selected columns
• Accept the large differential settlement and
repair the damage
153 CV6313/LEC/2
 Methods of reducing or accelerating settlement or
coping with settlement

154 CV6313/LEC/2