Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 96

ELASTIC SETTLEMENT OF

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON
GRANULAR SOIL
AC
A CRITICAL REVIEW
BRAJA M.DAS
Settlement,S

Elasticsettlement,S
Elastic settlement Se

Consolidationsettlement
Consolidation settlement
Primary,Sp
Secondary,
Secondary Ss

S=Se +Sp
p +Ss
Inhislandmarkpaperin1927entitledTheScienceof
Foundations,KarlTerzaghiwrote:
Foundationproblems,throughout,areofsuchcharacterthat
a strictly theoretical mathematical treatment will always be
astrictlytheoreticalmathematicaltreatmentwillalwaysbe
impossible.Theonlywaytohandlethemefficientlyconsists
offindingout,first,whathashappenedonprecedingjobsofa
similarcharacter;next,thekindofsoilonwhichthe
operationswereperformed;and,finally,whytheoperations
have led to certain results. By systematically accumulating
haveledtocertainresults.Bysystematicallyaccumulating
suchknowledge,theempiricaldatabeingwelldefinedbythe
resultsofadequatesoilinvestigations,foundationengineering
could be developed into a semi empirical science
couldbedevelopedintoasemiempiricalscience....
Thebulkoftheworkthesystematicaccumulationof
empirical data remains to be done.
empiricaldataremainstobedone.
Toevaluatethecurrentstateoftheartfor
settlementpredictionsofshallowfoundationsin
p
sand,inanattempttopromotetheuseofshallow
foundations.
AFHWAinitiative

1.
1 FFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)
d l Hi h Ad i i t ti (FHWA)
2. TexasA&MUniversity
3
3. Geotest Engineering
4. AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE)
TTexasA&MUniversity
A&M U i it
NationalGeotech ExperimentSite
Approximately12m 28m

5 Square Footings: 1m 1m
1
1.5m 1.5
1 m
2.5m 2.5m
3m 3m (North)
3m 3m (South)
PROBLEM:
PROBLEM:
Predicttheloadat25mmsettlement

InSitu TestSummary
Boreholesheartest
h l h 3
Crossholetest 4
Cone penetration test 7
Conepenetrationtest
Dilatometertest 4
Pressuremeter test 4
Stepbladetest 1
Standardpenetrationtest 6
Numberofparticipants: 31
15consultants
16academics

Israel 1 Brazil 1
Japan
Japan 1 France
France 1
Canada 2 Italy 1
HongKong
Hong Kong 1 Australia
Australia 2
USA 21
MethodsUsedforSettlementPrediction
2222differentmethods
different methods
Schmertmann(1970,1978),BurlandandBurbidge(1985)
andFEMbeingpopular

Alpan (3times) Menard/Briaud (5)


Bowles (4)
Bowles(4) Meyerhof (4)
Meyerhof(4)
Buisman, DeBeer (3) NAVFAC(4)
Burland &Burbidge(9) Oweis (4)
CanadaFound.Manual(1) Parry(1)
DAppolonia (4) Peck(2)
DeBeer ((1)) Robertson&Campanella
p ((1))
Decourt (1) Schmertmann (18)
FEM(1) Schulze&Sherif (3)
Hanson (1)
Hanson(1) Terzaghi & Peck (5)
Terzaghi&Peck(5)
Leonard&Frost (4) Vesic (6)
P di d
Predictedvs.MeasuredValuesofQ
M dV l f Q25

Footing(m)

Item 11 1.51.5 2.52.5 33 33

Prediction
P di i
591100 1162950 2954271 4075600 4156400
range(kN)

Measured 850 1500 3600 4500 5200


Elastic Settlement Se
ElasticSettlement,S

Existingmethodsforpredictingsettlementmaybe
groupedintothreecategories:
A Methodsinwhichobservedsettlementof
structuresarelinkedtoinsitu testresults
(t d d
(standardpenetrationtest,cone
t ti t t
penetrationtest,Pressuremeter tests)
B Semiempiricalmethod
B S i ii l th d
C Useoftheoryofelasticityandmodulusof
elasticity,E
l i i Es
CATEGORYA

TerzaghiandPeck(1948,1967)
Meyerhof(1956,1965)
DeBeer andMartens(1957)
Hough(1969)
PeckandBazaraa (1969)
( )
Burland andBurbidge(1985)
Terzaghi and Peck (1948 1967)
TerzaghiandPeck(1948,1967)

Se 4

Se(1) B1 2
1 B

Se =settlementofprototypefoundationmeasuring
= settlement of prototype foundation measuring
BB
Se(1) =settlementofatestplatemeasuringB
l f l i 1B1

B1 isusuallyoftheorderof0.3mto1m
y
TerzaghiandPeck(1948,1967)
2
3q B
Se CW CD
N60 B 0.3

whereq isinkN/m;B isinm;S isinmm


CW =groundwatertablecorrection
=1ifdepthofwatertableisgreaterthan2B
1 if depth of water table is greater than 2B
belowfoundation
=2ifdepthofwatertableislessthanorequal
p q
toB
CD =correctionfordepthofembedment
p
=1 (Df /4B)
Sivakugan,EckersleyandLi(1998)
Si ak gan Eckersle and Li (1998)
analyzed79settlementrecords
offoundationsprovidedby
JeypalanandBoehm(1986)
yp ( )
andPapadopoulos(1992).
2
Se
4
B

Se(1) B 0.3

B 1 Se
2

B 0.3 4 Se(1)
2
3q B
Se
N60 B 0.3
3q 1 Se
Se
N60 4 Se(1)
q N60

Se(1) 0.75
Meyerhof
y

2q(kN/m2 )
Se (mm) (B 1.22m)
N60
1956 2
2
S (mm) 3q (kN/m ) B (B 1.22m)
e
N60 B 0.3

/ 2)
1.25q(kN/m
Se (mm) (B 1.22m)
N60
1965 2
2
S (mm) 2q (kN/m ) B (B 1.22m)
e
N60 B 0 . 3

Note:q increasedbyabout50%
1.25q
Se (mm) CW CD (B 1.22m)
N60
and
2 2
2q((kN/m
/ ) B
) CW CD
Se (mm)
( (B 1.22m))
N60 B 0.3

CW 1.0
and
Df
CD 1.0
4B
Meyerhofs Analysis (1965)
MeyerhofsAnalysis(1965)

B Average q Se(predicted)
Structure (m) N60 (kN/m2) Se (observed)

T.Edison,SaoPaulo 18.3 15 229.8 1.95


Banco doBrasil,SaoPaulo 22.9 18 239.4 0.99
Iparanga,SaoPaulo
p g , 9.15 9 220.2 1.29
C.B.I.Esplanada,SaoPaulo 14.6 22 383.0 1.20
Riscala,SaoPaulo 3.96 20 229.8 1.56
Thyssen Dusseldorf
Thyssen,Dusseldorf 22 6
22.6 25 239 4
239.4 0 77
0.77
Ministry,Dusseldorf 15.9 20 220.4 0.98
Chimney,Cologne 20.4 10 172.4 3.30
Average1.50
DeBeerandMartens(1957)

2.3 o
Se log10 H
C o

o =effectiveoverburdenpressureatadepth
=increaseinpressureduetofoundationloading
H =thicknessoflayerconsidered
qc
C 1.5
o Sepredicted
FieldTestResults: 1.9
Seobserved
DeBeer (1965)

Methodappliedtonormallyconsolidatedsand
Method applied to normally consolidated sand

Reductionfactorneededforoverconsolidated
Reduction factor needed for over consolidated
sand
Hough(1969)

Cc o
Se H log10
1 eo o

C c a(eo b)
Valueof
constant
t t
Typeofsoil a b
Uniformcohesionlessmaterial
Uniform cohesionless material
(uniformitycoefficientCu 2)
Cleangravel 0.05 0.50
Coarsesand 0.06 0.50
Mediumsand 0.07 0.50
Finesand 0.08 0.50
Inorganicsilt 1.00 0.50
Wellgradedcohesionlesssoil
Siltysandandgravel 0.09 0.20
Clean,coarsetofinesand 0.12 0.35
Coarsetofinesiltyy sand 0.15 0.25
Sandysilt(inorganic) 0.18 0.25
PeckandBazaraa(1969)
2 2
2q(kN/m ) B
Se (mm) CW CD
(N1 )60 B 0.3

whereB isinm
(N1)60 =correctedstandardpenetrationnumber
CW =oo//oo at0.5B belowthebottomoffoundation
o=totaloverburdenpressure
o =effectiveoverburdenpressure
p
CD =1.0 0.4(D/q)0.5
=unitweightofsoil
unit weight of soil
PeckandBazaraa (1969)

4N60
(N1 )60 (o 75 kN/m2 )
3.25 0.01o

4N60
(N1 )60 (o 75kN/m2 )
1 0.04o
PeckandBazaraasMethod
( f DA
(afterDAppoloniaetal.1970)
l i l 1970)
GRANULARSOIL
BurlandandBurbidge(1985)

Forgravelor
sandyyggravel N60(a) 1.25N60

Forfinesand or
siltysandbelow
thegroundwater N60(a) 15 0.6(N60 15)
anddN60 15

whereN60(a) =adjustedN60 value


Depth of Stress Influence, z'
DepthofStressInfluence,z

IfN60(a) [orN60(a)]isapproximatelyconstant(or
increasing)withdepth,
0.75
z B
1.4
BR BR
where
BR =referencewidth=0.3m
width of the actual foundation (m)
B =widthoftheactualfoundation(m)
DepthofStressInfluence,z'

IfN60(a) [orN60(a)]isdecreasingwithdepth,calculate
z=2B andz =distancefromthebottomofthe
foundationtothebottomofthesoftsoillayer(z ).

Use z=2B
Usez 2B orz
or z =zz,,whicheverissmaller.
whichever is smaller.
DepthofInfluence

H H
Correction factor, 2 1
z z
H=thicknessofcompressiblelayer
For Normally Consolidated Soil
ForNormallyConsolidatedSoil
Se 1 .71
0 .14 1 .4
BR [N 60 or N 60 (a ) ]
2
1 .25 L
0 .7
B B q
L BR pa

0 .25
B

whereL =lengthofthefoundation
/ 2)
pa =atmosphericpressure(=100kN/m
ForOverconsolidatedSoil
(q c ; c overconsolidation pressure)

Se 0.57
0.447 1.4

BR [N 60 orN 60(a) ]
2
1.25 L
0.7
B q
B

0.25
L BR pa
B
For Overconsolidated Soil
ForOverconsolidatedSoil
(q c ) :

Se 0.57
0.14 1.4

BR [N 60 or N 60(a) ]
2
1.25 L
0.7
B q 0.67c
B

0.25
L BR pa
B
ProbabilityofExceeding25mmSettlementintheField
(After Sivakugan andJohnson2004)
(AfterSivakugan and Johnson 2004)

Predictedmethods
Predicted Burland &
settlement Terzaghi&Peck Schmertmann Burbidge
(mm) (1948) (1970) (1985)
1 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.03
10 0.00 0.02 0.15
15 0.09 0.13 0.25
20 0 20
0.20 0 20
0.20 0 34
0.34
25 0.26 0.27 0.42
30 0.31 0.32 0.49
35 0 35
0.35 0 37
0.37 0 44
0.44
40 0.387 0.42 0.51
CATEGORYB

Schmertmann (1970),
Schmertmann etal.(1978)
et al (1978)
Briaud (2007)

Terzaghi,PeckandMesri (1996)
Akbas andKulhawy (2009)
Schmertmann (1970)

q(1 s )
z [(1 2 s )A B]
Es

zE s
Iz (1 s )[(1 2 s )A B]
q
Iz
Se C1C2 q z
Es

q =netstressatthelevelofthefoundation
C 1 =correctionfactorforthedepthofthefoundation
correction factor for the depth of the foundation
=1 0.5(qo /q)
qo =effectiveoverburdenpressureatthelevelofthe
= effective overburden pressure at the level of the
foundation
C 2 =correctionfactortoaccountforcreepinsoil
= correction factor to account for creep in soil
=1+0.2 log(t/0.1)
Es =2qc
Thesame79foundationsrecords
givenbyJeypalan andBoehm(1986)
andPapadopoulos(1992)
wereanalyzedby
y y
Sivakugan etal.(1998).
Schmertmannetal.(1978)

0.5
q
Iz(peak) 0.5 0.1
o

Item L/B=1 L/B 10


Izatz =0 0.1 0.2
zp/B 0.5 1.0
zo/B 2.0
2 0 4.0
4 0
Es 2.5qc 3.5qc
Salgado(2008)

L
Iz(atz 0) 0.1 0.0111 2
B
zp L
0.5 0.0555 1 1
B B

2 0.222 1 4

zo L
B B
Leeetal.(2008)
FEMAnalysis
Iz (peak) 0.5

zp L
0.5 0.11 1 1
B B
L
with a maximum of1 at 6
B

zo L
0.95 cos 1 3 4
B 5 B
L
with
i h a maximum
i f 4 at 6
of
B
Terzaghietal.
(1996)

L
zo 21 log 4
B
I z
z zo
Se q z
z 0 E s

E s (L / B ) L
1 0 .4 log 1 .4
E s ( L / B 1 ) B

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

0 .1 t days
S e(creep) z o log
qc 1 day

q c weighted mean value q c (in MN/m 2 )


81Foundationand92PlateLoadTests
LoadSettlementCurve
BasedonPressuremeterTest
Briaud(2007)
PressuremeterTest
q [ f(L / B) , fe , f , fd ]pp(mean)

Se R
0.24
B R

gammafunction
SHAPEFACTOR
B
f(L / B) 0.8 0.2
L

ECCENTRICITYFACTOR
e
fe 1 0.33 Center
B
0
0.5
e
fe 1 Edge
B
LOADINCLINATIONFACTOR
(deg)
2
f 1 Center
90
(deg)
0.5
f 1 Edge
360

SLOPE FACTOR
SLOPEFACTOR
0.1
f, d d
0.8 1 3 : 1 slope
B
0.15
f, d d
0.7 1 2 : 1 slope
B
L
Longtermsettlement,includingcreep=
l i l di
0.03
t
Se
t1

t =designlife(inhours)
t 1 =1hour
t 1 hour
Akbas andKulhawy
and Kulhawy (2009)
L1 L2 Method

37 Sites
37Sites

167Axialcompressionfieldloadtests
Mean Se(L1)=(0.23%)B
MeanS = (0 23%)B

Mean Se(L2)
MeanSe(L2) =(5.39%)B
(5.39%)B
Se
Q B

QL2 0.69 Se 1.68

B
B >1m
>1m
QL2 =ultimatebearingcapacityQ
ultimate bearing capacity Qu (Vesic 1973,1975)
1973, 1975)

B 1
B1m
Qu
QL2 Quq
B

Qu N portionofVesic' stheory

Quq Nq portionofVesic' stheory


Note:Vesics theoryincludescompressibilityfactor.So

Qu f ( , E s , , , B)

ProperassumptionofE and isneeded.


Proper assumption of Es and is needed
CATEGORYC
UseofTheoryofElasticityand
ModulusofElasticityy

1 2s
Se qo (B) Is If
Es

Es =averagemodulusofelasticity(z = 0toz = 4B)


B =B/2
s =Poissonsratio
Steinbrenner(1934)

Is =shapefactor=f(m,n)

ForSe atthecenter : =4
L
m
B
H
n
B

2
Fox(1948)
( )

Df L
I f depthfactor f , and s
B B
Se(rigid) 0.93Se(flexible,center)
VariationofIf
L/B
Df /B 1.0 2.0 5.0
Poissons ratio s =0.30
Poissonsratio 0 30
0.20 0.902 0.930 0.951
0.40 0.808 0.857 0.899
0 60
0.60 0 738
0.738 0 796
0.796 0 852
0.852
0.80 0.687 0.747 0.813
1.00 0.650 0.709 0.780
2 00
2.00 0 562
0.562 0 603
0.603 0 675
0.675
Poissonsratios =0.40
0.20 0.932 0.955 0.970
0.40 0.848 0.893 0.927
0.60 0.779 0.836 0.886
0.80 0.727 0.788 0.849
1 00
1.00 0 689
0.689 0 749
0.749 0 818
0.818
2.00 0.596 0.640 0.714
Bowles (1987)
Bowles(1987)

E s ( i ) z
Weighted average, E s
z

z =H
= H or4B,whicheverissmaller
or 4B whichever is smaller

Es =500(N + 15) kN/m2


500(N60 +15)kN/m
MayneandPoulos(1999)
E s Eo kz
q Be IG IR IE
Se (1 2s )
Eo

Eo H
IG influence
i fl f t f
factor ,
k Be Be

IR foundation rigidity correction factor


IE foundation embedment correction factor
0.5

Be
4BL


1
IR
4
Ef 2t 3
4.6 10
Eo Be k Be
2

1
IE 1
Be
3.5 exp1.22 s 0.4 1.6
Df
BerardiandLancellotta(1991)
qB
Se Is
Es
Is=influencefactorforarigidfoundation (s = 0.15)
(Tsytovich,1951)

H 1/B
LL/B
/B 0.5
0 5 1.0
1 0 1.5
1 5 2.0
2 0
1 0.35 0.56 0.63 0.69
2 0 39
0.39 0 65
0.65 0 75
0.75 0 88
0.88
3 0.40 0.67 0.81 0.96
5 0.41 0.68 0.84 0.99
10 0.42 0.71 0.89 1.06
BerardiandLancellotta(1991)reanalyzedfield
p
performanceof130structuresonpredominantly
p y
silicasandasreportedbyBurlandandBurbidge

0.5
o 0.5
Es KE pa (Janbu,1963)
pa

pa =atmosphericpressure
atmospheric pressure
o and atadepthB/2belowthefoundation
K E f N1 60

N1 60 averagecorrectedstandardpenetration
number
b ini the
th influence
i fl zone

Influencezoneforsquarefoundation:
Influence zone for square foundation:
H15 =(1.2to2.8)B
H25=(0.8to1.3)B
(0 8 to 1 3)B

InfluencezoneforL/B
/ 10:
H15 (1.8to2.4)B
25 (1.2to2.0)B
H25 (1.2 to 2.0)B
Skempton(1986)

2
N1 60 N60
1 0.01o
o is
i in kN/ 2
i kN/m

N1 60
60
Dr2
ProcedureforCalculatingS
g E
BerardiandLancellotta(1991)

1. ObtainthevariationofN60 withintheinfluencezone
((i.e.,H
, 25)).
2. Obtain(N1)60 withintheinfluencezone.
Obtain N 1 60 .
3 Obtain
3.
4. ObtainKE atSe/B =0.1%.
0.5
o 0.5
5. Calculate E s KE pa .
pa
ProcedureforCalculatingSE (continued)

6. DetermineIs.
7 Useanequationfromtheoryofelasticityto
7. Use an equation from theory of elasticity to
calculateSe.
8 CalculateS
8. Calculate Se/B.IsitequaltoassumedS
/B Is it equal to assumed Se/B?
/B ?
9. Ifso,thecalculatedSe inStep7istheanswer.
10 Ifnot,useS
10. If not use Se/BfromStep8toobtainthenewK
/B from Step 8 to obtain the new KE.
11. RepeatSteps5,7and8untiltheassumedand
calculated Se/Bareequal.
calculatedS /B are equal
SettlementPredictioninGranularSoils
AProbabilisticApproach
A P b bili ti A h
Sivakugan andJohnson(2004),Geotechnique,Vol.54,
No. 7, 449502.
No.7,449 502.

PredictedSettlement 25mm
Probability of
exceeding25mm
g
Method inthefield
Terzaghi &Peck(1948) 0.26(26%)
Schmertmann (1970) 0.27 (27%)
Burland &Burbidge(1985) 0.42(42%)
B
Berardi
di &Lancellotta
&L ll tt (1991) 0 52 (52%)
0.52(52%)
COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
COMMENTSANDCONCLUSIONS

1. Meyerhofsrelations(1965)simpletouse.Onthe
average,willgiveSe(predicted)/Se(observed) 1.5to2.0.
2. Peck&Bazaraamethod(1969)isnotsuperiorto
thatofMeyerhof(1965).
3. Burland&Burbidge(1965)isanimprovedmethod
overthatofMeyerhof(1965)andPeck&Bazaraa
(1969).
Difficulttoestimateoverconsolidationpressure
fromfieldexploration.
4 Modified
4. Modifiedstraininfluencefactormethodsof
strain influence factor methods of
Schmertmannetal.(1978),Terzaghietal.(1996),
Salgado(2008)andLeeetal.(2008)willgive
g ( ) ( ) g
reasonableresultswithpropervaluesofEs.
gg
5. SuggestedEs relations:
s

E s(L / B) L
1 0.4 log 1.4
E s(L / B1) B

E s(L / B1) 3.5qc

6. TheEs(L/B=1) relationshipcanberelatedtoN60 via


D50.
7. Pressuremeter methodofdevelopingload
method of developing load
settlementrelationshipisveryeffective,butmay
notbecosteffective.
8. L1 L2 (Akbas andKulhawy)isagoodmethod.
HoweverproperassumptionofE and neededto
estimateQL2.
9. Relationshipsforsettlementdevelopedusing
p p g
theoryofelasticitywillgiveequallygoodresults
providedarealistic Es isused.
Useofiterationmethodissuggested.
Ifnot,usedTerzaghietal.srelationship
(1996).
Whatwehaveseenisasystematic
accumulationofknowledgeover60years.
acc m lation of kno ledge o er 60 ears
Theparametersforcomparingsettlement
prediction methods are accuracyand
predictionmethodsare accuracy and
reliability.

Reliabilityistheprobabilitythattheactual
settlementwouldbelessthanthatcomputed
byaspecificmethod.
Inchoosingamethodfordesign,itallcomes
h h df d ll
downtokeepingacriticalbalancebetween
reliability and accuracy,
accuracy whichcanbedifficult
which can be difficult
attimes,knowingthenonhomogeneous
natureofsoilingeneral.Wecannotbeover
g
conservativebut,atthesametime,notbe
accurate.

WeneedtokeepinmindwhatKarlTerzaghi
id i th 45th JamesForrestLectureatthe
saidinthe45 J F tL t t th
InstituteofCivilEngineersinLondon:
Foundation
Foundationfailuresthatoccurarenolonger
failures that occur are no longer
anactofGod.