Responses of Buildings with Different Structural Types to

Excavation-Induced Ground Settlements

Moorak Son, M.ASCE1; and Edward J. Cording, M.ASCE2

Abstract: This paper compares the responses of buildings with different structural types on shallow foundations subjected to excavation-
induced ground settlements and provides a better understanding of the complex soil-structure interaction in building response. Investigated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

structures include brick-bearing structures, open-frame structures, and brick-infilled frame structures. These structures are often encountered
near a construction area, and the different structures may show very different behaviors to excavation-induced ground settlements. In this
research, numerical studies were carried out to evaluate the responses of single brick-bearing walls and frame structures (both open and brick
infilled) subjected to an identical progressive ground settlement and to provide key features of building responses in different soil conditions,
structure conditions, and structural types. Each structure, which is four stories high, was modeled numerically with two different soil con-
ditions, and the response was compared among other types of structures and between elastic and crackable conditions for the brick-bearing
and brick-infilled frame structures. Comparison of building responses was investigated by using distortions and crack damages induced to the
structures by excavation-induced ground settlements. The structures were modeled by using the two-dimensional (2D) universal distinct
element code (UDEC 3.1) in which each brick unit was modeled as a separate unit, with the contacts between brick units having stiffness
and strength characteristics of mortar. The numerical studies indicated that the structural response to excavation-induced ground settlements is
highly dependent on structural type, cracking in a structure, and soil condition; therefore, their effects should be considered to better assess
building response to excavation-induced ground settlements. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000448. © 2011 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Numerical analysis; Structural response; Excavation; Soil-structure interactions; Damage; Assessment;
Settlement.
Author keywords: Numerical tests; Building response; Excavation; Soil-structure interaction; Structural type; Damage assessment.

Introduction the estimation of free-field ground settlement, presumably because

Excavation of underground facilities and deep building foundations
in urban areas must be controlled to limit potentially damaging
ground settlements to adjacent structures. Buildings on shallow
foundations, which are often historic masonry and low-rise frame
structures, are of particular concern.
The responses of brick-bearing and frame (both open and in-
filled) structures, which occupy a substantial part of urban areas,
are generally poorly understood in relation to excavation-induced
ground settlements. These structures are likely to be damaged by
the excavation-induced ground settlements caused by subway or
building construction. When excavations are made adjacent to
these structures, engineers and designers need to estimate building
damages and recommend appropriate protective measures if
needed.
The response of nearby structures attributable to excavation-
induced ground settlements has been studied less frequently than
1 Although field observations are of first importance in assessing
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Daegu Univ., Jillyang, Gyeong-
san, Gyeongbuk, 712-714, South Korea (corresponding author). E-mail:
mson@daegu.ac.kr
2
Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana,
IL 61801. E-mail: cordingconsult@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 1, 2009; approved
on September 22, 2010; published online on September 24, 2010. Discus-
sion period open until September 1, 2011; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 4, April 1,
2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2011/4-323–333/$25.00.
of the difficulty and complication involved in measuring and
assessing soil-structure interaction. Nevertheless, some relevant
studies include Breth and Chambosse (1974), Attewell (1978),
Boscardin and Cording (1989), Burland (1995), Boone et al.
(1999), Son and Cording (2005), Finno et al. (2005), and Schuster
et al. (2009).
Identical free-field ground settlements can cause different re-
sponses in structures depending on both soil and structure condi-
tions. However, many design criteria do not explicitly consider the
soil and structural conditions when assessing potential damage to
nearby structures. Reasonable damage assessments require a better
understanding of the complex soil-structure interaction, consider-
ing large crack opening and postcrack inelastic behaviors in struc-
tures, structural types, and soil conditions, which are investigated in
this paper. Failure to understand this interaction can lead to the im-
plementation of unnecessary protection measures, to the incurrence
of unnecessary cost, and consequently, to unsatisfactory results.
building response to nearby excavation, numerical model tests have
capabilities that add unique perspectives to the evaluation of build-
ing response. This paper analyzes the results of building response
to excavation-induced ground settlements, which were observed
from numerical model tests considering the effects of cracking,
structural type, and soil stiffness. It investigates the relations among
ground settlement, building distortion, and building damage in con-
trolled variation of structural conditions, soil conditions, and struc-
tural types to finally provide a better understanding of the complex
soil-structure interaction in building response.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 323

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.

 Structures Commonly Affected by Excavation-
Induced Ground Settlements
Brick-bearing structures and frame (both open and infilled) struc-
tures occupy a substantial part of urban areas and are commonly
affected by excavation-induced ground settlements. Accordingly,
to better evaluate the potential damage of those buildings in urban
areas, it is important to understand the characteristics of the
structures.
Brick-bearing wall structures have been used for many purposes
including houses, small apartments, industrial buildings, and mon-
umental structures such as churches or cathedrals. Many of the
buildings range from 50 to 100 years old, with some of the older
ones built either with previous outdated codes or before building
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
codes were established.
The properties of brick and mortar vary widely depending on
age, brick type, and mortar type. Hence, the responses of brick-
bearing wall structures to excavation-induced ground settlements
are significantly different according to structural stiffness and
strength. Consequently, engineers and designers need to investigate
those properties to estimate building damage. Some old masonry
buildings have very little, if any, tensile strength. Beranek (1987)
reported a mean tensile strength of 375 kPa (54 psi), with a range of
248–503 kPa (36–73 psi). Atkinson et al. (1989) performed direct
shear tests on masonry bed joints and provided cohesive shear
strengths, friction angles, and normal and shear stiffness on the
joints.
Frame structures are widely used for commercial, industrial, and
modern office buildings. The frame structures can be categorized
into three types: (1) open-frame structures, (2) frame structures with
curtain wall, and (3) infilled frame structures. Brick or block units
are commonly used for the curtain walls and infill panels, in which
the walls may function as shear-resistant structural elements, but
they are not considered as load-bearing walls. The frames are gen-
erally used as a structural support for loading.
Each type of frame structure responds somewhat differently
when the structure is subjected to excavation-induced ground set-
tlements. Therefore, it is valuable to examine each structure indi-
vidually with regard to its response to the ground settlements.
The open-frame structure is often used for multistory parking
lots. This is the simplest structure and has relatively small shear
stiffness. The structure can tolerate large distortion without distress-
ing on members. A previous study (Meyerhof 1956) showed that
this type of structure can sustain an angular distortion of approx-
imately 1=250 without cracking. Therefore, functional damage in
the structure generally precedes structural instability and would be
a controlling factor for a distortion. Because of the low shear stiff-
ness, this type of structure is much more susceptible to differential
settlement than bending.
For many factory buildings, much of the inner framework is left
open for machinery, and outer walls are often faced with brickwork.
The faced walls are called curtain walls and do not provide any
structural support. The frame structures with curtain walls respond
to the ground settlements in a manner similar to brick-bearing wall
structures, and the distortion of the curtain walls governs the tol-
erance of the structure deformation.
The infill panels in the infilled frame structure are composed
of one of the following: brickwork, block work, plain concrete,
or reinforced concrete. The infilled frame structures are generally
stiffer and stronger than the open-frame structures because the infill
panels interact with the frames, resulting in an increase of stiffness
and strength of the structures. The behaviors of the frame-infill
interaction and the infills were studied by Smith (1962), Yorulmaz
and Sozen (1968), and Wood (1978).
324 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.
Steel or reinforced concrete frames are used to enclose the infill
panels and to reinforce the main frame against horizontal loads. The
extent of the contribution of the infill panels to increasing the stiff-
ness and strength depends on the type of the infill, the relative
stiffness and strength between the infill and the frame, the tightness
of fit between the infill and the frame, the geometry of the infill
panel, the openings in the infill, and the construction workmanship.
A structure can be composed of both the infilled and the open
frames. This type of structure is common for office, commercial,
and industrial buildings. Abrupt stiffness and strength change
occurs between the infilled sections and the open sections, and
the damage attributable to ground settlement tends to concentrate
on the boundaries in many cases.
For a structural analysis using a code based on continuum
elements, this infill panel can be replaced by equivalent diagonal
struts rather than true shear walls, but in relation to damage assess-
ment attributable to excavation-induced ground settlements, it is
more appropriate to model the infill panel directly so that the crack-
ing and postcrack behavior of the panel can be simulated.
Numerical Analysis
Numerical tests were performed to investigate the effect of soil
and structural conditions and structural types on the response
of buildings adjacent to an excavation area. The advantages of
numerical analysis are that various conditions can be easily consid-
ered with limited time, cost, and space, and reproducible analyses
are possible. This characteristic allows the response of buildings to
excavation-induced ground settlements to be investigated in various
conditions.
The two-dimensional (2D) universal distinct element code
(UDEC 3.1) was used to conduct the numerical studies on the vari-
ous configurations of field-scale brick-bearing and frame (open and
brick-infilled) structures. In modeling the brick-bearing structures
and the brick-infilled frame structures, each brick was modeled as
a separate elastic unit, and the brick/mortar contact was simulated
by using the Coulomb slip model—when the contact normal stress
exceeds the maximum tensile strength of the contact or the contact
shear stress exceeds the contact shear strength, which is the com-
bination of cohesive (C) and frictional strength (ϕ), the contact
loses strength and a crack is formed. Further extension across
the contact causes separation of the adjacent bricks and leads to
a larger opening of the crack. The contact does not simulate the
crush in compression, which is reasonable, because a compressive
strength is generally higher than a tensile strength and cracks form
mostly because of tensile stress. Before cracking, the brick/mortar
contact model has a linear stress-displacement relationship with the
slope of the contact normal stiffness for the normal stress condition
and with the slope of the contact shear stiffness for the shear stress
condition. After cracks form, the contact has a frictional shear
resistance only. This model can more easily simulate large crack
openings and postcrack inelastic behavior than the continuum-
based numerical methods such as FEM, which cannot simulate
the many large crack openings and the relative rotations and trans-
lation between the masonry units. The building/soil interface model
was similar to the brick/mortar contact model, but the properties
were different. Thus, the interface allowed the building to separate
from the soil or slide between the building and the soil. The frames
in both open and brick-infilled frame structures were modeled
elastically.
In this study, the properties of the soil, brick unit, brick/mortar
contact, and frame were selected based on the literature studies
(Beranek 1987; Atkinson et al. 1989) that were mentioned in
 the previous section. Analyses were performed under plane stress
conditions for both soil and structure, and the soil was modeled as
an elastic mass. Elastic soil stiffness in the numerical tests (2D) was
determined to provide the same normal pressure/displacement
relation at the base of the footing as the three-dimensional (3D)
condition in field using Boussinesq’s relationships.
The entire excavation sequence was not simulated, but instead a
progressive free-field ground settlement profile of parabolic shape
obtained from the typical field observations (Peck 1969; Clough
and O’Rourke 1990) in the hogging zone was imposed to the soil
mass, which has a finite thickness. The numerical simulation was
performed with several stages. At the beginning stage, which is the
stage before imposing a free-field ground settlement, an initial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
equilibrium was obtained with building self-weight and floor loads.
At this stage, the boundary condition for the soil mass was roller
supports at each end of the two vertical boundaries of the soil mass
and at the bottom boundary of the soil mass. After ensuring the
initial equilibrium condition, all displacements were reset to
zero, and a progressive free-field ground settlement representing
the settlement pattern induced by a sequential excavation was
imposed at the base of the soil mass in three phases, allowing the
soil-structure interaction between the structure and the soil mass.
The phased settlements were imposed after confirming for the
free-field condition that the displacement profile induced at the
surface of the soil mass was just a result of imposing the settlement
profile to the base of the soil mass. The first phase free-field ground
settlement was imposed gradually with time steps at the base of the
soil mass. After the equilibrium condition attributable to the first
settlement imposing was ensured, the second and final phase set-
tlements were imposed as in the first phase. After the stage analysis
was completed, distortions and cracking in structures were then
investigated from the result of each phase.
Modeling of the soil with an advanced constitutive model and
the entire excavation sequence with a structure is desired for a
specific field condition when trying to link the ground settlements
near the excavation wall or the tunnel to the ground settlements
near the building. However, the goal of this study is to provide
some basic information and better understanding of building
Fig. 1. Numerical model geometries and boundary conditions for brick-infilled frame structures; in this figure, brick-bearing structures are composed
of only brick units without frames, and open-frame structures are composed of only frames without brick infills
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 325
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.
response to building settlement with an assumed settlement profile,
which is in the range of typical field observations (Peck 1969;
Clough and O’Rourke 1990); for this purpose, it would be less than
ideal to model the entire excavation and structure with both exca-
vation and structure complexities for a specific condition. Instead, it
would be better to use a simple and conceptual approach for this
study, as long as the applied conditions are in the range of typical
field characteristics. This study investigates a general relation
among ground movements, building distortion, and building dam-
age in some assumed soil and structural conditions and structural
types, considering soil-structure interaction with an assumed settle-
ment profile. From investigating the relation, the study is to provide
some key features of building response for practical use in the field,
as well as a better understanding of the complex soil-structure in-
teraction in controlling building damage caused by excavation-
induced ground settlements. In this practical point of view, the
numerical methodology adopted in this paper can be justified,
and the methodology is even consistent with how potential impacts
on buildings are assessed frequently in practice, in which the free-
field ground settlements are first assessed, and then its impact on
the building is evaluated, taking into account building stiffness.
Numerical Parametric Studies
To give a justifiable basis for the numerical tests, a physical model
test performed by Laefer (2001) with one-tenth large-scale brick-
bearing model walls was previously simulated numerically, and the
results were compared with the results of the physical model test
(Son and Cording 2005). From the direct comparisons, good agree-
ments were found between the model structures and the numerical
simulations, and it was concluded that the numerical approach was
reasonably valid.
The reasonable simulation of the physical model test led to
extended numerical parametric studies that included the effects
of soil conditions (softer and stiffer), structure conditions (elastic
and crackable), and structural types (brick-bearing, open-frame,
and brick-infilled frame structures) on the building response to a
progressive ground settlement. For the soil conditions, the terms
 Fig. 2. Progressive ground settlement profile used for numerical analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

softer and stiffer merely represent the relative deformability of soils
for the parametric analysis in this study.
In this study, numerical studies were carried out to evaluate the
responses of the different structural types (Fig. 1) subjected to an
identical progressive ground settlement (Fig. 2). Although a differ-
ent soil condition in the field would induce a different ground
settlement profile in shape and magnitude, this study used the
same ground settlement profile because this is a kind of parametric
study to provide key features of building responses in a controlled
variation of soil and building conditions as well as a better under-
standing of the complex soil-structure interaction. In addition, the
shape of excavation-induced settlement profiles depends on several
factors, including soil types and construction conditions. Never-
theless, this study used the parabolic hogging mode of settlement
profile (spandrel shape) for the parametric analysis, which is lim-
ited to sand or stiff clay, because many buildings are usually more
susceptible to damage in the hogging zone of ground settlement
than in the sagging (concave shape) zone.
One of most important elements to model on the ground/brick-
bearing wall or the ground/brick-infilled frame structure interaction
is the nonlinearity of the building because the displacements and
cracking between brick units control behavior and building stiff-
ness. In assessing the soil-structure interactions caused by excava-
tion-induced ground settlements, many investigators have given
considerable efforts to the analysis of soil-structure interactions,
in which structures were often simulated as elastic beams, but most

Table 1. Soil, Structure, and Interface Properties Used for Numerical Analysis
Soil
properties,
Structure Es (MPa)
Structure properties Interface properties
Case type (υs ¼ 0:33)
C, σt ϕ Kn Ks
Brick units Brick/mortar joints (kPa) (°) (MPa=mm) (MPa=mm)
γ ϕ Kn Ks
E (GPa) υ (kN=m3 ) C (kPa) (°) σt (kPa) (MPa=mm) (MPa=mm)
1 Brick-bearing 17.2 10.34 0.2 19 344 35 344 78 7.8 0 35 78 0.0146
structure
2 Brick-bearing 68.9 10.34 0.2 19 344 35 344 78 7.8 0 35 78 0.0584
structure
3 Brick-bearing 68.9 10.34 0.2 19 large 35 large 78 7.8 0 35 78 0.0584
structure (elastic) enough enough
4 Open-frame 17.2 20.67 0.15 24 — — — — — 0 35 78 0.0146
structure (elastic)
5 Open-frame 68.9 20.67 0.15 24 — — — — — 0 35 78 0.0584
structure (elastic)
6 Brick-infilled 17.2 Ba: 10.34 B: 0.2 B: 19 344 35 344 78 7.8 0 35 78 0.0146
frame structure Fa: 20.67 F: 0.15 F: 24
7 Brick-infilled 68.9 B: 10.34 B: 0.2 B: 19 344 35 344 78 7.8 0 35 78 0.0584
frame structure F: 20.67 F: 0.15 F: 24
8 Brick-infilled 68.9 B: 10.34 B: 0.2 B: 19 large 35 large 78 7.8 0 35 78 0.0584
frame structure F: 20.67 F: 0.15 F: 24 enough enough
(elastic)
Note: Es = Young’s modulus for soil; E = Young’s modulus for brick units; υ = Poisson’s ratio for brick units; γ = total unit weight; C = joint or interface
cohesive strength; ϕ = joint or interface friction angle; σt = joint or interface tensile strength; K n = joint or interface normal stiffness; and K s = joint or interface
shear stiffness
a
B = brick units; and F = frames.

326 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.

 analyses did not explicitly consider soil-structure interactions when measuring the vertical (v) and lateral (l) displacements (Av , Bv ,
assessing potential damage to nearby structures. Reasonable dam- C v , Dv , Al , Bl , C l , and Dl ) at the four corners of each bay (e.g.,
age assessments require a better understanding of the soil-structure A, B, C, and D in Fig. 3). From these measurements, the following
interactions with building cracking. In this study, building response deformations were determined for each bay.
to excavation-induced ground settlements was more explicitly in- Slope is the change of gradient at the base over the length, L, of
vestigated, simulating large crack opening and postcrack inelastic the section and is defined as
behaviors of the structures using UDEC. The soil and structure
properties used are presented in Table 1. Av
Bv
Slope ¼
L
Numerical Analysis of Brick-Bearing Structures
Tilt is the rigid body rotation of the section and is defined
Soil stiffness is one of the main factors that affect building response as
to ground settlement. Two different soil conditions, softer and
stiffer, were considered for the analysis.
ðC l
Bl Þ þ ðDl
Al Þ C l
Bl
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3 compares the responses of the four-story brick-bearing Tilt ¼ or

structures (Cases 1 and 2 in Table 1) subjected to a progressive 2H H
settlement in Phase 2, in which the structure distortion was largest
of the three phases. Although the structures were subjected to the Angular distortion (β) is the shearing distortion of the section
bigger maximum settlement in Phase 3 than in Phase 2, the change and is defined as
in ground slope of the given ground settlement profile between two
different bays of the structures is less in Phase 3 than in Phase 2. β ¼ slope
tilt
This condition causes the structures in Phase 3 to be in less distor-
tion than in Phase 2; hence, some existing cracks in Phase 2 were Lateral strain at the top [εlat (T)] is the change of lateral
closed to some extent in Phase 3, causing the crack width to be a displacement at the top over the length, L, of the section and is
little smaller. defined as
The structures were divided into three bays, and the deformation
in each bay was calculated in slope, tilt, angular distortion, and lat- Dl
C l
εlat ðTÞ ¼
eral strain. The deformations of a structure were determined by L

Fig. 3. Numerical analysis of distortion and cracking in four-story brick-bearing structures (Phase 2): (a) structure on softer soil; (b) structure on
stiffer soil

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 327

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.

 Lateral strain at the base [εlat (F)] is the change of lateral
displacement at the base over the length, L, of the section and
is defined as
Al
Bl
εlat ðFÞ ¼
L
For the structure on stiffer soil, the angular distortion (β) and the
lateral strain (εL ) were 2:24 × 10
3 and 2:84 × 10
3 in Bay 1 and

0:1 × 10
3 and almost zero in Bay 3, respectively. However, for
the structure on softer soil, the angular distortion (β) and the lateral
strain (εL ) were 0:19 × 10
3 and 0:02 × 10
3 in Bay 1 and

0:11 × 10
3 and almost zero in Bay 3, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Severe cracking (in this study, this is defined as having a large
number of cracks larger than 10 mm) was observed for the structure
on stiffer soil. The maximum crack size was 11.50 mm, and many
similar cracks were formed. However, the structure on softer soil
had smaller numbers of cracks, and the maximum crack size
was 0.21 mm.
The soil-structure interaction of the given ground settlement
was investigated in terms of the normalized angular distortion
[β=ΔGS, where β = angular distortion in a bay and ΔGS = change
in ground slope between two adjacent bays in a free-field ground
settlement profile]. For the structure on stiffer soil, the normalized
angular distortion (β=ΔGS) was 1.12 in Bay 1, but it was only 0.1
in Bay 1 for the structure on softer soil. The structure on softer soil
underwent a greater tilt than that on stiffer soil because it had a
higher stiffness caused by less cracking.
Fig. 4. Numerical analysis of distortion and cracking in four-story brick-bearing structures (Phase 2): (a) cracked structure; (b) elastic structure
328 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.
These observations indicated that the structure on stiffer soil dis-
torted close to the free-field ground settlement, but the structure on
softer soil greatly modified the settlement and underwent much less
distortion.
Fig. 4 compares the responses of the four-story brick-bearing
structures on stiffer soil, which had all the same conditions but
the joint tensile strength (Cases 2 and 3 in Table 1). The comparison
shows that a structure may undergo a very different response
because of the development of cracks in the structure.
The elastic structure was much stiffer than the cracked structure.
For the elastic structure, the angular distortion (β) and the lateral
strain (εL ) were 0:42 × 10
3 and 0:03 × 10
3 in Bay 1 and

0:29 × 10
3 and 0:04 × 10
3 in Bay 3, respectively. The elastic
brick-bearing structure had somewhat similar angular distortions in
both Bays 1 and 3, and the direction of the deformation was as
shown in the figure. However, with the modeling of crack develop-
ment, the brick-bearing structure underwent significant cracking,
and a greater angular distortion was developed in Bay 1. The
cracked brick-bearing structure was much more flexible than the
elastic one because of the significant cracking. The direction of
the deformation in the cracked structure is also shown in the figure.
Both structures were tilted up at the back corners of the third bay,
but it was greater in the elastic brick structure.
For the cracked structure, the angular distortion increased in
Bay 1 and decreased in Bay 3 compared with the elastic structure.
This implies that once cracking occurs in a structure, the sub-
sequent cracks concentrate around the initial cracks and extend
out, inducing more cracks and crack widening. For the elastic
 brick-bearing structure, the building slope was close to the building
tilt, but the difference between the slope and the tilt increased with
building cracking. The comparison of the two structures clearly
indicates that the cracking on a structure strongly controls building
response to a ground settlement and that elastic analysis alone can
produce a misleading result of building response.
The normalized angular distortion was 0.21 and 1.12 in Bay 1
for elastic and cracked brick-bearing structures, respectively.
The elastic brick-bearing structure underwent a greater tilt and a
smaller slope than the cracked structure because it has a higher
stiffness because of no cracking. These observations indicate that
the cracked brick-bearing structure distorted close to the given
ground settlement, but the elastic one greatly modified the ground
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
settlement and underwent much less distortion.
Numerical Analysis of Open-Frame Structures
Fig. 5 compares the responses of four-story elastic open-frame
structures (Cases 4 and 5 in Table 1). The angular distortion (β)
and the lateral strain (εL ) for the structure on stiffer soil were 1:23 ×
10
3 and 0:02 × 10
3 in Bay 1 and
1:04 × 10
3 and 0:02 × 10
3
in Bay 3, respectively. However, for the structure on softer soil, the
angular distortion (β) and the lateral strain (εL ) were 0:91 × 10
3
and 0:02 × 10
3 in Bay 1 and
0:83 × 10
3 and 0:01 × 10
3 in
Bay 3, respectively. Both structures had similar angular distortions
in Bays 1 and 3 in the magnitude as observed in the elastic
brick-bearing structure. The direction of the deformation is shown
in Fig. 5.
The angular distortion in Bay 3 was as high as in Bay 1 even
though the slope in Bay 3 was relatively small. This is attributable
Fig. 5. Numerical analysis of distortion in four-story open-frame structures (Phase 2): (a) structure on softer soil; (b) structure on stiffer soil
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 329
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.
to the large lateral swing caused by the structural flexibility (see
Fig. 5; the lateral displacements at the upper part of the structure
are much larger than the displacements at the lower part).
The normalized angular distortion (β=ΔGS) was 0.62 in Bay 1
for the structure on stiffer soil and 0.46 for that on softer soil. This
indicates that the structure on stiffer soil distorted more closely
to the given ground settlement, and the structure on softer
soil modified the ground settlement profile more and
underwent less distortion.
Numerical Analysis of Brick-Infilled Frame Structures
Fig. 6 compares the responses of four-story brick-infilled frame
structures (Cases 6 and 7 in Table 1). For the structure on stiffer
soil, the angular distortion (β) and the lateral strain (εL ) were
0:39 × 10
3 and 0:04 × 10
3 in Bay 1 and
0:19 × 10
3 and
nearly zero in Bay 3, respectively. However, for the structure on
softer soil, the angular distortion (β) and the lateral strain (εL ) were
0:23 × 10
3 and nearly zero in Bay 1 and
0:04 × 10
3 and nearly
zero in Bay 3, respectively.
Some minor cracks were observed in the structure on stiffer soil,
and the maximum crack size was 0.75 mm. However, the structure
on softer soil had fewer cracks, and the maximum crack size was
only 0.13 mm.
The normalized angular distortion (β=ΔGS) was 0.2 and 0.12 in
Bay 1 for the structures on stiffer and softer soils, respectively. This
indicates that the structure on stiffer soil distorted a little more, but
the difference was not that significant. In other words, both struc-
tures greatly modified the ground settlement profile and underwent
relatively small distortion.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Numerical analysis of distortion and cracking in four-story brick-infilled frame structures (Phase 2): (a) structure on softer soil; (b) structure on
stiffer soil
Fig. 7 compares the responses of the four-story brick-infilled
frame structures on stiffer soil that had all the same conditions
but the joint tensile strength (Cases 7 and 8 in Table 1). The com-
parison shows that although there is a great difference in the joint
tensile strength, the structures may distort somehow similarly. This
response is attributable to the frames that enclose the inside brick
units and restrict the cracks from being enlarged and propagated.
For the elastic structure, the angular distortion (β) and the
lateral strain (εL ) were 0:26 × 10
3 and 0:03 × 10
3 in Bay 1
and
0:12 × 10
3 and nearly zero in Bay 3, respectively.
The normalized angular distortion in Bay 1 for the elastic and
cracked structures was 0.13 and 0.2, respectively. This indicates
that although the cracked structure has a slight larger distortion,
both structures underwent relatively small distortions because of
high stiffness, and the induced settlements were less than the given
ground settlement profile.
The comparisons also show that the brick-infilled frame struc-
tures had relatively similar angular distortions in Bays 1 and 3 in
the magnitude, and the effect of soil and structure conditions was
not that significant for the structural type.
Comparison of Structural Responses
Structural responses, which were described in the previous sec-
tions, were all compared. Fig. 8 compares the structural responses
for all the investigated cases with different soil and structure
330 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.
conditions in terms of the normalized angular distortion (β=ΔGS)
in magnitude. The normalized angular distortions (β=ΔGS) be-
tween Bays 1 and 3 were also compared for each structure. As
shown in the figure, the brick-bearing structure on stiffer soil
had a significant difference between Bays 1 and 3. The normalized
angular distortion in Bay 1 was 1.12, and it was only 0.05 in Bay 3.
The difference is attributable to the severe cracking in Bay 1 of the
structure. Because of the severe cracking, the normalized
angular distortion in Bay 3 was even smaller than that in Bay 3
of the brick-bearing structure on softer soil because the severe
cracking detached Bay 3 from Bay 1, decreasing the angular dis-
tortion in Bay 3. Other brick-bearing structures and brick-
infilled frame structures had normalized angular distortions that
were relatively small and were similar in Bays 1 and 3, even though
the angular distortion was a little larger in Bay 1 (0.1–0.2 in Bay 1
and 0.05–0.15 in Bay 3). The relatively small normalized angular
distortions in the structures imply that the given ground settlement
profile was significantly modified by the structures, causing the
small distortions in the structures. The structures on softer soil
underwent a little smaller distortion than the elastic structures
on stiffer soil because of the modification of the settlement profile.
The brick-infilled frame structure on stiffer soil was slightly
cracked (in this study, this is defined as having a maximum crack
size of less than 1 mm) and had the normalized angular distortions
(0.2 and 0.1 in Bays 1 and 3, respectively) slightly larger than those
in the brick-infilled frame structure in the elastic condition on stiffer
soil (0.1 and 0.06 in Bays 1 and 3, respectively). The open-frame
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Numerical analysis of distortion and cracking in four-story brick-infilled frame structures (Phase 2): (a) cracked structure; (b) elastic structure

structures had normalized angular distortions between the severely
cracked brick-bearing structure on stiffer soils and the other
structures. This implies that the open-frame structures were stiffer
than the severely cracked brick-bearing structure [see Figs. 3(b) and
5(b)], but they were much more flexible than the other structures
[see Figs. 4(b) and 5(b)]. For the open-frame structures, the
normalized angular distortions were similar in Bays 1 and 3,
although the angular distortion was a little larger in Bay 1
(0.46–0.62 in Bay 1 and 0.42–0.52 in Bay 3). The open-frame
structure on stiffer soil had normalized angular distortions (0.62
in Bay 1 and 0.52 in Bay 3) that are a little larger than those of
the structure on softer soil (0.46 in Bay 1 and 0.42 in Bay 3).

Normalized Angular Distortion (β/∆GS, where β is the angular

distortion in a bay and ∆GS is the change in ground slope between
two adjacent bays in a free-field ground settlement profile)
1.2
Brick-bearing (Bay 1)
Normalized Angular Distortion

1 Brick-bearing (Bay 3)
Open frame (Bay 1)
Open frame (Bay 3)
0.8 Brick-infilled frame (Bay 1)
Brick-infilled frame (Bay 3)
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Softer Soil Stiffer Soil Stiffer Soil (Structure in
Soil Condition Elastic Condition)

Fig. 8. Comparison of normalized angular distortions in Phase 2

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 331

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.

 The response comparison of the different structural types pro-
vides an important result for a building damage estimate. All the
structures were subjected to the same ground settlement profile,
but the structures distorted very differently with different soil
and structure conditions, as described previously. From the com-
parison, it is clear that a brick-bearing structure before cracking
is much stiffer and undergoes less distortion than an open-frame
structure. However, after the development and extension of cracks
in a brick-bearing structure, the structure becomes more flexible
and distorts much more than an open-frame structure. This clearly
indicates that the cracking on structures strongly controls building
response to a ground settlement and that elastic analysis alone can
produce a misleading result of building response. Accordingly, a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
building damage estimate to excavation-induced ground settle-
ments should be based on the soil-structure interaction, which con-
siders the cracking on structures.
The brick-infilled structures had similar distortions regardless of
soil and structure conditions. The distortions of the structures were
much smaller than those in the open-frame structures but were sim-
ilar to the brick-bearing structures that were not cracked severely.
The enclosed frames prevented the structures from being severely
cracked and distorted.
The response comparison of all the investigated structures
clearly indicates the importance of soil-structure interaction, which
considers structure conditions, soil conditions, and structural types
when evaluating building response to a ground settlement.
Conclusions
The structures with different types and conditions were subjected to
the same progressive ground settlement profile, and the responses
to the ground settlement were investigated. From the investigations,
the following conclusions have been drawn.
1. This study clearly indicates that a building response is strongly
controlled by the soil-structure interaction and that structure
cracking and elastic analysis alone can cause a misleading
result for a building damage estimate. Accordingly, a building
damage estimate should consider the effect of structure crack-
ing and postcrack behavior with a better understanding of the
soil-structure interaction.
2. For a brick-bearing structure, once cracking occurs in a struc-
ture, the subsequent cracks concentrate around the initial
cracks and propagate farther out with advancing ground settle-
ments. However, for a brick-infilled frame structure the
enclosed frame significantly confines the crack propagation
so that the structure undergoes relatively small distortion
regardless of structure conditions.
3. A structure on stiffer soil is more susceptible to building
damage caused by ground settlement than a structure on softer
soil if the same magnitude of ground settlement occurs. The
structure on softer soil has a tendency to modify a ground set-
tlement profile and undergoes less distortion. However, the
effect of soil stiffness decreases when a structure has enough
strength or a structure is restrained by some elements such as
frames in a brick-infilled frame structure.
4. A brick-bearing structure or a brick-infilled frame structure,
which is in elastic or slightly cracked conditions, is much stif-
fer than an open-frame structure and undergoes relatively less
structural distortions. It is also clear that all the structures in
elastic or slightly cracked conditions have similar angular
distortions in Bays 1 and 3.
5. Although a brick-bearing structure in an elastic condition
was much stiffer than an open-frame structure, its stiffness
332 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.
decreased significantly with severe cracking, and it underwent
a much larger distortion than an open-frame structure. From
these results, it is evident that building response should be
evaluated by considering both strength and stiffness in a
structure.
6. All the brick-infilled frame structures underwent similar distor-
tions regardless of soil and structure conditions. The distor-
tions in the structures were much smaller than those in the
open-frame structures but were similar to those in the brick-
bearing structures in elastic or slightly cracked conditions.
The enclosed frames prevented the structures from being
severely cracked and distorted. From this result, it is believed
that a building damage estimate in a brick-infilled frame struc-
ture can be performed by assuming an elastic brick-bearing
structure without much difference.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by Daegu University in Korea, the support
of which is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Atkinson, R. H., Amadei, B. P., Saeb, S., and Sture, S. (1989). “Reponse
of masonry bed joints in direct shear.” J. Struct. Eng., 115(9),
2276–2296.
Attewell, P. B. (1978). “Large ground movements and structural
damage caused by tunneling below the water table in a silty alluvial
clay.” Proc., Conf. on Large Ground Movements and Structures,
Cardiff, July 1977, James D. Geddes, ed., Pentech Press, London,
307–355.
Beranek, W. J. (1987). “The prediction of damage to masonry buildings
caused by subsoil settlements.” Heron, 32(4), 55–93.
Boone, S. J., Westland, J., and Nusink, R. (1999). “Comparative evaluation
of building responses to an adjacent braced excavation.” Can. Geotech.
J., 36, 210–223.
Boscardin, M. D., and Cording, E. J. (1989). “Building response to
excavation-induced settlement.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 115(1),
1–21.
Breth, H., and Chambosse, G. (1974). “Settlement behavior of buildings
above subway tunnels in Frankfurt clay.” Proc., Conf. on Settlement
of Structures, Pentech Press, London, 329–336.
Burland, J. B. (1995). “Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to
tunneling and excavation.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotech-
nical Engineering IS-Tokyo, K. Ishihara, ed., A.A. Balkema, Rotter-
dam, the Netherlands, 1189–1201.
Clough, G. W., and O’Rourke, T. D. (1990). “Construction induced move-
ments of in situ walls.” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 439–470.
Finno, R. J., Voss, F. T., Jr., Rossow, E., and Blackburn, J. T. (2005).
“Evaluating damage potential in buildings affected by excavation.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131(10), 1199–1210.
Laefer, D. F. (2001). “Prediction and assessment of ground movement and
building damage induced by adjacent excavation.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1956). “Discussion on paper by A. W. Skempton and
D. H. MacDonald ‘The allowable settlement of buildings.’” Proc., Inst.
Civ. Eng., Part 2, 5, 774–775.
Peck, R. B. (1969). “Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground.”
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering,
State-of-the-Art Volume, 225–290.
Schuster, M., Kung, G. T. C., Juang, C. H., and Hashash, Y. M. A. (2009).
“Simplified model for evaluating damage potential of buildings adja-
cent to a braced excavation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(12),
1823–1835.
Smith, B. S. (1962). “Lateral stiffness of infilled frames.” J. Struct. Div.,
88(6), 183–199.
 Son, M., and Cording, E. J. (2005). “Estimation of building damage due to
excavation-induced ground movements.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
131(2), 162–177.
UDEC 3.1 [Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis,
MN.
Wood, R. H. (1978). “Plasticity, composite action and collapse design of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Newcastle on 09/16/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
unreinforced shear wall panels in frame.” Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng., Struct.
Build., 65, 381–411.
Yorulmaz, M., and Sozen, M. A. (1968). “Behavior of single-story
reinforced concrete frames with filler walls.” Structural Research
Series No. 337, Civil Engineering Studies, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, IL.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 333

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2011.137:323-333.