See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250211829

Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil - An overview

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · October 2007

DOI: 10.3328/IJGE.2007.01.01.19-29

CITATIONS READS
42 4,911

2 authors, including:

Nagaratnam Sivakugan
James Cook University
197 PUBLICATIONS   2,104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development and use of recycled plastic fibres in concrete applications View project

Performance assessment and strengthening of aged timber girders. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nagaratnam Sivakugan on 11 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 19

1 2
Braja M. Das* and Nagaratnam Sivakugan

Settlements of shallow foundations on

granular soil — an overview

ABSTRACT: The main objective of this paper is to review the current state-of-the-art for predicting settlements of shallow
foundations in granular soils. The traditional settlement prediction methods are critically reviewed. The Settlement ’94 predic-
tion session held in Texas clearly showed the deficiencies in the present settlement prediction methods, which generally over-
estimate the settlements and underestimate the allowable pressures, making the foundation designs very conservative. Some
recent developments, including two deterministic methods and a probabilistic approach, are discussed as they have significant
potential to improve the current state-of-the-art. Several empirical correlations relating the modulus of elasticity of soil and
penetration resistances and standard penetration and cone penetration tests are summarized.

KEYWORDS: Shallow foundations, granular soils, settlements, empirical correlations, Settlement ’94

1. INTRODUCTION resistance such as blow count from standard penetration test

Shallow foundations are generally designed to satisfy bearing
capacity and settlement criteria. The bearing capacity crite-
rion stipulates that there is adequate safety against bearing
capacity failure beneath the foundation, and a factor of safety
of three is generally used on the computed ultimate bearing
capacity. Settlement criterion is to ensure that the settlement
is within tolerable limits.
It is commonly believed that the settlement criterion is
more critical than the bearing capacity one in the designs of
shallow foundations, especially for foundation width greater
than 1.5 m, which is often the case. By limiting the total set-
tlements, differential settlements and any subsequent dis-
tresses to the structure are limited. Generally the settlements
of shallow foundations such as pad or strip footings are lim-
ited to 25 mm (Terzaghi et al. 1996).
Douglas (1986) reported the existence of more than 40
different methods for estimating settlements in granular soils.
All these methods recognize that the applied pressure, soil
stiffness and the foundation width are the three most impor-
tant variables affecting the settlements in granular soils. Soil
stiffness is often quantified indirectly through penetration
*Corresponding Author
1Geotechnical Engineer, Henderson, Nevada 89044 USA, e-mail: brajam-
das@gmail.com
2Associate Professor and Head of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, AUSTRALIA,
siva.sivakugan@jcu.edu.au
or tip resistance from cone penetration test. The objective of
this paper is to present the current state-of-the-art for com-
puting settlements of shallow foundations on granular soils,
discuss some of the popular methods and review the empiri-
cal correlations for estimating the soil stiffness.
2. CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-ART
The most popular methods for settlement predictions, dis-
cussed commonly in text books, are the ones proposed by
Terzaghi and Peck (1948), Schmertmann (1970),
Schmertmann et al. (1978) and Burland and Burbidge
(1985). Meyerhof (1956) and Peck and Bazaraa (1969) meth-
ods are similar to the one proposed by Terzaghi and Peck
(1948). Two of the more recent methods are after Berardi and
Lancellotta (1991) and Mayne and Poulos (1999). Sivakugan
and Johnson (2004) proposed a probabilistic approach quan-
tifying the uncertainties associated with the settlement pre-
diction methods.
Computed and measured settlements of full-scale foot-
ings have been compared by Jeyapalan and Boehm (1986),
Papadopoulos (1992) and Sivakugan et al. (1998). The mes-
sage is loud and clear that the predictions are generally signif-
icantly greater than the measured values. Based on 79 case
histories of shallow foundations, Sivakugan et al. (1998)
showed that Terzaghi and Peck (1948) method overestimates
the settlements by 218% and Schmertmann (1970) method
overestimates the settlements by 339%.

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2007) 1: (19–29) J. Ross Publishing, Inc. © 2007
DOI 10.3328/IJGE.2007.01.01.19-29
20 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Calculated settlement bility among all methods. Terzaghi and Peck (1948) and
Settlement ratio (x) =
fx(x) Measured settlement Schmertmann (1970) methods appear to have high reliability
and poor accuracy, reflecting their conservativeness. On the
other hand, Burland and Burbidge (1985) and Berardi and
Lancellotta (1991) methods have good accuracy, with values
close to unity, but low reliability.

2.2 Settlement ’94 Prediction Session

Reliability
— X
1 X
Accuracy
Figure 1. Accuracy and reliability in settlement predictions.
2.1 Accuracy and Reliability of the Different
Methods
Tan and Duncan (1991) defined two parameters for compar-
ing settlement prediction methods: accuracy and reliability.
Accuracy is how close the predictions by a specific method
are to the measured values, and is defined as the average value
of the ratio of the calculated to measured settlements.
Reliability is the probability that the actual settlements would
be less than those computed by a specific method. It is a
measure of conservativeness of a settlement prediction
method. The probabilistic representation of these two terms,
accuracy and reliability, is shown in Figure 1. Here, settlement
ratio (x) is defined as the ratio of calculated to measured set-
tlements. A good method should have accuracy closer to 1
and reliability closer to 100%. Tan and Duncan (1991) found
that there is generally a trade-off between accuracy and relia-
Briaud and Gibbens (1994) documented the class A settle-
ment prediction session held at Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas in 1994, where 16 academics and 15
consultants participated. An extensive site investigation
involving 7 cone penetration tests, 6 standard penetration
tests, 4 dilatometer tests, 4 pressuremeter tests, 4 cross hole
tests, 3 bore hole shear tests and a step blade test was carried
out at a 12 m ⫻ 18 m site, where five different square pad
footings were to be load tested to failure at a future date.
Laboratory test data including maximum/minimum densi-
ties, specific gravity of the grains, natural water content, void
ratio, densities and friction angles were also available for sand
samples taken from 0.6 m and 3.0 m depths. The soil profile
consisted predominantly of sands. The soil data were avail-
able to all participants, who were asked to predict the loads,
Q25 and Q150, which would make the five footings settle by 25
mm and 150 mm, respectively. Q25 is the allowable footing
load satisfying the settlement criterion, and Q150 is more or
less the failure load corresponding to ultimate bearing capac-
ity. The predicted and measured Q25 and Q150 values are
summarized in Table 1. Also shown in the table are the values
of measured Q150 divided by the safety factors of 2.5 and 3,
which are the allowable footing loads that satisfy the bearing
capacity criterion. It is interesting to note that in all five foot-
ings, these allowable loads satisfying bearing capacity crite-
rion are reached before the loads corresponding to settlement
criterion. In other words, bearing capacity considerations

Table 1. Predicted and measured values of Q25 and Q150

Footing dimensions (m) 1.0 × 1.0 1.5 × 1.5 2.5 × 2.5 3.0 × 3.0 3.0 × 3.0

Q25: Measured (kN): 850 1500 3600 5200 4500

Predicted/Measured: Range 0.07-1.29 0.08-1.73 0.08-1.19 0.08-1.23 0.09-1.24
Mean 0.71 0.84 0.68 0.69 0.70
Std.dev. 0.30 0.60 0.29 0.28 0.35

Q150: Measured (kN): 1740 3400 7100 10250 9000

Predicted/Measured: Range 0.12-2.28 0.12-3.34 0.15-2.32 0.15-2.51 0.15-3.11
Mean 0.65 0.81 0.99 1.08 1.12
Std.dev. 0.45 0.64 0.55 0.59 0.69

Q150/2.5 (Allowable load with FS = 2.5) 696 1360 2840 4100 3600
Q150/3.0 (Allowable load with FS = 3.0) 580 1133 2367 3417 3000
 Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview 21

govern the failure of all footings, as opposed to the common Applied pressure (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
belief that the settlement considerations are more critical. 0
This is probably due to the overestimations in the settlement Very dense
prediction methods that result in underestimation of the 10
Dense
allowable pressures. N60 = 50

Settlement (mm)
20
A total of 22 different methods were used by the partici- Medium
pants, with Schmertmann (1970, 1978), Burland and 30
Burbidge (1985) and finite element analysis being more pop- Loose
40
ular. Table 1 shows that the quality of predictions were better
for Q150 than Q25, emphasizing the poor state-of-the-art for 50
settlement predictions of shallow foundations in sands. N60 = 30
N60 = 10
60

3. TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PREDICTION Figure 2. Pressure-settlement plot of a 300 mm square plate in sands
with N60 = 10, 30 and 50 (load test data from Late Professor G.A.
METHODS Leonards).

The traditional settlement prediction methods that were

When correction for depth of embedment is taken into
widely used over the past two decades or more are discussed
account, Eqs. (2) and (3) would become:
in this section. These methods are discussed in great detail in
several foundation engineering text books. 1.33q(kPa) ⎛ Df ⎞
δ footing (mm) = ⎜ 1 − 4B ⎟ for B ≤ 1.22 m (4)
N 60 ⎝ ⎠
3.1 Terzaghi and Peck (1948) and Related
Methods
0.53q(kPa) ⎛ 2B ⎞ ⎛ D f ⎞
2

δ footing (mm) = ⎜⎝ B + 0.3 ⎟⎠ ⎜ 1 − 4B ⎟ for B > 1.22 m (5)

Terzaghi and Peck (1948) proposed the first rational method N 60 ⎝ ⎠
for estimating the settlement of a square footing on granular
soils. They carried out plate load tests using a 300 mm square Peck and Bazaraa (1969) methods adopt Eq. (3), replacing
plate on sands with N60 = 10, 30 and 50 respectively and the N60 with (N1)60 blow count from standard penetration test
pressure-settlement plots are shown in Figure 2. Here, N60 is corrected for overburden stress. The settlement should then
the blow count from standard penetration test, not corrected be multiplied by water table correction and depth correction.
for overburden stress. They related the settlement of a B Thus,
2
meter wide square footing (δfooting) to that of a 300 mm plate 0.53q(kPa) ⎛ 2B ⎞
δ footing (mm) = CW C D
(N1 )60 ⎜⎝ B + 0.3 ⎟⎠
(6)
(δplate) by the following equation:

⎛ 2B ⎞ ⎛ D f ⎞
2
where
δ footing = δ plate × ⎜ 1−
⎝ B + 0.3 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 4B ⎟⎠
(1)
σ o at 0.5B below the bottom of the foundattion
CW = (7)
The last term in Eq. 1 accounts for the depth of embedment. σ o′ at 0.5B below the bottom of the foundation
Presence of water table in the vicinity of the footing is
σo = total overburden stress
reflected in the blow count and therefore a separate correc-
σ´o= effective overburden stress
tion for water table is not warranted. Nevertheless, rise of 0.5
water table, while in service, can reduce the stiffness and pro- ⎛ γ Df ⎞
C D = 1.0 − 0.4 ⎜ ⎟ (8)
duce additional settlements. ⎝ q ⎠
Meyerhof (1965) noted the conservativeness in his previ-
ous method (Meyerhof, 1956) and the modified expression γ = unit weight of soil
for the settlement is: The relationships for (N1)60 are:
1.33q(kPa) 4N 60
δ footing (mm) = for B ≤ 1.22 (2) (N1 )60 = (for σ o′ ≤ 75 kN/m2 )
N 60 1 + 0.04σ o′ (9)
2
0.53q(kPa) ⎛ 2B ⎞
δ footing (mm) = ⎜⎝ B + 0.3 ⎟⎠ for B > 1.22 m (3) and
N 60
22 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 lz 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 lz 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 lz

0 0 0
B
0.5B 0.5B 0.5B

1
B B B

=
L
1

B/
=
L
B/
lz peak
(see Eq 14)

1
L<
B/
2B 2B 2B

0<
=0
B/L

=0
B/L
3B 3B 3B

4B 4B 4B
(a) Schmertmann (1970) (b) Schmertmann et al. (1978) (c) Terzaghi et al. (1996)

z z z

Figure 3. Iz – z variation: (a) Schmertmann (1970), (b) Schmertmann et al. (1978), (c) Terzaghi et al. (1996).

4N 60 σ o′
(N1 )60 = (for σ ′o > 75 kN/m 2 ) (10) C1 = 1 − 0.5 ≥ 0.5 (12)
3.25 + 0.01σ ′o qnet

While Meyerhof (1965) and Peck and Bazaraa (1969) expres- ⎛ t′ ⎞

sions imply that the settlement is proportional to the applied
pressure, the load test data (Figure 2) clearly show that this is
not the case in loose and medium sands. It can also be seen
that δfooting/δplate increases with B, and takes the maximum
of 4 at very large B.
These methods were originally developed for square
footings, but are valid for strip footings too. The higher set-
tlement due to deeper influence zone is compensated by the
increase in the soil stiffness due the plane strain situation.
3.2 Schmertmann (1970) and Related Methods
Schmertmann (1970) proposed a simple semi-empirical
expression, based on elastic analysis and supported by model
tests and finite element analysis, to estimate the settlement of
a footing on granular soil as:
z =2B
I z dz
δ footing = C1C2qnet ∑
z =0 E where σ′o is computed at the depth where Iz,peak occurs.
where C1 and C2 are the depth and time correction factors
given by:
C2 = 1 + 0.2 log ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 0.1⎠ (13)
Here, σ′o = effective overburden stress at the foundation
level, qnet = net applied pressure at foundation level, and t′ =
time since loading in years. The variation of the influence fac-
tor Iz with depth is represented by the “2B-0.6 diagram”
shown in Figure 3a. The modulus of elasticity (E) is estimated
from the cone resistance from a static cone penetration test as
E = 2qc.
Schmertmann et al. (1978) made some modifications to
the above method, with new influence factors as shown in
Figure 3b, separating square and strip footings. The influence
factor peaks at a depth of 0.5B for square footing and B for
strip footing, and the peak values are given by:
qnet
I z ,peak = 0.5 + 0.1 (14)
σ ′o
(11)
Noting that the stiffness is about 40% larger for plane strain
compared to axisymmetric loading, they suggested that E =
2.5qc for square footings and Es = 3.5qc for strip footings. For
 Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview 23

rectangular footings, the settlements should be computed for

⎛ 2 ⎞ 1.71
square and strip footing of the same width, and interpolated δ footing = ⎜ qnet − σ ′p ⎟ 1.4 B 0.7 if q ≥ σ ′p (21)
⎝ 3 ⎠ N 60
on the basis of B/L (L = length of footing).
Terzaghi et al. (1996) simplified this further and sug-
The settlements estimated as above apply for square foot-
gested influence factors as shown in Figure 3c. Here, Iz,peak =
ings. For rectangular or strip footings, the settlements have to
0.6 for both square and strip. For rectangular footing, the
be multiplied by the following factor (fs):
depth of influence (see Figure 3c) can be computed as:
2
⎛ 1.25 L / B ⎞
⎛ L⎞ fs = ⎜ (22)
z I = 2B ⎜ 1 + log ⎟ (15) ⎝ 0.25 + L / B ⎟⎠
⎝ B⎠
The settlements estimated above imply that there is gran-
ular soil at least to a depth of zI. If the thickness (Hs) of the
granular layer below the footing is less than the influence
3.3 Burland & Burbidge (1985) Method
depth, the settlements have to be multiplied by the following
Burland and Burbidge (1985) proposed a semi-empirical reduction factor (fl):
method, using the blow counts from standard penetration
test, based on the review of an extensive database of settle- Hs ⎛ H ⎞
fl = ⎜ 2− s ⎟ (23)
ment records of shallow foundations for buildings, tanks and zI ⎝ zI ⎠
embankments on granular soils. They noted that the influ- Burland and Burbidge (1985) noted some time-depend-
ence depth of the footing, zI, is approximately B0.7, where B ent settlements of the footings, and suggested a multiplica-
and zI are in meters. tion factor (ft) given by:
They recommend increasing N60 by 25% in gravel or
sandy gravel. For fine sands and silty sands below water table, t′ (24)
ft = 1 + R3 + Rt log
where N60 >15, driving of the split spoon sampler can dilate 3
the sands which can produce negative pore water pressures where R3 takes into consideration the time dependent settle-
that would increase the effective stresses and hence overesti- ment during the first three years of loading, and the last com-
mate the blow counts. Here, Terzaghi’s correction given ponent accounts for the time-dependent settlement that
below should be applied: takes place after the first three years at a slower rate. Suggested
values for R3 and Rt are 0.3-0.7 and 0.2-0.8 respectively. The
N60,corrected = 15 + 0.5(N60 – 15) (16) lower end of the range is applicable for static loads and the
The compressibility of the soil was represented by a com- upper end for fluctuating loads such as bridges, silos, and tall
pressibility index (Ic), defined as: chimneys.

1.71
Ic = 1.4 (17) 4. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SETTLEMENT
N 60
PREDICTION METHODS
–
where Ic is in MPa-1, and N60 is the average value of N60 Two recent methods that appear to give better settlement pre-
within the influence depth zI. For overconsolidated granular dictions are the ones proposed by Berardi and Lancellotta
soils, Ic is 1/3 of what is given in Eq. (17). (1991) and Mayne and Poulos (1999). These two methods are
Burland and Burbidge (1985) suggested that the settle- briefly discussed below. Sivakugan and Johnson’s (2004)
ment can be estimated from: probabilistic approach is an effective way of quantifying the
δfooting = qnetIczI (18) risk associated with the settlement prediction methods.

In normally consolidated granular soils, Eq. (18) becomes: 4.1 Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) Method
1.71
δ footing = qnet 1.4 B 0.7 (19) Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) proposed a method to esti-
N 60 mate the elastic settlement which takes into account the vari-
ation of the modulus of elasticity of soil with the strain level.
In overconsolidated granular soils, with preconsolidation This method is also described by Berardi et al. (1991).
pressure of σ′p, Eq. (19) becomes: According to this procedure:
1 1.71 q B
δ footing = qnet 1.4 B 0.7 if q ≤ σ ′p (20) δ footing = I s net
3 N 60 E (25)
24 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Table 2. Variation of Is C. Determine the average corrected blow count from

–
Depth of influence, zI
standard penetration test (N1)60 and hence the
average relative density as:
B
0.5
L/B 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ⎛N ⎞
Dr = ⎜ 1 ⎟ (28)
1 0.35 0.56 0.63 0.69 ⎝ 60 ⎠
2 0.39 0.65 0.76 0.88 D. With known Dr, determine KE(δ/B = 0.1%) from
3 0.40 0.67 0.81 0.96 Figure 4a and, hence, E from Eq. (26) for δ/B =
5 0.41 0.68 0.84 0.89 0.1%.
10 0.42 0.71 0.89 1.06 E. With the known value of E from Step D, the mag-
nitude of elastic settlement δfooting can be calcu-
lated from Eq. (25).
where Is = influence factor for a rigid footing (Tsytovich, F. If the calculated δ/B is not the same as the assumed
1951) and E = modulus of elasticity of soil. The variation of δ/B, then use the calculated δ/B from Step E and
Is (Tsytovich, 1951) with Poisson’s ratio v = 0.15 is given in use Figure 4b to estimate a revised KE(δ/B). This
Table 2. value can now be used in Eqs. (26) and (25) to
Analytical and numerical evaluations have shown that, obtain a revised δfooting. This iterative procedure
for circular and square footings, the depth z25 below the foot- can be continued until the assumed and calculated
ing beyond which the residual settlement is about 25% of the δfooting is the same.
surface settlement can be taken as 0.8 to 1.3B. For strip foot-
ings (L/B ≥ 10), z25 is about 50 to 70% more as compared to
that for square footings. Thus the depth of influence zI can be
taken to be z25. The modulus of elasticity E in Eq. (25) can be
evaluated as:
0.5
⎛ σ ′ + 0.5 Δσ ′ ⎞
E = K E pa ⎜ o ⎟⎠ (26)
⎝ pa

where pa = atmospheric pressure, σ′o and Δσ′ = effective

overburden stress and net effective stress increase due to the
foundation loading, respectively, at a depth B/2 below the
foundation, and KE = nondimensional modulus number.
After reanalyzing the performance of 130 structures
found on predominantly silica sand as reported by Burland
and Burbidge (1986), Berardi and Lancellotta (1991)
obtained the variation of KE with the relative density Dr
at δ/B = 0.1% and KE at varying strain levels. Figures 4a and
4b show the average variation of KE with Dr and
[KE(δ/B)/KE(δ/B=0.1%)] with δ/B
In order to estimate the elastic settlement of the footing,
an iterative procedure is suggested, which can be described as
follows:
A. Determine the variation of the blow count from
standard penetration test N60 within the zone of
influence, that is z25.
B. Determine the corrected blow count (N1)60 as:
⎛ 2 ⎞
(N1 )60 = N 60 ⎜
⎝ 1 + σ o′ ⎟⎠
(27)

where σ′o = vertical effective stress

Figure 4. (a) Variation of KE with Dr for δ/B = 0.1%. (b) Variation of
[KE(δ/B)/KE(δ/B = 0.1%)] with δ/B (adapted from Berardi and Lancellotta,
1991).
 Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview 25

4.2 Mayne and Poulos (1999) Method B´

qnet
Mayne and Poulos (1999) provided a general relationship for
elastic settlement calculation of footings using displacement Df
t Ef Eo
influence factors derived from elasticity continuum theory. E
Here, it is assumed that the soil stiffness increases linearly Compressible
with depth, from a value of Eo at footing level. According to E=
soil layer Hs
Eo + kz
this theory (Figure 5a): E
v
qnet B ′IG IF IE (1 − ν2 )
δ footing = (29)
Eo Rigid Layer

Depth, z
0.5
⎛ 4BL ⎞ (a)
where B ′ = ⎜
⎝ π ⎟⎠
= equivalent diameter of a rectangular
1.0
footing 10.0
>30
ν =Poisson’s ratio of soil
5.0
IG =displacement influence factor (Figure 5b)
0.8
IE =settlement coefficient factor to account for depth 2.0
of embedment
IF =rigidity coefficient factor 1.0
0.6
The relationships to estimate IE and IF are:
G

1
IE = 1 − 0.4 0.5
⎡⎛ B ′ ⎞ ⎤ (30)
3.5 exp(1.22 ν − 0.4) ⎢⎜ ⎟ + 1.6 ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ D f ⎠ ⎥⎦ 0.2
Hs lB´ = 0.2
π 1
IF = +
4 ⎛ ⎞ 3
0
⎜ E f ⎟ ⎛ 2t ⎞ (31) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
4.6 + 10 ⎜
B ′ ⎟ ⎜⎝ B ′ ⎟⎠
Eo lkB´
⎜ Eo + k ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ (b)

where Ef = modulus of elasticity of the footing material
(which is, in most cases, reinforced concrete), t = footing
thickness, and k = increase in soil stiffness per unit depth (i.e.,
E = Eo + kz). The above procedure will give good results pro-
vided the modulus of elasticity of soil is predicted reasonably
well.
4.3 Sivakugan and Johnson’s (2004)
Probabilistic Approach
Noting the different degrees of scatter associated with the set-
tlement prediction methods, a probabilistic approach is more
appropriate than the traditional deterministic methods. The
magnitude of settlement can have different meaning depend-
ing on which method was used for the computations.
Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) developed a probabilistic
framework, based on the settlement records in the literature,
to quantify the risk associated with the settlement prediction
methods. They proposed probabilistic design charts, for four
Figure 5. Solution of Mayne and Poulos: (a) Footing on a compressible
layer; (b) Variation of IG with Eo/kB′ and Hs/B′.
different settlement prediction methods, which enable the
designer to quantify the probability that the actual settlement
will exceed a specific limiting value. The design chart for lim-
iting settlement value of 25 mm is shown in Figure 6.
It can be seen from Figure 6 that when the settlement
estimated by Terzaghi and Peck or Schmertmann et al.
method is 25 mm, there is only 26% probability that the
actual settlement will exceed 25 mm, demonstrating their
conservativeness. The Burland and Burbidge method is a
clear improvement on the quality of predictions, and the
Berardi and Lancellotta method improves this even further.
26 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

0.9
p (actual settlement will exceed 25 mm)
0.8
ta
0.7 cellot
& Lan e
rardi idg
0.6 Be urb
&B
rla nd
Bu t al.
0.5
a nn e
m ertm
Sch k
0.4 h i & Pec
Terzag
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Predicted settlement (mm)

Figure 6. Probabilistic design chart.

Table 3. Correlations between E and N60 for granular soils

Reference Relationship Soil type

0.522
⎛ σ′ ⎞ ⎛ σ′ ⎞ σ ′o
Schultze and Melzer (1965) E = ⎜ 246.2 log N 60 − 263.4 o + 375.6 ± 57.6⎟ ⎜ o ⎟ for 0 ≤ ≤ 1.2 Dry sand
⎝ pa ⎠ ⎝ pa ⎠ pa
E
= 5(N 60 + 15) Sand
pa
Webb (1969)
E
= 3.33(N 60 + 5) Clayey sand
pa
E
Ferrent (1963) = 7.5(1 − ν2 )N 60 Sand
pa

E
= 40 + C(N 60 − 6) for N 60 > 15
pa C = 3 for silt with sand and
Begemann (1974) Silt with sand to
E 12 for gravel with sand gravel with sand
= 40 + C(N 60 + 6) for N 60 <15
pa

E
Trofimenkov (1974) = (350 to 500) log N 60 Sand
pa

E α = 5 for sand with fines; 10 for cllean normally

Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) = αN 60 Sand
pa consolidated sands; and 15 forr clean overconsolidated sands
 Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview 27

Table 4. Correlations between E and qc for granular soils

Reference Relationship Soil type

0.522
⎛ σ′ ⎞ ⎛ σ′ ⎞ σ o′
Schultze and Melzer (1965) E = ⎜ 301.1logqc – 382.3 o +60.3±50.3⎟ ⎜ o ⎟ for 0 0.8 Dry sand
⎝ pa ⎠ ⎝ pa ⎠ pa

E/qc = 2.5(qc + 30) Sand below water table

Webb (1969)
E/qc = 1.67(qc + 15) Clayey sand below water table

Buisman (1940) E = 1.5qc Sand

Schmertmann (1970) E = 2qc Sand

Schmertmann et al. (1978) E = 2qc (axisymmetric loading) Normally consolidated sand

E = 3.5qc (axisymmetric loading)

Vesic (1970) E = 2(1 + D2r ) qc Sand

α = 0.8 to 0.9 for pure sand; 1.3 to 1.9 for silty sand;
Bachelier and Parez (1965) E = αqc All soils
3.8 to 5.7 for clayey sand; and 7.7 for soft clay

DeBeer (1965) E = 1.5qc Sand

E = 1.5qc (for qc> 3 MN/m2)

DeBeer (1974) E = 3qc (for qc < 3 MN/m2) Sand (Greek practice)
E = αqc (1.5 < α < 2) Sand (U.K. practice)

Trofimenkov (1964) E = 2.5qc Sand (lower limit)

Trofimenkov (1974) E = 3qc Sand

(USSR practice)
E = 7qc Clay
Thomas (1968) E = αqc (α = 3 to 12) Sand

Bogdanovi (1973) E = 1.5qc (for qc > 4 MN/m2) Sand and sandy gravel
E = 1.5 to 1.8qc (for 2 MN/m2 < qc < 4 MN/m2) Silty saturated sand
E = 1.8 to 2.5qc(for 1 MN/m2 < qc < 2 MN/m2) Clayey silt with silty sand, and
E = 2.5 to 3.0qc(for 0.5 MN/m2 < qc < 1 MN/m2) silty saturated sand with silt

5. EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS FOR MODULUS
OF ELASTICITY, E
One of the main factors that contribute to the uncertainty in
settlement predictions is our inability to quantify the soil
stiffness correctly. Soil stiffness, measured by the modulus of
elasticity, is generally quantified indirectly through the pene-
tration resistances from standard penetration or cone pene-
tration tests. The various empirical correlations relating N60
and qc to E are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The current state-of-the-art for predictions of the settlements
of shallow foundations in granular soils is discussed. The
Settlement ′94 prediction session held in Texas clearly showed
the deficiencies in the current state-of-the-art, where the pre-
dictions from the 31 international experts varied in a wide
range. In spite of having access to the full data from a rigor-
ous site investigation program, their predictions of Q25, the
load required to produce 25 mm settlement, were signifi-
cantly less than what was measured, implying that the settle-
ments were overestimated in general. In reality, the
geotechnical engineer has access to very limited data from the
field, and the quality of predictions can only be worse.
The load test data for the five footings at the above pre-
diction sessions showed that, provided the factor of safety is
greater than 2.5, bearing capacity considerations are more
critical than the settlement criterion. It is the poor state-of-
the-art for settlement predictions, which results in overesti-
mation of the settlements and underestimations of the
allowable pressures, which leads one to believe that the settle-
ment criterion generally governs the design of shallow foun-
dations in granular soils.
The traditional settlement prediction methods, including
Terzaghi and Peck (1948), Schmertmann (1970) and Burland
and Burbidge (1985) are discussed. Two of the most recent
methods, proposed by Berardi and Lancellotta (1991) and
Mayne and Poulos (1999) appear to give better and more
28 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

realistic settlement predictions. The probabilistic design chart Ferrent, T.A. (1963). “The prediction of field verification of
presented by Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) can be used to settlements on cohesionless soils.” Proc., 4thAustralia-
estimate the probability that the actual settlement will exceed New Zealand Conf.on Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 11-17.
25 mm in the field, based on the settlements estimated from Jeyapalan, J.K., and Boehm, R. (1986). “Procedures for pre-
the traditional methods. dicting settlements in sands.” Settlements of Shallow
Several empirical correlations relating the modulus of Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: Design and
elasticity of soil to blow count from a standard penetration Performance, Ed. W.O. Martin, ASCE, Seattle, 1-22.
test and cone resistance from a cone penetration test are dis- Kulhawy, F.H., and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on estimating
cussed. These correlations are quite useful in assessing the soil soil properties for foundation design, Final Report (EL-
stiffness, which is required in the settlement computations. 6800) submitted to Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), Palo Alto, California.
Mayne, P.W., and Poulos, H.G. (1999). “Approximate dis-
REFERENCES placement influence factors for elastic shallow founda-
tions.” J. Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 125(6),
Bachelier, M., and Parez, L. (1965). “Contribution to the
453-460.
study of soil compressibility by means of a cone pen-
Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). “Penetration tests and bearing capac-
etrometer.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. Found. Eng.,
ity of cohesionless soils.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE,
Montreal, 2, 3-7.
82(1), 1-19.
Berardi, R., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lancellotta, R. (1991).
Meyerhof, G.G. (1965). “Shallow foundations.” J. Soil Mech.
“Settlement of shallow foundations in sand: selection of
Found. Div., ASCE, 91(SM2), 21-31.
stiffness of the basis of penetration resistance.”
Papadopoulos, B.P. (1992). “Settlements of shallow founda-
Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Geotech. Special
tions on cohesionless soils.” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE,
Pub. 27, ASCE, 185-200.
118(3), 377-393.
Berardi, R., and Lancellotta, R. (1991). “Stiffness of granular
Peck, R.B., and Bazaraa, A.R.S.S. (1969). “Discussion of
soil from field performance.” Geotechnique, 41(1), 149-
Settlement of spread-footings on sand.” J. Soil Mech.
157.
Found. Div., ASCE, 95(SM3), 305-309.
Begemann, H.K.S. (1974). “General report for Central and
Schmertmann, J.H. (1970). “Static cone to compute static set-
Western Europe.” Proc., European Symp. on Penetration
tlement over sand.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE,
Testing, Stockholm.
96(3), 1011-1043.
Bogdanovi_, L. (1973). “Settlement of stiff structures (silos)
Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P., and Brown, P.R. (1978).
founded on soft soil with low penetration resistance.”
“Improved strain influence factor diagrams.” J. Geotech.
Transactions, SR Institute of Testing and Materials,
Eng. Div., ASCE, 104(8), 1131-1135.
Belgrade, 34.
Schultze, E., and Melzer, K.J. (1965). “The determination of
Briaud, J-L., and Gibbens, R.M. (1994). “Predicted and meas-
the density and the modulus of compressibility of non-
ured behaviour of five spread footings on sand.” ASCE,
cohesive soils by soundings.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. Soil
Geotech. Special Pub. 41, 255 pp.
Mech. Found. Eng., Montreal, 1, 354-358.
Buisman, A.S.K. (1940). Groundmechania, Waltman, Delft,
Sivakugan, N., Eckersley, J., and Li, H. (1998). “Settlement
The Netherlands.
predictions using neural networks.” Australian Civil Eng.
Burland, J.B., and Burbidge, M.C. (1985). “Settlement of
Transactions, CE40, 49-52.
foundations on sand and gravel.” Proc., Institution of
Sivakugan, N., and Johnson, K. (2004). “Settlement predic-
Civil Engineers, 78(1), 1325-1381, 1985.
tions in granular soils: a probabilistic approach.”
DeBeer, E.E. (1965). “Bearing capacity and settlement of shal-
Geotechnique, 54(7), 499-502.
low foundations on sand.” Proc., Symp. On Bearing
Tan, C.K., and Duncan, J.M. (1991). “Settlement of footings
Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke University,
on sands: accuracy and reliability.” Proc., Geotech. Eng.
Durham, NC, 15-33.
Congress 1991, Colorado, 1, 446-455.
DeBeer, E.E. (1974). “Interpretation of the results of static
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engi-
penetration tests.” Group IV Report: European Symp. on
neering practice, 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New
Penetration Testing, Stockholm, Sweden.
York.
Douglas, D.J. (1986). “State-of-the-art.” Ground engineering,
19(2), 2-6
 Settlements of shallow foundations on granular soil — an overview 29

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics

in engineering practice, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York.
Thomas, D. (1968). “Deep sounding test results and the set-
tlement on normally consolidated sand.” Geotechnique,
18, 472-488.
Trofimenkov, Y.G. (1964). Field methods for testing the struc-
tural properties of soils, Building Literature Publishing
House, Moscow.
Trofimenkov, Y.G. (1974). “Penetration testing in Western
Europe.” Proc., European Symp. on Penetration Testing,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Tsytovich, N.A. (1951). Soil mechanics, Ed. Stroitielstvo i
Archiketura, Moscow (in Russian).
Vesic, A.S. (1970). “Tests on instrumented piles, Ogeechee
River site.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 96(2), 561-
584.
Webb, D.L. (1969). “Settlement of structures on deep alluvial
sandy sediments in Durban, South Africa.” Proceedings,
Conf. on In Situ Behaviour of Soil and Rock, Institution of
Civil Engineers, London, 181-188.

View publication stats