CHAPTER 4

SETTLEMENT OF FOOTINGS
4.1 Footings on Cohesive Soils
The usual method of settlement analyses assume confined
condition (no lateral strain). They do not strictly apply to
settlement of spread footings because the boundary conditions
are different. The soil can strain laterally when subjected to a
vertical load over a limited area, such as a footing. Therefore, the
analysis should be modified.
The method of analysis should measure the soil compressibility in
the laboratory using boundary conditions comparable to those in
the field. For example, the conditions beneath a square or circular
footing can be simulated by testing a sample in a triaxial
compression machine using a confining stress comparable to that
present in the field (Davis and Poulos, 1968). Plane strain
conditions, such as those present beneath a continuous footing,
would be more difficult to model in the lab and would require
special custom-built equipment.
An alternative method is to use standard consolidation test
results (which model the confined compression case) and modify
the computed settlement to account for strains. Although this is
not as accurate as the first method, it is suitable for nearly
practical problems. Therefore, nearly all settlement analyses use
this method. The settlement of a footing, , can be divided into
three components:
Distortion settlement,
d
, reflects the lateral
displacement of the soil beneath footing.
Consolidation settlement,
c
, (also known as primary
consolidation settlement) reflects the change in volume of
the soil that results from changes in the effective stress.
- 1 -
Secondary compression settlement,
s
, reflects the
reduction of the soil volume at a constant effective stress
and is the result of decomposition of organic material other
physical and chemical processes.
The total settlement, , is the sum of these:
s c d
+ +
(4.1)
4.1.1 Distortion Settlement
The distortion settlement (sometimes called immediate
settlement, initial settlement, or undrained settlement) is that
due to lateral spreading of the soil, as shown in Fig. 4.1. This
occurs under undrained conditions and therefore involves no
change in volume. This portion of the settlement probably occurs
as rapidly as the load is applied. Based on elastic theory, the
distortion settlement beneath the center of a perfectly flexible
footing on clay is:
1
I I
E
B q
o
u
d


(4.2)
Where:

d
= distortion settlement
q = net bearing pressure
B = footing width
I
o
, I
1
= influence factors
E
u
= undrained modulus of elasticity of soil
Soil does not have linear stress-strain properties, so the modulus,
E
u
, must represent an equivalent linear material. Janbu, Bjerrum,
and Kjaernsli (1956) first proposed this formula. Since then,
Christian and Carrier (1978) revised the procedure and Taylor
and Matyas (1983) shed additional light on its theoretical basis.
The updated functions are shown in Fig. 4.2.
- 2 -
Fig. 4.1 Lateral spreading of soil at a constant volume beneath a footing:
the cause of distortion settlement.
Some have written Equation 4.2 with a (1-
p
2
) term in the
numerator, where
p
is Poisson's ratio. Although that is the
correct form based on elastic theory, the I
o
and I
1
, factors
presented in Fig. 4.2 implicitly include a Poisson's ratio of 0.5.
Therefore, in this context, it is appropriate to write the equation
without the (1-
p
2
) term.
When using this method, modelling cannot be always done for
continuous footings using L=. Fig. 4.2 suggests that if both H/B
and L/B are infinite, I
1
also becomes infinite. To avoid this
difficulty, the value I
1
is limited to a maximum of 2.5, which
corresponds to an L/B of about 50.
The undrained modulus of elasticity, E
u
, is the most difficult
factor to assess. One method of measuring it is to apply
incremental loads on an undisturbed sample in a triaxial
compression machine and measure the corresponding
deformations. Unfortunately, this method tends to underestimate
the modulus, sometimes by a large margin (Simons, 1987). It
appears that measurements of the modulus are exceptionally
sensitive to sample disturbance and the test results can be in
error by as much as a factor of safety of 3. Although careful
sampling and special laboratory test techniques can reduce this
- 3 -
error, direct laboratory testing is generally not a reliable method
of measuring the modulus of elasticity.
Fig. 4.2 Influence factors I
o
and I
1
for use in Equation (4.2).
(after Coduto, 1994)
The usual response to sample disturbance problems is to conduct
in-situ tests. The pressuremeter and dilatometer tests are
especially appropriate for this application. These tests measure
the modulus in a semi-direct fashion and provide reasonably good
values as long as the soil is reasonably isotropic (both tests
measure the horizontal modulus, whereas the footing responds to
the vertical modulus).
The pressuremeter and dilatometer tests are not yet widely used,
- 4 -
so engineers must usually rely on other methods. The most
common approach is to use empirical correlations between E
u
and
the undrained shear strength, S
u
. The Duncan and Buchignani
(1976) correlation is shown in Fig. 4.3 and Equation 4.3.
Fig. 4.3 Correlation between the undrained modulus of elasticity for clay
and the undrained shear strength (Duncan and Buchignani, 1976).
u u
s E
(4.3)
The broad bands in Duncan and Buchignani's correlation reflect its
very approximate nature and the level of uncertainty involved.
Select a suitably conservative value of to account for this
uncertainty.
If the soil has a large organic content, the modulus may be smaller
- 5 -
1
than suggested by Fig. 4.3 and the distortion settlement will be
correspondingly higher.
If the computed distortion settlement is large, it may be
necessary to obtain a more precise assessment of E
u
, perhaps
using pressuremeter or dilatometer tests. In that case, a more
sophisticated analysis, such as that proposed by D'Appolonia,
Poulos, and Ladd (1971) may be justified.
Example 4.1: The square footing shown in Fig. below is founded on
a clayey soil that extends to a great depth (more than 10B).
Compute the distortion settlement of this footing.
- 6 -
4.1.2 Consolidation Settlement
The second component of settlement is that due to the primary
consolidation. This is the type of settlement considers the
context of loads created by large loaded areas, such as fills. The
same general mechanism governs consolidation beneath small
loaded areas, such as footings, with the following additional
considerations:
The change in vertical effective stress,
v
, is no longer
constant with depth. It is largest immediately below the
footing and becomes progressively smaller with depth as
discussed earlier.
The consolidation is no longer one-dimensional because the
soil may consolidate both vertically and horizontally.
The formula for computing the consolidation settlement beneath a
footing is:
dz C r
vo
v vo
c

,
`

.
|

log
(4.4)
Where:

c
= consolidation settlement
r = rigidity factor
= 3-dimensional adjustment coefficient
C = compressibility
'
vo
= initial vertical effective stress (i.e., before footing
load is applied)

vo
= increase in vertical effective stress due to load
z = depth
Rather than integrating this function, it is customary to divide
the soil into n layers, compute the settlement of each layer, and
sum them. Thus, Equation (4.4) becomes:
dz H C r
vo
v vo
n
i
i c

,
`

.
|

log
1
(4.5)
- 7 -
where H
i
is the thickness of layer i. Usually, about three layers
provide sufficient accuracy, but more layers may be necessary
if the soil is stratified or if additional accuracy is required.
While using three layers, choose their thicknesses approximately
as shown in Table 4.1. When solving Equation (4.5), compute
'
vo
and
vo
at the midpoint of each layer.
Table 4.1 Approximate Thickness of Layer for Manual Computation of
Consolidation Settlement
Layer Number
Approximate Layer Thickness
Square Footing Continuous Footing
1 B/2 B
2 B 2B
3 B 4B
Adjust the number and thickness of the layers to account for changes in soil
properties. Locate each layer entirely within one soil stratum.
For rectangular footings, use layer thicknesses between those given for
square and continuous footings.
Use somewhat thicker layers (perhaps up to 1.5 times the thicknesses
shown) if the groundwater table is very shallow.
For quick, but less precise, analyses, use a single layer with a thickness of
about 3B square footings) or 6B (continuous footings).
The conventional Terzaghi one-dimensional consolidation analysis,
often overestimates the settlement of spread footings. Reasons
for this include:
Sample disturbance
Lateral strains in the soil
The stress path in the laboratory consolidation test is not
the same as that in the soil beneath a loaded footing
(Simons, 1987).
These are the reasons for the adjustment coefficient, , in
Equations 4.4 and 4.5. Some engineers have developed values of
based on the observed behavior of footings. These values are
- 8 -
typically between 0.50 and 0.75 and can be very useful when
working in soils similar to those used to develop the factor. When
locally derived values are not available, the values mentioned
Table 4.2 can be used.
Table 4.2 Typical Values of factor
Soil Type Typical OCR Value of
Very sensitive clays 1.0 1.0 1.2
Normally consolidated
clays and silts
1.0 - 1.2 0.7 1.0
Over consolidated clays
and silts
1.2 5.0 0.4 0.7
Heavily over consolidated
clays and silts
> 5.0 0.3 0.6
The rigidity factor, r, accounts for the difference between the
settlement of a perfectly flexible loaded area (as assumed by the
consolidation analysis) and that beneath a rigid loaded area such
as a spread footing. Davis and Poulos (1968) suggested the
following approximate relationships:
For circular footings: = 0.50 (
center
+
edge
)
For rectangular footings: = 0.33 (2
center
+
corner
)
For continuous footings: = 0.50 (
center
+
edge
)
Where
center
,
edge
and
corner
are the settlements at the center,
edge and corner of a perfectly flexible loaded area, and is the
settlement of a perfectly rigid loaded area.
Based on Boussinesq's stress distribution,
edge
/
center
ranges
between 0.5 and 1.0, whereas
corner
/
center
ranges between 0.25
and 1.0 depending on the variation of compressibility with depth.
By combining this with Davis and Poulos' relationships, r must be
between 0.75 and 1.00. For normal spread footings, use an r value
of 0.85, as shown in Table 4.3.
- 9 -
Table 7.3 Rigidity Factors
Flexibility of Loaded Area Rigidity Factor, r
Perfectly flexible 1.00
Perfectly rigid (use of footings) 0.85
Example 4.2:
Using the data from Example 4.1, compute the consolidation
settlement and the total settlement. Assume that secondary
compression settlement is negligible.
- 10 -
4.1.3 Secondary Compression Settlement
Secondary compression is the continued straining of a soil after
the excess pore water pressures that drive primary consolidation
have dissipated. Usually, the secondary compression settlement
beneath spread footings is relatively small and may be neglected.
However, case histories have been reported where the secondary
compression was significant. It is generally a concern only in soils
with high organic contents or extremely plastic clays.
Equation 4.6 can be used to compute the magnitude of the
secondary compression settlement,
s
.

,
`

.
|

p
s
t
t
H C log

(4.6)
Where:

s
= secondary compression settlement
C

= coefficient of secondary compression

t d
d
v
log

H = thickness of compressible strata

t = time after application of load
t
p
= time required to complete primary consolidation

v
= vertical strain
The coefficient of secondary compression, C

, is the change in
void ratio due to secondary compression that occurs over one log-
cycle of time, d

/d(log t). It may be measured in a laboratory

consolidation test.
For overconsolidated clays, C

is typically less than 0.001, which

means that secondary compression settlement will be negligible.
For normally consolidated clays, it might be between 0.001 and
0.01. Secondary compression in these soils might be important.
However, organic soils pose the greatest concern because their
- 11 -
coefficient might be as high as 0.15, thus potentially creating
large settlements.
4.1.3 Rate of Settlement
If the clay is saturated, it is safe to assume the distortion
settlement occurs as rapidly as the load is applied. The
consolidation settlement will occur over some period, depending on
the drainage rate.
Terzaghi's theory of consolidation includes a methodology for
computing the rate of consolidation settlement in saturated soils.
It is controlled by the rate water is able squeeze out of the pores
and drain away. However, because the soil beneath a footing is
able to drain in three dimensions, not one as assumed in
Terzaghi's theory, the water will drain away more quickly, so
consolidation settlement also will occur more quickly.
Davis and Poulos (1968) observed this behavior when they
reviewed 14 case histories. In four of these cases, the rate was
very much faster than predicted, and in another cases, the rate
was somewhat faster. In the remaining six cases, the rate was
very to or slightly slower than predicted, but this was attributed
to the drainage condition being close to one-dimensional. They also
presented a method of accounting for this effect.
4.1.4 Factor of Safety
Notice that the settlement analysis does not include a factor of
safety in the same way that a bearing capacity analysis does.
These analyses produce an estimate (although possibly a
conservative one) of the real settlement of the footing. The
factor of safety is implicit within the tolerable settlements.
4.2 Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils
- 12 -
The design of spread footings on cohesionless soils is nearly
always governed by settlement, not bearing capacity. The only
likely exceptions to this rule would be very narrow and shallow
footings, especially when a shallow groundwater table is present.
Therefore, the primary emphasis is on the analysis of settlement.
Techniques for computing settlement in cohesionless soils are
nearly always based on in-situ tests to avoid the sample
disturbance problems. The test results are then combined with
empirical analysis methods.
4.2.1 Analyses Based on the Standard Penetration Test
Although the standard penetration test does not directly measure
the stress-strain properties of soils, it does provide a fair
correlation with compressibility. Dense, relatively incompressible
sands will have high N values, while loose, compressible sands will
have low N values. However, this correlation can only be found
experimentally.
Many methods have been proposed to compute settlements of
sands based on the SPT (Jeyapalan and Boehm, 1986). Only two
are presented here: the Modified Meyerhof's Method and Burland
and Burbidge's Method.
4.2.1.1 Modified Meyerhof's Method
Meyerhof's method, introduced in 1956, has been one of the more
popular ways to compute settlement based on standard
penetration test data. Since Meyerhof had very little test data,
he intentionally made this method very conservative. Therefore, it
nearly always overpredicts the settlement, often by a factor of 3
or more. Therefore, Meyerhof (1965) suggested adjusting his
original formulas by a factor of 1.5. Let us call this revised
procedure the Modified Meyerhof's Method. The following
- 13 -
formulas include this adjustment factor:
For B 4 ft (1.2 m):
d
r
r
K N
q
B
60
/ 44 . 0

(4.7)
For B > 4 ft (1.2 m):
2
60
/ 68 . 0

,
`

.
|
+

r d
r
r
B B
B
K N
q
B

(4.8)
Where:
= settlement
B
r
= reference width = 1 ft = 0.3 m = 12 in = 300 mm
q = net bearing pressure

r
= reference stress = 2000 lb/ft
2
= 100 kPa
60
N
= average SPT N
60
value between the bottom of the
footing and a depth 2B below the bottom
B = footing width
K
d
= depth factor = 1 + 0.33 D/B 1.33
Meyerhof considered these formulas to be valid for footings of
all shapes, Although this is a simplification of reality, it may be
sufficiently accurate for normmal design purposes.
The N
60
values for overburden shall not corrected, but should
be adjusted them using Equation 4.9 when the soil is a dense
silty sand below the groundwater table and N60 > 15.
N
60

adjusted
= 15 + 0.5 (N
60

field
- 15) (4.9)
Meyerhof suggested that groundwater table effects would be
implicitly incorporated

into the SPT results. However, adjusting
the measured N
60
values should be considered if the sand was
dry during testing but may become saturated later.
Even with the 1.5 adjusted factor of safety, the Modified
Meyerhof method still tends to be conservative. It
overestimates the settlement about 75 percent of the time.
- 14 -
Example 4.3:
A 250 k column load is to be supported on a square spread footing
founded at a depth 3 ft below the ground surface. The maximum
allowable total settlement is 0.75 in. The soil is a normally
consolidated silty sand and the groundwater table is at a depth of
15 ft below the ground surface. The SPT N60 values are:
Depth (ft) 4 7 10 13 16 20 25
N
60
15 13 19 23 27 32 30
Determine the required footing width.
- 15 -
4.2.1.2 Burland and Burbidge's Method
Burland and Burbidge (1985) presented another empirical method
of using SPT data to compute the settlement of spread footings.
They developed this method from a database of more than 200
records of measured settlements on sands and gravels. Since it is
based on such a large database, this method is more precise and
less conservative than the modified Meyerhof method. However,
it still suffers from the uncertainties of the standard penetration
test. Their procedure is as follows:
(1) The SPT N
60
values at various depths below the proposed
footing are obtained. No overburden correction is applied.
However, if the soil is a fine sand or a silty sand below the
groundwater table and it has an N
60
> 15, N
60
valued are to
adjusted using Equation 4.9.
If the soil is a gravel or sandy gravel, Burland and
Burbidge recommend multiplying N
60
by an adjustment
factor of 1.25. However, while attempting to use SPT
based methods it should be borne in mind that the N
values are usually unreliable in gravels.
(2) The depth of influence below the bottom of the footing is
computed. If the SPT N
60
values are constant or increasing
with depth, then the depth of influence is:
75 . 0
1
4 . 1

,
`

.
|

r r
B
B
B
z
(4.10)
Where:
z = depth of influence below bottom of footing
B = footing width
B
r
= reference width = 1 ft = 0.3 m = 12 in = 300 mm
If the SPT N
60
values consistently decrease with depth,
- 16 -
use z
1
=2B or the depth to the bottom of the soft layer,
whichever is less.
(3) Compute the average of the adjusted N
60
values between
the bottom of the footing and the depth of influence. This
average value is
60
N
.
(4) Compute the compressibility index, I
c
:
For normally consolidated soils:
( )
4 . 1
60
71 . 1
N
I
c

(4.11)
For overconsolidated soils:

( )
4 . 1
60
57 . 0
N
I
c

(4.12)
(5) Compute the depth of influence correction factor:
0 . 1 2
1 1
1

,
`

.
|

z
H
z
H
C
(4.13)
Where:
C
1
= depth of influence correction factor
H = depth from bottom of footing to bottom of
compressible soil
This factor is of concern only when a loose soil is underlain
by a much denser soil.The interface between these layers
is at a depth of less than z
1
below the bottom of footing.
(6) Compute the shape factor:
( )
2
25 . 0 /
/ 25 . 1
]
]
]

B L
B L
C
s (4.13)
Where:
C
S
= shape factor
B = width of foundation
L = length of foundation
- 17 -
It is to be noted that C
s
=1 for square and circular footings
and 1.56 for continuous footings.
(7) Compute the settlement:
For normally consolidated soils:

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

r r
c s
r
q
B
B
I C C
B

7 . 0
1
14 . 0
(4.14)
For overconsolidated soils with q
c
:

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

r r
c s
r
q
B
B
I C C
B

7 . 0
1
047 . 0
(4.15)
For overconsolidated soils with q >
c
:

,
`

.
|

,
`

.
|

r
c
r
c s
r
q
B
B
I C C
B
6 7 . 0
1 4 . 0
7 . 0
1
(4.16)
Where:
= settlement
q = net bearing pressure
B
r
= reference width = 1 ft = 0.3 m = 12 in = 300 mm

r
= reference stress = 2000 lb/ft
2
= 100 kPa

c
= preconsolidation stress
It is very difficult to assess
c
in cohesionless soils, and to
determine whether they are normally consolidated or
overconsolidated. Therefore, Equations 4.15 and 4.16 should be
used with caution.
Reapplying this method to the data from which it was obtained
suggests that the 95% confidence interval corresponds to about
50% of the computed settlement. T it appears to be slightly
more precise than the modified Meyerhof's method. However,
Burland and Burbidge's method is intended to produce a best
- 18 -
estimate of the true settlement, so it should overpredict the
settlement as often as it underpredicts. This is fundamentally
different from the Modified Meyerhof's method which is
intended to be close to an upper-bound solution.
4.2.3 Long-Term Performance
Very few footings have been monitored for extended periods, but
the little data that are available indicate that some secondary
settlement continues to occur, even after the primary
settlement (as predicted by the earlier formulas) is complete. This
secondary settlement may be due to the presence of silt or clay
layers within the zone of influence. However, a series of long-term
measurements made on structures in Poland (Bolenski, 1973)
indicate that footings with loads that remain fairly constant (such
as buildings) have less secondary settlement than those with varying
loads (such as storage tanks). This suggests that repeated cycles
of loading may influence the sand, especially if these cycles are
large, thus creating secondary settlements.
Burland and Burbidge suggest that under relatively constant or
slightly fluctuating loads, the settlement of footings on sand 30
years after construction might be as much as 1.5 times the
immediate post-construction settlement. For footings subjected
to heavily fluctuating loads, it might be as much as 2.5 times the
immediate post-construction settlement.
Example 4.4:
Rework Example 4.3 using Burland and Burbidge's method and
compare the results.
- 19 -