Settlements and Elastic Stress Distribution (SEP 2011 Color)

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage
Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
CE 5101 Lecture 5
SETTLEMENTS and Stress
Distribution
Sep 2011
Prof Harry Tan
Outline
Foundation Requirements
Elastic Stress Distribution
Concept of Effective Stress
Settlements of Soils - Immediate, Delayed,
and Creep Compression
Hand Calculations
SPREADSHEET Calculations (UNISETTLE)
Finite Element Analysis (PLAXIS)

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Requirements for Foundation Design
Adequate Safety
(degree of utilisation of soil strength)
Acceptable Deformations
(Movements and Settlements limits)
What is Adequate Safety

(Lambe and Whitman Pg 196)
-2.000
9 000
9.000
-1.000
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
Failure Load = 866 kPa

A
9.000
10.000
11.000
12.000
Stress
8.000
7.000
6.000
2c
5.000
Strain
4.000
3.000
Yielded
Zone
E = 34.48 MN/m2
c=167.6 kN/m2
2.000
= 0.3
1.000
0.000
Plastic Points
Plastic Mohr-Coulomb point
Tension cut-off point

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Load vs Settlement Behaviour of Flexible

Footing
Chart 1
Settlement (m)
Footing CL Settlement [m]

0.00
Point A
-0.05
-0.10
First
Yield
-0.15
Local Shear
Failure
-0.20
-0.25
General Shear
Failure
-0.30
-0.35
0
200
400
600
800
1.00E+03
Footing Load
(kPa)
Load
(kPa)
Factor of Safety as Measure of Degree of

Utilisation of Soil Strength
Chart 2
Fac tor of Strength Reduc tion
45
4.5
FS = 4.338; q = 200 kPa; qult = 868 kPa
Point A
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
FS = 2.164;
2 164; q = 400 kPa; qult = 866 kPa
2.0
1.5
FS = 1.291; q = 670 kPa; qult = 865 kPa

1.0
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Settlement (m)
0.25
0.30
0.35

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
What is Allowable Settlements

Effects on:
Appearance of Structure
Utility of Structure
Damage to Structure
Types of Settlements
Uniform settlement
Angular distortion = /L
L
Non-uniform settlement
Angular distortion =
/(L/2)

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Allowable Settlements
Controlled by
y type
yp of settlements ((Sowers 1962))
Total settlements
Tilting
Differential settlements
Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum, 1963)

1/150 - Considerable cracking in panel and brick walls, safe limit
for flexible brick wall h/l<1/4, limit where structural damage of
general buildings is to be feared
1/250 - Limit where tilting of high rigid buildings become visible
1/300 - Limit where first cracking in wall panel expected,
difficulties with overhead cranes expected
1/500 - Safe limit for buildings where cracking is not
permissible
1/600 - Limit of danger for frames with diagonals
1/750 - Limits where difficulties with machinery sensitive to
settlements are to be feared (high tech plants)
10

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum ,1963)

Max Distortion (/L) vs Max Differential
Settlement :
For Stiff Footing,
g,
1/500 vs 25 mm
1/300 vs 45 mm
Max Diff Sett = 1/4 Max Sett
1/200 vs 70 mm
For Flexible Footing,
1/100 vs 150 mm
Max Diff Sett = 1/2 Max Sett
Typical Foundation Design,

Max Diff Sett < 25 mm
11
Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum ,1963)
350 mm
200 mm
Stiff Footing
max diff sett =1/4
max sett
Flexible Footing
max diff sett=1/2
max sett
100 mm
12

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
ER2010 Review Paper by

Ed Cording et al
Assessment of excavationinduced building damage
Damage is due to combined
effects of:
Angular distortion;
Lateral strain
Bending strain
13
Basic Soil Phase Relationships

VOLUME
Va
MASS
Air
Densities (kg/m3)
Total, t = Mt/Vt
Vv
Vt
Vw
Water Mw
Mw
Vs
Solids
Ms
Mt
Dry, d = Ms/Vt
Solids, s = Ms/Vs
Ratios
Water content, w = Mw/Ms
Water, t = Mw/Vw
Saturated, sat
= (Ms+Mw+ w Va)/Vt
Void ratio, e = Vv/Vs

Porosity, n = Vv/Vt
Degree of saturation = Vw/Vv
14

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Basic Soil Phase Relationships

Define Vs=1, Vv=e
VOLUME
(1-e)S
MASS
Air
e
1+e
eS
Densities (kg/m3)
t
Water Mw
eS w = w s
Solids
Total, t = s (1+w)/(1+e)
= d (1+w)
Dry, d = s /(1+e)
Saturated, sat
= (Ms+Mw+ w Va)/Vt
Ratios
Water content, w = t/ d - 1
Void ratio, e = s/d - 1
Porosity, n = e/(1+e)
Degree of saturation = S = ws / ew
15
Common soil mineral densities

Mineral Type
Solid Density, kg/m3
Calcite
2800
Quartz
2670
Mica
2800
Pyrite
5000
Kaolinite
2650
Montmorillonite 2750
Illite
2700
16

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Typical range of saturated densities

Soil Type
Saturated Density, kg/m3
Sands;gravels
1900-2300
Silts
1500-1900
Soft Clays
1300-1800
Firm Clays
1600-2100
Peat
1000-1200
Organic Silt
1200-1900
Granular Fill
1800-2200
17
The Textbooks on Foundations They come

no better
This is one of the few showing

more than one soil layer
18

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
The Reality With a bit of needed W add-on
19
The Reality Getting closer, at least
20
10

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
So,, with this food for thought,

g ,
on to the Fundamental
Principles
21
Determining the effective stress is

the key to geotechnical analysis
The not-so-good
method:
' ' h
'z
= buoyant
unit weight
( ' h)
' t w (1 i )
22
11

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
It is much better to determine, separately,

the total stress and the pore pressure.
The effective stress is then the total stress
minus the pore pressure.
pressure
'z
(h)
u
23
Determining pore pressure

u = w h
The height of the column of water (h; the head representing the water pressure)
is usually not the distance to the ground surface nor, even, the distance to the
groundwater table. For this reason, the height is usually referred to as the
phreatic height or the piezometric height to separate it from the depth below
the groundwater table or depth below the ground surface.
The pore pressure distribution is determined by applying the facts that
PRESSURE
GW
SAND
Hydrostatic distribution
(1) in stationary conditions, the pore pressure distribution can be assumed to be

linear in each individual soil layer
(2) in pervious soil layers that are sandwiched between less pervious layers,
the pore pressure is hydrostatic (that is, the vertical gradient is unity)
CLAY
Non-hydrostatic distribution,
but linear
SAND
Hydrostatic distribution
Artesian phreatic head
DEPTH
24
12

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Distribution of stress
below a a small load area
The 2:1 method
q z q0
BL
(B z) (L z)
The 2:1-method can only be used for distributions directly under the center
of the footprint of the loaded area. It cannot be used to combine (add)
stresses from adjacent load areas unless they all have the same center. it is
then only applicable under the area with the smallest footprint.
25
Boussinesq Method for stress from

a point load
qz
3z 3
Q
2 (r 2 z 2 ) 5 / 2
26
13

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Newmarks method for stress

from a loaded area
Newmark (1935) integrated the Boussinesq equation over a finite
area and obtained a relation for the stress under the corner of a
uniformly loaded rectangular area, for example, a footing
(1)
q0 I
qz
m
n
x
y
z
=
=
=
=
=
A B C
4
x/z
y/z
length of the loaded area
width of the loaded area
depth to the point under the corner
where the stress is calculated
B
C
2mn m 2 n 2 1
m2 n2 1 m2n2
m2 n2 2
m2 n2 1
2mn m 2 n 2 1
arctan 2
2
2 2
n
m n 1 m 27
Eq. 1 does not result in correct stress values

near the ground surface. To represent the stress
near the ground surface, Newmarks integration
applies an additional equation:
(2)
qz
q0 I
A B C
4
F where:
For
h
m2 + n2 + 1 m2 n2
28
14

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Stress distribution below the center

of a square 3 m wide footing
Eq. (2)
Eq. (2)
0.25
0.20
INFLUENCE FACTOR, I
Eq. (1)
DEPTH (m)
-2
-4
0.15
0.10
Eq. (1)
0.05
0.00
0.01
-6
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.10
1.00
10.00
m and n (m = n)
STRESS (KPa)
29
STRESS (%)
0
25
50
75
SETTLEMENT (%)
100
25
Boussinesq
100
Boussinesq
q
2
2:1
DE
EPTH (diameters)
DE
EPTH (diameters)
75
Westergaard
Westergaard
50
2
2:1
Comparison between Boussinesq, Westergaard, and 2:1 distributions
30
15

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
SETTLEMENT (%)
STRESS (%)
0
25
50
75
100
50
75
100
Westergaard
Westergaard
DEP
PTH (diameters)
DEP
PTH (diameters)
25
Boussinesq
3
2:1
Boussinesq
2:1
31
SETTLEMENT (%)
STRESS (%)
0
25
50
75
100
75
100
1
Boussinesq
2:1
Characteristic
Point; 0.37b
from center
DEPTH (diameters)
DEPTH (diameters)
50
Westergaard
Westergaard
25
Boussinesq
2:1
Characteristic
Point; 0.37b
from center
Below the characteristic point, stresses for flexible and stiff footings are equal
32
16

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Now, if the settlement distributions are so

similar, why do we persist in using
Boussinesq stress distribution instead of
the much simpler 2:1 distribution?
Because a footing is not alone in this world;

near by, there are other footings, and fills,
and excavation, etc., for example:
33
SETTLEMENT (%)
0
25
50
75
100
0
Boussinesq
Boussinesq
Center Point
DEPTH (diameters)
The settlement imposed

outside the loaded
foundation is often critical
Outside Point
4
Loaded
area
5
34
17

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Calculations using Boussinesq distribution can be used to determine how stress

applied to the soil from one building may affect an adjacent existing building.
STRESS (%)
EXISTING
ADJACENT
BUILDING
NEW
BUILDING
WITH LARGE
LOAD OVER
FOOTPRINT
AREA
2m
DEPTH (m)
4m
40
60
80
100
10
2m
20
STRESSES
UNDER AREA
BETWEEN THE
TWO BUILDINGS
STRESSES
UNDER THE
FOOTPRINT
OT THE
LOADED
BUILDING
15
20
STRESSES ADDED
TO THOSE UNDER
THE FOOTPRINT OF
THE ADJACENT
BUILDING
25
30
35
Calculation of Stress Distribution

0
Depth
(KPa)
u0
u1
0.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
30.0
48.4
66.9
85.6
104.3
Layer 2 Soft Clay = 1,700 kg/m3

4.00
80.0
30.0
5.00
97.0
40.0
6.00
114.0
50.0
7.00
131.0
60.0
8.00
148.0
70.0
9.00
165.0
80.0
10.00
182.0
90.0
11.00
199.0
100.0
12.00
216.0
110.0
13.00
233.0
120.0
14.00
250.0
130.0
15.00
267.0
140.0
16.00
284.0
150.0
17.00
301.0
160.0
18.00
318.0
170.0
19.00
335.0
180.0
20.00
352.0
190.0
21.00
369.0
200.0
50.0
57.0
64.0
71.0
78.0
85.0
92.0
99.0
106.0
113.0
120.0
127.0
134.0
141.0
148.0
155.0
162.0
169.0
104.3
120.1
5
136.0
152.0
168.1
184.2
200.4
10
216.6
232.9
249.2
265.6
281.9
15
298.4
314.8
331.3
347.9
364.4
20
381.0
30.0
43.5
57.1
70.6
84.1
97.6
111.2
124.7
138.2
151.8
165.3
178.8
192.4
205.9
219.4
232.9
246.5
260.0
74.3
76.6
79.0
81.4
84.0
86.6
89.2
91.9
94.6
97.4
100.3
103.1
106.0
109.0
111.9
114.9
117.9
121.0
169.0
180.0
191.0
202.0
213.0
381.0
401.6
422.225
442.8
463.4
260.0
270.0
280.0
290.0
300.0
121.0
131.6
142.2
152.8
163.4
Silty Sand = 2,100 kg/m3

369.0
200.0
390.0
210.0
411.0
220.0
432.0
230.0
453.0
240.0
(KPa)
(KPa)
Layer 3
21.00
22.00
23.00
24.00
25.00
(KPa)
0
(KPa
= 2,000 kg/m3
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
40.0
10.0
60.0
20.0
80.0
30.0
0
0
DEPTH (m)
(m)
Layer 1 Sandy silt
0.00
GWT
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0.0
0.0
100
10.0
20.0
30.0
(KPa)
STRESS
((KPa))
30.0
48.4
20056.9
65.6
74.3
300
400
500
SAND
CLAY
SAND
HYDROSTATIC PORE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
36
18

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Calculation of Stress Distribution

STRESS DISTRIBUTION (2:1 METHOD) BELOW CENTER OF EARTH FILL (Calculations by means of UniSettle)
ORIGINAL CONDITION (no earth fill)
u1
(KPa
(KPa)
(KPa)
(KPa)
Layer 1 Sandy silt = 2,000 kg/m3

0.00
0.0
0.0
1 00
1.00
20 0
20.0
00
0.0
2.00
40.0
10.0
3.00
60.0
20.0
4.00
80.0
30.0
0.0
20 0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
30.0
48 4
48.4
66.9
85.6
104.3
0.0
00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
30.0
48 4
48.4
56.9
65.6
74.3
Layer 2 Soft Clay = 1,700 kg/m3

4.00
80.0
30.0
5.00
97.0
40.0
6.00
114.0
50.0
7.00
131.0
60.0
8.00
148.0
70.0
9.00
165.0
80.0
10.00
182.0
90.0
11.00
199.0
100.0
12.00
216.0
110.0
13.00
233.0
120.0
14.00
250.0
130.0
15 00
15.00
267 0
267.0
140 0
140.0
16.00
284.0
150.0
17.00
301.0
160.0
18.00
318.0
170.0
19.00
335.0
180.0
20.00
352.0
190.0
21.00
369.0
200.0
50.0
57.0
64.0
71.0
78.0
85.0
92.0
99.0
106.0
113.0
120.0
127 0
127.0
134.0
141.0
148.0
155.0
162.0
169.0
104.3
120.1
136.0
152.0
168.1
184.2
200.4
216.6
232.9
249.2
265.6
281 9
281.9
298.4
314.8
331.3
347.9
364.4
381.0
30.0
43.5
57.1
70.6
84.1
97.6
111.2
124.7
138.2
151.8
165.3
178 8
178.8
192.4
205.9
219.4
232.9
246.5
260.0
74.3
76.6
79.0
81.4
84.0
86.6
89.2
91.9
94.6
97.4
100.3
103 1
103.1
106.0
109.0
111.9
114.9
117.9
121.0
169.0
180.0
191.0
202.0
213.0
381.0
401.6
422.2
442.8
463.4
260.0
270.0
280.0
290.0
300.0
121.0
131.6
142.2
152.8
163.4
(m)
FINAL CONDITION (with earth fill and artesian pore pressure in sand)
Depth
(KPa)
u0
(KPa)
GWT
Layer 3
21.00
22.00
23.00
24.00
25.00
Silty Sand = 2,100 kg/m3

369.0
200.0
390.0
210.0
411.0
220.0
432.0
230.0
453.0
240.0
Aquifer with
artesian head
37
Stress Distribution
Stress from Fill
STRESS (KPa)
STRESS (KPa)
0
100
200
300
400
500
100
200
300
400
500
10
10
CLAY
15
20
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAND
5
15
20
SAND
25
25
The distribution for the hydrostatic case
Artesian Pore Pressure Head
38
19

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Effective Stress Concept

Effective stress = Total stress - Pore pressure
= - u
Unit weight = g (kN/m3)
g assumed to be 10 m2/s
Total
T
t l vertical
ti l stress
t
or overburden
b d
stress,
z = t.z
39
Pore Water Pressure (PWP)

Pore water pressure u = uw = uss + uexc
uss = Steady state condition, hydrostatic or
steady seepage
uexc = Excess pwp due to soil loading
Buoyant unit weight
= t - w for hydrostatic condition
= t - w + i w
i = hydraulic gradient (head diff/ distance)
i is negative for upward artesian flow
40
20

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Elastic Stress Distribution with Depth

Q
qo
qo
Q
BL
B
z
1(H):2(V)
L+z
qz
q z qo
BL
( B z )( L z )
B+z
Only can be used for stress at centre of

loaded area
Cannot use for combined effects of two or
more loaded areas, unless they have same
centres
41
Boussinesq Distribution (1885)

Assumes: isotropic linear elastic halfspace,
Poisson ratio = 0.5
Q
For Point load Q kN
qz
Q(3 z 3 )
2 (r 2 z 2 ) 5 / 2
Integrate for Line Load, P kN/m
z3
qz
( z 2 r 2 )2
22P
P
qz
Integrate for Rectangular Area, get Fadums Influence Chart

Fig.1; for Circular Area, get Foster and Alvin Chart Fig.2
42
21

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Weastergaard Distribution (1938)

Assumes: isotropic linear elastic halfspace,
Poisson ratio = 0,, rigid
g horizontal layers
y
Q
For Point load Q kN
qz
Q
z (1 2(r / z ) 2 ) 3 / 2
2
qz
Differences with Boussinesq

q is
small
For wide flexible loaded areas
Westergaard method is
preferred
43
UniSettle 2.4
EX02.STL
21 Jan 2000
page 1
Effective Stress Comparison, ( 4.11 , 8.11 )

----------------------------------------------------------------BOUSSINESQ
WESTERGAARD
2:1
Depth Ini. Fin.
Ini. Fin.
Ini. Fin.
Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress
(m)
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
----------------------------------------------------------------Layer 1
Any Soil
0. kg/m^3
0.00 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
0.10
97.9 0.0
89.3 0.0 93.7 0.0
0.20
94.3 0.0
79.4 0.0 87.9 0.0
0.30
89.4 0.0
71.4 0.0 82.6 0.0
0.40
83.2 0.0
64.4 0.0 77.9 0.0
0.50
76.8 0.0
58.4 0.0 73.5 0.0
0.60
70.9 0.0
53.2 0.0 69.4 0.0
0.70
65.6 0.0
48.9 0.0 65.7 0.0
0.80
61.1 0.0
45.1 0.0 62.3 0.0
0.90
57.2 0.0
41.9 0.0 59.2 0.0
1.00
53.7 0.0
39.1 0.0 56.3 0.0
1 10
1.10
50 8 0.0
50.8
00
36 7 0.0
36.7
0 0 53.5
53 5 0.0
00
1.20
48.1 0.0
34.5 0.0 51.0 0.0
1.30
45.8 0.0
32.5 0.0 48.7 0.0
1.40
43.7 0.0
30.8 0.0 46.5 0.0
1.50
41.7 0.0
29.2 0.0 44.4 0.0
1.60
40.0 0.0
27.8 0.0 42.5 0.0
1.70
38.3 0.0
26.4 0.0 40.7 0.0
1.80
36.8 0.0
25.2 0.0 39.1 0.0
1.90
35.4 0.0
24.1 0.0 37.5 0.0
2.00
34.0 0.0
23.0 0.0 36.0 0.0
Comparison of stresses under a

3m square
q
footing
g below its
characteristic point
Characteristic point is point
where vertical stress is equal for
both rigid and flexible footing,
this point is located at 0.37B
and 0.37L from centre of
rectangular
g
footing,
g, or 0.37R of
circular footing
Results show that under
characteristic point 2:1 method
is similar to Boussinesq result
44
22

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Elastic Stress Bulb for Circular Footing

-1.000
0. 000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6. 000
5.000
BC
D
E
FG
H
IJK
L
M
O
N
P
Q
R
S
2
[ kN/m ]
A : -0.900
B : -0.850
C : -0.800
4.000
D : -0.750
E : -0.700
F : -0.650
G : -0.600
H : -0.550
I :
3.000
-0.500
J : -0.450
K : -0.400
L : -0.350
M : -0.300
N : -0.250
O : -0.200
2.000
P : -0.150
Q : -0.100
R : -0.050
S :
0.000
T:
0.050
1.000
-0.000
E ffective mean str esses
-3
2
Extrem e eff ec tiv e mean stress -882.98* 10 kN/m
45
Elastic Settlement for Circular Flexible Load

Surface settlements is given by Terzaghi,1943 as:
qR
R
I
E
I is f (r , ) see Fig .3
q
R
Edge settlement = 0.7 centre settlement

D=
Centre settlement is :
z q
R
2(1 2 ) for Flexible footing
E
z q
R
(1 2 ) for Rigid footing
E 2
46
23

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Flexible and Rigid Footing

Flexible Footing
-0.300
-0.200
-0.100
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
Rigid Footing
1.100
-0.300
10.200
- 0.200
-0.100
0.000
0. 100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
10.200
10.100
10.100
A
10.000
10.000
9.900
9.900
9.800
9.800
9.700
9.700
9.600
9.600
9.500
9.500
9.400
9.400
9.300
9.300
9.200
0.08
0.16
0.24
0. 32
0.40
0.48
0.56
0.64
0.72
0.80
0.88
0.96
1.04
0.08
0. 16
0.24
0. 32
0.40
0. 48
0.56
0.64
0.72
0.80
0.88
0.96
1.04
10.48
10.48
10.40
10 40
10.40
10.32
10.32
10.24
10.24
10.16
10.16
10.08
10.08
10.00
A*
10.00
A*
9.92
9.92
9.84
9.84
9.76
9.76
E=1000 kPa, =0, q=10 kPa, sett= 20 mm
E=1000 kPa, =0, q=10 kPa, sett= 16 mm

47
Approximate Ratio at corner, centre and

edge to average settlement
Flexible Load Area
Foundation Corner/
Depth
Ave
0.6
H/L=
Edge/
Ave
0.9
Centre/
Ave
1.2
Rigid
g
Footing
Rigid/
Ave
0.9
H/L=1
0.5
0.7
1.3
0.8
H/L=1/4
0.4
0.7
1.3
0.8
48
24

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Elastic Settlement for Other Flexible Load

Corner settlements is given by Terzaghi,1943 as:
L
qB(1 2 )
I
E
I is f ( B / L) see Fig.4
D=
Points other than corner for any combination of

rectangles can be obtained by superposition
For centre of square loaded area:
B
E
z q 1.12(1 2 )
49
Superpostion Principle for Rectangles
z
=
50
25

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Elastic Settlement for Other Flexible Load

For Flexible Rectangular
g
Loaded area,, Corner settlement ,
with finite depth of elastic layer, use Steinbrenner chart
qB(1 2 )
I
E
I (1 2 ) F1 (1 2 2 ) F2
F1 and F2 given in Fig.5
Finite
D
51
Equivalent Footings for Pile Groups Settlements

Ground level
Ground level
Soft Clay
2/3L
2/3L
L
L
Equivalent Ftg
Equivalent Ftg
Homogeneous
Clay
Firm Layer
1
52
26

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
The end result of a

geotechnical design analysis
is
Settlement
53
Movement, Settlement, and Creep

Movement occurs as a result of an increase of stress, but the term should be reserved
to deformation due to increase of total stress. Movement is the result of a transfer of
stress to the soil (the movement occurs as necessary to build up the resistance to the
load), and when the involved, or influenced, soil volume successively increases as the
stress increases. For example, when adding load increments to a pile or to a plate in a
static loading test (where, erroneously, the term "settlement" is often used). As a term,
mo ement is used
movement
sed when
hen the involved,
in ol ed or influenced,
infl enced soil volume
ol me increases as the load
increases.
Settlement is volume reduction of the subsoil as a consequence of an increase in
effective stress. It consists of the sum of "elastic" compression and deformation due to
consolidation. The elastic compression is the compression of the soil grains (soil
skeleton) and of any free gas present in the voids, The elastic compression is often
called "immediate settlement.
It occurs quickly and is normally small (the
elastic compression is not associated with expulsion of water). The deformation due to
consolidation on the other hand,
consolidation,
hand is volume change due to the compression of the soil
structure associated with an expulsion of waterconsolidation. In the process, the
imposed stress, initially carried by the pore water, is transferred to the soil structure.
Consolidation occurs quickly in coarse-grained soils, but slowly in fine-grained soils. As
a term, settlement is used when the involved, or influenced, soil volume stays constant
as the effective stress increases.
54
27

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Movement, Settlement, and Creep

Creep is compression occurring without an increase of effective stress.
Creep is usually small, but may in some soils add significantly to the
compression of the soil skeleton and, thus, to the total deformation of the
soil It is then acceptable to talk in terms of creep settlement.
soil.
settlement
The term "settlement" is normally used for the deformation resulting from the
combined effect of load transfer, increase of effective stress, and creep during
long-term conditions. It is incorrect to use the term settlement to mean
movement due to increase of load such as in a loading test.
55
Strain
Linear Elastic Deformation (Hookes Law)
'
E
= induced strain in a soil layer
'
= imposed change of effective stress in the soil layer
= elastic modulus of the soil layer (Youngs Modulus)
Youngs modulus is the modulus for when lateral expansion is allowed, which may be the case
for soil loaded by a small footing, but not when the load is applied over a large area. In the latter
case, the lateral expansion is constrained (or confined). The constrained modulus, D, is larger
than the E-modulus. The constrained modulus is also called the oedometer modulus. For
ideally elastic soils, the ratio between D and E is:
D
(1 )
E (1 ) (1 2 )
= Poissons ratio
56
28

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Stress-Strain
57
Stress-strain behavior is non-linear for most soils. The

non-linearity cannot be disregarded when analyzing
compressible soils, such as silts and clays, that is, the
elastic modulus approach is not appropriate for these soils.
Non-linear stress-strain behavior of compressible soils, is
conventionally modeled as follows.
where
Cc
e0
0
1
=
=
=
=
=
Cc
'
lg 1
1 e0 ' 0
CR lg
'1
'0
strain induced byy increase of effective stress from 0 to 1

compression index
void ratio
original (or initial) effective stress
final effective stress
CR = Compression Ratio = CR
Cc
1 e0
(MIT)
58
29

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
In overconsolidated soils (most soils are)
where
'p
1
(C cr lg
'0
1 e0
C c lg
'1
)
'p
p = p
preconsolidation stress
Ccr = re-compression index
59
The Janbu Method

The Janbu tangent modulus approach, proposed by Janbu (1963; 1965; 1967; 1998),
and referenced by the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, CFEM (1985; 1992),
applies the same basic principles of linear and non-linear stress-strain behavior. The
method applies to all soils, clays as well as sand. By this method, the relation between
stress and strain is a function of two non-dimensional parameters which are unique for a
soil: a stress exponent, j, and a modulus number, m.
Janbus general relation is
1 '1 j
[( )
mj 'r
'0 j
) ]
' r
j >0
where r is a reference stress = 100 KPa
60
30

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
The Janbu Method
Dense Coarse-Grained Soil
1
1
( '1 ' 0 ) '
m
m
j = 1
Cohesive Soil
j = 0
Sandy or Silty Soils
KPa
1
1
( '1 ' 0 )
'
2m
2m
ksf
'
1
ln 1
m
'0
1
( '1 ' 0 )
5m
j = 0.5
KPa
2
( '1 ' p
m
ksf
61
There are direct mathematical conversions

between m and the E and Cc-e0
For E given in units of KPa (and ksf), the relation between the
modulus number and the E-modulus is
m
m
E/100
(KPa)
E/2
(ksf)
For Cc-e0, the relation to the modulus number is
m ln10
1 e0
1 e0
2.3
Cc
Cc
ln10 lg 2
0.69
2
62
31

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Typical and Normally Conservative Virgin Modulus Numbers

SOIL TYPE
MODULUS NUMBER
Till, very dense to dense
1,000
STRESS EXP.
300
(j = 1)
Gravel
400
40
(j = 0.5)
Sand dense
compact
loose
400
250
150
250
150
100
(j = 0.5)
-"-"-
Silt
200
80
60
80
60
40
(j = 0.5)
-"-"-
Silty clay hard, stiff

and
stiff, firm
Clayey silt soft
60
20
10
20
10
5
(j = 0)
---
Soft marine clays

and organic clays
20
(j = 0)
( j= 0)
dense
compact
loose
Peat
For clays and silts, the recompression modulus, mr, is often five to ten
times greater than the virgin modulus, m, listed in the table
63
Evaluation of compressibility from oedometer results
25
1.20
p'c
20
Slope = m = 12
Strain (%)
Void Ratio (- -)
1 00
1.00
0.80
m = 12
(CR = 0.18)
15
1/m
10
Cc
0.60
2.718p
Cc = 0.37
p
e 0 = 1.01
10p
p'c
0
0.40
10
100
1 000
1,000
Stress (KPa) log scale
10 000
10,000
10
100
1,000
10,000
Stress (KPa) log scale
Void-Ratio vs. Stress and Strain vs. Stress Same test data
64
32

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Comparison between the Cc/e0 approach

and the Janbu method
0.35
VIRGIN MODULUS NUMBER, m
35
COMPRESSION INDEX, Cc
0 30
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.40
30
Do these values
indicate a
20
compressible soil, a
15
medium compressible
10
soil, or a noncompressible soil?
5
25
0
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.20
1.00
VOID RATIO, e 0
0.80
0.60
0.40
VOID RATIO, e 0
150
NO
ORMALIZED m (%)
NORMALIZED Cc (%)
Data from a 20 m thick sedimentary deposit of medium compressibility.
125
100
75
50
0.40
0.60
0.80
VOID RATIO, e 0
1.00
1.20
65
150
125
100
75
50
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
VOID RATIO, e 0
The Cc-e0 approach implies that the the compressibility varies by 30 %.

However, the Janbu methods shows it to vary only by 10 %. The
modulus number, m, ranges from 18 through 22; It would be unusual to
find a clay with less variation
variation.
What about Immediate Settlement

and Consolidation?
66
33

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
CE 5101 - SETTLEMENTS AND 1D

Compression Theory
Settlements of Soils - Immediate, Delayed, and
p Compression
p
Creep
Delayed Consolidation Compression
mv method
e-logP method
Janbu method
Terzaghi s Theory of 1D Consolidation
Terzaghis
Effects of Drainage and Initial Stress Distribution
SPREADSHEET Calculations (UNISETTLE)
Finite Element Analysis (PLAXIS)
67
Foundation Settlement Issues

How Much settlements will occur?
Interested in Ultimate settlements in fully drained
state, as well as long-term creep settlements
How Fast and how long will it take for most of
settlements to occur?
Involved Consolidation and Secondary
Compression theories to estimate rate of
settlements, and
Methods to accelerate settlements and minimise
long-term settlements
68
34

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Types of Ground Movements and Causes of

Settlements
Compaction - due to vibrations, pile driving, earthquake
Elastic
El ti Volumetric
V l
t i Settlement
S ttl
t in
i OC Clay
Cl in
i recompression,
i
use E and or recompression index, Cr or
Immediate or Undrained Settlement - Distortion without
volume change, use Eu and u
Moisture changes - Expansive soils, high LL and PI, high
swelling and shrinkage
S ll Potential
Swell
P t ti l (%) = 0.1(PI-10)
0 1(PI 10) llog ((s/p)
/ )
Effects of vegetation - related to moisture changes by root
system
Effects of GWT lowering - shrinkage ad consolidation
69
Types of Ground Movements and Causes of

Settlements
Effects of temperatures - Frost heaving,
drying by furnace and boilers
Effects of seepage and scouring - Erosion by
piping, scouring and wind action, mineral
cement dissolved by GW eg limestone, rock
salts and chalk areas
Loss of lateral support - Footings beside
unsupported excavation, movement of natural
slopes and cuttings
Effects of mining subsidence - collapse of
ground cavities
Filled ground - settlements of the fill soils,
compaction, consolidation, and creep
70
35

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Shrink/ swell potential is function of Clay Activity = %clay fraction/ PI
Swell Potential (%) = 0.1(PI-10) log (s/p)

Where s=suction before construction and p=final bearing pressure
71
1D Settlements
Soil deformations are of two types:
Distortion (change of shape 2D effects)
Compression (change of volume)
Components of Settlements:
s t s i sc s s
where si immediate settlement , distortion
sc consolidation settlement , compression
s s secondary compression
72
36

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Undrained Immediate Settlements

Distortion of clay layer:
Calculate
Calculate by elastic theory eg Janbu
Chart
qB
(1 2 )
E
where si immediate settlement for flexible loaded area
s i I 0 I1
I 0 and I 1 dimensionl ess factors by Janbu

q Average load on footong width B
E Undrained modulus of clay layer
Poisson' s ratio of clay layer

73
Immediate Settlements in Clays by Janbu
74
37

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Example on Janbu Chart: Foundation 4x2m with q=150kPa,

located at 1m in Clay layer 5m thick with Eu=40MN/m2. Below
is second clay layer of 8m thickness and Eu=75 MN/m2.What
is average settlement under foundation? Assume =0.5
Now L/B 4/2 2; D/B 1/2 0.5, 0 0.9
((1)) Consider upper
pp clayy layer,
y , with E u 40 MN/m 2 :
H/B 4/2 2 and L/B 4/2 2, 1 0.7
si 1 0.9 * 0.7 *
150 * 2
1 0.5 2 3.5 mm
40
(2) Consider two layers combined, with E u 75 MN/m 2 :

H/B 12/2 6 and L/B 4/2 2, 1 0.85
si 2 0.9 * 0.85 *
150 * 2
1 0.5 2 2.3 mm
75
(1) Consider upper layer, with E u 75 MN/m 2 :

H/B 4/2 2 and L/B 4/2 2, 1 0.7
150 * 2
si 3 0.9 * 0.7 *
1 0.5 2 1.9 mm
75
By Superposition Pr inciple ;
s i si 1 s i 2 s i 3
si 3.5 2.3 - 1.9 3.9 mm
75
1D Primary Consolidation Settlements

Time delayed Primary Consolidation Compression:
e
e0
water
solids
vertical
H0
e
H
volume
H0
1 e0
sc H H 0 ( vertical ) H 0 ( volume )
mv method (e vs P), where P v '
e
P
mv coeffn of volume change -
av coeffn of compressibility -
e0
H sc
ef
P0
Pf
sc
e
1 e0
a
1
v
(1 e0 ) P 1 e0
H 0 m v P H 0
av
P H0
1 e0
76
38

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
mv and Constrained Modulus D

For wide loaded area, get 1D compression
under
d Ko
K condition,
diti
elastic
l ti modulus
d l to
t apply
l
is called the Constrained Modulus D defined
by:
1
E 1
mv 1 1 2
where
h
mv Coefficien
C ffi i t off volume
l
h
change
E Soil drained modulus of elasticity
Soil drained Poisson ratio ( 0.35)

77
Sc by (e vs logP) Method
Normally Consolidated Clays - non-linear stress strain for soil,
but linear in logP
g
Pf
e Cc logPf logP0 Cc log
e
e0
C c compression index
sc H H 0
ef
P0
Pf
P0
Pf
Cc
log
1 e0
P0
log P
Compressio n Ratio, CR C c
Cc
1 e0
78
39

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Over-Consolidated Clays (Pf < Pc), Preconsolidation Pressure
C r recompression index
e
e0
ef
C s swelling index
Pf
e Cr logPf logP0 Cr log
C c compression index
sc H H 0
P0
Pf
Pc
log P
P0
Pf
Cr
log
1 e0
P0
small settlement s
as C r is 5 to 10 times smaller than C c
Re compressio n Ratio , RR C r
Cr
1 e0
79
Over-Consolidated Clays (Pf > Pc), Preconsolidation Pressure
e
e0
ec
C r or C s
Cc
ef
P0
Pc
Pc
P0
P
e2 Cc logPf logPc Cc log f
Pc
e e 2
sc H H 0 1
e1 Cr logPc logP0 Cr log
Pf
log P
1 e0
Pf
H0
Pc
C r log C c log
1 e0
P0
Pc
This will mean large settlement s
80
40

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Sc by Janbu Tangent Modulus Method

Canadian Foundation Manual 1985
Janbu (1963, 1965,1967,1998); For Cohesionless Soils; j>0
Th
Theory
is
i used
d in
i Program
P
UniSettle
U iS ttl (b
(by UNISOFT
UNISOFT, Canada)
C
d )
'
'
m 'r '
Mt
1 j
1
Integrate to get v
mj
,
f
,
r
,
0
,
r
where v vertical strain induced by change in vertical effective stress
,
0
,
f
initial vertical effective stress P0

final vertical effective stress Pf
j Janbu stress exponent

m Janbu modulus number, obtained from lab or field test
,
r
Reference vertical effective stress 100 kPa

81
Cohesionless Sands and Silts; j=0.5

Normally Consolidated Cohesionless Soils
j 0.5
1
v
5m
,
f
,
r
100 kPa
0
SOIL TYPE
SAND
SILT
m
DENSE
400-250
MEDIUM
250-150
LOOSE
150-100
DENSE
200-80
MEDIUM
80-60
LOOSE
60-40
82
41

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Cohesionless Sands and Silts; j=0.5

Over-Consolidated Cohesionless Soils
CASE for 'f 'p ;
5m r
,
f
j 0.5 ,
,
0
5m r
,
P
,
0
5m
100 kPa,
CASE for 'f 'P ; j 0.5

v
,
r
,
f
,
P
100 kPa
where
,
P
preconsolidation pressure in kPa
OC modulus number, m r is usually 5 to 10 times larger than m
83
Cohesive Soils; j=0

Normally Consolidated Clays
SOIL TYPE
j 0
,
r
100 kPa
,
,
1 f C c
f
log ,
v ln ,
m 1 e0

0
0
1 e0
m ln 10
Cc
1 e0
2.3
Cc
SILTY
CLAYS
HARD,
STIFF
60-20
60
20
AND
STIFF,
FIRM
20-10
CLAYEY
SILT
FIRM TO
SOFT
10-5
SOFT
MARINE
C
CLAYS
S
ORGANIC
CLAYS
PEAT
20-5
10-3
5-1
84
42

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Over-consolidated Clays; j=0

Over- Consolidated Clays
1
ln
v
mr
,
P
,
0
1 ln
Cr
v
log
1 e0
1 e0
m ln 10
Cc
and m r ln 10
,
f
,
P
C c log
1 e0
0
1 e0
2 . 3
Cc
P
,
f
,
1 e0
Cr
1 e0
2 . 3
Cr
85
Linear Elastic Soil; j=1

1
v
mj
,
f
,
r
,
0
,
r
1
100 m
therefore , E 100 m
E
m
100
86
43

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Janbu compared to e-logP
87
Oedometer Results in linear scale by Janbu
88
44

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Calculation of Settlement
Determine soil profile to get initial effective stresses
Determine soil compressibility parameters, e-logP, Cc,
Cr and Pc OR Janbu modulus number, m and mr
Determine final effective stresses due to imposed loads,
excavations, fills, GWT changes etc
Divide each soil layer into sublayers, calculate strain
caused by change from initial to final effective stresses
in each sublayer
Calculate the settlement for each sublayer and the
accumulated settlement
89
UNISETTLE Calculation of Settlement
90
45

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Hand Calculation
91
UniSettle Input
92
46

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Input
Loading and
Excavation
93
Results
94
47

Lecture 5
Prof Harry Tan

SEP 2011
Settlements Distribution
95
Alternative Conditions
96
48

Settlements and Elastic Stress Distribution (SEP 2011 Color)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Settlements and Elastic Stress Distribution (SEP 2011 Color)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Requirements for Foundation Design

What is Adequate Safety

Failure Load = 866 kPa

Tension cut-off point

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Load vs Settlement Behaviour of Flexible

Footing CL Settlement [m]

Factor of Safety as Measure of Degree of

FS = 4.338; q = 200 kPa; qult = 868 kPa

FS = 1.291; q = 670 kPa; qult = 865 kPa

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

What is Allowable Settlements

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum, 1963)

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum ,1963)

Max Diff Sett = 1/4 Max Sett

For Flexible Footing,

Max Diff Sett = 1/2 Max Sett

Typical Foundation Design,

Limiting Angular Distortions (Bjerrum ,1963)

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

ER2010 Review Paper by

Basic Soil Phase Relationships

Void ratio, e = Vv/Vs

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Basic Soil Phase Relationships

Common soil mineral densities

Solid Density, kg/m3

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Typical range of saturated densities

Saturated Density, kg/m3

The Textbooks on Foundations They come

This is one of the few showing

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

The Reality With a bit of needed W add-on

The Reality Getting closer, at least

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

So,, with this food for thought,

Determining the effective stress is

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

It is much better to determine, separately,

Determining pore pressure

(1) in stationary conditions, the pore pressure distribution can be assumed to be

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Boussinesq Method for stress from

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Newmarks method for stress