Table 4.4. Variables used in methods o f estim ating settlements o f footings on sand (Tan and D uncan, 1991).

V a r ia b le s u s e d

M e th o d ( r e f e r e n c e ) N Near <7c B Dw 5/ r< L T S o il S tr. T im e

ty p e h is t

A lp a n ( 1 9 6 4 ) ✓ ✓ V / ✓ ✓

B u r la n d a n d B u r- ✓ ✓ ✓ / ✓ ✓ s ✓ ✓ ✓
b r id g e ( 1 9 8 5 )

D ’A p p o lo n ia & ✓ ✓ ✓ / V
D ’A p p o lo n ia ( 1 9 7 0 )

D u n c a n & B u c h ig n a n i ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(1 9 7 6 )

M e y e rh o f (1 9 5 6 ) ✓ ✓

N A V F A C (1 9 8 2 ) ✓ ✓ ✓

P arry (1 9 7 1 ) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

P eck & B az araa ✓ V ✓ / ✓ ✓

(1 9 6 9 )

P eck , H an so n , T h o ra - ✓ ✓ ✓ / ✓
b u ra (1 9 7 4 )

S c h m e r tm a n n ( 1 9 7 8 ) ✓ ✓ ✓ / ✓ V
S c h u ltz & S h e r if ✓ V / ✓
(1 9 7 3 )

T e rz a g h i a n d P e c k •/ ✓ ✓ ✓
(1 9 6 7 )

N = S P T B lo w C o u n t; B= f o o tin g w id th ; qc= C o n e P e n e tr a tio n T e s t tip r e s is ta n c e ; y ,= to ta l u n it w e ig h t o f s a n d ; D / = d e p t h o f fo o tin g b e lo w g r o u n d

s u r f a c e ; S o il T y p e = s ilty o r c le a n s a n d ; T = th ic k n e s s o f s a n d la y e r b e lo w f o o tin g ; Dw= d e p t h o f w a te r ta b le ; T i m e = d u r a t io n o f lo a d in g ; L = f o o tin g
le n g th ; Nc„= S P T B lo w C o u n t c o r r e c te d f o r o v e r b u r d e n p r e s s u r e ; S tr e s s H i s t = m a x . p r e v . lo a d .

Buisman may be adapted to provide a crude estimation of creep method. Values of “re lia bility” varied from 34% for Schultze
settlements. and S he rif s method to 86% for Terzaghi and Peck’s method. In
general, the methods which were less accurate (and more con­
servative) were more reliable in the sense that they underesti­
4.3 S ettlem en t o f shallow fo u n d a tio n s on sa n d
mated the settlement relatively infrequently. Table 4.5 summa­
4.3.1 P revio u s studies rizes the hand computation times for a simple example. Those
A remarkable number of methods have been developed to esti­ methods requiring correction o f the SPT values generally in­
mate the settlement of shallow foundations on sand, yet consis­ volved the longer computation times. As concluded by Tan and
tent success in accurately predicting such settlements remains Duncan, there is a tradeoff between accuracy and relia bility in
elusive. These methods range from purely empirical (Category choosing a method of calculation.
1) methods developed originally for conservative footing design
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967), to complex Category 3 nonlinear fi­ 4.3.2 Case stu d y
nite element methods. A comparison of the performance of a number of the methods
Many of the methods rely on in-situ SPT or CPT data, and has been made via a well-documented Prediction Symposium in
hence it is not possible to satisfactorily examine the theoretical which a number of people made “Class A ” predictions of the
relationship between the various methods. Assessments of the settlement of footings on a natural sand profile (Briaud and Gib­
performance of various methods have therefore been made on bons, 1994). The predictions were then compared with the actual
the basis of comparisons with measured settlements. At least two settlement measurements.
significant studies have been reported, one by Jeyapalan and Figure 4.8 s u m m a r i z e s the soil conditions near one of the
Boehm (1986), and the other by Tan and Duncan (1991). footings tested (footing 1, nominally 3m by 3m in plan). The site
The study by Jeyapalan and Boehm (1986) involved the sta­ consisted by layers of silty sand, underlain by a hard clay layer.
tistical analysis of 71 case histories for which settlements of A substantial amount of in-situ and laboratory data was obtained,
footings on sand were reported, and the assessment of the rela­ some of which is shown in Figure 4.8.
tive accuracy of nine methods of settlement estimation. The In the Prediction Symposium, a total o f 31 persons made pre­
methods of Schultze and Sherif (1973) and Schmertmann (1978) dictions, using a wide variety o f methods. However, for the pres­
appeared to among the more dependable approaches. ent exercise, the authors have made their own application of a
Tan and Duncan (1991) carried out an assessment of the reli­ number of the methods to Footing 1, as well as presenting the
ability of twelve methods of estimating footing settlement on original prediction made for this footing. An exception is the re­
sands by comparing calculated and measured settlements for 76 sult of a finite element analysis, which was carried out by one of
cases. Each of the methods was evaluated in terms of (1) accu­ the other predictors.
racy (the ratio of average calculated to measured settlement), (2) Table 4.6 summarizes the results o f the authors’ calculations
reliability (the percentage of cases in which the calculated set­ for the settlement at a load of 4000 kN (corresponding to a factor
tlement equalled or exceeded the measured settlement, and (3) of safety against ultimate failure o f about 2-5). The following
ease of use (the length of time required to apply the method. Ta­ observations can be made from Table 4.6:
ble 4.4 summarizes the methods considered and the parameters 1. all methods over-estimated the footing settlement
used in each method. Figure 4.7 summarizes the findings on ac­ 2. the elasticity-based methods, based on CPT, SPT and pres-
curacy and reliability. Values of “accuracy” range from 1.0 (the suremeter data, all give reasonable predictions
ideal value) for Alpan’s method to 3.2 for Terzaghi and Peck’s

2553