You are on page 1of 5

PAPER

Se;: eiIIenI;
an( ~eave o
overconso ic a~:ec

London Clay, unweather

1500

1000'00

Eu

Cu

c BIfs-

Note
Curves NLI
illustrative

a simplified non-linear method


of calculation
ByAS

O'rien

OL

0.001

0.005 0.01

0.05

05 1.0

0.1

Vertical strain (%)

and P Sharp, Mott MacDonald

Normahsed

settlement

undrained

Sz/50

0.5

1.0

Introduction
Settlement at working load is usually the critical design consideration
for vertically loaded foundations on stiff overconsolidated
clays.
Foundation settlement is usually calculated by assuming that the
ground behaves as a linear elastic material. The reliability of this
calculation is mainly dependent on an appropriate choice of elastic
modulus.
However, modern laboratory testing techniques have identified the
highly non-linear stress strain characteristics of overconsolidated
clays, for example, refer to Jardine et al 1984'nd Figure 1'. This
explains the wide range of values for "linear elastic" moduli, which
have been reported in the technical literature; for example E/Cu ratios
of between 150 and 1500 have been quoted in CIRIA SP 27'. As a result
the selection of an appropriate value for a linear elastic modulus
becomes a matter of considerable engineering judgement. The recent
Ground Engineering article'xemplifies some of the difficulties that
engineers face in selecting appropriate deformation moduli.
An additional problem is that linear elasticity incorrectly predicts
the pattern of settlement adjacent to and beneath a loaded area. For
example, if total settlement of a structure is correctly predicted, settlement at depth or remote from the structure will be incorrectly predicted. In view of these problems, the applicability of linear elastic calculations for overconsolidated clays is limited. However, the alternatives to conventional linear elastic calculations, such as non-linear
finite element techniques, can be complex, expensive and time consuming, requiring high level expertise and considerable engineering
interpretation.
Hence, there is a need for a simplified method which enables the
engineer to gain an understanding of foundation deformation behaviour under loads of varying intensity. This paper describes a method
which enables the non-linear stress strain behaviour of overconsolidated clays to be modelled in a manner which is relatively simple and
is appropriate for routine design calculations. The calculations are
most conveniently undertaken by computer. however, the method is
readily amenable to hand calculation. Undrained and total settlement
(or heave) can be calculated under foundation loading of any shape and
of varying intensity using a varying ground stiffness depth profile.

Background to proposed method


Field observations of ground movement
During the 1970s, the BRE performed several large scale plate loading
tests. Figure 2 shows settlement recorded beneath a 0.9 m diameter plate
test on London Clay. The data is shown in dimensionless form
(subsurface settlement divided by plate settlement at founding level) and
can be compared with the prediction of settlement
within a
homogeneous
linear elastic medium. The observed subsurface
settlements are quite localised, most settlement occurs within a depth of
about 0.6 times the plate diameter.
In contrast the linear elastic calculation predicts a significantly
greater depth of influence. Figure 2 also shows normalised subsurface
settlement recorded beneath a large building founded on glacial till of
low plasticity'. The pattern of settlement with depth is similar to that
28

0.5 >-

cc

'aCl

oi
io

1.0,

1.5

'ey:

ao

(kN/m

Sofmml

Foundation

zfm)

Formation

Reference';

geometry

250

18

3.3

137

33

agua

gie,Baca

'o

iii

Il

egal g

B=m L=BB',

220

17 5

4
e'actce ieeic

ea
o

ace

ai:

Ae

iceomc

oi

ac e

.".."'are

Ai

ac

cacao

a*eeoc

'aco"

..ca

Aoa

ua va

for the plate test on London Clay, with most settlement occurring within a depth of about 0.6 times the building width. An interesting feature
of this field data is that the building settlement increases by more than
a factor of 2.5, when bearing pressure increases by a factor of only
about 1.8. Also as bearing pressure is increased, normalised sub surface settlement becomes concentrated closer to the building foundation. Linear elastic calculations would not predict this pattern of
behaviour.

Figure 3 summarises some settlement and heave observations for


relatively large rigid structures founded on overconsolidated clays.
Reviews of published case histories of settlement of buildings constructed on overconsolidated clays by, for example, Simons and Som
1970', and Morton and Au 1975'ndicate that settlement at the end of
construction is about 60'o of the total settlement. Good case histories
of time dependent heave are, by comparison, relatively rare.
However, comparing the settlement case histories with those for
heave, it is apparent that for comparable foundation type, ground conditions and net change in foundation pressure, time dependent heave
GRoLINI) ENGINI3ERING ocTOBER

2001

PAPER
due to unloading is greater than time dependent settlement due to loading. The fundamental difference in behaviour between the development of settlement and heave is highlighted by comparing the ratio of
the end of construction movement to the time dependent movement,
R = 6u ih,d. The settlement records typically indicate R to vary between
1.4 and <2d.0. However, the records of heave indicate that R varies
between 0.4 and 0.8. Although incomplete records of time dependent
heave, the rates of heave described by Mettyear'nd Pierpointio (for
24m and 10m deep excavations in London Clay and Oxford Clay respectively) provide additional evidence of the lower deformation moduli
mobilised beneath excavations.
It is observed that compared to settlement, time dependent heave
appears to develop over significantly longer periods of time. At the
Shell Building, in central London, the rate of time dependent heave
shows little sign of decreasing even though the excavation took place
over 30 years ago, Burford 1992""-.In contrast, time dependent settlement is generally found to be complete within about five to 10 years.

Previous analytical studies


Figure 4 summarises the results of non-linear finite element studies for
a rigid footing, carried out by Jardine et al 1986". Compared to linear
elastic theory, the non-linear analysis predicts that settlement will
reduce more rapidly with depth, Figure 4(a). Also the non-linear model
predicts that as the factor of safety against bearing

in layer i (due to, for example, the installation of drainage measures


within the proposed foundation).
The drained secant Young's modulus, E',, is assumed to be dependent
on the average mean effective stress during the load increment (or
decrement) and the magnitude of vertical strain which the layer experiences. For the latter, it is necessary to iterate equation 5 until the vertical strain calculated for the layer is compatible with the strain
assumed for estimating E'I Following a successful iteration, the final
value of E',. is the mobilised drained secant Young's Modulus for layer
mob

equation 6, e', is calculated following a successful iteration,


and then the cumulative total vertical displacement is calculated by
summing for all layers:
i'rom

i=n

(e.'v

i=i

(6)

H,)

Calculation of undrained settlement, or heave


The undrained settlement, or heave, 6u is calculated from a modified
version of the classical elasticity equation:

= 1 [3o, v(A<si +

(7)

A<Tg)]H

ll

capacity failure reduces, the normalised settlement


beneath the rigid footing becomes concentrated
closer to the loaded boundary. This pattern of
behaviour is similar to that identified from field
observations,
Figure 2. Figure
4(b) shows
normalised surface settlement adjacent to the rigid
footing. Normalised surface settlements predicted by
non-linear elasticity are concentrated much closer to
the rigid footing than those predicted by linear
elasticity.

80

Qy

Den

E
E

60

P
'.3<<

Qo

40

re Heave

si

XR

Description of proposed non-linear method


The estimation of settlement or heave involves three

40

80

120

IXX e XR

160
in

200

hwndnlondhnonolons
Sfnodlh
Lend&

@4(1976i

Indicates movement
still increasing

240

280

320

360

pressure (kN/ma)

method is

6T-6 + 6ul

Raft

sp Secant piled cut


and cover tunnel

Net change

Calculation of total settlement, or heave


Total settlement, or heave, 6is defined as follows

Settlement

Piled raft

Xv

20'

basic considerations:
(a) the magnitude and distribution of stresses set up
in the soil mass by the foundation loading;
(b) the immediate and long term stress-strain
properties of the soil mass in both depth and lateral
extent;
(c) the linking of (a) and (b) above, in order to
and
hence
displacements,
calculate
strains,
throughout the soil mass affected by foundation
loading.
An outline of the proposed non-linear
presented below.

=~

6T

SnnoolnndanlnodMano

I)

Opondfndinoifoanoad

'.:-- ') ~~odd

Total settlement, or heave, is calculated from a mod


ified version of the one-dimensional method:

"r

(2)

mv-1<T'vH

If the compressible stratum is divided into

n layers

then for layer i;

mv

A<tv

(3)

H,
i

-'-"':,-":-(ef)~M:-;;~.'-:<4%~

e'=':QOdnn~(l~.-":=:-.

e:: IIIfdt)K~i~--::
a

.et

~4~~

e<<rauviec<a-ro,

.-.=='T,

'.-'.

<a<trav)::
-:
-"~~::

v<n

)sfo.=.'--,

.:-:,:-'eii

.<-,:a<dl

vn-.-'':

<,:.,".'-455nr-.

From Henkel, 1971tH


mvvi

=k

(4)

F,,i

Rearranging

(3) and utilising (4):

'=':~.-::-"4M'..-'v =.::=~;:-:,;,:-.':::::-,-!:
'i:":-::~M=-.=,':::;+::=-:=:'..

:-;:

6) = k,3<r', = k,(3<r,
H

3u,)

(6)

-:":

6<

-.'<i~~&=

-"ssa'm

.Ww~j'zYg;

5~v$ .':d P'~

The change in net vertical total stress, A<re, is calculated from conventional isotropic linear'elastic
theory (for example Poulos and Davis 1974"), Au, is
the change in equilibrium pore water pressure with<IROLINI) VNOINKKRINO

O<t POHHR

2001

29

PAPER
Dividing the compressible strata into n layers, then for layer i:

1
5u, [A(r,. - v(kirh

Normalised

+ Airh )]H,

(8)

subsurface settlement az/rro

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

From Equation 8:
euuut

= 5uui =
H,

distance X/R

Normaiised

1.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

0.2

[Aire - V (3(rh

ij

Arrh

(9)

)]
2i

1.0

0.4

2.0

0.6

Eu,

0.8

The undrained secant Young's modulus, Eu.,1 is assumed to be a function, only, of the vertical strain which layer i experiences. Mean effective
stress during undrained loading (or unloading) is assumed to be constant. Equation 9 has to be iterated until the vertical strain calculated for
the layer is compatible with the strain assumed for estimating
Eu i .
Following a successful iteration, the final calculated value of Eu. is then
I
the mobilised undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i, E.
a successful iteration eu,
is determined and the cumulaUVi
tive undrained vertical displacement is calculated for the compressible

3.0

1.0
b. Profiles of normalised surface settlement
adiacent to a ngid footing

4.0

Linear elastic

5.0
a. Profiles of normalised subsurface
settlement for a rigid foobng

Non-linear,

Fs =

3.3

Non-linear,

Fs =

2.0

"i(mob)'ollowing

strata:
i=n

8u

= X (euu H,)

(10)

i=i

Mobilised ground stiffness


The key element of the proposed method is the facility to allow for the
dependence of mobilised secant Young's modulus on the magnitude of
strain (and additionally, in the case of drained modulus, on the
magnitude of mean effective stress).
For the proposed method, the characterisation of ground stiffness
comprises two main elements:
(a) definition of the variation of secant Young's modulus (at a particular
strain magnitude) with depth;
(b) definition of the change in secant Young's modulus with changes in
the magnitude of vertical strain.
Typically in the absence of advanced insitu or laboratory test data,
the engineer can define the change in secant Young's modulus with
changes in strain magnitude by utilising published literature. Such
data is frequently normalised to allow data obtained for different sites,
depths and types of test to be compared in a rational way. This also
allows data for different soil types to be compared. The most common
normalising parameter is undrained shear strength, that is, it is often
assumed that undrained, or drained, secant Young's modulus (at a particular strain magnitude) is proportional to Cu. Therefore, the engineer
may utilise a profile of Cu with depth in order to derive a corresponding profile of secant Young's modulus (at a particular strain level).

4.0,
d NL2

d NLD2

3.0 l

2.0 L
shold

1.0

Qi0.005

0.002

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.1

Vertical strain, r,(N) Logarithmic

0.2

0.5

1.0

2.0

scale

However, it should be noted that stiffness profiles obtained by using Cu


as a normalising parameter may be less reliable than those which use
mean effective stress or the product of specific volume and mean effective stress as the normalising parameter. These normalising parameters have been used by Jardinet and O'rien et al, 1992'.

Modification of drained secant Young's modulus


mean effective stress during loading

for average

The drained secant Young's modulus is dependent upon the average


mean effective stress during the load increment (or decrement).
Therefore, the variation of the initial drained secant Young's modulus,
E ', with depth (for a particular strain magnitude) needs to be modified to
take account of the increase (or decrease) in mean effective stress (with
depth) which occurs during drained loading (or unloading). The average
mean effective stress during the load increment (or decrement) is
defined as follows:

(14)
Hence the mean effective stress during a load increment (or decrement)
for layer i may be expressed in terms of the change in vertical effective
stress for layer i as follows:

Rearranging

Equation 11:

Pa;=Po,+ ~p;

pa = po+ pr
2

For isotropic elastic materials under one-dimensional loading, the


change in horizontal effective stress is related to the change in vertical
effective stress by the Poisson's ratio:
v

(12)

(1 v')

The increment or decrement of mean effective stress, Ap', can be related to the change in vertical and horizontal effective stress as follows:

Ap:

1 (3(r + Ao
3

ht

+ 3(rh2)

(13)

Then from Equation 12, substituting for Arr'h, and r1(r', in Equation 13:
30

(15)

From equation 14, substituting

for Ap'n Equation 15:


(18)

8(1- v)

Hence, p',. can be calculated from a knowledge of only p', and 2(rr', In
order to modify the initial drained secant Young's modulus to allow for
the increase (or decrease) in mean effective stress, the initial drained
secant Young's modulus can be pro-rated as follows:

Ec,=Eo

(17)

P oi

From Equation 17, the variation E'c. of with depth under the specified
loading can be defined. It should be noted that the magnitude of F.' is
not usually unduly sensitive to the magnitude of p', assumed.
(iROI/NI) RN(;INKRR(N('(rTOI(KR

2001

PAPER
) is adjusted to be compatible
with the average of the assumed and
calculated strain magnitudes from
Euo
Divide compressible

strata into

n layers

Input profile of E o with depth,


at normahsing strain magnitude
and initial mean effectwe stress

Input profile of Euo with depth,


at normalising strain magnitude

0
0

Input vanation

the first iteration. The adjusted


value is defined as E',<,) (or E,k).
The calculation is repeated in subsequent iterations until the layer
strain e'v, (or e'uv,) is compatible with
the average strain value used to
derive E'ub (or E,,<b). To avoid
numerical instability, maximum and
minimum threshold relative stiffness values have to be defined,
Figure 5.

Calculate total
settlement/heave

Calculate undrained
settlement/heave

of Eu with strain

Input profile of E with strain

Define loading intensity and


foundation geometry, calculate

Input profile of mean effectwe


with depth, pnor to loading,

stress
p o

Say aah aah


with depth beneath

Define loading intensity and


foundation geometry, calculate sa,
with depth beneath point of interest

04-

Calculate strain within each


of n layers

Input profile of change in equihbnum


pore water pressure with depth. au

0
'ompare
accordAnce,
t

M<id'<y Eu
in

with ~2
for layer

calculated strain with


strain assumed for Eu for layer

Calculate change

stress

06

'orlayeri, does

yes

Apply

vertical effective
depth. aa v

in

stress

profile of average mean effective stress


with depth due to foundatron loading

Calculate settlement/heave

Sum settlement/heave

010

with

Calculate change in mean effective


with depth, ao hence calcuate

calculated strain equal


assumed strain?-

Qg-

Corrections
to
settlement/heave

point of interest

within layer

for

Calculate profile of corrected E c with


depth, at normalismg strain magnitude
and avergae due to foundation loading

layers

correction factors for depth


and ngidity of foundation

Calculate strain within each of m


layers

Compare calculated strain with strain~


assumed for E for layer i
Undrained

settlement/heave

in

accordance,'ith

2
for layer

For layer i, does


calculated strain equal
assumed strain?

yes

Sum settlement/heave

Apply

No

Calculate settlement/heave

within layer

for

layers

correction factors for depth

13

14

15

and ngidity of foundation


Total setttement/heave

Variation of secant Young's modulus with vertical strain


The variation of undrained, or drained secant Young's modulus with
vertical strain is given by a user defined curve plotted as relative
stiffness versus log vertical strain, Figure 5. This curve may be derived
from modern laboratory or insitu testing or from data published in the
technical literature. The magnitude of normalised secant Young's
modulus at a particular strain magnitude is used as a basis for
identifying the relative change in secant Young's modulus with changes
in strain.
For example, in Figure 1, the value of Eu/Cu for curve NL1 at a strain
of 0.1'o is 450. Similarly, at a strain level of 0.005'o, Eu/Cu equals 1542
and at 0.5oo strain, Eu/Cequals 167. Then, dividing these values with
respect to the value for the particular strain level of O.loo, a relative
stiffness versus log strain curve is derived for the complete range of
strain magnitudes, Figure 5 (curve NL1). For example, the relative stiffnesses are 3.43 (1542/450) and 0.37 (167/450) for strain levels of 0.005 no
and 0.5 /o respectively.
The absolute value of the normalising strain magnitude (0.1'o in
this case) is not critical, it merely allows the iterative calculation to be
commenced. However, by choosing a normalising strain value within
the range of expected strains for the problem, the number of iterations
can be minimised. The iterative solution is commenced by using the
value of E'c, (or Euo ) (at the normalising strain magnitude) in equation
5 (or equation 9). The strain in each layer is calculated and compared
with the assumed strain magnitude (used to derive E',, or Euo ). Using
the user-defined relative stiffness log strain curve the value for E',, (or
GROUND ENGINFE)RING

ocTDBER 2001

calculated

The corrections which are necessary


for refinement of the calculated
settlement or heave depend on the
level of sophistication
which is
in using
the methods
applied
described
above. At the most
rudimentary
level, stress changes
within
the soil mass may be
calculated from simple Boussinesq
theory for a uniformly distributed
load on a perfectly flexible foundation
resting on the surface of a semiinfinite medium. If this approach is
adopted
then
for
most
real
foundations corrections are required
to take account of:
~ depth of foundation beneath
surface;
~ rigidity of foundation
It is generally recognised that
Fox'stg depth correction factors will
lead to an under estimate of the actual settlement or heave for most foundation substructures
(except for
piles), hence the depth factors recommended by Burland" should be
utilised. For perfectly rigid foundations or those of intermediate stiffness appropriate correction factors
are available, for example Poulos and
Davis 1974, Fraser and Wardle 1976,
Hooper 1975'6'"". If vertical deformations adjacent to or beneath structures of finite stiffness are required
then a more sophisticated approach

is required, either:
stress changes within soil mass from appropriate elastic
solutions for structures of finite stiffness, Poulos and Davis 1974;
~ use the concept of displacement compatibility along the structure to
predict the variation of contact stress at the sub structure/soil interface.
This contact stress distribution (simplified as a series of uniformly
loaded areas of varying intensity) can then be used to calculate
within the soil mass, by using the principles of
displacements
superposition to calculate stress changes at a particular point.
A simplified flow chart which summarises the key steps in calculating both undrained and total vertical deformation by the proposed
method is presented in Figure 6.

~ predict

Part two of this paper will

he published

in the November issue.

References

1. RJ Jardiue. MJ Symes and JB Burlaud <1984). The measurement of soil stiffness in the
asia 1 apparatus. Geo tech n i 0 ue, Vol. 34. No 3 pp 323 - 340.
2. AS O'rien. C J Forbes-Kmg. PA Gildea and P Sharp (1992). Insitu stress and stiffness at
seven overcousol idated clay and weak rock sites'. Parts I to 3. Ground Eng. Vol 23 Nos. 6-8.
3. C J Padfreld and M J Sharrock (1983).Settlement of structures on clay soils. Construction
Industry Research & Information Association, Special Publication 2i, London.
4. Never mind chalk, what about the cheese. Ground Fngi neeri ng, p13, October 1999.
5 A Mnrsland and BJ Eason (19i3). hleasurement of displacements in the ground belov:
loaded plates in deep boreholes. Field Instrumentation in Geotechnical Engineering, BGS
SymposiumMayi June 1973.
6. HJ Kriegel and HH Weisuer (1973).Problems of stress-strain conditions in subsoil. Proc.
of 8th ICSMFE, Moscow Vol.2. pp.133 to 141.
7. Simous and Som (19i0). Settlement of structures on clay with particular emphasis on
London Clay. CIRIA report 22.
8. K Morton and E Au (1976), Settlement observations of eight structures in London. Proc.

tri

31

PAPER
Conf. on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, pp183 to 203. Pentech Press. London.
9. NV Mettvear (1984). The short term behaviour of a deep cutting in London clay, '.4ISc
dissertation. Imperial College.
10. ND Pierpoint (1996). The prediction and back analysis of excavat>on behaviour in
OxfordClay'hDThesis. Sheffield University.
11.D Burford(1992) Private communication, kIarch 1992.
12. D Burford (1988). Heave of tunnels beneath the Shell Centre. London. 1939-1986.
Technical Note, Geb(ec)u>i que Vol 38, No.l. pp.136 to 137.
13. RJ Jardine, DM Potts. AB Fourie & JB Burland (1986). Studies of the influence of nonlinear stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction. Gdu(echnique, Vol.36,
No.3, pp377-396.

14. Henkel (1971).The relevance of laboratory measured parameters in tield studies. Proc.
Roscoe Nlemomal Symposium. pp669 676 ( ambri<lgv. Foul is
15. HG Poulos and EH Davis(1974). Elastic solut>ons for soil an<i rock mechanics. J vyfley.
16. EN Fox (19J8).The mean elastic settlement of a unit'ormly loaded area at depth belo>v
the ground surface. Proc 2nd ICShIFE, Rotterdam
17. JH Burland (1969).Discussion on Session A. Proc. Conf. on in situ investigations in soils
and rocks. Bmtish Geotechnical Society. London.
18. RA Fraser aml LJ Wardle (1976). Numerical analyi ot'<octangular rafts on layered
foundat>ons. (Ieo(echnivue, Vol.26. Nova pp.613 to 630.
19. JA Hooper (1976). Elastic settlement of a circular rett in a<ihesive contact <ith a
transverselv isotropic medium. Geo(echni<(ue. Vol.z >, No/L

Notation
E

H,
<r
<r

>urv

A<t'v

>>u,.

<rbo

A<rh,
3<rhv

3<rh

1>

a<rbv'>I

K
Po

number of soil sub layers in order to compute ground


settlement/heave
total thickness of compressible strata
thickness of soil layer i
vertical effective stress
vertical effective stress prior to foundation loading
net change in vertical total stress due to foundation
loading/unloading
for layer i
net change in vertical effective stress due to foundation
loading/unloading
and changes in equilibrium pore
water pressure
net change in vertical effective stress due to foundation
loading/unloading
and changes in equilibrium pore
= >ur,-ku,.)
waterpressure,forlayeri(3'<7,
change in equilibrium pore water pressure in layer i, due
to drainage measures
horizontal effective stress prior to foundation loading
change in horizontal total stress in x horizontal direction
change in horizontal total stress in y horizontal direction
change in horizontal total stress in x horizontal
direction, for layer i
change in horizontal total stress in y horizontal
direction, for layer i
change in horizontal radial total stress due to circular
foundation loading / unloading, for layer i
ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stress prior to
foundation loading = "bo /
0
initial mean effective stress prior to foundation loading =
<r

P,,
P(
Ap'

P.
C
Cn>

a,b

c
(<)

E
Eu

32

o s.

2<r b

initial mean effective stress prior to foundation loading


for layer i
final mean effective stress after application of the
foundation loading and consolidation
change in mean effective stress due to foundation loading
(~p' p', - p'o)
average value of the mean effective stress for the
increment of foundation loading
average value of the mean effective stress for the
increment of foundation loading for layer i
undrained shear strength
mobilised undrained shear strength due to foundation
loading
undrained Poisson's ratio
drained Poisson's ratio
power law constants for Bolton and Sun method, 1991
effective cohesion intercept
effective angle of friction
undrained secant Young's modulus
undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i
initial undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for

"i(ca I )

>(n>ob)

Ee.

Eo.i
E'',

K
E'
<.

E (-i)
)(mob)

E'vd

E'v,

k,

euv>

7
Su

Su.
Su)
F>T

Ss
F>o

Sx

D
Z

R
L

SPT N

the normalising level of strain)


adjusted value of undrained secant Young's modulus for
layer i (for a calculated level of shear strain)
final undrained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for
the solution strain level)
secant Young's modulus at a strain 6
secant Young's modulus at 0.1 'v strain
drained secant Young's modulus for vertical loading
drained secant Young's modulus for layer i
rate of increase of E with depth
initial drained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for the
normalising level of strain)
corrected drained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for
the norma)ising level of strain and the average value of
mean effective stress for the loading under
consideration)
adjusted value of drained secant Young's modulus for
layer i (for a calculated level of shear strain)
final drained secant Young's modulus for layer i (for the
solution strain level)
drained secant Young's modulus immediately beneath
foundation (at load / unload boundary)
drained secant Young's modulus for horizontal loading

shear modulus in vertical plane


coefficient of volume compressibility for vertical
direction for layer i
constant which depends on the degree of stiffness
anisotropy. For isotropic materials (with v'=0) k., = 1,
typically for over consolidated clays k, = 0.9
vertical strain for layer i (undrained loading/unloading)
total vertical strain for layer i (drained loading/
unloading)
shear strain
undrained settlement or heave
undrained settlement or heave, for layer i
time dependent settlement or heave
total settlement or heave
total settlement or heave, for layer i
total settlement at depth z
total settlement at depth z = 0
total settlement at depth z=0, at distance x from edge of
foundation
depthof excavation
vertical depth below loaded/unloaded boundary
(underside of foundation)
horizontal distance from edge of foundation
width of loaded area
radius of circular loaded area
length of loaded area
uncorrected blow count for standard penetration test

GR(iUNI) ENGINI')I RIN(1 ocTon(IR

2001

You might also like