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

net/publication/285674257

STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF VERTICAL SETTLEMENT AND HORIZONTAL

DISPLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE RESTING ON CLAY SOIL

Thesis · August 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 5,382

2 authors, including:

Balaji Kvgd
GITAM University
148 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF ELEVATED TEMPERATURES ON MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TERNARY BLENDED CONCRETE using METAKAOLIN AND MICRO SILICA View
project

INFLUENCE OF k4 AND OFFSHORE WIND VELOCITY FACTORS ON 40 M OPEN LATTICE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Balaji Kvgd on 05 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF VERTICAL SETTLEMENT AND
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE RESTING
ON CLAY SOIL
A Thesis submitted to Department of Civil Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of Degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND
NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT
Submitted By

M. MANASA
(1221112117)
Under The Guidance of

Dr.K.V.G.D.Balaji Ph.D.
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, GITAM University
T. Santhosh Kumar, M.E (Structures).
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, GITAM University

DEPATMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GITAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GITAM UNIVERSITY
(Est. U/s 3 of UGC act 1956)
VISAKHAPATNAM-530045
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GITAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GITAM UNIVERSITY
(Est. U/s 3 of UGC act 1956)
VISAKHAPATNAM-530045

-
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF
VERTICAL SETTLEMENT AND HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT OF A
STRUCTURE RESTING ON CLAY SOIL” submitted by M.MANASA, bearing
Regd. No. 1221112117, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
degree of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering with specialization in
Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster Management. GANDHI
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY is accorded to the student’s own work, carried out
by her in department of Civil Engineering during the year 2012-2014 under our
supervision and guidance. Neither her thesis nor any part of this thesis, has been
submitted for any degree/diploma or any other academic award anywhere before.

Dr. K.V.G.D.Balaji Ph.D. T. Santhosh Kumar M.E Dr M. Ramesh Ph.D.

Professor Assistant Professor Professor
Head of Department
Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. Of Civil Engineering
GITAM University GITAM University GITAM University
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis is completed with the help of many people who had given me their full
support and encouragement all the time. However I would like to specially
acknowledge and extend my heart full gratitude to few people who made this thesis
completion possible.

I would like to thank Mr. T. SANTOSH KUMAR, who has given me his
time, guidance and encouragement to successfully complete the thesis work.

I would like to thank Dr. K.V.G.D BALAJI, who has given me his valuable
time, stimulated suggestions and encouragement in this thesis work.

I would like to thank Prof. Y. S. PRABHAKAR, who has given me his

valuable time, guidelines and encouragement in this thesis work.

I would like to thank Dr. K.V.RAMESH, who has given me his support and
suggestions.

I would like to thank Dr. M.POTHA RAJU, who has given me his length
support in doing this thesis.

I would like to thank Dr. P.C.KUMAR, who has given me his experienced
suggestions in doing the report.

I would like to thank Mrs. K. REKHA, who has given me her advices from
the beginning.

I would like to thank specially Dr. M. Ramesh, Head of Department, Civil

Engineering, who had given a special care and attention for me in submitting the
report.

I would like to show my special gratitude to my parents for their affection and
love all the time.

I would like to thank my friends who had given me support even at the critical
times.
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
GITAM INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GITAM UNIVERSITY

M.Tech THESIS EVALUATION REPORT

This thesis entitled “STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF VERTICAL

SETTLEMENT AND HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE

RESTING ON CLAY SOIL” submitted by M.MANASA in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Technology in Civil

Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering and Natural Disaster

Management of GITAM University, Visakhapatnam has been approved.

EXAMINERS

1. ……………………………… Thesis Supervisor

2. ………………………… External Examiner

3. ………………………… Head of the department

Civil Engineering

Place : Visakhapatnam

Date :
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work done in this thesis entitled “STUDY ON

BEHAVIOUR OF VERTICAL SETTLEMENT AND HORIZONTAL

DISPLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE RESTING ON CLAY SOIL” has been

carried out by me, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of Master

of Technology in Civil Engineering with a specialization in Structural engineering and

Natural Disaster Management in GITAM Institute of Technology, GITAM University and

further declare that neither this thesis nor any part of this thesis has not been submitted for

any degree/diploma or any other academic award anywhere before.

Place: Visakhapatnam M.MANASA

Date:
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSRTACT ....................................................................... i

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................... v

CHAPTER DESCRIPTION Pg.No

. NO
1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF THE

3 18
STRUCTURES

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 29

5 CONCLUSIONS 51

6 REFERENCES 58
ABSTRACT:

Foundation is the lowest and supporting member of a structure carrying

loads from structure to soil influencing the structural design. It is

important to find out the vertical settlement and lateral displacement of

the structure to study the displacement behaviour of the structure due to

applied load to assess the ability of the super structure to carry loads

acting on the structure. The structure undergoes two types of settlements

supporting by clay soil which is free from organic matter i.e., elastic and

primary consolidation settlement. The elastic settlement behaviour is

studied by enhancing the elastic behaviour in the soil i.e., the support is

rested on springs known as Modulus of sub grade reaction (Ks). The

primary consolidation settlement behaviour is studied by varying

thickness of the clay layer having liquid limit 30% and 50%. Major

structural collapses occur when a building is under the action of lateral

loads which include both Earthquake and Wind loads. In this thesis the

structure is analysed for gravity loads and further it is subjected to lateral

loads to know the lateral displacement behaviour of the structure. The

lateral displacement and vertical settlements i.e., δx and δy are estimated

for two different structures differentiated by long span and short span

buildings to study the effect of soil structure interaction under the impact

of size of footing on the buildings.

i
FIGURE. LIST OF FIGURES Pg. No

NO

1 Flow chart of total settlement 2

2 Concept of uniform and differential settlement 4

3 Plan of Long span building 17

4 Elevation of long span building 17

5 Plan of short span building 18

6 Elevation of short span building 18

7 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic 29

settlement

8 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic 30

settlement

9 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Primary 31

Consolidation

10 Thickness Vs Primary consolidation 32

11 Thickness Vs Primary consolidation 33

12 Size of the footing Vs Primary consolidation for 34

varying liquid limits

13 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 35

displacement

ii
14 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 36

displacement

15 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 37

displacement

16 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 38

displacement

17 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic 39

settlement

18 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic 40

settlement

19 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Primary 41

consolidation

20 Thickness Vs Primary Consolidation 42

21 Thickness Vs Primary Consolidation 43

22 Size of the footing Vs Primary consolidation for 44

varying liquid limits

23 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 45

displacement

24 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 45

displacement

iii
25 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 46

displacement

26 Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral 47

displacement

iv
TABLE. LIST OF TABLES Pg.No
No

1 Permissible limits of uniform, differential 4

settlement and tilt for shallow foundations

2 Calculated Widths for Ks values 24

3 Wind velocities for different wind speeds 25

4 Zone factors for different earthquake zones 26

5 Elastic Settlement for different earthquake 28

zones and basic wind speeds for calculated

widths

6 Elastic Settlement for different earthquake 29

zones and basic wind speeds for provided

widths

7 Consolidation settlement for calculated widths 30

and provided width

8 Primary consolidation for varying thickness for 31

provided width

9 Primary consolidation for varying thickness for 32

calculated width

10 Primary consolidation for varying liquid limits 34

for calculated and provided width

v
11 Lateral displacement for different earthquake 35

zones for provided width

12 Lateral displacement for different basic wind 35

speeds for provided width

13 Lateral displacement for different earthquake 36

zones for calculated width

14 Lateral displacement for different basic wind 37

speeds for calculated width

15 Elastic Settlement for different earthquake 39

zones and basic wind speeds for calculated

widths

16 Elastic Settlement for different earthquake 40

zones and basic wind speeds for provided

widths

17 Consolidation settlement for calculated widths 41

and provided width

18 Primary consolidation for varying thickness for 41

provided width

19 Primary consolidation for varying thickness for 42

calculated width

vi
20 Primary consolidation for varying liquid limits 44

for provided and calculated width

21 Lateral displacement for different earthquake 44

zones for provided width

22 Lateral displacement for different basic wind 45

speeds for provided width

23 Lateral displacement for different earthquake 46

zones for calculated width

24 Lateral displacement for different basic wind 47

speeds for calculated width

vii
 CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Foundation settlement should be analysed and estimated with great

care for different structures. To avoid different failures in the foundation

should be designed considering that the supporting soil is not overstressed

and does not undergo deformation that would cause excessive settlement

of the structure. In the foundation design, the structure is safe when the

supporting soil is safe from shear failure due to the loads imposed on it by

the super structure and when the settlement of the foundation is within the

permissible limits.

1.2 Foundation

Foundation is a supporting layer through which the load transfers

from structure to the soil. Most of the foundation failures are due to

excessive deformation. Soil bearing capacities, type of soil formation,

modulus of subgrade reaction are different measures of strength-

deformation properties of soil on which the design of a foundation is

significantly influenced.

1.2.1Modulus of subgrade reaction

The modulus of the subgrade reaction is the unit deformation

caused due to the load applied. It is commonly used in design procedures

1
for concrete pavements and floors-on-grade that are not structural

elements in the building. In field the subgrade reaction is found out using

standard penetration test and plate load test.

1.3 Settlement

Settlement is the vertically downward movement of structure due

to the compression of underlying soil by increased load. The estimation

of settlement of shallow foundations is important in the design and

construction of buildings and other related structures. Total settlement is

divided into two different components, namely Immediate or elastic

settlement, consolidation settlement. In turn, consolidation settlement of a

submerged clay layer has two parts i.e., the contribution of primary

consolidation settlement and that due to secondary consolidation.

Fig 1: Flow chart of total settlement

2
1.3.1 Immediate or Elastic Settlement

Immediate or Elastic settlement is that part of the total settlement,

which takes place soon after the load is applied i.e., within a time period

of 7 days.

1.3.2 Consolidation Settlement

Primary consolidation settlement is due to the expulsion of pore

water from the voids as the stresses are induced by the initial overburden

pressure of the soil and new construction. It is time-dependent settlement

i.e., it takes month to years.

Secondary consolidation settlement normally starts with the

completion of primary consolidation. It means, during the stage of this

settlement, the pore water pressure is zero and the settlement is only due

to the distortion of the soil skeleton. Secondary consolidation can be

neglected when the soils are free from organic matter. If the soil consists

of organic matter the secondary consolidation is almost equal to or some

time more than the primary consolidation settlement.

1.4 Permissible Limits

IS 1904-1986, gives details about the permissible limits of

settlement in steel structures, reinforced concrete structures, multi-

storeyed buildings, water towers and silos in two different types of soils.

The settlements considered are maximum settlement, differential

settlement and angular distortion or tilt. Two types of foundations

3
considered are isolated footing and raft foundation. A maximum

settlement of 75 mm, differential settlement of 0.0015L and angular

distortion of 1 in 666 is permitted for isolated footings supported on clay

soils.

Fig 2: Concept of uniform and differential settlement

Table 1: Permissible limits of uniform, differential settlement and tilt for shallow
foundations

Therefore, effect of load on the structure resting on fixed support

under subgrade reaction is studied by considering two geometrically

symmetric structures. First structure is provided with column to column

4
spacing of 6m on both x and y axis. Second structure is provided with

column to column spacing of 3m on both x and y axis. The values of

subgrade reaction, Ks are increased monolithically i.e., 12000, 24000,

36000, 48000 and 60000KN/m3, for a footing with provided width and

calculated width. The structure is then subjected to gravity loads and

lateral loads- earthquake loads under Zones II, III, IV and V and wind

loads with basic wind speeds Vb-33, 39, 47, 50 and 55m/s. Loads applied

on the structure results in the horizontal displacements and vertical

settlements which are used for the study.

5
 CHAPTER – 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

G. V. Rama Rao et al[1], analyzed three dimensional multi-storeyed

building under different basic wind speeds of a structure considering the

foundation soil settlement using STAAD Pro 2007. The structure is

analyzed for different values of sub grade modulus and for various

numbers of stories of a structure (15, 10, and 5). The results are used to

study the effect of soil-structure interaction on horizontal displacement dx

at each floor and vertical displacement dy at the supports and the forces

such as Bending Moment and Shear Forces of an interior middle frame of

a building.

Reza Ziaie Moayed and Masoud Janbaz[2], studied the effect of size of

foundation on clayey subgrade with use of finite element software (plaxis

3D) to investigate the Terzaghi formulation on determination of subgrade

reaction modulus. The statistical correlation between modulus of

subgrade reaction (K) and side dimension of footing (B) is obtained.

Based on obtained results, the modulus of sub-grade reaction (K) is

decreased as the side dimension of plate increased, but the final value of

both Terzaghis equation is about 33% lower than finite element analysis

results.

6
Gouw Tjie-Liong[3] , re-examined the spring constant concept through a

case study on a building, soil and tunnels interaction by using

geotechnical finite element software. A subway tunnel must be

constructed underneath an existing building foundation or the reverse that

is to construct a building on top of an existing tunnel. The value of

subgrade reaction is calculated by using Terzaghi’s equation whose data

is obtained from conducting plate load test. The results obtained states

that the non-linearity of soil reaction beneath a footing or raft foundation

suggests that the k value is not a unique value. It shows the importance of

the soil structure interaction analysis, which cannot be solved by using

the spring constant model.

J. J. Chen et al[4], studied 50 multi-story buildings on multilayered soft

deposits in Shanghai having high compressibility due to which buildings

undergo long-term settlement with a shallow foundation. The settlements

are observed on four different types of soils namely hard, normal, soft

and very soft over a long term and compared with statistical analysis to

estimate the settlement behaviour by the thickness of the clay layers. The

results show that with the increase in thickness of the clay the final

settlement and settlement duration increase; however, the settlement

during construction decreases.

7
Ayse T. Daloglu et al[5], studied non-dimensional parameters for the

analysis of a slab on a layered soil medium, to evaluate an equivalent

modulus of sub grade reaction k to be used in the Winkler model. Graphs

are provided from which an equivalent value of k can be computed as

soon as the complete geometry and the properties of the overall system

are known. From the results if one uses a constant value of the modulus

of sub grade reaction for a uniformly distributed load, the displacements

are uniform and there are no bending moments and shear forces in the

slab. In order to get realistic results, higher values of k have to be used

closer to the edges of the slab. The value of k depends on the depth of the

soil layer.

Julie Lovisa et al[6], studied several symmetric and asymmetric initial

excess pore pressure distributions on a consolidated clay layer to

understand the influence of external load on the rate of consolidation.

Excess pore pressure and average degree of consolidation plots are

generated for all assumed cases at the base of the clay stratum to

determine the average degree of consolidation and pore pressure at a

specific depth for a variety of loading scenarios. The results indicate that

in asymmetric cases where the majority of initial excess pore pressure is

concentrated at or below the middle of the clay stratum, the average

8
degree of consolidation proceeded slower than that of a clay stratum

subjected to a uniform distribution.

Khan, P. Ayub et al[7], proposed a theory of non-linear consolidation for

one dimensional consolidation of a thick clay deposit considering linear

void ratio-log effective stress relationship using finite difference method

and the results are compared with the conventional linear theory. The

results indicate that the conventional thin layer theory under-estimates the

degree of consolidation and over-estimates the degree of dissipation of

excess pore pressures but the theory shows that they are sensitive to the

magnitude of applied load for thick clay deposits. This is because; in the

case of a thick layer isochrones with PTPB condition are slightly

unsymmetrical about the mid depth in contrast to symmetrical isochrones

in thin layer theory.

K. C. Foye et al[8], used finite element analysis to develop design charts

to estimate the immediate settlement of axially loaded footings on clay.

The analysis is done to find out nonlinearity of soil stress-strain response

even at small strains. A design example is considered to simulate the field

behaviour by observing the soil nonlinearity. The validation of the

adopted model is done by comparing FEA results with test data available

in the literature. The literature has shown that immediate settlement can

9
significantly contribute to total settlement. The procedure when compared

with literature data is equivalent or conservative by a maximum of 40%.

Xiaoming Yuan et al[9], carried out a study on the differential settlement

of a building caused due to the asymmetry and irregularity of the seismic

load on weak soil foundation. The analysis is carried out using FEM, to

present a residual strain potential suitable for the irregular loads so as to

determine the reduced modulus in the elements due to the softening of the

soil caused by the earthquake. This effect is due to one or the

combination of three different factors, type and form of the structure, soil

properties, amplitude and form of seismic wave. The results indicate that,

for even uniform soils and symmetric buildings, the differential

settlements occur but not as much as in case of asymmetric and irregular

buildings.

Musharraf Zaman et al[10], analysed the consolidation settlement of

embankment foundation at the bridge approach to develop a plane-strain

infinite-element algorithm using nonlinear finite-element method (FEM)

including infinite elements. The analysis procedure is applied to study the

time-settlement history and pore-pressure dissipation characteristics of a

bridge-approach site in Oklahoma. For validation of the model numerical

10
values are obtained for a soil column subjected to a constant surface

loading by using the algorithm and compared with the closed form

solutions given by Scott (1963). It is observed that about 65% of

settlement incidents occur about three months after the start of the

construction. The analysis including infinite elements predicts slightly

lower settlements and pore pressures than those predicted by finite

elements alone.

Moayed et al[11], studied the relation between soil pressure and

deflection, one of the most efficient parameter that is used for structural

analysis of foundation members using plate load test. It determines the

ratio of load to displacement of circular plate with 15cm-75cm diameter

and the results are modified with Terzaghi’s equation. In this paper the

effect of soil layering on determination of subgrade reaction modulus (Ks)

is investigated by finite element analysis using Plaxis 8.5 software. The

back analysis method is used to estimate the subgrade reaction modulus

in each case. The results illustrate that as the sand layer thickness

increases, the modulus of sub grade reaction increases, upto a maximum

value in H/D= 2, and after that the effect of sand layer thickness on K s

determination becomes insignificant.

11
Shamrani et al[12], studied the effect of interaction on the predicted

settlements and footing loads of two dimensional multi-bay framed

structures is investigated. A modular computer program for the analysis

of the interaction behaviour of two-dimensional framed structures

supported by spread footings has been written for this purpose.

Interaction between soil and structure has been found to significantly

affect the estimated settlements and footing loads. The effect of soil-

structure interaction on the predicted settlements and footing loads of

two-dimensional multi-bay framed structures has been investigated. The

result showed that load redistribution significantly modifies the pattern of

and mitigates differential settlements. The footing loads may increase or

decrease due to the consideration of the effect of soil-structure

interaction.

Rusk Masih[13], studied the effect of settlement caused by the soil

consolidation on the structure and effect of the structural forces on the

process of consolidation. The dissipation of pressure is considered

according to Boussinesq’s equation for nine isolated footings. The results

are calculated by iterative procedure and shows that the whole settlement

should be calculated using pressure of the individual column rather than

the generalized load of the structure.

12
R. Ziaie Moayed and M. Janbaz[14], studied the foundation on clayey

soil modelled with finite element software to investigate validation

Terzaghi’s formula and effect of different parameters on subgrade

reaction modulus such as size, shape, rigidity and depth of the foundation.

The values of modulus of subgrade is considered from plate load test and

shear modulus from cross-hole and down-hole tests. Load settlement

graphs are plotted and the results obtained shows that the value of

subgrade reaction modulus increases with decrease in the size of the

footing and the settlement is low in case of square footing while in case

of rectangular and strip footing the application of Terzaghi’s equation is

not recommended. The study also concludes that as the depth of the

footing increases with constant load intensity the settlement decreases

and the modulus of subgrade reaction increases. The highest value of

modulus of subgrade reaction is in the corner footing when compared

with centre and middle columns.

Denis Lefebvre and Stephane theroux[15], studied the effect on load

distribution in members due to soil-structure interaction and discussed

conditions for which a building begins to be sensitive to differential

settlements and to soil-structure interaction. From the results it shows that

the soil having heterogeneous nature will be subjected to differential

settlements between isolated footings at foundation level and it is

13
important to consider differential settlements as permanent load, not as

transient load. Limitation of total settlements to 25mm and differential

settlements to 20mm between close footings protects most buildings

against soil-structure interaction effects.

Eslami.A and M. Gholami[16], studied an analytical model for the

ultimate bearing capacity of foundations from cone resistance by

application of Cone penetration test data for shallow foundation design.

Six current CPT direct methods and a new one have been investigated

and compared for determining the bearing capacity of footings. The new

method is based on an analytical model to relate the deep failure surface

of cone points to the shallow rupture surface around the footings. The

ultimate bearing capacity of foundations is equated to cone point

resistance by a correlation factor in a direct approach. Validation of the

methods for prediction of the ultimate bearing capacity of foundation by

graphical and probability approaches shows less scatter and more

accuracy for the new methods than for the current methods.

Radoslaw L. Michalowski[17], studied the calculation of bearing capacity

of cohesive soils under embankments for the cases of strength increase

with depth and a strong crust at the surface. The proposed analysis allows

the effective calculation of critical heights of embankments. The

14
influence of reinforcement is included by reducing the magnitude of the

horizontal force transmitted to the foundation soil by the force transmitted

to the reinforcement. From the results it confirms that the largest increase

in the critical height of an embankment due to reinforcement is achieved

when the strength of the foundation soil increases with depth. A strong

crust at the surface of the foundation soil significantly reduces the benefit

of reinforcement, and, for embankments with low height-to-width ratio,

the reinforcement may not lead to an increase in the critical height (or

increase in the safety factor for a given height) at all.

Richard J. Finno et al[18], studied the performance of a stiff support

system in soft clay for a subway station renovation project in Chicago and

its effects on an adjacent, shallow-foundation supported building. The

settlements extended beyond the secant pile wall a distance

approximately equal to the depth of the wall. The effect of excavation

was to cause larger settlements within the affected zone, but not to

expand its width. From the results when distortions exceeded

approximately 1/960, damage began to manifest itself in the non load

bearing portions. Hence a reinforced concrete frame supported on

reinforced concrete beams and columns at interior locations and exterior

masonry walls and concrete columns at the building perimeter, distortions

would need to be limited to less than 1/1,000 to prevent any damage to

15
the building. The distortions (1/290) did not result in any structural

damage.

W. Virgil Ping and Biqing Sheng[19], carried out an experimental study

to evaluate the load-deformation and resilient modulus characteristics of

the granular sub grade soils using field and laboratory tests. A theoretical

relationship between modulus of sub grade reaction and resilient modulus

of sub grade is based on the assumption that the sub grade material is

linear elastic, which was not evaluated by experimental work. Laboratory

cyclic tri-axial tests were performed to evaluate the resilient modulus

characteristics of the sub grade materials. It was found that the calibrated

relationship based on the experimental results was close to the AASHTO

theoretical relationship. Conducting the soil resilient modulus test in

laboratory and selecting an appropriate resilient modulus value for

pavement design are very complex processes and even more time-

consuming, labour intensive, and costly on conducting in-situ field plate

bearing load test and obtaining field measured k-values.

J. A. Ramalho-Ortigao et al[20], carried out stability analysis to find out

vertical and horizontal displacements for a construction on an

instrumented trial embankment on soft clay which is evaluated through

vane tests, UU triaxial tests and SHANSEP method. Results show that

16
during failure, the maximum observed settlements were in the order of

300 mm and when the height of the embankment is increased there is an

increase in heave. At the end, maximum horizontal displacements are in

the range of 300-400mm under the steeper embankment slope, rather than

at the toe. The zone of influence of ground displacements does not extend

beyond 10 m from the embankment toe.

17
 CHAPTER - 3
MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURES

3.1 Modelling

Two symmetric multi-storey buildings, G+2 categorised by long

span and short span building (6m X 6m and 3m X 3m along x and y

direction) supported by fixed support are considered and analysed in

STAAD.Pro V8i for soil structure interaction. The plinth area of the

building is 24m X 24m with a height of 9m excluding foundation depth

of 2m.

Fig 3- Plan of Long span building

Fig 4-Elevation of long span building

18
 Fig 5- Plan of short span building

Fig 6- Elevation of short span building

The structure is analysed under different conditions considered:

I. The soil is free from organic matter and having properties as:

a. Void ratio of the soil, e = 0.8

b. Liquid Limit, ω = 30% and 50%

c. Depth of the footing, d = 2m

19
 d. Load Dispersion Angle – 1V:1H

II. The primary consolidation settlement is calculated for

columns assuming a uniform increase in the thickness of the

clay layer as 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20m.

III. The set of values assumed for modulus of sub grade reaction,

Ks are 12000, 24000, 36000, 48000 and 60000 KN/m3.

IV. The vertical settlements are observed under two conditions:

a. for provided widths of footing based on the cross

section of the column and

b. Calculated Widths for assumed values of modulus of

subgrade reaction.

V. The horizontal displacements are observed under two load

conditions:

a. seismic loads for Zones II,III,IV and V and

b. Wind loads for different basic wind speeds, Vb - 33,

39, 47, 50 and 55.

3.2 Calculation of size of beams, columns and footings

For large span building: For 6m X 6m building cross section of the

column, beam and footing are assumed to the acceptable probability that

structures being designed will perform satisfactorily.

The size of the outer columns is taken as 0.35m x 0.3m.

20
 The size of the inner columns is taken as 0.4m x 0.4m.

The size of the beams is taken as 0.3m x 0.3m.

The size of the footing is taken as 3m x 3m.

For small span building: The cross section of column, beam and footing

for short span building is calculated according to the cross sections

assumed for long span building to maintain the same contact area of the

footing and cross sectional area of columns and beams.

The size of the outer columns is taken as 0.18m x 0.18m.

(0.35 * 0.3 * 3 * 25 = x2 * 3 * 81, x=0.18m)

The size of the inner columns is taken as 0.22m x 0.22m.

(0.4 * 0.4 * 3 * 25 = x2 * 3 * 81, x=0.22m)

The size of the beams is taken as 0.25m x 0.2m.

(0.3 * 0.3 * 240 = x * y * 432, x * y= 0.25m * 0.2m)

The size of the footing is taken as 1.67m x 1.67m.

(3 * 3 * 25 = x2 * 81, x=1.67m)

3.3 Calculation of Total Settlement

In clay soil settlement of a foundation consists of two major

components - elastic settlement and consolidation settlement. In turn, the

consolidation settlement of a submerged layer has two parts; that is, the

contribution of primary consolidation settlement and that due to

21
secondary consolidation. Total settlement is the sum of these settlements

this is illustrated by the following example.

Example 1: A 2m X 2m footing carrying a load of 1600KN rests on a

normally saturated clay layer 10m thick below which hard rock exists.

The life span of the structure is 50yrs. Time taken for the completion of

primary consolidation of 20mm thick laboratory specimen with double

drainage facility in 20min. Find the total settlement, if the soil properties

are as follows. Soil modulus-20MPa, Poisson’s ratio-0.45, Influence

factor-0.9, Liquid Limit-50%, Natural Water Content-25%, Specific

Gravity of grains- 2.7, Saturated Density- 20KN/m3 and Coefficient of

Secondary Compression- 0.001.

Solution:

Immediate settlement:

1 − µ2
𝑆𝐼 = ( )𝑞𝐵𝐼𝜌
𝐸

Where, SI - Immediate Settlement

µ - Poisson’s ratio = 0.45

E - Modulus of elasticity of foundation = 20MPa

Iρ - Influence factor = 0.9

q - Contact pressure at the base of the foundation

= Load/area = 1600/4 = 400KPa

B - Width of the footing = 2m

22
 1 − 0.452
𝑆𝐼 = ( ) ∗ 400 ∗ 2 ∗ 0.9
20000

= 28.71mm

Consolidation Settlement:

𝑐𝑐 𝜎0 + 𝛥𝜎
𝑆𝑐 = 𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
1 + 𝑒0 𝜎0

Where, Sc – Consolidation Settlement

Cc – Compression Index = 0.009*(ωl-10%)

= 0.009*(50-10) = 0.36

e0 – Void Ratio = ωG = (25/100)*2.7 = 0.675

σ0 – Intial Overburden pressure at the middle of clay layer

= ϒsat*(H/2) = 20*(10/2) = 100KPa

H – Thickness of the clay layer = 10m

Δσ – Extra pressure due to new construction

=P/(B’)2 = 1600/(7)2 = 11.11KPa

0.36 100 + 11.11

𝑆𝑐 = ∗ 10 ∗ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
1 + 0.675 100

= 98.34 mm

23
Secondary Consolidation:

𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑐 − 𝑡𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒
𝑆𝑆 = 𝐶𝛼 𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
𝑡𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒

Where, Cα – Coefficient of secondary consolidation = 0.001

tsec – Time taken for secondary consolidation = 150 yrs

tprime – Time taken for primary consolidation

𝑑𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 2
= 𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑏 ∗ ( ) = 38.05 yrs
𝑑𝑙𝑎𝑏

150 − 38.05
𝑆𝑆 = 0.001 ∗ 10 ∗ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( )
38.05

= 4.7mm

Total Settlement:

S = SI+SC+SS = 28.71+98.35+4.7 = 131.71mm

3.4 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Theoretically, modulus of subgrade reaction is calculated using

Vesic’s equation which is based on elastic parameters of soil medium like

modulus of elasticity soil, E, and Poisson’s ratio, µ:

𝐸
𝐾𝑠 =
𝐵(1 − 𝜇2 )

24
The required widths according to the assumed set of modulus of sub

grade reaction using the vesic’s equation are calculated for a modulus of

elasticity, E=20000KN/m2 and Poisson’s ratio, µ=0.45 and tabulated as:

Ks (KN/m3) B (m)
12000 2.09
24000 1.04
36000 0.7
48000 0.52
60000 0.42
Table 2: Calculated Widths for Ks values

3.5 Calculations and combinations of loads:

Gravity and lateral loads are assigned to the structure to find out

the horizontal displacements and vertical settlement of the footings due to

the applied load.

The loads assigned are according to the codes:

1. Dead loads: IS : 875 (Part 1) - 1987

2. Live loads: IS : 875 ( Part 2 ) - 1987

3. Wind loads: IS : 875 ( Part 4 ) - 1987

4. Earthquake loads and combination of loads: IS : 1893 ( Part 1 ) –

2002

i. Dead load: The dead load of the building includes the self weight,

wall load, floor load and parapet load.

25
 Wall Load: 0.3*3*19=17.1KN/m2

Floor Load: Load=0.125*25=3.125KN/m2

Floor Finish= 1KN/m2

Total floor load= 4.125 KN/m2

Parapet Load: 0. 1*1.2*19=2.28KN/m2

ii. Live load: The live load of the building is taken as 3 KN/m2

iii. Wind load: Wind intensities are calculated for different wind

speeds considered.

Design Wind Pressure (Pz) = 0.6 Vz2

Where, Pz = design wind pressure in N/ms at height z, and

Vz = design wind velocity in m/s at height z.

Design Wind Speed, (Vz) = Vb * k1 * k2 * k3

Where, Vb = basic wind speed

k1 = risk coefficient - from Table 1, clause 5.3.1.

k2 = size factor - from Table 2, clause 5.3.2.

k3 = topography factor - from clause 5.3.3.

Vb(m/s) K1 K2 K3 Vz(m/s) Pz(KN/m2)

33 1 0.94 1 31.02 0.577
39 1 1.07 1 41.73 1.045
47 1 0.94 1 44.18 1.171
50 1 1.07 1 53.5 1.717
55 1 1.07 1 58.85 2.077
Table 3: Wind velocities for different wind speeds

26
iv. Earthquake load: The earthquake zones are differentiated according

to the zone factors as:

Seismic Zone Seismic Intensity Z

II Low 0.10
III Moderate 0.16
IV Severe 0.24
V Very Severe 0.36
Table 4: Zone factors for different earthquake zones

For Zone II, III, IV and V the seismic parameters considered are:

Response reduction factor (RF) = 5

Importance Factor (I) = 1

Rock and soil site factor (SS) = 1

Damping ratio (DM) = 5%

Foundation Depth (D) = 2m

3.6 Load Combinations

The load combinations given in the analysis according to relevant IS

codes of practice (IS 1893-2002 and IS 875 Part III-1987)

• 1.5(DL + LL)

• 1.2(DL+LL± Wx or EQx)

• 1.2(DL+LL± Wz or EQz)

• 1.5(DL ± Wx or EQx)

27
 • 1.5(DL ± Wz or EQz)

• 0.9 DL ± 1.5 (Wx or EQx)

• 0.9 DL ± 1.5(Wz or EQz)

Displacements are then calculated and compared for long and short

span buildings considered for provided and calculated widths. Graphs are

plotted for the comparison carried out and conclusions are made.

28
 CHAPTER - 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The study shows two structures of same plinth area (24m X 24m)

but different column to column spacing categorised as long and short

span (6m X 6m and 3m X 3m along x and y direction). The elastic and

primary consolidation settlement of the structure is calculated for the load

applied and assumed parameters. Then the calculated settlement is

compared with the settlement analysed after applying the modulus of

subgrade reaction to the structure for both long span and short span

buildings. Later lateral displacements are analysed for lateral loads

applied.

Long Span Building:

For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

calculated width of footing, the elastic settlement δy increases from 47mm

to 214mm under all earthquake zones and 50mm to 218mm for all basic

wind speeds. The change in elastic settlement is constant under different

earthquake zones and wind speeds.

29
 ks(KN/m3) Zone II, III, IV, V Vb=33, 39, 47, 50, 55 m/s
12000 47.67 50.22
24000 91.94 94.47
36000 132.53 135.22
48000 171.05 180.06
60000 214.39 217.75
Table 5: Elastic Settlement for different earthquake zones and basic wind speeds for
calculated widths

The elastic settlements in both the load cases have significant change

other than when the Ks value is 48000KN/m3.

For Calculated Width

220
200
180
Elastic Settlement, mm

160
140
Zone II, III,
120
IV, V
100
80
Vb=33, 39,
60
47, 50, 55
40
20
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Ks, KN/m3
Fig 7: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic settlement

For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

provided width of footing, the elastic settlement δy decreases from 25mm

to 8mm under earthquake zones and 28mm to 11mm under basic wind

speeds. The change in elastic settlement is constant under different

earthquake zones and wind speeds. There is a significant change in the

30
settlement throughout the values of modulus of subgrade reaction under

different lateral loads.

Ks(KN/m3) Zone II, III, IV, V Vb=33, 39, 47, 50, 55 m/s
12000 25.09 27.76
24000 14.50 17.19
36000 10.97 13.69
48000 9.19 11.95
60000 8.13 10.90
Table 6: Elastic Settlement for different earthquake zones and basic wind speeds for
provided widths

For Provided Width

30

25
Elastic Settlement, mm

20

15
Zone II, III,
IV, V
10
Vb=33, 39,
5 47, 50, 55

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 8: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic settlement

The primary consolidation settlement increases from 290mm to 425mm

in case of calculated size of the footing, due to gradual decrease in the

size of footing. The primary consolidation settlement remains 238mm in

case of provided size of the footing; this is because the soil will be in

plastic state during consolidation settlement and does not depend on the

31
Ks values. For a set of properties the consolidation depends upon the load

applied on the respective column.

Ks(KN/m3) Bcal Bprov

12000 289.7 238.08
24000 368.89 238.08
36000 399.67 238.08
48000 416.11 238.08
60000 424.9 238.08
Table 7: Consolidation settlement for calculated widths and provided width

450

400
Primaary Consolidation, mm

350

300

250
Bcal
200
Bprov
150

100

50

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 9: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Primary Consolidation

For the increase in thickness of the clay layer from 8m to 20m with

provided size of the footing, the primary consolidation linearly decreases

from 238mm to 115mm.

32
 Thickness (m) Settlement (mm)
8 238.08
10 216.41
12 192.41
14 169.51
16 149
18 131.17
20 115.86
Table 8: Primary consolidation for varying thickness for provided width

For calculated width the primary consolidation decreases from 290mm to

130mm for a width value of 2.09m, 370mm to 155mm for a width value

of 1.04m, 400mm to 164mm for a width value of 0.7m, 416mm to

168mm for a width value of 0.52m and 425mm to 169mm for a width

value of 0.42m. As the thickness of the clay layer increases the length of

drainage path also increases this result in poor dissipation of pore water

and decrease in the amount of stress on individual soil particle followed

by decrease of the settlement.

Thickness (m) 2.09m 1.04m 0.7m 0.52m 0.42m

8 289.7 368.89 399.67 416.11 424.9
10 260.64 328.14 353.79 367.15 374.11
12 229.3 284.77 305.43 315.93 321.23
14 199.84 244.71 261.08 269.17 273.14
16 173.83 209.95 222.85 229.06 231.99
18 151.53 180.66 190.84 195.61 197.78
20 132.64 156.26 164.35 168.03 169.63
Table 9: Primary consolidation for varying thickness for calculated width

33
 For Provided Width
250

Primary Consolidation, mm 200

150

100 Settlement

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Thickness, m

Fig 10: Thickness Vs Primary consolidation

There is a significant change in the values of settlement in case of width

2.09m, 1.04m, and 0.7m but in case of widths 0.52 and 0.42 the

settlement is almost same. So in order to minimize the settlement, size of

the footing should be increased.

For Calculated Width

450
400
Primary Consoliadtion, mm

350
300 2.09m
250 1.04m
200 0.7m
150 0.52m
100 0.42m
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Thickness, m

Fig 11: Thickness Vs Primary consolidation

34
For increase in liquid limit of the clay soil from 30% to 50% the primary

consolidation settlement in case of provided width i.e., 3m increases from

238mm to 476mm.

For increase in liquid limit of the clay soil from 30% to 50% the primary

consolidation settlement in case of calculated width increases from

290mm to 580mm for a width of 2.09m, 369mm to 738mm for a width of

1.04m, 400mm to 800mm for a width of 0.7m, 416mm to 832mm for a

width of 0.52 and 425mm to 850mm for a width of 0.42mm.

The primary consolidation settlement in case of clay having liquid limit

of 50% give twice the settlement values when compared to the clay

having liquid limit of 30%. This is because; the soils with 50% have high

compressibility when compared to 30%. Therefore, for soils having high

compressibility special foundation cases are to be considered rather than

isolated footing.

B (m) ωl = 30% ωl = 50%

3 238.08 476.17
2.09 289.7 579.39
1.04 368.89 737.79
0.7 399.67 799.33
0.52 416.11 832.21
0.42 424.9 849.81
Table 10: Primary consolidation for varying liquid limits for calculated and provided
width

35
 900
800

Primary Consolidation, mm
700
600
500
400 ωl = 30%

300 ωl = 50%

200
100
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Size of the Footing (B), m

Fig 12: Size of the footing Vs Primary consolidation for varying liquid limits

For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

provided width of footings, the lateral displacement δx have negligible

decrease in all earthquake zones and basic wind speeds.

Ks(KN/m3) Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V

12000 22.13 35.22 52.69 78.88
24000 21.98 35.01 52.38 78.44
36000 21.94 34.94 52.28 78.29
48000 21.91 34.90 52.23 78.21
60000 21.90 34.88 52.20 78.17
Table 11: Lateral displacement for different earthquake zones for provided width

Ks(KN/m3) Vb=33m/s Vb=39m/s Vb=47m/s Vb=50m/s Vb=55m/s

12000 11.17 19.98 22.35 32.62 39.40
24000 11.1 19.86 22.22 32.45 39.19
36000 11.07 19.82 22.18 32.39 39.12
48000 11.06 19.80 22.16 32.36 39.09
60000 11.05 19.79 22.14 32.34 39.06
Table 12: Lateral displacement for different basic wind speeds for provided width

36
 For Provided Width
90
80
Lateral Displacement, mm 70
60
50 Zone II
40 Zone III
30 Zone IV
20 Zone V
10
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 13: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

For Provided Width

45
40
Lateral Displacement, mm

35
30
Vb=33m/s
25
Vb=39m/s
20
Vb=47m/s
15
Vb=50m/s
10
Vb=55m/s
5
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 14: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

For the increases in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

calculated size of the footing, the lateral displacement δx increases from

22mm to 25mm in earthquake zone II, 35mm to 39mm in earthquake

zone III, 53mm to 58mm in earthquake zone IV, 80mm to 86mm in

37
earthquake zone V. Higher earthquake zone show more difference than

the previous zone.

Ks(KN/m3) Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V

12000 22.42 35.66 53.32 79.80
24000 22.97 36.49 54.52 81.55
36000 23.46 37.23 55.59 83.13
48000 23.99 38.00 56.75 84.83
60000 24.42 38.69 57.72 86.26
Table 13: Lateral displacement for different earthquake zones for calculated width

For Calculated Width

100
90
80
Lateral Displacement, mm

70
60 Zone II
50 Zone III
40 Zone IV
30 Zone V
20
10
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 15: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

For the increases in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

calculated size of the footing, the lateral displacement δx increases from

11mm to 12mm for a basic wind speed of Vb = 33m/s, from20mm to

22mm for a basic wind speed of Vb = 39m/s, from 22mm to 24mm for a

38
basic wind speed of Vb = 47m/s, from 33mm to 35mm for a basic wind

speed of Vb = 50m/s, from 40mm to 43mm for a basic wind speed of Vb =

55m/s. Almost all basic wind speed have similar increase in the

displacement.

Ks(KN/m3) Vb=33m/s Vb=39m/s Vb=47m/s Vb=50m/s Vb=55m/s

12000 11.32 20.21 22.61 32.98 39.82
24000 11.60 20.65 23.09 33.65 40.62
36000 11.84 21.04 23.52 34.25 41.32
48000 12.1 21.45 23.97 34.88 42.08
60000 12.30 21.79 24.34 35.41 42.70
Table 14: Lateral displacement for different basic wind speeds for calculated width

For Calculated Width

45
40
Lateral Dispalcement, mm

35
30
Vb=33m/s
25
Vb=39m/s
20
Vb=47m/s
15
Vb=50m/s
10
Vb=55m/s
5
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 16: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

The change in elastic and primary consolidation settlement is observed

more in calculated width than in provided width of the footing. The

amount of lateral displacement is more in earthquake zones than for basic

39
wind speeds. To minimize the settlement and lateral displacement size of

the footing should be increased.

Short Span Building:

For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

calculated width of footing, the elastic settlement δy increases from 17mm

to 71mm under different earthquake zones and basic wind speeds. The

change in elastic settlement is constant under different earthquake zones

and wind speeds.

Ks(KN/m3) Zone II, III, IV, V Vb=33, 39, 47, 50, 55 m/s
12000 17.51 17.51
24000 31.42 31.42
36000 44.29 44.29
48000 58.80 58.80
60000 71.23 71.23
Table 15: Elastic Settlement for different earthquake zones and basic wind speeds for
calculated widths

For Calculated Width

80
70
Elastic Settlement, mm

60
50 Zone II, III,
40 IV, V
30 Vb=33, 39,
47, 50, 55
20
10
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 17: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic settlement

40
For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

provided width of footing, the elastic settlement δy decreases from 25mm

to 8mm under different earthquake zones and basic wind speeds. The

change in elastic settlement is constant under different earthquake zones

and wind speeds.

Ks(KN/m3) Zone II, III, IV, V Vb=33, 39, 47, 50, 55 m/s
12000 25.27 25.27
24000 14.53 14.53
36000 11.08 11.08
48000 9.35 9.35
60000 8.31 8.31
Table 16: Elastic Settlement for different earthquake zones and basic wind speeds for
provided widths

For Provided Width

30

25
Elastic Settlement, mm

20

15
Zone II, III, IV, V
10

5 Vb=33, 39,
47, 50, 55
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 18: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Elastic settlement

41
The primary consolidation settlement for the size of the footing calculated

as per the assumed set of modulus of subgrade reaction increases from

103mm to 176mm and remains 117mm in case of provided size of the

footing; this is because the soil will be in plastic state during

consolidation settlement and does not depend on the Ks values. For a set

of properties the consolidation depends upon the load applied on the

respective column.

Ks(KN/m3) Bcal Bprov

12000 103.41 116.91
24000 142.34 116.91
36000 159.48 116.91
48000 169.75 116.91
60000 175.82 116.91
Table 17: Consolidation settlement for calculated widths and provided width

200
180
Primary Consolidation, mm

160
140
120
100 Bcal
80
Bprov
60
40
20
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 19: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Primary consolidation

42
For the increase in thickness of the clay layer from 8m to 20m with

provided size of the footing, the primary consolidation linearly decreases

from 117mm to 40mm.

Thickness (m) Settlement (mm)

8 116.91
10 96.13
12 79.12
14 65.67
16 55.1
18 46.74
20 40.07
Table 18: Primary consolidation for varying thickness for provided width

For Provided Width

140
Primary Consolidation, mm

120
100
80
60
Settlement
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Thickness, m

Fig 20: Thickness Vs Primary Consolidation

For calculated width the primary consolidation decreases from 103mm to

37mm for a width value of 2.09m, 142mm to 44mm for a width value of

1.04m, 159mm to 47mm for a width value of 0.7m, 170mm to 49mm for

a width value of 0.52m and 176mm to 50mm for a width value of 0.42m.

43
As the thickness of the clay layer increases the length of drainage path

increases this result in poor dissipation of pore water and decrease in the

amount of stress on individual soil particle followed by decrease of the

settlement.

Thickness (m) 2.09m 1.04m 0.7m 0.52m 0.42m

8 103.41 142.34 159.48 169.75 175.82
10 86.09 114.68 126.94 134.2 138.46
12 71.63 92.68 101.49 106.65 109.65
14 60.01 75.73 82.16 85.9 88.05
16 50.75 62.7 67.5 70.25 71.84
18 43.35 52.6 56.24 58.33 59.52
20 37.39 44.66 47.49 49.1 50.01
Table 19: Primary consolidation for varying thickness for calculated width

For Calculated Widths

200
180
Primary Consolidation, mm

160
140
2.09m
120
1.04m
100
80 0.7m
60 0.52m
40 0.42m
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Thickness, m

Fig 21: Thickness Vs Primary Consolidation

For increase in liquid limit of the clay soil from 30% to 50% the primary

consolidation settlement in case of provided width i.e., 1.67m increases

from 117mm to 234mm.

44
For increase in liquid limit of the clay soil from 30% to 50% the primary

consolidation settlement in case of calculated width increases from

103mm to 207mm for a width of 2.09m, 142mm to 285mm for a width of

1.04m, 160mm to 319mm for a width of 0.7m, 170mm to 340mm for a

width of 0.52 and 176mm to 352mm for a width of 0.42mm.

The primary consolidation settlement in case of clay having liquid limit

of 50% give twice the settlement values when compared to the clay

having liquid limit of 30%. This is because; the soils with 50% have high

compressibility when compared to 30%. Therefore, for soils having high

compressibility special foundation cases are to be considered rather than

isolated footing.

B (m) ωl = 30% ωl = 50%

2.09 103.41 206.82
1.67 116.91 233.82
1.04 142.34 284.68
0.7 159.48 318.97
0.52 169.75 339.5
0.42 175.82 351.64
Table 20: Primary consolidation for varying liquid limits for provided and calculated
width

45
 400

350

Primary Consolidation, mm
300

250

200
ωl = 30%
150 ωl = 50%
100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Size of the Footing (B), m

Fig 22: Size of the footing Vs Primary consolidation for varying liquid limits

For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

provided width of footings, the lateral displacement δx have negligible

decrease in all earthquake zones and basic wind speeds.

Ks(KN/m3) Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V

12000 17.32 27.66 41.45 62.13
24000 17.11 27.35 40.99 61.46
36000 17.04 27.24 40.83 61.22
48000 17.01 27.18 40.75 61.1
60000 16.98 27.15 40.70 61.03
Table 21: Lateral displacement for different earthquake zones for provided width

46
 For Provided Width
70
Lateral Dispalacement, mm
60

50

40 Zone II
30 Zone III

20 Zone IV
Zone V
10

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 23: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

Ks(KN/m3) Vb=33m/s Vb=39m/s Vb=47m/s Vb=50m/s Vb=55m/s

12000 7.44 13.40 15.01 21.96 26.54
24000 7.34 13.24 14.83 21.72 26.26
36000 7.30 13.19 14.77 21.63 26.16
48000 7.29 13.16 14.74 21.59 26.11
60000 7.27 13.14 14.72 21.56 26.07
Table 22: Lateral displacement for different basic wind speeds for provided width

For Provided Width

30
Lateral Displacementm, mm

25

20 Vb=33m/s
15 Vb=39m/s
Vb=47m/s
10
Vb=50m/s
5
Vb=55m/s
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 24: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

47
For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3 with

calculated size of the footing, the lateral displacement δx increases from

17mm to 18mm in earthquake zone II. . Almost all earthquake zones have

similar increase in the displacement.

Ks(KN/m3) Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V

12000 17.17 27.44 41.12 61.65
24000 17.44 27.84 41.70 62.50
36000 17.67 28.19 42.21 63.25
48000 17.91 28.56 42.76 64.05
60000 18.11 28.86 43.20 64.71
Table 23: Lateral displacement for different earthquake zones for calculated width

For Calculated Width

70

60
Lateral Displacement, mm

50

40 Zone II

30 Zone III
Zone IV
20
Zone V
10

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 25: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with calculated size of the footing, the lateral displacement δx have

negligible increase. Almost all basic wind speed have similar

increase in the displacement.

48
 Ks(KN/m3) Vb=33m/s Vb=39m/s Vb=47m/s Vb=50m/s Vb=55m/s
12000 7.37 13.29 14.88 21.76 26.34
24000 7.49 13.49 15.10 22.09 26.70
36000 7.60 13.66 15.29 22.36 27.02
48000 7.72 13.84 15.49 22.64 27.36
60000 7.81 13.99 15.66 22.87 27.63
Table 24: Lateral displacement for different basic wind speeds for calculated

width

For Calculated Width

30
Lateral Displcement, mm

25

20 Vb=33m/s
15 Vb=39m/s

10 Vb=47m/s
Vb=50m/s
5
Vb=55m/s
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Ks, KN/m3

Fig 26: Modulus of subgrade reaction Vs Lateral displacement

The change in elastic and primary consolidation settlement is observed

more in calculated width than in provided width of the footing. The

amount of lateral displacement is more in earthquake zones than for basic

wind speeds. To minimize the settlement and lateral displacement size of

the footing should be increased.

49
Comparison between long span and short span buildings:

1. The change in elastic and primary consolidation settlement δy in

long span building is more when compared to short span building

in both provided and calculated size of the footings. This increase

can be minimised by increasing the size of the footing than

provided.

2. The impact of lateral loads on vertical settlement is observed more

in case of different basic wind speeds rather than in case of

different earthquake zones.

3. The lateral displacement δx in case of both calculated and provided

size of the footing having negligible decrease in all earthquake

zones and basic wind speeds is more in long span building rather

than in short span building.

50
 CHAPTER - 5

CONCLUSIONS

The vertical settlements (δy) and lateral displacements (δx) are

observed for two different structures having same plinth area and spacing

between columns is differentiated by long span and short span,

maintaining same contact area of the footing in both cases i.e., 6m X 6m

for one structure and 3m X 3m for another structure along x and y

directions.

Long Span Building:

1.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with calculated width of footing, the elastic settlement δy increases

from 47mm to 214mm under earthquake Zones and 50mm to

218mm under basic wind speeds. The change in elastic settlement

is constant under different earthquake zones and wind speeds.

2.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with provided width of footing, the elastic settlement δ y decreases

from 25mm to 8mm under earthquake Zones and 28mm to 11mm

under basic wind speeds. The change in elastic settlement is

constant under different earthquake zones and wind speeds.

51
3.) The primary consolidation settlement increases from 290mm to

425mm in case of calculated size of the footing and remains

238mm in case of provided size of the footing.

4.) For the increase in thickness of the clay layer from 8m to 20m with

provided size of the footing, the primary consolidation linearly

decreases from 238mm to 115mm. To minimize the settlement,

size of the footing should be increased.

5.) For the clay layer having liquid limit of 30% give half times the

settlement values when compared to the clay layer having liquid

limit of 50% in case of both calculated and provided size of the

footing.

6.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with provided width of footings, the lateral displacement δx have

negligible decrease in all earthquake zones and basic wind speeds.

7.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with calculated size of the footing, the lateral displacement δx

increases from 22mm to 25mm in earthquake zone II. Higher

earthquake zone show more difference than the previous zone.

8.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with calculated size of the footing, the lateral displacement δx

increases from 11mm to 12mm for a basic wind speed of Vb =

52
 33m/s. Almost all basic wind speed have similar increase in the

displacement.

9.) The change in elastic and primary consolidation settlement is

observed more in calculated width than in provided width of the

footing. To minimize the settlement and lateral displacement size

of the footing should be increased.

Short Span Buildings:

1.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with calculated width of footing, the elastic settlement δy increases

from 17mm to 71mm under different earthquake zones and basic

wind speeds. The change in elastic settlement is constant under

different earthquake zones and wind speeds.

2.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with provided width of footing, the elastic settlement δ y decreases

from 25mm to 8mm under different earthquake zones and basic

wind speeds. The change in elastic settlement is constant under

different earthquake zones and wind speeds.

3.) The primary consolidation settlement increases from 103mm to

176mm in case of calculated size of the footing and remains

117mm in case of provided size of the footing.

53
4.) For the increase in thickness of the clay layer from 8m to 20m with

provided size of the footing, the primary consolidation linearly

decreases from 117mm to 40mm. To minimize the settlement, size

of the footing should be increased.

5.) For the clay layer having liquid limit of 30% give half times the

settlement values when compared to the clay layer having liquid

limit of 50% in case of both calculated and provided size of the

footing.

6.) For the increase in Ks values from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3

with provided width of footings, the lateral displacement δx have

negligible decrease in all earthquake zones and basic wind speeds.

7.) For the increase in Ks values ranging from 12000KN/m3 to

60000KN/m3 with calculated size of the footing, the lateral

displacement δx increases from 17mm to 18mm in earthquake zone

II. Almost all earthquake zones have similar increase in the

displacement.

8.) For the increase in Ks values ranging from 12000KN/m3 to

60000KN/m3 with calculated size of the footing, the lateral

displacement δx have negligible increase. Almost all basic wind

speed has similar increase in the displacement.

9.) The change in elastic and primary consolidation settlement is

observed more in calculated width than in provided width of the

54
 footing. To minimize the settlement and lateral displacement size

of the footing should be increased.

Comparison between long span and short span buildings:

1.) The change in total settlement δy in long span building is more

when compared to short span building in both provided and

calculated size of the footings. This increase can be minimised by

increasing the size of the footing than provided.

2.) The impact of lateral loads on vertical settlement is observed more

in case of different basic wind speeds rather than in case of

different earthquake zones.

3.) The lateral displacement δx in case of both calculated and provided

size of the footing having negligible decrease in all earthquake

zones and basic wind speeds is more in long span building rather

than in short span building.

The following conclusions are made after the analysis of the structures:

 The vertical settlements and lateral displacement observed from the

analysis is more in case of long span building than in case of short

span building. There is a need to analyse long span buildings more

carefully compared to short span buildings.

55
 The vertical settlement is more critical at the centre of the structure

whereas the primary consolidation settlement is more critical at the

medial portion of the structure for both long span and short span

buildings.

 For the increase of Ks value from 12000KN/m3 to 60000KN/m3, in

case of calculated width of the footing the elastic and primary

consolidation settlement increases where as in case of provided

width of the footing the elastic settlement decreases and primary

consolidation remains constant.

 The primary consolidation is independent of the modulus of sub

grade reaction values provided and lateral forces applied.

 As the size of the footing increases both elastic and consolidation

settlement decreases. But the final settlement depends on the

thickness and other properties of the clay layer; the settlement

linearly decreases with increase in the thickness of clay layer and

increases with the increase in liquid limit.

 As the earthquake zone and basic wind speed increases, both for

the provided and calculated widths lateral displacement increases

and vertical settlement remains constant.

 The values of the settlement indicate that foundation treatments

should be applied to control the settlement in shallow foundations.

56
 If in case of excessive settlements ground improvement techniques

or replacement of pile foundation instead of shallow foundation

should be adopted to reduce the settlement up to permissible limits.

57
 CHAPTER - 6

REFERENCES

1) G.V.Rama Rao, M. Pavan Kumar and D. Naveen Kumar (2014)

“Effect of Soil Structure Interaction Under Wind Loads At

Different Wind Zones Using STADD PRO 2007”, International

Journal of Education and Applied Research, IJEAR Vo l . 4, Issue

spl -2, ISSN: 2348-003.

2) R. Ziaie Moayed and M. Janbaz (2009) “Effective Parameters on

Modulus of Sub grade Reaction in Clayey Soils", Journal of

Applied Sciences, 9(22), pp: 4006-4012.

3) Gouw Tjie-Liong (2001) “Notes on the Application of Spring

constant and Soil Structure Interaction Problem”, Seminar on the

Advancement & Trend in Soil Structural Engineering in the Third

Millennium, March 7, 2001 Jakarta.

4) J. J. Chen, J. H. Wang, S. L.Shen and H. B.Zhou (2005) “Long-

Term Settlement Behavior of Multi-Story Buildings on Soft Subsoil

in Shangha”, International Association of Lowland Technology

(IALT), Vol. 7, No. 1, pp: 77-88, ISSN 1344-9656.

5) Ayse T. Daloglu and C. V. Girija Vallabhan (2000) “Values of K

For Slab on Wrinkler Foundation”, Journal of Geotechnical and

58
 Geo Environmental Engineering, Vol.126, No.5, pp: 463-471,

ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.

6) Julie Lovisa, Wayne Read and Nagaratnam Sivakugan (2012)

“Consolidation Behavior of Soils Subjected to Asymmetric Initial

Excess Pore Pressure Distributions with One-Way Drainage”,

International Journal of Geo mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 3, ASCE,

ISSN 1532-3641.

7) P. Ayub Khan, M. R. Madhav and E. Saibaba Reddy (2010)

“Simplified Non-Linear Theory of Vertical Consolidation of Thick

Clay Layers”, Indian Geotechnical Conference 2010, GEO trendz,

IGS Mumbai Chapter & IIT Bombay.

8) K. C. Foye, P. Basu and M. Prezzi (2008) “Immediate Settlement of

Shallow Foundations Bearing on Clay”, International Journal of

Geo mechanics, ASCE, Vol.8, No.5, pp: 300-310, ISSN 1532-

3641.

9) Xiaoming YUAN, Shangjiu MENG, Zhaoji SHI and Rui SUN

(2000) “A Procedure for Evaluation of Differential Settlemnts of

Buildings During Earthquake”, 12 World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Institute of Engineering Mechanics.

10) Musharraf Zaman, Arumugan Gopalasingam and Joakim

G.Laguros (1991) “Consolidation Settlement of Bridge Approach

59
 Foundation”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.17, No.2,

ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410.

11) Reza Ziaie Moayed and Mahdi Ali Bolandi (2012) “Determination

of Sub grade Reaction Modulus of Two Layered Soil”, 3rd

International Conference on New Developments in Soil Mechanics

and Geotechnical Engineering, pp: 28-30.

12) Mosleh A. Al-Shamarani and Faisal A. Al-Mashary “Soil Structure

Interaction Effects on Soil Settlements and Structural Forces”,

ASCE.

13) Rusk Masih (1993) “Structural Stiffness Influence on Soil

Consolidation”, Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,

Vol.119, pp 168-172.

14) R. Ziaie Moayed and M. Janbaz (2009) “Effective Parameters on

Modulus of Sub grade Reaction in Clayey Soils", Journal of

Applied Sciences, 9(22), pp: 4006-4012.

15) Denis Lefebvre and Stéphane Théroux “Soil-Structure Interaction

for the design of buildings shallow foundations”.

16) A.Eslami and M.Gholami (2006) “Analytical Model for the

Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations from Cone Resistance”,

Scientia Iranica, Vol.13, No.3, pp 223-233.

17) Radoslaw L. Michalowski (1992) “Bearing Capacity of

Nonhomogeneous Cohesive soils under Embankments”, Journal of

60
 Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 7, ASCE, ISSN 0733-

9410.

18) Richard J. Finno, Sebastian Bryson and Michele Calvello (2002)

“Performance of a Stiff Support System in Soft Clay”, Journal of

Geotechnical and Geo Environmental Engineering, Vol.128, No. 8,

pp 660-671, ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.

19) W. Virgil Ping and Biqing Sheng “Evaluation of Resilient Modulus

and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for Florida Pavement Sub

grades”.

20) J. A. Ramalho-Ortigao, Mauro L. G. Werneck and Willy A.

Lacerda (1983) “Embankment Failure On Clay Near Rio De

Janeiro” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 11,

ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410.

21) IS 1904-1986 Indian Standard Code of Practice for “Design and

Construction of Foundation in Soils: General Requirements”.

22) IS 875 (Part-3)-1987 Indian Standard Code of Practice for “Design

of Wind Loads for Buildings and Structures”.

23) IS 1893 (Part-1)-2002 Indian Standard “Criteria for Earthquake

Resistant Design of Structures”.

24) Dr. B. C. Punmia et al, “Soil Mechanics and Foundations”. 16th

Edition.

61

View publication stats