Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1323–1333 | Cite as

Factors Affecting Differential Settlements of Framed Structures

  • Angeliki E. Arapakou
  • Vasileios P. Papadopoulos
Original paper

Abstract

The estimation of settlements, differential settlements and relative rotations on critical positions of the foundation is indispensable when carrying out analyses of both ultimate and serviceability limit states. The use of finite element method is recommended in cases where soil–structure interaction is expected to be significant. The scope of this paper is a contribution to the investigation of general trends in the effects of main parameters on the interaction. A typical five-span frame building with varying rigidity was examined by using finite element numerical method under 2-D conditions. Soil below the foundation was simulated as linearly elastic or elastoplastic medium. The effects of superstructure and foundation rigidity are closely related to the effect of soil deformability thereby analyses were performed in terms of relative rigidity factors. The effects of specific foundation types, namely isolated footings, flexible and rigid mat, were investigated in detail. The conclusions were focused on the development of normalized differential settlements, on the influence of the relative rigidity factor as well as on the determination of those cases where the interaction approach is necessary to be used for the analysis.

Keywords

Differential settlements Rotation Relative rigidity Footings Mat foundations 

List of symbols

d

Equivalent thickness of the beam of the frame

df

Thickness of very flexible beam

dm

Thickness of medium stiffness of the beam

dr

Thickness of very rigid beam

E

Modulus of elasticity of the soil

Eb

Modulus of elasticity of the concrete

J

Moment of inertia

L

Length of the foundation

l

Span length

M

Flexural moments

Mo

Flexural moments when soil–structure interaction is ignored

Mr

Flexural moments of the extreme rigid foundation slab

maxs

Maximum settlement

MSF

Global safety factor

Rb = Eb × J/E × l3

Relative rigidity factor of the beam of the frame

Rf = Eb × J/E × L3

Relative rigidity factor of the foundation slab

t

Thickness of the foundation

tf

Thickness of very flexible foundation

tr

Thickness of very rigid foundation

V

Axial load of column

Vo

Axial load of column when soil–structure interaction is ignored

β

Relative rotation

Δ/L

Relative deflection

Δs

Differential settlement

Δs/l

Rotation

θ

Rotation

v

Poisson’s ratio

References

  1. AASHTO (1997) LRFD highway bridge design specifications, SI units. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Banavalkar PV (1995) Mat foundation and its interaction with the superstructure. In: Ulrich EJ (ed) Design and performance of mat foundations; state-of-the-art review. ACI, Detroit, pp 13–49Google Scholar
  3. Becker DE (1996) Limit states design for foundations. Part II: development for national building code of Canada. Can Geotech J 6:984–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breysse D, Niandou H, Elachachi S, Houy L (2004) A generic approach to soil-structure interaction considering the effects of soil heterogeneity. Géotechnique 54(2):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burland JB, Wroth CP (1974) Allowable and differential settlement of structures, including damage and soil structure interaction. In: Proceedings of the conference on settlement of structures, Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Burland JB, Broms BB, De Mello VFB (1977) Behaviour of foundations and structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, pp 495–546Google Scholar
  7. CEN (2001) Eurocode 7 part 1: geotechnical design: general rules, final draft prEN 1997-1. European Committee for standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Coduto DP (1994) Foundation design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  9. Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-1:2004) Geotechnical design—part 1: general rulesGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank R (1991) Some recent developments on the behaviour of shallow foundations. 10th ECSMFE, vol 4. Florence, pp 1115–1141Google Scholar
  11. Frank R (2006) General presentation of eurocode 7 on ‘geotechnical design’. In: Proceedings of the 5th Hellenic conference on geotechnical and environmental engineering, vol 4. Xanthi, pp 133–142Google Scholar
  12. Holtz RD (1991) Stress distribution and settlement of shallow foundations. In: Fang HY (ed) Foundation engineering handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 166–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Honjo Y, Kusakabe O (2002) Proposal of a comprehensive foundation design code: Geo-code 21 ver.2. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on foundation design codes and soil investigation in view of international harmonization and performance based design, Kamakura, pp 95–103Google Scholar
  14. Houy L, Breysse D, Denis A (2005) Influence of heterogeneity on load redistribution and settlement of a hyperstatic three-support frame. Géotechnique 55(2):163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MOC (2002) Code for the design of building foundations. Ministry of Construction, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  16. Orr TLL (2002) Eurocode 7: a code for harmonized geotechnical design. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on foundation design codes and soil investigation in view of international harmonization and performance based design, Kamakura, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  17. Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH, Grigoriu MD (1995) Reliability-based design of foundations for transmission line structures. Report TR-105000. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  18. Polshin DE, Tokar RA (1957) Maximum allowable nonuniform settlement of structures. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference SMFE, vol 1. London, pp 402–406Google Scholar
  19. Shadunts KS, Marinichev MB (2003) Analysis of buildings and structures on complex nonuniformly compressible foundation beds. Soil Mech Found Eng 40(2):42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simpson B, Thompson R, Findlay J, Bolton M (1997) Eurocode 7: geotechnical design 1. General design rules: what happens now? In: Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) Geotechnical Engineering, vol 125, no. 1, pp 55–59Google Scholar
  21. Skempton AW, MacDonald DH (1956) Allowable settlement of buildings. In: Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Part III, vol 5, pp 727–768Google Scholar
  22. Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1948) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Wahls HE (1981) Tolerable settlement of buildings. J Geotech Eng ASCE 107(11):1489–1504Google Scholar
  24. Wahls HE (1994) Tolerable deformations. Geotechnical special publication No. 40. ASCE, New York, pp 1611–1628Google Scholar
  25. Zhang LM, Ng AMY (2005) Probabilistic limiting tolerable displacements for serviceability limit state design of foundations. Géotechnique 55(2):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angeliki E. Arapakou
    • 1
  • Vasileios P. Papadopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations