PARRY,R. H. G. (1978). Gkotechnique28, No.

1, 107-l 18

Estimating foundation settlements in sand from plate

bearing tests

R. H. G. PARRY*

The use of a single extrapolation formula is shown to
be inadequate in calculating foundation settlements in
sand from test plate results. Any such extrapolation
must take account of soil conditions. Four distinct
soil conditions have been assumed and settlement
ratios calculated as a function of foundation width by
elastic methods and by a method based on assumed
penetration test values. The range of settlement
ratios calculated by these methods are shown to agree
with published field values. The influences of water
table and foundation excavation on settlement ratios
are also examined.
L’utilisation d’une seule formule d’extrapolation se
rCv6le insuffisante dans le calcul des tassements de
fondations porCes sur du sable, a partir des
r&.ultats d’essais ?I la plaque. N’importe quelle
extrapolation doit tenir compte des conditions du sol.
Quatre conditions de sol distinctes ont CtCenvisagies,
et des taux de tassement calculCs en fonction de la
largeur de la fondation par des mCthodes Clastiques
et par une mCthode basCe sur les valeurs trouvCes a
I’aide d’essais de PC&ration. L’ttendue des taux
de tassement calculee par ces methodes s’accorde
bien avec les valeurs in-situ publiCes. Les influences
de la nappe aquifttre et de I’excavation de fondation
sur les taux de tassement sont aussi examintes.

INTRODUCTION
Settlement calculations for foundations in sand are hampered on the one hand by the difficulty
of taking and preparing undisturbed samples for laboratory testing, and on the other hand by
the empirical nature of in situ tests normally performed on sand. These are usually pene-
tration tests. More sophisticated tests, such as pressuremeter tests, may be less empirical ;
but the stress condition imposed on the soil by such tests may bear little relation to that im-
posed by a foundation loading.
In principle the plate bearing test is the most suitable on which to base settlement calcu-
lations for sands, but present methods of extrapolating from test plate to full size foundation
are unsatisfactory. The purpose of this Paper is to examine the influence of soil conditions on
such extrapolations.

PRESENT METHOD OF EXTRAPOLATION

In a discussion on the influence of foundation width on settlement Kiigler (1933) presented
the theoretical curves shown in Fig. 1. Assuming elastic behaviour of the soil, he showed
that if the elastic modulus E was constant with depth below foundation level, the settlement
increased linearly with foundation width if the bearing pressure remained constant; but if the
modulus increased with depth, i.e.
E = E,,+mz . . . . . . . . . (1)
the settlement increased in a manner corresponding to the curved line in Fig. 1. In the above
expression E0 is the modulus at foundation level, m is a constant and z is depth below the
foundation.

Discussion on this Paper closes 1 June, 1978. For iurther details see inside back cover.
* Lecturer in Engineering, Cambridge University, England.

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 108 R. H. G. PARRY

Terzaghi and Peck (1948) approximated the curved line in Fig. 1 by the empirical expression
for settlement ratio
PS
_= 28
-B+0.3 2
. . . . . . . . . (2)
Pl -t 1
where p1 is the settlement of a standard plate O-3 m in width
pB is the settlement of a foundation with the same bearing pressure
B is the foundation width (metres).
This expression allows for an increase in soil stiffness with depth, but makes no allowance
for different rates of increase with depth or for sands in which the modulus does not increase
monotonically with depth. Any method which does not take account of these factors may
produce large errors in extrapolating from a test plate settlement to a full size foundation settle-
ment, and in many cases the error will be an under prediction.
This has been illustrated clearly in a plot of settlement ratio pe/pl against B/B1 prepared by
Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) from a study of case records, where ps and p1 are foundation
and test plate settlements respectively under the same bearing pressure, B is foundation width
and B, is the test plate width of 0.3 m. It was concluded by Bjerrum and Eggestad that the
increase in settlement with the dimension of the loaded area could not be represented by any
single curve; instead, they defined extreme upper and lower limit curves and a curve giving an
average correlation. These workers also concluded that it was not possible to distinguish
between settlement ratio correlations and sand density; although some trends indicated that
points representing dense sands were commonly situated between the average and lower limit
curves, whereas very loose slightly organic sands tended to be represented by the upper limit
curve.
This lack of a clear correlation of settlement ratio with density is to be expected asit will be
governed not by the absolute density, but by the variation of density with depth below founda-
tion level.
It was also shown by Bjerrum and Eggestad that eqn (2) gave settlement ratios well below
the average field values, but above the lower limit of field values. In many cases then, it
would obviously under-predict actual field settlements.
The widely scattered range of settlement ratios observed by Bjerrum and Eggestad can readily
be explained qualitatively by assuming the sand to behave elastically, but with different
distributions of modulus with depth. Consider three different distributions of elastic modulus
with depth as shown in Fig. 2(a)
(a) elastic modulus constant with depth
(b) elastic modulus increasing linearly with depth from zero at the surface
(c) elastic modulus decreasing with depth for shallow depths, but then increasing with
depth.
Assumption (a) gives a settlement ratio directly proportional to foundation width, while
assumption (b) discussed by Gibson (1974) gives, for Poisson’s ratio v=O*5, the rather surprising
result that settlement is independent of foundation width. This result is identical to that of
the Winkler (1867) spring concept. In sand Y will in general not be equal to O-5 and some
increase of settlement with increasing foundation width can be expected, so that line (b) in
Fig. 2(b) is a rather extreme lower limit. Condition (c) will give, initially, settlement ratio
values greater than given by condition (a); but with increasing foundation size the values will
eventually drop below those for condition (a). A typical curve for condition (c) might be as
shown in Fig. 2(b).
It can be seen in Fig. 2(b) that these different elastic conditions produce a wide range of pos-

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ESTIMATING FOUNDATION SETTLEMENTS IN SAND 109

Diameter of loaded area

Fig. 1. Influence of foundation width on srttlcmrnt after Kiiglcr f 1933)

/-B-E upper limit

B-Elower limit

BIB,

b)
Fig. 2. (a) Assumed distributions of elastic modulus with depth, (b) corresponding settlement ratios asa function
of foundation width compared with eqn (2) and upper, average and lower lines published by Bjerrum and Eggestad
(1963)

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 110 R. H. G. PARRY
A’ blows per 0.3m penetration

Fig. 3. Distribution of IV values with depth for assumed soil conditions 1 to 4

sible settlement ratios, but, except at the lower limit, this wide range is matched by the field
records studied by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963).
Again it is clear that eqn (2) the curve for which is also shown in Fig. 2(b) cannot adequately
predict settlements from plate bearing tests for differing soil conditions. A number of methods
of calculating settlements in sands from Standard Penetration Test depend on the use of this
equation, Alpan (1940), Meyerhof (1965), Peck and Bazaraa (1969), Peck, Hanson and
Thorburn (1974) and Terzaghi and Peck (1948). All these methods stem from the original
approach Terzaghi and Peck (1948) in which a correlation was obtained between test plate
settlements p1 and SPT values N,
39, . . . . . . . . .
Pl = 7 (3)

where qn is the bearing pressure. The settlement of a full size foundation was then found
using eqn (2). A fundamental flaw in this method is that the plate tests were carried out at
the base of excavations, whereas the N values used were those measured before the excavation
was made. The correlations should have been made with N values taken after the excavations
had been made. These values would have been lower than the values actually used in
establishing eqn (3). Meyerhoff (1965) recognized that eqn (3) gave an over-estimate of
settlement and suggested that the constant term should be reduced from 3 to 2.
The other methods listed above counter this incorrect correlation by modifying the measured
N values for overburden pressure, but they still use eqn (2) as an integral part of the settlement
calculation. These modifications for overburden pressure should not be necessary however,
in caIculating settlements, the need for this technique having arisen because the original cor-
relation was made between test plate settlements on the base of excavations and N values
measured before rather than after the excavation was made.
Methods which use measured N values directly to calculate settlements have been published
by D’Appolonia, D’Appolonia and Brissette (1968) and Parry (1971).
The unsatisfactory methods used to calculate settlements in sands from SPT values have
tended to discredit the test itself, leading to the feeling that it is a test which cannot be inter-
preted quantitatively. As such, it is not often carried out with the same care that attends
other soil mechanics tests. If the test is carried out in an absolutely standard manner, and
with care, the measured N values should reflect, as shown by Gibbs and Holtz (1957) the sand

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 III

_-----. Eqn2

30
B/B,

Fig. 4. Settlement ratios as a function of foundation width for wil condirionc I. 2 and 4 from elastic calculations
assuming Ecc N

density and the stress level. As the stiffness of sand also depends primarily on these two
factors, some correlation between sand stiffness and measured N values can be expected.
In this Paper the dependence of settlement ratios on soil conditions will be studied by as-
suming certain density variations with depth, then converting these to N values using the corre-
lations from laboratory test data published by Gibbs and Holtz (1957).
Relative settlements will then be calculated on the basis of an assumed direct relationship
between measured N and elastic modulus E and on the basis of a method previously presented
by the Author (1971).

ASSUMED SOIL CONDITIONS

The four different assumed soil conditions which will be considered here are:
Soil Condition I. Relative density D, constant at about 60% (medium dense) with depth.
Soil Condition 2. Relative density increasing progressively from 45% (loose) near the surface
to 80”//, (dense) at 20 m depth.
Soil Condition 3. Relative density decreasing from 65% (medium dense) at the surface to
40% (loose) at 3 m depth, then increasing to 60% (medium dense) at 20 m depth.
Soil Condition 4. Constant N with depth, implying a decreasing relative density with depth.
This condition is sometimes found down to depths of 8 m or so but usually not to greater
depths than this.
The sand will initially be assumed to be dry to greater depths than the influence bf the im-
posed load and it will also be assumed that the loading is on the ground surface. The effects
of water table and of conducting the test in excavation will then be considered separately.
A standard unit test plate size of 0.3 m dia. will be adopted and settlement ratios calculated
for loaded areas up to 30 m dia.
The distribution of N values for soil conditions 1 to 3 are shown in Fig. 3. These N.values
are derived directly from the experimental correlations of N with overburden pressuri: and
soil density published by Gibbs and Holtz (1957). Soil condition 4 simply assumes.N to be
constant with depth and the actual value of N is irrelevant in calculating settlement ratios.

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 112 R. H. G. PARRY

In calculating relative settlements, it will be assumed that the load factor against punching
or bearing capacity failure will be not less than 3.0.

PREDICTED SETTLEMENT RATIOS

A simple method of calculating settlements for the conditions shown in Fig. 3 is to assume a
simple linear relationship between N and elastic modulus E
EccN . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Using this simple relationship, soil conditions I and 2 give variations of E with depth z
below surface level corresponding to eqn (I).
Solutions for settlement under uniformly loaded circular areas on elastic half spaces obeying
eqn (1) have been published by Brown and Gibson (1972) and these solutions have been used
to produce the curves in Fig. 4 of settlement ratios pB/pl against B/B1 for soil conditions 1 and
2. B is the diameter of the loaded area, B1 is the diameter of the test plate and has the specific
value of 0.3 m. A value of v=O*3 was used to obtain these curves.
The line for soil condition 4 which is a homogeneous elastic condition is also shown in
Fig. 4.
Soil condition I, which represents a uniform medium dense sand, gives settlement ratios of
4 and 20 for B/B, values of 5 and 100 respectively, while soil condition 2, which represents a
loose sand near the surface, becoming dense with depth, gives settlement ratios of 3 and 9 for
the same B/B, values.
A difficulty arises in using a purely elastic approach for calculating settlement ratios as
solutions are not readily available for a wide range of variations of E with depth. There are
difficulties too, in making allowance for a water table and for tests made in an excavation. It
is also necessary to assume a Y value. Because of these difficulties and the fact that sand will
not behave purely elastically anyway, the empirical method previously proposed by the Author
(1971) will be used.
In this method the settlement of a surface foundation or a foundation in a backfilled
excavation is given by
qB . . . . . . . . (5)
P=“N
This expression simply states that the settlement is directly proportional to the bearing
pressure and foundation width and indirectly proportional to the measured value of N. It is
not intended as an elastic equation, but if N is replaced by E it clearly has the form of an elastic
equation.
The measured values of N are used directly and these are only modified if a change in stress
occurs in the ground after the site investigation, such as excavation or a change in ground
water level. The influences of excavation and ground water level on settlement ratios are
considered later.
It is necessary to choose a representative value N, from the measured values of N within a
depth equal to 2B below the foundation. In order to place greater influence on values im-
mediately below the foundation the Author has suggested taking an average value of N, denoted
Nl, from foundation level to a depth of +B below foundation level, Nz from 3 B to *Band N3
from $B to 2B. N, is then given by:
N, = $(3N,+2Nz+N3) . . . . . . . . (6)
Where measured N values show a consistent trend within a depth of 2B below foundation
level the representative value of N at a depth of $B below foundation level may be taken as
N In. The emphasis placed on different N values within a depth 2B by the above method corres-

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ESTIMATING FOl~Ul>4TIOU SFTTI FMFYTS IN SAYD 113

IO 100 I IO
R/R.

Fig. 5. Settlement ratios calculated by eqn (5) as a function of foundation width for soil conditions 1 to 4, compared
with eqn (2) and with Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963) curves

ponds very well to the vertical strain distribution idealized from experimental observation by
Schmertmann (1970). In this idealized representation the vertical displacement from founda-
tion level to a depth of $B is almost equal to that from SE to 2B and below this depth vertical
strains are considered to be negligible.
In calculating settlement ratios the value of C(in eqn (5) cancels out, but a brief discussion of
its magnitude may be of interest here. Initial correlations with case records (Parry, 1971)
indicated CLto have a value of about 200 where p is in mm, B in m, qa in MN/m2. It was
recommended however, that this should be increased by 50% for design purposes. In a more
recent study of six case records (Simons and Menzies, 1976) the use of cc=200 was found to
give, on average, a ratio of calculated to observed settlement of 0.72. Increasing this by the
recommended design margin of 50% gives an average correlation ratio of 1.08.
Settlement ratios for the four soil conditions represented in Fig. 3, and for B/B, values from
1 to 100 (i.e. B from 0.3 m to 30 m as B1 has the specific value of 0.3 m) are plotted in Fig. 5.
The upper limit, average and lower limit curves from the case record studies by Bjerrum and
Eggestad (1963) are also reproduced, together with a block of results from tests carried out by
D’Appolonia, D’Appolonia and Brissette (1968). The extrapolation curve given by eqn (2) is
also shown.
A number of interesting observations may be made relating to Fig. 5.
(a) The trends shown by the curves for soil conditions 1 and 2 are similar to the trends
shown by the corresponding curves 1 and 2 from elastic calculations in Fig. 4, but the
actual calculated settlement ratios are lower.
(6) The curve for soil condition 3 is similar to the corresponding curve (c) in Fig. 2 and a
feature of this curve is that for B/B, values up to about 11, settlement ratios increase
more rapidly than the ratio of foundation width to test plate width.
(c) The curve for soil condition 2 corresponds closely to the curve given by eqn (2) and all
the other curves lie above this. This suggests that in most practical cases extrapola-
tions based on eqn (2) will under-estimate the settlements of full size foundations.
(d) The curve for soil condition I which is a uniform medium dense sand, and thus an

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 114 R. H. G. PARRY

190

- Grade at time of site investigation

185.

- WL at time of site investigation

E
.

; 180-
s
IL!

175.

1700
20 40 60
N
Fig. 6. Variation of measured ‘5’ values with depth after I)‘Appolonia, D’Appolonia and Brissette (1968)

average soil condition, corresponds very closely to the average curve obtained
Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963).
(e) The curves for soil conditions 3 and 4 agree very well with the upper line obtained by
Bjerrum and Eggestad and also with the settlement ratios measured by D’Appolonia,
D’Appolonia and Brissette (1968). This latter correlation is of particular interest as
the variation of N values with depth has been published and is shown in Fig. 6. It can
be seen that N values are constant to a depth of about 3 m, which corresponds to
assumed soil condition 4. The N values decrease between 3 m and 5 m depth and
finally increase quite rapidly below 5 m, which corresponds to the assumed soil con-
dition 3. The correlation then between observed and expected settlement ratios is
clearly very good.

INFLUENCE OF WATER TABLE

The settlement ratio predictions, for different assumed soil conditions, made in the previous
section assumed the soil to be dry. If the sand was saturated, with the water table at test level,
the effective stress, and hence N values, would be reduced proportionally throughout the full
depth of the sand; and the settlement ratios would remain substantially the same as in Fig. 5.
If however, the water table was some distance below test level, then a full size foundation at
test level would be more influenced by the water table than the smaller test plate. Settlement
ratios would be increased.
This increase can be shown by calculating the effective overburden pressure at various depths
and obtaining iV values from the Gibbs and Holtz (1957) correlations as before. Figure 7
shows the adjusted distributions of N for assumed water tables at depths D, below test level
of 0.5 m, 2.5 m and IO m. In practice the presence of the water table will be reflected in the
N values (or in the resistances measured by other in situ tests such as the static cone or penetro-
meter), and if the extrapolations from test plate results are made in the light of the other in situ
test results the presence of a water table will be unimportant. It is still of interest here, how-
ever, to examine the influence of a water table on settlement ratios.
Using the distributions of N values shown in Fig. 7 for soil condition 1, which is a medium
dense sand, the settlement ratios shown in Fig. 8 are obtained.

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ESTIMATING FOUNDATION Sl .I

5
a
B

Fig. 7. Influences of water tahlc ;~t depth\ of 0.5 m. 25 m and IO m on .\ bahws for soil condition I

I IO 100 II
B/B1
Fig. 8. Influence of depth to water table, D,. below test level on settlement ratios

The top curve, for water table 0.5 m below test level, gives the maximum settlement ratios
likely to occur for this soil as an assumed water table above this level would start to influence
the test plate, and settlement ratios would be progressively reduced as the water table ap-
proached the test level. It can be seen in Fig. 8 that the presence of a water table can increase
settlement ratios by up to two-thirds.

INFLUENCE OF EXCAVATION
N values measured below the base of an excavation will be less than the values at the same
levels measured before the excavation is made, because the vertical effective stress is reduced.
As a result, settlements of foundations in excavations which are not backfilled before loading
should be increased by a factor C,. The magnitude of C, has been discussed (Parry, 1971)
and suggested values plotted against De/B, where D, is the depth of excavation, are shown in
Fig. 9. For any particular depth of excavation, the influence on small foundations will be

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 116 R. H. G. PARRY

0 4 8
D, /B

Fig. 9. Depth factor C,, a\ a function of the ratio of excavation depth /I,. to foundation width B

_E lower limit

I IO 100 IO00
B/B,
Fig. 10. Influence of excavation depth on settlement ratios

greater than on large foundations and settlement ratios are reduced. This is shown in Fig. 10
where settlement ratios for soil condition 1, medium dense sand, have been plotted against
B/B, where B, is O-3 m. Excavation depths of 0.5 m and 2.5 m have been considered. A
particular point of interest here is that the settlement ratios for D=2*5 m correspond closely
to the lower line given by Bjerrum and Eggestad (1963).
It should be noted here that the same sort of reduced settlement ratios would be expected in
heavily preloaded sands.

DISCUSSION
In view of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of securing undisturbed samples of sand for
laboratory testing, reliance must be placed on field tests for estimating settlements in sands.
It is essential however that such tests should be carried out with all possible care and that the
methods of interpretation or extrapolation should be soundly based. Often this has not been
the case in the past, at least with respect to the use of the SPT and the plate bearing test.
The plate bearing test should be the most reliable method of estimating settlements in sand
because the type of loading applied is similar to that applied by a full size foundation. It will
only be reliable however, if full and proper account is taken of the variation of soil stiffness
with depth. An adequate measure of this variation can be made by properly conducted SPTs,
static cone tests or other in situ tests such as pressuremeter tests. If these tests are carried out
in conjunction with plate bearing tests they not only ensure a reasonable extrapolation of

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ESTIMATING FOUNDATION SETTLEMENTS IN SAND 117

test plate settlements, but allow a second independent estimate of settlement to be made
directly from these test results.
If SPT’s are carried out in conjunction with plate bearing tests, the settlement pB of a founda-
tion of width B may be obtained from the plate settlement p1 using the expression

where B1 is the plate width, (N&, is N, for the test plate and (N,)B is N, for the foundation.
A direct estimate of the settlement may be made from the SPT values by using eqn (5).
In extrapolating test plate results or in using any in situ test values, it is essential to take
account of any changes in ground conditions, particularly in situ stresses, which occur after
the site investigation and before construction or during the life of a structure. Ground water
movements are an obvious example which may have to be considered, while other examples
include the influence of site excavation or filling.
The settlement ratios in this paper have been calculated on the basis of a standard 0.3 m dia.
test plate. This is the plate size on which eqn (2) was originally based. In practice it is ad-
vantageous however, to use as large a test plate as possible as the degree of extrapolation
required reduces measurably with increasing plate size. For example, for soil condition 1,
it can be seen in Fig. 5 that the settlement factor for a foundation 4 m wide is 6.0 related to an
0.3 m diameter test plate, but reduces to 3-O for an 0.75 m diameter test plate.
An innovation in plate bearing tests is the helical plate which can be screwed in to the re-
quired depth for testing (Janbu and Senneset, 1973). This test seems to be particularly relevant
for deep foundations or foundations in backfilled excavations, as ground stress conditions in
sand are maintained, at least substantially, during the test. However a size greater than the
160 mm diameter commonly used should be adopted for sands.

CONCLUSIONS
An extrapolation formula such as eqn (2), which takes no account of soil conditions, may in
some cases lead to considerable error in settlement calculation. In the case of eqn (2) the
settlements will in many cases be underestimated.
Four different soil conditions have been assumed and settlement ratios calculated with res-
pect to an O-3 m test plate. These settlement ratios were calculated by representing the soil
conditions in terms of SPT values and using both an elastic approach and a simple alternative
expression to calculate settlements. The range of settlement ratios calculated agrees closely
with the wide range of settlement ratios shown by studies of case records.
Plate bearing tests should prove the most reliable method of calculating settlements in sand
providing other in situ tests are made to define accurately the variations in soil conditions.
Possible changes in ground stress conditions due to ground water movements, site filling or
site excavation should be taken into account when calculating settlements in sand from plate
bearing tests.

REFERENCES
Alpan, I. (1940). Estimating the settlements of foundations on sand. Ciu. Erzgng pub/. Wks Reo. November
1415-18.
Bjerrum, L. & Eggestad, A. (1963). lnterpretation of loading test on sand. Proc. European Conf. Soil Mech.
Fdn. Engng Wiesbaden 1, 199-203.
Brown, P. T. & Gibson, R. E. (1972). Surface settlement of a deep elastic stratum whose modulus increases
linearly with depth. Can. Geotech. J. 9, No. 4, November 467276.
D’Appolonia, D. J., D’Appolonia, E. & Brissette, R. F. (1968). Settlement of spread footings on sand. J. Soil
Mech. Fdn Div. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 94, No. SM3, Proc. Paper 5959, 735-760.

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 118 R. H. G. PARRY

Gibbs, H. J. & Holtz, W. G. (1957). Research on determining the density of sands by spoon penetration
testing. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Fdn Engng London 1, 35-39.
Gibson, R. E. (1974). The analytical method in soil mechanics. Fourteenth Rankine Lecture. Ge’otechnique,
24, No. 2, 113-139.
Janbu, N. & Senneset, K. (1973). Field compressometer-principles and applications. Proc. 8th Inf. Conf.
Soil Mech. Fdn Engng, Moscow 1.1, 191-198
Kdgler, F. (1933). Discussions of soil mechanics
research. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs transactions 98, 299-301.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1965). Shallow foundations. J. Soil Mech. Fdns Div. Am. Sor. Civ. Engrs 91, No. SM2,
Proc. Paper 4271. 21-31.
Parry, R. H. G. (1971). A direct method ofestimatingsettlements in sand from SPTvalues. Proc. Symp. on the
Interaction of Structure and Foundation, Birmingham, 29-32.
Peck, R. B. & Bazaraa, A. R. S. S. (1969). Discussion on Settlement of spreadfootings on sand. J. Soil Mech.
Fdns Div. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 95, No. SM3, 905-909.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. & Thornburn T. H. (1974). Found&ion engineering, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and
Sons Inc., New York.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1970). Static cone to compute static settlement over sand. J. Soil Mech. Fdns Div. Am.
Sot. Cit. Engrs 96, No. SM3, Proc. Paper 7302, 101 l-1043.
Simons, N. E. & Menzies, B. K. (1976). A short course infoundation engineering. IPC Science and Technology
Press.
Sutherland, H. B. (1963). The use of in situ tests to estimate the allowable bearing pressure of cohesionless
soils. Strut. Engr 41, 85-92.
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York.
Winkler, E. (1867). Die Lehre con ElastizitZit und Festigkeit 182, Prague.

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [18/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.