ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY NO.

1
Oquendo, Camilo Jr. B. 201010561 Engr. Renato B. Cubilla July 08, 2013

PERFORMANCE OF SOIL INSTRUMENTATION ON SETTLEMENT PREDICTION

R. Nazir, N. Sukor, H. Niroumand, K. A. Kassim Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia.

In order to determine the predicted settlement, two methods of analysis were used: the Asaoka (1978) method and the Terzaghi method in theory of onedimensional consolidation. The Asaoka (1978) method was used to calculate and to predict the total settlement as compared to the actual total settlement obtained from the settlement plate. The Terzaghi method in one-dimensional consolidation was used to calculate the prediction of total settlement and compared it to the actual total settlement obtained from the magnetic extensometer.

ANALYSIS
The Asaoka (1978) plot was done using the time interval t = 7 days. The analysis by using the Asaoka (1978) method was carried for the Settlement Plate. In order to analyze the total settlement taking place and the time rate value, the settlement records are evaluated using the Terzaghi method in the theory of one-dimensional consolidation for magnetic extensometer instrumentation. In this study, the magnetic extensometer was located deep in the soil and the settlement evaluated at depths of 6, 12, and 18 mm.

INTRODUCTION
Settlement can be defined as the deformation or reduction in the soil. Depending on the weather, the load is increased or decreased. Generally, the heavier and the more concentrated the load from a structure, the more it settles, but much also depends on the soil. Settlement of a building relative to its surroundings can shear off water, gas or other utility lines where they enter the building. There are two types of instruments used in this study

DISCUSSION
The results show that the predicted settlement using the Asaoka (1978) method was higher than the actual settlement obtained from the settlement plate instrumentation. The percentage difference between the actual and predicted settlement for SP 6 was 11.3%, followed by 8.8% for SP 7, 5.1% for SP 8, 2.3% for SP 9, 3.5% for SP 10. The results of the comparison between the actual settlement from the magnetic extensometer and the predicted settlement using the Terzaghi method in the theory of one-dimensional consolidation are higher. For ME1, at a depth of 6 m, the percentage was 5.8%, at depth 12 mm it was 69%, while at depth 18 mm it was 71%. For ME2, the percentage difference was 36.7% for depth 6 mm, 66.1% for depth 12 mm, and 79.7% for depth 18 mm.

METHODOLOGY
Geotechnical design is normally related to stress-strain development. The development is independent of gravity. This modeling of geotechnical problems is the best related to semiempirical evaluation. Instrumentation is the best way to predict the prototype performance. Thus it was thought that the instrumentation value on site gave the real performance of the geotechnical design parameters. Comparison between calculated value and field performance ensures a close relationship between prediction and real values. The amount of settlement can be measured by putting settlement plates on the ground or by recording the levels of some reference points. A more precise way to record the progress of consolidation in situ is by installing a magnetic extensometer to record settlement with time. There are two types of instrumentation used to determine the actual total settlement, the settlement plate and the magnetic extensometer. Settlement plate is used to record the elevations used to calculate the amount of settlement under a load. The magnetic extensometer is used to monitor settlement and heave in excavations, foundations, dams, and embankments. Data obtained from the magnetic extensometer can indicate settlement zones as well as total settlement. The magnetic extensometer system has an accuracy that is dependent on the visual readout of the marking on the tape.

CONCLUSION
A prediction of the total settlement adopting the classical one-dimensional consolidation has been made, and although the method is simple, the results were comparable to the actual settlement recorded at the site. The results of total settlement using the Terzaghi method gave higher percentage differences because the Terzaghi method gave higher values of total settlement due to assumptions that normally lead to higher values. Generally, physical observations such as the work that has been done provide a promising way of interpreting the theoretical evaluation with instrumentation work. Although this work is not general, it shows that prediction based on theory and that based on site observation should contribute to justifying the final design.