GROUND-MoVEMENT-RELATED BUILDING DAMAGE

By Storer J. Boone,l Member, ASeE

ABSTRACT: A concept for evaluation of building damage resulting from differential ground movem.ent is
presented in this paper. The concept is intended as a first-order method for damage assessment and rehes on
ground movement profile geometry, structure geometry and design, strain sup~rpos~tion, and critical strains of
building materials. Means for estimating the degree of damage are presented In this paper. so that the ~round
movement effects on third-party properties resulting from adjacent construction can be qUIckly and ratIOnally
prioritized. Prioritizing structure evaluations according to this first-order damage assessment method allows
detailed evaluations to be focused on those structures that appear to be most susceptible to moderate or severe
damage. Using the methods described in this p~per, 20 case histories ar~ examined, producing 43 separate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

evaluations, and the results compare favorably WIth actual damage observatIons.

INTRODUCTION stated ••... the settlement characteristic causing cracking is

Settlement or heave of structures, whether from nearby con-
struction or other causes, can result in noticeable damage. Usu-
ally the most settlement-sensitive buildings are those with ma-
sonry-load-bearing walls or frames with masonry infill walls.
In reference to tunneling, it has been stated that " ... the tun-
nel owner must catalog all third-party impacts and make an
honest effort to prioritize them in terms of risk to the third
party and the project" (Brierley 1988). For large urban con-
struction projects that impact many structures, various levels
of evaluation are needed to prioritize damage risks. Intensive
evaluations for each structure that might be impacted by con-
struction becomes both impractical and uneconomical for tun-
neling or large open-cut excavations. Often, a simple and con-
servative method is required in the first round of assessments
to narrow detailed studies to those structures that are judged
to be critical.
GROUND MOVEMENT AND DAMAGE
CRITERIA-BACKGROUND
Past work addressing the subject of settlement damage cri-
teria can be generally categorized into three basic approaches.
The first, or empirical approach, is based on compilation of
case histories and development of empirical relationships be-
tween damage and readily measurable or defined case data.
The second approach considers structural engineering princi-
ples to arrive at relationships that define tolerable settlement
limits based on select building dimensions and material prop-
erties, and often compares the resulting limitations to c~e his-
tories. Methods included in the third category, which WIll not
be considered further in this paper, have been discussed in
detail by Attewell et al. (1986) and include variations on the
Winkler ground model combined with structure matrix stiff-
ness formulations, or the kinematic computer model BRIKIN
discussed by New and O'Reilly (1991).
Empirical Relationships
In Skempton and MacDonald (1956) "The Allowable Set-
probably the radius of curvature. But a characteristic which is
more readily evaluated, and which is only slightly less logical,
is the angular distortion; this conveniently expressed by the
ratio of the differential settlement 8 and the distance l between
two points." A preliminary limit of angular distortion of less
than 11300 was recommended for load-bearing walls or ma-
sonry infill panels in traditional frame buildings. Damage was
defined in the paper as initiation of visible cracking since this
type of architectural damage is generally less than structural
damage that endangers the structure's stability; however, sub-
sequent discussions of their paper reported severe structural
damage at angular distortions near the recommended architec-
tural damage limit (Peck et al. 1956; Ward 1956; Williams
1956). Cases in which measured settlement could be directly
related to specific degrees and locations of damage were lim-
ited to 14 structures in Skempton and MacDonald's work.
Only seven of these structures were damaged. Skempton and
MacDonald's evaluation of these cases also did not consider
the influence of the buildings' height-to-length ratio or other
measures of relative shear and bending distortion. A number
of authors including Polshin and Tokar (1957), Bjerrum
(1963), Horn and Lambe (1964), and Grant et at. (1974) have
either reassessed angular distortion criteria or proposed similar
empirical approaches. Bjerrum (1963) presented a figure re-
lating angular distortion to building performance based on ad-
ditional data combined with those of Skempton and Mac-
Donald's study. Bjerrum noted that his figure was " ... based
on a limited survey and supplementary studies are required
before final conclusions can be drawn," although Fig. 1 is
widely referenced (e.g. U.S. Department of the Navy 1988;
Lambe and Whitman 1979). In spite of these limitations and
other criticisms (Terzaghi 1956; Ward 1956), the use of an-
gular distortion has persisted.
Angular Distortion oiL
1/100 11200 11300 11400 11600 11800 1 noo 11800 11900
I I I iii I I I I I I I i I I I
I Umit where dlffioulti•• with

tlements of Buildings," 98 case histories were reviewed to

identify a basis on which to determine allowable total and
I machinery ..nlltlv. to
"ttlementl .r. to be f••red

Umit 01 denger 10' I,eme. with dlegonel.

differential foundation settlement. Skempton and MacDonald
'Sr. Geotech. Engr., Golder Associates, Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada L5N 583.
Note. Discussion open until April I, 1997. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on April 24, 1995. This paper is part of the JourlUll
0/ Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 11, November, 1996.
@ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/96/0011-0886-0896/$4.00 + $.50 per page.
Paper No. 10567.
5.1. limit 10' building. wh.r. c,.okIngl. not
p.rmI••..".
Umlt wh.,. fl'.t c,eeklng In p.n.' well. I. tc b••xp.oted
Umlt where dlffloultl•• with overh'lKf oren•••r. to b' exploted
UmIt who,. tilting 01 high. rigid building. might b.o..... vi.,bl.
eonaid.,obI. o,.oklng In p.nlll willi. end brick well., ..I. limit 10' flexible brick well.
with hlL < 1/4. limit wh.,. otruotu,e1 d.",.g. 01 g.ne,eI building. I. to b. I.e,ed
FIG. 1. Damage CriterIa (after Bjerrum 1963)

888/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 Structural Engineering Approaches to Damage limited use due to simplifications and inaccuracies regarding
Evaluation actual loading, E, and I; however, it is worthwhile to review
the relations between deflection and angular rotation illustrated
G. G. Meyerhof (1947) analyzed a five-story reinforced con- by the familiar beam deflection equations. Maximum beam
crete frame building and calculated a stress increase of about deflection, Vm",. and angles of rotation at either end, 6 1 and 62,
74% due to settlement in the most heavily loaded structure of a simply supported and uniformly loaded beam, illustrated
beam. Differential settlement of this concrete beam was re- by Fig. 3, can be determined by
ported to be about 8 mm (0.315 in.) for a span of about 7.6
m (25 ft). Even with the predicted stress increase of 74%, V max = (5qL )/(384El) 4
(1)
cracking was not observed. Another case of settlement-in-
duced building damage in Drammen, Norway, was evaluated 61 = 6 = (qL )/(24El)
2
3
(2)
in detail by Fjeld (1963). The structure consisted of a three- (Gere and Timoshenko 1974). By algebraically rearranging (1)
story reinforced concrete frame with brick infill walls, illus- and (2)
trated by Fig. 2. Detailed calculations were carried out to as-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sess additional structural stresses induced by differential (3)

settlement. Fjeld concluded that cracks were generally ob-
served when either:' (1) the inclination of a leveled brick-mor- 2.0
I --- EIG"12.S.NAatmlddlecf_
tar groove as related to horizontal (a) exceeded 1/200; (2) the I EIG" 2.8, N.A. II middle of beIlm
inclination of a leveled brick-mortar groove as related to the : ----- EIG" a.s, NA II middle of beam
I- ElG" 2.6, NA 110M edge
overall inclination of the infill wall panel (13) exceeded 1/500; 1.5 \ _._- ElG -a.S.NA alonelldge . /....... _._._._._._._._._.
or (3) the inclination of the infill panel as compared to the : /'
inclination of the building as a whole ('Y) exceeded 1/500. w
u
1\ ,...../
Fjeld's case likely provided data for Bjerrum (1963) consid- ..J
:::::' 1.0
I:
CD
ering the reference in Fig. 1 to flexible walls with H/L ratios <j t\":~3-
I~ ~_-- ~
less than 1/4. He concluded that the ratio H/L appeared to be
\\ \'. --- 4
a factor in cracking as walls withstood a of up to 1/150 un-
damaged when HlL ... 1/4 (although those walls with H/L ... 0.5 \ \.
\ '"'' -------
--- -
1/4 did not fill the bounding frame and supported only the
windows above). Meyerhof (1947, 1953) and Fjeld (1963)
'-~-.::":'':::'.,_ __.. -''-''-,-,,-,,-,,-"-'0
.. ..

both concluded that moment calculations were of limited use

for determining allowable settlements considering their obser- 0.0 -+---,-----r---"""""----,---,..----!
vations. o 1 2 3 4 5 6
Several studies have evaluated building damage by model-
ing building walls as simply supported deep beams. Direct UH
application of generalized beam deflection equations to the FIG. 4. Influence of E/G on Cracking of Simple Rectangular
problem of ground-movement-induced building damage is of Beam (after Burland and Wroth 1975; Burland et a!. 1977)

• undamaged • slight damage • SUbstantial damage

4.0 ........- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
a) Frame ~uildingS
3.0
O-+--+--+-f-+--+-+-1f-+--+---+-+-+-t--+-+-+-+--+-+---+---+--
C 10 +-++--+++H++--+-+-::;;;;;;~-+-+4=j==F~d-::+- 2.0
~ ~ . C")
----. ..L. p = 1/300 ~1

,.,. I·.-.. ... . .

p""
o ~
~ 20 jl-"~jctj:t~:;~:tj::tl\~!==t1=t1=t1=tl==t~t~: -r- 1.0 -A- ::----;..
~

-
30 A464 J4 \ J1 61 64 >< p = 1/500
0.0 +-....:.,r---""T"-=---r---.....,...:....--r----!
...J
\ column grid labels lines used to define till for this paper o 2 3 4 5 6
<l 2.0 ........- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
floor beam 1 I, l ,I
o 1.5
~
.. - --Loadbearing walls, sagging
..

[E1f"
H 3 I[BI l e v e ngroove
column ed ~
0::: 1.0 -.-.-.-._.
.........- .._ .._.
--
ill • ~
_ _ p = 1/300
-"- -'_.-.- - -
p = 1/500
fl. I ..··t~....··..··..· .....'\'a.... c: 0.5 .. :.~~>:~:::~~~~,.~f:·~~-:;:'---.~-.·
.."
~ .
o • •• ... Poishin & Tokar

~
0.0
y <5
o 2 3 4 5 6
FIG. 2. Damage to Building In Drammen. Norway (after Fjeld
1964) (Dashed Lines Indicate Tilt a8 Defined for This Paper)
li
o
2.0 . .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
c) Loadbearlng walls, hogging
1.5 •

... L II
1.0

••

o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

UH
FIG. 5. Relationship of Theoretical Deflection Ratio Limits and
Degrees of Damage [Numbered Curves Refer to Those of Fig. 4
FIG. 3. Deflection of Simply Supported Beam (after Burland and Wroth 1975; Burland et al. 1977)]

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996/887

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 Thus, angular rotation and maximum deflection, as related to
one another, are generally independent of E, I, and load. Sim-
ilar independence can be shown for many other similar simple
symmetrically loaded beam deflection equations. Although sat-
isfactory for most ordinary beam analyses, such equations in-
clude simplifications and are good approximations only for
small deflections and when effects of shear are excluded. An
expression including both bending and shear deflections for a
centrally loaded simple beam with a rectangular cross section
follows (Gere and Timoshenko 1974):
3
v -- PL- (
1 +18EI)
max - 48EI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
edge. They also illustrated the importance of direct horizontal
extension, £h' in initiating damage. Fig. 6 indicates the rela-
tionships between 13 and position of a structure relative to a
tunnel settlement trough. Fig. 7 illustrates £h and 13 relative to
degree of damage. By estimating settlements, angular distor-
tions, and horizontal ground strains, it is implied that the de-
gree of damage could be assessed using the various figures,
especially for tunneling-related building distortion. Damage
categories of Fig. 7 are based on the criteria proposed by
Skempton and MacDonald (1956) and Bjerrum (1963), and an
LlH equal to one.
- -2 (4)
GAL GROUND MOVEMENT PROFILES
Prediction of Ground Movement Profiles

Burland and Wroth (1975) addressed building damage by

calculations based on the potential structure deformation mode
Prediction of settlement and horizontal strain profiles adja-
and critical tensile strain, £e, of the building materials and re-
cent to open excavations has been discussed by authors in-
lated the first development of cracks to a deflection ratio, !!JJL
cluding Peck (1969), Goldberg et al. (1976), Cording et al.
(see Appendix I). Their work began with (4) and plotted the
(1978), and Nicholson (1987). Settlement troughs above tun-
theoretical cracking threshold of walls using various ratios of
nels have been discussed by Peck (1969), Cording et al.
EIG, LlH, £e, and location of the neutral axis (see Fig. 4). The
(1978), and Attewell et al. (1986) among others. Simple ex-
resulting theoretical limits were also compared to case histo-
amples of settlement profiles are presented in Fig. 8 and these
ries and other settlement-damage criteria (see Fig. 5). Often,
can be viewed as nearly parabolic curves joined by tangent
damage cases have been compared to these criteria, or con-
lines or inflection points that can be divided into two catego-
versely, the theoretical limits used to calculate a maximum
permissible relative wall deflection to avoid cracking (e.g. ries described by Burland and Wroth (1975): those that are
concave upward (sagging); and those that are concave down-
Driscoll 1983; MacLeod and Paul 1984; Wilson et al. 1984;
ward (hogging). Since the deflected shape of a uniformly
and Harris et al. 1993).
loaded and simply supported beam also follows a parabolic
Boscardin and Cording (1989) illustrated that angular dis-
curve, the angular rotation (or deflection angle) at the points
tortion, 13, was between two and three times the deflection ratio
of tangency and central deflection may be determined by sim-
defined by Burland and Wroth for HIL values ranging from 0
ple geometry provided that the settlement profile can be rea-
to 00, typical building dimensions, and for walls modeled as
sonably predicted or is known.
centrally point-loaded beams with a neutral axis at the lower

:t
Deflection Angle of the Ground Movement Profile

i:~
B
Consider the case of a load-bearing wall with a simple and
symmetrical hogging foundation profile with a maximum set-
C 0.8 \. __ W tlement at one end, similar to what might occur near an open
o 04
:e. \ 1:::?:5W
, ,',,1,...... ,-,_< O,25w excavation or tunnel [see Fig. 9(a»). Assuming a horizontal
~ 0.0 :Y " - ' - -.. ' O.1w datum, the problem geometry is similar to that used for defi-
is 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 nition of a vertical curve in surveying as shown in Fig. 9(b).
XIW
Comparison of Figs. 9(a) and 9(b) illustrates the identical ge-
ometry between the angle of rotation, e, and the angle between
Angular Distortion. p • d ll.lnlix w = half width of trough
nw line BVC-EVC and the tangents with slopes gl and g2. An-
width of structure = nw Angular Distortion· ...6- derson and Mikhail (1985) defined the geometry of vertical
nw
curves as
x • location of centre of structure; Smex. maximum aelllement of trough
r = (g2 - gl)IL (5)
FIG. 6. Angular Distortion within Tunnel Settlement Trough
(after Boscardin and Cording 1989) Y = (r/2):x? + gt X (6)

-
.., If foundation locations I and 2 are then viewed as points BVC

--
'0

>C

""
3 SEVERE TO V. SEVERE
and EVC in Fig. 9(b), then g2 = 0 since the settlement profile

'" 2
C
~
(f)
(a) (b)

1
!c
0 0
N
'C
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (c) (d)
J:
Angular Distortion, f3 ( x 10 .3) FIG. 8. Examples of Ground Movement Profiles due to:
(a) Open Cut Excavations; (b) Tunneling; (c) Self·Weight; and
FIG. 7. Relationship of Damage to Angular Distortion and Hor· (d) Simple Beam Analogy (Dashed Lines Indicate Profile after
Izontal Extension Strain (after Boscardln and Cording 1989) Movement)

888/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 priate for the case-or graphically. The symmetric deflection
end slopes, VI and V2, can be determined by (8) as shown in
Fig. 9(c) or the central deflection can then be graphically in-
terpreted from an appropriately scaled profile plot.

Radius of Curvature of the Ground Movement Profile

Assuming ground movement profiles consist of parabolic
(8) (b) curves allows determination of deflection slopes and angles,
and maximum deflections; however, these profiles could also
be viewed as a shallow circular arc (Gere and Timoshenko
0- 1974; Burland and Wroth 1975) and the arc radius, R, and
~d~~:::-~~-:: length, 1., are then
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R = (/)/(2 sin 9) (14)

L. =(49R'lT)/(3600) (15)

(c) LOAD-BEARING WALLS

FIG. 9. Geometry and Notation for Deformation of Load-Bear-
Ing Walls: (a) Settlement of Load Bearing Wall; (b) Geometry of
If the structure is composed of long (and relatively flexible)
Vertical Curve and Definitions Used by Anderson and Mikhail load-bearing walls, the deformed wall shape may be assumed
(1985); and (c) Wallin Long Settlement Profile, General Case to follow the approximate shape of the ground deformation
(Boscardin et al. 1979; Boscardin and Cording 1989) with the
becomes tangent to horizontal at the unsettled foundation lo- ends free to rotate to accommodate moment-related bending.
cation and
Location of Neutral Axis and Related Strains
(7)
In this paper it is considered that: (1) a wall's neutral axis
However, 8BVC and 8 remain unknown. For typical ranges of deflects to match the ground movement radius of curvature,
ground movement in relation to building length, these angles as though deforming purely in shear or the ground and wall
are small and the above relationship can be approximated as: are free to move independently; (2) the neutral axis of con-
gl = v! + tJ.S/L (8) ventional unreinforced masonry walls remains at or near the
beam centroid; (3) the neutral axis length initially remains
By substitution of (8) into (5) equal to the original chord length 1; and (4) geometric elon-
gation strains of the ground movement profile are then dis-
o- (v; + tJ.S/L) -v; tJ.S
(9) tributed uniformly throughout the wall as though the founda-
r= L =T - L2
tion and ground distorted equally (see Fig. 10).
substitution of (8) and (9) into (6)
Bending and Shear Strains
y =[ ~! - ~] r + [V! + ~] x (10) Both shear and bending combine to exceed a structure's
capacity to deform without cracking. Therefore, a means of
and, since y = tJ.S at x = L, (10) reduces to provide the rela- determining a relationship between bending and shear defor-
tionship mations and relative wall height is needed. Deflections due to
tJ.S = v;L or rearranged, v; = tJ.S/L (11)
This relationship indicates that the angle formed by the
curve's chord and the horizontal reference is equal to the angle
formed by the chord and tangents. Elementary circular ge-
ometry also proves that the angle formed by the tangent and
chord is bisected by a line drawn between the chord and the I
arc vertex. Therefore, it can reasonably be stated that, for this
R =R
V
max
.vmax(v) R=R
case v v

(12) (a) (b)

If the approximation of 8 (in radians) being equal to v'is
made, then 8 .... tJ.S/L = [3 less the rigid body tilt in this case.
Another special case to consider is that of a simple sagging
or simple hogging profile with no relative movement at the
ends and a maximum central deflection [as shown in Fig.
8(d)]. In this case g2 = -gh and since at the midspan x = U
2, and y = V maxo (6) reduces to I

V max .. V max(M) R vmax =Vmax(M)

V max = v;U4 (13) M

In the more general case, once a movement profile can be (e) (d)
estimated, the slopes at the ends of a particular structure seg- FIG. 10. Modes of Deformation and Associated Strains:
ment (i.e. gl and g2) can be determined either numerically- (a) Shear Only; (b) Shear and Ground Elongation; (c) Moment
according to the theoretical or empirical computations appro- Only; and (d) Moment and Ground Elongation

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996/889

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 - - ElG=2.4 ---- EIG = 12.5
6.,.----r--r---------,
\\18.._ 9

~
"
j 5 1
1

'I/
Sh••r /
4
a)
l! 3

I 2
1
1
1
dx

z~
1
1
1 FIG. 13. Deformation of Material Element (after Gere and TI-
0
moshenko 1974)
100

"0
C
I
0::
80

60
for the neutral axis occurring at the centroid of the wall. Bend-
ing tensile strain is thus
b)
~ l!
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(18)
Do J 40

20 Shear Strain
0
Shear strain, 'Y, is defined as a measure of distortion, or
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 change in shape, of a material element in units of radians (see
VH Fig. 13). Shear strain is calculated as tan-Iv' based on the
FIG. 11. Moment and Shear Contributions to Deflection In Re- deflection resulting only from shear. In this paper shear strain
lation to L/H: (a) Normalized Deflection of Individual Shear and is presented as tan 'Y since data relating to shear deformations
Moment Deflections; (b) Proportion of Total Deflection due to is often presented as such a ratio.
Moment and Shear

10
Strain due to Elongation of Ground Movement Profile
Walla with cracks Conservatively, it can be considered that ground strains due
S
x
to elongation of the settlement profile will be experienced by
....
""0
6 the foundation (ignoring slip between foundation and ground)
....>< • and elongation strain, Eg , can be assumed to equal
4
••
Walls with no cracks
Eg = (/ g - 1)11 (19)
2
where Ig is determined in (13) through (15) using the maxi-
0 • mum deflection of the ground movement profile as a basis for
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 determining relevant angles and slopes.
UH FRAMED STRUCTURES
FIG. 12. Relative Deflection In Relation to L/H and Building
Damage (after Polshln and Tokar 1957) Due to the greater tensile resistance of frame buildings, de-
formation is expected to primarily result from differential ver-
shear and bending may be superposed (Gere and Timoshenko tical movement of columns. Since many columns may be in
1974) and, for a uniformly loaded simple beam sagging or hogging zones, tilt of the building must also be
considered separately and subtracted from the deformation due
Vma>< = (5qL4 )/(384EI) + (3qL2 )/(16GA) (16) to differential column settlement. Tilt is assumed equal to the
where the first term represents deflection due to flexure and slope of the chord between endpoints of symmetric ground
the second represents deflection due to shear. After normal- movement profile segments. While these assumptions are sim-
izing deflection components by the factor (bE)/q, assuming plistic, they provide a readily implemented approach for initial
assessments of potential frame building damage.
that the beam is isotropically elastic, and assuming a Poisson's
ratio of about 0.2 (for normal concrete), the variation of bend-
ing and shear components of deflection per unit length relative Fixed-End Beams
to liB and total deflection are illustrated by Fig. 11. The crit- The deflected shape of fixed end beams (i.e. those of rein-
ical factor in deflection switches from shear to moment at liB forced concrete frames), subject to settlement at one end, will
equal to about 1.7, close to the point of change (about 2) in
Polshin and Tokar's damage envelope shown in Fig. 12. After / for Infill walls
y
determining the respective values of Vmax(V) and Vmax(M) by using
Fig. II(b), (13) can again be used to back-calculate v~ and
v~ and subsequently, the moment radius of curvature, R M , and
shear distortion.

Bending Strain
After determining the proportion of total deflection accom-
modated by bending, the distorted length due to tension of the
extreme fiber by bending (1M') can be determined by geometry.
For example, the strained length of walls undergoing hogging
deformation with the critical strain occurring at the wall top (a) (b)
can be calculated by
FIG. 14. Geometry of Beams and InfllllPanel Walls: <a> Fixed
(17) End Beam Frame; (b) Simple Beam Frame

890 I JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I NOVEMBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 resemble an elongated S with an inflection point at the mid-
span (see Fig. 14). For this case, it can also be shown again
that v' =M/L; however, the minimum radius of curvature will
be half of that for a simple wall modeled as a beam equal
length and equal differential settlement. Therefore, in com-
pleting analyses of fixed end beams using the above methods,
calculation of the l/H ratio, radius of curvature, and central
deflection must be based on 0.51.
Infill and Panel Walls of Framed Structures
For walls framed by beams and columns, rotation and elon-
gation at either end will be restrained by the adjacent column
and the neighboring infill walls, and distortion governed by
the nearly parallel deformation of the bounding beams. For
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sonry and concrete building materials is likely to occur at
much smaller values than Ec• Polshin and Tokar (1956) first
provided a value of 0.05% as the elongation where cracking
of brickwork was first observed in actual walls. Other authors
have considered critical cracking strain, and their data is sum-
marized in Table I, although the definition of when a crack
becomes evident is subjective and the values do not necessar-
ily represent the same conditions. Based on Table 1 it can be
concluded that
1. of approximately 0.02% to 0.03% can result in hairline
Ec
cracks (typically < 1 mm);
2. Ec of approximately 0.05% can result in cracks which are
more evident and could be seen during cursory inspec-

tion of a structure;
infill walls bound by fixed-end beams and columns, it is rea- 3. Shear strains of approximately 0.1 % can produce cracks
sonable to expect that the deformed shape could be approxi- evident as in No.2 preceding; and
mated as shown in Fig. 14(a). Since end rotation is restricted 4. Critical shear strains are roughly twice the values of Ec
and the wall is forced to conform to the beam's deformed for equal definitions of critical.
shape, the wall itself will experience the greatest deformation
between the wall quarter points with a maximum shear at the Cracks in buildings subject to ground movement associated
wall midspan equal to 2t:..s/L (excluding tilt), or twice the an- deformations often form diagonal patterns, typically referred
gular distortion as defined by Skempton and MacDonald to as shear cracking. A diagram of the principle stress trajec-
(1956). For infill walls supported by simple beams and col- tories in a beam (Fig. 15) indicates that tensile cracking will
umns (i.e. steel beam/girder construction), a deformed shape occur perpendicular to the tension lines, diagonal to the
resembling a rhombus as shown in Fig. 14(b) could be ex- beam's length where the trajectories cross the neutral axis, and
pected. The shear strain in this case (as tan -y), will equal at some distance from the beam ends. Using Ec and -y values
Skempton and MacDonald's definition of angular distortion of 0.05% and 0.1 %, a critical principal tensile strain can be
(excluding tilt). In both cases shear will likely be the predom- determined by plane-strain relationships given by Gere and
inant mode of strain deformation. Timoshenko (1974):
DIRECT LATERAL EXTENSION OF WALLS AND y'
FRAMES E, =-E,+Ey
2- + [(Ex - Ey)l2l
2
+ (-Yxyl2)
2
(20)

Direct lateral extension strains, Ele, may be caused by hori- resulting in a value of about 0.081 %, which is consistent with
zontal ground movements behind retaining systems, near tun-
neling, or above deep mining. Therefore, Ele must be added to
the tensile strains calculated as outlined above. Horizontal
movements due to such causes have been discussed in detail
by authors including Goldberg et al. (1976) O'Rourke et al.
(1976); O'Reilly and New (1982) Attewell et al. (1986); Lit-
tlejohn (l974a,b), and Boscardin and Cording (1989).

CRITICAL STRAINS OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND

CRACK SEVERITY
FIG. 15. Principle Stress TraJectories In Simple Besm [Dashed
Critical tensile strain, E" represents the tensile strain at Lines Represent Compression and Solid Lines Represent Ten-
which cracking becomes evident. Actual tensile failure of ma- sion (sfter Gere and Tlmoshenko 1974)]

TABLE 1. Summary of Critical Cracking Strain Data

Test conditions Mode of deformation Critical strain" Source
(1 ) (2) (3) (4)
Brick buildings with UH > 3 Tensile from flexure 0.05% Polshin and Tokar (1956)
Full scale frames with brick infill Diagonal-tensile 0.081% to 0.137% Mainstone (1971), Mainstone and Weeks (1970)b
Shear approximation 0.16% to 0.27%
Hollow tile and clinker block, brickwork Shear distortions 0.22% and 0.33% As previous
Hollow tile and clinker block, brickwork Diagonal-tensile 0.11% to 0.16% As previous
Full scale brick walls with supporting concrete Tensile from flexure 0.038% to 0.06% Burhouse (I 969)b
beams, 1.2 < LIH < 3.0
Concrete beams supporting brick walls Tensile from flexure 0.035% Burhouse (1969)b
Fiberboard or polywood on wood frame Shear strain 0.6% to 1.66% U.S. National Bureau of Standards in Bozozuk (1962)
Gypsum/fiberboard/plaster on wood frame Shear strain 0.37% to 0.7% As previous
Structural clay tiles with cement-line Shear strain 0.1% As previous
Clay brick with cement-lime mortar Shear strain 0.1% to 0.2% As previous
Cement-line mortared concrete blocks Shear strain 0.1% As previous
Core samples of brick and mortar Tension 0.001% to 0.01% Frishmann et al. (1994)"
Full-scale brick walls in field test Tension 0.02% to 0.03% Littlejohn (1974a.b)
Reevaluation of full-scale wall panel tests Principle tensile 0.02% to 0.03% Mainstone (1974)
·Stram at which cracking first occurs.
bAs deduced by Burland and Wroth (1975).
CLower values represent failure along poorly mixed mortar joints.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996/891

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 TABLE 2. Severity of Cracking Damage (after Burland et al. 1977)
Damage category Description of typical damage Approximate crack width
(1 ) (2) (3)
Negligible (0) Hairline cracks. <0.1 mm
Very slight (I) Very slight damage includes fine cracks that can be easily treated during nonnal 1 mm
decoration, perhaps an isolated slight fracture in building, and cracks in external
brickwork visible on close inspection.
Slight (2) Slight damage includes cracks that can be easily filled and redecoration would 5 mm
probably be required; several slight fractures may appear showing the inside of
the building; cracks that are visible externally and some repointing may be re-
quired; and doors and windows may stick.
Moderate (3) Moderate damage includes cracks that require some opening up and can be patched 5 to 15 mm or a number of cracks
by a mason; recurrent cracks that can be masked by suitable linings; repointing >3 mm
of external brickwork and possibly a small amount of brickwork replacement
may be required; doors and windows stick; service pipes may fracture; and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

weather-tightness is often impaired.

Severe (4) Severe damage includes large cracks requiring extensive repair work involving 15 to 25 mm but also depends on
breaking-out and replacing sections of walls (especially over doors and windows); number of cracks
distorted windows and door frames; noticeably sloping floors; leaning or bulging
walls; some loss of bearing in beams; and disrupted service pipes.
Very severe (5) Very severe damage often requires a major repair job involving partial or complete Usually >25 mm but also depends
rebuilding; beams lose bearing; walls lean and require shoring; windows are on number of cracks
broken with distortion; and there is danger of structural instability.

the diagonal tensile strain reported in Table 1 (where Ex rep- (1977) " ... it must be emphasised that the classification [in
resents tensile strain along the longitudinal axis and Ev """ 0). Table 2] relates only to visible or aesthetic damage. In situa-
Since shear and bending-related deformation are assessed tions where cracking may permit corrosion or allow penetra-
separately, it is necessary to evaluate possible building damage tion or leakage of liquids or gases, the criteria are, of course
according to the bending, shear, lateral extension, and com- much more stringent," and crack width should not form the
bined strains. This is especially important for buildings in the only basis for judgment.
approximate range of 1 < liB < 4. Eq. (20) may be applied to
approximate the maximum principle tensile strain, Ep , for the INITIAL ASSESSMENTS OF BUILDING DAMAGE
particular building element provided that the appropriate pro-
portion of total tensile strain, E" is used. Since equivalent shear Suggested steps for initial assessments of existing or pos-
strains will occur at the ends of load bearing walls and E, is sible building damage are briefly outlined next. The simple
experienced along the full segment length, O.5E, is considered Wan Langlh (m)
appropriate in (20) in place of Ex. For infill walls bound by
fixed-end or simply supported beams, O.5E, and 1.0E" respec- o -T--i--i-';""-T-~;;-:;:-:;:""':; DAMAGE TO FRONT OF BLOCK B
lD
20
tively, are considered appropriate for similar geometry reasons.
Once individual shear and combined principle tensile strains
are calculated, the totals can be compared to Table 1 values
.
2D

10 Bl.OCK B· FRONT E!.EVATION PROFILE

to judge the likelihood of cracking. An approximation of dam-

• 2
age may then be made assuming that total crack width will f ~ i-""",:i;::::t;:::j':':::-T:""";;-T--T--;
equal the total strain, which is easily calculated for cases of
bending at the extreme fiber. Cracking of structures deforming
i 1:: A 8 ---
principally in shear will likely follow irregular patterns I ~:: BLOCK B • REAR MOVEMENT PROFILE

through masonry, mortar joints, and/or other discontinuities

along the principle stress trajectories. Although Ep could be o-;•...,.;:2--;;.--T.--T.-.:;1.:....,;r12:....,;r'•.....:;."....:1I; .'= .............""-_-..:<::.::.1.....
used to approximate the potential crack width and severity, the ••
1•• ---------------- DAMAGE TO REAR OF BLOCK a
length over which the strain will occur is difficult to define in 11.
simple terms and depends on many factors including height, 20. BLOCK C - FRONT MOVEMeNT PROFILE

length, openings, and loading conditions; however, for sim- FIG. 16. Building Damage due to Settlement (after Wilson
plicity, Ep for load-bearing walls and infill walls supported by et al. 1984) (Dashed Lines Indicate Tilt and Dotted Line Indicates
fixed-end beams may be applied to an equivalent diagonal Smooth Deflection Curve as Defined for This Paper)
length based on the building element height and length ap-
proximated by
2 0 0 0
ld = V(l/2i + H (21a)
O 0 0
e-
and for infill walls supported by simple beams
ld = Vl
2
+ H
2
(2lb)
..
.§.
c
CII
25
20
0 0 0

e 15
illustrated in Fig. 14. Burland et al. (1977) presented a table
of damage category according to crack widths (see Table 2).
While the total strain may indicate the total width of all cracks
I
ii 5
10

I.l 0
along the strained length, substantial judgment is required to 1:
assess the distribution and number of cracks that might occur ~
in a given structure. Little information is available considering FIG. 17. Building Damage due to Heave (after Cheney and
this particular aspect of the subject; although the values in Burford 1974) (Dashed Lines Indicate Tilt and Dotted Line Indi-
Table 2 serve as a general guide. As noted by Burland et al. cates Smooth Deflection Curve as Defined for This Paper)

892/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 TABLE 3. Case History and Evaluation Data
L tan 'Y
H Vmox V(%) Construction and £, £p Reported damage and category
Case (m) (mm)b M(%) cause of movement" (%) (%) (0 to 5 see Table 2)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1. Burhouse (1969) brick wall 3.66 5.2 15 BTW,N 0.09 0.08 Brick crushing, crack initiation (2)
0.90 S 85 Load test 0.12
1. Burhouse (1969) beam 3.66 5.2 1 Load test 0.01 0.02 Brick crushing, crack initiation (2)
0.30 S 99 0.05
2. Four Story Bldg. (pers. records) 6.10 19.1 97 BBW, SS 1.21 0.63 Cracks >25 mm, frequent realignment of ele-
18.30 H 3 SRS 0.11 vators, severe window & floor distortion (5)
3. Cheney and Burford (1974), A 16.00 2.0 22 BBW, SS 0.01 0.02 Undamaged end of building (0 to I)
8.30 H 78 Clay swell 0.04
3. Cheney and Burford (1974), B 29.00 20.0 81 BBW, SS 0.06 0.05 Cracked windows, electrical conduit failure,
8.30 19 Clay swell 0.05 draughts through walls (3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

S
4. Terzaghi (1935) Wall Ad 5.90 6.0 99 BBW, MT 0.45 0.23 (5)
26.00 H I Fill consolidation 0.02
4. Terzaghi (1935) Wall B 8.50 15.0 97 BBW, MT 0.68 0.36 (5)
26.00 S 3 Fill consol. 0.06
5. Fjeld (1964) infill wall 11-J2, 9.0 52.0 100 BIWF, SS 0.15 0.07 Cracks, loss of weather-tightness, equipment
lst floor 5.25 D,43 0 Clay consolidation - relevelling, tilting floors (3)
5. Fjeld (1964) beam 11-J2, lst 9.0 52.0 19 RCFB 0.03 0.03 Uncracked (0)
floor 1.3 D,43 81 RCFB 0.04
5. Fjeld (1964) beam 11-J2 9.0 50.0 3 RCFB 0.00 0.01 Uncracked (0)
0.7 D,43 97 0.02
5. Fjeld (1964) beam D4-E4, lst 4.8 6.0 7 RCFB 0.03 0.10 Cracked (2)
floor 1.3 D,51 93 0.19
5. Fjeld (1964) beam D4-E4, 2nd 4.8 6.0 12 RCFB 0.05 0.06 Uncracked (0)
floor 0.5 D,51 88 0.07
6. Littlejohn (1974) struct. I, 0.61'" 15.2 1.0 I BTW, SS 0.00 < Crack 0.1 mm to 0.26 mm extended up from
1.22 H 99 Deep mining 0.01 om base of wall 0.66 m (1)
6. Littlejohn (1974) struct. I, l.lr 15.2 6.0 I BTW, SS 0.00 0.01 Crack 0.92 mm, subsequent closure between
1.22 H 99 Deep mining 0.02 l.lr and 1.5r (2)
6. Littlejohn (1974) struct. I, 1.6r 15.2 10.5 I BTW, SS 0.00 0.02 Crack extension to top of wall, 0.5 mm to
1.22 H 99 Deep mining 0.03 2.5 mm wide (2)
6. Littlejohn (1974) struct. I, 2.lr 15.2 17.0 I BTW, SS 0.00 0.04 Crack width 13.2 mm to 14.0 mm (3)
1.22 H 99 Deep mining 0.07
6. Littlejohn (1974) struct. 2, 0.6r 30.4 1.0 I BTW, SS 0.00 < Aesthetic damage (1)
1.22 H 99 Deep mining 0.01 0.01
7. Golder Assoc. (1994) files 17.3 26.0 3 BBW, MT 0.02 0.04 Sloping floors, cracks about 12 nun wide,
2.5 H 97 Organic consolidation 0.08 malfunctioning plumbing (3)
8. Peck et al. (1956) 3.66 3.2 90 RCBW, P 0.31 0.17 Cracking stopped construction, cracks >6
6.0 H 10 Clay consolidation 0.06 mm, reinforcement bond failure (3)
9. Wilson et al. (1984) block B 2.8 2.0 92 BBW, SS 0.26 0.14 Moderate crack widths, tilting walls, ill-fitting
fro A 6.0 S 8 Peak consolidation 0.05 doors and windows (3)
9. Wilson et al. (1984) block B 2.9 7.0 92 BBW, SS 0.88 0.48 Moderate to severe crack widths, tilting
fr.B 6.0 H 8 Peat control 0.15 walls, ill-fitting doors and windows (4)
9. Wilson et al. (1984) block B 3.3 6.0 90 BBW, SS 0.36 0.36 As previous
fro C 6.0 S 10 Peat control 0.13
9. Wilson et al. (1984) block B 1.7 3.0 97 BBW, SS 0.68 0.36 As previous
fro D 6.0 H 3 Peat control 0.07
9. Wilson et al. (1984) block B 1.7 8.0 97 BBW, SS 0.46 0.90 As previous
rear A 6.0 S 3 Peat control 0.05
9. Wilson et al. (1984) block B 4.0 16.0 88 BBW, SS 1.40 0.86 As previous
rear B 6.0 H 12 Peat control 0.29
9. Wilson et al. (1984) block C 18.0 55.0 24 BBW, SS 0.29 0.24 Most severe sagging damage, brickwork "over-
6.0 S 76 Peat control 0.31 sailed" foundation by 40 mm (4)
10. MacLeodlPaul (1984) Block 20 8.5 3.5 86 BBW, MT 0.14 0.08 Cracks up to 2 mm wide around window
12.6 S 14 Clay consolidation 0.13 openings (2)
10. MacLeodlPaul (1984) Block 21 22.0 1.5 50 BBW, MT 0.01 0.01 Cracks up to 22 mm wide around window
13.4 S 50 Clay consolidation 0.01 openings (2)
10. MacLeodlPaul (1984) Block 2 18.0 36.0 36 BBW, MT 0.29 0.21 Opening of expansion joints, cracking at wall
7.8 H 64 Clay consolidation 0.22 & ceiling joints, external cracking obscured
by finish (4)
10. MacLeodlPaul (1984) Block 7 11.0 8.0 58 BBW, MT 0.17 0.11 As previous, visible cracks up to 7 nun (3)
7.8 H 42 Clay consolidation 0.09
11. Driscoll (1983) rear of bldg 8.75 16.0 47 BBW, SS 0.34 0.24 Large window and door gaps, crushing of
5.4 S 53 Clay swell 0.24 brick, tension cracks, reconstruction of 1st
floor wall (4)
12. Driscoll (1983) gable wall 13.0 5.0 33 BBW, SS 0.05 0.04 Cracks up to 2.5 nun (2)
5.4 H 67 Clay swell 0.04
13. Harris et al. (1994) WCL 22.1 3.2 10 Brick tunnel 0.01 0.01 No damage (0) to (1)
4.5 S 90 Tunnelling 0.01
14. BrandlLuang (1975) A6-A5 10.0 60.0 100 BIWF, P 1.00 0.51 Cracking which widened rapidly, frequent re-
3.75 D,I8 - Downdrag - pairs, loss of weather-tightness (3) to (4)
14. BrandlLuang (1975) A6-B6 10.0 10.0 100 BIWF, P 0.13 0.06 Cracked (2) to (3)
3.75 D,7.5 - Downdrag -

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996 I 893

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 TABLE 3 (Continued)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
15. Webb (1974) beam PI0-P8 12.2 69.0 99 RCFB 0.01 0.03 Cracked edge beam. columns periodically
""0.6 D.O 1 Clay shear 0.06 jacked after cracking (2)
15. Webb (1974) beam 08-PSA 7.39 54.0 96 RCFB O.oI 0.02 Uncracked (0) to (1)
""0.6 D.46 4 Clay shear 0.04
16. Boscardin et al. (1979). 1 5.8 2.0 96 RCFB. SS 0.00 0.01 Undamaged (0) to (1)
1.6 D,2.7 4 Open cut 0.02
17. Boscardin et al. (1979), B 5.3 10.2 100 BIFW, SS 0.04 0.02 Undamaged (0) to (1)
""4.0 D,15 - Open cut -
18. Boscardin et al. (1979), C 10.7 6.4 80 BBW, SS 0.19 0.14 Walls/ceiling cracks >6 mm, plaster spalls,
12.5 H 20 Tunnelling 0.15 shoring of vault roofs (4)
18. Boscardin et al. (1979), C 10.7 2.5 80 BBW, SS 0.07 0.04 As previous, except less severe (3)
12.5 S 20 Tunnelling 0.Q3
19. Boscardin et al. (1979), D 6.0 18.8 93 BBW, SS 1.17 0.72 Severely distorted windows. walls and floors.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

13.5 H 7 Tunnelling 0.49 many cracks >25 rom. bldg. condemned (5)
20. O'Rourke et al. (1976), 6 sty. 3.0 8.5 100 BIWS, SS 0.13 0.12 Architectural damage (2)
3.0 D,15 - Open cut 0.11
"Full length of beam or wall. fixed end beam length used in calculations = 1/2 of stated value.
bS = sag. H = hog. D = differential settlement of columns and tilt x 1 X 104 •
cBBW = brick/block bearing wall. BIWF = brick/block infill wall with fixed-end frame, BIWS = brick/block infill wall with simple beam frame,
RCFB = reinforced concrete frame beam. RCBW = reinforced concrete bearing wall, BTW = brick test wall. SS = shallow spread foundations, P = piles.
MT = mat. raft or thickened slab. SRS = soil removal by sumps and pumps.
"Damage category based on prevalence of cracking in original figure.
aDirect tensile strain of foundation included.

Negligible • Slight • Severe

geometric formulas and strain calculations can be implemented
o Very slight • Moderate • Very Severe
using conventional spreadsheet computer software once V maxo
tilt, and ti.S values are determined (numerically or graphically). 25 -r--"",==~---'---""""--"""'--"""

Load Bearing and Infill Walls ·i

9:
1. Divide the ground movement profile into relatively
symmetrical sagging and hogging zones delineated by
inflection and tangent points, and limits of the structure isevere
(see examples in Figs. 16 and 17), and for framed struc-
tures, also determine the settlement of individual col-
umns and tilt (see Fig. 3).
2a. Load Bearing Walls
• Determine v' and V max for each segment, the appro- .... ~ i'"
priate shear and moment V max percentage by Fig.
II(b), and Vmax(V) and Vmax(M)' .3
• Calculate tan "Y (which equals v~).
Determine eM and RM for each segment and calculate
tensile strain along extreme fiber (top or bottom of
wall depending on hogging or sagging profile, re-
spectively).
2b. Infill Walls of Frame Structures 0-+a-~-=liJF---+----I---+--~
'.
: 6
. .
:Slight & V. ;Slight

• Determine the approximate shear strain by: tan 'Y = o 5 10 15 20 25

ti.S/i-tilt for panels or infill walls bound by simply
supported beams; and tan 'Y = 2ti.S/i-tilt for frames
consisting of fixed-end beams.
• Calculate the elongation of the building element for-
ced by the supporting beam shape changes, although
in most cases this strain will be negligible.
3. Calculate total tensile strain: E, = EM + Eg + Ele •
4. Calculate the approximate Ep by (20) using 1/2 of E, for
load bearing walls and infill/panel walls supported by
fixed-end beams, and E, for infill/panel walls supported
by simple beams.
5. Separately compare E" tan "Y, and Ep to Table 1 values
to determine if cracking is likely.
6. Approximate the total crack width by assuming the total
strains multiplied by the lengths i and i d equal the lon-
gitudinal and diagonal crack widths and use Table 2 to
estimate damage severity.
Fixed-End Frame Beams
Assessment of fixed-end frame beams can be carried out
similarly to the steps outlined before except the geometry will
894/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1996
Estimated Crack Width Due to E, (mm)
FIG. 18. Estimated Crack Widths and Reported Damage of
Cases Evaluated; Very Severe Damage Estimates for Cases 2, 9,
11, 14, and 19 Out of Range of Plot
be defined by the deflected beam shape rather than the ground
movement profile and the neutral axis should be determined
based on knowledge of the beam construction, since beam
reinforcement will shift the axis. Tilt must also be subtracted
from the values of Vi for frame beams since these will typi-
cally be located at intervals within the symmetric sag or hog
profile. Note that tilt is accounted for in determination of v'
for load-bearing walls by geometry.
CASE HISTORY EVALUATION AND COMPARISON TO
REPORTED DAMAGE
A number of case histories have been examined using the
methods outlined in this paper. Building data, comments on
construction, reported damage, and evaluation results are pre-

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896

 sented in Table 3 and Fig. 18. Figs. 3. 16. and 17 illustrate
deformation, damage. and evaluation geometry for selected
case histories. All examples assumed EIG between 2.4 and 2.6,
no account was taken of global EIG values that incorporated
effects of openings or composite materials, and that the neutral
axis occurs at the midheight of the bending building segment.
Where brick or block bearing walls included a damp-proof
course the height was taken from the damp-proof course to
the wall top. Severity categories of Fig. 18 were based on
those of Table 2. While the estimates of potential crack width
indicate slight damage to structures that had no reported dam-
age. the calculation results listed in Table 3 indicate that strains
would be below those generally considered critical for crack-
ing and damage could therefore be considered unlikely. Fig.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
18 illustrates the favorable comparison between damage esti-
mated using the methods outlined in this paper and reported
damage.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of single criteria. such as angular distortion, for
assessing building damage excludes many important factors.
The single parameter approach to evaluation of settlement
damage potential, while attractive for its simplicity, may be
better substituted with consistent definitions of problem ge-
ometry and methods for determining the effects of structure
geometry changes induced by ground movement. The pro-
posed damage assessment approach is presented in a separated
form so that various factors governing: flexural and shear stiff-
ness of building sections; nature of the ground movement pro-
file; location of the building within the settlement profile; de-
gree of slip between the foundation and ground; and building
configuration can be logically assessed. If crack width is ac-
cepted as an indicator of damage severity, assessment methods
should attempt to estimate or predict crack width directly.
Given the subjective nature of the reported damage, reeval-
uated case histories show reasonable agreement between esti-
mated and actual damage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer is grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments
and suggestions made during the review of this paper and Andrea Holden
for her invaluable editing assistance during preparation of the final man-
uscript.
APPENDIX I. DAMAGE PARAMETERS OF PRIOR
WORKS
Prior building damage parameters and notation are listed
chronologically below.
AIL: Central Deflection Ratio-maximum deflection between
the curved beam deflection line and the straight line be-
tween the two end points. or the chord. divided by the
chord length (Meyerhof 1953).
81l: Angular Distortion-differential settlement between two
points divided by the distance between them less the tilt,
where tilt = rotation of entire building (Skempton and
MacDonald 1956).
f: Relative Deflection-"... comprising the ratio of de-
flection to the length of the deflected part ..." (Polshin
and Tokar 1957) and equivalent to ~L.
13: Inclination of levelled groove as related to infill wall
panel-(Fjeld 1964). See Fig. 2.
a: Inclination of levelled groove as related to horizontal-
(Fjeld 1964). See Fig. 2.
"/: Inclination of panel as a whole to building as a whole
-(Fjeld 1964). See Fig. 2.
'&IL: Settlement Distortion-maximum deflection between
the settlement curve and the chord joining the two end
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I NOVEMBER 1996/895
J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896
points divided by the chord length (Hom and Lambe
1964) and equivalent to ~L.
~L: Deflection Ratio-(Burland and Wroth 1975). equiva-
lent to Meyerhof' s definition.
13: Relative Rotation-rotation of the straight line joining
two reference points relative to the tilt, where tilt =rigid
rotation of whole building or well defined part of it (Bur-
land and Wroth 1975).
'&/1: Maximum Net Slope of Deflection Curve-(Grant et al.
1974).
A: Curvature Parameter-maximum deflection between the
settlement curve and the chord joining the two endpoints
divided by the chord length (Grant et al. 1974).
13: Angular Distortion-the maximum change in slope
along the beam. or the slope at the support (Boscardin
and Cording 1989).
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES
Anderson, J. M., and Mikhail, E. M. (1985). Introduction to surveying,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
Attewell, P. B., Yeates, J., and Selby, A. R. (1986). Soil movements in-
duced by tunnelling and their effects on pipelines and structures.
Blackie and Sons Ltd., London, England.
Bjerrum, L. (1963). "Discussion on 'Proceedings of the european con-
ference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. Ill.' " Nor-
wegian Geotech. Inst. Publ. No. 98, Oslo, Norway, 1-3.
Boscardin, M. D., and Cording, E. J. (1989). "Building response to
excavation-induced settlement." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 115(1),
1-21.
Boscardin, M. D., Cording, E. J., and O'Rourke, T. D. (1979). "Case
studies of building behavior in response to adjacent excavation."
U.S.D.D.T. Rep. No. UMTA-IL-06-0043-78-2, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Bozozuk, M. (1962). "Soil shrinkage damages shallow foundations at
Ottawa Canada." The Engrg. J., Canada, 33-37.
Brand, E. w., and Luangdilok, N. (1975). "A long term foundation failure
caused by dragdown on piles." Proc.. 4th Southeast Asian Con! on
Soil Engrg., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 4, 15-24.
Brierley, G. (1988). "Discussion on 'The risks associated with tunnelling
projects.''' Tunnelling Technol. Newsletter, No. 64, U.S. Nat. Com. on
Tunnelling Technol., Washington, D.C., 1-5.
Burhouse, J. (1969). "Composite action between brick panel walls and
their supporting beams." Proc.• Inst. of Civ. Engrs., Part /ll, The In-
stitution of Civ. Engrs., London, England, 782-783.
Burland, J. B., and Wroth, C. P. (1975). "Settlement of buildings and
associated damage." Build. Res. Establishment Current Paper, 33(75),
Building Research Establishment, Watford, England.
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B., and DeMello, V. F. B. (1977). "Behavior
of foundations and structures: state of the art report." Pmc.• 9th Int.
Con! on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Japanese Geotech. Soc., To-
kyo, Japan, 495-546.
Cheney, 1. E., and Burford, D. (1974). "Damaging uplift to a three-story
office block constructed on a clay soil following the removal of trees."
Proc.. Con! on Settlement of Struct., British Geotech. Soc., London,
England,337-343.
Cording, E. 1., O'Rourke, T. D., and Boscardin, M. D. (1978). "Ground
movements and damage to structures." Proc., Int. Cont on Evaluation
and Prediction of Subsidence, Pensacola Beach, Fla., 516-537.
Driscoll, R. (1983). "The Influence of vegetation on the swelling and
shrinking of clay soils in Britain." Glotechnique, London, England,
33(2), 93-105.
Fjeld, S. (1963). "Settlement damage to a concrete-framed structure."
Proc.• Eur. Con/. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.• Vol. I, Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway, 37 -45.
Frischmann, W. w., Hellings, J. E., and Snowden, C. (1994). "Protection
of the mansion house against damage caused by ground movements
due to the docklands light railway extension." Proc., Inst. of Civ.
Engrg., The Institution of Civ. Engrs., London, England, 65 - 76.
Gere, J. M., and Timoshenko, S. (1984). Mechanics of materials. 2nd Ed.
TWS Publishers, Boston, Mass.
Goldberg, D. T., Jawarski, W. E., and Gordon, M. D. (1976). "Lateral
support systems and underpinning, volume II." U.S. Fed. Hwy. Admin.
Rep. No. FHWA-RD-75-129, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Washington,
D.C.
Grant, R., Christian, J. T., and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1974). "Differential
 settlement of buildings." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 100(9),
973-991.
Harris, D. I., Mair, R. J., Love, J. P., Taylor, R. N., and Henderson, T.
O. (1994). "Observations of ground and structure movement for com-
pensation grouting during tunnel construction at Waterloo Station."
Geotechnique, London, England, 44(4), 691-713.
Hom, H. M., and Lambe, T. W. (1964). "Settlement of buildings on the
MIT campus." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 90(5),181-196.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V. (1979). Soil mechanics, SI version.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
Littlejohn, G. S. (1974a). "Observations of brick walls subjected to min-
ing subsidence." Proc., Con! on Settlement of Struct., British Geotech.
Soc., London, England, 384-393.
Littlejohn, G. S. (1974b). "Discussion on 'Proceedings of the conference
on settlement of structures.' " British Geotech. Soc., London, England,
764-767.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 11/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Webb, D. L. (1974). "Observed settlement and cracking of a reinforced
concrete structure founded on clay." Proc., Con! on Settlement of
Struct., British Geotech. Soc., London, England, 443-450.
Williams, G. M. J. (1956). "Discussion on 'Allowable settlements of
buildings.'" Proc., Inst. of Civ. Engrs., Part lll, The Institution of Civ.
Engrs., London, England, 772-773.
Wilson, J. G., Garwood, T. G., and Sarsby, R. W. (1984). "The settlement
of low buildings constructed over peat." Proc., Con! on Large Ground
Movements and Struct., J. D. Geddes, ed., Pentech Press, London, Eng-
land, 527 -538.
APPENDIX III. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A = cross section area, for rectangular section A = bH,

MacLeod, I. A., and Paul, J. G. (1984). "Settlement monitoring of build-

ings in central Scotland." Geotechnique, London, England, 34(1), b = beam width;
99-117. BVC, EVC = bottom and end points of vertical curve;
Mainstone, R. J. (1971). "On the stiffness and strengths of infilled E,G = modulus of elasticity, shear modulus;
frames." Proc. Inst. ofCiv. Engrs., Supplemental Vol. IV, Paper 7360S,
The Institution of Civ. Engrs., London, England, 57 -90. g = slope, or grade, of line tangent to vertical para-
Mainstone, R. J. (1974). "Discussion on 'Proceedings of the conference bolic curve related to horizontal;
on settlement of structures.'" Cambridge, 771-773. I = moment of inertia, for rectangular section I =
Mainstone, R. J., and Weeks, G. A. (1970). "The influence of a bounding (bH 3 )/12;
frame on the racking stiffness and strengths of brick walls." Proc., 2nd L = original span length;
Int. Brick and Masonry Con!, Build. Res. Establishment, Watford, I length of straight line (chord) between curve end-
England, 165-171. points;
Meyerhof, G. G. (1953). "Some recent foundation research and its ap- lengths of a circular arc and arc of ground profile
plication to design." The Struct. Engr., 31(6), 151-167.
I•• Ig
Meyerhof, G. G. (1947). "The settlement analysis of building frames." bound by the endpoints of I;
The Struct. Engr., 25(8), 369. IMI , IMe length of tension and compression side of beam
New, B. M., and O'Reilly, M. P. (1991). "Tunnelling induced ground due to moment induced bending of I;
movements; predicting their magnitude and effects." Proc., 4th Int. INA length along arc of neutral axis I;
Con! on Ground Movements and Struct., J. D. Geddes, ed., Pentech M, V = moment and shear;
Press, London, England, 671- 697. q uniformly distributed load;
Nicholson, D. P. (1987). "The design and performance of retaining walls RM, RNA = radii of curvature for moment portion of total de-
at Newton Station." Proc., Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Con!, Sin- flection and of the neutral axis;
gapore Mass Transit Corporation, Singapore, 147 -154.
O'Reilly, M. P., and New, B. M. (1982). "Settlements above tunnels in liS = differential settlement between endpoints of I;
the United Kingdom-their magnitude and prediction." Tunnelling -y = shear strain defined as a measure of distortion in
'82, M. J. Jones, ed., London, England, 173-181. units of radians (tan -y = v(V»;
O'Rourke, T. D., Cording, E. D., and Boscardin, M. (1976). "The ground Ee = critical tensile strain;
movements related to braced excavations and their influence on adja- Eg = strain due to elongation of the ground along the
cent structures." Rep. No. DOT-TST 76T-23, U.s. Dept. of Transp., curved profile;
Washington, D.C. Ele direct lateral extension strain, Eh as used by Bos-
Peck, R. B. (1969). "Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground: cardin and Cording (1989);
state of the art report." Proc., 7th Int. Con! on Soil Mech. and Found.
EM tensile strain due to moment induced bending, ei-
Engrg., Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Instituto de In-
genira, Mexico City, Mexico, 225-290. ther + for tension or - for compression;
principle tensile strain, and total tensile strain = EM
,
Peck, R. B., Deere, D. U., and Capacete, J. L. (1956). "Discussion on Ep , E, =
'Allowable Settlements of Buildings.' " Proc., Inst. of Civ. Engrs., Part + Eg + Ele ;
/II, The Institution of Civ. Engrs., London, England. = Poisson's ratio;
Polshin, D. E., and Tokar, R. A. (1957). "Maximum allowable non-uni- 8,8 M = angles of rotation at support of simple beam (gen-
form settlement of structures." Proc., 4th Int. Con! on Soil Mech. and eral) and due only to moment;
Found. Engrg., Vol. 1, Butterworth's Scientific, London, England, V = deflection of beam in relation to chord between
402-405. beam endpoints-author's note: although deflec-
Skempton, A. w., and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). "The allowable settle-
ments of buildings." Proc., Ins!. of Civ. Engrs.. Part /II, The Institution tion is often notated as 8, v is retained as the gen-
of Civ. Engrs., London, England, 5, 727-768. eral notation for deflection consistent with Ti-
Terzaghi, K. (1935). "The actual factor of safety in foundations." The moshenko's work where Vmax = 8, and to avoid
Struct. Engr., 13(3), 126-160. confusion with prior uses of 8 in this particular
Terzaghi, K. (1956). "Discussion on 'Allowable settlements of subject;
buildings.' .. Proc., Inst. of Civ. Engrs., Part Ill, The Institution of Civ. V max maximum deflection of beam in relation to chord
Engrs., London, England, 775-777. between beam endpoints, subscripts M and V refer
U.S. Department of the Navy. (1982). "Soil mechanics, design manual to those portions of deflection related to moment
7.1." Rep. NAVFAC DM-7.1, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Annapolis, Md. and shear; and
Ward, W. H. (1956). "Discussion on 'Allowable settlements of v' slope of deflection curve, or 8v18x, as related to
buildings.' " Proc., Inst. of Civ. Engrs., Part Ill, The Institution of Civ. chord between beam endpoints, subscripts M and
Engrs., London, England, 782- 783. V as previous.

8961 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1 NOVEMBER 1996

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1996, 122(11): 886-896