Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01062-1 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW

A Critical Review of Schmertmann’s Strain Influence Factor

Method for Immediate Settlement Analysis
Lysandros Pantelidis

Received: 1 February 2019 / Accepted: 19 September 2019 / Published online: 26 September 2019
Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract This paper offers an in-depth review of parametric finite element analysis was, finally, carried
Schmertmann’s strain influence factor method for out for supporting the main findings.
immediate settlement analysis. The method in ques-
tion is among the most popular worldwide, whilst, it is Keywords Schmertmann’s method  Strain
included in various important design codes worldwide influence factor  Immediate settlement analysis 
(e.g. Eurocode 7, FHWA NHI-06-089). As shown, Elastic settlements  Shallow foundations
Schmertmann’s method has been proposed without
proper and adequate documentation, whilst it presents
List of Symbols
serious weaknesses related to its calibration and the
Latin Letters
values adopted for various factors used. In addition,
A Dimensionless factor depending only on
comparison between measured and calculated settle-
the geometric location of the point
ment values of structures or full-size test footings (data
considered
taken from independent studies) indicates that Sch-
a Constant referring to the transformation of
mertmann’s method is a poor prediction tool. In this
N data of SPT test to Es
respect, an integrated index is suggested for the
B Footing diameter or width for circular or
quantification of the ‘‘effectiveness’’ of the various
rectangular (including strip) footing
settlement analysis methods (including the Schmert-
respectively
mann’s one). This consists of the mean and the
BR Reference footing width
coefficient of variation of the calculated over the
b Constant as a
measured settlement ratio values and the percentage of
C1 Correction factor for footing embedment
the cases for which the calculated settlement results
C2 Correction factor for soil creep
greater than or equal to the measured settlement. The
C3 Shape factor
very low ‘‘effectiveness’’ index values obtained gave
COV Coefficient of variation
rise to investigating the possible sources of error. A
Dr Relative density
Df Foundation depth
EYoung Young’s modulus
L. Pantelidis (&) Epl:strain Young’s modulus for the plain strain case
Department of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Cyprus Eaxisym: Young’s modulus for the axisymmetric
University of Technology, 2-8 Saripolou Str., case
3036 Limassol, Cyprus
e-mail: lysandros.pantelidis@cut.ac.cy
Es Young’s modulus of soil

123
2 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18

Es;i Young’s modulus of the i-th sublayer of Greek Letters

the soil system aE Constant referring to the transformation of
EsðL=B¼1Þ Es for L=B ¼ 1 CPT cone resistance to Es
Fs The normalized friction ratio (%) b Constant
F Dimensionless factor c Unit weight of soil
fs Friction sleeve resistance (it refers the Dq Net foundation pressure increase
CPT test) ðq  r0v;o Þ
Iz Schmertmann’s vertical strain influence Dzi The thickness of the i-th sublayer of the
factor soil system
Iz;o Iz at the foundation level (Fig. 1a) ea Secondary compression strain index
Iz;p Peak value of Iz (Fig. 1a) ez Strain on the z direction
Iz;l Iz at the depth zl ðIz;l ¼ 0Þ v Poisson’s ratio
Iz;i The strain influence factor of the i-th q Elastic settlement
sublayer of the soil system qo The settlement at some reference time to
Iz0 Corrected Iz value to account for the qt The settlement at time t
embedment depth qc Post construction settlement
Iz;S Iz for square or circular footings qR Reference settlement
Iz;C Iz for continuous (strip) footings r3 Lateral confining pressure
Ic The soil behavior type index rvo The total overburden stresses
0
ieff ‘‘Effectiveness’’ index rv;o The initial (before footing construction)
K Initial tangent modulus vertical effective overburden stress at the
Ko Horizontal stress coefficient level of foundation base (i.e. at depth Df )
L Length of footing r0v;p The vertical effective stress at the depth at
Nc Bearing capacity factor which the influence factor peaks (i.e. at
N Blow count in SPT test Df þ B=2 below the ground surface for
Qt The normalized CPT penetration B=L ¼ 1 and at Df þ B for L=B  10)
resistance ratm Atmospheric pressure (1 bar = 100 kPa)
qt Corrected total cone resistance / Dimensionless factor for the calculation
q Footing load of Es through qc
qc Cone-penetration-test tip resistance /25 / for the given settlement of 25 mm
qmax Maximum imposed footing load (not the u Angle of internal friction of soil
ultimate bearing capacity) u0 Effective angle of internal friction of soil
qult The ultimate bearing capacity of soil Schm:þ The Schm:þ notation, in addition to
t Time in years after the end of construction Schmertmann’s method (version of 1978),
to Reference time in the same units with t it also indicates Barksdale and Blight’s
zp The depth below the foundation at which Iz (2012), Coduto’ (2001), Lunne et al.’s
peaks (Fig. 1a) (1997) and Lee et al.’s (2008)
z Depending on the case, it may denote the modifications because the results coincide
z-axis or distance to midpoint layer on the or they are essentially the same with
z-axis measured from the foundation level Schmertmann’s ones
zl Depth of the strain influence zone Lunne Where Lunne et al. modification
(Fig. 1a) differentiates significantly from
zlo Depth z of the lower level of a specific Schmertmann method, it has its own curve
stratum (shown as Lunne)
zup Depth z of the upper level of a specific Terz:ðEÞ It refers to Terzaghi et al.’s (1996)
stratum approach with the use of a weighted mean
value for Es over the whole influence zone
(as originally suggested by Terzaghi et al.)

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18 3

Terz:ðEi Þ As Terz:ðEÞ but with the use of different comprehensive presentation of Schmertmann’s
Es value for each layer (as suggested by method (and its modifications), focusing on their
Schmertmann) strengths and weaknesses, as well as, on the compo-
nents that are not adequately documented in the
original publications.
1 Introduction

In 1970, Schmertmann introduced an innovative idea 2 The Early Version of Schmertmann’s Method
for calculating the immediate settlement of rigid, (Schmertmann 1970)
isolated, concentrically loaded, shallow foundations
over sand. The method employs the elastic half-space Ahlvin and Ulery (1962) were, probably, the first who
theory in a simplified manner and uses continuous tabulated values for determining the complete pattern
probing test data (such as, the static cone resistance of stresses, strains and deflections beneath a uniform
from the CPT test) as a practical means for determin- circular load q on a homogeneous elastic half space. In
ing in situ compressibility. The method includes a this respect, the vertical strain at any depth z, under the
simplified (bi-linear) distribution of vertical strain center of the loading was expressed as follows:
under a foundation, expressed in the form of a factor
q
(i.e. the strain influence factor, Iz ). A few years later, ez ¼ ð1 þ vÞ½ð1  2mÞA þ F  ð1Þ
Schmertmann (Schmertmann 1978; Schmertmann EYoung
et al. 1978) revised his method, mainly differentiating Because q and EYoung remain constant, the vertical
the axisymmetric case from the plane strain one. The strain depends, in essence, on the so-called Schmert-
method in question gained considerable popularity mann’s vertical strain influence factor, Iz :
worldwide over the years with various researchers
proposing modifications to the original version; Sch- Iz ¼ ð1 þ vÞ½ð1  2mÞA þ F  ð2Þ
mertmann’s method has been modified by Terzaghi And since,
et al. (1996), Lunne et al. (1997), Coduto (2001), Z 1 Z 1  
Iz
Salgado (2008), Lee et al. (2008) and Barksdale and q¼ ez dz ¼ q dz ð3Þ
Blight (2012). Indeed, it has been included in various 0 0 Es
design codes and reference manuals, such as, Euro- the area between the Iz ¼ 0 axis and the Iz  z curve
code 7 (EN 1997-2 2007) and FHWA NHI-06-089 can be used for the calculation of the immediate
(Samtani and Nowatzki 2006). settlement on the surface of a semi-infinite mass.
This wide acceptance of the method and the fact Based on the above equation, Schmertmann (1970)
that it is included in various important design codes, proposed the following semi-empirical expression for
probably gives the impression to practitioners that elastic settlement:
Schmertmann’s method is highly reliable. The truth is Z 1 Z 2B  
that, as explained later, the method in question has Iz
q¼ ez dz  Dq dz
been proposed without the proper and adequate 0 0 Es
X2B  
documentation. In addition to this, comparison Iz
 C1 C2 Dq Dz ð4Þ
between measured and calculated settlement values 0
Es
of structures or full-size test footings (data taken from
independent studies; comparison presented in a next where,
section) indicates that Schmertmann’s method is a r0v;o
poor prediction tool. This comparison gave rise to C1 ¼ 1  0:5 ð5Þ
q  r0v;o
investigating the possible sources of error. The various
sources of error related to inherent factors were is a linear correction factor ‘‘to take some account of
isolated from those related to the quality of input data the strain relief due to the embedment’’, which in order
by assuming perfect knowledge of the ground in the to be ‘‘in accord with elasticity, C1 should be equal to
framework of the finite element analysis carried out. or exceed 0.5’’,and
The review offered below starts with a brief but

123
4 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18
(a) (b)
Fig. 1 a Symbol explanation and Iz  z variation: b Schmertmann (1970), c Schmertmann (1978), d Terzaghi et al. (1996)
t years
C2 ¼ 1 þ 0:2 log ð6Þ
0:1
is a correction factor to take account of the ‘‘creep type
phenomenon’’ in sands.
For the correction factor C2 is only known that it is
based on Nonveiler’s (1963) empirical equation:
  
t
qt ¼ qo 1 þ b log ð7Þ
to
Schmertmann adopted the term inside the square
brackets, using ‘‘tentatively’’ (word used by Schmert-
mann himself) b ¼ 0:2 and to = 0.1 years [please
compare Eqs. (6) and (7)]. According to Schmert-
mann, ‘‘the principal justification for this reference
time is that it is convenient and appears to give
reasonable predictions in the test cases’’.
The change of the upper limit in Eq. (4) from ? to
2B is due to the fact that the stratum depth actually
causing settlement is not infinite (this is further
discussed later).
For the proposal of his Iz –z=B bilinear relationship
(Fig. 1b), Schmertmann was based on the elastic
theory (for m ¼ 0.4 and 0.5), as well as, on a very
limited number of experimental studies on rigid
circular footings (Bond 1956; Eggestad 1964; Holden
1967; D’Appolonia et al. 1968) and finite element
simulations (carried out by J. M. Duncan from
123
(c) (d)
University of California in 1969) of a flexible circular
footing on the surface of a homogenous, cohesionless
soil with u = 37°, c = 15.7 kN/m3, Ko = 0.5 and
m = 0.48. The three ðIz ; z=BÞ coordinates defining this
relationship of Fig. 1b are: ð0; 0Þ, ð0:6; 0:5Þ and ð0; 2Þ.

Regarding the zp B ¼ 0.5 value, it seems that this is

a rounded average value of all zp B values gathered by
Schmertmann (see Table 1). On the other hand,
Schmertmann’s Iz;p = 0.6 value is the result of a
qualitative interpretation of Eggestad’s (1963) and
D’Appolonia et al.’s (1968) studies and the Iz;p ¼
0.667 and 0.577 values from the theory of elasticity for
m = 0.4 and 0.5 respectively. It is important to be
mentioned that Eggestad (1963) and D’Appolonia
et al. (1968) gave eð%Þ  z curves and not the desired
Iz  z ones; the same also stands for the numerical
results. However, for ‘‘jumping’’ from eð%Þ to Iz not
only q is important but also EYoung (see Eqs. 1 and 2).
3 Schmertmann’s Revision (Schmertmann 1978;
Schmertmann et al. 1978)
Based on new finite element simulations and some
additional model tests, Schmertmann et al. (1978)
proposed the ‘‘improved’’ strain influence factor
diagram shown in Fig. 1c. The new version of
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18 5


Table 1 zp B values considered by Schmertmann (1978)

Method used m zp B Footing Material Reference used by Schmertmann
shape (1970) or comment

Elastic theory (flexible 0.4 0.3 Circular Perfect elastic –

footing)
0.4 0.3 Square Perfect elastic Harr (1966)
0.4 0.45 L=B ¼ 5 Perfect elastic Harr (1966)
0.5 0.35 Circular Perfect elastic –
0.5 0.4 Square Perfect elastic Harr (1966)
0.5 0.55 L=B ¼ 5 Perfect elastic Harr (1966)
Experimental studies – 0.4 Circular Dense sand Bond (1956)
(rigid footings)
0.7 Loose sand
– 1.75 Circular Medium-loose ðDr ¼ 44%Þ and Eggestad (1963)
dense sand ðDr ¼ 87%Þ
– 0.55 Circular Medium dense sand ðDr ¼ 67%Þ Holden (1967)
– 0.4 Circular Saturated, overconsolidated sand D’Appolonia et al. (1968)
Numerical analysis 0.48 0.36–0.6 Circular Elastic–plastic (depending on footing diameter
(flexible footing) (aver. and maximum loading)
0.48)
Average 0.47 (& 0.5)

Schmertmann differentiates the axisymmetric case The new general form of elastic settlement equation
from the plane strain one (L=B C 10) suggesting is given in Schmertmann (1978):
interpolation between them. However, although Xn  
Iz
between two points only linear interpolation can be q ¼ C1 C2 Dq Dz ð11Þ
applied, it is known from the theory of elasticity (e.g. i¼1
Es i

Ahlvin and Ulery 1962) that the relationship is not
linear. The necessary magnitudes for drawing these bi-
linear relationships are summarized in Table 2, whilst
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
q  r0v;o
Iz;p ¼ 0:5 þ 0:1 ð8Þ
r0v;p
Moreover, the originally recommended relation-
ship between the modulus of elasticity of soil and the
CPT cone resistance Es ¼ 2qc has been replaced as
follows:
Es ¼ 2:5qc for circular and square footings
Es ¼ 3:5qc for long footings
The latter was based on Lee’s (1970) experiments
which indicated that Epl:strain ¼ 1:4Eaxisym: (the valid-
ity of the latter is discussed in Pantelidis 2019b). Thus,
Schmertmann et al. multiplied the coefficient 2.5 for
square footings with 1.4 to obtain the value of 3.5 for
long footings. No suggestion is given for BxL footings.
Unfortunately, Schmertmann et al. were limited to
presenting the input data for the finite element
simulations and the model tests carried out. Regarding
finite element analysis, the number of cases that
simulated is unknown whilst moreover, no results are
given but two example curves, one for the axisym-
metric and one for the plane strain case. Indeed, even
for these curves Schmertmann et al. just talk about ‘‘an
encouraging direct comparison between FEM-pre-
dicted strain distributions made prior to the model
tests with the three-test average measured distribu-
ð9Þ tions, for both the approximate axisymmetric
(L=B = 1) and the plane strain cases (used data from
ð10Þ
L=B = 4 tests because L=B = 8 suspect due to possible
tank wall friction)’’. As for the model tests, they have
used rough-bottomed footings with B ¼ 0.152 m and
L=B = 1, 2, 4, and 8 in a 1.2-m diam, 1.2-m high tank
as the sand container. The results of the L=B = 8
models, however, were rejected due to possible effect
of tank wall friction; instead the L=B = 4 model was

123
6 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18

1 p þ3
used for interpreting the plane strain conditions. From
the theory of elasticity is well-known, however, that


the L=B = 4 case deviates greatly from the latter. It is
important to be mentioned that, Schmertmann’s
L=B= 8 footing had not only problem with the

2 1 þ 19 BL  1  4
5 min B ; 6
‘‘possible effect of tank wall friction’’ (as the length

L
of the footing was equal to the diameter of the tank

0:285
2 1 þ log BL
used), but also with what is called ‘‘boundary effects’’

p
0:95 cos
(a term used in finite element analysis when a

2:07 BL
zl =B

boundary is too close to the loading). In this respect,

2

it is not hard for someone to show through finite

 1 1

element analysis that, the L=B= 2 and 4 models used



by Schmertmann had also the same ‘‘boundary

1 1

effects’’ problem. Considering the above, in essence,

B;6

the new diagram, which is used worldwide by

L

B
þ 19 min

numerous practitioners and taught widely in university

0:3
L

classrooms, was suggested without the proper and

þ 18

B
L
1
zp B


0:5
0.5

1.0
0.5

adequate documentation, whilst moreover no applica-

1
2
1
2

tion examples are given to show the success or

Equation 8

Equation 8

Equation 8
Equation 8
Equation 8

improvement of the method.

0.6
Iz;p
Table 2 Iz;o , Iz;p , zp and zl for various modifications of Schmertmann’s method from third parties

4 Modifications of Schmertmann’s Method

0:1328 þ 0:0292 ln BL

from Third Parties

0:0466 ln BL
 1  0:2
 1  0:2

Modifications or extensions of Schmertmann’s

method have been proposed by Terzaghi et al.
0:1 þ

(1996), Lunne et al.’s (1997), Coduto’s (2001),

B

B
L

B 7 :

B 7 :
10 þ 90

10 þ 90

Salgado’s (2008), Lee et al.’s (2008) and Barksdale

1

1
0.1

0.2
0.2
Iz;o

and Blight’s (2012). In all these works, the concept of

1

the bilinear relationship between Iz and z=B initially

 10
 10
 10
 10

suggested by Schmertmann has been kept. The two

B

B
L

branches of this relationship can be given in the

C 10
L=B

1
1
1
1

following general form:

1
Schmertmann (1978), Coduto (2001), Lunne et al.

z
Iz ¼ Iz;o þ Iz;p  Iz;o for z\zp
zp
ð12Þ
zl  z
Iz ¼ Iz;p for zp  z\zl
zl  zp
The parameters Iz;o , Iz;p , zp and zl for each method
mentioned above are summarized in Table 2.
Barksdale and Blight (2012)
(1997), Hassan (2017)

4.1 Terzaghi et al.’s (1996) Modification

Terzaghi et al. (1996)
Lee et al. (2008)

Terzaghi et al.’s (1996) expression for end-of-con-

Salgado (2008)

struction settlement is
References

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18 7

n 
X  4.2 Coduto’s (2001) Modification
Iz
q ¼ Dq Dz ð13Þ
i¼1
Es i
Coduto gave, without documentation, the following
whilst, the bilinear Iz –z=B relationships for L=B ¼ 1, 3 interpolation function for 1 \ L/B \ 10:
and 10 are given in Fig. 1d.  
L
The main difference between Schmertmann’s Iz ¼ Iz;S þ 0:111 Iz;C  Iz;S 1 ð18Þ
B
equation (recall Eq. 11) and Eq. (13), is the absence
of the C1 and C2 correction factors in the latter. Instead He also adopted Schmertmann’s (1970) correction
of using Schmertmann’s C1 correction factor for factors for embedment depth, C1 , and sand creep, C2 ,
embedment depth, Terzaghi et al. suggest that Iz be whilst for the effect of footing shape on Es , he
 
reduced to Iz0 using a relevant Iz0 Iz versus Df B suggested, without documentation, the following
empirical chart; this chart was structured based on the shape factor:
photoelastic study carried out by Skopek (1961). C3 ¼ 1:03  0:03L=B  0:73 ð19Þ
Based on the observed settlement of 81 foundations
and 92 plate load tests in sandy and gravelly soils, The revised Schmertmann’s formula has, the fol-
Terzaghi et al. suggested the following expression for lowing form:
square and circular loaded areas: Xn  
Iz
q ¼ C1 C2 C3 Dq Dz ð20Þ
EsðL=B¼1Þ ¼ 3:5
qc ð14Þ i¼1
Es i

where, where Es is the modulus of soil for the axisymmetric

X
n case.
Dzi
qc ¼ qc;i ð15Þ
i¼1
zl 4.3 Lunne et al.’s (1997) Modification (Also
That is, the value of qc is the weighted mean of the Robertson and Cabal 2010)
measured qc values of sublayers within the thickness
zl . It is important to be noted that, this technique does Lunne et al.’s (1997) suggested the following
not consider the relative position of strata and the fact modification:
that stresses fade away as the depth increases; thus, it X n  
Iz
is more probable to return unrealistic results. The q ¼ C1 C2 Dq ð21Þ
i¼1
C3 Es i
effectiveness of the weighted mean in these kind of
problems is extensively discussed in Pantelidis where C1 and Iz are given by Schmertmann (1970; see
(2019a). Eqs. 5 and 8 respectively) and Es is the modulus of soil
Moreover, because Es is affected by the size of for the axisymmetric case derived from CPT data, i.e.
footing, Terzaghi et al. suggested: Es ¼ aE qc . For Es , Lunne et al. (1997) adopted
  Schmertmann’s (1970) aE ¼ 2 value only for nor-
L
Es ¼ 1 þ 0:4 log EsðL=B¼1Þ ð16Þ mally consolidated, unaged and uncemented predom-
B
inately quartz sands.
where EsðL=B¼1Þ is obtained from Eq. (15). The validity For C2 and C3 they suggest
of Eq. (16) is discussed in Pantelidis (2019b). 8 ( )
>
> In Lunne etal:ð1997Þ
>
>  ð Þ :
Finally, for the post construction settlement Terza- >
<
1 0:2 log 10t
½contains typo error, C2 must be [ 1
ghi et al. proposed an independent computational C2 ¼ ( )
>
> 1 þ 0:2 logð10tÞ : In Roberson and Cabal ð2010Þ
>
>
procedure and not a correction factor such as Sch- >
: and Schmertmann (1970)
mertmann’s C2 . This settlement is given by the
ð22Þ
following equation:
8
0:002 tðdaysÞ < 1:00 for circular footings: Included
> ) only in Roberson and Cabal (2010)
qc ¼ zl log ð17Þ C3 ¼ 1:25 for square footings (L ¼ BÞ
qc ðMPaÞ 1 day : 1:75 for strip footing ðL [ 10BÞ In Lunne etal:ð1997Þ
>

ð23Þ

123
8 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18
About the C3 ¼ 1.25 and 1.75 values for square and
strip footings respectively, Lunne et al. (1997) wrote
that these values have been suggested by Schmert-
mann (1978). However, this is not true. Following
Schmertmann’s (1978) suggestions (recall Eqs. 9 and
10), C3 should be 1.0 and 1.4 for circular (or square)
and strip footings respectively. Apparently, Lunne
et al. (1997) refer to Lee’s (1970) Epl:strain ¼1:4Eaxisym:
relationship between the plane strain and the axisym-
metric case (adopted by Schmertmann), giving, in this
respect, Epl:strain ¼1:4  1:25  Esquare ¼1:75Esquare .
Lunne et al.’s (1997) modification of Schmert-
mann’s method has been adopted by Eurocode 7 (EN
1997-2 2007) and the Federal Highway Administra-
tion (FHWA; Samtani and Nowatzki 2006).
4.4 Salgado’s (2008) Modification
Salgado’s (2008) having adopted Schmertmann’s
method, proposed linear interpolation functions for
rectangular footings (1 \ L/B \ 10), as shown in
Table 2. He also supports that there is no need for a
shape factor because the parameters zp , zl and Iz;p
already consider the effect of shape.
Finally, for Es he suggests:
8 that the 0.5 value be the upper limit for deeply
>
< 2:5qc for young normally consolidated silica sand
Es ¼ 3:5qc for aged normally consolidated silica sand
>
:
6:0qc for overconsolidated silica sand
ð24Þ
Lee and Salgado (2002) have given earlier a more
general expression for Es in terms of cone resistance:
Es;i ¼ /  qci ð25Þ
where / is a parameter depending on the settlement,
the footing geometry and the relative density of soil
and qci is the representative cone resistance of the i-th
sublayer. The procedure for calculating / for each
sublayer is described in detail in Salgado (2008) and
Lee and Salgado (2002).
4.5 Lee et al.’s (2008) Modification
In their paper, Lee et al. (2008) extended Schmert-
mann’s method to take full account of both the footing
length-to-width ratio and the proximity of neighboring
structures. This modification was based on a three-
dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis and
123
plate load tests on sands. The numerical and experi-
mental results indicated that the shape of the footing
(expressed by the length-to-width ratio) and the
proximity of neighboring footings affect both the
depth to the peak influence factor,Iz;p and the depth of
the strain influence zone, zl . Lee et al. (2008) equations
are given in Table 2. The same authors suggested an
empirical relationship for calculating Es as a function
of qc , qR , q,BR ,B and Dr through an iterative proce-
dure. Finally, it is mentioned that no information is
given regarding factors C1 and C2 .
4.6 Barksdale and Blight’s (2012) Modification
In their approach, Barksdale and Blight (2012)
considered the general case of BxL footings proposing
charts for the calculation of Iz;o , zp and zl (presented by
the author in Table 2 in equation form), whilst they
adopted Eqs. (5), (6) and (11) for, C1 ,C2 and q
respectively. They also extended Schmertmann’s
method to consider the case of modulus of elasticity
linearly increasing with depth and the additive effect
of adjacent footings. However, these extensions are
out of the scope of the present paper.
Finally, about the correction factor C1 , they suggest
embedded foundations. For foundation embedment
less than 0.7 m, they suggest C1 ¼ 1:9. The author
believes that the value 1.9 is typographical error and
that Barksdale and Blight mean C1 ¼ 0:9; besides, C1
is a reduction factor.
5 Accuracy, Reliability and Effectiveness
of Schmertmann’s Method and Its Modifications
Tan and Duncan (1991) defined ‘‘accuracy’’ as the
average value of the calculated settlement divided by
the measured settlement and ‘‘reliability’’ as the
percentage of the cases for which the calculated
settlement is greater than or equal to the measured
settlement. A value of unity and 100% respectively,
represent the best possible accuracy and the most
desirable reliability.
Relatively, it is the author’s opinion that the term
‘‘reliability’’, commonly used in probabilistic analysis,
is used excessively here; the word ‘‘safety’’ is
probably a better alternative. Thus, for avoiding any
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18 9

Table 3 ‘‘Accuracy’’ and ‘‘reliability (safety)’’ values for various applications found in the literature
Method used References No of Accuracy Reliability (safety)
cases (%)

Schmertmann (1970) Schmertmann (1970) 34 0.89 35

Briaud and Gibbens 5 0.46 0
(1997,1999)
Schmertmann (1978) and Schmertmann et al. Gifford et al. (1987)a 21 1.32 52
(1978)
Gifford et al. (1987)b 10 1.59 90
Tan and Duncan (1991) 15 2.0 70
Maugeri et al. (1998) 6 4.7 100
Anderson et al. (2007)c 4 7.89 100
Anderson et al. (2007)d 7 4.16 100
Ahmed (2013) 23 1.17 52
Birid and Chahar (2018) 12 0.41 0
Terzaghi et al. (1996) Terzaghi et al. (1996)e
Gravelly 27 1.43 70
Sandy 50 1.12 44
All 77 1.23 53
Terzaghi et al. (1996)f 17 1.03 47
a
Bridge footings (16 abutments and 5 piers)
b
Various cases from literature
c
Circular footing with diameter 1.82 m
d
3.0 m 9 3.0 m footing
e
End construction settlement
f
Secondary settlement on sands

confusion it is suggested that the term ‘‘reliability’’ be
replaced by the term ‘‘reliability (safety)’’.
Table 3 contains ‘‘accuracy’’ and ‘‘reliability
(safety)’’ index values from various applications of
the original Schmertmann’s (1970) method, as well as
of Schmertmann et al.’s (1978) and Terzaghi et al.’s
(1996) modifications. Unfortunately, no comparison
study has been found by the author for the other
modifications of Schmertmann’s method mentioned in
Sect. 4. Generally, these comparison studies indicate
either ‘‘high accuracy but low reliability (safety)’’ or
‘‘low accuracy but high reliability (safety)’’. Only
Birid and Chahar (2018) reported low accuracy and
low reliability (safety) (0.41 and 0% respectively)
based on 12 cases. Moreover, extreme ‘‘accuracy’’
index values (meaning great deviation from the
measured values), such as 4.16, 4.7 and 7.89, are also
observed. It is also worth mentioning that the best
‘‘accuracies’’ (values closer to unity) were found in the
examples presented by Schmertmann (1970) and
Terzaghi et al. (1996), that is, by those who suggested
the homonymous method and modification of this
method respectively. The author believes that this is
due to the available (to the researcher) margin of
freedom in the process of transforming the random
field of the CPT profile into a stratified field with
successive homogenous layers. Of course, when the
goal is ‘‘accuracy’’, ‘‘reliability (safety)’’ is sacrificed;
the ‘‘reliability (safety)’’ obtained by Schmertmann’s
(1970) and Terzaghi et al.’s (1996) data was found to
be the lowest among all in Table 3.
Based on the 50 and 27 cases for sandy and gravelly
soils respectively found in Terzaghi et al. (1996), it can
be said the CPT-based methods for elastic settlement
analysis are rather more suitable for sandy soils than
for gravelly ones (‘‘accuracy’’ = 1.12 and 1.43 respec-
tively). This is in agreement with earlier findings that
the CPT test is best suited for use in sandy soils
containing little or no gravel. Gravelly or cobbly soils

123
10 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18

Table 4 Effectiveness index and various statistical values referring to ‘‘accuracy’’ for the application examples given in Table 3
Method used References Min Mean Max SD COV ieff
‘‘accuracy’’

Schmertmann (1970) Schmertmann (1970) 0.33 0.89 1.86 0.33 0.37 8.6
Briaud and Gibbens 0.41 0.46 0.54 0.05 0.11 0
(1997,1999)
Schmertmann (1978) and Schmertmann et al. Gifford et al. (1987)a 0.005 1.32 4.62 1.02 0.78 2.1
(1978)
Gifford et al. (1987)b 0.79 1.59 3.34 0.74 0.46 3.3
Tan and Duncan (1991) – 2.0 – – – –
Maugeri et al. (1998) 2.76 4.7 6.00 1.06 0.22 1.2
Anderson et al. (2007)c 6.5 7.89 9.40 1.19 0.15 1.0
Anderson et al. (2007)d 2.35 4.16 5.69 1.21 0.29 1.1
Ahmed (2013) 0.39 1.17 2.70 0.58 0.49 6.2
Birid and Chahar (2018) 0.28 0.41 0.57 0.09 0.23 0
Terzaghi et al. (1996) Terzaghi et al. (1996)e
Gravelly 0.45 1.43 4.81 0.88 0.61 2.7
Sandy 0.21 1.12 2.72 0.58 0.52 7.1
All 0.21 1.23 4.81 0.71 0.58 4.0
Terzaghi et al. (1996)f 0.26 1.03 2.93 0.73 0.71 22.1
a
Bridge footings (16 abutments and 5 piers)
b
Various cases from literature
c
Circular footing with diameter 1.82 m
d
3.0 m 9 3.0 m footing
e
End construction settlement
f
Secondary settlement on sands

can give misleading results or even prevent penetra-
tion of the cone (Gifford et al. 1987).
Although both ‘‘accuracy’’ and ‘‘reliability
(safety)’’ are useful indices, they do not include all
the necessary information, and more importantly the
scatter of values, for an in-depth assessment of the
effectiveness of the various elastic settlement meth-
ods. For example, the almost perfect ‘‘accuracy’’ of
1.03 obtained using Terzaghi et al.’s (1996) data
correspond to values ranging from 0.26 to 2.93.
Nevertheless, the same accuracy could have been
obtained from a much narrower range of values e.g.
from 1.01 to 1.05. Thus, in addition to ‘‘accuracy’’
(average value), a useful index would be the standard
deviation or the coefficient of variation (COV) of the
available data. These values are given in Table 4 for
the same cases presented in Table 3. However, the
presence of more than one index make things more
complicated. For this reason, it would be more
practical all relevant indices to be combined in one
comprehensive index. The author suggests the fol-
lowing integrated index for assessing the ‘‘effective-
ness’’ of elastic settlement analysis methods:
1 ‘‘Reliability ðsafetyÞ’’
Effectiveness index ¼ ieff ¼
j1  ‘‘Accuracy’’j COV
ð26Þ
Based on the above index, any settlement analysis
method could be classified in one of the following
suggested categories: Very Effective if ieff C 10,
Effective if 5 B ieff \ 10, Medium Effective if 3 B
\ 5 and Not Effective if ieff \ 3. Table 4 contains the
ieff values for the application examples presented in
Table 3. As shown, different applications result to
different and conflicting ieff values for Schmertmann’s
method. That means that this method is either bad or
the applications in question suffer from input data of
poor quality (or both of them). It is noted that, the
highest ieff values correspond to Schmertmann’s
(1970) and Terzaghi et al.’s (1996) data. Ahmed’s

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18
(2013) and Gifford et al.’s (1987) data gave also
relatively high ieff values; this PhD thesis and FHWA
report respectively, include a satisfactory number of
cases (about 30 each), which is probably connected
with the level of interpretation of CPT data and
Schmertmann’s concept of strain influence factor.
Finally, the author would like to highlight the great
difference in ‘‘effectiveness’’ for sandy and gravelly
soils (ieff = 7.1 and 2.7 respectively) calculated using
Terzaghi et al.’s (1996) data.
Briaud and Gibbens (1997, 1999) found that
Schmertmann’s (1970) method systematically needs
about the half value of the actual load to give the
prescribed settlement of 25 mm (46% on average,
with values ranging from 41% to 54%; these numbers
refer to settlement after 30 min). Briaud and Gibbens
also observed that Schmertmann’s (1970) creep coef-
ficient for coefficient for sands, C2 , is also a conser-
vative estimate. The tests are described in full detail in
the Federal Highway Administration report No
FHWA-RD-97-068 (Briaud and Gibbens 1997). Bri-
aud and Gibbens’ tests also verify that, the greater
amount of settlement (in this respect, the 97%) takes
place within a depth of 2B below the footing (it is
noted that they have used square footings).
Finally, Sivakugan and Johnson (2004) investi-
gated the problem from a completely different point of
view, proposing a simple probabilistic model with
design charts for four different settlement prediction
methods (including Schmertmann et al.’s 1978). This
enables the designer to quantify the probability that the
settlement will exceed a specific limiting value.
Curves are given for allowable settlement limit from
15 to 40 mm with 5 mm interval. The probability of
exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field are given in
Table 5 for various predicted settlement values.
6 Sources of Error
The high ‘‘accuracy’’ index (meaning low accuracy)
and COV values shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively,
raise serious queries about the reliability of
Table 5 Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in the field (Sivakugan and Johnson 2004)
Predicted settlement (mm) 1 5
Probability of exceeding 25 mm settlement in field 0 0
11
Schmertmann’s method itself (and its modifications)
and/or the quality of input data. The latter refers
mainly to transforming the qc profile of the CPT test to
Es value(s). Sources of error related to the method
itself could be attributed to (a) the ignorance of
Poisson’s ratio of the medium, (b) the fact that the
actual curved Iz  z=B relationship is being replaced
by a simplistic bilinear one, (c) the peak value of strain
influence factor (i.e. Iz;p ), the depth zp where Iz peaks
and the depth of influence zone, zl , considered in the
analysis, d) the way that the embedment depth is taken
into account and e) the suitability of the mid-point of
each layer for picking Iz values. The way that soil
creep is considered is also a possible source of error,
however, because its study needs special consideration
and relevant data were not available to the author at the
time of preparing the present paper, it is not discussed
here.
Readers may find in the literature tens of empirical
relationships correlating probe test parameters with Es
(e.g. Schmertmann 1970; Meyerhof and Fellenius
1985; Coduto 2001; Murthy 2002; Robertson 2009;
Rao 2010; Sanglerat 2012; Fang 2013). Although
conventional in situ tests can reflect many of the
important factors affecting sand compressibility, it is
implicitly assumed in the correlations that the quantity
measured in the in situ tests can account for all these
important factors (Gifford et al. 1987). Inevitably,
correlations between observed footing or structure
settlement and the results of in situ penetration testing
introduce uncertainty in settlement calculations.
Because the present study focuses on the reliability
of models themselves and not on the quality of ‘‘input
data’’, this source of error will be eliminated by
assuming, in the framework of the finite element
analysis carried out, perfect knowledge of the ground.
The following application example was used to
facilitate the discussion on the evaluation of the
various strain influence factor methods. The basis for
setting up this example, was the one given by
Schmertmann (1970; ‘‘Fig. 6’’). A circular and a strip
footing (both having B ¼ 2.6 m) resting on the surface
of a multilayered soil or having been embedded B=2 or
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.02 0.13 0.20 0.27 0.32 0.37 0.42
123
12
B meters below the surface was considered. The qc
data and the vertical extend of each layer are shown in
Table 6 (taken from Schmertmann 1970; the Es values
were calculated using Eqs. (9) and (10) for axisym-
metric and plane strain conditions respectively. A unit
weight equal to 15.7 kN/m3 was assumed for all soil
layers (also taken from Schmertmann 1970). The
footing was assumed rigid with either smooth or rough
soil-structure interface; however, because the two
surfaces gave absolutely comparable settlements, only
the ‘‘rough case’’ is presented here for space economy.
m varies from 0.2 to 0.5 (0.499 for computational
purposes) with 0.1 interval. The u0 values were
obtained from the following empirical equation given
by Mayne (2006):
! m ¼ 0.15 and 0.45 is 22.5% (having as reference point
q t
u0 ¼ 17:6 þ 11:0 log 0:5
ð27Þ
r0vo  ratm
with qt  qc for clean sands and granular soils.
q varies from zero to the ultimate bearing capacity
of the medium, qu ; however, for illustration purposes,
q in figures ranges from 0 to about 2/3qu . The results
are given in chart form in Fig. 2, where the dashed
curves correspond to the ‘‘measured’’ settlement
values for various Poisson’s ratio values derived from
finite element analysis. From the figure in question it is
more than obvious that, m plays significant role in
calculating immediate settlement and thus, a param-
eter that should not be ignored. According to New-
comb and Birgisson (1999), Das (2010) and Poulos
(2017), m in coarse grained soils vary from about 0.15
to about 0.45, whilst based on accurate measurements
using local strain devices mounted midlevel on soil
specimens and measured internally to the triaxial cell,
it seems that the appropriate value of Poisson’s ratio to
use in elastic continuum solutions for drained loading
Table 6 qc data and vertical extend of each layer (taken from Schmertmann 1970)
 
# of Layer zup  zlo ðmÞ qc ðkg cm2 Þ
1 0.0–1.0 27
2 1.0–3.0 37
3 3.0–3.5 72
4 3.5–4.5 32
5 4.5–5.0 87
6 5.0–6.5 170
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18
is 0.1 \ m \ 0.2 for all soil types (Tatsuoka et al.
1994; Jamiolkowski et al. 1995; Pincus et al. 1995).
Thus, the m-factor alone could explain the high
‘‘accuracy’’ index (meaning low accuracy) and COV
values shown in Table 4; besides, Schmertmann’s
method was developed considering much higher
Poisson’s ratio values, i.e. of the order of 0.4–0.5.
From the pure elasticity point of view, from the
equation for settlement of a rigid circular plate (Kézdi
and Rétháti 1988):
p qB
q¼ 1  m2 ð28Þ
4 Es
it stands that under the same loading conditions the
relative difference in settlement between the case for
the m ¼ 0.45; about 10% having as reference point the
m ¼ 0.35 value). As shown in Fig. 2, the error in plastic
region of soils is much higher and depends on the
degree of loading.
The neglection of m, however, is not the only source
of error. The peak value of Iz (i.e. Iz;p Þ and the depth
where Iz peaks are also factors of significant impor-
tance. The influence of these factors can be observed
in Fig. 2 comparing the Schmertmann’s curves with
the respective ones corresponding to Terzaghi’s
approach (curves Schm:þ and Terz:ðEi Þ in Fig. 2
respectively). By the way, the use of the weighted
average value for the modulus of soil, as suggested by
Terzaghi et al. (1996), leads to the worst settlement
estimates among all methods examined. Indeed, for
the example considered, the calculated settlements
were on the non-conservative side, even compared to
the case of m ¼ 0.5. It is reminded that, Terzaghi
et al.’s modification of Schmertmann’s method gave
also low ‘‘reliability (safety)’’ values in real conditions
(see Table 3).
# of Layer zup  zlo ðmÞ qc ðkg cm2 Þ
7 6.5–7.5 62
8 7.5–8.5 100
9 8.5–10 42
10 10–11 68
11 11–14 120
12 14–? Bedrock
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18 13

Fig. 2 Example q versus q

curves for various cases and
methods; see notation list for
Schm:þ, Lunne, Terz:ðEÞ
and Terz:ðEi Þ

123
14 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18

Fig. 2 continued

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18
Fig. 3 Influence of zl on q
On the other hand, the fact that a curved Iz  z=B
relationship is replaced by a simplistic bilinear one, is
apparently another source of error. Indeed, this error
strongly depends on the depth zl considered in the
analysis. The effect of zl on the calculated settlement is
illustrated in Fig. 3. In this example, the axisymmetric
case with Df ¼ 0 m was considered. For comparison
purposes Es does not change below 2B. As shown, q is
very sensitive to zl . However, the values 2B and 4B
proposed by Schmertmann (and adopted by others) for
the axisymmetric and plane strain case respectively,
have a rational basis, as the soil thickness contributing
to settlement is not infinite. Eurocode 7 [EN 1997-1
2004; clause 6.6.2(6)] and Bowles (1996) also suggest
a finite depth to be considered in settlement analysis.
This is probably due to the phenomenon of cementa-
tion (Budhu 2011). Referring to linearity, the author
would like to add that, the mid-point of each layer for
picking Iz values is a valid choice as long as the
relationship considered is linear.
Regarding the effect of footing shape on the
modulus of (recall Eqs. 9, 10, 16, 19 and 23) elasticity
and, in turn, on footing settlement, it is mentioned that,
in essence, Schmertmann’s method and its modifica-
tions make use of Lee’s (1970) Epl:strain ¼ 1:4Eaxisym:
relationship. However, what it is not widely known is
that, Lee (1970) used triaxial test specimens of 1.4 in.
(3.6 cm) in diameter for the axisymmetric case and 1.1
in. 9 2.8 in. (2.79 cm 9 7.11 cm) rectangular test
specimens for what he called ‘‘plane strain’’
15
conditions; thus, what Schmertmann (1978) and later
Terzaghi et al. (1996) and many others adopted for
plane strain conditions, is actually for L=B ratio as low
as 2.54 (= 2.8/2.1); this is further discussed in
Pantelidis (2019b).
As mentioned previously, Lunne et al.’s (1997)
modification of Schmertmann’s method has been
adopted by Eurocode 7 (EN 1997-2 2007) and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA; Samtani
and Nowatzki 2006). Indeed, Eurocode 7 (Annex D.3
in EN 1997-2 2007) has adopted both Eqs. (9) and (10)
(for circular or square and strip footings respectively)
and Lunne et al.’s (1997) C3 correction factor. That
means that, the coefficient of 1.4 proposed by Lee
(1970) is erroneously applied twice in the equation of
settlement (Eq. 21) and since this is done in the
denominator, this practice leads to non-conservative
results for long footings. Such a duplication does not
exist in the FHWA (Samtani and Nowatzki 2006)
reference manual. The FHWA suggests Es ¼ 2:0qc for
any footing shape.
The Iz;o factor is also discussed. For the various
researchers (see Table 2), the Iz;o factor takes either a
fixed value (Iz;o = 0.1 or 0.2) or it depends on the
aspect ratio, L/B, of footings. However, from Eq. 2 for
z = 0 the factor F is also equal to zero (see Ahlvin and
Ulery 1962) and, thus, the Iz;o factor is a simple
function of m (i.e. independent of footing shape):
Iz;o ¼ ð1  2mÞð1 þ mÞ ð29Þ
123
16
It is noted that, Terzaghi et al. (1996) suggest Iz;o ¼
0.2 (fixed value) for any L/B ratio. Based on Eq. (29),
this value corresponds to m = 0.43.
Finally, Barksdale and Blight’s (2012) zp - L=B and
zl -L=B relationships (Table 2) have also been pro-
posed without justification. Indeed, although one
would expect (based on our experience from the
theory of elasticity) the value of zl for L=B = 10 to be
close to its asymptotic value, this does not happen.
Instead, the gradient of the zl  L=B relationship at
L=B = 10 is very strong. Finally, regarding Barksdale
and Blight’s (2012) zp (see Table 2), it is mentioned
that it strongly depends on footing shape; based on our
experience from the theory of elasticity, however,zp
depends mainly on m and much less on footing shape.
7 Conclusions
This paper offers an in-depth review of Schmert-
mann’s strain influence factor method for immediate
settlement analysis. The method in question gained
considerable popularity worldwide over the years.
Indeed, it has been included in various important
design codes and reference manuals, such as, Euro-
code 7 (EN 1997-2 2007) and FHWA NHI-06-089
(Samtani and Nowatzki 2006). Due to its popularity
and because this semi-empirical approach came, in
essence, without the proper and adequate documenta-
tion, this paper attempts a deeper understanding on the
factors used revealing several weaknesses. Moreover,
comparison between measured and calculated settle-
ments of structures showed that Schmertmann’s
method is a poor prediction tool. In this respect, an
integrated index has been defined to quantify the
effectiveness of the various settlement analysis meth-
ods (including Schmertmann’s one). This consists of
the mean and the coefficient of variation of the
calculated over the measured settlement ratio values
and the percentage of the cases for which the
calculated settlement results greater than or equal to
the measured settlement. This index returned very low
‘‘effectiveness’’ index values for Schmertmann’s
method giving rise to investigating the possible
sources of error.
Low quality input data (referring to Es ) and/or
inherent issues may be the cause of the low ‘‘effec-
tiveness’’ index values found. Assessing the quality of
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18
input data, however, was impossible and out of the
scope of the present paper. Working in finite element
analysis framework, however, this source of error was
eliminated, allowing for a deeper understanding of the
various inherent factors affecting the accuracy and the
effectiveness of Schmertmann’s method (and its
modifications). A parametric finite element analysis
was carried out showing that the ignorance of Pois-
son’s ratio inserts significant error. Other possible
sources of error is the replacement of the actual curved
Iz  z=B relationship with a simplistic bilinear one, the
depth of influence zone ðzl Þ, the peak value of strain
influence factor ðIz;p Þ, the depth zp where Iz peaks and
the way that the embedment depth is taken into
account. About zl , sensitivity analysis showed that this
is also a factor of major importance; however, the zl
depths considered by Schmertmann (and adopted by
the other researchers) can be considered as rational.
Finally, as shown, the strain influence factor on the
level of foundation, Iz;o , is a pure and simple function
of m.
References
Ahlvin RG, Ulery HH (1962) Tabulated values for determining the
complete pattern of stresses, strains, and deflections beneath a
uniform circular load on a homogeneous half space. Highw
Res Board Bull. https://trid.trb.org/view/126952
Ahmed AY (2013) Reliability analysis of settlement for shallow
foundations in bridges, Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Anderson JB, Townsend FC, Rahelison L (2007) Load testing
and settlement prediction of shallow foundation. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 133:1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12(1494)
Barksdale RD, Blight GE (2012) Compressibility, settlement
and heave of residual soils. In: Geoffrey E, Blight ECL
(eds) Mechanics of residual soils. Taylor & Francis,
London
Birid KC, Chahar RS (2018) Measured and predicted settlement
of shallow foundations on cohesionless soil. In: Anirudhan
IV, Maji VB (eds) MajiGeotechnical applications.
Springer, Berlin, pp 3–13
Bond D (1956) The use of model tests for the prediction of
settlement under foundations in dry sand. University of
London, London
Bowles LE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-
hill, New York
Briaud J-L, Gibbens R (1997) Large-scale load tests and data
base of spread footings on sand. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington
Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18
Briaud J-L, Gibbens R (1999) Behavior of five large spread
footings in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125:787–796.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:
9(787)
Budhu M (2011) Soil mechanics and foundations, 3rd edn.
Wiley, New York
Coduto DP (2001) Foundation design: principles and practices.
In: 2nd professor Civil Engineering at California State
Polytechnic University, Prentice Hall, Pomona
D’appolonia DJ, D’appolonia EE, Brissette RF (1968) Settle-
ment of spread footings on sand. J Soil Mech Found Div
94:735–760
Das BM (2010) Geotechnical engineering handbook. J. Ross
Publishing, Newcastle
Eggestad A (1964) Deformation measurements below a model
footing on the surface of dry sand. Nor Geotech Inst Publ
58:29–35
EN 1997-1 (2004) Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design-Part 1:
general rules. CEN (European Committee for Standard-
ization), Brussels, Belgium
EN 1997-2 EN (2007) Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design-Part 2:
ground investigation and testing. CEN (European Com-
mittee for Standardization), Brussels, Belgium
Fang H-Y (2013) Foundation engineering handbook. Springer
Gifford DG, Kraemer SR, Wheeler JR, McKown AF (1987)
Spread footings for highway bridges. Final report (No.
FHWA/RD-86/185)
Harr ME (1966) Foundations of theoretical soil mechanics. New
York: McGraw-Hill Inc
Holden JC (1967) Stresses and strains in a sand mass subjected
to a uniform circular load. University of Melbourne,
Melbourne
Jamiolkowski M, Lancellotta R, LoPresti DCF (1995) Remarks
on the stiffness at small strains of six Italian clays. In:
Shibuya S, Mitachi T, Miura S (eds) Pre-failure deforma-
tion of geomaterials. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 817–836
Kézdi A, Rétháti L (1988) Soil mechanics of earthworks,
foundations and highway engineering, handbook of soil
mechanics, vol 3. Elsevier, New York
Lee KL (1970) Comparison of plane strain and triaxial tests on
sand. J Soil Mech Found Div 96:901–923
Lee J, Salgado R (2002) Estimation of footing settlement in
sand. Int J Geomech 2:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:1(1)
Lee J, Eun J, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2008) Strain influence dia-
grams for settlement estimation of both isolated and mul-
tiple footings in sand. J Geotech geoenviron Eng
134:417–427
Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone-penetration
testing in geotechnical practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Maugeri M, Castelli F, Massimino MR, Verona G (1998)
Observed and computed settlements of two shallow foun-
dations on sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(1998)124:7(595)
Mayne PW (2006) In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil
parameters. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight DW, Leroueil S
(eds) Characterisation and engineering properties of natu-
ral soils. Taylor & Francis, Routledge, pp 1601–1652
Meyerhof GG, Fellenius BH (1985) Canadian foundation
engineering manual
17
Murthy VNS (2002) Geotechnical engineering: principles and
practices of soil mechanics and foundation engineering.
CRC press
Newcomb DE, Birgisson B (1999) Measuring in situ mechanical
properties of pavement subgrade soils. Transportation
Research Board, Washington
Nonveiler E (1963) Settlement of a grain silo on fine sand. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, Weisbaden, Ger-
many, pp 285–294
Pantelidis L (2019a) The equivalent modulus of elasticity of
layered soil mediums for designing shallow foundations
with the Winkler’s spring hypothesis: a critical review. Eng
Struct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109452
Pantelidis L (2019b) The effect of footing shape on the elastic
modulus of soil. In: 2nd conference of the arabian journal
of geosciences (CAJG), 25–28 November 2019. Springer,
Sousse, Tunisia
Pincus H, Lo Presti D, Pallara O, Puci I (1995) A modified
commercial triaxial testing system for small strain mea-
surements: preliminary results on pisa clay. Geotech Test J
18:15. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10118J
Poulos HG (2017) Tall Building Foundation Design. CRC Press,
Boca Raton
Rao NSVK (2010) Foundation design: theory and practice.
Wiley
Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a
unified approach. Can Geotech J 46:1337–1355
Robertson PK, Cabal KL (2010) Guide to cone penetration
testing for geotechnical engineering, 4th edn. Gregg Dril-
ling & Testing Inc., Signal Hill
Salgado R (2008) The engineering of foundations. McGraw-
Hill, New York
Samtani NC, Nowatzki EA (2006) Soils and foundations: vol-
umes I and II. Publications No. FHWA NHI-06-088 and
FHWA NHI-06-089. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington
Sanglerat G (2012) The penetrometer and soil exploration.
Elsevier
Schmertmann JH (1970) Static cone to compute static settle-
ment over sand. J Soil Mech Found Div 96:1011–1043
Schmertmann JH (1978) Guidelines for cone penetration test:
performance and design. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington
Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP, Brown PR (1978) Improved
strain influence factor diagrams. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 104:1131
Sivakugan N, Johnson K (2004) Settlement predictions in
granular soils: a probabilistic approach. Géotechnique
54:499–502. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2004.54.7.499
Skopek J (1961) The influence of foundation depth on stress
distribution. In: Proceedings of the fifth international
Conference on soil mechanics. pp 815–818
Tan CK, Duncan JM (1991) Settlement of footings on sands—
accuracy and reliability. In: Geotechnical engineering
congress—1991. ASCE, pp 446–455
Tatsuoka F, Teachavorasinskun S, Dong J, et al (1994) Impor-
tance of measuring local strains in cyclic triaxial tests on
granular materials. In: Dynamic geotechnical testing II.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO
123
18 Geotech Geol Eng (2020) 38:1–18

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
pp 288–288–15 regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engi- institutional affiliations.
neering practice. Wiley, London

123