204º Artigo (Buildings) - 2024

buildings
Article
Settlement Analysis of Concrete-Walled Buildings Using
Soil–Structure Interactions and Finite Element Modeling
Jonny D. Patrício 1 , Alexandre D. Gusmão 2 , Sílvio R. M. Ferreira 3 , Fernando A. N. Silva 4 ,
Hassan Jafarian Kafshgarkolaei 5 , António C. Azevedo 6 and João M. P. Q. Delgado 5, *
1 Civil Engineering Department, Federal University of Campina Grande—UFCG, Aprigio Veloso St.
Universitárcio, Campina Grande 58429-900, Brazil; jonny_dantas@hotmail.com
2 Civil Engineering Department, University of Pernambuco—UPE, Benfica St. Madalena,
Recife 50720-001, Brazil; gusmao.alex@poli.br
3 Centro de Tecnologia de Geociências—CTG, Federal University of Pernambuco—UFPE, Acadêmico Hélio
Ramos St., Cidade Universitária, Recife 50740-530, PE, Brazil; silvio.mferreira@ufpe.br
4 Civil Engineering Department, Pernambuco Catholic University, Recife 50050-900, Brazil;
fernando.nogueira@unicap.br
5 CONSTRUCT-LFC, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto,
4200-465 Porto, Portugal; h.jafarian@fe.up.pt
6 Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Pernambuco (IFPE), Recife 50670-430, Brazil;
antonio.azevedo@caruaru.ifpe.edu.br
* Correspondence: jdelgado@fe.up.pt; Tel.: +351-225081404
Abstract: This study examines the performance of mat foundations in 13 blocks of eight-story
concrete-walled residential buildings. Topographic monitoring bolts were used to monitor the slab’s
construction, which was 0.35 m thick and comprised an area of 225 m2 . Using the collected data,
a retro-analysis of the modulus of elasticity was conducted to obtain the geotechnical parameters
for forecasting the settlement using the elasticity theory. A nonlinear approach for construction
modeling and soil–structure interactions showed that the earthworks at the start of construction had
a significant role in settling. Blocks in landfills settled faster than those in land-cut zones. The partial
execution of building levels was found to be critical in terms of angular distortions and stresses in
Citation: Patrício, J.D.; Gusmão, A.D.;
the concrete slab. The partial lifting of the foundation plate was confirmed in blocks with partial
Ferreira, S.R.M.; Silva, F.A.N.;
building floor execution, demonstrating the importance of assessing the foundation’s behavior at
Kafshgarkolaei, H.J.; Azevedo, A.C.;
this stage. The modulus of elasticity dropped as construction progressed, with landfill parts being
Delgado, J.M.P.Q. Settlement Analysis
particularly vulnerable. Creep settlements contributed significantly, accounting for about 20% of
of Concrete-Walled Buildings Using
Soil–Structure Interactions and Finite
the total settlements in some blocks. The numerical staged construction model accurately replicated
Element Modeling. Buildings 2024, 14, the behaviors observed in the monitoring data, confirming the hypothesis of the partial raising of
746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ the foundation during the building process, which resulted in higher angular distortions. Based
buildings14030746 on the results obtained, the authors strongly recommend that the simultaneous consideration of
soil–structure interactions and construction effects be commonly used in foundation designs.
Academic Editor: Eugeniusz Koda
Received: 24 January 2024 Keywords: mat foundations; elastic modulus; soil–structure interaction; raft foundation; settlement
Revised: 5 March 2024 measurement
Accepted: 6 March 2024
Published: 10 March 2024
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Building systems that combine efficiency and competitiveness have gained significant
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. attention from researchers throughout the world as a result of the fast development of
This article is an open access article construction technologies in recent years. Among these advances, concrete wall systems
distributed under the terms and and structural blocks have grown in popularity. However, substantial studies on the
conditions of the Creative Commons important subject of soil–structure interactions (SSIs) in these systems are still lacking.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Prevalent studies in the literature have ignored SSI issues, particularly for buildings with
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ concrete walls rather than reinforced concrete frame systems. This disparity highlights the
4.0/). need to study the behavior and interactions of this particular building system.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030746 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 746 2 of 25
Because of the enhanced construction speed of concrete wall systems, as well as their
modular structure and associated improvement in overall structural stiffness, an in-depth
analysis is required. This work seeks to address this gap by extensively analyzing the
parameters impacting soil–structure interactions and employing numerical modelling. The
major focus was on the building of concrete-walled residential structures over reinforced
concrete mat foundations. A detailed examination of foundation settlements was a critical
component of this assessment, as it allowed for the computation of response coefficients,
which were required for the numerical modeling procedure. The study thoroughly explored
the intricate behavior of the interaction between the soil and the structure in this building
technique using a non-linear finite element analysis.
Furthermore, the present work highlights two key aspects related to the investigation
of settlements in mat foundations. To begin, it encourages the use of field-monitored
settlement data to precisely establish the elastic modulus, a critical settlement analysis
parameter. Second, the research proposes using a factor reduction modulus (FRM) based on
the stress levels particular to the mat foundation. These proposed techniques can be used
with the aim of increasing the accuracy and utility of settlement evaluations by providing
a more sophisticated understanding of the behavior and variables influencing settlement
behavior in mat foundation systems.
1.1. Brief Literature Review

The stability and performance of concrete-walled buildings heavily rely on the interac-
tion between the structure and its underlying foundation. Monitoring the mat foundation
settlement and employing a soil–structure interaction (SSI) analysis with an elastic modulus
back-analysis provides crucial insights into this complex interplay. The most significant
research papers in this domain are presented.
Zhang et al. [1] investigated the impact of SSIs on the seismic performance of concrete-
walled buildings. The authors developed detailed FE models incorporating soil–structure
interactions and analyzed the building’s seismic response under various earthquake sce-
narios. Their findings highlight the importance of considering SSI effects for earthquake-
resistant designs. Bennett et al. [2] designed a real-time monitoring system for mat foun-
dation settlement using wireless sensors. The system continuously transmitted data to
a central server, enabling the real-time assessment of settlement behavior and the early
detection of potential structural distress. This approach offers invaluable advantages
for proactive maintenance and ensuring building safety. Zhu et al. [3] presented a com-
prehensive investigation of the SSI effects on mat foundation settlement. The authors
conducted both physical model tests and FE simulations to analyze the influence of various
factors such as the soil stiffness, wall slenderness, and loading conditions. Their findings
provide valuable design guidelines for minimizing settlement and ensuring structural
integrity. Asli et al. [4] carried out research focused on the retro analysis of the modulus
of elasticity of the soil based on measured foundation settlements. The authors used an
evolutionary optimization algorithm to iteratively refine the FE model until its predicted
settlements matched the measured values. This approach improves the accuracy of the
SSI analysis and provides valuable insights into soil behavior. Farias [5] focused on the
structural analysis of concrete-walled buildings built on raft foundations while considering
soil–structure interactions and progressive vertical loading. The author used the finite
element method in DIANA v. 9.4.4 software for numerical simulations and measured
the settlement points during construction to evaluate the soil parameters. This approach
allows for a comprehensive understanding of the interaction between the structure and
the underlying soil. Arteaga et al. [6] employed a combination of settlement points and
inclinometers to monitor the foundation behavior of a 10-story concrete-walled building,
successfully capturing differential settlements and tilt. Zhussupbekov [7] discussed the
technology for supporting excavation structures as a shoring system for concrete-walled
constructions on mat foundations. The author mentioned the use of the PLAXIS 2D v.
22.00.00.1733 software to assess deformations and settlements in the soil. This software
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 3 of 25
provides a valuable tool for analyzing the behavior of the soil–structure system during
construction. Bapir et al. [8] proposed an integrated approach involving the combination of
in situ settlement sensors with a 3D finite element (FE) SSI analysis. The authors presented
a case study of a high-rise concrete-walled building, demonstrating the effectiveness of
their method in capturing settlement patterns and evaluating soil–structure interaction ef-
fects. Santos et al. [9] focused on the soil–structure interactions (SSIs) in reinforced concrete
structures and shallow spread footings. The authors mentioned the use of the elastic theory
for estimating the settlement in shallow spread footings and the incorporation of SSI into
the structural model for concrete-walled buildings. The influence of the soil stiffness and
the relative soil–structure stiffness on the SSI results was also discussed. Further research
could explore the impact of different soil and structural parameters on SSI behavior to
enhance the accuracy of settlement predictions.
Numerous researchers have conducted parametric studies to investigate the interaction
between the soil and surface structures [10–12]. Also, recent studies have compared
numerical analysis results with field measurements obtained from constructed projects
to analyze the SSIs [13,14]. Because of its industrialized character, the building method
employing concrete walls, according to Ng et al. [15], offers advantages such as a quick
execution, a reduced amount of manual work required, less expensive overall costs, reduced
waste generation, and efficient large-scale manufacturing.
A mat foundation is a shallow foundation that is typically used for structures on
soft/weak ground and/or to transmit significant weights to the ground below. It consists
of a rigid slab that functions as a single foundation element for the whole structure’s plan
area [16].
Mat foundations, like any other type of shallow foundation, should not be allowed to
settle excessively. Elastic theory solutions are frequently utilized to examine mat foundation
settling. Many strategies for calculating the settling of shallow foundations using the elastic
modulus have been described [17–23]. Most of the current approaches for calculating
the elastic modulus rely on empirical data acquired from plate load testing [24–26] or
penetration testing [27–30].
According to Sharma et al. [31], the elastic modulus of soil is an important characteristic
in geotechnical projects, transportation engineering, engineering geology, and geotechnics.
Load–settlement relationships are nonlinear [32,33]. This suggests that considering a
constant elastic modulus independent of the stress level may underestimate the settlement,
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
as demonstrated by the typical load–settlement curves obtained from a plate load test 4 of that
26
showed a smaller elastic modulus as the transmitted stress increased (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. 1.
Figure Typical load–settlement
Typical curve
load–settlement from
curve froma aplate
plateload
loadtest.
test.
The excavation
More performedmeasurements
recently, foundation before the construction of mat
[37–39] and foundations
analyses is another
of soil–structure
importantmodelling
interaction factor in the development
[40,41] have been of settlements.
investigated. Suchinvestigations
These removal mayhave
result in relaxed
often been
subgrade tension and, as a result, settling after recompression.
focused on framed buildings or industrial slabs [42]. In view of the limited availability of
research on the behavior of concrete-walled constructions laid on a concrete mat
foundation, the research developed and reported in this article seeks to contribute to the
design strategies for this type of structure with qualitative and quantitative information
from the examination of a real case.
1.2. Research Significance

Buildings 2024, 14, 746 4 of 25
The relationship between the soil, the foundation, and the structure influences the
performance of a building in a complex mechanism known as soil–structure interactions
(SSIs). In spite of its importance, however, this connection is often overlooked and structural
designs are still developed without taking into account this approach [34]. Determining the
Figure 1. Typical load–settlement curve from a plate load test.
field monitoring settlement allows for an assessment of the building’s realistic performance,
and important geotechnical
More recently, factorsmeasurements
foundation may be studied [35,36].and analyses of soil–structure
[37–39]
More recently,
interaction modelling foundation measurements
[40,41] have [37–39]
been investigated. andinvestigations
These analyses of soil–structure in-
have often been
teraction modelling [40,41] have been investigated. These investigations have often
focused on framed buildings or industrial slabs [42]. In view of the limited availability of been
focused
researchononframed buildingsof
the behavior or concrete-walled
industrial slabs [42]. In view of the
constructions laidlimited
on a availability
concrete matof
research on the behavior of concrete-walled constructions laid on a concrete mat founda-
foundation, the research developed and reported in this article seeks to contribute to the
tion, the research developed and reported in this article seeks to contribute to the design
design strategies for this type of structure with qualitative and quantitative information
strategies for this type of structure with qualitative and quantitative information from the
from the examination of a real case.
examination of a real case.
1.2. Research
1.2. Research Significance
Significance
This study
This study discusses
discusses two
two important
important aspects
aspects that
that should
should be
be considered
considered in
in the
the analysis
analysis
and design of concrete-walled constructions on mat foundations: determining
and design of concrete-walled constructions on mat foundations: determining the appropri- the
appropriate modulus of elasticity for numerical simulations using measurements
ate modulus of elasticity for numerical simulations using measurements obtained from the
obtained
field from the
monitoring field monitoring
of settlements, of settlements,
and adopting and adopting
a factor reduction modulusa (FRM)
factordependent
reduction
modulus
on (FRM)
the stress leveldependent on the stress level in the foundation.
in the foundation.
2. Materials
2. Materials and
and Methods
Methods
Thirteenofofsixty-four
Thirteen sixty-four apartment
apartment blocks
blocks in city
in the the of
city
SãoofLourenço
São Lourenço
da Matada(PE,
Mata (PE,
Brazil)
Brazil)
were were analyzed.
analyzed. Eleven ofEleven of the thirteen
the thirteen were
were built built in sections
in landfill landfill sections
and twoandwere two were
built in
built in land-cut
land-cut sections.sections.
Figure 2Figure
shows2theshows thesite.
project project
Eachsite. Each
block hadblock had
eight eightand
stories stories m2
225and
of space.
225 m2 of The building
space. technique
The building consisted
technique of concrete
consisted walls walls
of concrete over mat
overfoundations. The
mat foundations.
mats had thicknesses of 0.35 m and surface-mounted areas of 262 m 2.
The mats had thicknesses of 0.35 m and surface-mounted areas of 262 m . 2
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Project
Project site
site (Image
(Image from
from Google
GoogleEarth—8 ◦ 01′ 30.6′′ S
Earth—8°01′30.6″ 35◦ 02′ 23.0′′W).
S 35°02′23.0″ W).
2.1. Geotechnical Investigation and Properties

For each building under consideration, two SPTs were performed per block (opposite
sides) for a geotechnical investigation. No groundwater was observed. Table 1 exhibits the
most prevalent soil types as well as the average blow count (average NSPT —number of
blows) for each soil unit, and Figure 3 shows typical soil profiles and the corresponding SPT
value for Buildings 2, 4, and 5. In this figure, the depth is shown on the left and right sides
in the geotechnical profile obtained for each block, where each marking corresponds to 1 m
of prospecting and the number of blows obtained. The same color was used to represent
the same soil in the figures shown. The main geotechnical information obtained from the
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 5 of 25
performed static penetration tests was the identification of the different soil layers that
comprised the subsoil, the classification of the soils in each layer, and the water table level.
The classification shown in the figures represents a pattern observed for the respective
blocks and was as follows: medium-red and yellow, variegated clayey silt—at some depths,
with the presence of mica–sandy silt (mica, medium compact pebbles of varying sizes, and
fine, slightly silty sand).
Table 1. Geotechnical properties (earthmoving and NSPT ).
Standard Coefficient of
Building Section Type Type of Soil NSPT
Deviation Variation (%)
1 Landfill Clayed Silt 10 3.4 35
4 Landfill Clayed-Sandy Silt 8 2.1 27
5 Landfill Sandy Silt 10 2.5 26
7 Landfill Sandy Silt 14 4.8 35
8 Landfill Clayed-Sandy Silt 10 3.9 40
12 Land-cut Silty Clay 10 2.4 25
13 Land-cut Clayed Silt 9 4.6 46
The correlations of NSPT and the elastic modulus are given by Equation (1), as sug-
gested by Teixeira and Godoy [43].
E = α.β.NSPT (MPa) (1)
where α and β are coefficients that depend on the type of soil. Table 2 exhibits the coefficients
α and β as determined by Trofimenkov [29] and Teixeira [30], respectively.
Table 2. Coefficients α and β as determined in [29,30].
(a) α Values (b) β Values

Soil Type α—Value Soil Type β—Value
Sand 3 Sand with gravel 1.1
Silt 5 Sand 0.9
Clay 7 Silty sand 0.7
Clayed sand 0.55
Sandy silt 0.45
Silt 0.35
Sandy clay 0.3
Clayed silt 0.25
Silty clay 0.2
12 Land-cut Silty Clay 10 2.4 25
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 6 of 25
13 Land-cut Clayed Silt 9 4.6 46
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3.3.
Figure Typical
Typicalsoil
soilprofiles:
profiles:(a)(a)Building
Building2,2,(b)
(b)Building
Building4,4,and
and(c)(c)Building
Building5.5.
Thecorrelations
The computer program
of NSPT ELPLA
and the10.1 Professional
elastic modulus[44] arefrom theby
given GEOTEC
Equation v. 13.1
(1), soft-
as
ware wasby
suggested used to estimate
Teixeira the settlement
and Godoy [43]. by considering the assumption of a rigid concrete
plate on an elastic foundation. ELPLA is a program for analyzing a raft of an arbitrary shape
and a variable thickness and foundation E= 𝛼. 𝛽. 𝑁 with
depth, (MPa)three subsoil models available—the (1)
simple𝛼 assumption
where and 𝛽 are model, the Winkler
coefficients model,on
that depend andthethe continuum
type model.2 The
of soil. Table latterthe
exhibits was
coefficients α and β as determined by Trofimenkov [29] and Teixeira [30], respectively. and
used in this research. The mathematical solution of the raft was based on the FE method
the settlements were calculated for the bilinear deformation behavior of the soil, according
to the
Table theory of elasticity.
2. Coefficients 𝛼 and 𝛽 asAdditional
determineddetails on the use of the ELPLA program for the
in [29,30].
calculation of settlements and reinforcements throughout the research can be found in [45].
(a) α Values
The soil was divided by the number of borings, with each one 𝜷 Values
(b) having multiple layers with
different soil materials. The foundation soil was adopted as an elastic, linear,𝜷—Value
Soil Type 𝜶—Value Soil Type homogeneous,
Sand
and isotropic 3
material. The hypothesis of linearSand with
elastic gravelwas justified 1.1
behavior because the
settlementsSilt
of the rigid plate measured
5 in the field showed
Sand markedly linear behavior
0.9 with
the acting Clay
tension. The characteristics
7 of the homogeneity
Silty sand and isotropy of the
0.7soil were
Clayed sand 0.55
Sandy silt 0.45
Silt 0.35
Sandy clay 0.3
Clayed silt 0.25
homogeneous material. To determine the settlements and contact pressures, the modulus
of compressibility method for the rigid raft was used. This method assumes that the raft
is completely rigid, which means a raft with both its thickness and flexure rigidity tending
to infinity.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 The finite element mesh that defines the radier was created, measuring 16.50 m in the 7 of 25
X and Y axes. A constant interval of 0.5 m was used in the two X and Y axes, thus forming
a finite element grid with 1134 nodes (Figure 4a). The modulus of elasticity of the radier
(concrete)
justifiedwas adopted
because the at 20,000stress
applied MPa andlevela was
Poisson’s coefficient
relatively low and,of 0.15. After
in this way,determining
the material’s
theresponse
representative mesh of the radier, the linear loads from the concrete
was very close to the response of an isotropic and homogeneous material.walls were placed. To
Thedetermine
linear loads ranged from 77 to 176.4 kN/m (Figure 4a).
the settlements and contact pressures, the modulus of compressibility method
forThe
theoption of inserting
rigid raft was used. theThis
parameters
methodofassumes
the two that
boreholes
the raftwas used and therigid,
is completely location
which
of means
the boreholes in relation to the studied radier was determined.
a raft with both its thickness and flexure rigidity tending to infinity. The values of the
modulus of elasticity,
The modulus
finite element meshof elasticity
that definesofthe
recompression (W), and
radier was created, soil-specific
measuring 16.50weight
m in the
(GAM) were assigned, as shown in Figure 4b. The method of interpolation
X and Y axes. A constant interval of 0.5 m was used in the two X and Y axes, thus forming of the
properties of the inserted profiles was used to determine the geotechnical
a finite element grid with 1134 nodes (Figure 4a). The modulus of elasticity of the radierprofile of the
calculation
(concrete)(Figure 4c). Theatred
was adopted color
20,000 MPagraphically represents
and a Poisson’s the region
coefficient where
of 0.15. thedetermining
After profiles
were interpolated. After that, the program was used to calculate the
the representative mesh of the radier, the linear loads from the concrete walls were settlement of placed.
the
model, obtaining
The linear loadsthe settlements
ranged from 77 asto
shown
176.4 in Figure
kN/m 4d. 4a).
(Figure
(a) (b)
A = 16,50 [m]
6,32 [cm ]
3,6
5 6 4,07 4,48 6
4
3,2 3,6 4,07 4,48 4,89 4,48

2,4 ,84 2 3,25 6
5,91 [cm ]
2,8
4,8
2
3 2 ,84
5,50 [cm ] 5,30 5,30 5,30 4,89
,43
3,6 ,07 4,
9 ,3 0 9
4,8 5
4
8
6
4,4
5,09 [cm ]
4,89 ,48 07
4 4,
1
5 ,7
4,48
4,68 [cm ]
2,84
3,6
4,07
07
4,28 [cm ]
5,30
6,12
5,30
4,89
5,71
4,48
3,87 [cm ]
3
6,5
B = 16,50 [m]
6,53
4,48
3,46 [cm ]
6,12 6
5,71
5,71
6,12
5,30
3,05 [cm ]
3,25
5,30
,12
4,89
2,84
6,1
4,48
2,64 [cm ]
4,07
2
4,0 8 4,48
2
6,1
4,89
5,7 ,30
6,12
1
0
1
5,7
3,2 6 3,66
2,23 [cm ]
5,3
5 9
5,3 5,71 1
5,71 5,7
5
4,8
0
2,8 5 3,2
4,4
1,82 [cm ]
3 ,6
3 ,6 7
3 4,0
6
4
2,0 2,43
1,41 [cm ]
3,2 ,66 7 4,4 ,89 4,89 4,89 7
4 ,0
4
8 8
2
5 4,48 4,4 4,07 5

3,66 4,07 3 ,2
2,02,43 3,25 3 ,6 6 4
2 3,66 2,8
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure4.4.Developed
DevelopedELPLA
ELPLAmodel:
model:(a)(a)FE
FEmesh;
mesh;(b)
(b)geotechnical
geotechnicalprofiles;
profiles;(c)
(c)geotechnical
geotechnicalprofile
profile
interpolation; and (d) settlements calculated.
interpolation; and (d) settlements calculated.
2.2. Estimated Loading

The option of inserting the parameters of the two boreholes was used and the lo-
cation
Theofconcrete
the boreholes
walls ofinthe
relation
blockstounder
the studied radier
study on eachwas
floordetermined.
were built inThe
twovalues
stages.of
the modulus of elasticity, modulus of elasticity of recompression (W), and soil-specific
The first stage corresponded to the walls on the left and the central walls of the building.
weight
The (GAM)
second stagewere assigned, as
corresponded to shown in on
the walls Figure 4b. The
the right sidemethod of interpolation
of the building. of the
In this way,
properties of the inserted profiles was used to determine the geotechnical
a standard methodology was indicated for the execution of the blocks, since the profile of the
calculation (Figure 4c). The red color graphically represents the region where
construction of the first part of the building (left and central walls) was generally the profiles
assembled in one day and was cast at the end of that day. The next day, the right-side
walls were assembled and cast at the end of the same day. This construction system was
numerically simulated using the non-linear stage construction module of the SAP2000
v23.1.0 software [42], consisting of a total of 19 load cases, as follows:
• Construction of the foundation—Step 1;
• Construction of the left side and central walls of the first floor of the building—Step
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 8 of 25
were interpolated. After that, the program was used to calculate the settlement of the
model, obtaining the settlements as shown in Figure 4d.
2.2. Estimated Loading

The concrete walls of the blocks under study on each floor were built in two stages.
The first stage corresponded to the walls on the left and the central walls of the building.
The second stage corresponded to the walls on the right side of the building. In this way, a
standard methodology was indicated for the execution of the blocks, since the construction
of the first part of the building (left and central walls) was generally assembled in one day
and was cast at the end of that day. The next day, the right-side walls were assembled and
cast at the end of the same day. This construction system was numerically simulated using
the non-linear stage construction module of the SAP2000 v23.1.0 software [42], consisting
of a total of 19 load cases, as follows:
• Construction of the foundation—Step 1;
• Construction of the left side and central walls of the first floor of the building—Step 2;
• Construction of the right walls of the first floor of the building—Step 3;
• Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for the 2nd to 17th floors of the building—Steps 4–17;
• Construction of the deck and elevated water tank—Steps 18–19.
Table 3 summarizes the estimated loads for each step and the expected founda-
tion stresses.
Table 3. Loads for each step of the model and the expected foundation stresses (L—left walls;
C—center walls; and R—right walls).
Estimated Load Expected Stress

Step Stage
(End of Step), kN (End of Step), kPa
1 Foundation 2295 8.8
2 1L + 1C 3365 12.8
3 1R 4243 16.2
4 2L + 2C 5317 20.3
5 2R 6194 23.6
6 3L + 3C 7268 27.7
7 3R 8146 31.1
8 4L + 4C 9220 35.2
9 4R 10,097 38.5
10 5L + 5C 11,171 42.6
11 5R 12,049 46.0
12 6L + 6C 13,123 50.1
13 6R 14,000 53.4
14 7L + 7C 15,074 57.5
15 7R 15,952 60.9
16 8L + 8C 17,024 65.0
17 8R 17,902 68.3
18 Roof 18,315 69.9
19 Elevated water tank 18,619 71.1
2.3. Back-Analysis of the Foundation’s Modulus of Elasticity

The elastic theory equation (Equation (2)) by Harr [17] was used to back-analyze the
elastic modulus using the settlement data and the corresponding estimated loads.
1 − v2
E (MPa) = ∆q(MPa).B(m) Is I (2)
∆w(m) h
where E is the modulus of elasticity; ∆q is the distributed expected stress; ∆w is the average
settlement considering the 10 readings taken; v is Poisson’s ratio, which was considered
equal to 0.3; Is is a factor that depends on the shape and rigidity of the foundation; and Ih
is a factor that depends on the foundation’s depth.
1−𝑣
𝐸 (MPa) = 𝛥𝑞(MPa). 𝐵(𝑚) 𝐼𝐼 (2)
Δ𝑤(m)
where E is the modulus of elasticity; Δq is the distributed expected stress; Δw is the
average settlement considering the 10 readings taken; v is Poisson’s ratio, which was
Buildings 2024, 14, 746
considered equal to 0.3; Is is a factor that depends on the shape and rigidity of9 the of 25
foundation; and Ih is a factor that depends on the foundation’s depth.

Figure 5 shows the h/a relationship used to calculate Is and Ih. In Figure 5, h represents
Figure
the depth of 5the
shows
rigidthe h/a defined
base, relationship used
as that atto calculate
which Is and Ihof
the number . Instandard h represents
Figure 5,penetration
the depth of the rigid base, defined as that at which the number of standard
tests (NSPT) was greater than 30, and a stands for the smallest dimension of the foundationpenetration
tests (NSPT ) was greater than 30, and a stands for the smallest dimension of the foundation
(8.175 m). An NSPT greater than 30 was considered because it was assumed that the stress
(8.175 m). An NSPT greater than 30 was considered because it was assumed that the stress
level acting on the foundation was negligible for the settlements. Once the elevation of the
level acting on the foundation was negligible for the settlements. Once the elevation of
rigid base was determined, it was possible to obtain the product of the corrective factors—
the rigid base was determined, it was possible to obtain the product of the corrective
Is.Ih—for the foundation plate of each block analyzed in Figure 5b. Figure 5a illustrates the
factors—I .Ih —for the foundation plate of each block analyzed in Figure 5b. Figure 5a
meaning ofs the h/a ratio.
illustrates the meaning of the h/a ratio.
h/a Is.Ih
0 0.000
0.2 0.096
0.5 0.226 1.00
0.90
1 0.403 0.80
0.70
2 0.609 0.60
Is.Ih
0.50
3 0.711 0.40
0.30
5 0.800 0.20
0.10
7 0.842 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
10 0.873 h/a
∞ 0.946
(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure5.5.Parameters
Parametersfor
forobtaining
obtainingcorrective
correctivefactors:
factors:(a)
(a)rigid
rigiddepth
depthdimension—h,
dimension—h,(b)
(b)product
productofof
Is.Ih for b/a = 1 by Harr [17], and (c) interpolation process.
Is .Ih for b/a = 1 by Harr [17], and (c) interpolation process.
Equation
Equation(2)
(2)was
wasformulated
formulatedforforthe uniformly
the uniformlydistributed
distributed stress. Since
stress. the the
Since loading
load-
resulting
ing resulting from the construction process only produced uniformly distributednormal
from the construction process only produced uniformly distributed normal
stresses
stresseswhen
when all
all the
the walls were fully
walls were fully built
builton
onaarespective
respectivefloor,
floor,only
only
at at this
this stage
stage were
were the
the settlement data analyzed.
settlement data analyzed.
The
Thefollowing
followingisisan
anexample
exampleofofthe
themethodology
methodologyusedusedininorder
ordertotomake
makethe theadopted
adopted
procedure
proceduremore
moreclear.
clear.The
Thegeotechnical
geotechnicalprofile’s
profile’smodulus
modulusofofelasticity
elasticityininFigure
Figure3a 3awas
was
computed. Given the two geotechnical profiles, the average thickness of the stiff layer was
7.5 m, resulting in a ratio of 0.9 h/a and a value of 0.37 for the product of Is .Ih . There was
an increase in tension of 6.7 kPa and a settlement development of 1.761 mm during the
constructive progress. To obtain a value of 0.37 for the product of Is .Ih , a linear interpolation
was performed between the values of h/a ranging from 0.5 to 1, as shown in Figure 5c. The
following is an example calculation:
1 − 0.32
E = 0.0067 (MPa).16.35 (m) 0.3 = 21 MPa
0.001761 (m)
2.4. Constructive Method

On each floor, the concrete walls were built in two phases, with the first consisting
of the formworks of the left walls (L) and the center formworks (C). The right side (R) of
the formwork was the second stage (see Figure 6). As a result, a standard approach for
presenting the structural sequence of the building under consideration was created. It was
assumed in this approach that the formworks for the first portion (L+C) were mounted in a
day and cast on the same day. The formwork for the second part (R) was constructed the
2.4. Constructive Method
On each floor, the concrete walls were built in two phases, with the first consisting of
the formworks of the left walls (L) and the center formworks (C). The right side (R) of the
formwork was the second stage (see Figure 6). As a result, a standard approach for pre-
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 senting the structural sequence of the building under consideration was created. 10 It of
was25
assumed in this approach that the formworks for the first portion (L+C) were mounted in
a day and cast on the same day. The formwork for the second part (R) was constructed
next day and
the next day cast
andlater
cast that
laterday.
thatTable
day. 4Table
summarizes the steps
4 summarizes ofsteps
the this constructive process,
of this constructive
which was
process, one source
which was oneofsource
the input data
of the for the
input numerical
data modellingmodelling
for the numerical developed.developed.
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Stages
Stages of
of formworks.
formworks.
Table 4. Constructive process phases.

Table 4. Constructive process phases.
Step Stage Executed Step
Step Stage Executed Step
1 Foundation Foundation construction
1 Foundation Foundation construction
Assembly of the left formwork of the 1st floor with the hall, eleva-
2 1L + 1C Assembly tor,
of the leftstairs,
formwork of the 1st at
floor
2 1L + 1C and and casting thewith
endthe
of hall, elevator, and
the day
stairs, and casting at the end of the day
Assembly of the right formwork of the ground floor and casting at
3 1R Assembly of the right formwork
3 1R the endofofthe
theground
day floor and casting at the
end of the day
Assembly of the left formwork of the 1st floor, ground floor with
4 2L + 2C Assembly of the left formwork of the 1st floor,
4 2L + 2C hall, elevator, and stairs, and casting at ground
the endfloor with
of the hall,
day
elevator, and stairs, and casting at the end of the day
Assembly of the right formwork of the 1st floor and casting at the
5 2R Assembly of the right formwork of the 1st floor and casting at the end of
5 2R end of the day
the day
Assembly of the left formwork of the 2nd floor, ground floor with
6 3L + 3C Assembly of the left formwork of the 2nd floor, ground floor with hall,
6 3L + 3C hall, elevator, and stairs, and casting at the end of the day
Assembly of the right formwork of the 2nd floor and casting at the end of
7 3R
the day
Assembly of the left formwork of the 3rd floor, ground floor with hall,
8 4L + 4C
Assembly of the right formwork of the 3rd floor and casting at the end of
9 4R
the day
Assembly of the left formwork of the 4th floor, ground floor with hall,
10 5L + 5C
Assembly of the right formwork of the 4th floor and casting at the end of
11 5R
the day
Assembly of the left formwork of the 5th floor, ground floor with hall,
12 6L + 6C
Assembly of the right formwork of the 5th floor and casting at the end of
13 6R
the day
Assembly of the left formwork of the 4th floor, ground floor with
10 5L + 5C
hall, elevator, and stairs, and casting at the end of the day
Assembly of the right formwork of the 4th floor and casting at the
11 5R
end of the day
Buildings 2024, 14, 746
Assembly of the left formwork of the 5th floor, ground floor11 of 25
with
12 6L + 6C
hall, elevator, and stairs, and casting at the end of the day
134. Cont. 6R
Table
end of the day
Step Stage Assembly of the left formwork of the
Executed Step6th floor, ground floor with
14 7L + 7C
hall, elevator, and stairs, and casting
Assembly of the left formwork of the 6th floor, at the endfloor
ground of the day
with hall,
14 7L + 7C
15 7R
Assembly of the right formwork end ofofthe
the6th
dayfloor and casting at the end of
15 7R
Assembly of the left formwork theofday
the 7th floor, ground floor with
16 8L + 8C
hall, elevator,
Assembly and
of the left stairs, and
formwork casting
of the at the
7th floor, endfloor
ground of the day
with hall,
16 8L + 8C
Assemblyelevator, and stairs,
of the right and casting
formwork of theat7th
thefloor
end ofand
the casting
day at the
17 8R
Assembly of the right formwork end ofofthe
the7th
dayfloor and casting at the end of
17 8R
18 Roof Roof assemblythe day and casting
18 Roof
Elevated Roof assembly and casting
19 Water tank assembly and casting
water tank
Elevated
19 Water tank assembly and casting
water tank
2.5. Settlement Monitoring
2.5. Settlement Monitoring
Ten topographic monitoring pins were installed along the foundation to measure the
displacement using optical
Ten topographic equipment.
monitoring Figure
pins were 7 shows
installed thethe
along geometric dimensions
foundation of the
to measure
foundation and
displacement the optical
using locationequipment.
of the anchor bolts,
Figure as wellthe
7 shows asgeometric
the location of the concrete
dimensions of the
walls.
foundation and the location of the anchor bolts, as well as the location of the concrete walls.
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Mat
Mat foundations and locations
foundations and locations of
of settlement
settlement bolts
bolts and
and concrete
concrete walls.
walls.
2.6. Numerical Model

Numerical models were developed using SAP2000, as shown in Figure 8. Table 5
summarizes the main information of the numerical model developed. The primary dis-
tinction between thin- and thick-shelled formulations was the incorporation of transverse
shear deformation in plate-bending behavior. The thin-plate formulation was based on a
Kirchhoff application, which ignores transverse shear deformation, whereas the thick-plate
formulation was based on Mindlin/Reissner, which considers shear behavior. Only plate-
bending (out-of-plane) behavior was affected by a thick-plate formulation, not membrane
(in-plane) behavior.
plate formulation was based on Mindlin/Reissner, which considers shear behavior. Only
plate-bending (out-of-plane) behavior was affected by a thick-plate formulation, not mem-
brane (in-plane) behavior.
A structured rectangular finite element mesh was used to discretize the rigid foun-
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 dation plate modeled. This was performed to make the process of calculating the tributary
12 of 25
area of each node of the mesh easier for determining the associated spring constants.
Figure 8. A 3D model.
Figure 8. A 3D model.
Table 5. Numerical model data.
Table 5. Numerical model data.
Unit Membrane Bending
f’c E ElementMembrane Bending
Material Unit Weight
Weight (MPa)
f’c ν E Element Thickness Thickness
Material ν (GPa) Type Thickness Thickness
(kN/m³)
(kN/m³ ) (MPa) (GPa) Type (cm) (cm)
Foundation slab 25 35 0.2 33.13 Thick Plate
(cm)
30/35
(cm)
30/35
Foundation Thick
Floor slabs 2525 35
25 0.2
0.2 33.13
28 Thin Plate 30/3510 30/35
10
slab Plate
Walls, 15 25 25 0.2 28 Thin Shell 15 15
Thin
Floor slabs
Walls, 10 2525 25
25 0.2
0.2 28
28 Thin Shell 10 10 10 10
Plate
Thin
Walls, 15 25 25 0.2 28 15 15
A structured rectangular finite element mesh was used to discretize the rigid founda-
Shell
tion plate modeled. This was performed to make the process of calculating the tributary
Thin
Walls,
area 10 node of25
of each 25 for
the mesh easier 0.2determining
28 10 10
Shellassociated spring constants.
the
The time-dependent properties of concrete—the evolution of the material’s compres-
siveThe
strength and modulus
time-dependent of elasticity,
properties creep, andevolution
of concrete—the shrinkage—were considered
of the material’s in the
compres-
sive strength and modulus of elasticity, creep, and shrinkage—were considered in the CEB-
developed models, and the main parameters used followed the recommendations of de-
FIP 90 [46]. Table 6 summarizes the data used to implement the time-dependent effects of
veloped models, and the main parameters used followed the recommendations of CEB-
the concrete.
Table 6. Time-dependent concrete parameters used.
Parameter Value
Coefficient βsc —normal hardening cement 5
Coefficient s—normal hardening cement 0.25
Aggregate type—αE 1.0
Age of concrete at the beginning of shrinkage—ts in days 0.0
Relative humidity of the ambient atmosphere (%) 50
The construction process was numerically simulated using an SAP2000 module called
staged construction. Staged construction is a static modeling, analysis, and design appli-
cation that enables the definition of a sequence of construction stages in which structural
Age of concrete at the beginning of shrinkage—ts in days 0.0
Relative humidity of the ambient atmosphere (%) 50
The construction process was numerically simulated using an SAP2000 module

Buildings 2024, 14, 746 13 of 25
called staged construction. Staged construction is a static modeling, analysis, and design
application that enables the definition of a sequence of construction stages in which struc-
tural systems and load patterns are added or removed and time-dependent behaviors are
systems
evaluated, and loadcreep,
including patterns are added
shrinkage, andoraging
removed andin
(change time-dependent
elastic modulusbehaviors are evalu-
and strengths
ated, including creep, shrinkage, and aging (change in elastic modulus and strengths with
with age). Material and geometric nonlinearity may be applied to staged construction.
age). Material and geometric nonlinearity may be applied to staged construction. Further,
Further, staged construction may be part of a sequence of nonlinear static or direct-inte-
staged construction may be part of a sequence of nonlinear static or direct-integration
gration time-history analysis load cases. For linear load cases, the structural stiffness at a
time-history analysis load cases. For linear load cases, the structural stiffness at a given
given construction stage may serve as the basis for analysis. Three different evaluation
construction stage may serve as the basis for analysis. Three different evaluation scenarios
scenarios were investigated in the numerical modeling. The first scenario considered the
were investigated in the numerical modeling. The first scenario considered the modeling
modeling of construction stages as well as soil–structure interactions, and is referred to
of construction stages as well as soil–structure interactions, and is referred to throughout
throughout the text as the acronym SSI-SC. In the second scenario, the modeling took into
the text as the acronym SSI-SC. In the second scenario, the modeling took into account
account the instantaneous application of the load in a single construction phase. In this
the instantaneous application of the load in a single construction phase. In this scenario,
scenario, the soil–structure interactions were also considered, but the effects of creep and
the soil–structure interactions were also considered, but the effects of creep and shrinkage
shrinkage were not taken into consideration. This stage is referred to throughout the text
were not taken into consideration. This stage is referred to throughout the text as the
as the acronym
acronym SSI-IL
SSI-IL.
In the third case,case,
In the third the raft
thewas
raft modeled
was modeled on anonelastic basisbasis
an elastic withwith
dispersed loadsloads
dispersed acting
acting
on iton
from the walls.
it from This This
the walls. numerical model
numerical was dubbed
model was dubbedthe LRFthe (loaded raft foundation),
LRF (loaded raft foundation),
and and
it dealt withwith
it dealt the the
analysis by by
analysis focusing
focusingjust onon
just the
theraft
raftstiffness,
stiffness,without
withouttaking
taking creep
creep and
and shrinkage
shrinkage into account. In the third case, the rigid foundation slab was modeled as
into account. In the third case, the rigid foundation slab was modeled a slab
as a
slab on
on ananelastic
elasticfoundation.
foundation.ThisThis numerical model is referred to as LRF. No creep
numerical model is referred to as LRF. No creep or shrinkage or
shrinkage
effectseffects were taken
were taken into account
into account in thisinscenario.
this scenario.
FigureFigure
9 shows9 shows a graphical
a graphical rep-
representation
resentation of the models
of the models analyzed.analyzed.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9. Graphical
Figure representation
9. Graphical of theofmodels
representation analyzed:
the models (a) SSI-SC,
analyzed: (b) SSI-IL
(a) SSI-SC, and (c)
(b) SSI-IL andLRF.
(c) LRF.
Figure
Figure 10 shows
10 shows the geotechnical
the geotechnical profileprofile of the numerically
of the numerically investigated
investigated block. A block.
pro- A
profile with a silty-clay prevalence was identified, with an average N
file with a silty-clay prevalence was identified, with an average NSPT of 10 blows of 10 blows
SPTin a com-
in a compressible
pressible layer (NSPT > 30layer (NSPT
blows) > 30 blows)
of around of around
3 m following 3 m following
earthworks earthworks
(land-cut sections).(land-
cut sections).
The standard penetration test (SPT) is a widely used in situ geotechnical testing method
employed to determine the subsurface soil properties. In this test, a hollow sampling tube
is driven into the ground at the bottom of a borehole by a standard weight falling freely
over a standard distance. The number of blows required for the sampler to penetrate
each 150 mm (6-inch) interval is recorded. The SPT provides valuable information about
soil resistance, which can be correlated with the soil type, density, and strength. Design
engineers use the results of SPT tests to assess the soil’s stability, bearing capacity, and
settlement potential, aiding in the design and construction of foundations, retaining walls,
and other geotechnical structures.
falling freely over a standard distance. The number of blows required for the sampler to
penetrate each 150 mm (6-inch) interval is recorded. The SPT provides valuable infor-
mation about soil resistance, which can be correlated with the soil type, density, and
strength. Design engineers use the results of SPT tests to assess the soil’s stability, bearing
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 capacity, and settlement potential, aiding in the design and construction of foundations,14 of 25
retaining walls, and other geotechnical structures.
Figure 10. Geotechnical

Geotechnical profile
profile of subgrade.
To determine the values of the spring coefficients

coefficients of the translation and rotation of
the elastic foundation to be applied to the base nodes, the settlement data obtained in the
to determine
retro-analyses of the modulus of elasticity were used to determine the
the volumetric
volumetric reaction
reaction
coefficient, according to Equation (3):
coefficient, according to Equation (3):
kN)
q𝑞((kN
kN 2 )
( ( kN
K𝐾 3
) =
) =
mm (3)
(3)
mm w𝑤((m)
m)
where w is the average settlement

settlement measured
measured in the 10 installed
installed pins and q is the average
vertical stress estimated at the time of measurement.
Once we
Once we had
had the
thevolumetric
volumetriccoefficient
coefficientofofvertical
vertical reaction,
reaction, thethe spring
spring constants
constants of
of translation and rotation were determined using tributary area concepts.
translation and rotation were determined using tributary area concepts. Often, an as- Often, an
assumption
sumption is is made
made toto calculatehow
calculate howmuch
muchareaareaofofaaplate
platecan
canbe
beattributed
attributedto toaanode
node or,
or, in
in
other words, the influence
other influence ofof each node on the surface area of a plate. It depends on the
shape of the
the plate.
plate.For
Foraaperfect
perfectsquare
squareororrectangular
rectangular plate, each
plate, node
each willwill
node influence exactly
influence ex-
¼ of the
actly ¼ ofplate’s surface
the plate’s area. But
surface forBut
area. a generalized quadrilateral,
for a generalized the bestthe
quadrilateral, practice would
best practice
be to calculate
would the center
be to calculate the of the mass
center of theofmass
the plate
of theand
platethen
anddraw
thenlines
drawfrom
linesthat
fromcenter
that
point to the middle points of each side. The described tributary area calculation
center point to the middle points of each side. The described tributary area calculation was the
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWkey procedure used internally by the commercial software to determine the linear 15 of 26
spring
was the key procedure used internally by the commercial software to determine the linear
constant.
spring FigureFigure
constant. 11 shows a generic
11 shows tributary
a generic area ofarea
tributary a finite
of a element of theof
finite element foundation
the foun-
plate slab.
dation plate slab.
Figure 11.11.
Figure Generic tributary
Generic finite
tributary element
finite area.
element area.
In this research, the tributary area for each node of the footing was first calculated,
and then the modulus of the subgrade reaction was multiplied by the corresponding trib-
utary area for each node to obtain the linear spring constants at each node. To calculate
the rotation spring constants, the moment of inertia of the tributary areas was multiplied
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 15 of 25
In this research, the tributary area for each node of the footing was first calculated, and
then the modulus of the subgrade reaction was multiplied by the corresponding tributary
area for each node to obtain the linear spring constants at each node. To calculate the
rotation spring constants, the moment of inertia of the tributary areas was multiplied by
the modulus of the subgrade. The linear springs in the direction of the U1 (X direction),
U2 (Y direction), and U3 (Z direction) axes and the R1 (X direction) and R2 (Y direction)
rotation springs are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Linear and rotation spring constants.
Local Node Coordinates Calculation Method

U1 U3 x Poisson’s ratio
U2 U3 x Poisson’s ratio
U3 Tributary area x modulus of subgrade
R1 “X” moment of inertia of tributary area x modulus of subgrade
R2 “Y” moment of inertia of tributary area x modulus of subgrade
This procedure was performed for each node that integrated the finite element model
of the foundation. The Poisson’s ratio of the soil that was used to calculate the spring
constants in the X and Y directions was 0.3.
Based on the measurement of Building 02 (land-cut section) and the predicted vertical
stress associated with numerical modelling, the settlement response coefficient obtained
was 7900 kN/m³. This value was calculated from Equation (4) below [17].
E
K= (4)
B.(1 − v2 ). Is .Ih
where Id is the layer-embedding factor. The other terms of the equation have already been
qualified throughout the text, and their values were as follows: E = 18,800 kN/m2 , B = 16.5 m,
ν = 0.3, Is .Ih = 0.16, and Id = 1—the value for the non-embedded layer, which is the
case studied.
It is essential to point out that the settlements were measured at the raft foundation
borders, which may have increased the settlement reaction coefficient, since the amount of
deformation at the edge is less than that in the middle, depending on the global structural
stiffness. Figure 12 exhibits a comparison of the average settlement observed at the plate’s
borders and the average settlement of the numerical model results.
Figure12.12.
Figure A comparative
A comparative analysis
analysis of theofaverage
the average settlement
settlement measured
measured at the
at the edges edges
of the plateofand
the plate and
ofofthe plate of the numerical model.
the plate of the numerical model.
2.7. Soil–Structure Parameters

The absolute settlement factor (ASF) proposed by Gusmão [34] is given by Equation
(5), which evaluates the settlement at a specific location in the raft by examining the con-
nection between the settlement of this point (𝑤 ) and the average settlement (𝑤) of all
points.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 16 of 25
2.7. Soil–Structure Parameters

The absolute settlement factor (ASF) proposed by Gusmão [34] is given by Equation (5),
which evaluates the settlement at a specific location in the raft by examining the connection
between the settlement of this point (w i ) and the average settlement (w) of all points.
w i (mm)
ASF = (5)
w (mm)
As a result, this value may be used to evaluate the foundation’s load redistribution.
When stress is relieved, the ASF parameter tends to drop, and when stress is increased, the
ASF tends to increase.
The coefficient of variation (CV) is also often employed in foundation design evalua-
tions of soil–structure interactions (SSIs). As indicated in Equation (6), it links the standard
deviation (σ) of the settlements obtained at the various measured points with the global
average settlement.
σ (mm)
CV = (6)
w (mm)
SSIs reduce the CV by distributing the load and, as a result, normalizing the settlements.
3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Modulus of Elasticity of Soils through Monitored Foundation Settlement
The results were separated into two groups based on the two possible scenarios:
(a) mat foundations on landfill sections and (b) mat foundations over land-cut sections.
3.1.1. Mat Foundations on Landfill Sections

The elastic modulus versus the predicted stress curves for mat foundations set over
landfill sections are shown in Figure 13. At increased stresses, the elastic modulus was
clearly reduced. Building 1’s elastic modulus was reduced from 19.8 MPa to 8.8 MPa, while
the stress increased by 23.3 kPa. With an estimated transmitted stress of 72.7 kPa, the soil
beneath Building 4 presented the lowest back-analyzed elastic modulus value (1.1
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 MPa).
of 26
Building 9’s back-analyzed soil elastic modulus was reduced from 16 MPa to 8.4 MPa,
while Building 5’s value decreased from 13.1 MPa to 4.2 MPa.
Figure
Figure13.
13.Elastic
Elasticmodulus
modulusversus
versusestimated
estimatedstress
stressfoundations
foundationson
onlandfill
landfillsections.
sections.
Thisdecrease
This decrease in the elastic
elastic modulus
modulusshowed
showedthat
thatusing
usingconstant deformability
constant param-
deformability pa-
eters for for
rameters such a foundation
such might
a foundation result
might in an
result in underestimation of the
an underestimation expected
of the settlement.
expected settle-
ment. The above-mentioned data points were aggregated and interpolated by a single line
to analyze the evolution of the elastic modulus variation as the load progressed (see Figure
8).
A polynomial equation (Equation (7)) defines the trend line with the best fit (R2 = 0.71)
to the points, where E is the elastic modulus and 𝜎 is the transmitted estimated stress.
Figure 13. Elastic modulus versus estimated stress foundations on landfill sections.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 17 of 25
This decrease in the elastic modulus showed that using constant deformability pa-
rameters for such a foundation might result in an underestimation of the expected settle-
ment. The above-mentioned
The above-mentioned data data
pointspoints
werewere aggregated
aggregated andand interpolated
interpolated by by a single
a single line
line to
to analyze the evolution of the elastic modulus variation as the load progressed (see Figure
analyze the evolution of the elastic modulus variation as the load progressed (see Figure 8).
8). A polynomial equation (Equation (7)) defines the trend line with the best fit (R2 = 0.71)
A points,
to the polynomial equation
where E is the (Equation (7)) defines
elastic modulus and σthe trend line with the best fit (R2 = 0.71)
est is the transmitted estimated stress.
to the points, where E is the elastic modulus and 𝜎 is the transmitted estimated stress.
E (MPa) = −0.0034σest 2 + 0.0508σest + 18.158 (7)
𝐸 (MPa) = −0.0034𝜎 + 0.0508𝜎 + 18.158 (7)
Figure 14
Figure 14 shows
showsthatthatthe
thedevelopment
development of of
thethe
elastic modulus
elastic began
modulus at a value
began of about
at a value of
17.5 MPa. The elastic modulus, determined using the Teixeira and Godoy
about 17.5 MPa. The elastic modulus, determined using the Teixeira and Godoy [43] equa- [43] equation
(Equation
tion (2)) in
(Equation (2))a in
typical subsoil
a typical of structures
subsoil constructed
of structures on landfill
constructed sections
on landfill of silty
sections soils
of silty
with an average NSPT of 10, was the same as the value of the evolution curve.
soils with an average NSPT of 10, was the same as the value of the evolution curve. Mello’s Mello’s [28]
recommended calculation (Equation (3)) yielded a slightly higher result of
[28] recommended calculation (Equation (3)) yielded a slightly higher result of 21 MPa. 21 MPa.
Figure 14. Evolution curve of back-analyzed elastic modulus for embankment earthmoving.
Figure 14. Evolution curve of back-analyzed elastic modulus for embankment earthmoving.
With this investigation, it can be shown that the modulus of elasticity started at a
With this investigation, it can be shown that the modulus of elasticity started at a
value close to those determined with the traditional equations. Then, as the transmitted
value close to those determined with the traditional equations. Then, as the transmitted
stress increased, the modulus of elasticity decreased, suggesting a loss of rigidity in the
stress increased, the modulus of elasticity decreased, suggesting a loss of rigidity in the
subsurface layer. Table 8 shows a potential FRM that varied according to the stress level
based on the back-analyzed elastic modulus evolution curve.
Table 8. Proposed factor-reduction modulus (FRM).
Transmitted Stress FRM

<25 kPa 1.00
25 kPa < transmitted stress < 40 kPa 0.85
3.1.2. Mat Foundation on Land-Cut Sections

Figure 15 shows the elastic modulus versus the predicted stress curves for a mat
foundation built over land-cut sections. The back-analyzed values of the soil elastic mod-
ulus decreased from 20.3 MPa to 17.4 MPa for Building 12, as well as from 19.4 MPa to
15.4 MPa for Building 13. The use of a constant elastic modulus for settlement predictions
in the context of mat foundations over cuttings has demonstrated efficacy, as evidenced by
minimal observed variation. This approach is particularly notable given the considerable
heterogeneity documented in the literature regarding soil elastic moduli [17,26]. Notably,
in the context of cut sections of land, this heterogeneity leads to pre-consolidation stresses,
with the applied stress increments remaining below 80 kPa.
ulus decreased from 20.3 MPa to 17.4 MPa for Building 12, as well as from 19.4 MPa to
15.4 MPa for Building 13. The use of a constant elastic modulus for settlement predictions
in the context of mat foundations over cuttings has demonstrated efficacy, as evidenced
by minimal observed variation. This approach is particularly notable given the consider-
able heterogeneity documented in the literature regarding soil elastic moduli [17,26]. No-
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 18 of 25
tably, in the context of cut sections of land, this heterogeneity leads to pre-consolidation
stresses, with the applied stress increments remaining below 80 kPa.
Figure15.
Figure Elastic
15.Elastic modulus
modulus versus
versus estimated
estimated stressstress foundations
foundations on cut land.
on cut land.
3.1.3.Comparative
3.1.3. Comparative Analyses
Analyses of Settlement
of Settlement Monitoring
Monitoring
Figure1616
Figure shows
shows thethe measured
measured and and estimated
estimated settlement
settlement with software
with ELPLA ELPLA software
for for
Buildings1 and
Buildings 1 and 2 (landfill
2 (landfill sections—Figure
sections—Figure 16a,b) and16a,b) and Buildings
Buildings 12 and sec-
12 and 13 (land-cut 13 (land-cut
tions—Figure
sections—Figure16c,d).16c,d).
The FRM Thespecified in Table 6in
FRM specified was used6for
Table landfill-section
was buildings,
used for landfill-section build-
whereas the constant elastic modulus was used for land-cut sections.
ings, whereas the constant elastic modulus was used for land-cut sections. The use of the FRM The use of
in the
the FRMprediction of settlementofinsettlement
in the prediction landfill sections, withsections,
in landfill the ELPLA technique
with for settle-
the ELPLA technique for
ment monitoring,
settlement is recommended.
monitoring, is recommended.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 16.Figure 16. Comparative

Comparative analysesanalyses of monitored
of monitored settlement
settlement ofBuilding
of (a) (a) Building 1, (b)
1, (b) Building2,2,(c)
Building (c)Building
Build-
ing 12, and (d) Building 13.
12, and (d) Building 13.
3.2. Soil–Structure Interaction Analysis for a Concrete-Walled Building
The SSI attributes investigated were the effects of the constructive strategy on settle-
ment uniformization and the influence of SSIs on stress development in concrete walls.
3.2.1. Analysis of Soil–Structure Interaction Parameters

The minimum, average, and maximum settlements, as well as the standard devia-
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 19 of 25
3.2. Soil–Structure Interaction Analysis for a Concrete-Walled Building

The SSI attributes investigated were the effects of the constructive strategy on settle-
ment uniformization and the influence of SSIs on stress development in concrete walls.
3.2.1. Analysis of Soil–Structure Interaction Parameters

The minimum, average, and maximum settlements, as well as the standard deviations
and coefficients of variation, were compared as a first assessment of the numerical models
presented. The settlements included in this research were those associated with the general
execution of the building in question.
Table 9 shows the data for the SSI-SC, SSI-IL, and LRF models. When compared to the
LRF model, the SSI-SC model exhibited less variance between the minimum and maximum
settlement, with the CV ranging from 4.07% to 5.20% for the SSI-SC model and 5.72% to
18.70% for the LRF model.
Since the loads imposed on the foundation in the last load stage were the same, the
average settlement values observed in the numerical models were also the same. What
stood out was the effect of the SSIs on the distribution of the vertical loads on the raft
foundation and the consequent uniformity of the settlements. In the SSI-SC model, the
coefficients of variation tended to be constant values, showing that the execution of the first
floor already imposed a significant rigidity to the structure (foundation + superstructure).
In the LRF model, the values for the coefficients of variation tended21toof increase
26
with an
increase in the loads. Figure 17 shows a comparative analysis of the coefficients of variation
of the three models studied.
Figure 17. Comparative analysis

Figure of coefficients
17. Comparative of variation.
analysis of coefficients of variation.
Figure 17. Comparative analysis of coefficients of variation.
Figure 18 exhibits Figure
the absolute settlement
18 absolute
exhibits factor variations
thesettlement
absolute settlementfor the SSI-SC
factor andfor
variations LRFthe SSI-SC and LRF
models.Figure 18 exhibits
It demonstrates that the
the ASF for the SSI-SC modelfactor variations
tended to have for the
stable SSI-SC
maxi-
models. It demonstrates that the ASF for the SSI-SC model tended to have stable maxi-
and LRF
models.
mum It demonstrates
and minimum values, that
in the ASFmodel,
for thethe
SSI-SC model tended to have stable maximum
mum and but
minimumthe LRF
values, but in maximum
the factors
LRF model, the tended
maximumto grow
factors tended to grow
and
and theminimum values,
minimum factors but
tended intothe LRF
decline. model, the
and the minimum factors tended to decline. maximum factors tended to grow and the
minimum factors tended to decline.
Figure
Figure 18.18. Variations
Variations in18.absolute
in absolute
Figure settlement
settlement
Variations absolutefactor.
infactor. settlement factor.
3.2.2. Influence of Soil–Structure

3.2.2. InfluenceIterations on Wall Stresses
of Soil–Structure Iterations on Wall Stresses
In order to analyzeIn
the combined
order action
to analyze theofcombined
construction effects
action and soil–structure
of construction effects in-
and soil–structure in-
teractions on the distribution
teractions onof normal stresses in
the distribution of the wall,stresses
normal which isinrelevant
the wall,information
which is relevant information
for the structural design
for theofstructural
concrete design
buildingof walls,
concretethree sections
building werethree
walls, chosen to graph-
sections were chosen to graph-
ically evaluate the redistribution of maximum normal stresses.
ically evaluate the redistribution of maximum normal stresses.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 20 of 25
Table 9. Settlements for the scenarios investigated.
Step Data SSI-SC LRF SSI-IL

ωavg (mm) 9.04 9.15 9.01
ωmax (mm) 9.83 13.08 9.46
Fully Executed
ωmin (mm) 8.13 5.77 8.54
CV 5.20% 18.70% 2.56%
ωavg (mm) 8.68 8.79
ωmax (mm) 9.44 12.57
8th Floor
ωmin (mm) 7.84 5.64
CV 4.10% 18.12%
ωavg (mm) 7.74 7.82
ωmax (mm) 8.46 11.02
7th Floor
ωmin (mm) 6.97 5.16
CV 4.22% 17.29%
ωavg (mm) 6.79 6.86
ωmax (mm) 7.47 9.48
6th Floor
ωmin (mm) 6.10 4.67
CV 4.36% 16.25%
ωavg (mm) 5.85 5.90
ωmax (mm) 6.48 7.96
5th Floor
ωmin (mm) 5.23 4.18
CV 4.52% 14.96%
ωavg (mm) 4.90 4.94
ωmax (mm) 5.48 6.46
4th Floor
ωmin (mm) 4.36 3.66
CV 4.69% 13.35%
ωavg (mm) 3.95 3.98
ωmax (mm) 4.45 5.03
3rd Floor
ωmin (mm) 3.51 3.12
CV 4.85% 11.36%
ωavg (mm) 3.01 3.02
ωmax (mm) 3.40 3.66
2nd Floor
ωmin (mm) 2.67 2.53
CV 4.07% 8.89%
ωavg (mm) 2.06 2.06
ωmax (mm) 2.31 2.35
1st Floor
ωmin (mm) 1.86 1.87
CV 4.49% 5.72%
3.2.2. Influence of Soil–Structure Iterations on Wall Stresses

In order to analyze the combined action of construction effects and soil–structure
interactions on the distribution of normal stresses in the wall, which is relevant information
for the structural design of concrete building walls, three sections were chosen to graphically
evaluate the redistribution of maximum normal stresses.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 21 of 25
The chosen sections are shown in Figure 7, with Sections A and C consisting of exterior
walls and Section B consisting of interior walls. Stage 4 (first floor) and Stage 5 (second
floor, partially executed), as well as Stage 9 (fourth floor, complete) and Stage 10 (fifth floor,
partially executed), were examined.
Figure 19a–d exhibit the maximum stress at Section A for Stages 4, 5, 9, and 10,
respectively. The highest stress was found to be more concentrated close to the base of the
walls on the right side in Stage 4. Normal maximum stress occurred on the opposite side to
that observed without the complete execution of the upper floor, corresponding to 22 of 265.
Stage
When Stages 9 and 10 were examined, it was found that the maximum normal stress in the
base of the walls did not tend to shift position. Normal stresses on the walls increased on
thethe
on levels below
levels the the
below wallwall
andand
in the
in region opposite
the region the wall,
opposite illustrating
the wall, the redistribution
illustrating the redistri-
of stresses caused by the structure’s stiffness.
bution of stresses caused by the structure’s stiffness.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure19.
19.Analysis
Analysisof
ofmaximum
maximumnormal
normalstresses
stressesin
inSection
SectionAAfor
for(a)
(a)Stage
Stage4,4,(b)
(b)Stage
Stage5,5,(c)
(c)Stage
Stage9,9,
and (d) Stage 10 (note: kN/cm2 2is the unit of measurement).
and (d) Stage 10 (note: kN/cm is the unit of measurement).
Figure
Figure 20a–d
20a–d show
show thethe maximum
maximumstress stressanalysis
analysisin inSection
SectionBBfor for Stages
Stages4,4, 5,
5, 9,
9, and
and
10,
10, respectively.
respectively. In In Stage
Stage 4,
4, the
the normal
normal maximum
maximum compression
compression stressstress occurred
occurred at at the
thebase
base
of
ofthe
thewalls
wallson onthetheright
rightside,
side,while
while normal
normal tensile
tensilestress
stressarose
aroseat the base
at the of the
base walls
of the on
walls
the left left
on the side.side.
The Thehighest normal
highest tensile
normal stress
tensile developed
stress developed on theon opposite
the oppositeside side
withwith the
partial execution
the partial of theofupper
execution floor,floor,
the upper corresponding
corresponding to Stage 5 and 5demonstrating
to Stage and demonstratingthe foun- the
dation’s liftinglifting
foundation’s tendency. Normal
tendency. maximum
Normal maximum stresses at theat
stresses base
the of theof
base walls did not
the walls did tend
not
to shift
tend toposition or direction
shift position (tension
or direction and compression)
(tension and compression) when Stages 9 and 10
when Stages were10exam-
9 and were
ined. There There
examined. was anwas increase in thein
an increase normal stresses
the normal in thein
stresses walls on theon
the walls floors belowbelow
the floors the wall the
and
wallin theinregion
and opposite
the region the wall,
opposite indicating
the wall, indicatingloadload
redistribution
redistributionduedueto the stiffness
to the stiffnessof
the structure.
of the TheThe
structure. SSISSI
investigation
investigation of the
of theconstruction
construction stages affected
stages thethe
affected distribution
distribution of
of loads
loads on various
on various walls,
walls, an issue
an issue that that is often
is often overlooked
overlooked in current
in current concrete-walled
concrete-walled con-
construction
struction projects.
projects. The The observed
observed behavior
behavior emphasizes
emphasizes the importance
the importance of considering
of considering the
the loads
loads imposed
imposed on structures
on structures as a as a result
result of their
of their construction
construction process.
process.
Buildings 2024,
Buildings 2024, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 23 of
23 of 26
26
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 22 of 25
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure 20.
Figure 20. Analysis of
of maximum normal
normal efforts in
in Section BB for
for (a) Stage
Stage 4, (b) Stage
Stage 5, (c) Stage
Stage 9,
Figure 20. Analysis
Analysis ofmaximum
maximum normalefforts
efforts inSection
Section B for(a) (a) Stage4,4,(b)
(b) Stage5,5,(c)
(c) Stage9,9,
and (d) Stage 10.
and (d) Stage 10.
and (d) Stage 10.
The
The maximum
Themaximum
maximumstress
stress analysis
stressanalysis
analysis
forfor
for Section
Section
Section
C in
C in Stages
CStages
in Stages
4, 5,
4, 5, 9,
9, and
4, and
10 is
is shown
5, 9,10and
shown in Figure
in
10 is shown
Figurein
21a–d.
21a–d. The
Figure The
21a–d. load
load development
development
The patternspatterns
patterns
load development were identical
were identical to those
to thoseto
were identical previously
previously analyzed
analyzed
those previously in Sec-
in
analyzedSec-
tion
tion A. It
A.
in SectionIt was
was observed
A. Itobserved
was observed that, in
that, in Stage
Stage
that, 4, the
4,
in Stage the maximum
4,maximum
the maximum loads
loads were
were
loads more
more
were moreconcentrated
concentrated
concentrated at
at
the
the base
base of
of the
the walls
walls on
on the
the observer’s
observer’s right;
right; however,
however, in
in Stage
Stage
at the base of the walls on the observer’s right; however, in Stage 5, the highest normal5,
5, the
the highest
highest normal
normal loads
loads
were
were concentrated
loadsconcentrated
were concentrated on the
on theonopposite
opposite side to
side
the opposite toside
thatto
that observed
observed previously.
previously.
that observed By analyzing
By
previously.analyzing Stages
Stages
By analyzing
9 and
9Stages 10,
and 10, it was
it was
9 and observed
10, observed that there
that there
it was observed was
thatwas
there no
nowassignificant
significant distribution
distribution
no significant of stress
of stress
distribution in
of in the
the in
stress walls
walls
the
opposite
opposite
walls the load
the
opposite load by
thebyloadthe
the partial
bypartial implementation
implementation
the partial implementation of the
of the floor,
offloor, duedue
due
the floor, to the
to the discontinuity
discontinuity
to the discontinuity of
of
the
the structure
structure in
in the
the section
section under
under consideration.
consideration.
of the structure in the section under consideration.
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 21. Cont.

Buildings 2024, 14,
Buildings 2024, 14, 746
x FOR PEER REVIEW 24
23 of 26
of 25
(c) (d)
Figure 21.
Figure 21. Analysis
Analysis of
of maximum
maximum normal
normal efforts
efforts in
in Section
Section C
C for
for (a)
(a) Stage
Stage 4,
4, (b)
(b) Stage
Stage 5,
5, (c)
(c) Stage
Stage 9,
9,
and (d) Stage 10.
and (d) Stage 10.
4. Conclusions
The elastic
elastic modulus
modulusback-analysis
back-analysishas hasbeen
been significantly
significantly affected
affected by by
earthmoving
earthmoving ac-
tivities—landfill sections
activities—landfill sectionsare aremore
morevulnerable
vulnerabletotorigidity
rigidity loss
loss than
than land-cut sections. An
analysis of ofmat
matfoundations
foundationsover over landfill
landfill sections
sections revealed
revealed that,that, as construction
as construction devel-
developed,
the
oped,subsoil stiffness
the subsoil decreased,
stiffness as measured
decreased, by a reduction
as measured in the elastic
by a reduction in themodulus with an
elastic modulus
increase in the estimated
with an increase transmitted
in the estimated stress. Astress.
transmitted proposed factor-reduction
A proposed modulus
factor-reduction (FRM),
modulus
obtained from thefrom
(FRM), obtained back-analyzed elastic modulus
the back-analyzed development
elastic modulus curve, was
development correlated
curve, with
was corre-
the transmitted stress levels of the mat foundations. This fact could
lated with the transmitted stress levels of the mat foundations. This fact could be usefulbe useful in predicting
settlements
in predictinginsettlements
the type of in construction
the type ofunder investigation.
construction under investigation.
The understanding of concrete raft foundations for structures with concrete walls can
be improved by combining a soil–structure interaction (SSI) analysis with construction- construction-
stage
stage consideration. This method
consideration. This method can can provide
provide insight
insight about
about the the foundation
foundation behavior
behavior by
by
highlighting the important influences of the superstructure and
highlighting the important influences of the superstructure and construction stages. construction stages.
The
The superstructure
superstructureand andconstruction
constructionstagesstageshave
havea asignificant
significantinfluence
influence ononthe behavior
the behav-
of raft foundations, contradicting a common design assumption
ior of raft foundations, contradicting a common design assumption that ignores these that ignores these aspects.
as-
This
pects.study
Thishighlighted that ignoring
study highlighted these aspects
that ignoring these in aspects
the design of concrete
in the design raft foundations
of concrete raft
for structuresfor
foundations with concretewith
structures walls might result
concrete walls in considerable
might discrepanciesdiscrepancies
result in considerable between the
predicted and actual structural behavior under field conditions.
between the predicted and actual structural behavior under field conditions.
The
The results
results using
using thethe SSI-SC
SSI-SC numerical
numerical model
model confirmed
confirmed that that taking
taking construction
construction
stages into account is crucial for making accurate predictions
stages into account is crucial for making accurate predictions about structural about structural behavior,
behavior,
highlighting the importance of a uniform settlement pattern and reduced
highlighting the importance of a uniform settlement pattern and reduced partial execution partial execution
distortions. Basedononthe
distortions. Based the results
results obtained,
obtained, thethe authors
authors strongly
strongly recommend
recommend thatsim-
that the the
simultaneous consideration of soil–structure interactions as well as the construction effects
ultaneous consideration of soil–structure interactions as well as the construction effects be
be commonly used in foundation designs.
commonly used in foundation designs.
Lines of research that include the consideration of settlement velocity as well as the def-
Lines of research that include the consideration of settlement velocity as well as the
inition of performance parameters for concrete-walled constructions over raft foundations
definition of performance parameters for concrete-walled constructions over raft founda-
are relevant research topics.
tions are relevant research topics.
Author Contributions: All the authors contributed to the development, analysis, writing, and
Author Contributions: All the authors contributed to the development, analysis, writing, and revi-
revisions of this paper; conceptualization, F.A.N.S., J.D.P. and A.D.G.; methodology, S.R.M.F., F.A.N.S.,
sions of this paper; conceptualization, F.A.N.S., J.D.P. and A.D.G.; methodology, S.R.M.F., F.A.N.S.,
J.D.P. and A.D.G.; software, S.R.M.F. and F.A.N.S.; validation, F.A.N.S., H.J.K. and J.M.P.Q.D.; formal
J.D.P. and A.D.G.; software, S.R.M.F. and F.A.N.S.; validation, F.A.N.S., H.J.K. and J.M.P.Q.D.; for-
analysis, F.A.N.S., H.J.K., J.M.P.Q.D. and A.C.A.; investigation, S.R.M.F., F.A.N.S., J.D.P. and A.D.G.;
mal analysis, F.A.N.S., H.J.K., J.M.P.Q.D. and A.C.A.; investigation, S.R.M.F., F.A.N.S., J.D.P. and
writing—original draft preparation, S.R.M.F. and F.A.N.S.; writing—review and editing, F.A.N.S.,
A.D.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.R.M.F. and F.A.N.S.; writing—review and editing,
J.M.P.Q.D., H.J.K. and A.C.A.; visualization, F.A.N.S., H.J.K. and J.M.P.Q.D.; supervision, F.A.N.S.,
F.A.N.S., J.M.P.Q.D., H.J.K. and A.C.A.; visualization, F.A.N.S., H.J.K. and J.M.P.Q.D.; supervision,
J.D.P. and A.D.G.; funding acquisition, F.A.N.S. and J.M.P.Q.D. All authors have read and agreed to
F.A.N.S., J.D.P. and A.D.G.; funding acquisition, F.A.N.S. and J.M.P.Q.D. All authors have read and
the published version of the manuscript.
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 24 of 25
Funding: This work was financially supported by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC),
under the project 2022.06841.PTDC—BlueHouseSim—Development of numerical simulation tools
and methodologies for high-efficiency off-the-electrical-grid houses, with a DOI of 10.54499/2022.
06841.PTDC (https://doi.org/10.54499/2022.06841.PTDC). In addition, this work was financially
supported by Base Funding—UIDB/04708/2020, with a DOI of 10.54499/UIDB/04708/2020 (https:
//doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04708/2020); Programmatic Funding—UIDP/04708/2020, with a DOI
of 10.54499/UIDP/04708/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDP/04708/2020) of the CONSTRUCT
funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC); and FCT through the individual Sci-
entific Employment Stimulus 2020.00828.CEECIND/CP1590/CT0004—DOI of 10.54499/2020.00828.
CEECIND/CP1590/CT0004 (https://doi.org/10.54499/2020.00828.CEECIND/CP1590/CT0004). Fi-
nally, the authors express their gratitude to CNPq for providing finances and Gusmão Engenheiros
Associados Ltda, who provided the data for analysis.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
authors upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Zhang, Y.; Cai, X.D.; Liu, R.; Xie, H.T.; Yi, Y.J. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete frame substructure with cast-in-place slab
on independent foundation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 157, 107255. [CrossRef]
2. Bennett, V.; Abdoun, T.; Zeghal, M.; Koelewijn, A.; Barendse, M.; Dobry, R. Real-Time Monitoring System and Advanced
Characterization Technique for Civil Infrastructure Health Monitoring. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2011, 2011, 870383. [CrossRef]
3. Zhu, C.; Zhang, L.; Liao, C.; Wei, X.; Ye, G. Estimation of horizontal bearing capacity of mat foundation on structured and
over-consolidated clays under cyclic wave loads. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 161, 107426. [CrossRef]
4. Asli, C.; Feng, Z.-Q.; Porcher, G.; Rincent, J.-J. Back-calculation of elastic modulus of soil and subgrade from portable falling
weight deflectometer measurements. Eng. Struct. 2012, 34, 1–7. [CrossRef]
5. Farias, R.S. Structural Analysis of Concrete Wall Buildings Including Soil-Structure Interaction and Progressive Loading. Ph.D.
Thesis, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil, 2018.
6. González-Arteaga, J.; Alonso, J.; Moya, M.; Merlo, O.; Navarro, V.; Yustres, Á. Long-term monitoring of the distribution of a
building’s settlements: Sectorization and study of the underlying factors. Eng. Struct. 2020, 205, 110111. [CrossRef]
7. Zhussupbekov, A.; Tanyrbergenova, G.; Omarov, A. Design of anchored diaphragm wall for deep excavation. Int. J. Geomate 2019,
16, 139–144. [CrossRef]
8. Bapir, B.; Abrahamczyk, L.; Wichtmann, T.; Prada-Sarmiento, L.F. Soil-structure interaction: A state-of-the-art review of modeling
techniques and studies on seismic response of building structures. Front. Built Environ. 2023, 9, 1120351. [CrossRef]
9. Santos, Y.R.P.; Bello, M.I.M.C.V.; Gusmão, A.D.; Patricio, J.D. Soil-structure interaction analysis in reinforced concrete structures
on footing foundation. Soils Rocks 2021, 44, 1–12. [CrossRef]
10. Alnmr, A.; Alsirawan, R. Numerical Study of the Effect of the Shape and Area of Shallow Foundations on the Bearing Capacity of
Sandy Soils. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2024, 21, 103–120. [CrossRef]
11. Alnmr, A.; Sheble, A.; Ray, R.; Ahmad, H. Parametric Investigation of Interaction between Soil-Surface Structure and Twin Tunnel
Excavation: A Comprehensive 2D Numerical Study. Infrastructures 2023, 8, 124. [CrossRef]
12. Poulos, H.G. Analysis of Foundation Settlement Interaction among Multiple High-Rise Buildings. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2023, 41,
2815–2831. [CrossRef]
13. Ertürk Atmaca, E.; Genç, A.F.; Altunişik, A.C.; Günaydin, M.; Sevim, B. Numerical Simulation of Severe Damage to a Historical
Masonry Building by Soil Settlement. Buildings 2023, 13, 1973. [CrossRef]
14. Stewart, J.P.; Murphy, D.; Largent, M.; Curran, H.; Egan, J.A. Foundation Settlement and Tilt of Millennium Tower in San
Francisco, California. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2023, 149, 1–22. Available online: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/epdf/10.1061/
JGGEFK.GTENG-10244 (accessed on 5 March 2024). [CrossRef]
15. Ng, S.-C.; Low, K.-S.; Tioh, N.-H. Newspaper sandwiched aerated lightweight concrete wall panels - Thermal inertia, transient
thermal behavior and surface temperature prediction. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 1636–1645. [CrossRef]
16. Loukidis, D.; Tamiolakis, G.P. Spatial distribution of Winkler spring stiffness for rectangular mat foundation analysis. Eng. Struct.
2017, 153, 443–459. [CrossRef]
17. Harr, M.E. Foundations of Theoretical Soil Mechanics; MC Graw-Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
18. Giroud, J.P. Tables Pour le Calcul des Fondations; Dunod: Paris, France, 1972.
19. Poulos, H.G.; Davis, E.H. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1974.
20. Perloff, W.H. Pressure distribution and settlements. In Foundation Engineering Handbook; Winterkorn, H.F., Fang, H., Eds.; Van
Nostrand Reiinhold Company: New York, NY, USA, 1975.
21. Padfield, C.J.; Sharrock, M.J. Settlement of Structures on Clay Soils; CIRIA Special Publication 27/PSA Civil Engineering Technical
Guide 38; Department of the Environment: London, UK, 1983.
Buildings 2024, 14, 746 25 of 25
22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering Manual—Settlement Analysis; Publication EM 1110-2-1904; USACE: Washington, DC,
USA, 1994.
23. Das, B.M. Shallow Foundations: Bearing Capacity and Settlement, 3rd ed.; CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2017.
24. Fellenius, B.H. Pile foundations. In Foundations Engineering Handbook; Fang, H.Y., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
1991; pp. 511–536.
25. Sherif, G.; Konig, G. Raft and Beams on Compressible Subsoil; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1975.
26. Bowles, J.E. Foundation Analyses and Design; MC Graw-Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
27. Terzaghi, K.; Peck, R.B. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1948.
28. Mello, V.F.B. The Standard Penetration Test. In Proceedings of the IV Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, San Juan, PR, USA, 19–25 June 1971; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1971; Volume 1,
pp. 1–86.
29. Trofimenkov, J.G. Penetration testing in Eastern Europe. In Proceedings of the European Symposium on Penetration Resistance,
Stockolm, Sweden, 5–7 June 1974; Volume 2.1, pp. 24–28.
30. Teixeira, A.H. An improvement in simple percussion recognition surveys. In Solos do Interior de São Paulo; ABMS: São Carlos,
Brazil, 1993; Chapter 4.
31. Sharma, L.K.; Singh, R.; Umrao, R.K.; Singh, T.N. Evaluating the modulus of elasticity of soil using soft computing system. Eng.
Comput. 2016, 33, 497–507. [CrossRef]
32. Park, K.; Stokoe Ii, K.H.; Olson, R.E.; Seo, W. Settlements of footings in sand using dynamic soil properties. In Soil-Foundation-
Structure Interaction, Selected Papers Form International Workshop on Soil-Foundation Structure Interaction, Auckland; Taylor & Francis
Group: London, UK, 2010.
33. Sert, S.; Kiliç, A.N. Numerical Investigation of Different Superstructure Loading Type Effects in Mat Foundations. Int. J. Civ. Eng.
2016, 14, 171–180. [CrossRef]
34. Gusmão, A.D. Study of Soil-Structure Interaction and its Influence on Building Settlements. Master’s Thesis, COPPE, UFRJ, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, 1990.
35. Savaris, G.; Hallak, P.H.; Maia, P.C.A. Understanding the Mechanism of Static Soil-Structure Interaction—A Case Study. Soils
Rocks 2011, 34, 195–206. [CrossRef]
36. Gonçalves, J.C.; Santa Maria, P.E.L.; Danziger, F.A.B.; Carvalho, E.M.L. The Influence of the Foundation Settlements on the column
Loads of a Building. Soils Rocks 2007, 30, 149–159. [CrossRef]
37. Buttling, S.; Rui, Z. Settlement of high-rise building under construction—Measurement and modelling. In Proceedings of the
19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 17–21 September 2017;
pp. 1815–1818.
38. Angelo Mussi, F.T.; Petrella, F.; Pisano, F. Settlement prediction and monitoring a piled raft foundation on course-grained soil:
The case of the Allianz Tower in Milan. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 17–21 September 2017; pp. 2873–2876.
39. Shoaei, M.D.; Huat, B.B.K.; Jaafar, M.S.; Alkarni, A. Soil-Framed Structure interaction analysis—A new interface element. Latin
Am. J. Solids Struct. 2015, 12, 226–249. [CrossRef]
40. Briançon, L.; Dias, D.; Simon, C. Monitoring and numerical investigation of a rigid inclusion-reinforced industrial building. Can.
Geotech. J. 2015, 52, 1592–1604. [CrossRef]
41. Shoaei, M.D.; Huat, B.B.H.; Alkarni, A. Review of static soil-framed structure interaction. Interact. Multiscale Mech. 2013, 6, 51–81.
42. Finite Element Program for Modeling, Analysis and Design of Any Type of Structure, SAP2000 v. 22.1; CSI: Lisboa, Portugal, 2020.
43. Teixeira, A.H.; Godoy, M.S. Análise, projeto e execução de fundações rasas. In Fundações: Teoria e Prática; Hachich, W., Ed.; PINI:
São Paulo, Brazil, 1998.
44. Professional Software from GEOTEC Software, ELPLA 10.1; GEOTEC: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2022.
45. Patricio, J.D. Performance Evaluation of Radiers in the Recife Metropolitan Region. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Pernam-
buco, Recife, Brazil, 2019; 209p. (In Portuguese).
46. CEB-FIP 90; CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures. Comité Euro-International Du Béton (CEB): Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

204º Artigo (Buildings) - 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

204º Artigo (Buildings) - 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030746 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

1.1. Brief Literature Review

1.2. Research Significance

2.1. Geotechnical Investigation and Properties

Table 1. Geotechnical properties (earthmoving and NSPT ).

E = α.β.NSPT (MPa) (1)

Table 2. Coefficients α and β as determined in [29,30].

(a) α Values (b) β Values

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 26

3,2 3,6 4,07 4,48 4,89 4,48

5 4,48 4,4 4,07 5

2.2. Estimated Loading

2.2. Estimated Loading

Estimated Load Expected Stress

2.3. Back-Analysis of the Foundation’s Modulus of Elasticity

foundation; and Ih is a factor that depends on the foundation’s depth.

(a) (b) (c)

2.4. Constructive Method

Table 4. Constructive process phases.

2.6. Numerical Model

Table 6. Time-dependent concrete parameters used.

The construction process was numerically simulated using an SAP2000 module

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10. Geotechnical

To determine the values of the spring coefficients

where w is the average settlement

Table 7. Linear and rotation spring constants.

Local Node Coordinates Calculation Method

2.7. Soil–Structure Parameters

2.7. Soil–Structure Parameters

3. Results and Discussion

3.1.1. Mat Foundations on Landfill Sections

Table 8. Proposed factor-reduction modulus (FRM).

Transmitted Stress FRM

3.1.2. Mat Foundation on Land-Cut Sections

Figure 16.Figure 16. Comparative

3.2.1. Analysis of Soil–Structure Interaction Parameters

3.2. Soil–Structure Interaction Analysis for a Concrete-Walled Building

3.2.1. Analysis of Soil–Structure Interaction Parameters

Figure 17. Comparative analysis

3.2.2. Influence of Soil–Structure

Table 9. Settlements for the scenarios investigated.

Step Data SSI-SC LRF SSI-IL

3.2.2. Influence of Soil–Structure Iterations on Wall Stresses

Figure 21. Cont.

You might also like