Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2015, 5(3): 59-66

DOI: 10.5923/j.jce.20150503.02

Structural Response to Differential Settlement of Its

Foundations
Lan Lin*, Adel Hanna, Anup Sinha, Lucia Tirca

Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

Abstract Foundation design necessitates two different studies: one deals with the bearing capacity of the soil; the other is
concerned with the foundation settlements. Considering that the loads transferred from the superstructure to the foundation
are non-uniform, differential settlements between the foundation's elements are expected, which will generate additional
forces in the members of the superstructure. In most of the foundation engineering manuals, allowable differential settlement
between the foundation elements should not exceed 25mm. In this study, a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model
was developed for a 10-storey regular building. The dead and live loads were applied as uniform load over the entire
floor/roof area. The responses of the structure to the prescribed settlement of the corner, edge and center columns were
presented in terms of axial forces and vertical displacements of columns in each floor, bending moments and shear forces in
beams. The results of this study will lead foundation designers to limit differential settlement for columns. Furthermore, it
may lead to more communications between the structure and the foundation designers to trade-off between the allowable
differential settlement and the induced stresses in the structure, in order to achieve the most economical design without
compromising on the safety.
Keywords Foundations, Differentialsettlement, 3-Dfinite element modeling, Nonlinear pushover analysis, Elastic
analysis, Structural response, Demand capacity, Building codes

settlement remains unknown. Furthermore, excessive and/or

1. Introduction uncalculated settlements may occur during the lifespan of
the structure due to environmental changes, such as
Buildings are made of two main components: the flooding or rising the groundwater table or construction in
superstructure, which is the part of the building above the neighbourhood [1] [2] [3], or new excavation [4] [5],
ground, and the substructure or the foundation, which is the and accordingly, additional stresses will be induced in the
part of the building located underground. The structure's elements. Therefore, it is important for the
superstructures are designed by structure engineers with a foundation and the structure designers to exchange the data
mandate to design the structural elements to support the available during the design stage in order to avoid
loads acting on the building utilizing a reasonable factor of unforeseen damages and perhaps catastrophic failure of the
safety. The substructures or the foundations are designed by building [6] [7]. In the literature, values for the allowable
geotechnical engineers with a mandate to examine the soil differential settlements were recommended for certain types
condition in the proposed site and to select the appropriate of structures [8] [9] [10]. Hanna et al. [11] and Hanna [12]
foundation type, which is capable to transfer the building reported on the effect of differential settlement on a
load to the overlying soil. The design of each component high-rise concrete building and emphasized the need for
follows some design theories, codes and common practice communication among designers to achieve economical and
made especially for that component. Communication safe design.
between these two groups of designers is poor and often It should be made clear that the higher the allowable
does not exist, which may lead to uneconomical design or differential settlement between the foundation's elements,
catastrophic failure of the structure. the lower the foundation cost and the higher the additional
While values of the settlements of the foundation's stresses induced in the superstructure, and accordingly, the
elements can be predicted during the design stage, stresses higher the cost of the superstructure and vice versa. Given
induced in the structure's elements because of this this, a trade-off between the costs of the superstructure and
its foundation should be performed during the design stage in
* Corresponding author:
lan.lin@concordia.ca (Lan Lin)
order to achieve the most economical design for the building,
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/jce without comprising on the safety. This can only be achieved
Copyright © 2015 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved if a line of communication is opened between the designers
60 Lan Lin et al.: Structural Response to Differential Settlement of Its Foundations

of both components based on knowledge. according to NBCC. Furthermore, the following values were
The current practice for the design of buildings, as used in the design: compressive strength of concrete fc' = 30
stipulated in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) MPa, and yield strength of reinforcement fy = 400 MPa.
[13] and other international design manuals, e.g. IBC [14],
does not account for the stresses induced in the structure's
elements due to the differential settlement of the foundations. 3. Numerical Model
It is necessary to mention that ACI [15] purposed an
allowable differential settlement of 0.75 inch for classic A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model was
structures, which believed to be tolerated by the factor of developed for the building under consideration using the
safety. program SAP2000 [18]. Beams and columns were modelled
as 'beam' elements, and slabs as 'shell' elements. In total, the
model consisted of 2650 beam elements, 5760 shell elements,
2. Building Description and 6275 joints. The connections between beams and
columns were assumed to be rigid, and the columns were
A 10-storey reinforced concrete frame building located in assumed to be fully fixed with its foundation. The length of
the City of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada was considered in this the rigid joint was taken as half depth of the beam or column
study. The geometrical configuration of the building is given depending on the location of the joint, and the axial
in Fig. 1. The building is 24 x 24 m, and has a floor height of deformations were only considered for columns. The dead
4.0 m. The spans in both directions are 6.0 m. The floor and live loads were applied as uniform load over the entire
system consists of a two-way slab supported by conventional floor/roof area. The cross-sectional area, moment of inertia,
beams. The lateral load resisting system of the building and torsional constant were determined based on the
consists of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames geometrical properties given for each element. In order to
(RC-MRF) in both directions. take into account the effect of concrete cracking, the moment
The structure was designed by Cimillia-Erkman [16] as an of inertia of the beams and columns were reduced to 0.35Ig
office building in accordance with the 2005 edition of NBCC and 0.70Ig, respectively, according to the CSA A23.3 [19],
[17] as moderately ductile RC-MRF building for seismic where Ig is the moment of inertia of the gross section.
loads, and was modified for the purpose of this study Inelastic deformation was assumed at the ends of the
according to the provisions of the latest 2010 edition of beams and columns, where plastic hinges can be formed, in
NBCC [13]. The structure was designed for 1.5 kPa dead order to consider the nonlinearity of the elements due to the
load on the floors, and 1.0 kPa on the roof. It is important to settlement. Each plastic hinge is modeled as a discrete point
note that these loads do not include the self-weight of the hinge having its length as 5% of the span length for hinges on
structural members. Live loads of 2.4 kPa were applied on beams, and 5% of the floor height for hinges on columns [20].
the floors, and 1.0 kPa on the roof. The foundation was The nonlinear behavior of hinges was represented by a
assumed to be on stiff soil represented by site class C (i.e., force-deformation (i.e., moment-rotation) curve following
shear wave velocity between 360 m/s and 750 m/s) FEMA 356 [21] and ASCE/SEI 7-05 [22].

A B C D E

5 Frame 5
10@4.0m

4 Frame 4
4@6.0m

JointC3
C3
3 Frame 3

2 Frame 2

1 Frame 1
Joint A1 A1 C1
Joint C1
4@6.0m 4@6.0m

Figure 1. Geometrical configuration of the building

 Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2015, 5(3): 59-66 61

4. Results above. It can be noted that the corner column at joint A1

experiences the largest displacement, and accordingly, it
In this study, three cases of the foundation settlement were represents the most critical case for the structure.
considered: a prescribed 25 mm settlement was assigned to Furthermore, it was noticed that the displacement of the
the foundation under the corner, edge, and center column, column decreases with the increasing of the floor level.
known as A1, C1, and C3, respectively (see Fig. 1).
Preliminary analysis was performed on column C3 using 4.2. Axial Force Developed in Columns
nonlinear pushover analysis method. The results showed that
Figure 4 presents the axial force developed in columns of
the building behaved elastically at the settlement of 25 mm.
frame 3 due to the settlement of the center column C3. The
Therefore, linear static analysis was conducted in this study.
positive and negative values on the figure present the tensile
Structural responses in terms of vertical displacement of
and compressive force, respectively. The results in Fig. 4
column, axial force in column, bending moment and shear
show that the settlement develops tensile force in the settling
force in beam were determined.
column C3, while it generates compressive force in all
4.1. Column Displacement surrounding columns B3 and D3, and it does not affect
columns A3 and E3. Furthermore, the axial force decreases
Figure 2 presents the column displacement versus floor with the increase of the floor level in a nonlinear fashion.
level due to 25 mm settlement assigned to the center Similar conclusion was drawn for the case of settling of the
column C3. It can be seen in the figure that the vertical edge and corner columns. Figure 5 shows the axial forces
displacement of column C3 is larger than that of the interior developed in the three settling columns considered in this
columns B3 and D3; while no displacement is generated on investigation. It can be seen that the largest axial force is
the edge columns A3 and E3. Analyses were also conducted induced in the center column, with lesser extend in the edge
on columns A1 and C1, where similar observation was column followed by the corner column.
noted. Figure 3 illustrates the results of three cases given
10
Columns A3 and E3
9
Columns B3 nad D3
8 Column C3

7
6
Floor No.

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Displacement (m)

Figure 2. Vertical displacements of columns due to the settling of column C3

10
9
8 Column C1
7
6 Column A1
Floor No.

5
4
3 Column C3

2
1
0
0.017 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.025

Displacement (m)

Figure 3. Vertical displacements generated in the settling columns of the three cases
62 Lan Lin et al.: Structural Response to Differential Settlement of Its Foundations

10
Columns A3 and E3
9
Columns B3 and D3
8 Column C3

7
6

Floor No.
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Axial force (kN)

Figure 4. Axial forces developed in columns due to the settling of column C3

10
9
8
7
6
Floor No.

Column C3
5
Column C1
4
3
Column A1
2
1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Axial force (kN)

Figure 5. Axial forces generated in the settling columns of the three cases considered

10
9
8
7 Column C3
6
Floor No.

5
4 Column C1
Column A1
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Bending moment (kNm)

Figure 6. Maximum bending moments developed in beams adjacent to the settling columns of the three cases
 Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2015, 5(3): 59-66 63

4.3. Bending Moments Developed in Beams designers to integrate these two components in one by
Figure 6 shows the maximum positive bending moments allowing trade-off between the two parts to achieve
developed in the adjacent beams corresponding to the economical design without compromising on safety.
settling of the column for the three cases considered in the
4.4. Shear Forces Developed in Beams
study. It should be noted that negative moments were also
induced by the settlement. More specifically, for the case of Figure 7 presents the maximum positive shear forces
settling of the edge and center columns, the positive moment developed in beams due to the settlement of the column. It
was larger than the negative moment by about 15% to 20% can be seen that the settlement of the center column creates
respectively, while for the case of the corner column, they the largest shear forces. Furthermore, the shear forces due to
are quite close. Table 1 presents the ratios of the moment due the settlement assigned to the corner and edge columns were
to the foundation settlement to that due to the dead load almost identical for the beams above the 6th floor. Table 2
applied on the building. It can be noted that the moment presents a summary of the ratios of the shear force due to
generated by the foundation settlement was significantly settlement to that due to dead load for the three cases
larger than that by dead load. This should alert both structure examined in this investigation. It can be noted that the
and foundation designers on the seriousness of the role of produced ratio for the shear was relatively less than those for
foundation differential settlement on the safety and the bending, which implies that the foundation settlement may
serviceability of buildings. Furthermore, it may invite cause damage due to moments as compared to shear.
Table 1. Maximum ratios of the moment generated by settlement to that by dead load

Location of settlement Frame Beam +ve moment ratio -ve moment ratio
Corner column 1 AB 3.4 2.4
1 BC and CD 3.5 3.1
Edge column
C 12 2.2 1.4
3 BC and CD 2.3 1.9
Center column
C 23 and 34 2.3 1.9

10
9
8
Column C1 Column C3
7
6
Floor No.

5
4
Column A1
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Shear force (kN)

Figure 7. Maximum shear forces developed in beams adjacent to the settling columns of the three cases

Table 2. Maximum ratios of the shear force generated by settlement to that by dead load

Location of settlement Frame Beam +ve shear ratio -ve shear ratio
1 AB 1.1 1.3
Corner column
A 12 1.1 1.2
1 BC and CD 1.4 1.6
Edge column
C 12 0.7 1.3
3 BC and CD 1.1 1.3
Center column
C 23 and 34 1.1 1.3
64 Lan Lin et al.: Structural Response to Differential Settlement of Its Foundations

4.5. Affected Areas Caused by the Settlement 4.6. Demand/Capacity Ratio (DCR)
Based on the results of this study, it can be reported herein In this investigation the Demand/Capacity Ratio (DCR) of
that the most affected area in the building due to the the members affected by the foundation settlement was
differential settlement of its foundation is within one span calculated using the following equation,
from the settling column as illustrated in Fig. 8. Beyond DCR = D/C (1)
these areas, the settlement does not have any effect on the
structural members. The induced stresses including axial Where,
forces, bending moments, and shears decrease gradually with D = Demand (in terms of axial force, shear force and
the increase of the floor level. bending moment) due to external the loads
(a) C = Capacity calculated based on the section property
The demand due to the combined loads of the settlement
and dead load of the building was computed for all the beams
and columns in the building. The definition of the load
combination used to calculate DCR is similar to that for the
case of earthquake specified in NBCC. It was also used in
this study as a lower bound of the loads applied on the
structure. The results showed that the computed DCR for
moment was relatively higher than those for axial and shear
forces. Accordingly, structure designers may use the DCR
for moment as an indicator for the condition of the element
and to assess potential failure of that element due to the
A1 foundation settlement. It is important to report herein that in
this investigation, the DCR was not computed for columns
(b) due to the fact that the building was designed to resist
seismic loads, i.e., the seismic design satisfied the criterion
for "strong column-weak beam".
The moment-DCR values of the affects beams (Fig. 8) for
the three cases considered in this investigation were
calculated. Figure 9 presents typical results for the case of
settlement assigned to the center column C3. It can be seen in
the figure that DCRs of all affected beams are less than 1.0,
which indicate that settlement will not cause failure of these
beams. It should be noted that the DCR would increase after
incorporating the live load acting on the building. This ration
will further increase if the structure was not designed to resist
C1
seismic loads. The results in Fig. 9 also show that settlement
has more effects on the beams at lower floors as well as on
(c)
the roof than at other floors.
10
Left section
9
Right section
8
C3 7
6
Floor No.

5
4
3
2

Beam affected by settlement 1

0
Tensile force induced by settlement
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Compressive force induced by settlement
Demand capacity ratio (DCR)
Negligible axial force induced by settlement
Figure 9. Demand capacity ratios of beams BC and CD of frame 3 due to
Figure 8. Affected area due to the settling of: (a) corner column A1; (b) the settling of the center column C3
edge column C1; (c) center column C3
 Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2015, 5(3): 59-66 65

5. Conclusions 9. Center columns should be designed for a relatively

smaller allowable settlement in order to avoid
The response of a building structure due to the differential excessive stresses in the structure and perhaps
settlement of its foundation was evaluated. In this catastrophic failure.
investigation, the corner, edge and center columns of a 10. The induced stresses presented in this paper are only
10-storey reinforced concrete moment resisting frame for a differential settlement of 25mm, which is
building were subjected to a differential settlement of 25 mm, within or at the allowable load level. If, however,
which is the maximum allowable settlement given in the the differential settlement is excessive, whether it
current design codes. Nonlinear pushover analysis was was known at the design stage or was unpredictable,
conducted on a 3-D model of the building using the program the induced stresses will be much higher and the
SAP2000. The vertical displacement of the column, axial structure may reach the failure point.
force developed in columns, shear forces and bending 11. A trade-off between the factor of safety of the
moments developed in beams were determined from the structure and the allowable differential settlement
analysis. In addition, the demand capacity ratio of the of the foundations should be performed at the
structural members was computed in order to assess the design stage in order to achieve the most
current condition and the potential failure of the member. economical design without compromising on the
The affected area in the structure due to differential safety and serviceability of the building.
settlement of a given column was determined. The following
was concluded,
1. The structure behaves elastically for the settlement ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
up to about 25 mm, beyond which, inelastic The financial support provided by the Natural Sciences
deformations are developed. and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully
2. The settlement of the center column represents the acknowledged by the authors. In addition, the reviewers'
most critical case for the structure in terms of the comments are highly appreciated.
forces, while the corner column represent the least.
3. The vertical displacement of the column subjected
to settlement reaches its maximum value at the
foundation level and decreases with the increasing
of the floor level. However, for the other columns REFERENCES
within one span from the settling column, the [1] Zhu, M., Gary, T., and Bachus, R. 2012. "Assessment of a
vertical displacement increases with the increase of building settlement and the litigation process-a case study",
the floor number. The settlement of the corner Proceedings of the 6th Congress on Forensic Engineering,
column produces the maximum displacement, and San Francisco.
accordingly, it represents the most critical case for [2] Anastasopulos, I. 2013. "Building damage during nearby
the vertical displacement of the structure. construction: forensic analysis", Engineering Failure
4. Tensile force is generated in the settling column, Analysis, 34: 252-267.
while compressive force is developed in the [3] Camos, C., Molins, C., and Arnau, O. 2014. "Case study of
adjacent columns within one span from that damage on masonry buildings produced by tunneling induced
column. settlement", International Journal of Architectural Heritage:
5. Significant bending moments are developed in Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration, 8(4), 602-625.
adjacent beams of the settling column, while [4] Laefer, D., Ceribasi, S., Long, J., and Cording, E. 2009.
settlement induces relatively smaller shear forces in "Predicting RC frame response to excavation-induced
them. It indicates foundation settlement has more settlement", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
effects on bending moment than shear. Engineering, 135(11): 1605-1609.
6. The demand capacity ratio for moment is [5] Son, M., and Cording, E. 2011. "Response of buildings with
significantly larger than that for the axial force and differential structural types to excavation-induced ground
shear. In addition, settlement may cause failure of settlement", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
the beams at lower floors as well as on the top floors Engineering, 137(4): 323-333.
due to the higher DCR on these floors. [6] Boone, S.J. 1996. "Ground-movement-related building
7. The affected beams and columns of the settling damage", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(11):
column are located within one span from that 886-896.
column, beyond which the response is gradually [7] Kim, Y., Gajan, S., and Saafi, M. 2011. "Settlement
reduced. rehabilitation of a 35-year old building: case study integrated
8. A higher factor of safety for the design of the with analysis and implementation", Pratice Periodical on
structure elements should be restructured according Structural Design and Construction, 16(4): 215-222.
to the deduced DCR in order to minimize the effect [8] Meyerhof, G.G. 1947. "The settlement analysis of building
of the deferential settlement. frames", Structural Engineer, 25(9): 369-409.
66 Lan Lin et al.: Structural Response to Differential Settlement of Its Foundations

[9] Zielinski, Z.A., Hanna, A.M. and Gallaccio, J. 1980. [16] Cimillia-Erkmen, S. 2009. "Analysis and design of
"Foundation settlement of multistory structures", Proceedings earthquake resistant FRP reinforced concrete buildings".
of the CIB Symposium V on Construction of Multistory Ph.D thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Structures under Extreme Conditions, Madrid. Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa.
[10] Dulacska, E. 1992. Soil Settlement Effects on Buildings. [17] NRCC. 2005. National Building Code of Canada 2005.
Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
[11] Hanna, A.M., Douglass, M.M., and Jeyasingham, B. 1981.
"Allowable differential settlements for rigid frame structures", [18] Computers and Structures Inc. 2013. SAP2000 Integrated
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Software for Structural Analysis and Design, V15, Berkeley,
Society for Civil Engineering, Fredericton, May. California.
[12] Hanna, A.M. 2003. "Interactions between Superstructure and [19] CSA. 2006. CSA Standard A23.3-04, Code for the Design of
Substructure of buildings for achieving economical building Concrete Structures for Buildings, 3rd Edition. Canadian
design", International Journal for Housing Science and its Standards Association, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Applications, 27(3): 171-178.
[20] Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.N.J. 1992. Seismic Design of
[13] NRCC. 2010. National Building Code of Canada 2010. Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley &
Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Sons. Inc.
Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
[21] FEMA 356. 2000. Pre-standard and Commentary for the
[14] ICC. 2015. International Building Code, International Code Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency
Council, Washington, DC. Management Agency, SAC Joint Venture, USA.
[15] ACI. 2006. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced [22] ASCE/SEI 7-05. 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
Concrete – ACI 318-89. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Michigan, USA. Reston, Virginia, USA.