Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles.

Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to

fundamental principles
S.J. Boone
Golder Associates Inc., Irvine, California, United States
Abstract
Assessing the potential for construction and settlement-induced building damage is critical for
underground and new building construction projects. Simplified criteria including angular distortion
and deflection ratio have been used for this task; however these methods do not reflect the diversity
of building structures or the effects of nearby construction. This paper summarises a method of
examining the problem of building damage by combining ground deformation patterns, well-known
damage category criteria, strain superposition and critical strain concepts.
Introduction
Settlement or heave of structures, whether from nearby construction or other causes, can result in
noticeable damage. Such damage can be significant and costly. Usually, the most settlement sensitive
buildings are those with masonry load bearing walls or frames with masonry in-fill walls. Assessing
the potential for damage to new or existing structures has been the subject of many studies undertaken
over the last 45 years. Simplified criteria including angular distortion and deflection ratio have
been used for this task. Subsequent modifications to these methods have included horizontal strain as
an additional criterion. These methods have been useful tools but they do not reflect the diversity of
building structures or the effects of nearby construction. Such simplifications can over- or underestimate the real potential for damage. The key problems with the common assessment methods are:

the criteria are often very generalised;

multiple geometric definitions have been used for the angular distortion parameter;
new or existing buildings are constructed with a wide variety of dimensions;
clear definitions should be used when analysing potential building damage; and
the results of evaluations should have relevance to physically observable damage classifications.

By combining ground deformation patterns, well-known damage category criteria, strain

superposition and critical strain concepts, the potential effects of building deformations can be readily
assessed without undue oversimplification.
Background
Skempton and MacDonald examined 98 case histories to identify a basis on which to determine
allowable total and differential foundation settlements.1 Only 13 of these cases related to load-bearing
wall structures, and over half of all the cases suffered no damage at all. From their work, they
suggested that ...the settlement characteristic causing cracking is probably the radius of curvature.
But a characteristic which is more readily evaluated, and which is only slightly less logical, is the
angular distortion; this conveniently expressed by the ratio of the differential settlement d and the
distance l between two points. A preliminary limit of angular distortion of 1/300 was recommended
for load bearing walls or masonry in-fill panels in frame buildings. No consideration was given to the
relative length to height ratio of the affected parts of the structures. Categorisation of degrees of
damage was limited to the distinction between cracking and structural damage. Meyerhof and
Bjerrum also utilised the angular distortion approach yet considered some influence of the building
type and dimensions and provided additional criteria.2, 3 An upper limit of angular distortion of 1/150
was suggested by Bjerrum as the limit before structural damage could be expected.2 Within the
literature, many different simple parameters and definitions of angular distortion have been used
(see Appendix A). Rigid-body tilt is sometimes neglected, either in published works or in practice.
These approaches, while recognisably limited, are still often used in general practice and repeated in
texts.
1

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

Burland and colleagues compared the behaviour of load bearing masonry walls undergoing settlement
to the bending of a deep beam subjected to a point load at the beam centre.4, 5 They chose the ratio of
the central deflection, , and the equivalent beam length, l, to characterise structure deformation
(deflection ratio), this being directly related to the curvature. It was generally considered that
hogging deformation was more severe than sagging and the neutral axis for bending in hogging
was considered to be at the bottom of the beam/wall. They then combined the equations for bending
of the deep beam and a critical strain, c, to relate the onset of cracking to deformation and the
relative height, H, and length of the deep beam (see Fig. 1). The critical strain was considered to be
about 0.03%. One of the more important aspects of their work included a summarisation of damage
severity based on observed crack width (see Table 1). This damage categorisation is widely
referenced and is intuitive, practical, and related to measurable evidence. Yet, the deformation and
critical strain criteria were not directly linked to damage category.
Damage
Category
Negligible (0)
Very Slight (1)
Slight (2)

Moderate (3)

Severe (4)

Very Severe (5)

Description of Typical Damage

Hairline cracks
Very slight damage includes fine cracks which can be easily treated during normal
decoration, perhaps an isolated slight fracture in building, and cracks in external
brickwork visible on close inspection.
Slight damage includes cracks which can be easily filled and redecoration would
probably be required, several slight fractures may appear showing the inside of the
building, cracks which are visible externally and some repointing may be required,
and doors and windows may stick.
Moderate damage includes cracks that require some opening up and can be patched
by a mason, recurrent cracks that can be masked by suitable linings, repointing of
external brickwork and possibly a small amount of brickwork replacement may be
required, doors and windows stick, service pipes may fracture, and weathertightness is often impaired.
Severe damage includes large cracks requiring extensive repair work involving
breaking-out and replacing sections of walls (especially over doors and windows),
distorted windows and door frames, noticeably sloping floors, leaning or bulging
walls, some loss of bearing in beams, and disrupted service pipes.
Very severe damage often requires a major repair job involving partial or complete
rebuilding, beams lose bearing, walls lean and require shoring, windows are broken
with distortion, and there is danger of structural instability.

Approximate
Individual Crack
Width
< 0.1 mm
1 mm
< 5 mm
5 mm to 15 mm
or a number of
cracks > 3 mm
15 mm to 25 mm
but also depends
on the number of
cracks
> 25 mm

Table 1: Severity of Cracking Damage4, 5

Boscardin and Cording illustrated the importance of direct horizontal extension in initiating damage.6
Fig. 2 illustrates the combination of angular distortion, defined in this case as the maximum change in
slope along the beam or wall, and horizontal strain. Damage categories were based on the criteria
suggested by Skempton and MacDonald and the work of the U.K. National Coal Board and were also
generally related to the criteria of Table 1.1, 6, 7 These were then compared to limited case history data
and Fig. 2 was produced as a tool to assess structures with a length to height ratio of 1.
A later modification of the critical strain approach by Burland included lateral strain based on the
work of Boscardin and Cording and adapted different values of critical strain to reflect different
damage categories, as illustrated by Fig. 3.8 However, this approach was also limited to the case of l/H
= 1 unless successive graphical constructions and interpretation are carried out. He also considered
that there was no evidence to suggest that a strain of 0.3% could cause severe damage in spite of data
provided by the National Coal Board and Boscardin and Cording.6, 7
Strain Superposition Method - Fundamental Principles
The strain superposition approach is based on fundamental considerations of ground movement, the
deformations that these might exert on a structure supported by the ground, and observed crack
formation and enlargement in real building walls.9, 10, 11 When a structure is subject to some induced
deformation, as in tunnelling or excavation projects, the stiffness of the building will have some effect
on the final ground profile. Quantification of this effect is difficult, though some advances in this area
2

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

2.0
Shear
Critical

/(lc)

1.5

Bending
Critical

1.0

Actual Building

0.5

0.0

Idealized "Beam"

l/H

Horiz. Strain, h x 10

Fig. 1: Threshold of damage for hogging of

load bearing walls, with the bending neutral
axis at the wall base and E/G = 2.6 (after
Burland and Wroth 1974)

Shear Deformation

Deep

SEVERE TO V. SEVERE

mines

Shallow mines,
braced cuts
and tunnels

MODERATE

Bending Deformation

TO SEVERE Self-weight
building settlement

NEG

Figure 4: Idealized model of building

wall as simple beam shown in "sagging"
deformation mode (modified after
Burland et al. 1977)

Angular Distortion, x 10

Fig. 2: Relationship between angular distortion,

horizontal strain, and damage category (after
Boscardin and Cording 1989)
0.4

'2
1

S1

'1

S2

Severe to Very Severe

0.3

/l (%)

g2
S

g1
l

tilt
0.2

Moderate

0.1
0.0

S = total settlement
S = differential settlement
l = length within deformation profile
= angle of rotation relative to chord
between ends of l
g = slope of deformation profile relative
horizontal
= slope of deformation curve relative
to chord between ends of l
max = maximum displacement from
curve chord

Slight

0.0

0.1

0.2

max

0.3

Horizontal Strain (%)

Figure 3. Relationship of damage category

to deflection ratio and horizontal tensile
strain for hogging and l/H = 1 (after
Burland 1997).

Fig. 5: Definition of geometry parameters

for building deformation problem (after
Boone 1996 and Boone et al. 1999)

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.
12

have been recently made with centrifugal modelling and examinations of case histories. However,
for the large majority of relatively small one to four-story masonry structures that are common in
older urban environments, it is reasonable and somewhat conservative to assume that the building
deforms to match the ground.6, 11 Provided that the final deformation profile can be estimated (an often
difficult task in itself) the strain superposition method described in this paper remains applicable.
Estimation of ground deformation profiles is beyond the scope of this paper and reference should be
made to numerous detailed studies of this subject.13, 14
The strain superposition method of analysis considers that deformation of bearing walls is analogous
to deformation of deep beams. In contrast to earlier methods, however, this approach considers that a
uniformly loaded beam best represents load bearing walls, as the self weight and load distributed to
the wall is more likely uniform than a single point load (see Fig. 4). The position of the neutral axis of
the beam in hogging has in the past been considered to be near the wall bottom considering that
masonry will tend to separate if not restrained at the top in hogging deformation as might be
observed if the masonry were not mortared.4, 5 It is recognised that the foundation will offer restraint
to deformation, and that the top of the wall might also be freer to deform. However, walls and
foundations may be separated by a damp-proof course in older structures, there will likely be
openings on all floor levels, and the floor and roof levels will likely be restrained in tension by the
floor and roof beams and joists intimately joined to the walls. For these reasons, this strain
superposition method considers the neutral axis to remain near the mid-height of the wall, though the
method itself is adaptable to any chosen neutral axis location.
Deformation of building walls can be reduced to three basic modes: bending, shear, and direct
extension. These modes and geometry definitions are illustrated in Figs 4, 5 and 6. Using well-known
equations for beam deformation and assuming a ratio of the elastic (E) and shear (G) modulus of
common masonry materials of about 2.4 to 2.6, the proportions of the total maximum central
deformation, noted herein as max, due to bending and shear can be readily defined (see Fig. 7).15
Using the relationship illustrated by Fig. 7, the shear strain, , and bending tensile strain, M, can be
separately determined. By adding the direct lateral extension strain, le, to the bending strain, and
subsequently applying plane-strain mechanics, the maximum principal tensile strain (diagonal), p,
can be determined. Trajectories of principal strain in deep uniformly loaded beams are illustrated in
Fig. 8. As illustrated by this figure, the trajectories of principal strain are not linear. Near the base of
the beam, they are nearly vertical, and near the top of the beam, they are nearly horizontal. For a
simple element, the direction of the principal strain can also be found as illustrated in Fig. 9. When
calculating a finite deformation, a length to which the strain is applied must be derived or assumed.
For simplicity, a diagonal average length is developed using the minimum length determined using
either half the wall length or the wall height and the principal strain angle (see Fig. 9). Though this
concept calculates the strains and deformations in one location relative to the principal strain
trajectories as illustrated in Fig. 8, in reality, shear and tensile strains occur throughout the wall and
the associated cracking can develop in many areas.
Masonry and concrete are notoriously intolerant of tensile strain. A critical strain threshold for the onset of cracking for fully intact materials can be defined based on laboratory and case studies. Critical
shear strains are about twice the tensile strain values. Critical strains for poor mortar and brick
construction can be as little as 0.01% as summarised in Table 2. Consider a simple wall with a length
of 10 m that is subjected to a 0.3% strain. If this deformation is fully manifested in only 1 crack, then
the damage could be considered severe according to Table 1. Alternatively, if the deformation is
fully manifested in 10 cracks of no more than 3 mm each, the damage might be categorised as
moderate. The degree to which masonry and concrete materials can withstand strain without
cracking depends on their age, composition, and quality. Small fissures and micro-cracks in masonry
are also common without ground-movement-related deformation as a result of construction defects,
temperature, and other factors. Therefore, within the analytical approach described in this paper, low
values of tolerable strain are generally assumed (between 0.01% and 0.03%). Once cracking initiates
the distribution of cracks and their sizes need to be considered. The strain superposition method
considers that beyond the critical strain, cracks will widen in general preference to new cracks
forming. Based on existing and new case history data, for buildings with wall heights ranging between
4

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

Deformed
Shape
max

Extension

Original Wall Length

Fig. 8: Principal stress trajectories in

simple beam, dashed lines represent
compression, solid lines represent
tension (after Gere and Timoshenko
1974)

Wall Length + Lateral Extension

Bending
Bending
curvature angle,
M Bending
radius, RM

y1

xydycos

x1
xydy

xy
ds

dy

x
y

dx

Shear

xdxcos

x1

y1
ds

Shear strain,

xy
x + y

Fig. 9: Plane strain mechanics (after Gere

and Timoshenko 1984)

Bending (E/G = 2.4)

4
Shear

0
100
80
60
40
20
0

Relative Frequency (%)

Normalized
Deflection

xdx

1 = x + y + (x + y)/2}2 + {xy /2}2

2
tan2P =

dx

Fig. 6: Separation of deformation modes,

example shown in "hogging"

Percent of Total
Deflection

dy

Bending

Shear

3ql 2
16GA

10

5ql 4
384EI

40

20

l/H

max =

60

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Relative Crack Width, Cw

n

(Cw = Ci /C per wall)

i =1

Fig. 7: Contributions of shear and

bending to total deformation of deep,
uniformly loaded beams (after Boone
1996, Gere and Timoshenko 1974)

Fig. 10: Crack width frequency for

brick and block walls, Ci =
individual crack width
5

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

one and four stories and lengths of 3 to 20 m, the maximum crack width will be about two thirds of
the cumulative crack width along the wall (see Fig. 10).
Test Conditions
Brick buildings with L/H>316
Full scale frames with brick in-fill 17, 18
Hollow tile & clinker block, brickwork17, 18
Hollow tile & clinker block, brickwork17, 18
Full scale brick walls with supporting concrete beams, 1.2<L/H<3.0 19
Concrete beams supporting brick walls 19
Fibreboard or plywood on wood frame 20
Gypsum/fiberboard/plaster on wood frame 20
Structural clay tiles with cement-lime mortar 20
Clay brick with cement-lime mortar 20
Cement-lime mortared concrete blocks20
Core samples of brick and mortar 21
Full scale brick walls in field test 22, 23
Re-evaluation of full scale wall panel tests 24

Mode of Deformation
Tensile from flexure
Diagonal-tensile
Shear approximation
Shear distortions
Diagonal-tensile
Tensile from flexure
Tensile from flexure
Shear strain
Shear strain
Shear strain
Shear strain
Shear strain
Tension
Tension
Principal tensile

Critical Strain
0.05%
0.081% to 0.137%
0.16% to 0.27%
0.22% and 0.33%
0.11% to 0.16%
0.038% to 0.06%
0.035%
0.6% to 1.66%
0.37% to 0.7%
0.1%
0.1% to 0.2%
0.1%
0.001% to 0.01%
0.02% to 0.03%
0.02% to 0.03%

Table 2: Summary of Critical Cracking Strain Data

Cracking damage for frame buildings must be examined differently than damage to load bearing walls
but many of the same fundamental principles apply to this problem as well. In general, shear strains
dominate distortions of in-fill walls in framed buildings as a result of differential settlement or heave
and the confining effect of the columns and beams. Concrete frames produce different in-fill wall
deformation patterns than steel frames as the concrete frame connections provide nearly fixed-end
conditions, while it is difficult to achieve fixed-end conditions with welded or bolted connections for
steel frames. Once the deformations of the beams are determined, however, these deformations can be
directly applied to the in-fill walls.
Having defined the deformation geometry, separated the deformation modes, applied plane-strain
mechanics principles, and applied these to reasonable estimations of building dimensions, finite
cumulative crack widths for total and principal tensile strains can be calculated. These cumulative
crack widths then can be compared to the relative distribution of crack widths and Table 1 to
determine damage category (also see Figs 10 and 19). It is also assumed in this approach that while
neither principal nor total tensile crack widths may exceed the crack width threshold individually,
their combined effects may produce sufficient cracking to exceed the generalised threshold criteria.
Figs 11 and 12, illustrate the basic steps for evaluating the potential damage category for both
masonry load-bearing walls and in-fill walls within frames. The disadvantage to the strain
superposition method is that it requires careful calculations (spreadsheets work well for this), a more
thorough definition of the problem conditions, and does not lend itself well to generalised graphical
constructions. The benefits of the strain superposition approach, however, outweigh such
disadvantages and these advantages are:

reliance is not placed on graphical charts that only include selected deformation modes;
differences in building geometry are accounted for;
all deformation modes are accounted for;
potential cumulative and maximum crack widths are directly calculated to permit a direct
correlation to building damage categorisation schemes (as in Table 1) with physical meaning; and
the approach provides a transparent method for evaluating the effects of building distortion using
fundamental geometry and engineering principles.

Discussion
Data from over 100 case histories of damage to masonry bearing walls and masonry in-fill walls
within concrete frames have been reviewed and examined using the methods described above.
Damage categories as illustrated in Figs 13 through 17 are based directly on the descriptions of
6

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

1. Find g mathematically or graphically

(slope of settlement curve - divide profile at inflection points)
2. tilt = S/L
-1
-1
3. ' = tan[tan (g) - tan (tilt)]
4. Find max = 'l/4 or graphically
5. Deformation due to bending:

'
'

S
l

max(M) = max
.
(1+ 2.88H2/l2)

max

h1

h2

Displacement

'(M) =

'
.
(1+ 2.88H2/l2)

Horizontal Displacements
h1 and h2

6. Deformation due to shear:

Approximate "Diagonal" Length

for Use in Estimating Cracking
from Principal Tensile Strains

7. Radius of bending:

-1

max(V) = max - max(M) ; '(V) = max - '(M) ; max = tan ('(V))

l
.
-1
2sin[tan ('(M))]

8. bending strain M = H/(2RM)

9. lateral extension strain le = (h1 - h2)/l
10. total tensile strain t = M + le
11. shear strain avg = max/2
2
2 1/2
12. principal p = 0.5t + [(0.5t) + (0.5avg) ]
13. cumulative tensile crack width Ct = max(t - c,0)l
14. cumulative principal crack width Cp = max(p - c,0)ld

-1

P = tan [/(le)]/2
minimum of:
ld = 0.5l/(cosP) or
ld = H/(sinP)

ld

RM =

Fig. 11: Evaluation of potential damage to

load-bearing wall
for infill walls

tilt

ld

tilt
ld tilt

H
S

max for beam

analysis
L

CONCRETE
FRAMES AND
IN-FILL WALLS

IN-FILL WALLS IN
STEEL FRAMES

1. avg = 1.5S/L - tilt

2. minimum of ld = 0.5l/(cosP) or H/(sinP)
3. t = le
2
2 1/2
4. p 0.5t + [(0.5t) +(0.5avg ) ]
5. Ct = max(t - c, 0)l
6. Cp = max(p - c, 0)ld

l
L

1. avg = max
2. ld = min. of l/(cosP) or H/(sinP)
3. t = le
2
2 1/2
4. p 0.5t + [(0.5t) +(0.5avg) ]
5. Ct = max(t - c, 0)l
6. Cp = max(p - c, 0)ld

Fig. 12: Evaluation of potential damage to in-fill walls and beams in frame structures

/l (x 103)

4
Reported Damage

Severe

2
Moderate

VSV

+
Slight

+ +

0
0

+
l/H

Negligible
Very Slight
Slight
Moderate
Severe
Very Severe

Damage Thresholds
Based on Strain
Superposition Method
Moderate
Severe
Very Severe

VSV

Negligible

Fig. 13: Comparison of "hogging" walls with central deflection and l/H, after Burland et al.

5, 8

100

Severe to
Very Severe

2
Moderate
to Severe

1
Slight

+++
++
++

++

Angular Distortion, x 10

Fig. 14: Comparison of bearing wall case history

data to chart of Boscardin and Cording (1989)

0.4

0.0

40

0.1

0.2

Cumulative Principal Crack Width (mm)

40
=

1/

15
0

Central Deflection (mm)

H = 12 m
c = 0.03%

00
1/3

3
1

0
1/30
3

3
2

4
l/H

>6

Fig. 18: Length to height ratio of case

histories of damaged bearing walls

80

0
15
1/

12

0.3

Fig. 15: Comparison of "hogging" case history

data to chart of Burland (1997)

20

20

Horizontal Strain (%)

60

Slight

0.0

60

16

Moderate

0.1

Fig. 17: Damage thresholds for in-fill

walls in steel frames (dotted lines) and
concrete frames (solid lines), see
Table 1 for categories

Frequency

/l (%)

0.2

80

l/H

Severe to Very Severe

0.3

Differential Settlement (mm)

Horiz. Strain, h x 103

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

l/H

25
Severe
20
15

Moderate

10
Slight

5
0

10

15

20

25

CumulativeTensile Crack Width (mm)

Fig. 16: Damage thresholds for load

bearing walls, H = 8 m, c = 0.01%,
see Table 1 for categories

Fig. 19: Comparison of case histories

and strain superposition method
estimation of damage
8

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

Frequency of Occurance (%)

damage provided in the original references and Table 1. In all data analyses, critical cracking strain
was not included as a criterion (i.e. c = 0%). The simple cumulative deformation was used directly
considering that the buildings may have exhibited some initial cracking due to construction defects,
thermal cracking, or from age. Fig. 13 illustrates data trends using the methods of Burland and
colleagues without consideration of horizontal strain and the data scatter relative to damage categories
is evident. Fig. 14 illustrates some reasonable agreement between the method of Boscardin and
Cording and the reported damage categories. However, it can also be seen that the method both underand over-predicts the damage category in some cases, some of these by several categories. Fig. 15
compares the data to /l and horizontal strain for cases of hogging damage. Using the strain
superposition method, thresholds for damage for load bearing and in-fill walls are illustrated in Figs
16 and 17 along with conventional angular distortion criteria. The differences between the estimated
and reported damage categories for each of the methods described above arise for two basic reasons.
First, though many of the case histories exhibited an l/H between 0.75 and 1.25 (near 1), more than
70% of the cases exhibited other values of l/H (see Fig. 18). Second, horizontal strain is not
considered in some methods.
60
50

Boscardin &
Cording (1989)

Burland (1997)

Strain Superposition

40
30
20
10
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Estimated Damage Category - Reported Damage Category

Fig. 20: Comparison of damage category estimation methods of Boscardin and Cording,
strain superposition method, and Burland 6, 9 & 11, 8
Fig. 19 illustrates the results of detailed re-examinations of published case histories in accordance
with the strain superposition method described in this paper illustrating good agreement with reported
damage categories. Fig. 20 compares the difference between the estimated and reported damage
categories for the three methods that consider horizontal strains. Of these, the strain superposition
method provided the best results with about 44% of the 93 cases of load bearing walls correctly
categorised with the results approximating a normal distribution around a mean of 0 (correct
estimated category). The critical strain method was applied only to 76 structures with hogging
damage. The other two approaches produced less satisfactory results, often with the potential damage
category under-predicted, largely because of the differences in l/H ratio and critical strain thresholds
as discussed above.
Conclusions
The use of angular distortion as a damage criterion should be abandoned to avoid future confusion
and over-simplification. Using other generalised criteria involves inherent simplifications that can
under- or over-predict building damage. The fundamental principles related to geometric changes in
the structure and ground can reasonably be applied to building damage problems through application
of clear structural engineering methods (deep beam deformation, strain superposition, and plane-strain
mechanics). The strain superposition method provides a reasonable and clear approach to building
damage estimation problems and is the logical extension of work that has come before. As stated by
Burland and colleagues, however, it must also be remembered that the crack width (estimated or
observed) is not the only index of damage category. The method can suitably be adapted to
spreadsheet calculations using simple building and ground deformation geometry such that efficient
examinations of many structures can be completed. Following parametric evaluations of particular
tunnel or excavation influences, structures that appear to be more sensitive or might experience
9

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

unacceptable damage can be examined through use of numerical models or more intensive structural
analyses in a two-step approach.25, 26 For future examinations of this problem, it would also be
beneficial for published case histories to include detailed measurements of crack widths such that
better comparisons can be made to available prediction methods and the nature of cracks and their
distribution in real buildings.
References
References indicated * include damaged building data used in preparation of this paper.
1. A.W. SKEMPTON and D.H. MACDONALD: The Allowable Settlements of Buildings, Proc., Inst.
of Civ. Engrs., 1956, Part III, 5, 727-768.*
2. G.G. MEYERHOF: Some Recent Foundation Research and its Application to Design, The
Structural Engineer, 1956, Vol. 31, 151-167.
3. L. BJERRUM: Discussion, Proc. of the Eur. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., 1963, Vol. III,
Wiesbaden, 135.
4. J.B. BURLAND and C.P. WROTH: Settlement of Buildings and Associated Damage, Building
Research Establishment Current Paper, 1975, Building Research Establishment, Watford.
5. J.B. BURLAND, B.B. BROMS, and V.F.B. DEMELLO: Behavior of Foundations and Structures:
State of the Art Report, Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., 1977, Tokyo, 495546.*
6. M.D. BOSCARDIN and E.J. CORDING: Building Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement, J.
of Geotech. Eng., 1989, ASCE, 115( 1), 1-21.
7. NATIONAL COAL BOARD: Subsidence Engineers Handbook. National Coal Board Productions
Department, London, 1975.
8. J.B. BURLAND: Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavation,
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Ishihara (ed.), 1997, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1189 - 1201.
9. S.J. BOONE: Ground Movement Related Building Damage, J. of Geotech. Eng., 1996, ASCE,
122(11), 886 - 896.*
10. S.J. BOONE: Ground-Movement-Related Building Damage: Closure, J. of Geotech. and
Geoenvironmental Eng., 1998, ASCE, 124(5), 463 - 465.
11. S.J. BOONE, J. WESTLAND, and R. NUSINK: Comparative Evaluation of Building Responses
to an Adjacent Braced Excavation, Canadian Geotech. J., 1999, Vol. 36, 210-223.*
12. R.N. TAYLOR and D.M. POTTS: Centrifuge modelling of the influence of surface structures on
tunnelling induced ground movements, Tunnels and Metropolises, Balkema, 1998, 261 - 266.
13. B.M. NEW and M.P. OREILLY: Tunnelling Induced Ground Movements; Predicting their
Magnitude and Effects, Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff,
Wales, Pentech Press, 1991, 671-697.
14. G.W. CLOUGH and T.D. OROURKE: Construction Induced Movements of Insitu Walls,
Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotech. Special Publication No. 25, ASCE,
P.C. Lambe and L.A. Hansen, eds., 1990, 439 - 470.
15. J.M. GERE and S.P. TIMOSHENKO: Mechanics of Materials, PWS Publishers, Boston, 1984.
16. D.E. POLSHIN and R.A. TOKAR: Maximum Allowable Non-Uniform Settlement of Structures,
Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., 1957, Vol. 1, 402-405.
17. R.J. MAINSTONE: On the Stiffness and Strengths of In-filled Frames, Proc. of the Inst. of Civ.
Engrs., 1971, Supplemental Vol. IV, Paper 7360S, 57-90.
18. R.J. MAINSTONE and G.A. WEEKS: The influence of a Bounding Frame on the Racking
Stiffness and Strengths of Brick Walls, Proc. of the Second Int. Brick and Masonry Conf., England,
1970, 165-171.
19. J. BURHOUSE: Composite Action Between Brick Panel walls and their Supporting Beams, Proc.,
Inst. of Civ. Engrs., 1969, Part III, 5, 782-783.*
20. M. BOZOZUK. Soil Shrinkage Damages Shallow Foundations at Ottawa Canada, The
Engineering Journal, 1964, Canada, July, 33-37.
21. W.W. FRISCHMANN, J.E. HELLINGS, and C. SNOWDON: Protection of the Mansion House
Against Damage Caused by Ground Movements Due to the Docklands Light Railway Extension, Proc.
of the Inst. of Civ. Eng., Geotech. Eng., 1994, Vol. 107, 65-76.*
10

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

22. G.S. LITTLEJOHN: Observations of Brick Walls Subjected to Mining Subsidence, Proc. of the
Conf. on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, 1974, 384-393.*
23. G.S. LITTLEJOHN: Discussion, Proc. of the Conf. on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge,
1974, 764-767.*
24. R.J. MAINSTONE: Discussion, Proc. of the Conf. on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, 1974,
771-773.
25. S.J. BOONE, B. GARROD, and P. BRANCO: Building and Utility Damage Assessments, Risk
and Construction Settlement Control, Tunnels and Metropolises, Balkema, 1998, 243 - 248.
26. W.J. RANKIN: Ground movements resulting from urban tunnelling: predictions and effects,
Engineering Geology of Underground Movements, F.G. Bell et al. (eds), Geological Society, London,
1988, 79 - 92.
27. J.E. CHENEY and D. BURFORD. Damaging Uplift to a Three-story Office Block Constructed on
a Clay Soil Following the Removal of Trees, Proc. of the Conf. on Settlement of Structures,
Cambridge, 1974, 337-343.*
28. M.D. BOSCARDIN, E.J. CORDING, and T.D. OROURKE: Case Studies of building Behavior in
Response to Adjacent Excavation, Report No. UMTA-IL-06-0043-78-2, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1979.*
29. E.W. BRAND and N. LUANGDILOK: A Long Term Foundation Failure Caused by Dragdown on
Piles, Proc., 4th Southeast Asian Conf. on Soil Eng., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1974, Vol. 4, 15 - 24.*
30. E.J. CORDING, T.D. OROURKE, and M.D. BOSCARDIN: Ground Movements and Damage to
Structures, Proc., Int. Conf. on Evaluation and Prediction of Subsidence, Florida, 1978, 516-537.*
31. R. DRISCOLL: The Influence of Vegetation on the Swelling and Shrinking of Clay Soils in
Britain, Geotechnique, 1983, 33(2), 93-105.*
32. S. FJELD: Settlement Damage to a Concrete-Framed Structure, Norwegian Geotechnical
Institution, Publication No. 58, 1963, NGI, Oslo, 37-45.*
33. R. GRANT, J.T. CHRISTIAN, and E.H. VANMARCKE: Differential Settlement of Buildings,J.
of the Geotech. Eng. Div., 1974, ASCE, 100(9), 973-991.
34. D.I. HARRIS, R.J. MAIR, J.P. LOVE, R.N. TAYLOR, and T.O. HENDERSON: Observations of
Ground and Structure Movement for Compensation Grouting During Tunnel Construction at Waterloo
Station, Geotechnique, 1994, 44(4), 691-713.*
35. I.A. MACLEOD and J.G. PAUL: Settlement Monitoring of Buildings in Central Scotland,
Geotechnique, 1984, 34(1), 99-117.*
36. G.G. MEYERHOF: The Settlement Analysis of Building Frames, The Structural Engineer, 1947,
Vol. 25, 369.*
37. T.D. OROURKE, E.D. CORDING, and M. BOSCARDIN: The Ground Movements Related to
Braced Excavations and Their Influence on Adjacent Structures, Report No. DOT-TST 76T-23, U. S.
Department of Transportation, 1976.*
38. R.B. PECK, D.U. DEERE, and J.L. CAPACETE: Discussion on Allowable Settlements of
Buildings, Proc., Inst. of Civ. Engrs., 1956, Part III, 5, 778-781.*
39. K. TERZAGHI: The Actual Factor of Safety in Foundations, The Structural Engineer, 1935, Vol.
13, 126-160.*
40. W.H. WARD: Discussion on Allowable Settlements of Buildings, Proc., Inst. of Civ. Engrs.,
1956, Part III, 5, 782-783.*
41. D.WL. WEBB: Observed Settlement and Cracking of a Reinforced Concrete Structure Founded on
Clay, Proc. of the Conf. on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, 1974, 443-450.*
42. G.M.J. WILLIAMS: Discussion on Allowable Settlements of Buildings, Proc., Inst. of Civ.
Engrs., 1956, Part III, 5, 772-773.*
43. J.G. WILSON, T.G. GARWOOD and R.W. SARSBY: The Settlement of Low Buildings
Constructed Over Peat, Proc. of the Conf. on Large Ground Movements and Structures, Cardiff,
Pentech Press, 1984, 527-538.*
Appendix A - Damage Parameters of Prior Works
/L
/l

Central Deflection Ratio: maximum deflection between the beam deflection line and the straight
line between the two end points (chord) divided by the chord length2
Angular Distortion: differential settlement of two points divided by the distance between those
two points less the tilt of the entire structure 1
11

Boone, S.J. (2001). Assessing construction and settlement-induced building damage: a return to fundamental principles. Proceedings, Underground
Construction, Institution of Mining and Metalurgy, London, 559 570.

/L

/l

Relative Deflection: "...comprising the ratio of deflection to the length of the deflected part..." 16
Inclination of levelled groove as related to infill wall panel 32
Inclination of levelled groove as related to horizontal 32
Inclination of panel as a whole to building as a whole 32
Deflection Ratio: maximum deflection between the beam deflection line and the straight line
between the two end points (chord) divided by the chord length4
Relative Rotation: rotation of the straight line joining two reference points relative to the tilt,
equal to Skempton and MacDonald's /l 4
Maximum Net Slope of Deflection Curve 33
Curvature Parameter: maximum deflection between the settlement curve and the chord joining
the two endpoints divided by the chord length 33
Angular Distortion: maximum change in slope along the beam, or the slope at the support 6

Appendix B - Notation
C
E, G
g
I
L, l
q
RM
S
, M
P

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
=

'

cumulative crack width, subscripts t and p represent tensile and principal-tensile directions
shear and elastic modulus
slope of deformation curve related to horizontal at tangent or inflection points of curve
moment of inertia
original span length and length of straight line between curve endpoints
uniformly distributed load
radius of curvature defined by moment (bending) portion of total deflection
differential settlement between endpoints of l
angle of rotation at support of simple beam, angle due to bending (moment)
angle of maximum principal tensile strain
tensile strain; subscripts c, le, M, and P represent critical, lateral extension, bending, and
principle tensile strain, respectively
total tensile strain = M + g + le
shear strain (radians)
deflection of beam in relation to chord between beam endpoints - is retained as the
general notation for deflection consistent with Timoshenko's work where max = , and to
avoid confusion with prior uses of in this particular subject; subscripts max, (M), and (V)
indicate maximum and proportions of deformation associated with bending (moment) and
shear, respectively
slope of deflection curve, or /x, related to angle of chord between deformation curve
endpoints; subscripts max, (M), and (V) indicate maximum and proportions of deformation
associated with bending (moment) and shear, respectively

12