Previous Page

9-6 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION

The modulus of subgrade reaction is a conceptual relationship between soil pressure and
deflection that is widely used in the structural analysis of foundation members. It is used for
continuous footings, mats, and various types of pilings to be taken up in later chapters. This
ratio was defined on Fig. 2-43c, and the basic equation when using plate-load test data is

kks~ - 8
with terms identified on both Fig. 2-43c and Fig. 9-9b. Plots of q versus S from load tests
give curves of the type qualitatively shown in Fig. 9-9b. If this type of curve is used to obtain
ks in the preceding equation, it is evident that the value depends on whether it is a tangent or
secant modulus and on the location of the coordinates of q and S.
It is difficult to make a plate-load test except for very small plates because of the reaction
load required. Even with small plates of, say, 450-, 600-, and 750-mm diameter it is difficult
to obtain 8 since the plate tends to be less than rigid so that a constant deflection across the
plate (and definition of ks) is difficult to obtain. Stacking the smaller plates concentric with
the larger ones tends to increase the rigidity, but in any case the plot is of load divided by
plate contact area (nominal P/A) and the average measured deflection.
Figure 9-9c is a representation of ks used by the author where ks is taken as a constant up
to a deflection X max . Beyond Xmax the soil pressure is a constant value defined by
#con

^sv^max)

Obviously one could divide the q-8 curve into several regions so that ks takes on values of the slope in the several regions; however, this approach tends to incorporate too much
Figure 9-9

Determination of modulus of subgrade reaction ks.

Load block
Stacked plates

q' # q and 6' ^ 6

if plate not rigid
(a)

k depends on curve
coordinates used and is
generally nonlinear

(*

Linear Nonlinear

(c)

refinement into the problem since most analyses proceed on the basis of estimated values or
at best an approximate load test.
A number of persons do not like to use the concept of a modulus of subgrade reaction;
rather, they prefer to use Es (and fx) in some kind of finite-element analysis. The author's
experience using both the finite element (of the elastic continuum) and the concept of the
modulus of subgrade reaction is that, until the state of the art improves so that accurate values of Es can be obtained, the modulus of subgrade reaction method is preferable owing to
its greater ease of use and to the substantial savings in computer computation time. In the
following paragraphs we will see a direct relationship between Es and ks.
A major problem is to estimate the numerical value of ks. One of the early contributions
was that of Terzaghi (1955), who proposed that ks for full-sized footings could be obtained
from plate-load tests using the following equations:
For footings on clay3

For footings on sand (and including size effects)

In these two equations use B\ = side dimension of the square base used in the load test to
produce k\. In most cases B\ 0.3 m (or 1 ft), but whatever B\ dimension was used should
be input. Also this equation deteriorates when B/B\ ~ > 3.
For a rectangular footing on stiff clay or medium dense sand with dimensions of B X L
with m = L/B,

where

ks = desired value of modulus of subgrade reaction for the full-size (or prototype)
foundation
k\ = value obtained from a plate-load test using a 0.3 X 0.3 m (1 X 1 ft) or other
size load plate

Equations (9-3), (9-4), and (9-5) are presented primarily for historical purposes and are
not recommended by the author for general use.
Vesic (1961, 196Ib) proposed that the modulus of subgrade reaction could be computed
using the stress-strain modulus Es as
k's = 0.65

^ r ^
Y EfIf

1 JXZ

(units of E5)

(9-6)

The Bx is not usually seen in this equation, since at the time it was proposed by Terzaghi (1955) only Fps units
were used, and with Bx 1 ft it did not need to be shown. The equation is dimensionally incorrect, however,
without including B 1 . Equation (9-3) is not correct in any case, as ks using a 3.0 m footing would not be -^ the
value obtained from a Bx = 0.3 m plate.

where

E5, Ef = modulus of soil and footing, respectively, in consistent units

B, If = footing width and its moment of inertia based on cross section (not plan)
in consistent units

One can obtain ks from k's as

ks

~ ~B
Since the twelfth root of any value X 0.65 will be close to 1, for all practical purposes the
Vesic equation reduces to

One may rearrange Eq. (5-16) and, using E's = (1 and m = 1, obtain

/JL2)/ES

as in Eqs. (5-18) and (5-19)

AH = AqBE'slsIF
and, since ks is defined as Aq/AH, obtain
k ~

Aq

(9 1)

but carefully note the definition of E's. Now one can correctly incorporate the size effects that
are a major concernparticularly for the mat foundations of the next chapter. As for Eqs.
(5-18) and (5-19), we can write a ks ratio from Eq. (9-7) as follows:
ks)_

ks2

B2E'S2IS2IF2

(9

B1E^1Ip1

Equation (9-8) should be used instead of Eqs. (9-3) through (9-5), and Eq. (9-7) is at least as
theoretically founded as Eq. (9-6). Carefully note in using these equations that their basis is
in the settlement equation [Eq. (5-16a)] of Chap. 5, and use B, Is, and Ip as defined there.
Equations (9-7) and (9-8) show a direct relationship between ks and Es. Since one does
not often have values of Es, other approximations are useful and often quite satisfactory if the
computed deflection (directly dependent on ks) can be tolerated for any reasonable value. It
has been found that bending moments and the computed soil pressure are not very sensitive
to what is used for ks because the structural member stiffness is usually 10 or more times
as great as the soil stiffness as defined by ks. Recognizing this, the author has suggested
the following for approximating ks from the allowable bearing capacity qa furnished by the
geotechnical consultant:
SI: ks = 40(SF)^
Fps: ks = l2(S)qa

kN/m 3
k/ft3

(9-9)

where qa is furnished in ksf or kPa. This equation is based on qa = qu\t/SF and the ultimate
soil pressure is at a settlement A// = 0.0254 m or 1 in. (1/12 ft) and ks is q^AH. For
AH = 6, 12, 20 mm, etc., the factor 40 (or 12) can be adjusted to 160 (or 48), 83 (or 24), 50
(or 16), etc.; 40 is reasonably conservative but smaller assumed displacements can always
be used.

The most general form for either a horizontal or lateral modulus of subgrade reaction is
ks = As + BsZn
where

A5
Bs
Z
n

=
=
=
=

(9-10)

constant for either horizontal or vertical members

coefficient for depth variation
depth of interest below ground
exponent to give ks the best fit (if load test or other data are available)

Either As or Bs in this equation may be zero; at the ground surface As is zero for a lateral ks
but at any small depth As > 0. For footings and mats (plates in general), As > 0 and Bs = 0.
Equation (9-10) can be used with the proper interpretation of the bearing-capacity equations of Table 4-1 (with the dt factors dropped) to give
tfuit = cNcsc + yZNqsq + 0.5y BN7S7)

(9-10)

Observing that
As = C(cNcsc + 0.5yBNySy)

and

BSZX =

C(yNqsq)Zl

we obtain a ready means to estimate ks. In these equations the Terzaghi or Hansen bearingcapacity factors can be used. The C factor is 40 for SI units and 12 for Fps, using the same
reasoning that qu\t occurs at a 0.0254-m and 1-in. settlement but with no SF, since this equation directly gives qu\t. Where there is concern that ks does not increase without bound with
depth Z, we may adjust the B8Z term by one of two simple methods:
Method 1: S^ tan" 1
n
Method 2: ^-Z
Dn

where

= B'sZn

D = maximum depth of interest, say, the length of a pile

Z = current depth of interest
n = your best estimate of the exponent

Table 9-1 may be used to estimate a value of ks to determine the correct order of magnitude
of the subgrade modulus obtained using one of the approximations given here. Obviously if a
computed value is two or three times larger than the table range indicates, the computations
should be rechecked for a possible gross error. Note, however, if you use a reduced value of
displacement (say, 6 mm or 12 mm) instead of 0.0254 m you may well exceed the table range.
Other than this, if no computational error (or a poor assumption) is found then use judgment
in what value to use. The table values are intended as guides. The reader should not use, say,
an average of the range given as a "good" estimate.
The value of X max used in Fig. 9-9c (and used in your diskette program FADBEMLP as
XMAX) may be directly estimated at some small value of, say, 6 to 25 mm, or from inspection
of a load-settlement curve if a load test was done. It might also be estimated from a triaxial
test using the strain at "ultimate" or at the maximum pressure from the stress-strain plot.
Using the selected strain e max compute

TABLE 9-1
Range of modulus of subgrade
reaction ks
Use values as guide and for comparison when
using approximate equations
kS9 kN/m3

Soil
Loose sand
Medium dense sand
Dense sand
Clayey medium dense sand
Silty medium dense sand
Clayey soil:
qa< 20OkPa
200 <qa< 800 kPa
4 a >800kPa

4800-16000
9600-80 000
64 000-128 000
32 000-80 000
24 000-48 000
12000-24000
24 000-48 000
> 48 000

The 1.5 to 2B dimension is an approximation of the depth of significant stress-strain influence (Boussinesq theory) for the structural member. The structural member may be either
a footing or a pile.
Example 9-5. Estimate the modulus of subgrade reaction ks for the following design parameters:
B = 1.22 m

L = 1.83 m

D = 0.610 m

qa = 200 kPa (clayey sand approximately 10 m deep)

Es = 11.72 MPa (average in depth 5B below base)
Solution. Estimate Poisson's ratio /x, = 0.30 so that
K =

-^

-^f

= 0.077 65 mVMN

For center:
H/B' = 5B/(B/2) = 10 (taking H = 5B as recommended in Chap. 5)
LlB = 1.83/1.22 = 1.5
From these we may write
/, = 0.584 + 1 ~_ 2( () Q 3 3) 0.023 = 0.597
using Eq. (5-16) and Table 5-2 (or your program FFACTOR) for factors 0.584 and 0.023.
At DlB = 0.61/1.22 = 0.5, we obtain IF = 0.80 from Fig. 5-7 (or when using FFACTOR for
the Is factors). Substitution into Eq. (9-7) with B' = 1.22/2 = 0.61, and m = 4 yields
K

0.61(0.07765X4 x 0.597X0.8)

-05MN/m3

You should note that ks does not depend on the contact pressure of the base qo.
For corner:
H/B' = 5B/B = 5(1.22)/1.22 = 5
[from Table 5-2 with L/B = 1.5 obtained for Eq. (5-16)]

04
ls = 0.496 + 7^(0.045) = 0.522

IF = 0.8 (as before)

Again substituting into Eq. (9-7) but with B' = B = 1.22 m and one corner contribution, we have
k

> = 1.22 X 0.0776^X0.522 X 0.8

25

-28MN/m3

For an average value we will use weighting, consisting of four center contributions + one corner
value, giving
4(11.5)+ 25.28
fe(avg +
~

^OAirwxT/ 3
= 13.896 MN/m3

We can also estimate ks based on SF = 2 for sand to obtain

ks = 40(SF)(^) = 40(2)(0.200) = 16 MN/m3
For practical usage and since these values of 13.896 and 16.0 are estimates (but reasonably close)
we would use
ks = 15.0 MN/m3

(15000 kN/m3)

Comments. It is evident from this example that the "center" ks is softer (or less stiff) than a corner
(or edge). The center being less stiff is consistent with the dishing of uniformly loaded plates. One
can also zone the area beneath a footing by computing a series of ks values at, say, center, \, | , and
edge points using for the \ and | point the contributions from four rectangles and for the edge the
contributions of two rectangles of the same size.
Note the use of H = 5B = 5 X 1.22 = 6.1 m for both center and corner.

9-7 CLASSICAL SOLUTION OF BEAM

ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION
When flexural rigidity of the footing is taken into account, a solution can be used that is
based on some form of a beam on an elastic foundation. This may be the classical Winkler
solution of about 1867, in which the foundation is considered as a bed of springs ("Winkler
foundation"), or the finite-element procedure of the next section.
The classical solutions, being of closed form, are not so general in application as the finiteelement method. The basic differential equation is (see Fig. 9-10)

E1

ji

=q=

~Ky

(9 n)

"

where k's = ksB. In solving the equations, a variable is introduced:

A

= V 4Ei

or

AL

= V 4^7

Table 9-2 gives the closed-form solution of the basic differential equations for several loadings shown in Fig. 9-10 utilizing the Winkler concept. It is convenient to express the trigonometric portion of the solutions separately as in the bottom of Table 9-2.
Hetenyi (1946) developed equations for a load at any point along a beam (see Fig. 9-10Z?)
measured from the left end as follows: