Modified Terzhagi’s Equation for Modulus of

Subgrade Reaction
Yue Choong Kog, Ph.D. 1; Kar Kheng Loh 2; and Chuck Kho 3

Abstract: The structural design of substructure requires the modulus of a subgrade reaction of the underlying stratum at the soil-structure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

interface. Its magnitude is estimated by plate load tests at the site. The present study reviewed the magnitudes of the modulus of subgrade
reactions obtained from plate load tests, elastic continuum solutions, and a soil-structure interaction analysis of a 2-km tunnel resting on weak
sandstones and siltstones. The review showed that the structural adequacy of the substructure using the modulus of subgrade reaction obtained
from the Terzaghi equation for plate load tests would not be satisfactory. A modified Terzaghi’s equation is presented so that the magnitude of
the modulus of subgrade reaction obtained is of the same order of the magnitude as that obtained from the soil-structure interaction analysis
and elastic continuum solutions. The proposed modified Terzaghi’s equation is applied to the plate load test results of two separate projects
elsewhere to confirm its validity. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000487. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
The modulus of subgrade reaction (k), also known as the coefficient of
a subgrade reaction, is defined as the ratio of the pressure divided by the
displacement experienced by the loaded area at the soil-structure inter-
face. The structural design of a substructure requires the modulus of a
subgrade reaction of the underlying stratum at the soil-structure inter-
face. Generally, engineers carry out plate load tests at the site to esti-
mate its magnitude. The structural adequacy of the substructure hinges
on an appropriate choice of k. Some of the relations to estimate the
magnitude of k were either proposed by Terzaghi (1955) and Bowles
(1997) for plate load tests or derived using the elastic continuum theory
(Biot 1937; Meyerhof and Baikie 1963; Kloeppel and Glock 1970;
Selvadurai 1978; Vesic 1961; Sadrekarimi and Akbarzad 2009).
Kog et al. (2015) presented the results of 28 plate load tests on
weak sandstone and siltstone in a case study of a 2-km long tunnel.
The purpose of the present study is to compare the magnitudes of k
of weak sandstone and siltstone obtained from different methods
using this case study. Fig. 1 shows the tunnel’s cross section. The
generalized strata profile is shown in Fig. 2. The weak sandstone
and siltstone was underlying the tunnel at 10 m below the ground
level. The ground water table was about 1–2 m below ground level.
For the tunnel, 28 plate load tests were carried out. This study com-
pared the magnitudes of the corrected modulus of subgrade reac-
tions obtained from plate load tests, the relations derived from the
elastic continuum theory, and a soil-structure interaction analysis of
the tunnel. A modified Terzaghi’s equation to obtain k from plate
load tests by taking into account the difference in the stiffness of the
plate and the tunnel was proposed, so that the magnitude of k ob-
tained from plate load tests was of the same order of magnitude as
1
President, East West Engineering Consultants, 98 Duchess Rd.,
Singapore 269022 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-8456-8554. Email: eastwestconsult@yahoo.co.uk
2
Consultant, CPG Consultants Pte Ltd., 1 Gateway Dr., Westgate Tower,
#22-01, Singapore 608531.
3
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, CPG Consultants Pte Ltd., 1 Gateway
Dr., Westgate Tower, #22-01, Singapore 608531.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 3, 2019; approved
on January 2, 2020; published online on May 20, 2020. Discussion period
open until October 20, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Struc-
tural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
that obtained from the soil-structure interaction analysis and elastic
continuum solutions.
Plate Load Tests for k
The 28 plate load test results on a 25-mm thick circular plate of a
460-mm diameter for the weak sandstone and siltstone performed
along the tunnel alignment are summarized in Table 1. The cor-
rected k for the tunnel was obtained from the empirical equation
for sandy soils proposed by Terzaghi (1955)


Bf þ B p 2
k ¼ kplate ð1Þ
2Bf
where kplate = uncorrected modulus of subgrade reaction from the
plate load test; Bp = diameter of the plate; and Bf = width of tunnel.
The empirical equation for sandy soils proposed by Bowles
(1997) to account for the scale effect was

a
Bp
k ¼ kplate ð2Þ
Bf
where α = exponent that varies from 0.4 to 0.7.
Despite the reasonably uniform strata profile along the tunnel
alignment, the values of k obtained from the 28 plate load tests
varied significantly. The sensitivity in extrapolating the k value of
soil/rock for different values of α based on plate load Test no. 3 is
illustrated in Table 2. The effect of the width of the tunnel on k was
less significant as compared to α.
Elastic Continuum Solutions
Biot (1937) studied the problem of an infinite beam with a concen-
trated load resting on an elastic half space and found a correlation
between the elastic continuum theory and Winkler’s model by
equating the maximum moments in the beam to obtain an equation
for k. Vesic (1961) matched the maximum displacement of the beam
in the elastic continuum theory and Winkler’s model and developed
another equation for k. Meyerhof and Baikie (1963), Kloeppel and
Glock (1970), and Selvadurai (1978) developed equations for com-
puting the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reactions in buried

© ASCE 04020017-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Cross section of the tunnel.

Table 1. Values of k derived from plate load tests (all units in kN=m3 )
Uncorrected Corrected k Corrected k based on
Number k based on Eq. (1) Eq. (2) with = 0.5
1 414,865 105,801 41,487
2 587,097 149,724 58,710
3 523,741 133,567 52,374
4 309,787 79,003 30,979
5 1,070,588 273,027 107,059
6 601,653 153,437 60,165
7 965,079 246,119 96,508
8 420,809 107,317 42,081
9 416,000 106,090 41,600
10 443,796 113,179 44,380
11 821,622 209,534 82,162
12 321,739 82,051 32,174
13 603,571 153,926 60,357
14 734,783 187,388 73,478
15 437,069 111,464 43,707
16 563,333 143,664 56,333
17 1,126,667 287,328 112,667
18 576,136 146,929 57,614
Fig. 2. Generalized ground conditions. 19 354,546 90,418 35,455
20 589,535 150,346 58,954
21 768,182 195,906 76,818
22 780,000 198,920 78,000
23 1,300,000 331,533 130,000
circular conduits. Sadrekarimi and Akbarzad (2009) reported that 24 1,448,571 369,422 144,857
by rewriting the relation of the settlement of rectangular plates 25 1,067,816 272,320 106,782
resting on an elastic half space, k could be calculated. These equa- 26 1,146,914 292,492 114,691
tions are summarized in Table 4. It will be of interest to note that all 27 814,912 207,823 81,491
these equations except the equation obtained by Sadrekarimi and 28 977,895 249,388 97,790
Akbarzad (2009) take the form of βK, where K ¼ E=½Bf ð1 − ν 2 Þ,
with the values of β ranging from 0.65 to 1.6.
The Winkler’s one-parameter model discussed earlier had short-
comings concerning the discontinuity of the adjacent spring displace- Table 2. Corrected k in kN=m3 derived from plate load Test no. 3
ments, and each spring behaved independently. Filonenko-Borodich Corrected k in kN=m3 as per Eq. (2)
(l940), Hetenyi (1946), Pasternak (1954), Reissner (1958), Vlasov B (m) α ¼ 0.4 α ¼ 0.5 α ¼ 0.7
and Leontiev (1966), and Loof (1965), among others, proposed
30 60,126 38,360 17,169
two-parameter models to address this discontinuity. In addition to
46 50,677 30,979 12,729
the modulus of the subgrade reaction, a second parameter was pro-
posed by assuming some form of interaction among the spring
elements that represented the elastic continuum. For example,
Filonenko-Borodich (l940) considered applying a constant tensile shear layer in the Winkler model and called it a generalized foun-
force or an elastic membrane to the Winkler model. Pasternak dation model. Vlasov and Leontiev (1966) provided a theoretical
(1954) introduced a shear interaction between adjacent spring el- basis for Pasternak’s model using a plane strain analysis of pres-
ements. Kerr (1964) regarded Pasternak’s mechanical model as a sure applied on the surface of a semiinfinite elastic continuum

© ASCE 04020017-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017

 Table 3. Soil models and parameters for the FE model
Material Model
Concrete Linear elastic (LE)
Backfill Mohr-Coulomb (MC)
Upper medium dense sand MC
Lower medium dense sand MC
Weak sandstone LE
Weak siltstone LE
with a rigid base at depth H. The expression for k by Pasternak’s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Eð1−vÞ dgðzÞ2
model was ð1þνÞð1−2vÞ ∫H0 ½ dz  dz, where H = depth of compress-
ible stratum, and gðzÞ = assumed shape function describing
how vertical displacement decreases with depth z in the underlying
layer (Vlasov and Leontiev 1966). The Pasternak’s model was not
as rigorous as the elastic theory and could not compare in generality
to the elastic theory, although both required two parameters. The
function gðzÞ took the form of e−μz with 1 < μBf < 2 in Scott
(1981) and e−ηHðHÞ in Jones and Xenphontos (1977). The function
z
sinh½ηHð1−Hz Þ
gðzÞ took the form of sinhðηHÞ in Vlasov and Leontiev (1966). To
ensure that the shape function gðzÞ satisfied the boundary condition
that the vertical displacement at the rigid substratum was zero,
ηH ¼ 4–6. For this case study, H was taken as 2Bf .
Some of the equations for estimating k based on one-parameter
and two-parameter models are summarized in Table 4. Nogami and
O’Neill (1985) and Vallabhan and Das (1988, 1991) concluded that,
generally, surface displacements of the two-parameter models were
underestimated in comparison with that of a finite-element (FE)
analysis. This underestimation could be attributed mainly to the
assumption of Vlasov and Leontiev (1966), even when the solutions
were mathematically accurate enough (Tanahashi 2004).
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of Weak Sandstone
and Siltstone from FE Analysis
An FE analysis was adopted for the soil-structure interaction of the
tunnel using PLAXIS 2D version 2012. The details of the FE analy-
sis for the tunnel’s structure, as shown in Fig. 1, can be found in
Kog et al. (2015). The tunnel was 46 m wide with a 2.3 m thick base
at extreme edges and 2.7 m thick under the 1.5 m center wall. The
thickness of the 1.5 m retaining walls reduced in two steps to
0.45 m at the top to support the precast girders. For the tunnel’s
roof, modified AASHTO Type I-girders with a concrete deck were
seated on elastomeric bearings at the top of the walls. At 10.0 m
from the centerline on both sides of the center wall, 6.5 m deep and
0.8 m diameter belled bottom bored piles were provided at about
3.5 m spacing. The bell at the bottom was 0.6 m deep with a 1.2 m
diameter.
The tunnel was simplified to a u-shaped open cell with a 2.3 m
thick base slab (with an overhang of 0.5 m) and tapered retaining
walls from 1.5 m at the bottom to 0.45 m at the top. The tension
piles were modeled with the embedded pile function in PLAXIS
2D. The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio for concrete were 29 ×
106 kN=m2 and 0.2, respectively. Table 3 shows the soil models and
the parameters adopted for the FE model. The notations Φ 0 , cref
0
, ν,
and Eref are effective friction angle, effective cohesion, Poisson’s
ratio, and drained E, respectively. The magnitudes for k obtained at
the midspan and end span were 4,281 and 6,186 kN=m3 , respec-
tively, as shown in Fig. 3.
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017
0 (kN=m2 )
cref Φ 0 (degrees) Eref (kN=m2 ) ν
— — 29 × 106 0.2
0 30 30,000 0.3
0 33 35,000 0.3
0 34 45,000 0.3
— — 300,000 0.25
— — 175,000 0.25
Fig. 3. Variation of k underneath the tunnel reported in Kog et al.
(2015).
Comparison of Moduli of Subgrade Reaction
Obtained from Plate Load Tests, Elastic Continuum
Solutions, and FE Analysis
For the purpose of comparison, the same geotechnical parameters
for the FE analysis were adopted for the elastic continuum equa-
tions summarized in Table 4. The equivalent E for the weak sand-
stone and siltstone was estimated to be 200,000 kN=m2 . The
computed values of k are summarized in Table 4 together with the
results obtained from the FE analysis. It also shows the ratios of
the calculated k obtained from the elastic continuum equations
and k obtained from the FE analysis.
For the weak sandstone and siltstone, the ranges of the corrected
k values obtained from Eqs. (2) and (3) were 30,978–144,857
and 79,003–249,387 kN=m3 respectively. The mean values of k
obtained from Eqs. (2) and (3) were 183,767 and 72,095 kN=m3 ,
respectively. The range of the k values obtained from the soil-
structure interaction analysis and the elastic continuum solutions
was 2,609–8,948 kN=m3 . The magnitudes of k obtained from the
soil-structure interaction analysis and the elastic continuum equa-
tions were much smaller than the magnitudes of the corrected k of
Eqs. (2) and (3) obtained from the plate load tests. On the other
hand, the magnitudes of k obtained from the soil-structure interac-
tion analysis were of the same order of the magnitude with those
obtained from the elastic continuum solutions. The magnitudes of
k obtained from the equations obtained by Meyerhof and Baikie
(1963) and Selvadurai (1978) were lower than that obtained from
the FE analysis. The magnitudes of k obtained from the equations
obtained by Sadrekarimi and Akbarzad (2009) and Biot (1937)
were higher than those obtained from the other equations. The mag-
nitudes of k obtained from equations obtained by Vesic (1961),
Meyerhof and Baikie (1963), and Sadrekarimi and Akbarzad
(2009) were the closest to the magnitude of k obtained from the FE
analysis at the mid span. On the other hand, the magnitudes of k
obtained from equations obtained by Kloeppel and Glock (1970)
and Sadrekarimi and Akbarzad (2009) were the closest to the
04020017-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Table 4. Summary of computed k
kcalculated =kFE
Reference Equation for k kcalculated (kN=m3 ) Midspan End span
Soil-structure interaction using FE analysis kFE ¼ 4,281 kFE ¼ 6,186
Plate load test
2
Bf þ Bp
Terzaghi (1955) kplate Range 79,003–369,422
2Bf
Mean 183,861 42.9 29.7

0.5 Standard deviation 78,435
Bp
Bowles (1997) kplate Range 30,979–144,857
Bf Mean 72,095 16.8 11.7
Standard deviation 30,756
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Elastic continuum solution

One-parameter model

0.108
0.95E B4f E
Biot (1937) 5,410 1.26 0.87
Bf ð1 − ν 2 Þ ð1 − ν 2 ÞS
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0.65E 12 B4f E
Vesic (1961) 3,513 0.82 0.57
Bf ð1 − ν 2 Þ S
E
Meyerhof and 4,638 1.08 0.75
Baikie (1963) Bf ð1 − ν 2 Þ
2E
Kloeppel and 6,957 1.62 1.12
Glock (1970) Bf ð1 þ νÞ
0.65E
Selvadurai (1978) 3,014 0.7 0.49
Bf ð1 − ν 2 Þ
E
Sadrekarimi and 4,280 at midspan 1 1.39
Akbarzad (2009) Bf ð1 − ν 2 ÞmlS lF 8,560 at end span

Two-parameter model
Eð1 − νÞ μBf
Scott (1981) 2,609–5,217 0.5–1.22 0.42–0.84
Bf ð1 þ νÞð1 − 2νÞ 2
 
Eð1 − νÞ 1 − e−2ηH
Jones and ηH 5,216–7,826 1.22–1.83 0.84–1.27
Xenophontos (1977) ð1 þ νÞð1 − 2νÞH 2
  
Eð1 − νÞ ðηHÞ2 sinhð2ηHÞ
Vlasov and þ 1 5,249–7,827 1.23–1.83 0.85–1.27
Leontiev (1966) ð1 þ νÞð1 − 2νÞH 2sinh2 ðηHÞ 2ηH

Note: E = elastic modulus of soil; ν = Poisson’s ratio of soil; S = bending stiffness of the structure; I S and I F = influence factors, which depend on the shape of
footing; and m = number of corners contributing to settlement. At the tunnel center, m ¼ 4; at a side, m ¼ 2; and at a corner, m ¼ 1. The influence factor I S
can be computed as follows I S ¼ I 1 þ ð1−2νÞ I 2 . The values of I 1 and I 2 can be computed using equations given by Steinbrenner (1934) as follows:
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p1−ν
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ð1þ M 2 þ1Þ M 2 þN 2 ðMþ M 2 þ1Þ 1þN 2 0

1
I 1 ¼ π M ln p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi þ ln p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , I 2 ¼ 2π
N
tan −1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
M ffi (tan−1 in radians), and M ¼ LB 0 , N ¼ BH0 , L 0 ¼ L2 for center and L for
Mð1þ 2
M þN þ1Þ 2 ðMþ 2
M þN þ1Þ 2 N2 2
M þN þ1
B
corner; L = length of the tunnel; and B 0 ¼ 2f for center and Bf for corner. The influence factor I F is from the equations of Fox (1948). Alternatively,
the graph in Bowles (1997) can be used to determine I F .

magnitude of k obtained from the FE analysis at the end span. On
the whole, the magnitudes of k obtained from elastic continuum
solutions were close to, as compared to Eqs. (2) and (3), the calcu-
lated k obtained from the FE analysis.
Using k obtained from the plate load test based on Eq. (1) or
Eq. (2) will lead to a gross underdesign of the tunnel structure. This
is because the tunnel will experience less bending for a higher k as
compared to a much smaller k. The resulting cracks from an inad-
equate provision of steel reinforcement bars at critical sections will
adversely affect the operation and service life of the tunnel struc-
ture. On the other hand, the use of k obtained from any elastic con-
tinuum solutions will not lead to any inadequacy in the structural
design of the tunnel.
Using the plate load test to determine the modulus of the
subgrade reaction was first proposed by Terzaghi (1955). Later,
Terzaghi et al. (1996) recognized that the use of the plate load test
was an unacceptable simplification of a complex problem. There-
fore, it is inappropriate for engineers to rely on plate load tests
to determine the magnitudes of k unless the test results have been
corrected using the modified Terzaghi’s equation proposed in the
present study. A rational approach is to investigate the soil-structure
interaction of the tunnel to assess the appropriate modulus of the
subgrade reaction taking into account the unloading effect of the
excavation. Alternatively, those elastic continuum solutions as
listed in Table 4, which are able to yield a reasonably accurate mag-
nitude of k, can be used for practical purposes.
Modified Terzaghi’s Empirical Equation for
Plate Load Test
Plate load tests can be viewed as a field measurement of the soil-
structure interaction. The structure was a 25-mm thick circular plate

© ASCE 04020017-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017

 Table 5. Stiffness of plate and tunnel Eqs. (1)–(3) are summarized in Table 7, and the corresponding
Plate or Elastic modulus Moment of Stiffness estimates of k obtained from elastic continuum solutions are sum-
tunnel (kN=m2 ) inertial (m4 ) (kNm2 ) marized in Table 8. The E used in the solutions obtained by Biot
(1937) and Vesic (1961) was calculated using Eq. (4) in accordance
Steel plate 200,000,000 5.9896 × 10−7 1.2 × 102
Tunnel 29,000,000 4,921 1.43 × 1011
with BS 5930 (BSI 1999)
π
E¼ × k × D × ð1 − υ2 Þ ð4Þ
4
where D = diameter of the plate. For the 75 plate load tests reported
Table 6. Summary of k for modified Terzaghi empirical equation
by Moayed and Naeini (2006), D was 300 mm and ν is taken as 0.2.
k (kN=m3 ) with ðSplate =Sstructure Þβ The range of k calculated using Eq. (3) was 632–1,265 kN=m3 , the
Terzaghi Eq. (1)
Caption for k (kN=m3 ) β ¼ 1=4 β ¼ 1=5 β ¼ 1=6 mean was 934 kN=m3 , and the standard deviation was 148 kN=m3 .
The corresponding estimated k obtained from elastic continuum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Range 79,003–369,422 425–1,989 1,210–5,656 2,427–11,350

Mean 183,861 990 2,815 5,649 solutions was in the range of 567–1,551 kN=m3 . A comparison
Std. 78,435 422 1,201 2,410 of the values of k tabulated in Tables 7 and 8 showed that values
deviation of k obtained using Eq. (3) were of the same order of magnitude as
the values of k calculated using elastic continuum solutions. The
range of k obtained from the FE analysis using PLAXIS was
795–1,082 kN=m3 , as shown in Fig. 4. The range of k obtained
from Eq. (3) was very close to the range of k obtained from the
with a 460-mm diameter in this case study. Obviously, there were
FE analysis.
substantial differences for a size of a 460-mm diameter circular
Al-Zuhairi (2015) reported the results of two plate load tests
plate and a 46-m wide tunnel. The scale effect was supposedly cor-
in Al-Tajeyat District of Baghdad. The first location was on the
rected by Eq. (1) proposed by Terzaghi (1955). Obviously, there
surface of the 25 cm compacted subbase layer at the project sites
was also substantial differences between the stiffness of the circular
in a 20 hectares area, while the second location was on the sur-
plate and that of the tunnel, as shown in Table 5. It is clear from the
face of compacted natural ground in a 10 hectares area. The uncor-
elastic continuum solutions obtained by Biot (1937) and Vesic
rected k obtained from the two plate load tests were 282,979 and
(1961) that k was also dependent on the stiffness of the structure.
258,929 kN=m3 . The elastic modulus of the compacted subbase
It will not be unreasonable to assume that the correction factor re-
layer and compacted natural ground were 64.7 and 59.2 MPa, re-
quired to account for the differences in the stiffness of the plate
spectively. Al-Zuhairi (2015) estimated the elastic modulus using
(Splate ) and the tunnel (Sstucture ) must be related to the ratio of their
E ≈ 1.5Rk, where R is the radius of the plate, and k is the uncor-
stiffness, i.e., the correction factor for the stiffness is of the form
rected modulus of subgrade reaction. If the tunnel structure, as
ðSplate =Sstructure Þβ . Table 6 shows the range, mean, and standard
shown in Fig. 1, were to be constructed, the corrected k using
deviation of the values of corrected k obtained from plate load
Eq. (1) were 71,686 and 65,594 kN=m3 . The corrected k using
tests using the empirical Eq. (2) proposed by Terzaghi and the
the proposed Eq. (2) were 23,042 and 21,084 kN=m3 . The corrected
modified Terzaghi equation proposed by the present study for a
k using Eq. (3) were 1,787 and 1,635 kN=m3 , and the average was
different β. The range of k obtained from elastic continuum equa-
1,711 kN=m3 . The corresponding estimated k obtained from elastic
tions was 2,609–8,560 kN=m3 . The average k obtained from the
continuum solutions was in the range of 934–2,652 kN=m3 , as
soil-structure interaction analysis was 5,231 kN=m3 . The bending
shown in Table 8. Once again, comparing the values of k tabulated
stiffness of the base slab was taken as Sstructure . When β ¼ 1=5, and
obtained using Eq. (3), the k calculated using elastic continuum so-
the corrected k of the plate load tests with ðSplate =Sstructure Þ1=5 was in
lutions in Table 8 showed that values of k obtained using Eq. (3)
the range of 1,210–5,656 kN=m3 . This compared reasonably well
were of the same order of magnitude as the values of k calculated
with the range of k obtained from elastic continuum solutions. It is
using elastic continuum solutions. The range of k obtained from the
clear from Table 6 that β ¼ 1=5 was the most appropriate based on
FE analysis using PLAXIS was 1,381–1,971 kN=m3 , as shown in
this case study so that the corrected k from the plate load tests were
Fig. 5. The range of k obtained from Eq. (3) and the range of k
within the range calculated by elastic continuum solutions. It fol-
obtained from the FE analysis was very close. The two illustrative
lows that the proposed modified Terzaghi equation is as shown in
examples showed that Eq. (3) derived from a case study could be
Eq. (3)
applied to the results of plate load tests in other projects yielding

 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi reasonable estimates of k that were comparable with the value of
Bf þ Bp 2 5 Splate
k ¼ kplate ð3Þ k obtained from elastic continuum solutions and FE analyses.
2Bf Sstructure

The validity of the empirically derived Eq. (3) will be reviewed
in the following illustrative examples based on plate load test re-
sults obtained for other projects in Tehran and Baghdad.
Illustrative Examples
Moayed and Naeini (2006) reported the results of 75 vertical plate
load tests performed in boreholes on gravel strata at various depths
at 75 different locations in the northern part of Tehran, Iran. These
test results are summarized in Table 7. If the tunnel structure, as
shown in Fig. 1, were to be constructed, the corrected k using
Conclusion
The present study had demonstrated the substantial difference be-
tween k obtained by the soil-structure interaction analysis and the
corrected k obtained from plate load tests, irrespective of whichever
empirical relationships proposed by Terzaghi or Bowles was used.
Therefore, it is unreliable for engineers to rely on plate load tests to
determine the magnitudes of k without the appropriate correction
for the difference in stiffness of the plate and tunnel. On the other
hand, the magnitudes of k obtained from elastic continuum solu-
tions were close to the magnitudes of k obtained from the soil-
structure interaction analysis.

© ASCE 04020017-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017

 Table 7. Corrected k in kN=m3 derived from 75 plate load tests on gravel strata in Tehran (all units in kN=m3 )
Soil stratum as per Corrected k based Corrected k based on Corrected k based
No. USCS classification Uncorrected k on Eq. (1) Eq. (2) with α ¼ 0.5 on Eq. (3)
1 GW-GC 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
2 GP-GC 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
3 GC-GM 122,324 9,879 30,981 690
4 GW-GC 152,905 12,348 38,726 862
5 GW 132,518 10,702 33,563 747
6 GP-GC 122,324 9,879 30,981 690
7 GP-GC 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
8 GP 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
9 GP 152,905 12,348 38,726 862
10 GW-GC 155,866 12,587 39,476 879
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11 GC 152,905 12,348 38,726 862

12 GW-GM 193,680 15,641 49,054 1,092
13 GP-GM 112,130 9,055 28,399 632
14 GP 203,874 16,464 51,635 1,150
15 GW 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
16 GM 224,261 18,111 56,799 1,265
17 GW-GC 214,067 17,287 54,217 1,207
18 GW-GM 214,067 17,287 54,217 1,207
19 GP-GM 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
20 GM 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
21 GW 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
22 GP 132,518 10,702 33,563 747
23 GW 152,905 12,348 38,726 862
24 GC-GM 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
25 GP-GM 203,874 16,464 51,635 1,150
26 GP-GC 203,874 16,464 51,635 1,150
27 GW 214,067 17,287 54,217 1,207
28 GW-GC 214,067 17,287 54,217 1,207
29 GW 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
30 GP-GM 193,680 15,641 49,054 1,092
31 GP-GC 180,486 14,576 45,712 1,018
32 GP 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
33 GW-GM 122,324 9,879 30,981 690
34 GW 132,518 10,702 33,563 747
35 GW-GC 132,518 10,702 33,563 747
36 GP 122,324 9,879 30,981 690
37 GP-GC 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
38 GP-GM 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
39 GW 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
40 GW-GM 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
41 GW-GC 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
42 GP 152,905 12,348 38,726 862
43 GP-GM 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
44 GP-GM 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
45 GP-GC 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
46 GW-GC 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
47 GW-GM 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
48 GP-GC 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
49 GP-GM 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
50 GP 193,680 15,641 49,054 1,092
51 GW 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
52 GP-GM 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
53 GW-GM 163,099 13,171 41,308 920
54 GW-GC 152,905 12,348 38,726 862
55 GP-GC 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
56 GM 132,518 10,702 33,563 747
57 GW 122,324 9,879 30,981 690
58 GP-GM 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
59 GW-GC 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
60 GW-GM 152,905 12,348 38,726 862
61 GP-GC 122,324 9,879 30,981 690
62 GW-GC 132,518 10,702 33,563 747
63 GW-GM 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
64 GP 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
65 GW-GM 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
66 GP 163,099 13,171 41,308 920

© ASCE 04020017-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017

 Table 7. (Continued.)
Soil stratum as per Corrected k based Corrected k based on Corrected k based
No. USCS classification Uncorrected k on Eq. (1) Eq. (2) with α ¼ 0.5 on Eq. (3)
67 GW-GC 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
68 GW-GM 193,680 15,641 49,054 1,092
69 GP-GC 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
70 GP-GM 193,680 15,641 49,054 1,092
71 GP 142,712 11,525 36,145 805
72 GP 173,293 13,995 43,890 977
73 GM 193,680 15,641 49,054 1,092
74 GW-GC 193,680 15,641 49,054 1,092
75 GP-GM 183,486 14,818 46,472 1,035
Note: USCS = unified soil classification system.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 8. Summary of computed k

Gravel strata in Tehran, Compacted subbase and natural ground in Baghdad,
Reference kcalculated (kN=m3 ) kcalculated (kN=m3 )
Plate load test
Terzaghi (1955) as per Eq. (1) Range: 28,399–56,799 Range: 65,594–71,686
Mean: 41,962 Mean: 68,640
Std. deviation: 6,652
Bowles (1997) as per Eq. (2) with α ¼ 0.5 Range: 9,055–18,111 Range: 21,084–23,042
Mean: 13,380 Mean: 22,063
Std. deviation: 2,121
Modified Terzaghi equation as per Eq. (3) Range: 632–1,265 Range: 1,635–1,787
Mean: 934 Mean: 1,711
Std. deviation: 148
Elastic continuum solution
Biot (1937) 836 1,477
Vesic (1961) 567 987
Meyerhof and Baikie (1963) 860 1,437
Kloeppel and Glock (1970) 1,376 2,155
Selvadurai (1978) 559 934
Sadrekarimi and Akbarzad (2009) 776 at midspan 1,326 at midspan
1,551 at end span 2,652 at end span
Scott (1981) 459 808
Jones and Xenophontos (1977) 917–1376 1616–2424
Vlasov and Leontiev (1966) 923–1,376 1,626–2,425

Fig. 4. Variation of k underneath the tunnel at the Tehran site. Fig. 5. Variation of k underneath the tunnel at the Baghdad site.

In some of the elastic continuum solutions, k was dependent on
the stiffness of the structure to be constructed. A modified Terzaghi
equation for plate load tests was proposed to account for the differ-
ence of stiffness in the plate and the proposed structure to be con-
structed. The present study showed the proposed modified Terzaghi
equation for plate load tests would yield a k that was close to that
obtained from elastic continuum solutions and FE analysis. The
validity of the proposed modified Terzaghi equation was confirmed
by the reasonable estimates of k that were comparable with that ob-
tained from elastic continuum solutions and the respective FE analy-
sis when applying the modified Terzaghi equation to the results of
plate load tests in two other projects. The structural adequacy of the
substructure designed using k obtained from the modified Terzaghi
equation for plate load tests proposed in the present study will

© ASCE 04020017-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017

 definitely be satisfactory. It will be prudent to compare the value
of k obtained from the modified Terzaghi equation with the
values of k obtained from some of the elastic continuum solutions
to ensure that they are of the same order of magnitude.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Al-Zuhairi, A. H. 2015. “Final report of the plate load test at IBN firnas
housing complex project in Al-Tajeyat District-Baghdad.” Accessed
November 15, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322797182
_Final_Report_of_the_Plate_load_test_at_IBN_FIRNAS_HOUSING
_COMPLEX_PROJECT_in_Al-Tajeyat_District-Baghdad.
Biot, M. A. 1937. “Bending of infinite beams on an elastic foundation.”
J. Appl. Mech. 4: A1–A7.
Bowles, J. E. 1997. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed., 318–319.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 1999. Code of practice for site inves-
tigations. BS 5930. London: BSI.
Filonenko-Borodich, M. M. l940. Some approximate theories of elas-
tic foundation. [In Russian.], 3–18. Moscow: Uchenyie Zapiski
Mbskovskogo Gosudorstuennogo Uhiversitetadekhanika.
Fox, E. N. 1948. “The mean elastic settlement of a uniformly loaded area at
a depth below the ground surface.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 2nd Int. Conf.
Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering, 129–132. Rotterdam,
Netherlands.
Hetenyi, M. 1946. Beams on elastic foundation. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of
Michigan Press.
Jones, R., and J. Xenophontos. 1977. “The Vlasov foundation model.” Int.
J. Mech. Sci. 19 (6): 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(77)
90084-4.
Kerr, A. D. 1964. “Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models.” J. Appl.
Mech. 31 (3): 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3629667.
Kloeppel, K., and D. Glock. 1970. Theoretische und experimentelle Unter-
suchungen zu den Traglastproblemen biegeweicher, in die Erde einge-
betteter Rohre. [In German.] Darmstadt, Germany: Institut für Statik
und Stahlbau der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt.
Kog, Y. C., K. K. Loh, and C. Kho. 2015. “Tunnel design and modulus of
subgrade reaction.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 29 (2): 04014065. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000537.
© ASCE 04020017-8
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2020, 25(3): 04020017
Loof, H. W. 1965. “The theory of the coupled spring foundation as applied to
the investigation of structures supported on soil.” Heron 13 (3): 29–49.
Meyerhof, G. G., and L. D. Baikie. 1963. “Strength of steel culvert sheets
bearing against compacted sand backfill.” In Proc., 42nd Annual Meet-
ing, Highway Research Record, 1–19. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board.
Moayed, R. Z., and S. A. Naeini. 2006. “Evaluation of modulus of subgrade
reaction (Ks) in gravely soils based on SPT results.” In Proc., 10th
Congress of the Int. Association for Engineering Geology and the Envi-
ronment (IAEG). London: Geological Society. https://doi.org/10.1144
/EGSP22.I.
Nogami, T., and M. W. O’Neill. 1985. “Beam on generalized two parameter
foundation.” Eng. Mech. Div. 111 (5): 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(1985)111:5(664).
Pasternak, P. L. 1954. On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation
by means of two foundation constants. [In Russian.] Moscow: Gos. Izd.
Lit. po Stroit I Arkh.
Reissner, E. 1958. “A note on deflections of plates on a viscoelastic foun-
dation.” J. Appl. Mech. 25: 144–145.
Sadrekarimi, J., and M. Akbarzad. 2009. “Comparative study of methods of
determination of coefficient of subgrade reaction.” Electron. J. Geotech.
Eng. 14 (1): 45–61.
Scott, R. F. 1981. Foundation analysis, 143. London: Prentice Hall
International.
Selvadurai, A. P. S. 1978. Elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction,
546. Paris: Elsevier.
Steinbrenner, W. 1934. “Tafeln zur Setzungsberechnung.” [In German.]
Die Straβe 1: 121–124.
Tanahashi, H. 2004. “Formulas for an infinitely long Bernoulli-Euler beam
on the Pasternak model.” Soils Found. 44 (5): 109–118. https://doi.org
/10.3208/sandf.44.5_109.
Terzaghi, K. 1955. “Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.”
Géotechnique 5 (4): 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1955.5.4.297.
Terzaghi, K., R. B. Peck, and G. Mesri. 1996. Soil mechanics in engineer-
ing practice. 3rd ed., 394. New York: Wiley.
Vallabhan, C. V. G., and Y. C. Das. 1988. “Parametric study of beams on
elastic foundations.” Eng. Mech. Div. 114 (12): 2072–2082. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1988)114:12(2072).
Vallabhan, C. V. G., and Y. C. Das. 1991. “Analysis of circular tank foun-
dations.” Eng. Mech. Div. 117 (4): 789–797. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(1991)117:4(789).
Vesic, A. B. 1961. “Beams on elastic subgrade and Winkler’s hypothesis.”
In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering,
845–850. Paris.
Vlasov, V. Z., and N. N. Leontiev. 1966. Beams, plates, and shells on elas-
tic foundations. NTIS No. N67-14238. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Program
for Scientific Translations.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.