Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modulus of Subgrad Reaction PDF
Modulus of Subgrad Reaction PDF
robably the most widely used value in a soil of the measured value and could be mistaken
report is soil bearing capacity. The obvi- as a density unit or a volumetric measurement.
ous reason is that basic examples given in Mathematically, the coefficient of subgrade reac-
Design
most text books almost always use bearing tion is expressed as:
capacity to calculate the plan dimension of a footing.
Ks = p/s (Eqn 1)
Because of simplicity and ease of use, this method is
still the fundamental soil parameter for foundation where p = contact pressure intensity and s = soil
design. However, that simplicity assumes the footing settlement
design issues for
will behave as a rigid body. That particular assump- As Terzaghi mentioned, proper estimation of
structural engineers tion works well in practice for small and single contact pressure for a flexible foundation could be
column footings. But for large and multi column very cumbersome, so it is assumed that Ks remains
foundations, most engineers prefer flexible analysis. constant for the entire footing. In other words,
Manual computation of flexible analysis could be the ratio between pressure and settlement at all
challenging and, in almost all cases, software pro- locations of a footing will remain constant. So the
grams such as STAAD, SAFE, GT STRUDL etc. displacement diagram of a footing with a load at
are used. However, these computer programs often center will have a dishing
® effect. A point at the
E
ask for an input called “modulus of subgrade reac- center of the footing will experience the highest
tion”. Many engineers are not familiar with this term displacement. Displacement reduces as it moves
R
and often try to compare it with bearing capacity. away from the center. Figure 1a shows a simple
As more and more engineers will use software to slab-on-grade foundation. It was modeled and
U
design foundations, it is essential
ht for engineers to analyzed in STAAD Foundation as “Mat”, which
yrig
T
Cop have a fundamental is a flexible foundation; the soil was defined using
understanding of coefficient of subgrade reaction. For this exercise,
Correlation between Soil
C
this soil parameter. the software default value for the modulus of
e
U
Is there any rela- subgrade reaction was used. The displacement
Bearing Capacity and tionship between
n diagram shows a dishing effect as discussed ear-
i
R
bearing capacity lier. Figure 1b shows the soil pressure contour. It
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction z
T
and modulus of is also obvious that the pressure intensity at the
By Apurba Tribedi
S m
a
Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction (Ks)
This term is measured and expressed as load inten-
sity per unit of displacement. For the English unit
system, it is often expressed in kip/in2/in; in the SI
system it is expressed as kN/m2/m. Some express
this term in kip/in3 (or kN/m3) which can be mis-
leading. Numerically, kip/in3 is correct but does
Apurba Tribedi is a Senior Product
not properly represent the physical significance Figure 1b: Soil pressure contour.
Manager at Bentley. He is one of
the core developers of the STAAD.
Pro program and currently
manages the STAAD Foundation
product. He may be reached at
apurba.tribedi@bentley.com.
16 December 2013
Table 1: Soil pressure, node displacement and their ratio.
Node number Soil pressure (p) Node displacement () Ratio (p/)
(kN/m2) (mm) (kN/m2/m)
1 (top-left corner) 58.38282 5.377 10858
41 61.94684 5.70524 10858
51 65.56358 6.03834 10858
61 69.19262 6.37257 10858
71 72.64874 6.69087 10858
81 (middle) 75.31719 6.93664 10858
Figure 2: Selected points to compare base
pressure, deflection and ratio.
®
E
(or node coordinates) move away from
R
the center. So, it could be assumed that
the ratio of pressure intensity and settle-
U
ment is constant.
t
Consider some of the numbers from the righ
T
y
Cop
same example. Soil pressure, correspond-
C
ing displacement and the ratio are listed
in Table 1. The points are represented on
e
U
a diagonal to illustrate the variation of
pressure and displacement as the points
i n
R z
move away from the center to the most
T a
distant point in the corner of the rectan-
g
S
gular footing. Figure 2 shows the points
on the mat slab.
a
This is hardly a surprise as, by definition,
m
Tributary Area
Often an assumption is made to calculate
how much area of a plate can be attrib-
uted to a node or, in other words, the
influence of each node on the surface area
of a plate. It depends on the shape of the
plate. For a perfect square or rectangular
plate, each node will influence exactly ¼
of the plate surface area (Figure 3a, page
18 ). But for a generalized quadrilateral,
the best practice would be to calculate
the center of the mass of the plate and
E
then draw lines from that center point to the reaction with the corresponding node tribu- allowable value, the soil fails. So, even for a
middle points of each side. In Figure 3b, the tary area. If we look at the above example, bearing capacity calculation, an allowable soil
R
shaded area represents the influence surface Node 1 has a much smaller tributary area than settlement is used and structural engineers
area of the corresponding node. the rest of the nodes. It can also be noted that should be aware of that value while designing
U
all other nodes have
righ
tsame tributary area. This a footing. The allowable soil settlement value
T
opyas it shows the ratio for Node
explains TableC2, is typically an integral part of any soil report.
Spring Support Constant 1 is different than other nodes. Figure 4 shows
C
The above described tributary area calculation the tributary area for different nodes. Node Why Use the Modulus of
e
U
is the key procedure used internally by the 1 has a tributary area which is 25% of Node
Subgrade Reaction
commercial software to calculate the linear 81. Table 3 is an extension of Tables 1 and
i n
R
spring constant. The program first calculates 2 and shows how constant ratio is achieved It was previously stated that to design a
z
T
the tributary area for each node of the footing for all nodes. flexible mat foundation, the modulus of
and then multiplies the modulus of subgrade
g a subgrade reaction is used instead of bear-
S
reaction by the corresponding tributary area ing capacity of soil. But why? The answer
for each node to get the linear spring constant a
Allowable Settlement lies in the underlying assumptions of how a
at each node.
Kyi = Ks x Tai (Eqn 2)
m
Bearing capacity is the measurement of the
soil pressure a soil can safely bear. In other
foundation might behave.
Foundations can be rigid or flexible. Bearing
words, bearing capacity is the pressure which capacity is used to design rigid foundations,
where soil can withstand before it fails. The two most but subgrade reaction is used for flexible
Kyi is the spring constant at ith node important soil failure criteria are: foundations. The very assumption of a rigid
Tai is the influence area of ith node • Shear failure foundation is that “the distribution of the
Ks is the modulus of subgrade reaction • Maximum allowable settlement subgrade reaction p over the base of the
For a concrete foundation analysis, those Among many factors, foundation width (B) foundation must be planar, because a rigid
springs have to be defined as compression- can influence failure criteria. Normally, shear foundation remains plane when it settles.”
only, as concrete is assumed not to carry any failure governs for smaller foundations and Consider a simply supported beam loaded at
tensile force. The base pressure is calculated settlement failure governs bigger foundations. its center, as shown in the Figure 5a. By statics,
at each support node by dividing the support Table 4 is a typical example which shows the we can obtain R1 = P/2 and R2 = P/2. If the
relationship among different foundation sizes same beam is loaded eccentrically, the reac-
and failure criteria. tion can be calculated as shown in Figure 5b.
Foundation Performance To estimate settlement failure, an allowable The same concept is extended for rigid
settlement value is assumed (normally 25 mm foundation design. But instead of the end
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Association (FPA) or 1 inch). When soil settles more than the supports, the whole foundation is supported.
Technical papers and monthly
Presentations Table 2: Support reaction and displacement.
The FPA hosts monthly events Node number Support Reaction(P) Node displacement () Ratio (P/)
with interesting presentations with (kN) (mm) (kN/m)
slides often posted on the website. 1 (top-left corner) 1.313609 5.377 244.3
Support Reaction(P) Influence area Base Pressure (p) Displacement () Ratio (p/)
Node number (kN) (m2) (kN/m2) (mm) (kN/m2/m)
1 (top-left corner) 1.313609 .0225 58.38282 5.377 10858
41 5.575193 .09 61.94684 5.70524 10858
51 5.900749 .09 65.56358 6.03834 10858
61 6.227366 .09 69.19262 6.37257 10858
71 6.538362 .09 72.64874 6.69087 10858
81 (middle) 6.778522 .09 75.31719 6.93664 10858
R E
U
t
righ
T
y
Cop
U C i n e
S T R
Figure 5: Reactions for a simply supported beam.
m
a g a z
Figure 6: Sub grade reactions for an isolated footing.
It is also assumed that the relative stiffness of on. As many authors have concluded, a rigid a flexible foundation cannot have linear sub-
the concrete slab is much higher than the soil foundation can be safely designed using bear- grade reaction. Rather, it depends on the
stiffness. So, the slab is assumed to remain ing capacity, as in most cases this method compressibility of the foundation as well as
planar even after the application of load. yields more conservative results. the structural rigidity. A flexible foundation
Figure 6a shows a footing loaded at the is subjected to internal bending and relative
P = 1/2L(R1 + R2 ) (Eqn 3)
center. From a rigid wide beam analogy, P = displacements between two slab points. The
R x L. Similarly, for an eccentrically loaded greater the structural rigidity, the less the rela-
P x a = 1/6B 2R1 + 1/3B 2R2 (Eqn 4)
footing, the reaction will vary linearly from tive displacement. The author tested the case
one end to the other as shown in Figure 6c. But a mat foundation is often designed as a with very high rigidity of the slab elements,
Equations 3 and 4 can be solved to find end flexible foundation as it can be large in size resulting in a nearly planar surface after the
reactions. But none of the equations contain and there may be many load application application of the load. Similarly, the greater
modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks). So, the points and other complexities, includ-
“distribution of subgrade reaction on the base ing holes and grade beams. Widespread
of a rigid footing is independent of the degree availability of FEA software contributes to Software and ConSulting
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
of compressibility of the subgrade” it is resting this trend. But, unlike rigid foundations,
FLOOR VIBRATIONS
Table 4: Final allowable bearing capacity for allowable settlement = 25 mm and a given embedment depth. FLOORVIBE v2.10
• Software to Analyze Floors for Annoying Vibrations
Shape B L qa (kPa) Governing • New release
m m Criteria • Demo version at www.FloorVibe.com
• Calculations follow AISC Design Guide 11 Procedures
Square 1 1 113 Shear • Analyze for Walking and Rhythmic Activities
• Check floors supporting sensitive equipment
2 2 117 Shear • Graphic displays of output
• Data bases included
3 3 111 Settlement CONSULTING SERVICES
• Expert consulting available for new construction
4 4 92 Settlement and problem floors.
6 6 75 Settlement Structural Engineers, Inc.
10 10 64 Settlement Radford, VA 540-731-3330 tmmurray@floorvibe.com
E
any of these two parameters can be used to where The correlation between bearing capacity and
design a regular foundation. I = Safety factor modulus of subgrade reaction is at best an
R
Again, the definition of Ks is the pressure qa is the allowable bearing capacity estimation. It can be used for estimation, but
per unit settlement. In other words, soil is the allowable soil settlement a Ks value determined by a plate load test
U
capacity to withstand pressure for a given These equations hclearly
t indicate that the should always be used if available or should
yrig
T
displacement. From earlier discussions, Cop factor must be used, and
appropriate safety be requested whenever possible. However,
it is also clear that even bearing capacity the Ks value can be better compared with the above discussion gives insight into these
C
has an allowable settlement. It is therefore ultimate bearing capacity rather than the values and helps engineers to understand the
e
U
tempting to conclude that the modulus of allowable bearing capacity. The safety factor physical significance of modulus of subgrade
subgrade reaction is the bearing capacity can vary depending on projects and geotech-
i n reaction. And, as always, structural engineers
R
per unit settlement. nical engineers. The other important factor should consult a geotechnical engineer pro-
z
T
This conclusion is very similar to the equa- is the assumed allowable settlement for the fessional prior to finalizing soil stiffness and
tion presented by Bowles. a
calculated bearing capacity.
g
bearing values.▪
S m
a References
Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (Third
Edition) – Terzaghi, Peck, Mesri
Foundation Analysis and Design (Fifth
Edition) – Joseph E. Bowles