,.

SoiI, structure interaction wi h 0otin k

- is there communication imiction? .
By theVictoria Group, Australian Geomechanics Society
2Viany structural and geotechnical engineers appear to have a communication problem surrounding the calculation o ground settlement and the resulting structural stresses in footings and rafts. The problem is the
use o[ the concept "modulus o subgrade reaction". The Victoria Group o the Australian Geomechanlcs
Society held a technical ,m~.eeting in March 1989 which was attended by members of that Society ahd ~he
Structural Branch oJ~ the Victoria Division. Speakers ~rom university engineering departments and consulting firms presented on the concepts and the use and misuse of methods o soil~stmcture interaction/
settlement design based on both modulus of subgrade t.eacfion and ~!oungs modulus o elasticity. A lively
discussion followed. The meeting concluded that the s~gnificant advances made over the pas~t 20 y~xs in
methods to tackle this problem were not always well known to, or adopted h~, many practising engineers in . " " "
their everyday work. There would b e benefit in circulating the discussion widely, This paper sumrnaris~ the
meeting and presents some guidance on how to overcome so, me of the misunderstandings . omm.onI.y"en-
countered. The meeting was addressed by Dr Peter Moore lUnlversity o Melbourne], Keith~d~[.~n [Pak-Poy
and Kneebone Pry Ltd), Chris TattersalI (B I ONeill and Partners} and Dr Chris Haberfield (Monash Univer.
sity). This paper has be~n assembled by Tom l~lintoff [Victoria Group, Australian Geome.chanies ~.~~!ety)
from ".reformation supplied by the speakers and contributors to the discussio .n.. # "
:-. ,...~!i...~.j.~. ,..

1. NioduIus oI subgrade reaction

:~ the communication problem

a convenience to s~i~ the "p~e-el~stic era" an~.:*paw~d a

number aI mathematical solutions eg thoseT,:t~..calcutate"

the stresses in flexible ~ounda~ions such as co~l~~ed
eotechnical engineers often find themselves in the hags and ra~ts. Many very useful tabulations andt~lot~
following difficult situation. Having completed a functions for evaluating deflection, rotatio~,~.~er~zg,
foundation investigation for a site and rgportcd on moments and shear in footings are avaiI~hle~!~-tetefiVi
~h~ foundation conditions, they ar~ then asked by a struc. (1946]t AC111966], Bowles [!-9681, Das 098t1; ..

tural designer "Wharfs the modulus of subgrode reaction

for this site? The question rarely has an answer, let alone
a simple answer, and the discussion which follows leads to

Many of these have:found their w-~y intb computd~...

programs used in day-td.day design by structural cn~i.

neers, and the temptation ~xises toj:eg~rd th~:ihodulus
communicaHoh gaps arising between the structural and subgrade reaction "Ks" as yet ati~ther:n~.u~hbe~ tO
into thoss prograr~s ........ """ :. ~: : .... ;..
gcotechnical engineer.

Th.isas where the commumcatmn probleins arise. ";~-~.

Why does this happen?

P~oblem 1

.::.

The concept of modulus of subgrade reaction has a lot o~

If we go back to its origins, w.e will see that the modulus
history behind it. The concept was first introduced by
Winkler in 1867 and modelled a footing on the ground as a subgrade reaction IKs} is defined as the pressure a~plicd by
the footing IqJ divided by the resulting settlement
footing on discrete~ independent springs,
In rcalitywc know this cannot bc the case. A fourtdation
" ~ c~uatibn i
soil or rock sequence has continuity and wiIl dcform under
.KS =.fl]z
loads imposcdby footings according to elastic thcory~ to an
amount controlIcd- by the Yotmgs modulus and Poissons
Note that the modulus has dimensions YL! This report
ratio of th~ foundation. The independent spring model was will use units MPa/rn for Ks unless stated otherwise.
Civil College Technical Rof~rt October6 1989

A very sLrnple concept so far, based on the independent for measuring Ks. An 0.3m diameter or square plate is
loaded and Ks determined from the o~y relationship meas.
spring rnodd~
Howevex the more realistic elastic continuum model of ure&
This test measures a K Ioften called Kp Ln texts but for
the foRrtdation soil says that the settlement (Yl is given by."
reasons which will soon be obvious we will term K0.3~
rdevant to the so-called "bulb of press~e" taking in the
- equation
y - q. B. Ip {I - V.~]/Es
foundation soils only 0.3m to O.dm in depth beneath the
test plate IFigure l]. I~ this small sample of g~und is
B = ootingwidth or
typical of the soil affected by the bulb o~ pressure from the
I ~ shape ~ctor {consent fur ~ven
proposed footing~ the K~Ayalue can be used. With most
Es ~ Yo~gs mod~us o~ ~o~d~fion~
footings however, espeei~tly ra~ts and combined footings,
Vs = Poissons ra~o of fo~datlon
the I~. measured wJ!1 not be typical of the actual foundaVesio 1961 tied the spring model into the elastic model tion tb~the depth affected.
Assuming that the foundation is uniform with depth~
to get from equations 1 and 9.
the !~.s value is appropriate only fo~ an 0.3m footing and
must ~Je sealed up to suit the actual ~oofing size with width
Ks -~
]~s
- equation
"B"m. Traditionally the Terzaghi scaling has been used
B. b. 11- V.~)
* for eohes~onIess sods,
From this it can be seen that icLs is not a function solely of
(B + 0.3~z
foundation elasticity IEs and YsI but also of footing size
and shape (Ipl. It does not have discrete value for a given
Note 1- Many texts g~ve equation 4 as:
type of foundation soil,
Therefore it is not reallstto to ask for a v~ue of Ks
without providing some information on the type and sLze
of footing proposed,

Problem 2
It is very diificult for the spring model to take account of
the fact that pressure applied to the surface of the foundation is dispersed down through the foundation through the
so-called "bulb of press~e" [l~ig~re I). The actual settlement experienced beneath the footing will be an aggrega
tion of the interaction of hndividual pressures at v~ious
depths with the elastic properties of the foundation at
those depths.
If the soft has uniform properties through the depth of
the bulb o~ influence, Equation 3 holds. However ff a
number of strata with differing E% Vs values are found to
be affected by the "bulb of pressure"~ some sort of equivalence model must be set up to produce a global

(ie one whleh produces the same setdement as would be

calculated from a thorough elastic analysis taking the
response of all the individual layers into account].
To do this, the designer needs to know the elastle properties of the various layer~ infl.uencing the settlement o~ the
footing.
Elastic settlement solutions exist for a number of common layered situations (Poulos and Davis, 19741, so this
begs the question "Why go to the trouble of converting the
settlement calculated from these solutions back to an
equivalent Ks, only to put this back into another calculation for settlement based on Ks modeN" The usual reply is
that an elastic model for the problem at hand may not be
available to the designer~ whereas a Ks model may be.
Section ~ of this report suggests that this is unlikely to be
the case today.

- equation 4

Remember that Ks is not dimensionless. "I" here refers

to 1 foo~ (imperial ~mhs} and this is rarely made de~: To
avoid, confusion, use
X~_a to refer to the O.~m square or
diameter plate test (0.3m being the equiva].ent here of 1
foot in the ".maperial system].
Note Yn Parry ~1978} notes that this formula applies only
a soil model in which the stiffness of the cohesionless soft
~oundadon increases unfforml~y_with depth~ ~nd is not
therefore
* for cohesive Iciay} soils let bearing pressures less than
one-hal~ ultimate bearing capaeltyI
KS ~ KoZ
- equation
B
~or rectangular footings on cohesive soils, the scaled-up
Ks must be converted using the formula:

(L/B + 0.5]

Ks ILx~! = Ks{sr~! 1.5 L~B "

- equation 6

B = length o~ shorter side of footing

L - length o~ longer side of ~ooting
Some texts suggest that 0.5 should be replaced by 1.0 in
equation 6, but it is difficult to establish where this sugges.
tlon originated~ and it should be treated with caution.
~ the above equations were developed from model or
prototype testing on uniform soil strata. Over the years~
measurements of settlements for foutings in service have
been uhdertaken which suggest these relationships are
approximate only. For cohesionless foundations, the settlements calculated were towards the lower limit of a considerable range in measured value% and therefore could under-predict settlement in many ~ses. Elastic theory suggests that Equation 6 applies only to situations where the
Problem 3
footing is underlaha by a rigid stratum at a depth 1.SB
In the absence of Es, Vs values for the foundations, how do below the base of the footing.
we establish Ks ~com ~oundatin~ investigation\data!
Sealing ~lp from a plate load test on a small volume of the
This is an area where the validity of empiricism and foundation can present significant problems. ]~or example,
extrapolation is ~hinly stretched, and where many text- ff the test was carded out in a moderately dense sand 0.tim
books can be easily misinterpreted with unfortunate re- thick overlying ~ soft clay, the Ko~ value may produce a K
much higher, and a settlement much lower~ than a !.Sm
Most texts use the plate bearing test asthe primary test square footing would experience. On the other hand~ if the
2

CMt Coltege Techn~d Report October 6 tgSg

where

ACTUAL LOADED FOOTING PLAT~5 BEARING

TEST
~ " o.sm
NSL V
~

/ Soil 1

z=o ",,,,"
N~

/
80il 2
E2, 42

N2 I! FOUNDATION
IiNFLUENCED
/ BY FOOTING
-Z:1.338 ,/ PRESSURE
/
N3//

eg a Ks quoted for a spread floor footing~ is subsequently

adopted for a raft design,
given the difficulty ~ carr/ing out plate bearing tests for
many smeller projects, the designer will often resort to
using typical K0,a values quoted in tables in textbooks.
However, if the]oundation soil ~omprises interbedded
clay and sandy soils~ which of the scalinK equations 4
and 5 is appro~priate?

3. Notes on the use Ks

the designer and geotechnical consultant have communicated suffidenfly and jointly understood the application
to which Ks will be put,
a sati~faotoz7 value of Ks can be arrived at for the foundation condition and footing type
then deaign methods or soil/structure interaction based
FOUNDATION
FOUNDATION
CASE t
CASE 2
on Ks can be used to good effect.
Soil strala where
The solutions for footing deflections~ slopes~ bending
Coheslonless soils
E,q can be
,where SPT (N) values
moments and shear are derived from equations for beams
determined
are available
and za~ts on Wlnkler spring foundations. The stiffness of
sand overlaid rock~ the footing settlement would be much the foundation relative to the footin~ is ~ key factor, and
less than predicted.
rasp.resented in the equations by ~,
wncr~,
Given the perceived p6tentia[ {or inaccuracies in applying plate loading test results, it is not surprising the tests
are not often used in practice.
k4 .I ~
However this problem has been addressed for footL~gs on
= Youngs Modulus of the footing
E
cohesionless sands and gravels {but not calcareous sands)
= Section properties of the footing
I
by Pan3r {1978J and Burland and Burbridge {198S). These
authors advocate that plate bearing tests carried out a.t the
X is a~fianotion of the soft model .and the fopting pr.o~er~
proposed founding level be used in coniunction with stun. ties ~n~t can vary across a site. In ~e case ot a comomea
dard penetration test INJ values at intervals down tkrough footing or a ra~t, it wi~ vary wi~M_~ the pl~ area of the
the foundation strata influenced by the applied loads to footing depending on variation in foundation KS and the
develop appropriate Ks values for the footing.
section prope~ies of the footing at various lo~afions.
It should be remembered that within a group of footings
Parry suggests that:
or a raft~ loads at one point will produce settlements in the
foundation beneath surrounding loaded points, beoause of
B. {Nm} ca
y
the Boussinesque effect and is usually handled by making
Zo~ 0.S.INmh
some adiustment to the value of Ks to account for the
of this interaction on settlement.
whom Nm = 1/6 (3N. + 2N. + N.) over the depth e~eot
Given that in all but very simple foundation situations,
influence (2BJ beneath tl~e loaded wicf~h.
is often calculated by back analysis ~rom an elastic
Burland and Burbridge analysed observations from over KS
model o~ the foundation layers and the loading proposed, it
200 footings and rafts to propose:
is important to know that the elastic soft parameters used
wiR suit:
the dnration and nature of the loading-tlme dependen~
on the foundation
1.706(B} 0.7
whether the foundation should be modelled as a semiwhere~ = average SPT r~ult over the d~pth of influ- in~aite elasti% or an elastic-plastic medium
ence.
the accuracy and measurement and potentiM variation of
Cohesionless soils ~e rarely similar in characteristics
Es, Vsand Ks.
with depth~ across a sit% or from one site to the next,
Wherethe flexur ri#dit7 d the footing is much larger
Where the definition of Ks is critical to design it should be than
the effective rigidity oi the foundation, bending
established by avariety o~ methods in the process of choos- moments ~re relatively insensitive tO variations in Ks.
ing an appropriate value. It should also be established for
However where in r~latively flexible footing systems,
different locations around the site.
deflections are sensitive to variations in Ks, and care is
necessary in choosing its value.
2. Possible difficulties with Ks
Most designers find it inconvenient to assign the units
The three problems outlined above pmvlde plenty o~ op- k~a/mm
to Ks, although its equivalent~ MPa/m~ is o~ten
portunities for misconceptions and mistakes te creep into
quoted.
th~ footing[settlement model using modulus of subgrade
reaction.
4. Elastic design method
Common examples include:
a modulus of subgrade reaction is quoted for a sits There are Woo ways of using elastic theozy~ design charts
and computer programs. The advantages become apparent
without specifying the footing system it applies to.
eg a Ks applicable to a floor slab on ground subjected to when l~.yered ~oundation systems are present. Geotechnipoint loading or forklift truck loadingwfll be much differ- cal engineers can usually obtaiu a reasonable assessment
ant to that for the same slab on the same ground subjected of Young modulus and Poissons ratio for these layerst
to a load uniformly distributed over a large area dreafly on provided an investigation to locate layer depths and consisthe floor. This situation can occur with warehouse floor tency has been carried out [See Section 5). The advantage
with this method is that the elastic properties of the foundesign,

\.

CMI College Tachni~J Report Oct#bet 6 1989 a

dation layers are a ~uncfion of the layer materia! a!0no and Footing design sensitive to Es
do not depend on the dimensions of the footing system.
derived ~rom sel~.boring pressuremeters, M~chet~ dilaTherefore they cart be used without variation or adiust- Es
or screw plate tests in soft to very stiff soils.
ment by the structural engineer to check a variety of remoter
]~rom pressuremeter tests in bores in competent rocks.
footing sizes end designs and this makes the design process Es
measured by triaxial testing on cores from competent
much simpler. However ~s can vary with load intensiW,
rock
strata.
but for most situations wherethe foundation will be
Most [oundation mater~at.~ are vafiabte even wlthln
loaded to well below its ultimate strength~ ]~s can be taken sup~posed2y
sLrnflar strata. This variation will apply to
as constant for a given material for design purposes.
and
due
account
shoutd be taken o~ this when choosing an
In gdneral, estimates of Young modulus for both drained
rop~ate ~s fo~ analysis. Where settlement is cfitic~! for
and und~alned conditions will be rcqulzed. The tmdrained
oting dosing, suffleient measurements o~ ~s should be
modulus is used for short.term settlement calculations make
de~k, ae this variaffon, and prototype load testing
and the drained modulus for long.term estimates of settle. and/ortoevaluation
other footings on similar ~otmdafions
monte (in normalIy or lightly overconsolMated cohesive or should be c~e~ullyofconsidered.
silty soils1. Young~ Modulus can range from less than
1MPa for very so& clays to greate.r than 100GPa for some
intact rock. Poissons ratio has a much smaller offer on the 6. Conclusion - which is better?
settlement, and a value of 0.5 is o~ren adopted for un- Compaxisons carried out b~ Vesie and Scott compared the
W~kler anatysls for strip footing subiect to point loading~
drained analysis and 0.3 for drained anysis.
elastie methods developed by Brown (1973) and
Charts are available with solutions to pad, strip and ra~t wlth
showed
was little difference between the results
foundations IPouIos and Davis 1974~ Brown 1973, and the obtained there
kern both methods.
many subsequent reports published by the University o~
Geotechnieal engineers can provide less potentially
Sydney for individual design situations/. The solutions are
and better k.fformation, where a number of footusually based on finite differer~ce or finite etement me, h- conlusing
ods which are conveniently ana!~ed by computdr. Com- hag design options am being examined, ff the elastic
puter analysis comes into its own for complicated loading method of design is adopted for footing settlement/foundaconditions and provides inormaffon on bending momen~ tion interaction.
The elastic method allows the structural engineer to
and settlement distributions across the raft.
~ most cases, input par~m~eters for analysis are ra~t draw on modem technical advances in computation and
dlmens~ns~ loading condition, Youngs modulus and Pois- site evaluation techniques.
The modulus of subgrade re~etion method presents
so~s rar~o of the foundation, Yonngs modulvs of the rMt,
many problems to the inexperienced d~signer and is inflex~oundation l~yer depths or thicknesses.
Ther~ ~re a number of computer programs ~vailable for ible in its use. When used with care, it cad produce good
personal computers which can ann]yea ra~t founchtions. results.
The prime conclusion to be drawn from the discussions
Most of these are general purpose finite element programs
such as Ansys or Cosmos, but some may be only capable of at the March meetingwas that the geotechnical and struchandling a small number of degrees of ~eedom~ and i~ may tural engineer mus~ be flee and generous w~th their comnot always be possible to set up a plate element traft and munication when foundation investigations and designs
3D block element {fonndatlon] model to the required Isoon- for sell structure interaction are in progress, to erasure the
correct techniques are used. Major problems can follow
racy,
Spe~ial~sed programs for analysin~ ra~ foundations ~re from making assumptions based on minimal eommunleanow available fo~ PCs, particularly in Australia ~OCA~S tion.
ICSIROs l~oundation on Cross Anisotropic Layered Sys.
ternI. This uses plate elements for rafts or sLab~, beam 7. Re erences
elements for the superstructure and a srecia~ surface ele- Hetenyi~ M (1946], Beams on Elastic Foundations~ Unlv of
ment to represent the respor~se of a layered anisotropio
Michigan Press~ Ann A~bor
foundation.
Bowles, ~ , 119681, Foundation Analysis and Design. NY:
The elastic methods apply to situations where the ra(t or
McGraw Hill
footing remnins in full contact with the foundation. Where Dast g M, [1984), Principles of Foundation EngLueeng.
seasonal volume changes in foundation soiIs control foot.
Belmont Calff: Brooks/Cole Divn Wadsworth
lug design fog slab-on-g~ound footings on expansive soilst, ACI Committee 4,36 Report 11966), Suggested Design Prothe methods described in this repor~ do not appiy.
eedures for Combined l~ootings and Mats. ACI lournal,
Oct
5. s from site investigations
Poulos, H G and Davis, H 1197~1, ~.lasfie Solutions !~or
Soil and Reek Mechanics. NY: Wiley
Youngs modulus can be obtained ~or rations strata at depth
beneath a site by the following methods depending on the Brown, P T I1973!, Strip Footings with Concentrated Koads
on !astle Foundations. Unlverslty of Sydney, Civ Eng
accuracy required,
Kes Keport No 9.9.5
Unlverstty of Sydney, {1969 to present}, varlous papers and
Footing design insensitive to Es value
research reports, Department of Civil Engineering and
Es assigned from previous experience, based on ident2dlca.
Centre for Geoteehnical Research.
ffon of soft consistency from field samples and index tests~ Parry,
~H
or from simple correlations from quasi static cone penet~a.
Sand from Plate Bearing Tests. Ceotechnique 28, No 1,
rich testing [CPTsl, or standard penetration tests [SFTs].
107-118
Burland,
Footing design moderately, sensitive to Es
~oundations on Sand and Gravel. Proc inst Civil EngiEs measured in qaboratory triaxial tests on samples and
neers ~Pt.l, 7S, 1325:I381.
core from bores.
Veslc, A B ti96I} Beams on elastic subgrade and Winlders
Es derived from Menard [or similarI pressuremeter tests in
Hypothesis. Proc 5th Int Conf Soil. Meeh Found Eng,
bores, hard clays or weathered rocks.
Paris, 845.850.

~p

CivilCollege Technical Report October 6 1989 4

TABLE G: RECOMMENDED SUBGRADE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FLOOR SLABS

LONG TERM LOADING
.,.(g Storage Load)

SHORT TERM LOADING

(eg Wheel Load)
MATERIAL

CBR
%

MODULUS OF
ELASTIC
SUBGRADE REACTION MODULUS
K
E
MPa
kPa/mm

CBR
%

ELaSTiC
MODULUS OF
SUBGRADE REACTION MODULUS
E
K
kPa/mm
MPa

RESIDUAL CLAY

8-10

45-55

40-80

2.5-8

20~45

10-50 =

HARD SHALEY CLAY/

SHALE (CLASS V)

10-15

55-60

100-150

5-13

35-55

50-100

SHALE (O ,,LASS IV AND AB,O.yE)

>15

>60

>150

>15

>60

>150

FiNE CRUSHED ROCK

15-25

60-80

150-250

15-25

60-80

150-250