robably the most widely used value nasil SEGUE P= DESIGN zy (oye elation between Soil Bearing Capacity Modulus of Subgracle Reaction most textbooks almost always use bearing capacity to calculate the plan cimension of footing, Because ofsimplicty and case us, this method is stillthe fundamental soil parameter fr foundation design. However that simplicity assumes the footing willehave asa sigid body. Tha particular asump- tion works well in practice for small and single column footings. But for large and multi column foundations, most engineers prefer flexible analysis Manual computation of flexible analysis could be challenging and, in almost all ses, software pro grams such as STAD, SAFE, GT STRUDL ete. are used, However, these compater programs often ask for an input called “modulus of subgrade reac- tuo. Many engynecs are not Rama wth ths term and often ty to compare it with bearing capacity AAs more and more engineers wll use softwage to design foundations, iti esenal for engineers c0 ha fundamental understanding of, this sol parameter. Is there aby rela- tionship between Bearing capacity and-modailus of subgrade reaction? and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Ks) This term is measured and expressed as load inten- sity per uni of displacement For the English unie system, itis often expressed in kipin/in inthe SL system itis expressed as kN/mn’/m. Some express this rem in kipfin’ (or kim?) which can be mis leading. Numerically, kip/in*is correct but does rot properly represent the physical significance of the measured value and could be mistaken asa density unit or a volumetric measurement. ‘Mathematically, the coefficient of subgrade reac. tion is expressed as Ke=% (Eqn) where p = contact pressure intensity and s= soil element As Terzaghi mentioned, proper estimation of contact pressure for flexible foundation could be very cumbersome, soit is assumed that Ks remains constant forthe entire footing. In other words, the ratio between pressure and settlement at all locations ofa footing will remain constant. So the displacement diagram of a footing with a load at center will have a dishing effect. A point at the center ofthe fGpting will experience the highest, displacement. Pasplacement reduces as moves away from the canter. Figure Ja shows a simple slab-anggrade fouldation. It was modeled and analyzed STAD Foundation as “Ma”, which ia exible foundations the soil was defined using efficient of subgrade reaction, For this exercise, the software defaule value for the modulus of subgrade reaction was used. The displacement ‘iagram shows a dishing effec as discussed ear- lie. Figure 1b shows the soil pressute contout. It isalso obvious that the pressure intensity at the center is maximum and reduces a the elements Figure La: Deflection diagram and sol pressure cone. hs December 2013igure 2: Selewed poss eompare base _presure, defection and mato. (or node coordinates) move away from the center. So it could be assumed that the ratio of presure intensity and setle- ‘ments constant. Consider some of the numbers from the same example. Sol pressure, correspond- displacement and the ratio are listed in Table 1. The points are represented on 4 diagonal to illustrate the variation of pressure and displacement asthe points ‘move away from the center to thegost distant point in the corner of thé e@tan- gular footing. Figure 2 gfewis the pots ‘on the met slab. nition ‘Thisis hardly a surprise as the modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks) is ‘constant forthe entite footing and the rogram used Ks asits soil propery. Iris also important to note that the software default Ks value (10858 kN/m?/m) was exactly the same as the constant ratio calculated in Table 1. Base pressure was calculated from the support reaction. One might think that the tatio of support reaction and cor- responding displacement will aso be constant. As shown in Table 2 (page 18), the ratios are not constant forall values. How is the Ks value used inside the program and how is the base pres- sute calculated? Tributary Area ‘Often an assumption sade to calculate how much area of a plate can be attib- uted to a node or, in other words, the influence ofeach node on the surface area ‘of alate. Itdepends on the shape ofthe plate. Fora perfect square or rectangular plate, each node will influence exactly 4 of the plate surface area (Figure 3x, page 18), But fora generalized quadtilaceral the best practice would be to calculate the center of the mass ofthe plate and Table 1: Soil presure, node diplacement and theyre, : Node number] Soilpresure (p) Node displacement (6) ] Ratio (p/6) | Nim’) am) (Ninn) 1 (op left corner) 58.38282 S377 10858 a 1.94684 70524 10858 31 5.56358 6.03834 10858 a 69.9262 637257, 10858 7 72.64874 6.69087, 10858 81 (middle) 7531719 6.93664 10858 NAoWren RAp® SYSTEMS agrarian VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE S, Pens, JUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES. wove. Orlaet il ea tering UOSD favre ou columns and connections having access to only three sides, Fyfe engineers provide personalized technical support with comprehensive design and specification support packages at no obligation andat no cost. ‘An kopion Company 856.642.0608 wwiufyfeco.com Fyfe Company is proud tobe part ofthe Aegion Commercial & Structural platform. {©2019 Agen Cepoaton STRUCTURE magazine 7) December 2013_ Floure 38 igure 3: Nade iibtary are, then draw lines from that center poine tothe middle points of each side. In Figure 36, the shaded area represents the influence surface area of the corresponding node. Spring Support Constant “The above described wibuary area calculation is the key procedure used internally by the commercial software to calculate the line spring constant. The program first calcula the tributary area for each node oftefootin and then multiples the modulus of §ubgrace reaction by the corresponding tributaty area ng for each nodoto goe the sane ateach node. Ky=KixTi, (Eqn) where Ky, isthe spring constant at ith node Za, is the influence area of ith node 5 sche modulus of subgrade reaction For a concrete foundation analysis, those springs have to be defined as compression- ‘only as concrete is assumed not to carry any tensile force. The base pressure is calculated teach support node by dividing the support ‘Technical papers and monthly Presentations ‘ary area. If we look at the above example, ‘Node 1 has a much smaller tributary area than, the rest of the nodes. It can also be ny it sigan Reese ‘explains Table-2, asi sho ratio fo ae Ns we ee ‘ Thagg 81. ‘and for all nc ratio ivac Or tlowatefedttement ing pacity is the measurement of the ressue a sil can safely bear. In other swords, beating capaiy isthe pressure which toilcan withsand before icf, The two mast important sol flr criteria ar: Shear failure + Maximum allowable selement Among many factors, foundation width (8) can influence flare creria, Normally shear failure governs for sraller foundations and seclement fale governs bigger foundations. Table is typical example which shows the relationship among diferent foundation sizes and flue criteria, “Tocstimatesetelement failure, an allowable settlement valueis assumed (normally 25 mm or | inch). When sil settles more than the Table 2: Support reaction and diplcement ls. So, even for 2 ulation, an allowable sil sed and structural engineers atvalue while designing lowable soil setlement value 18 nt i beawal a The: istypially an integral par of any soil report Why Use the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction It was previously stated that to design a flexible mat foundation, the modulus of subgrade reaction is used instead of bear- ing capacity of soil. But way? The answer lies in the underlying assumptions of how 3 foundation might behave. gid o flexible. Bearing iid foundations, but subgrade reaction is used for flexible foundations. The very assumption ofa rigid foundation is that “the distribution of the subgrade reaction p over the base of the foundation must be planar, because ri foundation remains plane when it setles.” ‘Consider a simply supported beam loaded at its center, as shown in the Figure Sa. By statis, rwecan obtain RI = P/2 and R2 = P/2. Ifthe same beam is loaded eccentrcally, the reac- tion can be calculated as shown in Figure 5b. “The same concept is extended for rigid foundation design. But instead of the end suppor the whole foundation is supported. The FPA hosts monthly events with interesting presentations with 3 often posted on the website. Members receive C.E.U.'s for each meeting attended Membership $96/yr soins Abate twang www.foundationperformance.org ‘Node number | Suppore Resction(P) | Node displacement (8) | Ratio (P/8) (cS) um) (ara) 1 (eop-lefe cornes) 1.313609, 5.377 244.3 a 5.575198 5.70524 977.2 3 5.900749 6.03834 97.2 ol 6.227366 637257 9772 7 6.538362 6.69087 9772 81 (middle) 6778522 6.93664 972 STRUCTURE magazine i December 2013