See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326141380

Modulus of subgrade reaction that varies with magnitude of displacement of

cohesionless soil

Article  in  Arabian Journal of Geosciences · July 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s12517-018-3713-1

CITATIONS READS

4 3,991

2 authors:

Burhan Avci Ayhan Gurbuz

Fugro World Wide Gazi University
2 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Microbial cementation View project

Investigation of Geocell Reinforced Square Shallow Horizontal Plate Anchor View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Burhan Avci on 28 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2018) 11:351
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3713-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Modulus of subgrade reaction that varies with magnitude

of displacement of cohesionless soil
Burhan Avci 1 & Ayhan Gurbuz 2

Received: 4 January 2017 / Accepted: 25 June 2018

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Abstract
Modulus of subgrade reaction is one of the required design parameters in any structural analyses of shallow
foundations. However, the constant values of modulus of subgrade reaction that are determined from either from
literature studies or the results of plate load tests, regardless of magnitude of soil’s displacement under design loads,
have been used in structural designs of foundations. In this study, the results of 43 published full-scale field plate
load tests in cohesionles soils were gathered to expose any variation in the values of modulus of subgrade reaction
as soil’s displacement increases. Extensive finite element (FE) analyses were carried out while the results of FE
analyses were compared with actual measured results of field load tests. The results of analyses indicated that both
the modulus of subgrade reaction decrease with increase in magnitude of displacement of soils and internal forces of
a design of structural frame is higher with the values of modulus of subgrade reaction that are sensitive to soil’s
displacement are implemented into analyses. Therefore, structural dimensions of any structure with the constant
values of modulus of subgrade reaction would not be a precise engineering solution.

Keywords Modulus of subgrade . Finite element method . Plate load test . Foundation . Displacement

Introduction where, modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is indicated with

Because of the complexity of soil behavior, any interac-
tion problems between a foundation and subgrade soil
have been modelled by a simpler system called subgrade
model. One of the most common and simple models in
this context is Winkler hypothesis (1867) that represents
the soil medium as linearly elastic and closely spaced
independent springs. This method also known as modulus
of subgrade reaction would be calculated using Eq. (1).
q
k¼ ð1Þ
s The constant values of k, regardless of magnitude of soil’s
* Ayhan Gurbuz
agurbuz@gazi.edu.tr
1
Furgo Sial, 06690 Ankara, Turkey
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University,
06570 Ankara, Turkey
loads per unit area (q) and vertical deformation (s).
Evaluation of the numerical values of k is one of the most
complex and sophisticated problems in geotechnical engineer-
ing. In other words, this problem yields to inaccuracy in the
results of Winkler model. The values of k depend on elastic
characteristics of subgrade soil, geometry of foundation, and
loading scheme. In the literature, there were numerous studies
on k proposed out by Winkler (1867), Biot (1937), Terzaghi
(1955), Vesic (1961), Meyerhof and Baike (1963), Selvadurai
(1979), and Bowles (1996). The results of these researchers
are given in Table 1.
displacement under a foundation, have been recommended by
researchers (Dörken and Dehne 1995; Terzaghi 1955;
Zeevaert 1983; Baldouf 1988; Ersoy 1995; Bowles 1996;
Das 2007 and Uzuner 2011) in Table 2.
Foundations of structures have been designed for the per-
missible amount of deformation based on type of foundation
and soil (Table 3). The values of k, obtained from Tables 1 and
351 Page 2 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:351

Table 1 Modulus of subgrade reaction’s equation recommended by Table 2 Range of values of ks values based on literature review
researchers
Soil type Range of ks (kN/m3)
Winkler (1867) ks ¼ q
s  0:108
B4 E s
Biot (1937) ks ¼ B 0:95E s
 Loose sand 4800–20,000
foundation ð1−ν s Þ ðEI Þð1−ν 2s Þ
2
  Medium to dense sand 9600–100,000
Bfoundation þBplate
Terzaghi (1955) k s ¼ k ðplateÞ  2Bfoundation Dense sand 50,000–320,100
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
Vesic (1961) k s ¼ B 0:65E s
 12 4
B E s Clayey medium-dense sand 32,000–80,000
foundation ð1−ν s Þ ðEI Þ
2

Meyerhof and Baike ks ¼ B Es Silty medium-dense sand 24,000–48,000

foundation ð1−ν s Þ
2
(1963) Dry loose sand 8000–25,000
Selvadurai (1979) k s ¼ Bfoundation
0:65
 1−ν
Es
Dry medium sand 25,000–125,000
ð 2s Þ
Bowles (1996) k s ¼ B 1−ν 2  ml l
Es
Dry dense sand 125,000–375,000
ð sÞ ð s f Þ
Moist loose sand 10,000–15,000
m can be taken as 1.2, and 4 for the edge of foundation and the center,
respectively. Is is the impact factor depending on foundation shape. If is Moist medium-dense sand 35,000–40,000
the impact factor depending upon foundation shape. Es is the modulus of Moist dense sand 130,000–150,000
elasticity of the soil. νs is the Poisson ratio of the soil. ks is the subgrade Sandy gravel 200,000–250,000
modulus. E is the modulus of elasticity of the foundation. I is the moment
Dense sandy gravel 100,000–150,000
of inertia of the foundation. Bfoundation is the width of foundation
Fill 10,000–20,000
Soft clay 5000–10,000
Plastic clay 5000–10,000
2, are independent from the deformation of soils under design Stiff clay 15,000
loads. Therefore, the values of k that are sensitive to deforma- Very stiff clay > 96,000
tion of soils should be taken into consideration during a struc- Rock > 2,000,000
tural design of foundation. However, there are limited study
published on how the values of k changes with soil deface-
ments (Daloglu and Vallabhan 2000; Kahraman et al. 2007).
In the light of these studies, the values of k that vary with
deformation of soils, depth of foundation, dimension of foun- Impact of foundation size on modulus
dation, and internal friction angle of soil are presented in this of subgrade reaction
research.
Because of the fact that dimension and depth of plate load
tests that would be used in a plate loading test could be
usually smaller than that of any actual size of foundation
Database in a consideration. Therefore, plate load tests reflect only
characteristics of the soil close to the surface and results
The results of 43 published full-scale field plate load tests in in misleading outputs. Consequently, the values of k
cohesionless soils were gathered to examine the values of k obtained from the plate load tests would be employed
that are sensitive to soil displacement under structural loads. without any correction for highway embankment and the
Out of 43 field tests, 17 field plate load tests were performed at situations that occur mostly in the shallow applications. In
ground surface and the remaining 26 were conducted on dif- the design of the foundation, however, the values of k
ferent elevation level of soil. The source of each load test site, determined by plate load tests must be corrected for
a general description of the prevailing soil types encountered, actual dimensions of the foundations. Terzaghi (1955) rec-
and available geotechnical properties are given in Table 4. ommended the equations of 2 and 3 to correct both the
Internal friction angles of cohesionless soils either were modulus of subgrade reaction and soil displacement for
obtained directly from the reported laboratory test results or actual size of square and circular footings.
indirectly from the results of in situ tests using the correlations


summarized by Kulhawy and Mayne (1990). For the majority Bfoundation þ Bplate 2
k ¼ k ðplateÞ  ð2Þ
of the case histories in the database created in this study, the 2Bfoundation
SPT is the only in situ soil property measurement; therefore,
2
SPT blow counts were mostly used to calculate internal fric- 2Bfoundation
s ¼ S ðplateÞ  ð3Þ
tion angle of soils. Bfoundation þ Bplate
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:351 Page 3 of 8 351

Table 3 Permissible amount of

deformation based on type of Reference Foundation type Soil type s(maks) (mm) Δs(maks) (mm)
foundation
Skempton and Macdonald (1956) – Sand 32
– Clay 45
Shallow Sand 51
Shallow Clay 76
Mat Sand 51–76
Mat Clay 76–127
Eurocode 7 (2007) Shallow – 25
Mat – 50

s(maks), maximum allowable displacement; Δs(maks), maximum allowable differential displacement

Table 4 Database for field plate load tests in cohesionless soils

Case Reference Soil type B (m) L (m) Df (m) E (kPa) GWL (m) γ (kN/m3) ϕ°

1–1 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 50,000 – 19.5 32
1–2 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 50,000 – 19.5 32
1–3 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 40,000 – 19.5 32
1–4 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 40,000 – 19.5 32
1–5 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 30,000 – 19.5 32
1–6 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 35,000 – 19.5 32
1–7 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 45,000 – 19.5 32
1–8 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 0.71 0.71 0.00 80,000 – 19.5 32
1–9 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 0.71 1.4 0.00 70,000 – 19.5 32
1–10 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 0.71 2.1 0.00 50,000 – 19.5 32
1–11 Canepa and Depresles (1990) Silt 1.00 1.00 0.00 70,000 – 19.5 32
1–12 Phung (1993) Sand 0.80 0.80 0.00 70,000 >5 – 32
2–1 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.00 90,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–2 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.00 70,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–3 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.00 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–4 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.00 50,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–5 Adams and Collin (1997) Fine sand 0.61 0.61 0.00 40,000 – 14.7 35
2–6 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 60,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–7 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 50,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–8 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 60,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–9 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–10 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 35,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–11 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–12 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–13 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 0.20 35,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–14 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 0.70 0.70 0.20 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–15 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 0.70 0.70 0.20 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–16 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 1.00 50,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–17 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 1.00 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–18 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 1.00 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–19 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 1.00 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–20 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 1.00 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–21 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 1.00 40,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–22 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 1.00 1.00 1.00 50,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–23 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 0.70 0.70 1.00 50,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–24 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 0.70 0.70 1.00 50,000 3.00 16.8 35
2–25 Mestat and Berthelon (2001) Medium to dense sand 0.70 0.70 1.00 50,000 3.00 16.8 35
3–1 Briaud and Gibbens (1997) Silty fine sand 3.02 3.02 0.89 100,000 4.90 15.5 40
3–2 Briaud and Gibbens (1997) Silty fine sand 3.00 3.00 0.76 100,000 4.90 15.5 40
3–3 Tand et al. (1994) Sand 2.35 – 2.35 30,000 1.90 – 40
3–4 Tand et al. (1994) Sand 2.35 – 2.35 30,000 1.90 – 40
3–5 Bazaraa (1967) Sand fill 0.61 0.61 3.35 15,000 3.65 17.3 40
3–6 Bazaraa (1967) Sand fill 0.61 0.61 3.35 15,000 3.65 17.3 40

B, width of plate; L, length of plate; Df, depth pf plate load test carried out; E, elasticity modulus of soil; GWL, ground water level; γ, unit weight of soil;
ϕ°, internal friction angle of soil
351 Page 4 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:351

Fig. 1 Variation of k with soil

displacement from the measured
results of plate load tests directly
on top of soils for depth of
foundation (Df) = 0 and ϕ = 32°

Fig. 2 Corrected deformation

versus modulus of subgrade
reaction from the measured
results of plate load tests directly
on top of soils for depth of
foundation (Df) = 0 and ϕ = 32°
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:351
Fig. 3 Determined elastic
modulus of soils from back
analysis of FE
where Bfoundation is width of foundation, Bplate is width of plate,
k(plate) is modulus of subgrade reaction from plate load test, k is
corrected modulus of subgrade reaction for actual size of a
foundation, S(plate) is vertical deformation obtained from plate
load test, and s is corrected vertical deformation for actual size
of a foundation.
The measured results of plate load tests sitting directly
on top of soils that have internal friction angle of 32° were
used to detect any variation in the values of modulus of
subgrade reaction as displacement of soil under loads in-
creases for a width of foundation in range of 0.7 to 1.0 m
(Fig. 1). In this study, load-deformation curves which were
obtained from results of plate load tests having diameter of
larger than 1 m and smaller than 1 m were compared. As
seen in Fig. 1, a scatter in the modulus of subgrade reaction
versus soil displacement is very high provided that dimen-
sion of the plate is different from the foundation dimen-
sion. It is determined that the plate size has influential on
the modulus of subgrade reaction according to the load-
deformation curve which was obtained as a result of in situ
plate load test results. Consequently, it is recommended
that the results obtained by plate load tests should be uti-
lized with correction factors which were developed by
Page 5 of 8 351
Terzaghi (1955) were employed when plate size is smaller
than 1 m. Therefore, correction from Eqs. 2 and 3 for mod-
ulus of subgrade reaction and soil displacement was made
to have an equilibrium between dimension of plate load
test and actual size of foundation. The results of corrected
k and s are presented in Fig. 2. It is determined from Figs. 1
and 2 that the foundations having dimension larger than
1 m do not require any corrections.
Analyses results
In order to model the measured results of the plate load
tests, soils under the plate load tests in finite element anal-
yses (FE) were assigned with incrementally increasing de-
formation values that were distributed uniformly under the
width of foundations. Consequently, this assumption al-
lows to model the foundation as rigid, and assesses the
finite element analysis to converge faster. Within this
framework, extensive FE analyses were carried out while
the results of FE analyses were compared with actual mea-
sured results of field load tests for range of internal friction
angle of 32 to 40° available in database of this study in
351 Page 6 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:351

a b

Df = 2.0 m
Df = 1.5 m Df = 2.0 m
Df = 1.0 m
Df = 0.5 m Df = 1.5 m
Df = 1.0 m
Df = 0.0 m
Df = 0.5 m

Df = 0.0 m

Df = 2.0 m
Df = 1.5 m
Df = 1.0 m
Df = 0.5 m

Df = 0.0 m

Fig. 4 Modulus of subgrade reaction versus soil deformation for Df varies from 0 to 2 m and internal friction angle of a 32°, b 35°, and c 40°

order to predict elastic modulus of soils which are required
by many FE analyses. The modulus of elasticity value
which gives the best load-deformation curve was found
by means of the reverse evaluates of FE analysis method
while the results of the plate load test results were taken
into considerations. Therefore, the determined elastic mod-
ulus of soil with one standard deviation from back analyses
of FE analyses is presented in Fig. 3.
Wide-ranging FE analyses were also carried out in order to
assess the values of k versus s for foundations having dimen-
sion of 1 m and depth (Df) of foundation from 0 to 2 m while
the determined elastic modulus of soil was implemented into
the FE analyses for internal friction angles of soils of 32, 35,
and 40° (Fig. 4).
In order to predict the effects of values of modulus of
subgrade reaction obtained from both this study as a
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:351
Fig. 5 Structural analysis of a frame to determine internal force
20,000 kN/m3 for displacement of 25 mm and soil inter-
nal friction angle of 40° in Fig. 5, and 120,000 kN/m3 for
dense sand in Table 3 on internal forces of a structure,
internal forces of a structure in Fig. 5 are investigated and
the results of analyses are presented in Table 5. It is de-
termined that internal forces in the structural system in-
crease at least 50% when the values of k that vary with
soil’s displacement are employed into the analyses.
Conclusion and recommendations
The soil-structure interactions have usually been evalu-
ated while the constant subgrade modulus, regardless of
value of soil’s displacement, has been implemented into
design of foundations. However, the subgrade modulus
of reaction is a function of deformation of soil and,
therefore, does not have constant values. Additionally,
Table 5 Internal forces on the structural members
ks = 20,000 kN/m3 ks = 120,000 kN/m3
Column Beam Column
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Axial force (kN) − 180 − 48 − 25 − 25 − 96 − 40 − 15 − 15
Shear force (kN) − 45 − 20 − 45 45 − 48 − 17 − 49 49
Moment (kN m) − 38 38 − 32 34 − 22 22 − 50 25
Page 7 of 8 351
type of soil, dimensions of foundation have also influ-
ences on the subgrade modulus of reaction of soils. The
following conclusions can be drawn based on analyses
that were carried out as part of this study:
– subgrade modulus increases with increasing soil internal
friction angle
– size of the plate load test larger than 1 m does not effect on
subgrade modulus for plates
– subgrade modulus increases with increasing depth of
foundation
– subgrade modulus is a function of vertical displacement
of soil
– subgrade modulus decreases with an increase in displace-
ment of soil
– subgrade modulus is important parameter to determine
internal forces in a structural system
Therefore, it is a more reliable approach to determine the
subgrade modulus values that tend to decrease with deforma-
tion, depending on depth of foundation, dimensions of the
foundation, internal friction angle, and modulus of elasticity
of the soil.
References
Adams MT, Collin JG (1997) Large model spread footing load test and
geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
123:66–72
Baldouf T (1988) Betonkonstruktionen im Tiefbau.Ernst & Sohn, Berlin,
102
Bazaraa ARSS (1967) Use of standard penetration test for estimating
settlements of shallow foundations on sand^, Ph.D Thesis
Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana
Biot MA (1937) Bending of infinite beams on an elastic foundation. J
Appl Phys:155–164
Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design (fifth edition), United
State of America: McGraw-Hill, 219–270 and 501–588
Briaud JL, Gibbens RM (1997) Large-scale load tests and data base of
spread footings on sand, Report FHWA-RD-97-068, Federal
Highway Administration, McLean, 50-200
Canepa Y, Depresles D (1990) Fondations superficielles. Essais de
chargement de semelles etablies sur une couche de sable en place,
station experimentale de Labenne. Influences des conditions
d’execution. Compte rendu d’essais. Rep. No. FAER 1.17.02.09,
Beam LREP (in French) (as cited by Briaud and Gibbens 1997)
Daloglu AT, Vallabhan CV (2000) Values of k for slab on Winkler foun-
dation, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 126 American Society of Civil Engineers, 463–471
Das BM (2007) Principles of foundation engineering (seventh edition),
United State of America: Thomson, 170–312
Dörken W, Dehne W (1995) Grundbau in Beispielen Teil 2, Werner
Verlag, 175–176
 351 Page 8 of 8
Ersoy U (1995) Reinforced concrete 2: slab and foundation, Ankara,
Evrim Press, 175–178. (In Turkish)
Eurocode 7 (2007) Geotechnical design part 2: ground investigation and
testing. Europen Standard Norm, 57–59
Kahraman S, Mısır İS, Özden G (2007) The effect of constant and varying
subgrade modulus on structural behavior, 6th Earthquake
Conference, İstanbul
Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for
foundation design, Report-El-2870, 4–19
Mestat P, Berthelon J (2001) Finite element modeling of shallow founda-
tion tests at the Labenne site. Bull Lab Ponts Chaussees 234:37–67
Meyerhof GG, Baike LD (1963) Strength of steel culverts sheets bearing
against compacted sand backfill, Highway Research Board
Proceedings, 30
Phung DL (1993) Footings with settlement-reducing piles in non-
cohesive soil, report 43. Swedish Geotechnical Institute,
Linkoping, pp 45–93
Selvadurai APS (1979) Elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction.
Developments in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 17, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam
View publication stats
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11:351
Skempton AW, Macdonald DH (1956) The allowable settlements of
buildings, Proceedings of Institute of Civil Engineers, 724–761
Tand K, Funegard E, Warden PE (1994) Footing load tests on sand,
Proceedings Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations
and Embankments. Am Soc Civil Eng 1:164–178
Terzaghi K (1955) Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction.
Geotechnique 4:297–326
Uzuner BA (2011) Introduction to foundation engineering (fourth edi-
tion), Trabzon, Derya Bookstore, 167–171. (In Turkish)
Vesic AB (1961) Beams on elastic subgrade and Winkler’s hypothesis,
Proceedings 5th International Confference of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Paris, 845–850
Winkler E (1867) Die Lehre von Elastizat and Festigkeit (on elasticity and
fixity), Prag, 182
Zeevaert L (1983) Foundation engineering for difficult subsoil conditions
(second edition), United States of America, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, 145–234