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

net/publication/228674278

Practical Subgrade Model for Improved Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis:

Software Implementation

Article in Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction · November 2010

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000060

CITATIONS READS
43 1,811

2 authors:

Regis Colasanti John S. Horvath

Amentum John S. Horvath Consulting Engineer
13 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS 145 PUBLICATIONS 1,770 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Regis Colasanti on 19 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
Practical Subgrade Model for Improved Soil-Structure
2 Interaction Analysis: Software Implementation
3 Regis J. Colasanti, P.E., M.ASCE1; and John S. Horvath, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2

4
5 Abstract: Subgrade models are relatively simple and easy-to-use approximations of the actual load-displacement behavior of the ground
6 and have always played a significant role in foundation engineering research and practice. Winkler’s Hypothesis has been used almost
7 exclusively for this purpose even though it has long been recognized as providing a poor approximation of actual subgrade behavior. The
8 primary flaw of Winkler’s Hypothesis is the lack of coupling or connection between adjacent subgrade “springs.” Although numerous
9 subgrade models that inherently incorporate “spring coupling” into their mathematical formulation have been developed, none has seen
10 widespread adoption and use to date. This is due primarily to various issues that hinder their use with the commercially available structural
11 analysis software used in routine practice. This paper is the second in a series of three that collectively illustrate the development and
12 implementation of a new hybrid subgrade model with inherent spring coupling called the Modified Kerr/Reissner 共MK/R兲 model. The
13 MK/R model has been developed specifically to be both relatively easy to implement using commercially available structural analysis
14 software as well as to evaluate using conventional geotechnical site-characterization methodologies. This particular paper is devoted to
15 practical guidance as to how this is accomplished.
16 DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲SC.1943-5576.0000060
17 CE Database subject headings: Soil-structure interactions; Structural models; Mat foundations; Raft foundations; Subgrades; Com-
18 puter software.
19 Author keywords: Soil-structure interaction; Models; Structural models; Foundations; Mat foundations; Raft foundations.
20

40
21 Background foundation elements such as various types of structural plates
共mats/rafts, base slabs of cut-and-cover tunnels and water/ 41

22 Subgrade Models wastewater treatment tanks, slabs on grade, and “rigid” pave- 42
ments兲 as well as laterally loaded deep foundations. These are 43
23 Recent years have seen significant growth in the capabilities of broadly referred to as soil-structure interaction 共SSI兲 problems 44
24 computer hardware and software that have allowed numerical and reflect situations where an accurate assessment of the overall 45
25 modeling and analysis of two- and three-dimensional geotechni- foundation-subgrade system requires satisfying not only static 46
26 cal continua on a routine basis for an ever-increasing variety of equilibrium but also the complementary compatible displacement 47
27 applications. Such continuum models allow use of constitutive and deformation pattern for both the foundation and subgrade 48
28 models that have the potential to replicate a wide range of soil along their common interface共s兲. 49
29 behavior.
30 Despite this growth in technology, there are still many appli-
Subgrade Reaction 50
31 cations in routine practice where analytical software using sub-
32 grade models is still preferred. Subgrade models are not complete A key parameter in all SSI problems is subgrade reaction. This is 51
33 constitutive models as they approximate only certain aspects of defined as the normal stress 共often colloquially, but incorrectly, 52
34 material behavior using a differential equation involving two called “pressure”兲 at the contact between a foundation element 53
35 spatial dimensions to approximate three-dimensional behavior and the ground in contact with that element. Thus, subgrade re- 54
36 共Horvath 1979, 1988, 1989, 2002兲. action is synonymous with terms such as bearing stress 共pressure兲 55
37 The situations where a subgrade model as opposed to a or contact stress 共pressure兲. Note that in SSI problems, subgrade 56
38 complete constitutive model still predominates in practice are reaction is fundamentally an internal calculated result that is a 57
39 foundation engineering applications involving relatively flexible problem outcome generated as part of the solution of the overall 58
foundation-subgrade system in much the same way that bending 59
1
Consulting Engineer IV, URS Energy and Construction Div., 7800 moment is an internal parameter generated as a result of analyz- 60
East Union Ave., Denver, CO 80237. E-mail: regiscolasanti@comcast.net ing a beam subjected to flexure. 61
2
Professor, Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of
Engineering, Manhattan College, Bronx, NY 10471 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: jsh@jshce.com CSR 62
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 24, 2009; ap-
Related to subgrade reaction is a parameter called the coefficient 63
proved on December 22, 2009; published online on XXXX XX, XXXX.
Discussion period open until April 1, 2011; separate discussions must be of subgrade reaction 共CSR兲. It is perhaps the most misunderstood 64

submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Peri- aspect of SSI. In the most general and generic context the CSR is 65
odical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 15, No. 4, defined as the ratio of subgrade reaction at some arbitrary point to 66
November 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/2010/4-1–XXXX/$25.00. the normal displacement 共e.g., mat settlement and lateral displace- 67

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 1

68 127
ment of a deep foundation兲 at the same point. Thus, the CSR the absence of a foundation element to structurally distribute pi.
69 always has dimensions of force per length cubed although it is Conversely, the displacement at point i, wi, is the net result of the 128
70 often more usefully visualized as force per length 共dimensions of subgrade reaction at many points in addition to that at point i, 129
71 an axial-spring constant兲 per unit area supported by that imagi- again, independent of the presence of a foundation element. Using 130
72 nary spring. Note that the CSR is a completely arbitrarily defined the visualization of a subgrade as a layer of axial springs, a real 131
73 parameter that is calculated using two results 共subgrade reaction subgrade can be visualized as inherently possessing coupling or 132
74 and displacement兲 generated by the solution of the overall linkage between springs whereas Winkler’s Hypothesis lacks this 133
75 foundation-subgrade system. coupling inherently. 134
76 The CSR is always problem specific and influenced by the A subtle point that has not always been recognized is that 135
77 physical properties of both the subgrade and foundation element Winkler’s Hypothesis can, in fact, produce results that replicate 136
78 in contact with the subgrade. Furthermore, research and experi- the effect of spring coupling despite its inherent lack of same. 137
79 ence have shown that, in general, the CSR is continuously vari- However, to do so means that the problem-specific values of the 138
80 able along a foundation-subgrade interface. WCSR must always include the effects of spring coupling. The 139
81 It should be noted that the CSR is not the same as the modulus clear implication here is that when using Winkler’s Hypothesis 140
82 of subgrade reaction 共MSR兲 although the two terms have often the generic CSR is fundamentally and significantly changed from 141
83 been used, incorrectly, synonymously. By convention, a “modu- being an initially unknown parameter that is calculated using 142
84 lus” has dimensions of force per length squared that are again in problem results and is replaced by the WCSR which must always 143
85 this case better visualized as force per length 共dimensions of an be a known problem-specific input parameter. This is a drastic 144
86 axial-spring constant兲 per unit length supported by that imaginary role reversal, and the implication is that, in essence, the correct 145
87 spring. Thus, the MSR is the CSR multiplied by some arbitrary results of a problem where Winkler’s Hypothesis is used must be 146
88 width of the foundation element in contact with the subgrade. For known beforehand so that the proper values of the WCSR can be 147
89 example, in a laterally loaded deep foundation problem if one was input to produce the correct results. As illogical and impossible as 148
90 to take the CSR at a point and multiply it by the projected width this sounds, i.e., that the correct answer must be known before- 149
91 of the pile or drilled shaft at the same point the result would be hand to be able to input the proper values to produce the correct 150
92 the MSR at that point. answer, it is accurate and simply reflects the price paid for enjoy- 151
ing the mathematical simplicity of Winkler’s Hypothesis. 152

93 Winkler’s Hypothesis These insights into Winkler’s Hypothesis and the implied role 153
reversal involving the CSR and WCSR do not appear to be uni- 154
94 No discussion of SSI and subgrade models can proceed very far versally understood and appreciated. This apparent widespread 155
95 without discussing Winkler’s Hypothesis as it has both dominated lack of fundamental understanding concerning Winkler’s Hypoth- 156
96 subgrade modeling to date and contributed to much of the current esis has been obfuscated by the fact that apparent success can be 157
97 misunderstanding involving the CSR. The origin and shortcom- achieved using Winkler’s Hypothesis for some applications. For 158
98 ings of Winkler’s Hypothesis as a subgrade model have been example, with laterally loaded deep foundations decades of re- 159
99 discussed in detail numerous times elsewhere 共Horvath 1979, search have shown that by back-calculating results from innumer- 160
100 1988, 1989, 2002兲. Only key aspects are summarized here. able instrumented full-scale field-load tests performed under a 161
101 Regardless of who actually first proposed it 共there is evidence wide range of conditions, it is indeed possible to reasonably esti- 162
102 it was either Fuss or even Euler nearly a century earlier than mate beforehand how the WCSR will vary along a deep founda- 163
103 Winkler兲, what is now universally referred to as Winkler’s Hy- tion. In this application these correct answers before the fact are 164
104 pothesis is simply a mathematical statement that the subgrade the well-known p-y curves. As a result, Winkler’s Hypothesis has 165
105 reaction, pi, and normal displacement, wi, at some arbitrary point and continues to produce acceptable results in routine practice 166
106 i are linearly related according to the following simple relation- when analyzing laterally loaded deep foundations because it has 167
107 ship: turned out to be possible to calibrate the WCSR for this very 168
specific application. However, if one was to go outside the data- 169

p i = k Wiw i 共1兲 base of experience in terms of type or size of deep foundation or 170
108
type of subgrade, then this empirically based reliability of Win- 171
109 where kWi is defined as the Winkler CSR 共WCSR兲 at point i. The kler’s Hypothesis would disappear. 172
110 WCSR is not the same as the generic CSR defined previously for On the other hand, this same level of knowing-the-correct- 173
111 reasons that will become clear subsequently. answer-beforehand reliability has simply not been achievable 174
112 Physical interpretations or visualizations of Eq. 共1兲 were when using Winkler’s Hypothesis for platelike foundations such 175
113 apparently made some time after it was first stated, although as mats, at least not in a general sense. Such foundations are 176
114 who first made that visualization is unclear. The visualization of much more variable and unique compared to deep foundations. In 177
115 Eq. 共1兲 as defining a system of independent 共i.e., unconnected兲 addition, it is cost prohibitive to routinely instrument and field- 178
116 axial springs is the most enduring and widespread as it is easy to load-test full-scale mats and similar foundations to develop a da- 179
117 visualize and comprehend when applied to a foundation subgrade. tabase comparable to that for deep foundations on which the p-y 180
118 Using this visualization, kWi is interpreted as the axial-spring con- curve method was based. Consequently, the use of Winkler’s Hy- 181
119 stant for the axial spring supporting the unit area surrounding pothesis with platelike foundations has historically been much 182
120 point i along the foundation-subgrade contact. more problematic. 183
121 As noted previously, the shortcomings of Winkler’s Hypoth- To begin with, until relatively recently it was generally as- 184
122 esis as a subgrade model have long been recognized. In simple sumed that the WCSR was constant in a given application involv- 185
123 terms, what Winkler’s Hypothesis fails to model inherently are ing platelike foundations. This is grossly incorrect in even simple 186
124 the shear stresses and shear strength within a real subgrade idealized applications in addition to most of real applications and 187
125 that result in the subgrade reaction applied at some point i, pi, thus inherently produces incorrect qualitative results, as has been 188
126 causing displacement at adjoining points i + 1, i − 1, etc., even in illustrated in numerous publications 共see, for example, Horvath 189

2 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

190 249
1979, 1983, 1993a,b; Lopes 2000兲. In addition, the decades-long proper place as an observed result obtained from problem so-
191 effort to find or establish correlations between the WCSR and lution as opposed to being an input parameter 共the WCSR兲 that 250
192 various fundamental soil properties for use with platelike founda- must always be known beforehand. This will eliminate the 251
193 tions has been, is, and will always be an exercise in futility be- current unsatisfactory situation whenever Winkler’s Hypoth- 252
194 cause it is a search for something that simply does not exist. This esis is used to essentially know the correct answer beforehand 253
195 is because, as discussed previously, the generic CSR which the so that the correct input can be used to calculate the correct 254
196 WCSR must mimic in order to produce correct results is not a answer. 255
197 fundamental property of either the subgrade or foundation but • The model must be able to be implemented within the capa- 256
198 varies depending on the problem-specific geometry and material bilities and constraints of commercially available structural 257
199 properties of both subgrade and foundation. Furthermore, even analysis software at least for use with platelike foundations. 258
200 for a given foundation-subgrade condition the CSR will typically
This is because numerous studies 共see, for example, Burland 259
201 not be constant but vary along the foundation-subgrade contact.
et al. 1977; The Institution of Structural Engineers 1989; 260
202 Thus, the same foundation on different subgrades or different
Banavalkar 1995兲 have shown that a superstructure and foun- 261
203 foundations on the same subgrade will always have different
dation supporting it should always be analyzed together in 262
204 variations of CSR both in terms of magnitude and variation along
order to properly account for the superstructure-foundation 263
205 the foundation-subgrade interface. Even something as simple as
206 changing the thickness of an otherwise identical mat resting on a interaction effects that will affect both the displacements and 264

207 given subgrade will produce a change in the CSR magnitude and bending moments of the foundation as well as the displace- 265

208 distribution. ments and loads of the members comprising the superstruc- 266

209 In recent years there have been attempts to move away from ture. 267

210 the traditional assumption that the WCSR is constant for platelike • There must be sound logic and science for the project-specific 268

211 foundations. These efforts have been generically referred to as evaluation of the coefficients contained in the differential 269
212 pseudocoupling as allowing for a variation in the WCSR is in- equation defining the subgrade reaction-displacement behavior 270
213 tended to simulate the effects of spring coupling but within the of the subgrade model. Furthermore, this evaluation must 271
214 context of Winkler’s Hypothesis which does not explicitly include be achievable using the typical state-of-practice site- 272
215 spring coupling. Various gimmicks have been suggested to pro- characterization methodologies available to practitioners for 273
216 duce pseudocoupling. These include making arbitrary simplistic use on routine projects. 274
217 assumptions concerning the relative variation in spring magni- While the first requirement of a fundamentally more accurate 275
218 tudes 共Bowles 1986, 1988; ACI Committee 336 1988, 1989兲, subgrade model has been met in concept for several decades now 276
219 using a very complex iterative process of parallel structural 共Horvath 1979, 1988, 1989兲, only in recent years has there been 277
220 and geotechnical analyses that is called the discrete area method sufficient development in the latter two areas to make the use of 278
221 共Ulrich 1995兲, or developing project- and application-specific em- more-advanced subgrade models a practical reality. This paper is 279
222 pirical correlations using numerical analyses of continua as the the second in a series of three with the collective primary goal of 280
223 correlation tool 共Liao 1991, 1995兲. However, none of these ap- illustrating, in detail, how an advanced subgrade model can be 281
224 proaches can be considered satisfactory in terms of being general implemented in routine practice, with an emphasis on platelike 282
225 and reliable in outcome as well as sufficiently easy to use so as to foundations. The specific common application of a mat is used as 283
226 be widely attractive in general practice. an example in these papers and for simplicity only that term will 284
be used for the remainder of this paper when referring to the 285
foundation. However, the overall methodology is sufficiently 286
227 Scope of Paper broad so as to allow extension to other SSI applications including 287
laterally loaded deep foundations 共Horvath 1984兲 and various 288
228 There is still very much a need for subgrade models in current types of flexible earth-retaining structures such as anchored bulk- 289
229 foundation engineering practice which means the long-standing heads. 290
230 need for a subgrade model that is a theoretically sound improve- The scopes of the three papers in this series were developed to 291
231 ment over the inherently and seriously flawed Winkler’s Hypoth- address each of the above-described aspects of the trilogy of prac- 292
232 esis still exists. Past research has shown that efforts to develop ticality in both detail and logical order. Thus, the specific scope of 293
233 improved subgrade models date back to at least the first half of this second paper is describing the details of implementing this 294
234 the 20th century 共Horvath 1979, 1988, 1989兲. Therefore, the logi-
model in commercially available structural analysis software. 295
235 cal question is why an improved subgrade model has not already
As information, the first paper 共Horvath and Colasanti, “A prac- 296
236 been widely accepted and implemented into practice.
tical subgrade model for improved soil-structure interaction 297
237 For an improved subgrade model to achieve a reasonably
analysis: Model development, Int. J. Geomech., unpublished, 298
238 widespread level of acceptance and use it must fulfill what can be
239 called the trilogy of practicality: 2009兲 addresses the theoretical development of the subgrade 299

240 • The model must have theoretical basis and rigor greater than model chosen for use. It also includes a comparison of results 300

241 that offered by Winkler’s Hypothesis. In particular, it must obtained using this new model to those from Winkler’s Hypoth- 301

242 inherently incorporate into its mathematical formulation the esis. The third paper 共Horvath and Colasanti, “A practical sub- 302

243 spring coupling that Winkler’s Hypothesis completely and grade model for improved soil-structure interaction analysis: 303
244 inherently lacks. This is because trying to estimate coupling Parameter assessment,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., unpub- 304
245 effects 共the above-discussed pseudocoupling兲 within the lished, 2009兲 addresses the geotechnical aspects related to param- 305
246 framework of Winkler’s Hypothesis has proven to be unwork- eter assessment for the chosen subgrade model and illustrates 306
247 able as a general methodology for all users and applications. practical application of this model using several mat case histories 307
248 This is also necessary so that the CSR can be returned to its from the literature. 308

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 3

309
MK/R Hybrid Subgrade Model

310 Background
311 There are two completely different conceptual and theoretical ap-
312 proaches for developing subgrade models:
313 • Mechanical wherein various “mechanical” elements 共axial
314 springs, tensioned membranes, shear-only layers, and flexure-
315 only layers兲 are assembled in increasingly more complex fash-
316 ion to build models of increasing accuracy. This is the concept
317 used traditionally, and Winkler’s Hypothesis visualized as a
318 layer of independent axial springs is not only the classic ex-
319 ample of such models but also the simplest and most basic of
320 such model possible. It is of interest to note that all more-
321 advanced mechanical subgrade models always have a Winkler
Fig. 1. Components of MK/R hybrid subgrade model
322 subgrade 共axial-spring layer兲 as their starting point.
323 • Simplified continuum wherein the starting point for model de-
324 velopment is a homogeneous isotropic layer of linear-elastic
325 material of finite thickness that is underlain by a rigid base.
326 Arbitrary assumptions are then made concerning selected by a single layer of linear-elastic material with constant Young’s 366
327 stress, strain, and displacement parameters as well as com- modulus E and thickness H that has simplified behavioral charac- 367
328 patibility to produce a material with behavioral approxima- teristics as defined by the governing equation of the RSC model. 368
329 tions built into it. The various equations for equilibrium, As will be seen, the physical and geometric characteristics of this 369
330 etc., of this simplified layer are then solved to create the sub-
elastic layer are what are used to evaluate the abstract spring 370
331 grade reaction-displacement equation that defines the subgrade
stiffnesses and membrane tension shown in Fig. 1共a兲 and con- 371
332 model representing this layer.
tained in Eq. 共2兲. 372
333 Both the mechanical and simplified-continuum concepts have
334 their pros and cons in terms of practicality of use of the subgrade
335 models they produce. It is the existence of the cons that has pre- Implementation in Commercial Software 373
336 vented subgrade models more accurate than Winkler’s Hypothesis
337 from seeing any significant use in practice to date despite the Overview 374
338 availability of such models since at least 1940s. However, the The specific computer software used in the present study to solve 375
339 negative aspects of each type of subgrade model turn out to be problems incorporating the MK/R model was ANSYS 共version 376
340 perfectly compensating and the positive aspects of each perfectly 11.0兲. Therefore, the specific element types used and identified in 377
341 complementary. Thus, by combining mathematically equivalent this paper are for this software package and version. It is expected 378
342 subgrade models from each conceptual approach a hybrid model that other commercially available structural analysis software 379
343 can be created to produce a synergistic outcome that has none of packages have similar elements so the concepts given in this 380
344 the drawbacks and all of the benefits desired for a practical sub- paper are expected to be usable across other analytical platforms 381
345 grade model 共Horvath and Colasanti, Int. J. Geomech., unpub-
although the specifics on how to do this are beyond the scope of 382
346 lished, 2009兲. The specific hybrid subgrade model that is the
this paper. The specific characteristics of the ANSYS element 383
347 focus of the present study uses the Modified Kerr mechanical
types used and why they were chosen are explained in detail to 384
348 model 关defined for the first time in print by Horvath and Colasanti
assist the analyst with selection of appropriate element types in 385
349 共Int. J. Geomech., unpublished, 2009兲兴 and Reissner Simplified
other software packages. 386
350 Continuum 共RSC兲 model to create the Modified Kerr/Reissner
351 共MK/R兲 hybrid subgrade model.
Foundation 387
The mat is not an inherent or explicit part of the MK/R model. 388
352 Mechanical Components Therefore, the analyst can use whatever element type they feel is 389
353 Fig. 1 illustrates the basic components of the MK/R model. Fig. appropriate for this portion of the problem. Various assumptions 390
354 1共a兲 shows the Modified Kerr mechanical model that is used to concerning mat behavior can be made as desired by the analyst 391
355 provide the visualization of the MK/R model for structural mod- including “thin” versus “thick” plate, linear versus nonlinear 392
356 eling purposes using commercially available structural analysis 共large deflection兲, and uncracked versus cracked section 共Horvath 393
357 software as outlined in detail subsequently in this paper. This 1993a,b; Horvilleur and Patel 1995兲. 394
358 visualization consists of two layers of independent axial springs The analyses performed for the current study used 395
359 sandwiching a membrane under constant tension T. The equation “SHELL181” elements for the mat with bending and membrane 396
360 defining the relationship between the subgrade reaction, p, and action specified. This type of element includes the linear effects 397
361 surface settlement, W, of this model is of transverse shear deformation which are important in the case of 398

362
p− 冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊
T
ku + kl
ⵜ2 p =
k uk l
ku + kl
W−
Tku
ku + kl
ⵜ 2W 共2兲
a relatively thick mat. Note that when using SHELL181 elements
for the mat the mesh used should consist of quadrilateral-shaped
elements to the greatest extent practicable. This is because
399
400
401
363 where all terms are defined in Fig. 1共a兲. ANSYS strongly discourages use of triangular elements except 402
364 The actual physical subgrade being modeled using the MK/R “filler” elements whenever SHELL181 elements are used to 403
365 model is shown in Fig. 1共b兲. The subgrade soils are represented model flexural behavior. 404

4 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

405 467
Basic Subgrade Model Edge Boundary Condition
406 With reference to Fig, 1共a兲, from top to bottom the MK/R model The use of any subgrade model more advanced than Winkler’s 468
407 is structurally modeled as follows: Hypothesis always requires consideration of boundary conditions 469
408 • Upper spring layer: This component consists of a continuous at the edges of the mat. This is because the spring-coupling in- 470
409 bed of independent, linear, axial springs acting in the vertical herent in advanced models always produces settlements beyond 471
410 direction only between the overlying mat and underlying ten- the edge of the mat that correctly mimics actual subgrade behav- 472
411 sioned membrane. To accomplish this, “COMBIN14” ele- ior. What is happening conceptually is that the subgrade beyond 473
412 ments with axial stiffness in the vertical direction only were the edge of the mat acts to resist mat settlement. Because the soil 474
413 specified. Note that the actual stiffness of each of the vertical springs are not inherently coupled in a Winkler subgrade there is 475
414 springs is a function of the area tributary to the nodes on the no subgrade effect or contribution beyond the edge of the mat. 476
415 overlying mat and underlying tensioned membrane with which In concept, the subgrade beyond the edge of the mat could 477
416 that spring connects. simply be modeled explicitly for some arbitrary horizontal dis- 478
417 • Tensioned membrane: This component consists of a continu- tance to where the settlements are negligibly small in magnitude 479
418 ous sheet of material with zero flexural stiffness that is under and then fixed at that point. However, this distance would always 480
419 constant tension in the horizontal direction and is the compo- have to be determined on a project-specific trial-and-error basis. 481
420 nent that produces the inherent spring coupling in the MK/R In addition, doing so would increase the size of the overall sub- 482
421 model. Therefore, essential to the proper performance of grade model and impact the overall structural analysis. Although 483
422 the MK/R model is that nonlinear 共large-deflection兲 behavior this rigorously correct approach was used for the MK/R model 484
423 must be specified for this membrane. Unless the deformed examples presented by Horvath and Colasanti 共Int. J. Geomech., 485
424 geometry of the membrane is considered in an analysis the unpublished, 2009兲 this adds an additional layer of complexity to 486
425 membrane does not cause the desired spring interaction forces the overall problem-solution process that would be desirable to 487
426 and the desired model behavior will not occur. SHELL181 eliminate in routine practice. 488
427 elements with membrane-only behavior were specified to cre- To avoid modeling the subgrade explicitly in the area beyond 489
428 ate this membrane. Note that element types other than the mat requires developing a special boundary condition to re- 490
429 SHELL181 can be used to model a tensioned membrane. For place the subgrade effects outside the mat with an additional me- 491
430 example, “SHELL63” 共elastic shell兲 with membrane-only be- chanical element or elements located at the edge of the mat. One 492
431 havior or “SHELL41” 共membrane shell兲 could be used. How- way to accomplish this, which has been used in the present study, 493
432 ever, the use of these alternative element types in a large- is outlined in Appendix I. Using this approach all subgrade effects 494

433 deflection analysis comes with the restriction that the element beyond the edge of the mat can be approximated with reasonable 495

434 shape must be triangular due to possible element warping. accuracy and very simply by placing an additional line of inde- 496

435 There is no such restriction for the SHELL181 element type. pendent axial springs under the edge of the mat between the ten- 497

436 Quadrilateral-shaped membrane-only SHELL181 elements sioned membrane and rigid base only, i.e., at the same level as the 498

437 can be used as this element can accommodate a reasonable lower spring layer shown in Fig. 1共a兲. The stiffness of these ad- 499

438 amount of warping. In fact, by using quadrilateral-shaped ele- ditional boundary-condition springs, kbc, has a magnitude equal to 500

439 ments the mesh used for the tensioned membrane can mirror 共klT兲0.5. These springs were physically modeled in ANSYS using 501

440 the mesh used for the mat which is also modeled using COMBIN14 elements with longitudinal resistance in the vertical 502

441 quadrilateral-shaped SHELL181 elements as discussed previ- direction only specified. Note that this is the same element type 503

442 ously. used for the upper spring layer in the MK/R model. 504

443 • Lower spring layer: This component consists of another con-

Overall Subgrade Model 505
444 tinuous bed of independent, linear, axial springs acting in the
445 vertical direction only between the overlying tensioned mem- Fig. 2 visually summarizes the preceding discussion and shows an 506

446 brane and underlying rigid base. “SURF154” elements at- isometric view of how the MK/R model was implemented using 507

447 tached to the underside of the tensioned membrane were used ANSYS 共version 11.0兲 element types. Note that the three different 508

448 for this purpose. Note that COMBIN14 elements with axial layers comprising the MK/R model are shown in this figure sepa- 509

449 stiffness in the vertical direction as used for the upper spring rated for clarity. As noted previously, the nodes for all layers that 510

450 layer could have been used for the lower spring layer as well. comprise the MK/R model lie in the same plane defined by the 511

451 However, because the lower springs are “springs to ground,” midsection plane of the mat. Note also that if one or more planes 512

452 i.e., their bottom ends are restrained against vertical displace- of symmetry are used in the overall superstructure-mat-subgrade 513
model to reduce its size, then the special edge boundary-condition 514
453 ment, the use of SURF154 elements facilitates the generation
springs, kbc, are not placed along the plane共s兲 of symmetry. These 515
454 of the lower springs as it allows the user to attach elements to
boundary-condition springs are only placed along actual physical 516
455 the surface of the membrane elements and specify a property
edges of the mat. 517
456 called the foundation stiffness, EFS, with dimensions of force
457 per length per unit area. The springs generated by the
458 SURF154 elements are then automatically internally restrained Parameter Assessment 518
459 at their other 共bottom in this case兲 end.
460 Note that even though there are four distinct layers of elements Introduction 519
461 in the combined mat-subgrade model 共the mat plus three layers Historically, the biggest challenge when using any mechanical 520
462 comprising the MK/R model兲 the nodes for each element layer lie subgrade model is that the project-specific evaluation of the vari- 521
463 in a common plane defined by the middepth of the mat. Stated ous spring layers, tensioned membranes, etc., is not at all intuitive 522
464 another way, the combined mat-subgrade model has zero physical or obvious. This is one significant benefit of the hybrid subgrade 523
465 thickness in the overall structural model implemented into model concept as all parameters for the MK/R model as defined 524
466 ANSYS. in Eq. 共2兲 can always be related in a straightforward and theoreti- 525

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 5

 Fig. 2. 共Color兲 Isometric view of MK/R model as implemented using ANSYS 共version 11.0兲

526 544
cally rigorous fashion to the stiffness and geometry of the sub- site as a function of depth, z, to an appropriate depth. Note that
527 grade. These relationships are given in Appendix II for the two not all sites will have a well-defined physical “rigid base” within 545
528 limiting cases of a perfectly smooth interface between mat and a reasonable depth. Furthermore, a physical rigid base need not be 546
529 subgrade 共also applicable to the case of no or perfectly flexible bedrock. A soil stratum that is considerably stiffer than an over- 547
530 mat兲 and a perfectly rough interface, the latter being a closer lying stratum or strata will often function as a physical rigid base. 548
531 approximation to the typical case of Portland-cement concrete In addition to determining basic soil index properties such as 549
532 poured directly on a subgrade. unit weight, ␥, as a function of depth, this site-characterization 550
study should also adequately define the compressibility or stiff- 551
533 Overview of Implementation of Process in Practice ness 共Young’s modulus, E, or shear modulus, G, and Poisson’s 552
534 How to apply the process of parameter assessment for the MK/R ratio, ␯兲 of the subsurface materials throughout the site stratigra- 553
535 model, including illustration using several mat case histories, is phy with due consideration to stress history at the site and its 554
536 the primary focus of a companion paper 共Horvath and Colasanti, effect on selecting appropriate values of subgrade stiffness. This 555
537 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., unpublished, 2009兲. Only an over- can be done using either in situ or laboratory testing or both 556
538 view and outline are presented here so there is a basic understand- depending on the type共s兲 of material encountered, local practice, 557
539 ing of what has to be done or is required in routine practice. and other factors. Note that when fine-grain soils are involved 558
540 To begin with, an appropriate geotechnical site- it may be necessary to determine stiffness parameters for both 559
541 characterization study must conducted as shown generically and undrained and drained conditions, i.e., under conditions of no 560
542 qualitatively in Fig. 3共a兲. This study should adequately define the and full primary consolidation, so that time-related behavior of 561
543 subsurface stratigraphy and piezometric conditions beneath the the superstructure-mat-subgrade system can be analyzed as appro- 562
priate. 563
The information obtained during the site-characterization 564
phase of study is used to create an intermediate idealized analyti- 565
cal model of the site as shown in Fig. 3共b兲. This model consists of 566
n number of arbitrary artificial layers, each of which is assumed 567
to consist of an isotropic, homogeneous, linear-elastic material. 568
Young’s modulus, E, or shear modulus, G, and Poisson’s ratio, ␯, 569
for the material in each artificial layer must be determined from 570
the data obtained during the site-characterization phase. 571
The next and final step is to convert the system shown in 572
Fig. 3共b兲 to the one shown in Fig. 3共c兲 which is the final idealized 573
analytical model of the site. This is because in order to evaluate 574
the coefficients for the MK/R model using the relationships given 575
in Appendix II the actual subgrade needs to be reduced to an 576
equivalent single layer of isotropic, homogeneous, linear-elastic 577
material with constant elastic parameters, E and G, and finite 578
thickness. The thickness of this layer, H, is defined as the depth 579
Fig. 3. Analysis stages for developing idealized single-layer system below foundation level to some effective rigid base. In many 580

6 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

581
cases this depth will be less than the depth to an actual physical
582 rigid base 共if one exists兲 as identified during the site-
583 characterization phase. The critical importance of making a rea-
584 sonably accurate determination of the thickness of the layer
585 shown conceptually in Fig. 3共c兲 cannot be emphasized too
586 strongly as the parameter H has proven to be critical to the suc-
587 cessful implementation of the MK/R model. Consequently, this
588 particular issue will be discussed here in some detail.

589 Depth to Effective Rigid Base, H

590 For the purposes of the MK/R model, the effective rigid base is
591 defined as the depth at which settlements caused by the mat and
592 the superstructure it is supporting can be taken to be zero. Thus,
593 this depth will be the smaller of either the depth to an actual
594 physical rigid base or an effective rigid base determined by some Fig. 4. Boundary-condition modeling for MK/R model
595 analytical method. Specific recommendations as to how to per-
596 form the latter calculation are presented in detail by Horvath and
597 Colasanti 共J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., unpublished, 2009兲. theoretical and straightforward manner using state-of-practice 640

598 Experience to date is that the latter situation occurs more fre- site-characterization techniques. Yet for all its theoretical accu- 641
599 quently in practice; i.e., a calculated effective rigid base will usu- racy and analytical power the MK/R model retains the ability to 642
600 ally occur at a shallower depth than a true physical rigid base. be implemented in a relatively easy and straightforward manner 643
601 This is because geotechnical research in recent years has clearly in existing commercially available structural analysis software. 644
602 demonstrated that traditional rules of thumb concerning the rela-
603 tive depth below a shallow foundation 共footing and mat兲 at which
604 settlement caused by that foundation is for all practical purposes Acknowledgments 645
605 zero are not valid. For example, for decades it has been assumed
606 that the “depth of influence” for settlement 共equivalent conceptu- The ANSYS 共version 11.0兲 software and computer hardware on 646
607 ally to the effective depth to rigid base as defined in this paper兲 is which it was installed that were used for analyses involving the 647
608 twice the width of a square loaded area and four times the width MK/R model were provided by the first author’s employer, URS 648
609 of an infinite strip. However, research 共Burland and Burbridge Energy and Construction Division. This support is acknowledged 649
610 1985; Berardi and Lancellotta 1991; Charles 1996兲 has shown with gratitude. The use of software trade names in this paper is 650
611 that this depth is not constant for a given loaded-area geometry for necessary identification purposes only and does not necessar- 651
612 but highly dependent on the absolute width of the loaded area, ily constitute a recommendation or endorsement of that software 652
613 with decreasing relative depth of influence with increasing width. by the authors or their employers. 653
614 So, for example, a square mat that is 20 m 共66 ft兲 wide might
615 have a depth of influence of perhaps only one-half its width 关10 m
616 共33 ft兲兴 which is significantly less than the traditional rule of Appendix I: Edge Boundary Condition for MK/R 654
617 thumb of twice its width 关40 m 共131 ft兲兴. Model 655
618 Once the effective depth to rigid base in a specific problem has
619 been determined it then becomes a relatively straightforward pro- Fig. 4共a兲 is a generic elevation view through the edge of a mat of 656
620 cess to determine the equivalent elastic parameters for the single thickness t supported on a MK/R subgrade. To eliminate the need 657
621 layer shown in Fig. 3共c兲 from the layered system shown in Fig. to explicitly model the subgrade beyond the edge of the mat the 658
622 3共b兲. There are any number of strain- or stress-weighted method- first step is to deal with the four boundary conditions that must be 659
623 ologies that can be used for this. Again, specific recommendations considered at the edge of the mat. Two are the usual ones for the 660
624 are given by Horvath and Colasanti 共J. Geotech. Geoenviron. mat itself and are easily handled. Specifically, either the settle- 661
625 Eng., unpublished, 2009兲. ment of or shear within the mat must be zero and either the 662
rotation of or moment within the mat must be zero. For most mats 663
the edge shears and moments will be zero. 664
626 Summary and Conclusions The other two boundary conditions involve the subgrade, spe- 665
cifically the first derivatives of the subgrade reaction, p, and sur- 666
627 Subgrade models are an integral part of foundation engineering face settlement, W. To resolve these boundary conditions, 667
628 practice and engineers have struggled for decades to find a model continuity of the vertical shear forces within the subgrade from 668
629 that strikes an appropriate balance between theoretical accuracy inside to outside of the mat is assumed as suggested originally by 669
630 and ease of use. The new MK/R hybrid subgrade model presented Reissner 共1958兲. Others 共Rhines 1965兲 have chosen the other pos- 670
631 in this and companion papers satisfies that desired balance better sible alternative which is continuity of surface settlement, W, at 671
632 than any alternative that is either in current use or has been pro- the edge of the mat. Both assumptions 共continuity of shear versus 672
633 posed for use in the past. By using a hybrid approach in its de- continuity of settlement兲 have been investigated in the past using 673
634 velopment, the MK/R model has none of the drawbacks of either a proprietary computer code named SSIH 共Horvath 2009兲. Based 674
635 mechanical or simplified-continuum subgrade models. Most im- on unpublished results it was found that only Reissner’s 675
636 portant, the MK/R model is superior to the universally used Win- continuity-of-shear assumption produces results that are both in- 676
637 kler model in all aspects. Unlike Winkler’s Hypothesis, the MK/R tuitively pleasing and representative of actual soil behavior, 677
638 model explicitly includes the critical behavior of spring coupling namely, a gradual buildup of subgrade reaction toward the edge of 678
639 and the coefficients of the MK/R model can be evaluated in a the mat is generated. Rhines’ continuity-of-settlement assumption 679

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 7

680
produces a uniform distribution of subgrade reaction combined
681 with a concentrated upward force at the edge of the mat. This is
682 judged to be less representative of actual soil behavior.
683 Using the continuity-of-shear assumption, the subgrade bound-
684 ary condition reduces to the problem of determining the magni-
685 tude and sense 共upward or downward兲 of the net vertical shear
686 force that must be applied to the edge of the mat by the subgrade
687 to replicate the resistance to settlement produced by the subgrade
688 beyond the edge of the mat. The goal is to reduce this shear force
689 to a mechanical element or elements placed at the edge of the mat
690 so that the element共s兲 can be implemented in commercially avail-
691 able structural analysis software.
692 To start the process, the following are assumed:
693 • Settlements occur only in one horizontal dimension perpen-
694 dicular to the edge of the mat 共assumed to be the x axis here,
695 with the origin of the x axis being the edge of the mat兲 so
696 partial derivatives can be replaced by total derivatives.
697 • The subgrade reaction, p, and all of its derivatives are equal to Fig. 5. Comparison of edge boundary-condition modeling alterna-
698 zero beyond the edge of the mat. tives
699 • The upper spring layer beyond the edge of the mat does not
700 contribute to the subgrade resistance so this spring layer can
701 be eliminated from consideration.
T
冑kl/TWo
702 Therefore, the subgrade beyond the edge of the mat reduces to
703 that shown in Fig. 4共b兲. Technically, the effective subgrade model kbc = = T冑kl/T = 冑klT2/T = 冑klT 共8兲 735
704 beyond the edge of the mat, which consists of a tensioned mem- Wo
705 brane over an axial-spring layer, is known as the Filonenko- Thus, the net subgrade effects of the MK/R model beyond the 736
706 Borodich mechanical subgrade model and is believed to have
edge of the mat are relatively easily replaced and replicated by an 737
707 been the first advanced subgrade model that was proposed in the
additional line of independent axial springs placed around the 738
708 published literature, ca. 1940s.
edge of the mat between the tensioned membrane and rigid base, 739
709 The governing equation of a Filonenko-Borodich subgrade in
i.e., at the same level as the lower spring layer of the basic MK/R 740
710 one dimension is 共Horvath 1979, 1988, 1989兲
model. This is illustrated in Fig. 4共c兲 as well Fig. 2 which shows 741
d 2W the overall model in isometric view. The magnitude of this addi- 742
共3兲
tional line of springs, kbc, is equal to 冑klT per unit length of
k lW − T 2 = 0
711 dx 743
foundation perimeter. 744
712 The solution to this equation is
Dealing with the edge boundary condition in this manner is 745
冑kl/Tx −冑kl/Tx
713 W共x兲 = C1e + C 2e 共4兲 somewhat approximate as effects at corners are not dealt with 746
completely. This is because the above derivation assumed that all 747
714 Noting that subgrade effects beyond the edge of the mat only occurred in a 748
715 • W共x兲 goes to zero as x goes to infinity which means that C1 direction perpendicular to that edge. Thus, at corners there is a 749
716 = 0 and radial zone of subgrade beyond the edge of the mat that is essen- 750
717 • at x = 0, W共x兲 = W共0兲 = Wo which means that C2 = Wo tially neglected. 751
718 produces The effect of this approximation has been investigated as part 752
−冑kl/Tx of the present study. The problems discussed in detail by Horvath
719 W共x兲 = Woe 共5兲 753
and Colasanti 共Int. J. Geomech., unpublished, 2009兲 for the pur- 754
720 and poses of assessing the MK/R model were analyzed using both a 755
subgrade that extended explicitly beyond the edges of the mat as 756
= ␪共x兲 = − 冑kl/TWoe− kl/Tx = − 冑kl/TW共x兲
dW共x兲 冑
共6兲 well as one that ended at the edges of the mat with the special 757
721 dx
boundary-condition springs developed in this appendix. Fig. 5 758
722 where ␪共x兲 = slope of the tensioned membrane. illustrates the differences in calculated settlement results for what 759
723 At the edge of the mat 共x = 0兲 ␪共x兲 is defined as ␪o. The vertical was referred to by Horvath and Colasanti 共Int. J. Geomech., un- 760
724 component of the force produced by the tensioned membrane at published, 2009兲 as Test Problem No. 2, a rectangular mat with an 761
725 x = 0 is T sin ␪o ⬇ T␪o assuming ␪o is a relatively small angle. ␪o is applied uniform vertical stress. It was found that the differences 762
726 obtained by evaluating Eq. 共6兲 at x = 0 and yields a value of for the other test problem were qualitatively identical and the 763
727 −冑kl / TWo. The negative sign here simply confirms mathemati- error introduced by using the simple boundary-condition springs 764
728 cally that this force acts upward as would be expected by inspec- discussed in this appendix was never more than a few percent. 765
729 tion. Therefore, the net vertical force produced at the edge of the Given all the other uncertainties that exist it is felt that this small 766
730 mat by the collective subgrade effects beyond the edge of the mat error is more than compensated by the ease of use in practice of 767
731 has an upward orientation and magnitude of the suggested boundary-condition springs as opposed to the effort 768

T␪o = T
冑kl/TWo
of having to explicitly model the subgrade beyond the edge of the 769
732 共7兲
foundation. However, the option and alternative for the analyst to 770
733 Finally, dividing the resulting force in Eq. 共7兲 by Wo produces an explicitly model the subgrade beyond the edges of a mat is always 771
734 equivalent axial spring of stiffness kbc defined by available for use on a given project. 772

8 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010

 813
773
Appendix II: Parameters for MK/R Hybrid Bowles, J. E. 共1986兲. “Mat design.” ACI J., 83共6兲, 1010–1017.
774 Subgrade Model Bowles, J. E. 共1988兲. Foundation analysis and design, 4th Ed., McGraw- 814
Hill, New York. 815
Burland, J. B., Broms, B. B., and De Mello, V. F. B. 共1977兲. “Behaviour 816
775 Introduction
of foundations and structures.” Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics 817
776 The MK/R model is both expressed mathematically 关Eq. 共2兲兴 and and Foundation Engineering, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and 818
777 visualized 共Fig. 2兲 using the mechanical elements of the Modified Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 495–546. 819
778 Kerr mechanical subgrade model 关Fig. 1共a兲兴 to facilitate imple- Burland, J. B., and Burbridge, M. C. 共1985兲. “Settlement of foundations 820
779 mentation in commercially available structural analysis software. on sand and gravel.” Proc.-Inst. Civ. Eng., 78, 1325–1381. 821
780 As discussed by Horvath and Colasanti 共Int. J. Geomech., unpub- Charles, J. A. 共1996兲. “The depth of influence of loaded areas.” Geotech- 822

781 lished, 2009兲, the coefficients of the Modified Kerr model are nique, 46共1兲, 51–61. 823
Horvath, J. S. 共1979兲. “A study of analytical methods for determining the 824
782 equated to the coefficients of the RSC subgrade model which, as
response of mat foundations to static loads.” Ph.D. dissertation, Poly- 825
783 a minimum, involve Young’s modulus, E, and shear modulus, G,
technic Institute of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y. 826
784 of the subgrade, and the depth, H, from the bottom of the mat to Horvath, J. S. 共1983兲. “New subgrade model applied to mat foundations.” 827
785 the effective rigid base of the system as shown conceptually in J. Geotech. Engrg., 109共12兲, 1567–1587. 828
786 Fig. 3共c兲. Optionally, depending on the whether a perfectly Horvath, J. S. 共1984兲. “Simplified elastic continuum applied to the later- 829
787 smooth or perfectly rough mat-subgrade interface is assumed, the ally loaded pile problem—Part 1: Theory.” Laterally loaded deep 830
788 thickness, t, of the mat enters into the problem as well. The results foundations: Analysis and performance—STP 835, E. T. Mosley and 831
789 obtained by equating the coefficients for the Modified Kerr and C. D. Thompson, eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, 112–121. 832
790 Reissner models are given in Eqs. 共9兲 and 共10兲 below. Horvath, J. S. 共1988兲. “Historical review and critique of mathematical 833
models for plate- and beam-type foundation element subgrades.” Rep. 834
No. CE/GE-88-4, Dept. of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, 835
791 No Plate or Perfectly Smooth Mat-Subgrade
Manhattan College, Bronx, N.Y. 836
792 Interface Horvath, J. S. 共1989兲. “Subgrade models for soil-structure interaction.” 837
793 Here Proc., Foundation Engineering Congress, ASCE, New York, 599– 838
612. 839
4E Horvath, J. S. 共1993a兲. “Subgrade modeling for soil-structure interaction 840
ku = 共9a兲
794 H analysis of horizontal foundation elements.” ASCE Metropolitan Sec- 841
tion Structural and Geotechnical Groups Joint Meeting, ASCE, New 842
4E York. 843
kl = 共9b兲 Horvath, J. S. 共1993b兲. “Subgrade modeling for soil-structure interaction 844
795 3H
analysis of horizontal foundation elements.” Rep. No. CE/GE-93-1, 845
Dept. Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Manhattan College, 846
4GH
T= 共9c兲 Bronx, N.Y. 847
796 9 Horvath, J. S. 共2002兲. “Soil-structure interaction research project: Basic 848
SSI concepts and applications overview.” Rep. No. CGT-20022, Cen- 849
797 Perfectly Rough Mat-Subgrade Interface ter for Geotechnology, School of Engineering, Manhattan College, 850
Bronx, N.Y. 851
798 Here Horvath, J. S. 共2009兲. SSIH: A computer program for soil-structure inter- 852

799
ku =
H
冉
E 4H − 3t
H
冊 共10a兲
action analysis of horizontal foundation elements; user instructions
and guidelines.
Horvilleur, J. F., and Patel, V. B. 共1995兲. “Mat foundation design—A
853
854
855

冉 冊
soil-structure interaction problem.” Design and performance of mat 856
E 4H − 3t foundations; state-of-the-art review, E. J. Ulrich, ed., ACI, Detroit,
kl = 共10b兲 857
800 3H H − t 51–94. 858
The Institution of Structural Engineers. 共1989兲. Soil-structure interaction;

冋冉 冊冉 冊册
859
GH 4H − 3t 4H − 3t the real behaviour of structures, The Institution of Structural Engi- 860
801 T= + 共10c兲 neers, London. 861
12 H 3H − 3t
Liao, S. S. C. 共1991兲. “Estimating the coefficient of subgrade reaction for 862
tunnel design.” Final Draft Rep. for Internal Research Project, Par- 863
sons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York. 864
802 References Liao, S. S. C. 共1995兲. “Estimating the coefficient of subgrade reaction for 865
plane strain conditions.” Geotech. Eng., 113共3兲, 166–181. 866
803 ACI Committee 336. 共1988兲. “Suggested analysis and design procedures Lopes, F. R. 共2000兲. “Design of raft foundations on Winkler springs.” 867
804 for combined footings and mats.” ACI Struct. J., 85共3兲, 304–324. Design applications of raft foundations, J. A. Hemsley, ed., Thomas 868
805 ACI Committee 336. 共1989兲. “Closure to ‘Suggested analysis and design Telford, London, 127–154. 869
806 procedures for combined footings and mats’.” ACI Struct. J., 86共1兲, Reissner, E. 共1958兲. “A note on deflections of plates on a viscoelastic 870
807 113–116. foundation.” ASME Trans. J. Appl. Mech., 25, 144–155. 871
808 Banavalkar, P. V. 共1995兲. “Mat foundation and its interaction with the Rhines, W. J. 共1965兲. “Foundation models for continuously supported 872
809 superstructure.” Design and performance of mat foundations; state- structures.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York Univ., Bronx, N.Y. 873
810 of-the-art review, E. J. Ulrich, ed., ACI, Detroit, 13–49. Ulrich, E. J. 共1995兲. “Subgrade reaction in mat foundation design.” De- 874
811 Berardi, R., and Lancellotta, R. 共1991兲. “Stiffness of granular soils from sign and performance of mat foundations; state-of-the-art review, E. 875
812 field performance.” Geotechnique, 41共1兲, 149–157. J. Ulrich, ed., ACI, Detroit, 95–116. 876

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2010 / 9

View publication stats