Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils



R. Ziaie-Moayed and M. Janbaz
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

In Winkler model the subgrade soil is assumed to behave like infinite numbers of linear elastic springs, which the stiffness of the springs is named as the modulus of subgrade reaction. This modulus depends on some parameters like soil type, dimension, shape, embedment depth and type of foundation (Flexible or Rigid). The direct method to estimate the modulus of subgrade reaction is the plate load test. In this study the foundations on clayey soil are modeled with finite element software to investigate the validation of Terzaghi’s formula and the effect of different parameters on subgrade reaction modulus. Due to obtained results, Terzaghi's formula does not consider the effect of soil consistency and the shape of foundation; therefore it results in uncertain values. As depth of embedment of foundation is increased, the modulus of subgrade reaction is increased. Flexural rigidity of foundation can improve the status of subgrade reaction modulus.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

R. Ziaie-Moayed and M. Janbaz, 2009. Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9: 4006-4012.

DOI: 10.3923/jas.2009.4006.4012

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=jas.2009.4006.4012
 

INTRODUCTION

Soil has very complex mechanical behavior, because of its nonlinear, stress-dependant, anisotropic and heterogeneous nature. Hence, instead of modeling the subsoil in all its complexity, the subgrade is often replaced by a much simpler system called a subgrade reaction model. Winkler (1867) proposed a model that assumes the ratio between contact pressure, P, at any given point and the associated vertical settlement, y, is linear and given by the coefficient of subgrade reaction, Ks:

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(1)

In this model, the subsoil is replaced by fictitious springs whose stiffness is equal to Ks.

Winkler (1867) assumed the soil medium as a system of identical but mutually independent, closely spaced, discrete and linearly elastic springs. But, the simplified assumptions which this approach is based on caused approximations.

One of the basic limitations is that, this model cannot transmit shear stresses which are derived from lack of spring coupling. Also, stress-strain behavior is assumed to be linear.

Many researches like Biot (1937), Terzaghi (1955), Vesic (1961), Horvath (1983a, b), Vallabhan and Daloglu (1999, 2000) and Vallabhan and Das (1989) have investigated the effective factors and determination approaches of Ks.

Geometry, dimensions of the foundation and soil layering are assigned to be the most important effective parameters on Ks. Generally, the value of subgrade modulus can be obtained in the following alternative approaches:

Plate load test
Consolidation test
Triaxial test
CBR test

Terzaghi (1955) made some recommendations about Ks for 1×1 ft rigid slab placed on a soil medium. However, the procedure to compute a value of Ks to use in a larger slab was not specified. Biot (1937) solved the problem for an infinite beam with a concentrated load resting on a 3D elastic soil continuum.

He found a correlation between continuum elastic theory and Winkler model, that the maximum moments in the beam are equated. Vesic (1961) matched the maximum displacement of the beam in both models and tried to develop a value for Ks with matching bending moments. He obtained the equation for Ks to use in the Winkler model.

Other works by Filonenko-Borodich (1940), Hetenyi (1946), Pasternak (1954) and Vlasov and Leont 'ev (1960) attempt to make the Winkler model more realistic by assuming some forms of interaction among the spring elements, that represent the soil continuum.

In this study, effective parameters on modulus of subgrade reaction in clayey soils are studied with use of numerical modeling. The studied parameters include:

Size effect of foundation
Effect of foundation's shape
Effect of depth of foundation
Effect of rigidity of foundation

Calibration of model: In this way for calibrating model, the studied case is based on results of 0.3 m plate load test on clayey soil by Consoli et al. (1998). Soil profile to 4 m deep shown in Fig. 1, in which cone measurements and the values of maximum shear modulus (G0) obtained from cross-hole and down-hole tests are presented.

It is clear that both the CPT and shear modulus are fairly constant, which indicates that the homogeneity of the soil layer does not depend on strength. The water table is at about 4.0 m depth. The soil layer in finite element software is classified as low plasticity clay (CL) according to the unified soil classification system. Grain size data indicates 44% sand, 32% silt, 24% of clay.

The average bulk unit weight of soil ranged between 17.7 and 18.2 kN m-3, the moisture content (ω) was typically 24.5-26%, the degree of saturation (S) ranged around 78% and the void ratio (e) varied between 0.8-0.86.

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 1:
Soil profile to 4 m deep, containing CPT tip resistance and shear moduli (G0) values (Consoli et al., 1998). (a) qe (Mpa) and (b) G0 (MPa)

Atterberg limits of the material were: liquid limit of 43% and plastic limit of 22% which yields a Plasticity Index (PI) of 21%.

The soil parameters used in Mohr-coulomb model in plaxis analysis are presented in Table 1.

The assumed dimensions of the model are shown in Fig. 2.

The comparison between obtained results from 3D analysis and the results by Consoli et al. (1998) is shown in Fig. 3.

As shown in Fig. 3a-c, there is little difference between numerical modeling results and mentioned case results and it shows appropriateness of numerical model.

Soil properties of tested models: In this study four kinds of clayey soils are considered, which their parameters are based on Bowles (1997) recommendations. The selected parameters for Mohr-coulomb soil behavior are shown in Table 2.

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 2: Side dimensions of model

Table 1: Soil parameters (Consoli et al., 1998)
Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils

Table 2: Clayey soils properties (Bowles, 1997)
Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 3: Comparison of calibration results. (a) 0.3 m plate; (b) 0.45 m plate and (c) 0.7 m concrete footing

RESULTS

Size effect of foundation on Ks: Vertical settlement analysis of foundations with different widths (0 to 18 m) was performed with plaxis 3D software. The vertical settlement (y) for each analysis was obtained and the load-settlement graphs were plotted, then the secant modulus of each graph (Ks) was determined.

The Terzaghi's equation for estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction with plate load test results is:

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(2)

In Eq. 2, Ks is subgrade reaction modulus for prototype foundation, Ks1 is subgrade reaction modulus based on plate load test results and B is the side dimension of foundation.

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 4: Decreasing of Ks with side dimension of foundation

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 5: Normalized Ks with normalized width

Based on obtained results, the modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks) decreased as the side dimension of plate increased (Fig. 4). With normalizing the obtained Ks with plate load tests’ Ks in its own soil type; all graphs in Fig. 5 are almost the same.

The decreasing manner of Ks with increasing foundations’ width is the same between all kinds of clayey soils according to their consistencies, but as it can be seen in Fig. 6, as the consistency of clayey soil decreases, the difference between Terzaghi's equation and obtained Ks is increased.

It can be concluded from this figure that the Terzaghi's equation is not suitable for low consistent clayey soils. The first drop of Ks in this figure shows that the Terzaghi's equation, as Bowles mentions, deteriorates when foundation dimension is 3 times of plate dimension. As shown in Fig. 4, for a constant side dimension, the modulus of subgrade reaction increases as soil consistency does. According to Fig. 6, for a dimension higher than 3 times of plate dimension, the modified equation could be used:

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 6: Consistency effect of clayey soil on Ks values

Table 3: Modification coefficient
Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(3)

In this equation, n is the modification coefficient and the other parameters were previously discussed. Different amounts of n are presented in Table 3.

Effect of foundations’ shape on Ks: As it is shown in previous section, it seems that Terzaghi's equation is suitable for stiff clay; therefore this type of soil is selected in foregoing analysis.

Terzaghi’s equation, for estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction of rectangular foundation based on plate load test results, is:

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(4)

In Eq. 4, Ks is the modulus of subgrade reaction for prototype foundation, Ks1 is modulus of subgrade reaction based on plate load test results and m is the side dimensions ratio of rectangle foundation (B/L).

For investigating the shape effect of foundation on modulus of subgrade reaction, the selected value of m is 1 for square foundation and 1.5 to 5 for rectangle and 10 for strip foundation with same side dimension (B) in all kinds of shape. The selected dimensions are presented in Table 4.

The normalized results of numerical analysis with plate's data are presented in Fig. 7.

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 7: Variation of modulus of subgrade reaction with shape

Table 4: Selected dimensions for comparison between shapes of foundations
Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils

It is shown that the modulus of subgrade reaction for square shape is the highest value, because with increasing the dimensions of foundation, the value of settlement with constant load intensity in square foundation becomes the lowest. Therefore, the modulus of subgrade reaction for strip foundation is the lowest and for square foundation is the highest value.

As shown in Fig. 7, as the width of each foundation shape is increased, the modulus of subgrade reaction is decreased.

Due to obtained results, it can be concluded that there is uncertainty about the Terzaghi’s equation, because this equation ignores the effect of foundation’s loading area and is based only on dimensions ratio (m).

As shown in Fig. 8, this uncertainty is correct and with increasing dimensions in constant m, the modulus of subgrade reaction has a very high drop down.

Maybe Terzaghi's equation is suitable for the rectangle foundation with 30 cm side dimension; because his equation result is near to 30 cm plate’s result. This difference between rectangle foundations with constant m and constant load intensity, which is because of settlement increase with increasing the dimensions of foundation, is ignored in Terzaghi’s equation.

As a result, the modified equation for rectangular and stripe foundations are presented:

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(5)

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 8: Variation of Ks with different side dimension ratio (m)

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(6)

In these equations Bp is plate's width, Lrf is the length of rectangular foundation, Bsf is width of stripe foundation and other parameters were previously described.

In Fig. 9a-c, the appropriateness of suggested equations in stripe and rectangular foundations is presented. Figure 9a presents the accuracy of suggested equation against Terzaghi's equation in stripe foundation. In Fig. 9b and c weakness of Terzaghi's formula is presented against analysis results and suggested equation. As mentioned, Terzaghi's equation is not suitable for using in stripe and rectangular foundations of high width.

Embedment depth effect of foundation on Ks: As shown in Fig. 10, with increasing the depth of embedment, the experienced stress by soil is increased and the magnitude of foundation settlement with constant load intensity is decreased, therefore the value of subgrade modulus is increased.

But there is another aim of investigating this effect which is estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction in depth, with results of plate load test in surface. For this reason the numerical analysis is performed on stiff clay and the selected embedment depths are 0 to 5 m.

Equation 7 provides the best fit for correlation between modulus of subgrade reaction in surface (Ks0) and in depth (Ksd), as shown in Fig. 11.

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(7)

where, q0 is load intensity in surface (kN m-2), D is depth in meter and γ is the unit weight of the soil in (kN m-3).

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 9:
Comparison between obtained results (a) suggested and Terzaghi's equation; (b) Stripe foundation and (c) 2 m width Rectangular foundation

Rigidity effect of foundation on Ks determination: When the flexural rigidity of the footing is taken into account, a solution is based on some forms of a beam on an elastic foundation; this may be the classical Winkler solution in which the foundation is considered as a bed of springs.

As shown in literature (Bowles, 1997) there is a parameter that determines if a foundation should be analyzed on the basis of the conventional rigid procedure or as a beam on elastic foundation:

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 10: Effect of embedment depth of foundation on Ks

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 11: Comparison of suggested equation and numerical analysis results

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
(8)

Where:
B: Width of foundation (m)
E: Elasticity modulus of foundations material (KN m-2)
Ks: Modulus of subgrade reaction obtained from 0.3 m plate bearing test (kN m-3)

The criterion of selecting the foundation as rigid or flexible is:

Rigid members: λL<(π\4)
Flexible members: Lγ>π

L: Length of foundation (m)

According to this criterion, the maximum height of foundation for being flexible was produced and the numerical analysis was done on stiff clay soil with different foundation’s width.

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 12: Flexural effect of foundation on Ks

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 13: Comparison between Flexible Ks and Rigid Ks

As shown in Fig. 12, as the width of flexible foundation is increased, like the rigid foundation, the modulus of subgrade reaction is decreased.

The ratio between flexible Ks and rigid Ks is presented in Fig. 13 for different points of foundation. As shown, the modulus of subgrade reaction in corner has the highest value and the side modulus of subgrade reaction is the middle value while the center value is the lowest one. This difference is known as dishing effect of flexible foundation. Figure 14 presents a dishing shape of numerical model after analysis.

As shown the corners settlement of flexible foundation has minimum value and the center point has a maximum value. As can be concluded from Fig. 11 there is little difference between modulus of subgrade reaction in rigid foundation and in center of flexible one.

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils
Fig. 14: Dishing shape of footing

CONCLUSIONS

At present study, shallow foundations on clayey soils are modeled with use of finite element software to investigate the validation of Terzaghi's formula. The effects of different parameters on subgrade reaction modulus are studied and the following results are obtained: Modulus of subgrade reaction is decreased as the side dimension of foundation is increased. It seems that the Terzaghi's equation as Bowles shows deteriorates when foundation dimension is 3 times of plate dimension. As the consistency of clayey soil is decreased the difference between obtained modulus of subgrade reaction and Terzaghi's one is increased. The modulus of subgrade reaction has a direct relation with clayey soils consistencies. It means that as the consistency of soil decreases the modulus of subgrade reaction decreases. With constant width and with constant load intensity, the modulus of subgrade reaction in strip foundation has the lowest value while the square foundation has the highest value. Due to obtained results, Terzaghi's equation for estimating the modulus of subgrade reaction for rectangular foundation is not recommended for use in both rectangular and strip foundation. As depth of embedment of foundation is increased, the modulus of subgrade reaction is increased and that’s because of decreasing the foundations settlement value.

The following equation is proposed for estimation the modulus of subgrade reaction in specific depth of embedment from plate load test results in surface:

Image for - Effective Parameters on Modulus of Subgrade Reaction in Clayey Soils

Flexural effect of foundation is evaluated. The modulus of subgrade reaction in center of flexible foundation has the same value with same width rigid foundation.

The highest value of modulus of subgrade reaction is in the corner of flexible foundation and the side points have middle value of modulus of subgrade reaction in compare with center point and corner points.

REFERENCES
1:  Biot, M.A., 1937. Bending of an infinite beam on an elastic foundation. J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME., 59: 1-7.

2:  Bowles, J.E., 1997. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th Edn., McGraw-Hill, New Yrok,.

3:  Consoli, N.C., F. Schnaid and J. Milititsky, 1998. Interpretation of plate load tests on residual soil site. J. Geotech. Geoenvir. Eng. ASCE., 124: 857-867.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

4:  Filonenko-Borodich, M., 1940. Some approximate theories of the elastic foundation. Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennoho Universiteta Mekhanica, 46: 3-18.

5:  Hetenyi, M., 1946. Beams on Elastic Foundations. 1st Edn., The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich, ISBN-10: 0472084453.

6:  Horvath, J.S., 1983. Modulus of subgrade reaction: New perspective. J. Geo. Eng. ASCE, 109: 1591-1596.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

7:  Horvath, J.S., 1983. New subgrade model applied to mat foundations. J. Geo. Eng., 109: 1567-1587.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

8:  Pasternak, P.L., 1954. On a New Method of Analysis of an Elastic Foundation by Means of two Foundation Constants. USSR Moscow,.

9:  Terzaghi, K., 1955. Evaluation of coefficient of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique, 5: 297-326.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

10:  Daloglu, A.T. and C.V.G. Vallabhan, 2000. Values of K for slab on Winkler foundation. J. Geotech. Geoenvir. Eng., 126: 463-471.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

11:  Vallabhan, C.V.G. and T. Daloglu, 1999. Consistent FEM-Vlasov model for plates on layered soil. J. Struc. Eng., 125: 108-112.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

12:  Vallabhan, C.V.G. and Y.C. Das, 1989. A refined model for beams on elastic foundations. Int. J. Solds. Struct., 27: 629-637.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

13:  Vlasov, V.Z. and N.N. Leontev, 1960. Beams, Plates and Shells on Elastic Foundations. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, ISBN-10: 0706503945.

14:  Winkler, E., 1867. Die Lehre Von Elasticitaet Und Festigkeit. 1st Edn., H. Dominicus, Prague.

15:  Vesic, A.S., 1961. Beams on elastic subgrade and the Winkler's hypothesis. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, (ISMFE`61), Paris, France, pp: 845-850.

©  2021 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved