Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF SUBGRADE MODULUS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Jim French1, Darren Mack2, Ryan Shafer3,

and Kevin Moore4

ABSTRACT The use of subgrade modulus in structural analysis and design is often poorly coordinated between geotechnical and structural engineers, leaving a possibility for misuse and error. Ideally, foundation design should account for soil stiffness, footing stiffness, and soil structure interaction through selection of the proper modulus value. The subgrade modulus should vary with footing size, and for large footings and mats the modulus should be softer near the center and stiffer towards the edges. Furthermore, the modulus should be significantly stiffer under rapid (i.e., earthquake) loading. These variations in modulus are often ignored, but they can be important considerations for structural designers. This paper identifies common methods for selection of subgrade modulus, their implementation in commercial structural engineering software, and some differences in foundation design when considering rapid load rates (seismic demands). A companion paper encourages use of the Dynamic Footing Load Test to evaluate actual short-term foundation stiffnesses.

Introduction In the design of buildings, it is common to find structural engineers who are uncertain about the form of subgrade modulus values provided by the geotechnical engineer and are specifically unclear about how to apply these values to their structural design. By the same token, it is common to find geotechnical engineers who are uncertain about how subgrade modulus values are being applied by the structural designers. The most common uncertainties are the distinction of, and relation between, the values Kv1 (the subgrade modulus for a vertical load on a 1-square-foot plate), and the Kv value (the subgrade modulus for a vertical load on a footing or mat). In addition, some engineers are unclear about the use of these values in the development of foundation springs in most structural design methods, as implemented through packaged structural engineering computer software.
1 2

3 4

Senior Engineer, Geomatrix Consultants, 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Sanders & Associates Geostructural Engineering, Inc., 4180 Douglas Blvd, Suite 100, Granite Bay, CA 95746 Senior Engineer, Nichols Consulting Engineers, 501 Canal Boulevard, Suite C, Point Richmond, CA 94804 th Principal, Certus Consulting Inc., 405 14 Street, Suite 160, Oakland, CA 94612

In the authors collective experience, the geotechnical subgrade modulus is perhaps the most widely misunderstood geotechnical element of design. In light of this widespread lack of understanding, it is fortunate that most simple designs are relatively insensitive to the value of the subgrade modulus. However, based on the questions that geotechnical consultants receive from structural designers, it is clear that geotechnical engineers need to do a better job of clearly presenting their recommendations for subgrade modulus and explaining the application and limitations of these recommendations. For simple projects, gross errors related to foundation stiffness and subgrade modulus appear far too often. Many reviews of projects have revealed errors that may lead to inadequate or reduced structural seismic performance. However, a reduced structural seismic performance for a simple structural design may not concern a structural engineer because the design is based on simplified linear-elastic analyses that do not consider many real characteristics of structural element performance and soil-structure interaction. For more complex projects, where structural engineers are using high-level analysis such as static linear push-over analyses or nonlinear time-history analyses, more sophisticated recommendations regarding subgrade modulus may be warranted. The purposes of this paper are twofold. First, we hope to clarify, for geotechnical engineers, the manner in which their subgrade modulus value recommendations will be utilized in structural design methodologies as implemented in structural engineering design and analysis software. Simultaneously, we also hope to clarify for structural engineers the intent of subgrade modulus recommendations. To this extent, the goal is to consolidate the standard of practice rather than to advance the state of the art. Second, we will provide recommendations to be considered when more sophisticated analyses are utilized by structural engineers. To this extent, the goal is to encourage an advance of standard of practice toward the state of the art. This paper will not provide instructions regarding the selection of appropriate subgrade modulus values; that task is appropriately left to the geotechnical consultant on a project-specific basis. Many have heard the saying, Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten. Historically, geotechnical engineers have said, Everything I needed to know in my practice, was written by Karl Terzaghi. Indeed, with respect to subgrade modulus, Terzaghi (1955) certainly did lay the groundwork for the current state of the practice. However, one very significant factor that is quite different now as compared to when Terzaghi wrote about subgrade modulus is the ubiquitous presence and use of high-speed personal computers with correspondingly powerful software. High-speed computers have unfortunately facilitated the use of the black box approach to design, where operators blithely throw numbers into a computer and trust that the numbers that come out of the computer will be meaningful and reliable, without necessarily understanding their meaning. On the positive side, high-speed computers have enabled sophisticated design and analysis of highly complex structures and support systems that was unimaginable in 1955. For these reasons, this paper will address points Terzaghi could not have addressed in his time.

Overview of Subgrade Modulus Use in Typical Static Structural Design Introduction to Subgrade Modulus The vertical subgrade modulus (Kv) is simply defined as the ratio of vertical contact pressure (p) to vertical deflection (y):
Kv = p y

(1)

Because p is in units of F/L2, and y is in units of L, Kv is in units of F/L3. The subgrade modulus has historically been measured by loading a 1-square-foot plate, and most published values are for a subgrade modulus on a 1-square-foot plate, commonly designated as Kv1. A spring constant, or spring value, is defined as the ratio of vertical load to vertical deflection (y), which has units of F/L. If a subgrade modulus (in units of F/L3) is multiplied by a footing tributary area (in units of L2), the result is a standard spring constant in units of F/L. The subgrade modulus, Kv, is not a unique number for a site or even for a given soil type. The value of Kv depends on: 1. The footing width. Kv is inversely proportional to the footing width. This variation can be large and must be accounted for in design, as further discussed below. 2. Initial stiffness of the soil. Kv is nonlinear, normally with an initial peak stiffness that decays with increasing deflection. However, within the range of normal loading for a footing, the value is close enough to linear that this effect can be neglected. 3. Contact pressure distribution. Kv is not constant across the width of a footing. In clays, it is generally stiffer near the corners and edges, and softer toward the center. In sands, this pattern is generally reversed. However, this effect can usually be neglected for typical footing designs where the allowable bearing pressures are not exceeded. 4. The duration of the structural design loads. Kv will vary as a function of the duration of the loading. Kv is stiffest for dynamic or short-term loading and generally softer for long-term loading. Relationship of Kv1 to Kv Beneath a loaded footing, the supporting soil feels a compressive stress increase due to the load the footing imposes on the soil. This stress increase spreads beneath the footing, becoming smaller with depth and lateral distance from the footing. As suggested by Terzaghi (1955), we may arbitrarily assume that most of the settlement happens within a zone where the

stress increase is at least 25 percent of the pressure on the footing. This zone may be called the pressure bulb, and its typical shape is presented in Figure 1. The depth of the pressure bulb is roughly proportional to the width of the footing. For a stiff clay, where the deformation characteristics are roughly independent of depth, settlement will result from compression of the soil under the footing. Because the depth of soil that will experience compression will be roughly proportional to the width of the footing, settlement can be considered as roughly proportional to the width of the footing. Thus, it can be shown that: If B = nB1 then y = n y1 By definition:
K v1 = p y1

(2) and (3)

(4)

Substituting, we get5:
Kv = K v1 B

(5)

For sands, the modulus of elasticity increases with increasing confining pressure, so the soil is stiffer with increasing depth, and the subgrade modulus can be approximated as:
B +1 Kv =Kv1 2B
2

(6)

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of pressure bulb beneath a footing of width B1 (a), and beneath a footing of width nB1 (b). After Terzaghi (1955).

One popular text (Bowles 1988), incorrectly presents this equation (with slightly different subscripting) as ks = k1 B. The resulting subgrade modulus is off by a factor of B2.

Selection of Subgrade Modulus Conventional Spread Footings It is common practice to recommend a Kv1 value from published charts as a function of soil type, soil consistency or relative density, soil layering, and soil thickness. This Kv1 value should be reduced as described above for clays (Eq. 5) or sands (Eq. 6). The subgrade modulus value may also be determined from a site-specific plate load test. However, caution should be used when determining Kv1 from a plate load test, as the limited plate size results in bias towards the near-surface soils. In addition, careful evaluation of Kv1 should be given to foundations bearing on rock as the common design charts do not pertain to rock. As a result, geotechnical engineers have typically provided values based on historical and/or presumptive values that were thought to be conservative. The values recommended for the subgrade modulus are generally selected to account for compressibility of sands and stiff clays under normal loading conditions. Soft or compressible clays may need to be thoughtfully considered, and it may be appropriate to provide separate short-term and long-term subgrade modulus values to account for immediate and long-term (i.e., consolidation) settlement, respectively. The geotechnical engineering community is also beginning to recognize that very rapid loading may produce a stiffer subgrade modulus. Although there are no broadly accepted values for subgrade modulus subjected to dynamic or rapid loading, the Dynamic Footing Load Test may hold distinct promise for relatively cost effective direct measurement of a dynamic or rapid subgrade modulus for a range of footing sizes (Shafer et al. 2006). Considerations for Mats or Large Footings Where a mat foundation will be used, column or wall loads will cause a downward deflection of the mat in a dish (for columns) or trough shape (for walls). Thus, the subgrade modulus does not need to be reduced as a function of the entire building width, but rather should be reduced as a function of some equivalent width that is a function of the mat stiffness as well as the subgrade modulus. Terzaghi (1955) suggests that the effective footing width may be on the order of 14 times the mat thickness for sands, but this needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis and the appropriate multiplier may be greater than 14, especially for clayey soils. For large footings or for mat slab foundations, it is often advisable to perform a settlement analysis in addition to a subgrade modulus analysis. The conventional subgrade modulus analysis should be used to evaluate local settlement and differential settlement, but it may fail to capture the full settlement associated with long-term consolidation, especially for deeper clays. With reliable consolidation data, the settlements can be better-estimated in this manner than by extrapolating Kv1 values to large footings or mat slab foundations. These predicted settlement values can be substituted into Eq. 1 to provide an equivalent long-term subgrade modulus for use in structural analysis. For example, settlements for the corners, edges, and center of a mat slab foundation supporting a four-story building were determined using this

method for a recent project. Knowledge of the resulting dishing, or maximum settlement near the center of the building, allowed the structural designer to evaluate the structural demand on the building. This dishing effect would not have been recognized if a simple analysis of footing or mat slab settlements due to a single subgrade modulus was performed. Another recent project, with numerous proposed isolated spread footings ranging from 4 to 9 feet wide, a conventional consolidation-based settlement analysis predicted settlements that ranged from 0.7 to 2 inches, with corresponding subgrade moduli ranging from about 15 to 32 kip/ft3. When these Kv values were multiplied by the footing widths, the resulting Kv1 values were about 120 to 130 kip/ft3. This was slightly stiffer than would have been predicted based on published values of Kv1 for the medium stiff clays that underlay the site. But note carefully that although Kv and Kv1 values are related to each other, careful distinction between them is vital to proper understanding and implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. Had the project structural engineer assumed that the Kv value was in fact a Kv1 value and further reduced it, an overly conservative structural design would have resulted. Elastic Theory If soil properties are known in sufficient detail, elastic theory can be used to develop estimates of settlement under a given load, and from this relationship an equivalent subgrade modulus can be determined for use in structural analysis. To determine y for Eq (1), the general equation is (e.g., Navy 1982):
1 2 y = pB E u I

(7)

where y is settlement, p is contact pressure, B is the footing width, is Poissons ratio for the soil, Eu is Youngs modulus of the soil, and I is the influence factor for footing shape and stiffness. The Navy (1982) also presents tables with typical values of the influence factor I. Equations for the influence factors for shape are presented by Bowles (1982). When these equations are programmed into a spreadsheet, this approach offers the advantage that the geotechnical engineer can evaluate the effects of footing size (length and width) and of depth of influence for cases in which the compressible layer has a finite thickness. If elastic theory is used, it is recommended by Bowles (1982) that the depth of footing embedment be accounted for, as presented by Fox (1948). A typical relationship of subgrade modulus to footing depth is shown on Figure 2, where the subgrade modulus increases by 60 percent as the depth of embedment goes from zero to a depth equal to the footing width. (Note that this relationship also varies as a function of Poissons ratio and the L/B ratio.)

Average Subgrade Modulus (k/ft^3)

200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Depth of Em bedment (ft)

Figure 2.

Sample of relationship of subgrade modulus to footing depth of embedment for a 4' x 4' square footing using elastic theory and the Fox (1948) procedure for depth of embedment. (Modulus of Elasticity =300 ksf, Poissons ratio = 0.35.)

Input for Structural Software Conventional Software Approach Based on an informal survey by the authors, building design practice in the San Francisco Bay Area appears most often to use the following structural analysis and structural design software packages (listed in no particular order): RISA-3D by RISA Technologies; SAFE by Computers and Structures, Inc.; and STAAD.Pro 2004 and STAAD.Foundation, by Research Engineers International. Based on our discussions with users of these programs and the technical support staff of the program suppliers, each of these programs has the capability for the user to define soil springs beneath footings. A user will typically specify the subgrade modulus that the software will use to develop the spring constants for soil springs placed beneath the footings. Spring spacing can be developed by default rules within each program, or they can be userspecified. Spring constants are calculated by the program as a function of the subgrade modulus multiplied by the tributary area. Alternatively, users may input a spring constant directly. Most of these programs do not explicitly identify whether the user should specify Kv1 or Kv [as reduced from Kv1 according to Eqs. (5) or (6)]. The Kv1 value should NOT be entered directly to these software programs. If Kv1 is entered directly, the resulting spring will be unrealistically stiff, which may result in a superstructure design that is not compatible with the foundation conditions (both in strength and stiffness). Kv1 should be reduced to Kv using the footing width, not the models spring spacing. For example, even if the spring spacing is one foot on-center each direction, the correct Kv value is still based on the overall footing width. This is an important distinction, because it means that the Kv value must be changed with almost every instance or iteration of footing size. The footing design cannot be treated as a black box by iterating on one set of values until a result is obtained.

Several programs use soil springs as input, which need to be manually developed in coordination between the geotechnical and structural engineers, including RAM Perform by Ram Technologies; and SAP and ETABS by Computers and Structures, Inc. One additional program, RISAfoot, is also commonly used. However, its approach is different from the previous programs in that it calculates pressure distribution on the bottom of footings but does not use a user-specified subgrade modulus. Rather, the geotechnical input only includes the allowable bearing pressure and assumes a perfectly rigid footing. Finite Element or Finite Difference Approach For more sophisticated analyses, from the structural side, programs such as ADINA by ADINA R&D, Inc., may be may be used. ADINA is a high-end 3-D finite element structural analysis package that allows use of solid elements with fully-selectable linear or non-linear stress-strain soil models. . Alternatively, ADINA allows users to select springs to be used as boundary conditions for simpler analyses. From the geotechnical side, FLAC by Itasca, PLAXIS by Plaxis B.V., and Sigma/W by Geoslope, are sophisticated geotechnical finite element (PLAXIS and Sigma/W) or finite difference (FLAC) models, with modest structural capabilities. Any of these programs allow more-sophisticated, more-rigorous and more-realistic modeling of complex geotechnical and soil-structure interaction behavior, rather than the simplification implicit in the use of a subgrade modulus approach. For most conventional design, this level of complexity is likely not necessary. However, for highly complex or critical mission projects, use of these powerful software packages may be warranted. Design Review Phase As with any design computation, it is important to check the results of the analysis. For simple projects, the structural engineer should verify that the footing settlement predicted by the model is consistent with the settlement estimated by the geotechnical engineer. If there is a discrepancy between the two values, the geotechnical and structural engineers should communicate to determine if there is an error, incompatible assumptions, or other methodological problem. The impact of not performing these checks can be considerable. In one recent project that utilized a below-grade mat slab foundation, it was discovered (after award of the construction contract) that the structural engineer had used the unreduced Kv1 value in the structural design process. To minimize construction schedule delays, a revised structural design had to be performed by the contractor, which called for a significantly greater amount of reinforcing steel. For more complex projects, an iterative design process involving both the structural and geotechnical engineers is often required. This is particularly true for mat slab foundations used for complex buildings with variable loads at each column. During the preparation of the

geotechnical report, the geotechnical engineer often must estimate settlements based on assumed bearing pressures, column spacing, and areas of influence (the area over which with a mat slab foundation applies load to the soil like an equivalent independent spread footing). Upon completion of the structural analysis, the results should be provided to the geotechnical engineer for verification of bearing pressures, loaded areas, and settlements. The geotechnical engineer should ensure that the final design values are consistent with the original assumptions. If the two values are not well correlated, the modulus values should be adjusted until a compatible set of pressures and settlements is determined. Often, it is necessary to break the mat slab foundation into multiple zones, with each zone assigned a different modulus value. In the experience of one of the authors, this process can take several iterations to arrive at a satisfactory correlation. The process of performing these design iterations can therefore be considerable, which is rarely envisioned by the structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, architect, or owner. Subgrade Modulus in Seismic Design Most conventional designs of foundation elements are not likely to be highly sensitive to modest variations in the value of subgrade modulus. Similarly, conventional code based seismic design of low-rise structures are not typically sensitive to the value of subgrade modulus. However, more-sophisticated seismic analyses may warrant more careful consideration and selection of the subgrade modulus. This is likely to be particularly true for structures with high aspect ratios that use braced frames or shear walls, where building drift is highly sensitive to foundation stiffness. Foundation stiffness may also contribute to damping (due to hysteretic cycles of loading and unloading of the subsoil) and period shift, but detailed exploration of these effects is beyond the scope of this paper. These more sophisticated projects may also warrant use of one of the finite element or finite difference programs mentioned above. Sophisticated analyses are more likely to be warranted if non-uniform loading occurs along the bottom of the footings, particularly if the loading might cause rocking of the foundation. One example where design was sensitive to foundation stiffness is the Davis Hall Replacement project at the University of California, Berkeley, a microfabrication facility sensitive to structural stiffness and building vibrations. Recommendations were initially provided for a conservative dynamic subgrade modulus based on historical and presumptive values for rock. Later in the design phase, recommendations were revised to take advantage of the recent nearby Dynamic Footing Load Test results where the dynamic subgrade modulus was directly measured (Shafer et al. 2006). This enabled a more accurate and realistic assessment of dynamic foundation behavior with a substantially stiffer dynamic subgrade modulus. These stiffer values resulted in significant reductions in design shears and moments on interior grade beams, and the consequent reduction in steel reinforcement resulted in a significant material cost savings.

Conclusions The application of subgrade modulus values to structural design, while often relatively simplified in design literature, is actually a complex process that is vulnerable to misuse and misunderstanding. Geotechnical engineers must clearly communicate the types of values they are providing (Kv1 or Kv). If Kv values are provided, they should be accompanied by the assumptions used in determining these values, such as bearing pressure and footing size. Structural engineers must realize the important distinction between these values, and understand which type of value is required by their analysis program and how it is implemented. When a Kv value is provided, the structural engineer must also realize this isnt a file and forget number, as it is intrinsically tied to the assumed footing width. Finally, both geotechnical and structural engineers should realize that selection and use of the correct modulus value(s) may have important impacts on a project design, particularly for large mat slab foundations and complex or sensitive structures. Sufficient time and budget should be allotted not only to determine appropriate design values but also to check that the values used have been properly implemented and that the results are reasonable. Acknowledgments We appreciate the input of the friends and associates who responded to our questionnaire developed to research for this paper, and the thoughtful comments provided by several respondents, particularly Mr. Dom Campi of Rutherford & Chekene. References
Bowles, J.E., 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design, 4 Edition. McGraw-Hill, San Francisco, California. Fox, E.N., 1948. The Mean Elastic Settlement of a Uniformly Loaded Area at a Depth Below the Ground Surface, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rotterdam. Shafer, J.Ryan, C.P. Muller, and D.W. Quigley, 2006. Dynamic Footing Load Tests (FLT): A New Approach To Improving Dynamic Foundation Design, in 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference. EERI, San Francisco, California. Terzahi, Karl, 1955. Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction, in Geotechnique, Vol. V, Number 4. December. The Institution of Civil Engineers. London, England. Navy: See U.S. Navy. U.S. Navy, 1982. Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1, NAVFAC DM-7.1. Alexandria, Virginia.
th

Potrebbero piacerti anche