Discussions and Closures
ku ¼ 4E=H; kl ¼ 4E=3H; GP ¼ 4GH=9
Discussion of “Practical Subgrade Model
for Improved Soil-Structure Interaction
Analysis: Software Implementation” by
Regis J. Colasanti and John S. Horvath
November 2010, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 278–286.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000060
Asrat Worku, M.ASCE
Operations Manager, Gibb Int. Ltd., Harambee Ave., P.O. Box 30020, 00100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 197.32.55.35 on 10/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Nairobi, Kenya; formerly, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering,
Addis Ababa Univ., Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. E-mail: aworku@
gibbinternational.com
Introduction
The authors should be appreciated for bringing the subject of ana-
lytical foundation modeling back to the spotlight and for their at-
tempt to incorporate such models into existing commercial software.
However, the discusser believes that some important aspects of
continuum modeling in general and some problems specific to the
model adapted by the authors in particular should have been
addressed beforehand. It is also necessary to remind readers of some
recent developments on the subject matter that are helpful in alle-
viating the major shortcomings of the adapted model. Unfortunately,
the discusser has not seen these issues being properly addressed
in any of the related papers published subsequently by the authors
(Horvath and Colasanti 2011a, b). Four key observations on the
contents of the paper are herewith presented.
Adapted Model Lacks Rigor
Of a number of simplified continuum models available in the liter-
ature, the authors selected Reissner’s (1958) model for the purpose
of software implementation. Unlike the claims of the authors that the
model of their choice was theoretically rigorous, it is demonstrated
in the following that it actually is of inferior quality and that better-
quality models exist.
Reissner’s simplified continuum model (1958) is based on the
simplifying assumption that the in-plane stress components, sx , sy ,
and txy , in the elastic layer of finite thickness, H, are all zero. The
resulting relation between the foundation contact pressure, p, and
the surface deformation, w, is given by
GH 2 2 E GH 2
p2 = p ¼ w2 = w ð1Þ
12E H 3
where E and G 5 Young’s modulus and shear modulus of the soil
layer, respectively; and = 5 Laplacian operator (Reissner 1958).
This relation is similar to the mechanical model of Kerr (1964)
consisting of two beds of springs with spring constants of ku and kl
separated by a shear layer of parameter GP . From the mathematical
equivalence of the two models, corresponding terms can be equated
to obtain three conditions for the three unknown Kerr model pa-
rameters in terms of the continuum parameters and the layer thick-
ness. This process is named by the authors as the Kerr-Reissner
synthesis and yields the relations
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 143
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2013, 18(2): 143-144
The authors used these expressions in the mechanical model they
employed for software implementation. However, the model
parameters do not adequately represent the continuum owing mainly
to the neglected in-plane stresses.
Worku (2010), without neglecting any stress, strain, or defor-
mation component in the same continuum, recently presented a
generalized continuum model exhibiting the same form and order
as the preceding differential equation. It is given by
 
KgI Lg 2 GLgI 2
p 2 G LgI 2 = p ¼ E w2
= w ð2Þ
EKI Kg Kg Kg KI
In this equation, KI , Kg , KgI , Lg , and LgI 5 definite integrals involving
the functions gx ðzÞ 5 sx =sz , gy ðzÞ 5 sy =sz , and IðzÞ 5 t xz ðx, y, zÞ=
t xz ðx, yÞ 5 t yz ðx, y, zÞ=t yz ðx, yÞ. Reissner’s model of Eq. (1) is a
highly simplified variant of this generalized model that can be easily
retrieved by setting gx ðzÞ 5 gy ðzÞ 5 0. Several other model variants
can also be obtained from this general model by assuming other forms
of the three functions gx ðzÞ, gy ðzÞ, and IðzÞ. However, there is no
pressing need for making such arbitrary assumptions. Instead, exist-
ing stress distribution data under various surface loads can be used to
arrive at realistic relations. Accordingly, Worku (2010) fitted curves
to such data to come up with decaying exponential functions for gx ðzÞ
and gy ðzÞ and a bilinear curve for IðzÞ to obtain the following variant:
 
2
p 2 4 GH =2 p ¼ 1 Ew 2 0:56 GH=2 w
7 E ð1 2 0:4nÞ H 0:52 2 0:21n
ð3Þ
The coefficients in this equation are dependent on the Poisson ratio,
n, unlike the case in Reissner’s model given by Eq. (1). A synthesis
of this continuum model with the Kerr mechanical model performed
in a similar manner yields the relations for Kerr’s model parameters
ku ¼ E=ð0:54 2 0:26nÞH; kl ¼ E=ð0:46 2 0:18nÞH;
GP ¼ ð0:33 2 0:15nÞGH=ð0:14 2 0:11nÞ
Comparison of this set of parameters with those used by the authors
reveals significant differences, which can better be understood by
normalizing each of the new parameters by the corresponding pa-
rameter used by the authors and plotting them against n. Such plots
show that the soil-shear representation of the model used by the
authors is rather poor, not exceeding 17% of the more rigorous
model given by Eq. (3). This is a significant shortcoming, as the
intention of Reissner’s model from the outset was to effect shear
interaction among Winkler’s springs. The model also under-
estimates the effective vertical stiffness by up to 20%, especially for
soft soils (n → 0.5). Therefore, the selected continuum model, re-
gardless of its high-order mathematical form, is not the most rig-
orous type among those available in the literature and is particularly
very poor in representing shear interaction.
Model Is Sensitive to the Layer Thickness:
Calibration Necessary
The layer thickness, H, appears in the denominators of the expres-
sions for the spring coefficients. This makes the deformation highly
 sensitive to the geometric quantity, H. This effect becomes more
significant when H is much larger than the width of the plate to be
analyzed. The problem is common to all continuum models that are
based on an elastic layer of finite thickness and was pointed out by
Kerr (1985), probably for the first time. This is apparently the reason
for the reluctance among users to employ continuum models in the
past. The authors have mentioned the importance of this inherent
problem but failed to suggest any concrete measures.
Worku (2010) proposed a way of overcoming this problem by
eliminating the layer thickness from the model parameters through
the introduction of a calibration factor in selected variants of his
generalized continuum model. Without resorting to the details, the
following calibrated model parameters are obtained:
kKu ¼ E ; kKl ¼ E ;
ð0:54 2 0:26nÞxK B ð0:46 2 0:18nÞxK B
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 197.32.55.35 on 10/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0:33 2 0:15n
GK ¼ GxK B
0:14 2 0:11n
Values of the calibration parameter, xK , for circular and rectangular
plates of various aspect ratios have recently been established by the
discusser. Calibration factors for the Winkler model are also de-
termined. In these relations, B 5 width of the foundation. It has
been demonstrated that these model parameters predict deforma-
tions in very good agreement with the finite element (FE)-based
software PLAXIS 3D. Similarly, it can be shown that models of
lower order including Winkler’s model with calibrated parameters
can yield equally good results. This demonstrates that the use of
models of high mathematical order do not guarantee a better rep-
resentation of the given physical problem. It is thus not advisable
to use noncalibrated model parameters of the types used by the
authors in software implementation and other practical applica-
tions, because they are highly sensitive to the layer thickness in
addition to being based on highly simplified representation of the
foundation soil.
Insufficient Illustration
The authors attempted to demonstrate the performance of their
adapted subgrade model in a separate paper with the help of two
rectangular plates of small aspect ratios (1.33 and 1.5) (Horvath and
Colasanti 2011a). Interestingly, both plates are supported on soil
layers of thickness (or effective thickness) exactly equal to the plate
width in each case. They reported good agreement of calculated
plate deformations with those from selected FE-based software.
However, their choice of the soil thickness, which is identical to the
plate width in both examples, does not seem to be mere coincidence.
The use of larger layer thicknesses would certainly have resulted in
smaller spring stiffness and thus in much larger deformations of
the plates than could be predicted by their FE-based software. This
suggests that the authors’ choice of the soil thickness in their ex-
amples is controlled more by the end result than by the problem at
hand.
The values of the calibration factors described in the preceding
increase with increasing aspect ratio from approximately 1 for
square plates to approximately 3 for aspect ratios larger than 10.
Thus, the use of soil thickness that is equal to the plate width gives
reasonable results only for plates of aspect ratio close to 1. It can be
concluded, therefore, that the authors have failed to demonstrate the
144 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MAY 2013
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2013, 18(2): 143-144
application of their software on a sufficient range of representative
example problems.
Modified Filonenko-Borodich Model Is Not
a New Discovery
It is well known that the mathematical equivalent of the Filonenko-
Borodich (1950) mechanical model is identical to that of the model
of Pasternak (1954) with the simple replacement of Pasternak’s
shear parameter, GP , by the all-round tension, T, of Filonenko-
Borodich’s model. Likewise, Kerr’s modified version of Pasternak’s
model (Kerr 1964) devised nearly half a century ago applies per-
fectly to Filonenko-Borodich’s model so that the same mathemat-
ical model is obtained with the mere replacement of GP by T.
Despite this fact, the authors suggested that the modified Filonenko-
Borodich model they used for synthesis with Kerr’s mechanical
model be considered as an independent model on its own and be
referred to as the Modified Kerr/Horvath-Colasanti model, as if the
model was devised anew (Horvath and Colasanti 2011a, b). This is
an unsubstantiated claim.
Conclusion
The simplified continuum subgrade model adapted by the authors
lacks theoretical rigor, is sensitive to layer thickness, and needs
careful calibration before software implementation. Instead, the
mechanical models of Kerr (1964), Pasternak (1954), and Winkler
(1867) may be used for such purposes along with calibrated pa-
rameters obtained on the basis of more rigorous theoretical con-
siderations. Such parameters are available. It should be emphasized
that it is the sensitivity of continuum models to the layer thickness
that has rendered them less attractive to users than anything related
to the synthesis of continuum and mechanical models. The latter is a
straightforward operation.
References
Filonenko-Borodich, M. M. (1950). “Some approximate theories of elastic
foundations.” Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstuennogo Uni-
versiteta Mekhanika Moscow, 46, 3–18 (in Russian).
Horvath, J. S., and Colasanti, R. J. (2011a): “Practical subgrade model for
improved soil-structure interaction analysis: Foundation and geosyn-
thetics applications.” Proc., Geo-Frontiers 2011, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Horvath, J. S., and Colasanti, R. J. (2011b). “Practical subgrade model for
improved soil-structure interaction analysis: Model development.” Int.
J. Geomech., 11(1), 1–6.
Kerr, A. (1985). “On the determination of foundation model parameters.”
J. Geotech. Engrg., 111(11), 1334–1340.
Kerr, A. D. (1964). “Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models.” J. Applied
Mech., 25(80), 491–498.
Pasternak, P. L. (1954). “On a new method of an elastic foundation by means
of two foundation constants.” Gosudarstvoennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi
po Stroitelsuve I Arkhitekture Moscow (in Russian).
Reissner, E. (1958). “A note on deflections of plates on a viscoelastic
foundation.” J. Applied Mech., 25(80), 144–145.
Winkler, E. (1867). Die Lehre von der Elastizitaet und Festgkeit.
H. Dominicus, Prague, Czech Republic (in German).
Worku, A. (2010). “A generalized formulation of continuum models for
elastic foundations.” Proc., GeoFlorida 2010, Advances in Analysis,
Modeling and Design (GSP 199), ASCE, Reston, VA, 1641–1650.