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

net/publication/260788979

CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF SUBGRADE MODULUS IN STRUCTURAL

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

Conference Paper · April 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 4,587

4 authors, including:

Jim French Ryan Shafer

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   
3 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Kevin Moore
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jim French on 14 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
April 18-22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA
Paper No. 1072

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
Senior Engineer, Geomatrix Consultants, 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612
2
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Sanders & Associates Geostructural Engineering, Inc., 4180 Douglas Blvd, Suite
100, Granite Bay, CA 95746
3
Senior Engineer, Nichols Consulting Engineers, 501 Canal Boulevard, Suite C, Point Richmond, CA 94804
4 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):

p
Kv = (1)
y

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 (2) and (3)

By definition:

p
K v1 = (4)
y1

Substituting, we get5:

K v1
Kv = (5)
B

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:
2
⎛ B +1⎞
Kv =Kv1 ⎜ ⎟ (6)
⎝ 2B ⎠

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).

5
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 −ν 2 ⎞
y = pB⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ I (7)
⎝ Eu ⎠

where y is settlement, p is contact pressure, B is the footing width, ν is Poisson’s ratio for the
soil, Eu is Young’s 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 Poisson’s ratio and the L/B ratio.)
 200

Average Subgrade Modulus

150

(k/ft^3)
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, Poisson’s 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 user-
specified. 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 model’s 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 isn’t 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
th
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.

View publication stats