Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

8. MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION

8.1 Background
Terzaghi, in a landmark paper published in 1955 (possibly the first serious geotechnical
study of the modulus of subgrade reaction) observed the following:

In an event the application of the theory of subgrade reaction to the

computation of bending moments in flexible beams, slabs or piles leads to a
differential equation of the fourth order, and the solution of such an equation
is beyond the capacity of the average practising engineer. This fact led to
the following peculiar situation. Most of the papers dealing with problems
of subgrade reaction have been written by investigators who are primarily
interested in the theoretical aspects of the problem. They published the
solution of the differential equation, taking for granted that the value of the
coefficient of subgrade reaction, ks or kh, be known. Hayashi (1921) in his
comprehensive treatise on the subject, notified the reader that the value of ks
should be determined by a loading test, but he did not mention the fact that
the results of the test depend on the size of the loaded area. The book by
Hetenyi (1946) on beams on elastic foundations does not contain any
statement regarding the factors which determine the numerical value of the
coefficient of subgrade reaction.

8.2 Terminology
Terzaghi (1955) defined several different terms

ks modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (same as k used so far in these notes)

ks1 modulus of vertical subgrade reaction for a beam of width 1 ft

ks1 modulus of vertical subgrade reaction for a square plate 1 ft × 1 ft

kh modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction

The units Terzaghi used for ks etc in his paper were tons / cubic foot (NB: these are U.S.
tons, i.e. 1 US ton = 2000 lb)

It is also important to note that some of the constants appearing in Terzaghi’s formulae are
not dimensionless, and require conversion if these formulae are to be converted to SI units.

To effect conversion, remember:

1 ft = 0.305 m
1 kg = 2.205 lb
1 kg weighs 9.81 N

MSc in Bridge, Civil, Geotechnical, Infrastructure, and Structural Engineering Page ENGM048.2.28
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

8.3 Influence of Soil Type

Terzaghi distinguishes between stiff clays and cohesionless soils (i.e. sands and gravels).

For stiff clays Terzaghi says that ks and kh have the same value for every point on the
surface of contact. (A more modern view would be to expect kh to vary with depth)

For cohesionless soils Terzaghi suggests that kh = mh z, where z is the depth below ground
surface, and mh has the same value for every point on the surface of contact.

To explain how ks varies with size of loaded area, Terzaghi introduces the idea of “bulbs of
pressure” below beams of width B1 and nB1 ft:

Inside the bulb, the change in vertical stress ∆σv > 0.25q, where q is the applied surcharge.
According to Terzaghi, for the case of stiff clays settlements will increase in simple
proportion to the depth of the bulb of pressure:

yn = n y1

where yn is the settlement of the beam of width nB1, and y1 is the settlement of the beam of
width B1.

Now, ksn = q / ny1 = (q/y1) (B1/nB1)

Suppose B1 = 1ft, nB1 = B, then q/y1 = ks1 and setting ks = ksn:

ks = ks1 1 ....(31)
B

(Note the similarity to Eqn 18 derived from theory of elasticity)

NB: the ‘1’ in Eqn 31 is not a pure number; it has units of feet, and would have to be
changed to ‘0.305’ if the equation was converted to SI units and B was in metres:

ks = ks1 0.305 ....(31a)

B

MSc in Bridge, Civil, Geotechnical, Infrastructure, and Structural Engineering Page ENGM048.2.29
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Terzaghi and Peck (1948) reported that the settlements of foundations on sand vary with the
dimension of the foundation, B according to the formulae:

2
y  2B 
=
y1  B + 1

where y1 is the settlement of a foundation of dimension 1 ft.

This result is applied directly to the cases of beams of width 1 and B ft respectively to give:

2
 B + 1
k s = k s1  ....(32)
 2 B 

(NB: if working wholly in SI units, change the ‘1’ to ‘0.305’ in Eqn 32 to convert from feet
to metres.)

8.4 Typical Values of Subgrade Modulus

k s1 in tons/ft3 (MN/m3) for clays (after Terzaghi, 1955)

Consistency Stiff Very stiff Hard

Undrained shear strength cu (kPa) 100-200 200-400 >400

Range of k s1 50-100 100-200 >200

(15-30) (30-60) (>60)

Recommended k s1 75 150 300

(23) (45) (90)

For a beam of width 1 foot, Terzaghi gave the formula:

 L + 0.5 
k s1 = k s1   ....(33)
 1. 5 L 

where L is the length of the beam in ft. ks can then be obtained from Eqn 31. (NB: if
working wholly in SI units, change the ‘0.5’ to ‘0.152’ in Eqn 33 to convert from ft to m)

MSc in Bridge, Civil, Geotechnical, Infrastructure, and Structural Engineering Page ENGM048.2.30
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

k s1 in tons/ft3 (MN/m3) for sands (after Terzaghi, 1955)

Relative density Loose Medium Dense

Dry or moist (limit values) 20-60 60-300 300-1000

(5-20) (20-90) (90-300)
Dry or moist (proposed) 40 130 500
(12) (40) (150)
Submerged (proposed) 25 80 300
(8) (25) (100)

For a beam of width 1 foot, Terzaghi suggests (based on experience):

k s1 = k s1 ....(34)

Typical ks values for different soils (after Bowles, 1996)

Soil type ks (MN/m3)

Loose sand 5 – 16
Medium dense sand 10 – 80
Dense sand 64 – 128
Clayey medium dense sand 32 – 80
Silty medium dense sand 24 – 48
Clayey soil:
qf ≤ 200 kPa 12 – 24
200 < qf ≤ 800 kPa 24 – 48
qf > 800 kPa > 48

It has also been suggested that ks can be estimated from the more conventional elastic
parameters E and ν by:

E
ks ≈
( )
....(35)
B 1− v2

where B is the width of the loaded area. (Note similarity to Eqn.18)

MSc in Bridge, Civil, Geotechnical, Infrastructure, and Structural Engineering Page ENGM048.2.31
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

Example: modulus of subgrade reaction for a pad foundation analysis

For a very stiff clay, Terzaghi proposed a value of 150 tons/ft3 for ks1. Calculate the
corresponding value of modulus of subgrade reaction in SI units to be input into an analysis
of a pad foundation, 8m long and 2m wide.

(1 ton = 2000lb, 1kg = 2.205lb, 1ft = 0.305m, 1kg weighs 9.81N).

SOLUTION
Terzaghi’s formula contains constants in feet, so first convert SI units to imperial:

8m

2m

8 / 0.305 ft

2 / 0.305 ft

For a beam of width 1 ft and length L ft:

8 / 0.305 + 0.5
ks1 = ks1 = 150 × .6794
1.5 × 8 / 0.305

For a pad of width B ft and length L ft:

ks = (1/B) ks1
= (1 / (2 / 0.305)) × 150 × .6794
3
= 15.541 tons/ft

3
Now, 1 ton/ft
3
= 2000 × (1/2.205) × 9.81 N/m
.305 × .305 × .305
3
= 313.6 kN/m

∴ ks = 15.541 × 313.6 = 4874 kN/m3

MSc in Bridge, Civil, Geotechnical, Infrastructure, and Structural Engineering Page ENGM048.2.32
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

8.5 Some Observations on Subgrade Modulus

• The physical interpretation of the concept of modulus of subgrade reaction is that

the slab or pavement is resting on a bed of springs; the force and displacement in
each spring is independent of all the others. This is clearly at variance with our
understanding of a continuum.

• The use of a constant ks value to analyse settlements of a uniformly loaded raft, say,
would predict the same deflection everywhere; not the “dished” profile commonly
observed. (An improvement would be to tie the tops of the springs together with an
elastic membrane of tensile stiffness J effectively giving a 2-parameter model.)

• Westergaard (1926) used the concept to develop equations for the stresses acting in
concrete (pavement) slabs resting on soil arising from imposed (wheel) loadings.
Some useful conclusions may be drawn from his work:

* Maximum tensile stresses are directly proportional to the applied load

* A considerable reduction of maximum stress occurs if the load is spread over

as large an area as possible

* For most practical loading conditions the greatest stresses occur when the
load is located at the edge of a slab, followed by load located at the corner

* There is a marked reduction of stress with increased thickness of slab. The

maximum tensile stress in a 300mm slab, for example, is only 1/4 to 1/3 the
stress in a 150mm slab for the same imposed (wheel) load

* The effects of changes in modulus of subgrade reaction on slab stresses are

3
comparatively small. A reduction in ks from 54 to 13 MN/m increases the
maximum stress by only 10% or less.

• Westergaard also established that the bending moments and settlements of a loaded
slab of thickness t are a function of a radius of stiffness, ro, defined by:

Et 3
ro =
( ) ....(36)
4
12 1 − v 2 k s

Outside a circle of radius 2.5ro, centred on the point of load application, the load has
little effect. R = 2.5ro is called the radius of influence. When selecting ks values for
a raft analysis, if column spacing > 2R, ks is estimated on the basis of a circular mat
of radius R. If, however column spacing < 2R, ks is calculated on the basis of the
actual spacing.

MSc in Bridge, Civil, Geotechnical, Infrastructure, and Structural Engineering Page ENGM048.2.33
Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey

REFERENCES

Al-Khafaji W and Tooley JR (1986). Numerical Methods in Engineering Practice. CBS

Publishing.

Banerjee PK and Butterfield R (1981). Boundary Element Methods in Engineering Science.

McGraw-Hill.

Becker AA (1991). Introduction to Boundary Element Methods. McGraw-Hill.

Bowles JE (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design (5th ed). John Wiley.

Cernica JN (1994). Geotechnical Engineering: Foundation Design. John Wiley.

Gere JM and Timoshenko SP (1991). Strength of Materials (3rd ed). Chapman & Hall.

Griffiths DV and Smith IM (2006). Numerical Methods for Engineers (2nd ed). Chapman &
Hall.

Hayashi K (1921). Theorie des Tragers auf elastischer Unterlage (Theory of beams on
elastic foundation). J Springer.

Hetenyi M (1946). Beams on Elastic Foundations: Theory with Applications in the Fields of
Civil and Mechanical Engineering. University of Michigan Press.

Naylor DJ, Pande GN, Simpson B and Tabb R (1984). Finite Elements in Geotechnical
Engineering (2nd ed). Pineridge Press.

Terzaghi K (1955). Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction, Géotechnique, Vol 5,

No 4 pp297-326.

Terzaghi K and Peck RB (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (1st ed). John
Wiley.

Timoshenko SP and Goodier JN (1970). Theory of Elasticity (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.

Timoshenko SP and Woinowsky-Krieger S (1959). Theory of Plates and Shells (2nd ed).
McGraw-Hill.

Westergaard HM (1926). Stresses in concrete pavements computed by theoretical analysis.

Public Roads, Washington, Vol 7, No 2, pp25-35.

Whitlow R (1991). Materials and Structures (2nd ed). Longman.

Zienkiewicz OC and Taylor RL (2000). The Finite Element Method (5th ed). Butterworth-
Heinemann.

MSc in Bridge, Civil, Geotechnical, Infrastructure, and Structural Engineering Page ENGM048.2.34