Ingenieur-Archiv 54 (1984) 455-464 Ingenieur-Archiv

9 Springer-Verlag 1984

On the formal development of elastic foundation models*

A. D. Kerr~ N e w a r k / D e l a w a r e

Summary: In developing foundation models, the majority of researchers proceeded in two ways: (1) Start
with the Winkler model ~nd, in order to bring it closer to reality, assume some kind of interaction between
the spring elements, or (2) start with the continuum and then introduce simplifying assumptions with
respect to displacements and/or stresses. A third approach, developed mainly in recent decades, is a proce-
dure which makes use of formal power series expansions. The purpose of present paper is to discuss this
third approach for generating foundation models. It is shown that the a 2~riori assumption that the contact
pressure is related to the surface deflections and its derivatives, p(x) : / ( w , w', w", ...), is too restrictive
and that the proper form is p(x) : F(w, w', w", .... p', p " , ...). The paper concludes with a comparison
of the obtained models and a discussion of the sequencing of foundation models of higher order beyond
the Winkler foundation.

Die formale Entwicklung yon elastischen Griindungsmodellen

Ubersicht: Bei der Entwicklung yon Grfindungsmodellen zur Berechnung yon Konstrnktionen, die konti-
nuierlich unterstiitzt sind, beschritten die meisten •orscher einen der zwei Wege:
(1) Im crsten Fall beginnt man mit dem Modell yon Winkler und. um nigher an die Wirklichkeit heran-
zukommen, nimmt man gegenseitige Einwirkung der einzelnen Federn an,
(2) im zweiten Fall beginnt man mit dem ]~ontinuum und nimmt vereinfaehende Annahmen in der
Unterlage vor, hinsichtlich der zu erwartenden Verschiebungen und/oder Spannungen.
Ein drittes Verfahren, das hauptsgchlich in den letzten Jahrzehnten entwickelt wurde, beruht auf einer
formalen Entwicklung in Potenzreihen. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist eine Darstellung und Diskussion des
dritten Verfahrens fiir die Entwieklung yon Berechnungsmodellen der Unterlage. Es wird bewiesen, dal~
die a priori Annahme, dal3 die Kontaktpressung yon den Verschiebungen und ihren Ableitungen abh~ngt,
p(x) ~ /(w, w', w", ...), nicht genfigend genau ist und dab die richtige Form p(x) ~ F(w, w', w", .... !o',
p " , . . . ) ist. Der Aufsatz schlie~t mit einem Vergleich der entwiekelten Modelle und einer Diskussion der
Reihenfolge der Griindungsmodelle hSherer Ordnung, wobei die Winkler Unterlage das Modell erster Ord-
hung ist.

1 Introduction and statement of problem

The analysis of c o n t i n u o u s l y s u p p o r t e d structures (for e x a m p l e beams, plates, a n d shells) re-

quires the inclusion of the f o u n d a t i o n response. The simplest r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f o u n d a t i o n
response was suggested i n 1867 b y E. W i n k l e r [1], who assumed t h a t the relation b e t w e e n the
c o n t a c t pressure p ( x , y) a n d the deflection w(x, y) of the f o u n d a t i o n surface (which is parallel
to the x - - y plane) is

p(x, y) = ~w(x, y) (1)

where ]~ is the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y coefficient. The corresponding m e c h a n i c a l model is a layer of
closely spaced, i n d e p e n d e n t , linear springs.
This simple model, a l t h o u g h useful for m a n y s t r u c t u r a l a n d geotechnical engineering analyses
exhibits shortcomings, especially a t the " f r e e " b o u n d a r i e s of the structure, This s i t u a t i o n created

* Research supported by the National Science Foundation, Grant CME 8001928, Washington, D.C,
456 Ingenieur-Archiv 54 (1984)

the need for the development of more accurate pressure-displacement relations. A number of
these models were discussed by A. D. Kerr [2] in 1964 and more recently by A. P. S. Selvadurai
[3]. I t was noted by Kerr [2] that the majority of researchers proceeded in two ways: (1) Start
with the Winkler foundation and, in order to bring it closer to reality, assume some kind of
interaction between the spring elements, or (2) start with the continuum and then introduce
simplifying assumptions with respect to displacements and/or stresses.
A third approach, developed mainly in recent decades, is a procedure which does not utilize
the mechanistic approaches described above, but which makes use of formal power series ex-
pansions.
The purpose of the present paper is to discuss this third approach for generating foundation
models. A brief review of the early derivation by J. I~atzersdorfer is followed by the methods
introduced by H. Favre, M. Levinson and S. Bharatha, and A. D. Kerr and W. J. Rhines. For
each of the derived response expressions, the corresponding mechanical model is identified, using
spring, shearing, and bending layers. The paper concludes with a comparison of the obtained
foundation models and a discussion of the sequencing of foundation models of higher order,
beyond the Winkler foundation. To simplify the presentation, only the plane problem is consi-
dered.

2 The Ratzersdor~er method [4, 5]

In a critique of the Winkler foundation model, K. Wieghardt [6] noted that the deflection at a
point of the foundation surface depends not only on the pressure at this point, but on the entire
pressure distribution. Thus, that
b
w(z) = f p(~) K q x -- ~l) d~ (2)
a

where K(Ix -- ~]) is the Green's (influence) function for the deflections; that is, the deflection
line caused by P = 1 at ~. g. Ratzersdorfer [4] starts his derivations by using its inverse form

p(x) = f ~(l~ -- xl) w(~) d~ (3)

where 2(x, $) is the Green's (influence) function for the vertical contact pressures.
Next he sets ~ -- x = 2~and rewrites Eq. (3) as

p(x) = f 2(Izl) w(x + ~) dz.

Expanding formally w(x @ "2) in a Taylor series
I 1
w(x + ~) = w(x) + w'(x) ~ + ~ w"(x) ~ + ~ w'"(x) ~3 + . . .

where ( )' ~- d( )/dx, and substituting it into the above p(x) expression, he obtained

p(x)= [/ dz]w(x)+ [f z (lzl) w'(x)+ f dq w"(x)

+ ['/
-~ ]
~30~(l~l)d~ w'"(~) + .... (4)

Because of the symmetry of ~ with respect to x = ~, the second, fourth, etc. integrals vanish,
and above expression becomes
p(x) = koW(X) + k~w"(x) § ... (5)
where

Equation (5) is the suggested foundation response expression. Ratzersdorfer did not discuss
the properties of the coefficients k~.
A. D. Kerr: On the formal development of elastic foundation models 457

3 The Favre method [7, 8]

H. F a v r e [7] assumed, a priori, that the pressure p(x) is a function of the displacement w(x)
and its derivatives,
p(x) = / ( w , w', w", ...). (7)
He then formally expanded the right hand side in a Maclaurin series and obtained

~/----;w" + "
p ( ~ ) = l ( 0 , 0 , 0 .... ) + ~ W~/+ ~ w , ~/ w' + ~w'

+ ~ L ew~ +2--~w~w, w w ' + . . . +.... (8)

Noting that for p(x) =-- O, w(x) -- w'(x) = w"(x) . . . . ~ 0, it follows from above equation that
I(0, O, 0 . . . . ) = 0.
Neglecting nonlinear terms in (8), Favre obtained

0/ w(x) + -~w
p(x) = -~w -w'(x) + ~w" w"(x) + .... (9)

From s y m m e t r y considerations he then concluded that ~//~w' :~ 0 and thus

pCc) = koW(X) + k~w"(x) + ... (10)

where
0/ 8!

By considering the influence of loads at neighboring points, Favre found that k0 > 0 and k~ < 0.
Additional results for this model were presented by W. Schumann and M. Sold!n! [9]. A similar
approach was also used by D. Q. Fletcher and L. R. Herrnlann [10, 11].

4 The Levinson-Bharatha method [12--14]

Recently, M. Levinson and S. Bharatha presented a general approach for modeling of elastic
foundations, including nonlinearity, anisotropy and inhomogenuity, which is based on the
direct methods of modern rational mechanics. For the special case of a plane foundation surface
they postulate t h a t the pressure p at any point is determined by the values of the deflection w
and all its partial derivations at that point ([14] Definition 6, R e m a r k 4). Thus, for the two-
dimensional problem they used Eq. (7) as done by Favre [7].
For the linear elastic homogeneous foundation, when the x, y coordinates are placed on the
foundation surface, their foundation response reduces to

p(x, y) = KoW(X, y) + K1V2w + K2Vaw ~ . . . . (12)

where V~ = (02/~x 2 + ~2/~y2) is the Laplace operator. For the two dimensional problem this
expression becomes

p(x) = kow(x) + k l w " ( x ) 4- k2wIV(x) + ... 4- kmw(2"~)(x). (13)

From the requirement that the work done by the load p, during the resulting deflection w,
be non-negative, they established that

(--1)s K,~ ~ 0 for n = 0, 1 . . . . , m - - l ; (--1)~Km ~ 0. (14)

Thus
K0 > 0; K1 < 0; K~ > 0; .... (15)
Levinson and Bharatha classify a sequence of foundation response expressions, according
to the number of terms retained on the right-hand side of Eq. (12). For the two dimensional
458 Ingenieur-Archiv 54 (1984)

problem their classification yields:

Grade n = 0, 1 1o = kow (16')

n=2,3 p - - koW + k l w " (16")
n=4,5 /) = koW ~- kl wH ~- k2wIV (16'")

n = 2m, 2m + 1 p = ]CoW + k l w " + k2w TM + "" -c kmW (2~). (16 TM)

I t should be noted t h a t the foundation response expressions derived b y l~atzersdorfer,

Favre, and Levinson and B h a r a t h a are all of the same form. N a m e l y

p = Lw (17)
where L is a linear differential operator which contains only derivatives of even order. Since
the derivations b y Levinson and B h a r a t h a are the most rigorous and general, t h e y will be con-
sidered as representative of this group.
Although Levinson and B h a r a t h a developed their response expressions formally, it is never-
theless useful to establish the corresponding mechanical models. Comparing the response ex-
pressions given in (16) with the models discussed in Ref. [2], it follows t h a t Eq. (16') denoted
as response of Grade 0 represents the Winkler foundation, Eq. (16") denoted as response of
Grade 2 represents the P a s t e r n a k foundation, and Eq. (16'") denoted as response of Grade 4
represents a model consisting of a plate in bending a t t a c h e d to a Pasternak foundation, as
shown in Fig. 1.1

Grade Mechcmica[ mode[

Spring iayer

0j 1

FShearing layer

II p(x)
2~3

Bending [ayer

L~5
i ~ 1 II II IIllll It
/k2
p(x)
k~
.: ko
9 z / / / z / / / //

Fig, 1. Sequence of foundation models according to Levinson and Bharatha

I n these models ]co -- k the stiffness of the spring layer, --/fl = G the stiffness of the shear-
ing layer, and k~ = D I the stiffness of the bending layer. Should the bending layer in the model
be subjected to a uniform in-plane force field it will have to be added to or subtracted from G,
depending if it is a tension or compression force.

1 It should be noted, for the record, that the Pasternak foundation model consisting of a shearing layer
attached to a spring layer, was introduced by Kerr [2] to facilitate the derivations. The original Pasternak
model [15] does not contain a shearing "layer", the derivation presented in [15] is of questionable validity,
but the obtained response expression is correct
A. D. Kerr: On the formal development of elastic foundation models 459

5 The Kerr-Rhines method [16]

The foundation response given in Eq. (17) is not the only possible form. A. D. Kerr and W. J.
Rhines [16] showed, formally expanding an exact solution of an elastic continuum of finite
thickness which rests on a rigid base, that the resulting foundation response expression is of
the form
L i p = L2w (18)
where L 1 and L2 are linear differential operators. This approach generates a different sequence
of models, than the ones obtained by Levinson and Bharatha. Since the report by Kerr and
Rhines [16] was not published to date, the relevant results are presented in the following.
Consider a foundation layer of depth H subjected to a normal pressure at the top surface,
which rests on a rigid frictionless base, as a plane strain problem (Fig. 2). The derivation of the
relationship between the contact pressure and vertical deflection at the upper surface is similar
to the one given by G. Bosson [17] for the case of generalized plane stress, and hence only the
major steps are presented here.

ZJ

Rigid base
Fig. 2. Elastic continuum foundation

From plane elasticity it is known t h a t when a function ~s(x, y) satisfies the biharmonic equa-
tion
V~ = 0 (19)

and the proper boundary conditions, then the stresses in the body m a y be determined from

~xx ~
~2~0
~Z 2 ; ~r~ ~
~0
--; (Tx,." - -
~ (20)
~ ~x 2 ~x ~z

Further, defining a displacement function •(x, y) which satisfies

V2~o: 0 and ~ 0 _ Veq~ (21)

~x ~z
it can be verified that the displacements in the x and z directions, U(x, z) and W(x, z), are given
by

EU=(1-- v2 ) ~ z - - ( 1 + V ) ~ x , (22)

EW - - (1 -- ,,~) ~x -- (1 + , ) - - . (23)

Following Bosson, the stress function for the foundation layer was assumed in the form
Zn

n~O
460 Ingenieur-Arehiv 54 (1984)

S u b s t i t u t i o n of (24) into (20) yields, after some reductions, the synlbolic form

~0(x, z) = cos (zD) + - 12 z D s i n ( z D ) X0-a ~ - ~ s i n ( z D ) - - - - 2z c o s ( z D ) X1

+ ~-~ sin (~Dt X~ + -2 [ ))5 D~ cos (~D) G (25)

where
d~
D~ = n -= 1, 2, . . . . (25')
clx ~

T h e corresponding d i s p l a c e m e n t f u n c t i o n ~v is

1 1 1
~(x, z) = sin (zD) Xo -- - - cos (zD) X I -q- sin (zD) X2 -- - - cos (zD) X 3. (26)
D D-~ D3

After satisfying the b o u n d a r y conditions a t z = - - H

a=(x, --H) = O, W(x, --H) = 0 (27')

a n d one b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n on the f o u n d a t i o n surface a t z = 0

~ ( x , 0) = 0 (27")
and denoting
~ d x , o) = - p ( x ) , W(x, o) = - w ( x ) (28)
the following relationship b e t w e e n the pressure a n d deflection a t the upper f o u n d a t i o n surface,
a t z =- 0, results:

{2 sin ~ (HD)} p(x) - - i - - ~-------~

K e r r a n d R h i n e s i n v e s t i g a t e d w h a t response e q u a t i o n s are o b t a i n e d from Eq. (29) when

the t r i g o n o m e t r i c f u n c t i o n s are formally e x p a n d e d i n power series, a n d a finite n u m b e r of terms
is r e t a i n e d i n the expansions. To achieve this aim t h e y e x p a n d e d the operators in (29) n o t i n g
that
at 2a 6 as
sin 2 a - - ~x~ - - -- q- -- q- ... (30)
3 45 315

2a a 2a 5 4a 7
sin a cos a = a - - - - q- q- ..- (31)
3 15 315

a n d obtained, after dividing the resulting e q u a t i o n b y 2HE~(1 -- ~2) a n d s e t t i n g E/(1 -- v ~) = E*,

H Ha pIV -t- 2H5 vI H7 pyre @ . . .

3E* 4-~ p ~315E

--
_ w"
- - H- -~w Iv + Ha
- - w vI - - -2H~
- wv m -}- ... (32)
3 15 315

where ( )' -= d( )/dx.

I t can be seen t h a t b y r e t a i n i n g o n l y the first t e r m o n each side of Eq. (32), it reduces to

~0p, = E
- -* w " . (33)
H

I n t e g r a t i o n of the a b o v e e q u a t i o n yields 7p = ( E * / H ) w + A l x + A2. Since for p ( x ) ~ 0 it is

expected t h a t w(x) ~ 0, it follows t h a t A 1 = As = 0. T h u s Eq. (33) yields

E$
p = - - w. (34)
H
A. D. Kerr: On the formal development of elastic foundation models 461

Retaining terms whose coefficients contain powers of H up to and including H 2 yields

p,, -~ __E* w " __ __E*H w i v (35)

H 3

which, by a similar argument as above, reduces to

E* E*H
~9. --- - - "tO -- - - W rt, (36)
H 3

Similarly, retaining terms up to and including H a yields

H~ E* E*H
P - - - 3 - P " = --H w - - - - 3 w" , (37)

retaining terms up to and including H 4 yields

H 2 E* E*H E*H a
-- -~- p" = --w -- - - w" + - - W TM , (38)
H 3 15

and retaining terms up to and including H 5 yields

H2 p,, 2H~ iv E* E*H w " + E * H 3 w TM. (39)

P-3- +-i5 -p - H ~ 3 15

Note that Eq. (34) represents the response of the Winkler model with the spring constant

E
]c -- (1 -- v2) H" (40)

Comparing Eq. (36) with Eq. (7) of Ref. [2], it follows t h a t it describes the response of the Paster-
nak foundation model with the two coefficients

E EH
]c G (41)
(1 -- ~,2) H ' 3(1 -- ~)
The response expression of next order, Eq. (37), is the same, except for the magnitude of
the coefficients, as the one for the foundation model p r o p o s e d by Kerr [18] in 1965, presented
in Fig. 3. Namely

(1 + -~)p(x) - r = ~w(x) - aw"(x). (42)

I t m a y be shown that the response of the foundation model presented in Fig. 4 is

1 + p---- = kw G~ 1 + - - + + w TM (43)
C C

/P

G.

G GL
k k
\ \\\

Fig. 3. Kerr foundation model Fig. 4. Foundation model of higher order

462 [ngenieur-Arehiv 54 (1984)

Bending [ctyer O
HII il I I Ill1111 G

X\%,\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\

Fig. g. Foundation model of higher order Fig. 6. Foundation model of higher order

thus, of the same form as Eq. (38) ~nd t h a t the response of the model shown in Fig. 5 is

( 1k )4-~ P ----G p , , +
D-p-i v = k w - - Gw" 4-Dw~v (44)
C C

which is of the same form as Eq. (39).

I t should be noted t h a t the model shown in ]~ig. 6 yields the response expression

1 4- ----k-+. 29-- + p"-/ .

C 8 C.3

which, except for the coefficients, is identical to Eq. (44). Thus, the mechanical model t h a t
corresponds to a higher order response expression is not unique.

Order Order Corresponding foundat[on mode[

Corresponding foundotion mode[
retainec retained

H7
H2

H3
\\ \\\\\\ \\'-,q~
H8

H4

H9
Hs

H6 HIo

~ig. 7. Sequence of foundation models according to Kerr and Rhines

A. D. Kerr: On the formal development of elastic foundation models 463

I t is of interest to find out what models will correspond to even higher order approximations
and in particular, assuming that the expansions in Eq. (32) converge, to determine what mechani-
cal model will yield a response expression like the continuous elastic layer. In Fig. 7 foundation
models which consist of spring, shearing, and bending layers, and which correspond to retained
terms up to and including H 10 are tabulated, and they indicate an answer to this question.
The non-uniqueness of the presentation of higher order models should be noted.

6 Comparison of the generated foundation models

Comparing the foundation models generated by Levinson and Bharatha, shown in Fig. 1, with
those generated by Kerr and Rhines, shown in Fig. 7, it follows that according to both approaches
the Pasternak model is the next order generalization of the Winkler model, as stated in [2].
However, the generated models beyond the Pasternak foundation differ.
According to the mechanical interpretation of the Levinson and Bharatha results, the next
model (Grade 4) consists of a bending layer which rests on a Pasternak foundation, as shown in
Fig. 1, with the response relation
p(x) = kw(x) -- Gw"(x) + D/wlV(x) (46)
whereas according to Kerr and l~hines the next order model consists of a spring layer over a
Pasternak base as shown in Fig. 3, with the response relation [18]

(1 ~--~) p ( x ) - - --G p " ( x ) = -- Gw"(x). (47)

I t is of interest to note that the model of Grade 4 does not appear in the Kerr and Rhines table
in Fig. 7, except with a spring layer on top of it, and this one corresponds to a higher order
foundation model (H s compared to Ha).
The difference between the generated models beyond the Pasternak foundation is based on
the circumstance that Favre, Fletcher and Herrmann. and Levinson and Bharatha assumed,
a priori, that

p(x) = / ( w , w', w", ...) (7)

whereas the results of Kerr and Rhines, Eq. (32), suggest that

p(x) ~ F(w, w', w", .... P', P", ...). (4S)

While form (7) leads to the foundation response expressions

p = Lw, (49)
form (48) leads to the response expressions

LIp = L2w (50)

where L, L1 and L~ are linear differental operators containing only derivatives of even order.

7 Conclusions

The methods for generating foundation models, by using formal expansions, show that the
first order approximation represents the compressibility of the foundation in the Winkler sense,
and that the next approximation includes the effect of the shear interactions, as in the Pasternak
model. I t was found that the higher order models depend on whether it is assumed a priori that
the distributed load p acting on the foundation surface is related only to the surface deflection w
and its derivatives, as done by a number of investigators, or whether it is also related to the
derivatives of the distributed load, as it follows from the analysis of an elastic layer by Kerr
and Rhines, as well as by E. Reissner [19] who used a different approach.
464 Ingenieur-Archiv 54 (1984)

A l t h o u g h the m e t h o d s using e x p a n s i o n s are formal, i n t h a t the convergence has n o t been

proven, the established correspondence b e t w e e n the o b t a i n e d response expressions a n d the
m e c h a n i c a l models a n d their sequencing, as presented i n Fig. 7, is n o t e w o r t h y . These results
m a y be used, w h e n necessary, as a guide for the c o n s t r u c t i o n of f o u n d a t i o n models of higher
order.

Re[erenees

1. Winkler, E. : Die Lehre yon der Elasticitaet und Festigkeit. Prag: Dominicus 1867
2. Kerr, A. D.: Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models. J. Appl. Mech. 31 (1964) 491--498
3. Selvadurai, A. P. S.: Elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction. Amsterdam, Oxford, New York:
Elsevier 1979
4. Ratzersdorfer, J.: Discussion, 2. Internationale Tagung ffir Brfickenbau und ttochbau. 316--318,
Vienna, Austria: Springer 1929
5. Ratzersdorfer, J.: Die Knickfestigkeit yon St~iben und Stabwerken. 161, Wien: Springer 1936
6. Wieghardt, K. : i3ber den Balken auf nachgiebiger Unterlage. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 2 (1922) 165--184
7. Favre, I-I.: Sur une Ioi de seconde approximation r~gissant la d~formation dun sol horizontal sous
l'aetion d'une charge r~partie sur un segment de droite. Comptes l~:.endus, Acad. Sei., Paris, France
251 (1960) 2653--2655
8. Favre, H.: Sur une loi r4gissant la d~formation d'un sol horizontal sous Faction d'une charge r~partie
la surface. Comptes Rendus, Acad. Sci., Paris, France 252 (1961) 2988--2990
9. Schumann, W. ; Soldini, M. : Beitrag zur Rechtfertigung einer linearen Approximation zweiter Ordnung
ftir die LSsung von Einsenkungsproblemen. Ing. Arch. 33 (1963) 109--123
10. Fletcher, D.Q.: Investigations of approximate foundation moduli. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Cal., Davis,
1970
11. Fletcher, D.Q.; Herrmann, L . R . : Elastic foundation representation of continuum. Proc. ASCE,
Engg. Mech. (1971) 95--107
12. Levinson, M.; Bharatha, S.: Elastic foundation models -- A new approach. Proc. 4th Symposium
on Eng. Appl. Solid Mech., Ontario Res. Found., Mississauga, Ontario, 1978
13. Levinson, M.: On the linear, isotropic, elastic foundation of grade 4. Mech. l~es. Com. 6 (1979)
369--378
14. Rharatha, S.; Levinson, M.: A theory of elastic foundations. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 74 (1980) 249
to 266
15. Pasternak, P. L.: On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means of two foundation
constants (in P~ussian). Moscow, USSlZ: Gos. Izd. Lit. po Str. i Arkh. 1954
16. Kerr, A.D.; Rhines, W . J . : A further study of elastic foundation models. New York University,
Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics Rep. No. S-67-1, Jan 1967
t7. Bosson, G.: The Flexure of an Infinite Elastic Strip on an Elastic Foundation. Philos. Mag. 27 (1939)
37--50
18. Kerr, A. D.: A study of a new foundation model. Aeta Mech. I/2 (1965) 135--147
19. P~eissner, E.: A note on deflections of plates on a viscoelastic foundation. J. Appl. Mech. 25 (1958)
144--145

Received November 9, 1983

Prof. Dr. A. D. Kerr

Department of Civil Engineering
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716 USA