Subgrade Reaction Modulus (KS) of Clayey Soils

2021
Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol.8, No.1, Spring 2014
Subgrade Reaction Modulus (Ks) of Clayey Soils

Based on Field Tests
*
Naeini S. A., Ziaie Moayed R., Allahyari F.;

Department of Civil Engineering, Imam Khomeini
International University,
Received: 22 Nov 2012
Revised 10 March 2013
Abstract
One of the most important engineering challenges in the design of
structure, is the reaction of soil in contact with structure. In
engineering design of structures, the subsoil can be simulated by a
much simpler system called subgrade reaction model. In order to
evaluate the in situ modulus of the clayey deposits of the Qazvin
alluvium, the results of a large number of in situ tests carried out by
many researchers were analyzed. Vertical plate load tests, standard
penetration tests and test pit exploration were conducted on over 170
different locations. The results of the plate load and standard
penetration tests are analyzed and discussed. The correlation between
subgrade reaction modulus (Ks), modulus of elasticity (Es) and
corrected standard penetration test blow counts (N) are presented for
clayey deposits of the Qazvin alluvium. Results show that there is a
significant correlation between subgrade reaction modulus (Ks) and
SPT blow counts.
Keywords: Subgrade reaction modulus, Modulus of elasticity, SPT, PLT, Clayey
soils, Qazvin alluvium.
*
Corresponding author
Naeini_h@ikiu.ac.ir
2022
Introduction
One of the most important engineering challenges in the design of
structures underlying soils is the reaction of soil in contact with
structure. Mechanical behavior of soil is very complex. Because soil is
naturally non-linear, anisotropic and heterogeneous and its deformation
is depended on the stresses that are applied to soil. Hence, in
engineering works, for design of the structure, instead of modeling the
subsoil in all its complexity, it can be replaced by a much simpler
system called a subgrade reaction model.
1. Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, Ks
Winkler [1] proposed a model that assumes the soil stiffness that is
considered as ratio between the contact pressures () and the
associated vertical displacement () is linear, and it can be given by
the coefficient of subgrade reaction, Ks. It has units of force per unit
volume (MN/m3).
Ks= /
(1)
This theory simulates the soil behavior as a group of independent

springs, governed by the linear-elastic model (Figure 1). The coefficient
of subgrade reaction that is spring stiffness is the initial slope of the
curve until the limit pressure.
At first, this concept was introduced for using in the analysis of
rigid plates, but during the following decades the theory was
developed extended to include the computation of stresses in flexible
foundations (Terzaghi [2]). In the area of soil-foundation interaction,
many of researchers have utilized this model (Biot [3]; Terzaghi [2];
Vesic [4]; Horvath [5]; Daloglu and Vallabhan [6]).
Subgrade Reaction Modulus (Ks) of Clayey Soils Based on Field Tests
2023
Figure 1. Winkler theory simulations of the soil behavior as a group of springs
Values of Ks may be obtained from a) Field and laboratory tests, b)

Empirical equation and c) Tabulated values. Field test is included
plate load test, and laboratory tests are consolidation and triaxial test
(Dutta and Roy [7]), and CBR test (Nascimento and Simoes [8]).
Other researchers such as Elachachi et al. [9] and Bowles [10]
proposed some empirical relations. Also Bowles [10] proposed some
tabulated values for coefficient of subgrade reaction.
The plate load test (PLT) has been a traditional in situ test to
estimate the modulus of subgrade reaction (Terzaghi [2]). PLT is a
direct test to determine both Ks and Es. It is a direct measurement of
the compressibility and bearing capacity of the soil. The versus
plot is generally nonlinear, and one must obtain Ks as the slope of
either a tangent or secant line. Either a tangent (solid line) or secant
(dashed) line slope of Figure 2 can be used for Ks. Usually, initial
values (through the origin) are used; however, one can choose any
tangent point or an averaged value using the two points cut by a secant
line along the curve. The secant slope defined by the origin ( = 0) and
at = 25.4 mm (or 1in.). = 25.4 mm is recommended as an initial
selection for Equation 1 (Bowles [10]).
2024
Figure 2. Modulus of subgrade reaction (Bowles [10])
Semi-empirical methods such as that proposed by Vesic [4] may be

used to determine the Ks values.
Ks= Es/ [B (1- 2)]
(2)
In the above equation, B is plate dimension and is Poissons ratio.

These methods, however, require soil parameters, such as modulus
of elasticity (Es) and Poissons ratio (), which are also difficult to
estimate. For this reason, researchers have proposed a simpler
empirical equation for various soils, which relates Ks to standard
penetration test values. In this respect Scott [11] has been proposed an
empirical equation for calculation of Ks in sandy soils based on N
values.
Ks (MN/m3) = 1.8N
(3)
In the above equation, N is standard penetration resistance and Ks are

the coefficient of subgrade reaction. Bowles [10] proposed a relation
that is for approximating Ks from the allowable bearing capacity (qa)
proposed by the geotechnical consultant.
Ks= 40(SF) qa
(in SI units)
(4)
in which SF is safety factor. This equation is based on qa=qult/SF and
2025
the ultimate soil pressure is at a settlement of H= 25.4mm (1in.).

Ziaie Moayed and Janbaz [12] proposed Equation 5 which relates
coefficient of subgrade reaction to SPT values for Tehran alluvium.
Tehran alluvium is composed of cemented gravelly deposits.
Ks (MN/m3)=2.821N+79.6
(5)
Naveac [13] provided a relation between Ks values and unconfined

compressive strength (qu). Figure 3 shows Ks values versus soil
stiffness proposed by NAVFAC [13]. Upper line is for coarse grained
soils and lower line is for fine grained soils. In this figure, Ks can be
estimated from unconfined compressive strength or soil stiffness.
Many of other researchers like Bowles [10] and Das [14] have
suggested tabulated values for Ks that can be used as a guide and for
comparison when using approximate equations.
2. Modulus of elasticity, Es
The modulus of elasticity (Es) of a soil is a soil parameter that is
commonly used in the estimation of settlement. Es like Ks can be
estimated from many field and laboratory tests results, empirical
equation and tabulated values. Many researchers have proposed some
empirical equation for calculation Es. Bowles [10] proposed some
empirical correlation that may be used to estimate Es from soil
parameter like undrained shear strength (su) and cone penetration test
results. For example, the correlations between Es and su for normally
consolidated sensitive clay is:
Es= (200 to 500) su
(6)
2026
Figure 3. Modulus of subgrade reaction versus unconfined compressive

strength (NAVFAC [13])
These correlations require knowledge of other soil parameters that

are also difficult to estimate. Other correlations, that are simpler,
relate Es to standard penetration values. Bowles [10] suggested some
equations for a wide range of soils, from coarse to fine grained soils:
Es= 0.32N+4.8
for clayey sand
(7)
Es=0.3N+1.8
for silts, sandy silt, or clayey silt.
(8)
In both equations Es is in MPa.
Webb [15] based on his investigations on sands and clayey sand soils
proposed these equations:
Es=0.5N+7.5
Es=0.33N+1.66
for sand
for clayey sand
(9)
(10)
Behpoor and Ghahramani[16] according to field and laboratory

tests on CL and CL-ML soils suggested an empirical equation for
determination of modulus of elasticity based on standard penetration
resistance (Figures 4).
2027
Figure 4. Field modulus of elasticity versus SPT number (Behpoor and

Ghahramani [16])
According to these results, they proposed the correlation between

the SPT number and modulus of elasticity:
Es (MPa) = 0.17 N
(11)
Ziaie Moayed and Janbaz [12] proposed the following equation which
relates the modulus of elasticity, Es, to SPT values for Tehran
alluvium which is composed of cemented gravelly deposits.
Es (MN/m2)=0.77N + 21.74
(12)
In this study, for providing a correlation between coefficient of Ks ,

modulus of elasticity (Es) and standard penetration test (SPT) values
for southern part of Qazvin alluvium, which consists of clayey soils
with low plasticity, several field and laboratory tests were conducted
on more than 170 locations by the research group and the results were
evaluated. The southern alluvium of Qazvin is a significant part of the
metropolitan area of this city. Accordingly, geotechnical studies and
2028
identifying the profile of the land in these projects are important. This
part of the Qazvin alluvium primarily has fine grained aggregate.
Conducted studies indicate that the physical and mechanical
characteristics of the southern alluvium of the Qazvin city are
considerably uniform. For this reason, the results of the study in some
parts of this alluvium are extensible to other areas. Because of the
widespread use of the standard penetration test in geotechnical
projects across Qazvin city, providing these relationships would be
very useful to calculate Ks and Es based on SPT results.
Engineering Geology of Qazvin Alluvium

The Qazvin Plain with its adjacent watersheds has an area of 9,300
km 2. It is located between 4925' to 5035' east longitude and 3525'
to 3625' north latitude. Approximate area of Qazvin Plain is about
450,000 ha.
Qazvin province is situated in the interface of northern margin of
central Iran and western Aborz zones. In other words, northern heights
of this province belong to southern parts of Alborz range and largest
territory of this province that is Qazvin plain and southern heights
belong to central Iran zone. The boundary between these two zones
corresponds to north Qazvin thrust zone. The exact boundary of these
zones cannot be correctly defined; therefore, it is preferred to assign
the whole province to Alborz-Central Iran zones. Northern mountain
ranges are composed of east-west trending fold-thrust belt which are
2029
trusted to the south. The intensity of deformation is highest in the

mountain-plain boundary. Piedmont heights are gradually vanishing
toward the plain which is in turn covered by young alluvial deposits
crusted by salt and clay pans and sand dunes. The southern part of this
province has a mountainous feature with Paleozoic, Mesozoic and
Cenozoic feature forming rocks.
Tectonostratigraphic units of northern (Alborz) part and southern
parts (Central Iran) have no conspicuous differences. In both parts,
rock sequences start with Late Precambrian platform deposits of
Soltanieh formation and continue with some sedimentary gaps to
Middle Triassic.
Upper Triassic middle Jurassic is a single tectonostratigraphic unit
limited a period between two organic phases of the early Kimmerian
(Upper Triassic) and Middle Kimmerian (Middle Jurassic). It is
composed of shale, sandstone (Shemshak formation) coal bearing
sediments which are accumulated in early kimmerian foreland basins.
Middle Jurassic Upper Cretaceous rock sequences are marly
carbonatic continental shelf deposit exposed in the form of small
outcrops in Avaj area. Cenozoic rock sequences start with Karaj
Formation intruded partly by Pyrneean Orogenic intrusive bodies.
Most of the Cenozoic rocks of this province are synorogenic Cenozoic
sequences which are accumulated in intermountainous basins with
limited outcrops at the foot hill of mountain ranges.
2030
Experimental Program
The experimental programs consisted of field and laboratory tests.
The field studies included test pit exploration, plate load test and
standard penetration test (SPT). The grain size distribution and
Atterberg limits are part of laboratory tests.
The pit exploration include in-place weight and moisture content
tests and are conducted according to ASTM D 2167-94 [17] and ASTM
D 2216-98[18], respectively. The standard penetration test (SPT) is
performed according to ASTM D 1586-08a [19], in a machine

borehole, near the location of each plate load test, at the same site. The
SPT values for each borehole are obtained at the same depth as the
plate load test is done. The number of blow count (N), is measured for
300mm penetration into the soil. Various factors affect the corrected
number of SPT blow counts. The SPT results should be corrected. For
this purpose, the National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER) procedure (Youd [20]) were used in this study.
The grain size distribution and Atterberg limits which are part of
laboratory test are conducted according to ASTM D 422-63 [21] and D
4318-00 [22], respectively.
The plate load test that is carried out for each borehole is based on
ASTM D 1194 [23]. In this test, the plate is placed at the center of the
borehole, and then load is applied to the plate in steps equal to about
20-25% of the estimated ultimate load by means of a jack. During
each loading step the settlement of the plate is observed on dial
gauges. At each step of loading, the load is allowed to elapse at least 1
2031
hour. The test will continue until failure, or until the plate has settled
by at least 25mm.
Physical Properties of Soils

The southern part of Qazvin alluvium generally consists of clayey
soils with low plasticity. The materials can be classified according to
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as CL and CH. The in
situ unit weight of the deposits varies between 16 and 20 kN/m3. The
moisture content is about 5.7 to 24.6%. The grain size distribution at
different sites varies approximately 51 to 99% fine content.
In Situ Test Results

1. Plate load test results
The major difficulty in applying the Winkler model is quantifying
the modulus of subgrade reaction. As it was mentioned in the last
section, the plate load test is the best way for calculation Ks values.
Therefore, the vertical displacement and the corresponding contact
pressure for each test are measured and are plotted in Figure 5. It is
evident that the Ks values depend on whether it is the tangent or
secant modulus, and on the location of the coordinate of and . It is
obvious that the - curve can be divided into several regions so that
Ks values are dependent on the values of the slope in several regions;
however, with this approach, large quantities for Ks may be obtained
and refinement of these values will be very difficult. Therefore, the
2032
secant modulus to the maximum settlement point, for each graph, is

determined as Ks. The results are presented in Table 1. The modulus
of subgrade reaction, Ks, obtained from the plate tests results varied
between 10 and 50 MN/m3, with an average of 30 MN/m3. These
values appear consistent with the values suggested by Das [15] for
stiff and very stiff clay, that is, 12-25 MN/m3 and 25-50 MN/m3,
respectively.
Figure 5. Typical stress-settlement curve obtained from plate loading

test
2. Standard penetration test results

The standard penetration test is the most popular in situ test to
determine soil resistance parameter. Various factors influence the SPT
blow counts; therefore, the SPT results were corrected by procedure
described by Youd [20]. The SPT blow counts are corrected, and are
presented in Table 1. The corrected SPT blow counts (N) vary
between 9 and 49 blows for 300 mm penetration and is in consistent
with the tabulated values suggested by Das [14] for stiff, very stiff and
hard clay (Table 2).
2033
Table 1. Correlation between clayey soils stiffness and SPT values

(Das [14])
Stiffness
SPT values
Very soft
0-2
Soft
2-5
Medium
5-10
Stiff
10-20
Very stiff
20-30
Hard
>30
Analysis of Test Data

1. Correlation between Es and N
One of the most important parameters for settlement analysis of
shallow foundations is the modulus of elasticity, Es. There are many
significant factors in determining Es, including anisotropy and stress
history. Due to the difficulties in obtaining undisturbed samples and
maintaining the stress history and the nature of the samples, laboratory
-based values of Es are not reliable, so the standard penetration test
has often been used to obtain Es.
Statistical analysis of the Es and N values obtained for the Qazvin
alluvium was performed. The obtained results are presented in
Figure 6. As this shows, the modulus of elasticity of clayey alluvium
of southern part of Qazvin city can be estimated as:
Es = 0.264N
(13)
Equation 13 shows that with increasing SPT numbers, modulus of

elasticity increases. This is in accordance with other correlations
2034
proposed by other researchers, (Bowles [10]; Webb [15]; Behpoor and

Ghahramani [16]; Ziaie Moayed and Janbaz [12]).
Figure 6. Correlation between Es and N for Qazvin alluvium

2. Comparison of proposed equation for Es with other relationships
Figure 7 shows the comparison of the obtained results of Es versus

N values for Qazvin alluvium with other correlations presented in
Table 3.
As is evident from this figure that the general behavior of proposed
correlation by previous researchers with obtained results for Qazvin
alluvium is identical. Suggested correlation for Qazvin alluvium is
between correlations proposed by Behpoor and Ghahramani [16] and
Bowles [10]. According to USCS classification that is presented in
Table 1, Qazvin alluvium mainly is CL. Obtained results for Qazvin
alluvium is upper than the values obtained from correlation proposed
by Behpoor and Ghahramani [16], and lower than correlation
suggested by Bowles[10]. It is obvious that soils that are CL have
lower strength than silts, sandy silts or clayey silt soils. This indicates
that correlation obtained for Qazvin alluvium has a good agreement
with other correlations proposed by other researchers.
2035
Table 2. Correlations between Es and N proposed by other researchers

Reference
Bowles[10]
Webb[15]
Bowles[10]
Behpoor And Ghahramani
Ganbari [17]
[16]
Soil type
Clayey sand
Clayey sand
Silts, sandy silts, or
clayey silt
CL and CL-ML
CL, CH, ML
Correlation(MPa)
Es=0.32N + 4.8
Es=0.33N+1.66
Es=0.3N + 1.8
Es= 0.17N
Es= 0.35(N+2D) + 3.2
Figure 7. Comparison between Es equation of Qazvin alluvium with

other correlations
3. Correlation between Ks and N

Because of the widespread use of the standard penetration test in
geotechnical projects across Iran, the presentation of a relation
between SPT results and other geotechnical parameters such as Ks
would be very useful. Figure 8 shows the correlation between the
corrected SPT blow counts (N), and modulus of subgrade reaction
(Ks). The best fit between the plate load test data and the corrected
standard penetration test results for southern part of the Qazvin
alluvium which is consisted of clayey soils with low plasticity is
provided by:
Ks = 0.96N
(14)
2036
Equation 14 shows that the modulus of subgrade reaction increases

as the SPT blow count increases. By using this equation, the modulus
of subgrade reaction may be evaluated from standard penetration test
results in stiff and very stiff clayey soils. It should be noted that the
obtained relationship is applicable only to determine Ks for a small
plate with a diameter of B=30 cm. Therefore, to use in the actual size
of the foundation these values should be modified (Terzaghi [2]).
Figure 8. Correlation between Ks and N60 for Qazvin alluvium

4. Comparison of proposed correlation for Ks with other relationships
In this section there is a comparison between proposed equation for

Qazvin alluvium and relationships suggested by other researchers.
Figure 9 shows comparison between obtained results for Qazvin
alluvium and relationship proposed by NAVFAC [13] (Figure 3) and
Equation 4 suggested by Bowles [10]. Both correlations are according
to Ks versus bearing capacity (qa or qu). Therefore, initially, it is
necessary to obtain q according to N values. For this purpose, Table 4
that is proposed by Bowles [10] for cohesive soils is used.
2037
Figure 3 shows modulus of subgrade reaction versus unconfined

compressive strength (qu). Therefore, with tabulated values proposed
by Bowles [10] it can be converted into Figure 9 that is for modulus of
subgrade reaction versus SPT values (N70). The same procedure were
conducted for Equation 4 that is for approximating Ks from the
allowable bearing capacity (qa).
Obtained results of Qazvin alluvium is based on N60, which
indicates that actual hammer energy to sampler is 60% of the input
energy, but Table 4 is N70, thus initially it is necessary to convert N60
values obtained for Qazvin alluvium into N70 with using Equation 15.
N70= (6/7) N60
(15)
It is evident from Figure 9, the obtained results of Qazvin alluvium

in the lower N values are in accordance with NAVFAC[13], but in
greater N values is less; however the general behavior are identical. In
the case of Bowles [10] correlation, it is obvious that with selected
safety factor (1.4 and 2.9) which is common in the engineering works,
results of Qazvin alluvium have a good agreement with Bowles
correlation.
Table 3. N70-qu correlation for cohesive soils (Bowles [10])
Consistency
N70
qu, MPa
Very soft
0-2
<0.025
Soft
3-5
0.025-0.05
Medium
6-9
0.05-0.1
Stiff
10-16
0.1-0.2
Very stiff
17-30
0.2-0.4
Hard
>30
>0.4
2038
Figure 9. Comparison between Qazvin alluvium Ks data and NAVFAC

[13]
and Bowles [10]
Figure 10 shows a comparison between obtained results for Qazvin

alluvium with correlation suggested by Scott [11], which is for
calculation Ks in sandy soils based on N values.
This figure shows that proposed correlation by Scott [11] for sandy
soils is upper than obtained results of Qazvin alluvium. Qazvin
alluvium mainly is CL and has lower strength than sandy soils. For
this reason obtained results of Qazvin alluvium lie beneath the Scott
correlation.
Figure 10. Comparison between Ks

equation of Qazvin alluvium with
Scott [11] correlation
2039
Table 4. Ks-N correlations from Es-N relationships using Vesics[4]

Equation
Reference
Bowles[10]
Webb[15]
Bowles[10]
Behpoor &
Ghahramani[16]
Es Correlation
(MPa)
Es=0.32N + 4.8
Es=0.33N+1.66
Es=0.3N +
1.8
Soil type
Clayey sand
Clayey sand
Silts, sandy silts, or
clayey silt
CL and CL-ML
Ks Correlation
(MN/m3)
Ks=1.17N+17.6
Ks=1.2N+6.07
Ks=1.1N+6.6
Es= 0.17N
Ks=0.622
Comparison between Ks-N correlation of Qazvin alluvium with

other correlations between Ks-N or Es-N proposed by other
researchers is presented in Figure 11. Some of the proposed
correlations are between Es and N; therefore, initially it is necessary to
achieve Ks in terms of Es. According to Es values, Ks values can be
obtained from Equation 2 which is proposed by Vesic [4].
In Vesics [4] Equation, the side dimension, B of the plates is 0.3m,
and the Poissons ratio, , of soil is taken as 0.3. Table 5 shows Ks-N
correlations
obtained
from
Es-N
relationships
suggested
by
researchers by using Equation 2.

Southern parts of Qazvin alluvium mainly consist of clayey soils
with low plasticity (CL). As is apparent from Figure 11, coefficient of
subgrade reaction (Ks) in Qazvin alluvium is between results obtained
by Behpoor and Ghahramani [16] and Bowles [10]. This indicates the
accuracy of the obtained results for Qazvin alluvium. Relationships
that are located above Qazvin alluvium are Bowles [10], Webb [16]
and Scott [11]. Bowles [10] and Webb [15] correlations are for clayey
sand and Scott [11] correlation is for sandy soils. Qazvin alluvium
2040
which is mainly CL and in some parts CH in comparison with sandy

soils has lower strength. Because of this lower strength Qazvin
alluvium must has lower Ks, and locates beneath Bowles [10], Webb
[15] and Scott [11] correlations, which is obvious from Figure 11.
Figure 11. Comparison between Ks equation of Qazvin alluvium with

other correlations
Conclusions
In this paper, the relationship between subgrade reaction modulus,
modulus of elasticity and corrected standard penetration test blow
count (N) is presented for southern part of Qazvin alluvium which
mainly consistes of clayey soils with low plasticity. The following
conclusions may be drawn from the obtained results.
As expected, Ks and Es increase as the SPT values increases. The
following equations are presented for correlation between Ks, Es
and N values in the southern part of Qazvin alluvium.
Ks = 0.96N
2041
Es = 0.264 N
Suggested correlation for Qazvin alluvium for Es is between
correlations proposed by Behpoor and Ghahramani [16] and
Bowles [10].
The obtained result of Qazvin alluvium for Ks in the lower N
values are in accordance with NAVFAC [13], but in greater N
values is less. However, the general behaviors are identical.
The proposed correlation for Ks by Scott [11] for sandy soils is
upper than obtained results of Qazvin alluvium. Qazvin alluvium
mainly is CL and has lower strength than sandy soils. For this
reason obtained results of Qazvin alluvium lie beneath the Scott
correlation.
The obtained correlation for coefficient of subgrade reaction, Ks,
in Qazvin alluvium is between results obtained by Behpoor and
Ghahramani [16] and Bowles [10]. This indicates the accuracy of
the obtained results for Qazvin alluvium
The proposed relationship is applicable only for calculation the
Ks for small plates (with the side dimension, B=0.3m), and the
values would have to be modified for size effects before they
could be applicable to general foundation problems.
From the correlation between Ks and N for southern part of
Qazvin alluvium (Ks= 0.96N), it can be said that the subgrade
reaction modulus for this region which is consisted of clayey soils
with low plasticity is almost equal to the number of blow counts.
2042
Acknowldegments
The authors wish to appreciate the Soil Mechanic Laboratory and
the Deputy of Research and Technology of Imam Khomeini
International University for their great cooperation during the
completion of this research.
References
1. Winkler E., "Die Lehre von Elastizitat und Festigkeit (on elasticity
and fixity)", Dominicus,Prague (1867).
2. Terzaghi K. V., "Evaluation of coefficient of subgrade reaction",
Geotechnique, 5 (4) (1955) 297-326.
3. Biot M. A., "Bending of infinite beams on an elastic foundation",
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 59 (1937) A1-A7.
4. Vesic A. S., "Bending of beams resting on isotropic solids", Journal
of the engineering Mechanics division, ASCE, 87(EM2) (1961) 35-53.
5. Horvath J. S., "Subgrade Models for Soil-Structure Interaction
Analysis", Journal of Foundation Engineering on Current
Principles of Practice Proceeding, ASCE, 20 (1989) 599-612.
6. Daloglu A. T., Vallabhan C. V. G., "Values of k for Slab on
Winkler Foundation, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering", ASCE (2000) 463-471.
7. Dutta S. C., Roy R. A., "Critical Review on Idealization and
Modeling for Interaction among Soil Foundation-Structure System",
Computers and Structures, 80 (2002) 1579-1594.
8. Nascimento V., Simoe A., "Relation between CBR and Modulus of
Strength, Proceeding 4th International Conference on Soil
Mechanic and Foundation Engineering", London (1957) 166-168.
2043
9. Elachachi S. M., Breysse D., Houy L., "Longitudinal Variability of

Soils and Structural Response of Sewer Networks", Computers and
Geotechnics, 31(8) (2004) 625-641.
10. Bowles J. E., "Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th ed.", New
York: McGraw-Hill (1996).
11. Scott R. F., "Foundation Analysis", Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Prentice Hall (1981).
12. Ziaie Moayed R., Janbaz M., "Subgrade reaction modulus of
Tehran alluvium", ICE Geotechnical Engineering Journal, 164 (4)
283-288.
13. NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 (1986).
14. Das B. M., "Principles of Foundation Engineering", 2nd ed.
Boston, MA. : PWS-Kent (1990).
15. Webb D. L., "Settlement of structures on deep alluvial sandy
sediments in Durban", South Africa. Proceedings, Conference on In
Situ Behavior of Soil and Rock, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London (1969) 181-188.
16. Behpoor L., Ghahramani A., "Correlation of SPT to strength and
modulus of elasticity of cohesive soils", 12th International
conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
ISSMFE, Rio do Janeiro, Brazil (1989), 175-178.
17. "ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), D 2167-94:
Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place
by the Rubber Balloon Method",ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA (1994a).
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water
2044
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass", ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, PA (1999).
19. "ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), D 158608a: Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils", ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA (2000).
20. Youd T. L., "Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils", Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (10) (2001)
817-833.
Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils", ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA (1998).
Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity
Index
of
Soils",
ASTM
International,
West
Conshohocken, PA (2000).
Standard Test Method for Bearing Capacity of Soil for Static Load
and Spread Footings", ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA (1994b).
2045
Appendix I: In situ soil characteristics of Qazvin alluvium

Sit
e
1
No.
Depths(m
)
USCS
classificatio
CH
n
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
32
4
6
2
8
14
4
4
2
6
4
10
4
4
4
6
2
6
4
14
12
2
12
12
12
14
4
8
CL
CL
CL
CL
CH
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CH
CH
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
(N1)6
0
44
27
24
31
34
45
32
49
15
36
31
31
24
24
25
24
43
24
49
48
43
33
48
43
44
45
49
20
21
Ks
(MN/m3)
48
26
23
27
38
43
33
43
16
36
35
29
21
22
24
26
46
23
47
44
46
36
47
45
42
43
45
22
23
Es(MN/m2
)
13.11
7.10
6.28
7.38
10.38
11.74
9.01
11.74
4.37
9.83
9.56
7.92
5.74
6.01
6.56
7.10
12.56
6.28
12.84
12.02
12.56
9.83
12.84
12.29
11.47
11.74
12.29
6.01
6.28
Sit
e
30
No
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Depths(m
)
14
4
8
10
12
8
14
2
6
6
10
4
6
8
14
12
14
14
6
6
10
4
6
10
6
2
8
10
12
USCS
classificatio
CL
n
CH
CL
CH
CL
CL
CH
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
(N1)6
0
32
45
40
35
47
18
47
28
33
38
23
24
48
32
15
16
49
38
44
44
37
47
41
28
24
25
20
32
18
Ks
(MN/m3
)25
41
39
33
42
20
43
33
40
39
23
25
48
36
14
15
50
36
32
33
25
40
29
28
23
23
27
32
16
Es(MN/m2
)
6.83
11.20
10.65
9.01
11.47
5.46
11.74
9.01
10.92
10.65
6.28
6.83
13.11
9.83
3.83
4.10
13.65
9.83
8.74
9.01
6.83
10.92
7.92
7.65
6.28
6.28
7.38
8.74
4.37
Appendix I: In situ soil characteristics of Qazvin alluvium (continue)

0
Ks
3
(MN/m )
Es(MN/m2
)
Site
No
Depths(m
)
Es(MN/m2
)
25
Ks
3
(MN/m
)25
33
37
10.11
88
30
38
10.38
89
40
43
CL
20
20
5.46
11.74
CL
33
33
CL
16
19
9.01
CL
42
45
63
10
CL
30
12.29
92
14
CL
40
39
64
12
CL
10.65
9.01
93
11
CL
38
36
65
9.83
19
5.19
94
CL
42
41
66
11.20
12
10
2.73
95
10
CL
34
28
7.65
CL
12
3.28
96
12
CH
40
29
7.92
CL
23
22
6.01
97
10
CL
37
31
8.47
69
CH
29
29
7.92
98
12
CL
40
30
8.19
70
CL
24
23
6.28
99
10
CL
41
47
12.84
71
CL
36
39
10.65
12
CH
42
50
13.65
72
10
CL
28
28
7.65
10
0
10
10
CL
47
47
12.84
73
CL
22
21
5.74
CL
27
24
6.56
74
CL
27
26
7.10
1
10
2
10
10
CL
23
22
6.01
75
CL
30
28
7.65
12
CH
34
36
9.83
76
12
CL
30
36
9.83
3
10
4
10
CL
31
29
7.92
Sit
e
No.
59
Depths(m
)
(N1)6
USCS
classificatio
n
CH
(N1)6
12
USCS
classificatio
n
CL
60
CL
14
CL
61
90
62
5.19
91
39
10.65
34
33
CL
20
CH
67
68
6.83
2046

0
Ks
(MN/m3)
Es(MN/m2
)
Site
No
Depths(m
)
18
22
6.01
15
20
5.46
10
6
10
CL
36
37
10.11
10
CL
20
25
6.83
81
CL
19
23
6.28
82
CL
20
22
6.01
83
10
CL
42
33
9.01
84
12
CL
21
26
7.10
85
12
CL
32
31
8.47
86
CL
32
34
9.29
87
10
CL
43
47
12.84
Sit
e
No.
77
Depths(m
)
(N1)6
USCS
classificatio
n
CL
78
10
CL
79
12
80
Es(MN/m2
)
25
Ks
(MN/m3
)23
38
27
7.38
CL
49
43
11.74
CL
48
42
11.47
9
11
0
11
CL
38
43
11.74
CL
46
39
10.65
1
11
2
11
CL
37
40
10.92
CL
48
41
11.20
3
11
4
11
CL
22
27
7.38
10
CL
22
26
7.10
5
11
6
CL
43
35
9.56
(N1)6
USCS
classificatio
n
CL
CH
7
10
8
10
6.28
Appendix I: In situ soil characteristics of Qazvin alluvium(continue)

0
Ks
(MN/m3)
Es(MN/m2
)
Site
No
Depths(m
)
38
42
11.47
45
42
11.47
14
6
14
CH
41
39
10.65
CH
39
43
11.74
0
12
1
12
CL
23
26
7.10
10
CL
47
42
11.47
2
12
3
12
10
CL
47
48
13.11
14
CL
25
23
6.28
4
12
5
12
15
CL
47
41
11.20
CH
39
36
9.83
6
12
7
12
CL
41
31
8.47
12
CL
40
33
9.01
8
12
9
13
12
CL
42
32
8.74
14
CH
22
23
6.28
0
13
1
13
10
CH
41
31
8.47
10
CL
27
24
6.56
2
13
3
13
CL
24
29
7.92
10
CL
39
39
10.65
4
13
5
13
12
CL
41
43
11.74
CL
18
22
6.01
6
13
7
13
10
CL
26
24
6.56
CL
20
22
6.01
8
13
9
14
CL
16
16
4.37
CL
21
23
6.28
0
14
1
14
CL
11
15
4.10
CL
17
17
2
14
3
14
CL
30
10
CL
4
14
5
CL
Site
No.
Depths(m
)
11
7
11
Es(MN/m2
)
31
Ks
(MN/m3
)30
26
29
7.92
CL
17
21
5.74
CL
16
19
5.19
9
15
0
15
CL
28
27
7.38
CL
17
20
5.46
1
15
2
15
CL
16
20
5.46
CL
30
29
7.92
3
15
4
15
CH
31
29
7.92
33
31
8.47
5
15
6
15
CL
48
50
13.65
CL
14
17
4.65
7
15
8
15
CL
39
36
9.83
CL
18
17
4.65
9
16
0
16
CL
40
40
10.92
CL
41
40
10.92
1
16
2
16
CL
40
43
11.74
CL
15
16
4.37
3
16
4
16
CL
16
16
4.37
CL
14
14
3.83
5
16
6
16
CL
14
15
4.10
CL
30
29
7.92
7
16
8
16
CL
30
27
7.38
CL
27
26
7.10
CL
28
26
7.10
4.65
9
17
0
17
CL
13
14
3.83
28
7.65
29
27
7.38
32
26
7.10
(N1)6
USCS
classificatio
n
CL
CL
8
11
9
12
(N1)6
USCS
classificatio
n
CL
CL
7
14
8
14
CL
8.19

Subgrade Reaction Modulus (KS) of Clayey Soils

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subgrade Reaction Modulus (KS) of Clayey Soils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021

Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol.8, No.1, Spring 2014