GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

Experimental Evaluation of the Subgrade

Reaction and Soil Modulus Profiles for Granular
Backfills
M. GadElRab Hussein, Graduate Student
Department of Civil Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt
Current Visiting Research at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT
In this study, five different backfill materials of known relative densities have been prepared in a large scale testing
facility. Plate-load tests have been conducted to asses the effect of soil density on the subgrade reaction and soil
modulii. The relationship between the applied pressure and the corresponding soil movement has been established at
the surface as well as at different depths. The modulus of subgrade reaction is determined based on the measured
stress-settlement relationship at the surface whereas the Young’s modulus profile has been established using the
measured soil displacements at different depths. A comparison between the measured soil modulus and subgrade
reaction and those reported in the literature is presented.

RÉSUMÉ
Cinq matériaux de remblayages différents, donc la densité relative est connue, sont préparés dans un circuit d’essai à
grande échelle. Des essais de chargement à la plaque sont effectués pour déterminer l’effet de la densité du sol sur la
réaction de la sous-fondation ainsi que le module du sol. Le rapport entre la contrainte appliquée et les mouvements du
sol sont établis en surface et en profondeur. Le module de la sous-fondation est déterminé en surface en considérant la
relation contrainte-tassement établi. Le profile du module de Young est établi en évaluant les tassements à différentes
profondeurs. Une comparaison des modules du sol et de la sous-fondation obtenu par cette étude et ceux rapportés
dans la littérature est aussi présentée.

1 INTRODUCTION related the modulus of subgrade reaction to the California

Bearing Ratio “C.B.R.”.
The ground response to loading imposed by different Field methods are increasingly used to determine the
foundation systems is known to be a complex soil- soil strength parameters. They have been found to be
structure interaction problem. Reliable estimates of the more reliable than the ones obtained from laboratory tests
soil modulus or subgrade reaction modulus are generally (Bowls 1988, Das 1998, and Murthy 2006).
needed for structural design purposes. Bending Most methods use the data from the standard
moments, shear forces, and deflections can only be penetration test “S.P.T.” or the cone penetration test
computed if these soil reaction values are available to the “C.P.T.” and/or the plate-load test “P.L.T.”. Also, there are
designer (Ulrich et al., 1988). methods that use the results of the pressure-meter test
Structural loading causes stresses to increase in the “P.M.T.”. Scott (1981) proposed that the modulus of
subsurface soil layers and settlement of the supported subgrade reaction for sandy soils, k0.30, can be estimated
structure. The magnitude of elastic settlement depends from the standard penetration test data. D’Appolonia
directly on the values of the elastic parameters (Young's (1970) suggested equations for estimating Young’s
modulus, Es, and Poisson's ratio, νs), (Holtz, 1991). modulus for pre-loaded and normally loaded sands using
There are several methods to determine the modulus S.P.T. results. Other correlations between the modulus of
of subgrade reaction, ks, and Young’s modulus, Es. One elasticity and the standard penetration test results were
way of determining Es is to conduct a laboratory triaxial or investigated along with some other factors “Overburden
unconfined compression tests on representative pressure, depth of footing and over consolidation ratio”;
undisturbed samples extracted from the depths required (Schultze and Melzer 1965, Schultze and Sherif 1973,
(Murthy 2002). Triaxial experimental evidence (Hanna Bowles 1988, U.S. Corps Engineers 1990, Kulhawy and
and Adams 1968, Soderman 1968, Leonards and Mayne 1990).
Bozozuk, 1972) suggests a common approximation for To overcome the problem of sample disturbance in
the ratio of Es/(σ1-σ3) ranging between 250 to 500. laboratory tests, the field plate-load tests are sometimes
Since it is practically impossible to obtain undisturbed conducted for specific projects. The Transport and Road
sample of cohesionless soils, the laboratory methods of Research Laboratory (1952) suggested an equation to
obtaining Es can be ruled out. determine the modulus of subgrade reaction using the
Several investigators suggested analytical plate-load test data corresponding to a settlement of 0.05
approximations to determine the modulus of subgrade inch.
reaction using the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ration Terzaghi (1955) proposed that ks could be obtained
(Biot 1937, Hogg 1938, Vesic 1961, Barden 1963, Vlasov for full-sized footings from plate-load tests and provided a
and Leontiev 1966). Young (1960) used the consolidation set of equations applicable to different types of soil based
test data to obtain the modulus of subgrade reaction. on the footing shape and size. Singh (1967) suggested
Other researchers (Nascimento and Simoes 1957, that the bearing plate at the plate-load test should be
2 2
Recordon 1957, Black 1961, Brata 1967, Singh 1967) loaded up to 0.70 kg/cm (10 Ib/in ) within 10 seconds

1127
 GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

and the pressure is held until there is no increase of

settlement (or the rate of increase in settlement becomes
less than 0.05 mm/min). Then the average settlement (δ)
2
of the plate is measured corresponding to (10 lb/in ) and
ks is consequently calculated. The value of modulus of
subgrade reaction is commonly based on the secant
modulus at the maximum working stress (Henry, 1985).
Lin et al., (1998) conducted series of plate-load tests to
investigate the load-settlement characteristics of a
gravelly cobble deposit and estimates the modulus of
subgrade reaction.
In this study, a series of plate-load tests has been
Backfill material
conducted in a large scale testing facility that has been
designed and built to allow for the load-displacement
relationships to be measured at different depths within the
backfill material. The measured responses are then used
to determine the modulus of subgrade reaction and
Young’s modulus for different granular backfill materials.

2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

The large scale setup used throughout this experimental

study consisted mainly of the following components:
• Loading frame [4 m x 4 m x 3.5 m]
• Square rigid box to contain the tested material as Figure 1. Schematic of the testing facility
shown in Figure (1).
• Pressure gauges.
• Dial gauges with pipes and rod extensions to measure
settlement at different depths.
• Rigid circular plate.
• The applied load was located at the center of the tank at
a distance of 1.73 m (in x and y directions) from the
rigid boundaries. This minimizes the effect of the rigid
boundary of the test tank on the recorded results.
The backfill materials have been prepared as follow:
• Fine sand; 0.06 mm to 0.20 mm; [FS].
• Graded sand; 0.06 mm to 2.00 mm; [GS].
• Crushed stone + sand [ratio 1:1]; 0.06 mm to 40 mm;
[CSS1].
• Crushed stone + sand [ratio 2:1]; 0.06 mm to 40 mm;
[CSS2].
• Crushed stone; 2 mm to 40 mm; [CS]. Figure 2. Setup of pipes and steel rods

The open box was filled with the backfill material and In addition, a total of 20 dial gauges were placed such
compacted in layers to reach the desired density. To that the vertical movement is measured at distances
allow for the settlement to be measured at the surface as 0.25B, 0.50B, 0.75B, B, and 1.25B from the edge of plate
well as at different vertical and horizontal locations as shown in Figure (2).
[0.25B, 0.50B, 0.75B, B, 1.25B] as shown in Figure (2), a The steel rods (10 mm in diameter with 22 mm head
system that consists of steel plates embedded at the diameter) moves freely inside the steel pipe (32 mm in
selected locations and connected to steel rods that diameter) as shown in Figure (3).
extend to the ground surface has been used. The steel
rods were placed inside steel pipes lined with Teflon layer In the present study a rigid circular plate manufactured
to minimize friction. Four dial gauges were used to and machined according to the ASTM standards with the
directly measure surface settlement. following properties was used:
• Plate diameter: 305 mm,
• Plate thickness: 32 mm, and
• Plate weight: 14.5 kg.

The load has been applied using a steel frame which was
fixed to the ground. The load was measured using a
pressure gauge connected to a hydraulic jack.

1128
 GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

Table 1. Load increments used in plate-load tests

Pressure (bar) Load (kN) Soil pressure (kN/m2)
2.50 4.160 58.90
5.00 8.330 117.8
7.50 12.50 176.8
10.0 16.66 235.6
12.5 20.83 294.5
15.0 24.99 353.4
20.0 33.33 471.2
22.5 37.49 530.1

Figure 3. Details of steel pipes and steel rods

3 TEST PROCEDURE

During the plate-loading tests, the following procedure

was adopted:
• The granular soil was placed and compacted in layers
of 7.5 cm each.
• The unit weight of each layer was determined using
sand cone test.
• Standard Proctor tests have been done on different Figure 4.Grain size distribution for the five tested samples
samples.
• Twenty steel pipes containing steel rods were placed at
different depths as mentioned above.
• The steel plate (305 mm plate diameter) was placed on
the prepared surface.
• The hydraulic jack was placed over the steel plate.
• Twenty dial gauges were placed on the heads of the
steel rods using magnetic arms.
• Four dial gauges were placed on the plate surface.
• The initial readings were recorded for all dial gauges.
• The load was applied using steel frame which loaded by
kentledge. Each load was maintained constant until the
settlement rate reached 0.02 mm/min and maintained
no less than one hour.
• Loads were applied in increments as presented in Table
(1).

4 TEST RESULTS

The plate-load tests were carried out on the above

mentioned soils. The sieve analysis and the standard
proctor tests were also carried out for these types of soils,
and the results are shown in Figures (4) and (5), Figure 5. Proctor test results for the five tested samples
respectively. The settlement was measured at the surface
and at different depths [0.25B, 0.5B, 0.75B, B, 1.5B] 4.1 Determination of the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
along the center line of the plate.
The modulus of subgrade reaction, ks, was determined
using two different methods based on the stress-
settlement relationship. The first method was proposed by

1129
 GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

Lin et al. (1998) based on the ultimate bearing capacity of

the soil such that:

Where,
3
ks = Modulus of subgrade reaction, kN/m
2
qa = Allowable bearing capacity, kN/m
δa = Allowable settlement corresponding to (q = qa), m.

The allowable bearing capacity can be determine by

dividing the ultimate bearing capacity by a factor of safety
of three.
The ultimate bearing capacities of the tested soils
were determined from the relationships between the
applied stress and the measured settlement as shown in
Figure (6). This method was implemented for the five
tested soils.

Figure 7. Relationship between subgrade reaction modulus and

relative density using Lin et al. (1998)

Figure 6. Relationship between stress and settlement at the

surface for fine sand backfill with relative density of 80.20%

The relationships between the relative density and the

modulus of subgrade reaction for the five tested granular
soils are shown in Figure (7). From this figure it can be
seen that the modulus of subgrade reaction increases
with increasing the relative density of the soil. Also, the
modulus of subgrade reaction for the crushed stone is
greater than that of the sand material.

The second method used to determine the modulus of Figure 8. Relationship between subgrade reaction modulus and
subgrade reaction was based on the range of applied relative density
load for each stress level and finding the corresponding
displacement. The obtained relationship between the 4.2 Determination of Young’s Modulus (Es)
relative density and the modulus of subgrade reaction for
fine sand is shown in Figure (8). In order to determine the Young’s modulus at the surface
as well as at different depths (0.25B, 0.50B, 0.75B, B,
1.50B), the British Standard (B.S. 5930, 1999) method
was adopted assuming a uniformly loaded rigid plate on a
semi-infinite elastic isotropic solid. The relationship is
expressed by:

1130
 GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

Where, Young’s Modulus generally increased with increasing the

2
Es = Young’s modulus, kN/m soil relative density as shown in Figure (11). However the
B = Plate width, m Young’s modulus of the crushed stone was found to be
δ = Settlement under applied pressure, m greeter than that of the sand material.
2
q = Applied pressure between plate and soil, kN/m
νs = Poisson’s ratio
The average Young's modulus was determined at the
surface as well as at different depths under different
2
applied stresses that range between 58.9 kN/m and
2
530.1 kN/m . The relationships between the stress and
Young's modulus for fine sand at the surface as well as at
depth (B) below the surface are shown in Figures (9) and
(10). This relationships figured out that the soil modulus
increases with depth for granular material.

At surface

Figure 11. Relationship between Young’s modulus and relative

density

The variation of Young’s modulus with depth is presented

in Figure (12). The figure shows that Young’s modulus
increases with depth for granular soils and the
percentage of the modulus at the surface is around 25%
of that at a depth (B) below the surface.

Figure 9. The changes in Young’s modulus for different stress

levels

At depth (B)

Figure 12. Relationship between Young’s modulus and depth for

crushed stone + sand 1:1 (CSS1) under different relative
densities

The available values for the modulus of subgrade

reaction are generally for sand material. Little data are
Figure 10. The changes in Young’s modulus for different stress available for gravely soils. Thus, in the present study a
levels comparison between the values of the modulus of

1131
 GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

subgrade reaction for sand which obtained by the two of the modulus of subgrade reaction are lower than the
methods and the values reported in the literature values reported in the literature.
(Terzaghi 1955, Indian Standards, 1979, Bowles, 1988
and Das, 1998) are compared in Figures (13) and (14). Figures (15) through (17) show the variation of Young’s
modulus with depth up to a depth of 1.5B (B = diameter or
width of foundation) for the five tested granular soils
under different relative densities (Dr = 25%, 50%, 70%)
respectively. From these relationships it can be
concluded that soil modulus generally increase with depth
at a rate that depends on the compaction degree. Also
the modulus for course soils is greater than that for fine
material.

Figure 13. Comparison between the obtained modulus of

subgrade reaction for fine sand and the literature values

Figure 15. Comparison of the variation of Young’s modulus with

depth for the five tested soils under relative density of 25%

Figure 14. Comparison between the obtained modulus of

subgrade reaction for graded sand and the literature values
Figure 16. Comparison of the variation of Young’s modulus with
These figures show an agreement between the obtained depth for the five tested soils under relative density of 50%
modulus of subgrade reaction for fine and graded sand
and the available values in the literature for loose and
medium dense sand (up to 65 % relative density).
However, in the case of dense sand the obtained values

1132
 GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

• The Young's modulus increases with increasing the

relative density of the granular soil.
• The Young's modulus of crushed stone is greater than
the Young's modulus for crushed stone-sand mix.
• The Young's modulus generally increases with depth
for the all examined granular material.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wants to express his deepest gratitude to Prof.

M. Kassem El-Samny, Professor of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering at Al-Azhar University in Egypt,
for his scientific supervision, endless support, and his
encouragement during the tasks of the present work.
Also, the contribution of Prof. M. A. Meguid, Professor of
Geotechnical Engineering at McGill University, during the
preparation and revision of this article is highly
appreciated. The funding of this work from Al-Azhar
University in Egypt is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Figure 17. Comparison of the variation of Young’s modulus with
depth for the five tested soils under relative density of 75% ASTM, 1997. Standard test method for nonrepetitive
static plate load tests of soils and flexible pavement
Figure (18) shows that the obtained Young's modulus components, for use in evaluation and design of
values for fine and graded sand are lower than the values airport and highway pavements. ASTM D1196-93,
reported in the literature for all examined densities. Conshohocken, PA.
Barden, L. 1963. The Winkler model and its application to
soil. Structural Engineer, 41: 279 – 280.
Biot, M. A. 1937. Bending of infinite beams on an elastic
foundation. J. Appl. Mech. Trans. Am. Soc. Mech.
Eng., 59:A1–A7.
Black WPM 1961. The calculation of laboratory and in-
situ values of California bearing ratio from bearing
capacity data. Geotechnique, 11(1):14–21.
th
Bowles, J. E. 1988. Foundation analysis and design, 4
edition, Mc Graw-Hill Inc., New York.
Bozozuk, M., and Leonards, G.A. 1972. The Gloucester
test fill. In Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty
Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-
Supported Structures, Purdue University, ASCE, 1(1):
299-317.
British Standards Institute (1999). BS 5930:1999 Code of
practice for site investigations. British Standards
Institute (BSI), UK.
Converse, F. J. 1962. Foundations subjected to dynamic
forces, in Foundation engineering, edited by G. A.
Leonards, McGraw-Hill, 769-825.
th
Das, B. M. 1998. Principles of foundation engineering, 4
edition, PWS publishing company, Boston.
D’Appolonia, D. J., and D’Appolonia, E. 1970. Use of SPT
Figure 18. Comparison between the obtained Young’s modulus to estimate settlement of footings on sand. Proc.,
for sand and the literature values Symposium of Foundation Interbedded Sands,
Division of Applied Geomechanics, Commonwealth
5 CONCLUSIONS Scientific and Industrial Research Organization,
Australia and Western Australia of the Australian
From the present study the following conclusions are Geomechanics Society, Perth, 16–22.
drawn: Department of the Environment Transport and Road
• The modulus of subgrade reaction increases with Research Laboratory 1952. Soil mechanics for road
increasing the relative density of the soil. engineers, HMSO, London. Road
• For crushed stone the modulus of subgrade reaction Florida standard method of test, 2000. Florida method of
is greater than that for the 2:1 mix of crushed stone test for nonrepetitive static plate-load test of soils and
and sand. flexible pavement components. AASHTO, T-222-78.

1133
 GeoHalifax2009/GéoHalifax2009

Hanna, T. H., and Adams, J. I. 1968. Comparison of field Schultze, E and K. J. Melzer 1965. The determination of
and laboratory measurements of modulus of the density and the modulus of compressibility of non-
deformation of a clay. Highway Research Record, cohesive soils by soundings. In Proceedings of the
243: 12-22. Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Henry, F. D. C. 1968. The design and construction of Foundation Engineering, 1, Montreal, 354.
engineering foundations. Chapman and Hall, Schultze, E., and Sherif, G. 1973. Prediction of
London. settlements from evaluated settlement observations
Hogg, A. H. A. 1938. Equilibrium of a thin plate, for sand. Proc., 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and
symmetrically loaded, resting on an elastic foundation Foundation Engineering, 1(3): 225-230.
of infinite depth. London, Edinburgh and Dublin, Scott, R. F. 1981. Foundation analysis, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Philosophical Magazine and journal of Science, Singh, A. (1967). Soil engineering in theory and practice,
25:168. by Asia publishing house.
Holtz, R. D. 1991. Stress distribution and settlement of
shallow foundations. Chapter (5), Foundation
engineering handbook, Edited by Fang, H. Y.,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Hussein, M. G. 2004. Evaluation of some elastic
properties of cohesionless soils, M.Sc. thesis
submitted to Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Indian Standards code of practice IS: 9214-1979. Method
of Determination of Modulus of Subgrade reaction (K-
Value) of soils in field
Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. 1990. Manual on
estimating soil properties for foundation design.
Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Inst., Palo
Alto, 306 p.
Lin, P. S., Yang, L. W., and Juang, C. H. 1998. Subgrade
reaction and load-settlement characteristics of
gravelly cobble deposits by plate-load tests, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 35: 801-810.
Soderman, L. G., et al. 1968. Field and laboratory studies
of modulus of elasticity of a clay till. Highway
Research Board, HRR No. 243: 1-11.
Terzaghi, K. 1955. Evaluation of coefficient of subgrade
reaction, Geotechnique, 5(4): 297- 326.
U.S. Army Corps Engineers Manual 1988. Site
investigation, TM 5-809-1/AFM 88-3, Chapter
15(Publications).
Ulrich, E. J. 1988. Suggested analysis and design
procedures for combined footings and mats, ACI
Structural Journal, 85(3): 304-324.
Vesic, A. B. 1961. Beams on elastic subgrade and
th
Winkler’s hypothesis. Proc. 5 Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris:845-
850.
Vlasov, V. Z and Leontiev, N. N. 1966. Beams, plates and
shells on elastic foundation. Israel Program of
Scientific Translations, NTIS N67-14238.
Murthy, V.N.S. 2002. Geotechnical engineering:
principles and practices of soil mechanics and
foundation engineering. Marcel Dekker Inc., New
York.
Nascimento, V. and Simoe A. 1957. Relation between
C.B.R. and Modulus of Strength. Proc. 4th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
London: 166-168.
Recordon E. 1957. Determination of soil characteristics
necessary for foundation calculations on elastic soils.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
London, 1: 414–418.

1134