AEI 2015 638

Validation of Using Modulus of Subgrade Reaction to Consider the Soil

Structure Interaction

Hany Farouk1 and Mohammed Farouk 2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
Founder and Coordinator, Soil-Structure Interaction Group in Egypt (SSIGE), Non-
Profit Organization, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Chairman of EHE Consulting Group, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt; and Ajman, UAE. E-
mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper presents the effect of the soil structure interaction on the modulus of
subgrade reaction. Many of the structural designers represent the footings as a hinged
support in the structural models, while the other designers represent the footings as a
group of springs with spring coefficient K (kN/m). Designers assumed this modulus
by different equations that are not considering the soil structure interaction. This
paper showed that the soil structure interaction has a significant effect on the modulus
of subgrade reaction. The subgrade reaction modulus is not uniformly distributed
under the footings. Using the soil structure interaction in the calculation of the normal
forces in columns results in a relatively change. Plane two-bay frames and two-bay by
two-bay frames were studied using geotechnical and structural, 2D and 3D finite
element programs. It is investigated for the plane frames that the normal force in the
inner wall is decreased and it is increased for the outer walls. For the three
dimensional frames, the inner column’s normal force is decreased and the edge
column’s normal force is increased with the same normal force in the corner walls.
For the complex structural systems, the distribution cannot be estimated, so that the
use of geotechnical finite element programs can consider the soil, foundation, and
superstructure interaction, which is highly recommended for the practical and
researcher engineers.

INTRODUCTION

The development of modern cities within large urban areas with limited
surface space, has led to an in-crease in the rate of construction of high rise buildings
with complex architectural design. The foundation of such complex buildings
presents a geotechnical challenge where the soil structure interaction plays an
important role to achieve the most economical design that satisfies all safety and
serviceability requirements. The cooperation between both geotechnical and structural
engineers is necessary to reach a successful design. The subgrade reaction modulus
"ks" can be considered as an appropriate interface between the geotechnical and

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 639

structural engineers. It is well known that the subgrade reaction modulus is not a soil
constant, but it depends on many factors such as the dimensions of footings, soil
conditions, load levels, and superstructure rigidity. There are different ways to
calculate the modulus of the subgrade reaction. These ways are mainly based on the
Winkler model.

Winkler Model (1867). Winkler had introduced this model, so subgrade

reaction model is well known as Winkler model. The model assumes that the soil acts
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as a bed of evenly spaced, independent, linear springs, as shown in Figure (1). It also
assumes that each spring deforms in response to the vertical stress applied directly to
that spring, and does not transmit any shear stress to the adjacent springs, however, in
real soils the displacement distribution is continuous. The deflection under a load can
occur beyond the edge of the slab and the deflection diminished at some finite
distance.

Figure (1). The soil as infinite number of springs

The elastic constant of the springs K (kN/m) is taken equal to the area of
coefficient of subgrade of the soil ks (kN/m2/m). The springs assumed to resist both
compression and tension. The intensity of soil reaction and the vertical deflection of a
raft or foundation beams at every point are related by the following equation:

Pi = K * yi …………………. (1)
Where:
Pi = intensity of soil reaction at point (i)
K = spring’s coefficient
yi = vertical deflection at point (i)

Filonenko-Borodich Model (1940). This model is a modification for Winkler

model. In addition to the vertical springs, the model includes a stretched elastic
membrane that connects the top of the springs and it is subjected to a constant tension
field (T). The tension membrane allows for interaction between adjacent spring
elements as shown in Figure (2).

Tension

Figure (2). Filonenko-Borodich foundation model

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 640

Hetenyi Foundation (1946, 1950). Hetenyi suggested another modification

on the Winkler model. Hetenyi proposed that the interaction between the independent
spring elements accomplished by embedding in the two-dimensional case an elastic
beam and in the three-dimensional case a plate in the material of the Winkler
foundation. He assumed that the beam or plate deforms only in bending.

Pasternak (1954). Pasternak suggested another foundation model to improve

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Winkler model. Pasternak considered the shear interactions between the spring
elements of Winkler foundation by connecting the ends of the springs with a beam or
plate consisting of incompressible vertical elements, which are deformed only by
transverse shear, as shown in Figure (3).

Shear Layer

Figure (3). Pasternak foundation model

Vlasov Model (1966). There is no value can be adopted for ks from the
previous modification models. Vlasov and Leont'ev (1966), Figure (4), tried to use a
new mathematical approach to solve the above problem. They developed a two-
parameter model for plates on elastic foundations using a variational method. This
method accounted for the neglected shear strain within the soil continuum. Vlasov
and Leont'ev introduced another parameter, γ, to characterize the vertical deformation
profile within the soil continuum. Vlasov and Leont'ev assumed a displacement
pattern of the soil medium by using an arbitrary value of, γ. The model is provided for
the effects of the neglected shear strain energy in the soil and the subsequent shear
forces on the plate edges are because of the soil displacement.

Figure (4). Vlasov foundation model

Modified Vlasov Model (1987). Vallabhan and Das (1987) developed an

iterative method for the calculation of the γ parameter for beams on an elastic
foundation. They developed all parameters that influence the values of ks and t. For

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 641

uniformly distributed loads, they found that the value of γ is also dependent on the
ratio between the depth of the soil and the length of the beam. They called their
model a modified Vlasov model. All these parameters depended on the material
properties of the soil, soil structure, geometry of the structure, depth of the stratum,
and the distribution of the loading on the plate. They used the finite-difference
method for the calculation. Straughan (1990) applied the modified Vlasov model to
the analysis of rectangular slabs on elastic foundations. He used the finite-difference
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

technique to solve the field equation for several loading cases. Recent works by
Vallabhan and Das (1987, 1988, and 1989) strengthened the Vlasov postulation for
beams on elastic foundations, but stopped short of developing computational
techniques for plates.

DIFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

Due to the mathematical complexity, the improved soil models are less
attractive than the Winkler model. Some practical designers whom consider the soil
structure interaction in the structural design are still using the Winkler model to
represent the soil. The Winkler model does not transmit any shear stress outside the
footing. This was the main disadvantage for this model as stated in many references.
In our opinion, there are some other factors that affect the modulus of subgrade
reaction. Some of these factors were discussed before by the authors in other
researches such as: the foundation width, the foundation thickness, the type of soil. It
was proved that, the subgrade reaction modulus (ks) is not a soil constant and not
uniformly distributed under the footing. The distribution of the modulus is mainly
based on the foundation thickness and width, i.e. foundation rigidity. If the footing is
flexible, the subgrade is concentrated under the columns and low at edges. If the
footing is rigid, the modulus is concentrated near edges and low under the columns.
Therefore, using of an average value of the subgrade affects the resulted bending
moment on the footings. Sometimes, the practical engineers use the plate loading test
to find the average value for the subgrade modulus and they correct the result by the
width factor only. It was proved by authors that, the plate materials and dimensions
have a significant effect on the plate rigidity factor that affects the test results. The
authors preferred to use a new modification factor for the subgrade reaction to
consider the foundation rigidity. It can be done by using the numerical analysis in the
calculation of the subgrade modulus with soil models that can consider the soil
plasticity. The numerical analysis can be performed using a geotechnical finite
element program that can model the footing with the underlying soil.

In this paper, the effect of the superstructure rigidity on the modulus of

subgrade reaction is investigated. In addition, the difference between considering and
neglecting the soil structure interaction on the analysis of superstructure is also
investigated. Two frame-soil systems using 2D and 3D geotechnical and structural
finite element programs are modeled.

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 642

ANALYSES & DISCUSSIONS

Two frame-soil models are studied. Model one is modeled using the 2D
geotechnical and structural finite element programs, while Model two is modeled
using the 3D geotechnical and structural finite element programs.

Two-Dimensional Analyses. Model one is a plane two-bay concrete frame.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The frame has bay span of 10.00 meters and 7.00 meters height. The inner footing is
4.00 meters breadth and 1.00 meter thickness, and the outer footings are 2.00 meters
breadth and 1.00-meter thickness. The foundation level is assumed at the ground
surface with no embedment depth to neglect the effect of the embedment depth on the
results. The outer and inner walls are 0.45 meters thickness. Rotations of the walls are
permitted at foundation level. The slab has thickness of 0.60 meters with applied
distributed load of 40.0 kPa. Self-weights of walls and slabs are neglected. The soil is
sand with Young’s modulus (Es) of 20.0 MPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.3, and the soil’s
unit weight is 18.0 kN/m3. The frame is modelled using the geotechnical finite
element program PLAXIS 2D-AE with modelling the soil by the linear elastic model,
as shown in Figure (5-a). The frame also modelled using the structural finite element
program SAP2000 by representing the footings as hinged supports, as shown in
Figure (5-b). These two representations are to show the effect of the soil structure
interaction on the resulted normal forces in the frame walls. The normal forces in
walls influence the resulted bending moment on frame slabs. It also affects the design
of the foundations.

The normal forces (NF) in outer and inner walls are determined from PLAXIS
and SAP2000 models. Table (1) illustrates values of normal forces (NF) for the
corner and inner walls resulted from the two programs. Difference ratio (∆) is
depicted for the normal forces, (∆ = 100 – (NFSAP /NFPLAXIS *100)). It is the
difference between considering and neglecting the soil structure interaction in the
analysis of the superstructure members.

It is investigated that the soil structure interaction leads to increase the normal
forces in the outer walls and decrease that in the inner wall. Therefore, the resulted
settlement under the outer walls should be increased and the inner settlement should
be decreased. Hence, the differential settlement is decreased without any additional
members; i.e. tie beams that connect the footings. We can say that, the soil structure
interaction affects the superstructure and the geotechnical analyses. The distributions
of the subgrade modulus are shown in Figure (6- a, b).

The distributions of the modulus of subgrade reactions are concentrated at

edges and low at footing center. These are the resulted modulus of the subgrade
reactions with considering of the superstructure rigidity. In the more advanced soil
models, the concentration at edges should be released to inside the footings due to the
soil plasticity. The resulted distributions for the inner and outer footings are different.
The values also are different for the two footings. Therefore, the superstructure

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 643

affects also the distribution and the values of the modulus of subgrade reactions (ks)
under the inner and outer footings.

The use of plate loading test results a uniformly distributed and unique value
for the modulus of subgrade reactions under the footings. The value that is resulted
from the test is then corrected by the width and rigidity factors. The factors are based
on the footings widths and thicknesses. The footings dimensions are calculated using
the applied forces from the walls. The applied forces in the walls mainly depend on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the soil structure interaction as showed before. The soil structure interaction cannot be
correctly performed, because the subgrade modulus that is resulted from the plate
loading test is not corrected until the superstructure and the foundations are designed.
This circulation is the main factor that makes some practical designers to neglect the
soil structure interaction. The circulation can be stopped by using a modification
factor for the plate loading test by using a finite element geotechnical program that
can model the superstructures, foundations, and the underlying soils.

(a) PLAXIS 2D

(b) SAP 2000

Figure (5). Model One

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 644

Table 1. Values of normal forces in walls (NF) and the percentage of difference
(∆ %).

Wall NF by PLAXIS NF by SAP2000 ∆%

Outer 195.44 kN/m 148.50 kN/m +31.60

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Inner 409.12 kN/m 503.00 kN/m -18.70

(a) Inner Footings

(b) Outer Footings

Figure (6) Distribution of the Subgrade Reaction Modulus

A new advanced design procedure is suggested and could be used for the
special projects to consider the superstructure rigidity in the geotechnical analysis.
The procedure is as the following:
1- The geotechnical engineers should present a preliminary modulus of
subgrade using the plate loading tests after the modifications.
2- The structural engineers should finish the preliminary design based on
the ks suggested in the geotechnical report.
3- The preliminary structural design should be returned to the
geotechnical engineers.

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 645

4- A soil structure interaction specialized engineer should model the

superstructure with the underlying soil using an appropriate
geotechnical finite element program to recheck the new group of
contact stresses and settlements under the foundations, and to find a
new group for the average subgrade modulus (ks).
5- The structural engineers should finalize the superstructure and
foundation design based on the new group of ks.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Three-Dimensional Analyses. Analyses are carried out on a space frame (2-

bay by 2-bay) - foundation- soil system of one-story building by using PLAXIS 3D
2013. The frame-foundation-soil model is shown in Figure 7. It is assumed that, the
isolated footings are placed on sand medium with 1-meter embedment depth. The
sand properties are as follows: the soil unit weight is 18 kN/m3, modulus of elasticity
is 20 MPa, and poison’s ratio is 0.30. The soil is modeled as Mohr-Coulomb soil
model with shear parameters Φ of 33o and C of 1.0 kN/m2. The slab is flat without
marginal beams. Slab has different thicknesses; 0.35, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 meters.
These thicknesses are modeled to represent different structural rigidities’ coefficients.
The properties for all members of the concrete frame are as follows: unit weight of
25.0 kN/m3, Young’s modulus is 2.1107 kN/m2, and Poisson’s ratio is 0.15. Self-
weight of slab is neglected. Each thickness of the slab is loaded by different
distributed loads; 10, 30, and 60 kN/m2. Different loading levels are to provide the
effect of increasing loads on the maximum settlement, average contact stresses, and
the corresponding average subgrade modulus. Columns dimensions are 0.400.40 m2
with 7 meters height. All footings have the same thickness of 1 meter. The
dimensions of the inner footing are 44 m2, and the edge and corner footings are 33
m2 and 22 m2, respectively. The 1-meter soil depth around the footings is
deactivated during the calculation phase. The columns are permitted to rotate at the
foundation level. The slab permitted to transfer bending moments to the columns in
the two directions. There are no tie beams connecting the foundations, because the
long span between footings and to study the structural effects only.

The rigidity of structures is usually between perfectly flexible and

perfectly rigid. Potts and Addenbrooke (1997) defined relative bending rigidity ρ* of
a building as:

………… (2)

Where H is the half width of the building in the plane of deformation and EI is
the bending rigidity of the structure. EI can be calculated using the following
Equation.

………. (3)

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 646

Figure (8) shows the relation between the rigidity factor and the resulted average
spring’s coefficients.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure (7). Two-bay by two-bay frame-foundation-soil model

Figure (8). Effect of superstructure rigidity on the subgrade

It can be seen that, the superstructure has a significant effect on the subgrade
modulus under the inner and corner footings and has no effect on the modulus under
external footings. In addition, the applied load levels affect the resulted values of the
average subgrade modulus. The footings dimensions are the same for the different
load levels and for the different structural rigidities. Nevertheless, the subgrade

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 647

modulus is not constant under the footings at the same load level. This is the result of
the superstructure rigidity effect.

The frame is now modeled using a commercial structural finite element

program SAFE V12. The same properties, sections, and loads are defined, as shown
in Figure (9). Usually for such small buildings, the designers represented the footings
as hinged supports to the columns.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure (9). SAFE V12 frame model

The resulted normal forces (NF) in the columns from PLAXIS and SAFE are
collected and presented in Figure (10) for the load level of 10.00 kPa. It can be seen
that the inner column is significantly affected. The corner columns also are affected
and the edge columns approximately are not affected.

Figure (10). Effect of superstructure rigidity on the subgrade

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 648

To qualify the suggested design procedure, the average spring’s coefficients

(K) depicted from PLAXIS are used to model the footings using SAFE for the
applied load level of 10.00 kPa. Figure (11) shows the relation between ρ* and the
normal forces in walls resulted using structural and geotechnical finite elements
programs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure (11). Validation of the suggested procedure for the cooperation between
the geotechnical and structural engineers

The resulted normal forces in walls from considering soil structure interaction
by SAFE and PLAXIS are closed to other. There are small differences because of
using an average value for the subgrade modulus in the structural program.

CONCLUSIONS

1- Increasing the superstructure rigidity decreases the differential

settlement.
2- Increasing the superstructure rigidity increases the average contact
stresses under corner footings and decreases the average contact
stresses under inner footings.
3- For the 2-bay by 2-bay frames, the edge columns are not affected by
the increase of superstructure rigidity.
4- Neglecting the soil structure interaction (SSI) leads to increase in the
inner column load and decrease in the corner columns loads.
5- Using of the average ks resulted from the plate loading test without
considering the soil structure interaction is inappropriate.
6- A new advanced design procedure is suggested and could be used for
special projects to consider the superstructure rigidity in the
geotechnical and the structural analyses.

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 649

RECOMMENDATIONS

1- Increase the dimensions of the outer columns and footings.

2- Floor members need additional reinforcements to resist the secondary
stresses resulted from the soil structure interaction.
3- If the soil is weak, it is much recommended to design rigid floors with
rigid tie beams to resist the estimated differential settlement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise and glory are due to Allah whom grants us all our knowledge and
success in our life. We would like to express sincere appreciation to the team of EHE-
Consulting Group on their help and encouragement. Furthermore, the researchers are
grateful to the Soil-Structure Interaction Group in Egypt (SSIGE) for their continuous
support to the design process.

REFERENCES

Boussinesq, M.J. (1885), Application Des Potentiels, a l’Etude de l’Equilibre et du

mouvement Des Solides Elastiques.
Egyptian Code of Practice, Geotechnical Engineering and Foundations (2001), Part
(3), Shallow Foundations, P: 10-20.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014a). “Calculation of subgrade reaction modulus
considering the footing-soil system rigidity.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Vulnerability
and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM) and 6th Int. Symp. on Uncertainty,
Modeling, and Analysis (ISUMA):Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk, M. Beer, S.
Au, and J. Hall, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 2498–2507.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014b). “Effect of elastic soil structure interaction on
modulus of subgrade reaction.” Proc., Geo-Hubei 2014: Recent Advances in
Material, Analysis, Monitoring, and Evaluation in Foundation and Bridge
Engineering, W. Liao, J. Chang, and G. Zhang, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 111–118.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014c). “Effect of floor rigidity on contact stress and
differential settlement.” Proc., Geo-Hubei 2014: Recent Advances in Material,
Analysis, Monitoring, and Evaluation in Foundation and Bridge Engineering, W.
Liao, J. Chang, and G. Zhang, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 94–101.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014d). “Effect of footing rigidity and soil model on
modulus of subgrade reaction.” Proc., 15th Danube-European Conf. on
Geotechnical Engineering, International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, London, 101–106.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014e). “Effect of footing rigidity on contact stress.”
Proc., Geo-Hubei 2014: Recent Advances in Material, Analysis, Monitoring, and
Evaluation in Foundation and Bridge Engineering, W. Liao, J. Chang, and G.
Zhang, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 78–85.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014f). “Effect of foundation embedment depth on
contact stress distribution and differential settlement.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM) and 6th Int. Symp. on

© ASCE

AEI 2015
 AEI 2015 650

Uncertainty, Modeling, and Analysis (ISUMA): Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and

Risk, M. Beer, S. Au, and J. Hall, eds.,ASCE, Reston, VA, 2508–2517.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014g). “Effect of framing action on contact stress and
differential settlement.” Proc., Geo-Hubei 2014: Recent Advances in Material,
Analysis, Monitoring, and Evaluation in Foundation and Bridge Engineering, W.
Liao, J. Chang, and G. Zhang, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 102–110.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014h). “Effect of soil model on contact stress under
strip footing.” Proc., Geo-Shanghai 2014: New Frontiers in Geotechnical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 03/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Engineering, G. Zhang and Z. Liu, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 67–77.

Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014i). “Effect of soil type on contact stress.” Proc.,
Geo-Shanghai 2014: New Frontiers in Geotechnical Engineering, G. Zhang and
Z. Liu, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 57–66.
Farouk, H., and Farouk, M. (2014j). “Effect of tie beam rigidity on strip footings.”
Proc., Geo-Hubei 2014: Recent Advances in Material, Analysis, Monitoring, and
Evaluation in Foundation and Bridge Engineering, W. Liao, J. Chang, and G.
Zhang, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 86–93.
Farouk, H. and Farouk, M. (2014z). "Soil, Foundation, and Superstructure
Interaction for Plane Two-Bay Frames." International Journal of Geomechanics
ASCE, 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000453 , B4014003.
Filonenko-Borodich, M. M. (1940) Some Approximate Theo-ries of Elastic
Foundation Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta
Mekhanica, 46: 3–18. (In Russian).
Hetenyi M. (1946), Beams on Elastic Foundations. University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor.
Iancu-Bogdan Teodoru and Vasile Muşat (2010) “The Modi-fied Vlasov Foundation
Model: An Attractive Approach for Beams Resting on Elastic Supports”. EJGE,
Vol.15, Bund.c, (2010).
Pasternak, P. L. (1954) On a New Method of Analysis of an Elastic Foundation by
Means of Two Constants. Gosudar-stvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po Stroitelstvui
Arkhitekture, Moscow, in Russian)
Potts, D. M. and Addenbrooke, T. I. (1997). A structure’s in-fluence on tunneling-
induced ground movements. Proceed-ings of ICE, Geotechnical Engineering 125,
Issue 2, 109-125.
Sim, Jae Hwang (1987) “A critical study of Vlasov model for beams on elastic
foundations”. MSc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech
University.
Straughan W. T. (1990) “Analysis of Plates on Elastic Founda-tions”. Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University.
Vallabhan, C. V. G., and Das, Y. C, June 1988, "An improved model for beams on
elastic foundations," Proceedings of the ASME/PVP Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, June 19-23, 1988.
Vlasov. V. Z. and Leont'ev, N. N., 1966. "Beams, plates, and shells on elastic
foundations." Translated from Russian, Je-rusalem.
Winkler (1867), Die Lehre Von Der Elastizitat und Festigkrit. Prag.

© ASCE

AEI 2015