16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference

July 16-18, 2003, University of Washington, Seattle

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CURLING OF SLABS ON

PASTERNAK FOUNDATION
Lev Khazanovich1, Member ASCE

ABSTRACT

Winkler or dense liquid (DL) and elastic solid (ES) subgrade models (figures 1 and 2,
respectively) are used most often in pavement modeling. However, neither the DL nor the ES
idealization is entirely adequate when applied to real soils and the predictions from both exhibit
discrepancies with observed, in situ behavior. The DL model assumes that shear resistance of
the subgrade is negligible compared to shear capacity of the subgrade. It models the foundation
as a set of independent springs. On the other hand, the ES model attributes to the foundation a
higher degree of shear interaction than is usually available in the field. Use of the ES model
results in infinite stress predictions under the edges and corners of a plate resting on it.
Moreover, both models fail to describe subgrade behavior beyond the slab edge; soil deflections
vanish more rapidly than predicted by the ES but not nearly as fast as assumed in the DL
formulation.

k
Figure 1. Slab on Winkler (DL) foundation.

Es

Figure 2. Slab on elastic solid (ES) foundation.

Also known as the Vlasov model, the Pasternak foundation offers an attractive alternative to the
ES continuum in providing a degree of shear interaction between adjacent soil elements
(Pasternak 1954, Vlasov and Leontev 1960). One of the possible visualizations of this model is a
combination of a shear layer resting on top of the spring layer (figure 3). The deflection profile
predicted by the Pasternak foundation vanishes much faster than the corresponding ES basin and
may be a better approximation of the deflections observed in a real foundation of finite depth. In
the recommendations of the 4th International Symposium on Theoretical Modeling of Concrete
Pavements and the 8th International Symposium on Concrete Roads, the Pasternak model was
named the preferable option for subgrade modeling. Comparisons between DL and Pasternak

1
Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, Department of Civil Engineering, 500 Pillsbury Drive
SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, email: khaza001@umn.edu
models presented by Pronk suggest that the latter can be considered a logical improvement of DL
(Pronk 1993).

G
k
Figure 3. Slab on Pasternak foundation.

One important generalization of the Pasternak model was proposed by Vlasov and later
expanded by Kerr (Vlasov and Leontev 1960, Kerr 1964). Vlasov suggested that if a soft layer is
placed on a stiffer subgrade, then a higher order than Pasternak’s model idealization is required
to match the “exact” elastic solution accurately. Kerr proposed another physical interpretation of
this model as a spring layer placed above a Pasternak foundation (see figure 4). We will refer this
idealization as the Kerr model. Kerr and his colleagues obtained several analytical solutions for
practically important boundary value problems of the Kerr model.

ku
G
kL
Figure 4. Slab on Kerr foundation.

In the past several years, significant progress has been made in the development of analytical
tools for analysis of slabs on a Pasternak foundation and application of these tools to pavement
problems. Several analytical solutions were obtained for analysis of infinite and semi-infinite
slab resting on Pasternak foundations (Cauwelaert 1997, Cauwelaert et al. 2002). Stet and his
colleagues used those solutions to develop a backcalculation procedure for determination of
Pasternak’s foundation parameters. However, these closed form solutions can analyze only the
effect of wheel loading. Moreover, they assume full contact between the slab and the
foundation; this condition may not be present in the field due to temperature curling and moisture
warping of the PCC slab.

A finite element formulation of analysis of a slab on the Pasternak foundation was first
developed by Ioannides (Ioannides et al. 1985) and implemented into a finite element program,
ILLI-SLAB. This formulation divides the foundation beneath the slab on the rectangular 4-
noded, 12 degrees-of-freedom elements using the same nodes that are used for decartelization of
the plate. Also, the same deflection shape functions that are used for the plate element are used
for the Pasternak subgrade.

That formulation, however, failed to account properly for the behavior of the subgrade beyond
the slab edge. Therefore, it was limited only to the case of interior loading of a sufficiently
large slab where the influence of subgrade deformation beyond the slab edges could be
neglected. To address this limitation, Khazanovich and Ioannides (1993) introduced semi-
infinite elements in one or two horizontal dimensions that properly describe the model
behavior near slab edges. The formulation was implemented into a finite element program
ILSL2.

The finite element formulation proposed by Khazanovich and Ioannides is based on the
assumption proposed by Vlasov and Leont'ev (1960) for the soil surface beyond the slab. This

2
approximation assumes that deflections beyond the slab are a function of the deflection of the
nearest point at the slab edge and the subgrade parameters.

ILSL2 can also analyze a slab resting on a Kerr foundation. In deriving the stiffness matrix for
the Kerr model, a special 8-noded, 24 degree-of-freedom element was introduced in the present
study (see figure 5). The first four nodes are placed at the top of the upper (DL) springs, while
the other four nodes are positioned at the top of the Pasternak foundation (i.e., at the bottom of
the upper springs). The stiffness matrix for this element is:

 [ K DLU ] - [ K DLU ] 
[K] =  (1)
 - [ K DLU ] [ K DLU ] + [ K P ] 

where [KDLU] is the stiffness matrix of the upper (DL) springs and [KP] is the stiffness matrix for
Pasternak foundation.
Shear layer
2 4
Upper spring layer
6
3
1
5 7
Lower spring layer

Figure 5. 8-noded finite element for Kerr model.

Although ILSL2 can analyze the behavior of a slab resting on a Pasternak or Kerr foundation,
it has the following limitations:

• Only wheel loading can be considered if the Pasternak or Kerr model is used for
subgrade characterization
• Only a single slab can be considered if the Pasternak or Kerr model is used for
subgrade characterization

These limitations significantly reduce the applicability of ILSL2 and these subgrade models to
analysis of portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements. Indeed, curling stresses significantly
affect performance of PCC pavements and single slab analysis does not permit evaluation of
the effect of joint load transfer on pavement behavior.

The recently developed finite element program ISLAB2000 (Khazanovich et al. 1999) retains
all the positive features of ILSL2 but is free of some unnecessary limitations. One of the
improvements made during development of ISLAB2000 was enabling curling analysis of
slabs on the Pasternak and Kerr foundations.

ISLAB2000 curling analysis assumes that the slab is separated from the subgrade if the
contact between the slab and the subgrade is in tension. Estimation of the contact pressure is
easy for the Kerr model because it is equal to the stress in the upper spring layer. Separation
between the plate and the Kerr model is easy to implement by cutting springs in the upper
layer.

3
Analysis of a plate on the Kerr model with applied external wheel and temperature loads is
performed in ISLAB2000 using the following iterative scheme:

1. Formulate individually the stiffness matrices for the plate, the spring interlayer, and the
Pasternak subgrade and combine these matrices to form the global stiffness matrix.
2. Formulate individually the load vectors for the external applied load (upper slab), self-
weight (both slabs) and temperature differentials (Przemieniecki 1968).
3. Combine these load vectors into the corresponding global load vector.
4. Solve the resulting system of equations to determine the nodal displacements and
rotations.
5. Check the vertical displacement at each node to determine whether contact is maintained
between the slab and the Kerr subgrade.
6. If the difference of displacements at corresponding nodes of the upper spring layer of the
Kerr subgrade is negative, the plate and the subgrade are no longer in contact and the
corresponding upper layer spring stiffness is set to zero.
7. Return to (1) and perform another iteration. The process should continue until the contact
condition at all nodes remains unchanged during two consecutive iterations.

Separation of the plate from the Pasternak foundation is a more complex contact problem.
Moreover, the finite element formulation presented for the Pasternak foundation uses the
same set of node for plate layer and for the Pasternak subgrade, which makes analysis of the
slab separation impossible. On the other hand, it was shown by Khazanovich and Ioannides
(1993) that the Kerr model produces practically the same results as the Pasternak model if the
stiffness of the upper spring layer is sufficiently high. Therefore, curling analysis for the
Pasternak model can be performed by converting the Pasternak foundation into the
corresponding Kerr foundation with a very stiff upper spring layer.

Selection of the fictitious upper string stiffness, however, is not a trivial task. On the one
hand, this stiffness should be as high as possible to introduce as little discrepancy between the
Pasternak and Kerr models as possible. On the other hand, too high a stiffness causes
numerical instability and non-convergence of the finite element solution. The author’s
experience shows that the following upper spring stiffness provides good convergence:

ku ≤ G s 2
where
k u is upper layer spring stiffness
G is shear layer stiffness
s is a minimum finite element side size

More research is needed to establish more comprehensive recommendations.

Several examples demonstrated that the program produces reasonable results and converges to
known solutions in limited cases. The importance of accounting for slab separation for
accurate determination of the slab stresses was also shown.

KEY WORDS: Pavement, Pasternak foundation, finite element analysis.

4
REFERENCES

Cauwelaert, F. van, 1997. TheLlimited Rectangular Slab on a Limited Pasternak-Kerr

Foundation. Internal report of the CROW Workgroup UEC, Ede, The Netherlands.

Cauwelaert, Van F., Stet, M.J.A., Jasienski, A., 2002. The General Solution For a Slab
Submitted to Centre and Edge Loads and Resting on a Kerr foundation, The International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-18, ISSN 1029-8436.

Ioannides, A.M., Thompson, M..R., and Barenberg, E.J. (1985). Finite Element Analysis of
Slabs-On-Grade Using a Variety of Support Models. Proc., Third Int. Conference on
Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue University, Apr., 309-324.

Kerr, A.D., 1964. Elastic and visco-elastic foundations models. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, ASME Vol. 31, pp. 491-498.

Khazanovich, L. (1994). Structural Analysis of Multi-Layered Concrete Pavement Systems.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

Khazanovich, L., and A.M. Ioannides. (1993). Finite Element Analysis of Slabs-
On-Grade Using Improved Subgrade Soil Models. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference
- Airport Pavement Innovations:Theory to Practice. Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, pp. 16-30.

Khazanovich, L., H.T. Yu, S. Rao, K. Galasova, E. Shats, and R. Jones. (2000).
ISLAB2000—Finite Element Analysis Program for Rigid and Composite Pavements. User’s
Guide. Champaign, IL: ERES Consultants.

Vlasov, V.Z., and Leontev, N.N. (1960). Beams, Plates and Shells on Elastic Foundations.
NASA-NSF, NASA TT F-357, TT 65-50135, Israel Program for Scientific Translations
(translation date: 1966).

Pasternak, P.L., 1954. On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means of two
foundations constants (in Russian). Gasudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po Stroitelstvui
Arkhitekure, Moscow, USSR.

Pronk, A.C., 1993. The Pasternak foundation – An attractive alternative for the Winkler
foundation. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design
and Rehabilitation, Vol. 1, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

Pronk, A.C., 1994. The wedge-segment (pie) load case in the Westergaard model.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Theoretical Design of Concrete Pavements,
pp. 61-70, Krumbach, Austria.

Przemieniecki, J.S., 1968. Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis, McGraw Hill, New York,
N.Y.