Finite Difference Method

Assuming the concrete grade C25 (common for foundations) is used in the strip footing with a
characteristic compressive strength fck=25MPa, its Modulus of Elasticity can be determined from the
relationship
𝑓𝑐𝑚 0.3
𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 22 [ ] - EN 1992-1-1
10

25 + 8 0.3
𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 22 [ ] = 31.47
10
Elastic Modulus E is approximately 32 GPa
As stated in the brief, the soil was characterised as being firm and increasing in stiffness with depth, with
a composition of silty clay. Considering the given information that all Undrained Shear Strength 𝐶𝑢 values
were below the range of 100-200KPa, a recommended value of 𝑘−𝑠1 = 23𝑀𝑁/𝑚3 was selected.
Table 1: Typical Ks Values for Stiff Clays (Terzaghi, 1995)

Using the following equations, the 𝑘−𝑠1 value of 23𝑀𝑁/𝑚3 was converted to 𝑘𝑠 and used in the
calculation of the strip footing.
0.305
𝑘𝑠 = 𝑘𝑠1
𝐵

1
Note: 𝑘−𝑠1 = modulus of vertical subgrade reaction for a 1-foot-by-1-foot square plate obtained from field
experiments.
Therefore
10 + 0.152
𝑘𝑠1 = 23 [ ] = 15.5664
1.5 × 10

0.305
𝑘𝑠 = 15.5664 × = 3.1652𝑀𝑁/𝑚3
1.5

A step size of 0.25 was chosen by dividing the beam into 40 equal divisions on the Winkler spring model,
taking into account the length of the beam. This was selected because a smaller step size generates a more
refined grid and consequently more accurate results.

Modelling Loads into BOEF

For the 300KNm/m Moment

Loading intensity q = 1000

Step size h = 0.25 (i.e. 40 divisions)

𝑴 = 𝟐𝒒𝒉𝟐𝑎

𝟑𝟎𝟎
𝑎= = 𝟐. 𝟒
𝟐 × 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 × 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓𝟐

𝟔𝟓𝟎
For the 650KN/m K.E.L, 𝑎=
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎×𝟎.𝟐𝟓 = 𝟐. 𝟔

𝟑𝟐𝟓
For the 325KN/m K.E.L, 𝑎=
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎×𝟎.𝟐𝟓 = 𝟏. 𝟑

2
Fig.2: Finite Difference Grid with 40 intervals

3
 0
5

10
Displacement v (mm)

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Distance along beam x (m)

Fig.3: Displacement along Beam for Finite Difference Method

The maximum displacement of the beam is seen at the point of application of the 650kN/m K.E.L,
generating displacements of 40.66 mm at t x=3m. At the point of application of the 325KN/m K.E.L, a
displacement of 22.52mm was generated, half the value of the first load.
The displacement plot also reveals a slight upward deflection of the beam on the right side, which is
consistent with what is anticipated in such a loading configuration given the difference in magnitude of
the loads applied.

4
 -400

-200
Bending moment M (kNm)

200

400

600

800

1000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Distance along beam x (m)

Fig.4: Bending Moment along Beam for Finite Difference Method

The bending moment diagram (BMD) exhibits a peak value of 758.6kNm/m at x=3m, which corresponds
to the position of the larger 650kN/m K.E.L. Additionally, a moment of 166KNm/m is observed at x=8m
commensurate to the magnitude and point of application of the 325kN/m K.E.L.
At the location where a moment of 300KNm/m is applied, there exists a discontinuity whose absolute
value is equal to the magnitude of the applied moment. The results obtained are reflective of what is
expected for a beam subjected to this type of loading.

5
 600

400

200

0
Shear force S (kN)

-200

-400

-600

-800

-1000

-1200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Distance along beam x (m)

Fig.5: Shear Force along Beam for Finite Difference Method

The Shear Force plot shows a maximum value of 480.6kN at x=2.75m just short of the point of application of the
625kN/m K.E.L with a corresponding Shear Force of 281.7kN at x = 7.75m generated close to the point of
application of the 325kN/m K.E.L. The results are acceptable because if one could extrapolate the lines and make
them truly perpendicular, their magnitudes would be equal to the respective applied loads.
A noticeable phenomenon is however observed at the x=5m point which corresponds to the point of application of
the applied moment. This unusual shape can be attributed to the manner in which the moment was modelled as two
point loads on the BOEF spreadsheet.
Ultimately, the results generated from the finite difference method are consistent with what is expected of a beam
loaded in this configuration.

6
Finite Element (Continuum) Analysis

Materials Definition & Assumptions

The 15-noded Plain Strain model was selected in this task because of its characteristic of possessing an
out- of-plane cross-section that extends uniformly for an infinite length.
Additionally, a soil model based on the Linear Elastic method with Undrained C drainage type was
chosen, and the relevant parameters inputted. The rationale behind choosing undrained C was its capacity
to effectively determine stiffness and strength via undrained properties, while simultaneously
accommodating excess pore pressures by integrating them into effective stresses, without the need for
explicit calculation.
The initial layer of clay was assumed to have a saturated unit weight of 20kN/m3 and was modelled to
exhibit an increase in unit weight with each subsequent layer. The objective was to replicate a rise in unit
weight of the soil as the depth increased.
Since a simulated increase in soil unit weight can also be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in
void ratio, the void ratio was modelled to be decreasing with each successive soil layer. This is because an
increase in shear strength may very likely mean a reduction in void ratio since shear strength is highly
dependent on a soils void ratio.
In this particular task, the initial clay layer was assigned a void ratio of 0.45, while the subsequent two
layers were assigned void ratios of 0.35 and 0.25, respectively (Bowles, 2003).
𝐸𝑢
Values of stiffness /Elastic modulus of each soil layer determined from the relationship[ = 650], where
𝐶𝑢
𝐸𝑢 = 𝐶𝑢 × 650 were selected from table below along with the value for the undrained shear strength.

Table 2: Values of Undrained Shear Strength and Elastic modulus with Increasing Depth
Depth(m) Undrained Shear Strength 𝑪𝒖 (kPa) Elastic Modulus 𝑬𝒖 (kPa)
5 57 37050
10 84 54600
15 96 62400

According to Bowles' (2003), the Poisson's ratios of saturated clay fall within the range of 0.4-0.5. Hence,
a value of 0.45 was selected in the finite element model.
For the concrete plate element, a poisson's ratio of 0.2 and a unit weight of 24𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 were assumed and
𝐸𝐴
the its 𝐸𝐴 value calculated from the relationship 𝑑 = √12
𝐸𝐼

Additionally, the boundaries of the soil stratum were chosen with a 5m allowance on both sides of the
modelled beam. Consideration was given to the stress distribution beneath the beam, and the boundaries
were selected at locations where stresses had sufficiently dissipated and the influence of the load was
negligible.

7
 Fig.6: Finite Element Model showing a maximum displacement of 20.27mm

Fig.7: Finite Element Model showing a maximum value Shear Force of 297.1kN/m

8
Fig.8: Finite Element Model showing a maximum Bending Moment of 113.2 kN m/m

9
10