ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031

May 6, 2014


1

ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION COURSEWORK 2

I have been asked to analyze a concrete strip footing 10m long, 1m wide and 350mm deep, subject
to a single vertical knife-edge load of 1000 kN per m. width acting at a distance of 3m from the
left-hand end. The footing is lying on a stiff clay soil with undrained E=40MPa.

For this analysis, I will be using both a finite element program and a finite difference spreadsheet. I
will be using LISA software for the former, and BOEF spreadsheet for the latter. Special attention
will be paid to beam settlements and bending moments.


1) Finite Difference (Winkler Spring) Analysis:
MODEL
Prior to starting the analysis, input data such as beam elastic modulus and the modulus of vertical
subgrade reaction for the soil must be determined.
Let us assume a typical C25/30 concrete, with characteristic compressive strength of fck=25MPa.
According to Eurocodes EN 1992-1-1, the modulus of elasticity can be estimated as:
[]

Using Table 3.1, Ec=31GPa. According to article 3.1.3 (4), Poissons ratio can be estimated as 0.2,
what will be used later.
Regarding typical values employed for subgrade modulus, Terzaghi recommends for stiff clay, a
value of 23MN/m3 for a square plate of 1ftx1ft. Adjustments will be made to take into account the
actual dimensions of the strip footing:

The next step is to choose the refinement of the grid to be employed. Given the dimensions of the
footing, it seems reasonably refined to use 20 segments, since quantities such as bending
moments and settlements change rapidly. Fewer segments would lead to plots not very smooth,
and more segments make matrices too large. With 20 segments each step would be 0.50m long,
with a depth of the beam of 0.35m, keeping the proportioning.
Following, a sketch of the grid points produced.
ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


2


Grid Points (Source: Own elaboration)
As can be seen, the load is to be applied at grid point 9. Since the solution to the differential
equation assumes distributed load q, rather than point load P, a uniform load will be applied at
node 9 equal to 2000kN/m/m. This load totals 1000kN since it acts over a tributary length of
0.50m, and a width of 1m.
Following, the input data and matrix formation of the spreadsheet. As can be seen, at node 9 load
factor equals to 1.

Set of equations (Source: BOEF spreadsheet)


BEAM ON ELASTIC (WINKLER SPRING) FOUNDATION multipliers
FINITE DIFFERENCE SOLUTION (20 INTERVALS)
qBh^4/EI = 0.00113
Beam length L 10 m adjust values in shaded cells only
Beam width B 1 m (including r.h.s. vector in column AA) -EI/h^2 = -443042
Beam depth d 0.35 m
No. intervals N 20 (fixed) -EI/2h^3 = -443042
Step size h 0.5 m
Young's modulus E 31 GPa EI/h^4 = 1772167
2nd moment of area I 0.004 m
4
Loading intensity q 2000 kN/m/m
Subgrade modulus k 4750 kPa/m kBh^4/EI = 0.00268
q
| | | | | | | r.h.s.
# # # # # # # # # vector
x qBh^4/EI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-1 2 0 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -4 6.003 -4 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -2 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2 0 -2 1 0
ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


3

RESULTS
The set of equations is solved by matrix operations, and the results are summarized below.

Settlements and Bending Moments, tabular form (Source: BOEF spreadsheet)

Deflections Plot (Source: BOEF spreadsheet)
x v M
(m) (mm) (kN-m)
24.917
27.237
0.00 29.518 0
0.50 31.799 18
1.00 34.040 73
1.50 36.116 169
2.00 37.813 307
2.50 38.816 491
3.00 38.712 720
3.50 36.982 496
4.00 34.133 315
4.50 30.572 175
5.00 26.616 72
5.50 22.498 0
6.00 18.382 -46
6.50 14.369 -69
7.00 10.512 -76
7.50 6.827 -70
8.00 3.299 -56
8.50 -0.103 -38
9.00 -3.420 -20
9.50 -6.692 -6
10.00 -9.951 0
ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


4


BM Plot (Source: BOEF spreadsheet)
As expected, maximum bending moments occur at x=3m, with a value of 720kN-m. The maximum
vertical displacement occurs at x=2.50 and x=3.00m, with a value between 38.8 and 38.7mm. A
slight lifting of the beam right end occurs, with a maximum upward movement of almost 10mm.
This is to be expected due to the eccentric load application.

2) Finite Element (Continuum) Analysis:
MODEL
Prior to starting the analysis, input data such as soil Poissons ratio and water bulk modulus (Kw).
Typical value for Kw is 2200 MPa, and we can assume that the undrained bulk modulus of soil is
approximately equal to that of water:

An undrained analysis will be performed, and therefore we can obtain undrained Poissons ratio
from the standard relationship:

This provides the familiar result of the Poissons ratio just below to obtain an undrained
response of the soil.
ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


5

Saturated unit weight of stiff clay can be estimated as 20 kN/m3
The definition of the mess boundaries, number and grading of mesh elements is a little bit more
challenging.
First, the choice of the type of element is enforced. In order to improve accuracy, higher order
elements are preferred. The more popular is the eight-noded linear strain quadrilateral (quad8),
since it gives good accuracy and it is easier to generate the mesh.
Second, mesh size need to be chosen. Again, as for the finite difference analysis, a mesh 0.5m
wide below the beam is chosen, since it keeps aspect ratio adequate and gives good accuracy in
the location where stress concentrations occur. However, as we move away from the beam, this
mesh size will be linearly increased since less accuracy is needed. We have tried to keep aspect
ratios preferably below 3 and never more than 10.
Third, the remote boundaries are to be determined. Accuracy of results strongly depends on
where these boundaries are located, and a priori there is no guidance on how to establish the
correct distances. In this example, several distances where tried until reasonable results were
obtained. The important factor that was taken into account to decide the boundaries was stress
distribution below the beam, and these boundaries were selected at places where stresses had
dissipated sufficiently and could be considered that the influence of the load was negligible. The
results proved that 20m below the beam, 11m to the left, and 7m to the right, not significant
changes would occur. The need for the left boundary to be further apart than right boundary
arises from the eccentricity of the loading.
Finally, in order to be computationally efficient, and given the limitations on the amount of total
nodes the software could handle, the grading of the mesh was selected until reaching those
boundaries. LISA employs 1300 nodes, and this was the restriction on the possible refinement of
the mesh.
All these considerations are summarized in the figure below.
ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


6


Mesh Layout (Source: Own elaboration)
LISA program permits the definition of a beam element, discretized in 20 elements. This is
preferable since it does not affect to the solution and allows for the plot of bending moments,
what cannot be done with shell elements.
In the following figure, the model configuration can be observed. Note the use of simple supports
for the boundary conditions, and the point load location.

Mesh Layout (Source: LISA software)
ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


7

RESULTS
The FEM analysis is run, showing the following results.

Max. Displacement = 37mm (Source: LISA software)


Max. Bending Moment = 661 kN.m (Source: LISA software)
ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


8


In the following figure, soil stresses below the footing are shown. As mentioned before, remote
boundaries were selected taking into account enough dissipation of these stresses.

Soil Stresses (Source: LISA software)











ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


9

3) Independent check:
We will use Hetenyis coefficients

ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


10


We see that for the finite beam solution, with the load centered instead of 3m from the left-hand
side, maximum displacement is 37mm, and maximum bending moment 847kN.m.
For the case of infinite beam, maximum displacement is around 34mm and maximum bending
moment 768kN.m. We see that values are a little bit lower for the case of infinite beam rather
than finite beam. It is objectable the validity of the infinite beam solution given the actual length
of 10m of the strip footing.

4) Discussion of results:
We have seen that using several methods similar results are obtained. It could be expected that
FEM analysis showed more accurate results, while FDM analysis could provide more conservative
results. This example showed that FEM produced lower values, but always within 5-9%., as shown
in the table below.

ENGM048 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION JESUS RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ UN6235031
May 6, 2014


11


v (mm)
M
(kN.m)
FDM vs
FEM (v)
FDM vs
FEM (M)
FDM 38.8 720
+4.6% +8.9%
FEM 37.1 661
Hetenyi 36.9 847 - -
Comparative (Source: Own elaboration)
It is noticeable the similitude of the two displacement curves:


Finally, the independent check proved that values were close, although a little bit larger bending
moments.