1

COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS
WCCM VI in conjunction with APCOM04, Sept. 5-10, 2004, Beijing, China
2004 Tsinghua University Press & Springer-Verlag



Axially Loaded Generalized Beam Element on a Two-Parameter
Elastic Foundation with Semi-Rigid Connections and Rigid Offsets
E. I. Avramidis *, K. Morfidis
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: avram@civil.auth.gr, ntinmorf@yahoo.gr

Abstract A geometric nonlinear Timoshenko beam element on a two-parameter elastic foundation is
presented. This new element is based on the analytical solution of the differential equation of the problem
and has the ability to optionally taking into account the shear deformations of the beam, semi-rigid
connections and rigid offsets at its nodes. The gonerning equations of the element are formulated on the
basis of its deformed axis, a fact that enables its use in stability analyses or in analyses where second-order
effects must be taken into account. Apart from the stiffness matrix of the element, the load vector in the
case of uniform transverse loading is also presented. The usefulness and reliability of the proposed element
are documented by a numerical application.
Keywords: beams on elastic foundation, two-parameter elastic foundation, Timoshenko beam, finite
element method, geometric non-linearity.

INTRODUCTION
The problem of an axially and transversely loaded beam resting on elastic foundation is encountered in the
analysis of building structures, ships, aircrafts and various machines. Such analyses require the use of
special modeling techniques. Focusing on building structures, the modeling of the foundation-soil
interaction constitutes one of the most serious problems. Since many decades, the Winkler model [1],
distinguished for its simplicity, is widely used for the modeling of the soil. However, its obvious
inadequacy led to the formulation of two-parameter models [2-3] which, unlike the Winkler model,
account for the continuity of the deformations between the loaded and the free surface of the soil.
Furthermore, when analyzing a foundation structure (most often consisted of column footings
interconnected by foundation beams), it is necessary to model footings as rigid elements resting on elastic
foundation. Their modeling is usually achieved through the use of classical beam elements with large (in
effect: infinite) values attributed to their cross-section parameters, so that they behave as absolutely rigid.
Also, the elastic soil is usually modeled by discrete translational and/or rotational springs. Another
category of modeling problems relates to the analysis of steel structures. Two typical problems are worth
mentioning: The modeling of the semi-rigid connections of the beams at their nodes and the consideration
of the deformations (second order theory) in calculating the stresses. The former is dealt with by placing
rotational springs at the ends of the beams [4], as well as rigid offsets for the modeling of the practically
rigid node area. To confront the latter, the use of beam elements governed by differential equations
formulated on the basis of the deformed axis is indispensable.
In order to achieve a combined solution to all the aforementioned problems that is both correct and simple,
a geometric nonlinear Timoshenko beam element resting on a two-parameter elastic foundation is
proposed. For the connection between the rigid offsets incorporated in this element and its internal flexible
segment rotational springs are used. In this paper, the analytical formulation of the stiffness matrix and the
load matrix for uniform transverse load are presented. The usefulness and reliability of the proposed
element are documented by a numerical application.

2
FORMULATION OF THE STIFFNESS MATRIX
The new generalized beam element is shown in Fig. 1a. It consists of: Two rigid segments between nodes
1,2 and 3,4 respectively (rigid offsets). The flexible median segment between nodes 2 and 3, which is a
Timoshenko beam element. For the connection of the median segment to the rigid offsets rotational springs
are used. The element rests on a two-parameter elastic foundation and is loaded by a static axial force.
When laying out the differential equations of the element, its deformed shape is taken into account. The
derivation of the stiffness matrix [K] is divided into two stages:
1st. The formulation of the median segment's stiffness matrix [Kint] based on the analytical solution of its
differential equations.
2nd. The formulation of the relations between the coefficients of the stiffness matrix of the median
segment [Kint] and those of the generalized element [K].

P
G
k
1
1
d
R
2
K
L
P
EI, G(A/n)
k
s
d
2
K
RB
4 3
(a)
Stiffness Matrices
[K] : Element d Generalize
] [K : Segment Median
int

1
w
1
2
2
4
3
d
1
L
Y
X

2
w w
3
w
4
d
2
3

1
1
(b)


Fig. 1 (a) New generalized geometric nonlinear beam element (b) Deformed configuration of the element

First stage
The bending of an axially loaded Timoshenko beam element on a two-parameter elastic foundation is
governed by the following differential equations:
( ) 0 1
2
2
2
2
4
4
= + +
(

+
(

q
dx
q d

EI
w k
dx
w d

EIk
k P
dx
w d

k P
EI
S
S
G
G
(1a)
( ) 0 1
2
2
4
4
= +
(

+
(

dx
dq
k
dx
d

EIk
k P
dx
d

k P
EI
S
S
G
G
, (1b)
where EI is the flexural stiffness of the beam, =AG/n, is the flexural rotation of cross- section, A is the
cross-section area, G is the shear modulus of elasticity, n is the shear factor, P is the axial load, q is the
lateral external load, w is the lateral deflection, k
S
(kN/m
2
) is the modulus of the subgrade reaction, and k
G

(kN) is the second parameter of the elastic foundation.
The structures of the two homogenous equations of (1a) and (1b) are identical, the six different forms of
their solutions being dependent on the values of the coefficients of the beam and the soil (Fig. 2). From all
six cases of solution, only cases 1 and 3 (Fig. 2) are of practical interest with regard to analyses according
to the second order theory [5]. The process of the analytical formation of the stiffness matrix [K
int
] is
already known. The stiffness coefficients for the two typical forms of solution of (1a) and (1b) are given in
reference [5].

Second stage
In order to formulate the relations between the coefficients of the stiffness matrix [K
int
] and the respective
coefficients of [K], the following three-step procedure must be adopted:
a. Formulation of the relation between the displacements of nodes 2,3 and 1,4 respectively.
From Fig. 1b, the following relation is obtained:
3
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(

+
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(

=
(
(
(
(
(

3
3
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0 1
V
M
V
M
) (K
) (K
w

-d
d
w

R
RA
(2)
where M
2
and M
3
are the bending moments at nodes 2 and 3 respectively, V
2
and V
3
are the shear forces,
and K
RA
and K
RB
are the constants of the rotational springs. Eq. (2) can be expressed in a symbolic form
as:
| | | || | | | | |
int int
S T u u
KR
+ = (3)
b. Formulation of the relation between the stresses at nodes 2,3 and 1,4 respectively.
From Fig. 3, the following relation is obtained:
( )
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(

+
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

+
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(

=
(
(
(
(
(

4
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
4
4
1
1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
2
1
0 0
2
1
3
1
0 0
0 0
2
1
0 0
2
1
3
1
1 0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 1
w

-d
-d
k P
d k d k
d k d k
d k d k
d k d k
V
M
V
M
-d
d
V
M
V
M
G
S S
S S
S S
S S
G
G
G
G
(4)
The terms k
G
d
1
and k
G
d
2
are moments resulting from the assumptions on which the two-parameter elastic
foundation model is based, and are necessary for fulfilling the equilibrium conditions [6]. V
Gi
is the
generalized shear force [3], which takes into account the effects of shearing stresses in the soil medium
as well as the shearing stresses in the beam (Fig. 3). Eq. (4) can be expressed in a symbolic form as:
| | | | | | | | ( )| | { }| | u T k P S T S
P G W
T
+ + =
int
(5)
c. Formulation of the stiffness matrix [K] as a function of the stiffness matrix [K
int
].
A number of matrix transformations of (3) and (5) are performed, in combination with the familiar
relations:
| | | | | |
int int int
u K S = (6a)
| | | | | | u K S = (6b)
which express the force-deformation relation of the internal segment and of the whole element
respectively. The required transformations ultimately lead to the following relation:
| | | | | | | | | | { } | | | | | | ( )| |
P G W KR
T
T k P n m K + + =

int
1
int
(7)
where [I] is the 4x4 identity matrix.
The switches added in (7) determine whether the rotational springs, the elastic support or/and the effect
of the axial force will be considered or not. The indices must be set to 1, if the corresponding effect is to be
taken into account. If not, they must be set to 0. If m=0, then Eq. (7) describes the geometric nonlinear
stiffness matrix of a beam element without semi-rigid connections, supported by a one or two parameter
elastic support. If n=k
G
=0, then Eq. (7) expresses the geometric nonlinear stiffness matrix of a beam
element without elastic support. If m=P=0 and n=1, then Eq. (7) represents the linear stiffness matrix of a
beam element with one or two parameter elastic support. Finally, if k
G
=P=0 and n=1, then Eq. (7) describes
the linear stiffness matrix of a beam element with one parameter elastic support [7]. The coefficients of the
stiffness matrix [] are given in Appendix 1.


4
sin(Qx)
xsin(Qx)
-Rx
sin(Qx)
xe
-Qx
e sin(Qx)
Sections of curve D =0: (0-4) and (1-2-3): Case 6
-Rx
e cos(Qx)
Rx
e sin(Qx)
Rx
e cos(Qx) D <0 c>0
b>0
Case 3
Rx
Rx
Rx
e D =0 c>0 b<0 Case 6
ch
b<0
b<0
b<0
b>0
Case 5
Case 4
c>0 e
ch
D >0
c<0 D >0
ch
e
ch
e
-Rx Rx
xe
e
-Rx
-Rx
e
e
Qx
e
cos(Qx)
cos(Qx)
cos(Rx)
Section of curve D =0: (0-1): Case 2
b>0
b>0
Case 2
Case 1
c>0
ch
D =0
c>0 D >0
ch
Case 5
4
D =0
ch
f (x) f (x) f (x)
xcos(Qx)
1
sin(Rx)
2
sin(Qx)
cos(Qx)
3
ch
ch
k
(c/4)+(b/4) (c/4)-(b/4)
(1/2)(-b- D )
(1/2)(b+ D )
-
-b/2
-Rx
(1/2)(-b+ D )
(1/2)(-b+ D )
ch
ch
2
b -4c
ch
D =
=1-
ch
ch
c=
G
P-k

S
(1/2)(b+ D )
Q R
f (x)
(1/2)(b- D )
-
4
b/2
ch
(P-k )-
1
b=

ch
k

G
S
Case 5
ch
D =0
Case 3
C
a
s
e

3
P<k
0
G
/()
2
b>0
Case 1
Case 4
P>k
G

b<0
1
b>0
2
Case 3
4 /()
2
Case 4
D <0
ch
D >0
ch
c<0
c>0
b
=
0
G
(P-k )
b<0
S
k
3
c


Fig. 2 The possible forms of solution of the governing differential equations and the corresponding ranges
of the values of the parameters k
S
, k
G
, P

shear layer
Winkler forces
shear layer
1
M
V
G1
w
1
2
1
M
S
k w
V
G2
2
G2
V
2
M
w

Winkler forces
shear layer
3

M
V
G3
3
M
3
V
G3
w
V

4
M
4
w
4
G4
P
P
P
P
P
P
S 1
k w
S 3
k w
S
k w
4
S 2
k w
S
k w
3
Winkler forces
dx
dw
) k (P
dx
d
EI V V V
G
2
2
soil beam G
= + =


Fig. 3 Relationships between the forces at the internal joints and the element end forces

FORMULATION OF THE LOAD VECTOR FOR LATERAL UNIFORM LOADING
The load vector [p] (Fig. 4) is derived in two stages: The first stage comprises the formation of the load
vector of the median segment of the element [p
int
], with rotational springs being part of the process. At the
second stage, the presence of rigid offsets is taken into consideration as well.

First stage
The analytical solution of the homogenous forms of Eqs (1a) and (1b) and the application of the
well-known initial parameter method (e.g. [5], [9]) lead to the formulation of the load vector [p
int
]. The
expressions of its coefficients for the common solution cases of (1a) and (1b) are given in Appendix 2.
5
(a) (b)
2
d d
1
P
L
P
L
q
1 2 4 3
K
RA
2 3
RB
K
w =0
2
2
= /
2 RA RB
w =0
3
= /
3
3
Internal Boundary Conditions
| |
| |
G3 3 G2 2 int
G4 4 G1 1
V M V M ] [p
V M V M [p]
=
=


Fig. 4 Transverse uniform loading (a), boundary conditions of the internal nodes

Second stage
At the second stage, the relations between the stresses at nodes 2, 3 and 1, 4 are formulated. Application of
a method similar to the one employed in the case of the stiffness matrix (Eq. 5) gives:
] [T ] [p [T] [p]
q
T
+ =
int
(9)
The matrix [T] is given in Eq. 2, while [T
q
] is the load vector for the rigid offsets. When the rigid offsets are
loaded by a uniform load q, [T
q
] is obtained from the following relation:
| |
2
2
2 1
2
1
2 2
2
d d d d
q
] [T
T
q
= (10)

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
The steel frame given in Fig. 5a rests on the soil through a reinforced concrete foundation. The soil consists
of a layer of loose sand 20m in thickness, resting on a rigid base. Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of
the sand are E
s
=17500kN/m
2
and
s
=0.28 respectively.

(a)
Width of beam b =0.3m
Width of footings b =1.2m
6.1m
IPE400
7.180m
24 kN/m
1.0m
0.7m
K
IPB320
11 kN/m
R
25 kN
0.160m
B
f
0.7m
1.0m
0.35m
R
K
A=0.21m
I=0.0085m
2
4
4.450m
0.160m
0.20m
=0.3
S
E =2.0E08 kN/m
E =2.9E07 kN/m
=0.2
S

2
2
500 kN 500 kN
2
w

u
3
1 4
N=3
N=6
N=12
N=20
(b)
N= The Number of Elements between Rigid Offsets
rigid
offsets
rigid
offsets
rigid
offsets
transnational springs
rigid
offsets


Fig. 5 (a) Steel frame on reinforced concrete foundation, (b) Discretization of foundation beam and rigid
footings by conventional beam elements
With regard to the given steel frame, two kinds of second order analyses were carried out:
1) The objective of the first kind of analyses was the investigation of the reliability of the new element in
modeling of beams on elastic foundation. Initially, the frame was analyzed using the modified Vlasov soil
6
model, proposed by Vallabhan and Das [8], which enables the estimation of the two soil parameters. Their
values were found to be k
S
=3321,3kN/m
2
and k
G
=11143,19kN (assuming plane stress conditions).
A number of analyses were then carried out using the Winkler model, in which the value of k
S
was the
same as in the case of the modified Vlasov model, i.e. k
S
=3321,3kN/m
2
. Finally, an additional analysis
based on the soil constants, which resulted from the analysis using the modified Vlasov model, was carried
out using the Pasternak model.
Solutions based on the Winkler model were achieved both using the new element, and using four different
conventional models of the foundation beam (Fig. 5b). The main objective of the Winkler-model-analyses
was to prove that the new element can, in fact, yield results that may only be attained using a large number
of simple (classical) beam elements in case of conventional modeling. In addition, conventional modeling
of continuous support requires additional calculations in order to determine the stiffnesses of the discrete
springs required.

-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
=3 =6 =12 =20
1
4
w1
w4
u2
(a)

-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
=3 =6 =12 =20
M4
M1
V1
V4
(b)
2

w
u
1
3
4


Fig 6. Deviations of the displacements (a) and stresses (b) of the four models relative to the reference
solution using the proposed new element
A careful study of Fig. 6 leads to the following conclusions:
1.1) The model with N=3 simple elements fails to approximate the exact values of the stresses, as it
displays deviations of the order of 25% for bending moments and 40% for shear forces.
1.2) The model with N=6 simple elements, although better in comparison with the previous one, still
exhibits considerable deviations, especially for the shear forces (20%). However, divergences are
relatively small when it comes to bending moments (below 10%).
1.3) The model with N=12 simple elements is immensly improved in comparison with the previous one
with deviations remaining below 15%.
1.4) The model with N=20 elements consists of the minimum number of elements necessary for an
absolutely satisfactory approximation of all stress values. In this particular case, the deviations do not
exceed 7%.
The analyses in which the two-parameter models were employed aimed at investigating the influence of
the second parameter on the stress values of the foundation beam. Apart from that, in the case of the
solution based on the Vlasov model, the influence of the soil on either side of the frame was also taken into
account by placing transnational springs with constants
G S
k k
[3] at the ends of the foundation beam
(nodes 5 and 6, Fig. 7). Fig. 7a indicates that the difference between the Winkler and Pasternak models
with reference to the maximum bending moment of the beam is of the order of 20%, whereas the respective
difference between the Winkler and Vlasov models approaches 3400%! From Fig. 7b, it is evident that the
difference between the Winkler and Pasternak models in terms of shear forces does not exceed 10% at any
given point of the beam. The respective differences between the Winkler and Vlasov models reach at
certain points 80-90%. Therefore, the consideration of the soil on either side of the frame substantially
modifies its stress condition, since it alters the way in which it rests on the soil.
7
-270
-170
-70
30
130
230
330
Bending Moments M
KNm
4
1
-7,30kNm
-205,6kNm
-253,1kNm
1
2
w
4

u
3
5 6
2 6
3
5
(a)

-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Winkler
Pasternak
Vlasov
Generalized Shear Forces
KN
5
3
6
2 1
4
388kN
248kN
241,7kN (Winkler)
-341,1kN (Winkler)
-335,4kN
-196kN
-263kN (Winkler)
-255,7kN
-402kN
194,6kN
334,3kN (Winkler) 341kN
-250kN
(b)

Fig. 7 Diagrams of the bending moments and shear forces of the foundation beam (analysis using the
Winkler, Pasternak and Vlasov models).
2) The objective of the second kind of analyses was to provide evidence for the usefulness and practicality
of the new element in modeling of semi-rigid connections in steel structures. In the conventional solution
using the well-known structural analysis program SAP2000 [10], the modeling of semi-rigid connections
was based on two different connection models (Fig. 8a).
The solutions were carried out using three different values for the rotational stiffness of the semi-rigid
connections [4]. The comparisons of rotations and bending moments at the semi-rigid connections are
illustrated in Figs 8a and 8b. From the these diagrams, it is concluded that the conventional modeling of
semi-rigid connections (Fig. 8a) leads to values of stresses and displacements that are very close to those
derived from the analysis using the new element. However, this does not diminish the usefulness of the
new element since the deviation of results requires: (a) extensive preparatory work in order to determine
the appropriate lengths of the auxiliary elements used, as well as the geometric properties of their sections
(Fig. 8a), and (b) the introduction of additional auxiliary nodes and elements in the model. It is clear, that a
more complicated frame, with more bays and stories, would demand multiple repetitions of this
conventional modeling procedure, thus dramatically increasing pre- and postprocessing efforts. In
contrast, using the proposed new element simplifies the modeling of steel structures with semi-rigid
connections to a remarkably large extent.
(only torsional deformations)
L
G
Auxiliary Element
R
=1 rad
B
L
, I J =
t
R
1 rad
B
Model A Model B
(only flexural deformations)
R
B
L
I= , J
B R
L
E
t
Auxiliary Element
R R
Connection (FP) Connection () Connection ()
K =2081kNm/rad

K =4510kNm/rad K =48226kNm/rad


-4,0%
-3,0%
-2,0%
-1,0%
0,0%
1,0%
Model A Model B Model A Model B Model A Model B
HP FP EP
2
3
2
3
2 3
1 4

u
w

(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Conventional models and semi-rigid connection types (a), Deviations of the analyses using the
conventional models from the analyses using the proposed generalized element (b)

CONCLUSIONS
A geometric nonlinear Timoshenko beam element, with rigid offsets at its ends, resting on two-parameter
elastic foundation was presented. The connection of the flexible median segment to the rigid offsets is
8
achieved by means of rotational springs. The final form of the analytically formulated stiffness matrix of
the element features incorporated switches, through which it is possible to activate or de-activate one or
more of its structural characteristics.
The usefulness of the new element was demonstrated by a numerical example. The initial purpose of this
application was to assess the effectiveness and ease with which the modeling of beams on Winkler-type
elastic foundation is achieved. The main conclusion is that the discretization of the foundation beam with
at least 20 simple beam elements is necessary, if the results obtained from the use of conventional models
are to converge to the results from the use of the new element. The second purpose of the example was to
make a comparison between the Winkler model, on the one hand, and the two-parameter Pasternak and
Vlasov models, on the other hand. The chief conclusion reached, in this case, is that the consideration of
the influence of the soil on either side of the frame, by means of the Vlasov model, influences its stress
values to a remarkably large extent. Finally, the effectiveness of the new element in modeling of semi-rigid
connections was tested as well. This led to the conclusion that the new element succeeds in modeling steel
elements nodes in a way that is both simple and reliable.

REFERENCES
[1] E. Winkler, Die lehre von der elasticitaet und festigkeit, Prag, Dominicus, (1867).
[2] P.L.Pasternak, On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means of two constants, (in
Russian), Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi po Stroitelstvui Arkhitekture, Moscow, (1954).
[3] V.Z. Vlasov, U.N. Leontiev, beams, plates, and shells on elastic foundation (Translated from Russian),
Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, (1966).
[4] Semi-Rigid connections in steel frames, Council on tall buildings and urban habitat, Committee 43,
Mc Graw-Hill, New York, (1993).
[5] Morfidis K., Research and development of methods for the modeling of foundation structural elements
and soil, PhD Thesis, Department of Civ. Eng., Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Greece, Oct., (2003).
[6] K. Morfidis, I.E. Avramidis, Formulation of a generalized beam element on a two parameter elastic
foundation with semi rigid connections and rigid offsets, Computers and Structures, 80, (2002),
1919 1934.
[7] I.E. Avramidis, K. Morfidis, Generalized finite beam element for equivalent frame modeling of
reinforced concrete building structures, (in Greek). Proc. 13th Greek Concrete Conference,
Rethymno Crete, (1999), pp. 23-32.
[8] C.V.G. Vallabhan, Y.C. Das, Modified vlasov model for beams on elastic foundation, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 117(6), (1991), 956-966.
[9] A.P.S. Selvadurai, Elastic analysis of soil foundation interaction, Elsevier scientific publishing
company, Amsterdam, (1979).
[10] SAP2000 NonLinear Version 7.42, Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures.
Berkeley, California, USA: Computers and Structures, Inc., (1995).





9
APPENDIX 1: ELEMENTS OF STIFFNESS MATRIX [K]
1
3
1
int
21
int
22 1 1
3
int
23
1
2
int
21
1 11
3
1
1 )d k (P d k ) K K (d d
D
D
K
K
d
D
D
)
K
K
d ( K
G S
(a)
M
RB
(a)
M
RA
+ + + =

) K d (K
K
K
) K d )(K
K
K
( D
RB RB
(a)
M
int
32 1
int
31
int
13 int
12 1
int
11
int
33
2
1 + + + =

) K d (K
K
K
) K d )(K
K
K
( D
RA RA
(a)
M
int
12 1
int
11
int
31 int
32 1
int
31
int
11
3
1 + + + =

2
1
int
22 1
3
int
23
1
2
int
21
1 12
2
1
1 d k K d
D
D
K
K
d
D
D
)
K
K
d ( K
S
(b)
M
RB
(b)
M
RA
+ + =

] d k [K
D
D
K
K
D
D
K
K
K
S
(b)
M
RB
(b)
M
RA
1
int
22
3
int
23 2
int
21
22
+ + =

int
32
int
13 int
12
int
33
2
1 K
K
K
)K
K
K
( D
RB RB
(b)
M
+ =

int
12
int
31 int
32
int
11
3
1 K
K
K
)K
K
K
( D
RA RA
(b)
M
+ =

) K d (K d
D
D
K
K
d
D
D
)
K
K
d ( K
(c)
M
RB
(c)
M
RA
int
24 2
int
23 1
3
int
23
1
2
int
21
1 13
1 + =

) K d (K
D
D
K
K
D
D
K
K
K
(c)
M
RB
(c)
M
RA
int
24 2
int
23
3
int
23 2
int
21
23
+ =

2
3
2
int
44 2
int
43 2
3
int
43
2
2
int
41
2 33
3
1
1 )d k (P d k ) K d K ( d
D
D
)
K
K
d (
D
D
K
K
d K
G S
(c)
M
RB
(c)
M
RA
+ + + + + =

) K d (K
K
K
) K d )(K
K
K
( D
RB RB
(c)
M
int
34 2
int
33
int
13 int
14 2
int
13
int
33
2
1 + =

) K d (K
K
K
) K d )(K
K
K
( D
RA RA
(c)
M
int
14 2
int
13
int
31 int
34 2
int
33
int
11
3
1 + =

int
24 1
3
int
23
1
2
int
21
1 14
1 K d
D
D
K
K
d
D
D
)
K
K
d ( K
(d)
M
RB
(d)
M
RA
+ =

int
24
3
int
23 2
int
21
24
K
D
D
K
K
D
D
K
K
K
(d)
M
RB
(d)
M
RA
+ =

] d k [K d
D
D
)
K
K
d (
D
D
K
K
d K
S
(d)
M
RB
(d)
M
RA
2
int
44 2
3
int
43
2
2
int
41
2 34
2
1
1 + + + =

2
int
44
3
int
43 2
int
41
44
d k K
D
D
K
K
D
D
K
K
K
S
(d)
M
RB
(d)
M
RA
+ + =

RB RB
(d)
M
K
K
K )
K
K
( K D
int
13 int
34
int
33 int
14 2
1 + =

RA RA
(d)
M
K
K
K )
K
K
( K D
int
31 int
14
int
11 int
34 3
1 + =

RB RA RB RA
K K
) (K
)
K
K
)(
K
K
( D
2 int
13
int
33
int
11
1 1 + + =

where K
ij
int
are the coefficients of stiffness matrix of median segment.

APPENDIX 2: LOAD VECTOR FOR UNIFORM LOAD
Solution Case 3 (Fig. 2): ( ) | |
S S G
k / EIk ) k (P 4
2
< +
(

+ + + = m) n ( ) m n Q)( R (
K
EI
Qm) )(Rn (
D k
EIq
M
RB Q S
2 1 1 2
2
2
2
1 2
4

where n=sin(QL), n=cos(QL), m=sinh(RL) and m=cosh(RL).
The bending moment M
3
results from the aforementioned equation by substituting K
RA
for K
RB
.
(

+ + + + + = ) F F
K
EI
F
K
EI
F
K K
(EI)
)( k (P ) F F
K
EI
F
K
EI
F
K K
(EI)
)( EI(
D k
q
V
G G
RB
G
RA
G
RB RA
G
RB RA RB RA Q S
G 4 3 2 1
2
4 3 2 1
2
2
2
2
1 2
4

Qm) )(Rn m n Q)( R )( Q (R F + + + =
1 2
2 2
1

) m R n Q )( m n RQ( Rn) m)(Qm n )( Q (R F + =
2 1 2 1
2 2
2
2
| | ) m n )( n R m Q ( Qn) m)(Rm n ( RQ F + + =
2 1 2 1 3
2
m) n )( m n RQ( F
2 1 4
2 =
m) n Q)( R )( m n )( Q (R F
G 2 1 1 2
2 2
1
+ + =
m) n n)( m RQ( ) n Q m )(R m n Q)( R ( m) Q n m)(R n ( F
G 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2
2
1
2
2 1 2
+ + + + =
| | ) n R m Q )( m n ( m) n Qn)( (Rm Q) R ( F
G
+ + =
2 1 2 1 1 2 3

m) n )( m n Q)( R ( F
G 2 1 1 2 4
=
) n m ( ) n n m m Q)( R )(
K
EI
K
EI
( ) n (m Q) R (
K K
EI) (
D
RB RA RB RA
Q
2 2
1
2 2
2 1 2 1 2
2 2 2
1 2
2
4 4
2
+ + + + + + =

RQ

) Q (R A
Q R
R QA

Q R
Q RA
,
k
, ,
S
2
2
2 2
1
2 2
2 1
2
2 2
2 1
1
=
+
+
+
+
= = =
The shear force V
G3
results from the above equations by substituting K
RA
for K
RB
and vice-versa.

10
Solution Case 1 (Fig. 2): ( ) | |
S S G
k / EIk ) k (P 4
2
> +
| | | | | | ) D (D ) D (D ) ( Q) R ( Q)-D R ( D
K
EI
Q R
D k
D EIqD
= M
R Q S
(

+ + +
2 1 2 1 2 1
2 1
2
2

where: =sin(RL), =cos(RL), =sin(QL), =cos(QL)
The bending moment M
3
results from the above equation by substituting K
RA
for K
RB
.
(

+ +
(

+ + =
6 5 4 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2
U ) U U D (D
K
EI
) k (P U ) U (U
K
EI
D EID
D k
q
V
RA
G
RA Q S
G

| | | | | |
(

+
(

+ + + + = Q R ) Q R (

Q) R ( D Q) R ( D Q) R ( D Q) R ( D U
RB
2 2 2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2 1
2

| | | | | | Q) R ( D Q) R ( D ) ( Q) R ( D Q) R ( D O )O Q R (
K
EI
U
RB
+ + +
(

=
2 1 2 1 1 2
2 2
2
1 2

| | | | | | | |
)
`

+ + + + + + = Q) R ( D Q) R ( D ) ( Q) R ( D Q) R ( D

) ( ) D (D ) D (D Q R U
RB
2 1
2 2
2 1 2 1 2 1 3
4

| |
2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2 2
4
4 2 4 Q R Q R )O Q R (
K
EI
U
RB
+ +
(

=

| | | | { }
| | | |

+ + +
+ + + =
3
2 2
2 1 2 1
2 1 2 1 5
1
)O Q R (

Q) R ( D Q) R ( D Q) R ( D Q) R ( D
Q) R ( D Q) R ( D ) ( Q) R ( D Q) R ( D U
RB

| | | |
| |
| |
)

(
(

+ +
+ +
+ + + =
Q) R ( D Q) R ( D
) ( Q) R ( D Q) R ( D

) ( ) D (D ) D (D Q) R ( D Q) R ( D U
RB 2 1
2 2
2 1
2 1 2 1 2 1 6

Q R ) Q R ( O + + = 2
2 2
1
R Q O =
2
) D (D ) D (D + + =
2 1 2 1 3

| | | || |
| |
2 2
2 1
2 2
2 1
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
2
2 1 2 1
2
1 1
2
) D (D ) D (D
) D (D ) D (D )Q D (D R ) D (D
K K
EI
)Q D (D R ) D (D
K K
(EI)
D
RB RA RB RA
Q
+ +
+ + + +
(

+ + + + =

(

+ +
+
=

k
Q) R (
Q) R (
D
S 2
1
1

(

k
Q) R (
Q) R (
D
S 2
2
1

L) R ( 2 sin = L) R ( 2 cos =
The shear force V
G3
results from the above equations by substituting K
RA
for K
RB
and vice-versa.