ANALYSIS OF ELASTIC BEAMS ON NONLINEAR

FOUNDATIONS

FRED W. BEAUFAIT?

Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506,U.S.A.

and

PETER W. HOADLEY~
University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A.

(Received 20 July 1979; received for publication 18 March 1980)

Ahstraet--The midpoint difference method is organized for solving the basic differential equation for the elastic
deformation of a beam supported on an elastic, nonlinear foundation with rigid or elastic descrete supports. An
iterative approach is used in solving the nonlinear problem; a weighted averaging scheme is employed to speed up
the convergence to a solution. The method of analysis, as programmed for a computer solution, considers the
continuous elastic, nonlinear foundation to be active only when the beam is pressing against the foundation: the
foundation is assumed to be inactive in the regions where the beam has displaced away from the foundation. Two
examples are presented to illustrate the application of the method of analysis.

INTRODUCTION a soil foundation can be approximated with a bilinear

The analysis of a linear elastic beam supported on a curve as illustrated in Fig. 2. Hence, the foundation
linear elastic foundation and subjected to lateral loads modulus, k, of eqn (1) becomes a nonlinear coefficient.
has been accomplished by many different It is the purpose of this paper to review a numerical
techniques [ 1,2]. The basic differential equation describ- method that can be used to solve the higher order
ing the elastic deflection curve of a beam on a linear differential equation, eqn (l), and to describe a technique
elastic foundation, considering only flexural defor- for handling the nonlinear aspects of the problem which
mations of the beam, is[2] provides for rather quick convergence of the solution.

$ EI$ +P$$+ky=w (1) MIDPOINT

DIFFERENCE
METHOD
c I
The midpoint difference method is a general numerical
where y defines the deflection of the beam, E is the scheme for approximating the solution of a higher order
modulus of elasticity of the material of construction for differential equation, such as eqn (l), in the presence of
the beam, Z is the moment of inertia of the cross-section discontinuities [2,4]. The sign convention used in
at distance x, P is the axial load applied to the beam, w developing the method of analysis is established in Fig.
is the applied distributed load and k is the foundation 3. The beam is assumed to be positioned in the frame of
modulus. The beam may have a variable cross-section a set of right-handed, orthogonal axes with the x-axis
over all or any portion of its length; thus Z or dZ/dx may defining the longitudinal axis of the beam. Both applied
be a discontinuous function. loads and internal actions are shown in their assumed
The solution of eqn (1) is complicated by discon- positive sense. The free-body diagram of Fig. 4 is used in
tinuities in the applied loads, both P and w and the establishing eqn (1).
foundation modulus k. Discontinuities in the deflection
curve or one of its derivatives may also be introduced
into the problem by interior support constraints or spe-
cial construction constraints.
The problem is further complicated if the foundation
supporting the beam behaves nonlinearly. Soil is not an
linear material and to model it as an linear material
could lead to considerable error in an analysis. Soil, in m
Area
fact, has a stress-strain relationship that has been des-
cribed with a hyperbolic curve[3]; a similar load-
deflection relationship could be assumed to exist, as
shown in Fig. 1, when modelling the reaction of a soil
foundation. The nonlinear load-deflection relationship for

tProfessor and Chairman.

Graduate student, B.E. graduate, Department of Civil Deflection (A 1
Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203,U.S.A. Fii. I. Load-deflection relationship for soil.
669
670 F. W. BEAUFAITand P. W. HOADLEY

and

If the beam is partitioned into n segments, not neces-

sarily of equal length, n t 1 station will be identified.
Equations (2) can be written for the midpoint of each
m segment, evaluating the coefficients k, P, EZ and w at the
Area midpoint of each segment, Now, the variables defined in
eqns (3), evaluated at the midpoint of a segment, can be
approximated as an average of the corresponding vari-
ables defined at the two boundary stations for the seg-
ment; for segment i
I A. A.
Deflection
Yf+,,2 =$Yl+, t Y,',. (4)
Fig. 2. Approximation of load-deflection curve.

The superscript identifies the variable and the subscript

specifies the location (station). Similarly, the derivative
of each variable, eqns (3) can be approximated as

&YI,,,,) =i(YI+, - Yi? (9

I

for segment i, where hi is the segment length. Utilizing

these approximations, eqns (2) can be approximated with
the set of equations

B) INTERNAL
kTIONS
Fig. 3. Sign convention.

or

Y IAilIydIi + [giI{yd}i+, = {L}i+1/2 (6b)

Fig. 4. Free-body of elastic beam on nonlinear foundation.
Midpoint difference equations
The midpoint difference method is formulated on the
concept of replacing the higher order differential equa-
tion with a set of first order differential equations. In the
case of eqn (I), it can be replaced with the following set
of four first order differential equations:
tsegment label t-station identification.
Boundary conditions
In order to solve the differential equation, eqn (l), the
constraints at either end of the beam must be known.
Any boundary constraint can be expressed in terms of
the four variables defined earlier by eqns (3); for example,
for a free end Y3 = 0 and Y4 = 0. The boundary con-
straints can be expressed, in general terms, as

[‘%I{Y% = VA (7)

where [E,] would be a 2 x 4 matrix.

Continuity equations
Should anyone of the four variables of eqns (3) have a
where
discontinuity or constraint imposed on it at some location
Y’ = y (deflection) (3a) within the span of the beam, special continuity equations
must be written to specify the continuities that do exist
at that point and account for the discontinuity. At the
point of a discontinuity, two boundary stations and a
d2y (fictitious) segment of zero length are identified, and a set
Y’ = El-&bending moment) (3c) of four equations must be written for the fictitious seg-
 Analysis of elastic beams on no~inear foundations
ment describing the continuity in terms of the four
variables,eqns (3), at each of the two boundary stations.
For example, at the point of application of a concen-
trated point load, F, there would be a discontinuityin the
shear. The conditionsof continuitythat exist at this point
could be expressed as
In general, the four continuity equations that must be
written for any fictitious segmentcan be expressed as
[Cjl{Y”lj+ [Ql{Ydli+l = {Llj+l/* (9)
‘TLsegmentidentification ‘L._station label
Writingthe midpointdifference equation for each real
segment, the continuity equations for each fictitious
segment and the boundary equations for ends of the
beam, a system of 4n t 4 algebraicequations,
I@{Y) = VI (IO)
(where n is’ the number of segments, both real and
fictitious) is established, replacing eqn (11, and can be
solved for the 4(n t 1) variablesidentifiedat the stations.
The reader’s attention is called to Ref.[4] for a dis-
cussion of the characteristics peculiar to this set of
equations and their solution.
When pa~itioning the beam into segments, both real
and fictitious, stations should be located at all points of
discontinuityof any one of the four variablesof eqns (3)
as well as at points of discontinuityof the loadingor the two iterations of analysis must be carried out. For the
geometry of the structure. Segments can be of any first iteration all foundation springsare assumedto have
convenient length. The segments are identifiedby num- a springstiffnessof
bering, sequentially, from left to right; the stations are
identifiedin a similarmanner.
THENONLJNEARPROBLEM
If the load-displacementresponse of the foundation is
nonlinear then the governing differential equation, eqn
(1) and the approximati~ set of algebraicequations,eqn
(IO),became nonlinearequations.The defiected shape of
the beam is a function of the load actingon the beam and
the load is a nonlinearfunction of the deflectionof beam
and the supporting foundation. A solution to this non-
linear problem is sought through a systematic
modificationof the foundation modulus,using the famil-
iar cosecant approach, until both compatibility and
equilibrium are satisfied. In utilizing the mid~int
difference method to analyze the beam, the supporting
foundation can be modelled as a spring of stiffness k
when in compression and zero when in tension, located
at the midpoint of the segment. The stiffness of the
spring is a function of the displacementof the midpoint
of the segment.
671
The nonlinear nature of the problem requires that an
iterative approach be taken. Using the bilinear curve to
model the load-displacementresponse of the foundation,
Fig. 2, all foundation springs are assumed to be active
and to have a stiffnessequal to the slope, & of the first
segmentof the load-displacementrelationshipin the first
iteration of the analysis. Once the beam has been
analyzed, the displacementof the midpointof each real
segment attached to a foundation spring is checked to
determine (a) if the spring is in tension (positive
deflection) or (b) if the displacementof the spring has
exceeded the elastic displacement A, (Fig. 2). If the
spring is in tension, the beam has tried to lift off of the
foundation: hence, the spring stiffness is set to zero for
the next iteration. If the spring displacement has
exceeded the elastic displacement A,, a new spring
stiffness is assumed.Using the new stiffnessesfor those
foundation springs that had to be modified, a second
analysisis made. Once againthe midpointdisplacements
are checked to determine (a) if an active spring is in
tension, (b) if an inactive spring, i.e. a spring of zero
stiffness, is in compressionand should be a active once
again, (c) if the displacementof a spring has exceed A,
and (d) if the assumedspringstiffnessis compatiblewith
the actual load-displacementresponse of the foundations
for the computed displacement. New or improved
stiffnessesare assumed,were appropriate, and the beam
is reanalyzed. This process of checking the displace-
ments, assumingnew spring stiffnesses,and reanalyzing
the structure is repeated until the actual foundation
response and the assumed spring stiffnesses are in
agreementor within some acceptable range of error.
Because of the computationalefforts involved in the
analysis it is desirable to keep the number of iterations
required to achieve a solution to a minimum.This is
controlled to a large degree by selection of each new
springstiffness;the better the estimate of the more rapid
the convergence to a solution. In order to enhance the
convergence to the solution, a weightedaverage scheme
is employed.
WJMXTEDAVRRAGEs
Before the weighted averages scheme can be utilized
For those springs where the displacement of the mid-
point of the segment exceed; the elastic limit A,, a new
springstiffness is arbitrarily defined as
,,=2&t&,
’ 2AictAi" (12)
as shown in Fig. 5. Whenever a spring displacement
exceeds A, and a spring stiffness of kc has been used in
the analysis, that stiffness is modiied for the next itera-
tion according to eqn (12). For those springs where the
displacementis less than A,, the initialstiffnessk. is still
valid.
Once a second iteration has been completed the
weightedaverages scheme can be employed to obtain a
better estimate of a springstiffnessfor the next iteration.
Definingthe displacement of the foundation spring at
612 F. W. BEAUFAIT and P. W. HOADLEY

I k"

F.
F,
F,
Force
Force
Area
Area

•i f I
4 AU
Deflection
Deflection

Fig. S. Assumed spring stiffness where foundation first strained Fig. 6. Unbalanced forces used in determining weighing factors.
beyond elastic limit.
Now, the weight assigned to the upper limit spring
the midpoint of segment i evaluated in the second itera- stiffness is
tion as A?, a spring force E’ associated with the
assumed spring stiffness k’ can be computed according
(21)
to

E’ = ki’Ai and the weight assigned to the lower limit spring stiffness
(13)
is
and a spring force FF associated with the assumed spring
stiffness k* used in the second iteration can be AL=I-AU. (22)
established according to
Using the weighing factors, a new spring stiffness can be
E2 = k:AF. (14) defined for the next iteration as

Now the actual reactive force of the foundation cor-
responding to the computed displacement Ai is
Es = Fe t ki” (A: - A,).
Using the information obtained from the first and second
iterations, provided by eqns (II)-(H), weighing factors
can be established for determining the spring stiffness to
be used in the next iteration for the foundation spring of
segment i. For subsequent iterations the information
from the previous and the present iterations is used to
establish the new spring stiffness for the next iteration.
At the conclusion of an iteration, say the pth iteration,
it is assumed that the spring stiffness used in the pre-
vious iteration, kP_‘, and the spring stiffness used in the
present iteration, kp, define upper and lower bounds, ki”
and kiL, for the stiffness, as shown in Fig. 6 and that for
the displacement of the midpoint of segment i, Ai’, these
stiffnesses bracket the actual reactive force exerted by
the foundation. Now an unbalariced force for the lower
limit stiffness is defined as the
where
kl’” = A ukiU $ A l.kiL, (23)
Should the upper and lower limits of a spring stiffness
(15) not bracket the actual reactive force of the foundation
for the computed displacement, A:, then a new upper or
lower limit will have to be established. Referring to Fig.
7, if both the previous and the present stiffnesses yield
forces greater than the actual reactive force then a new
lower limit spring stiffness must be established before
eqns (16)-(23) can be used. This is accomplished, as
shown in Fig. 7, by defining a new lower limit stiffness
that underestimates the actual force by the same amount
e, that the present lower limit overestimates the actual
force. If both the previous and the present spring
stiffnesses yield forces that are less than the actual
foundation force, Fig. 8, then a new upper limit stiffness
must be identified. This is done by defining a stiffness
that will overestimate the actual force by the same
amount, e2 that the current upper limit underestimates
the actual force.
The iteration process is completed when all of the
foundation springs that are compressed beyond the elas-
tic limit, Aie, have been identified, no additional springs
need to be released due to a positive displacement of the
beam, and the difference between the new spring stiffness

fis =fe t ki" (Ai” - Ai,) (17)

and

F.l*
I = k.LA.p
II (18)

and a total unbalance force, SFi, can be defined as Force

Area
SF,=fi”-F, (19)

where
Deflection
F.” = k.UA?1.
I , (20) Fig. 7. Establishing appropriate lower limit.
 Analysis of elastic beams on nonlinear foundations 673

I /new upper limit

24

20
Force (kips)
Area (fe) l6

Force
Area

4 4 I

004 01 02 03
Deflection
DeflectIon ( ft)
Fig. 8. Establishing appropriate upper limit.
Fig. IO. Examples I and 2: load-displacement relationship for
soil (I ft = 304.8 mm; I kip = 4.448 N: I kiplft’ = 47.88 kN/m’).

20 klps/ft Example I
The two span continuous beam of Fig. 9 was analyzed
by the midpoint difference for the indicated loading. The
beam has a constant cross-section with a moment of
inertia I equal to 0.6175ft“ (0.0053m4); the modulus of
elasticity E is taken as 432000ksf (20680MPa).
Fig. 9. Example I: Two span continuous beam (I ft = 0.3048 m;
In partitioning the beam, the left span is divided into
I kip/ft = 14.59 kN/m). IO segments of l.5ft (0.457m) and the right span is
divided into I7 segments with the first and last segments
1.25ft (0.381 m) in length and the other 15 segments 1.5ft
and the present spring stiffness for each active spring is (0.457 m) in length. A fictitious segment is placed at the
within a specified tolerance. interior support.
The load-displacement response of the soil is given in
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE Fig. 10. This is somewhat characteristic of a medium
In order to illustrate the proposed method of analysis, dense sand.
two examples are offered. The first example shows the Six iterations were required to solve this problem. The
analysis of a beam where a portion of the structure lifts analysis was halted when the new stiffness of each active
off of the foundation; the second one demonstrates the foundation spring was within 1% of the current spring
versatility of the method analyzing a beam structure on stiffness. The deflection curve and the variation of the
elastic supports as well as a nonlinear soil foundation. foundation pressure are given in Fig. II; the shear

3
m)R;_
W--
z
kk
2
m9
,YY.00 6. 67 13.33 20.00 26.67 33.33
I 8 3. 00
DISTANCE. X IFT)
m
cn
Fig. I I. Example I: Deflection curve and soil foundation pressure.
614 F. W. BEAUFAITand P. W. HOADLEY

To& 6.67 13.33

1 20.00
3
26.67
1
33.33
1
4a.00
DISTGNCE. X !FT)

Fig. 12. Example 1: Shear and Bendix moment diagrams.

20ff _i 30tt

/8
/ I i / I I
I I = 16875 tt*

Fig. 14. Example 2: Two span continuous girder-part

!

of a grid
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
foundation supported on a nonlinear soil (1 ft = 0.3048 m;
lterotions
1kiplft = 14.59 kNlm; 1ft-kip = 1.356
kNm; 1kip = 4.448k&J).
Fig. 13. Example 1: Convergence of foundarion stiffness
(1 kip/ft* = 47.88 kNlm*; 1ft = 0.3048 m).
support springs represent the restraint offered by trans-
verse beams framing into the girder to be analyzed; the
diagram and the bending moment diagram for the beam three rotational elastic springs are used to model the
are given in Fig. 12. To illustrate the convergence of the rotational constraint offered by the transverse beams and
method of analysis, the variation of the stiffness of the the columns framing into this particular beam. The
foundation spring at two locations in the right span is moment of inertia of the beam is taken as I.6875 ft4
plotted in Fii. 13. Note in Fig. 11that the left span of the (0.1456m4~ and a modulus of elasticity of 432000ksf
beam has lifted off the soil foundation. The final solution (20680MPa) is used. The rotational support springs have
is listed in Table 1. a stiffness of 25400ft-klrad. (34440kNm) and the trans-
lational support springs have a stiffness of 2500 klft
Example 2 (36910kN/m). The load-displacement response of foun-
The two span continuous beam described in Fig. 14 is dation material is that given earlier in Fig. 11. For the
part of a grid foundation. The three translational elastic analysis, the left span was divided into 10 segments of
 F. W. BEAUFAIT and P. W.HOADLEY 615

TableI.Analysis
of two spancontinuous
beam-Example I

Station Deflection Foundation Shear Bending Moment

(ft) Pressure (kip) (ft-kip)
(ksf)

0 0.0 -17.50 0.0

1.5 0.00365 -17.50 -26.26
: -17.50 -52.52
0.00709 0
?"5 0.01008 -17.50 -78.77
6:0 0.01240 -17.50 -105.03
i -17.50 -131.29
7.5 0.01384
0 -17.50 -157.55
9.0 0.01417
10.5
12.0
8 0.01318
0.01063
0”
0
-17.50
-17.50
-183.80
-210.06
13.5 1'0 0.00631 -17.50 -236.32
11
0 -17.50 -262.58
15.0 0.0
15.0
16.25
12
13
0.0
-0.00673
40: 00
4oo:oo
109.94
86.62
-262.58
-139.73
17.75 14 -0.01586 63.39 -27.22
400.00 45.73 54.62
19.25 15 -0.02528
400.00 33.60 114.12
20.75 16 -0.03429
400.00 26.60 159.27
22.25 17 -0.04237
353.62 194.95
23.75 -0.04912 20.98
316.51 15.65 222.42
25.25 -0.05425
295.05 242.05
26.75 -0.05752 10.53
284.79 5.53 254.09
28.25 -0.05876
284.01 0.54 258.64
29.75 22 -0.05787
292.85 255.63
31.25 23 -0.05483 -4.55
313.53 -9.85 244.82
32.75 24 -0.04964
351.70 -15.45 225.85
34.25 25 -0.04240
400.00 -22.74 197.21
35.75 26 -0.03328
400.00 -36.00 153.15
37.25 -0.02253
400.00 -56.08 84.08
38.75 :1: -0.01053
400.00 -78.45 0.0
40.0 29 0.0

I
00 8.33 16.67 25.00 33.33 41.67 50.00
DISTRNCE. X IFTI

;;
.-
Em
+-us_
LN
\
Y
u-7
m&
W--
z
LL
L

Lo
m9
,% 00 8.33 16.67 25.00 33.33 41.67 ' b.00
DISTRNCE. X [FT)

Fig.15.Example 2:Deflection
curveand soilfoundation
pressure.
676 F. W. BE4UFAIT and P. W. HOADLEY

:
! ,
‘0. 00 6. 33 16.67 25.00 33.33 41.67 50.00
DISTRNCE. X (FTI

‘01oc 6: 33 16.67 2k. 00 35.33 4’1. 67 5th 00

DISTRNCE, X IFT)
Fig. 16. Example 2: Shear and bending moment diagrams

2ft (0.61 m) length; the right span was divided into 15
segments of 2 ft (0.61 m) length.
The beam was analyzed for the indicated loading. Six
iterations were again, required to achieve a solution. The
deflection curve and the variation of the foundation
pressure are shown in Fig. 15; the shear diagram and the
bending moment diagram are given in Fig. 16.
special operators, or equations, are needed to handle
difference discontinuities. The obvious disadvantage is
the number of equations that must be solved. The tech-
nique proposed in this paper is very versatile and can be
organized to solve other types of problems that can be
described with the nth order differential equation.

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

The midpoint difference method coupled with the use I. M. Hetenyi, Beamson Elastic Foundation, The University of
of weighted averages and the cosecant approach offers a Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich (Jan. 1946).
general numerical technique for analyzing the problem of 2. Fred W. Beaufait, Numerical analysis of beams on elastic
a linear elastic beam supported on a nonlinear foun- foundations.J. Engng Mech.DIV. ASCE, 203, No. EMI 205-
209(Feb. 1977).
dation. The method is well suited for programming on 3. R. L. Kondner, Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive
the digital computer; it converges rather rapidly to a soils, ,I. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div. ASCE, 89,
solution. The method has the advantage over other 115-143 (1%3).
difference methods that might be used to solve this type 4. Fred W. Beaufait and George W. Reddien. Midpoint
of problem in that segments of varying length can be difference method for analyzing beam structures. Corn@.
used without complicating the analysis and that few Structures 8,745-751 (1977).