University of Nigeria

Research Publications

MBAJIORGU, Magnus Sylvanus

Author

Weniteafa
PG/M Eng/84/2369
A Higher Order Theory Applied to Beams
Title

Resting on Elastic Foundations

Faculty

Engineering
Department

Civil Engineering

July, 1986
Date

Digitally signed by Omenuko

Omenuko Sunday Ogbonna
Signature

DN: CN = Omenuko Sunday

Ogbonna, C = NG, O = University
Sunday of Nigeria, OU = Innovation Centre
Reason: I have reviewed this
Ogbonna document
Date: 2008.11.10 09:40:00 -12'00'
 A HIGHER ORDER THEORY APPLIED TO BFAMS

RESTING ON ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS

MBAJIORGU, MAGNUS SILVANW WENITEAFA

(PG/M. Eng/84/ 2369)

A THE3IS SUBMITTED '1'0 THE CIVIL ENGINEERING

L)EPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA,

IN PARTIAL FLJL,FILMENT OF THE RE?UIPEMENTS

FOR THE MASTERS IN ENGINEERING DEGPEE I N

CIVIL ENGINEERING

JULY 1986
Ngozika Faustina Ijeoma Chiakwa
 CONTENTS

2.2 Beams Resting on Elastic Foundations -------------- 5

2.3.2 Elastic Continuum Foundation Model ---------------- 10

2.3.3 Two-Parameter Foundation Wdels ------------------- 11
2.3.4 Three-Parameter Foundation Model ------------------ 18
2.3.5 Prediction of the Foundation Parameters ----------- 19
3 '- A HIGHER ORDER THEORY FOR BEAMS TI-IROUGH A VARIATIONAL
~ p p ~ 1 ,..........................................
~m 24

3.1 Variational Principles ............................ 24

3.2 Development of a Higher Order Theory for Beams ---- 28

3.2.1 Displacement and Stress States .................... 28

5.2 Simply Supported Beams Resting on E l a s t i c Founda-
tions by the F i r s t Order Theory --------------
 ABSTRACT

The mixed v a r i a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e of Reissner (1950) was used here

t o derive higher order equations f o r beams. The s t r e s s and disnlnccmcnt

s t a t e s of t h e c l a s s i c a l theory were modified t o include two h i g h e r ordcr

e f f e c t s ( t h i s was c a l l e d the t h i r d order theory). These s t r e s s rmd tlis-

placement s t a t e s were used in the v a r i a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e . Thc p m - n i n g

equations and boundary conditions appeared i n such a form t h a t the

symmetric and antisymmetric p a r t s were uncoupled and hence c o u l d h c con-

sidered separately.
The t h i r d order theory was used for the solution of simply supnorted

beams carrying uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d and concentrated loads. lics111

ts

were presented and compared with r e s u l t s from other t h e o r i e s l i k e the

c l a s s i c a l , the f i r s t order and the Method of I n i t i a l Functions ( M I F ) .

The t h i r d order theory proved superior t o the other theories and enabled

the solution f o r the beam problem t o be extended t o beams with d e p t h t o

length r a t i o s o f g r e a t e r than 0.25.

The present theory was a l s o used t o analyse three s e t s of free-

ended s t e e l beams r e s t i n g on e l a s t i c foundation t h a t Vesic and Johnson

(1963) presented experimental r e s u l t s f o r . The r e s u l t s of t h e analyses

were p l o t t e d together with Vesic and Johnson's and conventional analyses

results. As the beams became more r i g i d the advantage of t h e nresent

theory was most evident.

b
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes t o express h i s profdund g r a t i t u d e t o h i s

supervisor, D r . V. K. Sebastian, f o r h i s guidance, suggcs t ions and

c r i t i c i s m s during the course of t h i s work.

The contributions of my colleagues T.S. Koko and E. C. Oguej i o f o r

a r e acknowledged. M r . V.O. Ekechukwu and F.O. Okafor were of immense

help during t h e computer calculation of the numerical r e s u l t s .

The author is a l s o g r a t e f u l f o r the m r a l supnort o f t h e rncmbcrs

of h i s family and h i s c h r i s t i a n friends. Finally, Mrs l i . C. Chinwuba,

is being thanked f o r the good work she d i d i n typing t h i s thesis.

 LIST OF TABLES

Table

Recommended Procedures f o r Analysis ------------

Convergence Patterns of Moment and Deflection
a t Midspan .....................................

Values of Maximum Non-Dimens ionalised Deflect ion

and Moment f o r d i f f e r e n t Depth t o Length Ratios

Values of M a x i m ox/q f o r d i f f e r e n t h / t values

Values of Maximum -r /q f o r d i f f e r e n t h/R values
xy
Maximum values of v, v* and v by t h e Third
Order f o r d i f f e r e n t h/R valueg -----------------

Convergence Patterns of Moment and Deflection

a t Midspan .....................................

Values of Maximum Non-Dimensionalised Deflection

and Moment f o r d i f f e r e n t D e ~ t ht o Length Ratios

Simply Supported Beam on E l a s t i c Foundation

carrying a Uniform Load, q .....................

Simply Supported Beam on E l a s t i c Foundation

Point Load, P .........................

Beam Characteristics ------------------.---------

L;ad;ng ,n B G m
3&in,tiuns ------------------
Values of am and A,, apnearing i n Qm ------------
Results from d i f f e r e n t Analyses f o r the Wide
Flange Beam ....................................

Results from d i f f e r e n t Analyses f o r t h e Flat

Beam ...........................................

Results from d i f f e r e n t Analys& f o r the Channel

Beam ...........................................

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Beam Resting on an Elastic Foundation -----------
Characteristics of the Winkler Foundation Model -
Observed Displacement Patterns under Loading for
most Foundations .................................

The Filonenko-Borodich Foundation Assumption ----

The Hetenyi Foundation Model .....................
The Vlasov-Leontiev Foundation Assumption --------
Values of the Foundation Modulus for Different
Subgrades ----------------------------------------

Fletcher and H e r m m Curves for the Detcrmination

of Foundation Parameters -------------------------
General Loading on Beam ..........................

Simply Supported Beam Problem --------------------

Variation of ox/q across the Depth of Beam ------
Variation of -r /q and a /q across the Depth of
Beam ---------3---------Y Y Y y Y - - - - ---------------

Beam resting on an Elastic Foundation -----------

Location of Point Loads -------------------------
Results for Wide Flange Beam with Single Load ---
Results for Wide Flange Bean with Two Loads -----
Results for Wide Flange Beam with Three Loads ---
Results for Flat Beam with Single Load ----------
Results for Flat Beam with Two Loads ------------
Results for Flat Beam with Three Loads ----------
viii
5.9 Results f o r Channel Beam with Single Load -------- 7:i

5.10 Resul LS f u r Channel Beam with Two Lodds .--- ---- - - 79

5.11 Results f o r Channel Ream with Three Loads --------- XO

 LIST OF SYPBOLS

Cross-sectional Area

Series coefficients

Width of Beam

Constants

Youngs Modulus of Elasticity

Youngs Modulus for the foundation material

Modulus of Rigidity

Depth of Beam

Moment of I n e r t i a

Foundation llodulus ( f i r s t foundation naramct c r 1

Second foundat ion parameter

Length of Beam

Coefficients appearing i n ax

Coefficients appearing i n -r
xy
Coefficients appearing i n a
Y
Foundation Reaction Pressure

Concentration load on Beam

Distributed load on Beam

Coefficients of the Fourier Series expansioll of 1oad function

P a s t e n a k ' s second foundation parameter

Vlasovfs second foundation parameter

Filonenkofs second foundation parameter

Displacements in the x,y,z directions respcc-t i v r l v

Coefficients appearing i n u
vO,v1,v2 - Coefficients appearing in v

Depth t o length r a t i o (h/R)

Poisson's r a t i o
Poisson's r a t i o f o r the foundation material

Constant

mT

Characteristic length of a Beam on Elastic 1 : o ~ 1 r t~ilo; 1n

Constant

Beam Function

Coefficients appearing i n the Beam Function i (;,,I

 a m R I
INTRODUCTION

I. 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND

The c l a s s i c a l theory of beam bending has f o r a very l o n ~I rrrrcx

been the bases of the solution of many engineering problcm~. I 11 is

theory due t o i t s simplifying assumptions, takes the longi t ~ r t l Ii] < !l

normal s t r e s s t o be l i n e a r l y distributed accross the depth o l I l i ( s

beam while the shear s t r e s s assumes a parabolic d i s t r i b u t io11 I!), i t llc

transverse normal s t r e s s is neglected. The deflection i s ~ I I !v il\cw

~

as the deflection of the middle plane of the beam while the. (.I 1 1 t

of shear deformation on bending i s neglected. This result., 11, I

fourth order d i f f e r e n t i a l equation i n terms of t h e def1cc.t I 01 I 1 1 1 ~ 1

loading.

The r e s u l t s obtained from t h i s theory become q u i t e i n , \ ( i III

for d v beams and a t the immediate v i c i n i t y of concentr.irc>(l I .itli.

On the other hand, the exact solution f o r any engineering 11 I ( ) II I 1 11' i C,

obtained through the theory of e l a s t i c i t y . For one t o o h t ; i~11 I 1 (

theory of e l a s t i c i t y solution of a problem, he w i l l have t o > oI

s i x f i r s t order l i n e a r p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l equations of ~ Y \ II I 1 1 1 ! Iran,

s i x second order l i n e a r p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l equations of L-OIII[);I~ I -

bility and s i x stress-strain relationships with s t r e s s nntllor ( ! I . n

rnent components subject t o appropriate boundary conditionh. 111 o

these'equationsane w i l l have t o obtain f i f t e e n unknowns ( s i \ 1 1 1 ~ l t1 1

dent s t r e s s components, three displacement components aid G > I , I I , I 111

components) . This approach of seeking exact solutions i:?I I ~ . II,I I I

very d i f f i c u l t and f o r some problems have remained irrrpossil)lt~.

 To bridge the gap between what i s expected and what c.,111 I), oi,t : I ~ I K Y I ,

especially what can be e a s i l y obtained, simplifying assump-t 1oi1~, I I (' i n-

troduced t o reduced the basic three dimensional problem t o ;I I\,(; ~1irncr1-

sional one (as in the c l a s s i c a l p l a t e theory) and f u r t h e r t o ;I O I I ~ , cli~ncn-

sional problem (as i n the c l a s s i c a l beam theory) . By as sun^ i I]!? ( 1 r v . l PI, ric~tc.

displacement and s t r e s s s t a t e s it is possible t o t r e a t the I Y \ < I I ~ , I 01) l c>m as

a simplified two dimensional problem. This way one i s ablc 1 o ~ l i rI i r i ;I

theory higher and b e t t e r than the c l a s s i c a l beam theory yCt 1101 1)( rrlll ;I.;

tedious a s the exact solution.

The v a r i a t i o n a l o r energy methods become very handy f o r I f f mow.

'Ihis is bccause, given proper d e f i n i t i o n s o r s t r c s s :~ndt l r * 1 1 l '' 1 1 I. lr 1 (or

s t r a i n ) s t a t e s the governing d i f f e r e n t i a l equations Cor sly I ) I t I t 111 .I I cx

e a s i l y obtainable through one of the v a r i a t i o n a l methods.

The conventional approach t o the solution of beams on ( , I .I ,I I I I o~lntla-

tions has been t o modify the c l a s s i c a l governing equation Toi I > ~ , I I I 1)cntling

t o incorporate the e f f e c t of the foundation react ion pressu r c.. I 1I(' st rcrqths

and weaknesses of t h e c l a s s i c a l beam theory w i l l therefore al t t.c~~~~lts

obtained by the conventional approach of solution f o r beam (In PI ;I' T i C-

foundations. This implies t h a t a b e t t e r theory f o r beam beritl i l i t 1 <>1lo11

Id

improve r e s u l t s obtained f o r e l a s t i c foundations.

Another f a c t o r t h a t w i l l a f f e c t r e s u l t s obtained f o r hc;l111~

I c 3 t t i nlg OII

e l a s t i c foundation is the mathematical model used t o represcnt 01 t)rcdict

the response of the actual foundation. The conventional app i ~ r c . 1 r~cnt ionecl

e a r l i e r uses t h e foundation model proposed by Winkler (1867) . I I I ( $ \Y i nk I e r

m d e l i s equivalent t o a s e t of c l o s e l y spaced independent i i ri( :I i I jr in::s

that deflect v e r t i c a l l y i n response t o v e r t i c a l l y applied p r ~ ; s tI-:i , , This

foundation model though mathematically simple gives erroneous 1 P ~ > L Ii ts i f

the beam is not s u f f i c i e n t l y long and outside the loaded port IOI! (11 the
beam. According t o Vesic (1961), the fundamental fallacy ol t ! ~c onvcn-
tional computations f o r beams resting on e l a s t i c foundations I i c. i :I thr
application of the elementary theory t o short beams. A lot of- \ , ( ~ I - LI N S

however been done i n e l a s t i c foundation modelling giving risc. Io lil.lll)j two

parameter f o k d a t i o n models and some multi-parameter models.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

The work done includes a concise ?resentat ion of avail :h1 (, 1 i I I r.:~I tire
on the various aspects of the problem in chapter 2. Chapter ~l~~v(~lops

a higher order theory f o r beams based on the variational pr i I 11I ( 01

Reissner (1950) . This theory called the "third order" theory O,;II. or1

proper truncation a lower theory t h a t was termed the " f i r s t ortic-1''! l~coty,

The theories were applied t o simply supported beam problems i n t I: ~ l j t ; . r * 4

while i n chapter 5 they were applied t o beam problems on ellist I ( txu~tl:~-.

tions. In each case numerical r e s u l t s were compared with ot1lt.1 I \ I 1 :ill I c

experimental o r analytical r e s u l t s .
 The accuracy of a solution one obtains f o r the problem of a beam

resting on an e l a s t i c foundation depends on the beam theory used, the

method of incorporating the e f f e c t of the foundation and the a b i l i t y of

the mathematical foundation model t o predict the response of the r e a l

foundation material. A l o t of materials appear in l i t e r a t u r e i n each

of these aspects of the problem 3f beams on e l a s t i c foundations. A

review of these materials is presented in t h i s chapter.

The c l a s s i c a l theory ol: beam bending has been used l o r a very long

time f o r the solution of many practical problems. In these problems,

the c l a s s i c a l theory gives acccptable estimates inspitc ol: i t s simple

mathematics. The governing d i f f e r e n t i a l equation f o r t h i s theory is

El
d4v
p = q ........................ 2.1
m

where v is the deflection of the middle plane of the beam.

The e f f e c t of shear s t r e s s on the deflection of beams was considered

by Timoshenko (1930). He gave the e f f e c t as an increase i n the curvature

of the bent beam. The governing d i f f e r e n t i a l equation comes out as

where

A i s the cross sectional area of the beam

G is the modulus of r i g i d i t y
 5.

a is a constant equal t o 312 f o r rectangular beams m d

4/3 f o r c i r c u l a r beams

Investigators have considered higher order e f f e c t s such a s t h e

e f f e c t s of transverse shear and normal s t r e s s e s with maim of improving

on Timoshenko's r e s u l t s . Karman (1927) has given a more general

expression f o r curvature than t h a t of Timoshenko. Seewald (1927) using

an i n t e g r a l transform technique; Boley and Tolins (1956) using n stcr,

by s t e p solution; and Donne11 (1952) have a l l derived expressions f o r

s t r e s s e s and displacements in thick beams.

Soler (1968), using a Legrendre polynomial expansion f o r s t r e s s e s

and displacements, has derived a higher order theory f o r beams. Vlasov

(1957) by expanding the unknowns i n Maclaurin s g r i e s i n the thickness

coordinate has given an exact formulation (known generally :IS the Method
of I n i t i a l Functions, MIF) f o r two dimensional problems. Iyengar e t a1
(1974) using the same method gave some numerical r e s u l t s f o r thick rec-

tangular beams. Das and S e t l u r (1970) extended Vlasor's formulation t o

both plane s t r e s s and plane s t r a i n two dimensional elastodynamic problems.

Bahar (1972) combined the method of i n i t i a l functions with t h e integral

transform method suggested by Sneddon (1951).

2.2 REAMS RESTING ON ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS

A loaded beam w i l l d e f l e c t and when t h i s beam i s r e s t i n g on a foilntla-

t i o n .the deflection w i l l exert a pressure on the foundation. 'I'he founda-

t i o n reaction w i l l therefore be t o produce continuously d i s t r i b u t c d forces,

p, opposing the deflection of the beam (Fig 2.1)
 Fig 2 . 1 Beam Resting on an E l a s t i c Foundation

The e l a s t i c property of the foundation i s r e f l e c t e d i n the rorm of

p however t h e exact form of p i s subject t o t h e e l a s t i c foundation modcl

adopted. The Winkler foundation model takes p t o be d i r e c t l y proportional

t o the deflection a t any p o i n t , i . e .

p = kv = bkov ............................. 2.3

where the modulus of t h e foundation, ko[kN/d] , chnractcri sr:; tllc cl :,st i -

c i t y of the foundation. Applying the c l a s s i c a l theory f o r bc;un Iwnd i n s ,

the governing equation f o r t h i s problem becomes

Hetenyi (1946) used eqn 2.4 t o solve q u i t e some problems on berms oS

i n f i n i t e and semi-finite lengths. Using an end conditioning technique hc

obtained r e s u l t s f o r f i n i t e beams from the r e s u l t s of the i n f i n i t e beams.

Lee e t a1 (1961) derived t h e slope d e f l e c t i o n equations of r i n i t e beam

columns on e l a s t i c foundation from t h e d i r e c t solution of the govcrninp

d i f f e r e n t i a l equation. S t o l l e (1 962) described a method that makc.s ilsc\

of t h e solutions f o r a beam-column with simply supported ends ; ~ n c l has

tabulated the s o l u t i o n s f o r several loading conditions.

Timoshenko and Cere (1961) used trigonometric s e r i e s Ibr tlw s o l u t i or1

of simply supported beams. Iyengar and Anantharamu (196.3) used t h e s c r i c ~

of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c functions representing the normal modes of tr:msverse

vibrations t o analyse beams with and without axial loading. Ilctcnyi (1971 1

also used s e r i e s solutions while Reaufait (1977) used numerica 1 1 y s is .

Rao e t a1 (1971), Heyashi (1921), Wolfer (19711, e t c have a1 l worked on

beams on e l a s t i c foundations.

Vesic (1961, 1973) and Vesic and Johnson (1963) carricil out oxperi-

rnental studies on beams and slabs resting on e l a s t i c foundat ions. They

compared t h e i r r e s u l t s with calculated r e s u l t s using Winklcr'.; : ~ s s u q t i o n s

and Ohdels (1942) isotropic e l a s t i c s o l i d foundation reprcscntntion. l k

Beer (1948), and Thomas (1960) have also done experimental works whilc

Drapkin (1955) and Hetenyi (1946) solved problems on g r i l l a g e beams on

e l a s t i c foundations.

Work has also been done on beams r e s t i n g on non-Winklcr Sounclations.

Biot (1937) derived expression f o r the moment d i s t r i b u t i o n f-or thc case

of an i n f i n i t e beam carrying a concentrated load resting on an isotropic

e l a s t i c solid. De Beer (1948, 1948), Habel (1938), Ohde (19112) Ik Hccr-

and Krsmanovitch (1951), Kany (1959), e t c presented approximate s o l ~ions

~t

for p a r t i c u l a r cases of beams of f i n i t e lengths on the e l a s t i c solid

foundation loaded by one or several concentrated loads. IIarr c t a I [ 1909)

worked on beams on a two parameter foundations model.

2.3 ELASTIC FOUNDATION MODELS

In Civil Engineering, the foundation material i s most c o r ~ n ~ ~ ) nthc.

ly

s o i l which unlike e i t h e r s t e e l o r concrete has properties and cJla~.actcristics

t h a t vary widely with location and time. Also, the corrcctnc..;~ of' thc

assumption t h a t the foundation i s e l a s t i c depende on the lontlinp, and h i s -

tory of the p a r t i c u l a r s o i l in question. These f a c t s makc thc jot) ol

getting a mathematical model which w i l l predict the response (I(' t i \ ( \ r c 1~ ~

foundation a very d i f f i c u l t task. Reviewers have thercforc prormwtl rrnny

foundation models i n the bid to g c t b c t t c r results'. Thc prol) I ( V I i t 8 how-

ever not completely solved by g e t t i n g a foundation model I'or ccirc;l l l y

important a l s o i s the prediction of t h e foundation parmct ~ - pI-:rt

i IK-o c ~c d

t o every model.

2.3.1 ~ i n k l e's
r Foundation Model

The simplest and e a r l i e s t representation of a continuo~lscl;~.;ti c

foundation was proposed by Winkler (1867) . He .assumed the So\lntl;t t i on I)asc,

t o c o n s i s t of closely spaced independent l i n e a r springs that c1t.T 1 c.c.t vcrt i -

c a l l y i n response t o v e r t i c a l l y applied pressure. Such a Sour~l:ltion is

equivalent t o a l i q u i d base. The foundation is therefore char;~ctcr-iscdh v ,

(i) a react ion pressure d i r e c t l y proportional t o the tlc rl CY-t ion

occuring a t t h e point (Fig 2.2a) , and

(ii) a foundation t h a t deforms only along t h e portion tl i rvc t l y

under the applied loading (Fig 2.2b) .

92
7 , *

tlYfv'"'/
P2
P1
(a) (17)
fig 2.2 - Eharacteristics of t h e Winkler Foundation Modcl
?he r e l a t i o n between the f o ~ d a t i o nreaction pressure, p , ;111tl rlic

deflection, v, a t any point i n question is then given h y

where ko is the foundation modulus representing t h e s p r i IIV, ( - o ~ l ~ - . lt- : l n

i n t h e spring i l l u s t r a t i o n and thc s p e c i f i c weight o r t l ~ .I r c 1 1 1 1 l l irr

the l i q u i d base i l l u s t r a t i o n . The behaviour of t h e loiulck~tI O I I 1';

therefore described by only one parameter, ko, hence the iVi 1 1 h 1 , (mrnda-

t i o n model is a l s o known a s the One-Parameter foundation n~oc!c~l.h

t)

has the dimension of F L - ~ . However f o r a bkam of constant i rm.; s c i t i on

and constant width, b, supported on t h e Winkler foundation, wc, c-an

represent t h e foundation reaction a s

where k = kob includes t h e e f f e c t of the width of the hc;m :~l\r!I S tlrc

dimension of F L - ~ .

I t can be seen from Fig 2 . 2 t h a t f o r the foundation n ~ o t l I( ,~ thc d i s -

placements of the loaded region w i l l be constcant whethcr t l i c , l - o ~ m ~ l :irot n

is subjected t o a r i g i d stamp (concentrated load) o r a m i I on.. l o;itl.

Also f o r the two types of loading, the displacements out:; I ( 1 1 ' t I i c . IO;I t l ( ~ l

region will be zero. I t was observed, however, t h a t l o I II'O. 1 III 1 1t ' r i $1l'

the displacements of the foundation surface a r e a s shown i 11 I I 0 i .3

b

(Kerr, 1964).
 Fig 2.3 Observed Displacement Patterns under Loadirlp
f o r most Foundations.

Therefore, though the Winkler foundation has the atl\l;~nt tll(x ol'

simple mathematics, i t s predictions a r e not s u i t a b l e f o r ; I1 I ! I;~sTic-

foundation problems.. lletenyi (1946) has pointed out ~ I I ; I I i I , !'~,;IIII

networks, (as i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n the construction of 1'1 I , ,; t -(w

f o r ships, buildings and bridges) and in thin s h e l l s of' I-,.! I : : 1 i orls

(as i n pressure vessels, b o i l e r , reinforced concrete !);I 1 I :; ;!!,I! t lor~vs1

the predictions of the Winkler foundation a r e met more I.i I 1 I Iv

than a s i n s o i l supported s t r u c t u r e s .

2. 3.2 E l a s t i c Continuum Foundation Model

In the bid f o r a foundation model t h a t w i l l predict 111( I {\.;pon:;c

of the foundation b e t t e r than the Winkler's model, thc I o ~ I I : ~ ' 1 1 1 o r 1

was considered a s a semi-infinite e l a s t i c continuum. 'l'hc. I \ I i ; \ l c ~ r lol

bending of beams r e s t i n g on an isotropic e l a s t i c s o l i d c.i1:1 I . : ! ' t rr.i :'(:(I

by a Young's modulus, ES, and a Poisson's r a t i o n , vs, I I t vr:~tcd

by many authors. Boit (1937) considered the problem 01' 1 ) O I ! C I 1 !:<I ~o~1c.r.

a concentrated load of a f l e x i b l e beam of i n f i n i t e ler-l;r~ll i! :I s(~i-

i n f i n i t e , homogeneous, e l a s t i c and isotropic sol id. V(,c- r c , I ) l !

carried out a continuuation of Biot's work while Ile Rec 1 i' i, I lahc 1
(1938) , Ohde (1942), Kany (1959) and others solved difl'c r i I 01) 1 (mi

considering the foundation as an e l a s t i c continuum.

In addition t o the increased mathematical difficu 11 i c.1 i I! I ) I I I I~

~ 'r(d,

it soon became obvious that f o r some materials, thc P o c l ~ r t lI t i t ,I 11) ~(Y-I

t o loads behaved differently t h a n predicted by the thcor-y oI ' I 15 r i c-

solids. I t was found, for example, that f o r s o i l s thc .;III I cliL;-

placements away from the loaded region decreased more r . , l l ~I ( 1 I ' 1 !1:1r1 I ) rc -

dicted by .the theory (Foppl , 1909). I t is a l s o question;~ll

lc I S0:11il

rubber-like materials with a relatively large void r a t i o k i l l ' ~ l h ; ~ vl ick c

a homogeneous isotropic medium (Kerr , 1964)

2.3.3 Two-Parameter Foundation Models

There i s a large class of foundation materials occ~rr I 1 1 I 11 [)r.:ic--

t i c e the behaviour of which can neither be represented by ;I 1: 1 ~ I ~c r 1 rotlntla-

tion nor by an isotropic continuum. In an attempt t o Sirltl I I)II\<; ic:~lly

close and mathematically simple representation f o r these I I I < I ~ ( >I ! 11'; a t thc

contact area, one may proceed in e i t h e r of two ways. 'I'hc. 1 1 i L; to

s t a r t from the continuum representation and introduce s irnl) l I i I 11v

assumptions with respect t o the expected displacements m ~ l /) I I I cSCjL;c\s

and the second w i l l be t o s t a r t with the Winkler foundat iorl ~r in order

to k i n g it closer t o r e a l i t y assume some kind of interac-t i or ' 1 twcm

the spring elements. These turn out t o be two-parameter I'or 111 I, 1 1 ion

models and most of them were postulated on i n t u i t i v e basih. i l l 1 , 111oclcls

suggested in available litearature w i l l now be cons i flerctl s t < ri t i 1 1 ~from

the group derived by modifying the Winkler foundation.

2.3.5.1 I:ilonenko-130rodichf s Ikmxlat- -ion
- - Modcl
-

To achieve some degree of i n t e r a c t i o n between thc. 11 I I I I ' ,111 i110

elements, Filonenko-Borodich (1940) assumed t h a t t h c tol) (

I
[ IN,
'
springs a r e connected t o a stretched e l a s t i c membrane scdl I , 1 t o :I

constant-tension f i e l d , T, a s shown i n Fig. 2.4.

Fig 2.4. The Filonenko- Borodich Foundat ion A~sumptI c 11 1

1 l e condition of equilibrium i n the v e r t i c a l dircc-t I I ,I rtsr4~rme

element gives t h e foundation reaction pressure, p, i n 1 t11

p(x,z) = kv - T V ~v ....................... Za7,l

where, k i s s t i l l t h e Winkler parameter, T is the appli(.'l 11 :11u1

d i s t h e Laplace operator i n x and z. For a beam prol-,1 c.11 , (~111;111 on

reduces t o

From equations 2.7 it can be seen t h a t the interaction ( ) I I 1 I? 1)) I

elements is characterised by t h e i n t e n s i t y of the t e n s i o ~( ~I I, I,

t h membrane
~ and t h i s becomes the second foundit ion pa I . 11111'I I III(<

tension f i e l d has the physical e f f e c t of reducing thc I ( ~ ~ II I I ~ I I I c 'I, t inn

pressure.

Schiel (1942) suggested a foundation model consi >.I I I IIC -I\,V

l i q u i d with surfdice tension. This i s however basically ,I\ I\)(

Filonenko-Borodich foundation.

2.3.3.2 - i ' s-
He teny- Foundat
- -ion- Mode
-- 1

Hetenyi (1946 and 1950) introduced p a r t i a l continu i I v ! I1 i n k l c r

foundation a s an improvement. He assumed a continuous ~(.:III I Itl(-tl in

the material of the Winkler foundation. Therefore when L ) ( ~ i 11 I I I ( ! : I ~ ion

is loaded by a d i s t r i b u t e d load over a s h o r t s e c t i o n , t h r , I 1 i O I I undcr

the load w i l l c o n s i s t of a discontinuous p a r t and a cont i nclc 1r.c-tion

curve (Fig 2.5)

Fig 2.5. The Hetenyi Foundation Model

v1 is t h e discontinuous d e f l e c t i o n and v 2 t h e contrihut I I11 1 , r u l ? i 111IOLIS

deflection curve.

In t h e two-dimensional case, t h e foundation model i ~ ,I I I,cd I,\

imbedding an e l a s t i c beam and i n t h e three-dimcnsioml ( 1 1 1( % il)

the material of the Winkler foundatibn. I t is assumed t h : ~ t I ' "1111 or

p l a t e deforms in bending only. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between tl c I t I , ~i o

l tl

.where t h e second foundation parameter, D, is t h e flexura 1 t I I) I' t IN,

p l a t e (Kerr 1964).
2.3.3.3. Pasternakts
- ---- Foundation
---- Model
-
Pasternak (1954) assumed the existence of shear interactions

between the Winkler spring elements. He assumed t h i s t o be accomplished

by connecting the ends of the springs t o a beam o r p l a t e consisting of

incompressible v e r t i c a l elements which arc deformed only by transverse

shear. Considering the v e r t i c a l equilibrium of a "shear layer" element

cut out from the top of the foundation, he got f o r a beam problem

and f o r a p l a t e problem

where the second terms on the r i g h t hand side of the equations are the

e f f e c t s of the shear inteaetions of the springs. S the second parameter

is the shear modulus.

Based on the works of Ratzersdorfer (1929 and 1936) as well as the

consideration of the mechanical behaviour of model and r e a l medium,

Kerr (1964) argues t h a t the Pasternak foundation is the most natural

extension of the Winkler model f o r homogeneous foundations. By adding

linear viscous elements t o the e l a s t i c elements of the foundation model

he extended the concept of the Pasternak foundation f o r cases of visco-

e l a s t i c derorms. Thus he was able t o obtain a model t o represent a

semi-infinite snow base (Kerr, 1961)

2.3.3.4 -
"Generalized"
---- Foundation
- --
Galletly (1959), Sokolov (19521, Urbanowski (1956) ,and others hnvc
 also suggested a foundation model t h a t apart from the Winkler

pressure a t each point of contact, there e x i s t s an applied moment

proportional t o the angle of r o t a t i o n a t t h a t point. Analytically

t h i s is described by

where k and kl a r e the corresponding proportionality factors. Usinp

the r e l i t i o n s h i p between p and rn, the two equations c:m hc rcnlnccd

where k and k are the two foundation parameters.

1

2.3.3.5 Vlasov-Lemtiev
- ----- Foundation
---- Model

Unlike the preceeding two-parameter models, Vlasov (1'34!)) m d

Vlasov and Leontiev (1960) s t a r t e d with the foundation as a semi-

i n f i n i t e e l a s t i c continuum. They considered shear interactions jn

the foundation m d using the p r i n c i p l e of v i r t u a l work formulated

t h e i r problems by a v a r i a t i o n a l method. Considering :m el a s t i c con-

tinuum foundation of thickness H, r e s t i n g on a r i g i d base; a p l a t e of

flexural r i g i d i t y , D, lying upon the upper surface of the loundation

and i s subject t o v e r t i c a l load q ( x , z ) , (see Fig 2.6) they obtained

. p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l equations f o r v and @.
 Fig 2.6. The Vlasov-Leontiev Foundation Assumption

Imposing r e s t r i c t i o n s [u=w=o) upon the possible deformation

of an e l a s t i c layer, they obtained, f o r one s e t of assiunpt ions, :I

load-deflection r e l a t i o n in the form,

Based on experimental evidence, they assumed the function @ ( y )i n the

form

where 11 is an unknown constant determining the variation, w i t h tlcnth,

of the v e r t i c a l displacements.

Jones and Xenophontos (1'3771, stressing the import:ulcc of t h c

correct choice of the vertical deformation n r o f i l e , @(y ) , i nprovcd I h(.

 17

Vlasov-Lemtiev foundation by providing a theoret ical 1)asi s Tor t h c

form of $ ( y) . They used an approach s i m i l a r t o V1;lsov's Ixit thcb

formulation was based on the p r i n c i p l e of t o t a l s t r a i n cner-py. lhc)

e t a1 (191) suggested t h a t f o r e l a s t i c foundations o r finitc*

t h i c l a e s s f i x c d on a r i g i d basc, $ (y) coulcl bc takcn :IS,

while f o r an e l a s t i c layer r e l a t i v e l y t h i c k o r of i n f i n i t c thicknces

2.3.3.6 Reissner
- --- Foundation
- - - Model
--

Reissner (1958) startctl from the cqunt i ons 01' ;I c - O I I ~ ~ I H I I I I I ~ .

Assuming t h a t t h c in-pkme s t r c s s c s throughout t h e l ' o ~ ~ i ~r or1

l : ~ 1t : 1 \ c . r

are n e g l i g i b l y small (ox = oz =

xz = 0 ) ) ,and t h a t thc h o r i x m t ; ~
l
T

clisplacements (rl and w) a t the uppcr and lowcr surracc.:; ol the. Totnd;i-

t i o n l a y e r a r e zero, he obtained f o r the e l a s t i c casc thc relation,

,-

b
where v is t h e d e f l e c t i o n ,
q is t h e d i s t r i b u t e d loading a c t i n g on the ronnclat i on si~rl';~c.cs
 E,G are the e l a s t i c constants of the foundation

and I I i s the thickness of the foundation layer.

I t is noteworthy t h a t f o r a constant or linearly v a ~ . y i t l y ,(1,

the Reissner foundation model gives the same equations ;I..; t l v I'astc~nr;~lt%

model i f the constants are redefined so t h a t C 1=k and (:?=!;.

2.3.3.7 The
- -Generalized
- - - -Two-Parameter
-- -- Foundation
- -- --
The equations f o r a l l the two-parameter foundati on> ;I 1c h .;i r n i 1 ;I r

md mathematically equivalent. The only difference i s i r l t l ~ tlc.

x l'i ri i t ion

of the parameters. In solving problems mathematically, , ~ c.11

t t ion rwtd

not be paid t o these parametric differences. 'I'he two-]):II ;wc..tc, r. l i ) t ~ r ) t l ; i -

model can then be represented as

where k and kl are the f i r s t and second parameters o l ti^ 1011ncl:1tion

mode1 .
2.3.4 Three-Parameter
- - - - - -(Fletcher)
---- Foundation
- - -Model
-
. Fletcher and Hermann (1971) as an extension of thc W i t)l. l c r f o i u l c l ; ~ - .
tion included terms involving the derivatives of the d c . l - l ~ ~ion.
-t 'I'hc

foundation reaction was assumed t o be a l i n e a r

'deflection and i t s derivatives, i.e.
 1')

Using an approximation of the same order as the beam t l l c ~ ro v , on1 y

- 4 were retained t o give
terms with n <

I V -------- i 2 . 1 8 )
p(x) = k v + kl v' + k2 v*'+ k3 v"' + k4 v

By considering i n f i n i t e beams on foundations whose propcrt rc.5 arc

not functions of x, they got

and

where kl,k2 and k4 are the foundation parameters and h is I t l w l1:11 1 -.

width of the beam.

They derived formulae r e l a t i n g the model parametc.~.~,t 1 , I IKI c Bl :s:;t i c -

properties of 'the supporting medium and a l s o producctl (-11 1 1I 1 \)I tlw

m d e l parameters f o r i n f i n i t e and semi-infinite foundat i o ~ ) ~ , .

2.3.5 - - - -of-the
Prediction -- - - -Parameters
Foundation ---
The accuracy with which any of the foundation nmlc 1'- n m t- i oiled

will predict the unknowns of a given problem depends t o ;I : , I I ( - , I I vxtent

on the values assigned t o the foundation parameters. 'I i111o4uI I ~ O :~nd

Krieger (1959) are Of the opinion that the numerical v ; l~( I ( I I hck

foundation modulus (i.e. the parameter of the Winklcr- rrn~tit.l !q)~\r~d~i

largely on the properties of the subgrade on which t h ~

IXS;III~ I ( %.;t:;.

?hey gave a chart f o r the determination of the foundat i o n ~ K > ~ ! ltv;,

LI k,

f o r d i f f e r e n t s o i l s based on the Casagrande c l a s s i f i c a t i O I I ol w i lL;

(Fig 2.7)
 Table 2 . 1 Recommended Procedures f o r Analysis

Recommended Procedure
Class a f C r i t e r i o n for...
Beam Distinction For Rough For Refined
Estimates Analysis

Long Beams X R > 5.00 Conventional Analysis using k

a s given i n eqn 2 . 2 0
Moderately
Long Beams 2.25<XR4.00 - do -

Moderately
Short Beams 0.80<XR<2.25 Conventional Rigorous
Analysis Analysis by L k
Beer's, Ohde's

Short Beams XRd.80 'Treat a s per ;md sirnilar

beam

Scott (1981) updated a l o t of works i n t h i s area including

Barden's (1963, 1963) expression f o r the Winkler model ' s k as

1-v;
where J = -
'IT

In the two parameter foundation model proposed by Vlasov and

Leontiev the expression f o r the f i r s t foundation parameter, k, was

p t i o n a l l y obtained (e-g. 2.12b) . If $(y) i s taken i n the Porn of

eqn 2.13 where u i s a constant of dimension L-l, k i s given as

 (i) f o r the p l a i n s t r a i n case

(ii) f o r the plane s t r e s s case

v
where Bo = --
Es s
- - v0 = 1-v S

For r e s u l t s close t o those from more rigorous methods, p has t o be

between 1 and 2. The second foundation parameter, S, is given f o r

the plain s t r a i n case by

For the plane s t r e s s case, the form i s retained but E and v are
S S

replaced with Eo and vo respectively.

Fletcher and Hermum (1971) gave curves f o r the selection of k

f o r a Winkler foundation model and k and S f o r a two parameter founda-

tion model as shown in Fig 2.8. Their r e s u l t s apply t o cnscs i n

which the r a t i o of E t o E i s l e s s than 0.01

S
Fig 2.8 Fletcher and Herrmann Curves fou the Determination
of Foundation Parameters.
 A 11IGlER ORDER TIIEORY FOR H E N 6
THROUQ1 A VARIATIONAI, APPROACH

3.1 VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES

The theory of e l a s t i c i t y solution t o problems requ i rc. i n I I ( . ~ Y1 I

the solution of six f i r s t order l i n e a r p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a 1 (YIIIXI I $11.; 01'

equilibrium, s i x compatibility r e l a t i o n s ( i n the C o n of scCorlil-11 , &Ic.I ,

l i n e a r p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l equations), and s i x s t r e s s - s t r : ~i l l I ( 11 ions

with s t r e s s and/or displacement components subject t o a~pror7ri< 1 t 1 ( ) L I I ~ :r Iy

conditions. The d i r e c t approach of seeking exact solution\ t o 1 , I /)I-o-

blem is usually d i f f i c u l t . Consequently solutions a r e o f t c ~~ ~o l l ~ ~I ) \ /r

a l t e r n a t i v e methods and frequently a v a r i a t i o n a l approach ih II ((1 ilitx

variational (or energy) principles have some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t I L I I '~1\(,

them very useful, namely

they enable simplified derivation of the governing d i i' l c s r ( , I I 7 I I l

equations f o r the p a r t i c u l a r problem

(ii) they a s s i s t the choice of appropriate boundary condit ion<,

( i i i ) they a r e i d e a l l y suited f o r use with approximation rnctl~otl~~

( iv) they enable c e r t a i n features of the solution of a prol~lcw I I

be deduced without actually completing the solution.

The major principles of these methods are the princip 01 1 I t (1.1 I

work, the principle of v i r t u a l s t r e s s and the mixed virtua 1 .,I I ( ~~i 1.1 ~ I ; II

s t r a i n principle. In the principle of v i r t u a l work (or v i r t II:I l ( 1 I ; I 1:lc.e-

ment) the p o t e n t i a l energy of the body is used and the varini jon I taken
where

u = rrr (0 6
v XXO;
+ dv
6y~0z6z~~xy*rxy+~xz~xz~~yz~yz)

W = 1 /(Xu+Yv+Zw)dV rr (%I+Yv+ZW)CIA
C t
*1

TI = (U-W) is the potential energy of the system.

U = is the p o t e n t i a l energy of deformation.

-W represents the p o t e n t i a l energy of the external forces a c t i n g on thc

body i f the p o t e n t i a l energy of these forces f o r the unstressed con-

d i t i o n (u=v=w=o) i s taken a s zero.

i s t h a t p a r t of the bountlary srlrrace on which tlisplaccmmts a r c not

Al
described

o , a~r e s t r e s s components

6,y zre s t r a i n components

u,v,w a r e displacement components

X,Y,Z a r e components of the body forces while

- - -
X,Y,Z a r e surface t r a c t i o n s .

This principle i d e n t i c a l l y s a t i s f i e s the compatibility conditions while

the v a r i a t i o n a l approach t r i e s t o s a t i s f y the equilibrium rcclui remcnts

as w e l l a s possible within the framework of the approximation being used.

In the p r i n c i p l e of v i r t u a l s t r c s s , the complementary energy o r the

systcm is used and the variation is c a r r i e d out on the stresses. In

t h i s case the equilibrium conditions a r e i d e n t i c a l l y s a t i s f i e d and the

principle t r i e s t o s a t i s f y t h e compatibility conditions as well as

possible. The variational equation is given a s ,

where

n* i s the complementary energy of the system

A2 i s that p a r t o r the boundary on which thc surf;rrc forces

a r e not prescribed.

The mixed v i r t u a l s t r e s s - v i r t u a l s t r a i n p r i n c i p l e i s the most

recent and i t was suggested by Reissner (1950). He pointed out t h a t

it may on occasion be advantageous t o t r e a t the equations of compatibility

and equilibrium on a more equal footing. The v a r i a t i o n i s thcrelorc

carried out on both the s t r e s s e s and s t r a i n s . . The Reissner variational

equation is given as

where

- - S t r a i n energy density function

1

The following a1ternative form of thc Reissncr variational cquatiori

can be obtained i f the s t r a i n s a r e expressed i n terms of the displacc~ment.;

u,v,w and thc f i r s t v a r i a t i o n carried out.

 +(-aw + -
av - 2 (-1 + v ) ~ ) 6r
- 1 dxdydz
ay az E YZ. yz.

I t can be seen t h a t eqn 3 . 4 y i e l d s the equilibrium arid strcss-

s t r a i n equations of e l a s t i c i t y . The boundary conditions arc also

given d i r e c t l y . This form of the variational equation i s c-orivcnicnt

for use in d e v e l q i n g a higher order theory f o r beams.

 3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGHER ORDER THEORY FOR BEAMS

Consider the beam loaded generally by transvcrsc loads

with coordinate d i r e c t i o n s as shown i n Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.1. (kncral J ~ a d i n gon Ream

3.2.1 .-
I)isp&cemcnt
--- ,and-S-
t r c-
ss -
S t a-
tes

Assuming a Jisplacement s t a t e i n the Corm of ~ ~ ~ I N Tortlcl-

I -

pol.ynomials in the depth coordinate, y

where u
0'
..., v2 a r e coef Cicients which am T i m t i on^, o l

.x only.
A stress s t a t e c o n s i s t e n t with eqn 3.5 above nrtl..:t i t 1 so h
obtained. This can be achieved by modifying the c- l ;I..:<; i (-,I I So I - I ~ ;
*
by assuming higher order polynomials i n y , the coc i- l'i L- i c w t s o I'

these polynomials being a r b i t r a r y functions of x. ' 1 1 ~ 'po 1 ynomi :I 1s

should be such t h a t t h e r e s u l t i n g s t r e s s s t a t e comp 1 y \V i t 11 tlx'

d e f i n i t i o n of c l a s s i c a l s t r e s s r e s u l t a n t s while s a t is l'y i rip t h r

boundary conditions on the top and bottom of the beam i . v .

'ox dy = N

'yox dy = M

T
v
= O a t y = + h/2 ---------------- .
3 0

CIy = -q a t y = -h/2
o = -p a t y = h/2

This gives the s t r e s s s t a t e as

where the coefficientsN,M, ...,T are functions of x o n l y .

I f the l a s t two terms are deleted from eqns 3.5 and 3 . 7 the. followinq

dkplacement and s t r e s s s t a t e s which correspond t o t h e c. 1c w n t n r v

f o m a r e obtained
I f they are regarded as the f i r s t order assumptions, ~ h c . 11 t.r'<crlt

assumptions containing two higher terms (one odd and onv c.\ t 11 t ( ' 1 - n )

are then the t h i r d order assumptions,

3.2.2 Derivation of Governing Equations

The governing equations f o r the problem are o b t ; ~ i r ~ Ic] ~
\ ~~;III)-
l
s t i t u t i n g the displacement and s t r e s s expressions (eqns .;. ' I ,IIK\

3 . 7 ) i n t o the two dimensional version of the variation;^ l ( . ~ I II:I t i orl

3.4 and integrating with respect t o z and y. Grouping I l r c I ions

t . c ~ ~ i

gives the following :

 I t follows t h a t each o f t h e expressions i n bracket is zero,
which y i e l d t h e p v e r n i n g equations m d boundary c o n d i t i o ~ l sPor thc.

problem. 'fie expressions appear i n such a Corm t h a t t h e s y n m t r i c -

and antisymmetric p a r t s are uncoupled rmd hcncc can bc considcrcd
3.2.3 Antisymmetric
-------.--
Equations

The equations governing t h e antisymmetric (bending) problem

for a beam arc 3s follows:

The associated boundary conditions a r e ,

M = M or u
1
is prescribed
b

P = or u i s prescribed
3 ............................ 3.11
Q = 0 or vO is prescribed

= i? o r v 2 i s prescribed
Defining v* = v h
-
+ v2 and eliminating u and u rcduccs cqn 3. 1 0
0 20 - 1 3
to the following equations

d412 6(v+2) (q-p) + 280(~+2)T 840P

F = F ---Zli-r - - r ; T

Eliminating v2 and T gives

Differentiating twice to eliminate P and twice again t o c.1 imin:~tc
M gives an eight order differential equation in v*,p a n d ( 1 : I S

where V* = Vo h2
+ m v 2

All the other coefficients of the displacements and st r ~ s ~ ; c; I .rc.

~; (mi-

sequently expreesable in terms of v*, p and q as f o 1 1 . o ~ ~

 3h2 dv*
r ---TIT-
'-$"zo=-z
+ 12(l+v)Q + 4 (l+v)B - -------- 7-23

3.2.4. Symmetric Equations

Equation 3.9 also gives the governing differential c,rlrl,lt ions

and their associated boundary conditions for the symmct r i c t>(~:t~npro-

blem. The governing equati~nsare as follows,
 2' - 60vS - 180R
d x - 737-

The boundary conditions are

N = fi or u
0
is prescribed

A = A o r v1 is prescribed

The s i x f i r s t order d i f f e r e n t i a l equation and one algebraic equa-

tion of eqn 3 . 2 4 can be reduced t o a s i x t h order equation i n u*, p
and q , where u* is deffned a s

Eliminating v from eqn 3 . 2 4 gives

b
1
1:limincrting S ;md d i f r c r e n t i a t i n g oncc t o eliminiltc N g i v c s

'fie o t h e r c o e f f i c i e n t s of displacements m d s t r e s s e s b e i n g ;
3.3 FIR5T ORDER TlIEORY

Equation 3.8 s t a t e s the displacement and s t r e s s s t a t e s cosrespond-

ing t o the f i r s t order theory. The governing equations are obtained

from those of the t h i r d order theory (eqns 3.10 and 3 . 2 4 ) by deleting

the terms introduced by the higher orclcr components of s t r c s s c s and

displacements. The resulting equations are rour f i r s t orclcr tl i rfcrcn-

t i a l eqyations f o r the antisymmetric case and two for thc symmetric.

These give a fourth and a second order d i i f e r c n t i a l equations f o r thc

antisymmetric and symmetric cases respectively.

Equation 3.34 is equivalent t o Timoshenko's equation Lor the

governing equation f o r the deflection curve of a beam i n bending

with the shear deformation taken into account (see eqn 2 . 2 ) .

 CHAPTER 4

SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAMS IN BENDING

In t h i s chapter the f i r s t and t h i r d order theories arc applicd

t o transverse bending of beams with simply supported cclgcs ( F i q 4.1)

Fig 4.1 Simply Supported Beam Problem

This problem i s a special case of the general beam prohlc~n I'or which

governing equations were derived i n Clapter 3. Mrikinl: thc s u l ) s t i t ~ ~ t i o n

p = o in equations 3.14 to 3.31 yields the equations for t h i s pro-

blem.

4.1 ANALYSIS

4.1.1 --
Third Order lheory

The governing d i f f e r e n t i a l equations f o r the anti syrmnctric 'md

symmetric problems by the t h i r d order theory a r e

where

The solutions of these equations are taken in t11c. 1'0 r v ~o f

infinite s e r i e s as:

-
where v* = --
Ev* A = -
EA
so'? Y

qoQ
-
u* =
Eu*
- jjs EB
-
Y

qoR 90

and %= f o u r i e r s e r i e s expansion of the loading fiincti(irl.

substituting eqns. 4.3 t o 4.5 i n t o eqns. 4 . 1 and 4.2 m t l c .rl rying

out the differentiations gives the cdeificients A and 1! ,IL.

where, z = h i , C1 - c2 = 1/45 ; C3 = 12;
- 3960;

All the.other unknowns a r e obtained a s follows by s u b s t i t u t i n g f o

I
for v", u* and q i n cqns 3.15 t o 3 . 3 3 .

-- =
qm
rCm z5a6+nz3n4+n3za2)r\-(12+I) z2a2+Dz*a4]~-- s i n ax
- ---- 4.8
q$l 1 2 4 5 6 qo 9.

1 6v+l3
where Dl = 4x2F
; D2 = To1 ,. D3 =
1
1-2 ; D 4 = m-

P E [(-n7z 'a6-D8z 3 a 4 +za2)

~ 8-( D ~ ~ - D ~ ~ -'zi, s~i n ~wi~---4.11
- ~ ~ ~ z ~ x-
9
90

7
n
= Z ' ~ ~ ~ - T $ Z ~ ~ ~ )a-D
1 [(II~Z~CX~+TI -
~ \ + (z3a3-~)12~iasfl
D
cos a-x - --.q .I
Y,$ 8 10 11 qo
I!
 99v2+352v+210 . - 99v7+247v+30
where 1)20 = v+Z) ' -
784080 ( 8910(v+2)

N
-= ~ ~ ( f ~ z ' az 2~ a+3 +a)B-
P ( F ~ + F ; ~ ~ ' ~z'a')]
'+F
9, s i n
-
cxx
--- ------- 4 . 1 4
3 2 5 90 9
- ( F 2 4 - F 2 5 ~ 2 a 26
2 -z4a4+F
~ z6a6)l-s, Sin--ax ------ 4.18
27
90 R
4.1.2 F i r-
- st - - Theory
Order

The governing d i f f e r e n t i a l equations based on the f i I.~; t ordc r

assumption of s t r e s s e s and displacements are deduced Srorrr cyrls. 3.34

and 3.37 as

but v = v
0

therefore taking the s e r i e s solutions as

- ax
v = ~ iSin
i -R

q/qo= E
s, Sin -
- C1X
R
90

where = Ev
- and& -
E A
qoQ 'LQ

substitution i n t o eqn 4.19 gives A as

Accordingly the moment and shear are given by

2 3 -
. A - (v+2)ia]% . cos01-x ---------- 1 ' ;

%h
12 -lo, R

4.1.3. Loading

Two loading conditions, a t o t a l uniformly d i s t r i h 11c \ , ! i );!(I in)!,

and a central point load are considered. For the un-ifo!-ul I i stri-

buted loading, the fourier coefficients, %, are given I,,

= 1-4q0 Sin -
mRr
% ma R

for m = 1,3,5, ...

For a central point load, P

. - - - 2 Sin m 0
P 2-

4.2 NUMERICAL RESULTS

Numerical r e s u l t s were obtained with the a i d of c-t m >I ~a I.:-;

i I'or

each of the two loading conditions and f o r different t l ( ~ r a . ~t i o

l c n g t h values. Prior t o this, the convergeme p a t t e r n s o r the

n x r r n m t and tlc f l e c t i o n werc examined by cornput i n g thrv for d i f Ter.cnt

n1urr1w1.s of' tcnns ol- tho scrjes summation.

4.2.1 Uniformly I l i s t r i butcd-Loading

--
The numeric 11 r e s u l t s f o r simply s~ipported be'ms under a uni-

formly d i s t r i b u t e d loading, q
0
, over the whole span a r e prcsentecl

in l'ahl c s 4 . 1 t o 4.5 and Fi pyres 4 . 2 and 4.3. I 1 4. I shows

the convcrgencc patt-crn Tor M and v both by thc f i r - s t and t h i rtl

0

order theories l o r two depth t o lcngth ( h / ~ , ) r a t i o s . T a b l e 4.5

cornpares the values the t h i r d order analysis gives for def'lection a s

dcf ined by

(i) v 6t y = h/Z) = v0 +
h h
~ v +] -v
'
4 2

(ii) v* - h2
- vo + 7j-jv2

( i i i ) the midplane deflection = v0

Tn Table 4.3 coml,nrizon i s made b e t w e n the maximum values of non-

climcnsionnlised momcnt and dcflection obtained by the c l a s s i c n l ,

f i r s t order, t h i r d order theories. Some r e s u l t s prcsentcd by 0 j iako

( I !jH5 ) who usclcl tlic Method ol' I n i t ial Furrctions (MTF) :Ircs ;I] so

inclutlcd whc3re the h / R r a t i o pcrnlits. Figs 4 . 2 and 4 . 3 show thc

h r i : ! t i o n s of the strcsscs across the d e p t h oT t l ~ a])e;,m ~ u h i ]~ ~ ~ h l p ~
3 . 3 a n d 4 . 4 show t h c nl:lsirnm v : ~ l u c s 01- these. st!-cssc.:;.
Table 4.1: Convergence P a t t e r n s of Moment and k f l e c t i o n
a t Midspan

(a) h/R =
- 0.01
I

-
Third Order Theory

156284.34 156283.61 156283.64

0.1251 0.1250 0.1250

F i r s t Order Theory

0.1251 0.1250 0.1250

.. , .

No. of Terms 5 10 1.5 20 30 -

I I 'I'hircl Order Theory

I I F i r s t Order 'I'heory
 1H

T;itle 4.2 Values of Ivkxirum Non-Dimensionaliscd 1kTlcctior~; I I ~

Wment f o r different Ikpth t o Length Ratios.

(a) Deflection, -
Ev

w
'l'heory
Classical

Third Order
05. Difference

F i r s t Srder
% Difference 0.022

MI F I -
.% 'Difference

(b) Moment, -
M
qOe

I classical 0.125 0.125

Third Order 0.1250 0.1250

I d Differenccl -
I
I
.-I
I
F i r s t Order
% Difference / 0.i25 / -
0.:25
 (h) h/11=0.05

T h i r d orcler Thcory
"
F i r s t Ordcr/Clsssicrrl
"ihcor i c s

Fig 4.2 Variati of' I.my,-i t,uclin:\l Nor-rlnl S t r c s s , ox/q, a c r o s s t h e l h t h o r P,c;un

 SO.

I '
[a) h/R=0.01

b i g 1.3 Variation of Shear Stress, T /q, m d Transverse Nonr!:~lStress, al,/q,

XY
 1 1 .

Table 4.3 Values of Maximum 0.-/q for cli TTerent h/l(, v a l t ~ c s .

Depth t o Length Ratio

0.01 0. 05 0.1 I -0.1s
- '
- - -
Classical 7500 300.00 75.00 1 33.33

Third Order
% Difference

F i r s t Order
1 % Difference

I MIF
I % Difference

Table 4.4 Values of Maximum T /q for diffkrent h/% values

xy

, Depth t c
0.01 1 0.05

Classical

Third Order
% Difference

F i r s t Order
% Difference

MI F
% Difference
Table 4.5 M a x i m values o f v , v* and v by t h e Third O r d e r Theory
0
for different h / v
~a l u e s

Depth t o Length Ratios

0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
11 156280.03 1256.00 159.244 21.015 6.764 3.160
I
v*
0
1 156282.92 1256.58 159.541 21.177 6.883 3.262
I I
v 156383.64 1256.73 159.609 21.204 6.894 3.263
0
-.
 4.2.2 Central Point Loading

Numerical r e s u l t s f o r t h e loading case of a p o i n t load located

a t t h e c e n t r e o f the beam a r e presented i n Tables 4.6 and 4.7. 'I'ablc

4.6 showsthe convergence p a t t e r n while Table 4.7 shows t h c rlnximum

values o f d e f l e c t i o n and moment by t h e c l a s s i c a l , f i r s t . and t.hird order

Table 4.6 Convergence P a t t e r n s of Merit and Deflection a t Mid span.

(a) h / ~ = 0.05

I NO. of rrcms 5 10 1s 30

v .

M
0
0 1 2 . 5 7 , LO1.5.0'3

0.2399 0.2449
I
Third O r c r Thcory

1
2013.18

0.2466
20L.20 1 LOl.i.lO

F i r s t Order Theory

(b) h/Q = 0.1

I
Third Order 7'heor-y 1
256.472 256.433 256.355
I
F i r s t Order ~heor-yl
I
 54

Table 4.7 Values of Maximum Non-Dimemionalised Deflection and Momc~nt for

Differmt Depth t o Length Ratios.

(a) Deflection,
Ev
-
P

Classical ( 250000

Third Order
% Difference
I
F i r s t Order
% Difference
1 250061.03
0.02 / 2013.19
0.66

(b) h m e n t , -
M
PR

Classical 0.25 0.25

Third Order 0.2449 0.2449

%Differencel2.07 2.04

0.2449
F i r s t Order 0.2449
% D i f f e r e n c e 2.04 1 2.04
 The comparison of the maximum values of deflection and mori~entobtained

from the c l a s s i c a l , f i r s t order, t h i r d order and MIF theories (Table 4.2)

show good agreement f o r values oi- h/R < 0 . 2 . 'lhe d ~ f f e r e n c e sbeinp generally

within 2%. The other theories gave higher values of dcflection than clocs

the c l a s s i c a l theory. Using thc t h i r d ordcr the

tllcury as thc clat~~m,
classica 1 theory u n c l e r e s t ~ m t c sdeflection, thc f l r s t orclcr thcory s 1 iy,I\t1 y

ovcrestimatcs lt whilc t h e b \ 1 1 : yives the highest values for dcl-lecL ion. I:os

depth t o length values greater tlxin 0.2, a t which range the c1:lss icLi1 theory

sei zos t o give acceptable r v s u l ts i n cornparLon w i t h cr net- mcnt:rl r - ~ ut sl ,

the r e s ~t s~ lohtnjnccl through the other tlrcor-jes d i f f cr from t h c ~ l : i s s i ~ : ~ l

results by 1~pt o 10';. Thc MlF :md the f l r ~ orclcr

t Jicvry :I~:I'CT w 1 111 t lx?

t h i r d order thcory even a t t h i s r~vlgeof hcnni th'ich1,c.';~.

The ;lrtssicnl and f i r s t order theorjcs cive t11c stltrlc valucc; anl.[

t r i b u t i o n s f o r t h e longitudinal normal s t r e s s , a
x'
a r d shear st rt1:,s, .I
X
)
'
.
The nuximum values oP u m d -r
X XY gi ven by the t h i r d orcler thcoly w e 35;

greater and 10% l e s s r c s ~ e c t i v c l ythan then t h e values from the c l a s s i c a l

or f i r s t order theory. The c l a s s i c a l theory neglects the transverse normal

s t r e s s , a while t h e MIF, the f i r s t and the t h l r d order theories Fiyree

Y'
in t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a
Y'
I n 'Table 4.5, t h e comparison of the maximum values of v, v* and vo
show t h a t these d e f i n i t i o n s of d e f l e c t i o n generally give values close t o

&ch other. However v* gives a c l o s e r estimate of v than vo. A

replacement of v with v* w i l l give deflections within 1 h c c u r ; l c y for

beams t h a t a r e not too thick.

The second loading case of a central point load gave r e s u l t s that

generally followed the patterns observed f o r the uniformly d is tributcd

loading case.
 CHAPTER 5

BEAMS ON ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL

The bean theories developed i n chapter 3 a r c apnl i d in

t h i s chapter t o the s o l u t i o n of bending problems of hc:ms r-cst-;t i n ?

on elastic foundations. The general problem of a 1)c:m rest in!>

on an e l a s t i c foundation i s as shown i n Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.1 Beam r e s t i n g on an E l a s t i c Foundation

Because the beam i s continuously rested on the foundnt ion ~ l ~ , l t c r i i l l ,

the loading p w i l l be induced on the beam a s shown. I n thi.; case,

therefore, p i s the foundation reaction pressure. Thc I'o r-IT\ of p

is dependent on the e l a s t i c foundation model adopted, as cliscussed

in section 2.3. Generally thb one and two parameter fo~lniI;~tion

models can be mathematically represented as

where eqn 5.1 gives t h e one parameter (Winkler) Foundat ion
when kl= 0. Recalling t h e governing d i f f e r e n t i a l rquo-

tions f o r the f i r s t and t h i r d order beam theories.

F i r s t Order Theory Equatiom:

'Ihird Order Theory Equations :

For t h e f i r s t order theory v=v therefore ? becomes

0
 ?his enablesthe antisymmetric p a r t of the governing e q w t i c , ~ ; ~

t o be modified t o include the e f f e c t of the foundation I-~YI~TIOII.

In the case of the third order theory, defining v ;I\ I!I( clc-

flection a t the bottom of the beam ( i . e . y = h/2) givc.5

Introducing t h i s expression i n t o eqns. 5.4 and 5.5 w i l l m i x

symmetric and antisymmetric expressions moreover the m:lt I l c m : ~I i c:;

w i l l become impossible given the length of the cxpress i orls 1.1 I r-

v0' v1 and vZ.

Due t o t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , a simplification i s introt111c.c~
1 ')\I

considering only the antisymmetr i c equation (cqn 5 . 4 ) ; i r l r l tl(.l in i np

v as
v = v* ......................................... 5.8

The r e s u l t s presented in Table 4.2 j u s t i f i e s t h i s simp1i l'ic , t ~ion

- because of the closeness of the values of v and v* f o r tlw 1 x ~ m

depth t o length r a t i o s considered.

5.2 SIMPLY SUPPOl?TED BEAMS RESTING ON ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS

BY THE FIRST ORDER THEORY

Simply supported beams resting on e l a s t i c foundnt i (XI:; : I I ~

loaded by ( i ) uniformly distributed load, q,-, and ( i i ) cc.rr1 r-:I l p o i n t
load, P, are analysed by the f i r s t order theory. Thc r e s ~ l l t ~ ,
;ire

compared with Hetenyi (1946) r e s u l t s f o r the same prohltm. lk-

cal l i n g eqns 5.2 and 5.6 and modifying f o r a beam of width b ,

(where v = v0 ) gives the governing equation a s

The moment comes out a s

For a simple support problem, t h s~o l u t i o n is taken i n the Corm

of an i n f i n i t e s e r i e s . Following t h e s t e p s taken i n s e c t i o n 4.1.2

% -
Sin ax
9/90 ,, -
= C
q
0
-
R

whcre a = m%

- EA
and A = --

qoa
a l l tlic o t h e r expressions a r e obtained i n sequence.

Taking t h e loading functions a s in s e c t i o n 4.1 .?, Sor ;I

m i f ~ o n n l yd i s t r i b u t e d load over t h e whole span and ;I ucnt rnl

p o i n t load.

7 2
I:l a s t i c Modulus, I:, of 1x10 kN/m . 'I'hc f ' i r s t 1'ound;rt ion p : r:l-
~
4 2
mctc%r,k,of 1x10 KN/m was usccl whilc thrcxc v:lluc\s 01- t h c sc.contl

louncht ion p a r m u t e r , kl ( lW0. S(X1 :md O kV) were tis(~1. 'I'lir

k
1
= (1 option representing a Winklcr Soumd:ltion nlodel . '1'c.n tcrrn:,

were used i n t h c s c r i c s stlmmat ion. Rcsul ts wcrc corrrp;lrc\tl ~ v t ih

vr111l.s~obtained Prom expressions s i v e n by l lctcrlyi ( 1 9 4 0 ) , So r

d i f f e r e n t depth t o length r a t i o s a s shown i n Tables 5.1 xncl 5 . 2 .

7"n ccxprcssions givcn by lletcnyi a r c a s follows :

1. Sinply supported 13eam on E l a s t i c Foundation carryinc: a

IJniPonnl y Distributccl I,ond, q

but XQ = 4 E

where z = h/R

b. Maximum moment ( a t midspan)

Sirih XR Sin XR

c. Maximum shear ( a t s u w o r t )

= q Sinh XR + Sin XR
21 rosh XR + Cos XR

2. Simply Supported Beam on E l a s t i c Foundation carrying

, a Central Point Load, P

a. Maximum deflection ( a t midspan)

v =
PA Sinh XR - Sin XR
Cosh XR + Cos XQ
 moment ( a t midspan)

Sinh 1% + Sin X R
Cosh XR + Cos XR

M
PR
=-1
4XR
Sinh XR + Sin X R
Cosh XR + Cos XR -------------- 5. l o

c. Maximum shear ( a t support)

Cosh XR Cos X R
7 T
L
-
L
,Q = P
Cosh X R + Cos X R
 Table 5.1 Simply Supported Beam on E l a s t i c Foundation carrying a Uniform
Load, q

2
(a) h/R=0.0667, XR = 3.32, k = lOOOOkN/m
1- I Max Deflection I M a x Moment
M
I

iletenyi' s Results
-' 1 86.470
$'

I
F i r s t Order Ann 1ys i s I
kl = 15OOm 1 71.121
( ",)if fe rence f 17.75
kl = 500 kN
$ Difference

(b) h/k = 0.1, Ap, = 2.21. k = 10

I-
( t ie tenyi ' s Ilesul ts
I
-7-
I F i r s t Order Analysis
I kl= 1500 W
II % Difference
1 k l = 5mkN
II mifierence
I kl=OkN

II % D i f Ierence
5.3 JrtU :I:- F-NDED BEAMS ON El. A?' TONS BY TIE TI-IIW @P?ER THEORY

Vc~;icr m d Johnson (1.903) rcoortecl rcsults Exnm an clahorntc experi-

 Y'
Fig 5.2 Location of Point Loads

The three s e t s of loading on each beam are shown i n Table 5.4 where
t h e u n i t load P = 18.37 kN

Table 5.4 L,oading Combinations on Beams

The beams were resting on a foundation of compacted m~c-:rccorlss i l t

of E = 8218.58 kN/m2 and v = 0.29. The foundation constants used i n
S 5

the analysis f o r a Winkler and a two-parmeter foundat icm r-t.p-resentnt ion

i ) Winkler foundation model

0.65 6
S
k =
9-"f

= 41 70.03 M/ma f o r the Channel Beam

- 3310. SO k~/rn' f o r the Wide-Flange Beam

(ii) Two parameter foundation model (using F l e t c h e r ' s curves,

Fig 2.8)

5.3.2 Solution
- a -

liec?lling governing equation f o r t h e antisynunctr i c problem hy

the t h i r d order theory (eqn 5.4) and modifying t o incluclc t h e

CouncL7tion r e a c t i o n pressure a s dcrined i n eqns 5.1 and 5 . 8 , I'or ;I

beam o f width b , gives

The moment expression (eqn 3.15) is a l s o modified t o give

 The solution of the governing equation f o r the problcm (ccp 5.18)

is taken a s a s e r i e s of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c function r-oprcrxmting

the beam's mode of vibration. For a f r e e ended bctlrn tho c-1i:lrxctcr-is t ic-

function i s given by

where the values of um and h for d i f f e r e n t nl valuci; ; ~ r c j:ivcn in

Table ,5. 5. Values of % and Am appearing in

Therefore,
*
C1 X C1 X u x X
*; = 1[
X (cos~$-
n~ m
- A
m
sinh-) m
Q,
+ $
m - 1
(Cos - nl, - m ~ i n " r n ~ - 5.21
1,
Am and ljm being coefficients of the deflection funct ion wit I lr

qn/qo is the non-dimensionalised fourier coeificient~ o l ~ h o

load function.

Substituting equations 5.21 and 5.22 into the governing c.cli~:~t

ion

8 gives % and Ern as

where

Equation 5.19 gives

 where

The expression f o r the contact pressure becomes

The f o u r i e r coefficients of the loading function are c a l c ~ r l a t e d

noting that f o r a single point load, P , located a t a d i s t a ~ ) c ex/R=n

on the beam

lh
n-c m
dx
6 Sn= c-a

= E[(COS
R %n + Sinh sn)-Am(Cosh amn+Sin an;J
For a s e t of three point loads, P1, P
2
, P3, located :it *i ,
n d y I 3

respectively

where R. =
1
-
P

P = hit load

5.3.3 Numerical Results

-.------

The expressions f o r deflection, moment and cont ; I L I I I lx>,slrc.

were computed using 20 terms of the s e r i e s summation. 11 l:ihlca\

5.6 t o 5.8 the m a x i m values of moment and deflcctiorr 1' i the

Winlcler and two-parameter foundation models were conrl),~

I l w i t h t-hc.

experimental and conventional analysis r e s u l t s prcsc-n t c , 1 hy

Vesic and Johnson (1963). Figures 5.3 through 5.11 show t 1 I 1) l (it

of two-parameter foundation r e s u l t s by the ?resent an, t l L in

comparison with the experimental and conventional rcLI I 1 t

The curves f o r the conventional r e s u l t s are omittcd wrtl.cS tllcv

cannot d i s t i n c t l y be included.
T a b l e 5.6 Results from different Analyses for the Wide I:lanlr,c

Beam.

la) Maximum Bending Moment (KN-m) -- --

LOADING CONVENTI ONAI, EXPERIMENTAL
SOLUTION RESULTS

20.033 18.624 16.778 19.529

-12.853

4.156

-3.826
-

(b) Maxim Deflection (mm) --

I
r

- 4P - 14.28 13.86 12.83 1 5 . 20

2P - 2P 16.03 14.97 12.83 17.20

1.5P3P 1.5P 29.08 26.00 19.56 33.10

r
 Tabie 5 , 7 R e s u l t s from d i f f e r e n t Analyses fcr t:ie F l a t Ceam

(aj Maximum Bending Moment (kii-m)

I
-
I LOADING PRESENT RESULTS CONVENTIONAL EXPER IMEN'l'AL
- SOLUTION RESULTS
P1I P2 3

/- 211.- 4.094
F'DN

4.406 4.703 I ---- ----

4 . 180

r 1.51'
-.

.
-
3P
P
1.5P
-2.176
4.837
-2 .04!)
-
-2.153
4.201
-2.546

(b) Maximum D e f l e c t i o n (nun)

-2.124
3.638
-3.197
. -2.339
-
4.858
- 2 .3 ) 5
-- --- - -

-- - . -
.- ---

--

1,
2P - 8.72
- P 14.74 14.73 14.71
l.5P 3P 1.5F 24.11 22.96 --
20.57 25. 80

Table 5.8 R e s u l t s from d i f f e r e n t Analyses f o r t h e Channel Remm

( a ) Maximum Bending Moment (H-m) -- .- - -

I PRESENT RESULTS
PJ 2-PARA FlN WINKLER
rnN
1 SOLUTION ESUCI'S
--
I
.
7.210 7.437 7.626 6.937

I1
- P -5.621 -5.970 -6.350 A ---- --
P 4.362 3.014
1.5P 3P
-3.025 -3.897 -4.531

(b) Maxim D e f l e c t i o n (mm)

I
0.88 16.51 2 5 .-2--
0 -. - i
Fig. 5.5 Iiesults for. Wide Fl z?~:;o !:cnm Fig. 5.6 Kes~llts for F l a t Re<m
*
w i t h Three Loads. w i t h One Load
I . 5.8 R e s u l t s Cor F l a t Beam

w i t h Three Loads.
 6
I i
ii
.." , ~
B i i j /A
.--

.,* '
- .' ,
5 ji ,,,.,, -".
,/:,;/y.:.::-.,
\\.
1 ,,.'. ...- . \
I...

,
.c.
14
. ,: ,' /$/' '%>:,

*\
, , i .'
t ,"
.,,,.
,/,+
rn
CI +\ ! ; ,<;,
G *,; / / ;;
",!
,.
1 , 1'
&.
?\$

* , ; ':?i
i.

*?

i s . . I 1 ~:csults Tor ( l e m n c l k:mi w i t h i'hrec Loads.

 5.3.4 Discussions

The three beams analysed f a l l under different classes based on

t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c lengths (see Table 2.1) while the Wide Flange

and channel beams a r e a t the two ends of the c l a s s of moderately short

beams (0.80 < X R < 2.25), the Flat beam is i n the class of moderately

long beams (2.2 5 < XR < 5.00) . The analyses f o r the Wide Flange beam

show, f o r a l l the three loading cases, a concave parabolic pressure

distribution with concentration of pressure a t the edges. This i s i n

agreement with experimental r e s u l t s and i n contrast w i t h the convcntionnl

results. While the conventional analyses predicted a uniform d i s t r i -

bution pressure and deflection under the beam, the prescnt r e s u l t s show

t h a t the maximum dcfl ection occur a t the midpoint ( o r a t the cdgcs for

loading 2) while the maximum pressure occur a t the cdges.

The f l a t beam being very f l e x i b l e (XR=3.96) gave prcssure d i s t r i -

butions t h a t i n a general manncr followed the distributions o f the

applied loads. Due t o the f l e x i b i l i t y of the beam, thc r c s u l t s by the

present analyses a r e i n agreement t o a good extent with the r c s u l t s of

the conventional method of analysis. There were noteablc differcnccs

only when the beam was loaded with three point loads.

The channel beam by i t s r e l a t i v e f l e x i b i l i t y represents an i n t e r -

mediate case between the other two beams. Although the pressurc dis-

,tributions I'ollow, t o a ccrtain extent, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of cxtern:~l

loads on the beam, there is also some pressure concentration a t the

edges even i n the case of the central point load. Again there a r c
variations between the conventional analysis results and the
results of the present method. These are however moderate for the
loading cases of a central m i n t load and two end loads.
 OTER 6
ONCLUS ION

The variational principle of Reissmr has been usetl to obtain

equations f o r a higher order theory f o r beams. The s t r v s s :mi dis-

placement s t a t e s of the c l a s s i c a l theory were modi rictl 1o i ncludc

two higher order e f f e c t s . The theory was applied t o t l lwrding

~ ~ of

transversely loaded beams and beams resting on e l a s t i c f'ormdations.

Results were compared with r e s u l t s from other sources.

The f i r s t and t h i r d order theories were found t o irwrove

results of the elementary theory when depth t o length t-itios are

high. The t h i r d order theory proved superior t o thc ot1lc.r theories

and with it solutions could be extended f o r beams oP d w t h t o length
r a t i o s of greater than 0.25.

The t h i r d order theory with a simplified definition of deflec-

t i o n was used f o r the analysis of a s e t of free-entletl I K am5 resting

on a Winkler and a two parameter foundation models. Qc.;t~l

ts for the

two parameter foundation model were plotted against cxncl-i~nentaland

conventional analysis r e s u l t s presented by Vesic and Jol~ilson. Again

the usefulness of the higher order theory was seen, nos t cspecial ly,

f o r short beam (beams of lower X R values).

The strength of the approach used i n t h i s work l i e , , i n thc i a c t

t h a t the variational theorem of Reissner can be uscd c-oriveniently

t o derive governing equations f o r a theory when the str.ct\s :mcl di5-

placement states can be initially assumed. Future work can extend
this ap~roach
.- to shells, domes, etc.
 REFERENCES

BAHAR, L.Y. : "Transfer Matrix Approach t o Layered Systems",

ASCE, Journal of the Eng. Mech. Div, 98, EMS, 1159,
71972) .
BARDEN, L.: "Stresses and Displacements i n a Cross-Anisotro~ir.
Soil," Geotechnique, 13, 198 , (Sept. 1963).

BARDEN, L.: "Influence Coefficients f o r Beams k s t i n g on Soil",

C i v i l Engineering, (London) , 58, 601, (1963)

BEAUFAIT, F.W. : "Numerical Analysis of Beams on E l a s t i c Founda-

tions," ASCE, J1. of the Eng. b c h . Dh., 103, 205 (Feb.
1979

BICTT, M.A. "Bending of an I n f i n i t e Beam on an E l a s t i c Foundation,"

Trans. ASME, J1. Apvl. Mech., 59, A1 (1937)

BOLEY, B.A. and TOLINS, I.S.: "On the Stresses and k f l e c t i o n s of

Rectangular Beams," J1. Appl. Mech
. ) 2.3, 339 (1956)

DAS, Y.C. and SETLUR, A.V.: "Method of I n i t i a l Functions i n Two-

Dimensional Elasto dynamic Problems," J1. Apnl. llech., 37,
137 (1970)

DE BEER, E.E.: "Le calcul de poutres resposant s u r l c sol,"

- 51, 393 (1948)
Annales des T r a v a k Publics de Belgique,

DE BEER, E.E.: Computation of Beams Resting on .Soil," Proc. 2nd

I n t e r . Conference on S o i l Mech. and Fdn. Yng., Rottcrdam,
-
1, 119, (1948)
DE BEER. E .E. and KRSMANOVITCH, D. : "Calculde poutres reponsant
s u r l e s o l ," Annales des . ~ r a v a u xPublics de Be1 g i v e , 52,
981 (1951)

LONNEL, L.H.: "Bending of Rectangular Beams," -J1.

. April. Mech.,
19, 123. (1952)

DRAPKIN, B. : "Grillage Beams on E l a s t i c Foundation," T'roc . ASCTi,

Proceedings Separate No 771, Vol 81 (Aug. 1 9 5 5 F

FILONENKO-BORODICH, M.M. : "Some Approximate Thcori c s of t h e

E l a s t i c Foundation" ( i n
skogo Gosudarstrennogo
14. FLETCHER, D.Q. and HERREN; L.R. : " E l a s t i c Foundation
Representation of Continuam," ASCE, J1. Erik Mech. ,
97, 95 (Feb 1971)

15. FOPPL, A.: Vorlesungen uber Technische pvlechanik, B.B. Teubner,

Leipzig, Germany, 3, 4 t h ed., (1909)

16. GALLETLY, G.D.: "Circular P l a t e s on a Generalized E l a s t i c

Foundation," A,%, J1 Appl. Mech., 81, 297 (I1)N)

17. HABEL, A. : "Naherungsberchnung des auf dem eltist isch- isotropen

Halbraum aufliegenden e l a s t i s c h e n Balkens," -
Uer Hauingenie~
19, 76 (1938)

18. HARR, M.E., DAVIDSON, J . L . , HO, D.M., POMBO, I,.I:. , lii\WSh~AMY,S.V.

and ROSNER., J. C. : "Euler Beams on a Two- Parameter Founciatic
Model," A X E , J1 S o i l MecL 95, 933 (1969)

19. I-IAYASI-11, K.: Theory of Beams on E l a s t i c Founil;~tion R c r l ~Springe]

Verlag ( i n German) (1921)
I
20. FETENYI, M. : Beams on E l a s t i c Foundation. Ann Arhor: 'Jni vcrsi t y
of Michigan Press (1946).

21. HETENYI, M.: "A General Solution f o r t h e Bending of Ikams on an

E l a s t i c Foundation of Arbitrary c o n t i n u i t y , ll,J1.
-- @p1. Phys
2 1 , 55 (1950)

22. HETENYI, M. : "Series Solutions f o r Beams on E l a s t i c Foundations,"

ASME, J1. Alspl. Mech., 507 (June 1971)
-
23. IYENGAR, K.T.S.R. and -, S.: "A Series Solution f o r
Beam Problems,17 J1. of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n of Engineers, India
(1963)

24. IYENGAR, K.T. S.R and AN,- S. : "Analysis o r F i n i t e Heams

on E l a s t i c Foundations ," J1 of t h e I n s-
t i t--u t- i o n--
of x i n -e--e r s
India, (1963)

25. IYENGAR, K.T.S.R. and - , S.: "Finite Rc,m-Columns on

E l a s t i c Foundation," .-ASCE J1. Eng. Mech., 89, 139 (1 96.3)

26. .
IYENGAR, K. T. S R., CHANDRASFIEKEARA, K. and SI~HAS'l7 Ah1 , V. K. :
''A Theory f o r Circular P l a t e s using Hiqhcr Order Apnroxi-
mations ," Proc 2nd I n t e r . Conf. on S t r . Mech.
--- ---i-
n-Reactor
-- -
Technology, Berlin, Germany (1973)
27. IYFACAR, K.'T .S.R. , CHANDRA,S!EKHARA, K. and SERASTTAN, V.K. :
"A Note on the Analysis of Thlck Rectangular Plates,"
Z M , (1974)
28. JONES, R. and XENOPHONTOS, J. : "The Vlasov Foundation Model ,"
Inter. J1. Mech. Science, 19, 317 (1977)
29. KANY, M.: Rerechnung von Flachengrundungen, Ernst, Berlin, (1959)

30. KARAMAN , T.V. : "Die Spannugen und Formanderungen von Balken

mit Rechteckigen Querschnitt," Abhandl. Acrodyn,Inst.,
Hochschule, Aachen, 7.3 (1927)
31. KERR, A.D. : "Viscoelastic Winkler Foundation with Shear Inter-
action," ASCE, Jl. Eng. Mech., 87, 13 (1961)
32. E R R , A.D.: "Elastic and Viscoelastic Foundation %dels,"
ASME, J1. Appl. Mech., 491 (Sept. 1964)
33. LEE, S.L., M1ANG,T.M. and KAO, J.S.: "Continuous Ream-columns
on Elastic Foundation" ASCE, Jl. Eng. Mech, 87, 55 (1961)
34. OHDE, J.: "Die Berechnung der Sohldruckverteilung unter Grundungs-
korpern," Der Bauingenieur, 23, 99 (1942)
35. OJIKO, E.C.: Mixed Method in Elasticity in the Analysis of Layered
-Reams,
- M.Lng. Project, University of Nigeria, Nsukka (19fJST

36. PASTERTUK, P.L.: "On a New Method of Analysis of an Elastic

Foundation by Means of Two Foundation Constants." (In
Russian), Gosudarstrennoe Izdatelstro Literaturi po
Stroitelstru i Arkhitekture, bbscow,i7SS~, (1954)
37. RAO, N.S.V.K., DAS, Y.C. and ANANDAKHISHNAN, M. : "Variational
Approach to Ream on Elastic Foundations," ASCE Jl. r7ng.
Mech., 97, 271 (1971)
38. RATZERSDORFER, J .: Iliscussion Internati.onnlc 'I'agung fur Rruckendou
und Ilochbau, Wien, Austria, 316 (1929)
39. RATZERSDORFER, J. : ''Die Knickfestigkeit von Stabcn und Stabwcrkcn,
Springer, Wien, Austria, 161 (1936).
40. REISSNER, E.: "On a Variational Theorem in Elasticity", -----
J1. Maths.
and Phys., 29, 90 (1950)
REISSNER, E . : "A Note on Deflections of P l a t e s on a Visco-
e l a s t i c Foundation," J1. Appl Yech (ASME), 80, 144
(1958)

SCFIIEL, F. : "Der Schwimmonde Balken," Z c i t s c h r i f t Tur an e-

wandte Mathcmatik und Mechanik ,=5779+

SCUIT, R. F. : Foundation Analysis, New .Jersey: T'rcnti cc-lh1 1 ,

Inc. (1981)

SEEWALD, F. : " D i e Spannugen und Formandcrungen von Ralkcn

m i t Rechteckigen Querschmitt", Ahh. Aerodynam Tnst.
Techniche Hochschule Aachen, GeGany, I / , 11 C I
V m

- Mc-Graw l l i l l Rook Co. Inc . ,

SVEDDON , I .N. : Fouricr Translforms,
New York (1951)

SOKOLOV, S.N.: "Circular P l a t e on a Generalizccl Foundation"

(in Russian), Inzhinierny sbornik, Academy of Scienccs
USSR, 11 (19521-

SOLER, A . J . : "Higher Order E f f e c t s i n 'Thick Rectangular Beam",

I n t e r . J1. Solids and S t r . , 7, 723 (1968)

STOLIE, 1I.W. : "Elastish Cehcttete T r a p - und I k h c n u n t c r Qucr

und Axial Belastung," Dic U3u l'echnick 20, (,Jan 1902)

THOMAS, R.L.: "Experimental Studies of Beams on L : l a s t i c Founda-

t i o n s , " ASCE J1. Eng. Mech, (June 1960)

TIMOSHENKO, S.P.: Strength of Materials ( P a r t l ) , New J e r s e y :

D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc. ( 1950) .
TIMOSlENKO, S.P. and (EKE:, J . M . : 'Theor o f liltlstic S t a b i l i t y ,
6
2nd E d i t i o n , Mc-Graw []illBook- oy-iEc:-i -N%G-Y6rl---~l~Ol )

TIMOSHENKO, S.P. and MIEGER, S.W.: Theory of -- P l a t e s 'and S h c l l s ,

Mc-Craw I I i l l Book, -Coy London (I9S9)

URBANOWSKI. W.: Some Cases of C i r c u l a r P l a t e s Tnterconnected

w i t 6 an E3astic Rase of Generalized I'ropcrties" ( i n
Polish) , Zeszyty Naukowe P o l i t e c h n.- ,
i k i ~i\mrsznwkiej
.- ---
.
Mechanika 3 ( 1956) .
A.B.: "Beams on E l a s t i c Subgradc and t h c Winklcr's
H,m
- t h e s i s . " Proc. 5th I n t e r Conf on S o i l Mech'and Fdn.
Eng., P a r i s W I T
55. VESIC, A.B. and JOHNSON, W.H.: "Model Studies of Beams
Resting on a S i l t Subgrade," AYCE, J1. S o i l Plech & Fdn.,
-
89, 1 (1963)

56. VLASOV, V. Z . : "Structural Vechanics o f Thin Walled Three D i -

mensional Systems" (In Russian), S t r o i z d a t (1949)

57. VLASOV, V.Z.: "Method of I n i t i a l Functions i n 1)rohlcms o r

Theory of Thick P l a t e s and Shells," Proc.
----- 9th I n t e r .
Cong. o f Applied Mech., 6, 321 (19573

58. VLASOV, V.Z. and LEONTIEV, N.N.: "Beams, P l a t e s m d Shells

on Elasf5c Founclation" ( i n Russian), Fizmatgiz, Moscow,
USSR (1960)

60. WINKLER, E. : "Die Lehre vouder E l a s t i c i t a c t nud Festiqkei t ,"

Prag. Dommicus (1867)

61. ' WOLFER, K.H.: E l a s t i c a l l y Supported Beams, Berlin: Rnuverlag

G.M.B.A. (1971).