BEAM ELEMENTS ON TWO-PARAMETER

ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS
By Feng Zhaohua 1 and Robert D . Cook 2

ABSTRACT: Two-parameter elastic foundations are more accurate than a one-

parameter (Winkler) foundation and are simpler than semi-infinite elastic con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tinuum foundation models. Two kinds of finite elements are formulated in this
paper to analyze beams on one- or two-parameter foundations. Models include
Winkler, Filonenko-Borodich, Pasternak, generalized, and Vlasov foundations.
One of the two kinds of elements is based on the exact displacement function.
The other is based on a cubic displacement function. The stiffness matrix and
consistent load vector is derived for each. Numerical tests show that the ele-
ment based on the exact displacement function can give exact numerical results
even if the number of elements is very small. The element based on a cubic
function may require a fine mesh to give acceptable results.

INTRODUCTION

The analysis of beams and plates on elastic foundations is widespread

in engineering. In recent years finite elements have been used (1,2,3,4,
10,15,16,19). Most of these works use the Winkler hypothesis. Thus, the
foundation acts as if it consisted of infinitely many closely spaced linear
springs. The Winkler model is very simple. But interactions between
springs are not considered, so it does not accurately represent the char-
acteristics of many practical foundations. For some problems a contin-
uous medium model is more accurate, but it is difficult to obtain an exact
solution with this model and is expensive to obtain a numerical result
by finite element methods.
Two-parameter elastic foundations have been suggested (6,7,8,9,14).
They are less restrictive than the Winkler model but not so complicated
as the elastic continuum model. In this paper we present finite element
formulas and matrices for the analysis of beams resting on any of several
two-parameter foundation models. If the second parameter is set to zero,
the formulas and matrices of the two-parameter model reduce to those
of the one-parameter model; that is, to the Winkler foundation. All elas-
tic foundations reviewed in this paper are assumed to be capable of ex-
erting either pull or push, as if the beam is securely attached to the
foundation at every point.
A brief review of elastic foundation models is given in the next sec-
tion. The differential equation of the elastic curve of a beam on a two-
parameter foundation is introduced and solved to obtain the element
stiffness matrix and load matrix corresponding to the exact displacement
function. Then the element stiffness matrix and load matrix correspond-
1
Assoc. Prof., Rolling Forge Research Institute, Jilin Univ. of Tech., Changchun,
Jilin,
2
People's Republic of China.
Prof., Dept. of Engrg. Mech., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wise. 53706.
Note.—Discussion open until May 1,1984. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical and Profes-
sional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on September 20, 1982. This paper is part of the Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 109, No. 6, December, 1983. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9399/83/0006-1390/$01.00. Paper No. 18431.
1390

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 p(x>
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

FIG. 1.—(a) Portion of Deflected Beam on Elastic Foundation, Showing Load q(x)
and Foundation Reaction p(x); and (b) Infinitesimal Element Taken from the Beam

ing to a cubic displacement function are derived. Numerical tests are

used to compare the two foundations.

ELASTIC FOUNDATION MODELS

Fig. 1(a) shows the action of an elastic foundation. When unloaded,

the beam axis and the x axis coincide. As a result of line load q(x) on
the upper surface the beam deflects, causing the foundation to resist
with a line load p(x), whose units may be taken as N/mm. Various foun-
dation models define p(x) in various ways.
Winkler Foundation (18).—This foundation model has been used for
a century. It assumes that the foundation applies only a reaction p(x)
normal to the beam, and that p(x) is directly proportional to the beam
deflection w = w(x)
p(x) = k w(x) • (1)
The Winkler foundation modulus k has units N / m m / m m . Effectively,
this foundation is a row of closely-packed linear springs.
There is only one foundation parameter in Eq. 1. To improve the Winkler
model some authors assumed interactions between the springs and added
a second parameter to Eq. 1. In the following we outline four of these
two-parameter models.
Filonenko-Borodich Foundation (5).—Filonenko-Borodich assumed that
the top ends of the springs are connected to an elastic membrane that
is stretched by a constant tension T. He obtained
d2w(x)
p(x) = k w{x) - T (2)
Ax1
Pasternak Foundation (11).—Pasternak introduced shear interactions
between the springs. He assumed that the top ends of the springs are
connected to an incompressible layer that resists only transverse shear
deformation, and obtained
d2w(x)
p(x) = k w{x) - kc (3)

in which kG = a parameter of the shear layer.

1391

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 Generalized Foundation (8).—This model assumes that at each point
of contact there is not only a pressure but also a moment applied to the
beam by the foundation. The moment is assumed to be proportional to
the angle of rotation. Thus, actions of the foundation per unit length of
the beam are taken as
p(x) = k w(x) (4a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

, dw(x)
m(x) = fce-7^ (4b)
ax
in which k and ke = the two moduli of the foundation. From m(x) we
can obtain an equivalent line load. This can be done in the same way
that twisting moment M^ on the edge of a plate is converted to an
equivalent shear dM^/dx. This transformation is standard in elementary
thin-plate theory. Thus, Eqs. 4 can be replaced by
d2w(x)
p(x) = kw(x) - h—Y (5)
ax
without any moment load from the foundation.
Vlasov Foundation (7,17).—Some authors did not start from Winkler
foundation but regarded the foundation as a semi-infinete elastic me-
dium. This approach is mathematically complicated, so simplifying as-
sumptions were introduced (12,13,17). Vlasov obtained the foundation
reaction
, , , d2w(x)
p(x) = kw(x) - 2t—Y (6)
ax
as well as formulas for determining the parameters k and t in terms of
elastic constants and dimensions of the beam and foundation.
Remarks.—Mathematically, Eqs. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are equivalent. The only
difference is the definition of the parameters. When we solve the prob-
lems mathematically we need not pay attention to this difference, so we
rewrite these equations in the form
d2w(x)
p(x) = kw{x) - kx —Y (7)
dx
in which k = the first parameter (Winkler's modulus); and kx = the sec-
ond parameter.
Governing Differential Equation.—A differential element cut from the
beam is shown in Fig. 1(b), where V(x) is the transverse shear force and
M(x) is the bending moment. We invoke the equilibrium equations and
moment-curvature equation of elementary beam theory. Transverse shear
deformation is neglected.
dV(x)
— = a(x) - p(x) (8)

V(x) (9)

1392

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 L
9, M,
>'•
-h-
/
—A
_.. .r-V-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

FIG. 2.—(a) Nodal Degrees of Freedom; and (&) Corresponding Nodal Forces on
Beam Element of Length L

d2w(x)
EI M(x) (10)
Ax1
Eqs. 7-10 yield, for constant bending stiffness EI
d4w(x) d2w{x)
EI *r + k w{x) = q(x) (11)
dxi dx2
This is the governing equation that yields what we shall call the "exact"
displacement function w(x).

FORMULATIONS BASED ON EXACT DISPLACEMENT FUNCTION

Fig. 2 shows a finite element of a beam on a two-parameter founda-

tion. Here {d} = {w;,9,,w;',0;} are the d.o.f. of the element and {r} =
(Qi,Mj,Qj,Mj} are loads applied to the nodes by the element. In the
following we derive the stiffness matrix [ke] that relates {d} to {r}. This
matrix simultaneously accounts for the stiffness of the beam element and
the stiffness of the foundation directly beneath it.
We must note that Q(x) is not simply the transverse shear force in the
beam. It includes also the shear resistance associated with modulus k\
of the two-parameter foundation. Force Q(x) is a generalized shear force
defined by

Q(x) = V(x) + V1(x) (12a)

d3w(x)
in which V(x) = EI ^ (12b)
dx
dw(x)
Vr(x) = - f c i - 7 ^ (12c)
dx
Shear V(x) is the usual contribution from elementary beam theory. Shear
Vi (x) is the contribution from a two-parameter foundation. The negative
sign arises because a positive slope requires shear forces in the foun-
dation opposite to those shown in Fig. 1(b).
To derive the element stiffness matrix we let q = 0 and solve the ho-
mogeneous differential equation corresponding to Eq. 11. For the prac-
tical case ki =s (4fcEI)1/2, the solution is
1393

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 . , „ <f><* 4>P , _ <|)a . • <()P
w(x) = Cj cos — x cosh — x + C2 cos — x sinh — x
Li Li Li Li

(|>a 4>p ' 4>a 4>P

+ C3 sin — x cosh — x + C4 sin — x sinh — x (13)

in which Ci, C2, C3, and C4 = constants of integration; L = the element

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

length, and

i (i4
*- <H >
a = sin — (15)

P = cos|... '..' (16)

/V4fcEJ - ki\
t|/ = arctan I I (17)

Angle i|/ lies in the range 0 < i|i < ir/2.

Rotation is taken as 0(x) = dw(x)/dx. By evaluating w(x) and 8(x) at x
= 0 and at x = L, we obtain from Eq. 13 the form
{d} = { ^ , 6 , , ^ , ^ } = [ A K d , C 2 , C 3 , C 4 } (18)
Nodal loads can be found by substituting Eq. 13 into Eqs. 8 and 12 and
evaluating the resulting expressions at x = 0 and at x = L. Thus we
obtain the form
- W = {QiMi.QiMj} = [H]{Ci,C 2 / C 3 ,C 4 } (19)
Matrices [A] and [H] are 4 by 4 and are functions of a, p, cj>, and L. From
Eqs. 18 and 19 the element stiffness matrix appears as
-{r} = [ke]{d], in which [ke] = [ H ] ^ ] " 1 (20)
e
Matrix [k ] is symmetric and contains the following coefficients.

*ii = ke33 = - 2 C 2 E 7 Q 2 C 2 ( 7 ) (aS„C, + pSC) sin I|I , (21a)

fc 2 2
"=-^ =3
a 2 S^2 -- ^p 2(S 27V)J f(P s
- a 2 S 2 ) cos <|/ + aP(S 2 + S 2 ) sin <|»] (21b)
3
-EI /d>\
fc
» = 22C2
2 0 22 ^22 ( 7 ) ( a C S " + PSC*) sin * (21c)
a S - p S \LJ
E7 ($V
SSkSbi
^-^^SFWAV * •••(21d)
1394

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3.—Elastically-Supported Beam Element Subjected to Trapezoidal Line Load

EI
koo — K44 — 2 — (aSfcQ - PSC) sin \\i. (21e)
a Sl - p 2 S 2 \L
-EI
2C2 \Tj(aShC ~ PSC/.) S i n <l< (21/)
p2s
2
* Sl
in which the new symbols are defined in Appendix II.
A Winkler foundation is obtained by setting fcx to zero. For the case
fci = 0, we have i|/ = ir/2 and a = p = V2/2, so the stiffness coefficients
of Eq. 21 simplify somewhat.
A beam element subject to a trapezoidal line load q(x) is shown in Fig.
3. The intensity of this load is qt at node i and qt at node /. Formulas for
equivalent nodal loads produced by q(x) are derived as follows.
In the governing differential equation, Eq. 11, the load term becomes

q(x) = q{ + (q, - q{) - (22)

and the solution of the differential equation becomes

w(x) = (right side of Eq. 13) + | + (q, - q,) — . (23)

We seek fixed-end moments and shears. So we apply the boundary con-

ditions Wi = Wj = 9; = 9; = 0 to Eq. 23 and solve for integration constants
Ci, C 2 , C 3 , and C4 in terms of qt, q,, and the parameters defined by
Eqs. 14-17. The resulting expression for w(x) is substituted in to Eqs.
10 and 12, which are then evaluated at x = 0 and at x = L. Thus, we
obtain the nodal loads of Fig. 2(b), applied to the nodes by the element:
qiLQ-C . (qj-q^L
Qi = ~, n , nr, s m * + cosi);
(j) aSh + PS ' (J)
(aS + $Sh)(aSh + PS) - (aCSh + PSQ,)<(> .
2 2 2 sin4< (24a)
s. - P s
(aSh pS)cosi|/- (pSft aS) sini|/
M,=
aSft + PS
(aS, + pS)(Q - C) - SSfc<|)'
sinv|/ (24b)
* 3 a 2 S 2 - p2S2

1395

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 q,L C„-C .
Qj = — n , „ „ sm I|J
4> aS* + (3S

Oft ~ <ft)L ap(S 2 + Si) + SSh - (aSfcQ, + pSC)<|>

COS l}»
„,2r2 Q2C2
sini|i (24c)
<t>2
a Jjft — p i)
7,L2
M,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(aSft + PS) cosaS,,

<\> - ($Sh - aS) sin i|i
«f>2 + pS
2 2
Oft ~ *)L2 '(aS» + PS)(C - CO + ap(S + S )*'
sini|i
a 2 S 2 - P2S2
Oft ~ ca)L2
2 cos \\i. (24rf)
4>
If the load is uniform, then c\{ = qj, and the foregoing expressions sim-
plify considerably. Further simplification is possible by adopting the
Winkler model. Then ki = 0, so that 4» = TT/2 and a = p = V2/2.

FORMULATIONS BASED ON CUBIC DISPLACEMENT FUNCTION

In this section we present expressions for the element stiffness matrix

and equivalent nodal loads based on the cubic displacement function
that is standard in finite element beam theory. The results are simpler
in form than Eqs. 21 and 24 but are less accurate because the assumed
cubic field is only approximate. A cubic field, interpolated from nodal
d.o.f. {d}, is
w(x) = lNlrN2,N3,Nt]{d} (25)
in which Ni-N 4 are stated in Ref. 4.
The analysis method is to write an expression for strain energy and
identify certain of its terms as the desired stiffness matrix (4). Energy
expressions for a beam and for linear springs (the Winkler foundation)
are well known. An increment of strain energy associated with k\ is
(k-i/ljidw/dx)2. This expression can be written by regarding k\ as a ro-
tational stiffness, as in Eq. 4 for the generalized foundation. Alterna-
tively, k-i can be regarded as shear stiffness, as in the Pasternak model.
Thus, the energy expression follows from the standard expression for
strain energy in shear, Gy2/2, in which G = shear modulus and 7 =
shear strain.
The strain energy in the beam and foundation is
d2w(x) 2
U=
dx2
EI d w(x)
2 dx2
dx
-T 2 Jo
[w{x)fk[w{x)]dx

dw(x) dw(x)
fci dx (26)
dx dx

U = -{d}T([K] + [kcw] + [kcT]){d} (27)

So the element stiffness matrix is

1396

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 [*<] = [k'0] + [k%] + [keT] (28)
Substituting Eq. 25 into Eq. 27 we obtain the conventional uniform-beam
stiffness matrix [kc0]
12 6L -12 6L
EI 4L2 -6L 2L2
[K] = Ti5 (29)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

L SYMMETRIC 12 -6L
4L2
the Winkler foundation stiffness matrix [kcw]
13 11 9 -13
— L — L2 — L
35 210 70 420 '
1 ., -1
^ L 2 2
105 420 140
IK] = k -11
(30)
SYMMETRIC HL
35 210 '
1
1
105
and the second-parameter foundation stiffness matrix [kcT]
6 1 1 6 1 1
5 L 10 5 L 10
2 -1 -1
—L
15 10 30
[kcT] = kx (31)
6 1 -1
SYMMETRIC
10
2
15
The latter two matrices are similar in form to the consistent mass and
stress stiffness matrices, respectively (4).
When the beam rests on a two-parameter foundation the element ma-
trix is [kc] = [kc0] + [kcw] + [kcT]. When the beam rests on a Winkler foun-
dation (k-i = 0), [kc] = [kc0] + [kcw\. When the beam has no elastic foun-
dation (k = ki - 0), we retain only the conventional beam element stiffness
matrix [k°0].
Equivalent fixed-end nodal loads {r} applied to the nodes are given by
(4)

{QiMi^Mi) = I WqV) dx (32)

Jo
where [N] is given by Eq. 25 and q(x) is given by Eq. 22 for the load of
Fig. 3. Thus
{r} = {Qi,Mi,Qj,Mj} (33a)
1397

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 P = IOOOON (total)
200mm
I _e*J |-HS^'lOOmm

P
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

^541.5.^
mm
1. symmetric

FIG. 4.—Elastically-Supported infinite Beam Subjected to Concentrated Force P

%L 3
Qi = (33b)
T + 20(<7; ~ < 7 , ) L ' '
fl-L2 1
M,- = — + — W (a, - qi)L2. (33c)
12 30 ; ^ ;
^ 1iL 7
(33d)
Q= +
' T 20((Jy ~ ^ L "'
^L 2
M,-» -= n - n l i i - * * (33e)

NUMERICAL TESTS

One half of a beam of infinite length resting on an elastic foundation

is shown in Fig. 4. A concentrated lateral load P = 10,000 N (total) is
applied to the beam at the origin x = 0. The beam is shale with elastic
modulus E = 9,100 N/mm 2 and Poisson ratio \x = 0.3. The elastic foun-
dation is sandy clay with elastic modulus Es = 45.4 N/mm 2 and Poisson
ratio |xs = 0.21. This problem is used to test the correctness of Eq. 21
and to study the accuracy of the cubic-field formulation, Eq. 28.
This is a plane strain problem. According to elementary thin-plate the-
ory, EI in the foregoing equations should be replaced by
Ebh3
D=- (34)
12(1 - p,2)
in which b is the width of the beam and h is its depth.
The two foundation parameters k and k\ are evaluated by Vlasov's
formulation (17). These equations apply to a foundation of infinite depth.
E„b
k= 2 (35)
2(1
1*2) V
E„b
*i = (36)
4(1 +Ho) 7
1/3
"2P(1 ~ rf)
A= (37)
. E0b
1398

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 TABLE 1.—Displacements and Internal Forces at Point A in Fig. 4. Based on Cu-
bic Elements, Eq. 27. Ratio of Computed Value to Exact Value
Grade of mesh (ele- Rotation Bending Shear force
ments of equal length) Deflection 9 = dw(x)/dx moment (Eq. 10) (Eq. 9)
(D (2) (3). (4) (5)
(a) Two parameter foundation, k = 4.0 N/mm', kx = 6.0 (10)5 N
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5 elements 1.0238 0.7979 2.0192 0.5691

10 elements 1.0058 1.0239 1.4951 1.2523
20 elements 0.9999 0.9951 0.9957 0.7518
40 elements 1.0000 0.9996 1.0301 0.9566
80 elements 1.0000 1.0000 0.9992 1.0727
(b) One parameter foundation, k = 4.0 N/mm2, fc: = 0
5 elements 1.0227 0.8024 1.8109 0.5683
10 elements 1.0057 1.0202 1.3908 1.2046
20 elements 1.0000 0.9955 0.9951 0.7720
40 elements 1.0000 0.9997 1.0240 0.9603
80 elements 1.0000 1.0001 0.9994 1.0644

F =
0
—
1 2
1 - [L,

1 - M-a
Coefficient 7 depends on the properties of the foundation. Experimental
evidence is almost nonexistent. In this problem we let 7 = 1 and obtain
it = 4.0 N/mm 2 and itx = 6 (10)5 N.
Beam displacements and internal forces decline to zero very fast as
distance x from point load increases. Accordingly, we may choose a beam
of finite (overall) length 2LC to take the place of the infinite beam. The
deflection and bending moment beneath the load in Fig. 4 were com-
puted numerically. The results were compared with the exact solutions
for an infinite beam obtained by solving the governing differential equa-
tion 11 of the beam directly (17). All errors were less than 0.02% if Lc >
2x0, where x0 = 3Tr/[4a(fc/EI)1/4] is the distance between the load and
the nearest point where the beam has zero deflection. For the two-pa-
rameter foundation, x0 = 2,370 mm. For the Winkler foundation, x„ =
2,130 mm. In subsequent test cases we let Lc - 9,025 mm » 3x0.
Table 1 reports the deflection, rotation, bending moment, and trans-
verse shear joint in the beam at point A shown in Fig. 4. Point A is
always within an element rather than at a node. (Thus, when evaluating
the tabulated quantities, the displacement function and its derivatives
were evaluated at the appropriate point within an element.) Exact values
are obtained from exact solution of Eq. 11 (17). Computed values are
obtained by finite elements of equal length based on the cubic function,
Eq. 28. Values obtained by elements based on the exact displacement
field, Eqs. 21, are not tabulated because they always agree with the exact
solution. This agreement verifies the correctness of Eq. 21.
The exact displacement function yields the exact solution, so numer-
1399

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 lOOON/mm 80N/mm
SOON/mm
ON/mm . fTi-^
^^-r-r-rTTTI 35N/mm T T T > - ^

pTTTl Mil . m r r n 1111 ITTn>^

U 2m- -4m
(o) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5.—Fixed-Ended Beams on Elastic Foundations: (a) One-Element Beam on

Two-Parameter Foundation; (b) Two-Element Beam on Winkler Foundation

ical results are not dependent on the number of elements. Results com-
puted by the cubic displacement function depend on the number of ele-
ments. Table 1 shows that displacements are nearly exact if only 5 elements
are used. But if we want no more than 3% error in computed rotations
we must divide Lc into 10 elements. If we want no more than 3% error
in computed moment we must divide Lc into 40 elements. Shear forces
in the beam obtained with the cubic displacement function converge to
exact values very slowly. Even with 80 elements the error may exceed
7%. This is not unexpected. The cubic field approximates derivatives of
w(x) with increasingly simple functions. For example, shear V(x) of Eq.
12 is represented as constant within an element. Yet Eq. 13 shows that
the exact values of w(x), M(x), and V(x) are all complicated expressions
that involve trigonometric and hyperbolic functions.
Two elastically-supported beams with fixed ends were analyzed (Fig.
5). These test cases serve to test the correctness of the finite element
formulations contained in Eqs. 21 and 24. The first beam, Fig. 5(a), car-
ries a trapezoidal line load and is modeled by a single element. Finite
element results were found to agree exactly with results given by Eq. 13
when the integration constants Ci-C 4 in Eq. 13 were evaluated for fixed-
end conditions. The second beam, Fig. 5(b), was modeled by two ele-
ments, of lengths 2 m and 4 m. Results were in full agreement with an
exact solution (18).

CONCLUSIONS

The two kinds of elements presented in this paper can be used to

analyze beams resting on one- or two-parameter elastic foundations, i.e.
Winkler Foundation, Filonenko-Brodich Foundation, Pasternak Foun-
dation, generalized foundation, and Vlasov Foundation. One of these
elements is based on the exact displacement function another is based
on a cubic displacement function.
Elements based on a cubic displacement function can give reasonable
results for deflections, rotations, and bending moments by a moderately
fine element mesh. A very fine mesh is needed to obtain good predic-
tions for transverse shear force.
Elements based on the exact displacement function give exact solu-
tions for deflections, rotations, bending moments as well as transverse
shear force. The number of elements need only be large enough to prop-
erly represent the loading (concentrated nodal loads, or a constant or

1400

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 trapezoidal distributed load as in Fig. 3). T h u s , for simple loadings, a
one-element solution can yield exact results.
W h e n ki is not very large the b e a m can be analyzed as if it rests on
Winkler Foundation. W h e n k\ is large, especially w h e n kt is close to
V4fcE7, the error caused by ignoring ki m a y be appreciable. The appro-
priate value of k\, either from experiment or from formulas that use
k n o w n foundation data, is a topic that requires a great deal more study.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. Cheung, M. S., "A Simplified Finite Element Solution for the Plates on Elas-
tic Foundation," Computers and Structures, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1978, pp. 139-145.
2. Cheung, Y. K., and Nag, D. K., "Plates and Beams on Elastic Foundations—
Linear and Nonlinear Behavior," Geotechnique, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1968, pp. 250-
260.
3. Cheung, Y. K., and Zienkiewicz, O. C , "Plates and Tanks on Elastic Foun-
dations—An Application of Finite Element Method," International Journal of
Solids and Structures, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1965, pp. 451-461.
4. Cook, R. D., Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analsis, 2nd ed., John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981.
5. Filonenko-Borodich, M. M., "Some Approximate Theories of the Elastic
Foundation," (in Russian), Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstuennogo
Universiteta Mechanika, No. 46, U.S.S.R., 1940, pp. 3-18.
6. Fletcher, D. Q., Herrmann, L. R., and Leonard, R., "Elastic Foundation Rep-
resentation of Continuum," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE,
Vol. 97, No. EMI, 1971, pp. 95-107.
7. Jones, R., and Xenophontos, J., "The Vlasov Foundation Model," Interna-
tional Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1977, pp. 317-323.
8. Kerr, A. D., "Elastic and Viscoelastic Foundation Models," Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1964, pp. 491-498.
9. Kerr, A. D., "A Study of a New Foundation Model," Acta Mechanica, Vol. 1,
No. 2, 1965, pp. 135-147.
10. Miyahara, F., and Ergatoudis, J. G., "Matrix Analysis of Structure-Founda-
tion Interaction," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST1,
1976, pp. 251-265.
11. Pasternak, P. L., On a New Method of Analysis of an Elastic Foundation by Means
of Two Foundation Constants (in Russian), Gosudarsrvennoe Izdatelstvo Lit-
eraturi po Stroitelstvu i Arkhitekture, Moscow, U.S.S.R., 1954.
12. Rao, N. S. V. K., et al., "Variational Approach to Beams on Elastic Foun-
dations," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No.
EM2, 1971, pp. 271-294.
13. Reissner, E., "A Note on Deflection of Plates on a Viscoelastic Foundation,"
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1958, pp. 144-145.
14. Selvadurai, A. P. S., Elastic Analysis of Soil-Foundation Interaction, Elsevier Sci-
entific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Holland, 1979.
15. Svec, O. J., and McNeice, G. M., "Finite Element Analysis of Finite Sized
Plates Bonded to an Elastic Half Space," Computer Methods in Applied Me-
chanics arid Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1972, pp. 265-277.
16. Svec, O. J., "The Unbonded Contact Problem of a Plate on the Elastic Half
Space," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 3, No.
1, 1974, pp. 105-113.
17. Vlasov, V. Z., and Leont'ev, U. N., Beams, Plates and Shells on Elastic Foun-
dations (Translated from Russian), Israel Program for Scientific Translation,
Jerusalem, Israel, 1966.
18. Winkler, E., Die Lehre von der Elastizitat und Festigkeit, Prague, Dominicus,
1867.
19. Yang, T. Y., "A Finite Element Analysis of Plates on a Two Parameter Foun-
dation Model," Computers and Structures, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1972, pp. 593-614.

1401

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.

 iNDix II.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Ci,C2,C3,Ci = constant of integration in Eqs. 13;

C = cos ()>a = cos (<}> sin i|>/2);
Ch = cosh (|>p = cosh (4> cos vp/2);
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d.o.f. = degree(s) of freedom;

{d} = element nodal d.o.f.; {d} = {w,-,6,,w;, 8;};
E = elastic modulus;
I = moment of inertia of the beam;
k = the first parameter of two-parameter foundation
(Winkler modulus);
ki = the second parameter of two-parameter foundation;
[kc] = element stiffness matrix based on a cubic displace-
ment function;
[kc0], [kcw], [kcT] = components of [kc], Eq. 28;
[ke] = element stiffness matrix based on the exact dis-
placement function;
keu,ki2,...,keu = coefficients in \k'\;
L = length of a beam finite element;
Lc = a finite length used to replace the infinite length
of a beam in analysis;
Mj,Mj = nodal moment at node i, j , obtained by distribut-
ing the lateral load to the nodes;
M(x) = bending moment;
[N] = matrix of shape functions;
p(x) = foundation reaction pressure;
Q(x) = generalized shear force defined by Eqs. 12;
Qi i Qj = shear force obtained by distributing the lateral load
to the nodes i, j ;
q(x) = the intensity of a distributed load;
(\i, (jf = intensity of q at nodes i,;';
{r} = loads applied to nodes, {r} = {Q,,M,,Q ; ,My};
S = sin <}>a = sin (4> sin i|//2);
S;, = sinh ())(5 = sinh (<)> cos ij»/2);
V(x) = transverse shear force in the beam;
Vi{x) = transverse shear force in the foundation;
w(x) = deflections of the beam;
w{, Wj = deflections at nodes i,;';
x = axial coordinate along the beam;
x0 = least distance from a concentrated load to a point
where w(x) = 0; x0 = 3iT/[4a(fc/£7)1/4];
a = defined by Eq. 15;
P = defined by Eq. 16;
<>
| = defined by Eq. 14;
»|i = defined by Eq. 17;
Q(x) = rotation of a section in the beam; and
6j,6; = rotation at nodes i and ;.

1402

J. Eng. Mech. 1983.109:1390-1402.