Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1225-1231, 1996
Copyright 0 1995 Ekvier
Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain
0045-7949/96 $15.00 + 0.00
Pergamon
0045-7949(95)00219-7
INFLUENCE
IN BEAMS
of Engineering,
Gogte
SKarnataka
Institute
Regional
of Technology,
Engineering
College,
Udyambhag
Belgaum-590
Surathkal-574
008, India
157, India
1. INTRODUCTION
The continuous
is generally
dations.
beam-slab
analysed
type
as
Such a structural
flexural behaviour
of foundation
a beam
on
elastic
system
foun-
ensures
failure.
In general, to analyse, soil-structure
interaction
problems, the following two soil models with a large
area of practical utility are considered. The Winkler
model or local deformation
hypothesis, in which the
soil is considered as an elastic spring field and continuum model, and is also considered as a homogeneous,
isotropic, linearly deformable elastic half space.
Soil is rarely homogeneous,
generally layered and
anisotropic,
and never perfectly elastic. The deformations are time dependant
and partly irreversible.
For such a complex material, numerical methods with
good approximations
provide equally reliable results
as the rigorous classical methods and have the advantage of being easily programmable
for the computers.
Of the many solutions of beams on elastic foundations, Hetenyi [l] provided the classical solution of
a fourth-order
governing differential equation for the
beam of uniform section on Winkler medium. Barden [2] computed
the contact pressure distribution
based on displacement
compatibility
between the
beam and soil assuming a stepped variation of contact pressure. Popov [3] presented a method of successive approximations
of contact pressure distribution
until1 the convergence.
The elastic line of the beam
is determined
using the moment-area
method.
Bowles [4] provided a finite difference method assuming a stepped variation of contact pressure and a
finite element method
combining
a conventional
beam element with descrete springs at the ends of the
beam. Lee and Harrison [5] derived a stiffness matrix
for a beam on an elastic foundation
using a
slope-deflection
method. The finite element method
CAS 58,GL
2.
COMPUTATIONAL
The governing
(Fig. 1) is
differential
PROCEDURE
equation
(d2y/dx2) = (MJEZ)
(1)
The bending moment M,, at any point n is produced by the loads together with the contact pressure.
The contact pressure may be represented by equivalent concentrated
reactions, R,,at the nodal points.
Assuming a parabolic distribution of contact pressure, equivalent concentrated
reactions (Fig. 2) are
Ri = -(@/24)(7~,
Rm=
6~2-Y,)
-(k,h/24)(7y,+6y,-,-y,-2)
1225
y in
I226
V. Hosur
and S. S. Bhavikatti
Fig. 2. Contact
pressure
with loading.
distribution
[R,(m-I)h+R2(m-2)h+...+R,_,h]
(2)
= (hIEO[(R,h)
=( -k,h4/24EI)[7y,
+(h2/-wK-P,h)
- (P,h)
+ (M, + Ml)1
The equilibrium
matrix form as
equations
in the
+ 6~1~- y3]
+ CM, + M2)l.
(h/EI)([EMP]
the
[_Y]= [CYM]-1[EM](/72/EZ)
+[EMM])
(4)
[CY]+~4[CM][Y]=(h2/Ez)[EM]
and the reactions
where
[RI = (-k,h/24)[~~1[y,i(h2/~1)
[CYM][Y]
(h2/EI)[EM].
= -@4/~)[cw[Yd.
(3)
The moments
are obtained
(5)
from
[Ml = (-k,hV4)[CMl[y]
= -s4[c~lbol
+ [EM]
+ b=fl
(6)
(R, + R, +. . . R,,,)
- (P,+ P, +. . P,) = 0
and summing
node, i.e.
up the moments
1227
NUMERICAL
EXAMPLES
1tIlOkN
A
I
D 11
10
3.6m +
1.2m A-
12m
11
4
Datafarthebcam,L=6m,b=15m,t=05m
E=22xl~kN/~,h=(Ul0)=0.6m
Forthesoil,ks=lOOldkN~
Dataforthebeamandlciadingissamebutks=sOOldkNM
lOOkN/m
tttttttttttt
1.2m --/--
-l_
3.6m
12m 4
Dataforthebeamandsoilissameasexamplel.
Example 3.
Fig. 4. Example 3.
1000 kN/m
1000kN/m
I-_
Example 4.
c
1.2m
4-
3.6m +
1.2m -+
Datafarthebeamandsoilissameasexamplel.
Fig. 5. Example 4.
C
1
bExample%
500 kN/m
2m -+
XlOkN/m
2m +
Dataforthebeamandsoilissameasexamplel.
Fig. 6. Example
5.
10
I1
2m -D/
1228
Moment
700
at C
600
[(Zm )3.9 x pg x
x 1000 x 6) + (-0.0077
Ll
500
x 1000 x 6)
4cu
300
=261 kN m.
ma
Moment
at 0
loo
= [(Zm),,, x p, x
=[-0.0188
t1 + K~mh.9x p9 x Ll
x 1000 x 61
-100
= - 225.6 kN m.
3.2. Solution
to example
2 (Fig. 3)
Non-dimensional
parameter,
/I = 0.3. From the
influence line diagrams for p = 0.3 (Fig. lo), moment
at C
x p, x
=[0.0466
Lit- We),, x p9 x Ll
to example
x 1000 x 61
lines
for
p = 0.2 (Fig.
9)
line (ZWZ)~.,)
of load x Z.
+(Zm)e., + (Zm),,,) +
x 1000) + (-0.221)(-
IOOO)]
100 x 6
= 59.69 kn m.
to example 4 (Fig. 5)
lines
x MI + (Zm),,,, x
5 (Fig. 6)
Non-dimensional
parameter
b = 0.2. Using the
influence lines (Figs 9 and 12) the bending moments
are computed at the nodal points and the bending
moment diagram is drawn (Fig. 7).
From the influence coefficients, the bending moments are computed as
+ 2(0.00785 + 0.0416
the influence
at C
to example
(~~),,I x 100x 6
+0.00857+0.0416+0.00785)-O.O188]x
=](Zm),,,
=[(0.221
=0.6/2[-0.0188
lOWI
at 0
3.5. Solution
3 (Fig. 4)
under influence
x Intensity
From
moment
=442.0 kN m.
the influence
at 0
3.4. Solution
= - 150.0 kN m.
=(Areat
Moment
= [(Zm),,, x p, x
From
moment
= 762.5 kN m.
at 0
3.3. Solution
M,
x 1000 x 61
=260.76 kN m.
=[-0.0125
Ll$- KImh.9x p, x Ll
=KZm),,,
Moment
M,
12),
3.6. Comparison
of results
Ml11
4. CONCLUSIONS
(O.lL).
influ-
Influence
Table
1. Influence
Influence
Nodal
points (i)
coefficients
1229
for example
(Fig. 9)
Influence
coefficients
(Fig.
12)
for Pm
for Pn
for Mm
for Mn
(Im ),.,
(rm ),.,
(Im ),,,
(Zm ),,,
- 0.002
-0.004
- 0.00425
0.003
0.02
0.05 I
0.0615
0.025
0.0055
-0.05
-0.17
-0.35
0.45
0.29
0.15
0.08
0.03
0.0
-0.01
-0.06
-0.15
-0.23
-0.37
-0.53
0.28
0.14
0.04
0.0055
0.025
0.0615
0.051
0.02
0.003
-0.00425
- 0.004
- 0.002
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
moments
0.16
r
i=
-0.16 L
__._._._.___.________..
___.._
_____
11
Fig. 8. Influence
coefficients
for moments
due to external
-0.03 -0.04 -
Mtj=(Im)ijxPjxL
i=
-0.08 -
I.... I . . . . I....
I..11....J. . . . I....
12
9
coefficients
for moments
6
L
18
L.... I . . . . I....1
due to external
1011
,!
loads (for /3 = 0.2).
I
\
1230
Example
Moments at
Author
Hetenyis (1)
C/D
261.0
262.5
0
- 150.0
- 148.1
CD
260.8
260. I
0
59.69
60.30
0
166. I
762.5
C/D
443.1
442.0
IfIn\,-
(Im)c; ._
0.06 t
2
0
- 225.6
-225.5
i=
-O.OHJ-.
1011
VLF
Fig. 10. Influence coefficients for moments due to external loads (for p = 0.3).
(Imhj
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Influence coeftici
for moments (Im)
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
,f-+j
4 5
IO 11
_L_
Fig. 11. Influence coefficients for moments due to external moments (for fi = 0.1).
1231
0.90.80.7-
0.6-
(W4j
-0.5-0.6-
Mij = (Im)ij x Mj
-0.7-0.80.9 -
i= 11
1 2
IfhI
Mi
5'6
I
1111
10 11
VLL
Fig. 12. Influence coefficients for moments due to external moments (for /j = 0.2)
0.8
0.7
$=0.3
4-l
0.6
0.5
0.4
Influence coefficients
Mij = (Im)ij x Ml
i=
12
In1
43
1011
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
Fig
13. Influence coefficients for moments due to external moments (for fl = 0.3).
of load at any position, whereas, Hetenyi has provided separate solutions for each of these problems.
The authors results are compared
with Hetenyis
solutions (for those problems for which Hetenyis
solutions are available) and they agree well.
(4) The computational
procedure
presented
can
also be used for beams of varying cross-sections
and
soils of varying modulus of subgrade reaction, by
imposing appropriate
values of p in the set of finite
difference equations.
Acknowledgement-The
first author acknowledges with sincere thanks the encouragement provided to him by Dr R. P.
of Technology,
Principal,
Gogte
Beigaum.
REFERENCES