This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ANALYSIS OF BEAMS ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION: THE FINITE
DEFFERENCES APPROACH
Teodoru I. Bogdan
1
Abstract
In the solution of beams on elastic foundation problem, it is usual to use Winkler’s assumption or the concept of
modulus of subgrade reaction. The general solution for the Winkler foundation is of limited use, since practical problems
(may) involve beams of finite length, or changes in moment of inertia. Moreover, the solution cannot easily adapt to a
change of soil’s modulus of subgrade reaction. Because of these shortcomings, the discrete elements methods, among
Finite Differences Method (FDM) and Finite Element Method (FEM), are most powerful and popular, are preferred for use,
since all kind of contingencies may be accounted for.
This paper examines the use of the Finite Differences Method (FDM) for the analysis of elastic beams resting on
Winkler medium. To estimate the deformation, soil reaction distribution and internal forces of a continuous footing
subjected to external loads, a computer program, based on Matlab code, has been developed. A comparison between FDM,
FEM and analytical solutions is also presented.
Keywords
beams on elastic foundation, finite differences method, numerical analysis, Winkler’s assumption, continuous beam
1 INTRODUCTION
The acceptance of numerical analysis in engineering problems is growing. In particular, the development of numerical
analysis and its application to geotechnical problems over the last time have provided geotechnical engineers with an
extremely powerful analysis tool. Moreover, the new codes of practice (e.g. Eurocode 7), are not as prescriptive as the older
codes and allow the designer to choose an appropriate method of analysis, [3]. Nevertheless, beams on elastic foundation
are most usually analysed based on Winkler’s concept in which the soil is treated as a bed of springs. To obtain the
theoretical solution of this approach is laborious and classical solutions are not general in their application. Several distinct
disadvantages of the classical solution are presented below [1]:
• Difficult to remove soil effect when footing tends to separate from soil
• Difficult to apply multiple types of loads to a footing
• Difficult to change cross section of the footing
• Difficult to allow for change in subgrade reaction along footing
For these reasons numerical analyses of a beam resting on an elastic foundation are shown in full detail and modelling
aspects will be discussed (e.g. discretization dependency). Finally, the results of the numerical analyses are compared with
the result of the general solution.
2 BASICS OF FINITE DIFFERENCES FORMULATION
Finite difference schemes provide an alternative route to the conversion of continuum field equations into
relationships between discrete numerical values. This method discretizes the domain into a regular grid defined by a certain
number of nodes which are separated in the coordinates direction by a certain spatial interval. When applying the FDM
over the domain, we will be able to approximate the objective function (e.g. displacements) at each one of the nodes.
The FDM consists of transforming the partial derivatives in difference equations over a small interval, using the
development in Taylor's series of the objective function at each node, leading to an equation that relates the value of the
function at a particular node with its value at the neighbouring nodes. This procedure is repeated at each node composing
the grid and the assembly of the obtained equations yields a system of equations which may be numerically solved.
The method is best illustrated by a physical example, from structural mechanics. Taking the case of a beam in
bending, the average slope of the elastic curve at distance x
i
is given by:
1
Teodoru I. Bogdan, Ph.D. student, “Gh. Asachi” Technical Univesity of Iaşi, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of
Transportation Infrastructure and Foundations, Bd. Dimitrie Mangeron nr. 67, 700050 Iasi IS, Romania, email:
bteodoru@ce.tuiasi.ro
where y is deflection.
In terms of finite differences, assumed ∆x = λ as finite values, Equation (1) can be evaluated by three approximations:
1) Central difference
2) Forward difference
3) Backward difference
The last equations are called a finitedifference equation. Solving these equations gives an approximate solution to the
differential equation.
In an analogous way, we can obtain finite difference approximations to higher order derivatives and differential
operators. For example, by using the above central difference formula with step λ/2 for (x + λ/2) and (x − λ/2) and then
applying a central difference formula for the derivative at x
i
, we obtain the central difference approximation of the second
derivative:
By differentiating Equation (5) one, obtains the central difference expression for the third derivative as
These last two expressions are sufficient to solve the beam resting on an elastic foundations problem by FDM.
3 SOLUTION OF A BEAM ON AN ELASTIC FOUNDATION USING FDM
The differential equation of the deflection curve for a bending beam is given by:
where:
 E is Young’s modulus;
 I is the moment of inertia;
 M is bending moment.
By differentiating the above equation, with respect to x and taking into account relationship between bending moment
and shearing force, we obtain expression of the shearing force:
By substituting Equations (5) and (6) into Equations (7) and (8) we have:
For a foundation beam, by considering Winkler’s concept, one can replace the foundation with a series of
concentrated springs on the base of the footing, as shown in Fig.1. The soil pressure at any point on the beam is directly
( )
i
i
dy
tan
dx
 
θ =

\ ¹
(1)
i 1 i 1
i
y y dy
dx 2
+ −
−  
≈

λ \ ¹
(2)
i 1 i
i
y y dy
dx
+
−  
≈

λ \ ¹
(3)
i i 1
i
y y dy
dx
−
−  
≈

λ \ ¹
(4)
2
i 1 i i 1
2 2
i
y 2y y d y
dx
+ −
  − +
≈

λ \ ¹
(5)
3
i 2 i 1 i 1 i 2
3 3
i
y 2y 2y y d y
dx 2
+ + − −
  − + +
≈

λ \ ¹
(6)
2
2
d y
EI M
dx
= − (7)
3
3
d y
EI V
dx
= − (8)
( )
i 1 i i 1 i 2
EI
y 2y y M
+ −
− + = −
λ
(9)
( )
i 2 i 1 i 1 i 2 i 3
EI
y 2y 2y y V
2
+ + − −
− + + = −
λ
(10)
proportional with beam deflection (y) and modulus of subgrade reaction (k). For instance at the point i, soil pressure is
related by:
Fig. 1 Winkler’s concept
By discretizing the beam domain into n elements of ∆x = λ = constant, and considering pressure distribution of soil
given by known function p = f(x), one can compute the soil reaction against the beam, at each node i = 1 to n + 1. One may
use any type of pressure distribution of soil to footing (for details see [4]), but for computational simplicity a stepped
pressure distribution is use. Thus, the reactions against the beam of Fig. 2 become:
where B is width of footing.
Fig. 2 Mathematical model for the FD solution for a beam on elastic foundation
By transposing Equation (7) in finite differences, for each node composing the grid, except extremity points (to avoid
limit condition), the bending moment at the point k = 2 to i1 is given by:
where:
 M
P
is the bending moment of axial loads;
 M is concentrated moment.
( ) ( )
i i
p k y = ⋅ (11)
( )
( ) ( ) k
k k
R p B k y B = ⋅ λ⋅ = ⋅ ⋅ λ⋅ for k = 2 to i1 (12)
( )
( ) ( ) 1
1 1
1 1
R p B k y B
2 2
= ⋅ λ⋅ = ⋅ ⋅ λ⋅ (13)
( )
( ) ( ) i
i i
1 1
R p B k y B
2 2
= ⋅ λ⋅ = ⋅ ⋅ λ⋅ (14)
( ) ( )
j i 1
k 1 k k 1 j P 2
j 1
EI
y 2y y R k j M ( ) M
= −
− +
=
 
− + = − − λ − + −

λ
\ ¹
∑ ∑ ∑
(15)
Making notation EI / λ
2
= C and arranging, we have:
Thus we have obtained i2 equations in i unknown values of displacements y. The number of equations with finite
differences being less than unknown’s number, we must complete with two equilibrium equations.
The sum of the moments with respect to right end, for instance:
and the sum of forces in the vertical direction:
We have now obtained i simultaneous linear equations in i unknown values of displacements y.
A numerical scheme for solving a system of equations is matrix method. By arranging system of equations (19) for a
computer solution by the matrix method, we have:
• Coefficient matrix:
where:
 C
R
=k⋅B⋅λ
 m is the row’s indices.
The foregoing matrix can be easily carried out by hand, for a low number of division points (in literature [4] it is
recommended to use 10 divisions); increasing number of division points leading to a more accurate solution, but in the
same time yields difficulty in writing coefficient matrix.
• Free terms vector: is formed by right hand side terms from Equations (19) (moments of all external loads with
respect to the each station point i =2 to i1)
Once the system of equations (19) is solved, one can compute bending moment and shearing force, by back
substitution of the beam deflection (y
i
) into Equations (9) and (10) at each division point form the beam domain. Soil
reaction against the beam at a point i is given by Equation (11).
( )
j i 1
k 1 k k 1 j P
j 1
Cy 2Cy Cy R k j M ( ) M
= −
− +
=
− + + − λ = + −
∑ ∑ ∑
(16)
j i 1 m 1
j P
j 1 m i 1
R m M
= − =
= = −
⋅ ⋅ λ =
∑ ∑ ∏
(17)
i
i
1
R P =
∑ ∑
(18)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1 2 3 1 P
1 1
2 3 4 1 2 P
2 2
3 4 5 1 2 3 P
3 3
i 2 i 1 i 1 2 i 1 P
i 1 i 1
1 2 3 i 1
Cy 2Cy Cy R M ( ) M
Cy 2Cy Cy R 2 R M ( ) M
Cy 2Cy Cy R 3 R 2 R M ( ) M
Cy 2Cy Cy R i 1 R i 2 ... R M ( ) M
R i 1 R i 2 R i 3 ... R
− − −
− −
−
− + + ⋅ λ = + −
− + + ⋅ λ + ⋅ λ = + −
− + + ⋅ λ + ⋅ λ + ⋅ λ = + −
− + + ⋅ − λ + ⋅ − λ + + ⋅ λ = + −
⋅ − λ + ⋅ − λ + ⋅ − λ + + ⋅ λ =
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
M
( )
( )
P
i i
1 2 3 i
M ( ) M
R R R ... R P
+ −
+ + + + =
∑ ∑
∑
(19)
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
R
R R
R R R
R R R R
R R R R R
R R R R R R
R R R R
C 0, 5C 2C C 0 0 0 0 0
C C C 2C C 0 0 0 0
1, 5C 2C C C 2C C 0 0 0 0
0, 5 m C C 2C C C 2C C 0 0
m 1
0, 5 m C C C 2C C C 2C C 0
m 1 m 2
0, 5 m C C C C 2C C C 2C C
m 3 m 1 m 2
0, 5 m C C C C
m 3 m 1 m 2
+ λ −
λ + λ −
λ λ + λ −
⋅ ⋅ λ λ λ + λ −
−
⋅ ⋅ λ λ λ λ + λ −
− −
⋅ ⋅ λ λ λ λ λ + λ −
− − −
⋅ ⋅ λ λ λ λ
− − −
L L
L L
L
M
L L
L L
L L
( )
R R R
R R R R R R R R R
C 2C C 0
m 4
0, 5C C C C C C C C 0, 5C
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
λ λ λ
−
(
¸ ¸
L L
L
(20)
4 COMPUTATIONAL EXAMPLE AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
In order to estimate the capabilities and the advantages of the solution described foregoing, let us consider in some
detail a continuous footing as a beam on elastic foundation with loading condition shown in Fig. 4. The solution can be
adapted to continuous footings with any number of column loads which may include both axial loads as well as moments.
Fig. 4 Assumed loading for Winkler foundation
For the analysis of the longitudinal bending behaviour of the beam, three different methods (FEM, FDM and general
method) were performed.
In the analytical solution and FE analysis, the beam is divided into 13 elements by 0,4 m (left span), 0,5 m (middle
spans) and 0,35 m for the right span. In FD method the beam is also divided into the same number of elements, but of
constant length.
For the assumed discretization of the given beam, FDM requires the solution of 14 simultaneous equations, thus
necessitating the use of a computer. In order to generate the matrix (20) for FD analysis, a computer code listing in
Appendix, based on Matlab language, has been developed. This can be used for any number of division points along beam.
Considering for reference the solution obtaining by general method, comparative results obtained by FD and FE
analysis are plotted in Fig. 5. From the plot it is evident that either of the FEM or FDM solutions tends, with a good
accuracy, to analytical result. The FDM solution yields more appropriate results, regarding negative bending moments,
whereas FEM solution gives a good approach for positive moments.
For this discretization step, FDM doesn’t give a very accurate solution regarding the positive bending moment, but its
accuracy can be easily controlled by changing the grid size. For instance, by increasing five times the number of divisions
yields the bending behaviour of the beam plot in Fig. 6.
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Di stance al ong beam [m]
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
[
k
N
m
]
FDM
FEM
Analytical So lutio n
Fig. 5 Graphical comparison of bending behaviour of the beam
FDM computes displacements strictly at predetermined grid points only (unlike FEM, it doesn’t compute
displacement functions that can be used to interpolate displacements at the points that are not located at the grid); to obtain
an appropriate solution in singularity points (e.g. points of application of external forces), those must be in coincidence
with a point from the grid domain.
Referring to beam with loading condition given in Fig. 4, filling its domain with a discretization with step chosen
according with foregoing, so with λ = 10, 5, 2, 1, 0,5 (cm) and so on, the values of bending moments are in good
agreement with the resuls obtained by FEM for 65…80 division points (see Table 1).
Tab. 1 Comparison of bending moments values (in kNm) obtained by FD and FE analyses
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Di stance al ong beam [m]
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
[
k
N
m
]
FDM  65 elements
Analytical So lutio n
Fig. 6 Discretization step dependency for bending behaviour of the beam
For another discretization steps, different then λ = 10, 5, 2, 1, 0,5 (cm)..., the solution regarding positive bending
moments is plotted in Fig. 7. From this, one can see that for a coarse grid the solution is very unstable and the convergence
is obtained for a nodes number by 3000 (λ = 0,1 cm).
The discretization with such a huge number of division points (which can increase computing time) can be avoid if
one chose different discretization steps, but not in the same time. For instance, if we want to find the value of the left
positive bending moment we can perform an analysis with λ = 40 cm (so 15 elements); a discretization step by λ = 30 cm
(so 20 elements) will give the value of the middle positive bending moment.
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Number of di vi sion poi nts [x 10
2
]
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
s
[
k
N
m
]
left
middle
right
Fig. 7 Discretization step dependency for positive bending moments
The soil pressure distribution evaluated from the numerically computed using FD and FE and pressure distribution
obtained by analytical method are compared in Fig. 8. Good agreement between the foregoing is seen, the diagrams of
pressure being almost identically for any discretization step.
M
+
left
M

left
M
+
middle
M

right
M
+
right
FDM 52,5 72,6 45,6 39,0 45,1
FEM 52,5 72,7 45,6 39,1 45,0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance al ong beam [m]
S
o
i
l
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
[
k
P
a
]
FDM
FEM
Analytical So lutio n
Fig. 8 Soil pressure distribution along beam
5 CONCLUSION
The results from FD analysis are generally in good agreement with both analytical and FE results. One limitation of
the FDM, however, is that it computes displacements at predetermined grid points only and thus accuracy of the solution
obtained is affected somehow by grid size. To obtain an appropriate solution in singularity points (e.g. points of application
of external forces), those must be in coincidence with a point from the grid domain; if this can’t be reached one can chose
different discretization steps, but not in the same time.
Anyway, the FD approach can provide satisfactory prediction of the structural behaviour of beams resting on elastic
foundation and thus of use in professional engineering work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Professor Muşat Vasile for his helpful comments, guidance and support in the research work
presented in this paper.
Appendix  Computer code to generate coefficient matrix for FD analysis
%F.D.M. FOR BEAMS ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION
%Coeffs matrix
%========================================================
% INPUT DATA
L=input ('Beam length  L = ');
n=input('Number of elements  n = ');
l=L/n; % <<  Discretization step <<lambda>>
k=input('Modulus of subgrade reaction  k = ');
B=input('The width of the footing  B = ');
I=input('Beam''s moment of inertia  I = ');
E=input('Young''s modulus for footing  E = ');
C=E*I/(l^2); CR=k*B*l;
%========================================================
% Nodes
i=n+1;
%Domain grid
Vl=1:(i1); VL=Vl*l;
%Eq 1 to i2
for li=1:i2,
for c=1:i,
for m=1:i3,
if lic == 2,
MCRl(li,c)=C;
elseif lic == 1,
MCRl(li,c)=2*C;
elseif li == c,
MCRl(li,c)=C+CR*l;
elseif lic == m,
MCRl(li,c)=(m+1).*CR*l;
end
end
end
end
Mc=MCRl;
%M_end=0
for j=i1:1:1
VM0(j)=j*CR*l;
VMc=[fliplr(VM0),0];
end
%sumFv=0
for j=i:1:1
VMf(j)=CR;
end
%Assembly
M=[Mc;VMc;VMf];
M(:,1)=M(:,1)*0.5;
M(1,1)=C+0.5*CR*l;
M(i,i)=0.5*CR;
M %<  Coefficient matrix
Literature
[1] Bowles J. E.,  Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd Ed., New York: MCGRAWHILL EDUCATION, 1982, 816
pages, ISBN 19820070661928.
[2] Muir Wood D.,  Geotechnical Modelling, Abingdon: TAYLOR & FRANCIS, 2004, 480 pages, ISBN 0415343046.
[3] Potts D. M.,  Numerical analysis: a virtual dream or practical reality?, GEOTECHNIQUE, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 535
572, 2003, ISSN 00168505.
[4] Winterkorn H.F., Fang H.Y.  Foundation Engineering Handbook, New York: VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD CO.,
1975, 751 pages, ISBN 0442295642.
Reviewer
Muşat Vasile, Professor, Ph.D., “Gh. Asachi” Technical Univesity of Iaşi, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of
Transportation Infrastructure and Foundations, Bd. Dimitrie Mangeron nr. 67, 700050 Iasi IS, Romania, Phone: +40 745
574 061, email: musat@ce.tuiasi.ro.
3 SOLUTION OF A BEAM ON AN ELASTIC FOUNDATION USING FDM The differential equation of the deflection curve for a bending beam is given by: EI d2y = −M dx 2 (7) where: E is Young’s modulus. we obtain the central difference approximation of the second derivative: d 2 y yi+1 − 2yi + yi−1 2 ≈ λ2 dx i (5) By differentiating Equation (5) one. The soil pressure at any point on the beam is directly . I is the moment of inertia. For example. In an analogous way. obtains the central difference expression for the third derivative as d 3 y yi+2 − 2yi+1 + 2yi −1 + yi−2 3 ≈ 2λ 3 dx i (6) These last two expressions are sufficient to solve the beam resting on an elastic foundations problem by FDM. we can obtain finite difference approximations to higher order derivatives and differential operators. Equation (1) can be evaluated by three approximations: 1) Central difference dy yi +1 − yi−1 ≈ 2λ dx i (2) 2) Forward difference dy yi+1 − yi ≈ λ dx i (3) 3) Backward difference dy yi − yi −1 ≈ λ dx i (4) The last equations are called a finitedifference equation. By differentiating the above equation.1. as shown in Fig. (1) In terms of finite differences. we obtain expression of the shearing force: EI d3 y = −V dx 3 (8) By substituting Equations (5) and (6) into Equations (7) and (8) we have: EI ( yi+1 − 2yi + yi−1 ) = −M i λ2 EI ( yi+2 − 2yi+1 + 2yi−1 + yi−2 ) = −Vi 2λ 3 (9) (10) For a foundation beam.( tan θ )i = dy dx i where y is deflection. by using the above central difference formula with step λ/2 for (x + λ/2) and (x − λ/2) and then applying a central difference formula for the derivative at xi. M is bending moment. by considering Winkler’s concept. one can replace the foundation with a series of concentrated springs on the base of the footing. Solving these equations gives an approximate solution to the differential equation. with respect to x and taking into account relationship between bending moment and shearing force. assumed ∆x = λ as finite values.
One may use any type of pressure distribution of soil to footing (for details see [4]). M is concentrated moment. For instance at the point i. and considering pressure distribution of soil given by known function p = f(x). .proportional with beam deflection (y) and modulus of subgrade reaction (k). but for computational simplicity a stepped pressure distribution is use. at each node i = 1 to n + 1. except extremity points (to avoid limit condition). for each node composing the grid. Fig. the bending moment at the point k = 2 to i1 is given by: j=i−1 EI y − 2y k + y k +1 ) = − ∑ R j ( k − j) λ − ∑ M P + (−)∑ M 2 ( k −1 λ j=1 (15) where:  MP is the bending moment of axial loads. one can compute the soil reaction against the beam. 1 Winkler’s concept By discretizing the beam domain into n elements of ∆x = λ = constant. soil pressure is related by: ( p )i = k ⋅ ( y )i (11) Fig. the reactions against the beam of Fig. Thus. 2 Mathematical model for the FD solution for a beam on elastic foundation By transposing Equation (7) in finite differences. 2 become: ( R ) k = ( p )k ⋅ λ ⋅ B = k ⋅ ( y )k ⋅ λ ⋅ B for k = 2 to i1 (12) (13) (14) ( R )1 = ( p )1 ⋅ 1 λ ⋅ B = k ⋅ ( y )1 ⋅ 1 λ ⋅ B 2 2 1 1 ( R )i = ( p )i ⋅ λ ⋅ B = k ⋅ ( y )i ⋅ λ ⋅ B 2 2 where B is width of footing.
increasing number of division points leading to a more accurate solution.5 ⋅ m ⋅ CR λ 0. • Free terms vector: is formed by right hand side terms from Equations (19) (moments of all external loads with respect to the each station point i =2 to i1) Once the system of equations (19) is solved. for a low number of division points (in literature [4] it is recommended to use 10 divisions).5C R C −2C C + CR λ 0 C −2C 0 0 C L L 0 L L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (20) CR =k⋅B⋅λ m is the row’s indices.5 ⋅ m ⋅ CR λ 0.5 ⋅ m ⋅ CR λ 0.5C R λ CR λ 1.. for instance: j=i −1 j=1 m =1 ∑ R ⋅ ∏ m⋅λ = ∑M j m =i −1 P (17) and the sum of forces in the vertical direction: ∑R = ∑P i 1 i (18) We have now obtained i simultaneous linear equations in i unknown values of displacements y. . we have: Cy k −1 − 2Cy k + Cy k +1 + ∑ R j ( k − j) λ = ∑ M P + (−)∑ M j=1 j=i −1 (16) Thus we have obtained i2 equations in i unknown values of displacements y. The sum of the moments with respect to right end. one can compute bending moment and shearing force. By arranging system of equations (19) for a computer solution by the matrix method.. + R i = ∑ P (19) A numerical scheme for solving a system of equations is matrix method. we must complete with two equilibrium equations. but in the same time yields difficulty in writing coefficient matrix. The foregoing matrix can be easily carried out by hand.Making notation EI / λ2 = C and arranging. by back substitution of the beam deflection (yi) into Equations (9) and (10) at each division point form the beam domain. Soil reaction against the beam at a point i is given by Equation (11)..5CR λ M 0.5 ⋅ m ⋅ CR λ 0. we have: • Coefficient matrix: C + 0. + R i−1 ⋅ λ = ∑ ( M P )i−1 + (−)∑ ( M )i−1 R1 ⋅ ( i − 1) λ + R 2 ⋅ ( i − 2 ) λ + R 3 ⋅ ( i − 3) λ + .. Cy1 − 2Cy 2 + Cy3 + R 1 ⋅ λ = ∑ ( M P )1 + (−)∑ ( M )1 Cy 2 − 2Cy3 + Cy 4 + R 1 ⋅ 2λ + R 2 ⋅ λ = ∑ ( M P ) 2 + (−)∑ ( M )2 Cy3 − 2Cy 4 + Cy5 + R1 ⋅ 3λ + R 2 ⋅ 2λ + R 3 ⋅ λ = ∑ ( M P )3 + (−)∑ ( M )3 M Cyi −2 − 2Cyi−1 + Cyi + R1 ⋅ ( i − 1) λ + R 2 ⋅ ( i − 2 ) λ + . + R i−1 ⋅ λ = ∑ ( M P )i + (−)∑ ( M )i R1 + R 2 + R 3 + . The number of equations with finite differences being less than unknown’s number..5C R where:  −2C C + CR λ 2C R λ ( m −1) CR λ ( m −1) CR λ ( m −1) CR λ ( m −1) CR λ CR L L 2C R λ C + CR λ −2C C 0 0 ( m − 2 ) CR λ L L 2CR λ C + CR λ −2C C 0 ( m − 2 ) C R λ ( m − 3) C R λ L L 2CR λ C + CR λ −2C C ( m − 2 ) C R λ ( m − 3) C R λ ( m − 4 ) C R λ L L 2C R λ CR λ 0 L CR CR CR CR CR CR 0..
but its accuracy can be easily controlled by changing the grid size. regarding negative bending moments. 4.5 m (middle spans) and 0. FDM requires the solution of 14 simultaneous equations. let us consider in some detail a continuous footing as a beam on elastic foundation with loading condition shown in Fig.35 m for the right span. by increasing five times the number of divisions yields the bending behaviour of the beam plot in Fig. FDM doesn’t give a very accurate solution regarding the positive bending moment. but of constant length. This can be used for any number of division points along beam. with a good accuracy. For the assumed discretization of the given beam. FDM and general method) were performed. For this discretization step. In the analytical solution and FE analysis. 6. those must be in coincidence with a point from the grid domain. the beam is divided into 13 elements by 0. to analytical result. The solution can be adapted to continuous footings with any number of column loads which may include both axial loads as well as moments.4 m (left span). In order to generate the matrix (20) for FD analysis. In FD method the beam is also divided into the same number of elements. 4 Assumed loading for Winkler foundation For the analysis of the longitudinal bending behaviour of the beam. From the plot it is evident that either of the FEM or FDM solutions tends. points of application of external forces). 5. three different methods (FEM. has been developed. For instance.g. it doesn’t compute displacement functions that can be used to interpolate displacements at the points that are not located at the grid). whereas FEM solution gives a good approach for positive moments. thus necessitating the use of a computer. 80 Bending Moment [kNm] 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 0 1 F DM F EM Ana lytic a l S o lutio n 2 3 4 Distance along be am [m] 5 6 Fig. . Fig. a computer code listing in Appendix. The FDM solution yields more appropriate results. 0. Considering for reference the solution obtaining by general method. 5 Graphical comparison of bending behaviour of the beam FDM computes displacements strictly at predetermined grid points only (unlike FEM. comparative results obtained by FD and FE analysis are plotted in Fig. based on Matlab language. to obtain an appropriate solution in singularity points (e.4 COMPUTATIONAL EXAMPLE AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS In order to estimate the capabilities and the advantages of the solution described foregoing.
Tab. the solution regarding positive bending moments is plotted in Fig.Referring to beam with loading condition given in Fig. 6 Discretization step dependency for bending behaviour of the beam For another discretization steps. 7 Discretization step dependency for positive bending moments The soil pressure distribution evaluated from the numerically computed using FD and FE and pressure distribution obtained by analytical method are compared in Fig. 5.0 39.5 (cm) and so on.5 Mleft 72. different then λ = 10. 55 Bending Moments [kNm] 50 45 40 35 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Numbe r of division points [x 10 2 ] le ft middle right Fig.. but not in the same time. 4. 0. 7. 5. . so with λ = 10. Good agreement between the foregoing is seen.1 cm).6 Mright 39. filling its domain with a discretization with step chosen according with foregoing. the values of bending moments are in good agreement with the resuls obtained by FEM for 65…80 division points (see Table 1).5 52.1 45. For instance.7 M+middle 45.. a discretization step by λ = 30 cm (so 20 elements) will give the value of the middle positive bending moment. 0. 8.6 45. 1.1 M+right 45..0 80 Bending Moment [kNm] 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 0 1 2 3 4 Distance along be am [m] 5 6 F DM .65 e le m e nts Ana lytic a l S o lutio n Fig. From this. the diagrams of pressure being almost identically for any discretization step.5 (cm). 2. The discretization with such a huge number of division points (which can increase computing time) can be avoid if one chose different discretization steps.6 72. 1 Comparison of bending moments values (in kNm) obtained by FD and FE analyses M+left FDM FEM 52. if we want to find the value of the left positive bending moment we can perform an analysis with λ = 40 cm (so 15 elements). 2. one can see that for a coarse grid the solution is very unstable and the convergence is obtained for a nodes number by 3000 (λ = 0. 1.
n=input('Number of elements . for m=1:i3. %======================================================== % Nodes i=n+1. C=E*I/(l^2). if this can’t be reached one can chose different discretization steps.*CR*l. MCRl(li.D.c)=C+CR*l. CR=k*B*l. but not in the same time. end . guidance and support in the research work presented in this paper. Appendix .c)=(m+1). the FD approach can provide satisfactory prediction of the structural behaviour of beams resting on elastic foundation and thus of use in professional engineering work. VL=Vl*l. elseif lic == 1. B=input('The width of the footing . %Eq 1 to i2 for li=1:i2. is that it computes displacements at predetermined grid points only and thus accuracy of the solution obtained is affected somehow by grid size. To obtain an appropriate solution in singularity points (e.0 0 50 Soil pressure [kPa] 100 150 200 250 300 350 1 Distance along beam [m] 2 3 4 5 6 F DM F EM Ana lytic a l S o lutio n Fig. MCRl(li. % << .E = '). Anyway. MCRl(li.M. FOR BEAMS ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION %Coeffs matrix %======================================================== % INPUT DATA L=input ('Beam length . if lic == 2. E=input('Young''s modulus for footing . those must be in coincidence with a point from the grid domain. points of application of external forces). l=L/n. One limitation of the FDM.L = ').B = '). however. MCRl(li. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is grateful to Professor Muşat Vasile for his helpful comments.g. %Domain grid Vl=1:(i1). for c=1:i.c)=2*C.n = '). elseif lic == m.k = '). elseif li == c.Computer code to generate coefficient matrix for FD analysis %F.I = ').c)=C. I=input('Beam''s moment of inertia . 8 Soil pressure distribution along beam 5 CONCLUSION The results from FD analysis are generally in good agreement with both analytical and FE results.Discretization step <<lambda>> k=input('Modulus of subgrade reaction .
end end end Mc=MCRl. VMc=[fliplr(VM0). 751 pages. pp. [3] Potts D. 53.. Professor.Foundation Engineering Handbook.. Faculty of Civil Engineering. Dimitrie Mangeron nr.. GEOTECHNIQUE. 816 pages. Phone: +40 745 574 061.0].VMf]. 3rd Ed.5*CR*l.5.Numerical analysis: a virtual dream or practical reality?. M.D.1)=C+0. 6. New York: VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD CO. Department of Transportation Infrastructure and Foundations. %M_end=0 for j=i1:1:1 VM0(j)=j*CR*l. Fang H. M %< .F. 700050 Iasi IS.5*CR. [2] Muir Wood D. ISBN 0415343046. ISBN 0442295642.Coefficient matrix Literature [1] Bowles J. end %sumFv=0 for j=i:1:1 VMf(j)=CR.Y. Bd.. 1975. M(1. Vol. No.1)*0. Ph... 480 pages.i)=0. 2003. Abingdon: TAYLOR & FRANCIS. . 1982.1)=M(:.tuiasi. 2004. ISBN 19820070661928. . Asachi” Technical Univesity of Iaşi.Foundation Analysis and Design..Geotechnical Modelling. “Gh. end %Assembly M=[Mc. Romania. Reviewer Muşat Vasile. 67.VMc. . . New York: MCGRAWHILL EDUCATION.ro. E. [4] Winterkorn H. 535572. ISSN 00168505. . M(:. M(i. email: musat@ce.