This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1 (2011) 61-77
Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation subjected to dynamic load
Z. Celep*1, K. Güler1a and F. Demir2b
Department of Structural and Earthquake Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, 34469 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Süleyman Demirel University, 32260 Isparta, Turkey
(Received April 24, 2010, Accepted September 7, 2010) Abstract. Static and dynamic responses of a completely free elastic beam resting on a two-parameter tensionless Pasternak foundation are investigated by assuming that the beam is symmetrically subjected to a uniformly distributed load and concentrated load at its middle. Governing equations of the problem are obtained and solved by paying attention on the boundary conditions of the problem including the concentrated edge foundation reaction in the case of complete contact and lift-off condition of the beam in a two-parameter foundation. The nonlinear governing equation of the problem is evaluated numerically by adopting an iterative procedure. Numerical results are presented in figures to demonstrate the non-linear behavior of the beam-foundation system for various values of the parameters of the problem comparatively by considering the static and dynamic loading cases. Keywords: elastic beam; two-parameter foundation; lift-off.
1. Introduction In recent years considerable attention has been given to the response of elastic beams on an elastic foundation which is one of the structural engineering problems of theoretical and practical interest. A large number of studies have been devoted to the subject. In these studies a number of foundation models having various degrees of sophistication have been used to capture the complex behavior of the soil. The simplest model for the soil is the one-parameter Winkler model which represents the soil as a system of closely spaced but mutually independent linear springs. In the model, the foundation reaction is assumed to be proportional to the vertical displacement of the foundation at the same point. However, the Winkler model has various shortcomings due to the independence of the springs. Because the springs are assumed to be independent and unconnected to each other, no interaction exists between the springs. When loading displays a discontinuity, similar discontinuity will appear on the foundation surface as well. The soil outside the loading area does not contribute to the foundation response. In order to take care of these shortcomings and to improve the model,
*Corresponding author, Professor, E-mail: email@example.com a Professor b Associate Professor
1989. There are various studies dealing with the plates subjected to static loads (Weisman 1970.and two-parameter foundation is usually analyzed by assuming that the foundation supports compressive as well as tensile stresses. 1991). since the contact region is not known in advance. In order to increase the validity of the model. 2001) and to dynamic loads (Celep et al. After the initial configuration of the contact region is found. the numerical analysis is carried out by adopting step-wise integration in the time domain by updating the contact region continuously. then the corresponding boundary condition includes an additional concentrated load due to the membrane stiffness of the twoparameter foundation. The model can be seen as a membrane having a surface tension laid on a system of elastic springs as well. Generally. then the contact region appears as a function of time as well. Due to connection of spring the continuity of the foundation surface is maintained. However. Response of structural elements such as. Pasternak model is one of the simplest two-parameter models used commonly. Celep. This model can be visualized as a system of closely spaced linear springs coupled to each other with elements which transmit a shear force proportional to the slope of the foundation surface. a discontinuity in slope of the displacement can appear at a edge of the beam or the plate resting on the foundation. There are various studies dealing with the static problems (Tsai et al. when a free end of the beam or plate is considered. the solution gets more complicated due to the free edge conditions even in the static problems. Hong et al. 1999. (1964. when the load is a function of time. Although this assumption simplifies the analysis considerably. In this model separation between the foundation and the structural element takes place in order to avoid the tensile stresses. Celep et al. since the region of contact and separation is not known in advance. 1967. only a limited number of studies dealing with the tensionless foundation are published. Lin et al. Weisman 1971. it is questionable or not valid for many supporting media including the soil. As a result. which is discussed in detail by Kerr et al. Silva et al. On the other hand. Güler et al. Another major difficulty lays in the definition of the . in order to investigate lift-off occurrence from the foundation and separation condition. Dempsey et al. It is pointed out that the intuitive approach in the boundary conditions may lead to the incorrect formulation of the boundary conditions for the case of a two-parameter foundation model. Güler and F. this assumption complicates the analysis and makes it highly non-linear. However. s 1990 and Coçkun et al. 2004. When the boundary of the beam or the plate is fixed. rings and beams resting on tensionless Winkler foundation is considered. 1987. However. 1976). 1984. Demir two-parameter models have been proposed. 1988. then the boundary condition does not pose any new aspect that of the Winkler foundation. Hsu 2006) and the dynamic problems (Celep et al. The analytical aspects of the continuously supported structures and corresponding boundary conditions on various soil models have been discussed by Kerr (1964. completely free beams and plates are considered in many studies and solutions are obtained by applying approximate numerical techniques to the nonlinear governing equation of the problem by employing the coordinate functions which satisfy the corresponding boundary conditions. There are various studies dealing with the structural elements resting on the conventional twoparameter foundation assuming continuous contact. 2003. Response of structural elements resting on the one. When a tensionless two-parameter Pasternak model is considered. 1999). 1995).62 Z. The papers dealing with the rectangular and circular plates on tensionless Winkler foundation can be considered as extension of the beam problem. tensionless foundation models which can support compressive reactions only are introduced. K. In this way the nonlinear problem is reduced to the iterative solution of the system of the nonlinear algebraic equations.
on a twoparameter elastic foundation having a Winkler (spring) stiffness K and a shear (membrane) stiffness G. the second part Pg ( X ) is proportional to the second derivative of the surface displacement. 2007) and Coçkun (2003) studied dynamic response of beams and circular s plates subjected to time dependent loading. Statement of the problem Consider a completely free elastic beam of length 2A and bending stiffness EI. (1984. the separation point between the contact and lift-off regions is an unknown parameter to be determined. it is assumed that foundation reaction Pf ( X ) and the foundation displacement W s ( X ) are related to each other according to ∂ Ws ( X ) (1) Pf ( X ) = Pk ( X ) + Pg ( X ) = KW s ( X ) – G ------------------2 ∂X As Eq. Coçkun et al.. In the present study a completely free beam resting on a two-parameter foundation. The beam is assumed to be subjected to a concentrated load at the middle and a uniformly distributed load which depend on time. Nonlinear oscillations take place.Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation 63 contact zone.. These two loads are assumed to depend on time. t ) ≥ 0 .e. it is obvious that the displacement configuration of the beam and that of the foundation surface in the contact and lift-off regions will reflect the same symmetry. as Fig. In other word. the beam lifts off the foundation.e. 1 shows. On the other hand. The separation point is not necessarily point of zero displacement in the Pasternak foundation. (2009). The study is carried out by assuming symmetric lift-off region and it depends on time. it is assumed that the foundation reacts in compression only. Rings. Celep et al. In the present case. 2007). The problem investigated in the present study is symmetric and similar to the study of Coçkun (2003). Since the geometry and the loading of the problem is symmetric with respect to the middle axis of the beam. Due to these reasons the number of the publications on a two-parameter foundation model that reacts in compression only is very limited. as it is in the Winkler foundation. beams and plates resting on a twos parameter foundation are investigated by Güler (2004). the response of the foundation consists of two parts. Pasternak model is studied. The first one Pk ( X ) is proportional to the vertical displacement directly. (2008) and Ma et al. the two-parameter foundation can be visualized as spaced closely linear springs of stiffness K and a membrane having a surface tension G. Numerical results are obtained and presented to assess the validity of the procedure adopted and to illustrate the response of the beam. For the twoparameter foundation model. In the analytical and numerical investigations special attention is paid on the boundary conditions at the free end of the beam. (2005. In order to avoid tensile reaction. i. (1) shows. Consequently. when oscillation takes place. when the external loads depend on time. on the contact-lift-off condition and on the global force equilibrium in the static dynamic cases including inertia force. When a load is static. when the interaction is maintained by compression. i. In case of 2 . Pf ( X. Moreover the time variations of the displacements and that of the extent of the contact region are obtained and illustrated comparatively for various values of the parameters of the problem. a contact between the beam and the foundation develops only. Celep et al. 2. however the present treatment is more s straightforward. The beam is assumed to be subjected to a concentrated load P ( t ) applied at the middle of the beam and a uniformly distributed load Q ( t ) . The nonlinear governing equation of the problem is discretized by using Galerkin’s approximation technique.
EI is the bending rigidity of the cross section of the beam. Celep.– H ( X. In addition to the regular terms. the edge reactions ∂Wb ∂W s Rc ( t ) = G --------. where a partial contact develops. t ) = 1 H ( X. However.– --------∂X ∂X for X = ±A (5) . the foundation reaction distributed on the contact region ( –B ≤ X ≤ B ). The first one is the stress free surface of the foundation and its displacement W s ( X. When the complete contact develops. this edge reaction vanishes as stated by Kerr (1964). t ) = 0 for for –B ≤ X ≤ B and B≤X≤A (4) –A ≤ X ≤ –B which reflects the symmetry of the problem as well. (1).+ KWb – G ----------.64 Z. the above equation includes the concentrated load P ( t ) at the middle of the beam. The beam has a contact region for –B ≤ X ≤ B and a lift-off region for –A ≤ X ≤ –B and B ≤ X ≤ A . the position of the separation point depends on time to be determined as one of the main parameters of the problem. as Fig. when separation takes place. 1(a) shows the beam on the two-parameter foundation. The surface of the foundation is divided into two regions. 1 Completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation dynamic load. 1(b) shows. K. Demir Fig. H ( X. t ) – P ( t )δ ( X ) – Q ( t ) = –M ----------(3) 4 2 2 ∂X ∂X ∂t where Wb ( X. Güler and F. t ) is an auxiliary function known as the contact function and is defined as H ( X. t ) is controlled by the equation ∂ Ws G ----------. t ) is the displacement of the beam. On the other hand the displacement of the beam is controlled by 4 2 (2) 2 2 ∂ Wb ∂ Wb ∂ Wb EI ----------. M is the mass of the beam per unit length and δ ( X ) is the Dirac’s delta function. Fig.– KW s = 0 2 ∂X obtained from Eq.
However. τ ) – p ( τ )δ ( x ) – q ( τ ) + g ( wb – ws )δ ( x – 1 )H ( x = 1. the governing equation of the problem is analyzed under the beam only and the differential equation for the free foundation surface is omitted. It is worth to note that the edge reactions have not been considered and treated properly in various studies. Therefore the problem is highly nonlinear and the closed solution of Eq. the following non-dimensional parameters are introduced τ = EIt / ( MA ) q = QA / ( EI ) 3 2 2 4 k = KA / ( EI ) b = B/A 4 g = GA / ( EI ) 2 p = PA / ( EI ) 2 2 x = X/A λ = k/g = KA /G (7) By using these nondimensional parameters.Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation 65 come into being at the two ends of the beam. an additional foundation spring under the edge of the beam is defined to represent the edge reaction. the boundary between the contact and lift-off regions is not known in advance and it depends on the parameters of the problem.δ ( X – A )H ( X = A. τ ) = Ce –λx (10) where C represents the integration constant to be determined by using boundary conditions of the problem. τ ) = –wb iv (8) (9) Eq. The second integration constant in the solution (10) is eliminated by considering that the displacement has to be finite and approaches to zero for larger values of x. Furthermore. Consequently. (5) are taken into consideration in the analysis. when a fixed support at the end of the beam is assumed.– --------. if not impossible.H ( X. 6) can be rewritten as gw″ – kws = 0 s ′ ′ wb + ( kwb – gw″ )H ( x. the two governing equations of the problem (2. including the free end conditions of the beam. Due to the tensionless character of the foundation. In this case the edge reaction depends only on the edge displacement. In the present study Galerkin’s method is adopted for the solution.+ KWb – G ----------.δ ( X + A )H ( X = –A. In the present study the edge reactions as defined in Eq. τ ) – b ′ ′ ·· – g ( wb – ws )δ ( x + 1 )H ( x = –1.– --------. t ) = –M ----------2 ∂X ∂X ∂X ∂X ∂t 4 (6) For simplicity and convenience in the mathematical formulation. is very difficult. Often the edge reaction is avoided by assuming that the foundation is defined under the beam only and does not extend beyond the ends of the beam. (8) can be solved very easily for the left hand side of the beam as ws ( x. t ) – P ( t )δ ( X ) – Q ( t ) + 4 2 ∂X ∂X 2 ∂W b ∂W s ∂Wb ∂Ws ∂ Wb + G --------. The displacement function of the beam is assumed to be a linear combination of the axially symmetric free vibration mode shapes of the completely free beam including a rigid vertical translation as follows . (9). t ) – G --------. (1) can be modified as follows 2 ∂ Wb ∂ Wb EI ----------. In that case the governing Eq. the edge reaction can be avoided as well.
The integration constant C in Eq..926602. t ) = Awb ( x. 7. Demir ∞ ∞ W b ( X. Celep. τ) = A n=1 To ( τ ) + ∑ Tn( τ)wn ( x ) n=1 (11) where To ( τ ) and Tn ( τ ) are the time dependent parameters of the series and wn ( x ) are the symmetric free vibration mode shapes of completely free beam defined as cosh2λn – cos2λ n wn ( x ) = coshλn ( 1 – x ) + cosλn ( 1 – x ) – ----------------------------------------. Güler and F. when the complete contact develops. τ ) = To ( τ ) + ∞ (15) ∑ Tn ( τ)wn ( b) = ws( w = b. (18) to be orthogonal to each mode shape including the rigid translation within the definition region of the equation. Considering the symmetry of the problem.e. t ) = W s ( X = B.068582. τ ) = – To – ∑ wn ( x )Tn ⎝ ⎠ n=1 n=1 (18) By employing Galerkin’s procedure. τ) = Ce n=1 –λb (16) This equation is also valid for b = 1. t ) or in terms of the non-linear parameters wb ( w = b.[sinhλn ( 1 – x ) + sinλ n ( 1 – x ) ] sinh2λn – sin2λn and λn are the roots of the equation cosh2λcos2λ = 1 and the first five roots are λn = 2.497803. 8. τ )g ∑ w″ ( x )Tn – p ( τ )δ ( x ) – q ( τ ) + n n=1 ∑1 w′n ( x )Tn + λe n= ∞ –λ (1 – b ) ⎛ ∞ ∞ ⎞ ·· ·· ⎜ To + ∑ wn ( x )Tn⎟ δ ( x – 1 )H ( x = 1. the following system of ordinary differential equations is obtained: ·· (19) MT + KT = F where the dots denote the differentiation with respect to the non-dimensional time τ and T ( τ ) = [ To T1 T2 T3 … ] K ( τ ) = [ knm ] T diag M = [ 2 m1 m2 m3 … ] T F ( τ ) = [ fo f1 f2 f3 … ] . τ)k n=1 + 2g 4 To + ∑ wn( x )Tn n=1 – H ( x.365020. this can be expressed as Wb ( X = B. i.639379 (14) (13) (12) which correspond to the symmetric mode shapes. By substituting the displacement function (11) into the governing equation of the problem (9) and by using the following identity wn = λn wn ∞ ∞ ∞ iv 4 (17) the following non-dimensional equation is obtained for the unknown parameters To ( τ ) and Tn ( τ ) ∑ λn wn ( x )Tn + H ( x. 5. t ) = W o ( X. by requiring the error in the governing Eq. K. 3. t ) + ∑ Wn ( X. (10) can be obtained in terms of To ( τ ) and Tn ( τ ) by using the displacement continuity at the lift-off point.66 Z.
i. t ) = KW b ( X. respectively. t ) = Pk ( X.– --------------------.e. The vertical force equilibrium of the beam can be written as follows P ( t ) + 2AQ ( t ) = RK ( t ) + RG ( t ) + RC ( t ) + RI ( t ) where RK ( t ) = 2 ∫ KWb ( X. τ )wn ( x = 1 )wm ( x = b )e fo ( τ ) = p ( τ ) + 2q ( τ ) fn ( τ ) = p ( τ )wn ( x = 0 ) –λ ( 1 – b ) (20) where δ nm denotes Kronecker’s delta.dX 2 2 0 0 ∂X ∂X 2 2 A B (21) ∂Wb ( X. compression. τ )wn ( x )w″ ( x ) dx + m + 2gwn ( x = 1 )w′m ( x = 1 )H ( x = 1. τ )wn ( x = b )e 1 0 –λ ( 1 – b ) –λ (1 – b ) kn1 ( τ ) = k ∫ H ( x.H ( X. τ )wn ( x ) dx + 2gλH ( x = 1.dX 2 0 ∂t P ( t ) and Q ( t ) are the external loads. τ ) dx + 2gλe 0 1 1 0 0 1 –λ ( 1 – b ) H ( x = 1. and RK ( t ) and RG ( t ) correspond to the resultant of the spring stiffness and the membrane stiffness reactions exerted by the foundation proportional to the two stiffness parameters of the foundation K and G. These two reaction forces develop. RC ( t ) denotes the foundation edge reaction which is proportional to the difference of the slopes of the foundation surfaces at the two edges of the beam. It means that ∂ W b ( X. As a result of the tensionless character of the two-parameter foundation model. t ) RC ( t ) = 2G ---------------------. τ )wn ( x = 1 )e 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 knm ( τ ) = δ nm λ m ∫ wn ( x )wm ( x ) dx + k ∫ H ( x. t ) ∂X ∂X ∂ Wb ( X. t ) A (22) RI ( t ) = 2 ∫ M -----------------------. t ) + Pg ( X. when there is a complete contact between the beam and the foundation. since it is very difficult. the reaction exerted by the foundation due to the spring and membrane stiffness has to be non-negative. Inspection of the equations above justifies once more the use of the Galerkin’s approximation. t ) dX 0 0 A ∂ W b ( X. τ ) + 2gλH ( x = 1. t ) dX = –2 ∫ G -----------------------. τ )w′n ( x = 1 ) + n + 2gλH ( x = 1. t )H ( X.Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation 67 mn = 2 ∫ wn ( x )wn ( x ) dx 0 1 k11 ( τ ) = k ∫ H ( x. τ ) wn ( x ) dx – g ∫ H ( x. t ) B ∂ W b ( X. if not impossible to find a close solution for the displacement functions of the beam which satisfy all these equations. τ )w″ ( x ) dx + 2gH ( x = 1. t ) Pf ( X.H ( R = A.. τ )wn ( x )wm ( x ) dx – g ∫ H ( x. t ) RG ( t ) = –2 ∫ G -----------------------. t ) ∂W s ( X. t ) – G -----------------------.≥ 0 2 ∂X 2 2 (23) . t ) dX = 2 ∫ KW b ( X. τ ) k1n ( τ ) = k ∫ H ( x.
On the other hand. a discontinuity in displacements appears at the free end of the beam. (21) can be expressed in the following non-dimensional form as follows p ( τ ) + 2q ( τ ) = rk ( τ ) + r g ( τ ) + rc ( τ ) + ri ( τ ) where ∞ ARK 1 b ∞ rk ( τ ) = --------. a separation takes place to avoid the tensile reactions. Celep.68 Z. the continuity of the displacement of the foundation surface at the separation point and at the edge of the beam for the complete contact case (20) are already included into Eq. In general. Demir or in terms of the non dimensional parameters pf ( x. t ) . (21) corresponds to the resultant of the inertia forces of the beam. The edge reactions which develop for the complete contact case are represented in the governing equation of the problem (18). τ ) ⎝ ⎠ n=1 = 2g n=1 ∑ Tn w′n ( x = 1 ) + λ ⎜ To + ∑ Tn wn( x = 1 )⎟ ⎝ ⎠ n=1 ∞ ⎞ H ( x = 1. However. t )/ ( EI ) = pk ( x.= 2k ∫ To + ∑ Tn wn ( x ) H ( x. K. τ ) (26) ARI ·· ri ( τ ) = -------. In the present formulation it is assumed that the foundation can not support tensile reactions and the interaction between the foundation and the beam is only possible. when a complete contact develops in case of the Winkler model. τ ) – gw″ ( x. (26).= 2g EI ∞ ∞ n=1 ∑ Tn w″n ( x ) ∞ H ( x. τ ) ≥ 0 b (24) Finally. τ ) = APf ( X. τ ) dx = –2g ∫ –λ ( 1 – b ) ⎛ b 0 n=1 ∑ Tn wn ( x ) ∞ ″ dx n=1 ∑ Tn w′n ( x = 1) + λe ⎛ ∞ ⎞ ⎜ To + ∑ Tn wn ( x = b )⎟ H ( x = 1. . whereas no continuity for the slope of the displacement is demanded. When a separation takes place in the Winkler foundation model. when the reaction under the beam is compressive. the foundation displacement is continuous at the point that separates the contact and lift-off regions.= 2To EI and b ( τ ) denotes half of the non-dimensional contact length. Güler and F. As it can be seen. its slope and the zero foundation reaction. By using the assumption for the vertical displacement function Wb ( X. they are the continuity of the displacement of foundation. RI ( t ) in Eq. Generally the three anticipated conditions can be stated at the point of separation of a partial contact. the displacement of the lift-off point is zero. the force equilibrium in Eq. as it is the case for the elastic continuum. τ ) = kwb ( x.= –2g ∫ EI 0 ARC rc ( τ ) = --------. τ ) + pg ( x. τ ) dx = 2kbTo + 2k ∫ ∑ Tn wn ( x ) dx EI 0 0 n=1 n=1 (25) ARG 1 rg ( τ ) = --------. in addition to the differential equation which governs the problem within the definition region. Since the vertical foundation reaction is controlled by the displacement solely. Kerr (1991) pointed out that because of the reduced order of the governing differential equation of the two-parameter foundation model.
i. in case of static loads and dynamic loads. (18) provides that the concentrated loads p ( τ ) at the middle of the beam and at the edges are treated properly in the application of Galerkin’s method. does not always indicate that there is contact at that point between the foundation and the beam. an initial value for the contact length is estimated and the elements of the coefficients of the stiffness matrix are evaluated. continuity of the displacement and vanishing of the foundation reaction are required. In this case an iterative solution procedure for b is adopted in the static case. the coefficients of the governing equations depend on the contact length b between the beam and the foundation in case of a partial contact.e. Numerical results and discussion The governing Eq. when a conventional Winkler model is assumed. the stiffness matrix K will be diagonal. in the dynamic case an iterative solution as in the static case is required to establish as the initial condition of the problem. An excellent discussion about the boundary conditions involving the twoparameter foundation is given by Kerr (1976). no edge reaction exists. (19) can be employed for the conventional foundation model by assuming that the full contact is maintained. the numerical result having acceptable degree of approximation can be obtained for the Winkler model for g → 0 . 3. τ ) = 1 . 1(a). In the dynamic case the initial configuration of the beam evaluated and the governing equation is solved by checking the contact condition (25). Eq.e. For a partial contact. however the analysis as well as the numerical treatment of the problem can not yield the corresponding result straightforward. The contact function also provides that the integrations are evaluated only along the contact region. H ( x.e. (19) of the problem involves numerical integration. i.. It is worth to note that at least in the present symmetric case a negative value of the beam displacement. On the other hand. (18) and in the reactions (25) will vanish. For the problem under consideration. Since a partial contact is in question.. (19) can be solved. the corresponding terms in the governing Eq. τ ) . However. (1) clearly shows. they are a system of the linear algebraic equations and a system of the linear differential equations. then the governing equation of the problem is solved in the time domain by updating the contact length continuously.. Winkler foundation model is a special case of the two-parameter model for g = 0. The numerical results are obtained and presented in figures . upward displacement guaranties a separation between the beam and the foundation in the two-parameter foundation. The evaluation of the governing Eq. Iterative process is continued until an acceptable approximation is attained. respectively. (24).Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation 69 only two of the three anticipated conditions are to be satisfied as variational analysis yields. However. when the complete contact is maintained. On the other hand Dirac’s delta function in the governing Eq. as shown in Fig. Due to the property of the contact function H ( x. The global force equilibrium (24) in the beam is checked in the static case by excluding the inertia force and in the dynamic case at each time step by including the inertia force. On the other hand contrary to the Winkler model. a displacement into the foundation. as Eq. although small displacements for the beam and the foundation are assumed. Since the mode shapes of the completely free beam is used in the expansion of the beam displacement function. a positive value of the beam displacement i. due to the definition of λ = k/g . In this case the governing equation of the problem (19) becomes highly non-linear due to the tensionless character of the foundation and it requires several iterative procedures for the evaluation of the numerical results. The contact length is evaluated and checked by using Eq. the displacement functions are obtained.
whereas it is independent of the level of the loading. (1989) and Coçkun (2003). i.. as it is the case in the present problem. respectively. The beam subjected to a middle load on the tensionless Winkler and Pasternak foundation has been investigated by Celep et al. However it depends on the loading ratio q/p. In these figures. 2 Variation of the contact length b for various (a) spring stiffness k and (b) membrane stiffness g for the beam subjected to the load p at the middle . when the beam goes from a partial contact to the complete contact. as the spring stiffness increases. respectively. K.. In fact these discontinuities are very steep variations. consequently the foundation reactions concentrate in a smaller region and get larger. the discontinuity gets larger. 3(a) and 3(b) show the variations of the resultant of the foundation spring reaction rk and that of the membrane reaction rg. when two types of loadings are involved. Celep. The results presented in Fig. i. since the edge force is Fig.. to keep number of the figures limited. i. when the beam goes from the complete contact to a partial contact. q = 0. These two figures clearly show that the effect of the membrane stiffness g becomes less pronounced. 2(a) and 2(b) show the half of the contact length b depending on the spring stiffness k and the membrane stiffness g. the beam starts to lift off from the foundation and the contact region decreases.. when the complete contact develops. 2(a) shows that the complete contact (b = 1) develops for rather low values of the foundation stiffnesses k and g. Similarly Fig. as a function of the spring stiffness k for various values of the membrane stiffness g for the beam subjected to a middle load only (q = 0). It means that the contact length does not change. Güler and F.e.e. For larger values of the membrane stiffness g. Figs. Demir by assuming that the beam is subjected to the concentrated load p ( τ ) only. the position of the lift-off point depends on the foundation stiffnesses k and g. but not an absolute discontinuity in the mathematical sense.70 Z. whereas the vertical equilibrium is maintained due to increase in vertical displacements proportionally. As it is well known. As the stiffnesses increase. Figs. the curves for g = 10 seem to display discontinuities.e. i. as the loads p and q increase proportionally. 3(c) shows the edge reaction which vanishes in case of partial contact. for b < 1 and comes into being. Fig. 2 agree very well for g = 0 and for s k = 100 and g = 1 with those given in these studies. Figs. The same is valid other way around. 3(a) and 3(b) illustrate that the share of the spring reaction and that of the membrane increase as the corresponding stiffnesses get larger. respectively. the contact length b.e. when the spring stiffness k increases.
Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation 71 Fig. Comparison of Figs. However. Oscillations of the beam starts by changing the loading level to βpsta instantly by using the dynamic load factor β. when only one type of the contact (partial or complete) appears along a curve in Figs. When the external force is time depended. (b) the membrane stiffness reaction rg and (c) the total edge reactions rc for the beam subjected to the load p at the middle directly affected by the membrane stiffness. The time variation of the loading can be written as psta + ( β – 1 )psta H ( τ ) . where H ( τ ) denotes Heaviside step function. (26) expresses. Although the present formulation does not have any restriction concerning the time variation of the loads. no steep variation takes place. 3(a) and 3(b). when the complete contact develops. as expected. oscillations of the beam will take place and the contact region will depend on time. when the complete contact develops. (19) is carried out for the forced vibrations by assuming that the beam is in static equilibrium under the loading psta = 1 and q = 0. when a partial contact comes into being. as Eq. Since the sum of the all reactions has to be equal to the external load. 3 Variation of (a) the total spring stiffness reaction rk. an increase in one of the foundation reactions results in a decrease in the other foundation reactions. The edge reaction rc decreases and becomes zero. The edge reaction is proportional to the difference of the slopes at the two sides of the beam edge and to the foundation parameter g. 2(a) and 3(c) shows that there is no edge reaction exists. Fig. in the present study numerical solution of the governing Eq. The governing . 3(c) shows the edge membrane reaction rc which is generated.
Figs. the contact length does not depend on the loading in the static case. because the coefficients of the stiffness matrix K have time dependent terms. Similar variations can be seen in Figs. 1. where the time variations of the middle displacement wm ( τ ) = w ( x = 0.4. respectively. only a concentrated load is present for various unloading β < 1 and β > 1 loading cases. However. the edge force rc(τ). 7(c) and 7(d) represent time variations of the resultant of the spring stiffness force rk(τ). τ ) . τ ) and the edge displacement wc ( τ ) = w ( x = ±1. 4(b) illustrates. As mentioned above. when the beam goes from a partial contact to the complete contact in course of oscillations and vice versa. 5 and 6.2 and 1. however its time variation depends on the level of the loading. τ ) are shown.0 and 2. when the complete contact develops. The governing differential Eq. When the beam is partially uplifted. Güler and F. Demir Eq. the time variation of b ( τ ) represents highly nonlinear nature. Nonlinear variations appear in all these figures. the inertia force ri(τ) and the total force rt(τ) of the beam subjected to a load psta = 1 at the middle for β = 0. When a partial contact develops. numerous results are evaluated for selected parameters and they are presented in figures. Figs. as Fig. 7(a) and 7(b) show. where the complete contact does not develops and no Fig. 7(a). 7(b). As Fig. i. (26) is solved along the time domain by employing a step-wise numerical integration in the dynamic case. As Figs.4. since the inertia forces are involved in the dynamic cases. 4(a) shows the contact length b ( τ ) experiences oscillation which resembles to harmonic variations.72 Z. since the complete contact does not develop in these unloading cases. the membrane stiffness force rg(τ). 2. the contact length b ( τ ) and the parameters of the problem including the coefficients of the stiffness matrix are evaluated numerically and updated by considering the displacement configuration of the beam at the previous time step. K.. At each time step the contact function H ( x. the solution of the static case or the initial configuration of the beam in the dynamic case is found by using an iterative procedure. respectively. respectively.4 assuming k = 100.2. (26) is a system of non-linear ordinary differential equations. For recognition of the static and dynamic response of the beam.e. 4(a) and 4(b) show oscillations of the half of the contact length b ( τ ) for g = 1 and k = 100 by assuming psta = 1 and q = 0. Celep. which appears in the loading for the numerical values of the parameters used. time variations of these parameters resemble to harmonic oscillations for β = 0. 4 Time variation of the contact length b(τ) of the beam subjected to the load psta = 1 at the middle for (a) unloading β < 1 and (b) loading β > 1 cases for k = 100 and g = 1 . the coefficients depend continuously on the vertical displacements of the beam on the contact area.
where partial and complete contact develop after one another. as Figs.Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation 73 Fig. as the beam oscillates. rc = 0 for b ( τ ) < 1 and rc ≠ 0 for b ( τ ) = 1. However. 7(c) and 7(d) show. Consequently the time variation of the total force rt(τ) displays a very sudden small change. The time variation of the total force rt(τ) satisfies the global force equilibrium rt ( τ ) = rk ( τ ) + rg ( τ ) + rc ( τ ) + ri ( τ ) = βpsta where the resultant of the inertia force included as well. it is interesting to note that the edge force rc(τ) illustrates very step variation in a very small time interval. the nonlinear character of the problem appears for β = 2.. However. however it is corrected in a very short time interval. τ ) of the beam subjected to the load psta = 1 at the middle for (a) unloading β < 1 and (b) loading β > 1 cases for k = 100 and g = 1 edge force comes into being. Fig. τ ) of the beam subjected to the load psta = 1 at the middle for (a) unloading β < 1 and (b) loading β > 1 cases for k = 100 and g = 1 Fig. i. q ( τ ) = 0 and po = 1 for various values of the nondimensional circular frequency .4.0 and 2.e. 8(a) shows oscillations of the half of the contact length b ( τ ) for g = 1 and k = 100 by assuming the beam being at rest for τ = 0 is subjected to a harmonically varying concentrated load p ( τ ) = po sinωτ . 6 Time variation of the edge displacement wc ( τ ) = w ( x = ±1. as if it is a discontinuity. 5 Time variation of the middle displacement wm ( τ ) = w ( x = 0.
Güler and F.4 for k = 100 and g = 1 ω . Celep. . where the analysis is focused on the dependency of the contact length on the frequency of the external load mainly. the inertia force ri(τ) and the total force rt(τ) of the beam subjected to the load psta = 1 at the middle for (a) unloading β = 0. 7 Time variations of the resultant of the spring stiffness force rk(τ). τ ) and the edge displacement wc ( τ ) = w ( x = ±1. Demir Fig. although the beam s is subjected to a harmonically varying concentrated load. (c) loading β = 2. two types of nonlinear oscillation can be seen.6 for the present numerical values.2. The time variations of the middle displacement wm ( τ ) = w ( x = 0. K.74 Z. The first one is controlled by the harmonic variation of the external load having a period of 2π/ω and the other one is an oscillation which develops due to the elastic response of the beam and the foundation which has an approximate period of 0. Since these oscillations are heavily nonlinear.4. The curves in the figures present very sophisticated variations due to the nonlinearity of the problem. 8(b) and 8(c) as well. However. periods can not be defined as it is defined in the linear harmonic analysis. τ ) are illustrated in Figs. the edge force rc(τ). the membrane stiffness force rg(τ). (b) loading β = 1.0 and (d) loading β = 2. Very similar analysis is carried out by assuming that the contact length b is constant and does not depend on time by Coçkun (2003).
8 Time variation of (a) the contact length b(τ). Conclusions The study presents analysis of the lift-off problem of an elastic beam resting on a two-parameter for 0 ≤ b( τ) ≤ 1 (27) . τ ) – gw″ ( x. τ ) of the beam subjected to the load q ( τ ) = 0 and p ( τ ) = po sinωτ where po = 1 for k = 100 and g = 1 It is worth to note that the present analytical treatment is valid. (b) the middle displacement wm ( τ) = w ( x = 0. τ ) = kwb ( x. when there is only one contact zone in the middle of the beam where the foundation pressure is positive pf ( x. τ) and (c) the edge displacement wc ( τ ) = w ( x = ±1.Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation 75 Fig. τ ) ≥ 0 b 4.
and Demir. Z. (1984).. the following conclusion can be drawn: a. “Dynamic response of a circular beam on a Wieghardt-type elastic foundation”. because the inertia forces are involved in the dynamic case. Eng. Special attention is paid to the non-dimensionlization of the formulation as well as on the boundary conditions of the beam and the foundation. c. From the numerical analysis presented. separation conditions are not used. Z. (2007).. Eng. “Circular rigid beam on a tensionless two-parameter elastic foundation”. d. 1723-1739. Güler and F. In the present formulation and in its numerical evaluation the edge reaction is included into the governing equation of the problem. Z. 555-574. . when the complete contact is established. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik and Mechanik. In the present analysis for the separation condition between the beam and the foundation is determined by requiring the total foundation reaction which constitutes due to the spring stiffness and to the membrane stiffness of the foundation to be vanished. Celep. Z. J. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik and Mechanik. However. 431-439. (1988). Although the displacements of the beam and the foundation are assumed to be small. “Symmetrically loaded beam on a two-parameter tensionless foundation”. as it is the case in the present study. The global force equilibrium of the beam in the vertical direction is formulated by including the foundation reactions. However. due to the requirement at the separation point. the slope of the foundation surface displays a discontinuity contrary to the intuitive approach. and Demir. then the time variation of the contact length depends on the level of the loading even for a single loading. Struct. As it is obvious. Mech. particularly when partial and complete contacts develop subsequently during oscillations. F. due to tensionless character of the foundation. The uplift of the beam is influenced mainly by the fundamental mode and the higher modes have lesser effect on the behavior. Celep. Demir foundation and subjected to a concentrated force at the middle and a uniformly distributed load. Numerical solution of the problem is carried out by applying Galerkin’s method and the numerical results are presented comparatively for various values of the parameters of the problem. the analysis and the numerical results are presented by introducing non-dimensional parameters. the continuity of the foundation reaction is guarantied. e. However. Due to the shortcoming of the model. References Celep. F. oscillations of the beam subjected to dynamic loads are highly nonlinear and no period can be defined. Celep. (2005). 114(10). 279-286. “Circular plate on tensionless Winkler foundation”. When two types of loading is involved. the governing equation of the problem is non-linear. in this case an edge reaction develops as a result of discontinuity of the slope of the displacement function at that point. The tensile reaction between the beam and the foundation is avoided. It is well known that the contact length does not depend on the loading in the static case when only one type of loading is considered. Due to the tensionless character of the foundation. the edge reactions and the inertia forces and it is checked numerically in all static and dynamic loading cases. 27(5).76 Z. 64(7). it is not treated as a boundary condition. 85(6). when the beam is subjected to dynamic loads. In order to cover a large spectrum of values of the parameters. the contact length depends on the ratio of the loading. Celep. Mech. K. as the beam lifts off the foundation. b.
Kerr. Butterworth.C. J. Turhan. (1999). 151-161. “Response of a finite beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation s under symmetric and asymmetric loading”. .M. Sound Vib. Sound Vib. (1971). K. Eng. Solids Struct. H.. Eur.. and Adams.-ASCE. 57(9). Appl.B. Lin. (2009). A. R. J. Struct. Z. Z.. Solids Struct. “On foundations that react in compression only. Tsai. and Glasser.A. N. 36.. J. J.D. Sound Vib.. J. 128(2). Celep. “Numerical methods for analysis of plates on tensionless elastic foundations”. D. “Beams on tensionless elastic foundation”. Mech. 38. 21-36.-ASME.D.Z. Mech.-ASCE. (1999). A. Eng. M. Sci.. “Onset of separation between a beam and a tensionless elastic foundation under a moving load”. 37(7). Celep. Mech. J. Güler. Hsu. A-Solid. Solids Struct. 697-703. Mech.D. Mech. 185-195. 413-422. K. Mech. X. “Forced vibrations of rigid circular plate on a tensionless Winkler edge support”. and Coffin. Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models”. Celep.F. J. (1991).. Weisman. and Güler. 1019-1030. Patel. Z. Y. J. Kerr. Solids Struct. 491-498. “On the derivation of well posed boundary value problems in structural mechanics”. Eng. 93. Malaika. “Axisymmetric shells and plates on tensionless elastic foundations”. 677-681. L. N. (1990). G. and Abu Hussein.. and Westmann. 28(4). and Luo.. Sound Vib. Appl.. J. M. “Static analysis of an infinite beam resting on a tensionless Pasternak foundation”. (2001). Struct. J. Eng. Silva.. “Beams on tensionless foundation”. K. 55(3). and Gençoglu... 235 246.. and Gonçalves. “Beams on a two-dimensional Pasternak base subjected to loads that cause lift-off”. and Turhan. Celep. 624-628. Dempsey. J. I. 263(4). A. J. 449-458. (2008). “Kerr. “Axisymmetric vibrations of circular plates on tensionless elastic foundations”. A-Solid.. 113(4). Int. 279-292. (2003).M. 335-354. “Force vibrations of a beam on a tensionless foundation”. M.B. 1-12.. M. (1984). J.P. Z. Ma. 276(1-2).. A. J.R. “Circular elastic plate resting on tensionless Pasternak foundation”. L. Eur. J. P.. and Clifton. T.H. (2004). “The response of a finite beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation subjected to a harmonic s load”. Güler. A. J. Z. 31.-ASCE. 495-509. and Güler.. Sound Vib. (2007).. Eng.-ASME.. 130(10). I. 1-11. G. Sound Vib. “Mechanical analysis of non-uniform beams resting on nonlinear elastic foundation by the differential quadrature method”.. (1970). Mech. Z. Engin. Int. (1995). and Özmutlu.G. (1987). Appl. Int. 22(1). (1989). “Contact between plates and unilateral supports”. “Static and dynamic responses of a rigid circular plate on a tensionless Winkler foundation”. Mech. J. “Circular elastic plates on elastic unilateral edge supports”.. s 223(3). 542553. Coçkun. Int. Y. Z. H. 2083-2100. 51. 30(1). Appl.E. J. D. · Coçkun. Teng. J.. Mech. A.Response of a completely free beam on a tensionless Pasternak foundation o 77 Celep. “Static and dynamic responses of a circular plate on a tensionless elastic foundation”. 183(2). Mech. 28. Y. R. “Non-linear vibrations of a beam on an elastic foundation”. Keer. Mech. 12(1). and Celep. K. 5277-5300. 945-953.W. J. 301(3-5). J. (1976).W. (2004). J. D. 1251-1254. · Coçkun. Silveira. and Engin. Mech.L. Appl. I. (2006). Hong. and Al-Zaid. Mech. (1988). Weisman. (1967).O. Celep. J.D. 707-711. “Axisymmetric forced vibrations of an elastic free circular plate on a tensionless two-parameter foundation”. (1964).. 13. Int. 324-328. R.C. J. 22(3). (2003). Kerr..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.