Int. J. mech. SC;., Vol.

19. pp. 317-323.

Pergamon Press 1977.

THE

VLASOV

of Applied

Mathematics,

Printed in Great Britain

FOUNDATION

MODEL

R. JONES
Department

University
of the Witwatersrand,
Africa

Johannesburg,

South

and
J. XENOPHONTOS
Department

of Civil Engineering,
(Received

Swinburne

College

of Technology,

30 April 1976, in revised form

19 August

Victoria,

Australia

1976)

Summary-An
alternative
variational
formulation
of Vlasovs two parameter
foundation
model
is presented.
This formulation
provides a rigorous theoretical
basis for the present form of the
vertical deformation
profiles, which have previously
been assumed, and which form the basis of
the Vlasov model. An experimental
investigation
of the Vlasov model is also presented.
NOTATION
stress components
horizontal
and vertical displacements
strain energy
potential energy
flexural rigidity of the plate
Poissons
ratio of the plate
Youngs modulus, and Poissons
ratio of the foundation
foundation
thickness
the vertical deformation
profile
unknown
parameter
in the vertical deformation
profile
surface deformation
the modulus of subgrade
reaction,
and the shear parameter
surface load
half lengths of the tested beam

for the soil

INTRODUCTION

A number
of attempts
have been made to describe
the behaviour
of an elastic
foundation
under surface load. Generally,
the foundation
is described
either as a
continuum,
for which linear stress-strain
relations are assumed valid or as a system of
continuously
distributed
independent
springs which offer resistance
in the direction of
their axes only. The later assumption
was first introduced
by Winkler
who assumed
that the reactive forces of the foundation,
carrying a loaded beam, were proportional
at
every point to the deflection of the beam at that point. Winklers assumption,
in spite of
its simplicity,
leads to satisfactory
results for the surface deformations
of beams on an
elastic foundation,
see FGppl and H&tCnyl.4 However the model is less satisfactory
when applied to loaded surface area.
More recent analyses assume that some interaction
occurs between spring elements.
Filonenko-Borodich
assumed that the top ends of the spring elements were connected
to a membrane
which could sustain tensile stresses.
Pasternak
provided
for shear
interactions
between the spring elements
by connecting
the ends of the springs to a
beam or plate consisting
of incompressible
vertical elements,
which deformed only by
transverse
shear.
Vlasov and LeontCv9 also considered
the shear interactions
in a foundation
and
formulated
their problems
by using a variational
method. Their approach
has been
widely used by a number of recent workers3., and is now extensively
used in the
design of structures
upon soil foundations.
It has all of the advantages
of a continuum
approach
as well as the simplicity
of the coupled spring model. However this model
strongly depends upon the assumed form of the vertical deformation
profile.
IS Vol.19. No.

hA

317

318

R . . ] O N E S a n d J. XENOPHONTOS

The Vlasov model has the added advantage, as shown by the authors, '~ that by the
correct choice of the vertical deformation profile it reduces to a model identical to the
Kerr and the Reissner foundation models.
A more detailed survey of the available literature is given by Kerr,' where the Kerr
and Reissner models are discussed in detail.
The present paper uses a similar approach to that of Vlasov, but the formulation is
based upon a different variational principle. The advantage of this formulation is that it
both yields the Vlasov model and provides a rigorous theoretical basis for the form of
the vertical deformation profile. A limited experimental investigation is then
undertaken in which the f o r m of the vertical deformation profile is examined. The
theoretically predicted profile is found to be in excellent agreement with the
experimentally determined vertical deformation profile.
THE

MODEL

Let us consider an elastic foundation of thickness H, resting on a rigid base. A plate

of flexural rigidity D lies upon the upper surface of this foundation, and is subject to
vertical load q(x, y) (Fig. I). Take the oxy plane at the upper surface with the z-axis
0
X

a"

l Qstl:fundatln
H,'i E
FIG. 1.

directed positively downwards. Then the total strain energy of the foundation and the
plate is

fff[

au+

av+

aw

av+aU~+r~

(0.,+0q

3w

"[32wO2w (O2w]2]]ds,
\3yay/ /J

(1)

- 2 ( 1 - vo)~-~x2 ~

where u, v, w are the two horizontal and the vertical displacements, respectively, ~r,, or,..
cr=, -r~, r~, %.. are the stresses in the foundation, and v, is the Poissons ration of the
plate. H e r e the double integration is over that portion of the upper surface of the
foundation on which the plate lies. The volume integration is over the entire volume of
the foundation.
The stresses in the foundation are related to the deformations by the formulae,
given by Vlasov ~ (p. 30)

E }0.,+ /a.
- -

/2

- - q - - -

The Vlasov foundation model

319

z~, - 2(1 + u) ~x-x+

I Ow+ Ou

E
I Oy+ O~
2(1 + u) Ov

~"~

(2)

where, as in Vlasov (p. 31), E and v are related to the Young's modulus of the
foundation, E . and the P o i s s o n ' s ratio of the foundation, v~, by
Es

E-

l_v~,

v-

l)s

l-v~

(3)

Let us now adopt the assumptions, put forward by Vlasov," that since there is no
horizontal loading then the horizontal displacements are negligible in comparison with
the vertical displacement, i.e. u = v = O. The vertical deformation w(x, y, z) is also
taken in the usual (Viasov) form, viz:

(4)

w(x, y, z ) = w,(x, y),Nz)

where w,(x, y) is the vertical deformation of the foundations upper surface and &(z) is a
function of the vertical distribution of displacements, chosen in accordance with nature
of the problem.
Based upon experimental evidence, details of which are not readily available, the
function &(z) was taken by Vlasov ~ in the form

(5)

&(z) = sinh [T(H - z)l/sinh (TH)

where 7 is an unknown constant determining the variation, with depth, of the vertical
displacements.
Substituting for w and setting u = v = 0 in equation (1) gives
1

. Ow,

Ow,]

dx dy

(6)

while the stresses ~r~-xz, and ~-,~ reduce to

E
d4~
o~z = 1 - ] ~ w, d--~
aW~

"rx~= G4~ Ox

(7)

Ow
~',,~ = G & -~y .
Consequently, the strain energy V is finally expressible as

v=f f f (~@~ w,2(~)" + ~21vw,12)dxd. dz+--~2

f~f ( ,~2w,)2- 2('- ~,t ~ oxo, .~--~. j, dx d,

(8)

320

R. JONES and .1. XENOPH()NIOS

The requirement that the total potential energy I is minimized, see Timoshenko et
251), now yields

al.~ (p.

which leads to the following partial differential equations in dJ and w,, viz

(1

Z~ 2)

" ( d ~ ) 2dzw'
\~-z

E f"
2(1~ p) ,

ch~dzV2w,+DV%v,=q(x,v)

(10)

and
d-~d~

"
E
dz'-(l-vE 2)~ f w'~dxdy-'52(l+v)~
IlW'd:dxdy =0

(II)

where the double integration is over the entire upper surface of the foundation. It is
important to note that equation (10) is precisely the same equation as derived by
Vlasov ~ for the response of a plate lying on an elastic foundation.
It is usual to denote as k. and 2t

k-

I--1,2

k~zz/

""

(12)

ch'-dz,

(13)

and
2t - 2(1+
E v) f,"
so that equation (10) may be written as
DV4w, + kw, - 2tV:w, =

q(x, y).

(14)

From equation (10) it is apparent that the surface deformation, i.e. w,(x, y) will be
dependent upon the values taken for the parameter k, and 2t, which are inturn
dependent upon the form of the vertical deformation profile, i.e., q~(z). Consequently, if
Vlasov's guessed form for q~(z), as given by equation (5) is in error then this will
adversely effect the computed values of w,.
In equation (14) the coefficient k characterizes the compressive strain in the
foundation, and is equivalent to a Winkler spring constant (or modulus of subgrade
reaction). The coefficient t characterizes the shearing strain in the foundation.
The advantage of the present formulation is that, unlike Vlasov's analysis, it yields a
differential equation from which the vertical deformation profile may be determined.
Indeed noting that since the foundation rests on a rigid base we must have d~ = 0 on
z = H, and that on z = 0 we have
61: ,,= l

then equation (11) has as its solution

4~(z) = sinh 7(H - z)/sinh 7H

(16)

where

(1- p) I f lVw,l: dx dy
(17)

w," dx dv

321

The Vlasov foundation model

This form for ~b agrees exactly with the previously guessed f o r m of the vertical
deformation profile. Consequently we have established a rigorous theoretical basis for
the vertical deformation profile 4~(z), which in turn gives added strength to the Vlasov
two p a r a m e t e r soil model. Furthermore, on the basis of equation (17) we are able to
deduce several important factors which will influence the value of % L e t us consider
that the upper surface of the soil is of infinite extent so that away from the plate the
deflections decay to zero. Then using Green's theorem equation (17) reduces to

(v-l)ffw,V2w, dxdy

y =

(18)

2ffw,2dxdy

which making use of equation (14) gives

y2 =

(l-,,)[f f (qwl-DWw,)/2tdx dy- f f kw, dx dy/2t]

(19)

2 f f w , dxdy
Here the subscript s under the integral sign means that the integration is over that
portion of the surface on which the plate lies, while the unsubscripted double integral is
o v e r the entire upper surface of the foundation. H e n c e equation (19) shows that y will
be dependent upon both the applied load q, and the shape and flexural rigidity of the
plate. In the special case of surface loading only (i.e. D = 0) then y will only depend on
the load and the shape of the loaded region. This is an important result since in all
previous publications it has been assumed that y was independent of such
consideration.
As a consequence of this dependence the p a r a m e t e r s

(I

--~~

fo

Ey(sinh 7 H cosh y H + y H )
2(i - v 2) sinh 2 7 H
'

\dz/

(20)

and
E
2t-2(1 +v)

q52

fo/q

E(sinh 7 H cosh y H - y H )
dz=

4(l+v) sinh2yH

(21)

will also depend on the load, the shape, and interestingly, the flexural rigidity of the
plate.
Indeed such a dependence is encountered when one attempts to experimentally
determine the value of the modulus of subgrade reaction, i.e.k.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
A limited experimental investigation was undertaken to investigate this behaviour.
A sheet of gum rubber was used to simulate an elastic foundation material. This
material was chosen mainly because of the limited finance available, but also because of
its low Young's modulus (approximately 1000 K N / m 2) and because the properties of the
rubber were easily obtained. P o i s s o n ' s ratio, u, was found to be 0.48.
For simplicity a two dimensional model was tested. The load was transmitted to the
foundation via rigid b e a m s of the same width as the foundation. Five b e a m s of lengths
12.5, 25, 37.5 and 75 m m were tested, the depth H of the foundation being 150 m m while
the thickness d of the foundation is 6.25 mm. Particulars of the testing apparatus are
given in Fig. 2. The deformations were measured at various points beneath the point of
application of the load, and were measured using a travelling microscope to within an
accuracy of 0.00! ram.

322

R,

JONES

and

J.

XENOPHON'r(}s

225mm
Rigid

beam
I

mm

Gum

rubber

i~

450mm
i

Rigid support

6 25mm

Fro. 2, Geometry of the test apparatus.

The results of these measurements are shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b) where c is the half
length of the beam. In each case the deformation profiles were found to be a hyperbolic
sine function as predicted in the previous section. Indeed the agreement between the
theory and the experimental results is very good. The values of 3' obtained from these
deformation profiles is given in Table 1 for each of the five beams tested, As predicted
the value of 3' may be seen to depend upon the length of the beam, In the case of the
7 5 m m beam (c/d = 6 ) the value of 3' was small ( = 0 . 0 0 8 7 m m ') and the vertical
deformation profile was very nearly linear. Table 1 also presents the values of the
modulus of subgrade reaction k, as computed from equation (20) using the experimentally
determined values of 3'.

02

04

06

08

I0

02

04

06

08

IO

//ix"7~

.,,..Z.".?
2x
8

,xt

,x
!.;

X
<"

!C

,, xl ]: y

/~

Ig

18

L/

'

6i i/

2C --x

:3

Theory
Experimentoiresults

7i
FIG. 3. Vertical deformation profiles.
TABLE 1.

e (ram)
c/d

3, (mm ')
k (MN/m ~)

I. M.
46,
2. A.
3. M.
4. M.

6.25
1

0.0175
11.78

12.5

18.75

25.00

37.5
6

0.0157
10.97

0.0138
10.26

0.0122
9.69

0.0087
8.90

REFERENCES
M. FILENKO-BORODICH, Vohenyie Zapiski Moskovskyo Gosudar-stuenno Universieta Mechanica, No.
p. 3 (1940).
FOPPL, Vorlesungen uber Technische Mechanik, 9th edn, Vol. 3, p. 258, Leipzig (1922).
E. HARR, A , S . C . E J. Soil M e c h . F o u n d a t i o n s Dic. 95, 933 (1969).
HETENYE, B e a m s on E l a s t i c F o u n d a t i o n s . University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1946)

The Vlasov foundation model

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

323

A. D. KERR, Trans. ASME, series E, 31,491 (1964).

P. L. PATERNAK,Gosuedarstvennoe Izadateslstve Literaluri po stroitelstvu Arkhitekture. Moscow (1954).
S.-F. CHEN, Proc. Jap. Soc. Cir. Engrs p. 42 (1972).
S. P. TIMOSHENKO and J. N. GOODIER, Theory o[ Elasticity. 3rd edit., McGraw-Hill, New York (1970).
V. Z, VLASOVand N. N. LEONT'EN, Beams Plates and Shells on Elastic Foundations. Israel Program for
Scientific Translations, Tel Aviv (1966).
10. E. WINKLER, Die Lehre yon der Elastizitat und Festigkeit. (1867).
11. T. Y. YANG, Compters & Struct. 2, 593 (1972).
12. R. JONES and J. XENOPHONTOS, Acta Mechanica Vol. 25 (1976).