Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Mathematical Modelling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apm

Static interaction analysis between a Timoshenko beam and

layered soils by analytical layer element/boundary element
method coupling
Zhi Yong Ai∗, Jian Bang Cai
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, College
of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 20092, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the analytical layer element/boundary element method coupling the-
Received 18 February 2016 ory for the static interaction analysis between a Timoshenko beam and layered soils. The
Revised 17 May 2016
boundary integral equations for a Timoshenko beam are established by taking the funda-
Accepted 18 June 2016
mental solutions of a static infinite Timoshenko beam as the kernel functions. The Timo-
Available online 23 June 2016
shenko beam and the foundation reaction area are properly divided, and the distribution of
Keywords: the foundation reaction for each part of the reaction area is assumed to be uniform. With
Static interaction analysis the application of the boundary integral equations of the Timoshenko beam to each beam
Layered soils node, the BEM matrices of the beam are obtained. The flexibility matrix of the subgrade
Timoshenko beam is obtained with Gaussian quadrature of the fundamental solution of the stratified soils by
Boundary element analytical layer element. Combining the above BEM matrices for the beam and the flexi-
Analytical layer element bility matrix of the soils, the global boundary integral equations for the soils-Timoshenko
Coupling method beam system are established with the compatible condition of the settlement at the in-
terface. A program is compiled according to the proposed theory and a comparison of the
results between this theory and existing reference or the ABAQUS FEM modeling is car-
ried out, which shows the accuracy and efficiency of the theory. Some numerical exam-
ples show that the static behavior of soil–beam system is significantly influenced by the
beam–soil stiffness ratio, the thickness of the first soil layer and the layered characteristics
of soils.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In civil engineering, many structures, such as strip foundations and underground pipelines, are always simplified as foun-
dation beams for calculation. As a result, there are many researches on the foundation beam problem. For beams on Winkler
foundations, Biot [1] gave an exact solution for the bending problem of the an infinite beam on a Winkler foundation sub-
jected to a concentrated load. Essenburg [2] found that shear deformation is of great importance in the analysis of an infinite
beam on a Winkler foundation when it is subjected to a concentrated force or a concentrate moment. Hetenyi [3] applied
the strain energy method to the study of a Winkler foundation beam. For a beam on a two-parameter foundation, Giger and
Shirima [4] presented the complete force–displacement relationship for a Timoshenko beam element based on the exact
solution of two differential equations governing the problem concerned. Aydogan [5] developed a stiffness matrix method

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 65982201; fax: +86 21 65985210.
E-mail address: zhiyongai@tongji.edu.cn ( Zhi Y. Ai).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2016.06.028
0307-904X/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
9486 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

for a beam element with shear effect on a foundation of Winkler assumption, where a second-order term of the derivative
of the beam’s deflection was taken as the shear effect. Yin [6] proposed an analytical solution for an infinite Timoshenko
beam on a Winkler foundation subjected a point load, and developed a finite element model for the same problem, proving
that the shear deformation cannot be ignored. Based on the solution of the governing differential equation and the assumed
displacement field, Onu [7,8] presented the stiffness matrices considering the shear effect of beams on a two-parameter
foundation. Sapountzakis and Kampitsis [9] developed a boundary element method to deal with the nonlinear behavior of a
beam of shear deformation resting on a tensionless three-parameter foundation, in which the beam was partially supported
on the foundation, and subjected to axial and transverse loads. Although spring foundation models are widely used in the
analyses of foundation beams, the shear effect of soils cannot be properly considered in those models and the parameters
may be difficult to obtain in practical engineering.
For beams on elastic half planes or half-spaces, Zemochkin and Sinitsyn [10] developed the rigid bar method, where
some hinged rigid bars are employed to connect the beam and the foundation. Based on Flamant equation in the plain
stress/strain case, Cheung and Nag [11] employed the finite element method to analyze the static linear behavior of a beam
on an elastic isotropic half-plane, and adopted an iterative approach to deal with its non-linear behavior. In a plane stain or
plane stress state, Tullini et al. [12,13] investigated the difference between the foundation beams of Euler–Bernoulli model
and Timoshenko model by coupling finite element method (FEM) and boundary element method (BEM) on the basis of a
locking-free Timoshenko beam element and the Flamant solution, the results of which indicate that shear effect of the beam
cannot be ignored for short beams. However, foundations of plane stress/strain or half-space assumption would be inaccu-
rate because the practical foundation beams should be treated as three-dimensional, and natural soils should be considered
as stratified [14-19].
Considering soils are naturally layered, Ai et al. [20] studied the static behavior of an Euler–Bernoulli beam on two/three-
dimensional layered soils by the coupling of finite difference method and the BEM, and later Ai and Cai [21] analyzed the
response of a Timoshenko beam on layered soils based on the combination of analytical layer element method and the FEM,
where the length of the beam is assumed to be integral multiple of the beam width, which would be restricted. Generally,
the Timoshenko model, which takes shear deformation into account, is more applicable for foundation beam analyses [22].
But there are only a few researches on the Timoshenko foundation beam problem, in which fewer ones adopt a three-
dimensional foundation model. What is more, no boundary element solution for the Timoshenko beam–soil interaction
problem has been obtained so far, which can be rather flexible in the division of beam elements. Therefore, it would be
meaningful to present a BEM for the interaction analysis between a Timoshenko beam and layered soils, for the BEM has a
higher computational efficiency compared to the FEM. Moreover, very few existing researches have studied the influence of
the beam–soil stiffness ration on the behavior of a Timoshenko beam on a foundation of three dimensions.
The aim of this paper is to present the analytical layer element/boundary element coupling method for the static in-
teraction analysis between a Timoshenko beam and layered soils. The beam and the foundation reaction area are divided
in different ways, and the segments of the two have the same total amount. Adopting the fundamental solutions of the
static Timoshenko beam as the kernel functions of the BEM for the beam, the boundary integral equations for a Timoshenko
beam are established by an average discretization of beam and a uniform distribution assumption of the foundation reaction
for each part of the reaction area. Then, the flexibility matrix of the static subgrade is obtained by a BEM with Gaussian
quadrature according to the fundamental analytical layer element solution of the stratified soils. The global boundary ele-
ment equations for the static interaction between the Timoshenko beam and soils are finally obtained by the compatible
displacement conditions at the beam–soil interface. Furthermore, some numerical examples are carried out to verify the
accuracy of the theory, and to study the influence of the beam–soil stiffness ratio, the thickness of the first soil layer and
the stratification of the soils.

2. The boundary integral equations for a Timoshenko beam

According to mechanics of materials, the shear force Q and the bending moment M of a static Timoshenko beam can be
expressed as follows [23]:
 
ds ( x )
Q ( x ) = kGb A + θ (x ) (1)
dx
dθ ( x )
M (x ) = Eb Ib (2)
dx
where s(x) and θ (x) denote the deflection and the rotation of the cross-section of the beam, respectively; Eb , Gb and Ib are
Young’s modulus, the shear modulus and the inertial moment of the cross-section, respectively; A means the area of the
cross-section, and k denotes the shearing correction factor; x is the coordinate of the neutral axis.
Considering a distributed load p(x), the equilibrium equations for a static Timoshenko beam are as follows:
dQ ( x )
+ p( x ) = 0 (3)
dx
dM ( x )
− Q (x ) = 0 (4)
dx
 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499 9487

Fig. 1. A Timoshenko beam on layered isotropic soils.

Substituting Eqs. (1) and (2) into Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively, we have the following two governing equations for a static
Timoshenko beam:
 
ds2 ( x ) dθ ( x )
kGb A + = −p(x ) (5)
dx2 dx
 
ds ( x ) dθ 2 ( x )
−kGb A + θ (x ) + Eb Ib =0 (6)
dx dx2
Based on Eqs. (5) and (6), we can have the four fundamental solutions for an infinitely long static Timoshenko beam
[23]
r r3
s∗P (x, ξ ) = − + (7)
2kGb A 12Eb Ib

r 2 dr
θP∗ (x, ξ ) = − (8)
4Eb Ib dx

r 2 dr
s∗M (x, ξ ) = (9)
4Eb Ib dx
r
θM∗ (x, ξ ) = − (10)
2Eb Ib
in which, s∗P (x, ξ ) and θP∗ (x, ξ ) denote the deflection and rotation angle in an infinitely long Timoshenko beam due to a
unit point load at x = ξ , respectively; s∗M (x, ξ ) and θM
∗ (x, ξ ) are the settlement and rotation in an infinitely long Timoshenko

beam due to a unit moment at x = ξ , respectively; r = |x − ξ | denotes the distance between point x and ξ .
x = ξ (ξ ∈ (0, L), L is the length of the beam) is assumed to be an arbitrary internal node of a Timoshenko beam, and the
boundary integral equations for the settlement and the rotation of the node are obtained as follows:
s(ξ ) = [θP∗ (x, ξ )M
ˆ (x )]L0 + [s∗P (x, ξ )Qˆ (x )]L0 − [QP∗ (x, ξ )s(x )]L0
 L 
− [MP∗ (x, ξ )θ (x )]L0 + s∗P (x, ξ ) p(x )dx + s∗P (x, ξ )Pi (x ) (11)
0

θ (ξ ) = [θM∗ (x, ξ )Mˆ (x )]L0 + [s∗M (x, ξ )Qˆ (x )]L0 − [QM∗ (x, ξ )s(x )]L0
 L 
∗
− [MM (x, ξ )θ (x )]L0 + s∗M (x, ξ ) p(x )dx + s∗M (x, ξ )Pi (x ) (12)
0

ˆ (x ) and Qˆ (x )(x = 0, L) mean the moments and the forces at the ends of the beam; M∗ (x, ξ ) = −0.5r, Q ∗ (x, ξ ) =
where M P P
−0.5 ∂∂ xr , MM
∗ (x, ξ ) = −0.5 ∂ r , Q ∗ (x, ξ ) = 0. Eqs. (11) and (12) can be changed into the boundary integral equations for Euler–
∂x M
Bernoulli beam if k → ∞. The nodes x = 0 + ε and x = L − ε (ɛ > 0) are adopted in place of the two ends of the beam to
avoid singularity when applying Eqs. (11) and (12) to the end nodes of the beam. And the equations for the beam ends
would be finally determined through applying ɛ → 0 to the two equations obtained with nodes x = 0 + ε and x = L − ε .
The solutions to a Timoshenko beam can be obtained with the aid of some corresponding boundary conditions.

3. The solution for the static interaction problem between a Timoshenko beam and layered soils

As is shown in Figs. 1 and 2, a coordinate system is established for a Timoshenko beam of constant cross-section on
layered isotropic soils. It is assumed that the interface is frictionless, and there is no lift-off at the interface. ν i and Ei are
Poisson ratio and the Young’s modulus of the ith soil layer, respectively; b and ν b denote the bottom width and Poisson ratio
9488 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

Fig. 2. The free-body diagram of the beam under loads and foundation reaction.

of the beam, respectively. As is shown in Fig. 2, the Timoshenko beam is averagely divided into m − 1 segments of the same
length, l1 = L/(m − 1 ), and beam nodes are defined at the interfaces of adjacent elements. The foundation reacting force is
divided into m parts, and the reaction qi (i = 1, 2 · · · m ) is uniformly distributed among each part. The x coordinate of the ith
beam node is supposed to be lib (i = 1, 2 · · · m ), and those of the left and right side of the foundation reaction element are lis
and lis+1 (i = 1, 2 · · · m ), respectively.
According to the assumption that the ends of the foundation beam are free, we have
ˆ (0 ) = M
M ˆ (L ) = 0 (13)

Qˆ (0 ) = Qˆ (L ) = 0 (14)

Mostly, the boundary integral equations (Eqs. (11) and (12)) would be employed in the two ends of a static beam for
the problems of only beams without foundations. However, this method is not suitable for a Timoshenko beam on three-
dimensional soils for the reaction from the foundation in unknown and the variables could be much more. In order to obtain
enough equations to solve the problem, the boundary integral equations would be applied to all the beam nodes.
Applying Eqs. (11) and (12) to each of the Timoshenko beam nodes, and combining with Eqs. (13) and (14), the boundary
integral equations for the beam are obtained as below.
Q∗P s + M∗P θ = A1 − bCq (15)

Q∗M s + M∗M θ = A2 − bXq (16)

in which,
⎡1 − Q ∗ (l b , l b ) QP∗ (l2b , l1b ) ··· QP∗ (lm
b
, l1b )
⎤
P 1 1
⎢ −Q ∗ (l b , l b ) QP∗ (l2b , l2b ) ··· QP∗ (lm
b
, l2b ) ⎥
⎢ P 1 2 ⎥
Q∗P = ⎢
⎢ .. .. ..
⎥
⎥ (17)
..
⎣ . . . . ⎦
−QP∗ (l1b , lm
b
) QP∗ (l2b , lm
b
) ··· 1 + QP∗ (lm
b
, lm
b
)
⎡ −M∗ (l b , l b ) MP∗ (l2b , l1b ) ··· MP∗ (lm
b
, l1b )
⎤
P 1 1
⎢ −M∗ (l b , l b ) MP∗ (l2b , l2b ) ··· MP∗ (lm
b
, l2b ) ⎥
⎢ P 1 2 ⎥
M∗P =⎢
⎢ .. .. ..
⎥
⎥ (18)
..
⎣ . . . . ⎦
−MP∗ (l1b , lm
b
) MP∗ (l2b , lm
b
) ··· MP∗ (lm
b
, lm
b
)
⎡ −Q ∗ (l b , l b ) ( l2 , l1 )
∗ b b
QM ··· (lm , l1b )
∗ b
QM
⎤
M 1 1
⎢ −Q ∗ (l b , l b ) QM ( l2 , l2 )
∗ b b
··· (lm , l2b ) ⎥
∗ b
QM
⎢ M 1 2 ⎥
Q∗M =⎢
⎢ .. .. ..
⎥
⎥ (19)
..
⎣ . . . . ⎦
−QM ( l1 , lm )
∗ b b
QM ( l2 , lm )
∗ b b
··· (lm , lmb )
∗ b
QM
⎡1 − M∗ (l b , l b ) ∗
MM (l2b , l1b ) ··· ∗
MM (lmb , l1b ) ⎤
M 1 1
⎢ −M∗ (l b , l b ) ∗
MM (l2b , l2b ) ··· ∗
MM (lmb , l2b ) ⎥
⎢ M 1 2 ⎥
M∗M =⎢
⎢ .. .. ..
⎥
⎥ (20)
..
⎣ . . . . ⎦
∗
−MM (l1b , lmb ) ∗
MM (l2b , lmb ) ··· ∗
1 + MM (lmb , lmb )
 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499 9489

 L 
A1 ( i ) = s∗P (x, lib ) p(x )dx+ s∗P (x, lib )P (x ) (21)
0

 L 
A2 ( i ) = s∗M (x, lib ) p(x )dx+ s∗M (x, lib )P (x ) (22)
0

 l sj+1
C (i, j ) = s∗P (x, lib )dx (23)
l sj

 l sj+1
X (i, j ) = s∗M (x, lib )dx (24)
l sj

 T
s = s1 s2 ··· sm (25)

 T
θ = θ1 θ2 ··· θm (26)

According to Ref. [21], the global stiffness matrix of a static n-layered soils in polar coordinates is as follows:

, (27)

where Ki (i = 1, 2 · · · n ) is the stiffness matrix of a single soil layer, the elements of which can be referred to Ref. [21];
ū(, zi ), w̄(, zi ), τ̄zr (, zi ) and σ̄z (, zi ) (i = 1, 2 · · · n ) are the radial displacement, the vertical displacement, the shear
stress in radial direction and vertical normal stress at depth of zi , where all the four variables are in Hankel transform
domain and  is the parameter of Hankel transform.
The displacements ū(, zi ) and w̄(, zi ) (i = 1, 2 · · · n ) of layered soils can be obtained by adopting the boundary condi-
tions, and the displacements in physical domain can then be obtained by employing a Hankel inverse transform. In addition,
the depth of soils adopts a large amount to simulate the multilayered half-space.
With the help of Eq. (27), the fundamental solution δ (i, ψ , R) of static multilayered isotropic soils can be obtained, where
δ (i, ψ , R) means the surface settlement of point i due to a unit concentrated load at an arbitrary surface point ψ , and R is
the distance between the two points. Adopting δ (i, ψ , R) as the kernel function, the boundary equation for the soils can be
expressed as

δi j = δ (i, ψ , R )d j
(i, j = 1, 2 · · · m ) (28)
where δ ij denotes the vertical displacement at beam node i caused by unit uniform load distributed among the area that qj
occupies;  j is the area variable of qj .
In order to achieve the integral function in Eq. (28), a two-dimensioned Gauss-Legendre quadrature is employed. Then
Eq. (28) can be expressed as follow:

s 
s
δi j =  j Ak Al δ (i, ψ (l, k ), R(l, k ))
l=1 k=1
(k, l = 1, 2 · · · s ) (29)
where ψ (l, k) is the Gaussian integration nodes; R(l, k) is the distance between point i and point ψ (l, k); Ak and Al mean
the Gaussian integration coefficients; s is the number of Gaussian integration nodes.
In order to determine the dots of Gaussian quadrature used in Eq. (28), cases of Gauss-Legendre quadrature of 6 × 6,
10 × 10 and 32 × 32 dots are studied and compared in Fig. 4. The model selected in this part is shown in Fig. 3, where
a square area in the surface of a foundation is subjected to a uniformly distributed load and the surface settlement of the
9490 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

Fig. 3. The diagram of a single soil layer under rectangular pressure.

Fig. 4. The curve of surface settlements of the load center.

center point A of the area is investigated. The settlement is normalized as = w/(Es b3 ) × 10−4 in Fig. 4. Judging from Fig. 4,
a two-dimensioned Gauss-Legendre quadrature of 10 × 10 dots is employed for the calculation of δ ij .
According to Eqs. (28) and (29), the flexibility matrix of the foundation is obtained as below
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
w1 δ11 δ12 ··· δ1m q1
⎢ w2 ⎥ ⎢ δ21 δ21 δ2m ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ··· ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
w=⎢ ⎥=δ·q=⎢ ⎥·⎢ q2 ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥ ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥ ⎣ .. ⎥
⎢ (30)
⎣ . ⎦ ⎣ . . . . ⎦ . ⎦
qm
wm δm1 δm2 ··· δmm
where wi (i = 1, 2 · · · m ) are the surface settlement of the soils at the positions of beam nodes.
Eq. (30) can be changed into the following form
q = δ−1 · w (31)
On account of the assumption that the beam and soils are completely bonded, i.e. the vertical displacements of the beam
and the soils are identical. Therefore, the compatible displacement condition of the beam–soils system is
s=w (32)
Substituting Eqs. (31) and (32) into Eqs. (15) and (16), the global BEM equations for the Timoshenko beam–soils interac-
tion problem are obtained
     
Q∗P + bCδ−1 M∗P s A1
· = (33)
Q∗M + bXδ−1 M∗M θ A2
Solving Eq. (33), the vertical displacements and the rotation of the Timoshenko beam are obtained, and the foundation
reaction can be further acquired by Eq. (31).

4. Numerical analysis

4.1. Verification

On the basis of the presented theory, a corresponding FORTRAN program is achieved, where the technique presented
in Ref. [19] is adopted for the inversion of Hankel transform; k = 5/6 for rectangular cross-section beam [24]. In order to
 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499 9491

Fig. 5. An Euler–Bernoulli beam on an elastic half-space.

Fig. 6. The settlement curve of the Euler–Bernoulli foundation beam.

Table 1
The surface settlements of the center of beam.

Zemochkin & Sinitsyn 4 elements 10 elements 14 elements

w (mm) 2.15 1.97 2.03 2.07

Error (%) — 8.37 5.58 3.72

validate the theory, two examples are carried out for comparison. The first one is about a static Euler–Bernoulli foundation
beam subjected to a concentrated load, and the second one is about a static Timoshenko foundation beam under uniformly
distributed loads.

4.1.1. An Euler–Bernoulli foundation beam under a point load

As is shown in Fig. 5, an Euler–Bernoulli beam on an elastic half-space (the thickness of the soil is selected to be 10 0 0 m
to simulate the elastic half-space) is subjected to a concentrated load. The presented theory is degenerated for a foundation
beam of Euler–Bernoulli model, and the beam is divided into 4 elements, 10 elements and 14 elements for comparison. The
comparison between the results with different number of elements of this paper and those from Ref. [10] is shown in Fig. 6.
What is more, the vertical displacements of the beam center in different cases are shown in Table 1.

4.1.2. A Timoshenko beam on a single soil layer subjected to a uniform load

It is shown in Fig. 7 that a Timoshenko beam on a single soil layer is subjected to a uniform load. In this example,
the results of the proposed theory are compared with those from the ABAQUS FEM modeling. In the ABAQUS modeling, a
1/4 of the model is analyzed for its symmetry, where three-dimensional solids are taken for the soil and the beam. The
parameter selected for the model are as follows, hs : L : hb : b = 100 : 30 : 5 : 2, Es : Eb = 1 : 500, νs = 0.3, νb = 0.2. In order
to simulate the semi-infinite state in the horizontal direction, the horizontal dimensions chosen for the soil are 10.5b in
the width direction and 5L in the length of the beam. In the ABAQUS modeling, the beam–soil model is divided into three
different kinds of meshes shown in Table 2. Besides, the elements of the other area are larger; the element type chosen
for the soil is C3D8R, and that for the beam is C3D20. The comparison of settlements and time taken by ABAQUS modeling
and the presented theory are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 8. In Table 3, the settlements of midspan of the beam and the time
taken in different cases are compared. In Fig. 8, the dimensionless vertical displacement is I0 = Epb sw
.
9492 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

Fig. 7. A Timoshenko beam on a single soil layer.

Table 2
The mesh cases of the model.

Mesh size of the soil

Mesh size of the beam around the contact area Total amount of soil meshes

Case 1 0.5b × 0.5hb × 0.05L 0.3hb 7980

Case 2 0.5b × hb × 0.125L 0.75hb 1596
Case 3 0.5b × hb × 0.1667L hb 960

Table 3
The errors of settlements of midspan and the time taken
in different cases.

This paper Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

I0 2.19 2.25 2.23 2.23

Error (%) — 2.74 1.83 1.83
Time (s) 4.6 42 11 10

Fig. 8. The comparison of settlement of the Timoshenko foundation beam.

As is seen in Figs. 6 and 8, the results from this paper agree well with those from Zemochkin and Sinitsyn [10] or the
FEM modeling, which proves that the proposed theory and the program is correct. Moreover, the presented theory only
takes about half of the time by the ABAQUS software, demonstrating the higher efficiency of compiled program.

4.2. The influence of beam–soil stiffness ratio

As we can see in Fig. 9, the behavior of a rectangular beam placed on a half-space with respect to the beam–soil stiff-
ness ratio K is investigated in this example, where the foundation beam is subjected to a concentrated load or uniformly
Eb (1−v2s )h3b
distributed load. The beam–soil stiffness ration is defined as K = . Five cases are carried out for comparisons, which
Es (1−v2 )L3
b
are as follows: case 1, K = 0.001; case 2, K = 0.01; case 3, K = 0.1; case 4, K = 1; case 5, K = 10. In order to study the influ-
ence of the shear effect, the responses of a Timoshenko and Euler–Bernoulli foundation beam are calculated. In Figs. 10 and
11, the dot lines are for Euler–Bernoulli foundation beams, and the solid lines are for Timoshenko ones. Only the results of
Timoshenko foundation beams are shown in Figs. 12–15 because Timoshenko model is more representative. Meanwhile, the
 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499 9493

Fig. 9. A rectangular beam on an elastic half-space.

Fig. 10. The settlement curves of the two foundation beams under a point load.

Fig. 11. The settlement curves of the two foundation beams under uniform load.

Es Lbθ
settlement, the rotation of the beam, and the foundation reaction are normalized as I1 = Es Lw
P , ρ1 = P and ζ1 = Lbq
P for
E s Lθ
cases under a point load; I2 =Es w
pb
, ρ2 = and ζ2 = for cases subjected to a uniform load.
pb
q
p
By comparison of the results in Fig. 10, it can be obtained that when K ≤ 0.01, shear deformation could be significant
in the behavior of foundation beams under concentrated loads. However, when the foundation beams are subjected to uni-
formly distributed load, the influence of shear deformation is limited for all the cases (see Fig. 11). As a result, when the
beam–soil stiffness ratio is lower than 0.01, shear deformation should be taken into consideration in the system of a foun-
dation beam is subjected to a concentrated load or the combination of concentrate loads and distributed loads. Moreover,
as is seen in Figs. 10 and 11, a foundation beam can be regarded as a rigid one when K ≥ 10.
9494 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

Fig. 12. The rotation of the Timoshenko foundation beam under a point load.

Fig. 13. The rotation of the Timoshenko foundation beam under uniform load.

Fig. 14. The foundation reaction for the Timoshenko foundation beam under a point load.

As we can see in Fig. 12, the rotation around the loading position would be larger than that at the end when K ≤ 0.01 for
settlement would change greatly around the loading position. For foundation beams under a concentrated load or a uniform
load, the rotation increases as the position approaches the end of the beam when K ≥ 0.1. Furthermore, the rotation along
the beam is nearly zero when K ≥ 10 (see Figs. 12 and 13), which also illustrates that the foundation beams can be treated
as a rigid one when K ≥ 10.
 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499 9495

Fig. 15. The foundation reaction for the Timoshenko foundation beam under uniform-distributed load.

Fig. 16. A beam of rectangular cross-section on two-layered soils.

Fig. 17. The vertical displacement of the foundation beam under a point load.

It is indicated in Figs. 14 and 15 that the subgrade reaction at the center of beam decreases with K increases, but the
foundation reaction at the end of beam increases in the same condition. Besides, stress concentration occurs at the end of
beam due to the stiffness change of the model.

4.3. The influence of the thickness of the first soil layer

As is shown in Fig. 16, a model of a rectangular beam on two-layered soils is adopted in this numerical example. The
relationship of parameters are defined as follow: L : b : hb = 20 : 1 : 1, Eb : E1 : E2 = 12740 : 28 : 13, ν1 = 0.4, ν2 = 0.3, νb =
0.2. The total thickness of the soils is assumed to be constant: hs = 20L. The four cases selected for comparison are as
below: case 1, h1 = 0.5L; case 2, h1 = L; case 3, h1 = 2L; case 4, h1 = 4L. Supposing that the foundation beam is under a
concentrated load or uniform distributed load, and the results of the former condition are illustrated in Figs. 17–19 and those
9496 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

Fig. 18. The rotation of the foundation beam under a point load.

Fig. 19. The foundation reaction of the foundation under a point load.

of the latter one are shown in Figs. 20–22, respectively. The dimensionless vertical displacement, rotation and foundation
E Lbθ E 1 Lθ
reaction are, I3 = 1P , ρ3 = 1 P and ζ3 = Lbq P for cases subjected to a concentrate load; I4 = pb , ρ4 = pb and ζ4 = p for
E Lw E1 w q

cases subjected to a uniformly distributed load.

It is illustrated from Figs. 17 to 22 that the increase of the thickness of the first layer of soils causes few changes to the
response of the Timoshenko foundation beam when its thickness exceeds 40 times the width of the beam.

4.4. The influence of the stratification of the soils

The instance is to investigate the influence of the stratification of the foundation on the response of the Timoshenko
beam under a point load. Three cases are selected in this example. Case 1 adopts a model of a rectangular beam on two-
layered soils, where the parameters of system are: L : b : hb = 20 : 1 : 1, L : h1 : h2 = 3 : 4 : 21, ν1 = ν2 = 0.35, νb = 0.2, Eb :
E1 : E2 = 900 : 2 : 1; the model of case 2 is a rectangular beam on three-layered soils, where L : b : hb = 20 : 1 : 1, L : h1 :
h2 : h3 = 3 : 2 : 2 : 21, ν1 = ν2 = ν3 = 0.35, νb = 0.2, Eb : E1 : E2 : E3 = 1800 : 5 : 3 : 2; the model of case 3 is a rectangular
beam on a single soil layer, where L : b : hb = 20 : 1 : 1, L : h1 = 3 : 25, ν1 = 0.35, νb = 0.2, Eb : E1 = 22500 : 29. The subgrade
  
in case 3 is an equivalent one of those in case 1 or 2 by the following equations: E1 = ni=1 Ei hi / ni=1 hi ; h1 = ni=1 hi ;
n n
ν1 = i=1 νi hi / i=1 hi . In Figs. 23–25, the settlement, rotation and the foundation reaction force are normalized as I5 = EbPbw ,
Eb b2 θ
ρ5 = Pand ζ5 = Lbq
P , respectively.
As is shown in Figs. 23–25, the behavior of the Timoshenko foundation beam in case 3 differs greatly from that of case
1 or 2, which indicates that the equivalent method is inaccurate.
 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499 9497

Fig. 20. The vertical displacement of the foundation beam under a distributed load.

Fig. 21. The rotation of the foundation beam under a distributed load.

Fig. 22. The foundation reaction of the foundation under a distributed load.

5. Conclusion

The analytical layer element/boundary element method coupling theory is presented to analyze the static interaction be-
tween a Timoshenko beam and layered soils. The boundary integral equations for a Timoshenko beam are established by
taking the fundamental solutions of a static infinite Timoshenko beam as the kernel functions. The Timoshenko beam and
9498 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499

Fig. 23. The settlement curves of Timoshenko foundation beam.

Fig. 24. The rotation curves of Timoshenko foundation beam.

Fig. 25. The reaction force curves of the foundation.

the foundation are properly divided, and the distribution of the foundation reaction for each part is assumed to be uniform.
With the application of the boundary integral equations of the Timoshenko beam to each beam node, the BEM matrices
of the beam are obtained. Then, the flexibility matrix of the subgrade is derived by a BEM with Gaussian quadrature ac-
cording to the fundamental analytical layer element solution of the stratified soils. The global BEM equations for the Timo-
shenko beam–soils system are obtained with compatible conditions of the settlement at the interface. Solving the equations
 Zhi Y. Ai, Jian . Cai / Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016) 9485–9499 9499

mentioned above, we can have the solutions for the Timoshenko beam–soils static interaction problem. By comparison with
the existing reference and the ABAQUS FEM modeling, the proposed theory is proved to be accurate and efficient. Some
more numerical examples are performed to study the influence of the beam–soil stiffness ratio, the thickness of the first
soil layer and the stratification of the soils. It is found that the effect of shear deformation is significant when a foundation
beam is subjected to a point load and the beam–soil stiffness ratio K is lower than 0.01. However, shear effect would have
little influence on the behavior of a beam–soils system under a uniformly distributed load. Besides, the subgrade reaction
decreases at the center of the beam as the K increases, while the reaction at the end of the beam increases under the
same condition. The foundation beam can be regarded as a rigid one when K ≥ 10. It is also illustrated that the increase
of the thickness of the first layer of soils would cause few changes to the response of the Timoshenko foundation beam
when its thickness exceeds 40 times of the beam width. Moreover, the stratification property should be considered since
the equivalent single-layered foundation would bring errors to the results.
In this paper, the cross-section of the beam is assumed to be rigid, and the friction at the interface of the beam and soils
is not considered, which will be taken into account in the further research.

References

[1] M.A. Biot, Bending of an infinite beam on an elastic foundation, J. Appl. Mech. 4 (1937) A1–A7.
[2] F. Essenburg, Shear deformation in beams on elastic foundations, J. Appl. Mech. 29 (2) (1962) 313–317.
[3] M. Hetényi, Beams on Elastic Foundation: Theory with Applications in the Fields of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan Press,
1946.
[4] L.M. Shirima, M.W. Giger, Timoshenko beam element resting on two-parameter elastic foundation, J. Eng. Mech. 118 (2) (1992) 280–295.
[5] M. Aydogan, Stiffness-matrix formulation of beams with shear effect on elastic foundation, J. Struct. Eng. 121 (9) (1995) 1265–1270.
[6] J.H. Yin, Comparative modeling study of reinforced beam on elastic foundation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (3) (20 0 0) 265–271.
[7] G. Onu, Shear effect in beam finite element on two-parameter elastic foundation, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (9) (20 0 0) 1104–1107.
[8] G. Onu, Finite elements on generalized elastic foundation in Timoshenko beam theory, J. Eng. Mech. 134 (9) (2008) 763–776.
[9] E.J. Sapountzakis, A.E. Kampitsis, Nonlinear analysis of shear deformable beam-columns partially supported on tensionless three-parameter foundation,
Arch. Appl. Mech. 81 (12) (2011) 1833–1851.
[10] B.N. Zemochkin, A.P. Sinitsyn, Practical Method for Calculation of Beams and Plates on Elastic Foundation (Without Using Winkler’s Hypothesis),
Strouzdat, Moscow (in Russian), 1947.
[11] Y.K. Cheung, D.K. Nag, Plates and beams on elastic foundations—linear and non-linear behaviour, Geotechnique 18 (2) (1968) 250–260.
[12] N. Tullini, A. Tralli, Static analysis of Timoshenko beam resting on elastic half-plane based on the coupling of locking-free finite elements and boundary
integral, Comput. Mech. 45 (2–3) (2010) 211–225.
[13] N. Tullini, A. Tralli, D. Baraldi, Buckling of Timoshenko beams in frictionless contact with an elastic half-plane, J. Eng. Mech. 139 (7) (2012) 824–831.
[14] J.C. Small, J.R. Booker, Finite layer analysis of layered elastic material using a flexibility approach. Part 1—strip loadings, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
20 (6) (1984) 1025–1037.
[15] J.C. Small, J.R. Booker, Finite layer analysis of layered elastic material using a flexibility approach. Part 2—circular and rectangular loadings, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 23 (5) (1986) 959–978.
[16] E. Pan, The static response of multilayered foundations to general surface loading and body force, Acta Mech. Sin. 21 (3) (1989) 344–353.
[17] E. Pan, Static Green’s functions in multilayered half spaces, Appl. Math. Modell. 21 (8) (1997) 509–521.
[18] Z.Q. Yue, On elastostatics of multilayered solids subjected to general surface traction, Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 49 (3) (1996) 47–499.
[19] Z.Y. Ai, Z.Q. Yue, L.G. Tham, M. Yang, Extended Sneddon and Muki solutions for multilayered elastic materials, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 40 (13) (2002) 1453–1483.
[20] Z.Y. Ai, Z.X. Li, Y.C. Cheng, BEM analysis of elastic foundation beams on multilayered isotropic soils, Soils Found. 54 (4) (2014) 667–674.
[21] Z.Y. Ai, J.B. Cai, Static analysis of Timoshenko beam on elastic multilayered soils by combination of finite element and analytical layer element, Appl.
Math. Model. 39 (7) (2015) 1875–1888.
[22] A.P.S. Selvadurai, Elastic Analysis of Soil–Foundation Interaction, Elsevier, 1979.
[23] H. Antes, Fundamental solution and integral equations for Timoshenko beams, Comput. Struct. 81 (6) (2003) 383–396.
[24] R.J. Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954.