Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Review

Review, classification, and extension of classical soil-structure interaction

models based on different superstructures and soils
X. Zhao a,b,c , W.D. Zhu b ,∗, Y.H. Li c , M. Li c , X.Y. Li c
a
School of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, PR China
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, USA
c
School of Mechanics and Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, 610031, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper focuses on reviewing some classical soil-structure interaction models (SIMs) based on different
Soil-structure interaction models superstructures and soils and strives to establish the relations between the soils and SIMs according to the
Superstructures American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2487-11 standard for soil classification. The SIMs with
Soils
different superstructures, such as beams, plates, and shells, are reviewed. Since the mechanics properties
Mechanics properties
of the superstructures are important, theories of the classical beams, plates, and shells are reviewed. The
The Winkler–Terzaghi model
mechanics properties of several element-specific soils in the ASTM D2487-11 standard are revealed and utilized
to establish the relations between the soils and SIMs. A generalized SIM that can be reduced to many classical
SIMs is used to classify the existing SIMs with different superstructures. Based on the soil mechanics theory,
some new explanations in this work provide some insights into the classical SIMs, e.g., the Pasternak model.
Soil elasticity is divided into transverse elasticity and torsional elasticity, and the explanations are provided
based on the soil mechanics theory. The Winkler–Terzaghi model that combines the Winkler and Terzaghi
models is developed to illustrate the SIMs. Based on the combined Winkler–Terzaghi model, some new SIMs
are created for the specific soils in ASTM D2487-11. Based on the extended Hamilton’s principle, the forced
vibration equations of the SIMs are created. The relations between soil classification and the SIMs established in
this work can facilitate selection of an appropriate SIM for design and research in civil engineering, mechanical
engineering, and petroleum engineering.

Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Beam models and its applications in the SIMs ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Plate models and its applications in the SIMs....................................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Shell models and its applications in the SIMs ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
5. Engineering properties of soils ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
5.1. Indices of coarse-grained soils ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
5.2. Indices of fine-grained soils ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5
6. Soil classification ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
7. Physical meanings of elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity properties of the soils ................................................................................................ 5
7.1. Elasticity of soils .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
7.2. Plasticity of soils .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
7.3. Viscoelasticity of soils .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
8. Physical characteristics of five element soils in ASTM D2487-11............................................................................................................................ 8
8.1. Pebble soils and gravel soils .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
8.2. Sandy soils ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
8.3. Lean clays.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
8.4. Silty clays .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
8.5. Silts ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
9. Simple classification of the existing classical SIMs ................................................................................................................................................ 9

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wzhu@umbc.edu (W.D. Zhu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.108936
Received 11 May 2021; Received in revised form 23 December 2021; Accepted 11 January 2022
Available online 7 February 2022
0263-8231/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al. Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936

10. Introduction of a new convenient illustration model based on the classical SIMs..................................................................................................... 10
10.1. The Terzaghi model................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
10.2. The Winkler model................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
10.3. The Winkler–Terzaghi model ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
10.4. Introduction of Winkler–Terzaghi model elements ..................................................................................................................................... 11
11. Classifications of the classical SIMs for different superstructures ............................................................................................................................ 11
12. Classifications of the classical SIMs for different soils ........................................................................................................................................... 14
13. Applications for the SIMs ................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
14. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Declaration of competing interest ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
References......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

study the vibration behaviors of the SIMs. Based on the Timoshenko–

1. Introduction
The vibration problems of soil-structure interaction models (SIMs)
are of great practical significance to the engineers in many important
fields, such as civil engineering, mechanical engineering, petroleum en-
gineering, oceanographic engineering, and bioengineering [1–9]. Some
practical engineering examples are listed below to enhance recognition
of the problems. In the field of civil engineering, the superstructures
of a bridge or building are supported by deep foundations and soils.
Therefore, the bridge or building can be tackled as a SIM from the
mechanics viewpoint. The anti-seismic performances of a bridge are
determined by the vibration characteristics of the SIMs [10,11]. For
many mountain tunnels, since the tunnels are buried underground, they
can be seen as the SIMs. The tunnel anti-seismic behaviors are related
to the vibration characteristics of the SIMs [12]. For the dynamic
problems of many road and railway pavements exerted to some moving
loads, these dynamic problems can also be tackled as the vibration
problems of the SIMs, which have been studied many year and can
be seen in Refs. [13,14]. As a matter of fact, no matter whether
civil structures are long bridges, tall buildings, or long tunnels, all of
them can be seen as an infinite or finite beam or plate model on a
specific foundation, which is a SIM. Yu. et al. [15] studied the dynamic
behavior of an infinite beam resting on a viscoelastic foundation and
subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads through the Fourier and Laplace
transforms. Based on the same solution method, Yu et al. [16] studied
the dynamic behavior of an infinite beam resting on the Pasternak
foundation and subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads. Yu et al. [17] sub-
sequently investigated the dynamic response of a finite Euler–Bernoulli
beam with a single discontinuity in a section lying on a viscoelastic
foundation subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads. Moreover, in civil
engineering, the SIM is usually used to analyze the dynamic behaviors
of pile structures in the soils. Based on the Biot’s theory of wave
propagation in saturated porous media, Cui et al. [18] proposed a
new analytical method to study the vertical vibration of a floating
pile in saturated viscoelastic soil. Yu et al. [19] studied the dynamic
analytical solution of an underground rectangular fluid tank, which is
a frame structure constituting two piles and a beam resting on an elastic
foundation and subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads. In petroleum
engineering, numerous pipelines play a significant role in transporting
various petroleum products such as oil and gas. Like the bridges and
tunnels, the pipelines can also be treated as the SIMs no matter what
they are built underground or constructed on the ground surface. Since
the foundations have positive or negative effects on the stability of the
pipelines, it is necessary to study the dynamic behaviors of the SIMs
for the pipelines. These behaviors involve the vibration amplitudes,
natural frequencies, and critical fluid velocities of the pipelines, which
can possibly cause machinery breakdowns, pipeline damages, fatigue
failures, fires, and explosions [20–29].
Studies on the vibration behaviors of the SIMs have been a classical
and long-standing problem. Historically, various beam, plate, and shell
models, such as the Euler–Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam models,
the Mindlin plate model, and thin-shell models, are usually used to
Ehrenfest beam theory, Elishakoff et al. [30,31] proposed a truncated
beam theory to study the free vibration of a beam on the Winkler
foundation and analyzed the influence of different boundary conditions
on natural frequencies of the foundation beam. Elishakoff et al. [32]
studied the free vibration of a beam on the Pasternak foundation by
employing the truncated beam theory. Based on the Euler–Bernoulli
model, Li et al. [33] studied the forced vibration behaviors of the oil-
conveying pipes on the Pasternak foundation by employing the Green’s
function method. Recently, Tonzani and Elishakoff [34] studied the free
vibration frequencies of a beam on the Winkler–Pasternak foundation
via the original Timoshenko–Ehrenfest theory, a truncated version of
the Timoshenko–Ehrenfest equation, and a new model based on the
slope inertia. Li et al. [35] studied the free vibrations of functionally
graded material (FGM) beams with variable cross-sections and resting
on the Pasternak elastic foundation. Based on the moving element
method, Luong et al. [36] studied the vibration behaviors of a Mindlin
plate resting on a viscoelastic foundation and subjected to moving
loads. Paliwal et al. [37] studied the free vibrations of a thin circular-
cylindrical shell resting on an elastic medium, which is represented by
the Winkler and Pasternak models, by employing the membrane theory.
The new research hot points in the field of earthquake engineering
recently focus on the global seismic hazard simulations of urban areas.
Using the Green’s function method and the fast Fourier transform,
Zhao et al. [38] predicted strong ground motion in an urban region
and provided a useful strong ground motion and hazard scenario for
urban planning and earthquake hazard prevention. Lantada et al. [39]
compared the vulnerability index method and the capacity spectrum-
based method and applied the two methods to simulate the seismic
hazards in Barcelona under a historic seismic wave. The important
developments of seismic hazard simulations of three-dimensional (3D)
urban areas are provided by Lu et al. [40]. They proposed the high-
fidelity computational models of tall buildings and greatly increased
the calculation speed to obtain the high-performance visualizations of
seismic hazard simulations of 3D urban areas [41–44]. However, in
these studies of seismic hazard simulations of urban areas, researchers
usually ignored the interactions between the soils and structures and
only analyzed the vibrations of structures fixed on rigid bodies under
the seismic loads. As a matter of fact, the dynamic soil-structure inter-
action (SSI) of a single building or structure under the seismic loads
has been studied for many years. Some classical studies are reviewed
below. Stewart et al. [45,46] proposed an analytical method to study
the SSI effects on both the strong motions transmitted to buildings and
the structural responses of buildings to these motions. Matinmanesh
and Asheghabadi [47] studied the SSIs of buildings over the sandy soils
under the seismic loads and found that the sandy soils amplify seismic
waves on soil-structure interfaces due to the SSI effects. Jarernprasert
et al. [48] studied the seismic SSI responses of inelastic structures under
the historic seismic loads in California and Mexico City and found that
for nonlinear hysteretic structures, the SSIs would lead to the larger
ductility demands and larger total displacements than the situations
when the soils were rigid. Hokmabadi et al. [49,50] assessed the SSIs
that influence the seismic responses of the buildings on floating pile

2
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
foundations and the soft soils under the Kobe 1995, Northridge 1994,
El Centro 1940, and Hachinohe 1968 seismic loads and concluded that
the SSIs amplify the maximum lateral deflections of the structures sup-
ported by end-bearing pile foundations in comparison with fixed-base
structures and consequently their integral drifts. Through use of the
two-dimensional commercial software FLAC, Tabatabaiefar et al. [51]
studied the SSI effects on the seismic behaviors of building frames by
considering their different boundary conditions. While the SSI effects
should be considered for the seismic hazard simulations of 3D urban
areas, researchers who study this topic cannot find a suitable model
to illustrate the SSI effects. While the SIMs are used in the vibration
engineering field to illustrate the SSI effects, no one has attempted to
establish the relations between the SIMs and different soils.
Since the SIMs are of great importance in civil, petroleum, and
earthquake engineering, many SIMs have been developed for various
purposes. While researchers have always anticipated to be able to
design a SIM as an all-powerful model that can be utilized for any soil,
due to complex physical characteristics of the soils, a specific model
can only be used for a specific soil. For example, the Winkler model is
only applied to some soils where no cohesive bonds exist among the
soil particles, as indicated from some review papers, such as Dutta and
Roy [52], Wang et al. [53], and Younesian et al. [54]. However, it was
not indicated from these reviews in Refs. [52–54] which SIM should be
used for a specific soil.
For engineering applications, one should know the relations be-
tween the soils and SIMs. Many researchers attempted to clarify the
physical meanings of parameters in each SIM for an engineering ap-
plication. However, when they strived to estimate the value of a soil
modulus, they found that it could not be easily determined. A soil
modulus is determined by the corresponding soil structure. Different
kinds of soils have different soil moduli. Therefore, it is necessary to
establish the relations between different soils and SIMs. The physical
structures of the soils have been clarified in many present engineering
standards for soil classification. However, to the best of authors’ knowl-
edge, no one has established the clear relations between the SIMs and
soil classification in engineering standards.
This paper provides a review of the present SIMs and the relations
between the soils and SIMs. For this purpose, the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2487-11 standard is employed for
explaining constitutions of various soils. By intensively comparing the
constitutions of soils, it can be found that several typical soils form
the basic elements. Other soils in the ASTM D2487-11 standard can
be obtained by mixing two or three basic soil elements. Basic the soil
elements are then analyzed to derive their mechanics properties includ-
ing their elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity. Once the mechanics
properties of basic soil elements are obtained, the mechanics proper-
ties of other soils can be determined. Consequently, for conveniently
establishing the relations between the soils and SIMs, a new schematic
expression named the Winkler–Terzaghi model is developed to replace
the classical the Winkler model. Based on the Winkler–Terzaghi model,
the suitable soils for different SIMs are revealed. The mathematical
expression of the Winkler–Terzaghi model is also proposed with the
help of a generalized SIM that can be degenerated to many famous
SIMs. Furthermore, the SIMs are also classified based on the different
superstructures. In addition, since the dynamic problems of the SIMs
have received much attention in recent years, the generalized modeling
method based on the extended Hamilton’s principle is introduced.
The organization of the remainder of this paper is listed as follows:
The beam models and applications of foundation beam models are
reviewed in Section 2. The plate models and applications of founda-
tion plate models are reviewed in Section 3. The shell models and
applications of foundation shell models are reviewed in Section 4.
The engineering properties of coarse-grained soils and fine-grained
soils are introduced in Section 5. The soil classification according to
ASTM D2487-11 is presented in Section 6. The mechanics properties
of soils are explained in Section 7. The three important mechanics
3
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
properties: elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity of soils are given
detailed explanations there. Based on these mechanics properties of
soils, the mechanics properties of five element soils in ASTM D2487-
11 are analyzed and determined in Section 8. The existing classical
SIMs are classified into single-, two-, and three-parameter models in
Section 9. The Winkler–Terzaghi model and some extended elements
for the model are introduced in Section 10. The classifications of
the SIMs with different superstructures are provided in Section 11,
where some new explanations of the classical SIMs are provided. The
classification of the SIMs with different soils in ASTM D2487-11 is
provided in Section 12, where some SIMs are developed to match with
different soils in the soil classification according to ASTM D2487-11.
The generalized dynamic modeling method for the SIMs is introduced
in Section 13. The main conclusions from this work are presented in
Section 14.
2. Beam models and its applications in the SIMs
As an important kind of superstructures of the SIMs, the foundation
beam models are widely used in civil engineering with some examples
listed in Section 1. Since the beam models are very important for
the SIMs, it is necessary to review some classical beam models and
some developed beam models used in recent studies and to review
applications of the foundation beam models in some new areas.
The classical beam models include the Euler–Bernoulli beam model,
the Rayleigh beam model, and the Timoshenko beam model. Based
on the Timoshenko beam model, the higher-order shear beam models
are developed in the last decades. Recently, some new micro/nano-
beam models are developed to study some micro/nano-scale dynamic
problems. Some recent works corresponding to these beam models are
reviewed in the following. Sınır et al. [55] investigated the nonlinear
free and forced vibrations of axially FGM Euler–Bernoulli beams with
non-uniform cross-sections. Shafiei et al. [56] studied the nonlinear
buckling characteristics of the FGM micro/nano-beams that are made
of porous materials based on the Euler–Bernoulli beam theory. Zhu
et al. [57] studied an axially moving Rayleigh beam with spinning
motion and analyzed the vibration and stability of the Rayleigh beam.
Kim et al. [58] described an analytical solution procedure for the flex-
ural vibration of a rotationally restrained hinged–hinged Timoshenko
beam at its supports during an earthquake. Aiming at the performance
enhancement of transportation systems, Mamaghani et al. [59] studied
the free and forced vibrations of the axially FGM Rayleigh and Euler–
Bernoulli beams subjected to a moving load. Ansari et al. [60] studied
the forced vibration behaviors of nanocomposite beams reinforced by
single-walled carbon nanotubes based on the Timoshenko beam theory
with the von Kármán geometric nonlinearity. Thai et al. [61] developed
various higher-order shear deformation beam theories for the free
bending vibrations of FGM beams. Ebrahimi–Chenet al. [62] extended
the higher-order shear deformable mixed beam element model with
rational shear stress distribution to the vibration analysis of FGM
beams. Liu et al. [63] investigated the compressive buckling and free
vibration of axially loaded, axially FGM graphene reinforced nanocom-
posite beams. By employing the Rayleigh beam model, Zhao et al. [64]
analytically investigated the coupled thermoelastic forced vibration and
heat transfer process of an axially moving micro/nano-beam.
In the recent decade, these beam models are widely applied in
vibration analyses of the foundation beams. Ghayesh et al. [65] ana-
lytically investigated the free and forced vibrations of a Kelvin–Voigt
viscoelastic Euler–Bernoulli beam supported by a nonlinear spring.
Stojanović et al. [66] investigated the geometrically nonlinear free
and forced vibrations of damaged high-order shear deformable beams
resting on a nonlinear Pasternak foundation. Deng et al. [67] estab-
lished the exact dynamic stiffness matrix of a double-FGM Timoshenko
beam system on the Winkler–Pasternak foundation under axial loading
and considered the damping of the connecting layer. Al-shujairi [68]
presented a formulation for the free vibration of size-dependent FGM
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
sandwich micro-beams resting on a two-parameter elastic foundation
with the Winkler springs, the Pasternak shear layer, and thermal ef-
fects. Bozyigit et al. [69] revealed the effectiveness of the Adomian
decomposition method and differential transform method on the free
vibrations of the axial-loaded Timoshenko beams resting on viscoelastic
foundations. Froio et al. [70] investigated the steady-state response of a
uniform infinite Euler–Bernoulli beam resting on the Pasternak elastic
foundation and subjected to a concentrated load moving at a constant
velocity along the beam. Esen [71] studied the dynamic response of a
FGM Timoshenko beam on a two-parameter elastic foundation under
an accelerating mass on it and presented a new finite element method
(FEM) for the interaction between the beam and mass. Chen et al. [72]
first studied the dynamic behaviors of cracked double-beam systems
interconnected by a viscoelastic layer. Heibig et al. [73] obtained a
dynamic equation of the Euler–Bernoulli beam frictionally damped by
an elastic foundation.
3. Plate models and its applications in the SIMs
Like the foundation beam models, the foundation plate models are
also widely used in many engineering applications. It is necessary to
review some classical plate models and some developed plate models
used in recent studies and review applications of the foundation plate
models in some new areas.
The Kirchhoff plate theory, which is also called the classical thin-
plate theory, was developed from 1811 to 1883 [74] and was usually
used to analyze the vibration of a plate. Zhang et al. [75] presented a
theoretical analysis of FGM thin plates based on their physical neutral
surfaces and studied the vibration behaviors of the FGM thin plates.
Kaur et al. [76] used the Kirchhoff plate theory to investigate the
forced vibration of a thermoelastic thin rectangular plate due to a
time-harmonic concentrated load. Zietlow et al. [77] demonstrated the
limitations of the classical thin plate theory that ignores the effect of
the transverse shear deformation.
Because the classical thin plate theory does not consider the effect
of the transverse shear deformation, Reissner [78] proposed a novel
model for homogeneous plates based on a parabolic distribution of
the transverse shear stress through the thickness, which is called the
Reissner–Mindlin (RM) plate theory. Lee [79] used the RM plate theory
for the identification of an impact load in a thick isotropic plate.
Malekzadeh et al. [80] developed a differential quadrature procedure
for the free vibration analysis of variable-thickness moderately thick
plates.
The microstructure effects become important when the overall size
of the plate is small relative to the internal length scale of its consti-
tutive material. Jomehzadeh et al. [81] described the size effect in a
micro-plate based on a modified couple stress theory. Ke et al. [82]
investigated the bending, buckling, and free vibrations of annular
micro-plates. Kim et al. [83] developed the micro-plate models that
accounts for the FGMs, the variations of porosities, and the modified
couple stress theory. Mohseni et al. [84] investigated the free vibrations
of thick FGM micro-plates. Farahmand [85] analyzed the bending and
free vibration of a micro-plate by using the two-variable strain gradient
theory. Timoshin et al. [86] investigated the geometrically nonlinear
forced vibrations of rectangular micro-plates.
In the recent decade, these plate models are widely applied in the
vibration analyses of the foundation plates. Ehsan [87] analyzed the
vibration behavior of a thin square orthotropic plate with a variable
thickness resting on a non-uniform elastic foundation by using the
classical Kirchhoff thin-plate theory. Haciyev et al. [88] employed the
Pasternak elastic foundation model and the classical thin plate theory
to study the vibrations of bi-directionally exponentially graded or-
thotropic plates. Aharon et al. [89] derived the exact analytical solution
to the problem of thin plate vibrations with all possible combinations of
boundary conditions according to the Kirchhoff thin plate theory. Lue
et al. [90] carried out the free vibration analysis of the FGM plates on
4
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
elastic foundations. Liu et al. [91] analyzed the free vibration of a thick
annular sector plate on the Pasternak foundation with general boundary
conditions. Ozdemir [92] conducted the parametric earthquake analy-
sis of thick plates resting on the Winkler foundation using the Mindlin
thick plate theory. Jamalppor et al. [93] dealt with the theoretical
analysis of the free vibration and biaxial buckling of a magneto-electro-
elastic micro-plate resting on the visco-Pasternak foundation subjected
to initial external electric and magnetic potentials. Hamed et al. [94]
conducted the nonlinear dynamic analysis of a FGM micro-plate resting
on an elastic foundation. Mohammad et al. [95] presented the bending
and buckling analyses of a FGM annular micro-plate integrated with
piezoelectric layers.
4. Shell models and its applications in the SIMs
The foundation shell models can be seen everywhere in petroleum
engineering. Shell structures have strong bearing capacities of external
loads, which is mainly due to the curvature effect of the shells. It is also
necessary to review some classical shell models and some foundation
shell models used in recent studies.
If a shell is thin, the Love simplifications are used to derive the
classical Kirchhoff–Love shell model [96]. Based on the Kirchhoff–
Love shell model, consider a shell whose neutral surface is a surface
of revolution; some special shell models can be derived, such as the
spherical shell model, the circular cylindrical shell, the circular conical
shell, and so on. These special shell models were usually used to analyze
the vibration of a shell. Li et al. [97] clarified the idea of the quasi-
Green’s function method by considering a free vibration problem of the
simply-supported trapezoidal shallow spherical shell. Viola et al. [98]
covered the dynamic analysis of the anisotropic and multilayered shells
and panels with different curvatures, namely with arbitrary geometries,
by using a displacement field having a fixed nine degrees of freedom.
Li et al. [99] analyzed the free vibration of the FGM porous spherical
shell based on the Ritz method and adopted the energy method and
first-order shear deformation theory to derive the formulae. Dehsaraji
et al. [100] accounted for the thickness stretching effect for the free
vibration analysis of the cylindrical micro/nano-shell subjected to an
applied voltage by using the higher-order shear and normal deforma-
tion theory. Huo et al. [101] proposed a discrete analytical method
and first achieved the exact benchmark responses of thin-walled or-
thotropic cylindrical shells under stationary and nonstationary random
excitations.
In the recent decade, these shell models are widely applied in the
vibration analyses of the foundation shells. Duc [102] presented an
analytical investigation on the nonlinear dynamic responses of eccen-
trically stiffened FGM double curved shallow shells resting on elastic
foundations subjected to axial compressive loads and transverse loads.
Sheng et al. [103] investigated the nonlinear vibrations of FGM cylin-
drical shells surrounded by elastic foundations based on the Hamilton’s
principle, the von Kármán nonlinear theory, and the first-order shear
deformation theory. Duc et al. [104] presented the nonlinear responses
of eccentrically stiffened FGM cylindrical panels on elastic foundations
subjected to mechanical loads. Tran et al. [105,106] presented the
analytical solutions for the static and vibration analyses of the cross-
ply laminated composite doubly curved shell panels with stiffeners
resting on the Winkler–Pasternak elastic foundations and presented an
analytical investigation on the free vibration of a simply supported FGM
doubly-curved shell panels resting on elastic foundations in thermal
environments. Gan et al. [107] solved the free vibration problem of an
irregular shallow spherical shell on a two-parameter foundation based
on the properties of the Rvachev function, the combined method of
the Helmholtz equation and the Laplace equation. Yang et al. [108]
presented a general approach for the free vibration analysis of a circular
cylindrical shell resting on an elastic foundation subjected to any type
of classical boundary conditions.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
5. Engineering properties of soils
Soils can be classified into three categories based on their engi-
neering properties: coarse-grained soils, fine-grained soils, and organic
soils. Since the organic soils are soft and have poor stability, large
perturbation, rich water content, and low ultimate bearing capacity,
they cannot be used as foundation soils. The organic soils are surface-
disturbed soils and should be removed, and the depth of removal
is not less than 50 cm according to the Building Foundation Design
Specification GB50007-2011 in China. Therefore, in the following, one
just discusses classifications of the coarse-grained soils and fine-grained
soils.
5.1. Indices of coarse-grained soils
Indices of coarse-grained soils include particle size and relative
density. The quality of the coarse-grained soils is determined by their
indices. Soils generally contain a wide range of the particle sizes.
Generally, it is rare to find two soil volumes with the same range
of the particle sizes. For convenience, the particle size gradation is
proposed for the coarse-grained soil classification [109,110]. Based on
the definition of particle size gradation, the uniformity coefficient 𝐶𝑢
and curvature coefficient 𝐶𝑐 are proposed, which are defined as
( )2
𝑑 𝑑30
𝐶𝑢 = 60 , 𝐶𝑐 = (1)
𝑑10 𝑑10 × 𝑑60
where 𝑑60 denotes the limited grain size, which means that the diam-
eters of 60% of the soil particles are smaller than 𝑑60 ; 𝑑30 is the mean
grain size, which means that 30% of the soil particles are smaller than
𝑑30 ; and 𝑑10 is the effective particle size, which means that 10% of the
soil particles are smaller than 𝑑10 .
The uniformity coefficient 𝐶𝑢 reflects the distribution of different
size groups, and the curvature coefficient 𝐶𝑐 describes the gradient
of the gradation curve, which indicates whether there is a certain
size group missing. Generally speaking, the quality of the coarse-
grained soils is determined by the two properties 𝐶𝑢 and 𝐶𝑐 . More
specifically, if 𝐶𝑢 ≥5 and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3, the coarse-grained soils have a good
mechanics performance and a better continuity property, and they are
called well-graded coarse-grained soils. On the contrary, if 𝐶𝑢 <5 and
𝐶𝑐 <1 or 𝐶𝑐 >3, the soils are considered as discontinuous and called
poorly-graded soils [109].
5.2. Indices of fine-grained soils
Water content is an important soil engineering property of fine-
grained soils, since their mechanics behaviors largely change with
water content [109]. For instance, when water content is large, the
fine-grained soils become mud and their shear strengths become very
low. On the contrary, if water content is small, the soils have certain
shear strengths. Therefore, the indices that describe water content are
very important for the cohesiveness of the fine-grained soils.
The fine-grained soils can exist in four states: liquid, plastic, semi-
solid, or solid. Water content that separates these states are known
as consistency or Atterberg’s limit [111]. Water content at which soil
changes from the liquid state to the plastic state is called the liquid
limit defined as LL. Water content at which soil becomes semi-solid is
known as the plastic limit defined as PL. The plasticity index defined
as PI is the difference between LL and PL:
𝑃 𝐼 = 𝐿𝐿 − 𝑃 𝐿 (2)
The plasticity index can also be defined as the range of water content
over which soil exhibits plasticity. The larger the plasticity index, the
smaller the sizes of soil particles. The larger the specific surface area,
the higher the content of clays and the hydrophilic mineral content of
the soils. At the same time, the range of water content in the plastic
state increases. This means that PI can fully reflect mineral composition
and particle sizes of the soils. Therefore, the plasticity index is the most
important property of the fine-grained soils.
5
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
6. Soil classification
Based on particle size indices, soils can be divided into coarse-
grained soils and fine-grained soils. Generally speaking, soils with
more than 50% of particles larger than the No. 200 sieve hole size
are designated as coarse-grained soils. Soils with more than 50% of
particles smaller than the No. 200 sieve hole size are considered as
fine-grained soils. More specifically, soils can be further classified into
well-graded gravels, poorly graded gravels, silty gravels, clayey gravels,
well-graded sands, poorly graded sands, silty sands, clayey sands, lean
clays, silts, organic clays, organic silts, fat clays, elastic silts, and so on.
Their more detailed information can be seen in Table 1, which is the
classification in ASTM D2487-11.
For highly plastic clays (i.e., soft clays) with LL>50, the foundation
bearing capacity is very low. Hence, they are not suitable to be used
in a foundation, and the specific classification of the highly plastic
clays is not discussed here. The clays discussed in the following are
the low-plastic clays, i.e., lean clays with LL<50. Therefore, just four
types of soils, which are gravels, sands, silts, and clays with LL<50, are
considered for the SIMs in this paper. Their classifications can be seen
in Fig. 1.
7. Physical meanings of elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity
properties of the soils
In order to match different soils with different SIMs, it is necessary
to clarify the mechanics properties of different soils, namely, elasticity,
plasticity, and viscoelasticity properties of the soils. Physical meanings
of elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity properties of the soils are first
introduced in this section. The mechanics properties of several typical
soils are presented next here.
7.1. Elasticity of soils
A foundation is usually seen as a semi-infinite elastic continuum.
Elasticity of soils is of importance to develop the SIMs. Since the
material characteristics of the soils are complicated, their elastic char-
acteristics are complex. For instance, it was found that the surface
displacements of the soils that are away from a loaded region decreased
faster than their theoretical predictions [112–114]. However, for foam
rubber-like materials with relatively large void ratios, their behaviors
are similar to that of a homogeneous isotropic medium. In an attempt
to describe the elasticity of the soils, two types of elasticity called
transverse elasticity and torsional elasticity are developed.
Transverse elasticity describes the vertical deformation of the soils.
A foundation is regarded as a semi-infinite homogeneous elastomer in
additional stress calculation [115]. Based on Boussinesq solution [116],
when a vertical concentrated force P is exerted on the surface of the
semi-infinite elastomer, the vertical settlement of soils at an arbitrary
position can be written as
( )
𝑆 = 𝑃 (1 − 2𝜇) ∕ 𝜋𝑟𝐸0 or 𝑃 = 𝑆𝜋𝑟𝐸0 ∕ (1 − 2𝜇) (3)
where r is the distance between the arbitrary position in the soils
and exerted force position, 𝐸0 is the elastic modulus of soils, and 𝜇
is Poisson’s ratio. In many SIMs such as the Winkler model [117],
some discrete transverse springs are usually used to express transverse
elasticity. In order to remedy the missing continuity property, some
improved SIMs such as the Filonenko–Borodich model [118] and the
Hetenyi model [119] are developed.
Torsional elasticity of the soils is not introduced in the classical soil
mechanics theory. Kerr [120] proposed that torsion elasticity is induced
by shear forces of the shear layer in the Pasternak model. Experimen-
tally, shear forces in soils are induced by soil particle interaction, and
the normal stress 𝜎 and shear stress 𝜏 in soils are related by [109]
𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝜎 tan 𝜙 (4)
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al. Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936

Table 1
Soil classification chart according to ASTM D2487-11.

where c and 𝜑 are two coefficients determined by cohesion and friction
in soils. Generally speaking, for frictional or cohesionless soils, the
value of c is equal to zero. Therefore, practically, shear forces are
produced by the discrete characteristics of the soils, but not by the
continuous homogeneous elastic assumption. From this point of view,
Kerr [120] introduced the shear forces of an elastic layer to replace
the practical shear forces, and the elastic layer is actually the shear
layer in the Pasternak model. Fig. 2 shows the moments produced by
the shear forces 𝑁𝑥 and 𝑁𝑦 of an element of the shear layer. The
shear forces 𝑁𝑥 and 𝑁𝑦 of the shear layer can induce the moments
𝑚𝑠𝑥 and 𝑚𝑠𝑦 of a superstructure element, respectively, which is a plate
element. Based on the equilibrium analysis of the plate element, the
moment equilibrium equations of the plate element are established in
Ref. [120]. The moment expressions of the interface between the plate
and foundation can then be obtained [120]:
𝜕𝑤 𝜕𝑤
𝑚𝑠𝑥 = 𝐺 ,𝑚 = 𝐺 (5)
𝜕𝑥 𝑠𝑦 𝜕𝑦
where G is the shear modulus of the shear layer; more detailed infor-
mation can be found in Ref. [120]. Therefore, based on Eq. (5), the
discrete torsional springs are created to express shear effects in the soils.
For some typical soils, such as drained sandy soils, the shear forces are
exactly frictional forces. In this case, the shear layer in the Pasternak
model is used to simulate the frictional forces among particles in the
soils.
Fig. 2 shows the torsional moments in the Pasternak model, which
are generated by the shear forces of the shear layer. From the practical

6
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al. Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936

Fig. 1. Flow chart for classifying the coarse-grained soils and fine-grained soils.

Fig. 2. The schematic of the generation process of torsional moments in the Pasternak model.

meaning of the shear forces, it is reasonable to use the torsional springs
to describe the soils that contain gravels with the grain diameters larger
than 5 mm. When a gravel exists in a soil volume, the main torsional
moment of a soil volume is produced by the unbalanced frictional forces
around large particles, and the local torsional deformations of the soils
occur, which can be seen in Fig. 3. However, for the fine-grained soils
that do not contain gravels, torsional elasticity nearly does not exist.
From a physical point of view, the fine-grained soils consist of the
clay minerals, and their shapes are not nearly spherical, but irregular
flat slices. Moreover, the sizes of these mineral particles are tiny with
grain diameters smaller than 0.075 mm [110]. Therefore, for the fine-
grained soils, their main deformation is vertical and only transverse
elasticity should be considered. Furthermore, for the sandy soils, if
gravels are not embedded in sands, their primary deformation is also
vertical. The reason for this is that the sizes of the sand particles are
much smaller than those of the gravels with the grain diameters smaller
than 0.5 mm [110]. Thus, for the sandy soils, one also just consider
transverse elasticity. Generally speaking, the transverse springs and

7
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
Fig. 3. Moments produced by the frictional forces.
torsional springs are considered together. For instance, the generalized
foundation model proposed by Pasternak [112] and Elishakoff and
Impollonia [114] utilized the transverse and torsional springs to express
the two types of elasticity.
In general, the soils in the SIMs are seen as the elastic soils with the
high ultimate bearing capacity 𝑃𝑢 . If the external pressure P is smaller
than 𝑃𝑢 , the soils are considered to be elastic. If not, the soils should be
seen as plastic soils. More specifically, according to Ref. [121], when
𝑃𝑢 is larger than 300 kPa, the soils are seen as the elastic soils. For the
coarse-grained soils, sandy soils, and gravel soils, 𝑃𝑢 is always larger
than 300 kPa. Therefore, the coarse-grained soils can be considered to
be elastic.
7.2. Plasticity of soils
In geotechnical engineering, the soils are in the plastic state when
their ultimate bearing capacity cannot bear an applied load, resulting
in the fragmentation of the soil particles and non-recovery of the
deformation of the soils. Therefore, plasticity of the soils needs to be
considered when they have a low bearing capacity 𝑃𝑢 , i.e., 𝑃𝑢 <300 kPa.
Since 𝑃𝑢 for the most fine-grained soils is smaller than 300 kPa, the fine-
grained soils always need to be considered to be plastic. By referring
to Ref. [122], the plastic displacement of a foundation model can be
calculated by the following equations:
For sands:
𝑃𝑢 = 3𝛾𝑧𝐾𝑃 𝐷 and 𝑢∗ = 𝑃𝑢 ∕𝐾 (6)
and for clays or silts:
𝑃𝑢 = 9𝑐𝑢 𝐷 and 𝑢∗ = 𝑃𝑢 ∕𝐾 (7)
where 𝛾 is the unit weight of the soils, K 𝑝 = tan 2 (45◦ + 𝜑 / 2) is
the factor of the passive earth pressure obtained by the Rankine earth
pressure theory, 𝜑 is the natural angle of repose of the soils, c𝑢 is the
undrained shear strength, D is the width of the foundation, z is the
depth of the foundation, and K is the modulus of subgrade reaction
that can be calculated as
[ ]1∕2
𝐸𝑠 𝐷 𝐸𝑠 𝐷 4
𝐾= (8)
(1 − 𝜈 2 )𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝐸𝑝 𝐼𝑝
8
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
in which D𝑟𝑒𝑓 =1.0 m, E 𝑠 is the elastic modulus of the soils, E 𝑝 is the
elastic modulus of the superstructure, I 𝑝 is the area moment of the
inertia of a cross-section of the superstructure, and 𝜈 is Poisson’s ratio
of the soils. With Eqs. (6) and (7), the effective elastic displacement of
the soils can be calculated by subtracting their plastic displacement u∗
from their total displacement w (x).
7.3. Viscoelasticity of soils
Water in the soils is the main reason to induce their viscoelasticity
that is reflected by their seepage consolidation process. In this process,
the pore water pressure is gradually dissipated, while the effective
stress of the soil skeleton is increased. The consolidation settlement
of the soils depends on time, which is exactly the characteristic of
a viscoelastic mechanical model. To propose a viscoelastic model of
the soils, it is indispensable to recognize the viscoelastic constitutive
relations of the general solids. Two frequently used constitutive rela-
tions of a solid are the linear viscoelastic constitutive relation (LVCR)
and bilinear viscoelastic constitutive relation (BVCR) [123,124]. The
expression for the LVCR is
d𝜀
𝜎 = 𝐸𝜀 + 𝜂 (9)
d𝑡
where E is the elastic modulus of the solid and 𝜂 is its viscoelasticity
parameter [123,124]. The mathematical formula for the BVCR, which
is a three-parameter model, can be expressed as
( ) d𝜎 ( ) d𝜀 ( )
𝐸0 + 𝐸𝐾 𝜎 + 𝜂𝐾 = 𝐸0 𝜂𝐾 + 𝐸0 𝐸𝐾 𝜀 (10)
d𝑡 d𝑡
where 𝐸0 and 𝐸𝐾 are the elastic moduli of elastic elements, and 𝜂𝐾 is
their viscoelasticity parameter [123,124].
Based on the LVCR, Mahrenholtz [125] developed an extension the
Winkler model and included a viscoelastic term that is related to time.
Sun [126] proposed the linear viscoelastic the Winkler model, and
introduced a viscoelasticity term, which is actually the Kelvin damping
element parallel to the spring elements, into the Winkler model. In the
following, the LVCR is introduced into a single-layer SIM, while the
BVCR is used for a two-layer SIM [52].
Besides the material properties of the soil, the geometry of a
superstructure is also important in determining the elastic/plastic/
viscoelastic parameters of a soil foundation. For example, a cylindrical
beam and a prismatic beam with the same material on the same soil
yield different elastic moduli of the foundation [127].
8. Physical characteristics of five element soils in ASTM D2487-11
In this section, five typical types of element soils are selected from
ASTM D2487-11, and one attempts to match each type of element soils
with suitable specific mechanics properties.
8.1. Pebble soils and gravel soils
Pebble soils and gravel soils are selected to be one type of element
soils with large particle sizes. Both of the two soils are coarse-grained
soils. More specifically, the pebble soils are soils with particle sizes of
more than 20 mm. Their shapes are basically round or sub-round and
the pebble content exceeds 50% of the total weight. Compared with
the pebble soils, the particle sizes of the gravel soils are larger than
2 mm and the gravel content exceeds 50% of the total weight. The
ultimate bearing capacities of these two soils are 350–3000 kPa [121].
Therefore, both of them are considered to be elastic.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
8.2. Sandy soils
Another element soils are sandy soils or sands. The sandy soils also
belong to coarse-grained soils, whose dimensions are much smaller than
those of pebble soils and gravel soils. More specifically, the sandy soils
refer to soils whose particle sizes are larger than 0.075 mm and the sand
content exceeds 50% of the total weight. Different sand densities lead
to different ultimate bearing capacity of the sandy soils. The ultimate
bearing capacity of the sandy soils are not as good as those of the gravel
soils and pebble soils, but they are still relatively large. Since the range
of the ultimate bearing capability 𝑃𝑢 of the sandy soils is presumably
300–500 kPa [128–130], the sandy soils can be considered to be elastic.
If the ultimate bearing capacity of the sandy soils are less than 300 kPa,
the sandy soils should be seen as plastic soils.
8.3. Lean clays
Lean clays are also selected as a type of element soils, which have
sufficient hardness. It is not easy to deform them and their water
content is terrifically low. In this situation, water exists as strong bound
water, which is similar to a solid. The lean clays can be treated as
elastic soils since their ultimate bearing capacity is larger than 300 kPa.
For instance, the ultimate bearing capacity of low-plastic red clays can
reach 1600 kPa.
8.4. Silty clays
Silty clays, which are also a type of element soils, are clay soils with
their plasticity index PI between 10 and 17. The ultimate bearing ca-
pacity of silty clays is smaller than 300 kPa, but they have a good water
retention property. More specifically, the water retention property of
the silty clays is due to the existence of clays in them with a strong
ability to bind water. The silty clays are plastic, and their viscoelasticity
can be ignored since their primary content is clays.
8.5. Silts
Silts refer to soils whose particle sizes are larger than 0.005 mm,
content is not more than 50% of the total weight, and plasticity index PI
is not more than 10. Compared with silty clays, silts have a poor water
retention property and are often considered to be viscoelastic based on
the one-dimensional consolidation theory of the soils. Moreover, the
plasticity of silts should also be taken into consideration due to their
low ultimate bearing capacity, which is less than 300 kPa.
Different soils have different mechanics properties, and different
mechanics properties lead to different SIMs. For example, the Winkler
model is used for a pebble soil foundation. In the following section,
based on the two classical SIMs, a new convenient illustration model
called the Winkler–Terzaghi model is introduced to reflect various
mechanics properties of the soils. This convenient model is essential
to classify and extend the existing classical SIMs.
9. Simple classification of the existing classical SIMs
The existing classical SIMs are classified into single-, two-, and
three-parameter models in this section to provide the preliminary
understandings of some classical SIMs. A SIM consists of a super-
structure and lower soils. From a physical point of view, an upper
load is transferred to the soils through the superstructure. When the
contact pressure between the superstructure and soils is generated, they
stick together to bear the load, and their deformations are mutually
constrained according to their respective stiffnesses. A SIM is used to
describe this kind of interaction. From this point of view, the SIM is ac-
tually used to describe the contact problem between the superstructure
and soils, which is an elasticity problem. Some researchers studied the
SIMs from the elasticity point of view. Kaplunov et al. [131] provided
9
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
a justification that the Winkler–Fuss hypothesis is only valid for a
sufficiently high contrast in the stiffnesses of the layer and half-space,
and proposed higher-order corrections to the Winkler–Fuss formulation
in such models as the Pasternak model. From the contact mechanics
point of view, Argatov [132] proposed the Popov foundation model
based on the Winkler foundation model. Erbaş et al. [133] studied a
two-dimensional mixed boundary value problem of a thin elastic strip
resting on the Winkler foundation within the framework of a plane
stress problem. Besides the superstructure and soils, which play main
roles for the SIMs, other factors such as the stiffness, shape, size, and
depth of the foundation, engineering properties of the soils, and the
type, distribution, and magnitude of the upper load are also taken into
account in the SIMs.
As one of the essential factors of a SIM, characteristics of a super-
structure, which can be modeled as rigid or flexible, are first consid-
ered. Physically, both rigid and flexible superstructure models have
some limitations. In order to distinguish different characteristics of
rigid and flexible superstructures, two limiting cases are investigated.
The first case is a completely flexible superstructure with zero stiff-
ness. Under a vertical load, this limiting flexible superstructure is
completely merged with the surface of the corresponding foundation,
and pressure distributions above and below the superstructure are the
same. The second case is a rigid superstructure with infinite stiffness.
Under a vertical load, the rigid model incurs no deformation and the
superstructure keeps flat and goes down with the foundation. The
pressure distribution below the superstructure is much larger at the
two boundaries of the rigid model and smaller in the middle of it.
The stiffnesses of most superstructures are finite; their pressure dis-
tributions are between those of the two limiting cases. Therefore, it
can be seen that different superstructures have different models. Over
the past few decades, many researchers proposed various SIMs. For
instance, the Filonenko–Borodich model is suitable for superstructures
that show flexible characteristics, while the Winkler model can be used
to stimulate superstructures that are much stiffer [117,118].
The performances of the soils should also be considered. There are
numerous types of soils and each type of the soils presents different
mechanics properties. Under the external loads, the deformation of a
soil volume presents different characteristics. Therefore, it is important
for a designer to know all these soil mechanics properties in order to
choose a suitable SIM. For instance, the Winkler model corresponding
to a rigid superstructure is appropriate for highly compressible soft
soils, such as thin broken rock layers and semi-liquid soils with low
shear strengths [117].
Although there are many SIMs, these models can be divided into
single-, two-, and three parameter models. For instance, the Winkler
model, which is also known as the spring cushion model, is widely
considered as a single-parameter model. Its name comes from the
Czech engineer Winkler who proposed the Winkler model in 1867. In
Ref. [134], Frýba introduced the history of the Winkler model. Dillard
et al. [135,136] introduced the great influences of the Winkle model
in history and its profound influences on adhesion and soft matter
applications. The Winkle model is proposed from the 3D elasticity
Boussinesq solution that proposed that the vertical settlement of the
soils at an arbitrary position is in direct proportion to the vertical
concentrated force exerted on the surface of the semi-infinite elastomer.
Based on this fact, the Winkler model assumes that the deflection at
each point of the superstructure is proportional to the pressure applied
at that point and is completely independent of pressures or deflections
at neighboring points along the superstructure. More specifically, the
Winkler model regards a soil medium as an independent closely-spaced
discrete linear spring system and the deflection of the superstructure
after loading is limited to the area where the load is applied [137].
However, the Winkler model has some limitations, especially for dense
and thick grounds and bulk rock foundations; its use there causes large
calculation errors. Since soil continuity has not been taken into account
in this model, it cannot be accurate in many cases. In order to overcome
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
this drawback, many researchers have proposed modified Winkler mod-
els with two improvements: (1) introducing the mechanical interactions
between independent springs [118,138], and (2) introducing some
assumptions for the simplified displacement and stress distribution to
the elastic soil continuum to maintain soil continuity [139,140].
These improvements are utilized to develop two-parameter elas-
tic foundation models. Some classical two-parameter models are the
Filonenko–Borodich [118], Pasternak [138], and Hetenyi [119] mod-
els. Pasternak [138] proposed a widely used two-parameter model,
where the first parameter is the soil modulus as in the Winkler model,
while the second parameter is introduced to account for the shear
modulus of the shear layer of the soils. The shear interaction between
springs is reflected by connecting ends of springs to the shear layer
that consists of incompressible vertical elements that only deform under
transverse shear force. Same as the Pasternak model, the Filonenko–
Borodich model also has two parameters. For this model, the individual
springs in the Winkler model are connected to a thin elastic membrane
under a constant tension and attached at their top ends [118]. Thus,
the deformation form of the flexible foundation and continuity of the
soil medium are given.
The extension of the Pasternak model gives rise to the Kerr model,
which is a three-parameter model. The Kerr model consists of a middle
elastic shear layer between two spring layers, and the spring constants
above and below the shear layer are assumed to be different from each
other to model stratification of the soils. The shear modulus of the shear
layer, upper spring constant, and lower spring constant are the three
parameters [141].
The SIMs reviewed above actually assume that the foundation re-
sponds in the exactly same way as tension and compression. However,
an important prospect of the elastic foundation model is the foundation
asymmetric response to tension and compression. When a flexible
structure is placed on a foundation, the transverse load makes it bend,
which leads to the scenario of some parts bending upwards and some
parts bending downwards. Actually almost all materials respond dif-
ferently to tension and compression. The tensionless foundation is
the extreme case of zero tensile modulus, which physically means
that the foundation can only take compression. This model has been
used to model the railway track/foundation [142]. Ma et al. [143]
presented an investigation into the static response of an infinite beam
supported on a tensionless elastic foundation and subjected to arbitrary
complex loading, including self-weight. They also addressed the static
response of an infinite beam supported on a unilateral tensionless
two-parameter Pasternak foundation subjected to complex transverse
loads [144]. Zhang and Liu [142] studied the varied solution form of a
beam on the tensionless Winkler foundation which is depended on the
value of the axial load and derived five different closed form solutions
depending on different axial loads. Coşkun [145] described the forced
vibration of an elastic beam resting on a non-linear tensionless Winkler
foundation subjected to a concentrated dynamic load at its center.
Zhang [146] presented a more generalized model of a beam resting
on a tensionless Reissner foundation, which is assumed to consist of
closely spaced, independent springs. Chen et al. [147] studied the effect
of damping on multiple steady-state deformations of an infinite beam
resting on a tensionless foundation under a point load moving with
a sub-critical speed. Panahandeh-Shahraki et al. [148] investigated
unilateral buckling behaviors of cylindrical panels on tensionless elastic
foundations under axial compressions using the Rayleigh–Ritz method.
Sapountzakis et al. [149] developed a boundary element method for
inelastic analyses of Euler–Bernoulli beams with simply or multiply
connected constant cross-sections having at least one axis of symmetry
resting on two-parameter tensionless elastoplastic foundations. Zhong
et al. [150] investigated the nonlinear transient thermal responses of
functionally graded beams resting on tensionless foundations under
unsteady heat conduction. Chen et al. [151] investigated the nonlinear
dynamic responses of a fiber-metal laminated beam resting on a ten-
sionless elastic foundation subjected to a moving harmonic load and
10
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
a thermal load. Zhang et al. [152] introduced an analytical model of
a buried beam on a tensionless foundation subjected to differential
settlement.
With the addition of adhesive materials and bolts, a railway track on
a soil foundation is modeled as a beam on a bilinear elastic foundation.
A bilinear elastic foundation model with two different foundation
moduli is proposed to simulate the behaviors of the tensile and com-
pressive regions [153]. Kumar et al. [154] presented the free transverse
vibrations of nonhomogeneous orthotropic rectangular plates with bi-
linear thickness variations resting on the Winkler foundation using
two-dimensional boundary characteristic orthogonal polynomials in the
Rayleigh–Ritz method on the basis of the classical plate theory. Castro
Jorge et al. [155] studied elastic beams under a moving transverse
concentrated load interacting with elastic foundations with different
stiffnesses in compression and tension. Mazilu et al. [156] studied
the response of a rail, which is tackled as an infinite uniform Euler–
Bernoulli beam on a bilinear continuous foundation, due to moving
loads applied by trains to outline the basic features of the rail under
the moving loads. Froio et al. [157] developed a finite element method
approach coupled with a direct integration algorithm for efficiently
tracing the nonlinear dynamic response of the beam-foundation system
according to a bilinear constitutive law. Lenci et al. [158] investigated
the propagation of periodic flexural waves in an Euler–Bernoulli beam
resting on a bilinear elastic foundation. Mazilu et al. [159] presented
a new basic nonlinear track model consisting of an infinite Euler–
Bernoulli beam resting on a continuous foundation with two elastic
layers and an intermediate inertial layer.
10. Introduction of a new convenient illustration model based on
the classical SIMs
10.1. The Terzaghi model
The Terzaghi model, which is a classical soil-foundation illustration
model created to describe the seepage consolidation process of satu-
rated soils, consists of a spring, a piston, and a cylinder, as shown in
Fig. 4 [115]. The spring represents the particle skeleton of the soils,
and water in the cylinder represents free water in the soils. The piston
with holes represents the permeability characteristic of the soils, and
the cylinder represents the one-dimensional lateral confinement stress
state of the soils.
When a concentrated load is applied to the piston, the load is
resisted by water in the cylinder, while the spring initially has no resis-
tance. As the load pushes the piston down, the spring has deformation
and begins to resist the load, while water flows outside holes in the
piston and loses some resistance. In the end, the total load is only
resisted by the spring. This process is the seepage consolidation process
of the soils. Since time is needed in the seepage consolidation process,
Terzaghi model represents the viscoelasticity of the soils.
10.2. The Winkler model
As shown in Fig. 5, the Winkler model essentially treats a foundation
as a small number of divided soil columns [117]. It is represented by a
series of independent springs. At a certain point on a local base surface
of a superstructure, where the load P is applied, the load P is balanced
by the spring forces. Since the springs are independent of each other,
they only generate local resistance at this point, but do not generate
any resistance elsewhere. Therefore, the corresponding SIM is called a
local elastic SIM. The drawback of the Winkler model is that it does
not reflect continuity of the deformation of the foundation. When the
local base surface is subjected to a load at a certain point on it, the
foundation actually locally sinks not only at this point, but also in
adjacent areas. Since continuity of the deformation of the foundation is
not considered, the Winkler model cannot fully reflect actual conditions
of the SIM, especially for a dense thick soil foundation and a rock
foundation, which can cause large errors.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
Fig. 4. Terzaghi model.
Fig. 5. The Winkler model.
10.3. The Winkler–Terzaghi model
In order to combine advantages of the Terzaghi model and the
Winkler model, an improved the Terzaghi model is introduced here,
which, for convenience of description, is referred to as the Winkler–
Terzaghi model, as shown in Fig. 6. Since the Terzaghi model has a
single spring to express the soil skeleton, the continuity property of the
soils cannot be described by this model. To improve Terzaghi model,
the multiple spring expression used in the Winkler model is employed
in the Winkler–Terzaghi model. Thus, two springs are introduced in
the Winkler–Terzaghi model. The relation between the two springs can
express the discrete or continuity property of the soils, and the Winkler–
Terzaghi model can directly reflect the viscoelasticity of the soils, since
this model has the characteristics of the Terzaghi model.
In the Winkler–Terzaghi model, the two discrete springs can be
seen as one element to represent the discrete and transverse elasticity
properties of the soils. In order to extend the continuity property and
other properties of the soils, some elements should be introduced to
enlarge the applications of the Winkler–Terzaghi model.
10.4. Introduction of Winkler–Terzaghi model elements
In order to describe various mechanics properties of soils, the
Winkler–Terzaghi model should be further extended. In order to intro-
duce mechanics properties of soils into the Winkler–Terzaghi model,
one introduces the extended elements shown in Fig. 7.
For better utilizing extended elements in Fig. 7 to describe the
continuity property and different mechanics properties of the soils,
their functions are described here:
(1) The transverse spring element, plastic element, and torsional
spring element are used to describe transverse elasticity, plasticity, and
torsional elasticity of the soils, respectively.
11
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
Fig. 6. The Winkler–Terzaghi model.
(2) For the transverse spring element, the spring stiffness k is the
ratio between the pressure p at any given point of the surface of contact
and the settlement y produced by the load at that point: 𝑘 = 𝑝/y.
The value of the spring stiffness k can be estimated by the tests such
as the plate load test and triaxial test [160]. For the torsional spring
element, since the torsional elasticity is induced by the shear forces of
the shear layer in the Pasternak model and the shear forces in the soils
are induced by the soil particle interaction, the spring stiffness of the
transverse spring element is the shear modulus of the soils. The shear
modulus of the soils can be determined by the direct shear test, triaxial
test, and vane shear test [160].
(3) For the viscoelasticity of the soils, the Winkler–Terzaghi model
can directly reflect viscoelasticity of the soils. Thus, the viscoelas-
tic element in the classical the Winkler model is not needed in the
Winkler–Terzaghi model.
(4) In order to describe the continuity of the soils, the interaction
between two independent spring elements is introduced to describe
the springs that interact with each other, which represents the conti-
nuity property of the soils. The continuous transverse spring element
expresses continuous transverse elasticity of the soils induced by well-
graded sands or fine-grained soils. Correspondingly, the continuous
torsional spring element expresses continuous torsional elasticity of
the soils induced by the well-graded gravels, which are larger-size
soil particles. With the introduction of the above extended elements,
the application of the Winkler–Terzaghi model becomes easier. In the
following, the relations between the SIMs and superstructures and those
between the SIMs and soils are established.
11. Classifications of the classical SIMs for different superstruc-
tures
The SIMs are composed of two parts: the superstructures and soils.
The basis of the simplification of the superstructures is how one treats
the contact problem between the superstructures and soils, and how
one sees the soil materials. In the classical Winkler idealization, the
soil medium is seen as a system of identical, but mutually independent,
closely spaced, discrete, linearly elastic springs. In this situation, the
deformation of the foundation due to the applied load is only confined
to loaded regions. Since the deformation of the superstructure has no
influence on the pressure–deflection relation of the Winkler model, the
superstructure can be seen as a rigid or flexible structure. However,
if one considers the cohesive bond to exist among the particles in the
soils, i.e., there is the continuity of the soil medium, one must improve
the Winkler model. The continuity property can be accomplished by
the mechanics characteristics of different superstructures, intermeshing
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
Fig. 7. Extended elements in the Winkler–Terzaghi model.
soil springs, and/or adding continuous layers. When one tries to use
the mechanics characteristics of different superstructures to accomplish
the continuity property of the soil medium, the superstructure should
be simplified to satisfy the requirement of the continuity of the soil
medium. For example, for the Filonenko–Borodich model, the conti-
nuity of the soil medium is accomplished by connecting soil springs
through a thin elastic strip subjected to a constant tension T, which
can be expressed as
d2 𝑤
𝑝 = 𝑘𝑤 − 𝑇 (11)
d𝑥2
where p is the pressure of the superstructure, T is the tension, w is the
deflection of the soil medium, and k is the stiffness of soil springs. The
effect of the tension is to reduce the deformation of the soil springs in
the external loading area and spread the resultant spring force to both
sides of the area to decrease the spring force concentration, which is
the interaction effect of the soil springs and simulates real additional
stress distributions in the soils. In the Filonenko–Borodich model case,
the superstructure is simplified to a thin elastic strip or a thin elastic
membrane with a constant tension. However, in the Hetenyi model,
the effect of the bending moment in a beam, plate, or shell is used to
accomplish the continuity of soil medium, which can be expressed as
d4 𝑤
𝑝 = 𝑘𝑤 + 𝐷 (12)
d𝑥4
where D is the bending stiffness of the beam, plate, or shell. The
bending deformation of the beam can reduce the deformations of the
springs in the external loading area, and the bending moment has
the same effect as the tension. Therefore, in the Hetenyi model case,
the superstructure is simplified to a beam, plate or shell. Generally,
a superstructure can be a rigid body, a beam, a plate, a thin shell,
a thin elastic strip, or a thin elastic membrane and the SIMs can
be classified according to different superstructures. By assuming that
a superstructure can withstand external loads, a corresponding SIM
should be elastic and can be described by the following equation [161]:
𝑃𝑓 𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑤 (𝑥) (13)
where w(x) represents the displacement of the SIM in the vertical
direction, R represents the reaction force of the SIM, and differential
operators 𝑃𝑓 and 𝑄𝑓 can be expressed as
∑
𝑛 Based on the Winkler model, Filonenko–Borodich [118] realized the
d2𝑖
𝑃𝑓 = 𝑎 + (−1)𝑖 𝑎𝑖 , continuity property of the soils by connecting soil springs through a
𝑖=1 d𝑥2𝑖
(14)
∑ 𝑛
d2𝑗
𝑄𝑓 = 𝑏 + (−1)𝑗 𝑏𝑗
𝑗=1 d𝑥2𝑗
12
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
where i, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n, and a, 𝑎𝑖 , b, and 𝑏𝑖 are the characteristic
coefficients of the SIM, which can have different values for differ-
ent superstructures. Detailed classification of the SIMs for different
superstructures can be seen in Table 2.
According to Table 2, it can be seen that the superstructures of
the SIMs are divided into the following six categories: rigid body,
beam, plate, thin shell, thin elastic strip, and thin elastic membrane.
The Winkler [117], Pasternak [138], Kerr [141], Vlasov [139], Reiss-
ner [140], and Worku [164] models can be used for any superstructure.
When the superstructure of a SIM is a thin elastic strip or thin elastic
membrane, it includes the Filonenko–Borodich [118] and Horvath–
Colasanti [162] models; when the superstructure of a SIM is a beam,
a plate, or a shell, it includes the Hetenyi [119], Jemielita single-
layer [161], Jemielita two-layer [161], Horvath [163], Levinson [166],
and Vallabhan–Das [165] models.
The Winkler model in Table 2 can be used for any superstructure;
the deformation of the spring layer in the Winkler model is limited to
the area where the external load is applied. The main parameter k in
this model is the stiffness of soil springs. The continuity property in
the soils is not considered in the Winkler model. The soil springs are
discrete and have no interaction with each other. Since the deformation
of the superstructure has no influence on the pressure–deflection rela-
tion of the Winkler model, the superstructure can be seen as a rigid or
flexible structure. Although the Winkler model has some disadvantages,
it is simple and convenient to use it, and it is still used in many fields
to solve numerous engineering problems [167–180].
However, if one considers the cohesive bond to exist among the
particles in the soils, i.e. the continuity of the soil medium, one must
improve the Winkler model. Numerous improved SIMs were put for-
ward to satisfy the continuity property of the soils. The continuity
property can be accomplished by the mechanics characteristics of
different superstructures, intermeshing soil springs, and/or adding con-
tinuous layers. All these methods aim to simulate real additional stress
distributions in the soils that have been obtained by many experiments
for flexible foundations [109,181]. By assuming that an external load
is horizontally applied at the center of an area, the additional stress
is large in the middle of the area and small on its two sides, and the
additional stress vertically decreases with the depth of the soils. These
additional stress distributions are not considered in the Winkler model.
thin elastic strip or a thin elastic membrane subjected to a constant
tension. The main parameters in this model are k and T, which are
the stiffness of soil springs and tension, respectively. Interaction of soil
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al. Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936

Table 2
Classification of the SIMs for different superstructures.
𝑃𝑓 𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑤 (𝑥) SIMs Super-structures Mechanics Continuity
parameters realizations
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑘, Winkler [117] NR k No continuity
𝑏𝑗 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑘, 𝑏1 = Filonenko–Borodich Thin elastic strip/ k; T Tension
T, 𝑏𝑗 = 0 [118] membrane
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎1 = Horvath–Colasanti Thin elastic strip/ 𝑘11 ; 𝑘12 ; T Tension
T /(𝑘11 + 𝑘12 ), 𝑎𝑗+1 = 0, [162] (two layers) membrane
𝑏 = 𝑘11 𝑘12 /(𝑘11 + 𝑘12 ),
𝑏1 = 𝑇 𝑘11 /(𝑘11 + 𝑘12 ),
𝑏𝑗+1 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑘, 𝑏1 = Pasternak [138] NR k; G Shear force
G, 𝑏𝑗+1 = 0
a = 1+𝑘12 ∕𝑘11 , Kerr [141] (two NR 𝑘11 ; 𝑘12 ; G Shear force
𝑎1 = G/𝑘11 , 𝑎𝑗+1 = 0, layers)
𝑏 = 𝑘12 , 𝑏1 = G,
𝑏𝑗+1 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 0, Hetenyi [119] Beam/Plate/Shell 𝐷𝑏 Bending moment
𝑏1 = 0,
𝑏2 = 𝐷𝑏 , 𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑘, 𝑏1 = Jemielita [161] Beam/Plate/Shell k; G; 𝐷𝑏 Shear force, bending
G, 𝑏2 = 𝐷𝑏 , (single layer) moment
𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
a = 1+k12 ∕𝑘11 , Jemielita [161] Beam/Plate/Shell 𝑘11 ; 𝑘12 ; G; 𝐷𝑏 Shear force, bending
𝑎1 = G/𝑘11 , (two layers) moment
𝑎2 = 𝐷𝑏 /𝑘11 , 𝑎𝑗+2 = 0,
𝑏 = 𝑘12 , 𝑏1 = G,
𝑏2 = 𝐷𝑏 , 𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑐 1 , Horvath [163] Beam/Plate/Shell 𝑐1 ; 𝑐2 ; 𝐷𝑏 Bending moment,
𝑏1 = 𝑐2 , 𝑏2 = 𝐷𝑏 , continuous layer
𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑘, Vlasov [139] NR 𝑘𝑐 ; t Intermeshed springs
𝑏1 = 2t, 𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎1 = 𝑐2 ∕4/𝑐1 , Reissner [140] NR 𝑐1 ; 𝑐2 Continuous layer
𝑎𝑗+2 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑐 1 ,
𝑏1 = 𝑐2 , 𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎1 = 𝛼c2 ∕4/𝑐1 , Worku [164] NR 𝑐1 ; 𝑐2 ; 𝛼 Continuous layer
𝑎𝑗+2 = 0, 𝑏1 = 𝑐1 ∕𝛼,
𝑏2 = 𝑐2 , 𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑘, Vallabhan–Das Beam/Plate/Shell 𝑘𝑐 ; t ; 𝐷𝑏 Intermeshed springs,
𝑏1 = 2t, 𝑏2 = 𝐷𝑏 , [165] bending moment
𝑏𝑗+2 = 0
𝑎 = 1, 𝑎𝑖 = 0, 𝑏 = 𝑘1 , Levinson [166] Beam/Plate/Shell 𝑘1 ; 𝑘2 ; 𝑘3 ; 𝑘4 ; 𝐷𝑏 Bending moment,
𝑏1 = 𝑘2 − 𝑘4 , 𝑏2 = 𝑘3 + continuous layer
𝐷𝑏 , 𝑏𝑗+2 = 0

Notation: NR means no requirement for superstructures of the SIMs; T -the tension; G-the shear modulus of the shear layer; 𝐷𝑏 -the bending
stiffness; t -the thickness coefficient; k-the stiffness of soil springs; 𝑘𝑐 -the stiffness of intermeshed soil springs; 𝛼-a function of the depth; 𝑘11 -the
stiffness of soil springs on the upper layer; 𝑘12 -the stiffness of soil springs on the lower layer; 𝐸𝑠 -the Young’s modulus of the continuous layer;
𝐺𝑠 -the shear modulus of the continuous layer; H-the thickness of the continuous layer; 𝑐1 = 𝐸𝑠 /H ; 𝑐2 = 𝐻𝐺𝑠 ∕3; and 𝑘𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4) -the
parameters defined in Eq. (17).

springs is achieved by the effect of the tension acting on the thin elastic
strip or thin elastic membrane. Physically speaking, the effect of the
tension is to reduce the deformation of soil springs in the external
loading area and spread the resultant spring force to both sides of the
area to decrease spring force concentration, which is the interaction
effect of soil springs and simulates real additional stress distributions in
the soils. Use of this model in recent decades can be seen in Ref. [182].
Similar to the Filonenko–Borodich model, the tension effect in
the Horvath–Colasanti model [162] is also considered as interaction
among the soil springs. The main parameters in this model are 𝑘11 ,
𝑘12 , and T, which are the stiffness of soil springs on the upper layer,
the stiffness of soil springs on the lower layer, and the tension, re-
spectively. However, different from the Filonenko–Borodich model, the
stratification characteristic of the soils was taken into consideration in
the Horvath–Colasanti model and two layers of springs with different
elastic coefficients were introduced there. Ends of the springs at either
layer in the Horvath–Colasanti model are attached to a thin elastic strip
or thin elastic membrane. This design makes the Horvath–Colasanti
model closer to the real soils. It was recently used in Refs. [183–185].
The Pasternak model [138] achieves the continuity of the soils by
connecting ends of the springs at a shear layer where only the trans-
verse shear deformation occurs. The main parameters in this model are
k and G, which are the stiffness of soil springs and shear modulus of
the shear layer, respectively. Compared with the Filonenko–Borodich
model, the interaction of soil springs is achieved by the effect of the
transverse shear force. Since both the Pasternak and the Filonenko–
Borodich models fulfill the continuity property based on the mechanics
properties of superstructures, they can actually be seen as equiva-
lent. Physically speaking, the shear layer shares responsibilities of soil
springs for the external bearing load. Therefore, from a physical point
of view, the mechanics effect of the shear layer in the Pasternak model
is equivalent to that of the thin elastic strip or thin elastic membrane
in the Filonenko–Borodich model. However, the shear force is more
realistic than the tension, and it simulates the frictions among soil

13
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
particles. Therefore, the Pasternak model is closer to the engineering
reality of the soils; it has been accepted by many researchers and used
in many fields [186–203].
Based on the Pasternak model, taking the stratification characteris-
tic of the soils into consideration, Kerr [141] introduced two layers of
springs with different elastic coefficients to model stratification of the
soils. The main parameters in this model are 𝑘11 , 𝑘12 , and G, which
are the stiffness of soil springs on the upper layer, the stiffness of
soil springs on the lower layer, and the shear modulus of the shear
layer, respectively. The modeling method is the same as that of the
Horvath–Colasanti model. The major difference is that the tension in
the Horvath–Colasanti model is replaced by the shear force in the
Kerr model. Moreover, one can find that when the stiffness 𝑘11 of the
upper layer approaches infinity, the Kerr model can be reduced to the
Pasternak model. Use of the Kerr model can be seen in Refs. [204–207].
The bending deformation of a beam, a plate, or a shell is used to
reflect interaction among the soil springs in the Hetenyi model [119].
The main parameter in this model is 𝐷𝑏 , which is the bending stiffness
of the beam, plate, or shell. In this model, the beam, plate, or shell
is connected to the ends of the soil springs. In this situation, the
interaction of the soil springs is achieved by the effect of the bending
moment in the beam. The bending deformation of the beam, plate, or
shell can reduce the deformations of the springs in the external loading
area, and bending moment has the same effect as the tension and shear
force. From a physical point of view, an interesting insight that can be
found from the above discussions is that if the tension, shear force, and
bending moment can be seen as a generalized force, the three models:
the Pasternak, Filonenko–Borodich, and Hetenyi models can be seen
as the same model. The same intention of these generalized forces is
to limit deformations of the soil springs. The Hetenyi model is mostly
used in suspended structures of the oil and gas pipelines in petroleum
engineering in recent years [208].
Jemielita [161] combined the generalized forces in the Pasternak
and Hetenyi models and proposed a combined single-layer model. The
main parameters in this model are k, G, and 𝐷𝑏 , which are the stiffness
of soil springs, the shear modulus of the shear layer, the bending
stiffness of the beam, plate, or shell, respectively. It allows the beam,
plate, or shell to have both shear and bending deformations, which is
more realistic. Based on this model, by considering the stratification
characteristic of the soils, Jemielita [161] proposed an improved two-
layer model. When the stiffness 𝑘12 of the lower layer tends to infinity,
the Jemielita two-layer model degenerates to the Jemielita single-layer
model [161]. Use of the Jemielita models can be seen in Refs. [209,
210].
In addition to achieving the continuity property of the soils with-
out using mechanics properties of superstructures, some researchers
improved the soil spring models to directly achieving the continuity
property of the soils. With the intention of achieving soil continuity,
Vlasov [139] introduced a restriction function h(z), where z is the
vertical axis, to limit deformations of the soil springs. The effect of
the function h(z) is the same as those of the tension, shear force,
and bending moment, which are to reduce displacements of the soil
springs and simulate stress distributions in the soils. The function h(z)
expresses displacements of soil springs that decrease with the soil
depth H and satisfies h(0)=1 and h(H )=0. For finite-thickness soils,
one can derive that h(z)=1−(z/H ); while for infinite-depth soils, one
has h(z)=sinh[𝛾(H −z)]/sinh[𝛾(H )]. Note that horizontal displacements
of the soils are not taken into consideration in the Vlasov model, which
is also the assumption in Terzaghi model. Mechanics parameters 𝑘𝑐 and
t in the Vlasov model are
𝐻( ) 𝐻
𝐸0 dℎ 2 𝐸0
𝑘𝑐 = d𝑧, 𝑡 = ℎ2 d𝑧 (15)
2
(1 − 𝜈0 ) 0∫ d𝑧 ∫
4(1 − 𝜈0 ) 0
where
𝐸𝑠
𝐸0 = , 𝜈0 = 𝜈(1 − 𝜈) (16)
(1 − 𝜈)2
14
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
Some applications of the Vlasov model can be seen in Refs. [175,211–
215].
Replacing the soil springs, Reissner [140] used a continuous layer
with the deformation modulus 𝐸𝑠 and shear modulus 𝐺𝑠 to simulate the
soils and did not consider their lateral stress. To match real additional
stress distributions in the soils, constraints were introduced to restrain
the deformation and stress of the continuous layer, which is reflected
in the coefficients 𝑐1 = 𝐸𝑠 /H and 𝑐2 = 𝐻𝐺𝑠 ∕3. Both of these constants
are related to the soil depth H. Use of this model can be seen in
Refs. [146,216,217].
Based on the Reissner model, Worku [164] proposed a more gener-
alized continuum model that can be reduced to the Reissner model if
one sets the constant 𝛼 = 1. In this model, Young’s and shear moduli
are assumed to change with the soil depth H. No stress, strain, and
displacement components are neglected in this model. The coefficient
𝛼, which is a function of the soil depth, is 1−𝜈 [k𝑥 (z)+k𝑦 (z)]. If 𝛼 = 1,
k𝑥 (z)=k𝑦 (z)=0. Since the vertical stress in the soils changes with depth
functions k𝑥 (z) and k𝑦 (z), it is interesting to find that the lateral stress in
the soils is equal to zero, which is exactly the assumption in the Reissner
model. The functions k𝑥 (z) and k𝑦 (z) in the Worku model are similar
to the depth function h(z) in the Vlasov model. Furthermore, by setting
an appropriate value of 𝛼 in the Worku model, one can derive a single-
layer model such as the Pasternak or Winkler model. One can find the
applications of this generalized Worku model in Refs. [218,219].
Inspired by the Vlasov model, Vallabhan–Das [165] derived a more
convenient model with a consistent coefficient of the second-order
bending stiffness term, which can be calculated through a iterative
procedure. Due to its convenience, the Vallabhan–Das model was used
in Refs. [220,221]. The corresponding mechanics parameters 𝑘𝑖 (𝑖 = 1,
2, 3, 4) are defined as
𝐻 𝐻 𝐻
𝐵
𝑘1 = (𝐴 + 𝐵) 𝑓 ′ d𝑧, 𝑘2 = (𝑔 ′ − 𝑓 )2 d𝑧, 𝑘3 = (𝐴 + 𝐵) 𝑔 2 d𝑧,
∫0 2 ∫0 ∫0
𝐻
𝑘4 = −2𝐴 𝑓 ′ 𝑔d𝑧
∫0
(17)
where f (z) and g (z) are functions of the soil depth H, and
𝐸𝑠 𝜈 𝐸𝑠
𝐴= , 𝐵= (18)
(1 + 𝜈)(1 − 2𝜈) (1 + 𝜈)
Combining the advantages of superstructure and continuous layer ap-
proaches, Horvath [163] and Levinsion [166] proposed two mixed
continuous layer models. For these models, the superstructure only has
the transverse bending deformation, and the soils are modeled as a
continuous layer. The applications of these models can be found in
Refs. [213,222,223].
12. Classifications of the classical SIMs for different soils
The soils play a key role in the SIMs, and the soils can be con-
sidered to be discrete or continuous, where the latter can be elastic,
viscoelastic, or plastic. In this section, one solves the problem that for a
specific SIM, which types of soils are suitable to it. For this purpose, the
Winkler–Terzaghi model is used to do the matching. Table 3 describes
matching relations between the SIMs and soil classification according
to ASTM D2487-11.
In Table 3, R (x) and R (x, t ) represent the pressure on the foun-
dation; w(x) is the total displacement of a SIM; 𝑤∗ (x) is the elastic
displacement of the SIM; M (x) and M (x, t ) denote the torsional
moment; w, 𝑥 (x, t ) is the rotational angle of a rotational spring; a, 𝑎𝑖 ,
and 𝑏𝑖 are the characteristic coefficients of the SIM, which have been
introduced in Table 2; k is the stiffness of a transverse spring; 𝜇 and 𝜂
are the viscoelasticity parameters in the transverse and rotational di-
rections, respectively; and 𝑐0 is the stiffness of a torsional spring. Since
the soils are very complicated, it is very difficult to provide a perfect
matching between the SIMs and soils. Therefore, in the following, one
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al. Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936

Table 3
The matching relations between the SIMs and soil classification according to ASTM D2487-11.
Model diagram Abbreviation Computational expression Soil classification

DE-1 𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑘𝑤 (𝑥) Poorly graded sands; Poorly graded

sands with clays; Poorly graded sands
with silty clays.

DEV-1 𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑘𝑤 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜇𝑤,𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) Poorly graded sands with silts.

𝑃𝑓 𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑤 (𝑥) ,
∑𝐼
d2𝑖
𝑃𝑓 = 𝑎 + (−1)𝑖 𝑎𝑖 2𝑖 ,
CE-1 𝑖=1
d𝑥 Well-graded sands; Lean clays; Lean
∑ 𝐽
d2𝑗 clays with sands;
𝑄𝑓 = 𝑘 + (−1)𝑗 𝑏𝑗 2𝑗 Sandy lean clays; Clayey sands;
𝑗=1
d𝑥
Well-graded sands with clays;
Well-graded sands with silty clays.

𝑃𝑓 𝑡 𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑡 𝑤 (𝑥, 𝑡) ,
𝜕 ∑𝐼
d2𝑖
𝑃𝑓 𝑡 = 𝑎 + 𝜇 + (−1)𝑖 𝑎𝑖 2𝑖 ,
CEV-1 𝜕𝑡 𝑖=1 d𝑥 Well-graded sands with silts.
𝜕 ∑𝐽
d2𝑗
𝑄𝑓 𝑡 = 𝑘 + 𝜇 + (−1)𝑗 𝑏𝑗 2𝑗
𝜕𝑡 𝑗=1 d𝑥

𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑘𝑤 (𝑥) ,
DE-2 Poorly graded sands with gravels; Poorly
𝑀 (𝑥) = 𝑐0 𝑤,𝑥 (𝑥) graded gravels; Poorly graded sands
with clays and gravels; Poorly graded
sands with silty clays and gravels;
Gravelly lean clays with sands; Poorly
graded gravels with sands; Poorly
graded gravels with clays; Poorly graded
gravels with silty clays; Poorly graded
gravels with clays and sands.

𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑘𝑤 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜇𝑤,𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) ,

DEV-2 Poorly graded sands with silts and
𝑀 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑐0 𝑤,𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜂𝑤,𝑥𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) gravels; Poorly graded gravels with silts;
Poorly graded gravels with silts and
sands.

𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑘𝑤 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜇𝑤,𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) ,

𝑃𝑓 𝑀 (𝑥) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑤,𝑥 (𝑥) ,

∑𝐼
d2𝑖
CE-2 𝑃𝑓 = 𝑎 + (−1)𝑖 𝑎𝑖 2𝑖 , Well-graded gravels; Well-graded gravels
𝑖=1
d𝑥 with sands; Well-graded gravels with
∑ 𝐽
d2𝑗 clays; Well-graded gravels with silty
𝑄𝑓 = 𝑐0 + (−1)𝑗 𝑏𝑗 2𝑗
𝑗=1
d𝑥 clays; Well-graded gravels with clays
and sands; Clayey gravels with sands.

𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑘𝑤 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜇𝑤,𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) ,

𝑃𝑓 𝑡 𝑀 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑡 𝑤,𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑡) ,

𝜕 ∑ 𝐼
d2𝑖
CEV-2 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 = 𝑎 + 𝜂 + (−1)𝑖 𝑎𝑖 2𝑖 , Well-graded gravels with silts;
𝜕𝑡 𝑖=1 d𝑥 Well-graded gravels with silts and sands.
𝜕 ∑ 𝐽
d2𝑗
𝑄𝑓 𝑡 = 𝑐0 + 𝜂 + (−1)𝑗 𝑏𝑗 2𝑗
𝜕𝑡 𝑗=1 d𝑥

(continued on next page)

gives an assumption that when the content of the gravels or sands are the well-graded sands. In this situation, the effect of the gravels in the
lower than 15%, they are neglected. Only the particles that have main
well-graded sands is also neglected.
influence are considered. This assumption is actually fulfilled in ASTM
The DE-1 model in Table 2 is used to simulate the discrete and
D2487-11. For example, in the well-graded sands, since content of the
gravels is lower than 15%, the word gravels is canceled in the name of elastic soils. The DE-1 is actually the Winkler model and the main

15
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al. Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936

Table 3 (continued).
Model diagram Abbreviation Computational expression Soil classification

𝑃𝑓 𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑤 (𝑥) ,
CE-3 Well-graded sands with gravels; Well-graded sands
𝑀 (𝑥) = 𝑐0 𝑤,𝑥 (𝑥) with clays and gravels; Well-graded sands with silty
clays and gravels; Lean clays with gravels; Sandy lean
clays with gravels; Clayey sands with gravels.

𝑃𝑓 𝑡 𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑡 𝑤 (𝑥, 𝑡) ,
CEV-3 Well-graded sands with silts and gravels.
𝑀 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑐0 𝑤,𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜂𝑤,𝑥𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡)

𝑃𝑓 𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑤∗ (𝑥) ,
CEP-1 [ ] Silty clayey sands; Silty clays; Silty clays with sands;
𝑤∗ (𝑥) = 𝑤 (𝑥) − 𝑢∗ , 𝑢∗ = 𝑃𝑢 ∕𝑘 Sandy silty clays.
𝑃𝑢 = 3𝛾𝑧𝐾𝑝 𝐷 for sand type defined in Eq. (6);
𝑃𝑢 = 9𝑐𝑢 𝐷 for clay or silt type defined in Eq. (7)

CEPV-1 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑡 𝑤∗ (𝑥) Silty sands; Silts; Silts with sands; Sandy silts.

𝑅 (𝑥) = 𝑘𝑤∗ (𝑥) ,

DEP-1 Silty clayey gravels with sands; Gravelly silty clays;
𝑀 (𝑥) = 𝑐0 𝑤∗,𝑥 (𝑥) Gravelly silty clays with sands.

𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑘𝑤∗ (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜇𝑤∗,𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) ,

DEPV-1 Silty gravels with sands; Gravelly silts; Gravelly silts
𝑀 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑐0 𝑤∗,𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜂𝑤∗,𝑥𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) with sands.

𝑃𝑓 𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑤∗ (𝑥) ,
CEP-2 Silty clayey sands with gravels; Sandy silty clays with
𝑀 (𝑥) = 𝑐0 𝑤∗,𝑥 (𝑥) gravels.

𝑃𝑓 𝑡 𝑅 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑄𝑓 𝑡 𝑤∗ (𝑥) ,
CEPV-2 Silty sands with gravels; Silts with gravels; Sandy silts
𝑀 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑐0 𝑤∗,𝑥 (𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝜂𝑤∗,𝑥𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑡) with gravels.

Note: D— discreteness; C— continuity; E— elasticity; V— viscoelasticity; P— plasticity; ‘‘,𝑥 ’’ and ‘‘,𝑡 ’’ denote the partial derivatives with respect to space and time variables,
respectively; and ‘‘,𝑥𝑡 ’’ denotes the second-order partial derivative with respect to space and time variables.

parameter k is the stiffness of soil springs. According to ASTM D2487-
11, the poorly graded sands, poorly graded sands with clays, and poorly
graded sands with silty clays with 𝐶𝑢 <4 and 𝐶𝑐 <1 or 𝐶𝑐 >3 are the
coarse-grained soils with poor gradation and poor continuity, and the
bearing capacity of the soils is larger than 300 kPa. Therefore, these
soils are discrete and elastic and can be simulated with the DE-1 model,
i.e., the Winkler model.
The DEV-1 model is used to simulate the discrete, elastic, and
viscoelastic soils. The main parameters in this model are k and 𝜇, which
are the stiffness of soil springs and 𝜇 is the viscoelasticity parameter
in the transverse direction, respectively. According to ASTM D2487-
11, the poorly graded sands with silts with 𝐶𝑢 <6 and 𝐶𝑐 <1 or 𝐶𝑐 >3
are the sandy soils with poor gradation continuity, which is mainly
characterized by discrete transverse elasticity, and viscoelasticity is the
characteristic of the silts, which has been proposed in Section 4.5.
Therefore, the DEV-1 model can be used to simulate these soils.
The CE-1 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity. The CE-1 is a general continuous SIM model provided in
Eqs. (13) and (14). The parameter k is the stiffness of soil springs
and parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this model are determined by different
superstructures. According to ASTM D2487-11, the well-graded sands
with 𝐶𝑢 ≥4 and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3, the well-graded sands with clays, well-graded
sands with silty clays with 𝐶𝑢 ≥6 and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3, and the clayey sands
are the coarse-grained soils with good continuity. The lean clays, lean
clays with sands, and sandy lean clays are low-plastic clays. Both the
coarse-grained soils and low-plastic clays have large bearing capacities
and elasticity. Therefore, the CE-1 model can be used for simulation
of the coarse-grained soils and low-plastic clays. More specifically,
the interaction between two transverse springs indicates continuity of

16
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
the soils. This interaction is related to not only the soils but also the
superstructures. Different interactions have been clearly illustrated in
Table 2.
The CEV-1 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity and viscoelasticity. The CEV-1 is a general SIM model. The
parameters k and 𝜇 are the stiffness of soil springs and viscoelasticity
parameter in the transverse direction, respectively. Parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 ,
and 𝑏𝑗 in this model are determined by different superstructures. The
well-graded sands with silts with 𝐶𝑢 ≥6 and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3 are the coarse-
grained soils with good continuity. The silts in the soils are viscoelastic.
Thus, they can be modeled by a SIM with continuous transverse elastic-
ity and viscoelasticity. Therefore, the CEV-1 model is suitable for these
soils.
The DE-2 model simulates the discrete soils with both transverse
and torsional elasticity. The main parameters in this model are k and
𝑐0 , which are the stiffness of soil transverse springs and torsional
springs, respectively. The poorly graded gravels, poorly graded sands
with gravels, poorly graded sands with clays and gravels, poorly graded
sands with silty clays and gravels, poorly graded gravels with sands,
poorly graded gravels with clays, poorly graded gravels with silty clays,
and poorly graded gravels with clays and sands with 𝐶𝑢 <6 and 𝐶𝑐 <1
or 𝐶𝑐 >3 are the coarse-grained soils with poor gradation and good
continuity according to ASTM D2487-11. The gravelly lean clays and
gravelly lean clays with sands are low-plastic soils, and gravels are their
main component, which have poor continuity. Bearing capacities of the
above soils are larger than 300 kPa, and the interaction between gravels
and sands or other smaller particles in the soils produces the torsional
moments and torsional deformations, which are mainly characterized
by a discrete SIM with transverse elasticity and torsional elasticity.
These soils can therefore be modeled by the DE-2 model.
The DEV-2 model simulates the discrete soils with viscoelasticity,
transverse elasticity, and torsional elasticity. The main parameters in
this model are k, 𝑐0 , 𝜇 and 𝜂, which are the stiffness of soil transverse
springs, stiffness of soil torsional springs, viscoelasticity parameter in
the transverse direction, and viscoelasticity parameter in rotational
direction, respectively. The poorly graded sands with silts and gravels,
poorly graded gravels with silts, and poorly graded gravels with silts
and sands with 𝐶𝑢 <6 and 𝐶𝑐 <1 or 𝐶𝑐 >3 are the coarse-grained soils
with poor gradation and good continuity according to ASTM D2487-11.
Since there are gravels in these soils, the interaction between gravels
and sands or other smaller particles in the soils produces torsional mo-
ments and torsional deformations under action of the upper load. The
silts in the soils are viscoelastic. Thus, these soils can be characterized
by a discrete SIM with transverse elasticity, torsional elasticity, and
viscoelasticity. Therefore, they can be simulated by the DEV-2 model.
The CE-2 model simulates the soils with transverse elasticity and
continuous torsional elasticity. The main parameters in this model
are k, 𝑐0 , and 𝜇, which are the stiffness of soil transverse springs,
stiffness of soil torsional springs, and viscoelasticity parameter in the
transverse direction, respectively. Parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this model
are determined by different superstructures. The clayey gravels, clayey
gravels with sands, well-graded gravels, well-graded gravels with sands,
well-graded gravels with clays, well-graded gravels with silty clays,
and well-graded gravels with clays and sands with 𝐶𝑢 ≥4 and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3
are the coarse-grained soils with good continuity according to ASTM
D2487-11. The gravels in the soils produce torsional elasticity, and they
are the main component of the soils with good continuity. Thus, they
can be characterized by a SIM with transverse elasticity and continuous
torsional elasticity. Therefore, the CE-2 model is suitable for these soils.
The CEV-2 model simulates the soils with viscoelasticity, transverse
elasticity, and continuous torsional elasticity. The main parameters in
this model are k, 𝑐0 , 𝜇 and 𝜂, which are the stiffness of soil transverse
springs, stiffness of soil torsional springs, viscoelasticity parameter in
the transverse direction, and viscoelasticity parameter in rotational
direction, respectively. Parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this model are deter-
mined by different superstructures. The well-graded gravels with silts
17
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
and well-graded gravels with silts and sands with 𝐶𝑢 ≥4 and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3
are the coarse-grained soils with good continuity according to ASTM
D2487-11. The silts in the soils are viscoelastic. The gravels in the soils
produce torsional elasticity, and gravels in these soils are their main
components with good continuity. Therefore, they can be characterized
by a SIM with viscoelasticity, transverse elasticity, and continuous
torsional elasticity. These soils can therefore be modeled by the CEV-2
model.
The CE-3 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity and torsional elasticity. The parameter 𝑐0 is the stiffness of
soil torsional springs, and parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this model are
determined by different superstructures. The well-graded sands with
gravels, well-graded sands with clays and gravels, well-graded sands
with silty clays and gravels, and clayey sands with gravels with 𝐶𝑢 ≥4
and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3 are the coarse-grained soils with good continuity. The
lean clays with gravels and sandy lean clays with gravels are low-
plastic clays with a large bearing capacity and good continuity. The
gravels in the soils produce torsional elasticity, and there are gravels
in these soils with poor continuity. Continuity in the soils is induced
by the well-graded soils and fine-grained soils. Thus, these soils can
be characterized by a SIM with continuous transverse elasticity and
torsional elasticity. They can therefore be modeled by the CE-3 model.
The CEV-3 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity, torsional elasticity, and viscoelasticity. The main parameters
in this model are 𝑐0 and 𝜂, which are the stiffness of soil torsional
springs and viscoelasticity parameter in rotational direction, respec-
tively. Parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this model are determined by different
superstructures. The well-graded sands with silts and gravels with
𝐶𝑢 ≥6 and 1≤𝐶𝑐 ≤3 are the coarse-grained soils with good continuity.
Compared with the soils modeled by the CE-3 model, these soils contain
silts. The silts in these soils are viscoelastic. Thus, these soils can be
simulated by the CEV-3 model.
The CEP-1 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity and plasticity. Parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this model are
determined by different superstructures, and parameters for bearing
capacity 𝑃𝑢 can be seen in Eqs. (6) and (7). According to ASTM
D2487-11, the silty clayey sands, silty clays, silty clays with sands, and
sandy silty clays are the fine-grained soils with continuous transverse
elasticity. The silty clays in these soils are plastic. Therefore, these soils
can be modeled by the CEP-1 model.
The CEPV-1 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity. Parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this
model are determined by different superstructures. According to ASTM
D2487-11, the silty sands, silts, silts with sands, and sandy silts are
the fine-grained soils with continuous transverse elasticity. Although
sands have a sufficient bearing capacity, the silts in these soils have
a very low bearing capacity. Therefore, plasticity of these soils should
be considered. The silts are viscoelastic. Therefore, these soils can be
modeled by the CEPV-1 model.
The DEP-1 model simulates the discrete soils with transverse elas-
ticity, torsional elasticity, and plasticity. The main parameters in this
model are k, and 𝑐0 , which are the stiffness of soil transverse springs
and torsional springs, respectively. According to ASTM D2487-11, the
silty clayey gravels with sands are the coarse-grained soils with poor
continuity. The gravelly silty clays and gravelly silty clays with sands
are the fine-grained soils. For the fine-grained soils, content of the
coarse-grained particles in the soils is larger than 30% and that of
gravels is larger than 15%, which cause bad size grading of these soils.
Thus, the discreteness of these soils should be considered. The gravels
provide torsional elasticity, and silty clays provide plasticity. Therefore,
the DEP-1 model is suitable for simulation of these soils.
The DEPV-1 model simulates the discrete soils with transverse
elasticity, torsional elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity. The main
parameters in this model are k, 𝑐0 , 𝜇 and 𝜂, which are the stiffness of
soil transverse springs, stiffness of soil torsional springs, viscoelasticity
parameter in the transverse direction, and viscoelasticity parameter in
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
rotational direction, respectively. The silty gravels and silty gravels
with sands are the coarse-grained soils with poor continuity. The
gravelly silts and gravelly silts with sands are the fine-grained soils. For
the same reasons as those for the gravelly silty clays, poor continuity
can be concluded for the fine-grained soils. Compared with the silty
clays in the soils modeled by the DEP-1 model, the silts in these soils
provide viscoelasticity. Due to the very low bearing capacity of silts,
the plasticity of these soils should be considered. Therefore, the DEPV-1
model can be used to simulate these soils.
The CEP-2 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity, torsional elasticity, and plasticity. The parameter 𝑐0 is the
stiffness of soil torsional springs, and parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this
model are determined by different superstructures. According to ASTM
D2487-11, both the silty clayey sands with gravels and sandy silty clays
with gravels have lower gravel content in the soils than that in soils
modeled by DEP-1 and DEPV-1 models. Content of the coarse-grained
particles in the soils is also lower than that in the soils modeled by DEP-
1 and DEPV-1 models. The sands and fined-grained particles are main
components of the soils, which causes continuous transverse elasticity
of the soils. The gravels provide torsional elasticity, and silty clays
provide plasticity. Therefore, these soils can be simulated by the CEP-2
model.
The CEPV-2 model simulates the soils with continuous transverse
elasticity, torsional elasticity, plasticity, and viscoelasticity. The main
parameters in this model are 𝑐0 and 𝜂, which are the stiffness of soil
torsional springs and viscoelasticity parameter in rotational direction,
respectively. Parameters a, 𝑎𝑖 , and 𝑏𝑗 in this model are determined by
different superstructures. The silty sands with gravels are the coarse-
grained soils with good continuity. The silts with gravels and sandy
silts with gravels are the fine-grained soils. The silts and sands are
main components of the soils, which causes continuous transverse
elasticity of the soils. The gravels provide torsional elasticity, and the
silts provide viscoelasticity. Therefore, these soils can be simulated by
the CEPV-2 model.
Table 3 first establishes rules to reasonably use the SIMs based on
different soils. Selection of a SIM to analyze a dynamic problem of a
beam or plate structure on the foundation soils is mainly determined
by types of soils. In the following, the generalized dynamic modeling
and solution methods are provided for conveniently using the SIMs.
13. Applications for the SIMs
In order to use the SIMs to analyze practical engineering problems,
it is necessary to establish dynamic equations of the SIMs in Table 3.
The extended Hamilton principle is usually employed to establish the
dynamic equations of the SIMs. More specifically, the kinetic energy K
of a SIM is expressed as
1 Some classical SIMs are reviewed and classified in this work based
𝐾= 𝑚(𝐯𝑝 ⋅ 𝐯𝑝 )d𝑉 (19)
2𝐴 ∫𝑉
where v 𝑝 denotes the velocity vector of a point on a superstructure,
and m is the mass per unit length of the superstructure.
The total strain energy of a SIM includes three parts, which are
determined for different SIMs. For instance, the total strain energy of
the Pasternak model that has a shear layer can be split into three parts.
The strain energy 𝑃1 of the superstructure, the potential energy 𝑃2 of an
elastic foundation, and the potential energy 𝑃3 of springs at boundaries
of the beam are expressed as
( )
1 1
𝑃1 = 𝜎𝑥 𝜀𝑥 d𝑉 , 𝑃2 = 𝑘𝑤2 + 𝐺𝑤2,𝑥 d𝑥,
2 ∫𝑉 2 ∫𝐿 (20)
[ ]
1 ( ) 2 ( ) ties and continuity property, the relations between the SIMs and soils
𝑃3 = 𝑘𝐿 + 𝑘𝑅 𝑤 + 𝑘𝐿𝑇 + 𝑘𝑅𝑇 𝑤2,𝑥
2 in ASTM D2487-11 are determined. In order to conveniently express
respectively, where k and G are the stiffness of the Winkler foundation
and shear modulus of the shear layer, respectively, and k𝐿 and k𝑅 are
the stiffnesses of boundary transverse springs, k𝐿𝑇 and k𝑅𝑇 are the
18
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
stiffnesses of boundary torsional springs. The virtual work 𝑊0 done by
non-conservative forces can be obtained as
( )
𝛿𝑊0 = 𝐹 − 𝜂𝑤,𝑡 𝛿𝑤d𝑥 (21)
∫𝐿
where F is a distributed external load on the beam, and 𝜂 is the
distributed viscous damping coefficient. The extended Hamilton’s prin-
ciple states
𝑡2 ( )
𝛿𝐾 − 𝛿𝑃1 − 𝛿𝑃2 − 𝛿𝑃3 + 𝛿𝑊0 d𝑡 = 0 (22)
∫ 𝑡1
Using Eq. (20), after variational operation and integration by part, one
can derive the forced vibration equations of the SIMs and homogeneous
boundary conditions. Generally speaking, the forced vibration equation
of a SIM can be written as
𝐸𝐼𝑤,𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 + 𝐹̃(𝑤, 𝑤,𝑥𝑥 ) + 𝜂𝑤,𝑡 + 𝑚𝑤,𝑡𝑡 = 𝐹 (23)
where 𝐹̃(𝑤, 𝑤,𝑥𝑥 ) is determined by the relation between the reaction
force R(x) and the displacement w(x) of a superstructure, as illustrated
by Eq. (11). For the Pasternak model, the relation is
𝑅 = 𝑘𝑤 − 𝐺𝑤,𝑥𝑥 (24)
In this case, 𝐹̃(𝑤, 𝑤,𝑥𝑥 ) in Eq. (21) is given by
𝐹̃(𝑤, 𝑤,𝑥𝑥 ) = −𝐺𝑤,𝑥𝑥 + 𝑘𝑤 (25)
The modeling process for the other SIMs is the same as that for the
Pasternak model. It can be seen from the above modeling steps that
the kinetic energy is independent of the SIMs, and the forced vibration
equation of a SIM is determined by the strain energy 𝑃2 . For instance,
the strain energy 𝑃2 of the Kerr model is different from that of the
Pasternak model and can be written as
( )
1
𝑃2 = 𝑘1 𝑤1 2 + 𝑘2 𝑤2 2 + 𝐺𝑤2 2,𝑥 d𝑥 (26)
∫
2 𝐿
where 𝑤1 and 𝑤2 are the displacements of the first and second layers,
respectively, and 𝑘1 and 𝑘2 are the stiffnesses of the first and second
layers, respectively.
In order to give an application of the modeling method provided
in Section 13, the forced vibration of an oil-conveying pipe on the
Pasternak foundation was studied in a previous work [33]. In this work,
the dynamic equation of the pipe on the Pasternak foundation is de-
rived using the extended Hamilton’s principle. The Green’s function and
superposition property of linear vibrations are employed to determine
the analytical solutions of the equation for various boundary conditions
of the pipe. The detailed derivation processes and numerical discussions
can be seen in Ref. [33].
14. Conclusions
on different soils in ASTM D2487-11 and different superstructures. The
classical theories of some widely used superstructures in engineering,
which are modeled as beams, plates, and shells, are introduced, and ap-
plications of these thin-walled superstructures in SIMs are introduced.
Some classical SIMs are first classified simply based on numbers of
parameters in the SIMs, and two special classifications of SIMs are
tensionless and bilinear foundations, which are also introduced. In
order to accomplish the matching between the SIMs and soils in ASTM
D2487-11, engineering properties of the soils are reviewed, and based
on these engineering properties, soil classification in ASTM D2487-11
is introduced. Five element soils in ASTM D2487-11 are selected to
identify their mechanics properties. Based on their mechanics proper-
different the SIMs, the Winkler–Terzaghi model is developed for the
matching between the SIMs and soils in ASTM D2487-11. Table 2
is provided to classify and review some classical SIMs for different
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
superstructures. Based on the Winkler–Terzaghi model, Table 3 shows
matching the relations between the SIMs and soils in ASTM D2487-11.
Some main conclusions are listed below:
(1) Five element soils, which are the pebble and gravel soils, sandy
soils, lean clays, silty clays, and silts, are selected from ASTM D2487-
11. Other soils in ASTM D2487-11 consist of these five element soils.
The pebble soils and gravel soils are considered to be elastic. The
sandy soils are seen as elastic or plastic, which depends on whether
the ultimate bearing capability 𝑃𝑢 is within the range of 300–500 kPa
or below this range. The lean clays are treated as elastic. The silty clays
are seen as plastic. The silts are considered as viscoelastic.
(2) It can be concluded from Table 2 that the Filonenko–Borodich
model, the Horvath–Colasanti model, the Pasternak model, the Kerr
model, the Hetenyi model, and the Jemielita model realize the soil
continuity by resorting to the generalized forces of the superstructures
such as the tension, shear force, and bending moment, which share
loads on the soil springs. The other SIMs such as the Vlasov model,
the Reissner model, the Worku model, and the Vallabhan–Das model
accomplish the soil continuity through intermeshing soil springs or
utilizing a continuous elasticity layer to directly replace the soil springs.
The Levinson model and Horvath model are mixed SIMs and use
both the generalized forces of the superstructures and the continuous
elasticity layer to accomplish the soil continuity.
(3) Table 3 lists the Winkler–Terzaghi model of the SIMs, their
mathematical expressions, and the suitable soils in ASTM D2487-11 for
them. Based on the mechanics and continuity properties of five element
soils, all the classical SIMs and nine newly created SIMs are used to
accomplish the matching between the SIMs and the soils in ASTM
D2487-11. Some rules are established to reasonably use the SIMs based
on different soils. Selection of a SIM to analyze a dynamic problem of a
beam or plate structure on the foundation soils are mainly determined
by the soils.
(4) Based on the torsional elasticity of soils, the torsional spring
elements in the Winkler–Terzaghi model, and the mechanics properties
of gravel soils, nine new SIMs are created to match with the specific
soils in ASTM D2487-11. DE-2, DEV-2, DEP-1, and DEPV-1 in Table 3
are four discrete SIMs to describe the soils with no continuity property,
which contain the gravel element soils; CE-2, CEV-2, CE-3, CEV-3, CEP-
2, and CEPV-2 are the six continuous SIMs to describe the soils with
the continuity property, which contain the gravel element soils. More
specifically, CE-2 and CEV-2 are the two continuous SIMs, which match
with the soils with continuous torsional elasticity, and CE-3, CEV-3,
CEP-2, and CEPV-2 are the four continuous SIMs, which match with
the soils with continuous transverse elasticity.
In the last part of this work, the generalized modeling method for
the forced vibration equations of the SIMs are introduced to boost
utilization of the SIMs. This work furnishes useful analyses and solu-
tions to specific engineering examples in civil engineering, mechanical
engineering, and petroleum engineering.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China through grant numbers 12072301, 11772100, and
11872319 and by the Sichuan Youth Scientific and Technological In-
novation Research Team of the Engineering Structural Safety Assess-
ment and Disaster Prevention Technology through the grant number
2019JDTD0017.
19
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
References
[1] Q.K. Chi, J.H. Wen, Y.U. Dian-Long, Band gap of flexural vibration of a periodic
pipe conveying fluid with axial forces on an elastic foundation, J. Vib. Shock
31 (2012) 128–131.
[2] A. Fallah, M.M. Aghdam, Thermo-mechanical buckling and nonlinear free
vibration analysis of functionally graded beams on nonlinear elastic foundation,
Compos. Part. B-Eng. 43 (2012) 1523–1530.
[3] M.H. Hsu, Vibration analysis of edge-cracked beam on elastic foundation with
axial loading using the differential quadrature method, Comput. Method. Appl.
M 194 (2005) 1–17.
[4] A.A. Jandaghian, O. Rahmani, Free vibration analysis of magneto-electro-
thermo-elastic nanobeams resting on a pasternak foundation, Smart Mater.
Struct. 25 (2016) 035023.
[5] W.L. Luo, Y. Xia, S. Weng, Vibration of Timoshenko beam on hysteretically
damped elastic foundation subjected to moving load, Sci. China Ser. A 58
(2015) 84601.
[6] S.C. Pradhan, T. Murmu, Thermo-mechanical vibration of FGM sandwich beam
under variable elastic foundation using differential quadrature method, J.
Sound. Vib. 321 (2009) 342–362.
[7] N. Togun, Nonlocal beam theory for nonlinear vibrations of a nanobeam resting
on elastic foundation, Bound. Vaule Probl. 2016 (2016) 57.
[8] Y. Zhang, J. He, L.H. Jiang, Flexural vibration band gaps characteristics in
phononic crystal Euler beams on two-parameter foundation, Adv. Mech. Eng.
2013 (2013) 953–956.
[9] Z.L. Zhang, T. Min, N.I. Qiao, Forced vibration of a cantilever fluid-conveying
pipe on nonlinear elastic foundation, J. Vib. Shock 32 (2013) 17–21.
[10] I. Anastasopoulos, P.C. Anastasopoulos, A. Agalianos, L. Sakellariadis, Simple
method for real-time seismic damage assessment of bridges, Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 78 (2015) 201–212.
[11] R. Jangid, T. Datta, Seismic behaviour of base-isolated buildings: a state-of-the
art review, P. I. Civil. Eng-Str. B 110 (1995) 186–203.
[12] H. Yu, Y. Yuan, A. Bobet, Seismic analysis of long tunnels: A review of
simplified and unified methods, Underg. Space 2 (2017) 73–87.
[13] N.D. Beskou, D.D. Theodorakopoulos, Dynamic effects of moving loads on road
pavements: a review, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 31 (2011) 547–567.
[14] J.A. Elkins, Interaction of Railway Vehicles with the Track and Its Substructure,
Routledge, 2018.
[15] H. Yu, Y. Yuan, Analytical solution for an infinite Euler–Bernoulli beam on a
viscoelastic foundation subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads, J. Eng. Mech. 140
(2014) 542–551.
[16] H. Yu, C. Cai, Y. Yuan, M. Jia, Analytical solutions for Euler–Bernoulli beam
on pasternak foundation subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads, Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Met 41 (2017) 1125–1137.
[17] H. Yu, Y. Yang, Y. Yuan, Analytical solution for a finite Euler–Bernoulli beam
with single discontinuity in section under arbitrary dynamic loads, Appl. Math.
Model. 60 (2018) 571–580.
[18] C. Cui, K. Meng, C. Xu, Z. Liang, H. Li, H. Pei, Analytical solution for
longitudinal vibration of a floating pile in saturated porous media based on
a fictitious saturated soil pile model, Comput. Geotech. 131 (2021) 103942.
[19] H. Yu, Y. Sun, P. Li, M. Zhao, Analytical solution for dynamic response of
underground rectangular fluid tank subjected to arbitrary dynamic loads, J.
Eng. Mech. 146 (2020) 04020077.
[20] M.M. Hossain, M.K. Rahman, S.S. Rahman, F. Akgun, H. Kinzel, Fatigue life
evaluation: a key to avoid drillpipe failure due to die-marks, in: IADC/SPE
Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology,
Indonesia, Jakarta, 1998, pp. 125–136.
[21] J.M. Lopez, On the bifurcation structure of axisymmetric vortex breakdown in
a constricted pipe, Phys. Fluids. 6 (1994) 3683–3693.
[22] O.D. Makinde, Strongly exothermic explosions in a cylindrical pipe: a case study
of series summation technique, Mech. Res. Commun. 32 (2005) 191–195.
[23] M. Orourke, E. Deyoe, Seismic damage to segmented buried pipe, Earthq.
Spectra 20 (2004) 1167–1183.
[24] Z. Rusak, C.H. Whiting, S. Wang, The evolution of a perturbed vortex in a pipe
to axisymmetric vortex breakdown, J. Fluid. Mech. 366 (1998) 211–237.
[25] N. Tarak¸ cioğlu, L. Gemi, A. Yapici, Fatigue failure behavior of glass/epoxy
±55 filament wound pipes under internal pressure, Compos. Sci. Technol. 65
(2005) 703–708.
[26] P. Wu, Heat flux pipe in large-scale fire tests, Fire Saf. Sci. 8 (2005) 1413–1424.
[27] Z. Zhou, J. He, M. Huang, J. He, J. Ou, G. Chen, Casing pipe damage detection
with optical fiber sensors: a case study in oil well constructions, Adv. Civ. Eng.
2010 (2010) 1–9.
[28] Q. Zhu, Y. Liu, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, Analysis of buried pipeline damage affected
by pipe-soil friction and pipe radius, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 26 (2006) 197–199.
[29] J.B. Zicherman, Plastic pipe and fire safety: how does the use of plastic pipe
in a structure impact the safety of its occupants during a fire? Cardiovasc. Res.
65 (2005) 397–404.
[30] I. Elishakoff, G.M. Tonzani, A. Marzani, Effect of boundary conditions in
three alternative models of Timoshenko–Ehrenfest beams on Winkler elastic
foundation, Acta Mech. 229 (2018) 1649–1686.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
[31] I. Elishakoff, G.M. Tonzani, N. Zaza, A. Marzani, Contrasting three alter-
native versions of timoshenko-ehrenfest theory for beam on Winkler elastic
foundation–simply supported beam, ZAMM Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 98 (2018)
1334–1368.
[32] I. Elishakoff, G.M. Tonzani, A. Marzani, Three alternative versions of bresse–
timoshenko theory for beam on pure pasternak foundation, Int. J. Mech. Sci.
149 (2018) 402–412.
[33] M. Li, X. Zhao, X. Li, X. Chang, Y. Li, Stability analysis of oil-conveying pipes
on two-parameter foundations with generalized boundary condition by means
of green’s functions, Eng. Struct. 173 (2018) 300–312.
[34] G.M. Tonzani, I. Elishakoff, Three alternative versions of the theory for a
Timoshenko–Ehrenfest beam on a Winkler–pasternak foundation, Math. Mech.
Solids. 26 (2021) 299–324.
[35] Z. Li, Y. Xu, D. Huang, Analytical solution for vibration of functionally graded
beams with variable cross-sections resting on pasternak elastic foundations, Int.
J. Mech. Sci. 191 (2021) 106084.
[36] V.H. Luong, T.N.T. Cao, J. Reddy, K.K. Ang, M.T. Tran, J. Dai, Static and
dynamic analyses of Mindlin plates resting on viscoelastic foundation by using
moving element method, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 18 (2018) 1850131.
[37] D. Paliwal, R.K. Pandey, T. Nath, Free vibrations of circular cylindrical shell
on Winkler and Pasternak foundations, Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 69 (1996) 79–89.
[38] Z. Zhao, Z. Zhao, J. Xu, R. Kubota, L. Liu, Strong ground motion simulation
for seismic hazard assessment in an urban area, J. Geophys. Eng. 4 (2007)
308–316.
[39] N. Lantada, L.G. Pujades, A.H. Barbat, Vulnerability index and capacity spec-
trum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation. A comparison, Nat.
Hazards 51 (2009) 501.
[40] X. Lu, H. Guan, Earthquake Disaster Simulation of Civil Infrastructures,
Springer, Beijing, China, 2017.
[41] X. Lu, B. Han, M. Hori, C. Xiong, Z. Xu, A coarse-grained parallel approach
for seismic damage simulations of urban areas based on refined models and
GPU/CPU cooperative computing, Adv. Eng. Softw. 70 (2014) 90–103.
[42] C. Xiong, X. Lu, M. Hori, H. Guan, Z. Xu, Building seismic response and
visualization using 3D urban polygonal modeling, Automat. in Constr. 55 (2015)
25–34.
[43] X. Lu, Z. Xu, C. Xiong, X. Zeng, High performance computing for regional
building seismic damage simulation, Procedia Eng. 198 (2017) 836–844.
[44] C. Xiong, X. Lu, X. Lin, Z. Xu, L. Ye, Parameter determination and damage
assessment for THA-based regional seismic damage prediction of multi-story
buildings, J. Earthquake Eng. 21 (2017) 461–485.
[45] J.P. Stewart, G.L. Fenves, R.B. Seed, Seismic soil–structure interaction in
buildings. I: Analytical methods, J. Geotech. Geoenviron 125 (1999) 26–37.
[46] J.P. Stewart, R.B. Seed, G.L. Fenves, Seismic soil–structure interaction in
buildings. II: Empirical findings, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 125 (1999) 38–48.
[47] H. Matinmanesh, M.S. Asheghabadi, Seismic analysis on soil–structure
interaction of buildings over sandy soil, Procedia Eng. 14 (2011) 1737–1743.
[48] S. Jarernprasert, E. Bazan-Zurita, J. Bielak, Seismic soil–structure interaction
response of inelastic structures, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 47 (2013) 132–143.
[49] A.S. Hokmabadi, B. Fatahi, B. Samali, Assessment of soil–pile–structure interac-
tion influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile
foundations, Comput. Geotech. 55 (2014) 172–186.
[50] A.S. Hokmabadi, B. Fatahi, B. Samali, Physical modeling of seismic soil–pile-
structure interaction for buildings on soft soils, Int. J. Geomech. 15 (2015)
04014046.
[51] S.H. Reza Tabatabaiefar, B. Fatahi, B. Samali, Seismic behavior of building
frames considering dynamic soil–structure interaction, Int. J. Geomech. 13
(2013) 409–420.
[52] S.C. Dutta, R. Roy, A critical review on idealization and modeling for interaction
among soil–foundation–structure system, Comput. Struct. 80 (2002) 1579–1594.
[53] Y. Wang, L. Tham, Y. Cheung, Beams and plates on elastic foundations: a
review, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 7 (2005) 174–182.
[54] D. Younesian, A. Hosseinkhani, H. Askari, E. Esmailzadeh, Elastic and vis-
coelastic foundations: a review on linear and nonlinear vibration modeling and
applications, Nonlin. Dynam. (2019) 1–43.
[55] S. Sınır, M. Çevik, B.G. Sınır, Nonlinear free and forced vibration analyses of ax-
ially functionally graded Euler–Bernoulli beams with non-uniform cross-section,
Composites B 148 (2018) 123–131.
[56] N. Shafiei, M. Kazemi, Nonlinear buckling of functionally graded nano-/micro-
scaled porous beams, Compos. Struct. 178 (2017) 483–492.
[57] K.F. Zhu, J.T. Chung, Vibration and stability analysis of a simply-supported
Rayleigh beam with spinning and axial motions, Appl. Math. Model. 66 (2019)
362–382.
[58] Y.-W. Kim, J.Y. Ryu, Vibrations of rotationally restrained Timoshenko beam
at hinged supports during an earthquake, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (2020)
1066–1078.
[59] A. Ebrahimi-Mamaghani, H. Sarparast, M. Rezaei, On the vibrations of axially
graded Rayleigh beams under a moving load, Appl. Math. Model. 84 (2020)
554–570.
[60] R. Ansari, M. Faghih Shojaei, V. Mohammadi, R. Gholami, F. Sadeghi, Nonlinear
forced vibration analysis of functionally graded carbon nanotube-reinforced
composite timoshenko beams, Compos. Struct. 113 (2014) 316–327.
20
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
[61] H.-T. Thai, T.P. Vo, Bending and free vibration of functionally graded beams
using various higher-order shear deformation beam theories, Int. J. Mech. Sci.
62 (2012) 57–66.
[62] S.Y. Chen, R. Geng, W.X. Li, Vibration analysis of functionally graded beams
using a higher-order shear deformable beam model with rational shear stress
distribution, Compos. Struct. 277 (2021) 114586.
[63] D.Y. Liu, D. Chen, J. Yang, S. Kitipornchai, Buckling and free vibration of axially
functionally graded graphene reinforced nanocomposite beams, Eng. Struct. 249
(2021) 113327.
[64] X. Zhao, C.F. Wang, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li, X.S. Wan, Coupled thermoelastic
nonlocal forced vibration of an axially moving micro/nano-beam, Int. J. Mech.
Sci. 206 (2021) 106600.
[65] M.H. Ghayesh, Nonlinear dynamic response of a simply-supported Kelvin–Voigt
viscoelastic beam, additionally supported by a nonlinear spring, Nonlinear Anal.
RWA 13 (2012) 1319–1333.
[66] V. Stojanović, M.D. Petković, Nonlinear dynamic analysis of damaged Reddy–
Bickford beams supported on an elastic pasternak foundation, J. Sound. Vib.
385 (2016) 239–266.
[67] H. Deng, k. Chen, W. Cheng, S. Zhao, Vibration and buckling analysis of double-
functionally graded Timoshenko beam system on Winkler-Pasternak elastic
foundation, Compos. Struct. 160 (2017) 152–168.
[68] M. Al-shujairi, Ç. Mollamahmutoğlu, Buckling and free vibration analysis of
functionally graded sandwich micro-beams resting on elastic foundation by
using nonlocal strain gradient theory in conjunction with higher order shear
theories under thermal effect, Composites B 154 (2018) 292–312.
[69] B. Bozyigit, Y. Yesilce, S. Catal, Free vibrations of axial-loaded beams resting on
viscoelastic foundation using Adomian decomposition method and differential
transformation, Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 21 (2018) 1181–1193.
[70] D. Froio, E. Rizzi, F.M.F. Simões, A.P.D. Costa, Universal analytical solution of
the steady-state response of an infinite beam on a Pasternak elastic foundation
under moving load, Int. J. Solids. Struct. 132–133 (2018) 245–263.
[71] I. Esen, Dynamic response of a functionally graded Timoshenko beam on two-
parameter elastic foundations due to a variable velocity moving mass, Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 153–154 (2019) 21–35.
[72] B. Chen, B.C. Lin, X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.K. Yang, Y.H. Li, Closed-form solutions
for forced vibrations of a cracked double-beam system interconnected by a
viscoelastic layer resting on Winkler–Pasternak elastic foundation, Thin. Wall.
Struct. 163 (2021) 107688.
[73] A. Heibig, A. Petrov, A dynamic Euler–Bernoulli beam equation frictionally
damped on an elastic foundation, Nonlinear Anal. RWA 64 (2022) 103427.
[74] S. Timoshenko, History of Strength of Materials: With a Brief Account of the
History of Theory of Elasticity and Theory of Structures, Dover, New York,
1983.
[75] D.-G. Zhang, Y.-H. Zhou, A theoretical analysis of FGM thin plates based on
physical neutral surface, Comput. Mater. Sci. 44 (2008) 716–720.
[76] I. Kaur, P. Lata, K. Singh, Forced flexural vibrations in a thin nonlocal
rectangular plate with Kirchhoff’s thin plate theory, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn.
20 (2020).
[77] D.W. Zietlow, D.C. Griffin, T.R. Moore, The limitations on applying classical
thin plate theory to thin annular plates clamped on the inner boundary, Aip
Adv. 2 (2012).
[78] E. Reissner, The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic
plates, J. Appl. Mech. 12 (1945) A69–A77.
[79] S.K. Lee, Identification of impact force in thick plates based on the elastody-
namics and time-frequency method (I) - theoretical approach for identification
the impact force based on elastodynamics, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 22 (2008)
1349–1358.
[80] S.A.S.P. Malekzadeh, Free vibration analysis of variable thickness thin and
moderately thick plates with elastically restrained edges by DQM, Thin. Wall.
Struct. 43 (2005) 1037–1050.
[81] E. Jomehzadeh, H.R. Noori, A.R. Saidi, The size-dependent vibration analysis
of micro-plates based on a modified couple stress theory, Phys. E-Low-Dimen.
Syst. Nanostruct. 43 (2011) 877–883.
[82] L.-L. Ke, J. Yang, S. Kitipornchai, M.A. Bradford, Bending, buckling and
vibration of size-dependent functionally graded annular microplates, Compos.
Struct. 94 (2012) 3250–3257.
[83] J. Kim, K.K. Zur, J.N. Reddy, Bending, free vibration, and buckling of modified
couples stress-based functionally graded porous micro-plates, Compos. Struct.
209 (2019) 879–888.
[84] E. Mohseni, A.R. Saidi, M. Mohammadi, Vibration analysis of thick functionally
graded micro-plates using HOSNDPT and modified couple stress theory, Iran.
J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Mech. Eng. 43 (2019) 641–651.
[85] H. Farahmand, Analytical solutions of bending and free vibration of moderately
thick micro-plate via two-variable strain gradient theory, J. Braz. Soc. Mech.
Sci. Eng. 42 (2020).
[86] A. Timoshin, A. Kazemi, M.H. Beni, J.E. Jam, B. Pham, Nonlinear strain gradient
forced vibration analysis of shear deformable microplates via hermitian finite
elements, Thin. Wall. Struct. 161 (2021).
[87] E. Bahmyari, A. Rahbar-Ranji, Free vibration analysis of orthotropic plates with
variable thickness resting on non-uniform elastic foundation by element free
Galerkin method, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 26 (2012) 2685–2694.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
[88] V.C. Haciyev, A.H. Sofiyev, N. Kuruoglu, Free bending vibration analysis of
thin bidirectionally exponentially graded orthotropic rectangular plates resting
on two-parameter elastic foundations, Compos. Struct. 184 (2018) 372–377.
[89] A. Deutsch, J. Tenenbaum, M. Eisenberger, Benchmark vibration frequencies
of square thin plates with all possible combinations of classical boundary
conditions, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 19 (2019).
[90] C.F. Lue, C.W. Lim, W.Q. Chen, Exact solutions for free vibrations of function-
ally graded thick plates on elastic foundations, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 16
(2009) 576–584.
[91] H. Liu, F. Liu, H. Bai, R. Yang, Free vibration of thick annular sector plate on
pasternak foundation with general boundary conditions, J. Vibroeng. 18 (2016)
1692–1706.
[92] Y.I. Ozdemir, Dynamic analysis of thick plates resting on Winkler foundation
using a new finite element, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Mech. Eng. 44 (2020)
69–79.
[93] A. Jamalpoor, A. Ahmadi-Savadkoohi, S. Hosseini-Hashemi, Free vibration and
biaxial buckling analysis of magneto-electro-elastic microplate resting on visco-
pasternak substrate via modified strain gradient theory, Smart Mater. Struct.
25 (2016).
[94] H. Farokhi, M.H. Ghayesh, A. Gholipour, M. Tavallaeinejad, Stability and
nonlinear dynamical analysis of functionally graded microplates, Microsyst.
Technol.-Micro- Nanosyst. Inf. Stor. Process. Syst. 24 (2018) 2109–2121.
[95] M.H. Hajmohammad, M.S. Zarei, M. Sepehr, N. Abtahi, Bending and buckling
analysis of functionally graded annular microplate integrated with piezoelectric
layers based on layerwise theory using DQM, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 79 (2018)
679–688.
[96] J. Kiendl, M.-C. Hsu, M.C. Wu, A. Reali, Isogeometric Kirchhoff–Love shell
formulations for general hyperelastic materials, Comput. Method. Appl. M 291
(2015) 280–303.
[97] S.-q. Li, H. Yuan, Quasi-Green’s function method for free vibration of simply-
supported trapezoidal shallow spherical shell, Appl. Math. Mech. 31 (2010)
635–642.
[98] E. Viola, F. Tornabene, N. Fantuzzi, General higher-order shear deformation
theories for the free vibration analysis of completely doubly-curved laminated
shells and panels, Compos. Struct. 95 (2013) 639–666.
[99] H. Li, F. Pang, Y. Ren, X. Miao, K. Ye, Free vibration characteristics of
functionally graded porous spherical shell with general boundary conditions
by using first-order shear deformation theory, Thin. Wall. Struct. 144 (2019)
106331.
[100] M.L. Dehsaraji, M. Arefi, A. Loghman, Size dependent free vibration analysis of
functionally graded piezoelectric micro/nano shell based on modified couple
stress theory with considering thickness stretching effect, Def. Technol. 17
(2021) 119–134.
[101] H. Huo, Z. Zhou, G.H. Chen, D.X. Yang, Exact benchmark solutions of random
vibration responses for thin-walled orthotropic cylindrical shells, Int. J. Mech.
Sci. 207 (2021) 106644.
[102] N.D. Duc, Nonlinear dynamic response of imperfect eccentrically stiffened FGM
double curved shallow shells on elastic foundation, Compos. Struct. 99 (2013)
88–96.
[103] G.G. Sheng, X. Wang, G. Fu, H. Hu, The nonlinear vibrations of functionally
graded cylindrical shells surrounded by an elastic foundation, Nonlin. Dyn. 78
(2014) 1421–1434.
[104] N.D. Duc, T.Q. Quan, Nonlinear response of imperfect eccentrically stiffened
FGM cylindrical panels on elastic foundation subjected to mechanical loads,
Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 46 (2014) 60–71.
[105] M.T. Tran, V.L. Nguyen, A.T. Trinh, Static and vibration analysis of cross-ply
laminated composite doubly curved shallow shell panels with stiffeners resting
on Winkler–Pasternak elastic foundations, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 9 (2017)
153–164.
[106] Q.H. Tran, H.T. Duong, T.M. Tran, Free vibration analysis of functionally
graded doubly curved shell panels resting on elastic foundation in thermal
environment, Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 10 (2018) 275–283.
[107] J.R. Gan, H. Yuan, S.Q. Li, Q.F. Peng, H.L. Zhang, An analytical method for
shallow spherical shell free vibration on two-parameter foundation, Heliyon 7
(2021) e05876.
[108] J.S. Yang, J.B. Cao, J.S. Xie, H.X. Zhao, Free vibration analysis of circular
cylindrical shell on elastic foundation using the Rayleigh–Ritz method, Struct.
Eng. Mech. 80 (2021) 37–46.
[109] R.F. Craig, Craig’s Soil Mechanics Seventh Edition Solutions Manual, Taylor &
Francis, London and New York, 2004.
[110] M. Zhao, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wuhan University of
Technology Press, Wuhan, China, 2014.
[111] B.C. O’Kelly, Atterberg limits and remolded shear strength—Water content
relationships, Geotech. Test. J. 36 (2013) 939–947.
[112] P.L. Pasternak, Theory of beams on a continuous elastic rotating and elastically
settling foundation, in: Nauch Isledovatel’skaya Konferencia MISI, 1937.
[113] S.N. Sokolov, Circular Plate on a Generalized Foundation, Academy of Sciences
USSR, Inzhinierny, Sbornik, 1952.
[114] I. Elishakoff, N. Impollonia, Does a partial elastic foundation increase the flutter
velocity of a pipe conveying fluid? J. Appl. Mech.-T ASME 68 (2001) 206–212.
[115] K. Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, London and New York, 1943.
21
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
[116] H. Boussinesq, Applicaions Des Potentiels Al’Etude Del’Equilibre Et Du
Mouvement Des Soilds Elastique, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1885.
[117] E. Winkler, Die Lehre Von Der Elasticitaet Und Festigkeit, Dominicus, Prague,
1867.
[118] M.M. Filonenko-Borodich, Some approximate theories of the elastic foundation,
46, Uchenyie Zapiski Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo University Mekhanica,
1940, pp. 3–18.
[119] M. Hetényi, A general solution for the bending of beams on an elastic
foundation of arbitrary continuity, J. Appl. Phys. 21 (1950) 55–58.
[120] A.D. Kerr, Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models, J. Appl. Mech.-T ASME
31 (1964) 491–498.
[121] W. Tang, Research of standard value table for debirs soils ultimate bearing
capacity, Adv. Earth Sci. 19 (2004) 380–385.
[122] F. Liang, H. Zhang, K. Yang, A variational solution for nonlinear response of
laterally loaded piles with elasto-plastic winkler spring model, KSCE J. Civ.
Eng. 19 (2015) 74–80.
[123] E. Cai, Elementary of Viscoelstic Mechanics, Beihang University Press, Beijing,
China, 1989.
[124] D. Gutierrez-Lemini, Engineering Viscoelasticity, Springer US, Arlington, 2014.
[125] O.H. Mahrenholtz, Beam on viscoelastic foundation: an extension of Winkler’s
model, Arch. Appl. Mech. 80 (2010) 93–102.
[126] L. Sun, A closed-form solution of a Bernoulli–Euler beam on a viscoelastic
foundation under harmonic line loads, J. Sound. Vib. 242 (2001) 619–627.
[127] M.A. Biot, F. Clingan, Bending settlement of a slab resting on a consolidating
foundation, J. Appl. Phys. 13 (1942) 35–40.
[128] A.M. Hanna, G.G. Meyerhof, Design charts for ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations on sand ove, Can. Geotech. J. 17 (1980) 300–303.
[129] G.G. Meyerhof, Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer overlying
clay, Can. Geotech. J. 11 (1974) 223–229.
[130] M.T. Omar, B.M. Das, V.K. Puri, S.C. Yen, Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow
foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement, Can. Geotech. J. 30 (1993)
545–549.
[131] J. Kaplunov, D. Prikazchikov, L. Sultanova, Justification and refinement of
Winkler–Fuss hypothesis, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 69 (2018) 1–15.
[132] I. Argatov, From Winkler’s foundation to Popov’s foundation, Facta Univ. Ser.
Mech. Eng. 17 (2019) 181–190.
[133] B. Erbaş, J. Kaplunov, I. Elishakoff, Asymptotic derivation of a refined equation
for an elastic beam resting on a Winkler foundation, Math. Mech. Solids. (2021)
10812865211023885.
[134] L. Frýba, History of Winkler foundation, Veh. Syst. Dyn. 24 (1995) 7–12.
[135] D.A. Dillard, B. Mukherjee, R.C. Batra, Reflections on the 150th Anniversary of
Winkler’s Foundation and its Profound Influence on the Field of Adhesion, in:
40th Annual Meeting of the Adhesion Society, 2017.
[136] D.A. Dillard, B. Mukherjee, P. Karnal, R.C. Batra, J. Frechette, A review of
Winkler’s foundation and its profound influence on adhesion and soft matter
applications, Soft Matter 14 (2018) 3669–3683.
[137] M.R. Madhav, S.V. Abhishek, K. Rajyalakshmi, Modelling ground-foundation
interactions, in: International Conference on Innovations in Structural Engi-
neering, International Conference on Innovations in Structural Engineering,
Osmania, Japan, 2015.
[138] P.L. Pasternak, On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by
means of two foundation constants, in: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Literaturi
Po Stroitelstvui Arkhitekture, 1954.
[139] V.Z. Vlasov, Beams, Plates and Shells on Elastic Foundations, Fizmatgiz,
Moscow, Russia, 1966.
[140] E. Reissner, A note on deflections of plates on a viscoelastic foundation, J. Appl.
Mech.-T ASME 25 (1958) 144–145.
[141] A.D. Kerr, A study of a new foundation model, Acta Mech. 1 (1965) 135–147.
[142] Y. Zhang, X.M. Liu, Response of an infinite beam resting on the tensionless
Winkler foundation subjected to an axial and a transverse concentrated loads,
Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 77 (2019) 103819.
[143] X. Ma, J.W. Butterworth, G.C. Clifton, Response of an infinite beam resting
on a tensionless elastic foundation subjected to arbitrarily complex transverse
loads, Mech. Res. Commun. 36 (2009) 818–825.
[144] X. Ma, J.W. Butterworth, G.C. Clifton, Static analysis of an infinite beam
resting on a tensionless Pasternak foundation, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 28 (2009)
697–703.
[145] İ. Co¸ Skun, Non-linear vibrations of a beam resting on a tensionless winkler
foundation, J. Sound. Vib. 236 (2000) 401–411.
[146] Y. Zhang, Tensionless contact of a finite beam resting on Reissner foundation,
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 50 (2008) 1035–1041.
[147] J.S. Chen, Y.K. Chen, Steady state and stability of a beam on a damped
tensionless foundation under a moving load, Int. J. Nonlinear. Mech 46 (2011)
180–185.
[148] D. Panahandeh-Shahraki, A.R. Shahidi, H.R. Mirdamadi, O. Vaseghi, Nonlinear
analysis of uni-lateral buckling for cylindrical panels on tensionless foundation,
Thin. Wall. Struct. 62 (2013) 109–117.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
[149] E.J. Sapountzakis, A.E. Kampitsis, Inelastic analysis of beams on two-parameter
tensionless elastoplastic foundation, Eng. Struct. 48 (2013) 389–401.
[150] J. Zhong, Y.M. Fu, Y. Chen, Y.L. Li, Analysis of nonlinear dynamic responses
for functionally graded beams resting on tensionless elastic foundation under
thermal shock, Compos. Struct. 142 (2016) 272–277.
[151] Y. Chen, Y.M. Fu, J. Zhong, C. Tao, Nonlinear dynamic responses of fiber-metal
laminated beam subjected to moving harmonic loads resting on tensionless
elastic foundation, Composites B 131 (2017) 253–259.
[152] B.Q. Zhang, F.Q. Chen, Q.Y. Wang, L.B. Lin, Analytical model of buried beams
on a tensionless foundation subjected to differential settlement, Appl. Math.
Model. 87 (2020) 269–286.
[153] Y. Zhang, X.M. Liu, Y. Wei, Response of an infinite beam on a bilinear elastic
foundation: Bridging the gap between the Winkler and tensionless foundation
models, Eur. J. Mech. A Solids 71 (2018) 394–403.
[154] Y. Kumar, R. Lal, Vibrations of nonhomogeneous orthotropic rectangular plates
with bilinear thickness variation resting on Winkler foundation, Meccanica 47
(2012) 893–915.
[155] P. Castro Jorge, A. Pinto da Costa, F.M.F. Simões, Finite element dynamic
analysis of finite beams on a bilinear foundation under a moving load, J. Sound
Vib. 346 (2015) 328–344.
[156] T. Mazilu, The dynamics of an infinite uniform Euler–Bernoulli beam on bilinear
viscoelastic foundation under moving loads, Proc. Eng. 199 (2017) 2561–2566.
[157] D. Froio, E. Rizzi, F.M.F. Simoes, A.P. Da Costa, Dynamics of a beam on a
bilinear elastic foundation under harmonic moving load, Acta Mech. 229 (2018)
4141–4165.
[158] S. Lenci, Propagation of periodic waves in beams on a bilinear foundation, Int.
J. Mech. Sci. 207 (2021) 106656.
[159] T. Mazilu, S. Arsene, I.C. Cruceanu, Track model with nonlinear elastic
characteristic of the rubber rail pad, Mater. Plast. 58 (2021) 84–98.
[160] W. Powrie, Soil Mechanics: Concepts and Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
2018.
[161] G. Jemielita, Governing equations and boundary conditions of a generalized
model of elastic foundation, J. Theor. App. Mech. 4 (1994) 887–901.
[162] J.S. Horvath, R.J. Colasanti, New hybrid subgrade model for soil–structure in-
teraction analysis: foundation and geosynthetics applications, in: Geo-Frontiers:
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, Dallas, US, 2011, pp. 4359–4368.
[163] J.S. Horvath, Beam–column-analogy model for soil–structure interaction
analysis, J. Geo. Eng. 119 (1993) 358–364.
[164] A. Worku, Part I: A Generalized Formulation of Continuum Models for Elastic
Foundations, Geoflorida, Geoflorida, Florida, US, 2010, pp. 1641–1650.
[165] C.V.G. Vallabhan, Y.C. Das, Beams on elastic foundations: a new approach, in:
Foundation Engineerings Current Principles and Practices, New York, US, 1989,
pp. 613–624.
[166] M. Levinson, Generalized vlasov-jones foundation model : a foundation of grade
4, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 25 (1983) 149–154.
[167] H.A. Abdulbari, K.S. Fong, A.Y. Mohd Yassin, Fluid–structure interaction (FSI)
of damped oil conveying pipeline system by finite element method element
method, MATEC Web Conf. 111 (2017) 01005.
[168] S.M. Binesh, Analysis of beam on elastic foundation using the radial point
interpolation method, Sci. Iran. 19 (2012) 403–409.
[169] L. Borák, P. Marcián, Beams on elastic foundation using modified Betti’s
theorem, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 88 (2014) 17–24.
[170] Z. Dimitrovová, Analysis of the critical velocity of a load moving on a beam
supported by a finite depth foundation, Int. J. Solids. Struct. 122–123 (2017)
128–147.
[171] O. Doaré, Dissipation effect on local and global stability of fluid-conveying
pipes, J. Sound. Vib. 329 (2010) 72–83.
[172] M.A. Foyouzat, M. Mofid, J.E. Akin, On the dynamic response of beams on
elastic foundations with variable modulus, Acta Mech. 227 (2015) 549–564.
[173] D. Froio, E. Rizzi, Analytical solution for the elastic bending of beams lying on
a variable Winkler support, Acta Mech. 227 (2015) 1157–1179.
[174] A. Marzani, M. Mazzotti, E. Viola, P. Vittori, I. Elishakoff, FEM Formulation for
dynamic instability of fluid-conveying pipe on nonuniform elastic foundation,
Mech. Based Des. Struc. 40 (2012) 83–95.
[175] R. Mullapudi, A. Ayoub, Nonlinear finite element modeling of beams on
two-parameter foundations, Comput. Geotech. 37 (2010) 334–342.
[176] A.E.S. Musa, Galerkin method for bending analysis of beams on non-
homogeneous foundation, J. App. Math. Comput. Mech. 16 (2017)
61–72.
[177] L.J. Prendergast, K. Gavin, P. Doherty, An investigation into the effect of scour
on the natural frequency of an offshore wind turbine, Ocean. Eng. 101 (2015)
1–11.
[178] L.J. Prendergast, C. Reale, K. Gavin, Probabilistic examination of the change
in eigenfrequencies of an offshore wind turbine under progressive scour
incorporating soil spatial variability, Mar. Struct. 57 (2018) 87–104.
[179] L.T. Stavridis, Prestressed foundation beams on elastic layered soil, Geotech.
Geo. Eng. 29 (2010) 431–442.
[180] V. Stojanović, P. Kozić, G. Janevski, Exact closed-form solutions for the natural
frequencies and stability of elastically connected multiple beam system using
timoshenko and high-order shear deformation theory, J. Sound. Vib. 332 (2013)
563–576.
22
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
[181] G.N. Smith, I.G.N. Smith, Elements of Soil Mechanics, University Press,
Cambridge, Great Britain, 1995.
[182] M. Di Paola, F. Marino, M. Zingales, A generalized model of elastic foundation
based on long-range interactions: Integral and fractional model, Int. J. Solids.
Struct. 46 (2009) 3124–3137.
[183] A. Moussa, P. Christou, The evolution of analysis methods for laterally loaded
piles through time, in: International Congress and Exhibition Sustainable Civil
Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 65–94.
[184] A.B. Rad, Thermo-elastic analysis of functionally graded circular plates resting
on a gradient hybrid foundation, Appl. Math. Comput. 256 (2015) 276–298.
[185] A. Worku, Discussion of practical subgrade model for improved soil–structure
interaction analysis: model development by John S. Horvath and Regis J.
Colasanti, Int. J. Geomech. 13 (2013) 97–99.
[186] D.H. Bich, D.G. Ninh, Post-buckling of sigmoid-functionally graded ma-
terial toroidal shell segment surrounded by an elastic foundation under
thermo-mechanical loads, Compos. Struct. 138 (2016) 253–263.
[187] W. Cai, W. Chen, W. Xu, Fractional modeling of pasternak-type viscoelastic
foundation, Mech. Time-Depend. Mater. 21 (2016) 119–131.
[188] M. Dahmane, D. Boutchicha, L. Adjlout, One-way fluid structure interaction
of pipe under flow with different boundary conditions, Mechanics 22 (2017)
495–503.
[189] D.V. Dung, L.K. Hoa, Nonlinear torsional buckling and postbuckling of eccen-
trically stiffened FGM cylindrical shells in thermal environment, Compos. Part.
B-Eng. 69 (2015) 378–388.
[190] M.T. Hassan, Recursive differentiation method: application to the dynamics
of beams on two parameter foundations, Ships Offshore Struct. 11 (2014)
278–285.
[191] G. He, X. Li, R. Lou, Nonlinear FEA of higher order beam resting on a
tensionless foundation with friction, Geomech. Eng. 11 (2016) 95–116.
[192] Z. Khodami Maraghi, A. Ghorbanpour Arani, R. Kolahchi, S. Amir, M.R. Bagheri,
Nonlocal vibration and instability of embedded DWBNNT conveying viscose
fluid, Compos. Part. B-Eng. 45 (2013) 423–432.
[193] Y.-W. Kim, Effect of partial elastic foundation on free vibration of fluid-filled
functionally graded cylindrical shells, Acta Mech. Sinica. 31 (2015) 920–930.
[194] J.K. Lee, S. Jeong, J. Lee, Natural frequencies for flexural and torsional
vibrations of beams on pasternak foundation, Soils Found. 54 (2014)
1202–1211.
[195] M. Li, X. Zhao, X. Li, X.P. Chang, Y.H. Li, Stability analysis of oil-conveying
pipes on two-parameter foundations with generalized boundary condition by
means of Green’s functions, Eng. Struct. 173 (2018) 300–312.
[196] P. Obara, Vibrations and stability of Bernoulli–Euler and Timoshenko beams on
two-parameter elastic foundation, Arch. Civ. Eng. 60 (2014) 421–440.
[197] A.H. Sofiyev, The combined influences of heterogeneity and elastic foundations
on the nonlinear vibration of orthotropic truncated conical shells, Compos. Part.
B-Eng. 61 (2014) 324–339.
[198] A.H. Sofiyev, D. Hui, A.A. Valiyev, F. Kadioglu, S. Turkaslan, G.Q. Yuan, V.
Kalpakci, A. Özdemir, Effects of shear stresses and rotary inertia on the stability
and vibration of sandwich cylindrical shells with FGM core surrounded by
elastic medium, Mech. Based Des. Struc. 44 (2015) 384–404.
[199] D. Van Dung, L. Kha Hoa, Semi-analytical approach for analyzing the nonlinear
dynamic torsional buckling of stiffened functionally graded material circular
cylindrical shells surrounded by an elastic medium, Appl. Math. Model. 39
(2015) 6951–6967.
[200] L. Wang, J. Ma, Y. Zhao, Q. Liu, Refined modeling and free vibration of
inextensional beams on the elastic foundation, J. Appl. Mech.-T ASME 80
(2013) 041026.
[201] Y. Yu, B. Wu, Analytical approximate solutions to large-amplitude free vibra-
tions of uniform beams on pasternak foundation, Int. J. App. Mech. 06 (2014)
1450075.
[202] L.-S. Zhao, W.-H. Zhou, B. Fatahi, X.-B. Li, K.-V. Yuen, A dual beam model
for geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill on an elastic foundation, Appl. Math.
Model. 40 (2016) 9254–9268.
[203] D. Zorica, T.M. Atanacković, Z. Vrcelj, B. Novaković, Dynamic stability of
axially loaded nonlocal rod on generalized Pasternak foundation, J. Eng. Mech.
143 (2017) D4016003.
[204] P. Kozić, R. Pavlović, D. Karličić, The flexural vibration and buckling of the
elastically connected parallel-beams with a Kerr-type layer in between, Mech.
Res. Commun. 56 (2014) 83–89.
[205] S. Limkatanyu, W. Prachasaree, N. Damrongwiriyanupap, M. Kwon, W. Jung,
Exact stiffness for beams on Kerr-type foundation: the virtual force approach,
J. Appl. Mech.-T ASME 2013 (2013) 1–13.
[206] K. Morfidis, Vibration of Timoshenko beams on three-parameter elastic
foundation, Comput. Struct. 88 (2010) 294–308.
[207] H. Zhang, Z.X. Zhang, Estimating the Effects of Shield Tunnelling on Buried
Pipelines Based on a Kerr Foundation Model, 2013, pp. 263–268.
[208] S.Y. Tao, Q.Y. Liu, G.R. Wang, J.C. Jiang, Influence of the key parameters
of suspended structures on the inherent frequency of oil and gas pipelines, J.
Sound. Vib. 355 (2015) 39–53.
X. Zhao, W.D. Zhu, Y.H. Li et al.
[209] Akgoz. Bekir, Civalek, Omer, Modeling and analysis of micro-sized plates resting
on elastic medium;using the modified couple stress theory, Meccanica 48 (2013)
863–873.
[210] A. Borisovich, J. Dymkowska, C. Szymczak, Buckling and postcritical behaviour
of the elastic infinite plate strip resting on linear elastic foundation, J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 307 (2005) 480–495.
[211] D. Dinev, Analytical solution of beam on elastic foundation by singularity
functions, Eng. Mech. 19 (2012) 381–392.
[212] S.M. Elachachi, D. Breysse, A. Denis, The effects of soil spatial variability on
the reliability of rigid buried pipes, Comput. Geotech. 43 (2012) 61–71.
[213] G. Onu, Finite elements on generalized elastic foundation in timoshenko beam
theory, J. Eng. Mech. 134 (2009) 763–776.
[214] I.S. Skorodyns’kyi, O.V. Maksymuk, A generalized model of viscoelastic inter-
layer or coating taking into account its transverse shear deformation, J. Math.
Sci. 201 (2014) 72–82.
[215] I.B. Teodoru, V. Muşat, The modified vlasov foundation model: an attractive
approach for beams resting on elastic supports, Elec. J. Geotech. Eng. 15 (2010)
1–15.
23
Thin-Walled Structures 173 (2022) 108936
[216] N. Challamel, S.A. Meftah, F. Bernard, Buckling of elastic beams on non-local
foundation: A revisiting of Reissner model, Mech. Res. Commun. 37 (2010)
472–475.
[217] N. Challamel, S. Meftah, F. Bernard, Buckling of elastic beams on non-local
foundation: A revisiting of Reissner model, Mech. Res. Commun. 37 (2010)
472–475.
[218] A. Worku, Calibrated analytical formulas for foundation model parameters, Int.
J. Geomech. 13 (2013) 340–347.
[219] A. Worku, Development of a calibrated Pasternak foundation model for practical
use, Int. J. Geo. Eng. 8 (2014) 26–33.
[220] C.V.G. Vallabhan, Analysis of circular tank foundations, J. Eng. Mech. 117
(1991) 789–797.
[221] C.V.G. Vallabhan, W.T. Straughan, Y.C. Das, Refined model for analysis of plates
on elastic foundations, J. Eng. Mech. 117 (1991) 2830–2843.
[222] I. Avramidis, K. Morfidis, Bending of beams on three-parameter elastic
foundation, Int. J. Solids. Struct. 43 (2006) 357–375.
[223] E. Pan, An exact solution for transversely isotropic, simply supported and
layered rectangular plates, J. Elasticity. 25 (1991) 101–116.