Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Int.

J. mech. SC;., Vol.

19. pp. 317-323.

Pergamon

Press

1977.

Printed

in Great

Britain

pp. 317-323. Pergamon Press 1977. Printed in Great Britain R. JONES THE VLASOV FOUNDATION MODEL Department

R.

JONES

THE

VLASOV

FOUNDATION

MODEL

Department

of

Applied

Mathematics,

University

of

the

Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg,

South

 

Africa

and

 

J.

XENOPHONTOS

 
 

Department

of

Civil

Engineering,

Swinburne

College

of

Technology,

Victoria,

 

Australia

 
 

(Received

30

April

1976,

in

revised

form

19 August

1976)

Summary-An

 

alternative

variational

formulation

of Vlasov’s

two

parameter

foundation

model

is presented.

This

formulation

provides

a rigorous

theoretical

basis

for

the

present

form

of the

vertical deformation

profiles,

which

have

previously

been

assumed,

and

which

form

the

basis

of

the

Vlasov

model.

An

experimental

investigation

of

the

Vlasov

model

is also

presented.

 

NOTATION

 
 

stress

components

 

horizontal

and

vertical

displacements

 

strain

energy

 

potential

energy

flexural

rigidity

of

the

plate

Poisson’s

ratio

of

the

plate

 

Youngs

modulus,

and

Poissons

ratio

of

the

foundation

 

foundation

thickness

 

the

vertical

deformation

profile

 

unknown

parameter

in

the

vertical

deformation

profile

 

surface

deformation

 

the

modulus

of

subgrade

reaction,

and

the

shear

parameter

for

the

soil

surface

load

half

lengths

of

the

tested

beam

 

A number

of

attempts

have

INTRODUCTION

been

made

to

describe

the

behaviour

of

an

elastic

foundation

under

surface

load.

Generally,

the

foundation

 

is

described

either

as

a

continuum,

for

which

linear

stress-strain

relations

are

assumed

valid

or

as

a system

of

continuously

distributed

independent

springs

which

offer

resistance

in the

direction

 

of

their

axes

only.

The

later

assumption

was

first

introduced

by

Winkler”

 

who

assumed

that

the

reactive

forces

of the

foundation,

carrying

a loaded

beam,

were

proportional

at

every

point

to the

deflection

of the

beam

at that

point.

Winkler’s

assumption,

in spite

of

its

simplicity,

leads

to satisfactory

results

for

the

surface

deformations

of beams

on

an

elastic

foundation,

see

FGppl’

and

H&tCnyl.4

However

the

model

is

less

satisfactory

when

applied

to

loaded

surface

area.

 
 

More

recent

analyses

assume

that

some

interaction

occurs

between

spring

elements.

Filonenko-Borodich’

assumed

that

the

top

ends

of the

spring

elements

were

connected

to

a

membrane

 

which

could

sustain

tensile

stresses.

Pasternak”

provided

for

shear

interactions

between

the

spring

elements

by

connecting

the

ends

of

the

springs

to

a

beam

or plate

consisting

of incompressible

vertical

elements,

which

deformed

only

by

transverse

shear.

 

Vlasov

and

LeontCv9

also

considered

the

shear

interactions

in

a

foundation

 

and

formulated

their

problems

by

using

a

variational

method.

Their

approach

has

been

widely

used

by

a

number

of

recent

workers3.‘,”

and

is

now

extensively

used

in

the

design

of

structures

upon

soil

foundations.

It has

all

of

the

advantages

of a continuum

 

approach

as

well

as

the

simplicity

of

the

coupled

spring

model.

However

this

model

strongly

depends

 

upon

the

assumed

form

of

the

vertical

deformation

profile.

IS Vol.19. No. hA

317

318

R

]ONES

and

J.

XENOPHONTOS

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

theoretically

experimentally determined vertical deformation profile.

predicted profile is found to be in excellent agreement with the

THE

MODEL

Let us consider an elastic foundation of thickness H, resting on a rigid base. A plate of flexural rigidity D lies upon the upper surface of this foundation, and is subject to

I). Take the oxy plane at the upper surface with the z-axis

vertical load q(x, y) (Fig.

X

0

I

a"

J

l Qstl:f°undatl°nH'i',E

FIG. 1.

directed positively downwards. plate is

Then the total strain energy of the foundation and the

1

fff[

au+

av+

aw

(

av+aU~+r~

(0.,+0q

3w

-

"[32wO2w (O2w]2]]ds,

\3yay/ /J

2(1- vo)~-~x2 ~

(1)

where u, v, w are the two horizontal and the vertical displacements, respectively, ~r,, or,

cr=, -r~, r~, %

plate. Here the double integration is over that portion of the upper surface of the foundation on which the plate lies. The volume integration is over the entire volume of

the foundation.

related

given by Vlasov ~ (p. 30)

are the stresses in the foundation, and v, is the Poissons ration of the

The

stresses

in the

foundation

are

to

the

deformations

by

the

formulae,

E

}0.,+

--

/2

/a.

--q---

I

The Vlasov foundation model

where,

foundation,

as

z~, -

2(1 +

u)

~x-x+

E

I Ow+ Ou

E

I Oy+ O~

~"~

2(1 +

u)

Ov

in

E.

Vlasov

and

(p.

31),

E

the Poisson's

and

v ratio of the foundation,

are

related

to

the

E-

Es

l_v~,

v -

l)s

l-v~

.

Young's

v~, by

modulus

of

319

(2)

the

(3)

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

w(x, y, z)=

w,(x, y),Nz)

(4)

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

function

&(z) was

taken by

Vlasov ~ in the form

&(z) = sinh [T(H

-

z)l/sinh (TH)

(5)

where

displacements.

7 is an unknown constant determining the variation, with depth, of the vertical

Substituting

for

w and

setting

u

=

v = 0

in

equation

(1)

gives

1

.

Ow,

Ow,]

 

dx dy

(6)

while the

stresses

~r~-xz,and

~-,~ reduce

to

E

d4~

 

o~z= 1-]~

w, d--~

 
 

aW~

 

(7)

 

"rx~= G4~ Ox

 
 

Ow

 

~',,~=

G & -~y

.

Consequently,

the

strain energy

V is finally expressible

as

 

v=½f f f (~@~ w,2(~)" + ~21vw,12)dxd. dz+--~2

× f~f ( ,~2w,)2- 2('- ~°,t ~

oxo, .~--~. j, dx d,

(8)

320

R. JONESand .1. XENOPH()NIOS

The requirement that the total potential energy I is minimized, see Timoshenko et al.~(p. 251), now yields

which leads

to the following partial

differential

equations

in

dJ and

w,, viz

and

E

(1 Z~ 2)

"(d~

\~-z

) 2dzw'

E

2(1~ p)

f" ,

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

d-~d~

dz'-(l-v

E

2

"

)~ f w'~dxdy-'52(l+v)~

E

IlW'd:dxdy

=0

(10)

(II)

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

It is usual

to denote

as

k. and

2t

k-

I--1,2

and

 

2t

-

2(1+ E v)

so that

equation

(10) may be written

as

k~zz/

""

f,"

ch'-dz,

(12)

(13)

DV4w, + kw,

- 2tV:w, = q(x, y).

(14)

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

z = H, and that on z = 0 we

have

61:

,,=

l

then equation

(11) has as its solution

4~(z) = sinh 7(H -

z)/sinh 7H

(16)

where

2

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

~ w," dx dv

(17)

The Vlasov foundation model

This form for ~b agrees exactly with the previously guessed form of the vertical deformation profile. Consequently we have established a rigorous theoretical basis for the vertical deformation profile 4~(z), which in turn gives added strength to the Vlasov two parameter soil model. Furthermore, on the basis of equation (17) we are able to deduce several important factors which will influence the value of % Let us consider that the upper surface of the soil is of infinite extent so that away from the plate the deflections decay to zero. Then using Green's theorem equation (17) reduces to

321

(v-l)ffw,V2w, dxdy
2

y

=

2ffw,2dxdy

(18)

which

making use of equation

(14) gives

y2 =

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

2ffw, dxdy

(19)

Here the subscript s under the integral sign means that the integration is over that portion of the surface on which the plate lies, while the unsubscripted double integral is over the entire upper surface of the foundation. Hence equation (19) shows that y will

be dependent upon both the applied load q, and the shape and flexural rigidity of the

plate. In the special case of surface loading only (i.e. D = 0) then y will only depend on the load and the shape of the loaded region. This is an important result since in all previous publications it has been assumed that y was independent of such consideration.

As a consequence

of this dependence

the parameters

k

and

will also depend plate.

_

fo

(I --~~

2t-2(1

E

+v)

\dz/

q52

fo/q

dz=

Ey(sinh

7H

cosh yH + yH)

2(i

-

v 2) sinh 2 7H

'

E(sinh 7H cosh yH -

4(l+v) sinh2yH

yH)

,

(20)

(21)

on the load, the shape, and interestingly, the flexural rigidity of the

Indeed

such

a dependence

is encountered

when

one

attempts

to experimentally

determine

the value of the modulus

of subgrade

reaction,

i.e.k.

EXPERIMENTAL

INVESTIGATION

A limited experimental investigation was undertaken to investigate this behaviour.

A sheet of gum rubber was used to simulate an elastic foundation material. This

material was chosen mainly because of the limited finance available, but also because of

its low Young's modulus (approximately 1000 KN/m 2) and because the properties of the

rubber were easily obtained. Poisson's ratio, u, was found to be 0.48. For simplicity a two dimensional model was tested. The load was transmitted to the foundation via rigid beams of the same width as the foundation. Five beams of lengths 12.5, 25, 37.5 and 75 mm were tested, the depth H of the foundation being 150 mm while the thickness d of the foundation is 6.25 mm. Particulars of the testing apparatus are given in Fig. 2. The deformations were measured at various points beneath the point of application of the load, and were measured using a travelling microscope to within an accuracy of 0.00! ram.

322

mm

R,

P

JONES

and

225mm

i~

450mm

 

Rigid

support

Fro. 2, Geometry

J.

XENOPHON'r(}s

J

/

Gum

rubber

I

[

i

P

6 25mm

of the test apparatus.

Rigid

beam

The results of these measurements are shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b) where c is the half

length of the beam. In each case the deformation profiles were found to be a hyperbolic sine function as predicted in the previous section. Indeed the agreement between the theory and the experimental results is very good. The values of 3' obtained from these

deformation the value of

75mm beam (c/d =6) the value of 3' was small (=0.0087mm ') and the vertical deformation profile was very nearly linear. Table 1 also presents the values of the modulus of subgrade reaction k, as computed from equation (20) using the experimentally

determined values of 3'.

profiles is given in Table 1 for each of the five beams tested, As predicted 3' may be seen to depend upon the length of the beam, In the case of the

¢

0

02

04

06

08

I0

0

02

]

]

I

//ix"7~

 

I

8

,xt

,x

/

!¢.;

Ig

!C

18

2C

<" X

/

/ X

--x

/ ×

×

/~

,,

L/

/

6i i/

7i

i

04

xl ]: y

'

e (ram)

c/d

3, (mm

')

k

(MN/m ~)

6.25

1

0.0175

11.78

FIG. 3.

Vertical

12.5

2

0.0157

10.97

deformation

profiles.

TABLE

1.

18.75

3

0.0138

10.26

REFERENCES

@

06

08

IO

.,, Z.".?2x

: 3

Theory

×Experimentoiresults

25.00

4

0.0122

9.69

37.5

6

0.0087

8.90

I.

M. M. FILENKO-BORODICH,Vohenyie Zapiski Moskovskyo Gosudar-stuenno Universieta Mechanica, No.

46, p.

3 (1940).

2.

A. FOPPL, Vorlesungen uber Technische Mechanik, 9th edn, Vol. 3, p. 258, Leipzig (1922).

3.

M. E. HARR, A,S.C.E

J.

Soil

Mech.

Foundations

Dic. 95, 933 (1969).

 

4.

M. HETENYE, Beams

on

Elastic

Foundations.

University

of Michigan Press,

Ann

Arbor (1946)

The Vlasov foundation model

323

(1964).

6. P. L. PATERNAK,Gosuedarstvennoe Izadateslstve Literaluri po stroitelstvu Arkhitekture. Moscow (1954).

7. S.-F. CHEN, Proc. Jap. Soc.

8. S. P. TIMOSHENKOand J. N. GOODIER, Theory o[ Elasticity. 3rd edit., McGraw-Hill, New York (1970).

9. V. Z, VLASOVand N. N. LEONT'EN,Beams Plates and Shells on Elastic Foundations. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Tel Aviv (1966).

5. A. D. KERR, Trans.

ASME, series E, 31,491

Cir. Engrs p. 42 (1972).

10. E. WINKLER, Die Lehre yon der Elastizitat und Festigkeit. (1867).

11. T.

12. R. JONES and J. XENOPHONTOS, Acta Mechanica Vol. 25 (1976).

Y. YANG, Compters & Struct. 2, 593 (1972).