Beams On Elastic Foundation Using Winkler Model
Beams On Elastic Foundation Using Winkler Model
Beams On Elastic Foundation Using Winkler Model
A graduation project
Submitted to the department of civil engineering at
The University of Baghdad
Baghdad - Iraq
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
degree of Bachelor of Science in civil engineering
By
Amjad Salem Rashid Rafife Sa’ad Hadi Sarah Mohamed Saleh
Supervised by
Assistant lecturer, Adnan Najem (M.Sc., in Structural Engineering)
July /2007
1
2 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Beam on Elastic
Foundation
2
3 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
I certify that study entitled “BEAM ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION”, was prepared by under
my supervision at the civil engineering department in the University of Baghdad, in
partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in civil
engineering.
Supervisor:
Signature:
Date:
3
4 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
We certify that we have read this study “ BEAM ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION” and as
examining committee examined the students in its content and in what is connected to
with it, and that in our opinion it meets the standard of a study for the degree of
Bachelor of Science in civil engineering.
Signature: Signature:
Name: Name:
Date: Date:
Committee Chairman:
Signature:
Name:
Date:
Signature:
Name:
Date:
4
5 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Thanks:
We would like to present our great thanks to the head of civil engineering department
and their teaching stuff for all their great help and assistance along our study journey.
5
6 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Abstract:
This objective of this study is to develop a better understanding for the basic principles
of structural analysis of beams resting on elastic half space foundation so they can be
efficiently implemented on modern computers.
Beams on elastic foundation are analysis is divided into parts. Firstly for superstructure;
the structural members (beams) were analyzed using linearly elastic methods such as
stiffness method. Secondly for substructure; elastic foundation continuum is modeled
according to the elastic continuum theory (elastic half space model).Then both parts
were assembled in matrix forms and analyzed by stiffness method.
Project layout
The project is divided into five chapters as follows:
Chapter one: presents a general introduction to the subject of stiffness method and
elastic foundation models.
Chapter two: presents the previous literatures published about this subject.
Chapter three: presents the theoretical bases for the analysis method and the elastic
foundation models derivations.
Chapter five: discuses the results of this analysis method. And recommend future steps.
6
7 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Contents:
Title……………………………………………………………………………………2
Supervisor words……………………………………………………………….3
Committee words………………………………………………………………4
Thanks……………………………………………………………………………….5
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….6
Project Layout………………………….……………………………………….6
Contents…….……..………………………………………………………………7
References…………………………………………………………………..……39
Appendix I…………………………………………………………………..……40
7
8 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Chapter one
Introduction
8
9 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
This method of analyzing structures is probably (14) used more widely than the flexibility
method, especially for large and complex structures (with multiple nodes). Such
structures require the use of electronic computers for carrying out the extensive
numerical calculations, and the stiffness method is much more suitable for computer
programming than the flexibility method!
The reason is that the stiffness method can be put into the form of a standardized
procedure which dose not requires any engineering decisions during the calculation
process. And also the unknown quantities in the stiffness method are prescribed more
clearly than the flexibility method.
When analyzing a structure by the stiffness method, normally we use the concepts of
kinematic indeterminacy, fixed-end reactions, and stiffnesses. These definitions will be
explained as follows:
KINEMATIC INDETERMINACY
In stiffness method the unknown quantities in the analysis are the joint displacements of
the structure, rather than the redundant reactions and stress resultants as is the case of
flexibility method. The Joints in any structure will be define as points where two or more
members intersect, the points of support, and the free ends of any projecting members.
When the structure is subjected to loads, all or some of the joints will undergo
displacements in the form of translations and rotations. Of course, some of the joints
displacements will be zero because of the restraint conditions; for instance, at a fixed
support there will be no displacements of any kind.
The unknown joint displacements are called kinematic unknowns and their number is
called either the degree of kinematic indeterminacy or the number of degrees of
freedom (DOF) for joint displacements.
FIXED-END ACTIONS
In stiffness method we regulatory encounter fixed-end beam, because one of the first
steps in this method is to restrain all of the unknown joint displacements. The
imposition of such restrains causes a continuous beam or plane frame to become an
assemblage of fixed-end beams. Therefore, we need to have readily available a
collection of formulas for the reactions of fixed-end beams for multiple case. These
reactions which consist of both; forces and couples (moments), are known collectively
as Fixed-End actions. Values of fixed-end actions for multiple cases are shown in
Appendix I.
STIFFNESSES
In the stiffness method we make use of actions caused by unit displacement. These
displacement may be either unit translation or unit rotation, and the resulting actions
are either forces of couples (moments). These actions caused by unit displacement are
9
10 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Now most of the preliminary ideas and definitions have been set fourth, and the
problem of analyzing a structure can be established. Interpreting of Equilibrium
Equations, and making use of the Principles of Superposition, for the case of a structure
having (n x n) Degrees of Kinematic Indeterminacy will lead to the following sets of
linear equations are obtained:
Hence, the principles of superposition are used in developing fixed-end actions (forces),
therefore, this method is limited to linearly elastic structures with small displacements.
The n equations can be solved for the n unknown joint displacement of the structure.
The important fact which need to be established: that Equilibrium Equations of the
Stiffness Method express the superposition of actions (forces) corresponding to
unknown displacements. While the compatibility equations of the Flexibility Method
express the superposition of displacements corresponding unknown actions (forces).
Also; it should be noticed that above equilibrium equations (1.1) are written in a form
which takes into account only the effects of applied loads on the structure, but the
equation can be readily modified to include the effects of temperature changes,
prestrains, and support settlements. It is only necessary to include these effects in the
10
11 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
determination of the actions (forces) A1, A2,…, An. Furthermore, Eq. (1.2) apply to many
types of structures, including trusses and space frames, although in this project is
limited to in-plane structure (beams), and hence the stiffness method is applicable only
to linearly elastic structures.
Stiffness method can be used to analyze structures only, finite element analysis, which
originated as an extension of matrix (stiffness and flexibility), it is detected to analyze
surface structures (e. g. plates and shells). FEM has now developed to the extent that it
can be applied to structures and solids of practically any shape or form. From theoretical
viewpoint, the basic difference between the two is that, in stiffness method, the
member force-displacement relationships are based on the exact solutions of the
underlying differential equations, whereas in FEM, such relations are generally derived
by Work-Energy Principles from assumed displacement or stress functions.
11
12 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Chapter two
Literature
12
13 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
The theoretical foundation for matrix (stiffness) method of structural analysis was laid
and developed by many scientists:
These classical methods are considered to be the precursors of the matrix (Flexibility
and Stiffness) method, respectively. In the precomputer era, the main disadvantage of
these earlier methods was that they required direct solution of Simultaneous Equations
(formidable task by hand calculations in cases more than a few unknowns).
Levy, S., [1947] is generally considered to have been the first to introduce the flexibility
method, by generalizing the classical method of consistent deformations.
Falkenheimer, H., Langefors, B., and Denke, P. H., [1950], many subsequent researches
extended the flexibility method and expressed in matrix form are:
Livesley, R. K., [1954], is generally considered to have been the first to introduce the
stiffness matrix in 1954, by generalizing the classical method of slop-deflections.
Argyris, J. H., and Kelsey, S., [1954], the two subsequent researches presented a
formulation for stiffness matrices based on Energy Principles.
Turner, M. T., Clough, R. W., and Martin, H. C., [1956], derived stiffness matrices for
truss members and frame members using the finite element approach, and introduced
the now popular Direct Stiffness Method for generating the structure stiffness matrix.
Livesley, R. K., [1956], presented the Nonlinear Formulation of the stiffness method for
stability analysis of frames.
Since the mid-1950s, the development of Stiffness Method has been continued at a
tremendous pace, with research efforts in the recent years directed mainly toward
formulating procedures for Dynamic and Nonlinear analysis of structures, and
developing efficient Computational Techniques (load incremental procedures and
Modified Newton-Raphson for solving nonlinear Equations) for analyzing large
structures and large displacements. Among those researchers are: S. S. Archer, C.
13
14 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
This subject has attracted the attention of both structural and geotechnical engineers,
because it has a mutual effect on both superstructure and substructure elements. For
this reason, various procedures have been and are being periodically proposed to
develop, enhance, or try to simulate reality in soil and/or foundation analysis. This
section is devoted to survey the most significant research in this field along the history,
for both foundation models and foundation analysis methods, with a quick summary of
their projecting attributes. The sequence of time has been taken into account.
The Winkler hypothesis [1867], proposed by Winkler, E. in about 1867, treats the soil
mass supporting the foundation as a series of springs on which the structural member is
supported.
WINKLER, E. [1867] presented for the first time the conventional analysis of beams on
elastic subgrade based on the assumption that the ratio of contact pressure to the
deflection is the same at every point of the beam. Denoting the pressure at any point by
P, and the beam deflection at the same point by w, this assumption, often called
Winkler's hypothesis, may be written:
p
k s= ……………………..Eq.(2.1)
w
For about seventy years since of this hypothesis in the theory of bending of beams on
elastic subgrade, most of the investigators in this field worked on solutions of the basic
differential equation of the problem. Little attention was given to the question of
reliability of the basic hypothesis.
However, the investigations preformed during the past decades have shown that the
distribution of vertical pressure at the contact surface between beams or slabs and
elastic subgrade may be quite different from that obtained by the conventional analysis.
14
15 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Winker's hypothesis seemed not to be justified at least for beams and slabs on subgrade
such as concrete, rock, or soils. Consequently, from a theoretical point of view, the
coefficient of subgrade reaction k was considered as an artificial concept. It appeared
that an analysis based on that concept was in this case a crude estimate (45).
1. The ratio ks between the contact pressure p and the corresponding displacement w is
independent of the pressure p.
1. The coefficient of subgrade reaction ks has the same value for every point on the
surface acted upon by the contact pressure. Terzaghi concluded that, provided that p is
smaller than one-half of the ultimate bearing pressure (as well as the fact that ks is
dependent on the dimension of the loaded area), the theories of subgrade reaction
could furnish reliable estimates of stresses and bending moments, although they were
not good in estimating displacements.
BOWLES, J. E. [1974] developed a computer program to carry out the analysis of beams
on elastic foundation using finite element method, in which Winkler model is adopted to
represent the elastic foundation. Several boundary conditions can be entered easily.
From comparison with Vesic method, it is shown that results provide a more realistic
distribution of longitudinal bending moment in the member.
15
16 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
dy 4
EI +k s . y=q…………………………………Eq.(2.2)
dx 4
HETENYI, M. [1946] presented a textbook for the theory and applications of elastically
supported beams in the fields of civil and mechanical engineering. The subject of this
textbook is the analysis of elastically supported beams using classical differential
equation. Different variation parameters such as beam end conditions, beam flexural
rigidity, elasticity properties of the foundation, and applied loading are studied and
resolved. Two basic types of elastic foundation were considered, Winkler model and
elastic solid which, in contrast to Winkler type, represents the case of complete
continuity in the supporting medium.
There are many of literature has been published on this problem, especially for
nonlinear analysis, but it’s out the scope of this study.
16
17 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Chapter three
Theory
17
18 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Pi= A i F i……………………Eq.(3.2)
Which states that the external node force P is equated to the internal member forces F using
bridging constants A. It should be is understand that (Pi, Fi) are used for either Forces (Shear) or
Bending Moments. This equation is shorthand notation for several values of Ai, Fi summed to
equal the ith nodal force.
For the full set of nodes on any in-plane structure and using matrix notation where P, F are
Columns Vectors and A is a Rectangular Matrix, this becomes:
Fig.(3.1) Beam Element, external and internal forces and their deformations.
18
19 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Where both e and X may be rotations (in radians) or translations. From the Reciprocal Theorem
in structural mechanics it can be shown that the [B] matrix is exactly the transpose of the [A]
matrix, thus:
T
{ei }=[ A] {X i }……………………..(b)
The internal-member forces {F} are related to the internal-member displacements {e} as:
These three equations are the fundamental equations in the Stiffness Matrix Method of analysis:
Substituting (b) into (c),
19
20 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Fig.(3.4)
P1=F 1+ 0. F 2
Similarly, summing forces and noting that the soil reaction (spring) forces are Global and will be
considered separately, we have:
20
21 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
F1 F 2
P2= +
L L
P3=0. F 1+ F 2
−F 1 F 2
And P4 = −
L L
Placing into conventional matrix form, the Element Transformation Matrix [EA] in local
coordinate is:
F1 F2
P1 1 0
EA = P2 1/L 1/L
P3 0 1
P4 -1/L -1/L
In same manner the EA matrix for element (2) would contain P 3 to P6.
F1 L F2 L
e 1= − ………………………(g)
3 EI 6 EI
−F1 L F2 L
e 2= + …………………….(h)
6 EI 3 EI
21
22 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
The node soil "spring" will have units of FL -1 obtained from the modulus of subgrade reaction
and based on contributory node area. When ks = constant they can be computed as
L1 L1 + L2
K 1= B k s and K 2= Bks
2 2
J. Bowles (100), shows that best results are obtained by doubling the end springs. This was done
to make a best fit of the measured (experimental results) data of Vesic and Johnson (1963) with
computed results (by computer).
This is incorporated into the computer program. There is some logic in this in that if higher edge
pressures are obtained for footings, then this translates into "stiffer" end soil springs. For above
use K1=L1.B.KS and similarly for K5 of Fig.(3.4).
1 2 3 4
4 EI 6 EI 2 EI −6 EI
1
ESA =T
L L2 L L2
2 EI 6 EI 4 EI −6 EI
2
L L2 L L2
22
23 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
X1 X2 X3 X4
4 EI 6 EI 2 EI −6 EI
P1 2 2
L L L L
6 EI 12 EI 6 EI −12 EI
P2 2 3
+K1 2 3
EASAT = L L L L
4 EI 6 EI 4 EI −6 EI
P3 2 2 2
L L L L
−6 EI −12 EI −6 EI 12 EI
P4 +K2
L2 L 3
L2 L3
F1 + F 2
P2− − K 1 X 2=0.0
L
Since (F1+F2)/L is already included in the Global ASA T, we could rewrite above equation to:
T T
P2= ASA 2 X 2 X 2 + K 1 X 2=( ASA 2 X 2 + K 1) X 2
It simply means the node spring will be directly added to the appropriate diagonal terms,
subscripted with (i, i).
This is the most efficient method of including the soil stiffness (represented as elastic springs)
since they can be built during element input into a "spring" array.
Later the global ASAT is built (and saved for nonlinear cases) and the springs then added to the
appropriate diagonal terms (or column 1 of the banded matrix usually used).
A check on the correct formation of the EASA T and the global ASAT is that it is always
symmetrical and there cannot be a zero on the diagonal. Note that the soil spring is an additive
term to only the appropriate diagonal term in the global AS A1 matrix. This allows easy removal
of a spring for tension effect while still being able to obtain a solution, since there is still the
shear effect at the point (not having a zero on the diagonal). This is the procedure used in
program B-5 using subroutine MODIF. This procedure has an additional advantage that the ASA7
does not have to be rebuilt for nonlinear soil effects if a copy is saved to call on subsequent
cycles for nodal spring adjustments.
It is necessary to know the sign convention of the (P-X) coding used in forming the [EA] matrix or
output may be in substantial error. Therefore; the sign convention will be as follow: the joint
23
24 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
translations are considered positive when they act in positive direction of Y-axis, and joint
rotations are considered positive when they rotate in counterclockwise direction.
For columns that are intermediate between two nodes, we may do one of two things:
1. Transfer the column loads to adjacent nodes prier to make problem sketch using
superposition concept.
2. Transfer the column loads to adjacent nodes as if the element has Fixed-Ends so the values
include Fixed-End moments and shears (vertical loads).This procedure is strictly correct but the
massive amount of computations is seldom worth the small improvement in computational
precision.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The particular advantage of the Stiffness Matrix method is to allow boundary conditions of
known displacement (translations or rotations). It is common in foundation analysis to have
displacements which are known to be zero (beam on rock, beam embedded in an anchor of
some type, etc.). There are two major cases of boundary conditions:
a. When the displacements are restrained (zero) in any particular node then the
corresponding rows and columns in the overall stiffness matrix will be eliminated
(substitute by zeros).
b. When the (i) displacements are known (δ) in any particular node then the opposite
position in load vector [p] will have this known value (δ), and corresponding rows and
columns in the overall stiffness matrix will be eliminated (substitute by zeros) except the
location of (i,i) which will have unit value of (1.0).
SPRING COUPLING
From a Boussinesq analysis it is evident that the base contact pressure contributes to
settlements at other points, i.e., causing the center of a flexible uniformly loaded base to settle
more than at the edges. Using a constant ks on a rectangular uniformly loaded base w^ill
produce a constant settlement (every node will have the same AH within computer round-off) if
we compute node springs based on contributing node area. This is obviously incorrect and many
persons do not like to use ks because of this problem. In other words the settlement is
"coupled" but the soil springs from ks have not been coupled.
It is still desirable, however, to use ks (some persons call this a "Winkler" foundation) in a spring
concept since only the diagonal translation terms are affected. When we have true coupling,
fractions of the springs X, are in the off-diagonal terms making it difficult to perform any kind of
nonlinear analysis (soil-base separation or excessive displacements). We can approximately
include coupling effects in several ways:
1. Double end springs this effectively increases ks in the end zones. This is not applicable to sides
of very long narrow members.
2. Zone ks with larger values at the ends which transitions to a minimum at the center. For
beam-on-elastic foundation problems where concentrated loads and moments are more
common than a uniform load, doubling the end springs is probably sufficient coupling.
24
25 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Chapter four
Computer program
25
26 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a detailed description of the computer program developed in this
study which governs the problem of Beam on Elastic Foundation using Stiffness Matrix
as analysis method and Winkler model for foundation representation.
When this has been done for all the beam elements, let the number of nodes NN, and since DOF
is two for each node in beam element. Then in L.C.S. each stiffness element [A] has (NF X NF)
size and in G.C.S. the element stiffness [ASA T] will have (NP X NP) size, where NP = NN X 2, which
is have been developed as follows:
It also gives a quick estimate of computer needs, as the matrix is always the size of (NP x NP) the
number of {P}. With proper coding, as shown in Fig.(3.12).
The global [ASAT] is banded with all zeros except for a diagonal strip of nonzero entries that is
eight values wide. Of these eight nonzero entries, four are identical (the band is symmetrical).
There are matrix reduction routines to solve these type half-band width problems. As a
consequence the actual matrix required (with a band reduction method) is only (NP x 4) entries
instead of (NP x NP).
The [ASAT] is inverted (a sub program reduces a band matrix) and multiplied by the {P} matrix
containing the known externally applied loads. This gives the nodal displacements {X} of rotation
and translation. The computer program then rebuilds the [EA] and [ES] to obtain the [ESA T] and
computes the internal element forces (shear and moments). Then node reactions and soil
pressures are computed
26
27 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
It may be convenient to store the [ESA T] on a separate array when the [ASA T] is being built and
recall it to compute the internal element forces of the {F} matrix.
If the footing tends to separate from the soil or the deflections are larger than X max it is desirable
to have some means to include the footing weight, zero the soil springs where nodes separate,
and apply a constant force to nodes where soil deflections exceed X max.
Pi=−K i( X ¿¿ max) ¿
Note the sign is negative to indicate the soil reaction opposes the direction of translation. Actual
sign of the computed P matrix entry is based on the sign convention used in developing the
general case as in Fig.(3.12).
The same developed computer program, listed in Appendix I, can also be used to solve a
number of structural problems by setting 0.0 for ks values.
27
28 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
28
29 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
START
H (ND, ND)
Yes
Is there are negative
displacements exist?
No
29
30 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
OUTPUT UNIT
Print in-plane structural displacement, in G.C.S.,
(Vertical, horizontal and rotations) (1àNN)
OUTPUT UNIT
Print Internal Forces, in L.C.S., (Axial Force, Sear Force,
and Bending Moment) for left and right side of each
element: (1àNE)
END
First Example
A Tank structure resting on elastic foundation (Winkler model) has been simplified to the
general footing details, as shown in fig.(4.1), assuming that the loads are factored and they are
(11)
obtained from vertical walls. The results are compared with those obtained by J. E. Bowels
using a FEM. The agreement is very good.
30
31 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
1350.0 kN 2025.0 kN
108.0 kN.m
81.0 kN.m
Concrete wall Concrete wall
(0.40 x 2.64) m (0.46 x 2.64) m
(0.60 x 2.64) m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0 Node Number
4
deflection (m)
10
12
31
32 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0 Node Number
2
vertical contact pressure (kpa)
10
12
12
10
8
Shear Force (KN)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Node Number
32
33 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
12
10
8
Bending Moment (KN.M)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Node Number
Second Example
1378.7 kN 1378.7 kN
(0.508 x 3.05) m
33
34 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0 Node Nomber
0.005
Deflection (m)
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0 Node Number
2
Vetical Contact Pressure (Kpa)
10
12
34
35 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
12
10
8
Shear Force (KN)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Node Number
12
10
Bending Moment (KN.M)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Node Number
35
36 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Chapter five
Conclusions and Recommendations
36
37 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
CONCLUSIONS
Depending on the results obtained from the present study, several conclusions may be
established. These may be summarized as follows:
1. The results, indicate that in-plane structures (beam) resting on elastic foundation
can be can be dealt with successfully by the Stiffness Matrix Method together
with Winkler foundation model.
2. Developed Program in this study is quite efficient and reliable for this type of
analysis, and the process analyses can be carried out rapidly on electronic
computer.
3. Linear behavior of in-plane structures resting on elastic foundation can be
accurately predicted using Winkler concept as foundation model.
4. The results show that the increasing foundation rigidity (stiffness) will increase
vertical contact pressure.
37
38 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many important recommendations could be suggested:
1. Given analysis method presented in this study for inplane structures can be
extended to analyze three dimension (space) structures.
2. Given type of analysis presented in this study for inplane structures under static
loading can be extended to include dynamic loading cases.
3. More complicated examples should be investigated in order to examine the
program capability in nonlinear stage.
4. Driven and pored piles could be analyzed using same program with special
modifications for ks, to include depth effects.
5. Side wall friction and embodiments effects could be included in this analysis
using researchers published papers in this field, and include them in appropriate
method for the stiffness coefficients of inplane structure.
38
39 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
REFERENCES
1. Livesley, R. K., and Chandler D. B., "Stability Functions for Structural Frameworks."
Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1956.
2. Livesley, R.K., "The Application of an Electronic Digital Computer to Some Problem
of Structural Analysis." The Structural Engineer, Vol. 34, no.1, London, 1956, PP. 1-
12.
3. Argyris, J.H., "Recent Advances in Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis." Pergamon
Press, London, 1964, PP. 115-145.
4. Livesley, R.K., "Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis." Pergamon Press, London,
1964. PP. 241-252.
5. Winkler, E., "Die T.ehre Von Elasticitaet und Festigkeit." (H. Dominic us), Prague,
1867,pp.182-184
6. Hetenyi, M., "Beams on Elastic Foundations." The University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor, 1946, pp. 100-120.
39
40 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
Appendix I
40
41 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
41
42 Beam on Elastic Foundation (Winkler Model)
42