See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222354717

Vibration analysis of Timoshenko

beam-columns on two-parameter
elastic foundations
ARTICLE in COMPUTERS & STRUCTURES DECEMBER 1996
Impact Factor: 2.18 DOI: 10.1016/0045-7949(96)00107-1

CITATIONS

49

1 AUTHOR:
Takashi Yokoyama
Okayama University of Science
72 PUBLICATIONS 466 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Takashi Yokoyama

Retrieved on: 22 August 2015

Compurers

Pergamon

& Srrucfures Vol. 61. No. 6. pp. 995-1007. 1996

Copyright
Q 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
004s7949/%
$15.00 + 0.00

PII s0045-7!349(%)00107-1

VIBRATION ANALYSIS OF TIMOSHENKO

BEAM-COLUMNS
ON TWO-PARAMETER
ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS
T. Yokoyamat
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Okayama University of Science, Okayama 700, Japan
(Received 6 July 1995)

Abstract-This paper presents a finite element technique for determining the vibration characteristics of a
uniform Timoshenko beam-column supported on a two-parameter elastic foundation. The beam-column
is discretized into a number of simple elements with four degrees of freedom each. The effects of axial
force, foundation stiffness parameters, transverse shear deformation and rotatory inertia are incorporated
into a finite element model. The matrix equation governing the free vibrations of the beam-column on
the elastic foundation is derived from Hamiltons principle. The numerical results for the natural
frequencies and the associated mode shapes of the classical Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko
beam-columns on the elastic foundation are presented and compared with the exact or available solutions,
wherever possible. It is shown that the present technique provides a unified approach for the vibration
analysis of beam-columns with any end conditions, resting on the elastic foundation. Copyright 0 1996
Elsevier Science Ltd

NOTATION

A
a0

tB1
c
E
G
I
Zl

k
kc

l-l
P
9
@
0

cross-sectional area of beam

a3 generalized coordinates

strain-displacement matrix
frequency parameter
Youngs modulus (modulus of elasticity)
shear modulus (modulus of rigidity)
second moment of area
node numbers
stiffness matrix
Winkler foundation modulus (first foundation
parameter)
shear coefficient
shear foundation modulus (second foundation
parameter)
total length of beam (or beam-column)
length of beam element
consistent mass matrix
shape function matrix
axial force
buckling load parameter
~;dZ%/$rZZr
time
potential energy
lateral displacement
work done by axial force
local coordinate along axis of beam element
ratio of supported to total length of beam (or
beam-column)
bending rotation
curvature
Winkler foundation parameter
shear foundation parameter
Poissons ratio

tFormerly DAAD Research Fellow, Technical University

Hamburg-Harburg,
D-2100, Hamburg 90, Germany.

x/l, non-dimensional axial coordinate

Lagrangian function
mass density
shear deformation (shear angle)
shear defonnation parameter
natural circular frequency

Superscripts

;
(.)

element
matrix transposition
time derivative

Subscripts

b
f
g
r
S

bending
foundation
geometric
rotatory
shear
translational

INTRODUCIION
Many problems related to soil-structure interaction
can be modeled by means of a beam or a beamcolumns on an elastic foundation. Practical examples
of these are railroad tracks, highway pavements,
continuously supported pipelines, and strip foundations. The free flexural vibrations of beams on
continuous elastic foundations have been analyzed
by a number of investigators. The effect of a partial
elastic foundation
on the natural
frequencies
of beams or piles was examined by Doyle and
Pavlovic [l], Eisenberger er al. [2], Valsangkar and
Pradhanang [3], Laura and Cortinez [4]. The exact
dynamic stiffness matrices for free vibration calculations of a uniform beam on an elastic foundation
were developed by Williams and Kennedy [5].
995

996

T.

Yokoyama

The problems of bending vibrations of uniform

beams on nonuniform
elastic foundations
were
solved by Pavlovic and Wylie [6], Eisenberger and
Clastornik [7], Filipich et al. [8], De Rosa [9],
Kukla [lo] and Zhou [l 11. The similar problem for
stepped beams on uniform elastic foundations
was treated by Wang [12]. The free vibrations of
nonuniform beams resting on nonuniform elastic
foundation with general elastic end restraints were
studied by Lee and Ke [13]. In the aforementioned
studies, the elastic foundation was idealized by a
Winkler model (one-parameter model) for mathematical simplicity. Although the Winkler model is
quite simple, it does not represent accurately the
characteristics of many practical foundations. In
order to eliminate the discontinuous nature of this
model, several two-parameter foundation models
that are more accurate than the Winkler model and
simpler than semi-infinite elastic continuum foundation models (see, Richart et al. [14]) have been
reported in the literature (see, Refs [15-171). The
vibration
and buckling of beams on variable
two-parameter elastic foundations were discussed by
Eisenberger and Clastornik [18]. The same problems
for beams on an elastic half-space or a two-parameter
elastic soil were considered by Karamanlidis and
Prakash [19], and De Rosa [20]. The free vibration
analysis of a beam on a two-parameter elastic soil was
performed by Franciosi and Masi [21] using a matrix
displacement approach. The influences of the partial
elastic foundation and the magnitude of the axial
force on the natural frequencies of beam<olumns
lying on the two-parameter models were studied by
Valsangker and Pradhanang [22]. All of the foregoing
work has been conducted within the framework of
the elementary Euler-Bernoulli
beam theory of
flexural vibration, which is not applicable to moderately short and thick beams. In order to evaluate the
effects of transverse shear deformation and rotatory
inertia on the dynamic behavior of beams, the lateral
vibrations of Timoshenko beams (see Timoshenko
et al. [23]) laid on Pasternak
foundations
(or
two-parameter
foundations)
were analyzed by
Wang and Stephens [24], Wang and Gagnon [25],

Yokoyama 1261, Filipich and Rosales [27]. The

transverse vibrations of curved Timoshenko beams
on the Winkler foundations were investigated by
Panayotounakos
and Theocaris [28], and Issa [29].
A transfer matrix method for the vibration and
buckling analysis of an axially loaded Timoshenko
beam on a Winkler foundation was developed by
Djodjo [30]. The exact dynamic stiffness matrices for
an axially loaded Timoshenko member embedded
in the Winkler-type foundation were derived by
Capron and Williams [31]. The vibration analysis of
Timoshenko beam-columns
on elastic media was
presented by Cheng and Pantelides [32] using the
dynamic stiffness approach. In their work, the elastic
media were replaced by a constant Winkler foundation and the effect of the partial elastic foundation
was not taken into account.
The present paper describes a finite element
technique for determining the free vibration characteristics of a uniform Timoshenko beam+olumn on
a two-parameter elastic foundation.
The beamcolumn is divided lengthwise into a number of simple
elements of equal length, with four degrees of
freedom each. The influences of axial force, foundation stiffness parameters, transverse shear deformation and rotatory inertia are incorporated into a
finite element model. The governing matrix equation
for small-amplitude, free vibrations of the beamcolumn on the elastic foundation is derived by
application of Hamiltons principle. The numerical
results for the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes of the classical EulerBernoulli and Timoshenko beam-columns
on the
elastic foundations are provided and compared with
the exact solutions or the available results in the
published litatature. The advantages and limitations
associated with the technique are discussed.

FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION

Consider a Timoshenko beam+olumn

partially
supported on an elastic foundation as depicted in
Fig. 1. The elastic foundation is idealized as a

JY

Fig. 1. A Timoshenko

beamxolumn

partially

supported

on an elastic foundation.

997

Timoshenko beam<olumns

Fig. 2. A Timoshenko beam element with an axial force, resting on a two-parameter elastic foundation
model.

constant two-parameter model characterized by two

moduli, i.e. the Winkler foundation modulus k and
the shear foundation modulus kG. In the case kc = 0,
this model reduces to the usual Winkler model.
Figure 2 shows a Timoshenko beam element with
an axial force P, resting on the two-parameter
foundation model. The beam element consists of two
nodes i and j; each node has the degrees of freedom
of lateral displacement ve and bending rotation (or
slope) B. In the present formulation, it is assumed
that: (i) the beam material is isotropic, homogeneous
and linearly elastic; (ii) the vibration amplitudes of
the beam are sufficiently small; (iii) the cross-sections
initially normal to the neutral axis of the beam
remain plane, but no longer normal to that axis
during bending; (iv) the normal inertia and damping
of the foundation are negligible; and (v) bonding
between the beam and the foundation is perfect.

element. The kinetic energy P of the beam element

allowing for the rotatory inertia effect is given by

in which y is the mass density of the beam material,

and t is the time. The work WC done by a compressive
axial force P (positive in tension) can be represented
as

Because of simplicity and the requirements of

interelement compatibility for beam bending, a cubic
displacement for ve is assumed over the element as
ve = a0 + a,x + a2x2 + a3x3,

Derivation of element matrices

The strain energy U of the beam element of

length I including the effects of both transverse
shear deformation and elastic foundation may be
written as

where
means
dition
angle
within

are the generalized coordinates. By

of a static moment-shear equilibrium conaccounting for the effect of transverse shear
4 (=&~/ax - P), the bending rotation 8
the element may be written as
a-a3

~=al+2a~x+3a2x2+6-----aa,.

c 2

+f

k(v)dx+;
s cl

k. g
s0
0

dx,

(1)

where E is Youngs modulus; Z the second moment

of area; k the shear coefficient depending on the
shape of the cross-section (see Cowper [33]); G the
shear modulus; A the cross-sectional area; and x
the local coordinate along the axis of the beam

(4)

EZ
kGA

(3

Using eqns (4) and (5), it is now possible to express

the generalized coordinates ao-a, in terms of the
nodal variables ve and 8 at the two ends i (x = 0) and
j (x = 1) of the elements as
a0 = v:

998

T. Yokoyama
expressed in terms of the element nodal displacement
vector {q}e as

)I

+;v;-+
l-;
(

u =

f{q}eT[~b]c{q}c

f{q}CT[&]C{q}C

e;

+f{q}C~TIKlC{q}C

7c

;{g}e*T[M,]e(g}c

f{q}evG21e{q}E

f{cj}qi4r]e{q}e

W = -;{q}J[K,l{q),
Substituting

these into eqns (4) and (5) results in

[No, No,

No,

NM]

WI(q)

(6)

[Nol~~~e.(7)

Here {q} is the element nodal displacement vector,

and the shape functions (or the interpolation
functions) are written as

(10)

(11)
(12)

where the superposed dots denote differentiation with

respect to time t, and the respective element matrices
are given by

[&]e =

[Bb]TEI[&]l d{ = bending stiffness matrix

s0

[Ksl =

[&lTkGAIB,]I d5 = shear stiffness matrix

s0

= first-parameter foundation stiffness matrix

(or Winkler foundation stiffness matrix)

N,, = [l - 3< + 2t3 + (1 - 5)@]/(1 + @)

[K-z] =

N,, = [r - 25* + 5 + (5 - e;)@/2]l/(l + @)

Nv, = (35* -

2t3 + @)/(l

+ @)

= second-parameter foundation stiffness

matrix (or shear foundation stiffness matrix)

Nd = [ -5 + t3 - (5 - 5*)@/2]1/(1+ @I
Ne, = 6(- r + 5*)/[&l +
Ne2 = [ 1

@)I

45 + 3t2 + (1 -

No3 = 6(5 -

5YMl

5)@]/(1

[Bv]Tko[Bv]Id5
s0

[MI =

[NvlTpAINvl~
d5

+ @)

= consistent mass matrix for translational

inertia

@)I

NM= (-25 + 35* + 5@)/(1 + @),

where 5 = x/l = the nondimensional
axial coordinate; and @ = 12EZ/(RGAP) = the shear deformation parameter. The flexural strain or curvature K
and the shear strain (or shear angle) 6 within the
element are defined as
Ke =

d = g

cl
J
=

[KJ =

PIBv]TIBv]l dc

geometric stiffness matrix.

[Bbl{q)

- 8 = [&]{q>e,

[N~l~pZ[Nell
d5
50
= consistent mass matrix for rotatory inertia

[M,1 =

(9)

where

i a
[&I = 7 z [Nv]- [Nel = [Bv]- [No].
With the aid of eqns (6)-(9), the strain energy u,
the kinetic energy F and the work IV can be

It is interesting to note that the two foundation

stiffness matrices ([&]c and [&]) are similar in form
to the translational
mass matrix [M,] and the
geometric stiffness matrix [KJ, respectively. The
explicit expressions for the respective element
matrices are listed in the Appendix. In the absence of
the elastic foundation and the compressive axial
force P, the present model reduces to the simple
Timoshenko beam model of McCalley-Archer [34].
Alternatively, when the shear deformation parameter
@ is set equal to zero and the rotatory inertia mass
matrix [M,] is neglected, the resulting model is
identical to the classical Euler-Bernoulli
beam-

999

Timoshenko beam-columns
Table 1. Values of frequency parameter c for Euler-Bernoulli
(1 = Ao = 0, P, = 0.0)

beams without elastic foundation

Hinged-hinged

Hinged-clamped

Present work
4 elements

Present work

Mode no.

Exact *

8 elements

1 st

9.87

9.87

9.87

2 nd

39.48

39.63

3 rd

88.83

90.45

Exact b

4 elements

8 elements

15.42

15.43

15.42

39.49

49.96

SO.28

49.99

88.94

104.25

106.60

104.43

**b Taken from a textbook by Tlmoshenko et al. [ 231

column model on the two-parameter elastic foundation used by Karamandilis and Prakash [35].

Tauchert [36]) leads to the matrix equation governing

the free vibrations of the Timoshenko beam-column
on the two-parameter elastic foundation as

Governing matrix equation

Summation of the individual element energies and

the work over the entire beam-column
using
eqns (10)-(12) gives the Lagrangian function II as

Introducing

W.l~q~ + ]Ml{ci1= (017

where

= assembled stiffness matrix

II into Hamiltons principle (e.g. see

Table 2. Values of frequency parameter c for Euler-Bernoulli beam-columns without elastic foundation
(A = lo = 0, P, = 0.6)

Hinged-hinged

Hinged-clamped

Present work

Present work
Exact b

4 elements

8 elements

6.24

13.01

13.02

13.01

36.57

36.41

47.35

47.68

47.38

87.48

85.93

101.54

103.92

101.73

Mode no.

Exact *

4 elements

1st

6.24

6.25

2 nd

36.40

3 rd

85.81

8 elements

* Calculated from the analytical closed-form expression of Cheng and Panteliies

b Obtained by solving the frequency equation given by Bokaian [39]

[32]

(14)

1000

T. Yokoyama
Table 3. Values of frequency parameter c for Euler-Bernoulli beam-columns
foundation (A = 0.6x4, AG= 0, P, = 0.6)
Hinged-hinged

on Winkler elastic

Hinged-clamped
Present work

I
Mode no.

Exact b

4 elements

1 st

15.10

2 nd

48.29

8 elements

I
I

15.09

47.99

3 rd

104.20

102.02

a Calculated from the analytical closed-form expression of Cheng and Pantelides [32]
b Not available

Pfl = c mftl + Pfrl)

<

= assembled

consistent

mass matrix

frequency
u, i.e. {q) = {q*)exp(iwt),
eqn
becomes, after incorporation
of the appropriate
conditions,
an eigenvalue problem of the form

141= c {4Y

WI - ~wl)k*)

= P},

(14)
end

(15)

= assembled

nodal displacement

vector.

If the assembled nodal displacement

vector {q}
is assumed to be harmonic
in time with circular

where {q*} is a vector of nodal displacement

amplitudes
of vibration (called the modal vector).
The solution of eqn (15) yields the natural frequencies
and the corresponding
mode shapes.

Table 4. Values of frequency parameter c for Euler-Bernoulli beam<olumns

foundation (A = 0.6n4, b = 1, P, = 0.6)

Mode no.

P/*1
Exact a

on two-parameter elastic

4 el:::

Exact b

Wrk.lementr

1 st

13.96

13.96

18.49

18.48

2 nd

42.25

42.11

52.50

52.21

3 rd

92.69

91.21

108.62

106.47

Not available

1001

Timoshenko beam-columns
ILLUSTRATIVE

EXAMPLES

AND DISCUSSION

In order to check the validity of the present

technique described in the previous section, several
examples of the transverse vibrations of beamcolumns supported on elastic foundations
were
considered. A computer program has been developed
in FORTRAN 77 to solve the eigenvalue problem
given by eqn (15) using the Householder-QR method
(e.g. see Bathe [37]). All computations were carried
out on a NEC ACOS/3900 computer in double
precision (72 bits/floating point word). The numerical
results are presented in terms of the following
nondimensional parameters:
cZ = (pAL4/El)w

frequency parameter

P, = PL/(&EI)

buckling load parameter (ratio

of axial load to buckling load
for a hinged-hinged
EulerBernoulli beam)

1= kL/EI
/IG = kGL/(nEI)
B = CL - LI)/L

Winkler foundation

EULER-BERNOULLI

BEAM

-1
1

-1
1

parameter
0

shear foundation

parameter

ratio of supported
to total
length
of
beam-column
(L, = unsupported length).

The individual parameter may be dropped when

the associated effect is neglected. Consequently, the
computer program developed may be widely applied
to various cases of: (i) Euler-Bernoulli
beam;
(ii) Timoshenko beam; (iii) Euler-Bernoulli beamcolumn; (iv) Timoshenko beamxolumn;
(v) EulerBernoulli beamxolumn
on a Winkler foundation;
(vi) Timoshenko beam<olumn
on a Winkler foundation; (vii) Euler-Bernoulli
beam-column
on a
two-parameter elastic foundation; (viii) Timoshenko
beam-column on a two-parameter elastic foundation;
and so on. The effect of the partial elastic foundation
on the natural frequencies of the Timoshenko
beam-columns, as well as the Euler-Bernoulli beamcolumns, was previously examined by the author [38].
In the following, only a fully supported beam or
beam-column (p = 1) is considered.
Example 1. Euler-Bernoulli

beam-columns

The first example is concerned with the conventional beam-columns or the classical Euler-Bernoulli
beam-columns on the Winkler and two-parameter
elastic foundations. Two kinds of end conditions,
i.e. hinged-hinged
and hinged-clamped
ends are
considered in this study. The choice of the buckling
load parameter P, and the Winkler foundation
parameter 3, is based on Cheng and Pantelides
examples [32]. The value of the shear foundation
parameter
& is taken from Valsangker and
Pradhanangs work [22].
Tables 1 and 2, respectively, show a comparison
between the present numerical results and the exact

-1

0.2

0.4

NON-DIMENSIONAL

0.6
AXIAL

0.8

LENGTH

Fig. 3. Lowest three mode shapes for Euler-Bernoulli beams

with hinged-hinged and hinged-clamped ends: effect of end
condition.

ones for the lowest three frequency parameters of the

beams and beam-columns
without elastic foundations. In Table 2, the exact solutions for the
hinged-hinged beam-column were calculated directly
from the analytical closed-form expression derived
by Cheng and Pantelides [32] using their first
approach, and the exact solutions for the hingedclamped beam-column were obtained by solving the
frequency equation derived by Bokaian [39]. The
eight-element solutions clearly converge from above
to the exact ones. A comparison of Tables 1 and 2
reveals that, as anticipated, the compressive axial
force reduces all modes of natural frequencies of the
beams. The reduction in the fundamental frequency
of the hinged-clamped beam is less than that of the
hinged-hinged beam. This is due to the fact that the
critical buckling load for the hingedxlamped beam is
given by PCC= 2.046(n2EZ/L2), and hence the buckling
load parameter is practically reduced to P, = 0.3
(normalized with respect to PC,) for the hingedclamped beam under study.
Tables 3 and 4 list the numerical results for the
lowest three frequency parameters of the beamcolumns on the Winkler and two-parameter elastic
foundations.
In contrast to the effect of the
compressive axial forces, the presence of the elastic
foundations
increases the natural
frequencies,

1002

T. Yokoyama
Table 5. Values of frequency parameter c for Timoshenko beams without elastic foundation (1 = & = 0,
P, = 0.0)

Hinged-hinged

Hinged-clamped

Present work
Mode no.

Exact a

1 st

2 nd

I 24.23

3 rd

I 41.54

8.21

8 elements

Present work

16 elements

8 elements

Exact b

16 elements

8.23

8.22

I 10.63

10.66

10.63

24.56

24.31

I 25.62

26.01

25.71

43.22

41.96

I 42.03

43.75

42.46

a Calculated from the analytical closed-form expression of Cheng and Pantelides [32]
b Obtained by solving the frequency equation given by Huang [40]
Note: v= l/4,

k- 2/3,

L/ra = 10

especially the fundamental frequencies of the beamcolumns. The frequency parameters for the beamcolumn on the two-parameter model in Table 4 are
higher than those on the Winkler model in Table 3.
This is attributed to the stiffening effect (equivalent to
that of a tensile axial force in the beam-column)
caused by the shear layer of the two-parameter
model.

Figure 3 indicates the plots of the lowest three

mode shapes for the Euler-Bernoulli
beams with
hinged-hinged and hinged-clamped ends given in
Table 1. The numerical results for the mode shapes
are in full agreement with the exact results shown in
the solid lines. It is observed that the mode shapes as
well as the frequency parameters are greatly
influenced by the end conditions. It should, however,

Table 6. Values of frequency parameter e for Timoshenko beam-columns. without elastic foundation
(A = b = 0, P, = 0.6)
Hinged-clamped

Hinged-hinged
Present work

Cheng and
Pantelides

Present work

8 elements

Mode no.

Exact a

1 st

3.47

3.49

3.47

7.32

7.36

7.33

2 nd

19.22

19.56

19.31

20.93

21.32

21.03

3 rd

35.08

36.68

35.48 -

35.70

37.39

36.16

8 elements

16 elements

[321

16 elements

a Calculated from the analytical closed-form expression of Cheng and Pantelides [321
Note: vs l/4,

k'= 2/3,

Ma=

10

1003

Timoshenko beam-columns
Table 7. Values of frequency parameter c for Timoshenko beamxolumns
(I = 0.6~~. I.G= 0. P, = 0.6)

on Winkler elastic foundation

Hinged-clamped

Hinged-hinged

--G--/J?

8.22

1 10.46

20.90

20.67

22.20

22.57

22.30

37.42

36.25

36.50

38.11

36.90

8.22

3 rd

1 35.86

10.51

10.49

a Calculated from the analytical closed-form expression of Cheng and Pantelides [ 321
Note: v= l/4, k- 2/3, L/rg= 10

be noted that, for the beam or beam-columns with

hinged-hinged ends in Tables 14, the nth mode
shape or the nth eigenfunction is expressed by
sin(nrtx/l)
(n = 1,2 . . ) and hence, remains the
same for different values of the axial load and the
elastic foundation parameters. The mode shapes
corresponding to the hinged-clamped beam-columns
in Tables 24 are hardly affected by the presence of

the axial forces or the elastic foundations under

consideration, and are therefore not shown here.
Example 2. Timoshenko beam-columns

The second example deals with the Timoshenko

beam-columns having the same two end conditions,
resting on the same elastic foundations.
The
following mechanical and geometric properties of the

Table 8. Values of frequency parameter c for Timoshenko beam-columns

foundation (A = 0.679, b = 1, P, = 0.6)

Modeno.

Exact a

elastic

Hinged-hinged

Hinged-clamped

Present work

Present work

8 elements

16 elements

1 Exact b ( 8 elements

1st

I -

12.65

12.64

2nd

I -

28.34

28.10

I -

3rd

I -

47.61 7

46.34

1 -

a*b Not available.

on two-parameter

Note: v= l/4,

k= 2/3,

L/r-g= 10

( 16 elements

14.44

14.42

29.63

29.34

1004

T. Yokoyama
HINGED-CLAMPED

0.2

0.4

NON-DIMENSIONAL

0.6
AXIAL

0.8

the Timoshenko beam-columns

on the Winkler
elastic foundation. Good agreement is obtained with
increasing number of elements. Table 8 contains the
numerical results for the lowest three frequency
parameters of the Timoshenko beam-columns on the
two-parameter elastic foundation. As in the case of
the Euler-Bernoulli
beam-columns,
the frequency
parameters
of the Timoshenko
beam-columns
increase definitely because of the presence of the
two-parameter elastic foundations. A further comparison of Tables 14 and 5-8, respectively, indicates
that the higher mode frequencies of the beams or
beam-columns are reduced significantly, owing to the
effects of shear deformation and rotatory inertia
which make the beam less stiff, regardless of the
end conditions, the axial forces and the elastic
foundations.
In the following, the effects of shear deformation,
rotatory inertia, compressive axial forces and elastic
foundations on the mode shapes of vibrations are
investigated. Figure 4 depicts the lowest three mode
shapes for the hinged-clamped Euler-Bernoulli beam
in Table 1 and for the corresponding Timoshenko
beam in Table 5. It is found that the differences in
mode shapes due to the influences of shear deformation and rotatory inertia increase with increasing
mode number. Similarly, Fig. 5 represents the

LENGTH

Fig. 4. Lowest three mode shapes for Euler-Bernoulli beam

and Timoshenko beam with hinged-clamped ends: effect of

HINGED-CLAMPED

shear deformation and rotatory inertia.

Timoshenko beam used by Cheng and Pantelides [32]

are chosen for the analysis: Poissons ratio: v = l/4
(or G/E = 2/5), shear coefficient: k = 2/3 (for rectangular cross-section), slenderness ratio: L/rg = 10.
Tables 5 and 6, respectively, display a comparison
between the present solutions and the exact or available results for the lowest three frequency parameters
of the Timoshenko
beams and beam-columns
without elastic foundations. In Table 5, the exact
solutions for the hinged-hinged Timoshenko beam
were calculated directly from the analytical closedform expression of Cheng and Pantelides [32],
whereas the exact solutions for the hinged-clamped
Timoshenko beam were found by solving the frequency equation given by Huang [40]. The 16element solutions are in excellent agreement with the
exact or available results. The reduction in the
fundamental frequencies of the Timoshenko beams
due to the compressive axial forces is more significant
than that of the Euler-Bernoulli beams. The reason
for this is that, since the critical buckling loads for the
Timoshenko beams are smaller than those for the
Euler-Bernoulli beams, the buckling load parameter
P, increases virtually for the Timoshenko
beamcolumns under study. Table 7 provides a comparison
between the present results and the exact or available
results for the lowest three frequency parameters of

0.2

0.4

NON-DIMENSIONAL

0.6
AXIAL

0.8

LENGTH

Fig. 5. Lowest three mode shapes for Timoshenko beam and

Timoshenko beam-column with hinged-clamped ends:
effect of compressive axial force.

1005

Timoshenko beam-columns
HINGED-CLAHPED

uniform beam-columns with constant elastic foundations. The shortcoming of the technique is that the
convergence rate of the finite element model is
relatively slow for the Timoshenko
beams or
beam-columns with lower slenderness ratios L/r,.
Finally, it should be remarked that the stability of the
beam-columns on two-parameter elastic foundations
can readily be addressed within the framework of the
technique.

-1
1

Acknowledgments-The author wishes to acknowledge the

financial assistance from DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer
Austauschdienst, Bonn) during his stay at the Technical
University Hamburg-Harburg. The support of Electric
Technology Research Foundation of Chugoku, Hiroshima, is
also acknowledged.

REFERENCES

-1
1

-1

0.2

0.4

NON-DIMENSIONAL

0.6
AXIAL

0.8

LENGTH

Fig. 6. Lowest three mode shapes for hinged-clamped

Timoshenko beams without and with two-parameter elastic

foundation: effect of two-parameter elastic foundation.
lowest three mode shapes for the hinged-clamped
Timoshenko beam in Table 5 and for the corresponding Timoshenko beam-column in Table 6. Figure 6
shows the lowest three mode shapes for the hingedclamped Timoshenko beam-columns
without and
with the two-parameter elastic foundation, given in
Tables 6 and 8, respectively. It can be seen that the
effect of the axial forces as well as the elastic
foundations on the lowest three mode shape is small,
and this effect decreases as the mode number
increases.
CONCLUSIONS

A numerical technique has been presented for the

vibration analysis of uniform Timoshenko beamcolumns resting on continuous two-parameter elastic
foundations.
The validity and accuracy of the
technique have been verified through several ntmrerical examples. The individual effects of axial force,
foundation
stiffness parameters, transverse shear
deformation and rotatory inertia on the vibration
characteristics of the beam can be examined by
performing a parametric study. The beam-columns
with variable cross-sections as well as with nonuniform foundation characteristics can be handled by
approximating them using a number of stepped

1. P. F. Doyle and M. N. Pavlov& Vibration of beams on

partial elastic foundations. Earthquake Engng Srruct.
Dyn. 10, 663-674 (1982).
2. M. Eisenberger, D. Z. Yankelevsky and M. A. Adin,
Vibrations of beams fully or partially supported on
elastic foundations. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 13,
651660 (1985).
3. A. J. Valsangkar and R. B. Pradhanang, Free vibration
of partially supported piles. AXE J. Engng Mech.
113(EM8), 1244-1247 (1987).
4. P. A. A. Laura and V. H. Cortinez, Vibrating beam
partially embedded in Winkler-type foundation. AXE
J. Engng Mech. 113(EMl), 143-147 (1987).
5. F. W. Williams and D. Kennedy, Exact dynamic
member stiffnesses for a beam on an elastic foundation.
Earthquake Engng Strucr. Dyn. 15, 133-136 (1987).
6. M. N. Pavlovic and G. B. Wylie, Vibration of beams on
non-homogeneous
elastic foundations.
Earthquake
Engng Struct. Dyn. 11, 797-808 (1983).
1. M. Eisenberger and J. Clastornik, Beams on variable
two-parameter elastic foundation. ASCE J. Engng
Mech. 113(EMlO), 1454-1466 (1987).
8. C. P. Filipich, P. A. A. Laura, M. Sonenblum and E.
Gil, Transverse vibrations of a stepped beam subjected
to an axial force and embedded in a non-homogeneous
Winkler foundation. J. Sound Vibr. 126(l), l-8 (1988).
9. M. A. De Rosa, Stability and dynamic analysis of
two-parameter foundation beams. Comput. Srrucr. 49,
341-349 (1993).
10. S. Kukla, Free vibration of a beam supported on a
stepped elastic foundation. J. Sound Vibr. 149,259265
(1991).
11. D. Zhou, A general solution to vibrations of beams on
variable Winkler elastic foundation. Comput. Struct. 47,
83-90 (1993).
12. J. Wang, Vibration of stepped beams on elastic
foundations. J. Sound Vibr. 149, 315322 (1991).
13. S. Y. Lee and H. Y. Ke, Free vibrations of non-uniform
beams resting on non-uniform elastic foundation with
general elastic end restraints. Compur. Srruct. 34,
421429 (1990).
14. F. E. Richart, Jr, J. R. Hall and R. D. Woods,
Vibrations of Soils and Foundations. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1970).
1 A. D. Kerr, Elastic and viscoelastic foundation models.
ASME J. Appl. Mech. 31, 491-498 (1964).
11 D. Q. Fletcher and L. R. Hermann, Elastic foundation
representation of continuum. ASCE J. Engng Mech.
97(EMI), 95-107 (1971).
1 R. Jones and J. Xenophontos, The Vlasov foundation
model. Inc. J. Mech. Sci. 19, 317-323 (1977).

1006

T. Yokoyama

18. M. Eisenberger and J. Clastornik, Vibrations and

buckling of a beam on a variable Winkler elastic
foundation. J. Sound Vibr. 115, 233-241 (1987).
19. D. Karamanlidis and V. Prakash, Buckling and
vibration analysis of flexible beams resting on an
elastic half-space. Earthquake Engng Srruct. Dyn. 16,
1103-l I I4 (1988).
20. M. A. De Rosa, Stability and dynamics of beams on
Winkler elastic foundations. Earthquake Engng Srruct.

29. M. S. Issa, Natural frequencies of continuous curved

beams on Winkler-type foundation. J. Sound Vibr. 127,
291-301 (1988).

30. B. A. Djodjo, Transfer matrices for beams loaded

axially and laid on an elastic foundation. Aeronaut. Q.
_
20, 281-306 (1969).
31. M. D. Caoron and F. W. Williams. Exact dvnamic
stiffnesses for an axially loaded uniform Timoihenko
member embedded in an elastic medium. J. Sound Vibr.
124, 453466 (1988).
32. F. Y. Cheng and C. P. Pantelides, Dynamic
Timoshenko beam-columns on elastic media. ASCE J.

Dyn. 18, 377-388 (1989).

21. C. Franciosi and A. Masi, Free vibrations of foundation

beams on two-parameter elastic soil. Comput. Srrucr.
47, 419426

Srrucr. Engng 114(ST7),

(1993).

1524-1550 (1988).

33. G. R. Cowper, The shear coefficient in Timoshenkos

beam theory. ASME J. Appt. Mech. 33,335-340 (1966).
34. J. S. Archer, Consistent matrix formulations for structural analysis using finite-element techniques. AIAA J.

22. A. J. Valsangkar and R. Pradhanang, Vibrations

of beam-columns on two-parameter elastic foundations. Earthquake Engng Srrucr. Dyn. 16, 217-225
(1988).
23. S. Timoshenko, D. H. Young and W. Weaver, Jr,
Vibration Problems in Engineering, 4th Edn. Wiley, New
York (I 974).
24. T. M. Wang and J. E. Stephens, Natural frequencies of
Timoshenko beams on Pasternak foundations. J. Sound

3, 191&1918 (1965).

35. D. Karamanlidis and V. Prakash, Exact transfer and

stiffness matrices for a beam/column resting on a
two-parameter foundation. Compur. Merh. Appl. Mech.
Enann 72, 77-89 (1989).

36. T. - R. Tauchert; Energy Principles in Srrucrural

Mechanics. McGraw-Hill. New York (1974).
37. K.-J. Bathe, Finite Elemhnr Procedures in Engineering
Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1982).
38. T. Yokoyama, Vibrations of Timoshenko beamcolumns on two-parameter elastic foundations. Earrh-

Vibr. 51, 149-155 (1977).

25. T. M. Wang and L. W. Gagnon, Vibrations of

continuous Timoshenko beams on Winkler-Pasternak
foundations. J. Sound Vibr. 59, 21 l-220 (1978).
26. T. Yokoyama, Vibrations and transient responses of
Timoshenko beams on elastic foundations. Ing.-Arch.

quake Engng Srrucr. Dyn. 20, 355-370 (1991).

57, 81-90 (1987).

27. C. P. Filipich and M. B. Rosales, A variant of

Rayleighs method applied to Timoshenko beams
embedded in a Winkler-Pasternak medium. J. Sound
Vibr. 124, 443451 (1988).
28. D. E. Panayotounakos and P. S. Theocaris, The
dvnamicallv loaded circular beam on an elastic
foundation: ASME J. Appl. Mech. 47, 139-144 (1980).

39. A. Bokaian, Natural frequencies of beams under

compressive axial loads. J. Sound Vibr. 126, 49-65
(1988).

40. T. C. Huang, The effect of rotatory inertia and of shear

deformation on the frequency and normal mode
equations of uniform beams with simple end conditions.
A&fE

J. Appl. Mech. 28, 579-584<1961).

APPENDIX
ELEMENT MATRICES

Element stiffness matrices [&]c and [K,]

I2
El
[mr = ,3(l + @)

61

-12

(4 + 29 + @)P

-61
I2

WI

-61
1
(4 + 2@ + @2)F J

1SYMM.
r

61
(2-2@-@)F

21

-4

21

kGA@=
= 4/(l + @)

SYMM.

Element foundation stiffness matrices [&] and [Kn]

SYMM.

(A+$++$) >
P

Timoshenko beam-columns

[&]c

A
I(1 +- @)
SYMM.

Element geometric stiffness matrix [KS]

[K8p=&E].

Element consistent mass matrices [M,] and [M,]

6
3

SYMM.

1007