ARCHIVES OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, LX, 4, 2014

DOI: 10.2478/ace-2014-0029

VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO

BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER ELASTIC FOUNDATION

P. OBARA1

The vibration and stability analysis of uniform beams supported on two-parameter elastic founda-
tion are performed. The second foundation parameter is a function of the total rotation of the beam.
The effects of axial force, foundation stiffness parameters, transverse shear deformation and rota-
tory inertia are incorporated into the accurate vibration analysis. The work shows very important
question of relationships between the parameters describing the beam vibration, the compressive
force and the foundation parameters. For the free supported beam, the exact formulas for the natural
vibration frequencies, the critical forces and the formula defining the relationship between the vi-
bration frequency and the compressive forces are derived. For other conditions of the beam support
conditional equations were received. These equations determine the dependence of the frequency
of vibration of the compressive force for the assumed parameters of elastic foundation and the
slenderness of the beam.

Keywords: Bernoulli-Euler beam, Timoshenko beam, elastic foundation, stability, vibration

1. INTRODUCTION
The stability and dynamic analyses of beams or beam-columns belong to the classical
problems of the structural mechanics [the base items 1-3]. These analyses are carried
out by using Bernoulli-Euler beam theory for the case of slender beams or Timoshenko
theory for stocky beams (the beams with small length-to-depth ratio). In the first one,
straight lines or planes normal to the neutral beam axis remain straight and normal after
deformation, in the second one, the influence of transverse shear deformation and rota-
tory inertia is considered [4,5]. These models fairly realistically describe the behavior
of the beams, but the description of subsoil and its interaction with a beam resting on it
is not easy.
The soil-structure interaction problems occupy an important place in many fields
of structural and foundation engineering, e.g. in the analysis of building, geotechni-
cal, highway, and railroad structures, submerged pipes, etc. For over a century, various
physical and mathematical foundation models, approximating the real behavior, were
formulated. These foundations are characterized by one, two or more parameters [6,7].
1
Kielce University of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Al. 1000-lecia
PP 7, 25-314 Kielce, Poland, e-mail: paula@tu.kielce.pl
422 P. OBARA

The oldest, most frequently used model, was formulated in 1867 by Winkler [8]. In
that model, the beam-supporting soil is modeled as a series of closely spaced, mutually
independent, linear elastic vertical springs which, evidently, provide resistance in direct
proportion to the deflection of the beam. In the Winkler model, the properties of the
soil are described by only one parameter, which represents the stiffness of the vertical
spring. Although the model represents the simplest form of elastic foundation, in most
practical applications, it is used to model soil behavior. Timoshenko and Gere [2] pro-
posed a solution for simply supported uniform beams resting on the Winkler type foun-
dation. Free vibration and stability analysis of beams resting on the Winkler foundation
was studied in Refs [9–12]. The post-critical loads for Euler and Beck columns resting
on the elastic foundation were presented in Ref. [13]. In Ref. [14], the thermal buckling
and post-buckling of a pinned-fixed beam was investigated. The vibration and stability
analyses of an infinite Bernoulli–Euler beam and an infinite shear beam-column resting
on the Winkler-type elastic foundation, by using a Fourier transform, were performed
by Kim [15,16]. In those papers, the analyses were carried out for the system subjected
to a static axial force and a moving load with either constant or harmonic amplitude var-
iations. In Ref. [17], a beam on equidistant elastic supports was considered as a beam
on the elastic foundation in static and free vibration problems.
Many researchers have aimed to generalize and improve the Winkler model fre-
quently adopted to solve soil-structure interaction problems. More realistic hypothesis
is considered in the elastic foundation model with two parameters. The most commonly
used foundation models include the following: the Pasternak model [18], the Filonien-
ko-Borodich model [19], and the Vlasov-Leontiev model [20]. In those models, the first
parameter represents the stiffness of the vertical spring, as in the Winkler model, where-
as the second parameter is introduced to account for the coupling effect of the linear
springs. In the first case, the second parameter can be considered as the shear stiffness
of a shear layer and in the second – as the tension in an elastic membrane connecting the
top ends of the Winkler springs. The last model consists of an elastic layer resting on the
non-deformable base. The analysis using Vlasov model was examined in Refs [21–23].
The analysis of a beam resting on two-parametrical elastic foundation has been
conducted by many authors [24–33]. A majority of them employed a finite element
formulation to perform analyses. For example, Naidu and Rao were concerned with
the stability analysis [24] and the vibration behavior [25] of the Bernoulli-Euler beam
resting on the modified Pasternak model. The effect of the elastic foundation on buck-
ling loads for various end boundaries was examined in those papers. The finite ele-
ment technique for determining the vibration characteristics of a Bernoulli-Euler and
Timoshenko beam was also used by Yokoyama [26]. In that work, the effect of axial
force, foundation stiffness parameters, transverse shear deformation and rotatory inertia
were incorporated into the finite element model. In Ref. [27] approximate explicit for-
mulas for the fundamental natural vibration frequency of Timoshenko beams mounted
on the Pasternak foundation were derived. The dynamic stiffness matrix and the load
vector of the Timoshenko beam-column resting on the two-parameter elastic foundation
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 423

with generalized end condition were presented in Ref. [28]. The static, dynamic and sta-
bility behavior of framed structures made of beam-columns were analyzed in that paper.
Free vibration frequencies of Timoshenko beams on two-parameter elastic foundation
were examined by Rosa [29] for two different models. In the first model, the second
foundation parameter is assumed to be a function of the flexural rotation, whereas in the
second model, it is assumed to be a function of the global cross-section rotation. Studies
of analytical considerations of stability and vibration are generally not readily available
in the literature.
The purpose of this article is to present a general formulation for the vibration and
stability problems of beams with various boundary conditions, supported on two-pa-
rameter elastic foundation. The second foundation parameter is a function of the total
rotation of the beam, like in Ref. [29]. The effects of the shear deformation, rotatory
inertia and the foundation parameters on the frequency and critical loads of the beam
are discussed in detail. Wherein, it should be stressed that the relationship between the
parameters describing the beam vibration, the compressive force and the foundation
parameters will be considered.

2. THEORY AND FORMULATION

q(x,t)

S dx S
ku
kw
x E,J,G,A,l,

Fig. 1. Model of a beam with an axial force resting on a two-parameter elastic foundation.

Consider a beam of initial length l, axially compressed with force S, resting on the
elastic foundation, as shown in Figure 1. In the presented formulation, it is assumed
that: (1) the beam is made of an isotropic homogenous linear elastic material with
the Young’s modulus E, the shear modulus G, the Poisson’s ratio υthe transverse
cross-section of the beam is doubly symmetric with respect to the height of beam h,
the area A, the moment of inertia J; (3) the beam has uniform mass density ρ per unit
length; (4) the shear coefficient depending on the shape of cross-section κis taken into
account; (5) the central axis is a straight line; (6) the vibration amplitudes of the beam
are sufficiently small; (7) the damping of the foundation are negligible; (8) the bonding
between the beam and foundation is perfect.
424 P. OBARA

The analysis is made for Timoshenko beam model. As a result, the effects of trans-
verse shear deformation and rotatory inertia are taken into account. The cross-section
initially normal to the neutral axis of the beam remains plane, but no longer normal to
that axis in bending. The slope of the deflection curve w ~ I x, t  depends on the rotation
~
of the beam cross-section, M x, t  , and additionally, on the average shear deformation
angle, N\~ x, t  :

~  x, t 
ww
(2.1) M~x, t   N\~ x, t 
wx

The effect of the rotatory inertia is expressed by:

~ w 2M~ x, t 
(2.2) M B  x, t  U J dx
wt 2
The section forces can be expressed by the deflection and rotation function as fol-
lows:

~ GA § ww~  x, t  ·
(2.3) T x, t  GA \~ x, t  ¨  M~ x, t ¸
N © wx ¹
©
~ wM~ x, t 
(2.4) M x, t   EJ
wx

The elastic foundation is idealized as a constant two-parameter model characterized

by two moduli, i.e. the vertical foundation modulus kw (the Winkler parameter) and the
horizontal foundation modulus ku. In the case ku = 0, this model is reduced to the usual
Winkler model. The foundation response is taken into account as the vertical ground
reaction, proportional to the vertical displacement w~  x, t  :

(2.5) q~S x, t  k w w
~  x, t 

and the horizontal reaction proportional to the horizontal displacement of the extreme
fibres of the beam u~ x, t  . This effect is taken into account in the form of the bending
moment:

(2.6) ~ x, t  k M~ x, t 
m S M

where kφ = ku h2 / 4
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 425

2.1. THE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION DERIVATION

The dynamic equilibrium on the differential element of the beam is shown in

~
Figure 2. Assuming a small curvature in the current configuration cosww wx  # 1,
~ ~
sin ww wx  # ww wx  , the transverse and rotational equilibrium equations are:

~ ~ ~
­ wT w2w w2w ~  q~ 0
°  S 2
 A U  kw w
(2.7) ° wx wx wt 2
® ~ 2~
° wM  T~  JU w M  k M~  m ~ 0.
°¯ wx wt 2
M

qdx
w S dx
x x
k dx 2

T J dx
t2 w dx
M
x
2
w dx S w + 2w dx
A
t2 x x2
w
kwwdx T+
T dx M + Mdx
x x

Fig. 2. Forces, moments and deformations of the differential element

Substituting Eqs. (2.3) and (2.4) into (2.7) results in

~ wM~ ·
­ GA § w 2 w w2w~ w2w ~
¨¨ 2  ¸¸  S 2  AU 2  k w w ~  q~ 0
°
° N © w x wx ¹ w x w t
(2.8) ® 2~ ~ 2~
° EJ w M GA § ww ~ ·¸  JU w M  k M~ 0.
°  ¨  M M
¯ wx 2 N © wx ¹ wt 2

From now on, the free harmonic vibrations of the beam will be considered q~ 0 .
Following the introduction of the non-dimensional coordinate along the axis of the
beam ξ = x/l; ξ  á0,1ñ and parameters describing the beam:

Sl 2 1 G NEJ Pl 4
(2.9) V2 , H2 , n ,] , P AU , F 4
EJ 1  V 2] NE GAl 2
EJ

and the foundation:

426 P. OBARA

k wl 4 kM l 2
(2.10) O4w , OM4
EJ EJ

equations (2.8) can be written in the form:

~ IV  V 2H 2  O4 H 2]  O4 w
w ~ II  O4 H 2 1  O4 ] w
~
w M w M
(2.11) ....
~ II  F 4H 2 1  O4 ]  O4 ] 2 n w
 F 4] H 2  n w ~  F 8H 2] 2 n w
~ 0
M w

1
(2.12) M~ 1  OM4 ]   F 4] 2 nM~

l
>
1  V 2] ] w~ III  F 4] 2 w~ I  1  O4w] 2 w~ I @
~ [ , t 
Applying the separation of variables to the functions w and M~ [ , t  :

(2.13) ~ [ , t  w[ eiZ t , M~ [ , t  M [  e iZ t
w

where ω is the circular vibration frequency, and substituting into (2.11), the differential
equation of the motion of the harmonic amplitudes is obtained:

(2.14) w IV [   2 Xw II [   Yw[  0

where:

2X H 2 V 2  O4w]   OM4  O4] H 2  n , Y H 2 O4w  O4 1  OM4 ]  O4] 2 n ,

(2.15) PZ 2l 4
O4
EJ

After substituting Eqs. (2.13) into (2.12), the total rotation of the beam cross-section has
following form:
1
(2.16) M [ 
l
>
e w III [   dw I [  @
where:

(2.17) e
1  V ] ]
2
, d
1  O4] 2  O4w] 2
.
1  OM4 ]  O4] 2 n 1  OM4 ]  O4] 2 n
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 427

A number of specific cases of equations (2.14) and (2.16) can be distinguished.

If ω = 0, the equations describe the stability of Timoshenko beam. If kw = ku = 0
O4w 0, OM4 0 the equations describe free vibrations or the stability of Timoshen-
ko beam with no elastic foundations to rest on. If ζ = 0 (ε = 0), (2.14) and (2.16)
2 4 4 4
become the equations for Bernoulli-Euler beam and then 2 X V  OM , Y Ow  O , and
M [  1 l wI [  .
The solution of homogeneous differential equation (2.14) is the function:

(2.18) w[  C1e k1[  C2e k 2[  C3e k 3[  C4e k 4[

where the coefficients ki, (i=1,2,3,4) are the roots of the characteristic equation:

(2.19) k1, 2 r k12 , k3 , 4 r k22

where:

(2.20) k12  X  X 2  Y , k22 X  X 2 Y .

The roots (2.19) depend on the relationships between the coefficients 2X and Y.

2.2. THE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTING SOLUTION

In the orthogonal coordinate system 2X,Y (Figure 3), the parabola Y = X2 and the
2X-axis split up the 2X,Y-plane into four regions, in which the following relationships
between coefficients 2X and Y hold:

(2.21) I: 2 X ! 0 š 0  Y  X 2 , II: Y ! X 2 , II: 2 X  0 š 0  Y  X 2 , IV: Y  0 .

On the basis of the relationships (2.21) taking into account that the foundation pa-
rameters ku and kw and the shear deformation parameter ζ are non-negative values, we
can conclude that:
 if the stability analysis of Timoshenko and Bernoulli-Euler beam on one or two-
parameter elastic foundation is carried out, the coefficients 2X and Y satisfy the
conditions for the region I,
 if the static analysis of beams on elastic foundations is performed, the conditions
characterizing the region II occur,
 if the tensile forces affect the beams, the coefficients 2X and Y satisfy the inequali-
ties characterizing the region III,
 the phenomenon of free vibration or vibration of the tensile or compressive loads
of the beam resting on elastic foundations is described by the coefficients 2X and Y
satisfying the inequalities characterizing the region IV,
428 P. OBARA

 the case, for which 2X=0 and Y=0 (the origin 2XY), describes a static analysis of
beams with no elastic foundations to rest on.

Y
2
Y=X
2 II 2
k 1 >0 k 1,2 =+ p3 2
I k 1 <0 k 1,2 =+ ip1
2 III k 1,2 -imaginary 2
k 2 >0 k 3,4 =+ m3 numbers k 2 <0 k 3,4 = + im1
2X

IV k 1 >0 k 1,2 =+ p4
2
k 2 <0 k 3,4 = + im4

Fig. 3. The division of 2X,Y plane into four areas

Figure 3 shows geometrical picture of all the possible cases of magnitudes and the
relationships between the coefficients 2X and Y appearing in the differential equation
(2.14). At the same time, the relationships (2.21) enable us to find out whether the pa-
rameters ki (2.19) are real, imaginary or complex numbers. Thus, a form of general in-
tegral (2.18) of the differential equation (2.14) depends upon which of the relationships
(2.21) is satisfied by the coefficients 2X and Y.

2.2.1. THE SOLUTION OF EQUATION (2.14) IN REGIONS I, III AND IV

If the coefficients 2X and Y take their values from the first region k12 and k22 are nega-
tive real numbers, k1,2 and k3,4 have imaginary values:

(2.22) k1, 2 rip1 , k3, 4 rim1

where:

(2.23) p1 X  X 2 Y , m1 X  X 2 Y

In the third region k12 and k22 are positive real numbers, so k1,2 and k3,4 are actual values:

(2.24) k1, 2 r p3 , k3, 4 r m3

where:
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 429

(2.25) p3  X  X 2 Y , m3  X  X 2 Y

In the fourth region, k12 is a positive, but k22 – a negative number, therefore the roots k1,2
are real and k3,4 are imaginary numbers:

(2.26) k1, 2 r p , k3 , 4 rim

where:

(2.27) p X 2 Y  X , m X 2 Y  X .

If we consider the relationship between the parameters pi and mi (pi = p, m1 = m, p3 = p,

m3 = in) and trigonometric dependencies:

(2.28) cosh iz cos z , sinh iz i sin z

the general integral (2.18) can be written finally in the form:

(2.29) w[  C1 cosh p[  C2 sinh p[  C3 cos m[  C4 sin m[

The amplitude equation of the rotation of the beam cross-section is received by substi-
tuting derivatives of the function (2.29) to (2.16):
1
(2.30) M [  >C1 A sinh p[  C2 A cosh p[  C3 B sin m[  C4 B cos m[ @
l
where:

(2.31) A ep 3  dp, B em3  dm.

2.2.2. THE SOLUTION OF EQUATION (2.14) IN REGION II

If the coefficients 2X and Y take their values from the second region k12 and k22 are
complex numbers, k1,2 and k3,4 are complex numbers, too:
§ 1 1 · X
(2.32) k1, 2,3, 4 r 4 Y ¨ cos X r i sin X ¸ ; cosX 
© 2 2 ¹ Y

where υ is an amplitude of a complex number.

The general integral (2.18) for this cases can be expressed as:
430 P. OBARA

w[  C1 cosh p2[ cos m2[  C2 cosh p2[ sin m2[  C3 sinh p2[ cos m2[ 
(2.33)  C4 sinh p2[ sin m2[

where:
4 1 Y X 4 1 Y X
(2.34) p2 Y cos X , m2 Y sin X
2 2 2 2

and the amplitude equation of the rotation of the beam cross-section (2.16) may be
written as:

lM [  C1 >E cos m2[ sinh p2[  F cosh p2[ sin m2[ @ 

 C2 >E sin m2[ sinh p2[  F cosh p2[ cos m2[ @ 
(2.35)  C3 >E cos m2[ cosh p2[  F sinh p2[ sin m2[ @ 
 C4 >E sin m2[ cosh p2[  F sinh p2[ cos m2[ @
where:

(2.36) E p2 d  e p22  3m22 , F  m2 d  em22  3 p22  .

2.3. THE DETERMINATION OF THE EIGENVALUES

Analyzing the differential equation (2.14), among the derived expansion functions, the
expressions can be distinguished that describe the deflected function of the beam under
free vibrations or under buckling. In both cases, it is the function (2.29). Four integra-
tion constants Ci appearing in the (2.29) are to be calculated by imposing the boundary
conditions. For the simply supported beam, boundary conditions:

(2.37) w([ 0) 0 ; M ([ 0) 0 ; w([ 1) 0 ; M ([ 1) 0

lead to the following homogeneous system of equations:

ª 1 0 1 º ª C1 º 0 ª0 º
« Ap 0 Bm 0 » «C » «0 »
(2.38) « »*« 2» « »
« cosh p sinh p cos m sin m » «C3 » «0 »
« » « » « »
¬ Ap cosh p Ap sinh p Bm cos m Bm sin m ¼ ¬C4 ¼ ¬0 ¼
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 431

The condition, from which we determine the eigenvalues, is resetting the primary deter-
minant of equations (2.38), which leads to the equation:

(2.39)  ( Bm  Ap) 2 sin m sinh p 0

whose fulfillment is a condition of equilibrium bifurcation of the element under com-

pression. The equation (2.39) has solutions for:

(2.40) m kS ; k 1, 2, 3...

which, after using the formulas (2.27)2, (2.15) leads to the dependence:

O4w  O4 OM4  O4] n  k 2S 2

(2.41) V 
k 2S 2 1  OM4  O4]n  k 2S 2 ]

If λ = 0, we obtain the formula for the critical compressive force:

ª O4w OM4  k 2S 2 º EJ
(2.42) S KR « 2 2 » 2
¬« k S 1  OM4  k 2S 2 ] ¼» l

and if σ = 0 – two natural frequency bands are received:

b  b 2  4ac EJ b  b 2  4ac EJ
(2.43) Z1k ; Z2 k
2a Pl4 2a Pl4

where:
a >
n] 2 , b 1  OM4  k 2S 2  nO4w]  k 2S 2  ] @
(2.44)
c O 4
M k S 2 2
O ]  k S   O .
4
w
2 2 4
w

If we do not take into account the effect of rotational inertia, we get the formula for one
natural frequency band:

OM
4
 k 2S 2 O4w]  k 2S 2   O4w EJ
(2.45) Z1k .
1  OM  k S ]
4 2 2
Pl4
432 P. OBARA

A number of specific cases of the formulas (2.42) and (2.45) can be distinguished.
If kw ku 0 O4w 0, OM4 0 the equations describe the critical compressive force and
the natural frequency of Timoshenko beam with no elastic foundations to rest on. If
ζ = 0 (ε = 1), (2.42) and (2.45) become the formulas of eigenvalues for Bernoulli-Euler
beam (Table 1).

Table 1
The formulas for the critical compressive force SKR and the natural frequency ω for Bernoulli-Euler and
Timoshenko simply supported beam

Bernoulli-Euler Timoshenko
beam with elastic foundation to rest on beam with no elastic foundation to rest on
4 4 2 2 4
k S k S OM  O4w k 2S 2
>
S KR EJ l 2 @ 2 2 2
k S 2
1  k 2S 2]
k S

k 2S 2
>
Z EJ Pl 4 @ k 4S 4  k 2S 2 OM4  O4w k 2S 2 1  k 2S 2]

On the basis of the formula (2.41), it is possible to determine the dependence that
expresses the vibration frequency of the compressive force for the simply supported
beam. For other conditions of the beam support, we can determine the value of natural
frequencies and critical forces, and the relationship between them, from the following
conditional equations:
 for the clamped-clamped beam:

(2.46)  2 AB1  cosh p cos m   A2  B 2 sinh p sin m 0

 for the clamped-hinged beam:

(2.47)  Ap  Bm >A cosh p sin m  B sinh p cos m@ 0

 for the cantilever beam:

> @ >
AB m 2  p 2   H 2  Ap  Bm   pmA2  B 2   ABH 2  Ap  Bm  cosh p cos m  @
(2.48) >
 AB 2 pm  H  Am  Bp  sinh p sin m 0.
2
@

Equations (2.46)–(2.48) determine the dependence of the frequency of vibration of the

compressive force for the assumed parameters of elastic foundation and the slenderness
of the beam.
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 433

3. EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. EXAMPLE 1

a) 11 b) 11

3S 9.162 3S
9 9
8.906

7 7.413
2S 7
V

2S

O
6.122 5.831 6.202
5 5.489
4.796 5
3.121
S 3.113
3 2.893 S
3
3.015

1
0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182 1
0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182
]
]
c) 11 d) 11
9.644 9.534
9.136 9.431 9.279 9.428
9 9

7.418
7 7
6.622
V

6.301 6.553 6.292

5.839 5.501
O

5 4.816 5
4.628

3 3.263 3.201
3
3.023 3.081

1 1
0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182 0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182
] ]

Fig. 4. Non-dimensional critical forces σ (a) and non-dimensional frequencies of vibration λ (b) for simply
supported beam with no elastic foundations to rest on. Influence of elastic foundations on σ (c) and on
λ (d) Bernoulli-Euler beam theory (---),Timoshenko beam theory (—), first values (▲), second values
(■), third values (●)

A reinforced concrete simply supported beam of length l = 8 m resting on elastic

foundation is considered. The beam with rectangular cross-section (the shear factor
κ = 1.2) with width b = 0.5 m and beam cross-section height changing (h = 0.6 ÷ 2.2 m)
will be taken into account. The beam has Young’s modulus E = 31 × 109 Pa, the
Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.2 and the mass density ρ = 2500 kgm-3. The moduli of foundation
are kw = 24.52 × 109 Nm-2 and ku = 5.88 × 106 Nm-2.
434 P. OBARA

The effects of shear deformation on non-dimensional frequencies of vibration λ and

critical forces σ are shown in Figure 4. For beams with large slenderness ratios (the
smaller ζ, the transverse shear has little effect. Thus, the Bernoulli-Euler beam theory
can accurately predict the frequencies and critical forces. For beams with small slen-
derness ratios (the largest ζ, the frequency and critical force are significantly smaller
than predicted by the Bernoulli-Euler theory. For example, the first three frequencies
are more than 4%, 14% and 27% lower than those given by Bernoulli-Euler theory for
ζ = 0.0182 and in the cases of the first three critical forces are more than 8%, 31%
and 61%. It should also be noted that the influence of shear deformation on the next
eigenvalues increases.

a) b) 11
11

9.279
9.136 9.204
8.906
8 8
7.418
6.835 7.255
O

6.807 6.553
V

6.122 5.839 6.202

5.831 5.501
5 5.489
5 4.816
4.796 4.628

3.121 3.131 3.201

3.023
2.893 3.081
2 2
0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182 0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182

] ]

Fig. 5. Influence of elastic foundations on non-dimensional critical values σ (a) and on non-dimensional
frequencies of vibration λ (b); values for beam with no elastic foundations to rest on (---), values for beam
with elastic foundations to rest on (—); first values (▲), second values (■), third values (●)

The effect of elastic foundations parameters on the critical values and frequencies of
vibration are shown in Figure 5. The results show that the foundation parameters signif-
icantly affect values  and  for beams with large slenderness ratios (the smaller ζFor
example, for ζ = 0.0014, the fundamental frequency and the first critical force are more
than 32% and 54% higher than those given without considering the impact of elastic
foundation. For ζ = 0.0182, differences in eigenvalues are 2% and 4%. It can be seen
that the impact is lower while determining the frequency of vibration. The influence of
elastic foundation on the next eigenvalues decreases.
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 435

a) 10 b) 10

8 8

6 6
V

V
4 4

2 2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

O O

Fig. 6. The dependence between non-dimensional frequencies of vibration λ and non-dimensional critical
values σ for ζ=0.0014 (a) and for ζ=0.015 (b)

It is possible to determine the dependence for vibration frequency of the compres-

sive force for two cases ζ = 0.0014 (Figure 6a) and ζ = 0.015 (Figure 6b) on the basis
of the formula (2.59). As the compressive force increases, the beam vibrations decrease
and the critical value stops the beam vibrating. It is the dependence of bifurcation.

a) 5 b) 40
35.614
4.624
4.619
30
O

4 20

10.189
10

3.081
3 3.048 0
0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182 0.0014 0.0038 0.0074 0.0122 0.0182

] ]

Fig. 7. Effect of rotational inertia on non-dimensional fundamental frequencies of vibration λ (a) first
natural frequency band, (b) second natural frequency band; values for beam with effect of rotational inertia
(---), values for beam with no effect of rotational inertia (—)

The effect of rotational inertia on non-dimensional fundamental frequencies of

vibration λ is shown in Figure 7a. The effect is small, as for example, for ζ = 0.0182
the first frequency is about 1% lower than that given without considering the rotational
inertia. But if the rotational inertia is accounted for, the second natural frequency band
436 P. OBARA

is received (Figure 7b). The influence of elastic foundation for this band is insignificant
(0.01%).

3.2. EXAMPLE 2

In the second example, the three exact frequency parameters of the beam are deter-
mined. Four kinds of end conditions, i.e. simply supported (Table 2), clamped- hinged
(Table 3), clamped-clamped (Table 4) and cantilever beam (Table 5) are consider in this
study. For the first case, solutions were calculated directly from the analytical closed
form expression (2.43)1 and (2.45), for others – from equations (2.46)–(2.48), assuming
σ = 0. The beams resting on Winkler foundation (λw), on two-parametrical foundation
(λw, λφ) and with no elastic foundation to rest on are considered.
The following mechanical and geometric properties of Timoshenko beam used
by Yokoyama [26] are chosen for the analysis: the Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.25, the shear
coefficient: κ = 1.2 (for rectangular cross-section), the slenderness ratio: J Al 2 10 .
Consequently, the shear deformation parameter is: ζ = 0.03. The foundation parameters
λw = 0.88π and λφ = 1 are assumed.
For Bernoulli-Euler beam, frequency parameters were obtained assuming ζ = 0 (the
effect of shear deformation was disregarded) and n = 0 (the effect of rotatory inertia was
disregarded). The results received in this way are known from literature. This proves the
formulas developed in this paper are correct.

Table 2
Values of frequency parameter λ for simply supported beam

Timoshenko
Bernoulli
-Euler without rotatory with rotatory
inertia inertia
1 st without elastic foundation 3.142 2.944 2.902
Winkler foundation 3.533 3.400 3.350
two-parametrical foundation 3.588 3.458 3.388
2 nd without elastic foundation 6.283 5.168 5.057
Winkler foundation 6.341 5.271 5.157
two-parametrical foundation 6.380 5.285 5.173
3 rd without elastic foundation 9.425 6.812 6.684
Winkler foundation 9.442 6.858 6.728
two-parametrical foundation 9.468 6.863 6.735
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 437

Table 3
Values of frequency parameter λ for clamped-hinged beam

Timoshenko
Bernoulli
-Euler without rotatory with rotatory
inertia inertia
1 st without elastic foundation 3.927 3.379 3.343
Winkler foundation 4.148 3.723 3.683
two-parametrical foundation 4.188 3.743 3.704
2 nd without elastic foundation 7.069 5.334 5.237
Winkler foundation 7.109 5.453 5.361
two-parametrical foundation 7.139 5.463 5.373
3 rd without elastic foundation 10.210 6.874 6.741
Winkler foundation 10.224 6.939 6.828
two-parametrical foundation 10.246 6.944 6.833

Table 4
Values of frequency parameter λ for clamped-clamped beam

Timoshenko
Bernoulli
-Euler without rotatory with rotatory
inertia inertia
1 st without elastic foundation 4.730 3.759 3.741
Winkler foundation 4.862 4.045 4.027
two-parametrical foundation 4.889 4.051 4.034
2 nd without elastic foundation 7.853 5.471 5.377
Winkler foundation 7.883 5.605 5.522
two-parametrical foundation 7.907 5.612 5.532
3 rd without elastic foundation 10.996 6.935 6.806
Winkler foundation 11.007 7.018 6.950
two-parametrical foundation 11.025 7.021 6.950
438 P. OBARA

Table 5
Values of frequency parameter λ for cantilever beam

Timoshenko
Bernoulli
-Euler without rotatory with rotatory
inertia inertia
1 st without elastic foundation 1.875 1.814 1.798
Winkler foundation 2.901 2.765 2.765
two-parametrical foundation 2.920 2.765 2.765
2 nd without elastic foundation 4.694 3.962 3.820
Winkler foundation 4.829 4.014 3.864
two-parametrical foundation 4.879 4.075 3.924
3 rd without elastic foundation 7.855 5.879 5.642
Winkler foundation 7.885 5.866 5.607
two-parametrical foundation 7.916 5.888 5.631

For Timoshenko beams, the frequency parameters are significantly smaller than
those obtained for the Bernoulli-Euler beams. The biggest differences are found for
the case of clamped-clamped beam. The first three frequency are over 26%, 46% and
61% lower than those given for Bernoulli-Euler beam. This also proves that shear
deformation and rotational inertia produce an increasing effect on the next values. It
is very important the influence of rotational inertia on non-dimensional fundamental
frequencies of vibration is small (of an order of 2%). The biggest effect is produced for
the hinged-hinged beam and the smallest for the clamped-clamped beam.
If the beams resting on elastic foundation are considered, the frequency parame-
ters will be higher than those obtained for beams with no elastic foundation to rest on.
The effect is the biggest for the hinged-hinged beam and the smallest for the clamped-
clamped beam. In the first case, the first frequency is over 17% higher than that given
without considering the impact of elastic foundation and in the second – 8%. The de-
creasing effect on the next frequencies is observed.
No matter what the conditions of the beam support are, the influence of the second
foundation parameter, which is a function of the total rotation of the beam, is small.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The vibrations and stability of uniform beams resting on continuous two-parameter
elastic foundation were studied. The equation of motion for Timoshenko and Bernoul-
li-Euler beam was derived. The relationships between the parameters describing vibra-
tion, the compressive force and the foundation parameters were investigated.
 VIBRATIONS AND STABILITY OF BERNOULLI-EULER AND TIMOSHENKO BEAMS ON TWO-PARAMETER... 439

Using analytical formulas developed in this paper, it was possible to obtain the
non-dimensional parameters σ and λ, which describe the critical force and vibration
frequencies. The individual effect of foundation stiffness parameters, transverse shear
deformation and rotatory inertia on eigenvalues of the beam can be examined by per-
forming a parametric study.

REFERENCES

1. Bołotin, W.W.: Dynamic Stability of Elastic Systems, Moskwa, 1956. (in Russian).
2. Timoshenko, S.P., Gere, J.M.: Theory of elastic stability, McGraw–Hill, New York, 1961.
3. Wolmir, A.C.: Stability of Elastic Systems, Moskwa, 1963. (in Russian).
4. Timoshenko, S.P.: On the correction for shear of the differential equation for transverse vibrations of
prismatic bars, Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 41, 744–746, 1921.
5. Timoshenko, S.P.: On the transverse vibrations of bars of uniform cross– section, Philosophical
Magazine, Vol. 43, 125–131, 1922.
6. Gryczmański, M., Jurczyk, P.: The Subsoil Models and their Evaluation, Inżynieria i Budownictwo,
Vol. 2, No. 95, 98–104, 1995. (in Polish).
7. Jemielita, G., Szcześniak, W.: Methods for Foundation Modeling, Prace Naukowe Politechniki
Warszawskiej, Vol. 120, 1–33, 1993. (in Polish).
8. Winkler, E.: Die Lehre von der Elastizität und Festigkeit, Dominicus, Prague, (1867).
9. Thambiratnam, D., Zbuge, Y.: Free vibration analysis of beam on elastic foundation, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 60, No. 6, 971–980, 1996.
10. Chen, C.N.: DQEM vibration analyses of non–prismatic shear deformable beams resting on elastic
foundations, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 255, No. 5, 989–999, 2002.
11. De Rosa, M.A.: Stability and dynamics of beams on Winkler elastic foundation, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 18, 377– 388, 1989.
12. Fargitaly, S.H., Zeid, K.M.: An exact frequency equation for an axially loaded beam–mass–spring
system resting on a Winkler elastic foundation, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 185, No. 2,
357–363, 1995.
13. Nageswara, Rao B., Venkateswara, Rao G.: Post–critical behaviour of Euler and Beck columns resting
on an elastic foundation, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 2764, 1150–1158, 200.
14. Song Xi, Soi– Rong Li.: Thermal buckling and post–buckling of pinned–fixed Euler–Bernoulli beams
on an elastic foundation, Mechanics Research Communications, Vol. 34, 164–171, 2006.
15. Kim, S.M.: Vibration and stability of axial loaded beams on elastic foundation under moving harmonic
loads, Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, 95–10, 20045.
16. Kim, S.M., Cho, Y. H.: Vibration and dynamic buckling of shear beam–columns on elastic foundation
under moving harmonic loads, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 43, 393–412, 2006.
17. Sato, M., Kanie, S., Mikami, T.: Mathematical analogy of a beam on elastic supports as a beam on
elastic foundation, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 32, 688–699, 2008.
18. Pasternak, P.Ł.: On a new method of analysis of an elastic foundation by means of two foundation
constants, Gosstrojizdat, Moscow, 1954. (in Russian).
19. Filonienko – Borodich, M.M.: Some approximate theories of elastic foundation, Uchenyie Zapiski
Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universtiteta, Mechanika, Vol. 46, 3–18, 1940. (in Russian).
20. Vlasow, V.Z., Loentiev, U.N.: Beams, plates and shells on elastic foundation, Gosfizmat, Moskow,
1966. (in Russian).
440 P. OBARA

21. Gomuliński, A.: Determination of eigenvalues for circular plates resting on elastic foundation with two
moduli, Archives of Civil Engineering, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 183–203, 1967. (in Polish).
22. Ayvaz, Y., Daloglu, A.: Earthquake analysis of beams resting on elastic foundations by using a modified
Vlasov model, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 200, No. 3, 315–325, 1997.
23. Ayvaz, Y.: Application of modified Vlasov model to free vibration analysis of beams resting on elastic
foundations, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 255, No. 1, 111–127, 2002.
24. Naidu, N.R., Rao, G.V.: Stability behaviour of uniform beams on a class of two–parameter elastic
foundation, Computers and Structures, Vol. 57, No. 3, 551–553, 1995.
25. Naidu, N.R., Rao, G.V.: Vibrations of initially stressed uniform beams on two–parameter elastic
foundation, Computers and Structures, Vol. 57, No. 2, 941–943, 1995.
26. Yokoyama, T.: Vibration analysis of Timoshenko beam–columns on two–parameter elastic foundations,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 61, No. 6, 995–1007, 1995.
27. El – Mously, M.: Foundamental frequencies of Timoshenko beams mounted on Pasternak foundation,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 228, No. 2, 452–157, 1999.
28. Arboleda– Monsalve, L.G., Apata– Medina, D.G., Aristizabal – Ochoa, J.D.: Timoshenko beam–
column with generalized and conditions on elastic foundation: Dynamic–stiffness matrix and load
vector, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 310, 1057–1079, 2008.
29. De Rosa, M.A.: Free vibrations of Timoshenko beams on two–parameter elastic foundation, Computers
and Structures, Vol. 57, No. 1, 151–156, 1995.
30. Filipich, C.P., Rosales, M.B.: A further study about the behaviour of foundation piles and beams in
a Winkler–Pasternak soil, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 44, 21–36, 2002.
31. Chen, W.Q., Lü, C.F., Bian, Z.G.: A mixed method for bending and free vibration of beams resting on
a Pasternak elastic foundation, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 28, 877–890, 2004.
32. Matsunaga, H.: Vibration and buckling of deep beam–columns on two–parameter elastic foundations,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 228, No. 2, 359–376, 1999.
33. Ying, C.F. Lü, Chen, W.Q.: Two–dimensional elasticity solutions for functionally graded beams resting
on elastic foundations, Composite Structures, Vol. 84, 209–219, 2008.

Received: 10.08.2014
Revised: 02.12.2014