Acta Mechanica 25, 45--49 (1976)

@ by Springer-Verlag 1976

On the Vlasov and Kerr Foundation Models

By
It. Jones and J. Xenophontos, H a w t h o r n , Victoria

With 2 Figures

(Received J u n e 2, 1975)

S u m m a r y - Zusammenfassung
On the Vlasov and Kerr Foundation Models. By studying the response of a two layered
foundation to surface loading, the Kerr foundation model is shown to be identical to a Vlasov
foundation model. _As a consequence of the analysis, expressions for the shear and spring
constants of the Kerr foundation, are obtained.
Zu den Griindungs-Modellen yon Wlassew und Kerr. Durch Untcrsuchung des Ver-
haltens einer zweischichtigen Griindung unter Oberfl~chenbelastung wird gezeigt, dab das
Kerrschc Modell mit dem yon Wlassow identisch ist. Daraus werden Ausdriicke ftir Schub-
und Fcderkonstanten des Kerrschen Modelles erhalten.

1. Introduction

One of the most advantageous models, which has recently been used for the
analysis of an elastic foundation, is the K e r r foundation model [1], [2], [3]. This
model is an extension of the usual P a s t e r n a k model and consists of two spring
layers, with spring constants c and k respectively, interconnected b y a shear
layer with shear constant G (Fig. 1).
The response of this foundation when subjected to a continuously distributed
surface load p(x, y) is governed b y :

1 -{- P -- c W2p = k W - - GIV2w. (1)

W h e n c = 3k this model is identicle with a similar foundation model proposed

b y REISSlgEI~ [4].
An alternative extension of the P a s t e r n a k model was suggested b y VLASOV
and L:~o~T~v [5], [6]. T h e y considered a two layered foundation assuming t h a t
the upper layer is very thin so t h a t its shear interaction is negligable. Being a
continuum model the Vlasov model has the a d v a n t a g e t h a t the foundation moduli
are expressable in terms of k n o w n functions. U n f o r t u n a t e l y the K e r r and Vlasov
models differ.
The major a d v a n t a g e of the Kerr model over the Vlasov, and other models
(such as the isotropic, elastic continuum, P a s t e r n a k foundation, etc.), is that.
46 R. Jo~-Es and J. XENOP~O~TOS:

because of the upper spring layer no concentrated reactions, or infinite reaction

pressures can occur, not even at the edge of a rigid stamp.
The present paper is an a t t e m p t to unify the Vlasov nmdel and the Kerr
foundation model so as to obtain a formulation exhibiting the advantages of the
continuum approach as well as the simplicity of the Kerr model.

,*, ,,*, ,f,,

I. Fig. 1

2. Formulation

Consider a thin elastic layer of thickness hi lying above a second elastic layer
of thickness h~. The Youngs modulus and Poisson's ratio of the upper and lower
layers are E,~, ~ls and E~s, ~2~ respectively (see Fig. 2).
We will adopt the basic assumption of the K e r r model, namely t h a t the surface
displacement w is the sum of two independent functions Wl(X, y) and w2(x, y). We
will also adopt Vlasov's basic assumption t h a t at any point (x, y) in the thin
upper layer the vertical deformation profile is linear, and that in the thicker
lower layer the vertical deformation profile takes the form of a hyperbolic sine.
If we now proceed as outlined by VL~SOV and LEOXT~V [5], taking the vertical
deformations w(x, y, z) to be of the form

w(x, y, z) = wl(x, y) ~pi(z) + w~(x, y) r (2)

H h~

1
Fig. 2
 On the Vlasov and Kerr Foundation Models 47

t h e n t h e t w o b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n s , d i s c u s s e d a b o v e will be s a t i s f i e d if we t a k e

-- h~ ' r =1 for 0<z<hl

} (3)
61(z) = 0, 62 - - sinhy(H -- z) for h~ _< z <_ H I
sinh yh2 !
w h e r e H = h~ ~- h2 a n d y is a n e x p e r i m e n t a l l y d e t e r m i n e d c o n s t a n t "(see [5]).
W i t h t h i s choice for 61(z) a n d 62(z) t h e V l a s o v e q u a t i o n s (see [5] p. 25) r e d u c e to

V2WlGlrll + V2w2G2rl2 - - w1E1811 -~- p = O, (4)

and
V2WlGlr12 -~- V2w2(Glr22 -~- G2r~2 ) - - w2E28122 -~- p = O. (5)
Here
h~ H

rll=fdpl2dZ = "hl
~, "f
T22 = r dz = V h~dpt
0 h~
hx h~

r i 2 ~ f dplC~2dz -- hi2 ' 811 = f r 'e dz = 1~hi (6)

0 0
h~ H
r22 =
0
f ~)22 dz ~- hi, 822
, ~---f q~2'2 dz = qblc/h2
h~

a n d qbt a n d r are g i v e n b y :

~bt = 3(sinh yh 2 cosh 7h2 -- 7h2),

(7)
2yh 2 sinh 2 ?h 2
and
q~k ~ yh2(sinh ~h2 cosh 7h.~ -t- 7h~)
(8)
2 sinh 2 7h2

T h e elastic c o n s t a n t s E1 a n d E 2 are f o u n d f r o m

E1
-- EI~
(1 - ~ s ) '
E2 ~ E2~
(1 - ~ )
i
]
-- vl------L'---s ~2 -- ~2s (9)
~1 (i - ~.)' (1 - v2~) !/
El G2 -- E2 ]
G1 ~- 2 ( 1 + v l ) ' 2(1+v2) )

S u b s t i t u t i n g t h e a b o v e e x p r e s s i o n s i n t o (4) a n d (5) a n d s u b t r a c t i n g (4) f r o m (5)

we o b t a i n t h e r e s u l t i n g p a i r of e q u a t i o n s , viz.

2tV~wl - - k l w 1 ~ 3t1~2w~ -~ p = 0, (lo)

and
tlV2Wl ~- ~lWl ~- 2(3tl ~ t2) V2w2 - - k2w2 : 0, (~)
48 R. J o ~ s and J. XENoP~oNTos:

where
Elhl ]~1 - - E1 /
tl -- 12(1 + v1~' h1 (1-- vl~) ( (12)
E~h~dPt ]ca __ E~q)k ]
t2 -- 12(1 q- v~)' h2(1 -- ~'2~)

I n order to solve (10) and (11) we introduce a function F(x, y). The displace-
ments w 1 and w 2 must now be expressed in terms of F(x, y) and its derivatives in
such a w a y t h a t when substituted into Eq. (11) it becomes an identity. The
expressions satisfying this condition are,

w~(x, y) = lc2F -- 2(3tl q- t2) V2F, (13)

w2(x, y) : lc~F q- tI[Z2F. (14)

W h e n (13) and (14) are substituted into (10) we are left with

tl(9t 1 q- 4t2) VaF -- (9tlkl q- 2t~k~ q- 2]~2t1) 172F -~- klk2F : p(x, y). (15)

Eq. (15) defines the stresses and strains in a double layer elastic foundation
and m u s t be solved for F(x, y) using the same b o u n d a r y conditions as discussed
in [5].
This model differs slightly from the model proposed b y VnAsov and LEONT]~V
[5]. The difference is entirely due to a different choice for the functions q~l(Z) and
~bdz). This inturn was due to the underlying assumption of the Kerr model t h a t
the surface deflection was expressable as the sum of two independent functions w~
and w2. The advantage of the present formulation is that, for a very thin upper
layer, it reduces exactly to the Kerr foundation model. For example, if hi and E 1
both decrease at the same rate, it then follows from Eqs. (12) t h a t tl tends to zero
while ~1 tends to a constant value.
Eqs. (4) and (5) now reduce to
klwl = p , (16)
and
lc2w2 -- 2t~Y2w~ = p , (17)
which m a y be combined to yield the resulting differential equation for the surface
deflection w, viz.

P -- -~1 V2p = lc2w -- 2t2 V2w. (18)

Comparing Eq. (18) with the governing Eq. (1) for the Kerr foundation model,
it can be seen t h a t when

]~ = ]r C = ]gl, and G ~- 2te, (19)

the two models become identical. Consequently the spring constant k and shear
constant G appearing in the Kerr foundation model m a y be taken as
]~ ~ E~y(sinh yh2 cosh :yh2 q- yh2)
2(1 -- v~2) sinh 2 yh~ ' (20)
 On the Vlasov and Kerr Foundation Models 49

and
G = E2(sinh ~h~ eosh ~h2 -- yh2) (21)
4y(1 -t- v2) sinh ~ yh2

where y is a n e x p e r i m e n t a l l y d e t e r m i n e d c o n s t a n t governing t h e v e r t i c a l defor-

m a t i o n profile. F o r some clay soils a n d well c o m p a c t e d g r a n u l a r m e d i a , c t a k e s
t h e value, (see [2], [7], [8]).
c = 3k. (22)

3. Conclusion

B y a m o d i f i e d choice of t h e v e r t i c a l d e f o r m a t i o n profile t h e Vlasov a n d t h e

K e r r f o u n d a t i o n models h a v e been shown to be identical. This f o r m u l a t i o n has all
of t h e a d v a n t a g e s of a c o n t i n u u m m o d e l a n d t h e s i m p l i c i t y of t h e K e r r model. The
t h i n u p p e r l a y e r is shown to be a c t i n g as a spring l a y e r w i t h c o n s t a n t k~ = c,
while t h e t h i c k e r lower l a y e r acts as a spring l a y e r w i t h shear i n t e r a c t i o n .
T h e g o v e r n i n g e q u a t i o n s for a two l a y e r f o u n d a t i o n when t h e u p p e r l a y e r is
n o t n e g l i g a b l y t h i n h a v e also been derived.

References

[1] K~.~, A. D. : Elastic and Viscoelastic Foundation Models. Journal of Applied Mechanics
81, 491--498 (1964).
[2] KERR, A. D.: A Study of a New Foundation Model. Acta Mechanica 1, 135--147 (1965).
[3] I~ADES,M.: Forced Vibrations of a l~igid Body on a Three-Parameter Foundation. Inter-
national Journal of Mechanical Science 13, 573--583 (1971).
[4] REISSNm~, E. : A Note on Deflection of Plates on a Viscoelastic Foundation. Journal of
Applied Mechanics 25, 144--145 (1958).
[5] VLAsov, V. Z., and N. N. LEO~Ti~v: Beams, Plates and Shells on Elastic Foundations
(Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1966).
[6] VLASOV,V. Z., and N. N. LEO~Ti~V: Technical Theory of Analysis of Foundations on an
Elastic Base (in t~ussian). MISI Sbornik Trudov Nr. 14, Moscow, U.S.S.R. 1956.
[7] FArtER, O.: Pressure Distribution under Bases and Stability of Foundation. Structural
Engineer. 1933.
[8] S I ~ x o ~ s ~ , F.: Die Lastaufnahmekr/ifte im Baugrund und ihre Auswirkung auf die
Spannungen in einem Fundament. Abhandlungen fiber Bodenmechanik und Grundbau
p. 120. Berlin--Bielefeld--Detmold: Erich Schmidt Verlag 1948. See also: Die Bautech-
nik 1911, 159; 1942, 329.

Dr. R. Jones and J. Xenophontos

Department o/ Civil Engineering
Swinburne College o/ Technology
Hawthorn, Victoria

Acta Meal1.25/I--2 4