Computers& Structures, Vol. 8, pp. 13W45. PergsmonPress 1978.

Printed in Great Britain

A SIMPLIFIED FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION FOR

THE PLATES ON ELASTIC FOUNDATION

M. S. CHEUNGt
Technological Research & Development Branch, Public Works Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

(Received 26 July 1976)

Abstract-The simplified Finite Element Method is used to analyze plates supported on an elastic continuum. The
method assembles the stiffness matrix of the foundation into a banded, diagonal matrix and, therefore, can be
solved by using the tridiagonal technique. This process reduces the computer storage dramatically. Various
problems of plates on elastic continua have been solvedand the results are comparedwith those obtainedusing the
conventional Finite Element Methods.Good agreementsare obtained.

LNTRODUCTION
The analysis of plates on elastic foundation using the
Finite Element Method is not uncommon[l-31. Its ap-
plications to highway engineering-for example, the
analysis of rigid pavements and mat foundation prob-
lems-have also been studied by various authors[4-81.
However, in the conventional method the numerical pro-
cedure generally requires the storage and inversion of a
full array matrix. Consequently, the computer storage
requirements for most practical problems are quite large.
This has become a major limitation on the use of this
method.
The purpose of this paper is to overcome the limitation
of the conventional method by the use of the properties Fig. 1. Vertical displacement due to concentrated load F and
of a banded matrix. The stiffness matrix of the system is uniformly distributed load p on isotropic semi-infinite solid.
modified into a banded matrix which can be solved
subsequently using the tridiagonal technique. This sim-
plification permits the use of small or medium size com- the foundation resulting from this system of uniform or
puters (i.e. IBM 360150,CDC 6400) to obtain reasonably concentrated loading is also shown in Fig. 1. For a
good approximate solutions. concentrated load acting on point i the displacement
Modification of the stiffness matrix is made on the occurring at a point n can be expressed using Bous-
basis of the assumption that in the foundation the deflec- sinesqs eqns (1) and (2).
tion of a point is affected only by forces acting on the
surrounding points. Although in this case the foundation
model is less accurate, the storage requirement for the
banded matrix is also less. If a maximum computer
storage is given to solve for a structural problem, the where Wni denotes the vertical displacement (or the
simplified method can divide the system into much finer deflection) at point n, F is the nodal force, v, and Es are
meshes and will provide an approximate solution with respectively the Poissons ratio and the Youngs Modu-
accuracy better than the conventional method. lus of the foundation, and & is the horizontal radial
The simplified method can, therefore, be used to solve distance between i and II.
practical structural problems such as the distribution of In the case of uniformly distributed loading, the deflec-
stresses in continuous pavements and in pavements with tion at the centre of the plate can be obtained by in-
openings which generally require a large computer tegrating eqn (1) over the rectangular area,
storage. Solutions for these types of problems using the
conventional method can only be made by very coarse
mesh division of the structures, thus limiting its ac-
curacy.

FORMATIONOF FOUNDATION
MATRICES
A rectangular plate of dimension a x b is shown in Fig.
1. The plate is supported on a linearly elastic half space
and is subjected to a system of arbitrary loading. The
material is assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic.
The vertical displacement curve of the upper surface of
tTransportationrechnologyspecialist.
139
in which the square root term d5_ and the term Pi
are used to replace respectively & and F in eqn (1). If
the symbol Pi is used to represent the resultant of the
uniformly distributed loading (acting on the centroid of
plate i) the deflection at a point II outside the loaded area
can be approximated by replacing F by Pi in eqn (1). The
140 M. S. CHEUNG

flexibility matrix of the foundation can, therefore, be
deduced from eqns (1) and (2). An inversion of this
matrix will then give the foundation stiffness matrix. It
should be noted that both matrices assembled in this
manner are square, full array symmetrical matrices.
The formations of these matrices depend on the in-
fluences introduced to a point deflection by the sur-
rounding loads, and vice versa. If a pattern of loads
versus deflections is so selected that foundation dis-
placements are assumed to be affected only by certain
nearby elements, then the full array symmetrical ma-
trices can be reduced to banded matrices. A study of the
various load-deflection patterns has been made (Fig. 2)
and in order to obtain reasonable accuracy in the results
and more easily facilitate the assemblages of the ma-
trices, pattern d in Fig. 2 is proposed.
In this pattern, a unit deflection is assumed occurring
at point (i, i). The loads which caused this unit deflection
are distributed in a square influence area 2N x 2N as
shown in Fig. 2. It must be emphasized that the larger
computer core storage and computation time are very
small indeed, since the matrix assemblages are mainly
done in small parts which can be operated very effi-
ciently in a small or medium size electronic computer.
Several test runs were made and the results for N = 4
seem to be adequate. The maximum stress and contact
pressure in these analyses are agreed within 0.5% with
those conventional finite element analyses. For N = 4 the
half band width of each matrix is approximately l/3 to
l/2 of the full array matrix.
BANDED MATRIX SOLUTION
A banded stiffness matrix is obtained for the system
by integrating the foundation and the plate matrices. The
tridiagonalization technique can then be used to solve for
the problem. If this stiffness matrix of the system is
partitioned into the form as shown below, the forces and
deflections can be related by the following equation:
S, c, 0 0 0 0 -6,
c,= s, c,

l
number of N the more accurate will be the approximate 0 0 0 s*
solution. However, the half band width of each matrix 0 c, s, c, 0 0 8,
increases considerably and thus the expectation of a 0 0 c3=s, 0 OS, =
considerably long computation time. It generally holds . . . .
that computer time varies by the order of matrix times 0 0 0 0 c-I s,-,
the square of the band width. .o 0 0 0 s-,
.
Cl S . 6
A computer program has been written for the assem-
blages of these matrices with the interacting element (3)
parameter N as a variable. In this program, foundation
flexibility matrices are evaluated by using eqns (1) and then
(2). Before the assemblage, the flexibility matrix co-
$8, f c,s, = P, (4a)
efficients are analyzed and re-grouped by the computer
according to the selected pattern. Coefficients within the and
selected pattern are retained for further assemblage
C,?, t $8, t C,& = P,. (4b)
while those which fall outside the pattern are ignored by
the computer. The assemblage of the overall matrix is
Equation (4a) can be inverted to give:
also done automatically by the computer through the use
of out-of-core assemblage procedures. By using this pro-
8, = S,_P, - s,-c,s, (5)
cedure, only a very small portion of the matrix is assem-
bled incore each time. As soon as the operation is
by the introductions of the following symbols:
finished, this portion of the matrix is stored on magnetic
tape and the next portion of matrix is then assembled. To
s, = s, - c,Ts,-c, @a)
perform the above procedures, the requirements for the
P* = P* - c,?3-PI. (6b)
. .-.
. .:...: Equation (4b) may be rewritten as:
. . .. . . . . . .. .
. .. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6, + c*s3 = & (7)
. . . . . . . . ..
. . .. . . . . . .. and thus:
. .. . . . . *
. *..: (8)

Pattern * Pattern b Such a process of substitution and elimination can con-

tinue until the last equation of eqn (3) which gives

. ... .: rNl
... where a direct solution will yield 6..
. . . ........ i--f The reverse procedure will then give all the other
. . . . . ........ .
. . . . . . ......... unknowns in eqn (3).
. . .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ..........
. .........
1-r
.. NUMERICAL. EXAMPLES
. . . . .
. .
.
.
........
........
........
.. To demonstrate the above discussed method and to
provide a check against the accuracy of the sim-
pl$ication, two numerical examples are chosen. In both
Pattern c Pattern d
these examples, rectangular plate elements are used. N
Fig. 2. Load deflection influence patterns. in these examples is given values ranging from 2 to 4 so
 A simplified finite element solution for the plates on elastic foundation 141

I 12n I

0.4 x x x x Simplified method N=4

05
. . . - Simplified method N=3
0.6
07

Unit concentrated Icad at Nodal 9

4 II 18 25 32 39 46
*

0.2
03
0.4
Fig. 3. Finite element meshes of Example 1. 05
0.6
0.7
08
Unit concentrated load at Nodal 25

Fig. 4(b). Contact pressure distributions (foundation E=

100,000ksf).

Unit concentrated hod at Nodal 9

Unit concentmted load at Nodal 25

Fig. 4(a). Contact pressure distributions (foundation E =

10,000ksf). Fig. 5. Finite element meshes of Example 2.

Table la. Stress (K-ft/ft) and nodal contact pressure (kips) distributions due to unit concentrated load at nodal 25
(foundation E = 10,000 ksf)

Nodal Point 4 11 18 25 32 39 46

C 0.0009422 -0.01283 -0.02699 0.1726 -0.02699 -0.01283 0.0009422

Mx N'4 0.0009611 -0.01280 -0.02675 0.1731 -0.02675 -0.01280 0.0009611

N=3 0.0009379 -0.01298 -0.02686 0.1728 -0.02686 -0.01298 0.0009379

C 0.003812 0.009349 0.03989 0.1726 0.03989 0.009349 0.003812

I
,

MY N=4 0.004303 0.009735 0.04031 0.1731 0.04031 0.009735 0.004303

N=3 0.003738 0.009346 0.04002 0.1728 0.04002 0.009346 0.003738

C -0.003498 0.02274 0.09172 0.2283 0.09172 0.02274 -0.003498

Contact
PKeSSUX-e N=4 -0.003892 0.02254 0.09133 0.2273 0.09133 0.02254 -0.003892

N=3 -0.003466 0.02315 0.09137 0.2280 0.09137 0.02315 -0.003466

C = Conventional Method
142 M. S. CHEUNG

Table la. Stress (K-ft/ft) and nodal contact pressure (kips) distributions due to unit concentrated load at nodal 25
(foundation E = tO,OOO ksf)
Nodal Point I 4 11 18 25 32 39 46

G 0.~0007819 -0.0002677 -0.&!544 0+06972 -0.52546 -0,~002677 0.00007819

Mx N=4 0.00005350 -0.0002636 -0.02544 0.06981 -0.02544 -0.0002636 0.00008350

N-3 0.00007436 -0.0002828 -0.02539 0.06973 -0.02539 -0.0002828 0.00007436

C 0.0003426 0,000?633 0*#04014 0.04972 0.004014 0.0007633 0.0003426

M N=4 o.uoo4323 0.0008315 0.004087 0.06981 0.004087 0.0008315 0.0004323

Y

N=3 0.0002851 0.0007417 0.004028 0.06973 0.004028 0.0007417 0.0002851

C -0.0008601 -0.009442 0.07976 0.6448 0.07976 -0.009442 -0.0008601

Contact
Pressure N=4 -0.0009689 -0.009559 0.07963 0.6445 0.07968 -0.009559 -~.OOUY689

N-3 -0.0007555 -0.009263 0.0?971 0.6450 0.07971 -0.009263 -0.0007555

C = ConventionalMethod

Table lb. Stress (K-ft/ft) and nodal contact pressure (kips) distributions due to unit concentrated load at nodat 9
(foundation E = lOO,OOO ksf)

I Nodal Point 2 9 16 23 30 37 44

C -0.01084 0.1751 -0.02829 -0.01786 -0.009231 -0.003488 0.0001298

% N'4 -0.Ol.084 0.1753 -0.02784 -0.01721 -0.009359 -0.003993 0.0001139

N=3 -0.01083 0.1756 -0.02747 -0,01822 -0.ma33 -0.004391 0.0001144

c 0.05748 0.1751 0.04189 0.009433 0.001795 O.OOU9100 9.5006255

N=3 0.05807 0.1756 0.04225 O.OOV517 0.002309 0.0007357 0.0004905

My N=4 0.05764 0.1753 0.04205 0.009557 0.002472 0.0009004 0.0006466
----I

c 0.1191 0.2441 0.O94l.l 0.01717 0.00~4675 -0.00~007 -0.002284

contact 0.09416 0.01644 OsOOO9350 -0.002058 -0.002300

Pressure N=4 0.1193 0.2442

N=3 0.1192 0.2438 0.09274 0.01765 0.001418 -0.002097 -0.002880

I. i

C = EonventfonaLMethod

Table lb, Stress {ILftjft) and nodal contact pressure (kips) d~str~butionsdue to unit concentrated load at nodal 9
(foundation E = l~,~~O ksf)
+
Nodal Point 2 9 16 23 30 37 44

C -0.006670 0.06664 -0.02574 -0.0004280 -0.0004850 -0.0002504 0.000009974

Mx N=4 -0.006669 0.06664 -0.02571 -0.0002967 -0.0004887 -0.0003991 0.00000760

N=3 -0.006676 0.06667 -0.02556 -0.0004397 -0.0007375 -0.0003888 0.00000862

C 0.006063 0.06664 0.004211 0.0009921 0.0002681 0.0001001 0.00008160

MY N=4 0.006078 0.06664 0.004217 0.001005 0.0002601 0.0000726a 0.00008422

N=3 0.006087 0.06667 0.004249 0.0009777 O.OQO1938 0.00004621 0.00005490

c 0.06455 0.6821 0.08546 -0.009494 -0.0002885 -0.00006268 -0.0001966

Contact
Pressure N=4 0.06454 0.6821 0.08556 -0.009693 -0.0002709 0.0002307 -0.0003388

N=3 0.06465 0.6823 0.08525 -0.009427 0.0001834 0.00005106 -0.0002719

L J
 Table 2a. Stress (K-ft/ft) and nodal contact pressure (kips) distributions due to unit concentrated load at nodal 61 (E = 10,000 ksf)
Nodal Point 6 17 28 39 50 61 72 a3 94 105 116

N-4 0.00006860 -0.003669 -0.008302 -0.01469 -0.02708 0.1729 -0.02708 -0.01469 -0.008302 -0.003669 0.00006860

M N=3 0.00007102 -0.003907 -0.008802 -0.01505 -0.02717 0.1728 -0.02717 -0.01505 -0.008802 -0.003907 0.00007102
x

N-2 0.00006893 -0.003683 -0.009100 -0.01605 -0.02809 0.1721 -0.02809 -0.01605 -0.009100 -0.003683 0.00006893

N=4 0.0006008 0.0008618 0.002383 0.008687 0.03992 0.1729 0.03992 0.008687 0.002383 0.0008618 0.0006008

M N=3 0.0004049 0.0005854 0.002068 0.008480 0.03986 0.1728 0.03986 0.008480 0.002068 0.0005854 0.0004049
Y
N'2 0.0001281 0.0001738 0.001376 0.007572 0.03901 0.1721 0.03901 O.OO7572 0.001376 0.0001738 0.0001281

N=4 -0.002293 0.0003907 0.002519 0.01882 0.08952 0.2266 0.08952 0.01882 0.002579 0.0003907 -0.002293
I
contact
Pressur N=3 -0.002576 0.0004530 0.003057 0.01888 0.08912 0.2261 0.08912 0.01888 0.003057 0.0004530 -0.002576
I
N-2 -0.002594 -0.0001730 0.003132 0.01982 0.08905 0.2254 0.08905 0.01982 0.003132 -0.0001730 -0.002594
L 1 I L
I
 E

Table 2b. Stress (K-ft/ft) and nodal contact pressure (kips) distributions due to uniformly distributed load QJ= unity and E = 10,000ksf)

Nodal Point 6 17 28 39 50 61 72 a3 94 105 116

N=4 -0.0002310 0.1322 0.1178 0.08593 0.05580 0.04679 0.05580 0.08593 0.1179 0.1322 -0.0002310

M N=3 -0.0002084 0.1303 0.1119 0.06363 0.03621 0.02789 0.03621 0.06363 0.1119 0.1303 -0.0002084
x

If=2 -0.0001702 0.1260 0.08897 0.04356 0.01767 0.009892 0.01767 0.04356 0.08897 0.1260 -O.O001702
I
N=4 0.01876 0.05254 0.05519 0.05228 0.04804 0.04679 0.04804 0.05228 0.05519 0.05254 0.01876

M N=3 0.009079 0.04056 0.04082 0.03349 0.02920 0.02789 0.02920 0.03349 0.04082 0.04056 0.009079
Y

N=2 0.0006013 0.02915 0.02398 0.01602 0.01132 0.009893 0.01132 0.01602 0.02398 0.02915 0.0006013

f I N = 4 I OS6517 0.8632 0.9951 1.0160 1.0367 1.0341 1.0367 1.0160 0.9951 0.8632 0.6517 I
Contact
Pressur N=3 0.6456 0.8602 0.9819 1.0347 1.0341 1.0320 I.0341 1.0347 0.9819 0.8602 0.6456
I
I
N=2 0.6373 0.8455 1.0031 1.0330 1.0328 1.0306 1.0328 1.0330 1.0031 0.8455 0.6373
I
 A simplified finite element solution
Contact pressure distribution due to concentrated
load at Nodal 61
...
. N-2
Contact pressure distribution due to uniformly
distributed load
Fig. 6. Contact pressure distribution (foundation E = 10,000 ksf).
that comparisons can be made against the accuracies of
the results obtained, These results are further compared
with that determined by the conventions Finite Element
Method.
The first example is chosen to study the stress dis-
tributions in the plate (12~ 12ft Plate, D, = 0, =
26,042k-f,D1 = 5205, Dxy = 10,416k-ft)and the contact
pressures between the plate and the elastic foundation.
The plate is subjected to unit concentrated loads acting
on two different locations. Two rigidities of the foun-
dation were assumed and 36 plate elements were used
for all analyses. The stress distributions along lines XX1
and xx2 (see Fig. 3) for N = 3 and 4 as well as that
obtained using the conventional method are listed in
Table 1 and the contact pressures are compared in Fig. 4.
The rest&s of these computations show that the maxi-
mum stresses and maximum contact pressures in each of
these cases agree with one another quite well. However,
the computation time and storage requirements are re-
markably different; e.g. 2.3 min for the conventional
method, 1.2 min for N = 4 and 0.9 min for N = 3.
The second example considers a 100 element plate as
shown in Fig. 5 and is supported on an elastic foun-
dation. The plate is loaded either by a unit concentrated
load or by uniformly distributed load. The maximum
CASVol.
&No.I-l
for the plates on elastic foundation 145
storage required for the foundation stiffness matrix as-
sembled by the conventional method is far beyond the
storage capacity of a medium size computer. Thus, the
stress distributions in the plate can only be obtained by
the simplified Finite Element Method. These are shown
in Table 2. The contact pressure distributions for the
cases N = 2, 3 and 4 are given in Fig. 6.
CONCLUSION
The simplified method presented in this paper is based
on the assumption that the deflection at a point in the
foundation is negligibly small because of loads acting a
far distance from this point. The method compares quite
well with the conventional method; in many cases, within
the order of 0.5% for the maximum stress and the
maximum contact pressure. Since the storage require-
ments for the stiffness matrix are small, the simplified
method thus provides a convenient means of com-
putation easily applicable in practice.
Acknowledgements-The author wishes to thank D. Walkinshaw
and G. Hibbert, Public Works Canada, for their careful reading
of the manuscript and valuable suggestions.
REFEItENcEs
1. Y. K. Cheung and 0. C. Zienkiewicz, Plates and tanks on
elastic foundations-an applicationof finite element method.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 1. 451-461 (1965).
2. Y. K. Cheung and D. K. Nag, Plates and beams on elastic
foundations-linear and non-linear behaviour. The Institute
of Civil En~neering, pp. 250-260(June 1968).
3. H. T. Y. Yang. Flexible plate Rnite element on elastic foun-
dation. Sfrucf. Diu. ASCE %(5710) (Oct. 1970).
4. S. K. Wang, Michel Sargious and Y. K. Cheung, Advanced
analysis of rigid pavements. ASCE, Trans. Div. TEl (Feb.
1972).
5. S. K. Wang, Michel Sargious and Y. K. Cheung, Effect of
openings on stresses in rigid pavements. ASCE, Tramp. Div.
TE2 (May 1973).
6. S. K. Wang, An advanced method for the analysis of rigid
pavements using the finite element methods. MSc. Thesis,
The University of Calgary (June 1971).
I. T. Y. Yank, Finite element analysis of plates on a two
parameter foundations model. Compnt. Slruct. 2(4) (Sept.
1972).
8. R. T. Severn, The solution of foundation mat problems by
finite element methods. The St~~~~ral Engineer, condor 44(6)
(June 1966).