JlSC~~ American Society

A tIiii of Civil Engineers

DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS

FOR DYNAMIC LOADS

2008
 Design of Foundations for
Dynamic Loads

Learning Outcomes

• Comprehend the basics of soil dynamics as related to soil-

structure interaction modeling
• Know the major field tests that are used for evaluating the
dynamic soil properties
• Design shallow and pile foundations for rotary machine and
seismic loads
• Know the major steps for determining the seismic stability of
cantilever and gravity retaining walls
• Apply the capacity spectrum method for evaluating the seismic
performance of large caissons

Assessment of Learning Outcomes

Students' achievement of the learning outcomes will be assessed

through solved examples and problem-solving following each
session.
 UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO
Faculty of Engineering

Design of Machine Foundations

Professor

M.H. EL NAGGAR, Ph.D., P. Eng.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Geotechnical Research Centre

LECTURE NOTES

M.H. EL NAGGAR M.NOVAK

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO
LONDON, ONTARIO, CANADA, N6A 5B9
 Course Content

1. Basic Notions: Mathematical models , degrees of freedom , types of dynamic loads,

types of foundations, excitation forces of machines.

2. Shallow Foundations: Definition of stiffness , damping and inertia , circular and non­
circular foundation , soil inhomogeneity, embedded footings , impedance function of a
layer on half-space.

3. Pile Foundations: PHe applications, mathematical models, stiffness and damping of

piles, pile groups, impedance functions of pile groups, nonlinear pile response, pile
batter.

4. Dynamic Response of Machine Foundations: Response of rigid foundations in 1

OaF, effects of vibration, coupled response of rigid foundations, 6 OaF response of
rigid foundations, response of structures on flexible foundations.

5. Dynamic Response of Hammer Foundations: Types of hammers and hammer

foundations, design criteria , stiffness and damping of different foundations,
mathematical models, impact forces , response of one mass foundation, response of
two mass foundation, impact eccentricity, structural design .

6. Vibration Damage and Remedial Measures

Damage and disturbance, problem assessment and evaluation , remedial principles,
examples from different industries, sources of error.

7. Computer Workshop - DYNA5

Types of foundations, types of soil models, types of load , types of analysis and types of
output, practical considerations, computer work on DYNA5.

2
 1

BASIC NOTIONS

3
BASIC NOTIONS

Statics deals with forces and displacements that are invariant in time. Dynamics

considers forces and displacements that vary with time at a rate that is high enough to

generate inertia forces of significance. Then, the external forces, called dynamic loads

or excitation forces , produce time dependent displacements of the system called

dynamic response. This response is usually oscillatory but its nature depends on the

character of the dynamic forces as well as on the character of the system. Thus , one

system may respond in different ways depending on the type of excitation. Conversely,

one type of excitation can cause various types of response depending on the kind of

structure .

Mathematical models.

The systems considered in dynamics are the same as those met in statics, i.e.

buildinqs, bridges, towers, dams, foundations, soil deposits etc. For the analysis of a

system a suitable mathematical model must be chosen. There are two types of models,

which differ in the way in which the mass of the structure is accounted for. In distributed

mass models, the mass is considered as it actually occurs, that is, distributed along the

elements of the structure . In lumped mass models the mass is concentrated (lumped or

discretized) into a number of points. These lumped masses are viewed as particles

whose mass but not size or shape is of importance in the analysis. There is no

rotational inertia associated with the motion of the lumped masses and translational

displacements suffice to describe their position. Between the lumped masses the

structural elements are considered as massless . Examples of distributed and lumped

mass models are shown in Fig. 1.1. As the number of concentrated masses increases,

4
 the lumped mass model converges to the distributed model. In rigid bodies (Fig. 1.1c),

mass moment of inertia is considered as well as mass .

Figure 1.1

-- -~

(a) distributed models

-
-A...... • .::IL

/
t
(b) lumped mass models

.,

(c) ~ rigid bodies

- I.:

Degrees of freedom

The type of the model and the directions of its possible displacements determine

the number of degrees of freedom that a system possesses. The number of degrees of
----~- -- ­
freedom is the number of independent coordinates (components of displacements) that

I, )~ t
.:
r:
--------- - --- - -- -- -
must be specified in order to define the position of the system at any time. One lumped

l, ;'
\ mass has three degrees of freedom in space corresponding to three possible

5
 translations, and two degrees of freedom in a plane. If a lumped mass can move only

either vertically or horizontally it has one degree of freedom. Thus, if the vertical motion

of a bridge is investigated using a model with three lumped masses and axial

deformations are neglected, there are three degrees of freedom (displacements).

However, a rigid body such as a footing has significant mass moments of inertia and

hence rotations have to be considered as well . Three possible translations and three

possible rotations represent six degrees of freedom for a rigid body in space .

A distributed mass model can be viewed as a lumped mass model with

infinitesimal distances between adjoining masses . Such a system has an infinite

number of degrees of freedom . This does not necessarily complicate the analysis

however.

Types of dynamic loads.

The type of response of a system depends on the nature of the loads applied.

The loads and the responses resulting from them can be periodic, transient or random.

:+-
--------
Periodic Loads can be produced by centrifugal forces due to unbalance in rotating and

reciprocating machines, shedding of vortices from cylindrical bodies exposed to air flow

and other mechanisms. The simplest form of a periodic force is a harmonic force. Such

a force may represent the components of a rotating vector of a centrifugal force in the

vertical or horizontal directions.

6
 Figure 1.2: Harmonic time history

_t

If the vector P rotates with circular frequency w, the orientation of the vector at time t is

given by the angle wt (Fig. 1-2) The components of the vector P in the vertical and

horizontal directions, respectively, are:

P; (t) = Psin(wt)

I p,,(t) = PCOS({tJt)

These forces are harmonic with amplitude P and frequency to. The period measured in

seconds is T =Znk», which follows from the condition that in one period one complete

oscillation is completed and thus wT = 2n:. The frequency measured in cycles per

second and expressed in units called Hertz (Hz) is

f=~=~

T 21f
Consider now the joint effect of two harmonic forces having different amplitudes P1 and

P2 , different frequencies (01 and W2 and a phase shift ¢. The resultant is

r
r .- ~ t, - ,'"'1 I ;r,.

) " . f (

. ,I
" f
)
r I
I 7
"
,I
1
I
j ( I
J
I . I
; -,
The time history of the resultant can be generated by projecting the resulting, rotating

vector R horizontally. The character of the time history depends on the ratio of the

amplitudes, the ratio of the frequencies and the phase shift. When the two frequencies

are equal, the resultant force is harmonic (Fig. 1.3a). When the frequency ratio W2 /W1 is

an irrational number, the resultant force is not periodic (Fig. 1.1 b). When the ratio 0)2 /OJ1

is a rational number, the resultant force is periodic but not harmonic (Fig. 1.1 c).

However, the envelope of the resultant force is always periodic.

When the two frequencies and the two amplitudes do not differ very much, a

phenomenon called beating occurs; the force periodically increases and diminishes,

similarly to Fig. 1.3b, with frequency of the peaks being W2 - W1­

In general, a periodic function can be represented by a series of harmonic

components whose amplitudes and frequencies can be established using Fourier

analysis. Therefore, knowledge of the harmonic case facilitates the treatment of more

complicated types of excitation.

'.1
r,
( .
-( r -- /
­

('

8
 Fig. 1.3: Basic types of processes composed of two harmonic components

I
/
./' --­ "'­
"" '
P2{tr=P2 Sin (wt"'f)
/ p, ft)=-Pr Sin wi
I
\
\
-, . ;]R(t)=p'{t).,.~m
-­ .-­
\.../. \. J1Rftl"RslO (cat» 'fll)

a)

,/
/

---t
,, /
,/
....... /

P, (t)-:.A sin wit P, =P2

~ (f)"B sin(w2t fJr) 6)2 e W, . 1, 188. . "

b}

",
-,
-,
/ '\
\,
/
'\ \
I
\ I \
I
\ /
\ I
'\J

--,\ ,
I I w{
I
I I
I I
",'\
\ I I
\ ,, /
/
/
\,
I
I

.....
""'--­
P, (t) ~ P, sm W, t P'="S ~
~ (I )~f3 sin(w2t.,.. Jf) wr!,5w,
c)

9
Transient Loading is characterized by a nonperiodic time history of a limited duration

and may have features such as those indicated in Fig. 1.4. A smooth type of loading

such as the one shown in Fig. 1.4a is produced by hammer blows, collisions, blasts,

sonic booms etc. and is called an impulse . Earthquakes or crushers generate more

irregular time histories, similar to that shown in Fig. 1.4b. It is presumed that such a

process is determined accurately either by an analytical expression or by a set of digital

data. A process so defined is called a deterministic process .

Often, the duration of an impulse, ~t, is much shorter than the dominant period of

the foundation response, T (Fig. 1.5). Such loading is characteristic of impacts

associated with the operation of hammers and presses . The limited duration of the

impact makes it possible to base the analysis of the response on the consideration of

the collision between two free bodies.

Random Loading is an irregular process that cannot be predicted mathematically

with accuracy, even when its past history is known, because it never repeats itself

exactly. Fluctuating forces produced by mills, pumps, crushers, waves and by wind or

traffic flow are typical of this category (Fig. 1.6a). A random force and its effect is most

meaningfully treated in statistical terms and its energy distribution with regard to

frequency is described by a power spectral density (power spectrum), Fig. 1.6b.

Earthquake forces can also be treated in this way. The advantage of the random

approach over the deterministic approach is that the analysis covers all events having

the same statistical features rather than one specific time history .

10
 Figur e 1.4: Transient loading

P(f) p( t)

t o t

Figure 1.5: Impact loading

. _. '-r k I

( (.,­

fJt
I r(1 'J :' V.

1J.f« T - 1/0

o t
Figure 1.6: Random loading

P(f) Sp(f)

o Frequency, f
a) Time History b) Power Spectrum

11
Types of foundations.

Machine foundations are designed as block foundations, wall foundations, mat

foundations or frame foundations. Block foundations, the most common type, and wall

foundations behave as rigid bodies . Mat foundations of small depth may behave as

elastic slabs. Sometimes the foundation features a joint slab supporting a few rigid

blocks for individual machines.

The foundations can rest directly on soil (shallow foundations) or on piles (deep

foundations). The type of foundation may result in considerable differences in

response .

Notations and sign conventions

The vibration of rigid foundations is characterized by three translations, u, v, w

and three rotations, S, \V, 11 - These are expressed with regard to the three perpendicular

(Cartesian) axes X, Y, Z. The origin of this system is most conveniently placed in the

joint centre of gravity (CG) of the foundation and the machine (Fig. 1.7).

The orientation of the axis and the signs of all displacements and forces are

governed by the right-hand rule. The translations u, v, wand the forces P, , P, I P, are

positive if they follow the positive directions of the axis. The rotations S, 'V' 11 and
moments Mx , My ,Mz are positive if they are seen to act in the clockwise direction when

looking in te positive directions of the corresponding axis, i.e. away from the origin .

12
 Figure 1.7: Notations and Sign Convention

Z,w,F;

Examples of typical machine foundations

Basic types of foundations for typical machines are shown in Figures 1.8 to 1.17.

13
 Figure 1.8: Block Foundation for Two-cylinder Compressor

Figure 1.9: Block Foundation with Cavities for Horizontal Compressor

14
Figure 1.10: Two Compressors on Joint Pile Supported Mat

~/1:::\.-~·, /'1·" ........ :-

o (-{-0)(_-' r::J:l' , / _+1
r:.... ,
<,

/'~

w ~ IY '-.! -"'",H
I I:z·'-;w~:''''''''
@.f~;
',.//:~/, H".%,~';. .~./;?"
V
i"'l'"
~4, n' : ,. .
I
~.
I
;,. ~ ~ . .., . :" .~': . ' ,,,
. ~: . ~i'/ ,. ~ .I ' • '/ . ~. ' .. I
- I
II'
-I­ ·16­ u.
_. JIf ~ fJ1 U l.P /. eli'
r­ -­ -- ll.tc ..
117
.. r1J
-. .... .. tlJ
.­
,
"
..
;-------
,
.
r ~~·---"'1
,...... _..__ ... , , I I

iI
,

.
I
I
I
)

Figure 1.11: Foundation Block on Springs

15
Figure 1.12: Cascade Millon Piles

Figure 1.13: Hammer Foundation

PAD
FOUNDATION
BLOCK

16
 Figure 1.14: R.C. Frame Foundation for Turbine Generator

:.. l,]t' ~ ~ t - - -l,,-

f
- - - - -­
- ·-----r ... . ~ '." '
-~"1

-11-­

Figure 1.15: Pile Supported R.C. Frame Foundation for Turbine Generator

- _. "/4"- ­

17
Figure 1.16: Steel Frame Foundation for Turbine Generator

" -~ -" r-. t - - - - - - ,

r I Ii I

a) elevation view

• • . I
_7-~~-~.L
I ~ :

b) plan view

18
Figure 1.17: Very Light Steel Frame Foundation for Turbine Generator

...... -.-- - - - - - -- _. - - '-'-'- ­

= -l
'- ' -

= I I I I I I I '"~ --..;;;::;:_,o::::.
::- ~1'l~;:;;>

1
.)~

-. ... _-­ --- ... _----- ... -- ---- - -- - - J~

~/, ~~~~i'~~~~r~&{1,/~0;1

r---­ /I'lI4 (#,... . ,

~-

19
 e xWe .....• (V L .l....t. "

(I c'
Excitation Forces of Machines ~o
= - "-'1.. ':;"'/-- r
I ru "",J <
In rotating machines the excitation forces stem from centrifugal forces associate with

residual unbalances. Their magnitude can be estimated on the basis of balancing

experiments or experience. The centrifugal force is represented by vertical and

horizontal forces, the amplitude P for rigid rotors is usually defined as:

) '"
\ \.,- • rl ('~ ' Q. . \ 7 (,...\ " \ J t."

\ •.1 : ftf, e. ~ , I." J 'I . ,F t ' l ( ".. )

and co = circular frequency of rotation. The magnitude of e is typically a fraction of a

" .tr . C; , .( { it

millimeter such a s,I Q1-0~rnrn.] I ! ,

In reciprocating machines the excitation forces stem from inertial forces and

centrifugal forces associated with the motion of the pistons, the fly wheel and the crank

mechanism . Many of these forces can be balanced by counterweights but often, higher

harmonic components and couples remain unbalanced. In design situations the

excitation forces should be provided by the manufacturer of the machine.

DESIGN OBJECTIVES

The design of foundations for vibrating equipment is always governed by displacement

considerations. The displacement of foundations subjected to dynamic loads depends

on i) the type and geometry of the foundation ; ii) the flexibility of the supporting ground;

and iii) the type of the dynamic loading. The main objective of the design is to limit the

response amplitudes of the foundation in all vibration modes to the specified tolerance.

Usually the tolerance is set by the machine manufacturer to ensure a satisfactory

performance of the machine and minimum disturbance for people working in its
 immediate vicinity. Another objective which could be extremely importan t in some

cases is to limit vibration propagating from the footing into the surroundings.

DESIGN CRITERIA
"
\ .. I Factors that may be included in the design requirements .
} ( ~
1,_ static requirements for bearing capacity and settlement. ot"
, I ....
ij~ ~ . ' ' :
. • \
I C' {

" '.I' ) , ' - _.

.
2. Dynamic
' , behaviour
,1 -. ft
• limiting vibration amplitude

• limiting velocity

• limiting acceleration ,I
• maximum dynamic magnification factor

• maximum transmissibility factor

• resonance conditions t 0­

3. Possible modes of vibration

vertical; horizontal; torsional; rocking; pitching and possibility of coupled modes.

4. Possible fatigue failures in the machine, in the structure, or in connections.

5. Environmental considerations I ,

• physical and physiological effects on people

• effects on nearby sensitive equipment I

\ .-- '
• possible resonance of structural components ,
I

I '

• consideration of foundation isolation

J• ~ 1'.'
6. Economy ,J
1./ ''rI

• initial cost
L

2]

 I" i., +.
Uv..l,'. ' " .
Ir1
~

('" -
\
! I .
~. . r: ,-.

I
, (1
\
• maintenance costs
\
• down time costs
\

..\

• replacement costs 1
. ~1 ­
, r
"
\J' I
)
, '( .1 l~ 12­

Ijt't-· ,~ DESIGN PROCEDURE ','r,' r<Ri i(t--{

e L a 1'1..-- /pi J"" I • , c
\ I':' I ~ ( { (,' I r -T
I
j ' .
(, It is a trial-and-error procedure which includes :

l. ~ 1- Estimating the dynamic loads .

- f.rJ )
2- Establishing the soil profile and determining the soil properties required for the

analysis (Shear modulus, mass density, Poisson's ratio and material damping ratio).

3- Select the type and trial dimensions of the foundation and with clients input ,

establish the performance criteria.

r

4- Compute the dynamic response of the trial foundation (step 3) supported by the 1,.'1 (~ ;.. _

given soil profile (step 2) due to the estimated load (step 1) and compare the
~
~
.
.."
,

response with the performance criteria. If the response is not satisfactory, modify

the dimensions of the foundation (step 3) and repeat the analysis until satisfactory

design is achieved .

DESIGN INFORMATION

To carry out the design of a foundation system to support a vibration producing

equipment, certain loading and site parameters must be known or evaluated. The

information required for the design can be generally categorized into three main groups:

machine properties, soil and foundation parameters, and environmental requirements.

22
 Machine Properties

The machine properties required for the determination of the loading function include:

1- Outline drawing of machine assembly

2- Weight of machine and its rotor components (or head for hammers)

3- Location of center of gravity both vertically and horizontally

4- Speed ranges of machine and components or frequency of unbalanced primary and

secondary forces

5- Magnitude and direction of unbalanced forces both vertically and horizontally and

their points of application

6- Limits (tolerance) of deflection (total or differential) and vibration amplitudes to satisfy

the machine functions.

To calculate the magnitude of the unbalanced forces, the eccentricity of the rotating

parts is required . Arya et aI., 1979 give some guidelines to establish the design
~ ', t
f:.,eccentricities for different types of machines.

'If

'~
Soil and Foundation Parameters
\
\
. '{J Knowledge of the soil formation (soil profile) and its properties is required for the

dynamic analysis. The information is to be obtained from field borings (or soundings)
~"

and laboratory tests. The following parameters are required for the dynamic analysis :

density of soil, "/' or mass density, p.

1- Poisson's ratio, v.

2- shear modulus of soil, G, at several levels of strain.

3- material damping ratio, 0, at several levels of strain .

23
 ,) "-
- ~ "'l 0....
6-
",'
,,/' -
I

,;:<.
. '"'l
-~
F
(-
V'
/ )

' {..
J "
/ ' ,. '&
6'21; ~ ", . ' \ ' '. c
Foundation requirements may include:
I (
1- minimum depth of foundation.
jt -, I. ,J ­

2- base dimensions for the machine and other components attached to it.

3- type of foundation system to be used (recommended by the geotechnical consultant) .

~, ( ~ L

4- configuration and layout of the foundation (width, length and depth) . For piled .l , f J •

/
foundations, the number of piles, pile geometry (diameter or width and cross-sectional c

area), pile length and spacing between piles are required on top of the configuration of

the foundation block.

J
5- the material properties of the foundation (unit weight of the concrete or steel, the n /

Poisson's ratio and elastic modulus).

.s: (l - r "'~ !
!
- L

Environmental Requirements

The machinery produces vibrations that may travel to the neighboring vicinity. If the

vibration amplitudes are significant, some measures have to be taken to minimize the

environmental impact of the machine (this is a major concern for shock producing

equipment).

On the other hand, there can be some situations where the machine is installed in the

vicinity of vibration sources such as quany blasting, vehicular traffic or in a seismic

active area. In this case , the information requested should include the character of the

vibration and the attenuation at the installation site .

The effects of seismic forces have to be addressed using special techniques that deal

with the wave propagation and ground response analyses.

24

STIFFNESS AND DAMPING OF

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

2. STIFFNESS AND DAMPING OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

The dynamic response of foundations, just as the response of other systems,

depends on stiffness and damping -characteristics. This chapter presents a general

introduction to this subject and a summary of approaches and formulae that can be

used to evaluate the stiffness and damping of shallow foundations. Examples of

structures with shallow foundations are shown in Fig. 2.0.

Figure 2.0: Typical Structures with Shallow Foundations

a) offshore rigs

Ice

b) nuclear power plants c) buitdings

; ... - ...-~ _. .-~

-~ . ~

24
d) machine foundations

2.1 Basic Notions of Stiffness and Damping

Stiffness

The basic mathematical model used in the dynamic analysis of various systems

is a lumped mass with a spring and dashpot (Fig. 2.1). If the mass, rn, is free to move in

only one direction, e.g. vertical, it is said to have one degree of freedom. The behavior

of the mass depends on the nature of both the spring and the dashpot.

Figure 2.1: Basic Model of Single Degree of Freedom System

I m k

~
.'---;---~-' ----1--~.-
t ~V == I
+v
T k
c=J c

The spring, presumed to be massless, represents the elasticity of the system and

is characterized by the stiffness constant k. The stiffness constant is defined as the

25
force that would produce a unit compression (or extension) v of the spring in the positive

direction of the displacement of-the mass . For displacements other than unity, the force

in the spring (the restoring force) is kv. In dynamics, displacements vary with time, t,

and thus v = v(t). However, because the spring is massless, the stiffness constant is

equal to static stiffness k = k st. and k, as well as the restoring force, kv, is independent

of the velocity or frequency with which the displacement varies .

Figure 2.2: Effect of Mass on the Dynamic Stiffness

P{ t) p (f)
k

-····,j ·--r;.'.."::....
~~ . . . -. . m s -, ?0'Y..J" ;///.
.:. .:.;.:.
.... . .. . .

" 05]5 ~..~ .. .. ::.';. .:~

" r- -- ­
.~ ~. ~ .~ ".:".:.: ~. k = canst. k
. . . . .,..

~/. ;~~~~ ':.:~~ ~L ,/- o W

FREO UElvCY W

a) b) c)

Now apply the same concept of stiffness definition to a harmonically vibrating

column, which possesses mass and has its mass distributed along its length (Fig. 2.2a) .

For an approximate analysis at low frequency, the distributed mass can be replaced by

a concentrated (lumped) mass m., This mass is attached to the top of the column and

the column itself can be considered massless (Fig. 2.2b). Consequently, the stiffness of

this massless column can be described by a static stiffness constant, kst, which is

independent of the frequency . The elastic force in the column just below the mass is

kstv for any displacement, v. However, the total restoring force generated by the column

at the top of the lumped mass is the sum of the elastic force in the column and the

26
 inertial force of the mass. If the displacement varies in harmonic fashion, such that;

vet) = V cas( CO t) (2.1 )

in which v is the displacement amplitude and CD is the frequency, the acceleration is:

2
.. d 2v =-vw 2 COS ( cat )
V =--
J I V­
~ ~ .f. - r[ dt
(j--Ilf "
~~ I and the inertial force is:

msv.. = -msvw 2 COS ( cat )

In the absence of damping, the relation between the external harmonic force and the

displacement is:

or for the amplitudes;

Stiffness, being the constant of proportionality between the applied force and
"t- ~ I,~, ~ . . l ~....... ' "_' f'- ~. r ""

displacement, becomes : ,1 "y'A f_l.J . 1. ',C: v­

'H Iii
JO -
p .. i ( ~:......)
"
~t i,.-""- o ,~ .;1.- •
t-
V"

--
~ c:
(2.2)
'./. t r . CA..
, -;...

(I
Thus, with vibration of an element having distributed mass, the dynamic stiffness

constant generally varies with frequency. At low frequency this variation is sometimes

close to parabolic as the example considered here and presented in Fig. 2.2c suggests.

The column used in this example may be a column of soil and it thus appears obvious

that a soil deposit may feature stiffness constants that are frequency dependent. The

magnitude and character of the effect of frequency depends on the size of the body,

27
vibration mode, soil layering and other factors.

Another way of accounting for the parabolic variation of dynamic stiffness with

frequency is to add the lumped mass , rn., representing the mass of the supporting

medium, to the vibrating mass, m and consider the stiffness as constant and equal to

the static stiffness. Equation 2.2 suggests this approach . However. a quadratic parabola

only in some cases can represent the variation of dynamic stiffness with frequency and

the added mass is not the same for all vibration modes . For these reasons, it is usually

preferable to consider dynamic stiffness as frequency dependent and to forego the

added mass. Finally , if the frequency range of interest is not very wide, it is often

sufficient to replace the variable dynamic stiffness by a constant representative of the

true stiffness in the vicinity of the dominant frequency (Fig. 2.2c)

Damping

The dashpot in the model shown in Fig. 2.1 represents damping caused by

energy dissipation. Like the restoring forces, the damping forces oppose the motion but

the energy dissipated through damping cannot be recovered. A characteristic feature of

damping forces is that they lag the displacement and are out of phase with the motion.

In soils, the energy of vibration is dissipated through two mechanisms: propagation of

elastic waves away from the source and inelastic deformation of soil. The former

mechanism results from the practical infinity of the soil medium and is referred to as

geometric or radiation damping. It is close to viscous in character. Inelastic deformation

of soil manifests itself in the form of a hysteretic loop and is considered as material or

hysteretic damping .

28
 Viscous damping is proportional to vibration velocity and its magnitude is

. dv
cv=c­ (2.3)
dt
in which c is the constant of viscous damping. The damping constant c is defined as the

force associated with a unit velocity. Viscous damping describes quite well the

resistance p of viscous fluids to motion of subrnerqed bodies, hence the term. To

commemorate the scholars who were the first to extensively employ this type of

damping model, viscous damping is also known as Kelvin or Voigt damping .

If the mass indicated in Fig. 2.1 vibrates in a harmonic fashion described by

Equation 2.1, the viscous damping force is:

cv = -CVoOJ sineOJt) (2.4)

and its amplitude (peak value) is cVO(J). Hence, for a given constant c and displacement

amplitude vo. the amplitude of the viscous damping force is proportional to frequency

(Fig. 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Comparison of Viscous and Hysteretic Damping

C)
z
iL-----­ HYSTERUIC
~
<t
o

FREOUUJCY W

Hysteretic or material damping results from the dissipation of energy due to the

29
imperfect elasticity of real materials, which under cyclic loading, exhibit a hysteretic loop

(Fig. 2.4) . The amount of energy dissipated is given by the area of the hysteretic loop.

For most materials, including soil, the amount of the dissipated energy depends on

strain (displacement) but is essentially independent of frequency just as the hysteretic

damping shown in Fig. 2.3.

Figure 2.4: Hysteretic Loop

The hysteretic loop implies a phase shift between the stress and strain because

there is a stress at zero strain and vice versa as can be seen from Fig. 2.4. Thus, the

basic stress-strain relations of elasticity such as r = Gy have to be extended to

accommodate the phase shift . This is conveniently achieved by the introduction of the

complex shear modulus in which the real shear modulus G is complemented by an

imaginary (out-of-phase) component Gr. Then, the complex shear modulus can be

defined as:

G')
G* =G+iG'=G(l+i (2.5)
G
The dimensionless ratio G'/G may be expressed in terms of the "loss angle" 0 such that

G'
tan(5) = ­ (2.6)
G

30
or in terms of the material damping ratio;

G' 1
/l = - = -tan(tS)
2G 2
With these dimensionless measures of material damping, the complex shear modulus IS

G* = G(l + itan(6)) (2.7)

= G(l + i2/l)
The magnitude of the material damping can be established experimentally using the

hysteretic loop and the relation

1 sw
/l=--. (2.8)
4JZ" W
in which I1W is the area enclosed by the hysteretic loop and W is the strain energy (Fig.

2.4) , a typical value of is 0.05 (5%). The material damping of soils is constant for small

strains (y ~10-2%) but increases with strain due to the nonlinear behaviour of soils .

Conversely, the shear modulus decreases with strain. The terms material or hysteretic

damping are usually meant to imply frequency independent damping.

If material damping proportional to frequency is to be described, the definition of

the complex modulus can be modified by replacing f3 by W(0 where f3' is another

constant. Such damping would actually be viscous as in Eq. 2.4 . In experiments, the

difference between the two types of material damping can be clearly recognized in the

area: of the hysteretic loop measured at a constant level of strain at different

frequencies (Fig. 2.5). Such experiments indicate that frequency independent hysteretic

damping is much more typical of soils than viscous damping because the area of the

31
hysteretic loop does not grow in proportion to frequency.

Figure 2.5: Hysteretic Loops at 2 Different Frequencies:

a) Hysteretic b) Viscous

Methods for Describing Stiffness and Damping

Until recently, stiffness and damping constants of foundations were most often

described using empirical formulae derived experimentally. The experimentally

established total stiffness was divided by the base area to define the so-called subgrade

modulus, which was considered to depend only on the type of soil. Sometimes

corrections were introduced to allow for some variation of subgrade modulus with base

area and the direction of vibration. Alternatively to the experimental method, stiffness

constants were obtained by means of static analysis of the continuum and damping was

estimated .

Presently, the prevalent trend is to obtain the stiffness and damping of

foundations using dynamic analysis of a three dimensional or two dimensional

continuum representing the soil medium . The continuum is modeled as an elastic or

viscoelastic halfspace whose surface limits the extent of the soil medium. The halfspace

can be homogeneous or nonhomogeneous (layered) and isotropic or anisotropic. The

32
governing equations are solved analytically or by means of numerical methods such as

the finite element method. The analytical solutions were initiated by Reissner (1936)

and have undergone rapid development since then.

Many researchers contributed to this development: Bycroft, 1965; Luco and

Westman, 1971; Veletsos and Verbic, 1973; Kobori et al, 19 71 to name only a few.

The finite element method was applied to the dynamics of a continuum by Lysmer and

Kuhlerneyer, 1969, Kausel et al., 1975 and others. The refinement of both the analytical

and numerical techniques and the extension of their versatility contributed greatly to the

increase in the popularity as well as the credibility of the continuum approaches.

Although further improvements and corrections of these approaches are needed, their

principal advantages are that they account for energy dissipation through elastic waves

(geometric damping), provide for systematic analysis , and describe soil properties by

constants, which can be established by independent experiments.

In the continuum approaches, the stiffness and damping constants of foundations

are obtained by the theoretical determination of the relationship between a harmonic

force acting on a massless disc resting on the surface of the halfspace and the resulting

displacement of the disc. For mathematical convenience, the harmonic force is

considered complex, i.e.

Pet) =Pe im! =P(COS(OJt) + isin(OJt))

in which (L) is circular frequency. The resulting displacement of the disc is also complex,

v(t) =v eiu)t. Canceling the time function eicot from P(t) = P eico t and v(t) =ve imt for brevity,

the relation between the applied force and displacement is obtained as:

33
 (2.9a)

in which the complex stiffness (impedance function) is

(2.9b)

The complex stiffness has a real part K1 = ReK and an imaginary part K2 = ImK. The

real part represents the true stiffness and defines directly the stiffness constant of the

base

k=K 1 =ReK (2.10)

The imaginary part of the complex stiffness, K2 describes the out-of-phase component

and represents the damping due to energy dissipation in the halfspace. Because this

damping generally grows with frequency, resembling viscous damping as in Fig. 2.3, it

can also be defined in terms of the constant of equivalent VISCOUS damping

2 K lInK
c=--= --­ (2.11)
(j) (j)

Then the complex stiffness can be rewritten as

K = k + iaic (2.12)

and the force-displacement relation either as

P = (k + ioicyv (2.13)

or

P = kv + CV (2.14)

in which both k and c are real and v::: dv/dt is velocity. Eqs. 2.13 and 2.14 are

equivalent, as can be checked by evaluating the out-of-phase (damping) part of these

34
equations for harmonic motion For v(t)= voeiGJt the damping force in Eq. 2.13 becomes

iaicv -- ito cv 0 e i (()t

and the damping force in Eq. 2.14 becomes

c

\1 t- . Co t C'. -
--. t J - .

, V­
I
I / r: /
These are the same . I.

l'
The stiffness K as well as the constants k and c generally depends on frequency

and other factors. The elastic halfspacetheory indicates that the effect of frequency

can be lumped with a few other factors into bdimensionless parameter, the so-called
\ . ~

dimensionless frequency, .J ~ r .

(2.15)

in which R = radius of the base , Vs = shear wave velocity of the soil and p = mass

density of the soil.

Material damping can be incorporated into the stiffness and damping of the

footing in a few ways. The most direct way is to introduce the complex shear modulus

(or, more generally, complex Lame's constants) into the governing equations of the soil

medium at the beginning of the analysis and to carry out the whole solution with

material damping included.

Another way is to carry out the purely elastic solution first and to introduce material

damping into the results of the elastic analysis by means of the correspondence

principle of viscoelasticity. With steady-state oscillations considered in the derivation of

footing stiffnesses, the application of the correspondence principle is quite simple and

35
consists of the replacement of the real modulus G by the complex shear modulus G*

(Eq. 2.7). This replacement must be done consistently wherever G occurs in the results

of the elastic solution. This implies even in the shear wave velocity V s and the

dimensionless frequency given by Eq. 2.15 which, consequently, also become complex.

Therefore, all functions which depend on ao are complex as well. The substitution of G*

can easily be done if analytical expressions for the stiffness K or constants k and care

available from the elastic solution. With the material damping included, the constants

K1 , K2 and k, c have the same meaning as before but depend also on tano (or (3).

The above procedures for the inclusion of material damping into an elastic

solution are accurate but not always convenient. When the elastic solution is obtained

using a numerical method, the impedance functions are obtained in a digital or graphical

form and analytical expressions are not available . Then, an approximate approach is

often used whereby the complex modulus replaces only the real modulus occurring in

front of the dimensionless expressions for stiffness and damping but not in the

dimensionless frequency ao. Thus for the complex stiffness described using the true

stiffness and damping constants of Eq. 2.12 hysteretic damping may be accounted for

by multiplying the complex stiffness evaluated without regard to material damping by

(1 + i2(3) to give:

K, = (k + iOJc) (1 + i2fJ) (2.16)

Performing the multiplication,

KJz =k-2j3mc+im(c+ 2j3k) (2.17)

OJ

Defining again the true stiffness as kh = ReKh and the constant of equivalent viscous

36
damping as ch = ImK/w, the stiffness and damping constants incorporating material

damping are:

k h -:=k-2j3cOJ (2.18a)

2f3k
Ch =C+-­
(2.18b)
OJ

in which k and c are calculated assuming perfect elasticity with c accounting only for

geometric damping. Comparison with the accurate approach indicates that the

approximate Eqs. 2.18 give sufficient accuracy at low dimensionless frequencies but

that the accuracy deteriorates with increasing frequency.

Eqs. 2.18 are very illustrative. They indicate that material damping reduces

stiffness but increases damping. The degree of these effects depends on the magnitude

of material damping and on whether this damping is defined as hysteretic (by the

constant p) or as viscous (by Ww) These effects are shown in Fig. 2.6. The effect of

frequency independent hysteretic damping is shown as well as the effect of material

damping proportional to frequency (viscous damping). The assumption of viscous

damping may overestimate the effect of material damping particularly at high

frequencies . The constant hysteretic damping results in the equivalent viscous damping

constant 2Pk/w which varies with frequency and approaches infinity for co ---t O.

37
 Figure 2.6: Effect of Material Damping on Stiffness, Equivalent Constant of

Viscous Damping and Imaginary Part of Complex Stiffness

\
\ / HYSTERETIC

--~----
.....
----- -- --- -----­
VISCOUS DAMPING
..... " ­
-­ --------
NO MAT. DAMPING

"

FREQUENCY

2.2 Stiffness and Damping of Shallow Foundations

Using the theory of the elastic halfspace and assuming linearity, stiffness and damping
------
constants can be evaluated for various shapes of the foundation base and different

types of soil medium. However, the basic case is one of a circular disc. The results of

the theory can be used even for non-circular shapes if an equivalent circular base of

suitable radius replaces the real noncircular base. The radius of the equivalent circular

base , the equivalent radius for brevity, is usually determined by equating the areas of

the actual and equivalent bases for vertical and horizontal translation, the moments of

inertia (second moment of area) for rotation in the vertical plane (rocking) and the polar

38
moments of inertia for torsion about the vertical axis. From these conditions, the

following equivalent radii are obtained for rectangular bases having dimensions a and b

(Fig. 2.7):

Figure 2.7: Notation for Calculation of Equivalent Radii of Rectangular Bases

tZ,W

»: -t­
. "
\

~C-
I R lb
--p,u
~if.t
/ 7 7 / / / / / / / 1 / // / / /
X,U
777 - --­
I
---i
"­ /
~
<, ./
Y,v .1
~ a
..1 I•
a

Table 2.1 - Equivalent Radii /for Rectangular Footings

Translation 2.19a
R=f!
2.19b

R=~
Rocking

31Z"
Iff

Torsion 2+b 2 2.19c

R -4 ab(a )
'7 - , 61r

For rocking, two different equivalent radii are needed for the horizontal directions.

The equivalent radius works very well for square areas and quite well for rectangular

39
areas with ratios alb of up to 2 (Kobori et aI., 1971) With increasing ratio alb, the

accuracy of this approach decreases. For very long foundations the assumption of an

infinite strip foundation may be better suited.

Surface Foundations

For circular bases or equivalent circular bases the complex stiffness Kj

associated with direction i can be expressed in terms of the true stiffness constant, kj
~ r l.: ' 1.(,", '- r r. : 'c _ I.
and damping constant, c as: /'/ --..~
f .
s, =k[kj'(ao)+iaoc\(ao)J (2,20)

-
in which k, is static stiffness, ao = dimensionless frequency and k'j and e'i are stiffness

and the damping constants normalized as follows :

k' .=
k. v
I c'.=~c"
I IeI I k .R I (2.21)
I

In the case of an isotropic homogeneous halfspace, the static stiffness constants for the

vertical translation, v, horizontal translation sliding) u, rocking, and torsion, n, are

k = 4GR
v 1 -v
(2.22a)

8GR

(2.22b)
2-v

8GR 3

k= - - ­ (2.22c)
VI 3(1- v)

40
 (2.22d)

in which v is Poisson's ratio. These expressions are approximate and torsion in

particular can be in error because, in reality, the torsional stiffness can be affected by

slippage of the foundation . There is also a small coupling stiffness between 'V and u but

this can usually be neglected . The normalized, dimensionless stiffness and damping

constants kr and Ci are shown in Fig. 2.8. Figure 2.8 indicates how the stiffness and

damping constants vary with dimensionless frequency, ao, and Poisson's ratio, v, and

suggests the frequency ranges in which the constants can approximately be taken as

frequency independent. The horizontal motion is most favourable in this respect. The

most frequently used frequency range for machine foundations is from ao =0.5 to about
2.0 but higher dimensionless frequencies are also met, e.g. with large turbine

generators, compressors or buildings .

For the results plotted in Fig. 2.8, material damping was neglected . Yet it is

important in some cases, particularly for rocking and torsion. Also, analytical

expressions or numerical data are needed for more detailed calculations . Such

expressions as well as tabulated data can be found in the papers by Luco and

Westmam (1971), Veletsos and Wei (1971), Veletsos and Verbie (1973), Veletsos and

Nair (1974) and Wong and Lueo (1978). For impedance functions of foundations

resting on the surface of a viscoelastic halfspace, analytical expressions incorporating

material damping in a more accurate way than Eqs. 2.18 are given in the appendix.

41
Figure 2.8: Dimensionless Stiffness and Damping for Circular disk on Surface of

Homogeneous Halfspace (Velestos and Verbic, 1974; Vetestos and Nair,1974:

Poisson's Ratio v = 0, 1/3 J "'12 )

'-, (I .

t.
-:.c,_--­
."
, ~\ I

. ~
~--- _. -
\.
c ..

k'
v
It'
u .
~
~
--t..:-rr:­ t
I
M~
-=- -j1
\
, \ I 2 1_­ .
..... e
'0­

cr
r
:.::::..:.:..::...._ .. --~ ,~."

c' U~'rl? :
v
0) ­
- _ ., .. ~.'

t "--~_,_-____;::----:-~......,. a
t}L--y-----.~-.__-.-~ ao o

a) vertically excited disk b) horizontally excited disk

x'11

C J 0'
n
0.'

.
•• ' .:!.
"

c) disk in rocking motion d) disk in torsion

i
<1:5 I
I
( ~r
L, j

r: . . .

42
 Inhomogeneity - In real situations, the soil shear modulus often increases with

depth due to increasing confining pressure, i.e., the soil is not homogeneous. A

theoretical study by Werkle and Waas (1986) has shown that in such cases the

geometric damping can be greatly reduced compared to that of an homgeneous

halfspace. This may explain the fifty percent reduction in damping observed in field

experiments (Novak, 1970).

Embedded Foundations

Most footings do not rest on the surface of the soil but are partly embedded.

Embedment is known to increase both stiffness and damping but the increase in

damping is more significant. These effects of embedment were observed in early

experiments by Novak (1964) and by others. It is very difficult to extend the elastic

halfspace solution to include embedment although progress has been made. The finite

element approach is well suited to the determination of stiffness and damping of

embedded foundations and has been used by a number of investigators, e.g. Urlich and

Kuhlemeyer (1973) and Kausel and Ushijima, 1979)

An approximate but versatile approach can be formulated using the assumption

that the soil reactions acting on the base of an embedded foundation can be taken as

equal to those of a surface foundation (halfspace) and the reactions acting on the

footing sides as equal to those of an independent layer overlying the halfspace (Fig .

2.9). The evaluation of the reactions of the layer can be simplified even further if they

are calculated using the assumption of plane strain .

43
Figure 2.9: Schematic of Embedded Foundation C1 ,h .1f

ut j C ' '

I. 2R
.1

This means that these reactions are taken as equal to those of a rigid, infinitely

long, massless cylinder undergoing a uniform motion in an infinite, homogeneous

medium. This assumption can also be interpreted as meaning that the layer is

composed of independent, infinitesimally thin layers. This concept was first employed by

Baranov (1967) and was further developed by Novak and his associates (Novak and

Beredugo, 1972; Beredugo and Novak, 1972; Novak and Sachs , 1973). It was found

that this approximate approach works quite well and that its suitability and accuracy in­

creases with increasing frequency .

The plane strain approach to the side reactions has many advantages: it

accounts for energy radiation through wave propagation , leads to closed form solutions

and allows for the variation of soil properties with depth. It can also allow for a slippage

zone around the footing (Novak and Sheta, 1980; Lakshmanan and Minai, 1981).

Finally, the approach is very simple and makes it possible to utilize the well established

44
solutions of surface footings since the effect of the independent side layer actually

represents an approximate correction of the halfspace solutions for the embedment

effect.

The side reactions are described by complex, frequency dependent stiff nesses

for a unit length of the embedded cylinder in a way analogous to the surface disk For a

unit length of the embedded cylinder;

vertical stiffness

(2.23a)

horizontal stiffness

K, = Gs [SuI (a o' v,D) + ia OS u 2 (a o,v,D)] (2.23b)

rocking stiffness

(2.23c)

torsional stiffness

(2.23d)

In these expressions, the shear modulus Gs and material damping 0 = tano are

those of the side layer which may represent the backfill. The dimensionless parameters

SJ and 8 2 relate to the real stiffness and the damping (out of phase component of the

stiffness), respectively. They all depend on the dimensionless frequency,

45
in which psis the mass density of the side layer. Only the horizontal stiffness depends

on Poisson's ratio, v. The mathematically accurate analytical expressions for the

parameters 8 1 and 52 are given by the author et al. (1978) . The variation of parameters

8 1 and 8 2 with frequency is shown in Fig. 2.10. For the embedment I, the total stiffness

is Kd.

Figure 2.10: Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Side Reactions (5/2 = Siz i a o;

Novak et al. 1978)

~
~6
z;
s
"' .
t~ -I
"'- 0.2 0.'

ot-I-------c,,--~- ""'- r, ­
- -­ - - - - ,I
o 0.5 1.0 ~
DIl1£loSl 0Nl.E:SS rp<:w<NCY o.

Vertic:al Stiffnoss and Damping Parameters Sw Horizontal Stiffness and Damping PatamatarsSu

o:J
r0
1
1
""",
~ ,
~ i

~ . J

~~
1-1 0 '

~ i 4

::1

~ :I~--. . : : "--~-:------- :" :" --" " " --

"

=. O!5 , ) .(1 r ' I'''' '/>

c ~5 OIr",(1iJ;I!X. ( 'S$ r ~«,(t·C'l' <'10 • ~;

Torsional Stiffness and Damping ParamBters Sl;, Rocking Stiffness and Damping Parameters SIj,t

It may be seen in Fig. 2.10 that as ao ---+ 0 the stiffness parameters 8 v 1 and 8 u 1

vanish. This is a consequence of the plane strain assumption. For practical application,

46
this may be empirically corrected by extending a suitable. nonzero value of Sj such as

S1(ao=0.3), towards the origin as shown later herein. Such a correction is needed only

for bodies featuring a very small diameter.

The stiffness constants of the side layer Kv and K, depend on the radius R only

through the dimensionless frequency Go = RwNs This seemingly, surprising result is,

however, correct for plane strain and has been confirmed by finite element analysis.

The versatility of the plane strain approach can be enhanced further if a cylindrical

weakened zone is considered around the footing to account, in an approximate way, for

the lack of bond between the footing and soil, non-linearity due to high strain or different

properties of the backfill. With the weakened zone , the side reactions are still described

by Eqs. 2.23 except that parameters S1,2 are modified. These more general parameters

are available in Novak and Sheta (1980). The most prominent effect of the weakened

zone is a reduction of radiation damping, which increases with frequency. The inclusion

of the weakened zone may improve the agreement considerably between theory and

experiment.

The complex stiffness of embedded foundations can be evaluated approximately

by adding the stiffness generated by footing sides and defined by Eqs. 2.23 to that

generated in the base and given by Eqs. 2.20. For the vertical direction and torsion, the

total stiffness and damping of the embedded foundation thus implies a simple addition

of the two reactions. For the horizontal direction and rocking, coupling between the two

motions has to be considered .

47
 Table 2.2: Stiffness and Damping Parameters (0=0)

Motion I Soil Side Layer Halfspace

Sliding Cohesive SuI = 4.1 S"2 = 10.6 CUI = 5.1 Cu 2 = 3.2

! Granular
;
SuI = 4.0 SI/2 = 9.1 C,I! = 4.7 C"2 = 2.8
;

i
Rocking ~ Cohesive S.... I = 2.5 SIJI 2 =1.8 CIJI] =4.3 C'1' 2 = 0.7
;
;
;
;

Granular CIJII =3 .3 C¥l2 = 0.5

Torsion I Cohesive S"I = 10.2 S"2 = 5.4 C'I[ =4.3 C,12 = 0.7
I
I

t Granular
l
Vertical Cohesive Svl = 2.7 Sv2 := 6.7 Cv1 = 7.5 C"2 = 6.8

Granular C,.! = 5.2 CV2 = 5.0

An embedded footing implies a body of a certain depth and therefore, a

horizontal translation is resisted not only by horizontal soil reactions but also by

moments. This gives rise to coupling between translation and rotation and the

corresponding "off-diagonal" or cross stiffness and damping constants such as k UIfI :::: klflu

and CU \jT = cljiu, For coupled horizontal and rocking motion the qeneration of the stiffness

and damning constants is indicated in Fig. 2.11.

48
Figure 2 .1 1: Translation and Rocking Components of Coupled otion and Related

Stiffness and Damping Coefficients for Embedded Footings

(-) CdJu u' t r' c ...j.

:::--­
..--...
......- - - -,-,
M

s 1
I lj!~-------
~ Y.,u

(a) (e) t,:

To identify the coupling, double subscripts are needed. Stiffness ~j or damping Cij

indicate the force acting at the reference point in the direction i and associated with a

sole unit displacement or unit velocity in the direction j. Applying the sign convention

indicated in Fig. 2.11c, the stiffness and damning constants of embedded footings are:

For vertical vibration V, the stiffness constant

(2.24a)

and the damning constant

(2.24b)

For torsional vibration 11 > the stiffness constant

(2.25a)

and the damping constant

49
For coupled horizontal translation u and rocking \!f the stiffness constants are:

(2.26a)

(2.26b)

G t5 2 2
+_s t5(-+ ~-t5~)S ]
G 3 R2 R ul

(2.26c)

and the damping constants are

CUll ="\j~R2(-
P LTc u 2 + U.<' ~ PsP G
G, S 1/2 ) (2.27a)

(2.27c)

50
 In the equations, the embedment ratio 0= I/R, where I is the embedment deptl

and Yc = the vertical distance of the reference point CG from the base. Parameters C

relate to the reactions acting in the base and can be extracted from Eq. 2.20. Their

variation with frequency can be seen from Fig. 2.8 Parameters S relate to the side

reactions and are given by Eqs. 2.23. They are shown in Fig. 2.10.

Parameters C and S are frequency dependent. However, given all the

approximations involved in modeling dynamic soil behaviour it is often sufficient to

select suitable constant values to represent the parameters, at least over a limited

frequency range of interest. Such constant values are suggested in Table 2.2. The

values are given for cohesive soils as well as granular soils with Poisson's ratio

presumed as 0.4 and 0.25 respectively . The values shown in Table 2.2 correspond to

dimensionless frequencies between 0.5 and 1.5, which are typical of average machine

foundations . For other dimensionless frequencies numerically more accurate values

can be computed. If a large frequency-range is of importance, parameters C and S

should be considered as frequency dependent and calculated from the forming

expressions . Such expressions are given in polynomial form in Beredugo and Novak

(1972), and in the Appendix to this chapter.

Material damping is not included in Table 2.2 but it can be accounted for either

accurately, i.e. evaluating parameters C and S with regard to material damping, or

approximately by means of Eq. 2.18.

Equations 2.24 to 2.27 hold for cylindrical footings that feature only one radius ,

R. For rectangular footings} the equivalent radius for translation, R, differs from that for

rocking, R, as Eqs. 2.19 suggest and this should be incorporated into constants k'l'o/ and

51
CIjI'lf whose generation implies both sliding and rocking . Hence, for rectangular footings,

these constants can be rewritten as

(2.28a)

-o~)S
R u2 ]
IfI

(2.28b)

For the torsional costants k'l'l and ~'1 the radius given by Eq. 2.19c should be

used. These measures are, of course, approximate but the solution for rectangular

embedded bodies is particularly difficult and the theory is approximate anyway.

Experiments indicate that the theoretical values of stiffness and damping coefficients

should be adjusted.

Adjustment of Theoretical Values

First, experience has shown that the theory tends to considerably overestimate

the damping in the vertical direction (Novak, 1970) . This is caused by the usual

presence of interfaces between soil layers that reflect the waves back to the vibrating

52
body, reducing geometric damping. An empirical reduction of C v2 (D=O) to about one

half of the values valid for homogeneous halfspace appears advisable for practical

applications.

On the other hand, the first resonant amplitudes of coupled response of surface

footings to horizontal forces are often overestimated by several hundred percent if

material damping is neglected. This discrepancy can be eliminated by the inclusion of

material damping, desirable because of the low level of radiation damping in rocking.

Torsional response is often predicted very poorly because of slippage. Slippage

reduces stiffness and increases damping of surface foundations, (Weissmann, 1971)

but reduces damping of embedded foundations (Novak and Sachs, 1973). The inclusion

of the weakened zone around the footing may improve the agreement between the

theory and experiments (Novak and Sheta , 1980.).

On the whole, embedment effects are often overestimated because soil stiffness

(shear modulus) diminishes toward the soil surface due to diminishing confining

pressure. This is particularly so for backfill with which no stiffer surface crust is present

and whose effects are always much less pronounced than those of undisturbed soil.

The lack of confining pressure at the surface often leads to separation of the soil

from the foundation and to the creation of a gap, as indicated in Fig. 2.9, which signi­

ficantly reduces the effectiveness of embedment. Considering an effective embedment

depth smaller than the true embedment can be used as an approximate correction for

this effect.

Shallow Layers. - Another correction of the halfspace theory may be required if

the deposit is a shallow layer. In such a case, the stiffness increases and geometric

53
damping decreases or even vanishes. These effects can be seen from Fig. 2.12 in

which the stiffness and damping parameters are plotted in dashed lines for layers of

different depth, h, with material damping neglected . These parameters were calculated

from the results due to Warburton (1957). The parameters for the halfspace and side

layers are also shown for comparison. (The subscript v is deleted.) Similar behaviour is

observed in other vibration modes as well and is confirmed by more general solutions of

layered med [a presented by Bycroft (1956), Luco (1974) and others .

54
 Figure 2.12: Stiffness and Damping Parameters for Vertical Vibr ation of

Footings on Halfspace and Strata of Limited Depth (ro =R)

- -L ~

12- _

, , 'F'.

Ii" 10

I I L_ ' - ----'----'
o oL--L--'------'- --->O.4 0 .6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0.2
OIM t: NS JONL £.SS FREOUENCY 0"

lJ1 c~ Itl l , =CD,,, = 0,5)

5 6
I­
w ~.:;lo~·-=CD::..(:..:":-~-.-:O=.2:::.5:::J:- - - - -­ - -
:E
-a.
cr:.
(f: 4

( b)

0.4 0 .6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1-4

0 .2
DlI,,'.E NSIONLE5S FREOU ENCY

55
 It can be seen from Fig. 2.12 that the geometric damping of strata is quite small

or even absent at low frequencies. Then, material damping may be the principal cause

of energy dissipation. It can be evaluated using Eq. 2.18b. Studies of the behaviour of

strata suggest that geometric damping may completely vanish if the frequency of

interest, e.g. the excitation frequency, is lower than the first natural frequency of the soil

layer (Kobori et aI., 1971; Nogami and Novak, 1976). For a homogeneous layer with

soil shear wave velocity V s the first natural frequencies are

OJ, = Jr ~ ~2(1 u)
(2.29 a)
2h 1-2v

for the vertical direction and

(2.29b)

for the horizontal direction. At frequencies lower than Wv and w u , only material damping

remains because no progressive wave occurs to generate geometric damping in the

absence of material damping and only a very weak progressive wave occurs in the

presence of material damping. The damping parameters 8 2 generated by material

damping alone can be established from Eqs. 2.23 by neglecting 82 and substituting the

complex shear modulus defined by Eq. 2.7 for Gs .

This yields constant damping parameters

Su2 = 2/3 SuI

(2.30a)
ao

56
 S v2 =2/3 Svl (2.30b)
Qo

to be used for frequencies lower than Wh and Wv , respectively (Fig. 2.13). This

correction is most important for both the vertical and horizontal directions in which the

geometric damping of the halfspace is highest.

Figure 2.13: Correction of Parameters Su and Sv for Low Frequencies

Stiffness and damping from finite element solutions. Other theoretical approaches

and formulae for embedded foundations have also been reported, most of which were

obtained using the finite element method. The results were evaluated by Roesset

(1980) who also compared the stiffness constants obtained by Elsabee (1977) and

Kausel and Ushijima (1978) with those of the writer described by Eqs. 2.24 to 2.27. For

a halfspace (H ---7 0:), v = 0.4 and Yc =0, Roesset's comparison is given in Table 2.3.

57
 Table 2.3: Comparison of Stiffness Constants for Embedded Foundations

(after Roesset, 1980; 8 = IIR)

Stiffness Elsabee - Kausel Novak

kw
4GR (I + 0.470) 4GR (1 + 0.415)
I-v 1- v

kTl T1 3 3
16GR (l + 2.675) 16GR (1 + 2.400)
3 3

kuu
8GR (l + 0.670) 8GR (.1 + 0.805)
2-v 2-v

3 3
klj/\{' 8GR (1 + 2.05) 8GR (1+ 0.65 + 0.35 3
)
3(1- v) 3(1- v)

ku'l1 1.6GI (l + 0.470 ) 2GI (I + 0.415)

I-v 1- v

Given all the approximations involved , the agreement between the two solutions is

very good except for the rocking constant k'V~ , for which substantially larger values are

obtained from the Elsabee formula than from the author's over most of the embedment

ratio range. With respect to this agreement, Eqs. 2.24 to 2.27 appear quite adequate

for practical application and have the advantage of allowing for the various corrections

discussed.

Recently, a number of efficient solutions for embedded foundations were

formulated using the boundary element or boundary integral methods (e.g., Kobayashi

and Nishimura, 1983; Wolf and Darbre, 1984, Karabalis and Beskos, 1985).

A few investigators using the finite element method have studied embedment in a

layer of Limited thickness. The static stiffness for the horizontal and rocking modes was

58
derived by Elsabee (1977) and the vertical and torsional modes were derived by Kausel

and Ushijima (1979) . The empirical expressions derived by these authors for the static

stiffness of circular foundations embedded in a homogeneous soil layer of total depth H

are:

k ==8GR(1+~~)(1+26)(1+~~) (2.31 a)
uu 2-v 2H 3 4H

kYIJI == (0.4£5 - 0.03) R k uu (2.31b)

- 8GR 3 1R I

klJllf/ == 3 (1- v) (1 + 6 H)(1 + 28)(1 + 0.7 H) (2.31 c)

I
-
k; =
4GR R
(1 + 1.28 H)(l + 0.478)[1 + (0.85 - 0.288)
HI]
I-v 1- ­
H
(2.31 d)

- 16 3
k ll Tj == -GR (1 + 2.678) (2.31 e)
3
These stiffnesses are referred to the centre of the base and are valid for 0 = fIR.::: 1.5,

I/H .::: 0.75 and R/H .::: 0.5 . It may be noticed that the first factor in all the expressions

except ku vr is the static stiffness of a circular disk on the surface of the halfspace given

by Eqs. 2.22.

Complex dynamic stiffnesses are then defined as

K ==k(k'+ ia oc')(1 + i2f3) (2.32)

59
in which k are the static stiffnesses determined by Eqs. 2.31, k' and c' are

dimensionless stiffness functions depending on dimensionless frequency ao ;:: RroN s

and p is material damping ratio of soil. Kausel and Ushijima recommend taking k' and c'

as equal to the halfspace functions except for the function c' in the low frequency range.

The stiffness functions are shown in Fig. 2.14. In the low frequency range, the stiffness

functions of layers differ substantially from those of the halfspace because the

geometric damping vanishes below the first layer resonance (Fig. 2.14).

Figure 2.14: Stiffness Functions for Embedded Foundations (after Elsabee)

a) embedded foundation - finite layer b) surface foundation - finite layer

c) surface foundation - halfspace

/ } 7;;; ", r r ' / ;;,...·T77"T

.
a

o
o
_ !_ .... _
O.! 0.2
'" 2
0 .3
,
l.--...L1_ --'-::---7'-::--
-J1
0.4
-=-'":::-­
0 .5 f
o

'[ __ (~a e,"i

lfI

5~ b 05
1
~
r ~--oo
,
71";
,2 I
't;
, 00
o ~ -----,..-.-.-...
--- ,~

0. 2 0. 3 0.4 0.5 f o '0 0.1 0 .2 0 .3 0.4 fo

SWAYING ROC K iN G

In this range, Kausel and Ushijima suggest estimatin g the radiation damping coefficient

60
as

c= aj3t; t;<1

1- (1- 2j3)t;2' ­

with the parameter a. depending on the mode of vibration and the frequency ratio s as
shown in Table 2.4

Table 2.4

a. ~

Swaying 0.65 fff u

Rocking 0.50 f/fv

Vertical 0.67 flf v

Torsion 0.15 f/f u

The natural frequencies of the layer fu and fv are evaluated using Eqs. 2.29 with

the total depth H substituted and f = w/2n. However, it would be safe to ignore

geometric damping constant c completely below the first layer resonance. Then,

material damping can be established as a fraction of stiffness, giving the complex part

of stiffness

(2.33a)

and the damping coefficient

(2.33b)

Similar data on embedded foundations can be found in Kausel et al. (1978) and

61
Gazetas (1983) presented a detailed review of stiffness and damping constants

available for foundations . With the stiffness and damping constants established using

the approaches outlined above, the response of footings and structures to dynamic

loads can be predicted. The methods suitable to this end will be presented later.

Footing on a Layer Overlying a Halfspace (Composite Medium)

In this case, the footing base rests on the surface of a shallow layer underlain by a

halfspace (Fig, 2,15a and b), The layer may be uniform (Fig. 2.15c) or non-uniform with

linearly varying shear wave velocity (Fig. 2.15d). The halfspace is homogeneous. The

footing can also be embedded in overlying layers as shown in Fig. 2.15b, The properties

of the embedded layers may vary independently. The layer under the footing base and

the halfspace should satisfy the conditions mentioned later. The base soil reaction is

calculated using equivalent shapes, the impedances are evaluated approximately using

equivalent dimensions obtained by equating the geometric properties of the base area

of the actual footing with those of a square base. The effect of embedment is evaluated

using the plane strain theory as described for embedded foundations. The impedance

functions may undulate as depicted in Fig. 2,16

Note on Limitation
The impedance functions are exact for the ratio of layer thickness to halfwidth of the

square footing (H/a) equal to 0.5, 1,2,3 and 4 for uniform layers (Fig. 2.15c) and equal

to 2,3,4,5 and 10 for nonuniform layers (Fig. 2.15d), If the ratio (H/a) doesn't coincide

with one of the above values, choose the closest (H/a) ratio avallable (interpolation is

not implemented because of the strong non-monotonic variations at high frequencies).

62
Accurate values of stiffness and damping are used at frequencies equal to 0.10,

0.25,0.50 ..., 4.75 and 5.0 times (Vs 'fa) where Vs' is the shear wave velocity at footing

base level and a is halfwidth of the square base(or the equivalent square base). For a

frequency less than 0.10 Vs'la , use the minimum value (0.10 Vs'/a) and for frequencies

in the range (0.10-5.0) Vs'/a, a linear interpolation is implemented . If the frequency is

greater than 5 (Vs'/a) use the maximum value of 5 (Vs'/a). Poisson's ratio of the

halfspace is assumed to be 0.33 and two values for Poisson's ratio of the layer are

available 0.33 and 0.45 (select the closer one for your actual value). The material

damping of soil is assumed 0.03 and 0.05 for the layer and the halfspace, respectively.

Vs' is the shear wave velocity at footing base. Three values for the shear wave velocity

ratio are available 0.8, 0.6 and 0.3. If a different value is encountered set it the closest

one. The ratio of unit weight of the halfspace to that of the layer is assumed 1.13.

Figure 2.15: Rigid Footing Resting on Composite Medium

a) Surface Footing b) Embedded Footing

c) Uniform Layer Profile d) Non-Uniform Profile

layer
/ / . / / . / , ./ './././

halfspace
halfspace

63
 Figure 2.16 Stiffness and Damping for Composite Medium

10 H / c > 2. J,
.z.
:c
9
0 .3 v :: 0.33 J
\....
8

--E
Q)

Q) 7

o\.... 6
o 5
0....
UJ
(f)
(l)

'+­
'+­
~

(f) _ _ Uniform Loyer

o -----.. Nonuniform Lay er

(l)
n:::: o
- 1
v
o 1 2 .3 4 5
/
O;m e n s ion fes s Freq uenc y 0 = -JJ. G j V .
a s
2S
N
H/ 0 = 2.
J :.- - 2 c-~ i
\....
Q) 20
v = 0.33 .i
H

Q)

E
0
"­
0 IS
1 ft. i
c, !
I
,
,

en ! : il I
LJ
(f)

c
()) r
'+- 10
~

U1
>..
'­
0
c S .... r
CJl

E
0 t
0 I 2 .3 5
Dim ens io nless Frecu e ncy

64
 Imaginary Stiff ness Parameter f<VV2 Real Stiffness Parameter KVV,
N ~ en I ~

o -o o ~ a a N 0 N ~ 0> CD 0 t-.:
­
o i • I I I , I ' I i . o I , . I . I , i
I I I
• 1>.. ( •
::t: /I I
<,
0 /j. l i
n Do II- a •
A (,..l p..J _ ~

ooool'l // I /
o- 0

P • 0 • /-
o~ : : I I I to/co\ /
P - o. V1
3 .. P
/-
ro
:1 /l/ /-
(jj

0
:f /­ /0
:::J

(D ! /i /.
(j) N
(j)

-q i V/­
o HI
-,
ctl \jf
..Q e l(>
C
ru //~
:J

o
/. !\1
'< (.,.l­
0 _
I- i r l>.,
0
II •
V
8
0
/ /1\ ­
........
<
~
/­ i \i
(j)
I- \ /\ < C
0 ~
• - III ::.;
\ -~ \ "II -, g
9 ",,< 3
(,I
II ~
-\ \-"" ] VI
0'<
~
" .co "'
1'_ • f
,/\
Ul'
/
 7

:c

-;~;;;:;:;::::::~l:>',:o:o'"<;>,,,
I
~

L 6

---~'"""'"'" .x~~ . -,
Q)
-.J
5 <,•
o-.....;~
Q)

E
oL 4 f "<, e"'-,
e_e_e
e

o
0....
(IJ
(J) H/o = 0 .5
Q)
C
.......
1~O • - e
....... Uniform Loyer
:;:; 2.0 0-0
(j') v s' /v« = 0.8
3.0 . t . ­ ..

o
Q) ].1 '= 0 .33 4 .0 b,-"
a::::
o
o 2 4

Dirne rision
• l1e s S Frequency 0 0 - w.o/vS '

. : 2S ~ HI 0 _ 0.5
Y:: 1.0 e-e
~ 2.0 0-0
(l) 20 3.0

E
Q) f 4.0
o
~
o 15 r
i

] tt
..... \0

~J

c
;y
Uniform Loyer
v 5' /v« = 0 .8
o v'= 0 .33
E
o
o

66
 "4
H / a = 2.
21
J 18
v = 0.33
___ Uniform Loyer
L
Q)
____ Nonuniform Loyer
""""'
Q) 15
E
0
I­ 12
0
IL
9
0.3
en
(f)
Q)
C 6
"­
"­

""""'
(/) .)

0
Q)
n:.: 0

-.3
0 1 :2 J 4 5

Dimens ionless Fre q ue ncy a= w.a / vs I

o

H/ a =: 2.

I­
II = 0.33
W
-'-'
w
E
o
L
o
0­
en 20
en
Q.J
C
"­
"­
--'
(/)

C 10
_ _ Uniform Loyer
o
C
en Nonuniform Loyer
o
E
o
o 1 2 3 5

Dimensionless Freq uency

67
 Interaction between footings

Interaction between adjoining footings is sometimes important. It can be

evaluated using the paper by Triantafyllidis and Prange (1989).

TRIAL SIZING OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

The design of a shallow foundation for a centrifugal or reciprocating machine starts with

trial dimensions of the foundation block (Step No .3 in the design procedure). The trial

sizing is based on guidelines derived from past experience.

The following guidelines may be used for the trial dimensions of the foundation block:

1. Generally, the base of the foundation should be above the GWT. It should be

resting on competent native soil (no backfill or vibration-sensitive soil).

2. The mass of the block should be 2-3 times the mass of the supported centrifugal
r " \
I .
\ " machine, and 3-5 times the supported reciprocating machine.
./'/
3. The top of the block should be 0.3 m above the elevation of the finished floor.

/\~ . ) 4. The thickness of the block should be the greatest of 0.6 rn, the anchorage length of

\ the anchor bolts and 1/5 the least dimension of the footing. / "
\
\ ./ 5. The width should be 1-1.5 times the vertical distance from the base to the machine

centreline to increase damping in rocking mode. ./

6. The length is estimated from the mass requirement and estimated thickness and

width of the foundation . The length should then be increased by 0.3 m for

maintenance purposes .

68
7. The length and width of the foun dation are adjusted so that the centre of gravity of

the machine plus equipment lies within 5% of the foundation dimension in each

direction , from the foundation centre of gravity. j

8. It is desirable to increase the embedded depth of the foundation to increase the

damping and provide lateral restraint as well.

9. If resonance is predicted from the dynamic analysis, increase or decrease the mass

of the foundation to change its natural frequency (try to undertune for rotating

machines and overtune for reciprocating machines).

Important note: trial dimensions are only preliminary and a complete dynamic analysis

must be carried out to check that the performance is within the acceptable limits . If the

predicted response from the dynamic analysis exceeds the tolerance set by the

manufacturer, the foundation dimensions have to be adjusted and the dynamic analysis

be repeated until satisfactory performance is predicted .

\
I

o . "

t
,
L t, 'J
I. / ~

69
REFERENCES (Shallow Foundations)

Baranov, V.A (1967) - lion the Calculation of Excited Vibrations of an embedded

Foundation," (In Russian) Voprosy Dynamiki i Prochnocti, No. 14, Polytechnicallnstitute
of Riga.

Beredugo , Y.O . and Novak, M. (1972) - "Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration of
Embedded Footings," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No.4, pp. 477-97 .

Bycrott, G.N. (1956) - "Forced Vibrations of a Rigid Circular Plate on a Semi- Infinite
Elastic Half Space and on an Elastic Stratum," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Soc., London, Series A, Vol. 248, No. 948, pp, 327-368.

Elsabee, F. and YDrray, J .P. (1977) - "Dynamic Behavior of Embedded Foundations,"

Research Report R77-33, Civil Engineering Department, Massachusetts Jnstitute of
tech nology, September.

Gazetas, G. (1983) - "Analysis of Machine Foundation Vibrations: State of the Art," J.

Soil Dynamics and quake Engineering, Vol. 2, No.1 , pp. 2-42 .

Kausel , E., Roesset, LM. and Waas, G. (1975) - "Dynamic Analysis of Footings on
Layered Media," J. Eng. mechanics. Div., ASCE, Vol. 101,06, pp. 679-693.

Kausel, E. and Ushijima, R. (1979) - "Vertical and Torsional Stiffness of Cylindrical

Footing ," Civil Eng. Dept. Report R79-6 , MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kausel , E., Whitman, R.V., Morray, J.P. and Elsabee, F. (1978) - "The Spring Method
for Embedded Foundations ," Nuclear Engineering and Design 48, pp. 377-392 .

Karabalis, D.L. and Beskos, D.E. (1985) - "Dynamic Response of 3-D Embedded
Foundations by the Boundary Element Method ," 2nd Joint ASCE/ASME Conference,
Albuquerque, June 1985, p. 34.

Kobayashi, S. and Nishimura, N. (1983) - "Analysis of Dynamic Soil-Structure

Interactions by Boundary Integral Equation Method," Proc. of Third int. Symposium on
Numerical Methods in Engineering , March 1983, Paris, pp. 353-362.

Kobori, T., Minai, R. and Suzuki, T. (1971) - '''The Dynamical Ground Compliance of a
Rectangular Foundation on a Viscoelastic Stratum," Bulletin Disaster Prevention
Research Institute, Kyoto University, Vol. 20, pp. 289-329.

Lakshrnanan, N. and Minai, R. (1981) - "Dynamic Soil Reactions in Radially Non

homogeneous Soil Media, Bull. of the Disaster Prevention Res .lnst., Kyoto University,
Vol. 31, Part 2, No. 279 , pp. 79-114.

Luco, J.E. (1974) - "Impedance Functions for a Rigid Foundation on a Layered

70
Medium, " Nuclear Engineering and Design 31, pp. 204-217.

Luco, J.E. and Westmann, R.A. (1971) - "Dynamic Response of Circular Footings," J.
Eng. Mechanics Div., ASCE, EMS, pp. 1381-1395.

Lysmer, J. and Kuhlerneyer , R.L. (1969) - "Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media ," J.
Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 95, No. EM4, pp. 859-877.

Nogami, T. and Novak, M . (1976) - "Soil-Pile Interaction in Vertical Vibration,"

International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4, No.3,
January-March, pp. 277-293 .

Novak, M. (1960) - "The Vibrations of Massive Foundations on Soil," Publications of the

International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, No. 20, Zurich, pp. 263­
281.

Novak, M. (1970) - "Prediction of Footing Vibrations," J. of the Soil Mechanics and

Foundations Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3, May, pp. 837-861 .

Novak, M. (1974) - "Effect of Soil on Structural Response to Wind and Earthquake,"

Inter. J. Earthquake Engineering and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 3, No.1, pp, 79-96.

Novak, M. and Beredugo, Y.O. (1972) - "Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings," J.

Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE , SM12, December, pp. 1291-1310.

Novak, M., Nogami, T. and Aboul-Ella, F. (1978) - "Dynamic Soil Reactions for Plane
Strain Case, J. Engrg. Mech . Div., ASCE, Vol. 104, No. EM4, pp, 953-959.

Novak, M. and Sachs, K. (1973) - "Torsional and Coupled Vibrations of Embedded

Footings," Inter. J. Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 2, No. 11, p. 33 .

Novak, M. and Sheta , M. (1980) - "Approxiniate Approach to Contact Problems of Piles,

"Proc. Geotech. Engrg. Div. ASCE National Convention , Dynamic Response of Pile
Foundations: Analytical Aspects,"October, pp. 53-79.

Reissner, E. (1936) - "Stationare, Axial-Symmetrische Durch Eine SchQttelnde Masse

Erregte Schwingungen Eines Homgenen Elastischen Halbraumes," Ingenieur-Archiv,
Vol. 7, Part 6, December, pp. 381-396.

Thomson, W.T. and Kobori, T. (1963) Dynamical Compliance of Rectangular

Foundations on an Elastic Half-Space," Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASIC , Vol. 30.

Triantafyllidis, T. and Prange, B. (1989) - "Dynamic Subsoil-Coupling Between Rigid,

Circular Foundations on the Halfspace," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 9-21.

71
Ulrich, C.M. and Kuhlermyer, R.L. (1973) - "Coupled Rocking and Lateral Vibrations of
Embedded Footings," Canadian Geotechnical J., 10, pp. 145-160.

Veletsos, A.S. and Nair, V.V.D. (1974) - '" Torsional Vibration of Viscoelastic
Foundation," J. Geotech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 100, No. GT3, March, pp. 225-246.

Veletsos, A.S. and Verbic, B. (1973) - "Vibration of Viscoelastic Foundations," J.

Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 2, pp. 87 ~1 02.

Veletsos, A.S. and Wei, Y.T. (1971) - "Lateral and Rocking Vibration of Footings," J.
Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, SM9, September, pp. 1227-1248.

Warburton, G.B. (1957) - "Forced Vibration of a Body on an Elastic Stratum," J. Applied

Mechanics, March, pp. 55-58.

Weissman G. (1971) - " Torsional Vibration of Circular Foundations," J. Soil Mech.

Founds. Div., ASCE, SM9, Sept., pp. 1293-1316.

Werkle, H. and Waas, G. (1986) - "Dynamic Stiffness of Foundations on In­

homogeneous Soils," Proc. 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisbon, September 1986.

Wolf, J.P. and Darbre, G.R. (1984) - "Dynamic-Stiffness Matrix of Soil by the Boundary­
Element Method: Embedded Foundations," Earthq. Eng. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 12, pp.
401-416.

Wong , H.L. and Luco, J.E. (1978) - "Tables of Impedance Functions and Input Motions
for Regular Foundations," Univ . of Southern California, Dept. of Civil Engrg., Report No.
CE78-15, p. 92.

Wong , H.l. and Luco, ...I.E. (1985) - "Tables of Impedance Functions for Square
Foundations on Layered Media," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4,
No.2, pp. 64-81.

72
Appendix - Analytical expressions for impedance functions for surface disc.

The complex stiffness constants of the surface footing described by Eq. 2.20 can be

rewritten in the following form :

Vertical stiffness

(2.34)

Horizontal stiffness

(2.35)

Rocking stiffness

(2.36)

Torsional stiffness

(2.37)

The cross stiffness is less significant and can be neglected. In Eqs. 2.34 to 2.37, R =

disc radius , G = the shear modulus of the soil and ao = RwN s where Vs = shear wave
velocity of the soil below the disc . The viscoelastic solution by Veletsos and Verbic

(1973) yields the following closed form expressions that incorporate the effect of

frequency and material damping:

Horizontal parameters

Rocking parameters

73
 (2.39)

where

(2.40)

and

(2.41 )

where R' =:. .Jl + D 2 1 D = material damping = tanf = G'/G, and v = Poisson's ratio

Vertical parameters

+ I. a o (~R'+I r 4 + 'II" + -D )] (2.42)

2 ao

Xv and \J.fv in Eq. 2.42 are calculated from Eqs. 2.40 and 2.41 by replacing the

coefficients ~i with the coefficients Yi in the expressions of X~J and 'P1jI. cr, ~i and Yi are

numerical coefficients which depend on Poisson's ratio, v, as shown in Table 2 .5.

74
 Table 2.5:

Values of o.i , ~i and Yi

v=O v = 1/3 v = 0.45 v =0.50

0.1 0.775 0.650 0.600 0.600

Uz 0.525 0.500 0.450 0.400

~1 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800

pz 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.027

Y1 0.250 0.350 - 0.000

Y2 1.000 0.800 - 0.000

Y3 0.000 0.000 - 0.170

14 0.850 0.750 - 0.850

Torsional parameters

(2.43)

where

b, [R' + ~ R /_(b, ao)](b,ao)'

A = 1- ------::::'::::--------­
2~~'-!(b
(2.44)
R'+ 2 a ) + (b2 a0 )2
2 0

and

75
 (2.45)

The constants bl and b2 are taken as (Veletsos & Nair 1974): b- = 0.425 and b2 = 0.687.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE: Calculation of Stiffness and Damping Constants of a Machine

Foundation

The stiffness and damping constants of the shallow foundation shown in Fig.

2.17 are to be evaluated for the data given below:

1.The Machine:

Weight 2000 Ib (88.96 x1 03N)

Height of horizontal excitation 12 ft (3.657 m)

2.The Footing:

R.C. density 150 Ib/ft3 (23.57x 103 N/m3 )

Dimensions:

a= 10 ft (3.048 m)

b= 16 ft (4.87 m)

c= 8 ft (2.44 m)

height of centroid of system (Yc) 4.75 ft (1.448 rn)

76
 Figure 2.17: Machine Found ation Used in Example

r------­
I

I I I -~
I
Ye ~
I
I- ~

-il:CG ~
u, 1
• • (\J
X ~
l"~
E E
\Cl
'<t
Yc = I.45m co I '<t
(\J
=4 .7 5 ft rri

/ / //// / / / // / /.
~
. / / / // / /
I "
U

/// / / /77

,I
!

b = 4 .87 m ( 16 f r) !
~l

(
, I

Px(r) I o
t ~ E
- - 1z:-t) - - - - ­ - I­ ~
~ 17 ~
o

o > 4 .877m ( 16 f t )

77
3. The Soil :

Unit weight (y) 100 Ib/ft (15.714x10N/m)

Unit mass (p) 3.105 slug/ft (1602 kg/m)

Shear wave velocity (Vs ) 492.1 fUsec (150 m/sec)

Material damping (tanc) 0.1

Poisson's ratio (v) 0.25

4. Masses: from 1 and 2

Total mass of the system, m 6583 slug (9.60x10 4 kg)

Solution

The stiffness and damping constants will be calculated for the following vibration modes:

1. Vertical mode

2. Coupled horizontal and rocking vibration in X-V plane

3. Torsional mode.

Equivalent radii: from formulae (2.19)

lab
Translation : Ru , R" = V-; == 2.174 m == 7.132 ft

A~

Rocking: R'I' = v3"; =1.96 m =6.43 ft

78
 ab (a 2 + b 2 )
Torsion: RTI::: 4 ::: 2 .26 m ::: 7.414 ft
6Jr

Shear modulus of soil :

G = p V} ::: 1602 X (150)2::: 3.6045x107 N/m ::: 7.519x10s Ibltf

CASE (1) - SHALLOW FOUNDATION

Shallow foundation overlying a deep homogeneous soil layer (halfspace) with no

embedment.

a. Soil Material Damping Neglected:

- - -
Use formulae (2 .24 - 2 .27). Setting all constants SV1, 5 "2' S'11, 5"/2 S",1 , 5 'f/ 2' SU1, and
I

Su 2 equal to zero (Le. no embedment cont ribution) and reading the values of the other

constants CV1, C"2'" from Table 2.2 for granular soil the stiffness and damping

constan ts are:

Vertical Motion :

= 3.604x10 7 x 2.174 x 5.2 =4.074x108 N/m

= 2.788x10 7 Iblft

= (2 .174)2 x (1602 x 3.60 x 10 7)1/2 x 5

6 s
::: 5.68x10 Nrrn/sec > 3 .887x10 Iblftlsec

79
Coupled Motion:

8
=3.604x10 7 x 2.174 x 4.7 = 3.683x10 N/m

7
= 2.520x10 Ib/tt

;::: (2.174) X 2.403x10 5 x 2.8

= 3.18x10 6 N/m/sec;::: 2.176x10 5Ib/fUsec

=1.668x10 9 N.m/rad ;::: 2.857x10 8 Ib.fUrad

4 4 1.45"1
= 2.403x10 5 [(1.96) x 0.5 +(2.174} x (- ) - x 2.8]
2.17

;::: 1.15x10 7 Nrn/rad/sec > 1.97x106Ib .ftJrad/sec

7
= -3.604x10 x 2.174 x 1.45 x 4.7

= -5.34x10 8 N/rad =-1.199x10 8Ib/rad

r:-;::; 2 ­
CUl{/ =- '\j P G Ru YcCu 2 = -2.403x1 05 x (2.174)2 x 2.8 x 1.45

= - 4.611x10 6 N/rad/sec = -1.035x10 6Ib/rad/sec

80
Torsion:

k'7'1 :::;; GR~ C'11 =3.604x10 7 X (2.26)3 X 4.3

=1.789x10 9 N.m/rad =3.065x10 8Ib.fUrad

=(2.26t X 2.403x10 5 x 0.7

= 4.39x10 6 Nrn/rad/sec = 7.52Ix10 5Ib.ftIrad/sec

b.Soii Material Damping included (tano =2~ =0.1)

Use Eqs, 2.18. For hysteretic material damping frequency w is needed. If the

footing response is to be evaluated for a given operating frequency this operating

frequency is substituted for w. If whole response curves are to be calculated, the

frequency is better taken as equal to the natural frequencies of the footing, l.e. (0 = WI.

The natural frequencies are calculated in Chapter 4, in which the effect of material

damping on the stiffness and damping constants of the footing is accounted for.

81
 3

STIFFNESS AND DAMPING

OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

) . ., Ilrrl'U:."~ '"'I......... _. _
Examples of pile supported structures are shown in Fig. 3.0.

Figure 3.0: Examples of Pile Supported Structures

a) offshore towers b) nuclear reactors

;
i

~J
t:
.IU J i
"
e- o.
'-1.\ r<--'"' I '""--' r.:­

-
-
~~ I­
I
!
I
J
.:.; -
_.
"...
"-'- ­

-._. .
"--'-­
- -. o ~ .
=

c) buildings d) machine foundations

I I

i 1

I I

I i
I I
I ,
;
I
I !

Stiffness and damping of piles are affected by interaction of the piles with the

surrounding soil. In the past, consideration of this interaction was limited to the

Q '1
determination of the length of the so-called equivalent cantilever which was a free

standing bare pile shorter than the embedded pile. Pile damping was estimated .

More recent approaches consider soil-pile interaction in terms of continuum

mechanics and account for propagation of elastic waves. The solution is conducted

using a few approaches as shown in Fig. 3.1; the continuum approach (Tajimi, 1969;

Kobori et aI., 1977; Novak and Nogami, 1977), the lumped mass model (Penzien, 1964;

Matlock et al., 1978) and the finite element method (Kuhlemeyer,1976; Blaney et aI.,

1976; Wolf and von Arx, 1978). More recently, the boundary element, or boundary

integral, method has also been used, e.g. by Davies et al. (1985). Such studies indicate

that dynamic soil-pile interaction modifies pile stiffness making it, in general, frequency

dependent and generates geometric damping as with shallow foundations. In groups of

closely spaced piles, the character of dynamic stiffness and damping is further

complicated by interaction between individual piles known as pile-soil-pile interaction or

the group effect. It is useful therefore to discuss single piles first. Small amplitudes and

linear behaviour are assumed in most of the studies referred to.

Figure 3.1: Mathematical Models used for Dynamic Analysis of Piles

CONTi ~JU Ur'i LUt·:PED MASS

FEr"
------,-~-i-IT:...........~\.J\.<---
.. . I j
kI- H­ I
,
J

., .
..
I----eE­ T
U .­
I I
I ,I
- .. HE-a-r\Nl'1

84
3.1 Single Piles

Dynamic behaviour of embedded piles depends on frequency and the properties

of both the pile and soil. The pile is described by its length, bending and axial stiffness,

tip and head conditions, mass and batter . Soil behaviour depends on soil properties and

their variation with depth and layering.

Figure 3.2: Generation of Pile Stiffness in Individual Directions

Hc :::'::on ,-" I Rot.a :.i on Tc r5 . ~.::>;}

As with shallow foundations, the prediction of the response of pile supported

footings and structures requires knowledge of dynamic stiffness and damping of piles.

These properties can either be described in terms of complex stiffness (impedance

functions) as in Eq. 2.9a, that is as K = K1 + iK2 or by means of true stiffness, ki, and the
constant of equivalent viscous damping , c. , as in Eq. 2.12. The single subscript

indicates the properties of a single pile. The constants ki = K1 and Cj = K2 /0), These
constants can be determined experimentally or theoretically. The latter approach is

preferred because experiments, though very useful, are difficult to generalize. In the

theoretical approaches, dynamic stiffness is generated by calculating the forces needed

85
to produce vibration of the pile head having a sole, unit amplitude in the prescribed

direction (Fig. 3.2 Such theoretical studies have shown (Novak, 1974) that the stiffness

constants, ki • and the constants of equivalent viscous damping, c, of single piles can be

described for individual motions of the pile head as follows:

Vertical translation:

(3.1a)

Horizontal translation:

(3.1b)

Rotation of the pile head in the vertical plane:

(3 .1 c)

Coupling between horizontal translation and rotation :

(3.1d)

Torsion:

G J GpJ
kTJ -
- Rp I.7]1 , e7] = V j, 7]2 (3.1e)
s

In these expressions, Ep is the Young's modulus of the pile, A and I its cross-

sectional area and moment of inertia (second moment of area) respectively and R pile

radius or equivalent radius; GpJ is torsional stiffness of the pile. Finally, the symbol f 1 ,2

86
represents dimensionless stiffness and damping functions whose subscript 1 indicates

stiffness and 2 indicates damping. These functions depend on the following

dimensionless parameters:

(1) dimensionless frequency ao = wRNs ,

(2) the relative stiffness of the soil and pile, which can be described either by the

modulus ratio G/E p or velocity ratio v =V s /VC in which V s :::; shear wave velocity of soil

and v, = longitudinal (P-wave) velocity in the pile equal 10 ~ E P where PP =pile

Pp

mass density,

(3) the mass ratio

(4) the slenderness ratio l/R in which I :::; pile length

(5) material damping of both the soil and pile.

Finally, the functions f also depend on the tip condition , fixity of the head and the

variation of soil and pile properties with depth. For a mathematically accurate

consideration of all these factors , the use of a computer is necessary. A method

suitable for such calculations and accounting for an arbitrary soil profile was presented

by Novak and Aboul-Ella (1978) and extended to include pile separation due to lack of

bond between the pile and soil by the writer and Sheta (1980). These solutions are

based on the plane strain soil reactions defined by Eqs. 2.23 and an efficient computer

program, DYNA5, facilitates their use.

However, all factors affecting the function f are not of equal importance in all

situations. Often some of them can be neglected, making it possible to present

numerical values of functions f for some basic cases in the form of tables or charts.

87
 The effect of dimensionless frequency can be seen from Fig. 3.3. The real pile

stiffness (Fig. 3.3a) diminishes with frequency quickly if the soi) is very weak relative to

the pile (curve 1). This happens when the soil shear modulus is very low or when the

pile is very sturdy.

Figure 3.3: Example of Variation of Pile Vertical Stiffness with Frequency and Soil

Stiffness (Nogami and Novak, 1976)

1.2- 1.0 o ;;. o.or

tC
o ,. 0.04
Q) ; . 0 .08 0
0.8 @ @ 0 .8 b,. w/lFIRST NAT URAL FRE O.
or THE Pfl.El 0
..... 0.6 k· • kif STATICAL U
I.
V)
VI
0.4 RE AL PART
o '"
....
VI
0 .6

.~
...
'­
O.Z
...z
'- 0 .4
I­ 0.2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .6 1.0 ....
V>
.... '0.2 FREOUE NCY b l
0 .2
- 0 ,4 Y 0 ,4
•

j • 0 .6
- 0 .6
D • OOZ
l.z
, 0 .a L.. ~ 0 .4 0 .6 0 .6
FRECUENCY b,
1.0

For slender piles in average soils, dynamic stiffness can be considered to be

practically independent of frequency as indicated by curves 2 and 3. The troughs visible

on curves 2 and 3 are caused by soil layer resonances but they completely disappear

for higher values of soil material damping , 0 = tano. The imaginary part of stiffness (pile

damping) grows almost linearly with frequency and therefore can be represented by

constants of equivalent viscous damping Cj which are also almost frequency

independent. Only below the fundamental natural frequencies of the soil layer given by

Eqs. 2.29 does geometric damping vanish and material damping remains the principal

source of energy dissipation; then the soil damping can be evaluated using Eq. 2.30b.

88
The disappearance of geometric damping may be expected with low frequencies,

shallow layers and/or stiff soil. Apart from these situations , frequency independent

viscous damping constants and functions f 2 which define them, are sufficient for

practical applications.

The mass ratio PP is another factor whose effect is limited to extreme cases. Pile

stiffness and damping changes significantly with the mass ratio only for very heavy piles

(Novak and AbouJ-Ella, 1978b).

The Poisson's ratio effect is very weak for vertical vibration, absent for torsion

and not very strong for the other modes of vibration unless the Poisson 's ratio

approaches 0.5 and frequencies are high. The effect of Poisson's ratio on parameters

f 1,2 can be further reduced if the ratio E/Ep rather than G/Ep is used to define the

stiffness ratio.

Figure 3.4: Comparison of Vertical Stiffness and Damping Parameters of

Floating Piles with End Bearing Piles (Novak, 1977, ao =0.3)

D Ob ,..

I
\
\
\
- - fl OA""O PIl[

- - - [NO a~AFl'I'j(; PIL£.

\
, I ,? l OA....PIN al
\
\

" ....
__~'"'r-- -
-­ '\.----­

I
40 &0 ~c lDO
Pll£. Sl C N O <: R N ~S S {f R

89
 The slenderness ratio, I/R, and the tip conditio n are very impo rtant for short piles

particularly in the vertical direction in which the piles are stiff . Floating piles have lower

stiffness but higher damping than end bearing piles (Fig. 3.4). In the horizontal direction,

the piles are very flexible and consequently parameters f 1,2 become practically

independent of pile slendemess (length) and the tip condition for I/R ratios greater than

about 25 if the soil medium is homogeneous (Fig. 3.5 ). If soil stiffness diminishes

upward , as in Gibson's medium, parameters f 1,2 level off at higher I/R ratios.

Figure 3.5: Variation in Stiffness and Damping Parameters with Slenderness for

Pinned Tip and Fixed Tip Piles (Novak, 1974, ao = 0.3)

- - P!NNED TlP
-- - - ", XE D r IP
I

<:> 1

Z ,

~ 1

~ \ f

~~ o.Olr \ ~"'7_-----::-
t u2 0 .0)
~ );?\
.. .
"""""-- -----..,-----..,-­
... .
)(
rI ,/ \ .

oL.
J / ''-..,..

U1
f , ! ,
o 10 20 :30 40 ~o

PIL =: SLE ND=:;:lNE SS 2./R

The above observations suggest that the most important factors controlling the

stiffness and damping functions f 1.2 are: the stiffness ratio relating soil stiffness to pile

stiffness, the soil profile and, for the vertical direction , the tip condition.

90
 With the qualifications outlined above, stiffness and damping parameters f 1.2

appearing in Eqs. 3.1a to 3.1e are given for a few basic cases in Table 3.1 and Figs. 3.6

and 3.7. All data are given for homogeneous media as well as parabolic variation of soil

shear modulus with depth and vertical piles of circular cross-section. For other cross­

sections, the same data can be used after an equivalent pile radius has been

established. This radius relates to soil reactions and is therefore best evaluated from

Eq. 2.19a in which a and b are external dimensions such as width and depth; A, I and J

are used as they really are. Table 3.1 gives parameters f 1.2 for horizontal translation and

rocking for piles whose slenderness ratio ZlR ~ 25. In the vertical response , parameters

f 1,2 depend strongly on slenderness and tip condition.

Fig. 3.6 gives the vertical parameters for end bearing piles while Fig. 3.7

corresponds to floating (friction) piles. All data were calculated using the program

PILAY2 and are numerically accurate for ao ;:::0.3, Pp ;:::1, tans (soil) = 0.05, tanf (pile) =
0.01 . The functions fu~. 2 give the values for pinned head piles.

91
 Figure 3.6: Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Vertical Response for End

Bearing Piles

..J
20
tI1

~ !£? 006 r---~~~==:jZ::'...i:~-===t=====l

~ 0
~ w
~ z
.:< w
~ ~ O.O~ I
]"T
/T/ "

!-!
,~

~ . I 2~OO
o.0 2 C- I ~
( I -------'
o _ _-:.- : - -=c--i L~ O'O~
o 20 40 60 80 10 0

0 .1 0 I
f V1 S"TI .fFNESS
II
-

f V2 ­ DA:I.P ING
ur 0 .08 ;"'
; _ -\._!-­_ _ ....l.­_
, , I

...J
u, I
o I
..,:.... Q:
0..
I

]
(j)
0:: ...J
0.0 6 \-----1~--.,.L+--
r77~~
W 0 500
I- \f)
w
~ u
<! ...J / '777777
0::
<: CD
0 H
0- <: GSOll
0::
<:r:
c,

00

92
 Torsional parameters are needed less often because they are significant only for

caissons and small groups of very massive piles. They can be found in Novak and

Howell (1977 1978). The data given in Table 3.1 and Figs. 3.6 and 3.7 are from the
I

paper by Novak and EI Sharnouby (1983) in which the effect of limited stratum depth is

also described.

For more general soil properties, i.e. arbitrary layering , the functions f 1.2 have to

be calculated using the approaches mentioned above. (Program DYNA5 is available)

Table 3.1 Stiffness and damping parameters of horizontal response (UR>25 for
homogeneous soil and LlR>30 for parabolic soil ~rofil~)j
I
( . tr U. ~ , r,"
l­

Soil v Ep/G filii fd fU1 fu l P f",2 F c2 fU 2 ful

IT
Pro­
file
10000 0.2135 -0.0217 0.0042 0.0021 0.1577 -0.0333 0.0107 0.0054
0.25 2500 0.2998 -0.0429 0.0119 0.0061 0.2152 -0.0646 0.0297 0.0154
1000 0.3741 -0.0668 0.0236 0.0123 0.2598 -0.0985 0.0579 0.0306
500 0.4411 -0.0929 0.0395 0.0210 0.2953 -0.1337 0.0953 0.0514
250 0.5186 -0.1281 0.0659 0.0358 0.3299 -0.1786 0.1556 0.0864
b 1
so i1 0.4 10000 0.2207 -0.0232 0.0047 0.0024 0.1634 -0.0358 0.0119 0.0060

2500 0.3097 -0.0459 0.0132 0.0068 0.2224 -0.0692 0.0329 0.0171

homo 1000 0.3860 -0.0714 0.0261 0.0136 0.267 7 -0.1052 0.0641 0.0339

IT
500 0.4547 -0.0991 0.0436 0.0231 0.3034 -0.1425 0.1054 0.0570
250 0.5336 -0.1365 0.0726 0.0394 0.33 77 -0 .1896 0.1717 0.0957
10000 0.1800 -0.0144 0.0019 0.0008 0.1450 -0.0252 0.0060 0.0028
0.25 2500 0.2452 -0.0267 0.0047 0.0020 0.2025 -0.0484 0.0159 0.0076

1000 0.3000 -0.0400 0.0086 0.0037 0.2499 -0.0737 0.0303 0.0147

500 0.3489 -0.0543 0.0136 0.0059 0.2910 -0.1008 0.0491 0.0241

250 0.4049 -0.0734 0.0215 0.0094 0.3361 -0.1370 0.0793 0.0398

bSQlil 0.4 10000 0.1857 -0.0153 0.0020 0.0009 0.1508 -0.0271 0.0067 0.0031

2500 0.2529 -0.0284 0.0051 0.0022 0.2101 -0.0519 0.0177 0.0084

parab 1000 0.3094 -0.0426 0.0094 0.0041 0.2589 -0.0790 0.0336 0.0163
500 0.3596 -0.0577 0.0149 0.0065 0.3009 -0.1079 0.0544 0.0269
250 0.4]70 -0.0780 0.0236 0.0103 0.3468 -0.1461 0.0880 0.0443

93
Figure 3.7: Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Vertical Response for Floating

Piles

0 .:0 ~-'-----.,--

0 .08

PILE

94
3.2 PILE GROU PS

Piles are usually used in groups. The behaviour of the group depends on the

distance between the piles . When the distance between the piles is large, say twenty

diameters or more, the piles do not affect each other and the group stiffness and

damping are simple sums of contributions from the individual piles. If, however, the

piles are closely spaced , they interact with each other and this pile-soil-pile interaction

or group effect exerts considerable influence on the stiffness and damping of the group.

These two basic situations may be treated separately.

Pile Interaction Neglected

When the spacing between the piles is large, their interaction can be neglected

and the stiffness and damping of the group are determined by the summation of

stiffness and damping constants of the individual piles. In the vertical and horizontal

directions this is straight-forward; for coupled sliding and rocking as well as torsion, the

position of the reference point such as the centre of gravity , CG, and the arrangement of

the piles in plan comes into play. For example , the group stiffness and damping in

rotation derives from the horizontal, vertical and moment resistances of individual piles

because the unit displacement \V = 1 occurs at the reference point (Fig. 3.8).

95
Figure 3.8: P Ie Displacements for Determination of group Stiffness and Damping

Related to Rctatlon e =1

- .-.:..------ ­
~ Sf J ).....' --:'- fA c.-. :?
~..ti. . a I {' .c _\..
1.t
.
Consequently, the pile head undergoes a horizontal translation Uh ::: Ye, a vertical

translation Vh ;:: Xr and the rotation 'IIh ;:: 1. For torsional stiffness and damping of the

group, the unit twist '11 ::: 1 applied at CG twists the pile by the same angle and translates

the head horizontally by a distance equal to (Fig.3.9) . With these

considerations, and the notation of Figs. 3.8 and 3.9 the stiffness and damping

constants of the pile group for the individual directions are as follows:

Vertical translation:

(3.2a)
r

(3.2b)
r

96
 t" - _ J
r '-~' L

III I •

( 17 ) • 1

.
I
I
u- I . ~. c.. - I ,
I
Horizontal translation:

(3.3a)
I~
({" ,­ " , A ­ '"

...
( ,
(3.3b)
, (/
u t - , •

Rotation of the cap in the vertical plane: " If ,

klf/If/ = L (klf/ .+kv x;)- ku Y;- Zk; Yc) (3.4a)

r \~. /
'i _ <....

_,,(
CIfIf - L...J CIf + c; x,2 + Cu Y c2_2Cc Yc ) (3.4b)
r

Coupling between horizontal translation and rotation:

Torsion about vertical axis:

/' . r' ;\ . . ....-­

kryry = L [kry ~ ku ~y + zj )] (3.6a)

r

(3.6b)
r

The summation extends over all the piles. The distances x r, z. and Yc refer to the

reference point as indicated in Fig. 3.8. The torsional constants k l1 and ct') can usually be

97

neglected.

If the pile heads are pinned, k'll = kc =0 and e.v = cc = 0 in the above formulae
and k, has to be evaluated for pinned head piles. Only the vertical constants labeled v

are the same for fixed as well as pinned heads.

Figure 3.9: Pile Displacements for Determination of Group Stiffness and Damping

in Torsion 11

'J
'- ": \ I
.J \

- 1 I I

Pile Interaction Considered

When piles are closely spaced, they interact with each other because the

displacement of one pile contributes to the displacements of others. The study of these

effects calls for the consideration of the soil as continuum. For static loads , pioneering

research in this field has been conducted by Poulos who published his results in a

number of papers (e.g. 1968, 1971. 1974, 1-979) and in an extensive monograph

(Poulos and Davis, 1980). Other data on static interaction effects were reported by

Banerjee (1978) as well as Butterfield and Banerjee (1971). These studies indicate that

the main results of static pile interaction are an increase in settlement of the group , the

98
 ' ,. IJVr;'v J '"

'j
(u {
• I
I -flil ._ I ' I) \ - ~1 ': C,- of I 0
\ I

redistribution of pile stresses and, with rigid caps, redistribution of pile loads.

The studies of dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction are only recent and few in

number. Various approaches have been used, all limited to linear elasticity: the finite

element method (Wolf and von Arx, 1978, 1981), a semi analytical solution (Waas and

Hartmann , 1981), the boundary integral procedure (Aubry and Chapel, 1981) and

approximate analytical solutions (Nogami, 1980 and Sheta and Novak, 1982). These

studies suggest a number of observations; dynamic group effects are profound and

differ considerably from static group effects. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles

groups vary with frequency and these variations are more dramatic than with single

piles. Group stiffness and damping can be either reduced or increased by pile-soil-pile

interaction.

These effects can be demonstrated if the group stiffness and damping are .~

described in terms of the group efficiency ratio GE defined as:

,\
.~ , :~ I­
Ll
,+I' .group stiffness
group eJJlClency =- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
sum of stiffness of individual piles i·1
IJ
i.e. GE =~roup II. k,
where k is stiffness of individual piles considered in isolation. When the pile-sail-pile

interaction effects are absent GE = 1. The group efficiency damping can be defined in

the same way.

For the basic group of two piles, the group efficiency of vertical stiffness of two

end bearing piles is presented in Fig. 3.10. The efficiency ratio is shown for different

dimensionless frequencies and varying dimensionless separation sId in which s is the

distance between the piles and d their diameter. The static efficiency calculated by

99
means of Poulos' (1974) results is also plotted for comparison. At very low freq uencies.
such as ao =0.01, the dynamic group efficiency increases monotonically just as static

group efficiency. However, as the frequency increases, the group efficiency starts to

fluctuate about unity. This fluctuation is even stronger for damping for which the group

efficiency can be either much greater or much smaller than unity (Fig. 3.11). The

weakened zone around the pile, characterized by the ratio Gm IG and tm JR, in which Gm

and tm are the shear modulus and thickness-of the weakened zone , has a strong

influence on damping.

r.
\
"-~ '.

,
. r-.

100
Figure 3.10: Group efficiency of vertical stiffness of two end bearing piles for

varying pile separation (sId) and different frequencies (ao) (Sheta & Novak, 1982)

1'""7'>
\.81
n..
<:»
VERTi CAL
.
U'>
4
,
,
....;
E N D 8£ :'RI N G
-l ~.:- . 1
,-- s ~ -J
0- "; L/ D"2S · DO

!:1:- ~_--·-·~

uJ ~ - o_o, \

~
c:
' - STAT IC ( POU LO S J974)

=""

~
0-
,
, --~----,----""",,-----,-----'------r-'
30 ·
_.-.--_ .--., - ' --" -' -' -' -' -. -. -' j

+0·
1 O. 20 ­
s id

Figure 3.11 : Group Efficiency of Vertical Stiffness and Damping of Two Floating

Piles for Different Separations and Weakened Zones Around Piles (rO =R)

~o ~ c.'a
t / :l t -1 0
r l. O;' '' 1 ·~ C.

1. , ~r: .
i
30. .0,_
s Id

101
 Another remarkable feature of dynamic behaviour of pile groups is the oscillatory

variation of stiffness and damping with frequency (Fig. 3.12) . Curves numbered 4 and 5

were calculated including pile-soli-pile interaction while for the other curves this

interaction was neglected. Different soil profiles were considered as well as a

composite soil medium that incorporates the weakened zone (curves 5). This zone

reduces the sharp peaks observed in the homogeneous medium (curve 4) but does not

eliminate them. Obviously, dynamic group-effects are quite complex and there is no

simple way of alleviating these complexities. The use of suitable computer programs

appears necessary to describe the dynamic group stiffness and damping over a broad

frequency range. However, a thorough experimental verification of the phenomena

indicated by theoretical analysis is still lacking.

The only simplifications available are the approximate approach due to Dobry

and Gazetas (1988) in which the interaction problem is reduced to the consideration of

cylindrical wave propagation . The replacement of the group by an equivalent pier,

considering the dynamic interaction as equal to static interaction or using dynamic

interaction factors. The equivalent pier cannot yield the peaks shown in Fig. 3.12, may

be applicable only for very closely spaced piles and may overestimate the damping

(Novak and Sheta, 1982). The static interaction may be sufficiently accurate for

dynamic analysis if the frequencies of interest are low and especially if these

frequencies are lower than the natural frequencies of the soil deposit given by Eqs .

2.29 .

102
Figure 3.12: Variation of (a) Stiffness and (b) Damping of Group of Four Piles with

Frequency and Soil Profile (Sheta and Novak, 1982)

...
ir­ '--
~

"2 ~
. \0 ;
z
f';
I: ec

'"
,.
~

<"00

-~ ,0

.0

o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

!
"'e"
r"'ro", ...cy ~J=t&,jlA.'iS '" 5,t(.'

~ . A Or.> '_='~A ~ __.;., IT:. k

rf.a',o.J"~C ¥ ~-r. ~.;1I4"'S I s.r: }

Evaluation of Group Stiffness Using Static Interaction Coefficients

An accurate analysis of static behaviour of pile groups also has to be done using

a suitable computer program, i.e. Poulos and Randolph (1982), EI Sharnouby and

Novak (1985). However, a simplified approximate analysis suitable for hand calculation

can be formulated on the basis of interaction factors , o, introduced by Poulos (1971).

The interaction factors derive from the deformations of two equally loaded piles and give

the fractional increase in deformation of a pile due to deformation of an equally loaded

neighbouring pile. The flexibility and stiffness are then established by superposition of

the interaction between individual pairs of piles in the group. The approximation comes

from neglecting the stiffening effect of the other piles when evaluating the factors o , The

accuracy of the approach appears adequate, at least for small and moderately large

groups (Poulos and Randolph, 1982, EI Sharnouby and Novak, 1985).

103
 The interaction factors for both axial and lateral loading can be found in the form

of charts in Poulos and Davis (1980). Some of them are shown in Figs. 3.13 and 3.14.

Fig. 3.13 gives the interaction factors for the vertical direction, Ctv, for three values of the

length to diameter ratio, lid. Soil stiffness variation with depth is accounted for by the

ratio p ::: the average shear modulus, Gave /shear modulus at the pile base, and G1• The

relative stiffness of the pile and soil is defined by the stiffness ratio A. = Ep I Gl. There is

an approximately linear relationship between Ctv and Ig (sId). For A. - 500, typical of

offshore structures, Ct can be estimated from the formula (Randolph and Poulos, 1982)

0.5 In(l/ s)
a; = ( I
In --­
J for s ::; I (3.7)

dp

For lateral loading, the pile behaviour depends on 4L- h e length of the upper part of the

pile which deforms appreciably under lateral loading. This critical length may be

estimated as (see Randolph , 1981)

(3.8)

In which R =pile radius and Ge = the average value of shear modulus of the soil over

the critical length, Ie. A few iterations may be needed to find corresponding values of Ge.

G, /4
and Ie Define further pc as the ratio. Pc = Gc
in which G1e 14 is the shear modulus at

depth z = [cf4. Then, the interaction factors for horizontal translation, u, and rotation , 'V,

104
may be estimated as (Randolph and Poulos, 1982)

a uf::::: E J'7'-(1
0.6 r. _P R + cos" fJ)
( Gc s

(3.9)

2 3
ar;;H = a uH , a/f/.!vf :; ; ; a uH

in which a auf = horizontal interaction factor for fixed-headed piles (no head rotation

allowed); auH = horizontal interaction factor due to horizontal force (rotation allowed);

a'llH =rotation due to horizontal force and u'lIM = rotation due to moment. Finally, the

angle between the direction of the loading and the line connecting the pile centres (Fig.

3.14) When the interaction factor, a, calculated exceeds 1/3, its value should be

replaced by:

a' = 1- 2 (3.10)
-J27a

This correction is made to avoid U ---7 00 when s ---7 O.

Eqs. 3.8 and 3.9 and the charts make it possible to correct the group stiffness

given by Eqs. 3.2 to 3.6 for the interaction effects using the interaction factors as

flexibility coefficients normalized by the flexibility of the isolated pile f =1/k.

105
 Figure 3.13: Interaction Factors for Vertically Loaded Piles (Poulos, 1979)

o J x lD~
)., = Ep/G c
O!
et"

0t01[--­ __
0 .6
os
­'­
P =0.) f) :
il L p; 0.5
' f~
o0·]
G, - -'"
I
-­ -'­ ---h-
I
- - ---.
C ; l ) 1 l
..£nl. /dl L.,vc )

{J = 0·75

---­ -''---...'--.
- -.- .~
! • . _-~- - "'''''''- J

I ) J L
L" 11 /0 1
C&
a.V
0 .&

O.L
p= I
--'­ ---.
0.1 --'--~
' ­ - r­ - •.::--:::­
. ..
Q o

10 1 lie = to Ib J 1/d =2s l c) l/d -:: 50

~
I <,
C'
-"'?"
k "'" Q.\ t L' • I" 'r

("
(. ~

106
 Figure 3.14: Interaction factors for Horizontally Loaded Fixed-Headed Piles

(Randolph and Poulos, 1982)

o.e
~l

~
0.7 ' \ ~.
~B
0 .(, ~,\ 'Ff­
x
-
P
4-­
A
~----

I
\
\
0.5 +\
+1\ +
\ £
Of. ... X
\ X
\ ...
++,
\

x
X
x

C.l Xx
++ + x
--- ---- -------:...t.- ~ __
o 2 L 6 e 10 12 11.. 16 18 20 ~
pde- spacIng ~ ~(~)
r _/' G
c

For the vertical stiffness of a symmetrical pile group, a very simple formula

results from this consideration if it is assumed that all piles carry the same load. Then,

the group stiffness may be estimated as

(3.11)
r

in which k, is the vertical stiffness of the isolated pile, available from Figs. 3.6 and 3.7

and Uv are the interaction f actors between a reference pile, it and pile r with r = 1, 2,

107
... .n where n is the number of piles. The reference pile should not be in the centre or at

the periphery and has aii = 1. If a-rigid cap is assumed which implies the same

displacements for all piles but different individual stiffnesses, a somewhat different

formula is obtained (Novak, 1979), i.e.

(3.12)
r

in which Eir are the elements of the inverted matrix, [airr 1 :::: [Eir] of all interaction factors,

air . This matrix [airJ lists the interaction factors a between any two piles and all diagonal

terms aii = 1. The difference between the results obtained by Eqs. 3.11 and 3.12 is

usually not great.

For the horizontal stiffness, the approximate correction may be done in a similar

fashion, using factors a.uf or C1. u H.

For rotation of a thin rigid cap , the rocking stiffness comes primarily from the

vertical stiffness of the piles. This part of the group stiffness becomes (Novak, 1979)

klf'If' = k; LL r
Cir Xi X,. (3.13)

in which x is the horizontal distance of the pile from the axis of rotation. For thick caps,

these corrections can be introduced into Eq. 3.4a .

For torsion of the cap ignoring the contribution from individual pile twisting, the

group stiffness can be written analogously as:

(3.14)

in which x and z are the pile coordinates indicated in Fig. 3.9; if C1.ir(x} and air(z), horizontal

108
interaction factors between piles i and r in direction X and Z, respectively, Sjr are the

1
elements in [eir J = [airr .

Another approach to the application of the interaction factors to stiffness

evaluation was formulated by Randolph and Poulos (1982) who presented formulae

particularly well suited to offshore pile groups .

Examples of the group effect on the efficiency ratio evaluated by means of Eqs.

3.12 to 3.14 are shown in Figs. 3.15.

Figure 3.15; Static Group Efficiency Ratio for Groups of 4 and 16 piles: Vertical,

Horizontal, Torsional, and Rocking Modes (Novak, 1979)

-'CI=­ = 25

-­ •

sic

:J 16 P il ES
.~ •• --= _ ,~~ _,••• •_ _ ~ . -=-:=:::~

....
_ _ _ _ M O' __ _ _ . ,_ __ _ , "-4 _ ••

. ~~~-------==- ~---
- r-- - - - ­
:{=-
=--~--- H -I5~
a_I_ . . . _ , -_,----,-_ - ~ - --"-- ' '' -''-.~---r
l
,....,{- '1""7"1
.. . )1:.-- I ~

si d

109
The static procedure does not offer any guidance as to the effect of interaction on group

damping. Indications are that group interaction usually increases the damping ratio (not

necessarily the damping constant c). To account for this approximately, the group

damping constants may be taken as:

A better estimate may be obtained using dynamic interaction factors discussed below.

Additional discussion of the above formulae for pile group stiffness will be given later.

Evaluation of Group Effects Using Dynamic Interaction Coefficients

To extend the interaction factors approach to dynamic situations, Kaynia and

Kausel (1982) presented charts for dynamic interaction. In the solution, the soil

reactions acting on the piles were evaluated numerically. The dynamic interaction factor

is a dimensionless, frequency dependent complex number, aU =Uij(1) + ia.ij(2) defined as:

. 17 Dynamic Displacement of Pile 2
Lnteraction r actor = -.,;~--_----:=---------=-----
Static Displacement of Pile 1

in which the displacement of pile 2 is caused by a unit harmonic load of pile 1 and the

static displacement of pile 1 is established for an isolated pile. The displacement means

either a translation or a rotation . These dynamic interaction factors are used in

association with stiffness and damping of single piles given above in the same way as

static interaction factors are. Examples of the dynamic interaction factors are given for

a limited range of parameters in Figs. 3.16 and 3.17. The oscillatory character of the

interaction curves is again evident. The interaction factors shown in Figs. 3 .16 and 3.17

110
can be used in lieu of static interaction factors in Eqs. 3.12 and 3.13. This substitution

yields complex group stiffnesses, k = k1 + ik2 whose imaginary part defines the group

damping constant c = k2 I (I). An increase in damping and strong variation with

frequency is often obtained. A derivation of all the complex stiffness constants including

the coupling terms is described for flexible caps, rigid caps and piles with separation

(gapping) in full detail in Novak and Mitwally (1987). In this paper, the closed form

formulae for group complex stiffness analogous to Eqs. 3.12 to 3.14 are derived.

For example, analogous to Eq.3-12, the vertical dynamic group stiffness is:

(3.15)
r

in which k is static stiffness of a simple pile and Sjr are the elements of the inverted

matrix [ar 1 = [s] in which the matrix [a] lists all the complex dynamic interaction factors

air between any two piles in the group. For purely horizontal vibration, the Eq 3.15 also

holds .

Equations 3.11 and 3.12 hold for both vertical stiffness and horizontal stiffness

with pertinent values SUbstituted. Eq. 3.11, which is easy to use, is accurate if all the

piles carry the same load; otherwise, it can be used as approximate assuming that the

pile loads are equal. In the latter case, the results somewhat depend on the choice of

the reference pile. Equations 3.12 to 3.14 are accurate for rigid caps but require matrix

inversions.

To further illustrate how the simpler solution by Eq. 3.11 is formulated for

dynamic analysis consider a group of n piles whose displacements and loads are

identical. As in the case of a doubly symmetrical group of four, with vertical (or

111
horizontal) harmonic load on each pile, Pi exp (kot). Define the complex dynamic

interaction factors u = U1 + iU2 as on p. 3.25 and in Figs. 3.16 and 3.17, i.e.

a lJ..
.t,
f
where f ij , is the complex dynamic deflection of pile j due to harmonic loading of pile j and

I is the static deflection of a single pile due to its own load . Assume further, that the

deflections fij and I correspond to a unit load and are, therefore, flexibility coefficients.

The total response of each pile is the sum of the displacement due to its own

loading, v11, and the displacements caused by the loading of the other piles, Vij ,

Omitting the common time factor, exp (kot), the total displacement of one pile can be

written as:

where f =f / I is the ratio of dynamic flexibility to static flexibility with f =I / K = the

inverse of single pile complex impedance, K (p. 3.2).

For the definition of group stiffness, all pile displacements v == 1. Then , the force

on one pile Pi, is equal to the stiffness of one pile, i.e.

P, = k. = ~ 1
I I f 11

t' + La l )
)':=2

The group stiffness is a sum of individual pile stiffnesses. Introducing the single pile

112
static stiffness k =1.., the complex stiffness of a group of n piles becomes
f

nk
(3.16)

In which

11 n

a = !r.~) + L
)=2
a 1j (I ) , b = 1(;) + L
)=2
a lj (2)

where the subscripts (1) and (2) indicate the real and imaginary parts of f and a1j

respectively. From K G the true group stiffness follows as kG :: Re KG and the

coefficient of equivalent viscous damping cG :: ImK GI co

Formulae analogous to Eq.3 .15 can be readily formulated for other vibration

modes as long as the pile loads can be assumed to be either equal or proportional.

More general formulae not limited by these assumptions are given by EI Naggar and

Novak (1995). If the interaction factors were defined as dynamic deflections,

normalized by dynamic single pile flexibility , f, rather than static flexibility, j, k would be

replaced by dynamic stiffness and f :: 1 in Eq. 3.16 ; f:: 1 also for static loading .

The interaction factor approach would be mathematically accurate, if the

interaction factors, and the single pile properties were calculated with all piles present in

the system, which is not normally done . Nevertheless, the results are quite adequate

for most applications . More significant errors, overestimating the interaction effects,

may occur in the vertical response of endbearing piles (EI Sharnouby and Novak 1985).

113
Figure 3.16: Interaction Curves for Horizontal and Vertical Displaceme t of Pile 2

due to Horizontal and Vertical Force on Pile 1 (Kaynia & Kausel, 1982) (ao = droNs )

~
d = 15 •'

IU;t.Fx
O.er
I x.Fx
u
0 .51- ( s" 0 .0) 0 .5 L

0.4 o.4L
0 .3 0 .3­
0 .2 0.2

0.1 0 .1

0 ,0 ,/ 0 .0
-oll~T"'----""'~~
.
r~, ,/ f""1:. -­
-0. I
_ O. 2 [,,- 7 »:
..,­
~ ~::l- 10 "-=:! »>
=~~t 1'[-,--- ~
-0.4 -----;-;f" '0
- 0.5 __ . . ... · t ~!

0 ,0 0.5 1.0 0 .0 0 .5 1.0

00 °0

0.7

0,4
0.3

."i'eoI po r t
-- - i ma go part
- 0.1
- 0 .2
_ hori zont al displ acement of
pi le 2 due to horizontal
- 0 .3 fo rce on pile 1
- 0 .4 ~ ver t i c al displace ~ent of
- 0.5 <-_ _ I' pile 2 due to ve rtical
0 .0 0.5 La 'f or ce on pile 1.

00

114
 Figure 3.17: Interaction Curves for Rotation of Pile 2 due to horizontal Force and

Moment on Pile 1 (Kaynia and Kausel, 1982)

(ao =droNs)
.. s
~

d
: i5 ,
t:.. s
Ep
= 10 -
~

. ;: p = 0 il)

1 ¢-'l. ::' }. :; j L:J; M

X
03
( 8 : C.Ol (6=7Tf2l
';
d .- -
Co 0 .2

0.1

/
/'
/'
./

I
0 .5 1.0
0 0

Rea l Po r t L rn n q . PorI

. 15
I c;.xMx

) . 10
~=2
d
( B = O.Ol

o.J ( $ = 11/2)

-0.05

[
- - 0 . 10

- 0 . 1 5 L- ..!-
I -'

0 .5 1.0 0 .0 0 .5 1.0
°0 00

115
3.3 LARGE DISPLAC EMENTS

For large displacements, piles behave in a nonlinear fashion, which manifests

itself by the lack of proportionality between the applied force and displacement. It is

very difficult to incorporate nonlinearity into rigorous dynamic solutions based on

continuum consideration; the inclusion of the weakened zone around piles or the

adjustment of soil shear modulus and damping according to strain level are about the

only practical corrections available. The finite element method could handle nonlinearity

but the solution is very costly and inaccurate.

The most practical model for nonlinear analysis is the lumped mass model in

which the soil stiffness and damping are discretized and represented by isolated springs

and dashpots featuring various nonlinear characteristics. Such models are popular in

offshore technology where large displacements are expected. An example of the

nonlinear lumped mass model is shown in Fig. 3.18. The lumped mass models can

reproduce the complex nonlinear behaviour observed in experiments. However, the

selection of nonlinear elements beforehand is difficult and group effects have not been

incorporated in these models as yet.

A useful FEM study of pile behaviour under large displacements is reported by

Trochanis et al. (1988) who investigated static monotonic and cyclic loading on single

piles and a pair of piles.

1)6
Figure 3.18: (a) Lumped Mass Model of Pile, (b) Observed Cyclic Reaction-

Deflection Characteristics (Matlock et al., 1978)

//
I I
, I ~ rt
I I rt.!
I I FI crd I
\ \ D:lmpil'l9
,\~ ri
\~L.! R ~;]:!Ion

\\
\ \
\]±....>-..-ol.9s

a) b)

117
Pile Batter

Pile batter (Fig. 3.18a) can be accounted for approximately by calculating first the

pile stiffnesses for a vertical pile, assembling them as the stiffness matrix [K J in

element coordinates and transforming this matrix into global coordinates being

horizontal and vertical (Novak 1979). This gives the pile stiffness matrix

[K] = [TJT[K] [T] (3.16)

in which the transformation matrix, [T] depends only on direction cosines.

I

When the horizontal coordinate axis lies in the plane of the batter (Fig. 3.18a),

the transformation matrix is:

~]
cosa sma

[T];::= - sin a cosa

(3.17)
[
o 0

and the pile stiffness matrix in global coordinates becomes

2 - .? ­
K K cos aK Uli + Sln- aK ww cosa sina(K11/I -KwJ cos a K1fIU]
K"" lJW U lfI
? - ? ­
x; K ww K ww = cos a sin a(K"" - K w ) sin - a K + cos- a K WH' sina K'I/II
lJU

[
«: K\I'It! KIf/
][
cosa K 11/II sina K'I/'I «:
(3.18)

The element impedance 'functions, are calculated assuming that the pile is vertical ;

Il8
Figure 3.18a: Stiffness Constants in Element and Global coordinates

I ~ 7

TRIAL SIZING OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

The design of a deep foundation for a centrifugal or reciprocating machine starts with

trial dimensions of the pile cap, and size and configuration of the pile group (Step No.3

in the design procedure). The trial sizing is based on guidelines derived from past

experience . The following guidelines may be used for trial sizing the pile cap:

1. The pile cap (block) mass should be 1.5-2.5 times the mass of the centrifugal

machine and 2.5-4 times the mass of the reciprocating machine.

2. The top of the cap should be 0.3 m above the elevation of the finished floor.

3. The thickness of the block should be the greatest of 0.6 m, the anchorage length of

the anchor bolts and 1/5 the least dimension of the block.

4. The width should be 1-1.5 times the vertical distance from the base to the machine

centreline to increase damping in rocking mode .

5. The length is estimated from the mass requirement and estimated thickness and

width of the block. The length should then be increased by 0.3 m for maintenance

purposes.

119
6. The length and width of the block are adjusted so that the centre of gravity of the

machine plus equipment lies within 5% of the block dimension in each direction,

from the block centre of gravity.

7. It is desirable to increase the embedded depth of the foundation to increase the

damping and provide lateral restraint as well.

The following guidelines may be used for the trial configuration of the pile group:

1. The number and size of piles are selected such that the average static load per pile

~ % the pile design load.

2. The piles are arranged so that the centroid of the pile group coincides with the

centre of gravity of the combined structure and machine.

3. If battered piles are used to provide lateral resistance (they are better than vertical

piles in this aspect), the batter should be away from the pile cap and should be
j I J
symmetrical. ;/ \ ;: / o/'V< V 'I/' • ~'

4. If piers are used, enlarged bases are recommended.

5. Piles and piers must be properly anchored to the pile cap for adequate rigidity

(common assumption in the analysis).

Important note: trial dimensions are only preliminary and a complete dynamic analysis

must be carried out to check that the performance is within the acceptable limits. If the

predicted response from the dynamic analysis exceeds the tolerance set by the

manufacturer, the foundation dimensions have to be adjusted and the dynamic analysis

be repeated until satisfactory performance is predicted .

120
REFERENCES (Piles)

Aubry, D. and Chapel, F. (1981) - "3-D Dynamic Analysis of Groups of Piles and
Comparisons With Experiment," SMIRT , Paris, pp. 9.

Banerjee, P.K. (1978) - "Analysis of Axially and Laterally Loaded Pile Groups ," Chapter
9 in "Developments in Soil Mechanics ," Ed. C.R. Scott, Applied Science Publishers ,
London, pp.317-346.

Blaney, G.W., Kausel, E. and Poesset, J.M .' (1976) - "Dynamic Stiffness of Piles," 2nd
Int. Conf. Numerical Methods in Geomech., ASCE, New York, P. 1001.

Butterfield , R. and Banerjee , P.K. (1971) - "The Elastic Analysis of Compressible Piles
and Pile Groups ," Geotechnique, Vol. 21, pp. 43-60.

Davies, T.G., Sen, R and Banerjee , P.K. (1985) - II Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups in
Inhomogeneous Soil," J. of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 12, December, pp.
1365-1379.

Kaynia, A.M. and Kausel, E. (1982) - "Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups," 2nd Int. Conf.
on Num. Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, Texas .

Kobori, T., Minai, Rand Baba, K. (1977) - "Dynamic Behaviour of a Laterally Loaded
Pile," 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Tokyo, Session 10, 6.

Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1979) - "Static and Dynamic Laterally Loaded Piles," J. Geotech.
Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT2, pp. 289-304.

Matlock, H., Foo, H.C. and Bryant, L.M. (1978) - "Simulation of Lateral Pile Behaviour
Under Earthquake Motion," Proc. Am. Soc . Civ. Engrgs. Specialty Conf. on Earthq.
Engrg. and Soil Dyn., Pasadena, Calif., II, pp. 600-619 .

Mitwally, H . and Novak, M. (1987) - "Response of Offshore Towers With Pile

Interaction," J. of Engrg. Mech., Vol. 113, No.7, July, pp. 1065-1084.

Nogami, T. (1980) - " Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Pile Groups in Inhomgeneous
Soil," Proc. of Session on Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects,
ASCE Nat. Conv., Oct., pp. 31-52.

Nogami, 1. and Novak, M. (1976) - "Soil-Pile Interaction in vertical vibration," J. Earthq.

Engrg. & Struct. Dyn., Vol. 4, pp . ,277-293.

Novak, M. (1974) - "Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles," Canadian Geotechnical

Journal, Vol. II, pp. 574-598.

Novak, M. (1977) - "Vertical Vibration of Floating Piles," Journal of the Engineering

121
Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. EM1, February, pp. 153-168.

Novak, M. (1979) - "Soil Pile Interaction Under Dynamic Loads," Proceedings of

International Symposium on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, London , England,
May, pp. 41-50.

Novak, M. and About-Ella, F. (1978a) - "Impedance Functions of Piles in Layered

Media," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. EM3, Proc.
Paper 13847,June, pp.643-661 .

Novak, M and Aboul- Ella, F. (1978b) - "Stiffness and Damping of Piles in Layered
1

Media", Proc. Earthg. Engrg. and Soil Dyn., ASCE Specialty, Conf., Pasadena,
California, June 19-21, pp. 704-719.­

Novak, M. and Grigg, R.F. (1976) - "Dynamic Experiments With Small Pile
Foundations", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, No.4, November, pp. 372-385.

Novak, M. and Howell, J.F. (1977) - "Torsional Vibration of Pile Foundations", Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT4, April, pp. 271-285.

Novak, M. and Howell, J.F. (1978) - "Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations in

Torsion" , Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT5,
pp. 535-552.

Novak, M. and Nogami , T. (1977) - "Soil Pile Interaction in Horizontal Vibration", Int. J.
Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, 5, July-Sept., No.3, pp. 263-282.

Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1980) - "Approximate Approach to Contact Problems of

Piles", Proc. Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE National Convention "Dynamic
Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects", Oct. 30, pp. 53-79

Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1982) - "Dynamic Response of Piles and Pile Groups", 2nd
Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, Texas, April.

Novak, M. and EI Sharnouby, B. (1983) - "Stiffness and Damping Constants of Single

Piles", J. Geotechnical Engineering Division , ASCE , July .

EI Sharnouby, B. and Novak, M. (1985) - "Static and Low Frequency Response of Pile
Groups", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, NO.1 .

Penzien, J., Scheffey, C.F. and Parmelee, R.A. (1964) - "Seismic Analysis of Bridges on
Long Piles", J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, EM3, pp. 223-254.

Poulos, H.G. (1968) - "Analysis of Settlement of Pile Groups", Geotechnique, Vol. 18,

pp. 449-471.

Poulos , H.G . (1971) - "Behaviour of Laterally Loaded Piles II - Pile Groups", J. Soil

122
Mech . Foundations Div.,ASCE, 97 (SM5), pp. 733-751.

Poulos, H.G. (1974) - Technical Note, J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, Vol. 100, No.
GT2, Feb., pp. 185-190.

Poulos, H.G. (1979) - "Group Factors for Pile-Deflection Estimation", J. Geotech.

Engrg. Div., ASCE, GT12, pp. 1489-1509.

Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. (1980) Pile Foundations Analysis and Design", John Wiley
and Sons, p. 397.

Novak, M and EI Shamouby, B. (1984) - "Evaluation of Dynamic Experiments on Pile

Groups ," J. Geotech. Engrg, Vol. 110, No.6, June, pp. 738-756.

Novak, M- and Mitwally, H. (1987) - "Random Response of offshore Towers With

Pile-Soil-Pile Interaction ," Proc. of 6th Inter-national Symposium on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering (CMAE), Houston , @s, March, Vol. 1, pp. 329-336.

Poulos, H.G. and Randolph, M.F. (1982) - "A Study of Two Methods for Pile Group
Analysis," J. Geot. Engrg. Div., ASCE.

Randolph, M.F. (1981) - "The Response of Flexible Piles to Lateral Loading"

Geotechnique, 31(2), pp. 247-259.

Randolph, M.F. and Poulos, H.G. (1982) - "Estimating the Flexibility of Offshore Pile
Groups ," Proc. of the Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling", Univ. Of Texas ,
Austin, May, p. 16.

Roesset, J.M. (1980) - "Stiffness and Damping Coefficients of Foundations." Proc. of

Session on Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects' ASCE National
Convention , Florida, Oct., pp. 1-30.

Sheta, M. and Novak, M. (1982) - "Vertical- Vibration of Pile Groups," J. Geotech.

Engrg. Div., ASCE , Vol. 108, No. GT4, April, pp. 570-590.

Tajimi, H. (1969) - "Dynamic Analysis of a Structure Embedded in an Elastic Stratum" ,

Proc. 4th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering , Chile.

Waas , G and Hartmann , H.G. (1981) - "Pile Foundations Subjected to Dynamic

Horizontal Loads," European Simulation Meeting "Modelling and Simulation of large
Scale Structural Systems, Capri, Italy, Sept pp. 17 (also SMIRT , Paris).

Wolf, J.P. and von Arx, G.A. (1978) - "Impedance Functions of a Group of Vertical
Piles," Proc . ASCE Specialty Conf. on Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dynamics,
Pasadena, Calif., II, pp. 1024-1041.

123
Wolf, J.P., von Arx, G.A., de Barros, F.e.p. and Kakubo, M. (1981) - "Seismic Analysis
of the Pile Foundation of the Reactor Building on the NPP Angra 2", Nuclear Eng. and
Design, Vol. 65, No.3, pp. 329-341.

Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G. (1988) - "Sirnple Method for Dynamic Stiffness and Damping
of Floating Pile Groups, " Geotechnique 38, No.4, pp. 557-574 .

Trochanis, A.M., Bielak, J and Christiano , P. (1988) - "A Three - Dimensional Nonlinear
Study of Piles Leading to the Development of a Simplified Model," Research report R­
88-176, Dept. of Civil Eng., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

EI Naggar, M.H. and Novak, M., 1996. Nonlinear analysis for dynamic lateral pile
response. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 15, No.4, pp.
233-244.

EI Naggar, M.H. and Novak, M., 1995. Non-linear lateral interaction in pile dynamics.
Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering , Vol. 14, No.2, pp. 141-157.

124
Example:

Evaluate the stiffness and damping constants of the pile foundation shown in Fig. 3.19.

The footing is the same as the one used in the example in Chapter 2, and thus has the

same mass, mass moments of inertia and the position of the centroid . The soil is also

the same for comparison.

The Soil: Homogeneous

Unit weight (y) 100 Iblft 3 (15.714x10 3 N/m)

Unit mass (p) 3.105 sluq/ft" (1602 kg/m3 )

Shear wave velocity 0Is) 492.1 ftlsec (150 m/sec)

Material damping (tan8) 0.1

Poisson's ratio (v) 0.25

The Piles:

End bearing piles - 8 soft wood piles

Unit weight (y) 48 Ib/ft3 (7542 N/m3 )

Pile length (I) 35 ft (10.668 m)

Effective radius (ra) 0.4166 ft (0.127 m)

Cross-sectional area (A) 0.5454 ft2 (0.05067 m2)

0.02366 ft4 (2.043x10-4 rn")

s, 1.728x108 Iblft2

(8.27x109 N/m2 )

Pile eccentricity (x-) 4 ft (1.219 m)

125
a) Single Pile

v =1/3 Ep/Gs ~ 250

10.66
Pile slenderness ratio =II R = 0.127 = 84

Vertical Motion:

Using Eqs . 3.1a,

Parameters fv1• fV2 follow from Fig. 3.6 for end bearing piles in homogeneous soil as:

fV 1 = 0.058 fY2 =0.097

I

then

9
k = 8.276 X 10 x 0.0506 (0.058)
\' 0.127

= 1.915x1 08 N/m

=1.31x1 07 Ib/ft

9
c = 8.276 x 10 x 0.0506 (0.097)
v 150

= 2.716x10 5 N/m/sec

= 1.85x104 Iblftlsec

126
 Figure 3.19: Pile Supported Machine Foundation

r----------l
1 !

I J
I , I

~
Ye
I ..-. I

--r-!
~

- -~-
u,

- - - I .. C\I

. "' r..
l if; '....
E
v. E:
-r/
Yc : 1.4 smj
I()
I ~
~
Py{t ) I
I :4'1 5
tt 1
rri N

"
,
/1I1
7/
I I
I I I
I
J
1
u

I J
r/ / / / / / / 1 / / / /

I! I I

~
i J

I
--i::
y J I

J:
I

W ty '-l­
)

i
I ,
I
0 • -:;;-' ,'""1. :I 1.22m
'.3 8 1rn
, :.3 '1m 1.3 7m I, 1.37 rn ,' 0. ::8
I
1'":1
, " , .. I •
:.22 m
,
a. 3 m
~

1.25 ft 4.5ft 4 .5 tt 4 .5 ft L2 5 !t : fl 4 fr 4 ft I f!

b : 4. 87 m { 16 t , ) ._ - ---:

I
)
.
-@- I -4- -$-
i

_r~x(t)
;
l , ; 3'

__ 4'

Ze
TJ
,
~ fT\
- o/~ · ~7 ·

a.38 m 1.37m 1. 3 7 m J.37 m ,a.38m

I- · 1- ~I· ~"' _ : 1

b " 4 .B77m (16 f l)

1.. .- '-'-----...,

127
Coupled horizontal and rocking motion:

Assume fixed head piles.

Using Table 3.1 for Ep IG s = 250 and homogeneous soil profile the parameters are

obtained for v = 1/3 by interpolation . This gives for a single pile:

9
_ 8.276 x 10 x 2.043 xI 0-4 (0.0692)
- (0.127r

=5.716x10 7 N/m = 3.911x106 Ibltt

c - EpI 1: 9
8.276xl0 x2.043xl0--4 (0.1636)
It - R2~. 112 = (0.127Y x 150

= 1.143x1 05 N/m/sec =7.824x1 03 Iblftlsec

9x2.043xl0-4
= 8.276xl0 (0.5261)
(0.127)

=7x10 6 N m/rad = 1.2x1061b ftlrad

9
_ 8.276 x 10 x 2.043 x 10-4 (0.334)
- 150

;:: 3.765x10 3 n rn/rad/sec = 654.0 Ib ftlrad/sec

;:: 10.48x10 7 x (-0.1323)

=- 1.387x10 7 N/rad =- 3.114x10 61b/rad

9
= 8.276xl0 x2.043xl0-4 (-0.1841)
0.127 x 150

=-16.34x10 3 N/rad/sec = - 3.668x10 3lb/rad/sec

128
Stiffness and damping constants for the pile group:

a) Pile Interaction Neglected

Using formulae 3.2 to 3.6, the following data are obtained for the individual directions:

Vertical:

= 8 x 1.915x1 08 = 15.32x1 08 N/m = 10.48x1 0 7 Ib/tt

r

Cuu ="""
L.J C u =8x2.716x10 5 = 21.73x10 5 N/m/sec=1.487x10 5 Ib/(ttsec)
r

Horizontal:

k vv := I. k;
r

=8 X 5.761x10 7 = 45.72x10 7 N/m = 3.129x10 7 1b/ft

C vv == """
L.J C v =8 X 1.143x105 = 9.147x105 N/m/sec =6.259x10 4lblftJsec
r

Rocking:

= 8 [7x10 3 + 1.915x1 05 x 1.22 2 + 5.716x1 04 x 1.4482 - 2(-1.387x1 04 ) x 1.448]

= 3.616x1 0 9 N m/rad = 6.195x1 0 8 Ib ftJrad

= 8 [3.767 + 271.6 x 1.22 2 + 114.31 X 1.448 2 - 2(-16.34) x 1.448]

=5.56x10 6 N m/rad/sec = 9.526x10 5 Ib ftJrad/sec

129
Coupling:

=8 x (-1.387X10 4
) - (8 x 5.716x10 4 x 1.448)

= -7.731x10 8 N/rad = -1.735x108 Ib/rad

= 8 (-16.34X10 3 ) -8 x 1.143x10 5 x 1.448

= -1 .455x1 06 N/rad/sec = -3.266x105 Ib/rad/sec

Torsional Vibration (see Figs. 3.9)

For slender piles kil l GIl can be neglected. Then from Eqs. 3.6

=4 X 5.716x10 7 [(1.22 2 + 0.68582)+(1.222 +2.952 )]

= 1.756x1 0 9 n m/rad = 3x1 08 Ib ftfrad

= 4 x 114.34 x 7.68

=3.5126x1 06 N m/rad/sec = 6.018x1 05 Ib ft/rad/sec

130
b) Pile Interaction Considered

As an approximation, static interaction coefficients are used.

Vertical Stiffness:

Using formula 3.11

Gave - 1
P -- - -
G

Coefficients a y are obtained from Fig. 3.14 taking A = 300 , p = 1 and interpolating for lid

= 42. Taking an inner pile (2) as reference, the interaction coefficients are:

Pile (sid) (In sid) a y

1 5.4 1.68 0.209

2 0 --­ 1

3 5.4 1.68 0.209

4 10.8 2.37 0.134

5 11 2.39 0.134

6 9.6 2.26 0.155

7 11 2.39 0.134

8 14.44 2.67 0.109

Reduction in stiffness = 1/L o; = 0.479

kw = 0.479 X 15.32x10 8 = 7.31x108 N/m =5.021x10 7 Ib/ft

131
For damping,

Cvv ~ L c, ~ 1.487x105 Ib/fUsec

Coupled horizontal and rocking motion:

A correction is made only for the most important stiffness, kuu. For the ratio

(
E
~ J7 :::: (229)7" :::: 2.1733
1

the interaction coefficients, evaluated by means of Eq. 3.9a for the direction X, are listed

below:

Pile S (ft) 1
~ auf

~+(~r
1 4.5 4.97 90 0.1209

2 --­ --­ --­ 1

3 4.5 4.97 90 0.1209

4 9 9.94 90 0.06

5 9.2 10.16 30 0.104

6 8 8.83 0 0.136

7 9.2 10.16 30 0.104

8 11.3 12.48 48 0.065

132
Thus,

~ Cl.uf = 1.71 and

k'uu =26 .90x1 07 N/m =1.841x1 071b/ft

c'uu = 6.259x104 Ib/ft/sec

Example 2: Evaluation of Groups Impedance Using Dynamic Interaction Factors

a) Approximate approach using Eq. 3.16

Evaluate the vertical impedance function for the pile group given in Fig. 3.19 using

dynamic interaction coefficients from Fig. 3 .16 for frequency (co = 87.26 S·1 and V s = 150

rn/s.

The dynamic interaction factor o: =Cl.1 + iCt.2 is defined on p. 3.25.

a = dO) = 2 x 0.127 x 87.26 = 0.148

o
r. 150

Single pile properties from p.3.35 are kv = 1.915 x 108 N/m and c, = 2 .712 x 105 N/m/s
Pile No .2 is chosen as reference pile. The factors c , obtained by interpolation

considering even the far piles are given in the following Table A.

133
Table A

Pile SId a

1 5.4 0.04 - 0.26t

2 0 0.984 - 0.122t

3 5.4 0.04 - 0.26t

4 10.8 -0.128 - 0.12t

5 11.0 -0.13-0.12t

6 9.6 -0.10 - 0.13t

7 11.0 -0.13-0.12t

8 14.44 -0.20 - Ot

Notice that even the contributions from the far piles are significant.

J. = .[v = dynamic jlexibilty coefficient

v J; static jlexibilty coefficient

The dynamic flexibility of a single pile f =1/Kv

where

=1.915x1 08 + t 87 .26 x 2.712x1 05 N/m

1.915xlo 8 -i2.366xl0 7

= 5.14x10-9 - 6.35x10-9 mIN

134
 - 1 9
+ == 8 :::: 5.222 x 10- m / N
.Jv 1.915xl0
0
1" :::: 5.14 x 10 -9 - i 6.35 x 10-1 == 0.984 _ i 0.122
.J v 5.222 x 10- 9

K"G =
f
n
In
k =n k( ') +b-
a-
a ') - i 2
a +b-
b ') J
I + aI ' . J
j=1

substituting

8
if + l:alj = 0.376 - i 1.132
j=2
8
KG = 8x1.915x10 x 0.376+i1.132.
v 0.376 - i 1.132 0.376 + i 1.132

= 4.05x10 B + t12.14x10 B

= 4.05x1 08 + 1.4x1 07 rot N/m

Thus, the group vertical stiffness and damping constants are

b) Accurate evaluation of group stiffness and damping using the interaction matrix, Eq.

3.15.

All the complex interaction coefficients are assembled in the interaction matrix [a]

shown in Table B. The group stiffness is obtained from the sum of all elements in the

matrix [c] by Eq.3.15, giving

135
 ;:;: 6.143x10 8 + L13.139x108

=6.143x1 0 8
+ 1.506x1 07 (OL N/m

The true stiffness and damping is from here

The approximate values are 4.05 x 108 for stiffness and 1.4 x 107 for damping. The

approximate approach avoids matrix inversion but considerably underestimates

stiffness in this case. Examples of the effects of dynamic pile interaction on harmonic

response of foundations are shown in Figs . 3.20 and 3.21.

Figure 3.20: Horizontal and Rocking Response of Foundation by Fig 3.19 to

Harmonic Horizontal Excitation.

136
Figure 3.21: Comparison of Coupled Response with that of One OOF System

under Horizontal Excitation

w
o ~ ...i
~
=> - ,
::: j I
-J 1 fi
~ ~
-1
0 { ' '\

~ II"
I Col.¥led :-buo11, No L'1t.eractic'A'1

~ i .\
~ ~l II
~--.
: : J: C 1 !r ii !,~
, I '\
,~l I I i t - SDJF, No rnt.e::=-action
:<
~ I .1
~l
\ 11

~ ~i ~ I~ \
\

o eoupled v.()t ion I::1te;.ac::.ion

J/
I . \

::: ~ /JM ~
\ ' ~"
I !,' ~\ . SrY"'.~ Tnt,:>..- cci,~
Nl ~~'- w e, __ 5~_ ~,

<:> • ,
G 3C· so eo ;20 : :N l Bli 2!C 2H

137
 4

RESPONSE OF FOUNDATIONS AND

STRUCTURES TO HARMONIC EXCITATION

4. RESPONSE TO HARMONIC LOADS

Harmonic loading is shown in Fig. 1.2. It represents the basic case of periodic loading

and can be described as

pet) = P coset (4.1)

where P force amplitude and co excitation frequency. For reasons of mathematical

convenience, an auxiliary imag inary component may be added making the excitation

force complex. Denoting the imaginary unit i is described as the complex harmonic force

pet) =p ei ~)l= P (cosot + /sincot) (4.2)

analogous to a complex number (Fig . 4.1)

z= a + b =r (coso +isin</» =rel<l> (4.3)

Figure 4.1: Representation of a Complex Number

in which

is the absolute value, also caned magnitude, modulus or distance, and

139
 , ~ b ~ b
SIn 'f/ = I
2 2
or tan If' = ­
va + b a
where ~ = angle of the complex number (argument)

4.1 RESPONSE OF RIGID FOUNDATIONS IN ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM

The governing equation of the motion is obtained by adding the excitation force to the

right side of the equation of free vibration. With viscous damping the governing equation

for motion v(t) is:

mv + ell + kv = Pei(J)( (4.4)

Because the excitation force is complex, the response is also complex. The lmaginary

part of the solution will be labeled by j and can be deleted if only the real part of the

excitation force is of interest. The particular integral that gives the steady-state solution

is:

(4.5)

where Vc is a complex amplitude, Vc = V1+iv2. Substitution of Eq. 4.5 in Eq. 4.4 yields

vc{-ulm + kec + k) = P

From this,the complex amplitude of the response is

v =k 1 = a(iev)P (4.6)
C
- mar? + IOJC
in which

, ) 1
a (lOJ = 2.
k - mOJ + uo c

140
 (, J II J..J [ 1-1
I
{~ -f ', 0'1
, ' ' /.

is known as the admittance (or transfer function) of the system. The reciprocal of a(ico)

defines the impedance of the system .

. )= k <mor? v unc
1
(
azm
For a massless body, m = 0 and the impedance takes the form of complex stiffness

defined for various systems in Chapter 2. The admittance is the ratio v« I P while the

impedance is P I vc . Note a = k-mco 2 and b = -Q)C and multiply the nominator and

denominator of Eq. 4.6 by (a+ib); the complex amplitude becomes

i
V = 1 (P) X a + ib = a + ib P = e ¢ p
c 2 2
a - ib a + ib a +b r
in which

b -we
tan¢=-= ?
a k mor'
r

Upon substitution of v c into Eq. 4.5, the particular solution is

(4 .7)

If the real vibration amplitude is denoted by

17'
r
oJ

\
I

V= p .:
I

~(k - m ( 2
) + OJ2 C 2
- -_1
the real response, described by the real part of Eq. 4.7, is

141
 v(t) :::: V cos (O)t+~) (4.8b)

The stiffness and damping constants k and c often depend on frequency, k =

k(co), c > c(w), as in the case of foundations exposed to excitation with a wide frequency

range. Then , the response has to be calculated from Eq. 4.8 . However, if k and care

frequency independent or can be considered as such in the frequency range of interest,

Eq. 4.8 can be rearranged into a more convenient form.

By taking k in front of the radical and denoting co; = kim and

the real amplitude of the response can be rewritten as:

p 1
v = --r========== = Vs' &
k (4.9)
~-

l. ' " ~ I-o rr

Lt r ~
< ,
, - ­ -~
. ~

in which Vst :;:; P/k :;:; the static displacement and c :;:; dynamic amplification (or

magnification) factor,
f •

1
.
­
1 ­
... . - 1.-
......

& = ----r=========
(4.10)

This factor is equal to the ratio of the amplitude of the response to the static

displacement.

The phase shift

142
 (4.11)

The particular solution describing the steady-state response to the real excitation force

given by Eq . 4.1 is

v(t) = v cos (cot + ¢) (4.12)

The complete solution is obtained by adding the complementary solution of the

homogeneous equation [P(t) = 0] of Eq. 4.4 , which was found before, and becomes

v(t) = v cos (cot + ¢) + Voe-at sin (co'ot + 4'0) (4.13)

in which Vo and ¢o are integration constants depending on initial conditions . The

complementary solution describes transient motion, which usually dies out due to

damping , and is of little importance .

In applications involving random vibrations somewhat is different notation is often used.

The particular integral (4.5) is written as:

vet) = ~. e i CV f = P H«()))e icvt (4.14)

k-s mco +Z())C k
where

(4.15)

in which lHI = £ is called the modulus of the complex admittance (or frequency) function,

H(co). (The terminology varies.) The particular solution is then written as

]43
 v(t) = p IH(w)1 ei(OJt+¢)
k
and its real part is:

p
vet) = -IH(m)1 cos(mt + ¢)
k
which is the same as Eq. 4.12 because IH(w)J:::~ .

Identical results are obtained if the viscous damping cv is rewritten as kocv in Eq. 4.4.

The variation in the amplification factor e, Eq. 4.10 and phase shift ~, Eq. 4.11, with

frequency is shown in Fig. 4.2a. The response starts from s = 1, i.e. from static

displacement and, depending on the magnitude of damping, builds up into a response

peak centred around the resonant frequency co = Wo at which the dynamic amplification

factor, given by Eq. 4.10, reduces to

1
E=­
(4.16)
2D
The amplification factor at resonance depends only on damping and becomes infinite if

damping vanishes . For small values of damping, the resonance amplification is great

and the response far exceeds the static response. The phase shift ranges from 0 to ­

180 degrees and at resonance is -90 degrees (-71: I 2) for all values of damping. Above

resonance the amplitudes diminish and approach zero as (L) approaches infinity.

]44

 Figure 4.2; Dimensionless Response to Harmonic Loads (dynamic amplification

factor and phase shift) ( J {..

" .L
', t
a) constant force excitation \) ' .1 1.....

,~ ­
)' r

1 ( o c.
l '
r
P(t ) -- P
o C O S "lt "

.' I
' / - I
(A r

3.0 4 .0 ~.o

b) quadratic excitation

P ( t) -_ me ~~
..... a;, 2 .-.. _. ,
_C )S u.•. t
, J \"'
I
­ "

' 1--~--IlJl-\tI-;-----I .!!

r_9Q9 o - - _ ... . " , - I G­

i
;. I
z.c 0 3_0 4 .0 ~. O
J QJ
E ' ::>
IE
II
1.0
u

Quadratic excitation. The above formulae and Fig. 4.2a were derived for an

excitation force whose amplitude P is constant. In many practical cases, the amplitude

145
of the excitation force is not constant but depends on the square of frequency. This is

so with excitation stemming from centrifugal forces of unbalanced rotating masses,

unbalances of reciprocating mechanisms, harmonic ground motion or vortex shedding.

An unbalanced mass me rotating with an eccentricity e and circular velocity (J,)

produces a centrifugal force

(4.17)

The horizontal component of the centrifugal force is

(4.18)

which is a harmonic force with frequency dependent amplitude. Substitution of this

amplitude P =mee(J,)2 into Eq. 4.10 gives the response amplitude

V=
(4.19)

in which the reduced eccentricity p = mee I m and the dynamic amplification factor of

quadratic excitation is

(4.20)

The variation in the dynamic amplification factor s' with frequency is shown in Fig. 4.2b.

The response amplitude starts from zero, grows to the resonant amplitude

1
v=p ­ (4.21)
2D
at (J,) =(J,) 0 and then asymptotically approaches p. Thus , the dynamic amplification e'

146
ranges from zero to 1/2D at resonance and finally to 1 at high frequencies.

Examination of the response peaks reveals that the actual maximum of the

amplification factor exceeds the value of 1/2D occurring at 00 = 000 and is

This maximum appears at frequency

with constant amplitude excitation and at frequency

with quadratic excitation. Thus the true peak may appear below or above the undamped

resonant frequency co =CUo depending on the type of excitation (Fig . 4.3). For small
damping this difference becomes insignificant.

147
 Figure 4.3: Response Curves for Constant Amplitude Exc'tation and Quadratic

Excitation

q u adz e c i c fo rce

constant force
cirn
l w

General Relation Between Complex Amplitude and Real Amplitude

In general, complex motion can be described by

where the complex amplitude is

v« =V1 + ivz
According to Eq. 4.3, this amplitude is also

in which the real amplitude

(4.22)

and

(4.23)

Thus

148
and the real part of this motion is

vet) = v cos (cot + ¢)

The relation between complex and real amplitude is useful in many degrees of freedom.

The theory of one degree of freedom can be used for vertical translation and

rotation about the vertical axis (torsion); very approximately, it is also applicable to

horizontal translation of very flat footings and rocking of tall footings about base axis. In

cases involving rotation, mass moment of inertia, I, replaces mass, rn, in the above

formulae and displacement, v, is replaced by the pertinent rotation. The basic formulae

for mass moments of inertia are given below. The formulae are for rectangular bodies

and cylindrical bodies; m is the mass of the body.

Figure 4.4: Mass Moments of Inertia

Mass Moments of Inertia

--- ---r-----Ix-X
o[ -~- --- --~-- -x' I
x = 12
m ( a +b
2 2
)

V I Xl = 1
x
+ mx
2

.Z
I
2
d m 2
I
Z
= m
8 = 2
R

--:-­ j-X
I

__'-_ x 2 2
,.,. d h
-- -:_-~-_.:- - - ----X'
I
x = m(16 + 12)

2
,I . d I I Xl = I
X
+ mx

h-1

149
Examples of Respons e of Footing With one Degree of Freedom

The theory outlined above can be used to analyze the response of shallow

foundations and pile foundations. The needed stiffness and damping constants can be

evaluated using the approaches described in Chapters 2 and 3.

As an example, the response amplitudes are examined for the machine

foundation shown in Fig. 4.5. Using Eq. 4.8a, the vertical and torsional amplitudes are

evaluated for different types of foundation and quadratic excitation described by Eq.

4.17. The response curves established are shown in Figs. 4.6 to 4.8. The amplitudes

are given in a dimensionless form which actually corresponds to the dynamic

amplification factor, E', defined by Eqs. 4.20 and 4.10. For quadratic excitation , the

dimensionless amplitudes of vertical and torsional response may be defined as

in which r = the arm of the horizontal force with regard to CG.

Frequency independent stiffness and damping constants were assumed . A detailed

numerical example is given at the end of this chapter.

150
Figure 4.5: Machine Foundation Used with Piles and Without Piles in Examples

(1ft =O.3048m)

Figure 4.6: Vertical Response of (A) Pile Foundation, (B) Embedded Pile

Foundation, (C) Shallow Foundation, and (D) Embedded Shallow Foundation (Bx

= m I p Rx3 = 5.81, Novak, 1974a)

r' ~

.... I I'" J.
,
, ... I
.
~' . '.

1r ) r

JI-' .

_ ......:.._--:!':---:-.t._... I • • .J........-. .. ,..,J

20 60 80 100 ':20 140 rGO

f R E ~ U EN C Y <oJ (/lAO/S)

'I.
~
151
I'
1.,1 l" - ( ' .... f ~

lj
~'"
 'J V' ,o. ,J
1-· ,J J-
r· c
igure 4.7: Vertical Response of a (1 ) Embedded Pile Foundation with Pa~bolic
Soil Profile, and (2) Embedded Pile Foundation with Homogeneous Soil Profile

and (3) Shallow Foundation Without Embeddment "- .' I L, - r:

_.. - t. .

.J,
L0
u ..J .... ,
o .1J !
I _
::::;,
]­

J o !
0=. cn-i (, '
2: ,.
CI:

I I
-ioo 2S Ci

ft1 FREJUEN Cr lR80. /SEC .

Figure 4.8 : Torsional Response of (1) Pile Foundation and (2) Shallow Foundation

152
4.2 EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF VIBRATION

Using the above formula, the intensity of the vibration can be predicted; the

effects of the vibration can then be evaluated. This evaluation includes the dynamic

stresses in the structure, foundation and soil as well as settlement of the soil,

physiological effects and effects on the operation of equipment.

Physiological effects depend essentially on vibration velocity rather than

displacement amplitude. The velocity amplitude is calculated as vs» in which v =

displacement amplitude and co = frequency. For frequency in Hz, the physiological

effects may be assessed using Fig. 4.9. Additional data on human susceptibility are

given in Chapter 5 and in Richart et al. (1970).

Some allowable amplitudes, established with regard to machine operation, are

suggested in Table 4.1. The noise levels to be expected are indicated in Table 4.2.

4.2.1 Transmissibility

Damping is favourable because it reduces resonant amplitudes but it has the

undesirable effect of increasing the forces transmitted into the foundation of the system

and its vicinity. To illustrate this point, consider a general case of harmonic vibration vet)

in one degree of freedom resulting from excitation by a harmonic force.

pet) = P coseot

The steady-state response of the system is

vet) :: V cos (rot + 4» (4.24 )

in which <p is the phase shift and v the amplitude

153
Figure 4.9: Human Susceptibilty to Vibration (after Reiher and Meister; amplitudes

in inches and mm)(1in = 25.4 mm)

( in) ( ;r.r..;

i! i !I
: I I.
II
I :I
:I III'
! I
I
I
I
I
I 0. :: 5

I ! i !I
I
!
I
II·III :I I!
1·l'
!
, I III
I
I

: t
I·
i I i

. I I! ::! •
I
!
I

I "

I
I
i I .:
I
0 ,0 0 1 ~_-:----t'-"'-:_-'l.c---;'

,
O,OOOl L - --------.:.-------.:.-­ l,; :...t: . _ _' - -' .. -­I
E
'N '·!II
~

iI I
l-
I
I
I I ~ :' •

:
0 •

i
1
.I
I­
~
I I ! I!I
:
I
;
I
!
!
I
I
I I
I
I
I
.
:
I

I, I!.
I I i !I ~
l-

- I
:
I
I
I
;IIII I
I •
: J
"
I i :
: 0 ' \
I
i

[
I!
. ' . I
II
J : I

0,0 0 001
~ I ; II i i
I
0 . 0 (8 ] 5

1.yO 10 1 00

F'r oq u c ri c y , C . ?S. ( II : )

154
Table 4.1 Limit vibration amplitudes for machine foundations (in mm)

1) Reciprocating engins with crank drive (diesel 0.20

engins, piston compressors, fram e saws etc .)
2) Hammers: 1) ton 1.2
foundations Anvil 2) ton anv il 1.0
3) ton heads 2.0
3) Crushers & Mill s 0.30
4) Turbornachinery 1) RPM ~ 3,000 0.025 = 1
mil
2) RPM .~ 1,500 0.050
3) RPM ~ 750 0.100
5) Electric Motors 1,000 -3000 RPM < 100 KW 0.050
1,500 RPM> 100 KW 0.090
1,000 RPM> 100 KW 0.10
750 RPM 0.12
600 RPM 0.16
500 RPM 0.20
6) Factory Machines Lathe, drilling machines 0.01
Shaper, milling machines
Grinders , precise lathe 0.003
7) Paper Machines (according to make & component) 0.008 to
0.025

Table 4.2 Noise Levels of Typical Machines That Range Above 90 dB

Machine Average dB
level
Hydraulic pres s 130
Pneumatic press 130
Wing bar drop press 128
Swagger 108 - 118
Shell press 98 - 112
Mechanical power press 98 - 110
Header 101 - 105
Drop hammer 99 -101
Automatic screw machine 93 - 100
Circular saw 100
Ball mill 99
Grinder 80-95

155
 p
Va = - & (4.25)
k
where k is stiffness and n is the dimensionless dynamic amplification factor which

depends on the natural frequency w 0 and damping ratio D according to the equation

1
c = -r===========
(4.26)

The total force transmitted into the supporting medium results from both the restoring

force and the damping force and is

F(t) = k vet) + c v(t) (4.27)

With the motion given by Eq. 4.24, the expression for transmitted force becomes

F(t) = k V COS(OJt + rjJ) - c vOJ sin(OJ t + rjJ)

This is a sum of two harmonic motions having different amplitudes, the same frequency

and a phase difference of 90 degrees. Thus, the transmitted force is also harmonic and

its amplitude is

(428)

Upon substituting for the amplitude from Eq. 4.25 and realizing that

the amplitude of the transmitted force is obtained as

156
 (4.29)

With constant excitation amplitude P, the transmitted force varies with frequency and

damping as shown in Fig. 4.10 in which the dimensionless ratio FJP, called

transmissibility, is plotted . Damping reduces the transmitted force in the resonance

region but increases it for frequencies w> .J2 COo.

Figure 4.10: Transmissibility

3t-------:~....I....---+-----+------==-l

2 t-------ti:.......+"'+-i---+-----+----l

1 e::----.~~-_+_--_____ll----_i
i:""'
.

1 2 3

With excitation stemming from the rotation of unbalanced masses , the force amplitude

157
is proportional to the square of frequency

(4.30)

where me and e are the unbalanced mass and its eccentricity, respectively . P can be

rewritten as

P mee
=--m()) 2 = p k( ­ ca J2
(4.31 )
In ())o

in which p =: mse I m is equal to the amplitude v as 0) ---7 co and m =: k I ulo The

product pk is the restoring force as 0) ---7 00, This force can be used to normalize the

transmitted force. This normalized transmitted force F/(pk) is shown in Fig. 4.11. The

increase in the transmitted force due to damping for co > J2 Wo is quite dramatic.

Hence, for low tuned foundations, high damping is unfavourable. The ratio F/P is the

same as that shown in Fig. 4.10.

Figure 4.11: Normalized Transmitted Force with Quadratic Excitation

I D=O
, V
~ , "'\.~\ 0.5
/
,' j \\
3t-----+,&.f---';t----:-f'---"'7"----""7"-l
\1
'. \.

ll-_*~-=-------------I

158
4.3 COUPLED RESPONSE OF RIGID FOUNDATIONS IN TWO DEGREES OF

FREEDOM

Rigid foundations are constructed as rigid or hollow blocks . Their motion in space

is described by three translations and three rotations and consequently they have six

degrees of freedom. The six components of the motion are, in general. coupled.

However, there is usually at least one plane of symmetry and this reduces the coupling

between individual components of the motion. Two vertical planes of symmetry

decouple the six degrees of freedom into four independent motions: vertical translation,

torsion around the vertical axis, and two coupled motions in the vertical planes of

symmetry; the latter motions are composed of horizontal translation (sliding) and

rotation (rocking).

The coupled motion in the vertical plane represents an important case because it

results from excitation by moments and horizontal forces acting in the vertical plane.

The motion is treated most conveniently if the centre of gravity of the footing and the

machine considered together is taken as the reference point (origin of coordinates).

Then, the horizontal sliding u (t) and rocking \jI (t) describe the coupled motion as

indicated in Fig. 4.12 in which the positive directions of the two components are

indicated . For the analysis, inertia forces, stiffness constants, and damping constants

must be established first.

159
 Figure 4.12: Notations for Coupled Motion

x.o
~

-..
,Y,v
a

4.3.1 Mass, Stiffness and Damping

Inertia forces are due to the mass of the footing-machine system and its mass

moment of inertia about the axis Z passing through the centre of gravity. The mass of

the system is m = m1 + m2 if rn- is the mass of the footing and m2 the mass of the
machine. No additional mass to account for soil inertia is needed because this effect is

taken care of by the variation of stiffness constants with frequency and the generation of

geometric (radiation) damping. In a massless medium, these two factors would not

occur.

The mass moment of inertia is calculated in a standard way. If the footing is of a

simple rectangular shape with the dimensions shown in Fig. 4-12, the mass moment of

inertia of the footing-machine system is:

(4.32)

In this formula, the mass moment of inertia of the machine about its own axis is

neglected because it is usually small compared to that of the footing.

160
 Figure 4.13: Generation of Stiffness Constants

r---_..
I -..
J 1-..
II ,k1{;if;, ................ 'J

_.._ / ~ __ T\Tk"ttu,,­ /
. t. -;I '~
vJ,e !' ~~ ' I VJJ=I J

~t_ . . . . . -t-t- /
I -...:;: -/
R~ -k u jv
JJ c l
L -......~R= ku Yc

a) b)

Stiffness constants are defined as external forces to be applied at the centre of

gravity in order to produce a unit displacement at a time with all the other displacements

being zero. When the centre of gravity lies above the level of the base, two external

forces (stiffnesses) are needed to produce a sole unit displacement. The unit translation

calls for the horizontal force kuu and the moment kUlI' (Fig . 4.13a) while the unit rotation

requires the moment k w and the force k'l'u (Fig. 4.13b). Because of Maxwell's reciprocity

principle, ku'V = kljlu , These stiffness constants are described as the stiffness constants

for translation and rotation at the centre of the base of the footing , transformed to the

new reference point , the centre of gravity, CG. If the stiffness constants referred to the

centre of the base are ku and k1jl' the stiffness constants referred to CG are:

kuu = k u (4.32a)

(4.32b)

(4.32c)

in which Yc > 0 if CG lies above the level for which ku and k., is are defined (this is the

base in the cases considered in Figs. 4.12 and 4.13). Equations 4.32 are evident from

161
the geometry indicated in Fig. 4 .13 in which the reactive forces generated in the

medium under the base due to unit displacement of the CG are also shown. For

surface foundations the constants ku, k, are given by Eqs. 2.20 to 2.22 . For embedded

foundations , the resultant expressions are described by Eqs. 2.26. For pile foundations,

Eqs. 3.3 to 3.5 apply. If the footing is supported by an elastic layer of cork, rubber or

other material whose Young's modulus is E, shear modulus G, and thickness d. the

stiffness constants of the base are

k, = GA I d (4.33a)

kv =El z I d (4.33b)

In which A = base area and Iz = second moment of base area about the axis parallel to

z. These constants are to be substituted into Eqs. 4.32 .

The damping constants are evaluated in the same manner. Thus , the formulae

for damping are obtained from those for stiffness by replacing constants k by c in Eqs.

4.32. The resultant expressions are given in Chapters 2 and 3.

4.3.2 Governing Equations of Coupled Motion

The coupled motion can be caused by a horizontal excitation force, P(t) and a moment

in the vertical plane, M(t),

P(t) = P cos rot (4.34a)

M(t) = M cos rot (4.34b)

where 00 = circular frequency of excitation and P = the force amplitude; the moment

amplitude , M, derives from the horizontal force and possibly from an independent

excitation moment , Me, and is

162
 M = pYe + Me (4.34c)

in which Ye =the vertical distance between the horizontal force and the centre of gravity
of the machine-footing system.

With the mass, stiffness and damping constants established, the governing

equations of the coupled motion, composed of the horizontal translation, u(t), and the

rotation in the vertical plane, \jf(t), can be written by expressing the conditions of

dynamic equilibrium of the foundation in translation and rotation. Applying Newton's

second law and recalling the basic definitions of the stiffness and damping constants,

the governing equations of the coupled motion are

(4.35a)

(4.35b)

in which the dots indicate differentiation with respect to time, kUl v = kljlu, CUIjI = ~u and for

the sake of brevity, u(t) = u and ~J(t) =\!J.

The governing equations, Eqs. 4.35,can be rewritten in matrix form as

[rn]{ii}+[C]{Ll}+[k]{u} = {PCt)} (4.36a)

in which the diagonal mass matrix, the displacement vector and the force vector are

[m] =[ ~ 0]1 ' {u(t)} = {U(t) } {P(t)} = { P(t ) }

If/(t) , M(t) (4.36b)

and the stiffness and damping matrices are

[k] = lk uu

k tf/l~
ku'l/
k
J
'1/'1/
'
[c] = [CUll
C'1/U
(4.36c)

163
4.3.3 Solution of Equations of Coupled otion

The governing equations, Eqs. 4.35 or 4.36a,of the coupled motion can be solved using

two approaches: the direct solution and modal analysis. Both methods lead to closed

form formulae and are easy to use.

Direct Solution

The direct solution is mathematically accurate and is suitable with stiffness and

damping constants which are frequency dependent or independent.

For mathematical convenience, the harmonic excitation described by Eqs. 4.34

may be complemented by imaginary components iP and iM to yield

pet) = P (cos rot + isin rot) = P exp (kot) (4.37a)

M(t) = M (cos rot + isin cot) = M exp (ioit) (4.37b)

With this complex excitation, the particular solutions to Eq. 4.36a are also complex and

can be written as

{ lY(t)
{u
U(t ) } ;:::: c } exp(i to t)
(4.38)
lYe

in which Ue and \lie are complex displacement amplitudes. Substitution of Eqs. 4.38 into

EqsA.36a yields two algebraic equations for these complex amplitudes:

P= (kuu - rnco' + i (U Curl ~c + (kulf + i (U CuvJ¥tc

These equations are readily solved using Kramer's rule.

Introduce the auxiliary constants

164
 (4.40)

Then, the complex vibration amplitudes are from Eqs . 4 .39,

(4.41 a)

(4.41b)

Separating the real and imag inary parts

(4,42a)

IJf = nr .
+ iu/ =M /3&
1 1
+j3& . /3& -/3&
2 2 + zM 2 [ 1 2

'l' c '1'1 '1' 2 2 2 2 2

(4.42b)
&1 + &2 &1 + &2

165
As in Eq. 4.22, the true (real) vibration amp litudes u and \jf are:

(4.43a)

(4.43b)

When the motion is excited by a moment alone, P = a and special, simpler expressions
for the real amplitudes result:

u=M (4.44a)

If/ = M (4.44b)

The phase shifts between the excitation forces and the response follow from Eq. 4.23 as

(4.45a)

(4.45b)

Dropping the imaginary components of the response labelled by i, the real motion of the

centre of gravity is:

u(t) = U cos (rot + ¢>u) (4.46 a)

'V(t) ::: 0/ cos (Ot + ¢>u) (4.46b)

From Eqs. 4.43 or 4.44 the response amplitudes are readily evaluated. Beredugo and

166
Novak (1972) formulated this closed form solution. For very high frequencies it may be
2
advantageous to divide all constants a, p and s in Eq. 4.40 by co or co to avoid very

large numbers.

As in the case of uncoupled modes, dimensionless amplitudes

(4.47)

may be introduced to facilitate the presentation and analysis of the response to forces

whose amplitudes are constant. This is the case of force amplitudes independent of

frequency or force amplitudes evaluated for a certain operating frequency.

With excitation due to unbalanced forces of rotating or reciprocating machines,

the force and moment amplitudes are proportional to the square of frequency as

described by Eq. 4.17. If the excitation is caused by an unbalanced rotating mass me

acting at a height Ye above the centre of gravity, then

in which e = rotating mass eccentricity; the ratio M / P = Yeo The dimensionless vibration

amplitudes are, in the case of frequency variable excitation,

m
Au =u­ (4.48)
me
e '

The uncoupled modes of vibration in one degree of freedom are special cases of

the solution described .

It may be noted that an alternative direct calculation may be formulated in which

the complex amplitudes u, and \jIc are separated into their real and imaginary parts

beforehand. This approach leads to four simultaneous equations with real coefficients;

167
however, the computation requires more time and a closed form solution woul d be

inconvenient. From the motion of the centre of gravity, the horizontal and vertical

components of the motion experienced by the surface of the footing can be determined.

The upper edge of the footing experiences vertical amplitude Ve and horizontal

amplitude u, that are:

Ve = If! ~ , U e = U + (b - y JIJI (4.49)

In the last formula , the phase difference between u and \jf is neglected and a,b are the

dimensions of the footing (Fig. 4.12).

4.3.4 Examples of Coupled Response

Examples of the coupled response calculated from Eqs. 4.43 are shown in Figs. 4.14 to

4.17. The foundation is the one shown in Fig. 4.5, the excitation is quadratic and the

footing is founded either directly on soil or on piles. Frequency independent stiffness

and damping constants are assumed.

Figs. 4.14 and 4.15 show comparisons between pile foundations and shallow

foundations. As can be seen, pile foundations provide less damping than shallow

foundations . Fig. 4 .16 shows the response of the shallow foundation calculated for

different soil shear wave velocities . For this more heavily damped embedded

foundation, the second resonance region often is not marked. Fig. 4.17 shows the

effect of soil stiffness on the response of pile foundation . As can be seen , the variation

of resonance amplitudes with soil stiffness follows different patterns for shallow and pile

foundations . Similar parametric studies can be conducted for various foundation

conditions described in Chapters 2 and 3.

168
Figure 4.14: Horizontal Component of Coupled Footing Resposne to Horizontal

Load. ( (Bx = m IpR3x = 5.81, B'V = II pR\, = 3.46; (+) = modal analysis)

r£
I t

I
I

-­ I
•• ••• •• ••• ••• • •••.• •• .1. •.. •
I
--- -- ..... ­
I
'Wz
20 , 40

FREQUENCY w (RAD / S )
( '0\. "t . ';

169
Figure 4 .15: Rocking Component of Coup ed Footing Response to Horizontal

Load.

'1.­
~i
,
I
L
.,. I
I
f>,
s '"
IV
>-< , Cl
IE 2 :­
<{
?­

I..L!
Ii
0
::::> L
l­
--l i
n,
::E
<{

z, I i­
I
~ :
l- I c
«I­

~
0
a::

i
.......A'.:..-!= ­ ...:-­_ _ ... __..l­
' ...L-_ _---li.-.­_ _-"­ -'-­_ _---'
0 60 80 .cc :2 0 140 160
0 20 40
FREQUENCY w ( RAD / S )

I ·
c

I
'0

i .J ~ ,
~ ( ,

170
Figure 4.16: Horizontal and Rocking Components of Coupled Response of

Embedded Foundation for Different Shear Wave Velocities of Soil (e IR = O.4 J

granular soil)

o
to
:c 150 m/sec mjsec
225 m/sec mjsec
300 m/sec 300 rn/sec

.....
tL.
:s::o
a: .
...J
....
a:;
.­
z:
o
N
-0
Q;.
dl'"1
-.:
Q
w
N

0 0
I I 1 t f

200 . 300 400 100 200 300 400 SOC

0 100 FFlEOUENCI mRO 1!=INS)
FREQUENCY (RAD {ANS)

t JJO he
1./ 1.
L~

~, /
&'1.-< r(
I
t I'J - . ,
(
'_:7
I

1"1 ' r
~ t, -,,~

j
f
I

If'I ~' (;

-. . e (
/" t
.""
)
/;/
.- , (. <,
{/ VI
.~
.' 0 )
( (..",
, , L: . ( .
I
r
f I~
~ .) ,J( , c.-'

I
f~~,- 'i)
't .. - "
-
·r (Ie
e­ 'I'
r r r n -I
"
I )
171
Figure 4.17: Effect of Soil Stiffness on Horizontal Comp onent of Coupled Response of Pile

Foundation
" • \ _. , 1\

o
Lfl
(\J

I'

GRANULAR SOIL

V 225 m/sec o
s

1-1 1
: --- -
vs -'" 150 m/sec
(' I
.. ..
' \

»: I

v5 = 75 m/sec

I
- ·1 '_ ·t\.. . .,
J :'/(Ij~: '
o ,.--- 75 m/sec ;'
.
.'
l.<
UJ / ; - 150 m/sec
/ ' '- . ' (.
/-----Z 225. m/sec

O ~~-.......- _ - r r - -_ _, - - _ " " - -_ _ --r .-_----,

~. 0 100 .0 200 .0 300 .0 400.0

FRE QUE NC Y lRADI ANSJ

172
4.3.5 Modal Analysis of Coupled Response

When the stiffness and damping parameters of the foundation are presumed to

be frequency independent, a different approach to coupled response , known as modal

analysis, is very suitable. The principal advantages of this approach are that it yields

natural frequencies and damping ratios in addition to amplitudes and that the algebra

involved is very simple. The method is described in more detail in Novak (1974a,b).

First, the natural frequencies and modes of free vibration are calculated. These follow

from the solution of the eigenvalue problem . The equations for the natural frequencies

and modes follow from EqsA.39 by putting the damping coefficients Cuu, cIjIO/ and cu~ as

well as P and M equal to zero. This yields, in terms of real amplitudes,

k uu . 2
mea
kUlf/ 2]{U}={O}
­

[ (4.50)
kU lf/ k if/'ll -ICO Ij/

The two natural undamped frequencies (01 and (02 are found from the condition that the

determinant of the coefficients must be equal to zero, which yields :

{tJ
2 1 k If'If' - 1 krill vv k;If/
=- - llu + -k - J + - (- - -k - J2 +-- (4.51)
1,2 2( m 14m I ml

With these two natural frequencies wJ 0= 1,2) the two vibration modes (eigenvectors)

are, from Eqs. 4.50,

u. -k
a . =_
) = UIf/
) UE). k _ mOJ 2 (4.52)
r IIlI j

with j =1 or 2. (These equations provide a quick check of (OJ. With correct values of (01,2

173
both equations give the same results.) The two modes represent rotations abou t two

two different points, as shown in Fig. 4.18.

Figure 4.18: Modes of Free Vibration of Rigid Footing

... .
--0"::..::-0-- ._.
I !-- -- -1j --
; ,I,
I "' __ "t' l
I
,
,
, I
f
I I
~',I,
If 't" l
I I
ii
1 Ii
o

1st mode 2 n d Mode

Assume excitation by harmonic horizontal force P(t) and moment M(t)

P(t) = P sin rot

M(t) = M sin rot = (PYe + Me) sin rot (4.53)

The generalized force amplitudes, producing response in one mode each (Fig . 4.19),

are:

Pj = P Uj + M 'Vi (4.54 )

and the generalized masses

(4.55)

in which subscript j = 1,2 denotes the mode and the corresponding frequency . The

modal coordinates Uj and 'Vj and can be chosen to an arbitrary scale; e.g.1 and thus

174
from Eq. 4 .52, Uj = aj
2
Figure 4.19: Modal Superposition of Footing Response, (Excitation Proportional to co )

_I
Cll
LoU
1
!

~
0
:::>
l­
-l I q~uz
0..
::t I
l
<t
-l
<t
a
0
~

w
0

i ,J
~ 90"

The two modal damping ratios pertinent to the vibration modes are, from Eq. 21

in Novak (1974b),

(4.56)

in which damping constants c are given in Chapters 2 and 3.Then,the footing translation

and rocking are:

2
u(t) = "q .u . sin(wt+¢J.)
~ J J (4.57a)
j =[

175
 :2
¥/(t) = Lqj¥/j sin(mt + <Pj ) (4.57b)
j~l

is in which the amplitudes of the generalized coordinates

(4.58)

and the phase shifts

2Dj {t}/
lV.w .w 1m.
¢j = -arctan 0/ J_ ~'J. = -arctan
J
(.!
1- ca/
J ])2 (4.59)

/ CI) .
/ .J

With respect to the phase difference between and ~1 and ~2 the true amplitudes of

translation u and rocking \jf are the vector sum of the two modal components, i.e.,

Eqs. 4.60 give results usually very close to those obtained by direct calculation from

Eqs, 4.43, particularly if the damping is small and the resonance peak is well pro­

nounced. This can be seen from Figs. 4.20 to 4.22. The difference seen is due to the

inaccuracy of the modal damping evaluation but is not very significant because the

dynamic amplification is quite small when the error is large.

The greatest advantage of modal analysis occurs when calculating the maximum

amplitude in the first or second resonant peaks of the coupled motion. When the

damping of the resonating mode is not too large and the response curve shows a peak,

the contribution of the nonresonant modal component to the resonant amplitude can be

176
neglected in most cases . It is small and the phase difference between the two

components is close to 90 degrees (see Fig. 4.19). Then, the resonant amplitudes of

the coupled motion at resonance j U=1 or 2) are approximately

r», (4.61a)
2D.M.w~
) ) )

- P) ·lf) ·
lfr,j - 2.D .M .w·2 (4.61b)
) ) )

Figure 4.20: Sliding Component of Coupled Response Computed Directly

(exactly) and by Means of Modal Analysis (for foundation shown in Figure 4.5)

EXAC T ' AN A l y S I S
MODAL ANALYS I S, £ O .. 4.6 02
E O. 4. 6 3a

...J
« 4
I­
2'
o
N

I
! W, . !) I = 5 .9 %
w2 , O .,~
I . I
2 : I :,
I I

20 40 60 80 10 0 12 G
FREOU ::NCY w ( R A D I S )

177
 Figure 4.21 : Rocking Component of Coupled Response Computed Oirectly

(exactly) and by Means of Modal Analysis

- EXACT ANALYS IS

.••.. ••••• MOO A LAN A L Y S IS, E~ . 4 . 6 Cb

+ EO. 4..63b

ol,.-~=--L---..L_L.-- J-.._---'
_ _l - - - ' - - - - - - - _ - L ­ _ _-L-_ _
o 20 40 60 80 i OO 12 0 140 160
FREQUENCY w ( R ;:D ! S~

The resonant amplitudes calculated from these very simple equations are shown

as crosses (+) in Figs. 4.14 and 4.15. The agreement between the accurate and

approximate values is quite good in this case. The agreement can be further improved

by the vector addition of the non-resonating modal generalized coordinate obtainable

from Eq. 4.58. With the omission of damping, allowable because of large differences

between 0)1 and 0)2, the amplitudes of the non-resonating mode k at frequency O)j are

(4.62a)

178
 (4.62b)

Because the phase shift between the resonating and non-resonating modes is close to

90 degrees, the resonant amplitudes are approximately

'") 'J

U ;,j + U ,~,k
u" j ­­ (4.63a)
I-D ~
J

v: .+ 'fI ­
!

r ,J n ,k
')

(4.63b)
I-DJ~

in which k *j.
The inclusion of the damping in the denominator yields the approximate value of

the maximum resonan t amplitude instead of the somewhat smaller amplitude at

frequency (OJ. (The maximum amplitude does not appear exactly at (OJ as can be seen in

Fig. 4.3). Equations 4.63 yield an even better estimate of the resonant amplitudes than

Eqs. 4.61 . The amplitudes calculated from Eqs. 4.63 are shown in Figs. 4.20 and 4.21

where the complete response curves, obtained directly and by means of modal

analysis , are also plotted . The agreement between the two approaches is very good .

179
Figure 4.22 Comparison of Direct Analysis with odal Analysis for Embedded

Foundation

c;
. -,
'-~ i

i
I
I

i 1\
! Ii EX'-I'='l k..'l.041 y s l. .s

e; i 1'\oda-l A. n alysu
. ...,
. ,

~
~ 1
a; ,..-.
... ~.' -i
f
:::0
: '; ' ; ' • • \1 :' , . "

..,..; :
"­
o

~- 1
1

:=:c::: !
--' I

~(~ l
I

!,
Cl

,
~gc . o
. ,
;< ';0. 0
I
300. Q
u . ·.; SC. Q : :2 0 . 'J
~ 9 C; C ; M,\ 5 / ~ C C l
~ P.~ ·C J:n c '"

180
4.4 MULTI·DEGREE-CF·FREEDOM SYSTEMS

When the foundation has fewer than two planes of symmetry, the response is

coupled in three or more degrees of freedom . The governing equations have the form of

Eq. 4.36. The displacements a re sought as u(t) = Uc exp (kot), The solution is readily

obtained using a suitable computer program such as DYNA5 (Novak et al., 1999).

Examples of the response are given in Novak and Sachs (1973). Some other

approaches are described in Arya et al. (1979).

181
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE: EVALUATION O~ THE RESPONSE OJ= A ACHINE

FOUNDATION TO HARMONIC EXCITATION

The foundation shown in Fig. 4.23 is analyzed as a shallow foundation and as a pile

foundation. These data are given below:

The Machine:

Weight: 2000 Ib (88.96x10 3 N)

Heiqht of horizontal excitation 12 ft (3.657 m)

The Footing:

R.C. density: 150 Iblft (23.57x1 0 3 N/m 3 )

Dimensions:

a = 10 ft (3.048 m)

b = 16 ft (4.87 m)
c = 8 ft (2.44 m)

height of centroid of system (Yc) 4.75 ft (1.448 m)

Masses: from 1 and 2

Total mass of the system (m)

6583 slug (9.60x104kg)

Mass moment of inertia about

117490 slug .ft2

axis Z, (lz)
(1 .598x105 kg .m 2 )

182
Exciting Forces:

Excitation forces occur due to rotor unbalances and act in the vertical direction Y , the

horizontal direction X and as a moment about axis Z and are:

Px (t) =mae ro2 cos cot

P y (t) =mee 0/ sin cot
Mz (t) =Px (t) Ye, Ye =7.25ft = 2.20m
where me = mass of rotor , e = rotor eccentricity and co = frequency of rotation

The results will be shown in dimensionless form so mae will not be given. The

foundation is the same as the one used in the examples in Chapters 2 and 3. The

stiffness and damping constants are evaluated for the shallow foundation on pages 2.42

to 2.46 and on pages 3.33 to 3.38 for the pile foundation.

The response will be calculated for the following vibration modes:

1. Vertical mode

2. Coupled horizontal and rocking vibration

3. Torsional mode.

183
 Figure 4.2~

r------­ ---l
/ I T,
I I I I
I I
Ye
I I
-
~

X;; ~

E
'1"
~
N
11

'/ / 1 1 ////// /// !I '/ / /

,
, I
w
I
I

1.381 m
I­ • I.
1.37m
I
1.
y
1.37 m .!. :.37 m
~
J.o.~8 ! rn
4
0.3m\
I"If!. •
1.22m

1.25 f r 4.5 ft 4.5 tt 4 .5ft 1.25ft 4ft

.~ . b" 4 .87rn (i6~t ) ..._._. __ --1

. ,
'w­ ·w· 1fJ

,.,
I

ill
"$I, - 2. 3'
\J../
4'
°T :::

..... ,
~ (t)
~I
I

----~-
Ze
E
7
7
C\}
<D
~

°
r0
YJ
I I
, 0

I-~- -$:
• 'J
-07--
, I
~I
-o/~
E
r<>
0
a.38m 1.37rn 1.37 m 1.37 m 0.38 m
I- ~ ;.. .~.. )fl'", fa:_ .~

I. b = 4.877m!!6 fl)

184
CASE (I) - SHALLOW FOUNDATION

Shallow foundation overlying a deep homogeneous soil layer (halfspace) with no embedment.

Natural Frequencies and Damping Ratios

a) Soil Material Damping Neglected:

Vertical Vibration:

kw = 4.074x1 08 N/m C w ::: 5.68x10 6 N/m/sec

8
{O o =: {k =: 4.074 xl0 =:65 .14rad /sec
~;;; 9.603 X 104

D =~ = c
6
= 5.68 X 10 = 0.454 Le.45.4%
8x9.603 4
cer 2.Jkm 2-J4.074x10 x10

Torsional Vibration:

9
k'1 11 = 1.789x1 0 N m/rad Cr,T] = 4.39x1 06 N rn/rad/sec

Mass moment about Y (Eq. 4.32, Fig . 4.4)

(00 = 82.3 rad/sec D = 0.10

Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration:

k'l"V = 1.668x1 09N m / rad CW'i'= 1.1Sx10 7Nm/rad/sec

kuu = 3.683x10 8 N / m cuu = 3.18x10 6 N / m / sec

ku'V = -S.34x1 08 N m / rad C UIjI = -4.61x1 06 N m / rad / sec

185
The natural frequencies of the coupled motion follow from Eq. 4.51 as

(1) 1 ;:: 41.3 rad / sec (02 =112.3 rad / sec

The modes (Eq. 4.52) are a- ::: 2.61, a2 ::: -0.638

Modal damping ratios (Eq, 4.56) are 0 1 ;:: 0.135, O2 = 0.299

b) Soil Material Damping Included: tan8 ;:: 2B ;:: 0.1

Use formulae (2.18). Since in these expressions CD is variable, we can set CD =COo

Vertical Vibration:

;:: 3.708x1 0 8 N f m = 2.537x1 07 1b / ft

;:: 6.306x10 6 N / m / sec > 4.315x10 51b / ft / sec

Torsional Vibration:

k~1] = k q l1 - 2fJ c1]7]OJ o = 1.789 x l 0 9 - 0.1 x 4.39 x l 0 6 x 82.3

=1.752x109 N m / rad ;:: 3x108 Ib ft / rad

= 6.563x10 6 N m / rad / sec > 1.124x10

61b
ft / rad / sec

186
Coupled Motion:

For the first mode ro :::: W1, for the second mode (0 :::: W 2

For the more important first mode

R 6
k'/Ill =k /Ill -2j3c /Iii OJ l = 3.683x10 -O.lx3.18xl0 x 41.3

:::: 3.551x108 N 1m:::: 2.43x1 0 7 Ib 1ft

c'till
= c + 213 k
1111 I~ U
I OJ1 = 3.18 x 106 + 0.1 x 3.683 x 10 8 -.;- 41.3
= 4 .071x1 06 N I m I sec::; 2.786x1 05 Ib / ft / sec

k'~~ =k~~ -2j3c ~~ OJ1 =1.668xl0 9 -O.l x1.15xl0 7 x41.3

=1 .620><109 N m / rad ::; 2.776x10 8 Ib ft I rad

c''If~
=c 'If~
+ 2j3 k 'lflii IOJ 1=1.15 xl0 7 +O.1x1.668xl0 9-.;-41.3

=1.554x10 7 N m / rad / sec > 2.662x1061b ft / rad / sec

k'. =k
1I~ u~
-2j3c u~
OJl =-5.34xl0 8-O.1 x(-4.611 xl0 6)x41.3

::; -5.149x1 08N/rad::; -1.156x1 08 Ib / rad

:::: -5 .904x1 06 N I rad I sec > -1 .325x1 06 Ib I rad / sec

Natural frequencies and damping ratios with material damping included:

For comparison the values obtained with material damping neglected are shown in

brackets .

187
V ertical Motion:

kw =3.708x10 8 N / m Cw =6.306x1 06 N/ m / sec

COo
fk = 62.14 rad I sec (65.14)
= V;;

c
o = .jk;;; = 0.528 (0.454)
2 km

Torsional Vibration:

kill! =1.752x1 09 N m / rad C ll ll =6.563x106 N m I rad / sec

COo = fE = 81.47 rad / sec (82.3)

VIII
D = 0.1776 (0.10)

Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration:

001= 40.75 rad / sec (41.3) CO2 = 110.34 rad / sec (112.3)

a1 =2.631 (2 .61) a2 =- 0.632 (-0.638)

0 1= 0.188 (0.135) D2 = 0.563 (0.30)

Response to Harmonic Loading

The Vertical and Torsional Amplitudes: the amplitudes follow from Eq . 4.9.

With Py =rn,e co 2 and k =molo, the amplitude is, as in Eq. 4.19,

188
Expressing the amplitudes in a dimensionless form (Eqs. 4.23)

The response curves are shown in Figs. 4.24 and 4.25 .

Coupled Motion:

Using the direct analysis, the horizontal and rocking amplitudes follow from Eqs. 4.43 .

These are shown in Fig. 4.26 as dimensionless horizontal amplitudes and

dimensionless rocking amplitudes defined by Eq. 4.48,

Figure 4.24: Effect of Soil Material Damping on Vertical Amplitude of Shallow

Foundation : 1) soil material damping neglected and (2) soil material damping

included

w
o 0
::::J •
I- '"

....J
a:. {l) -~
u
~ - -- • .<.
L... 0
a:
ur
..:
>

i
5'0 90
f RE2 UENCi iRRD. / SC: C. I

189
Figure 4.25: Effect of Soil Material Damping on Torsional Amplitude of Shallow

Foundation: (1) soil material damping neglected and (2) soil material damping

included

w "]
a 0
= .: ~

(0 '"
a: .
G N
......

6'C 9'0 . ... '-' ~C: '" .ec

f tH:~Q U ==' r~c r :~ ;:;:; . I S :.C. J

190
Figure 4.26: Horizontal and Rocking Components of Coupled Response to

Horizontal Loads: (1) material damping neglected and (2) material damping

included

c
on

w
o
:::> CJ
l­ ~
.,J
n,
:L­
a: c '
. -;
-.J ~
a:
.....

a::
o
:c:

I I i I
50 90 lZO I SO .ac
FR:' QUf.NCY lA RD . IS EC. )

j i
I ~O
I
~o 90 120 18 0 210

f RE.QUE NC Y [RAD. I SE C. )

J 91

CASE II - PILE FOUNDATION

Summary of Results for Pile Foundation

1) Vertical Vibration:

a) Pile-soil-pile interaction neglected:

5
kw :;:; 15.32x10 8 N 1m
Cw = 21 .732 X 10 N I m I sec

<Do ::::: 126.3 rad I sec,

0=0.0896

b) Pile interaction included:

k'w =7.310x10 8 N I m
c'w::::: 10AOx10 5 N I m I sec

0)'0= 87.13

0=0 .0618

2) Coupled Response:

a) Pile interaction neglected:

7 5
kuu = 45.728x10 N I m
C UU = 9.1472x10 N I m I sec

cljI'jI =5.5606x10 N m I rad I sec

9 6
klll\!, 3.616x 10 N m I rad

k UIjI =-7.73Jx1 08 N I rad C UIjI = -1A55x1 06 N I rad I sec

b) Pile interaction considered:

7 5
k'uu = 26.90x10 N I m c'uu = 5.38x10 N I m I sec

k'lVlI' == ~1jI

192
 c'UII' = ClJ\V

Response

After obtaining the stiffness and damping constants for both cases, the response to

harmonic loads is obtained in the same way as in the case of shallow foundation . The

results are plotted in Fig. 4.27 for the vertical response and in Fig. 4.28 for the coupled

response to horizontal excitation.

Figure 4.27: Vertical Response of Pile Foundation: (1) pile interaction neglected

and (2) pile interaction included

(2)

c
w (1 )
Cl ~
::::J
l­
:J
CL
k LI)
n;
...·
..J
a:
U
l- t:)

a:
W
m ·
>
II)

-· '------­ =====­
°0 sa so
.
90
I
120
I
lS0 leo 210

FREQUENCY rARo. /SEC. )

193
 Figure 4.28: Horizontal and Rocking Response of Foundation by Fig ~ .19 to

Harmonic and Horizontal Excitation

J ••••
• •.(;.• •
r ,~

4.4 RESPONSE OF RIGID FOUNDATIONS IN 6 DOF

4.4.1 Governing Equations

When the rigid foundation is of general shape , the response is in six degrees-of­

freedom, three translations and three rotations, all of them, possibly, coupled . These

directions are indicated and labelled in Fig. 4.29. The stiffness and damping constants

of the footing are best established for the elastic centre of the base (C.B.) first and then

transferred to the centre of gravity (C.G.) of the footing-machine system , analogously to

the coupled constants of a 2 DOF system by Eqs. 4.32a, band c. Thus, the individual

stiffness constants kij and damping constants Cij, or the impedance functions

194
refer to the centre of gravity and strictly satisfy the basic definition according to which K ij

is the external force to be applied in the nodal direction i when there is a sole unit

vibration amplitude to occur in direction j. The positive directions for forces and

displacements are indicated by arrows in Fig. 4.29 . For embedded foundations, details

on the coupled impedance functions can be found in Novak and Sachs (1973).

For shorter writing, describe the stiffness and damping properties in terms of

impedance functions Kij. Then, the typical governing equations in the directions X and

\V, being conditions of dynamic equilibrium of forces and moments in the two directions

respectively, can be written using Newton's second law as

(4.64a)

where dots indicate differentiation with respect to time.

Figure 4.29: Notations and Sign Convention for Rigid Footing

Pz.
,;
/'
/'
/' P. 2 Y,v
f----- •
I
I

I
~-L.:.r-:-+-----...J[-"::'--+-~ X, u

z,w

195
Similar equations can be written in the other four directions. In Eqs. 4.64, li = mass

moment of inertia in direction i and Dij = products of inertia. The effect of the latter is

usually small unless the asymmetry of the footing is very large. Listing all the

displacements and rotations in a vector,

{u} = [u v W S ljI SY (4.65a)

and the excitation forces in the loading vector,

{P(t)} = lpx(t) Py(t) Pz(t) /v(.(t) M y(t) Al z(t)J (4.65b)

the impedance matrix can be readily written and the governing equations expressed in

the standard matrix form, i.e.

[Tn J{U} + [KJ{u} = {pCt)} (4.66)

The mass matrix is diagonal when D jj l = O.

4.4.2 Free Vibration

Undamped free vibretion

In the case of free vibration, {P(t)} = 0 in Eq. 4.66 . When damping is neglected, Cij

= 0 and [K] = [k] . Assume that the stiffness matrix is frequency independent. Then, the

particular solution for all displacement in Eq. 4.65a is {u(t)} = (u) sin cot, where (u) lists

displacement amplitudes and co is the unknown natural frequency. Substituting the

particular solution into Eq. 4 .66 yields

([k] - 0) 2 [mJXu } = {a} (4.67)

Eq. 4.67 represents the classical eigenvalue problem whose solution yields six natural

]96
frequencies and vibration modes. These are best determined using a suitable

subroutine such as IINROOT" in the IBM Scientific Subroutine Package or the

subroutine "GVCSP" in the IMSL Mathematical Subroutines Package.

If the stiffness and damping matrices are taken as frequency dependent, the eigenvalue

problem becomes a nonlinear one and its solution is more difficult. The natural

frequencies can be more easily identified from the response curves of the undamped or

lightly damped system to harmonic excitation .

Damped free vibretion

If damping is considered and the impedance matrix is constant (frequency

independent), the free vibration analysis leads to a nonclassical eigenvalue problem . Its

solution, carried out in terms of complex eigenvalues and modes, yields six damped

natural frequencies and associated modes, which feature phase shifts between

individual motion components, and six modal damping ratios. The analysis can be

carried out using a suitable subroutine such as 'IRGG" in the EISPACK package or

"GVCCG" in the IMSL package. Details on the complex eigenvalue problem can be

found in Novak and EI Hifnawy (1983) or elsewhere.

4.4.3 Response to Harmonic Loads

If the excitation forces are harmonic with frequency CD, they can be written as

{P(t)} = {P]}e iM = {P} (cos CO t + i sin (0 t) (4.68)

The particular solution to Eq. 4.66 is

{u(t)} = {u}e;(lj{

197
where {u} =vector of complex amplitudes. Substituting into Eq . 4.66 yields

[[K]-m 2[m]]{u} = p (4.69)

This is a system of linear algebraic equations for the complex amplitudes that can be

solved using the IMSL package or any other.

Alternatively, both the complex impedance functions and the amplitudes can be

split into their real and imaginary parts, i.e.

[K] = [k] + i OJ [ C] ,{u} = {u] } + i {u2 } (4.70)

Substituting Eq. 4.70 into Eq. 4.69 and realizing that both the real part and the

imaginary part of the latter equation must vanish, two coupled equations for the real (ul)

and (U2 ) are obtained, which can be written as

(4.71)

The dimension of the problem is doubled to 12 x 12 but all is real. Consequently, the

solution is easily obtained by Gaussian elimination or any of the basic subroutines

available such as "SIMQII" in the IBM package.

In either situation , after {U1} and {uz} have been established, the real amplitudes

and phase shifts follow analogously to Eqs. 4.22 and 4.23.

An example of the coupled response in 6 OOF is shown in Fig. 4.30 . The figure

shows the vertical response and rotation about the horizontal axis X for an irregularly

shaped, large compressor foundation exposed to harmonic unbalanced forces and

moments. Notice that all six possible resonances need not be discernible. (The vertical

response is shown for the edge of the footing.)

198
 Figure 4.30: Response of an Irregular Compressor Foundation in 6 OOF in

Vertical Translation (Z) and Rotation about Horizontal Axis X. (30m layer of clay

overlying bedrock)

U
LlJ
(f)
"­
Do
<0
cr..
~ Ul

.
o
o
o
C"
o
~ 0
>( ~ •
...., ...
o.......

f­
.....:
f­
a
L:.L:
I
x 0
co

:1

o
)
----.--/
o -1----, . - . I, ---,..'-'-----.;:=--.-­
'=> J 5 10
I'
IS
I
20 2 $ 30
I r" 35'r--"10, ~is"I I
50
I
55
i l l
66 6S ]C
Fr:EOUEl-IC )' • R:A.O . ISEC · .

199
 o
CI

o
...,

0
,..... 0 .

1: CD
z;
~

Q
0
~
0 ,g
X
..."

,::,
....
-e, ; CJ
<""I
.J
~ I)
~
;::
..:
(I:
I·­
I
r-J
0
'"
r'

c
c: ­0- 'f
5
I
Q 10 15 20
FREQUUlC Y
-------_._-----­
l-­ . ._ - - _._.-.. .. _.._---- -_._ _._- ---j'
X~ 46 m I
if
j
- - - ­ ---&
Y Z

200
4.4.4 Effect of Symmetry

When the foundation with the machine has two vertical planes of symmetry,

many of the off-diagonal elements of the impedance matrix vanish, decoupling it as

shown in Eq. 4.72.

KUI/ KI/f/1
s; K IN
K,.;
[K] = ~
(4.72)

«.;

Thus, the response decouples into two coupled motions in 2 OOF, each comprising a

horizontal translation and rotation in one vertical plane, a vertical motion in 1 OoF and a

rotation about the vertical axis. Such a situation often exists or may be assumed to be

approximately valid simplifying the analysis. Oecoupling into six 1 OOF systems could

only be valid for a very thin doubly symmetrical mat, not a practical foundation. (If the

foundation is very thin it is flexible, not rigid as assumed here.)

4.4.5 DYNA5 Computer Program

The calculation of the footing response in 600F for any type of loading and foundation

can be conveniently carried out using the code OYNA5 (Novak et aJ. 1999).

4.5 STRUCTURES ON FLEXIBLE FOUNDATION

In many practical situations, a flexible structure is supported by rigid footings or mats .

This is the case with frame foundations for turbine generators or paper machines,

buildings, towers and many other structures. Two basic configurations may occur as

201
diagrammatically depicted in Fig. 4.31. Each column of the building has its own footing
(a) or all flexible columns rest on one common rigid mat (b). Case (a) is typical of

towers and chimneys and frame structures on individual spread footings.

Figure 4.31: Structure Foundations in the Form of (a) individual spread footings

and (b) common mat

G :l

a) b)

Consider horizontal response of a structure comprising horizontal translations u,

and rotations \j! i, of individual lumped masses . The foundation stiffness and damping

can be described by the same 2 x 2 impedance matrix as used in the analysis of rigid

footings in par . 4.2 .2 and included in Eqs . 4.35 and appearing as the first submatrix in

Eq .4.72.

This foundation impedance matrix can be introduced into the governing

equations of the structure and the governing equation written in the standard form

[m]{ii}+[K]{u} = {pet)} (4.73)

For individual spread footings, each supporting one column, the mass matrix lists

all the lumped masses including the footing and the global impedance (stiffness) matrix

is obtained by superimposing the footing impedance matrix on the structure

202
impedance matrix giving

[K] = f[K s ] l
l [K fJ]J
(4.74)

For a frame on a common mat, schematically represented in Fig. 4.32, a somewhat

different procedure can be followed.

Figure 4.32: Building on Mat Foundation

G:­
o

. i
. . :: "
-­
-
!
I
j

,
o

I\( ;-I

For each of the floors (masses m, to mn) one condition of horizontal equilibrium is

written giving n equations. If the structure is a shear building or if the structure matrix

was condensed eliminating floor rotations, the total number of degrees of freedom is

(n+2) where n = the number of storeys and the other two DOFs represent the footing

203
translation, Ub and rotation.w . The remaining two governing equations are obtained by
writing the equilibrium condition of the building as a whole in the horizontal direction and

rotation, respectively . Then , denoting the mass matrices and floor relative

displacements

the governing equation of the building response

[m] {m} {mh}

rl
n It

{m }T m«: Lm i Lmihi ub ­
I I
" " 2
'1/
{mh}T Lmjh j 1+ Lmjh J

I I

[Kl {O} {O} {u}

{O}T KUI/ «; Ub = {pet)} (4.75)
{O}T KIf/lI K/{/V/ 1/1

The matrix [K] lists all the stiffness and damping constants of the structure and {OJ is the

null vector. The total mass matrix is not diagonal, however. The mass moment of inertia

includes all floors and the mat is

Matrices [m] and [K]s are matrices the structure would feature in case of a rigid

204
foundation. The foundation submatrix 2 x 2 is clearly separated from the rest. Notice

the relative displacements Uj in the vector {u} are measured relative to the displaced and

rotated axis of the building. {pet)} is the vector of the horizontal loads on the building.

When the motion of the structure results from horizontal ground motion ug(t) , the

acceleration ii 8 (t) is added to itb with the only result being that the right side of Eq.

4.75 becomes

n
{P} = -[ {m} LmihilT iig(t)
1

More details on this analysis can be found in Novak and EI Hifnawy (1983).

The effect of soil-structure interaction on seismic response of buildings resting on

various types of both shallow and deep foundations is examined in Novak and EI

Hifnawy (1984) . The inclusion of piles into the analysis of a frame structure supported

by a flexible mat is discussed in Aboul-Ella and Novak (1980). A large amount of data

on soil-structure interaction is available in the proceedings of conferences on

earthquake engineering.

4.6 DESIGN CHECKLIST FOR MACHINE FOUNDATIONDS

After the response of the proposed foundation is predicted from the dynamic

analysis, it is checked against certain design requirements including :

1. the usual check of bearing capacity and settlement, and structural strength of the

foundation under static loads.

205
allowable pressure of the soil.
- --- - ----
2. the maximum bearing pressure (static + dynamic) should be less than 75% of the
-
For piled foundations, the maximum load for any pile

(static + dynamic) should be less than 75% of the design capacity of the pile .

3. comparison to tolerance for dynamic behaviour which includes a) maximum vibration

amplitudes, see figure; b) maximum velocity (co x displacement amplitude) and

acceleration (ol x displacement amplitude), see fiqure ; c) maximum magnification

factor, should be less than 1.5 at resonance; d) possible resonance conditions, the

operating frequency of the machine should not be within ± 20% of the resonance

frequency (damped or undamped).

4. Consideration of possible fatigue failure in the machine components and connections.

5. Consideration of environmental requirements and physiological effects on workers.

Sometimes, a factor of safety (FS) could be used to account for the relative importance

of the machine to overall plant operation. The predicted amplitude is multiplied by a

service factor (safety factor) FS (1.5-2) to obtain an effective vibration amplitude.

The following figures and tables may be used to check the compliance of the

vibration amplitudes with different design requirements.

1. Figure 4.33 shows dynamic response limits in terms of limiting "single amplitude"

vibration at any frequency. The figure has 5 zones of sensitivity shown by persons

(standing and subjected to vertical vibration).

2. Figure 4.34 may be used to establish permissible horizontal vibration amplitudes for

rotating machinery.

3. Figure 4.35 shows the response spectra for the structures; displacement, velocity,

and acceleration vs frequency . The lines labelled "Rausch" are the same as the limits

206
for safe operation of machines and foundations , (Fig. 4.33). The cross-hatched area

gives possible structural damage which may be caused by steady state vibrations .

4. Figure 4.36 shows the vibration standards for high-speed machines.

5. Figure 4.37 shows the vibration limits for foundations supporting turbomachinery.

6. Table 4.3 gives suggested limits of peak velocities for various categories of operation.

207
Figure 4.33 General limits of vertical vibration ampli udes for a particular frequency

0.0001
100 200 SOO 1000 2000 SOOO 10,00­
FREQUENCY. CPM

+ Steady state vibrations

o
Steady state vibrations

Due to blasting

.Shaded line represents limits for safe operation of machines and foundations (not for
satisfactory operation) .
• Dotted lines are limits associated with blasting . Do not apply to steady state vibration.

208
 \
I J . , I,
(UC " Vt ~·lt-lC"~\'o
j. 1: :. ..{/' 0
('j ~ J tv [- _~ j:l
~ , t. " j

Figure 4.34 Vibration performance of rotating machines

I t C,. t·1 ",
-/ ..-......,
.> ~.,
I "~
j ' I ,I r

~ /:~ '~'
Ie (

I 0.10
\"E­ V ':~ \-0
~" ~(;)
O

...a-=
:::»
•4
•I li•.z:..
III

0·01
•z:
0
-!C III
a
•-> .....­
E :t

..
C
L
JI

.•
0 4

III
g ..J

-... •z:
..J
0.001

• •z:
A.

..J
t!
-=
~ A
III
0

•
­
N

It
0
%
0.0001
100 1000 10,000

'REQUENCY • CP.

E Dangerous, shut it down immediately

D Failure is ncar, Correct very quickly.
C Faulty, correct quickly. .
B Minor faults. ' i ' \ .
( (, 'C'

A No faults, typical of new equipment. r:

209
Figure 4.35 Response spectra for allowable vibration at facility

Frequency. epa

210
Figure 4.36 Vibration standards of high-speed machines

6O ...........Q...--I----I--.........- - - t - - - - t

4000
SPEED, RPM

\ ,
. -' (

211
Figure 4.37 Turbomachinery bearing vibration limits

256
0
0
0
...
.-;
<, '28 ?'>
~ "1(
... <Q
UJ &t
0 ~.(

-
~
E­
....J
Q..
~
-e
32
~

S;
UJ 16
~
UJ
U
:s
-
0..
UJ
0
Z
0
8

4
~

E­
~
a:l 0
1--1 2
>

0
5 320
L
\

\
( \ ' r

212
Table 4.3 General machinery-vibration-severity data

Horizontal Peak Velocity Machine Operation

(in/sec)

< 0.005 Extremely smooth

0.005-0.010 Very smooth

0.010-0.020 Smooth

0.020-0.040 Very good

0.04-0.080 Good

0.080-0.160 Fair

0.160-0.315 Slightly rough

0.315-0.630 Rough

>0.630 Very rough

After Baxter and Bernhard (1967)

REFERENCES
Aboul -Ella, F. and Novak, M. (1980) - "Dynamic Response of Pile Supported Frame
Foundations," Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 106, No. EM6, December, pp.
1215-1232.

Arya , S.C., O'Neill , M.W. and Pincus, G. (1979) - "Design of Structures and Foundations
for Vibrating Machines," Gulf Publishing Company, Book Division, Houston, Texas, p.
191.

Baxter, R. L. and Bernhard, D. L. (1967) . "Vibration Tolerances for Industry", ASME

Paper 67-PEM-14, Plant Engineering and
Maintenance Conference, Detroit , MI, April.

213
Beredugo, Y.a. and Novak, N. (1972) - "Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration of
Embedded Footings," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No.4, pp. 477-97.

Novak, M. (1974a) - "Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles," Canadian Geotechnical

Journal, Vol, II, pp. 574-598 .

Novak , M. (1974b) - "Effect of SoH on Structural Response to Wind and Earthquake,"

International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3, No.1 ,
pp.7996.

Novak, M. and Beredugo, Y.O. (1972) - "Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings,"

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE , SM12, December, pp.
1291-1310.

Novak, M. and EI Hifnawy, L. (1983) - "Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Damping of

Structures," Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics , Vol. 11, pp .
595-621.

Novak, M. and EI Hifnawy, L. (1984) - "Effect of Foundation Flexibility on Dynamic

Behaviour of Buildings," Proc. 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Vol,
111, San Francisco, pp. 721-728.

Novak, M. and Sachs, K. (1973) - "Torsional and Coupled Vibrations of Embedded

Footings," International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 2, No. 11, 33.

Novak, M., EI Naggar, M. H., Sheta, M., EI-Hifnawy, L., El-Marsafawi, H., and
Ramadan , 0 ., 1999. DYNA5 a computer program for calculation of foundation response
to dynamic loads. Geotechnical Research Centre, The University of Western Ontario,
London , Ontario.

Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. and Woods, R.D. (1970) - "Vibrations of Soils and Foundations,"
Prentice-Hall, lnc., Englewood Cliffs, U.S.A.

Urlich, C.M. and Kuhlemeyer, R.L. (1973) - "Coupled Rocking and Lateral Vibrations of
Embedded Footings," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 10, pp. 145-160.

214
 5

FOUNDAnONSFORSHOCKPRODUaNG

MACHINES

5 FOUNDATIONS FOR SHOCK-PRODUCING MACHINES

Shock producing machines generate dynamic effects which essentially differ from those

of rotating and reciprocating machines and the design of their foundations, therefore,

requires special consideration.

5.1 Introduction

Many types of machines produce transient dynamic forces that are quite short in

duration and can be characterized as pulses or shocks. Typical machines producing this

type of load are forging hammers, presses, crushers and mills. The forces generated by

the operation of these machines are often very powerful and can result in many

undesirable effects such as large settlement of the foundation, cracking of the

foundation , local crushing of concrete and vibration. Excessive vibration may impair the

operation of the facility and the health of the workers, cause damage to the frame of the

machine and expose the vicinity to unacceptable shaking transmitted through the

ground. Some machines operate with fast repeating shocks and consequently, the

effects of vibration may be aggravated by resonant amplification of amplitudes such as

is the case with rotating or reciprocating machines. The objective of the foundation

design is to alleviate these hazards and secure optimum operation of the facility.

Hammers are most typical of the shock-producing machines and therefore this

report is limited to them. This is not a serious limitation, however, because the design

and analysis of the other shock producing machines follow criteria that are in many

respects similar to those applied to hammers.

213
5.2 Ty pes of Hammers and Hammer Foundations

There are many types of hammers. According to their function, they can be divided into

forging hammers (proper) and hammers for die stamping. Forging hammers work free

material into the desired shape while die stamping hammers shape the material using a

mould or matrix. According to their mode of operation , hammers can be classified as

drop, steam and pneumatic, although other systems are also used. More details on the

various types can be found in Major (1962)

Because of the powerful blows generated, hammers are mounted on block

foundations of reinforced concrete separated from the floor and other foundations . The

basic elements of the hammer foundation system are the frame, head (tup), anvil and

foundation block (Fig.5.1). The frame of forging hammers is separated from the anvil. In

die stamping hammers, the frame is usually connected to the anvil to give the system

rigidity and precision of blows.

Figure 5.1: Schematic of Forging Hammer and its Foundation

214
 The forging action of hammers is generated by the impact of the falling head

against the anvil , which is a massive steel block. The head is allowed to fall freely or in

order to obtain greater forging power, its velocity is enhanced using steam or

compressed air. The size of the hammer can be judged by the weight of the head,

which ranges from a few hundred pounds to several tons . The intensity (energy) of the

blows can be expressed as a product of the head weight and the height of the drop or

the equivalent height of the drop.

Only a part of the impact energy is dissipated through plastic deformation of the

material being forged and conversion into heat. The remaining energy must be

dissipated in the foundation and soil. Different foundation arrangements are used to

this end.

In small hammers, the anvil is sometimes mounted directly on the foundation

(Fig.5.2a). This is done for the sake of simplicity and hard shocks . The main drawback

of this arrangement is that the concrete under the anvil suffers from the shocks and,

depending on the hammer type , also from high temperature. Repairs often may be

necessary.

To reduce the stress in the concrete and shock transmission into the frame,

viscoelastic suspension of the anvil is usually provided (Fig. 5.2b). This may have the

form of a pad of hard industrial felt, a layer of hardwood or, with very powerful hammers,

a set of special isolation elements such as coil springs and dampers. Such a

suspension reduces the impact of the anvil on the foundation by prolonging the path of

the anvil and by energy dissipation through hysteresis and plastic deformation .

2J5

 J:igure 5.2: Types of Foundation Arrangement

r GA P
/

\ /
SPR lNGS
-TROUGH

(c) ( d)

The foundation block is most often cast directly on soil as indicated in Figs - 5.2a

and b. When the bearing capacity of soil is not sufficient or undesirable settlement is

anticipated, the block may be installed on piles. When the transmission of vibration and

shock forces in the vicinity and adjoining facilities is of concern, a softer mounting for

the foundation may be desirable. This can be achieved by supporting the block on a pad

of viscoelastic material such as cork or rubber (Fig-5.2c) or on vibration isolating

elements such as rubber blocks or steel springs possibly combined with dampers (Fig.

5.2d) . A trough, which adds to the cost, is needed to protect these elements.

The material of the pads must be able to resist fatigue as well as moist

environment due to condensation and must have a long lifetime. Rubber pads should

216
have grooves or holes to allow lateral expansion because the Poisson's ratio of rubber

is 0.5. Slabs of solid rubber are quite incompressible. The gap around the footing, which

rests on a pad (Fig-5.2c), may be filled with a suitable soft material which allows the

block to vibrate freely but prevents blockage of the gap by debris.

Figure 5.3: Suspended Footing Blocks

~
~

. ­.'
D 4 • - ~ " ..

.. II" d. # ...

- .. 4.
. .... ..
_

.. -. -. ~. _ ...

a) b)

With springs, the space around the footing must be wide enough to provide

access for installation, inspection and replacement. This is necessary because springs

sometimes crack. However, access space is not always available. For reasons of easy

access and convenience, the springs are sometimes positioned higher up and the

footing is suspended on hangers or cantilevers (Figs. 5.3a,b). Such a design is more

complicated and costly. Careful reinforcement of the cantilevers for shear is necessary.

The soft suspension of the footing block on pads or isolators is particularly

efficient on stiff soils. It increases the vibration amplitude of the block but reduces the

force transmitted into the soil. Additional damping, if provided, is very useful because it

reduces the vibration amplitude. The inertial block is sometimes deleted and the anvil

217
suspen ded directly on isolators (GERB).

More complicated foundations are sometimes designed to protect the frame of

the hammer from shocks which can hinder the operation and cause fatigue cracks . To

interrupt the flow of shock waves into the frame, additional joints with viscoelastic pads

or elements (Fig. 5.4) separate the upper part of the block from the rest. Klein and

Crockett (1953) describe the example shown in Fig. 5.4b .

Figure 5.4: Schematic of Foundation with Additional Joints to Protect Hammer

Frame: (a) outline and (b) prototype

, - . ,""' ,\

c;'"

.-
·· -·-. , -,
• !'
.~~
..........

-
. · -·.- -.· .
. - --- .­ --.. I'~
".
". .
r
~
". '

- , . , . .- . . ..
".

· . - . - .
,
/ i­
''·r'x
. , .. -: :-.
~ > . ·· . - - ·· - - . - ­ - i(
·x
, .
/"
'~ '
/~ 7 ~ ~.

a) b)

5.3 Des ign Criteria

The hammer foundation must be designed so as to facilitate efficient operation of

the hammer without failure and cause minimum disturbance to the environment. This

general objective may be achieved if the vibration amplitude, settlement, physiological

effects, and all stresses remain within acceptable limits. In addition, resonance should

be avoided with high-speed hammers.

218
5.3.1 Vibration Amplitudes

There are no unique limits on the vibration amplitude unless specified by the

manufacturer or codes. In the absence of such specifications, the allowable level of

vibration amplitude is estimated on the basis of experience and physiological effects

with some accommodation for the fact that larger hammers produce greater shocks and

usually larger amplitudes. A few values of maximum allowable amplitudes are

suggested for guidance in Table 5.1.

Table 5 .1: Maximum Allowable Amplitudes for Hammer

Foundations

For foundations built on soils susceptible to settlement, such as saturated sands,

smaller amplitudes are desirable. On the other hand, larger amplitudes may sometimes

be admitted for large hammers provided they satisfy the criteria for physiological effects

and settlement. Amplitudes larger than about 0.16 in (4 mm) can impair the operation of

the hammer, however.

5.3.2 Physiological Effects of Vibration

Physiological effects depend on vibration velocity and acceleration rattler than

displacement, but vary with the type of vibration and the sensitivity of individuals. The

2]9

velocity may be considered a criterion in the moderate frequency range typical of

hammers. The amplitude of vibration velocity can be calculated approximately as

(5.1)

In which Vrn =:: the maximal (peak) displacement and roo ::: the natural circular frequency

of the foundation. Various authors (see Richart et. al. 1970) have collected many data

on human perceptibility. The data given by the German Code DIN4025 and shown in

Table 2 are useful in that they provide an indication of perceptibility of vibration as well

as the effect of vibration on work. The data are shown as a function of the physiological

factor K calculated as
r > oJ'!(
-'
K =O.80vm r.A. " I ~'. ,OJ I (5.2a)

for vertical vibration and

(5.2b)

for horizontal vibration; V m is peak vibration velocity in mm/s (1 inch > 25.4 mm) . For

machines operating intermittently, the effect on work may be one category lower than

that given by the calculated value of K.

.,
l" ;' l (.'
" '.
I
(\ (
rI 10--- \
( - . "t-
_I r
1
- ,

[- II rjr} , " I \ !- ~/ l r <

r
~\
1
,. 0
0" v-
\
J\

220
 Table 5.2: Physiological Effects of Vibration

D1N4025 (German Code)

K (m/s) Classification Work

0.1 Threshold value, vibration Not affected

just perceptible

0.1 - 0.3 Just perceptible , scarcely Not affected

unpleasant, easily bearable

0.3 - 1.0 Easily noticeable, Still not affected

moderately unpleasant if

lasting an hour, bearable

1.0 - 3.0 Strongly noticeable, very Affected but possible

unpleasant if lasting over

an hour, still tolerable

3.0 - 10 Unpleasant, can be Considerably affected , still

tolerated for one hour, not possible

tolerable for more than one

hour

10- 30 Very unpleasant, not Barely possible

tolerable more than ten

minutes

30 -100 Intolerable Impossible

Over 100 Impossible

221
 Another physiological effect is noise. Hammers are noisy and have a level of

noise of about 100 db (decibel) but some presses are even noisier.

5.3.3 Stresses

Stresses in all parts of the foundation have to remain within allowable limits. This

includes compressive stresses in the pad and the concrete underlying it; bending, shear

and punching shear stresses in the block, and finally, the stresses in the soil or piles as

well as in the vibration absorbers , if used. Dynamic stress is repetitive and can cause

fatigue . This effect can be accounted for by lowering the static allowable load or by

multiplying the dynamic stress by a fatigue factor. A fatigue factor J.! =3 is often

recommended for all parts of the system.

Steel springs are also subject to fatigue, particularly when they have initial

cracks. To eliminate this possibility, the springs should be X-rayed before they are

installed.

Temperature effects can contribute to the decay of the pad under the anvil and

the underlying concrete because the temperature of the anvil can rise to as high as

1000C (2120F) with hot forging.

'- I . t •
I

c 1-'

5.3.4 Foundation Settlement r I • "' \

Settlement can be a serious problem with hammer foundations. Where the soil is

unreliable in this respect, piles or absorbers should be considered (Figs .5.2c, d and

5.3). Piles limit the settlement by transmitting the loads to deeper strata while

absorbers reduce the settlement by reducing the forces transmitted to the soil.

222
5.3.5 Mass of the Foundation Block

The adequacy of the foundation mass and dimensions is best proven by detailed

analysis of stresses and amplitudes . This is particularly true for the more complex

foundations. Nevertheless, some guidelines have been suggested for the preliminary

choice of the weight of the foundation block. Assuming that the anvil weight is about

twenty times the weight of the head, Go, the weight of the block. G, can be estimated

using the formula (Rausch, 1950)

(5.3)

in which Co = the maximum velocity of the head and c, := reference velocity taken as

1.8.37 ft/s (5.6 m/s). Smafler masses can be used if the response is limited by special

measures such as shock absorbers.

As for the general layout of the foundation, it is desirable that the centreline of the

anvil and the centroid of the base area lie on the vertical line passing through the centre

of gravity of the footing with the hammer. Misalignment and eccentric blows can result

in tilting of the foundation and differential settlement

5.3.6 Vibration Effects on Environment

Vibration propagates from the footing into the surroundings in the form of various types

of waves. At greater distances, surface waves (Rayleigh waves) usually prevail. The

vertical amplitude of the ground motion, vr , at a distance x from the vertical axis of the

foundation can be evaluated approximately as

223
 '1 GJ Y t'. 6 I l,l ' ,'
,I

Vr
- .ff
-va -e -a(r-roJ
r ~
\ /
""".J. {~ _ "I
,­
,
iJ
r:
",I fc-~ ,

(5.4)
\
.
~
,
.l <,

" '­

"'--"

in which v» = the footing amplitude, ro =the distance of the footing edge from the vertical

axis of the foundation (Fig. 5.5) and a = empirical coefficient accounting for the effect of

soil hysteresis (viscosity) . Experiments indicate the values of a range from 0 to 0.15 fr1

(0 to 0.05 rn") or more for r in ft or m, respectively.

Figure 5.5: Ground Motion Attenuation with Distance

,
_,lo r I

( ---­
I } 'c l
I
<, . \

l~_ , • , ,­

/ / 7 / 7 7 7

.
~_ro_ _ .-:.... _
r I I

The propagation of surface waves is characterized by soil particle motion, which is a

retrograde ellipse whose vertical axis is greater than its horizontal axis. This pattern is

obtained from theory even when the original disturbance acts only vertically as in the

case of a hammer foundation. However, the physical properties of the soil medium

differ considerably from the ideal properties assumed in the elastic half-space theory.

Consequently, the motion actually observed usually differs from the theoretical pattern.

In particular, the horizontal amplitudes are often greater than the vertical ones . Thus, it

may be assumed for practical calculations that the ground motion in the vicinity of the

224
foundation has vertical amplitude predicted by Eq.5.4 and horizontal amplitude of about

the same magnitude. Then, the response of a structure located near the hammer

foundation can be predicted using the methods of structural dynamics. The effect of

ground motion may be augmented by dynamic amplification of the structural response.

5.4 STIFFNESS AND DAMPING CONSTANTS OF THE SYSTEM

The prediction of the response of the hammer foundation requires the description of the

stiffness and damping of the foundation and the pad under the anvil.

Foundation on Soil

Stiffness and damping of foundations supported on soil can be evaluated using the

approaches described in Lecture 2. For a rectangular base, the equivalent radius can

be established as

(5.5)

in which a and b are the width and length of the base respectively.

The vertical stiffness, k, and damping, c, of a foundation are defined as forces

associated with a unit amplitude and unit vibration velocity, respectively. For an

embedded foundation, stiffness and damping constants can be evaluated approximately

by Eqs. 2.24 as

(5.6a)

225
 (5.6b)

Here, C 1 and C2 are dimensionless parameters related to the stiffness and damping ,

respectively, derived from the medium under the base (the elastic half-space) or a

stratum . S1 and S'2 are constants related respectively to the stiffness and damping

derived from the reactions of the layer lying above the level of the base (Fig.5.6) and

acting on the vertical sides of the footing . G = soil shear modulus and p = mass density

of the half-space while Gs , ps are the shear modulus and mass density of the side layer

(backfill), respectively. Mass density is unit weight , y, divided by gravity acceleration, g.

Finally, I =.embedment depth.

Figure 5.6: Embedded Foundation

--r---.,I
--.'
t

"'(:7,­

. s. ,. . .. . £7
£7 • SEPARATION '
_0 0 " £7 0 , .
~ "BACKFILL : -' .'
.
: ' r .. _ :, '
o pO " "
L . t .. t~ Gs • Ps . ' , .

H
, '
,5,',2
.
I

J
t •

o
0•
'...
- ·
#

.. 0
0"

",'
-

..
<i?

(7
D-

~
0

~.
P

t:J
•
. ..
•
~ .
~
l
~

'2
~.. .-

226
 The parameters C and S depend on the dimensionless frequency. However, the

analysis can be simplified if the frequency dependent parameters are replaced by

suitably chosen frequency independent constants. For the range of dimensionless

frequencies typical of hammers (0.5 to 1.5), such constants can be taken from Table

2.1. Adjustments of the theoretical values are desirable . To be on the safe side, it

appears advisable to divide the theoretical values of Cy2 shown in Table 2.1 by a factor

of about two .

The second correction involves embedment effects. The theory indicates that

embedment provides a significant source of geometric damping and contributes also to

stiffness. However, with the heavy vibration typical of hammers, the soil may separate

from the footing sides and a gap may occur-as indicated in Fig. 5.6. This gap is likely to

develop close to the surface where the confining pressure is not sufficient to.maintain

the bond between the soil and the foundation. The separation may be accounted for

approximately by considering an effective embedment depth , I, smaller than the actual

embedment depth, L. The effective depth, of course , depends oh conditions. The best

bond is obtained when the block is cast directly into the excavation . Another way of

accounting for footing separation is to assume a weakened zone around the footing

(Novak and Sheta, 1980)

When the footing is cast in forms and then backfilled, the backfill shear modulus

and density are usually lower than the original values. Unless established more

accurately, the ratios ps Ip = 0.75 and Gs I G = 0.5 may be adequate.

227
Soil eterlel Damping

Foundation stiffness and damping are also affected by soil material damping .

The material damping of soil is hysteretic and independent of frequency. It is con­

veniently described using the complex shear modulus

G* = G + iG' = G (1 + itan8) (5.7)

rrr':
in which i = -..j-l , tanf = G' / G with e = the loss angle and G' the imaginary part of the

complex soil modulus . Another measure of material damping is the damping ratio p=
1/2 tane.

Material damping can be incorporated using the correspondence principle of

viscoelasticity. In the sense of this principle, the shear modulus, G, in Eqs. 5.6 has to be

replaced by the complex shear modulus defined by Eq. 5.7. After some manipulation ,

the stiffness and damping constants including material damping become

kh = k - tan 6' C OJ (5.8a)

c; = C+ tan 8 k/ OJ (5.8b)

in which k and c are evaluated from Eqs. 5.6 without regard to material damping. As

Eqs. 5.8 suggests, material damping reduces the stiffness but increases the total

damping. However, with a half-space, i.e. a deep layer under the footing, these effects

on vertical vibration are small and can be neglected.

With shallow layers, the incorporation of material damping is important because

the geometric damping is quite small, as can be seen in Fig. 2.12, or may not

materialize at all if the first natural frequency of the hammer foundation is lower than the

first natural frequency of the soil layer . Thus, the evaluation of the damping provided by

228
shallow layers should commence with a comparison of these two natural frequencies.

The procedure is described in Lecture 2.

Soil Properties

The magnitude of material damping depends on the type of soil and increases

with strain. It ranges from 0.05 to 0.20 with a typical value of tano being about 0.1.

Shear modulus of soil (or shear wave velocity) depends on the type of soil, the level of

strain and confining pressure. The shear wave velocity of most soils ranges from 300 to

1,000 ftIs (90 to 300 rn/s) and should be established by field or laboratory experiments.

Because of the strong effects of confining pressure and strain , the shear modulus

entering the calculations should be established for a representative reference position.

Such positions are suggested in Fig. 5.6. With deep embedment, the effect of confining

pressure variation with depth can also be accounted for by dividing the depth I into

sections and using different Gs in each of them .

Pile Foundations

Vertical stiffness and damping of a foundation supported by a group of piles can

be evaluated using the procedures described in Lecture 3.

Block Suspension by Pads and Absorbers

Pads

When the foundation block is suspended by a pad of viscoelastic material

(Fig.5 .2c), the vertical stiffness constant of the block is

229
 kp (5.9 a)

in which E, =Young's modulus of the pad, Ap =area of the pad and d = its thickness.
The damping constant, calculated in terms of the complex modulus as in the case of a

shallow soil layer (Eq..5.8b), is

(5.9b)

where 8p = the loss angle of the pad material and (00 :::: the natural frequency of the

block calculated with kp. A variety of reinforced cork, rubber and other materials are

available with a broad choice of Young's moduli for each of them. For cork, Young's

modulus and material damping vary with the make and static stress (load); typical

values may be about

Ep = 2700 psi > 19162 kPa

tan8p = 0.05
However, the effectiveness of the pad does not derive from its properties alone

but depends also on the stiffness of the soil supporting the trough . The two elastic

media, the pad and the soil, act in series and have a total flexibility of

1 1
F=-+­ (5.10)
kp k

in which the soil stiffness k can be calculated from Eq. 5.6a using the dimensions of the

trough. The joint stiffness of the two media is kt = 1 / F which yields

230
 (5.11)

This equation indicates that the pad is effective and worth the expense only if the soil is

much stiffer than the pad, i.e. when k » kp .

Absorbers.

Absorbers can be installed as shown in Figs. 5.2d and 5.3. Rubber elements or

steel springs combined with dampers are used. They can be selected from available

lines or made to order (GERB) . The total stiffness and damping of a set of absorbers is

the sum of the individual contributions.

Absorbers provide the softest suspension and greatest reduction in forces

transmitted into the vicinity. Their effectiveness also depends on the stiffness of the soil

as expressed by Eq. 5.11.

Suspension of the Anvil

The anvil can rest on a pad of hard industrial felt, Wood or special resilient

plates . The Young's modulus of felt varies with the make and typical values may start at

about

E == 11000 psi = 75 .85 MPa

The strength of the felt is approximately equal to one tenth of E. The Young's modulus

of hardwood across the grain is about

E == 0.70 to 1.50 x 10 psi == 490 to 1034 MPa

and about ten times more in the direction parallel to the grain. The stiffness and

231
damping constants follow from Eqs, 5.9.

5.5 MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF HAMMER FOUNDATIONS

Hammer foundations are modeled as lumped mass systems. The number of

degrees of freedom (independent displacements) depends on the foundation type and

on whether the blow of the head acts along the centreline of the system or eccentric

ally. The mathematical models which can be used are shown in Fig. 5.7.

In many foundations, the anvil rests on an elastic pad as indicated in Fig. 5.2b.

Then, a two-mass model shown in Fig. 5.7c is adequate. With e = 0, this model has two

degrees of freedom and is most often used in hammer foundation design. Most practical

cases can be analyzed on the basis of the models shown in Figs. 5.7a and c and

therefore, further discussion focuses on these models. For a given model whose

properties have been established as outlined above, the response depends on the

magnitude and nature of the impact- forces.

232
Figure 5.7: Mathematical Models of Hammer Foundations (OOF =degrees of
freedom)

HEAD
J I orn
~. mo o
~
~I ,P e p
!

Tv
I Tv
BLOCK
ex
rn mt)f ~
u

ANV~Ll71~7Xh j ,kn //
k

i oor 3 DOF
(a 1 ( b)

HEAD
~ me mme

ANVIL "T v, Tv}

1<1

BLOCK me
T V2

k2
TV3
TROUGH k;s

2 DOF 3 OaF
(c ) (d )

233
5.6 IMPACT FORCES

The energy of the impact is determined by the weight of the head, which is given, and

its impact velocity . The foundation response to the impact also depends on the time

history of the force resulting from the impact.

Impact Velocity of the Head

For gravity hammers, the head falls freely. The maximum velocity just before the

impact is

(5.12)

in which g =gravity acceleration equal to 32.2 fUs 2 =9.81 m/s2 , ho =the drop height and
n = correction factor <1, characterizing the efficiency of the drop. With steam hammers

this factor stems primarily from the resistance of the exhaust steam. For well adjusted

hammers, n should be close to unity.

Power hammers are the prevalent variety and are all double-acting. They utilize

the steam or compressed air not only to lift the head but also to accelerate its fall. The

impact velocity of such hammers is

CO = n 2g hs (1+PSJ
Go (5.13)

in which h, = the length of the stroke, p the mean pressure on the piston (in psi or kPa) ,

S = the area of the piston and Go the weight of the hammer head . The correction factor

of these hammers is lower with the average quoted value being about 0.65 .

234
Time History of the Impact Force

The hammer head moving with impact velocity Co has a momentum moCo if ma =

Go Ig is the mass of the head. During the impact with the anvil, part of this momentum is

reinvested in the rebound of the head and the rest is transferred to the anvil in the form

of a pulse. This pulse is a transient force , P(t), of short duration, tp • The time history of

the pulse and its duration depend on the conditions of forging and are to a high degree

random; little is known about them.

However, the total power of the pulse follows from the theorem of conservation of

momentum. The duration of the pulse, tp , is very short, in the order of 0.01 or 0.02 sand

is usually much shorter than the fundamental period of the foundation, T. It can be

shown (Novak, 1983) that the foundation response decreases as the pulse duration

increases and that for ratios of tplT lower than about 0.1, the peak response is

practically independent of pulse duration and equal to that obtained with an infinitely

short pulse. Even for durations tp = 0.2T or so, the peak response is only slightly less

than the maximum . With real pulse duration of 0.02s, the ratio 0.2 1 0.02 = 10 which

implies that for natural frequencies smaller than 10 cps (Hz), the infinitely short pulse

yields a satisfactory prediction. For frequencies higher than this limit, the infinitely short

pulse overestimates the real response and its assumption is, therefore, conservative.

Thus, it appears possible to predict the response using the assumption of an infinitely

short pulse.

When the pulse is very short, it expires before the system starts moving and the

resultant motion is free vibration triggered by initial velocity .

235
5.7 RESPONSE OF ONE ASS FOUNDATIO S

When the anvil is rigidly mounted (Fig.5.2a) and the hammer blow does not act

eccentrically, the one-degree-of-freedom model shown in Fig.5.7a is sufficient to

analyze the response. The response is obtained as a solution of the governing

differential equation that expresses the dynamic equilibrium of inertia, damping and

restoring forces. With the notation of Fig. 5.7a, the governing equation of the response

v= v(t) is

mv+cv+kv- 0 (5.14)

in which m = the mass of the foundation with the anvil and frame; c and k are the

stiffness and damping constants evaluated e.g. from Eqs. 5.6. Finally, v= d2 V Idt2 and
v== dv/dt and t = time. From the elementary theory of vibration , the solution to Eq. 5.14

corresponding to initial velocity of the system, C, can be written as

,..
C -Dro f •
vet) = -e 0 SIn UJot (5.15)
UJ'o

in which C is the initial velocity,

(5.16)

is the undamped natural frequency,

(5.17)

is the damped natural frequency and finally,

236
 D= c
2.Jkm
is the damping ratio. With small damping, (i)'o =0 CUo

The initial velocity, C, can be obtained from the consideration of the collision

between the head whose mass is rn, and the foundation having mass m. Because the

pulse resulting from this collision is presumed to be infinitesimally short, the restoring

and damping forces have not been activated during the collision. Consequently, the

collision is governed by the relations valid for two free bodies. The impact velocity of the

head, Co , follows from Eqs. 5.12 or 5.13 while the velocity of mass m is zero at the

beginning of the collision . Conservation of momentum requires

(5.18)

in which c'o and C are the unknown velocities of the head and foundation, respectively,

after the collision. For these two unknowns, Eq. 5.18 is not sufficient and one more

equation is required. This equation is obtained by introducing the coefficient of

restitution, k., defined by Newton as the ratio of relative velocity after the impact to

relative velocity before the impact, i.e.

c- C'o
(5.19)

From Eqs. 5.18 and 5.19, the initial velocity of the foundation is:

(5.20)

The coefficient kr depends on the material of the bodies and ranges from 0 for plastic

237
collisions to 1 for perfectly elastic collisions. For hammers, the lowest k, occurs when

forging nonferrous materials for which it is close to zero. For hot forging, kr is about

0.25 but increases as the material gets colder. For cold forging, k, is about 0.5 (Barkan ,

1962). Thus, kr = 0.5 may represent the adequate mean value for design purposes.

Occasionally, the impact occurs with the sample absent, yielding the highest k, and

hardest shock .

With the velocity Ccalculated from Eq. 5.20 and substituted into Eq. 5.15, the

complete response is determined. A few examples of the response are plotted in Figs.

5.8 and 5.9. A foundation without an anvil pad modeled according to Fig. 5.7a is

assumed to be supported either by soil (Eqs. 5.6) or by eight timber piles (Eq. 3.11) with

all other conditions being the same. The pile supported foundation exhibits smaller

peak amplitudes, a higher natural frequency and smaller damping than the soil

supported (shallow) foundation (Fig. 5.8). If the piles were used in two different types of

soil, the stiffer soil would reduce the response amplitudes and increase the natural

frequency even more (Fig . 5.9). The maximum (peak) displacement occurs at a time,

tm r for which dv/dt = O. This condition yields

1 .JI-D 2
t = -arctan - - - ­
m ID (5.21)
(v
o

The peak displacement, v r follows from Eq.5.21 for time t m substituted. When the

damping is not very large, tm ;; X T and the peak displacement becomes

" ... 7!- D

" C 2
v=-e (5.22)
0)0

238
Figure 5.8: Response of Hammer Foundation Supported (A) directly by soil and

(8) by eight piles

" I ... (
,r ... .
IoP ' I,

SOlL A 3

0.30 o.~o

;;,

"'.J

,
o

Figure 5.9: Response of Pile Supported Hammer Foundations for Two Types of

Soil: (A) shear wave velocity V s and (b) shear wave velocity 2Vs

...~
D. '0
....
Z
I

QJ

'"
'"
u
a:
-'
<L­
a'>

"0
o

239
The maximum force transmitted into the ground is

(5.23)

and the peak dynamic stress on the soil is (J = FlAb where An the base area . With
piles, the maximum dynamic load on one pile is, on average,

F (1) = FIn (5.24)

where n = the number of piles . If group interaction effects are significant, the load is not

distributed evenly and Eq. 5.24 gives the average load. The effect of dynamic stresses

on the soil or piles is to be evaluated with respect to fatigue. When the anvil is mounted

on an elastic pad, a two mass system should be used to analyze the response .

5.8 RESPONSE OF TWO MASS FOUNDATIONS

When the anvil rests on an elastic pad as shown in Figs. 5.2b,c, d or Fig. 5.3 , a

hammer foundation should be considered as a two mass system as shown in Fig.5.7c

and reproduced in Fig. 5.10a. In this model, rru is the mass of the anvil and m2 the mass

of the pad under the footing. k 1 is the stiffness constant of the pad under the anvil

calculated by Eq.5.9a and kz is the stiffness of the soil, piles or any other support of the

footing block . At first, damping is neglected.

240
 Figure 5.10: Hammer foundation as a two masses system and its vibration modes

a) b) c)

HEAD ¢m o
MOOE 1 MODE 2
W\ Wz

R I
r - - - - -., r r rr:: --,

I
t il I
ANVIL vI
V 1-- --1
kl ~ ~

-+v2
BLOCK mZ
l:~~-~~~J ~2'
7;~; Ul/U~77 7/~~/ ::' ~-,t 7

Undamped Vibration

If the duration of the collision between the hammerhead (mass ma) and anvil is short

relative to the natural periods of the system, the impact of the head will be followed by

free vibration of both masses, V1(t) and V2(t). The governing equations of motion follow

from Newton's second law in the sense that the product of each mass and its

acceleration must be equal to the sum of all forces acting on the mass and thus

dZv.., (t)
m; -.., =-kzv.., -kt(vt-v..,)
- dr - ­

With the notation

(5.25)

the governing equations of the motion become

241
 (5.26)

These are two coupled , homogeneous differential equations of the second order with

constant coefficients . Hence, complete solutions for the unknown displacements V1(t)

and V2(t) can be written as sums of two independent particular solutions. Because the

system is undamped and linear, particular solutions can be expected to be harmonic

with an unknown frequency. (OJ , as in the case of free undamped vibration in one

degree of freedom, and written as

(5.27)

Substitution of Eqs. 5.27 into Eqs. 5.26 gives

(5.28a)

(5.28b)

These are algebraic homogeneous equations for constants V1 and V2. When the

stiffness constants are frequency independent, the solution of Eqs. 5.28 represents the

"eigenvalue problem" . A nontrivial solution exists only if the determinant of the coeffi­

cients of Eqs . 5.24,~ vanishes, i.e.

1 ~ =O. This condition yields two natural frequencies

(529)

242
With the two frequencies (OJ a= 1,2) substituted into Eqs . 5-28 one at a time, two ratios
of displacements V1 I V2 can be calculated . The ratios represent the undamped vibration

modes and are from Eq. 5.28a and b, respectively

for j = 1 or 2 (5.30)

(This relation can be used to check the correctness of (01 , and ~)

To distinguish the vibration amplitudes of the two modes, double subscripts are

introduced. The first subscript identifies the amplitudes of mass m1 or m2; the second

subscript indicates the frequency and mode with which the amplitude Vu is associated .

The two ratios, Eq.5 .30, characterize the vibration modes shown in Figs.5.10b and c. In

the first mode, the two masses vibrate in phase; in the second mode, the two masses

vibrate in antiphase. Because the two natural frequencies are different, Eqs. 5.27 give

two different particular solutions and the complete solution to Eq. 5.26 can be written as

(5.31)

Amplitudes Vij are determined from initial conditions which are

V1(0) = 0 , V2(0) =0 (5.32a)

(5.32b)

v = dVj(t) I dt and the initial velocity c follows from the basic formula for collision, Eq.

5.20, as

(5.33)

243
where mo, Co are the mass and impact velocity of the hammer head respectively and k,

is the coefficient of collision. Applying the initial conditions and denoting the natural

frequency of the anvil in case of a rigidly supported foundation block

(5.34)

the four amplitudes determining the solution described by Eqs. 5.31 are

(5.35a)

(5.35b)

for the anvil and

(5.35c)

(5.35d)

for the foundation.

The motion of each mass has two harmonic components whose amplitudes are

in the ratios given by Eq. 5.30 or Eqs. 5.35. For a foundation with a rather stiff anvil

pad , an example of the response of both the anvil and the foundation is shown in Fig.

5.11a. The anvil oscillates about the instantaneous position of the foundation block.

For a softer anvil pad , the contribution of the second vibration mode is much more

significant as can be seen in Fig. 5.12a. (The calculation is given later in an example)

244
 Figure 5.11: Response of Two Mass Hammer Foundations with Stiff Anvil Pads:

(a) undamped and (b) damped (Dl =10%, D2 = 5%) (amplitude in inches)

10

I. FOurH.lATtON
5
~
.
~

:50
~ zo 100
~

~
-e;
~5

{a)
- 10

..... 5
-
~

~ o 20 60 100
In( l-lE-ll
~ (b)
""'-5

Figure 5.12: Response of Two Mass Hammer Foundations with Elastic Anvil Pad:

(a) undamped and (b) damped (D1 =51% and D2 =7.47%); (amplitude in inches)

10

~
.
~
5

~o
~

"­
~
-5

(e)
-10

5
:r.
~o
.....
~ (b)
-5

245
Because (;)2 is usually much greater than (;)1 the peak displacement of the foundation is

approximately

5,36)

and the amplitude of the total motion of the anvil

(5.37)

However, the stress in the pad does not depend on the absolute magnitude of the

motion but only on the relative displacement between the anvil and the block. As Fig.

5.12a- suggests, the relative peak displacement of the anvil is

(5.38)

The amplitudes Vij are given by Eqs. 5.35, The peak displacements given by Eqs. 5.36

to 5.38, represent the upper bound because damping, neglected thus far, reduces the

amplitudes as is shown in the next paragraph.

Damped Vibration

In the two mass model, damping is defined by the constants C1 and C2 (Fig.

5.10a) . It could be introduced into the governing equations of the motion but the

accurate solution gets more complicated. It is more convenient to predict the damped

response approximately using the notions of modal analysis and modal damping

outlined for structures by Novak (1974b) .

The foundation response comprises the two vibration modes shown in Fig. 5.10.

The damping ratio associated with vibration in each of these modes can be evaluated

by means of an energy consideration if it is assumed that the damped mode is

246
approximately the same as the undamped mode. This consideration yields the damping

ratio associated with the foundation vibration in the jth mode (Novak, 1983)

(5.39)

in which the generalized mass of mode j

(5.40)

where j =1, 2. In Eq. 5.39, the damping constant of the anvil, C1, is obtained from Eqs,

5.9 and the damping constant of the foundation , C2, from Eqs. 5.6b. The frequencies

appearing in these equations are the natural frequencies (:) 1 and (:)2 calculated from Eq.

5.29. Thus, for each natural frequency (mode), one set of C1, C2 may be necessary due

to converting a constant hysteretic damping to equivalent viscous damping. The

amplitudes V1j and V2j are the. undamped amplitudes given by Eqs . 5.35. Alternatively,

arbitrary modal amplitudes complying with Eq. 5.30 may be used in Eq. 5.39; in this

case, one amplitude can be chosen for each mode, e.g . V1j = 1, and the other calculated

using the ratio aj.

If the frequency CO2 »(:)1 which can be the case with a hard anvil pad, then V11 ~ V21

and V22 « V12 and

Consequently, Eq. 5.39 simplifies to approximate expressions for modal damping ratios,

(5.41)

247
in which ~p = the damping ratio of the pad.

Realizing that Eqs.5.31 represent the superposition of vibration modes, the damped

vibration of the anvil and the foundation block can be written as

(5.42)

in which V1j and V2j are the undamped amplitudes established from Eqs . 5.35 and the

damping ratios Dj are given by either Eq. 5.39 or Eq. 5.41. The damped natural

frequencies

An example of the damped oscillation described by Eq. 5.42 is plotted in Figs. 5.11b

and 5.12b . The damped response shown pertains to the same foundation as were used

to exemplify the undamped response. The only difference is the inclusion of damping .

Even the modest damping incorporated smooths the response quickly, eliminating the

second harmonic component in the case of a stiff anvil pad but not with a soft pad. The

peak displacements are approximately

and occur at time

1 ~1-D12
=-arctan---­
t m, D (5.44a)
CUj 1

where

248
 (5.44b)

The peak relative displacement of the anvil, determining the stress in the anvil

pad, is approximately

--~~;2 -\
~(VI2 + h20~ (5.45)

The total peak force transmitted into the ground (or piles) comprises the restoring

force and the damping force and, with respect to the 90 degree phase shift between

them is approximately , 9S -\l ~' , / v( <:'( ( , . \ \ r .v

( '

LFF _.tr~"
) 2
v }
~k 2
~+
( ,
CzOJ}
--
, ) 2

/
~ ~l
,~ (5.46)

in which V2j are the modal contributions to V2 obtained from Eq. 5.42 or 5.43; thus, V2 :=

V21 + V22 . The force acting on the pad is

(5.47)

More Complicated Systems.

The above approach can readily be extended to include more complicated systems

shown in Fig. 5.7d .

Complex Eigenvalue Approach

The damping ratios, Dj obtained from the energy consideration can be verified by

introducing the damping constants, c into the governing equations of the motion, Eq.

5.26, and solving the complex eigenvalue problem. The modal damping ratios calcu­

249
lated using this mathematically accurate procedure are practically identical with those
calculated from Eq. 5.39. This agreement indicates that the energy consideration yields

the same damping as the complex eigenvalue approach. (More details on the complex

eigenvalue approach may be found in Novak and EI Hifnawy, 1983.)

5.9 PRELIMINARY TWO-STEP ANALYSIS

For a preliminary check of the design, a very simple two-step approach can be

used . This approach is based on the assumption that the response of a two mass

foundation can be evaluated approximately as a sequence of two collisions: the collision

between the head and the anvil and the collision between the anvil and the footing

block. After each collision, the amplitudes of the anvil and foundation block are

established using the formulae for one degree of freedom. The underlying assumption is

that the duration of the collisions is short compared to the natural periods involved .

The impact of the head yields the initial velocity of the anvil given by Eq. 5.33,

(5.48)

and the peak, undamped displacement of the anvil, as in Eq. 5.22

"
" C
va = - (5.49)
OJ a

in which the frequency of the anvil

(5.50)

The second collision results in the initial velocity of the foundation

250
 (5.51 )

in which the collision coefficient kr reflects the behavior of the pad and may be taken as

approximately 0.6. The undamped amplitude of the foundation is

(5.52)

in which the frequency of the foundation

(5.53)

In this approach, damping is usually ignored but could be included as in one degree of

freedom using Eq. 5.41 for damping and Eq. 5.15 for amplitudes.

The stress in the soil and the anvil pad is obtained using Eqs. 5.23 and 5.47 ,

usually with the omission of damping. This simple approach, proposed by Rausch

(1950), gives a reasonable estimate of the response .

Mass of Hammer Head.

In the above analysis, mass rn. is the mass of the anvil. Depending on the type of

hammer, restitution coefficient and mode of operation mass ma can remain in contact

with the anvil; this is more likely to occur at very low restitution coefficients . In such a

case, mass rn- should be replaced by (ma + rn.) in all the above formulae. The practical

difference is not great since rna « rn, « m2.

251
5.10 ECCENTRICITY OF THE IMPACT

If the blow of the hammer head acts with an eccentricity. e, as indicated in Fig. lb, the

blow produces an initial angular velocity of the anvil, \jf. in addition to its initial

I'
velocity, C . Conservation of momentum requires

(5.54a)

for the vertical translation and

(5.54b)

for rotation where I is the mass moment of inertia of the anvil. The third equation

needed can be written using Newton's definition of the restitution coefficient, kr. In this

case, this definition includes the contribution of the angular velocity to the relative

velocity after the collision, C+ e\jf - c'a, yielding

(5.54c)

From Eqs. 5.54 the initial velocity of the anvil becomes

(5.55)

and the initial angular velocity of the anvil

(5.56)

in which the square of the radius of gyration of the anvil i2 1 = 1/ rn-. For a centric blow e

252
= 0, Eq. 5.55 reduces to Eq. 5.33 and 'Jf = O. For a one mass foundation (Fig. 7a), mass

rn- would be replaced by the total mass m in the above formulae.

If only-vertical motion and rotation are considered, i e. two degrees of freedom ,

the analysis of a one mass system is mathematically almost identical with the analysis

of vertical vibration of the two mass system outlined above.

With more degrees of freedom, the analysis is more complicated and is conducted

most efficiently in terms of the complex eigenvalue approach (Novak and EI Hifnawy,

1983). An example of an eccentrically arranged two mass foundation is shown in Fig.

5.13. The foundation is the same as the one used in the numerical example later herein,

except for the eccentricity of the anvil. Horizontal translations U1, U2 and rocking 'Jf1, 'Jf2

have to be considered in addition to the vertical translations V1, V2. Consequently, the

two mass foundation has six degrees of freedom. The response , obtained by means of

the complex eigenvalue analysis as described in Novak and EI Hifnawy (1983) , is

shown in Fig. 5.14. Depending on conditions, the horizontal translation and rocking can

be quite significant.

253
Figure 5.13: Two Mass Foundation with Eccentrically Mounted Anvil

00 T
14:T~z
Nit) It)r
roN o
~L
Vz

- - -;/7777777/ /7"7'"',." "'­- - " '" ~"' " -,

'6 .56 .~L. 6.56 I 3 .28
J
• (2.00) I (2.0 0 ) I ( 1.00 )
FT
Lrn) Ir - -'" 16 .40
( 5.00 )

.- -'-- ----'-- ' - - - -­ -- ----_..- -­

254
Figure 5.14: Three Components of Response for the eccentric foundation shown

in Fig 5.13 (amplitudes in inches, rocking in radians, time in seconds)

o
.

U)
.
C\l
l

-
W

fj"0-+....L...._~ h------+-----.'~---'i P-rd~~ =;;::-::t=::::;;;:"\I17. 4u.

l (

-< •
U'> {a) VERTICAL
J .

HORIZONTAL

=
.
N
I.
W •
_U'>

U)
.
I
. I c ) ROCKING

255
5.11 RESPONSE FOR KNOWN IMPACT FORCE

If the time history of the impact force, P(t), is known, the response can be

predicted accurately using those methods of structural dynamics that are suitable for

transient loads . The following methods are well-suited to this end: The Duhanel integral

in combination with modal analysis and numerical integration , fast Fourier transform ,

and direct integration of the governing differential equations such as the Wilson e
method. All these methods presume the use of the computer and are described in

Clough and Penzien (1975). A special Fourier analysis is described in Lysmer and

Richart (1966) . The complex eigenvalue approach is particularly efficient as described

by EI Hifnawy and Novak (1984).

All these methods work very well. However, their practical usefulness in the

hammer foundation analysis is limited by the lack of reliable information on the time

history of the impulse force , its inevitable randomness and variability. Finally, because

the initial velocity approach is bound to give the upper bound estimate, it seems quite

sufficient to use this method for design purposes .

5.12 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

The moments and shear forces generated in the foundation block also must be

evaluated.

The static forces and moments follow from the equilibrium between the gravity

loads and soil resistance as in usual foundation design.

The dynamic forces are complex but can be approximately evaluated from the

256
equilibrium between the impact force passing through the pad, Fa, and the inertia

forces , Pi, acting on the mass of the footing and distributed in proportion to its mass

(Fig. 5.15). For the geometry depicted in Fig. 5.15 , the equilibrium is

The forces Pi and F I 2 result in shear forces and moments in the planes I and II which

can be readily evaluated .

Special attention should be paid to shear reinforcement in the cross section I and

horizontal reinforcement under the anvil. The latter reinforcement is needed because of

the horizontal tensile forces resulting from the concentrated pressure of the anvil. When

the shear stress is high, the shear reinforcement is sometimes designed for inertia

forces acting not only up but also down in anticipation of stress reversal. The basic

reinforcement is shown in Fig. 5.16.

257
 Figure 5.15: Inertia Forces Acting on Block

ri

Figure 5.16: Reinforcement of Foundation

258
5.13 EXAMPLE: HAMMER FOUNDATION

The response plotted in Fig.. 5.12 was calculated for a hammer foundation shown in Fig.

5.17 and characterized by these data :

1) Hammer

Weight of head (tup, Go)

3000 lbs (1361 kg)

Weight of anvil (G 1)
60000 lbs (27216 kg)

Weight of frame mounted on

the block (G F)
50000 lbs (22680 kg)

Impact velocity of head (eo)

21.33 ft Is (6.5 m I s)

Frequency of blows
40 to 90 c/min

Coefficient of restitution (k.)

0.5

2. Soil (a deep layer of coarse sand with gravel)

Shear wave velocity (vs )

500 ft Is (152.4 m Is)

Unit weight (y)

120 Ib/ft 3 (1922 kg/m 3 )

Poisson's ratio
0.25

Material damping (tano)

0.10

Depth to bedrock
100 ft (30.48 m)

Allowable stress
6000 Ib I ft2 (0.287 MPa)

3. Backfill

Shear modulus (G s ) 0.5G

259
Unit weight (Ys) 0.75y

Poisson's ratio 0.25

4. Pad Under Anvil (hard felt)

Thickness (d)
6 in (0.1524 m)

Young's modulus (Ep)

15000 psi (103,43 MPa)

Pad dimensions
6.56 ft x 4.92 ft (2m x L5m)

Area (Ap)
32.28 ft2 (3.00m2)

Material damping (tanop)

0.10

Allowable stress
500 psi (3,45 MPa)

5.Foundation Block (reinforced concrete)

Unit weight (y)

150 Ib / ft3 (2400 kg 1m 3 )

Base dimensions
16,4ftx 13.12 ft (5m X 4m)

Base area (A2)

215.57 ft2 (20m 2)

Total depth 8.2 ft (2.5m)

260
 Figure 5.17: Hammer Foundation

/
l(")
,
-,--
ro - St
.
r PA D

0 0
tiT
.1
N in 0'
a) N N 0
m l.O
~ -
'-"

6.56 I 4 .92
I~ I
4 .92

FT
{1.50} ·i• (2.00) ~ I- {l.50} 1
(rri) r------ 16.40
(5 .00 ) ~I

ot[)
-N
'<;1"'':::

ol.O
-N
.q: ....:.

261
Solution

MASSES

Mass of the anvil:

rn- ::: G1 I g::: 60000 132.2 = 1863.35 Ib2 1ft

Weight of the block:

Gb =150 (16.4 x 13.12 x 8.2 - 6.56 x 4.92 x 3.28)

=2487801bs

Check of the weight using Eq. 5.3:

j2
Gb =75Go(~J2 =75X3000(21.33
Cr 18.37 )
=3030001b

The weight of the block seems adequate.

Total foundation weight

G t ::: Go + G1 + Gf + Gb = 3.0 + 60.0 + 50.0 + 248 .78 :: 361.78

Mass of the foundation block:

mb::: G b Ig =248780 132.2 ::: 7726 .0 Ib2 1ft

Mass of the frame:

mf::: 50000/32.2 ::: 1552.8 Ib2 1ft

Mass of the block with the frame:

m2 ::: mb + m, ::: 7726 .0 +1552 .8 = 9278 .8 Ib2 1ft

STIFFNESS AND DAMPING CONSTANTS

Stiffness of the anvil pad (Eq. 5.9a):

k1 ::: kp ::: Ep Ap I d ::: 15000 x 144 x 32.281 0.5 = 1.395 x 1081b 1ft

Stiffness of the embedded foundation (Eq. 5.6a)

262
Equivalent radius (Eq. 5.5)

Yo = ~~ = -!16.4x13.12/1r = 8.28ft
Soil shear modulus

G = v; xp = 500 2 x120/32.2 = 9.317xl0 51b/ ft2

Embedment: Assume separation s = 3 ft (Fig. 5.6)

Effective embedment 1 = 8.20 - 3.0 = 5.20 ft

Embedment ratio Ilro = 5.20 I 8.28 = 0.63

Stiffness parameters from Table 3

C, = 5.2, S1 = 2.7

Stiffness constant of the foundation (Eq. 5.6a)

= 9.317x1 05 x 8.28 (5.2+0 .5 x 0.63 x 2.7)

= 4.668x1 07 Ib I ft

Damping of the foundation (Eq. 5.6b)

From Table 3 the theoretical constant C 2 =5.0. With the correction factor taken for

radiation damping as 0.5, the corrected value C 2 = 2.5.

Constant S 2 = 6.7.

263
The foundation damping coefficient (Eq. 5.6b)

= 8.28 2.J120/32.2 x 9.317 x 105 (2.5 + 6.7 x 0.63)0.75 x 0.5)

= 6.496x105 Ib / ft

PRELIMINARY TWO-STEP ANALYSIS

Stress in the anvil pad:

Consider collision between the head and the anvil. Initial velocity of the anvil (Eq. 5.48)

3000

= (1+0.5) [3000 + 60000 ] 21.33

= 1.52 ft / s

Natural -frequency of the anvil with rigid soil (Eq. 5.50)

m~ =~= 1.395x10
8
=7.4865x10 4
». 1863.35

The approximate value of the maximum relative displacement

of the anvil (Eq. 5.49)

Va = c= 1.52 =5.555x10-3 }1=0.067 in

OJ a 273.61

264
Dynamic force on the pad

Dynamic stress on the pad

5
a- = Fp = 7.75 X 10 = 2.40 X 10 4 lb / ft2

p Ap 32.28 .

With fatigue factor !-t := 3

a-~ = 3 X 166.72 = 500.15 psi

Static stress on the pad

- - ~- 60000 _ 12 91 .
a - - 32.28/ - . pSI
Ap / 144
Total peak stress on the pad

Up =U p +a-~ =12 ..91+500.125=513.06psiOK

Foundation block amplitudes and stress on soil

Response of the block is considered as a collision between the anvil and the-block with

kr = 0.6.

Initial velocity of the block (Eq. 5.51)

= (1 + 0.6) 1863.35 1.52 = 0.4067 ft / S

1863.35 + 9278.8 .

265
Natural frequency of the foundation (Eq. 5.53)

7
k2 4.668x10 = 64.73s-1
(m1 + m 2 ) - 1863.35 + 9278.8

Peak amplitude of the block (Eq. 5.52)

6283 x l 0 - 3 fit = 0 .07 54 in

v" 2 = -(;2 = 0.4067 =.

lUI 64.73

This exceeds the recommended limit of 0.05 in (Table 5.1) but may be reduced due to

damping .

Dynamic force on soil

Dynamic stress on soil

5
8 2 = F2 = 2.933x10 = 1361.11b/ ft2
Az 215.17

With a fatigue factor ~ := 3,

8~ =3x1363.1 =4089.4lb/ ft
2

Static stress on soil

(]' =~= 361780 =1681.4Ib/ fl2

A2 215.17
Total stress on soil

266
 (52 == (52 + 0-; == 1681.4 + 4089.4 == 5770.81b / ft2
< 6000 lb Iff OK

All stresses and amplitudes appear to be adequate. The design need not be changed at

this stage and the more detailed analysis can be started.

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Natural frequencies:

The stiffness constants of the coupled system (eq. 5.25) are

k 11 :: k 1 :: 1.395x 10 8 lb 1ft

:: 1.8618x1 08 Ib I ft

Masses:

rn, :: 1863.35 Ib S2 1ft

m2:: 9278.80 Ib S2 1ft

Natural frequencies (Eq. 5.29) are

267
Undamped Amplitudes (Eqs. 5.35)

Initial anvil velocity c = 1.52 ft I s, and w; = 7.4865x104 s' 2

" ?

V11 = 0.0520 in

V12 = 0.0494 in

V21 = 0.0494 in
V22 = -0.0105 in

The peak undamped displacement of the anvil (Eq . 5.37) is

'Or = VII + VI2 = 0.0520 + 0.0494 = 0.1014 in

and for the foundation (Eq. 5.36)

V2 = V21 + IV22 I= 0.0491 + 0.0105 = 0.0596 in ,.., 0.06 in

These values exceed the recommended limits listed in Table 5.1 but the actual values

will be reduced due to damping . With the undamped amplitudes available , the complete

response can be calculated using Eqs.5.31. The undamped response is plotted in

Fig.5.12a. However, the response is affected by damping.

Damping Ratios

The damping constant of the foundation

C2 = 7.4708x10 5 Ib I ft, for j = 1,2

The damping of the anvil is (Eq. 5.9b)

Clj =tan8p k1 I Wj, j = 1,2

C11 =0.10 x 1.395x10 8 I 64.41 =2.165x10 5Ib 1ft

268
 C12 =0.10 X 1.395x108 /301.30 =0.4630x10 5 Ib 1ft
Generalized mass (Eq. 5.41)

M 1 = 1863.35 X 0.052 2 + 9278.8 X 0.0491 2 =27.408

M 2 = 1863.35 X 0.0494 2 + 9278.8 X 0.01052 = 5.570

Damping Ratios (Eq. 5.39)

2]
01 = (2 x 64.41 x 27.408r 1[2.1658 (0.0520 - 0.0491)2 + 6.496
5
X 0.0491 x 10

= 0.44 = 44%
02 = (2 x 301.3 x5.57)-1[0.4630 (0.0494 - 0.0105)2 + 6.496 X 0.0105 2] x 10
5

::: 0.070 = 7%

Check of the modal damping using the approximate Eqs. 5.41:

5
D, = 6.496 x 10 = 0.45 = 45%

7
2.J4.668 xl 0 x 11142.15

and with C1 = C12

5
D2 = 0.463 x 10 = 0.0454 = 4.540/0

8
2J1.3596xl0 x1863.35

With the damping established the total response can be calculated from Eq.5.42.

For both the anvil and the foundation , the damped response is plotted in Fig.5-12b. It

can be seen that damping has a significant effect on the magnitude and character of the

response. The peak displacements can be established from Fig. 5.2b or calculated

separately.

The character of the response plotted in Fig. 5.12 differs from that shown in

Figure 5.11. The difference is primarily due to the difference in the stiffness of the anvil

269
pad. Figure 5.11 represents the response typical of a stiff pad white ~ ig . 5.12
corresponds to a moderately soft pad. With the soft pad, the contribution of the second

mode is greater and the time history of the response is more irregular. The peak

displacements, if not established from the time history, have to be established

considering both vibration modes for the footing as well as the anvil.

Amplitudes of damped vibration

The damped frequency

The peak displacement of the foundation occurs at the time (Eq. 5.44a)

t =
1
_. -arctan
~1- D I2

m f
(VI
DI

1
---arc tan .J1- 0.5106 2
0 019 S
=.
57.916 0.4425

The peak displacement of the foundation is (Eq. 5.43)

"-
V 2 == 0.0491 exp(-0.5106 x 64.41 x 0.0187) sin(55.38 x 0.0187) +

0.0105 exp(-0.074 x 301.3 x 0.0187)

'"
V2 =0.0228 + 0.0069 =0.0297 ~ 0.03 in. <0.05 in. OK

Without damping the amplitude was 0.06 in.

The peak displacement of the anvil

270
 "-
Vj = 0.0228 x 0.052/ 0.491 + 0.0069 x 0.0494 /0.0105

"­
VI = 0.0241 + 0.0325 = 0.0566 ~ 0.06 in. <0.08 in. OK

Without damping the amplitude was 0.10 in. With damping included, the amplitudes are

within acceptable limits.

The peak relative displacement of the anvil taken as approximately equal to the

first amplitude of the anvil response in the second mode would be (Eq. 5.45)

~ O. 074
Va = (O.0494+0.010S)e 2 =O.OS3in.

This amplitude of the relative displacement of the anvil is smaller than 0.08 in allowable

according to Table 5.1 . This maximum is also smaller than 0.067 in obtained in the pre­

liminary analysis.

The force transmitted to the ground by the first harmonic component is (Eq.5

.46)

F? = 0.03 ~(4 .668x107)2+(6.485xI05x57.916)2

- 12 · .

= 1.627 x 105 Ib

This is less than the value of 2.933x10 5 found in the preliminary analysis. The

contribution from damping is significant.

Comparison of these results with those obtained using the approximate,

preliminary analysis indicates that the preliminary analysis gives very good estimates .

Thus, the preliminary calculation of stresses need not be repeated.

27]

REFERENCES
Barkan , D.D. (1962). "Dynamics of Bases and Foundations ," McGraw-Hili Book Co.,
lnc., Chapter 5, pp. 185-241.

Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1975) . "Dynamics of Structures," McGraw-Hili, p. 634.

EI Hifnawy, L. and Novak, M. (1984). "Response of Hammer Foundations to Pulse

Loading," Int. J. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 3, No.3, pp. 124@132 .

GERB, "Vibration-isolation Systems," Published by GERB, 1000 Berlin 51, P. 91.

Klein, A.M. and Crockett, J.H.A. (1953). "Design and Construction of a Fully Vibration­
Controlled Forging Hammer Foundation ," Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
January, pp. 421-444.

Lysmer, J. and Richart, F.E. (1966) . "Dynamic Response of Footings to Vertical

Loading," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE , Vol. 92, SMP, pp.
65-91.

Major, A. (1962). "Vibration Analysis and Design of Foundations for Machines and
Turbines," Collet's Holdings Limited, London, Chapters XII and XIII, pp. 221-269.

Novak , M. (1983). "Foundations for Shock-Producing Machines ," Canadian

Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 141-158.

Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1980). "Approximate Approach to Contact Problems of

Piles," Proc. of Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE National Convention "Dynamic
Response of Pile Foundations : Analytical Aspects ," October, Florida, pp. 53-79.

Novak, M. and EI Hifnawy, L. (1983). "Vibration of Hammer Foundations ,"

International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering , Vol. 2, No.1, pp.
43-53 .

Prakash, S. (1981) . "Soil Dynamics ," McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 426.

Rausch , E. (1950). "Maschinen Fundamente ," VDI-Verlag, Dusseldorf, (in German),

Chapter 6, pp. 107-232.

Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. and Woods, RD. (1970). "Vibrations of Soils and Foundations,"
Prentice-Hall, lnc., p. 414.

Srinivasulu, P. and Vaidyanathan, C.V. (1976). "Handbook of Machine Foundations,"

Tata McGraw-Hili Pub!. Co. Ltd., New Delhi, Chapter 4, pp . 103-134 .

272
6.1 DAMAGE AND DIS TURBANCE

Vibration damage and disturbance can be categorized into the following main

groups.

6.1.1 Operational Disturbance in the Technical Process

Disturbances in technical processes due to vibration may cause deterioration in

product quality and/or a reduction in production capacity. The clients will reject lower

quality products, which translates into economic losses and may ultimately lead to a

total loss of the market.

6.1.2 Damage to Machinery

Damage to machinery can result in stoppages that may cause large economic

losses. The extent of the damage depends on the duration of the stoppage, the

importance of the machine for the whole operation and on the size and output of the

industrial plant. The disruption of operations could result in daily losses in the order of

hundreds of thousands of dollars in a manufacturing facility, a mining operation, a large

sawmill, a large paper making machine or a few millions of dollars in a nuclear power

plant.

6.1.3 Personal Discomfort

Human susceptibility to vibration is related to vibration velocity. As the vibration

velocity increases, the level of discomfort increases. The working environment could be

annoying or even painful at higher vibration levels. Consequently, the work is affected

274
and in some situations becomes impossible. Unpleasant working environment results in

reduced productivity and sometimes health hazards for the workers.

6.1.4 Damage to the Ground, Foundations and Buildings

Some foundations are built on soils susceptible to settlement, such as saturated

sands, which can be a serious problem. Large settlements and/or differential settlement

may lead to malfunctioning of the machine and/or increased wear of machine

components. These conditions may result in lower quality products an/or increased

maintenance cost. Dynamic stresses due to machine vibrations are repetitive in nature

and can cause fatigue. This can affect the foundation elements and/or the buildings .

Vibration induced cracks could cost a lot of money over the years in repairing concrete

structures and foundations. Operation disruptions and production losses could also

accompany these repair costs.

6.1.5 Disturbance Outside the Industrial Area

Vibration disturbance outside the industrial area can result in costly and drawn

out disputes with people living nearby and with the environmental health authorities. It

may also affect the quality and productivity of nearby precise operations in the same

facility.

6.2 PROBLEM ASSESSMENT AND EVALUA TION

The fundamental principle in analyzing a vibration problem is to define the

vibration system concerned and to find the combination of measures that will produce

275
the desired result at the lowest cost. The main approach is to define and evaluate the

relationship between force and motion. The approach is simple but the number of

parameters is large and they often difficult to determine.

6.2.1 Evaluation of System Parameters

The dynamic forcing function is not generally known . As discussed previously,

different machines produce different types of dynamic loading , and often the

manufacturer does not define these loads. Also, the material properties in existing

installations are often insufficiently known. This means that even if vibration amplitudes

(displacement, velocity or acceleration) can be measured, it is generally extremely

difficult to find theoretical solutions. It is therefore necessary to employ a practical

procedure consisting of a suitable combination of measurements and calculations, the

general method being adapted to the problem encountered in each individual case .

The method can be illustrated with the aid of the vibration model of one degree of

freedom . The complex relationship between mass, stiffness, damping and the motion of

the system shows that the task of finding suitable remedial measures in conjunction with

harmful vibrations is not amenable to an unambiguous solution. Figure 6.1 shows the

components of the simplified one degree of freedom model.

ill

Figure 6.1

276
The governing equation of motion for that simple dynamic system is given by

kw+ cw+ mw = pet) (6.1)

It can be seen easily that the dynamic response of this system can be altered by

the modification of one or more terms in the equation of motion of the model , i.e. by the

modification of:

elastic forces (spring force, kw)

damping forces (dash pot force, cw)

inertia forces (mass inertia force, mw)

disturbing forces (dynamic forcing function, P(t))

Each one of the above modifications can be induced in different ways, depending on

the kind of machine, foundation and substructure. For instance;

1. Increasing the surface area and/or the mass of the foundation can alter the spring

force and the damping force . This alters the dynamic properties of the substructure

(improving the soil or increasing the number of piles), connecting the foundation to

some other foundation or improving the stiffness of the foundation block using

grouting and/or post-tensioning. The dynamic stiffness is primarily important in the

case of undertuned foundations.

2. Increasing or decreasing the mass of the foundation block can alter the mass

inertia forces. This applies primarily to overtuned foundations.

3. The disturbing force can be altered by balancing rotating machines, balancing

mass forces in machines with crankshafts mechanisms, changing the speed of

revolution, etc.

It must be noted that the task is complicated by the fact that alteration of one parameter

277
also causes a change of other parameters in an unfavourable direction, which can
reduce the overall effect of a primary remedial measure.

6.2.2 Procedure for Evaluation of System Parameters

The main steps followed to evaluate the system parameters are outlined herein.

1. Evaluate the soil dynamic properties. If measured properties were not available

from soil investigations, then empirical correlation relationships can be used to

estimate the dynamic shear modulus (or shear wave velocity) and soil material

damping ratio .

2. The spring constants for vertical, horizontal and rocking motion of the foundation

can be estimated using the dynamic soil properties and the techniques described

in Chapters 2 and 3. Alternatively, the measured natural frequency (from vibration

measurements) and the estimated mass of the foundation plus the machine can

be used to evaluate the spring constant. As an example, the equivalent spring

constant, kw, in the vertical direction , can be evaluated by

(6.2)

where m =mass of foundation plus machine , and f =measured natural frequency.

3. Evaluate the dynamic forcing function. This step depends on the type of machine

in question. For centrifugal and reciprocating machines, the unbalanced force can

be estimated from the dynamic balancing process. For impact producing machines

or any other machinery that cause transient or random force, the force is

backfigured from vibration measurements. In this procedure, the displacement,

velocity or acceleration (normally velocity or acceleration) is measured. The

278
 measured time history is digitized and using a recurrence type numerical

integration and or differentiation procedure, other vibration quantities are obtained

(e.g. if velocity time history is measured , then displacement and acceleration time

histories are obtained using integration and differentiation of the velocity time

history, respectively) . The dynamic forcing function is then evaluated using the

single degree of freedom equation, given by Eq. 6. 1.

4. In order to verify the accuracy of the developed parameters, the obtained forcing

function is used to compute the response time history for the same system. The

comparison between the measured and computed values should verify the

evaluated parameters.

6.3 REMEDIAL PRINCIPLES

Various measures can be taken to reduce harmful vibrations. These measures can be

categorized in three main groups:

1. Measures for reducing vibration at the vibration source. These measures rna be

divided into the following subgroups:

i) Measures to reduce the disturbing force : correct the alignment and

perform dynamic balancing for the machinery, change the speed of

the machine.

ii) Measures to change (reconstruct) the foundation characteristics:

active vibration isolation (springs and dampers), modify the size of

the foundation block (alter the mass).

iii) Measures to change the dynamic parameters of the substructure:

279
 soil improvement, pile grouting, addition of piles.

2. Measures for preventing the propagation of vibration: these measures include the

provision of expansion joints, the construction of trenches, and the construction of

sheet pile walls (or other obstacles in the ground) surrounding the source of

disturbance.

3. Measures for alleviating the harmful effects of vibration on building structures,

other machines and components: the objective of these measures is to modify

the dynamic characteristics of the affected building. These measures comprise

alteration of the mass, damping and stiffness of the bUilding components,

analogous to the measures applied to the machine foundations.

6.4 SOURCES OF ERROR

Experience gained from cases of damage shows that it is very rare to find a clear

explanation in conjunction with vibration damage in industries and power plants . The

interaction between different sources of error often necessitates long and complicated

investigations and leads to lengthy disputes between the parties involved. Causes of

damage and sources of error can be classified as follows:

1. Faults during procurement.

2. Faults in design .

3. Faulty workmanship (structural work, machine installation).

4. Faults during completion of the project and commissioning.

Because of the complexity of the problem, it is difficult to give general

recommendations as to the way that the work should be executed. In principle, it is

280
desirable for the supplier of machinery to specify all dynamic forces and for the

structural engineer to state how the different requirements have been complied with.

The following summary of the causes of documented cases of damage is therefore

given by way of illustration.

6.4.1 Procurement

It is very rare for dynamic conditions and requirements related to them to be

specified in conjunction with the procurement of:

- The services of consultants for design

- Contractors

- Machinery and equipment

- Control during implementation of the project

- Checking at the time of commisioning and during the guarantee period .

Experience shows at the same time that, in the cases when vibration

specifications were drawn up on the basis of actual conditions, the common types of

vibration damage or disturbance did not occur. The conclusion that can be drawn from

this is that it is the lack of appropriate dynamic specifications in conjunction with

procurement which is the fundamental cause of the many defects that result in vibration

damage.

The absence of regulations and specifications relating to vibrations in documents

is one of the reasons for inadequate interaction between the parties involved. These

difficulties are reinforced by complicated channels of communication, particularly in

cases where machinery is delivered from abroad . It is therefore essential that liability in

281
the event of defects should be regulated by some for m of vibration clause in the tender

and contract. The importance of the form of the form of tender, with regard to the

number of parties involved in the tendering process etc. must be pointed out. insurance

matters should be sorted out between the parties in good time before the contract is

finished.

6.4.2 Design

In many cases, the primary cause of defects is lack of consideration of dynamic

loading or propagation of vibrations. This also applies when new machines are installed

in existing industrial plants or where existing machines are repositioned . This failure to

take vibrations into consideration is due to various factors , such as:

Inadequate data from the machinery supplier.

Failure to carry out the appropriate geotechnical investigations.

Lack of knowledge, lack of design recommendations, etc.

The following faults may occur during planning, design and sizing of the foundation:

i) Choice of the wrong loading model.

ii) Choice of the wrong analytical model.

iii) Inadequate or faulty calculations.

iv) Faulty design of the machine foundation.

v) Inadequate supporting foundation.

vi) Choice of the wrong construction material or the wrong grade .

vii) Choice of the wrong structure and/or defective construction .

282
 I '
_'. l ev I

6.4.3 Implementation of the Project

The wrong choice of construction procedures and/or materials, earthworks, and

installation of machinery may result in defects. The sources for errors during the

implementation include:

- The choice of unsuitable construction materials, method of compaction, etc.

- The choice of the wrong piling method.

- Various kinds of negligence in conjunction with excavation and/or concreting

- Defective installation of prefabricated units (tightening or locking of nuts,etc.)

- Underfilling with grout (material and/or workmanship)

- Anchorage and, if applicable, preloading of retention bolts .

6.4.4 Commissioning the Project

Errors made during commissioning the project may result in vibration damage.

These errors include:

failure to carry out a vibration inspection in conjunction with commissioning

Failure to document the relevant vibration conditions

Failure to carry out a monitoring survey of the plant at the end of the guarantee

period .

Inadequate handing -over procedure and division of responsibility between the

project and operational organizations.

I , i f I
~( A ') "
r ­ ~ V 1
I I '
(~

I
I

283

6.4.5 Other Factors

Among the other factors that give rise to vibration problems , is the changes in

time, or in dynamic parameters and/or the properties of different objects, I.e. the

elements in the machine-foundation-supporting foundation-environment system that are

of the greatest importance. These changes may, for instance, occur due to:

The variation of the ground water table.

The effects of vibrations on the properties of the soil, construction materials and

isolator materials.

The effect of machine wear.

Monitoring and regular inspection of foundations subjected to dynamic loading are

therefore important. Detection and planned repair of incipient vibration damage is often

a precondition for the prevention of costly repairs and expensive breakdowns.

284
D SIGN OF
FOUNDATION FOR
DYNAMIC LOADS

PART II

SEISMIC LOADS
By:
Ayman Shama P.E. Ph.D.
PARSONS
100 Broadway
New York, NY
Ayman.shama@parsons. com
 1

BASIC GEOTECHNICAL

EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING

PRINCIPLES

2
 1.. BASIC GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

1.1 Seismology and Earthquakes

According to the simple plate-tectonic theory, the Earth is formed of several
layers as shown in Figure1-1 that have very different physical and chemical
properties. The crust, which is the outer layer, consists of several, irregularly
shaped plates (Tectonic plates) that slide over, under and past each other. An
earthquake is the vibration of the Earth's surface that follows the release of
energy inside the Earth's crust where the plates meet as a sudden movement of
the earth. The crust may first bend and may break if the stress exceeds its
strength . Seismic waves are generated during the process of breaking.
1.1.1 Description of Earthquake Location

The location of an earthquake can be defined in terms of several parameters.

The point from which the wave first emanates as shown in Figure 1-2 is called
the earthquake focus or hypocenter, and the point on the ground surface directly
above the focus is called the earthquake epicenter. The focal depth of an
earthquake is the depth from the Earth's surface to the focus. The location of an
earthquake is commonly described by the geographic position of its epicenter
and by its focal depth. The distance on the ground surface between a site and
the epicenter is known as the epicentral distance, and the distance between a
site and the focus is called the focal distance also known as the hypocentral
distance.

Earthquakes with focal depths from the surface to about 70 kilometers are
classified as shallow. Earthquakes with focal depths from 70 to 300 kilometers
are classified as intermediate. The focus of deep earthquakes may reach depths
of more than 700 kilometers. It should be noted that the focuses of most
earthquakes are concentrated in the crust and upper mantle.

1.2 Types of Seismic Waves

The two general types of waves producing the shaking during an earthquake are
the body waves, which travel through the Earth and the surface waves, which
travel along the Earth's surface.
1.2.1 Body Waves
Body waves travel through the interior of the Earth. They follow curved paths
because of the varying density and composition of the Earth's interior. Body
waves transmit the preliminary shaking of a seismic event but have little
damaging effect. They are divided into two types: primary (P-waves) and
secondary (S-waves}.

3
 .,.----(rust

Figure 1-1. Structure of Earth

Epicenter

Ground Surface

Focus or hypocenter

Figure 1-2. Description of Earthq uake Location.

4
 1.2.1.1 P waves
The first kind of body wave is the P wave or primary wave . This is the fastest kind
of seismic wave. P waves generally travel twice as fast as S waves and can
travel through any type of material. They travel as shown in Figure 1-3 in a
manner as it spreads out; it alternately pushes and pulls the rock in the direction
of propagation. P waves are generally felt by humans as a bang or thump.
The speed of P waves is determined in terms of the elastic properties of the
material they travel through as:

v = [M
p Vp (1.1)

where pthe mass density of the material and M is is the constrained modulus
defined according to the theory of elasticity as:

(1.2)

where E is Young's modulus and u is Poisson's ratio. Speed of P waves ranges

from 5 km/s to 7 km/s in typical earth's crust.
1.2.1.2 S waves
They are also known as secondary, shear, or transverse waves, cause shear
deformations as they travel through a material. S waves do not travel as rapidly
through the Earth's crust and mantle as do primary waves; they can travel only
through solids. During their travel , they displace the ground perpendicularly to the
direction of propagation, alternately to one side and then the other as shown in
Figure 1-4 so that the motion of an individual soil particle is perpendicular to the
direction of S wave travel. The direction of particle movement is used to divide S
waves into two components , SV (vertical plane movement) and SH (horizontal
plane movement) .

The speed of S waves is determined as:

!;- ~- ,

I V.
_
=1* 1·7
(1.3)

where G is the shear modulus of the soil medium, also referred as the initial or
maximum value of the shear modulus when the soil deposit is not yet affected by
the cyclic earthquake loading. Speed of S waves ranges from 3 km/s to 4 km/s in
typical Earth's crust. Seismologists determine approximately the distance from a
location to the origin of a seismic wave by taking the difference of arrival time
from the P wave to the S wave in seconds and multiply by 8 kilometers per
second.

5
 PWave

r Compressions l Undisturbed medium

F / f I I I f I I , I f I
,, I I I I I J
I I

:;,1,5,( ", . , ~..;

- ;~
,
- ;,,,, .­
...
: I, ;;: ,~ I~
, >1 .~

-
,. .,

:~
~ ~ ~!;; ~~
"
. I ~ ~~'t ~ .~ , ~ l{.f(i ' ~ 11>':1' ~~: : :~
.y ,:;. ~
, I,."
:-:-~
~ ~J: ?,:
r , i~ ~"; ' I
"
<; I ~ S,;
~

v,;; .,c, ~
"" I K',~ j:'i " .o!
'"'
t': .$t ,;.; .'f" ,..
~l". i ~

,,, , It ":.; ~~ . 10'{ (,'? s: , :~ ,.

.' ~ i$"?~ ~:
.
' ~. ' '';
¥~ "';-:
~
,~
~
~. ' I) :'; "
" :: .~ " I f,
-.
'>

;¥<>'" l , 'f .,· ~ .'" .

' :..:" ."" -.:.~ ~ '<l.<
""'ok I;.;.; "­ "

, .. ~~ ~' .... 11",';' "

'"
,~
I ~~ § "E
"
.' '" " "
;~
, .
i"i: k.
" ec

L Dilatations--l

Figure 1-3, P wave Propagation

5 Wave

~r r.Jt:I:
~ .Tu-lA/IT.
. /l'~./- . "
~7 ~
~
AI , HIIIIIIIII
I I I 1

'W/J;,n'!:~ "
I (I I I I / J I 1
n r-: r T :J;
,' ;m/, ...,11,
,J T '¥Y,...

1)." if-. ,' , ,

~-:-.... J-.f-l:Y ~ :'\ ~, ";
, ~ I'
.,
, '
~r--,
I~ ~ ~ ~
/
, ~ . . . . . i' ~'-I_Y;' "
~ .
~ ~
-~
~
(~~
~ ~ "

~
"
, ~~~
~
;'
~~ '
~~ . , ~ '
,~,~~~ r~ , ~~1' ~-~~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~t ~ . ~
~ I" .' ~ : v 1 io" ~ ""r.; ~ ~ l.-' k"... . I"-
,~~ ~~//~~~
, .~
~ ~;- ~
~~~~ . _~
K" _ :" ~_~ // f J ~
" ,if
, ~. ".~~ '
\;
'.
"
,- "
~ ,~~// ~, .~ ~~/~ J ,~,~ ~//

.........c;..,.., ''--_ ~ ____

Double Ampllltude
t.
-,__":..... ' ~

Wavelenatgttn.
... I

Figure 1-4. S wave Propagation.

 .':. .
!J I
"I II
.
...., V
.
'>

1.2.2 Surface waves

(
Surface waves result from the interaction between body waves and surficial
layers of the earth . They travel more slowly than body waves. They usually have
the strongest vibrations and probably cause most of the damage done by
earthquakes. There are two types of surface waves : Rayleigh waves and Love
waves.
1.2.2.1 Rayleigh waves:
They are produced by interaction of P and SV, so they involve both vertical and
horizontal particle motion. They are similar, in some respect, to the waves
produced by a stone thrown into a lake. The particle motion of a Rayleigh wave is
elliptical as shown in Figure 1-5. Also, they are of main interest for tunnel
engineers because of their capacity to induce large axial strain under certain
conditions. Speed of Rayleigh waves ranges from 2 krn/s to 4.2 km/s in typical
Earth's crust
1.2.2.2 Love waves
These waves result from the interaction of SH waves with soft layers of the crust
surface and have no vertical component. Hence, they cause horizontal shearing
of the ground as shown in Figure 1-6. They are usually slightly faster than
Rayleigh waves. They are largest at the surface and decrease in amplitude with
depth . Speed of Love waves ranges from 2 km/s to 4.4 km/s in typical Earth's
crust.
r . (.
1.3 Quantification of Earthquakes
I
The severity of an earthquake can be expressed irlc several ways. The magnitude
of an earthquake, usually expressed by the Richter scale, is a measure of the
amplitude of the seismic waves. The scale is logarithmic so that a recording of 7,
for example, indicates a disturbance with ground motion 10 times as large as a
recording of 6. Earthquakes with a Richter value of 6 or more are commonly
considered major. The moment magnitude of an earthquake , which is commonly
used nowadays, is a measure of the amount of energy released. This scale
assigns a magnitude to the earthquake in accordance with its seismic moment
as:

M =: UogMo) -10.7 (1.4)

w 1.5
where Mw is the moment magnitude, and Mo (dyn-cm) is the seismic moment, a
parameter directly related to the size of the earthquake source and quantified as:
Mo =: JlAD (1 .5)

where Jl is the rupture stress of the material along the fault, A is the rupture area,
and D is the average amount of slip. The seismic moment is a measure of the
work done by the earthquake .

7
Rayleigh Wave

, '· 1';;
" .
,.
~

It!'

Figure 1-5. Rayleigh wave Propagation

Love Wave

r-F!'A PA rfT/\
I I 11/\ ,ffl'~ I I
III I I / I A / I I I I I / I I I I ! ! / ! ! I!IIA
I I r-.. I I I f.

- "'.

Figure 1-6. Love wave Propagation

 The intensity, as expressed by the Modified Mercalli scale, is a subjective
measure of damage to works of man, and of human reaction to the seismic
event. The Modified Mercalli Scale expresses the intensity of an earthquake's
effects at a certain location in values ranging from I to XU. The most commonly
used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the condition of "l -- Not felt
except by a very few under especially favorable conditions," to "XII -- Damage
total". Evaluation of earthquake intenslty can be made only after eyewitness
reports and results of field investigations are studied and interpreted.

1.4 Sources of Seismic Hazard

1.4.1 Plate Boundaries
The tectonic plate boundaries as shown in Figure 1-7 are classified into three
basic types. Their characteristics affect the nature of earthquake that occurs
along them.
1.4.1.1 Spreading Ridge Boundaries:
In certain areas, plates move away from each other and hot, molten rock rises
and cools adding new material to fill the gap between the spreading plates. Most
spreading zones are found in oceans; for example, the North American and
Eurasian plates are spreading apart along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Spreading
zones usually have earthquakes at shallow depths (within 30 kilometers of the
surface).
1.4.1.2 Subduction zone Boundaries:
Sometimes one plate overrides, or subducts , another, pushing it downward into
the mantle layer below the crust. An example of a subduction-zone plate
boundary is found along the northwest coast of the United States, western
Canada , and southern Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. Subduction zones are
characterized by deep earthquakes . / lo ',-rd (c'; c', - ~ Cl ,.,' ,:""'o-€
1.4.1.3 Transform fault Boundaries: ,"" -J

Transform faults are found where plates slide past one another without creating
new material or overriding each other. The San Andreas fault, along the coast of
California and northwestern Mexico is an example of a transform-fault plate
boundary. Earthquakes at transform faults tend to happen at shallow depths and
form fairly straight linear patterns.
1.4.2 Shallow Crustal Sources
ShaHow faults may exist in the form of fractures in the earth's crust in which the
r rock on one side of the fracture has measurable movement in relation to the rock
on the other side. They may extend from the ground surface to depths of several
tens of kilometers. The presence of a shallow fault does not necessarily mean
that an earthquake can be expected. On the other hand, an inactive fault in an
area does not guarantee that this area is immune of earthquakes.

9
 Bouvet Is,
ANTARcnc PLATE ANTARCTIC PLATE

",,, '1;;':'" n. :

of"" ,0 .' ,. •..

_I- ..~. II J.' .•" "t.' • ... _
0
Regions Voicanic centers Piate ..l..6...A. Subduction Ridge Transform Direction
D afdeep (hot spots ) boundary zone axis fault of plate
na nhcuakes movemem

FIGURE 1-7. Major Tectonic Plates

9
The Seattle fault, Puget Sound fault, and Tacoma Fault in Western United States
are some examples of the shallow crustal sources.
1.4.3 Intraplate Sources
Earthquakes can also occur within plates, although plate-boundary earthquakes
are much more common . As the subducting plate overrides another , stresses
and physical changes in the subducting plate may produce large devastating
earthquakes. The New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812 and the 1886
Charleston earthquake occurred within the North American plate. Other
examples are the 1949 Olympia and 1965 Seattle-Tacoma events.
1.4.4 Other Sou rces
In addition to rupture of the rock at plate boundaries and faults, there are other
sources of seismic activity that produce smaller earthquakes . These sources
include shallow earthquakes associated with volcanic activities, seismic
vibrations produced by detonation of chemical or nuclear explosives, and
reservoir induced earthquakes.~ '1 .UJ
'. J r/'(/.. ~ e 'r r~ c.
. (
i /0

1.5 Characteristics of Earthquake Ground Motions

1.5.1 Ground motion measurement
Ground motions during earthquakes are usually measured by instruments called
accelerometers. An accelerometer is an electronic transducer, which produce an
output voltage proportional to acceleration. The relationship between the time
and acceleration through the duration of an earthquake is called an
accelerogram. Accelerometers can measure the three orthogonal components of
ground accelerations (two in the horizontal direction and one in the vertical
direction). These instruments may be located on free-field or mounted in
structures . Ground motion accelerograms are usually corrected to remove any
errors associated with digitization . The process of digitization, correction, and
processing of accelerograms is usually carried out by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), or by California Strong Motion Instrumentation
Program (CSMIP). A typical corrected accelerogram and the integrated velocity
and displacement for the Northridge earthquake recorded at the ground level of
Fire Station 108 in Los Angeles California are shown in Figure 1-8. .
1.5.2 Ground Motion Characteristics
Earthquake ground motions are usually characterized by its peak values,
duration, frequency content, Arias intensity, and root-mean-square of
acceleration. These parameters control the extent of damage a structure may
undergo during an earthquake. These parameters are briefly discussed below:
1.5.2.1 Peak Ground motion Values
Because of their natural relationship to inertial forces, peak horizontal
accelerations (PHGA) are the most commonly measure of the amplitude of
ground motions. Peak vertical ground acceleration (PVGA), Peak horizontal

II
ground velocity (PHGV), and peak horizontal ground displacement (PHGD) are
also used in some engineering applications. As an example, PHGD is more
significant than PHGA in the analyses of some structures such as tunnels, and
underground pipelines. Peak ground motion values are influenced by a number
of factors such as: the earthquake magnitude, distance from the source, local soil
conditions, style of faulting, and the variation in geology along the travel path.
Peak ground motion values such as PHGA are related to these parameters
through attenuation relationships. Attenuation relationships are usually based on
statistical analyses of recorded data. Since they are primarily dependent on
source conditions and fault mechanism, different relationships were developed
for different zones in western United States to reflect different natures of seismic
sources. On the other hand, few attenuation relationships, which are based on
theoretical models, are available for eastern and central United States due to the
little number of recorded motions.

'¥4

~
I:z: 2
Q 0
S-2
uJ
...J
lU
8-4
~
-6 ·
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
TIME (sec)

0.4

'0
~ 0.2 ·
g
~ 0.0
D
0
uj .Q.2
>
-0.4
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
TIME (sec)

0.06

]: 0.04 .

!Zw 0.02 ·

~ 0.00 '

~ -M:?
In
15-0.04

-0.06
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
TIME (sec)

Figure 1-8. A typical corrected accelerogram and the integrated velocity and
displacement
1.5.2.2 Frequency Content
The seismic behavior of a structure is usually controlled by the frequency content
of the ground motion. The response of the structure is amplified the most when
the frequency content of the motion and the natural frequencies of the structure
are close to each other. The frequency content of a record can be investigated by
converting the motion from a time domain to a frequency domain through a
Fourier transform. Fourier amplitudes and power spectra, which are based on
this transformation, are usually used to characterize the frequency content.
The Fourier amplitude spectrum is defined as the square root of the sum of the
squares of the real and imaginary parts of the Fourier transform. A broad
spectrum such as the one shown in Figure 1-9 implies that the motion contains a
wide range of frequencies that produces an irreqular time history like the one
shown in Figure (1-8). On the other hand, a narrow spectrum indicates that the
motion has a dominant frequency.
The power spectrum assumes a ground as a stochastic process. It illustrates
how the variance of a record is distributed with frequency . It is also used as an
input of the excitation in random vibration analysis of structures .
The response spectrum is another mean to demonstrate the frequency content of
ground motions. As shown in Figure 1-10, It expresses the maximum response of
a single-degree-of freedom system to a certain ground motion as a function of
the natural frequency and damping ratio of the system.
While used frequently in structural analysis, response spectra are not widely
used in geotechnical engineering. Their primarily applications are in the selection
of time histories for input to site response analysis or for the selection of seismic
response coefficients for simple methods of seismic design.
1.5.2.3 Duration
The duration of earthquake ground motion has a significant role on the seismic
damage of structures. The number of load reversals during an earthquake is
responsible for the material strength degradation of certain structures. It is also
responsible for the liquefaction of soil during earthquakes. Duration is usually
determined as the strong portion of the accelerogram, and there are different
procedures for evaluating such portion. The bracketed duration as shown in
Figure 1-11 (Bolt 1969) is defined as the time interval between the first and last
acceleration peaks greater than a specified value usually taken as 0.059.
Since there is no standard method for determining the duration, the selection of a
procedure will depend mainly on the purpose of the intended application.

13
I

!I
250

I Q)
~ 200

::
~
'E.
E 150

ce
. ~
' l­
't 100

I Q)
i Q,

I~
50

!I

~
0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequenw (Hz)

Figure 1-9. Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of an Earthquake

r
I
I .
II Natural period
I I I I
-. ' . "..• • • < .-::: I of vibration
I j I
.•r-
~." ' ~ '~ ';" : " / I

I ' I
......
, .» ~~ .. : . v

I
v-,-,, -r.~ : •'J•
• I
/ I

-,'.•.. . •,:.p ;: /. I
I
I

r / I / / I
~
V.

-e ' ~ . ~ ~put motion

. dfNNrr-...- ...

Figure 1-1D. The principle of Response Spectrum

14
 0.6 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- .......,

0.4

-0.4
Bracketed Duration =If).~ sec

o 10 20 30 40 50
TIME {sec)

Figure 1-11- Bracketed duration of an earthquake

1.5.2.4 RMS Acceleration

The root- mean-square acceleration is a single parameter that includes the
effects of the amplitude and frequency content of a ground motion record. 1t is
defined as the square root of the square of the acceleration integrated over the
duration of the motion and divided by the duration:

(1.6)

where RMSA a is the .rrns of the acceleration time history, a (t) is the acceleration
time history and tf is the duration of the ground motion. The RMSAa can be
viewed as average acceleration for over the duration of the time history. It is also
directly related to the energy content of the motion .
1.5.2.5 Arias Intensity
The Arias intensity is directly proportional to the square of the acceleration
integrated over the duration of the time history:

It
IA =~ J[a(t)Ydt (1.7)
2g o
where 9 is the acceleration of gravity and tf is the duration of the ground motion.
Arias (1970) demonstrated that this integral is a measure of the total energy of
the acceleroqram.

15
 1.6 Vibration Theory Applied to Foundation
1.6.1 Basic Concepts
Dynamics is the branch of science , which considers forces and displacements
that vary with time. Dynamic loads such as earthquakes produce time dependent
displacements of the system called dynamic response, which is usually
oscillatory.
There are two types of mathematical models for the structural representation of
vibrating systems , namely distributed mass and lumped mass models. In
distributed mass models, the mass is distributed through the system, while in
lumped mass models the mass is concentrated into a number of points and the
structural elements between the lumped masses are considered as massless.
Figure 1-12 illustrates examples of distributed and Jumped mass models.
The number of dynamic degrees of freedom of the system is the number of
independent variables required to define the displaced position of is masses ,
One lumped mass has three possible translations and three possible rotations
representing six degrees of freedom.
A system whose position is described by a single variable is known as a single
degree of freedom (SDOF) system. A SDOF system consists of a rigid mass, rn,
connected in parallel to a spring of stiffness, k, and a dashpot of viscous damping
coefficient, c, and subjected to some external dynamic load, Q (t) as shown in
Figure 1-13.
The external dynamic force is resisted by the inertia and damping forces in
- . addition to the spring force . The equation of motion can be expressed as:
~ . '

mii t)+cu(t)+ ku(t);= Q(t) I (1 .8)

_ 7-"""-' ­

' . where u(t), u(t) ,andu(t) are acceleration, velocity and displacement respectively .
L ' 'w
~ t- 1.6.1.1 Free Damped vibration of SDOF system:

Under free vibration the natural frequency of the system is defined as:
?l­
'I., -=: - "- (1.9)
(. :J

The viscous damping of the system c is a measure of the energy dissipated in a

cycle of vibration . There is a critical value of damping cer, below which the
system will be in the state of oscillatory motion . Mathematically , the critical
damping coefficient is expressed in terms of the system mass and natural
frequency as:
c C(
= 2m(i) = 2.Jkm = 2k/(i)
/
(1.10)

16
aJ

!:)
-A.-". 4 ·" .;L'!..

Figure 1-12. (a) Distributed models, and (b) lumped mass models

acn

Figure 1-13. SOOF system subjected to

extemal load

Figure 1-14. The effects ofviscous damping on free vibration

17
The damping ratio is the ratio of the system's damping to the critical damping:

s=~=_c_ (1 .11)
ccr 2mcu
If the damping ratio is less than one, the system is defined as under-damped.
The motion of an under-damped system is oscillatory but not periodic, the
amplitude of vibration is not constant during the motion but degreases for
successive cycles. Nevertheless, the oscillation occurs at equal intervals of time
as shown in Figure 1-14.
If the damping ratio is more than one the system is defined as over-damped , and ,
for a ratio equals one, the system is defined as critically damped . The resulting
motion for both systems is not oscillatory but decays exponentially with time to
zero . The logarithmic decrement is a useful tool that free vibration provides for
determining the damping ratio . According to Figure 1-15, the logarithmic
decrement is defined as:

S= In(~J = 2ns (1.12)

un + 1 ~1- (/
Rearranging allows the damping ratio to be determined from the logarithmic
decrement as:

~ = S/2n (1.13)
[1 + (S/2nY I"
For small values of 8, s
can be taken as 8/2n , and if the decay is slow, it may be
easier to compare amplitudes of several cycles instead of successive amplitudes.
In this case the logarithmic decrement is evaluated as:

O~~ln(u~:J (1.14)

For example, suppose the oscillation in free vibration decayed from amplitude of
0.36 in. to 0.05 in. in 22 cycles. Then the logarithmic decrement would be:

8 = 1/ 22In(.36/ .05) = 0.0897,

this gives ~ = 0.0143.

1.6.2 Foundation Vibrations

Soil-structure-interaction is the principle of determining the dynamic response of
the structure interacting with the soil foundation under seismic waves or any
other kind of dynamic loads. This response may be computed using rigorous
methods such as finite element modeling or by establishing the dynamic
properties (impedance functions) of the foundations for each degree of freedom .
As shown in Figure 1-16 the vibration of foundations is characterized by six
degrees of freedom: (dynamic) displacements along the axes x, y, and z; and

18
Figure 1-15. Determination of damping ratio
from logarithmic decrement

Figure 1-16. Foundation block with its six degrees

of freedom

19
 (dynamic) rotations around the same axes. We consider separately the response
of the foundation for each degree of freedom, hence the SDOF model is utilized
for the calculation of the impedance functions, as will be shown in chapter 2, in
terms of foundation geometry, soil properties, and soil damping.
The energy of vibration in soils is dissipated through two mechanisms: the
inelastic deformation of soil and the effect of propagation of the reflected seismic
waves away from the structure. Inelastic deformation of soil is considered as
material or hysteretic damping and expressed in terms of the energy dissipated
hysteretically by the slippage of grains with respect to each other. The effect of
wave propagation is close to viscous in character and is referred as geometric or
radiation damping

1.7 Measurement of Soil Dynamic Properties

The shear wave velocity of the soil medium is directly related to the shear
modulus through equation (1 .3). The stress-strain response of soil due to the
cyclic earthquake loading is commonly characterized by a hysteretic loop.
Therefore the actual behavior can be simulated as that of a hysteretic system
described through the tangent-at-the-origin (initial) shear modulus, Go also
known as the maximum shear modulus G max, and a damping ratio ~o . Therefore it
is clear that the initial shear modulus Gmax , or the corresponding shear wave
velocity Vsmax :::: ~Gmax I p is the most significant soil parameter influencing the
response of foundations under dynamic loads.
1.7.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The standard penetration test (SPT) is the traditional in situ test in Geotechnical
engineering, and also used in a number of Geotechnical earthquake engineering
applications. In the SPT test a standard split spoon sampler (Figure 1-17) is
driven into the soil at the bottom of a borehole by repeated blows (usually 30 to
40 blows per minute) of a 140-lb hammer released from a 30 in. height. The
sampler is usually driven 18 in.; the number of blows N required to achieve the
last 12 in. of penetration is considered as the standard penetration resistance.
Since different hammer designs have evolved and they vary considerably, it has
become common to correct the N value. to an energy ratio of 60%. The required
corrections are included in the following formula (Youd and Idriss 1996):

(1-15)

( where (N]) 60 is the corrected standard penetration resistance; N is the measured

standard penetration resistance ; C E is the correction factor for hammer energy
J
ratio, Cs. is a correction factor of borehole diameter; CR is the correction factor for
, ~
samplers with or without liners; and CN is an overburden correction factor
calculated as:

I
~'

j \
, I

I
20
 Figure 1-17. SPT sampler

(1-16a)

where cr~ is the effective vertical stress in (US) ton/tt

or

(1-16b)

The effective vertical stress is calculated as:

(1-17)

where Yt is the total unit weight of soil, Yw is the unit weight of water, d is the
depth to sample, and dw is the depth to ground-water level.

The initial tangent shear modulus Gmax is related to the corrected standard
penetration resistance (Nr) 60 for sand using the following empirical formula
adopted by FEMA 356 (Seed ~t al 1985):

G max :: 20,OOO(N] )601/3 ~cr~ \ _ - ('. L.' ,j " (

(1-18)

where Gmax and o'; are both calculated in Ib/tt.

21
 Table 1-1 Corrections to SPT (Youd and Idriss , 1997)

Factor Equipment Term Correction

Variable

Safety Hammer 0.60 to 1.17

Energy Ratio CE
Donut Hammer 0.45 to 1.00
-
/ ) G.. .[,' \.. r -'
65 }ai1~mm
I

-e- • l :,::;v "' ''' : 1.0

Borehole
. / CB I

Diameter ( ~mm 1.05

200 mm 1.15

3 to 4 mm 0.75

4to 6 mm 0.85
Rod Length
6 to 10 mm
CR
0.95

10 to 30 mm 1.0

>30 mm 1.0

Standard 1.0
Sampler Cs
Sampling
Method Sampler without 1.2
liners

1.7.2 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

In a CPT test, the cone penetrometer (Figure 1-18) is pushed into the ground at a
standard velocity of 2 cm/s (0.8 in/s) and data is recorded at regular intervals
(typically 2 or 5 ern) during penetration . The standard cone penetrometer has a
conical tip of 10 cm 2 (1 .55 in 2 ) area, which is located below a cylindrical friction
sleeve of 150 cm 2 (23.3 in2 ) surface area.
The tip as well as the friction sleeve are connected to load cells to record the tip
resistance qc and the sleeve friction resistance fs during penetration, and the
friction ratio FR defined as FR =fJ qc(Figure 1-19).
The initial tangent shear modulus Gmax is related to the penetrometer tip stress
using the following empirical formulas (Kramer 1996).
For sand:

22
G max -- 1634(q c )0.250 (a rv )0.375 (1-19)

For clay:
G max: -- 406(q c )0.695 e -1.1 30 (1-20)

G max , qc, and a~, in equations 1-19 and 1-20 are calculated in kPa.

1.7.3 The Cross-hole Seismic Survey

This method determines the variation with depth of in-situ low-strain shear wave
velocity V smax • As shown in Figure 1-20, the cross-hole method is based on
generating shear waves in a borehole and measures their arrival times at the
same elevation in neighboring boreholes.
The wave velocity is calculated from the travel times and the spacing between
the boreholes. The initial tangent shear modulus is calculated from the measured
low-strain shear wave velocity Vsmax using equation 1-3 as:

(1-21 )

in which, p is the mass density of the soil and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

For successful results of a cross-hole test , there should be at least two

boreholes, which are spaced about 3 to 5m (10 to 15 ft) apart. Also, the source
must be rich in shear wave generation. The SPT can offer a good inexpensive
solution . Moreover, the receivers must be in good contact with the surrounding
soil.

1.7.4 The Seismic Down-hole Survey

This method offers an economical alternative to the cross-hole test as it needs as
shown in Figure 1-21 one borehole, inside which the receiver can be moved to
different depths, while the source remains at the surface, 2 to 5 m (6 to 15 ft)
away. Alternatively, the test can be done by fixing an array of multiple receivers
at predetermined depths against the walls of the borehole. Travel times of body
waves (S or P) between the source at surface and the receivers are recorded for
various depths and a plot of travel time versus depth can be generated, from
which V smax or V pmax are then computed at the same depths as the slope of the
travel time curve at that depth .
1.7.5 The Seismic Cone Penetration Test
This test as shown in Figure 1-22 is a combination of the down-hole and cone
penetration tests. The cone penetrometer is modified by mounting a velocity
seismometer inside it, just above the friction sleeve.
At different stages during penetration of the cone penetrometer, penetration is
paused to generate impulses at the ground surface. Travel time-depth curves
can be generated and interpreted the same way as the down-hole test..

23
 s s ... ~
I
!
7
I J 1
:s 1

Ii
I
I

I . ' -' : .­
.. ... . ,.. .~ ;;It

i
I 35.6
----*­
rnm
~
•I

1 Conir.:lll pl"lil'1T (10 CIIl')

~ l.noo cell
J S tJ.~iJ ) ga . ~~~
4" Friction sleeve ( 151) .;.oi ·)
5 AdjuRtment r ing
I'J W~te tp~ lXJ r bushi ng
7 Cable
S Connection I'r'ilh rods

Figure 1-18. CPT penetrometer

Friction
Bearing Friction
resistance
resistance ratio
(tons/ft) (tons/ft) (%)

6 4 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 o 2 468

o I
! . .

10 ··1···......;..,.....J,• .•.. . .

---
::::­ 20 . ~=====~.!C;• • .• . . .• .. . . ' . .•.

.c
a.
a
Q) 30
··
· · ·····T ··· · · · ·~ · ·· · ··
.
.. r:.
.
.
.···. .

. ~ . ':' '' A '' •• ·

40 _ __ • _ • • ;

:
. o w • w• • • .:. . . . .

: :
e O ;

=
..

50
·
• . ' 0 ... . .
. ...: • •• - . - ~ ----_ ... . .

60

Figure 1-19. Results of cone penetration sounding

24
A significant advantage of this method is that with a single sounding test , one can
obtain information for the stratigraphy of the site, the initial tangent shear
modulus of different layers, as well as static strength parameters. A limitation of
this method is that it may not be adequate for some types of soils containing
coarse gravels

1-8 The Design Spectrum

The design spectrum should satisfy certain requirements because it is intended
for the design of new structures or seismic assessment of existing structures to
withstand potential earthquakes . Therefore, it should in general sense be
representative of ground motions recorded at the site during past earthquakes or
at other sites under similar conditions . The design response spectrum is usually
based on statistical analysis of the response spectra for the ensemble of ground
motions for a specific site. Different codes have developed procedures to
construct such design spectra from ground motion parameters. One such
procedure of FEMA-356 and the LRFD Guidelines for Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges is outlined herein as an example

1. From the U.S. Geological Survey web site (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/)

determine the 0.2-second and 1-second spectral accelerations Ss and S1 .
These values can be obtained by submitting the latitude and longitude, or
the zip code of the site of interest. These are spectral accelerations on
rock outcrop (class B).

2. Classify the site according to the average shear wave velocity in the upper
30 m. Site class A is defined as hard rock with average shear wave
velocity greater than 1500 m/sec (5000 ftlsec) . Site class B is defined as
rock with average shear wave velocity that ranges from 750 to 1500 m/sec
(2500 to 5000 ftlsec) . Site class C is defined as very dense soil and soft
rock with average shear velocity that ranges from 360 to 760 m/sec (1200
to 2500 ftlsec). Site class D is defined as stiff soil with average shear
wave velocity that ranges from 180 to 360 m/sec (600 to 1200 ftlsec) . Site
class E is defined as soft clay with average shear wave velocity that is
less than 180 m/sec (600 ftlsec)
3. Determine the site coefficients Fa and Fv for the short period spectral
acceleration and the 1-second period spectral acceleration respectively.
These values are displayed as function of the site class as shown in
Tables 1-2 and 1-3.
4. Calculate the design earthquake response spectral acceleration at short
periods, SOs :: Fa Ss, and at 1 second period, S01 :: Fv S,.
5. Determine the periods Ts and To required for plotting the design response
spectrum, where Ts :: S01/S0s , and To :: 0.2 Ts .

25
 /"m
-- --
Lm
(13fl) (l3ftl

[mpQct

TfQnsduc~ r

- --­
"J I
I ...
I'"
,
.
)­
~

~ ~
I _

J'
~ ~ 1
I
I

.... -

Figure 1-20. Seismic cross-hole test

26
 ._-----~ ----------_.~.~-- ._-- _.•.__ .._- .._ _-_.. ,. ~-

Figure 1-21. The Seismic down-hole test

V. (m/s) <h [bar)

o ~ lQl I5ll 100 1'iO o"'--<::_.........,,........._~_

,.. '­ "'9:J.'ft;,w:"W7~~~

z
~
Il.
w
c
5
~~s~ •••

/ ..
E
e
c

s
_ Soi.",ic CPT
- - - ...,.--­ ---I::>

._ - - - - -_."._ - -_ .._._.. _ .~_._--

Figure 1-22. The Seismic cone penetration test

27
 .5v .:
, ~
..
"
.(.,
'7-
. cD
l
.s,­
\
\. .f

6. For periods less than or equal to To, the design spectral acceleration, Sa,
shall be defined by:
Sos
Sa = 0.60-T + 0.4080s (1-22)
To
Note that for T ;;; 0 seconds, Sa shall be equal to the effective peak ground
acceleration.
7. For periods greater than or equal to To and less than or equal to Ts. the
design spectral acceleration shall be defined by:
Sa =Sos (1-23)
8. For periods greater than Ts , the design response spectra! acceleration, Sa,
shall be defines by:

S = 8 01 (1-24)
a T
The steps involved in the development of the design spectrum are displayed in
Figure 1-23.

1.9 Site Response Analysis

The local soil profile at a project site can have a pronounced effect on the
earthquake ground motions, and subsequently on the response of the structure
to the earthquake. The nonlinear behavior of soils under strong earthquake
loading is a highly complicated problem. Generally soil is a nonlinear, anisotropic
material. Despite this complex behavior, isotropic elastic models either linear or
nonlinear have been used in the past for practical considerations.

Methods of evaluating the effect of local soil conditions on ground response

during earthquakes are based on the assumption that the main responses in a
soil deposit are caused by the upward propagation of shear waves from the
underlying rock formation.

The most commonly used model to represent the soil behavior in seismic
analysis is the equivalent linear model (Seed and Idriss , 1970). According to this
model, the appropriate equivalent linear shear modulus G as shown in Figure (1­
24) is the secant modulus, which is less than the initial tangent shear modulus
Gmax.

28
Table 1-2. Values of Fa for different values of spectral acceleration
(LRFD guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges 2004)

Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods

Site Class
Ss::;; 0.25 g S5 =0.50 g s, =0.75 9 s, =100 9 Ss ~ 1.25 g

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9

Table 1-3. Values of Fv for different values of spectral acceleration

(LRFD guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges 2004)

Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods

Site Class
51::;; 0.10 g 51 = 0.20 9 51 =0.30 9 51 = 0.40 9 51 ~ 0.50 9

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

0 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5

E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4

29
 I
I
I I

~
" " ' -~- -- ~ - - ._- - - ._- - j- ---­
I : . \
SOS == FaS s
I : \

S01 == FvS 1 !! I \
,' ' :
PGA
TO ==O.2Ts "
I ~,, ;
T
s . . S01 So1 - ~ -I -··· T -.
-- - -- -_. _ . . . .~:=--_
SOS

I
I_l: TO 02 Ts
i ._ _
1.0

Figure 1-23. Example of a Design Spectrum

30
Meanwhile, the area of hysteresis loop has expanded, indicating an increased
dissipation of energy resulting from sliding at particle contacts, hence, the
equivalent linear hysteretic damping ratio ~ is larger than~o . Therefore, the
bigger the cyclic shear strain, the smaller the equivalent shear modulus G and
the larger the equivalent damping ratio ~ as illustrated in Figure (1-25).

Two different levels of site-specific seismic site response analysis are available.
In levell, the simplified methods recommended by codes are usually followed. As
an example , FEMA-356 established six classes of sites for seismic depending on
their shear wave velocities. According to this classification sites range from hard
rock (class A) to peats and organic clays (class F). Table 1-1 illustrates the
recommended values for the effective shear modulus to account for the non­
linear behavior of soils for different sites and peak ground accelerations. The
recommended LRFD guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges (2004)
also recommends for regions of low-to-moderate seismicity (PGA<0.3g), a value
of G=0.5 G max while for regions of moderate-to-high Seismicity (PGA> 0.5g), a
I

value of G = 0.25 Gmax is recommended. Both FEMA-356 and LRFD guidelines

request level II, which is a dynamic site response analysis , for organic soils
(class F). Dynamic site response analysis is also requested for major projects
and critical facilities when global time history analysis is mandated to establish
the ground motions at the foundation levels.
Typically, a one dimensional soil column that extends from the ground surface to
bedrock is used to model the soil profile. Two dimensional soil profiles may also
be used in special cases such as basins. The soil layers in a one dimensional
model are characterized by their unit weighs, maximum shear wave velocities
and by relationships defining the nonlinear shear stress-strain relationships of the
soils such as the one shown in Figure 1-24. The computer program SHAKE
originally developed by Schnabel et al. (1972) and updated by ldriss and Sun
(1992)under the name SHAKE91, is the most commonly used computer program
for one dimensional equivalent-linear seismic site response analysis . The
program requires a set of properties (shear modulus, damping and total unit
weight) to be assigned to each sublayer of the soil deposit. The analysis is
conducted using these properties and the shear strains induced in each sublayer
is calculated. The shear modulus and damping values for each sublayer are then
modified according to the relationship relating these two properties to shear
strain. The analysis is conducted iteratively until strain-compatible modulus and
damping values are reached.

1.9 Liquefaction of Soils

Liquefaction occurs during earthquakes due to loss of strength of soil, which may
occur in sandy soils as a result of an increase in pore pressure. This
phenomenon can take place in loose and saturated sands.

31
 G-eao-GIIIO.Il
Mol'c.ooic toadin9 Q,jry.

Figure 1-24. Equivalent linear representation of the soil hysteretic cyclic stress­
strain behavior

O.S l---- -- _i__ -~-+---. .. f---+-- --I-- .- - ­

0.6 --+-----+-~.----------,P__----+-----l 1 5 i!­

x: t
o ~
E c:
.&
~ 1 eo
C) 0.41--- - - 1..- - - -j- ---;f--'\'-.;-------'f------ - ­ 10 0

O.2t-----~+_--++_---+__'" - - -:--­ 5

0001 0 .01 O.i

Shear SJroin - %

Figure 1-25 Typical shear modulus and damping relationships used in equivalent
linear soil

32
 Table 1-4. Effective shear Modulus Ratio (G/G max) after FEMA-356

Effective Peak Acceleration 0.40 50S

SITE CLAS5
0.40 50S = 0 0.40 50S = 0.1 0.40 50S = 0.4 0.40 5DS =0.8
A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

B 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.90

C 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.60

0 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.10

E 1.00 0.60 0.05 *

F * * * *

*Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response

analyses shan be performed

33
The increase in pore pressure causes a reduction in the shear strength, which in
certain cases may be totally lost. In such cases soil will behave like a viscous
fluid, and in some earthquakes liquefaction appeared in the form of sand
fountains . Structures founded on liquefiable sands may settle, tilt, or even
overturn during earthquakes due to loss of bearing capacity as a consequence of
soil liquefaction. Examples of failures of structures due to liquefaction during the
1964 Niigata Japan earthquake and the 1999 Izmit Turkey earthquake are
illustrated in Figures 1-26 and 1-27.

1.9.1 How Liquefaction Build-up during Earthquakes

Seismic shear waves during its passage through different soil layers will tend to
compact loose saturated sand deposits, and thus decrease its volume . If these
deposits cannot drain rapidly, there will be a gradual increase of pore water
pressure and decrease of the effective stress of soil with increasing the ground
shaking. Since the shear strength of cohesionless soils is directly proportional to
the effective stress, liquefaction will occur at the point when the pore water
pressure becomes equal to the total overburden pressure . At this stage there will
not be any shear strength for the soil, and it will tend to boil like a fluid.

1.9.2 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation

The LRFD guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges (2004) recommend
that no evaluation of liquefaction hazard potential at a site be done if the
following conditions occur:
• The distance from the ground surface to existing or potential ground water
level is more than 15 m.
• Bedrock underlies the site.
• The soil is clayey with particle size < 0.005 mm greater than 15%

A simplified procedure for the evaluation of liquefaction potential was originally

developed by Seed and Idriss (1971, 1982) with subsequent refinements by
Seed et al. (1985, and 1990). The procedure compares earthquake cyclic stress
ratio (CSR) at a certain depth of a cohesionless stratum to the cyclic resistance
ratio (CRR), which is defined as the cyclic stress ratio required inducing
liquefaction for that given depth. This evaluation procedure uses correlation
between the liquefaction characteristics of soils and field tests such as the
Standard Penetration Test. The procedure involves the following basic steps:

• Determine the cyclic stress ratio (CSR). During an earthquake, the

soils will be subject to cyclic shear stresses induced by the ground
shaking. The average cyclic stress ratio (CSR) may be estimated by
the following formula:

CSR== 'r ~v ==0 .65 (amax)(cr~Jrd (1-25)

Go g Go

34
Figure 1-26. Failure of the Kawagishi-cho apartment buildings following the 1964

Niigata earthquake due to soil liquefaction (courtesy of EERC, Univ. of California)

Figure 1-26. Failure of a building following the 1999 Izmit Turkey earthquake
(courtesy of EERC, Univ. of California)

35
 o0 0.1 02 03 0.4 05 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

3 (0)
Average values
6(20)
Mean values of rd

-­
::=
'-'
E
9(30)

12(40)
'"
..r::
-..
0..
15(50) . . .. . .
tU
0 18(60)

21 (70)

24(80)
. .
...
.. . . ..
27(90) . . ..... . .
. .
'

30 (l 00) l--...;.....L...---J.~.a...;...~:.......;....L_...o...-..;...a...----JI.-.-""""'--..I

Figure 1-27. Stress reduction coefficient rd versus depth curves (youd and ldrlss ,
1997)

36
 Where amax is the maximum acceleration at the ground surface; <Yo is
the total overburden pressure at depth under consideration; a'a is the
effective overburden pressure at depth under consideration; and rd is a
stress reduction factor coefficient can be calculated using Figure 1-27
as a function of depth. Alternatively, a site-specific response analysis
of the ground motions to determine the maximum earthquake-induced
shearing stresses at depth for use directly in equation (1-25).

• Evaluate the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). Values of CRR were

originally established from databases for different sites where
liquefaction effects were or were not observed following past
earthquakes . The experiential chart defining values of CRR as a
function of the corrected standard penetration resistance (N,) 60 for
magnitude 7.5 earthquakes is depicted in Figure 1-28 (Youd and ldriss,
1997), with magnitude adjustment factors presented in Figure 1-29.

• Calculate the factor of safety against liquefaction as FS= CRR/CSR.

This ratio should be greater than 1.0 to preclude the development of
liquefaction.
1.9.3 Liquefaction Induced Settlement
A significant consequence of liquefaction is the volumetric strain caused by the
excess pore-water pressure generated in sands by the cyclic ground shaking.
The volumetric strain results in settlement, which could lead to collapse or partial
collapse of a structure particularly if there is a pronounced differential settlement
between adjacent structural elements. The post-liquefaction volumetric strain
can be estimated from the chart depicted in Figure 1-30 after Tokimatsu and
Seed (1987). Knowing the strain caused by the liquefaction, the ground surface
settlement may be estimated by multiplying the thickness of each layer by the
strain.
1.9.3 Post-Liquefaction Lateral Spreading

One of the consequences of liquefaction is the degradation in undrained shear

strength of soil, which may lead to lateral spreading. If there is differential lateral
Spreading under a structure, there could be sufficient tensile stresses developed
in the structure that it could be literally torn apart. Lateral spreading can have
disastrous consequences on lifelines. Figures 1-31 and 1-32 show examples of
lateral sp read, following the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake , and the
1994 Northridge earthquake.

The magnitude of the lateral spread hazard can be assessed us ing an

approximate procedure (Barlett and Youd, 1992) that was based on
regression analyses on a large database of lateral spread case histories
from past earthquakes. They proposed two statistically independent
equations , one for areas near steep banks with a free face , the other for ground
slope areas with gently sloping terrain.

37
 0.6
. 2' ur. I ~~ !l
I
Percenr Fines =35 , 15 s, 5
I
I
I I
0.5 I I
I
I ,
I

,
I I
I
I
I

r I
I
r I
I
I
....tQ

.~ 0.4 ~o , I

-
tl
~
.Jl ,
I
I
t
,,---1
I
,' ---/.... CRR curves for 5,15. and
I
,
t
t

t 1 3S percem lines, respectively

, "~
4~ 1 ,
I I
10
~ 0.3 . lZ

j/ V
I
.~
'" , J
~ ;,
~
,"a.
.;!
U 60-· IQ

IQ· "10·
20
"Y»J @

~.A~o / II
'0
C O.2
~o~.. o

~. '
&'b ·q101) ~] S
JO• . ~'O'
iJ:
~,.nl
' J..
;l,",~
'ii> 2 FINESCOl\'TENT:?; 5%
1.1'0<1 ' (h~ O'-'tYJ Modifted Chi nese Code Propos>! felay eerueru =5';;; ) @
0.1
{7 ,,"°1/'
"')0 .
Ma . aI No
U quefoaion l.iq:lOn l.KEfac1,00
~~ AdjllStmenl Pan • A.merian data • Q

Recomrreeded Jap;m=~ra • g 0
By Workshop Chinese data A A
o
o 10 20 30 40
CorrectedBlow Count, (Nl)6Q

Figure 1-28. Curve Recommended for Determining CRR from SPT Data (Youd
and Idriss, 1997)
4j

4
I
angeof recommen
I
MSFfromNC
3.5
Workshop
3

25

1.S
.­
....
~

o
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Earthquake Magnitude. Mw
Figure 1-29 Magnitude scaling factors for the SPT data (youd and Idriss, 1997)

38
 0.6
Volumetric strain (%)
1054 3 2 1 0.5
0.5 ·
II ·•···•
·
·:0.2
•

0.4
......
..
..• • 0.1
a: .........
t.:
........
.

~
• • #

0.3 .
.....'.........
# • •

.....
0.2 .
.
.. ...
# •

... ..»...»
.9 ."

. ..
.
......
.' ......
..
0.1 ..
,.~ ~
.'

o
o 10 20 30 40 50

(N1)SO
Figure 1-30. Estimation of post-liquefaction volumetric strain from SPT data and
cyclic stress ratio for saturated clean sands and rnaqnitude > 7.5 (Tokimatsu and
Seed, 1987)

39
Figure 1-31. lateral spread following the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake
in Tempoyama Park Osaka (courtesy of EERC, Univ. of California)

Figure 1-32. Lateral spreading in Granada Hills at Rinaldi St. (Granada

Hills, California) following the 1994 Northridge earthquake (courtesy of
EERC, Univ. of California)

40
For free-face conditions:

Log OH = - 16.3658 + 1.1782 M - O.9275Log R - 0.0133 R + 0.6572 Log W +

0.3483Log T15 + 4.5270 Log (100 - F15) -0.9224 050 15
(1-26)
For ground slope conditions:

Log OH = - 15.7870 + 1.1782 M - 0.9275 Log R - 0.0133 R + 0.4293 Log S +

0.3483 Log T 15 + 4.5270 Log (100 - F15) - 0.9224 050 15
(1-27)

where, OH is the estimated lateral ground displacement in meters; M is the

moment magnitude of the earthquake; R is the horizontal distance from the
seismic energy source, in kilometers; W is the ratio of the height (H) of the free
face to the distance (L) from the base of the free face to the point in question, in
percent; T15 is the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with
corrected blow counts,(N1)60, less than is, in meters; F15 is the average fines
content (fraction of sediment sample passing a No. 200 sieve) for granular [ayers
included in T 15 in percent; 050,5 is the average mean grain size in granular
I

layers included in T 15 , in mm; and S is the ground slope , in percent.

The LRFO guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges (2004)
recommends using this approach only for screening of the potential for lateral
spreading , as the uncertainty associated with this method is generally assumed
to be too large. Alternatively, more rigorous methods such as the Newmark
sliding block analysis can be used to assess the potential of post-liquefaction
lateral spreading at a site.
1.9.3 Post-liquefaction Flow Failures
Flow failures are the most catastrophic form of ground failure that may take place
when liquefaction occurs in areas of significant ground slope. Flow failure may be
triggered when farge zones of soil become liquefied or blocks of unliquefied soils
flow over a layer of liquefied soils. Flow slides can develop where the slopes are
generally greater than six percent.
1.9.4 Mitigation of liquefaction Hazard
Mitigation of liquefaction potential can be established either by site modification
methods or by structural design methods. Site modification methods include but
not limited to:
• Excavation of the site and replacement of liquefiable soils, which is
applicable only to small projects due to the expenses of excavation and
soil replacements .
• Oensification of in-situ soils through advanced compaction methods such
as vibroflotation. This principle involves lowering a machine into the
ground to compact loose soils by simultaneous vibration and saturation.
As the machine vibrates, water is pumped in faster than it can be
absorbed by the soil. Combined action of vibration and water saturation

41
 rearranges loose sand grains into a more compact state. After the
machine reaches the required depth of compaction, granular material,
usually sand, is added from the ground surface to fill the void space
created by the vibrator. A compacted radial zone of granular material is
created.
• In-situ improvements of soils by using additives such as the stone column
technique. The stone column technique, also know as vibro-replacement,
is a ground improvement process where vertical columns of compacted
aggregate are formed through the soils to be improved. These columns
result in considerable vertical load carrying capacity and improved shear
resistance in the soil mass. Stone columns are installed with specialized
vibratory machines. The vibrator first penetrates to the required depth by
vibration and air or water jetting or by vibration alone. Gravel is then
added at the tip of the vibrator and progressive rising and repenetration of
the vibrator results in the gravel being pushed into the surrounding soil.
The soil-column matrix results in an overall mass having a high shear
strength and a low compressibility
• Grouting or chemical stabilization. These methods can improve the shear
resistance of the soils by injection of chemicals into the voids. Common
applications are jet grouting and deep soil mixing.
Designing for liquefaction may be accomplished by the use of deep foundations
which are usually supported by the soil or rock below the potentially liquefiable
soil layers. These designs would need to account for additional forces that would
develop because of potential settlement of the upper soils that could occur due to
Iiquefaction.

1.10 References
Arias, A (1970) " A measure of earthquake intensity, ~ Seismic Design for Nuclear
Power Plants, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts , pp. 438-483
Bolt, B.A. (1969) "Duration of strong motion, "Proceedings of the 4th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, pp. 1304-1315.
Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L. (1992). "Empirical analysis of horizontal ground

displacements generated by liquefaction-induced lateral spread, "Technical

Report NCEER-92-0021 , National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,

Buffalo, New York .

FEMA (2000). "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of

buildings", FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management. Washington, D.C.

ldriss, I.M. and Sun, J.I. (1992). "SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting
equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits ,
"User's Guide, University of California, Davis, 13pp.

42
Kramer, S.L. (1996), "Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering," Prentice-Hen, Inc .,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 653 pp.
MCEERJATC (2003) "Recommended LRFD guidelines for seismic design of
highway bridges", MCEERIATC 49, Applied Technology Council and
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Schnabel, P.R, Lysmer, J., and Seed, H.B. (1972). "SHAKE: computer program
for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally
layered sites," Report EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California Berkeley.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1970)."Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic
response analyses," Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California Berkeley.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971). "Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, Vo1.107, NO.SM9, pp.1249-1274.
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, RM. (1985). "Influence of
SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No.11, pp.1016-1032.
Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F. (1990). "SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure
generation and undrained residual strength," Proceedings. H.B. Bolton Seed
Memorial Symposium, University of California Berkley, Vol. 2, pp.351-376 .
Tokimatsu , K. and Seed, H.B. (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sand due to
earthquake shaking," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering , ASCE, Vol. 113,
No.8, pp.861-878.
Youd, T.L. and Idriss I.M (1997) Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Report NCEER 97-22, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York.

43
 2

SEISMIC DESIGN OF

SHALLOW

FOUNDATIONS

45
 2-SEISMIC DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
2.1 General
Shallow foundations are usually suitable for sites of rock and firm soils. The
stability of these foundations under seismic loads can be evaluated using a
pseudo-static bearing capacity procedure. The applied loads for this analysis can
be taken directly from the results of a global dynamic response analysis of the
structure with the soil-foundation-interaction SFI effects represented in the
structural model.
2.2 SFI Representation in Global Structural Models
SFSI effects can be incorporated into global structural models by means of two
methods, the foundation dynamic impedance function method, and the Winkler
spring model method. The dynamic impedance function method is adequate if
the seismic foundation loads are not expected to exceed twice the ultimate
foundation capacities (FEMA 2000). The Winkler spring model approach is more
applicable for life safety performance-based design, where it is essential to
represent the nonlinear force displacement relationships of the soil-foundation
system. As illustrated in Figure 2-1 , the dynamic impedance model is an
uncoupled single node model that represents the foundation element. On the
other hand, the Winkler approach can capture more accurately the theoretical
plastic capacity of the soil-foundation system. The non-linear spring constant for
this approach are usually established through non-linear static pushover
analyses of local models of the soil-foundation system using general-purpose
finite element programs such as ABAQUS or ADINA, or by using a Geotechnical
soil structure interaction programs such as FLAC OR SASSI.
An upper and lower bound approach to evaluating the foundation stiffness is
often used because of the uncertainties in the soil properties and the static loads
on the foundations. As a general rule of thumb, a factor of 4 rs taken between the
upper and lower bound (ATC-1996).
The procedure is to make a best estimate of foundation stiffness and multiply and
divide by 2 to establish the upper and lower bounds, respectively.
22. 1 The Dynamic Impedance Approach
This approach is based on earlier studies on machine foundation vibrations, in
which , it is assumed that the response of rigid foundations excited by harmonic
external forces can be characterized by the impedance or dynamic stiffness
matrix for the foundation. The impedance matrix depends on the frequency of
excitation, the geometry of foundation and the properties of the underlying soil
deposit. The evaluation of the impedance functions for a foundation with an
arbitrary shape has been solved mathematically using a mixed boundary-value
problem approach or discrete variational problem approach. Both approaches
are mathematically rigorous methods. In another approach the problem has been
approximately solved by defining an equivalent circular base. The impedance
function of a foundation is a frequency dependent complex expression, where its

46
real part represents the elastic stiffness (spring constant) of the soil-foundation
system and its imaginary part represents both the material and radiation damping
in the soil-foundation system. At small strain levels typically material damping
ratio ~ associated with foundation response is on the order of 2% to 5%.
Radiation damping is close to viscous damping behavior. and is frequency
dependent. Considering the range of frequencies and amplitUdes in earthquake
ground motions compared to machine foundations, it is reasonably to ignore the
frequency dependence of the stiffness as well as the damping parameters.
There are two methods for evaluating the dynamic impedance functions for a
shallow foundation that are commonly used in practice. The first is based on the
approximate solution for a circular footing rigidly connected to the surface of
isotropic homogeneous elastic half-space. adopted by FHWA (FHWA-1995).
which provides the static stiffness constants for each degree of freedom. The
second approach is based on the more rigorous mathematical approaches.
Evaluation of the stiffness coefficients using the equivalent circular footing is
carried out in four steps as follows:
Step 1: Determine the equivalent radius for each degree of freedom, which is the
radius of a circular footing with the same area as the rectangular footing as
shown in Figure 2-2:

ro =Rv =~BLl1t (2-1-a)

ro =Rh =~BL/1C (2-1-b)

-R _[16(B)(L)3]1/4 (2-1-c)
r0 - r1 - ---=--z....:.....:.-
31t

_R _ [16(B)3(L) ]1/4 (2-1-d)

ro - r2 - 31t

2 2>]1I4
r0 -R
-
_[16(B +L
t - ---=---'- (2-1-e)
61t

Step 2: Calculate the stiffness coefficients for the transformed circular footing for
vertical translation ksv , horizontal (sliding) translations ksh1 and ksh2 , rocking, kr ,
and torsion, k t
_ 4GR v
k sv - (2-2-a)
1-u
8GR
k sh1 = k Sh2 = ­h (2-2-b)
2-u

47
 p

Foundation forces Uncoupled stiffnesses

Winkler spring model

Figure 2-1. Analysis models for shallow foundations

x / : RECTANGULAR
FOOTlNG

I-­ -~

I I
I J

I I
I ~------if--"""'y co
N
I
I
I

--t--EQU1VALENT
2l CIRCULAR
FOOTING

Figure 2-2. Calculation of equivalent radius of rectangular footing

48
 (2-2-c)

where, G and v are the dynamic shear modulus and Poisson's ratio for the soil­
foundation system.
Step 3: Multiply each of the stiffness coefficients values obtained in step 2 by the
appropriate shape correction factor C1 from figure 2-3 (Lam and Martin 1986).
This figure provides the shape factors for different aspect ratios LIB for the
foundation .
Step 4: Multiply the values obtained from step 3 by the embedment factor ~
using Figure 2-4 for values of D/R :5:0.5, and Figure 2-5 for D/R > 0.5 (Lam and
Martin 1986). D in these figures is the footing thickness .
The second approach for calculating the impedance functions for the soil­
foundation system is based on the results of rigorous formulations (Gazetas
1991). This approach is adopted by FEMA-356. Using Figures 2-6 and 2-7, a
two-step calculation process is required. First, the stiffness terms are calculated
for a foundation at the surface. Then, an embedment correction factor is
calculated for each stiffness term. The stiffness of the embedded foundation is
the product of these two terms. According to Gazetas , the height of effective
sidewall contact, d, in Figure 2-7 should be taken as the average height of the
sidewall that is in good contact with the surrounding soil.
2.3 Dynamic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
The general vertical soil bearing stress capacity of a shallow footing is:
1
qull = en, Sc + yDNqSq +2yBNySy (2-3)

In this expression :
C = cohesion property of the soil
Nc , Nq ,N.( =
bearing capacity factor depending on angle of internal friction, ¢'
and evaluated as:

N = eittan<ptan (45+%)
q
2
(2-4a)

Nc = (N q -1) cot (cj» (2-4b)

N y = 2(N q +l)tan<p (2-4c)

Sc, Sq Sr = footing
t shape factors (see Table 2-1), y = soil total unit weight.

49
 1 .20..,.------------------------~__.

tlJ
ri
u .«
,­ L.

0 Z
t-
O
<:
I.... 1.10
W
a...
-c
~

1,<l5

1,OOH--r-1r-T-,.....,.....,.....,r-T--.--T-T"lIT-.---.--....,iT-.---l-i'""'1r-r-....,...,r-r""T""'i
o 1.5 2.0 2.5 .3.0 J5 4.0
lIS
Figure 2-3. Shape factor a for rectangular foundations
2.5 -T""---....--- ---....------------:----....

2,0- .
~~~~
J-f . ~ • . , • ~ . ,
R_ . • . : t · .

!­
Z
w
::2'
o
w
co
~
w

0.5
O/R
Figure 2·4. Embedment factors for foundations with D/R :5,'; 0.5

50
 EMBEDMENT FACTOR ~
TRANSlA1100AL (\lERTlCAL AND HORI ZONTAL)
-----.-.-.-....-.-.-

TORSIONAl Afo'D ROTATION.AL. IS

Figure 2-5. Embedment factors for foundations with D/R > 0.5

51
Degree of Freedom Stiffness of Foundation at Surface
Translation along x-axis

Translation along y-axis

K
y,su"
= GB [..,
2 _. v -').
4(L)0.65
B
+ 0 4b. -\- 0.8J
. B
Translation along z-axis

Rocking about x-axis

«: s ur = 7~:[0.4(~) + 0.1 ]
Rocking about y-axis 3
K
.r .v. SUI'
= GB [0.47
1 -- v
(L)2
B
.4 + 0.034J
Torsion about z-axis
3 L
KZZ, s ur = GB [0.53(B ) 2.45 + 0.51J

Figure 2·6. Gazetas approach for foundation stiffness step-1 (FEMA-2004)

52
Degree of Freedom Correction Factor for Embedment
Translation along x-axis

Translation along y-axis

Py = Px
Translation along z-axis

~z :0= [1 + 2\ ~~ + 2.6 Z)].[1 + O.32(d(~~ L)y / 3]

Rocking about x-axis
r:l.
I-'xx
= 1 +25-
. B
d[
1 + -2Bd(d)-O
­
D
.2~J
­
L

Rocking about y-axis

d 1.) +3 .7(~1.9(
~yy =1+1.4L ( JO.6[_ 1) D J
d)-O'<1
Torsion about z-axis
~z: = ( B)(d)O.9
1 + 2.6 1 + L
B

d =height of effective sidewall

contact (may be less than total
foundation height)
h = depth to centroid of effective
sidewall contact

For each degree of freedom,

calculate
Kemb = ~ «;
Figure 2-7. Gazetas approach for foundation stiffness step-2 (FEMA-2004)

53
 '~QJ. '
- I ,

/ f '." J (/ r ,,-"­ . :(., . c' "

r
~ -. ' /

,r
\ I ;r- ,,- p .. :.. ' J . ',
o = minimum distance from ground level to the bottom of the footing
B = width of footing

-.
T.able 2 1 B eanng Shape Fac tors
Bearing Shape Factors

Shape of Footing Cohesion Surcharge Density

(c; (q (r

Strip 1.0 1.0 1.0

Rectangle B Nq B B
1+-­ 1+-tan$ 1-0.4­
L Nc L L

Circle or square N
1+-3. 1+ tan $ 0.6
Nc
Earthquakes will induce moments and horizontal loads in addition to the
traditional vertical loads applied to a shallow foundation. To represent the
combined effect of the seismic forces and moments a resultant load that may
have to be inclined and applied eccentrically can be applied in lieu of the seismic
vertical forces, seismic horizontal forces, and seismic moments. Therefore, a
procedure is established to account for load inclination , and load eccentricity of
footing. Through this procedure, the general bearing capacity equation of shallow
footing is adjusted to account for these effects.
2.3.1. Evaluation of the Dynamic Bearing Capacity using equivalent static
methods
This procedure is carried out in three steps as follows :
Step 1: compute the seismic vertical loads , seismic horizontal loads, and seismic
moments imposed to the footing. These seismic loads and moments can be
taken directly from the results of a global dynamic response analysis of the
structure with the soil-foundation-interaction SFI effects represented in the
structural model. For each direction , these forces are then combined into a single
resultant force with an inclination angle ~ with respect to the vertical and
eccentricities, eb and elfor both lateral and longitudinal directions.
Step 2: calculate the equivalent dimensions for the footing to account for the load
eccentricity, which is caused by the seismic moments applied to the foundation in
both directions. The vertical load can be transferred to an eccentric position
defined by eb =Mt/Q and el =M/Q, where Q is the central vertical load due to
seismic load plus other service loads; Mb and M;: : seismic moments about the
short and long axes of the footing; and eb and el eccentricities of the load Q =

54
about the centroid of the footing in the direction of the short and long axes
respectively. It is known from basic principles of strength of materials that if the
eccentricity in one direction is less than 1/6 of the foundation's length in that
direction, the footing is in compression throughout. As eccentricity exceeds this
value, a loss of contact occurs. The concept of effective width was introduced by
Meyerhof (1953) who proposed that at the ultimate bearing capacity of the
foundation , it could be assumed that the contact pressure is identical to that for a
centrally loaded foundation but of reduced width. Highter and Anders (1985) who
complemented Meyerhof earlier work and provided design charts for four cases
of a footing subjected to two-way eccentricity depending on the magnitudes of
el/Land eb/B :
Casel: el/L ~ 116 and et/B ~ 1/6. The effective area for this condition is
shown in Figure 2-8, where:

A' =..!..B1L1 (2-5a)

2
in which:

B, =B(1.5- 3: b
:
Effective
area
~

L = L(1.5 _ 3e, I
I
I
1 (2-5c) i
\. L } I
L1
The effective length L', is the larger
of the two dimensions, that is B1 or

L 1. So, the effective width is B'::; A'/L'

L

I j
Case 1/ : O<e~L < 0.5 and eb/B < 116.

The effective area for this case is

1 I( B ..I

shown in Figure 2-9a, where:

Figure 2·8. Effective area

for two-way eccentricity
(2-6a) case 1

in which, the magnitudes of L 1 and L2 can be determined from Figure 2-9b .

The effective width is
A'
B' = - - - - - - - - - (2-6b)
L1orL2 (whichever is larger)
The effective length is:
L' =L1 or L2 (whichever is larger) (2-6c)

55
 B Effective
area

L - --+~"'~r/?f--

I
I
,
1
•

(a)

.........- -.........--..,

O.5~--.......------.-----

e!JB=

0.167
0.1
O.3~r+-+-~~~~~~~:---rO'~--4
0.06
0.04

0.11----+---­

For

Figure 2-9. Effective area for two-way eccentricity case 2

56
 Case 11/: elll < 1/6 and O<eb/B< 0.5.

The effective area for this case is shown in Figure 2-1 Oa, where:

N = 2.(B 1 + B 2)L (2-7a)

2
The effective width is :

B,=A' (2-7b)
L
Effective length is quantified as:

L' =L (2-7c)

The magnitudes of 81 and 82 can be determined from Figure 2-10b.

Case IV: eJL < 1/6 and <ebl'B< 1/6. Figure 2-11 a illustrates the effective

area for this case, which can be quantified as:

A' = L2B +2.(B + B 2)(L - L2) (2-8a)

2
The effective width is:

A'

B'=- (2-8b)
L
The effective length is:
L' = L (2-8c)
Step 3: adjust the bearing capacity equation for inclination and eccentricity. Load
inclination factors are added to equation 2-6 to count for load inclination as
follows:

qU11 = en, ~cAc +yDNq~qAq + ~ y8' Ny~yA y (2-9)

where ACT Aq , and A.{ are load inclination factors calculated as (Vesic 1970, Hunt
1986):

A_[1- V +8'L'ccot~
q -
H ]m (2-10a)

A =[1------
H ]m+1 (2-10b)
"I V +B'L'ccot~

1-A
A = /" - q (for c and ~soil) (2-10c)
c q N c tan~

57
 L

Effective
area

I... B·--~
(a)
0.5 r-o----r------,---,---r------,

edt->
,-.......-+--0.1671----+-----1
0.1 •
0.08
O.31-H-+-~~~~~~~~-O.06----l
0.04
0.02

POo
~..
0\ ~ ';)

0.1 eill- =
For """""IIf~~~~:-+-""'"
obtaining
BzlB
0.4 0.6 0.8
BtIB, BzlB
-_.- .. .. - - ---~)---------------_....­

Figure 2-10. Effective area for two-way eccentricity case 3

58
 .....---B--~
)or 1

~~ffl?:t---+-.Effective
area

(a)

taimng B 2/B
0.20 For 0 btai
\0
.-l "'1'
O.-l~
o .
o

0.02 = eJ.1L

For obtaining L 2/L

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
B 2/B, LVL
(b)
Figure 2-11. Effective area for two-way eccentricity case 4

59
A =1- mH (for c soil) (2-10d)
C B'L'cN C

where H :::: horizontal component of load, V = vertical component of load, and m

is an exponential factor relating B/L or LIB ratios as follows:
For load on short side:
(2+B/L)
mb = -7-(1-+-B-/L-+) (2-10e)

For load on long side:

(2+L/B)
ml = (1+L/B)
2.3.2. Evaluation of the Dynamic Bearing Capacity using modified bearing
capacity factors
Prakash (1981) proposed new bearing capacity factors that are functions of the
angle of internal friction of soil 4> and the eccentricity eb of the footing, and
expressed in terms of the ratio of eccentricity eb to width B of the footing. The
loss of contact of the footing width with increases in eccentricity was accounted
for while evaluating the new bearing capacity factors henceforth called dynamic
bearing capacity factors . The dynamic bearing capacity factors Nc , Nq • N, have
been plotted in Figures 2-12 through 2-14, to be used in lieu of the calculated
values using equation 2-4. Prakash (1981) also proposed the following values for
the dynamic bearing shape factors to be used with the dynamic bearing capacity
factors:

Sy =l+(~ -O .68)(~)-(~ -0.43 )(~ r (2.11a)

Sq = 1.0 for all shapes of footings (2.11b)

c;,c :::: 1.2 for square footings
= 1.0 for strip footings (LIB ~ 8) (2.11c)
2.3.3 FEMA-356 Procedure for dynamic bearing capacity
Soil yield, uplift, and rocking of shallow rigid foundations under seismic-induced
moment loading can reduce the ductility demand in a structure. Accordingly,
FEMA-356 allowed rotational yield to occur under earthquake loading. In the
absence of moment loading, the vertical load capacity of a rectangular footing
QUit is given by:

QUit = qultBL (2-12)

where L is the length of footing. If seismic moment loading is present in addition
to the vertical load, FEMA-356 assumes, based on earlier studies (Bartlett 1976)
that the ultimate moment capacity, Me, is dependent on the ratio of the vertical

60
load to the vertical capacity of the soil. This theory assumes a rigid footing and
that the contact stresses are proportional to vertical displacement and remain
elastic until the vertical capacity is reached. Hence, a factor of safety, FOS, can
be defined as FOS= qUlt/q • where q is the vertical contact stress according to the
vertical load on footing. If the factor of safety is greater than 2, uplift will occur
prior to plastic yielding of the soil. On the other hand, if FOS is less than or equal
to 2 the soil at the toe yields v\before uplift starts.
r
II
I
I

.e/S c 0.4 0.3 0.2 o.r 0.0

'E"
~
c:
:; 20 I-,f-I.~~.,L+----+-----=---+---l----+---!----l----L--:------l
9 " 4(f
'"
'-c"c: e/B
0.0
Nc
94.83
10l-l--Jr+-I--I+--+----+---+-- - t - ---:-----1----t D.l . 66.60
0.2 S4.45
0.3 36.30
0.4 18,15
o
Q 10 .. 20 40 50 50
70 80 90 10~'
Cohesion factor No

Figure 2-12 . Bearing capacity Factor Nc vs. ~ and e/B (After Prakash 1981)

0-2 " 0.1 0.0

-s­
.~
!i~ 30l--+--A-7I'~A",.e.=---_+----l----+-.....,._-r__--t--_+_-______j
~
::
st:
~ 201-J-,fN.~--_+--_+_--+--+---1_-
--t---L_:;:;_-_j
.,
C,
c: e/B N~
<:
81.27 0.0
10 56.09 0.1
45,18 0.2
0.3 30.1a
0.4 15.06
01L...----.l.--....L---'--...,-J~-~:__-_+.:_~___:_f:_-__:::::__-~
·0 10 20 30 . 40 ' 50 70 80 90
Surchel'9s factor N ~

Figure 2-13. Bearing capacity Factor Nq vs. ~ and e/B (After Prakash 1981)

61
 ! I
etB '"
I
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1'
I
, 0.0
40
,.,---
~
-e­
=
.2
U
V
/" »> ~
,........
.~
:E 30 ,,
.. !~ /
~
.1:.
"­Q)

:;: 20
4J=40-
o . -

i
I1l
~
c
<i
to
V I etB
0.0
0,1
0,2
Ny
115.80
71.80
41.60
0.3 18.50
QA 4.62
o 90 110
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100
Weight factor Nl'

Figure 2-14. Bearing capacity Factor Nl' vs. 4> and e/B (After Prakash 1981)
On the basis of these assumptions, the moment capacity of a rectangular footing
can be expressed as:

M QL(l-_l_J
c
=
2 FOS
(2-13)

» ~ ..
where Q = the vertical loading on footing and L is the length of footing in the
I

.....1;. - . direction of bending.

2.3.4 Richards method for dynamic bearing capacity

This procedure was developed by Richards et aJ (1993) and is the only method
that directly correlates the dynamic bearing capacity of the foundation to the
earthquake parameters . This theory assumes that seismic settlements of shallow
foundations on granular soils that are not attributable to liquefaction can be
explained in terms of seismic degradation of bearing capacity. This procedure as
shown in Figure 2-15 uses a simplified Coulomb's failure mechanism extended to
dynam ic earthquake situation.

According to this theory, the dynamic bearing capacity for a strip foundation can
be evaluated as:

(2-14)

62
 B
P /'
/'
/'
H::BtonpA

~ -----
Y/'(OrOndfl
L
~---r---- H/tonpp -I
Figure 2·15. Simplified Coulomb's failure surface for dynamic
bearing capacity evaluation .

where, qUE is the dynamic ultimate bearing capacity; NeE, NOE , and NyE are
dynamic bearing capacity factors evaluated in terms of the angle of internal
friction of soil, and the earthquake acceleration ratio. Figure 2-16 shows the
variations of the dynamic bearing capacity factors as a ratio of the static values
determined by equation 2-7 with earthquake acceleration ratio tan 8 for different
values of soil friction angle ~, where:

tan 8 =-.JSL
I-k
(2-15)
v
where, kh is the horizontal coefficient of acceleration due to the earthquake, and
k" is the vertical coefficient of acceleration due to the earthquake.

The seismic settlement of sand soils according to this theory can be evaluated
as:

y2 k*
SEq = O.174- i tanPA (2-22)
Ag A

in which, V = Peak or pseudo-velocity response spectrum (m/sec): A =

acceleration coefficient for the design earthquake ; g = acceleration due to gravity
(9.81 rn/sec"); k~ = critical acceleration coefficient for incipient foundation
settlement; and PA = the inclination angle of the failure surface's active wedge
region with respect to the horizontal as shown in Figure 2-15. The values of k~
and PA can be obtained from Figures 2-17 and 2-18 respectively .

63
 NcEINeS
1.0 '.0 '.0
0.8 0.8

0.8 0.4

fone = ~
l-kr
(0) (b) (cJ

Figure 2~16. Seismic to static bearing capacity ratios

3.0

/.0 /.0

,(~ ~ l~~ 1',,~~),~ ~~~ ,,.,.,,

<...
Q

U
tl: o0 , , I ' , ', , , ,, , , ,
~ 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 .4 0 0.1 a2 0.3 0 .4
.....<:J
o
V'l
------ :< - --- - ­
. ~ 4.0 ­ 4.0
"0
Vi
3.0 3.0

2.0r 2.0
I

~o ~o

(c) ~ .. 30o F ( d)¢: 40o

o [ 1 I I , J t I . , r 1 z t, I , f ! I ! of . . . I t I • • , I! J ) • J ( t . I I
o 0.1 rJ2 Q.3 0.4 0 0 ./ 0.2 a3 0.4
1<; - - _
Figure 2~17. Critical Acceleration k~ for incipient foundation settlement

64
 2.0 r----r----r----r----,------r---..--,

1.5

0.5

o 0./ 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Horizootot Acceleration Coefficient. kh

Figure 2-18. Tangent of active Coulomb Wedge Angle PA

2.3 Example1
Calculate the stiffness coefficients for a strip foundation for the purposes of
seismic analysis. The width of the foundation is 5m and the length is 20 m. The
distance from ground level to the bottom of the foundation is 5 m and the
thickness Is 1 m. The estimated static load on the footing was 35000 Kn. The soil
is a deep gravelly sand deposit with angle of internal friction 38°, and dry unit
weight equals16 kNfm 3 . Borings were taken and groundwater was not
encountered. The standard penetration resistance of the layer has been
determined to be 21 blows per 300 mm using a standard sampler, a drill rig with
a safety hammer efficiency of 60%, a drill rod of length 10m, and a borehole of
diameter 127 mm (5 inches). The effective peak acceleration for the site was
determined to be 0.35 g. Use the approximate solution for a circular footing
resting on the surface of elastic half-space .

65
 5o/ufion

DATA:
Foundation width B:= S'm

Foundation lenqth l- := 20·m

Depth from ground surface 1/ := ? ·m

foundation thickness
d:= l -m

, iKN'
Unit weight of soil y := ;6 ­
:?
m
Poisson ratio for the soil medium
v := 0,:-70'

Ang le of internal friction

~ := '58deCl

Effective peak acceleration r­ O~(­

~a:;::: .:/'?

Measured penetration resistance from SPT test

N;= 21

STEP 1: Determine correction factors to SPT biowcount

Reffering to Tabl e 1-1 the correction factors are :

Overburden pressure

Effective vertical stress at the foundation level cr;= y.t/ ( e rVL1i..:::;

r . -nl"
!-"
r ,/lI l
,....l,/j - '1 \
r /

c = 80kPa

Overburden correction factor tWa

CN := 9,18 · ---;;- ( eo.uatim! - 16b)

CN = 1.09'5

66
 /j
Energy ratio: Ce := 1.0 , since safety hammer is 6010 efficient

/i'
Borehole diameter: C~ := f.o , since diameter is 5 in. (127 mm)

.• Rod length: (,R := !.o .slnce rod length is 10m

/
, / Sarnpling method C5 := 1.0 .since standard sampler used

Corrected standard penetration resistance

N60 = 22.962 ( equaJ:,ict11 - I?)

STEP 2: Evaluate shear modulus f rom the information of the 3PT test

Maxlrnu rn (initiaI) shear rnodu Ius Um." := 200ClO.N60' .j (J, .p, ( e"""t im! - IBJ
p 5T

r.
{Ama)'.. = u:
:,'.2 C~
/'./ IVI~AP a

For effective peak ground accel eration of 0.4 and site class C Table 1-1

Effective shear modulus ratior Rf := O,BO

Effective shear rndulus

u = B9002MPa
STEP 3: Evaluation of the equiivalent radiUS for each de gree of fre edom

~
r? ,_ _ l ( eCju3tl' Cf1 2_ - 'ta;
-\
Translational modes "'1 .- 1t

67
 Rocking modes
-z; \0.28
'£. ~ I --" I
Iv ·v·>
I? i '­
'''n .- [ ?Jt)

transverse axis parallel to width

~ \O.2So
I? . ,_ i6 -B--" l I
IY 2 ·- [ ) ( eqJaLion2 - ld)
5·Jt
longitudinal axis parallel to length
Rr2 = 8.071m

Torsional mode

Rr. = 15.782 m

STEP 4 : Calculate the stiffness coefficients for the transforrned circular footing

assume axis x is parallel to the length. and yaxis is parallel to the width

4·G,·i(v
Vertical translation ~v:=-­
I-v
: ' MN
K~;v
'1
I
= ?.o9 x ,0 ­
m

I
B'~'Rn
Translation along transverse axis Kshi :=
2-v

5 MN
~h i = 2A:?? x 10 ­
111

Translation along longitudinal axis ~h2 := ~hJ

68
 8 -.:A.R,.?
k,.,
,; := '
2 ( eo..uatll7.12 - 2()
Rocking about transverse axis
3 ·( I - v ) -rn

6 MN
krl = 1.0756 x 10 ­
m

8 ·(..1f. ·R
"r2'
Rocking about longitud inal axis
~2 := 2 ( eCitJati0'l2 - 2c)
3·( I - v ) 1Jl

? MN
Kr2 = 1.92 x 10 - '
m

1(.7
I.
:=
16 f. v
- .(..1.­
l uT5ion KJ,
v 3 2
m ( eo.u8tim2 - 2d)
/,. MN
kt = 1.24:? x 10° -"­
m
STEP 5: Evaluation of th e shape f actors a. for each mode

The shape fa ctors are ca lculated from Figure 2- 3 for LIB = 4

a v := 1,13 v.. r1 .= i ,IBe,.»

N • ;

ahl := 1.1 7?
a r 2 := i.16
a t:= 1.1 1 a h2 := 1.06

STEP 6: EvaluatioD of t he embedment factors Qf or each mode

The embedment fa ctors are calculat ed from Figure 2-4 for d=lm and R values
f or each mode

, . I ratiO:= ­ ratio = 0 .117

vertical Rv
from figure 2-4 Pv ;= r., Of)·'h-t "
'7./ 1'/

f rans!atiCf'al d
rabo := ­
RJ(i

from fig ure 2-4 J3h := 1.2?

69
 d
Rocking about transverse axis rat io
ratio = 0.062

from figure 2-4 ~ rI := 1.08

Rocking about longitudinal axis rali o ._­

.­
t(r2

from figure 2-4 J3 r2 := i.2'-3

ratio rat io = 0 .015

from figure 2-4 ~ t := 1.26

STEP 7: Evaluate the ad justed st iffn ess co efficients based on shape and
embedment f actors _

Vertical
. 7 MN
Kva = 5.8i9 x;O ­
rn

Tanslational a long transverse axis

I
K5hla
~ ..-::\{)
= ./ ,:/ \/ x
10 -:.c../ MN
j ­

Tra nslational along longitudinal axis

L j
"na ·-
._ kr j .Nv.. n!. Ct ,
Rockiriq about transverse axis t-' :'":

70
 Rocking about ionqitudlnal axis

z; N'N
k.ta '= 1,8:?2 x lOCI -'­
m

2.4 Example2
Following seismic response analysis for the problem in example 1, the following
estimates of the peak dynamic forces acting on the foundation are as follows:
Vertical force = 6500 kN
Horizontal force in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the footing =12500 kN
Horizontal force in the direction of the transverse axis of the footing = 14000 kN
Moment about the longitudinal axis =42000 kNm
Moment about the transverse axis =83000 kNm
If the estimated static load on the footing was 35000 kN, evaluate the dynamic
bearing capacity of the foundation
5 01ufion

DATA:
Foundation width B:= 5>-r;.
Foundation 1611gth [.,:= 20·m
Depth from groulld surface
i7 := 7-m
foundation thickness
d := l-m
Unit weight of soil kN
'Y := :6 ­
7
rn
Angle of internal frjction ~ := 58deC]

Vertical static force V5 := ?:70 00·kN

71
Step 1: Evaluate seismic f orc es

Vertical se ismic force VD:= 6e700·kN

Horizontal seismic force in the transverse direction Hi := 14000 -kN

Horizontal seism ic force in the longitudinal direction H~ := j 2::?OOlN

Moment about the t r ansverse axis Mf := B?OOO·kN·m

Moment about the longitudinal axis pI\- := 42000-kN·m

Step 2: Calcu late equiva lent dimensions to account for load eccentricity

M..­I

Eccentricity in the longitudina l direction

el := - - ­
Vs+ Vr;

Ecc entricity in t he longItudinal direction et:= - - ­

V5 + Vr; e.c­ = !.0 12 m

Rat io of eccentricity in the longitudinal direction to t he length e iII! "= - ell = 0 .1

' . L.

e~
Ratio of eccentricity in th e transverse dire ction to the width cit:= - ett :::; 0 .202
B

since ei/L < 116 and O<et/B < 0.5, use case iii Figure 2-10

ratio of B1/B BIB:= O,B::? ( f iOiJrel - lOb)

ratio of 52/5 B2B := 0,21 (\. f'lopreI - lOb'
i/) I

Distance 51 in Figure 10 -a BI := BH3·B f?1= 4.2e7 m

Dist ance 51 in Figur e 1O-a 172 := B2B·B B2 = l.OSm

f\; := 05 ·( [:>1 + B2)·~ A;.

Effective area 2
= e7? m

Effe ctive width I~

Bd := - Bd ;::: 2,6 '? m
L.
Effective length l d := ~ ~d = 20 m

72
Step 3 : Evalu ate t he dynamic bearing capacity inclu ding incli nat ion and
ecce nt ricity

Consider case of horizonta l load acting on t ho transverse direc t ion

Bearing capacity f actors

Nq ._ e lt · tal ( ~) .( tan ( "17 .deC! + .? .(j)) ) 2 Nq = 48 .7

Q 'I ,"
J)

t~ t .­ 2· ( l~ q + I) -tan ( ep) Ny = 78 .024

( eqJat.icn 2- "1-)

Shap e f actors

(,y = 0.9
( fable 2 - I)
Inclinat ion factors

'- '
B
L. + ­
l
'l1 := 111 1.8
f?
1+ ­
L.

'}.. 0. :=

The bea ring stress capacit y

?
Clult 2,70 1 x 10 !:.Pa

The ultimate load

The factor of safety is t hen given by:

f5 .- fS = 5.269

73
 The bearing stress capacity

%It = 5.12 x 10 7 kPa

The ultimate load

The factor of safety ls then given by:

P5 := ----;::::::======= f5 = 4.5140'

Step 4: Check slid ing resistance

Interface friction angle between soil and concr ete

The friction capac ity 4

Rf = L957 x ;0 .kN
The factor of safety is then given by:
kf
f5 :=- f5 = 1.582
HI

74
2.5 eferences

ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings volume 1,"
II

A TC 40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

Bartlett, P.E., (1976) , "Foundation rocking on a clay soil, " Report no. 154, M.E.
thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand .
FEMA (2000) . "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings", FEMA-356 , Federal Emergency Management. Washington, D.C.
FHWA (1995) "Seismic retrofitting manual for highway bridges," Federal Highway
Administration. Washington, DC.
Gazetas, G. (1991). Foundation vibrations, Chapter 15 in Foundation
Engineering Handbook, 2nd edition, H.-Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, pp.553-593.
Highter, W.H., and Anders, J.C. (1985) . "Dimensioning footings subjected to
eccentric loads," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No.8,
pp.659-665.
Hunt, R.E. (1986), "Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices,"
McGraw Hill, inc ., New Jersey, 729 pp.
Lam, I.P. and Martin, G.R. (1986), "Seismic Design of Highway Bridge
Foundations," Report No. FHWAIRD-86-102, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, McLean , Virginia , 167 p.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1953), "The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric
loads, u Proceedings :rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1 ppA40-445.

Prakash, S. (1981), "Soil dynamics," McGraw Hill, Inc., New Jersey, 426 pp.

Richards, R., Jr., Elms, D.G., and Budhu, M. (1993). "Seismic bearing capacity

and settlements of foundations," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,

Vol. 119, NoA, pp.662-674.

Vesic, A.S. (1973)" Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations, Chapter

3 in Foundation Engineering Handbook, 1st edition, H.-Y. Fang, ed., Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp.553-593 .

75
 3

SEISMIC EVALUATION

OF

PILE FOUNDA TIONS

76
 3-SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

3.1 General
Pile foundations generally consist of pile groups connected to a pile cap with pile
diameters usually less than or equal to 24 inches . Pile foundations are preferred
under the following conditions:
• The upper soil layers are weak or susceptible to liquefaction;
• Excessive scour is likely to occur; or
• Future excavation is planned in the vicinity of the structure .
Essentially, the seismic response of piles requires consideration of six degrees of
freedom ; that is, three translational components and three rotational
components. The lateral soil reactions are usually mobilized along the top 5 to 10
pile diameters . The axial soil resistances, however, develop at greater depths .
Hence, the axial and lateral capacities of piles are considered to be uncoupled.
In general, seismic design of pile foundations is a three-step process , which
includes determination of the seismic demands, evaluation of the pile foundation
capacities, and finally comparing demands to capacities and assessing the
seismic response of the foundation . For a proper determination of the seismic
demand, it is imperative to estimate precisely the foundation stiffness to be
included in the overall structural model for determination of the demands.
The seismic response of a pile group foundation depends on the response of
individual piles under both lateral and axial loads and on the lateral response of
the pile cap. It is conventional to compare the lateral displacements under
seismic loads to acceptable levels of displacements dictated by the design
criteria of the project. In assessing the vertical response of pile foundations under
vertical seismic loads, the pile loads are compared to the compressive capacities
of the piles and any potential uplift.

3.2 PiIe Foundation Stiffness

Solis are inherently nonlinear, starting from incredibly minute load levels. Lateral
loads on piles are resisted by the surrounding soil. Therefore, piles exhibit non­
linear load-deflection characteristics. This behavior is represented assuming the
pile as a beam supported on Winkler springs that are characterized by non-linear
p-y curves for lateral loading , or t-z and q-z for vertical loading. These curves
characterize the latera! soil resistance per unit length of pile as a function of the
displacement. These relationships are generally developed on the basis of semi­
empirical curves , which reflect the nonlinear resistance of the local soil
surrounding the pile at a certain depth. The two most commonly used p-y models
are those proposed by Matlock (1970) for soft clay and by Reese et al. (1974) for
sand. The most commonly used t-z and q-z models are those developed by
McVay at al. (1989).
The general form of a single pile stiffness matrix can take the form:

77
 K .", 0 0 0 -K .~oy
0
0 s; 0 «; 0 0
0 0 Kzz 0 0 0
(3-1 )
0 Ko,y 0 s: 0 0
-KByx 0 0 0 Key 0
0 0 0 0 0 s;
in which, Kxx, Kyy are the lateral stiffnesses; Kzz is the axial stiffness; and Kxeyand
Kyox are corresponding coupled stiffnesses between shear and overturning
moment.
There are two methods for modeling the behavior of pile groups for seismic
response studies, the soil-pile stiffness as will be explained in the following
subsections.

3.2.1 Coupled Pile Foundation Stiffness Matrix

In this method, a quasi dynamic analysis for the pile group is conducted by
applying loading (either as forces or displacements) at the interface node
between the superstructure and foundation model using linearized properties for
the soils. Linearized properties for a single pile can be achieved by assuming
secant foundation stiffness at 0.5 to 0.65 of peak deflection (Lam et al., 1998). A
stiffness matrix can be obtained by prescribing a unit deformation vector for each
degree of the six degrees of freedom, while keeping the other five degrees zero.
The resultant force vector corresponding to each unit deformation vector can be
used to form the corresponding column vector in the stiffness matrix. The
stiffness matrix must be positive definite otherwise, numerical problems may be
expected when the stiffness matrix is implemented in the overall structural model.
One way to ensure that the stiffness matrix is positive definite is to invert it and
check that the diagonal elements in the inverted (compliance) matrix are positive
values . Programs such as LPILE (Reese et at., 1997) and FLPIER (Hoit and
McVay, 1996) may be used to establish the foundation stlffness matrix or the
nonlinear load deformation characteristics of the pile group.

3.2.2 Simplified Procedure for Pile Group Stiffness Matrix

This simplified method involves five basic steps (Lam et al. r 1991) as follows:
1. Determine the stiffness coefficient of a single pile under lateral loadinq,
2. Determine the stiffness coefficient of a single pile under axial loading.
3. Superimpose the stiffness of individual piles to obtain the pile group
stiffness.
4. Solve for the stiffness contribution of the pile cap.
5. Superimpose the stiffness of the pile cap to the pile group.

78
Details of the each step are described herein.

Step 1: Single Pile under Lateral Load

Lam and Martin (1986) came to a realization that lateral load-deflection

characteristics representtng the overall stiffness of the soil-pile system are
dominated by the elastic pile stiffness over the nonlinear soil behavior. Moreover,
the localized zone of influence is limited to the upper five to ten pile diameters.
Hence, they concluded that linear solutions may be adequate for pile stiffness
evaluations. They developed single-layer pile-head stiffness design charts for
lateral loading as presented in Figures 3-1 to 3-4 for the no embedment case and
in Figures 3-5 to 3-7 for the embedded pile case. These charts are applicable for
piles up to 24 inches. Two parameters are required to define the soil-pile system:
the pile bending stiffness, EI, and the coefficient of variation f of soil reaction
modulus Es with depth. The coefficient f has units of force/unit volume.
Recommendations for the values of f in sand have been published (Terzaghi,
1955; O'Neill and Murchison, 1983) and shown in Figure 3-8. Values for piles in
clay soils are given in Figure 3-9 (Lam et al., 1991). Examination of these charts
yields the following observations :

1. Average value of soil conditions for the upper five pile diameters should be
used when reading values from these charts.

2. Embedment effects on stiffness are larger for slender piles and tend to
reduce for stiffer piles. For a depth increase from 0 to 3 m (0 to 10ft), the
stiffness is likely to increase by almost 150% for rigid piles and 350% for
slender piles.

3. The effect of the embedment depth is greater in dense sands than for
slightly compact sand.

4. The lateral stiffness reduces by changing the boundary condition of the

pile-to-cap connection from fully restrained to partially restrained condition.
Hence, a realistic representation of the pile-head connection is very
significant and often of the same importance of the selection of soil
parameters.

Step 2: Single Pile under Axial Load

A graphical procedure that gives the axial stiffness coefficient and includes soil
layering and slippage along the sides of the pile was developed by Lam and
Martin (1986) and consists of the following steps:

Compute the axial soil load displacements relationships by assuming a

rigid pile condition. This step can be done by calculating the ultimate pile
capacity using conventional procedures (Figures 3-9 and 3-10) for skin­
friction and end-bearing capacities for the different soil layers.

79
 1071--§De~~.~gl

::
-
-
-
-
z -
, 10
00
6 -
=
~ :
-
-

Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction

Modulus with Depth, f (1bf1O 3 )
I ! 1111l1l I I I JI l I !

10 10 10 11 10 ' 2
Bending Stiffness, EI (LB-IN 2)

I
I
./

K- 1.07SS-E-1
T3
T= (~al )1/5

Figure 3-1.Lateral pile-head stiffness for fixed-head condition (Lam and Martin 1986).

80
 l//:
~V '/ ~

~ r;; ~~
~
......
s
:.0
1010

~
.,.. »: ' /
....0< h
./

~ ~
~0 ~

~R'" Kr-­
~

fa 10
9 ~~ r-,
CD {=2OO
c:
!E f-100
'/ <,
~1:;60
CJ)
"//
V// /v r-, "
<,
'iii v "f -10
c: 1/ ~/, V r-, "'=5
0
~v v ~v
~ ~':;1
:I

~ 10 8 ~ V 1:;0.5
a:: 1=0.1
// '/
h
!/'/'/
1/ Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction
Modulus wtlh Deoth. f (IbJIn 3 )

Bending StIffness, El (1b-ln 2 )

Pt=Ka-li+ ~a"e
Mt :::Ks6"5+K e·e
,

J
1 K = 1.499"E-1
I T3
I
I
I
T= (Ef- · yl!
I
r

Figure 3-2. Rotational pile-head stiffness (Lam and Martin 1986) .

81
 ./':

~ ~ ~:-- /'

~
1/ ./ J
./
/ h l<:/ ><
"., »:
~ "x / / ' ".

......:: ~ ~;...;
"",?";
x
y,. X
.><;,.
?
"
~

~~
>< .,,­ A
... t =200
V

v './ I;::: 150

,=
/./ 1/
v ./ ./ A. <,
.r-; <, 100
I~
1.....-:
t? ~
~
~
V/
V/
./
t> ') P<;-.." '"
<> 1=80
1=60

~
V'
~ L::: "'v ~"
V t'-..
~ ::::
vV'
/v '" f~40
-, r-... 1=20
r- f= 10
:1.0' "7' »: ~ 1= 5
.,,­ ./ t-.. f = 1
-7 /' r-..
17
1=0.5
7 t> f = 0..1

-: -: eoefl. of Varia on of SoH Ree.ction

Modulus with Depth, f {lblln S }
I T 1 111111 T [TTTTIT
1010 10' 1 1012
BendingStiffness, EI (lb-ln2 )

I
I
/
(

•I !--......IiI
,
1
J
t
I
I

Figure 3-3 , Cross-coupling pile-head stiffness (Lam and Martin 1986).

82
 -
c
L:::
--:::. r;::; v
I:;:::~
~ 10 6
"d
c V
"'"
...----: v
......- \:12( \f\
8 v
.---:__ -'" ....- V'\ '\
"C
-::::--- v ...,)t'\\ \
as
(I) ~ -:: ,.,- v .......-
,......
\l\\\f\
J:I V ,I-' V V I--"
/'
$ 10 5 »> i--' ~
It:
...
,g V V I\.
f\ f=200
1\ f= 150
v v
f=100
tZ v ,
---- I' f= 80
G)
V I--' v
---- 1\

~
en
V V I--' V-
I--" l\\
1\ f= 60
1\ f;;;;4O
V ~
~~~;ijg~~~*mt~~~mJ~l\~\.\
4
as... 10
: f;;;;20
f= 10
(I)
a; V 1\\ 1\ f= 5
-I ....-
~-+--H--H++++--t-+-+-H-+l+il---+-+-H-t+tH--"n\1\
\. f;;;; 1
f r::s 0.5

-+---I---t-+++1I-+tt---f--I--H-+-Hf+---L---J.......I..-JL....I..Lu.J----'1 \ f = 0.1
Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction
3 Modulus with Depth. (lbJin 3 )
10 -+--+--+-++++trH---+--+-i-+++t+t--r--r-T"T'TTTr'lr--"""T"""""T""T""TT'T'TT1
I I I 111111 I I I I I III
11 12 13
109 1010 10 10 10
Bending Stiffness, EI (Ib-in 2)

Free head Pile Stiffness

J
I
I
I
r
1
I
1
I

Figure 3-4. Lateral pile-head stiffness for free-head condition (Lam and Martin 1986).

83
 10 7 :
I I I I I I I

Embedment
--. -- a
t: -
~ - - - - - 51
.0 - ...
Co
ee -­ - - ·10'
.­ "...­ ...­
I ....

-
~ V
- 10 6 ~
".

'C :: f=100_~
co --
CD
I
~
CD
-
--­­ ...........
...­

,," ... ~
-'...... ~

.
.~
~ 10
ct)
tI)
5
... ""
- --'" "...
....
...­
... ............
""
CD .,
c:
+:
CiS v ". ~ ...
e-­ :_

m
c 10 4
0
~
~
-­
v

.....
_..... I­
1-/ v~
/
... ....
~
=
-
CI)
~
...­
...... -
~ -
­ ......
1­
~--'" ..­ .....
F .... Coeff. of Variation 01 Soil reaction
-
""
»> MOdulus with D9eth, f llb/in 3 )
10 3 I I I I I1III I J I I 1III
10 11 12
10 10 10
Bending Stiffness, EI (Ib-in 2 )

PIle H9w:l at Gradll Lswl Embedded pae Head

Figure 3-5. Lateral embedded pile-head stiffness for fixed-head cond ition
(Lam and Martin 1986)

84
 I I I I I III

=
:
Embedment
0'
~
- - - - - 5'
-c:
.~
-
-
----- 10' /?
l.t?
~
,.
~
i-'..~
~

"'C V V .1,,1

-m 1010 IA
a: ,.,
.0
I A. v:
C ~~ k? tf'
:.;:;..
<I:l
v?ft< ~ III
~;.
~ ~,
(J) 10 9
~.~~ ~~
(J) 1=
Q) " .... f ~
to-
100
E
:.;:::0
v ".
~~ ~7
v.-
b)
........
.....
<, t-
t-
(J) I' f = 10 t-
v'
1"I.- 1/,tP ~tv ['I' <,
m t-
c::
0
10 8
h
!{/ I/.
% vii'~ '~
v~
r-. f=1
f =0.1 ~
E
0
1=
r-
I-
a:: /~
t-
~'l ~
I-
,,9 ~
~ Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction
Modulus wilh Depth, F Oblin 3 )
I J I I 1'111 I I I I II I '

10 10 1011 1012
Bending Stiffness J EI (lb-in 2 )

r Embedment Deplh

/77

r- ~
118

. ,(I

711~

u 1

Pile Head at GradeL.ab61 Embedded Pile Head

Figure 3-6. Embedded pile-head rotational stiffness (Lam and Martin 1986).

85
 l I I IIIII

-_
: Embedment
0'
- ----­ 5'
- ----10'
-

!­
~
!­

"' .... f= 1
<,

f= 0.1
CosH. of Variation of SoU Reactlon
Modulus with Deeth. f 1Ib/in 3 )
I I I II 1Il1 T T T TTTlT

Bending Stiffness, EI (Ib-in 2 )

Pt :::Kl).D+KM·e

M l = K~e·D+ Ke·a

Pile Head at Gracre level Embedded PUe Head

Figure 3~7 . Embedded pile cross-coupling pile-head stiffness (Lam and Martin 1986).

86
 Friction Angle, ~
aoo ~
VERY VERY
LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE
LOOSE
100 -+-...;;;.;;.=;.....a....-------'--------'-----r--<-----;
Recommended by Terzaghl. 1955
(AfterO'Nen andMurchison, 1983)

_ 80 -+-------L.------L..----t------+-.----;
~
c:
s
:;.
~
t
~ 60

c:
Q)
'u
:E
CD
o
o<D ~ -t------r----r-----t-'!SJr~­
U
e
~
::::J
CIJ 20 -+-----t-----+-r--"""'1:I'''''''"------t------j

O-+----f-----+----+------+-----;
o 20 40 60 80 100

Relative Density, Dr (Percent)

Figure 3-8. Recommended coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus (f) with

depth of cohesion less soils.

87
 Blowcount (blOWs! ft)
o 2 4 8 15 so
STIFF VERYBTIFF HARD
6)'100
c:
13
-!
~

80

vary Soft

...en
CD
~ eo
C)
.c
:J
C/)
.5
c: 40 -1----..---­
~
ttl
'C

~
15 20-+--­

=z::

8
o
o 1 2 3 4 5
Cohesion (ksf)

Figure 3-8. Recommended coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus (f) with

depth of cohesive soils.

88
 Two pile load displacement curves can be developed based on the
published skin-friction and end-bearing pile displacement relationships .
The following two forms can be used as follows:

F = Fmax(2~~cr -~) (for friction curve) (3-2)

(for tip resistance curve) (3-3)

Where, Fmax and Q max are the ultimate skin friction and point resistance of
the pile; Z is the displacement at any loading stage; Zcp and Zcf are the
ultimate displacement of the pile corresponding to the ultimate point
resistance and ultimate skin friction resistance can be evaluated (Vesic
1977) as follows:

(3-4)

where C p is an empirical coefficient that ranges from 0.02 to 0.05 the pile
diameter; L is the embedded length of pile; and qo is the ultimate point
stress

(3-5)

where 0 is the diameter of the pile; and C, is an empirical coefficient

evaluated as:

(3-6)

ii The resulting load-displacement curve can then be obtained by summing

the skin friction and end bearing capacities at each axial displacement.
This curve represents the state of an axially-rigid pile and is a lower bound
on the actual pile displacements.

iii Calculate the flexible pile load displacement curve from the rigid pile
solution . This can be achieved by adding an additional component of
displacement at each load level Q to determine the axial displacement at
the pile head due to the compression of the pile under axial load but
neglecting the surrounding soil. This displacement is given by:

89
 t Q."#"J' total up ward capaciry

Thickness WL. Angle of Shearing

Dens,ty Resistance
Zone pi negligible LJ 'V G. (1
resistance '0

Ll 11 $1
:.if increasing
Zol'lt!
Total resistance LJ
length.
L
etc,

Zolle of constant etc.

resis(MC e

H
B. Diameter L1

t- I
Downward CaPJtcitv Qcap (- J == P, N q At + I:
i= I
F di Pi tan "i a ,'i L;,

Where P, = Effective vert. stress at tip t _J

r, = L Lz 'Yi S P @ L() +- 20B
i=O
N = Bearing capacity factor
~

A, = Bearing area at. tip

F Ji:;; Effective horiz. stress factor for downward load (Coefficient of skin Iriction)
PI';:: Effective vert. stress at depth i i
Pi =L 'Lj rj 5 P @ Lv';' 20 B
j~O
8, = Friction angle between pile/pier and soil at depth i

a l == Surface area of pile/pier pet" unit length

t-I
Upward Capacity Qcap(+) = L F ui Pi tan 0i as Lt
i= I
Where F u,' =
Effective horiz.. stress factor for uaward
"
load
other parameters as for downward capacity

Figure 3-9. Pile capacity for granular soils (NAVFAC, 1986)

90
 t Q ,.~ . ; . total upward capacity
+ Q""""~J ' total downward capa city Thickness WL. Cohesion
Density
Zone of negligible
resistance Ll) 'Yl ; C ;l

L: Y. c,

Tmal L}
length,
L
Zone ofconstant
resistance etc.

etc.

H B. Diameter L,

l-l
Downward Capacity Qcap (-) = Ct N c At + l: C ai as 4
i=1
Where c I
= Cohesion strength of soil
N•. = Bearing capacity factor 9.0 for depths greater than 4B
A J :; Bearing area at tip
C,.. = Cohesion strength of soil at depth i
a. = Surface area of pile/pier per unit length

l-l
Upward Capacity Qcap (+) ~ I eai as i;
:'= 1
Where parameters are as for downward capacity

Figure 3-10. Pile capacity for cohesive soils (NAVFAC, 1986)

91
 Table 3-1. Pile bearing capacity factor Nq (NAVFAC 1986)

Placement Angle of Shearing Resistance for soil; ~ (degrees)

26 :18 so ~1 52 -5~ S4 5$ 5$ ~7 ss 59 40+

Dr;",'en Pil~ 10 1,5 21 24 29 35 /32 50 62 77 1 86 120 1115

I !

s n
I
Drihed ?ier 5 10 12 14 17 21 25 30 38 43 60

1 I I

Table 3-2. Friction angle, 0 (NAVFAC 1986)

Pile/pier s
Materf31
Steel 20
concrete 0 .75 ~

T1mbel" 0-75 <)

Table 3-3. Pile horizontal stress factors, Fdi and Fui(NAVFAC 1986)

Pile/Pier TYpe Downward upward

Fe!i FuJ
low high lOW high
Driven H·pile 0.5 10 0.3 0.5
Drive straight
prismatic pile
Dri ve tapered pile
1.0

1.5
I
1.5

2.0
0.6

1 .0
I 1.0

1 .3
Driven i erteo p-re 0.4 I 0 .9 0-3 I 0 .5
or ruec Pier 0 .7 l 04

Table 3-4. Pile (NAVFAC 1986)

Plfe Material consistency of Soft COhesion, ct Ad11es1on, C3

I low high luw high
very sort a 250 0 250
SOft 2S0 500 2 S0 480
limber and Mec: . sti ff sao 1000 118C 750
Concrete Stiff '1 000 200ll 750 I 9$0

very St!ff :l0C'Q 4000 950 I 1300

1
verv sost 0 250 0 250
Soft: 250 SOO :150 460
Ste el Med. Stiff 500 1000 460 7CC
Stiff 1COO 2000 7CO 720

I very St iff 2000 I 4000 ! no 750

92
 o = QL (3-7)
C AE
where Q = axial load; L = length; and AE =axial rigidity of pile. The flexible
pile solution can then be obtained by adding Dc from equation 3-6 to the
rigid-pile load displacement curve at pile loads that correspond to the rigid
pile load displacement curve. This curve is an upper bound on the actual
pile displacements.

iv The actual solution is bounded by the rigid and flexible load-displacement

solutions derived in steps ii and iii and depends on the nature of the soil­
pile system . Hence, the actual axial load displacement curve can be
obtained by averaging the curves from steps ii and iii for the rigid and the
flexible pile solutions.

v The actual pile stiffness can be evaluated by determining a value for the
pile secant stiffness from the load displacement curve obtained in step iv
over the range of expected displacements. The pile secant stiffness is
used as the equivalent axial stiffness coefficients in the pile stiffness
matrix. Expected displacements can be obtained from the range of
expected axial loads which would be in the range of 50 to 70 percent of
the ultimate pile capacity.

The steps involved In this procedure are illustrated in an example shown in

Figure 3-9. In this example the equivalent stiffness was taken at an expected
load of 70% (195 kip) of the ultimate pile load (278 kips). The corresponding
displacement was determined to be 0.125 in. It should be noted that the range of
displacements can also be set by the design engineer according to the project's
design criteria.

The recommended LRFD guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges
recommend the following simple equation for the determination of the axial
stiffness of the pile: -
\
L
-
J.',
\ ~
­

E A ~ c' r (
Kv = 1.25-P- I ·: (3-8)
L \,
-/
This equation and the computer solution for the stiffness of this problem were
posted on Figure 3-11 for comparison with the above procedure. It can be shown
that the above solution represent a best estimate for stiffness calculation.
Equation 3-7 will always yield a stiffer pile in the axial direction . FLPIER software
was used to determine an equivalent stiffness for the same axial load level used
above .

93
 300 r--~--------.r--------,----------,---------,

STEP 3

~
200

150 - '
-
.
:
STEP 4
- ~ ~ -._ -

.. --- --., ---~ ~ - --------j . ---- ---.. --­

- -_. _ -

/ :
- - - -- - - - ,-,,- - - --- - - -- - --, - - - - - ­

,
J

15
~ 100 ..
, ,, _,"_j_... __"_._\__... ";~~:= curve
STEP 5 : - Rigid pile solution
:J - - Rexible pile solution
~ .'" - Correct solution
• _ " .••• _ -l _ ~' _ ' .0 •. '• • -. ,K . '" ' 0. ' 0. .. . . ¥ •• •

........AxiaJ pile stiffnes

LRFD-Sa..UTfOO
- cavPUTER S(1lJT1O',1
oe----------;---------;-----------!
o 0.25 0.5 0.75
Displacement (in)

Figure 3-11. Steps involved in determining the pile axial stiffness coefficient

94
Step 3: Pile Group Stiffness

The stiffness of the single pile can be used to establish the pile group stiffness
matrix. If the pile group consists of vertical piles, the stiffness summation
procedure is relatively straight forward.

The stiffness for the translational displacement terms (the two horizontal and the
vertical displacements) and the cross-coupling terms can be obtained by
multiplying the corresponding stiffness components of an Individual pile by the
number of piles.

It is worth mentioning that a unit rotation at the pile cap wilt introduce translational
displacements and corresponding forces at each pile head (e.g. vertical forces
for rocking rotation and lateral pile forces for torsional rotation), which will work
together among the piles and will result in an additional moment reaction on the
overall pile group . ln general, the axial stiffness of the piles will dominate the
rotational stiffness of the group. Therefore, the rotational stiffness terms require
consideration of this additional stiffness component. The following equation (Lam
et ai, 1992) can be used to develop the rotational terms of a pile group:

KRG = N K RP + L.K&1S~

n=1

In which, KRG and KRP are the rotational stiffness of the pile group and an
individual pile respectively; N is the number of piles in the pile group; Kon is the
translational stiffness coefficient of an individual pile (axial for group rocking
stiffness and lateral for group torsional stiffness); and Sn is the distance between
the nth pile and the axis of rotation.

STEP 4: Stiffness Contribution of the Pile Cap

In addition to the component of soil resistance acting on piles, a pile foundation

may experience additional resistances due to soil acting on the pile cap. These
resistances include: (i) passive pressure acting on the front face of the pile cap;
(ii) side shears acting on the two vertical side surfaces of the pile cap; and (iii)
base shear acting on the bottom of the pile cap. Because of potential interaction
between the pile cap and the supporting piles, shear forces at the bottom of the
pile cap and the two side surfaces can be ignored . Therefore, the passive
pressure soil resistance on the vertical pile cap face is the only component that
can be added to the stiffness and resistance obtained from the pile members.
This is contingent on stable level ground conditions . The pile cap stiffness can be
estimated as the ultimate soil capacity divided by an estimated displacement to
mobilize this capacity . Centrifuge tests (Gadre , 1997) showed that the deflection
level to reach the ultimate pile cap capacity occurs at about 0.02 times the
embedment depth. This equivalent linear secant stiffness can be added to the
stiffness of the piles. Methods of estimating the ultimate passive pressure
capacity of a pile cap are illustrated in Figure 3-12.

95
 SolI Parametam
Effective UnitWT 'Y
Shear Strength
Cohesion c.
Friction an Ie
I Awrage Passive Pressure (J m

H on Pile Cap at Mid Depth zm

L
Passive Effective
PressUrB 0­ Overburden
on Pile Cap Pf888U1V
~~ = Y'Z
Recommended M81hod for Passive Preaaure Capacity

(I) For Frictional SoD (41 Onty):

Average Passive Pressure Capacity = K p '1 I Z m
Kp Based on Caquot & Kerisel (1948) for
Intmface FrictionAngle ~ ;:;;; 0.6'

(II) For COhesive Son (c Only):

Based on Rankine Pressure Theory

Average Passive Pressure capacity = '1 •

Zm + 2 c

(III) For c and , Soils:

Average Passive pressure Capacity = Kp 1 'Z m + 2c Tan{45° + 4112)

Total Force capacity on Pile cap Per Unn Width

= Average Passive Pressure Capacity x Thickness of Cap (H)

Figure 3-12. Passive pressure capacity of pile cap (Lam et al 1998)

96
Step 5: Superimpose the Stiffness of the Pile Cap to the Pile Group

The resultant pile cap stiffness obtained from step 4 can be added to the
diagonal latera! translational stiffness coefficients in the pile group stiffness
matrix for the total pile group~pile cap stiffness matrix.

3.2.3 Pile Group Effects

The above procedure does not account for group effects which relate to the
influence of the adjacent piles in affecting the soil support characteristics. Full
scale tests by a number of investigators demonstrate that the lateral capacity of a
pile in a pile group may be less than that of a single pile due to the interaction
between closely spaced piles in the group (group efficiency). As the pile spacing
reduced, the reduction in lateral capacity becomes more pronounced. In general,
pile spacing of less than three to five pile diameters are necessary before the
effects of pile interaction becomes significant in practical terms. Type and
strength of soil, number of piles, and loading level are other factors that may
affect the efficiency and lateral stiffness of the pile. Moreover, in addition to group
effect, gapping and potential cyclic degradation were also subject of many
investigations (e.g., Brown et aI., 1987, McVay et aI., 1995). It has been shown
that a concept based on p-multiplier applied on the standard static loading p-y
curves can work reasonably to account for pile group and cyclic degradation
effects.

3.3 Solved Example

A portion of a viaduct is to be supported on pile-supported bents. Each bent will
consist of two columns, each 1 m in diameter, transferring the load to a cast-in­
place pile cap on top of the foundation piles. A static load of 2500 kN including
the pile cap was calculated. Six 12-m HP 12 X 84 steel piles were selected for
the foundation. The soil properties as well as pile configuration are shown in
Figure 3-11. If the bridge is to be built across a large flood plain, calculate the
stiffness matrix of the pile foundation.

5o/ufion

Uee ~if7P!ified procedure for pile qroup ~f ifffle7?

~inq/e pilelafera! 51iffflC5~

tiP 12X 84- Jeplh Jr := 510 .f7f7

Depfh 01 which ibe evdudlon of lafera! =>fjffne~~ lror: chari 0 := ' ·Jr
o = 1,'5'5 f7

en
 1---<::>,
""/14""'·""-:-:""'
_ /fIW-'i'<''-:':'''
i/N,M 711.i'''''llk
&'''''''';
~ 0"A~T~;;;;-ffAV~-
I
I
.---l- I
I
t i O,75 m

x 3.°
im : [ -1 . to-15 m
I -- . -.

J• _._._. . , --f--:-:·---r. -.. . GWT

!---+
~m 1. r 0.3'"
I

I Loose , fine , to medium sand

$:: 33 '
~ rl
I ' lI .-' I I. '( :: 18.5 kNI m3

,(1')1I:
8.5m

E -,;-Y !
": A
M t <:> : 1
I , -+-----,--
+ -­ _t__ i. t . _.l--... . _­
I II" •
I
__L i I
r ; i, r ••_. ' '_..
Dark brown dense sand
2.0m -{ ~;; 38 0

3.0m
y= 19 kNI m3

NOT TO SCALE

4.0",

Section A-A

Figure 3-10. Pile foundation configuration for example 1.

98
 , ' M

~ Ibf
fra~/afional 5Iiff~? in local y~y /(yy :;:: IJ ·10 '- .
In
[ron liqare 5~'5 (or(.-;1(; Ib/ir6 and e(1bedr7enl
~ 82 (f

Rolafional5fiffoc?? aboul x-x [ron Iiao«: 5.-0

(or ("'1(; Ib/ir6 and e(1bedr?enT = 82 (I
kN
/(ex = (;1191 (1.­
rad

Croo» couplirq 51if(ne~ [ron [tqore 5~1

(or (=1(; Ib/ir6 and e(1bedr7enl .-; 8.2 (I

8endinq 5Iiff~~ abod local asi» y-y

2­
EIyy ;:: 1/121 kN ·(1

~ Ibf
fran?lafional 51if(oc?? Inlocal x-x /(xx := ID ·10 .­
[ron [iqore 5~'5 (or ("",1(; Ib/lr6 and e(1bedr?enT In
P' 82(1

R0Iaflonal51Iffnc:>:> abcoi y-y [ron [iqore 5-(; 8 , /bf

/(e := 2,/ ·10 ·m·­
(or (~20 Ib/ir6 and e(1bedr?enT 82 (f
d r rad

99
 t>endinq 5liffoc55 aboul local asi» y-y

EIyy = /7727 kN ·f?

z

~ 1M
Trandaflonal 511ffoc55 in local y-y I(xx. ;= /D ·/0 . ­
[ron [iqure 5-5 (or (,,:>20 Ib/lrO and in
ef?bedf'lenf ~ 82 (f

RoIaflonal 5liffoc5~ y-y [ron fiqure 5-6

about B 1M
I(ey := 2.1 ·10 ·in·­
for (=20 Ib/irO and err!bedf'lenf ~ 82 fI rad

kN
I(ey = 25727 (1-­
rad

Cro~~ couplirq 5Itffoc~~ [ron [iqore 5-7 6

I(xey := 52 ·/0 ·Ibf
(or (~2O Ib/irO and ef?bedf'1enf .,:: 82 ff

I(xey = 11-254- kN

5irl{//e pile I1xjal51i!(OC~5

Calwlafion of pilevllif?ale capacity

Dafa:

DepfhalSWT

Thickne::o of (Ir~1 sobrerqed layer Hz:= 8:5·f?

100
 rhidne~~ of second ~bf?Crqed layer H;. := :!J of?

kN
"'I 0= 18'5 . ­
j ' • ;.
Unit weiqh! of fir:d layer f?

5ubr?erqed unl! wdqh! of flr~! layer

tAl
1/x b -- 8. 1 ;.
­
/'7

kN
Unl! weiqhf of second layer 12 ;=;c;; o~
{'1

5ubf"lerqed unif weiqhf of second layer

Lenqfhof pile above6WT '-I := 0'5 ' /'7

Lenqfh of pile In~ide flr~1 layer l. 2 := 8.'5 -n

Lenqfh of pile in~ide eecond layer

5kin [ridton faclor Fd := 10

tiP eedion deplh dp := 12.28 -ln

HP sedlon tlonqe width Wf := IZ,ZC;;'5 -in

WI;::: 051 /'7

f;earinq area al lip 2­

I\f = 0./ f'1

f;earinq capacily faclor N(/ :=86

Fddlon anqle bdween pile and ~il o := 2-0 -deq

101
 Erredive ~fre:x> of fop of eMIr

GV'lr

Effedive ~re::>::> of fop of second

layer

r Z := r, + Yl:vb .nz
r z = 12~.4-;; kFa

Effedive ~rex> of pile lip

f'1 := f' Z + y Z~b -tJ;J

Pt =157 I..n,,; - -- ---'
f', = 1~/.o2 kFa

r oin! Rc:>i~af)Ce

op = 1;;/~,4- kN

GirOJrJ. lire:a// rt

Dala for cdcddionof ('1(Zi.irvn di::>p/acerlCrJf::>:

crlbedded depfh of pile

enpatca poin! rc>i~ooxcodficial

enpcricaJ::>kin ltkiion codliciat

102
Ullirnfe: poin! ~re:!!>!}

Ullrrnfe: dl!!>p1accncrl cor{c>pandlrq 10u/Ilrde: paIn! t=blarcc

UI/if'lafe: d/~p1ace:f'lCfIf corrc~pandirq 10:>Kin Iridian rc~idaocc:

Zd = 02 rJ/'I

P oin!(e:~bl(jr= OJNe:

z :=00 .l rr: .. lo.rJ/'I

0 o 'I

.00'5 101
I
0'5'5 2.51
o co ""= 0 p .[.-!...-'I~
Z ./0'5 2-'74
cp)
2'5'5 :571
coo "­
XJ'5 4-20
1!/0'5 682­
(0)
x := coo :;130'5 '71:;
'7.%'7 J:;I'5
«)
y :=coo 20 J:;I'5 )

1'500 r ­- - -,­- - - , - - - - - - ,- - --,

1000

O L-­ ---'---­ -...L-­ - --'-­ - -'

o 20

103
5kfn [tidion asve
0 0 'I

ZI ;:= 0 ,0'5 om 0.2 of'7/')

00CY'5 164­
O~' 4!/0
./0'5 '521
2'5'5 %4­
coo ::=
50'5 %4­
tzo» 564­
(0 )
x ::= coa !/BO'5 564­
(I ) 9509 %4­
y ;:= coa
20 %4- )

5kin Frfdfon!? c~;:;fafKX C UNe

I I t

-
-

100 I­ -

obfaincd by!:JJmirK} fhe: din (ridion anderJ bearfrK}

Riqid pile: XJ!vlion b
copoalte» aI oxh axial di!>P/accncrtl,

0 0 'I
0.00'5 21/
D5'5 01!/
./0'5 81'5
2'5'5 9W
(0 ) cor ::=
X := cor 50'5 981­
15~ IU'5
</}
y ;:= cor
~80'5 1'5!/8
9509 1819
20 1819 }

104
R'iqid pile ~olufion if:> obfained by xf1f1inq fhe din [ricilon and end bearlnq
capocliie» af each axial dif:>place:f'7enf.

0 0 ')
0 ,00'5 211
,0 '5'5 f,15
./0'5 81'5
,2'5'5 960
(0) cor :=
x := cor 50'5 984­
(1)
150'5 124-'5
y:= cor
5.80'5 1'558
95f,9 1819
20 1819 )

Riqid Pile: 5olufion

2000

1'500

~
~
~ _Y_l000
j
~
~
'500

Oi------..L.---......L.----L---~
o 10 20
x
Di:?pJocet?CfJ1 (f'lf'i)

105
Flexible pileXJ!ulion /~ ochieYcd by:!Vf'7I'?/rq ibepilehead di~placer?Cnf
of eachloadleYd 10 lheriqid pile::dulion

Area of pileeedion

0pi! := (0 Z11 6i5 8/'5 9GO 984 12+'5 /'558 /8i9 /819 ) ·iN

106
/'dl.loJ pile=!ufion b oMaiocd by o/eroqln; lhe fJaiMe: and tiqld pile
!X>!u/io~
o o '\

0.'5/6 211
1::;2'5 61;;
1,61­ 8/'5
207 960
Ac ;=
v;:= k(O) 2.16 984­
;;66 /21-'5
(I)
z :~ I1c 6.1 1'5;;8
12.9 /819
2;;.5'5 /819 )

I1dl.ld :301u/ion
2OO0r------r -----.- ---.---~-__,

1'500

'"' y
~ v
8
-.l
--/000
z
I:l
~
'500

6raphlcd ~iffnc~ :>oIu/ion i~ oblaincd by dderrJlninq a vdoe for lhe pile:

xcad diffrt=" (or lhe odod =/ufion al10X of fheullinak oxjdpile:
capacity

Di:>placenad cotcopondirq10 107. of lhe vllimle: copociiv L\ := 2.62 ·rJrJ

/Uiolpile: ::Nfocx>
f1

LRFD :>o/ufion(e:qualion ;;-8)

107
Pile group ~/jf[rx;~~

n :=G

50/ := 0:1 ·(7

Dldance 10 kax/~ of roidion

DI:;-fance fa Yraxi» of rofalion

KXX6 = 10'507G.I (7
xN
"XX6 := n·"xx

kN
r. '('(6 = 1'5/GI4-Y5 ­
("J

('1

KXeY6 :: 8540'5.8G xl\!

KYeX6 = 221'521.4-4- kN

kN
KeX6 = 18829'50.GI ('1.­
rad

kN
KeY6 = 4078908.1'5 ('1.­
rad

kN
r. eZ6 = 2'5/4-:5G,4-'5 ('1.­
rod

108
:5 focz fhe bridqc i~ fo be buill oaoso a krqe flood plaIn corrlr/buflon of fk
f'OX'~ re!>idance of Ik pile cop10 Ik lafad ~iff~ CQflrof befaken
ido = rr.:iderafion

Tbado«: Ik ::J'rffne= nalrixcan be o:pr~d o»

10"5076.1 0 0 0 - 1882.9'50.6 1 0 1
0 1'516/4'.1'5 0 2 2./'521.# 0 0
0 0 ~0/2-66~,12 0 0 0
K .­
'­
0 22.1'52./,4-4­ 0 /882C;X;.6/ 0 0
- /882.9 '50.6 1 0 0 0 4018908.1'5 0
0 0 0 0 0 2.'514-%.4-'5 )

3.4 References
Brown, D., Reese , L.• and O'Niell, M.(1987), "Cyclic lateral loading of a large­
scale pile," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE , Vol. 113, No.11.
Gadre, A. (1997), "lateral responseof pile-cap foundation systems and seat-type
bridge abutments in dry sand, Ph.d. Dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute.
Hoit, M.L and McVay , M.C., (1996), FLPIER User's Manual, University of Florida,
Gainsville. Florida .
Lam, I.P. and Martin , G .R. (1986), "Seismic Design of Highway Bridge
Foundations," Report No. FHWAIRD-86-102, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia, 167 p.
Lam, LP., Kapuskar, M., and Chaudhuri,D . (1998) "Modeling of pile footings and
drilled shafts for seismic design" Technical Report MCEER-98-0018,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo , New
York.
Lam , I.P. Martin , GR. , and Imbsen, R. (1991) , "Modeling bridge foundations for
seismic design and retrofitting," Transportation Research Record 1290.
LPILE (1995), "Program lPILE Plus, Versiuon 2.0" Ensoft Inc., Austin , Texas,
Matlock, H.(1970), "Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay",
Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. 1, Houston , pp.579-594.
:fId

McVay, M.C., O'Brien, M., Townsend, F.C., Bloomquist, D.G., AND Caliendo,
J.A. (1998), "Numerical analysis of vertically loaded pile qrcups ," ASCE
Foundation Engineering Congress, Northwestern University, Illinois, pp.675-690.

109
McVay, M.C., Casper, R. and Shang, T.(1995),"Lateral response of three-row
groups in loose to dense sands at 3D and 50 Pile Spacing," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, NO.5.
NAVFAC, (1986), "Foundations & Earth Structures, " Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Design Manual 7.02.
O'Neill , M.W. and Murchison, J.M . (1983), "An evaluation of p-y relationships in
sands", Report No. PRAC 82-41-1 to THE American Petroleum Institute
Terzaghi, K. (1955), "Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction",
Geotechnique, vol. 5, No.4, pp.297-326.
Vesic, A.S. (1977}, " Design of pile foundations", Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

110
-

--
-

 4-RETAINING WALLS UNDER SEISMIC LOADS

4.1 General

During the past earthquakes, gravity earth retaining walls have suffered
considerable damage which ranged from negligibly small deformations to
disastrous collapses. Performance of retaining walls during past earthquakes has
revealed the fact that the damage is much more pronounced jf the wall is
extending below the water level. According to Seed and Whitman (1970), failures
in walls extending below water level may have resulted from a combination of
increased lateral pressure behind the walls, a reduction in water pressure on the
outside of the wall and a loss of strength due to liquefaction. As an example,
extensive failure of quay walls during the 1960 Chilean earthquake and the 1964
Niigata earthquake in Japan have been attributed to backfill liquefaction. Fewer
cases were reported for walls constructed above the water level. Few cases of
minor movements of bridge abutments were reported during both the San
Fernando and Alaska earthquakes.

This section will focus on two of the most commonly retaining walls used in
construction, gravity retaining walls and cantilever retaining walls. Under static
conditions, these walls will sustain body forces related to the mass of the wall,
soil pressures, and any external forces. Equilibrium of these forces is mandated
for a proper design of the retaining wall. During an earthquake. however, inertial
forces and changes in soil strength may breach equilibrium and cause
unfavorable deformation of the wall. Failure in sliding, tilting, or bending mode
may occur when excessive permanent deformations take place. Gravity walls
usually fail by rigid~body mechanisms such as sliding, which occur when the
lateral pressures on the back of the wall produce a thrust that exceeds the
available sliding resistance on the base of the wall. Cantilever walls are SUbject
to the same failure modes as gravity walls and also to flexural failure modes. If
the bending moments required for equilibrium exceeds the flexural strength of the
wall, flexural failure may occur.

The seismic performance of retaining walls is usually evaluated using pseudo~

static methods, where the transient dynamic pressures induced by the
earthquake are added to the initial gravitational static forces exerted on the wall
before the occurrence of the earthquake. Hence, a brief overview of the static
earth pressure is presented in the following section.

4.2 Static Pressures on Retaining Walls

Static earth pressures on retaining walls are strongly affected by the movements
of both the wall and soil. Minimum active earth pressures are mobilized when the
wall moves away from the soil behind it, and this movement is sufficient enough
to activate the soil strength behind the wall. On the other hand, the maximum
passive earth pressures develop as a result of movement of the wall towards the
soil. A number of simplified approaches are available for the computation of static

112
loads on retaining walls. The most commonly methods used in practice are
outlined below.

4.2.1 Rankine Theory

According to this theory, the pressure at a point on the back of a retaining wall
can be expressed as:

PA = KAO'~ -2C~KA (4-1)

where O'~ is the vertical effective stress at the point of interest, c is the cohesive
strength of the soil, and KA is the coefficient of minimum active earth pressure
evaluated as;

K = 1-sincP = tan 2(4S- ~) (4-2)

A 1+sincj) 2

For the case of backfills inclined at angle ~ to the horizontal, the following
equation can be used to compute 1<.4;

K = cos~ coS~_~cos2~-coS2cj) (4-3)

A
cos ~ + Jcos ~ - cos ~
2 2

For dry cohesionless soil backfill conditions, Rankine theory predicts triangular
active pressure oriented parallel to the backfill surface. The active earth pressure
resultant, Pa , acts at a point located H/3 above the base of a wall of height H with
magnitude: .

1 2
PA =-KAyH (4-4)
2
The wall pressures under maximum passive conditions are given by:

pp = KpO'~ + 2c~Kp (4-S)

in which, Kp is the coefficient of maximum passive earth pressure evaluated as:

Kp -- 1+sin~ -- tan
1-sincj)
2(45 +-2cj)) (4-6)

For inclined backfills with angle ~ to the horizontal:

113

K = cosf3 cos f3 + ~~~2~=-~~~2<j)

p (4-7)
cos p- ~COS2 (3 - COS
2
<j)

The passive earth pressure thrust, Pp , acts a point located H/3 above the base of
a wall of height with magnitude:

1 2
Pp =-KpyH (4-8)
2
Active and passive pressure distributions for various backfill strength
characteristics are illustrated in Figure (4-1). It is important to note that the
presence of water in the backfill behind a retaining wall influences the effective
stresses and hence the lateral earth pressures acting on the wall. Therefore the
hydrostatic stress due to the water must be added to the lateral earth pressure.

4.2.2 Coulomb Theory

According to this theory, if the wall is allowed to deform enough to mobilize active
or passive pressures, lateral earth pressure that develop at the back of the wall
may be evaluated using a rigid plastic model to describe the soil behavior. Under
minimum active earth pressure conditions, the active force on a wall such as the
one shown in Figure 4-2a is obtained from the equilibrium of forces (Figure 4-2b).
Force equilibrium is used to determine the magnitude of the soil thrust for both
the active and passive conditions. For the critical failure surface, the active thrust
on a wall retaining a cohesionless soil can be expressed using equation 4-4. in
which the active earth pressure coefficient can be expressed as:

(4-9)

in which 0 is the angle of interface friction between the wall and the soil can be
a
determined using Table 4-1, and p and are as shown in Figure 4-2a.

For maximum passive conditions, equation 4-8 can be used to determine the
passive thrust with the passive earth pressure coefficient calculated as:

(4-10)

114
 COHESIVE SOIL, NO
GRANUl.AR SOIL ctMBINf.D COIifSION AND "RCnc»II
FRICTtoN.AL RESISTANCE
ACTIV£ PRESSURES

/ ..~O
~A1~
~~==X: P"
I.. 'OfF,r.'\\. 9..
...

Zg.i-f>TAH (45+~f2.)
KA;TAN2(4S-~) Zo :~<:/r OA :1'7 1I1N2.(45~M)-2C'DiN(~-~>
PA : (~)TAH2(4S-.I2H()oIWIl(.45"'4li:
~:ICAYZ O'A:i)'Z-ZC
PA:~yH2lt ',," )'11 2/2 -tCH + 2.,2 +2C2/y
Ptt-$$IVE PfU$l)flES
,.........2C

J-­ ,2 < ) l(
"" ....
"V

Kp:DH2(4$"~) ~·1'Z.2C O"p:;.rz TAN! (45+#Zh2CTAN(45~)

a'p'KpYZ
ppfl(p1'tt2/z
Pp' TYH2 +ZCH pp.;( ~I TAN2(4!S+~)+2CH'aN
(45+eW2)

Figure 4-1. Rankine active and Passive earth Pressure Distributions For Backfills
with Various Combinations of Frictional and Cohesive Strength (NAVFAC 1982).

115
 ~
F

(a) (b)

Figure 4-2. Wedge of Soil and assumed Failure Surface for Calculation of

Coulomb Active Earth Pressure Coefficient

116
 Table 4-1. Typical Interface Friction Angles (NAVFAC 1982)
,<'<""<h •••••••••••• M . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ " " -, _-. ~.,d,. ....... __ .. _..." .. ,".".WH,W'.-"N ,mm//M'''''''.-...... ''
~H"~·., ~..... . ""M'-' ,.",_>

INTERFACE FRICTION
INTERFACE MATERIALS
ANGlEfD

Mass concrete against

Clean sound rock 35

Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, coarse sand 29-31

1 Clean fine to medium sand, silty medium to coarse

24-29

sand, silty or clayey gravel

" Clean fine sand, silly or clayey fine to medium sand 19-24

Fine sandy silt, nonplastic sill 17-19

Very stiff and hard residual or preconsolidaled clay

22-26

Medium stiff and stiff ciav and siltv clav

17-19

Steel sheet piles against Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures,

22

well graded rock fill with spalls

Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture, single size
17

hard rock fill

Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay 14

Fine sandy silt nonplastic silt 11

Formed concrete or Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures.

22-26

concrete sheet piling against well graded rock fill with spalls
Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture. single size 17-22

hard rock fill

Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with sin or clay 17

Fine sandv silt, nonolastic silt

14

Dressed soft rock on

Dressed soft rock 35

Dressed hard rock on Dressed soft rock 33

Dressed hard rock on Dressed hard rock 29

Masonry on wood (cross grain) 26

Steel on steel at sheet Dile interlocks 17

117
4.2.3 Caquot-Kerisel Chart Solutions

Caquot and Kerisel developed charts, which provide values for the coefficients of
earth pressure modified for the adhesion angle 5 to conform to log-spiral surfaces
and are particularly useful in finding values for the passive coefficient of earth
pressure Kp for analysis of flexible retaining structures. Values of KA and Kp for
various values of <\> and (3, are presented in Figures 4-3 and 4-4 for the cases of
sloping wall and sloping backfill. These values are used in the Rankine equations
4-4 and 4-8. The horizontal component of earth pressure Ph can be found from
KA cos 0 and Pv = KA sin o. It is important to note that the curves in the figures are
for the case of 5 1 ~ =-1.0. The reduction factor R for other values is also
displayed in the figures.

In general, the Caquot-Kerisel solution, also known as the logarithmic spiral

method, gives active earth pressure coefficients KA that are considered to be
slightly more accurate than those given by Rankine or Coulomb theory with a
small negligibly difference. However, the passive earth pressure coefficients
given by this method are considerably more accurate than those given by
Rankine or Coulomb theory. It is also worth mentioning that Rankine theory
greatly under-predicts actual passive pressures and is seldom used for that
purpose. Coulomb theory over-predicts passive pressures, with an error, which
increases as the interface angle increases. Therefore it is recommended that
Coulomb theory not to be used to evaluate passive earth pressure when 0 > <\>/2.

4.3 Seismic Pressures on Retaining Walls

4.3.1 Mononobe-Okabe Method for Cohesion/ess Soils

The most popular method for evaluating the seismic pressures on retaining walls
is the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method. This method is pseudo-static and based
conceptually on the Coulomb method. In the M-O method, pseudo-static
accelerations are applied to a Coulomb active (or passive) wedge. The pseudo­
static soil thrust is then evaluated from force equilibrium of the wedge. It is
important to note that this theory is limited to cohesionless dry soil. Also, a
constant value for the angle of wall friction, 0, must be assumed.

The forces acting on an active wedge in a dry cohesionless backfill are shown in
Figure 4-5 (A similar method can be used for passive pressures). As shown,
pseudo-static forces that relate the mass of wedge to the coefficients of
horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations are also added to the forces that
exist under static conditions. The Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) equation for the active
earth pressure coefficient for seismic loading can be expressed as:

(4-11)

118
 II

Tr it" , j i I I! iii i. V II

,
.,;
~

i &

i 4

~
i
i
21 I I til

.;
i
i
!!!.6,,~
A"". ' - ~ ...... -
....... _ _ ..........

•
If .51-~ONE ..""".

III ... 'I ,. ---....... ..... ........

~ A I [ ""- .... __J . i""""oo.' r-'

ij .3 1""'110. ~ ..... - •. __ ~~'

~
i .21 I. I 1 I f ~ I I I ~ ~ .t F~.d: I ~ .~~

~B II
'0
I I . J ... 1 10! , J J ! I I I I [:').:T~'li·-ir
- - ­
I ~=I.e=-~

Figure 4-3. Active and Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients Using Logaritmic
Spiral Method for the Case of a Sloping Wall (NAVFAC 1982)

119

JEOOCTlON FACTOR (It) OF
ftlfl VARIOUS RATIOS OF
9O,01---l-.....-'
I(p 8OC,'-4---I-­
-81+ 7OOt-+-++-4-t+--I-A--I-l
fOO I---!-----+.
5QO t--t-·-;-'-+-+HYh~.{.A'

40.0 1---+--:"'...-1­

30.0 I I ,~~ 4..' I ;;( I Y.J

j V::+- I ! M ~"-,6

2.0

iJ!~~~ftftrrt-HH14Jll{J/<l-r;"'$
~L
i

" i ... , n, I I I « I I , ! i , I J J , , I I I «I
'0 0 20 30 40 45
At«;l..£ Of: 1N1ERNAL FRtCTtON.". tBRE£S

Figure 4-4. Active and Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients Using Logaritmic

Spiral Method for the Case of a Sloping Backfill (NAVFAC 1982)

120
 .2:
-

ao"
(l)

"'0
o
~

.....
o
tv ::J
-
in which:

'If = tan-1[~]
1-k
{4-12}
v

and:

ktJ and kv are coefficients of horizontal and vertical accelerations, which

may be assumed according to FEMA-356 equal to Sos/2.5 and 5osl4

respectively where 50s is the short period spectral acceleration adjusted

for site class as explained in section 1-9; ,

4j) is the internal angle of friction of the backfill;

~ is the backfill inclination;

ois the wall/soil interface friction angle;

9 is the wall batter.

The total active thrust can be evaluated in a form analogous to that developed for
static condition, that is,

PAE = ~KAE'YH2(1-ky) (4-13)

where, PAE is the active thrust and includes the static component in addition to
the dynamic increment, 'Y is the total unit weight of the backfill, and H is the wall
height.

In some cases the base of the retaining wall is embedded to some depth within
the foundation soil. Effects of emebedment include the development of passive
restraint against sliding. In order for the passive restraint to be mobilized some
deformations must be developed. For the passive seismic limit state:

PpE = ~ KpE'YH2(1- ky) (4-14)

where KpE is expressed as:

(4-15)

It should be noted that the value of KpE calculated using equation 4-15 increases
considerably with increasing the wall/soil friction angle (), Hence the value of this
angle should be selected carefully to avoid unconservative values for KpE.

122
4.3.2 Prakash Method for C and "soils

Prakash (1981) provided a general solution, which was also based on the
Coulomb method for determination of total (static plus dynamic) active earth
pressures for C~~ soils. The uniform surcharge effects and only the horizontal
inertia forces resulting from the earthquake are included in this method as shown
in Figure 4~6.

q/unit area

He
I~' 'I I r I Jc

Figure 4-6. Forces acting on a wall retaining c~~ soil and subjected to a
seismic load

The active thrust that includes the static component in addition to the dynamic
increment can be evaluated according to this method as:

PAE =yH 2Nar +qHNaq -CHNac (4~16)

In which y is the total unit weight of the backfill; H is the height of retaining wall
free from cracks; q is a unit surcharge per unit area; C is the cohesion of the soil;
and Nay, Naq , and Nae are earth pressure coefficients can be calculated as follows:

N = (n r +1/2)(tana+tanO)+n/tanO [cos(a+cjl)+khsin(a+c\l)]
(4~17a)
~ ~na+O+cjl+~

123
N = [(n r +1)(tana.+tanO)][cos(a,+<p)+k h sin(a.+.p)] (4-17b)
aq sin(a.+O+.p+ 0)

N = cos(a.+O+.p)secO+coscj>seca.
(4-17c)
ac sin(a. + e+ ell + 0)

Where, nr = HdH is the ratio of the height of the retaining wall with cracks to the
height free from cracks. Other variables are defined as illustrated in Figure 4-6. It
is important to note that the earth pressure coefficients are expressed in terms of
the angle of inclination of the failure surface a, which makes the solution
indeterminate. Hence, a number of potential failure surfaces must be analyzed to
determine the critical failure surface. Location of the failure surface, according to
the upper-bound limit analysis, will be such that the least amount of resisting
force will bring it about (Le., the failure surface is the one that produces the
greatest active thrust or the smallest passive thrust). Application of this method
and comparison with the Mononobe-Okabe method are illustrated by an
example.

Example 1:
Let us assume a retaining wall of height Hi = 6m inclined at 10° with the vertical
and retains soils with unit weight y= 1.732 T/m 3 C ::: 0.5 11m2 and <P ::: 30°.
Assume the wall is located in a seismic zone for which the design seismic
coefficients are: kh=O.1 and kv=.06.

For comparison purposes, we will first not consider in our solution the soil
cohesion and the vertical seismic coefficient. Solution is illustrated through the
follOWing spreadsheet as follows:

6ivenOaia
ttekjlrl tt of rdalnlncj wall ttl :=6·,.,
Un# wek]frl of fhe badJill ., := 1.1:52- .!....
,.,~
Arrjle of In/erna frld/oln of badflll , :=XJ·dt:4
T
Co~/on of bacillI! C:=·~·z
f?

Irdlnaflon of wall wifh fhe velNcai 0:= 10.dec;

ttor/rorlal x/!>f'lic codflcienf Kh:= 0.1

Verf/cal xl!>f'llc codflclerl Kv:"'O.o
Irlerface anejle bdween !>OIl and wall 5 := 21- ·dt!:tJ (fab/e4--f).

f?;odfll! Irdlnaflon Ii := O·deej

124
 !1ononobe ~ Okabe t1e:fhod

kh "\
'II := alan ( I-k ) 'II = ~.111 deq (e:quafion 4--12)
v

KItE ;== (co~ (. 9 'II ))2

co::> (V ).(co~ (9))2 .co~ (li + 9 + 'J1 ).[1 + ~in(a + ej))·~/n(, - p - V) ]~

(co~(li +9 +'II)·co::>(P -9))
KItE == 0.4-~8 (equafJon 4--11J

PItE = 14-.2-64- -
r (e:quafion4--I:?)
F/IE :== 0.'5 .KItE·y·t1/·(/-kv)
f?

Prakadrt1e:fhod
11~5U/'1e fir!?! c~ of no len~ion crack n:=OO

5e1e:d failure: 5Urface:~ 50 thai their inc/ina/ion anqle:!> ranqe:

approxlnafely frof? .0
to (45++°)

a := 10 -dec; .1'5 -Je:q ..GO .Je:q

B (a) := a + 9 +. + a

[Cn + ,~).(lanC a) + Ian (9)) + n2. .fan (9)].(CO~ (a + +) + kh'~in( a + 4

NolB ,a):= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
f>in(B( a))
(equafJon 4--/1aJ

co~( a + 9 + ej))·xcC9) + co~( +)·xc( a) (equa/ion4--11c)

Nac(B ,a) := . ( ( ))
~m B a.

2
F/tE(a):=y·t1, .Na/B,a) (equalion 4-~/G)

125
 P/rC(a)::::

9.4
r
10.9 f1
12.1
13.1
13.8
F/t£(u)
1~

<.. 14.2
13.7 "'"
12.7
10.6
7.1
a

It can be observed that in the absence of the soil cohesion C ,the surcharge q,
and the vertical seismic inertia force, Prakash method conforms to the
Mononobe-Okabe method. Consider now the M-O equation with the effect of
vertical seismic coefficient:

V t:rlica! x/!}rJic cexfflclt:nf kv :=006

Kh I
'1/ := afan ( I -k ) '1/ = 6012 dt:r; (equaf/on 4-~/2)
v

f(1rE := (CO!} (~ 9 '1/)}2

CO!} ('1/ )'(C05 (9))2 .CO!} (8 + 9 + '1/).[ 1+ t:>/n(8 ~

+ fp'f}/n( -13 - '1/) ] ~
(CO!} (8 + 9 + 'I' )·CO!} (13 - 9))
f(Ae =0.4-0 (t:quaf/on 4-~ //)

r
f'IrE := O.~ ·f(IrE·r ./1 /.(1 - Kv) f'!Ie. = 1~,'518 - (equal/on 4-~/~)
rJ

It can be observed that kv when taken as one-half to two thirds the value of kt"
affects PAE by less than 10% (almost 5% in this example). Seed and Whitman
(1970) concluded that vertical accelerations can be ignored when the M-O
method is used to estimate PAE for typical wall design which agrees with the
assumptions of Prakash method.

Consider now the effect of soil cohesion in the Prakash method:

126
 Depfh of fefl!>ion cracJ:5 z·e (
tic := -y-.fan 4-'5·det1 + z)
411 tfc=!f?

(Fiqure4--f)

1?afio of depfh of fefl!>ion crack fo fhe heleJhf tic

n'--­
wifh no fefl!>ion crack .- ti,-tic

n=02­
=:>e:Ied failure 5Ur(ace5!XJ fhaf fheir inc/ina/Ion afk:Jle. rafk:Je
appro4rJafdy (rof? +0 to (45+,0)

a := fO .deeJ ,1'5 ·deeJ .. GO ·det:;

B (ex) := ex + 9 + 4l + 8
2
[(n + ,'5).(fan( ex) + fan (e)) + n ·fan (O)].(C05 (a + 4l) + kh'5In( a + 4l))
NalB .0.) := - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ; . . - - - - - - - - - - . . . ; . . ,
5In(B( a.))
(equaf/on 4--/1aJ

C05( a. + 9 + 4l)'xc (0) + C05( 4l)'xc (a.) (equafion4--l1c)

Nac(B ,a) := . ( ( ))

51n B a

P&(0.) := y.tf/" .Noy(B ,a) -C.(tf/-tfc)·Nac(B ,a) (equaflon4--16)

P,A.E(a) =

9.6
T

11.9 rJ
13.7
15.2
16.2
P/le(U)
16.7

, 16.7- ~

15.9
14.2
10.9
5.4
a

It can be observed that the M-O method underestimates the seismic pressures
on the walls which retain cohesive soils behind them.

127
4.3.3 Application Point

To determine the point of application of the total dynamic earth pressure, it is

necessary to determine the distribution of earth pressure along the back of the
wall. Experimental results suggest that the point of application act at a higher
point than the H/3 of a wall of height H under dynamic loading conditions. The
total active thrust PAE, as determined by equations 4-13 and 4-16, can be divided
into a static component PA (equation 4-4), and a dynamic component, 8PAE:

PAE = PA + aPAE (4-18)

The static component is known to act at H/3 above the base of the wall.
According to Seed and Whitman (1970), the dynamic component can be taken at
approximately O.6H. Hence, the total active thrust will act at a height h above the
base of the wall calculated as:

h = PAH/3+aPAE (O.6H)
(4-19)
PAE

4.3.4 Effect of Saturation on Lateral Earth Pressure

For saturated earth-fill, the saturated unit weight of the soil shall be adopted in
equation 4-13. For submerged earth-fill, Matsuzawa et al. (1985) developed a
procedure to modify the M-O method to account for the presence of pore-water
within the backfill. According to this method the excess pore-water pressure in
the backfill is represented by the pore pressure ratio, ru defined as :

r. = uexcess
. (4-20)
u 0'3c

where, Uexcess is the excess pore water pressure due to liquefaction during the
seismic event and O'~c is the effective confined stress. The active soil thrust
acting on a wall can be quantified from equation 4-13 using the following
modifications for the unit weight Y and the angle 'I' as follows:

Y =Ysub(1-ru) (4-21)

'I' = tan-1[ Ysat kh ] (4-22)

Ysub(1-ru)(1-k v

The total thrust shall be calculated as the sum of the soil thrust and an equivalent
hydrostatic thrust based on a fluid of unit weight

Yeq = 'Yw + ruYsub (4-23)

128
For partially submerged backfills, the soil thrusts may be calculated using an
average unit weight as follows:

'Yav = '}..2 'Ysat + (1- A,2}Yd (4-24)

in which 1I.is the ratio of the height with saturated soil to the total height of the
bacfill.

4.4 Seismic Bearing Capacity of Retaining Walls

Seismic induced reduction of bearing capacity has been studied by Richards et

aI., (1990), and Shi (1993). For simplicity, a "Coulomb-type" of failure mechanism
was adopted in these studies within the foundation consisting of an active wedge
directly beneath the retaining wall and a passive wedge that provides lateral
restraint. According to this method, shear transfer between the footing and
foundation soil is conveniently described by a shear transfer coefficient, n, where:

(4-25)

where, tV is the friction angle of the foundation soil, N is the sum of the vertical
forces transmitted to the soil quantified with reference to Figure 4-7 as:

N =PAE sin(ow + 0) +W - PPE sin{ow -( 2 ) (4-26)

F is the sum of the horizontal forces' quantified as:

F = PAE cos(ow +O)+khW -PpE cos{ow -82 ):S: Ntanof (4-27)

The seismic bearing capacity according to this method can be expressed in

terms of seismic bearing capacity factors and quantified as:

Pd = CNCE + qN qE + 21 '}'8·NyE (4-28)

Where, q is the overburden due to depth of the footing; C is the cohesion of the
foundation soil; '}' is the unit weight of the foundation soil; B' is equal to 8-2e,
where B is the width of the footing and e is eccentricity computed as described
below; 0 is the depth of embedment of the footing; and Pd is the seismic bearing
pressure.

The seismic to static bearing capacity factors (NqE/N qs , NeE/Nes, NYE/N"fS) are
expressed in terms of the friction angle of the foundation soil.tV. seismic
acceleration coefficient, ~, and shear transfer coefficient, n. These ratios are

129
PAl:

\
T h
T
Y
c t
D

1 1
&f~F I PpE

N R
I... B ~l

Figure 4-7. Forces acting on a retaining wall during a seismic event

130
 Phi = 30 degree Phi = 35 degree Phi = 40 degree

II)

­
0"
Z 0.6
W
0" 0.5
Z

n=025
0=0.5
n=0.75

0.0' I I , I J

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.01 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
kh

1.1
1.0
~.;:;oO..L2.0°_L_.1.
30° 4rf' I
0.9 f= 0 1=1 1=2
0.8 l/l= 10°
f/) ".~ ~4>= 10°
(,) 0.71­
Z
- 0.6 ~y, \
W \~ 0
(,) 0.5
20
\2d'
Z
0.4
~\ \
~
\ \ 30°
0.3
\30°
'\

02

'40°
\
\.400
0.1
00' t • ' , ,

'0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 ~.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0..2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
kh

(~) NcE/Ncs

131
 Phi = 30 degree Phi =35 degree Phi = 40 degree

00' , • ,,"--','- I
'0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(c) NYe/Nys

Figure 4-8 (continued). Ratio of seismic to static bearing capacity factors

(Shi 1993).

132
displayed in Figure 4-8. The ratio for NcelN cs is presented in terms of the friction
= =
factor f F/Nkh n tan(~)/~, instead of n.

The effective stress must be used to compute q in the second term and the
submerged unit weight must be used in the third term of equation 4-28, if the
foundation is submerged above the base of the footing. If the foundation is
submerged below the base of the footing an equivalent unit weight must be used
in the third term of equation 4-28 as:

'Yeq = 'Ysub(1-Z/B)+ y(Z/B) (4-29)

where Z is the depth to the ground water surface below the base of the footing I

=
and B is the width of the footing. If Z is greater or equal to B, then 'Yeq 'Y.

The seismic bearing capacity is evaluated by comparing the seismic vertical

force resultant at the base of the retaining wall to the seismic bearing capacity of
the foundation soils computed with equ~tion 4-28 with eccentricity e computed
as:

B Mnet
e="2- N (4-30)

in which, N is the vertical force resultant determined using equation 4-26, and
Moat is the net moment of forces about the toe of the wall (point C in Figure 4-17)
calculated as MR-Mo1 where Mo is the overturning moment computed with
reference to Figure 4-17 as:

Mo = khWYc +PAE cos(5 w +8)h+PpE sin(ow -8 2 )(0/3)(tan82 ) (4-29)

and the resisting moment can be computed as:

~ = WX c +PAE sin(Bw +8)(B-htan8)+PpE cos(Bw -82 )D/3 (4-30)

4.5 Seismic Stability of Retaining Walls

The safety factor against seismic induced bearing capacity failure as:

F:'C = PdB' (4-31)

N
The wall is considered stable under seismic induced loss of bearing capacity if
the computed factor of safety F:'c for the peak acceleration is equal to or greater
than one.

133
The safety factor against seismic overturning instability is quantified as:

O.T _ MR
F5 -- (4-32)
MO

The wall is considered stable with respect to overturning if the computed factor of
safety is equal to or greater than one.

4.6 Seismic Displacements of Retaining Walls

Estimation of the permanent displacement of retaining walls is necessary for

performance based seismic design. Richards and Elms (1979) method is used
for the estimation' of this allowable permanent displacement. According to this
method, the fevel of acceleration that is just large enough to cause the wall to
slide on its base is defined as the yield acceleration defined as:

[t
ay = an'l'b -
.I. PAECOS(O+9)-PAESin(o+9]
W 9 (4-33)

where, ~b is the angle of internal friction of the soil beneath the wall's base. This
method works with the M-O method for calculation of PAE. Hence, the solution of
equation 4-33 must be obtained iteratively because the M-O method requires that
ay be known. According to this method, the permanent displacement is quantified
as:

2 3
dperm =0.087 vmax ~max (4-34)
ay

where, Vmax is the peak ground velocity. amax is the peak ground acceleration.

Example 2:

Check the seismic stability of the reinforced concrete cantilever wall shown in
Figure 4-9 for the maximum considered earthquake (2500 years return period).
The wall is located near Memphis, Tennessee (350 3' latitude, _90 0 O' longitude).
The site consists mainly of coarse sand of unit weight 18 kN/m3. The average
initial shear modulus up to a depth of 100 meters is 180 MPa.

5olufion

For a5i1e localion: ~O ~' Ialifude, 9000'

IOl7t:Jifude, and a 2'500 year!>!??, fhe 5horl
period 5pedral acceleralion of bedrock (rorl 51> := 0,6/ '4
fhe U,5, 6eoloqical ?UNey !>ife
(hHp:// earlhc,uake,u!>tJ!>.eJov/)

134
 --
O.6m

-7!!!&/l1I§:,·····

<1>=30°
r =18.00 kN/m3
7.5m

p
! , I 3'
121 B=6m

Figure 4~9. Geometry of the retaining wall

Irveraqe ~ear f'?Odulu~ 6 rlax := 180 ·I1Pa

kN
Un!f wek;hf of 50/1
y:=18·­
~
f? kN
yc = 2;;,%;; ­
Un/f weicjhf of concrde ~
f?

Irveraqe *ar wave vdocily V,,:= J 6~.q V ~ = ;;1;;.1%

rI

For f>fiff 5011 wlfh 180 ro/f> <' V ~ <' ;;6~ I'll~ ~ife if> dG:Jf>/fied G:J D
(:xci/on 1-8)

5/fe codiden!
F Q := 1,264 (Tablel - 2)

5ife adju!>fed !>pedral accderaf/on 5D~ :=F o ·55 50!> =0.84-1 cj

505

tforizonlal accderaf/on coefficien!

kh:= 2,~.q kh = 0;:;»

Verlical accderaf/on coefficienl kv:=OO

tfelc;hf tf of rela/nine; wall tf := 1.'5 .f?

135
 Ef'lkdnenl depth t1 r:= ~.('I
Widfhofbax f? := 6·f'I
Wall fhlckne~!} T := 0.6·('1

Wldlhalloe f?, := 01·f'I

~ax Ih/ck~!} T, := 0.':5 '('1

/ft7tJle of IrJerna frldloln of backlitl • := X) ·de:<!

Inc/ina/Ion of wall wilh fhe venied 9 := O.de:<!

Inferface at7tJle k/wa:n !>OIl and wall aw := 0 ·da:; (conxNaflve Q!}~I)f'Iplion)

Irlefface at7tJle belween !XJil and foundallon 8 f := !JO ·deq

f?acJ!illlrd/naflon fl := O·deq

KA :::: O,!;!J!J (equal/on 4-J7)

kh ')

'" := alan ( I-kv ) '" :::: 18.114- da:; (equallon 4-~/2)

(CO!} (cjl - 9 _ '" ))2

K~::::: [ ~~-m~8-+-cjl~.-~~n(~+--~fl---",\)rr
eo~ (",).(eo~(e))2 ·eo~ (a w + 9 + 'II)' 1+ (eo~ (0: + 9 + '" ),co~(fl _ 9))

Klie :::: 0614­ (equallon4-~II)

P ~ := 0'5 .KAe·y·t/2.(1 -kv ) Plfe = !JIOBI IN

f'I

(equaflon 4--/~)

136
f(PI: .=-~[-.:.-.:...-!>in 8 w +' .!>in (, + ~ - 'I'
.
. (C05 Cit' + 9 _ 'I' ))2
)] _

CO!> ( 'I' ).(co!> (9))2 'co~ (8 w - 9 + '1'). 1- {co!> (8 _ 0 + 'I' ).co!>

w
(~ _ OJ)

/(PE = Z~28 (eC/ualion4--I/)

PPt: := 0,'5 ·f(Pt:·y .11/ .(1 -kv) PPt: = 188,'581 IN (e:qualion4--I!'J)

f'J

CalQJlallon ofwdqhf!>

WI := (tt- T,).(t? -t?,- T).y

khW1
WZ := (11- T,).T·yc
l~
W.' := t?·T,·yc

W :=WI +WZ +W"'

(t? - t?,- T)

AI:= +t?/+T
Z ¢ n
M
ItZ := .'5·T + t?, ~. ~'

It) :=.'5.t?
(I1-T,)
f;! := + T, t?/ = 4 f'J
Z
T,

t?Z :=- f;Z = 02'5 f?

Z
Didance of re:xllartl ofverlical force5 frof'Jloe
X := WI ·1'11 + WZ. t1Z + w"' .~ X =!'J,Z4-'5 f?

Didance of rt:Xllanf ofhorlzonfal force> frof? foe

Y:= ft?I·(WI + WZ) + t?2·W",]

W Y = .'(:/52 f?

137
Applicaf/on poinf
I!J( := /(At: -/(II

11
Kit";; +AJ(·06·11
h.- · - - - ----
/(IJE
h = ;;,414 IVJ

Check for dJdlng along fhe box

But?rKJIion of drivlnej force!>

Fd := PIlE +kh'W F d = '568Bf7 kN

IVJ

8uf?f1aflon of rt:~/dinc;force:!>

N:=W IN

N = 16/.8'54- ­
f'I

F r := PrE + N·lan (ar) IN

F r = 628.444 ­
I'?

F ador of :xidy OCJaln~f ~/idinc;

Fr
F8 ~ := F d F8:> ::= 1./0'5 O/(
Check for overlurn1trJ

81abilizinej f'IOf'leri

11/

HI( := PrE'""3" + W·x HI( = 2.661 x 10~ kN .(1

f'I

Overlurniinc; f'IOf?enf

110 := FAt:.h+kh·W,Y
~ f'I
Ho = 2.004 x 10 kN·­
f?

HI(

F ador of t>afely aqain!!i overlurnlnc;

F8 o := Ho F8 0 = 1:!J28
nK

138

-14TJ
 <;;heQ; :;x:i~f?ic bearit?4 capacifv .

5hear fran!.'ler codficienf PItC + kh' W -Pre n = 0,86~

n := W.fan ( ep)

5ei~f?ic beari(J(j capacify f acfor~

Nqe./Nq~ N qr := 02-'5 (by inferpo/afion fiqure 4--8a)

N'1:> := ""./an ( +) ·fan ( ~ .d,,9' + i r N

'1
:> = 18,"f01 (e;quafion:2 - f 0)

NqC := Nqr·Nq:> NqC = 4,6

Nye./Ny~ N yr := Ol),?'5 (by inferpo/afionfiqure4-8c)

Ny:> := 2.(Nq:> + I).fan( ep) Ny:> = 22.402 (equafion 2 - rb)

NyC := Nyr·N y:> NyC =2J28

fJ I1K- 110
eccenfrlcify ecc := -Z - --N-­ ecc = ZJ~ f?

fJo := fJ - 2- ·ecc f;o = /,726 f?

/
5ei~jc lif?iI fo bearinq pre~t:XJre Pd := y.t1,.Nqc + 2 ·y·f;o·NyC

Pd = 28/.47'5 kN
f?2.

139

l~ _11 _ _.L! ~1~ _~ . : _ _ L.- _ _ ,....._ J (JI .. ~ ....,---r-r ~ _.1#

 F aclor of 5afdy acjain5f Xi5f?ic induced bearinej capacify failure

F 5~ ._ Pd·f?D
vC .- F 5f?C = 0,6:58

COf?pu!ed fador of Mdy for xi!>f?ic beadnej capacily i5 le5!> fhan one. rherefore
lo!>!> of beadncj capacify and filfinq of fhe wall i!> o.peded dUrinej fhe 2500 year
earfh4uake. ttencel xi!>f?ic rdrofif i!> required.
/(drofil ?fraf!!ZJY,' Place a lieback fhrouc;h fhe wal15fef? fo reduce drivinq I'1OMenf!> and
Increax Xi5f?ic beadnej capacify.

I
1.0 m tD'U'-1~~---'-" - - _.._ _.... ­
F,.cos 15'

~ r _______________ T
F.. sin15° w II

~
I
PAE i
{

I! 16.5m

1.'' ':' ': ' ' ~ ·

h

"-""
I ,

vJ !
j
/ '0
L-__.. ,...
1,
f
.
""."".,,,,F""""""""
J
1 N

a5!>Urte !>hear frander codficienl of fhe rdrofiHed wall n:= 0.'5

inclinafion anqle of lie-back rod (3 := 20 ·deq

PItE + kh' W -PPE -n-W-fan(+)

Force in fiC'back rod Flie: := - - - - - - - - - - ­

n'5ln ((3)·fan (cr.) + co!> ((3)

Flie: = 1"54.4-4-1 kN
f?

140
 =:>ei!>f'7ic beariQ:} capacity fador1>
\

Nere/Nq~ N qr := 0,40 (by inferpolalion fit/ure 4-8a)

NqE := Nq(.Nq~ N q£: = 1.!J6

Nye/Ny~ N yr := 02-0 (by inferpolalion fiqure 4--8c)

Ny£: := Nyr·Ny~ NyE =4.48

11Kr := 11R + Flit: ·co!> (rJ)·(I1-I.f'/) + Flie·!>in(rJ)·!?,

l10r := NO

N := W + Flie·~in(rJ) N = 8/4,616 kN

f'7

!? I1Rr- N OT

eccenfricily ecc := 2 - N
ecc = 0,99> r?

!?o :=!? -2·ecc !?O == 4.021 f'7

1
=:>ei!>f'1ic lif'1if 10 beariQ:} pre!>!>Ure Pd :== 1 .I1,.NqE + 2. '1 ·!?D·Ny£:

Pd = J1j'59,591 kN
2­
f'7

F ador of ~afdy acjain!:i ::>e:i!>r?ic induced beariQ:} capacify failure

Pd·!3Jo
F5fX,:== N F5e;c = 2,162

141

 5-SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF CAISSONS

5.1 General
Caissons are very large concrete boxes that are excavated or sunk to a
predetermined depth. They are used usually for the construction of bridge piers
or other heavy waterfront structures, and they often become advantageous
where water depths exceed 10 to 12 m. Caissons are divided into three major
types: (1) open caissons, (2) box caissons -(or closed caissons), and (3)
pneumatic caissons.

Open caissons are concrete shafts with the top and bottom open during
construction. This type is provided at the bottom as shown in Figure 5-1 with a
cutting edge. After the caisson is sunk into place, soil from the inside of the shaft
is removed through a number of openings by grab buckets until the bearing level
is reached. Once the bearing stratum is reached, concrete is poured into the
shaft, under water, to form a seal at the bottom. After the concrete has matured,
the caisson is pumped dry and filled with concrete. This method does not
guarantee thorough cleaning and inspection of the bottom.

Box caissons as shown in Figure 5-2 are cast on land with spaces open for
buoyancy. They are then transported to the construction site and gradually sunk
by filling the inside with sand, ballast, or concrete.

Pneumatic caissons are closed at top and open at bottom. Overburden materials
are excavated by hand or machine from a working chamber while compressed
air is used to keep water from entering the chamber. Penetration depth below
water is limited to about 40 m (130 ft) as higher pressures are beyond human
endurance. Despite of their higher cost as compared to the other two methods,
this method of construction yields proper bearing stratum and concrete will be of
adequate quality.

A common feature of caissons produced by the three methods is that they are
massive structures that respond to seismic loads in a primarily rocking mode
about the base plus some translations.

143
 lJ:I~r
Section
at A-A

A A
•L
i
_
~
.. .,.
'I

"
_---.J

," ·t
Water
_
Level
~ ~ ....... , ....

~ -=
. !

, j

/)707/;:;:"" ": 11/;<0 II;<0

"
"
Soil

Seal
Cutting Edge

Figure 5·1. Open Caisson

··D.Ll

.•• _.~--' " ,!_.. -. ,.

Section
at A-A

'--'-'"1"'" --­
'J Water Level

t
A I
,_f
it I:,
1"
j
' ~A
.J

11;<0 71~1' tI n7)~)i~

f~
.-.JI-;- -J 1 :'

Soil

Figure 5-2. Box Caisson

144
5.2 Modeling of Caissons for Seismic Loads
The behavior of caissons under lateral seismic loads is essentially nonlinear.
Geometric nonlinearity dominates this behavior due to rocking of the caisson and
gapping at the soil-caisson interface. Soil material nonlinear behavior at the
interface with caisson may contribute to the general nonlinear behavior but it is
minor when compared to the geometric nonlinearity when the caisson starts to
rock under high seismic drifts. Nevertheless, the material of the caisson will
maintain its linear behavior during the course of the seismic event.

The following steps are usually involved for modeling caissons in global models:

1- The global model, which includes the superstructure, shall also include a
discretization scheme for the caisson-soil interface. This scheme shall be '
capable of capturing the physical behavior of caissons such as the
gapping geometric nonlinearity associated with rocking response of the
caisson under large seismic drifts. Example of such modeling technique is
depicted in Figure 5-3. The caissons in the global model can be
represented by a combination of three-dimensional elastic beam elements
representing the spine of the caisson, constraints (rigid links), and spring
elements with plastic material properties and gapping capability (Winkler
elements). The nonlinear load displacement behavior of the interface
elements of the global model shall be established using the results of
analyses of a detailed 3-D finite element model of the caisson and
supported soil, or other simplified procedure as explained in the next
subsection.
2- The detailed 3-D finite element shall include constitutive relationships for
the nonlinear behavior of the soil, and special interface elements that can
capture gapping between the soil and the caisson at the base and side
walls. This model will be referred to as the local model.
3- Nonlinear static pushover analyses shall be carried out to establish the
soil-structure interaction behaviors for implementation in the global model.
Pushover analyses of the local model shall be performed by applying a
point load at the center of gravity of the rigid caisson for each mode of soil
resistance.
4- The soil response results from the different pushover analyses of the local
model in each direction shall be extracted and distributed to the soil spring
elements at various nodal points in accordance with the discretization
scheme of the global model.
5- The behavior of the caissons under seismic loads shall be assessed
through nonlinear time history analysis of the global model. The
performance of the caissons is evaluated by comparing the maximum
drifts from the results of the time history analysis to the permissible levels
according to the performance based design criteria of the project.

145
 (a)

!,
Spring element with ~ apping
property to simulate ~ assive
~~umm\ Spring element with to
simulate horizontal
pressure on side wall s

---­
shear tractions at the
base
/
---+ 4:: \ ~rl ~,

\
j

seismic
Seismic
Excitatio
......... 41.' ~~ ~E xcitalion

~-. 4
roo I
1
-
! \ ..J~ (- .....,....,...,.

//
T-r11111

.
Spring element with gapping
property to simulate normal
I I I i l l 1

contact pressure Seismic

Excitation

(b)
......
...... ~------
caisson
Rigid links

551 elements

Figure 5-3. Modeling of Caissons for Seismic Analysis

146
5.2 Seismic Performance Evaluation of Caissons using Simple
Methods.
5.2.1 Theoretical evaluation of Capacity

Since, caissons are massive rigid structures; it is likely that it will maintain its
material linear behavior during earthquakes. Therefore the term capacity refers to
the maximum drifts that the caisson can withstand without affecting the structural
safety of the superstructure seriously. The capacity can be expressed in terms of
moment~rotation or lateral load~displacement relationships. The theoretical
formulation in this section is developed, for this purpose, for rocking about the
caisson's longitudinal axis. An analogous derivation can be established for
rocking about the transverse axis. Consider the caisson under forces and
reactions in Figure 5-3a. For simplicity, a linear distribution of the contact stress
acting at the soil footing interface, resulting in the triangular stress block shown
in Figure 5-3a. In the following analysis, it will be assumed that onset of rocking
is accompanied by maximum soil lateral earth pressure on the embedded sides
of the front faces of the caisson. Brooms (1964) reported that the ultimate lateral
earth pressure at failure can be taken in the range of two to three times the
passive Rankine earth pressure. It is assumed here that maximum lateral earth
pressure will reach a maximum value of two times the Rankine passive earth
pressure when the portion of the base width in contact with soil reaches a value
of half the width. Also, the active earth press'ure which may develop on the
embedded sides of the back faces are assumed very small compared to the
passive earth pressure. Eventually, at high rocking drifts loss of contact between
the back walls and the surrounding soil may occur. Hence, 'soil reactions at the
back faces were neglected.
At any stage during rocking the bearing pressure, p, at the caisson's base and
the associated deflection, A, can be quantified according to Figure 5-3b as:

o 0< X«A-L)

P(X) = (5-1)

2W (X-A+L) (A-L)< X< A

L2B

where, W is the total buoyant dead load of the caisson, A is the width of the
caisson, and L is the portion of the width in contact with soil.

147
 "T1
ca'
e:

CD

(J1
I

~
"T10

o ID -,

.,(')U1
CO 0U1 I-.---~li!<-- I - - - - - -......1
O::s
Cir U1 < !i-.--CD ..I
:t§ x IX
C"c.
S.co
-, ., I
0,­ ':~"': ~>":':'_'" .. ~l':": : ~~ ~~
.. ..
::s ID
~ :'. .: ~.: j: . ::' ,. t
<0
m ",:~ .::' " '~':',: :.. ~
- .
~ •.•. 'i=* ·1
.~ .· .
..Ilo....:.. ..
'_.'-t.. TF..:~· - ­
, ,"
0
"a 0" 0" ." .. . .... .' .:.
r 'QO',:.
);>---
-<
".~
)CZJ"'
.:, 'to ..... ',.,
" -<
" • • ...:t't:. • • I
'
co , ,
,.. '·1,
" . :" . ". ~.
' . ' ".: '.'
U1
. .. ;~~ .~. ~. .'. :: ... ....
x •: .F ".... ..... '" : .....
'IS ;·of';'';.":
TIt11
Q)
.J:,:., .....:.\::.. ~:::..
"'U
-- 1 I
m I
::s
< I
Ci)" " Ix
:E
0
3'
co
::s 1.
o i 1.
1 I - - - - o I - - -...111"1011
U1
cr
::s
!fJ
ID
::s
c.

C"

' -"
-
~
00
-
 2W
A(X) =-2-(x-A+L) o< x < A (5-2)
L: Bk

In which k is vertical modulus of subgrade reaction (unit pressure required to

produce a unit deflection) associated with the rocking mode.
By assuming that the caisson's base is free to rock on a surface of elastic half­
space, with no side pressure effects, and imposing conditions of onset of rocking
( i.e. L=A), the vertical modulus of subgrade reaction k is evaluated:

k = 12~ay (5-3)

AB

in which, KOx is the rocking stiffness of the base about the longitudinal axis
evaluated as (Gazetas, 1991):

Key = ~~ [0.4(~)+O.1] (54)

Where G and v are the soil's shear modulus and Poisson's ratio respectively.
The overturning moment Mo at any stage of rocking can be evaluated as:

Mo = 2WA (1- 32)

a + 6A. yh 3BK p (5-5)

=
where a UA is the ratio of the portion of width under contact to the total width, y
is the buoyant unit weight of soil, h is the embedded depth of the caisson, B is
the length of the base, and Kp is the coefficient of Rankine passive earth
pressure calculated according to equation 4-6 as:

1+sin+ =tan 2(45 +-

K = 1-sin+
p +) (5-6)
2
A. is a coefficient to determine the increase in the coefficient of passive earth
pressure at different stages of loading determined as:

{~a 0.5 < ex. < 1

ex. <0.5
(5-7)

The rotation associated with the overturning moment is:

0y= A(A) = 2W (5-8)
L o,2A 2 Bk

Therefore, by varying the value of ex. from 0 to 1, a moment rotation relationship

can be established for the caisson. The case of ex. = 1 represents the condition of

149
onset of rocking, while the case of a =0 is equivalent to full non-stability of the
caisson.
The primary mode of deformation is rocking about the caisson's base
accompanied by translation of the portion of the base in contact with the soil.
Thus, the resultant inertia load for this mode is located at a vertical distance Ho to
the base, henceforth called the effective moment arm, which can be obtained by
summing the moment of masses about the center of rotation at the base:

Ho ; ; ; ~4H" +A
2
(5-9)
12
Where, H is the total height of the caisson.
At any stage during rocking the ba~e shear can be quantified as the sum of the
ultimate force to induce sliding and an additional force required to produce
rocking:
M
Vx ;;;;;;J.lW-P+­o (5-10)
Ho
Where, P is the passive resistance at the front side and J.l is the interface friction
angle between the caisson's base and the soil. The total displacement at the top
of caisson is the sum of displacement due to rocking and displacement at the
base:

L\x=
JJ.wK -P +H8 (5-11)
y
:xx
in which, Kxx is the stiffness of the base interacting with the soil in the transverse
direction, evaluated according to the elastic half-space theory (Gazetas 1991) as:

GB [(8)0.65 +0.4(B)
Kxx ; ; ; 2-v 3.4 A A +0.8 ] (5-12)

It is important to note that the uplift is the only source of nonlinearity in this
method. as no soil nonlinearities are considered for the soil beneath the caisson
base. This method can be used in lieu of the detailed local finite element
modeling to develop the lateral load displacement relationships to be
implemented in global models.
5.2.2 Capacity Evaluation Procedure

On the basis of the theory presented above, the following steps summarize the
procedure to evaluate the nonlinear load displacement relationship (pushover
capacity) of the caisson:
i. For the considered caisson calculate the effective moment arm Ho using
equation 5-9.

150
 ii. Calculate the half-space transverse and rocking stiffness coefficients, Kxx,
and Key for the caisson base (equations 5-12 and 5-4).
iii. Calculate the vertical modulus of subgrade reaction k using equation 5-3.
iv. Assume a value for the ratio of the portion of width under contact to the
total width a..
v. Calculate the overturning moment Mo using equations 5-5 to 5-7.
vi. Determine the rotation associated with the overturning moment from
equation 5-8.
vii. Determine the caisson's base shear from equation 5-10.
viii. Calculate the total displacement at the top of caisson as the sum of the
nonlinear displacement due to rocking and the linear displacement at the
base from equation 5-11.
ix. Change the value of a. and resume steps from iv to viii.

5.2.3 Evaluation of Demand and Structural Performance

Once the pushover curve has been established, the structural response can be
displayed in the form of normalized spectral acceleration versus spectral
displacement. This technique is known as the capacity spectrum method, which
requires that both the demand response spectra and structural capacity
(pushover curve) be plotted in the spectral acceleration versus spectral
displacement domain. Spectra plotted in this format are known as Acceleration­
Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS) after Mahaney et aI., 1993. To convert
a spectrum from the standard spectral acceleration Sa versus T format to the
ADRS format, it is necessary to determine the value of the spectral displacement
Sdi for each point on the curve Sail Ti . This can be done with the equation:
T=2
Sd' =_I_S .g (5-13)
I 41t2 al
If it is assumed that the caisson can be modeled as a rigid single-degree-of­
freedom system vibrating in a mode in the direction of the application of the
pushover force, then any point on the capacity curve can be converted to the
corresponding point Sail Sdi on the capacity spectrum using the equation:
V;
Sal =~ and Sdi = Ax (5-14)

Through this method the performance of the structure is estimated graphically as

the point where the capacity curve intersects with the elastic demand spectrum
curve. The following example is given to illustrate the method.
5.3 Example
A caisson foundation was designed to support a suspension bridge tower in
Tacoma Washington. The dimensions are 24.4 x 39.6 m. the height is 74.5 m

151
with an embedment depth of 22.5 m. The soil is silty sand with unit weight of 19.6
Kn/m 3 . The total buoyant weight of the caisson was estimated as 1023 MN. The
results of the cross-hole seismic survey test indicated that the average shear
wave velocity of the soil foundation is estimated as 305 m/sec. Estimate the
seismic performance of this caisson during a potential earthquake.
501ulion

51ep I: Develop Ihe ~/andard denand ~pedrun:

Ux lhe nelhod explained in xdion 1,8 fo develop Ihe de!?iqn re!>ponx !>pedrun,

Fronlhe U5, 6eo/oqica/ xNey web !>ile Ihe 0,2 xcond 51» I-xeond ~pedra/
aeee/eraflon!> 5/, and peak qround acee/eralion P61t were delemined a~:
5:> "" /,21 q
5, P' 0:12- q
PSIt ~ 0,'55 q

5ince fhe averaqe !>hear wave ve/ocily i!> !J0'5 M1!> Ihe !>ife i!> cla:?!?ified a!? ealeqory
D, rhe !?ile eoefficienl:;:, 1'5 de/emined frof? r able!? (1'2-) and (I,!J) at>:
Fa"" /,0/6
Fv"" /''58

Calcu/ale Ihe de!?iqn earlhquakere!?ponx t>pedra/ acce/eralion al t>horl period 5D:::- a

nd al'-xcond period, 501
501>~· /,0/6X 1.2-lq ~ 1,25 q
501 "" 1/58 X0:1% "" 0,6Gq
Delerf?ine Ihe: period!? r!? and r 0
r ~ 066/ /,25 ~ 0,'54 !?
d

r 0 ~ O,2X 0,'54 - 0./08 :;:,

Con!?lrud Ihe ~% danpinq de:5iqn !?pedfUf1 u!>inq equalion!> 1'2-2Ihrouqh /,24-, rhe
de::.5iqn re!?pon!?C !?pedrun I!? depided in Fiqure '5'4-.

152
 IA I I

1.2

~
v
~ 0.8
~
l 0.6

~ O.~

0.2

a
0 I 2- ~ 4­
Period (::ec)

FiCJurc ~~4-. 'X Darlpif7CJ De5iCJn R c!:>po~ :5pcdrurl for T ocorJa WO!>hlnc;fon

5fep 2: E::>faUidl fhe Pudrover Cu/V.e:

Follow fhe !:>fep::> in ::edion 5.2.210 develop fhe capacily cUNe:

rJAfA:
f oundatiGfl width A = 24.?B4m
Fcul1dati(ifJ lenqth B= ~.624m

P01550115 ratio v := a,??

5hear wave velOCIb1 V5:= ?o?~

5

Unlt wt of soil Y = 19,6?6 kN

:?
m
MalC.imUm shear modulus /'.
tAmax'= -.
. Y v52 Umax. = 1.86:; x I08 pa
Cj

153
 --(

~ffective moment arm HO := J(4.H Z Z

+A )
HO = 4?J,89Bm
12

Halfspace transverse stiffness CtA [

kXX := - . ?A· -
(17 ,0,67 + 0.4·-[? + 0,8J
2-v A) A

kxX = 6,129 x 106 kN

m

Halfspace rocKinCl 5tlffne55

Ct.A'?.[ OA·
key := -.-
I-v
([7'- O.J]. -
A)
+ I
rad

kOY = 1.246 x I09kN.~

rad

Coefficient of vertical 5ubgrade reaction k. := 12. Kay

A'? ·18

k = 2,604 x 104 kN
'?
m

The pU!5hover CUNe I!:> depided In Fiqure 5-5, II? dlown in fhe fiqure fhe re!5pon!5e J

fran 0 fo It ;!:> linear wilh un/lom dlf:>fribulion of file pre!:>?Ure on fhe cai!5!50d!:> box.
5lidlnc; !:>/arf!:> 10 occur of point It and con/lIVe!:> up 10 polnf ~J whree if I!:> occonpanled
by rockinq frof'7 ~ fa C,

154
 . -:-1'
BOJ,CX::O .'"'"-'-' __ . "--,,.....•.. , __ ._....• _ _._ - _---,-_ . -· ..­
1
C
-~.-,-~-
i

600,CX:O f \ t' :::;;z;» ......... r

3
v
~ 4<X),CX::O +-1------

~
2<X>.CX::O +t I

o. j I I
o 0.2£' 0.7 0.17
1J1$p/ac.eJrent ( m:>

FiCJure ~~~. Exal"lp/e of a f'udlover CUNe for a Cai!:Jf>On.

5fep 5: E!:Jfab/if:>h fh~.._...r;;.qJ?Cl{;!.fy... 2f?t;d[(!.tL0u.Ne and Check Perfomonce

the capacily !:Jpedrun CUNe if:> dif:>played in FiCJure ~-6, II i~ ~hONn fhaf in fhb reCJion
fhe caif:>=>on f1ay experience ~one f:>/idinq under a pofenfial earfhquake. Neverfh/e~~J
rocki!1CJ ('1oy nof occur.

IA
! 1;
!
;
I I
1.2 , -IJ~

\
11 ~... ~~ 1
0.8
\ --- ; ,I -S:-Q.

("') ~~
rq v', S"lA.

,
-a­
..
v ;
~: V
-{'
0,6 - - I Jb r'\-+('}",e (' c~ ~
....... k-,""' ----- 1
Q-r

0.2
/
,.-
:
:
I

I
I
'" ·ww_·

-----'r---- .. -
_.._.---!

---=
I

o
'1/
,._-_ -
... ;
,
,
..-1-._........_................... .-_ ............................... ....•
"

)
Fic)

12 Cvvt. k ~ ~~ 10-- ~0oAkr IAJ ~ XA~

Qh. J kJ P(Z etA. I ('vI I 9'~ ,:;>.\
155
5.4 References
Gazetas, G. (1991). Foundation vibrations, Chapter 15 in Foundation
Engineering Handbook, 2nd edition, H.-Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, pp.553-593.
Mahaney, J.A., Paret, T.F., Kehoe,B.E., and Freeman, S.A. (1993) "The capacity
spectrum method for evaluating structural response during the Lorna Prieta
earthquake, "National Earthquake Conference, Memphis.

156