Dynamic response of machine foundations considering soil damping and

embedment
Indrajit Chowdhury, Petrofac Int.Ltd. ,Sharjah UAE, Email :Indrajit.Chowdary@petrofac.com

ABSTRACT: Foundations subjected to dynamic loading are usually designed as per IS code, ignoring
damping and embedment effect of soil. This generally makes the foundation more expensive and difficult
to design, especially in brown field project when foundation frequency is in the proximity of operating
frequency of the machine, while there is no space available to modify the foundation footprint. Present
paper proposes a method based on which a number of such deficiencies as cited above can be
circumvented.

INTRODUCTION Present paper proposes a technique by which a

Technology adapted for design of machine
foundations under harmonic load as per IS-2974
Part IV (1979), is as proposed by Barkan (1962).
This has been in practice for last 40 years or
more though far more advanced and realistic soil
models are available in advanced countries as
well as industry (ACI 351.3R-04).
Some major limitations that can be attributed to
Barkan’s method are as follows:
• Barkan’s model does not take damping into
consideration.It has been observed from
field instrumentation data that damping
plays a significant role in overall response of
foundation, especially when operating
frequency of the machine is low.
• It does not take into account embedment
effect of surrounding soil which could play a
significant role on the magnitude of soil
stiffness and damping.
• It does not take into cognisance virtual mass
of soil which vibrates in same phase with
machine and the foundation.
• Barkan suggested spring value (usually the
coefficient of uniform elastic compression)
of the soil to be obtained from dynamic plate
load test (carried out with a plate of size
300mmx300 mm). This may only give
correct values for a shallow depth below
ground surface and may not be valid for
layered soil, especially when contact area of
the foundation is large for big machines.
• It ignores transient part of the excitation.
This can become critical for high speed
machine, especially for pipe flanges that are
connected rigidly to the equipment and can
undergo fatigue failure due to transient
shocks.
number of shortcomings as cited above can be
overcome based on other type of soil models that
are also in vogue in the industry. The technique
is also computationally efficient.
Barkan’s method for dynamic analysis
As a prelude to the proposed technique, Barkan
or IS-2974 method is briefly explained as
hereafter. In this method Barkan assumed the
block foundation, shown in Fig. 1 as a rigid
lumped mass (i.e. he assumed the concrete block
to have infinite stiffness in comparison to the soil
and neglected any internal deformation of the
concrete block itself) having three degrees of
freedom as shown below.
Pz sinωmt
M0sinωmt
H m &x& P0sinωmt
m &z&
Zc
φ
x0 H
Fig-1. Barkan’s Model for vertical and coupled
motion
The soil medium is idealised as linear springs
which he defined in terms of soil parameter
c z , cτ & cφ which are otherwise known as
coefficient of elastic uniform compression,
coefficient of elastic uniform shear, coefficient
of elastic non-uniform compression respectively.
In the vertical direction the spring constant is
considered as
 k z = c z .A f (1) J xφ φ&& − cτ A f Z c x + φ (cφ I A − WZ c + cτ A f Z c 2 )
(8)
= M 0 sin ωmt
Where, k z = equivalent spring in vertical
where J xφ = mass moment of inertia of the
direction; c z = coefficient of elastic uniform
machine-foundation block about minor axis of
compression, and A f = plan area of foundation.
rotation including the machine installed over it.
Natural frequency of the foundation in vertical From eqns. (7) and (8), we see that they contain
direction is given by both x and φ , so a coupled sliding and rocking
k motion will develop along this direction.
ωz = z (2)
Using the above equations and considering free
m
amplitude of vertical vibration is given by vibration, Barkan developed following equations
for calculation of the frequencies.
( P / k ) sin ω t
δz = z z 2 m (3)
1− r
J 0 (ωφ 2 + ω x 2 )ω 2 ωφ 2 ω x 2 J 0
where, r= ω m ω z ; ωm = operating frequency of 4
ω − + =0 (9)
the machine. J xφ J xφ
For coupled horizontal and rocking mode, when cφ I A − WZ c
a foundation has horizontal force along its minor Here J 0 = J xφ + mZ c 2 ; ωφ 2 =
J0
axis the foundation undergoes sliding and
rocking simultaneously. When the foundation cτ A f
and ω x 2 = .
starts vibrating, resistance is mobilised in the soil m
in terms of forces H and MR. Based on above, two principal frequencies for
The resistive force may thus be expressed as coupled vibration is given by

∫
H = Cφ ldA (4)
J
⎡ωφ 2 + ωx 2 ±
⎢
⎤
⎥
and resistive moment is expressed ω1,2 2 = 0 ⎢ 4J xφ ωφ 2 ωx 2 ⎥ (10)
2J xφ
⎢
(
⎢ ω 2 +ω 2
x φ )
2
−
J0
⎥
⎥
⎣ ⎦
∫
M R = Cφ l 2φdA = Cφ I Aφ (5) Considering forced vibration, the amplitudes
Where, l = distance between rotation axis and Ax , Aφ may be expressed as
the element of area dA; φ = angular rotation of
the machine foundation; IA= second moment of (cφI A −WZc + cτ Af Zc2 − Jxφωm2 )P0 ± cτ Af ZcM0
area of the foundation contact surface with Ax = sinωmt
respect to the axis passing through centroid of mJxφ(ω12 − ωm2 )(ω22 − ωm2 )
the area and perpendicular to the plane of
vibration. c τ A f Z c P0 ± (c τ A f − mωm 2 )M 0
For laterally applied force Pxsinωmt horizontal Aφ = sin ωm t
resistive force, H can be expressed as mJ xφ(ω12 − ωm 2 )(ω2 2 − ωm 2 )
(11)
H= cτ A f x0 = cτ A f ( x − Z cφ ) (6)
where, Af= area of base contact; Zc, x, xo etc are For torsional mode, again the foundation
shown in Fig.1. considered is a lumped mass having single
Now applying D’Alembert’s equation for degree of freedom when frequency and
dynamic equilibrium, we have amplitude are given by

ωψ =
Kψ
and ψ =
(
T sin ωm t / kψ
(12)
)
m&x& + H = P0 sin ω m t Iψ 1− r2
or m&x& + cτ A f ( x − Z cφ ) = P0 sin ω mt (7)
where, Kψ = cψ Iψ ; r = ω m / ωn .
where m is mass of the machine foundation and Method as elaborated above is recommended by
machine . IS 2974 “Code of practice for design and
Similarly for moment equation about minor axis construction of machine foundation” and still
of the foundation we have remains the most popular method for vibration
analysis of block foundations in Indian industry.
 m&x& + cτ A f ( x − Z cφ ) = P0 sin ω mt , and
PROPOSED METHOD CONSIDERING
SOIL DAMPING AND EMBEDMENT J xφ φ&& − cτ A f Z c x + φ (cφ I A − WZ c + cτ A f Z c 2 )
(17)
It is apparent from above that IS code does not = M 0 sin ωmt
take into cognizance damping as well as
embedment effect of soil. Substituting values of K x and Kφ , we have
For vertical direction the equation considering m&x& + K x ( x − Z cφ ) = P0 Sinω m t and
soil damping becomes that of a lumped mass
J xφ φ&& − K x Z c x + φ ( Kφ − WZ c + K x Z c 2
having single degree of freedom when (18)
= M 0 sin ωmt
m&z& + C z z& + K z z = P0 sin ωmt (13) Equation (18) in matrix form can be represented
The natural frequency remains same as equation as
(2) the damped amplitude of vibration can be ⎡m 0 ⎤⎧&x&⎫ ⎡ Kx − Kx Zc ⎤⎧x⎫
expressed as (Chowdhury and Dasgupta 2008) as ⎢ 0 J ⎥⎨&&⎬ + ⎢− K Z K + K Z 2 −WZ ⎥⎨ ⎬
⎣ φ
xφ ⎦⎩ ⎭ ⎣ x c φ x c c ⎦⎩φ⎭
(19)
z = e − Dωnt (C1 cos ω D t + C 2 sin ω D t ) ⎧ P0 ⎫
= ⎨ ⎬sinωmt
P0 sin ω m t (14) ⎩M0 ⎭
+ Since above equation is based on D’Alembert’s
(
K z 1− r )
+ (2 Dr )2
2 2
equation, the equations are said to be statically
C1 and C2 are integration constants that need to coupled, when stiffness and damping matrix
be derived from appropriate boundary have the same form (Meirovitch 1967). Thus, the
conditions. damped equation of motion in coupled rocking
First part of the expression represents transient and sliding mode becomes
response and the second part depicts steady state
response. ⎡ m 0 ⎤ ⎧ &x&⎫ ⎡ C x −C x Z c ⎤ ⎧ x& ⎫
⎢ ⎥ ⎨ &&⎬ + ⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬
2
⎣⎢ 0 J xφ ⎦⎥ ⎩φ ⎭ ⎣⎢− C x Z c Cφx + C x Z c 2 − WZ c ⎦⎥ ⎩φ&⎭
Here, ω D = ω n 1 − D , here ωD= Damped
natural frequency of the system and D= ⎡ Kx − K x Zc ⎤ ⎧ x ⎫ ⎧ P0 ⎫
+⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎨ ⎬ = ⎨ ⎬ sin ωmt
Damping ratio expressed as C z / 2 mK z ⎢⎣ − K x Z c Kφx + K x Z c − WZ c ⎥⎦ ⎩φ ⎭ ⎩M 0 ⎭

Considering the two boundary conditions as 1) at (20)

t=0; z=0 and 2) at t=0; dz/dt=0 we finally have
⎡ r sin ω t.e −Dωnt
− P0 sin ωm t
z= ⎢1 − D ⎥ (15)
(
Kz 1− r2 )2
+ (2Dr)2
⎢ sin ω t. 1 − D 2
⎣ m
In equation (15) P0sinωmt is to be considered
negative as it is assumed to be acting in negative
z direction
In the above equation values of Kz and Cz are
vertical spring stiffness and damping of soil
based on Lysmer and Richart’s model (1966)
and as furnished in Table-A1, A2 etc. in the
appendix.
The embedment effect can be considered by
multiplying the stiffness and damping of soil by
factors as furnished in Table A3 & A4
respectively. The values are as per Whitman
(1972).
For analysis of coupled horizontal and rocking
motion let us write Barkan’s expressions as
K x = cτ A f and K xφ = cφ I A
Then, equations of equilibrium are defined as
Above equations constitute the complete
equation of motion for coupled sliding and
⎤ rocking mode considering the damping effect of
soil in generalized form, and having soil stiffness
⎥
⎦ as Kx and Kφ.
Actually for all practical calculations for finding
out the dynamic response of foundation, the term
–WZc may be neglected, for it has been observed
that unless the foundation is very massive and
deep, the term WZc has no significant effect on
overall response of the system.
Based on above argument equation (20) reduces
to
⎡m 0 ⎤ ⎧ &x&⎫ ⎡ C x − C x Z c ⎤ ⎧ x& ⎫
⎢ 0 J ⎥ ⎨ &&⎬ + ⎢− C Z C + C Z 2 ⎥ ⎨ &⎬
⎣ xφ ⎦ ⎩φ ⎭ ⎣ x c φx x c ⎦ ⎩φ ⎭ (21)
⎡ Kx − K x Z c ⎤ ⎧ x ⎫ ⎧ P0 ⎫
+⎢ 2 ⎥⎨ ⎬ = ⎨ ⎬ sin ωmt
⎣− K x Z c Kφx + K x Z c ⎦ ⎩φ ⎭ ⎩M 0 ⎭
Equation (21) above looks elegant, but has a
serious catch in it, for this damping matrix of soil
is not proportional to either the mass or stiffness
(16) of the soil. Moreover as they are coupled by the
term Zc , as such do not de-couple on orthogonal
transformation. This forms a major headache to a
designer as he is not in a position to guess the This gives
soil damping ratio at the outset or resort to a
modal analysis. ⎧⎪ C xφ xx − C x Z cφ xφ ⎫⎪
The most appropriate technique in such case is < φ xx φ xφ > ⎨ 2 ⎬
then to resort to time history analysis (like say ⎪⎩− C x Z cφ xx + (Cφx + C x Z c )φ xφ ⎪⎭
Wilson-θ method (Bathe-1996)) for a correct = C xφ xx 2 − 2C x Z cφ xφ φ xx + (Cφx + C x Z c 2 )φ xφ 2
answer. However, many engineers find time
history too intensive in terms of calculation, and (23)
prefer to use modal response technique as a tool It should be realised that the above is a unique
for analysis of the same. Of course, easiest way value and we also know that the operation
out is to neglect soil damping and argue that the {φ}T [C]{φ} breaks up the equation to form
design is conservative (but conveniently 2 Diωi where i is the degrees of freedom of the
overlooking the fact that it becomes more system.
expensive as heavier mass is to be used to restrict
the amplitude)! Now considering,
But this need not be done, for it is possible to by
2 Diωi =
pass this problem of orthogonal de-coupling,
even when damping matrix is non-proportional C xφ xx 2 − 2C x Z cφ xφφ xx + (Cφx + C x Z c 2 )φ xφ 2 ,
which though not exact would give still give a
designer a reasonable value to estimate a more For first mode
realistic amplitude of vibration (it is surely a
better value than no damping considered) and is Cxφxx2 − 2Cx Zcφxφφxx + (Cφx + Cx Zc 2 )φxφ 2
D1 = (24)
considered hereafter. 2ω1
where D1 = damping ratio for first mode and;
Approximate analysis to de-couple equations
with non-proportional damping ω1 = first natural frequency of the foundation.
Based on equation (21) the natural frequencies Similarly, for second mode proceeding in same
are obtained from eigen value analysis when un- manner it can be proved that
damped equation becomes
Cφxφφx 2 − 2Cx Zcφφxφφφ + (Cφx + Cx Zc 2 )φφφ2
D2 = (25)
2ω2
⎡ K x − mλ − K x Zc ⎤
⎢−K Z K + K Z 2
− J λ ⎥ = 0 (22) Once the damping ratios are identified we
⎣ x c φ x c φx ⎦ assume, [C] = α [M ] + β [K ] and performing the
Solving the above equations we find out eigen operation
values vis-à-vis natural frequencies of the
foundation system.
{φ}T [C]{φ} = α {φ }T [M ]{φ } + β {φ}T [K ]{φ} (26)
Let the eigen values be λ1 and λ2 respectively.
Let corresponding normalized eigen vectors be
We have, for two degrees of freedom
< φxx φxφ > φ φφ > T
T
and < φ φx 2D1ω1 = α + βω12 and 2D2ω2 = α + βω2 2 (27)
respectively, when the complete eigen vector Thus, we have two equations with two
⎡φ xx φφx ⎤ unknowns, α and β, and solving the above two
matrix is expressed as, ⎢ ⎥ equations we get values of α and β, which may
⎣φ xφ φφφ ⎦
be expressed as.
Since the eigen vectors are known separately for
each mode we find out the damping ratio
separately for each mode as follows. ⎡ ⎧ 1 ⎫ D2ω2 ⎤
α = 2⎢ D1ω1 ⎨1 − ⎬+ (28)
As a first step we perform the operation ⎣ ⎩ Ω⎭ Ω ⎥⎦
{φ}T [C]{φ } for each mode. 2(D1ω1 − D 2 ω 2 )
β= (29)
For the first mode, we have Ω
Here Ω = ω1 2 − ω 2 2 (30)
⎡ Cx − CxZc ⎤ ⎧φ xx ⎫ Once these values are known one can obtain an
< φ xx φ xφ > ⎢ ⎥ ⎨ ⎬
⎢− C x Z c
⎣
Cφx + C x Z c 2 ⎥
⎦ ⎩φ xφ ⎭ equivalent proportional soil damping from the
operation C []
ˆ = α[M ] + β [K ] which is now quite Torsional mode
In this mode the block foundation is again
suitable for modal response technique considered as a lumped mass having single
(Chowdhury et al 2002). degree of freedom, natural frequency and the
The corrected modal damping matrix can now be
torsional rotation, ψ is given by
expressed as

[Cˆ ] = α ⎡⎢m0 0 ⎤ ⎡ Kx − K x Zc ⎤ Kψ
⎥ + β⎢ 2 ⎥ (31)
ωψ = and
Iψ
⎣ J xφ ⎦ ⎣− K x Zc Kφx + K x .Zc ⎦
Equation (21) in matrix form considering ⎡ r sin ω t.e − Dψ ω n t ⎤
corrected modal damping Ĉ as expressed in [] ψ =
− T sin ωmt ⎢1 − Dψ ⎥
equation (31) can now be expressed as Kψ (1 − r ) + (2Dψ r )
2 2 2 ⎢
⎢⎣ sin ω m t . 1 − D 2 ⎥
ψ ⎥⎦
(40)
[M ]{X&& }+ [Cˆ ]{X& }+ [K ]{X } = {Px }sin ω m t (32) where Kψ = 16Grψ 3 / 3 , Dψ is the damping ratio
Let λ1 and λ2 be the eigen values and ϕ 2 X 2 be [ ] in the torsion mode and r is the ratio between the
the normalized eigenvectors. Such that natural frequency of the foundation in torsion
[ ]
{X } = ϕ {ξ } where {ξ } = Displacement mode and the operating frequency of the
machine.
vectors in the decoupled coordinate
Multiplying equation (32) by the term [ϕ ]T we RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
have To determine how the procedure works a real life
gas turbine foundation having following data is
[ϕ ]T [M][ϕ ]{ξ&&}+ [ϕ ]T [Cˆ ][ϕ ]{ξ&}+ [ϕ ]T [K][ϕ ]{ξ } analyzed as a benchmark problem.
(33)
= [ϕ ]T {Px }sin ω m t Geometric data
• Length of foundation =16.1 m
[]
ˆ = α[M ] + β [K ] , i.e. a
In equation (33) as C • Width of foundation = 6.77 m
• Depth of foundation = 3.6 m
converted equivalent Rayleigh type damping, it
• Depth of embedment =3.0 m
decouples into two equations of the form
Soil Data

[ ]
ξ&&1 + [2 D1ω1 ]ξ&1 + ω1 2 ξ1 = p x sin ω m t (34)
• Bearing capacity of soil = 200 kN/m2
• Shear wave velocity of soil = 125 m/sec
• Poisson’s Ratio =0.25
ξ&&2 + [2 D2ω 2 ]ξ&2 + [ω ]ξ
2
2
= m x sin ω m t (35)
2
• Density of soil =20 kN/m3
Solution to equation (34) and (35) are expressed
as Machine Data
• Center line height of shaft over machine
⎡ −D1ω1t ⎤
− px sinωmt ⎢1− r1 sinω1Dt.e ⎥ (36) foundation = 2.0m
ξ1 = • Operating frequency = 2250 rpm
( 2
) ⎢
λ1 1− r12 + (2D1r1 )2 ⎣ sinωmt. 1− D1 ⎦
2 ⎥
• Allowable amplitude at top of
And foundation =0.2mm
⎡ −D2ω2t ⎤
• Static weight of machine = 4760 kN
− mx sinωmt ⎢1− r2 sinω2Dt.e ⎥ (37)
ξ2 =
( )
λ2 1− r22 + (2D2r2 )2
2 ⎢ sinω t. 1− D 2 ⎥
⎣ m 2 ⎦
The natural frequencies based on various
methods are as presented hereafter
The coupled motion in the global co-ordinate is
then expressed as

[X ] = [ϕ ][ξ ] (38)
Where [X ] = {x φ }T (39)
Analysis ωv ωx ωφ Comparison of rocking amplitude
based on (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) 0.00001
Barkan 2779 1738 3858 0.000008

Lysmer & 2378 2301 5004 0.000006

Rocking amplitude(rad)
0.000004
Richart 0.000002 Barkan Rot

Wolf 3945 2091 3800 0 Wolf Rotation

0
0.05
0.1
0.14
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.33
0.38
0.43
0.48
0.52
0.57
0.62
0.66
0.71
-0.000002 Lysmer Rot.
Lysmer 2636 2034 4001 -0.000004
&Richart(with -0.000006

embedment) -0.000008
-0.00001
Maximum Amplitude of vibration based on Time steps

various methods are as presented hereafter

Fig-4 Time history plot of rotational amplitude
Analysis Zv(mm) X(mm) φ(rad)
Based on Comparison of amplitude based on time history versus
Barkan 0.0015 0.00285 0.0083 corrected damping
Lysmer 0.0010 0.00156* 0.0055 0.000015
&Richart 0.00001

Wolf 0.0010 0.00143* 0.0045 0.000005

Amplitude
Displacement with non
Lysmer 0.00094 0.00103* 0.0032 0
proportional damping
Displacement with corrected
(emebeded) -0.000005
1 23 45 67 89 111 133 155 177 199 221 243 265 proportional damping

* This is transient peak and not steady state vibration -0.00001

amplitude, which is much less -0.000015

Time steps

Amplitude of vertical vibration Fig-5 Comparison of amplitude based on non

0.015
proportional damping and corrected modal
0.01
Figure 2 to 4 clearly shows that Barkan’s theory
Disp lacemen t(mm)

0.005

Lysmer spring with damping

overestimates the amplitude and does not take
0
Barkan undamped into cognizance the transient peak which the
0
0.4
0.9
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.7
3.1
3.6
4.0
4.5
4.9
5.4
5.8

-0.005 foundation experiences during starting and

-0.01
stopping a machine. This can be critical for high
frequency machines when it passes through the
-0.015
Time steps(secs)
natural frequency zone of the foundation.
Lysmer and Wolf’s model considering soil
Fig-2 Vibration Amplitude in vertical direction damping gives comparable results. While
embedment effect further enhances the
Comparison of translational amplitude frequencies and reduce the amplitude.
0.00004
Adapting Barkan’s theory for design of
0.00003 foundation in brown field plants can put a
D is p a lc e m e n t (m m )

0.00002
Barkan Disp.
designer in significant difficulty especially when
0.00001
Wolf Disp. the foundation is in resonant zone while there is
0
Lysmer Disp.
no space available to modify the dimension of
0
0 .0 4
0 .0 8
0 .1 2
0 .1 6
0 .2
0 .2 4
0 .2 8
0 .3 2
0 .3 6
0 .4
0 .4 4
0 .4 8
0 .5 2
0 .5 6
0 .6
0 .6 4
0 .6 8
0 .7 2

-0.00001
-0.00002 the foundation footprint.
-0.00003 In such cases if we consider the soil damping, we
Time steps (secs)
can very well let the foundation be within the
resonance zone so long as we can prove that it
Fig-3.Time history plot of translational does not harm the functional behaviour of the
amplitude machine as amplitude and velocity of foundation
is within acceptable limit- this is of great
technical as well as commercial advantage.
Figure-5 shows that modal analysis based on
corrected damping matrix and time history
analysis, considering non-proportional damping
are in excellent agreement. Though at the stage
when foundation reaches the steady state in the unified approach, Volume I & II, Taylor
long run, it shows a phase difference however as and Francis, Leiden Holland.
far a magnitude is concerned there is hardly any 6. IS-2974 Part IV (1979) – Code of practice
difference between the two analysis. for design and construction of Machine
This gives significant computational advantage foundations Bureau of Indian Standard
as one can circumvent the expensive numerical New Delhi, India.
analysis that can be cost wise justified only for 7. Lysmer J and Richart F.E. (1966)
very big and expensive machines only. “Dynamic response of footings subjected
to vertical Loading” J. of Soil Mechanics
CONCLUSION and Foundation Div. ASCE Vol. 92 #
A comprehensive mathematical model is SM1 pp 65-91
proposed herein for dynamic analysis of block 8. Meirovitch L (1967), “Analytical Methods
foundation which is mathematically more in Vibration analysis” Macmillan
realistic and takes into consideration soil Company UK.
damping and embedment effect which the IS 9. Whitman, R.V. (1972), “Analysis of soil
code ignores presently. structure interaction – a state of the art
review” Soil Publication # 300 MIT USA.
REFERENCE 10. Wolf John P.(1988) “Dynamic soil
structure interaction in time domain”
1. ACI 351.3R-04 “Foundations for Prentice Hall Engelwood Cliff New
Dynamic Equipment” Report of ACI Jersey USA
committee 351.
2. Bathe K.J. (1996), Finite element
procedures in engineering; Prentice Hall,
New Delhi, India.
3. Barkan D.D. (1962), Dynamics of Bases
and Foundations; Mçgrawhill
Publications NY USA.
4. Chowdhury I, Ghosh B & Dasgupta, S.P.
(2002), “Analysis of Hammer
Foundations considering soil damping “
Advances in Civil Engineering ACE
2002, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur India Vol-II pp-1019-1028.
5. Chowdhury, I. & Dasgupta, S.P. (2008),
Dynamics of structure and foundation- a
 APPENDIX

Table-A1 Values of Soil Springs as per Lysmer &Richart (1966)Model

Sl No Direction Spring value Equivalent radius Remarks

1) Vertical 4Grz LB This is in
Kz = rz =
(1 − υ) π
vertical Z
direction
2) Horizontal 32(1 − υ)Grx LB This induce
Kx = rx =
(7 − 8υ) π
sliding in
horizontal x or
y direction
3) Rocking 8Grφx 3 This produces
LB3
K φx = rφx = 4 rocking about
3(1 − υ ) 3π Y axis
3.1) Rocking 8Grφy 3 This produces
L3B
K φy = rφy = 4 rocking about
3(1 − υ ) 3π X axes
4) Twisting 16Grψ 3 This produces
L3B + BL3
Kψ = rψ = 4 twisting about
3 6π vertical Z axis

Table-A2 Values of Soil Damping as per Lysmer & Richart’s(1966) Model.

Sl No Direction Mass ratio( B) Damping Ratio and Remarks

Damping Value
1) Vertical 0.25m(1 − υ)g 0.425 This is damping
Bz = 3
ζz = , value is
ρ s rz Bz
in vertical Z
C z = 2ζ z K z m direction.
2) Horizontal
Bx =
(7 − 8υ)mg ζx =
0.288
,
This damping
32(1 − υ )ρ s rx 3 Bx value is in lateral
X or Y direction
C x = 2ζ x K x m
3) Rocking 0.375(1 − υ)J φx g 0.15 This damping
Bφx = ζ φx = ,
ρ s r φx 5 (1 + Bφx ) Bφx value is for
rocking about Y
C φx = 2ζ φx K φx J φx direction
Rocking 0.375(1 − υ)J φy g 0.15 This damping
Bφy = ζ φy = ,
ρ s rφy 5 (1 + Bφy ) Bφy value is for
rocking about Y
C φy = 2ζ φy K φy J φy axes
4) Twisting J ψg 0.5 This damping
Bψ = ζψ = , value is valid for
ρ s rψ 5 1 + 2B ψ
twisting about
C ψ = 2ζ ψ K ψ J ψ vertical Z axis.
Table-A3. Embedment Coefficients for Spring Constants as per Whitman (1972).

Sl No Direction Coefficient Equivalent Radius Remarks

1) Vertical h LB This is in vertical Z
η z = 1 + 0.6(1 − υ) rz = direction
rz π
2) Horizontal h LB This induce sliding in
η x = 1 + 0.55(2 − υ) rx =
rx horizontal x or y
π
direction
3) Rocking h This produces rocking
ηφx = 1 + 1.2(1 − υ) LB3
rφx rφx = 4 about Y axis
3π
3
⎛ h ⎞
+ 0.2(2 − υ)⎜ ⎟
⎜ rφx ⎟
⎝ ⎠
3.1) Rocking h This produces rocking
ηφy = 1 + 1.2(1 − υ) L3B
rφy rφy = 4 about X axes
3π
3
⎛ h ⎞
+ 0.2(2 − υ)⎜ ⎟
⎜ rφy ⎟
⎝ ⎠
4) Twisting None available T

Table-A4. Embedment Coefficients for Soil damping ratio Whitman (1972)

Sl No Direction Coefficient Equivalent Radius Remarks

1) Vertical
1 + 1.9(1 − υ)
h LB η z is value as
rz rz =
αz = π obtained as
ηz coefficient for
soil spring
constant
2) Horizontal
1 + 1.9(2 − υ)
h LB η x is value as
rx rx =
αz = π obtained as
ηx coefficient for
soil spring
constant
3) Rocking
h ⎛ h ⎞
3
LB3 ηφx is value as
1 + 0.7(1 − υ) + 0.6(2 − υ)⎜ ⎟ rφx = 4
rφx ⎜ rφx ⎟ 3π obtained as
α φx = ⎝ ⎠
ηφx coefficient for
soil spring
constant
3.1) Rocking
h ⎛ h ⎞
3
L3B ηφy is value as
1 + 0.7(1 − υ) + 0.6(2 − υ)⎜ ⎟ rφy = 4
rφy ⎜ rφy ⎟ obtained as
⎝ ⎠ 3π
α φy =
ηφy coefficient for
soil spring
constant
4) Twisting None available
Table- A5. Soil spring constants as per Wolf (1988).

Mode Spring Stiffness γ0 µ0

Vertical 4Gr0 0.58 0.095
1− υ
Horizontal 8Gr0 0.85 0.27
1− υ
Rocking 8Grθ 3 0.3 0.24
3(1 − υ) 3(1 − υ )m
1+
8rθ 5ρ
Torsion 16Grψ 3 ⎛ m ⎞ 0.045
0.433 ⎜ ⎟
3 2m ⎜ r 5ρ ⎟
1+ 5 ⎝ ψ ⎠
rψ ρ

2
r ⎛ r ⎞
In which, C = kγ 0 and m = ⎜ ⎟ kµ0
Vs ⎝ Vs ⎠
where r= equivalent radius and shall be r0 , rθ , rψ as the case may be; G= Dynamic shear modulus of the
soil; ρ = mass density of the soil; vs= shear wave velocity of the soil; m= mass of the soil participating in
the vibration with the machine and the block foundation, and C= damping of the soil.