This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
NOTE / NOTE
Vibration barriers for shock-producing equipment
M. Hesham El Naggar and Abdul Ghafar Chehab
Abstract: Most modern manufacturing facilities have hammers or presses in addition to precision cutting equipment as their production machinery. Foundations supporting hammers and presses experience powerful dynamic effects. These effects may extend to the surroundings and affect labourers, other sensitive machines within the same facility, or neighbouring residential areas. To control vibration problems, wave barriers may be constructed to isolate vibrations propagating to the surroundings. This paper examines the efficiency of both soft and stiff barriers in screening pulse-induced waves for foundations resting on an elastic half-space or a layer of limited thickness underlain by rigid bedrock. The effectiveness of concrete, gas-cushion, and bentonite trenches as wave barriers is examined for different cases of soil layer depth, trench location, and embedment of the foundation. The model was formulated using the finite element method, and the analysis was performed in the time domain. The efficiency of different types of wave barriers in vibration isolation for shock-producing equipment was assessed and some guidelines for their use are outlined. Key words: hammer foundation, impact load, gas-cushion trenches, concrete trenches, soil–bentonite trench, finite element modeling. Résumé : La plupart des équipements modernes de manufactures comprennent des marteaux ou des presses en plus d’installations de coupe de précision dans leur machinerie de production. Les fondations qui supportent les marteaux et les presses subissent de puissants effets diynamiques. Ces effets peuvent se faire sentir dans les environs et affecter les travailleurs, ou d’autres appareils sensibles à l’intérieur du même complexe, ou les aires résidentielles environnantes. Pour contrôler les problèmes de vibrations, des écrans contre les ondes peuvent être construits pour isoler les ondes qui peuvent se propager dans les environs. Cet article examine l’efficacité des écrans souples ou rigides pour tamiser les ondes induites par pulsations dans les fondations reposant sur un demi espace élastique ou sur une couche d’épaisseur limitée reposant sur un lit rocheux rigide. On a examiné l’efficacité du béton, d’un coussin de gaz, et de tranchées de bentonite comme écrans d’ondes pour différents cas de profondeurs de couches de sol, de localisation des tranchées, et d’enfouissements de la fondation. La formulation du modèle a été faite par la méthode d’éléments finis et l’analyse a été réalisée dans une plage temporelle. L’efficacité de différents types d’écrans d’ondes pour isoler des vibrations les équipements produisant des chocs a été évaluée et des règles ont été énoncées pour leur utilisation. Mots clés : fondation de marteaux, charge d’impact, tranchées de coussins de gaz, tranchées de béton, tranchée de sol-bentonite, modélisation par éléments finis. [Traduit par la Rédaction] El Naggar and Chehab 306
Large hammers, presses, and mills produce excessive vibrations that travel long distances through the soil. In many cases, a manufacturing facility would include a hammer or press and a vibration-sensitive piece of equipment (e.g., lathe) housed in the same building. The vibration emanating from the hammer foundation may affect the performance of the sensitive equipment, which leads to defective production
Received 28 February 2003. Accepted 1 June 2004. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on 1 March 2005. M.H. El Naggar and A.G. Chehab. Geotechnical Research Centre, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada.
Corresponding author (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
and substantial financial losses. In other cases, the vibrations due to a hammer operation could annoy neighbouring residential areas, which may dictate reduced working hours or, in the case of severe vibrations, a complete shut down of the facility. Wave barriers are used to isolate ground-borne vibrations and in practice include soft barriers (e.g., open trenches or trenches filled with bentonite slurry) and stiff barriers (e.g., sheet piling or concrete walls). Massarsch (1991) introduced an innovative gas-cushion screen installed in a deep trench, which is then filled with a self-hardening cement–bentonite grout. He conducted field tests and numerical analyses to examine the effectiveness of gas cushions and open trenches in vibration isolation and concluded that their performance is comparable. Many experimental and analytical studies have examined using wave barriers to minimize vibrations emanating from centrifugal and reciprocating machines, which are character© 2005 NRC Canada
Can. Geotech. J. 42: 297–306 (2005)
a circular wave front rather than a spherical one). consequently. 1. Woods (1968) performed field tests to investigate vibration isolation using open trenches close to the vibration source. Geotech. due to the passage of trains. high-frequency but low-amplitude excitations. i. Waas (1972) used a frequencydomain finite element method to study the screening of horizontal shear waves using trenches. This assumption may overestimate the efficiency of the trench because it neglects waves traveling around the sides of the trench. Thus. infilled trench (concrete or soil–bentonite mixture) are considered. Assumptions and justification The analysis considers 2D plane-strain conditions. and material damping ratio tan δ t . using a finite element model with infinite elements at the boundaries to allow for wave radiation. b = d/10. location. There has been very limited effort dedicated to evaluating the performance of wave barriers in situations involving transient loading and almost none for pulse loading from shock-producing equipment. gas cushions). Most studies considered vibrations in a homogeneous half-space. except for vibrations with large wavelengths where deep barriers are needed and. 1986b) employed the boundary element method in the frequency domain to study vibration screening using open and infilled trenches. Vol. however. soil medium. Ahmad and Al-Hussaini (1991) and Al-Hussaini and Ahmed (1991) used the boundary element method to perform a parametric study on the efficiency of open and infilled trenches in isolating harmonic vibrations. where Rayleigh waves dominate. Dasgupta et al. The objective of this study is to examine the efficiency of both soft and stiff barriers in screening pulse-induced waves for foundations resting on an elastic half-space or a layer of limited thickness underlain by rigid bedrock.e. Beskos at al. A wave barrier with vertical walls. The soil is assumed to be linear isotropic and viscoelastic. The foundation width is w and its embedment depth is l. especially for passive isolation. May and Bolt (1982) used a 2D finite element model to study the effectiveness of vibration screening using single and twin open trenches in a two-layered soil medium. They examined the efficiency of the barriers for a range of load frequencies and concluded that all the trenches investigated are not suitable for low frequencies. The open trench (i. This assumption overestimates the wave propagation in the directions considered and thus may underestimate the efficiency of the trench. (1986. and far from the vibration sources. 2000). density ρs. the material comprising the barrier. short-duration (pulse) load similar to that resulting from the normal operation of a hammer. The trench width is taken as one tenth of the trench depth. Fuyuki and Matsumoto (1980) used a finite difference method to investigate Rayleigh-wave scattering by rectangular open trenches and demonstrated the effect of width for shallow open trenches. Poisson’s ratio νs. density ρt . J. that the 2D plane-strain assumption is sufficiently accurate for wave barrier analysis. Poisson’s ratio as 0. therefore only one half of the actual model is considered in the analysis. Based on the experimental results. pile barriers are more practical. where the body waves are dominant. and material damping δ s.e. Yang and Hung (1997) investigated the effectiveness of open and infilled trenches in isolating ground-borne vibrations. Haupt (1978) employed the finite element method to investigate the effect of the size and shape on the trench efficiency in vibration isolation and verified the results using model experiments. density as 2400 kg/m3. The foundation. the plane-strain approach considers only 2D wave propagation. Poisson’s ratio as 0. They found that the barriers are more effective in isolating the vertical component of the motion than the horizontal component. The problem is symmetrical. soil layer thickness. Aboudi (1973) employed the finite difference method to evaluate the effect of a thin barrier on the ground response. Moreover. Unless otherwise specified. one vertical and one horizontal direction. width. and depth d is constructed at a distance Xt from the foundation edge.. and trench location.to high-frequency load source.298 Can. with a significant low-frequency content. and wave barriers are modeled using 2D finite elements in the time domain employing the computer program ANSYS 5. Poisson’s ratio νt . They studied the effect of depth. depth. and the soil properties on vibration isolation effectiveness. Segol et al. and material within the trench and proposed a simplified design procedure for infilled and open trenches. (1999a. Two-dimensional finite element plane-strain models were built and transient (time domain) analyses were performed considering different values of foundation embedment.e.. Al-Hussaini and Ahmed (1996) stated.25.3. Al-Hussaini and Ahmed (1996) used a threedimensional boundary element algorithm to investigate vibration reduction by installing infilled walls around a moderate. the shear wave velocity of the soil is taken as 150 m/s. finite element model with nonreflecting boundaries to study vibration screening by open and infilled trenches in layered soils. 1988) used three-dimensional boundary element models to investigate the screening effectiveness of open trenches.03. The concrete shear wave velocity is taken as 2041 m/s. They outlined the effect of the footing (load source) radius. (1985. plane-strain. Poisson’s ratio as 0.02. The applied load is a transient. plastic © 2005 NRC Canada . The soil layer has a uniform shear wave velocity of Vs. trench material. and material damping as 0. as shown in Fig.3. (1978) used a two-dimensional (2D). A few studies examined vibration barriers in layered soil profiles. which further compensates for the effects.02. and neglects the other horizontal direction (i. Woods established design guidelines that can achieve a reduction in ground vibration amplitudes by up to 75%. and width. 1999b) compared the effectiveness of open and infilled trenches and pile barriers (concrete and hollow piles) in screening vertical vibrations using a boundary element model in the frequency domain. 42. 1986a. Ground-borne vibrations originating from traffic activities are transient. density as 1800 kg/m3. and material damping 0.7 (ANSYS Inc. It was found that trenches are more effective than pile barriers. The soil–bentonite shear wave velocity is taken as 30 m/s.. Kattis et al. density as 1500 kg/m3. Problem definition A hammer foundation is founded on a soil layer of a limited thickness underlain by a hard stratum at a depth D. The properties of the material within the trench are as follows: shear wave velocity Vt. 2005 ized by periodic. and material damping as 0. width b.
It is also assumed that full contact exists between the foundation block and the soil and between the soil and the trench material. are neglected. 3. and therefore the shear wavelength would be about 19 m and the Rayleigh wavelength would be about 18 m.5 m (λ r /6) is used for elements adjacent to the foundation. The aspect ratio is kept below 2 for all the elements. which is a common assumption in soil dynamics. The impact load of a hammer is © 2005 NRC Canada . Foundation model The hammer foundation block is modeled using frame elements. and the soil is not considered. at the corners and mid-edges. The soil and trench elements are connected (i. if any. The shortest vibration period is about 0. Thus. To en- sure accuracy. which is a function of the thickness of the soil layer. Two-dimensional plane-strain finite elements are used to represent the soil–trench system. A hammer foundation block is usually rigid and moves as one rigid body. plastic deformations are not expected). Lastly. The vibration away from the load source depends mainly on the natural period of the soil layer.3 m. however. and abrupt change in the element size is avoided. and the highest vibration frequency would occur in the vicinity of the foundation and would be 50 Hz.01 s. The maximum allowable element size in this case is 2. Finite element model Figure 2 shows the finite element model used in the analysis. Wave barrier used for vibration isolation. which is maintained everywhere in the model. such that the foundation soil remains in the elastic range (i. no slippage or separation allowed) to ensure displacement compatibility at the nodes and thus along the soil–trench interaction boundaries. an element size of 0. The pulse duration is 0. the element size was kept at less than one eighth to one fifth the shortest possible Raleigh wavelength λ r (Kramer 1996). Modeling soil and trench The soil medium is modeled using six-noded triangular elements. 1. only the dynamic response to the impact load is considered. The soil properties are considered to be uniform throughout the depth of the layer. Hammer foundations are always designed. The soil shear wave velocity considered in the analysis is 150 m/s.13 s. however. The effective node spacing (note that the triangular elements have mid-edge nodes) in this case is less than one sixth of the wavelength. the foundation.e. 299 deformations and soil yielding at the load source. the shortest wavelength was calculated to be 3 m. The hard stratum (the base of the model) is considered to be very rigid compared to the soil layer. The triangular element has six nodes. Therefore.. This means the static response due to the weight of the machine. This assumption is justified for the level of deformations allowed in machine foundations. The vibration frequency depends on the natural period of the soil. with two degrees of freedom in the x and y directions at each node.El Naggar and Chehab Fig..e. The 2D frame element has two nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node: translations along x and y directions and rotation about z (in-plane rotation within the x–y plane). as shown in Fig.
J. Model base The hard stratum underlying the soil layer could be bedrock. A hard stratum that is much stiffer than the overlying soil would practically reflect all incident waves. hard clay till. or very dense sand. assuming full contact along the foundation–soil interface. 2. 2005 Fig. Boundary conditions Left boundary Symmetry boundary conditions are applied along the axis of symmetry by restraining the displacement in the x direction as shown in Fig. Therefore. 2. transient load applied to the foundation due to the hammer operation. P(t). Finite element model of the problem. © 2005 NRC Canada . Thus. Therefore applying the symmetry assumption is conservative. 2) to ensure that the foundation moves in the vertical direction only as a rigid body.300 Can. This symmetric condition implies that there is another trench on the other side. 2. Vol. The frame elements are glued to the soil elements at the nodes. reducing the calculated efficiency of the trench under consideration. it is reasonable to assume that this stratum represents a rigid boundary and the base of the model is assumed to be fixed as shown in Fig. Geotech. very high stiffness is assigned to the frame elements and the first frame element is restrained against horizontal displacement and rotation (as shown in detail A in Fig. Therefore. which may reflect back some vibrations. usually concentric (eccentricity is not allowed). 42. the foundation displacement is vertical (similar to the load).
consistent boundaries can be used. i. νs. [1a] by the tributary area for that node. 301 stants of the spring and the dashpot (stiffness and damping) are calculated using the solution of Novak and Mitwally (1988). by the area of the element (normal to the direction of wave propagation). It was conceived that this distance approximately represents the corresponding radial distance in a cylindrical model as assumed by Novak and Mitwally (1988). Consistent boundaries are not suitable for time-domain analysis. and the duration of excitation (Wolf 1985).El Naggar and Chehab Fig. νs. the frequency range of interest. they can be placed directly on the soil–structure interface. the soil Poisson’s ratio νs. © 2005 NRC Canada . δ s) + iSr 2(a o. the displacements in the x and y directions. [2a] Kr = Gs [ Sr1(a o. νs. Transmitting boundaries are used in the current study. νs. Sy1. Therefore. being symmetrical in geometry and loading. and Sy2 are dimensionless parameters that depend on the dimensionless frequency a o = roω / Vs (where ω is the excitation frequency). all degrees of freedom on the boundaries are coupled and the force–displacement relationship is frequency dependent (Wolf 1985). respectively. ro is taken as the distance (in plan) from the centre of the footing to the node on the boundary where the Kelvin model is attached. The Kelvin element consists of a linear spring and a dashpot arranged in parallel as illustrated in Fig. the damping constant of the dashpot applied normal to the wave propagation direction is obtained from eq.e. Kelvin element used for the model boundary. [2a] and [2b]. Properly designed consistent boundaries can perfectly absorb all incident waves. 4. [3a] [3b] k = GS1/ro c = GS2/ωro where Vp and Vs are the compression and shear wave velocities. In the present model. The stiffness and damping per unit area are calculated as the real and imaginary parts of eqs. for waves traveling normal to the edge of the elements at the boundary. is obtained by multiplying the damping constant given by eq.e. the wave velocity. 2. In this case. δ s)] ro for the radial direction Right boundary The infinite extension of the soil (in the x direction) is represented in dynamic problems using boundary conditions that allow for wave propagation by preventing reflection of waves back into the model (box effect). and Sr1. Sr2. respectively. Gs is the soil shear modulus. i. applied at a specific boundary node parallel to the wave propagation direction. Two-dimensional six-noded triangular element used in the finite element mesh. 4. Different types of boundaries can be used to model the soil continuity. one in the vertical direction and one in the horizontal direction. Therefore. is attached to each boundary node. and damping tan δs. because they are frequency dependent. respectively. To represent the stiffness of the soil at the boundary. they can be applied very close to the load source and. The time history of the vertical vibration at prespecified representative surface nodes is obtained. ro is the distance from the source of the disturbance to the finite element boundary. Similarly. The location of the artificial boundary depends on the level of the material damping of the soil. A pair of Kelvin elements. Wolf and Song (1996) proposed local boundaries represented by dashpots whose damping constant per unit area (c) is calculated as [1a] [1b] cn = ρVp ct = ρVs (normal direction) (tangential direction) [2b] Ky = Gs [ S y1(a o. however. which is representative of hammer loading. The con- The constants of the spring and dashpot of the Kelvin element are obtained by multiplying k and c. δ s) + iS y 2(a o. the damping constant of the dashpot.. v. respectively. The constants k and c can be considered frequency independent (El Naggar and Bentley 2000). Fig. if the structure response is the only concern. Linear dynamic full transient analyses are performed to calculate the response of the model (with and without the trench) to the applied load. δ s)] ro for the vertical direction where Kr and Ky are the complex stiffnesses in the radial and vertical directions. 3. The load is considered to be a rectangular pulse with amplitude of P = 2 MN and duration tp of 10 ms.. u. [1b]. Applied load and analysis A concentric short pulse load was applied at the centre of the foundation as shown in detail A in Fig.
The results from these cases were identical and are similar to results of wave barriers in a half-space because the time required for the wave to travel from the source of the disturbance to the bottom of the model (the rigid boundary) and back to the surface is much greater than the duration of the load pulse. Figure 5 shows a reasonable agreement between the current analysis and the boundary element solutions. The same procedure was repeated for different trench location. and trench material.. Figure 6c shows that the wave barrier reduced the vibration amplitudes by 50% or more (up to 90% right behind the trench) for all barrier locations but is most efficient (up to 80% vibration © 2005 NRC Canada .0. 6c. but no significant reduction is obtained away from the trench. the trench depth d = 6 m and the foundation half-width w/2 = 3 m. 42.5 or 2. Comparative study for vibration screening of an open trench. 5. The vibration amplitudes for different nodes were tabulated for the with-trench and without-trench cases.0. the case of a layer with large thickness is not pursued any further. Can. the vibration reduction is about 50% within a distance d behind the barrier and there is no vibration magnification in the immediate vicinity of the foundation (the vibration magnification is confined to a distance 0. Geotech. in front of and behind the trench. The trench is one Rayleigh wavelength (λ r ) deep and is located at a distance of five times the Rayleigh wavelength from the applied harmonic load. The results for the case D = 5. The time histories were obtained of the vertical displacement for several nodes at different locations x on the soil surface. a wave barrier located at a distance Xt/d = 0. As a matter of fact.5d are shown in Fig. Therefore. embedment depth of the foundation. J. where the vibration reduction is less than 20% behind the wave barrier. thickness of the soil layer. thus verifying the model. Figure 6b shows that for the case of D = 2. Unless otherwise specified. The cases where the layer depth is 20 and 10 times the trench depth were considered.302 Fig.e. For a barrier with Xt/d = 1. In this case. the wave barrier is ineffective regardless of the location of the barrier from the edge of the foundation. some vibration amplification was observed at nodes immediately in front of the barrier (due to wave reflection and standing wave phenomena). A similar observation was made by Yang and Hung (1997) in their study of train-induced vibrations. Vol. a finer mesh was used and similar results were obtained.0d. and the results are compared with those obtained by Ahmad and Al-Hussaini (1991) and Beskos et al. The results for D = 1.5 can reduce the vibration behind the barrier by 50% or more but will increase the vibration in front of the barrier by up to 60%. from the foundation edge. normalized by d. The reflected wave is attenuated (i. substantially reduced amplitude) and arrives at the ground surface much later after the original pulse has expired. The with-trench amplitudes were normalized by the amplitudes of the without-trench case and were plotted as a vibration-reduction factor versus the distance. It was found that no benefit is realized by using any type of wave barrier in these cases. Figure 6 shows the vibration reduction ratios using a gas cushion (modeled as empty trench) wave barrier for vibration isolation of a foundation sitting on the surface of a soil layer with varying thickness. The geometric parameters are normalized by the trench depth.5d in front of the barrier and is less than 30%).0d are shown in Fig. 6b. (1986a) for an open trench. For a barrier with Xt/d = 1. 2005 Model verification To check the sensitivity to the element size in the model. the vibration is reduced by up to 80% in the immediate vicinity of the barrier. the geometric parameters and the results are presented in a dimensionless form. whereas there is some vibration magnification observed in front of the barrier. Results and discussion For the sake of generalization. The maximum vibration amplitude was found from each time history. The model is verified by analyzing the response to a harmonic excitation.
(c) layer depth 1. however. however. Figure 7 shows the vibration reduction ratios using soil– bentonite trenches for vibration isolation of a surface foundation in a soil layer with varying thickness. 303 reduction) when it is located at a distance Xt/d = 0.5.5d. It can be concluded that concrete trenches can be © 2005 NRC Canada . 6. it can be noted that the performance of soil– bentonite trenches is comparable to that of empty trenches. although it causes 65% vibration amplification in front of the trench. A gas-cushion trench at a distance Xt = 0. no vibration amplification occurs in front of the trench. especially if they are located at a distance Xt/d of from 0.0. Based on these observations.5d behind the trench). (b) layer depth 2. because the concrete can transmit a significant part of the incident waves.0d. with distance behind the trench. Figure 8 shows the vibration reduction ratios using concrete-infilled trenches for vibration isolation of a surface foundation in a soil layer with varying thickness. The vibration reduction behind the trench and the vibration magnification in front of the trench.5 to 1. can only be implemented for situations with embedded footings such that the bottom of the trench is no deeper than Xt below the base of the footing. however. in general. On the other hand. 6 and 7. it can be concluded that gas cushions (or empty trenches) can be used as effective wave barriers if their depth is more than one half the thickness of the soil layer. The figure shows that the concrete trench reduces the vibration amplitudes in the vicinity of the trench (within 0. Comparing Figs. Effect of layer depth on the isolation efficiency of a gas-cushion trench (surface foundation): (a) layer depth 5.0d.5d. are slightly less than those of the empty trench. Its effect deteriorates quickly.El Naggar and Chehab Fig.
(b) layer depth 2. Geotech. The following conclusions are drawn: (1) Wave barriers are not effective for vibration isolation for hammer foundations founded on half-space soil. The transient load applied in the analysis is similar to pulses produced by hammers and presses during their normal operations. provided that the contact between the soil and the foundation is maintained. (c) layer depth 1. The efficiency of the wave barrier is evaluated in terms of the ratio of the vibration amplitudes with and without the wave barrier. Two-dimensional finite element models are used to analyze the problem in the time domain employing the computer program ANSYS 5. 7. and l = d/2) were considered for all trench types investigated in this study. Effect of layer depth on the isolation efficiency of a soil–bentonite trench (surface foundation): (a) layer depth 5.0d. Conclusions The efficiency of both soft and stiff barriers in screening pulse-induced waves for foundations resting on an elastic half-space or a layer of limited thickness underlain by rigid bedrock is examined. i. and fairly similar results were obtained. used to minimize the vibration experienced by other foundations (receiver) if they are located within 0. 2005 Fig. the effectiveness increases as the ratio of the trench depth to the wavelength increases.5d.e.5d behind the trench (passive isolation). Other foundation embedment depths (l = d/6. 42. This indicates that the effect of the embedment depth on the performance of the trench is insignificant.0d.7. © 2005 NRC Canada .304 Can. Vol. (2) The effectiveness of the wave barrier increases as the trench depth increases relative to the thickness of the soil layer. J. l = d/3..
References Aboudi. Al-Hussaini. ASCE. T. and Al-Hussaini. and Ahmad. 1973.5d. Simplified design for vibration screening by open and infilled trenches. can only be implemented for situations with embedded footings such that the bottom of the trench is no deeper than Xt below the base of the footing. J. Ahmad. Elastic waves in half-space with this barrier. T. 99(1): 69– 83. Effect of layer depth on the isolation efficiency of a concrete trench (surface foundation): (a) layer depth 5. empty trenches. (4) Soft wave barriers are more effective in vibration isolation if their depth is more than one half the thickness of the soil layer..5–1.0d. S. ASCE. A trench at a distance Xt = 0. 117(1): 67–88. 1991.M. however. S. (c) layer depth 1. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division.5d. (3) Soft wave barriers (gas cushions.El Naggar and Chehab 305 Fig.M. (5) Stiff barriers can be used to minimize the vibration experienced by other foundations (receiver) housed in the same building as the vibration source if the receiver is located within a distance behind the barrier equal to half its depth (passive isolation).0d. especially if they are located at a distance of 0. (b) layer depth 2. 8. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geo© 2005 NRC Canada .0 times their depth (d) from the edge of the foundation. 1991. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. or soil–bentonite trenches) are more effective than stiff wave barriers (concrete-infilled trenches).. Simple design methods for vibration isolation by wave barriers.
1978. and Beskos.A. 1493–1499.H. 1991. Edited by C. Dasgupta.G.W. Polyzos.P. In Dynamical methods in soil and rock mechanics. ASCE. 1988. Balkema. Edited by R. Gazetas and E. Louis. 1986. and Hung. G. D. User’s manual for ANSYS 5.. Y.. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 1996. 5. Vol. Englewood Cliffs. University of Missouri at Rolla. ASCE..E. 1(1): 43–63. Vibration isolation of machine foundations. ANSYS Inc.. ASCE. Dynamic soil–structure interaction. J. Rotterdam. D.306 technical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics.. In Innovative numerical methods in engineering. pp. H. Modelling of pile barriers by effective trenches and their screening effectiveness.. Geotech. S.G. I.E. D. Springer-Verlag. R. Dasgupta. In Proceedings of the 10th Boundary Element Conference. Wolf. and Mitwally. and Vardoulakis. 1980. 1988. The effectiveness of trenches in reducing seismic motion. 1999b. 10(2): 195–210. A parametric study of wave barriers for reduction of train-induced vibration. University of Missouri at Rolla. Woods. Prange.C. G. 2005 Kattis. Can. 2000. 138–151. I..J. M. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. Computational Mechanics.. 1972. Ph. 46: 713–728. Polyzos. Calif. In Vibration problems in geotechnical engineering. M. 18(1): 1–10. and Vardoulakis. and Vardoulakis. Karabolis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons. 1986b. In Recent applications in computational mechanics.. 125–140. 385–392.-B.. Edited by G.. Waas. Brebbia. Berkeley. G. Amplitude reduction of surface waves by trenches. Dasgupta. Berlin..E.T.E. Yang. thesis. University of California at Berkeley.A. G.L. T. K. St. Al-Hussaini. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. D. Massarsch. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. pp. 385–392. and Vardoulakis. 335– 367. Vibration isolation of structures from surface waves in layered soil. Germany. Leung. D. Vol. Ground vibration isolation using gas cushions. Rolla. K. 2000. © 2005 NRC Canada . Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. J. B. 1982. Dynamic analysis of laterally loaded piles and dynamic p–y curves.E. G. May. 1978. D. pp.. Selig. Screening of surface waves in soil. D. Beskos.P.R. New York.D. 94(SM4): 951–979. Beskos. Finite element modeling of unbounded media. Linear two-dimensional analysis of soil dynamics problems in semi-infinite layered media. 1985.. D. S.. 1999a. Dasgupta. Finite difference analysis of Rayleigh wave scattering at a trench. 11–15 March 1991. 3-D vibration isolation using open trenches. T. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 1968.. Wolf. PrenticeHall Inc. Active isolation of machine foundation by in-filled trench barriers.P.L. Mo.. pp.. 40: 3729–3747. 1985. Y. 4. Transmitting boundary for axisymmetric dilation problems. Surface waves in non-homogeneous halfspace.. A.. Segol..Y.-H. H. I. P. S. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. Kattis. and Song. Mo. Prentice-Hall Inc. Edited by B.D. Mo.R. Shaw. Louis. W. 1997.. Vibration isolation using open or infilled trenches. K. pp.J.G. 1996. D.. Mo. ASCE.J.G. 1461–1470.M.E..G. J. Beskos. ASCE.. pp. ASCE. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. 37: 1166–1183. pp. El Naggar. Pa. 143–180. I. J. and Beskos. Lee. 104(3): 621–641. Springer-Verlag. S. and Ahmed. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. and Vardoulakis. Edited by D.. N. Beskos. Chapt. 122(4): 288–294. and Matsumoto. Novak.7. The Netherlands. 11–15 March 1991. C. 1996.A. Rolla.E. Kramer.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Englewood Cliffs. Fuyuki. New York. 42.A. Part 1: 2-D homogeneous soil. 114(1): 181–187.E. G. pp. ANSYS Inc. Haupt. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. and Bolt. I. St. and Bentley. New York. Canonsburg. 1986a. Germany. 70: 2051–2069. Beskos. 3-D analysis of vibration isolation using of machine foundations. Vibration isolation by a row of piles using a 3-D frequency domain BEM.. M. Berlin.L.E. N. and Abel.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.