Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Foundations For Vibrating Machines: Shamsher Prakash Vijay K. Puri
Foundations For Vibrating Machines: Shamsher Prakash Vijay K. Puri
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
l
a
s
t
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
a
r
e
g
i
v
e
n
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
4
.
T
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
l
a
s
t
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
a
r
e
g
i
v
e
n
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
4
.
r
o
a
n
d
h
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
r
a
d
i
u
s
a
n
d
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
e
m
b
e
d
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
r
a
t
i
o
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
p
r
i
n
g
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
23
M
o
d
e
o
f
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
S
l
i
d
i
n
g
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
o
r
Y
a
w
i
n
g
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
24
Table4. Values of elastic half-space and side layer parameters for embedded foundations
(Beredugo and Novak 1972, Novak and Beredugo 1972, Novak and Sachs 1973)
Mode of
vibration
Poissons
ratio v
Elastic half-space
Side layer
Frequency-
independent
constant
parameter
Validity range
Frequency-
independent
constant
parameter
Validity range
Vertical 0.0
0.25
0.5
90 . 3
1
C
50 . 3
2
C
20 . 5
1
C
00 . 5
2
C
50 . 7
1
C
80 . 6
2
C
5 . 1 0
0
a
(for all values
of v)
70 . 2
1
S
7 . 6
2
S
(for all
values of v)
5 . 1 0
0
a
(for all values
of v)
Sliding 0
0.25
0.4
0.5
30 . 4
1 x
C
70 . 2
2 x
C
10 . 5
1 x
C
43 . 0
2 x
C
0 . 2 0
0
a
0 . 2 0
0
a
60 . 3
1 x
S
20 . 8
2 x
S
00 . 4
1 x
S
10 . 9
2 x
S
10 . 4
1 x
S
60 . 10
2 x
S
5 . 1 0
0
a
0 . 2 0
0
a
5 . 1 0
0
a
0 . 2 0
0
a
5 . 1 0
0
a
Rocking 0
50 . 2
1
C
43 . 0
2
C
0 . 1 0
0
a 50 . 2
1
S
80 . 1
2
S
(for any
value of v)
5 . 1 0
0
a
Torsional
or yawing
Any value
3 . 4
1
C
7 . 0
2
C
0 . 2 0
0
a 4 . 12
1
S
2 . 10
1
S
0 . 2
2
S
4 . 5
2
S
0 . 2 0
0
a
0 . 2 2 . 0
0
a
0 . 2 0
0
a
0 . 2 2 . 0
0
a
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
25
Table5 Computation of response of an embedded foundation by elastic half-space method
for coupled rocking and sliding (Beredugo and Novak 1972)
Item
Equation
Stiffness in
sliding 1 1 x
o
s
x o xe
S
r
h
G
G
C Gr k
Stiffness in
rocking
1
2 2
2
2
2
1 1
2
1
3
3
x
o o o o
s
o
s
x
o
o e
S
r
hL
r
L
r
h
r
h
G
G
S
r
h
G
G
C
r
L
C Gr k
Cross-
coupling
stiffness
1 1
2
x
o
s
x o e x
S
h
L
r
h
G
G
C L Gr k
Damping
constant in
sliding
2 2
2
x
s s
o
x o xe
S
G
G
r
h
C Gr c
Damping
constant in
rocking
2
2 2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
4
3
x
o o o
s s
o o
x
o
o e
S
r
hL
r
L
r
h
S
G
G
r
h
r
h
C
r
L
C Gr c
Cross-
coupling
damping
2 2
2
2
x
s s
o
x o e x
S
h
L
G
G
r
h
C L Gr c
Frequency
equation
0
2 2 2
e x n m e n xe
k M k m k
Amplitude in
sliding
(damped)
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
x xe
P A
Amplitude in
rocking
(damped)
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
y e
M A
Various
terms in
equations for
e xe
A and A
e x
x
y
m e
k
P
M
M k
2
1
e x
x
y
e
c
P
M
c
2
e x
y
x
xe
k
M
P
m k
2
1
e x
y
x
xe
c
M
P
c
2
2 2 2 4
1 e x e xe e x e xe xe m e m
k k k c c c k M mk mM
e x e x xe e e xe xe m e
k c k c k c c M mc 2
3
2
The values of parameters
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
, , , , , , , S and S S S C C C C
x x x x
are given in Table 4.
L is the height of the centre of gravity above the base.
The horizontal force
x
P and the moment
y
M act at the centre of gravity of the foundation.
The equations given in this table are used for coupled rocking and sliding of embedded foundations only.
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
26
ry
S = rocking impedance (moment-rotation ratio), for rotational motion about the short
centroidal axis (y) of the foundation basement; and
I
S = torsional impedance (moment-
rotation ratio), for rotational oscillation about the vertical axis (z).
In case of an embedded foundations, horizontal forces along principal axes induce
rotational (in addition to translational) oscillations; hence two more cross-coupling
horizontal-rocking impedances exist
rx y ry x
S and S . They are negligible for surface and
shallow foundations, but their effects may become significant as depth of embedment
increases.
Material and radiation damping are present in all modes of vibration. As a result R
is generally out of phase with U. It has become traditional to introduce complex notation
and to express each of the impedances in the form
c i K S 45
in which both K and C are functions of the frequency . The real component, K is the
dynamic stiffness, and reflects the stiffness and inertia of the supporting soil. Its
dependence on frequency is attributed solely to the influence that frequency exerts on
inertia, since soil properties are practically frequency independent. The imaginary
component, C, is the product of the (circular) frequency times the dashpot
coefficient, C. C is the radiation and material damping generated in the system (due to
energy carried by waves spreading away from the foundation and energy dissipated in the
soil by hysteric action, respectively).
Equation 45 suggests that for each mode of oscillation an analogy can be made
between the actual foundation-soil system and the system thats consists of the same
foundation, but is supported on a spring and dashpot with characteristic moduli equal
to C and K , respectively.
Gazettas (1991a, b) presented a set of tables and figures for determination of
dynamic stiffness and damping for various modes of vibration of a rigid foundation as
shown in Tables 6 and 7 and Figs. 11 and 12.
Table 6 and Fig 11 contain the dynamic stiffness (springs), K K for surface
foundations. Each stiffness is expressed as a product of the static stiffness, K, times the
dynamic stiffness coefficient k k .
k K K . 46
Table 7 and Fig. 12 similarly give the information for an embedded foundation. Tables 6
and 7 and Figs. 11 and 12 contain the radiation damping (dashpot) coefficients,
C C . These coefficients do not include the soil hysteric damping . To incorporate
such damping, one may simply add the corresponding material dashpot
constant / 2K to the radiation C value.
K
C radiation C total
2
47
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
27
Gazettas (1991a, b) has also illustrated the procedure for calculating the response of the
foundation using the impedance method. The solutions have also been developed for a
rigid footing resting or partly embedded into a stratum (Gazettas, 1991a).
Figure10 Foundations of arbitrary shape (a) surface foundation, (b) embedded
foundation (Gazettas 1991b)
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
28
T
a
b
l
e
6
.
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
a
m
p
i
n
g
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y
s
h
a
p
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
o
f
h
o
m
o
g
e
n
e
o
u
s
h
a
l
f
-
s
p
a
c
e
(
G
a
z
e
t
t
a
s
1
9
9
1
b
)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
c
(
4
)
w
h
e
r
e
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
c
w
h
e
r
e
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
d
w
h
e
r
e
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
e
w
h
e
r
e
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
f
w
h
e
r
e
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
g
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
p
r
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
f
o
o
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
n
y
m
o
d
e
o
f
v
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
n
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
y
i
n
g
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
K
i
n
c
o
l
.
2
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
k
i
n
c
o
l
.
3
.
V
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
K
i
n
c
o
l
.
2
a
n
d
k
i
n
c
o
l
.
3
o
f
t
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
a
r
e
f
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
o
i
l
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
b
y
t
h
e
i
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
n
l
y
.
L
,
B
a
n
d
A
b
a
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
0
.
I
b
x
,
,
I
b
y
a
n
d
I
b
z
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
o
f
t
h
e
b
a
s
e
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
x
,
y
a
n
d
z
-
a
x
i
s
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
i
s
t
h
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
o
f
p
r
o
p
a
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
w
a
v
e
s
.
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
k
(
3
)
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
a
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
.
1
1
b
S
t
a
t
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
,
k
(
2
)
W
i
t
h
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
29
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
(
1
)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
(
z
)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
(
y
)
(
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
(
x
)
(
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
(
r
x
)
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
a
x
i
s
,
x
-
a
x
i
s
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
(
r
x
)
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
,
y
-
a
x
i
s
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
(
t
)
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
30
T
a
b
l
e
7
.
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
d
a
m
p
i
n
g
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
o
f
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y
s
h
a
p
e
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
i
n
h
a
l
f
-
s
p
a
c
e
(
G
a
z
e
t
t
a
s
1
9
9
1
b
)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
(
4
)
W
h
e
r
e
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
m
T
a
b
l
e
4
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
c
h
a
r
t
o
f
F
i
g
.
1
1
w
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
6
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
c
h
a
r
t
o
f
F
i
g
.
1
1
w
h
e
r
e
C
r
y
,
e
m
b
i
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
C
r
y
a
f
t
e
r
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
x
b
y
y
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
B
w
i
t
h
L
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
e
g
o
i
n
g
t
w
o
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
I
n
b
o
t
h
c
a
s
e
s
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
(
3
)
:
F
u
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
:
I
n
a
t
r
e
n
c
h
:
:
F
u
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
L
/
B
=
1
2
:
f
u
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
L
/
B
>
3
:
i
n
a
t
r
e
n
c
h
:
f
r
o
m
t
a
b
l
e
6
A
l
l
v
,
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
:
i
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
c
a
n
b
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
L
/
B
,
D
/
B
a
n
d
d
/
b
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
a
o
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
l
o
t
s
i
n
F
i
g
1
2
T
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
k
r
x
a
n
d
k
r
y
a
r
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
6
S
t
a
t
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
,
(
2
)
W
h
e
r
e
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
4
.
=
a
c
t
u
a
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l
-
s
o
i
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
;
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
,
d
,
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
:
w
h
e
r
e
a
n
d
a
r
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
6
w
h
e
r
e
a
n
d
a
r
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
6
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
31
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
(
1
)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
(
z
)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
(
y
)
a
n
d
(
x
)
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
(
r
x
)
a
n
d
(
r
y
)
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
32
Table 7 continued
w
h
e
r
e
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
6
a
n
d
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
1
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
o
i
l
s
p
r
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
y
m
o
d
e
o
f
v
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
k
e
m
b
i
n
c
o
l
.
2
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
k
e
m
b
i
n
c
o
l
.
3
T
h
e
K
e
m
b
a
n
d
k
e
m
b
g
i
v
e
n
i
n
c
o
l
s
.
2
a
n
d
3
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
n
t
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
a
r
e
f
o
r
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
o
i
l
s
p
r
i
n
g
s
b
y
t
h
e
i
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
n
l
y
.
L
,
B
,
D
,
d
,
A
b
a
n
d
A
w
a
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
0
I
b
x
,
I
b
y
a
n
d
I
b
z
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
o
f
t
h
e
b
a
s
e
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
x
,
y
a
n
d
z
a
x
i
s
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
i
s
t
h
e
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
o
f
p
r
o
p
a
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
w
a
v
e
s
.
w
h
e
r
e
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
6
S
w
a
y
i
n
g
-
r
o
c
k
i
n
g
(
x
-
r
y
)
x
(
y
-
r
x
)
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
(
r
)
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
33
Figure 11. Dimensionless graphs for determining dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients of
surface foundations (accompanying Table6) (Gazettas, 1991b)
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
34
Figure 12. Dimensionless graphs or determining dynamic stiffness coefficients of embedded
foundations (accompanying Table 7) (Gazettas, 1991b)
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
35
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RESPONSE
Very little information is available on comparison of measured response of machine foundations
with theory. Such comparisons will increase the confidence of the designer. Richart and
Whitman (1967) compared model footing test data with calculated values using the spring and
damping obtained from the elastic half-space analog. The computed amplitudes of vertical
vibrations were in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 times the observed values. Prakash and Puri (1981),
however found that somewhat better agreement between computed and observed amplitudes is
possible if the soil properties are selected after accounting for the effect of significant parameters
such as mean effective confining pressure and strain amplitude.. Based on the results of the
small-scale field experiments, Novak (1985) pointed out that the elastic half-space theory
overestimates damping. Variation of soil properties and the presence of a hard stratum also
influence the response of the footing. Adequate geotechnical investigations are necessary before
meaningful comparisons of computed and predicted response can be made (Dobry and Gazettas
1985, Novak 1985).
Prakash and Puri (1981) compared the observed and computed response of a
reciprocating compressor foundation which was undergoing excessive vibrations. The analysis of
the compressor foundation was performed using the linear weightless spring method and also the
elastic half-space analogs using soil properties for the as-designed condition and corresponding
to the observed vibration amplitudes. The computed amplitudes by both the methods were far in
excess of the permissible amplitudes as per manufacturers specifications. The computed natural
frequencies were found to be within about 25% of the observed natural frequencies in horizontal
vibrations. Adequate soil exploration and a realistic determination of soil constants play an
important role in the design of machine foundations.
Dobry et al, (1985) compared the observed response of model footing of different shapes
with predictions made using the method proposed by Dobry and Gazettas (1985) for dynamic
response of arbitrarily shaped foundations. They observed a strong influence of the footing shape
on the stiffness and damping values. Gazettas and Stokoe (1991) compared results of 54 free
vibration tests of model footing embedded to various depths in sand with theory. The model
footing had rectangular, square and circular shapes. They observed that for the case of vertical
vibrations and coupled rocking and sliding vibrations, the theory predicts reasonable values of
damped natural frequencies provided the effective shear modulus is realistically chosen.
Manyando and Prakash (1991) reanalyzed the earlier data on circular footings ( Fry 1963)
considering nonlinearity of soil that is by using the values shear modulus corrected the effect
mean effective confining pressure and shear strain induced in soil by the footing. Their analysis
is essentially based on the concept of elastic-half space analogs with modifications made for
nonlinearity of soil.
The shear strain
z
induced in the soil due to vertical vibrations was defined as
below:
B
A
2
max
48
in which, A
max
= amplitude of vertical vibrations and B= width of the foundation
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
36
Shear strain for torsional vibrations was considered to be equal to the rotational displacement at
the edge of the base of the surface footing divided its radius. The shear strain for coupled
rocking and sliding vibrations was considered as the rotation about the lateral axis of vibration
through the combined center of gravity of the machine foundation system. The response of the
surface footings was then predicted using equations 7,8, 14,15, 22,23,27 and 28 depending on the
appropriate vibration mode and following an iterative procedure to account for the nonlinearity
of soil. The effect of damping was also included in computations.
Typical results comparing the predicted and observed response of foundations for vertical,
torsional and coupled rocking and sliding modes of vibrations are shown in Figs 13,14 and 15
respectively.
Figure 13. Measured and predicted response of vertical vibration for different values of
eccentricity (a) e = 0.105 and (b) e = 0.209 inches, Eglin, base 1-1 ( Manyando & Prakash
1991)
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
37
Figure 14. Measured and predicted response of torsional vibrations for different values of
eccentricity (a) e = 0.105 and (b) e = 0.209 inches, Eglin, base 1-1( Manyando & Prakash 1991)
Figure 15. Measured and predicted response of couples rocking and sliding vibrations for
different values of eccentricity (a) e = 0.105 and (b) e = 0.209 inches, Eglin, base 1-
1( Manyando& Prakash 1991 )
Figure 13 presents a comparison of the measured and computed response for the case of vertical
vibrations . The general trend of the measured and computed response curves in Fig 13 ( a,b) is
similar. The predicted natural frequency of vertical vibration for the foundation under discussion
shows good agreement with the measured natural frequency. Similar trend of data is observed for
the case of torsional (Fig. 14, a and b) and for coupled rocking and sliding (Fig. 15, a and b). The
computed amplitudes in all the cases are within about 20 to 50 % of the measured amplitudes.
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
38
Manyando and Prakash 1991) also investigated the role of geometrical and material damping on
the comparison between measured and computed response. Based on their study it seems that
natural frequencies are reasonably predicted by their model but more work is needed as for as
prediction vibration amplitude is concerned. Prakash and Puri (1981) made a similar observation.
Prakash and Tseng (1998) used frequency dependent stiffness and damping values to determine
the response of vertically vibrating surface and embedded foundations. They compared the
computed response with the reported data of Novak(1970). They observed that the radiation
damping obtained from the elastic half space theory is generally over estimated and suggested
factors for modification radiation damping..
SUMMARY
The methods for determination dynamic response of machine foundations subjected to harmonic
excitation have been presented. Analogs based on the elastic half-space solutions are commonly
used for their simplicity. The soil stiffness is generally considered frequency independent for
design of machine foundations. Observations by several investigators have shown that the elastic
half-space analog generally overestimates radiation damping. The impedance function method is
a recent addition to the approaches available for design of machine foundations. The embedment
of a foundation strongly influences its dynamic response.
REFERENCES:
Baranov, V.A. (1967). On the calculation of excited vibrations of an embedded foundation (in
Russian) Vopr, Dyn. Prochn., 14:195-209
Bakan, D.D.,(1962) Dynamics of Bases and Foundations. McGraw Hill NY
Beredugo, Y.O. (1976). Modal analysis of coupled motion of horizontally excited embedded
footings, Int. J. Earthquake Engg. Struct. Dyn., 4: Q3-410
Beredugo, Y.O. and M. Novak. (1972). Coupled horizontal and rocking vibrations of embedded
footings, an. Geotech. J., 9(4):477-497
Blake, M.P.(1964), New Vibration Standards for Maintenance. Hydrocarbon Processing
Petroleum Refiner, Vol.43 , No.1, pp 111-114.
Dobry, R. and G. Gazettas. (1985). Dynamic stiffness and damping of foundations by simple
methods., Proc. Symp, Vib, Probs, Geotech. Engg., ASCE Annu. Conv., Detroit, pp. 75-
107
Dobry, R., G. Gazettas and K.H. Stokoe, (1985). Dynamic response of arbitrary shaped
foundations: Experimental verification. ACSE, J. Geotech. Engg. Div., 112(2): 126-154
Fry, Z.B.(1963) Development and Evaluatin of Soil Bearing Cpacity, Foundations for
Structures, Field Vibratory Test Data, Technical Research Report #3-632, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Test Report #1, Vicksburg, Mississippi, July
Special Issue, April-May 2006
Of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
SERC, Madras
39
Gazettas, G. (1983). Analysis of machine foundation vibrations, state of art. Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Engg., 2(1):2-42
Gazettas, G. (1991a). Foundation vibrations. In Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2
nd
ed.,
Chap. 15, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork, pp. 553-593
Gazettas, G. (1991b). Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations.
ACSE, J. Geotech. Engg. Div., 117(9):1363-1381
Hall, J.R. (1967). Coupled rocking and sliding oscillations of rigid circular footings. Proc. Int.
Symp. Wave Propag. Dyn. Prop. Earth Matter, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, pp. 139-148
Hsieh, T.K. (1962). Foundation vibrations. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 22:211-226
., M.S. Snow, N. Matasovic, C. Poran and T. Satoh (1994). Non-intrusive Rayleigh wave
Lysmer, L. and F.E. Richart, Jr. (1966). Dynamic response of footing to vertical loading. J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., ACSE, 92(SM-1):65-91 Major, A. (1980). Dynamics in Civil
Engineering, Vol. I-IV, Akademical Kiado, Budapest.
Manyando, George, M.S. and S. Prakash. (1991). On prediction and performance of machine
foundations. 2
nd
Int. Conf. on Recent advances in Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, University of
Missouri-Rolla. Vol. 3, pp. 2223-2232
Novak, M. (1985). Experiments with shallow and deep foundations. Proc.Symp. Vib. Probl.
Geotech. Eng. ACSE, Annu. Conv. Detroit (ACSE New York), pp. 1-26
Novak, M. and Y.O. Beredugo. (1971). Effect of embedment on footing vibrations, Proc. An.
Conf. Earthquake Eng. 1
st
, Vancouver, (Con. Soc. Eq. Engg., Ottawa), pp. 111-125
Novak, M. and Y.O. Beredugo. (1972). Vertical vibration of embedded footings, J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., ACSE, 98(SM-12): 1291-1310
Novak, M. and K. Sachs. (1973). Torsional and coupled vibrations of embedded footing. Int. J.
Earthquake Engg. Struct, Dyn., 2(1): 11-33
Prakash, S. (1981). Soil Dynamics. Mc.Graw-Hill Book Co., New York and SP Foundation,
Rolla, MO
Prakash, S. and V.K. Puri. (1981). Observed and predicted response of a machine foundation.
Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil. Mech. Found. Eng., Stockholm (Sweden), Vol. 3, pp. 269-272,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam
Prakash, S. and V.K. Puri. (1988). Foundations for machines: Analysis and design. John Wiley
and Sons, New York
Prakash, S. and Tseng, Y., (1998), Prediction of Vertically Vibrating Foundation Response
with Modified Radiation Damping, Pro. 4
th
Int. Conf. on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Mo, pp. 630-648.
Richart, F.E., Jr. (1962). Foundation Vibrations. Transactions ASCE, Vol. 127, Part 1,
pp. 863-898.
Richart, F.E., Jr. (1977). Dynamic stress-strain relations for soils, state-of-the-art report. Proc.
Int. Conf. Soil. Mech. Found. Eng., 9
th
, Tokyo (Jap. Soc. SMFE, Tokyo), Vol.2, pp. 605-
612
Richart, F.E., Jr., J.R. Hall and R.D. Woods. (1970). Vibrations of Soils and Foundations.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy.
Richart, F.E., Jr. and R.V. Whitman. (1967). Comparison of footing vibrations tests with theory.
, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ACSE, 93(SM-6): 143-168