- 1

-
Dynamic Shear Modulus of Soils, Foundation Stiffness and Damping for Seismic Analysis
of Jack-Ups
V (Karthi) Karthigeyan, Offshore Division, HSE, UK

Abstract
This paper presents methods for calculating the foundation stiffness’ to be used in the model for seismic analysis of
jack-up platforms. It also includes methods for assessing dynamic shear modulus and internal damping of soils to be
used in these calculations. The information presented is intended to be used with the International Standard, ISO
19905, ‘Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units –part 1: Jack-Ups’, which is in preparation. Guidance on
calculating and modelling springs and dampers in different directions or degrees of freedom or formulating the
stiffness and damping matrices are presented.
Key Words- Jack-Up, soil dynamics, dynamic shear modulus, shear wave velocity, foundation stiffness, radiation
damping, seismic analysis.

Introduction
Seismic analyses of jack-ups require the foundation for spud cans to be modelled as discrete springs and dampers or
as stiffness and damping matrices. These are calculated using the shear wave velocity v
s
or dynamic shear modulus
G, poisons ratio and mass density of soils below and around the spud cans as well as the natural frequencies in
various modes.
The first part of this paper contains different methods for evaluating shear wave velocity of soils. Guidance on
preferred methods are provided in the form of a flow chart. It also provides correction factors to be applied
depending on the accuracy of the method used. Second part contains methods for calculating stiffness and radiation
damping for vertical, horizontal and rocking degrees of freedom. Damping is due to energy radiating away from the
foundation in the form of shear, Raleigh and P waves as well as due to hysteresis energy loss or internal damping
within the soil mass. Evaluating internal damping is explained in the first part along with other soil properties.
Simplified expressions are provided where possible, together with cautions about their limitations. Expressions or
equations are provided in non dimensional form.

Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus
Stiffness and damping are calculated using dynamic shear modulus G, poisons ratio and mass density of soil layers
below and around the spud-can. Some software uses shear wave velocities (S-wave) v
s
directly
.
G can be expressed
as a function of V
s
using the expression.
G = pV
S
2
-(1)
Where p is the mass density of soil.
If the compressional wave velocity v
p
is available, it can be converted to v
s
using eq. (2).
V
s
= V
p



2 2
2 1
÷
÷
-(2)
where uis the Poisson’s ratio.
V
s
can also be measured directly, indirectly in the laboratory. G can be measured or calculated from V
s
or other
available soil properties.
Shear modulus G varies with strain. Most in-situ and laboratory methods measure s-waves or modulus at small
strains, typically between 1x10
-6
to 1x10
-5
. Both S-wave velocity and shear modulus are highest at these small
strains

as the soil remains in the elastic region. Shear strains during strong motion earthquakes range from 1x10
-4
to
1x10
-3
. Hence, different subscripts are used for them at different strain or stages:
Symbols, V
smax
and G
max
are used for shear wave velocity and shear modulus of soil:
- measured in-situ,
- in the laboratory or
- calculated using empirical formulas provided.
- 2 -
Symbol G
max
is also referred to as the tangent modulus. Normally in-situ measurements are carried out before the
jack-up is installed. Empirical formulae can be applied to the state of soil with or without jack-up load.
Symbols V
sd
and G
d
are used for the corrected values of shear wave velocity and shear modulus of soil. These are
used in the calculation of stiffness. Corrections applied to V
smax
and G
max
to convert them to V
sd
and G
d
are:
- Higher earthquake strains
- Increased mean effective stress o
m
in the soil and
- Possible increased voids ratio e.
Increased o
m
and e

are caused by the jack-up weight and pre load.
Caution –
Some in-situ and laboratory measurements are carried out at strains higher than 1x10
-5
. The geotechnical report can
be expected to provide these details.

Methods
Fig 1 provides an outline of the method:
Measured Insitu
(Preferred)
S-Wave Velocity V
s
(or calculated from
P-Wave velocity V
p)
or
Cone Penetration Test
CPT
Calcul ate G
d
G
d
= pv
sd
2
or
Calculate G
max
G
max=
pv
s
2
&
Adjust to suit insitu soil pressures +
earthquake strain
Al ternative -
(3rd option)
Use known soil
parameters
to calculate G
max
or
Measure G
max
in
sample
Usi ng Undisturbed
Sample
(2nd Choice)
Measure S-Wave v
sd
at earthquake strain
or
Measure S-Wave v
s
at small strain
OR
Cal cul ate foundation
sti ffness'
kz, k
h
& k
0
&
Radiation damping
D
v
, D
h
& D
0
using software utilising soil
layers -Preferred opti on
Al ternati ve
Calcul ate foundation
sti ffness'
kz, k
h
& k
0
&
Radiation damping
D
v
, D
h
& D
0
using equations in
Apply reduction factors to D
v,h&0
add internal damping
&
Use in Structural model

Fig1

In-situ Measurements
Most reliable measurements are obtained by in-situ measurements of s-wave. In the absence of S-wave
measurements, Cone Penetration Test (CPT) values may be used to calculate G
max
.
Shear wave velocity
Shear wave velocity V
s
for different layers can be easily measured by geotechnical contractors using seismic cone
penetrometer. These are measured at small strains from 1x10
-6
to 1x10
-5
. If P-wave velocity is available from
- 3 -
geophysical investigations can be converted to v
smax
using the expression (2). In the absence of measured poison’s
ratios, the values given in table1 may be used.
When both V
smax
and V
p
are available from tests or geophysical investigations using the same strain range, v can
also be used to calculated using equation 2. The values given intable 1 should be used with caution as the V
s
to V
p

ratio is sensitive to v at values close to 0.5 and can produce zero S-wave.

Soil Type                  Poisons Ratio v
Saturated Clay 0.45 – 0.50
Partially Saturated Clay 0.35 – 0.45
Dense Sand or Gravel 0.40 – 0.50
Medium Dense Sand or Gravel 0.30 – 0.40
Silt 0.30 – 0.40
Table1

Geophysical investigations carried out for hydrocarbon drilling purposes or as preliminary to geotechnical
investigations and they do not normally provide the same detail and accuracy with depth as seismic down-hole test.
Hence CPT results, if available in preference or the resulting values should be checked against and complemented
by those measured in the laboratory or calculated using empirical relationships.

Shear Modulus Using CPT Results
In the absence of shear wave measurements, Gmax may be obtained using CPT measurements using the
expressions:
G
max
= 290.6(q
c
)
0.25
(o
v

)
0.375
p
a
0.375
for quartz sand –[1] -(3)
G
max
= 99.5(q
c
)
0.695
p
a
0.305
e
-1.13
for clay

– [2] -(4)
Where q
c
is cone tip resistance, a is the atmospheric pressure, o
v

is vertical effective stress and e is voids ratio.

Laboratory Measurements of Shear Wave velocity and Shear modulus
Only brief information is provided to assist in specifying requirements to geotechnical contractors. Geotechnical
contractors use Resonant Column Tests in tensional mode or longitudinal mode to calculate and provide V
smax
and
V
pmax
for small strains of 1x10
-6
to 1x10
-5
. Peizoelectric bender element tests can also be used to provide V
smax
.
High strain tests such as cyclic triaxial tests or cyclic direct simple shear tests are used to measure shear modulus G
d

or elastic modulus E
d
. If both G
d
and E
d
are measured at the same strain, Poisson’s ratio can be calculated using the
expression
v =
G
E
2
-1 (5)
Geotechnical laboratories will also be able to determine internal or hysteresis damping from the frequency response
curve using half power bandwidth or by stopping and measuring the decay of vibration. Laboratory measurements
of S-wave or G should be reported along with mean principal effective principal stress o
m
and strains used, in order
that they can be corrected to the in-situ values in calculating foundation stiffness.
Alternative Empirical Methods for G
max

Clay
-Using Voids ratio
The value G
max
for clay can be obtained using the following expression by Hardin [3]:

G
max
= 625 F
e
(OCR)
k
p
a
0.5
o
m
0.5
(6)

Where OCR is over consolidation ratio, o
m
is mean effective principal stress, p
a
is the atmospheric pressure, and
F(e) = 1/(0.3 + 0.7e
2
)

(7)
- 4 -
F(e) is valid for

voids ratios e from 0.4 to 1.2
The parameter k is given in table 2 as a function of Plasticity Index PI.

Plasticity Index PI k
0
20
40
60
80
>100
0
0.18
0.30
0.41
0.48
0.50
Table 2
Values of k
-Using Undrained Shear Strength
The value of G
max
as a function of un-drained shear strength S
u
is given in table 3[4].

G
max
/ S
u

Over Consolidation ratio OCR
Plasticity
Index PI 1 2 5
15-20
20-25
35-45
1100
700
450
900
600
380
600
500
300
Table 3
Sand
G
max
for sand is given by the expression
G
max
= 700 F
e
p
a
0.5
o
m
0.5
-(8)
F
e
=
e
e
+
÷
1
) 17 . 2 (
2
-(9)
Which is valid for round and angular sands for voids ratios e from 0.5 to 1.0 [5].
or G
max
= 22K
2max
p
a
0.5
o
m
0.5
-(10)
K
2
is as a function of relative density D
r
is given below in table 4 [6].

D
r
K
2
30
40
45
60
75
90
34
40
43
52
59
70
Table 4
Values of K
2
- 5 -
Gravel
Gravels with the same relative density, exhibit slightly higher shear modulus than sands, hence It is suggested that
equation 10 is used for gravels, with values for K
2
in table 4 increased by 50%. It can be up to double the values
given in table depending on the type of gravel. Seed Provides more detailed information on G
max
of gravels if
required.
Corrections for Shear Modulus and S-wave Velocity
Whether G
max
or V
s
are measured in-situ, in the laboratory, or using empirical relationships, they need to be
corrected to account for:
- mean effective principal stress under jack-up
- possible change in voids ratio e due to pre-load and weight of jack-up and
- anticipated strain during earthquake
Equations 3, 4 and 6 to 10 indicates how the change in the above parameters affect G.
G is proportional to square root of mean effective pressure and directly proportionally to F
e
.
Corrected value of G for calculating stiffness and damping is given by:
G
d
= G
max
¸
c
f
c


o
c
-(11a)
Where ¸
c
,

f
c
and

o
c
are corrections for earthquake strain, and changes in F
e
& mean effective stress respectively. If
G was measured at strains greater than 1x10
-5
, this value should be used instead of G
max
.
When V
s
is used in calculations or as input, the corrections are as in equation 11b.
v
sd
= v
smax
√(¸
c
f
c


o
c
) -(11b)
Where
o
c
=
ed whenMeasur
service in
5 . 0
0
5 . 0
0

 ÷
-(11c)
(Since G varies as the sq. root of mean principal effective principal stress, high levels of accuracy is not be
necessary.)
And f
c
= F
e-withJackUp
/ F
e-prior
(11d)
Change in F
e
is not very sensitive to small changes in e. It can be neglected, unless significant compaction or
consolidation occurs during pre-load.
Change in G due to earthquake strain is discussed in the next paragraph.

Correction for Strain 
c
Shear modulus reduces with increasing strain as seen in fig Fig 2.

Reduction of shear modulus with strain [7]
Fig 2
Graphs by Vucetic and Dobry[8], containing reduction factors due to increased strain for various plasticity indices
and mean effective confining pressures are given by many authors. Ishibashi & Zhang [9] have produced
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r


¸
c

(

G
/
G
m
a
x
)

- 6 -
expressions, which provide the same results. These can be easily incorporated into calculations or programs and are
given below, in preference to the graphs by Vucetic and Dobry.
The correction factor ¸
c
is given by:
¸
c
= K(¸.PI) o
m
m(¸,PI)-m
0
(12)
Where K((¸.PI) is given by:
( )
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦

|
|
.
|

\
| +
+ =
492 . 0
000102 . 0
ln tanh 1 5 . 0 ) , (


PI n
PI K
(13)
And
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦

|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ = ÷
3 . 1
4 . 0
0
0145 . 0 exp
000556 . 0
ln tanh 1 272 . 0 , PI m PI m


(14)
n(PI) is given in table 5 below.
Plasticity Index PI n(PI)
PI = 0 (sandy soils) 0.0
0 < PI s15 3.37×10
-6
PI
1.404
15 < PI s70 (medium plastic soils) 7.0×10
-7
PI
1.976
PI > 70 (high plastic soils)

2.7×10
-5
PI
1.115
Table 5
If shear modulus, say G
int
was measured at strains higher than 1x10
-5
,

obtain reduction factor ¸ for both strains, ie ¸
d

(=G
d
/ G
max
) and ¸
int
(=G
int
/ G
max
). The correction factor is ¸
d
/ ¸
int
.

Corrections for Inaccuracies
It should be recognised that there is scope for large inaccuracies in dynamic shear modulus calculated or measured
using methods mentioned in the above paragraphs. This can be recognised by using a range of values for G in
calculating foundation stiffness.

Method Used Range for G Range for v
s
In-situ -25% to +25% -10% to +10%
Laboratory -40% to +50% -20% to +20%
Empirical -50% to +80% -30% to +30%
Table 6
Internal Damping
Internal damping is due to energy lost due to plastic behaviour of soil. It is small component of total damping which
consists of both internal and radiation damping, higher inaccuracies may be permitted. Radiation damping and the
method of combining it with internal damping is explained later.
Ishibashi & Zhang have produced an expression for internal damping . as a function of ¸
c
(or G/G
max
) and PI,
obtained from eq. 12 or other sources, which can be easily incorporated into calculations or programs and is given
below.
( ) ( )( )
2 3 . 1
547 . 0 547 . 1 1 0145 . 0 exp 1 1665 . 0
c c
PI    + ÷ ÷ + = (15)

Alternatively:
Since Internal or hysteretic damping is small in relation to the radiation damping to which it is added and can be
assumed to be 6% irrespective of the type of soil or magnitude of earthquake.
- 7 -

Stiffness and Radiation Damping
For the seismic analysis of the jack-ups, the effect of soil can be modelled as springs and dampers. It is preferable to
calculate stiffness and damping using dedicated software taking into account the variability of soil conditions with
depth and different layers. Output is normally provided for a range of frequencies. The choice of stiffness and
damping from the range of values require approximate assessment of first natural frequencies involving sliding,
rocking and vertical movement of the spud can. Table 7 contains these frequencies for a range of jack-ups and can
be used as a guide to choosing appropriate frequencies.
Stiffness and damping can also be calculated using simplified expressions and graphs produced by many authors.
Their accuracy is limited due to the lack of ability to take account of the variability of soil layers. However, even if
shear wave velocities for different layers were measured in-situ, there are uncertainties about the values to be used
for operating conditions due to variations caused by pre-load, operating load and anticipated earthquake strain.
Hence using simplified expressions or graphs to calculate foundations stiffness’ would be adequate as long as the
limitations are appreciated.
Since most of the energy is radiated away as surface waves, the calculated radiation damping should to be reduced
substantially to account for the reflection from adjoining spud cans and other foundations. Hence the use of
simplified expressions for radiation damping is acceptable, provided suitable reduction factors are applied.
This paper provides design charts and expressions to be used for calculating stiffness and damping based on the
work by Novak and Beredugo [10,11]. Different authors [12,13,14,15] have provided simplified expressions and
graphs to be used to calculate foundation stiffness and damping. These results are not significantly different to those
given by Navak and Beredugo. The work by Novak and Beredugo are chosen because the simplified polynomials
can be incorporated into calculations or computer programs and they allow different soil properties to be used for
soil surrounding the spud-can. In addition these authors have also validated their work by full scale tests.
Methods for calculating stiffness and damping for torsional mode or rotation of spudcan about the vertical axis is not
presented. This mode is unlikely to be excited as long as the legs are not eccentric to the spud can. When the spacing
between legs is large in relation to lateral dimensions of spud can, the contribution of torsional foundation stiffness
of individual spudcan foundation in resisting the global torsionl rotation of the jack-up is small. Since the effect of
coupling between horizontal and rocking modes are small, it is not included either. However simple expressions and
guidance is provided for those who want to incorporate the effects of coupling.

Variables
The stiffness and damping varies with the dimensionless frequency a
0
, which itself is a function of spud-can size,
soil properties (V
s
or G and v) and the frequency of excitation. The applicable range of these variables are
considered in the following paragraphs in order to consider the simplest methods.
Dimensionless frequency a
0
is defined by:
G
r a


0 0
= -(16a)
or a
0
= e r
0
/v
s
-(16b)
where r
0
is the radius for circular or nearly circular spudcans. For other shapes of the spudcans, the equivalent radius
can be defined by:
H
=
A
r
0
-(17a) for vertical and horizontal modes and
r
0
= 4
4

I
-(17b) for rocking mode.

Shear wave velocity of soils
Shear wave velocity V
s
of clay varies from around 60 m/s for very soft clay to 150m/s for firm clays. For sand, the
values varies from around 120m/s for loose sands to 400m/s for dense sands. Gravels can have V
s
ranging from
300m/s to 500m/s. Hence the range of shear wave velocities to be considered is between 60m/s to 400m/s.


- 8 -
Variation of Spud can shapes and Sizes
For most jack-ups it is reasonable to consider the spud-cans to be circular. Their lateral dimension varies from 6m to
18m, giving a range of r
0
from 3.0m to 9.0m.
Frequencies of Interest
Table 7 provides natural frequencies for jack-ups operating in various locations during the last 10 years. Using the
range of frequencies, spudcan sizes and shear modulus, the dimensional frequencies a
0
were assessed to be between
0.04 and 1.6 and the charts to assess stiffness and damping are presented for this range.

Water depth (m)
Mode
119 m
Maersk Gallant
at
Goldeneye
119 m
Maersk XL
at
Goldeneye
98.5 m
Maersk Giant
at
Otway
92.7 m
Magellan
at
Elgin A
79.0 m
Rowan Gorilla
at
Ekofisk
Horizontal Hz 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.36
Torsion Hz 0.34 0.15 0.27 0.16
Vertical Hz 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.5 2.1
1 st Bending
Hz
1.3-1.4 1.3-1.8 1.4-1.5 1.6-1.7 2.2-3.8
Table 7
Symbols
Fig 3a shows symbols used in the expressions used to calculate stiffness and damping.
G
s
G
D

HarmonicForce
Reaction

Fig 3a Fig 3b
K
z
C
z
K
h
C
h
Co
&
K
o

X
Z
Y

Fig 3c Fig 3d

The stiffness K
z
given in equation 18 is the real component of the reaction to the unit harmonic force on the rigid
mass-less disk, shown in Fig 3b. C
z
is the imaginary component. Figs 3b shows excitation and reaction in the
vertical direction only. Fig 3c shows one horizontal spring K
h
with the corresponding dampers C
h
in direction X. For
most spudcan configurations, the horizontal stiffness and damping in the perpendicular Y direction will be the same.
This also applies to the rotational spring and damper K
m
& C
m


about X and Y axis.

- 9 -
Vertical Stiffness and Radiation Damping
The vertical stiffness K
z
and damping C
z
can be calculated using equations 18 and 19. The values of C
z1
, C
z2
, S
z1
and
S
z2
given in Fig 4 as a function of dimensionless frequency a
0,
which can be calculated using the estimate of vertical
natural frequency of the jack-up. D is the penetration as shown in fig 3a, G is the dynamic shear modulus in soil
layers below and G
s
- Dynamic shear modulus of embedded soil.
) (
1
0
1 0 z
s
z z
S
r
D
G
G
C Gr K + = -(18)
and
) (
2
0
2
0
z
s
z z
S
r
D
G
G
C
Gr
C + =


-(19)
0crptv0ioroooo,n
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
10.389
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
1.6 0 a
0
V
a
l
u
e
s

o
f

C

&

S
Dimensionless Frequency a
0
C
2
0

·

O
.
5
C
2
0

·

O
.
2
5
C
1
0 · O.5
C
1
0 · O.25
S
1
S
2

Fig 4

Horizontal Stiffness and Radiation Damping
Horizontal stiffness and damping can be calculated from equations 20 and 21.
) (
1
0
1 0 h
s
h h
S
r
D
G
G
C Gr K + =
-(20)
and
) (
2
0
2
0
h
s
h h
S
r
D
G
G
C
Gr
C + =


-(21)
C
h2
, S
h1
and S
h2
are given in Fig 5. C
x1
is 4.571 for u = 0.0 and 5.333 for u = 0.5
- 10 -
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
4.443
0
0
0
0
0
0.2 0
a
0
V
a
l
u
e
s

o
f

C

&

S
Dimensionless Frequency a
0
S
1
0 · O.25
S
1
0 · O.4
S
2
0 · O.4
S2
0
·
O
.2
5
C
2
0 · O.5
C
2
0 · O

Fig 5
Rocking Stiffness and Radiation Damping
Rocking stiffness and damping can also be expressed by the following equations by Beredugo and Novak, as
simplified by Prakash and Puri to avoid coupling and higher order terms.
)]
3
( [
1 2
0
2
1
0
1
3
0 h
s
S
r
D
S
r
D
G
G
C Gr K + + =
  
-(22)
and
)]
3
1
( [
2 2
0
2
2
0
2
3
0
h
s
S
r
D
S
r
D
G
G
C
r
G C + + =
  

-(23)
C
m1
, C
m2
, S
m1
and S
m2
are given in Fig 6.
- 11 -
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
4.153
0
a
0.
a
0.
0.
0.
1.5 0
a
0.
V
a
l
u
e
s

o
f

C

&

S
Dimensionless Frequency a
0
S
1
S
2
C
1
C
2

Fig 6
Horizontal & Rocking Coupling
Coupling between horizontal and rocking modes is small and no detailed guidance is given. Those who want to
calculate it can incorporate it within the stiffness and damping matrices, or if the foundation is modelled as discrete
springs and dampers as shown in Fig 3c, these can be located at distances L
k
and L
c
, below the spud can, effectively
extending the legs. L
k
and L
c
are defined in equations 24 and 25. When backflow is expected, the effect of coupling
could be reduced substantially.
L
k
= K
h
m/K
h
-(24)
L
c
= C
h
m/C
h
-(25)

Where K
h
m and K
h
are cross and sliding stiffness respectively and C
h
m and C
h
are cross and sliding dampers.
The extended members L
k
and L
C
are normally modelled as rigid elements and they overlap with each other. In the
absence of a calculated values, the following, by Roesset [12] can be used to calculate cross stiffness and damping:
K
h
m = Km
h
= K
h
(0.4D -0.03r
0
) -(26)
C
h
m = Cm
h
= C
h
(0.4D -0.03r
0
) -(27)
Where D is the embedment and r
0
is its equivalent radius. In discrete modelling this extends the length of leg by
0.4D-0.03r
0
, which is insignificant for a jack-up.

Variable Coil Conditions or Soil Stratum Resting on Rock
Stiffness
For layer of soil with thickness H exceeding 2r
0
, Kausel and Roesset [13] have given the following values for static
stiffness’ for horizontal and rocking modes.
|
.
|

\
|
+
÷
=
H
r Gr
K
h
2
1
2
8
0 0

-(28)
( )
|
.
|

\
|
+
÷
=
H
r Gr
K
6
1
1 3
8
0
3
0


-(29)
- 12 -
Kausel and Ushijima [17] have provided the following expression for vertical stiffness.
|
.
|

\
|
+
÷
=
H
r Gr
K
z
0 0
28 . 1
1
1
4

-(30)
Equations 28 to 30 are valid for a
0
= 0. The first part of these expressions
 ÷ 2
8
0
Gr
,
( )  ÷ 1 3
8
3
0
Gr
and
 ÷ 1
4
0
Gr
are the static
stiffness’ of foundation on semi infinite media and will give the same stiffness as equations 18, 20 and 22 and using
C
1
only for a
0
=0 and S
1
=0. Scrutiny of the work by Kausel and Ushijima shows that equations 18, 20 and 22 can
still be used, provided the curve for C
1
in figs 4, 5 and 6 are raised by the factors
|
.
|

\
|
+
H
r
0
28 . 1
1
,
|
.
|

\
|
+
H
r
2
1
0 and
|
.
|

\
|
+
H
r
6
1
0

respectively. Since this procedure does not take into account of variations due to reflection or resonance, the error
can be up to ± 20%.
For variable soil conditions Roesset [12] considers that it is adequate to use the adjusted shear modulus at depth r
0
/2
in stiffness calculations.
Reduction in Radiation Damping
Unless the soil properties are uniform for depths considerable greater than 8r
0
, the theoretical values calculated
using equations 19, 21 and 23 are not valid. Even for uniform soils, the dynamic shear modulus will vary due to
increase in mean effective stress with depth. Load from the spudcan will also increase it. Reflections from the
adjoining spud cans and other foundations will also reduce the radiation damping. Hence it is recommended that the
calculated radiation damping to the values given in table 8.

Mode
% of Radiation damping to
be used in analysis
Vertical 40%
Sliding 25%
Rocking 25%
Table 8

For Soil Stratum Resting on Rock, or other hard strata, Dobry and Gazetas [15] recommend that the radiation
damping is taken as zero for frequencies less than f
s
.
f
s
= V
s
/4H -(31)
Inclusion of Internal Damping
Internal or hysteresis damping is normally expressed as a fraction of critical damping, whereas the radiation
damping C
z
and C
h
are expressed in dimension FL
-1
T and C
m
is expressed in dimension FLT. Internal damping can
be converted and added to radiation damping using the definition for critical damping as follows:
C
zt
= o
z
C
z
+ 2.K
z
/=
z
-(32)
Where C
zt
is the total damping to be used in the analysis, o
z
is the reduction factor for radiation damping, . is the
damping ratio due to internal damping and the frequency =
z
obtained from table 7 for vertical mode.
Similarly the total damping for horizontal and rocking degrees of freedom can be expressed as follows :
C
ht
= o
h
C
h
+ 2.K
h
/=
h
-(33)
Co
t
= o
o
Co + 2.Ko/=
o
÷(34)
Conclusion
Information from several sources were brought together in this paper with the hope of providing adequate guidance
to those without specialist knowledge of soil and foundation dynamics. The author welcomes any comments in order
that a more detailed guidance to be published by HSE, the author’s employer can incorporate any improvements.

- 13 -
References
[1] Rix, G.J. AND Stoke, K.H. (1991). “Correlation of initial tangent modulus and cone penetration resistance,”
Calibration Chamber Testing. International Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing, A.B. Huang, ed., Elsevier
Publishing, New York, pp. 351-362.
[2] Mayne, P.W. and Rix, G.J. (1993). “G
max
-q
c
relationship for clays,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, VOL.
16, NO. l, pp. 54-60.
[3] Hardin, B.O. (1978) The nature of stress-strain behaviour for soils, ASCE Geotech. Eng. Div. Specialty Conf.
Earthq. Eng. Soil Dyn, Vol. I, pp. 3-90.
[4] Weiler, W.A. (1988). “Small strain shear modulus of clay,” Proceedings, ASCE Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics II: Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Geotechnical Special
Publication 20, ASCE, New York, pp. 331-335.
[5] Towhata I, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Springer, 2008.
[6] Seed, H.B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, I.M., and Tokimatsu, K. (1984). Moduli and damping factors for dynamic
analyses of cohesionless soils,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, pp.1016-1032.
[7] Imazu M and Fukutake K, 1986 Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio of Gravel Materials, Proc. 21
Annual Convention of JSSMFE, pp 509-512.
[8] VUCETIC, M. AND DOBRY, R. (1991). “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 89-107.
[9] ISHIBASHI, I. AND ZHANG, X. (1993). “Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay,”
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 182-191.
[10] Novak M and Beredugo Y O, Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE Dec 1972.
[11] Beredugo Y O and Novak M, Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration of Embedded Footings, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 9,477 1972, pp 477-497.
[12] Roesset J. M. (1980). The use of simple models in soil-structure interaction. In Civil Engineering and Nuclear
Power, ASCE, No. 10/3, pp. 1-25.
[13] Kausel E. and Roesset, J. M. (1975). Dynamic stiffness of circular foundations, J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE,
101(EMb), 771-85.
[14] Gazetas, G. (1983). Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art, Int. J. Soil Dynamics.
Earthquake Eng., 2(1), 2-42.
[15] Dobby, R and Gazetas,G. (1985). Dynamic Stiffness and damping of foundations by simpler methods. In
‘Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ed. G.Gazetas and E.T. Selig, ASCE, pp.77-107
[16] Prakash S and Puri V K, Foundations for Machines: Analysis and Design, Wiley, 1988.
[17] Kausel E. and Ushijima R (1979) Vertical and Torsional Stiffness of Cylindrical Footings, Research Report R7-
6, Civil Engineering Dept., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.



Symbol Gmax is also referred to as the tangent modulus. These are used in the calculation of stiffness. Caution – Some in-situ and laboratory measurements are carried out at strains higher than 1x10-5. kh & k & Radiation damping Dv. Shear wave velocity Shear wave velocity Vs for different layers can be easily measured by geotechnical contractors using seismic cone penetrometer. If P-wave velocity is available from -2- . Dh & D using software utilising soil layers -Preferred option Alternative Calculate foundation stiffness' kz. Normally in-situ measurements are carried out before the jack-up is installed. Increased m and e are caused by the jack-up weight and pre load. Corrections applied to Vsmax and Gmax to convert them to Vsd and Gd are:  Higher earthquake strains  Increased mean effective stress m in the soil and  Possible increased voids ratio e. Empirical formulae can be applied to the state of soil with or without jack-up load.h& add internal damping & Use in Structural model Fig1 In-situ Measurements Most reliable measurements are obtained by in-situ measurements of s-wave. These are measured at small strains from 1x10-6 to 1x10-5. Cone Penetration Test (CPT) values may be used to calculate Gmax . kh & k & Radiation damping Dv. Methods Fig 1 provides an outline of the method: Measured Insitu (Preferred) S-Wave Velocity Vs (or calculated from P-Wave velocity Vp) or Cone Penetration Test CPT OR Using Undisturbed Sample (2nd Choice) Measure S-Wave vs d at earthquake strain or Measure S-Wave vs at small strain Calculate G d Gd = vsd 2 or Calculate Gmax Gmax = vs 2 & Adjust to suit insitu soil pressures + earthquake strain Alternative (3rd option) Use known soil parameters to calculate Gmax or Measure Gmax in sample Calculate foundation stiffness' kz. Dh & D using equations in Apply reduction factors to Dv. Symbols Vsd and Gd are used for the corrected values of shear wave velocity and shear modulus of soil. In the absence of S-wave measurements. The geotechnical report can be expected to provide these details.

Poisson’s ratio can be calculated using the expression = E -1 2G (5) Geotechnical laboratories will also be able to determine internal or hysteresis damping from the frequency response curve using half power bandwidth or by stopping and measuring the decay of vibration. m is mean effective principal stress.7e2) (7) -3- .35 – 0.5(qc)0.  can also be used to calculated using equation 2.30 – 0. a is the atmospheric pressure.40 – 0.13 for clay – [2] -(4) -(3) Where qc is cone tip resistance. if available in preference or the resulting values should be checked against and complemented by those measured in the laboratory or calculated using empirical relationships. High strain tests such as cyclic triaxial tests or cyclic direct simple shear tests are used to measure shear modulus Gd or elastic modulus Ed.305 e-1. The values given intable 1 should be used with caution as the Vs to Vp ratio is sensitive to at values close to 0. Hence CPT results.25(v’)0.45 – 0. in order that they can be corrected to the in-situ values in calculating foundation stiffness. Alternative Empirical Methods for Gmax Clay -Using Voids ratio The value Gmax for clay can be obtained using the following expression by Hardin [3]: Gmax = 625 Fe (OCR) pa k 0.695 pa0. In the absence of measured poison’s ratios. When both Vsmax and Vp are available from tests or geophysical investigations using the same strain range. Geotechnical contractors use Resonant Column Tests in tensional mode or longitudinal mode to calculate and provide Vsmax and Vpmax for small strains of 1x10-6 to 1x10-5. Soil Type Saturated Clay Partially Saturated Clay Dense Sand or Gravel Medium Dense Sand or Gravel Silt Table1 Poisons Ratio  0.geophysical investigations can be converted to vsmax using the expression (2). Shear Modulus Using CPT Results In the absence of shear wave measurements. and F(e) = 1/(0.375 for quartz sand –[1] Gmax = 99.45 0.50 0. Laboratory Measurements of Shear Wave velocity and Shear modulus Only brief information is provided to assist in specifying requirements to geotechnical contractors. v’ is vertical effective stress and e is voids ratio.3 + 0.6(qc)0. the values given in table1 may be used.50 0.30 – 0.40 Geophysical investigations carried out for hydrocarbon drilling purposes or as preliminary to geotechnical investigations and they do not normally provide the same detail and accuracy with depth as seismic down-hole test. Gmax may be obtained using CPT measurements using the expressions: Gmax = 290.375 pa0.5 m 0. Peizoelectric bender element tests can also be used to provide Vsmax. If both Gd and Ed are measured at the same strain.5 (6) Where OCR is over consolidation ratio. Laboratory measurements of S-wave or G should be reported along with mean principal effective principal stress m and strains used.40 0. pa is the atmospheric pressure.5 and can produce zero S-wave.

5 Which is valid for round and angular sands for voids ratios e from 0.30 0.5 0.0 [5]. or Gmax= 22K2max pa m -(10) K2 is as a function of relative density Dr is given below in table 4 [6].5 Fe = -(8) -(9) 5 600 500 300 ( 2.5m0. Gmax / Su Plasticity Index PI 15-20 20-25 35-45 Over Consolidation ratio OCR 1 1100 700 450 2 900 600 380 Table 3 Sand Gmax for sand is given by the expression Gmax = 700 Fe pa0.5 to 1.18 0.17  e) 2 1 e 0.48 0. Plasticity Index PI 0 20 40 60 80 >100 Table 2 Values of k -Using Undrained Shear Strength k 0 0.F(e) is valid for voids ratios e from 0. Dr 30 40 45 60 75 90 Table 4 K2 34 40 43 52 59 70 Values of K2 -4- .2 The parameter k is given in table 2 as a function of Plasticity Index PI.41 0.4 to 1.50 The value of Gmax as a function of un-drained shear strength Su is given in table 3[4].

4 and 6 to 10 indicates how the change in the above parameters affect G. hence It is suggested that equation 10 is used for gravels. If G was measured at strains greater than 1x10-5. the corrections are as in equation 11b. Correction for Strain  c Shear modulus reduces with increasing strain as seen in fig Fig 2. root of mean principal effective principal stress. with values for K2 in table 4 increased by 50%. When Vs is used in calculations or as input.) And fc = Fe-withJackUp / Fe-prior (11d) Change in Fe is not very sensitive to small changes in e. they need to be corrected to account for:  mean effective principal stress under jack-up  possible change in voids ratio e due to pre-load and weight of jack-up and  anticipated strain during earthquake Equations 3. It can be neglected. vsd = vsmax √(c fc c) Where c = -(11b)  0 0. unless significant compaction or consolidation occurs during pre-load.Gravel Gravels with the same relative density. high levels of accuracy is not be necessary. exhibit slightly higher shear modulus than sands.5in  service 0. Ishibashi & Zhang [9] have produced -5- .5  0 whenMeasur ed -(11c) (Since G varies as the sq. Correction factor c ( G/Gmax) Reduction of shear modulus with strain [7] Fig 2 Graphs by Vucetic and Dobry[8]. Corrections for Shear Modulus and S-wave Velocity Whether Gmax or Vs are measured in-situ. or using empirical relationships. Seed Provides more detailed information on Gmax of gravels if required. Corrected value of G for calculating stiffness and damping is given by: Gd = Gmax c fc c -(11a) Where c. G is proportional to square root of mean effective pressure and directly proportionally to Fe. It can be up to double the values given in table depending on the type of gravel. containing reduction factors due to increased strain for various plasticity indices and mean effective confining pressures are given by many authors. fc and c are corrections for earthquake strain. and changes in Fe & mean effective stress respectively. in the laboratory. Change in G due to earthquake strain is discussed in the next paragraph. this value should be used instead of Gmax.

7  10-5PI1. obtain reduction factor  for both strains. The correction factor  c is given by:  c = K(PI) mm(.2721  tanh ln    exp   0. 12 or other sources. (14) Plasticity Index PI PI = 0 (sandy soils) 0 < PI  15 15 < PI  70 (medium plastic soils) PI > 70 (high plastic soils) Table 5 n(PI) 0. Radiation damping and the method of combining it with internal damping is explained later. PI )  0.   0.  Method Used In-situ Laboratory Empirical Range for G -25% to +25% -40% to +50% -50% to +80% Table 6 Range for vs -10% to +10% -20% to +20% -30% to +30% Internal Damping Internal damping is due to energy lost due to plastic behaviour of soil.4       m  .expressions. PI   m0  0.976 2. ie  d (=Gd / Gmax) and  int (=Gint / Gmax). It is small component of total damping which consists of both internal and radiation damping. say Gint was measured at strains higher than 1x10-5. The correction factor is  d /  int.000556  0. Corrections for Inaccuracies It should be recognised that there is scope for large inaccuracies in dynamic shear modulus calculated or measured using methods mentioned in the above paragraphs.404 7.547 c  0. 3    0. which can be easily incorporated into calculations or programs and is given below.492     0. -6- .0 3.115 If shear modulus.0145 PI 1.3  1  1.000102  nPI     (13)  K ( . obtained from eq.PI)-m0 Where K((PI) is given by: 0. higher inaccuracies may be permitted.0145PI                 n(PI) is given in table 5 below. which provide the same results.51  tanhln               (12) And 1.0  10-7PI1.547 c Alternatively:  2  (15) Since Internal or hysteretic damping is small in relation to the radiation damping to which it is added and can be assumed to be 6% irrespective of the type of soil or magnitude of earthquake. Ishibashi & Zhang have produced an expression for internal damping  as a function of  c (or G/Gmax) and PI. in preference to the graphs by Vucetic and Dobry.37  10-6PI1. These can be easily incorporated into calculations or programs and are given below.16651  exp  0. This can be recognised by using a range of values for G in calculating foundation stiffness.

13. Since most of the energy is radiated away as surface waves. This paper provides design charts and expressions to be used for calculating stiffness and damping based on the work by Novak and Beredugo [10. Shear wave velocity of soils Shear wave velocity Vs of clay varies from around 60 m/s for very soft clay to 150m/s for firm clays. For sand. the effect of soil can be modelled as springs and dampers.15] have provided simplified expressions and graphs to be used to calculate foundation stiffness and damping. For other shapes of the spudcans. the contribution of torsional foundation stiffness of individual spudcan foundation in resisting the global torsionl rotation of the jack-up is small. However simple expressions and guidance is provided for those who want to incorporate the effects of coupling.14. Methods for calculating stiffness and damping for torsional mode or rotation of spudcan about the vertical axis is not presented. Different authors [12.11]. It is preferable to calculate stiffness and damping using dedicated software taking into account the variability of soil conditions with depth and different layers. These results are not significantly different to those given by Navak and Beredugo. it is not included either. operating load and anticipated earthquake strain. even if shear wave velocities for different layers were measured in-situ. The work by Novak and Beredugo are chosen because the simplified polynomials can be incorporated into calculations or computer programs and they allow different soil properties to be used for soil surrounding the spud-can. Table 7 contains these frequencies for a range of jack-ups and can be used as a guide to choosing appropriate frequencies. The choice of stiffness and damping from the range of values require approximate assessment of first natural frequencies involving sliding. the equivalent radius can be defined by: r0  A  r0 = 4 -(17a) for vertical and horizontal modes and 4I  -(17b) for rocking mode. Gravels can have Vs ranging from 300m/s to 500m/s. Their accuracy is limited due to the lack of ability to take account of the variability of soil layers. This mode is unlikely to be excited as long as the legs are not eccentric to the spud can. Hence the range of shear wave velocities to be considered is between 60m/s to 400m/s. Output is normally provided for a range of frequencies.Stiffness and Radiation Damping For the seismic analysis of the jack-ups. Variables The stiffness and damping varies with the dimensionless frequency a0. Hence the use of simplified expressions for radiation damping is acceptable. However. In addition these authors have also validated their work by full scale tests. Since the effect of coupling between horizontal and rocking modes are small. -7- . Dimensionless frequency a0 is defined by: a0  r0  G -(16a) -(16b) or a0 =  r0/vs where r0 is the radius for circular or nearly circular spudcans. which itself is a function of spud-can size. rocking and vertical movement of the spud can. Stiffness and damping can also be calculated using simplified expressions and graphs produced by many authors. the calculated radiation damping should to be reduced substantially to account for the reflection from adjoining spud cans and other foundations. soil properties (Vs or G and ) and the frequency of excitation. The applicable range of these variables are considered in the following paragraphs in order to consider the simplest methods. there are uncertainties about the values to be used for operating conditions due to variations caused by pre-load. Hence using simplified expressions or graphs to calculate foundations stiffness’ would be adequate as long as the limitations are appreciated. When the spacing between legs is large in relation to lateral dimensions of spud can. provided suitable reduction factors are applied. the values varies from around 120m/s for loose sands to 400m/s for dense sands.

HarmonicForce Gs G Fig 3a D Reaction Fig 3b C & Kh Z K Ch Kz Fig 3c Cz Y X Fig 3d The stiffness Kz given in equation 18 is the real component of the reaction to the unit harmonic force on the rigid mass-less disk.7 1. Frequencies of Interest Table 7 provides natural frequencies for jack-ups operating in various locations during the last 10 years.5 1. Cz is the imaginary component.6 and the charts to assess stiffness and damping are presented for this range.5 m Maersk Giant at Otway 0.7 79.5 1.14 0.8 Water depth (m) 98.15 1. shown in Fig 3b. Using the range of frequencies. Their lateral dimension varies from 6m to 18m. the dimensional frequencies a0 were assessed to be between 0.2-3. Figs 3b shows excitation and reaction in the vertical direction only.0 m Rowan Gorilla at Ekofisk 0.12 0.4 119 m Maersk XL at Goldeneye 0.36 Horizontal Hz Torsion Hz Vertical Hz 1 st Bending Hz 2. -8- .15 0. the horizontal stiffness and damping in the perpendicular Y direction will be the same.7 m Magellan at Elgin A 0.3-1.3-1.16 1. Mode 119 m Maersk Gallant at Goldeneye 0.27 1.1 2.0m to 9.04 and 1. This also applies to the rotational spring and damper K& Cabout X and Y axis.0m. For most spudcan configurations. giving a range of r0 from 3.34 1.4-1.13 0.3 1.5 Table 7 92. Fig 3c shows one horizontal spring Kh with the corresponding dampers Ch in direction X.8 Symbols Fig 3a shows symbols used in the expressions used to calculate stiffness and damping.Variation of Spud can shapes and Sizes For most jack-ups it is reasonable to consider the spud-cans to be circular. spudcan sizes and shear modulus.6-1.

5 0. which can be calculated using the estimate of vertical natural frequency of the jack-up.0 and 5.2 0.3 1. Sh1 and Sh2 are given in Fig 5. Cx1 is 4.3 0.Dynamic shear modulus of embedded soil. The values of Cz1.389 12 Gr0 G D (C z 2  s S z 2 )  G r0 -(19) 10 a0 C1  0 a0 0 8 C2     Values of C & S 6 C1  C2       4 S2 S1 2 0 0 0 0 0.1 1.6 0.571 for = 0. Cz2. K h  Gr0 (C h1  Gs D S h1 ) G r0 and -(20) Ch  Gr0 G D (C h 2  s S h 2 )  G r0 -(21) Ch2.Vertical Stiffness and Radiation Damping The vertical stiffness Kz and damping Cz can be calculated using equations 18 and 19.9 1 1. Sz1 and Sz2 given in Fig 4 as a function of dimensionless frequency a0.4 0. K z  Gr0 (C z 1  Gs D S z1 ) G r0 -(18) and Cz  10.8 0.5 1.333 for = 0.6 Dimensionless a0 Frequency a0 Fig 4 Horizontal Stiffness and Radiation Damping Horizontal stiffness and damping can be calculated from equations 20 and 21.7 0.4 1. D is the penetration as shown in fig 3a.6 1.2 1.5 -9- . G is the dynamic shear modulus in soil layers below and Gs .1 0.

4.05 0.15 a Dimensionless 0Frequency a0 Fig 5 0.2 Rocking Stiffness and Radiation Damping Rocking stiffness and damping can also be expressed by the following equations by Beredugo and Novak. .1 0.443 5 S1  4 0 Values of C & S 0 0 0 3 S1  2 S2     S2    1 C2  C2  0 0 0 0 0. C. S and S are given in Fig 6. K   Gr03 [C1  Gs D D2 ( S 1  2 S h1 )] G r0 3r0 and -(22) C  G r0 G D 1 D2 [C 2  s ( S  2  S h 2 )]  G r0 3 r0 2 3 -(23) C. as simplified by Prakash and Puri to avoid coupling and higher order terms.10 - .2 0.

4D -0.2 1.6 0.8 a 0. by Roesset [12] can be used to calculate cross stiffness and damping: KhKh = Kh (0. which is insignificant for a jack-up. Lk = Kh/Kh -(24) Lc = Ch/Ch -(25) Where Kh and Kh are cross and sliding stiffness respectively and Ch and Ch are cross and sliding dampers. 1 1.4 Dimensionless Frequency a0 Fig 6 1. Those who want to calculate it can incorporate it within the stiffness and damping matrices. In discrete modelling this extends the length of leg by 0. the following.2 0. When backflow is expected.03r0) ChCh = Ch (0. 3 S1 2 C1 1 C2 0 0 0 0 0. The extended members Lk and LC are normally modelled as rigid elements and they overlap with each other. or if the foundation is modelled as discrete springs and dampers as shown in Fig 3c. these can be located at distances Lk and Lc.03r0) -(26) -(27) Where D is the embedment and r0 is its equivalent radius.11 - . Lk and Lc are defined in equations 24 and 25. below the spud can.5 Horizontal & Rocking Coupling Coupling between horizontal and rocking modes is small and no detailed guidance is given.4 0. Kh  8Gr0  r  1  0  2    2H  -(28) K  8Gr0  r  1  0  31     6 H  3 -(29) . 0. the effect of coupling could be reduced substantially. effectively extending the legs. 0.4D -0. Kausel and Roesset [13] have given the following values for static stiffness’ for horizontal and rocking modes.6 1. Variable Coil Conditions or Soil Stratum Resting on Rock Stiffness For layer of soil with thickness H exceeding 2r0.03r0.4.4D-0.153 5 4 S2 Values of C & S a 0. In the absence of a calculated values. a 0.

21 and 23 are not valid. Scrutiny of the work by Kausel and Ushijima shows that equations 18. provided the curve for C1 in figs 4. For variable soil conditions Roesset [12] considers that it is adequate to use the adjusted shear modulus at depth r0/2 in stiffness calculations. Internal damping can be converted and added to radiation damping using the definition for critical damping as follows: Czt = zCz + zz -(32) -(31) Where Czt is the total damping to be used in the analysis. 8Gr0 and 4Gr0 are the static 2   31    1  stiffness’ of foundation on semi infinite media and will give the same stiffness as equations 18. fs = Vs/4H Inclusion of Internal Damping Internal or hysteresis damping is normally expressed as a fraction of critical damping. Reduction in Radiation Damping Unless the soil properties are uniform for depths considerable greater than 8r0. the error can be up to  20%. the author’s employer can incorporate any improvements. Since this procedure does not take into account of variations due to reflection or resonance. 5 and 6 are raised by the factors 1  1. the dynamic shear modulus will vary due to increase in mean effective stress with depth. whereas the radiation damping Cz and Ch are expressed in dimension FL-1T and Cis expressed in dimension FLT.12 - . The author welcomes any comments in order that a more detailed guidance to be published by HSE. Similarly the total damping for horizontal and rocking degrees of freedom can be expressed as follows : Cht = hCh + hh Ct = C +  -(33)  Conclusion Information from several sources were brought together in this paper with the hope of providing adequate guidance to those without specialist knowledge of soil and foundation dynamics.Kausel and Ushijima [17] have provided the following expression for vertical stiffness. is the damping ratio due to internal damping and the frequency z obtained from table 7 for vertical mode. 20 and 22 can still be used. Even for uniform soils. 1  r0  and 1  r0      H    2H     6H  respectively.28r0  . Reflections from the adjoining spud cans and other foundations will also reduce the radiation damping. The first part of these expressions 8Gr0 . 20 and 22 and using C1 only for a0 =0 and S1 =0.28r0  1   1   H  -(30) 3 Equations 28 to 30 are valid for a0 = 0. z is the reduction factor for radiation damping. Hence it is recommended that the calculated radiation damping to the values given in table 8. Kz  4Gr0  1. Load from the spudcan will also increase it. or other hard strata. the theoretical values calculated using equations 19. Dobry and Gazetas [15] recommend that the radiation damping is taken as zero for frequencies less than fs. Mode Vertical Sliding Rocking % of Radiation damping to be used in analysis 40% 25% 25% Table 8 For Soil Stratum Resting on Rock. .

pp. M. Geotechnical Special Publication 20. Research Report R76. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 351-362. K. “Gmax-qc relationship for clays. 3-90. Elsevier Publishing.M.. pp. ASCE Dec 1972. 101(EMb). [14] Gazetas. 771-85. 89-107. 1988. Wiley. Selig. ASCE. G.” Proceedings. [8] VUCETIC. ASCE. Wong.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. AND Stoke. Vol. “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. “Small strain shear modulus of clay. AND ZHANG. I. (1991).” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. (1984). (1985).B. (1991).A. W.W. K. . Soil Dyn. G. pp. [3] Hardin. Earthq. No.T. Dynamic Stiffness and damping of foundations by simpler methods. pp.H. X. ASCE Geotech. and Roesset. J.77-107 [16] Prakash S and Puri V K. Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration of Embedded Footings. 1-25. ASCE Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II: Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation. R. VOL. 16.” Soils and Foundations. The use of simple models in soil-structure interaction. [6] Seed.. Foundations for Machines: Analysis and Design.” Geotechnical Testing Journal. 9. Proc. I. 112. R and Gazetas. Dynamic stiffness of circular foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Eng. No. M. ASCE. Soil Dynamics. (1975). ASTM. pp 477-497. [13] Kausel E. 182-191. International Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing. Huang. 11. 10/3. [4] Weiler. G. 331-335. pp. pp. Eng.G. ASCE. Vol. H. pp. [11] Beredugo Y O and Novak M. “Correlation of initial tangent modulus and cone penetration resistance.Gazetas and E. Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings. Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art.J. Cambridge. No.T. [12] Roesset J. [2] Mayne. [5] Towhata I.. Idriss. 1. [17] Kausel E. (1980).References [1] Rix. Springer.J. New York. A. ed. Vol. M. Vol. R.13 - . No.” Calibration Chamber Testing. In Civil Engineering and Nuclear Power. [7] Imazu M and Fukutake K.. pp. 1986 Dynamic Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio of Gravel Materials. l. pp. [10] Novak M and Beredugo Y O. [9] ISHIBASHI. ed. New York. and Ushijima R (1979) Vertical and Torsional Stiffness of Cylindrical Footings. Earthquake Eng. B. 2-42. 21 Annual Convention of JSSMFE. [15] Dobby. Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. G. 1.B.1016-1032.477 1972. and Tokimatsu. (1988). J. 54-60. and Rix.. Civil Engineering Dept. Eng. 2(1). (1978) The nature of stress-strain behaviour for soils. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. 2008. pp 509-512. P. J. ASCE. 117. In ‘Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering. AND DOBRY. (1993). Specialty Conf. NO. (1993). Div. Div. Int. “Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. (1983). ASCE.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.O. Mech. I. 33.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful