Vibration of h a m m e r foundations


Faculty of Engineering Science, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 5B9

Hammer foundations are often deeply embedded and highly damped. Yet, in the prediction of
vibration amplitudes, damping is usually neglected. In this paper, two methods are proposed which
make it possible to incorporate damping in the analysis. One method, suitable for hand calculations,
is based on an energy consideration and the other, suitable for computer analysis, utilizes the notions
of the complex eigenvalue problem. It is shown that damping derived from soil may reduce founda-
tion amplitudes very significantly, e.g. 50%, particularly for large, embedded foundations.
Methods for the evaluation of foundation stiffness and damping which are needed in the analysis
are outlined.

INTRODUCTION felt, a layer of hardwood or, with very powerful hammers,
a set of springs and dampers.
Hammers and other types of shock producing machines
generate powerful dynamic effects that are quite short in The foundation block or the protective trough are
duration and can be characterized as pulses. Only a part of either cast on soil or supported by piles. Examples of the
the shock energy is utilized in the forging process and the main foundation types are described in Refs. 3, 5 and 6.
rest is dissipated in the foundation causing intense vibra- The various types of foundations can be modeled by
tion. This may result in settlement and cracking of the lumped mass systems shown in Fig. 2. The one mass model
foundation and undesirable shaking of the vicinity. Thus, (a) can be used for a foundation with no elastic pad under
the prediction of the vibration is an important part of the anvil; it is also adequate for a foundation with no
hammer foundation design. The basic approaches to the inertial foundation block in which the anvil rests on springs
analysis of foundations for shock producing machines were and dashpots and the protective trough is rigidly supported.
formulated by Rausch, 1 Barkan 2 and a few others but apart In the two mass model (b), the mass m l represents the
from a few contributions, a'4 the area has been rather neg- elastically mounted anvil and me the foundation block sup-
lected in recent years. The methods of analysis of hammer ported by soil or piles. With the directly sprung anvil, mass
foundations are well developed but suffer from inconsistent m~ represents the anvil and m2 the protective trough
description of soil properties and particularly from the founded on soil or piles. Model (c) comprises the mass of
omission or arbitrary definition of damping. the anvil, m l, mass of the block, m2 and mass of the trough,
m3, all elastically supported.
This paper presents two methods of analysis in which
damping is accounted for in a rational way: one method is If the blows are centric and the foundation arrangement
suitable for hand calculation of systems with two degrees is symmetrical, only vertical vibrations occur and the
of freedom, most often used in practice; the other method foundations have one, two or three degrees of freedom as
can handle any number of degrees of freedom, which is indicated. With eccentric blows and/or asymmetrical
desirable for foundations exposed to eccentric blows, but arrangement of the system, horizontal translations and
relies on the use of the computer. rotations of all masses occur and the number of degrees of
freedom grows to three, six or nine for the three models
shown in Fig. 2.
There are many types of hammers. The description of the
most common types can be found in Refs. 1, 2, 5 and 6. i

The basic elements of a typical hammer-foundation system
are the frame, head (tup), anvil and the foundation block ; l-~ !- FRA.e
embedded in soil (Fig. 1). When vibration transmission is of
particular concern, springs and dampers are used to support
l/I iI ~XX'
~ --HEAD
the foundation block and/or the anvil and in some more
recent designs, the foundation (inertial) block is deleted.
In these cases, a reinforced concrete trough is needed to
,/,,/r',, ',
protect the isolation elements from the environment.
The forging action of hammers is generated by the im-
pact of the falling head against the anvil. To reduce the /f///11~x,\xx
stress in the concrete and shock transmission into the
frame, viscoelastic mounting of the anvil is usually pro-
vided. This may have the form of a pad of hard industrial
,~; . . . . ~.;;.-.....g" BLOCK
* Paper taken from the proceedings of the first International Confer-
ence and Exhibition on Soft Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Fig. 1 Schematic of most common type o f hammer
Southampton, UK, 13-15 July 1982. foundation

0261-7277/83/010043-11 $2.00
© 1983 CML Publications Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1983, Vol. 2, No. 1 43

the vertical damping the incorporation of material damping is important because 44 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. El Hifnawy L I I . factor. tion of foundation stiffness and damping. respectively. They were recently reviewed and compared by Roesset.2flc60 (2) waves back to the foundation and reduces geometric c h = c + 2~k/60 (3) damping. One way of accounting for footing separation is to assume a slippage zone around shear wave velocity which can be established by independent the footingJ 4 A rough correction can be made by consider- experiments. i ~'P ANVIL I mI I Tv. ing of soil is hysteretic and independent of frequency. Vibration o f hammer foundations: A4. ] T-v.. To be on the safe side. k. 1983. 2. the stiffness constant. Foundation stiffness and damping bedded foundation. damping can be incorporated using the correspondence valent radius is re = V r d ~ in which a and b are the width principle of viscoelasticity. ! Tv BLOCK m BLOCK m2 m2 8.L -'Lc2 k2 ~ -Lc2~ k2 I DOF (a) 2 DOF 3 DOF (b) (c) Fig. Soil material damping. I m. 1 .. tan6 = G'/G with 6 = the loss angle and G ' = the imaginary limited thickness of the soil stratum. G*. i = V'~-i.. Material base. ing an effective embedment depth smaller than the true one. the shear modulus. The reason for this discrepancy seems to be that soil usually features some layering which reflects elastic kh = k -. These theoretical suggestions were. This cipal advantages of this theory are that it accounts for gap is likely to develop close to the surface where the energy dissipation through elastic waves (geometric damp- ing). typical of hammers. It is ever. a number of approaches were formulated for the determina. including material damping of surface foundations in the vertical direction by as much become approximately as 100%. the soil may can be evaluated using elastic halfspace theory. Material damp- evaluated using a simple. However. has to be replaced by the complex Experiments ~° indicate that for deep deposits. Based on the elastic halfspace theory. approximate approach. the half. c. shear modulus defined by equation (1).EAo me 0 me I HEAD ~ mo i . it appears advisable to divide the theoretical values of the damping due to energy in which k and c are evaluated without regard to material radiation (geometric damping) by a suitable correction damping and 60 is circular frequency. s'9 How. provides for systematic analysis and describes soil confining pressure is not sufficient to maintain the bond properties by basic constants such as shear modulus or between the soil and the footing. The prin- separate from the footing sides and a gap may occur. No.. embedment. In the sense of this principle. 2. Novak and L.. ANVIL . space theory tends to overestimate the geometric damping and the damping constant. some adjustment of the G* = G + iG' = G(1 + / t a n S ) (1) theoretical results is necessary in order to account for the shape of the base. G. 13 requires the description of the stiffness and damping of the Another correction involves embedment effects. and length of the base. con- Stiffness and damping of foundations supported on soil firmed by experiments. stiffness and damping constants can be are also affected by soil material damping. The foundation and the pad under the anvil.. in general. theory indicates that embedment provides a significant source of geometric damping and contributes also to stiff- Shallow foundations ness. Another measure of by the introduction of the equivalent radius of a circular material damping is the damping ratio ~ = ½ tan 6. If only the explicitly appearing G is replaced by G*. With shallow layers. Without such a correction. 11 Warburton 12 or The prediction of the response of the hammer foundation more comprehensively by Lueo. 7 For an em. it was also observed that with the heavy vibration. The correction for the shape of the base can be made part of the complex soil modulus. some assumptions of the halfspace theory differ from conveniently described using the complex shear modulus real conditions and therefore. the equi. THE SYSTEM A better way is to account for soft layering in a more rigorous way as shown by Kobori et al. soil nonhomogeneity and in which G = the real shear modulus of soil. For a rectangular base and vertical vibration. Basic mathematical models for hammer foundations STIFFNESS AND DAMPING CONSTANTS OF often reaches very high values which may not materialize. Vol.

El Hifnawy the geometric damping is quite small or may not material. Pads and absorbers tp. 3. 22 For a rectangular pulse. the static stress is usually smaller than the dynamic frequency dependent constants of equivalent viscous stress and consequently. For simple pulse shapes. pad is It can be seen that the peak response decreases as the unit kp = EpAp/h (4) pulse duration increases and that for the ratios tp/T lower than about 0. If material damping is assumed to be viscous. METHODS OF ANALYSIS A few examples are given in Ref.o (5) which occurs with the blank absent. P(t). Rocking stiffness is parted by the impact. such as the Fast Fourier soft layer. When Po tp = i p P(t) d t the piles are closely spaced. the order of 0. These peak amplitudes are shown for rectangular pulses having different durations. system can readily be obtained from the Duhamel integral.4' m The problem is that the exact time history is rarely known and is actually to a Pile foundations high degree random. constant of viscous damping and the resultant damping These two assumptions.01 to 0. This 0 factor is treated by Poulos and Davis. in which I = second moment of pad area. it appears where /3p = the damping ratio of the pad material and possible to predict the response using the assumption of an w = the frequency of the block or anvil vibration. 1 45 . 20. infinitely short pulse and no constant becomes frequency independent and equal to anvil uplift. Ap = area of of pulse duration and equal to that obtained with an the pad and h = its thickness. The time Most hammer foundations are adequately represented by a history of the pulse and its duration depend on the con. 27 Thus. With centric blows and a symmetrical arrangement.001 or 0. the founda- tion response to the impact also depends on the time RESPONSE OF TWO MASS FOUNDATIONS history of the force resulting from the impact and trans. as a rule. ~0 = Ep ]/h (6) with increasing duration of the pulse. 4a.~ 7 floating piles in homogeneous soil ~8 and floating piles rectangular pulse having duration tp < Tp but the same in soil with a parabolic variation of shear modulus with power. the peak response is practically independent in which Ep = Young's modulus of the pad. When the foundation block or the anvil rest on a pad of The duration of the pulse is expressed as a fraction of the viscoelastic material. it may be possible for the preliminary considerations to replace the real pulse by a soil. i s. tively.02 s. 3. 19 For an arbitrary soil profile they can be calculated using the technique described in Ref. 23 Sheta and Novak 24 and others. in is. most common two mass model shown in Fig. However. Transform or the Wilson 0-method. two mass model shown in Fig. Damping con. The damping constant can be infinitely short pulse. almost all hammer response analysis: it is presumed that the It is obvious from equations (3) and (5) that frequency anvil remains in full contact with the underlying pad. but the same power Potp taken as unity (a unit pulse). infinitely short pulse which is tantamount to the assump- The stiffness in shear is analogously GpAp/h where tion that the response is caused by an initial velocity im- Gp = shear modulus of the pad. uplift of the anvil occurs. of short duration. Cp = 2~pkp/t. c. the response of a one mass Waas and Hartmann. 2. 2b is investi- gated first. This pulse is a transient force. can be used very effec- Dynamic properties of soil needed in the above ap. IN TWO DEGREES OF FREEDOM ferred to the anvil in the form of a pulse. i. 1983. The energy of the impact is determined by the weight of the head and its impact velocity. Because the Stiffness and damping of foundations supported by piles are readily available for endbearing piles in homogeneous duration of the pulse is very short. The approximation which this assumption implies is stants for shear and rocking are obtained as a fraction of further justified by a more severe approximation made in stiffness. This damping. are adopted in this paper. an allowance should be made for pile-soil-pile interaction effects (group effects). about 0. For pulses of longer duration. Novak and L.1. A review of the various methods available can be found With damping neglected for simplicity. the calculation can be facilitated by using published data. i. The response of the P 2/3pkp.e. this assumption is conservative because the response decreases kp. the peak amplitudes in Roesset. calculated in terms of the complex Young's modulus and The duration of the pulse of hammers is quite short. anvil whose displacement is v~ and m2 = mass of the founda- Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Tp. ditions of forging. Consider the effect of pulse duration. Methods for this type of analysis were presented for ize at all if the first natural frequency of the hammer hammers by Rausch ~ and Lysmer and Richart 2s but any foundation is lower than the first natural frequency of the general computer oriented method.e. depth.002. 16 the use of shock spectra available. Vibration o f hammer foundations: M. The response of a one mass model in one degree of freedom follows from the elementary theory of vibration. the pulse duration may be even shorter. Vol. No. aspect is. For the most severe impact. such as half-sine pulse or proaches can be established by experiments or estimated decaying sine pulse. 14. the A rigorous analysis can be conducted by calculating the model has two degrees of freedom with m~ = mass of the footing response for the given time history of the pulse. In independent (hysteretic) material damping results in reality. A correction for pile separation can be made as described in Ref. as in equation (3). neglected because its inclusion would the constant /3 can be replaced by/3'60. in which/3' is the considerably complicate the analysis. just as in equation (5). the vertical stiffness constant of the natural period of the system T = 21r/6oo also taken as unity. 2b and reproduced in Fig. 21 Wolf and yon Arx. 7 of the response are plotted in Fig.

1. usually taken as 0. . 1983. = for/=lor2 (15) v21 kH--m160~ --k21 ['m ~ {9} + [c]{~}+[k]iv}={O} (11) In the displacement vq.2 .. {vl(t)l={vH]sin601t+[v12tsin602t (13) vs(t)l Vs~/ tvssl •S2= ~'t~2~Oa 2 OJ~ . No.601 v12 = (17b) undamped vibration first. more convenient to analyze the 60a .a/-4[--~l --~2] +'m.L -Vv.- 60160~ 6°2:-. amplitudes of mass ml or ms while the second subscript The response results from the impact of the hammer indicates the frequency and mode with which the ampli- head which issues to the anvil the initial velocity ~)l(0) = d./m. cl The two corresponding ratios of displacements representing describe the properties of the anvil pad calculated from the undamped vibration modes are equations (4) and (5).. Vol. Vibration o f hammer foundations: M. Vl] --kzs ks2--m2607 The governing equations of the system are a/= . r . 17.125 m thick respectively. 0. Denoting the displace- ment vector HEAD i me MODE 1 MODE 2 {v}= [v. 7. 0 .z the mass matrix is [. Applying this initial VH = . is 152 m/s.6 . C ms/. Co are the mass and impact velocity of the 2 2 hammer head respectively and kr is the coefficient of resti. vs] r (7) '[~ 0). however. 8 W and other data are given in Ref.. The soil shear Z o wave velocity. 3. I v . It is. 4. 6a). 602 . Po = l/tp) Ref.. the undamped response of both the anvil and the foundation can be calculated from equation (13). 2 ) (~ 2 . With these amplitudes. the damped response can be s s analyzed. 5a. Vs.6o21 = vll 1 ----60~ (17c) 2 2 (60s-60~) (60=-60. Both vibration modes partici- o3 pate in the response but the contribution of the second ~ 2 mode and the general character of the response depend on Y the stiffness of the anvil pad. Figures 5 and 6 o were computed for an embedded foundation of the type shown in Fig. 6a and 7a. Two mass hammer foundation and its vibration =[21 kl + k s ] (9) modes [ cl --cl ] (10) [c]=-c~ c~ +c~ in which the two natural frequencies are Constants ks. The anvil pad is visco- u) 4 elastic. these constants are determined accordingly. .5 or so.m: (14) and are described in more detail in Ref. Peak response to rectangular pulse o f unit power piles are the same as those described in the example in vs.m] = [ m . 3. 2 2 (17a) 601 602 . reduces the ampli- tudes of the anvil and suppresses the contribution of the 0 I I I I I I I I I I second mode to the vibration of the footing (Fig. The soil shear wave velocity is 100 m/s in this 46 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.) 2 2 60.60a tution. The basic dimensions are shown in Fig. 1 . C2 describe stiffness and damping of the foundation. The ~. Novak and L. 0] BLOCK mz (8) 0 ms and the stiffness and damping matrices are (a) (b) (c) Fig. 3.4 . Examples of the undamped x x 6 p(t)t P(t)~ response are shown in Figs. The reduction in pad thickness W increases the second natural frequency. ~ Tv. (16) mo + m r the vibration amplitudes appearing in equation (13) are where too.. ~z ANV. They are available in the references given above 6 0: " = . With rubber elements or springs with dampers. E1 Hifnawy tion block whose displacement is v2.~ 0 1 2 =--V21 -- COs ( I '7d) for the foundation.5 m and 0. pulse duration (Pox tp = 1.0 Figure 7a shows the undamped response of the same PULSE DURATION / PERIOD ( t P / T ) hammer foundation but supported by 15 timber piles.8 1. Constants k~. 4. .601 condition to equation (11). ~°) 2 ~ and can be written as 7)21 = . 2 2 602 602 . the first subscript identifies the in which ~ = dSv/dt 2 and (J = d~/dt. ~. 2.2 \ m .. tude vi/ is associated. Denoting the natural frequency of the anvil in case of a rigidly supported foundation block mo e = (1 +kr) ~ Co (12) 60a = ~/k. The two vibration modes are shown This velocity follows from the basic formula for collision as in Fig. .601 Undamped vibration for the anvil and The solution for the undamped response is well known (~=2 .

The foundation response comprises the two vibration ~'C modes shown in Fig. v. vibrating in mode / with natural frequency ¢o]. Response of two mass hammer foundation. v:~ ( 1 ) o in which ~ = the relative displacement between the bodies to which the dashpot is attached. (Displacements in in. . El Hifnawy case. 4. simple way of incorporating damping in the analysis is I in. damping is defined by the S ANVIL. but it is more convenient to predict the damped response approximately using the notions of modal analysis and modal damping. Vol.125 m thick. = 2. I in._l ¢o) UNDAMPED ~' I . 4.1%.Sin thick: {a) undamped. ~ . (t) constants cl and c2 (Fig. v=(t) euu. damping o f soil in which the relative amplitudes are reduced to ¼: (a) undamped. 5. The work done durin. 6a and 7a show the undamped response. ANVIL. However. The pries increase the fundamental natural frequency.g a period of vibration T = 21t[t~I O B (o) UNDAMPED by the damping force P(8) is. I sin ~jt. 621=v2! (20) Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.54 cm. (b) damping. 1 47 . No. Response o f two mass hammer foundation.. The damping ratio associated with vibration in each of these modes can be evaluated by means of an energy consideration if it is assumed that the damped mode is approximately the same as the undamped mode.9%. 7. (Displacements in in.ANVIL. the overall character of the response and the ~. D2 =5. . v. . 6. (b) DAMPED By(t) = 8. Damped vibration 0 P In the two mass model. Yo. . This is shown in the next paragraph in which a damped (D1 =51%. Response of two mass hammer foundation sup- ii ported by 15 timber piles with anvil pad 0. ~ • ' • / \ ~it (O') UNDAMPED I . (Displace- TIME T • I £ . v=(t) ~?0.. 82/(t) = 8 2 / ~ ~/t (19) Fig. anvil pad 0. LA. /t~ ANVIL.54cm. em. equation (11). . vz(t) (b) DAMPED w Fig. Figures 5a. D2 = Z4%).54cmj 6 V = vV--v2i . anvil pad 0. in general. (b) damped (DI = 12.. '. Novak and L. w.. = 2. 1 in.3 ments in in.~"-/OUNDATION' v2 ( ' ) ~. time in seconds} presented. = 2. 2. --.. despite the lower shear wave velocity as may be expected. (f) w~.8%}. I o T s ANVIL. magnitude of its amplitudes can be greatly affected by bedded footing. em- bedded footing. ~. v= (t) W = f P(~) d~(t) (is) ? w ~ /V DATION.5 m thick: (a} ..-/r~/. time in seconds} lD_ (b) DAMPED Fig. These constants could be considered in the governing equations of the motion. Vibration o f hammer foundations: M. (b) damped (1)1 =10. ~ ~2o.3%). undamped. 4a). vt ( t ) . o F ANVIL. 1983. For the hammer founda- tion shown in Fig. D 2 = 5.

becoming vibration modes. 1983. When the foundation block is sup- stiff anvil pad. In equation (25). The second vibration in the/th mode. The (18) as response amplitudes are reduced to about one half of the undamped amplitudes. the damping ratios Di are given by equa. The only difference is the inclusion of soil and anvil pad damping. (The undamped can easily be deduced from equation (27)) amplitudes can also be used in equation (29) in lieu of In Figs. 1=1 tions (25) or (26). as was demonstrated for periodic excitation in Ref. 1 . Alternatively. 5b. v~i = 1. chosen for each mode. one amplitude can be damping is less significant than for shallow foundations. putationally as advantageous as in the case of two degrees 48 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. while this procedure is calculated using equation (27). Consequently. 2 and 3. in this ease. This reduction in soil damping.v2/) 2 + c2 v21] (22) significant because it may suggest a better performance of In free vibration.9%. cl is the damping constant of the anvil and c2 is the damping constant of the founda. applicable to the more complicated systems it is not com- tions considered are the same as those assumed for un. equation (25) simplifies to approximate First. was reduced to one fourth of the value used for Fig. No. the foundation is em- P(~2) = c2~2/= c2~2160i cos COlt bedded.g. about in yields the damping ratio associated with the foundation proportion to the reduction of soil damping. c: may be foundation analyzed in this example is the same as that necessary due to converting a constant hysteretic damping assumed in Fig. 7a except for the inclusion of soil and anvil to equivalent viscous damping if material is not considered pad damping. The amplitudes v q and v21 are the undamped which is much less than the 51% predicted for the em- amplitudes given by equation (17). a three 601~. modal displacements. mode damping is 5. 2. The frequencies appearing in these equations are the example of the damped. transient response of a pile sup- ported hammer foundation is shown in Fig. The natural frequencies 6ol and 602 calculated from equation (14). Such a reduction is practically I4/= n60/[cl (vii -. The damping of the first mode is only 10. 2c can be used to analyze the response. 51%.4% for the second mode. Accordingly. are plotted. for each natural mode. then also vll ~ v21. 5. which can be the case with a complicated systems. Novak and L. For hand calculations. P(~I) = c1~ I = c1~1/601 cos colt (21) In the example shown in Fig. 7b. i. A redesign of the foundation.e. An tion. The founda. The resultant damping is very high for the funda- The total work done by these forces follows from equation mental mode. only slightly higher than the assumed anvil pad material damping ratio of 5% and less 1 1)/= ~ [cl(vq--v2/) 2 +c2v~/] (25) than the 7. Piles provide greater stiffness but smaller damping where / = 1. The damped response of mass mt can be in which the damped natural frequencies written as 60. 2.60:t) sin60'2t (27) Mj = E (30) 1=1 ~)22 and ] = 1. [cl (vl/--vz/) z + ez(v2/--v3/) 2 + c3v~/] (29) 260iM/ {vl(t) / = [ v l l / exp(--D160xt)sin60'lt v2(t)J ~ v211 in which 3 +{v12} exp(--O. e.4% obtained with full soil damping. results in the reduction of the Then.1 2M/60]2 (23) foundation with the stiffer anvil pad. the damped vibration of the anvil and the 1 foundation block can be written as 1)i--. Thus. the eigenvalue problem of the system is solved to expressions for modal damping ratios yield three vibration modes with amplitudes vi/ and fre- e2 Cl quencies 60/. The soil damping where the generalized mass of mode j constant. The modal damping is produced by the three Dl 2x/k2(ml+m2) D2 2 kx/'k'~lm~ /3t' (26) dashpots. 602 ~ ~ mass model shown in Fig. arbitrary bedded foundation. the reduction of the first modal amplitudes complying with equation (15) may be peak ampltiudes of the anvil and the foundation due to used in equation (25).1% as viscous. one set o f c . This damping ratio of the fundamental mode to 12.x/k2/(ml +m:). = 6oi ~ (28) 3 and v~/. The above approach to lated using the ratio ai. "c2.) However. vqexp(--Di601t)sin60'lt (31) equations (17). the damping ratio is deemed as I)/= W/47rL. 17. and 7. Vol. may not be actually needed.3%. which might be hi~ = rely2~ + m2 v~/ (24) caused by soil layering. damped vibration can readily be extended to include more If the frequency 602 ~ 601. Figure 6b shows the damped response of the embedded L = 12(mlvq2 + m2v2/) 2 60]2 --. approximate in which vii are the undamped amplitudes obtained from expressions for the estimate of peak values of the response the initial conditions and the modal ratios.Vibration o f hammer foundations: M. 5. and the other calcu- More complicated systems. v22 "~ v12 and ported by absorbers and protected by a trough. v2/are the undamped amplitudes established from V/(t)= ~. the character of the response is different. 2601Mj With pile foundations. The modal damping associated with the three vibration modes is obtained by extension of the energy Because equations (13) represent the superposition of argument. El Hifnawy The damping forces generated by the dashpots are damped vibration. which might and is appear necessary. 6b and 7b examples of damped response. the maximum potential energy of the the foundation than might be expected if damping is whole system is the same as the maximum kinetic energy neglected.

it may be concluded that the more convenient of freedom. ~bt. centres of gravity and elastic centres do The force vector {P(t)} describes the impulse. the ui. 1983.00) -I-(I.56 _L 6.00) -I. ] r Then.x\\\\ complex eigenvalue problem. o ~ "2 the extraction of modal damping is described in detail in Ref. 6 and 7 was evaluated by means of equation (34) and compared with the values ascertained by plane (rocking). the solution of hammer in this section for completeness of the analysis. . m with eccen~- cally mounted anvil Modal damping of the foundations used in the examples shown in Figs. also used later herein. and a rotation in the vertical plane. . The damping ratios. . a horizontal displaeemant. These eigenvalues can be written for each vibration mode j as -F X/= --D/~j +iCo/ X/1 --D] (33) ~ . . the procedure is outlined in Appendix I.28 . 29 and 30.or more. For a two mass system with six degrees 51%. Complex eigenvalue approach. Equation (35) is a set of n differential equations of the second order if n is the number of degrees of freedom. For other types of structures.40 (frequency) and {¢b} the complex vector of modal displace. . i (2. equation (11). stiffness and damping matrices of the system to accom- modate horizontal translations and rotations in the vertical [A]{$} + [B]{z} = {F(t)} (37) Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.f motion was shown by Frazer et al. i. X a complex eigenvalue FT 16. therefore. force vector is ments need not be considered because there usually is a vertical plane of symmetry passing through the axis X. and solving the x. From the complex eigen- values. 19/. No. pulse acting with eccentricity e relative to mass m l. vi. [m](6} + [c]{zi) + [k]{u} = {P(t)} (35) in which the displacement vector ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE USING COMPLEX EIGENVALUES {u} = [ulvt ~klu2v2 ~k2---]r (36) When the blows. . 2.O0)- in which A is a complex constant. The shallow or pile foundation are established using the theories agreement between the results of the two methods was in referred to above. Thus. six or nine If the response is treated as free vibration triggered by degrees of freedom. Both approaches are considered shown in Fig.) {P(t)}=[O P(t) eP(t) 0 0 . (2. . (m) (5.00) " ments. Substitution of equation ( 3 2 ) i n t o equation (11) l leads to the complex eigenvalue problem whose solution yields the complex eigenvalues.e. that these matrices are known. 28. and ~ ~. Schematic of hammer . In such situations. For a goes a vertical displacement. 1 49 . 8. It follows from o~ equation (33) that the modal damping ratio can be calcu- lated as 19] = --ReX//IXil (34) Fig. 2 have three. is to be analyzed for a given time history of the load. 5. When the basic characteristics of the means of the energy consideration. An example of such a foundation is initial velocity {P(t)} = {0}. under. (Other displace. .if the response not occur on a common vertical line. the determination of the matrices needed all cases excellent even for the highest damping ratio of is straight forward. 31 and 32. This type of analysis is outlined in the following paragraph. into the governing equations of the motion. i = x / ' ~ _L and D1 is the damping ratio of mode j.56 _1_ 3. each mass. . ci. Novak and L. It Governing equations o. foundation response based on undamped modes loses its advantage of simplicity and an analysis utilizing damped Complex eigenvalue method modes and complex eigenvalues becomes preferable. the i computer-based procedure described later herein is more efficient.~:S . For three degrees of freedom . The complex eigenvalue analysis. the energy method may be less accurate as shown in Refs. El Hifnawy of freedom. In this procedure. 28 that the solution of these equations can be facilitated by transforming them into 2n The first step of the analysis is to expand the mass. Then. the systems indicated in Fig. mathematically accurate values of modal damping ratios can be established. Vibration of hammer foundations: M. . . differential equations of the first order. 8. Vol. in which cb/= IX/I is a frequency close to the undamped natural frequency 60/but generally not equal to it. 31. equation (25). method of evaluating modal damping by means of the Assume. energy consideration is sufficiently accurate for hammer the governing equation of motion is foundations. obtained from the energy consideration can be verified by introducing the damping constants. the solution to equation (11) is written in the form ////////// \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {v} = A eXt{(I)} (32) 1_ 6. is treated in Refs. .

All eigenvectors can be assembled of the radius of gyration. The response to a given pulse can be The principal advantage of the complex eigenvalue obtained from equation (37) by means of the complex approach is that it incorporates the effect of damping in a eigelavectors.2n (44) in which / / / / / / / f / / / / / f / / 3~(t) = {~/) T{F(t)} (45) 3 DOF The complete solution to equation (44) is established as a Fig. . equations (40). El Hifnawy in which condition q/(0). For more complicated pulses numerical s~ = x/&. 2n.r)] h (r) dz/A I 0 (u} (0} {z)= {u}' {F(t)}= {P(t)} (37b) (46) The first term of this equation can be used to describe the The vector {z} comprises the vector of velocities {fi} and the response of the hammer foundation to initial velocities vector of displacements {u} and hence its order is 2n. the complete solution for q/is [0] I'm] -EmJ [01 [A]= . equation (42) reduces to [A/] {q} -.tB/] {q} = [~]T{F(t)} (43) Since both [A/. The basics of this approach were already discussed by Rayleigh. 1983. {z(t)} follows modes: 29. .Vibration of hammer foundations: M. m ~ tions (43) decouple into independent equations U I (l/--Xlq/=fl(t)/a / ] = 1 . the equation (38) into equation (37). . Forced vibration. and a particular integral of the nonhomo- geneous equation. .] r in which ~ is a complex eigenvalue to be determined and {~} a complex eigenvector of order 2n independent of and {u(0)} = {0}. leads to the following orthogonality conditions for damped With ql established from equation (46).~(0)}=[0 vl ~. The eigenvectors are orthogonal which systems (Fig. [B]= (37a) EmJ [c] [0] [k] t and q~(t) = q/(0) exp (k/t) + ~ exp [ kl (t -. 1 .t) {~} (38) (. e ~1 = (1 + kr) co (47) lem whose solution by means of a suitable subroutine i~(1 + ml/mo) + e 2 yields 2n eigenvalues. Thus. ?V. given by the initial generating response in three degrees of freedom 50 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. equation (37) becomes [A] [~]{q} + [B] [~]{q) = {F(t)} (42) Premultiplying by [~]T and applying the orthogonality conditions. 2. Novak and L. equa.. the elements analytically. 2. These initial conditions determine the time. .. 33 and 34. 29. the impact velocity of the head and i~ = Ii/m~ is the square plex conjugate modes. The initial velocity I)1 = d is given by equation (12). . For free vibration {F(t)} = {0} and a history. having the individual eigen. . For simple shapes of the pulse.)t [II) (q~} = {0} (39) velocity follows from the well known expression Equation (39) constitutes the complex eigenvalue prob. Vol. The initial angular (--[A]-' [BI -. 33 from equation (41) and this determines the displacements {u} by equation (37b). 3° in which qi(t)=q/ is a function of time. the second term can be used to evaluate the response to the pulse given by its time Free vibration. Other details on the complex eigenvalue {z(t)) = [~] {q(t)} (41) analysis can be found in Refs. 9). initial values ofql(0 ) follow from equation (41). Co is complex conjugate pairs with corresponding pairs of com. 0 0. No. 28. caused by the impact of the head. the integral can be evaluated in which EAI ] and [`B/. [~] r [a ] [~] = ['. The mass ml is the mass of the in a square modal matrix [~].] and [`B/]are diagonal matrices.] are diagonal matrices. The eigenvalues come out in in which e is the blow eccentricity relative to mass ml. 2 . Introducing the linear transformation rigorous way. Denoting the identity matrix [I] and substituting initial values of {z(t)} by equation (37b) and then. integration is always feasible. . particular solution to equation (37) can be written as For the application of the initial conditions only the initial velocities of the anvil are nonzero giving {z(t)} = exp (~.4/~ (40a) When solving the response to a pulse described by its [~] 7"[B] [~] = tBl ] (40b) time history the integral part of equation (46) is used. and corresponding eigenvectors {~/} for ] = 1. One mass system with eccentric hammer blows sum of the homogeneous solution. 9. anvil in multi-mass systems or the total mass in one mass vectors as columns. The homogeneous solution may be applied to describe the response for time exceeding the duration of the pulse.

12h.. 1 in. Voi. When applied to the cases of shallow and pile foundations shown in Figs. 8. The second approach is based on complex eigenvalues (c) ROCKING and damped vibration modes. E! Hifnawy Examples 2- First. = 2. time in s) arrangement or eccentricity of the blows calls for the Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. This would be a rare situation for a two mass hammer but it was chosen to illus- LD_ (o) VERTICAL trate a case in which initial rotation of the anvil occurs. This rotation follows from equation (47).0 eccentric with eccentricity e = 0. 120. The ~I I I I foundation differs from that used in Figs. the complex eigenvalue method was used to ^ ~ .. Vibration of hammer foundations: M. (Response in in. Novak and L. is based on the evaluation of modal damping by means of undamped 20. 8. 11. previous case of centric blows against the eccentrically located anvil. it can be applied to complicated hammer founda- response of asymmetrical hammer foundation shown in tions and particularly to those in which asymmetry of the Fig. _ _ / ' . 6 and 7. 8. 5b. the hammer blows were considered as 0. (t) analyze the response of symmetrical. time in s) vl ( t ) both the anvil and the foundation. 60.. and radians.54 cm. The basic / / \ /-"2('L_. The vertical response shown in Z 0_ . the fundamental vibration mode is less severely damped and the rocking displacements of the anvil are much greater than in the ~. O0. the complex eigenvalue method was used to analyze the response of a hammer foundation with ~'. / Fig. ld0. laJ 5. d. The first approach.54 cm. (. The reference points are the centre of gravity of both the anvil and the foundation block with the frame of the hammer. oL--.J (b) HORIZONTAL foundation block. horizontal and rocking components o f the response does not oscillate around the equilibrium response o f symmetrical hammer foundation to eccentric position.E by the eccentric position of the anvil and consequently. M ment further supports the validity of the modal analyses ( o ) VERTICAL using modal damping. although not very large. 1 51 . translates into vertical and horizontal dis- placements comparable with the others. However. the vertical displacements is not changed very much by the eccentricity of the blows. 2. In another example. 5. suitable for longhand analysis of two mass systems with two degrees of freedom. While the level of . two mass hammer foundations with two degrees of freedom. (Response in in. 8.v. dimensions of the foundation are given in the figure. 10. The analysis was repeated for a foundation in which the centre of gravity of the anvil is located on the centreline of the foundation block with all the other data the same as in Fig. As in the other examples. u. This agree. undamped modes and modal damping. The response calculated using the first term of equation (46) is shown in Fig. 6 and 7 only . TlhE TILE-@ vibration modes. and radians. No.5 m. 1983. horizontal and rocking components of puter. With the use of the com- Fig. 1 in. . The response obtained is shown in Fig. = 2. the initial velocity approach was used. by the eccentricity of the hammer blows relative to the <~.. ] 1. Vertical. r. The effective damping of the funda- (c) ROCKING mental mode is very high (90%) because it is increased by the contribution from rocking and sliding and that is why Fig. lOa can be compared with Fig. the complex eigenvalue approach yielded results which are practically identical with those obtained by means of."-J ~-u~(t) eccentrically mounted anvil shown in Fig. 0 2d.E 6 -'1E-3 I 0d. The horizontal response is quite significant for blow. In this case. 100. The system has six degrees of "~ ~(t) freedom as indicated in Fig. t0. (b) HORIZONTAL CONCLUSIONS Two approaches are presented that make it possible to predict damped response of hammer foundations. Vertical.. The rocking. 10. the general character of the response is different.

. J. 221-69. G. June 1982. 5th Colloquium on Industrial 3 Novak. M. Disaster Prevention Research Inst. The Theory o f Sound. Aachen. ASCE. 1976. the reference points are indicated in Fig. Vibration o f hammer foundations: M. p. Zh'v. 1978. 19-21 June 1978. is considered. and Riehart. 1970. SM3.S T I F F N E S S A N D DAMPING 7 Roesset. V. pp. Y. I. p. Design of vibration isolation systems for forging motion of damped linear dynamic systems. Novak and L. and Hovanessian. Cambridge University Press. 79. Vertical vibration of floating pries.570-590 With eccentric blows. complex eigenvalues. Soil Mech. There are six 10 Novak. 33 Foss. Analysis o f Pile Foundations Modal damping evaluated on the basis of an energy con. This analysis suggests the following quake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. Germany. 4. 153 6 Srinivasulu. Chap. and Davis. (in German). M. Forced vibration of a body on an elastic k14 = --ku I kls = 0 k16 = . vertical loading. 8. J. 1962. Vibrations o f Soils and Foundations. J. Minai. M. Notations f o r asymmetrical hammer foundation EM3. 92. Dynamic response of footings to well as rocking may be generated. G. H. 9 Novak. Hall. 10 sideration agrees very well with that obtained from 24 Sheta. and Crede.J. Report BLWT-4-1982. F.. Matrix-Computer Methods Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. M. A. k l l = ku~ kl2 = 0 k13 = . the damping of the 27 Belyaev. with non-classical damping. Part 2.. N o . Proc. 103. Peak loads in the co-impacting parts of a ham- anvil is increased by the damping due to soil. Proc. 1974. foundation asymmetrically arranged. G.. pp. McGraw-Hill. Pasadena. R. pp. Mech.. No. 20 Novak. II. and Design. 12. Collet's Holdings Ltd. 1980. p. 1957. o f the Earthquake Engineering and Soil x Dynamics. 25. 1982.. 1981. 1981. Appl. SMIRT. No. April 1978. 1970. 1966. Cart Geotech. E. C. 53-79 15 Kim. ASME. G.R. H. Fig.. Appl. A. 32 Novak. B. 30 October 1980. Paris..C. 371 16 Richart. 20.k u . 643 with six degrees o r freedom 52 Soil D y n a m i c s a n d E a r t h q u a k e Engineering. 361 5 Major. Mech. C. D. J. F.Chap. 185-241.. Div. Florida. J. M. T. J. 8. E. R. ASCE Specialty Conference. Pasadena. 24. 1962. and Woods. ASCE Specialty Conference on Earth- pile foundations. ASCE. significant horizontal vibration as 25 Lysmer. pp. and yon Arx. and Suzuki. Proc. Damping of structures due to soil-structure interaction. Mech. The dynamic ground com. Int. No. The study was supported by a grant from the Natural 29 Pipes. F. y l 1971. T. Inc. and Sheta. symmetrical but the foundation is not. Can. R. 1946. 574 18 Novak. Vol. Geotech. Chap. VDI-Vedag. ASCE. Proc. pp. London. and Beredugo. Modal methods in the dynamics of systems Machines and Turbines. ASCE National Convention 'Dynamic Response o f Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects'. Proceedings Paper 13847. Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations: Analytical Aspects. M. and Novak. CONSTANTS OF H A M M E R FOUNDATIONS tions. John Wiley & Sons. T. 25-36 Geotech. Eng. M. pp. J. E. damping matrices appearing in equation (35) a two mass 8 Novak. such as the one in 3 (1). Struct.. Effect of soil on structural response to wind and earthquake. Prentice-Hall.. Earthquake Engrg and Struc. Duncan. EMI. M. and Found. and Vaidyanathan.. Dusseldorf action on damping of structures. Sound and Vibration. D. and Chaps. Fig. Chap. 26 Harris. 1983. 36. I . Vertical vibration of embedded The numbering of the displacements. and Novak. 1981. 6. J. Div.. S. Eng. 107-232. L. Kyoto University. J. Faculty of Engineering Science. 1970. J. in Engineering. J. observations: 1024-41 23 Waas. Maschinen Fundamente. Inc. Chap. Stiffness and damping of piles in Layered media. E. H. McGraw- Hill Book Co. Proc. 325 14 Novak. M. Found. Earthquake Engrg. University of Western Ontario. and Aboul-Ella. Approximate approach to contact ¥ problems of piles. 18 (3). Dover Publications. Coordinates which uncouple the equations of 4 Rivin. 1974. Pile Foundation Analysis and addition to vertical vibration.. Soil Mecl~ and Found. C. Vibrations of a rigid disc on a Layered viscoelastic medium. 1976. 9. Second Ed. A. pp. 153 19 Novak. the stiffness and damping 11 Kobori. pp. 1958... El Hifnawy consideration of rocking and horizontal translation in 21 Poulos. V. 2. Lord. p. Foundations for shock-producing machines. 397 Both methods were used to analyze a few shallow and 22 Wolf. Florida. A P P E N D I X I . A. J. 65-91 Pile foundations provide less damping than shallow founda. 33 2 Barkan. XII and XIII... 1950. 1983. K. Dynamics o f Eases and Foundations. W. 103-34. hammers. 1945 (original edition 1877). A. New York. 12. M. Kusnetchno-Shtampovotchnoye Proisvodstvo (Metal Stamping ProductionJ. ASCE. 326. Elementary ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Matrices. 704-19. REFERENCES 31 Novak. SMP. ASCE. M. J. GT4. R.. A. 1291. Res. of a Specialty Session. R. M. A. J. t5 . M. Dyn. 1-30. D. pp. Dynamic properties of some cohesive soils of Ontario'. 1969 30 Rayleigh. mer. O.. and Collar. E. Vol.U. ASCE. ASCE National Conven. 1. England.. 837 degrees of freedom and thus. F. Engrg. and El Hifnawy. J. 1976 In the case of shallow foundations. 1977. M. M. Int. 8. o f Geotechnical Engineering Div. 1972. 289 12 Warburton. Vertical vibration of pile groups. L. matrices are 6 x 6 with the elements k i / a n d cii as follows: pliance of a rectangular foundation on a viscoelastic stratum. 414 pp. E. E. Aerodynamics. Engrg. 1978. Design. M. As an example of the formulation of the stiffness and tion. New Delhi. P. M. Vibration Analysis and Design o f Foundations for 34 Traill-Nash. 96. 1980. No. 5. Impedance functions of a group of vertical pries. Can. G. 55 k21 = 0 k22 = kv~ k2a = 0 13 Luco. P. L. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Mech. No. W. 17 Novak.k u t y 2 stratum. California. Tata McGraw-Hill PubL Co. Nucl. Impedance functions of pries in Layered media. and El Hifnawy. Dyn. Soil Mech. Under Dynamic Loads. London. Prediction of footing vibrations. Stiffness and damping coefficients of founda. 8 (in Russian) 28 Frazer. Geo- tech. Shock and Vibration Handbook. and Hartmann. No. John Wiley & Sons. Bull. lh'v. Div.. Handbook o f Machine Foundations. Effect of soil-structure inter- 1 Rausch. The anvil is SM12. 1. tions. 104. J. the geometry and footings. J. J. I~ I Div.. and Ahoul-Ella. Ltd.

m i mass The damping matrix has the same form as the stiffness P force (pulse) matrix and its dements ct! are calculated in the same way as q generalized coordinate kil except that the constants ku. ~/ frequency close (or equal) to undamped frequency Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 1983.f r2 = b--c F force J~ generalized force and the constants kvl...e . these damping constants follow Vs shear wave velocity of soft as a fraction of stiffness from equation (5). cv and c~. + ku. kul and k~l are the stiffness con. El Hifnawy k24 = 0 k2s = --kv~ k26 = --kvt r2 APPENDIX II . Vibration o f hammer foundations: M.k ~ + k u l y l y 2 ~p area of anvil or foundation pad k41 = k14 k42 = 0 k4a = ka4 aI ratio of modal displacements kg4 = k m + ku2 k4s= O Bi scalar k46 = ku~ + ku. + kv~ ks6 = k~ir2 + k~r~ viscous damping ch damping constant including material damping k6i = ki6 k66 = k~2 + k~. y21 A complex constant A. 2 mass moment of inertia foundation block. They follow from equations (4) to (6) as G' imaginary part of complex shear modulus G* complex shear modulus of soil kvl = E p A p / h . k~o~and kmo describe the stiffness of the 11. For the anvil. loss angle The mass matrix is diagonal with the diagonal elements ).Yl kas = 0 k36 = .. kv~. No. Vol. complex eigenvalue being r variable (dummy time) ml ml I1 m2 m2 12 complex modal displacement ~b rotation in vertical plane (rocking) where ]] and/2 are the mass moments of inertia of the anvil circular frequency and the block. these constants are evaluated using kil stiffness constant the approaches referred to in the paragraph on stiffness M/ generalized mass and damping constants of the system.NOTATION k31 = k13 ka2 = k23 k33 = k~. 1 53 . kv and k~o are replaced by u horizontal displacement cu. For embedded foundations and pile kh stiffness constant including material damping supported foundations.Y2 c viscous damping constant or equivalent constant of ks i = ki5 k55 = kv. The frequency v vertical displacement to use is the dominant frequency for the anvil which z variable usually is the second natural frequency and is close to the /3 material damping ratio one given by equation (16). scalar ka4 = ku. Novak and L. kul = G p A p / h . respectively. 2. k~ = Epl/h h thickness of pad I second moment of pad area Constants ku~.. + kvlr ~ + ku~r ~ + k m y ~ Co impact velocity of hammer head initial velocity of anvil due to head impact In these expressions Di damping ratio of]th mode E Young's modulus Yl = d .h rl =a/2--c e eccentricity of hammer blow Y2 = e . G real soil shear modulus stants of the anvil.