Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2. Applications
2. Applications
Indrajit Chowdhury
Petrofac International Ltd
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Shambhu P. Dasgupta
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India
CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
Typeset by Vikatan Publishing Solutions (P) Ltd, Chennai, India.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe (a CPI Group company),
Chippenham, Wiltshire.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without written prior permission from the publisher.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication
and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor
the author for any damage to the property or persons as a result of operation
or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein.
Published by: CRC Press/Balkema
P.O. Box 447, 2300 AK Leiden, The Netherlands
e-mail: Pub.NL@taylorandfrancis.com
www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk – www.balkema.nl
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Applied for
Preface xiii
1.1 Introduction 1
1.1.1 The marriage of soil and structure 1
1.1.2 What does the interaction mean? 2
1.1.3 It is an expensive analysis do we need
to do it? 4
1.1.4 Different soil models and their coupling to
superstructure 6
1.2 Mathematical modeling of soil &
structure 6
1.2.1 Lagrangian formulation for 2D frames or
stick-models 6
1.2.2 What happens if the raft is f lexible? 14
1.3 A generalised model for dynamic soil structure
interaction 28
1.3.1 Dynamic response of a structure with multi
degree of freedom considering the underlying
soil stiffness 28
1.3.2 Extension of the above theory to system
with multi degree of freedom 29
1.3.3 Estimation of damping ratio for the soil
structure system 30
1.3.4 Formulation of damping ratio for single degree
of freedom 31
1.3.5 Extension of the above theory to systems with
multi-degree freedom 32
1.3.6 Some fallacies in coupling of soil and structure 40
1.3.7 What makes the structural response attenuate
or amplify? 41
2.1 Introduction 83
2.1.1 Case history #1 83
2.1.2 Case history #2 84
2.2 Different types of foundations 85
2.2.1 Block foundations resting on soil/piles 85
2.2.2 How does a block foundation supporting
rotating machines differ from a normal
foundation? 86
2.2.3
Foundation for centrifugal or rotary type
of machine: Different theoretical methods
for analysis of block foundation 88
2.2.4 Analytical methods 90
2.2.5 Approximate analysis to de-couple equations
with non-proportional damping 99
2.2.6 Alternative formulation of coupled equation
of motion for sliding and rocking mode 105
2.3 Trick to by pass damping – Magnif ication factor,
the key to the problem . . . 113
2.4 Effect of embedment on foundation 117
2.4.1 Novak and Beredugo’s model 119
2.4.2 Wolf’s model 119
2.5 Foundation supported on piles 119
2.5.1 Pile and soil modelled as f inite element 121
2.5.2 Piles modelled as beams supported on elastic
springs 123
2.5.3 Novak’s (1974) model for equivalent spring
stiffness for piles 124
2.5.4 Equivalent pile springs in vertical direction 125
2.5.5 The group effect on the vertical spring
and damping value of the piles 127
2.5.6 Effect of pile cap on the spring
and damping stiffness 128
2.5.7 Equivalent pile springs and damping
in the horizontal direction 129
2.5.8 Equivalent pile springs and damping
in rocking motion 130
2.5.9 Group effect for rotational motion 131
2.5.10 Model for dynamic response of pile 138
2.5.11 Dynamic analysis of laterally loaded piles 162
2.5.12 Partially embedded piles under rocking mode 193
2.5.13 Group effect of pile 201
2.5.14 Comparison of results 203
2.5.15 Practical aspects of design of machine
foundations 205
2.6 Special provisions of IS-code 213
2.6.1 Recommendations on vibration isolation 213
2.6.2 Frequency separation 213
2.6.3 Permissible amplitudes 214
2.6.4 Permissible stresses 214
2.6.5 Concrete and its placing 214
3.5.2
Mononobe’s method for analysis of
earth dam 519
3.5.3 Gazetas’ method for earth dam analysis 522
3.5.4 Makadisi and Seed’s method for analysis of
earth dam 523
3.5.5 Calculation of seismic force in dam and
its stability 526
3.6 Analysis of earth retaining structures 526
3.6.1 Earthquake analysis of earth retaining
structures 526
3.6.2 Mononobe’s method of analysis of
retaining wall 527
3.6.3 Seed and Whitman’s method 530
3.6.4 Arango’s method 530
3.6.5 Steedman and Zeng’s method 532
3.6.6 Dynamic analysis of RCC retaining wall 533
3.6.7 Dynamic analysis of cantilever and
counterfort retaining wall 533
3.6.8 Some discussions on the above method 544
3.6.9 Extension to the generic case of soil
at a slope i behind the wall 544
3.6.10 Dynamic analysis of counterfort
retaining wall 547
3.6.11 Soil sloped at an angle i with horizontal 560
3.7 Unyielding earth retaining structures 571
3.7.1 Earthquake Analysis of rigid walls when
the soil does not yield 571
3.7.2 Ostadan’s method 575
3.8 Earthquake analysis of water tanks 577
3.8.1 Analysis of water tanks under earthquake
force 577
3.8.2 Impulsive time period for non rigid walls 581
3.8.3 Sloshing time period of the vibrating fluid 583
3.8.4 Calculation of horizontal seismic force for
tank resting on ground 583
3.8.5 Calculation of base shear for tanks resting
on ground 584
3.8.6 Calculation of bending moment on the
tank wall resting on the ground 584
3.8.7 Calculation of sloshing height 585
References 605
their traditional failure theories of foundation, structural engineers on the other hand
are equally reluctant to shoulder the guardianship for their inherent apathy towards
‘what lies beneath the machine foundation’. As such, a design involving machine
foundation throws the most challenging and interesting task in the domain of civil
engineering that requires multi-discipline knowledge and should be equally interest-
ing to an engineer having structural or geotechnical background. The matrix analysis
concept that we have introduced herein is quite easy to follow and we hope would
bridge the gap that is still prevalent in academics and practice alike.
We would be looking forward to have some feedback from hardened professionals
who are working in this area, as to how they feel about our representation which we
believe is quite novel and has tried to answer a number of problems that often become
burning issues on which they have spent significant time on clarifying either to their
Clients or Project Management Consultants.
The last chapter of this volume deals with the most fearful force Mother Nature has
created – “Earthquake”. Earthquake engineering as a topic is so vast, complex and
diverse (and ever changing) that we concede that it did give us some uncomfortable
moments as to what should justifiably constitute this chapter? Majority of the books
that address this topic are far too focused on buildings and there are hardly any book
around, that has addressed other specialized structures like chimneys, dams, retaining
walls, water tanks etc (except some very specialized literature). It should be realized
that some of these structures are expensive, important and cannot be ignored while
building an earthquake resistant infrastructure.
Buildings, we concede are the biggest casualties during an earthquake and are
directly related to human life but damages to other structures as mentioned above can
also create havoc especially in the post earthquake relief scenario. The major focus
being still thrust on buildings, we were also quite surprised to find that there is still
much room for improvement in many of these structures, where technologies which
are as old as 60 years are still in use (for instance earthquake response of retaining
walls). We tried to improve upon many of them and believe that we have brought about
a number of innovative solutions that can be adapted in a design office environment
and can also be used as a basis for further research.
While presenting the topic no demarcation is made between geotechnical and
structural earthquake engineering. For, as a seismic specialist our job is to minimize
the destruction of property and save human lives. Thus doing a structural design we
can perform the most sophisticated analysis and provide the most expensive detailing
and our building still fails due to liquefaction killing people__“no medals for doing
an excellent structural design!”, so if you do something do it in totality and not in
isolation and this has been our major endeavour- that we have tried to communicate
to you through this book.
Indrajit Chowdhury
Shambhu P. Dasgupta
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with some of the basic concepts of dynamic soil-structure interaction
analysis. At the advent of this chapter we expect you to have some background on
∗∗
Based on the above , we build herein the basic concepts of dynamic soil structure
interaction, which is slowly and surely gaining its importance in analytical procedure
for important structures.
In chapter 4 (Vol. 1), in the problem Example 1.3.1, we have shown how the
soil stiffness can affect the bending moment and shear forces of a bridge girder and
ignoring the same how we can arrive at a result which can be in significant variation
to the reality.
Drawing a similar analogy one can infer that ignoring the soil stiffness in the overall
response (and treating it as a fixed base problem) the dynamic response of structure
(the natural frequencies, amplitude etc.) can be in significant variation to the reality
in certain cases.
This aspect came to the attention of engineers while designing the reactor building
of nuclear power plant for earthquake. Considering its huge mass and stiffness, the
fundamental time period for the fixed base structure came around 0.15 sec while
considering the soil effect the time period increased to 0.5 second giving a completely
different response than the fixed base case.
With the above understanding – that underlying soil significantly affects the response
of a structure, research was focused on this topic way back in 1970, and under the
pioneering effort of academicians and engineers, the two diverging domain of technol-
ogy was brought under a nuptial bond of “Dynamic soil structure interaction”, where
soil and structure where married off to a unified integrated domain. To our knowl-
edge the first significant structure where the dynamic effect of soil was considered in
the analysis in Industry in India was the 500 MW turbine foundations for Singrauli
where the underlying soil was modeled as a frequency independent linear spring and
the whole system was analyzed in SAP IV (Ghosh et al. 1984).
2 4
1 1 3 2
⎡ ⎤
12 6L 0 −12 6L 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6L 4L2 0 −6L 2L2 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ IxL2 −IxL 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
EIz ⎢ 0 0
2Iz(1 + ν)
0 0
2Iz(1 + ν)0 ⎥
[Kbeam ] = 3 ⎢ ⎥ (1.1.1)
L ⎢ ⎢−12 6L 0 12 6L 0 ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6L 2L2 0 6L 4L2 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −IxL2 IxL 2 ⎦
0 0 0 0
2Iz(1 + ν) 2Iz(1 + ν)
When the soil springs are added to the nodes, the overall stiffness becomes
⎡ ⎤
L3 Kii
⎢ 12 + 6L 0 −12 6L 0 ⎥
⎢ EIz ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6L 4L2 0 −6L 2L2 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ IxL2 −IxL2 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
EIz ⎢ 2Iz(1 + ν) 2Iz(1 + ν) ⎥
[Kbeam ]= 3 ⎢ ⎥
L ⎢ ⎢ L3 Kjj
⎥
⎥
⎢ −12 6L 0 12 + 6L 0 ⎥
⎢ EIz ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6L 2L2 0 6L 4L2 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −IxL2 IxL 2 ⎦
0 0 0 0
2Iz(1 + ν) 2Iz(1 + ν)
(1.1.3)
where, [Kbeam ] = combined stiffness matrix for the beam and the spring; Kii = Kjj =
spring values of soil at node i and node j of the beam respectively.
The above is a very convenient way of representing the elastic interaction behavior
of the underlying soil and can be very easily adapted in a commercially available finite
element or structural analysis package.
Vs
≤ 20 (1.1.4)
fh
where Vs = shear wave velocity of the soil; f = fundamental frequency of the fixed
base structure; h = height of the structure.
Let us now examine what does Equation (1.1.4) signifies?
Knowing the time period T = 1/f , the above expression can be rewritten as
Vs T
≤ 20 (1.1.5)
h
For a normal framed building considering the fixed base time period as (0.1n), where
n is the number of stories and thus, we have
Vs n
≤ 200 (1.1.6)
h
For a normal building the average ratio of h/n (height : storey ratio) is about 3 to
3.3 meter. Thus considering h/n = 3, we have
3 Like Power House, Turbine foundations, Nuclear reactor Building, Main process piper rack, distillation
columns, bridges, high rise building catering to large number of people etc.
From which we conclude that for ordinary framed structure, when shear wave
velocity is less or equal to 600 meter/sec we can expect dynamic soil structure
interaction between the frame and the soil.
Incidentally, Vs = 600 m/sec is the shear wave velocity which is associated with rock.
Thus it can be concluded that for all other type of soil, framed structures will behave
differently than a fixed base problem-unless and until it rests on rock. For Cantilever
structures like tall vessels, chimneys etc of uniform cross section fundamental time
period T is given by
mh4
T = 1.779 (1.1.8)
EI
where, m = mass per unit length of the system; h = height of the structure; EI =
flexural stiffness of the system.
Substituting the above value in Equation (1.1.5) we have
mh4
Vs T Vs 1.779 EI 11.24 EI
≤ 20; or ≤ 20; or, Vs ≤ (1.1.9)
h h h m
11.24r E
Vs ≤ (1.1.10)
h ρ
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
velocity(m/sec)
0
10
12
15
17
20
22
25
27
30
Slenderness Ratio
Figure 1.1.3 Chart to assess soil-structure interaction for steel and concrete chimney.
For steel structure the above can be taken as, Vs ≤ 57580/λ where λ = h/r, the
slenderness ratio of the structure.
For concrete structure we have
123970
Vs ≤ (1.1.11)
λ
Based on the above expressions one can very easily infer if soil structure interaction
is significant or not.
The chart in Figure 1.1.3 shows limiting shear wave velocity below which soil-
structure interaction could be significant for a steel and concrete chimney.
Of all the options, spring elements connected to superstructure still remain the most
popular model in design practices due to its simplicity and economy in terms of analysis
especially when the superstructure is modeled in 3-dimensions.
It is only in exceptional or very important cases that the Finite elements and Bound-
ary elements are put in to use and that too is mostly restricted to 2 dimensional cases.
We present hereafter some techniques that are commonly adopted for coupling the
soil to a structural system.
y2
m2 J2
k2
y1 h2
m1, J 1
k1 h1
Kx K mf , J
1 1 1 1
T= m u̇2 + Jθ θ̇ 2 + m1 (u̇ + h1 θ̇ + ẏ1 )2 + J1 θ̇ 2
2 f 2 2 2
(1.2.1)
1 1
+ m2 (u̇ + (h1 + h2 )θ̇ + ẏ2 )2 + J2 θ̇ 2
2 2
1 1 1 1
U= Kx u2 + Kθ θ 2 + k1 y12 + k2 (y2 − y1 )2 (1.2.2)
2 2 2 2
d ∂T ∂U
Considering the expression4 , dt ∂ q̇i + ∂qi = 0, we have the free vibration
equation as
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
mf + m1 + m2 m1 h 1 + m 2 H m1 m2 ⎪ ü ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎢ J + m1 h21 + m2 H 2 ⎥ ⎪
m2 H ⎥ θ̈ ⎪
⎨ ⎬
⎢ m1 h 1 m1 h1
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ m1 m1 h1 m1 ⎦⎪⎪
⎪
ÿ1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎪
m2 m2 H 0 m2 ÿ2 ⎭
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
Kx 0 0 0 ⎪ u⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎢0 0 ⎥⎨θ ⎪
⎥ ⎪ ⎬
⎢ Kθ 0
+⎢
⎢0
⎥
⎥ =0 (1.2.3)
⎣ 0 k1 + k2 −k2 ⎦ ⎪
⎪y1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
0 0 −k2 k2 ⎩y2 ⎭
4 Refer Chapter 2 (Vol. 2) for further application of this formulation where we have derived a 2D soil-
structure interaction model for a Turbine framed foundation.
Figure 1.2.2 Typical finite element mesh with soil springs, for a flexible raft.
where
J = Jθ + J1 + J2 sum of all mass moment of inertia;
H = h1 + h2 = the total height of the structure.
Above formulation can very well be used in cases the foundation is significantly rigid
and can be modeled as rigid lumped mass having negligible internal deformation5 .
However for cases where the foundation is more flexible one usually resorts to finite
element modeling of the base raft which is connected to the soil springs as shown in
Figure 1.2.2.
For the problem as shown above irrespective of the raft being modeled as a beam
or a plate the soil stiffness is directly added to the diagonal element Kii of the global
stiffness matrix to arrive at the over all stiffness matrix of the system.
Before we proceed further we explain the above assembly by a conceptual problem
hereafter.
Example 1.2.1
For the beam as shown in Figure 1.2.3, compute the global stiffness matrix when
supported on a spring at its mid span. Take EI as the flexural stiffness of the
beam. The spring support has stiffness @ K kN/m.
Solution:
For a beam having two degrees of freedom per node as shown in Figure 1.2.4,
the element stiffness matrix is expressed as follows.
5 A classic example is a turbine frame foundation resting on a bottom raft whose thickness is usually
greater than 2.0 meter.
L L
1 4
3
1 2 3 4
⎡ ⎤
12EI 6EI −12EI 6EI
⎢ L3 L2 L3 L2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6EI 4EI −6EI 2EI ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ L2 L L2 L ⎥
Kij = ⎢ ⎥
⎢ −12EI −6EI 12EI −6EI ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ L3 L2 L3 L2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 6EI 2EI −6EI 4EI ⎦
L2 L L2 L
As Left hand support is fixed hence we have to eliminate row and column 1
and 2.
Similarly, as right hand support is hinged we have to eliminate row and column
5 from the above when we have
⎡ 24EI 6EI ⎤
0
⎢ L3 L2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 8EI 2EI ⎥
[K]g = ⎢
⎢ 0
⎥ with appropriate boundary conditions.
⎢ L L ⎥⎥
⎣ ⎦
6EI 2EI 4EI
L2 L L
To use the spring support, the spring is now directly added to the diagonal
element of the global matrix.
Thus the combined stiffness matrix is given by
⎡ 24EI 6EI ⎤
+ Ks 0
⎢ L3 L2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 8EI 2EI ⎥
[K ]g = ⎢
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ L L ⎥⎥
⎣ ⎦
6EI 2EI 4EI
L2 L L
The above is the normal practice adapted in global assemblage of soil spring
in a finite element assembly.
We further elaborate the phenomenon with a suitable practical numerical
example.
Example 1.2.2
Shown in Figure 1.2.5 is a bridge girder across a river is resting at points A and B
on rock abutments at ends, and resting on a pier at center of the girder (point C)
A 5.0 m C 5.0 m B
Water Level
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
A C B
which is resting on the soil bed of the river. The flexural stiffness of the girder is
EI = 100,000 kN · m2 . Area of girder is 5.0 m2 . The dynamic shear modulus
of soil is G = 2500 kN/m2 . The bridge pier foundation has plan dimension of
6 m × 6 m. Determine the natural frequencies of vibration of the girder consid-
ering with and without soil effect. Unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3. Mass
moment of inertia per meter run = 30 kN · sec2 · m.
Solution:
The bridge girder can be mathematically represented by a continuous beam as
shown in Figure 1.2.6. Here node 2 and 4 are at the center of beam.
Thus, for beam element 1, 2, 3, and 4, we have element stiffness matrix as
⎡ ⎤
12 6L −12 6L
⎢
EI ⎢ 6L 4L2 −6L 2L2 ⎥
⎥
[Kij ] = 3 ⎢ ⎥
L ⎣−12 −6L 12 −6L⎦
6L 2L2 −6L 4L2
[Kij ]
⎡ ⎤
12 6L −12 6L 0 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6L 4L2 −6L 2L2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢−12 −6L 24 0 −12 6L 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6L 2L 2
0 8L 2
−6L 2L 2
0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
EI ⎢
⎢ 0 0 −12 −6L 24 0 −12 6L 0 0 ⎥⎥
= 3⎢ ⎥
L ⎢ 0 0 6L 2L2 0 8L2 −6L 2L2 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 −12 −6L 24 0 −12 6L ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 6L 2L 2
0 8L 2
−6L 2L2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 −12 −6L 12 −6L ⎥
⎣ ⎦
0 0 0 0 0 0 6L 2L 2
−6L 4L2
[K] =
Now imposing the boundary condition that vertical displacement are zero at
1, 3, 5,6 we have
[K] =
⎡ ⎤
37.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ 0 31.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 65 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 31.85 0 0 0 0 ⎥
[M] = ⎢
⎢ 0
⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 31.85 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 ⎦
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.5
6 We assume that since the bridge is supported on hard rock at ends, displacement at node 1 and 5
are zero.
1 2 3 4 5
A C B
Kz
MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Considering the effect of soil we can construct the model as in Figure 1.2.7.
4Gr0 LxB
Here Kz = where r0 = , Here L = B = 6.0 m
1−ν π
Modes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Having established the fact as to how soil affects the dynamic response let us
see further what different type of soil model is possible. For design office practices
spring values considered are usually based on Richart/Wolf’s model which are effec-
tively combined with structure as shown above to find out the overall response of a
system.
The example above, though it has been worked out based on beam the theory, it is
effective for any kind of structural elements like plates, shells, 8-nodded brick element
etc. Thus implementing the above in a general purpose Finite element package is
quite straight forward. For raft modeled as beam with underlain spring, the essence
of arriving at individual springs at each node is same as shown in the case of static
analysis based on influence zone7 .
The only difference being that the nodal influence area is to be converted into an
equivalent circular area to arrive at vertical spring values. The horizontal springs are
based on the full area and are divided equally at the end.
kB
in which λ = 4
4Ec I , k = modulus of sub-grade reaction, (in kN/m3 ); B = width
of raft in meter; Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete (in kN/m2 ); I = moment of
inertia of the raft (in m4 ).
When the raft is rigid the gross spring value is obtained based on the full raft
dimension and then are broken up into discrete values
Ap
kz = Kz (1.2.4)
AG
where, kz = value of discrete spring for the rigid finite element; Kz = value of gross
spring considering the overall dimension of the raft; Ap = area of the finite element
plate, and AG = gross area of the raft.
1
Ec 1−ν 3
r0 = 0.8ts (1.2.5)
Gs 1 − νc2
The gross spring value is then obtained based on this equation. Finally the discrete
spring for the finite element is obtained as
Ap
kz = Kz (1.2.6)
π r20
where, r0 = equivalent radius within which the load gets dispersed; Ec = dynamic
modulus of the concrete raft; Gs = dynamic shear modulus of the soil; ν = Poisson’s
ratio of soil; νc = Poisson’s ratio of the raft, and ts = thickness of the raft.
A suitable problem cited hereafter elaborates the above more clearly.
Example 1.2.3
A raft of dimension 30 m × 15 m is resting on a soil having dynamic shear
modulus of 35000 kN/m2 and Poisson’s ratio of soil = 0.4. Determine the soil
springs for plate elements of size 2.0 m × 2.0 m for finite element analysis
considering,
Solution:
Considering the raft as rigid:
30 × 15
r0 = = 11.968 meter;
π
4Gr0 4 × 35000 × 11.96
Kz = = = 2790666.67 kN/m
1−ν 0.6
For finite element of size 2 m × 2 m discrete spring value will be
Ap 2×2
kz = Kz ➔ kz = 2790666.67 = 24806 kN/m
AG 30 × 15
Thus spring values at four nodes are 6201 kN/m i.e 1/4th of the above
calculated value. When the raft is considered flexible, we have:
1/3
Ec 1−ν
r0 = 0.8ts
Gs 1 − νc2
Based on a number of analysis carried out it can be stated that treating them
in isolation can result in conservative design9 or dangerously un-conservative, thus
resulting in an unsafe structure which could be a danger to human life and property.
Having made the above statement a number of questions obviously come to
mind10 like
1 How conservative or how susceptible the system can be ignoring the soil effect?
2 Considering soil effect (specially for FEM analysis) makes the analysis more
laborious and time consuming – thus more costly – is it worth?
3 My boss is a traditionalist and under project time pressure – can I convince him
it is worth the effort.
4 Before doing the detailed analysis itself can I come up with a quantitative value
based on which I can assess how far this effect will be (for good or worse) and
thus convince my boss on the value addition to this effort?
5 What is the risk in terms of cost and safety if I do not do this analysis?
The questions are surely pertinent and not always very easy to answer. However with
a little bit of intelligent analysis it is not difficult to come up with a logical conclusion
on this issue.
We try to explain. . .
The obvious answer is ‘it essentially could modify the natural frequency/time period
of the system’11 .
What needs to be evaluated is – what is the effect of this modified time period
on the system compared to, if the soil is ignored (i.e. it is considered a fixed base
problem).
The two classes of problems under which dynamic soil structure interaction plays a
significant role are
For the machine foundation source of disturbance is the machine mounted on the
system the dynamic waves generated are transferred from the machine – via structure
to the surrounding soil-which is an infinite elastic half space.
While for earthquake the source of disturbance is the ground itself where elastic
waves generate within the soil mass due to the tectonic movement/rupture of the rock
mass (geologically known as faults).
It is obvious that soil will affect these two classes of problem in different ways.
For instance a machine supported on a frame- the frame is usually made signifi-
cantly stiff to ensure stress induced in it are not significant and are generally made
over tuned for medium or low frequency machine when considered as a fixed based
problem.
But in reality considering the soil effect, the foundation may actually be under tuned
or even hover near the resonance zone when the underlying soil participates in the
vibration process. Thus the amplitude of vibration could significantly vary than the
calculated one.
Generically, considering the soil stiffness will make the system more flexible then
a fixed base problem and it can be intuitively deduced that though the stress might
remain within the acceptable level the amplitude of vibration will be more and could
well exceed the acceptable limit which might have secondary damaging effect to the
machine and its appurtenances.
For earthquake the effect is quite different. In this case the structure resting on the
site can be visualized as a body resting on an infinite elastic space (similar to a ship
floating in sea). Due to rupture in the fault as waves dissipate in all direction the soil
mass starts vibrating at its own fundamental frequency known as the free field time
period of the site.
In such case the earthquake acts as an electronic filter and tries to excite the super-
structure resting on it to its own fundamental frequency and suppressing or even
eliminating other modal frequencies12 . Thus if the fixed base frequency of the struc-
ture matches the fundamental frequency of the soil strata on which it is resting, they
are in resonance and catastrophe could well be a reality.
Before dwelling into the mathematical aspect of it we further substantiate the above
statement by some real life facts and observations.
Dowrick (2003) reports that in the Mexico earthquake in 1957 extensive damage
occurred to the buildings that were tall and were found to be resting on alluvium soil
of depth >1000 m. In 1967, the Caracas earthquake showed identical result where the
tall structures underwent extensive damage and those were resting on deep alluvium
soil overlying bedrock. In 1970 earthquake at Gediz in Turkey a part of a factory
was demolished in a town about 140 Km from the epicenter while no other build-
ings in the town underwent any damage! Subsequent investigation revealed that the
fundamental period of the building matched the free field time period of the site. The
Caracas earthquake as cited earlier also showed a distinctive pattern where medium
rise buildings (5–9 storeys) underwent extensive damage where depth to bedrock was
less than 100 m, while buildings over 14 stories were damaged where the depth to
bedrock was greater than 150 meters.
Let us see why such thing happened and how does it substantiate the free field time
period phenomenon as stated earlier.
The free field time period of a site is given by the equation
4H
Tn = (1.2.7)
(2n − 1)Vs
12 It can be visualized as a giant hand trying to shake a small body resting on it. Since the body is much
weaker to the giant it tries to follow the same phase of vibration as the soil medium.
120
Number of Stories
100
80
n for RCC frame
60
n for steel frame
40
20
0
0
15
45
75
05
35
3
5
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
Depth of soil/Shear wave Velocity
where, T = time period of the free field soil (i.e. without the structure); H = depth of
soil over bedrock13 ; n = number of mode; and Vs = shear wave velocity of the soil.
Thus based on the explanation above it can be argued that if the fixed base frequency
of structure is in the close proximity of the free field time period of the site the structure
may be subjected to significant excitation.
The above statement can be extended to a very interesting hypothesis.
If we equate the free field time period of the site to the fixed base time period of
the structure we can arrive at some limiting design parameters which can result in
significant dynamic amplification and which should be avoided at the very out set of
planning of the structure.
For instance as per IS-1893 RCC moment resisting frames with no infill brick work,
the fundamental time period is given by
T = 0.075h0.75 (1.2.8)
Thus equating it to fundamental free field time period of the site we have
4/3
4H 160H
0.075h0.75 = , which gives h = (1.2.9)
Vs 3Vs
13 Here bedrock is perceived as that level where the shear wave velocity of soil is greater or equal to
600 m/sec.
The curves shown in Figure 1.2.8 give limiting stories for RCC and steel frames for
which resonance can occur in a structure during an earthquake as per IS-189314 for
various values of H/Vs .
Let us now probe the problem a bit more based on a suitable numerical problem.
Example 1.2.4
A particular site has been found to consist of 100 m soil overlying bedrock
when the shear wave velocity of the soil is 222.22 m/sec. Find the limiting
number of stories of height 3.3 meter for an RCC frame for which resonance
can occur. What would be resonance story if the depth of the overlying soft soil is
only 30 m.
Solution:
Based on above data H/Vs = 100/222.2 = 0.45 when H = 100 m.
As per the chart as shown above the limiting story for which resonance can
occur is 18.
Thus for a 18 storied building resonance can very well occur and the strategy
would be to build the building at least (±)25% away i.e. either it should be 23
storied or more or 14 storied or less.
30
When the depth of soil is only 30 m, H/Vs = 222.2 = 0.135.
Based on the above chart the limiting story height is roughly 4-storey only.
Thus to avoid resonance the building should be either more than 5-storey or less
than 3-storey.
The above problem well explains the phenomenon as to what happened in the
Mexico and Turkey earthquakes and perhaps challenges the myth quite prevalent in
many design offices – that for one or two storied building earthquake is not important
and can well be ignored.
It is evident from the above problem that the response depends on the depth of soil
on which it is resting and depending on the free field time period the response can
either amplify or attenuate. It can well affect even a one storied building.
The chart in Figure 1.2.9 shows limiting story height of buildings with infill brick
panels and all other type of frames as per IS 1893 for different width of building
varying from 10 meter to 50 m15 .
The above theory is though explained in terms of building, can very well be adapted
for any class of structure for which it is possible to establish the fundamental time
period expression.
14 In this case time period for steel frame is considered as T = 0.085(h)0.75 as per IS-1893.
15 Time period of the fixed base structure considered as T = 0.09h/(d)0.5 as per, Indian Standards Institution
(1984, 2002). “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, IS: 1893
(Part 1), ISI, New Delhi, India.
40
35
30 n for d=10m
Number of story
n for d=15m
25 n for d=20m
20 n for d=25m
n for d=30m
15
n for d=35m
10 n for d=40m
5 n for d=45m
n for d=50m
0
0
6
08
15
23
38
45
53
68
75
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Depth of soil/Shear wave velocity
Figure 1.2.9 Limiting story for building with infill brick panel.
Having assessed the resonance criteria and making sure at planning stage that the
two periods do not match one would still like to quantify the combined time period
of the overall soil structure system and assess whether there is any amplification or
attenuation of the earthquake force.
Before plunging into detailed analysis based on FEM or otherwise it would be useful
to have a rough estimate as to how much the underlying soil affects the overall response.
Veletsos and Meek (1974) has given a very useful expression based on which it is
possible to estimate the modified time period of a structure, and is given by
k̄ Kxh̄2
T̄ = T 1 + 1+ (1.2.11)
Kx Kθ
where T̄ = modified time period of the structure due to the soil stiffness, T = time
2
period of the fixed base structure, k̄ = stiffnessof the fixed base structure @ 4πgTW2 ,
Example 1.2.5
An RCC Chimney 150 meter in height has a uniform cross section area of Ac =
8.5 m2 and moment of inertia I = 92.5m4 . Evaluate the base moment and
shear under earthquake considering the problem as fixed base as well as the
soil effect. The structure is located in zone IV as per IS 1893. The structure
is supported on raft of diameter 18 meter. The soil has a dynamic shear wave
velocity of 120 m/sec and unit weight of 19 kN/m3 . Consider 5% damping
for the analysis.16 The grade of concrete used is M30 having dynamic Econc =
3.12 × 108 kN/m2 .
Solution:
Height of the structure = 150 m; Area of shell = 8.5 m2
Weight of chimney = 150 × 8.5 × 25 = 31875 kN (unit weight of conc. =
25 kN/m3 )
! !
Radius of gyration of the chimney = I/A = 92.5/8.5 = 3.298 m
150
Thus slenderness ratio H/r = = 45.4.
3.298
As per IS 1893 CT = 82.8.
16 In this case it is presumed that reader has some idea of how to use the code IS-1893 or is at least
familiar with it.
Here, Cv = a coefficient depends on the slenderness ratio and as per the present
problem is 1.47 as per IS 1893; H̄ = height of c.g. of the structure above base
@ 75 meter for the problem; x = distance from the top.
Substituting the appropriate values, we have
1
M = 0.0375 × 31875 × 75 [0.6(1.0) 2 + 0.4(1.0)4 ] = 89648 kN/m
V = 1.47 × 0.0375 × 31875 [(5/3) − (2/3)] = 1757 kN.
Considering the soil effect we have the dynamic shear modulus of soil, G = ρvs2
Or G = (19/9.81) × 120 × 120 = 27890 kN/m2 .
8GR
With radius of raft = 9.0 m, Kx = , ν = Poisson’s ratio of the soil
2−ν
considered as 0.35,
8 × 27890 × 9
Kx = = 1217018.2 kN/m
2 − 0.35
8GR3 8 × 27890 × 93
And Kθ = which gives, Kθ = = 83412554 kN/m
3(1 − ν) 3(1 − 0.35)
4π 2 W 4 × π 2 × 31875
k̄ = = = 100458 kN/m
gT 2 9.81 × 1.132
0.0375
αh = × 0.05 = 0.01875 (By proportion)
0.10
89648
M= × 0.01875 = 44824 kN · m;
0.0375
1757
and V = × 0.01875 = 878.5 kN
0.0375
Example 1.2.6
Shown in Figure 1.2.10 is a horizontal vessel having empty weight of 340 kN
and operating weight of 850 kN is placed on two isolated footing of dimension
8.5 m × 3 m. The center to center distance between the two foundations is 5.5
meter. The center line of vessel is at height (H f ) of 4.5 meters from the bottom of
the foundation. Thickness of the foundation slab is 0.3 meter. The RCC pedestal
is of width 1.0 meter, length 6 meter having height of 3.45 meter. The shear wave
velocity of the soil is 200 m/sec having Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. Allowable bearing
capacity of the foundation is 150 kN/m2 . Calculate the design seismic moment
considering the effect of soil and without it, if the site is in zone III as per IS-1893.
Consider soil density @ 18 kN/m3 and unit weight of concrete as 25 kN/m3 ?
Solution:
Plan are of footing = 8.5 × 3 = 25.5 m2
Af 25.5
Equivalent circular radius = = = 2.849 m
π π
1 1
Moment of inertia of the foundation about X-axis BL3 = 3 × 8.53 =
12 12
153.5313 m4
1 1
Moment of inertia of the foundation about Y-axis LB3 = 8.5 × 33 =
12 12
19.125 m4
17 Without an elaborate analysis it could be an effective calculation to convince the boss that
you can save some money and the worth of a dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis.
yp
Hf
yp
Hp
Ds
Wp
Y
Lp Lf
X
Bf Bf
Ls
1 64Ixx 0.25
Equivalent circular radius about X axis = = 3.739183 m
2 π
1 64Iyy 0.25
Equivalent circular radius about Y axis = = 2.221 m
2 π
18
Mass density of soil (ρ) = = 1.835 kN/m3
9.81
32Gr0 (1 − ν)
Lateral spring in X and Y direction = = 1018306 kN/m
7 − 8ν
8Gr3x
Rocking spring about X axis = = 14627886 kN/m
3(1 − ν)
8Gr3y
Rocking spring about Y axis = = 3063462 kN/m
3(1 − ν)
1
Moment of Inertia of the pedestal about X axis = × 1 × 63 = 18 m4
12
1
Moment of Inertia of the pedestal about X axis = × 6 × 13 = 0.5 m4
12
340
Contributing mass for the vessel empty case = = 17.33 kN-sec2 /m
2 × 9.81
850
Contributing mass for the vessel operating case = =
2 × 9.81
43.323 kN-sec2 /m
(M + 0.25mb )
T = 2π
K
mb M
The time periods and the corresponding Sa/g values as per IS-1893 for 5%
damping are as show hereafter.
Base shear as per IS 1893 considering Importance factor as 1.0 for vessel empty
case and 1.25 for vessel in operation case we have
Moment Moment
(vessel (vessel Moment Moment
empty) empty) (operating) (operating)
about about about about
Sl no Case X direction Y direction X direction Y direction
This case clearly shows an amplification of force considering the soil effect.
Both ATC (1982) and FEMA has adapted this formula for practical design office usage
(Veletsos & Meek 1974, Jennings & Bielek 1973). The nomenclatures of the formula
are as explained earlier. Now squaring both sides of the above equation we have
k̄ ¯2
kh
T̄ 2 = T 2 1+ + (1.3.2)
Kx Kθ
2π
Considering the expression T = ω we have
4π 2 4π 2 4π 2 m 4π 2 mh̄2 4π 2 4π 2 mω2 ω2 mh̄2
= 2 1+ 2 + or 2 = 2 1 + +
ω̄2 ω T Kx T 2 Kθ ω̄ ω Kx Kθ
(1.3.3)
1 1 m mh̄2
= + + which can be further modified to
ω̄2 ω2 Kx Kθ
1 1 1 1
= 2+ 2+ 2 (1.3.4)
ω̄2 ω ωx ωθ
which gives the modified natural frequency relation for a system with single degree of
freedom. This formulation has also been shown in, Kramer, S. (2004).
m m m mh̄2 1 1 1 h̄2
= + + , or, = + + (1.3.5)
ke k Kx Kθ ke k Kx Kθ
where ke = equivalent stiffness of the soil structure system having single degree of
freedom.
We shall extend the above basis to multi degree of freedom hereafter (Chowdhury
and Dasgupta 2002).
X
O
Kx
-- mass points Kθ
Figure 1.3.1 A 3-D Frame having multi-degree-of freedom with representative foundation spring.
Here, [Ke ] = equivalent stiffness matrix of the soil structure system of order n, [M] =
a diagonal mass matrix of order n having masses lumped at the element diagonals,
[h̄2 ] = radius vectors of the lumped masses to the center of the foundation springs
of order n, Kx , Kθ = translation and rotation spring stiffness of the total foundation
system represented by a unique value.
Taking out the common factor [M], we have
" 2#
[I] [I] [I] h
= + + (1.3.7)
[Ke ] [K] Kx Kθ
where [F] = Flexibility matrix of the system with suffixes as mentioned earlier for
stiffness matrices.
Once the flexibility matrix of the equivalent soil structure system is known the
stiffness matrix may be obtained from the expression
Now knowing the modified stiffness matrix the eigen solution may be done based
on the usual procedure of
We present hereafter a method by which one can estimate approximately the contri-
bution of combined soil structure system under earthquake for various modes, without
resorting to an elaborate modelling of the soil itself.
We only estimate the contribution of the soil damping to the structural system whose
response we are interested in. The estimation is surely approximate but at least gives
a rational mathematical basis to arrive at some realistic damping value rather than
guessing a damping value at the outset and presuming that it remain same for each
mode, specially for coupled soil structure system where widely varying damping for the
foundation and structure makes it difficult for the analyst to arrive at unified rational
value applicable to the system.
ζ̄ ζ ζx ζθ
= 2+ 2+ 2 (1.3.11)
ω̄ 2 ω ωx ωθ
where, ζ̄ = damping ratio of the equivalent soil structure system; ζ = damping ratio
of the fixed base structure; ζx = horizontal damping ratio of the soil, where ζx = 0.288
√
B x
(7−8ν)mg
and Bx = 32(1−ν)ρ 3 , where m = total mass of the structure and foundation; g =
s rx
acceleration due to gravity; ν = Poisson’s ratio of the soil; ρs = mass density of the
soil; rx = Equivalent circular radius in horizontal mode; ζθ = damping ratio of the
soil in rocking mode ζφx = (1+B 0.15√
) B
and Bθ = 0.375(1−ν)J
ρ r5
θg
; and Jθ = mass moment
θ θ s θ
[ζ̄ ] = Damping ratio matrix of the combined soil structure system having n number
of modes.
It is to be noted that [ζ̄ ] is non-proportional and not a diagonal matrix, and based
on the matrix operation as shown above has off-diagonal terms.
A study on the parametric effect shows that [ζ̄ ] becomes nearly a diagonal matrix
(i.e. the off diagonal terms vanishes or approaches zero) when damping ratio of the
structure and the soil foundation system are nearly equal.
However, when the damping ratio are widely varying the off diagonal terms do not
vanish however there magnitudes are relatively smaller than the diagonal terms (ζii )
which has the most dominant effect on the system.
Thus if it is possible to arrive at a foundation layout where the damping ratio of the
structure and foundation are closely spaced considering the diagonal terms as modal
damping ratio per mode is quite correct.
Even when the off diagonal term exists due to widely varying values for practical
design engineering purpose considering the ζii term of damping ratio matrix is realistic
for it gives a reasonably rational basis of estimation of the damping ratio per mode
rather than guessing a value based on gut feeling.
We explain the above theory based on suitable example hereafter
Example 1.3.1
Shown in Figure 1.3.1 is a three storied steel frame subjected to dynamic forces.
The damping ratio for steel is found to vary between 2 to 5%. Determine
◦ Fixed base.
◦ Considering the soil effect.
G H X3
3000
E F X2
3000
C D X1
3000
A B
Figure 1.3.2
Here,
Solution:
The stiffness and mass matrix is given by
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
5000 −2000 0 400
[K] = ⎣−2000 3500 −1500⎦ and [M] = ⎣ 400 ⎦
0 −1500 1500 200
√ √
ω
√1 = 1.6426 = 1.281 rad/sec; ω2 = 10.00 = 3.162 rad/sec; ω3 =
17.104 = 4.135 rad/sec.
Thus the time periods for the fixed base structure is given by18
⎡ ⎤
0.000333 0.000333 0.000333
[F] = ⎣0.000333 0.000833 0.000833⎦
0.000333 0.000833 0.003145
⎡ ⎤
1/35000 0 0
[Fx ] = ⎣ 0 1/35000 0 ⎦
0 0 1/3500
⎡ ⎤
2.85714 0 0
=⎣ 0 2.85714 0 ⎦ × 10−5
0 0 2.85714
⎡ ⎤
9 0 0
[h2 ] = ⎣0 36 0⎦
0 0 81
18 You can check the value by any of the method as explained in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) for eigen value
analysis.
Thus
⎡ ⎤
9/50000 0 0
[Fθ ] = ⎣ 0 36/50000 0 ⎦
0 0 81/50000
⎡ ⎤
0.00018 0 0
=⎣ 0 0.00072 0 ⎦
0 0 0.00162
The above gives the combined stiffness matrix for structural system consider-
ing the soil compliance19 .
Thus based on the above modified stiffness matrix and mass matrix as
⎡ ⎤
400
[M] = ⎣ 400 ⎦
200
√
√ ω1 = 1.2163 = 1.10286 rad/sec; ω2 =
√ We have, based on eigen solution,
3.9666 = 1.9916 rad/sec; ω3 = 5.8255 = 2.4136 rad/sec.
Thus the time periods for the combined soil-structure system is given by
19 Watch the numbers. . . . . it is symmetric and is completely different than when you add the
springs directly to the diagonal. This matrix has no rigid body mode and can be used directly
for static analysis too.
Moreover if we take Kx and Kθ very high the Ke converges to the fixed base matrix K.
⎡ ⎤
0.092 −0.028 −0.020
[ζ̄ ] = ⎣−0.007 0.10908 −0.028⎦
−0.002 −0.0126 0.1115
It will be seen that that the main diagonal terms are dominant and
can be considered as the modal damping ratio contribution for each
mode.
Suppose we had closely spaced damping data like ζ = 5% for the structure;
ζx = 6% for the soil in translation mode; ζθ = 5.5% for the soil in rocking
mode, the modal damping matrix reduces to
⎡ ⎤
0.0525 −0.0015 −0.001016
[ζ̄ ] = ⎣ −0.0004 0.05312 −0.00144 ⎦
−0.00014 −0.00066 0.05315
When the matrix become practically diagonal dominant with off diagonal
terms having very low values.
Thus for the present problem ζ may be considered as ζ1 = 9.2% for
first mode, ζ2 = 10.9% for second mode; and ζ3 = 11.1% for the third
mode.
400 0.01615 6.46 0.104329 0.03244 12.976 0.420941 0.03445 13.7804 0.47475407
400 0.03507 14.028 0.491962 0.01622 6.488 0.105235 −0.01372 −5.488 0.07529536
200 0.04493 8.986 0.403741 −0.02433 −4.866 0.118389 0.02477 4.954 0.12271058
29.474 1.000032 14.598 0.644565 13.2464 0.67276001
29.474
κ1 = = 29.47306 for the first mode,
1.000032
14.598
κ2 = = 22.64777 for the second mode,
0.644565
13.2464
κ3 = = 19.689 for the third mode.
0.67276
400 −0.013 −5.2 0.0676 0.0479 19.16 0.917764 0.006 2.4 0.0144
400 −0.041 −16.4 0.6724 −0.0077 −3.08 0.023716 −0.0276 −11.04 0.304704
200 −0.036 −7.2 0.2592 −0.0169 −3.38 0.057122 0.0583 11.66 0.679778
−28.8 0.9992 12.7 0.998602 3.02 0.998882
Base shear for the frame with coupled soil-structure interaction is given by
The storey forces for the two cases are calculated hereafter
1st 400 3 3600 0.10526 7.20 ×10+00 1.20 ×10+00 5.66 ×10−02 1.08 ×10+01 5.74 ×10+00 5.17 ×10+00
2nd 400 6 14400 0.42105 2.88 ×10+01 4.80 ×10+00 2.26 ×10−01 4.31 ×10+01 2.29 ×10+01 2.07 ×10+01
Top 200 9 16200 0.47368 3.24 ×10+01 5.40 ×10+00 2.55 ×10−01 4.84 ×10+01 2.58 ×10+01 2.33 ×10+01
Comparison of results
Time period
Structure type T1 T2 T3
The time periods are increasing with introduction of soil springs as predicted
at the outset.
Acceleration
Damping
Damping constant for all mode for fixed base case varies with mode for
coupled analysis but is neither 5% min. nor 15% maximum but somewhere
in-between which is quite logical.
Modes ➔ 1 1 2 2 3 3
Storey
1 10.8 7.2 5.74 1.2 5.17 0.0056
2 43.1 28.8 22.9 4.8 20.7 0.226
Top 48.4 32.4 25.8 5.4 23.3 0.255
• The major advantage with this technique is the calculation of the time period
without resorting to an elaborate modelling of the soil. Two representative spring
value for the foundation is capable of modifying the stiffness of the super-structure
having any conceivable degree of freedom.
• This cuts down significantly the modelling as well as the cost of computation.
• No rigid body motion exists.
• Stiffness matrix of the soil structure system is symmetric and real.
• The structure can be discretized to as many degrees of freedoms one choose to
select.
• Beam, plates, shell, bricks anything can be used to model the super structure
system thus do not generically violate the procedures followed for FEM analysis
of the superstructure.
• Since the matrix has no rigid body mode may be also be used directly for calculating
the static response too. No additional computational effort is required.
• Though approximate, furnishes a rational basis of estimating the modal damping
ratio per mode for the coupled soil structure-system.
• The results are logical and in general satisfies the trend as observed based on more
rigorous analysis based on complex damping and eigen value problem (where a
matrix of order n × n gets inflated to the order 2n × 2n thus adding to the cost of
computation).
body mode and the vibration is now guided by the stiffness of the spring only. Now
the question is – does Equation (1.1.3) reflects this phenomenon – amazingly not! For
putting this value of E = 9 × 1020 kN/m2 we find that [K]g becomes an infinitely stiff
matrix where the poor Kii and Kjj (whose order would be of 105 to 106 ) is completely
gobbled up by the stiffness values of the beam that are exponentially higher and would
start giving time periods that are zero.
Like patch test in FEM, it is a test we can use to check the sanctity of a stiffness
formulation. We call this an RB (short of Rigid Body) test and we see it fails this
test with parallel spring connection, especially when the structure has got significant
stiffness compared to soil.
Now if we put Equation (1.3.7) which is the series connection, to RB test, we find
that it passes the test with flying colors for as Limit of K → ∞ the first term in the right
hand side of Equation (1.3.7) approaches zero and we are left with the soil springs
values only based on which the body vibrates and satisfies RB test conditions posed
earlier.
In Equations (1.3.8) and (1.3.9) it is clearly seen that the soil flexibility gets directly
added to the diagonal and then on inversion affects all the terms of the [Ke ] and gives the
true interaction unlike parallel spring which affects only locally the interaction effects
and does not possibly gives a true picture when the stiffness of the superstructure
becomes quit high compared to that of the soil.
20 For instance the structural configurations used for old LMW type Russian turbo-generators used
commonly in India for 210 MW plant.
B C
Sa
g
A
D
attenuation) or could result in more costly design (for amplified response) which may
vary from case to case.
Ground level
Railway Carriage
Underground Tunnel
You will be amazed to find that in most of the cases, modeling the soil intelligently
as linear springs (whose values are judiciously chosen) can be good enough for many
major soil structure interaction analyses. Specially, when the structure is modeled in
3D, avoid using Finite elements to model soil and coupling it to the structure.
Firstly, the model becomes huge resulting in more engineering time plus gives results
which become difficult to decipher and does not necessarily always gives a more
accurate or better result compared to a relatively simplified model.
Start with a simple model (preferably a stick model) and add the soil spring to get
a first order feel of how much the soil affects its response23 .
Get a basic feel as to how much the results vary in terms of fixed base problem-
if found significant one should then and only then resort to a much more detailed
analysis.
If the variation is say within 15%, one can well ignore the soil effect and consider
the problem as a standard fixed base problem and proceed with the analysis.
Keep your eyes open but do not be biased on the issue. Optimize your engineering
effort to the best possible way.
There are certain types of problem where resorting to FEM however would become
almost essential. For instance for the problem considered in Figure 1.4.1, it would be
impossible to arrive at reasonable solution without an application of FEM.
Shown in Figure 1.4.1 is a sketch of an underground tunnel catering to movement
of high speed trains. The movement of train generates dynamic forces which travels
through the soil to the surface and could adversely affect the structures built on the
surface like buildings, water tanks etc and becomes an important study for engineers
undertaking such kind of projects.
23 A computer analysis is not mandatory at this stage, a simple hand calculation or an analysis in spread
sheet or MATHCAD would suffice.
It is but evident that for these cases of modeling, the soil as spring element will not
work and a comprehensive finite element modeling of the soil based on plane strain
element is required. Here also, while doing the modeling, our suggestion would be
start with a crude model (say 20 to 30 elements) to get a fill of the first order effects
and then progressively refine the model to get a more accurate result.
In static loading case in Chapter 4 (Vol. 1) we had explained the principles of
meshing of such plane strain problem. Under dynamic loading the principles meshing
are generally done based on the following
1 Find the time period of the exciting frequency (Ts ) of the soil medium as 4H/vs .
2 If vs is the shear wave velocity of the soil medium then for λ being the wavelength of
the propagating waves they are related by vs = f λ. Here f is the natural frequency
of the medium and f = 1/Ts .
3 Thus obtain λ = vs · Ts .
4 The mesh size should preferably be λ/10 to λ/4 for linear or bilinear/quadratic
elements chosen.
One of the major limitations in FEM for wave propagation problem is that the
boundary has to be taken to a significant distance away from the source to ensure
no waves are reflected back which would otherwise generate spurious modes. This
often makes the problem expensive in terms of data input, checking and run time.
Moreover, it is difficult to gauge at the outset as to where can the boundary be
terminated.
Infinite finite element as discussed in Chapter 4 (Vol. 1) is one alternative which has
been found to have a strong potential for catering to such problem.
Other than this, paraxial boundaries or providing viscous dampers at the boundary
of soil domain capable of absorbing the propagating waves are often used for this type
of problems24 .
Else boundary elements have also been used to model such infinite domains and are
coupled to the superstructure (modeled by FEM) and an effective solution has been
sought.
Unfortunately most of the commercially available software do not have the provi-
sion of adding matrix which can be assembled to the FEM matrix and an engineer has
to write his own special purpose software to cater to such problems.
It is always preferable to do some parametric study by varying the design soil values
by (±)15 to 20% (depending on how reliable and exhaustive has been the geotechnical
investigation) and check how much these results affect the design values and preferably
a conservative and safe value should be chosen (based on this variance).
We mention in Table 1.4.1, some suggestive models for different classes of structures
where we start with a primary model (i.e. to get a basic feel of the response) and a
secondary model which is a further improvement to the primary model.
Sl. Structure
No. type Primary model Secondary model Remarks
1.4.2 To sum it up
Dynamic soil structure interaction is still in its early days and investigators are still
looking for answers to many problems which are encountered in practice.
For instance soil are modeled as linear springs based on elastic half space theory,
considering it as a linear isotropic medium, but in reality it is not so. Layered soil
phenomenon, pore pressure dissipation under dynamic loading, liquefaction potential
and its effect, infinite domain problem, non linear and inelastic behaviour, radiation
and geometric damping are some of the important factors on which research is still in
progress to arrive at a more realistic model amenable to design office practice.
What has been presented in this chapter is only an introductory concept and what
is in vogue in practice at the present.
Hopefully in days to come our understanding in some of the issues mentioned above
will be more profound and engineers and researchers would come up with results which
would be more realistic and reliable.
However a word of caution should be pertinent at this juncture.
As stated earlier as the uncertainty plaguing the problem is many, one should not
loose the final outcome of what we are trying to achieve i.e. a safe and sound structure
which can stand the vagaries of nature.
So one should not get lost in the maze of sophisticated mathematics and try to always
economize on the structure based on what the computer out put reflects25 .
For facilities important to society the results should always be mellowed with sound
engineering practice like good detailing, robust geometric configuration, and good
quality of time tested construction practice.
All these aspects are equally important for a structure to survive the wrath of Mother
Nature whose ways are still not very clearly known to us.
In this section we deal with the geotechnical considerations which go into the process
of a successful dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis.
At the very outset we would request readers specially with a strong structural leaning
not to ignore this section. For our experience shows that nemesis of many mistakes
lies in misinterpretation of this particular topic. As such before launching yourself
into linear or non-linear finite element analysis of soil-structure system, the conceptual
aspect of the influencing soil parameters, its limitations and its effects should be clearly
understood.
As a pre-requisite, we expect that you have some background on. . .
25 The output is nothing but a reflection of man’s limited knowledge of nature and only an approximate
quantification of an idealized mathematical model which could be in significant variance to reality in
spite of our best effort.
• Geotechnical test (lab or field) based on which data evaluated are not understood
properly. As the limitations of such data are not clearly made; often results in
incorrect interpretation.
• Data considered are often not relevant or correct in terms of real situation in the
field, specially for layered soil.
• Insufficient data and or lack of knowledge on the strain level to which the
foundation-structure system will be subjected to – specially during earthquake.
• Lack of dynamic test data and improperly co-related value from static soil
parameter which could be widely varying with the reality.
• Finally, often forgetting the bottom line that unlike man made material like con-
crete and steel, soil is far more heterogeneous and unpredictable; thus for a real
soil structure interaction it is unfair to have an analysis on an absolute scale. It
should preferably be done for a particular range of values and the best estimate is
to be made out of it – and this is where engineering judgment would count to a
large extent.
Having made the above statements, let us evaluate various aspects of dynamic
property of soil which are important for an integrated soil-structure interaction
analysis.
Before even looking at soil report the analyst should be clear with himself on
Understanding of the above criteria will not only help him in understanding the
data obtained from different tests but could also possibly make him realize their
interpretation in a more realistic perspective.
The engineering parameters we look for in the soil report for develop-
ing the soil model either for finite element or linear/non-linear spring dashpot
model are
G2
(shear stress) G1
1 2
The values are usually obtained either from field test, laboratory test or from theo-
retical co-relation with other engineering soil parameters. Before we step further into
the topic it would possibly be worthwhile to understand how soil behaves under cyclic
loading and what its characteristics are.
It should be remembered that even under low strain, soil behavior is essentially
non-linear though at low strain it does show some kind of linearity.
Shown in Figure 1.5.1, is the shear stress-strain curve of soil under cyclic loading.
It is evident from the above figure that shear strain varies with stress, and goes on
increasing with number of cycles of loading.
Thus before an analysis is being carried out one has to have an idea about the average
strain range to which the soil will be subjected to under the induced dynamic loading.
The characteristic curve which shows the variation of shear modulus with respect
to shear strain is shown in Figure 1.5.1a.
The curve shown above is otherwise known as Seed and Idriss’s (1970) curve which
shows the variation of dynamic shear modulus of soil with shear strain.
1.2
0.8
G/G0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Strain Ratio
Figure 1.5.1a Variation of Shear Modulus with strain under cyclic loading. (Seed & Idriss 1970).
Soil subjected to stress by machine foundation are usually low strain and varies
between to 10−4 to 10−3 %.
However for an earthquake of even moderate magnitude this will be much higher-
having strain range varying to 10−2 to even 10−1 % for very severe earthquake.
Since it is difficult to gauge at the outset of an analysis how much strain the soil will
be subjected to, the correction factor to be used to modify the data as obtained in the
soil report becomes difficult to quantify.
On the contrary rendering no correction would result in assuming a more stiff soil
and the result obtained based on this could be significantly varying from the reality.
Fortunately or unfortunately most of the tests carried out in the field or in the
laboratory for determination of the dynamic shear modulus is based on low strain
range having values restricted to 10−4 %.
Thus it should be clearly understood that the dynamic shear modulus data furnished
in the soil report is only valid for LOW strain range and can be only used directly
for analysis where the strain induced in the soil is significantly low like in design of
machine foundations only. For earthquake analysis where the site is situated in an
area of moderate to severe earthquake zone, direct use of such soil dynamic data may
not be valid for design of normal structures, for the strain induced in soil is much
higher.
The most common field tests that are carried out at site for evaluation of dynamic
shear modulus or shear wave velocity are
1 Block Vibration Test
2 Seismic cross hole
Oscillator
Lx Fdn Level
Propagating waves
H=0.6 to 1.2 m
loading on the soil. Two geo-phones are placed at a distance to pick up the signal from
the oscillator.
Once the oscillator induces dynamic force on the soil the geo-phones pick up this
signal and transfer them to an oscilloscope which shows an elliptical figure of Lissajous.
The operating speed of the oscillator is varied till the time the natural frequency of the
soil and the operating frequency of the oscillator matches (the Lissajous’ figure in the
oscilloscope becomes a perfect circle).
The shear wave velocity of the site is then given by
vs = 4fLx (1.6.1)
where vs = shear wave velocity of the soil; f = operating frequency of the oscillator
in cps; Lx = distance between the two geo-phones.
For arriving at meaningful results usually high frequency oscillators (>100 cps) are
put to use for which the waves generated are of the order of 0.6 to 1.2 m.
Thus results obtained from this test only influence soil of depth 0.6 to 1.2 m below
the depth of foundation and should not be used where piles or other types of deep
foundations having influence area propagating much deeper is used.
Trying to induce lower frequency calls for much heavier oscillators which make the
test uneconomical compared to other types of tests.
Oscilloscope
Hammer
Ground level
Geo-Phone
Lx
The dynamic shear modulus Gdyn is then obtained from the expression
2
ρ Lx
Gdyn = (1.6.2)
g t
where, Gdyn = dynamic shear modulus of the soil; ρ = weight density of soil; g =
acceleration due to gravity; Lx = distance between the two bore holes, and t = elapsed
time.
One of the major advantage with this test is that dynamic shear modulus can be mea-
sured to any desired depth and can very well be an integrated part of a SPT program.
The test is very effective in case the soil is layered in nature where visual inspection
of each layer is possible based on SPT test.
However, the strain range for test is again restricted to 10−4 % which is normally
less than the strain range experienced by machine foundations and earthquake analysis
and needs to be corrected to arrive at the design value of G.
project. Though not unusual, but should not happen as a rule, for this shows the lack
of foresight on the part of the engineer while submitting the technical and commercial
proposal for a project. Even at the proposal stage the process involved in a plant is well
known to the bidder and all the concerned civil engineer has to do is to check with his
process department and find out if rotating machines are part of the process or not.
On the other hand knowing the location of a particular site one can easily find out
from the codes how active this zone is seismically and if felt reasonable all he has
to do is to include this additional cost of dynamic geotechnical investigation in his
commercial bid. People suffer from misnomer that dynamic tests are expensive-which
is actually not true, for an average dynamic test in international market takes roughly
US$ 20,000–25,000 which would however be 0.25% of a small petrochemical refinery
and possibly 0.1% of a combined cycle 350 MW power plant.
Lack of these tests can land up some of the equipments operating in such projects
into serious problem whose cost itself would constitute 30–40% of the whole
project cost!
So one has to decide on the risk involved – and come to a conclusion of its worth.
Though theoretical co-relation exist for evaluation of dynamic shear modulus of soil
from static soil test (which has been successfully used in project works), it is always
preferable to have these dynamic tests carried out at site, for not only does it imbibe
more confidence in the design process but engineer should also be aware that “theo-
retically co-related values have also varied widely with respect to actual field data, and
should be mellowed with judgment.” Considering the uncertainty prevalent in soil, is
surely not an easy task to accomplish.
The most outstanding work in establishing theoretical co-relation for evaluating the
dynamic property of soil has been done by Hardin, Drnevich, Richart, Seed, Idriss
to name a few27 . The expressions suggested by them have been successfully used for
many real projects by the engineers in the past. We are going to have a look at some
of them hereafter and understand their limitations if any.
2630(2.17 − e)2 √
G= σ0 in psi (1.7.1)
1+e
27 This is by no mean to ignore other researchers who have contributed significantly to this difficult study.
We only name a few, which are popular in practice.
1230(2.97 − e)2 √
G= σ0 in psi. (1.7.2)
1+e
where, G = dynamic shear modulus of the soil in psi, e = in-situ void ratio of the soil
sample, σ0 = mean effective stress in psi = 0.333σv (1 + 2K0 ), σv = vertical effective
stress in psi, σh = horizontal effective in psi = K0 σv , K0 = earth pressure at rest, and
is a function of the plasticity index and the over-consolidation ratio.
The relationship between plasticity index, over-consolidation ratio and K0 is as
shown in the following figure.
Figure 1.7.1 Value of the K0 after Brooker & Ireland (1965) Reproduced by permission of the National
Research Council of Canada from the candian geotechnical Journal Vol-2 (1965).
√
G = 83.3K2 σ0 in psi (1.7.3)
Here K2 is a function of the relative density of the sand which can again be estimated
from the SPT value.
The relationship between SPT value and the relative density is as given Table 1.7.1.
90 70
75 61
60 52
45 43
40 40
30 34
K2 = 0.6Dr + 16 (1.7.3a)
It is to be noted that in this case to determine the relative density, the observed SPT
value has to be corrected for the overburden pressure and dilatancy to arrive at the
design SPT value before it is co-related with the above table.
1
N = 15 + (N0 − 15) (1.7.4)
2
The overburden correction as per Peck et al. 1980 is given by
2000
N = 0.77N log10 for p ≥ 25 kPa (1.7.5)
p
4N
N = (1.7.6)
2 + 0.034p
in which, N = corrected SPT value for overburden, N = corrected SPT value for
dilatancy, p = gross overburden pressure in kN/m2 .
Example 1.7.1
As shown in Figure 1.7.2 is a small site having dimensions 18 m × 6 m which
would be supporting a Compressor unit and a few pumps, for which four
boreholes were dug at four corners as shown. The soil was found to be cohe-
sionless in nature and SPT values observed at the four bore holes are as tabled
hereafter
2 4 6 4 3
4 8 6 6 5
6 12 9 11 8
8 15 12 16 11
10 20 18 24 16
14 22 24 28 20
18.0
BH1 BH2
6.0
BH3 BH4
Figure 1.7.2
Solution:
Average observed SPT value at a depth of 10.0 meter
20 + 18 + 24 + 16
= = 19.5 = 20 (say)
4
Average observed SPT value at a depth of 14.0 meter
22 + 24 + 28 + 20
= = 23.5 = 24 (say)
4
At a depth of 10.6 meter below ground level based on linear inter-polation
average observed SPT Value
24 − 20
= × 0.6 + 20 = 20.6 ∼
= 21 (say)
4
The above observed SPT value has now to be corrected for dilatancy and
overburden pressure
1
N = 15 + (N − 15) for N > 15; (1.7.8)
2 0
1
or N = 15 + (21 − 15) = 18 (1.7.9)
2
2000
N = 0.77N log10 for p ≥ 25 kPa (1.7.10)
p
2000
Substituting above in Peck’s formula we have, N = 0.77 N log10 = 13
233.2
18.718
σo = 0.333σv (1 + 2K0 ); we have σ0 = (1 + 2 × 0.48) = 12.22 p.s.i.
3
2630(2.17 − e)2 √
G= σ0
1+e
2630(2.17 − 0.58)2 √
G= 12.22 = 14710.5 p.s.i. (101426 kN/m2 )
1 + 0.58
(1.7.11)
Referring to the chart given above for Dr = 39.5% and strain in the range of
10−3 % (usually valid for machine foundation) K2 = 40.
√
And as G = 83.3 K2 σ0 we have
√
G = 83.3 × 40 × 12.22 = 11647 p.s.i. (80308 kN/m2 )
101426 + 80308
Average G = = 90867 kN/m2
2
where, e = void ratio; OCR = over consolidation ratio; σ0 = mean effective stress in
psi = 0.333 (σv + 2σh ); σv = vertical effective stress in psi; σh = horizontal effective
stress in psi = K0 σv , K0 = earth pressure at rest, and is a function of the plasticity index
and the over-consolidation ratio.
k = is a function of the plasticity index (PI) of the soil and is given as
Gmax
G= (1.7.13)
(1 + ψ/ψr )
τmax
ψr = × 100 and
Gmax
28 The point we are trying to make here is not to go by one formula, but check with possibly all of them
and comparing them to arrive at result which would possibly be best fit and hopefully be most realistic.
Here again it is to be noted that we had not used the angular sand formula of Hardin, if the soil
description does not reflect it or the soil has both rounded and angular grains an intermediate value has
tobe chosen judiciously.
$ %2 $ %2 0.5
1 + K0 1 − K0
τmax = (σv − u) sin φ + c cos φ − (σv − u) (1.7.14)
2 2
Example 1.7.2
It has been decided to place foundation of an industrial structure at 4.0 meter
below the existing ground level.
Based on laboratory and field tests it has been found that the Ground water
table is at a depth of 1.0 meter below GL.
Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests reveal the sample to have the following
values:
The site has a history of moderate to severe earthquake when from previous
record it is observed to generate a strain range up to 0.1%.
Calculate the dynamic shear modulus of soil for this predicted strain
range.
Solution:
For foundation located at 4.0 meter below the ground level net vertical pressure
200
OCR = = 4.34, for plasticity index of 35 from Brooker and Ireland’s,
46
chart K0 = 1.1
(2.973 − e)2
Gmax = 1230 (OCR)k (σ0 )0.5 in psi
(1 + e)
(2.973 − 0.61)2
Gmax = 1230 (4.34)0.27 (6.976)0.5
(1 + 0.61)
$ %2 $ %2 0.5
1 + K0 1 − K0
τmax = (σv − u) sin φ + c cos φ − (σv − u)
2 2
$ %2 $ %20.5
1 + 1.1 1 − 1.1
or, τmax = (6.54) sin 18 + 3.0457 cos 18 − (6.54)
2 2
= 5.00 psi.
τmax 5.00
ψr = × 100 = × 100 = 0.0299%
Gmax 16746
Gmax 115465
G=
➔G=
= 26577 kN/m2
ψ 0.1
1+ ψr 1+ 0.0299
It is thus observed that dynamic shear modulus is 23% of the theoretically calc-
ulated data.
Based on the above example it would perhaps be not difficult to realize that how
important role does the strain range plays on the design value of dynamic shear
modulus of soil.
Damping plays a significant part in the overall response of soil structure system. While
for structural members material damping plays a significant part (mostly considered
as Rayleigh damping), for soil, two types of damping are basically involved.
• Radiation damping
• Material damping
&
a2 a2 2
Dm = ln 4π + ln
2 (1.8.1)
a1 a1
The total damping ratio of a soil foundation system is sum of radiation and material
damping. It is generally observed that material damping has a significant magnitude
relative to radiation damping specially in rotational modes. In such cases total damping
rather than geometric damping should be used to obtain the response of the structure
foundation system.
For translatory mode, on the contrary material damping plays an insignificant role
and may be neglected in the analysis. Thus for tall narrow structures like chimney,
Boiler structures, tall buildings where the coupled horizontal and rocking mode could
play significant role it would perhaps be realistic to also consider the material damping
of soil in order to have a meaningful response.
0.31
Dh = (1.8.2)
M
ρr30
0.49
Dv = (1.8.3)
M
ρr30
0.985ψr0.2
Dm = √ (1.8.5)
σ0
Here notations are same as expressed earlier except the fact that the confining pres-
sure σ0 is expressed in kPa. The equation is valid for shear strain amplitude of 10−6
to 10−4 with a confining pressure of 24 kPa to 144 kPa.
For a particular strain range the value obtained above can be corrected based on the
expression
Dc ψ/ψr
= (1.8.6)
Dm 1 + ψ/ψr
Example 1.8.1
For the example as shown in Example 1.7.2, estimate the damping ratio of the
soil as per Hardin’s formula. The soil properties remain same as given in Example
1.7.2.
Solution:
Based on the solution furnished in Example 1.7.1 value of dynamic shear
modulus is given by
$ %2
1 + K0
Considering, τmax = (σv − u) sin φ + c cos φ
2
$ %2 0.5
1 − K0
− (σv − u) , we have
2
$ %2 $ %2 0.5
1 + 0.48 1 − 0.48
τmax = 131.6 sin 31 − 131.6
2 2
= 36.67 kN/m2
τ 36.67
As ψ = × 100, we have ψr = × 100 = 0.0404%
G 90867
0.985ψr0.2
Considering Dm = √ , we have
σ0
0.985(0.0404)0.2
Dm = √ = 0.056
85.9
2
1 + exp(−0.0145PI1.3 ) G G
ζ = 0.333 0.586 − 1.547 +1 (1.8.7)
2 Gmax Gmax
The notations for the above expression are already explained in earlier formulas.
We show below variation of damping ratio with G/Gmax for different Plasticity
Index based on the above formula.
It will observed (Figure 1.8.1) that as G/Gmax reduces, as damping ratio goes
on increasing meaning thereby that as strain increases damping ratio goes on
increasing. Variation of Damping with strain vide Equation (1.8.6) is shown in
Figure 1.8.1a.
0.3
PI = 10
PI = 20
0.25
PI = 30
Damping ratio
PI = 40
0.2
PI = 50
PI = 60
0.15
PI = 70
0.1 PI = 80
PI = 90
0.05 PI = 100
0
7
9
1
1
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
G/Gmax
Figure 1.8.1 Variation of damping with plasticity index as per Ishibashi and Zhang (1993).
1.2
0.8
D/Dr
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Strain Ratio
Figure 1.8.1a Variation of damping ratio with strain under cyclic loading.
Example 1.8.2
For the clayey soil sample as shown in Example 1.7.2, determine the damping
ratio for the strain range level of 0.1% based on Zhang’s formula. Consider all
soil properties same as Example 1.7.2?
Solution:
Based on earlier example we have seen that plasticity index PI = 35.
In Example 1.7.2 we have already calculated that for 0.1% strain G/Gmax =
0.230 Substituting the above in Ishibashi and Zhang’s formula we have
1 + exp(−1.47)
ζ = 0.333 [0.586(0.23)2 − 1.547 × 0.23 + 1] = 0.1382
2
We acknowledge at the very outset that posing the question, though easy, is not very
easy to answer. The uncertainties involved are so widely varying that it would be
difficult to give a precise answer to this issue. To the best of our knowledge there is
no straight forward answer to this problem and the best one can achieve is a reason-
able estimate or can possibly study a range of values and try to predict the overall
behavior.
For high speed centrifugal machine foundation it does not pose a serious problem
for at the low strain range a few percent here and there does not contribute a significant
variation to these values.
But for impact type of machines (hammer foundations) and slow speed machines
(coal mill foundations, reciprocating compressors) induced strain could be larger than
strain developed during field test, for which the correct estimation of Gdyn and damping
becomes important.
For earthquake of course the strain would invariably be larger than measured during
test, even for a moderate earthquake when as the strain range increases, degrada-
tion in soil stiffness becomes significant and has a major contribution to the overall
response.
It is obvious that strain induced in soil will depend upon the strength of dynamic
loading, the geological condition of the site, stress history of soil and a number of
other factors. So the point remains that if there exists no previous records of strain
from similar machine in same site or from previously occurring earthquake data how
does one rationalize the strain?
We discuss below some of the techniques which could be used for evaluation of the
strain induced in the soil.
• Start with the field observed/lab obtained data for Gdyn and damping as furnished
in the soil report which would usually correspond to the strain range of 10−4 to
10−3 %.
• Calculate natural frequency of the soil-foundation system based on free vibration
analysis.
• For rotating mass type calculate the transmissibility factor based on the expression
!
r2 1 + (2ζ r)2
Tr = ! (1.9.1)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2ζ r)2
12qdyn
ψ(%) = (1.9.3)
G
• Verify the strain obtained against the initial value. If they vary significantly find
out the new G value based on the calculated strain and repeat the process as
mentioned above till it converges.
The above method is surely non-rigorous but generates an answer which will give
reasonably accurate results for practical analysis of machine foundations. For more
complicated soil with varying properties a more rigorous analysis based on Finite
element analysis is possible. This will be discussed later on.
The above technique is now explained based on a suitable numerical example.
Example 1.9.1
A centrifugal turbine driven compressor has foundation dimension of 6 m ×
3.2 m × 2.5 m. The weight of the compressor is 300 kN. The unbalanced mass
Solution:
Based on Ohsaka’s formula G = 12000 × (13)0.8 = 93397.65 kN/m2
Assumed strain level = 1 × 10−4 %
Weight of foundation = 6 × 3.2 × 2.5 × 25 = 1200 kN; Weight of machine =
300 kN, Total weight = 1500 kN
Mass of foundation + machine = 1500/9.81 = 152.9052 kN · sec2 /m
6 × 3.2
Equivalent radius of the foundation (r0 ) = = 2.472155 m
π
Kz 1.32 × 106
ωn = = = 92.89 rad/sec;
m 152.9
1800 × 2 × π
ωm = = 188 radian/sec r = ωm /ωn = 2.029.
60
0.4
Pdyn = m · e · ωm
2 = 3.5 × × (188)2 = 49.7428 kN.
1000
Considering transmissibility as
!
r2 1 + (2ζ r)2
Tr = ! we have, Tr = 0.65078.
(1 − r2 )2 + (2ζ r)2
30 Refer to Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) – Basic Concepts of Soil Dynamics, for details of this formula.
0.65078 × 49.7428
Equivalent static force on foundation = = 1.686 kN/m2
6 × 3.2
12qdyn 12 × 1.686
Considering ψ(%) = = = 2.17 × 10−4 %
G 93397.65
Gmax
Considering G = ψ
(1 + ψr )
93397.65
we have, New G =
= 29497.88 kN/m.
2.17×10−4
1+ 1×10−4
Cycles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cycles 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
We show hereafter the variation of strain, damping and Gdyn per cycle in Figs. 1.9.1 to 1.9.3.
3.50E-04
3.00E-04
2.50E-04
Strain(%)
2.00E-04
1.50E-04
1.00E-04
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of cycles
0.3
0.25
Damping ratio
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of cycles
80000
Gdyn(kN/m2)
60000
40000
20000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of cycles
From the tables and the above plots it is observed that the value becomes
constant after 7th cycle of iteration based on which we conclude that design
values are as follows
Gdyn = 19700 kN/m; Material Damping ratio = 0.23, and Estimated strain
range = 3.74 × 10−4 %.
Thus actual design of the foundation shall be carried out based on this corrected
value instead of the initial values as mentioned in the soil report.
Propagation of Earthquake
Figure 1.9.4 Schematic diagram of an industrial site with propagating earthquake waves.
∂ 2u ∂ 2u
= vs2 2 (1.9.4)
∂t 2 ∂z
Here u = displacement of the soil and is a function of time t and depth z, vs = Shear
wave velocity of the soil.
31 For site having no bedrock this level is usually considered at the depth where shear wave velocity of
the site is greater or equal to 600 m/sec. Based on SPT value this can be considered as the depth where
design SPT value is greater than 50.
The above gives the constant B = 0, from which we deduce, φ(z) = A cos pz
At z = H as the soil is confined, hence we have, u(z, t) = 0 → A cos pH = 0
(2n − 1) π
p= (1.9.8)
2H
2π
Considering T = ωn , we have
4H
Tn = secs (1.9.11)
(2n − 1) vs
Here Tn is known as the free field time period of the site for n numbers of mode.
(2n − 1)πz
φ(z) = cos (1.9.12)
2H
Sa
u(z) = κi φi (z) (1.9.14)
ωn2
where Sa = acceleration spectrum of the site and is a function of the free field time
period of the site32 .
In which,
m i φi
κi = Modal mass participation factor = (1.9.15)
mi φi2
)H )H
mi φi πz * πz
κi = = γ z cos γ z cos2 (1.9.16)
mi φi2 2H 2H
0 0
8
The above on integration by parts gives, κi = (1.9.17)
π +2
ZI
Here β = 2R the IS code factor33
32 This response spectrum is usually available as site response spectra in absence of which charts furnished
in National codes are usually followed.
33 Presently code does not have any guidline for R for soil. It has been observed that a value between R = 2
to 3 usually gives realistic results.
∂u
Considering shear strain γz = ∂z we have
Here G = dynamic shear modulus of the soil, ρ = mass density of the soil.
For foundation at a particular depth below the free surface for which we have
obtained the dynamic shear modulus based on field or lab test34 . We start initially to
find out the shear strain in the soil based on this value considering a strain range of
10−3 /10−4 %.
The steps that are followed subsequently to arrive at the corrected G and damping
value are furnished hereafter (Chowdhury 2008).
2
1 + exp(−0.0145PI1.3 ) G G
ζ = 0.333 0.586 − 1.547 +1
2 Gmax Gmax
10 Repeat the steps as mentioned from 2 to 7 till the strain is same as previous cycle.
The value for which the strain becomes constant is the corrected Dynamic shear
modulus of the soil.
The above steps will now be further elaborated by a suitable problem.
Example 1.9.2
For a particular site susceptible to earthquake it was observed based on soil
investigation that bed rock exists at 20 meters below ground level. Seismic cross-
hole test reveals average dynamic shear modulus of the soil to be 154897 kN/m2
at a reference strain of 1 × 10−5 .
Considering density of soil as 19 kN/m3, and plasticity index as 35. Calculate
the corrected dynamic shear modulus of soil and damping at 2.5 meter below
GL where foundation of a particular structure will be placed. Consider IS 1893
curves to evaluate the acceleration pertaining to a particular time period.
Solution:
Depth of soil over bedrock = 20 m, Density of soil = 19 kN/m3 , Thus mass
19
density of soil (ρ) = 9.81 = 1.936 kN · sec2 /m, Dynamic shear Modulus of soil
(G) = 154897 kN/m . 2
G
Shear wave velocity of soil (vs ) = = 282.8 m/sec.
ρ
4H
Considering Tn = we have for fundamental mode
(2n − 1)vs
4 × 20
T1 = = 0.283 sec
282.8
2
1 + exp(−0.0145PI1.3 ) G G
ζ = 0.333 0.586 − 1.547 +1
2 Gmax Gmax
Gmax
Considering G = ψ
we have G = 44073.2 kN/m2
(1 + ψr )
Cycles 1 2 3 4 5
Cycles 6 7 8 9 10
200000
150000
100000 G
50000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iteration num ber
10.000
5.000
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of iterations
G1 · H 1 + G 2 · H 2 + G 3 · H 3 + G 4 · H 4
Gav = (1.9.21)
H1 + H 2 + H 3 + H 4
and same principle be applied for mass density and Poisson’s ratio.
However for very important structures or site susceptible to major earthquakes
methods based on finite element analysis may be applied to arrive at a design dynamic
modulus and damping value36 .
Shown in Figure 1.9.8, is the finite element model of a site having layered soil
property. In this case the soil is modelled as plane strain element to the bedrock
boundary and each individual layers having different properties can very easily be
catered to.
To start with we assume G value as obtained from soil report and consider the
damping ratio based on Zhang’s formula considering G/Gmax = 1 at the strain level
of 10−3 /10−4 % say.
Suppose the previous earthquake history shows that shaking has taken place for
duration of 3 sec maximum, we select duration of 6 sec for analysis.
36 In such cases preferably site response spectra of the particular should be used. Moreover some previous
history of shaking and its duration should be available for analysis.
Super Structure
Layered Soil
Bed Rock
Figure 1.9.8 Finite element model of a site having layered soil property.
Next for duration of 6 sec we input the Sa/g curve for the particular damping and
perform a time history analysis of the system for 6 sec.
From the output for each layer we find the average shear strain. Based on the output
average strain, we correct the value of Gdyn for the next cycle and also the damping
ratio and do a second cycle of time history for 6 sec. We repeat this process for a
couple of times till the values have stabilised with respect to the previous cycle.
The value of G and damping considered in last cycle where the strain has stabilised
are the dynamic shear modulus and damping of the soil.
Calculation of shear modulus of soil based on the free field time period is an effective
tool for assessing the dynamic shear modulus of soil. However, there is a possibility
that the time period obtained by this method could be higher than the reality unless
proper consideration are given for the confining effect of the surrounding soil and
proper judgement of the depth is made. ATC (1982) has defined Hmax as the depth
limited to 183 m having low strain shear wave velocity of 760 m/sec.
• If SPT values are furnished are the observed data or corrections need to be done?
A point to be checked for field observed data as shown earlier needs to be corrected.
While the soil consultant will do this correction during his own calculation of bearing
capacity of soil for foundation recommendations, usually furnishes observed field data
while furnishing the bore log detail in the report. So for your calculation this data needs
to be corrected. If you are not too sure you can back calculate it from recommended
φ value.
• Has Ground Water Table been established during boring?
Usually provided in a soil report but better to check for this has significant effect on
the net vertical stress.
One of the tests should be a part of the soil report. But do not take the values
furnished sacrosanct. Back check with theoretical co-relation to establish if the order
is close, if not you do have the right to ask your soil consultant why there is this
discrepancy. There could be special geological condition which could result in such
discrepancy and you should be clear about it.
• If the above tests are carried out, what is the strain range induced in the soil during
the test?
This is something usually not supplied by the soil consultant who usually would
recommend a unique G value. This should not be acceptable to you.
You should clear it at the very outset when providing him the specification for
Geotechnical investigation that this is an input you are looking for and it should be
a part of his report. It is more realistic to start with this value rather than guessing a
theoretical value of 10−3 /10−4 %.
1.10 EPILOGUE
The technology described in this chapter to our perception is still in its infancy and we
are optimistic that with time and research that is being carried out all over the world,
we shall be in a better position in future to predict more realistically the dynamic
properties of soil which affect the response of structure.
Whatever we have presented here is what we believe is simple to apply, provides
reasonably realistic results and practical for day to day design office practice.
There is hardly any comprehensive text which gives a defined picture on this
issue. Most of the techniques developed herein are based on research papers
(names furnished in the reference) and typical practices followed in some design
offices38 .
We urge the readers to go through these papers which we believe will give them
further insight to the problem.
The ideas presented in this chapter is to make the reader aware of the limitations
prevalent with soil and also to caution him on the fact that without these values
realistically estimated, the whole analysis related to dynamic soil structure interaction
could become a questionable exercise.
So be aware and use your judicious best to furnish a meaningful design.
SUGGESTED READING39
1 Cohen, M. & Jennings, P., ‘Silent Boundary Methods For Transient Analysis’, Computa-
tional Method in Transient Analysis – Computational Method in Mechanics, Vol. 1, North
Holland.
2 Dasgupta, S.P. & Kameswara Rao, N.S.V.K. 1976, ‘Some finite element solutions in the
dynamics of circular footings’, Proc 2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods
in Geomechanics, Blacksburg USA.
3 Dasgupta S.P. & Kameswara Rao, N.S.V.K. 1978, Dynamics of rectangular footings by
Finite elements, Journal of GT Division ASCE, Vol. 104, No. 5.
4 Gazetas, G & Tassoulas, A.L. 1987, ‘Horizontal Stiffness of Arbitrarily shaped embedded
foundation’, Journal of GT Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5.
5 Kameswar Rao, N.S.V. 1977, ‘Dynamic soil structure system – A Brief Review’, J. Struct.
Engg., India, Vol. 4.
6 Lysmer, J. & Kuhlemeyer, R.L. 1969, ‘Finite dynamic model of infinite media’, J.EM.Divn,
ASCE, EM4.
7 Segol, G., Abel, J.F. & Lee, P.C.Y. 1975, ‘Finite element Mesh Gradation of surface waves’,
J. GT Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, GT 11.
8 Wolf, J.P. 1985, Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction, Prenctice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
9 Wolf, J.P. 1988, Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction in Time Domain, Prenctice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
10 Wolf, J.P. 1994, Foundation Vibration Analysis: Using Simple Physical Model, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.
11 Whitman, R.V. 1970, Soil Structure Interaction – Seismic design for Nuclear power plants,
The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusets.
39 This topic being relatively new, there are not much reference books (other than reference 8, 9 & 10)
which deal this topic comprehensively. Many literatures though have mentioned the interaction effect
in their work. The references suggested are thus mostly restricted to research papers, which we would
request you to get hold of and rummage through patiently.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with vibration analysis and design of machine foundations subjected
to dynamic load. As a pre-requisite to this chapter, you should be thoroughly familiar
with concepts that are put in chapter 5 (Vol. 1) on
Armed with these basics, we believe you will find this chapter interesting and find
design of machine foundation a challenging and intellectually stimulating task.
Machine foundations are one of the most important features of industrial devel-
opment. In both developed and developing countries, growth of economy is largely
attributed to development of industry and infra-structure facilities.
In industrial facilities like Power Plants, Steel Plants, Petrochemical Complexes,
Fertiliser Plants etc., consist of a number of centrifugal and reciprocating machines
and these play an important role to ensure smooth operation of the process and that
the output product is of right quality. If any of these equipments starts malfunc-
tioning or breaks down due to excessive vibration or settlement of the foundations,
cascading effect on the overall performance on engineering could be catastrophic at
times.
We give two case histories below making you aware of how far reaching could be
the consequences.
that each day lost in production, the company stood to loose about 100,000 thousand
US dollars in profit.
In haste nobody thought to re-check performance of the foundation of the
compressor under dynamic load, now that its rating was changed!
When the plant started after this modification with additional gas being pumped
from the new gas field, whole pipe rack started shacking violently and the compressor
foundation started showing vibration amplitude that was well beyond acceptable limit.
The vibration became so high at 80% production level (at which the plant would
operate at most of the time) that the operation manager had no alternative but to stop
the plant completely.
Subsequent investigation revealed that with new rating of the compressor, the oper-
ating frequency now hovered very near to natural frequency of the foundation resulting
in a resonant condition and also induced additional excitation to the fluid flowing
through the pipe resulting in a force which the piping system was not capable of
taking care off, without undue distress.
This resulted in complete overhauling of the compressor foundation and stiffening
the pipe racks by additional bracings and all these re-engineering resulted in a delay
of about 5 months for full scale production and also a total revenue loss to company
in the tune of 300 million dollars1 .
1 This was time when oil was priced at 25 dollars per barrel. In todays index the loss would be 4 to 5
times the actual loss incurred.
a period of six months the machines broke down completely. The equipment supplier
refused to replace the machines (though they failed within the warranty period) arguing
that conditions put in the contract in terms of amplitude and frequency restrictions
were violated from the very outset and as such they were not responsible for bad
performance of the machine.
By this time the company was in such a poor condition financially due to failure
of production target, that it could not generate fund to replace and overhaul the
equipment and its foundations and had no other option but to declare it sick and close
the unit.
So lesson learnt from the above two cases are that if proper attention is not paid to
the design of these type of foundations, consequences could be quite far reaching and
serious in nature.
• Resonance check
• Amplitude check
• radians/sec.
• Hertz or revolution per minute (rpm).
Due to this induced dynamic load from the machine the block foundation including
some portion of the soil underlying the foundation is subjected to vibration and it is
essential that the natural frequency (ωn ) of this vibration should be well away from
the operating frequency of the machine i.e. resonance condition should not prevail.
Irrespective of any code the normal practise is to design the foundation in such a
way that its operating frequency is at least ±20% away from the natural frequency of
the foundation.
Based on the above discussion it is imperative that for a foundation designed for
dynamic load the above two conditions are met.
Now let us see how we mathematically model the soil-foundation system to
theoretically check the two conditions as mentioned above.
A block foundation as shown earlier constitute of a massive RCC block resting on
the ground supporting the machine aligned over it.
For all practical purpose the block and the machine is considered as a rigid lumped
mass supported on an elastic base constituting the underlying soil/pile.
Kθ Kh
Kv
1
1
Where, for analysis purpose the soil is modelled as equivalent linear springs.
Shown in Figure 2.2.3 is the mathematical model of a machine foundation with soil
modelled as linear springs based on mechanical analog of elastic half space theory in
2D, and 6 degrees of freedom it has on space (Figure 2.2.4).
Before we go into further details of the state of the art theory for design of such
foundations, it would possibly be worthwhile to look back at its evolution and study
its subsequent metamorphosis to the various techniques used in present day design
office practices.
area then Tschebotarioff defined a term as reduced natural frequency fnr given by
√ W
fnr = fn σ , where σ = t/ft 2 (2.2.1)
Af
where W is the weight of the machine plus foundation and Af is the base area.
α 1/4
fn = √ (Af ) (2.2.2)
W
1
fn = 188 (2.2.3)
δst
where, fn = natural frequency in cycles per minute and, δst = static deflection in
inches.
The displacement parameter δst can be obtained from plate load test for any design
bearing pressure.
The above theories were mostly based on observation and experience and as such
are empirical in nature. The theories can be put to use to check the resonant condition
only no check for amplitude is possible by these methods. As such they shall only be
used for preliminary design or sizing of the foundation only.
1 Peat 3900
2 Plastic clay 69000
3 Sand 82000
4 Sand stone 111000
For Translation: mẍ + r20 F2 ρGẋ + r0 GF1 x = P0 sin ωm t (2.2.4)
For rocking: ϕ θ̈ + r4θ F2 ρGẋ + Gr3θ F1 θ = M0 sin ωm t (2.2.5)
(ϕ + α2 ρr5θ )θ̈ + r4θ F2 ρGẋ + α1 Gr3θ θ = M0 sin ωm t (2.2.7)
√
where, mx = (m + α2 ρr30 ); cx = r20 F2 ρG; kx = r0 Gα1 ; I = (ϕ + α2 ρr5θ ); cθ =
√
r4θ F2 ρG; kθ = α1 Gr3θ .
We had already seen earlier2 that the solution of such equation can be repre-
sented as
2 Refer Chapter 3 (Vol. 1) for solution of such equations having damped single degree of freedom.
P0
kx
sin ωm t
x̄max = (2.2.9)
[(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2 ]
in which, r = ωm /ωnx
and D = c/cc where, ωnx = kx /mx ; and cc = critical damping
of the system and is 2 mx kx .
And for rocking mode,
M0
kθ
sin ωm t
θmax = (2.2.10)
[(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2 ]
in which, r = ωm /ωnθand D = c/cc where, ωnθ = kθ /I; and cc = critical damping
of the system and is 2 Ikθ .
Here one point needs to be noticed is the additional term in the inertial coefficient
Here the original mass and mass moment of inertia terms get added up with an
additional term of α2 ρr30 and α2 ρr5θ respectively.
This can be attributed as added mass of soil which starts vibrating with the
foundation in same phase.
This looks quite logical for it has indeed been observed during field observation
that a part of soil below foundation do indeed participates in the vibration of the
foundation system.
Table 2.2.2 gives values of F1 and F2 for various modes given by Hsieh.
For uniform and parabolic distribution of pressure, Hsieh suggest to use an effective
radius αr0 where α is 0.78 and 0.59 respectively.
kz = cz · Af (2.2.12)
Pz sin t
m
C/L of machine shaft
h Mx sin t
m
mx
x Px sin m
t
H
Zc
mz
H
x0
V
Figure 2.2.5 Mathematical model of Barkan for vertical and coupled sliding and rocking motion about
the minor axes of the foundation.
Pz sin ωm t
kz
δz = (2.2.14)
1 − r2
where = distance between rotation axis and the element of area dA; φ = angular
rotation of the machine foundation; IA = second moment of area of the foundation
contact surface with respect to the axis passing through the centroid of the area and
perpendicular to the plane of the vibration.
H = cτ Af x0 = cτ Af (x − Zc φ) (2.2.17)
Similarly for the moment equation about the minor axis of the foundation we have
where Jxφ = mass moment of inertia of the machine-foundation block about the minor
axis of rotation.
From Equations (2.2.18) and (2.2.19), we see that they contain both x and φ, so a
coupled sliding and rocking motion will develop along this direction.
Using the above equations and considering free vibrations, Barkan developed the
following equation for calculation of the frequencies.
c I −WZ c A
where J0 = Jxφ + mZc2 ; ωφ2 = φ A J0 c and ωx2 = τm f .
Based on the above, the two principal frequencies for the coupled vibration is
given by
⎡ ⎤
J0 ⎣ 2 4Jxφ ωφ2 ωx2
2
ω1,2 = ωφ + ωx2 ± (ωx2 + ωφ2 )2 − ⎦ (2.2.21)
2Jxφ J0
cτ Af Zc Px ± (cτ Af − mωm
2 )M
x
Aφ = sin ωm t
mJxφ (ω12 − ωm
2 )(ω2 − ω2 )
2 m
(2.2.22)
where, Kψ = cψ Iψ ; r = ωm /ωn .
This method is also recommended by IS 2974 “Code and design practices for
machine foundation” and still remains the most popular method for vibration analysis
of block foundations.
But let us see the limitations of Barkans method with respect to the reality under
field conditions.
• Barkan’s model does not take damping into consideration. It has been observed
from field instrumentation data that damping plays a significant role in the overall
response of the foundation especially when the operating frequency of the machine
is low.
• It does not account for the embedment effect of the surrounding soil which could
play a significant role on the magnitude of soil stiffness and damping.
• It does not take into cognisance the virtual mass of soil which vibrates in same
phase with the machine and the foundation.
• Barkan suggested spring value (usually the coefficient of uniform elastic compres-
sion) of the soil to be obtained from dynamic plate load test4 and may only give
correct values for a shallow depth below the surface while this may not be valid
for layered soil and also when the contact area of the foundation is large.
So based on the above limitations it was felt to upgrade the mathematical process
in the design of machine foundation.
Before we study the further enhancements it would be worth to write Barkan’s
equation in a more generic form.
The soil spring stiffness is described by the terms
Based on the above equation we will see later how we develop further realistic model
of the coupled horizontal and rocking mode5 .
Table 2.2.3 Values of soil springs as per Richart and Lysmer (1970) model.
Table 2.2.4 Values of soil damping as per Richart and Lysmer (1970) model.
Y
L
solution is,
Kz (P0 /Kz ) sin ωm t
ωz = and δz = (2.2.29)
m (1 − r2 )2 + (2Dz r)2
ωm
where r = ωn and Dz = damping ratio.
Since the above equation is based on D’Alembert’s equation, the equation are said
to be statically coupled when the stiffness matrix and damping matrix have the same
matrix form (Meirovitch 1975). Thus, based on the above argument the damped
equation of motion in coupled rocking and sliding mode becomes
m 0 ẍ Cx −Cx Zc ẋ
+
0 Jxφ φ̈ −Cx Zc Cφx + Cx Zc2 − WZc φ̇
Kx −Kx Zc x P0
+ = sin ωm t (2.2.31)
−Kx Zc Kφx + Kx Zc2 − WZc φ M0
The above equations constitute the complete equation of motion for coupled sliding
and rocking mode considering the damping effect of the soil.
Actually for all practical calculations for finding out the dynamic response of the
foundation the term −WZc is usually neglected, for it has been observed that unless
the foundation is very massive and deep the term WZc has no significant effect on the
overall response of the system.
Based on the above argument the above equation reduces to
m 0 ẍ Cx −Cx Zc ẋ
+
0 Jxφ φ̈ −Cx Zc Cφx + Cx Zc2 φ̇
Kx −Kx Zc x P0
+ = sin ωm t (2.2.32)
−Kx Zc Kφx + Kx Zc2 φ M0
The equation above surely looks elegant, but now comes the catch . . . , for this
damping matrix of soil is not proportional to either the mass or the stiffness of the soil,
moreover they are coupled by the term of Zc and W (the weight of the foundation) and
where Kψ = 16Gr3ψ /3, D is the damping ratio in the torsion mode (Table 2.2.4) and
r is the ratio between the natural frequency of the foundation in torsion mode and the
operating frequency of the machine.
(2.2.34)
Kx −Kx Zc x P0
+ = sin ωm t
−Kx Zc Kφx + Kx Zc2 − WZc φ M0
For finding the natural frequencies we perform the eigen value analysis when the
un-damped equation becomes (neglecting-WZc for reasons as cited earlier)
Kx − mλ −Kx Zc
=0 (2.2.35)
−Kx Zc Kφ + Kx Zc2 − Jφx λ
6 For further explanation on this property refer to Chapter 5 (Vol. 1), the topic of orthogonal trans-
formation for modal response technique.
7 And the theory underlying time history is eluding many is not too an uncommon a fact. . ..
Solving the above equation we find out the eigen value vis-a vis the natural
frequency of the foundation system. Let the eigen values be λ1 and λ2 respectively. Let
corresponding eigen vectors be φxx φφx T and φφx φφφ respectively, when the
T
φ φφx
complete eigen vector matrix is expressed as, xx .
φφx φφφ
Since the eigen vector is known separately for each mode we find out the damping
ratio separately for each mode as follows.
As a first step we perform the operation {φ}T [C]{φ} for each mode.
For the first mode, we have
Cx −Cx Zc φxx
φxx φφx
−Cx Zc Cφx + Cx Zc2 φφx
which gives,
Cx φxx − Cx Zc φφx
φxx φφx
−Cx Zc φxx + (Cφx + Cx Zc2 )φφx
2
= Cx φxx − 2Cx Zc φφx φxx + (Cφx + Cx Zc2 )φφx
2
(2.2.36)
It should be realised that the above is a unique value and we also know that the
operation {φ}T [C]{φ} breaks up the equation to form 2Di ωi where i is the degrees of
freedom of the system.
Now considering,
2
2Di ωi = Cx φxx − 2Cx Zc φφx φxx + (Cφx + Cx Zc2 )φφx
2
,
Cx φxx
2 − 2C Z φ φ + (C
x c φx xx φx + Cx Zc )φφx
2 2
D1 = (2.2.37)
2ω1
where D1 = damping ratio for the first mode and; ω1 = first natural frequency of the
foundation.
Similarly, for the second mode proceeding in same manner it can be proved that
Cφx φφx
2 − 2C Z φ φ
x c φx φφ + (Cφx + Cx Zc )φφφ
2 2
D2 = (2.2.38)
2ω2
Once the damping ratios are identified we assume, [C] = α[M] + β[K] and
performing the operation
Thus, we have two equation with two unknowns, α and β, and solving the above
two equations we get the value of α and β.
Once these values are known one can obtain an equivalent proportional soil damping
from the operation [C] = α[M] + β[K] which is now quite suitable for modal response
technique.
We now further explain the above method based on a suitable numerical problem.
Example 2.2.1
For a block foundation supporting a centrifugal pump was observed to have the
following design data M = 50 kN sec2 /m, J = 100 kN sec2 · m, Z c = 1.5 m,
K x = 3000 kN/m, K φ = 5000 kN/m, Cx = 200 kN/m, Cφ 350 kN/m.
Find out
Solution:
The complete equation of motion for the foundation under coupled rocking and
sliding mode is given by
m 0 ẍ Cx −Cx Zc ẋ
+
0 Jxφ φ̈ −Cx Zc Cφx + Cx Zc2 φ̇
Kx −Kx Zc x P0
+ = sin ωm t
−Kx Zc Kφx + Kx Zc2 φ M0
3000 −4500 x P0
+ = sin ωm t
−4500 11750 φ M0
λ2 − 177.5λ + 3000 = 0
177.5 + (177.5)2 − 4 × 1 × 3000
λ1 = = 158.5 ➔ ω = 12.58 rad/sec
2
177.5 − (177.5)2 − 4 × 1 × 3000
and λ2 = = 18.92 ➔ ω = 4.35 rad/sec
2
0.07676
Thus {φ}i=2 =
−0.08398
The normalized eigen vectors for the two modes are,
x 0.1188173 0.07676
=
φ i=1,2 0.0542329 −0.08398
Since the above matrix has off-diagonal terms will NOT be equal to zero,
hence we conclude that the matrix has not de-coupled due to orthogonal
transformation.
As such we treat the eigen vectors separately for each individual modes,
Thus for the first mode we have
200 −300 0.1188173
0.1188173 0.0542329 = 1.86308
−300 988 0.0542329
➔ 2D1 ω1 = 1.86308.
1.86308
or, D1 = = 0.214
2 × 4.35
200 −300 0.07676
0.07676 − 0.08398 = 12.0142
−300 988 −0.08398
12.0142
➔ D2 = = 0.4775.
2 × 12.58
Thus damping ratio is of the order of 21.4% for the first mode and 47.75%
for the second mode.
50 0 3000 −4500
[C] = 0.48568 + 0.0727
0 100 −4500 11750
242 −327.15
=
−327.15 902.795
For practical design office calculation this is usually deemed sufficient. It at least
depicts a better result than no damping considered at all.
We will subsequently see how data based on modified damping matrix compare with
time history response which we had stated would be the most appropriate accurate
method that could be adopted with non-proportional damping.
But prior to that let us evaluate another form in which equations of motion for
coupled rocking and sliding motion can be formulated too.
For the machine foundation subjected to coupled rocking and sliding motion
1 1
Kinetic energy (T) = m(ẋ + Zc φ̇)2 + J φ̇ 2 and
2 2
1 1
The Potential Energy (U) = Kx x2 + Kφ φ 2
2 2
1 1
T= m(ẋ + Zc φ̇)2 + J φ̇ 2
2 2
∂T d ∂T
= m(ẋ + Zc φ̇) and = m(ẍ + Zc φ̈) = mẍ + mZc φ̈
∂ ẋ dt ∂ ẋ
1 1 ∂U
We have, U= K x x2 + Kφ φ 2 ; = Kx x
2 2 ∂x
1 1 ∂T
Also, T= m(ẋ + Zc φ̇)2 + J φ̇ 2 ; = mZc (ẋ + Zc φ̇) + J φ̇
2 2 ∂ φ̇
d ∂T
∴ = mZc ẍ + mZc2 φ̈ + J φ̈
dt ∂ φ̇
1 1 ∂U
For U= Kx x2 + K φ φ 2 ; = Kφ φ
2 2 ∂φ
m mZc ẍ K 0 x
+ x =0 (2.2.43)
mZc mZc2 + J φ̈ 0 Kφ φ
Now that we have established the equation the question that obviously crops up
in mind is what is the advantage of this equation over the normal equation that was
derived based on static coupling/Barkan’s equation.
The first thing we will see subsequently that the eigen-values remain invariant with
this formulation.
Moreover it has been observed that damping ratio derived by this method are quanti-
tatively closer to the values derived from classical analysis based on frequency domain
analysis in complex domain. (Wolf 1988).
The reason for the better prediction of damping ratio could be that the damping
matrix derived by this formulation is in uncoupled form.
We now further explain the above based on suitable numerical example.
Example 2.2.2
For a block foundation as described in Example 2.2.1, calculate the following
based on Lagrange’s Formulation.
Solution:
The complete equation of motion for the foundation under coupled rocking and
sliding mode based on Lagrange’s formulation is given by
P0
= sin ωm t
M0
177.5 ± 139.66
5000λ2 − 8.875 × 105 λ + 15 × 106 = 0 → λ = :: λ1 =
2
18.92, ω1 = 4.35 rad/sec; λ2 = 158.5, ω2 = 12.58 rad/sec.
It should be observed that the natural frequencies are identical to the one
obtained in Example 2.2.1 based on static coupling.
0.03748
Thus, the normalized eigen vector is {φ1N } = .
0.05423
For the second mode we have
50 75 1.00
{φ2 }T [M]{φ2 } = 1.00 − 0.4143
75 212.5 −0.4143
= 24.32945 ➔ Mr = 4.93248
0.20273
Thus, the normalized eigen vector is {φ2N } = .
−0.08399
1.1632
i.e. D1 = = 0.133.
2 × 4.35
For the second mode
200 0 0.20273
{φ1 }T [C]{φ1 } = 0.20273 −0.08399
0 350 −0.08399
10.688
i.e. D2 = = 0.4248.
2 × 12.58
Thus
The table below gives comparative results based static and dynamic coupling
formulations for the examples solved above.
Static
coupling 4.35 12.58 0.1181 : 0.0542 0.0767 : −0.0839 21.4% 47.75%
Dynamic
coupling 4.35 12.58 0.0375 : 0.0542 0.2027 : −0.0839 13.3% 42.48%
Based on the above it would possibly be worthwhile to know how the amplitudes
vary based on the above two methods vis-à-vis the time history response which we
advocated as the most appropriate and correct method for handling responses having
non-proportional damping.
This is what we are going to establish based on suitable numerical example hereafter.
Example 2.2.3
For a block foundation as described in Example 2.2.1. Calculate the following
amplitude of vibration based on
• Static Coupling
• Dynamic coupling
• Time history response
• Discuss the results based on the three answers.
Solution:
The operating frequency of the machine is 750 r.p.m. = (750 × 2 × π )/60 =
78.53 rad/sec.
Figure 2.2.7 gives a comparison of the amplitude value for the static and
dynamic coupling case.
It will be observed that
1.50E-03
-1.50E-03
Time steps
Next we compare these results with time history response where we treat the
complete mass, damping and stiffness matrix in uncoupled form and integrate
directly the equation
Figure 2.2.8 shows a very interesting result pertaining to time history vis-à-vis
modal response technique based on dynamically coupled equation.
The time history technique used has been Wilson-θ method having a time step
of 0.0075 seconds and response has been calculated to 500 steps.
It will be observed that in modal response technique we have ignored the
transient response part and have only found out the response based on the steady
state part, while, the step by step integration considers both the transient and
the steady state responses.
In comparison to a steady state response of 1 mm the time history starts with
peak amplitude of approximately 5 mm in step 18 and slowly converges to a
value near to 1 mm at about 295th step and becomes steady after that9 .
It will be observed that the values are quite closely matching at the steady
state position with step by step integration giving slightly higher values than
dynamically coupled modal response.
The initial response due to the transient part of the time history analysis is
significant (about 5 mm), as this decays down quickly after some time (here
about 2.0 seconds after the start) will really not have much effect on the over all
behavior of the foundation as such, but for pipes and nozzles rigidly connected
to the machine this initial high amplitude of 5 mm can have significant effect
and if proper care is not taken may induce severe reversal of stress and may even
induce failure.
6.00E-03
5.00E-03
4.00E-03
3.00E-03
Amplitude
A perfectionist may not like the methodology proposed regarding approximate esti-
mate of the damping ratio based on individual mode. At the same time he might argue
that for secondary equipment like medium or small capacity pumps doing time history
analysis is too intense and not really called for.
Fair enough, for the argument is not without some sanctity so how do we tackle
this riddle?
The most logical solution to the above problem could be that if we can create a
condition where damping plays a negligible effect compared to un-damped situation
then we can surely ignore damping from our basic equation and arrive at a result
which is as good an answer with damping and the problem is solved.
So the next obvious query will be, what is this condition which will give an invariable
answer irrespective of damping taken or not?
Before we describe this condition it would be worthwhile to understand what the
magnification factor is.
Consider Figure 2.3.1. We had seen earlier that equation of motion for a body
having damped single degree of freedom is given by
P0
Kz sin ωm t
δz = (2.3.1)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dz r)2
1
i.e. M.F. = (2.3.2)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dz r)2
0
15
95
75
55
35
15
95
75
5
5
55
35
15
95
75
4.5
5.3
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
Frequency Ratio
One can immediately draw conclusion from the above fact that when a block
foundation is resting on ground having soft to medium soil supporting machines hav-
ing high operating speed it would possibly be quite justified to neglect the damping
effect of soil.
However, for low tuned machine it has been observed that it is difficult to achieve
this frequency separation for block foundation and for such cases damping cannot be
ignored.
We now further explain the above with a suitable numerical example.
Example 2.3.1
For the block foundation as described in Example 2.2.1. Calculate the following
amplitude of vibration based on undamped equation of motion based on
• Static Coupling
• Dynamic coupling
• Discuss the results based on the answers.
Solution:
750
The operating frequency of the machine is 750 r.p.m. = ×2×π =
60
78.53 rad/sec
0.1188173 0.0542333 200
[φ]T {P} = sin 78.53t
0.076746 −0.0839942 180
33.52
= sin 78.53t
0.2293
We had seen earlier that the two natural frequencies are ω1 = 4.35 rad/sec;
ω2 = 12.58 rad/sec
78.53
Thus the frequency separation is r = = 6.24 > 3.5
12.58
Thus we can say that as the frequency ratio is greater than 3.5 damping effect
of the soil can be neglected.
Thus, with orthogonal transformation and neglecting the damping, we have
As we have seen earlier that the frequency separation is greater than 3.5, hence
on orthogonal transformation without damping we have
On comparing the amplitudes for the damped and undamped case we have
the following results.
The theories described above dominated the scenario of design of machine founda-
tion for quite sometime. But as the machines designed were progressively becoming
heavier and having higher and higher operating frequencies the foundations in turn
were becoming more and more massive in nature10 , and it was realized that when
a foundation is constructed below ground level the surrounding soil in which it is
embedded plays a significant role on the overall response of the foundation and needs
to be carefully evaluated too.
Number of theoretical formulations have been derived and field experiments (Gupta
1972, Erden & Stokoe 1975) have been conducted to study the embedment effect
of soil on the overall response of the foundations, though there exists disagreements
between the theories put forward however the general consensus about the embedment
of soil on the foundation both from theoretical and field observations are as follows:
Equivalent
Sl. No. Direction Coefficient radius Remarks
h LB
1 Vertical ηz = 1 + 0.6(1 − υ) rz = This is in vertical Z direction
rz π
h LB
2 Horizontal ηx = 1 + 0.55(2 − υ) rx = This induce sliding in horizon-
rx π tal x or y direction
3
h 4 LB
3 Rocking ηφx = 1 + 1.2(1 − υ) rφx = This produces rocking about
rφx 3π Y axis
3
h
+ 0.2(2 − υ)
rφx
h 4 L3 B
3.1 Rocking ηφy = 1 + 1.2(1 − υ) rϕy = This produces rocking about
rφy 3π X axis
3
h
+ 0.2(2 − υ)
rφy
4 Twisting None available This produces twisting about
vertical Z axis
10 In most of the cases as the plan area of the foundation is dependent on the equipment general arrangement
to increase the mass it was getting deeper and deeper.
It is suggested that if we multiply the spring constants available from Richart and
Lysmer formulation vide Tables 2.2.3 and 4 by the above factors we get the modified
spring constants valid for the embedded foundations.
Damping ratio as obtained from Richart and Lysmer’s model when multiplied by
the coefficients as furnished in Table 2.4.2 gives the damping ratio considering the
embedment effect of the soil.
In many cases due to poor soil condition machine foundations are loaded on piles and
obviously other than static loads they are also subjected to vibrations and dynamic
loading. Dynamic behaviour of piles is still to certain extent not very clearly understood
though theoretical formulas exist to predict their behaviour under time dependent
loading; they have been co-related with field observations for only a few simplified
cases.
As such the decision of using piles below machine foundations should be taken
cautiously and not without some understanding of how it would behave under the load
induced from the machine. Though there are very few reports on the field observation
data on dynamic behaviour of piles under machine foundations it is however generally
accepted that under time dependent loads piles,
Since in some cases particularly in lateral mode, the effect of piles could be adverse
we repeat that it should be used with caution.
For machine foundation on piles three mathematical models are usually in vogue.
We will discuss all the above methods now in some detail but would like to emphasise
at this point is that each one of them has its pros and cons and are not self-sufficient.
As such which would be the most appropriate model for analysis varies from case to
case and one method of analysis may have to be complimented by another model.
While describing the model we start with the most exhaustive one and go the reverse
way for we feel this will give you a better insight to the various problems that exists
with dynamic behaviour of piles.
Shown in Figure 2.5.1 is a machine foundation supported by piles.
Master Node
Slave Node
Figure 2.5.2 Finite element model of machine foundation with pile and soil.
One of the major disadvantages with this type of model is that the boundary of the
soil has to be extended to substantial distance away both at the sides and from the
pile tip in vertical direction enabling the model to predict correctly the response of the
system. If this boundary limit is inadequate from the pile tip then waves transmitted
to the soil due to the vibration of the machine will get reflected back and result in
spurious responses which could make the analysis completely wrong.
The question as to how far this boundary should extend, no rational basis has been
derived yet and is completely up to the engineer’s judgement11 .
11 One thumb rule is to extend the boundary in vertical direction to 2.5 times the length of the pile.
Other than this there are certain practical problems encountered especially when
the piles are long (say 20/30 m), geotechnical data may not be available to the depth
to which an engineer might like to extend the boundary of the problem and as such
if comprehensive soil data to the desired level is not available it may be difficult to
model the system without the adequate data.
In spite of the above problems the model is not without its advantage and may be
summarised as follows:
• It comprehensively caters to the 3D effect of the pile soil and the foundation
• It can effectively model the soil if layered in nature where each of the layers has
different material property.
• The group interaction effect of soil and pile is automatically catered for.
• Piles having variable geometry (tapered piles) can also be modelled without any
problems.
• If battered piles are provided to counter any lateral thrust can also be modelled
without any difficulty.
Figure 2.5.5 Mathematical model of pile cap, piles with soil springs.
It is obvious that with respect to the previous model one of the major advantages is
that it is a relatively less laborious model in terms of input generation and complexity
and many engineers prefer to use this in lieu of a detailed finite element 3D model as
shown previously.
However the above model suffers from one serious lacuna for which it should be
used with caution.
The model in Figure 2.5.5 does not take into cognisance the effect of the soil which
lies between the two piles and treats the soil as only discrete element based on springs.
• This could significantly under rate or even over rate the dynamic response which
depends on the nature of the soil
• It does not take in to cognisance the pile group interaction factor which has been
observed to have significant effect on the dynamic response on the system specially
when the pile spacing is between 2.5D to 3D, where D is the overall diameter of
the pile.
It is recommended that this model may be used when the centre to centre distance
between the piles are at least more than 5D.
Though not without limitations the major advantage with this method is that
• It is simple to use.
• The spring stiffness and damping values are frequency independent.
• The group interaction effect of the piles can be to certain extent taken care of.
• The spring and damping values thus obtained can be very easily implemented as
linear springs in commercially available finite element software.
• Standard Chart and coefficients exists for piles that are quite easy to use.
where, kb z = equivalent spring constant for end bearing piles; Ep = Young’s modulus
of pile material; Ap = cross sectional area of the pile; r0 = equivalent radius of the
pile, and, f18,1 = a factor which depends on pile material (concrete, steel, timber etc.),
ratio of embedded length l to radius (r0 ) and Vs /Vc (shear wave velocity of the soil
above the tip to compression wave velocity in pile).
The damping value in vertical direction is given by
Ep A p
cbz = f18,2 (2.5.2)
vs
Table 2.5.1 Values of factor f -as per Novak (1974) for stiffness
and damping factor for single pile. For concrete piles
(γs /γp = 0.7) having /r0 > 25.
Slenderness ratio Stiffness and damping function f for vertical bearing pile
The values of f18,1 and f18,2 are meant for end bearing piles. However it has been
observed that for friction piles having l/r0 greater than 60 or Vs /Vc greater than 0.03
these values are in small error pertaining to timber and concrete piles.
For steel piles Novak has given a value of f18,1 = 0.030 and f18,2 = 0.045 where
Vs /Vc = 0.033 and l/r0 greater than 80.
For relatively short friction piles the following expression has been suggested by
Novak for calculation of the stiffness and damping
Ep A p Ep Ap
kz1 = f18,1 and cz1 = f18,2 (2.5.3)
r0 vs
Table 2.5.2 Vertical stiffness coefficients for floating piles as per Novak (1983).
f 18,1
Table 2.5.3 Vertical damping coefficients for floating piles as per Novak (1983).
f18,2
where, f18,1
and f18,2 are stiffness and damping factors respectively as given
Tables 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 respectively.
It has been suggested that the values given in these charts are most appropriate
when used for the range of a0 = 0.1 to 0.8, where a0 = 2πvfr
s
0
here f = the operating
frequency of the machine. It has also been suggested (Steven 1978) that these values
are even valid for a0 as low as 0.05 which means that reasonably good results may be
expected for even slender piles and low frequencies.
The damping ratio for the pile may be calculated from the expression
Dz1 = cz1 /2 kz1 mc (2.5.4)
where mc is the mass of the cap plus machinery or the portion of structure which
is vibrating in the same phase as the cap. Part of the mass of the pile may also
be included in the above equation but it has been generally found that this ratio
of the pile mass to the mass of the supported weight is very small and is usually
ignored.
stiffness. It also depends upon the relative distance between the piles itself and the
slenderness ratio of the piles carrying the loads and is expressed as
g
N
N
kz = kz1 αA (2.5.5)
1 1
Table 2.5.4 Values of S̄1 and S̄2 for various Poisson’s ratio.
The expressions for calculating the stiffness and the damping constant for an
embedded cap of embedd depth h is given by
f f
kz = Gs hS̄1 and cz = hr0 Gs λs /g S̄2 (2.5.7)
Equation (2.5.7) should be added to the pile stiffness and damping of the pile group
as presented in the previous section to arrive at the complete spring and damping
constant of a pile group in vertical direction. Values of S̄1 and S̄2 for various Poisson’s
ratio are given in Table 2.5.4.
Here Ip is the moment of inertia of the pile cross section about the centroidal axis
perpendicular to the direction of the motion. Here x direction depicts the horizontal
motion and f11,1 and f11,2 are factors for fixed headed piles. The values of f11,1 and
f11,2 are furnished in Table 2.5.5.
The group effect is expressed as
N N
g 1 kx1 g cx1
kx = N and cx = 1N (2.5.9)
1 αL 1 αL
Table 2.5.5 Values of factor f -as per Novak (1974) stiffness and damping factors for horizontal and
rocking mode.
Table 2.5.6 Values of Su1 and Su2 for various Poisson’s ratio.
where, αL = a displacement factor for lateral motion defined in similar way to αA and
is given by12
r
1 0
αLf = 0.6ρc [Ep Gc ] 7 (1 + cos2 βp ) (2.5.9a)
s
r
1 0
αLH = 0.4ρc [Ep Gc ] 7 (1 + cos2 βp ); 2
αθH = αLH 3
, αθM = αLH (2.5.9b)
s
12 Example 2.7.3 is a very good conceptual case study for the same.
Here I is the moment of inertia of the pile cross section about the axis of rotation
and f7,1 and f7,2 are factors for rotational direction for fixed head piles, as furnished
in Table 2.5.5.
g
N
kψ = [kψ1 + kz1 Xr2 + kx1 Zc2 − 2Zc kxψ1 ] + kψf (2.5.12)
1
Here Xr and Zc are shown in the Figure 2.5.7 and kz1 and kx1 are stiffness constant
of single piles as described earlier. In addition
Ep I p
kxψ1 = f9,1 and
r20
(2.5.13)
2
δ2 Zc Zc
kψf = Gs r0 hS̄ψ1 + Gs r20 h + −δ S̄u1
3 r0 r0
where δ = h/r0 , here h = embedment depth of pile cap, and Sψ1 is as given in
Table 2.5.7.
The damping matrix for the pile group is expressed by
g
N
cψ = [cψ1 + cz1 Xr2 + cx1 Zc2 − 2Zc cxψ1 ] + cψf (2.5.14)
1
where cz1 and cx1 are damping constant of single piles as described earlier. In addition
Ep Ip
cxψ1 = f9,2 and
r0 v s
Table 2.5.7 Values of Sψ1 and Sψ2 for various Poisson’s ratio.
Machine block
Soil line
h
Zc
Xr
2
f δ2 Zc Zc
cψ = δr40 Gs γs /g Sψ2 + + −δ S̄u2 (2.5.15)
3 r0 r0
Example 2.5.1
Find the vertical, horizontal and rocking stiffness of the pile group based on
Novak’s formulation as shown in Fig. 2.5.8 and with the following soil
properties:
Length of the pile = 45.0 m; Diameter of the pile = 950 mm; Grade of concrete
M20 having a dynamic modulus as 300 × 106 kN/m2 . Consider Poisson’s ratio
of soil = 0.4.
Solution:
Since each of the layers has different velocity and thickness we take a weighted
average of the shear wave velocity of the three soil layers as follows
60 × 10 + 110 × 20 + 215 × 15
vs = = 134 m/sec
45
600
1400
10 m vs = 60 m/sec Layer#1
= 18 kN/m3
2000 2000
3000 3000
500
(Typ)
3 6 9
2000
2 5 8
2000
1 4 7
18 × 10 + 20 × 20 + 22 × 15
Average weight density of soil is = γ s = =
45
20.22 kN/m3
Thus dynamic shear modulus of the soil is taken as
20.22
Gavg = × (134)2 = 37010 kN/m2 ; g, acceleration due to gravity is
9.81
taken as 9.81 m/sec2 .
L×B 7×5
Equivalent Radius of pile cap = = = 3.33 m
π π
Ep × g 300 × 106 × 9.81
vc = = = 10849 m/sec;
γp 25
vs 134
= = 1.235 × 10−2 ≈ 0.01
vc 10849
L 45
= = 94.7 > 25.
r0 0.475
= 7934 kN-sec/m.
9
9 × 4.924 × 106
Kzg = = 11480829 kN/m;
3.86
i=1
9
9 × 7934
Czg = = 18498 kN-sec/m.
3.86
i=1
18
Gs = × (60)2 = 6605 kN/m2
9.81
f f
Kz = Gs h̄S1 → Kz = 6605 × 1.4 × 2.7 = 24969 kN/m.
f 6605 × 18
Cz = h̄r0 Gs γs /gS2 = 1.4 × 3.33 × 6.7 = 3438.6 kN/m.
9.81
9
403091 × 9
Kx = = 2418546 kN/m;
1.5
i=1
9
3334 × 9
Cx = = 20004 kN-sec/m.
1.50
i=1
18
Gs = × (60)2 = 6605 kN/m2
9.81
For embedded depth, h = 1.4 m and Su1 = 4.1 and Su2 = 10.6,
f
Kx = Gs h̄Su1 = 6605 × 1.4 × 4.1 = 37913 kN/m;
f 6605 × 18
Cx = h̄r0 Gs γs /gSu2 = 1.4 × 3.33 × 10.6 = 5440 kN/m.
9.81
Thus, the total lateral stiffness = 2418546 + 37913 = 2.456 × 106 kN/m.
Total damping for the pile and pile cap in lateral direction = 20004 + 5440 =
25444 kN-sec/m.
Ep Ip 300 × 106 × 0.04
kψ1 = f7,1 = × 0.202 = 5103158 kN/m
r0 0.475
The coupled sliding and rocking stiffness with, f9,1 = −0.0194, is given by
Ep I p 300 × 106 × 0.04
kxψ1 = f9,1 = × (−0.0194)
r20 (0.475)2
= −1031801 kN/m
2
δ2 Zc Zc
kψf = Gs r0 hS̄ψ1 + Gs r20 h + −δ S̄u1
3 r0 r0
g
N
kψ = [kψ1 + kz1 Xr2 + kx1 Zc2 − 2Zc kxψ1 ] + kψf
1
g
kψ = 9 × [5103158 + 4.924 × 106 × 4 + 403091 × 2.25
g
kψ = 2.342 × 108 kN/m
Ep Ip 300 × 106 × 0.04
cψ1 = f7,2 = × 0.139 = 12448 kN-sec/m.
vs 134
The coupled sliding and rocking mode damping, with f9,2 = −0.0280, is
given by
Ep Ip 300 × 106 × 0.04
cxψ1 = f9,2 = × (−0.0280) = −5273 kN-sec/m
r0 v s 0.475 × 134
g
N
cψ = [cψ1 + cz1 Xr2 + cx1 Zc2 − 2Zc cxψ1 ] + cψf
1
g
cψ = 9 × [12448 + 7934 × 4 + 3334 × 2.25 + 2 × 1.5 × 5273] + 14604
= 622145 kN-sec/m.
a The solution does not take into account inertial effect of the pile;
b Extrapolation is required when design data are out of range of the chart;
c Charts are available only for RCC or timber piles, whether these charts are
applicable to cases of steel piles13 , there is no clear-cut guideline;
d The charts do not address to the case where a pile is partially embedded;
e The formulation do not cater to dynamic axial load, moments or shears induced in
pile due to dynamic loads.
∂ 2u ∂ 2u
EA + K f u = m(z) (2.5.16)
∂z2 ∂t 2
13 This is an important issue for many real life projects specially in Arctic condition (like North Siberia)
or very arid region (like Sudan, Algeria) due to extreme low temperature or absence of water makes
concreting hazardous and almost all the structures and foundations are built on steel piles.
Kf
dz
Kv
Kb
Figure 2.5.9 Pile embedded in ground up to a depth L and its mathematical model.
With the definition of u and using Equation (2.5.17), Equation (2.5.16) may be
written as
d 2 φ(z)
EA + Kf φ(z) = −m(z)ω2 φ(z) (2.5.18)
dz2
d 2 φ(z)
+ p2 φ(z) = 0 (2.5.19)
dz2
where p2 = (mω2 + Kf ).
If you observe Equation (2.5.19) carefully, you should realize that it suggests that
the presence of frictional stiffness Kf does not affect the basic shape function of the
pile and would remain same for the case had the pile would not have been embed-
ded. However, the bearing stiffness Kb connected at the end of pile would affect the
shape function depending on the appropriate boundary condition. For computing the
correct shape function of the system, one has to start with the model as shown in the
Figure 2.5.9. The general solution for Equation (2.5.19) is given by Humar (1990)
in which Kb = Gb r0 Cb (2.5.23)
where, Gb = dynamic shear modulus of the soil at pile tip; r0 = radius of the pile;
Cb = a frequency independent dimensionless constant as suggested by Novak and
Beredugo (1972) and is given in Table 2.5.8.
Combining Eqns. (7.5.22) and (7.5.23), one can have
Gb C b L
pL tan pL = (2.5.24)
Eπr0
It will be observed that the right hand side of Equation (2.5.24) is a dimensionless
quantity.
If η = GEπ
b Cb L
r0 = Gb
E
Cb
π λ; where λ = slenderness ratio (L/r0 ) of the pile, Equation
(2.5.24) can be represented as
pL tan pL − η = 0. (2.5.25)
z
φ(z) = cos β (2.5.26)
L
The potential energy d of an element of depth dz, shown in Figure 2.5.9, is given
by Shames and Dym (1995)
EA du 2 Kv 2
d = + u (2.5.27)
2 dz 2
Kv = Gb r0 Cb + GDf S1 (2.5.28)
9.553(1 + ν)
S1 = (2.5.29)
λ0.333
where ν = Poisson’s ratio of the soil; and λ = slenderness ratio of the pile.
This value of S1 is derived based on similar technique used earlier by Lysmer and
Richart (1966) for deriving equivalent stiffness and damping of circular footings for
Lysmer’s analog from the solutions of a similar elasto-dynamic analysis as proposed
by Bycroft (1956). The value Cb may be taken as suggested in Table 2.5.8 for it has no
bearing on the flexibility of pile and is a function of the base area only. Considering pile
base area is much smaller in comparison to a footing, its contribution is only marginal.
Poisson’s ratio Cb S1
Table 2.5.9 Roots of equation pL tan(pL)-η = 0 for the first or fundamental mode.
η pL η pL η pL η pL
Moreover in most of the practical cases its effect does not come into consideration (as
will be shown subsequently) for analysis of such piles are either considered as bearing
pile i.e. having infinite base stiffness or floating having no base effects. The first term in
Equation (2.5.28) represents the contribution of base resistance, while the second term,
the embedment effect of the foundation. Substituting Equation (2.5.28) in Equation
(2.5.27) for an element dz, d may be written as
EA du 2 Gb r0 Cb 2 GS1 dz 2
d = + u + u (2.5.30)
2 dz 2 2
and the total potential energy over the total length of the pile (L) is given by
L 2 L
EA du GS1 G b r0 C b 2
= dz + u2 dz + u (2.5.31)
2 dz 2 2
0 0
Considering u(z, t) = φ(z)q(t), it can be proved (Hurty and Rubenstein 1967), that
L L
Kij = EA φi (z)φj (z)dz + GS1 φi (z)φj (z)dz + Gb r0 Cb φi (L)φj (L) (2.5.32)
0 0
β z
φ (z) = − sin β (2.5.33)
L L
Using z/L = ξ implying dz = Ldξ , and converting the shape function as furnished
in Equation (2.5.26) from local to generalized co-ordinates, the limits of the problem
get converted to 1 to zero.
+1 1
EAβ 2
K1 = F1 (ξ ) dξ + GS1 L F1 (ξ )2 dξ + Gb r0 Cb F1 (1)2
2
(2.5.37)
L
0 0
+1 1
EAβ 2
K1 = (sin βξ ) dξ + GS1 L (cos βξ )2 dξ + Gb r0 Cb (cos β)2
2
(2.5.38)
L
0 0
in which
EAβ 2 GS1 L Gb r0 Cb GS1 L EAβ Gb r0 Cb
X1 = + + ; X2 = − ; X3 =
2L 2 2 4β 4L 2
(2.5.42)
Equation (2.5.42) gives the stiffness of the pile for the vertical mode, without any
limitation to slenderness ratio, E/G or the material type.
H 2
1 ∂u(z, t)
T(t) = m(z) dz (2.5.43)
2 ∂t
0
n
Using, u(z, t) = φi (z)qi (t) (2.5.44)
i=1
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
H
n
n
1
T (t) = m(z)⎣ φi (z)q̇i (t)⎦ ⎣ φj (z)q̇j (t)⎦dz
2
0 j=1 j=1
(2.5.45)
⎡H ⎤
n
n
1
= q̇i (t)q̇j (t)⎣ m(z)φi (z)φj (z)dz⎦
2
i=1 j=1 0
⎡H ⎤
mij = ⎣ m(z)φi (z)φj (z)dz⎦ for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . n (2.5.46)
0
Similarly the stiffness value with transformation from local to natural co-ordinate,
the mass contribution of the pile may be obtained as
1
γp AL
mij = Fi (ξ )Fj (ξ )dξ (2.5.47)
g
0
were γp = bulk density of pile material; A = area of pile cross section; L = pile length
embedded in soil, and g = acceleration due to gravity.
1
γp AL
m1 = F1 (ξ )2 dξ (2.5.48)
g
0
1
γp AL
m1 = (cos βξ )2 dξ (2.5.49)
g
0
γp AL sin 2β
m1 = 1+ (2.5.50)
2g 2β
which is the contributory mass of the pile for the fundamental mode in the vertical
direction.
It is obvious that the material damping of the pile will be much lower than that of
the soil radiation damping. As the first step for calculating the soil damping one may
ignore the material damping of the pile for the time being. Material damping of soil
also is part of the system vibration. However, it has been found that for translational
vibration their effect is insignificant and may be neglected without any significant effect.
Else, if one wishes, their values may be obtained from resonant column test from the
laboratory when damping may be obtained from ratio of successive amplitudes.
For a rigid footing embedded in soil for a depth Df , Novak and Beredugo has
proposed an expression
Cz = r0 ρb Gb C̄b + r0 ρG S̄2 Df (2.5.51)
Table 2.5.10 Values of damping coefficients based on Novak and Beredugo (1972).
where a0 = ωr/vs in which, ω operating frequency of the system in rad/sec; r = radius of the pile; vs = shear wave
velocity of the soil.
With reference to Figure 2.5.1 for a pile element of length dz, embedded in the soil,
the above equation may expressed as
Cz = r0 ρb Gb C̄b + r0 ρG S̄2 dz (2.5.52)
L
Cz = r0 ρG S̄2 φi (z)φj (z)dz + r0 ρb Gb C̄b φi (L)φj (L) (2.5.54)
0
Considering φ(z) = cos β Lz , for the fundamental mode, one can have
L
z
Cz = r0 ρGS̄2 cos2 β dz + r0 ρb Gb C̄b cos2 β (2.5.55)
L
0
and hence
1
Cz = r0 ρGS̄2 L cos2 βξ dξ + r0 ρb Gb C̄b cos2 β (2.5.56)
0
Equation (2.5.57) expresses the soil damping for a single pile under vertical mode
of vibration. Here the Factor S̄2 and C̄b are damping coefficients which are frequency
dependent. Fortunately the damping factor is required for calculation of the amplitude
when the eigen solution of the problem is already done vis-a-vis, the dimensionless
frequency number a0 = ωr/vs term is known14 . Polynomial fit curve for S̄2 and C̄b are
available in terms of a0 which can be used to arrive at these parameters.
The damping constants are given in Table 2.5.10.
Cp = DCc (2.5.58)
This, when added to the radiation damping, calculated earlier, gives the complete
damping quantity for the soil-pile system. It should be noted that for perfectly floating
piles structural contribution of pile vanishes, and the material damping of the pile
mentioned in the preceding need not be considered.
1
C1 = r0 ρGS̄2 L (2.5.60)
2
γp AL
m1 = . (2.5.61)
2g
1
C1 = r0 ρG S2 L + r0 ρb Gb C̄b (2.5.63)
2
From Equation (2.5.63) it should be noted that for a friction pile, the damping factor
increases, while the stiffness term in Equation (2.5.62) is less than the bearing case in
Equation (2.5.59). A similar observation has also been made by Novak (1974) in his
investigation. For very poor soil, the term Gb in Equation (2.5.63) may be ignored.
However for cases when piles located in medium to stiff homogenous clayey soil where
G = Gb and yet the load is basically transferred through friction, the last term cannot
be ignored and would further enhance the radiation damping. The mass matrix shall
be same as stated in Equation (2.5.50).
Rotating Machine
Pile Cap
Partially embedded piles
G.L.
L
L1
To evaluate the pile stiffness for such cases, the stiffness Equation (2.5.36) is to be
modified as
L L1
Kij = EA φi (z)φj (z)dz + GS1 φi (z)φj (z)dz + Gb r0 Cb φi (L)φj (L) (2.5.64)
0 0
2.5.10.5.1 Stiffness of the pile for soils with varying elastic property
In the previous section, the calculation of stiffness as well as the damping of soil was
based on the dynamic shear modulus of soil invariant with depth. While this could be
possible for clayey soils, there are many cases when the dynamic shear modulus of the
soil has been found to vary with depth. Generically this can be expressed as
G = G (z/H)α (2.5.67)
where α = a number varying from 0–2 [considered 0 when G is constant with depth,
assumed 1 for linear variation and 2 for parabolic distribution].
For instance for the soil with variable elastic property, Equation (2.5.67) may be
modified to
G = Gξ α (2.5.68)
where ξ = z/H.
For the cases mentioned above, Novak’s (1976) chart is possibly not valid. To
accommodate the above variation, the stiffness equation can be modified to
+1 1
EAβ 2
Kij = Fi (ξ )Fj (ξ )dξ + GS1 L ξ α Fi (ξ )Fj (ξ )dξ + Gb r0 Cb Fi (L)Fj (L)
L2
0 0
(2.5.69)
+1 1
EAβ 2
K1 = (sin βξ ) dξ + GS1 L ξ (cos βξ )2 dξ + Gb r0 Cb (cos β)2 (2.5.70)
2
L
0 0
1 EAβ 2 GS1 L 1 G b r0 C b 1 GS1 L EAβ
K1 = + 1− 2 + + − sin 2β
2 L 4 β 2 2 β L
GS1 L Gb r0 Cb
+ + cos 2β (2.5.71)
4β 2 2
It may be noted that while for bearing pile β = π /2, for friction pile (unlike constant
G case), β = 0 is an inadmissable function in this case. For the fundamental mode the
admissible function is β = π , which is the next higher mode. This is logical also for
the soil having stiffness increasing with depth and the pile will have a natural tendency
to wobble about its centre rather than moving en-mass.
The damping matrix in this case can be expressed as
1
Cz = r0 ρGS̄2 L ξ cos2 βξ dξ + r0 ρb Gb C̄b cos2 β (2.5.72)
0
The integration of the first term in Equation (2.5.72) being cyclic in nature and can
be solved approximately by expanding the cosine function in series. On integration,
Equation (2.5.72) reduces to
2 1 β2 2 4
Cz = r0 ρGS̄2 L − 2β 2 − + β + r0 ρb Gb C̄b cos2 β (2.5.73)
3 7 33 675
+1 1
EAβ 2
K1 = (sin βξ ) dξ + GS1 L ξ 2 (cos βξ )2 dξ + Gb r0 Cb (cos β)2
2
L
0 0
(2.5.74)
GS1 L Gb r0 Cb
+ + cos 2β (2.5.75)
β 2
In this case, the first admissible function will be β = π for a friction pile and β = π/2
for a bearing pile.
The mass matrix for both the cases remains same as stated in Equation (2.5.50)
while the damping matrix can be obtained from the expression
1
Cz = r0 ρGS̄2 L ξ cos2 βξ dξ + r0 ρb Gb C̄b cos2 β (2.5.76)
0
Df
The sketch given in Figure 2.5.11 can represent the pile group with pile cap.
In such case usually the embedment stiffness GSf Df is directly added to the pile
group stiffness and the system is considered as a lumped mass single degree freedom
system where
Kgroup + Gf Sf Df
ω= (2.5.78)
M
where Gf = dynamic shear modulus of the soil surrounding the pile cap; Df = depth
of embedment; Sf = constant as suggested by Novak furnished in Table 2.5.4 (as S1 );
M = mass of pile cap and machine placed on it.
It may be noted that contributing effect of the pile mass is ignored in the above which
could be significant for a pile group having large number of piles. To overcome the
above limitation and also to derive a better response we propose a two mass lumped
model has been proposed and shown in Figure 2.5.12.
The mass and stiffness matrices for the above model may be written as
Kgroup + Gf Sf Df −Gf Sf Df
[K] = (2.5.79)
−Gf Sf Df G f Sf D f
K2 = GfSfDf
K1 = Kgroup
Figure 2.5.12 Proposed two mass lumped model for the pile and pile cap.
⎡ ⎤
nγ p AL sin 2β
1+ 0
and [M] = ⎣ 2g 2β ⎦ (2.5.80)
0 M
Once the stiffness, mass and damping matrices are established, the natural frequency
of the system may be obtained from the standard expression
leading to
(mp B + MA) ± [(mp B + MA)2 − 4mp MAB]
λ1,2 = (2.5.84)
2mp M
!
nγp AL sin 2β
in which mp = 2g 1+ 2β and A = Kgroup + Gf Sf Df ; B = Gf Sf Df .
EA
[Kij] =
L
⎡ ⎤
#1 #1 #1 #1
⎢ β1
2
F 1 (ξ )2
β 1 β2 F 1 (ξ )F2 (ξ ) β1 β3 F 1 (ξ )F 3 (ξ ) ......... β1 βn F 1 (ξ )Fn (ξ ) ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ # # # ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 ⎥
⎢β2 β1 F2 (ξ )F1 (ξ ) β2 F2 (ξ )
2 2
......... ........ β2 βn F2 (ξ )Fn (ξ )⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
×⎢⎢ #1 # 1 #1 # 1 ⎥
β β (ξ )F (ξ ) β β (ξ )F (ξ ) β 2
(ξ )2
β β (ξ )F (ξ ) ⎥
⎢ 3 1 F 3 1 3 2 F 3 2 3 F 3 .......... 3 n F 3 n ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0
⎥
⎢ ............. ........ ........ ....... ........... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ #1 #1 ⎦
βn β1 Fn (ξ )F1 (ξ ) βn Fn (ξ )
2 2
0 0
⎡ ⎤
#1 #1 #1 #1
⎢ F1 (ξ ) 2
F1 (ξ )F2 (ξ ) F1 (ξ )F3 (ξ ) ......... F1 (ξ )Fn (ξ )⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢#1 #1 #1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ F2 (ξ )F1 (ξ ) F2 (ξ )2 ......... ........ F2 (ξ )Fn (ξ )⎥
⎢0 ⎥
GS1 L ⎢
⎢#1
0 0 ⎥
⎥
× dξ + #1 #1 #1
2 ⎢ ⎢ F3 (ξ )F1 (ξ ) F3 (ξ )F2 (ξ ) F3 (ξ )2 .......... F3 (ξ )Fn (ξ )⎥
⎥
⎢0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0
⎥
⎢ .............. ........ ........ ....... ............. ⎥
⎢1 ⎥
⎣# #1 ⎦
Fn (ξ )F1 (ξ ) Fn (ξ )2
0 0
⎡ ⎤
K11 K12 K13
[K]i=1,3 j=1,3 = ⎣K21 K22 K23 ⎦ (2.5.86)
K31 K32 K33
where for i = j
EAβi2 GS1 L GS1 L EAβi G r0 C b
Kii = + + G b r0 C b + − sin 2βi + b cos 2βi
2L 2 4βi 4L 2
(2.5.87)
For i = j we have
EAβi βj GS1 L sin(βi − βj ) EAβi βj GS1 L sin(βi + βj )
Kij = − + −
2L 2 βi − β j 2L 2 βi + β j
+ Gb r0 Cb cos βi βj (2.5.88)
It should be noted at this point that there are no suggestive values available for S1
and Cb for higher modes either by Novak or any other research. However, it may
be reasonably stated that for higher modes the dimensionless frequency a0 would
be ≥1.0 (or near 1.0 at worse) when the curve for S1 becomes almost constant
(Novak 1974) and the values furnished in Table 2.5.6 may be used without much
error.
The value of β for the fundamental mode is already furnished in Table 2.5.9 for the
next two modes the values of β are furnished in Table 2.5.11 and Table 2.5.12.
η pL η pL η pL η pL
η pL η pL η pL η pL
√
1 1 r0 ρGS2 L r0 ρb Gb C̄b
Cii = r0 ρGS̄2 L + r0 ρb Gb C̄b + sin 2βi + cos 2βi
2 2 4β 2
(2.5.91)
For i = j
sin(βi + βj ) sin(βi − βj )
Cij = r0 ρGS̄2 L −
βi + β j βi − β j
(2.5.92)
r2 ρGb C̄b
+ 0 cos(βi + βj ) − cos(βi − βj )
2
It is apparent that the dynamic analyses of piles with pile cap are standard and
the validity of the same would depend on how correctly the pile stiffness values have
been obtained. For this, it would worthwhile to evaluate how the present formulation
matches with other established methods. To this end, the pile stiffness as obtained by
Equations (2.5.59) and (2.5.62) has been compared with Novak’s chart (1974) and
equation based on rigorous analysis as proposed by Dobry and Gazetas (1988).
It should be noted that their expression is valid for floating piles of length say, L and
embedded in an elastic half space of length 2L. The results have been compared for a
single pile of various slenderness ratio λ varying from 20 to 100 and Ep /Gs value of soil
varying from 250 to 10,000 for an RCC pile of diameter of 600 mm and having Ep =
30 GPa. Poisson’s ratio value for soil considered is 0.4. Here Ep = Young’s modulus
of pile material; Gs = dynamic shear modulus of soil. The results for Kpile(bearing) and
Kpile(friction) are shown in Figure 2.5.13 through 20 for various slenderness ratios.
Finally, the natural frequency of a real life centrifugal compressor foundation
supported on 9 RCC piles, 45 meter long having diameter of 950 mm, have been
compared. The piles are spaced at 3.0 m c/c. The size of pile cap is 7 m × 5 m × 2.0 m,
embedded to depth of 1.4 meter. The weight of the generator supported on it weighs
400 kN. The frequencies are again compared for a range of Ep /Gs varying from 250
to 10000.
Figure 2.5.13 Comparison of bearing pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 20.
1.50E+06
Kpile(friction)
1.00E+06 Novak(friction)
5.00E+05 Gazetas
0.00E+00
250 500 1000 2500 10000
Ep/Gs
Figure 2.5.14 Comparison of friction pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 20.
5.0000E+06
4.0000E+06 Kpile(bearing)
3.0000E+06 Novak(bearing)
2.0000E+06
1.0000E+06 Gazetas
0.0000E+00
0
00
00
25
50
0
00
10
50
10
Ep/Gs
Figure 2.5.15 Comparison of bearing pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 40.
The results based on Kp(bearing) and Kp(friction) has been compared to Dobry and
Gazetas’ results and presented in Table 2.5.13. The results have not been compared
with Novak in this case for the charts are too crude especially in the range when
the ratio of Ep /Gs = 2500–10000 and significant variation can occur based on eye
estimate of stiffness function. Results have been found to be excellently matching
particularly for friction piles.
2.50E+06
2.00E+06
Kpile(friction)
1.50E+06
Novak(friction)
1.00E+06
Gazetas
5.00E+05
0.00E+00
250 500 1000 5000 10000
Ep/Gs
Figure 2.5.16 Comparison of friction pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 40.
5.0000E+06
4.0000E+06
Kpile(bearing)
3.0000E+06
Novak(bearing)
2.0000E+06 Gazetas
1.0000E+06
0.0000E+00
250 500 1000 5000 10000
Ep/Gs
Figure 2.5.17 Comparison of bearing pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 80.
4.00E+06
3.00E+06
Kpile(friction)
2.00E+06 Novak(friction)
1.00E+06 Gazetas
0.00E+00
250 500 1000 5000 10000
Ep/Gs
Figure 2.5.18 Comparison of friction pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 80.
As stated earlier, the results from Equation (2.5.41) (with appropriate boundary con-
dition for bearing and friction) have been compared with Novak’s chart and Dobry and
Gazetas’ expression. The results have been studied against both the bearing and friction
pile coefficients as suggested by Novak and El-Sharnouby (1983). It will be observed
in Figures 2.5.13 through 2.5.18 that the frictional stiffness values obtained are very
Figure 2.5.19 Comparison of bearing pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 100.
5.00E+06
4.00E+06
Kpile(friction)
3.00E+06
Novak(friction)
2.00E+06
Gazetas
1.00E+06
0.00E+00
250 500 1000 5000 10000
Ep/Gs
Figure 2.5.20 Comparison of friction pile stiffness for slenderness ratio = 100.
close to Dobry and Gazetas’ results in all the cases for various L/r and E/Gs values.
For the bearing piles, the values obtained are slightly higher than Dobry and Gazetas’
values but matching very closely to Novak’s data from Ep /Gs = 500 onwards. This
is expected. It was pointed out by Novak and others that bearing stiffness for a pile is
slightly more than that of friction stiffness.
At L/r = 20 the bearing values obtained are higher than that of Dobry and Gazetas
(which is logical considering his case is that of a floating pile) as well as from Novak
but the difference reduces considerably from Ep /Gs = 1000 onwards, and this is
the range in which piles are commonly used in practice. The values, where Ep /Gs
is ≤1000 are actually far too stiff for any piles to be bored or driven. Moreover,
a pile with L/r = 20 is actually a fictitious values. For instance a standard pile of
length 30 meter, the diameter becomes 3.0 m, which is actually a cassion and not a
pile. It is possibly in such cases, the axial stiffness is far too high and this shows a
significant higher stiffness in bearing compared to friction piles for such an unrealistic
L/r ratio. For real life problems, the values of L/r is around 50–100 and Ep /Gs >
1000. It will be observed that the values obtained by the proposed method are quite
close to the reported results useful for practical ranges of application. As for the
frequencies obtained for various Ep /Gs values the results in Table 2.5.10 are extremely
encouraging.
• Determine the soil properties like G, Gb , Gf and ν (Poisson’s ratio of the soil);
• Determine the pile properties like Length of pile L and diameter of pile (2r0 ) and
also the Young’s Modulus E of the pile material;
• Determine the pile cap property like its mass and depth of embedment Df ;
• Determine the weight of machine supported on the pile cap;
• Obtain Novak’s stiffness and damping coefficients Cb , S1 , C b , S2 from Table 2.5.9
and Table 2.5.10, Equation (2.5.29) etc.;
• Establish the dimensionless parameter η = (Gb /E) (Cb /π ) λ;
• For the given value η determine the value of pL from Table 2.5.9;
• If the pile is bearing (known priori) β = π /2;
• Consider β = pL;
• Determine K1 and mp from Equations (2.5.40) and (2.5.50) respectively;
• Determine the embedment stiffness matrix from the Equation (2.5.79);
• Form the mass, stiffness;
• Perform eigen solution;
• Find the value of the frequency and obtain the dimensionless frequency number a0 ;
• Find the value of S2 from Beredugo’s expression as given in Table 2.5.10;
• Determine the damping of the system based on Equations (2.5.57), (2.5.60) &
(2.5.63);
• Perform Modal or time history analysis to obtain the amplitude of vibration.
• The method is coefficient based [function of the ratio of Young’s modulus of pile
(Ep ), and dynamic shear modulus of soil (Gs ), as such for intermediate values one
has to interpolate which may not be always very accurate.
• The values are given for Poisson’s ratio of 0.25 and 0.40 only. Thus for any
value between 0.25 and 0.4, or beyond 0.4 another set of linear interpolation/
extrapolation is necessary.
• Novak and El Sharnouby (1983) has given stiffness and damping coefficients for
soil having parabolic profile but in many cases the variation is linear and no
coefficients are available for this case.
• The method does not have a solution for partially embedded piles, which is of great
practical importance for piles driven in arctic condition (especially in Northern
Siberia which constitute of a large number of Oil and Gas facilities).
• The dynamic bending moment and shear force induced on pile cannot be evaluated.
• Finally the formulation is valid for long piles (i.e. the failure takes place in the pile
body before soil yields) and do not cater to piles, which are short.
The simplified formulas given by Dobry and Gazetas (1988) is based on more rigor-
ous analysis, however it also does not address the issues of partial embedment, dynamic
bending moment and shear, or the issue- if the pile is short (i.e. L/r < 25) etc.
We now present herein (Chowdhury and Dasgupta 2008) a mathematical model for
analysis of such piles under lateral load that overcomes many of the bottle necks cited
above.
Similar to the vertical vibration model presented earlier the present formulation is
based Novak and Beredugo’s (1972) formulation for a rigid cylinder embedded in
elastic half space. Shown in Figure 2.5.21 is a pile embedded in homogeneous elastic
medium and considered under plane strain condition. The pile is considered long and
slender, to start with. Under static conditions, the equation of equilibrium in the
Z
dz
d4x
E p Ip = −ks x (2.5.93)
dz4
where, Ep = Young’s modulus of the pile; Ip = moment of inertia of the pile cross
section; ks = elastic stiffness of the soil and is expressed as GSx1 ; G = dynamic
shear modulus of the soil; Sx1 = Beredugo’s constant which are basically frequency
dependent.
However, it has been shown by Novak and Beredugo (1972) that considering this
term frequency independent, no accuracy is lost for practical design problems and
the analysis becomes quite simplified for rigid circular embedded footing. Elaboration
about this parameter, in terms of piles, will be made later.
The general solution of Equation (2.5.93) may be written as
x = e−pz (C0 cos pz + C1 sin pz) + epz (C2 cos pz + C3 sin pz) (2.5.94)
GSx1
where p = 4
.
E p Ip
For long piles under load or moment at its head, it is reasonable to assume that
at significant distance from the pile head (where the load is applied), the curvature
vanishes. This condition can only be satisfied when C2 and C3 in Equation (2.5.94) is
Considering the pile head undergoing specified deflection and rotation as well as
its head is fixed to the pile cap (same boundary condition as considered by Novak
(1974)), one can have [Figure 2.5.21],
At z = 0, let x = x0 ⇒ C0 = x0 , which gives
Again, at z = 0, dx
dz
= θ0 one can have
θ0
C1 = x0 + (2.5.97)
p
Now considering β = pl and using Equation (2.5.100), for any arbitrary loading,
the generic shape function in dimensionless form can be represented as
−βz βz 1 βz
φ(z) = e L cos + 1+ sin (2.5.101)
L β L
in which
GSx1 L4
β= 4
, L being the length of the pile. (2.5.102)
Ep Ip
The generic shape function of the pile for the fundamental mode as in Equation
(2.5.103) is shown in Figure 2.5.22 for Ep /G = 5000.
The potential energy d of an element of depth dz, shown in Figure 2.5.21 is then
given (Shames and Dym 1995) by
2
Ep Ip d2v Kh 2
d = + v (2.5.105)
2 dz2 2
2
Ep Ip d2v GSx1 dz 2
d = + v . (2.5.107)
2 dz2 2
1.2
1
Shape function
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
9
15
45
75
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
z/L
Figure 2.5.22 Generic shape function long pile in the horizontal mode for Ep /G = 5000.
The total potential energy over the length of the pile (L) is then given by
L 2 L
Ep Ip d2v GSx1
= dz + v2 dz (2.5.108)
2 dz2 2
0 0
Considering v (z, t) = φ(z)q(t), it can be proved (Hurty and Rubenstein 1967) that
L L
Kij = Ep Ip φi (z)φj (z)dz + GSx1 φi (z)φj (z)dz (2.5.109)
0 0
L L
K = Ep Ip φi (z)2 dz + GSx1 φi (z)2 dz (2.5.110)
0 0
2β 2 − βz βz βz
φ (z) = e L sin − η cos and (2.5.111)
L2 L L
4β 4 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
φ (z) = 4 e− L
2
− cos − η sin (2.5.112)
L 2 2 L L
L
4Ep Ip β 4 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
K= e− L − cos − η sin dz
L4 2 2 L L
0
L
2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
+ GSx1 e− L + cos + η sin dz (2.5.114)
2 2 L L
0
4Ep Ip β 4 ηL −2β
− (1 − e (sin 2β + cos 2β))
L4 4β
X L Y L −2β
+ GSx1 (1 − e−2β ) + (e (sin 2β − cos 2β) + 1)
2 2β 2 4β
ηL
+ GSx1 (1 − e−2β (sin 2β + cos 2β)) (2.5.115)
4β
In Equation (2.5.115), e−2β (sin 2β + cos 2β) and e−2β (sin 2β − cos 2β) may be
ignored as their values are exceedingly small (highest is of the order 10−3 and the
lowest is 10−30 for Ep /G value varying from 250 to 10,000) and has practically no
effect on the stiffness value and this also considerably simplifies the expression.
Based on the above simplification, Equation (2.5.115) may be rewritten as
4Ep Ip β 4 X L Y L ηL
K= (1 − e−2β ) − −
L4 2 2β 2 4β 4β
X L Y L ηL
+ GSx1 (1 − e−2β ) + + (2.5.116)
2 2β 2 4β 4β
Ep Ip β 3 −2β Y
➔ K= X(1 − e ) − − η
L3 2
GSx1 L Y
+ X(1 − e−2β ) + + η (2.5.117)
4β 2
5X −2β ) − 3Y − 34 η
Ep Ip 4 (1 − e 8
K= 3 3
(2.5.118)
L (η − 1)
Table 2.5.14 Suggested value of Sx1 for Poisson’s ratio of soil = 0.25.
L/r0
Poisson’s (Slenderness
ratio ratio) Sx1 (250) Sx1 (500) Sx1 (1000) Sx1 (2500) Sx1 (5000) Sx1 (10000)
Note: The value in parenthesis after Sx1 indicates Ep /Gs value of the soil.
Table 2.5.15 Suggested value of Sx1 for Poisson’s ratio of soil = 0.40.
L/r0
Poisson’s (Slenderness
ratio ratio) Sx1 (250) Sx1 (500) Sx1 (1000) Sx1 (2500) Sx1 (5000) Sx1 (10000)
Note: The value in parenthesis after Sx1 indicates Ep /Gs value of the soil.
Table 2.5.16 Suggested value of Sx1 for Poisson’s ratio of soil = 0.50.
L/r0
Poisson’s (Slenderness
ratio ratio) Sx1 (250) Sx1 (500) Sx1 (1000) Sx1 (2500) Sx1 (5000) Sx1 (10000)
Note: The value in parenthesis after Sx1 indicates Ep /Gs value of the soil.
Mx = m(x) φi (z)φj (z)dz (2.5.119)
For the present case of the pile of length L, Equation (2.5.118), can be expressed as
L
γp Ap
Mx = φ(z)2 dz (2.5.120)
g
0
where, γp = unit weight of the pile material; Ap = cross sectional area of the pile;
g = acceleration due to gravity.
L
γp A p − 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
or, Mx = e L + cos + η sin (2.5.121)
g 2 2 L L
0
γp Ap L X(1 − e−2β ) + Y
2 +η
Mx = (2.5.122)
4g β
Equation (2.5.122) is the inertial contribution of the pile material for the fundamen-
tal mode. Incidentally, the inertial effect is usually ignored in design but could have
significant effect if the number of piles is large in a pile group.
Cz = r0 ρb Gb C̄b + r0 ρG S̄2 Df (2.5.123)
With reference to Figure 2.5.21 for a pile element of length dz embedded in the soil,
and ignoring the bearing effect, Equation (2.5.123) may be expressed as
c(x) = r0 ρGSx2 dz (2.5.124)
For systems having continuous response function, the damping may be expressed as
Cx = c(x) φi (z)φj (z)dz (2.5.125)
L
Cx = r0 ρGSx2 φ(z)2 dz (2.5.126)
0
L
− 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
or, Cx = r0 ρGSx2 e L + cos + η sin (2.5.127)
2 2 L L
0
Equation (2.5.128) expresses the soil damping for a single pile under horizontal
mode of vibration. The factor Sx2 is a frequency dependent damping coefficient. The
damping factor is required for calculating the amplitude only after the eigen solution of
the problem is already done vis-a-vis, the dimensionless frequency number a0 = ωr0 /vs
term is known a priori. Polynomial fit curve for Sx2 are available in terms of a0 which
can be used directly to obtain these parameters. Sx2 for different Poisson’s ratios are
given in Table 2.5.17.
Now, considering the fact that the embedment of a pile does not have any effect on
the shape function of the system, the stiffness of the pile for the fundamental mode
may be written as
L L1
K = Ep Ip φi (z) dz + GSx1 φi (z)2 dz
2
(2.5.134)
0 0
%
Considering, α = L L1 , Equation (2.5.134) may be rewritten as
α L1
4Ep Ip βe4 − 2βLe z Xe Ye 2βe z 2βe z
K= e 1 − cos − ηe sin dz
L41 2 2 L1 L1
0
L1
− 2βLe z Xe Ye 2βe z 2βe z
+ GSx1 e + cos + ηe sin dz (2.5.135)
2 2 L1 L1
0
Equation (2.5.137) gives the solution for stiffness of a partially embedded pile in the
ground. The correctness of the equation can be back checked by the fact that when
the pile becomes fully embedded i.e. for L1 = L α → 1, βe = β, Xe = X etc., when
Equation (2.5.137) degenerates to Equation (2.5.118).
Proceeding in an identical manner as done before, the mass and damping terms may
be computed as
γp Ap L1 Xe α(1 − e−2βe ) + Y2e α + ηe α
Mx = (2.5.138)
4g 1/(ηe − 1)
Xe (1 − e−2βe ) + Y2e + ηe
Cx = r0 ρGSx2 L1 (2.5.139)
4/(ηe − 1)
G = G(z/L)m (2.5.140)
where m = a number varying from 0–2 [considered 0 when G is constant with depth,
assumed 1 for linear variation and 2 for parabolic distribution].
For a linearly varying soil the stiffness matrix can be written as
L
4Ep Ip β 4 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
K= e− L − cos − η sin dz
L4 2 2 L L
0
L
z − 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
+ GSx1 e L + cos + η sin dz (2.5.141)
L 2 2 L L
0
Integration of above and ignoring the terms containing the factor, βe−2β · cos 2β,
β · e−2βsin 2β etc., having extremely small contributions, Equation (2.5.141) reduces to
Ep Ip β 3 −2β Y GSx1 L −2β 3Y η
K= X(1−e )− −η + X[1 − e (1 + β)] + +
L3 2 4β 2 4 2
(2.5.142)
Ep Ip β 3 −2β 1 1 1 3 1
K= X 1 − e 1 + + − Y − β − η 1 −
L3 4 4β 2 16 8β
(2.5.143)
The damping matrix for this case, proceeding in same manner as outlined earlier,
can be represented by
r0 ρG Sx2 L −2β 3Y η
Cx = X[1 − e (1 + β)] + + (2.5.144)
4β 2 4 2
When the dynamic shear modulus variation is parabolic with depth, the stiffness
equation of the pile can be expressed as
L
4Ep Ip β 4 − 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
K= e L − cos − η sin dz
L4 2 2 L L
0
L z 2
2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
+ GSx1 e− L + cos + η sin dz (2.5.145)
L 2 2 L L
0
Ep Ip β 3 −2β Y
K= X(1 − e )− −η
L3 2
GSx1 L 1 −2β 1 2
+ X − e 2 + − (2.5.146)
4β 4β 2 β β2
Ep Ip β 3 1 −2β 3 1 1 Y
K= X 1 + − e + − − − η (2.5.147)
L3 16β 2 2 4β 8β 2 2
Equation (2.5.147) gives the stiffness expression of pile under parabolic variation
of G along the length of pile.
Proceeding in same manner as stated above the damping matrix may be expressed as
√
r0 ρGSx2 L 1 −2β 1 2
Cx = X −e 2+ − 2 (2.5.148)
4β 4β 2 β β
P0
K sin ωm t
v(t) = (2.5.149)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
P0
K
v(t) = (2.5.150)
(1 − r )2 + (2Dr)2
2
P0
K
v(z, t) = φ(z) (2.5.151)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
P0
βz βz βz
or v(z, t) = K
e− L cos + η sin (2.5.152)
(1 − r ) + (2Dr)
2 2 2 L L
Ep Ip P0
2β 2 − βz βz βz
Ep Ip v = −M(z) = − K
e L sin − η cos
(1 − r )2 + (2Dr)2
2 L2 L L
(2.5.153)
E p I p P0
K 2β 2 − βz βz βz
Mz = e L sin − η cos (2.5.154)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2 L2 L L
The maximum moment will be at the head i.e. at z = 0, and it can be expressed as
2Ep Ip P0
K β(β + 1)
Mmax = (2.5.155)
L2
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
Ep Ip P0
2β 3 βz βz
Ep Ip v = − V(z) = K
3
(η − 1) sin + (η + 1) cos or
2 L L L
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)
Ep Ip P0
K 2β 3 βz βz
V(z) = − 3
(η − 1) sin + (η + 1) cos (2.5.156)
2 L L L
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)
soil. However there are number of areas (e.g. Bonny River Delta in Nigeria, where the
topsoil constitute of very weak clay underlain by dense sand) where the soil will yield
much before the pile. Broms (1965) has shown that the displacement curvatures for
such piles are completely different than that of long piles.
While a long pile embedded in soil behaves as a semi-infinite beam on elastic foun-
dation, a short pile behaves as a beam of finite length on elastic foundation. Bojtsov
et al. (1982) has given solution to the generic displacement curves of such short beams
on elastic foundation that is given by
x = C0 cos hpz cos pz + C1 cos hpz sin pz + C2 sin hpz sin pz + C3 sin hpz cos pz
(2.5.157)
1
V1 (pz) = √ (cosh pz sin pz + sinh pz cos pz) (2.5.160)
2
V2 (pz) = sinh pz sin pz (2.5.161)
1
V3 (pz) = √ (cosh pz sin pz − sinh pz cos pz) (2.5.162)
2
For a solution of the short pile one may use the model shown in Figure 2.5.23.
For the analysis (similar to long piles) the pile may be assumed as fixed at base and
can undergo deflection and rotation at the pile head.
M
P
X
Z
dz
Soil Stiffness=GSx1
At z = 0, x = 0 ⇒ C0 = 0
At z = 0, x = 0 ⇒ C1 = 0
which gives, x = C2 V2 (pz) + C3 V3 (pz) (2.5.169)
1
C2 V1 (pL) + C3 V2 (pL) = √ (2.5.172)
pL 2
Thus, the displacement for the given boundary condition is then expressed as
1 V3 (pL) 1 V2 (pL)
x= V2 (pL) − √ V2 (pz) + √ − V1 (pL) V3 (pz) (2.5.177)
pL 2 pL 2
A typical shape function for the short piles Ep /Gs = 2500 is shown in Figure 2.5.24.
0.2
0
0
1
1
9
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Shape Function
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
z/L
1 L
4Ep Ip β 4
K= [AV0 (βξ ) + BV1 (βξ )] Ldξ + GSx1 [AV2 (βξ ) + BV3 (βξ )]2 Ldξ
2
L4
0 0
(2.5.182)
0 0
(2.5.183)
1 1
2
where I1 = [AV0 (βξ ) + BV1 (βξ )] dξ and I2 = [AV2 (βξ ) + BV3 (βξ )]2 dξ
0 0
(2.5.185)
The integrals I1 and I2 can very easily be solved by using Simpson’s 1/3rd rule
between limits 0–1 and can be back substituted in Equation (2.5.184) to compute the
stiffness for the short pile.
L
γp Ap
Mx = φ(z)2 dz
g
0
1
γp Ap L
or Mx = [AV2 (βξ ) + BV3 (βξ )]2 dξ (2.5.186)
g
0
γp Ap L
Mx = I2 (2.5.187)
g
To start the design a value of Sx1 is selected for specific Ep /Gs from Table 2.5.18
and find out the value of the frequency ( K/M) based on Equations (2.5.184)
and (2.5.187). Let this be defined as ωc where the subscript c stands for the word
“computed”. Let the field-tested natural frequency of the pile be ωf , where, ωf = ωc .
In most of cases it has been seen (Jadi 1999) that the field observed frequency value
deviates from the computed ones and usually varies by about 30–40%. This is logical,
for when the pile is bored or driven the soil gets displaced and clayey soil may loose a
part of its shear strength thus resulting in reduced dynamic shear modulus compared
to the value observed during geo-technical investigation. There could be cases where
the field observed values might be more than the computed ones, especially in sandy
soil where the soil gets densified due to pile driving. The bottom line is that in rare
cases the computed and observed values would match.
Table 2.5.18 Suggested for Sx1 for short piles (L/r ≤ 20) for field data
iteration.
Based on the above argument the error (ε) in the analysis is then given by
ε = ωc − ωf
GSx1 g I1
4 + 1 − ωf2 = 0 (2.5.188)
γp A p I2
where I2 is the corrected upgraded value and Sx2 is as obtained from Table 2.5.17.
6.00E+05
5.00E+05
Stiffness (kN/m)
4.00E+05 Kxx
3.00E+05 Novak
2.00E+05 Gazetas
1.00E+05
0.00E+00
0
0
00
00
00
0
00
50
25
10
25
50
10
Ep/Gs
1.20E+06
Stiffness (kN/m)
1.00E+06
8.00E+05 Kxx
6.00E+05 Novak
4.00E+05
Gazetas
2.00E+05
0.00E+00
00
00
0
00
0
00
25
50
25
50
10
10
Ep/Gs
For this two RCC piles of radius 0.3 m, 0.6 m of length 30 m has been has been
checked with the reported results for comparison. The values Kxx [Equation (2.5.106)]
is shown in Figures 2.5.25 and 2.5.26 for comparison.
Next, the results of uncoupled horizontal frequency of a real time compressor foun-
dation weighing 400 kN supported on 9 RCC piles of length 36 m and diameter 1.8 m.
The pile cap size is 7 m × 5 m × 2 m. The piles are spaced at distance of 3.0 m.
The natural frequencies of the foundation are compared for Ep /G value varying from
250–10,000. Weight of the compressor is 400 kN.
Table 2.5.19 clearly shows that the values are in very good agreement for the base
case and thus can well be used for other cases as mentioned above for which there are
no direct solutions.
Finally, the stiffness of a short pile has been computed. This is based on the field
observed data having the following properties:
Length of pile = 10 m, diameter of pile = 1.2 m. Material of pile = RCC.
Table 2.5.19 Comparison of frequency for a compressor foundation proposed versus Novak and
Gazzetas.
Frequency
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec) (rad/sec) with
Ep/G with Kproposed with KNovak KGazzetas
2.5.11.8.2 Computer run steps for short pile based on f ield observed data
The following section shows the computer run for evaluation of the stiffness of the
pile in lateral direction in three steps.
1 Stiffness and frequency calculation of pile based on theoretical data and calculating
the error based on field observed data.
2 The data screen just prior to run of the solver with command to change Ep /G
value keeping the Sx value > 0.
3 Final value of the stiffness and frequency of the pile after solver has optimized the
data.
Step-1: Shows the initial calculation of frequency and stiffness of pile including the error with
respect to field observed frequency.
Step-2: Showing solver on the verge of optimizing by changing Ep/G value by setting the error
to zero.
d4x
E p Ip = −ks x (2.5.190)
dz4
where Ep = Young’s modulus of the pile; Ip = moment of inertia of the pile cross
section; ks = elastic stiffness of the soil and is expressed as GSθ1 ; Gs = dynamic shear
modulus of the soil; Sθ1 = Berdugo’s rotational constant which are basically frequency
dependent,
Step-3: Final value of stiffness of piles after the solver has optimized the error.
x = e−qz (C0 cos qz + C1 sin qz) + eqz (C2 cos qz + C3 sin qz) (2.5.191)
GSθ1
where q = 4 (2.5.192)
Ep Ip
Considering the pile head undergoing specified deflection and rotation as well as
it’s head is fixed to the pile cap (same boundary condition as considered by Novak
(1974)), we have
At z = 0, let x = x0 ⇒ C0 = x0 , which gives
dx
Again considering at z = 0, = θ0 , we have
dz
θ0
C1 = x0 + (2.5.195)
q
−qz θ0
x=e x0 cos qz + x0 + sin qz (2.5.196)
q
x x0 x0 θ0
= e−qz cos qz + + sin qz (2.5.197)
L L L qL
x0 x
For magnitude of rotation being small θ0 ∼
= and θz ∼
= when we have
L L
−qz 1
θz = θ0 e cos qz + 1 + sin qz (2.5.197a)
qL
−βz βz 1 βz
ϕ(z) = e L cos + 1+ sin (2.5.198)
L β L
where
GSθ 1 L4
β= 4
; L = Length of the pile. (2.5.199)
Ep Ip
−βz βz βz
ϕ(z) = e L cos + η sin (2.5.200)
L L
Thus it is observed that shape function for rotational mode remains invariant with
respect to the lateral motion of pile for the given boundary condition.
Shape function
1
0.5 F(z)
9
15
45
75
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.5
z/L
1
when, η = 1 + (2.5.202)
β
The generic shape function of the pile in fundamental mode as per Equation
(2.5.200) is as shown in Figure 2.5.28 for Ep /G = 5000.
The potential energy d of an element of depth dz, shown in Figure 2.5.25, under
rotational mode is then given by (Craig 1981)
2
Ep Ip dθ Kθ 2
d = + θ (2.5.203)
2 dz 2
Gs Df D2f
Kθ = Gb r30 Cθ1 + Sθ1 + Sx1 (2.5.204)
G b r0 3r20
cylindrical element of depth dz, embedded in soil, and also ignoring the term containing
dz2 which is exceedingly small the potential energy d may be written as
2
E p Ip dθ Gr20 Sθ1 dz 2
d = + θ (2.5.205)
2 dz 2
the total potential energy over the whole length of the pile (L) is then given by
L 2 L
Ep Ip dθ Gr20 Sθ1
= dz + θ 2 dz (2.5.206)
2 dz 2
0 0
L L
Kij = Ep Ip ϕi (z)ϕj (z)dz + Gr20 Sθ1 ϕi (z)ϕj (z)dz (2.5.207)
0 0
L L
2
Kθ = Ep Ip ϕ (z) dz + Gr20 Sθ1 ϕ(z)2 dz (2.5.208)
0 0
⎡ ⎤
−2β ) + Y 1 + ψ ψ
Ep Ip X (1 + ψ) (1 − e 2 4 −η 1− 2
Kθ = ⎣ ⎦ (2.5.209)
L 2 (η − 1)
2
where ψ = 4Gλ Sθ 1
π Ep β 2
and λ = L/r0 the slenderness ratio of the pile. It is to be noted that
ψ is a dimensionless quantity, X, Y, η etc. are same as derived for lateral stiffness case.
The accuracy of Equation (2.5.209) will be dependent on the correct selection of Sθ1 .
For instance for rigid circular footing Novak and Beredugo (1972) has furnished
a frequency independent value of Sθ1 = 2.5 (for any value Poisson’s ratio) which has
been found to give adequate accuracy for practical engineering design.
Comparing the stiffness data with Novak (1974) and Gazetas (1988) data it is pro-
posed that the following values [Tables 2.5.20 to 22] of Sθ1 be used for the calculation
of dynamic response of pile under rocking mode.
L/r0
Poisson’s (slenderness
ratio ratio) Sθ1 (250) Sθ1 (500) Sθ1 (1000) Sθ1 (2500) Sθ1 (5000) Sθ1 (10000)
Note: The value in Parenthesis after Sθ1 depicts the value of Ep /Gs value of the soil.
L/r0
Poisson’s (slenderness
ratio ratio) Sθ1 (250) Sθ1 (500) Sθ1 (1000) Sθ1 (2500) Sθ1 (5000) Sθ1 (10000)
Note: The value in Parenthesis after Sθ1 depicts the value of Ep /Gs value of the soil.
L/r0
Poisson’s (slenderness
ratio ratio) Sθ 1 (250) Sθ 1 (500) Sθ 1 (1000) Sθ1 (2500) Sθ1 (5000) Sθ1 (10000)
Note: The value in Parenthesis after Sθ1 depicts the value of Ep /Gs value of the soil.
For a particular pile having specific slenderness ratio and Poisson’s ratio of the
soil we select the value of Sθ1 from the above table and on substitution of the same
in Equation (2.5.199) and Equation (2.5.209) gives the solution of pile stiffness in
rocking mode.
For the present case of pile of length L, mass moment of inertia Jx is represented by
L
Mx r20
Jx = dz + z2 dz (2.5.211)
L 4
0
L L 2
γp Ap r20 2 γ p A p L2 z
Jx = ϕ(z) dz + ϕ(z)2 dz (2.5.212)
4g g L
0 0
where γp = weight density of the pile material; Ap = cross sectional area of pile;
g = acceleration due to gravity.
Equation (2.5.212) on integration by parts and simplification finally gives
γp Ap r20 L Y
Jx = XF(λ) + + η (2.5.213)
16βg 2
−2β λ2 2 −2β 1 2
where F(λ) 1−e + 2 − 4λ e 2+ − 2
β β β
G s Df
D2f
Cθ = r40 ρG Cθ2 + Sθ2 + 2 Sx2 (2.5.214)
G r0 3r0
For the present case of pile of length L, Equation (2.5.216) can be expressed as
L
Cθ = r30 ρGs Sθ2 φ(z)2 dz (2.5.217)
0
Equation (2.5.218) expresses the soil damping for a single pile under horizontal
mode of vibration. Here the Factor Sθ2 is damping coefficient which is frequency
dependent. Fortunately the damping factor is required for calculation of the amplitude
when the eigen solution of the problem is already done vis a vis, the dimensionless fre-
quency number a0 = ωr0 /vs term is known. Polynomial fit curve for Sθ2 are available
in terms of a0 which can be used directly to arrive at these parameters.
The value of Sθ2 is as given hereafter as per Novak and Beredugo (1972)
Cp = D Cc (2.5.219)
This, when added to the radiation damping, calculated in Equation (2.5.218) gives
the complete damping quantity for the soil-pile system.
βe2 2βe z Xe 2βe z 2βe z
φ (z)2 = 2
e− L − 2ηe cos + Ye sin (2.5.223)
L1 2 L1 L1
L L1
Kθ = Ep Ip φi (z) dz + GSθ 1 [φi (z)]2 dz
2
(2.5.224)
0 0
Equation (2.5.226) gives the solution for stiffness of partially embedded piles in the
ground. The correctness of the equation can be back checked by the fact that when the
pile becomes fully embedded i.e. L1 = L we have α → 1, βe = β, Xe = X etc. when
Equation (2.5.226) degenerates to Equation (2.5.209), the stiffness for fully embedded
pile.
Proceeding in identical manner as done before, the mass and damping terms can be
obtained as given earlier.
The mass moment of inertia of pile remains same as stated in Equation (2.5.213).
The damping matrix is given by the expression
Xe (1 − e−2βe ) + Y2e + ηe
Cθ = r30 ρGSθ2 L1 (2.5.227)
4/(ηe − 1)
2.5.12.1 Stiffness of the pile for soils with varying elastic property
Considering the variation of shear modulus with depth as
G = G(z/L)m (2.5.228)
where m = a number varying from 0–2 [considered 0 when G is constant with depth,
assumed 1 for linear variation and 2 for parabolic distribution] we derive the pile
stiffness and other parameters as hereafter.
Thus for linearly varying soil the stiffness matrix can be written as
L
Ep Ip β 2 2βz 2βz 2βz
Kθ = e− L X − 2η cos − Y sin dz
L2 L L
0
L
z − 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
+ Gr20 Sθ 1 e L + cos + η sin dz (2.5.229)
L 2 2 L L
0
√
r30 ρGSθ2 L −2β 3Y η
Cx = X[1 − e (1 + β)] + + (2.5.231)
4β 2 4 2
L
Ep Ip β 2 − 2βz 2βz 2βz
Kθ = e L X − 2η cos + Y sin dz
L2 L L
0
L 2
z − 2βz X Y 2βz 2βz
+ Gr20 Sθ 1 e L + cos + η sin dz (2.5.232)
L 2 2 L L
0
Equation (2.5.233) gives the stiffness expression of pile under parabolic variation
of G along the length of pile.
Proceeding in same manner as stated above the damping matrix is expressed as
√
r30 ρGSθ2 L 1 −2β 1 2
Cθ = X −e 2+ − 2 (2.5.234)
4β 4β 2 β β
given by
(M0 /Kθ )
θ (t) = (2.5.236)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
Ep Ip θ = −M(x)
(Ep Ip M0 )/Kθ
β − βz βz βz
or, M(x) = e L (1 + η) sin − (η − 1) cos
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2 L L L
(2.5.238)
where,
For analysis similar to previous case we assume the pile as fixed at base and is fixed
also at pile cap level and can undergo deflection and rotation at pile head. Considering
base of pile as z = 0 and applying the Puzrevsky’s functional properties as elaborated
in case of piles under lateral load we have
At z = 0, x = 0 ⇒ C0 = 0
At z = 0, x = 0 ⇒ C1 = 0 which gives
1
C2 V1 (pL) + C3 V2 (pL) = √ (2.5.250)
pL 2
⎧ ⎫
1 V2 (pL) −V3 (pL) ⎨
1 ⎬
C2 1
= (2.5.253)
C3 −V1 (pL) V2 (pL) ⎩ √ ⎭
pL 2
1 V3 (pL) 1 V2 (pL)
C2 = V2 (pL) − √ and C3 = √ − V1 (pL) (2.5.254)
pL 2 pL 2
Thus the displacement for the given boundary condition is then expressed as
1 V3 (pL) 1 V2 (pL)
x= V2 (pL) − √ V2 (pz) + √ − V1 (pL) V3 (pz) (2.5.255)
pL 2 pL 2
Considering the fact that for long piles the shape function remains invariant for
rocking mode with respect to lateral motion, for same boundary condition it may
be concluded that for short piles also the same condition would hold good thus the
generic shape function in dimensionless form in rocking mode is given by
1 V3 (β) βz 1 V2 (β) βz
φ(z) = V2 (β) − √ V2 + √ − V1 (β) V3
β 2 L β 2 L
(2.5.256)
βz βz
φ(z) = AV2 + BV3 (2.5.257)
L L
Typical generic shape function for the short piles Ep /Gs = 2500 is as shown in
Figure 2.5.29.
Differentiation of above and using the differential properties as mentioned earlier
we have
√
β 2 βz βz
φ (z) = AV1 + BV2 (2.5.258)
L L L
0.2
9
0
1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Shape Function
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
z/L
L 2
2Ep Ip β 2 βz βz
K= AV1 + BV2
L2 L L
0
L 2
βz βz
+ Gr20 Sθ1 AV2 + BV3 (2.5.259)
L L
0
The above is too complicated to solve in closed form as such numerical integration
may be used to arrive at the stiffness value.
Considering ξ = Lz we have L · dξ = dz and as z → L; ξ → 1; as z → 0 ξ → 0;
which gives
1
2Ep Ip β 2
K= [AV1 (βξ ) + BV2 (βξ )]2 Ldξ
L2
0
L
+ Gr20 Sθ1 [AV2 (βξ ) + BV3 (βξ )]2 Ldξ (2.5.260)
0
(2.5.261)
2
K = Gr20 Sθ 1 L I1 + I 2 (2.5.262)
ψ
Table 2.5.23 Suggested for Sθ 1 for short piles (L/r ≤ 20) for field data iteration.
Here
1 1
I1 = [AV1 (βξ ) + BV2 (βξ )]2 dξ and I2 = [AV2 (βξ ) + BV3 (βξ )]2 dξ
0 0
(2.5.263)
The integrals I1 and I2 can very easily be solved by using Simpson’s 1/3rd rule
between limits 0–1 and can be back substituted in Equation (2.5.261) to arrive at the
stiffness for the short pile.
As there is no theoretical or experimental benchmarking against which the stiffness
values can be checked or compared. So use of this expression must always be backed
up by dynamic field test of the piles to adjust the data (especially Sθ1 or Ep /G) to match
the field observed value.
In the absence of comparative benchmarks we may start the design with the fol-
lowing suggestive values of Sθ1 for various Ep /Gs values given in Table 2.5.23. These
values as mentioned above, is based on formulation for long pile (with L/r < 25) but
may be used as a starting point for the iteration based on field observed data.
The mass moment of inertia of the pile for fundamental mode is given by
L L
γp Ap r20 2 γ p A p L 2 z 2
Jx = ϕ(z) dz + ϕ(z)2 dz (2.5.264)
4g g L
0 0
γp Ap r20 L γ p Ap L3
→ Jx = I1 + I3 (2.5.265)
4g g
1
Here I3 = ξ 2 [AV2 (ξ ) + BV3 (ξ )]dξ (2.5.266)
0
Mp r20
or Jx = I 1 + M p L 2 I3 (2.5.267)
4
γp Ap L Mp r20
where, Mp = ➔ Jx = [I1 + 4λ2 I2 ] (2.5.268)
g 4
To start the design we select a value of Sθ1 for a specified Ep /Gs from Table 2.5.23
and find out the value of the frequency based on Equation (2.5.262) and (2.5.267).
Let this be defined as ωc where the subscript c stands for the word “computed”.
Let the field tested natural frequency of the pile be ωf where ωf = ωc .
Based on the above argument the error(ε) in the analysis is then given by
ε = ωc − ωf
2
K 4GSθ1 L ψ I1 + I2
Considering ωc2 = , we have − ωf2 = 0 (2.5.269)
Mx Mp I1 + 4λ2 I2
Cθ = r30 ρGSθ2 LI2 (2.5.270)
To derive the equations we use the Lagrange’s equation from the energy principle
as derived earlier when we finally get the stiffness and mass matrix as
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
Mf Mf M f Zc ⎨ẍ⎬ Kf 0 0 ⎨x⎬
⎣ Mf Mf + M x Mf Zc ⎦ ü + ⎣ 0 Kx 0⎦ u = 0 (2.5.271)
⎩⎭ ⎩⎭
Mf Zc Mf Zc Jx + Mf Zc2 θ̈ 0 0 Kθ θ
The above gives the complete free vibration equation of motion for pile plus pile
cap with machine considering pile springs in translation and rocking mode.
Considering the equation to be dynamically coupled the damping matrix can now
be expressed as
⎡ ⎤
Cf 0 0
⎣
[C] = 0 Cx 0⎦ (2.5.272)
0 0 Cθ
Zc Df
K Kx
u
Jx = Moment of inertia
of Pile group
Figure 2.5.31 Mathematical model of pile group and pile cap under coupled sliding and rocking mode.
where, Mf = mass of pile cap plus mass of machine; Mx = mass of pile group; Jx =
mass moment of inertia of piles; Zc = center of mass of foundation plus machine
along vertical axes; Kf = lateral embedded stiffness of pile cap @ G Sfx Df ; G =
dynamic shear modulus of soil; Sfx = Berdugo’s constant @ 3.6, 4, 4.1 for ν = 0.0,
0.25, 0.4 respectively; Df = depth of embedment; Kx = Group lateral stiffness of pile
group based on Equation (2.5.118) where Kθ = rotational stiffness of pile group; U =
potential energy of the system, and T = kinetic energy of the system.
It is to be noted that for pile group for calculation of mass and mass moment of
inertia the mass and inertia of single pile has to be multiplied by the number of piles
in the group. While for stiffness and damping the group stiffness and damping has to
be derived according to Equation in section 2.5.7.
1.00E+06
Stiffness (kN/m)
8.00E+05
6.00E+05 Kxx
4.00E+05 Novak
Gazetas
2.00E+05
0.00E+00
00
00
00
0
25
50
00
10
25
50
10
Ep/Gs
2.00E+06
1.50E+06
Kxx
1.00E+06
5.00E+05 Novak
0.00E+00 Gazetas
00
00
00
0
0
00
25
50
25
10
50
10
Ep/Gs
Thus based on the above data as per Equation (2.5.261) the correct stiffness of the
pile is given by Kpile = 2.64 × 105 kN/m.
In case the above correction is already done for lateral pile stiffness and E/G value
has been already modified to suite the field observed data, the same can directly be
used without carrying out the above mentioned modification again.
Referring to Figures 2.5.32 and 2.5.33, it is observed that the results are in excellent
agreement with both Novak (1983) and Gazetas (1988) stiffness. Considering the base
case being in such agreement formulations for other cases like partial embedment,
varying shear modulus etc., can now be very easily adapted for which there are no
standard solutions.
The short pile case is basically a theoretical solution and needs significant field test
and lab testing to arrive at a predefined Sθ1 values which would make the method
more powerful.
However in absence of such data the present algorithm as mentioned herein could
become a very powerful tool for dynamic analysis of such piles for which no solution
is available till date and yet remains a serious practical problem.
B
X Z X
L
Y
Foundation resting on ground Foundation on piles/springs
Figure 2.5.34
Our experience shows that young engineers while doing their design of machine
foundations are more focussed on the quantitative magnitude of the natural frequency
and the amplitude and often overlooks this point.
To asses the effect of environmental impact on the foundation, if need be, seek help
of a vibration specialist and try to assess what could be the cascading effect of this
secondary source of disturbance.
If it is felt that this may possibly have some effect on the foundation isolate the
foundation by providing pockets/cut outs all-round the foundation and leaving this
space void or feeling it up with suitable dampers like cork boards, felt sheets etc.
Next try to assess how important role does the machine play in the overall process
system.
In other words, “What would be the economic impact of the machine on the overall
process vis-à-vis its performance”?
For instance if a minor chemical pump stops during an engineering process the over-
all cost impact on the process could vary from a few hundreds of dollars to thousand
dollar.
While for a major generator or a compressor foundation if the performance is not
up to the acceptable standard the client could stand to loose millions of dollars in
terms of production output and man-hours lost.
If required talk to your process engineering or mechanical engineering colleagues to
asses the criticality of the machine.
More important is the machine be more conservative in your design approach.
Do not try to economise on the material. The money that could be saved by cutting
down on a few cubic meter of concrete or hundred Kilogram of reinforcement, could
be well be offset by manifolds if your company stands to pay liquidated damages due
to malfunctioning of the foundation15 .
For machine foundations economy lies more on the smooth performance of the
machine rather than any other factors.
On study of the drawing see if the following check list is satisfied as a minimum
15 And this we are sure will not have a very positive outcome on your annual performance
appraisal. . . . . .
5 Does the drawing supply you with the operating speed of the machine or the range
which should be cleared during the design of the machine foundation?
6 Do the foundations need to support any pipes or valves on it other than the
machine itself?
7 If so, are all the loads and locations of these valves and pipes are mentioned in
the drawing?
8 Does the drawing clearly mention the unbalanced mass, eccentricity or the
dynamic loads generated during the operation of the machine including any
specific direction?
9 Is it clear to you what would be the level of the top of concrete of the foundation?
This is very important for the top of foundation usually fixed from the process
engineering group and if there is any mismatch in the level in the field could create
problems in terms of alignment of pipe flanges or variation in the net positive
suction head (NPSH) for the pump.
10 Is the location of the equipment in terms of co-ordinates with respect to the overall
plant available with you?
11 Finally has the equipment supplier defined any performance criterion which needs
to be met in terms of amplitude, frequency etc.
The above are very vital points both from performance and contractual point of
view. For if the equipment supplier has furnished this information then it should be
strictly adhered to, for once this is complied with the supplier alone stands guarantee
for the performance of the machine.
On the contrary if this is violated, even if the equipment supplied is faulty, the
vendor can always wriggle out of the situation by saying that his specifications were
violated and as such he cannot stand guarantee for the performance of the machine16 .
If the vendor has not specified such conditions the usual de-fault is the local code
stipulation.
But do not presume this, ask him specifically to define his performance criteria and
if he is unable to do so, make it clear to him (in writing) as to what performance
criterion you are using based on which code (could be IS, DIN, BS, ASTM special
publications etc). If possible seek his written compliance that the code-norms that is
being followed by you is acceptable to him.
Remember for important machines you are fiddling with millions of dollars so play
safe. Guard yourself both technically as well as contractually.
16 Refer to case history 2 at the outset of this chapter and retrospect a bit.
Many equipment suppliers do not supply any unbalanced dynamic load claiming
their machines to be perfectly balanced!
This often leaves an inexperienced engineer with the option of doing only a resonance
check and leaves it at that for he has no other data as a guideline to perform any further
check.
What should be realised at this point is that it is possible perhaps to achieve
a perfect balance in the manufacturing unit under a controlled condition at the
outset.
But when such machines are performing under a much gruelling conditions of oper-
ating day in day out and often left exposed to the vagaries of nature, due to normal
wear and tear some imbalance will invariably be generated in the system which will
induce dynamic loads on the foundation.
So do not get carried away by the claims of the vendor, for you as designer alone
remain responsible for the performance of the foundation.
In absence of such data from the vendor you may use the following guidelines
(Arya et al. 1979).
Eccentricity in double
Sl. No. Operating speed amplitude(inch)
1 750 0.014–0.032
2 1500 0.008
3 3000 0.002
2
Fdyn = meωm
where, m = mass of the rotating shaft; e = eccentricity developed in the shaft, and
ωm = operating speed of the machine.
12,000
e(mil) = α ≤ 1.0(mil)
r.p.m.
Peak to peak
displacement
Sl. No. Motor type Speed (RPM) amplitude (inch)
The knowledge of ground water table is essential for all block foundations and
should preferably have the bottom of foundation above the ground water table for
waves passing through water attenuates the dynamic response.
A check on the Atterberg’s limit can give a very good indication qualitatively about
the fundamental property of the soil as to how it will behave. But unfortunately very
little attention is paid to this aspect in design offices.
The various Atterberg’s limits like liquid limit, plastic limit etc not only give a clear
indication of how the soil would behave but also holds key to the fact that if the soil
is sensitive to shocks induced by vibration or not.
We do not discuss the details of Atterberg’s limit and its interpretations but make
you aware of one criterion which is quite important in context of machine foundation
design.
Generically when the natural moisture content of the soil is closer to the liquid limit
the soil is deemed soft and when the natural moisture content is close to the plastic
17 Here we assume the reader has some knowledge about the static design procedure of a foundation.
limit it is considered as stiff. However there are certain types of soils whose natural
moisture content is greater than the liquid limit. If you ever encounter such case you
should immediately be on the alert.
For such soils generally belong to the montmorillonite group and constitutes a brittle
structure. This type of soil, when disturbed by vibration, flows like a liquid. If this soil
is allowed to remain in place it can be very dangerous for the foundation which may
undergo sudden settlement without any notice.
The liquidity index values of such soils are greater than unity. If such of soils are
encountered at a level where foundation would be resting, the complete layer should
be replaced by PCC or removed and back-filled with hydraulically compacted sand
fill compacted to a Procter Density as specified by the soil consultant.
If this strata is quite deep possibilities to be investigated to provide piles (driven/
bored) to a substantial depth below this strata and ignoring the stiffness effect of this
montmorillonite clay strata while calculating the equivalent springs for the piles.
The Poisson’s ratio of the soil is usually supplied in the soil report. This is required
for calculation of the soil springs used for dynamic analysis of the foundation. In
absence of such data υ = 0.4 would suffice for most of the cases.
The weight density of soil is usually furnished in the soil report this needs to be
divided by acceleration due to gravity (g) to arrive at the mass density.
or, ρ = γ /g here, ρ = mass density of soil; γ =unit weight of the soil, and g =
acceleration due to gravity @ 9.81m/sec2 or 32.2 ft/sec2 .
The Dynamic shear modulus plays a key role in evaluation of the spring data.
Though co-relation exists for theoretical evaluation of G from other engineering
parameters of the soil18 for important foundations we still advocate that you insist on
field test to get the field observed value of G.
Try to convince the client19 , it is worth spending a few thousand dollars now rather
than to pay through your nose in terms of performance compensations and could lead
to a classic case of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Designing a foundation with improper G value will completely waste the design
effort for the said foundation.
• The rigid type block foundation should be so proportioned that it should have
following mass ratio with respect to the machine
• The top of foundation is usually kept about 300 mm above the finished grade
elevation to prevent damage due to surface water run-off.
However this should be back checked with process department to ensure that
NPSH of the pump or piping connections will not be affected adversely.
• The vertical thickness of the foundation should be selected based on maximum
value of the following:
• The width of the foundation is selected based on the maximum value of the
following:
◦ Centre to centre distance of the anchor bolts plus 150 mm on both the side of
the foundation
◦ Length to the edge of the machine plus 300 mm at the both the ends of the
foundation
◦ 1 to 1.5 times the vertical distance from the bottom of foundation to the
machine centre line
◦ Once the width and height of foundation is selected the length can be
calculated based on the mass criteria as stated above.
• The plan dimension of the machine should be so adjusted that c.g. of the machine
assembly matches with c.g. of the foundation.
• For foundation resting on soil, eccentricity in c.g. of the machine and the
foundation shall not be more than 5%.
• For large reciprocating machines the embedded depth to be so adjusted that at
least 60 to 80% of the depth of the foundation is embedded in the soil. This will
increase the lateral restraint and damping ratio for modes of vibration.
We now give below some useful data and mathematical expressions which could
effective in day to day design office practise for design of block foundations.
1 1
Ixx = LB3 ; Iyy = BL3 , and Izz = Ixx + Iyy
12 12
Ixx = yi2 ; Iyy = x2i , and Izz = x2i + yi2 e
i i i
lx
ly lz
Jx = m/12(ly2 + lz2 )
Jy = m/12(lx2 + lz2 )
Jz = m/12(lx2 + ly2 )
We now give below some salient provisions and recommendations of IS-2974 for
rotary and reciprocating types of machines that constitute the normal design office
practice in India.
2.6.6 Reinforcements
All foundation units of foundation shall be provided with top and bottom reinforce-
ment in two directions. Reinforcement shall be provided along the surface only in case
of block foundation.
The reinforcement in block foundation shall not be less than 25 kg/m3 .
The minimum diameter of bars shall be 12 mm with a maximum spacing of 200 mm
in order to care of the shrinkage.
16100
500 1 4 6 15 17
1442.5 9 12
1442.5 6770
2 A 7 10 B 13 C
D E
1442.5 11 14
1442.5
3 5 8 16 18
500 O
385 3285 2405 425 800 2400 800 800 4000 800
PLAN VIEW OF THE BLOCK FOUNDATION
3600
Example 2.6.1
Design the gas turbine foundation shown in Fig. 2.6.1.
Design data
1 −311
2 −42 ±7 ±7
3 −311
4 −517
5 −517
6 −311
7 −50 ±6.76 ±6.76
8 −311
9 −200
10 −200 ±51 ±51 All horizontal force
is along global Y axes
11 −200
12 −350
13 −350 ±23 ±23
14 −350
15 −185 Anchor Bolt for generator
16 −185 Anchor Bolt for generator
17 −185 Anchor Bolt for generator
18 −185 Anchor Bolt for generator
Total −4760
Calculate the natural frequency and amplitude based on Figure 2.6.1 and
using
Solution:
Geometric property of the foundation
Area of foundation = 16.1 × 6.77 = 108.9 m2
1 1
Second Moment of Inertia = LB3 = 16.1 × 6.773 = 416.30 m4
12 12
Table for calculation of c.g. and second moment of inertia of m/c & fdn.
(explained in next page)
Centre of gravity
11291.04 4997.63
x̄ = = 7.65 m from the point O; ȳ = = 3.39 m from the
1476.4 1476.4
3722.95
point O; and z̄ = = 2.52 m from the bottom of the foundation.
1476.4
8.05 − 7.65
Eccentricity in x direction = × 100 = 2.5% < 5% hence OK.
16.1
3.399 − 3.385
Eccentricity in y direction = × 100 = 0.07% < 5% hence OK.
6.77
m 2
Total mass moment of inertia = ly + lz2 + m(yoi
2 2
+ zoi ) + mz̄2
12
= 4703.00 + 4509.65 + 1476.4 × (2.52)2
= 18588.4 kN-m-sec2 .
1 311 31.70 0.385 6.27 3.6 12.21 198.77 114.13 0.00 −2.89 −1.078 300.73
2 42 4.28 0.385 3.385 3.6 1.65 14.49 15.41 0.00 0 −1.078 4.98
3 311 31.70 0.385 0.5 3.6 12.21 15.85 114.13 0.00 2.885 −1.078 300.73
4 517 52.70 3.67 6.27 3.6 193.41 330.44 189.72 0.00 −2.89 −1.078 499.93
5 517 52.70 3.65 0.5 3.6 192.36 26.35 189.72 0.00 2.885 −1.078 499.93
6 311 31.70 6.075 6.27 3.6 192.59 198.77 114.13 0.00 −2.89 −1.078 300.73
7 50 5.10 6.075 3.385 3.6 30.96 17.25 18.35 0.00 0 −1.078 5.93
8 311 31.70 6.075 0.5 3.6 192.59 15.85 114.13 0.00 2.885 −1.078 300.73
9 200 20.39 7.3 4.828 4.6 148.83 98.42 93.78 0.00 −1.44 −2.078 130.49
10 200 20.39 7.3 3.385 4.6 148.83 69.01 93.78 0.00 0 −2.078 88.07
11 200 20.39 7.3 1.943 4.6 148.83 39.60 93.78 0.00 1.443 −2.078 130.49
12 350 35.68 9.7 4.828 4.6 346.08 172.23 164.12 0.00 −1.44 −2.078 228.35
13 350 35.68 9.7 3.385 4.6 346.08 120.77 164.12 0.00 0 −2.078 154.11
14 350 35.68 9.7 1.943 4.6 346.08 69.30 164.12 0.00 1.443 −2.078 228.35
15 185 18.86 11.3 6.27 3.6 213.10 118.24 67.89 0.00 −2.89 −1.078 178.89
16 185 18.86 11.3 0.5 3.6 213.10 9.43 67.89 0.00 2.885 −1.078 178.89
17 185 18.86 15.3 6.27 3.6 288.53 118.24 67.89 0.00 −2.89 −1.078 178.89
18 185 18.86 15.3 0.5 3.6 288.53 9.43 67.89 0.00 2.885 −1.078 178.89
A 6.5 6.77 3.6 3960.5 403.72 3.25 3.385 1.8 1312.08 1366.58 726.69 1977.97 0 0.722 210.24
B 4 6.77 3 2031 207.03 8.5 3.385 1.6 1759.79 700.81 331.25 946.02 0 0.922 175.86
C 5.6 6.77 3.6 3412.1 347.82 13.3 3.385 1.8 4625.96 1177.36 626.07 1704.10 0 0.722 181.13
D 0.8 5 1.6 160 16.31 7.3 3.385 3.8 119.06 55.21 61.98 37.46 0 −1.278 26.65
E 0.8 5 1.6 160 16.31 9.7 3.385 3.8 158.21 55.21 61.98 37.46 0 −1.278 26.65
14484 1476.40 11291.04 4997.63 3722.95 4703 4509.65
(7 − 8ν) mg 5 1476.4
By = = × = 0.738
32 (1 − ν) ρs ry
3 32 × 0.75 2.04 × (5.89)3
0.288 0.288
Dy = =√ = 0.3352 and
By 0.738
√
Cy = 2Dy Ky m = 2 × 0.3352 900611.63 × 1476.4 = 24446 kN · sec/m
In the horizontal direction the equation of motion for free vibration is given by
m 0 ÿ Cx −Cy Zc
+
0 Jyφ φ̈ −Cy Zc Cφy + Cy Zc2 − WZc
ẏ Ky −Ky Zc y 0
× + =
φ̇ −Ky Zc Kφy + Ky Zc2 − WZc φ 0
λ2 − 1589λ + 409398 = 0;
1589 ± (1589)2 − 4 × 1 × 409398
λ= = 323.5, 1265
2
➔ ω2 = 17.98 rad/sec (172 r.p.m.); and ω3 = 35.56 rad/sec (340 r.p.m.)
Considering φ11 = 1.00 and solving the above homogenous equation we have,
φ12 = 0.186379442
φ11 1.00
Thus, =
φ12 0.186379442
Considering φ21 = 1.00 and solving the above homogenous equation we have
φ22 = −0.426092952
Thus the complete eigen vector matrix is given by
1.00 1.00
[ϕ] =
0.186379442 −0.426092952
20 Based on the theory of magnification factor damping may be ignored for this case for the ratio
of the fundamental frequencies of the foundation to the operating frequency of the machine is
more than 3.5. However for sake of clarification of the problem we continue to consider it in our
analysis.
Here,
Cx −Cy Zc 24446 −61604
[C] = =
−Cy Zc Cφy + Cy Zc2 − WZc −61604 190117.2
The above on simplification gives, {φ}T [C] {φ} = 3.8106 ➔ 2ζ1 ω1 = 3.8106 or
ζ1 = 0.105.
For the Second mode, we have
T −3 24446 61604
{φ} [C] {φ} = 14.357356 −6.11756837 ×10
61604 190117.2
14.357356
× × 10−3
−6.11756837
[C] = α[M] + β [K] or [φ]T [C] [φ] = α [φ]T [M] [φ] + β [φ]T [K] [φ]
14222 −46071
→ [C] = .
−46071 318233
T 21.707808 4.045889184 88 p
Here [φ] {P} = sin 236t →
14.357356 −6.11756837 270 m
3.0
= sin 236t
−0.388
236 3.776
where r = √ = 13.11 and ζ = √ = 0.104.
324 2 324
3 sin 236t
Hence, δy =
324 (1 − 171.8)2 + (2 × 0.104 × 13.11)2
236 22.97
where r = √ = 6.63 and ζ = √ = 0.322
1265 2 1265
Y 21.707808 14.357356 5.4204
= × 10−8
4.045889184 −6.11756837 −0.7106
107.462
= × 10−8 sin 236t
26.27
We make here a very interesting comparison, shown in Figure 2.6.2, is the time
history response of the block foundation with non-proportional soil damping
and corrected proportional Rayleigh damping, we have obtained earlier.
It will be observed that values are quite closely matching and for practical
engineering work this is deemed sufficient.
0.00001
0.000005
Amplitude
-0.00001
-0.000015
Time steps
Figure 2.6.2
Self weight of the pedestal = 0.8 × 5.0 × 1.6 × 25 = 160 kN; Weight from
machine = 3 × 200 + 3 × 350 = 1650 kN
ωm 236
And, r= = = 0.07.
ωn 3149
P0 /k 51 sin 236t
y= = = 2.80 × 10−8 m < 0.2 mm.
(1 − r )
2 1.83 × 109 (1 − 0.072 )
h
ηz = 1.23 similarly, ηy = 1 + 0.55(2 − ν) and this gives ηy = 1.497 and
ry
h h 3
ηφy = 1 + 1.2(1 − ν) + 0.2(2 − ν) and this gives ηφy = 1.5625.
rφy rφy
Thus considering the embedment factor the stiffness and damping value gets
modified to:
Kze 1230836
ωz = = = 29 rad/sec (277 r.p.m);
m 1476.4
In horizontal direction the equation of motion for free vibration is given by:
m 0 ÿ Cx −Cy Zc ẏ
+
0 Jyφ φ̈ −Cy Zc Cφy + Cy Zc2 − WZc φ̇
Ky −Ky Zc y 0
+ =
−Ky Zc Kφy + Ky Zc2 − WZc φ 0
1348214 − 1476.4λ −3397499
→ =0
−3397499 28075055 − 18588.4λ
0.3 0.3
γ0 = 3(1−υ)m
= 3 × 0.75 × 4428
= 0.242
1+ 8r5θ ρ
1+ 8 × (4.8)5 × 2.04
Hence, ω2 = 15.96 rad/sec (152 r.p.m.) and ω3 = 39.83 rad/sec (380 r.p.m.)
Now proceeding in the manner as explained in the case of Richart’s model we
arrive at the result;
Net horizontal amplitude at top of the foundation
Comparison of amplitude
We perform time history analysis for springs based on Richart’s method and
Wolf’s Method.
Here time history response has been done for 215 steps with complete soil
damping into consideration and shown in Figures 2.6.3 and 4.
0.000006
0.000004
0.000002 Displacement in Y direction
0 Angular Rotation
-0.000002 1 17 33 49 65 81 97 113 129 145 161 177 193 209
-0.000004
-0.000006
Time Steps
Figure 2.6.3
Figure 2.6.4
2.7.1 Introduction
In this section we will deal with foundations subjected to impact loading. These type
of foundations usually constitute of hammer foundations used for forging or hydraulic
stamps used to flatten steel billets to make plates out of them.
The arrangement of the hammer foundation is usually as shown Figure 2.7.1.
The hammer foundation, consists of a hammer or a tup which falls repeatedly on
an anvil. The anvil in turn is placed on an elastic pad resting on a massive RCC block.
The elastic pad is used to isolate the foundation from the surrounding and minimize
the harmful effect of the vibration induced by the hammer dropping on the anvil. The
elastic pad also acts as damper to reduce the net amplitude of vibration of the anvil
and the foundation.
Depending upon the functionality, the frame of the hammer may either rest on the
foundation block as shown above or may even rest on a separate foundation.
While planning the foundation it is usually ensured that the center line of the anvil
is concentric with the center of gravity of the base of the foundation. This ensures that
the amplitude of vibration is restricted to vertical translation only and does not give
rise to any coupled motion including rocking21 .
At times when the hammer is very heavy the foundation is further isolated by
providing elastic pad/springs along with dampers below the RCC block too.
Shown in Figure 2.7.2 is a hammer foundation where other than the anvil the RCC
block is also mounted on springs and dampers to isolate the transmittal of vibration
to the surrounding.
The springs or the elastic pad which are placed below the RCC block is usually
an expensive item and care should be taken to protect them from exposure to water,
chemicals, oils etc which could otherwise damage their properties. This is usually done
by providing a protective RCC trough all round the foundation and sealing the same
at the top of the foundation level.
The elastic material used under the anvil or the RCC block could be of cork, tim-
ber or even specialized mechanical springs and dampers supplied by vendors having
technological expertise in isolation techniques of these type of foundations.
21 Hammer foundation having eccentric anvil is though uncommon but surely not rare. We will deal with
this particular case separately later.
Hammer/Tup
RCC Fdn.
Anvil
Elastic Pad
F.G.L.
Frame
Hammer/Tup
RCC Fdn.
RCC Trough
Anvil
Elastic Pads/Springs
Figure 2.7.2 General arrangement of a Typical Hammer Foundation mounted on spring with R.C.C.
Trough.
of the behavior differs in the above two cases. . . the picture has remained gray to
many. So before we take a plunge into the mathematical aspect of the design it would
be worthwhile to understand the conceptual aspect of the problem and reflect a bit on
how the two cases differ in transmitting the vibration to the system.
We hypothesize two pictures for this from our day to day life.
1 Imagine a boy continuously jumping on a plank supported at two ends for some
time.
2 A Karatika giving a vicious chop to the same plank at some point on it22 .
To understand the effect of impact further we a take a step backward and formulate
a problem from our days of engineering mechanics/School Physics as hereafter.
Example 2.7.1
Shown in Figure 2.7.3 is a metal block of weight 100 kN suspended from a
point O by a mass less inextensible string having a length of 2.5m. It is released
from rest from a position 90 degree to vertical position of rest as shown below.
The block of 100 kN hits another metal block of weight 500 KN connected to a
spring of stiffness 2500 kN/m at point X. Considering the collision to be perfectly
elastic find out the amplitude of vibration of the body considering friction less
surface having
W1 = 100 kN
2500 mm
X W2 = 500 kN
K = 2500 kN/m
• Un-damped motion.
• Damped Motion having a damper connected to W2 of magnitude 125 kN ·
sec/m
Solution:
When the body is released form its position of rest it takes a swing and hits the
500 kN body at point X.
The potential energy of the 100 kN body at its initial position = W1 h
1 W1
Kinetic energy of the 100 kN body at the point of impact = u21
2 g
Applying the law of conservation of energy i.e. KE = PE,
W1 W2 W1 W2
u1 + u2 = v1 + v2
g g g g
1 1 1 1
or, m1 u1 + m2 u2 = m1 v1 + m2 v2 and m1 u21 + m2 u22 = m1 v12 + m2 v22
2 2 2 2
Substituting the numerical data mentioned in the problem, one can have
dv
→ m + Kx = 0, where v = velocity vector of the body
dt
dv dx dx
i.e. m + Kx = 0, as = v we have, mvdv + Kxdx = 0
dx dt dt
0 δ
m
→ m vdv + Kxdx = 0, this on simplification gives, δ = v .
K
v0 0
v
Also, δ = ω where ω = the natural frequency of the structure.
K 2500 × 9.81
Thus, ω= = = 7 rad/ sec
m 500
v 2.18
The amplitude, δ = = = 0.3114 m.
ω 7
It is to be noted that from the above calculation we have managed to find out
only the magnitude of the maximum amplitude.
It does not tell us how the body will vibrate under this impact force.
To get this history let us consider the differential equation
v0
x= sin ωt → x = 0.3114 sin 7t
ω
The above when plotted at time step of 0.05 seconds shows a curve as furnished
in Figure 2.7.4.
With damped vibration for single degree of freedom, we have seen earlier in
Chapter 3 (Vol. 1) that amplitude of vibration is given by
√
where, ωd = ωn (1 − D2 ) and D = c/cc and cc = 2 km.
0.2
0.1
0 Amplitude (meter)
1
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Time Steps
x = C2 e−Dωn t sin ωd t
v0
x= e−Dωn t sin ωd t
ωn (1 − D2 )
0.2
0.1
Amplitude (m)
0
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
-0.1
-0.2
Time Steps
The above response shows some very interesting results. While for un-damped
motion the curve follows a sinusoidal pattern, for damped case it initially starts with
peak amplitude and quickly dies down due to the inherent damping in the system
in contrary to the harmonic loading, where the body continues to vibrate under the
application of the externally applied force.
So far so good, we have managed to arrive at the behavior pattern of a system having
a single degree of freedom subjected to impact load albeit some idealization such as
24 There is no collision in nature that is perfectly elastic for some energy is always dissipated out in form
of heat or sound thus we usually use a term co-efficient of restitution. We will learn more about it
subsequently.
Now the question boils down to how does the above problem relates to a hammer
foundation which we are supposed to discuss herein?
To explain this, we need to clarify how does a hammer foundation work?
Based on the General arrangement of hammer foundation shown earlier, the ham-
mer or the tup either undergoes a free fall on the anvil or falls under a certain pressure
(for double acting hammers). It either flattens or forge the metal on the anvil to a desired
shape or may even crush it to lower particle size (in case of a crusher) depending upon
for what purpose the machine is being put to use.
Irrespective of its function, the basic point that remains unaltered is the following:
In contrary to the foundation supporting centrifugal or reciprocating type of
machines where the foundation is subjected to a constant external harmonic force
the hammer foundation induces a transient force at the point of collision and then
ceases to exist till the next blow is induced25 . Thus based on the above statement we
can postulate that for design of machine foundations of this type we need to analyze
the system subject to transient shocks. Hence as a first step let us see what type of
mathematical model is in vogue for analysis of these types of foundations.
We had already seen in earlier27 that for bodies having two degrees of freedom the
free equation of vibration is given by
m1 0 ẍ1 k + k2 −k2 x1
+ 1 = 0, (2.7.1)
0 m2 ẍ2 −k2 k2 x2
25 We hope by now the reader can smell the congruence with the worked out example 2.7.1.
26 Refer to section of block foundation for the formula of the springs and dampers.
27 Refer Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) on basic concepts in Structural Dynamics.
m2
x2
k2 c2
m1
x1
c1
k1
and since this is a statically coupled equation the damped free vibration of motion is
given by (Meirovitch 1975)
m1 0 ẍ1 c + c2 −c2 ẋ1 k + k2 −k2 x1
+ 1 + 1 =0 (2.7.2)
0 m2 ẍ2 −c2 c2 ẋ2 −k2 k2 x2
m3
x3
k3 c3
m2
x2
k2 c2
x1
m1
k1 c1
N
N
{{ξ̈i } + ωi2 {ξi }} = 0 where {X} = [φ]{ξi } (2.7.6)
i=1 i=1
N
N
Since, {X} = [φ] {ξi } , we have, {X} = [φ] {Ai sin ωi t + Bi sin ωi t}
i=1 i=1
Multiplying both sides of the above expression by the term [φ]T [M] we have
N
[φ]T [M] {X} = [φ]T [M] [φ] {Ai sin ωi t + Bi sin ωi t} which reduces to
i=1
N
[φ]T [M] {X} = {Ai sin ωi t + Bi sin ωi t}
i=1
N
{0} = {Ai sin ωi t + Bi cos ωi t}, which implies
i=1
N
{Bi } = {0}, thus we have, [φ]T [M]{X} = {Ai sin ωi t}
i=1
N
[φ] [M] {V0 }
[φ]T [M] {V0 } = {Ai ωi } ⇒ {Ai } = , which gives
ωi
i=1
N T
[φ] [M] {V0 }
{X} = [φ] {sin ωi t} (2.7.8)
ωi
i=1
Based on the above we can clearly infer that for {sin ωi t} = {1}, we have the
maximum value of the amplitude vector.
We now explain further, the phenomenon based on a suitable numerical example.
For the numerical worked out problem below, we have deliberately used a
theoretical data with an objective that you can follow the process clearly.
Example 2.7.2
For a system having the following data find out the amplitude of vibration when
the mass m2 is subjected to an initial velocity of 0.5 m/sec.
30 −10 1 0 0.0
[K] = , [M] = , and {V} =
−10 30 0 1 0.5
Solution:
The free vibration of motion for the body is given by
m1 0 ẍ1 k11 −k12 x1
+ =0
0 m2 ẍ2 −k21 k22 x2
30 − λ −10
The eigen value solution of the problem is expressed as =0
−10 30 − λ
and this on simplification reduces to
√ √
1/√2 1/ √2
[ϕ]n =
1/ 2 −1/ 2
The above when plotted at a time step of 0.05 sec gives plots as shown in
Figure 2.7.8.
x1
0.02
x2
0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
Time Steps
Figure 2.7.8 Undamped response of a system under impact loading having multi-degree of
freedom.
The above plot shows how the two degree system body vibrates under a
transient initial velocity of 0.5 m/sec.
where
[M] = a square mass matrix of the order n × n;
[K] = a square stiffness matrix of the order n × n;
[C] = a square damping matrix of order n × n;
{X} = a column deflection matrix of order n × 1
(which means n rows and 1 column)
Based on the orthogonal property of the matrix we have
which de-couples to
N
N
{{ξ̈i } + 2Di ωi {ξ̇i } + ωi2 {ξi }} = 0 where {X} = [φ]{ξi } (2.7.11)
i=1 i=1
We have already proved earlier that for body having single degree of freedom the
free damped equation of motion is given by
Thus in transformed co ordinate when the equations get de-coupled we can write
Let {ξi } = e−Di ωni t {Ai sin ωdi t + Bi cos ωdi t} , and (2.7.13)
N
since {X} = [φ] {ξi } , we have,
i=1
N
{X} = [φ] e−Di ωni t {Ai sin ωdi t + Bi cos ωdi t} (2.7.14)
i=1
Multiplying both sides of the above expression by the term [ϕ]T [M] we have
N
[φ]T [M]{X}= [φ]T [M][φ]e−Di ωni t {Ai sin ωdi t + Bi cos ωdi t} which reduces to
i=1
N
T
[φ] [M] {X} = e−Di ωni t {Ai sin ωdi t + Bi cos ωdi t}
i=1
N
{0} = e−Di ωni t {Ai sin ωdi t + Bi cos ωdi t} which implies,
i=1
N
[Bi ] = [0] , thus we have [φ] [M] [X] = T
e−Di ωni t {Ai sin ωdi t}
i=1
N
[φ]T [M] {V0 }
[φ]T [M] {V0 } = {Ai ωdi } ⇒ {Ai } = , which gives
ωi
i=1
N
[ϕ]T [M]{V0 }
{X} = [ϕ]e−Di ωni t {sin ωi t} (2.7.15)
ωdi
i=1
It will be interesting to note that in this case the maximum amplitude does not occur
at ωi t = π/2 as in the case of undamped vibration.
To get the maximum amplitude we need to plot the complete time history which
was not required for the undamped case.
We now further explain the phenomenon based on a suitable numerical example.
Example 2.7.3
Repeat the problem worked out in Example 2.7.1 with following damping
ratio D1 = 0.15 and D2 = 0.20. All other parameters remain the same as
in Example 2.7.1.
Solution:
The free damped equation of motion for the problem is given by
m1 0 ẍ1 c −c12 ẋ1 k11 −k12 x1
+ 11 + =0
0 m2 ẍ2 −c21 c22 ẋ2 −k21 k22 x2
The normalised eigen vector matrix for this case was calculated in the previous
example as
√ √
1/√2 1/ √2
[ϕ]n =
1/ 2 −1/ 2
N
[ϕ]T [M] {V0 }
Since {X} = [ϕ] e−Di ωni t {sin ωi t} and
ωdi
i=1
N
{X} = [ϕ] {ξi } we have
i=1
N
[ϕ]T [M] {V0 } −Di ωni t
{ξi } = e {sin ωi t}
ωdi
i=1
Now since
√ √
N
1/√2 1/ √2
{X} = [ϕ] {ξi } we have, {X} =
1/ 2 −1/ 2
i=1
0.07946e−0.675t sin 4.49t
×
−0.0571168e−1264t sin 6.19t
0.0562e−0.675t sin 4.49t − 0.0404e−1.264t sin 6.19t
or {X} =
0.0562e−0.562t sin 4.49t + 0.0404e−1.264t sin 6.19t
The above equations when plotted at a time step of 0.05 sec, shows the history
as given in Figure 2.7.9.
0.06
0.04
Amplitude
x1
0.02
x2
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67
-0.02
-0.04
Time steps
Observations:
• On studying the above mentioned plot you will see that the characteristic of the
curve is very similar to that plotted for the single degree of freedom.
• Also observe that the response is largely reduced compared to Example 2.7.2 due
to the consideration of damping in this case.
Table 2.8.1
1 30 3–4
2 20 2
3 Upto 10 1
20(1 + k)
Amin = v · Wh
σs
Ei
H= and V = 2gH
Wh
(1 + k)
V= v
Wa
1+ Wh
Table 2.8.2
Weight of Thickness of
Sl. No. hammer (kN) foundation (mm)
1 >60 >2250
2 60 2250
3 40 1750
4 20 1250
5 10 1000
ma
ωn4 − (ωa2 + ωz2 ) (1 + α) ωn2 + (1 + α)ωa2 ωz2 = 0; α=
mf + mfr
where, ka = EataAa and kz = (1−υ)
4Gr0
in which, r0 = L×B
π and, G = dynamic shear
modulus of the soil.
When supported on short bearing piles
kp · kz
kz =
kp + kz
where, kp = vertical stiffness of pile which may be obtained from formulas derived
W W
earlier and ma = Wg a , mf = g f and mfr = gfr .
−(ωa2 − ωn2
2 )(ω2 − ω2 )
a n1 sin ωn1 t sin ωn2 t
x1 = V −
ωa2 (ωn1
2 − ω2 )f
n2 n2
ωn1 ωn2
Wa + Wfr V
where δst = and δdyn =
Ka ωna
Ka δtot
σp =
Aa
Wa + Wf + Wfr + Kz ψ
σs =
Af
V̂ 1+k
in which, ψ = , where V̂ = V.
2π × fz 1+
Wf
Wa
• IS-code method does not take damping of the pad or that of the soil into considera-
tion. It has been observed that damping plays a very significant role in minimizing
the amplitude of vibration for such hammer foundation (Novak and El Hifnawy
1983).
• It also does not take into consideration the embedment effect which could play a
very significant role for heavy hammer foundation when the depth of the block
could be quite large.
• The IS-code formula of kz = 7.6Gr0 apparently looks overestimated29 .
• The dynamic displacement (δdyn ) is based on uncoupled form when the actual
response should based be coupled response. This could either under-estimate or
could also over estimate the stress induced in the foundation.
Based on the above the design procedure suggested herein may be structured as
follows.
29 For if we equate 4Gr0 /(1 − v) = 7.6Gr0 . We get v = 0.473 => 0.5. Poisson’s ratio @ 0.5 depicts
perfectly plastic clay which is rarely obtained. Value of v is usually taken as 0.4.
30 It has not been uncommon that the shocks generated by hammer foundation has done secondary damages
to the building in which it is placed or have rendered crane girders unserviceable at the Gantry level due
to distortion.
• The block foundation itself can be modeled as a 2D plane stress element having
incompatible modes.
• The soil medium can be modeled as 2D plane strain element again having
incompatible modes.
• Finally the building and the foundation may be modeled as a plane frame
constituting of beam elements connected to the soil elements.
31 Unfortunately most of the commercially available FEM software does not have this feature of directly
inputting dash pots except ANSYS.
32 Refer to the Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) for further explanation.
33 If the soil is layered then for each layer a separate value of shear modulus has to be provided enabling
the computer to develop the material stiffness matrix for the plane strain element.
If the building system is found to have unacceptable amplitude ways and means
have to be sought to reduce the vibration transmitted to it by either providing air gaps
around the foundation or by providing suitable dampers around the foundation to
absorb this energy.
Example 2.8.1
A hammer foundation (Figure 2.8.2) having the following data has to be designed
for a particular site.
2000
1400
1290
2150
(1 + k) 1.65
V= v = 156.25
5.94 = 1.112 m/sec
1+ Wa 1+ 20
Wh
Stiffness properties
For Soil
25
Equivalent Radius r0 = = 2.82 m
π
Damping properties
40
Mass of oak pad = = 4.0 kN sec2 /m
9.81
√
Cc = 2 km = 2 625 × 105 × 4 = 31623 kN · sec/m
√
C = D × 2 km = 0.1 × 31623 = 3162 kN · sec/m
1958 + 156 + 85
Mass of foundation and machine = = 224 kN · sec2 /m
9.81
0.425
D= = 0.4832
Bz
m2
x2
k2
c2
m1
x1
k1 c1
k1 + k2 −k2 x1
+ =0
−k2 k2 x2
208 0 ẍ1 850.6 −625 x1
➔ + × 105 = 0
0 16 ẍ2 −625 625 x2
0.0667 0.01898
Thus the complete normalized eigen vector is [ϕ]N = .
0.0684 −0.240
850.6 −625 64952 1474
× × 105 =
−625 625 1474 6316
Calculation of amplitude
N
[ϕ]T [M]{V0 }
{X} = [ϕ]e−Di ωnit {sin ωi t}
ωdi
i=1
208 0 0 1
or ξ1 = 0.0667 0.0684 × √
0 16 1.112 317 (1 − 0.2304)
−0.48×317t
√
×e × sin(317 1 − 0.2304)t
→ ξ1 = 4.3776e−152.16t × sin 278t × 10−3
The above when plotted at a time step of 0.0005 seconds shows displacement
plots as depicted in Figure 2.8.4.
0.4
0.3 Displacement amplitude
0.2 of foundation (mm)
0.1 Displacement amplitude
0 of anvil (mm)
-0.1 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144
-0.2
-0.3 Time steps
0.0004
Amplitude(meter)
0.0002
Amplitude of fdn.
0 Amplitude of anvil
1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144
-0.0002
-0.0004
Time steps
Figure 2.8.5 Time history response of amplitude for foundation and the anvil.
It is to be noted that we use here the original non proportional damping matrix
and not the corrected one used above. we give the following results for 98 steps
(explanation in next page).
Next we compare the response of the foundation and the anvil separately to see
what is the variation in the results. The results are as plotted in Figures 2.8.6 to 7.
0.15
Amplitude(mm)
Amplitude of foundation
0.1 based on Newmark Method
0.05 Displacement amplitude
of foundation(mm)
0
1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141
-0.05
Time steps
Sl. Time
No. step x1 (disp) x1 (vel) x1 (acc) x2 (disp) x2 (vel) x2 (acc)
Sl. Time
No. step x1 (disp) x1 (vel) x1 (acc) x2 (disp) x2 (vel) x2 (acc)
48 0.024 −1.37 × 10−06 2.09 × 10−03 1.74 × 10+01 5.77 × 10−05 0.01174 −232.72
49 0.0245 1.23 × 10−06 8.32 × 10−03 7.58 × 10+00 4.05 × 10−05 −0.0804 −136.01
50 0.025 5.37 × 10−06 8.24 × 10−03 −7.90 × 10+00 −4.45 × 10−06 −0.0995 59.672
51 0.0255 7.99 × 10−06 2.22 × 10−03 −1.62 × 10+01 −3.86 × 10−05 −0.0371 189.843
52 0.026 7.37 × 10−06 −4.66 × 10−03 −1.13 × 10+01 −3.55 × 10−05 0.04953 156.874
53 0.0265 4.44 × 10−06 −7.06 × 10−03 1.72 × 10+00 −8.53 × 10−07 0.08917 1.66764
54 0.027 1.76 × 10−06 −3.66 × 10−03 1.19 × 10+01 3.50 × 10−05 0.05426 −141.3
55 0.0275 1.38 × 10−06 2.16 × 10−03 1.14 × 10+01 4.33 × 10−05 −0.0209 −159.34
56 0.028 3.28 × 10−06 5.42 × 10−03 1.64 × 10+00 1.99 × 10−05 −0.073 −49.244
57 0.0285 5.54 × 10−06 3.65 × 10−03 −8.73 × 10+00 −1.41 × 10−05 −0.0629 89.9718
58 0.029 6.11 × 10−06 −1.38 × 10−03 −1.14 × 10+01 −3.09 × 10−05 −0.0041 145.004
59 0.0295 4.41 × 10−06 −5.42 × 10−03 −4.82 × 10+00 −1.89 × 10−05 0.05205 79.6655
60 0.03 1.71 × 10−06 −5.39 × 10−03 4.92 × 10+00 9.41 × 10−06 0.06115 −43.237
61 0.0305 −6.34 × 10−08 −1.70 × 10−03 9.86 × 10+00 2.97 × 10−05 0.02016 −120.74
62 0.031 1.10 × 10−07 2.39 × 10−03 6.52 × 10+00 2.63 × 10−05 −0.0338 −95.228
63 0.0315 1.61 × 10−06 3.61 × 10−03 −1.66 × 10+00 3.69 × 10−06 −0.0567 3.79594
64 0.032 2.83 × 10−06 1.26 × 10−03 −7.72 × 10+00 −1.87 × 10−05 −0.033 90.9929
65 0.0325 2.54 × 10−06 −2.42 × 10−03 −7.02 × 10+00 −2.34 × 10−05 0.01427 98.0753
66 0.033 8.48 × 10−07 −4.35 × 10−03 −7.01 × 10−01 −8.48 × 10−06 0.04544 26.603
67 0.0335 −1.01 × 10−06 −3.10 × 10−03 5.71 × 10+00 1.22 × 10−05 0.03721 −59.519
68 0.034 −1.76 × 10−06 1.08 × 10−04 7.11 × 10+00 2.14 × 10−05 −0.0003 −90.463
69 0.0345 −1.09 × 10−06 2.60 × 10−03 2.84 × 10+00 1.27 × 10−05 −0.0345 −46.558
70 0.035 1.90 × 10−07 2.51 × 10−03 −3.20 × 10+00 −5.56 × 10−06 −0.0385 30.5594
71 0.0355 8.65 × 10−07 1.95 × 10−04 −6.05 × 10+00 −1.81 × 10−05 −0.0118 76.5631
72 0.036 3.52 × 10−07 −2.25 × 10−03 −3.73 × 10+00 −1.56 × 10−05 0.02179 57.6405
73 0.0365 −9.15 × 10−07 −2.82 × 10−03 1.44 × 10+00 −1.45 × 10−06 0.03487 −5.3432
74 0.037 −1.92 × 10−06 −1.19 × 10−03 5.09 × 10+00 1.20 × 10−05 0.01895 −58.344
75 0.0375 −1.92 × 10−06 1.19 × 10−03 4.44 × 10+00 1.41 × 10−05 −0.0107 −60.105
76 0.038 −1.02 × 10−06 2.40 × 10−03 3.82 × 10−01 4.12 × 10−06 −0.0291 −13.827
77 0.0385 −1.79 × 10−08 1.60 × 10−03 −3.56 × 10+00 −8.86 × 10−06 −0.0228 39.3595
78 0.039 2.96 × 10−07 −3.50 × 10−04 −4.26 × 10+00 −1.43 × 10−05 0.0012 56.5166
79 0.0395 −2.38 × 10−07 −1.79 × 10−03 −1.48 × 10+00 −8.42 × 10−06 0.02214 27.2158
80 0.04 −1.08 × 10−06 −1.59 × 10−03 2.26 × 10+00 3.04 × 10−06 0.02367 −21.079
81 0.0405 −1.49 × 10−06 −5.06 × 10−05 3.89 × 10+00 1.05 × 10−05 0.00634 −48.257
82 0.041 −1.13 × 10−06 1.49 × 10−03 2.29 × 10+00 8.53 × 10−06 −0.0144 −34.597
83 0.0415 −3.02 × 10−07 1.82 × 10−03 −9.82 × 10−01 −4.86 × 10−07 −0.0217 5.36525
84 0.042 3.49 × 10−07 7.82 × 10−04 −3.18 × 10+00 −8.65 × 10−06 −0.011 37.4775
85 0.0425 3.75 × 10−07 −6.77 × 10−04 −2.66 × 10+00 −9.49 × 10−06 0.00762 36.8928
86 0.043 −1.34 × 10−07 −1.36 × 10−03 −7.52 × 10−02 −2.94 × 10−06 0.01859 7.00279
87 0.0435 −6.73 × 10−07 −7.98 × 10−04 2.32 × 10+00 5.19 × 10−06 0.0139 −25.792
88 0.044 −7.62 × 10−07 4.42 × 10−04 2.64 × 10+00 8.33 × 10−06 −0.0013 −35.146
89 0.0445 −3.25 × 10−07 1.31 × 10−03 8.13 × 10−01 4.48 × 10−06 −0.0141 −15.722
90 0.045 2.84 × 10−07 1.13 × 10−03 −1.52 × 10+00 −2.63 × 10−06 −0.0144 14.4488
91 0.0455 6.01 × 10−07 1.39 × 10−04 −2.45 × 10+00 −7.01 × 10−06 −0.0032 30.4011
92 0.046 4.31 × 10−07 −8.16 × 10−04 −1.37 × 10+00 −5.40 × 10−06 0.00962 20.7196
93 0.0465 −1.97 × 10−08 −9.89 × 10−04 6.82 × 10−01 4.16 × 10−07 0.01365 −4.5961
94 0.047 −3.47 × 10−07 −3.20 × 10−04 1.99 × 10+00 5.45 × 10−06 0.0065 −24.005
95 0.0475 −2.84 × 10−07 5.72 × 10−04 1.58 × 10+00 5.79 × 10−06 −0.0052 −22.597
96 0.048 9.65 × 10−08 9.51 × 10−04 −6.63 × 10−02 1.59 × 10−06 −0.0116 −3.3553
97 0.0485 4.72 × 10−07 5.52 × 10−04 −1.53 × 10+00 −3.39 × 10−06 −0.0083 16.8157
98 0.049 5.49 × 10−07 −2.43 × 10−04 −1.66 × 10+00 −5.11 × 10−06 0.00138 21.7888
• The closed form solution and the time history results are very closely
matching
• Since the time history is done with the original soil damping matrix and com-
pared with modal response having damping matrix corrected to Rayleigh
format (and yet it gives reasonably good results), it may be concluded that
the technique of separating the damping for each mode and correcting the
damping matrix based on Rayleigh damping may well be adapted without
any significant error in cases where the damping matrix is non-proportional.
ma 156
α= = = 0.076
mf + mfr 1958 + 85
−(ωa2 − ωn2
2 )(ω2 − ω2 )
a n1 sin ωn1 t sin ωn2 t
x1 = V − for the foundation and,
ωa2 (ωn1
2 − ω2 )f
n2 n2
ωn1 ωn2
V (ωa2 − ωn2
2 ) sin ω t
n1 (ωa2 − ωn1
2 ) sin ω t
n2
x2 = 2 − for the anvil.
(ωn1 − ωn22 ) ωn1 ωn2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 Amplitude of foundation
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
109
121
133
145
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4 Time Steps
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 Amplitude of anvil
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1 Time steps
Hammer(Wh)
e Anvil(Wa)
Foundation(Wf)
m2
z2
k2 c2
Cx
Cθ kθ m1 z1
kx
c1
k1
34 Refer to section on block foundation for the formula of the springs and dampers.
Based on d’Alembert’s equation and the free body diagram the equation of motion
for vibration are as follows:
m2 z̈2 + k2 (z2 − z1 ) = 0
m1 z̈2 + k1 (z1 − θe) + k2 (z1 − z2 ) = 0
m1 ẍ + kx (x − Zc θ ) = 0
J θ̈ − kx Zc x + [kθ − Wf Zc + k1 e2 + kx Zc2 ]θ − k1 ez1 = 0 (2.9.1)
Here,
Based on the above matrices one can now do the analysis in identical fashion as
shown earlier35 once the initial velocity of the anvil after the impact is known.
35 Here the order of matrices being 4 × 4 eigen solution may be done by Bairstow’s method or one can
directly solve for them in solution tools in computer like MATHCAD or MATLAB etc.
Rotating drum
Vibration meter z2(t)
m z2(t) m
z2-z1
z2-z1
z1(t) z1(t)
(a). General set up (b). General set up of vibration pick up
Electromagnetic field
Rotating drum
z2(t)
m z2-z1
z2(t)
m
k c
z1(t)
the response of the system by producing an electrical signal that can be observed with
an oscilloscope or recorded for subsequent analysis.
An instrument that converts mechanical motion into an electrical signal is called a
transducer. For vibration measurements there are three general types of transducers,
namely, velocity, acceleration and displacement transducers.
Zr (t) z2 (t)
⇒1 and 1
z1 (t) z1 (t)
Again, let
mAω2 /k
Z= sin (ωt − φ) = r2 κA sin(ωt − φ) = X sin(ωt − φ)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
2Dr 1
and tan φ = where κ = (2.11.4)
1 − r2 (1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
D = 0.05
D=0
180
8 D = 0.0
140
Phase angle,
90
6 0.707
40
Zmax/A
D = 0.4
accelerometer
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
4
Frequency ratio, r
D = 0.6 D = 0.707
1
seismometer
0 1 2 4 6 8
0.2
Frequency ratio, r
seismic mass (m as shown in Figure 2.11.2) is a magnet moving relative to coils fixed
in the case, the voltage generated is proportional to the velocity of the vibrating body.
The displacement and acceleration can be obtained from this velocity type transducer
through integrator and differentiator provided in most signal-recording units.
ω2 A Acceleration
➔ Zmax = Ar2 = = ,
ωn
2 ωn2
implying that Zmax is now proportional to the acceleration of the motion, 1/ωn2 being
the constant of proportionality. Range of accelerometer can be seen from a magni-
fied plot of √ 1
for various values of D. For D = 0.7, the useful range is
2 2 2 (1−r ) +(2Dr)
1.04
D=0
1.02 D = 0.6
1 1
(1- r2)2 + (2Dr)2
0.98 D = 0.65
D = 0.75
0.96
D = 0.7
m z 2 (t)
F0 sin t
Z(t) = A sin ( t- 1-
k c = relative displacement
z1(t) = A sin( t- (as Z ≈ A)
footing A0 sin t
t
soil
where ωn is the natural frequency of soil + footing system; other terms are as defined
in the preceding.
To obtain D one may use (φ1 + φ) and (φ − φ1 ), if possible.
mz̈2 + c(ż2 − ż1 ) + k(z2 − z1 ) = 0; or mz̈2 + cż2 + kz2 = cż1 + kz1 (2.11.7)
Assuming,
z1 = A1 sin ωt, ż1 = A1 ω cos ωt, hence cż1 + kz1 = cA1 ω cos ωt + kA1 sin ωt
Thus√the right hand side of Equation (2.11.7) reduces to F sin (ω + φ1 ): in which
F = A1 c2 ω2 + k2 and tan φ1 = cω k
= 2D ωωn . The angle φ1 is the angle between force
(F) and the displacement of the ground z1 .
Piezo-electric crystal
m Accln. measured
z2(t)
k c O
z1(t)
To have A2 /A1 ⇒ 1, r-value should very low. For a typical instrument where
fn = 3200 Hz (say) which much higher than the operating frequency normally encoun-
tered in practice. Within a range of r ≤ 0.2, such a situation is encountered. These are
shown in Figures 2.11.8 to 10.
2Dω/ωn
Between generating force and z2 : φ2 → tan φ2 = 2 (2.11.10)
1 − ωωn
Between z2 and z1
−1 2Dr −1 −1 2Dr3
➔ φ = (φ2 − φ1 ) = tan − tan (2Dr) = tan
1 − r2 1 − r2 (1 − 4D2 )
(2.11.11)
Phase angle,
90
A2/A1
0
1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Frequency ratio, r
0 6
1 2 4
r
√2
0.5 1
0
0 2 4 6
r
φ1 z1
( φ2-φ1)
cωz1 F
kz1 z2
cωz1
φ2
kz2
Reference
mω2z2 ωt
The piezoelectric crystals are mounted in such a manner that under acceleration
they are either compressed or bent to produce an e.m.f. which is ultimately converted
to electrical signals. The natural frequencies of such accelerometers can be made very
large, say in the range of 50 000 Hz. The piezoelectric crystal mounted accelerometers
can be made very small in size, may be of the range of 10 mm in diameter and height
and are very rugged to withstand a shock as high as 10 000 g acceleration. A typical
instrument may have fni → 1 Hz to 5 Hz useful frequency, foperating → 10 Hz to
2000 Hz which means r is more than 10. Sensitivity of such instruments may be in the
range 20 mV/(cm/sec) to 350 mV/(cm/sec) with maximum displacement = 0.5 cm
(double amplitude) [Note Arms = 0.707 A].
Sensitivity of crystal-type accelerometer is denoted either in terms of charge, i.e. pico-
coulombs = pC = 10−12 coulombs per g or in terms of voltage, i.e. millivolts = mV =
10−3 V per g. Sensitivity of a crystal-type accelerometer can be established from: say a
typical crystal accelerometer is 25 pC/g with crystal capacitance equal to 500 pF (pico-
farads). Voltage from the classical equation E = Q/C, gives the sensitivity = 25/500 =
0.05 V/g or 50 mV/g as sensitivity in terms of voltage. Again, if the accelerometer is
connected to a vacuum tube voltmeter through a 3 m long cable of capacitance 300
pF, the open circuit output voltage of the accelerometer is reduced to (50)(500)/(500
+ 300) = 31.3 mV/g. This loss can be avoided by using a charge amplifier, in which
case the capacitance of the cable has no effect.
κ 1
ωn2
− ωn2
100 × 1
= 100 × (κ − 1)
ωn2
It can be observed from Figure 2.11.11 that accelerometer should be built with D
lying between 0.6 and 0.7 to minimize the amplitude distortion.
To record any complex wave without changing its shape, the phase of all harmonics
must remain unchanged with respect to the fundamental. This requires that the phase
angle be zero or that all the harmonic components must be shifted equally. The first
case of zero phase shift corresponds to D = 0 for r < 1. The second case of equal time-
wise shift of all harmonics is nearly satisfied for d = 0.7 for r < 1 (Figure 2.11.12)
and when D = 0.70, the phase for r < 1 can be expressed by φ ≈ π r/2. Thus for d = 0
or 0.70, the phase distortion is completely eliminated.
10
D=0
Amplitude distortion in %
D = 0.6
+
0
D = 0.65
D = 0.75
D = 0.7
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Frequency ratio, r
Frequency ratio, r
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
2
0 D = 0.75
-2 0.70
Phase distortion
-4
0.6
-6
-8 0.5
-10
-12
Example 2.11.1
Solution:
Solution:
Solution:
a F = 10 Hz → ω = 2π × 10 = 62.83 rad/sec
F0 /k
A= 2 sin (ωt − φ) = A0 sin (ωt − φ) (2.12.2)
(1 − r2 )2 + Ceq ωk + (2Dr)2
If we have two observations with forcing functions: F1 (t) = F01 sin ωt and F2 (t) =
F02 sin ωt, there will be two responses namely, A01 sin (ωt − φ) and A02 sin (ωt − φ).
F = F0 sin t
f/2 f/2
m
⇒
k c
A0
r
r=1
Figure 2.12.2
A01 , A02 , F01 and F02 are known and hence we can obtain a representative value of
f , the friction force.
Now, for D = 0 Equation (2.12.2) gives
2
1 − 4f
F0 πF
A0 =
k 1 − r2
Vibratory forces generated by machines and engines are often unavoidable; however,
their effect on a dynamical system can be reduced substantially by properly designed
springs, which are referred to as isolators. Protection of the base against the action of
driving forces is called active isolation and protection against kinematic disturbances
is called passive isolation. Thus, when the noise-making source itself is isolated from
other structures, the isolation is an active isolation whereas when other structures
are isolated from the noise making sources, the isolation is a passive one. In active
isolation the basic problem is that of determining the force transmitted to the base;
in the theory of passive isolation, it is the problem of finding the amplitude of the
vibration the object is to be protected is forced into.
F = F0 sin ωt
k c
mω2x
FTr
F
cωx
φ
x kx
Figure 2.13.2 Vector diagram for the system shown in Figure 2.13.1.
F0
k F0
x= sin (ωt − φ) = κ sin (ωt − φ) (2.13.2)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2 k
Thus the problem of isolating a mass from motion of the support point is identical
to that of isolating the disturbing forces. The ratio, FTr /F0 is called the transmissibility.
Without the loss of generality, setting D = 0, Equation (2.13.3) can be written as
Hence, the efficiency of active isolation depends on the magnitude of the magnifica-
tion factor κ to be used. This requires accordingly a low value of the natural frequency
ωn , which may be achieved by reducing the stiffness of the mounting of the machine
or by increasing the vibrating mass. √
Transmissibility
√ is less than unity only for r > 2. → Isolation is possible only for
ω/ωn > 2 (refer to Figure 2.11.3). An un-damped spring is superior to a damped
system in reducing transmissibility. However, to reduce amplitude near resonance
some damping is desirable.
It should be noted that vibration isolation of slow-speed machines (when the fre-
quency of the disturbance is not high) may require a very low natural frequency and
accordingly impractically great flexibility of vibration absorbers. To overcome this dif-
ficulty the vibrating mass is artificially increased in such cases. This serves a twofold
objective; first, the natural frequency is reduced and, second, sufficient stiffness of the
system is preserved.
It is possible to reduce the amplitude of vibration by supporting the machine on a
large mass or by other means is shown in Figure 2.13.3.
Again a set of elastic constraints (vibration isolators), in the form of steel springs or
rubber elements are introduced under the frame of the machine to be isolated.
m Machine
(a) (b)
Machine
(c) (d)
Two equally efficient types of mounting are in use. These are supporting type when
vibration isolators are placed under the base of the machine (Figure 2.13.3a) and
suspension type when vibration isolators are placed above the bottom of the base in
the latter case the vibration isolators may be either in compression (Figure 2.13.3b)
or in tension (Figure 2.13.3c). If horizontal vibration prevails in the machine to be
isolated, a pendulum type suspension may be used to advantage (Figure 2.13.3d).
To keep transmissibility same, k must be increased in the same ratio so that
(m + M)/k remains the same.
Say for some transmissibility, if we increase the mass m to m + M
FTr 1 + (2Dr)2
= (2.13.5)
F0 (1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
k must be increased in the same proportion so that (m + M)/k remains the same.
Thus as k → increases
F0
k
x= sin (ωt − φ) (2.13.6)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
→ x will be reduced.
When damping is negligible
FTr 1
Transmissibility = = 2 (2.13.7)
F0 ω
ωn −1
√
where it is understood that ω/ωn to be used is always greater than 2.
(a) (b)
in which
2Dr
tan ψ = (2.13.12)
1 − r2
The passive isolation is used to protect instruments and precision machines against
vibrations transmitted from the supporting structure. The amplitude of vibration of
an isolated object is expressed in terms of the amplitude of vibration of the base by
Equation (2.13.10). Thus a passive isolation should use the same idea of making the
mounting soft, as in the case of an active isolation. It is generally required that the
natural frequency of the isolated object shall not exceed one-fourth of the frequency of
vibration of the base. If the frequency of the disturbance is not known, it is necessary
to introduce in elastic pads in the mounting system. Thus the irregularities of a road
may have the shape of a sine curve with the wave length varying over a wide range.
Therefore, there is a real danger that the body of a moving vehicle may be in a state
of resonance; to limit resonant amplitudes the vehicle suspension is always provided
with hydraulic shock absorber which dissipate a considerable amount of energy during
vibration [Figure 2.13.4(a)]. This absorber system has a disadvantage: it does not
afford sufficient comfort of passengers when subjected to shocks which are transmitted
to the automobile body with almost no relief. To obtain the necessary softness of
the suspension it may be provided with additional flexible elastic damper shown in
Figure 2.13.4(b).
These waves consist of body waves, namely longitudinal wave (Primary wave or
P-wave), transverse wave (Shear wave or S-wave) and surface waves, namely, Rayleigh
surface waves (R-wave). At any point on the surface P-wave arrives first and it under-
goes an oscillatory displacement. It is followed by a relatively quiet period till another
oscillatory displacement owing to the arrival of the S-wave. Lamb termed this phase
of motion as minor tremor. A much larger oscillatory movement is followed subse-
quently due to the arrival of Rayleigh waves termed as major tremor. P-wave travels
faster then S-wave and R-wave is slightly slower than the S-wave. As to the nature of
wave propagation, a compressional wave (i.e. P-wave) propagates radially outward
from the source as hemispherical wave front whereas Rayleigh waves propagate radi-
ally outward in a cylindrical wave front. As waves travel outward the energy density
decreases with the distance from the source of disturbance. This is known as radiation
or geometric damping. The amplitudes of compressional wave attenuates approxi-
mately in proportion to 1/r, r is the distance of the source of disturbance. Along the
surface of an elastic halfspace, the attenuation is proportional
√ to 1/r2 . For the Rayleigh
waves, the decrease in amplitude is proportional to 1/ r. Again, about two-third of
the total energy of vibration is normally carried through the Rayleigh wave and its
smaller decay with the distance in comparison to other waves. Thus, the Rayleigh
wave is more important for structures near the surface, particularly in the event of
earthquakes, blasts and other dynamic operations.
2.14.1 Introduction
In this section we will deal with machines supported on frames. These are also
sometimes termed as frame foundations. These type of foundations usually support
equipment like steam turbines (ST), boiler feed pumps (BFP), in power plants, com-
pressors in petroleum refineries, air blowers in automobile industry etc. Though the
basic analytical principle remains the same, for the present chapter however, we will
restrict our discussion mainly to foundations related to steam turbines and Boiler feed
pump only.
A pre-requisite to this section is again Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) (basic concepts in structural
and soil dynamics) and you should have gone through the previous section on analysis
and design of block foundation.
We also envisage that you have some basic concepts on Matrix Analysis of Structure
whose concepts we are going to use quite in detail.
Turbines and Boiler feed pumps form the heart of any power plant. Thus for any
developed and developing nation, capacity of supplying unhindered energy not only
ensures a steady industrial growth, but also goes on to improve the quality of life in
a long way. The main source of this energy is obviously electricity and this is what
a turbo-generator generates, based on the electro-mechanical process. Thus if the
foundation which supports these critical machines misbehave and the machine trips
during operation, the cascading effect on the end users and the industry dependent on
the power generated could suffer severe losses. If the shortage is severe in nature, this
could even have a very adverse effect on the economic growth to a complete part of a
country.
Thus for successful operation two aspects become critical for these machines
36 He may be an old man not so expert with computers as our modern day engineers but remember that
his experience is worth more than a million dollar software you may write for he has a feel of this giant
who if starts misbehaving can have a very serious consequence.
take the trouble of mounting it on a frame when putting it on a massive block resting
on ground would have made our life much easier.
Irrespective of the nature of fuel like fossil fuel (coal fired plant), LPG/ Naptha (like
in Combined cycle or open cycle plant), processed uranium rods (in nuclear power
plant) basic principle of operation of turbine remains the same.
The fuel is used to generate steam to a pre-designed temperature in boiler and is
allowed to expand within a turbine under pressure. This generates a mechanical energy
which makes the turbine rotate.
The turbine shaft in turn is connected through a coupling or a synchronous clutch
to a generator rotor, that is rotated by the turbine and generates electrical forces due
to mechanical movement of the generator shaft in a magnetic field. The electric power
thus generated is transferred through bus duct connections to a primary transformer
where after stepping up the voltage it is supplied to power grid through a switch yard.
This in essence is the simplified process of electricity generation.
The machine itself is a centrifugal machine and are usually of two types
• Gas driven
• Steam driven
The gas driven one basically uses Naptha or natural gas as the base fuel and even at
exhaust, it contains substantial thermal energy. This is usually recycled through a heat
recovery system to further heat water into steam and is passed off to a steam driven
turbine to generate further electricity.
While gas driven turbine does not require any condenser at the gas exhaust, steam
turbines will always have a condenser connected to the steam exhaust to condense
off steam coming out of the turbine. This is collected in a hot-well from where it is
Condenser
(spring mounted)
further recycled back to boiler through a condensate extraction pump. For steam to
condense, usually advantage of gravity force is taken and also from plant layout and
pipe routing consideration, the condenser should preferably be positioned at a level
which is lower than the turbine operating floor level. Based on this concept the best
location for placing the condenser is usually at a location directly below the turbine.
It is for this steam driven turbines are usually mounted on frames to take advantage
of the space beneath it, while for gas turbines, as no such requirements are essential,
are usually mounted on block foundations.
Besides this, the frame mounted machines also provides easy access to electrical
connections to generator and main steam pipes. Connecting the steam pipe from the
bottom is preferable for it avoids dismantling of pipe work during maintenance; this
also prevents pipe work draining into the turbine.
A typical schematic sketch of a turbine foundation is as shown in Figure 2.14.1.
Spring mounted
Boiler feed pump
(Turbine driven)
Condenser
Spring mounted
Figure 2.14.2 Typical cross section of turbine pedestal and power house.
For a typical 900 MW power plant this is usually about 16/17.00 m above the power
house floor level with condenser mounted on springs.
The 17.00 m level is also known as the operating floor level of the power house.
In such case, the boiler feed pump (BFP) which feeds the water to the boiler is driven
by turbine itself and usually rest on RCC block foundation mounted on springs over
steel structure.
For plants of lower capacity when the top deck height is much lower, BFP is also
sometimes mounted on RCC frames similar to the turbine.
37 For 50 Hz power grids the typical RPM of machines are 3000 RPM. For 60 Hz grids the speed is about
3600 RPM. For Nuclear power plants these are about 1500–1800 RPM. 50 and 60 Hz are standard
Power grid cycles available globally.
38 This is surely an over simplification of the problem.
N P N
m=(P+Q+2N)/g
KV
As per Rausch if there is n number of frames in the foundation and if fv is the natural
frequency of the structure in the vertical direction, then
n
fv = fi /n (2.14.1)
i=1
Knowing, ωn = Kv /m rad/sec
we have, ωn = (Kv g)/W
where, g = acceleration due to gravity; W = weight acting in the vertical
direction.
If δst is the static deflection of the frame then, δst = W/Kv i.e. ωn = g/δst rad/sec.
Using T = 2π/ωn ,
√
δst 1 g 60 × 9.81 ∼ 30
we have, T = 2π secs; f = cps, ➔f = √ =√ cycles/min
g 2π δst 2π δst δst
(2.14.2)
The vertical frequency of the of individual frame in vertical direction is thus given by
fv = 30/ δv cpm (2.14.3)
where δv = the total vertical deflection at mid-point of the cross beam in meters.
Hence, for different types of loading as shown above,
δv = δ1 + δ2 + δ3 + δ4 (2.14.4)
PL3 2ψ + 1
where, δ1 = is deflection due to concentrated load;
96EIb ψ +2
QL3 5ψ + 2
δ2 = is the deflection due to uniformly distributed load;
384EIb ψ + 2
3 L Q
δ3 = P+ is the deflection due to shear; (2.14.5)
5 EAb 2
h P+Q
δ4 = N+ is the axial deflection of column due to the
EAc 2
in which, P = concentrated load from the machine; Q = UDL of the cross beam (qL);
q = self weight per unit length of the cross beam; N = concentrated load on the
column; Ab = area of cross section of the beam; Ac = area of cross section of the
column; Ib = moment of inertia of the beam; Ic = moment of Inertia for the column;
E = dynamic modulus of elasticity of the frame; h = effective height of the column;
L = effective length of the cross beam, and ψ = (Ib h)/(Ic L).
Kh1 + Kh2 + · · · · · · · · · + Khn
fh = 30 (2.14.6)
W
12EIc 6ψ + 1
where, W = total load of machine plus the top deck and Khi = .
h3 3ψ + 2
This method does not have any provision of calculation of amplitude and suffers
from following drawbacks:
m1/2 m1/2
m2, k2
k1/2 k1/2
m2 z2
k2
m1
z1
k1 Fixed at base
Since the columns are stiff and have similar inertia they would deform uniformly
under axial compression while the longitudinal girders will try to resist the flexural
deformation of the transverse beam based on their torsional stiffness.
As torsional stiffness of the longitudinal girder is much less than axial stiffness of
the columns or flexural stiffness of the transverse girder, its effect on overall dynamic
response of the system is marginal and can be neglected.
Similar to the proposition of Rausch he also suggested that the transverse frames
can be treated independent of each other in the vertical direction39 .
Based on the above he defined the various analytical parameters for each transverse
frame as follows:
2EAc L3 (1 + 2ψ) 3L 1
k1 = ; δv = + ; k2 = (2.14.7)
h 96EIb (2 + ψ) 8GAb δv
Calculation of mass m
m2 = m0 + 0.45mb
where, m0 = P/g is the concentrated mass of the machine carried by the beam and
mb = the mass of the transverse girder and
m1 = mL + 0.255mb + 0.35mc .
Similarly the amplitude of each frame can be obtained based on the method we have
explained earlier40 .
For amplitude calculation, the vertical dynamic load was assumed as
Pv = Ci sin ωm t (2.14.9)
39 For a modern day engineer this might appear as Barkan was trying to simplify the case but what we
should realize was that he did not had a desk top computer readily available on his desk nor were
computers so easily available. It was an era when most of the calculations were done manually. What
is most appreciable was that he idealized and modeled an extremely complex problem to a level which
was amenable to manual calculation and in-spite of the simplification gave results which were very
reasonable.
40 We have explained the method of calculation of natural frequency and amplitude of vibration for
harmonic load for system with two degrees of freedom quite in detail in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
h3 (2 + 3ψ) 1
δhi = and Khi = (2.14.11)
12EIc (1 + 6ψ) δhi
Here the term i represents the ith cross frame of the system.
Wb Wc Wd
Wa Xgb Xgc
Xga Xgd
H G
C/L axis H
G
Ka Kb Xhb Kc Kd
Xha B Xhc D
A C
Wa Wb Wc Wd
Ka Kb Kc Kd
It was argued that due to difference in geometry and shape, there will be some
difference between the center of gravity (G) andcenter of stiffness (H).
N
While the resultant of all the masses i=1 mi will pass through the point G, there
The coupled natural frequency of the system can be obtained from the equations
N
Here ωx = Kh /M , ωφ = i=1 Khi Xh /Jφ and α = (1+e )/r where r = Jφ /M
2 2 2 2 41
i
3 Amplitude of vibration
The amplitude of vibration is obtained from the expression
e2 Ph e2 2
r2
+ ωx2 + ωϕ2 − ωm
2
M − eωx2 M
Jφ
h
ω
r2 x
Ph
M
2 ) Mh
− (ωx2 − ωm Jϕ
x= ; φ=
f (ωλ2 ) f (ωλ2 )
(2.14.15)
xnet = x + X φ (2.14.16)
41 Alternatively this can also be calculated based on the eigen value technique for two degree of freedom
showed in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
• Both Rausch and Barkan neglected the effect of underlying soil from their cal-
culation43 , Major did try to cater for the effect of soil at least in vertical
mode of vibration by adding the soil deformation to elastic deformation of the
frame.
• As stated earlier that resonance check does not always prove to be an ade-
quate design especially for under-tuned foundation which are found to show
significant vibration during start and stop of the machine, Major did devise
a model where the foundation behavior under this transient can also be
checked.
These, in essence, are the two significant contribution of Major in his combined
method.
The methodology applied in this method is explained hereafter44 .
For vertical frequency analysis Major followed in essence the method proposed by
Rausch except that he took Barkan’s two-mass model as shown in Figure 2.14.5.
Here, m2 = mass of the (upper slab + machine) + 0.5 times the mass of the column;
m1 = mass of the bottom slab + mass of the condenser + 0.5 times the mass of the
column; k2 = equivalent spring constants for the columns, and k1 = equivalent spring
constants of the soil.
42 IS 2974 also recommends Major’s method for design of the Turbo-generator foundations.
43 Though Barkan acknowledged that this might affect the response but conceded that the analy-
sis was too complex to be done manually and for very thick bottom raft, the effect of soil was
negligible.
44 We apologize, for there would be some repetition with respect to earlier method of Rausch and Barkan.
But we would still like to repeat it for firstly- the clarity and secondly to highlight what is the difference
in approach with respect to the previous two methods.
Here,
PL3 2ψ + 1
δ1 = is deflection due to concentrated load;
96EIb ψ +2
QL3 5ψ + 2
δ2 = is the deflection due to uniformly distributed load;
384EIb ψ +2
3 L Q
δ3 = P+ is the deflection due to shear; (2.14.18)
5 EAb 2
!
h P+Q
δ4 = EAc N+ 2 is the axial deflection of column due to the concentrated
(P + Q + 2N) + Wf
δs = (2.14.19)
L f B f cu
fv = 30/ δv cpm. (2.14.20)
45 This is a very interesting proposition of adding elastic deformation of the soil directly to the structure
just note it for the time being we will discuss more about it later at appropriate time.
rigid in its own plane and considering an eccentricity e between the center of mass and
center of stiffness he arrived at an expression
1
2 n
2 Khi Ih
3
fn h = 30 α0 ± α02 − i=1 cpm (2.14.21)
n
i=1 Wi Jφ
h (2+3ψ) 3
where, Khi = lateral stiffness of the ith frame i; and Khi = δ1hi where δhi = 12EI c (1+6ψ)
;
Wi = total weight of the ith frame plus weight of the machine plus weight of
the
n transverse beam and the longitudinal beams; Jφ = mass moment of inertia ∼ =
W X 2 ; X = distance of weight W from the resultant center of mass point G46 ;
i=1 i g
gi
Ih = ni=1 Khi Xhi 2 ; X = distance of each frame from the center of rigidity H,
h
n
1 2 ni=1 Khi i=1 Khi Ih
and α0 = e + n + . (2.14.22)
2 Jϕ i=1 Wi Jφ
3 Calculation of amplitude
We had seen earlier in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) that under harmonic load the amplitude of
vibration is given by the expression
P0
k
sin ωm t
x̄max = (2.14.23)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
where
√ r = ωm /ωn and D = c/cc with, cc = Critical damping of the system and is
2 mk.
For sin ωm t = 1, we have
P0
k δst
x̄max = ➔ x̄max = (2.14.24)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2 (1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
δst
➔ x̄max = ∇ 2 . (2.14.25)
(1 − r2 )2 + π (r)2
4 Under-tuned foundation
For under tuned foundation when ωn < ωm during starting and stopping of machine,
there will be a case, when for a fleeting moment ωn = ωm and as such the frequency
ratio (r) will be equal to 1.0 for that instant.
During this point considering r = 1 the amplitude of vibration reduces to
Major has suggested that the logarithmic decrement (∇) be taken for concrete as
0.4 when the maximum amplitude becomes, x̄max = 7.85 δst .
δst
x̄max = ∇ 2 (2.14.27)
(1 − r2 )2 + π (r)2
2
ωn
Ci = αR (2.14.28)
ωm
For over tuned case (ωn > ωm ) the centrifugal force Ci is given by
Ci = αR (2.14.29)
1 0.2 ≥3000
2 0.16 1500
3 0.1 750
K CK X
Ci = C N hi + e N hi hi (2.14.30)
2
i=1 Khi i=1 Khi Xhi
Here e is the distance between center of rigidity Xhi and center of the resultant of
the horizontal dynamic forces, C = N i=1 Ci .
Once Ci is obtained the deflection of the ith frame is obtained from the expression
Ci
δhi = (2.14.31)
Khi
with the value of δhi , the amplitude of vibration in horizontal direction is obtained
from the expression
δhi
ahi = ∇ 2 (2.14.32)
(1 − r2 )2 + π (r)2
Major states that since the structure is usually more flexible in transverse direction
and considering the high speed of the machine is usually under tuned in this direction
and as such it is a common practice to consider for horizontal mode
7 Dynamic forces
The dynamic forces to be accounted for in structural design of the frame have been
expressed by Major as follows:
To account for idealization made in calculation of natural frequency it is suggested
to correct the calculated natural frequency by a term, fn = fn (1 ± α), where α is a
correction factor and may be considered as 0.2.
For under-tuned foundation (fn < fm ) plus signed should be considered while for
over tuned foundation minus sign to be considered47 .
When fn lies between 1+αfm fm
and 1−α , then fn = fm .
47 This actually means Major is assuming that the frequency calculation could be out from actual by (±)
20% and based on the correction factor is actually trying to develop a conservative estimate of the
dynamic force.
Operating frequency
Case of machine (rpm) Dynamic force Remarks
2
fn < fm
fn
3000 F = 16R f Fmax = 16R
m 2
fn
1500 F = 12R fm Fmax = 12R
2
f
750 F = 8R fmn Fmax = 8R
fn > fm 3000 F=
2Fmax
Fmax = 1.0R
2 2 2 2
1− 2 + ∇
fm fm
f n π f 2
n
1500 Do Fmax = 0.8R
750 Do Fmax = 0.5R
fm
1−α < fn < fm
1+α 3000 F = 16R
1500 F = 12R
750 F = 8R
R = rotating weight on the frame.
Based on the above, Major suggested Table 2.14.2 for calculating the dynamic
forces. For vertical dynamic force that acts on the center of the transverse beam the
rotating weight on the beam only should considered as the expression R.
For calculation of the horizontal dynamic force in transverse direction total rotat-
ing weight on the transverse beam plus rotating weight on the longitudinal girder
transferred to the column shall also be considered while calculating the term R.
48 Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, they are the premier Turbine manufacturing company in India.
The first 500 MW turbines supplied in India were from Siemens KWU49 and had
a complete different structural configuration from the erstwhile models that were in
vogue in the industry. The top deck level was much taller (about 16.0 m); they were
much slicker and called for much more space below the turbine and truly represented
a framed structure having under tuned characteristics.
In the meantime a number of turbines in operation in various parts of India were
monitored for vibration and it was observed that some of them which were designed
as over-tuned system still showed transient excitation during start and stop of the
machine (meaning thereby that they were showing under tuned characteristics).
The question was why it was happening so? It was realized that it was possibly the
soil below the bottom mat which was participating in the vibration and changing the
characteristic behavior of the foundation.
Wedpathak, Pandit and Guha (1977) conducted vibration monitoring on various
TG foundations at different power plant in India and showed that there existed
a considerable variation in amplitudes observed in the field and those calculated
theoretically.
The above discrepancy suggested that there was definitely a necessity to arrive at a
more realistic mathematical model to predict the response of the turbine foundations.
It also proved that the assumption made in conventional analysis by Barkan and
Major, that making the bottom raft thick- nullifies any participation of the under-
lying soil in the vibration may not be true in all cases. Especially for 500 MW
class of turbine where to suppress the vibration of the underlying soil the thickness
of the bottom, mat would have to be so thick that the foundation could become
prohibitively expensive.
Moreover, due to their height and slenderness in transverse direction it was realized
that translation in this direction will also induce a coupled rocking mode in the trans-
verse plane which was not accounted for in the conventional method. Considering the
inadequacy in the conventional method in the context of present day class of turbines,
we started our investigation into this problem to arrive at a more rational model where
the contribution of the soil in vibration of such frame foundations can be catered for.
While it was always possible to solve this problem based on FEM50 , we realized that
prior to that one should have the feel as to how the system is behaving and moreover
considering the expense incurred for doing a major FEM analysis in terms of man hour
spent in data generation, data input, checking the output and result interpretations,
was there an alternative model which would give reasonable results if needed to be
done manually or use computer to a minimum?
That was the philosophy based on which we started our quest for a solution and
the outcome is what we would like to share with you.
1 Frequency in vertical direction
Unlike Major’s model we consider here a three-mass lumped system as shown in
Figure 2.15.1. We use here a judicious mixture of Barkan and Major’s method and
couple the soil springs based on Richart or Wolf’s formulation.
49 The first Siemens machine of 500 MW was supplied to Trombay (Tata Electric) and the second to
Singrauli NTPC.
50 This we had tackled too and will be presented at a later stage.
m3
z3
k3
m2
z2
k2
m1
k
z1
n
L3 (1 + 2ψ) 3L
n
1
δv = + and k3 = (2.15.1)
96EIb (2 + ψ) 8GAb δv
i=1 i=1
n 2Ac Ec
where, k2 = equivalent spring constants for the columns @ i=1 h
; k1 =
equivalent spring for the soil obtained from Richart or Wolf’s formulation51 and G =
dynamic shear modulus of concrete @ 0.5E.
Applying D’Alembert’s equation free vibration of the system can deduced as
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
m1 0 0 ⎨ẍ1 ⎬ k 1 + k2 −k2 0 ⎨x1 ⎬
⎣ 0 m2 0 ⎦ ẍ2 + ⎣ −k2 k2 + k3 −k3 ⎦ x2 = 0 (2.15.2)
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
0 0 m3 ẍ3 0 −k3 k3 x3
51 Refer section on block foundation for the values of the soil springs.
Calculation is now quite straight forward for frequency analysis based on eigen
value solution.
Instead of soil, if the foundation is resting on piles then we can straight use pile
springs based on Novak’s formulation or other methods as cited previously and use
this spring as the spring k1 .
The above matrix on expansion will give an equation of third degree whose
characteristics roots will give the eigen values of the above problem.
Thus while the conventional analysis has two degrees of freedom x and φ, in our
model shown in Figure 2.15.2, we have four degrees of freedom, namely x, φ, u, θ.
Here, Kx = translation spring value of soil; Kθ = rocking spring value of soil; m0 ,
Jφ = mass and mass moment of inertia of top deck + Machine; mf and Jθ = mass and
mass moment of inertia of the bottom raft.
To arrive at the equation of motion based on D’Alembert’s principle will be quite
difficult as the coupled motion is quite complicated.
So to derive the equations we use the famous Lagrange’s equation from the energy
principle when
n
d ∂T ∂T ∂U
d(T + U) = − + dqi = 0 (2.15.3)
dt ∂ q̇i ∂qi ∂qi
i=1
1 1 1 1
T= m u̇2 + Jθ θ̇ 2 + m0 (u̇ + ẋ + hθ̇ + eφ̇)2 + Jφ φ̇ 2 (2.15.5)
2 f 2 2 2
m0, Jφ
Kh
h
Kx K
u
mf, J
1 1 1 1
U= K x u 2 + K θ θ 2 + K h x 2 + Iφ φ 2 (2.15.6)
2 2 2 2
Differentiating,
∂T
= mf u̇ + m0 (u̇ + ẋ + hθ̇ + eφ̇) and
∂ u̇
d ∂T
= mf ü + m0 (ü + ẍ + hθ̈ + eφ̈)
dt ∂ u̇
∂T (2.15.7)
= Jθ θ̇ + m0 h(u̇ + ẋ + hθ̇ + eφ̇) and
∂ θ̇
d ∂T
= Jθ θ̈ + m0 h(ü + ẍ + hθ̈ + eφ̈)
dt ∂ θ̇
Similarly
d ∂T
= m0 (ü + ẍ + hθ̈ + eφ̈) and
dt ∂ ẋ
(2.15.8)
d ∂T
= Jφ φ̈ + m0 e(ü + ẍ + hθ̈ + eφ̈)
dt ∂ φ̇
∂U ∂U ∂U ∂U
= Kx U; = Kθ θ ; = Kh x and = Kh e2 φ + Iφ φ
∂u ∂θ ∂x ∂φ
n
d ∂T ∂T ∂
d(T + U) = − + dqi = 0
dt ∂ q̇i ∂qi ∂qi
i=1
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
m0 m0 e m0 m0 h ⎪
⎪ ẍ ⎪
⎢ m0 e ⎨ ⎪ ⎬
⎢ Jφ + m0 e2 m0 e m0 eh ⎥ ⎥ φ̈
⎣ m0 m0 e m 0 + mf m0 h ⎦ ⎪ Ü ⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎪ ⎭
m0 h m0 eh m0 h J θ + m 0 h2 θ̈
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
Kh 0 0 0 ⎪ ⎪ x⎪
⎢0 ⎨ ⎪ ⎬
Kh e2 + Iφ 0 0⎥ ϕ
+⎢
⎣0
⎥
⎦ =0 (2.15.9)
0 Kx 0 ⎪ ⎪U⎪
⎩ ⎪ ⎭
0 0 0 Kθ θ
Equation (2.15.9) gives the complete free vibration equation of motion for the
turbine foundation system considering the soil springs the translation and rocking
modes.
N
N
1 h3 (2 + 3ψ)
Here, Kh = Khi = where,δhi = ;
δhi 12EIc (1 + 6ψ)
i=1 i=1
N
N
2 2
Jφ = mi Xgi and Iφ = Ki Xhi (2.15.10)
i=1 i=1
Expansion of the eigen value matrix will give a fourth order polynomial whose roots
can be found based on Bairstow’s method or else can be very easily solved based on
software tools like MATH CAD/ MATLAB etc.
where, [M] = mass matrix of the system; [C] = damping matrix of the system; [K] =
stiffness matrix of the system, and {P(t)} = P sin ωm t/P cos ωm t the dynamic force
with sine or cosine function for the vertical or horizontal case respectively.
Now considering the operation,
j
ξ̈i + 2Di ωi ξ̇i + ωi 2ξi = p0i (t) (2.15.13)
i=1
j=3 p0i sin ωm t
when ξi = in the vertical direction. And
i=1 (1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
(2.15.14)
j=4 p0i cos ωm t
ξi = in the horizontal direction.
i=1 (1 − r2 )2 + (2Dr)2
Once the displacement in uncoupled form are known the global amplitude is found
out based on the expression, {X} = [φ]{ξ }.
The net amplitude at the top deck, is given by the expression
52 We are not trying to take a short cut. We will further elaborate the whole technique including the
complete design based on a suitable problem hereafter.
• It can take both soil or pile springs (with and without embedded effect) as an input
to the overall matrix.
• The calculation though more intense than conventional method it is yet amenable
to manual computation and gives the engineer a first order feel as to how the
coupled soil-structure is behaving under dynamic loading.
• It will surely give quantitatively a clear idea as to how much is the effect of soil
on the overall vibration vis-a-vis fixed base frequency when the effect of soil is
neglected53 .
• It will also help in taking a better decision if further elaborate analysis based on
3D space frame model is envisaged or not.
To people of orthodox school as well as the computer buffs54 we can assure that
this technique works quit fine.
This technique has been put into practice for a boiler feed pump framed foundation
for a power plant in India and we are happy to inform that it has been operating
smoothly without any problem for more than 15 years (Chowdhury and Som 1993).
In this section we discuss the method of analysis and design of turbine foundations
considering it as a frame having multi degree of freedom through computer55 .
In this case the steps followed for analysis of the frame foundation is as follows:
The system is broken up into three parts as shown
We basically use here the concept of finite element to solve the above problem.
Though application of finite element is more appropriate for continuum, however
basic principle of its application is well valid for this case also.
Shown in Figure 2.16.1 is a typical conceptual model of a turbine foundation resting
on a bottom raft which in turn is resting on soil.
53 If you are solving the problem in MATHCAD/MATLAB just put Kx = 1020 and Kθ = 1020 this
will effectively make the problem a fixed base one. Else delete the rows and column in the matrix
pertaining to the soil degrees of freedom and reduce it to a 2X2 matrix having x and φ as the active
degrees of freedom.
54 Whose staple diet is a problem having 1000 degrees of freedom. Anything less than that is
surely crude!
55 It is not that we would like to continue our designs based on a paper, pencil and a calculator at best. At
the door of the 21st century we do not want to carry the stigma of being Rip Van Winkle though we
confirm that we discourage the use of software as a black box.
Figure 2.16.1 3D computor model of a turbine frame with bottom raft and soil spring.
We discuss below step by step the concepts underlying the development of its
mathematical model for analysis in computer.
Node (Typ.)
Actual Frame
Idealized Model
Beam Node
Rigid Link
Figure 2.16.3 Typical connection of beam column junction with rigid link.
Note: In some software packages this may also be input as master and slave option where
the beam node is usually taken as the master and the column node as the slave node.
For the beam elements as the span by depth ratio is significant it is preferable to
consider the shear deformation of the girder during the analysis.
The loads that are induced by the machine to the deck are mostly transferred through
the bearing/sole plate. The sole plates are not necessarily always co-aligned with beam
center line. Thus to simulate this situation two of the following techniques could
be used.
F
F
C/L
Beam
T=FxD d
Figure 2.16.4 Vertical load acting on sole plate eccentric to the center line of the beam.
• By defining the load with additional torsion about the center line of the beam
based on the eccentricity between the bearing plate and center line axis of the
beam
• Providing node at the point of incident of the load and connecting this point to
the mathematical model by a rigid link as shown in Figure 2.16.4.
L √ m 14 1 Lωm m 12
n≥ ωm :n≥ + (2.16.1)
π EI 2 π EA
56 The expressions are derived from frequencies of a simple supported beam in flexural and axial mode.
The basis of this expression is that if the nth natural frequency of the beam is at or below the operating
frequency of the machine then at least n mid-span nodes will be required to calculate the n modes using
the discrete model.
where, L = span of the member; E = modulus of elasticity; m = mass per unit length;
ωm = operating frequency of the machine in rad/sec; I = moment of inertia about the
beam about its weaker axis of bending, and A = cross sectional area of the beam.
The nodal mass may be calculated either based on lumped mass approach or con-
sistent mass approach (Archer 1963). The consistent mass approach accounts for the
distributed mass and variation of deflection along the length of the beam.
However, one major disadvantage with the consistent mass matrix is that it is a full
matrix in contrary to lumped mass which is a diagonal matrix and thus calls for more
computational effort.
It has been observed that the natural frequency obtained by consistent mass
approach is more accurate than lumped mass approach though the difference may be
small for most of the practical problems. For practical analysis of Turbine foundation
considering masses lumped at the nodes is the common industrial practice.
Once the beam elements and the nodes are chosen and their properties like moment
of inertia and sectional area etc are provided as input, the computer generates the local
stiffness matrix of each beam (of size 12 × 12) and then based on their direction cosine
transfers the local stiffness matrix into the global axis and assembles them to form the
global stiffness matrix of the superstructure.
Plate elements
Plate elements apparently look to be a good choice for physically, it best reflects the
continuum. But as far as mathematical formulation of plates based on Finite Element
formulation is concerned the best available element for plate bending considering its
numerical convergence is the Discrete Kirchoff Triangular (DKT) plate element. The
stiffness matrix formulation of DKT plate element is based on the thin plate theory
having three (two translation and one rotation) degrees of freedom per node. The
basic idealization is that the thickness of the plate is negligible in comparison to its
plan dimension and as such the effect of transverse shear acting along the edge of the
plate is neglected.
For the turbine raft having thickness of 2000/2500 mm it is evident that the thickness
of the raft is quite large and as such it would not be perhaps prudent to neglect the
thickness vis-à-vis the effect of shear strain energy contribution of the overall system.
Which catapults the problem from Kirchoff-type of thin plate to Mindlin-Reissner
type of thick plate where solution is sought taking into consideration the shear
deformation along the edge of the plate.
Though many researcher have tried to formulate these type of plate based on FEM
most of them suffers from one technical snag or other, namely
These can lead to poor solutions and even results which are unacceptable at times
(Kardestuncer 1987). Hence, without a proper mathematical formulation of the thick
plate in hand, specially the numerical problems it can create while seeking solution to
the problem, we would suggest not to use such elements in modeling this problem.
Brick elements
Brick elements could also become a plausible choice for modeling the turbine raft.
From convergence point of view brick elements are stable and have been successfully
adapted to solve different class of problems in fracture, rock and fluid mechanics.
However it has been observed that the eight nodded brick element usually have poor
approximation capability and higher order elements having 16 or 24 nodes are usually
used for efficient solution.
But use of such higher order elements calls for a much more expensive analysis in
terms of computer time, data preparation, input, output etc and is usually not essential.
Besides this brick element suffers from one serious lacunae in terms of design. Brick
elements in most of the commercially available software give output in terms of normal
and shear stress parameters. While this is fine in terms rock or fracture mechanics
problem where design check is done against allowable stresses, for the turbine raft
design we are basically looking for output in terms of moment, shear and torsion.
To back calculate these parameters from the computer out put and subsequent
interpolation to arrive at the design moments, shears etc can be extremely tedious and
chances are very high that the engineer assigned to perform this task gets lost in a maze
of numbers and gets totally confused.
For eigen-solution though use of brick element is OK we would however suggest
users the use of brick elements for design purpose with caution for the enormous
difficulty one could face in back calculating the stress output in terms of moment,
shear and torsion.
Beam elements
This brings us to the last of element in use, the beam element to model the turbine raft.
From convergence and correctness of results we had already discussed in quite detail
in Chapter 2 (Vol. 1) that if properly modeled beam elements gives results which is
very close to plate elements in simulating a raft problem57 .
Moreover for derivation of stiffness matrix irrespective of the methodology used like
moment area theorem, strain energy method or numerical methods like finite element,
the results converge to an exact solution.
57 Refer Chapter 4 (Vol. 1) on Static soil structure Interaction where we have discussed in detail the use of
beam vis-a-vis plate bending elements for simulation of rafts resting on soil.
Even when the stiffness formulation takes into consideration transverse shear defor-
mation unlike thick plate element the formulation is consistent and conforming. Finally
computer output is in terms of moment shear and torsion directly and may be directly
used for re-bar calculation without having recourse to deriving them from stress output
unlike brick elements.
Moreover if we take the elements with reasonable mesh refinements including the
transverse shear deformation into cognizance58 , we can approach a state where the
energy compatibility in terms of external work done and consequent strain energy
induced can be well satisfied.
Thus in terms of ease of use as well as convergence of results beam elements do
make a very attractive choice59 .
For the raft, as the thickness is significant considering the shear deformation
characteristics is a must for maintaining the strain energy compatibility.
4 The soil
The basic soil parameter which needs to be known to mathematically model the soil is
dynamic shear modulus (G)60 . The soil being a continuum itself can either be modeled
based on FEM as 3D brick elements61 , 2D plane strain elements or discrete springs.
For modeling the soil, the choice is again multiple. However as soil itself is an
infinite domain successful application of FEM has been mostly in cases where the
problem could be simulated by a two dimensional model where the soil itself has been
modeled as plane strain elements or infinite finite elements to arrive at a meaningful
result.
Rarely, we have come across cases where in practical problems pertaining to soil
has been modeled in 3D elements for the effort and cost in terms of man-hour and
output interpretation can make the analysis prohibitively expensive.
For the particular case of turbine foundation analysis as we are interested to know
more about the behavior of the frame and the bottom raft rather then the intricate
behavior of the soil itself, the common practice is to model the soil as frequency
independent linear springs based on Richart or Wolf’s springs as described in section
of block foundation.
For practical application this has been found to be quite adequate. More sophisti-
cated model based on frequency dependent complex stiffness is usually not warranted
in this case.
Depending on the soil stiffness and the stiffness of the raft a correction to the spring
needs to be done for correct evaluation of the response62 .
Once the spring values are evaluated they are connected to the node of the raft ele-
ment based on usual finite element procedure to arrive at the complete stiffness matrix
5 The machine
Do we model the machine resting on the top deck also in our analysis?
A debate which has been in the profession for quite some time and we do not want to
pass a sacrosanct sermon on this issue.
However our objective analysis of this Shakespearean dilemma63 is as follows:
For Turbines of low capacity (<350 MW) the foundations are usually designed
having over tuned characteristics. Moreover as the overall dimension of the machine
is also relatively smaller, as such it is reasonable to consider the whole turbine and the
generator as a rigid mass whose inertial contribution as a lumped mass is taken into
cognizance in the analysis only.
However with increasing demand for energy, power manufactures are coming out
with Turbines having higher and higher capacities.
This has made the overall dimension of the turbine larger and the foundation size
have also increased and have made it flexible and more susceptible to dynamic excita-
tion. For the equipment, the main shaft which connects the turbine and the generator
has become longer, thus flexible, and with increase in the operating speed a slight
imbalance in the rotating mass can induce significant dynamic load on the shaft and
also the over all deformation of the soil, raft and the frame (specially in the flexural
mode) can generate a phenomenon which is know as the bowing of the turbine shaft.
Bowing or bending of the shaft about its center line axis can create damage to
the machine components, induce large forces at the bearing and can also reduce the
operating efficiency of the turbine.
Thus for larger turbines (>500 MW) it would be possibly justified to consider the
machine as an integral part of the analysis too.
For such consideration an elaborate Finite Element modeling of the turbine and the
generator is usually not warranted a simple mathematical model consisting of masses
lumped at strategic nodes connected by beams, springs, rigid links etc would usually
suffice64 .
• Dynamic analysis to calculate the natural frequencies of the system to ensure that
it is out of tune to the operating frequency of the machine by ±20%.
63 To be or not to be . . . .
64 At this point we would strongly recommend you to take help of your equipment specialist while modeling
the equipment connected to the super-structure.
• Calculation of the dynamic amplitude to check that the same are within the
acceptable limits as prescribed in the code or as pre-defined by the equipment
supplier.
• Earthquake analysis if the same is perceived critical for the foundation.
• A pseudo–static analysis to obtain the design Moment, Shear and Torsion induced
in the members check the stresses induced in the different structural elements like
beam column and slabs.
65 With comments such as “From my experience”, “Normal engineering practice”, and finally “From
previous experience” – from an engineer with 2 years of experience(!!!) etc. to name a few.
66 For details of modal mass participation refer to Chapter 3 (Vol. 2).
67 Most of the commercially available FEM and dynamic analysis software have this option as an output
for the user to check the mass participation in the X,Y and Z direction.
computation of ω2 is surely not done in the way we have described in our ear-
lier chapter68 . For solution of eigen-values having large degrees of freedom special
numerical techniques are usually used.
When earthquake analysis is also critical, number of modes significant enough to
simulate the natural frequency to 33 Hz should be considered for the analysis.
68 Different techniques used for calculation of eigen values of the system having large degrees of freedom
has been dealt in detail in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) and may please be referred to.
69 Refer the calculations for 2D model we have derived earlier or Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) for the details of such
analysis.
Once the above check list is satisfied the engineer starts his analysis with the tentative
sizing of the geometry of the super-structure.
The guideline furnished below, are suggestive as a first trial and the adequacy of the
same shall be checked against a thorough dynamic analysis.
• The designer should give enough thought to the sizing of the equipment, its size
and clearance requirements in terms of maintenance and access during operation.
The size of such access corridor should be clearly discussed with the equipment
vendor and also with the plant operation people to finalize the overall dimension
of the top deck.
• All columns should be sized in such a way that they are almost equally stressed
under vertical loads (i.e. σ = P/A shall be constant for all the columns as far as
possible). As a rule of thumb, the columns shall have load carrying capacity of
about six times the vertical load and shall be placed not less than 3.6 meters center
to center.
• The depth of the longitudinal and the transverse beam shall be one fifth the clear
span with the width equal to the width of the column. Care should also be taken
that if some anchor bolts are embedded in the beam the depth of the beam is
adequate for generating the full strength of the anchor bolts. The deflection of the
beam under static load shall be restricted to 0.5 mm.
• The turbine frame should in principle act as a rigid shear frame as such the flexural
stiffness of the top deck beams shall be two times the flexural stiffness of the
columns.
• The bottom of the raft shall not be placed above the level as suggested by the
geo-technical consultant where the thickness (t) of the slab shall not be less than,
t = 0.07L4/3 , where L is the average distance between columns.
• The mass of the top deck plus mass of half the length of the column shall not be
less than the mass of the supported turbine and its auxiliaries on the top deck.
• The total mass of the frame plus the raft shall not be less than three times the mass
of the machine.
• The stress induced in soil shall not exceed 50% of the allowable bearing capacity
of the soil.
• For foundations supported on piles the most heavily loaded pile shall not carry
50% of its allowable load.
• The center of resistance for the pile group or the soil shall not be more than 300 mm
from c.g. of the superimposed loads.
• The center of rigidity of the columns shall coincide with the c.g. of the equipment
plus the top half of the structural loads both in the transverse and longitudinal
direction. This shall be done based on the equations:
n 4
n
n 4
n
x̄ = x i Ix i Ixi , z̄ = zi I z i I zi (2.18.1)
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
• Intermediate platforms are some times provided below the turbine deck for access
from bottom and maintenance. These platforms should preferably be placed below
the high pressure turbine and should be of RCC. The beams are usually of depth
varying from 0.9 to 1.2 meter with a slab thickness not less than 300 mm. During
computer analysis stiffening effect of such platforms on the superstructure shall
be considered in the analysis and it should also be ensured that the platform itself
is not in resonance with the operating speed of the machine.
This we are going to deal in some detail. For unlike normal civil engineering structure
the turbine foundation is a very specialized structure where different types of loading
arise from the mechanical and electrical aspects of the machine.
If the engineer analyzing the foundation does not have a clear idea about these loads
he may land up with an analysis which could be deemed useless.
Irrespective of how sophisticated FEM package you use or use the most comprehen-
sive mathematical model if the loading input is not correct the result output is always
useless.
The different loads which come on the turbine are as discussed hereafter. While civil
engineers are quite comfortable with loading like Dead Load (DL), Live Load (LL),
Seismic load (SL) etc., our observation is that many of them are not very clear about
the typical loads which come on a turbine foundation like condenser vacuum loading
(CVL), normal torque loading (NTL) etc and how they could effect the behavior of
the foundation.
We break up the loading in three different categories: Civil Loads; Mechanical loads,
and, Electrical loads.
a Civil Loads
This is constitutes of the following:
the wind load is transferred to the ground through the power house structure itself.
There are exceptional cases only when it needs to be taken into cognizance70 .
b Mechanical Loads
1 Machine Dead Load (MDL)
This constitutes of the weight of the various turbine components and is usually termed
as the machine dead load. The turbine manufacturer in their equipment layout drawing
usually supplies these loadings and their locations.
70 There are cases where the turbine deck is spring mounted and rests on steel columns, which in turn is
connected to the power house structure. In such cases WL load has to be taken in consideration in the
analysis specially the load combinations. In such case usually a combined power house and TG frame
analysis is carried out.
71 For more detail on this issue refer to Chapter 3 (Vol. 2).
used to balance the loading eccentricity that can develop due to circulating water
pressure loads.
The condenser bottom is mounted on a rigid frame and an expansion joint is pro-
vided between the condenser and the turbine exhaust nozzle to relieve the thermal
expansion and variations in the condenser loads.
For condenser mounted on rigid frame the total weight of the condenser is trans-
ferred to the bottom raft. For spring-mounted condensers, it is mostly welded to the
turbine exhaust nozzle when the proportion of load that will be distributed between
the top deck and the bottom raft depends upon the stiffness of the spring and their
alignment. The equipment supplier usually supplies this loading.
During the heat built up the casing expands from their anchor points thus producing a
friction load. Though exact calculation of such forces is very difficult for it depends on
a number of factors however the common practice is to use the following simplifying
analysis in lieu of an exact analysis has been found to be adequate.
The total thermal loading in longitudinal or transverse direction is considered as the
vector sum of the forces acting on that direction.
The magnitude of the force on any sole plate is calculated as:
Force = μx
(Here x is sum of machine dead load, condenser load, normal torque load and piping
load if any), where, μ = coefficient of friction which varies from 0.2 to 0.5. The value
has to be confirmed with the turbine manufacturer.
At the startup condition the expansive load shall be taken as acting away from the
center line of the turbine while during shutdown it will considered acting towards the
center line of the turbine.
In case of the longitudinal expansion an approximation is made to the direction of
the force and the unbalanced force between two anchorage points, which prevent the
movement of the turbine, is applied as the concentrated load at the anchorage points.
7 Turbine Casing Pipe Load (TCPL)
The pipes connected to the turbine casing also induce loads to the foundation. The
turbine generator manufacturer to prevent distortion or overturning of the turbine
components specifies maximum loads. The turbine casing may be assumed to be rigid
and the forces are then calculated at the support points on the foundation. The types
of piping that generate most of the loads are: main steam inlet piping; reheat steam
piping, and extraction steam piping.
8 Piping Load from Equipment Attached to the Foundation (PEL)
As we had stated earlier that various auxiliary equipment are also supported on the
turbine deck. Positioning and aligning piping for this equipment creates erection forces.
Turbine piping is assembled and welded to these equipment and is anchored to the
foundation. The remainder of the steam inlet pipes is then welded to the assembly inlet
connections. Different forces are created due to thermal expansion during operation.
Erection forces, static and dynamic forces should be evaluated to check if they have
any significant contribution or not. For instance a rapid closing of the steam stop valve
attached to the foundation can induce a major loading.
9 Load due to Machine Unbalance (MUL)
Irrespective of however care is taken in balancing the turbine generator rotor it practi-
cally impossible to do away with some imbalance in force which it will generate during
its rotation.
The magnitude of this imbalance depends on a number of factors like design
considerations, installation and maintenance procedures. The factors which usually
contribute to such imbalanced dynamic load can be summarised as follows:
The combined or few of the reasons as mentioned above contribute to the dynamic
imbalance in the in the rotating shaft which is synchronous with the shaft rotational
speed. These forces are transmitted through the bearing shaft to the foundation.
The dynamic load is defined by
Pdyn = m · e · ω2 (2.18.2)
Here, m = unbalanced mass of the rotor; e = eccentricity of the rotor shaft, and
ω = operating frequency of the machine.
10 Load due to Bowed Rotor (BRL)
A bowed rotor can impose large dynamic loads on turbine generators foundation.
The bowed condition of the rotor will create unbalance force which are transmitted
through the machine bearings to the sole plates. The magnitude of the force will vary
with the unbalanced dynamic force as mentioned above.
The phenomenon can happen due to:
i Failure to put the rotor on turning gear when the machine is shut down;
ii Deflection of the raft, soil and the frame in flexural mode;
iii Water Induction and
iv Very severe packing rub.
The largest bowed rotor response occurs at the first critical speed for the rotor. The
time taken by the turbine rotor to pass through the critical speed is shorter when going
on-line.
However it takes much longer time when it goes off-line and the rotor coasts through
the resonant speed. Since this is a condition that usually requires turbine generator shut
down it will exist only for the time required for the rotor to coast down to rest. Thus
it is sufficient to ensure that the foundation stresses are low enough to eliminate the
chance of any permanent damage to the structure during the shut down period.
The magnitude and the location of the bowed rotor is usually supplied by the man-
ufacturer of the turbine in question and is dependent on the specific assumption made
by the vendor.
The force due to bowed rotor is function of the unbalanced dynamic force
Pdyn = m · e · ω2 (2.18.3)
The loading is normally provided in the form of a sinusoidal function for the dynamic
analysis or an equivalent static load for simplified analysis.
It is to be noted that, some turbine manufacturer may not supply this load for
depending on their own design some consider bowed rotor as worst case of accidental
loading for the high pressure and intermediate pressure turbine while others consider
loss of turbine blade as worst case of accidental load that can come on the foundation
as an emergency load.
12 Electrical Loads
1 Generator Emergency Torque (GET)
Of all the loads that can occur a line-to-line short circuit at the generator terminal
causes the most severe loading of the turbine generator loading. Such a fault occurs
when any two of the three generators phase are shorted. The calculation of the maxi-
mum generator air gap torque during symmetrical three phase and unsymmetrical line
to line or line to ground terminal short circuits is normally performed assuming no
electrical damping in order to obtain greatest possible forces that can be transmitted
to the foundation under different fault condition.
Experience and previous data shows that the maximum torque resulting from a line
to line short circuit is about 25% greater than that caused by a single terminal to
ground fault and roughly 30% more than that with a symmetrical 3 phase fault at the
terminal of the generator.
The vendor in the form of a forcing function or an equivalent static force normally
provides the loading due to generator short circuit.
The use of equivalent static force for the maximum short circuit torque assume that
the foundation is infinitely rigid and thus must directly absorb the full impact of the
severe shock forces.
Since this assumption may result in over designing the foundation the more realistic
approach of a dynamic analysis is on the basis of the short circuit moment as a time
dependent function is usually preferred.
In view of the very severe transient nature of the maximum short circuit loading the
foundation in the vicinity of the generator, the designer should perform an appropriate
dynamic analysis of this abnormal load case.
i Operating conditions
The loading condition for which the foundation has to checked for and designed is
= 1.4(DL+MDL+OEL+PEL +CDL+CVL)+1.7(LL+NTL+ThL+TCPL+MUL)
ii Accident Conditions
Generator Emergency −
= DL+MDL+OEL+PEL+CDL+CVL+LL+GET+ThL+TCPL+MUL
Bowed Rotor case −
= DL+MDL+OEL+PEL+CDL+CVL+LL+NTL+BRL+ThL+TCPL
Missing Rotor Blade −
= DL+MDL+OEL+PEL+CDL+CVL+MRBL+NTL+ThL+TCPL
Seismic load −
= 0.75 [1.4(DL+MDL+OEL+PEL+CDL+CVL)+1.7(LL+NTL+ThL+TCPL
+MUL+1.1 SL)
It is to be noted that 1.4 and 1.7 are load factors for design of concrete section based
on ACI-318. For design of sections based on other codes like IS or BS appropriate load
factors in place 1.4 and 1.7 has to be taken.
72 IS 2974 Part III though discusses the vibration analysis in detail it is silent on how and what load
combinations should be considered for design.
Top Deck
Mechanical Springs
Frame supporting
Top Deck
Bottom Raft
P0
Kz sin ωm t
δz = (2.18.4)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dz r)2
P0
Ks sin ωm t ωm
δs = where r = . (2.18.5)
1 − r2 ωn
P0 sin ωm t P0 sinωm t
Now, Ks δs = = Ps = where Ps = Ks δs (2.18.6)
1 − r2 1 − r2
1
TF = (2.18.7)
1 − r2
The transmissibility factor is thus a measure of how much of the dynamic force is
transmitted to the supporting springs.
For transmissibility in the range less than unity the above equation is written in
the form
1
TF = (2.18.8)
r2 − 1
√
Considering the limiting case of TF = 1 we have, r2 − 1 = 1 → i.e. r = 2.
Thus it is seen that√the transmissibility factor T F shall have a value less than unity
for all values of r ≥ 2.
For damping prevalent in the system the transmissibility factor is given by
expression
1 + (2Dz r)2
TF = (2.18.9)
(1 − r2 )2 + (2Dz r)2
ωm
where r = and Dz = damping ratio.
ωn
If we plot the above equations for different values of frequency ratio and TF we
have curves as shown in Figure 2.18.2.
Observing the curves, it will be seen that even with√
damping existing in the system
TF value is less than 1 when the frequency ratio r ≥ 2 i.e. the force transmitted to
the support is less than the induced dynamic force.
To get a further insight into how the frequency ratio affects transmissibility factor
we study an expression called isolation efficiency expressed as
I = rr2 −2 × 100 in % where r = ωωmn and is the measure of the reduction of Trans-
2
−1
missibility factor of the system (Crede 1951).
We plot a curve, shown in Figure 2.18.3, based on the above
√ expression.
Based on this figure we find that when frequency ratio is 2 the isolation efficiency
is 0% i.e. 100% of the dynamic load gets transmitted to the support.
However when r = 2.45 the reduction efficiency increases to 80% i.e. a significant
amount of reduction of force transmittal to the support system is obtained.
12
Transmissibility Factor
10
Damping ratio @ 5%
8
Damping ratio @ 10%
6 Damping ratio @ 15%
Damping ratio @ 20%
4 Damping ratio @ 25%
Damping ratio @ 30%
2
0
25
75
25
75
25
75
25
5
5
0
3
0.
1.
2.
0.
0.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
Frequency Ratio
Isolation Efficiency(%)
120
Isolation efficiency(%)
100
80
60 Isolation
Efficiency(%)
40
20
0
2.1
2.8
3.5
4.2
4.9
1.41
1.75
2.45
3.15
3.85
4.55
Frequency Ratio
We give below some data showing variation of Isolation efficiency with respect to
the frequency ratio
Frequency ratio 1.414 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0
Isolation efficiency(%) 0.0 20 66.66 80.95 87.5 91.11 93.33 95.8
It will be observed both from the above figures as well as from Figure 2.18.3 that
up to a frequency ratio of 3.0, the reduction in transmitted force to the support is
significant but beyond that as the curve flattens asymptotically not much reduction in
transmissibility is obtained.
For instance if we increase the frequency ratio from 3 to 5 say the variation in
isolation frequency is only 8.6% however the manufacturing cost for such mechanical
springs as per some vendors nearly gets doubled.
Thus the common practise is to restrict the frequency ratio to maximum between 3
and 4 in practical engineering design.
Hence it is seen that if we can provide elastic supports like springs below a foundation
and can maintain a separation ratio of 3 to 4 with respect to the operating frequency
of the machine following advantages may be obtained
• The dynamic force transmitted to the supporting system for the springs could be
significantly reduced.
• Based on the reduced dynamic force it is possible to restrict the amplitude of
vibration to manageable limits.
• The foundation remains isolated/de-coupled to the surrounding and does not
transfer any dynamic load.
The above points are in a nutshell major advantage gained by providing springs for
vibration isolation.
Moreover as the springs are man made (unlike soil where we do not have any
control on its property) under a careful controlled condition, it is possible to design
these springs in such a way that they do have a frequency ratio between 3 to 4 with
the operating frequency of the machine.
Freq. ratio Damping ratio 0.0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.3
Studying the above table it will be observed that having high damping value in the
system is counter productive to transmissibility. On the contrary a little amount of
damping in the system is advantageous in terms of transmittal of dynamic forces to
the foundation.
On the other hand, as we know that amplitude gets reduced due to the effect of
damping in the resonant zone the most ideal damper that can be introduced in a
system should thus have the following properties:
• High damping value when the frequency of the machine is passing through the
resonant range.
• Nominal damping value when the machine is operating at its normal speed.
• The top deck remains dynamically uncoupled with respect to the supporting frame,
thus the supporting frame is only subjected to static load and needs to be designed
accordingly.
• This makes the supporting framed structure slicker and also does away with
the necessity of providing a heavy bottom mat which is otherwise essential for
a conventional frame foundation.
• The springs are capable to certain extent adjust themselves to cater to the
differential settlement, if any.
• Even due to the overall settlement of the foundation which can cause additional
stress to the critical pipe connection, adjustment can be directly made using the
springs to adjust the levels and that too without interrupting the operation of the
machine.
• More space is usually available below the foundation thus maintenance and laying
of piping and cables become more accessible and easy.
• Substantial gain in material and cost is evident. Some vendors claim that with
spring mounted turbine foundations saving in cost could be as high as 45% when
compared to conventional frame foundation.
• Cost of piling is reduced as there is a significant reduction in weight.
• No dynamic loads need to be considered for the piles.
• The structural uncoupling of the top deck allows for the use of even steel structures
for the supporting frames.
• Use of steel structures gives additional advantage in terms of construction sequence
for they can be installed parallel to the power house structure which gives a
significant saving in construction time.
• Differential settlements can be easily measured based on the variation of spring
heights. Instrumentation techniques are available which monitors these spring
heights and when it exceeds preset-values automatically give visual signals or sends
alarms.
The advantages as mentioned above are making this concept progressively pop-
ular in the Industry. In many projects in India also this concept has been put to
practice and the turbines are found to be operating quite smoothly without any
hindrance.
Top deck
Spring Elements
Supporting frame
In such cases the most effective way to model the spring would be to represent
it by equivalent truss element having stiffness as AE/L, where AE/L shall have a
magnitude equal to the individual spring stiffness as considered in the vendor’s
catalogue.
For once the turbine deck is cast no perforation or anchoring to the deck is allowed
which could be detrimental to the concrete strength73 . Thus the engineer has to be
doubly careful with this drawing and check it very thoroughly to ensure that not a
single plate is missed, thus time taken for engineering is more.
A general tendency is thus to provide more number of embedded plates or plates
of bigger size to cover the eventualities. Since this is completely dependent on the
engineers personal judgement it has not been uncommon that at times the tonnage
has become as high as 30% extra then the estimated value and incurred unnecessary
wastage.
Similarly for any valves or other sundry equipment resting on the turbine top deck
their location and anchor bolt details etc needs to be finalised during drawing prepara-
tion stage. If the procurement department has not finalised with these equipment or the
vendor drawings are not available – the design engineer could be in a lot of difficulty.
With steel structure on the contrary most of the difficulties as discussed above is not
encountered. In spite of the fact that steel structure provides low damping, for large
turbine foundations steel as a construction material do have some distinct advantage
over RCC.
Firstly every thing need not be erected at the site; the top deck, which generally
consists of a rigid grillage, can be constructed at the shop under a careful controlled
condition and be carried to the site and erected over the columns.
As welds are susceptible to rapid fatigue failure under dynamic loads due to
reversible of stress the connections are usually bolted (bolted connections also provide
good damping and is more advantageous in such cases) and providing site connected
bolting is not a problem at all.
The major advantage in terms of construction is that the elaborate arrangement
one requires for RCC structures in terms of inspection and checking of laying of re-
bars, controlling the concrete quality and large amount of human resources one has
to deploy at the site is not required at all.
In fact the fabrication of the top deck at shop can start much ahead of the erection
of powerhouse it self and can be erected at site simultaneously.
This significantly saves construction cost as well as time too.
From design engineering point of view one need not worry about the location of
embedded plates and hangars, even with very late information welding locally steel to
steel is never a problem unlike anchoring plates on concrete top deck.
It can be logically perceived that steel foundation would be relatively high tuned one
compared to RCC foundations due to its lower mass. However they can be suitably
designed and adjusted to have the requisite frequency separation of 20%.
As we had stated earlier that turbine foundation usually does not become critical
during its normal operation but shows significant excitation during the start and stop
of the machine (mostly due to the soil participation) if the amplitude of vibration can
limited within the acceptable limit steel structures do have a very high potential as a
construction material for such type of structures.
73 Though technology exists where embedded plates can be anchored to concrete slabs after it is cast but
considering the critical nature of the turbine foundation such processes are usually not allowed for
Turbine top deck by the client and is not a good engineering practice too.
One of the major constraints encountered for turbines mounted on steel structures
is however the limitation in the available of ready made rolled sections.
For large turbines composite columns made out of industrially available rolled
section could become inadequate in terms of strength. This calls for usage of plate
girders in lieu of composite section. Due to inherent weakness of welds under dynamic
loading continuous butt welds are usually preferred instead of fillet welds. Continuous
butt welds specially at the flange and web junction calls for rigorous quality assurance
in terms of Radiographic test or dye test to ensure 100 % weld penetration and could
make the fabrication expensive.
However if the steel industry in India agrees to manufacture rolled sections of higher
sizes (beyond ISMB 600) steel structure can become a very strong competitor to RCC
foundations.
In Europe since rolled steel sections having much higher moment of inertia are
available, use of steel structure as an alternate to RCC has become a viable solution
there.
• The vertical reinforcing bars of the column shall have sufficient embedment in the
base slab to develop the required stresses.
• Reinforcement in beams and columns shall be provided in all four sides irrespective
of they are required or not.
• If design requirements do not guide the percentage of steel, the re-bars shall be
placed symmetrically on all four sides.
• The minimum Steel provided in different parts of the members are mentioned
hereunder
• Shear stirrups to be provided to account for the total shear in the foundation
element.
• Splicing in columns if any shall always be done at the mid-height.
• The diameter of bar in beams and columns should be so chosen that the maximum
spacing of the bars are not more than 150 mm.
• Try to use lower diameter bar as far as practicable. For with lower diameter bars,
number of bars is more and distribution of stress and transfer of load between
concrete and steel is more uniform.
• Unless specified by the contract the cover to reinforcement is usually taken as
follows:
Base Slab 100 mm on top, bottom and sides.
Columns and Pedestals 50 mm on sides
Beams 40 mm on all sides
• Minimum development length for all bars irrespective of requirement shall not be
less than 50 times the diameter of the bar.
• Beam column junction should be provided with additional steel to ensure that
cracks do not develop due to continuous reversal of stresses due to the application
of cyclic loads.
Example 2.18.1
Shown in Figure 2.18.5 is the layout plan of a Boiler feed pump framed
foundation with location of equipment loads as shown.
The dynamic loads under various operating conditions are as shown hereafter.
1315
Y 16.65 +3.5m(TOC)
350
3.0m(TOC) 195kN
22.1kN 35 5 508 54
775
+3.5m(T.O.C.) 16.65 1200
1580
X + 4.0m(T.O.C.) 100kN
= =
Figure 2.18.5 Plan view of top deck with location of equipment load.
Short circuit moment Total force at top deck 0.0 226 268 0 0 0
Operating load (1) End frame (pump side) 58 44 0 0 0
Middle frame 80 0 0 0
End frame (motor side) 100 8.3 0 0 0
Operating load (2) Load per long beam (pump side) 37 0.0 130 0 0 0
Operating load (2) Load per long beam (at coupling) 0 0 25 0 0 0
• Rausch’s method
• By Barkan’s method
• By Major’s method
• By 2D soil-structure interaction model.
Compare the results of the analysis based on the above methods with time
history
Do detailed design of the frame.
Solution:
We start the problem sequentially.
Here the top deck consists of a flat slab 900 mm thick supported on columns
(600 mm × 600 mm) and practically does not have a framing system.
Here for analysis and design we perceive a frame having edge beams in both
transverse and longitudinal direction having depth of 600 mm × 900 mm as
shown in Figure 2.18.5 and 6.
The load from the slab is transferred to the idealized frame (as shown by the
dotted lines, Figure 2.18.7) and the frame is analyzed for vibration in vertical
and horizontal mode.
3200
900
3600
(+/-)0.0
1500
4590 4590
A
1 2
1 2 3
Figure 2.18.7
Load on longitudinal beam from the area of hydraulic coupling having local
projection of 1.4 m, of width 1585 mm
0.5 × 2.6 × 25
w=
2
= 16.21 kN/m
48 KN/m
24 KN/m
24 KN/m
32 KN/m
Figure 2.18.8 Frame with uniformly distributed load from top deck slab.
For slab panel 1 along center line axis the distribution of load is as shown in
Figure 2.18.9.
R=217.5
Ly R=217.5
22.5 195
Lx
2995
Here we first out the point through which the resultant of this two concen-
trated force acts
22.5 × 690 + 195 × 3261
yc = = 2995 mm from frame 1
22.5 + 195
Now the slab being restrained at all sides subjected to a load of 217.5 at
distance of 2995 mm from frame 1 it is evident that displacement at point O
shall be same for long and short span.
Thus considering the middle strip as a beam fixed at both ends in long direction
Py a 3 b 3
δl =
3EIL3y
Here Py = the net concentrated load acting in long direction; a = 2995 mm;
b = 1595 mm; Ly = 4590 mm, and Lx = 2600 mm
Px L3x
Displacement in short span is given by, δs =
192EI
Here Px = The load transferred to short span.
Since here due to displacement compatibility, δl = δs , we have
Px L3x P y a3 b3 a3 b3
= ➔ Px = 64Py 3
192EI 3EIL3y Ly
Lx
Since by law of static V = 0 we have, Px + Py = 217.5
5 3
ab
➔ Py = 218 64 +1
(Ly /Lx )
19.3
R1 2995 1595 R2
Figure 2.18.10
19.3 × 1595
Thus R1 = = 6.7 kN and R2 = 12.6 kN.
4590
Concentrated load transferred to edge beams from the slab panel 1 is shown
in Figure 2.18.11.
99.4
6.7 12.6
99.4
Figure 2.18.11 Concentrated load transferred to edge beams from the slab panel-1.
Ly = 4500
Ly = 4500
Lx = 2600
87.4 194
3006 1584
Here
Py a3y b3y Px a3x b3x
δl = and δs = , when based on displacement compatibility
3EIL3y 3EIL3x
3
Py a3y b3y Px a3x b3x a x bx 3 Ly
δl = δs when we have = ➔ P y = Px ×
3EIL3y 3EIL3x ay by Lx
Here ax = 1494 mm; bx = 1106 mm; ay = 3006 mm; by = 1584 mm;
Ly = 4590 mm and Lx = 2600 mm.
Substituting the values in the above equation we have, Py = 0.2299Px
For V = 0 we have, Px + Py = 87.4 kN
Thus, we have Px = 71.06 kN and Py = 16.34 kN. Now, proceeding in the
similar manner as explained for slab panel 1 we find out the load transferred on
the frame beams shown in Figure 2.18.14.
30.22
5.64 10.7
140.83
1494
3006
Figure 2.18.14 Concentrated load transferred to edge beams from slab panel-2.
30.2
10.7
99.4
18.2
141
6.7
1584
99.4
Figure 2.18.15 Frame with concentrated load from top deck slab.
1 Rausch’s method
Calculation of geometric properties of the frame
Area of transverse beam Ab = (600 × 900) = 0.6 × 0.9 = 0.54 m2
Area of column Ac = (600 × 600) = 0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36 m2
1
Ib = × 0.6 × 0.93 = 0.03645 m4 ;
12
1
Ic = × 0.6 × 0.63 = 0.0108 m4 ; and
12
Ib h 0.03645 × 4.05
ψ= = = 5.257
Ic L 0.0108 × 2.6
PL3 2ψ + 1 6.7 × (2.6)3 2 × 5.257 + 1
δ1 = =
96EIb ψ +2 96 × 1.0935 × 107 5.257 + 2
= 1.769 × 10−7 m
QL3 5ψ + 2 37.5 × 2.6 × (2.6)3 5 × 5.257 + 2
δ2 = =
384EIb ψ +2 384 × 1.0935 × 107 5.257 + 2
= 1.5893 × 10−6 m
3 L Q 0.6 × 2.6 98
δ3 = P+ = 6.7 + = 5.364 × 10−7 m
5 EAb 2 1.62 × 108 2
h P+Q 4.05 6.7 + 98
δ4 = N+ = 170.4 +
EAc 2 1.08 × 108 2
4
= 8.353 × 10−6 m ➔ δi = 1.06557 × 10−5 m
i=1
30 30
Thus, fv = √ = √ = 9190 rpm
δv 1.06557 × 10−5
Calculation of load transverse frame 2
Self weight of beam = 0.6×0.9×25 = 13.5 kN/m; UDL from slab = 48 kN/m
Total UDL(q) = 48 + 13.5 = 61.5 kN/m
Self weight of long beam = 13.5 kN/m; UDL on long beam = 32 kN/m
Load from machine (P) = 18.2 kN
Total UDL on long beam = 32 + 13.5 = 45.5 kN/m
Load from long beam = 45.5 × 4.59 = 208.85 kN; Load from column =
0.6 × 0.6 × 1.8 × 25 = 16.2 kN
Shown in Figure 2.18.16.
1584
1585
4590
2730
1 2 3
62 kN/m (q)
PL3 2ψ + 1 18.2 × (2.6)3 2 × 5.257 + 1
δ1 = =
96EIb ψ +2 96 × 1.0935 × 107 5.257 + 2
= 4.832 × 10−7 m
QL3 5ψ + 2 62 × 2.6 × (2.6)3 5 × 5.257 + 2
δ2 = =
384EIb ψ +2 384 × 1.0935 × 107 5.257 + 2
= 2.614 × 10−6 m
3 L Q 0.6 × 2.6 161.2
δ3 = P+ = 18.2 +
5 EAb 2 1.62 × 108 2
= 9.514 × 10−7 m
h P+Q 4.05 18.2 + 161.2
δ4 = N+ = 319 +
EAc 2 1.08 × 108 2
= 1.53263 × 10−5 m
4
30 30
δi = 1.9375 × 10−5 m ➔ fv = √ = √ = 6815 rpm.
i=1
δ v 1.9375 × 10−5
1584
2730
2
3
PL3 2ψ + 1 10.7 × (2.6)3 2 × 5.257 + 1
δ1 = =
96EI b ψ +2 96 × 1.0935 × 107 5.257 + 2
= 2.825 × 10−7 m
QL3 5ψ + 2 37.5 × 2.6 × (2.6)3 5 × 5.257 + 2
δ2 = =
384EI b ψ +2 384 × 1.0935 × 107 5.257 + 2
= 1.5893 × 10−6 m
3 L Q 0.6 × 2.6 98
δ3 = P+ = 10.7 + = 5.75 × 10−7 m
5 EAb 2 1.62 × 108 2
h P+Q 4.05 10.7 + 98
δ4 = N+ = 180 +
EAc 2 1.08 × 108 2
= 8.788 × 10−6 m
4
30 30
δi = 1.1234 × 10−5 m; Thus, fv = √ = √ = 8950 rpm.
i=1
δv 1.1234 × 10−5
12EIc 6ψ + 1 12 × 3 × 108 × 0.0108 6 × 5.257 + 1
Khi = = ×
h3 3ψ + 2 (4.05)3 3 × 5.257 + 2
= 1071751 kN/m
Kh1 + Kh2 + · · · · · · + KhN 3 × 1071751
fh = 30 = 30
W 1108
= 1616 < 5100 rpm.
The method does not have any provision of amplitude check and only check
for resonance with the operating frequency of the machine.
2 Barkan’s method
Calculation of stiffness for transverse frame 1 in vertical direction
2EAc 2 × 3 × 108 × 0.6 × 0.6
k1 = is the stiffness of the columns = =
h 4.05
5.333 × 107 kN/m
For transverse beam
L3 (1 + 2ψ) 3L
δv = +
96EI b (2 + ψ) 8GAb
(2.6)3 (1 + 2 × 5.257) 3 × 2.6
= × +
96 × 1.0935 × 107 7.257 8 × 1.5 × 108 × 0.6 × 0.9
= 3.86014 × 10−8 m
1
k2 = → k2 = 2.6 × 107 kN/m
δv
m1 = mL + 0.255mb + 0.35mc
(24 + 13.5) × 2.6
mb = Mass of cross girder = = 9.938 kN · sec2 /m
9.81
mL = Mass transferred from long girder
104.45 × 2 + 99.4
= = 31.43 kN · sec2 /m
9.81
0.6 × 0.6 × 3.6 × 25 × 2
mc = Mass of column = = 6.605 KN/sec2 /m
9.81
m1 = 0.255 × 9.938 + 0.35 × 6.605 + 31.43 = 36.27 kN · sec2 /m
m2 = m0 + 0.45mb
m0 = Load from machine on transverse girder;
6.7
m2 = + 0.45 × 9.938 = 5.15kN · sec2 /m
9.81
36.27 0
Thus, [M] =
0 5.15
Thus based on eigen value solution
7.93 × 107 − 36.27λ −2.6 × 107
= =0
−2.6 × 107 2.6 × 107 − 5.15
74 We will not solve this equation directly. Please refer to Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) on structural dynamics
where we have solved in detail such eigen value problem.
ωm 534
Here, r = = 0.48 for mode 1 and r = = 0.21,
ωn 2449
34.19 sin 534t
➔ ξ1 = 1.2369×106
= 3.584×10−5 sin 534t m
(1−(0.48) )2 −(2×0.05×0.48)2
2
z1 0.14837 −0.07413 35.48
We have then, {Z} = [ϕ]{ξ } = =
z2 0.19654 0.39428 11.92
4.38
× 10−6 sin 534t = sin 534t × 10−6 m
11.657
L3 (1 + 2ψ) 3L
δv = +
96EI b (2 + ψ) 8GAb
= 3.86014 × 10−8 m
1
➔ k2 = = 2.6 × 107 kN/m
δv
k + k2 −k2 7.93 −2.6
[K] = 1 = × 107 kN/m
−k2 k2 −2.6 2.6
m1 = mL + 0.255mb + 0.35mc
(48 + 13.5) × 2.6
mb = Mass of cross girder = = 16.29 kN · sec2 /m
9.81
mL = Mass transferred from long girder
(32 + 13.5) × 4.95 75.2 113.4
= + + = 42.20 kN sec2 /m.
9.81 9.81 9.81
0.6 × 0.6 × 3.6 × 25 × 2
mc = Mass of column = = 6.605 kNsec2 /m
9.81
m1 = 0.255 × 16.29 + 0.35 × 6.605 + 42.20 = 48.65 kN × sec2 /m
m2 = m0 + 0.45mb
m0 = Load from machine on transverse girder
18.2
m2 = + 0.45 × 16.29 = 9.185 kN · sec2 /m.
9.81
48.65 0
Thus [M] =
0 9.185
7.93 × 107 − 48.65λ −2.6 × 107
Thus the eigen value solution = = 0
−2.6 × 107 2.6 × 107 − 9.185λ
0.1215 −0.0754
The normalized eigen vector is given by, [ϕ]n =
0.1748 0.27985
75 We will not solve this equation directly. Please refer to Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) where we have solved in
detail such eigen value problem.
48.65 0 z̈1 7.93 −2.6 7 z1 0.0
+ × 10 = sin 534t
0 9.185 z̈2 −2.6 2.6 z2 155
ωm 5100
Here r = = 0.575 for mode 1 and r = = 0.28
ωn 18115
z1 0.1215 −0.0754 46.8
= sin 534t × 10−6
z2 0.1748 0.27985 13.07
4.70
= sin 534t × 10−6 m.
11.838
k + k2 −k2 7.93 −2.6
[K] = 1 = × 107 kN/m
−k2 k2 −2.6 2.6
m1 = mL + 0.255mb + 0.35mc
10.7
m2 = + 0.45 × 9.93 = 5.56 kN · sec2 /m
9.81
30 0
Thus [M] =
0 5.56
76 We will not solve this equation directly. Please refer to Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) where we have solved in
detail such eigen value problem.
30 0 z̈1 7.93 −2.6 7
z1 0.0
+ × 10 = sin 534t
0 5.56 z̈2 −2.6 2.6 z2 33.3
ωm
Here r = = 0.45 for mode 1 and r = 0.22
ωn
Frame m0 mb mc ml mi δhi K hi
h3 (2 + 3ψ)
Here mi = m0i + mbi + 0.3mci + mLi and δhi =
12EIc (1 + 6ψ)
Frame mi Khi di midi Khi dI xgi (Xg − di ) Xhi mi xgi2 Khi Xhi2
635.476 14754098
Xg = = 4.40 m; Xh = = 4.59 m
144.416 3214401
ωm
Here r = = 3.609 for mode 1 and r = 3.27
ωn
Displacement of frame 2
Displacement of frame 3
x1 = 2.5359 × 10−5 − 4.40 × 2.1987 × 10−5 = −7.13828 × 10−5
4
δi = 1.06557 × 10−5 m
i=1
4
For calculation of i=1 δi refer to previous calculation by Rausch’s method
30 30
and fv = √ = √ = 9190 r.p.m
δv 1.06557 × 10−5
While Major calculated the dynamic force based on Rotor weights, here
dynamic force coming on the frame has directly been given, thus
Load on transverse beam (Cb ) = 44 kN
Load on column from Long beams(Cc ) = 130 kN
C L3 2ψ + 1 3 L h Cb + C c
Thus δ1 = b + C +
96EIb ψ +2 5 EAb b EAc 2
= 4.855 × 10−6 m
1 5100
M.F = , here r = = 0.69 and = 0.4
(1 − r2 )2 + ( ∇π )2 (r)2 7352
4
δi = 1.9375 × 10−5 m
i=1
4
For calculation of i=1 δi refer to previous calculation by Rausch’s method
30 30
and fv = √ = √ = 6815 rpm
δv 1.9375 × 10−5
While Major calculated the dynamic force based on Rotor weights, here
dynamic force coming on the frame has directly been given, thus
Load on transverse beam (Cb ) = 0.0 kN
Load on column from Long beams(Cc ) = 130 + 25 = 155 kN
C L3 2ψ + 1 3 L h Cb + C c
Thus δ1 = b + Cb +
96EIb ψ +2 5 EAb EAc 2
4.05 155
= 0.0 + 0.0 + = 2.9063 × 10−6 m
1.08 × 108 2
4
δi = 1.1234 × 10−5 m
i=1
4
For calculation of i=1 δi refer to previous calculation by Rausch’s method
30 30
and fv = √ = √ = 8950 rpm
δv 1.1234 × 10−5
While Major calculated the dynamic force based on Rotor weights, here
dynamic force coming on the frame has directly been given, thus
Load on transverse beam (Cb ) = 8.30 kN
Cb L3 2ψ + 1 3 L h Cb + C c
Thus δ1 = + C +
96EIb ψ +2 5 EAb b EAc 2
1 5100
M.F = , r= = 0.69 and = 0.4
[(1 − r2 )2 + ( ∇π )2 (r)2 ] 7352
In this case we consider the total top deck including the column as a stick
model 4 −5
4
Thus, for frame 1, i=1 δi = 1.06557 × 10 ; For frame 2,
−5
i=1 δi = 1.9375
× 10 m;
For frame 3, 4i=1 δi = 1.1234 × 10−5 m; Thus, δav = 1.37549 × 10−5 m.
Shear wave velocity = 115 m/sec; unit weight of soil = 19 kN/m3 ; mass density
of soil = 1.936 kN sec2 /m4 .
Dynamic shear modulus, G = 1.936 × 115 × 115 = 25614 kN/m2 .
9.78 × 3.2
Base Area = 9.78 m × 3.2 m; equivalent radius r0 = = 3.156 m
π
4Gr0 4 × 25614 × 3.156
Thus vertical spring stiffness of soil = = =
(1 − ν) 0.7
461930 kN/m
Pv 2476.16
δs = = = 5.36046 × 10−3 m
Kv 461930
1
Here, Khi = Lateral stiffness of the ith frame i and Khi = where δhi =
δhi
h3 (2 + 3ψ)
12EIc (1 + 6ψ)
Wi = total weight of the ith frame plus weight of the machine plus weight of
the transverse beam and the longitudinal beams, Jφ = Mass moment of inertia ∼ =
N
i=1 Wi Xgi ; Xg = distance of weight W from the resultant center of mass point
2
G; Ih = N i=1 Khi Xhi ; Xh = distance of each frame from the centre of rigidity
2
H,
N
1 2 N i=1 K hi K hi I h
and α0 = e + i=1
N
+
2 Jϕ i=1 Wi
Jϕ
1 3 × 1.0717 × 106 3 × 1.0717 × 106
Here, α0 = 0.1902 +
2 1724.3 × 9.81 144.416 × 9.81
2 × 2.257 × 107
+ = 2472.42
1724.3 × 9.81
Here all the data within the parenthesis were calculated while doing the
calculation based on Barkan’s method.
1
2 N
2 Khi Ih
3
Thus (fn )1 = 30 α0 − α0 − i=1
2
N J
i=1 Wi ϕ
√
➔ (fn )1 = 30 2472.4 − 238 = 1418 rpm(148 rad/sec);
√
(fn )2 = 30 2472.4 + 238 = 1562 rpm(164 rpm/sec).
4590 4590
58 kN 80 kN 100 kN
80 × 4.59 + 58 × 4.59 × 2
x̄ = = 3.78 m
100 + 58 + 80
K CK X
Ci = C N hi + e N hi hi hence for frame 1 we have
2
i=1 Khi i=1 Khi Xhi
Ci 100.33
Knowing δhi = we have, δh1 = = 9.36264 × 10−5
Khi 1.0717 × 106
As the foundation is under tuned thus maximum amplitude at transient
condition is given by
Ci 79.33
Knowing δhi = we have, δh2 = = 7.4277 × 10−5
Khi 1.0717 × 106
Ci 58.33
Knowing δhi = we have, δh3 = = 5.44306 × 10−5
Khi 1.0717 × 106
As the foundation is under tuned thus maximum amplitude at transient
condition is given by
The mathematical model for this case is as shown in Figure 2.18.20. Mathe-
matical model of the turbine foundation with soil spring in vertical direction.
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
k1 + k2 −k2 0 ⎨z1 ⎬ ⎨ 0 ⎬
+ ⎣ −k2 k2 + k 3 −k3 ⎦ z2 = 0 sin ωm t
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
0 −k3 k3 z3 Pv
m3
k3
m2
k2
m1
k1
Figure 2.18.20 Mathematical model of the turbine foundation with soil spring in vertical
direction.
0.36 × 3.6 × 6 × 25
mc = = 19.816
9.81
m2 = 0.25 times the weight of the transverse girder + weight of machine from
longitudinal girder + self weight from longitudinal girder + 0.3 times the weight
of column.
24 + 13.5 48 + 13.5
m2 = × 2.6 × 2 + × 2.6 × 0.25
9.81 9.81
4.59 × 2 × (32 + 13.5) 16 × 1.585 × 2
+ +
9.81 9.81
99.4 × 2 + 30.2 + 141 0.3 × 6 × 0.36 × 3.6 × 25
+ +
9.81 9.81
= 100.451 ≡ 100 kN · sec2 /m
Thus for the complete frame we have, m3 = 5.15 + 9.19 + 5.56 = 19.9 ≡ 20
The mass matrix is thus given by
⎡ ⎤
126 0 0
[M] = ⎣ 0 100 0 ⎦
0 0 20
L3 (1 + 2ψ) 3L
δv = +
96EIb (2 + ψ) 8GAb
= 3.86014 × 10−8
3
Thus for three frames we have, k3 = = 7.772 × 107
3.86014 × 10−8
2EAc 2 × 3 × 108 × 0.36
For columns we have, k2 = = × 3 = 18.0 × 107
h 3.6
For the soil the equivalent spring stiffness is given by
4Gr0
k1 = = 461930
1−ν
⎡ ⎤
k1 + k 2 −k2 0
[K] = ⎣ −k2 k2 + k3 −k3 ⎦
0 −k3 k3
⎡ ⎤
18.0461930 −18.0 0
=⎣ −18 25.772 −7.772⎦ × 107
0 −7.772 7.772
This gives the eigen values and the corresponding three natural frequencies as
⎡ ⎤
0.002 × 106 0 0
[λ] = ⎣ 0 2.5641 × 106 0 ⎦
0 0 5.3294 × 10 6
78 For further details refer to the section of Design and Analysis of Block Foundation.
3
pi sin ωm t
ξi =
i=1 (1 − r2i )2 + (2Di ri )2
{Z} = [ϕ]{ξ }
z1 44.72 53.664 0.06372 −0.05661 0.2265 23.13 0.502 9.950 0.01014 1.17 × 10−04 8.96 × 10−06
Case 2
Z1 44.72 0.06372 −0.05661 0.2265 23.1256 0.502 1 0.996016 1.1517 × 10−02 7.3537 × 10−04
Z2 1601 0.06379 0.04595 0.06179 48.9467 0.065 0.027933 1.000774 1.9111 × 10−05 7.3627 × 10−04
Z3 2308 0.06383 0.1351 0.16636 60.2772 0.066 0.019376 1.000372 1.1320 × 10−05 7.3774 ×10−04
Analysis and design of machine foundations 373
The results are compared hereafter by bar chart shown in Figure 2.18.21.
0.7
0.6
Amplitude (mm)
0.5
0.2
0.1
0
Operating Ist Transient
Operating Case
0.5
Vertical amplitude
0.4
Transverse girder
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Operating Ist Transient
Operating Case
0.7
Amplitude (mm)
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
0
Operating Ist Transient
Operating Case
The mathematical model for the turbine foundation for this mode is perceived
as Figure 2.18.22.
m0, Jφ y
Kh
h
Kθ
Kx
θ u
Figure 2.18.22 2D mathematical model for coupled translation and rocking including soil springs.
h = height between centre of the top deck mass to the centre of the bottom
raft mass
mf = mass of the bottom raft.
Jφ = mass moment of inertia of top deck in plan for the lumped masses @
Jφ = N 2
i=1 mi Xgi
Jθ = mass moment of inertia of bottom raft in transverse plane
Referring to calculation done in Barkan’s method earlier we have
N
m0 = 144.416 kN · sec2 /m; Jφ = 2
mi Xgi = 1724.3;
i=1
Thus
⎡ ⎤
m0 m0 e m0 m0 h
⎢ m0 e Jϕ + m0 e2 m0 e m0 eh ⎥
[M] = ⎢
⎣ m0
⎥
m0 e m0 + m f m0 h ⎦
m0 h m0 eh m0 h J θ + m 0 h2
⎡ ⎤
144.416 27.44 144.416 693
⎢ 27.44 1730 27.44 132 ⎥
=⎢
⎣144.416
⎥ kN · sec2 /m
27.44 264 693 ⎦
693 132 693 3452
3
Khi = 3 × 1.072 × 106 = 3.216 × 106 kN/m;
i=1
N
2
Iφ = Ki Xhi = 2 × 2.257 × 107 = 4.514 × 107
i=1
Now performing
⎡ the operation [ϕ]T [M][ϕ]⎤we have,
4.9
⎢ 2984.4 ⎥
[ϕ]T [M][ϕ] = ⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦
120.8
1722.3
Thus the scaled factors are given by
√ √
Mr1 = 4.9 = 2.213; Mr2 = 2984.4 = 54.63;
√ √
Mr3 = 120.8 = 10.99, and Mr4 = 1722.3 = 41.5.
√
Thus Cφ = 2Dφ Kφ Jφ = 2 × 0.274 × 1.373 × 106 × 125 = 7179
KN · sec/m.
The equation being dynamically coupled, the damping matrix is given by
⎡ ⎤
Ch 0 0 0
⎢0 Ch e2 + Ch Xh2 0 0⎥
[C] = ⎢
⎣0
⎥
0 Cy 0⎦
0 0 0 Cθ
Now performing the operation [ϕ]T [C][ϕ] and for each mode separately we
have
⎡ ⎤
476.532 0 0 0
⎢ 0 2.26 0 0 ⎥
[2Di ωi ] = ⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦
0 0 51.84 0
0 0 0 16.2462
4
pi sin ωm t
{Y} = [ϕ]{ξ } → ξi =
i=1 (1 − r2i )2 + (2Di ri )2
The results are tabulated as follows: Here we have calculated the response for
four cases
1 One during normal operation
2 For three transient case during start and stop of the machine
Y 802 642 0.443 1.24 ×10−03 −1.16 ×10−03 −1.04 ×10−04 −23.6 0.30 0.83 1.72 −6.32 ×10−05 −2.77 ×10−05
φ 18 22 −2.26 ×10−04 1.65 ×10−05 −1.82 ×10−05 −2.41×10−02 21.9 0.06 24.15 0.00 1.11 ×10−04 −3.48 ×10−06
U 60 72 −0.0188 0.11268 0.08882 1.23 ×10−04 −30.13 0.43 7.37 0.02 0.000154 −1.17 ×10−08
θ 157 188 −0.0853 0.01429 0.01975 9.30 ×10−04 −24.9 0.05 2.83 0.14 −0.00014 9.88 ×10−06
Y 802.8 0.44338 1.24 −1.16×10−03 −1.04×10−04 −23.55 0.296 0.02 1.00 −3.672×10−05 6.55×10−04
φ 18.43 −2.26×10−04 1.65×10−05 −1.82×10−05 −2.41×10−05 21.91 0.061 1.00 8.26 0.5333 3.36×10−05
U 60.41 −0.018798 0.11268 0.08882 1.23×10−04 −30.13 0.429 0.31 1.06 −0.00875 5.93×10−02
θ 157 −0.085314 0.01429 0.019745 9.30×10−04 −24.9 0.052 0.12 1.01 −0.001025 7.80×10−03
Y 802.8 0.44338 1.24×10−03 −1.16×10−03 −1.04×10−04 −23.55 0.296 0.08 1.00 −3.687×10−05 −3.18×10−05
φ 18.43 −2.26×10−04 1.65×10−05 −1.82 ×10−05 −2.41×10−02 21.91 0.0605 3.28 0.10 0.006617 2.88×10−05
ϒ 60.41 −0.018798 0.112685 0.08882 1.23×10−04 −30.13 0.429 1.00 1.17 −0.009625 −1.09×10−03
θ 157 −0.085314 0.014296 0.019745 9.30×10−04 −24.92 0.052 0.38 1.17 −0.00118543 2.87 ×10−04
Y 802.8 0.44338 1.24 ×10−03 −1.16 ×10−03 −1.04 ×10−04 −23.55 0.296 0.20 1.03 −3.789 ×10 − 05 −1.31 ×10−05
φ 18.43 −2.26×10−04 1.65 ×10−05 −1.82×10−05 −2.41 ×10−02 21.91 0.0605 8.52 0.01 0.00090156 2.34 ×10−04
U 60.41 −0.018798 0.112685 0.08882 1.23×10−04 −30.13 0.429 2.60 0.16 −0.001334 1.77×10−05
θ 157 −0.085314 0.014296 0.019745 9.30 ×10−04 −24.92 0.052 1.00 9.62 −0.009722 3.35×10−05
yinet = yi + Ui + Xhi ϕ + hθ
The results are shown based on bar chart as given in Figure 2.18.23.
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
Normal operating force
6.00E-02
1st transient
4.00E-02 2nd transient
2.00E-02 3rd transient
0.00E+00
0.00001 Y
0
-0.00001
0
19
0. 8
0. 7
5
0. 5
0. 5
75
25
75
25
75
25
75
3
5
09
28
47
0.
0.
0.
04
14
23
33
42
52
61
-0.00002
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-0.00003
-0.00004
Time steps in seconds
Figure 2.18.24 Amplitudes under operating condition having frequency @ 534 rad/sec.
1.00E-04
Y1
5.00E-05
Y2
0.00E+00 Y3
0.03
0.07
0.13
0.16
0.23
0.26
0.29
0.33
0.36
0.39
0.42
0.46
0.49
0.52
0.55
0.58
0.62
0.1
0.2
0
-5.00E-05
-1.00E-04
-1.50E-04
Time steps (sec)
Figure 2.18.25 Amplitude of displacement of the top deck under operating frequency of
534 rad/sec.
Under transient load like Major we assumed the operating frequency in reso-
nance with the natural frequency instantaneously and considering the function,
sin ωm t = 1.
For time history response we consider the operating frequency equal to first,
second and third transient frequency respectively and find out the transient
response (peak amplitude). The results are plotted graphically in Figures 2.18.26
through 31.
0.002
0
0
0.45
1.35
2.25
3.15
4.05
4.95
5.85
0.9
1.8
2.7
3.6
4.5
5.4
-0.002 U
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008
-0.01
Time steps in seconds
2.00E-02
Y1
1.00E-02
Y2
0.00E+00 Y3
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.7
0
6
-1.00E-02
-2.00E-02
-3.00E-02
-4.00E-02
-5.00E-02
Time steps (sec)
Figure 2.18.27 Amplitude of top deck at the first transient frequency @ 18.43 rad/sec.
0.001
Y
Amplitude
0.0005
0
U
0
3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
-0.0005
-0.001
-0.0015
Time steps in seconds
1.00E-03
Y1
5.00E-04
Y2
0.00E+00
Y3
3
2.1
0
2.4
0.3
1.8
0.6
1.2
0.9
1.5
2.7
0.15
0.45
0.75
1.05
1.35
1.65
1.95
2.25
2.55
2.85
-5.00E-04
-1.00E-03
-1.50E-03
-2.00E-03
-2.50E-03
Time steps (sec)
Figure 2.18.29 Amplitudes of top deck at the second transient frequency @ 60 rad/sec.
0.0002
0.0001 Y
Amplitude
0
U
0
0.5
0.05
0.09
0.14
0.18
0.23
0.27
0.32
0.36
0.41
0.45
0.54
0.58
-0.0001
-0.0002
-0.0003
Time steps in seconds
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
Y1
0.00E+00 Y2
Y3
03
0. 5
08
13
0. 5
18
0. 5
28
33
0. 5
38
43
0. 5
48
0. 3
57
23
55
0
6
2
4
0
5
5
0.
0.
-5.00E-04
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-1.00E-03
-1.50E-03
-2.00E-03
Time steps (sec)
Figure 2.18.31 Amplitude of top deck at third transient frequency @ 157 rad/sec.
SUGGESTED READING
1 Barkan, D.D. 1962, Dynamics of Bases and Foundations, McGraw-Hill Book Co. NY.
2 Srinivasalu, P. & Vadiyanathan, C.V. 1977, Handbook of Machine Foundations, Tata
Mcgraw-Hill, New Delhi.
3 Major, A. 1980, Dynamics in Civil Engineering – Analysis and Design, Vols. I–IV,
Akademia Kiado, Budaapest and Collets Holding London.
4 Arya, S.C., O’Neill, M.W. & Pincus, G. 1979, Design of Structures and Foundations for
Vibrating Machines, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas.
5 Kameswara Rao, N.S.V. 1998, Vibration Analysis and Foundation Dynamics, Wheeler
Publishing, New Delhi.
6 Verma, C.V.J. & Lal, P.K. Ed., Treatise on the design, analysis and testing of High capacity
Turbo Generator foundation, Central Board of Irrigation and Power Publication #262.
6 Shen, G.T. & Stone, N.E. 1975, ‘Natural frequencies of turbine foundation’, Structural
Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, Vol. II, ASCE, NY, pp. 302–330.
7 Srinivasulu, P. & Lakshmannan, N. 1978, ‘Dynamic response of turbo-generator pedestal’,
ASCE, Spring convention, Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, April, pp. 24–28.
8 Chowdhury, I. & Som, P.K. 1993, ‘Dynamic Pile structure interaction of Boiler Feed Pump
Frame Foundation’, Indian Geotechnical Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 411–414.
9 Task Committee on Turbine Foundations 1987, Design of large steam turbine-generator
foundations, ASCE, NY.
10 Rausch, E. 1959, ‘Maschinen Fundamente und andere dynamisch beanspruchte Baukon-
structionen’, VDI Verlag, Dusseldorf.
11 Wedpathak, A.V., Pandit, V.K. Guha, S.K. 1977, ‘Soil-Foundation interaction under sinu-
soidal and impact type dynamic loads’, Int. Symp. on Soil-Structure Interaction, University
of Roorkee, Roorkee.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter we will deal with some of the fundamental concepts pertaining to
earthquake engineering.
On completion of this chapter you should have an understanding of
Before reading this chapter we however feel that you should have following back-
ground as a pre-requisite.
1 Basic concepts in structural and soil dynamics as furnished in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
2 Also have some fundamental awareness of how earthquake can affect a structure-
foundation system.
Earthquake is perhaps the most complex natural phenomenon which human being
is trying to understand, combat and harness, from the early history of mankind. In
spite of scientific study of the subject for the last 100 years or so, it is felt that we
are still in the infancy of our knowledge on the subject. The parameters affecting
this phenomenon are so large and varying and also covering different branches of
science, we can at best arrive at a simplified model of the problem amenable to human
perception and try to arrive at a solution which would in all probability survive this
nature’s assault with some limited damage, if ever the structure faces such vagary.
The basic objective of an earthquake resistant design is not to make the structure
fool proof but to limit its damage to the extent of minimizing the loss of human life
and property.
Though earthquake is a global phenomenon, yet there are some countries in
the world like USA, Japan, Turkey, India, Iran, Newzealand etc that are severely
affected by earthquakes leading to significant loss of human life and properties, while
there are others whose geological characteristics are considered seismically inert like
United Kingdom, Gulf countries like Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar etc. which have no
significant history of earthquakes.
Based on the above, it is evident that there are countries where significant research
and investigation have been carried out to develop procedures for earthquake resistant
design of structures. Countries like USA, Japan, India, Mexico etc have contributed
significantly on this issue.
Earth Crust
Molten Magma
Earth Core
It is for this reason, areas in its close proximity like Assam, Nepal and portions of
south China is often subjected to severe earthquakes.
There is also a phenomenon called seismotectonic movement otherwise known as
continental drift that generates earthquake at certain location of the earth. According
to this theory, the outer crust of earth is made up of undistorted plates of lithosphere.
These plates are in differential motion, and at places they move away from each other
where new plates are added from the interior of the earth while in places they collide
with each other.
All major earthquakes which mark the active zones of the earth closely follows the
plate boundaries and has been found to be a function of the movements of these plates
(Stevens 1980).
Human interference can also sometimes modify stresses on the earth surface to
trigger minor or even moderate earthquakes. In many mining areas tremors and shocks
results due to underground explosion in mines, causing damages to structures on
ground.
One of the classic cases of man made earthquake was Koyna Dam incident in 1967
in India, when pounding of large amount of water behind the dam resulted in an
earthquake causing extensive damage to surrounding (Chopra & Chakrabarti 1973).
The primary or P-waves are the fastest traveling of all waves and generally produce
longitudinal compression and extension within a soil medium. This wave can travel
both through soil and water and is the first one to arrive at a site. However soil being
relatively more resistant to compression and dilation, effect of its impact on ground
distortion is minimal.
The S-waves, also otherwise known as secondary or shear waves usually cause shear
deformation in the medium through which they propagate. The S-waves can usually
0.2
0.1
Velocity v(m/sec)
0
0
13
14
8 .6 4
9 .7 2
10 . 8
11 . 9
15 . 1
16 . 2
17 . 3
18 . 4
19 . 4
6.48
7.56
3.42
5.4
1.08
2.16
4.32
-0.1
-0.2
propagate through soil only1 . It travels at a much slower speed through the ground
than primary waves and soil being weak in resisting shear deformation; it is found to
cause maximum damage to ground surface.
Rayleigh waves are surface waves which are found to produce ripples on surface
of the ground2 . These waves produce both horizontal and vertical movement of earth
surface as the waves travel away from the source.
Love waves are similar to S-waves and produces transverse shear deformation to
the ground.
These entire waves combine together to produce shock waves from which an engi-
neer extracts value of the maximum ground acceleration (amax ) which is the major
parameter that governs his design.
Based on above it is apparent that mechanics of earthquake is opposite to dynamics
of machine foundation in the sense that here forces are transmitted from soil to the
structure. It is the shock within the ground which excites the structure and induces
inertial force in the system.
3.1.4 Intensity
The severity of shaking of an earthquake as felt through damage is described as inten-
sity at a certain place on an arbitrary scale. One such scale is Modified Mercalli Scale
(MMS). This is shown in Table 3.1.2.
Class of
earthquakes Description
1 Liquefaction of soil
2 Settlement of foundation due to deep seated liquefaction failure
3 Reduction of bearing capacity
4 Ground Subsidence
5 Land Slides
Of all the phenomena defined above, liquefaction is perhaps the most important
factor that has caused major damage in many previous earthquakes, and unfortu-
nately gets very little attention from structural engineers in a design office4 . Thus it is
important to understand what the phenomenon is and what are the methods available
to assess and mitigate it?
s = (σ − u) tan ϕ (3.1.1)
where, s = shear strength of the soil; σ = overburden pressure of the soil sample; u =
in-situ pore pressure within the soil sample, and φ = angle of internal friction of the
soil sample.
When earthquake force acts on the soil sample it produces a rapid shock or a squeeze
on the soil body, by virtue of which there is a sudden increase in pore pressure. But
unlike the sponge ball the pore pressure cannot dissipate readily.
When force due to earthquake is significantly high (M ≥ 6.5) which also results
in ground shaking for a good amount of time the pore pressure increment becomes
sufficiently high such that it equals the overburden pressure and the soil looses its shear
3 Nigaata Earthquake (1964) in Japan was one of the primary example where a number of structures
underwent significant damages due to ground subsidence and liquefaction of soil.
4 Especially in India where in previous earthquakes a significant damage has been recorded due to this
phenomenon.
strength altogether (i.e. s = 0) and starts flowing like a liquid. This phenomenon is
otherwise known as liquefaction of soil.
When such phenomenon is observed during an earthquake soil collapses completely
and sand boils are observed in the ground. Even c-φ soils losses significant part of
its strength resulting in bearing capacity failures of foundation and or significant
settlement.
Liquefaction of soil has been observed in a number of earthquakes throughout the
world like Nigaata in Japan (1964), Kobe in Japan (1995), Dhubri and Koyna (1967)
earthquakes in India.
From the above discussion it is obvious that non-plastic cohesionless soils under
saturated condition are most susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake.
As SPT value has been extensively used to define the static engineering strength
of cohesionless soil consistently it was but natural that researchers tried to co-relate
SPT values of cohesion less sandy soil to liquefaction potential of soil samples due to
earthquake shocks. Pioneering research in this area was done by Seed et al. (1984)
who correlated the observed SPT values to cyclic resistance ratio which is one of the
major parameters used to define the liquefaction potential of a soil sample. We will
talk more about this later; first let us see how liquefaction is measured for a particular
soil sample.
The susceptibility of a soil sample undergoing liquefaction is measured by a term
called liquefaction potential, which is measured as a Factor of Safety (FS) against
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) to Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR). It is defined as
CRR
FS = ≥ 1.0 (3.1.2)
CSR
In other words (based on Equation (3.1.2)), if the factor of safety is less than or
equal to 1.0, the soil has very good possibility of undergoing liquefaction under an
earthquake, however if the value is greater than 1.0, the possibility of soil failure due
to liquefaction is remote.
Thus it is obvious that we need to first understand what does CSR and CRR stand
for. During earthquake soil under the influence of an earthquake will be subjected to
repetitive shear stress (known as cyclic shear stress) and it is estimated by the expression
τav amax σv
CSR = = 0.65 r (3.1.3)
σv g σv d
For ease of electronic computation rd may also be expressed by the expression (Blake
et al. 2002)5
1.000 − 0.4113z0.5 + 0.04052z + 0.001753z1.5
rd = (3.1.5)
1.000 − 0.4177z0.5 + 0.5729z − 0.006205z1.5 + 0.001210z2
The maximum acceleration of the ground (amax ) is another factor, which needs
careful evaluation.
For practical design office purpose one of the expressions used to evaluate amax is
in which, No = measured SPT value at the site; CN = a correction factor for overbur-
den pressure; CE = a correction factor for hammer energy ratio; CB = a correction
5 This formula was proposed as guidelines for analyzing and mitigating landslide hazards in California,
Southern California Earthquake Center, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles.
In the table, Pa = atmospheric pressure or 100 kPa (100 kN/m2 ); σv = effective overburden pressure at depth
of the standard penetration sample.
factor for borehole diameter; CR = a correction factor for rod length; CS = a cor-
rection factor for sampler with or without liners, and, (N1 )60 = corrected SPT value
with 60% hammer efficiency.
The correction factors for various equipment parameters are as shown in
Table 3.1.3.
Having established the design SPT value (N1 )60 the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) is
given by the expression for clean sands (i.e. <5% contents) as
a + by + cy2 + dy3
CRR = (3.1.8)
1 + ey + fy2 + gy3 + hy4
1 (N1 )60 50 1
CRR7.5 = + + − (3.1.9)
34 − (N1 )60 135 [10 × (N1 )60 + 45]2 200
1 α = 0
For FC ≤ 5%
190
1.76−
2 α =e FC2 5% ≤ FC ≤ 35%
3 α = 5.0 FC ≥ 35%
4 β = 1.0
1.5
For FC ≤ 5%
5 β = 0.99 + FC
1000 5% ≤ FC ≤ 35%
6 β = 1.2 FC ≥ 35%
The above equations can now be used for routine liquefaction resistance calculation
for soil subjected to SPT at field.
102.24
MSF = (3.1.11)
M2.56
Table 3.1.5 Magnitude scaling factor as proposed by Seed and Idriss (1970).
1 5.25 1.5
2 6 1.32
3 6.75 1.13
4 7.5 1.0
5 8.5 0.89
Seed and
Idriss (original) Idriss Ambreseys Andrus &
Sl. No. Magnitude (1970) (1999) Arango (1995) Stokoe
** American Practice.
We furnish in Table 3.1.6, the data furnished by other researchers on the MSF value
varying with earthquake magnitude. The factor of safety against Liquefaction can now
be expressed as
CRR7.5
FS = MSF (3.1.12)
CSR
Example 3.1.1
As shown in Figure 3.1.3, is a site soil profile which consists of 3.0 m of silty
clay underlain by 6 m of sand whose average SPT value is 13. The ground water
table is observed to be at a level of 1.0 meter below ground level. The dry density
of the silty clay is 18 kN/m3 , while that in saturated condition is 20 KN/m3 . The
saturated density of sand is 19.6 kN/m3 . Sieve analysis shows the sand to have
Fines content as 15%. Find the liquefaction potential when the site is considered
to be 150 km away from the epicentre having an earthquake moment magnitude
of 6.5? The SPT test was carried out by standard sampler with safety hammer &
having rod length of 6.0 m. The diameter of the bore hole was 150 mm.
6.0 m
Solution:
Considering amax = 0.184 × 100.320M (D)−0.8 g.
Here M = 6.5 and D = 150 km which gives, amax =
0.184 × 100.320 × 6.5 (150)−0.8 g = 0.4017 g.
Effective vertical stress at center of the sand layer is, σv = 18 × 1.0 + 10 × 2 +
9.6 × 3 = 66.8 kN/m2 .
The gross vertical pressure at center of the sand layer, σv = 18 × 1.0+20 × 2+
19.6 × 3 = 116.8 kN/m2 .
The depth below ground, where liquefaction potential is calculated is 1 + 2 +
3 = 6 m.
Thus z = 6.0 m < 9.15 m, which gives, rd = 1.0 − 0.000765z → rd =
1.0 − 0.000765 × 6 = 0.9954.
amax σv
Considering, CSR = 0.65 r , we have, CSR = 0.65
g σ v d
0.4017g 116.8
× 0.9954 = 0.4544
g 66.8
The corrected SPT value is given by
100
Here, No = 13, CN = , CE = 1.0, CB = 0.85, CR = 1.05, CS = 1.0
66.8
100
Thus (N1 )60 = 13 × × 1.0 × 0.85 × 1.05 × 1.0 = 14.2
66.8
For FC = 15% we have
190 190
1.76− 1.76−
α=e FC 2 =e 152 = 2.498; and
FC1.5 151.5
β = 0.99 + = 0.99 + = 1.048.
1000 1000
102.24 102.24
MSF = = = 1.44;
M2.56 6.52.56
CRR7.5 0.1808
Thus, FS = MSF = × 1.44 = 0.572 < 1.0.
CSR 0.4544
Hence, as the factor of safety being less than 1.0, the soil has a high chance of
liquefaction during the earthquake.
Table 3.1.7 Relationship between relative density of fine sand, SPT, cone resistance and angle of
friction.
Type of soil qc /N
• Weight of soil particles finer than 0.005 mm is less than 15% of the dry weight
of the soil.
• The liquid limit (LL) of the soil is less than 35%.
• The moisture content of the soil is less than 0.9 times the liquid limit of soil.
Clayey soil meeting not all of the above criteria are usually considered non
liquefiable.
A technique to estimate the ground settlement has been proposed by Ishihara and
Yoshimine (1992) wherein they developed a chart based on which the post liquefaction
volumetric strain is co-related to the FS value (CRR/CSR) and the SPT value as shown
in Fig. 3.1.4.
Figure 3.1.4 Curves for volumetric strain versus FS after Yoshimine (1992).
Based on above, once we know FS and SPT value, the volumetric strain is read off
from the curve and the settlement is obtained by multiplying this strain with the depth
of the soil.
The above is now further elaborated by a problem shown below.
Example 3.1.2
For the soil sample as described in Example 3.1.1 estimate the settlement of the
sandy layer considering all other boundary conditions remaining identical.
Solution:
0.1808
From previous example we have seen FS = 0.4544 × 1.44 = 0.572 < 1.0,
which shows that the soil can undergo liquefaction.
We has also seen that the corrected SPT value of the soil is N = 17.38 say 17.
Referring to Ishihara & Yoshimine’s chart we find volumetric strain = 2.0%.
2.0
Thus settlement of the sand layer of 6 m is = 100 × 6000 = 120 mm.
If the soil is otherwise made of fragmented rock, loose sand or soft plastic clay
sensitive to vibration this increased bearing capacity value should not be used7 .
In such cases there could be significant reduction in strength when the foundation can
undergo either a local shear failure (when the foundation punches through overlying
soil due to liquefaction of bottom layer) or undergo a general shear failure when there
is a significant change in soil property for which bearing capacity factors Nc , Nq , and
Nγ undergo reduction resulting in a reduced bearing capacity.
7 Unfortunately many design engineers hardly give consideration to this and believes that this increase of
bearing capacity of foundation almost a sacrosanct issue.
Figure 3.1.5 Soil Profile of a site with foundation resting on top layer on non-liquefiable soil.
2(B + L)Zτ f
FS = for isolated footing, and,
P
2Zτ f
FS = for strip footing. (3.1.14)
P
For c − ϕ soil (undrained shear strength parameters) the shear strength is given by
τf = c + σh tan ϕ (3.1.15b)
where σh = horizontal total stress in kN/m2 ; for cohesive soil this is often assumed
as 0.5σv .
For a non-liquefiable soil layer of cohesionless soil, the shear strength is given by
We now show the application of the above based on a suitable problem as shown
in Example 3.1.3.
Example 3.1.3
Shown in Figure 3.1.5, is a footing of size 3 m × 2 m placed on a stiff clayey–silt
layer of undrained shear strength Su = 50 kN/m2 and φ = 10◦ . The footing has
maximum load of 650 kN on it (including its own weight). The clay layer (3.0 m
deep) is underlain by a layer of loose sand 9.0 meter deep which is susceptible
to liquefaction. Find the factor of safety of the foundation under punching shear
failure. The foundation is resting at depth of 1.5 m below ground level. Unit
weight of soil of the top layer is 20 kN/m3 .
Solution:
As per the problem Z = 3.0 − 1.5 = 1.5 m; σv = 20 × 1.5 = 30 kN/m2 .
Thus, σh = 0.5 × 30 = 15 kN/m2 and τf = 50 + 15 tan 10 = 52.64 kN/m2 .
The resistive force = 2(B + L) Zτf = 2(3 + 2) × 1.5 × 52.64 = 789.6 kN.
And, FS = 789.6/650 = 1.214. Considering the uncertainty in soil, FS = 1.2
could be a low value.
1
qult = cNc + qNq + γs BNγ (3.1.16)
2
The first term cNc gives the strength of the soil due to its cohesive property. The
second term depicts the effect of overburden soil which goes on to increase the bearing
capacity of the soil and the last term 12 γs BNγ gives the frictional strength of the soil
where the term Nγ is a function of the friction angle φ.
For clayey soil, as φ = 0, it gives Nγ = 0 and Nq = 1; For spread footing,
considering the aspect ratio (B/L) correction, we have
B
qult = cNc 1 + 0.3 + γ Df , further modified to
L
B
qult = Su Nc 1 + 0.3 + γ Df . (3.1.17)
L
For shallow foundation near the ground as the second term has minimal effect, for
all practical purpose we can consider the equation to be
B
qult = Su Nc 1 + 0.3 (3.1.18)
L
For the bottom layer of liquefiable soil there is obviously a reduction in value of Nc
and this is usually function of the ratio of Z/B as given in Table 3.1.9.
Z/B Nc
0 0
0.25 0.7
0.5 1.3
1.0 2.5
1.5 3.8
∞ 5.5
Example 3.1.4
For the example problem cited in Example 3.1.3, find the reduced bearing capa-
city of the foundation considering the top layer of soil as stiff clay of undrained
shear strength of 50 kN/m2 . All other parameters remain the same as the earlier
problem.
Solution:
Under unliquefied state the ultimate bearing capacity is given by
B
qult = Su Nc 1 + 0.3 + γ Df
L
For φ = 0 Nc = 5.5, qult = 50 × 5.5 1 + 0.3 23 + 20 × 1.5 = 357.3 kN/m2 .
Considering foundation size as 2 m × 3 m we have, Qult = 357.3 × 2 × 3 =
2143.5 kN
2143.5
➔ FS = = 3.3
650
magnitude of the earthquake; R = epicentral distance in kM; F15 = average fine con-
tent (passing ASTM 200 sieve) for the liquefiable layer in% included in T15 ; T15 = the
cumulative thickness (in meter) of the saturated granular layer having blow count
<15; S = ground slope in percent, and, W = ratio of height (H) of the free face to the
distance (L) from the base of the free pace to point in question percent.
Example 3.1.5
Shown in Figure 3.1.6 is a site soil profile which consists of 3.0 m of clay under-
lain by 6 m of sand whose average SPT value is 13 which is susceptible to
earthquakes. The site consists of a canal flowing across as shown in the figure
shown below.
The unit weight of the clay is 20 kN/m3 . The saturated unit weight of sand
is 19.6 kN/m3 . Sieve analysis shows the sand to have fines content as 15%.
The average grain size diameter of the sand layer is 0.032. A power house is
to be in built on this site located at distance of 30 meter from the canal bank.
The site is considered to be 50 km away from the epicentre having an earthquake
Moment magnitude of 6.75. Find the estimated movement of soil with this free
face condition.
30m
3
Unit weight of soil =20kN/m 3.0m
Solution:
Here, R = 50 km; M = 6.75; W = H/L = 3/30 = 0.1 = 10%; T = 6 m, and,
D50 = 0.32.
Considering,
we have
◦ Modal analysis
◦ Time history analysis.
We, as a first step, would study in general the basic principles underlying the above
methods and finally see their application to different class of structures and foundations
like buildings, tall chimneys, elevated water tank, retaining walls, earth dams etc.
αh = βIα0 (3.2.1)
where, V = base shear on the structure due to a given earthquake; K = a factor known
as the performance factor of the frame; C = a coefficient defining flexibility of the
structure with increase in number of storey, depending on fundamental time period.
The value of flexibility factor C versus time is as given in Figure 3.2.1.
The value of performance factor K for different type of framing is as given in
Table 3.2.4.
For calculation of time period (T), code has furnished some empirical formulas from
which T may be found out as follows:
• For moment resisting frame without bracings or shear walls resisting lateral loads
T = 0.1n (3.2.3)
8 It is presumed the reader has a copy of the earthquake code like IS-1893 (1984 and 2002) for cross
reference.
Table 3.2.1 Soil foundation factor β for various soil foundation system as per IS-1893, 1984.
Rock or Not
hard soil 1.0 applicable 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Medium soil 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2
Soft soil 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5
V 0.08
IV 0.05
III 0.04
II 0.02
I 0.01
0.09H
T= √ (3.2.4)
d
where, H = total height of the main structure in meters and, d = maximum base
dimension of building in meters in direction parallel to the applied seismic force.
The above formulations are valid only for buildings which are regular in shape and
have regular distribution of mass or stiffness both in horizontal and/or vertical plane.
The value of α0 @ 0.08 (Table 3.2.3) has been obtained for zone V based on obser-
vations of earthquake occurrence in that zone however the values for other has been
reduced proportionally, the basis of this reduction has never been very explicit.
Though the above method has now been made obsolete in the recent code (IS-1893-
2002) but it still remains in practice in design offices to estimate preliminarily the
magnitude of earthquake force before a more detailed analysis is carried out.
Example 3.2.1
An RCC building having frame layout is as shown in Figure 3.2.2. The trans-
verse cross section of the frame is also shown in the figure. Given the following
loading and geometric dimensions of the various structural members calculate
the base shear on the building as per seismic coefficient method IS-1893 (1984)
considering zone IV. Consider soil foundation system as of medium stiffness.
Loadings
• Live load on roof = 2 kN/m2
• Live load on other floors = 4 kN/m2
• Parapet wall on roof = 1.5 m all round
• Internal Partition walls = 1 kN/m2
• Floor finish = 1.5 kN/m2
• Cement plaster on ceiling = 50 mm.
EL 112.8
EL 109.2
EL 105.6
EL102.0
Tie beam all round
EL 100.0
4.0 4.0
Material properties
• Unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3
• Unit weight of brick = 20 kN/m3
• Unit weight of cement plaster = 24 kN/m3
• Grade of concrete = M25.
Consider no live load on roof and 50% reduction in live load for other floors
during earthquake.
Solution:
9 This is strictly not correct for we will see later that time period will vary in both direction based on its
stiffness and mass thus earthquake force will also vary accordingly. Moreover the force calculated herein
is the total force acting on the building considered as stick model.
Sa
αh = βIF0 (3.2.5)
g
Here β and I are as already defined factors in the seismic coefficient method and
factor F0 is as defined in Table 3.2.5.
10 This is exactly 5 times the value of α0 as given for seismic coefficient method.
V 0.40
IV 0.25
III 0.20
II 0.10
I 0.05
Once the value of αh is known the rest of the procedure remains same as that for
seismic coefficient method.
It may be noted that here that the time period may either be obtained based on
formulations as given in code or may be found out based on a detailed dynamic analysis
and forces are then obtained based on modal response technique11 .
We now explain the above procedure based on a suitable numerical problem.
Example 3.2.2
For the building cited in Example 3.2.1, find the base shear as per response
spectrum technique based on IS-1893, 1984. Consider the site to be zone 4 with
medium stiff soil. Consider 5% damping ratio for the structure.
Solution:
Referring to Example 3.2.1 the time period of the building is given by
For 0.51 sec and 5% damping the Sa /g obtained from the curve as shown in
Fig. 8.2.4 is
Sa /g = 0.16
Sa
Thus αh = βIF0
g
Or αh = 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.25 × 0.16 = 0.04
As shown in Example 3.2.1, total weight of the structure W = 10310 kN
For T = 0.5 sec C = 0.75 K = 1.0.
Thus considering
V = KCαh W,
2.5
Spectral Acceleration
Coefficient (Sa/g)
2 Sa/g(Hard
soil/Rock)
1.5
Sa/g(Medium
1 soil)
0.5 Sa/g(Soft soil)
0
0
1.7
3.4
0.34
0.68
1.02
1.36
2.04
2.38
2.72
3.06
3.74
Moreover as computer analysis has almost become a daily routine work in day to day
design office practice-where it is preferable to have digitised data of Sa /g for computer
input, the code now defines the Sa /g curve by direct formulas enabling one to furnish
numerical input for earthquake analysis by computer. The formulas suggested by code
for various types of soil as per Clause 6.4.4 of the code for 5% damping ratio are as
shown in Table 3.2.6:
The code has given factors based on which the values of Sa /g obtained above may
be modified for different damping ratio.
Typical Sa /g curve for soft soil with different damping ratio are shown in
Figure 3.2.5 while multiplication factors to be considered for different damping ratios
are furnished in Table 3.2.7.
Table 3.2.6 Expressions for Sa /g for different types of soil as per IS-1893 2002.
Type of soil Value of Sa /g Range
3
Sa/g(5%)
Spectral acceleration
2 .5
coefficients (Sa/g)
Sa/g(7%)
2 Sa/g(10%)
1 .5 Sa/g(15%)
1 Sa/g(20%)
Sa/g(25%)
0 .5
Sa/g(30%)
0
0
1 .4
2 .8
0 .28
0 .56
0 .84
1 .12
1 .68
1 .96
2 .24
2 .52
3 .08
3 .36
3 .64
3 .92
Time period(secs)
Figure 3.2.5 Response Spectrum Curve Sa /g for soft soil as per IS-1893 (2002).
Table 3.2.7 Multiplying factors for obtaining values for other damping as per IS-1893 (2002).
The country unlike previously that was classified into 5 zones (zone I to V) in the
present code zone I has now been merged with zone II and the zones now constitute
of zone II to V only. The zone factors to be considered as per the present code are as
presented in Table 3.2.8.
The importance factor, I has remained unchanged and as such the factors furnished
earlier in Table 3.2.2 still holds good.
To bring it in line with international practice followed by other countries12 , the
code has now introduced a new factor R which is known as the response reduction
factor and also called the ductility factor in many literatures. This is the property of a
body to dissipate energy by means of its ductile behaviour and may be generated by
means of special detailing13 .
The R factor for buildings is basically a function of the structural configuration of
the building like whether it is a Ordinary Moment Resistant frame (OMRF), special
moment resistant frame (SMRF) or has shear wall etc. The value of the response
reduction factor R for different types of structural system as defined in IS-1893 2002
is furnished in Table 3.2.9.
Based on the above data the design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a structure
is determined by the expression
ZISa
Ah = (3.2.6a)
2Rg
V = Ah W (3.2.6b)
The empirical relation furnished by time period has also undergone some modifica-
tions. As per the latest code the approximate fundamental time period in seconds for a
moment resistant frame without brick infill panels may be estimated by the empirical
expression
Example 3.2.3
For the building cited in Example 3.1.1, find the base shear as per response
spectrum technique based on IS-1893, 2002. Consider the site to be zone 4 with
medium stiff soil. Consider 5% damping ratio for the structure.
Solution:
Referring to Example 3.1.1, the time period of the building is given by
0.09h
T= √
d
0.09 × 16.4
T= √ = 0.5218 sec in short direction and
8
0.09 × 16.4
T= √ = 0.3012 sec in long direction.
24
Thus based on the response spectrum curve Sa /g = 2.50 for both short and
long direction
As per IS-1893 2002 for Zone IV Z = 0.24
Thus based on the above three examples if we compare the base shear, for the
given building we have as follows:
ut
X
ug
where Fe = the earthquake force induced on the system and is equal to the mass of
the body times ground acceleration due to earthquake.
dv
As, F=m we can write this as, Fdt = mdv.
dt
Thus if an impulse force, F̂, is acting on a body, it will result in a sudden change in
its velocity without significant change in its displacement.
For spring mass system under free vibration we had seen earlier that the displacement
is given by
where A and B are integration constants and their magnitudes depend on the boundary
condition.
For boundary conditions at t = 0, velocity = v0 and displacement x = x0 , the above
expression can be written as
v0 k
x= sin ωn t + x0 cos ωn t where ωn = (3.2.12)
ωn m
Thus for the spring mass initially at rest and acted upon by an impulse force is
given by
F̂
x= sin ωn t (3.2.13)
mωn
When considering damping for the system the free vibration equation is written as
x = Ae−Dωn t sin 1 − D 2 ωn t + φ (3.2.14)
Considering the impulse load the above can modified to
F̂
x= √ e−Dωn t sin 1 − D2 ωn t (3.2.15)
mωn 1 − D2
ẍ
x= √ e−Dωn t sin 1 − D2 ωn t (3.2.16)
ωn 1 − D 2
c k Fe
üt + u̇t + ut = or üt + 2Dn ωn u̇t + ωn2 ut = üg (3.2.18)
m m m
Since the force is impulsive in nature acting for duration of time ξ (say), the
displacement ut can be represented by
t
1
ut = √ üg (ξ )e−Dωn (t−ξ ) sin 1 − D2 ωn (t − ξ )dξ (3.2.19)
ωn 1 − D2
0
t
−1
u̇t = √ üg (ξ )e−Dωn (t−ξ ) − Dωn sin 1 − D2 ωn (t − ξ )dξ
ωn 1 − D 2
0
+ ωn 1 − D cos 1 − D2 ωn (t − ξ ) dξ
2 (3.2.20)
Considering,
t
C1 = üg (ξ )−Dωn t cos 1 − D2 ωn ξ dξ and
0
t
C2 = üg (ξ )e−Dωn t sin 1 − D2 ωn ξ dξ , the velocity can be expressed as
0
e−Dωn t
u̇t = C1 D − C2 1 − D2 sin 1 − D2 ωn t
1 − ζ2
+ C1 1 − D2 + C2 D cos 1 − D2 ωn t
e−Dωn t
→ u̇t = √ C12 + C22 sin 1 − D 2 ωn t − φ (3.2.21)
1 − D2
The velocity spectrum or the peak velocity is given by the maximum value of the
above
e−Dωn t 2
i.e. Sv = u̇g = √ C1 + C 2
2
1 − D2
max
Sv Sa
Sd = and Sd = (3.2.22)
ωn ωn2
It is obvious that that for response spectrum analysis the value Sa is function of the
time period or natural frequency of the system which is given by the expression
k 2π
ω= and T = . (3.2.24)
m ω
Certain type of structures can very well be modelled as systems with single degree
of freedom and the base force can be found out as follows:
Example 3.2.4
Shown in Figure 3.2.7 is an air cooler of weight 450 kN is supported on a
structure as shown. Determine the force on the system calculating time period
based on dynamic analysis. Consider the soil is medium stiff and the site is
in zone III. Consider 5% damping for the structure. For beams and columns
section properties are as follows I xx = 1268.6 cm4 , I yy = 568 cm4 and A =
78 cm2 , Area of the bracing members = 12 cm2 , Esteel = 2 × 108 kN/m2 .
Unit weight of column material = 78.5 kN/m3 What will be the force on the
frame based formulation as given in the code?
6500
6000 3000
Solution:
For earthquake force in transverse direction
Stiffness of each column is given by K = 12EI/L3
Here I = 1268.6 cm4 = 1.2686 × 10−5 m4
4
0.0624 × 4
mi = = 0.0832 kN − sec2 /m
3
i=1
6500
6000
AE 1.2×10−3 ×2.0×108
Stiffness of each bracing L cos2 θ = 6.5 cos2 65.22 =
6486 kN/m.
Thus total stiffness of the frame in longitudinal direction = 4 × 12.4 + 6486 ×
4 = 25993.6 kN/m.
m
Considering T = 2π we have
K
47.07
T = 2π = 0.267 for which as per IS-1893(2002), Sa /g = 2.5.
25993.6
ZISa
Considering Ah = , here Z = 0.16 for zone III, I-1.0 and R = 4.0 (for
2Rg
0.16 × 1.0 × 2.5
concentric bracing) we have, Ah = = 0.05.
2×4
Thus Vh = 0.05 × 48.2 × 9.81 = 23.6 kN in longitudinal direction.
As per code for steel frame (vide Equation 3.2.9), Ta = 0.085 h0.75
ZISa
Thus considering Ah = here Z = 0.16 for zone III, I-1.0 and R = 4.0
2Rg
0.16 × 1.0 × 2.5
we have, Ah = = 0.05.
2×4
Thus, the maximum force on the frame = 23.1 kN, this is same as we obtained
using the dynamic analysis.
1
n
∂y(z, t) 2
T(t) = mi (3.2.25)
2 ∂t
i=1
We consider here,
where, ϕ(z) = admissible shape function which satisfies the boundary condition of
the system; ξ(t) = generalized co-ordinate.
Mn
Kn
M3
Displaced Shape(1st Mode)
K3
M2
K2
M1
K1
Thus,
⎡ ⎤
1
n n n
T(t) = mi ⎣ ϕj (z)ξ̇j (t) ϕk (z)ξ̇ k (t)⎦
2
i=1 j=1 k=1
1
n
n
n
→ T(t) = ξ̇j (t)ξ̇ k (t) mi ϕj (z)ϕ k (z) (3.2.27)
2
j=1 k=1 i=1
from which we conclude that the generalized mass of the system is given by,
n
∗
M = mi ϕj (z)ϕ k (z) (3.2.28)
i=1
1
n
V(t) = ki [y(z, t)]2 (3.2.30)
2
i=1
m
Now knowing, T = 2π K, we have for this generalized case
∗ M∗
T = 2π (3.2.33)
K∗
From the above mathematical derivation it is obvious that if we know what could
be the assumed shape function correctly it is possible to arrive at the fundamental time
period of the system.
Based on the aspect ratio (H/D), Naeem (1989) has proposed the following shape
functions which may be considered for buildings modeled as stick having multi-degrees
of freedom.
Example 3.2.5
Refer the problem as shown in Example 3.2.1 calculate the time period of the
building based on assumed shape function method and calculate the base shear
in both transverse and longitudinal direction and find out the base shear based
on IS-1893-2002. Consider all other boundary conditions remains same as was
defined in the previous problem (Figure 3.2.10).
EL 116.4
EL 112.8
EL 109.2
EL 105.6
EL102.0
Tie beam all round
EL 100.0
4.0 4.0
Solution:
Considering the frame as a stick model in transverse direction we have the model
as shown in Figure 3.2.11.
El-116.4
K1
EL-112.8
K2
El-109.2
K3
El-105.6
K4
EL-102.00
K5
EL-100.0
For fifteen column per level total stiffness Ki = 15×39583.33 = 593750 kN/m
Thus, K1 = K2 = K3 = K4 = 593750 kN/m
12 × 2.85 × 107 × 0.0054
And K5 = 15 × = 3462750
(2)3
16.4
Since H/D in transverse direction is = = 2.05 < 3.0 thus shape function
8
considered is x/H
ZISa
Considering all other parameters remaining constant, Ah = =
2Rg
0.24 × 1.0 × 2.5
= 0.06.
2×5
Base shear = 0.06 × 13606 = 816 kN, which is same as we got earlier, based
on method as suggested by the code.
For longitudinal direction, we have
Dimension of column = 300 × 600
1
Moment of inertia of the column = × 600 × 3003 = 1350000000 mm4 =
12
0.00135 m4
12EI
Stiffness of column =
H3
Here, Econc = 2.85 × 107 kN/m2
12 × 2.85 × 107 × 0.00135
→ Ki = = 9895.833 kN/m
(3.6)3
For fifteen column per level total stiffness Ki = 15 × 9895.833 =
148437.5 kN/m
Thus K1 = K2 = K3 = K4 = 148437.5 kN/m
12 × 2.85 × 107 × 0.00135
And K5 = 15 × = 865687.5 kN/m
(2)3
16.4
Since H/D in transverse direction is = = 0.683 < 1.5 thus shape
24
πx
function is sin
2h
M∗ 809.85
Considering = 2πT∗ ∗
∗
we have, T = 2π = 0.7189 sec
K 61853.74
Based on response spectrum curve, Sa /g = 1.39
Considering all other parameters remaining constant
from which we find out the time period of the system for m number of significant
modes.
The different techniques to find out the eigenvalues for the above equation have
already been discussed in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
The equation of motion can now be expressed as
Based on orthogonal property we had seen earlier that the above de-couples into
N number of equations expressed by
[ϕn ]T {P(t)}
{ξ̈n } + 2Dω{ξ̇n } + ω2 {ξn } = (3.2.38)
[ϕn ]T [M][ϕ]
For earthquake as the force induced in the system can be expressed as {P(t)} =
[M]{üg }, the above general equation can be modified into
Ln {üg }
{ξ̈n } + 2Dω{ξ̇n } + ω2 {ξn } = (3.2.39)
[ϕn ]T [M][ϕ]
t
Ln 1
ξn (t) = T üg (τ )e−Dn ωn (t−τ ) sin ωn (t − τ )dτ (3.2.40)
φn [M]φn ωn
0
N
xi = φin ξn (t) (3.2.41)
n=1
The earthquake force on the structure is then expressed in terms of the effective
acceleration
fin (t) = kin xin or fin (t) = kin φin ξn (t) (3.2.43)
kφ = mω2 φ (3.2.44)
where [M] = mass matrix of the system of order N × N; [ϕ] = relative amplitude
distribution of order N × N; [ω2 ] = diagonal matrix of order N × N having eigen-
values in the diagonal term.
Based on the above theory the entire history of displacement and force response
can be defined for any multi-degree of freedom system having calculated the modal
response amplitudes.
When the above theory is applied to response spectrum, as discussed earlier with
single degree of freedom the maximum response for the each mode is considered.
If the maximum value of ξn max of the Duhamel integral is considered, the maximum
displacement in that mode is given by
Ln Svn
xn max = φn ξn max = φn (3.2.47)
φn [M]φn
T ωn
Ln
fn max = [M]φn San (3.2.48)
φn2 [M]φn
N
N
L2n
V0 (t) = fn max (t) = San (3.2.49)
φn M n
i=1 i=1
L2
The expression Mnn is usually called the effective modal mass of the system and when
divided by the total mass (represented in percentage), reflects the percentage of modal
mass responding to the earthquake force in each mode.
We now further illustrate the above theory by a suitable numerical problem.
Example 3.2.6
Shown in Figure 3.2.12 is a three storied RCC frame subjected to earthquake in
zone IV having medium soil condition. The damping ratio for RCC considered
is 5%. Determine
G H X3
E F X2
C D X1
A B
Here
Solution:
The free body diagram of the structure is as shown below in Figure 3.2.13:
k3(x3-x2) k2(x2-x1)
m3 ẍ3 + k3 (x3 − x2 ) = 0
m2 ẍ2 + k2 (x2 − x1 ) − k3 (x3 − x2 ) = 0
m1 ẍ1 + k1 x1 − k2 (x2 − x1 ) = 0
√
Thus, ω1 = √156.93 = 12.527 rad/sec, which implies T1 = 0.502 sec
ω2 = √750 = 27.386 rad/sec, which implies T2 = 0.229 sec
ω3 = 1593 = 39.913 rad/sec, which implies T3 = 0.157 sec
[I]T = 1 1 1
Ln1 = {ϕ}T
1 [M]{I} = −0.314 −0.686 −1
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
40 ⎨1⎬
×⎣ 40 ⎦ 1 = −60
⎩ ⎭
20 1
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
40 ⎨−0.5⎬
Mn2 = {ϕ}T
2 [M]{ϕ}2 = −0.5 −0.5 1
⎣ 40 ⎦ −0.5 = 40
⎩ ⎭
20 1
⎡ ⎤⎧ ⎫
40 ⎨1⎬
Ln2 = {ϕ}T
2 [M]{I} = −0.5 −0.5 1
⎣ 40 ⎦ 1 = −20
⎩ ⎭
20 1
Mn3 = {ϕ}T
3 [M]{ϕ}3 = 60.802; Ln3 = {ϕ}T
3 [M]{I} = 18.832
⎧ ⎫
L2n ⎨84.167⎬
L2n
Thus for three modes are given = 10 this, when divided by
Mn Mn ⎩ ⎭
5.833
the total mass of the system (i.e. 40 + 40 + 20 = 100 kN), and multiplied by
100 we have
⎧ ⎫
⎨84.167⎬
ℵ= 10 %
⎩ ⎭
5.833
Sa
= 2.5 or Sa = 2.5 × 9.81 = 24.525 m/sec2
g
0.24 × 24.525
Sa (design) = = 0.981 m/sec2 ;
2×3
Sa 0.981
Sv (design) = = = 0.078 m/sec.
ω 12.527
Sa
= 2.5 → Sa = 2.5 × 9.81 = 24.525 m/sec2
g
0.24 × 24.525
Sa (design) = = 0.981 m/sec2 ;
2×3
Sa 0.981
Sv (design) = = = 0.036 m/sec.
ω 27.386
Sa
= 2.5 → Sa = 2.5 × 9.81 = 24.525 m/sec2 .
g
0.24 × 24.525
Sa (design) = = 0.981 m/sec2 ;
2×3
Sa 0.981
Sv (design) = = = 0.025 m/sec.
ω 39.913
• Calculation of displacement
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
Ln1 Sv1 ⎨−0.314⎬ −60 0.078 ⎨2.752 × 10−3 ⎬
= [ϕ] = −0.686 × × = 6.017 × 10−3 m
Mn1 ω1 ⎩ ⎭ 42.772 12.527 ⎩ ⎭
−1 8.769 × 10−3
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
Ln2 Sv2 ⎨−0.5⎬ −20 0.036 ⎨ 3.27 × 10−4 ⎬
= [ϕ] = −0.5 × × = 3.27 × 10−4 m
Mn2 ω2 ⎩ ⎭ 40 27.386 ⎩ ⎭
1 −6.54 × 10−4
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
Ln3 Sv3 ⎨ 1.00 ⎬ 18.832 0.025 ⎨ 1.907 × 10−4 ⎬
= [ϕ] = −0.686 × × = −1.309 × 10−4 m
Mn3 ω3 ⎩ ⎭ 60.802 39.913 ⎩ ⎭
0.314 5.986 × 10−5
Ln
[V]i=n = [M]φn ωn Svn
Mn
⎧ ⎫
⎨220.618⎬
× 12.527 × 0.078 = 482.302 kN
⎩ ⎭
351.46
⎧ ⎫
⎨ 12.153 ⎬
× 39.913 × 0.025 = −8.339 kN
⎩ ⎭
1.907
n
λn = |λi | (3.2.50)
i=1
where, |λi | represents the absolute value of the responses, without consideration of
their algebraic sign.
This method though still in practice sometimes has been observed to give results
which are too conservative and is now a days only used in case of non-critical structure.
Use of this method for important and critical structures has almost been abolished.
3
8 Di Dj (Di + βij Dj )βij2
ρij = (3.2.53)
(1 − βij2 )2 + 4Di Dj βij (1 + βij )2
where, Di = Modal damping ratio for mode i; Dj = modal damping ratio for mode j,
and, βij = frequency ratio (ωi /ωj ).
For normal seismic dynamic analysis the damping ratio is usually considered
constant for all modes when the above equation reduces to
3
8D2 (1 + βij )βij2
ρij = (3.2.54)
(1 − βij2 )2 + 4D2 βij (1 + βij )2
4
68
86
04
22
58
76
94
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Frequency Ratio
Figure 3.2.14 Variation of cross modal frequency for different frequency ratios.
The variation of the cross modal response with frequency ratio for various damping
ratio is as shown in Figure 3.2.14.
From the curve we make a very interesting observation. The cross modal ratio plays
a significant part in the magnitude when the frequency ratio varies between 0.88 to
1.14. For other frequencies (which are widely apart) they diminish rapidly and their
contribution is insignificant. In other words for widely space frequencies the CQC
method in effect converges to the SRSS method.
We now further elaborate the above theories based on a suitable example
Example 3.2.7
For a typical three storied frame, the natural frequencies calculated are 4.257,
8.66 and 14.382
⎧ ⎫ rad sec respectively. The corresponding base shear estimated
⎨330⎬
are V b = 75 kN, find out the combined maximum base shear based on
⎩ ⎭
33
Solution:
• Absolute sum method
Mode 1 2 3
1 1 0.49157 0.295995
2 2.034296 1 0.602142
3 3.378436 1.660739 1
Considering 5% damping as constant for all mode we have the cross modal
values as
3
8D2 1 + βij βij2
ρij = 2
(1 − βij2 )2 + 4D2 βij 1 + βij
Mode 1 2 3
1 1 0.0123 0.002712
2 0.025022 1 0.027546
3 0.009162 0.045746 1
⎧ ⎫
⎨330⎬
Now considering Vb = 75 kN. and applying the equation, λn =
⎩ ⎭
33
n
n
i=1 j=1 λi ρij λj , we have base shear based on CQC expression as
Mode 1 2 3
Adding all the nine terms in the above table and taking square root we have
√
Vb = 119255.3 = 345.33 kN.
Thus it will be observed that based on CQC method base shear is 345 kN in
lieu of 340 kN based on SRSS method. Since the frequencies are widely spaced
the variation is only marginal – about 1.56% only.
Time history analysis under earthquake force is possibly the most comprehensive anal-
ysis one can undertake. However in spite of its rigorous mathematical basis15 , modal
response technique has still remained a more popular method in day to day design
office practice.
The reason underlying the same can be attributed primarily to lack of site accelero-
grams which is the basic input for such an analysis. Previously site specific ground
acceleration data available was few and far for which engineers always preferred to
use the modal response technique using the response spectrum curve which is available
in all codes of all countries having a specific earthquake code.
However in last thirty years there has been a significant technological advancement
based on which earthquake accelerograms are now almost globally available for all
major earthquakes. All major and minor tremors occurring around the World are now
being manned constantly.
This has significantly enhanced our data base and in years to come for important
structures time history analysis would hopefully become a routine affair16 . We show
hereafter a typical acceleration spectrum for the famous El-Centro Earthquake in
Figure 3.3.1.
When an earthquake occurs anywhere in the world the seismic monitoring station
picks up the tremor signals and based on such data ground acceleration/velocity at
different time steps are obtained. This data is further used as input ground acceleration
for time history analysis of structure to be build at that site or at its close proximity.
The theory underlying the method remains the same as shown in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1)
except the fact that we had earlier solved the problem with the forcing function as
harmonic force which in case of earthquake is the ground acceleration, {äg }17 . Thus,
the basic equation of motion is
15 Refer Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) where we have discussed the various techniques of time history analysis.
16 For Nuclear power plants time history response analysis is now mandatory for all class 1 type structures
like turbine building, reactor building, spent fuel chamber etc.
17 This is usually obtained as an input from the site based on observed data like the one as shown for the
El-Centro Earthquake.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Acceleration, g
-0.2
Time in seconds
-0.3
-0.4
The term Rt+t is obtained by multiplying the ground acceleration data by the mass,
[M]. In other words, here Rt+t = [M]{äg }t+t at every time step, t + t.
Thus once the force Rt+t is known, rest of the procedure remains the same as what
has been described earlier in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1).
For instance the steps of Newmark-β method gets slightly modified for earthquake
case as follows:
1 δ 1 1 δ
α0 = , α1 = , α2 = , α3 = − 1, α4 = − 1,
βt 2 βt βt 2β β
t δ
α5 = − 2 , α6 = t(1 − δ), α7 = t δ. (3.3.2)
2 β
For the sake of brevity we now explain the above through a suitable numerical
problem.
Example 3.3.1
A frame foundation supporting a compressor is subjected to El-Centro
accelerogram as shown in Figure 3.3.1. The stiffness, mass and damping
(non-proportional) matrix are given. Determine the response of the machine
foundation based on the time history response.
200 0 7000 −2800
[M] = [C] =
0 1000 −2800 12300
3000 −1200
and [K] =
−1200 51000
Solution:
The displacement history is shown in tabular form for the first 10 steps at time
step of 0.02 seconds and the results of displacement and acceleration for node 2
and node 1 are finally shown graphically for 1566 steps in Figures 3.3.2 and 3.
1 0 0 0 0.00 × 10+00 0 0
2 2.98 × 10−06 2.98 × 10−04 2.98 × 10−02 3.24 × 10−06 0.000324 0.032396
3 1.18 × 10−05 5.82 × 10−04 −1.36 × 10−03 1.32 × 10−05 0.000672 0.002417
4 2.59 × 10−05 8.35 × 10−04 2.66 × 10−02 2.99 × 10−05 0.001001 0.030511
5 4.98 × 10−05 1.55 × 10−03 4.53 × 10−02 5.83 × 10−05 0.001838 0.053184
6 9.13 × 10−05 2.59 × 10−03 5.83 × 10−02 1.07 × 10−04 0.003077 0.07067
7 1.50 × 10−04 3.25 × 10−03 7.55 × 10−03 1.78 × 10−04 0.003967 0.018316
8 2.13 × 10−04 3.06 × 10−03 −2.68 × 10−02 2.57 × 10−04 0.003899 −0.02506
9 2.66 × 10−04 2.27 × 10−03 −5.15 × 10−02 3.26 × 10−04 0.003049 −0.06
10 3.07 × 10−04 1.80 × 10−03 4.09 × 10−03 3.80 × 10−04 0.002377 −0.00713
Displacement(d2)
3.00E-02
Displacement(m)
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
0
14
1.4
2.8
4.2
5.6
8.4
9.8
11.2
12.6
15.4
16.8
18.2
19.6
-1.00E-02
-2.00E-02
Time step(sec)
Acceleration(node 1)
Acceleration at node 1
2
(m/sec2)
0
0
6.6
1.32
2.64
3.96
5.28
7.92
9.24
10.6
11.9
13.2
14.5
15.8
17.2
18.5
19.8
-2
-4
Time steps
• As a first step we perform the usual eigen-value analysis and obtain the frequencies
and the eigen vectors.
• Now knowing the modal damping ratio D (which is usually pre-defined) we de-
couple the equation into n number of equations (here n is the total numbers of
degree of freedom of the system) of the form
2
{ξ̈i=1,n } + 2Di=1,n ωi = 1, n{ξ̇i=1,n } + ωi=1,n {ξi=1,n } = {üg } (3.3.8)
2
{ξ̈i=1,n } + 2Di=1,n ωi=1,n {ξ̇i=1,n } + ωi=1,n {ξi=1,n }
t
−1
= √ üg (τ )e−Dωn (t−τ ) − Dωn sin 1 − D2 ωn (t − τ )dτ
1 − D2
0
+ ωn 1 − D2 cos 1 − D2 ωn (t − τ ) dτ
(3.3.9)
• For each of this equation we perform the time history response either by integra-
tion of the Duhamel Integral or by numerical integration based on any one of the
methods as explained in Chapter 5 (Vol. 1) and find out the values of the displace-
ment, velocity and acceleration and finally do a modal combination to obtain the
response for the different mode. n
• nsuch case the displacement {ut } =
In 1 [ϕn ]{ξt } and acceleration {üt } =
[ϕ
1 n ]{ ξ̈ t }.
For many large complex structures or finite element system with many degrees of
freedom even the above process could be time consuming and very laborious, fortu-
nately for many such systems, it is the first few modes which contribute significantly
to the inertial forces when the subsequent higher modes can be neglected without any
appreciable error.
In such case if for a system N × N if J number of modes (J << N) are deemed to be
significant (which can very well be estimated from the modal mass participation). Then
the mass matrix [M]N×N , stiffness matrix [K]N×N and the damping matrix [C]N×N
can well be crunched down to a matrix of order J × J by the following operations
were, [M̂]J×J = modified mass matrix of size J × J; [K̂]J×J = modified stiffness matrix
of size J × J; [C]J×J = modified damping matrix of size J × J, and, [φ]J×N = the eigen
vector for the first J modes of the structure of size N × N.
Once the modified matrix is known we can very well undertake a time history
analysis of this modified matrix and greatly reduce our computation time.
We now explain the above theory by a suitable numerical problem.
Example 3.3.2
Shown in Figure 3.3.4 is a three-storied frame subjected to dynamic forces based
on EL-Centro Earthquake as shown in Figure 3.3.1. The damping ratio for the
structure is considered as 5%. Determine
G H X3
3000
E F X2
3000
C D X1
3000
A B
( All dimensions are in mm )
Let us take,
KAC = KDB = 1.5 × 103 kN/m; KCE = KDF = 1.0 × 103 kN/m;
KEG = KFH = 0.75 × 103 kN/m; MGH = 200 kN sec2 /m;
MEF = 400 KN sec2 /m; MCD = 400 KN sec2 /m.
Solution:
The stiffness and mass matrix is given by
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
5000 −2000 0 400
[K] = ⎣−2000 3500 −1500⎦ and [M] = ⎣ 400 ⎦
0 −1500 1500 200
Thus the time periods for the fixed base structure is given by
The mode shapes or the eigen vectors and normalised eigen vectors are
⎡ ⎤
1.00 1.0 1.0
[φ] = ⎣2.1715 0.5 −0.9208⎦ ;
2.7816 −1.50 0.719
⎡ ⎤
0.01615 0.03244 0.0344512
[ϕi ] = ⎣0.0350718 0.01622 −0.03172 ⎦
0.04493 −0.02433 0.02477
Performing the time history analysis based on Wilson-θ method for input
accelerogram of El-Centro earthquake and combining the response based on the
equation, {X} = [ϕ]{ξ }. We plot below the displacement and force history in
Figures 3.3.5 and 6.
Displacement History
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
Displacement(meter)
Modal disp1
0.01
Modal disp2
0
Modal disp3
0
20
2.22
4.44
6.66
8.88
11.1
13.3
15.5
17.8
22.2
24.4
26.6
28.9
31.1
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
Time steps(sec)
Figure 3.3.5 Displacement history of the frame for the three modes.
400
200
Force(kN)
Shear1
0 shear 2
0
13. 3
15. 5
11. 1
20
2.22
4.44
6.66
8.88
17.8
22.2
24.4
26.6
28.9
31.1
shear 3
-200
-400
Time step(sec)
Figure 3.3.6 Modal shear history of the frame for the three modes.
It will be observed that the major contribution is from the fundamental mode,
the higher mode contribution is practically insignificant.
What has been explained above is the generic theory pertaining to earthquake
dynamic and pseudo-static analysis. Though the above has been explained with respect
to frames (or buildings) can be very easily be extended to a generic finite element
model with the underlying principle remaining the same be the analysis is done based
on response spectrum method or step by step integration.
We now show application of the above theories as applied to some special structures
which are important to society and industry, have got some unique features and require
some special analytical techniques.
18 Though the reason was different some of the readers may remember the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1980’s in
India where huge number of people perished and got disabled for life due to leakage of toxic gas from
vessels in the plant of a multi-national Company.
Plan View
EI = constant
more reasonable value. Unfortunately very little field observed instrumented data are
available to come to any decisive conclusion on this issue.
Chimneys, shown in Figure 3.3.7, are usually of two types
• Multi-flue chimneys (used to cater to more than two power units at a time) having
uniform cross section.
• Single flues (used to cater one or two units) usually having a tapered profile.
'
WH
T = CT (3.3.13)
EAg
where, W = weight of chimney plus lining and all other accessories; H = height of
chimney above the base; E = modulus of elasticity of the structural shell; A = area of
cross section of the base; g = acceleration due to gravity; CT = constant which is a
Table 3.3.1
Slenderness ratio CT Cv
5 14.4 1.02
10 21.2 1.12
15 29.6 1.19
20 38.4 1.25
25 47.2 1.30
30 56 1.35
35 65 1.39
40 73.8 1.43
45 82.8 1.47
50 or more 1.8 × (H/r) 1.50
function of the slenderness ratio; For circular section A = 2π rt; r = mean radius of
the shell and t = thickness of the shell.
The design base shear and moment for fixed base is given by
z 0.5 z z 4
V = Cv Ah W 1.1 + 0.75 + 0.9 ;
H H H
z 0.5 z 4
M = Ah W H̄ 0.4 + 0.6 (3.3.14)
H H
2
∂ 4w ∂ w
EI + ρA =0 (3.3.15)
∂z4 ∂t 2
here, E = elastic modulus of the beam material; I = moment of inertia of the beam;
ρ = mass density of the beam material; A = area of cross section of the beam, and,
w = displacement of the beam and is a function of time and geometry and is depicted as
( )
d4Y ρAω2
EI − λ4 Y = 0 where λ4 = (3.3.17)
dz4 EI
1 Y=0 at z = 0;
dY
2 =0 at z = 0;
dz
d3Y (3.3.19)
3 3
=0 at z = L;
dz
d2 Y
4 =0 at z = L.
dz2
μm z μm z μm z μm z
Ym = sin − sin h − αm cos − cos h (3.3.20)
H H H H
2m − 1
μm = 1.875, 4.694, 7.855, π.
2
For m = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . m, etc.
For a conservative system if T is kinetic energy and V is the Potential energy of the
system then at any time t the energy equations may be written in the form
H 2
1 ∂y(z, t)
T(t) = m(z) dz (3.3.21)
2 ∂t
0
n
here y(z, t) = ϕi (z)qi (t) (3.3.22)
i=1
H
⎡ n ⎤
1
n
T(t) = m(z) ϕi (z)q̇i (t) ⎣ ϕj (z)q̇j (t)⎦dz
2
0 i=1 j=1
⎡H ⎤
1
n n
= q̇i (t)q̇j (t) ⎣ m(z)ϕ i (z)ϕ j (z)dz⎦ (3.3.23)
2
i=1 j=1 0
from which we conclude that the mass coefficient has the form
⎡H ⎤
mij = ⎣ m(z)ϕ i (z)ϕ j (z)dz⎦ for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . . . . n (3.3.24)
0
H
2
1 ∂ 2 y(z, t)
V(t) = EI(z) dz
2 ∂z2
0
⎡H ⎤
1
n n 2 ϕ (z) d 2 ϕ (z)
d
q̇i (t)q̇j (t) ⎣ EI(z)
j
=
i ⎦ dz, (3.3.25)
2
i=1 j=1 dz2 dz2
0
H
d 2 ϕi (z) d 2 ϕj (z)
kij = EI(z) dz for i, j = 1, 2, 3. . . . . . n (3.3.26)
dz2 dz2
0
Since a multi-flue stack is considered to have a constant EI the stiffness and mass
expression is given as
⎡ ⎤
H H
d 2 ϕi (z) d 2 φj (z) γA
kij = EI dz and mij = ⎣ ϕi (z)ϕ j (z)dz⎦ (3.3.27)
dz2 dz2 g
0 0
EIμ2i μ2j
1
kij = f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ (3.3.31)
H3
0
1
γ AH
mij = f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ , where i = j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . m, (3.3.32)
g
0
For most of the chimneys it is found that first three modes are sufficient to predict
the dynamic response, as modal mass participation is almost 100% by this.
Thus for the first three modes the stiffness matrix19 is given by
⎡ ⎤
1
⎢ μ41 f (ξ )21 dξ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
EI ⎢
⎢
1 1 ⎥
⎥
[K]ij = 3 ⎢μ2 μ1 f (ξ )2 f (ξ )1 dξ
2 2 μ42 f2 (ξ )2 dξ ⎥
H ⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 2 2 1 1
1
⎦
μ3 μ1 f (ξ )3 f (ξ )1 dξ μ23 μ22 f (ξ )3 f (ξ )2 dξ μ43 f (ξ )23 dξ
0 0 0
(3.3.33)
The above integrals can very easily be solved based on Simpson’s 1/3rd rule between
the limits 1 to 0 when we have
⎡ ⎤
22.936 −0.002 0.006
EI ⎣
[K]3×3 = 3 −0.002 468.044 −0.11 ⎦ (3.3.35)
H 0.006 −0.11 3812.81
⎡ ⎤
12.364 0 0
EIg ⎣
[λ] = 0 485.523 0 ⎦ and (3.3.37)
WH 3 0 0 3805
3
2
1 f1(x)
Eigenvectors
0 f2(x)
-1
f3(x)
0
1
-2
1
9
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-3
Z/H
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
−1.0 2.278 × 10−6 8.528 × 10−7 f1 (ξ )
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
[ϕ] = ⎢
⎣4.384 × 10
−6
−1 −3.437 × 10−5 ⎥
⎦ ⎣f2 (ξ )⎦ (3.3.38)
1.579 × 10 −6
−3.307 × 10−5 1 f3 (ξ )
The eigen vector plots for the first three modes are as shown in Figure 3.3.8. since
[λ] = ω2 and T = 2π
ω we have
⎡ ⎤'
1.787 0 0
WH 3
[T] = ⎣ 0 0.285 0 ⎦ (3.3.39)
0 0.102 EIg
'
WH 3
T1 = 1.787 , (3.3.40)
EIg
Now, considering I = Ar2 , where A = area of the stack at the base and r = radius
of gyration, the equation can be written in the format of
'
WH
T1 = 1.787ψ (3.3.41)
EAg
'
WH
T1 = CT (3.3.42)
EAg
which is the same format as presented in the code. If we compare the values of CT as
furnished in code and as derived here it will be observed that code gives a higher value
of time period vis-a-vis what is presented here.
Since the accuracy of Rayleigh Ritz Method is dependent on the choice of the
assumed shape function it is evident that code had used a different shape function
then what has been presented herein21 .
The various values of CT as proposed by the present method and what has been
proposed in the code are as mentioned hereunder22 .
Slenderness ratio (H/r) CT (as per IS code) CT (1st Mode) CT (2nd Mode) CT (3rd Mode)
21 Present analysis would give slightly different (higher) values of moments and shears then what has been
proposed in the code.
22 IS-1893 does not propose any CT values for 2nd or 3rd mode.
Calculation of amplitude
In terms of response spectrum analysis displacement Sd is given by, Sd = Sa /ω2 .
Expressing it in terms of codal formulation, we may express it as
ZI Sa
Sd = κi (3.3.43)
2R ω2
n
n
where, κi = modal participation factor and is given by mi ϕ i / mi ϕi2 .
i=1 i=1
For an element of length dz the above can be expressed as
γA H 1
g 0 ϕi dz fi (ξ ) dξ
κi = γA H 2
= 10 (3.3.44)
g 0 ϕi dz 0 fi (ξ )2 dξ
1 0.575
2 0.442
3 0.254
ZI
Now considering, β = 2R , an IS code factor, we can write the time dependent
function of displacement as
Sa
Sd = κi β (3.3.45)
ω2
Sa1 WH 3 Sa1 WH 3
Sd = 0.575β = 0.0465β (3.3.46)
12.364EIg EIg
Let the complete function is given by, w(z, t) = φ(z) · q(t), thus for this case
Sa1 WH 3
w(z, t) = 0.0465β [f1 (ξ ) + 4.384 × 10−6 f2 (ξ ) + 1.579 × 10−6 f3 (ξ )],
EIg
neglecting the influence of the second and third mode whose influence are negligible
we have
Sa1 WH 3
w(z, t) = −0.0465β [f 1 (ξ )] (3.3.47)
EIg
Sa1 1
Mz = −0.0465β(WH ) [−μ21 f (ξ )]
3
g H2
Sa1
= 0.163β (WH) [f1 (ξ )] (3.3.48)
g
dMz
Again considering, Vz = dz
, we have
Sa1
Vz = 0.306βW [f1 (ξ )] (3.3.49)
g
Sa2 WH 3
w(z, t) = 9.103 × 10−4 β × [− f2 (ξ )], (3.3.50)
EIg
ignoring the influence of mode one and three as their influence are very small.
−4 Sa2
Mz = −9.103 × 10 βWH [−μ22 f2 (ξ )]
g
−2 Sa2
= 2.005 × 10 βWH [−f2 (ξ )] and
g
Sa2
Vz = 9.415 × 10−2 βW [f2 (ξ )] (3.3.51)
g
Sa3 WH 3
w(z, t) = 6.675 × 10−5 β [f 3 (ξ )]
EIg
Sa3
Mz = 4.12 × 10−3 βWH [f3 (ξ )], and
g
Sa2
Vz = 0.0323βW [f3 (ξ )] (3.3.52)
g
The above can thus be generalized along the height of the chimney as
Sai WH 3
wi (ξ , t) = (Coeff d)β ,
EIg
Sai Sai
Mξ = (Coeff m)β · W · H , and Vξ = (Coeff v)βW . (3.3.53)
g g
Here ξ = z/H, the height ratio and i = number of mode. It will be observed
that once we know the values of coefficients within parenthesis for i = 1, 2, 3, we
can immediately find out the dynamic amplitude, shear and moments without going
through the elaborate process of dynamic analysis.
The coefficients for dynamic amplitude, moment and shears are as stated hereafter
ξ = z/H Coeff d1 Coeff d2 Coeff d3 Coeff m1 Coeff m2 Coeff m3 Coeff v1 Coeff v2 Coeff v3
Example 3.3.3
A multi-Flue chimney has height of 220 m. Its estimated weight including lining
and internal slab is 175,000 kN. The diameter of the chimney at is 22.0 m having
average shell thickness of 650 mm. The chimney is situated in a place depicted
by zone IV as per IS-code resting on medium soil. Find the deflection, moment
and shear for first three modes and the maximum design moments and shears.
Consider grade of concrete used as M30 and damping ratio as 5% for the three
modes.
Solution:
Outside diameter of chimney = 22 m; Shell thickness = 650 mm, Inside diameter
of chimney = 20.7 m.
√
Young’s Modulus of concrete = 5700 30 × 103 = 31220186 kN/m2 .
π 4
Moment of Inertia at base = 22 − 20.74 = 2486.39 m4
64
π 2
Area of chimney at base = 22 − 20.72 = 43.59745 m2
4
I 220
Radius of gyration = = 7.552 m; Slenderness Ratio = 7.552 = 29.18139.
A
'
WH
Considering Time period = T1 = 1.787ψ for first mode, we have
EAg
175000 × 220
T1 = 1.787 × 29.18139 = 2.8 sec .
31220186 × 43.59745 × 9.81
0.24 × 1.5
Z = 0.24 I = 1.5 R = 2.0 ➔ β = = 0.09
2×2
1 2 3 M1 M2 M3 V1 V2 V3
ξ (m) (m) (m) (kN · m) (kN · m) (kN · m) (kN) (kN) (kN)
The design values are obtained by the SRSS values of the three modes and are
as given here under
0 0 328120 3119.199
0.05 1.55E-05 284396.7 3115.759
0.1 0.000203 243883 3093.635
0.15 0.000836 206597.9 3040.899
0.2 0.002147 172575.9 2954.543
0.25 0.004283 141859.4 2838.836
0.3 0.007337 114490.1 2701.465
0.35 0.011419 90495.35 2549.947
0.4 0.01672 69866.69 2388.24
0.45 0.023551 52533.5 2213.893
0.5 0.032319 38339.78 2019.572
0.55 0.043441 27036.49 1800.416
0.6 0.057237 18297.8 1560.883
0.65 0.073869 11756.85 1313.786
0.7 0.093362 7045.756 1072.572
0.75 0.115663 3823.528 844.5906
0.8 0.140709 1784.729 630.1059
0.85 0.168457 650.1806 425.8726
0.9 0.198904 148.8775 233.3069
0.95 0.23208 10.82006 72.92729
1 0.268037 0 5.94E-05
400000
300000
M1
Momnet(kN.M)
200000 M2
100000 M3
Mcomb
0
-100000
9
15
45
75
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Z/H
4000
V1
3000
V2
2000
V3
1000
Vcomb
0
0
9
15
45
75
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Z/H
We show in Figs. 3.3.9 and 10, the Modal moments shear and SRSS values.
23 The flue gas needs sufficient exit velocity to reduce the ground level pollution concentration.
Variable EI
Figure 3.3.11 Single Flue Tapered Chimney and its mathematical model.
However this can very easily be solved by applying numerical techniques and arrive
at an accurate answer.
In case of tapered chimneys the numerical solution is preferable because though
in most of the cases the profile is linear however from stress point of view and also
to diminish the amplitude at the top, the profile usually has a number of transition
zones (i.e. the slope often changes at two or three positions thus have varying integral
functions with different limits).
Secondly the brick liner inside the chimney shell which reduces the temperature
differential across the chimney shell also undergoes change in thickness after a certain
level thus making the mass function discontinuous which surely makes the choice of
a numerical solution more attractive.
However one additional step on has to do in this case is to perform the eigen value
analysis which was already implicit in the calculation for chimneys with constant
sections.
The theory presented earlier can be modified for numerical analysis as follows:
As the moment of inertia of the section is varying the stiffness equation can be
expressed as
Eμ2i μ2j
1
μ2i μi z μi z μi z μi z
(3.3.56)
Similarly
⎡
Mass equation can now be written as ⎤
H
⎢ (γc Ac + γb Ab ) ϕ12 (z) ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
1⎢
⎢ H H ⎥
⎥
[M]ij = ⎢(γc Ac + γb Ab ) ϕ2 (z)ϕ1 (z)1 (γc Ac + γb Ab ) ϕ22 (z) ⎥
g⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎣ H H H ⎦
(γc Ac + γb Ab ) ϕ3 (z)ϕ1 (z) (γc Ac + γb Ab ) ϕ3 (z)ϕ2 (z) (γc Ac + γb Ab ) ϕ32 (z)
0 0 0
(3.3.57)
Mode 1 2 3
After the stiffness and mass matrix are formed, an eigen values analysis needs to
performed based on the equation
[K] − [M]ω2 = 0 (3.3.58)
Once the eigen values vis-á-vis time periods are known, the Sa /g values can be
obtained from the response curve as furnished in the codes.
The displacement amplitude is thus furnished by the equation
ZI Sa
Sd = κi (3.3.59)
2R ω2
ZI Sa
wi (z, t) = κi [ϕii ] Fi (z). (3.3.60)
2R ω2
Thus
ZI Sa1
w1 (z, t) = κ1 [ϕ11 F1 (z) + ϕ12 F2 (z) + ϕ13 F3 (z)]
2R ω12
ZI Sa2
w2 (z, t) = κ2 [ϕ21 F1 (z) + ϕ22 F2 (z) + ϕ23 F3 (z)] and (3.3.61)
2R ω22
ZI Sa3
w3 (z, t) = κ3 [ϕ31 F1 (z) + ϕ32 F2 (z) + ϕ33 F3 (z)]
2R ω32
d2w d3w
EI = −Mz and EI = −Vz , which gives
dz2 dz3
Sa1 EI
M1 (z, t) = −κ1 β [ϕ11 μ21 F1 (z) + ϕ12 μ22 F2 (z) + ϕ13 μ23 F3 (z)] (3.3.62)
ω12 H 2
ZI
where, β = 2R .
Sa2 EI
M2 (z, t) = −κ2 β [ϕ21 μ21 F1 (z) + ϕ22 μ22 F2 (z) + ϕ23 μ23 F3 (z)] and
ω22 H 2
Sa3 EI
M3 (z, t) = −κ3 β [ϕ31 μ21 F1 (z) + ϕ32 μ22 F2 (z) + ϕ33 μ23 F3 (z)] (3.3.63)
ω32 H 2
3
Considering EI ddzw3 = −Vz ,
Sa1 EI
V1 (z, t) = −κ1 β [ϕ11 μ31 F1 (z) + ϕ12 μ32 F2 (z) + ϕ13 μ33 F3 (z)]
ω12 H 3
Sa2 EI
V2 (z, t) = −κ2 β [ϕ21 μ31 F1 (z) + φ22 μ32 F2 (z) + ϕ23 μ33 F3 (z)] and
ω22 H 3
Sa3 EI
V3 (z, t) = −κ3 β [ϕ31 μ31 F1 (z) + φ32 μ32 F2 (z) + ϕ33 μ33 F3 (z)] (3.3.64)
ω32 H 3
where,
μi z μi z μi z μi z
Example 3.3.4
A 220 m tall RCC chimney has properties as shown hereafter. Calculate the first
three fundamental time period and seismic response for seismic zone IV, with
site having medium soil.
The data for the chimney are given below:
Height of chimney = 220 m; Diameter of shell at bottom = 22 m; Shell
thickness at bottom = 650 mm; Diameter of shell at top = 5.0; Shell thickness at
top = 250 mm; Air gap between shell and lining = 100 mm althrough; Thickness
of brick lining = 150 mm from 220 to 150 m; Thickness of brick lining = 230 mm
from 150 to 25 m; unit weight of concrete = 25 kN/m3 ; Unit weight of brick =
22 kN/m3 ; Grade of concrete = M35; Zone coefficient = 0.24; Importance
factor = 1.5; R(Ductility factor) = 2.0.
Solution:
ZI 0.24 × 1.5
For the problem the earthquake factor = = = 0.09
2R 4
Next we define the function fi (ξ ) for the first three modes and then multiplying
H
and integrating the expression m1 = (γc Ac + γb Ab ) 0 φ12 (z)dz etc. we obtain
mass matrix as shown hereafter.
z f1 (ξ ) f2 (ξ ) f3 (ξ ) f1 (x) · f1 (x) f2 (x) · f1 (x) f2 (x) · f2 (x) f3 (x) · f1 (x) f3 (x) · f2 (x) f3 (x) · f3 (x)
Integrating each of the above term by Simpson’s 1/3rd rule25 and dividing
each of the above terms by g = 9.81 we have the mass matrix as
⎡ ⎤
11631.5 4414.2 429.997
[M] = ⎣ 4414.2 11469.27 5540 ⎦ kN-sec2 /m
429.997 5540 13948
Again for stiffness matrix we show the functions fi (ξ ) as hereafter and
Eμ2 μ2 1
applying the expression kij = Hi 4 j 0 Izφ (z)i φ (z)j dz we have
z f1 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f1 (x) · f1 (x) f2 (x) · f1 (x) f2 (x) · f2 (x) f3 (x) · f1 (x) f3 (x) · f2 (x) f3 (x) · f3 (x)
(continued)
z f1 (x) f2 (x) f3 (x) f1 (x) · f1 (x) f2 (x) · f1 (x) f2 (x) · f2 (x) f3 (x) · f1 (x) f3 (x) · f2 (x) f3 (x) · f3 (x)
λ ω(rad/sec) T(sec)
ZI Sa
Now applying the expression wi (z, t) = κi [ϕii ]Fi (z) for the first three
2R ω2
modes and performing an SRSS we have the deflection as
0 0 0 0 0
11 0.000251703 −0.00013216 0.00012267 0.000309628
22 0.000966707 −0.0005533 0.00041479 0.001188575
33 0.002091173 −0.00129389 0.00076611 0.002575668
44 0.003590126 −0.00236493 0.00107735 0.004431993
55 0.005461638 −0.00374318 0.00126895 0.006741745
66 0.007748398 −0.00535884 0.00128912 0.00950877
77 0.010542958 −0.00708952 0.0011191 0.012754123
88 0.013984374 −0.00876281 0.00077447 0.016521178
99 0.018245647 −0.01016819 0.00030182 0.020889875
110 0.023513101 −0.01107722 −0.00022885 0.02599275
121 0.029960377 −0.01126932 −0.00073501 0.03201815
132 0.037720885 −0.01055956 −0.00113413 0.039187443
143 0.046863104 −0.00882398 −0.00135609 0.047705891
154 0.057373044 −0.00601826 −0.00135336 0.057703702
165 0.069147478 −0.00218613 −0.00110751 0.069190892
176 0.082000282 0.00254487 −0.00063079 0.082042187
187 0.095682647 0.00798104 3.7726E-05 0.096014933
198 0.109916343 0.01389279 0.00084109 0.110794041
209 0.124437733 0.02005545 0.00171779 0.126055232
220 0.139049403 0.02629749 0.00261821 0.141538509
Sai
3
Miz = κi βEIz ϕi μ2i Fi (z)
ωi2 H 2 i=1
Considering
Sai
3
Viz = κi βEIz φi μ3i Fi (z)
ωi2 H 3 i=1
5.00E+05
4.00E+05
3.00E+05 M1
2.00E+05
M2
1.00E+05
M3
0.00E+00
-1.00E+05 M(comb)
0
0
22
44
66
88
0
11
13
15
17
19
22
-2.00E+05
-3.00E+05
Height z(m)
• Z (zone factor)
• I (Importance factor)
• R (Ductility factor)
While IS code recommends the value of Z for different zones, the importance factor
for chimney considering its slenderness requires special consideration while the usual
practice is to apply a factor of 1.5, however for zones which a more susceptible to earth-
quake (like zone IV and V) it is recommended (Wilson 2003) that importance factor
considered be 2.0. For structures of category 2(RCC Chimney) IS code recommend an
Importance factor of 1.75.
CICIND recommends ductility factor R = 1 for non ductile detailing and R = 2
when ductile detailing is to be adopted. IS-code recommends a value of R = 3.0 for
RCC Chimneys.
on the expression
$ (
%
% 2)
k̄ Kxh̄
T̄ = T &1 + 1+ (3.3.66)
Kx Kθ
where, T̄ = modified time period of the structure due to the soil stiffness; T =
time period of the fixed base structure; k̄ = stiffness of the fixed base structure @
4π 2 W/(gT 2 ); Kx , Kθ = horizontal and rotational spring constant of the soil26 ; h̄ =
effective height or inertial centroid of the system, and W = total weight of the structure.
It will be observed that in most of the cases the time period will further prolong
and which would reduce the value of Sa/g as given in code. While one may feel happy
that it would give a more economic design considering the attenuation of response,
however is not true in all cases specially for chimney like structures.
Firstly for such flexible structures vibrating during earthquake the acceleration at
the top portion of the chimney will be subjected to much higher acceleration then the
ground acceleration input we furnish in the analysis. Only if we do a time history
analysis it will be observed that the acceleration at top is indeed much more than the
input base acceleration.
Thus forces in reality could be more at top portion then what we observe considering
soil-structure interaction and further reducing the design moments and shears may not
always be a safe decision, even with the soil damping attenuating the responses further
at the higher mode.
UBC 97 tries to cater to this phenomenon by a provision of a fictitious force
Ve = 0.07 V.T for time period greater than 0.7 seconds. As IS code does not have this
provision, considering soil compliance may under rate the response on the top portion
of the structure. Moreover as the ductility-design for these types of chimneys is still not
well defined, it would perhaps be preferable to design it as a fixed base structure and
render a conservative design. Unless the structure is itself so rigid that one is reason-
ably sure that considering soil structure interaction can amplify the response instead
of attenuation.
It has however been observed that soil-structure interaction analysis plays a
critical role in aerodynamic response of such chimneys especially the along wind
response which shows amplification while considering the foundation compliance
effect (Sadhegpour & Chowdhury 2008).
Water level
W a
g
Hydrodynamic
pressure
The code has also recommended to adapt seismic coefficient method for dam up to 100
meter high while response spectrum method with dynamic analysis (i.e. calculation of
time period and taking its effect) for dams that are greater than 100 m.
The seismic coefficient method is quite straightforward and does not require any
elaboration as the steps are same for building analysis except the fact that importance
factor to be considered should be as recommended by the code (for dams I = 3.0).
For response spectrum analysis IS-1893 (1984) code recommends to derive the
fundamental time period of concrete dam as
H2 γc
T = 5.55 (3.4.1)
B gEs
where, B = width of the dam base in m; H = height of the dam in m; γc = unit weight
of material of dam in kg/m3 ; g = acceleration due to gravity @ 9.81 m/sec2 , and, Es =
modulus of elasticity of the material of the dam in kg/m2 .
However, the basis of derivation of this formula has not been elaborated either in
the code or in its explanatory manual28 .
Looking at the formula it appears that Eqn. (3.4.1) is derived by applying the
Rayleigh Ritz method to some assumed shape functions and considering the dam as a
cantilever beam having varying cross section. The code also does not give any value
of time periods for higher modes whose effects are perhaps considered as non-critical.
The base shear and moment for the dam is given by the expression
Sa
where αh = βIF 0 (3.4.3)
g
the notations in Eqn. (3.4.3) are as explained earlier in the section where we have
discussed on the code IS-1893 (1984).
27 This may not be true in all cases and could have significant effect. We will study this later on.
28 Except for note that this has been developed based on some research work carried out at University of
Roorkee India.
As per latest version of the code the seismic design coefficient can be taken as
ZI Sa
αh = (3.4.4)
2R g
where, W = weight of the concrete dam; h̄ = height of the center of gravity of the
dam, above its base.
The value Sa /g is read from the chart and is a function of the time period of the dam
as mentioned in Equation (3.4.1).
For any horizontal section at a depth z below the top of dam the shear force Vz and
bending moment Mz may be obtained from the expression
Vz = Cv VB
and Mz = CM MB (3.4.5)
where the values of Coefficients CV and CM are as furnished in figure below.
Figure 3.4.2 Values of Cv and Cm along the height of dam.
Considering a concrete dam as massive where the weight plays a significant part in
its stability, it is evident that unlike other structures, the vertical mode of earthquake
acceleration plays a significant part in its stability and cannot be ignored.
As per IS code based on response spectrum the force due to vertical acceleration is
considered as 0.75 times the value of αh at the top of the dam and reducing linearly
to zero at base.
1.2
1
Value of Cs
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
1
1
9
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
z/H
Based on the assumption that the water is incompressible the hydrodynamic pressure
at any depth z below the reservoir is determined by the expression
p = Cs αh γw h (3.4.6)
where Cm value varies (almost) linearly from a value of 0.735, when the vertical
upstream angle of the dam face varies from 0 degree (i.e. perfectly vertical), to a value
of 0.0, when this angle is 90 degree.
The variation of Cs with depth is shown in Figure 3.4.3. The values in graph
multiplied by the value Cm will give the value Cs .
The approximate values of Shear and Moment at depth z below the free surface is
given by the expression
Firstly, the value of time period as proposed in Equation (3.4.1) over estimates the
time period of a dam by about 25% and is not unique. The top width at crest has a
significant effect on the time period29 .
Secondly, while calculating the hydrodynamic pressure vide Equation (3.4.6) code
uses the value of αh as obtained based on Equation (3.4.1).
This is in violation to the basic assumption made at the outset that the dam face
is rigid and the vibration of the two systems (dam and the fluid in the reservoir) is
uncoupled/independent.
In this case as per the above mentioned assumption the free field time period of
the fluid in the reservoir (assumed tending to infinity) in horizontal direction should
govern the value of αh g rather than the time period of the dam whose stiffness is
considered as infinite in comparison to the fluid. The present assumption could lead
to a significant variation in end results in some cases.
1 Calculation of time period of the dam having varying cross section for three modes
and studying the effect of the varying section on the time period.
2 Calculating the free field time period of the fluid in the reservoir and estimating
the hydrodynamic pressure assuming the dam wall to be perfectly rigid when the
two systems are not coupled.
3 A practical simplified approach considering fluid-structure interaction (for funda-
mental mode analysis) wherein we study the effect of hydrodynamic pressure on
the wall vis-á-vis the response of the dam when the dam is considered to have a
finite stiffness and the fluid is considered compressible.
4 How to model the fluid stiffness and mass when we carry out a finite element
analysis of the dam section considering fluid structure interaction.
Bt
a=∞
H Hw
Z
B X
As derived in the case of the chimney, solving the fourth order differential equation
and differentiating the potential and kinetic energy of the system, the stiffness of the
dam can be expressed as
H
d 2 ϕi (z) d 2 ϕj (z)
kij = EI(z) dz (3.4.9)
dz2 dz2
0
μi z μi z μi z μi z
ϕi = sin − sin h − αi cos − cos h (3.4.12)
H H H H
Since the Moment of inertia and the area of the dam vary with depth. At any height
z from the bottom the moment of inertia at any height z is expressed as
z 3
Iz = I0 1 + ψ (3.4.14)
H
Bt − B
ψ= . (3.4.15)
B
H
z 3 d 2 ϕi (z) d 2 ϕj (z)
kij = EI 0 1+ψ dz (3.4.17)
H dz2 dz2
0
⎡ ⎤
H
γc A0 z
and mij = ⎣ 1+ψ ϕi (z)ϕ j (z)dz⎦ (3.4.18)
g H
0
μ2i μi z μi z μi z μi z
To evaluate the stiffness and mass matrix in generic form by integration we change
the above to generalized co-ordinate by considering;
z dz
ξ= when dξ = and as z → 0, ξ → 0 and as z → H, ξ → 1
H H
μ2i
F (ξ )i = 2
− sin μi ξ − sin hμi ξ + αi (cos μi ξ + cos hμi ξ ) (3.4.20)
H
μ2
= i2 f (ξ )i (say) (3.4.21)
H
kij = (1 + ψξ )3 f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ (3.4.22)
H3
0
1
γ A0 H
mij = (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ ; where, i = j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . . , m
g
0
(3.4.23)
Thus, for the first three modes, the stiffness matrix is given by
EI
[K]ij =
H3
⎡ ⎤
1
⎢ μ41 (1 + ψξ )3 f (ξ )21 dξ Symmetrical ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 1
1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
× ⎢μ22 μ21 (1 + ψξ )3 f (ξ )2 f (ξ )1 dξ μ42 (1 + ψξ )3 f2 (ξ )2 dξ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 1 3
1 1 ⎦
3 3 2
μ3 μ1 (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )3 f (ξ )1 dξ μ3 μ2 (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )3 f (ξ )2 dξ μ3 (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )3 dξ
2 2 2 2 4
0 0 0
(3.4.24)
⎡ ⎤
1
⎢ (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )21 dξ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
γ AH ⎢
⎢1 1 ⎥
⎥
[M]ij = ⎢ (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )2 f (ξ )1 dξ (1 + ψξ ) f2 (ξ )2 dξ ⎥
g ⎢0 ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣1 1 1 ⎦
(1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )3 f (ξ )1 dξ (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )3 f (ξ )2 dξ (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )23 dξ
0 0 0
(3.4.25)
It is apparent that the values of the stiffness and mass matrix are dependent on the
parameter ψ, which would surely influence these values. As an example we solve the
above for Bt /B = 0.1 (which is the most standard for concrete dams of about 100 m
high) i.e. the top width is 10% of base width for some space is normally kept at the
top of the dam for motor and pedestrian access, maintenance and inspection.
Thus, considering ψ = −0.9, we have based on numerical integration between 1 to 0.
⎡ ⎤
0.509 0.185 −0.025
γc A0 H ⎣
[M]3×3 = 0.185 0.449 0.169 ⎦
g −0.025 0.169 0.522
Converting the above into standard eigen-value form of Aφ = λφ and applying the
generalized Jacobi technique, we have
⎡ ⎤
21.62866 0 0
EI0 g ⎣ ⎦ and the corresponding eigen-
[λ] = 0 255.8406 0
γc A 0 H 4 0 0 2288.56
vectors are given as
⎡ ⎤T ⎧ ⎫
0.986 −0.242 0.127 ⎨f1 (ξ )⎬
[ϕ] = ⎣−0.167 0.945 −0.169⎦ f2 (ξ ) , since [λ] = ω2 and T = 2π
ω , we
⎩ ⎭
0.020 −0.218 0.977 f3 (ξ )
have,
⎡ ⎤'
1.3509 0 0
⎦ γc A 0 H
4
[T] = ⎣ 0 0.3928 0
0 0.13135 EI 0 g
B3 4
A0 = B × 1m2 and I0 = 1 × m .
12
0 5.348832 5.3151
0.1 4.650806 4.6307
0.2 4.299419 4.2925
0.3 4.083871 4.0817
31 Though we agree that this may not have much effect on Sa /g finally in some cases.
Sa
Sd = κi β (3.4.26)
ω2
n n
where κi = i=1 mi φi / i=1 mi φi
2 for the present problem this is expressed as
1 , 1
κi = (1 + ψξ )fi (ξ )dξ (1 + ψξ ) fi (ξ )2 dξ
0 0
For a typical value of Bt /B = 0.1, the κi values for the three modes are given as:
ZI
κ1 = 0.726, κ2 = 0.771 and κ2 = 0.432, β = 2R , and the code factors remain the
same as explained earlier.
The displacement along the height z is thus expressed as
Sa
w(z) = κi β [φ11 f1 (z) + φ12 f2 (z) + φ13 f3 (z)] (3.4.27)
ω2
where, fi (z) = sin μHi z − sin h μHi z − αi cos μHi z − cosh μHi z .
2 γc
Considering, T1 = CT HB Eg in which, CT = 4.68, 1.36, 0.455 etc. and also
considering, ω = 2π/T, we have finally,
κi βCT2 Sa
w(z) = γc H 4 [φ11 f1 (z) + φ12 f2 (z) + φ13 f3 (z)] (3.4.28)
4π 2 B2 E g
where for Bt /B = 0.1, the displacement for fundamental mode may be expressed as
0.403κi β Sa
w(z) = γc H 4 [0.986f1 (z) − 0.167f2 (z) + 0.020f3 (z)]. (3.4.29)
B2 E g
d2w
M(z) = −EIz , (3.4.30)
dz2
z 3 κi βC 2T H 4 γc Sa d 2
M(z) = −EI 0 1 + ψ (φ11 f1 (z) + φ12 f2 (z) + φ13 f3 (z))
H 4π 2 B2 E g dz2
κi βCT2 Sa z 3
=− 2
γc BH 2 1 + ψ (φ11 μ21 f1 (z) + φ12 μ22 f2 (z) + φ13 μ23 f3 (z))
48π g H
(3.4.31)
dM(z)
V(z) =
dz
κi βCT2 Sa z 3
= γc BH 1 + ψ (φ11 μ31 f1 (z) + φ12 μ32 f2 (z) + φ13 μ33 f3 (z))
48π 2 g H
κi βC 2T Sa z 3
➔ V(z) = −0.0335 2
γc BH 1 + ψ
48π g H
Z/H f1 (z) f2 (z) f3 (z) f1 (Z) f2 (Z) f3 (Z)
3.4.2.4 Free f ield time period of the reservoir and the hydrodynamic
pressure from reservoir
In this section we determine the free field time period of the water extending to infinity
in horizontal direction and having a depth Hw as shown in Figure 3.4.4. As assumed
by the code we presume the dam wall is acting rigidly with respect to the fluid and the
fluid vibration remains uncoupled with respect to the vibration of the dam.
Since the dam profile is considered in two dimensions we start with two dimensional
propagation of wave due to earthquake through the water.
This is expressed as
in which, c = velocity of sound in water and is expressed c = Bm /ρw , normally taken
as 1439 m/sec; where, Bm = bulk modulus of water (usually considered as 2.11 × 106
kN/m2 ), and ρw = mass density of water and w = displacement of fluid medium.
We will not solve this problem in detail here since we have already solved an iden-
tical problem having same boundary condition for estimation of dynamic pressure
due to earthquake on a rigid wall later under the topic of earth retaining structures
(Section 3.7.1).
Based on this analysis the fundamental frequency of the reservoir can be expressed
as ω1 = cπ/(2Hw )(Hw = height of water in the reservoir).
Considering, T = 2π/ω, we have, T = 4Hw /c and the eigenvector is expressed as
φ(z) = cos (2n−1)πz
2H , where n = 1, 2, 3. . .; the number of modes.
Based on modal response technique, the maximum amplitude function can be
defined as
Sa
Sd = (3.4.35)
ω2
Sa
w(z) = κi β ϕ(z) (3.4.36)
ω2
4 Sa Hw2 πz
w(z) = κ i β cos
π2 c2 2H
4 S a γw H w
2 πz
= κ i β cos (3.4.37)
π 2 Bm g 2H
mϕ
where γw = unit weight of water, κi = modal mass participation factor = i 2i ,
mi ϕi
and,
g = acceleration due to gravity.
⎛H ⎞1 ⎛ H ⎞
πz ⎠ ⎝ γw z cos2 π z dz⎠
κi = mi ϕi / mi ϕi2 = ⎝ γw z cos dz (3.4.38)
2H 2H
0 0
8
The above on integration by parts gives, κi = π+2
32 S a γw H 2 πz
Thus, w(z) = β cos (3.4.39)
π (π + 2)
2 B m g 2H
∂w
The deformation in fluid in z direction is given by [as εz = ∂z ]:
16 S a γw H w πz
εz = β cos (3.4.40)
π (π + 2) Bm g 2H
∂u 12 S a γw H w πz
pdyn = Bm =− β sin , (3.4.41)
∂z π (π + 2) g 2H
the negative sign indicates that the pressure is acting on the dam. Here the factor 16
in Equation (3.4.40) is multiplied by a factor 0.75 as per IS-1893 (2002) to cater to
15% damping ratio.
The variation of pressure is as shown in Figure 3.4.5.
Based on above the pressure can be expressed as
βSa γw Hw
pdyn = −Coeff (3.4.42)
g
where the coefficients can be read from the graph in Figure 3.4.5.
1.2
pressure coefficient
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
1
2
8
0.
0.
0.
0.
z/H
dy
dz
dx
Y
X
Hw
Considering Vz = 0 pz dz, the shear force on the dam face is
where, pz = pressure at any point z from top of the dam, and z = distance from top
of the dam.
For such a body under load, the strain energy equation as per theory of elasticity in
three dimensions is given by the expression
λe2 G
V= + G εx2 + εy2 + εz2 + 2
γxy 2
+ γyz 2
+ γxz (3.4.45)
2 2
Bm (εx + εy + εz )2
V= (3.4.46)
2
Bm (εy + εz )2
V= (3.4.47)
2
Similarly, since we are only considering unit width of the dam in the direction
perpendicular to the paper, the displacement is invariant in this direction which gives
εy = 0 and we are finally left with
2
Bm εz2 Bm ∂w
V= = (3.4.48)
2 2 ∂z
Hw2
mf =
2g
Kf =
8
Figure 3.4.7 Equivalent stiffness and lumped mass of the fluid element.
where, φ(z) = generalized shape function with respect to the x and z co-ordinates,
and q(t) = displacement function with respect to time in the generalized co-
ordinate.
From which it can be proved that the stiffness and mass matrix can be written as
Hw Hw
∂ϕi ∂ϕr γw
Kir = Bm dz and Mir = ϕi ϕr dz (3.4.50)
∂z ∂z g
0 0
where K = stiffness matrix of the fluid medium; M = mass matrix of the fluid medium;
i and r are different modes 1, 2, 3. . .
K and M for the fundamental mode are given by
Hw 2
Hw
∂ϕ γw
K11 = Bm · dz and M11 = (ϕ)2 dz (3.4.51)
∂z g
0 0
π 2 Bm γw Hw
K11 = and M11 =
8H w 2g
It may be observed that the unit of the stiffness derived here is kN/m2 , which means
that the expression gives stiffness per unit area. Thus to determine the total stiffness
of the water in contact with dame face one has to multiply this by the contact area
which in this case is Hw x1.
This gives K11 = π 8Bm kN/m per meter width.
2
γ H2
Similarly the effective mass is given by M11 = s2gw kN · sec2 /m per meter width.
Considering, T = 2π M/K and substituting it in the above expression, one can
arrive at the same expression, T = 4Hw /c, as was derived earlier.
This shows that the stiffness and mass matrix formulation as represented here is
dimensionally correct.
Based on above as shown in Figure 3.4.7, we have managed to derive an equiva-
lent stiffness and lumped mass of the fluid contained by the dam whose fundamental
frequency matches with the free field time period of the fluid continuum.
The potential energy d of an element of depth dz, of the dam section and the fluid
shown in Figure 3.4.3, is then given by
2
E c Iz d2w Kf
d = 2
+ w2 (3.4.52)
2 dz 2
H
2 Hw
Ec I0 z 3 d 2 v π 2 Bm
= 1+ψ dz + v2 dz (3.4.53)
2 H dz2 16H w
0 0
H Hw
z 3 π 2 Bm
Kij = Ec Io 1+ψ ϕi (z)φ j (z)dz + φi (z)φj (z)dz (3.4.54)
H 8H w
0 0
H Hw
z 3 2 π 2 Bm
K = Ec Io 1+ψ ϕ (z) dz + ϕ(z)2 dz (3.4.55)
H 8H w
0 0
μi z μi z μi z μi z
ϕi = sin − sin − αi cos − cos h (3.4.56)
H H H H
1 1
Ec I0 μ41 3 π 2 Bm
2
K= (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ ) dξ + f (ξ )2 dξ (3.4.57)
H3 8
0 0
⎡ 1 ⎤
Ec I0 μ41
K= ⎣ (1 + ψξ )3 f (ξ )2 dξ + χs f (ξ )2 dξ ⎦ (3.4.58)
H3
0
Bm H
where, χs = 1.2 Ec B , a constant number.
Thus, K may be written as
Ec I0 μ41
K= [I1 + χs I2 ] (3.4.59)
H3
1 1
where, I1 = 0 (1 + ψξ )f (ξ )2 dξ and I2 = 0 f (ξ )2 dξ .
Similarly the mass coefficient based on kinetic energy principle can be as expressed as
H Hw
γc A0 z γ w Hw
M= 1+ψ ϕ(z)2 dz + ϕ(z)2 dz (3.4.60)
g H 2g
0 0
1 1
γc A0 H 2 γ w Hw
2
M= (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ ) dξ + f (ξ )2 dξ (3.4.61)
g 2g
0 0
⎡ 1 ⎤
1
γc A0 H ⎣
M= (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ )2 dξ + χm f (ξ )2 dξ ⎦ (3.4.62)
g
0 0
2
1 Hw H
where, χm = 5 H B , a constant number.
1
γc A 0 H
M= [I3 + χm I2 ] ; where, I3 = (1 + ψξ )f (ξ )2 dξ (3.4.63)
g
0
Now considering the expression, T = 2π M K and substituting it in the above
expressions and after some simplification we have,
'
H2 γc CFS
T = 6.19 (3.4.64)
B Ec g
I2 χm + I3
where, CFS is fluid-structure interaction coefficient given by CFS = .
I 2 χs + I 1
The amplitude of displacement is given by
Sa
w(z)max = κi β f1 (ξ )max at z = H. (3.4.65)
ω2
where κi = i=1 mi φi / i=1 mi φi ,
2 for this particular case, the expression becomes
γc A 0 H 1 γw Hw2 1
g 0 (1 + ψξ )f (ξ )dξ + 2g 0 f (ξ )dξ I4 + χm I5
κi = = (3.4.66)
γc A 0 H 1 2 γw H w 1
2
2 I 3 + χ m I2
g 0 (1 + ψξ ) f (ξ ) + 2g 0 f (ξ )
d2w d3w
M = −EI and V = EI (3.4.68)
dz2 dz3
Table 3.4.1
0 1 1
0.2 0.725493 0.988851
0.4 0.461163 0.917369
0.6 0.229918 0.742928
0.8 0.063898 0.440703
1 0 0
Bt/B I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
Table 3.4.3 Values stiffness (χs) and mass (χ m) parameter for dam.
H/B 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
χs 0.300 0.244 0.195 0.154 0.118 0.089 0.065 0.045 0.030 0.019 0.011
χm 0.293 0.273 0.254 0.234 0.215 0.195 0.176 0.156 0.137 0.117 0.098
Bt /B 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
0.05 0.589 0.605 0.618 0.626 0.630 0.628 0.621 0.610 0.593 0.572 0.548
0.1 0.624 0.642 0.656 0.667 0.672 0.672 0.668 0.657 0.642 0.623 0.600
0.15 0.656 0.676 0.692 0.704 0.712 0.714 0.710 0.702 0.688 0.670 0.648
0.2 0.688 0.709 0.727 0.741 0.750 0.753 0.751 0.744 0.732 0.715 0.694
0.25 0.718 0.741 0.760 0.775 0.785 0.790 0.789 0.783 0.772 0.756 0.736
0.3 0.746 0.770 0.791 0.807 0.818 0.824 0.825 0.820 0.810 0.795 0.776
Values of χs and χm are given in Table 3.4.3 for various H/B ratio. The coefficient
CFS the fluid structure coefficient is given in Table 3.4.4 for varying Bt /B and H/B
ratio. The modal mass participation κi factors are as given in Table 3.4.5 for various
H/B and Bt /B ratio.
With the above tables now available it becomes quite simple to analyze the dam for
fluid structure interaction under earthquake force.
Intermediate values can be linearly interpolated without any significant error as the
variations as observed are not significant. The analysis can well be carried out by a
simple calculator or can very well be programmed in a spread sheet.
Bt /B 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
0.05 0.657 0.661 0.664 0.668 0.672 0.676 0.681 0.686 0.692 0.699 0.706
0.1 0.648 0.650 0.653 0.656 0.659 0.663 0.667 0.671 0.675 0.680 0.686
0.15 0.640 0.642 0.644 0.647 0.649 0.652 0.655 0.658 0.662 0.666 0.670
0.2 0.632 0.634 0.636 0.638 0.640 0.642 0.645 0.648 0.650 0.654 0.657
0.25 0.625 0.626 0.628 0.630 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.642 0.645
0.3 0.619 0.620 0.622 0.623 0.624 0.626 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635
• Engineers working with structural dynamics are quite conversant with this
approach.
• The model is simple and easy to work with in practical design situation.
• It is particularly advantageous to use this model when over and above the fluid the
foundation interaction is also to be considered (soil-fluid-structure interaction).
For large dams it has been particularly observed that considering fluid as an incom-
pressible medium and performing the analysis separately (as suggested by codes of
many countries including IS) the forces at times are in considerable variation to the
case when soil is considered in the analysis.
As such at least for economic reasons ICOLD recommends to use soil-fluid struc-
ture interaction wherever deemed feasible or perform a comprehensive Finite Element
analysis. As a prelude to such analysis the present model would give a very good esti-
mate on how the loads are affecting the dam and whether it is worth such elaborate
analysis. In many of the cases the present analysis would suffice for a comprehen-
sive interaction analysis where further sophistication may not be necessary. We have
already established previously that for a fluid medium extending to infinity in hori-
zontal direction of height Hw the equivalent spring stiffness and lumped mass can be
expressed as Kf = π 2 Bm /8 and Mf = γw Hw 2 /2g, respectively. To couple this with the
dam structure the most intuitive model would be to couple directly fluid stiffness to
the dam stiffness by static coupling which we are so conversant with. If we however
do this we would actually be grossly wrong!!
A B
2
wH w
uf mf =
6g
2
B m
Kf =
8
BH
us ms = I3
g
3 4
EB 1
Ks = 3 I1
12 H
Housner et al. have shown that when an infinite fluid vibrates, a part of the fluid
mass get locked with the wall and vibrates in same phase as the wall (called convective
mass and the balance fluid vibrates on its own called the sloshing mass.
Now let us look at the mass expression it is obvious that the loading is triangular
(hydrostatic) in nature.
For a beam of span L having triangular load at as shown in Figure 3.4.8, it is
elementary to show that equivalent lumped mass at A is mL/3 and that at B is mL/6.
Here m is the mass per unit length and L the span. Since for the dam the base is
considered fixed the term ml/3 goes to the foundation and is not effective and the
active fluid participation is only ml/6. Thus based on this principle the mathematical
model for the dam and the fluid is expressed as in Figure 3.4.9.
(sloshing mode). The free vibration equation of the coupled fluid structure system can
now be expressed as
2 3 2 3
ms 0 üs K + Kf −Kf us
mf + s =0 (3.4.71)
0 3
ü f −Kf Kf uf
It is evident from above that the frequency vis-à-vis the time period of the system
will get modified. Neither the fluid mode will have a frequency @ 4Hw /c nor the
2
fundamental time period of the structure will remain T1 = 4.68 HB γc /gE for Bt /B =
0.1, say. The dynamic pressure and the response of the dam will now have to be
obtained based on this coupled frequency as derived above.
Let ω1 ≤ ω2 be the two modified natural frequencies ofthe fluid and
structure and
φ11 φ12
let the corresponding eigen vectors be expressed as [ϕ] = ;
φ21 φ22
The displacement of the dam is then given by
Lni Sai
ui = ϕi (3.4.73)
Mni ωi2
Here Mni = [ϕi ]T [M] [ϕi ] and Lni = [ϕi ]T [M] [I] (3.4.74)
I is an identity matrix.
Thus, the maximum displacement for a particular mode is given by
Lni Sai
ui = ϕi f (ξ ) at ξ → 1.0 (3.4.75)
Mni ωi2
Once displacement are observed the maximum moment and shear for the two modes
are obtained from the expression
d2u d3u
M = −EI and V = −EI (3.4.76)
dz2 dz3
Ec I0 (1 + ψξ )3 μ21 Ec I0 (1 + ψξ )3 μ31
Thus, Mmax = − umax and Vmax = − umax
H2 H3
(3.4.77)
15
Disp. Analytic
10
solution
Disp. Lumped
5
Mass
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
z/H
MR = M12 + M22 and VR = V12 + V22 (3.4.78)
Once the moment and shear are known they may be multiplied by the coefficients
given in the Table 3.4.1 to get the values along the height of the dam.
You might wonder how correct would be the result?
Just for comparison a 100 m high dam 70 m wide with Bt /B = 0.1 was analysed by
the rigorous semi-analytic method and the lumped mass approach, the displacement
plot is compared in Figure 3.4.10.
It can be observed that the values are in excellent agreement and gave almost same
results.
The method derived here is simple and practical. It does not need an elaborate
expensive analysis and can well be carried out in a spread sheet. This would give a far
more realistic result than what is suggested in IS-1893 (1984).
One major advantage now is that coupling the soil stiffness to consider the
foundation interaction effect becomes relatively simple.
2
wH w
uf Mf =
6g
2
Bm
Kf =
8
BH
us Ms = I3
g
3 4
EB 1
h Ks = I1
3
12 H
Kx K
1 1 1 h̄2
= + + (3.4.79)
Ke Ks Kx Kθ
The rest of the steps now remain same as previous. This shall be elaborated latter
by a suitable numerical example.
applying FEM software. This is quite justified considering most of the concrete dams
are massive in nature and, secondly in many cases a number of cooling water pipes
run through its cross-sections to control the heat of hydration during the setting of
concrete. The heat generated is significant in such cases and if not properly controlled
can result in thermal cracks. In many cases tunnels run through the sections that are
used to carry water pipes and also used for maintenance. Often one is interested to
know the stress concentration around such openings and ensure no cracks generate
around them.
Figure 3.4.12 shows a conceptual finite element model for a concrete dam. For
static analysis the problem is quite straightforward and does not pose any problem.
For uncoupled vibration analysis also, the solution is not complicated.
One does the eigen value and modal analysis for the dam only and applies the
hydrodynamic pressure as point loads on the surface of the dam and combines the
stresses generated by these load cases to finally arrive at the dynamic stresses induced
in the dam body.
However, for coupled fluid structure interaction, the analysis poses some difficulties
that are discussed as hereunder:
Thus if one has not developed a special purpose source code circumventing the
above mentioned problem the task is indeed difficult to carry out a complete fluid
structure interaction analysis based on normal finite element structural software that
are available in the market.
Fluid mass @ M /3 f
2
Fluid spring @ Bm /8
Figure 3.4.13 Conceptual finite element model of a concrete dam with fluid modeled as spring and
lumped mass.
We now propose a simple procedure based on which the above problem can well
be avoided and show how we can do such analysis while carrying out a FEA.
It was shown earlier that the reservoir fluid can effectively be represented by equiv-
alent spring and lumped mass as furnished in Equation (3.4.51). These are in effect
stiffness and mass contribution per unit area. Thus if we multiply this value by the
effective contributing area for each node at wall-water surface we get an effective
spring contribution for each node along the depth of the dam. It is apparent that sum
of all such springs at each node must be equal to (π 2 Bm )/8.
For the mass distribution as explained earlier 2Mf /3 of the mass goes to foundation
can be ignored for dynamic analysis of the dam and the balance lumped mass Mf /3
can be connected to the top of the dam.
Based on above argument Figure 3.4.12 gets modified to Figure 3.4.13.
The problem has now simplified considerably. We do not have to worry about the
infinite fluid domain or about the numerical difficulties encountered in trying to model
a mock fluid in 2D. The spring and lumped mass adequately models the fluid and
coupled analysis for the dam can now be easily carried out in any of the commercially
available software like SAP 2000, GTSTRUDL, etc.
Example 3.4.1
A concrete dam of height 100 m, base width 70 m has top width of 7 m. The
maximum height of water it contains is 97.5 m. The dam is built on site of hard
rock and is in zone IV as per IS-1893 (2002). The grade of concrete used is M25.
Consider unit weight of water as 10 kN/m3 and that of concrete as 25 kN/m3 .
Bulk modulus of water (Bm ) = 2.11 × 106 kN/m2 . Shear wave velocity of
soil = 750 m/sec. Unit weight of soil = 19 kN/m3 . Perform Earthquake analysis
based on
Solution:
For the dam being in zone IV:
As per IS-code Z = 0.24, I = 3.0, R = 1.5 (Assuming the dam to be
un-reinforced).
ZI
This gives β = 2R = 0.24.
IS-code method
2 γc
The time period is given by, T = 5.55 HB gEs .
Here, Ec = 28500000 kN/m2 , H = 100 m B = 70 m, γc = 25 kN/m3 g =
9.81 m/sec2 .
This gives, T = 0.237 sec for which Sa /g for 5% damping = 2.5.
The weight of the dam, W = 70+7 2 × 100 × 1 × 25 = 96250 kN per meter
width
Thus base shear is given by, VB = 0.6αh W → VB = 0.6 × β × (Sa /g) × W =
34650 kN.
The base moment is given by, MB = 0.9αh W h̄
Here h̄ = 36.36 m from base; thus, Mb = 0.9 × β × (Sa /g) × W × h̄ =
1889811 kN · m.
The Moment and shear force at various depth are given as
0 1 1 1889811 34650.00
0.2 0.675 0.875 1275622 30318.75
0.4 0.35 0.65 661433.9 22522.5
0.6 0.15 0.4 283471.7 13860
0.8 0.05 0.18 94490.55 6237
1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0.2 0.3528 206.388
0.4 0.5292 309.582
0.6 0.645519 377.6288
0.8 0.712875 417.0319
1 0.735 429.975
Thus total design moment (due to dam itself and hydrodynamic pressure) as
per IS code is
Substituting the values, we have, T = 0.20 sec and that gives Sa /g = 2.5.
Hence,
Sa z 3
M(z) = −0.0335β γc BH 2 1 + ψ
g H
× (3.466f1 (z) − 3.679f2 (z) + 1.234f3 (z))
μ2i
where fi (z) = H2
−sin μHi z − sin h μHi z + αi cos μHi z + cos h μHi z and ψ = −0.9.
Similarly,
Sa z 3
V(z) = −0.0335 γc BH 1 + ψ (6.5f1 (z)
g H
− 17.27f2 (z) + 9.693f3 (z))
We observe here a very interesting thing while the Bending moment is hardly
affected by the higher modes, the shear profile is significantly influenced by it.
The free field time period of fluid is given by T = 4Hc w where Bm = ρw c2 .
Substituting the value, ρw = 10/9.81 = 1.02 kN-sec2 /m, we have T =
0.27 sec.
Considering 15% damping for fluid we have Sa /g = 2·5 and taking Response
reduction factor32 R = 1·5, we have β = 0.24.
12 S a γw Hw πz
p = β sin and considering Vdyn = −0.6455pz × z
π(π + 2) g 2H
Mdyn = −0.4014 pz × z2 , we have
Thus the total moments and shears due to proposed dynamic analysis and
hydrodynamic pressure is given by
E I (1+ψξ )3 μ2 E I (1+ψξ )3 μ3
Thus, considering Mmax = − c 0 H 2 1
umax and Vmax = − c 0 H 3 1
umax .
We have, Mmax = 3.469 × 106 kN/m2 and Vmax = 4.77 × 104 kN, at ξ = 0
Multiplying by the coefficients furnished in the table, the variation with depth
is as shown hereunder: renewcommand
EB3 μ41
Ks = I1 = 1.138 × 107 kN/m
12H 3
π 2 Bm
Kf = = 2.603 × 106 kN/m
8
γ BH
Ms = I3 = 9080 kN-sec2 /m
g
γw Hw
2 10 × 97.52
The mass of fluid is given by, mf = = = 4845 kN-sec2 /m.
2g 2 × 9.81
The free vibration equation is
2 3 2 3
Ms 0üs K + Kf −Kf us
1 + s =0
0 Mf üf −Kf Kf uf
3
2 3 2 3
9.08 × 103 0 üs 1.398 × 107 −2.603 × 106 us
or + =0
0 1615 üf −2.603 × 106 2.603 × 106 uf
2 3 2 3
895.02 29.917
{λ} = ⇒ {ω} = rad/sec
2256 47.502
33 Observe here that under uncoupled condition the time period of the dam was T = 0.20 sec
and that of fluid was T = 0.27 sec. this is now different. While this matches exactly with semi-
analytic method @0.21 sec.
L2n1 /Mn1 = 9369; thus percentage of modal mass participation (MMP) factor is
given by
9369 × 100
MMP = = 87.603%
9080 + 1615
Ln1 Sv1
Thus max = φ1 f (ξ ); at ξ = 1.0 (i.e. z = H), f (ξ ) = 2.7242.
Mn1 ω1
0.013
Substituting the values we have max = m
0.030
Thus it is apparent that for the first mode, displacement of the dam is 13 mm
while that of the water is 30 mm34 .
Considering M = −EI d 2 u/dz2 and V = −EI d 3 u/dz3 we have
μ2
Mmax = EI0 12 max(struct) or Mmax = 28500000 × 28580 × [(1.875)2 /
H
(70)2 ] × 0.013 = 3.782 × 106 kN · m at base and Vmax = 28500000 ×
28580 × [(1.875)3 (70)3 ] × 0.013 = 7.091 × 104 kN. at base
Similarly for second mode
Here [φ2 ]T = [−0.40, 1] and this gives Mn2 = 3068. Ln2 = [φ2 ]T M[I] and
this gives Ln2 = −2017. L2n1 /Mn1 = 1326; thus percentage of modal mass
participation (MMP) factor is given by
1326 × 100
MMP = = 12.397%
9080 + 1615
For T = 0.132 sec, Sa2 /g = 2.5, thus design acceleration is given by Sa2 =
2.5 · β · g = 2.5 × 0.24 × 9.81 = 5.886 m/sec2 . Sv2 = Sa2 /ω2 = 0.124 m/sec.
Ln2 Sv2
Thus max = ϕ2 f (ξ ) at ξ = 1.0 f (ξ ) = 2.7242.
Mn2 ω2
34 It is to be noted that based on semi-analytic method the displacement obtained for the dam
is 12 mm thus variation with lumped mass model is of the order of 7% only.
μ21
Mmax = EI0 max(struct)
H2
→ Mmax = 28500000 × 28580 × [(1.875)2 /(70)2 ] × 1.869 × 10−3 = 5.351 ×
105 kN · m at base and Vmax = 28500000 × 28580 × [(1.875)3 (70)3 ] × 1.869 ×
10−3 = 1.003 × 104 kN · m at base
The above now can multiplied by the coefficients given in design table to
obtain the values as shown hereunder
EB3 μ41 π 2 Bm
Ks = I1 = 1.138 × 107 kN/m and Kf = = 2.603 × 106 kN/m.
12H 3 8
Considering foundation contact area = 70 × 1 = 70 m2 , equivalent circular
footing radius is r = 4.72 m.
For rocking mode considering base moment of inertia of the dam as I = B3 /12
equivalent radius rθ = 13.812 m.
19
Dynamic shear modulus = × 7502 = 1089450 kN/m2 .
9.81
Poisson’s ratio = 0.45
32G(1 − ν)r 8Gr3θ
Kh = = 2.662 × 107 kN/m; Kθ = = 1.392 × 1010 kN/m.
7 − 8ν 3 (1 − ν)
h̄ = 36.36 m from the base,
1 1 1 h2
= + + ⇒ Ke = 4.536 × 106 kN/m
Ke Ks Kh Kθ
2 3 2 3
Ms 0
üs K + Kf −Kf us
1 + e =0
0 Mf üf −Kf Kf uf
3
2 3 2 3
9080 0 üs 7.139 × 106 −2.603 × 106 us
⇒ + = 0.
0 1651 üf −2.603 × 106 2.603 × 106 uf
Here [φ1 ]T = [0.860, 1] and this gives Mn1 = 6716. Ln1 = [φ1 ]T M[I] here
I = [1, 1]T and this gives Ln1 = 8420. L2n1 /Mn1 = 10560; thus percentage of
modal mass participation (MMP) factor is given by
9868 × 100
MMP = = 98.719%
9080 + 807.5
For T = 0.313 sec, Sa1 /g = 2.5 thus design acceleration is given by Sa1 =
0.6 · 2.5 · β · g 0.6 × 2.5 × 0.24 × 9.81 = 3.532 m/sec2 considering 20% damping
of the soil.
35 Observe here that under uncoupled condition the time period of the dam was T = 0.199 sec and
of fluid was T = 0.27 sec. this is now different.
Thus for the first mode, displacement of the dam is 22 mm while that of the
water is 30 mm.
Considering M = −EI d 2 u/dz2 and V = −EI d3 u/dz3 , we have
μ21
Mmax = EI0 max (struct)
H2
Here [φ2 ]T = [−0.237, 1] and this gives Mn2 = 2126. Ln2 = [φ2 ]T M[I] and
this gives Ln2 = −539.81. L2n2 /Mn2 = 137.033; thus percentage of modal mass
participation (MMP) factor is given by
137.033 × 100
MMP = = 1.281%
9080 + 807.5
Thus for the second mode, displacement of the dam is 0.29 mm while that of
the water is −1.225 mm.
Considering M = −EI d 2 u/dz2 and V = −EI d 3 u/dz3 we have
μ21
Mmax = EI 0 max (struct)
H2
The above now can multiplied by the coefficients given in design table to
obtain the values hereunder
The values computed above are now compared in Figs. 3.4.14 and 15.
7.00E+06
Moment (ISCode)
6.00E+06
5.00E+06
Moment dynamic
Moment9kN.m)
4.00E+06
3.00E+06
Moment FSI
2.00E+06
1.00E+06 Moment lumped
0.00E+00 mass
∂s ∂X ∂ 2X
= Ga + Gaz 2 from which we have,
∂z ∂z ∂z
∂ 2X ∂X ∂ 2X
ρz = Ga + Gaz (3.5.3)
∂t 2 ∂z ∂z2
∂ 2X ∂X ∂x
= −xω2 sin ωt and = sin ωt
∂t 2 ∂z ∂z
∂X 1 ∂x ∂ 2X 1 ∂ 2x
or = sin ωt and = 2 sin ωt (3.5.4)
∂z H ∂z ∂z 2 H ∂z 2
The above is the Bessel’s equation, whose solution is given by the expression
ρ
x = AJ 0 Hω z (3.5.6)
G
where, A is a constant and J0 is the Bessel function of the first kind and zero order.
Implementing the boundary condition at the base of the dam (z = 1), at x = 0, we
have
ρ
J0 Hω =0 (3.5.7)
G
Thus, for the first three modes, we have time periods as shown in Table 3.5.1.
The IS-code only furnishes the first fundamental mode as mentioned above for the
calculation of time period.
We started the derivation of the time period equation based on the equilibrium of
the elemental strip given by
∂ 2X ∂s ∂ 2X
ρ(az)dz = dz and = −xω2 sin ωt (3.5.11)
∂t 2 ∂z ∂t 2
∂2X
which gives maximum value of as (−xω2 )
∂t 2
vs 1 0.0507 vs
Again considering, ωn = Hπ n− 4 + 4n−1 for n = 1; ωn = 0.767 H π , which
gives,
∂ 2X vs2
= −x(0.767)2 π 2 (3.5.12)
∂t 2 H2
max
1 2.607 H/vs
2 1.138 H/vs
3 0.726 H/vs
Table 3.5.2 Variation of acceleration along the height of the dam as per Mononobe.
Maximum acceleration α, J0 (2.41z ) 1.00 0.986 0.874 0.668 0.406 0.127 0.00
v2
For a particular dam as the Hs2 is a constant quantity, hence maximum acceleration
2
∂ X
∂t 2
is proportional to J0 (2.41z ).
max
The value of J0 (2.41z ) for various values of z are as shown in Table 3.5.2.
The above values may be used to determine the inertial force at different heights of
the dam.
When resonance occurs the deformations would tend to infinite value without any
internal friction, however due to internal friction the maximum deflection is restricted
to a finite value.
Mononobe calculated the ratio of top and bottom deflection for G and ρ and also
when the parameters vary linearly with depth. Considering linear variation with depth
the acceleration is expressed as
d0 − d H − z
α = α0 1+ (3.5.14)
d H
where α is the acceleration at any depth z below top, α0 is the ground level acceler-
ation and d0 is the maximum displacement at the top. The ratio of top and bottom
displacement came to 2.5 and 3.5 respectively from which Mononobe concluded that
maximum acceleration at the top may be 2.5 to 3.5 times the acceleration at the base.
vs βn
ωn = (4 + α)(2 − α), (3.5.15)
H 8
where vs = average shear wave velocity of the soil in the dam and βn is a function
given below in Table 3.5.3 for the first three modes; h is the height of the dam to it s
crest, and H is full height of the triangle.
The mode shape for the nth natural frequency is given by
Table 3.5.3 Frequency coefficient for earth dam for first three modes
as per Gazetas (1982).
α β1 β2 β3
where Jq = Bessel’s function of the first kind of order q = α/(2 − α) and can be
evaluated from the expression
∞
(−1)k x
q+2k
Jq (x) = (3.5.17)
k! (q + k + 1) 2
k=0
∞
(x) = e−x xn−1 dx. (3.5.18)
0
∞
2J0 (βn z/H)
ü(z, t) = ωn Vn (t) (3.5.19)
β n J1 β n
n=1
where, J0 , J1 = Bessel functionof first kind of order zero and one; βn = the zero value
of frequency equation, J0 (ωH ρ/G) = 0; ωn = natural frequency of the nth mode =
βn Vs /H.
t
Vn (t) = üg e−λn ωn (t−τ ) sin[ωdn (t − τ )]dτ (3.5.20)
0
∞
2J0 (βn z/H)
where, ϕn (z) = = modal participation factor.
βn J1 βn
n=1
Considering the first three modes of vibration, the corresponding values of βn are
always β1 = 2.4, 5.52 and β3 = 8.65 which gives the first three natural three natural
frequencies as shown in Table 3.5.4.
At the crest of the dam (z = 0) the corresponding values of mode participation
factors φn (0) for the first three modes are given in Table 3.5.5.
Thus the crest acceleration at each mode is given by
∞
ü(0, t) = ϕn (0)ωn Vn (t) (3.5.22)
n=1
Thus for the first three modes the maximum acceleration is given by
ü1 max = 1.6Sa1 ; ü2 max = 1.06Sa2 , and ü3 max = 0.86Sa3
Mode Frequency
1 ω1 = 2.4vs /H
2 ω2 = 5.52vs /H
3 ω3 = 8.65vs /H
Table 3.5.5 Modal participation factor for first three modes for earth
dams as per Makdisi and Seed (1977).
1 φ1 = 1.6
2 φ2 = 1.06
3 φ3 = 0.86
The maximum SRSS values of the acceleration is thus given by the expression
3
ün max = (ün max)2 (3.5.24)
n=1
To estimate the strain compatible material properties an expression for the average
shear strain over the entire section should be determined. From the shear slice theory,
the expression for shear strain at any level in the dam is given by
∞
∞
2J1 (βn z/H) H 2J1 (βn z/H)
γ (z, t) = Vn (t) = ωn Vn (t)
Hωn J1 (βn ) vs2 βn2 J1 (βn )
n=1 n=1
∞
H
= 2 ϕ̄n (z)ωn Vn (t) (3.5.25)
vs
n=1
2J (βn Hz )
where ϕ̄n (z) = β 12 J1 (β n)
= shear mode participation factor.
n
It is recommended that the contribution of higher modes being small it is sufficient
to consider the contribution of the first mode only over the entire depth of the dam
for calculation of the average shear strain.
Thus, the maximum average shear strain is obtained as
H
γmax (z) = ϕ̄1 Sa1 (3.5.26)
vs2
It has been shown that the average value of the first factor is given by, ϕ̄1avg = 0.3
Assuming an equivalent cyclic shear strain as approximately 65% of the average
shear strain
H
γavg (max) = 0.65 × 0.3 × Sa1 (3.5.27)
vs2
Having obtained a new value for the average shear strain a new set of modulus and
damping value can obtained from the expressions37
Gmax Dc ψ/ψr
G= ψ
and = (3.5.28)
(1 + 1 + (ψ/ψr )
ψr )
Dm
The iterations are carried out till the values become constant with respect to the
earlier cycle. It has been observed that the system generally converges by 3 cycles.
37 For further explanation of how to modify the damping and shear modulus with respect to shear strain
refer Chapter 1 (Vol. 2) under the section titled Geo-technical Consideration for Dynamic Soil Structure
Interaction.
Water Line
W W
y
Failure line
38 For details of these methods refer any standard text book on soil mechanics.
39 Specially in mountainous region.
road or tilting of the same has resulted in secondary collapse of bridge girders thus
making some part of relief area inaccessible thus compounding the problems of the
relief workers who have anyway a tough job to execute.
Thus, understanding the behaviour of such structures under earthquake load is
of paramount importance to civil engineers undertaking such tasks. It is important at
times that such structures remain functional even after a severe earthquake maintaining
the vital link among two places.
One of the earliest methods for earthquake analysis of such retaining wall has been
proposed by Mononobe (1926) and Okabe (1926) which still remain the backbone of
analysis in almost all design office and code of practice.
1 1
Pa = KA γ H 2 and Pp = KP γ H 2 , where (3.6.1)
2 2
cos2 (ϕ − β)
KA = 1 2
sin(δ+ϕ) sin(ϕ−i) 2
cos β cos(δ + β) 1 + cos(δ+β) cos(β−i)
2
cos2 (ϕ + β)
KP = 1 2
sin(δ+ϕ) sin(ϕ+i) 2
cos2 β cos(δ − β) 1 − cos(δ−β) cos(i−β)
in which, γ = unit weight of soil; H = height of the retaining wall; φ = friction angle
of the soil; δ = angle of friction between the wall and soil; β = angle subtended with
the back of the wall with vertical, and i = slope of soil with respect to the horizontal.
Mononobe and Okabe modified the above coefficient of earth pressure considering
the horizontal and vertical seismic coefficient earthquake force αh and αv to
cos2 (ϕ − β − θ)
KAE = (3.6.2)
1 2
sin(δ+ϕ) sin(ϕ−θ−i) 2
cos θ cos2 β cos(δ + β + θ ) 1 + cos(δ+β+θ) cos(β−i)
A i
h
W v
W
H
N
Pa
Fr
F
Figure 3.6.1 Mononobe’s force diagram for gravity type retaining wall under earthquake.
αh
where, θ = tan−1 1−α v
similarly the coefficient of passive earth pressure under
earthquake is given by
cos2 (ϕ + β − θ)
KPE = (3.6.3)
1 2
sin(δ+ϕ) sin(ϕ−θ +i) 2
cos θ cos β cos(δ − β + θ ) 1 − cos(δ−β+θ) cos(i−β)
2
It will be observed that in the above calculation no reference to time period is made,
which clearly shows the analysis to be pseudo static in nature.
The αh and αv values are considered as peak acceleration is quite justified in this
case because of the following two reasons.
0.400
0.200
0.000
0
2
2
8
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Time period in second
Figure 3.6.2 Response spectrum for medium type soil as per Japanese code.
• At the time when Mononobe worked out the solution, major retaining walls were
gravity type wall being massive was considered to be infinitely stiff i.e. have time
period T → 0. This invariably makes the structure stiff attracting more force to it.
• As per Japanese code (Figure 3.6.2), for time period up to nearly 0.8 second, it is
a practice to consider maximum acceleration on the structure.
Figure 3.6.3 Present day cantilever and counterfort retaining walls made of RCC.
3 amax
PAE = γs H 2 (3.6.4)
8 g
According to this work the location pseudo static force is assumed to act at height
of 0.6 H above the base of the structure.
41 Dr. Ignacio Arango is Head of the Geotechnical division of Bechtel San Francisco office. A Bechtel
fellow, who has contributed significantly in many areas of Geotechnical engineering specially in the area
of Liquefaction Potential of soil.
1
Pa = KA γ H 2 where, (3.6.5)
2
cos2 (ϕ − β)
KA = 1 2
sin(δ+ϕ) sin(ϕ−i) 2
cos2 β cos(δ + β) 1 + cos(δ+β) cos(β−i)
1 1
Pa = γ H 2 Ac , (3.6.6)
2 cos2 β
cos2 (ϕ − β)
where, Ac = = KA cos2 β
1 2
sin(δ+ϕ) sin(ϕ−i) 2
cos(δ + β) 1 + cos(δ+β) cos(β−i)
1
PAE = γ H 2 (1 − αv )KAE
2
1 1
= γ H 2 (1 − αv ) Am where, (3.6.7)
2 cos θ cos2 β
Comparing Am and Ac it shows that Am can be determined from the solution for
Ac by redefining the slope of the back of wall as β̂ where, β̂ = β + θ and î = i + θ
Thus, Am = Ac (β̂, î) = KA (β̂, î) cos2 β̂ and
1 1
PAE = γ H 2 (1 − αv ) KA (β̂, î) cos2 β̂
2 cos θ cos2 β
1 cos2 β̂
= γ H 2 (1 − αv )KA (β̂, î)F where, F = . (3.6.8)
2 cos θ cos2 β
So far we have explained the various pseudo-static methods available for analysis
for retaining wall.
The first attempt to explain dynamic characteristics of such wall was proposed by
Steedman and Zeng (1990) based on a pseudo-dynamic method.
H−z
a(z, t) = ah sin ω t − (3.6.9)
vs
Considering the pressure on the wall is resulting from the triangular wedge only
being at a state of incipient failure, mass of a thin strip of depth dz within the soil
wedge is given by
γ (H − z)
m(z, t) = dz where, γ is the unit weight of soil. (3.6.10)
g tan α
The total inertial force Ph acting on the wall can thus be expressed as
H
λγ ah
Ph (t) = m(z)a(z, t) = [2π H cos ωζ + λ (sin ωζ − sin ωt)] (3.6.11)
4π 2 g tan α
0
in which, λ = v2πsω
is the vertically propagating shear wave length and ζ = t − Hvs .
For a special case when the failed wedge act as a rigid block (i.e. vs → ∞), we have
γ H 2 ah a
[Ph (max)]lim vs →∞ = = h W = αy W (3.6.12)
2g tan α g
Ph z
W H
Ps
= 45 ± /2
Figure 3.6.4 Force diagram of cantilever retaining wall as per Steedman and Zeng’s (1990) method.
The total static plus dynamic thrust can then be obtained by resolving the force in
the wedge and is given by
The total earth pressure is obtained by differentiating above expression with respect
to z thus
∂PAE γz sin(α − ϕ) αh γ z cos (α − ϕ) z
pAE = = + sin ω t −
∂z tan α cos(δ + ϕ − α) tan α cos (δ + ϕ − α) vs
(3.6.14)
The first term in the above equation represents the static pressure acting at a height
of H/3 from base while the second term represents the dynamic pressure where the
thrust point is found to be varying with time and is given by
For very low frequency motion the dynamic thrust is found to at H/3 (this is when
H/λ is small and the backfill moves in the same phase). For higher frequency motions
the point of application is found to move higher up on the wall.
A B
H Wall
= 45 ± / 2
D
X
(IS-1893 2002 to be specific) can very well be adapted to any international code
provided the response history of the site in question is available either directly or
as prescribed in the national code of practice (like UBC, Eurocode etc), We start with
a simple case of retaining wall (Figure 3.6.5) with soil profile as shown above. It is
assumed here like Mononobe’s case that
• the soil profile under active case is at incipient failure when the failure line makes
angle α = tan(45 + φ/2) as shown in the above figure.
• Since soil profile is already under failed condition under static load, the soil will
not induce any stiffness in the overall dynamic response but will only contribute
to the inertial effect.
• Since the cantilever wall is relatively thin the mass contribution of the wall itself
may be ignored compared to that of the soil. The wall thus contributes only to the
stiffness of the overall soil-structure system.
• The retaining wall is fixed at the base and foundation compliance has been ignored
for the time being.
It will be observed that the assumptions made are identical to what Mononobe or
Steedman and Zang has assumed in their analysis. Based on the above assumption the
mass distribution of soil along the height of the wall is as shown hereafter.
As shown in Figure 3.6.6, is the mass distribution of the failed wedge ABD. For an
elemental strip dz in vertical direction mass distribution is given by
γ zdz
m(z) = (3.6.16)
g tan α
A B
zdz φ
m (z ) = g tan α ; α = 45 +
2
α
D
Y
Figure 3.6.6 Mass distribution of the failed soil wedge under active soil pressure.
For the analysis of time period as a first step, we develop the stiffness and equivalent
mass contributing to the dynamic response of the system.
For this we use the Rayleigh Ritz method to obtain the stiffness and mass of the
wall-soil system.
We had already shown earlier while deriving the time period of chimneys that for a
flexural beam the stiffness and mass matrix may be obtained from the expressions
⎡ L ⎤
mij = ⎣ m(z)ϕ i (z)ϕ j (z)dz⎦ for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . n and,
0
L
d 2 ϕi (z) d 2 ϕj (z)
kij = EI(z) dz for i, j = 1, 2, 3 . . . n (3.6.17)
dz2 dz2
0
where m(z) is as defined above; E = Young’s modulus of the wall material, and I(z) =
Average moment of inertia of the wall.
Considering the wall as a cantilever flexural member the displacement y(z, t) can
represented trigonometrically by
μm z μm z μm z μm z
2m−1
where, m = number of modes 1, 2, 3, . . . ; μm = 1.875, 4.694,7.855, 2 π, for
sin μm +sin hμm
m = 1, 2, 3 . . . m, and αm = cos μm +cos hμm
.
Thus for failure wedge of the soil, the mass contribution for an element dz for the
first mode is given by
H H
γz γ
[M]ij = ϕi (z)ϕ j (z)dz = zφii (z)φj (z)dz (3.6.19)
g tan α g tan α
0 0
μi z μi z μi z μi z
μ2i μi z μi z μi z μi z
ϕi = −sin − sin h + α i cos + cos h and
H2 H H H H
μj2 μj z μj z μj z μj z
ϕj = 2 −sin − sin h + αj cos + cos h (3.6.21)
H H H H H
μ2i
f (ξ )i = −sin μi ξ − sin hμi ξ + αi cos μi ξ + cos hμi ξ and
H2
μ2j
f (ξ )j = 2 −sin μj ξ − sin hμj ξ + αj cos μj ξ + cos hμj ξ (3.6.22)
H
EIμ2i μ2j
1
kij = f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ (3.6.23)
H3
0
1
γ H2
mij = ξ f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ where i, j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . .m. (3.6.24)
g tan α
0
Thus for the first three modes the stiffness matrix42 is given by
⎡ 1
⎤
⎢ μ41 f (ξ )21 dξ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
EI ⎢ 1 1 ⎥
⎥
[K]ij = 3 ⎢μ22 μ21 f (ξ )2 f (ξ )1 dξ μ42 f2 (ξ )2 dξ ⎥
H ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 2 2 1 1 1 ⎦
μ3 μ1 f (ξ )3 f (ξ )1 dξ μ23 μ22 f (ξ )3 f (ξ )2 dξ μ43 f (ξ )23 dξ
0 0 0
⎡ 1
⎤
⎢ ξ f (ξ )21 dξ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢1 ⎥
γ H2 ⎢ ⎢ ξ f (ξ )2 f (ξ )1 dξ
1 ⎥
⎥
[M]ij = ξ f2 (ξ )2 dξ (3.6.25)
g tan α ⎢
⎢0 0
⎥
⎥
⎢1 ⎥
⎣ 1 1 ⎦
ξ f (ξ )3 f (ξ )1 dξ ξ f (ξ )3 f (ξ )2 dξ ξ f (ξ )23 dξ
0 0 0
The above integrals can very easily be solved based on Numerical analysis between
the limits 1 to 0 when we have
⎡ ⎤
22.936 −0.002 0.006
EI ⎣
[K]3×3 = 3 −0.002 468.044 −0.11 ⎦
H 0.006 −0.11 3812.81
⎡ ⎤
1.496 −0.205 0.028
γ H2 ⎣
[M]3×3 = −0.205 0.573 −0.188⎦ (3.6.26)
g tan α 0.028 −0.188 0.533
Converting the above into standard eigen-value form of Aϕ = λϕ and applying the
generalized Jacobi technique43 we have
⎡ ⎤
15.317 0 0
EIg tan α ⎣
[λ] = 0 846.507 0 ⎦ (3.6.27)
γ H5 0 0 8235
2π
since [λ] = ω2 and T = ω we have
⎡ ⎤
1.6049 0 0
γ H5
[T] = ⎣ 0 0.2198 0 ⎦ (3.6.29)
0 0 0.0743 EIg tan α
1 3
Considering moment of inertia of the wall as I = 12 t having one meter width we
can modify the fundamental time period as
⎡ ⎤
5.556 0 0
γ H5
[T] = ⎣ 0 0.761 0 ⎦ (3.6.30)
0 0 0.257 Et 3 g tan α
Calculation of amplitude
In terms of response spectrum analysis maximum displacement amplitude Sd is given
by Sd = ωSa2 , expressing the above in terms of codal formulation we may express it as
ZI Sa
Sd = κi (3.6.31)
2R ω2
Sa
Sd = κi β . (3.6.33)
ω2
Sa1 γ H 5
Sd = 0.619β (3.6.34)
λ1 EIg tan α
Table 3.6.1 Modal participation factor for cantilever walls for the first
three modes.
1 0.619
2 0.224
3 0.09
Sa1 γ H 5
Sd = 0.485β (3.6.35)
Et 3 g tan α
Ignoring the effect of second and third mode which is found very small
Sa1 γ H 5
w(z, t) = 0.485β f1 (ξ ) (3.6.37)
Et 3 g tan α
2
Considering, EI ddzw2 = −Mz , we get
Sa1 γ H 5 Sa1 γ H 3
w(z, t) = Coeffdi × β ; M(z, t) = −Coeffmi × β
Et 3 g tan α g tan α
Sa1 γ H 2
V(z, t) = −Coeffvi × β (3.6.39)
g tan α
where, Coeffdi , Coeffmi and Coeffvi are the dynamic amplitude, moment and shear
coefficients for the first three mode (i = 1, 2, 3).
Table 3.6.2 Factors of dynamic amplitude moments and shears for cantilever retaining wall.
Z/H coeff d1 coeff d2 coeff d3 Coeff m1 Coeff m2 Coeff m3 Coeff v1 Coeff v2 Coeff v3
Example 3.6.1
A retaining wall of height 5.8 m has top thickness of wall as 200 mm and
bottom thickness as 500 mm. The unit weight of soil it retains has a value of
22 kN/m3 . The angle of friction of soil is 28◦ . the unit weight of the concrete
wall is considered as 25 kN/m3 . Consider the wall is in zone IV as per IS-code
(1893, 2002) and is resting on Hard soil. Determine the earthquake force acting
on the wall.
Solution:
Based on the above theory,
Average thickness of wall = 200+500 = 350 mm; Unit weight of concrete =
2
25 kN/m3 ; Thus, Young’s modulus of concrete = 5700 fck × 1000 kN/m2 =
2.85 × 107 kN/m2 .
Angle α (active case) = 45 + 21 × 28 = 59◦ ; Angle α (passive case) = 45 − 12 ×
28 = 31◦ .
As per IS-code consider Importance factor as 1.0 and ductility factor as
R = 2.0.
ZI
Considering β = 2R we have, β = 0.24×1.0
2×2 = 0.06
Now considering
⎡ ⎤
5.556 0 0 γ H5
[T] = ⎣0 0.761 0 ⎦
3 g tan α
, we have
0 0 0.238 Et
⎡ ⎤
5.556 0 0 22 × 5.85
[T] = ⎣0 0.724 0 ⎦ which gives
0 0 0.238 2.85 × 10 × 0.353 × 9.81 tan 59
7
⎧ ⎫
⎨0.473⎬
{T} = 0.065 secs, for active case for the first three modes.
⎩0.022⎭
Corresponding to the time periods for the first three modes the Sa /g values for
active and passive case are shown hereafter. The values are obtained considering
7% damping for the RCC wall i.e. codal values scaled by a factor 0.9.
Sa /g (passive case)
Mode Sa /g (active case) m/sec 2
1 1.9 1.144
2 1.773 2.25
3 1.173 1.355
Sa γ H 5 Sa1 γ H 3 Sa1 γ H 2
w(z, t) = β , M(z, t) = −β and V(z, t) = −β
Et 3 g tan α g tan α g tan α
1 0.00809 0.013499
2 0.00755 0.02655
3 0.00499 0.015992
1 −294.46 −490.06
2 −274.61 −964.421
3 −185.02 −596.64
1 −50.768 −84.493
2 −47.345 −166.279
3 −31.9 −102.87
Z/H D1 D2 D3 M1 M2 M3 V1 V2 V3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −113.899 −3.138 −0.250 −27.009 −2.557 −0.339
0.050 0.046 0.001 0.000 −106.060 −2.388 −0.152 −27.004 −2.552 −0.336
0.100 0.179 0.004 0.000 −98.225 −1.644 −0.057 −26.970 −2.519 −0.317
0.150 0.394 0.009 0.001 −90.408 −0.916 0.029 −26.879 −2.437 −0.273
0.200 0.683 0.014 0.001 −82.628 −0.220 0.099 −26.708 −2.293 −0.204
0.250 1.040 0.020 0.001 −74.913 0.423 0.145 −26.431 −2.081 −0.115
0.300 1.459 0.025 0.001 −67.295 0.994 0.164 −26.030 −1.803 −0.015
0.350 1.933 0.029 0.001 −59.815 1.475 0.154 −25.484 −1.464 0.082
0.400 2.457 0.032 0.001 −52.516 1.849 0.118 −24.777 −1.080 0.164
0.450 3.024 0.034 0.000 −45.447 2.105 0.062 −23.894 −0.665 0.219
0.500 3.628 0.034 0.000 −38.662 2.238 −0.006 −22.822 −0.242 0.241
0.550 4.265 0.032 0.000 −32.217 2.248 −0.074 −21.549 0.169 0.225
0.600 4.928 0.028 −0.001 −26.172 2.143 −0.133 −20.067 0.542 0.177
(continued)
Z/H D1 D2 D3 M1 M2 M3 V1 V2 V3
0.650 5.613 0.022 −0.001 −20.589 1.936 −0.175 −18.367 0.857 0.105
0.750 7.029 0.006 −0.001 −11.065 1.306 −0.186 −14.291 1.226 −0.062
0.800 7.753 −0.003 0.000 −7.257 0.940 −0.159 −11.906 1.247 −0.124
0.850 8.482 −0.014 0.000 −4.175 0.587 −0.117 −9.287 1.142 −0.154
0.900 9.216 −0.024 0.000 −1.888 0.284 −0.074 −6.432 0.903 −0.140
0.950 9.950 −0.036 0.001 −0.464 0.070 −0.041 −3.340 0.526 −0.074
1.000 10.686 −0.047 0.002 0.028 −0.012 −0.036 −0.010 0.010 0.049
Dynamic amplitude (mm), moment (kN · m) and shear (kN) for passive case
Z/H D1 D2 D3 M1 M2 M3 V1 V2 V3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 −189.559 −11.020 −0.807 44.954 8.980 1.092
0.050 0.077 0.004 0.000 −176.512 −8.388 −0.491 44.946 8.962 1.082
0.100 0.299 0.016 0.001 −163.473 −5.773 −0.185 44.889 8.846 1.021
0.150 0.657 0.032 0.002 −150.463 −3.215 0.093 44.739 8.559 0.881
0.200 1.139 0.051 0.003 −137.515 −0.773 0.318 44.453 8.054 0.659
0.250 1.735 0.070 0.003 −124.675 1.486 0.469 43.993 7.310 0.371
0.300 2.434 0.088 0.003 −111.997 3.491 0.530 43.325 6.332 0.049
0.350 3.226 0.104 0.003 −99.548 5.179 0.498 42.417 5.144 −0.265
0.400 4.100 0.115 0.002 −87.401 6.493 0.381 41.240 3.792 −0.529
0.450 5.046 0.121 0.001 −75.637 7.393 0.200 39.770 2.336 −0.707
0.500 6.055 0.120 0.000 −64.345 7.860 −0.018 37.986 0.849 −0.776
0.550 7.117 0.113 −0.001 −53.618 7.896 −0.239 35.867 −0.592 −0.727
0.600 8.223 0.099 −0.002 −43.557 7.525 −0.430 33.400 −1.904 −0.572
0.650 9.366 0.079 −0.003 −34.265 6.799 −0.563 30.570 −3.009 −0.337
0.700 10.537 0.053 −0.003 −25.847 5.788 −0.621 27.368 −3.830 −0.064
0.750 11.729 0.023 −0.002 −18.414 4.586 −0.601 23.786 −4.305 0.199
0.800 12.937 −0.012 −0.002 −12.077 3.302 −0.512 19.817 −4.379 0.401
0.850 14.155 −0.049 0.000 −6.948 2.061 −0.379 15.458 −4.010 0.498
0.900 15.378 −0.088 0.001 −3.142 0.996 −0.237 10.705 −3.172 0.452
0.950 16.605 −0.127 0.003 −0.772 0.248 −0.133 5.559 −1.849 0.239
1.000 17.832 −0.167 0.005 0.047 −0.041 −0.116 0.017 −0.034 −0.158
If we compare the SRSS value with that of the first mode the values compared
as given hereafter.
Z/H Moment (1st mode) Moment (SRSS) Shear first mode Shear SRSS
Z/H Moment (1st mode) Moment (SRSS) Shear first mode Shear SRSS
It is observed that the difference in the values are insignificant as such for these
type of structure performing a first mode analysis based on the fundamental time
period only should suffice for practical designs.
44 We should remember that the integrations performed where based on numerical analysis and not a
closed form one as such errors due to truncation is surely to be expected.
45 This we will see subsequently as we take them up subsequently.
C E
A
B
Figure 3.6.7 Retaining wall with soil sloped at an angle behind the wall.
ABEC equal to triangular area ABE, when equating the area of ABEC and triangle ABE
it can be proved that
cos α sin i
AC = H( 1 + ζ − 1) where ζ =
sin(α − i)
√
Now considering H = H + AC = H 1 + ζ
H H
γz γ
[M]ij = φi (z)φj (z)dz = zφii (z)φj (z)dz
g tan α g tan α
0 0
1
γ H 2
mij = ξ f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ where i, j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . . m
g tan α
0
in natural co-ordinate
1
γ H 2 (1 + ζ )2
= ξ f (ξ )i f (ξ )j dξ where i, j = 1, 2, 3, . . . . . . . . .m. (3.6.40)
g tan α
0
Since we had seen earlier that the first mode analysis suffice for these type of structure
restricting the above expansion to the first mode, we have
1 1
γ H 2 (1 + ζ )2 EIμ41
m1 = ξ f (ξ )21 dξ and k1 = f (ξ )2i dξ (3.6.41)
g tan α H3
0 0
2π
Considering λ = ω2 and T = ω , we have
Fundamental time period as
γ H5
[T] = 5.556(1 + ζ ) (3.6.42)
Et 3 g tan α
Based on above we can find out the fundamental time period of the system and
subsequently the expression Sa /g from the code for an appropriate damping of the
system.
It will be observed that for ζ = 0 the time period value reduces to the fundamental
time period for the case where the soil plane is considered parallel to the base.
The modal mass participation is given by the expression
H H
γz γz
κ1 = ϕ1 (z)dz/ ϕ 2 dz (3.6.43)
g tan α g tan α 1
0 0
1 1
κ1 = ξ f1 (ξ )dξ z/ ξ f12 dz and remains the same as in the earlier case.
0 0
tan α .
Substituting the value of λ we have
Sa1 γ H 5 (1 + ζ )2
Sd = 0.485β (3.6.44)
Et 3 g tan α
Sa1 γ H 5 (1 + ζ )2
w(z, t) = φ(z) · q(t) which gives, w(z, t) = 0.485β F1 (ξ )
Et 3 g tan α
Sa1 γ H 3 (1 + ζ )2 2
M(z, t) = −0.0404β μ1 F1 (ξ )
g tan α
Sa1 γ H 2 (1 + ζ )2 3
V(z, t) = −0.0404β μ1 F1 (ξ ) where, the value μ1 = 1.875
g tan α
(3.6.45)
Plan view of counter fort retaining wall Side view of the wall
Fixed edge(typ.)
Figure 3.6.9 Wall with three edges fixed with soil mass under earthquake.
n
w(z, y, t) = φi (z, y)qi (t) (3.6.46)
i=1
H b 2
1 ∂w(z, y, t)
T= m(z, y)
2 ∂t
0 0
H b - n .⎡ n ⎤
1
T= m(z, y) φi (z, y)q̇i (t) ⎣ φj (z, t)q̇j (t)⎦
2
0 0 i=1 j=1
⎡ ⎤
n
n H b
⎢ ⎥
= q̇i (t)q̇j (t) ⎣ m(z, y)φi (z, y)φj (z, y)⎦ (3.6.47)
i=1 j=1 0 0
The strain energy equation of the plate is given by (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-
Krieger 1958)
⎡
2 0⎤
H b /
1 ∂ 2w ∂ 2w ∂ 2w ∂ 2w ∂ 2w
V= D(z, y) ⎣ + − 2(1 − ν) − ⎦
2 ∂z2 ∂y2 ∂z2 ∂y2 ∂z∂y
0 0
(3.6.48)
n
where, w(z, y, t) = φi (z, y)qi (t).
i=1
It can be proved based on Lagrange’s equation that on differentiation of the above
equation with respect to qj (t) the stiffness coefficient of an isotropic plate is given by
H b -
∂ 2 φii ∂ 2 φj ∂ 2 φi ∂ 2 φj
Kij = D + +
∂z2 ∂y2 ∂y2 ∂z2
0 0
.
∂ 2 φi ∂ 2 φ j ∂ 2 φi ∂ 2 φ j
−(1 − ν) −2 dy · dz (3.6.49)
∂z2 ∂y2 ∂z∂y ∂z∂y
3
Et
where, D = 12(1−ν 2 ) the flexural stiffness of thin plate; E = Young’s modulus of
H b H b
γz γz
m= φ 2 dy · dz = F(z)2 F(y)2 dy · dz, (3.6.52)
g tan α g tan α
0 0 0 0
H b
z= (ξ + 1) and y = (η + 1) which implies
2 2
H b
dz = dξ and dy = dη
2 2
μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1)
Thus, F(ξ ) = sin − sin h − αz cos − cos h
2 2 2 2
3π(η + 1) 3π(η + 1) 3π(η+1) 3π(η+1)
and F(η) = sin − sin h − αy cos − cos h .
4 4 4 4
1 1
γ H2b
m= F(ξ )2 F(η)2 dηdξ (3.6.53)
8g tan α
−1 −1
γ H2b
m= C1 (3.6.54)
8g tan α
1 1
where, C1 = F(ξ )2 F(η)2 dηdξ .
−1 −1
(3.6.55)
∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ
= F̈(z)F(y) = F̈(y)F(z) and = Ḟ(y)Ḟ(z).
∂z2 ∂y2 ∂y∂z
H b 1 22 1 22 1 2
K= D F(y)F̈(z) + F(z)F̈(y) + 2ν F(y)F(z)F̈(y)F̈(z)
0 0
1 22
+ 2(1 − ν) Ḟ(y)Ḟ(z) (3.6.56)
μz μz μz μz
μ2 μz μz
μz μz
F̈(z) = α z cos + cos h − sin − sin h .
H2 H H H H
μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1)
F(ξ ) = sin − sin h − αz cos − cos h
2 2 2 2
= f (ξ ). say
μ μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1) μ(ξ + 1)
Ḟ(ξ ) = cos − cos h + αz sin + sin h
H 2 2 2 2
μ
= f (ξ ), say
H
μ2 μ(1 + ξ ) μ(1 + ξ ) μ(1 + ξ ) μ(1 + ξ )
F̈(ξ ) = 2 αz cos + cos h − sin − sin h
H 2 2 2 2
μ2
= f (ξ ), say.
H2
⎡ ⎤
1 1 4 1
1 1
DHb ⎣ μ4 1 2 81π 2
f (η)f (ξ ) dηdξ ⎦
2 2
K= f (η)f (ξ ) dηdξ +
4 H4 16b4
−1 −1 −1 −1
⎡
1 1
DHb ⎣ 9μ2 π 2 ν 1 2
+ f (η)f (ξ )f (η)f (ξ ) dηdξ
4 2b2 H 2
−1 −1
⎤
1 1
9(1 − ν)μ2 π 2 1 22
+ f (η)f (ξ ) ⎦ (3.6.57)
2b2 H 2
−1 −1
Considering,
1 1 1 1
C2 = 2
[f (η)f (ξ )] dηdξ ; C3 = [f (ξ )f (η)]2 dηdξ
−1 −1 −1 −1
1 1 1 1
C4 = [f (η)f (ξ )f (η)f (ξ )]dηdξ and C5 = [f (η)f (ξ )]2 dηdξ .
−1 −1 −1 −1
(3.6.58)
We have,
- .
DHb μ4 81π 4 9μ2 π 2 ν 9(1 − ν)μ2 π 2
K= C2 + C3 + C4 + C5
4 H4 16b4 2b2 H 2 2H 2 b2
- .
μ4 b 81π 4 H 9π 2 μ2 ν 9(1 − ν)
➔ K=D C2 + C3 + C4 + C5 (3.6.59)
4H 3 64b3 8Hb 8Hb
3
4
4 γ H 2 bC1
T = 2π 5
μ4 b 81π 4 H 9π 2 μ2 ν 9(1−ν)π2 μ2
8Dg tan α C
4H 3 2
+ 64b3
C3 + 8Hb
C4 + 8Hb
C5
12γ H 5 (1 − ν 2 )
T = 2π (3.6.60)
8Et 3 g tan α(X1 r4 + X2 r2 + X3 νr2 + X4 )
ZI n
Vi = κi · Sa mi ϕi where (3.6.61)
2R
i=1
n
n
κ1 = mi φi / mi φi2 is the modal mass participation factor
i=1 i=1
1 1
(1 + ξ )f (ξ )f (η)dξ dη
−1 −1
κ1 = (3.6.62)
1 1
(1 + ξ )f 2 (η)f 2 (ξ )dηdξ
−1 −1
1 1
0.423βSa γ H 2 b
Vi = (1 + ξ )f (ξ )f (η)dξ dη. (3.6.63)
8g tan α
−1 −1
In the above expression the term Sa /g is a function of the time period as derived
above. The above on integration will give the dynamic shear force.
However this is not required and the nodal forces can be found out for various values
of ξ and η for boundary +1 to −1 to obtain the nodal force coefficient. Once these
coefficients are known they can multiplied by the constant term to obtain dynamic
force imposed by the soil at various points of the plate. The summation of all these
force over the surface of the wall will give the total shear induced on the wall due to
the earthquake.
0.423βSa γ H 2 b
Thus, Vi (z, y) = ψ(ξ , η) (3.6.64)
8g tan α
The values of ψ(ξ , η) are as given in Figure 3.6.10, as coefficients on the plate.
aγ H b
2
These coefficients, when multiplied by the term 0.423βS8g tan α , will give the nodal
force at various points of the plate.
It will be interesting to note from the surface envelope generated below that as the
load coefficients are dependent on the assumed shape function there generic curve
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1 0 0 .44 1.44 2.56 3.40 3.72 3.42 2.60 1.48 0.47 0.0
0.8
0 0.342 1.12 1.98 2.64 2.89 2.65 2.02 1.153 0.365 0
0.6
0 0.255 0.84 1.48 5 1.98 2.16 1.98 8 1.50 7 0.863 0.27 3 0
0.4 0 0.18 2 0.547 1.06 1.407 1.54 1.41 7 1.074 0.614 0.194 0
0.2 0 0.12 1 0.399 0.70 7 0.941 1.03 0.94 8 0.71 9 0.411 0.13 0 0
0.0 0 0.074 0.24 5 0.43 4 0.578 0.632 0.58 1 0.441 0.253 0.07 9 0
-0.2 0 0.041 0.13 3 0.23 5 0.313 0.342 0.31 5 0.238 0.136 0.043 0
-0.4 0 0.02 0 0.060 0.10 4 0.134 0.152 0.14 0 0.10 6 0.061 0.01 9 0
-0.6 0 0.00 5 0.020 0.032 0.043 0.047 0.04 3 0.03 3 0.018 0.006 0
- 0.8 0 0.000 7 0.003 0.00 4 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.0007 0
-1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 3.6.10 Load coefficients (ξ , η) for plates with three edge fixed and one edge free under.
follows the same shape as that of the assumed mode that is, it varies like a cantilever
in vertical direction and a beam fixed at edge in horizontal direction. This is surely
logical and is in variance to equivalent static load where hydrostatic force is profile is
assumed. The variation is more profound in horizontal direction for in normal analysis
this is considered as constant (like a rectangular shape) while in reality it is hyperbolic
in nature with zero at the edge and maximum at the centre.
Thus if the wall is spanning in one direction (i.e. a one way slab) when major
load spans horizontally along the shorter span, present state of art of arriving at
the Shear Force and Bending Moment could be significantly in variation to the
reality.
Once the force are known it can be put directly as an input in a FEM analysis of a
plate subdivided up into meshes as shown in Figure 3.6.11 and applying the forces as
nodal loads we get the shear and bending moment in the wall.
3.5
3
2.5
f(P) 2
1.5
1
S11
0.5
0 S6
Width
1
0.6
S1
0.2
- 0.2
- 0.6
Height -1
Figure 3.6.11 Surface envelope of nodal loads of counterfort wall under first mode.
Else the amplitude, dynamic moments and shear can be obtained by the method as
shown here after.
n
w(z, y, t) = φi (z, y)qi (t) (3.6.65)
i=1
For structural systems under earthquake the dynamic amplitude can be calculated
from the expression
βSa
Sd = (3.6.67)
ω2
4π 2
Considering ω2 = T2
, substituting equation of time period we have
βSa γ H 5
➔ Sd = (3.6.69)
8Dg tan α(X1 r4 + X2 r2 + νX3 r2 + X4 )
which gives,
κi βSa γ H 5
w(z, y) = F(z)F(y) (3.6.70)
8Dg tan α(X1 r4 + X2 r2 + νX3 r2 + X4 )
κi βSa γ H 5
w(z, y) = F(z)F(y) (3.6.71)
8Dg tan α (r)
4.000
3.000
f(d) 2.000
1.000
S8
0.000
Width
1
S1
0.4
-0.2
-0.8
Height
κi βγ Sa
Now considering, A = 8g tan α , a constant for a system for a particular mode.
Expression w(z, y) can now be expressed as
A F(z)F(y) 5
w(z, y) = H (3.6.72)
D (r)
It is thus observed that the dynamic amplitude w(z, y) is function of the flexural
stiffness of the plate, (r) the aspect ratio of the plate, and the shape function F(z)
and F(y).
Shown in Figure 3.6.12 is the displacement envelope of the plate with typical aspect
ratio of r = 2 and Poisson’s ratio of 0.25.
The coefficients are scaled to 1000. The values when multiplied by the term A (and
divided by 1000) will give the dynamic amplitude for the first mode.
- . - .
∂ 2w ∂ 2w ∂ 2w ∂ 2w
Mz = D + ν 2 ; My = D +ν 2 ;
∂z2 ∂y ∂y2 ∂z
- . - .
∂ ∂ 2w ∂ 2w ∂ ∂ 2w ∂ 2w
Qz = D + ; Qy = D + (3.6.73)
∂z ∂z2 ∂y2 ∂y ∂z2 ∂y2
A F(z)F(y) 5
where, w(z, y) = H .
D (r)
Substituting the value of w(z, y) above we have
- .
A μ2 9π 2 ν
Mz = F (z)F(y) + F(z)F (y) H 5
(r) H2 4b2
where F (z) and F (y) are as defined in previously in local and natural co-ordinates.
The above expression of Mz can be further modified to
- .
A 2 9π 2 νr2
Mz = μ F (z)F(y) + F(z)F (y) H 3 . (3.6.74)
(r) 4
From the above the expression we observe that moment varies as the cube of the
height and is a function of the basic shape function and their derivative, Poisson’s ratio
and the aspect ratio.
Shown in Figure 3.6.13 is a typical envelope for aspect ratio H/b = 2 and Poisson’s
ratio = 0.25.
0.15
0.1
0.05
f(Mz)
0
-0.05
S7
-0.1
Width
-1
S1
-0.4
0.2
0.8
Height
Figure 3.6.13 Variation of dynamic moment in vertical (Z) direction for H/b = 2.
where, substituting the values of z in either local and nodal co-ordinates moment
coefficient and envelope can be plotted.
We show in Figure 3.6.14 a typical envelope of Moment (My ) for aspect ratio
r(H/b) = 2 and Poisson’s ratio = 0.25.
Similarly for shear force in Z and Y direction can be expressed as
- .
A 3 9π 2 μr2
Qz = μ F (z)F(y) + F (z)F (y) H 2 and
(r) 4
- .
A 3μ2 πr 27π 3 r3
Qy = F (z)F (y) + F(z)F (y) H 2 (3.6.76)
(r) 2 8
Looking at above expressions we see that the shear force varies as the square of the
height and is a function of the aspect ratio and the basic shape function.
The above procedure gives a comprehensive solution for walls with three side fixed
and one side free subjected to dynamic earth pressure under earthquake load where
the moments, shears and amplitude are dependent on the time period, geometry of the
wall, its boundary condition as well as the material and engineering property of the soil.
0.6
0.4
0.2
f(My)
0
-0.2
S8
-0.4
Width
-1
S1
-0.4
0.2
0.8
Height
Figure 3.6.14 Variation of dynamic moment in vertical (Y) direction for H/b = 2.
H b
γz
m= F(z)2 F(y)2 dy · dz (3.6.77)
g tan α
0 0
1 1
γ H 2b γ H 2 b(1 + ζ )
m= F(ξ )2 F(η)2 dηdξ = C1 (3.6.78)
8g tan α 8g tan α
−1 −1
12γ H 5 (1 + ζ )(1 − ν 2 )
T = 2π (3.6.79)
8Et 3 g tan α(X1 r4 + X2 r2 + X3 νr2 + X4 )
46 Refer to the figure we have drawn for the cantilever retaining wall with sloped soil surface.
It will be observed that for i = 0, ζ = 0 the above equation converges to equation (for
time period with wall having soil parallel to the ground. The constants X1 , X2 , X3 , X4
remains same as mentioned earlier.
The modal mass participation factor shall remain same as earlier i.e.,
1 1
−1 −1 (1 + ξ )f (ξ )f (η)dξ dη
κ1 = 1 1
= 0.423 (3.6.80)
−1 −1 (1 + ξ )f (η)f (ξ )dηdξ
2 2
1 1
0.423βSa γ H 2b
Vi = (1 + ξ )f (ξ )f (η)dξ dη
8g tan α
−1 −1
1 1
0.423βSa γ H 2 (1 + ζ )b
= (1 + ξ )f (ξ )f (η)dξ dη (3.6.81)
8g tan α
−1 −1
Thus we see that the constant term is multiplied by an additional factor (1 + ζ ) and
the integration constants ψ(ξ , η) remain same as expressed earlier.
It may again be noted that for i = 0, ζ = 0 when the above expression converges to
expression shear equation for the soil parallel to the ground.
From above we can safely deduce from mathematical similarity that for this case.
The term A as expressed in earlier can be now be expressed as
κi βγ Sa (1 + ζ )
A= (3.6.82)
8g tan α
0.423βγ Sa 0.423βγ Sa
M(z) = Coeffz × (1 + ζ )H 3 ; M(y) = Coeffy × (1 + ζ )H 3
8g tan α 8g tan α
0.423βγ Sa 0.423βγ Sa
Q(z) = Coeffz × (1 + ζ )H 2 ; Q(y) = Coeffz × (1 + ζ )H 2 .
8g tan α 8g tan α
(3.6.83)
Aspect ratio H/b −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
−1.0 0.1016 0.0548 0.0102 −0.0273 −0.0526 −0.0618 −0.0533 −0.0285 0.0087 0.0530 0.0999
−0.8 0.0877 0.0473 0.0089 −0.0234 −0.0452 −0.0531 −0.0457 −0.0244 0.0076 0.0458 0.0861
−0.6 0.0737 0.0398 0.0077 −0.0192 −0.0374 −0.0440 −0.0379 −0.0201 0.0066 0.0386 0.0724
−0.4 0.0601 0.0326 0.0067 −0.0149 −0.0295 −0.0348 −0.0303 −0.0156 0.0058 0.0316 0.0590
−0.2 0.0469 0.0256 0.0059 −0.0106 −0.0216 −0.0255 −0.0234 −0.0111 0.0052 0.0248 0.0460
2.0 0.0 0.0345 0.0191 0.0052 −0.0063 −0.0139 −0.0166 −0.0176 −0.0066 0.0047 0.0186 0.0339
0.2 0.0234 0.0133 0.0046 −0.0022 −0.0067 −0.0083 −0.0122 −0.0024 0.0043 0.0129 0.0230
0.4 0.0139 0.0084 0.0043 0.0015 −0.0003 −0.0009 −0.0073 0.0014 0.0042 0.0082 0.0136
0.6 0.0065 0.0046 0.0042 0.0046 0.0051 0.0053 −0.0080 0.0046 0.0043 0.0046 0.0064
0.8 0.0017 0.0022 0.0044 0.0071 0.0092 0.0100 −0.0005 0.0072 0.0045 0.0023 0.0017
1.0 0.0000 0.0015 0.0050 0.0088 0.0117 0.0128 0.0118 0.0089 0.0051 0.0016 0.0000
−1.0 0.0804 0.0433 0.0081 −0.0216 −0.0416 −0.0489 −0.0421 −0.0225 0.0069 0.0420 0.0790
−0.8 0.0694 0.0374 0.0070 −0.0185 −0.0358 −0.0420 −0.0362 −0.0193 0.0060 0.0362 0.0681
−0.6 0.0583 0.0315 0.0061 −0.0153 −0.0297 −0.0350 −0.0301 −0.0160 0.0052 0.0305 0.0573
−0.4 0.0475 0.0257 0.0052 −0.0120 −0.0236 −0.0278 −0.0242 −0.0126 0.0045 0.0249 0.0467
−0.2 0.0371 0.0202 0.0045 −0.0087 −0.0175 −0.0207 −0.0187 −0.0091 0.0039 0.0196 0.0364
2.25 0.0 0.0273 0.0150 0.0038 −0.0055 −0.0117 −0.0139 −0.0140 −0.0058 0.0034 0.0146 0.0268
0.2 0.0185 0.0104 0.0033 −0.0024 −0.0062 −0.0076 −0.0097 −0.0026 0.0030 0.0101 0.0182
0.4 0.0110 0.0065 0.0029 0.0003 −0.0014 −0.0020 −0.0058 0.0002 0.0028 0.0063 0.0108
0.6 0.0051 0.0035 0.0028 0.0026 0.0026 0.0027 −0.0056 0.0026 0.0028 0.0034 0.0050
0.8 0.0013 0.0015 0.0028 0.0044 0.0056 0.0061 −0.0005 0.0044 0.0029 0.0016 0.0013
1.0 0.0000 0.0009 0.0031 0.0055 0.0073 0.0080 0.0073 0.0056 0.0032 0.0010 0.0000
−1.0 0.0652 0.0351 0.0066 −0.0175 −0.0338 −0.0396 −0.0342 −0.0183 0.0056 0.0340 0.0641
−0.8 0.0562 0.0303 0.0057 −0.0150 −0.0290 −0.0341 −0.0294 −0.0157 0.0048 0.0293 0.0552
−0.6 0.0473 0.0255 0.0049 −0.0125 −0.0242 −0.0284 −0.0245 −0.0130 0.0042 0.0247 0.0465
−0.4 0.0385 0.0208 0.0042 −0.0099 −0.0193 −0.0227 −0.0197 −0.0103 0.0036 0.0202 0.0379
−0.2 0.0301 0.0163 0.0035 −0.0072 −0.0145 −0.0171 −0.0153 −0.0076 0.0030 0.0158 0.0295
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
2.5 0.0 0.0221 0.0121 0.0029 −0.0047 −0.0098 −0.0117 −0.0114 −0.0050 0.0026 0.0118 0.0217
0.2 0.0150 0.0084 0.0024 −0.0024 −0.0055 −0.0067 −0.0079 −0.0025 0.0022 0.0081 0.0147
0.4 0.0089 0.0052 0.0021 −0.0003 −0.0018 −0.0023 −0.0047 −0.0003 0.0020 0.0050 0.0087
0.6 0.0042 0.0027 0.0019 0.0015 0.0013 0.0013 −0.0041 0.0015 0.0019 0.0027 0.0041
0.8 0.0011 0.0011 0.0019 0.0028 0.0036 0.0039 −0.0005 0.0028 0.0019 0.0011 0.0011
1.0 0.0000 0.0006 0.0020 0.0036 0.0048 0.0052 0.0048 0.0037 0.0021 0.0007 0.0000
−1.0 0.0539 0.0291 0.0054 −0.0145 −0.0279 −0.0328 −0.0283 −0.0151 0.0046 0.0281 0.0530
−0.8 0.0465 0.0251 0.0047 −0.0124 −0.0240 −0.0282 −0.0243 −0.0130 0.0040 0.0243 0.0457
−0.6 0.0391 0.0211 0.0040 −0.0103 −0.0200 −0.0235 −0.0203 −0.0108 0.0034 0.0204 0.0384
−0.4 0.0319 0.0172 0.0034 −0.0082 −0.0160 −0.0189 −0.0164 −0.0086 0.0029 0.0167 0.0313
−0.2 0.0249 0.0135 0.0028 −0.0061 −0.0121 −0.0143 −0.0127 −0.0064 0.0025 0.0131 0.0244
2.75 0.0 0.0183 0.0100 0.0023 −0.0041 −0.0084 −0.0099 −0.0095 −0.0043 0.0020 0.0097 0.0180
0.2 0.0124 0.0069 0.0019 −0.0022 −0.0049 −0.0059 −0.0065 −0.0023 0.0017 0.0067 0.0122
0.4 0.0074 0.0042 0.0016 −0.0005 −0.0019 −0.0024 −0.0039 −0.0006 0.0015 0.0041 0.0072
0.6 0.0034 0.0022 0.0014 0.0009 0.0006 0.0005 −0.0031 0.0008 0.0013 0.0021 0.0034
0.8 0.0009 0.0009 0.0013 0.0019 0.0024 0.0025 −0.0004 0.0019 0.0013 0.0009 0.0009
1.0 0.0000 0.0004 0.0014 0.0025 0.0033 0.0036 0.0033 0.0025 0.0014 0.0005 0.0000
−1.0 0.0453 0.0244 0.0046 −0.0122 −0.0235 −0.0276 −0.0238 −0.0127 0.0039 0.0236 0.0445
−0.8 0.0391 0.0211 0.0040 −0.0105 −0.0202 −0.0237 −0.0204 −0.0109 0.0034 0.0204 0.0384
−0.6 0.0329 0.0177 0.0034 −0.0087 −0.0169 −0.0198 −0.0171 −0.0091 0.0029 0.0172 0.0323
−0.4 0.0268 0.0145 0.0028 −0.0070 −0.0135 −0.0159 −0.0138 −0.0073 0.0024 0.0140 0.0263
−0.2 0.0209 0.0113 0.0023 −0.0052 −0.0103 −0.0121 −0.0107 −0.0055 0.0020 0.0110 0.0205
3.0 0.0 0.0154 0.0084 0.0019 −0.0035 −0.0072 −0.0085 −0.0080 −0.0037 0.0017 0.0081 0.0151
0.2 0.0104 0.0058 0.0015 −0.0020 −0.0043 −0.0052 −0.0055 −0.0021 0.0014 0.0056 0.0102
0.4 0.0062 0.0035 0.0012 −0.0006 −0.0018 −0.0023 −0.0032 −0.0007 0.0011 0.0034 0.0061
0.6 0.0029 0.0018 0.0010 0.0005 0.0002 0.0001 −0.0024 0.0005 0.0010 0.0017 0.0028
0.8 0.0008 0.0007 0.0009 0.0013 0.0016 0.0017 −0.0004 0.0013 0.0009 0.0007 0.0007
1.0 0.0000 0.0003 0.0010 0.0017 0.0023 0.0025 0.0023 0.0018 0.0010 0.0003 0.0000
Aspect ratio H/b −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
−1.0 0.407 0.219 0.041 −0.109 −0.210 −0.247 −0.213 −0.114 0.035 0.212 0.399
−0.8 0.351 0.189 0.035 −0.094 −0.181 −0.213 −0.184 −0.098 0.030 0.183 0.344
−0.6 0.295 0.159 0.030 −0.079 −0.152 −0.179 −0.154 −0.083 0.025 0.154 0.290
−0.4 0.240 0.129 0.024 −0.064 −0.124 −0.146 −0.125 −0.067 0.021 0.125 0.236
−0.2 0.187 0.101 0.019 −0.050 −0.096 −0.113 −0.098 −0.052 0.016 0.098 0.184
2.0 0.0 0.138 0.075 0.014 −0.036 −0.070 −0.083 −0.071 −0.038 0.012 0.072 0.136
0.2 0.093 0.051 0.010 −0.024 −0.047 −0.055 −0.048 −0.025 0.009 0.049 0.092
0.4 0.055 0.030 0.006 −0.014 −0.027 −0.032 −0.027 −0.014 0.005 0.029 0.055
0.6 0.026 0.014 0.004 −0.005 −0.011 −0.013 −0.011 −0.006 0.003 0.014 0.026
0.8 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.000 −0.001 −0.001 −0.001 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.007
1.0 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000
−1.0 0.3217 0.1733 0.0324 −0.0864 −0.1665 −0.1955 −0.1686 −0.0902 0.0275 0.1678 0.3160
−0.8 0.2774 0.1495 0.0280 −0.0744 −0.1436 −0.1686 −0.1454 −0.0777 0.0237 0.1447 0.2726
−0.6 0.2334 0.1258 0.0236 −0.0626 −0.1207 −0.1417 −0.1222 −0.0653 0.0200 0.1218 0.2293
−0.4 0.1901 0.1025 0.0193 −0.0508 −0.0981 −0.1153 −0.0994 −0.0531 0.0163 0.0992 0.1867
−0.2 0.1483 0.0800 0.0151 −0.0395 −0.0764 −0.0897 −0.0773 −0.0413 0.0128 0.0774 0.1457
2.25 0.0 0.1092 0.0589 0.0113 −0.0289 −0.0559 −0.0657 −0.0566 −0.0301 0.0096 0.0571 0.1073
0.2 0.0739 0.0400 0.0078 −0.0192 −0.0374 −0.0440 −0.0379 −0.0201 0.0067 0.0387 0.0727
0.4 0.0439 0.0238 0.0049 −0.0110 −0.0216 −0.0255 −0.0219 −0.0115 0.0042 0.0231 0.0431
0.6 0.0205 0.0112 0.0026 −0.0045 −0.0093 −0.0110 −0.0094 −0.0047 0.0023 0.0109 0.0202
0.8 0.0054 0.0031 0.0012 −0.0003 −0.0012 −0.0016 −0.0012 −0.0003 0.0011 0.0030 0.0053
1.0 0.0000 0.0002 0.0008 0.0014 0.0018 0.0020 0.0018 0.0014 0.0008 0.0003 0.0000
−1.0 0.2608 0.1405 0.0263 −0.0700 −0.1350 −0.1585 −0.1367 −0.0731 0.0223 0.1361 0.2562
−0.8 0.2249 0.1212 0.0227 −0.0604 −0.1164 −0.1367 −0.1179 −0.0630 0.0192 0.1173 0.2210
−0.6 0.1892 0.1020 0.0191 −0.0507 −0.0979 −0.1149 −0.0991 −0.0530 0.0162 0.0987 0.1859
−0.4 0.1541 0.0831 0.0156 −0.0412 −0.0796 −0.0935 −0.0806 −0.0431 0.0132 0.0804 0.1514
−0.2 0.1203 0.0648 0.0122 −0.0321 −0.0620 −0.0728 −0.0628 −0.0335 0.0104 0.0628 0.1182
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
2.5 0.0 0.0885 0.0478 0.0091 −0.0235 −0.0454 −0.0534 −0.0460 −0.0245 0.0077 0.0463 0.0870
0.2 0.0600 0.0324 0.0063 −0.0157 −0.0305 −0.0358 −0.0309 −0.0164 0.0054 0.0314 0.0589
0.4 0.0356 0.0193 0.0039 −0.0090 −0.0177 −0.0209 −0.0179 −0.0094 0.0033 0.0187 0.0350
0.6 0.0167 0.0091 0.0020 −0.0038 −0.0078 −0.0092 −0.0079 −0.0040 0.0018 0.0088 0.0164
0.8 0.0044 0.0025 0.0009 −0.0004 −0.0012 −0.0015 −0.0013 −0.0004 0.0008 0.0024 0.0043
1.0 0.0000 0.0002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0009 0.0005 0.0002 0.0000
−1.0 0.2157 0.1162 0.0217 −0.0579 −0.1116 −0.1311 −0.1130 −0.0604 0.0184 0.1125 0.2119
−0.8 0.1860 0.1002 0.0188 −0.0499 −0.0963 −0.1130 −0.0975 −0.0521 0.0159 0.0970 0.1827
−0.6 0.1565 0.0843 0.0158 −0.0420 −0.0809 −0.0950 −0.0820 −0.0438 0.0134 0.0816 0.1537
−0.4 0.1274 0.0687 0.0129 −0.0341 −0.0659 −0.0773 −0.0667 −0.0356 0.0109 0.0665 0.1252
−0.2 0.0995 0.0536 0.0101 −0.0266 −0.0513 −0.0602 −0.0519 −0.0277 0.0086 0.0519 0.0977
2.75 0.0 0.0732 0.0395 0.0075 −0.0194 −0.0376 −0.0442 −0.0381 −0.0203 0.0064 0.0382 0.0719
0.2 0.0496 0.0268 0.0052 −0.0130 −0.0253 −0.0297 −0.0256 −0.0136 0.0044 0.0259 0.0487
0.4 0.0294 0.0159 0.0032 −0.0075 −0.0148 −0.0174 −0.0149 −0.0079 0.0027 0.0154 0.0289
0.6 0.0138 0.0075 0.0016 −0.0033 −0.0065 −0.0077 −0.0066 −0.0034 0.0014 0.0073 0.0135
0.8 0.0036 0.0020 0.0007 −0.0004 −0.0012 −0.0014 −0.0012 −0.0005 0.0006 0.0020 0.0036
1.0 0.0000 0.0001 0.0003 0.0006 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0001 0.0000
−1.0 0.1813 0.0977 0.0183 −0.0487 −0.0939 −0.1102 −0.0950 −0.0508 0.0155 0.0946 0.1781
−0.8 0.1564 0.0843 0.0158 −0.0420 −0.0809 −0.0950 −0.0819 −0.0438 0.0134 0.0816 0.1536
−0.6 0.1315 0.0709 0.0133 −0.0353 −0.0681 −0.0799 −0.0689 −0.0368 0.0112 0.0686 0.1292
−0.4 0.1071 0.0577 0.0108 −0.0287 −0.0554 −0.0650 −0.0561 −0.0300 0.0092 0.0559 0.1053
−0.2 0.0836 0.0451 0.0085 −0.0223 −0.0431 −0.0507 −0.0437 −0.0233 0.0072 0.0436 0.0821
3.0 0.0 0.0616 0.0332 0.0063 −0.0164 −0.0317 −0.0372 −0.0321 −0.0171 0.0053 0.0321 0.0605
0.2 0.0417 0.0225 0.0043 −0.0110 −0.0213 −0.0250 −0.0216 −0.0115 0.0037 0.0218 0.0410
0.4 0.0247 0.0134 0.0026 −0.0064 −0.0125 −0.0147 −0.0126 −0.0067 0.0023 0.0130 0.0243
0.6 0.0116 0.0063 0.0013 −0.0028 −0.0056 −0.0066 −0.0056 −0.0029 0.0012 0.0061 0.0114
0.8 0.0030 0.0017 0.0005 −0.0004 −0.0011 −0.0013 −0.0011 −0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0030
1.0 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 0.0003 0.0001 0.0000
Aspect ratio H/b −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
−1.0 0.5596 0.3016 0.0564 −0.1502 −0.2897 −0.3401 −0.2933 −0.1569 0.0478 0.2920 0.5498
−0.8 0.5588 0.3006 0.0547 −0.1529 −0.2931 −0.3438 −0.2967 −0.1595 0.0460 0.2910 0.5490
−0.6 0.5534 0.2973 0.0528 −0.1539 −0.2935 −0.3441 −0.2972 −0.1605 0.0441 0.2877 0.5437
−0.4 0.5393 0.2894 0.0502 −0.1521 −0.2890 −0.3385 −0.2925 −0.1586 0.0418 0.2800 0.5299
−0.2 0.5134 0.2751 0.0467 −0.1468 −0.2777 −0.3251 −0.2811 −0.1530 0.0386 0.2662 0.5044
2.0 0.0 0.4728 0.2530 0.0419 −0.1371 −0.2583 −0.3023 −0.2615 −0.1429 0.0344 0.2448 0.4646
0.2 0.4157 0.2221 0.0357 −0.1227 −0.2300 −0.2688 −0.2327 −0.1278 0.0290 0.2149 0.4085
0.4 0.3406 0.1815 0.0278 −0.1031 −0.1918 −0.2240 −0.1941 −0.1073 0.0223 0.1756 0.3347
0.6 0.2466 0.1308 0.0181 −0.0781 −0.1435 −0.1673 −0.1452 −0.0812 0.0141 0.1264 0.2423
0.8 0.1331 0.0696 0.0066 −0.0478 −0.0850 −0.0985 −0.0859 −0.0496 0.0044 0.0672 0.1308
1.0 0.0000 −0.0021 −0.0068 −0.0121 −0.0161 −0.0176 −0.0162 −0.0123 −0.0070 −0.0022 0.0000
−1.0 0.4428 0.2386 0.0446 −0.1189 −0.2292 −0.2691 −0.2321 −0.1241 0.0378 0.2310 0.4351
−0.8 0.4422 0.2380 0.0436 −0.1205 −0.2313 −0.2714 −0.2341 −0.1258 0.0367 0.2304 0.4344
−0.6 0.4379 0.2354 0.0423 −0.1209 −0.2311 −0.2710 −0.2339 −0.1261 0.0354 0.2278 0.4302
−0.4 0.4267 0.2292 0.0404 −0.1192 −0.2270 −0.2661 −0.2298 −0.1243 0.0338 0.2218 0.4193
−0.2 0.4062 0.2179 0.0378 −0.1147 −0.2177 −0.2551 −0.2204 −0.1195 0.0314 0.2109 0.3991
2.25 0.0 0.3741 0.2005 0.0341 −0.1068 −0.2022 −0.2367 −0.2046 −0.1113 0.0282 0.1940 0.3676
0.2 0.3289 0.1761 0.0292 −0.0952 −0.1795 −0.2100 −0.1817 −0.0992 0.0241 0.1703 0.3232
0.4 0.2695 0.1440 0.0231 −0.0796 −0.1492 −0.1744 −0.1510 −0.0829 0.0188 0.1393 0.2648
0.6 0.1951 0.1038 0.0155 −0.0598 −0.1109 −0.1295 −0.1123 −0.0623 0.0123 0.1004 0.1917
0.8 0.1053 0.0555 0.0064 −0.0358 −0.0646 −0.0750 −0.0653 −0.0372 0.0046 0.0536 0.1035
1.0 0.0000 −0.0013 −0.0043 −0.0076 −0.0100 −0.0110 −0.0101 −0.0077 −0.0044 −0.0014 0.0000
−1.0 0.3590 0.1935 0.0362 −0.0964 −0.1858 −0.2182 −0.1882 −0.1006 0.0306 0.1873 0.3527
−0.8 0.3585 0.1930 0.0355 −0.0974 −0.1871 −0.2196 −0.1895 −0.1017 0.0299 0.1868 0.3522
−0.6 0.3550 0.1909 0.0346 −0.0975 −0.1867 −0.2189 −0.1890 −0.1017 0.0290 0.1848 0.3488
−0.4 0.3460 0.1859 0.0332 −0.0959 −0.1831 −0.2147 −0.1854 −0.1000 0.0278 0.1800 0.3399
−0.2 0.3293 0.1768 0.0311 −0.0921 −0.1754 −0.2055 −0.1775 −0.0960 0.0260 0.1711 0.3236
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
2.5 0.0 0.3033 0.1627 0.0282 −0.0856 −0.1626 −0.1905 −0.1646 −0.0893 0.0235 0.1575 0.2980
0.2 0.2667 0.1429 0.0243 −0.0761 −0.1441 −0.1687 −0.1459 −0.0794 0.0201 0.1383 0.2620
0.4 0.2185 0.1169 0.0193 −0.0634 −0.1195 −0.1398 −0.1209 −0.0661 0.0159 0.1131 0.2147
0.6 0.1582 0.0844 0.0132 −0.0474 −0.0884 −0.1033 −0.0895 −0.0493 0.0107 0.0816 0.1554
0.8 0.0854 0.0452 0.0058 −0.0279 −0.0508 −0.0591 −0.0514 −0.0290 0.0044 0.0436 0.0839
1.0 0.0000 −0.0009 −0.0028 −0.0050 −0.0066 −0.0072 −0.0066 −0.0050 −0.0029 −0.0009 0.0000
−1.0 0.2969 0.1600 0.0299 −0.0797 −0.1537 −0.1804 −0.1556 −0.0832 0.0253 0.1549 0.2917
−0.8 0.2965 0.1596 0.0294 −0.0804 −0.1545 −0.1814 −0.1565 −0.0839 0.0248 0.1545 0.2913
−0.6 0.2936 0.1579 0.0288 −0.0803 −0.1540 −0.1806 −0.1559 −0.0838 0.0242 0.1529 0.2884
−0.4 0.2861 0.1538 0.0277 −0.0789 −0.1509 −0.1769 −0.1527 −0.0823 0.0232 0.1489 0.2811
−0.2 0.2723 0.1463 0.0260 −0.0756 −0.1443 −0.1692 −0.1461 −0.0789 0.0218 0.1416 0.2676
2.75 0.0 0.2508 0.1347 0.0237 −0.0702 −0.1337 −0.1566 −0.1353 −0.0732 0.0197 0.1303 0.2465
0.2 0.2205 0.1183 0.0205 −0.0623 −0.1183 −0.1386 −0.1198 −0.0650 0.0170 0.1145 0.2167
0.4 0.1807 0.0968 0.0164 −0.0518 −0.0979 −0.1146 −0.0991 −0.0540 0.0135 0.0937 0.1775
0.6 0.1308 0.0699 0.0113 −0.0385 −0.0722 −0.0844 −0.0730 −0.0401 0.0092 0.0676 0.1285
0.8 0.0706 0.0375 0.0052 −0.0223 −0.0411 −0.0478 −0.0415 −0.0232 0.0041 0.0362 0.0694
1.0 0.0000 −0.0006 −0.0019 −0.0034 −0.0045 −0.0049 −0.0045 −0.0034 −0.0020 −0.0006 0.0000
−1.0 0.2496 0.1345 0.0252 −0.0670 −0.1292 −0.1517 −0.1308 −0.0700 0.0213 0.1302 0.2452
−0.8 0.2492 0.1342 0.0248 −0.0675 −0.1298 −0.1523 −0.1314 −0.0704 0.0209 0.1299 0.2449
−0.6 0.2468 0.1328 0.0243 −0.0673 −0.1292 −0.1515 −0.1308 −0.0702 0.0205 0.1286 0.2425
−0.4 0.2405 0.1294 0.0234 −0.0660 −0.1265 −0.1483 −0.1280 −0.0689 0.0197 0.1252 0.2363
−0.2 0.2289 0.1231 0.0221 −0.0632 −0.1209 −0.1417 −0.1224 −0.0660 0.0185 0.1191 0.2249
3.0 0.0 0.2109 0.1133 0.0201 −0.0586 −0.1119 −0.1311 −0.1132 −0.0612 0.0168 0.1096 0.2072
0.2 0.1854 0.0995 0.0175 −0.0520 −0.0989 −0.1159 −0.1001 −0.0542 0.0145 0.0963 0.1822
0.4 0.1519 0.0815 0.0140 −0.0431 −0.0817 −0.0957 −0.0827 −0.0449 0.0116 0.0788 0.1492
0.6 0.1100 0.0588 0.0097 −0.0319 −0.0601 −0.0703 −0.0608 −0.0332 0.0080 0.0569 0.1080
0.8 0.0594 0.0316 0.0046 −0.0183 −0.0339 −0.0396 −0.0343 −0.0191 0.0037 0.0305 0.0583
1.0 0.0000 −0.0004 −0.0014 −0.0024 −0.0032 −0.0035 −0.0032 −0.0024 −0.0014 −0.0004 0.0000
Aspect ratio H/b −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
−1.0 −3.7646 −3.7055 −3.3533 −2.5797 −1.4184 −0.0269 1.3690 2.5424 3.3319 3.6985 3.7640
−0.8 −3.2466 −3.1947 −2.8905 −2.2235 −1.2225 −0.0232 1.1799 2.1913 2.8721 3.1886 3.2460
−0.6 −2.7311 −2.6847 −2.4278 −1.8670 −1.0263 −0.0195 0.9906 1.8399 2.4122 2.6796 2.7305
−0.4 −2.2244 −2.1820 −1.9708 −1.5146 −0.8323 −0.0158 0.8033 1.4926 1.9581 2.1776 2.2236
−0.2 −1.7359 −1.6961 −1.5285 −1.1732 −0.6444 −0.0122 0.6219 1.1562 1.5185 1.6925 1.7351
2.0 0.0 −1.2781 −1.2394 −1.1122 −0.8517 −0.4673 −0.0089 0.4510 0.8393 1.1048 1.2366 1.2770
0.2 −0.8654 −0.8265 −0.7351 −0.5603 −0.3067 −0.0058 0.2960 0.5520 0.7301 0.8242 0.8640
0.4 −0.5138 −0.4733 −0.4118 −0.3101 −0.1687 −0.0032 0.1628 0.3055 0.4088 0.4715 0.5121
0.6 −0.2404 −0.1968 −0.1579 −0.1133 −0.0601 −0.0011 0.0579 0.1114 0.1564 0.1953 0.2385
0.8 −0.0631 −0.0148 0.0106 0.0180 0.0125 0.0002 −0.0121 −0.0180 −0.0112 0.0134 0.0608
1.0 0.0000 0.0550 0.0776 0.0710 0.0421 0.0008 −0.0407 −0.0703 −0.0778 −0.0564 −0.0027
−1.0 −3.3510 −3.2984 −2.9849 −2.2963 −1.2625 −0.0239 1.2186 2.2631 2.9659 3.2922 3.3505
−0.8 −2.8899 −2.8439 −2.5733 −1.9795 −1.0883 −0.0206 1.0504 1.9508 2.5568 2.8385 2.8894
−0.6 −2.4311 −2.3904 −2.1620 −1.6627 −0.9141 −0.0173 0.8822 1.6386 2.1482 2.3859 2.4306
−0.4 −1.9800 −1.9437 −1.7562 −1.3500 −0.7420 −0.0141 0.7161 1.3304 1.7450 1.9399 1.9794
−0.2 −1.5452 −1.5121 −1.3639 −1.0474 −0.5754 −0.0109 0.5554 1.0322 1.3551 1.5090 1.5446
2.25 0.0 −1.1377 −1.1067 −0.9949 −0.7627 −0.4186 −0.0079 0.4040 0.7516 0.9884 1.1043 1.1369
0.2 −0.7703 −0.7404 −0.6610 −0.5048 −0.2766 −0.0052 0.2669 0.4974 0.6566 0.7385 0.7693
0.4 −0.4573 −0.4273 −0.3751 −0.2839 −0.1548 −0.0029 0.1494 0.2797 0.3724 0.4259 0.4562
0.6 −0.2140 −0.1826 −0.1511 −0.1104 −0.0592 −0.0011 0.0571 0.1087 0.1497 0.1815 0.2126
0.8 −0.0562 −0.0220 −0.0030 0.0045 0.0043 0.0001 −0.0042 −0.0047 0.0025 0.0210 0.0546
1.0 0.0000 0.0386 0.0545 0.0499 0.0296 0.0006 −0.0286 −0.0494 −0.0547 −0.0397 −0.0019
−1.0 −3.0187 −2.9713 −2.6889 −2.0686 −1.1373 −0.0216 1.0978 2.0387 2.6718 2.9658 3.0182
−0.8 −2.6033 −2.5620 −2.3182 −1.7833 −0.9805 −0.0186 0.9464 1.7575 2.3035 2.5572 2.6029
−0.6 −2.1900 −2.1538 −1.9482 −1.4984 −0.8237 −0.0156 0.7951 1.4767 1.9357 2.1497 2.1896
−0.4 −1.7837 −1.7518 −1.5834 −1.2173 −0.6691 −0.0127 0.6458 1.1997 1.5732 1.7484 1.7832
−0.2 −1.3920 −1.3637 −1.2308 −0.9455 −0.5195 −0.0099 0.5014 0.9318 1.2228 1.3609 1.3915
© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
2.5 0.0 −1.0249 −0.9992 −0.8994 −0.6900 −0.3788 −0.0072 0.3656 0.6799 0.8936 0.9971 1.0243
0.2 −0.6939 −0.6700 −0.5998 −0.4587 −0.2515 −0.0048 0.2427 0.4520 0.5958 0.6684 0.6932
0.4 −0.4120 −0.3889 −0.3435 −0.2608 −0.1425 −0.0027 0.1375 0.2569 0.3410 0.3877 0.4111
0.6 −0.1928 −0.1693 −0.1429 −0.1057 −0.0570 −0.0011 0.0550 0.1040 0.1417 0.1684 0.1918
0.8 −0.0506 −0.0255 −0.0108 −0.0033 −0.0005 0.0000 0.0004 0.0031 0.0104 0.0248 0.0494
1.0 0.0000 0.0282 0.0398 0.0364 0.0216 0.0004 −0.0209 −0.0361 −0.0399 −0.0289 −0.0014
−1.0 −2.7460 −2.7029 −2.4460 −1.8817 −1.0346 −0.0196 0.9986 1.8545 2.4304 2.6979 2.7456
−0.8 −2.3682 −2.3306 −2.1089 −1.6223 −0.8920 −0.0169 0.8609 1.5989 2.0955 2.3263 2.3678
−0.6 −1.9922 −1.9596 −1.7726 −1.3634 −0.7495 −0.0142 0.7235 1.3437 1.7613 1.9558 1.9918
−0.4 −1.6226 −1.5942 −1.4412 −1.1081 −0.6091 −0.0116 0.5879 1.0921 1.4320 1.5911 1.6222
−0.2 −1.2663 −1.2415 −1.1211 −0.8614 −0.4734 −0.0090 0.4569 0.8489 1.1138 1.2391 1.2658
2.75 0.0 −0.9323 −0.9105 −0.8203 −0.6296 −0.3458 −0.0066 0.3337 0.6204 0.8150 0.9086 0.9318
0.2 −0.6313 −0.6116 −0.5485 −0.4199 −0.2304 −0.0044 0.2223 0.4138 0.5449 0.6102 0.6307
0.4 −0.3748 −0.3564 −0.3162 −0.2406 −0.1316 −0.0025 0.1270 0.2371 0.3140 0.3553 0.3741
0.6 −0.1754 −0.1573 −0.1345 −0.1003 −0.0543 −0.0010 0.0524 0.0988 0.1334 0.1565 0.1746
0.8 −0.0461 −0.0271 −0.0152 −0.0079 −0.0034 −0.0001 0.0032 0.0077 0.0149 0.0265 0.0452
1.0 0.0000 0.0212 0.0299 0.0274 0.0162 0.0003 −0.0157 −0.0271 −0.0300 −0.0218 −0.0010
−1.0 −2.5184 −2.4788 −2.2432 −1.7257 −0.9488 −0.0180 0.9158 1.7008 2.2289 2.4742 2.5180
−0.8 −2.1718 −2.1375 −1.9342 −1.4879 −0.8181 −0.0155 0.7896 1.4664 1.9218 2.1334 2.1715
−0.6 −1.8270 −1.7973 −1.6259 −1.2506 −0.6876 −0.0130 0.6636 1.2325 1.6155 1.7939 1.8267
−0.4 −1.4880 −1.4624 −1.3223 −1.0168 −0.5589 −0.0106 0.5395 1.0021 1.3138 1.4596 1.4877
−0.2 −1.1613 −1.1393 −1.0291 −0.7909 −0.4347 −0.0082 0.4195 0.7795 1.0225 1.1371 1.1609
3.0 0.0 −0.8550 −0.8361 −0.7538 −0.5787 −0.3179 −0.0060 0.3068 0.5703 0.7489 0.8343 0.8546
0.2 −0.5789 −0.5623 −0.5050 −0.3870 −0.2124 −0.0040 0.2050 0.3813 0.5017 0.5610 0.5785
0.4 −0.3437 −0.3287 −0.2925 −0.2231 −0.1221 −0.0023 0.1178 0.2198 0.2905 0.3278 0.3432
0.6 −0.1608 −0.1465 −0.1265 −0.0949 −0.0515 −0.0010 0.0497 0.0935 0.1256 0.1459 0.1602
0.8 −0.0422 −0.0275 −0.0177 −0.0107 −0.0051 −0.0001 0.0049 0.0105 0.0174 0.0270 0.0415
1.0 0.0000 0.0163 0.0231 0.0211 0.0125 0.0002 −0.0121 −0.0209 −0.0231 −0.0168 −0.0008
It will be observed from above that these coefficients are a function of the aspect
ratio of the slab. Normally the ratio of H/b for counterforts varies between 2 to 3.
We furnish below the coefficients for moments and shears for various values between
2 to 3 in increment of 0.2547 .
We now explain the above with a typical numerical problem.
Example 3.6.2
A counter fort retaining wall of height 7.5 m has counter forts spaced at 3.0 m.
The average thickness of the wall is 300 m having RCC grade as M25. The wall
is resting on hard soil in zone IV as per IS-1893-2002. Unit weight of the backfill
soil is 22 kN/m3 having friction angle of 28◦ . The soil is sloped to the horizontal
plane at angle I = 15o . Consider, Econc = 2.85 × 107 kN/m2 and Poisson’s
ratio of concrete as 0.3.
Determine the time period of the wall and find out the horizontal dynamic
moments and shears in the wall under active earth pressure?
Solution:
Here we have, φ = 28◦ ; i = 15◦ ➔ α = 45 + 0.5 × 28 = 59◦ .
α sin i
Considering, ζ = cos
sin(α−i) =
cos 59 sin 15
sin 44 = 0.192, for the problem.
12γ H 5 (1 + ζ )(1 − ν 2 )
T = 2π
8Et 3 g tan α(X1 r4+ X2 r2 + X3 νr2 + X4 )
12 × 22 × 7.55 (1 + 0.192)(1 − 0.32 )
= 2π
8 × 2.85 × 107 × 0.33 × 9.81 tan 59(75.3 × 2.54 − 3.25 × 2.52 + 17.68 × 0.3 × 2.52 + 1.72)
= 0.03 sec
0.423βγ Sa 0.423βγ Sa
M(y) = Coeffy × (1 + ζ )H 3 and Q(y) = Coeffy × (1 + ζ )H 2
8g tan α 8g tan α
0.423 × 0.06 × 22 × 1.45 × 7.53 × 1.192
M(y) = Coeff(y) = 30.58 × Coeff(y)
8 × 9.81 × tan 59
0.423 × 0.06 × 22 × 1.45 × 7.52 × 1.192
Q(y) = Coeff(y) = 4.077 × Coeff(y)
8 × 9.81 × tan 59
Horizontal Moment M y
H/b −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
−1.0 7.975 4.298 0.804 −2.141 −4.128 −4.847 −4.180 −2.235 0.681 4.161 7.836
−0.8 6.878 3.706 0.694 −1.846 −3.560 −4.180 −3.604 −1.927 0.587 3.588 6.757
−0.6 5.786 3.118 0.584 −1.551 −2.993 −3.514 −3.030 −1.620 0.495 3.019 5.685
−0.4 4.712 2.540 0.477 −1.261 −2.434 −2.859 −2.465 −1.317 0.404 2.459 4.630
−0.2 3.678 1.983 0.374 −0.981 −1.895 −2.226 −1.919 −1.024 0.318 1.920 3.613
0.0 2.708 1.461 0.278 −0.718 −1.389 −1.632 −1.407 −0.749 0.237 1.414 2.660
0.2 1.833 0.990 0.192 −0.479 −0.932 −1.096 −0.944 −0.501 0.164 0.959 1.801
0.4 1.088 0.589 0.119 −0.276 −0.542 −0.638 −0.549 −0.289 0.102 0.571 1.069
0.6 0.509 0.278 0.063 −0.117 −0.237 −0.281 −0.240 −0.122 0.055 0.269 0.500
0.8 0.134 0.076 0.027 −0.012 −0.038 −0.047 −0.038 −0.013 0.025 0.074 0.131
1.0 0.000 0.005 0.016 0.028 0.037 0.040 0.037 0.028 0.016 0.005 0.000
Horizontal Shear Qy
H/b −1.0 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
−1.0 −12.307 −12.114 −10.963 −8.434 −4.637 −0.088 4.476 8.312 10.893 12.091 12.305
−0.8 −10.614 −10.445 −9.451 −7.271 −3.997 −0.076 3.858 7.165 9.391 10.426 10.612
−0.6 −8.929 −8.781 −7.943 −6.109 −3.358 −0.064 3.241 6.020 7.892 8.764 8.927
−0.4 −7.272 −7.142 −6.455 −4.963 −2.728 −0.052 2.633 4.891 6.414 7.128 7.270
−0.2 −5.675 −5.560 −5.018 −3.855 −2.118 −0.040 2.044 3.799 4.986 5.549 5.673
0.0 −4.179 −4.074 −3.667 −2.813 −1.544 −0.029 1.491 2.772 3.643 4.065 4.176
0.2 −2.829 −2.732 −2.445 −1.870 −1.025 −0.019 0.990 1.843 2.429 2.725 2.826
0.4 −1.680 −1.585 −1.400 −1.063 −0.581 −0.011 0.561 1.047 1.390 1.581 1.676
0.6 −0.786 −0.690 −0.582 −0.431 −0.232 −0.004 0.224 0.424 0.578 0.687 0.782
0.8 −0.206 −0.104 −0.044 −0.013 −0.002 0.000 0.002 0.013 0.042 0.101 0.202
1.0 0.000 0.115 0.162 0.149 0.088 0.002 −0.085 −0.147 −0.163 −0.118 −0.006
Building
H z
Basement
BedRock
where Vs = shear wave velocity of the soil medium; u(x, z, t) = the displacement
function and can be considered as u = H(x)Q(z)G(t); three independent functions.
Without getting into the details of theory of partial differential equation it can be
shown that Equation (3.7.1) can be broken up into three ordinary differential equations
of second order, given by (Kreyszig 2001)
d2G
+ λ2 G = 0, where, λ = vs · i where i is a constant. (3.7.2)
dt 2
d 2 H(x)
+ k2 H(x) = 0, where, k is another constant. (3.7.3)
dx2
d 2 Q(z)
+ p2 Q(z) = 0, where, p2 = i2 − k2 . (3.7.4)
dz2
k = mπ/a. (3.7.6)
mπ x
Thus, Hm (x) = sin (3.7.7)
a
(2n − 1)π
p= . (3.7.8)
2H
(2n − 1)πz
and hence, Q(z) = cos (3.7.9)
2H
mπ x (2n − 1)π z
φ(x, z) = H(x)Q(z) = sin cos where, m, n = 1, 2, 3 . . .
a 2H
(3.7.10)
λ2
thus, p2 = − k2 or λ = vs p2 + k2 .
Vs2
Substituting the value of p and k from Eqns. (3.7.8) and (3.7.6) we have
m2 (2n − 1)2
λ = vs π + .
a2 4H 2
1 vs π
λ = ω = vs π 0 + 2
= . (3.7.11)
4H 2H
Considering, T = 2π 4H
ω , we have, T = vs which is basically the free field time period
in one dimension for the site.
For lim a → ∞, we drop the first term of eigen function (in the x direction) in
Equation (3.7.10) to determine the displacement and pressure at wall face and consider
the eigen function as only
(2n − 1)π z
ϕ(z) = cos (3.7.12)
2H
Sd = Sa /ω2
4 Sa H 2 πz 4 S a γs H 2 πz
u(z) = κ i β cos = κ i β cos (3.7.13)
π 2 vs2 2H π 2 Gg 2H
H 6 H
mi φi πz πz
κi = = γ z cos dz γ z cos2 dz (3.7.14)
mi φi2 2H 2H
0 0
8
The above, on integration by parts gives, κi = π+2 .
∂u ∂u 2 S a γs H πz
εxx = = 0; εzz = which gives, εzz = − κi β sin
∂x ∂z π Gg 2H
16 S a γs H πz
➔ εzz = − β sin . (3.7.15)
π(π + 2) Gg 2H
2G(1 − ν) 2Gν
Thus, σxx = εxx + εzz
1 − 2ν 1 − 2ν
2Gν
As εxx = 0, in this case we have, σxx = 1−2ν εzz , which gives the dynamic pressure
on the wall as
16 2ν S a γs H πz
pdyn = − β sin (3.7.17)
π(π + 2) 1 − 2ν g 2H
Where, negative sign indicates that the pressure is acting in the direction of the wall.
32 S a γs H πz ν
➔ pdyn = − ψν β sin where ψv = (3.7.18)
π(π + 2) g 2H 1 − 2ν
Sa γ s H
pdyn (z) = −Coeffν β , (3.7.19)
g
where the coefficients may be read off for different values of Poisson’s ratio (0.25, 0.3
and 0.4) as shown in Figure 3.7.2.
The above normalized pressure coefficient when compared with the analytical solu-
tion proposed in Equation 3.7.19 gives quite closely matched value as shown in
Figure 3.7.3.
1.4
1.2
Pressure coefficient
1
n=0.25
0.8
n=0.3
0.6
n=0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Z/H
1.2
Pressure coefficient
1
0.8 Closed
0.6 form
0.4 Solution
0.2
0
Ostadan's
-0.2 curve
1
2
8
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
Z/H
Figure 3.7.3 Comparison of normalized pressure on the wall. (Proposed & Ostadan)
Based on the above equation, Ostadan proposed a simplified method for determi-
nation of dynamic pressure on such unyielding walls whose steps are as mentioned
hereunder:
• Perform free field soil column analysis and obtain the ground response at the
depth corresponding to the base of the wall in the free field. The response motion
in terms of acceleration response spectrum at 30% damping should be obtained.
The free field soil column analysis may be performed using Computer program like
SHAKE with input motion specified either at the ground surface or at the depth of
foundation base-mat. The choice for location of control motion is an important
500
Simplified
0
Method
-500 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Height in feet
Figure 3.7.4 Comparison of dynamic pressure for the 30 ft basement wall with Vs = 1000 ft/sec.
decision that needs to be made consistent with development of the design motion.
The location of input motion may significantly affect the dynamic response of the
building and seismic soil pressure amplitude.
• Obtain total mass of the soil body, m = 0.5 × ρ × H 2 × ψv , for the present case
ψv = 2/[(1 − ν)(2 − ν)]0.5 , here ρ is mass density of the soil and ν is Poisson’s
ratio.
• Obtain the lateral seismic force from the product of the total mass obtained above
and the acceleration value of the free field response at the soil column obtained at
the depth of the bottom of the wall.
• Obtain the maximum seismic soil pressure at the ground surface level by dividing
the lateral force obtained above by a factor 0.744 H (which actually the area under
curve for the equation furnished by him as mentioned above).
• Obtain the pressure profile by multiplying the peak pressure from the above step
by the pressure distribution relationship as furnished earlier.
Ostadan’s method has been compared with analytical method proposed here48 for
a basement wall which is 30 feet deep having shear wave velocity of soil as 1000 ft/sec.
The density of soil considered as 125 lbs/ft3 .
The wall is considered to be in a zone subjected to severe earthquake where Z =
0.24, I = 1.2 and R = 2.0. The out come of the results are shown in Figure 3.7.4.
It will be observed that variation is not too wide and well within the acceptable limit
of civil engineering design.
48 Personal communications with Dr. Ignacio Arango and Dr. Farhang Ostadan April 2005.
49 For most of the case it was observed that impulsive force suggested by IS-1893 1984 provided with
forces of small magnitude unless and until the tank was situated in a place where earthquake has a
severe intensity.
Sloshed liquid
Sloshing Mass
h
Impulsive
Mass
Sa
Figure 3.8.2 Typical cylindrical tank with liquid divided into impulsive and sloshing mass.
hi
Figure 3.8.3 Typical mathematical model of water tank with liquid impulsive and sloshing mass.
It is unfortunate that code committee did not update this previously though superior
mathematical model for analysis of such liquid retaining vessel has been in existence
since 1957 (Housner 1957).
Before we delve into the details of such mathematical model for analysis of such
water tanks, let us see how the fluid behaves, when acceleration is induced at the base
of such tanks.
Let us consider a cylindrical vessel of diameter D containing liquid of height h
(Figure 3.8.2). When the vessel is subjected to an acceleration Sa at its base a part of
the liquid (called the impulsive mass) moves along with the container as a rigid body
at the bottom of the tank. Balance mass at the top of the tank acts in more flexible
manner and induces a convective or a sloshing force on the tank wall. What part of
the mass would act as an impulsive mass and sloshing mass depends50 upon the aspect
ratio h/D.
In simplistic mechanical analogy the above can be represented as shown in
Figure 3.8.3. Haroun and Housner (1981) derived the values of sloshing and impulsive
mass considering the wall of the tank as rigid and later derived the same for flexible
wall.
50 The total impulsive and sloshing mass constitutes the full mass of liquid in the tank.
We will not go into details of the derivation of the same from the fundamentals,
which are given elsewhere (Housner 1963) but will deal with final results only, both for
circular and rectangular tanks which can be directly used for computation of pressure
in a tank either manually or through a computer.
In Table 3.8.1,
Table 3.8.1 Design parameters for dynamic analysis of tanks with fluids.
The total moment acting on the base of the tank (when base pressure is included)
and on the wall (when base pressure is excluded) is given by
Above is the original form in which Housner presented a solution to the problem
and has been the backbone of further research on this topic for next 30 years.
The basic assumption in Housner’s hypothesis which may not be always true (though
a conservative estimate) was the impulsive time period considered to be zero in his
analysis. The assumption was justified in the above case for Housner assumed the
tank to be infinitely rigid but in reality the tank could also be flexible when the time
period may have a finite value (albeit low compared to the sloshing time period).
Further researches by Veletsos & Young (1977) and Veletsos (1984) have defined
the impulsive time period when the wall is not rigid.
Here R = radius of the tank; H = height of the fluid in tank; ρ = mass density of
the fluid; Ew = Young’s modulus of the wall, and t = thickness of the wall. [See
Figure 3.8.4].
we
Hw
ĥ
Ti = 2π d/g (3.8.4)
0.5W i + Ww
we = (3.8.5)
BH
where,
Wi = weight of the impulsive fluid;
Ww = weight of wall perpendicular to the direction of the earthquake force;
B = inside width of the tank;
H = height of fluid, and
we = equivalent udl acting on the wall.
To calculate d, following steps may be considered, c.g. of the u.d.l., we may be
calculated from the expression
0.5W i hi + Ww Hw
ĥ = (3.8.6)
0.5W i + Ww
P(ĥ)3 t3
δ= where, I = (3.8.7)
3EI 12
It should be noted that the above is valid for tank walls which are free at top and
have an aspect ratio L/H > 2.0 i.e. it behaves as a one way slab. This may not be
valid for walls with other boundary conditions but is what is in vogue at present.
ZISai
Ahi = (3.8.10)
2Rg
ZISasl
Ahsl = , (3.8.11)
2Rg
for sloshing force where damping considered for fluid is normally 0.5%.
Here, Z = zone factor as explained earlier; I = importance factor, and R = ductility
factor.
The new IS-1893 (2002) is yet to arrive at the importance factor to be recommended
for liquid retaining structures; in absence of such data recommendations as followed
in UBC 97 may be followed:
For non important tanks consider, I = 1.0;
For tanks supplying water to public community or meant for fire fighting in impor-
tant industry like power plant or petrochemical plants or containing liquid having
nominal hazard I = 1.25;
For tanks containing hazardous or toxic liquid higher importance factor between
I = 1.5 to 1.75 may be considered.
The assessment of ductility factor is far more complex as the basis of Sa /g as given in
UBC and that IS-1893 does not correspond one to one and a comparison of base shear
for similar structures has to be seen, which is obviously a topic of research. In absence
of such data presently, a conservative value of R between 1.5 and 2 may be used for
tanks resting on the ground. For overhead tanks similarly, a value of R = 1.2–1.3 may
be used for non ductile detailing and R = 2–2.2 may be used for tank frames with
ductile detailing.
where, hi = height of impulsive mass from the bottom of the tank as explained earlier;
Hw = height of the c.g. of the wall mass; Hr = height of the c.g. of the roof mass,
and
Hsl = height of the sloshing mass from the bottom of the tank.
In this case the height hi and hsl shall be calculated for the case “Excluding base
pressure”.
For moment in the base of the tank (i.e. the pressure induced in the soil) the same
expression as above may be used with exception that the height hi and hsl shall be
calculated for the case “Including base pressure”.
Example 3.8.1
A rectangular RCC fire water tank (Figure 3.8.5) is resting on ground having a
size of 7.5 m × 7.5 m × 6.5 m is constructed in a refinery site which is classified
as zone IV as per IS-1893 2002. The average thickness of wall is considered to
be 450 mm. Grade of concrete used for constructing the tank is M30. The tank
is covered by a roof slab which is simply supported on the four walls having
thickness of 200 mm. Nature of ground on which it is resting is considered hard.
Calculate the seismic force at the wall base and on the foundation.
500
6000
Figure 3.8.5 Elevation and plan view of the water tank with typical wall slab detail resting on
ground.
Solution:
Weight of water in tank = 7.5 × 7.5 × 6 × 10 = 3375 kN; Wt. of roof slab =
8 × 8 × 0.2 × 25 = 320 kN, and Wt. of one wall = 7.5 × 6.5 × 0.45 × 25 =
548 kN.
Here L = 0.5 × 7.5 = 3.75 m, and H = 6.0 m.
Based on Housner’s expressions, impulsive mass is given by,
√
√
L
tan h 3 H tan h 3 3.75
6
Wi = √ L W, = √ 3.75 × 3375 = 2475.8 kN
3H 3 6
⎡ √ L ⎤
3 3 1
hi = H = 2.25 m (EBP)53 = H ⎣ √
− ⎦ = 3.342 m (IBP)
H
8 2 tanh 3L 8
H
cos h 1.58 H L −1
hsl = 1 −
H = 3.977 m (EBP);
1.58 H
L sin h 1.58 H
L
cos h 1.58 H L −2
hsl = 1 −
H = 4.358 m (IBP)
1.58 H
L sin h 1.58 H
L
t3 1 × (0.45)3
I= = = 7.59375 × 10−3 m4 ; Econc = 3.122 × 107 kN/m2 .
12 12
53 Here EBP means excluding base pressure and IBP = Including base pressure.
d 5.614 × 10−3
Ti = 2π = 2π = 0.150 sec
g 9.81
ZISai
Ahi = , for impulsive force
2Rg
0.24 × 1.25 × 2.5
= = 0.1875, and
2×2
ZISasl
Ahsl = , for sloshing mode
2Rg
0.24 × 1.25 × 0.321
➔ Ahsl = × 2.98 = 0.072
2×2
1
Vi = Ahi (Wi + Ww + Wr ) = 0.1875 × (2476 + 548 + × 320) = 582 kN,
4
for impulsive force.
Vsl = Ahsl Wsl = 0.072 × 1098 = 79 kN for sloshing force.
Thus resultant shear is given by, V = Vi2 + Vsl2 = 587 kN.
Calculation of Bending Moment at base of wall
Mi = Ahi (Wi hi + Ww Hw + W r Hr ) = 0.1875 × (2476 × 2.25 + 548 × 3.25 +
80 × 6.6) = 1478 kN · m, for impulsive mode
Msl = Ahsl Wsl hsl = 0.072 × 1098 × 3.977 = 314.40 kN · m, for sloshing
mode.
Resultant Moment, M = Mi2 + Msl2 = 1511 kN · m.
Calculation of Bending Moment at foundation
Figure 3.9.1 Typical overhead water tank with its staging system modeled as two mass system.
In this case also the liquid in the tank may be considered as a two mass lumped
system like the case of tank resting on ground constituting of impulsive and sloshing
mass. The impulsive and the sloshing mode may be treated as two uncoupled system
where the impulsive mass of the fluid as obtained by the Housner’s expression may be
added to the tank mass and 1/3rd of that of the staging and whose dynamic response
may be obtained from the expression
Wi + Wt + 13 Ws
T = 2π (3.9.1)
gKs
Wsl
T = 2π (3.9.2)
gKsl
where, Wsl is the sloshing mass as per Housner’s expression and Ksl is the fluid stiffness,
given by
Ksl H H
= 0.83266 tan h2 1.58 (3.9.3)
W L
else they can be obtained from the graph as shown in Figure 3.9.2.
1.2
1
0.8
Design Ratio
Wi/W
0.6 Ws/W
0.4 KsH/W
0.2
0
1
1
8
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
L/H
Figure 3.9.2 Impulsive, sloshing mass and stiffness parameters for rectangular tank with different L/H.
In the above analysis everything is fine except the fact that the staging stiffness needs
to be evaluated. The easiest way it can be done is by modeling the frame in a computer
analysis program like STAAD-Pro, SAP 2000, GTSTRUDL, etc. and apply a unit load
at center of mass of the tank and the water and find out the deflection at the base of
the tank (top of staging).
Knowing the deflection the stiffness value Ks may be obtained from the relationship,
P = Ks · d (3.9.4a)
where, d is the deflection and P is the applied load. Else, for a regular frames the
stiffness may be obtained from the formula
12nEI
Ks = (3.9.4b)
jL3
where n is the number of coulumns in the frame and j is the number of storey and
L is the height of column per storey.
Once the time periods are established as per Equation (3.9.1) the calculation becomes
quite straight forward.
The shear force at the top of the frame, shown in Figure 3.9.3, is given by
1
Vi = Ahi (W i + WT + W ) and Vsl = Ahsl Wsl (3.9.5)
3 fr
where, Wi = weight of impulsive fluid; WT = weight of the tank; Wfr = weight of the
frame, and Wsl = weight of sloshing fluid.
Rigid Links(Typical)
Nodes(typical)
Beam elements(typical)
Figure 3.9.3 Typical computer model for staging for determing the deflection/stifness of the frame.
And,
ZI Sa
A= (3.9.6)
2R g
In which, Sa = the accelerations due to impulsive and sloshing mode time periods
as calculated above.
The resultantant shear at the top of the frame is given by
V= Vi2 + Vsl2 (3.9.7)
The overturning moment in impulsive mode at the base of staging is thus given by
1
Mi = Ahi Wi hi + Hst + WT + Wst Hcg (3.9.8)
3
where, hi = impulsive height of the fluid as per Housner’s expression considering the
“Including base pressure case”, Hst = height of the staging frame, and Hcg = height
from the base of staging to the c.g. of the tank + fluid.
The overturning moment in sloshing mode at the base of staging is thus given by
where, hsl = sloshing height of the fluid as per Housner’s expression considering the
“Including base pressure case”.
1.2
0.8
Design Ratio
Ws/W
0.6 KsH/W
0.4 Wi/W
0.2
0
1
1
8
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
Radius/Height
Figure 3.9.4 Impulsive, sloshing mass and stiffness parameters for circular tank with different R/H.
For circular tank the steps remain exactly same except the stiffness value which gets
modified to
Ksl H 2 H
= 0.58512 tan h 1.84 . (3.9.10)
W R
The sloshing design parameters can also be obtained form the graph as furnished in
Figure 3.9.4.
where, ψi = 0.866 1 − Hz D
tanh 0.866 H , in which, ρ = mass density of the
liquid; φ = circumferential angle, and z = vertical distance of a point from the bottom
of the tank wall. Impulsive hydrodynamic pressure in vertical dirfection on a strip of
length ‘b’ is given by
sin h 0.866 xh
pvi (dyn) = 0.866Ahi ρgH
(3.9.12)
cos h 0.866 bh
cos h(3.674 z )
where, ψs = 0.5625 cos h 3.674 HD .
( D)
Sloshing pressure in vertical direction on the base slab is given by
x 4
where, ψsv = 1.125 D − 3 D sec h 3.674 H
D .
where, x = horizontal distance of a point on base of tank in the direction of seismic
force from the center of tank.
2
sin h(0.866 xh )
pvi (dyn) = 0.866Ahi ρgH (3.9.16)
cos h(0.866 2L
h
)
cos h(3.162 z )
where, ψs = 0.4165 cos h 3.674 2L
H .
( 2L )
Sloshing pressure in vertical direction on the base slab is given by
x 4 x 3 H
where, ψsv = 1.25 2L − 3 2L sec h 3.162 2L .
2
pvw = A ρgH (1 − z/H) (3.9.19)
3 h
1.25ZI
where, Ah = R as per IS-code
where, t = average thickness of the wall, and ρw = mass density of the tank wall.
pdes (dyn) = (phi + pmw )2 + p2si + p2vw (3.9.21)
Example 3.9.1
Shown in Figure 3.9.5 is an elevated rectangular water tank of capacity 500 m3
resting on medium soil which is classified as falling in a zone of IV as per IS
Code. Grade of concrete used is M25. Based on dynamic analysis find out the
overturning moment on the top of the foundation. Shear at top of staging, and
hydrodynamic pressure on the tank wall and base. Code to be used is IS 1893-
2002. Col size 600 × 600, beam size 500 × 750.
9000 250(typ)
6350
750(typ)
4450
20,000
4450
Figure 3.9.5
Solution:
Capacity of water tank = 500 m3 ; Weight of water in tank = 500 × 10 =
5000 kN, and Height of water = 500/81 = 6.17 = 6.2 m (say).
L
Wi tan h 3H
= √ L
W 3H
0.8503
Here, L = 4.5 m, H = 6.2 m, W = 5000 kN; thus, Wi = 5000 × 1.257 =
3381 kN.
Wsl L H
= 0.527 tan h 1.58
W H L
4.5 6.2
➔ Wsl = 5000 × 0.527 × tan h 1.58 = 1864 kN
6.2 4.5
12nEI
Kcol =
jL3
12nEI 12 × 9 × 307800
Kcol = = = 66485 kN/m.
jL 3 4 × 53
Wi + Wt + 13 Ws 3381 + 2597 + 13 × 3645
T = 2π = 2π = 0.6598 sec.
gKs 9.81 × 66485
ZI Sa 0.24 × 1.5
➔ Ahi = = × 1.855 = 0.2226
2R g 2 × 1.5
3.16H
3.16 tan h 2L
and substituting the value of H = 6.2 m and L = 4.5 m as stated above, we have,
Tsl = 3.43 secs.
Sa 1.36
Considering, g s = T = 0.3965 m/sec2 for 5% damping.
Considering, the fluid damping as 0.5% as per IS-1893–2002, the above value
gets modified to
Sa
= 0.3965 × 2.98 = 1.18 m/sec2 .
g s
ZI Sa 0.24×1.5
Thus, Ahs = 2R g = 2×1.5 × 1.18 = 0.1416
Thus sloshing shear at base slab level of the tank
Vhi = 0.1416 × 1864 = 264 kN · (Wsl = 1864 kN, the sloshing weight of water)
1
➔ Mi = 0.2226 × (3381 × (3.80 + 20) + (2597 + × 3645) × 19.06)
3
= 34086 kN · m
H
hsl cos h 1.58 L −2
➔ =1−
H 1.58 H H
L sin h 1.58 L
M= 340862 + 64892 = 34698 kN . m
0 0 0 0
0.05 0.183688 0.58238833 0.61067
0.1 0.36369 1.167154385 1.222506
0.15 0.53632 1.756685596 1.836732
0.2 0.697892 2.35338885 2.454688
0.25 0.84472 2.959700315 3.077885
0.3 0.973117 3.578095387 3.708062
0.35 1.079398 4.211098795 4.347235
0.4 1.159877 4.861294911 4.99775
0.45 1.210868 5.531338298 5.662323
0.5 1.228683 6.223964552 6.344084
We are almost through with this chapter and take this opportunity to pacify those
hardened professionals whom we had perhaps bored to stupor with double integrals,
partial differentials and hyperbolic trigonometric functions.
Before we start with this topic, we would like to point out that – perhaps we could
make the reader realize that it is not a very easy subject to grasp. It requires competence
in multifaceted subject like engineering geology, soil dynamics, structural dynamics,
fluid dynamics and finally applied mathematics which is not a very easy thing to
achieve in a nutshell. It is for this, specialists from different field convene together
to pool their knowledge and experience to develop a unified design policy which is
otherwise known as the code of practice. 55
55 And violations of the same, in the name of economy or financial budget is not uncommon.
• Cost involved
• Engineering and construction schedule
• Sociological importance of the structure in hand.
To what sophistication an analysis should be carried out depends a lot on the budget
the client has the engineering and construction schedule he has to meet and social
outcry it would create in case the structure undergoes damage during an earthquake.
For instance a commercial building or a hotel sustaining damage during an earth-
quake without collapse would cause a much lesser furor then a reactor building or
a heavy water container undergoing even a minor crack during an earthquake. For
radiation effects emanating from those cracks could have a catastrophic effect on the
surrounding and would possibly result in complete shut down of the plant till such
cracks are rectified. This would possibly result in power shortage in an area for months
and could result in a huge revenue loss for industries dependent on such power.
Chemical plants storing toxic and hazardous material if undergoes damage can again
have deadly consequence on the surrounding and can ravage the ecological balance so
badly that it could take years to restore the same.
Public building like hospitals, town halls, schools where people mostly take refuge
in the post earthquake scenario must remain functional for relief work to be effectively
carried out.
People could surely argue that – what’s the big deal? As the code suggests we take a
higher importance factor and design it for a higher force. It is indubitable a fact that
the argument do have some substance in it.
But it has been seen in many cases that though the force induced in the structure was
possibly lesser then expected, structures have undergone a spectacular failure while
there are structures which was subjected to a far higher force then it was designed for
and yet it has survived the shock with only minor damages.
Reasons attributing to such spectacular failures have been very simple.
• The structures were inherently planned poorly making them generically weak
under earthquake force56
• And last but not the least improper detailing causing improper stress dissipation
path resulting in considerable damage to the structure.
We would like to re-emphasise at this point that irrespective of the most sophisticated
analysis one undertakes the most advanced software one may use if the same is not
followed up with well conceived structural arrangement and proper detailing can still
result in collapse.
On the other hand, analysis of structures based on simple seismic coefficient method
and plane frame analysis carried out by simple portal method, but detailed properly
and having robust structural configuration has been found to survive severest of the
shock.
56 Like irregular geometry in plan causing additional torsion not catered to properly etc.
One of the major limitations a civil engineer faces specially in the building industry is
that in many of the major buildings during conceptual stage he has very little control
on selection of material and planning of the functional space for this is principally
controlled by the architects57 . But how well the structure will behave under earthquake
depends a lot on these decisions. If the architect concerned does not have appreciation
of the problems earthquake could create, may lead to a situation of impasse–when in
extreme case can even result in replacement of the project civil engineer58 .
While it is surely not the job of a structural engineer to put spanner in every aspiring
wheel an architect could conjure, yet if he sees something that could seriously mar the
performance of the building should be pointed out clearly – if possible with compar-
ative numbers enabling an architect to make a quantitative assessment of the issue.
The bottom line is that it is necessary to have an unbiased continuous and an open
dialogue between the architect and the engineer to arrive at the most optimal shape
and configuration which is structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing.
During planning stage of structure at a location susceptible to severe earthquake if
some fundamental rules are followed and adhered to much of the risk of a collapse can
surely be significantly mitigated. We discuss a few of the important ones hereafter
• Avoid the fundamental period of the building to be near the free field site of the
motion, equating the two as shown in Chapter 1 (Vol. 2) one can arrive at the
critical height of the building which an architect could be made aware to suppress
the seismic excitation of the building.
• Avoid irregular geometry in plan these creates additional force. If not properly
taken care off can lead to significant damage of the building. We explain this
point with an example.
Shown in Figure 3.10.1 is a typical plan view of a school building with a play-
ground59 . It is obvious that shear center of such building will be along the chain
dotted line as shown in the figure. Thus an earthquake force acting on the building
would act along this line and would invariably create additional torsion in the building
which if not properly catered for could result in severe cracking at the junction.
Now the point remains is that does this functional concept be rejected at the outset
citing it is dangerous?
For wearing an architects hat one can envisage a number of functional advantage
with this type of configuration as a school building. So, what are the other options a
structural engineer is left with? He can surely under take a detailed dynamic analysis
of such building and cater to the additional torsion or can simply do the following:
The trick is simple – break up the building into three regular modules as shown
in Figure 3.10.2 by providing construction joints as shown which surely makes the
57 Not to mention, those mafias (with high level political nexus) who in the name of promoters today
control almost everything in building industry and have polluted the complete work ethics of the building
industry in India.
58 If the firm concerned is primarily an architectural firm.
59 A common feature one observes in many public schools in England and Germany, playground in front
is usually called a quadrangle.
Construction joint
(Typ.)
This is a common problem faced in many congested urban area where due to lack
of space the ground floor is completely kept open for the cars to park while the top
portion constitute of residential or office complex with usual curtain walls as shown
in Figure 3.10.3.
In such cases, the top portion of the building having higher stiffness would possibly
have a low time period which shows the structure is quite stiff. This would thus attract
a significant force which when gets transferred to the foundation, suddenly finds a level
which has a much poorer stiffness then rest of the building and if the members are not
sturdy enough to transfer this shear force would invariably result in a failure at the
column beam junction as marked as the weak zone.
60 A similar situation can happen in a pipe rack configuration too where due to process requirement and
pipe stress limitations the configuration cannot be changed. Again opting for a separation joint will do
the trick in such case.
Weakest link
Figure 3.10.3 Typical office building with open space for car parking in ground floor.
Figure 3.10.4 Office building with open shear wall and access cut-out.
It can well be envisaged that while we cannot reject the option61 , yet try to arrive at a
solution which would make the building safe against earthquake. The easiest solution
would to provide one bay with a shear wall which would be stiff enough to absorb
the load as shown in Figure 3.10.4.
We had just cited a few examples to give some idea. All international codes including
IS-1893 (2002) has come up with do and don’ts in term of building planning and should
be adhered to as much as practicable.
Detailing is another aspect – that needs to be given proper attention. Ductile detailing
as such is gaining importance more and more to attenuate the effect of earthquake
force. IS code has developed a special code, IS-13920 for the same which should be
adhered to. Ductility is an important aspect which safe guards a structure by dissipating
the energy induced in the body due to seismic force by cracking thus preventing a total
collapse. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this book and interested reader
may refer to a number of excellent reference like Park & Pauley 1975, Dowrick 2002.
61 For doing so might result in a rejection of the building plan itself citing provisions have not been kept
for adequate parking space and the client does not have budget to provide a basement parking.
3.10.1 Epilogue
We are almost at the end of the road, for readers seeking more information on the
subject we would encourage him to read the literatures mentioned at the end of the
chapter. Read them, if you are really interested in this topic we can assure you that you
will enjoy them immensely. Considering this is not a handbook our intention is not to
work out design problems in completeness enabling one to follow them blindly. The
purpose was to provide you with the basic essence of the phenomena and encourage
you to understand the fundamental mechanics behind it.
Finally a word of apology, to the bridge engineers for not having addressed -such
an interesting topic.
The reasons were basically the following:
Bridge engineering being a topic by itself would significantly increase the volume of
this book62 , finally private bridges in India is a rare commodity and most of the bridges
and flyovers are controlled based on legislation of IRC63 and guidelines prescribed by
MOST64 .
Even though detailed dynamic analysis is possible for such bridges however, as per
Indian practice, most of the dynamic loads coming on the bridges due to moving
vehicles or earthquake are catered for based on dynamic load factor or pseudo static
methods. Applying too much sophistication in their analysis may be construed as a
rude intrusion in their “all is fine” world of slumber and may not be approved by
the legislative body. In USA bridge codes put forward by AASHTO65 have regular
provisions for design of bridges under dynamic earthquake loading are not officially
recognized in the country. Till such modifications are brought about by IRC and
MOST we thought it prudent not to venture in this otherwise a very interesting subject.
62 The intenion has never been to make international weightlifters out of the reader.
63 Indian Road Congress.
64 Ministry of Surface Transport of India.
65 American Authority of state highway official.
1 Alpan, I. 1961, ‘Machine foundation and soil resonance’, Geotechnique, Vol. 11.
2 Almuti, A.M. 1976, ‘Large flexible Turbine foundation’, Methods of Structural Analysis,
ASCE, NY, pp. 707–719.
3 Ambraseys, N. (1995), The prediction of earthquake peak ground acceleration in Europe.
J. Earthq. Eng. & Str. Dyn., Vol. 24, pp. 467–490.
4 Aneja, I. 1975, ‘Dynamic Response of Systems—Turbine generators on Various Founda-
tions’, Proceedings of the American Power conference, Vol. 37, pp. 528–540.
5 Applied Technology Council 1982, ‘Tentative provisions for the development of seis-
mic regulations for buildings’, ATC 3-06, NBS SP-510, NSF 78-8, National Bureau of
Standards USA.
6 Archer, J.S. 1963, ‘Consistent Mass Matrix for Distributed Mass Systems’, Jour. of Struct.
Division, ASCE, Vol. 89, No. STA4, pp. 161–178.
7 Arya, S.C., O’Neill, M.W. & Pincus, G. 1979, Design of Structures and Foundations for
Vibrating Machines, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas.
8 Arya, A.S. & Drewer, R. 1997, ‘Mathematical modeling and computer simulation of
elevated foundations supporting vibrating Machinery’, Tansaction of IMACS, Vol. XIX,
No. 4, Dec.
9 Bannerjee, P.K & Sen, R. 1987, ‘Dynamic behavior of axially and laterally loaded piles
and pile groups’, Chapter 3, Developments in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 3, ed., Bannerjee, P.K. and Butterfield, R., Elsivier Applied Science, London.
10 Baranov, V.A. 1967, ‘On the calculation of excited vibrations of an embedded foundation’,
Voprosy Dinamiki Prochnocti, No. 14, Polytech. Ins. Riga, pp. 195–209.
11 Brooker E.W. & Ireland H.O. 1965, ‘Earth pressure at rest related to Stress History’,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume II, No. 1.
12 Barkan, D.D. 1962, Dynamics of Bases and Foundations, McGraw-Hill Book Co. NY.
13 Blake, T.F., Hollingsworth, R.A. & Stewart, J.P., eds. 2002, Recommended procedures
for implementation of DMG, Thomas F Blake (Fugro-West Inc., Ventura, Ca.): Special
Publication 117.
14 Bojtsov, G., Postnov, M., Paliy, V., Chuvikovsky, V.S. 1982, ‘Dynamics and Stability of
construction’, Vol. 3, Structural Mechanics of Ship Leningrad, Sudostronei (In Russian),
p. 317.
15 Broms, B.B. 1965, ‘Design of Laterally Loaded Piles’, J. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engng. Div., ASCE, 91, No. SM3, pp. 79–98.
16 Bycroft, G.N. 1956, ‘Forced vibration of rigid circular plate on a semi infinite half space
on an elastic stratum’, Philosophical Transactions Royal Society of London, Series 248,
pp. 327–368.
17 Chopra, A.K. & Chakrabarti, P. 1973, ‘The Koyna Earthquake and damage to Koyna
Dam’, Bull. Seis. Soc. America, 63, No. 2, pp. 381–97.
65 Lasdon, L.S., Warren, A.D., Jain, A. & Ratner, M. 1978, ‘Design and testing of
a generalized reduced gradient code for nonlinear programming’, ACM Trans. Math.
Software, 4, pp. 34–50.
66 Lysmer, J. & Richart, F.E. Jr. 1966, ‘Dynamic response of footings to verti-
cal loading’, J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div. Proc., ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM1,
pp. 65–91.
67 Jennings, P.C. & Bielek, J. 1973, ‘Dynamics of building soil interaction’, Bulletin of
Seismological society of America, 63,1,9–48.
68 Kameswar Rao, N.S.V. 1977, ‘Dynamic soil structure system—A Brief Review’, J. Struct.
Engg., India, Vol. 4.
69 Kameswara Rao, N.S.V. 1998, Vibration Analysis and Foundation Dynamics, Wheeler
Publishing, New Delhi.
70 Kasten, H.L. & Kirkland, W.D. 1970, ‘Spring mounted Turbine Generator Spins Quitely,
Efficiently’, Electric Light and Power, E/D Edition, Nov., pp. 38–40.
71 Kramer, S. 2004, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pearson Education Publication.
New Delhi, Section 7.5, Page 297.
72 Kreyszig, E. 2001, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 8th Edition, John Wiley & Sons
Inc., NY.
73 Lysmer, J. & Kuhlemeyer, R.L. 1969, ‘Finite Dynamic Model of Infinite Media’, J. EM.
Divn, ASCE, EM4.
74 Lysmer, J., Ostadan, F. & Chen, C. 1999, ‘A System for Analysis of Soil Structure
Interaction’, SASSI-2000, University of California, Berkeley.
75 Luco, J.E. 1986, ‘Soil Structure interaction effects on seismic response of tall chimneys’,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5(3), pp. 170–177.
76 Major, A. 1980, Dynamics in Civil Engineering—Analysis and Design, Vols. I–IV,
Akademia Kiado, Budaapest and Collets Holding London.
77 Makadisi, F.I. & Seed, H.B. 1977, A simplified procedure for estimating earthquake
induced deformations in dam and embankments, EERC Report -77/19, University of
California Berkeley.
78 Mario, Paz. 1987, Structural Dynamics, CBS Publishers Ltd., New Delhi.
79 Meirovitch, L. 1967, Analytical Methods in Vibrations, Macmillan Co., NY.
80 Meirovitch, L. 1975, Elements of Vibration Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Co. NY.
81 Mononobe, N. & Matsuo, H. 1926, ‘On determination of earth pressure during
earthquakes’, Proc. on World Engineering Congress, p. 9.
82 Mononobe, N. 1936, ‘Seismic stability of earth dam’, Proc. Second Congress on Large
Dams, Vol. IV.
83 Murray, D.A. 1967, Introductory Course on Differential Equations, Orient Longman
(India).
84 Murthy, V.N.S. 1991, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vols. I &II, Sai-Kripa
Technical Consultants, Bangalore(India).
85 Naeim, F. 1989, The Seismic Design Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY.
86 Navarro, C. 1992, ‘Influence of soil flexibility on seismic behavior of chimneys’, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 11, pp. 403–409.
87 Newcomb, W.K. 1951, ‘Principles of foundation design for engines and compressors’,
Trans. ASME, 73, 307–318.
88 Novak, M. & Beredugo, Y.O. 1972a, ‘Vertical vibration of embedded footings’, J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 12, pp. 1291–1310.
89 Novak, M. & Beredugo, Y.O. 1972b, ‘Coupled horizontal and rocking vibration of
embedded footings’, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9, pp. 477–497.
90 Novak, M. 1974, ‘Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles’, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 574–598.
91 Novak, M. & El Sharnouby, B. 1983, ‘Stiffness and damping constants for single piles’,
J. Geotech. Engng. Div., ASCE, 109, pp. 961–974.
92 Novak, M. & El Hifnawy, L. 1983, ‘Vibration of Hammer Foundation’, Journal. of Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2(1), 43–53.
93 Ohsaki, Y. & Iwasaki, R. 1973, ‘On dynamic shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio of soil
deposits’, Soils and Foundations, 13(4), pp. 61–73.
94 Okabe, S. 1926, ‘General theory of earth pressure’, Journal of Japanese Society of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1.
95 Ostadan, F. 2004, ‘Seismic Soil Pressure for Building Walls—an Updated Approach’,
International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (11th ICSDEE),
University of California, Berkeley, January.
96 Park, R. & Pauley, T. 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures. 1st ed., John Wiley &
Sons, NY.
97 Paz, M. 1991, Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation, Van Nostrand-
Reinhold, NY.
98 Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E. & Thornburn, T.H. 1980, Foundation Engineering, 2nd edn,
Wiley Eastern Ltd., New Delhi.
99 Poulos, H.G. & Davis, E.H. 1980, Analysis and design of Pile foundations, John Wiley
Publication.
100 Randolph, M.F. & Poulos, H.G. 1982, ‘Estimating Flexibility of Offshore Pile groups’,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Numerical methods in Offshore Piling,
University of Texas, Austin, USA.
101 Rausch, E. 1959, ‘Maschinen fundamente und andere dynamisch beanspruchte baukon-
structionen’, VDI Verlag, Dusseldorf.
102 Richart, Jr. F.E., Hall, Jr. J.R. & Woods, R.D. 1970, Vibrations of Soils and Foundations,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
103 Rosenblueth, E. 1951, A Basis for Aseismic Design, PhD thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana.
104 Sadhegpour, N. & Chowdhury, I. 2008. Aerodynamic response of Tall Chimneys
considering foundation compliance- 12th International Conference in Advancement in
computational methods in Geo-mechanics-India.
105 Schmertmann, J.H. 1978, ‘Use the SPT to measure Dynamic Soil Properties?_ Yes,
But . . . !’, Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM, STP 654, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa,
pp. 341–355.
106 Seed, H.B. & Whitman, R.V. 1970, ‘Design of Earth Retaining Structures under Dynamic
Loads’, Proc. ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in Ground and Design of
Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, pp. 103–147.
107 Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. 1970, ‘Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response
Analysis’, Report No. 70-1, EERC, Berkeley, California.
108 Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. & Chung, R.M. 1984, The Influence of spt. proce-
dures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Report No. UCB/EERC-84/15, University
of California at Berkeley, 1984.
109 Segol, G., Abel, J.F. & Lee, P.C.Y. 1975, ‘Finite element Mesh Gradation of surface
waves’, J. GT Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, GT 11.
110 Shames, I.H. & Dym, C.L. 1995, Energy and Finite Element Method in Structural
Mechanics, New Age International Publishers Ltd., New Delhi.
111 Shen, G.T. & Stone, N.E. 1975, ‘Natural frequencies of turbine foundation’, Structural
Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, Vol. II, ASCE, NY, pp. 302–330.
112 Srinivasulu, P. & Lakshmannan, N. 1978, ‘Dynamic response of turbo-generator pedestal’,
ASCE, Spring convention, Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, April, pp. 24–28.
113 Srinivasalu, P. & Vadiyanathan, C.V. 1977, Handbook of Machine Foundations, Tata
Mcgraw-Hill, New Delhi.
114 Steedman, R.S. & Zeng, X. 1990, ‘The Seismic Response of Waterfront Retaining Walls’,
Proc Speciality Conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures,
Speciality and Technical Publication 25, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
115 Steven, J. 1978, ‘Prediction of pile response to vibratory loads’, Proc. Xth Offshore
Technology Conference, Vol. IV, May, Houston, Texas.
116 Stevens, G.R. 1980, New Zealand Adrift, A.H. & A.W. Reed, Wellington.
117 Task Committee on Turbine Foundations 1987, Design of large steam turbine-generator
foundations, ASCE, NY.
118 Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1967, Soil Mechnics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley &
Sons, NY.
119 Timoshenko, S. 1956, Strength of Material Vol. 2, Van Nostrand & Reinhold Publica-
tions, NY.
120 Timoshenko, S.P. & Woinowsky-Krieger (1958), Theory of Plates and Shells, McGraw-
Hill Kogakusha, Ltd., Tokyo.
121 Tschebotarioff, G.P. 1953, ‘Performance records of engine foundation’, ASTM Special
Technical Publication, No. 156.
122 Veletsos, A.S. & Meek, J.W. 1974, ‘Dynamic behavior of building foundation system’,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3(2), pp. 121–138.
123 Veletsos, A.S. & Young, 1977, ‘Earthquake response of liquid storage tank’, Proceeding
of 2nd Engineering Mechanics specialty conference, ASCE, Raleigh, pp. 1–24.
124 Veletsos, A.S. 1984, ‘Seismic response and design of liquid storage tanks’, Guidelines for
seismic design of Oil and gas pipelines system, ASCE, NY, pp. 255–370.
125 Verma, C.V.J. & Lal, P.K. ed., Treatise on the design, analysis and testing of High capacity
Turbo Generator foundation, Central Board of Irrigation and Power Publication #262.
126 Waas, G. & Hartmann, H.G. 1981, ‘Piles subjected to dynamic horizontal loads-European
simulation meeting on modeling and simulation of large scale Structural Systems’, Capri,
p. 17.
127 Weaver, Jr. W. & Gere, J.M. 1986, Matrix Analysis of Framed Structure, CBS Publishers &
Distributors, Delhi, India.
130 Wedpathak, A.V., Pandit, V.K. & Guha, S.K. 1977, ‘Soil-Foundation interaction under
sinusoidal and impact type dynamic loads’, Int. Symp. on Soil-Structure Interaction,
University of Roorkee, Roorkee.
131 Whitman, R.V. 1970, Soil Structure Interaction—Seismic design for Nuclear power plants,
The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusets.
132 Whitman, R.V. 1972, ‘Analysis of Soil-Structure interaction—A state of the art review’,
Soil Publications No-300, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April.
133 Whitman, R.V. 1973, ‘Analysis of soil structure interaction—A state of the art review’,
Soil Publication, No 300, M.I.T.
134 Wilson, J.L. 2003, Aseismic design of tall chimneys, CICIND Research Report, Vol. 13.
135 Wolf, J.P. & VonArx, G.A. 1978, ‘Impedance function of a group of vertical piles’, Proc.
ASCE Speciality Conf. on Earthquake Engg. and Soil Dynamics, Pasadena, California,
pp. 1024–1041.
136 Wolf, J.P. 1985, Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction, Prenctice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
137 Wolf, J.P. 1988, Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction in Time Domain, Prenctice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
138 Wolf, J.P. 1994, Foundation Vibration Analysis: Using Simple Physical Model, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.