15 FOUNDATION VIBRATIONS
GEORGE GAZETAS, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Soil Mechanics
National Technical University
Athens, Greece
and
State University of New York
Buffalo
15.1 INTRODUCTION
When subjected to dynamic loads, foundations oscillate in a
way that depends on the nature and deformability of the
supporting ground, the geometry and inertia of the foundation
and superstructure, and the nature of the dynamic excitation.
Such an excitation may be in the form of support motion due
to waves arriving through the ground during an earthquake,
an adjacent explosion, or the passage of a train; or it may result
from the dynamic forces imposed directly or indirectly on the
foundation from operating machines, ocean waves, and vehicles
moving on the top of the structure.
Since the very important subject of foundation response
during earthquake shaking is treated in the next chapter,
attention herein will be focused on determining the vibratory
response offoundations to applied loads such as those produced
by a machine. A key step in such response analyses (and
hence the main thrust of this chapter) is to estimate the
dynamic "spring" and "dashpot" coefficients of flexibly-supported
foundations. To this end, an engineering procedure is developed,
based on simple algebraic formulae and dimensionless charts,
for surface and shallow foundations, embedded foundations,
and piles. Note that, in addition to being directly applicable to
machine-loaded foundations, much of the information presented
could also be used in assessing the dynamic soil-foundation-
structure interaction during seismic (or any other ground)
shaking. Of course, in such cases the loading arises from inertial
(D' Alembert) forces developing in the oscillating superstructure.
This chapter also presents information on the pertinent
dynamic soil parameters, and outlines current methods of
measuring them in the laboratory and in the field. Some useful
results and concepts from dynamics and wave propagation
theory are also presented and elucidated when the need arises,
throughout the chapter; they provide background information
and help in developing a better understanding of the methods
presented. The chapter concludes with a number of illustrative
realistic examples.
15.2 MACHINE FOUNDATION VIBRATIONS:
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A sketch of a typical rigid block foundation carrying rotatory
machinery and supported on a layered soil profile is shown in
Figure 15.1. The dynamic loading arises from an unbalanced
H.-Y. Fang (ed.), Foundation Engineering Handbook
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991
mass mo rotating with an eccentrIcIty ro at the operational
circular frequency w = 27[f, where f = frequency in cycles
per second (Hz). The forces and moments acting on the
soil-foundation interface and transmitted into the ground
are of the form morow 2 cos wt or, using complex notation,
morow 2 exp(iwt);* that is, they vary harmonically with time.
Waves are emitted from the interface and propagate in all
directions within the deposit. In the presence of the free ground
surface and of soil layers with differing stiffnesses these waves
undergo numerous reflections and refractions, as well as
transformations into surface waves. Much ofthe energy imparted
onto the foundation is diffused by such outward- and downward-
spreading waves, while a small portion is dissipated by inelastic
action in the soil.
As a result, the soil-foundation interface, and with it the
foundation block, undergoes harmonic oscillations of the form
Uo cos( wt + cp) or, using complex notation, Uo exp [i( wt + cp)],
with frequency-dependent amplitude and phase lag, U o = uo(w)
and cp = cp( w). The basic goal of the geotechnical design is to
limit the amplitudes of all possible modes of oscillation to
small enough levels that will neither endanger the satisfactory
operation of the machine nor disturb the people working
in the immediate vicinity. Charts like the one depicted in
Figure 15.1b (based on information from Richart, 1975) may
guide the selection of an appropriate upper limit for a
satisfactory foundation performance.
Notice that these limiting displacement amplitudes are
typically of the order of a hundredth of a centimeter-compared
to the several centimeters that is the usual restriction for
foundation settlement under static load. A direct consequence
is that soil deformations would in the majority of cases
by quasielastic, involving negligible nonlinearities and no
permanent deformations. Among the possible exceptions are a
laterally oscillating piled foundation working at low frequencies,
which may induce strains of the order of 0.02 percent in soft
clayey layers; and a rocking shallow foundation may induce
large strains directly under its edges. Thus, analyses to predict
vibration amplitudes assume linear viscoelastic soil behavior,
with hysteretic soil damping to model energy losses at these
* It has become traditional in dynamics to introduce complex-number
notation, which significantly simplifies the computations. The under-
standing, of course, is that at the end the absolute value (amplitude)
and phase angle can be recovered from a complex response U 1 + iu 2 ;
the former being equal to Jui + u~ and the latter to tan - I U 2 /U 1 '
553
554 Foundation Engineering Handbook

Fosinwt
r ./J mOrOw 2 : FO

~,FO cos wt

Sensitive facility

.~ .

/:
.~
-.
. . '
.
. '
- ~
"
.......

\
/ /
/ /
'-- '-. /

-
) \
/" ~.

L ....
I /
I" , "'
( -t " ---
"" /

Fig. 15.1 (a) The machine foundation problem.

(a) Estimate magnitude and characteristics of the dynamic

loads. The most common types of machines include:
• Rotating machinery, which produces sinusoidaly varying
forces as already explained (examples : turbines, compressors,
pumps, fans)
• Reciprocating machinery, which generates biharmonic loads
of the form F ~ morow 2 [exp(iwt) + 0: exp(2iwt)], where
0: is a geometric constant (examples: steam engines, internal-
E
u
combustion engines, piston-type compressors and pumps)
Q)
"0
• Impact producing machines, involving intermittent impulsive
.~ loading with a nearly triangular variation of applied force
Ci
E
versus time (examples: forging hammers, stamping machines,
c presses)
c
.2 • Machines with simultaneous impulsive and rotatory forces,
"0 in which the former are due to the main function of the
.0 machine (hammering) while the latter generate parasitically
':>
from un balanced wear of the hammers (solid -waste shredders,
car-shredders, rotatory rock crushers, all kinds of hammer-
mills)
This crucial task will not be further addressed herein, since it
has been treated in detail in the first edition of the Foundation
Engineering Handbook (Richart, 1975). Additional information
may be found in Barkan (1962), Richart et al. (1970), Arya et al.
0.0001 L...-_....L...----I.----I.-L....L-J....LLJ---'-----'----'---'-................. (1979), Major (1980), and Prakash and Puri (1988).
, 10 100
Frequency, Hz
(b) Establish the soil profile and determine the appropriate
shear modulus and damping, G and p, for each soil layer. In
Fig. 15.1 (b) Typical performance requirements for machine addition to standard geotechnical soil investigation techniques,
foundations. special dynamic procedures are used today to assess these soil
parameters in the field and the laboratory. Section 15.4 presents
up-to-date information on this subject.
(c) Guided by experience, select the type and trial dimensions
small strain amplitudes. The low-strain value of the shear
on the foundation, and in cooperation with the client establish
modulus (denoted by Go or Gmax in the literature) is the key
performance criteria such as those of Figure 15.1 b.
soil parameter that must be assessed for each layer.
The design of a machine foundation is a trial-and-error (d) Estimate the dynamic response of this trial foundation,
process involving the following main steps (engineering tasks). subjected to the load of step (a) and supported by the soil

deposit established in step (b). This key step of the design
process usually starts with simplifying and idealizing soil
profile and foundation geometry, and involves selecting the
most suitable method of dynamic soil-foundation interaction
analysis. To this end, several formulations and computer
programs have been developed in recent years. Moreover, for
the two key parameters, the dynamic stiffness and damping,
numerous solutions have been published in the form of
parametric dimensionless graphs, applicable to a variety of
idealized situations. The main contribution of this chapter is
to present in a concise and comprehensive way a complete set
of ready-to-use results for the stiffness and damping ("spring"
and "dashpot") of foundations on and in several characteristic
soil profiles.
(e) Check whether the estimated response amplitude of
step (d) at the particular operation frequency conforms with
the performance criteria established in step (c). Repeat steps (c),
(d), and (e) until a (theoretically) satisfactory design is
established. At this stage, two additional checks may be
necessary: First, to ensure that the motions transmitted to
nearby structures and underground facilities are within safe
levels for their uninterrupted functioning-a task usually
accomplished with the help of semiempirical energy-attenuation
relationships, and guided by experience. Second, if the subsoil
contains soft clays and/or loose sands, to investigate the
potential for accumulation of large permanent deformations-
an unlikely event, requiring shear strain amplitudes well in
excess of 0.01 percent.
The design process frequently stops here. However, in case
of important projects one or two additional postconstruction
steps are necessary:
(f) Monitor the actual motion of the completed foundation
and compare with the theoretical predictions of step (d).
The necessity of this task arises from the several simplifying
assumptions that are unavoidably introduced with even the
most sophisticated analyses. Furthermore, experience, and
confidence in the advantages of advanced methods of analysis
can only be gained through such comparisons of theoretical
predictions with reality. Reference is made to Richart et al.
(1970), Gazetas and Selig (1985), and Hall (1985) for information
on instrumentation and field measurements related to machine
foundations and to man-induced vibrations.
(g) Finally, if the actual performance of the constructed
foundation does not meet the aforesaid design criteria (step (c)),
remedial measures must be devised. These may be, repair of
the worn-out parts to minimize unbalanced masses; change of
the mass of the foundation or the location of the machinery;
stiffening of the subsoil through, for example, grouting;
increasing the soil-foundation contact surface; construction of
piles through the existing foundation mat; and so on. Steps (d),
(e), and (f) must be repeated until a satisfactory design is finally
achieved.
This chapter addresses in detail tasks (b) and (d).
15.3 SOIL MODULI AND DAMPING-FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
A vibrating foundation emits shear and dilatational waves into
the supporting ground. The former, denoted as S waves,
propagate with a velocity V. that is controlled by the shearing
stiffness G and the mass density p of the soil:
A
V. = (15.1)
Foundation Vibrations 555
Dilatational waves, denoted as P waves, propagate with a
velocity Vp related to the constrained modulus Me:
( 15.2)
For an elastic material, Me depends on the shear modulus G
and the Poisson's ratio v of the soil so that
(15.3 )
The relationship Vp / V. versus v from Equation (15.3) is plotted
in Figure 15.2.
Therefore, V. and Vp , or G and Me, or G and v, are the
equivalent pairs of soil parameters relevant to wave propagation
phenomena. Note that waves other than Sand P also arise in
the ground under an oscillating foundation, most notably
Rayleigh and Love waves. All these other waves, however, also
relate to G and v, as they are the outcome of combinations
("interferences") of Sand P waves.
For the small strains (less than about 0.005 percent) usually
induced in the soil by a properly designed machine foundation,
shear deformations are the result of particle distortion rather
than sliding and rolling between particles. Such deformation is
almost linearly elastic: the hysteresis loops that do develop upon
unloading and reloading are very, very narrow. The actual
behavior can be simulated quite accurately as that of a linear
hysteretic solid described through the "tangent-at-the-origin"
shear modulus Go and a damping ratio Po.
In fact, the approximation as a linear hysteretic solid
is also employed to describe dynamic behavior at large
strains. However, as illustrated in Figure 15.3, the appropriate
("equivalent linear") modulus G is the secant modulus, that is,
the slope of the line connecting the origin with the tip of the
hysteresis loop. G is smaller than Go (hence the familiar notation
of the latter as Gmax ). At the same time, the area of the hysteresis
loop has expanded owing to increased dissipation of energy
resulting from sliding at particle contacts. The equivalent linear
hysteretic damping ratio Pis larger than Po.
5
I
4 J 4
V
3 J
3
v ~
V
~
-
Vs
2
.......
~ .... 2
~ ~~
......
10-- ~ ..
10 .......
~
1 ~----- 1
o I
0.1 0.3 0.4
0.2 0.5
v
Fig.15.2 Comparison of the actual (Vp and Vs ) and "apparent"
(VLa ) wave velocities used in foundation vibration analyses.
556 Foundation Engineering Handbook

G<Go=G max
Monotonic loading curve

..... -
................

" "'-
",,-"-
"-
G 0.5 0.5 "-
Gmax 'Average. curve for ~
GRAVELLY 50115 "-
"-
SANDS
"'-, ~

0.001 0.01 0.1 0.001 0.01 0.1

20 20

(3, percent

10 10
SANDS AND
GRAVELS

oL-----~~----~~----~L-------~~ o~~~~~~~~~~~
0.001 0.01 0.1 0.001 0.01 0.1
Yc ' percent Yc' percent

Fig. 15.3 The nonlinear-hysteretic cyclic stress-strain behavior of soils is conveniently represented in terms of modulus decreasing and
damping ratio increasing with shear strain amplitude.

Apparently, the bigger the cyclic shear strain, the smaller
the "equivalent" modulus G and the larger the "equivalent"
damping p. Plots of modulus ratio GI Gmax and damping ratio 13
as functions of cyclic strain I'c have become the traditIOnal
way of depicting cyclic stress-strain behavior, following the
pioneering work by Seed and Idriss (1970). Figure 15.3
summarizes published data for clays, sands, and gravels,
encompassing some recently published information.
15.3.1 Shear Modulus G max and S-Wave Velocity
V s • max
Factors affecting Gmax and Vs• max From the foregoing
discussion it is clear that the low-strain shear modulus, GmaXJ
or the corresponding S-wave velocity v..max = Gmaxl p), is J(
the single most important soil parameter influencing the
response of machine foundations. Laboratory and field tests
 Foundation Vibrations 557

have revealed a number of factors on which G max and v',max Suggested Values of K 2 •max for Equations 15.7 (Seed
and Idriss)
depend, The following discussion summarizes the most significant
findings of these tests, K 2 ,max
for stress untts of
(1) The two most important parameters influencing G max of
Soli Type kPa psf
all types of soils (granular and cohesive) are the mean confining
effective stress 0'0 and the void ratio e. From the published Loose sand 8 35
results it appears that G max is proportional to a~, where typically Dense sand 12 50
Very dense sand 16 65
n ~ 0.3 to 0.6 for granular and n ~ O.S to 0.9 for silty and clayey Very dense sand and gravel 25 to 40 100 to 150
soils. Experimental tests with large cubic samples of dry sand
at the University of Texas (Knox et aI., 1982) have revealed (a)
that v..max (and G max ) depend only on the stresses aa and ab
in the directions of wave propagation and particle motion, 0.5,---,-----,----T--~c::;;;;jiiiiII_,
respectively; they are independent of the stress ac in the
out-of-plane direction.
(2) The static-stress prehistory, expressed for instance
0.3
through the overconsolidation ratio, OCR, influences mainly
the modulus G max of clays. The granular material changes in
OCR are adequately accounted by the present void ratio. On for Ip>100
the other hand, cyclic prestraining, that is, application of
moderately large shear strains for a large number of cycles,
tends to increase the modulus of granular soils beyond what
is anticipated with the increased void ratio. With cohesive soils 100
the effect of prest raining is not clear.
(3) For cohesive soils, geologic age seems to be of great PLAST ICIT V INDEX IP
importance, as it perhaps controls the creation of "bonds" (b)
between the clay platelets or clay clusters. In the laboratory,
attempts to simulate the natural process of aging are being Fig. 15.4 Suggested values for the coefficients K2 ,max and Jl in
made by increasing the duration of the initial confining state Equations 15,4 and 15.7.
of stress to several days, before applying the cyclic loading.
Increases in G max of the order of 100 percent have often Note, however, that in many actual situations S waves will
been reported. Aging may also be important for fine-grained propagate in all directions away from the foundation, and it
cohesionless soils that are partly saturated. will not be readily evident which are the directions a and b.
Hence it may be as advantageous to use Equation IS.4.
(4) For partially saturated (Sr ~ 10 to SO percent) fine
For granular soils Seed and Idriss (1970) developed the
granular soils (silty sands) capillary stresses may increase G max
simpler expression
by SO to 100 per cent over the value of G max measured in the
laboratory on completely dry or on fully saturated samples. G max ~ lOooK 2 • max Fo (IS.7)
(S) For all soils, cohesionless and cohesive, the frequency, in which the dimensional empirical coefficient K 2 • max is a
or the rate of loading, has no practical effect on G max (at function of the (relative) density of the material (dimension:
least within the range of parameters applicable to machine square root of stress) given in Figure 15.4, for both SI and
foundations). This means that soil is basically not a viscous, English units.
but rather a hysteretic, material. For saturated clays, G max relates to undrained shear strength
S":
Empirical correlations for Gmax Several expressions relating
G max to other soil parameters have been devised on the basis ~ 1000 to 2500
G max (15.8)
of laboratory test results. S"
For granular and cohesive soils Hardin (1978) proposed that (The geotechnical engineer should not be surprised at such high
Gmax/S" values. The value G ~ lOOS" reported in soil mechanics
(OCR)Jl _
+ 0.7e 2 J ParI °
G max ~ 62S (1S.4 ) literature refers to near-failure conditions, that is, at strains in
0.3 excess of 1 percent.)
Use of empirical expressions such as those of Equations 15.4
where Pa = the atmospheric pressure in the same units as 0'0 to IS.6 may be recommended in practice in several cases:
and G max , and J1 is a function of the plasticity index Ip plotted (1) in feasibility studies and preliminary design calculations,
in Figure IS.4. before any direct measurements have been performed in the
On the other hand, the aforementioned experimental work field or laboratory; (2) for final design calculations in small
at the University of Texas (Knox et aI., 1982) has concluded that projects, where the cost of proper testing for G max cannot be
justified-unless parameter studies reveal a high sensitivity
(1S.S)
of the response to the "exact" value of modulus; (3) to
should be used in place of 0'0 in Equation IS.4. (aa and ab are provide an order-of-magnitude check against the experimentally
the effective stresses in the directions of wave propagation determined values.
and particle motion, respectively). Alternatively, the following Another empirical correlation of interest is between Go and
expression can be used for clean sands: the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance N (blows/ft).
Using mostly Japanese data, Seed et al. (1986) have proposed
180 that
G ~ (a a )0.20 p O.60 ( IS.6)
max - 0.3 + 0.7e2 a b a Gma • ~ 20oo0(NdWFo (psf) ( IS.9a)
558 Foundation Engineering Handbook
or
Gmax ~ 4500(N l)W Fo (kPa) (15.9b)
in which the corrected resistance is given by
Pa )1/2( ER )
(Nd60 = N ( -=-
O"vO
-0.60 ( 15.10)
where avo = vertical effective overburden stress, and ER = ratio
of the energy actually transmitted to the rod of the SPT, divided
by the theoretical free-fall energy. Several other empirical
correlations between Gmax and N values have also been
proposed in the literature. One that has been frequently quoted
in the literature has been proposed by Ohsaki and Iwasaki
(1973):
Gmax = 12000No. 8 (kPa) (15.11a)
Gmax = 240No. 8 (ksf) (15.11b)
However, the reliability of such relations is very low, and they
should only be used, if necessary, for crude preliminary estimates
of soil stiffness.
15.3.2 Constrained Modulus and P-Wave Velocity
Whereas shear (S) waves can propagate only through the
mineral skeleton of a soil (fluids offer no shear resistance),
dilatational (P) waves can propagate through both the mineral
skeleton and the pore water. Since water is far less compressible
than any soil skeleton, P-waves in fully saturated soils are
essentially transmitted solely through the water phase with a
velocity ~ that is of the order of, or somewhat larger than,
Vw ~ 1500 m/sec (or 4900 ft/sec)-the velocity of sound waves
in water.
On the other hand, the presence of even small amounts of
air in the pores might dramatically increase the compressibility
of the water-air phase; only the soil skeleton would then resist
the induced dilatation: Vp would be essentially the same as the
P-wave velocity of a dry, but otherwise identical, soil sample
For a clean sand, Figure 15.5a portrays the sensitivity of Vp
to variations in the degree of saturation Sr. As long as saturation
remains below about 99 percent ~ is nearly independent of S"
being a measure of the incompressibility of the soil skeleton.
(The small decline from the dry velocity Vp • dry at large values
of Sr is the consequence of increasing mass density, rather than
of decreasing constrained modulus in Equation 15.2.) As Sr
approaches 100 percent, Vp jumps to a very high value, ~.sa"
that is controlled by the pressure wave velocity in water, Vw '
For practical purposes, the velocity Vp • sat is independent of the
type of soil, is similar for clays and sands, and shows only a
slight dependence on ao and e, as visualized in Figure 15.4b.
Hence, measuring the P-wave velocity of saturated soils is of
little if any value in assessing the actual soil stiffness.
The foregoing experimental findings can be qualitatively
explained with elastic theory. Saturated soil is a practically
incompressible material with Poisson's ratio v approaching
0.50. Equation 15.3 would then predict that Vp is far greater
than v.,
and, in the limit, v = 0.5 and ~ = 00 regardless of
V.-that is, regardless of soil stiffness.
15.3.3 Poisson' s Ratio v
For soils that are not close to saturation, v can be obtained
from Equation 15.3 once V. and Vp have been measured:
1 - a 2 /2
v= ( 15.12)
This expression, however, is rather unreliable: small errors in
the values of Vp or V. will lead to substantial errors in v.
On the other hand, v shows little sensitivity to soil type,
confining pressure, and void ratio, but depends very much
on the degree of saturation and the drainage conditions.
Consequently, it is not very difficult to make a reasonably good
prediction of v if saturation and drainage conditions are known.
As an example, the following values are given as a guide in
selecting v in practical cases.
Saturated clays and sands, beneath the water table v ~ 0.50-
Nearly saturated clays, above the water table v ~ 0.40
Wet silty sands (Sr = 50 to 90 percent) v ~ 0.35
Nearly dry sands, stiff clays, and rocks v ~ 0.25
Once v has been estimated, Equation 15.3 is used to
determine ~, unless of course v ~ 0.50 so that, as previously
explained, Equation 15.3 is meaningless. An interesting con-
clusion drawn from studies of foundation vibrations is that the
influence of v is not of great significance in most cases; an
exception is vertical and rocking oscillations in soils with v
approaching 0.50. Hence, small errors in assessing the value of
v would likely be of no practical consequence.
15.3.4 Damping Ratio Po
The low-strain value of material damping, Po, depends only
marginally on such variables as the confining stress and the
void ratio. For most soils it ranges between 2 and 6 percent.
Since oscillating foundations generate "radiation" damping
that may be substantially higher than Po, the precise value
of the latter is usually rather insignificant. (Exceptions are
rotational oscillations at low frequencies, and translational
oscillations on a shallow soil stratum, again at low frequencies.)
15.3.5 Measurement of Low-Strain Moduli
For satisfactory design of a machine foundation the geotechnical
engineer must:
• Establish the soil profile, including layering and depth to
bedrock, physical characterization and classification of each
layer, elevation of water table and groundwater conditions,
and extent of lateral homogeneity
• Determine with in-situ or laboratory tests the low-strain value
of shear modulus Gmax and select proper values for Poisson's
ratio v and damping ratio Po.
Standard subsurface exploration techniques and field and
laboratory testing required for static design may provide a
complete answer to the first of the foregoing tasks. But, with
few exceptions, estimation of soil parameters for dynamic
analyses is presently being done increasingly frequently with
the help of special "dynamic" procedures in the field and
the laboratory. Only a summary of the best techniques for
determining Gmax is offered herein. More detailed information
may be found in Richart (1975), Woods (1978, 1985), Stokoe
(1980), and Drnevich (1985). Note: most dynamic tests provide
an indirect evaluation of Gmax through measurements of the
S-wave velocity v..max
(15.13)
in which p is the known total mass density of the soil.
In-situ testing procedures have some distinct advantages
over laboratory techniques. Sample disturbance, for example,
may be more deleterious for determining low-strain soil stiffness
(which reflects the exact particle arrangement-"fabric"), than
behavior at large strains and failure (after a rearrangement of
 Foundation Vibrations 559

1500r--'t~--------------------------~

Vp m Is

1200

1800 I- Vp + m Is -:t
I- -
• 900

1200 I--

e = 0.42 , O. = 200 kPa 600

600
e = 0.60 , O. =100
- - 300

I
so 100 99.4 99.6 99.8 100

%
(a) DEGREE OF SATURATION

3000,--------------------------------------------------------,

saturated

1000

Vp m/s 300

100

30 20 50 100 200 500 1000 200

<To : kpa
(b)

Fig.15.5 Dependence of P-wave velocity on void ratio, confining effective stress, and degree of saturation (references given in the text).

particles has occurred-"destruction" of the initial "fabric"). 15.3.6 Field Procedures

Moreover, simulating in the laboratory the effects of stress
prehistory, aging, and capillary stresses is not a routine task.
In fact, with granular soils even reproducing the in-situ void
ratio and geostatic stresses (which control Gmax according to
Equation 15.3), may prove a rather difficult task. With coarse
sand and gravel, things get even more complicated.
As a result, in-situ measured moduli are almost invariably
found to exceed those measured in the laboratory-sometimes
by more than 100 percent. However, when the effects of all
the important factors (Figure 15.4) are properly reproduced,
laboratory test results can closely match the field test data.
Moreover, laboratory tests are valuable for studying the effect
of various variables on GmaX' for determining the damping ratio,
and for obtaining V. and G at moderate and large strains.
Dynamic in-situ tests induce strains smaller than 10 - 5 and
thereby measure v..max and Gmax . The list of in-situ testing
procedures includes the following.
1. The Crosshole Seismic Survey (or simply crosshole method)
This is probably the best geotechnical method for determining
the variation with depth of in-situ low-strain S-wave velocity,
v..max. Illustrated by a sketch in Figure 15.6, the crosshole
method is based on a very simple concept: it generates S waves
in a borehole and measures their arrival times at the same
elevation in neighboring boreholes. The wave velocity is
computed from the travel times and the spacing between the
boreholes. For the success, however, of a crosshole test there
560 Foundation Engineering Handbook

(a )

- - ..
P Ia n
~_ _
~eiverS:=--<0>
~ ~
l 4m l I,m l
'I (13ft) 'I (13 ft)

I mpa c t

- ---
Assumed Wave Path

I '" - , ,, I , ...
P and S
'\ J / .- \

-
'-}
I ( ~

. "-
~ )
, \
., Waves
, I ~
I
"
\ d uri ng
SPT

,
p

Typical Receiver Records

tp

s
t
Fig.15.6 Sketches of (a) the cross hole, (b) the downhole, and (c) the seismic cone penetration tests (references in the text).
 Foundation Vibrations 561

Sm
(b )

(c )

Vs (m/s ) qc (bor)

o 50 100 150 200 250

•
•

E
I 5
Waves
-..,,
E
o
E
I- .~
a.. u
w "
o
u
OJ
E
• o
c
't;
... .!:

_ _ Seismic CPT
• Crosshole

6()<>.cone
562 Foundation Engineering Handbook
are several requirements. (a) There should be at least two and
preferably three boreholes, which are spaced about 3 to 5 m
(10 to 15 ft) apart, the verticality of which is instrumentally
secured. (b) The source must be rich in shear wave generation
and poor in P-wave generation, so that detection of S-wave
arrivals is unambiguous (torsional sources are the best in this
sense, but the SPT offers a good inexpensive solution). (c) The
receivers (geophones) must have a proper frequency response
and should be oriented in the direction of the particle
motion. Moreover, they must be in "perfect" contact with the
surrounding soil, either directly (in case of stiff cohesive soils)
or through properly grouted casing (in case of granular and
soft cohesive soils). Coupling between geophone transducer and
vertical wall should be accomplished with use of specially
designed packers. (d) The triggering and recording systems must
be accurate. Evidently, "crosshole" would not classify among
the most economic in-situ tests, but it is one of the most reliable.
See Woods (1978), Hoar and Stokoe (1978), and Woods and
Stokoe (1985) for more details.
2. The Seismic Downhole Survey (or simply the downhole
method) This is the economic alternative to crosshole testing.
It is explained with the help of Figure 15.6. It needs only one
borehole inside which the receiver(s) is (are) placed at various
depths while the source is at the surface, 2 to 5 m (6 to 15 ft)
away. Travel times of body waves (S or P) between surface and
receiver (s) are recorded, and then travel-time versus depth plots
are constructed from which v,.ma. or v".max of all the layers can
be determined. An effective and economic S-wave source
consists of a steel-jacketed rigid beam weighted down the
ground and struck horizontally with a sledge hammer. However,
if the source is placed too close to the borehole, parasitic waves
are created and S-wave arrivals cannot be easily identified; if
it is placed too far from the source, the direct wave path may
not be a straight line. These problems are largely avoided with
crosshole testing.
3. The Seismic Cone Penetration Test (or simply the seismic
cone) This recent development (Robertson et aI., 1985) is
sketched in Figure 15.6. It combines the downhole method with
cone penetration testing. To this end, a small rugged velocity
seismometer is incorporated inside the electronic penetrometer
and downhole measurements of seismic S-wave velocity are
performed during brief pauses in cone penetration testing. In
addition to its speed, a significant advantage of the seismic cone
is that with a single sounding test one obtains information for
the stratigraphy ofthe site, the low-strain moduli ofthe various
layers, as well as the (static) strength-related parameters qc
(point bearing stress) and /. (sleeve frictional resistance).
Comparisons with the "crosshole" are very encouraging, as
seen in Figure 15.6. A limitation of the method is that it may
not be appropriate for some types of soils (such as those
containing coarse gravel).
4. The Steady-State Vibration of the Free Surface This method,
requiring no boreholes, is based on the fact that a circular
footing vertically oscillating with frequency f generates along
the free surface primarily Rayleigh (R) waves. Their wavelength
AR is the distance between any two successive crests (or troughs)
of the vibrating surface (Figure 15.7a), and their velocity C R is
calculated from
(15.14)
Measurement of AR is made by moving a seismic geophone
away from the vibrator and locating points that are moving in
phase. If the subsoil were very deep and homogeneous its S-wave
velocity V, would have been unique and roughly equal to
1.06 times CR' With real-life inhomogeneous deposits V. = v.(z)
and C R = CR(z), and the value from Equation 15.13 would
correspond to a depth of about t of the wavelength (the" center"
ofthe R-wave displacement profile). By progressively decreasing
the frequency f of vibrations, the wavelength AR would increase
and the R-wave would affect soil at greater depths, having
different properties. Equation 15.14 would at every frequency
give a different value of CR' From these values the velocity
profile is constructed as
V, (at depth z = tAR) ~ 1.06fAR (15.15)
As an example, Figure 15.7b ( adapted from Gazetas, 1982) plots
the theoretical variation of R-wave velocity versus frequency
for a deposit consisting of an inhomogeneous layer over
bedrock. For the layer V,(z) = V,(O)( 1 + 1Oz/ H)1/2, where H
is its thickness. The bedrock velocity V.ock is 8 times V,( 0). We
denote by /. the fundamental frequency of the stratum in shear;
/. ~ 0.66 V,(O)/ H. Notice that at frequencies f.. exceeding 15/.
the R-wave velocity approaches v.(0), while at f less than 0.5/.,
CR approaches V.ock' (Plots like that of Figure 15.7b are called
"dispersion" relations.)
Clearly, this method cannot even in theory produce the
accurate and detailed (layer-by-layer) information of the three
borehole methods. However, it can provide: (a) the near-surface
wave velocity V,(O), which controls the radiation damping of
high-frequency machine foundations, as well as the response in
rocking and torsion at all frequencies; (b) an average (over the
horizontal and vertical direction) wave velocity of a stratum
over bedrock, covering a large area; and (c) with high-power
equipment operating at low frequencies, the velocity of deeper
strata that could not be reached inexpensively with a borehole.
S. The Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves This recent develop-
ment is a very promising evolution ofthe foregoing steady-state
vibration method (Nazarian and Stokoe, 1983). Its goal is to
determine the detailed v'o profile, as with "crosshole", but
working entirely from the surface. A vertical impact at the
surface generates transient Rayleigh (R) waves, which are
recorded by vibration transducers located a known distance
apart. If the subsoil were very deep and homogeneous (half-
space) the signals of the two transducers would have the
same shape. However, in nonhomogeneous or layered deposits
the various frequency components generated by the impact
propagate at different speeds (recall Figure 15.7), thereby
arriving at different relative times at the two locations; hence,
the two signals have different shapes. Through a fast Fourier
transform spectral analysis of the two signals the "dispersion"
relation (that is, the variation of CR with frequency) is computed
for the particular site. The thicknesses and S-wave velocities of
each and every layer are then back-calculated by use of an
analytical "inversion" procedure. The results of the method
seem to be in excellent agreement with crosshole measurements.
Several other field tests are available to the profession but
are not discussed herein for various reasons. They include the
seismic refraction survey, which is good mainly for preliminary
surveys covering large areas, and for determining the P-wave
velocities of near surface soft layers and the depth to rock
(Richart et aI., 1970); the resonant footing method, in which the
resonant frequency of a concrete block placed on the surface
is determined and utilized in conjunction with homogeneous
halfspace theories to back-calculate the (average) soil modulus
(Moore, 1985); and the standard penetration test, which may
provide indirect crude estimates of moduli (e.g. Eq. 15.9).
15.3.7 Laboratory Procedures
Low-strain values of moduli and wave velocities can be obtained
with the following laboratory tests.
 Foundation Vibrations 563

Q"~'""
f--- AR -----i

T
i' R

.....~

" "
ur

(a)
z
8~-------------------------------------------.

8 Vs.

o 5
f : Hz
(b)

Fig. 15.7 (a) A harmonically-oscillating footing generates Rayleigh (R) waves propagating along the surface of a soil deposit. and
"reaching" to a depth of about one wavelength. (b) The R-wave velocity in a nonhomogeneous two-layer stratum decreases with frequency
because of the decreasing wavelength.

1. The Resonant Column Test This truly dynamic test is
undoubtedly the best widely available today for determining
v..mu in the laboratory. It uses solid or hollow cylindrical
samples and subjects them to torsional or axial steady-state
harmonic excitation with the help of an electromagnetic device
(see sketch in Figure 15.S). The frequency ofthe input vibration
is slowly changed until the fundamental resonant condition is
determined. The resonant frequency is a function of soilstiffness,
sample geometry, and boundary conditions of the apparatus
employed. For the case of fixed base and free top sketched in
Figure 15.Sa the frequency at first resonance is either
J. = ~ = JG/p (15.16)
• 4H 4H
in the torsional mode, or
J; - VL _JE/p (15.17)
L - 4H - 4H
in the axial mode. H = the height of the sample, and E = the
Young's modulus of the soil, E = 2(1 + v)G. Equations 15.16
and 15.17 provide G and E, respectively. Material damping
ratio can also be estimated either from the free-vibration
logarithmic decrement or from the half-power bandwidth of
the steady-state response curve. Figure 15.Sb plots in dimension-
less form the (theoretically determined) response curve. The
distribution of shear (or normal) strains along the sample during
resonance follows a sinusoidal law:
y(z) = sin(~':') (15.1S)
y(H) 2H
To achieve the development of an almost uniform distribution
of strains in the sample, Drnevich (1977) adds a mass at the
top as shown in Figure 15.Sa. Such a uniformity is highly
desirable when V. at strains exceeding 10 - 5 is needed. The
hollow cylinder is also a necessity in such a case, since the
distribution of shear strains across the thickness of a solid
564 Foundation Engineering Handbook

El.e iUflt

T
8.

T ·:;::x/:
di~!'~l % 1
H

1(;J~t,i/#!I
at 1 st resonance at 1st resonance

f. f.s"Ys/4H

(a)

100

~ = 0.05
10

DA

O.l L_ _L_~~----.JL....~--'-~~_-.30.---.J
3

f I f ls
(b)

Fig. 15.8 Resonant column test. Distribution of rotation amplitude along sample length in two variants of the test. and dynamic amplification
of the top motion versus imposed frequency. (Based on Woods, 197B; Drnevich, 1985.)

cylindrical sample in torsion is nonuniform, varying from 0 at
the center to a maximum at the periphery. For more details,
see Woods (1978) and Drnevich (1985).
2. The Ultrasonic Pulse Test Piezoelectric crystals at one end
of the soil sample generate dilatational or shear waves, and at
the other end record their arrival. From the travel time and
the known sample thickness, the appropriate velocity, Vp or
is calculated. The identification and recognition of the exact
wave arrival, requiring the use of an oscilloscope, is by no
means a routine operation. The results of this method are in
good accord with resonant column data. An advantage of the
method is that it can use the same sample to determine both
v" and V. (and hence Poisson's ratio, or the condition of
saturation). Moreover, it can be performed on very soft clays
while still retained in the Shelby tube-thus minimizing
disturbance.
3. Cyclic Load-Deformation Tests In their standard form,
they are appropriate only for medium and large strains
(10- 4 < l'c < 10- 1) and are used to determine stress-strain
hysteresis loops (from which "effective" moduli and damping
ratios are deduced, and degradation characteristics are studied).
However, in recent years special cyclic triaxial apparatuses have
been designed capable of determining moduli at I'c ~ 5 X 10- 6
(Ladd and Dutko, 1985).
v.,
15.4 HARMONIC VIBRATION OF BLOCK
FOUNDATIONS: DEFINITION AND USE OF
IMPEDANCES (DYNAMIC "SPRINGS" AND
"DASHPOTS")
Frequently, machine foundations are constructed as rigid
reinforced-concrete blocks, whose response to dynamic loads
arises solely from the deformation of the supporting ground.
Like any rigid body, such foundations possess six degrees of
freedom, three translational and three rotational: (dynamic)
displacements along the axes x, y, and z, and (dynamic) rotation
 Foundation Vibrations 565

Combining Equations 15.19 and 15.20 leads to

mii.(t) + ~u.(t) + Fz(t) = 0 (15.21)
from which it is evident that the key to solving the problem is
the determination of the impedance ~, that is, of the dynamic
force-over-displacement ratio according to Equation 15.20.
Note also that, as it is well known from structural dynamics,
the steady-state solution uz(t) to Equation 15.21 for a harmonic
excitation F.( t) = F z cos wt is also harmonic with the same
frequency w.
Theoretical and experimental results reveal that, in Equation
15.20, a harmonic action Pz applied on to the ground and the
resulting harmonic displacement U z have the same frequency w
but are out oj phase. That is, if
Pz(t) = Pzcos(wt + IX) (15.22)
then U z can be expressed in the following two equivalent ways:
u.(t) = U z cos(wt + IX + IP) (15.23a)
= U1 cos(wt + IX) + U2 sin(wt + IX) (15.23b)

Fig. 15.9 Rigid foundation block with its six degrees of freedom.

around the same axes (Figure 15.9). In this section a general

method is presented for computing each of these six dynamic
displacements and rotations due to steady-state harmonic
excitation (forces and moments). The choice of harmonic
oscillations is made not only because many machines usually
produce unbalanced forces that indeed vary harmonically with
time (rototary or reciprocating engines), but also because
nonharmonic forces (such as those produced by punch presses
--- .::' l:. .::."
and forging hammers) can be decomposed into a (large) number ." " .' ",

of sinusoids through Fourier analysis.

15.4.1 Vertical Oscillation

Let us explain the method with the help of the easy-to-visualize

case of vertical vibrations. Figure 15.10 portrays a rigid
foundation block of total mass m, assumed to have a vertical
axis of symmetry z passing through the centroid of the
soil-foundation contact surface. The foundation is underlain
by a deposit consisting of horizontal linearly deforming soil Applied Force
layers. Subjected to a vertical harmonic force Fz(t) along the
z axis, this foundation will experience only a vertical harmonic
displacement u.(t). The question is to determine u.(t) given
Fz( t).
Inertia Force
To this end, we consider separately the motion of each
"body": the foundation block and the supporting ground
(Figure 15.10). The two free-body diagrams are sketched in
the figure and include the inertial (D' Alembert) forces. The
foundation "actions" on the soil generate equal and opposite Resultant of
5011 Reactions
"reactions", distributed in some unknown way across the
interface and having an unknown resultant Pz(t). Furthermore,
since in reality the two bodies remain always in contact,
their displacements are identical and equal to the rigid body Resultant of
displacement u.( t). Thus, the dynamic equilibrium of the block Foundal10n Actions
takes the form
(15.19)
and that of the linearly deforming multilayered gr6und can be
"summarized" as
Pz(t) = ~u.(t) ( 15.20)
in which ~ is called the dynamic vertical "impedance",
determined for this particular system with one of the methods Fig. 15.10 Analysis of the dynamic equilibrium of a vertically
described in the sequel. vibrating foundation block.
566 Foundation Engineering Handbook

where the amplitude U z and phase angle <p are related to the Equation 15.33 is the equation of motion of a simple
inphase, u1 , and the 90 o -out-of-phase, U2, components according oscillator with mass m, spring "constant" K., and dashpot
to "constant" C.-justifying our previous interpretation. The
quotation marks around the word constant are placed delib-
uz=j(ui+uD ( 15.24a) erately: in fact, K. and C. are not constant but vary with the
U2 frequency w of oscillation. Nonetheless, Equation 15.33 suggests
tan<p=- (15.24b) for the vertical mode of oscillation an analogy between the
U1
actual foundation-soil system and the system depicted in
We can rewrite the foregoing,expressions in an equivalent but Figure 15.11 and consisting of the same foundation but
far more elegant way using complex number notation: supported on a "spring" and "dashpot" with characteristic
moduli equal to K. and C., respectively.
PAt) = liz exp(iwt) (15.25) Once these moduli have been established for a particular
uA t) = iiz exp ( iwt ) ( 15.26) excitation frequency, ii. is obtained from Equation 15.34:
where now liz and iiz are complex quantities: _ Fz
u = -=,------:---- ( 15.35a)
liz = P z1 + iP z2 ( 15.27) z (K z - m(2) + iwC z
( 15.28) and thereby the amplitude of oscillation that is of interest is
Equations 15.25 to 15.28 are equivalent to Equations 15.22 to simply
15.24, with the following relations being valid for the amplitudes: Fz
Uz = Iiiz I = ----;::.::;;====:;==:;====c~ (15.35b)
( 15.29) j(K z - m( 2)2 + w 2C;
Uz = liizl = j(U;l + U;2) (15.30) Conclusion: The soil reaction against a vertically oscillating
while the two phase angles, (J. and <p, are properly "hidden" in foundation is fully described with the complex frequency-
the complex forms. dependent dynamic vertical impedance ~(w) or, equivalently,
In addition to elegance, it is computational ease that the frequency-dependent "spring" (stiffness) and "dashpot"
motivates the adoption of complex notation, as will become (damping) coefficients, KA w) and C.( w). Once these parameters
apparent later on. have been obtained for the particular frequency (or frequencies)
With P z and U z being out of phase (Eqs. 15.22 to 15.23) or, of interest, solving the equation of motion yields the desired
alternatively, with liz and iiz being complex numbers (Eqs. 15.25 amplitude of the harmonic vertical displacement.
to 15.28), the dynamic vertical "impedance" (force-displacement
ratio) becomes
15.4.2 Generalization to All Modes of Oscillation
PAt) liz b
.Jf: = - - = - = complex num er (15.31)
z uA t) iiz The definition of dynamic impedance given in Equation 15.31
for vertical excitation-response is also applicable to each of
the other five modes of vibration. Thus, we define as lateral
which may be put in the form: (swaying) impedance fy the ratio of the horizontal harmonic
force, Py(t), imposed in the short direction at the base of the
I ~ = Kz + iwCz ( 15.32) foundation over the resulting harmonic displacement, uy ( t), in
the same direction:
in which both K z and Cz are functions of the frequency w. They
can be interpreted as follows. The real component, K., termed ( 15.36)
"dynamic stiffness', reflects the stiffness and inertia of the
supporting soil; its dependence on frequency is attributed solely
to the influence that frequency exerts on inertia, since soil Similarly,
properties are to a good approximation frequency-independent. %" = the longitudinal (swaying) impedance (force-displace-
The imaginary component, wC., is the product of (circular) ment ratio), for horizontal motion in the long direction
frequency times the "dashpot coefficient" C., which reflects the f.x = the rocking impedance (moment-rotation ratio), for
two types of damping-radiation and material damping- rotational motion about the long axis of the foundation
generated in the system, the former due to energy carried by basemat
waves spreading away from the foundation, and the latter due f.y = the rocking impedance (moment-rotation ratio),
to energy dissipated in the soil due to hysteretic action. for rotational motion about the short axis of the
Equation 15.32 is a (theoretical and experimental) fact for foundation basemat
all foundation-soil systems. However, the interpretation of K ~ = the torsional impedance (moment-rotation ratio), for
and C as dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients must be rotational oscillation about the vertical axis
justified. This is easy if we substitute Equation 15.32 into
Equation 15.21. We are looking for the harmonic response Moreover, in embedded foundations and piles, horizontal forces
ii. exp (iwt) to the harmonic excitation F. exp (iwt). Straight- along principal axes induce rotational in addition to translational
forward operations lead to oscillations; hence, two more "cross-coupling" horizontal-
rocking impedance exist: %"ry and 'fyrx. They are usually
(15.33) neglegibly small in shallow foundations, but their effects may
become appreciable for greater depths of embedment, owing
to the moments about the base axes produced by horizontal
and to
soil reactions against the sidewalls. In piles the "cross-coupling"
(15.34) impedances are as important as the "direct" impedances.
 Foundation Vibrations 567

Rigid and massless

,:
.: ' . .

. . .. .. .. ... ..... _.
. "
O ..
. .
~,~.~.~.
'
•
.... , .•... t . , . ,
~~. ~~

'
. ~~,~~.--.~

I •
.--
. ~.~--~.~7
,.".';."~'-
. --

•..•
. --~-

........._ ... ':.l. "

•
. .
.•
'.
. . t,
6-
..
."If •
..•.. ,
.
..............
:-
.• I .
" . ..
'-
,.' ,
"'7
(
\
/' ,.\ \ \ I
"
/\
"
--
I ,/
I" /' /
r ./ '-
, I
\
/' /
, . --
/

----
/ // /

/ / "-
\ /
/
\ / '-

(a)

Pz

Rigid and massless

Rigid base

(b)

Fig. 15.11 (a) A foundation-structure system and the associated rigid and massless foundation. (b) Physical interpretation of the dynamic
stiffness (Kz ) and dashpot (C z ) coefficients for a vertically vibrating footing .

Note that throughout this chapter (as in most of the
literature) all impedances refer to axes passing through the
foundation basemat-soil interface.
The eight impedances turn out to be complex numbers and
functions of frequency that can be written in the form of
Equation 15.32. Thus, in general, for each mode
x"(w) = K(w) + iwC(w)
and the analogy suggested in Figure 15.11 extends to all modes.
Once, for a particular excitation frequency w, the eight
dynamic impedances (or the eight pairs of dynamic stiffness or
"spring" and "dashpot" coefficients) have been determined by
following the procedures to be presented in this chapter, by
recourse to the published literature, or by using available
numerical formulations and computer codes, the steady·state
response of a rigid foundation block to arbitrary harmonic
external forces can be computed analytically" by application of
Newton's laws. Also analytically, one can derive the steady-state
response of a flexible structure possessing natural modes and
subjected to harmonic external forces and to harmonic base
motion.
15.4.3 Coupled Swaying-Rocking Oscillation
Figure 15.12 portrays a typical rigid block foundation: it has
( 15.37)
equal depth of embedment along all the sides and possesses
two orthogonal vertical planes of symmetry, xz and yz, the
intersection of which defines the vertical axis of symmetry, z.
The foundation plan also has two axes of symmetry, x and y.
For such a foundation the vertical and torsional modes of
oscillation along and around the z axis can be treated separately,
as was previously illustrated for vertical oscillation. In other
words, each of these two modes is uncoupled from all the others.
On the other hand, swaying oscillation in the y direction
cannot be realized without simultaneous rocking oscillation
about x. This coupling of these two modes is a consequence of
the inertia of the block and the fact that its center of gravity
568 Foundation Engineering Handbook

r----' For a harmonic excitation:

I Fy(t) = Fyexp(iwt) ( IS.40)
I
I MAt) = Mx exp (iwt) (IS.41)
I in which the amplitudes Fy and Mx may be either constant, or
T"' ) (more typically) proportional to the square of the operational
frequency w = 2nf. Fy and Mx result from the operation of the

-----:-1·
. ' .
Zc-!
I
· L__
machine.
The steady-state harmonic response can be written in the
form:
{}y(t) = oyexp(iwt) Oy = + i{}y2 ( IS.42)
·H
{}yl

9At) = ;9xexp(iwt) ;9x = 9x1 + i9 x2 (IS.43)

(6'-~1 in which Oy and ;9x are complex frequency-dependent displace-
ment and rotation amplitudes at the center of gravity. Note
that Equations IS.40 to IS.43 do not by any means imply that
the two components of motion and the two components of
excitation are all in phase. Instead, the true phase angles are
"hidden" in the complex form of each displacement component.
Using similar arguments with regard to the soil reactions,
one may, without loss of generality, set
r-,
/ Py(t) = Pyexp(iwt) (1S.44)
(
I TAt) = Txexp(iwt) ( IS.4S)
I
I The complex amplitudes Py and t are related to the complex
-y displacement and rotation amplitudes through the correspond-
I
I ing dynamic impedances. Recalling that the latter are referred
~ to the center of the foundation base, rather than the block
" ,,~_.../
center of gravity, one can immediately write
Py = fy(Oy - zc;9x) + fyrx;9x (IS.46)
Tx = X.x;9x + fyrAo y - zc;9x) ( IS.47)
Substituting Equations IS.40 to IS.47 into the governing
Equations IS.37 to IS.38 leads to a system of two (coupled)
algebraic equations with two unknowns Oy and ;9x. The solution
Fig.15.12 Coupled swaying-rocking oscillations: definition of is obtained using Kramer's rule:
displacement variables. Top: section. Bottom: plan.

is above the center of pressure of the soil reactions. Thus, if the

Oy = (B 22 Fy - B I2 M x )N- 1 ( IS.48)
block is initially being displaced only horizontally, an inertial ;9y = (B l1 M x - B 12 F y )N- 1 ( IS.49)
force arises at the center of gravity and produces a net moment
at the foundation base-hence rocking is born. Similarly
coupled are swaying in the x direction and rocking around y. in which the following substitutions have been made
To study the coupled swaying-rocking oscillations of the Bl1 = fy(w) - mw 2 ( IS.S0a)
block in the zy plane, we call {}y and 9x the horizontal
displacement at the foundation center of gravity and the B12 = fyrAw) - fy(w)zc (IS.S0b)
angle of rotation of the rigid block, respectively. Referring to B22 = X.x(w) - Iox w2 + fy(w)z; - 2fyrxzc (IS.SOc)
Figure IS.12 and calling Fy(t) and MAt) the excitation force
and moment at the block center of gravity, one can write the and
translational force and rotational moment dynamic equilibrium (IS.SI)
as follows:
Notice that, for a particular frequency w, determination of
Py(t)+ m~y(t) = Fy(t) ( IS.38)
the motions from Equations IS.48 to IS.SI is a straightforward
TAt) - Py(t)·zc + IOx~At) = MAt) ( IS.39) operation once the dynamic impedances.Jiij (or the corresponding
"spring" and "dashpot" coefficients, Kij and Cij ) are known.
where
Of course, the computations are somewhat tedious if performed
m = total foundation mass by hand, since complex numbers are involved; but with even
lox = mass moment of inertia about a principal small microcomputers the calculations can be done routinely,
horizontal axis, parallel to x and passing at minimal cost.
through the block center of gravity Therefore, it is proposed that this procedure, in connection
Pyand 1'" = net horizontal force and rocking moment with an appropriate evaluation of impedances at the frequency
reactions, acting from the soil against the (or frequencies) of interest, should be used in analysis of machine
foundation during swaying and rocking, and foundations vibrating in swaying-rocking.
referring to the centroid of the foundation Vibrations in the vertical and torsional mode (each of which
basemat is practically uncoupled from all the other modes in the usual

case of nearly symmetric foundations), can be respectively
analysed with Equation 15.35 and its torsional counterpart:
9% = 19%1 = M% (15.52)
J(K z - J%W2)2 + w 2 C:
in which K, = the dynamic "spring" coefficient for torsion,
C, = the "dashpot" coefficient for torsion, J% = the moment of
inertia of the whole foundation (including the machine) about
the vertical z axis, and M exp (iwt) = the harmonic external
%
moment around z.
15.5 COMPUTING DYNAMIC IMPEDANCES:
TABLES AND CHARTS FOR DYNAMIC
"SPRINGS" AND "DASHPOTS"
Several alternative computational procedures and computer
codes are in principle available to the engineer wishing to obtain
dynamic impedance functions ("springs" and "dashpots") for
each specific machine-foundation problem. The choice among
these methods depends to a large extent on the required
accuracy, which in turn is primarily dictated by the size and
importance of the particular project. Furthermore, the method
to be selected must reflect the key characteristics of the
foundation and the supporting soil. Specifically, one may
broadly classify soil-foundation systems according to the
following material and geometric characteristics:
• The shape of the foundation (circular, strip, rectangular,
arbitrary)
• The type of soil profile (deep uniform deposit, deep multi-
layered deposit, shallow stratum on rock)
• The amount of embedment (surface foundation, embedded
foundation, piled foundation)
Broadly speaking, the various computational methods can
be grouped into four categories, each with its own merits and
limitations:
• Analytical and semi-analytical methods that can handle
multi-layered soil deposits and rectangular surface foundations,
but cannot treat embedment (e.g., Luco, 1976; Gazetas and
Roesset, 1976, 1979).
• Dynamic finite-element methods that can treat surface,
embedded, and piled foundations on or in layered soil profiles.
Most of these methods are limited to axisymmetric (circular)
or plane-strain (strip) situations, that is, they cannot study
rectangles and arbitrary shapes; and usually they require the
presence of a rigid bottom boundary (bedrock) at relatively
shallow depths (Waas, 1972; Kausel, 1974; Lysmer et aI.,
1975).
• Combined analytical-numerical methods that try to take
advantage of the capabilities of analytical and numerical
approaches. Included in this category are recently developed
boundary element methods (Kausel, 1981; Lysmer et aI.,
1981; Tassoulas, 1981).
• Approximate techniques that simplify the physics of the
problem and can provide engineering solutions to some very
complicated situations (e.g., separation between foundation
sidewalls and backfill) that cannot be treated rigorously
(Beredugo and Novak, 1972; Meek and Veletsos, 1973;
Novak et aI., 1978; Nogami, 1979; Gazetas and Dobry, 1984;
Wolf, 1985, 1988; Gazetas and Tassoulas, 1987).
Application of most of the rigorous methods and solutions
to a specific engineering problem usually involves using a
specialized computer code, which mayor may not be available.
Developing "tailor-made" codes is a very impracticable under-
taking, in view of the mathematical complexity of the problem.
Foundation Vibrations 569
Moreover, even when the appropriate sophisticated code is
available, the effort involved in getting one or two sets of usable
results may be such that no time/budget is left for the necessary
parametric studies. Such studies are of course critical for
exploring various design options and for evaluating the effects
of uncertainties in poorly known parameters (e.g., soil properties,
or quality of soil-foundation contact).
An alternative engineering approach has been the develop-
ment of easy-to-use closed-form expressions and graphs, based
on the results of rigorous and approximate formulations. This
is the approach taken in this chapter.
15.5.1 Presentation of Tables and Graphs
Six large tables (15.1 through 15.6) present comprehensive and
easy-to-use information for dynamic "spring" and "dashpot"
coefficients. The information is in the form of simple algebraic
formulas and dimensionless graphs pertaining to all possible
(translational and rotational) modes of oscillation and covering
a wide range of idealized soil profiles and foundation geometries.
The engineer should be able, by using the tables, to approximate
with sufficient accuracy the actual problem in many cases.
Figure 15.13 sketches the soil-foundation systems covered
in each table. Specifically:
1. Table 15.1 and the accompanying set of graphs refer to
foundations of any solid shape resting on the surface of a
homogeneous halfspace.
2. Table 15.2 and the related graphs are for foundations with
any solid basemat shape partially or fully embedded in a
homogeneous halfspace.
3. Table 15.3 refers mainly to circular and strip foundations
on the surface of a homogeneous soil stratum underlain
by bedrock (some results are also given for rectangular
foundations ).
4. Table 15.4 refers to circular and strip foundations partially
or fully embedded in a homogeneous stratum underlain by
bedrock.
5. Table 15.5 pertains to square and strip foundations on the
surface of some inhomogeneous profiles, in which the
modulus increases smoothly with depth according to
G=Go(l+cxO· '=z/B (15.53)
6. Table 15.6 is mainly for laterally oscillating single floating
piles in two inhomogeneous and a homogeneous stratum or
halfspace; some information is also given for vertical
oscillations, and for pile-soil-pile dynamic interaction
factors.
Simplicity without any serious compromise in accuracy has
been the prime goal when developing these tables. It is believed
that, in general, the errors that may result from their use
will be well within an acceptable 15 percent. (Use of the
approximation symbol, however, implies a slightly inferior
accuracy.)
The formulas and graphs given in Tables 15.1 and 15.2 for
arbitrarily shaped surface and embedded foundations on or in
a homogeneous halfspace have been compiled from some recent
publications by the author and his coworkers (Dobry and
Gazetas, 1985; Gazetas et aI., 1985, 1987; Fotopoulou et aI.,
1989). They are based on (a) some simple physical models
calibrated with results of rigorous boundary-element formulations
and (b) data from the literature (most notably from the work
of Lysmer, Veletsos, Luco, and Roesset and Kausel-see
references). On the other hand, Tables 15.3 and 15.4 pertaining
to surface and embedded foundation on a homogeneous stratum
over bedrock are based on results by Kausel (1974), Johnson
et al. (1975), Gazetas and Roesset (1976, 1979), Elsabee and
 570 Foundation Engineering Handbook

1---26---1 1--26---l

T
r
Plan

Sec t ion 00

1 2

~ ~ma"le.s rigid IDundalion- - - - - - . . .

v~a
. . ..' .
." " -.. . ', ' : ': '
, .... . " : .. '

• ' ••• - " .' •••.• •• : •••••• : •• : " .,: -.:. ~ •• ' .•• : • -• 0, • : 'II.:
-<.,." ._ ', ,: :: -., .. Homogeneous -" Hallspace : .
.. ..
,/ , '

: . ' .•..•. "'-'. G • v .'

p : ,
', '
' ., .. .
. ' ..
.'
, -, . ', ,- ' . . .",.'.:',::. "
: Homogeneous Hallspace :':
.' . • I • • •
.'. G • v , p
r"..: . . •. "

3 4

:.- '"
0 ' :._

'. : -: ,: ~ ~ :. :. :', ~

, igi d formation , i9 i d formation

5 6

-----:----,---:-IJ .
. . . ., '. -I I.· · . \
-
,'
I I "- .•
-, .. "
1 I· " \ \' /1/ I I.
_
1 I·. ·· . " II I" · ,
. ;.,
. I I:" .' .\1
//I
. 1 i .'...... :.\
inho mogene ou • . ; . Inhomogeneous . 1
or . I .. I r ' :"
',- Ha I Ispa c e ':- Homogeneous ... 1 ,
, " . G(2) DepOSIts ,,' I I·
" ~" .
v '. , , . LJ _ _ _
p ..' .:.~ 5-~-':-f- .'.
,: "
. " ' , "
.,'

'wy,;>m9)&'lX~'9'w;XXVW"(Y XWlMyAV>-'J'1
, . z

Fig,15,13 The six soil-foundation systems studied in this chapter, Numbers 1 through 6 refer to the corresponding tables 15.1 to 15.6
and the associated graphs.
 Foundation Vibrations 571

Morray (1977), lakub and Roesset (1977), Kause1 and Ushijima
(1979), and Chow (1987). The sources of Table 15.5 for surface
foundation on a number of inhomogeneous deposits include
Hadjan and Luco (1977), Gazetas (1983), Booker et al. (1985),
Wong and Luco (1985), Werkle and Waas (1986), and Novak
(1987). Finally, the information of Table 15.6 on single piles is
based on Roesset (1980a, b), Sanchez-Salinero (1982), Ve1ez
et al. (1983), and Gazetas (1984). The pile-group interaction
factors are from Dobry and Gazetas (1988) and Gazetas and
Makris (1990), calibrated with results from Nogami (1979),
Kaynia and Kause1 (1982), and Davies et al. (1985).
The reader will certainly find useful detailed information in
these original sources. However, Tables 15.1 to 15.6 and the
accompanying graphs are sufficient for complete dynamic
analyses.
15.5.2 Use of Tables and Graphs; Illustrative
examples
1. Surface Foundation on Halfspace
For an arbitrarily shaped foundation mat, the engineer must
first determine a circumscribed restangie 2B by 2L (L> B)
using common sense as explained in Figures 15.13 and 15.14.
Then, to compute the impedances in the six modes of vibration,
from Table 15.1, all he needs is the values of:
• A b , lb, lby and J b = area, area moments of inertia about
x, y, and polar moment of inertia about z, of the actual
soil-foundation contact surface. If loss of contact under
part of the foundation (e.g., along the edges of a rocking

L IB = 3.5 , Ab = 57,6 m2 1614 It 2 ) , Ibx <= 82 m' (9,309 It').

I by = 904m'1105 ,OOO It') , W = 2Tt (30) = 188.5 S-I. a. = 1.3

I.. ~I

T
--
(4')
28= 4.3 ( 6')
(14' ) x
-'- ( ")

I..-.....- 6.7 6 ----J

[- 122.16') "jy

FIRST NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

·· l~ ··· . '. : ~":~ .-

.
. --.-.
-
" --- x

G = 192 MPa G = 2.000 tsl

Elevation p = 2 Mg/m l
I• .
I
v = 0,33 v 0.33

~ = 0.05
'z ~ = 0,05

SECOND NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

lV;
·.l . . im . <''' . '. 4m .. · ·
Wi- :i·
..'.. . .~. . . .'. :. ... : '.J '......>. ..: .', .~. '.:',: .. ': ....: .
J.... ~_~~,,~ "". j_: . ' .
Elevation
. . .".' . . ' .' . I ' .....
· . soil parameters
'. . . . '. ' . ~~ .' . . ' ' . as above

Fig. 15.14 Geometry and material parameters of the two illustrative numerical examples. (Note also that Vs ~ 310 mis, VLB ~ 500 m/s;
X ~ 0.26.)
en
N
" TABLE 15.1 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES AND DASHPOT COEFFICIENTS FOR ARBITRARILY SHAPED FOUNDATIONS ON THE
SURFACE OF A HOMOGENEOUS HALFSPACE.
Dynamic Stiffness K= K . k ( w )
Static Stiffness K
Dynamic Stiffness Radiation Dashpot
General Shape Coefficient k Coefficient
Vibration {foundation-soil contact surface is of area Ab Square (General shape; C
Mode and has a circumscribed rectangle 2L by 2B; L > B)' L=B o ~ ao ~ 2)t ( General Shapes)

2GL 4.54GB
Vertical, Z Kz = - - (0.73 + 1.54X0 75 ) Kz = - - - kz = kz(~, v; ao) Cz = (pVLsA b ) . Cz
1- v 1- v
. Ab Cz = cz{L/ B, v; ao)
with X = - is plotted in Graph a
4L2 is plotted in Graph c

2GL 9GB
Horizontal, y Ky = - - (2 + 2.50XO B5 ) Ky = - - ky = ky(~; ao) Cy = (PVsAb) . cy
(in the 2-v 2-v
lateral cy = cy{L/ B; ao)
is plotted in Graph b
direction) is plotted in Graph d

Horizontal, x K =K - - -0.2 -
- G L ( 1 -B) Kx=Ky kx:' 1 Cx :' PVsAb
(in the x y 0.75 _ v L
longitudinal
direction)

K = 3.6GB3
Rocking, rx K,x = -G- Ig: 5(Ly25(
- 2.4 + 0.5 -B) k,x :. 1 - 0.20ao C,x = (pVLslbx ) ·C'X
1- v B L 'x 1_ v
(around
longitudinal with C'X = c,X<L/B; ao)
x axis) Ibx (Iby) area moment of inertia of the foundation-soil is plotted in Graphs e and f
contact surface around the x{y) axis

Rocking, ry K,y =~/075[3U_y15J K,y = K,x C,y = (pVLslby ) . C,y

1_v by B
(around k,y :. 1 - 0.30ao
lateral axis)
Cry = cry{L/B; ao)
r0 45
v:. 0.50: (L Y30
kry :. 1 - 0.25ao -
is plotted in Graph g
B

Torsional K,=GJg75[4+11(1-~yoJ K, = 8.3GB3 k,:. 1 - 0.14ao C, = (pVsJb ) . C,

C, = c,{L/B; ao)
with J b = Ibx + Iby being the polar moment of the
soil-foundation contact surface

• Note that as L / B .... 00 (strip footing) the theoretical values of Kz and Ky .... 0; the values computed from the two given formulas correspond to a footing with L / B "" 20.
t 80 = wB/V•.
 Foundation Vibrations 573

GRAPHS ACCOMPANYING TABLE 15.1

/Y
/A::~?9~-x
I 2l .1

Fine soU
sa'uruted sOils

1"'' '0.50 1

ROCKING (ry>
LIB, _

SWAVING (y)

I
OIB
Qo=-v-
s

foundation) is likely, the engineer may use his judgment to the ~ij values combine hysteretic and radiation damping).
discount the contribution of this part. To incorporate such damping, simply add to the foregoing
• Band L = semi-width and semi-length of the circumscribed C value the corresponding material dashpot coefficient
rectangle. 2KPo /w:
• G and v, or V. and VLa = shear modulus, Poisson's ratio,
. . 2K
shear-wave velocity, and "Lysmer's analog" wave velocity. Total C = radIatIon C + - Po ( 15.56)
The last is the apparent propagation velocity of compression- w
extension waves under a foundation and is related to V.
according to Numerical Example A numerical example illustrates the use
3.4 of Table 15.1 and the attached graphs in computing the dynamic
VLa = V. ( 15.54) stiffnesses ("springs") and damping coefficients ("dashpots"),
n(1 - v)
for four modes of vibration. A sketch of the foundation and
• w = 2n/ = the circular frequency (in radians / second) of the lists of all pertinent geometric, material, and load parameters
applied force (e.g., frequency of operation of the machine). are included in Figure 15.14. The computations follow in SI
units, but the results are also given in English units (in
This table as well as all the other tables gives: parentheses). The excitation frequency is / = 30 Hz.
• The dynamic stiffnesses ("springs"), K = K(w), as a product
VERTICAL MODE
of the static stiffness, K, times the dynamic stiffness coefficient
k=k(w):
Static stiffness:
K(w) = K· k(w) (15.55)
K = 2.0 x 192000 x 7.45 [0.73 + 1.54(0.26)0.75]
• The radiation damping ("dashpot") coefficients C = C(w). z 1 - 0.33
These coefficients do not include the soil hysteretic damping,
Po (the only exception is with Table 15.6 (for piles), where ~ 5500 x 10 3 kN / m (3.8 x 10 8 Ib/ft)
574 Foundation Engineering Handbook

Dynamic stiffness coefficient: k. ~ 0.93 TORSIONAL MODE

Dynamic stiffness ("spring"):

Static stiffness
K. = 5500 10 3 x 0.93 = 5.1 x 10 6 kN/m (3.5 x lO Blb/ft)
11( 1 - 3~5yoJ
X

Radiation dashpot coefficient:

K, = 192000 X (985)°·75 x [4 +
C. = 2.0 x 500 x 57.6 x 1 ~ 1.5 x lOB kN· m (10.3 x 10 1o Ib-ft)
~ 5.8 X 10 kN . s . m -1
4 (3.8 X 10 Ib-sec-ft - 1 )
6
Dynamic stiffness coefficient:
Total dashpot coefficient: k, ~ 1 - (0.14 x 1.3) ~ 0.82
2 x 5.1 X 10 6 Dynamic stiffness ("spring"):
Total C. = 5.8 X 10 4 + x 0.05
188.5 K, = 1.5 X lOB x 0.82
~ 6.0 x 10 4 kN . s . m -1 (4.0 X 10 6 Ib-sec-ft - 1 ) ~ 1.2 x lOB kN· m (8.5 x 10 1o Ib-ft)
Radiation dashpot coefficient:
LATERAL HORIZONTAL MODE (y) Ct = 2.0 x 310 x 985 x 0.90

Static stiffness: ~ 5.5 x 10 5 kN . s . m (4.05 x lOB Ib-sec-ft)

Total dashpot coefficient:
K = 2.0 x 192000 x 7.45 [2 + 2.5(0.26)0.B5]
2 - 0.33 2 x 1.2 X lOB
Total C, = 5.5.x 10 5 +
y
x 0.05
~ 4790 x 10 3 kN/m (3.2 x lO Blb/ft) 188.5

Dynamic stiffness coefficient: ky ~ 1.2 ~ 6.1 x 10 5 kN· s· m (4.5 x lO Blb-sec-ft)

Dynamic stiffness ("spring"): This concludes the example computations. Having obtained
these "spring" (K) and "dashpot"(total C), the engineer can use
Ky = 4790 X 10 3 x 1.2 ~ 5.8 x 10 6 kN/m (3.9 x lO Blb/ft)
• Equation 15.35 to obtain the amplitude of vertical oscillation.
Radiation dashpot coefficient: • Equation 15.52 to obtain the amplitude of torsional oscillation.
Cy = 2.0 x 310 x 57.6 x 1.0 • Equations 15.48 to 15.51 to obtain the amplitudes by and By
of coupled swaying-rocking oscillation in the yz plane
~ 3.6 X 10 4 kN· s· m -I (2.4 x 10 6 Ib-sec-ft- l ) (lateral direction).
Total dashpot coefficient: To get an insight into the meaning of the computed Cj values
2 x 5.8 X 10 6 (j = z,
y, rx, t), let us consider above the foundation base of
Total C y = 3.6 X 10 4 + x 0.05 Figure 15.14 a rigid block having a (total) mass m = 1200 mg
188.5 and (total) mass moments of inertia Ix = 13 000 mg· m 2 and
~3.9 x 10 4 kN·s·m- 1 (2.7 x 10 6 Ib-sec-ft- l ) I. = 38000 mg . m 2, about the base x axis and the vertical z axis,
respectively. For each mode an "effective" or "equivalent"
damping ratio, ~j, can be defined as follows:
ROCKING MODE rx (AROUND THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS)
Translational modes ~j = Cj (j = z, y) (15.57a)
Static stiffness: 2JK j m

K = 192000 x (82.0)°·75 X (3.5)°·25 x ( 2.4 + -0.5) Rotational modes ~, = C, (l = rx,t;p = x,z) (15.57b)
rx 1 _ 0.33 3.5 2JK,Ip
~ 2.7 x 10 7 kN· m (1.4 x 10 1o Ib-ft) For the four modes considered we obtain:
Dynamic stiffness coefficient: • Vertical ~. ~ 0.38 or 38 percent
• Lateral ~y ~ 0.23 or 23 percent
krx ~ 1 - (0.2 x 1.3) = 0.74 • Rocking ~rx ~ 0.05 or 5 percent
• Torsion ~, ~ 0.15 or 15 percent
Dynamic stiffness ("spring"):
From these values it is evident that for rotational modes
K rx = 2.7 X 10 7 x 0.74 and especially for rocking the effective damping ratio is quite
~ 2.0 x 10 7 kN· m (1.07 x 10 1o Ib-ft) low, while for translational modes and especially vertical
oscillation it can be very high. These differences are a direct
Radiation dashpot coefficient: consequence of different amounts of "radiation" damping which
Crx = 2.0 x 500 x 82.0 x 0.5 results from geometric spreading of waves generated at the
foundation-soil interface. When the foundation undergoes a
~ 4.1 x 104 kN· s· m (3.7 x 10 7 Ib-sec-ft) vertical oscillation such waves are emitted in phase and "reach"
long distances away from the foundation; hence, relatively large
Total dashpot coefficient: amounts of wave energy are "lost" for the foundation-high
2 x 2.0 X 10 7 radiation damping. In contrast, two "points" symmetrically
Total Crx = 4.1 X 10 4 + x 0.05 located on the opposite sides of a rocking foundation send off
188.5
waves that are 180 out of phase and tend to cancel each other
0

~ 5.2 x 104 kN· s· m (4.5 x 10 7 Ib-sec-ft) out when they meet at distant locations along the centerline
 Foundation Vibrations 575

(dynamic equivalent of St. Venant's Principle); hence, they the foundation mass quite large are rather unfortunate.
cannot "reach" long distances and effectively dissipate little Another conclusion from Figure lS.16 is that rigid block
energy from that imparted onto the foundation-low radiation foundations may not necessarily be sensitive to high-
damping. frequency excitation, because, even in the unlikely event of
Such differences in effective damping ratios are typical for resonance, peak response may not be excessive. High natural
surface foundation on a homogeneous halfspace. Figure lS.lS, frequencies require relatively small masses or moments of
adopted from the first edition of this handbook (Richart, 1975), inertia and are thereby associated with high damping ratios.
refers to a circular foundation of radius R. Each of the four As a general rule, the frequency factors ao = wB/ V. of interest
damping ratios, ~ .. ~x, ~rx' and ~t' is portrayed as a decreasing do not exceed 2.
function of a corresponding mass ratio: The foregoing conclusions are valid for surface foundations
m(l - v) _ m(2 - v) on very deep homogeneous deposits (halfspace). Important
mz = ---,-- mx= ---:;--'- ( lS.S8a) factors that may modify (quantitatively and qualitatively) these
4pR
3 8pR3
conclusions include foundation embedment, the presence of
3/A1 - v) _ /z bedrock at shallow depths, and soil inhomogeneity.
mrx -- 8pRs m t -- -pRs (lS.58b)
2. Foundation Embedded in Halfspace
The reader should check the overall similarity between the
damping ratios computed in this example and those anticipated With the formulas and graphs of Table lS.2 one can assess the
from Figure lS.lS. effects of embedment in a: variety of realistic situations. The
Two important conclusions emerge from Figure lS.lS. additional parameters that must be known or computed before
1. The consequences of resonance (when the operational using this table are:
frequency coincides with the natural frequency of the • D = the elevation below the ground surface of the foundation
foundation-soil system) are far more secious for rocking basemat.
than for translational vibrations. "Avoiding resonance" • Aw or d = the total area of the actual sidewall-soil contact
in rocking is a prudent consideration. On the other surface, or the (average) height of the sidewall that is in
hand, relatively light foundations vibrating vertically on "good" contact with the surrounding soil. Aw should, in
homogeneous halfspace may experience damping, ~ .. in general, be smaller than the nominal area of contact to
excess of SO percent; hence, occurrence of resonance would account for such phenomena as slippage and separation that
hardly spell disaster, and avoiding it at any cost (as some may occur near the ground surface. The engineer should refer
older procedures were recommending) might mislead the to published results oflarge-scale and small-scale experiments
designer. Recall that the "dynamic amplification" or "dynamic for a guidance in selecting a suitable value for Aw or d (e.g.,
load factor" at resonance, DA max , is almost inversely Stokoe and Richart, 1974; Erden, 1974; Novak, 1985). Note
proportional to ~z: that Aw or d will not necessarily attain a single value for all
max U z 1 modes of oscillation.
DAmax == --.-- = - - - - - ( lS.59) • Aw and Aw , which refer to horizontal oscillations and
static U z 2~zJ1 - ~; represent th~'sum of the projections of all the sidewall areas
2. As the inertia of a foundation block increases relative to its in directions parallel (AwJ and perpendicular (AwJ to
base dimensions, the effective damping ratios decrease (a loading. Again A w , and A w" should be smaller than the
consequence of m and / p being in the denominator in nominal areas shearing and compressing the soil, to account
Equation lS.S7). Therefore, older design practices of keeping for slippage and/or separation. h = the distance of the
(effective sidewall) centroid from the ground surface.
• J w., and / Wee' which refer to rocking and correspond to A w,
1.0 and A w", respectively. J w, = the sum of the polar moments
of inertia about the (off-plane) axis of rotation of all surfaces
0.7
actually shearing the soil; /w" = the sum of moments ofinertra
of all surfaces actually compressing the soil about their base
0.' axes parallel to the axis of rotation (x or y).
• J Wee' which pertains to torsion and is equal to the sum of the
III moments of inertia of all surfaces actually compressing the
Q 0.2
.... soil about the projection of the axis of rotation (z) onto their
ct
Q:: plane.
o1
(!) It is pointed out that most of the formulas of Table lS.2 are
~
a.. 0.07 valid for symmetric and nonsymmetric contact along the
::£ perimeter of the vertical sidewalls and the surrounding soil. Note
ct
0 O.O,~ also that Table 1S.2 compares the dynamic stiffnesses and dashpot
coefficients of an embedded foundation, Kemb = Kemb . kemb and
Cemb' with those of the corresponding surface foundation,
0.02
Ksur = K sur ' ksur and Csur ·

Numerical Example A numerical example illustrates the use

o- - - + - - - - + - - - + - - - - + - - - + = " " " " - - - /
O.Olt
INERTIA RATIOS
Fig. 15.15 Radiation damping ratios of a circular foundation on
a homogeneous half-space. Notice the very small amount of
damping generated in rocking. (Adapted from Richart et a/., 1970.)
of Table 1S.2 and the attached graphs. Figure 1S.l4 sketches
the foundation, whose basemat is identical to the mat of the
previous example (Fig. 1S.l4), but which is now placed at a
depth D = 6 m. The sidewalls are in contact with the soil
throughout the height D, but the engineer believes that the
quality of contact at the top 2 m, will be too poor to be trusted.
576 Foundation Engineering Handbook

(a) ( b)

,{ d}.It"
2l
I- ·1

r"
y
--I
. __ JI
x :l"B
2B
3'
{ I
I
-'
x
3
..1.
3B
£.B
3

I-l=~+_L=~
plans
I- l = 2B .1_ l = 2B.1

LlB=l LIB =2

elevation

-- -
• 0 Boundary Element
v = 0.40
o =B Expression of Table n

Cry

a = W B
o Vs
Fig.15.16 Comparison of the results derived using the simple expressions given in this chapter with the results of rigorous (boundary-
element) formulations for two T-shaped foundations (LIB = 1 and 2) embedded in a homogeneous halfspace.
 Foundation Vibrations 577

He thus decides that the effective height of sidewall-soil contant "Dashpot":

is d = 4 m. The computations that follow make use of the results
of the previous example for Ksur and C sur .
= 2 x 4.3 x 4.0 = 34.4 m 2
A w,
A w" = 2 x 14.9 x 4.0 = 119.2 m 2
VERTICAL MODE Cy• emb = 3.6 X 104 + 2.0 x 310 x 34.4 + 2.0 x 500 x 119.2
= 3.6 x 104 + 2.1 X 10 4 + 11.9 X 104
Aw = 2 x (14.9+ 4.3) x 4.0 = 153.6 m 2
~ 17.6 x 104 kN's'm- 1
DIB = 6/2.15 = 2.79
AwlAb = 153.6/57.6 = 2.67 4 2 x 4.8 X 10 6
Total C y emb = 17.6 x 10 + x 0.05
Static and dynamic stiffness ("spring"): . 188.5
~ 17.9 x 104 kN· s· m- 1
K •• emb = 5.5 x 106 x [ 1 + 21(1
2.79 + 1.33 x 0.26) ]

x [1 + 0.2 X (2.67)2/3]
ROCKING MODE rx (AROUND THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS)
= 5.5 X 10 6 x 1.18 x 1.38 ~ 9 x 10 6 kN/m
dlB = 4/2.15 = 1.86
The dynamic stiffness coefficient is obtained by linear inter-
polation between the "fully-embedded" value, diD = 4/6 = 0.67
k•. d =6m ~ 0.93[1 - 0.09(2.79)3/4(1.3)2] ~ 0.62 BI L = 2.15/7.45 ~ 0.29
and the value for the foundation placed in an open trench, Static and dynamic stiffness ("spring"):
without sidewalls,
K,x.emb = 2.7 X 10 7 {I + 1.26 x 1.86
k•. d=o ~ 0.93[1 + 0.09(2.79)3/4(1.3)2] ~ 1.24
x [1 + 1.86 x (0.67)-0.2 x JO.29]}
Thus,
k •• emb = k•. d =4m ~ (4 x 0.62 +2 x 1.24)/6 ~ 0.83 ~ 2.7 x 5.89 ~ 15.9 x 10 7 kN· m

and k,x.emb ~ k,x.sur = 0.74

K •• emb =9 x 0.83 X 10 6 = 7.4 X 10 6 kN/m K,x.emb = 15.9 X 10 7 x 0.74 ~ 11.8 x 10 7 kN· m
"Dashpot":
"Dashpot":
C •• emb = 5.8 10 4 + 2.0 x 310 x 153.6
X

~ 15.0 x 104 kN's'm- 1

J w, =2 t
x x 4.3 x 4.0 x (2.15 2 + 4 2) ~ 236.5 m 4
I w" = 2x t x 14.9 X 4 3 ~ 635.7 m 4
4 2 x 7.4 X 10 6
Total = 15.0 x 10 + x 0.05
I
C. emb
. 188.5 (Aw",L\r) = 2 x (12.2 x 4.0 x 2.15 2 + 2.7 x 4.0 x 0.95 2)
= 15.4 x 10 4 kN's'm- 1
~ 235.3 m 4

c1 = 0.25 + 0.65Ji3 x (0.67)-0.65(2.79)-0.25 ~ 1.0

LATERAL HORIZONTAL MODE (Y)
C,x.emb = 4.1 X 10 4 + 2.0 x 500 x 635.7 x 1.0 + 2.0 x 310
h = 4m hlB = 4/2.15 = 1.86
x (236.5 + 235.3) x 1.0
AwlL2 = 153.6/7.45 2 ~ 2.77
~ 4.1 10 4 + 63.5 X 10 4 + 29.2
X X 10 4
Static and dynamic stiffness ("spring"):
~ 96.8 X 104 kN . s . m
K y • emb = 4.79 X 10 6( 1 + 0.15J2.79) [ 1 + 0.52( 1.86 x 2.77)°·4] 4 2 x 11.8 X 10 7
~ 4.79 10 6 x 1.25 x 2.0 Total C,x emb = 96.8 x 10 + x 0.05
X . 188.5
~ 12.0 X 10 6 kN/m ~ 103 x 10 4 kN . s . m
The dynamic stiffness coefficient is obtained with the help of
the graphs that accompany Table 15.2. The "fully-embedded"
value is TORSIONAL MODE (AROUND z, PASSING THROUGH BASE
ky•d =6m ~ 0.3 CENTROID)

obtained by interpolating between the LIB = 2 and LIB =6 "Spring":

plots, for DIB ~ 2.79. Then for the partial embedment:
K t • emb = 1.5 X 10 8 x {I + 1.4 x (1 + 0.29) x (1.86)0.9}
k =k _ ~k _ . k(2/3) ~ 6.2 x 10 8 kN . m
y.emb y.d-4m - y.d-6m k(l)

~ 0.3 x 1.3 ~ 0.4 k t • emb ~ kt • sur = 0.82

K y. emb ~ 12.0 x 0.4 ~ 4.8 x 10 6 kN/m K t • emb = 6.2 X 10 8 x 0.82 ~ 5.1 x 10 8 kN· m
U'I
.....
00

TABLE 15.2 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES AND DASHPOT COEFFICIENTS FOR ARBITRARILY SHAPED PARTIALLY OR FULLY EMBEDDED IN A
HOMOGENEOUS HALFSPACE.

Dynamic Stiffness K'mb = K.mb . k.mb (co )

Static Stiffness Komb

For foundations with arbitrarily- Radiation Dashpot Coefficient
shaped basemat Ab of circumscribed C.mb(co)
rectangle 2L by 2B; total sidewall- Dynamic Stiffness
Vibration soil contact area Aw (or constant Coefficient k.mb (co) Rectangular Foundation
Mode sidewall-soil contact height d) 0< ao';; 2 General Foundation Shape 2L by 2B by d

Vertical, Z Kz•emb = Kz•su' [ 1 + ;1 ~ (1 + 1.3X) ] I Fully embedded: Cz•8mb = Cz•sur + pV,Aw Cz•8mb = 4pVto BL{}z
with Cz•sur and {}z according to
+ 4pV,(B + L)d
3 kz.8mb "" k z.su' [ 1 - O.09(~r4a~]
x [1 + O.2e:r ]
Table 15.1
0 In a trench:
q-
Kz•sur obtained from Table 15.1
Aw = actual sidewall-soil contact e<
... k z•tro "" k z•su' [ 1 + O.09(~r4a~]
area; for consta nt effective
contact height d along the
Partially embedded:
perimeter
estimate by interpolating between
Aw = (d) x (Perimeter), X =Ab14L2
'the two
{ "II, _ _ ... LiB = 1-2
~ k z•8mb "" 1- O.09(DIB)3/4a~
/I Fully embedded, LIB> 3
...
k z•8mb "" 1 - O.35(DIB)1/2a~5

Horizontal, y or x Ky•8mb = Ky•su'(1 +O.15~) k y•8mb and k x •omb can be estimated in Cy•8mb = C y.sur + pV,A w• + pVL.A we• Cy •8mb = 4pV,BUy + 4pV,Bd
terms of LI B, D I B, and dl B for each
Aw. = ~::<Aw, sin 9,) = total effective + 4pVL.Ld
value of ao from the graphs
x sidewall area
[1+ O.52(~ ~f] accompanying this table (}y according to Table 15.1
shearing the
K y•• ur obtained from Table 15.1 soil
Kx .8mb similarly computed from Kx•• ur Awe. = }':<A w, cos .9,) = total effective
sidewall area
compressing
the soil
9, angle of inclination of surface A w,
from loading direction
Cy •sur obtained from Table 15.1
Cx •8mb similarly computed from Cx •sur
 Expressions valid for any basemat C,x.emb = C,x,sur + pVL.lwcfl~1 C,..omb = ~pVLaB3 L~,.
shape but constant effective contact
+ ~pVL.d3U,
height d along the perimeter + PV,( J w, +~ [Aw...,Af] )~, + ~pV,Bd(B2 + d2)~,
K,x,emb = K,x,sur
Rocking. TX k,x,emb ~ krx,sur (d) -00/2
~, = 0.25 +0.65.)80 0 +4pV,B 2dU,
(around the longitudinal axis)
'{1 +1.26H1 +~(~r02AJ} with ~, as in the preceding column
x (~r/4 and ~,. according to Table 15.1
Rocking, TY Kry,emb = K,y,sur
kry,emb ~ kry,sur 'we. = total moment of inertia about
(around the lateral axis)
.{1+0.92(~r[ 1.5 +(~r their base axes parallel to x of
all sidewall surfaces effectively
compressing the soil
x (~r06J}
A, = distance of surface A w.., from
the x axis
J w• = polar moment of inertia about
their base axes parallel to x of
all sidewall surfaces effectively
shearing the soil

Cry.omb is similarly evaluated from

Cry.su, with y replacing x and,
in the equation for c" L
replacing B

Coupling term
Swaying-rocking (x, TY) Kxry.omb '" !JdKx.omb k,xy.emb ~ kyrx.emb ~ 1 Cxry,emb ~ idCx.emb as in the previous column
Swaying-rocking (y, TX) Kyrx.omb '" !JdKy.omb Cy,x.omb ~ !JdCy.omb

Torsional Kt. emb = Kt.sur kt.emb ~ kt.sur C t•omb = C t•su, + PVL.Jwcs~2 C t•omb = ~pV.BL (B 2
+L 2)~t

+ pV,I: [Aw,A:,] ~2 + ~pVLad(L 3

+B 3) ~2
X [ 1+ 1.4( 1+ ~)(~rJ 2 8 + 4pV.dBL(B + L)~2
~2 0
'" (d) 1.5
-0.5 . ag +!(LO/B)
with ~2 as in the preceding column
J wcs = total moment of inertia of all and ~t according to Table 15.1
sidewall surfaces effectively
compressing the soil about
the projection of the z axis
onto their plane
Az, = distance of surface AWl from
the z axis

NOTE: VLa = ~ V, is the apparent propagation velocity of compression-extension waves.

n(1 - v)

UI
cg
"
 580 Foundation Engineering Handbook

lr---~~---'----~-----,

LIB =1
GRAPHS ACCOMPANYING
TABLE 15.2
ky D/ B
1~-:::~__ ........ 0

°o~-----L----~----~----~

LI B =2

DI •• 0 'ourlac!l,...

.... .............-- .......... _-- ....1\":'::"___ D/. =0

1 ~-.::::-______ 1 I
..•.•::;- .... :::- ........... -!.
....."';:.............
-----
•.......' .......... -.J. ................. kid/D)
•••.•• ........ ,t
'....,
"-.~
...... ....
..........
_-- .....
....... ..............
~
kld/D=ll

°O~--~----~----~~~~ o~--~-----+----~--~

L/ B= 6 L/B~6

o
O/B
o
~:7-::----.l
..... ................. ...... ....... ---..;
---
I

........'·.3' .......... _- -
••••• ..... ...... 2 ..............

__ _
......................
' ...............
2~--~----~---,----,

•
,,----1. .......
............
'!! - ....
..., '""-
"".' 'v.
'. "-
........... \
'. \
\. \
01-------....- --or---i
,,
\~ ,
'.

LI B = 00
- 1
,
.
'
.......
O----'-----Tl - - - > - - - - '.
L.
2
aO
 Foundation Vibrations 581

"Dashpot": 3. In view of the complexity of the problem of arbitrarily shaped

partially embedded foundations, the formulas and graphs of
!J w" = 4.0 X 14.9 3 /12 +4 x 14.9 x (8.14 - 7.45)2 Table 15.2 provide a very simple and complete solution,
+ 4.0 X 4.3 3 /12 while allowing the engineer to use his experience and
judgment. To give an idea as to how well the formulas of
~ 1157.5 m 4 Table 15.2 may compare with rigorous theoretical solutions,
J w" ~ 2315 m 4 Figure 15.16 refers to two foundations having T-shaped
basemats and subjected to harmonic rocking oscillations.
The circumscribed rectangles have LI B = 1 and 2 and each
L (Aw,~;J = 2 x 12.2 x 4.0 X 2.15 2 + 4.3 x 4.0 X 6.76 2 foundation is embedded at depth D = 8. The rigorous results
i
are from a dynamic boundary-element solution and are
+ 1.9 x 4.0 X 8.14 2 + 2 x 2.7 x 4.0 X 0.95 2 plotted as data points. The developed expressions for C,x,
given in Table 15.2, yield for each foundation the correspond-
+2 x 1.2 x 4.0 x (8.14 - 2.7)2 ing continuous lines. The agreement is indeed excellent and
indicative of the capabilities of the simple methods utilized
~ 451 + 786 + 318 + 19 + 284 in this chapter. Also encouraging are comparisons of the
~ 1858 m 4 presented solution with small-scale experimental measure-
ments.
_ 1.]2
c ~(4/6)-O.5X -117
2 - 1.]2 + (1/2) x (3.5) 1.5 - .
3. The Presence of Bedrock at Shallow Depth
Ct,emb = 5.5 X 105 + 2.0 x 500 x 2315 x 1.17 + 2.0 x 310
Natural soil deposits are frequently underlain by very stiff
x 1858 x 1.17 material or even bedrock at a shallow depth, rather than
extending to practically infinite depth as the homogeneous
~ 5.5 x 105 + 27.1 X 105 + 13.5 X 105
halfspace implies. The proximity of such a stiff formation to
~ 46 X 105 kN . s . m the oscillating surface modifies the static stiffnesses, K, the
dynamic stiffness coefficients, k( w), and the dashpot coefficients
5 2 x 5.1 X 10 8 C( w). Specifically, with reference to Table 15.3 and its graphs
Total C t emb = 46 x 10 + x 0.05 we see the following.
, 188.5
~49 x 10 5 kN's'm ( 1) The static stiffnesses in all modes increase with the relative
depth to bedrock HI B. This is evident from the formulas of
It is apparent that embedment has produced very substantial Table 15.3, which reduce to the corresponding halfspace stiff-
increases for all "springs" (except the horizontal) and all nesses when HI R approaches infinity.
"dashpots." We summarize these effects in terms ofthe dynamic Particularly sensitive to variations in the depth to rock are
stiffness ratio Kembl Ksur and the equivalent damping ratios esur the vertical stiffnesses-the effect being far more pronounced
(from the previous example) and eemb (from the value of Cemb with strip footings (factor 3.5 versus 1.3). Horizontal stiffnesses
computed herein): are also appreciably affected by HI R (factors of 2 for strip and
0.5 for circle), while the rotational stiffnesses (rocking and
torsion) are the least affected. In fact, for HI R > 1.5 the response
to torsional loads is essentially independent of the layer
Mode Kemb/Ksur ~sur ~emb
thickness.
Vertical 1.45 38% 80% An indication of the causes of this different behavior
Lateral 0.83 23% >100% (between circular and strip footings and, in any footing, between
Rocking 5.90 5% 42% the different types of loading) can be obtained by comparing
Torsion 4.25 15% 59% the depths of the "zone of influence" (also called the "pressure
bulb") in each case. Circular and square foundations on a
homogeneous halfspace induce vertical normal stresses O'z along
Several conclusions of practical significance emerge from the centerline that become practically negligible at depths
Table 15.2 and the illustrative example. exceeding Zv ~ 5R; with strip foundations O'z practically vanishes
1. Increasing the embedment (in size and quality) may be a only below Zv ~ 158. The "depths of influence", Zh, for the
very effective way to reduce to acceptable levels the anticipated horizontal shear stresses 't zx due to lateral loading are of the
amplitudes of vibration, especially if these amplitudes arise order of 2R and 6B for circle and strip, respectively. On the
due to rocking or torsion. Such an improvement would other hand, for all foundation shapes (strip, rectangle, circle),
be effected mainly by the increase in radiation damping moment loading is "felt" down to a depth, z" of about 2B or
produced by waves emanating from the vertical sidewalls. 2R. For torsion, finally, Zt ~ 0.75R or 0.758.
2. To rely on such a beneficial effect, however, the engineer Apparently, when a rigid formation "cuts" through the
must ensure that the quality of sidewall-soil contact is "pressure bulb" of a particular loading mode, it eliminates the
indeed high. In reality, unless special construction procedures corresponding deformations and thereby increases the stiffness.
are followed, separation ("gapping") and slippage are likely
to occur near the ground surface where the initial confining (2) The variation of the dynamic stiffness coefficient with
pressures are small. Such effects may jeopardize the increase frequency reveals an equally strong dependence on HI B. On a
in damping and must be taken into account in the analysis. stratum, k( w) is not a smooth function, as with a halfspace,
To this end, the areas and moments of inertia of the sidewalls but exhibits undulations (peaks and valleys) associated with
on which damping and stiffness depend should be given the natural frequencies (in shear and compression) of the
suitably reduced values, rather than their nominal ones. stratum. In other words, the observed fluctuations are the
 TABLE 15.3 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES AND DASHPOT COEFFICIENTS FOR SURFACE FOUNDATIONS ON HOMOGENEOUS STRATUM OVER
BEDROCK (sources are listed in the text).
E 7777J

: " ' ",

:'....' .. '.:'..:::>.
'. ..": \..... . - . ... ..... _.
:: ':'.' .:' !.... :. :. : ::: ~< '.' .'
: :'.. : H .:' ,,: ·:......H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;-,S~ ~.~.~·.t· ~:~...:~:.)
..' :1 <: ,':. :," .~ .••.• :=.: >.
«Y ;«~;"\;;~';"'~/'~o/,~~;\~vj \~~,,~',~~;-~~: ~;;';;;i«0::
rigid formation

Circular Foundation of Radius

Foundation Shape B=R Rectangular Foundation 2B by 2L (L > B) Strip Foundation 2L -+ co

2GL B 3/4 H
Vertical. z 4GR
Kz = - -(1 R)
+ 1.3- Kz =--[0.73+1.54(-) ] - Kz ~ 0.73G(1 + 3.5~)
1-v H 1- v L
(1 +0.5-B)
+~ 2L 1-v H
L
Lateral. y 8GR
Ky = - -(1 R)
+ 0.5- Ky
-~--
2G ( 1 +2- B)
Static 2-v H 2L 2-v H
stiffnesses, K Lateral. x Kx=Ky

Rocking. rx K,x = 8GR ( 1 + 0.17 -R) K,x = xGB 2 (1 + 0.2~)

3(1 -v) H 2L 2(1 -v) H
Rocking. ry Kry = K,x

Torsional. t 16 GR
K, = 3" 3( 1 + 0.10 HR)
Vertical. z kz = kz(H I R, ao) kz = kz(H I B, LI B. ao) is plotted in Graph 111-2 for rectangles and strip
Dynamic is obtained from Graph 111-1
stiffness
coefficients. Horizontal. y or x ky = ky(H I R. ao)
k(ro) ky = ky(HIB. ao)
is obtained from Graph 111-1 is obtained from Graph 111-3

Rocking, rx or ry } k«(HIR) ~k«(co) k,x(H I R) ~ k,x( co)

Torsional IX = rx. ry, t

Vertical, z CAH I B) ~ 0 at frequencies f < f c• regardless of foundation shape

Radiation [ CAHIB) ~ 0.8Cz (co) at f~ 1.5fc
dashpot At . . .. . Vis 3.4Vs
mtermedlate frequenCies: Interpolate linearly. fc = - . Vis = - - -
coefficients, 4H x(1 - v)
C(ro)
Lateral, y or x Cy(HIB) ~Oatf<ifs; Cy(HIB) ~Cy(co) atf>~fs
[
At intermediate frequencies: interpolate linearly. fs = VsI4H. Similarly for Cx

Rocking, rx or ry C,x(H I B) ~ 0 at f < fc; C,x(H I B) ~ C,x( co) at f> f c. Similarly for Cry

Torsional, t C,(HIB) ~ C,(co)

• Not available.
 GRAPHS ACCOMPANYING TABLE 15.3

III -2 REC TANGLE

[HIS - =-=rJ v ",0 30

111-1 CIRCLE IIl-3 STRIP

v=O.30
v ",0. 30 k~

~----~-- - : : 0 - _ _ _ _ _
R. d \~i
c > _I

k.
I H/B = 31 v~0.30

° R.

°
v.; 0.40
1 \ -I
0 \~/
IH~ v==0.30
Ry =k.

k. ky

W R
v. 0' "<~
'"

o 0-- - B
W -
V. 00 = W B
V.

U1
co
Co)
584 Foundation Engineering Handbook
outcome of resonance phenomena: waves emanating from the
oscillating foundation reflect at the soil-bedrock interface and
return back to their source at the surface. As a result, the
amplitude of foundation motion may significantly increase at
frequencies near the natural frequencies of the deposit. Thus,
the dynamic stiffness (being the inverse of displacement) exhibits
troughs, which are very steep when the hysteretic damping in
the soil is small (in fact, in certain cases, k would be exactly
zero if the soil were ideally elastic).
For the "shearing" modes of vibration (swaying and torsion)
the natural fundamental frequency of the stratum, which
controls the behavior of k( w), is
( 15.60)
while for the "compressing" modes (vertical, rocking) the
corresponding frequency is
(15.61)
(3) The variation of the dashpot coefficients with frequency
reveals a twofold effect of the presence of a rigid base at relatively
shallow depth. First, the C( w) also exhibit undulations (crests
and troughs) due to wave reflections at the rigid boundary.
These fluctuations are more pronounced with strip than with
circular foundations, but are not as significant as for the
corresponding stiffnesses k( w). Second, and far more important
from a practical viewpoint, is that at low frequencies, below
the first resonant ("cut-oW') frequency of each mode of
vibration, radiation damping is zero or negligible for all shapes
of footings and all modes of vibration. This is due to the fact
that no surface waves can exist in a soil stratum over bedrock
at such low frequencies; and, since the bedrock also prevents
waves from propagating downward, the overall radiation of
wave energy from the footing is negligible or nonexistent.
Such an elimination of radiation damping may have severe
consequences for heavy foundations oscillating vertically or
horizontally, which would have enjoyed substantial amounts
of damping in a very deep deposit (halfspace )-recall illustrative
examples for Tables 15.1 and 15.2. On the other hand, since
the low-frequency values of C in rocking and torsion are small
even in a halfspace, operation below the cut-off frequencies may
not be affected appreciably by the presence of bedrock.
Note that at operating frequencies f beyond Is or !C, as
appropriate for each mode, the "stratum" damping C(H/B)
fluctuates about the "halfspace" damping C( H / B = 00). The
"amplitude" of such fluctuations tends to decrease with
increasing H / B; moreover, if some wave energy penetrates into
bedrock (as does happen in real life thanks to some weathering
of the upper mass of rock) the fluctuations tend to wither
away-hence the recommendation of Table 15.3.
4. Foundation Embedded in Stratum
As can be seen from Table 15.4, embedding a foundation in a
shallow stratum, rather than a halfspace, has one additional
effect over those addressed in Table 15.2: the static stiffnesses
tend to increase thanks to the decrease in the depth of the
deforming zone underneath the foundation.
It is evident that the results summarized in Table 15.4 can
follow from a proper combination of the pertinent results
of Table 15.2 (embedded foundation in halfspace) and of
Table 15.3 (surface foundation on a stratum). No further
explanation seems necessary.
5. Effect of G Increasing with Depth
Often, the assumption of homogeneous layer or halfspace may
not be realistic, as the soil stiffness usually increases with depth,
even in uniform soils. The prime cause is the increase of the
confining pressure with depth, and the ensuing increase of G max
(for example, according to Equation 15.4). The effects of such
an inhomogeneity could be assessed with the help of Table 15.5,
which provides information for foundation on a number of
inhomogeneous deep deposits, including (but not limited to):
• A deposit with (low-strain) shear modulus
Z)1/2
G = Go ( 1 + Ii ( 15.62)
which is representative of many cohesionless soil deposits, in
which the shear modulus is proportional to the square root
of the confining pressure. Go = the modulus at the ground
surface, that is, at Z = 0, and should not be confused
with the low-strain modulus GmaX' In this chapter we
essentially always deal with very small strains and hence all
G appearing in Tables 15.1 to 15.5 are low-strain (')I < 10- 5 )
values.
• A deposit with
(15.63)
which is representative of deposits of saturated normally and
slightly overconsolidated clays.
• A deposit with
(15.64 )
which can simulate deposits with a relatively faster increase
of G at large depths, IX is a parameter determined by fitting
the experimental test results.
The following trends are worthy of note in Table 15.5 and
the accompanying graphs.
1. For the static stiffnesses, K, use of a single "effective"
modulus, G = Geff , in the formulas for a homogeneous
halfspace (Table 15.1) would, at best, provide the correct
stiffness in only one particular mode. This is because the
"pressure bulb" of each mode reaches a different depth and
is thus affected by different values of modulus. As one might
expect, vertical loading (especially on a strip) penetrates the
deepest-the "effective depth" Zeff is of the order of one to
two times B, the foundation semiwidth or radius. Moment
loading, on the other hand, is the least affected by
inhomogeneity, with "effective depths" merely ranging from
tB to roB.
2. In strongly inhomogeneous soils, the dynamic stiffness
coefficients, k, plotted as functions of wB/V,o, are always
smaller than those of a homogeneous halfspace with
V = v,o. The differences, however, are quite small and could
be neglected in practical applications, as suggested in
Table 15.5.
 TABLE 15.4 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES AND DASHPOT COEFFICIENTS FOR FOUNDATIONS EMBEDDED IN HOMOGENEOUS
STRATUM OVER BEDROCK.*

.'.: ····:::·:li·l>;b ~;T/".:·,·.,::/,·: ::.;

I'. '. '::"
\.·1:·. :'::-<. /(7qqzw7<~'~":": ::...... »:..:.:
. ",:-,. H ,.':::" :..... : ... ::-::. ::·.··:·::~_.,=.·.:.··.·: ..::·::· .. :·.I··'
. : :.. 1': :.... ..... Hom 0 g e n e 0 U 5 S t rat U m ': ; : •.
. .' :.::::. ' . ' .... :;. G .. v . P .....:i,?.:·:·:.···· " .
.... . • :. .'. • ',,: ,: : . : .' • " I '. " '. ' .• , • \. ~

'Y' "y·'~V>'\Y/"Y·"Y"''9'''''-.)P'')lA')lI''')//'yA'-.'Y'~''Y'wy
rigid formation

Foundation Shape Circular Foundation of Radius R Strip Foundation

Vertical Kz.emb ~ Kz.su' ( 1 + 0.55 ~)[ 1 + ( 0.85 - 0.28 ~) H ~ D T Kz•emb ~ Kz.su' [ 1 + 0.2(~r3J( 1 + 3.5 H~ D)
Static Horizontal. y or x K y.emb ~K Y•sur ( 1 +~)( 1 +1.25~) t K y•emb ~K Y•su'( 1 + 0.5 ~)( 1 + 1.5 ~)
stiffnesses. K

Rocking. rx or ry Krx.emb ~ Krx.su'( 1 + 2 ~)( 1 + 0.65 ~) Krx.emb ~ Krx•su'( 1 + ~)( 1 + 0.65 ~)

Coupled Kyrx.emb ~ !;dKy•emb Kyrx.emb ~ tdKy.emb
swaying-rocking

Torsional K t.emb t.
~ K su, (1 + 2.67 ~)
Dynamic The relationships between k emb and ksu, follow approximately the same pattern as those between embedded and
stiffness k(w) surface foundation on a homogeneous halfspace. Therefore. use the results of Table 15.2 as a first approximation.
coefficients.

Radiation Cemb exceeds Csu , by an amount that depends on the geometry of the sidewall-soil contact surface and is practically
dashpot C(w) independent of the presence or absence of a rigid base at shallow depths. Therefore. use the results of Table 15.2.
coefficients. but with Csu,corresponding to the layered profile and thus obtained according to Table 15.3 (approximate guideline) .

• Sources are listed in the text.

Ky •• u ," ... are the stiffnesses for the corresponding surface foundations. and can be obtained from Table 15.3.
t Kz •• u ,.

g:
UI
i

TABLE 15.5 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES AND DASHPOT COEFFICIENTS FOR SURFACE FOUNDATIONS ON "DEEP" INHOMOGENEOUS DEPOSITS.

Examples of G (z )
-'1' Go G GoG Go G

':'; . .. . 1----;--2 B:--:--\ . '. . . ." I

"
: ". ' ... :.... ~ .' :.' ~. .' . ". II
: z ---- z --
. G(Z) =Go(!+a~)n '.'::-- .. ' I
.. ~ =~ I I
v • P = constant B G" .. Ob,
I Go(l+a~)l/m I Go (! +a~)2
. ..
. - ... I I
. '.- m>!
.. I I
" Z. I Z z
· --!~
Static Stiffnesses K "Equivalent" Depths if 8

Vibration Mode Square (28 by 28) Strip (28 by 00) Square Strip

4.54 0.73
Vertical, Z Kz = - - G0 8(1 + a)n Kz ';:': - - Go {1 + 2a)n 1 2
1- v 1- v
9 2
Horizontal. x or y Kx';:': - - G0 8(1 + ia)n Ky';:': - - Go {1 + ta)n i t
2-v 2-v
3.6 3 1t
Rocking, rx or ry K,x,;:,:--G 0 8 (1 + ta)n K,x';:': G0 8 2 {1 + ta)n t t
1 -v 2(1-v)

Torsional. t Kt ,;:,:7.93G0 8 3 (1 +roa)n - ro -

The above expressions are only crude approximations based on limited information. They should be used judiciously. Also, one could utilize
static computer codes and procedures. The strip stiffnesses are per unit length.
 Dynamic Stiffness Coefficients k (w)

All Modes k decreases only slightly faster with ao in a strongly inhomogeneous than in a homogeneous soil deposit. For practical applications one can
make the approximation k(lX) ~ k(1X = 0) with little error for realistically inhomogeneous deposits (Le., if IX is not too large)

Radiation Damping Coefficients C(w)

General Foundation Base Shape (area A b, inertias I b", ' by, J b )

General Expression High-frequency Asymptotic Expression

3.4
Vertical, Z Cz = pV..o Abc; c; ~ 1 (ao;;1: 2)
7l(1 -v)
Horizontal, y Cy = pV..oAb c ; c; ~ 1 (ao;;1:1.5)
Horizontal, x Cs = pV..oAb c ; c; ~ 1 (ao;;1: 1.5)
3.4
Rocking, rx C,,, = pV..o Ib"C;" c;" ~ 1 (ao;;1:3.5)
7l(1 - v)
3.4
Rocking, ry Cry = pV..o IbyC; c;~ 1 (ao;;1: 2.5)
7l(1 -v)
Torsional, t Ct = pV..oJbc; c; ~ 1 (ao> 2.5)
(V..o = JGol p)
All the dimensionless coefficients c· are invariably smaller than the corresponding coefficients C for a homogeneous halfspace of shear
modulus Go that were given in Table 15.1.
Graph V plots c· vs LIB and ao = wB IV..o for certain combinations of the inhomogeneity parameters IX and n.

g:
....
588 Foundation Engineering Handbook

GRAPHS ACCOMPANYING TABLE 15.5

GIll I Go GllllGo
o

.' . t·
.. 2 B
. : "t,.

GIZ I "
v,p
4
...L
B 3
6

V-l CIRCLE V-2 STRIP

~I O'lOmoi •.~n,,~u;'~1_-------~::~

e;

c·•

\
\
\ ,
""~,...
'
---- --- ----
........
"
c;
.en:
. . Cry
.....
0.5

c~
0.5 Cr;

WB
0 00 =
v.: 0. 0 =~
V,.

3. The strongest influence of modulus increasing with depth is
on radiation damping, especially in the translational modes.
At low frequencies damping remains invariably lower than in
a homogeneous halfspace of modulus Go. (Of course, if the
homogeneous halfspace had a modulus G = Geff , for which
the static stiffnesses coincide, the differences would be
even greater!) At higher frequencies the discrepancies
between damping on the two media (inhomogeneous and
homogeneous with G = Go) tend to become vanishingly
small. The cause and consequences of such a behavior are
explained below.
A medium with continuously varying wave velocity can
reflect propagating waves. In this case, even total reflection of
the downward-propagating waves is possible owing to the
increase of soil velocity with depth. A discontinuity in velocity
(e.g., bedrock) is not necessary for such a reflection, since the
rays in inhomogeneous media are not straight lines but curves
(e.g., circular arcs for G(z) as in Equation 15.63). Hence, wave
energy cannot be radiated away as effectively as in homogeneous
media-small radiation damping. In fact, as the degree of
inhomogeneity increases, radiation damping decreases, in spite
of the greater soil stiffness.
On the other hand, at "very high" frequencies the wave-
lengths of the emitted waves are "very small" and the source
"sees" the transmitting medium as a homogeneous halfspace
having modulus Go and velocities v.o (in the shearing modes)
and VLaO (in the compressing modes). It appears that "very small"
may not be small in absolute terms, merely comparable with
the dimensions of the source (the foundation). Consequently,
"very high" frequencies are always within the range of
frequencies of practical interest (ao < 2). At such "high"
frequencies the dashpot coefficients for a surface foundation
with arbitrary base shape become
C z ~ pVLaoAb ( 15.65a)
Cx = Cy ~ pV.oAb (15.65b)
Crx ~ PVLaolbx (15.65c)
Cry ~ PVLaolby (15.65d)
C, ~ PV.OJb (15.65e)
The reader should not fail to observe (in Eqs. 15.65 as well
as in Table 15.5) the significance ofthe near-surface soil modulus
and wave velocity. Also, recall that capillary phenomena may,
to a large extent, control such moduli in silty sands; since it is
very difficult to simulate capillary effects in the laboratory,
in-situ measurment of v'o is of paramount importance. To
this end, steady-state vibrating the free surface at very high
frequencies, or using the emerging technique of spectral analysis
of surface waves, may prove invaluable.
6. Foundations on Piles
The response of piles laterally loaded (by horizontal forces and
moments) is independent of their length, in most practical
situations. Only the uppermost part of the pile, of length Ie,
experiences appreciable displacements. It is along this "active"
length, Ie, that the imposed load is transmitted to the supporting
soil. Ie is typically of the order of 5 to 10 pile diameters; for a
given soil profile, Ie is a function of the pile with respect to the
soil.
Foundation Vibrations 589
For three characteristic soil profiles, Table 15.6 presents
simple algebraic expressions for estimating Ie of a circular solid
pile with diameter d and Young's modulus Ep. For each profile,
the only soil parameter that affects Ie is the reference Young's
modulus, E., at a depth z = d.
For the three lateral impedances ("springs" and "dashpots"),
$'HH,$'HM' and $'MM' defined in Figure 15.17, Table 15.6
presents easy-to-use formulas, which, however, are valid only
for piles with length
(15.66)
Such piles are described as "flexible" piles in the literature. But
note that a good majority of real-life piles, even some with large
diameters, would fall into this category. Among the exceptions
are short piers and caissons.
From a theoretical point of view, most of the formulas in
Table 15.6 are reasonably accurate, as they are basically curve
fits to rigorous numerical results. The real difficulty, however,
is to select the proper profile and modulus for the supporting
soil. Even with a uniform top layer, the secant soil modulus
will change with the magnitude of induced strains, which
decreases with depth. Other nonlinear phenomena, such as
development of a gap between pile and soil near the ground
surface, further complicate the problem. One solution might be
to conduct a suitable full-scale or small-scale lateral pile load
test in the field. By "suitable" we mean one that produces
deformations comparable with those anticipated in the final
design. Reference is made to Blaney and O'Neil (1986), and to
Novak (1985), who have described such field tests, and to
Richart and Chon (1977), who conducted a somewhat similar
laboratory-scale test, among several others.
Another complication is the prediction of the impedances
of pile groups, accounting for pile-to-pile interaction ("through-
soil coupling," as it is often called). The surprisingly simple
formulas for the complex-valued interaction factors, az and aHH,
have been developed recently by Dobry and Gazetas (1988)
and Gazetas and Makris (1990), and yield results in excellent
agreement with the rigorous solution of Kaynia and Kausel
(1982), One uses such interaction factors exactly as the static
interaction factors of Poulos (Poulos and Davis, 1980).
However, for the two inhomogeneous profiles, the rigorous
results available in the published literature are scarce. The
expressions presented are based on a simple physical model
and are only tentative; they should be used with caution.
Fig,15.17 Definition of pile head impedances.
U1
CD
o

TABLE 15.6 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES AND DAMPING COEFFICIENTS FOR FLEXIBLE PILES (L > Ie).
Linear Increase 0' Soil Modulus with Depth· Parabolic Increase 0' Soil Modulus with Depth· Constant Soil Modulus at All Depths
t
,...,.., Es Es

. . \ \\ I,
I, / •.
+ \\'
Ic ':
. ..'\'
---
I~/: ::
\\ 'II" , '~:t
r E,·E, d Es ;constant
j ' ......, ( ':" L
.·. ··:···1\ H
... ~:~ ~/

L > lc ":'.: .:" ::":'::'<'~'>,,:

1\'-' 1
z
1
z -.
.~~
1 ~; [~/2P(1+\ll]2 ~= [Es /2P(1+v J]2

.. Active length" Ie:::: 2d(Ep/ l,)0.20 Ie:::: 2d(Ep /l,)0.22 Ie:::: 2d(Ep /E$)O.25

Natural shear frequency of ', = O.19V,H/H '. = O.223V.H/H '. = O.25V./H

deposit
where V. H = the S-wave velocity at depth where V,H = the S-wave velocity at depth
z = H (bottom of stratum) z = H (bottom of stratum)

Static lateral (swaying) KHH = O.6dl.(Ep/l.)0.35 KHH = O.8dl.(Ep /l.)O.28 KHH = dE. (Ep /E.)0.21
stiffness
Lateral (swaying) stiffness kHH~1 k HH :::: 1 k HH :::: 1
coefficient
Lateral (swaying) coefficient : { DHH ~ O.60p + 1.80'dfl. 1. for' > '. {DHH" 070P + 1.20fd(E,ll,)'"'V;'. { DHH " 0 .80p + 1.1Ofd (f,IE, )'." V; '.
for' > I, for' > '.
CHH = 2KHH D HH /W D HH :::: O.60p. for' ~ '.
DHH :::: O.70p. for' '" '. D HH :::: O.SOp. for '~'.

Static rocking stiffness KMM = O.15d 3l.(Ep /l.)O.80 KMM = O.15d 3l.( Ep/ l,)O.77 KMM = O.15d 3E.(Ep /E.)O.75
Rocking stiffness coefficient kMM::::1 k MM :::: 1 k MM :::: 1
Rocking dashpot coefficient: { DMM :::: O.20p + O.40'dfl. 1. for' > '. {DMM" O.22p + 0.35!d(E,ll,)'''V;'. {D MM " 035P + 0.35/d (f,IE,) ' " V; '.
for' > f. for' > '.
CMM = 2KMM D MM /W DMM ~ O.20p. for f ~ f,
D MM :::: O.22p. for ,~ '. D MM :::: O.25p. for' ~',

Static swaying - rocking cross- KHM = KMH = - O.17d 2l.(Ep /l.)06O KHM = K MH = -O.24d 2 l.(Ep /l.)O.53 KHM = KMH =- O.22d 2E.(Ep /E.)O.50
stiffness
Swaying- rocking cross- kHM = kMH :::: 1 kHM = kMH :::: 1 kHM = kMH :::: 1
stiffness coefficient
Swaying - rock ing dash pot { DHM :::: O.30p + Idfl ; l. for' > f. { DHM " O.60p + O.70fd (f,fl. )'.~ V;'. { DHM " 0.80p + 0.85/d (f,IE,) ' " V;'.
coefficient: for' > f, for' > '.
DHM :::: O.30p. for , ~ '.
CHM = 2KHM D HM /W D HM :::: O.35p. for I ~ f. D HM :::: O.50p. for , ~ I.
- -- - - -
 The axial stiffness of a pile depends not only on its relative compressibility (Epl Es) but also on the slenderness ratio Lid and the tip support
conditions (end-bearing versus floating). See the pertinent geotechnical literature for a proper estimation of the static stiffness. The expressions
given herein are only for estimates of the axial stiffness of floating piles in a homogeneous stratum of total thickness H ~ 2L.

(LrSS( Ep )-(L/d)(Ep/Esd (LrS( Ep )-(L/d)(Ep/Esd (L

Static axial stiffness Kz "" 1 .8EsL d - - Kz "" 1 .9EsL d - - Kz"" 1.9Esd -
y/3 (Ep- ) - (L/d) (Ep/Es)
d EsL d EsL d Es
EsL = ls' (Lid) EsL = ls' J(Lld)
Axial dynamic stiffness kz ~ 1 .Lld<20:kz~1 • Lid < 15: k z ~ 1
coefficient
(for ao = wd I VsL < 0.5, where VsL is the .Lld?i:50:kz~1 +~Fo .Lld?i:50:kz~1 +Fo
S-wave velocity at depth L)
interpolate in between (for ao = wd I VsL < 0.5) interpolate in between (for ao = wdlVs < 1)

I n all cases, kz shows a narrow valley at the resonant frequency f, of the soil stratum; as a first approximation, f, ~ fe ~ VLa l4H and k z (I,) ~ 0.8
for material soil damping fJ = 0.05. VLa is the average VLa over the whole stratum depth.

Axial radiation dash pot Cz = ~a01/3 pVsL ndLrd for f> 1.5f, Cz ~ !a0 1/4 p VsLndLrd for f> 1.5f, Cz ~ a 0 1/S pVsndLrd for f> 1.5f,
coefficient
where: where: where:
rd~1_e-2(Ep/Esd(L/d)-2 rd ~ 1 _ e -1 5 (Ep/Esd (L/d)-2 rd~ 1 _e-(Ep/Es)(L/d)-2

Cz ~ 0 for f,;;; f, Cz ~ 0 for f,;;; f, Cz ~ 0 for f,;;; f,

linearly interpolate for f, < f < 1.5f, linearly interpolate for f, < f < 1.5f, linearly interpolate for f, < f < 1.5f,

Pile-to-Pile Interaction Factors for Assessing the Response of Floating Pile Groups

I nteraction factor IXz for axial IXz ~ f i d 3/4 .e -0 5pwS/VsL . e- 1w y'2S/VSL IXz~fi d 2/3 'e-(2/3)PwS/VSL'e-/(JJy'2s/vSL IXz~fi d 1/2 .e-Pws/Vs,e-1WS/Vs
. . .
in-phase oscillations of the
two piles
cr cr cr
VsL = the S-wave velocity at depth z = L; Vs = Vs at pile mid-length; S = axis-to-axis pile separation; fJ = soil hysteretic damping.
Note: although IXz are complex numbers their use is identical to the familiar use of static interaction factors introduced by Poulos.

Interaction factor IXHH for Very little information presently available Very little information presently available IXHH(900) ~ (3/4)IX z
lateral in-phase oscillation
1
IXHH(OO) ~ 0.5 crd !2 . / V"
.e-PwS/VL•. e- 1WS

IXHH(fJO) ~ IXHH(OO) cos 2 fJ +IXHH(900) sin 2 fJ

Interaction factors: IXMM for IXMM~(1.MH~O IXMM~IXMH~ 0 IXMM~ IXMH~ 0

in-phase rocking, and IXHM for
swaying-rocking

'ls and ii's (for the two inhomogeneous deposits) denote Young's modulus and S-wave velocity, respectively, at depth.

en
CO
...
592 Foundation Engineering Handbook
REFERENCES
Arya, S., O'Neil, M., and Pincus, G. (1979), Design of Structures and
F oundationsfor Vibrating Machines, Gulf Publ. Co., Houston, Texas.
Barkan, D. D. (1962), Dynamics of Bases and Foundations (translated
from Russian), McGraw-Hili Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
Beredugo, Y. O. and Novak, M. (1972), Coupled horizontal and rocking
vibrations of embedded footings, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9,
pp.477-497.
Blaney, G. W. and O'Neil, M. W. (1986), Measured lateral response
of mass on single pile in clay, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 112, pp. 443-457.
Booker, J. R., Balaam, N. P., and Davis, E. H. (1985), The behaviour
of an elastic non-homogeneous halfspace, Parts I and II, International
Journalfor Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 9,
pp. 353-381.
Chow, Y. K. (1987), Vertical vibration of 3-D rigid foundation on
layered media, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15,
pp. 585-594.
Davies, T. G., Sen, R., and Banerjee, P. K. (1985), Dynamic behavior
of pile groups in inhomogeneous soil, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 111, pp. 1635-1679.
Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G. (1985), Dynamic stiffness and damping of
foundations by simple methods, Vibration Problems in Geotechnical
Engineering, ed. G. Gazetas and E. T. Selig, ASCE, pp. 77-107.
Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G. (1988), Simple method for dynamic stiffness
and damping of floating pile groups, Geotechnique, 38, No.4,
pp. 557-574.
Dobry, R., Gazetas, G., and Stokoe, K. H., II (1986), Dynamic response
of arbitrarily shaped foundations: Experimental verification, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112, No.2, pp. 136-149.
Drnevich, V. P. (1977), Resonant-column testing: Problems and
solutions, Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP654, pp. 384-398.
Drnevich, V. P. (1985), Recent developments in resonant column testing,
Richart Commem(lrative Lectures, ASCE, pp. 79-106.
Elsabee, F. and Morray, J. P. (1977), Dynamic Behavior of Embedded
Foundations, Research Report R77-33, MIT.
Erden, S. M. (1974), Influence of shape and embedment of dynamic
foundation response, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Fotopoulou, M. et al. (1989), Rocking damping of arbitrarily shaped
embedded foundations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
115, pp. 473-490.
Gazetas, G. (1982), Vibrational characteristics of soil deposits with
variable wave velocity, International Journal of Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 6, pp. 1-20.
Gazetas, G. (1983), Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: State
of the art, International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 2, pp. 2-42. (See also Errata in 5, No.3, 1987.)
Gazetas, G. (1984), Seismic response of end-bearing single piles,
International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
3, pp. 82-93.
Gazetas, G. (1987), Simple physical methods for foundation impedances,
Dynamic Behavior of Foundations and Buried Structures, Elsevier
Applied Science, New York, N.Y., chapter 2, pp. 45-94.
Gazetas, G. and Roesset, J. M. ( 1976), Forced vibrations of strip footings
on layered soils, Methods of Structural Analysis, ASCE, Vol. 1,
pp. 115-131.
Gazetas, G. and Roesset, J. M. (1979), Vertical vibrations of machine
foundations, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 105, pp. 1435-1454.
Gazetas, G. and Dobry, R. (1984), Horizontal response of piles in
layered soils, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110,
pp.20-40.
Gazetas, G. and Selig, E. T. (eds.) (1985), Vibration Problems in
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE.
Gazetas, G., Dobry, R., and Tassoulas, J. L. (1985), Vertical response
of arbitrarily shaped embedded foundations, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 111, pp. 750-771.
Gazetas, G. and Tassoulas, J. L. (1987), Horizontal stiffness of
arbitrarily shaped embedded foundations, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 113, pp. 440-457.
Gazetas, G. and Makris, N. (1990), Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction,
I: Analysis of axial vibration, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 18 (in press).
Hadjian, A. H. and Luco, J. E. (1977), On the importance of layering
on impedance functions, Proceedings, 6th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi.
Hall, 1. R. (1985), Limits on dynamic measurements and instrumentation,
Richart Commemorative Lectures, ASCE, pp. 108-119.
Hardin, B. O. (1978), The nature of stress-strain behavior of soils,
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Vol. I, pp. 3-90.
Hoar, R. J. and Stokoe, K. H. (1978), Generation and measurement of
shear wave velocity, Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP654,
pp.3-29.
Jakub, M. and Roesset, J. M. (1977), Dynamic Stiffness of Foundations:
2-D vs 3-D Solutions, Research Report R77-36, MIT.
Johnson, G. R., Christiano, P., and Epstein, H. I. (1975), Stiffness
coefficients for embedded footings, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 101, pp. 789-800.
Kaynia, A. M. and Kausel, E. (1982), Dynamic Stiffness and Seismic
Response of Pile Groups, Research Report R82-03, MIT.
Kausel, E. (1974 ), Forced Vibrations of Circular Foundations on Layered
Media, Research Report R74-11, MIT.
Kausel, E. (1981), An Explicit Solution for the Green Functions for
Dynamic Loads in Layered Media, Research Report R81-13, MIT.
Kausel, E. and Roesset, J. M. (1975), Dynamic stiffness of circular
foundations, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE,
101, 771-785.
Kausel, E. and Ushijima, R. (1979), Vertical and Torsional Stiffness of
Cylindrical Footings, Research Report R76-6, MIT.
Knox, D. P., Stokoe, K. H., and Kopperman, S. E. (1982), Effect of
State of Stress on Velocity of Low-Amplitude Shear Waves Along
Principal Stress Directions in Dry Sand, Research Report GR82-23,
University of Texas, Austin.
Ladd, R. S. and Dutko, P. (1985), Small-strain measurements using
triaxial apparatus, Advances in the Art of Testing Soils Under Cyclic
Conditions, ed. V. Koshla, ASCE, pp. 148-166.
Lawrence, F. V. (1963), Propagation Velocity of Ultrasonic Waves
Through Sand, Research Report R63-8, MIT.
Luco,1. E. (1974), Impedance functions for a rigid foundation on a
layered medium, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 31, pp. 204-217.
Luco, J. E. (1976), Vibrations of a rigid disc on a layered viscoelastic
medium, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 36, pp. 325-340.
Luco, J. E. (1982), Linear soil-structure interaction: A review, Earth-
quake Ground Motion and its Effects on Structures, ASME, AMD,
Vol. 53, pp. 41-57.
Luco, J. E. and Westmann, R. A. (1971), Dynamic response of circular
footings, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 97,
pp. 1381-1395.
Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1969), Finite dynamic model for
infinite media, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE,
95.
Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Tsai, C.-F., and Seed, H. B. (1975), FLUSH-A
computer program for approximate 3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure
Interaction Problems, Report No. EERC 75-30, University of
California, Berkeley.
Lysmer, J., Tabatabaie, R. M., Tajirian, F., Vahdani, S., and Ostadan, F.
( 1981 ), SASSI - A System for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction,
Research Report GT81-02, University of California, Berkeley.
Major, A. (1980), Dynamics in Civil Engineering, Akademical Kiad6,
Budapest, Volumes I-IV.
Meek, J. W. and Veletsos, A. S. (1973), Simple models for foundations
.in lateral and rocking motions, Proceedings, 5th World Coriference on
Earthquake Engineering, Rome, paper 331.
Moore, P. J. (ed.) (1985), Analysis and Design of Foundations for
Vibrations, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Nazarian, S. and Stokoe, K. H. (1983), Use of spectral analysis of
surface waves for determination of moduli and thicknesses of
pavement systems, Transportation Research Record, No. 954.
Nogami, T. and Konagai, K. (1985), Simple approach for evaluation
of compliance matrix of pile groups, Vibration Problems in Geo-
technical Engineering, ed. G. Gazetas and E. T. Selig, ASCE,
pp.47-74.
Nogami, T. (1979), Dynamic group effect of multiple piles under vertical
vibration, Proceedings, Engineering Mechanics Specialty Conference,
ASCE, pp. 750-754.
Novak, M. (1985), Experiments with shallow and deep foundations,
Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ed. G. Gazetas and
E. Selig, ASCE, pp. 1-26.

Novak, M. (1987), State of the art in analysis and design of
machine foundations, Soil-Structure Interaction, Elsevier/CML
Publ., New York, N.Y., pp. 171-192.
Novak, M., Nogami, T., and Aboul-Ellas, F. (1978), Dynamic soil
reactions for plane strain case, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division, ASCE, 104, pp. 1024-1041.
Novak, M. and Sheta, M. (1980), Approximate approach to contact
effects of piles, Dynamic Response of Pile Foundation, ed. M. O'Neil
and R. Dobry, ASCE, pp. 53-79.
Pais, A. and Kausel, E. (1985), Stochastic Response of Foundations,
Research Report R85-6, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT.
Ohsaki, Y. and Iwasaki, T. (1973), On dynamic shear moduli and
Poisson's ratio of soil deposits, Soils and Foundations, 15, No. 1.
Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Prakash, S. and Puri, V. K. (1988), Foundationsfor Machines: Analysis
and Design, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Richart, F. E. (1975), Foundation vibrations, Foundation Engineering
Handbook, 1st edn, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y.,
pp. 673-699.
Richart, F. E., Jr., Hall, J. R., Jr., and Woods, R. D. (1970), Vibrations of
Soils and Foundations, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Richart, F. E. and Chon, C. S. (1977), Notes on stiffness and damping
of pile systems, The Effect of Horizontal Loads on Piles, Session 10,
9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, pp. 125-132.
Robertson, R. K., Campanella, R. G., Gillespie, D., and Rice, A. (1985),
Seismic CPT to measure in-situ shear wave velocity, Measurement
and Use of S Wave Velocity, ed. R. D. Woods, ASCE, pp. 35-49.
Roesset, J. M. (1980a), Stiffness and damping coefficients in foundations,
Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations, ed. M. O'Neil and R. Dobry,
ASCE, pp. 1-30.
Roesset, J. M. (1980b), The use of simple models in soil-structure
interaction, Civil Engineering and Nuclear Power, ASCE, No. 1/3,
pp. 1-25.
Sanchez-Salinero, I. (1982), Static and Dynamic Stiffnesses of Single
Piles, Research Report GR82-31, University of Texas, Austin.
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1970), Soil Moduli and Damping Factors
for Dynamic Response Analyses, Research Report EERC70-10,
University of California, Berkeley.
Seed, H. B., Wong, R. T., and Idriss, I. M. (1986), Moduli and damping
factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils, Journal of
Foundation Vibrations 593
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112, pp. 1016-1032.
Stokoe, K. H. (1980), Field measurement of dynamic soil properties,
Civil Engineering and Nuclear Power, II, pp. 7-1-1 to 7-1-31.
Stokoe, K. H. and Richart, F. E. (1974), Dynamic response of embedded
machine foundations, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 100, No. GT-4, pp. 427-447.
Tassoulas, J. L. ( 1981), Elements for Numerical Analysis of Wave Motion
in Layered Media, Research Report R81-2, MIT.
Tassoulas, 1. L. (1987), Dynamic soil-structure interaction, Boundary
Element Methods in Structural Mechanics, ed. D. Beskos, ASCE.
Veletsos, A. S. and Wei, Y. T. (1971), Lateral and rocking vibrations
of footings, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, 97, No. SM-9, pp. 1227-1248.
Veletsos, A. S. and Verbic, B. (1973), Vibration of viscoelastic
foundations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2,
pp.87-102.
Velez, A., Gazetas, G., and Krishnan, R. (1983), Lateral dynamic
response of constrained-head piles, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 109, pp. 1063-1081.
Waas, G. ( 1972), Analysis method for footing vibrations through layered
media, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Werkle, H. and Waas, G. (1986), Dynamic stiffnesses of foundations
on inhomogeneous soils, Proceedings, 8th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 2, pp. 5.6/17-23.
Wolf, J. P. (1985), Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Wolf, 1. P. (1988), Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis in Time Domain,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E. (1976), Dynamic response of rigid
foundations of arbitrary shape, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 4, pp. 579-587.
Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E. (1985), Tables of impedance functions for
square foundations on layered media, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 4, pp. 64-81.
Woods, R. D. (1978), Measurement of dynamic soil properties,
Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, 1,
pp.91-178.
Woods, R. D., ed. (1985), Measurement and rJse of Shear Wave Velocity,
ASCE
Woods, R. D., and Stokoe, K. H. (1985), Shallow seismic exploration
in soil dynamics, Richart Commemorative Lectures, ASCE, pp. 120-156.