CHEEHM 7FFS 15 FOUNDATION VIBRATIONS GEORGE GAZETAS, Ph. 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 ina 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 ig treated in the next chapter, attention herein will be focused on determining the vibratory response of foundations toppled foads such as those produced by a machine. A key step in such response analyses (and hhence the main thrust of this chapter) is to estimate the ) and g = 9(@). The basic goal of the geotechnical design & (0 limit the amplitudes of all possible modes of oscillation 10 small enough fevels that wll 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 ofthe order of hundredth ofa centimeter —compared Xo 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 bby quasielastic, involving negligible nonlinearities and no permanent deformations. Among the possible exceptions are a laterally oscillating piled foundation working at low frequencies, hich 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 sail behavior, With hysteretic soil damping to model energy losses at these thas become traditional in dynamics to introduce complex-number Aotaton, which significantly simplifs the computations, The under standing of course, is that atthe end the absolute value (amplitude) 8nd phase angle can be recovered frm a complex response my + iy, the former being equal to /af + u} and the latter to tan”? uy 553554 Foundstion Engineering Handbook serait foi Fig. 16.1(@} The machine foundation problem. on Vibration amplitude, em 2.001} 0.0001 %0 100 Frequency, He Fig. 18.1(b) Typical performance requirements for machine foundations small strain amplitudes. The low-strain value of the shear ‘modulus (denoted by Go OF Ga in the literature) is the Key. soil parameter thac must be assessed for each layer. ‘The design of a machine foundation is trial-and-error ‘process involving the following mainsteps (engineering tasks). (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 feramples: turbines, compressors, pumps, fans) + Reciprocating machinery, which generates biharmonic loads of the form F ~ mgreo*Lexp(iat) + xexp(2ior)], where «is a geometric constant (examples: steam engines, internal- combustion engines, piston-type compressors and pumps) ‘+ Impact producing machines, involving intermittent impulsive loading with a nearly triangular vanation of applied force ‘versus time (examples: forging hammers, stemping machines, presses) ‘+ Machines with simultaneous impulsive and rotatory forces, in which the former are due to the main function of the ‘machine (hammering) while the latter generate pacastically rom unbafanced 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 ‘been treated in detail in the first edition of the Foundation ingineering Handbook (Richart, 1975), Additional information ‘may be found in Barkan (1962), Richart etal. (1970), Aryact a: (1979), Major (1980), and Prakash and Pur (2988). (b) Establish the soil profile and determine the appropriate shear modulus and damping, G and f, for each soll layer. Io ‘addition to standard geotechnical soil investigation techniques, special dynamic procedures are used today to assess these soil parameters in the feld and the laboratory. Section 15.4 presents ‘up-to-date information on this suhject. (c) Guided by experience, select the type and trial dimensions the foundation, and in cooperation with the client establish performance criteria such as those of Figure 15.16. (4) Estimate the dynamic response of this trial foundation, subjected to the load of step (a) 2nd supparied 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 stifitess and damping, numerous solutions have been published in the form of parametsic dimensionless graphs, applicable to a variety of idealized situations. The ratin contribution of this chapter is to present in a concise and comprehensive way a complete set ‘of ready-to-use results forthe stifiness and damping (“spring™ land “dashpot”) of foundations on and in several characteristic soil profiles. (e) Check whether the estimated response amplitude of step (2) atthe particular operation frequeney conforms with the perlormanes criteria established in step (c). Repeal steps (c), (d), and (c) until a (theorevcally) satisfactory design is established. At this stage, two additional checks may be necessary: Fist, to ensure that the motions transmited to nearby structures and underground falies are within safe levels for_ their uninterrupted functioning—a task usually ssccomplished with the help of semiempirical energy-attenuation relationships and guided by experience. Second, i the subsoil Contains sof clays and/or loose sands, to investigate the potential for accumulation of large permanent deformations — bn unlikely event, requiring shear strain amplivues well in 80258 of 001 percent ‘The design process frequently stops here. However, incase of important projects one or two additional posteonstruction steps are necessary: (f) Monitor the actual motion of the completed foundation and compare with the theatetical predictions of step (4). ‘The necessity of this task arises from the several simplifying assumptions that ate 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 theoretic predictions with reality. Reference is made to Richart et al (1910), Gazetas and Selig (1985), and Hall (1985) for information (on instrumentation ars eld measurements related to machine foundations and £0 man-induced vibrations. (g) Finally, if the actual performance of the constructed foundation does not meet the aforesaid design criteria (step(¢)), 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 (4), {(e),and (f) must be repeated until a satisfactory design is finally achieved ‘This chapter addresses in detail tasks (b) and (4) 18.3 SON. MODULI AND DAMPING—FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AA vibrating foundation emits shear and dilatational waves into ‘the supporting ground. The former, denoted as $ waves, propagate with a velocity ¥, that is controlled by the shearing stillness G ond the mass density p of the sol: £ rr ; Foundation Vibrations 88% Dilotational waves, denoted as P waves, propagate with a velocity V, related fo the constrained modulus M¢ f oe (15.2) fi For an elastic material, M, depends on the shear modulus G and the Poisson’s ratio v ofthe soil so that ce (13) The relationship V/V; versus vfrom Equation (18.3) s plotted in Figure 15.2. Therefore, ¥, and V>. or G and M,, of Gand y, are the equivalent pairs of soil parameters relevant to wave propagation ‘phenomena. Note that waves other than $ and P also arise in the ground under an oscillating foundation, most notably Raleigh and Love waves. ll these other waves, however, also relate to G and v, a8 they are the outcome of combinations (imterferences”) of $ and 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 siding 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 hnysteetic solid described through the “angeot-atthe-origin” shear modulus Go and a damping ratio By Tn fact, the approximation as a linear hysteretic solid is also employed to describe dynamic behavior at large strains. However, as illustrated in Figure 153, the appropriate (equivalent linear”) modulus G is the secant modulus, that i, the slope of the line connecting the origin with the tip of the hysteresis loop, Gissmaller than Gp (hence the familiar notation of the latter aS Gy) At the same time, the area ofthe hysteresis loop has expanded owing to increased dissipation of energy resulting from sliding a particle contacts. The equivalent linear hysteretic damping ratio f is larger than Bo, a os Fig. 16.2 Comparison of the actual (Vp and ¥,) and “apparent (Vea) avo Volocities used in foundation vibration analyses.556 Foundation Engineering Handbook 1? so? Mexia ity Coy 12200 cays, 6<60*Sre Moncton oeding carve “everogescurvetor N, GRAVELLY oie ‘sanos ‘ocr ‘a0t ooo ont 01 i “oer 8. oF + yoPoreent S05 AND GRAVELS oooT Or oF T Yerpetcent Fig. 15.3 The noolinear-hysteretie cyclic stress-strain behavior of soils is canvanienny represented in terms of modulus decreasing and damping ratio increasing with shear eain ampitud Apparently, the bigger the cyetic shear strain, the smaller the “equivalent” modulus G and the larger the “equivalent” damping f. Plots of modulus ratio G/ Gig, and datnping ratio B a functions of cyclic strain 7. have Become the traditional way of depicting cyclic stress-strain behavior, following the pioneering work by Seed and Idriss (1970). Figure’ 153 ‘Summarizes published data for clays, sands, and gravels, encompassing some recently published information, 18.3.1 Shear Modulus Gy Va.max ‘and §-Wave Velocity Factors affecting Gg ad. Vinay From the foregoing Aiscutsion its cea That the low sain shear moduli, Gu or the corresponding Swave velocity B,nu = (Goi is the single most important soil parameter inuencing the response of machine foundations. Laboratory and eld tesshhave revealed a number of factors on which Gaz and Vann depend. The following discussion summarizes the most significant findings of these tests, (1) The two most important parameters influencing Gy, of all types of soils (granular and cohesive) are the mean confining elective stress 35 and the void ratio e. From the published resultsit appears that Gy, is proportional to 68, where typically n~ 03 100.6 for granular and n ~ 0.5 to 09 for silty and clayey soils. Experimental tests with large cubic samples of dry sand at the University of Texas (Knox et al, 1982) have revealed that Ye (and Gay.) depend only on the stresses 2, and 3, in the directions of wave propagation and particle motion, respectively: they are independent of the stress @, in the out-of-plane direction, (2) The staticsteess prehistory, expressed for instance through the overepnsolidation ratio, OCR, influences mainly the modulus Gpay of clays. The granular material changes in COCR are adequately accounted by the present void ratio. On 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, the effect of prestraining is not clear. (3) For cohesive soils, geologic age seems to be of great importance, as it perhaps controls the creation of “bonds” between the clay platelets or clay clusters. In the laboratory, attempts to simulate the natural process of aging are being made by increasing the duration of the initial confining state of stress to several days, before applying the cyclic loading. Tncreases in Gna, of the order of 100 percent have often been reporied. Aging may also be important for fine-grained cobesionless soils that are partly saturated. (4) For partially saturated (S, ~ 10 to 50 percent) fine ‘granular soils (silty sands) capillary stresses may increase Gry bby 50 to 100 per cent over the value of Gu, measured in the laboratory on completely dry or on fully saturated samples. (5) For all soils, cohesionless and cohesive, the frequency, fr the rate of loading, has no practical effect on Gong (at least within the range of parameters applicable to machine foundations). This means that soil is basically not a viscous, but rather a hysteretic, material. Empirical correlations fOr Gay Several expressions relating Gy, t0 other Soil parameters have been devised on the basis oratory test results. For granular and cohesive soils Hardin (1978) proposed that focry Guy = 625 LOCRP ip os 07e V™ a (say where p, = the atmospheric pressure in the same units as 9 and Gya.s and 1 isa function of the plasticity index 1, plotted in Figure 15.4. ‘On the other hand, the aforementioned experimental work atthe University of Texas (Knox etal, 1982) has concluded that He, +) (155) should be used in place of 9 in Equation 15.4. (6, and & are the effective stresses in the directions of wave propagation and particle motion, respectively), Alternatively, the following expression can be used for clean sands: 180 = oa oa + ore 44)°°p9.%° (as) Foundation Vibrations 857 Suggosted Value of Ks mas for Euetions 16:7 (Seed bnearse) Sot Type i ee Ver dongs sand 1% & Vevdensesend and gavel 261040000380 @ 05, u peas tor Ip>100 a ~ woo Plasticity INDEX Ip ry Fig, 15.4 Suggested values for the costicients Keng. and in Equations 16.4 and 18.7 Note, however, that in many actual situations S waves will Propagate in all directions away from the foundation, and it will not be readily evident which are the directions @ and b. Hence it may be as advantageous to use Equation 15.4 For granular soils Seed and Iériss (1970) developed the simpler expression Gu «s7) in which the dimensional empirical coeficient Ky... is a function of the (relative) density of the material (dimension: square root of stress) given in Figure 154, for both SI and English units For saturated clays, Ga, relates to undrained shear strength s 1000K mu 4, 5, (The geotechnical engineer should not be surprised t such high Gay/S, values. The value G ~ 1005, reported in soil mechanics literatute refers to near-filure conditions, that is at strains in excess of 1 percent.) Use of empirical expressions such as those of Equations 15.4 to 156 may be recommended in practice in several cases (1) in feasibility studies and preliminary design calculations, before any ditect measurements have been performed in the field oF laboratory; (2) for final design calculations in small [projects where the cost of proper testing for Gyx, cannot be Justified—unless parameter studies reveal a high sensitivity fof the response to the “exact” value of modulus; (3) 10 provide an order-of-magnitude check against the experimentally determined values, ‘Another empirical correlation of interest is between Go and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance NV (blows/t), Using mostly Japanese data, Seed etal. (1986) have proposed = 1000 to 2500 (isa) Gone 200004 )88./%_ (1) (15s)858 Foundation Engineering Handbook Gus = A500N NE VB (KPa) (1596) in which the corected resistance i given by 2)"(E) Ni )eo = NI lw 15.10) wwow=r(22)"(Gio) a here dyg = vertical effective overburden stress, and ER = ratio of the energy actually transmitted tothe rod of the SPT, divided by the theoretical freefall energy. Several other empirical correlations between Gpyx and NV 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): Gaus = 12000N* (KPa) (1s.tta) G, jaan = 240N (kf) (1st) However, the reliability of such relations is very low, and they should only be used, 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 (fuids offer no shear resistance), dilatational (P} waves can propagate through both the mineral skeletou and the pore water. Since water i far less compressible than any soil skeleton, P-waves in fully saturated soils are essentially transmitted Solely through the water phase with a velocity V, that is of the order of, or somewhat larger than, ¥, = 1500'm/sec (or 4900 ft/see)—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 sol skeleton would then resist the induced dilatation: V, would be essentially the same as the P-wave velocity of a dry, but otherwise identical, soil sample For a clean Sand, Fighre 15.5a portrays the sensitivity of V, to variations in the degree of saturation S,. slong as saturation remains below about 99 percent Vis nearly independent of 5,, being a measure of the incompressibility of the soil skeleton, (The small decline from the dry velocity Vy, at large values (ofS, is te consequence of increasing mass density, rather than fof decreasing constrained modulus jn Equation 152, As 5, approaches 100 percent, Vj jumps to a very high value, Va. that is controlled by the pressure wave relocty in watecy V. For practical purposes, the velocity V, is independent of the type of soll, is similar for elays and sands, and shows only a slight dependence ox ay and e, as visualized in Figure 15.4b, Hence, measuring the Pevave velocity of saturated soils is of liale any value im assessing the actual soil sins. ‘The foregoing experimental findings can be qualitatively explained with elastic theory. Saturated soil is a practically incompressible material with Poisson's ratio » approaching 0.50, Equation 153 would then predict that V, is far greater than ¥,, and, in the limit, v= 0.5 and V,= ob regardless of Vi—that is, regardless of sol stiffness. 18.3.3 Poisson's Ratio v For soils that are not close to saturation, v can be obtained from Equation 15.3 once ¥, and ¥, have been measured: 1aa7/2 T (15.12) This expression, however is rather unreliable: small errors in the values of ¥, or ¥, will lead to substantial errors in v. ‘On the other hand, ¥ shows litle sensitivity t0 soil type, confining pressure, and void ratio, but depends very much fon the degree of saturation and the drainage conditions. Consequently, its not very difficult to make a reasonably good prediction of ifsaturation and drainage conditions are known. ‘As an example, the following valves are given as a guide in selecting v in practical cases. Saturated claysand sands, beneath the watertable ¥ ~ 0.50~ Nearly saturated clays, above the water table y= 040 Wet silty sands (S, = 50 10 90 percent) v= 035 Nearly dry sands, sf clays, and rocks 3025 ‘Once y has been estimated, Equation 153 is used to determine ¥>, unless of course » ~ 0.50 s0 that, as previously explained, Equation 15.3 is meaningless. An interesting con- clusion draym from studies of foundation vibrations is that the influence of » 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 Would likely be of no practical consequence. ‘The low-strain value of material damping, fy, 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 By, the precise value of the latter is usually rather insignificant. (Exceptions are rotational oscillations at low frequencies, and translational oscillations ona shallow soil stratum again at low frequencies.) + Establish the soil profil, 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 ow strain value of shear modulus Gu, and select proper values for Poisson's ratio v and damping fatio fy, Standard subsurface exploration techniques and field and laboratory testing required for statie design may provide a complete answer to the first of the foregoing tasks. But, with few exceptions, estimation of soit 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 Gay 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 fan indirect evaluation of Gay, through measurements of the Sewave velocity V, wus (15.13) Gnas = OV 3: in which p is the known total mass density of the soi In-situ testing procedures have some distinet advantages ‘over laboratory techniques. Sample disturbance, for example, ‘may be more deleterious for determining low-strain sil stiiness (which reflets the exact particle arrangement ~"fabric”) than behavior at large strains and failure (after a rearrangement ofFoundation Vibrations $68 oy DEGREE OF SATURATION 3000) cy a wat me 06 Vp s mis 309 voa oo Fig. 15.5 Dependence of P-wave velocity on void ratio, confining effective stoss, and degree of saturation (references given inthe text), panicles has occurred —"destruction” af the intial “Bibri”) 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 Gyy, according 12 Equation 153), may prove a rather dificult yack. With coacse sind and gravel, things get even more complicated, ‘As a cenult, in-situ measured moduli are almost invariably found to exceed those measured in the laboratory—sometimes bby more than 100 percent, However, when the effects ofall 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 Guy, fF determining the damping ratio, and for obtaining ¥, and G at moderate and large strains. 15.3.6 Field Procedures Dynamic in-situ tests induce strains smaller than 107? and hereby measure Vamae 888 Gmax The list of insite testing procedures include the following 1. The Crosshole Seismic Survey (or simply erosshole method) This is probably the best geotechnical method for determining the vatiation with depth of in-situ low-steain S-wave velocity, Vga: Ulustrated by a sketch in Figure 156, the crosshole insta is based on a very simple concept: it generates S waves in a borehole and measures their arrival times at the same levation in neighboring boreholes. The wave velocity is Computed from the travel times and vhe spacing between the boreholes. For the success, however, of a crosshole test there560 Foundation Engineering Handbook (a) plan an = 4 ish s-——_+ wedged place Fig. 15.6 Sketches of (a) the crosshole, (b) the downhole, and (c) the seismic cone penetration tests (references inte text), i 4 :(b)562. Foundation Engineering Handbook are several requirements. (a) There should be atleast two and preferably three boreholes, which are spaced about 3 to 5m (10 to 15 ft) apart, the verticalty 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 respanse 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) fr 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 its 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 tothod) This i the economic aerntive crosshoe testing Itis explained with the hep of Figure 134 Tuneeds only one borehole inside which the receivers) (ae) placed at various depths while the source is atthe surface, 210 5m (6 to 15 1) fay. Travel timer of body waves (8 or P) between surface and receivers) are recorded, and then travel-tine versus depth plots fare constructed from which V, nO Yy af al the layers can tbe determined. An eflective"and. ecosomic Swave source consnts of & steljacketed rigid beam Weighted. down the ireund and struck horizontally witha sledge hammer. However, the source is placed to close othe borehole, parasitic waves ae created and Save arrivals cannot be eaily denies if itis placed too far from the sours the direct wave path may tot be a straight line, These problems are largely avoided with trosthole testing. ‘3. The Seiamie Cone Penetration Test (or simply the seismic one). This recent development (Roberton et al, 1985) is Sketchd in Figure 156 It combines the downhole method with one penetation esting. To ths end, a small ragged velocity Stismometer is inconporstd inside the etectonic penetrometer fnd downhole measurements of seismic Swave veloc re Performed during Brief pauses in cone penetration testing. “dditon tits speed sgnifcant advantage of the seismic cone is that with «single sounding test one obtains information for the stratigraphy of the sit, the low strain modul ofthe varios layers as well 8 the (static) strengheelted parameters 4, (point bearing stress) and J, (sleeve frictional resistance) Comparisons with the “erosshole" are very encouraging. a seen in Figare 156. A limitation of the method is that it may not be appropriate for some types of soils (such a those containing coarse grave). 4, The Steady-State Vibration of the Free Surface This method, requiring n0 boreholes, is based on the fact that a cizcular footing vertically oscillating with frequency generates along, the tre surface primarily Kayleigh (R) waves. Their wavelength 2's the distance between any two successive rests (or troughs) ofthe vibrating surface (Figure 15.7a), and their velocity Cy is calculated from Cn= Sin (1s.1a) Measurement of 2x is made by moving a seismic geophone way from the vibrator and locating points that are moving in ‘phase. Ifthe subsoil were very deep and homogeneous its S-wave velocity F, would have been unique and roughly equal to 1,06 times C,. With real-life inhomogeneous deposit ¥, = ¥(2) and Cy = C,(2), and the value from Equation 15.13 would correspond to. depth of about § ofthe wavelength (the “center” ‘ofthe R-wave displacement profile) By progressively decreasing the frequency f of vibrations, the wavelength 2, would increase and the Rewave would aflect soil at greater depths, having different properties. Equation 15.14 would at every frequency give a diferent value of Cy. From these values the velocity profile is constructed as Vs (at depth 2 = 42g) ~ 106/2q uss) ‘Asan example, Figure 15.7b (adapted from Gazetas, 1982) plots the theoretical variation of R-wave velocity versus frequency for a depost consisting of an inhomogeneous layer over Re ee The ee etd Coie ists thickness. The bedrock velocity Vay is 8 times ¥(0). We denote by f, the fundamental frequency ofthe stratum in shear; 10.661/(0)/H. Notice that at frequencies J, exceeding 15/, the R-wave velocity approaches V0), while aif less than 0.5, Cy approaches Vga (Plots lke that of Figure 15:7 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 ¥,(0), which controls the radiation damping of high-frequency machine foundations a well asthe response in rocking and torsion at al frequencies; (b) an average (over the horizontal and vertical direction) wave velocity of a straturt cover 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 ‘5. The Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves This recent develop- ‘ment isa very promising evolution of the foregoing steady-state vibration method (Nazarian and Stokoe, 1983). Its goal is to determine the detailed Vy 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. Ifthe 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 157), thereby arriving at different relative times at the two locations; hence, the two signals have diferent shapes. Through a fast Fourier transform spectral analysis of the two signals the “dispersion” ‘relation (that is, the variation of C, with fequency) is computed forthe particular site. The thicknesses and S-wave velocities of ceach and every layer are then back calculated by use of an analytical “inversion” procedure, The results of the method seem to bein excellent agieement 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 surcey, whichis goos 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 al, 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 homogeneoss halfspace theories to back-calculate the (average) soi! modulus (Moore, 1985); and the standard penetration test, which may provide indirect erude estimates of moduli (eg. Eq. 159). 15.3.7. Laboratory Procedures Low-strain values of moduli and wave velocities can be obtained with the following laboratory tests.value from Equation out ofthe wavelength profile). By progrestivel sthe Waslength i we et soil at greater de on (318 wold ee a- From these values O, siqantt = Hr) = 1.06%, (adapted from Gazetas ° R-wave velocity vers f an inhomogeneous t= VO) I+ 105/11)" velocity Vu is 8 time frequency Othe strate tat frequencies f, exe «3 HO), whileat jes ke that of Figore 67 10! even in theor slayer) information an provide'(a) then strols the radiation ¢ Aion, a wel a he sencles;(b) an averag oa) wave velocity of area; and (c) with 1 "quencies, the veloct) oe inexpensively with: Vs ce Wares Thissee on of the foregoing st «Stokoe, 1983). Ns le, as with “cross ‘ace. A vertical imp yleigh (R) waves, rs located a know, deep and homegent transducers would ogeneous or layere ns generated by t ” Ve 00-2 Foundation Vibrations 563 0 ufEZe. K=100m reeall Figure 157} : Ee . 5 at the two foatio on apes. Through a fat C ‘wo signals the “7, (a) A harmonically-oscillating footing generates Rayleigh ( waves propagating along the surface of @ soil deposit. and {With frequency) ishg” toa depth of about one wavelength. (b) The R-wave velocity in a nonhomogeneous two-layer stretum decreases with frequency ‘es and S-vave vg ofthe decessing wavelength. ack-calulated by | tani The results of tht ‘ith crosshole meas: Resonant Columa Test This truly dynamic vest is ailable to the proftedly the best widely available today for determining '8 Teasons. They igin the laboratory. It uses solid or hollow cylindrical 0d mainly for pes and subjects them to torsional or axial steady-state ‘or determining thnic excitation with the help of an electromagnetic device 18 and the depifetch in Figure 158). The frequency ofthe input vibration ‘ting method, in fly changed until the fyadamental resonant condition is ‘Jock placed om thined. The resonant frequency isa function of cil stiffness, 'nction with hom geometry, and boundary conditions of the apparatus the (average) soiled. For the case of fixed base and free top sketched in netration test, we 15.8a the frequency at frst fesonance is ether mae fae pak A ost Pct a ase i an in the axial mode, H = the height of the sample, and E = the ‘Young's modulus of the soll, E = 2(1 + »)G. Equations 15.16 and 15.17 provide G and E, respectively. Material damping ratio can also be estimated either from the free-vibration Togarithmic decrement or from the half-power bandwidth of the steady-state response curve. Figure 15 8b lotsin dimension- less form the (theoretically determined) response curve. The distribution ofshear (or normal) strain along the sample during resonance follows a sinusoidal law: 1 alt a(2) asin To achieve the development of an almost uniform distsibution of strains in the sample, Drnevich (1977) adds a mass at the top as shown in Figure 158a, Such a uniformity is highly desirable when ¥, at strains exceeding 10° is needed. The hollow eylinder i also a necessity in such a case, since the distribution of shear strains across the thickness of a solid664 Foundation Engineering Handbook at tet resonance fo fee Veith | Da 1 1 i i or oy ro) Wy fat st resonance 1% Fig. 16.8. Resonant column test, Distibution of rotation amplitude along sample length in two variants ofthe test, end dynamic amplification ofthe top motion versus imposed frequency. (Based on Woods, 1978: Draevich, 1985.) cylindrical sample in torsion is nonuniform, varying from © at the center to a maximum at the periphery. For more details, s2¢ Woods (1978) and Drnevich (1985) 2, The Ultrasonic Pulse Test Piezoclectic crystals at one end ofthe 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, ¥, oF Fa is calculated. The idemification and ecagnition 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 ft can use the same sample to determine both ¥, and ¥, (and hence Poisson’s ratio, or the condition of sfturation). Moreover, it can be performed on very soft clays while stil 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 <7, < 1074) and are used to determine stress-strain hysteresis loops (from which “effetive” moduli and damping ‘atios are deduced, and degradation characteristics are studied). However, in recent years special cyclic triasal apparatuses ha been designed capable of determining moduli at , > 5 10 (Ladd and Dutko, 1988), 15.4 HARMONIC VIBRATION OF BLOCK FOUNDATIONS: DEFINITION AND USE OF IMPEDANCES (DYNAMIC “SPRINGS” AND “DASHPOTS") Frequently, machine foundations age 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 2, and (dynamic) 01ation : 4 2Fig. 18.9 Rigid foun .n block with its six degrees of freedom around the same axes (Figure 159). fn 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 proguce unbalanced forces that indeed vary harmonically with fime (rototary of reciprocating engines), but also because ronharmonie forces (such as those produced by punch presses ‘and forging hammers) an be decomposed into a (Jarge) number ‘of sinusoids through Fourier analysis. 15.4.1 Vertical Oscillation Let us explain the method with the help ofthe eay-to-visualie case of Nertical vibrations. Figure 15.10. portrays rigid foundation block of total mass m, assumed to have a vertical ais of symmetry 2 passing through the centroid of the Soil-foundation cornatt surace. The foundation is underlain by a deposit consisting of horizontal linearly deforming soi layers. Subjected to a vertical harmonic force F(t) along the 2 axis, this foundation will experience only a vertical harmonic displacement u,(t). The question is to determine u(t) given FO) To this end, we consider separately the motion of each “body: the foundation block and the supposing ground (Figure 1510), The two fee-body diagrams are sketched in the igure and include the inertial (D'Alembert) forces. The foundation “actions” on the sol generate equal and opposite “reactions”, distributed in some unknown way acrost the ierface and having an unkown resultant P(). Furthermore, Since in reality the two bodies remain sivays in contact, their displacements are identical and equal to the rigid body displacement). Thus, the dynamic equibrium ofthe block 5 the form Pt) + mint) = FO) (as.19) and that ofthe linearly deforming muttiayered ground can be “summarized” as PAD = ut) (1520) in which %; is called the dynamic vertical “impedance”, determined for this particular system with one of the methods described in the sequel Foundation Vibrations 565 Combining Equations 15.19 and 15.20 leads to mitt) + Xuslt) + Felt) =0 (asa feom which itis evident that the key to solving the probiem is the determination ofthe impedance 2, that is, ofthe dynamic Tocee-over-displacement ratio according to Equation 15.20. Note also that, as itis well known from structural dynamics, ‘he steady-state solution u,(¢) to Equation 15.21 fora harmonic excitation F,(t) = F, cost is also harmonic with the same frequency w “Theoretical and experimental results reveal that, in Equation 15.20, a harmonic action P, applied on to the ground and the resulting harmonic displacement u, have the same frequency © ‘but are out of phase. That is, if P(t) = P,costor +a} (1.22) then u, can be expressed in the following two equivalent ways: u,costot +24 @) (15234) =u, cos(or +a) + uzsin(wr +2) (15236) a(t Rut Fig. 15.10 Analysis of the dynamic equilibrium of @ vertically ‘vibrating foundation block866 Foundation Engineering Handbook where the amplitude u, and phase angle @ are related to the Jnphas, 1, and the 99" out-of phase, u,compovens acording, to a= (1524) tang = (15.246) We can rewrite the foregoing, expressions in an equivalent but far more elegant way using complex number notation: Plt) =P, exp(iar) (1525) (0) = exp (iat) (1526) where now P, and d, are complex quantities: Peo Pat iP (us27) By ay + is (1528) Equations 1525 to 15.28 are equivalent to Equations 15.22 to 15.24, with the following felations being vali foc the amplitudes: Pea |Pil = JP + Pa (1529) y= lial = Vuh +) (1530) whe ne wo phase angles, «and, are properly “hidden the complex forms. ‘In addition to. elegance, it is computational ease that motivates the adoption of complex notation, as wll become apparent later on ‘With P, and 1, being out of phase (Eas. 1522 to 1523) oF, ternative, with P- and d being complex numbers (Eqs. 1325 to 1528), the dynamie verial"impeance” (Corce-displacement ratio) becomes complex number | (1531) which may be put in the form: HER, ial, (1sa2y in which both R, ané C, are functions of the frequency w. They ‘can be interpreted as follows. The real component, RK, tetmed “dynamic stiffness’, reflects the stifiess and inertia of the supporting soil its dependence on frequency is attributed solely to the influence that frequency exerts on inertia, since soil ‘properties are to a good approximation frequency-independent. ‘The imaginary component, wC,, is the product of (circular) frequency times the “dashpor coefficient” C,, which reflects the two types of damping—radiation and material damping— generated in the system, the former due to energy carried by waves spreading away from the foundation, and the latter due to energy dissipated in the soil due to hysteretic action. Equation 1532 is (theoretical and experimental) fact for all foundation soil systems. However, the imerpretaion of K land C as dynamic stifiness and dashpot coefficients must be justified. This is easy if we substitute Equation 1532 into Equation 15.21. We are looking for the harmonic response 4 exp(ivt) t0 the harmonic excitation F, exp (ian), Straight- forward operations lead to rit) + Coit) + Rul = F(t) (1533) and to UR, ma?) + WoC], = Fy (1534) Equation 1533 is the equation of motion of a simple coxcilator with mass m, spring “constant” Ky and dashpot “Constant” C,—stiying our previous interpretation. ‘The quotation matks sround the wort constant are placed delib- eratly infact, K, and C, are not constant but vary with the Frequency w of osclation Nonetheless, Equation 153 suggests for the vertical mode of osiltion an analogy between the actual foundation-soil system and the system depicted in Figuee 15.11 and consisting of the same foundation but supported om a #spring” and "dashor™ with characteristic ‘odull equal to K, and C, respectively. ‘Once these modull have been established for a parteular excitation frequency, is obtained from Equation 13.34 r, Ta may aC, (18354) ®. and thereby the amplitude of oscillation that is of interest is simply F, Wal= (15386) VR mo + oC Conclusion: The soll reaction against a vertically oscillating foundation is fully described with the complex frequency- dependent dynamic vertical impedance ¥.(c) or, equivalently, the frequency-dependent “spring” (stiffness) and “dashpor™ (damping) ceeficents,K, (co) and C,(0). Once these parameters have been obtained forthe particular frequency (or frequencies) of interest, solving the equation of motion yields the desired amplitude of the harmonic vertical displacement. 15.4.2 Generalization to All Modes of Oscillation ‘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 swaying) impedance 2, the ratio of the horizontal harmonic force, P,(), imposed in the short direction at the base of the foundation over the resulting harmonic displacement, u,(t) in the same direction oP os (1536) Similarly, 2%, = the longitudinal (swaying) impedance (force~displace- ‘ment ratio), for horizontal motion inthe long direction the racking impedance (moment-rotation ratio), for rotational mation about the long axis ofthe foundation basemat the rocking impedance (moment-rotation ratio), for rotational motion about the short axis of the foundation basemat = the torsional impedance (moment-rotation ratio), for rotatienal oscillation about the vertical axis %, %, ‘Moreover, in embedded foundations and ples, horizontal forces slong principal axes induce rotational in addition to translational Dscillations; heace, two more “cross-coupling” horizontal- focking impedance exist: ,,, and 2... They are usually ‘eglegibly small in shallow foundations” but their effects may become appreciable for greater depths ef embedment, owing {0 the moments about the base axes produced by horizontal Soil reactions against the sidewalls. In piles the “cross-coupling! ‘impedances ate as important as the “direct” impedances.Foundation Vibrations S67 P (a) Rigid end massless oe a7 1WCy Rigid base stifiess (R,) and 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 #(w) = Kw) + foClo) (1s37) and the analogy suggested in Figure 15.11 extends to all modes. Once, for & particular excitation frequency o, the eight dynamic impedances (or the eight pairs of dynamic stifiess or “spring” and “dashpot” coeficients) 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 externa} forces can be computed analytically by application of ‘Nowton'slaws. Also analyticall,one can derive the steady-state response of a flexible structure possessing natural modes and «) 16.11. (a) A foundation-structure system and the astocated rigid and massless foundation.) Physical interpretation ofthe dynamié shpot (C,) costfciets for a vertically vibrating footing subjected to harmonic external forces and to harmonic base 15.4.3 Coupled Swaying-Rocking Oscillation Figure 15.12 portrays a typical rigid block foundation: it has ‘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 symmetty, x and y. For such a foundation the vertical and torsiozal modes of ‘oscillation along and around the z axis can be treated separately, ‘as was previously illustrated for vertical cesillation. In other words, each ofthese 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 Fig. 18.12 Coupled swaying-rocking oscillations: definition of lisplacoment variables. Top: section. Bottom: plan is above the center of pressure of the soil reactions. Thus, ifthe block is initially being displaced only horizontally, an inertial Torce 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. To study the coupled swaying-rocking oscillations of the block in the zy plane, we call 6, and 9, the horizontal displacement at the foundation center of gravity and the Angle of rotation of the rigid block, respectively. Referring to Figure 15.12 and calling F,(t) and M,(1) the excitation force ‘and moment at the block center of gravity, one can write the ‘translational force and rotational moment dynamic equilibrium a8 follows: Pt) + miB,(t) = F(t) (1538) TO) = Pylthrae + Toad(t) = MC) (1839) where jotal foundation mass ‘mass moment of inertia about a principal horizontal axis, parallel to x and passing ‘through the block center of gravity P, and T, = net horizontal force and rocking moment reactions, acting from the soil against the foundation during swaying and rocking, and referring to the centroid of the foundation basemat Ton For a harmonic excitation: F,(0) = F, exp(iot) (1540) M,(t) = M,exp(ior) (ast in which the amplitudes F, and M, may be either constant, or (more typically) proportional to te square of the operational frequency @ = 22f. F, and M, result from the operation of the machine ‘The steady-state harmonic response can be written in the form: 4,(0) =5,explion) 8, 9,(0) = Byexpliot) 3, By tidy, (15.42) 41% (1543) in which 3, and 3, are complex frequency-dependent displace- ‘ment and ‘otation amplitudes at the center of gravity. Note that Equations 15.40 to 15.43 do not by any means imply that the to components of motion and the two components of excitation are all in phase, Instead, the true phase angles are “hidden” inthe complex form of each displacement component. ‘Using similar arguments with regard to the soil reactions cone may, without loss of generality, set, Ps) = Pexp(ion) (saa) 7,0) = Teexp ion) (154s) ‘The complex amplitudes , and , are elated to the complex displacement ard rotation amplitudes through the correspond- 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 B= 408, ~ 29.) 4 Spade (15.46) T= HD+ Hol, ~ 2085) (1547) Substituting Equations 1540 to 15.47 into the governing Equations 15.37 to 15.38 leads to a system of two (coupled) algebraic equations with two unknowns 5, and 9, The solution is obtained using Kramer’s rue: 3, = (BaF, ~ BaM,)N"* (1548) 3, = (BuMe— Bi2F,)N-? (1549) Wisesteees eee in which the following substitutions have been made By = Ho) — ma? (15.500) By = Fala) — Hlo0)2 (15500) Boy = 1,,(0) ~ log? + H6(00)22 — 2 ate (15500) and N= B,,By~ Bh asst) Notice that, for a particular frequency «, determination of the motions from Equations 15.48 to 15.51 is a straightforward ‘operation once the dynamic impedances x, (or the corresponding “spring” and “dashpot" coefficients, K,, and C,,) are known. Of course, the computations are somewhat tedious if performed by hand, since complex numbers are involved: but with even small microcomputers the calculations can be done routinely. at minimal cost, ‘Thecefore, itis proposed that this procedure, in connection ‘with an appropriate evaluation of impedances at the frequency (or frequencies) of interest, should be used in analysis of machine foundations vibrating in swaying-rocking, ‘Vibrations inthe vertical and torsional mode (each of which 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: My MR, = S,0*F + a CP jin 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 (ivt) = the harmonic external, ‘moment around 2 9, = 1541 (1532) 18.5 COMPUTING DYNAMIC IMPEDANCES: TABLES AND CHARTS FOR DYNAMIC “SPRINGS” AND “DASHPOTS’ Several alternative computational procedures and computer codes are in principle available tothe 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 tura 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 really classify soil-foundation systems according to the following material and geometric characteristics: + The shape of the foundation (cicular, strip, rectangular, arbitrary) ‘+ The type of soil profile (deep uniform deposit, deep multi- layered deposi, 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 ‘multilayered sol deposits and rectangular surface foundations, but cannot trest embedment (eg, Luco, 1976; Gazetas and Roesset, 1976, 1979). + Dynamic finite-element methods that can, treat surface, ‘embedded, and piled foundations on orn layered soil profiles. “Most of these methods are limited to axisymmetric (circular) fr plane-styain (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 al, 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 al., 1981; Tassoulas, 1981). © Approximate techniques that simplify the physics of the ole and can provide egoering solos ame ey ted situations (eg, separation between foundation Sidevalls and back) that cannot be teted rigorously (Beredugo and Novak, 1972; Meck and Veletsos, 1973; Novak etal, 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 @ specialized computer code, which may of may not be available. Developing “tailor-made” codes isa very impracticable under- taking, in view of the mathematical complexity ofthe problem. Foundation Vibrations 669 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 islft fr the necessary parametric studies. Such studies are of course critical for exploring various design options and for evaluating the eflects ‘of uncertainties n poorly known parameters (eg, soil properties, (or quality of soi-foundation contact) ‘An alternative engineering approach has been the develop. ment of easy-to-use closed-form expressions and graphs, based fon the resuits 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” ‘coeficients. 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 widerange of idealized ol profiles and foundation geometses. ‘The engineer should be able, by using the table, to approximate ‘with sufficient accuracy the actual problem im 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 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 fon the surface of a homogeneous soil stratum underlain by bedrock (some results are also given for rectangular foundations) 4, Table 154 refers to circular and strip foundations partially or fully embedded in a homogeneous strarum underlain by bedrock 5. Table 15.5 pertains to square and strip foundations on the surface of some inhomogeneous profiles, in. which the ‘modulus inereases smoothly with depth according to GHG tary C=2/B (assay 6. Table 156 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 gol when developing these tables. tis believed that, in genera, the errors that may resltffom their Use wil be well within an acceptable 1S percent (Use of the approximation symbol, however, implies a slightly inferior aezumey) “The formulas and graphs given in Tables 15.1 and 152 for arbitrary shaped surface and embedded foundations on or in 4 homogsneous hallspace have ben compiled from some recent publeattons by the author and his coworkers (Dobry and Gazets, 1988; Gaectas et a, 1985, 1987; Fotopoutou etal, 1989). They are based on fa} some simple physieal models Calibrated wth results of igoros boundary erent formations Sd (b) data from the literature (most notably from tv work ‘of Lysmer, Veletsos, Luco, and. Rosset and. Kausel—se references), On te other hand, Tables 153 and 15.4 pertaining Tosudace and embedded foundation ona homogeneods stratum tver bedrock are bas on results by Kael (1978), Johnson Stal (1995), Gazetas and Roesset (1996, 1979), Esabee and870 Foundation Engineesing Handbook FS mies nt ounce oe G jones mA} becca peey I Fig. 15.13. Tho six soil-toundation systems studied in this chapter. Numbers 1 through 6 refer othe comesponding tables 15.1 10 156 and the associated graphs.2 Morray (1977), Jakub and Roesset (1977), Kauseland 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 etal. (1985), Wong and Luco (1985), Werkle and Waas (1986), and Novak (1987). Finaly, the information of Table 15.6 on single ples is, based ‘on Roesset (1980a,b), Sanchez-Salinero (1982), Velez eal. (1983), and Gazetas (1984). The pile-group interaction, factors are ftom Dobry and Gazetas (1988) and Gazetas and Makris (1990), calibrated with results from Nogami (1979), Kaynia and Kausel (1982), and Davis etal. (1983). ‘The reader will certainly find useful detailed information in these original sources, However, Tables 15.1 to 156 and the accompanying graphs are sufficient for complete dynamic analyses. Foundetion Vibrations 871 15.5.2 Use of Tables and Graphs; Illustrative examples 1. Surface Foundation on Halfspace For an arbitrarily shaped foundation mt, the engineer must first determine a circumscribed restangle 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 151, all he needs isthe values of: # Ay Tow lay and Jy = area, area moments of inertia about 4X y, and’ polar moment of inertia about 2, of the actual soilfoundation contact surface. If loss of contact under part of the foundation (eg, along the edges of a rocking LB + 3.5, hye $7.6 mt LONE HED, Tay 82 mt Co.a08 HD, toy # S0Unti05.000 HH) = 2m 120) 7 188.8 ey ae = La dane few aeee | es Plan ter Taian % os sae) bell FIRST NUMERICAL EXAMPLE hel oe y Elevotion B= 005 © + 2,000 tet = 308 t-sect tet vy 033 B= 005 Elevation i soit parame ‘ or che Fig. 15.14 Geometry and material parameters of the two illustrative numerical examples. (Note also that V, = 310 m/s, Veg © 500 m/s; 42026.)us TABLE 15.1 DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES AND DASHPOT COEFFICIENTS FOR ARBITRARILY SHAPED FOUNDATIONS ON THE SURFACE OF A HOMOGENEOUS HALFSPACE. Drnwic Stivers R= Ko) State Sitvess _ Dynamic Sitness Radiation Dashpot General Shape Coctcient k ‘offcient Vibration (foundaton-sol contact siMace eof 188 Ay Save (Gener shape: ¢ itode andhhaca creumerted rectangle 2l by28:1 > 8)* tne Oeae2 (Generel Shapes) asace woe | Home nae™) nate nal) win = ila in Graph» a 6 —— 2 2000 one ae (18:30) tection) iste in Graph Horizon 2 k “nme | t . longitudinal recion) recone | x= (2) "(24 +088) Kn 388 | 4, 2102020 Srottginat | ith ta( 1B to) ram) ‘ull 100 moment of inertia of hefoundaton-sot is ploted in Graphs e and ¢ Gontactsorlace around the x(9) exo, focrina.y | y= 72 an) ] v< os Cp = (een) by teal a8) by x1 ~ 0306 ay = 618 06) i ploned in Graph 9 eo aye Torsional n-orfarn(s—£ k= 8.260° (Mele) b 4 = 60/8: 06) with Jy le + fy Being te polar moment ofthe £51 iSindaton Contact sures [Note at as L782 (sp Yoong) the theoreti value ct K, and Ky 0; the valves computed fom the two given frmuloscovewpond to» toting wih L7@ = 20 syn ab ve‘ oa “ LLLP : Foundation Vibrations 873 GRAPHS ACCOMPANYING TABLE 15.1 Ze moenne (9 one oy foundation) is likely, the engineer may use his judgmest to discount the contribution of this part. ‘+ Band L = semi-width and semi-length of the circumscribed rectangle, + Gand v, of ¥, and Vi, = shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, shear-wave velocity, and “Lysmer's analog” wave velocity. ‘The lastis the apparent propagation velocity of compression— extension waves under a foundation and is related 10 V, according 10 My x=) (assay ‘+ @ = 2nf = the circular frequency (in radians/second) of the applied force (eg. frequency of operation of the machine) This table as well as all the other tables gives: + The dynamic stiffnesses (“springs”), K = R(w),as a product ofthe static stiffness, K, times the dynamic stiffness coeficient k= ko) Ko) = K-K(a) (1835) + The radiation damping (“dashpot”) coeficients C = C(w) b These coefficients do nar include the soil hysteretic damping, & Bo (the only exception is with Table 156 (for piles), where k the & values combine hysteretic and radiation damping). To incorporate such damping, simply add to the foregoing C value the corresponding, material dashpot coefcent 2K Bola: Total C= radiation C+ g, 1886) Numerical Example A numerical example illustrates the use of Table 15.1 and the attached graphsin computing the dynamic stifesses (“springs”) and damping coefiients (“dashpots”), {or four modes of vibration. A sketch of the foundation and lists ofall pertinent geometric, material, and load parameters are included in Figure 15.14. The computations follow in SI units, but the results are also given in English units (in parentheses), The excitation frequency is f= 30 Hz. VERTICAL MODE Static stiffness: 20% 1920002748 cons + 1$4(026)°°9] = $500 x 10°kN/m (38 x 10*Ib/ft)576 Foundation Engineering Handbook (a) (b) 2a] plans elevation =O Boundary Element DH Sxwpression of table Fig. 15.16 Comparison of the results derived using the simple exwessions given in this chapter with the results of rigorous (boundary- clement) formulations for two T-shaped foundations (L/8 ~ 1 and 2) embedded in 8 homogeneous hallspaceHe thus decides thatthe effective height ofsidewall-soil contant isd = 4m. The computations that follow make use of the results fof the previous example for Ruy, and Cy, VERTICAL MODE Ay = 2x (149 + 43) x 4.0 = 1536 m* D/B = 6/215 = 279 Aq/Ay = 153.6/57.6 = 267 ‘Static and dynamic stiffness (“spring”): ir sai x[ 22a sin-0a9} x (1+ 02 « (2677) 5 x 108 x 1.18 x 138-9 x 10° KN/m ‘The dynamic stiffness coefficient is cbtained by linear inter- polation between the “fully-embedded” value, fyacom % O93(1 ~ 009(2.79)°(1.3)7] = 062 and the value for the foundation placed in an open trench, without sidewalls, Kano = 093[1 + 009(2.79)4(1.3)5) = 1.24 Thus, (4 x 062-42 x 124/6 = 083 and Rage = 9% 083 x 10 = 74 x 10° KN Jom “Dashpot”: Cyan = 58 x 10 +20 x 310 x 1536 5.0 x 10* KN-s-m-! 2x TA x 10° Total C, ene = 15.0 x 10% + 210" 005 188. 54 x 10 KN-ssm"! LATERAL HORIZONTAL MODE ()) haam AQ/L? = 136/745? Static and dynamic siiness (“spring”) 9 x 108(1 + 0.15 /279)L1 + 052(1.86 x 2.77)°*) 79 x 10° x 1.25 x 20 20 x 108 KN/m ‘The dynamic sttiness coufcient is obtained with the help of the graphs that accompany Table 15.2. The “Tully embedded” value is: A/B = 4/215 = 186 n K, yarn = 03 ‘otained by interpolating between the L/B=2 and L/B=6 plots, for D/B~ 2.79. Then forthe partial embedment: H2/3) nace Sy 03x 13 804 R yen % 12.0 04 = 48 % 50% KN/m Foundation Vibrations 677 “Dashpot” Ay 22x43 x40 Mdm? Aug, = 2% 149 «40 = 1192? Cyan = 36 x 108 + 20 % 310 x 34.4 +20 x 500 x 119.2 = 36 x 10 +21 x 10 + 119 x 10¢ 176 x 10*KN-s¢m" 248 x 10% i885 S179 « 10*KNessm™* Total Can 7.6 x 108 + 005 ROCKING MODE 7x (AROUND THE LONGITUDINAL AXIS) 4/B = 4/215 ~ 186 4/D = 4/6 =067 B/L = 215/745 =028 Satie and dynamic siffnes (“spring”) Kye 2.7 x 107{1 + 1.26 x 1.86 x [14 186 x (067°? x JODY) 27 5892159 «10° KN-m Kena O74 159 x 107 % 0.74 & 11.8 x 107 KN-m Kraan Ress “Deuapot” Jay = 2 4 X43 x40 % (215? + 42) = 2365 mot Tag = 2X4 x 149 43 = 635.7 mt LAA 2x (ID2 x 40 x 215? + 27 x 40 x 0.954) 2353 m* Ey = 0.25 + 065/73 x (0.67)"°4(2.79)- 974 = 1.0 4.1 x 10 +20 500 x 635.7 x 10420 x 310 % (2365 + 2353) x LO EA x 104+ 635 x 10* + 292 108 968 « 10 KN:s'm Con Tolal Cann =968 x 10" 4 2* 118% 10" gos 2 1385 103 x 10*KN-s-m ‘TORSIONAL MODE (AROUNO 2, PASSING THROUGH BASE CENTROID) “Spring”: Kann = 15 108% (1-4 14 x (1 + 0.29) x (1.86)°9) 362 x 10°EN-m Font & hasas = O82 62 x 10% x 082 > 51x 10° Nem€<9/7 appeqwe Ming | Byelarayeno—1=4 f & [r,(Bhos Jones cx tupnese'spue pee | [Pa "pabneh omy syatety n'y [ mm use pecs ey sseuyns 2001 org rwemye09 20889 vonepey (0) y= ty ses ea "3OvdS41VH SNO3NaDOWOH V NI Ga3GaaaW3 ATINS HO ATIVILUVd G3dVHS ATIHVULIGUY YOS SANGIDI1S709 LOdHSVG GNV S3SS3NJJLLS DINWNAG Z'S1 aT8VL_ 578sen vine vomstan hon vor ae =" iow LBM drs] = Siete (a tp bas es meat wa 8 orem Lecentye oy ete (4 too sues co oe) ‘omeatate + ‘ap + rea'net+ ‘aneraee + vararne=mno ‘ Boaeae! wos ™*Y aoepne o eu ='9 os a4 Bussoduoo @)wrsn0 azo sma tene een eerny ag ty oe L.@ «rsh, Gse+ ey ey 579880 Foundation Engineering Handbook ‘ ves! GRAPHS ACCOMPANYING . TABLE 15.2 ky UB.2 vee? ies) Kia/0=i 1/826 wreae weet“Dashpor” Hag = AO x 1499/12 44 x 149 x (814 ~ 745)? $40 x 437/12 = 11575m* Jog 2315 m* SCALA} = 2 x 122 x 40% 215 4 43 x 40 x 6:76? $19 40x 8142 4.2 27 x 40. 095? $2 1D x 40x (814-279? 3451 + 786 + 318-+ 19 + 284 1858 m* 3 13 +02) x G5) cajoy ex aT nt = 55 108 + 20 x 500 x 2315 x 117 + 20x 310 x 1858 3.17 55x 10% +271 x 108 + 135 x 10° 16 x 108 KN-s-m 2x Sx 108 1885 549 10° KN-sm Total C, ame = 46 % 10? + x 005 tis apparent that embedment has produced very substantial increases for all “springs” (except the horizontal) and all, “dashpots.” We summarize these elects in terms of the dynamic, stilfness ratio Kens/Ryar and the equivalent damping ratios En, (from the previous example) and yay (Irom the value of Comm computed herein} RenalRen tar 1.45 38% 80% 03 23% © >100% 530 5% am 425 15% 5o% Several conclusions of practical significance emerge from ‘Table 15.2 and the illustrative example 1, Increasing the embedment (in size and quality) may be a very effective way oreduceto acceptable eves the anticipated mpinudes of vibration, especially if these amplitudes arise due to rocking or torsion. Such an improvement would be efected mainly by the increase in radiation damping produced by waves emanating Iron the vertical sidewall 2, To rely on such a beneficial effect, however, the engineer must ensure that the quality of sidewall-soil contac is indeed high, In realty, ules special construction procedures are followed, separation (“gapping”) and shppage ae likely to occur near the ground surface where the inital confining pressures are smal. Such effects may jeopardize the increase indamping and must be taken into acoount i the analysis Tothisend; the areas and moments of inertia of thesidewalls con which damping and stfiness depend should be given suitably reduced values rather than ther nominal ones. Foundation Vibrations 581 4. Inview of the complexity ofthe problem of atitearily shaped partially embedded foundations, the formulas and graphs of Table 152 provide a very simple and complete solution, while allowing the engineer to use his experience and judgment. To give an idea as to how well the formulas of Table 152 may compare with rigorous theoretical solutions, Figure 15.16 refers to two foundations having T-shaped basemats and subjected to harmonic rocking oscillations. ‘The circumscribed rectangles have L/B = 1 and 2 and each foundation is embedded at depth D = B. The rigorous results are from a dynamic boundary-clement solution and are plotted as data points. The developed expressions for Ca, sivenin Table 15.2, yield for each foundation the correspond. ing continuous lines. The agreement is indeed excellent and indicative of the capabilities of the simple methods utilized in this chapter. Also encouraging are comparisons of the presented solution with small-scale experimental measure- 3. The Presence of Bedrock at Shallow Depth Natural soil deposits are frequently underlain by very stift material or even bedrock ata shallow depth, rather than extending to practically infinite depth as the homogeneous hallspace implies. The proximity of such a stiff formation to the oscillating surface modifies the static stifesses, K, the dynamic stiffness coefficients, k(«), nd the dashpot coefficients ‘C(.o) Specifically, with reference to Table 15.3 and its graphs wwe see the following, (1) The stati tiffeesesin all modesincsease with he relative depth to bedrock H/B. This is evident from the formulas of Table 15.3, which reduce to the corresponding halfspace stif- nesses when H/R approaches infinity Particularly sensitive to variations in the depth to rock are the vertical stifinesses—the effect being far more pronounced with strip footings (factor 35 versus 13). Horizontal stiffnesses are also appreciably afected by H/R (Iactors of 2 for strip and 05 for circle), while the rotational stifinesses (rocking and torsion) are the least afected Infact, for HR > 1.5 the response to torsional loads is essentially independent of the layer thickness, ‘An indication of the causes of this different behavior (between cular and strip footings and, in any footing, between the different types of loading) can be obtained by comparing the depths ofthe “zone of influence” (also called the “pressure bulb”) in each case, Circular and squate foundations on a homogeneous halfspace induce vertical normal stresses ¢, along the centerline that become practically negligible at depths exceeding 2, ~ SR; with stip foundations o, practically vanishes only below 2, = 1SB. The “depths of influen Tor the horizontal shear stresses t,, due to lateral loading. are of the ‘order of 2R and 6B for citcle and strip, respectively. On the ‘other hand, forall foundation shapes (strip, rectangle, circle), ‘moment loading is “fet” down to a depth, 2, of about 28 of 2R. For torsion, finally, z, = 0.75R or 0.75B. ‘Apparently, when a rigid formation “cuts” through the “pressure bulb” of a patticular loading mode, i eliminates the corresponding deformations and thereby increases the stifiness. (2) The variation of the dynamic stiffness coefficient with frequency reveals an equally strong dependence on H/B. On a stratum, K(a) is not a smooth function, as with a hallspace, but exhibits undulations (peaks and valleys) associated with the natural frequencies (in shear and compression) of the stratum. In other words, the observed fluctuations are the(29 = (HYD Tyevoor 49 205 venus "4 <1 ()"'9 = (BIHIYD °4> 1180 (BHD 4110 x1 Bury men enn sin mp | E118 0= (a/HY'9 WS HelA =") esse ()'9 = (ale x10 A yeu “ig BoM ay Baty pneu modi svenbey spawn ee ere eres cea oo oe : worn | ome'SORd mo gateeans eee (ovo aod = Tone : a oud | Meg, zim eet (Geo) a (Gees) Sapo u : a | (fe+i)iSE-E (fsors)Eoy co a oz 4 . 4 ‘498 | (tees) =to2 [,. (2s +eco}tSt eres)ibey | Sagas Feed ee eee or Tas ey werewsey 882 (2x0) oup ul parsiy 61e 695108) HOOUGIE Y3AO WNLVULS SNOANSDOWOH NO SNOUVANNOd JDVIUNS HOS S1N3IDII4309 LOdHSVG ANV S3SS3NJJLS DINYNAG £°9. TT8VL“OVER » Engineering Handbook ‘ce phenomena: waves emanating from the 1 Fellet atthe soil-bedrock interface and source at the surface. AS a restit, the on motion may significantly inerease at ane natural frequencies of the deposit. Thus, _auestifiness (being the inverse of displacement) exhibits .oughs, which ate very steep when the hysteretic damping in the soil is small (in fact, in certain cases, k would be exactly zet0 if the scik 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(o), is ¥, an (15.60) while for the “compressing” modes (vertical, rocking) the corresponding frequency is fine an (ase (3) The variation of the dashpor coefficients with frequency revealsa twofold efiet ofthe presence of rigid base at relatively shallow depth, Firs, the C(eo) 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 stifinesses k(«). Second, and far more important from a practical viewpoint, is that at low frequencies, below the first resonant (“cut-of™) frequency of each mode of vibcation, radiation damping i 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 sol stratum over bediock 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 ina very deep deposi (hallspace)—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 f, of fc, as appropriate for each mode, the “stratum” damping C(H/B) fluctuates about the “halfspace” damping C(H/B = 2). The “amplitude” of such fucwsations tends to decrease with increasing H/B; moreover, if some wave energy peneteates into bedrock (as does happen in real if thanks to some weathering fof 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 siflnesses tend to increase thanks to the decrease in the depth of the ‘deforming zone underneath the foundation It i evidem that the results summarized in Table 15-4 can follow from a proper combination of the pertinent results of Table 152 (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 hallspace may ‘not be realistic, as the sol stifiness 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 Ga (for example, according to Equation 15.4). The eflects of such ‘an inhomogeneity could be assesses with the help of Table 15 5, Which provides information for foundation on a nomber of inhomogencous deep deposits, including (but not limited to}; + A deposit with (low-strain) shear modulus i) sich is epresetative of many cotesionles soit epost, which the thear mods fs proportional fo the square rot OF the confining pressure. Gp =e modulus atthe ground Surface, tha at 20, and should: not be confsed with the low-strain modulus Gm. In this chapter we CStetly slays deal with very sll rains and ence al appearing in Tables 181 t0 135 ae lowstrain (7 2 10"") G~o,(1 +2) = A deposit with ‘hich is representative of deposits of saturated normally and slightly overcantolidated clays. ‘© A deposit with 6 = 64(1 sad B, Which can simulate deposits with a relatively faster increase of G at large depths, xis a parameter determined by fitting the experimental test cesults, 6 =64( (1562) «sea uses) The following trends are worthy of note in Table 15 and the avcompanying graphs. 1. For the static stifitesses, K, use of a single “effective” modulis, G= Gy, in the formulas for a homogencous ballspace (Table 15.1) would, at best, provide the correct stifiness 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 ddeepesi—the "effective depth” zyr is of the order of one to two times B, the foundation semiwidth or radius. Moment loading, om the other hand, is the least affected by inhomogeneity, with “elective depths” merely ranging from 4B 10 WB. : 2 In strongly inhomogeneous scils, the dynamic stifeess coefficients, k, plotted 38 functions of «B/Yjo, are always smaller than those of a homogeneous halfspace with V = Vo. The differences, however, ae quite small and could be neglected in practical applications, as suggested in Table 155.585 1751 ges 04 pavero 2g veo pUE TUonepune) eoepns BupuOEsuCD ou) 1} SesHUNNE ag HE a aE TE aonanaiaos Tieitoae es Eitiine aptaneh aenaiig nas nearness ao Se rt, ms 7 esos ane Ton een) (hese (Eos (isso (fess oy Britney | vee mm Ag P a omen a= @ ayy Ysa —en0)+ 1 (oso 1 ry = en (Gheo, Orn poy (eco s0o)= [esrons oaemny | ect eae ooo 7 WOOUGRE HIAO WNLVELS SNOAN3DOWOH Ni G3ddZaWA SNOLLVGNNOS HOd SLN3ID144309 LOdHSVG GN S3SSANJJILS OIWWNAG PSL 3TaVL. evo ony sno}! pssn aq pinoys Ao. ‘voHmuo pun Ye peseq sUDeU)ordde apna AUD ore SuOtsetxe ENOGE 7 * - uC + Deatoest='¥ yeuorsio, at wot + eat te*s rx Ba20 ' ' (t+ Dear Sheny a st, ' : sors vareseary Ax ewvonvoy z ‘ wes nero Shary veow9n as ans (Aa ae) ds ae fa ee ands oP0H woneAA a7 adeg tae, 1 setous 20S (gp-0"9 a * a ! spew =t219 AS P bee oy 5 — (29 pe syaweg a “SLISOdad SNOINSDOWOHAT ..d33G.. NO SNOLLVANNOd 3VsUNS YO SINSIDISIIOD LOdHSVG GNV S¥SSINJJILS OINVNAG $'S1 318VL 8861 pub © seyniieied KjeunBouiowu,ayi Jo avoReUIGIIOD UreLIeD 10} ™A/ gO =e pur B/T =A ,2 MOK A WOOD Sb atgeg ul ven sem teu) e0ys yo 2edsyoy snosusBowy © so} 2 ustays0> BuIpuodseuiog eu uRys sew AygeVEAL ae , 9 SUBIDUIB09 SSeIUOISUeLP OW), (af =n) (et<%) =k 2 yev0isog isz 7 > 0) esjodione Kawsuy 425 1040%"9 : ona roy 181 <1 1)711PHAI gy, 20% "9 80 (4)"¥ pue APIS == (i> A/p0 = Pe 19) vo0MIEG UFO +12 ¥08 2/76 Leys >p/T* coe + Leys eP/76 1s ¥02> PIT 7 adap A20}0n on ‘A emya'50 > "A [po =o sous onueus (2), pve. ear" or 9 NJ eI, "72 = H souyou 101 j0 suorssoidxo aut Ssoujis anes aut J U ‘voddns dn en pue p/ 7 ones ss0Uz2pU9 ssouyns lene ong 691882. Foundation Engineering Handbook REFERENCES. ‘Arya, S, O'Neil, M, and Pincus, G. (1979), Design of Structres and Foutdations for Vibrating Machines, Gulf Publ Co. Houston, Texas. Barkan, D. D (1962), Dynamics of Bases and Frandations(tarslated ‘rom Rostian), McGraw-Hill Book Co, Ine, New York, NY. Beredug, Y.O. and Novak, M. (1972) Coupled horizontal and rocking ‘bration of embeded footings, Canadian Gentechnial Jowna, 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 Engncerng, ASCE, 112, pp. 443-457 Booker, JR, Balsam, N. P, and Davis, EH, (1985), The behaviour ‘of an elastic non homogeneous halipace, Parts and Il, Ierational ‘Journal Jor marca and Analytical Methods tn Geomechanics, 9, pp. 353-381 Chom, ¥. K, (1987), Vertical vibration of 3-D rigid foundation on Tavered media, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 18, pp. 585-594 Davies, TG. Sen, R, and Bane, P. K, (1985), Dynamic behavior ‘of pile groups in inhomogeneous soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 11, pp 1635-1679. Dob, Ras Gazetas, G. (1985), Dynamic stitfess and damping of foundations by simple methods, Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ed. G. Gazetas and ET. Selig, ASCE, pp. 77-107. Dob, Rand Gazeta, G, (1988), Simple method for dynamic siness ‘and damping of floating pile groups, Géotechnique, 38 No. 4, pp. 857-574 ‘Dob, R, Gazeias,G., and Stokoe, K, H.11(1986), Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations: Experimental verification, Journal 9} Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112, No.2 pp. 136-103, Drnevich, V. P- (1977), Resonent-column testing” Problems and solutions DyranleGentechnical Testing, ASTM ST POSS 9385-398, Dnevich,V-.( 1985), Recent developments in resonant coldma esting, Richart Commemevatve Lectures, ASCE, pp. 79-108. Flsabee, F. and Morzay 1. P.(1977}, Dynamic Behavior of Embedded Foundations, Research Report R17-33, MIT, Eden, § M, (1974), Influence of shape and embedment of dynamic ‘lndation response, PhD. Thests, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Maseathsets, Ambers. Fotopoulou, Mets. (1989), Rocking damping of actitrarly shaped ‘embeded foundations, Journal of Geotechnical Enginesring, ASCE, 115, pp. 473-450. Gaze, G. (1982), Vibrational characteristics of soil deposits with Variable wave velocity, Intemational Journal of Numerical and “Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 6, pp. 120 ‘Gazrtas,G. (1983), Analysie of machine foundation vibytion: State ‘ofthe art International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2, pp. 2-42, (See aso Ernst i §, No.3 1987) Gazeta, G. (1984), Seismic response of end-baring single piles, “Intemational Journal of Sol Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 3. pp. 82-93, Gazetas,G, (1989), Simple physical methods for foundation impedances, ‘Dynanic Behavior of Foundations and Buried Structures, Eeeviet Applied Since, New York, N.Y. chapter 2, pp. 45-84 ‘Gatas,G, ani Roesset J. M (1976), Forced vibrations ofstrpootings fom layered soil, Methods of Siracural Analysis, ASCE, Vol, pS Gazetas,G. and Roesset, J. M (1979), Vertical vibrations of machine foundations, Jounal of the Geotechnical Engineering Dision, ASCE, 105, pp. 1835-1454, Gazetas, G. and Dobry, R. (1984), Horizontal response of piles in layered soils, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110, pp. 20-4. Gaztas, G. and Selig, E, T1086) (1985), Vibraion Problems in Geotechnical Enginering, ASCE. Gazetas,G, Dobry, Rand Tassoulas, J. L (1985), Vertical response ‘of arbitrarily shaped embedded foundation, Journal of Geotechnical Enginecting ASCE, 111, pp. 750-771 Gazetas, ©. and Tasoulag 1. L (1989), Horizootal stilfess of ‘rbitaly shaped embed foundations, Jounal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113, pp. 0-457, ‘Gazetas, Gand Maki, N.\1990), Dynamic pile-sil-pile interaction, T Analjsis of axial vibration, Earthquake Engineers and Structure Dyrantes, 18 (in pres) Hadjian, A. HL and Luca, J. (1977), On the importance of layering ‘on fapedanee functions, Proceedings, th World Conference on Enrthauake Engineering, New Del Hall J.R-(1985), Limits on dyamicmeasurementsandinstounentation, Richart Commemorative Lectures, ASCE, pp 108-119. Hardin, BO. (1978), The nature of stress-strain Behavior of sis, Earhauae Engincriny and Sol Damies, ASCE, VOLT, p.3-90, Hoar, R'. and Stokoe, K-H. (1978), Generation and measurement of ‘shear wave velocity, Dynamic Geotechnical Tsing, ASTM STP OSS, mi. Jakub, M. and Reesset, 3.4 (1977), Dynamic Stiffiess of Foundations 2D 08 3D Solution, Research Report RT1-36. MC Johnson, G. R, Christiano, P, and Epstein, H, 1 (1975), Stifiness coefcients for embedded footings, Joumal of the Geovechnical Engincerin Distsion, ASCE, 101, pp. 789-400 Keaynia, A. M. and Kause. E. (1982), Dynamic Stiftess and Seismic ‘Response of Pile Groups, Research Report RE203, MIT. ‘aueel E1974), Forced Vibration of Cirelar Fowrdations on Layered Media, Recearcn Report 874-1), MIT. Kausel, E (1981), An Explicit Solution for the Green Function for ‘Dyvanic Loads in Layered Media, Research Report RBI-13, MIT Kaustl E. and Roessei, J. M. (1973), Dynamic stifess of circular Foundations, Journal of th Enginering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 101, 771-78 Kausel, F. and Ushijima, R. (1979), Vertical and Torsional Stifves of Clindrical Footing, Research Report R766, MIT Knox. D. P, Stokoe, &, Ha and Kepperman, &E. (1982), Efet of ‘State of Siess om Velocity of Low Amplitude Shear Wares Along Principal Sires Directions in Dry Sand, Research Report GRB2-13, Univesity of Texas, Austin, Ladd, RS. and Dutko, P. (1985), Smalkstain measurements using taxal apparatus, Adeances inthe ar of Testing Soll Under Ce Conditions, ed. V. Koshla, ASCE, pp. 148-166 Lawrence. FV. (1963), Propagation Velocity of Ulrasonie Waves Through Sand, Research Report R68, MIT: Luca, JF. (1978), Impedance fonctions for rigid foundation on & Tayeted medium, Nuclear Engincerin and Design 31, pp. 204-247 Lace, JE. (1976), Vibrations ofa rigid ise on a layered viscoelastic ‘dium, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 36, pp. 325~340 ‘Lyeo, JE. (1982), Linear sol-structure interaction: A review, Earth= (quake Ground Motion and is Efects on Structures, ASME, AMD, Vol $3, pp. 4t-St Luco,J- Ean Westmana, R.A. (1971), Dynamic response ofcicular Tootings, Journal ofthe Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 97, pp. 1381-1395 Lysier, J. end Kublemeyer.R. L. (1969), Finite dynamic mode! for “afnie medi, Journal othe Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 95, LLysmer, J, Udeka,T, Tsai, C-F_ and See, H.B.(1975), FLUSH—A ompuler program for approximate -D Analysis of Sil-Siruture Ineracion Problems, Report No, FERC 15-30, University of California, Berkeley. Lysmer.J, Tabatabaie R.M., Taian, F, Valdas, S, ant Quadan, F (198i), SASSI S)stemfor Analysis of Soll-Stracture Interaction, Research Report GTSI-02, University of California, Berkey Majer, A. (1980), Dynamics ix Cell Engineering, Akadémica] Kind, Budapest, Volumes I-1V. ‘Meek, J. W. and Velesos, A. 8, (1973), Simple models for foundations ‘inlaeraland rocking motions, Proceedings, Sh World Conference on Earthquake Engincerng, Rome, ager 331 Moore, P-J. (ed) (1985), Analyte and Design of Foundations for Vibrations, A. A. Balkems, Roterdan. Nazarian, $. and Stokoe, K: H. (1983), Use of spectral analysis of ‘surface waves for determination of rroduli and thickneses of pavement systems, Transportation Research Record, No, 954, "Nogami, T-and Kongai. K- (1985), Simple approach for evaluation ‘of sompliance matrix of pile groups, Vibration Problems in Geo technical Enginesring, wh. G.Gazetas. and ET. Seg, ASCE, pp.a7-74 Nogimi,T(1979), Dynamic group effect of multiple ple under verist ‘bration, Proceedings Engincering Mechanics Specialy Conference, ASCE, pp. 750-754 "Novak, M_(1985), Experiments with shallow and deep foundations Vitration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, eG. Guzeas and E Selig ASCE, pp. 1-26 ’ar Novak, M. (3987), Skate af the art in analysis and design of ‘machine foundations, Sol-Structure Interaction, Eleier/CML Publ. New York, N'Y, pp. 171-192. Novak, M, Nogami, T, and Aboul-Flis,F, (1978), Dynamic soil ‘eacHons or pane isin sve, Fownal of he Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 104, pp. 1024-1041 Novi, Mand Sheta, M. (1980), Approximate spproach © contact ets of ples, Dynamic Response af Pile Foundation ed. M, O'Neil fand R. Dobey, ASCE, pp. 33-73, Pais A. and Kasel,E,(1985), Stochastic Response of Foundations, Research Report R8S-S, Dep, of Chl Engineering, MIT. Osaki, Y- and'Twasaki, T, (1973), On dynamic shear moduli and Poisson's ratio of sol aeposis, Suis and Foundations, 18, No. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, EH. (1980), Pile Foundation Analysis and ‘Design, John Wiley and Sons, Ine, New York. NY. Prakash §,and Puri, VK (1988), Foundations for Machines: Analysis ‘and Design, John Wiley snd Sons, Tne, New York, NY. Richart, FE (1978), Foundation vibrations, Foundation Engineering Handbook, tet ein, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. pats 09 Richart F-E, Jr Hall, J. R, Jt, and Wo0ds,R.D.13910), Vibrations of Soll and Foundations, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cli, N Richart, F-E.and Chon, C8. (1977), Notes on stifles and damping ‘ot ple yes, The Ffec of Horizontal Loads on Pls, Session 10, Sth ICSMPF, Tokyo, pp. 125-132 Robertson, RK, Campanella R.G, Gillespie, D, and Riot, A. (1985) Seismic CPT'to measure in-situ shear wave velocity, Measurement and Use of § Wave Veloce, R-D. Woods, ASCE, pp. 35-49, Roesset J-M (1980a),Stiiaes and damping coefcensin foundations, ‘Donic Response of Pie Foundations ed, M.O°Nell and R. Dobry, ASCE, pp. 1-20. Roessei 3. M. (1980), The use of simple models in soll-structure ineracion, Cail Engineering and Nuclear Power, ASCE, No. 1/3, pp. I-28. Sancher Salinero, 1, (1982), Static and Dynamic Sufhesse of Single Piles, Researce Repor GRAL-St, Uaiversity of Texas, Austin ‘Seed, HB. and Idsis, 1. M, (1970), Se Moduli and Damping Factors “for Dynamic Response Analyses, Research Report EERCTO-10, ‘University of California, Berkeley, Sead, HB, Wong R-T. und its, { M. (1984), Modul and damping Tctors for dynamic analyses of cohesoniess soiky Journal of Foundation Vibrations 693 Geotechnical Enginesring, ASCE, 12, pp, 1016-1032, Sicha, K. H. (1980), Field measurement of ynamie soil properties, Cul Engineering and Nuclear Power, Mi, pp.?-1- to 1434 Stokoe, K- Hand Richart F-E (1974) Dynamic response of embedded ‘machine foundations, Journal of the: Geotechnical Engineering Bison, ASCE, 100, No, GT-t pp 427-447, ‘Tassoulas JL (1981), Blemensfor Numeric Analysis of Wave Merion in Layered Medi, Research Report R812, MIT. ‘Tassoulas, JL. (1987), Dynamic sll-seucrre interaction, Boundary Elemen Meshods it Sructural Mechanic, ed. D. Beskos, ASCE. Veleisos, AS. and Wei, Y. T (1991), Lateral and rocking vibrations ‘ol footings, Journal ofthe Soil Mechanics and Foundations Dison, ‘ASCE, 97, No. SM.9, pp. 1227-1248 Voesos, A. S. and Vetbic, B, (1973), Vibration of viscolasic foundations, Earthquake Enginering and Stractral Dynami, 2 pp. 87-102, Velez A, Gazetss, G,, and Krishnan, R, (1983), Lateral dynamic Tespoase of consiiainetshent piles, Journal of Geotechnical Engicering, 108, pp 1063~108) ‘Waas,G.(1972), Analysismethod for footing vibrations through layered ‘media, PhD. Thesis, University of Cabforma, Berkeley Werkle H, and Waas, G.[1986), Dynamic stnesers of foundations ‘on inhomogencous sols, Proceedings, ch European Conference on Earthquake Enginering, Lisbon, 2, pp. 56/1723 ‘Wolf. P. (1985), Dyname Soi- Structure Interaction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli, NJ WoltJ P1988), Soil Structure Interaction Analyst Time Domain, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Chiff, NJ. ‘Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E, (1976), Dynamic response of rigid foundations ofarbitrary shape, Earthquake Engineer a Serta Dynamics, & pp. 79-587 Wong. HL and Luc J. E(1985), Tables of impedance functions for ‘uae foundations on layered media, Sil Dyas and Earthquake Engineering, 4 pp. 64-81 Woods, RD. (1978), Measurement of dynamic soil properties, Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynes, ASCE, 1 ppt Woods, RD, ed. (1985), Measurement and Use of Shear Wave Velocity, "ASCE ‘Woods, R, D. and Stokoe, K. H. (1985), Shallow seismic exploration insti dynamics, Richart Commamoraie Lertres ASCE, pp. 120-158