Control of Nonlinear Vibrations of Foundations Built

in Sandy Soil

MOHAMED ABDEL-ROHMAN
HASAN AL-SANAD
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University,
P.O. Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait

(Received 19 June 1995, accepted 10 October 1995)

Abstract: Sandy soils behave nonlinearly at stress levels below the peak stress. This influences the dynamic
response of the foundations built on sandy soil. This paper shows first the nonlinear vibration response of
a block-type foundation due to the vertical, horizontal, and rocking excitations. The nonlinear vibration

responses are compared with the linear response assuming linear soil behavior. The second part of the paper
shows how to control the harmful effects due to the nonlinear vibrations using passive and active control
mechanisms attached to the foundation.

Key Words: Vibration control, machine foundation, nonlinear dynamic, structural control, control mechanisms

1. INTRODUCTION

The effect of soil nonlinearity on foundation response is a topic of current interest to many
researchers. Fahey and Carter (1993) recognized that the stress-strain behavior of sands is
highly nonlinear even at stresses below the peak strength of sand. Atkinson and Sallfors
( 1991 ) showed that the peak points of cyclic stress strain loops at successively higher stress
amplitude lie on a hyperbolic backbone curve. The same method was used by Barkan
(1962) in constructing the characteristic curve for sandy soil. Borja, Wu, and Allison
(1993) have considered an elasto-viscoplastic, half-space soil model. They found that at
low frequency excitation, resonance is created, which amplifies the response. Nayfeh and
Serhan (1989) considered a nonlinear spring-mass soil model and showed the growth of
the response at the resonant frequencies.
This paper shows first the nonlinear vibration response of a block-type machine foun-
dation due to vertical, horizontal, and rocking excitations, resulting from a machine or
a structure excitation. The nonlinear vibration response considering the nonlinear soil
model is compared with the linear response assuming linear soil behavior. The second
part of the paper shows how to control the harmful effects due to the nonlinear vibrations
using passive and active control mechanisms attached to the foundation.

2. EQUATIONS OF MOTION OF UNCONTROLLED FOUNDATION

The machine or the structure is assumed supported on a block-type foundation as shown
in Figure 1. The dynamic excitations exerted from the machine on the foundations are

53

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
54

Figure 1. Schematic representation of block-type foundation under machine loading.

vertical force P,.(t), horizontal force P.1(t), and rocking moment M,(t). It is assumed that
the center of gravity of the machine-foundation system is located at a distance L from
the foundation base and at a distance y from the point of application of forces. The
equations of motion, considering the nonlinear soil behavior in the vertical direction, can
be obtained from Lagrange equations of motion (Barkan, 1962) and by using Figure 2 as
follows:

where M is the mass of footing including the machine; C,,, Cx, and C~ are the viscous
and geometrical damping of the soil in the vertical, horizontal, and rotational directions,
respectively; KI, K2, and K3 are the soil spring constants determined experimentally
(Abdel-Rohman and Al-Sanad, 1995); y, x, and 0 are, respectively, the vertical, sliding,
and rotational displacements; K1, R2, and K3 are the soil spring constants due to the
nonuniform elastic compression (Barkan, 1962); 14, is the mass moment of inertia taken
about the axis of rotation passing through center of gravity; Cl, Cz, and C3 are constants
resulting from the analysis of the moments due to the reactive nonuniform compression
forces of soil as shown in Figure 3 and given by Ci bh 3/ 12; C2 = bh4/24; and C3 =
=

bh5/80; and CT is a linear spring constant in the horizontal direction.

The nonuniform elastic compressive forces result from the rocking motion. They de-
pend on the nonuniform vertical settlement and the coefficient of elastic nonuniform com-
pression of soil. It is obvious from equations (1-3) that the vertical motion is independent
of the sliding and rocking motions.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
 55

Figure 2. Free body diagram of block-type foundation.

Figure 3. Nonuniform compression due to rocking.

3. EXAMPLE

The machine is assumed to have a mass of 1529.052 kg supported on a concrete foun-

dation of dimensions 4.6 m x 4.6 m and height 2 m as shown in Figure 4. The total
mass of the machine and footing is 10703.36 kg. The soil damping ratio was assumed as
small as 1 % in the vertical, horizontal, and rotational directions to show the effect of soil
nonlinearity. The soil spring constants are determined experimentally as K, = 39.57 x 103
kN/m, K2 = -5,552 x 106 kN/M2, K3 = -22.814 x 109 kN/m3, C, 0.885 x 103 K, =

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
56

Figure 4. Dimensions used in the example.

kN/m, K; 0.0884 K;. The center of gravity of the system is L 1.286 m, yo 3 m;

= = =

y 1.714 m. The mass moment of inertia 1+

= 25.784 x 10=~ kg.M2. The eigenval-
=

ues of the system assuming linear soil behavior (i.e., when K2 = K~ = 0) are obtained
.

as

The first two eigenvalues, ~1, represent the vertical motion, and the other four, ~2, À3,
represent the coupled sliding and rocking motions. The response of the foundation was
analyzed for the following assumed dynamic loadings:

where M is the total mass of the system (105 tons); Qy, Qx, and Qz are, respectively,
the vertical, horizontal, and rotational forced frequencies. However, one may consider
any form of machine unbalanced loads. The equations of motion were solved using the
Interactive simulator (ISIM) software, which is based on Runge-Kutta Algorithm.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
 57

Figure 5. Uncontrolled response of footing in vertical direction.

Figure 6. Uncontrolled response of footing in sliding direction.

Figures 5, 6, and 7 show, respectively, the steady state frequency response of the foun-
dation in the vertical, horizontal, and rocking directions in comparison with the linear
response. It is obvious that the resonant frequencies have advanced to the lower frequency
regions resulting in larger amplitudes than the linear response. In addition, the jump phe-
nomenon is apparent in the nonlinear response and this threatens the safety and efficiency

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
58

Figure 7. Uncontrolled response of footing in rocking direction.

of the machines. Therefore, discovering such effects during the routine monitoring would
require designing control measures for these effects.

4. PASSIVE CONTROL OF MACHINE FOUNDATIONS

Tuned mass dampers (TMD) can be attached to the foundation as shown in Figure 8.
Damper 1 is connected to the foundation using horizontal steel members and dashpots and
used to control the vertical vibrations. Damper 2 is installed using vertical steel members
and dashpots and used for the sliding and rocking motions control. The equations of motion
of the passively controlled system are derived, using Lagrange equations of motion, as

in which mi;, Ki;, and Ct; are, respectively, the mass, linear spring constant, and damping
of damper i; t2 distance between the centroid of the foundation and the centroid of the
=

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
 59

Figure 8. Schematic representation of passive-tuned damper mechanism.

Figure 9. Response of footing in vertical direction with active force applied on foundation block.

damper; 1~ horizontal distance between springs of damper 1; yi distance between

= =

damper 1 centroid and the springs connection; H height of the foundation block. =

The dampers parameters are selected to provide the optimal damping (Abdel-Rohman,
1984). The dampers’ weights are chosen to be each 4% of the machine foundation weight.
The damper 1 natural frequency is chosen to be close from the vertical motion frequency
(Wtl = 60.8 rps). The damper 2 natural frequency is taken Wr2 57 rps, which is in =

between the natural frequencies of rotation and sliding. The damping ratio in each damper
is assumed 12%. Other parameters are assumed as L-0 = 1 m, and t2 = 1.25 m. Table I
shows comparison between the eigenvalues of uncontrolled and passive-controlled footing
using three kinds of damper 2 for w12 = 57 rps, 43 rps, and 93 rps. Figures 9, 10, and 11I
show, respectively, comparison between uncontrolled and passive-controlled responses in
the vertical, sliding, and rocking directions. It is apparent that the vertical response has

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
60

Table I. Eigenvalues of uncontrolled and passive-controlled system.

Figure 10. Response of footing in sliding direction with active force applied on foundation block.

been improved, and the jump phenomenon has disappeared. However, for sliding and
rocking motions, a shift in the response at lower resonant frequency has occurred, and the
peak amplitudes have slightly decreased. Other trials for wi~ 43 rps, and 93 rps indicate =

improvement in the sliding and rocking response for c.~,2 43 rps but not for c~,2 93 rps, = =

as shown in Figures 12-15.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
 61

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
62

Figure 14. Response of footing in sliding direction with active force applied on foundation block.

Figure 15. Response of footing in rocking direction with active force applied on foundation block.

5. ACTIVE CONTROL OF MACHINE FOUNDATION .

Attempting to further improve the dynamic response of the foundation, the effect of active
control mechanisms was studied. Active control forces could be applied directly on the
foundation, as shown in Figure 16, or applied on the tuned mass dampers, as shown in
Figure 17. In the case of applying the active control forces on the foundation block,
equations (6) and (8) become

In the case of applying the active control forces on the dampers, the equations of motion
(7) and (9) become

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
 63

Figure 16. Schematic representation of active control applied on foundation block.

Figure 17. Schematic representation of active control applied on tuned mass damper.

The designof U~,(t) and Ur(t) is based on assuming desired eigenvalues in the vertical,
horizontal, and rotational directions and using the method of pole assignment (Abdel-
Rohman and Leipholz, 1978) to determine expressions for Vy(t) and Ux(t). The linear
equations of motion are expressed in state space form as

where A is a state matrix of dimensions 12 x 12, X is state vector, U is control force vector
of dimension 2 x 1 containing U~,(t) and Ux(t), B is control location matrix of dimension
12 x 2, and F(t) is the force vector of dimension 12 x 1.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
64

Figure 18. Response of footing in vertical direction with active force applied on TMD.

Figure 19. Response of footing in sliding direction with active force applied on TMD.

The control force Uy(t) and Ux(t) are expressed as state feedback control in the
form

Table II shows the values of Ky and Kx for various assumed eigenvalues. Compari-
son between uncontrolled, passive controlled, and active controlled responses are shown
in Figures 9-15 for the control forces applied on the foundation block, and in Fig-
ures 18-24 for the control forces applied on the dampers. It is observed that active
control forces, if designed properly, could extremely minimize the foundation dynamic
response.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
 65

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
66

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
 67

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015
68

6. CONCLUSIONS

The nonlinear behavior of sand affects the foundations response due to dynamic loading.
The nonlinearity induces a response larger than the linear response at low frequency
excitations. One can control the nonlinear response by attaching tuned mass dampers to
the foundations. The parameters of the dampers should properly be designed to provide
acceptable results at all forcing frequencies. When passive control is not able to provide
satisfactory results, active control could also be used. The design of active control forces
is based on using the principles of control theory to ensure the stability and safety of the
controlled system. Active control, if designed properly, can provide the least possible
dynamic response.
Acknowledgment. This research was furtded by the research administration of Kuwait University under Grant
No. EV058. , i.

_
,~
,

REFERENCES
Abdel-Rohman, M., 1984, "Design of active TMD for buildings control," International Journal of Buildings and Environ-
ment 19
(3), 191-195.
Abdel-Rohman, M. and AI-Sanad, H., 1995, "Control of vertical nonlinear vibrations of foundations," Proceedings of
the 3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
St. Louis, Missouri, April 2-7, 807-810.
Abdel-Rohman, M. and Leipholz, H. H., 1978, "Structural control by pole assignment method," Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 104, 1159-1175.
Atkinson, J. H. and Sallfors, G., 1991, "Experimental determination of stress-strain time characteristics in laboratory and
in situ tests," Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation 3, Florence, Italy, May
26-30, 915-956.
Barkan, D. D., 1962, Dynumic of Bases and Foundations, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Borja, R., Wu, W., and Allison, S. H., 1993, "Nonlinear response of vertically oscillating rigid foundations," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 119(5), 893-910.
Fahey, M. and Carter, J. P., 1993, "A finite element study of the pressuremeter test in sand using a nonlinear elastic plastic
model," Canadian Geotechnical Journal 30, 348-362.
Nayfeh, A. H. and Serhan, S. J., 1989, "Nonlinear vertical vibration of machine foundations," Journal of Geotechnical
(1), 56-74.
Engineering 115

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on May 24, 2015