This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

**Dynamic Response of Machine Foundation on Layered Soil:
**

Cone Model Versus Experiments

P. K. Pradhan Æ A. Mandal Æ D. K. Baidya Æ

D. P. Ghosh

Received: 21 May 2006 / Accepted: 24 February 2008 / Published online: 22 March 2008

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This paper presents the experimental

validation of analytical solution based on cone model

for machine foundation vibration analysis on layered

soil. Impedance functions for a rigid massless circular

foundation resting on a two layered soil system

subjected to vertical harmonic excitation are found

using cone model. Linear hysteretic material damping

is introduced using correspondence principle. The

frequency-amplitude response of a massive founda-

tion is then computed using impedance functions. To

verify the solution ﬁeld experiments are conducted in

two different layered soil systems such as gravel layer

over in situ soil and gravel layer over concrete slab

(rigid base). A total 72 numbers of vertical vibration

tests on square model footing were conducted using

Lazan type mechanical oscillator, varying the inﬂuenc-

ing parameters such as depth of top layer, static weight

of foundation and dynamic force level. The frequency-

amplitude response in general and in particular the

resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes predicted

by cone model is compared with the results of

experimental investigation, which shows a close agree-

ment. Thus the cone model is reliable in its application

to machine foundation vibration on layered soil.

Keywords Cone model Á In-situ test Á

Layered soil Á Machine foundation Á

Resonant amplitude Á Resonant frequency Á

Wave propagation

Notations

a

0

Dimensionless frequency (xr

0

/c

s

)

B Nondimensional modiﬁed mass ratio

b

0

Nondimensional mass ratio

c, c

0

Appropriate wave velocity in top and bottom

soil layers respectively

c(a

0

) Normalized damping coefﬁcient

c

p

, c

0

p

Dilatational wave velocity in top and bottom

soil layers, respectively

c

s

c

0

s

Shear wave velocity in top and bottom soil

layers respectively

d Depth of the soil layer

G, G

0

Shear modulus of top and bottom soil layers

respectively

K Static stiffness coefﬁcient on homogeneous

half-space

P. K. Pradhan (&)

Department of Civil Engineering, University College

of Engineering, Burla 768018, India

e-mail: pkpradhan1@yahoo.co.in

A. Mandal Á D. K. Baidya Á D. P. Ghosh

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute

of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India

A. Mandal

e-mail: anirbanmandal@mailcity.com

D. K. Baidya

e-mail: baidya@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in

D. P. Ghosh

e-mail: dpg@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in

123

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

DOI 10.1007/s10706-008-9181-8

"

Kða

0

Þ Dynamic impedance

k(a

0

) Normalized stiffness coefﬁcient

m Mass of the foundation or total vibrating

mass (mass of foundation plus machine) in

case of machine foundation

m

e

Unbalanced mass (on machine)

Dm Trapped mass

P

0

Harmonic interaction force

Q Harmonic force on foundation

|Q| Force amplitude on the foundation

r

0

Radius of circular foundation or radius of

equivalent circle for non circular foundation

u Harmonic displacement for the layered soil

at depth z

u

0

Harmonic surface displacement for the

layered soil

"u Harmonic displacement at depth z for

homogeneous half-space

"u

0

Harmonic surface displacement for

homogeneous half-space

|u

0

| Displacement amplitude for the layered soil

Greeks

h Angle for setting eccentricity in the oscillator

x Circular frequency of excitation

l Trapped mass coefﬁcient

n,

n

0

Hysteretic material damping ratio of top and

bottom soil layers respectively

q,

q

0

Mass density of top and bottom soil layers

respectively

m, m

0

Poisson’s ratio of top and bottom soil layers

respectively

1 Introduction

The determination of resonant frequency and reso-

nant amplitude of foundations has been a subject of

considerable interest in the recent years, in relation to

the design of machine foundations. One of the key

steps in the current methods of dynamic analysis of a

foundation soil system to predict resonant frequency

and amplitude under machine type loading is to

estimate the dynamic impedance functions of an

‘associated’ rigid but massless foundation, using a

suitable method of dynamic analysis. Over the years a

number of methods have been developed for foun-

dation vibration analysis, the extensive reviews of

which are presented in Gazetas (1983).

The cone model was originally developed by

Ehlers (1942) to represent a surface disk under

translational motions and later for rotational motion

(Meek and Veletsos 1974; Veletsos and Nair 1974).

By comparison to rigorous solutions, the cone models

originally appeared to be such an oversimpliﬁcation

of reality that they were used primarily to obtain

qualitative insight. For example, the surprising fact

that the cones are dynamically equivalent to an

interconnection of a small number of masses, springs,

and dashpots with frequency-independent coefﬁcients

encouraged a number of researchers to match discrete

element representation of exact solutions in fre-

quency domain by curve ﬁtting (Veletsos and Verbic

1973; Wolf and Somaini 1986; de Barros and Luco

1990). Proceeding in another direction, Gazetas

(1987); Gazetas and Dobry (1984) employed wedges

and cones to elucidate the phenomenon of radiation

damping in two and three dimensions. Later Meek

and Wolf (1992a) presented a simpliﬁed methodol-

ogy to evaluate the dynamic response of a base mat

on the surface of a homogeneous half-space. The

cone model concept was extended to a layered cone

to compute the dynamic response of a footing or a

base mat on a soil layer resting on a rigid rock, Meek

and Wolf (1992b) and on ﬂexible rock, Wolf and

Meek (1993). Meek and Wolf (1994) performed

dynamic analysis of embedded footings by idealizing

the soil as a translated cone instead of elastic half-

space. Wolf and Meek (1994) have found out the

dynamic stiffness coefﬁcients of foundations resting

on or embedded in a horizontally layered soil using

cone frustums. Also Jaya and Prasad (2002) studied

the dynamic stiffness of embedded foundations in

layered soil using the same cone frustums. The major

drawback of cone frustums method as reported by

Wolf and Meek (1994) is that the damping coefﬁcient

can become negative at lower frequency, which is

physically impossible. Pradhan et al. (2003, 2004)

have computed dynamic impedance of circular foun-

dation resting on layered soil using wave propagation

in cones, which overcomes the drawback of the above

cone frustum method. The details of the use of cone

models in foundation vibration analysis are summa-

rized in Wolf (1994) and Wolf and Deeks (2004).

During the last 30 years signiﬁcant developments

has been made in the analytical solutions to the

problems of foundation vibration. But the experi-

mental veriﬁcation of such theories remains essential

454 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

prerequisite for their adoption and reliable applica-

tion in practice. Attempts have been taken in the past

to verify theoretical solutions by conducting labora-

tory or ﬁeld tests (Sridharan et al. 1990; Crouse et al.

1990; Gazetas and Stokoe II 1991; Baidya and

Muralikrishna 2001; Baidya and Sridharan 2002;

Mandal and Baidya 2004; Baidya and Rathi 2004).

Gazetas and Stokoe II (1991) have stated different

types of experimental investigation citing their

advantages and limitations. In the above paper the

researchers have recommended to use the results of

case studies and ﬁeld experiments for the purpose

taking in to consideration the complexities of the soil

medium.

For foundation vibration analyses simple models,

which ﬁt the size and economics of the project and

require no sophisticated computer code are better

suited. For instance the cone models, which provide

conceptual clarity with physical insight and is easier for

the practicing engineers to follow. To the best of

authors’ knowledge no literature is available with

regard to the experimental veriﬁcation of cone model

for its reliable application to the analysis of foundation

vibration. Hence in the present study it is proposed to

verify the applicability of cone model for layered soil to

the problem of machine foundation vibration. A total

72 numbers of ﬁeld tests are conducted on two different

layered soil systems with variation of inﬂuencing

parameters. The model predicted frequency-amplitude

response is thoroughly compared with the results of

ﬁeld tests. In particular, the predicted resonant fre-

quencies and resonant amplitudes are compared

quantitatively with experimental results.

2 Problem Statement

A rigid massless circular foundation of radius r

0

resting on a two-layered soil system is addressed for

vertical degree of freedom (Fig. 1). The top layer

with depth d has the shear modulus G, Poisson’s ratio

m, mass density q and hysteretic damping ratio n. The

underlying half-space has the shear modulus G

0

,

Poisson’s ratio m

0

, mass density q

0

and hysteretic

damping ratio n

0

. The interaction force P

0

and the

corresponding displacement u

0

are assumed to be

harmonic. The layer interface can also be considered

ﬁxed. The dynamic impedance of the massless

foundation (disk) is expressed by

"

Kða

0

Þ ¼

P

0

u

0

¼ K½kða

0

Þ þ ia

0

cða

0

Þ ð1Þ

where

"

Kða

0

Þ ¼ dynamic impedance, k(a

0

) = normal-

ized spring coefﬁcient, c(a

0

) = normalized damping

coefﬁcient, a

0

= xr

0

/c

s

, dimensionless frequency

with c

s

¼

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

G=q

_

, shear wave velocity of the top

layer and K = 4Gr

0

/(1-m), static stiffness coefﬁcient

of the disk on homogeneous half-space with material

properties of the top layer.

Using the equations of dynamic equilibrium, the

dynamic displacement amplitude of the foundation

with mass m and subjected to a vertical harmonic

force Q is expressed as

u

0

j j ¼

Q

K½kða

0

Þ þ ia

0

cða

0

Þ À Ba

2

0

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

ð2Þ

Where |u

0

| = dynamic displacement amplitude under

the foundation resting on layered soil, |Q| = force

amplitude, B ¼

1Àm

4

b

0

, the modiﬁed mass ratio with

b

0

¼

m

qr

3

0

, the mass ratio.

In general, |Q| can be assumed to be constant or

equal to m

e

ex

2

which is generated by the eccentric

rotating part in machine, where m

e

is the eccentric

mass, e is the eccentricity and x is the circular

frequency.

3 Wave Propagation in Cones

Figure 2a shows wave propagation in cones beneath

the disk of radius r

0

resting on a two-layered soil

under vertical harmonic excitation, P

0

. The dilata-

tional waves emanate beneath the disk and propagate

G ρ ν ξ

d

0

r

Massless circular

foundation

0

u

0

P

G′ ρ′ ν′ ξ′

Half-space

Fig. 1 Massless foundation on layered soil under vertical

harmonic interaction force

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 455

123

at velocity c equal to the dilatational wave velocity c

p

for m B 1/3 and twice the shear wave velocity, c

s

for

1/3 \m B 1/2. These waves reﬂect back and forth at

layer interface and free surface, spreading and

decreasing in amplitude. Let the displacement of

the (truncated semi-inﬁnite) cone be denoted as " u

with the value "u

0

under the disk Fig. 2b, modeling a

disk with same load P

0

on a homogeneous half-space

with the material properties of the top layer. The

parameters of cone model shown in Fig. 2b are given

in Table 1. This displacement "u

0

is used to generate

the displacement of the layer u with its value at

surface, u

0

. Thus, "u

0

can also be called as the

generating function. The ﬁrst downward wave prop-

agating in a cone with apex 1 (height z

0

and radius of

base r

0

), which may be called as the incident wave

and its cone will be the same as that of the half-space,

as the wave generated beneath the disk does not know

if at a speciﬁc depth an interface is encountered or

not. Thus the aspect ratio deﬁned by the ratio of the

height of cone to the radius of the disk (z

0

/r

0

) is made

equal for cone of the half-space and ﬁrst cone of the

layered soil. Since the incident wave and subsequent

reﬂected waves propagate in the same medium (top

layer), the aspect ratio of the corresponding cones

will be same. Thus knowing the height of the ﬁrst

cone, from the geometry, the height of other cones

corresponding to subsequent upward and downward

reﬂected waves are found as shown in Fig. 2a. The

displacement amplitude of the incident wave propa-

gating in a cone with apex 1, which is inversely

proportional to the distance from the apex of the cone

and expressed in frequency domain as

"uðz; xÞ ¼

z

0

z

0

þ z

e

Àix

z

c

"u

0

ðxÞ ð3Þ

The displacement of the incident wave at layer

interface equals

"uðd; xÞ ¼

z

0

z

0

þ d

e

Àix

d

c

"u

0

ðxÞ ð4Þ

Enforcing a reﬂection coefﬁcient –a(x) at the inter-

face, the displacement of the ﬁrst reﬂected upward

wave propagating in a cone with apex 2 (vide Fig. 2a)

equals

Àa

z

0

z

0

þ 2d À z

e

Àix

2dÀz

c

ð Þ

"u

0

ðxÞ ð5Þ

At the free surface the displacement of the upward

wave derived by substituting z = 0 in Eq. 5 equals

Àa

z

0

z

0

þ 2d

e

Àix

2d

c

ð Þ

"u

0

ðxÞ ð6Þ

Enforcing compatibility of the amplitude and of

elapsed time of the reﬂected wave’s displacement at

the free surface, the displacement of the downward

wave propagating in a cone with apex 3 is obtained as

Àa

z

0

z

0

þ 2d þ z

e

Àix

2dþz

c

ð Þ

"u

0

ðxÞ ð7Þ

Inthis pattern the waves propagate intheir owncones and

their corresponding displacements are found. The result-

ing displacement in the layer is obtained by superposing

all the downandupwaves (uptojthimpingement at layer

interface) and is expressed in the following form

uðz; xÞ ¼

z

0

e

Àix

z

c

z

0

þ z

"u

0

ðxÞ þ

1

j¼1

ðÀaÞ

j

z

0

e

Àix

2jdÀz

c

ð Þ

z

0

þ 2jd À z

þ

z

0

e

Àix

2jdþz

c

ð Þ

z

0

þ 2jd þ z

_ _"u

0

ðxÞ ð8Þ

At the free surface the displacement of the foundation

is obtained by setting z = 0 in Eq. 8 as

u

0

ðxÞ ¼ uðz ¼ 0; xÞ

¼ "u

0

ðxÞ þ 2

1

j¼1

ðÀaÞ

j

1 þ

2jd

z

0

e

Àix

2jd

c

"u

0

ðxÞ ð9Þ

u

0

ðxÞ ¼

1

j¼0

E

F

j

e

Àix

2jd

c

"u

0

ðxÞ ð10Þ

with E

F

0

¼ 1 ð11aÞ

and for j !1; E

F

j

¼

2ðÀaÞ

j

1 þ

2jd

z

0

ð11bÞ

E

j

F

can be called as echo constant, the inverse of

sum of which at x = 0 gives the static stiffness of the

layered soil normalized by the static stiffness of the

homogeneous half-space with material properties of

the top layer.

3.1 Reﬂection—Refraction at Layer Interface

The waves occurring at layer interface are addressed

in Fig. 3. In the frequency domain the incident wave

f(x) propagating downwards in the cone with apex 1

(material properties of top layer: c appropriate wave

456 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

velocity, and q mass density), yields a reﬂected wave

g(x) propagating upwards in cone segment with apex

3 (same material properties of top layer c, q) and a

refracted wave h(x) propagating downwards in the

cone with apex 2 (material properties of lower half-

space c

0

, q

0

). Based on wave propagation in beams

with varying area reﬂection coefﬁcient –a(x) for the

translational cone is given by

ÀaðxÞ ¼

gðxÞ

f ðxÞ

¼

qc

2

z

0

þd

À

q

0

c

02

z

0

0

þ ixðqc À q

0

c

0

Þ

qc

2

z

0

þd

þ

q

0

c

02

z

0

0

þ ixðqc þ q

0

c

0

Þ

ð12Þ

z

0

+(2j-1)d

z

0

+ 2jd

2j

2j+1

z

0

+ d

z

0

+ 3d

d

4

2

1

3

z

0

z

0

+ 2d

r0

P0

u0

u

z

∞

z

u0

u

P0

r0

z

0

1

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2 (a) Wave

propagation in cones for

layered soil, (b) Cone

model for the half-space

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 457

123

where; hðxÞ ¼ ð1 À aðxÞÞf ðxÞ ð13Þ

Under special case when the layer interface is

ﬁxed, i.e. the lower layer is perfectly rigid, no

refracted wave is created, and reﬂected wave is equal

to the incident wave with a change in sign. Thus,

setting c

0

= ? in Eq. 12 yields

ÀaðxÞ ¼ À1 ð14Þ

which leads to

gðxÞ ¼ Àf ðxÞ ð15Þ

hðxÞ ¼ 0 ð16Þ

Analogously, when the interface corresponds to a

free surface (c

0

= 0)

ÀaðxÞ ¼ þ1 ð17Þ

leading to

gðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ ð18Þ

3.2 Dynamic Impedance

The interaction force displacement relationship for a

massless disk resting on homogeneous half-space

using the cone model can be written as

P

0

ðxÞ ¼ ðK ÀDmx

2

þ ixCÞ"u

0

ðxÞ ð19Þ

where, K - Dmx

2

= spring coefﬁcient and

C = dashpot coefﬁcient Dm is the trapped mass and

is given by

Dm ¼ lqr

3

0

ð20Þ

with trapped mass coefﬁcient l, the values of which

recommended by Wolf (1994) are given in Table 1.

The trapped mass Dm is introduced in order to match

the stiffness coefﬁcient of the cone model with

rigorous solutions for incompressible soil i.e., 1/

3 \m B 1/2, Wolf (1994). After simpliﬁcation Eq. 19

reduces to the form

P

0

ðxÞ ¼ K 1 À

l

p

z

0

r

0

c

2

x

2

þ ix

z

0

c

_ _

"u

0

ðxÞ ð21Þ

Using Eq. 10 in Eq. 21, the interaction force

displacement relationship for the layered soil system

reduces to

P

0

ðxÞ ¼ K

1 À

l

p

z

0

r

0

c

2

x

2

þ ix

z

0

c

1

j¼0

E

F

j

e

Àix

2jd

c

ð Þ

u

0

ðxÞ ð22Þ

Substituting echo constant given by Eq. 11 in Eq. 22,

the dynamic impedance equals

"

KðxÞ ¼

P

0

ðxÞ

u

0

ðxÞ

¼ K

1 À

l

p

z

0

r

0

c

2

x

2

þ ix

z

0

c

1 þ 2

1

j¼1

ðÀaÞ

j

1þ

2jd

z

0

e

Àix

2jd

c

ð Þ

ð23Þ

In the expression of the dynamic impedance

"

KðxÞ

given by Eq. 23, the summation of series over jis

worked out up to a ﬁnite term as the displacement

amplitude of the waves vanish after a ﬁnite number of

Table 1 Parameters of semi-inﬁnite cone modeling a disk on

homogeneous half-space under vertical motion, Wolf (1994)

Cone parameters Parameter expressions

Aspect ratio

z0

r

0

p

4

ð1 À mÞ

c

c

s

_ _

2

Static stiffness coefﬁcient K

qc

2

ðpr

2

0

Þ

z

0

Normalized spring coefﬁcient k(a

0

) 1 À

l

p

z

0

r

0

c

2

s

c

2

a

2

0

Normalized damping coefﬁcient c(a

0

)

z

0

r

0

c

s

c

Dimensionless frequency a

0

xr

0

c

s

Coefﬁcient l for trapped mass

contribution

l = 0 for m B 1/3

l ¼ 2:4p m À

1

3

_ _

for

1/3 \m B 1/2

Appropriate wave velocity c c = c

p

for m B 1/3

c = 2c

s

for

1/3 \m B 1/2

where, c

p

¼ c

s

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

2ð1ÀmÞ

1À2m

_

Half-space

(c′, ρ′)

g

h

Free surface

Layer (c, ρ)

Interface

f

1

2

3

d

z

0

z

0+d

z

0

′

Fig. 3 Incident, reﬂected and refracted waves at layer interface

458 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

impingement. Numerically j is terminated at a value,

such that E

F

jþ1

À E

F

j

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸ 0:01 .

4 Experimental Program

In the present study the effect of layering on the

dynamic response of foundation soil system is pro-

posed to investigate experimentally. Vertical vibration

tests using mechanical oscillator (Lazan Type) on

various depths of top layer with different static

weights, W and different dynamic force level (eccen-

tric settings in oscillator, h) are conducted. Detailed

programof the study is presented in Table 2 and Fig. 4.

Table 2 presents the various depths of top layer and the

dynamic force level considered in the investigation

whereas Fig. 4 shows two different test conditions.

4.1 Test Pit

To simulate the condition of proposed soil layering in

the investigation only choice is to conduct the test in a

tank or a pit of ﬁnite dimension. In the laboratory

tests, an optimization is needed between tank and

footing size to minimize the effects caused by

restricting lateral boundary. In spite of this, it is very

difﬁcult to simulate the ﬁeld conditions in the

laboratory. In order to overcome the limitations of

laboratory tests, the authors are inspired to conduct the

ﬁeld tests. Present investigation is carried out in a pit,

excavated at the adjoining area of S.R. Sengupta

Foundation Engineering Laboratory, Indian Institute

of Technology, Kharagpur which is sufﬁciently larger

(width is 5 times the width of the footing) than that

required for the static condition. The density of in situ

soil is approximately equal to 18.0 kN/m

3

. Suitability

of the dimensions of the pit with respect to the size of

the footing for possible boundary effects is consid-

ered. The side of the pit is made of local soil of density

18.0 kN/m

3

and moisture content is around 11% and

is expected to be extending up to inﬁnite distance.

4.2 Material Properties

The density of the gravel used in this test is 17.2 kN/

m

3

and frictional angle from direct shear test is 49°.

The relative density of the gravel achieved in this

experiment was 85%. The study of grain size

distribution of the soil at the pit site indicated sand

(30%), silt (61%) and clay (9%). Liquid limit, plastic

limit, and shrinkage limit of the site soil were 36%,

23%, and 12%, respectively. Experimental values of

dynamic shear modulus of both gavel and the in situ

soil at different static and dynamic loading conditions

are given in Table 3.

4.3 Preparation of Layers

4.3.1 Series I

The in situ soil is excavated from the top in steps of

200 mm. The excavated surface of the soil is then

leveled. Each time the total depth of pit is replaced by

locally available gravel. Thus, six different depths of

top gravel layer (400 mm, 600 mm, 800 mm,

1,000 mm, 1,200 mm, and 1,400 mm) are prepared.

Table 2 Details of ﬁeld tests

Depth of top gravel

layer (d) in mm

Total number of tests considering all

variables

400 For each depth of top gravel layer tests

are conducted at two static weights,

8.0 kN and 10.0 kN and three

eccentric settings, 12°, 16°, 20° for

each static weight). Hence, total

number of tests is 72 being 36 on

each series

600

800

1000

1200

1400

d

Gravel

Natural soil

Series I

Gravel

Rigid base

Series II

d

Fig. 4 Different layered-soil systems

Table 3 Shear modulus values for gravel and in situ soil

Static

weights (kN)

Eccentric

setting (h)

Shear modulus (G) MN/m

2

Gravel In situ soil

8.0 12° 21.36 17.26

16° 20.87 16.41

20° 20.25 16.26

10.0 12° 25.84 19.07

16° 22.98 18.56

20° 21.11 17.96

Note: m

soil

= 0.3 and c

soil

= 18.0 kN/m

3

; m

gravel

= 0.25 and

c

gravel

= 17.2 kN/m

3

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 459

123

To maintain a uniform condition throughout the test

program, the pit is ﬁlled in steps of 200 mm thick

layer of gravel and each layer is compacted using a

plate vibrator (250 N static weights and vibrating at a

frequency of 3,000 rpm) by constant compactive

effort to achieve a density of approximately 17.2 kN/

m

3

. Calculated amount of dry gravel for 200 mm

depth maintaining uniform density (17.2 kN/m

3

) is

poured and compacted to bring it to 200 mm. Thus,

gravel layers of six different thicknesses are prepared

over in situ soil according to the experimental

program given in Table 2.

4.3.2 Series II

The test pit is excavated up to 1,700 mm depth. At

the base a 300 mm PCC concrete slab is cast to

represent rigid base. After casting and curing of

concrete slab the gravel layer is placed. The different

depths of gravel layers are prepared over rigid base as

per experimental program. Necessary steps have been

taken to maintain the uniform density through out the

test. The tests are conducted on the level surface of

each layer.

4.4 Experimental Procedure

A model concrete footing of size 400 9 400

9 100 mm and a ‘Lazan type’ mechanical oscillator

are used to conduct model block vibration test in

vertical mode. The concrete footing is ﬁrst placed

centrally over the prepared gravel layer. A rigid mild

steel plate is tightly ﬁxed on the concrete footing to

facilitate load-ﬁxing arrangement. Oscillator is then

placed over the plate and a number of mild steel

ingots are placed on the top of the oscillator to

provide required static weight. Sufﬁcient rubber

packing between two ingots is given for tight ﬁxing.

The whole set-up is then tightened to act as a single

unit during vibration. Proper care is taken to maintain

the center of gravity of whole system and the footing

to lie in the same vertical line. In this investigation,

8.0 and 10.0 kN static weights are used to simulate

two different foundation weights and under each

static weight three different eccentric settings

(h = 12°, 16°, and 20°) are used to simulate three

different dynamic force level. The frequency

dependent dynamic force amplitude in N was

expressed by

m

e

ex

2

¼

W

e

e

g

x

2

¼

0:9 sinðh=2Þ

g

x

2

ð24Þ

The oscillator is connected through a ﬂexible shaft

to a variable DC motor (3 H.P. frequency range up to

3000 rpm). A B&K piezoelectric-type vibration

pickup (type 4370) is placed on top of the footing to

measure the displacement amplitude with the B&K

vibration meter (type 2511). Figure 5 shows the

schematic diagram of the experimental set-up. The

oscillator is then run slowly through a motor using

speed control unit to avoid sudden application of high

magnitude dynamic load. Thus the foundation is

subjected to vibration in the vertical direction. Photo

tachometer and vibration meter recorded frequency

Motor

Vibration

meter

Static

weight

Mechanical

oscillator

Speed

control unit

Shaft

Rigid base to

simulate bedrock

Topsoil layer:

varying thickness

1.7m

0.3m

Fig. 5 Experimental set-up

460 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

Table 4 Comparison of

resonant frequencies and

resonant amplitudes for

gravel layer over rigid

base—static weight =

8.0 kN

Depth

(mm)

Depth ratio

(d/r

0

)

h

(degree)

Resonant

frequency (Hz)

Diff.

(%)

Resonant

amplitude (mm)

Diff.

(%)

Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.

400 1.77 12 31.40 36.25 15.44 0.16 0.20 25.00

16 30.53 35.83 17.35 0.20 0.27 35.00

20 29.83 35.41 18.71 0.23 0.33 43.47

600 2.66 12 29.38 33.33 13.44 0.21 0.12 -42.85

16 28.81 32.91 14.22 0.21 0.16 -23.80

20 28.60 32.50 13.63 0.23 0.20 -13.04

800 3.54 12 29.08 30.41 4.58 0.25 0.14 -44.00

16 28.33 30.00 5.88 0.30 0.20 -33.33

20 27.93 29.58 5.90 0.34 0.23 -32.35

1,000 4.43 12 28.40 29.58 4.16 0.19 0.11 -42.10

16 28.02 29.58 5.59 0.28 0.15 -46.42

20 27.78 29.16 4.97 0.30 0.24 -20.00

1,200 5.32 12 28.21 27.91 -1.06 0.25 0.12 -52.00

16 27.90 27.91 0.06 0.24 0.16 -33.33

20 27.48 27.50 0.06 0.32 0.26 -18.75

1,400 6.20 12 28.10 26.66 -5.10 0.21 0.11 -47.61

16 27.73 26.25 -5.34 0.23 0.15 -34.78

20 27.30 26.25 -3.84 0.32 0.22 -31.25

Table 5 Comparison of

resonant frequencies and

resonant amplitudes for

gravel layer over rigid

base—static

weight = 10.0 kN

Depth

(mm)

Depth ratio

(d/r

0

)

h

(degree)

Resonant

frequency (Hz)

Diff.

(%)

Resonant

amplitude (mm)

Diff.

(%)

Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.

400 1.77 12 31.18 35.00 12.23 0.08 0.10 25.00

16 30.21 32.92 8.93 0.12 0.13 8.33

20 29.15 31.67 8.63 0.16 0.16 0.00

600 2.66 12 28.51 32.50 13.96 0.10 0.14 40.00

16 27.68 30.83 11.37 0.12 0.17 41.66

20 26.81 29.58 10.31 0.14 0.20 42.85

800 3.54 12 28.15 30.00 6.57 0.16 0.10 -37.50

16 27.50 28.33 3.03 0.19 0.14 -26.31

20 26.55 27.08 2.01 0.24 0.17 -29.16

1,000 4.43 12 27.91 29.58 5.97 0.13 0.11 -15.38

16 26.36 27.92 5.87 0.15 0.15 0.00

20 26.10 26.67 2.17 0.22 0.18 -18.18

1,200 5.32 12 27.76 28.33 2.04 0.12 0.10 -16.67

16 26.18 26.67 1.84 0.15 0.14 -6.67

20 25.10 25.41 1.26 0.22 0.18 -18.18

1,400 6.20 12 27.63 27.08 -1.99 0.11 0.10 -9.09

16 26.03 25.41 -2.36 0.15 0.14 -6.67

20 24.95 25.41 1.87 0.21 0.17 -19.05

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 461

123

Table 6 Comparison of

resonant frequencies and

resonant amplitudes for

gravel layer over in situ

soil—static

weight = 8.0 kN

Depth

(mm)

Depth ratio

(d/r

0

)

h

(degree)

Resonant

frequency (Hz)

Diff.

(%)

Resonant

amplitude (mm)

Diff.

(%)

Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.

400 1.77 12 27.52 29.50 7.20 0.073 0.050 -31.50

16 27.03 29.16 7.89 0.083 0.060 -27.71

20 26.81 29.16 8.76 0.093 0.080 -13.97

600 2.66 12 28.28 29.83 5.48 0.077 0.052 -32.46

16 27.98 29.50 5.41 0.087 0.068 -21.83

20 27.25 29.16 7.03 0.100 0.084 -16.00

800 3.54 12 27.78 30.00 7.97 0.077 0.054 -29.87

16 27.21 29.66 9.00 0.093 0.070 -24.73

20 26.85 29.33 9.24 0.077 0.086 11.68

1,000 4.43 12 28.01 30.00 7.07 0.080 0.054 -32.50

16 27.30 29.66 8.66 0.093 0.072 -22.58

20 27.05 29.33 8.44 0.107 0.090 -15.88

1,200 5.32 12 28.25 29.83 5.60 0.083 0.056 -32.53

16 27.80 29.66 6.71 0.100 0.074 -26.00

20 27.08 29.16 7.69 0.107 0.092 -14.01

1,400 6.20 12 28.16 29.66 5.32 0.080 0.054 -32.50

16 27.61 29.50 6.81 0.097 0.072 -25.77

20 27.18 29.00 6.68 0.100 0.088 -12.00

Table 7 Comparison of

resonant frequencies and

resonant amplitudes for

gravel layer over in situ

soil—static

weight = 10.0 kN

Depth

(mm)

Depth ratio

(d/r

0

)

h

(degree)

Resonant

frequency (Hz)

Diff.

(%)

Resonant

amplitude (mm)

Diff.

(%)

Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.

400 1.77 12 27.05 28.50 5.36 0.050 0.040 -20.00

16 26.85 27.00 0.56 0.067 0.056 -16.42

20 26.42 25.83 -2.21 0.080 0.072 -10.00

600 2.66 12 27.38 29.00 5.90 0.053 0.042 -20.75

16 26.68 27.33 2.43 0.063 0.060 -4.76

20 25.58 26.16 2.28 0.070 0.074 5.71

800 3.54 12 27.22 29.33 7.78 0.050 0.044 -12.00

16 27.00 27.50 1.85 0.060 0.060 0.00

20 26.08 26.33 0.96 0.073 0.076 4.11

1,000 4.43 12 27.18 29.50 8.52 0.057 0.046 -19.30

16 27.08 27.67 2.15 0.067 0.062 -7.46

20 26.42 26.33 -0.31 0.080 0.078 -2.50

1,200 5.32 12 27.28 29.33 7.51 0.060 0.048 -20.00

16 27.03 27.50 1.73 0.070 0.064 -8.57

20 25.72 26.33 2.39 0.080 0.080 0.00

1,400 6.20 12 27.17 29.33 7.97 0.057 0.048 -15.79

16 26.87 27.33 1.74 0.067 0.060 -10.45

20 25.85 26.17 1.23 0.077 0.074 -3.89

462 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

and corresponding displacement amplitude of vibra-

tion respectively. To obtain a foundation response and

locate the resonant peak correctly, the displacement

amplitudes are noted at a frequency interval approx-

imately of 25 to 50 rpm.

A sufﬁcient time between two successive mea-

surements has been given to reach equilibrium, which

facilitates accurate measurement of frequency and the

corresponding displacement amplitude. The displace-

ment amplitude corresponding to each frequency is

recorded and the response curves are plotted for

different layered systems under various static and

dynamic loading conditions.

5 Cone Model versus Experiment

The frequency-amplitude response for all the cases

mentioned in Table 2 are computed using the

solutions of cone model. The experimental values

of dynamic shear modulus given in Table 3 are used

in the above computation. Material damping ratio 2%

and 1% was assumed for top gravel layer and bottom

in situ soil respectively. The predicted resonant

frequencies and resonant amplitudes are compared

quantitatively with respective experimental values,

which are presented in Tables 4–7 and Figs. 6 and 7.

The comparison of resonant frequencies for gravel

layer over concrete rigid base (series II) shows a

difference of -5% to 19% under static weight 8.0 kN

and -2% to 14% under static weight 10.0 kN

(Tables 4 and 5). The maximum difference is

observed at lower depth and at higher force level.

But the predicted amplitudes for the above case are

found to deviate from corresponding experimental

values in the range -52% to 43% and -37% to 42%

under static weight 8.0 kN and 10.0 kN respectively.

For the case of gravel layer over in situ soil (series I)

20 25 30 35 40

20

25

30

35

40

(a)

Data Points

45° Line

R

e

s

o

n

a

n

t

F

r

e

q

u

e

n

c

y

P

r

e

d

i

c

t

e

d

(

H

z

)

Resonant Frequency Observed (Hz)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

(b)

R

e

s

o

n

a

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

P

r

e

d

i

c

t

e

d

(

H

z

)

Resonant Amplitude Observed (Hz)

Data Points

45° Line

Fig. 6 Comparison of (a)

resonant frequencies and

(b) resonant amplitudes for

gravel layer over rigid base

20 25 30 35

20

25

30

35

(a)

Data Points

45° Line

R

e

s

o

n

a

n

t

F

r

e

q

u

e

n

c

y

P

r

e

d

i

c

t

e

d

(

H

z

)

Resonant Frequency Observed (Hz)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

(b)

R

e

s

o

n

a

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

P

r

e

d

i

c

t

e

d

(

H

z

)

Resonant Amplitude Observed (Hz)

Data Points

45° Line

Fig. 7 Comparison of (a)

resonant frequencies and

(b) resonant amplitudes for

gravel layer over in situ soil

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 463

123

the deviation of predicted resonant frequencies are in

the range 5% to 9% and -2% to 8% under static

weight 8 kN and 10 kN respectively. The predicted

resonant amplitudes for the above case shows a

negative difference in majority of cases when com-

pared against their respective experimental values,

maximum being -32% and -20% under static

weight 8 kN and 10 kN respectively. In general

considering the comparison of all the test results it is

observed that the predicted resonant frequencies

are very close to their experimental values (max.

deviation 19%), thus showing a good engineering

accuracy (Figs. 6 and 7). But in case of amplitudes

the deviation of predicted values are negative in most

of the cases indicating that the model predicts a

higher damping, giving rise to lower values of

amplitudes. Also the authors feel that this may be

due to poor selection of material damping. The

material damping (hysteretic) considered in the

model is strain dependent and hence it should vary

with the variation of force level. But it is not taken

into consideration, rather irrespective of the force

level a constant material damping ratio 2% for gravel

and 1% for in situ soil is considered. This may be the

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=1.77

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=2.66

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=3.54

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=4.43

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=5.32

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=6.20

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 8 Comparison of

frequency-amplitude

response curves for gravel

layer over rigid base (static

weight = 8.0 kN and

h = 16°)

464 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

reason for which the predicted amplitudes are lower

compared to experimental ones. In spite of such

deviations, it is observed that the predicted ampli-

tudes match well with experimental values (Figs. 6

and 7).

In case of layered soil the dynamic response of

foundation is greatly inﬂuenced by the depth of the

top layer and relative rigidity of layers. In the present

investigation two different cases of relative rigidity

(series I and series II) and six different depths of top

layer are considered. The nature of variation of

frequencies and amplitudes due to variation of

above two parameters are observed to be same in

both experimental and model predicted results

(Tables 4–7).

In case of gravel layer over in situ soil, change in

the resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes

with variation of the depth of top layer are negligible

(Tables 6 and 7) as the relative rigidity is very close

to one. Thus, this case may be considered closer to a

homogeneous half-space. Hence for comparison of

frequency-amplitude response for layered soil only

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=1.77

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=2.66

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=3.54

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=4.43

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=5.32

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Predicted

Experimental

d/r

0

=6.20

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 9 Comparison of frequency-amplitude response curves for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 10.0 kN and h = 16°)

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 465

123

the case of gravel layer over rigid base with variation

of depth of top layer is presented for a given force

level (h = 16°) under two values of static weights

(Figs. 8 and 9). From Figs. 8 and 9, it is observed

that the predicted and experimental resonant frequen-

cies and amplitudes are closer at higher static weight.

With increase in the depth of top layer decrease of

resonant frequency is also observed in both experi-

mental and predicted response curves.

The effect of damping ratio on the behaviour

between the displacement amplitude and frequency

has been studied for different depths of gravel layer

over rigid base under a given dynamic force level and

two different static weights. The damping ratio varied

from 0.00 to 0.03, and results obtained with different

damping ratios are presented in Figs. 10 and 11. In

general a decrease in the resonant amplitude and

negligible change in the resonant frequency is

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

d/r

0

=1.77

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

d/r

0

=2.66

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

d/r

0

=3.54

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

d/r

0

=4.43

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

d/r

0

=5.32

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.32

0.36

0.40

d/r

0

=6.20

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

Fig. 10 Effect of damping ratio on frequency-amplitude response for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 8.0 kN and

h = 16°)

466 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

observed from Figs. 10 and 11 with the increase of

damping from 0.0 to 0.03. The average decrease in

the resonant amplitude from that corresponding to

zero damping is observed to be 25%, 40% and 50%

when the damping is increased to 0.01, 0.02 and 0.03

respectively under 10 kN static weight. The order of

decrease was observed to be 30%, 45% and 55% for

8 kN static weight. Also, it is observed from Figs. 8–

11 that the response curve at damping ratio 0.02 is

closer to the experimental response curve indicating a

good assumption of damping ratio.

6 Conclusions

Compared to available rigorous analytical methods

for foundation vibration analysis on layered soil cone

model is found to be very simple as it considers only

one type of body waves for the mode of vibration

considered and the analysis is performed using a

basic strength of material approach. Though the

model predicts a little higher damping, a good

engineering accuracy is achieved when compared

against 72 ﬁeld test results. Thus, it may be used as a

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

d/r

0

=1.77

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

d/r

0

=2.66

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

d/r

0

=3.54

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

d/r

0

=4.43

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

d/r

0

=5.32

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

d/r

0

=6.20

D

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

A

m

p

l

i

t

u

d

e

(

m

m

)

Frequency (Hz)

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

ξ=0.00

ξ=0.01

ξ=0.02

ξ=0.03

Fig. 11 Effect of damping ratio on frequency-amplitude response for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 10.0 kN and

h = 16°)

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 467

123

cost effective tool for the analysis of machine

foundations on layered soil with due reliability.

References

Baidya DK, Muralikrishna G (2001) Investigation of resonant

frequency and amplitude of vibrating footing resting on a

layered soil system. Geotech Test J ASTM 24(4):409–417

Baidya DK, Rathi A (2004) Dynamic response of footing on a

sand layer of ﬁnite thickness. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng

ASCE 130(6):651–655

Baidya DK, Sridharan A (2002) Foundation vibration on

layered soil system. Indian Geotech J 32(2):235–257

Crouse CB, Hushmand B, Luco JE, Wong HL (1990) Foun-

dation impedance functions: theory versus experiment.

J Geotech Eng ASCE 116(3):432–449

de Barros FCP, Luco JE (1990) Discrete models for vertical

vibration of surface and embedded foundations. Earth-

quake Eng Struc Dyn 19(2):289–303

Ehlers G (1942) The effect of soil ﬂexibility on vibrating

systems. Beton and Eisen 41(21/22):197–203

Gazetas G (1983) Analysis of machine foundation vibrations:

state of the art. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2(1):2–42

Gazetas G (1987) Simple physical methods for foundation

impedance. In: Banerjee PK, Butterﬁeld R (eds) Dynamic

behaviour of foundations and buried structures. Devel-

opments in soil mechanics and fundation engineering, vol

3, chapter 2. Elsevier Applied Science, London

Gazetas G, Dobry R (1984) Simple radiation damping model

for piles and footings. J Geotech Eng ASCE 110(6):

937–956

Gazetas G, Stokoe KH II (1991) Vibration of embedded

foundations: theory versus experiment. J Geotech Eng

ASCE, 117(9):1382–1401

Jaya KP, Prasad AM (2002) Embedded foundation in layered

soil under dynamic excitations. J Soil Dyn Earthquake

Eng 22:485–498

Mandal A, Baidya DK (2004) Effect of presence of rigid base

within the soil on the dynamic response of rigid surface

foundation. Geotech Test J ASTM 27(5):475–482

Meek JW, Veletsos AS (1974) Simple models for foundations

in lateral and rocking motions. In: Proceedings of 5th

World Congress on Earthquake Engineering, vol 2. Rome,

pp 2610–2613

Meek JW, Wolf JP (1992a) Cone models for homogeneous

soil. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE, 118(5):667–685

Meek JW, Wolf JP (1992b) Cone models for soil layer on rigid

rock. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 118(5):686–703

Meek JW, Wolf JP (1994) Cone models for an embedded

foundation. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 120:60–80

Pradhan PK, Baidya DK, Ghosh DP (2003) Impedance func-

tions of circular foundation resting on layered soil using

cone model. Electron J Geotech Eng 8(B)

Pradhan PK, Baidya DK, Ghosh DP (2004) Dynamic response

of foundations resting on layered soil by cone model. J

Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 24(6):425–434

Sridharan A, Gandhi NSVVSJ, Suresh S (1990) Stiffness

coefﬁcients of layered soil system. J Geotech Eng ASCE

116(4):604–624

Veletsos AS, Nair VD (1974) Response of torsionally excited

foundations. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 100:476–482

Veletsos AS, Verbic B (1973) Vibration of viscoelastic foun-

dations. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 2:87–102

Wolf JP (1994) Foundation vibration analysis using simple

physical models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Wolf JP, Deeks AJ (2004) Foundation vibration analysis: a

strength-of-material approach, 1st edn. Elsevier

Wolf JP, Meek JW (1993) Cone models for a soil layer on

ﬂexible rock half-space. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn

22:185–193

Wolf JP, Meek JW (1994) Dynamic stiffness of foundation on

or embedded in layered soil using cone frustums. Earth-

quake Eng Struc Dyn 23:1079–1095

Wolf JP, Somaini DR (1986) Approximate dynamic model of

embedded foundation in time domain. Earthquake Eng

Struc Dyn 14(5):683–703

468 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468

123

One of the key steps in the current methods of dynamic analysis of a foundation soil system to predict resonant frequency and amplitude under machine type loading is to estimate the dynamic impedance functions of an ‘associated’ rigid but massless foundation. Meek and Wolf (1992b) and on ﬂexible rock. Pradhan et al. Meek and Wolf (1994) performed dynamic analysis of embedded footings by idealizing the soil as a translated cone instead of elastic halfspace. using a suitable method of dynamic analysis. The cone model was originally developed by Ehlers (1942) to represent a surface disk under translational motions and later for rotational motion (Meek and Veletsos 1974. The details of the use of cone models in foundation vibration analysis are summarized in Wolf (1994) and Wolf and Deeks (2004). and dashpots with frequency-independent coefﬁcients encouraged a number of researchers to match discrete element representation of exact solutions in frequency domain by curve ﬁtting (Veletsos and Verbic 1973. Later Meek and Wolf (1992a) presented a simpliﬁed methodology to evaluate the dynamic response of a base mat on the surface of a homogeneous half-space. springs. Mass density of top and bottom soil layers q0 respectively m. For example. Veletsos and Nair 1974). (2003.454 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 " Kða0 Þ k(a0) m me Dm P0 Q |Q| r0 u u0 " u "0 u |u0| Dynamic impedance Normalized stiffness coefﬁcient Mass of the foundation or total vibrating mass (mass of foundation plus machine) in case of machine foundation Unbalanced mass (on machine) Trapped mass Harmonic interaction force Harmonic force on foundation Force amplitude on the foundation Radius of circular foundation or radius of equivalent circle for non circular foundation Harmonic displacement for the layered soil at depth z Harmonic surface displacement for the layered soil Harmonic displacement at depth z for homogeneous half-space Harmonic surface displacement for homogeneous half-space Displacement amplitude for the layered soil Greeks h Angle for setting eccentricity in the oscillator x Circular frequency of excitation l Trapped mass coefﬁcient n. de Barros and Luco 1990). the surprising fact that the cones are dynamically equivalent to an interconnection of a small number of masses. in relation to the design of machine foundations. which is physically impossible. 2004) have computed dynamic impedance of circular foundation resting on layered soil using wave propagation in cones. which overcomes the drawback of the above cone frustum method. Gazetas and Dobry (1984) employed wedges and cones to elucidate the phenomenon of radiation damping in two and three dimensions. Gazetas (1987). m0 Poisson’s ratio of top and bottom soil layers respectively 1 Introduction The determination of resonant frequency and resonant amplitude of foundations has been a subject of considerable interest in the recent years. the extensive reviews of which are presented in Gazetas (1983). Wolf and Meek (1993). Also Jaya and Prasad (2002) studied the dynamic stiffness of embedded foundations in layered soil using the same cone frustums. Wolf and Somaini 1986. During the last 30 years signiﬁcant developments has been made in the analytical solutions to the problems of foundation vibration. The major drawback of cone frustums method as reported by Wolf and Meek (1994) is that the damping coefﬁcient can become negative at lower frequency. But the experimental veriﬁcation of such theories remains essential 123 . Hysteretic material damping ratio of top and n0 bottom soil layers respectively q. Wolf and Meek (1994) have found out the dynamic stiffness coefﬁcients of foundations resting on or embedded in a horizontally layered soil using cone frustums. the cone models originally appeared to be such an oversimpliﬁcation of reality that they were used primarily to obtain qualitative insight. By comparison to rigorous solutions. Over the years a number of methods have been developed for foundation vibration analysis. The cone model concept was extended to a layered cone to compute the dynamic response of a footing or a base mat on a soil layer resting on a rigid rock. Proceeding in another direction.

Baidya and Rathi 2004). A total 72 numbers of ﬁeld tests are conducted on two different layered soil systems with variation of inﬂuencing parameters. which provide conceptual clarity with physical insight and is easier for the practicing engineers to follow. which ﬁt the size and economics of the project and require no sophisticated computer code are better suited. P0. Baidya and Muralikrishna 2001. Mandal and Baidya 2004. Hence in the present study it is proposed to verify the applicability of cone model for layered soil to the problem of machine foundation vibration. mass density q0 and hysteretic damping ratio n0 . c(a0) = normalized damping coefﬁcient. 0 In general. The layer interface can also be considered ﬁxed. In the above paper the researchers have recommended to use the results of case studies and ﬁeld experiments for the purpose taking in to consideration the complexities of the soil medium. 1). shear wave velocity of the top layer and K = 4Gr0/(1-m). Attempts have been taken in the past to verify theoretical solutions by conducting laboratory or ﬁeld tests (Sridharan et al. the dynamic displacement amplitude of the foundation with mass m and subjected to a vertical harmonic force Q is expressed as Q ð2Þ j u0 j ¼ 2 K½kða0 Þ þ ia0 cða0 Þ À Ba0 Where |u0| = dynamic displacement amplitude under the foundation resting on layered soil. The model predicted frequency-amplitude response is thoroughly compared with the results of ﬁeld tests. Gazetas and Stokoe II 1991. Poisson’s ratio m. 2 Problem Statement A rigid massless circular foundation of radius r0 resting on a two-layered soil system is addressed for vertical degree of freedom (Fig. 1 Massless foundation on layered soil under vertical harmonic interaction force P0 " Kða0 Þ ¼ ¼ K½kða0 Þ þ ia0 cða0 Þ u0 ð1Þ " where Kða0 Þ ¼ dynamic impedance. the predicted resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes are compared quantitatively with experimental results. Using the equations of dynamic equilibrium. The top layer with depth d has the shear modulus G. mass density q and hysteretic damping ratio n. |Q| can be assumed to be constant or equal to meex2 which is generated by the eccentric rotating part in machine. P0 r0 u0 Massless circular foundation G ρ ρ′ ν ν′ ξ ξ′ d G′ Half-space Fig. the modiﬁed mass ratio with 4 m b0 ¼ qr3 . Poisson’s ratio m0 . To the best of authors’ knowledge no literature is available with regard to the experimental veriﬁcation of cone model for its reliable application to the analysis of foundation vibration.Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 455 prerequisite for their adoption and reliable application in practice. The dilatational waves emanate beneath the disk and propagate 123 . Crouse et al. k(a0) = normalized spring coefﬁcient. dimensionless frequency ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ with cs ¼ G=q . where me is the eccentric mass. The underlying half-space has the shear modulus G0 . |Q| = force amplitude. the mass ratio. static stiffness coefﬁcient of the disk on homogeneous half-space with material properties of the top layer. For instance the cone models. 1990. In particular. The dynamic impedance of the massless foundation (disk) is expressed by 3 Wave Propagation in Cones Figure 2a shows wave propagation in cones beneath the disk of radius r0 resting on a two-layered soil under vertical harmonic excitation. Gazetas and Stokoe II (1991) have stated different types of experimental investigation citing their advantages and limitations.pa0 = xr0/cs. Baidya and Sridharan 2002. e is the eccentricity and x is the circular frequency. 1990. B ¼ 1Àm b0 . For foundation vibration analyses simple models. The interaction force P0 and the corresponding displacement u0 are assumed to be harmonic.

The ﬁrst downward wave propagating in a cone with apex 1 (height z0 and radius of base r0). This displacement "0 is used to generate u the displacement of the layer u with its value at surface. The parameters of cone model shown in Fig. xÞ ¼ 1 X z0 eÀixc "0 ðxÞ þ ðÀaÞj u z0 þ z j¼1 " # "0 ðxÞ u 2jdþz Àixð2jdÀzÞ c z0 e z0 eÀixð c Þ þ z0 þ 2jd À z z0 þ 2jd þ z z ð8Þ At the free surface the displacement of the foundation is obtained by setting z = 0 in Eq. Let the displacement of " the (truncated semi-inﬁnite) cone be denoted as u with the value "0 under the disk Fig. cs for 1/3 \ m B 1/2. the inverse of j sum of which at x = 0 gives the static stiffness of the layered soil normalized by the static stiffness of the homogeneous half-space with material properties of the top layer. modeling a u disk with same load P0 on a homogeneous half-space with the material properties of the top layer. xÞ 1 X ðÀaÞj 2jd eÀix c "0 ðxÞ u ¼ "0 ðxÞ þ 2 u 2jd j¼1 1 þ z0 u0 ðxÞ ¼ with and for j ! 1. which is inversely proportional to the distance from the apex of the cone and expressed in frequency domain as z0 Àixz "ðz. In the frequency domain the incident wave f(x) propagating downwards in the cone with apex 1 (material properties of top layer: c appropriate wave 123 . xÞ ¼ u e c "0 ðxÞ ð3Þ u z0 þ z The displacement of the incident wave at layer interface equals z0 d "ðd. spreading and decreasing in amplitude. 3. as the wave generated beneath the disk does not know if at a speciﬁc depth an interface is encountered or not. the height of other cones corresponding to subsequent upward and downward reﬂected waves are found as shown in Fig. 5 equals Àa 2d z0 eÀixð c Þ "0 ðxÞ u z0 þ 2d ð6Þ Enforcing compatibility of the amplitude and of elapsed time of the reﬂected wave’s displacement at the free surface. 2a. "0 can also be called as the u generating function. Since the incident wave and subsequent reﬂected waves propagate in the same medium (top layer).456 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 at velocity c equal to the dilatational wave velocity cp for m B 1/3 and twice the shear wave velocity. which may be called as the incident wave and its cone will be the same as that of the half-space. 2a) equals 2dÀz z0 Àa eÀixð c Þ "0 ðxÞ u ð5Þ z0 þ 2d À z At the free surface the displacement of the upward wave derived by substituting z = 0 in Eq. 2b are given in Table 1. Thus. the aspect ratio of the corresponding cones will be same. the displacement of the downward wave propagating in a cone with apex 3 is obtained as 2dþz z0 Àa eÀixð c Þ "0 ðxÞ u ð7Þ z0 þ 2d þ z In this pattern the waves propagate in their own cones and their corresponding displacements are found. u0. Thus the aspect ratio deﬁned by the ratio of the height of cone to the radius of the disk (z0/r0) is made equal for cone of the half-space and ﬁrst cone of the layered soil. The displacement amplitude of the incident wave propagating in a cone with apex 1. 1 X j¼0 F E0 ¼ 1 ð9Þ EjF eÀix c "0 ðxÞ u 2jd ð10Þ ð11aÞ EjF ¼ 2ðÀaÞj 1 þ 2jd z0 ð11bÞ EF can be called as echo constant. xÞ ¼ u eÀixc "0 ðxÞ ð4Þ u z0 þ d Enforcing a reﬂection coefﬁcient –a(x) at the interface.1 Reﬂection—Refraction at Layer Interface The waves occurring at layer interface are addressed in Fig. The resulting displacement in the layer is obtained by superposing all the down and up waves (up to jth impingement at layer interface) and is expressed in the following form uðz. 2b. the displacement of the ﬁrst reﬂected upward wave propagating in a cone with apex 2 (vide Fig. Thus knowing the height of the ﬁrst cone. These waves reﬂect back and forth at layer interface and free surface. 8 as u0 ðxÞ ¼ uðz ¼ 0. 3. from the geometry.

Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 Fig. yields a reﬂected wave g(x) propagating upwards in cone segment with apex 3 (same material properties of top layer c. q0 ). and q mass density). (b) Cone model for the half-space 457 (a) 2j+1 z0 + 2jd 3 P0 z0 + 2d z0 z 1 r0 u0 u d z0 + d z0 + 3d z 0 +(2j-1)d ∞ 2 4 2j (b) P0 1 z0 z r0 u0 u velocity. q) and a refracted wave h(x) propagating downwards in the cone with apex 2 (material properties of lower halfspace c0 . Based on wave propagation in beams with varying area reﬂection coefﬁcient –a(x) for the translational cone is given by qc qc 0 0 gðxÞ z0 þd À z00 þ ixðqc À q c Þ ¼ qc2 ÀaðxÞ ¼ 0 02 f ðxÞ þ q c þ ixðqc þ q0 c0 Þ 0 z0 þd z0 2 0 02 ð12Þ 123 . 2 (a) Wave propagation in cones for layered soil.

1/ 3 \ m B 1/2. 22.e. K . 23. 12 yields ÀaðxÞ ¼ À1 ð14Þ which leads to gðxÞ ¼ Àf ðxÞ ð15Þ Substituting echo constant given by Eq. the dynamic impedance equals 0 1 À l zcr0 x2 þ ix zc0 P0 ðxÞ p 2 " KðxÞ ¼ ¼K P1 ðÀaÞj Àixð2jdÞ u0 ðxÞ c 1þ2 2jd e ð23Þ j¼1 1þ z 0 " In the expression of the dynamic impedance KðxÞ given by Eq. hðxÞ ¼ ð1 À aðxÞÞf ðxÞ ð13Þ Under special case when the layer interface is ﬁxed. 21. reﬂected and refracted waves at layer interface where. 11 in Eq. cp ¼ cs 2ð1ÀmÞ 1À2m Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 hðxÞ ¼ 0 ð16Þ Analogously. the values of which recommended by Wolf (1994) are given in Table 1. After simpliﬁcation Eq. and reﬂected wave is equal to the incident wave with a change in sign. the lower layer is perfectly rigid. Wolf (1994).2 Dynamic Impedance The interaction force displacement relationship for a massless disk resting on homogeneous half-space using the cone model can be written as P0 ðxÞ ¼ ðK À Dmx2 þ ixCÞ"0 ðxÞ u 2 ð17Þ ð18Þ ð19Þ where.. 3 Incident. 10 in Eq.e. ρ′) 3 Fig. Wolf (1994) Cone parameters Parameter expressions 2 p c Aspect ratio z0 r0 ð1 À mÞ 4 cs 2 qc2 ðpr0 Þ Static stiffness coefﬁcient K z0 l z0 c2 2 s Normalized spring coefﬁcient k(a0) 1À a p r0 c2 0 z 0 cs Normalized damping coefﬁcient c(a0) r0 c xr0 Dimensionless frequency a0 cs Coefﬁcient l for trapped mass l = 0 for m B 1/3 À Á contribution l ¼ 2:4p m À 1 for 3 1/3 \ m B 1/2 Appropriate wave velocity c c = cp for m B 1/3 c = 2cs for 1/3 \ m B 1/2 ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ q ﬃ where. 19 reduces to the form l z0 r0 2 z0 "0 ðxÞ P0 ðxÞ ¼ K 1 À x þ ix ð21Þ u 2 p c c Using Eq. Thus. i. the summation of series over jis worked out up to a ﬁnite term as the displacement amplitude of the waves vanish after a ﬁnite number of 123 . the interaction force displacement relationship for the layered soil system reduces to 1 À l z0 r0 x2 þ ix zc0 2 P0 ðxÞ ¼ K P p c u0 ðxÞ 2jd 1 F Àixð c Þ j¼0 Ej e ð22Þ z0+d Half-space (c′. setting c0 = ? in Eq. ρ) Interface with trapped mass coefﬁcient l. no refracted wave is created. The trapped mass Dm is introduced in order to match the stiffness coefﬁcient of the cone model with rigorous solutions for incompressible soil i.458 Table 1 Parameters of semi-inﬁnite cone modeling a disk on homogeneous half-space under vertical motion. when the interface corresponds to a free surface (c0 = 0) ÀaðxÞ ¼ þ1 leading to gðxÞ ¼ f ðxÞ 3.Dmx = spring coefﬁcient and C = dashpot coefﬁcient Dm is the trapped mass and is given by 3 Dm ¼ lqr0 ð20Þ 2 1 z0′ z0 d f h g Free surface Layer (c.

total number of tests is 72 being 36 on each series Natural soil Series I Fig.0 kN and 10.36 20.000 mm.41 16. Thus.96 Note: msoil = 0. In the laboratory tests.3 Preparation of Layers 4. Suitability of the dimensions of the pit with respect to the size of the footing for possible boundary effects is considered. 600 mm. an optimization is needed between tank and footing size to minimize the effects caused by restricting lateral boundary. excavated at the adjoining area of S.0 kN/m . 1. 8.25 and cgravel = 17. Table 2 presents the various depths of top layer and the dynamic force level considered in the investigation whereas Fig. Indian Institute of Technology. and shrinkage limit of the site soil were 36%.R. 4.1 Test Pit To simulate the condition of proposed soil layering in the investigation only choice is to conduct the test in a tank or a pit of ﬁnite dimension.0 kN/m3. 800 mm. In spite of this.3. In order to overcome the limitations of laboratory tests.2 kN/ m3 and frictional angle from direct shear test is 49°. The excavated surface of the soil is then leveled.11 3 In situ soil 17. plastic limit. Sengupta Foundation Engineering Laboratory.Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 459 impingement. h) are conducted. The density of in situ soil is approximately equal to 18. 4 Different layered-soil systems 18.1 Series I The in situ soil is excavated from the top in steps of 200 mm. and 1.07 18. 1. Liquid limit. d Gravel d Gravel Rigid base Series II 4 Experimental Program In the present study the effect of layering on the dynamic response of foundation soil system is proposed to investigate experimentally. Each time the total depth of pit is replaced by locally available gravel. W and different dynamic force level (eccentric settings in oscillator. Present investigation is carried out in a pit. 20° for each static weight). 16°. 4. 4.2 Material Properties The density of the gravel used in this test is 17.25 25. 23%.56 17. Vertical vibration tests using mechanical oscillator (Lazan Type) on various depths of top layer with different static weights. Table 3 Shear modulus values for gravel and in situ soil Static weights (kN) 8. mgravel = 0. Hence. silt (61%) and clay (9%). The relative density of the gravel achieved in this experiment was 85%.0 Eccentric setting (h) 12° 16° 20° 10. The side of the pit is made of local soil of density Table 2 Details of ﬁeld tests Depth of top gravel layer (d) in mm 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Total number of tests considering all variables For each depth of top gravel layer tests are conducted at two static weights. The study of grain size distribution of the soil at the pit site indicated sand (30%).84 22. 4. Detailed program of the study is presented in Table 2 and Fig. Experimental values of dynamic shear modulus of both gavel and the in situ soil at different static and dynamic loading conditions are given in Table 3.2 kN/m3 123 .0 kN and three eccentric settings.400 mm) are prepared. respectively. 4 shows two different test conditions.200 mm.3 and csoil = 18.98 21. Kharagpur which is sufﬁciently larger (width is 5 times the width of the footing) than that required for the static condition. it is very difﬁcult to simulate the ﬁeld conditions in the laboratory.26 19.0 12° 16° 20° Shear modulus (G) MN/m2 Gravel 21. Numerically j is terminated at a value. and 12%. the authors are inspired to conduct the ﬁeld tests. 12°.87 20. F such that Ejþ1 À EjF 0:01 .26 16. six different depths of top gravel layer (400 mm.0 kN/m3 and moisture content is around 11% and is expected to be extending up to inﬁnite distance.

16°. Thus the foundation is subjected to vibration in the vertical direction.2 kN/m3) is poured and compacted to bring it to 200 mm. A B&K piezoelectric-type vibration pickup (type 4370) is placed on top of the footing to measure the displacement amplitude with the B&K vibration meter (type 2511).460 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 To maintain a uniform condition throughout the test program. frequency range up to 3000 rpm). A rigid mild Fig. The whole set-up is then tightened to act as a single unit during vibration. Thus.2 kN/ m3.0 kN static weights are used to simulate two different foundation weights and under each static weight three different eccentric settings (h = 12°. the pit is ﬁlled in steps of 200 mm thick layer of gravel and each layer is compacted using a plate vibrator (250 N static weights and vibrating at a frequency of 3. The frequency dependent dynamic force amplitude in N was expressed by me ex2 ¼ We e 2 0:9 sinðh=2Þ 2 x ¼ x g g ð24Þ The oscillator is connected through a ﬂexible shaft to a variable DC motor (3 H.2 Series II The test pit is excavated up to 1. At the base a 300 mm PCC concrete slab is cast to represent rigid base. 4.000 rpm) by constant compactive effort to achieve a density of approximately 17. In this investigation. The different depths of gravel layers are prepared over rigid base as per experimental program. The oscillator is then run slowly through a motor using speed control unit to avoid sudden application of high magnitude dynamic load. Photo tachometer and vibration meter recorded frequency Speed control unit Mechanical oscillator Vibration meter Static weight Shaft Motor 1.3. After casting and curing of concrete slab the gravel layer is placed.7m 0. Figure 5 shows the schematic diagram of the experimental set-up. The tests are conducted on the level surface of each layer. Calculated amount of dry gravel for 200 mm depth maintaining uniform density (17.700 mm depth. Sufﬁcient rubber packing between two ingots is given for tight ﬁxing.3m Topsoil layer: varying thickness Rigid base to simulate bedrock 123 . Oscillator is then placed over the plate and a number of mild steel ingots are placed on the top of the oscillator to provide required static weight. The concrete footing is ﬁrst placed centrally over the prepared gravel layer.P. 4. 8. and 20°) are used to simulate three different dynamic force level. 5 Experimental set-up steel plate is tightly ﬁxed on the concrete footing to facilitate load-ﬁxing arrangement. Proper care is taken to maintain the center of gravity of whole system and the footing to lie in the same vertical line.4 Experimental Procedure A model concrete footing of size 400 9 400 9 100 mm and a ‘Lazan type’ mechanical oscillator are used to conduct model block vibration test in vertical mode. Necessary steps have been taken to maintain the uniform density through out the test. gravel layers of six different thicknesses are prepared over in situ soil according to the experimental program given in Table 2.0 and 10.

12 0.08 28.21 0.84 0.40 30.19 0.40 28.10 0.14 0.25 26. (%) 400 1.18 30.66 12 16 20 800 3.10 27.58 29.10 0.16 0.97 5.06 0.58 30.47 -42.55 27.00 32.16 0.20 0.12 0.43 12 16 20 1.97 -1.54 12 16 20 1.18 -16.08 0.67 -6.17 0.24 0.11 0.38 0.13 0.11 0.16 27.73 27.10 0.00 41.25 Diff.21 25.10 0.54 12 16 20 1.36 1.92 31.16 0.77 12 16 20 31.12 0.16 0.27 0.50 30.24 0.400 6.67 32. Pred.25 0.91 27.90 4.17 Diff.48 28.91 27.58 27.200 5.63 4.18 0.00 -18.28 0.50 30.85 -37.76 26.67 28.33 26.05 600 2.22 0.04 -44.11 0.83 29.10 27.02 27.33 0. (%) Resonant amplitude (mm) Expt Pred.30 15.24 0.92 26.17 2.10 0.16 0.33 27.96 11.67 25.14 0.50 26.00 29.15 0.34 0.32 12 16 20 12 16 20 1.30 0.200 5.33 32.15 0.32 25.88 5.35 -42.11 0. 35.33 27.33 0.78 28.23 0.38 28.13 0.66 26.81 28.09 -6.87 2.06 -5.12 0.22 13.32 12 16 20 1.03 24.22 Diff.00 40.10 -46.84 1.15 27.63 26.06 0.01 5.32 0. Pred.87 0.33 -32. (%) 400 1.77 12 16 20 31.14 0.16 0. (%) Resonant amplitude (mm) Expt Pred.26 -1.20 Table 5 Comparison of resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes for gravel layer over rigid base—static weight = 10.20 12 16 20 123 .08 29.25 0.34 -3.43 12 16 20 1.14 0.000 4.41 25.0 kN 461 Depth (mm) Depth ratio (d/r0) h (degree) Resonant frequency (Hz) Expt.00 -33.15 28.03 2.14 0.66 42.21 27.85 -23.18 25.22 0.50 26.71 13.66 12 16 20 800 3.16 -15.12 0.21 0.41 30.21 29.58 5.20 0.15 0.83 35.81 28.00 28.31 6.67 -18.59 4.00 -52.000 4.21 0.44 14.0 kN Depth (mm) Depth ratio (d/r0) h (degree) Resonant frequency (Hz) Expt.37 10.61 -34.08 25.19 0.50 -26.36 26.20 0.10 -5.44 17.91 26.16 5.75 -47.60 29.63 13.23 8. 36.15 0.15 0.23 0.35 18.00 43.93 8.20 0.30 0.99 -2.31 -29.20 0.80 -13. 0.78 -31.58 29.26 0.17 0. 0.68 26.33 -18.58 29.23 0.23 0.95 12.00 -33.41 27.Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 Table 4 Comparison of resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes for gravel layer over rigid base—static weight = 8.25 600 2.14 0.67 -19.91 32.90 27.83 29.41 33.42 -20.93 28.18 -9.57 3.00 35.41 Diff.15 0.18 0.400 6.51 27.53 29.25 35.10 27.00 8.04 1.

90 2. Pred. (%) 400 1.18 27.00 -15.25 27.097 0.01 -32.15 -0.067 0. (%) 400 1.088 Diff.68 0.71 7.76 5.100 -31.068 0.11 -19.074 0.71 -13.060 0.00 29.093 0.32 6.66 29.00 -14.43 12 16 20 1.086 0.50 26.72 27.24 7.85 28.73 2.077 -20.080 0.18 7.46 -2.58 -15.78 1.00 29.50 29.080 0.080 0.072 0.054 0.057 0.060 0.074 Diff. 0.74 1.30 27.05 26.062 0.076 0.080 0.50 -27.28 27.00 9.51 1.048 0.048 0.074 0.16 29.077 0.052 0.063 0.17 Diff.97 -32.30 -7.000 4.80 27.00 -20.54 12 16 20 1.66 12 16 20 800 3.97 9.73 11.68 25.77 12 16 20 27.21 5.50 27.042 0.66 29.16 29.77 -12.00 0.33 26.25 27.16 29.053 0.054 0.16 27.056 0.073 0.107 0.070 0.20 7.400 6.077 0.96 8.89 600 2.67 26.16 29.00 27.81 6.33 29. (%) Resonant amplitude (mm) Expt Pred.03 25.00 25.32 12 16 20 12 16 20 1.090 0.462 Table 6 Comparison of resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes for gravel layer over in situ soil—static weight = 8.064 0.00 26.38 26.57 0.072 0.072 0.33 29.057 0.33 27.05 28.83 29.76 5.080 0.66 29.01 27.33 26.092 0.54 12 16 20 1.33 29.21 26.107 0.00 4.85 26.50 29.44 5.078 0.0 kN Depth (mm) Depth ratio (d/r0) h (degree) Resonant frequency (Hz) Expt.98 27.79 -10.83 29.50 -22.75 -4.85 0.060 0.53 -26.080 0.000 4.046 0. (%) Resonant amplitude (mm) Expt Pred.69 5.054 0.00 Diff.33 27.71 -12.200 5.100 0.42 27.52 27.46 -21.22 27.50 -20.083 0.067 0.084 0.08 27.89 8.400 6.50 -25.28 7.83 -16.056 0.31 7.200 5.00 -16. Pred.20 123 .060 0.50 27.0 kN Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 Depth (mm) Depth ratio (d/r0) h (degree) Resonant frequency (Hz) Expt.07 8.077 0.32 12 16 20 12 16 20 1. 29.00 -8.33 27.42 -10.050 0.060 0.20 Table 7 Comparison of resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes for gravel layer over in situ soil—static weight = 10.41 7.61 27.044 0.48 5.50 26.08 28.87 25.083 0.060 0.100 0.78 27.08 26.070 0.43 12 16 20 1.77 12 16 20 27.050 0.16 30.36 0.23 0.97 1.33 30.087 0.66 12 16 20 800 3.85 5.42 27.68 -32.28 27.45 -3.87 -24.067 0.070 0.66 29.080 0.33 29.040 0. 28.03 7.58 27.00 -29.81 28.39 7.17 26.093 0.56 -2. 0.093 0.03 26.60 6.050 0.00 600 2.88 -32.073 0.83 29.66 8.43 2.50 29.52 2.

which facilitates accurate measurement of frequency and the corresponding displacement amplitude.5 0.12 0. For the case of gravel layer over in situ soil (series I) 123 . To obtain a foundation response and locate the resonant peak correctly.06 0. 6 Comparison of (a) resonant frequencies and (b) resonant amplitudes for gravel layer over rigid base 40 463 0.02 (b) 30 25 Data Points 45° Line Data Points 20 20 25 30 35 45° Line 0. The displacement amplitude corresponding to each frequency is recorded and the response curves are plotted for different layered systems under various static and dynamic loading conditions.4 30 0.0 kN and 10.10 0.20 Resonant Frequency Observed (Hz) Resonant Amplitude Observed (Hz) and corresponding displacement amplitude of vibration respectively.5 35 0.04 0. which are presented in Tables 4–7 and Figs.16 0.2 0.0 kN and -2% to 14% under static weight 10. A sufﬁcient time between two successive measurements has been given to reach equilibrium.20 0. The comparison of resonant frequencies for gravel layer over concrete rigid base (series II) shows a difference of -5% to 19% under static weight 8.08 0. the displacement amplitudes are noted at a frequency interval approximately of 25 to 50 rpm.00 0. The experimental values of dynamic shear modulus given in Table 3 are used in the above computation.18 0.12 0.06 0.1 Data Points 45° Line 0. Material damping ratio 2% and 1% was assumed for top gravel layer and bottom in situ soil respectively. The predicted resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes are compared quantitatively with respective experimental values. The maximum difference is observed at lower depth and at higher force level.02 0.6 Resonant Frequency Observed (Hz) Resonant Amplitude Observed (Hz) Resonant Frequency Predicted (Hz) Resonant Amplitude Predicted (Hz) Fig.0 0.18 0.10 0. 5 Cone Model versus Experiment The frequency-amplitude response for all the cases mentioned in Table 2 are computed using the solutions of cone model.04 0.1 0.14 0. But the predicted amplitudes for the above case are found to deviate from corresponding experimental values in the range -52% to 43% and -37% to 42% under static weight 8.6 (a) Resonant Amplitude Predicted (Hz) (b) Resonant Frequency Predicted (Hz) 0. 6 and 7.2 25 Data Points 45° Line 20 20 25 30 35 40 0.00 0. 7 Comparison of (a) resonant frequencies and (b) resonant amplitudes for gravel layer over in situ soil 35 (a) 0.3 0.0 kN respectively.Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 Fig.14 0.08 0.0 kN (Tables 4 and 5).4 0.3 0.0 0.16 0.

04 0. giving rise to lower values of amplitudes.32 0.40 0.24 0. In general considering the comparison of all the test results it is observed that the predicted resonant frequencies are very close to their experimental values (max. deviation 19%).12 0.77 d/r0 =2.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.12 0.28 0.36 0.0 kN and h = 16°) accuracy (Figs.40 Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.28 0.32 0.40 Frequency (Hz) Predicted Experimental Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.40 Frequency (Hz) 0.08 0.32 0.12 0.32 0.24 0. 8 Comparison of frequency-amplitude response curves for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 8. The predicted resonant amplitudes for the above case shows a negative difference in majority of cases when compared against their respective experimental values. Also the authors feel that this may be due to poor selection of material damping. 6 and 7).08 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.20 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) 123 .12 0.08 0.36 Predicted Experimental 0.24 0. rather irrespective of the force level a constant material damping ratio 2% for gravel and 1% for in situ soil is considered.04 0.20 0.16 0.04 0.00 Predicted Experimental 0.04 0.36 Predicted Experimental Predicted Experimental d/r0 =6.28 0.32 0.20 0.12 0.16 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.24 0.00 Predicted Experimental d/r 0 =1.16 0.04 0.66 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.32 0.28 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.40 0.28 0. The material damping (hysteretic) considered in the model is strain dependent and hence it should vary with the variation of force level.43 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.08 0.00 d/r0 =3. maximum being -32% and -20% under static weight 8 kN and 10 kN respectively.24 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 d/r0 =5.464 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 the deviation of predicted resonant frequencies are in the range 5% to 9% and -2% to 8% under static weight 8 kN and 10 kN respectively. This may be the 0.16 0. But it is not taken into consideration.28 0.20 0.36 0.16 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.08 0.54 d/r0 =4. thus showing a good engineering Fig.32 Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0. But in case of amplitudes the deviation of predicted values are negative in most of the cases indicating that the model predicts a higher damping.20 0.

04 0.16 0.04 0.16 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.04 0. In spite of such deviations.66 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.20 Frequency (Hz) Predicted Experimental Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0. 6 and 7).10 0.06 0.02 0.18 0.00 d/r0=3.08 0.18 0.06 0.20 Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.00 Predicted Experimental 0.02 0. In case of gravel layer over in situ soil.10 0.12 0.16 0.20 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Fig.Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 465 reason for which the predicted amplitudes are lower compared to experimental ones.12 0.16 0. it is observed that the predicted amplitudes match well with experimental values (Figs.54 d/r0 =4.10 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.20 Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.18 0.10 0. The nature of variation of 0.12 0.0 kN and h = 16°) 123 .18 0.02 0. Thus.02 0. change in the resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes with variation of the depth of top layer are negligible (Tables 6 and 7) as the relative rigidity is very close to one.14 0.16 0.32 d/r0 =6.20 Frequency (Hz) 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.77 d/r0 =2. In case of layered soil the dynamic response of foundation is greatly inﬂuenced by the depth of the top layer and relative rigidity of layers.00 Predicted Experimental d/r0=1.06 0.02 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.43 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.00 Predicted Experimental d/r0 =5.20 frequencies and amplitudes due to variation of above two parameters are observed to be same in both experimental and model predicted results (Tables 4–7).12 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.00 Predicted Experimental 0.12 0. this case may be considered closer to a homogeneous half-space. In the present investigation two different cases of relative rigidity (series I and series II) and six different depths of top layer are considered. 9 Comparison of frequency-amplitude response curves for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 10.14 0. Hence for comparison of frequency-amplitude response for layered soil only 0.20 0.10 0.00 Predicted Experimental 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.

In general a decrease in the resonant amplitude and negligible change in the resonant frequency is 0.01 ξ=0.28 0.466 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 the case of gravel layer over rigid base with variation of depth of top layer is presented for a given force level (h = 16°) under two values of static weights (Figs.12 0.28 0.24 0.00 ξ=0.16 0.40 0.32 0.00 ξ=0.08 0.02 ξ=0.32 0.24 0.20 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Fig.04 0. and results obtained with different damping ratios are presented in Figs.12 0.00 ξ=0.40 0.08 0.02 ξ=0.16 0. 8 and 9).28 0. From Figs.16 0.12 0.32 d/r0 =6.02 ξ=0.32 0.04 0.03 d/r0=1.16 0.20 0.12 0.00 ξ=0.36 0.12 0.40 0.00 ξ=0.24 0.04 0. The damping ratio varied from 0.36 0.16 0. it is observed that the predicted and experimental resonant frequencies and amplitudes are closer at higher static weight.03 d/r0 =3.36 0.08 0.00 ξ=0.08 0.00 ξ=0.00 to 0.00 ξ=0.24 0.01 ξ=0.66 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.04 0. 10 and 11.28 0.77 d/r0=2.54 d/r0 =4.01 ξ=0.36 0.28 0. With increase in the depth of top layer decrease of resonant frequency is also observed in both experimental and predicted response curves.40 Frequency (Hz) Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0. 10 Effect of damping ratio on frequency-amplitude response for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 8.00 ξ=0.32 0. 8 and 9.28 0.08 0.12 0.40 Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.00 ξ=0.03 0.01 ξ=0.02 ξ=0. The effect of damping ratio on the behaviour between the displacement amplitude and frequency has been studied for different depths of gravel layer over rigid base under a given dynamic force level and two different static weights.36 0.16 0.36 0.0 kN and h = 16°) 123 .04 0.03 0.02 ξ=0.24 0.01 ξ=0.03.02 ξ=0.20 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.08 0.43 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.40 Frequency (Hz) Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.04 0.20 0.03 d/r0 =5.00 ξ=0.01 ξ=0.00 ξ=0.

28 0. 40% and 50% when the damping is increased to 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Fig. 0.00 ξ=0.08 0. The average decrease in the resonant amplitude from that corresponding to zero damping is observed to be 25%. Thus. Also.00 ξ=0.03 respectively under 10 kN static weight.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0. Though the model predicts a little higher damping.08 0.12 0.20 0. 0.03.16 ξ=0.12 0. 10 and 11 with the increase of damping from 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.28 Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.02 ξ=0.08 0.0 kN and h = 16°) 123 .66 0.24 0.16 ξ=0.01 ξ=0.20 0.04 0.01 ξ=0.02 ξ=0.16 Displacement Amplitude (mm) ξ=0.00 ξ=0.02 ξ=0.01 ξ=0.77 0.02 is closer to the experimental response curve indicating a good assumption of damping ratio.03 0.03 Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.08 0. The order of decrease was observed to be 30%.20 0.03 0.01.28 Frequency (Hz) ξ=0.00 ξ=0.20 0.54 0.16 ξ=0.20 0.12 0.00 ξ=0.24 0.Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 467 observed from Figs.02 ξ=0.04 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Frequency (Hz) 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 d/r0 =6.02 and 0. a good engineering accuracy is achieved when compared against 72 ﬁeld test results.43 0. it may be used as a 0.04 0.0 to 0.01 ξ=0.03 d/r0 =5.24 0.12 0.24 0.28 6 Conclusions Compared to available rigorous analytical methods for foundation vibration analysis on layered soil cone model is found to be very simple as it considers only one type of body waves for the mode of vibration considered and the analysis is performed using a basic strength of material approach.28 Frequency (Hz) 0.16 ξ=0.02 ξ=0.01 ξ=0.08 0.16 d/r0 =3. 11 Effect of damping ratio on frequency-amplitude response for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 10.24 0. it is observed from Figs.24 0. 8– 11 that the response curve at damping ratio 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 d/r0 =2.08 0.28 Displacement Amplitude (mm) Displacement Amplitude (mm) 0.00 ξ=0.32 0.00 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 d/r0 =4.03 0.20 0.01 ξ=0.20 0.02 ξ=0.03 d/r0 =1.12 0. 45% and 55% for 8 kN static weight.

References Baidya DK. 118(5):667–685 Meek JW. In: Proceedings of 5th World Congress on Earthquake Engineering. In: Banerjee PK. NJ Wolf JP.468 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453–468 Mandal A. 117(9):1382–1401 Jaya KP. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 120:60–80 Pradhan PK. Baidya DK. Dobry R (1984) Simple radiation damping model for piles and footings. Verbic B (1973) Vibration of viscoelastic foundations. J Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 22:485–498 123 . Prentice-Hall. Ghosh DP (2004) Dynamic response of foundations resting on layered soil by cone model. Baidya DK. London Gazetas G. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 14(5):683–703 cost effective tool for the analysis of machine foundations on layered soil with due reliability. Deeks AJ (2004) Foundation vibration analysis: a strength-of-material approach. Meek JW (1994) Dynamic stiffness of foundation on or embedded in layered soil using cone frustums. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 23:1079–1095 Wolf JP. vol 3. Butterﬁeld R (eds) Dynamic behaviour of foundations and buried structures. pp 2610–2613 Meek JW. Electron J Geotech Eng 8(B) Pradhan PK. Wolf JP (1994) Cone models for an embedded foundation. J Geotech Eng ASCE 116(3):432–449 de Barros FCP. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2(1):2–42 Gazetas G (1987) Simple physical methods for foundation impedance. Muralikrishna G (2001) Investigation of resonant frequency and amplitude of vibrating footing resting on a layered soil system. Gandhi NSVVSJ. Stokoe KH II (1991) Vibration of embedded foundations: theory versus experiment. Developments in soil mechanics and fundation engineering. Indian Geotech J 32(2):235–257 Crouse CB. Meek JW (1993) Cone models for a soil layer on ﬂexible rock half-space. vol 2. Luco JE (1990) Discrete models for vertical vibration of surface and embedded foundations. Geotech Test J ASTM 27(5):475–482 Meek JW. chapter 2. Prasad AM (2002) Embedded foundation in layered soil under dynamic excitations. J Geotech Eng ASCE 116(4):604–624 Veletsos AS. Englewood Cliffs. J Geotech Eng ASCE 110(6): 937–956 Gazetas G. Luco JE. J Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 24(6):425–434 Sridharan A. 1st edn. Elsevier Wolf JP. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 100:476–482 Veletsos AS. Wolf JP (1992b) Cone models for soil layer on rigid rock. Suresh S (1990) Stiffness coefﬁcients of layered soil system. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 2:87–102 Wolf JP (1994) Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models. Nair VD (1974) Response of torsionally excited foundations. Elsevier Applied Science. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 19(2):289–303 Ehlers G (1942) The effect of soil ﬂexibility on vibrating systems. J Geotech Eng ASCE. Veletsos AS (1974) Simple models for foundations in lateral and rocking motions. Wong HL (1990) Foundation impedance functions: theory versus experiment. Wolf JP (1992a) Cone models for homogeneous soil. Sridharan A (2002) Foundation vibration on layered soil system. Rathi A (2004) Dynamic response of footing on a sand layer of ﬁnite thickness. Beton and Eisen 41(21/22):197–203 Gazetas G (1983) Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. Somaini DR (1986) Approximate dynamic model of embedded foundation in time domain. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 22:185–193 Wolf JP. Rome. Baidya DK (2004) Effect of presence of rigid base within the soil on the dynamic response of rigid surface foundation. Ghosh DP (2003) Impedance functions of circular foundation resting on layered soil using cone model. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(6):651–655 Baidya DK. Geotech Test J ASTM 24(4):409–417 Baidya DK. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 118(5):686–703 Meek JW. Hushmand B.

- Lehnen Reprint
- Andreas Dornbrack- Turbulent mixing by breaking gravity waves
- An Adaptive Fault Location Technique Based on PMU for Transmission Line
- Villermaux_jfm.pdf
- study of stress relaxation
- 06202515 Current Distribution on Finite Helix[Limiting Current at Ends]
- Dispersion of Electrogyration in Sillenite Crystals
- ripoll
- 18. Characterization of Transmission Line
- Gotluru Torsion Paper
- demo upload
- zhou 1991 0007
- E5144 UNIT 4 Signal Processing
- section A
- A Numerical Study of the Thermal- Mechanical Behaviors of Fractured Geothermal Reservoirs
- Chap2_2
- An Overview of Heart-noise Reduction of Lung Sound Using Wavelet Transform Based Filter
- Measurement of Vibrational Power Transmission in Curved Beams
- The MatLabTM Software
- Theory of Seakeeping
- Aging in a Structural Glass
- 00017944
- Transformer Core Parameter Identification
- A Local Realistic Reconciliation of the EPR Paradox
- impedancia y sus metodos
- bernoulli theorem demonstration.docx
- Final Final
- rosenzweig 1989 0434
- Heat, Sep 2011
- Darifcv

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd