Dynamic response of machine foundations considering soil damping and

embedment
Indrajit Chowdhury, Petrofac Int.Ltd. ,Sharjah UAE, Email :Indrajit.Chowdary@petrofac.com
ABSTRACT: Foundations subjected to dynamic loading are usually designed as per IS code, ignoring
damping and embedment effect of soil. This generally makes the foundation more expensive and difficult
to design, especially in brown field project when foundation frequency is in the proximity of operating
frequency of the machine, while there is no space available to modify the foundation footprint. Present
paper proposes a method based on which a number of such deficiencies as cited above can be
circumvented.

INTRODUCTION
Technology adapted for design of machine
foundations under harmonic load as per IS-2974
Part IV (1979), is as proposed by Barkan (1962).
This has been in practice for last 40 years or
more though far more advanced and realistic soil
models are available in advanced countries as
well as industry (ACI 351.3R-04).
Some major limitations that can be attributed to
Barkans method are as follows:

Barkans model does not take damping into

consideration.It has been observed from
field instrumentation data that damping
plays a significant role in overall response of
foundation, especially when operating
frequency of the machine is low.
It does not take into account embedment
effect of surrounding soil which could play a
significant role on the magnitude of soil
stiffness and damping.
It does not take into cognisance virtual mass
of soil which vibrates in same phase with
machine and the foundation.
Barkan suggested spring value (usually the
coefficient of uniform elastic compression)
of the soil to be obtained from dynamic plate
load test (carried out with a plate of size
300mmx300 mm). This may only give
correct values for a shallow depth below
ground surface and may not be valid for
layered soil, especially when contact area of
the foundation is large for big machines.
It ignores transient part of the excitation.
This can become critical for high speed
machine, especially for pipe flanges that are
connected rigidly to the equipment and can
undergo fatigue failure due to transient
shocks.

Present paper proposes a technique by which a

number of shortcomings as cited above can be
overcome based on other type of soil models that
are also in vogue in the industry. The technique
is also computationally efficient.
Barkans method for dynamic analysis
As a prelude to the proposed technique, Barkan
or IS-2974 method is briefly explained as
hereafter. In this method Barkan assumed the
block foundation, shown in Fig. 1 as a rigid
lumped mass (i.e. he assumed the concrete block
to have infinite stiffness in comparison to the soil
and neglected any internal deformation of the
concrete block itself) having three degrees of
freedom as shown below.
Pz sinmt

M0sinmt
H
Zc

m &x&

P0sinmt
m &z&

x0

Fig-1. Barkans Model for vertical and coupled

motion
The soil medium is idealised as linear springs
which he defined in terms of soil parameter
c z , c & c which are otherwise known as
coefficient of elastic uniform compression,
coefficient of elastic uniform shear, coefficient
of elastic non-uniform compression respectively.
In the vertical direction the spring constant is
considered as

k z = c z .A f

(1)

Where, k z = equivalent spring in vertical

direction; c z = coefficient of elastic uniform
compression, and A f = plan area of foundation.
Natural frequency of the foundation in vertical
direction is given by
k
(2)
z = z
m
amplitude of vertical vibration is given by
( P / k ) sin t
z = z z 2 m
(3)
1 r
where, r= m z ; m = operating frequency of
the machine.
For coupled horizontal and rocking mode, when
a foundation has horizontal force along its minor
axis the foundation undergoes sliding and
rocking simultaneously. When the foundation
starts vibrating, resistance is mobilised in the soil
in terms of forces H and MR.
The resistive force may thus be expressed as

H = C ldA

Where, l = distance between rotation axis and

the element of area dA; = angular rotation of
the machine foundation; IA= second moment of
area of the foundation contact surface with
respect to the axis passing through centroid of
the area and perpendicular to the plane of
vibration.
For laterally applied force Pxsinmt horizontal
resistive force, H can be expressed as
H= c A f x0 = c A f ( x Z c )

machine-foundation block about minor axis of

rotation including the machine installed over it.
From eqns. (7) and (8), we see that they contain
both x and , so a coupled sliding and rocking
motion will develop along this direction.
Using the above equations and considering free
vibration, Barkan developed following equations
for calculation of the frequencies.
4

J 0 ( 2 + x 2 ) 2

J x

2 x 2 J 0

Here J 0 = J x + mZ c 2 ;
and x 2 =

J x

2 =

(7)

where m is mass of the machine foundation and

machine .
Similarly for moment equation about minor axis
of the foundation we have

=0

(9)

c I A WZ c
J0

c A f

.
m
Based on above, two principal frequencies for
coupled vibration is given by

J
= 0
2J x

2 + x 2

2 + 2
x

4J x 2 x 2
J0

(10)

Considering forced vibration, the amplitudes

Ax , A may be expressed as
Ax =

(cI A WZc + c Af Zc2 Jxm2 )P0 c Af ZcM0

A =

mJx(12 m2 )(22 m2 )

c A f Z c P0 (c A f mm 2 )M 0
mJ x(12 m 2 )(2 2 m 2 )

sinmt

sin m t

(11)

(6)

where, Af= area of base contact; Zc, x, xo etc are

shown in Fig.1.
Now applying DAlemberts equation for
dynamic equilibrium, we have
m&x& + H = P0 sin m t
or m&x& + c A f ( x Z c ) = P0 sin mt

where J x = mass moment of inertia of the

1,2 2

(5)

(8)

= M 0 sin mt

(4)

and resistive moment is expressed

M R = C l 2dA = C I A

J x && c A f Z c x + (c I A WZ c + c A f Z c 2 )

For torsional mode, again the foundation

considered is a lumped mass having single
degree of freedom when frequency and
amplitude are given by
K
T sin m t / k
=
and =
(12)
I
1 r2

where, K = c I ; r = m / n .
Method as elaborated above is recommended by
IS 2974 Code of practice for design and
construction of machine foundation and still
remains the most popular method for vibration
analysis of block foundations in Indian industry.

PROPOSED METHOD CONSIDERING

SOIL DAMPING AND EMBEDMENT
It is apparent from above that IS code does not
take into cognizance damping as well as
embedment effect of soil.
For vertical direction the equation considering
soil damping becomes that of a lumped mass
having single degree of freedom when
m&z& + C z z& + K z z = P0 sin mt
(13)
The natural frequency remains same as equation
(2) the damped amplitude of vibration can be
expressed as (Chowdhury and Dasgupta 2008) as

z = e Dnt (C1 cos D t + C 2 sin D t )

+

P0 sin m t

(14)

K z 1 r
+ (2 Dr )2
C1 and C2 are integration constants that need to
be derived from appropriate boundary
conditions.
First part of the expression represents transient
response and the second part depicts steady state
response.
2 2

Here, D = n 1 D , here D= Damped

natural frequency of the system and D=
Damping ratio expressed as C z / 2 mK z
Considering the two boundary conditions as 1) at
t=0; z=0 and 2) at t=0; dz/dt=0 we finally have
z=

P0 sin m t

Kz 1 r2

+ (2Dr)2

r sin t.e Dnt

D
1
sin t. 1 D 2
m

(15)

In equation (15) P0sinmt is to be considered

negative as it is assumed to be acting in negative
z direction
In the above equation values of Kz and Cz are
vertical spring stiffness and damping of soil
based on Lysmer and Richarts model (1966)
and as furnished in Table-A1, A2 etc. in the
appendix.
The embedment effect can be considered by
multiplying the stiffness and damping of soil by
factors as furnished in Table A3 & A4
respectively. The values are as per Whitman
(1972).
For analysis of coupled horizontal and rocking
motion let us write Barkans expressions as
K x = c A f and K x = c I A

(16)

Then, equations of equilibrium are defined as

m&x& + c A f ( x Z c ) = P0 sin mt , and

J x && c A f Z c x + (c I A WZ c + c A f Z c 2 )
= M 0 sin mt

(17)

Substituting values of K x and K , we have

m&x& + K x ( x Z c ) = P0 Sin m t and
J x && K x Z c x + ( K WZ c + K x Z c 2

(18)
= M 0 sin mt
Equation (18) in matrix form can be represented
as
Kx Zc
m 0 &x& Kx
x
0 J && + K Z K + K Z 2 WZ

x
x c
x c
c

(19)
P0
= sinmt
M0
Since above equation is based on DAlemberts
equation, the equations are said to be statically
coupled, when stiffness and damping matrix
have the same form (Meirovitch 1967). Thus, the
damped equation of motion in coupled rocking
and sliding mode becomes
C x Z c
x&

Cx + C x Z c 2 WZ c &

m 0 &x& C x
&& +

0 J x C x Z c
Kx
+
K x Z c

K x Zc
Kx + K x Z c

x P0
= sin mt
WZ c M 0

(20)
Above equations constitute the complete
equation of motion for coupled sliding and
rocking mode considering the damping effect of
soil in generalized form, and having soil stiffness
as Kx and K.
Actually for all practical calculations for finding
out the dynamic response of foundation, the term
WZc may be neglected, for it has been observed
that unless the foundation is very massive and
deep, the term WZc has no significant effect on
overall response of the system.
Based on above argument equation (20) reduces
to
C x Z c x&
m 0 &x& C x
0 J && + C Z C + C Z 2 &
x
x
x c
x c

K x Z c x P0
Kx
+
sin mt
2 =
K x Z c Kx + K x Z c M 0

(21)

Equation (21) above looks elegant, but has a

serious catch in it, for this damping matrix of soil
is not proportional to either the mass or stiffness
of the soil. Moreover as they are coupled by the
term Zc , as such do not de-couple on orthogonal
transformation. This forms a major headache to a

designer as he is not in a position to guess the

soil damping ratio at the outset or resort to a
modal analysis.
The most appropriate technique in such case is
then to resort to time history analysis (like say
Wilson- method (Bathe-1996)) for a correct
answer. However, many engineers find time
history too intensive in terms of calculation, and
prefer to use modal response technique as a tool
for analysis of the same. Of course, easiest way
out is to neglect soil damping and argue that the
design is conservative (but conveniently
overlooking the fact that it becomes more
expensive as heavier mass is to be used to restrict
the amplitude)!
But this need not be done, for it is possible to by
pass this problem of orthogonal de-coupling,
even when damping matrix is non-proportional
which though not exact would give still give a
designer a reasonable value to estimate a more
realistic amplitude of vibration (it is surely a
better value than no damping considered) and is
considered hereafter.
Approximate analysis to de-couple equations
with non-proportional damping
Based on equation (21) the natural frequencies
are obtained from eigen value analysis when undamped equation becomes
K x Zc
K x m

K Z
= 0 (22)
2
K
K
Z
J

x c

x c
x

Solving the above equations we find out eigen

values vis--vis natural frequencies of the
foundation system.
Let the eigen values be 1 and 2 respectively.
Let corresponding normalized eigen vectors be

< xx x >

and

< x

> T

respectively, when the complete eigen vector

xx x
matrix is expressed as,

x
Since the eigen vectors are known separately for
each mode we find out the damping ratio
separately for each mode as follows.
As a first step we perform the operation
{}T [C]{ } for each mode.
For the first mode, we have
Cx
C x Z c

< xx x >

CxZc

Cx + C x Z c 2

xx

x

This gives
C x xx C x Z c x

< xx x >

2
C x Z c xx + (Cx + C x Z c ) x

C x xx 2 2C x Z c x xx + (Cx + C x Z c 2 ) x 2

(23)
It should be realised that the above is a unique
value and we also know that the operation
{}T [C]{} breaks up the equation to form
2 Dii where i is the degrees of freedom of the
system.
Now considering,
2 Dii =
C x xx 2 2C x Z c x xx + (Cx + C x Z c 2 ) x 2 ,

For first mode

D1 =

Cxxx2 2Cx Zcxxx + (Cx + Cx Zc 2 )x 2

21

(24)

where D1 = damping ratio for first mode and;

1 = first natural frequency of the foundation.
Similarly, for second mode proceeding in same
manner it can be proved that
D2 =

Cxx 2 2Cx Zcx + (Cx + Cx Zc 2 )2

(25)
22
Once the damping ratios are identified we
assume, [C] = [M ] + [K ] and performing the
operation
{}T [C]{} = { }T [M ]{ } + {}T [K ]{} (26)

We have, for two degrees of freedom

2D11 = + 12 and 2D22 = + 2 2 (27)
Thus, we have two equations with two
unknowns, and , and solving the above two
equations we get values of and , which may
be expressed as.
1 D22
+

2(D11 D 2 2 )
=

= 2 D11 1

(28)
(29)

(30)
Here = 1 2 2 2
Once these values are known one can obtain an
equivalent proportional soil damping from the

[]

= [M ] + [K ] which is now quite

operation C
suitable for modal response technique
(Chowdhury et al 2002).
The corrected modal damping matrix can now be
expressed as

[C ] = m0

Torsional mode
In this mode the block foundation is again
considered as a lumped mass having single
degree of freedom, natural frequency and the
torsional rotation, is given by

K x Zc
0
Kx
+

2 (31)
J x
K x Zc Kx + K x .Zc

Equation (21) in matrix form considering

as expressed in
corrected modal damping C

[]

[M ]{X&& }+ [C ]{X& }+ [K ]{X } = {Px }sin m t

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]T

[ ]T [M][ ]{&&}+ [ ]T [C ][ ]{&}+ [ ]T [K][ ]{ }

= [ ]T {Px }sin m t

we

(33)

[]

= [M ] + [K ] , i.e. a
In equation (33) as C
converted equivalent Rayleigh type damping, it
decouples into two equations of the form

[ ]
+ [ ]

&&1 + [2 D11 ]&1 + 1 2 1 = p x sin m t

&&2 + [2 D2 2 ]&2

(34)

= m x sin m t (35)
Solution to equation (34) and (35) are expressed
as

D11t
px sinmt
1 r1 sin1Dt.e
(36)
1 =

2
2
1 1 r12 + (2D1r1 )2 sinmt. 1 D1

And

2 =

mx sinmt

2 1 r22 + (2D2r2 )2
2

D22t
1 r2 sin2Dt.e
(37)
sin t. 1 D 2
m
2

The coupled motion in the global co-ordinate is

then expressed as

[X ] = [ ][ ]
Where [X ] = {x

(38)

}T

and

(1 r ) + (2D r )
2 2

r sin t.e D n t
D
1

sin

t
.
1
D
m

(40)

(32)

Let 1 and 2 be the eigen values and 2 X 2 be

the normalized eigenvectors. Such that
{X } = { } where { } = Displacement
vectors in the decoupled coordinate
Multiplying equation (32) by the term
have

T sin mt

equation (31) can now be expressed as

(39)

where K = 16Gr 3 / 3 , D is the damping ratio

in the torsion mode and r is the ratio between the
natural frequency of the foundation in torsion
mode and the operating frequency of the
machine.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
To determine how the procedure works a real life
gas turbine foundation having following data is
analyzed as a benchmark problem.

Geometric data
Length of foundation =16.1 m
Width of foundation = 6.77 m
Depth of foundation = 3.6 m
Depth of embedment =3.0 m
Soil Data
Bearing capacity of soil = 200 kN/m2
Shear wave velocity of soil = 125 m/sec
Poissons Ratio =0.25
Density of soil =20 kN/m3
Machine Data
Center line height of shaft over machine
foundation = 2.0m
Operating frequency = 2250 rpm
Allowable amplitude at top of
foundation =0.2mm
Static weight of machine = 4760 kN
The natural frequencies based on various
methods are as presented hereafter

Analysis
v
x

based on
(rpm)
(rpm)
(rpm)
Barkan
2779
1738
3858
Lysmer
& 2378
2301
5004
Richart
Wolf
3945
2091
3800
Lysmer
2636
2034
4001
&Richart(with
embedment)
Maximum Amplitude of vibration based on
various methods are as presented hereafter
X(mm)

(rad)

0.00285
0.00156*

0.0083
0.0055

0.00143*
0.00103*

0.0045
0.0032

0.00001
0.000006
0.000004
0.000002

Barkan Rot
Wolf Rotation
0.71

0.66

0.62

0.57

0.52

0.48

0.43

0.38

0.33

0.29

0.24

0.19

0.1

0.14

-0.000002

0
0.05

Rocking amplitude(rad)

0.000008

Lysmer Rot.

-0.000004
-0.000006
-0.000008
-0.00001
Time steps

Fig-4 Time history plot of rotational amplitude

Comparison of amplitude based on time history versus
corrected damping
0.000015
0.00001

not steady state vibration

amplitude, which is much less

Amplitude

Analysis
Zv(mm)
Based on
Barkan
0.0015
Lysmer
0.0010
&Richart
Wolf
0.0010
Lysmer
0.00094
(emebeded)
* This is transient peak and

Comparison of rocking amplitude

0.000005
0
-0.000005

1 23 45 67 89 111 133 155 177 199 221 243 265

Displacement with non

proportional damping
Displacement with corrected
proportional damping

-0.00001
-0.000015
Time steps

Fig-5 Comparison of amplitude based on non

proportional damping and corrected modal

Amplitude of vertical vibration

0.015

Lysmer spring with damping

Barkan undamped

5.8

5.4

4.9

4.5

4.0

3.6

3.1

2.7

2.2

1.8

1.3

0.9

0
0.4

Disp lacemen t(mm)

0.01
0.005

-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
Time steps(secs)

Fig-2 Vibration Amplitude in vertical direction

Comparison of translational amplitude

0.00003
0.00002
Barkan Disp.

0.00001

Wolf Disp.

0
-0.00001

0
0 .0 4
0 .0 8
0 .1 2
0 .1 6
0 .2
0 .2 4
0 .2 8
0 .3 2
0 .3 6
0 .4
0 .4 4
0 .4 8
0 .5 2
0 .5 6
0 .6
0 .6 4
0 .6 8
0 .7 2

D is p a lc e m e n t (m m )

0.00004

Lysmer Disp.

-0.00002
-0.00003
Time steps (secs)

Fig-3.Time
amplitude

history

plot

of

translational

Figure 2 to 4 clearly shows that Barkans theory

overestimates the amplitude and does not take
into cognizance the transient peak which the
foundation experiences during starting and
stopping a machine. This can be critical for high
frequency machines when it passes through the
natural frequency zone of the foundation.
Lysmer and Wolfs model considering soil
damping gives comparable results. While
embedment effect further enhances the
frequencies and reduce the amplitude.
Adapting Barkans theory for design of
foundation in brown field plants can put a
designer in significant difficulty especially when
the foundation is in resonant zone while there is
no space available to modify the dimension of
the foundation footprint.
In such cases if we consider the soil damping, we
can very well let the foundation be within the
resonance zone so long as we can prove that it
does not harm the functional behaviour of the
machine as amplitude and velocity of foundation
is within acceptable limit- this is of great
technical as well as commercial advantage.
Figure-5 shows that modal analysis based on
corrected damping matrix and time history
analysis, considering non-proportional damping
are in excellent agreement. Though at the stage

when foundation reaches the steady state in the

long run, it shows a phase difference however as
far a magnitude is concerned there is hardly any
difference between the two analysis.
This gives significant computational advantage
as one can circumvent the expensive numerical
analysis that can be cost wise justified only for
very big and expensive machines only.
CONCLUSION
A comprehensive mathematical model is
proposed herein for dynamic analysis of block
foundation which is mathematically more
realistic and takes into consideration soil
damping and embedment effect which the IS
code ignores presently.
REFERENCE

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

ACI 351.3R-04 Foundations for

Dynamic Equipment Report of ACI
committee 351.
Bathe K.J. (1996), Finite element
procedures in engineering; Prentice Hall,
New Delhi, India.
Barkan D.D. (1962), Dynamics of Bases
and
Foundations;
Mgrawhill
Publications NY USA.
Chowdhury I, Ghosh B & Dasgupta, S.P.
(2002),
Analysis
of
Hammer
Foundations considering soil damping
Advances in Civil Engineering ACE
2002, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur India Vol-II pp-1019-1028.
Chowdhury, I. & Dasgupta, S.P. (2008),
Dynamics of structure and foundation- a

unified approach, Volume I & II, Taylor

and Francis, Leiden Holland.
6. IS-2974 Part IV (1979) Code of practice
for design and construction of Machine
foundations Bureau of Indian Standard
New Delhi, India.
7. Lysmer J and Richart F.E. (1966)
Dynamic response of footings subjected
to vertical Loading J. of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Div. ASCE Vol. 92 #
SM1 pp 65-91
8. Meirovitch L (1967), Analytical Methods
in Vibration analysis Macmillan
Company UK.
9. Whitman, R.V. (1972), Analysis of soil
structure interaction a state of the art
review Soil Publication # 300 MIT USA.
10. Wolf John P.(1988) Dynamic soil
structure interaction in time domain
Prentice Hall Engelwood Cliff New
Jersey USA

APPENDIX
Table-A1 Values of Soil Springs as per Lysmer &Richart (1966)Model

Sl No
1)

Direction
Vertical

2)

Horizontal

3)

Rocking

3.1)

Rocking

4)

Twisting

Spring value
4Grz
Kz =
(1 )

Equivalent radius

32(1 )Grx
(7 8)

Kx =

K x =
K y =

8Grx 3

3(1 )
8Gry 3

3(1 )

16Gr 3

K =

rz =

LB

rx =

LB

rx = 4

LB3
3

ry = 4

L3B
3

r = 4

Remarks
This is in
vertical
Z
direction
This
induce
sliding
in
horizontal x or
y direction
This produces
rocking about
Y axis
This produces
rocking about
X axes
This produces
twisting about
vertical Z axis

L3B + BL3
6

Table-A2 Values of Soil Damping as per Lysmer & Richarts(1966) Model.

Sl No

Direction

1)

Vertical

2)

Horizontal

Mass ratio( B)
Bz =

0.25m(1 )g

Bx =

s rz

(7 8)mg
32(1 ) s rx 3

Damping Ratio
Damping Value
0.425
,
z =
Bz

and

This is damping
value is
in vertical Z
direction.

C z = 2 z K z m
x =

0.288
Bx

This
damping
value is in lateral
X or Y direction

C x = 2 x K x m

3)

Rocking

Bx =

0.375(1 )J x g
s r x

x =

0.15

(1 + Bx )

Bx

C x = 2 x K x J x

Rocking

By =

0.375(1 )J y g
s ry

y =

0.15

(1 + By )

By

C y = 2 y K y J y

4)

Twisting

B =

J g
s r

Remarks

0.5
,
1 + 2B

C = 2 K J

This
damping
value is for
rocking about Y
direction
This
damping
value is for
rocking about Y
axes
This
damping
value is valid for
twisting
about
vertical Z axis.

Table-A3. Embedment Coefficients for Spring Constants as per Whitman (1972).

Sl No
1)

Direction
Vertical

2)

Horizontal

3)

Rocking

Coefficient

Equivalent Radius

h
z = 1 + 0.6(1 )
rz

rz =

LB

x = 1 + 0.55(2 )

h
rx

rx =

LB

x = 1 + 1.2(1 )

h
rx

rx = 4

LB3
3

h
ry

ry = 4

L3B
3

h
+ 0.2(2 )
rx

3.1)

4)

Rocking

Twisting

This induce sliding in

horizontal x or y
direction
This produces rocking
about Y axis

y = 1 + 1.2(1 )
h

+ 0.2(2 )
ry

None available

Remarks
This is in vertical Z
direction

This produces rocking

about X axes

Table-A4. Embedment Coefficients for Soil damping ratio Whitman (1972)

Sl No
1)

Direction
Vertical

Coefficient
z =

2)

Horizontal

1 + 1.9(2 )

Rocking
x =

Rocking
1 + 0.7(1 )
y =

4)

Twisting

LB

h
rx

rx =

LB

1 + 0.7(1 )

3.1)

rz =

z =

3)

Equivalent Radius

h
1 + 1.9(1 )
rz

None available

h
+ 0.6(2 )
rx
rx

h
+ 0.6(2 )
ry
ry

rx = 4

LB3
3

ry = 4

L3B
3

Remarks
z is value as
obtained as
coefficient for
soil spring
constant

x is value as
obtained as
coefficient for
soil spring
constant

x is value as
obtained as
coefficient for
soil spring
constant

y is value as
obtained as
coefficient for
soil spring
constant

Table- A5. Soil spring constants as per Wolf (1988).

Mode

Spring Stiffness

Vertical

4Gr0
1
8Gr0
1

0.58

0.095

0.85

0.27

Horizontal
Rocking

Torsion

8Gr 3
3(1 )

1+

16Gr 3

0.3
3(1 )m
8r 5

0.433
2m
1+ 5
r

0.24

r 5

0.045

In which, C =

r
r
k 0 and m = k0
Vs
Vs

where r= equivalent radius and shall be r0 , r , r as the case may be; G= Dynamic shear modulus of the

soil; = mass density of the soil; vs= shear wave velocity of the soil; m= mass of the soil participating in
the vibration with the machine and the block foundation, and C= damping of the soil.