Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

# An Analytical Solution Procedure for

## Dynamic Analysis of Soil-Structure

Asrat Worku
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Currently Operations Manager for Geotechnical Engineering, Gibb
International, Nairobi, Kenya
asratie@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The dynamic analysis of multi-degree-of-freedom systems interacting with the foundation soil
and acted by a system of periodic loads is considered. Such systems belong to the category of
non-classically damped systems. The method of modal superposition is employed for
coordinate transformation. The resulting coupled algebraic equations are easily solved
analytically without resorting to iterations, which would otherwise be necessary in time-
domain analyses for irregular excitations like earthquake ground motions. A practical method
of compiling the non-proportional damping matrix is adapted for the intended purpose. The
proposed method of solution is convenient to use on spreadsheets, with MATLAB or to
integrate it with existing software for routine structural analyses. The application is illustrated
in detail on a simplified model of a symmetrically-loaded frame founded on a rigid mat. The
method is equally applicable to systems the superstructure of which is discretized using finite-
element method and the foundation system consisting of a set of isolated rigid footings or
piles under isolated rigid pile caps.
KEYWORDS: Non-proportional damping, geometric damping, modal superposition,

INTRODUCTION
The method of modal superposition is widely recognized as an efficient technique of
transforming the coupled differential equations of motion of classically damped linear multi-
degree-of-freedom (MDF) structural systems in geometric coordinates into a set of uncoupled
differential equations in modal coordinates. A major reason for its efficiency is that one can
represent the damping matrix in such systems proportional to the mass and the stiffness matrices
so that the uncoupling succeeds. Such damping often employed in practice is the familiar
Rayleigh damping. One is justified to assume a proportional damping as far as the energy
dissipating mechanism is fairly uniform in the entire vibrating system (Clough and Penzien 1993;
Chopra 1995; Wilson 2000).

- 3835 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3836

Cases of vibrating systems, where the use of a proportional damping is not valid or justified,
include structures, the foundations of which interact with the soil, structures constructed of
different materials in distinctly different zones, and structures with additional artificial damping
elements (Clough and Penzien 1993; Chopra 1995). Due to the inherent difference in the
mechanism of energy dissipation in different parts of the system, the damping matrix of such
systems cannot be set proportional to the mass and/or stiffness matrices. Such systems may also
not generally have orthogonal natural modes and are commonly referred to as non-proportionally
or non-classically damped systems.
The dynamic analysis of non-proportionally damped systems is generally more complex than
that of classically damped systems. In structures with foundations interacting with the underlying
soil, for example, the damping in the soil is of entirely different nature from that in the
superstructure. Energy is dissipated in soils in form of geometric and material damping.
Geometric damping could be the most important source of energy dissipation in thick deposits of
soils providing support to machine foundations, in which the deformations are in the order of
fractions of a millimeter. Material damping, which represents energy dissipation due to the cyclic
nature of the loading and inelastic deformation, increases with increasing level of strains. As a
result of this, it could be a major source of energy dissipation in systems subjected to strong
excitations like earthquakes (Gazetas 1991; Pais and Kausel 1988).
Numerical solution methods based on the modal superposition approach are available for
both linear and non-linear systems vibrating under periodic and more general loading but are
limited to classically damped systems (Villaverde 1988; Villaverde and Hanna 1992; Wilson
2000).
This paper deals with the dynamic response of a non-proportionally damped MDF system
subjected to a set of periodic loads. Modal superposition is employed for the coordinate
transformation using the natural modes of the undamped system as the basis. The modes of non-
proportionally damped systems may not generally be orthogonal to each other. This is particularly
true in structures, the foundations of which interact with soil. In such systems, the foundation
impedance functions, and subsequently the stiffness matrix of the system, are frequency
dependent. Simplifying assumptions are necessary to obtain orthogonal real modes.
The orthogonality of the natural modes achieved in this manner results in diagonalization of
the generalized stiffness and mass matrices but not the generalized damping matrix. Due to the
periodic nature of the loading, however, the coupling with respect to damping does not pose a
major problem. As presented in this work in details, it has been possible to arrive at a closed form
solution. For loadings of general nature like earthquake ground motion, an iterative approach
would have been unavoidable as far as analysis in the time domain is of interest (Worku 1996).
The proposed method results in a number of equations in modal coordinates double the
number of modes considered for coordinate transformation, but generally much less than the total
number of degrees of freedom for large structures. The doubling of the number of equations to be
solved is a result of the phase shift between the loading and the response. The modal coordinates
are readily determined by employing conventional methods of solutions of coupled linear
algebraic equations.
The application of the method is illustrated using a simple model of a framed reinforced-
concrete machine foundation subjected to a set of periodic loads. A proportional damping is
employed for the portion of the structure above the foundation and a geometric damping for the
substructure. The latter is based on a wealth of foundation impedance functions compiled from
research works conducted over a period of several decades for different foundation types and
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3837

modes of vibration (Das 1993; Beredugo and Novak 1972; Gazetas 1983; Gazetas 1991; Luco
and Westmann 1971; Luco 1974; Novak and Beredugo 1972; Novak and Sachs, 1973; Pais and
Kausel 1988; Rücker, 1982; Veletsos and Wei, 1971; Wong and Luco 1971; Worku 1996).
It is not the intention of this paper to get into the details of how the available impedance
functions are used to determine dynamic spring and dashpot coefficients, as this is
straightforward and readily available in the literature (Das 1993; Gazetas 1983; Worku 1991).
To the knowledge of the author, the problem of non-classically damped systems subjected to
periodic loads has not been solved in the past in such a complete closed form as presented in this
paper.
Anticipated areas of application of the proposed method include framed machine foundations
and other structures subjected to wind, sea wave and acoustic forces of periodic nature resulting
in deformations within the elastic limit. The method can be easily extended to cover non-linear
response following such techniques as devised by Villaverde (1988) and Villaverde and Hanna
(1992). However, it is unlikely that a closed-form solution would be obtained. This aspect is not
within the scope of the paper.

APPROACH TO SOLUTION
Equations of Motion
The vibration of an elastic MDF system subjected to externally applied dynamic loads is
expressed by the well known matrix equation of

## [m]{u} + [c]{u} + [k ]{u} = { f (t )} (1)

where [m] , [c] and [k ] are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the system, and {u} and
{ f (t )} are the displacement and external force vectors, respectively.
Modal superposition has proved to be a very efficient tool for solving vibration problems of
both linear and nonlinear dynamic systems (Villaverde 1988; Villaverde and Hanna 1992; Wilson
2000). Widely used commercial software like SAP and ETABS make use of the tool extensively
(Wilson 2000).
In this paper, the solution of Eq. (1) is sought for non-proportionally damped systems
subjected to a system of periodic loads in which a coordinate transformation is made using the
conventional modal substitution of

## {u} = [φ ]{z} (2)

where [φ ] is the modal matrix of the undamped system and {z} is the vector of modal
coordinates.

## Natural Frequencies and Natural Modes

The eigenvalue problem of the undamped system is given by the following equation:
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3838

([k ] − ω n
2
[m]){φ } = {0} (3)
The natural frequencies, ω n , and the corresponding natural modes, {φn } , for conventional
systems are determined using standard methods. However, the solution procedure for non-
conventional systems is not always straightforward. For example, in cases of structures, the
foundations of which interact with the soil, the foundation impedance functions, and subsequently
the stiffness matrix, are frequency dependent. The solution thus generally demands an iterative
procedure.
One approach for the problem at hand is to establish the frequency-dependant stiffness matrix
based on the frequency, ω0 , of the fundamental harmonic of the exciting force. Another
alternative is to establish the stiffness matrix based on the fundamental frequency of the system,
in which case iteration is unavoidable. The choice is at the discretion of the user. It is known that
the natural modes so obtained satisfy the orthogonality conditions with respect to both the
stiffness and mass matrices (Worku 2005).

Modal Superposition
The coordinate transformation is accomplished by substituting Eq. (2) in Eq. (1) and pre-
multiplying the resulting equation by [φ]T to obtain

## [M ]{z} + [C ]{z} + [K ]{z} = {F } (4)

Because of the orthogonality conditions, the generalized mass and stiffness matrices in Eq.
(4) are diagonalized, and their elements are M m = {φm } [m]{φm } and K m = {φ m } [k ]{φ m } ,
T T

respectively. The modal force vector has Fm = {φm } { f } as its elements, where {φm } is the mth
T

natural mode.

The modal damping matrix, [C ] = [φ ] [c ][φ ] , remains non-diagonalized because of the non-
T

proportional damping of the system under consideration. Thus, the differential equations of Eq.
(4) remain coupled through the off-diagonal damping terms (Chopra 1995; Clough and Penzien
1993; Worku 1996).

A set of periodic loads with the fundamental excitation period, T0, is considered given by

{ f (t )} = { f (t + jT0 )} (5)
The Fourier-series expansion of Eq. (5) is given by

 ∞   ∞ 
{ f (t )} = {a0 } +  a j cos( jω0t ) +  b j sin( jω0t )
 j =1   j =1  (6)
where ω0 = 2π T0 is the frequency of the fundamental harmonic (Chopra 1995; Clough and
Penzien 1993; Kreyszig 2006; Paz 1997).
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3839

The individual Fourier coefficients in the vectors of the right-hand side of Eq. (6) are
expressed in terms of the given force function f(t) as

1
 f (t )dt
T0
a0 =
T0 0

1
 f (t )cos( jω t )dt
T0
aj = 0 (7)
T0 0

1
 f (t )sin ( jω t )dt
T0
bj = 0
T0 0

The coefficient a0 is the average value of the function f(t), whereas aj and bj are the
amplitudes of the jth cosine and sine harmonics of frequency jω0, respectively (Chopra 1995;
Clough and Penzien 1993; Kreyszig 2006; Paz 1997).

METHOD OF SOLUTION
When Eq. (6) is substituted back in Eq. (4), one obtains for the mth mode
∞ ∞
M m zm + n Cmn zn + K m zm = a0 m +  a jm cos( jω0t ) +  b jm sin ( jω0t ) (8)
j =1 j =1

where the coefficients in the modal force of the right-hand side of Eq. (8) are given by

## a0 m = {φm } {a0 }; a jm = {φm } {a j }; b jm = {φm } {b j }

T T T
(9)
and Cmn are the elements of the mth row of the non-diagonal generalized damping matrix. For
linearly elastic systems, the solution of Eq. (8) can be obtained as the superposition of the
solutions to the individual forces on the right-hand side. For a non-linear response, a technique
devised by Villaverde (1988) and Villaverde and Hanna (1992) can be adapted in which the non-
linear terms are taken to the right-hand side of the equation to modify the loading step by step
with due account for the initial conditions at each stage.
The steady-state response to the constant modal force, a0m , for a damped system is given by
(Chopra 1995)
z0 m = a0 m K m (10)
The steady-state response to the single harmonic cosine force of a jm cos( jω 0 t ) is also
harmonic with a phase shift that can be expressed as
z cjm = Acjm sin ( jω 0 t ) + B cjm cos( jω 0 t ) (11)
c c
In Eq. (11), A jm and B jm are coefficients yet to be determined. Inserting Eq. (11) and its
derivatives in Eq. (8), in which only a single cosine harmonic force is considered on the right-
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3840

hand side, comparing coefficients of the sine and cosine functions, and solving for the vector of
c c
the unknown coefficients A jm and B jm , one obtains for the mth mode:

{ }
 A cjm 1 {a }
 c = [E ]−j1  jm
{ }  (12)
 B jm jω 0 {0} 
where, the coefficient matrix [E]j is given by

 [C ]
1
[D]
jω 0
[E ] j =  (13)
 1 [D ] − [C ] 
 jω 0 

The sub-matrix [D] in Eq. (13) is a diagonal matrix with its elements given by
( )
Dmm = M m ω m2 − j 2ω 0 , and the sub-matrix [C] is the non-diagonalized generalized damping
2

## matrix defined earlier.

c c
With the coefficients A jm and B jm so determined, the modal response of Eq. (11) to the
single harmonic cosine force a jm cos( jω 0 t ) is known.

The steady-state response to the single harmonic sine force of b jm sin ( jω 0 t ) is also
s s
harmonic given by Eq. (11) with another set of coefficients A jm and B jm . Thus,

## Similar operations as above result in

{ }
 A sjm 1 {0} 
 s = [E ]−j1 
{ } 
{b jm }
(15)
 B jm jω 0

Finally, the steady-state modal response to the given system of periodic excitation is
determined as the combination of the responses to the individual terms given by Eq. (10), Eq.
(11) and Eq. (14). Therefore,
a0m ∞ c ∞
zm = ( ) (
+  A jm + A sjm sin ( jω 0 t ) +  B cjm + B sjm cos( jω 0 t )
K m j =1
) (16)
j =1

Once the modal responses are determined as such, the displacement vector is found by
superposing the contributions of all significant modes as
N
{u} =  {φ n }z n (17)
n =1

where N is the number of modes significantly contributing to the total response. Note that the
number of algebraic equations in Eq. (12) and Eq. (15) is double the number of modes included in
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3841

the solution. Since the number of modes significantly contributing to the overall response is
mostly small, the number of linear algebraic equations to be solved is generally smaller than the
total number of degrees of freedom of the MDF model. This is especially true when the number
of degrees of freedom in the model is large which is the case when the superstructure is modeled
using finite-element discretization or the structure is complex and big in size.

If a given MDF system is instead subjected to a set of harmonic loads, say f i (t ) = ai sin ωt
acting in the ith degree of freedom, with the frequency ω, then Eq. (4) reduces to
M m zm + n C mn z n + K m z m = a m sin ωt (18)

where a m = {φ m } {a} and {a} is the vector of the force amplitudes. The solution of Eq. (18) for
T

the steady-state condition is similar to Eq. (11) and Eq. (14) and given by
z m = Am sin ωt + Bm cos ωt (19)
Inserting Eq. (19) and its derivatives in Eq. (18), and solving for the vector of the open
coefficients, one obtains:

{Am } −1 {a m }
 = ω [E ] 
−1
  (20)
{Bm } {0} 
in which

[E ] = ω [D ] −−1[C ] 
 
−1

(21)
 [C ] ω [D ]
The sub-matrix [D] in Eq. (21) is a diagonal matrix with its elements given by
( )
Dmm = M m ω m2 − ω 2 , and the sub-matrix [C] is the generalized damping matrix.
Analogously, the displacement vector is found through superposition according to Eq. (17).
This problem was solved earlier separately (Worku 2005) and can thus be considered as a simpler
variant of the present problem of a system subjected to periodic loads.

## ASSEMBLING THE DAMPING MATRIX

The non-diagonal generalized damping matrix, which is needed in the coefficient matrix [E]j
of Eq. (12) and Eq. (15) and in [E] of Eq. (20), can be assembled following a procedure outlined
in Clough and Penzien (1993). Accordingly, for structures interacting with the foundation soil,
the damping in the superstructure can be assembled as a proportional damping, whereas the
damping in the substructure is established in accordance with principles of foundation dynamics.
This results in a non-proportional damping matrix of the entire system under consideration.
A proportional damping sub-matrix of the superstructure, [c]s, is commonly established as a
Rayleigh damping:
[c]s = α [k ]s + β [m]s (22)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3842

By specifying two modal damping ratios ξ r and ξ s for two selected modes – the rth and sth
modes - the two constants α and β are determined from
2(ξ s ω s − ξ r ω r ) 2ω s ω r (ξ r ω s − ξ s ω r )
α= ; β= (23)
ωs 2 − ωr 2 ωs 2 − ωr 2
in which ω r and ω s are the corresponding frequencies. If the two modal damping ratios are
specified to be one and the same, say ξ , then Eq. (23) simplify to

2ξ 2ω r ω s ξ
α= ; β= = ω r ω sα (24)
ωr + ωs ωr + ωs
The value of ξ in the above procedure can be easily selected from recommended values in
the literature depending on the nature of the material and structural system. Use of the
fundamental frequency as one of the controlling frequencies is common. The other controlling
frequency is normally recommended as one among the higher frequencies (Clough and Penzien
1993).
The damping sub-matrix corresponding to the substructure is assembled similar to the way
the stiffness sub-matrix is assembled. The elements of this frequency-dependent sub-matrix can
be directly evaluated from available impedance functions depending on the foundation shape,
embedment depth, soil stiffness, stratification, and soil homogeneity (Beredugo and Novak 1972;
Das 1993; Gazetas 1983; Gazetas 1991; Luco and Westmann 1971; Luco 1974; Novak and
Beredugo 1972; Novak and Sachs 1973; Pais and Kausel 1988; Rücker 1982; Veletsos and Wei
1971; Wong and Luco 1971; Worku 1996).

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
The solution procedure presented above is illustrated now using an example problem of an
idealized framed machine foundation.
The concrete platform shown in Figure 1(a), which has a thickness of 30cm and a rectangular
shape of 3.5m by 10.5m, is subjected to a periodic horizontal force of amplitude 120 kN (Figure
1(a)) and period T0=0.02 seconds as shown in Figure 1(b).

## (Figure 1 is on the next page)

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3843

(a)

p(t)

p0

T0/2 T0 2T0
t
(b)

## Figure 1: (a) A concrete platform providing support to a vibrating machine; (b) a

periodic excitation of amplitude p0 and period T0

The platform is supported by six reinforced concrete columns of size 30cm by 30cm and
height 2.5m arranged in three rows parallel to the plane of the paper. A 40cm-thick and 4.3m by
11.3m rigid mat embedded 1.0m into the underlying deep uniform clay formation support the
columns.
The vibration amplitudes of the upper slab are to be determined using a simple planar (2D)
two-mass oscillator model with due consideration of the interaction of the rigid foundation with
the surrounding soil (Figure 2).
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3844

u2
u1
mr

mf
Kh
u4
Cr u3

Kr Ch

## Figure 2: A four-degree-of-freedom oscillator model for the given system

Consideration of the interaction of the rigid foundation with the soil results in a four-degree-
of-freedom system as shown in Figure 2. The soil may be assumed to have a uniform behavior
with depth and exhibiting a unit weight of 16.8 kN/m3, a Poisson ratio of 0.42, and an initial-
tangent shear modulus of 60 MPa. For the concrete in the superstructure and the foundation, a
unit weight of 24 kN/m3 and an elastic modulus of 25 GPa may be used.
The stiffness and mass matrices are easily established as:

 12 EI 6 EI − 12 EI 6 EI 
 h3 
mr 0 0 0 h2 h3 h2
0 
 6 EI 4 EI − 6 EI 2 EI 
Iθr 0 0  
[m] =  ; [k ] =  h
2
h h2 h  (E1)
0 0 mf 0  − 12 EI − 6 EI 12 EI − 6 EI 
   h3 + Kh 
 0 0 0 Iθf  h2 h3 h2
 6 EI 2 EI − 6 EI 4 EI 
 + Kr 
 h2 h h2 h 

The dynamic stiffness coefficients Kh and Kr corresponding to the horizontal and rocking
movements, respectively, of the foundation are determined from the literature, which provide
these quantities in form of impedance functions (Beredugo and Novak 1972; Gazetas 1983;
Gazetas 1991; Luco 1974; Pais and Kausel 1988; Rücker 1982; Worku 1996). The impedance
functions are generally frequency dependent and are evaluated at the fundamental excitation
frequency in this case.
After inserting the appropriate structural and soil properties in EQ. (E1) and solving the
eigenvalue problem, the spectral and modal matrices are obtained as:
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3845

0.0025 0 0 0 
 0 0.0402 0 0 
[λ ] =  × 105 sec − 2 (E2a)
 0 0 0.3979 0 
 
 0 0 0 1.0155

##  0.1607 - 0.1058 - 0.0057 0.0022

- 0.1049 - 0.1589 - 0.0071 0.0018 
[Φ] =   (E2b)
 0.0006 - 0.0069 0.1448 - 0.0020 
 
- 0.0005 0.0016 0.0017 0.1168 
where the elements of [λ] are the eigenvalues λ = ω 2 . The fact that none of the eigenvalues is
identically zero indicates that the natural modes of the non-classically damped system considered
here are orthogonal with respect to the mass and stiffness matrices as indicated earlier.
The natural modes in Eq. (E2b) are sketched in Figure 3, where the associated natural
frequencies are also indicated.

## Figure 3: The natural modes and the natural frequencies

The non-proportional damping matrix for the entire system is found by dividing it into two
sub-matrices: the upper left two-by-two sub-matrix for the superstructure and the lower right two-
by-two sub-matrix for the foundation system. The superstructure damping sub-matrix is
assembled as a proportional damping matrix following a standard procedure established for
classically damped systems, in which a 5% critical damping ratio is employed for this purpose
(Clough and Penzien 1993). The damping sub-matrix corresponding to the foundation system is
established by directly evaluating the frequency-dependent impedance functions, ch (ω ) and
cr (ω ) , available in the literature at the fundamental frequency of the system for the horizontal
translation and rocking degrees of freedom of the foundation (Beredugo and Novak 1972; Das
1993; Gazetas 1983; Gazetas 1991; Luco 1974; Pais and Kausel 1988; Rücker 1982; Worku
1996). In the latter case, the small coupling existing between the two degrees of freedom is often
neglected. The resulting matrix is a non-proportional damping matrix obtained as
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3846

0.0576 0.0226 0 0 
0.0226 0.078 0 0 
[c] =  × 10 3 (E3)
 0 0 223.48 0 
 
 0 0 0 683.52

As the treatment of the impedance functions is beyond the scope of this paper, the reader is
referred to the above list of literature for a detailed treatment, the choice being dependent on the
type of foundation, embedment depth and the geological stratification. The generalized mass,
stiffness and damping matrices are then calculated as:

1 0 0 0 0.0025 0 0 0 
0 1 0 0  0 0.0402 0 0 
[M ] =  = [I ] ; [K ] =  × 105
0 0 1 0  0 0 0.3979 0 
   
0 0 0 1  0 0 0 1.0155

##  0.0018 - 0.0014 0.0189 - 0.0383

- 0.0014 0.0158 - 0.2223 0.1287
[C ] =   × 103 (E4)
 0.0189 - 0.2223 4.6901 0.0699 
 
- 0.0383 0.1287 0.0699 9.3259

Since the generalized mass and stiffness matrices in Eq. (E4) are identical to the unit and
spectral matrices, respectively, the modal vectors in [Φ] are orthonormal modes. In contrast, it is
important to note that the generalized damping matrix is not diagonalized due to its non-
proportional nature as stated above.

 2 p0
 T t ; for 0 ≤ t ≤ T0 2
p(t ) =  0 (E5)
2 p0 (1 − t T0 ); for T0 2 ≤ t ≤ T


The coefficients in the Fourier series expansion of this loading function are evaluated using
the integrals in Eq. (7). Accordingly,
Vol.
V 17 [2012], Bund.. Z 384
47

1  2 p0  p0
(1 − t T0 )ddt  =
T0 2 T0
a 01 = 
T0  T0 
0
tdt + 2 p 0 
T0 2
 2
= 660 kN

2  2 p0 
t cos( jω 0 t )dt + 2 p 0  (1 − t T0 ) coos( jω 0 t )dt 
T0 2 T0
a j1 = 
T0  T0 
0 T0 2
 (E66)
2
 2  48.63 kN
N
a j1 = − p 0   = − ; j = 1, 3, 5, ...
 jπ 
2
j
b j1 = 0

## Since the load ding is an even function

n of time, thhe sine harmoonics in the Fourier-seriees
expan
nsion of the ho
d vanish.
The
T plot of the Fourier-serries expansion n of the loadding as a funcction of t/T0 iis presented iin
Figure 4 by includiing only threee trigonometrric terms in thhe series.

## Figure 4: The plot

p of the Fo
ourier-seriess expansion oof the loadinng function bby includingg
three harmonics
h onnly

Comparison
C of Figure 4 with
w Figure 1(b) shows thhat the first ffour terms in the series arre
sufficcient (includin
ng the averagee value a0) to adequately reepresent the ggiven force fuunction.
ment in the dirrection of thee 2nd degree oof
Similarly, the Fourier series coefficientss of the mom
freedo
om can be fo ound by multiplying the ab bove coefficiients by the mmoment arm of 0.35m (seee
Figure 1(a)). As there are no directly app plied forces inn the directioons of the thhird and fourtth
degrees of freedom
m, the corresponding Fourier coefficientts are all zero.
Thus,
T the vecto
ors of the Fou
urier coefficieents of the forrce vector beccome
60  − 48.633
− 21  .02 
{a0 } =  ; {a j } = 12 17 
; {b } = {0}
j
0  j 0 
0  0 
Vol.
V 17 [2012], Bund.. Z 384
48

The
T vectors off modal Fourieer coefficientts are obtainedd in accordannce with Eq. ((9). Thus,
11.84  − 9.60
− 3.01  44 
{a 0m } =  
; {a jm } = 12 02..16 

(E7)
− 0.19 j  
0.09  − 0.08

Next,
N the coeffficient matricces [E]j in Eq. (13) are com
mpiled for j=11, 3, and 5. Thhen, the matriix
operaations of Eq. (12)
( for j=1, 3,
3 5 are performed and thee modal coorddinates determ mined from Eq.
(16). Finally, the displacement
d vector is com
mputed. The pplot of the diisplacement, u1, of the rooof,
against normalized d time, in which
w terms up to and iincluding thee first harmoonics only arre
considdered, is giveen in Figure 5(a).

(a)

( b)
Figu
ure 5: Plots of
o the horizoontal displaceement of thee platform off the flexiblee-base system
m
co
onsidering thhe contributio
ons of the first two moddes only; (a) first three teerms of the
series in
ncluded; (b) all
a the sevenn terms incluuded.
The
T plot of Fig gure 5(b) is th hat of the sam
me displacemeent, where thrree harmoniccs are included.
Both plots
p t the mass oscillates in the range of 15.512mm annd
are pracctically the saame showing that
15.548mm around the static horrizontal displacement of 1 5.53mm. Thiis indicates thhat inclusion oof
the firrst harmonic alone gives sufficiently
s accurate
a resultts. Similar pllots can be obbtained for thhe
Vol.
V 17 [2012], Bund.. Z 384
49

rotatio
on of the ro
oof, the horizzontal displacement of thhe foundationn, and the rrotation of thhe
founddation.
A plot of the displacement,
d u1, of the rooof with the coontribution of all modes aand all Fourieer-
seriess terms, which
h are considerred in the anaalysis, is givenn in Figure 6((a).

( a)

( b)
Figuure 6: Plots of
o the horizo
ontal displaceement of thee platform off the flexiblee-base system
m
as a function of normalized time: (a) byy including thhe contributiions of all m
modes; (b) byy
including
g the contrib
bution of the first mode aalone
The
T plot in FigureF 6(a) iss practically identical to the plot in F Figure 5(b) iindicating that
inclussion of the last
l two mod des in the mode
m superpoosition doesn''t bring abouut any notable
differrence. Figure 6(b) gives the contribution n of the first mode alone tto the displaccement u1. Thhis
plot shows
s he mass oscilllates in the range of 7.5595mm and 77.627mm aroound the static
that th
horizo ontal displaceement of 7.611mm. This is in a significaant deviation from the plots of Figures 5
and 6(a)
6 indicating ng with the fiirst mode alo ne is not suffficient. Hencce, inclusion oof
g that workin
the firrst two modess in the analysis of the probblem under c onsideration is necessary.
The
T fixed-basee framed foun ndation is con
nsidered nextt. The fixed-bbase assumptiion reduces thhe
numb ber of degreess of freedom to only two and
a fully ignoores the influuence of the ssoil-foundatioon
interaaction.
Vol.
V 17 [2012], Bund.. Z 385
50

The
T natural freequencies are easily determ
mined by solvving the charaacteristics equuation to obtaiin
ω1 = 16.03sec-1 annd ω 2 = 64.222sec-1. These are higher thhan those obtaained earlier on the basis oof
the fleexible-base model
m as expected.
Since the soill-foundation interaction iss neglected, only the prooportional daamping of thhe
superstructure is considered.
c Thus,
T a criticaal damping rratio of 5% iis taken simiilar to the onne
consid
dered for the superstructurre damping suub-matrix of tthe flexible-baase system.
The
T uncoupled
d differential equations
e for the two moddal coordinatees become
zm + 2ξ m ω m z m + ω m2 z m = Pm (t ) M m ; m = 1,2 (E88)
The
T solution to
o this equation
n for the giveen periodic lo ading is givenn by

z m (t ) =
a0m
+
1
 (1 − β ) + (2ξ
a jm
[2ξ β jjm sin ( jω 0 t ) + (1 − β jm
2
)coos( jω0t )]
β jm )
2 2 m
Km Km j =1, 3, 5,... jm m

(E99)
wheree a0m and ajmm are elementts of the genneralized forcce vector andd βjm=jω0/ωm are frequenccy
ratios. Eq. (E9) is evaluated fo or the two moodes and thee horizontal ddisplacement, u1, of the toop
floor calculated. A plot of this displacement
d against norm
malized time iss given in Figgure 7.

Figu
ure 7: Plot of the horizon
ntal displaceement of the platform of the fixed-baase system as
a fun
nction of norrmalized time including bboth modal contributionns

The
T plot show ws that that thiis displacemeent time-histoory is significcantly differennt from that oof
the flexible-base model
m given in Figure 6(aa). While, thee fixed-base m model oscillaates with largge
relativve displacemeents about its static deform
mation of 7.4773mm, the fleexible-base m model oscillatees
little about its staatic deformaation of 15.5 52mm. This implies thatt a significannt part of thhe
displaacement of the roof in the flexible-base
f model is cont
ntributed by thhe soil deformmation.
This
T discrepan ncy in both thhe displacemeent amplitude and the oscillation is rem
miniscent of thhe
d the differencce in the enerrgy dissipationn mechanism
soil fllexibility and ms of the two models. In thhe
fixed--base case, thet system depends
d on the
t little dam mping of thee superstructuure alone annd
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3851

undergoes no foundation movement. In the flexible-base system the additional damping in the
soil and the additional displacement due to the deformation of the soil play a major role in
modifying the overall response of the system.

CONCLUSIONS
The material presented in this work shows that the method of modal superposition can be
successfully used to transform the coupled differential equations of motion of non-classically
damped systems subjected to periodic loads into a system of coupled algebraic equations. Though
the number of algebraic equations is double that of the number of significant modes included for
the required accuracy, they it is generally much smaller than the total number of degrees of
freedom especially in large and complex structures. The method of solution of the forced
vibration leads to a closed-form solution and thus does not demand any iterative procedure, which
would have generally been the case for irregular excitations `like earthquake ground motions. An
appropriate technique of compiling a non-classical damping matrix has been properly adapted.
The illustration on a practical example of a framed machine foundation shows that the method
proposed is straightforward to use. The availability of mathematical software like MATLAB
makes the method even more attractive, because the major work involved is mainly limited to
matrix operations. The method of solution can also be used on spreadsheets especially when the
superstructure is modeled as a lumped-mass system. The solution method can be easily integrated
in existing commercial software for structural analysis. It can also have practical applications in
other kinds of systems subjected to periodic loads like slender structures subjected to vortex
shading of wind excitation and other structures subjected to wind, sea wave and acoustic forces of
periodic nature resulting in deformations within the elastic limit. The method can be easily
extended to deal with non-linear response.

REFERENCES
1. Chopra, A. (1995). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and applications to Earthquake
engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
2. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures, Mc Graw-Hill, 2nd
edition, New York
3. Das, B.M. (1993), Principles of Soil Dynamics, Thomson Engineering, PWS-Kent
Publishing Company
4. Gazetas, G. (1983) “Analysis of Machine Foundation Vibration: State of the Art,”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2(1), 2-42
5. Gazetas, G. (1991) “Formulas and Charts for Impedances of Surface and Embedded
Foundations.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 9
6. Kreyszig, E. (2006), Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 9th Edition, John Wiley,
New York
7. Luco, J.E. and Westmann, R.A. (1971), “Dynamic Response of Circular Footings,”
ASCE, Engineering Mechanics Division, 97(5), 1381-1395
8. Luco, J.E. (1974), “Impedance functions for a Rigid Foundation on a Layered
medium,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, North-Holland Publishing Company, 31,
204-217
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. Z 3852

## 9. Novak, M. and Beredugo, Y.O. (1972), “Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings,”

ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 98(12), 1291-1309
10. Beredugo, Y.O. and Novak, M. (1972), “Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibration
of Embedded Footings,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9, 477-497
11. Novak, M. and Sachs, K. (1973), “Torsional and Coupled Vibrations of Embedded
Footings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural dynamics, 2, 11-33
12. Pais, A. and Kausel, E. (1988), “Approximate Formulas for Dynamic Stiffnesses of
Rigid Foundations.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4
13. Paz, M. (1997), Structural Dynamics - Theory and Computation, Chapman & Hall,
fourth edition, Boston
14. Rücker, W (1982), “Dynamic Behaviour of Rigid Foundations of Arbitrary Shape on
a Halfspace,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10, 675-
690
15. Veletsos, A.S. and Wei, W.T. (1971), “Lateral and Rocking Vibrations of Footings,”
ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 97(9), 1227-1248
16. Villaverde, R. (1988), “Modal superposition method for seismic design of non-linear
multistorey structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural dynamics, 16, 691-
704
17. Villaverde, R. and Hanna, M. (1992), “Efficient mode superposition algorithm for
seismic analysis of non-linear structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
dynamics, 21, 849-858
18. Wilson, E. D. (2000), Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures. Computers and
Structures Inc.
19. Wong, H.L. and Luco, J.E (1976), “Dynamic Response of Rigid Foundations of
Arbitrary Shape,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 4,
579-587
20. Worku, A. (1996), Vibration of Structures Due to Earthquake Ground Motions with
due Consideration of the Soil-Structure interaction (in German). Doctoral
dissertation, University of Wuppertal, Germany
21. Worku, A. (2005), "A closed-form solution procedure to the vibration of non-
classically damped systems subjected to harmonic loads." Zede, Journal of the
Ethiopian Engineers and Architects, 22, 1-9