Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of

rigid foundations

Artur Pals and Eduardo Kausel

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Room 1-271, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Approximate formulas are proposed to describe the variation with frequency of tile dynamic
stiffnesses of rigid embedded foundations. These formulas are obtained by fitting mathematical
expressions to accurate numerical solutions. Because of the restricted data available at the present
time, only cylindrical and rectangular embedded foundations are analysed herein; this is not a
serious restriction, since these are the more common shapes used in practice. The imaginary part of
the stiffnesses are approximated, for high frequencies, by their asymptotic values, which give
excellent results in that range. These asymptotic values are computed assuming simple one-
dimensional wave propagation theory. The approximate formulas provide a good approximation
of the foundation stiffnesses and their use is very simple. Although the soil is assumed to have no
internal damping, it can be incorporated by using the Correspondence Principle, if so desired.

INTRODUCTION the infinite system, and which can be applied directly at

the edge of the foundation. However, these boundaries
The first step in the study of a soil-structure interaction
are usually based on idealizations of the soil as finite
problem is the evaluation of the dynamic stiffness matrix
of the foundation. Of special interest is the case in which strata supported by rigid rock so that any radiation into
the soil is much softer than the foundation; it can be bedrock, which may be present in an elastic halfspace (or
in a very deep alluvia) is neglected in such models.
assumed then that the foundation keeps its shape while
To avoid this problem, Day 3 performed transient finite
vibrating, so that six components (three displacements
and three rotations) are sufficient to describe its motion. element analyses for impulsive motions of an embedded
cylindrical foundation, obtaining afterwards the dynamic
The dynamic stiffness matrix has then only six columns
and rows. stiffness as functions of the frequency by performing a
To find the dynamic stiffness functions, a mixed Fourier transform of the truncated impluse response
boundary-value problem must be solved, in which function, i.e., eliminating the reflections from the
displacements are prescribed at the contact area between boundary. This procedure cannot be applied to layered
soils, however, since it is not possible to distinguish
the foundation and the soil, and tractions vanish at the
between real reflections at the interfaces of the layers and
free surface of the soil. Since this problem is rather
the spurious reflection at the boundary. Apsel 2, on the
difficult, it is not surprising that analytical solutions are
available for only very special cases. Luco et al. t~ i give other hand, used an integral equation formulation for the
the compliance functions for a disk foundation on an
elastic halfspace, assuming frictionless contact, and for a
strip foundation bonded to an elastic halfspace. Actual
foundations, on the other hand, are usually embedded in
the soil and have variegated shapes. To find the dynamic
stiffness functions in these cases; one must use numerical
procedures such as the finite element or the boundary
integral methods. I
While vibrating, the foundation generates waves that
radiate through the soil a certain amount of energy. This E i
introduces some damping in t h e motion of the
foundation, which is usually referred to as radiation (or
geometric) damping. To take into account this
phenomenon in numerical solutions with finite elements,
the soil model must include a vast region beyond the
foundation. Such a large soil island however, is not
needed when the model includes transmitting
boundaries 8'~4 that reproduce the physical behaviour of

Accepted September 1987. Discussioncloses December 1988. Fig. 1. Cylindrical embedded foundation
1988 ComputationalMechanicsPublications
213 Soil D),tlamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4
 Approximate formidas for dynamic stiffinesses of rigid foundations: A. Pals and E. Kausel
;tattc
Concerning rectangular foundations, Wong et al) s
presented compliance functions for fiat foundations for
6G,
~ Aosel and )ly results for rocking several length-to-width ratios, which were obtained by
Az~sel and gay results for horiIontll m d e =ocking
dividing the contact area between the foundation and the
-- a o p n x i r ~ t e fo,rr~..=las
soil into sub-regions in which a constant stress was
35 assumed. Using the same method, Wong and L u c o 16
presented tables of impedance functions for fiat
rectangular foundations. Dominguez 4 on the other hand,
applied the boundary integral formulation to compute
the stiffnesses of rectangular embedded foundations,
examining a large number of aspect ratios in the low
25
frequency range. Abascal ~, using a similar approach,
presented the stiffnesses of a square embedded
foundation.
20

Cylindrical embedded foundations

15 (a) Static stiffilesses
Eoriz;B~l
The relationships between forces and displacements for
a rigid disk bonded to a homogeneous elastic halfspace
10 were investigated long ago, and the following explicit

Re(K~),

finite eler~nt solution .......

20
boundary integral solution . . . . . .

Fi9. 2. Variation of the static stiffness with the approximate fo~la

embedment (rockin9 and horizontal modes) 15

E/R 9 2 . 0
static
K
, E/R 9 l.O
Apsel and Cay results for torsion
Apsel and Day results for verClcal mode
-- aOpr~xl;ate fomulas

35- torSlcn
ii
o 'l 'z ; t ; ; '7 rJ~

Fig. 4. Variation with the frequency of the actual

25 stiffiless (real part)

20 Im(K~)
;i o

finite element SolutiOn .......

boundary integral solu ........
tion
20 approximate formula
verticll E/R - Z.O

15'

EZR - 1,0
10,
~'IR - 0.5

............... =J . . . . . . . . E/R - O
':Z E/R

Fig. 3. Variation of the static stiffness with the

embedment (torsion and vertical modes)
'l '2 'B '4 ~ '7
fir
same problem and found a very good agreement with the
results of Day (see Figs 4-13). It must be added that Aspel
assumed a small amount of internal damping in the soil, Fig. 5. Variation with the frequency of the vertical
while Day assumed an elastic medium. stiffizess (imaginal 3, part)

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4 214

Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffiwsses of rigid foumlations: A. Pals arul E. Kausel

25

finite er~r,ent solution ......

20 boundary integral solution ......

approximate for~ula 35 " f i n i t e element solution " . . . . . .
boundary intelral solu- .......
tion
15 llx aporo xi,.-4te fo n':~uI a
EIR 9 2 . 0

I0 .. [/~ I 1. 0

E/R 9 Z.O

........ E/R - o
"''''"''--......_, .....
20.

i '2 '3 4 ~5 '6 J7 "r,,R

15,

Fig. 6. .Variation with the frequency of tire horizontal

stiffiwss (real part) ~ . E/R 9 1.0

finite e l ~ e n t solution .....

a0
boundary integral solution ....... ~ - . _ ~/~ - 9

app~xi:4te formula
E/R = Z.O
20 o i ~ ~ z 's 6 '7 k
fir

15.
Fig. 8. Variation with tlre frequency of tire rocking
"- E/R 9 1 . 0 stiffiness (real part)
10

~,..,,..,,,=.,..~.,,.~,.,.~.,..= ~=~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E/R 9 0 . 5

1~(~)
E/R 9 0 a~

) i 2' Z ~ 6 f i n i t e el c~.ent solution .......

aO 9 fir
boundary integral solution . . . . . . .
approximate formula
Fig. 7. Variation with tire frequency of tire horizontal
stiffiwss (imaginary part) 30 .......... ~ EIR 9 Z.O

25.

formulas for the stiffnesses were found:

20.
4GR
Vertical K ~ = -1-- v (Boussinesq) (la)

15. ./
8GR /
Horizontal Ko = 2 - v (Mindlin, 1949) (Ib)
10.

K o 8GR3 E/R - 1.0

Rocking g=~(--i~--~__V) (Borowicka, 1943) (lc)
5
"E/R - O.S
16GR s
Torsion K~ 3 (Reissner, 1944) (ld)
o -- - -
3 4 s 6
fir
These formulas represent the static stiffness of a rigid 'o'r,
circular foundation of radius R, with G and v being the
shear modulus and Poisson's ratio of the h o m o g e n e o u s Fig. 9. Variation with the frequency of the rocking
halfspace. stiffiress (imaginary part)

215 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4

 Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffinesses of rigid foundations: A. Pals and E. Kausel
re(K~) program was used, and the result were corrected for
discretization errors. Formulas were developed for a
maximum embedment of one and a half times the radius
of the foundation.
finite el~ent solution .....
boundary integral solution
~ . ~ a ~ r ~ x i ~ te for~.ula

25, 20
finite el e~nent solution .......
Z.O
boundary integral solution . . . . .
15 epproxln~te formula
20.

F/R - 2.n
tO,
1 .
15,
"~" - , , ~ , . . . , . . . . _ , . . . , , . ~ . . ~...._. :.___._._ ... . . . .
............... ~I~ 9 1,0
E/R - 1 . 0

o. . . . . k...... ~".... C'" ";. "s ~, '7

E/II - 0
qm Fig. 12. Variation with the frequency of tire coupling
stiffiless (real part)
a01 ~

Fig. 10, Variation with tire frequency of the torsional Im( K(~r )
stiffiness (real part)
finite el~ent s o l u t i o n '- .....
20 boundary integral solution . . . . . .
I=(K~) apP~xi .r.lte for~.al a
i0
9~...~jrx.~'.-"-'-''-'~''''~-'~;r~ . . . . . --.~.:'2.'~?_'.."I E/R 9 Z.O
15
finite client solutlon .......
boundary integral solution ......
10
2O approximate for~:ula

~ [/r * 1.0
15
EIR - 2 . 0
E/R - O . S

o 1 2 3 4 ~ ;
a O = -~S
[/R - 1.0
Fig. 13. Variation with the frequency of tile coupling
/" .... -~-.--- [1~ - OmS stiffitess (imaginary part)

0 ......... ~ -- E/~ - 0
, 9 m 2L
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
nR
ao J ~'~z
i -(

Fig. 11. Variation with the frequency of the torsional z8 !

stiffiless (imaginary part)

,'i :, x
t 9 II
Concerning embedded cylindrical foundations, closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

form solutions are not available, but approximate l

~z
formulas have been developed from numerical solutions. /'y, t,
Approximations for horizontal, rocking and coupling
stiffnesses were developed by Elsabee s, while the vertical
and torsional modes were analysed by Kausel and
4,
Ushijima 9. In both studies, a finite element computer Fig. 14. Rectangular embedded foumiation (L ~>B)

Soil Dynanlics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4 216

Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffinesses of rigid formdations: A. Pais and E. Kausel

Horizontal KnS-- Kn~ (1 + E/R) (2b)

50 Rocking KR--KR
~ -- o (1 + 2.3E/R +O.58(E/R) 3)
45
(2c)

40 Torsion K,'--K,~ (1 +2.67E/R) (2d)

35- Coupling K~, = (0.4E/R - 0.03)K~1 (2e)

30 with K ~ etc. being given by equations (la) through

(ld).
25- The coefficient in the approximation for the torsional
stiffness is the same as in the work by Kausel et al. 9, while
20- the vertical stiffness has been changed somewhat so as to
extend its range of validity.
15

-- ,~.~rexL~,~l;e formula (b) Dynamic stiffnesses

10, Some simple formulas are also proposed to describe the
variation of the stiffnesses with frequency of vibration.
5. The dependence on frequency is given by a complex
number that multiplies the static stiffness as follows:
~ ~ ;, ; . . . . . z0
. . . . . . . . . ~o'L/B
K,n = K~(k + ioac) (3)
Fig. 15. " Variation of tire vertical static stiffiress with tire where K s designates the appropriate static stiffness; ao is
shape of tire foundation the dimensionless frequency ao=coR/Cs (~o=angular
frequency of the motion, R = radius of the foundation,
C, = shear wave velocity in the soil); k and c are functions
of a0, v=Poisson's ratio, and E/R=the degree of
Numerical solutions for the dynamic stiffnesses of embedment.
cylindrical embedded foundations were also prepared by Although k in the vertical and rocking modes depends
Aspel z and by Day 3, as described earlier. It should be strongly on the value of v, for simplicity its influence is not
emphasized once more that the former was computed taken into account herein. This implies that for values ofv
with a small amount of internal damping, whereas the higher than about 0.4 the approximate formulas must be
latter is fully elastic. These solutions are also used in this used with care, especially for high frequencies.
paper to derive the approximate solutions.
Extrapolating the curves in Figs 4 through 13, the static
value of the impedances can be extracted (see Figs 2,3) by r~
taking the average of the finite element and boundary
element results. Figs 2 and 3 show these static stiffnesses 60
as a fnnction of the embedment ratio; the range
-- Approximate formula
considered extends from a surface foundation (E/R = 0.0)
ReSults frc~ Wong And Luco
to a foundation with an embedment equal to the diameter
(E/R = 2.0). It is reasonable to assume next that the effect | Results from Dominguez
of Poisson's ratio on the static stiffnesses is the same for a x Results from Gorbunov-Posanov
surface foundation as it is for an embedded foundation; 3c
this equivalent to the assumption that the ratio of the two
is independent of v. In such case, one can seek polynomial H
Y
approximations to account for embedment that depend
on the embedment parameters only.
For the torsional, vertical and horizontal modes, a 2~
linear approximation is sufficient, giving less that 1 0 ~
error when compared to the numerical results. A power
law with the exponent less than 1 would fit the data better,
but for simplicity, the linear formula was preferred. For
the rocking mode, on the other hand, a third degree ~0
polynomial was chosen because a straight line would give
too much error. This has some physical justification if one
remembers that the area moment of inertia of a cylinder 5.
about a horizontal axis is also a third degree polynomial
in E/R. For the coupling term, the formula proposed by s.

Elsabee was adopted. The resulting approximations are

, LIE
then as follows:
Fig. 16. Variation of the horizontal static stiffness with
Vertical K~, = K ~ (1 + 0.54E/R) (2a) the shape of the foundation

217 Soil Dynamics aml Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4

 Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations: A. Pais and E. Kausel
$
KRx regarding appropriate values for C L, since plane-strain
conditions do not hold in the vicinity of the foundation.
As a result, lateral dilation takes place which causes the
40 value of CL to be lower than the theoretical value for P-
waves (Cv=Cs x / 2 ( l - v ) / ( l - 2 v ) ) . The discrepancy
between CL and Cv is particularly important for
q. incompressible solids (v=0.5), for which the P-wave
velocity is infinity, while the effective radiation velocity CL
is finite. To circumvent this difficulty, one can either
approximate CL~ C v and limit the value of v used in
deriving C~, (for example, a ~<2.5), or following Gazetas
and Dobry 7, one defines Cc to be a ficticious velocity for
longitudinal waves. With these approximations, the
dynamic stiffness coefficients can be computed for all
modes of vibration. The results are summarized in
Table 1.
/// ~ x Resu]~,~r,,Wunov-Posancv These formulas are similar to the ones proposed by
/ ~ Res~lr.s frc,~,.Wong.an{:l Luco Veletsos et al.~3 for the case of a surface foundation, and
Kausel et al. 9 for an embedded foundation. Figs 4-13
show a comparison of the proposed formulas with the
results of Day 3 and Aspel 2, (taking v=0.25). Because
Apsel assumed a small amount of material damping in the
soil, the imaginary term of. the stiffness (lm(Ka(ao)))
~ '3 '4 s '~ '7 '8 '9 '~ok / 8 reported by him tends to infinity as the frequency
approaches zero; nevertheless, for higher frequencies the
influence of the damping can be neglected. As can be seen,
Fig. 17. Variation of the rockin9 static stiffi~ess with the the proposed formulas match well the numerical results,
shape of the foumtation especially the imaginary part. For the vertical, horizontal
and coupling modes, the real part of the stiffnesses
evidences discrepancies in the high frequency range.
However, due to the lack of reliable data, improved
Nevertheless, in the high frequency range, the imaginary
approximations are not warranted. The value ofc for the
part of the stiffness is much more important than the real
part; hence, the approximations may be appropriate for
engineering purposes.
$
The asymptotic value of the coefficient c can be found KRr
easily by assuming that the vibrating foundation 1600
generates unidirectional waves propagating perpendi- Approxir,~e for~ula
cularly to the contact surface with the soil (see Gazetas
Results from ~ong and Luco
and Dobry ~ for further details). Denoting this value by E', 1400
it is given by the formula 0 Results fro~ Oo~inguez

Results from Gorbunov-Posanov

1200
(4)

where T is a transformation matrix that is used to relate 1000

the displacements along the soil-foundation interfaces to
the global motion of the foundation; and v is the celerity
(velocity) of the waves generated. 800
This equation is similar to the formula that one would
use for the calculation of the total area or the moments of
inertia of the contact area, except that a weight (viCe) is 600

used to account for the type of waves generated.

The dominant type of waves will be longitudinal waves
(L-waves) if the motion is normal to the contact surface, 400
or shear waves (S-waves), if the motion is tangential to the
surface. On account of this fact, one can split equation (4)
into two parts, the first of which takes account of S-waves 200
generated, while the second reflects the contribution of L-
waves:
10
L/8
~-R~ (fsTrT,dS+ c~fsTrT2dS) (5)
Fig. 18. Variation of tile rocking static stiffiless with the
with ct = Cc/Cs. An important question arises at this point shape of the foundation

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7., No. 4 218
Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses o f rigid foundations: A. Pals and E. Kausel
rocking stiffness is different from zero in the static case, in available, not even for surface foundations. In addition,
part because the centre ofcoordinates was chosen to be at the ratio of length to width, LIB (see Fig. 14), which
the base instead of at the centre of stiffness. Hence, a defines the geometry of the foundation, is another
certain degree of translation results from the rotation. parameter that must be taken into consideration. When
the foundation is very long, its stiffnesses in the short
Embedded rectangular fomulations direction approaches the stiffnesses of a strip foundation
(2-D problem).
(a) Static stiffiwsses o f surface foundations
Table 2 shows the static stiffnesses of a square
In the case of rectangular foundations, the lack of
foundation found by several authors, but scaled by the
cylindrical symmetry increases substantially the difficulty
factor giving the dependence on Poisson's ratio for
of the problem so that rigorous analytical results are not
circular footings. The underlying assumption is that the
dependence on Poisson's ratio is the same for rectangular
and circular foundations. If this is true, then the results in
Table IA.
the table are independent of Poisson's ratio. Judging by
Vertical Torsion the numbers in columns four and five in this table, this
assumption appears to be reasonable.
l(f = K~.(k + iaoC) K~= K~(k+ iaoC) The values in this table match each other reasonably
0.35%2 well, except for the rocking and torsional modes, where
k= 1.0 k= 1 . 0 - - - Dominguez's results seem too low. The values chosen for
1.0+ao2
the static stiffnesses are displayed in the last column
2
(based mainly on Wong and Luco's results). The coupling
rc(2+ 2.0 E/R) ~(1 + 4 E/R) b-~a2 stiffness has been neglected because its value is small for a
K~/GR KI/GR 3 surface foundation.
Figs 15 through 19 show the Static stiffnesses of
1 rectangular foundations in terms of the aspect ration L/B,
~t= C L / C , b
0.37 + 0.87(E/R)213 and for Poisson's ratio v = 1/3. These figures are based on

Table lB.
Horizontal Rocking
l(all= K~lt(k+ iaoc) l(aR= K~(k + iaoc)

k= 1.0 k=l.O 0"35a~

1.0+%2
[~ l+~t 2 az b
c= -4+ E/R + ( -2- ) - (E/R)3]~+O84(I+ct)(E/R)2"'
n[1.O + (1.O + ~)E]R] 3 JO+a o b+aZo
C~
K~tt/GR K}ffGR 3
2
with b= - -
1 + E/R

/ ( ~ l t = (0.4 E/R --0.03)/(~t

Table 2.
Dominguez"~ Wong and LUCO 16
Abascal
(1) (a) {b) v= 1]3 v= 0.45 Value taken

K~?/(2-v)
9.41 9.47 9.35 9.22 9.16 9.2
GB
K?,O -~')
4.75 4.88 4.75 4.66 4.57 4.7
GB
K~
4.38 3.85 3.79 4.17 4.04 4.0
GB3
Ko
8.71 7.53 7.48 8.31 8.42 8.31
GB3
K~
- - - 0.508 0.302 0
GB2

(a) Relaxed boundary conditions

(b) Nonrelaxed boundary conditions

219 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4

 Approxinlate fornndas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations: A. Pais and E. Kausel
$
Kt the stiffnesses of a strip foundation as the length/width
ratio increases.
160, Table 3 shows a numerical comparison of the stiffnesses
found by Wong et alJ 6 (v= 1/3), Dominguez% and the
formulas proposed, for 1 <~L/B<~4. As can be seen, the
140 agreement is very good, the largest diffferences being less
than a few percent.

120.
(b) Dynamic stiffnesses of surface foundations
To describe the variation of the stiffnesses with
frequency, the results by Wong and L u c o 16 w e r e used as
100,
reference, since they are available for a reasonably
extended range of frequencies; their plots are shown in
Figs 20=.33 (solid line). The shape of these plots is quite
80.

60,
| Results from 0ominsuez
Results fro~ 7ong and Luco
Approximate formula
40
6

5
20.

i.
LIB ..... Approximateform.ula
2
_ _ Wong and kuco
Fig. 19. Variationof the torsional siatic stiffness with the !
shape of the foundation

.w._~9
ao C$
the data presented by Wong et alJ 6, Dominguez 4, and
Gorbunov-Posanov (from Ref. 6). Use of these figures led Fig. 20. Variationof the stiffness with frequency; surface
to the following approximations (with L/B>>.1): foundation L/B = 1 (vertical and horizontal modes)

Vertical K~ _ 3.1(L/B)O.75 + 1.6 (17)

GB

Kttx(2_ ~, 9 ~ (b)
Horizontal =6.8(L/B) ~ +2.4 (18)
GB

K%(2- v) K~ v)
+ 0.8(L/B- I) 6,
GB GB
(19) 5. . ...... Approximate fo r'=,,ul a

~,'ong and Luco

K~ -v) 4.
Rocking GB 3 - 3.2(L/B) + 0.8 (20)
3.
(a) relK~x)
(b) Im(K~xlla~
K~ - v ) 2-
3.73(L/B)Z'4 + 0.27 (21) Re(Kdy)
GB 3 (C)
I
(d) Im(Kdy)/ao
Torsion K~ =4.25(L/B) T M + 4 . 0 6 (22)
GB 3
a =~-.
The exponent of (L/B) is less than 1 for the vertical and o CS
horizontal modes, equal to 1 for rocking around the
longitudinal axis, and greater than I for torsion and for Fig. 21. Variationof the stiffiness with frequency: surface
rocking around a transverse axis. These values approach fomldation L/B = 2 (horizontal mode)

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4 220

A p p r o x i m a t e formulas f o r dynamic stiffnesses o f rigid foumlations: A . Pais amt E. K a u s e l

Table 3.
Mode L/B = 1 L/B = 2 LIB = 3 L/B = 4

Vertical Wong (v = 1/3) 4.66 6.73 8.56 10.22

K~,(I--v) Dommguez 4.88 7.0 8.9 10.7
GB Formula 4.70 6.81 8.66 10.36
Horizontal-x Wong (v = 113) 9.22 12.95 16.19 19.15
Dominguez 9.47 13.1 16.3 19.3
GB Formula 9.20 13.07 16.29 19.14
Horizontal-)' Wong (v = 1/3) 9.22 13.75 17.79 21.48
K~?~,y(2-v) Dommguez 9.47 14.0 18.1 21.8
GB Formula 9.20 13.87 17.89 21.54
Rocking-x Woug (v= 1/3) 4.17 7.18 10.30 13.18
K ~ ( I --v) Dommguez 3.85 6.8 9.75 12.8
GB 3 Formula 4.00 7.20 10.40 13.60
Rocking-): Wong (v = 1/3) 4.17 20.21 52.26 104.21
K~ - v) Dommguez 3.85 19s 50.6 105.3
GB ~ Formula 4.0 19.96 52.37 104.18
Torsion Wong (v = 1/3) 8.31 28.32 67.41 131.03
K,o Dommguez 7.53 26.8 65.7 129.2
GB ~ Formula 8.31 27.28 66.77 130.95

Table 4a.

Vertical Torsion

-d__
K~ - K~.0 (k. + laoc)
"
l?,a~= K ~(k + iaoc)
k = 1.0 da~ 4~L/B da2o 4[-~ (L/B) 3 +~ (/.fiB)] " ao2
---- c=-- k= 1 . 0 - - - c=
b+a~ K~ b+a~ K~ f+a z
0.2 10 1.4
d=O.a+L~ b I+3(L/B-I) d = 0.33 - 0.03 x / L / B - 1 f = 1 + 3(L/B- 1)0.7

0.8
b=
1+0.33(L/B- 1)

Table 4b.

Horizontal Rocking

gall:,= K~t~(k+ iaoc) g~.= KL(k +iaoc)

4=
4L/B da2o -~ L/B a2~
k= 1.0 c= k= 1 . 0 - - - c=--
b+.~ KL f + . o~

gJIr = K~y(k + iaoc) d=0.55 +0.01 v/L/B-- 1

4L/B 0.4 0.4

k= 1.0 C= b=2.4--- f=2.2---
K~,. (L/B) 3 (L/B)'

R~r = K~r(k + iaoc)

4x 3
k = 1.0 -- 0.55 a__...~ S (L/B) a2~
b+a~ K~ f+a 2

1.4 1.8
b=0.6+-- f=
(L/B) 3 1.0 + 1.75(L/B - 1)

i r r e g u l a r , so t h a t their a p p r o x i m a t i o n b y s i m p l e f o r m u l a s e x e r c i s e d in t h e i r use,' since the real p a r t s a r e n o t v e r y

is n o t easy. U s e o f r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s o n this d a t a led t o reliable, p a r t i c u l a r l y at h i g h f r e q u e n c i e s . T h e i m a g n i n a r y
t h e f o r m u l a s in T a b l e 4. T h e s e f o r m u l a s a r e also p l o t t e d parts, o n the o t h e r h a n d , a r e q u i t e g o o d , a n d v a l i d e v e n
as d a s h e d lines in F i g s 2 0 - 3 3 . S o m e c a r e m u s t be for v e r y h i g h f r e q u e n c i e s . As in t h e case o f c y l i n d r i c a l

221 Soil Dynamics and E a r t h q u a k e Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, N o . 4

 Approximate formulas for"dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations: A. Pais amt E. Kausel
Rocking
14'
K~Rx=KOx[1.O+E/B
/ [ 1.6 ' z-] (30
13,
+~0.35+ L/B) (E/B) J

12
K~,=K~ ]B +~O.35~-(L/B)4)(E/B)
[ 1.6
z3 (32)
11.

Torsion
10,

K:=K~ 1"32' E/ B )09-]

1-3 +L--~)( "J (33)
9i
Bj
These formulas agree well with Abascal's results; as can
be seen, their dependence on the degree of embedment is
less than linear (exponent of E/B less than 1), except for
6. Approximate formula rocking, where a second degree parabola gives good
Rong and Luco agreement. For the influence of the shape of the
5
foundation, the only data available are Dominguez's;
{a) = Re(r~x) thus, some intuitive choices had to be made. The
4
asymptotic values for a strip foundation were matched for
3 (b) = Im(r~x)/a0 both rocking about x and for swaying along y. Since a
strip foundation has only two sides instead of four, the
2
(c) = Re(K~y) effect of the embedment was thought to be split evenly
=~ between each side. The decay with the ratio (L/B) is such
1 (dl = hn(K~ylla~ d
O C
S that the error relative to Dominguez's results is more or
less constant.
o i 2 ; 4 5
Fi9. 22. Variationof the stiffiwss with frequency; surface 20, L
foundation L/B=3 (horizontal mode)
19.

18.
foundations, the influence of Poisson's ratio on the
variation of the stiffnesses with frequency has been 17 (d
ignored. 'x---.
,6, ::<.~ .) (b)

(c) Static stiffnesses of embedded rectangular

foundations
Only scarce data are available for the stiffnesses of 14
rectangular embedded foundations. Dominguez 4
presents result for square and rectangular (L/B=2) .....................................
embedded foundations, while Abascal I studied the case of
a square foundation. In both works, the maximum depth
II ...........................
ofembedment considered was an excavation equal to the
width of the foundation (E/B= 2). 10
Figs 33-36 present the effect on stiffness caused by the
9.
embedment. For the torsional, vertical and horizontal
modes of a square foundation, the results by Dominguez
8. . . . . . . . Approximate formula
are too high when compared to the ones by Abascal. This
can be due to the fact that Dominguez did not account for 7. ' - Won9 and Luco
discretization errors, whereas Abascal did, so the latter's
results seem more accurate. On the basis of these data, we 6- (a) = Re(K~x)
propose the following formulas for the stiffnesses as a 5
function of the degree of embedment, and which are (b) = Im(K~x)/a ~
4
represented, in Figs 34-36, using dashed lines:
3 (c) = Re(K~y)
Vertical 2
(d) = lm(K~y)/a~
K~,=K~ ) ' j 0 " 2 5 /' E B ~s-I (29) I a =~dL
o Cs
| I i t
Horizontal 0 1 2 3 4 5

K~z=KO[1.O+(O.33q I~_~/B)(E/B).
' 08-] (30) Fig. 23. Variationof tirestiffness with frequency; smfitce
foundation L/B = 4 (horizontal mode)

Soil Dynanzics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4 222

 Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffinesses of rigid foundations: A. Pals and E. Kausel
As shown by Dominguez, the height of the centre of
16. .... lm(L~) stiffness is approximately 1/3 of the height of embedment.
ao
Because of its lesser importance, the coupling stiffness can
15.
be taken simply as
16.

13.
K~tR~= ~ (E/B)K~I~ (34)
....... Approximate formula
12.
Wong a~d Luco
It.
KnRr = ~ (E/B)Knr (35)

8
........................................ Im(K~)
31~

...... Approximate formula

5 25.
- - Nong and l u c o
4

3
20
2

15.
t ! i I I wB
i ~ 3 4 ; 6 aO=~-s

Fig. 24. Variationof the stiffiless with fi'equency; surface lO,

foundation L/B = 2 (vertical mode) ............ Re(K~)

a
0 Cs
25.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nm(K~) I I . -- & t --~
1 2 3 4 5
.... ~ a~
Fig. 26. Variationof the stiffiness with fi'eqztelzc),; surface
20.
....... Approximate fon~tula foundation L/B = 4 (vertical mode)
Wong and Luco
!
,~t
15.
9( .....

Wong and Luco

(it) - Im(Kdp,)/a~
,o=1..

8t "~".'%.
7~ --'.~.. (b} " Ira(r~)/a 0
10

.... --.--'~.,~.~..Re(g~)

w8
zl /~'~ ";"" .
9 ,
(a)
(')
. . . . . .
ao " E"
~S
$
9 I i I
1 2 3 J* 5 6 7 8 9
i

Fig. 25. Variationof the stiffiness with frequency: surface Fig. 27. Variationof the stiffness with frequency; surface
foundation L/B = 3 (vertical mode) fotmdation L/B = l (rocking and torsion)

223 Soil D),namics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, P'ol. 7, No. 4

 Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffi~esses of righl foundations: A. Pals aml E. Kat~sel
the stiffness in the low frequency range (ao < 1.5 and ao <
2,0 respectively), Because of this lack of data, it will be
...... Apprax1=~:e for'~ul a assumed here that the variation of the stiffnesses with
- - h'ong a~a Luco frequency is the same for surface as for embedded

Tm(K~)
20
ao
/

15.

~e(~:yl ...... dpflroxin~ te formula

I~ong and Luco

10,

IOC

9 ao ,
!

1
s
e

0 1 2 3 t, 5 6 I
, i

Cs J
5C
f

Fig. 28. Variationof the stiffiness with fi'equency; smface !

foundation L/B= 2 (rocking) e

!

r
r
|

Im(K~x) (hi
(a) =
ao

i
(b) ~ eelK~x)
a . w._B_B
8J ..... l~pproximate for~ul a
"1 o Cs

,0r , - - _
Fig. 30. Variationof the stiffi~ess with frequency; surface
fotmdation L/B = 4 (rocking)

30.

...... Approxffnate for~ula

25-

Z/ 20 ae(t~l

15

0 1 2 3 4 5

10
$

Fig. 29. Variationof the stiffi~ess with frequency; st~rface

foundation L/B=3 (rocking)

~B
More data would be necessary to improve the
. = t
reliability of these approximate formulas.

(d) D),~mmicstiffitess of embedded folmdatio,s Fig. 31. Variationof the stiffizess with frequency; stifface
Dominguez4 and Abascal~ present only the variation of folmdation L/B= 2 (torsion)

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Enuineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4 224

Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foumlations: A. Pals and E. Kausel

multiplying the horizontal stiffnesses by I/3 of the height

8O of embedment, as was done for the static case.
...... Approximate formu la s
70.
~Wong and Luco
Applications to viscoelastic materials
The previous results can be extended to the case of a
60

50,
~~ Re(K~)
..... Approximate formula

40 .. ---, . . . . . . . .
~Results by Dominguez

30
Im(K~) Results by Abascal

"77 . . . . "-"
To s

2O
.~' .. 1 hori-
10
= t~B
ao ~--
i I~ I ' ' i
1 2 3- 4 5

Fig. 32. Variation of the stiffizess with frequency; surface

fozmdation L/B =3 (torsion)

150- Approximate formulas . . . . .

Wong and Luco 2P3 i 4'/3

E/B

Fig. 34. Variation of the static stiffilesses with the

embedment (horizontal and vertical)

10(

/,." ...... Approximate formula

B.
/" ao Results by Dominguez L/B-I |
/
| Results by Abascal r
/
50-
/ I"I'I
6.
I" i ,~
.z i
i /

/ " I"'"
a = I~I.BB
, , , o 4.

0 I 2 3 4 5

Fig. 33. Variation of the stiffness with fi'equency; surface

foundation L / B = 4 (torsion)
2,

foundations. The formulas describing this variation is I

given in Table 5.
The asymptotic values of the coefficient c were obtained
by computing the geometrical inertias and areas, as was
also done for the cylindrical foundations. The rocking
I
o
2'13 4't3 2
EIB
modes exhibit a nonzero value of c in the static case,
which agrees with Abascal's results. Fig. 35. Variation of the static stiffilesses with tlle
The dynamic coupling stiffnesses were obtained embedment (rocking)

225 Soil Dynanffcs and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4

 Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffi~esses of rigid foumlations: A. Pals aml E. Kausel

Table 5a.
Vertical Torsion

K~= K~.(k+ moc)

-d Fs . 9
K,
~a= K~(k
.~ . + moC
. )

da~ 4[ctL/B+ E (I + L/B)] da2 d=O'33-O'O3x/~/B-I

k=l.O-b+a-~o c K'~ k=l'O-b+a~o

F ~ . ~z 1 1
4L(L/BI(E/B) + 7 (L/B)3(E/B)+(LIB)" (E/B) + 7(E/B) +-j (L/B)3+-~(L/B)]
d = 0 . 4 + 0"2 b= 10.0 C=
~o
LIB 1+ 3(LIB - 1) gl f+a~
0.8 1.4
l + 0.33(L/B- l) f = 1 + 3 ( L / B - 1)~

Table 5b.
Horizontal Coupling

F.,]t~,= Kh~(k + iaoc) - a = 5' (E/B)I(~.

KHRx
4[L/B + E/B(~ + L/e)]
k=l.0 ~ c:
KJtx
Knr - Kny(k + taoc)
--d -- *s . " ~ d
KHRr = ]
I
(E/B)Knr --d

4[LIB+E/B(I +~LIB)]
k = 1.0 c=
KJtr

Table 5c.
Rocking, direction x

I(~ = K*Rx(k+ iaoc)

d~g
k=l.O-b+a----~o d = 0.55 + o. I,,/-s l

0.4
b=2.4---
(L/B)3

1 1 3 ct s r at f
c=4[-~(E/B)+-~(E/B) +~(L/B)(E/B) +(E/B)(L/B)+~(L/B)]K~x f-~a~ +Df +a~

4 L
0.4 D 3(Ct-B+I)(E/B)3
f=2.2
(L/Bp K~

Rocking, directiony

l(ngy= Kk~.(k+ iaoe)

0.55a~ 1.4
k= 1.0--- b=0.6+--
b + ag [L/B)3

I cg 1 3
4[3 (L/B)3(E/B)+3 (E/B)3(L/B)+3 (E/B) + (E/B)(L/B)2+3 (L/B)3] at ~_Df_~a~
c= K~r f +a~
4
1.8 -j (LIB + r a
f= D
1.0 + 1.75 ( L / B -- 1 ) Khr

Note: L~> B; a o = o~B/Cs;a = CtJC,

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4 226

Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffinesses of rigid foundations: A. Pais and E. Kausel

T h e f o u n d a t i o n stiffness b e c o m e s :

8 ...... Approxir,.ate fo,,~ul. K d = K~(k(a'd) + ia~c(a~))(1 + 2ifl) (14)

Results by Dominguez
o Results by Ab~scat where a~ = a o ( 1 - ifl).

/ LIB-1

REFERENCES
1 Abascal, R. Estudio de Problemas Dinamicos en lnteraccion
Suelo-Estructura por el Metodo de los Elementos de Contorno,
Doctoral Thesis, Escuela Tecnica Superior de lngenieros
Industriales de la Universidad de Sevilla, 1984
2 Apsel, R. J. Dynamic Green's Functions for Layered Media and
Applications to Boundary-Value Problems, PhD Thesis, Univ.
of California at San Diego, 1979
3 Day, S. M. Finite Element Analysis of Seismic Scattering
Problems, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Calif. at San Diego, 1977
4 Dominguez, J. Dynamic Stiffness of Rectangular Foundations,
Report No R78-20, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978
5 Elsabee, F. and Moray, J. P. Dynamic Behavior of Embedded
Foundations, Report No. R77-33, MIT Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977
6 Gazetas, T. Analysis of Machine Foundation Vibrations: State
of the Art, InternationalJournalof Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake
o - 2~3 ~ ;I~ ~ ' Eng., 1983, 2(1), 2-42
7 Gazetas, G. and Dobry, R. Simple Radiation Damping Model
for Piles and Footings, Journal of the Eng. Mech. Dirision,
Fig. 36. Variation of the static stiffiless with the ASCE, June 1984, 110(EM6), 937-956
embedment (torsion) 8 Kausel, E. Forced Vibrations of Circular Foundations on
Layered Media, Report No. R74-11, MIT Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974
9 Kausel, E. and Ushijima, R. Vertical and Torsional Stiffness of
viscoelastic halfspace by a p p l y i n g Biot's c o r r e s p o n d e n c e Cylindrical Footings, Report No. R76-6, MIT Dept. of Civil
principle. This principle states t h a t it is sufficient to Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976
substitute the real m o d u l i of the soil by c o m p l e x m o d u l i to 10 Luco, J. E. and Westmann, R. A. Dynamic Response of Circular
a c c o u n t for m a t e r i a l d a m p i n g . U s u a l l y it is a s s u m e d t h a t Footings, Journal of Eng. Mech. Dirision, ASCE, 1971,
the value of P o i s s o n ' s ratio does n o t d e p e n d on the 97(EM5), 1381-1395
I1 Luco, J. E. and Westmann, R. A. Dynamic Response of a Rigid
a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l d a m p i n g . F o r simplicity it c a n be Footing Bonded to an Elastic Halfspace, Journal of Applied
a s s u m e d that b o t h P - w a v e s a n d S-waves have the s a m e Mech., ASME, 1972, 39, 527-534
a m o u n t of a t t e n u a t i o n . T h e c o m p l e x wave celerities 12 Luco, J. E., Frazier, G. A. and Day, S. M. Dynamic Response of
b e c o m e then: Three-Dimensional Rigid Embedded Foundations, Cal. Univ.,
Report No. NSF/RA-780499, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., 1978
13 Veletsos, A. S. and Verbic, B. Basic Response Functions for
c_ C, ~_ Cp (12) Elastic Foundations, Journalof the Eng. Mech.Dit'ision,ASCE,
C,-l_ifl and C p - l _ -~- 1974, 100(EM2), 189-202
14 Waas, G Analysis Method for Footing Vibrations through
Layered Media, PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley,
where fl represents the a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l d a m p i n g in the 1972
soil. 15 Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E. Dynamic Response of Rigid
Because the value of fl is g e n e r a l l y small c o m p a r e d to Foundations of Arbitrary Shape, Earthquake Eng. and Struct.
unity, the c o m p l e x s h e a r m o d u l u s can be written as Dynamics, 1976,6, 3-16
16 Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E. Tables of Impedance Functions and
Input Motions for Rectangular Foundations, Report No. CE78-
G'=p(C~)2=G(1-ifl)-2~G(l+2ifl) (13) 15, Univ. of Southern California, 1978

227 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1988, Vol. 7, No. 4