Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

Dynamic effects of impact machine foundations

Mark R. Svinkin, Member, ASCE1
1
VIBRACONSULT, 13821 Cedar Road, #205, Cleveland, OH 44118-2376; PH (216)
397-9625; FAX (216) 397-1175; [email protected]
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract
Foundations for machines with impact loads are widespread powerful sources of
industrial vibrations. These foundations mostly transmit vertical dynamic loads on the
ground and generate ground vibrations which may harmfully affect surrounding
buildings. Dynamic effects range from serious disturbances of working conditions for
sensitive devices and people to visible structural damage. Natural frequency of vertical
machine foundation vibrations and complete vibration records of ground and structure
vibrations can be predicted prior to installation of machine foundations. Diverse measures
can be used to mitigate dynamic effects of impact machine foundations.

Introduction
Various machines with impact or shock loads are used for production processes at plants
and in industrial buildings. As a rule, such machines are installed on massive concrete
foundations. Forge and drop hammers are most powerful machines producing impact
loads.
Forge hammer production is usually accompanied with high vibration levels of
ground vibrations because substantial dynamic loads are transmitted on hammer
foundations, and these vibrations may detrimentally affect adjacent and remote structures,
sensitive equipment and people. It is likely that structure damage caused by vibrations
may occur in close proximity of the dynamic sources. Nevertheless, unacceptable
structural vibrations may also be induced at long distances from the sources due to the
dynamic effect of low-frequency ground vibrations. Therefore, it is important to predict
ground and structure vibrations before erection of foundations under machines with
impact loads and consider possible outcomes of vibration effects in the design stage of
machine foundations.
Knowledge and experience in understanding the causes of vibration effects of impact
machine foundations can be helpful in prevention of detrimental structural vibrations.
Each construction site is unique, and vibration mitigation measures before or after
construction of machine foundations should be correctly applied at a site because it is
possible that eliminating one dynamic excitation can trigger another one.
The paper is based on analysis and generalization of numerous case studies.

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

Impact Machine Foundations as Sources of Vibrations

Impact machines generate intensive dynamic forces which comprise a single pulse of
arbitrary form and relatively short duration. Such dynamic loads are of great importance
in the design of impact machine foundations and assessment of vibration effects on
adjacent and remote structures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Impact Machine Foundations

There are various forge and drop hammers. In forge shops, two major types of hammers
are used: a counterblow hammer (proper) and a short-stroke drop hammer. The former
machine provides free forging operations. The latter machine also called drop hammer
for die stamping is applied to the precision of blows required in forging. Besides, diverse
punch-presses such as sizing presses, hydraulic presses and others are employed for
production of machine parts at industrial plants.
Two other hammers put in practice to remake steel scrap heaps. Sizeable drop
hammers break scrap iron, and press-hammers are used to compress and pack lightweight
steel scrap.
Research studies of hammer foundation dynamics have been accomplished by Rausch
(1950), Barkan (1962), Novak (1987), Prakash and Puri (1988) and others.
Each forge hammer has two major parts: an anvil and a frame. For counter blow
hammers, footings under the frame are paced on the anvil foundation at both sides of the
anvil with 2-3 cm layers of roofing felt between the frame footing and the anvil
foundation. Short-stroke drop hammers are usually installed on a single concrete block to
support the anvil and the frame. Such a design decreases stresses in hammer foundations.
Also, it is possible to meet the old-designed anvil foundations separated from foundations
under the frames. Such separation can result in substantial settlements of the anvil
foundation.
Square timbers are used for pads under the anvil. The pad thickness of 0.1 – 1.2 m
depends on the weight of hammer dropping parts.
Sizeable drop hammers are installed for breaking scrap iron and large iron blocks.
These hammers generate the great energy during impacts and have large foundations with
upper parts around the anvils for protection from flying iron pieces. Layers of timber,
iron chips and steel plates are used for pads under the anvils and the pad thickness is
about 2 m.
Foundations under the press-hammers are relatively small and the anvils are usually
installed directly on the foundations without pads.
Punch-presses are installed directly on their foundations.

Dynamic Loads Transmitted on the Ground

For impact machine foundations as the vibration sources, it is important to determine

what major foundation vibrations are transmitted on the ground and how these vibrations
may have effects upon adjacent and remote structures.

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Most hammer foundations are undergone only vertical vibrations under applied
centered impacts, but some machines with impact loads can cause vertical and rocking
foundation vibrations. An experimental study showed that rocking foundation oscillations
do not affect soil vibration records with distance from the machine foundation (Figure 1).
Identical vertical impact loads with different eccentricity produced vertical foundation
vibrations with the frequency of 20 rad/s in one event and rocking foundation vibrations
with the frequency of 135 rad/s in another event. However, these impact loads produced
similar ground vibrations at a distance of 43 m from the foundation for a drop hammer.
Obviously, only vertical foundation vibrations have to be considered for analysis of
impact machine foundations as sources of industrial vibrations.
The hammer foundation and the anvil are modeled as lumped-mass systems with one
or two degrees of freedom. In a reality, an anvil mass is substantially less than a
foundation mass and stiffness of the anvil pad is much larger than soil stiffness under the
hammer foundation. Therefore in most cases, the hammer foundations respond to impact
loads generated by hammers as a SDOF system.
Normalized responses of the hammer-foundation-soil systems are presented in Figure
2 for four foundations under different machines producing impact loads: a press-hammer
with the ram mass MR=4 tonnes and the foundation base area AFB=12.3 m2, a short-stroke
drop hammer with MR=7.25 tonnes and AFB=80 m2, a counterblow hammer with MR=6
tonnes and AFB=58.8 m2 and a sizeable drop hammer with MR=15 tonnes and AFB=158
m2. It can be seen that the responses of three hammer foundations are represented by
SDOF transfer functions which almost coincide with the corresponding theoretical
transfer functions for which parameters were determined from experiments. Only for the
counterblow hammer foundations, a transfer function represents the system with two
degrees of freedom but with the domination of the first shape. It is acceptable for
practical goals to consider the hammer-foundation-soil system as SDOF.

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Variables of Machine Foundation Vibrations

Variables of hammer foundation vibrations presented in Table 1 for three groups of

hammer foundations were gathered on the basis of published data (Rausch 1950; Barkan
1962; Scheglov 1960; Klattso 1965; Glazyrin and Martyshkin 1971) and studies
performed by the writer (Svinkin 1980 and 1995).
The first and second groups represent hammer foundations installed on the ground
without vibration isolation. These groups gathered foundations under hammers depending
on the mass of hammer rams: 5-25 tonnes range for the first group and below 5 tonnes for
the second group. Natural angular frequencies of these foundations are in limits of 40-90

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

rad/s that correspond the periods of free foundation vibrations between 0.16 and 0.07 s.
Because of the duration of ram impacts on the anvil is approximately 0.01 s (Rausch
1950), the impact loads on hammer foundations can be considered as instantaneous
loading. The impact loads induce transient hammer foundation vibrations consisting of 1-
2 cycles with large damping. Foundation vibrations are transferred onto the ground.

Table 1. Variables of Hammer Foundation Vibrations (modified from Svinkin 1995)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Groups Variables of Hammer Foundation Vibrations Energy

of Forge Transferred
Foundations Hammers Frequency Displacement Velocity Acceleration onto Soil
rad/s mm cm/s cm/s2 kJ
1 Large 40-60 0.4-1.0 2.0-6.0 120-420 0.8-5.9
forge
hammers
with ram
mass
between
5-25
tonnes
2 Forge 60-90 0.3-1.0 1.9-8.8 120-980 0.06-1.9
hammers
with ram
mass less
than
5 tonnes
3 Vibration 19-38 0.1-0.7 0.4-1.6 14-17 0.01-2.8
isolated
forge
hammers

Values of the frequencies of free vertical foundation vibrations in certain degree

depend on the capacity of forge hammers. The masses of hammer rams and the
frequencies of free vertical foundation vibrations are shown in Figure 3. It can be seen the
trend that the larger mass of the hammer ram the lower frequency of free vertical
foundation vibrations. Foundations for powerful forge hammers have the lowest
frequencies, and the highest frequencies were found for foundations under forge hammers
with the ram mass of 1-3 tonnes.
This phenomenon has a reasonable explanation. It is obvious that the larger ram mass
requires the larger foundation base area, and the larger volume of soil mass is involved in
hammer foundation vibrations. An enlargement of the foundation base area increases the
soil stiffness under the foundation base area. However, an augmentation of the soil mass
is greater than that of the soil stiffness, and consequently it results in decreasing the
frequency of free vertical foundation vibrations.
The third group in Table 1 renders vibration isolated foundations for forge hammers.
A concrete block with a hammer is mounted on vibroisolators for which springs and
dashpots are used. Records of free block vibrations from hammer impact are similar to

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

low frequency damped sinusoid with small damping. The block vibrations are transmitted
onto the foundations and induce elastic waves in the ground.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

It can be seen from Table 1 that displacements are in the similar ranges for all three
groups of hammer foundations. The maximum energy transferred onto the ground and
big values of velocities and accelerations are observed for foundations under large forge
hammers. The greatest velocity of 8.8 cm/s and acceleration of 980 cm/s2 were obtained
at foundations for relatively small forge hammers in group 2 because of comparatively
high natural frequencies of these foundations. The minimum values of vibration variables
are related to vibration isolated hammer foundations.
In addition to information about forge hammers and their foundations presented in
Table 1 and Figure 3, sizeable drop hammers have somewhat different values of dynamic
loads and variables of foundation vibrations. The maximum mass of dropping weight is
15 tonnes and the maximum dropping height is 30 m. Frequencies of free vertical
foundation vibrations are in limits of 3-8 Hz. Maximum displacements of vertical and
rocking foundation vibrations are 3 and 6 mm respectively. Accelerations can reach
values up to 600 cm/s2. Foundations under sizeable drop hammers can transfer much
energy up to 35 kJ onto the ground. This considerable amount of energy is 6-14 times
higher than energy transferred onto the ground from foundations under hammers with big
ram masses.
Displacements of machine foundation vibrations can be calculated using known
procedures available in Barkan (1962) for foundations under forge hammers and sizeable
drop hammers, in Svinkin (1993) for press-hammer foundations, and in Svinkin (1982)

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

for punch-press foundations. The permissible displacement values are 1.0-1.2 mm for
forge hammer foundations and 0.25-0.50 mm for punch-press foundations.

Vibration Effects on Structures

Forge shop structures, adjacent and remote buildings may be affected by vibrations
generated by operating impact machines. Vertical oscillations of impact machine
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

foundations induce elastic waves in the soil medium which trigger vertical and horizontal
ground vibrations.

Dynamic Settlements

Vertical ground vibrations from impact machine foundations in sand soils can be the
cause of non-uniform dynamic settlements of column footings in forge shops. Column
footings are usually designed for static loads transferred on the ground without taking
into account the dynamic loads from ground vibrations which increase the pressure on the
ground. According to Table 1, accelerations of hammer foundations may reach the value
of 980 cm/s2 or 1.0 g, and consequently the real pressure from column footings on the
ground will be up 2 times higher than the static pressure. For foundations under impact
machines, this effect is less important because the design of machine foundation provides
a smaller static pressure on the ground in comparison with structure footings which
support only static loads like column footings.
Accelerations attenuate very fast with distance from the impact machine foundations.
Because of attenuation of vertical ground vibrations, dynamic loads under column
footings are diverse and that may provoke additional differential settlements of column
footings. A similar dominant frequency can be observed at various distances from the
source. Therefore, accelerations at most locations of measurements of ground vibrations
are proportional to displacements of ground vibrations, and the settlements are
proportional to the maximum displacements or the maximum accelerations of vertical
ground vibrations.
Barkan (1962) reported three case studies of damaging effects of structure footing
settlements caused by ground vibrations from forge hammer foundations. The hammers
had dropping weights of 4.5, 2.5 and 3 tonnes. The static pressure on the ground under
wall footings was in the 1.75-2.5 kg/cm2 range. The soil deposits of fine-grained sands
were in all three cases. The water tables were at depths of 4.0-8.5 m. In the first study, a
three story auxiliary building attached to a forge shop was completely destructed. This
brick building was located at a distance of 6 m from the hammer foundation and erected
much later than the forge shop. In the second study, ground vibrations from a hammer
destroyed the forge shop building which brick walls were supported by continuous
footing. In the third study, differential settlements of the shop columns nearest the
hammer foundation were observed. These settlements were the cause of crack formation
in the reinforced-concrete frame structures of the shop and in the brick walls.

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

To assess the effect of ground vibration intensity on dynamic settlements, Savinov

(1979) suggested the threshold of 15 cm/s2 for buildings sensitive to differential
settlements and 30 cm/s2 for insensitive buildings.
Differential dynamic settlements of forge shop structures and abutted buildings are
the major harmful results of foundation vibrations under forge hammers.

Resonant Vibrations of Adjacent and Remote Structures

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A coincidence of the frequency of ground vibrations to one of natural building

oscillations may generate the condition of resonance in the building. Even the proximity
of those frequencies may strongly increase building vibrations.
Oscillations of impact machine foundations also generate horizontal ground
vibrations which have only one-two cycles in relatively small spaces of forge shops. Such
horizontal ground vibrations cannot trigger horizontal resonant vibrations of forge shop
structures. Displacements of these structural vibrations are usually similar to
displacements of horizontal ground vibrations near footings under exterior forge shop
structures.
In various soils, waves propagate in all directions from impact machine foundations
forming a series of quasi-harmonic waves with the predominant frequency equal or close
to the frequency of the source. This phenomenon is particularly well observed in
saturated sands. A coincidence of ground and structure frequencies may trigger resonant
structural vibrations. Rausch (1950) described a case history where intolerable vibrations
were observed in an administrative building located 200 m from the foundation of a
hammer with a ram mass of 1.5 tonnes. Probably wave paths had low attenuation at that
site. Svinkin (1993) reported resonant horizontal vibrations of one part of a five story
apartment building located at approximately 500 m from the foundation under a
vibroisolated block for a forge hammer with a ram mass of 16 tonnes.

Direct Vibration Effects on Forge Shop Structures

Damage to masonry of the exterior walls is observed in various forge shops. Such
damage can be produced by ground vibrations from impact machine foundations when
frequencies of ground vibrations do not match natural frequencies of structures. The
experimental studies of ten forge shops were performed because of visible damage in
shop exterior structures at sites with diverse soil conditions, Svinkin (1995).
The investigated forge shops had similar structural set-up: one story braced steel
frames and exterior walls supported by spread footings or foundation beams installed on
column footings. The brick walls were connected to the columns. There were various soil
conditions at sites: fine and middle sands with natural moisture, moist and very moist
loams, and clays.
Cracks and other damage of exterior walls were found at the time of investigation.
The most typical cracks were found in brick walls along the axes of steel columns. A
length of cracks changed from 1 to 7 m and a crack width was in the 2-30 mm limits.
Oblique cracks were detected at wall corners. The holes from fallen bricks were revealed

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

at both sides of some parts of exterior walls. Considerable deformations of the masonry
were found in the walls of auxiliary buildings abutted to the forge shops.
Horizontal and vertical vibrations were measured on the column footings and brick
walls during the operation of 24 forge hammers with a ram mass from 1 to 20 tonnes.
Besides, brick wall vibrations from operating bridge cranes were recorded, particularly at
the time of motion and braking of bridge cranes and crab motors.
Vertical vibrations of the column footings in the proximity of the hammer
foundations had shapes similar to vibrations of the hammer foundations, but their
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

displacements decreased 2-5 times dependently on a distance from the source and soil
conditions. Vibrations of the column footings attenuated quickly with distance from the
hammer foundations.
Records of horizontal structural vibrations showed that the maximum transverse
displacement of 0.7 mm was measured at the upper parts of brick walls in the shop spans
against the hammer foundations. Forces vibrations of brick walls had the dominant
frequencies between 50-58 rad/s which coincided with the frequencies of free hammer
foundation vibrations. At the rest of shop spans, free wall vibrations had frequencies in
the 19-34 rad/s range and much smaller displacements. Horizontal displacements in the
wall plane were 5-10 times less than the maximum transverse displacements at the same
points.
Dynamic loads from bridge cranes induced forced brick wall vibrations with the
dominant frequencies in the 17-34 rad/s range and the maximum horizontal wall
displacements between columns of the same order like those from operating hammers.
Brick wall transverse vibrations had certain features at the locations of wall abutting to
the columns. On the wall section located against the hammer foundations, vibrations of
the brick wall on both sides of the column had the same phase and close displacements. A
phase of these vibrations changed and differences between their displacements increased
with moving away from the span with the hammer foundation. This phenomenon was
pronounced during operations of bridge cranes.
The performed experimental studies of ten forge shops revealed the causes of crack
formation, minor and major masonry damage in shop exterior walls. It is common to
consider differential column footing settlements induced by the static pressure and
vibrations as the basic cause of cracks and damage in the exterior walls. It is correct for
sites with sand deposits at close distances from the hammer foundations. Nevertheless, in
numerous cases the masonry damage of the forge shop walls was observed at sites with
other soil deposits than sands. Deformations of exterior structures due to non-uniform
column footing settlements were not visible at the observed forge shops even built on
cohesionless soils.
The analysis of the obtained results showed that cracks and damage of the brick walls
bordered with steel columns were caused by to the effects of wall vibrations relatively to
the columns. While a part of the brick wall on one side of a steel column moved, a similar
part of the wall on other side of the column stayed immovable because a phase of
vibrations changed. These vibrations were induced mostly by dynamic loads generated by
operating bridge cranes. Simple calculations confirmed that tension stresses in the
masonry were greater than the allowable limits. It is necessary to point out that cracks
found at the upper part of exterior walls were not dangerous for the masonry in the good
condition. However, for the masonry with insufficient quality, vibrations developed

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

cracks which length reached several meters with a width of 2-3 cm. Such cracks are
unacceptable because they split the brick wall into separate parts. The appearance of
extensive masonry damage at locations where the shop brick walls were attached to
auxiliary buildings can be explained by inadequate quality of expansion joints between
buildings and unequal settlements of the attached buildings.

Disturbance of People
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Vibrations from impact machines shake working places near machine foundations,
disturb people at forge shops and other places at plants, and may be annoying for
residents of adjacent and sometimes remote buildings.
According to ANSI S3.29-1983, vibrations from impact machines with respect to
human response can be divided into impulsive and intermittent vibrations.
An impulsive vibration is a transient isolated event with the duration less than two
seconds. Such dynamic loads are generated by most of hammers in forge shops and
hammers for remaking steel scrap heaps. Vibration values at workshop areas with such
industrial process are specified in ANSI S3.18-1979, but ANSI S3.29-1983 should apply
for assessment of impulsive vibration magnitudes in offices and adjacent building.
Intermittent vibration is a string of vibration incidents with short duration less than
two seconds separated with intervals of much lower vibration amplitudes or without
vibration at all. Such dynamic loads are generated by various punch presses and some old
small forge hammers. ANSI S3.29-1983 should apply for assessment of impulsive
vibration magnitudes in offices and adjacent building.

Predicting Vibrations from Impact Machine Foundations

Predicting soil and structure vibrations from impact machine foundations is important for
proper assessment of vibration effects on structures, sensitive devices and people. The
ground under machine foundations plays the major role in forming the machine
foundation response and the ground responses to dynamic loads generated by impact
machines.

Natural Frequency of Vertical Foundation Vibrations

Dynamic loads on the ground induce elastic waves in the medium of soil. The spectra of
ground vibrations caused by impact loads have few maximums which are the natural
frequencies of the soil layers. The experimental study (Svinkin 1996) revealed that values
of these frequencies are practically independent of the condition at the contact area where
impacts are made directly on the ground.
It has been found that the natural damped frequency of vertical foundation vibrations
coincides with the dominant natural frequency of the soil profile, Svinkin (1997a, 2001).
This finding is the basis of the method for predicting the natural frequency of vertical
foundation vibrations.

10

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

According to the method, impact loads are applied onto the ground within an area for
installation of the machine foundation. Output locations are also at this area but beyond
the zone of plastic deformations of the ground caused by impact forces. The dominant
frequency of the spectra of ground vibrations at the location for installation of machine
foundation is the predicted natural frequency of vertical damped vibrations of the
machine foundation for the specified impact machine.
The result of predicting is shown for the foundation under a press-hammer with the
ram mass of 4 tonnes and the foundation base area of 12.3 m2 installed at the site with
mostly a fine sand deposit (Figure 4). There is a good coincidence of predicted and
measured results.

Ground and Structure Vibrations

An IRFP method can be used to predict complete time-domain records of ground and
structure vibrations from impact machines, Svinkin (1997b, 2002). This method is
founded on the utilization of the impulse response function technique that eliminates the
need to use mathematical models of soil profiles, foundations and structures in practical
application. The method takes into consideration the variety of soil and structural

11

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

properties and reflects real behavior of soil and structures without investigation of soil
and structure properties.
The parameters of a machine foundation system can be determined using the existing
theories, e.g. Rausch (1950), Barkan (1962), Lysmer and Richart (1966), Richart et al.
(1970), Wong and Luco (1976), Arya et al. (1979), Roesset (1980), Dobry et al. (1986),
Novak (1987), Prakash and Puri (1988), Gazetas (1991), Veletsos (1993), Wolf (1994),
and others. The reason for the agreement of predicted results with the use of all of these
theories is that ground vibration responses are negligibly dependent on the parameters of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the foundation-soil system.

The procedure for predicting soil and structures vibrations prior to installation of
foundation for impact machines includes experimental and computational parts.
In an experimental part, the place for a machine foundation should be chosen at an
industrial site. At the place of installation of the machine foundation, impact forces of
known magnitude are applied on the ground. The impact can be created using a rigid steel
sphere or pear-shaped weight falling from a bridge or mobile crane. At the moment of
impact on the ground, oscillations are recorded at the points of interest, for example, at the
locations of instruments and devices sensitive to vibrations. These oscillations are the
impulse response functions of the considered system which automatically take into account
complicated soil conditions.
In a computational part, after preliminary calculation of the frequencies and the damping
constant of soil, a convolution integral is used to compute predicting soil and structure
vibrations, Svinkin (2002).
The following example demonstrates the application of the IRFP method for predicting
ground surface oscillations excited by vibrations of the foundation under a vibroisolated
block for the large forge hammer with a ram mass of 16 tonnes. The foundation base area
was 116.4 m². The soil deposit consisted of about 1.5 m of earth fill followed by about 5 m
of gray and brown moist soft sandy clay underlain by about 7 m of yellow moist dense sand
deposited on green moist soft clay. The water table was not encountered during soil boring
at the site. Measured and predicted soil vibrations at distances 7.7 m and 28.8 m from the
hammer foundation are shown in Figure 5. The predicted soil vibrations demonstrate a
close fit to the measured data.
The IRFP method predicts complete three-dimensional wave forms, vertical and two
horizontal, with reasonable accuracy. A comparison of computed and measured records
confirms the acceptability of the IRFP method for prediction vibrations in target points prior
to installation of foundations for impact machines.

Mitigation of Vibration Outcomes

There are a limited number of means which can mitigate vibrations generated by impact
machines. Some ways can be used at a design stage; other ways can be employed before
and after construction of impact machine foundations. It is possible that a measure for
decreasing one type of structural vibrations will trigger another vibration excitation. A
proper analysis is needed for each site.

12

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Prevention of Differential Settlements

Footings under columns in forge hammer shops are designed for a constant static
pressure transferred from structures onto the ground. An additional dynamic pressure
from ground vibrations generated by the impact machine foundations depends on a
distance from the source. Because the settlements are proportional to the accelerations of
vertical ground vibrations, column footings have differential settlements.

13

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

To diminish detrimental vibrations effects on building footings, Barkan (1962)

proposed to assign the permissible static pressures from column footings on the ground
depending on the displacements or the accelerations of ground vibrations at the locations
of column footings. The IRFP method (Svinkin 2002) can be used for predicting ground
displacements before construction of a hammer foundation.

Resonant Building Vibrations

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Low-frequency transient vibrations appear at some distances from machine foundations

and may trigger resonant structure vibrations. It occurs seldom and there are no readily
apparent means for reducing resonant vibrations. However, resonance problem can be
detected in advance with the IRFP method.

Wave Barriers

There are numerous studies of the application of wave barriers for diminishing ground
vibrations from different dynamic sources, for example Woods (1968), Haupt (1995),
Naggar and Chehab (2005) and others. However, there is no example of the successful
application of the wave barriers technique to mitigate ground vibrations from foundations
under machines with impact loads, Woods (2007).

Active Vibration Isolation

Vibrating isolation of forge hammers is used at industrial plants in order to diminish

harmful vibration effects on adjacent and remote buildings, technological processes,
sensitive devices and people. A forge hammer is installed on an isolated concrete block
which is supported by steel springs and rubber dashpots.
Natural frequencies of vertical block vibrations usually are in 3-6 Hz range. Low
frequencies are typical for sizeable hammers. It is necessary to point out that the first
mode of multi-story buildings has frequencies between 2-5 Hz, while for row-rise
buildings these limits are 4-10 Hz. The proximity of source frequencies to ones of natural
building oscillations may generate resonant building vibrations.
The following is an example of unacceptable building vibrations induced by the
foundation under a vibroisolated concrete block and a sizeable forge hammer with a ram
mass of 16 tonnes, Svinkin (1993). A five story apartment building was located at a
distance about 500 m from the hammer foundation. The building had two perpendicular
parts. A major part of the building was oriented in a radial direction from the hammer
foundation and had large stiffness in this direction. There were no vibration problems with
this building part. In the same direction, a minor part of the building had low stiffness and
harmful vibrations particularly sensitive at night.
Vibrations of the hammer foundation induced horizontal transversal structural
vibrations with the frequency of 3.1 Hz. This frequency was certainly closed to the natural
frequency of horizontal building vibrations. A change of the frequency of vertical

14

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

vibrations of the vibroisolated block with the hammer is the simplest and economical way
for diminishing building vibrations. To rich this goal, it is necessary to decrease stiffness of
vibroisolators by eliminating part of them. A number of steel springs cannot be reduced
because they are chosen in accordance with the condition of strength to support the
concrete block. Therefore, it is necessary to decrease the quantity of dashpots.
Buildings usually have a narrow resonant zone. In the described case history, the
natural frequency of vibroisolated concrete block with hammer was decreased from 3.1 to
2.9 Hz due to elimination of a few dashpots. It was sufficient to diminish structural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vibrations to the acceptable limits.

Mitigation of Vibration Effects on People

Impact machine foundations generate high levels of ground vibrations which are
considerably bigger than the threshold of human exposure to vibrations in buildings.
Therefore, offices have to be located at relatively large distance from the dynamic
sources.
Sometimes there is the need for mitigating vibration effects at the existing offices
located at distances with perceptible vibrations. It is a complicated problem. For the
remedial work at those places, it is reasonable to use passive vibration isolation in the
offices. Composite high damping panels for flooring and walls should to be used to
decrease vibrations.

Conclusions
Impact machines generate intensive dynamic forces which induce machine foundation
and ground vibrations. Forge and drop hammers are most powerful machines producing
impact loads.
In most cases, the hammer foundations respond to impact loads generated by
hammers as a SDOF system, and only vertical foundation vibrations have to be
considered for analysis of impact machine foundations as sources of industrial vibrations.
There is a trend of decreasing the natural frequency of vertical foundation vibrations
with increasing the ram mass and the foundation base area.
A real pressure under column footing in forge shops can be up two times higher than
the static pressure due to vibrations from hammer foundations. Accelerations attenuate
very fast with distance from the impact machine foundations. Therefore, dynamic loads
under column footings are diverse and that may provoke additional settlements of column
footings. Differential dynamic settlements are the major cause of damage to exterior
walls in forge shops at sites with a sand deposit.
Horizontal vibrations of exterior forge shop structures triggered by ground vibrations
from impact machine foundations are not dangerous for integrity of these structures.
However, low-frequency ground vibrations can trigger resonant building vibrations at
relatively large distances from the hammer foundations.
The analysis of the obtained results showed that cracks and damage of the brick walls
bordered with steel columns in forge shops had occurred due the effect of wall vibrations

15

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

relatively to the columns. These vibrations were induced mostly by dynamic loads from
operating bridge cranes.
The natural frequency of vertical machine foundation vibrations can be predicted
before installation of a machine foundation. An IRFP method can be used to predict
complete time-domain records of ground and structure vibrations from impact machines
at the time of design of the machine foundation.
There are a limited number of means which can mitigate vibrations generated by
impact machines. Some measures can be used at a design stage; others can be employed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

before and after construction of impact machine foundations. Mitigation measures should
be correctly applied because it is possible that eliminating one dynamic excitation can
trigger another one. It is better to mitigate vibration effects on peoples in offices at the
time of a design of forge shops and surrounding areas than decrease unacceptable
vibrations after construction.

References
ANSI S3.18 (1979). AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD, Guide to the Evaluation of
Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibrations.
ANSI S3.29 (1983). AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD, Guide to the Evaluation of
Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings.
Arya, S.C., O'Neill, N.M., and Pincus, G. (1979). Design of structures and foundations for
vibrating machines. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
Barkan, D.D. (1964). Dynamics of Bases and Foundations, McGraw Hill Co., New York.
Dobry, R., Gazetas, G, and Stokoe, K.H., II (1986). "Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped
foundations: Experimental verification." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
112, No. 2, 136-149.
Gazetas, G.. (1994). "Foundation vibrations." Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd Ed.,
H.Y.Fang, ed, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 553-593.
Glazyrin, V.S. and Martyshkin, B.C. (1971). “Investigation of vibrations of vibration
isolated foundations under forge hammers.” Bases, Foundations and Soil Mechanics,
Stropiizdat, 3 (in Russian).
Haupt, W.A. (1995). “Wave propagation in the ground and isolation measures.” Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, V.II, 985-1016.
Lysmer, J. and Richart, F.E., Jr. (1966). "Dynamic response of footings to vertical loading."
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 92(1), 65-91.
Klattso, M.M. (1965). “Parameters of ground vibrations induced by forge hammers.”
Industrial Construction, Stropiizdat (in Russian).
Naggar, M.H.E. and Chehab, A.G. (2005). “Vibration barriers for shock-producing
equipment.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42, 297-306.
Novak, M. (1987). "State of the art in analysis and design of machine foundations." Soil-
Structure Interaction, Elsevier/CML Publisher, New York, 171-192.
Prakash, S. and Puri, V.K. (1988). Foundations for machines: analysis and design, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Rausch, E. (1950). Maschinen Fundamente, Verlag, Dusseldorf, Germany (in German).

16

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV
 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV GSP 181 © 2008 ASCE

Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. and Woods, R.D. (1970). Vibrations of soils and foundations,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Roesset, J.M. (1980). "The use of simple models in soil-structure interaction." Civil
Engineering and Nuclear Power, ASCE, No. 1/3, 1-25.
Savinov, O.A. (1979). Modern construction of machine foundations and their calculations.
Second Edition, Stroiizdat, Leningrad (in Rissian).
Scheglov, V.F. (1960). Soil vibrations from forge hammers with various degree of
vibration isolation.” Forge-Punching Production, Mashinostroenie, 8 (in Russian).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Svinkin, M.R. (1980). “Determination of dynamic loads transmitted to a hammer

foundation.” Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Publishing Corporation,
New York, 17(5), 200-201, a translation of Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika
Gruntov in Russian.
Svinkin, M.R. (1982). “Determining the vibration amplitude of foundations supporting
crankshaft presses.” Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Publishing
Corporation, New York, 19(3), 99-102, a translation of Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i
Mekhanika Gruntov in Russian.
Svinkin, M.R. (1993). “Analyzing man-made vibrations, diagnostics and monitoring”.
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, June 1-4, 663-670.
Svinkin, M.R. (1995). “Vibrations of impact machine foundations and footing settlements.”
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, V. II, 797-802.
Svinkin, M.R. (1996). Discussion of ‘Impact of weight falling onto the ground’ by Roesset
et al." Journal of the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 120(8),
414-415.
Svinkin, M.R. (1997a). A method for estimating frequencies of machine foundations. U.S.
Patent No. 5,610,336 issued March 11, 1997.
Svinkin, M.R. (1997b). "Numerical methods with experimental soil response in predicting
vibrations from dynamic sources." Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 3, 2263-2268.
Svinkin, M.R. (2001). “Natural frequency of vertical foundation vibrations evaluated from
in-situ impact test.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego,
California, March 26-31, Paper No. 2.33, CD-ROM.
Svinkin, M.R. (2002). "Predicting soil and structure vibrations from impact machines."
Journal of the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(7), 602-612.
Veletsos, A.S. (1993). "Design concepts for dynamics of soil-structure interaction."
Developments in Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wong, H.L. and Luco, J.E. (1976). "Dynamic response of rigid foundations of arbitrary
shape." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 4, 579-587.
Wolf, J.P. (1994). Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models, PTR
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Woods, R.D. (1968). “Screening of surface waves in soils.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Division, ASCE, 94(SM4), 951-979.
Woods, R.D. (2007). Personal communications.

17

Copyright ASCE 2008 Geotechnical Earthquake and Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress 2008
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV