This document downloaded from All of the information, data and computer software

vulcanhammer.net
("information") presented on this web site is for
general information only. While every effort will
be made to insure its accuracy, this information
should not be used or relied on for any specific
application without independent, competent
professional examination and verification of its
accuracy, suitability and applicability by a licensed
professional. Anyone making use of this
since 1997, information does so at his or her own risk and
assumes any and all liability resulting from such
your source for engineering information use. The entire risk as to quality or usability of the
information contained within is with the reader. In
for the deep foundation and marine no event will this web page or webmaster be held
liable, nor does this web page or its webmaster
construction industries, and the historical provide insurance against liability, for any
damages including lost profits, lost savings or any
site for Vulcan Iron Works Inc. other incidental or consequential damages arising
from the use or inability to use the information
contained within.

Use subject to the “fine print” to the This site is not an official site of Prentice-Hall, the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,
Vulcan
right. Foundation Equipment or Vulcan Iron Works Inc.
(Tennessee Corporation).
All references to
sources of equipment, parts, service or repairs do
not constitute an endorsement.

Don’t forget to visit our companion site http://www.vulcanhammer.org

 INCH-POUND

MIL-HDBK-1007/3
15 NOVEMBER 1997
__________________
SUPERSEDING
NAVFAC DM-7.3
APRIL 1983

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
HANDBOOK

SOIL DYNAMICS AND SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS

AMSC N/A AREA FACR

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution

is unlimited.
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

ABSTRACT

This military handbook replaces the Naval Facilities Engineering

Command (NAVFACENGCOM) design manual, DM-7.3. It contains
material pertaining to soil dynamics, earthquake engineering, and
special design aspects of geotechnical engineering. The soil
dynamics section of this handbook deals with basic dynamic
properties of soils, machine foundations, dynamic and vibratory
compaction, and pile driving response. The earthquake
engineering section deals with earthquake response spectra, site
seismicity, design earthquake, seismic loads on structures,
liquefaction, and base isolation. The special design aspects
section deals with seismic design of anchored sheet pile walls,
stone column and displacement piles, and dynamic slope stability
and deformation. This military handbook is to be used by
geotechnical engineers, working for the Department of Defense
(DOD), for guidance in designing military facilities.

ii
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

FOREWORD

This handbook for soil dynamics and special design aspects

is one of a series that has been developed from an extensive
re-evaluation of the relevant portions of soil dynamics,
deep stabilization, and special geotechnical construction,
from surveys of available new materials and construction
methods, and from a selection of the best design practices
of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, other
Government agencies, and private industries. This handbook
includes a modernization of the former criteria and the
maximum use of national professional society, association,
and institute codes. Deviations from these criteria should
not be made without the prior approval of the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command.

Design cannot remain static any more than can the naval
functions it serves, or the technologies it uses.
Accordingly, this handbook cancels and supersedes DM 7.3
“Soil Dynamics, Deep Stabilization, and Special Geotechnical
Construction” in its entirety, and changes issued.

Recommendations for improvement are encouraged from within

the Navy, other Government agencies, and the private sector
and should be furnished on the DD Form 1426 provided inside
the back cover to Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Criteria Office, 1510 Gilbert Street, Norfolk, VA
23511-2699; telephone commercial (757) 322-4203, facsimile
machine (757) 322-4416.

DO NOT USE THIS HANDBOOK AS A REFERENCE DOCUMENT FOR

PROCUREMENT OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION. IT IS TO BE USED IN
THE PURCHASE OF FACILITIES ENGINEERING CRITERIA STUDIES AND
DESIGN (FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND COST ESTIMATES).
DO NOT REFERENCE IT IN MILITARY OR FEDERAL SPECIFICATIONS OR
OTHER PROCUREMENT DOCUMENTS.

iii
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Criteria Preparing
Manual Title Activity

DM-7.01 Soil Mechanics NFESC

DM-7.02 Foundations and Earth NFESC

Structures

MIL-HDBK-1007/3 Soil Dynamics and SpecialNFESC

Design Aspects

iv
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

SOIL DYNAMICS AND SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS

CONTENTS

Page
Section 1 SOIL DYNAMICS

1.1 Introduction............................. 1
1.1.1 Scope.................................... 1
1.1.2 Related Criteria......................... 1
1.1.3 Cancellation............................. 2

1.2 BASIC DYNAMICS........................... 3

1.2.1 Vibratory Motions........................ 3
1.2.2 Mass, Stiffness, Damping................. 3
1.2.3 Amplification Function................... 6
1.2.4 Earthquake Ground Motions................ 8

1.3 SOIL PROPERTIES.......................... 9

1.3.1 Soil Properties for Dynamic Loading...... 9
1.3.2 Types of Soils........................... 9
1.3.2.1Dry and Partially Saturated
Cohesionless Soils....................... 11
1.3.2.2Saturated Cohesionless Soils............. 11
1.3.2.3Saturated Cohesive Soils................. 12
1.3.2.4Partially Saturated Cohesive Soils....... 12
1.3.3 Measuring Dynamic Soil Properties........ 12
1.3.3.1Field Measurements of Dynamic Modulus.... 12
1.3.3.2Laboratory Measurement of Dynamic
Soil Properties.......................... 15

1.4 MACHINE FOUNDATIONS...................... 19

1.4.1 Analysis of Foundation Vibration......... 19
1.4.1.1Machine Foundations...................... 19
1.4.1.2Impact Loadings.......................... 19
1.4.1.3Characteristics of Oscillating Loads..... 19
1.4.1.4Method of Analysis....................... 19
1.4.1.5Dynamic Soil Properties.................. 29
1.4.2 Design to Avoid Resonance................ 29
1.4.2.1High-Speed Machinery..................... 29
1.4.2.2Low-Speed Machinery...................... 30
1.4.2.3Coupled Vibrations....................... 30

v
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Page
1.4.2.4Effect of Embedment...................... 32
1.4.2.5Proximity of a Rigid Layer............... 32
1.4.2.6Vibration for Pile Supported Machine
Foundation............................... 33
1.4.3 Bearing Capacity and Settlements......... 33
1.4.4 Vibration Transmission, Isolation, and
Monitoring............................... 37
1.4.4.1Vibration Transmission................... 37
1.4.4.2Vibration and Shock Isolation............ 39
1.4.4.3Vibration Monitoring..................... 39

1.5 DYNAMIC AND VIBRATORY COMPACTION......... 40

1.5.1 Soil Densification....................... 40
1.5.2 Vibro-Densification...................... 40
1.5.3 Dynamic Compaction....................... 40
1.5.4 Applications of Vibroflotation........... 43
1.5.5 Compaction Grout......................... 43
1.5.6 Selecting a Method....................... 46

1.6 PILE DRIVING RESPONSE.................... 47

1.6.1 Wave Equation Analysis................... 47
1.6.2 Wave Propagation in Piles................ 47
1.6.3 Wave Equation Application................ 49
1.6.4 Dynamic Testing of Piles................. 49
1.6.5 Results From Dynamic Testing............. 51
1.6.6 Pile Dynamic Measurement................. 51
1.6.7 Applications............................. 52
1.6.7.1Apparatus for Applying Impact Force...... 52
1.6.7.2Impact Force Application................. 52
1.6.7.3Apparatus for Obtaining Dynamic
Measurement.............................. 53
1.6.7.4Signal Transmission...................... 53
1.6.7.5Apparatus for Recording, Reducing, and
Displaying Data.......................... 53

Section 2 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

2.1 EARTHQUAKE, WAVES, AND RESPONSE SPECTRA.. 54

2.1.1 Earthquake Mechanisms.................... 54
2.1.2 Wave Propagation......................... 55
2.1.3 The Response Spectrum.................... 56

vi
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Page
2.2 SITE SEISMICITY.......................... 61
2.2.1 Site Seismicity Study.................... 61
2.2.2 Ground Motion Estimates.................. 63
2.2.3 Analysis Techniques...................... 64

2.3 SEISMIC SOIL RESPONSE.................... 65

2.3.1 Seismic Response of Horizontally Layered
Soil Deposits............................ 65
2.3.2 Evaluation Procedure..................... 65
2.3.3 Analysis Using Computer Program.......... 66

2.4 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE........................ 68

2.4.1 Design Parameters........................ 68
2.4.1.1Factors Affecting Ground Motion.......... 68
2.4.1.2Ground Motion Parameters................. 68
2.4.2 Site Specific Studies.................... 69
2.4.3 Earthquake Magnitude..................... 69
2.4.3.1Design Earthquake Magnitude.............. 73
2.4.3.2Selection of Design Earthquake........... 73
2.4.4 Intensity................................ 74
2.4.5 Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration...... 74
2.4.6 Seismic Coefficients..................... 76
2.4.7 Magnitude and Intensity Relationships.... 76
2.4.8 Reduction of Foundation Vulnerability
to Seismic Loads......................... 77

2.5 SEISMIC LOADS ON STRUCTURES.............. 78

2.5.1 Earthquake Induced Loads................. 78
2.5.2 Foundation Loads......................... 78
2.5.3 Wall Loads............................... 78
2.5.4 Base Shear............................... 78

2.6 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING....... 80

2.6.1 Liquefaction Considerations.............. 80
2.6.2 Factors Affecting Liquefaction........... 80
2.6.3 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential..... 81
2.6.3.1Simplified Empirical Methods............. 81
2.6.4 Peak Horizontal Acceleration............. 91
2.6.5 Laboratory Tests and Site Response
Method................................... 93
2.6.6 Slopes................................... 93

vii
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Page
2.6.6.1Pseudostatic Design...................... 93
2.6.6.2Strain Potential Design.................. 93
2.6.7 Lateral Spreading From Liquefaction...... 94
2.6.7.1Lateral Deformation...................... 94
2.6.7.2Evaluation Procedure..................... 94
2.6.7.3Application.............................. 95

2.7 FOUNDATION BASE ISOLATION................ 97

2.7.1 Seismic Isolation Systems................ 97
2.7.2 System Definitions....................... 97
2.7.2.1Passive Control Systems.................. 97
2.7.2.2Active Control Systems................... 97
2.7.2.3Hybrid Control Systems................... 98
2.7.3 Mechanical Engineering Applications...... 98
2.7.4 Historical Overview of Building
Applications............................. 98
2.7.5 Design Concept........................... 98
2.7.6 Device Description....................... 99
2.7.6.1Elastometer Systems...................... 99
2.7.6.2Sliding System........................... 99
2.7.6.3Hybrid Systems........................... 99
2.7.6.4Applications.............................100
2.7.7 Examples of Applications.................100

Section 3 SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS

3.1 SEISMIC DESIGN OF ANCHORED SHEET PILE

WALLS....................................103
3.1.1 Design of Sheet Pile Walls for
Earthquake...............................103
3.1.2 Design Procedures........................103
3.1.3 Example Computation......................105
3.1.4 Anchorage System.........................106
3.1.5 Ground Anchors...........................106

viii
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Page
3.1.6 Displacement of Sheet Pile Walls.........117

3.2 STONE COLUMNS AND DISPLACEMENT PILES.....119

3.2.1 Installation of Stone Columns............119
3.2.2 Parameters Affecting Design
Consideration............................122
3.2.2.1Soil Density.............................122
3.2.2.2Coefficient of Permeability..............122
3.2.2.3Coefficient of Volume Compressibility....122
3.2.2.4Selection of Gravel Material.............122
3.2.3 Vibro-Replacement (Stone Columns)........123
3.2.4 Vibroflotation and Vibro-Replacement.....123

3.3 DYNAMIC SLOPE STABILITY AND

DEFORMATIONS.............................125
3.3.1 Slope Stability Under Seismic Loading....125
3.3.2 Seismically Induced Displacement.........125
3.3.3 Slopes Vulnerable to Earthquakes.........125
3.3.4 Deformation Prediction From Acceleration
Data.....................................126
3.3.4.1Computation Method.......................126
3.3.4.2Sliding Rock Analogy.....................126

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Computer Programs........................132
APPENDIX B Symbols..................................136

FIGURES

Figure 1 Free Vibration of Simple System.......... 5

2 Relation Between Number of Blows Per
Foot in Standard Penetration Test and
Velocity of Shear Waves.................. 10
3 Laboratory Measurement of Dynamic Soil
Properties............................... 18
4 Wave Forms of Vibrations Generated From
Rotating and Impact Machinery............ 20
5 Frequency Dependent and Constant
Amplitude Exciting Forces................ 21

ix
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Page
6 Modes of Vibration....................... 22
7 Response Curves for Single-Degree-of-
Freedom System With a Viscous Damping.... 25
8 Example Calculation of Vertical,
Horizontal, and Rocking Motions.......... 26
9 Natural Undamped Frequency of Point
Bearing Piles on Rigid Rock.............. 31
10 Example Calculation for Vibration
Induced Compaction Settlement Under
Operating Machinery...................... 36
11 Allowable Amplitude of Vertical
Vibrations............................... 38
12 Grain Size Ranges Considered for
Vibro-Densification...................... 41
13 Relative Density vs. Probe Spacing
for Soil Densification................... 45
14 Formulation of Pile into a Dynamic
Model to Solve the Wave Equation......... 48
15 Example of Force and Velocity Near to
Head of Pile During Driving.............. 50
16 Tripartite Diagram of Response Spectra -
5 Percent Dumping........................ 59
17 Definition of Earthquake Terms........... 62
18 Schematic Representation of Procedure
for Computing Effects of Local Soil
Conditions on Ground Motions............. 67
19 Example of Attenuation Relationships
in Rock.................................. 70
20 Approximate Relationship for Maximum
Acceleration in Various Soil Conditions
Knowing Maximum Acceleration in Rock..... 71
21 Example Probability of Site Acceleration. 72
22 Approximate Relationships Between
Maximum Acceleration and Modified
Mercalli Intensity....................... 75
23 Correlation Between CN and Effective
Overburden Pressure...................... 84
24 Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) for Clean
Sands Under Level Ground Conditions
Based on SPT............................. 86

x
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Page
25 Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) for
Clean Sands Under Level Ground
Conditions Based on CPT................. 87
26 Correction to SPT and CPT Values for
Fine Contents........................... 89
27 Range of Magnitude Scaling Factors for
Correction of Earthquake Magnitudes..... 90
28 Correction (KC) to CPT Penetration
Resistance in Thin Sand Layers.......... 92
29 The Base Isolation System...............101
30 The Acceleration Spectrum Showing
Period Shift............................102
31 Measured Distributions of Bending
Moment in Three Model Tests on Anchored
Bulkhead................................104
32 Example of Anchored Sheet Pile Wall
Design..................................107
33 Basic Components of Ground Anchors......113
34 Estimate of Anchor Capacity.............114
35 Installation of Stone Columns...........120
36 Typical Range of Soils Densifiable by
Vibro-Replacement.......................121
37 Prediction of Embankment Deformation
Induced by Earthquake...................127
38 Principle Components of the Sliding
Block Analysis..........................128
A-1 Example of Liquefaction Potential
Analysis Output.........................133
A-2 Example of LIQUFAC Analysis Graphic
Plot....................................134
A-3 Example of LATDEF2 Data Input Screen....135

TABLES

Table 1 Attenuation Coefficient for Earth

Materials.............................. 37
2 Dynamic Compaction..................... 42
3 Examples of Vibroflotation Patterns
and Spacings for Footings.............. 44

xi
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Page
4 Spectral Ordinates - 5 Percent
Damping................................. 60
5 Peak Ground Acceleration Modified for
Soil Conditions......................... 76
6 Energy Ratio for SPT Procedures......... 85
7 Types of Soil Anchors...................116
8 Description of the Reported Degree of
Damage for Sheet Pile Wall..............118
9 Vibro-Replacement for Stone Column......124

REFERENCES ........................................138

GLOSSARY ........................................142

xii
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Section 1: SOIL DYNAMICS

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 Scope. This handbook is concerned with geotechnical

problems associated with dynamic loads, and with earthquake
related ground motion and soil response induced by earthquake
loads. The dynamic response of foundations and structures
depends on the magnitude, frequency, direction, and location of
the dynamic loads; the geometry of the soil-foundation contact
system; and the dynamic properties of the supporting soils and
structures. Dynamic ground motions considered in this chapter
are those generated from machine foundations and impact loading.
An example calculation of vertical, horizontal, and rocking
motions induced by machinery vibration is included. Soil
compaction resulting from dynamic impact and dynamic response
induced by impact loading on piles are also included. An example
calculation of dynamic compaction procedures for soils and an
example of pile driving analysis are included.

Elements in a seismic response analysis are: input

motions, site profile, static and dynamic soil properties,
constitutive models of soil response to loading, and methods of
analysis using computer programs. The contents include:
earthquake response spectra; site seismicity; soil response to
seismic motion, design earthquake, seismic loads on structures,
liquefaction potential, lateral spread from liquefaction, and
foundation base isolation.

Some special problems in geotechnical engineering

dealing with soil dynamics and earthquake aspects are discussed.
Its contents include: seismic design of anchored sheet pile
walls, stone columns and displacement piles; and dynamic slope
stability and deformations induced by earthquakes

1.1.2 Related Criteria. Additional criteria relating to

dynamics appear in the following sources:

1
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Subject Source

Soil Mechanics NAVFAC DM-7.1

Foundations and Earth Structures NAVFAC DM-7.2
Structures to Resist the NAVFAC P-397
Effects of Accidental Explosions
Seismic Design Guidelines TM 5-890-10-1/NAVFAC
for Essential Buildings P-355.1/AFN 88-3

Additional information related to special design

aspects are included in the References section at the end of this
handbook.

1.1.3 Cancellation. This handbook, MIL-HDBK-1007/3, dated

15 November 1997, cancels and supersedes NAVFAC DM-7.3, dated
April 1983.

2
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.2 BASIC DYNAMICS

1.2.1 Vibratory Motions. Harmonic or sinusoidal motion is

the simplest form of vibratory motion. An idealized simple
harmonic motion may be described by the equation:

z = A Sin(
t-)

where: z = displacement
A = single amplitude

= circular frequency
t = time
 = phase angle

For simple harmonic motion the displacement amplitude,

the phase angle, and the frequency are all that are needed to
determine the complete history of motions. For motion other than
harmonic motion, simple relationships usually do not exist
between displacement, velocity, and acceleration, and the
conversion from one quantity to the other must be accomplished by
differentiation or integration of the equation of motion or by
other mathematical manipulation.

The displacements described by the above equation will

continue oscillating forever. In reality the amplitude of the
motions will decay over time due to the phenomenon called
damping. If the damping is similar to that caused by a dashpot
with constant viscosity, it is said to be linearly viscous
damping, and the amplitude decays exponentially with time. If
the damping is similar to that caused by a constant coefficient
of friction, it is said to be linearly hysteric damping, and the
amplitude decays linearly with time. All systems exhibit
complicated combinations of various forms of damping, so any
mathematical treatment is a convenient approximation to reality.

1.2.2 Mass, Stiffness, Damping. Dynamic analysis begins

with a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system illustrated in
Figure 1 (A). A mass is attached to a linear spring and a linear
dashpot. The sign convention is that displacements and forces
are positive to the right.

3
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

If the mass M is accelerating to the right the force to

cause this acceleration must be:


Fa = m a = m d2u/dt2 = m U

The dots are used to indicate differentiation with respect to

time; this simplifies writing the equations.

The linear dashpot has a restoring force that is

proportional to the velocity of motion and acts in the opposite
sense. This means that:

Fd = -c du/dt = -c U

Finally, there may be some force P, which is a function

of time, that is applied directly to the mass.

 Adding the three forces together, setting the sum equal

to mu, and rearranging terms gives the basic equation for an
SDOF system:
 
m U + c U + k U = P

This equation applies to linear systems; for other types of

systems, the equation has to be modified or the terms must be
variable. Also, when the motion involves rotation instead of
translation, the displacements, velocities, and accelerations
must be replaced with rotations and angular velocities and
accelerations, and the other terms also modified appropriately.

In most practical cases the mass m and the stiffness k

can be determined physically. It is often possible to measure
them directly. On the other hand, the damping is a mathematical
abstraction used to represent the fact that the vibration energy
does decay. It is difficult if not impossible to measure
directly and, in some cases to be discussed below, it describes
the effects of geometry and has nothing to do with the energy
absorbing properties of the material.

4
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 1
Free Vibration of Simple System

5
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

In the case of no external force and no damping, the

motion of the mass will be simple harmonic motion. The frequency

o will be:

o = (k/m)
1/2

If the damping is not zero and the mass is simply

released from an initial displacement Uo with no external force,
the motion will be as shown in Figure 1 (B). The frequency of
the oscillations will be
e:

e =
o - (c/2m)
2 2 2

When c = 2(km)1/2 , there will be no oscillations, but the mass

will simply creep back to the at rest position at infinite time.
This is called critical damping, and it is written ccr. The ratio
of the actual damping to the critical damping is called the
critical damping ratio D:

D = c/ccr

If the basic equation is divided through by m, it can be written

as:
 
U + 2D
o U +
o2 U = P/m

The frequency of oscillations can be written:

=
o (1-D2)1/2

In almost all practical cases, D is much less than 1. For

example, a heavily damped system might have a D of 0.2 or 20
percent. In that case
is 98 percent of
o, so little error is
introduced by using the undamped frequency
o in place of the
damped frequency
.

1.2.3 Amplification Function. If now the SDOF system is

driven by a sinusoidally varying force, the right side of the
basic equation becomes:

R = F cos(
t)

6
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

For a very low frequency, this becomes a static load, and:

u = F/k = As

As is the static response.

In the dynamic case, after the transient portion of the

response has damped out, the steady state response becomes:

u = M As cos(
t-p)

In this equation M is called the dynamic amplification factor and

p is the phase angle. The dynamic amplification factor is the
ratio of the amplitude of the dynamic steady-state response to
the static response and describes how effectively the SDOF
amplifies or de-amplifies the input. The phase angle p indicates
how much the response lags the input.

Mathematical manipulation reveals that:

1
M =
{(1-
2/
o2)2 + [(2D)
/
o]2}1/2
2D(
/
o)
and p = tan-1
1-
2/
o2
The amplification factor M is plotted in Figure 7 (A). Note that
the ratio of frequencies is the same regardless of whether they
are expressed in radian/second or cycles/second.

When the problem involves rotating machinery, the

amplitude of the driving force is proportional to the frequency
of the rotating machinery. If e is the eccentricity of the
rotating mass and me is its mass, then the amplitude of the
driving force becomes:

F = me e
2

In this case the driving force vanishes when the frequency goes
to zero, so it does not make sense to talk about a static
response. However, at very high frequencies the acceleration
dominates, so it is possible to define the high frequency
response amplitude R:

R = me(e/M)
7
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

As in the case of the sinusoidal loading, the equations

can be solved to give an amplification ratio. This is now the
ratio of the amplitude of the response to the high-frequency
response R. The curve is plotted in Figure 7 (B).

An important point is that the response ratio gives the

amplitude of the displacement response for either case. To find
the amplitude of the velocity response, the displacement response
is multiplied by
(or 2f). To find the amplitude of the
acceleration response, the displacement response is multiplied by

2 (or 42f2).

1.2.4 Earthquake Ground Motions. Earthquake ground motions,

which cause dynamic loads on the foundation and structures, are
transient and may or may not occur several times during the
design life of the structures. This subject will be covered in
more detail in paragraphs 2.1 through 2.7.

8
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.3 SOIL PROPERTIES

1.3.1 Soil Properties for Dynamic Loading. The properties

that are most important for dynamic analyses are the stiffness,
material damping, and unit weight. These enter directly into the
computations of dynamic response. In addition, the location of
the water table, degree of saturation, and grain size
distribution may be important, especially when liquefaction is a
potential problem.

One method of direct determination of dynamic soil

properties in the field is to measure the velocity of shear waves
in the soil. The waves are generated by impacts produced by a
hammer or by detonating charges of explosives, and the travel
times are recorded. This is usually done in or between bore
holes. A rough correlation between the number of blows per foot
in standard penetration tests and the velocity of shear waves is
shown in Figure 2 (Proposed by Imai and Yoshimura 1970 and Imai
and Tonouchi 1982).

1.3.2 Types of Soils. As in other areas of soil mechanics,

the type of the soil affects its response and determines the type
of dynamic problems that must be analyzed. The most significant
factors separating different types of soils are the grain size
distribution, the presence or absence of a clay fraction, and the
degree of saturation. It is also important to know whether the
dynamic loading is a transient phenomenon, such as a blast
loading or earthquake, or is a long term phenomenon, like a
vibratory loading from rotating machinery. The distinction is
important because a transient dynamic phenomenon occurs so
rapidly that excess pore pressure does not have time to dissipate
except in the case of very coarse, clean gravels. In this
context the length of the drainage path is also important; even a
clean, granular material may retain large excess pore pressure if
the drainage path is so long that the pressures cannot dissipate
during the dynamic loading. Thus, the engineer must categorize
the soil by asking the following questions:

9
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 2
Relation Between Number of Blows Per Foot in Standard
Penetration Test and Velocity of Shear Waves

10
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

a) Is the material saturated? If it is saturated, a

transient dynamic loading will usually last for such a short time
that the soil’s response will be essentially undrained. If it is
not saturated, the response to dynamic loadings will probably
include some volumetric component.

b) Are there fines present in the soil? The presence

of fines, especially clays, not only inhibits the dissipation of
excess pore pressure, it also decreases the tendency for
liquefaction.

c) How dense is the soil? Dense soils are not likely

to collapse under dynamic loads, but loose soils may. Loose
soils may densify under vibratory loading and cause permanent
settlements.

d) How are the grain sizes distributed? Well graded

materials are less susceptible to losing strength under dynamic
loading than uniform soils. Loose, uniform soils are especially
subject to collapse and failure.

1.3.2.1 Dry and Partially Saturated Cohesionless Soils. There

are three types of dry or a partially saturated cohesionless
soils. The first type comprises soils that consist essentially
of small-sized to medium-sized grains of sufficient strength or
under sufficiently small stresses, so that grain breakage does
not play a significant role in their behavior. The second type
includes those soils made up essentially of large-sized grains,
such as rockfills. Large-sized grains may break under large
stresses and overall volume changes are significantly conditioned
by grain breakage. The third type includes fine-grained
materials, such as silt. The behavior of the first type of dry
cohesionless soils can be described in terms of the critical void
ratio. The behavior of the second type depends on the normal
stresses and grain size. If the water or air cannot escape at a
sufficiently fast rate when the third type of soil is contracting
due to vibration, significant pore pressures may develop, with
resulting liquefaction of the material.

1.3.2.2 Saturated Cohesionless Soils. If pore water can flow

in and out of the material at a sufficiently high rate so that
appreciable pore pressures do not develop, behavior of these

11
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3
soils does not differ qualitatively from that of partially
saturated cohesionless soils. If the pore water cannot flow in
or out of the material, cyclic loads will usually generate
increased pore pressure. If the soil is loose or contractive,
the soil may liquefy.

1.3.2.3 Saturated Cohesive Soils. Alternating loads decrease

the strength and stiffness of cohesive soils. The decrease
depends on the number of repetitions, the relative values of
sustained and cycling stresses, and the sensitivity of the soil.
Very sensitive clays may lose so much of their strength that
there may be a sudden failure. The phenomenon is associated with
a reduction in effective pressure as was the case with
cohesionless soils.

1.3.2.4 Partially Saturated Cohesive Soils. The discussion in

connection with saturated cohesive soils applies to insensitive
soils when they are partially saturated, except that the
possibility of liquefaction seems remote.

1.3.3 Measuring Dynamic Soil Properties. Soil properties to

be used in dynamic analyses can be measured in the field or in
the laboratory. In many important projects a combination of
field and laboratory measurements are used.

1.3.3.1 Field Measurements of Dynamic Modulus. Direct

measurement for soil or rock stiffness in the field has the
advantage of minimal material disturbance. The modulus is
measured where the soil exists. Furthermore, the measurements
are not constrained by the size of a sample.

Moduli measured in the field correspond to very small

strains. Although some procedures for measuring moduli at large
strain have been proposed, none has been found fully satisfactory
by the geotechnical engineering community. Since the dissipation
of energy during strain, which is called material damping,
requires significant strains to occur, field techniques have also
failed to prove effective in measuring material damping.

12
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

In situ techniques are based on measurement of the

velocity of propagation of stress waves through the soil.
Because the P-waves or compression waves are dominated by the
response of the pore fluid in saturated soils, most techniques
measure the S-waves or shear waves. If the velocity of the shear
wave through a soil deposit is determined to be Vs, the shear
modulus G is:

G =  Vs2 = Vs2
g
where:  = mass density of the soil

Vs = shear wave velocity

 = unit weight of the soil

g = acceleration of gravity

The techniques for measuring shear wave velocity in

situ fall into three categories: cross-hole, down-hole, and up-
hole. All require that borings be made in the soil.

In the cross-hole method sensors are placed at one

elevation in one or more borings and a source of energy is
triggered in another boring at the same elevation. The waves
travel horizontally from the source to the receiving holes. The
arrivals of the S-waves are noted on the traces of the response
of the sensors, and the velocity can be calculated by dividing
the distance between borings by the time for a wave to travel
between them. Because it can be difficult to establish the
exact triggering time, the most accurate measurements are
obtained from the difference of arrival times at two or more
receiving holes rather than from the time between the triggering
and the arrival at single hole.

Since P-waves travel faster than S-waves, the sensors

will already be excited by the P-waves when the S-waves arrived.
This can make it difficult to pick out the arrival of the S-wave.
To alleviate this difficulty it is desirable to use an energy
source that is rich in the vertical shear component of motion and
relatively poor in compressive motion. Several devices are
available that do this. The original cross-hole

13
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

velocity measurement methods used explosives as the source of

energy, and these were rich in compression energy and poor in
shear energy. It is quite difficult to pick out the S-wave
arrivals in this case, and explosives should not be used as
energy sources for cross-hole S-wave velocity measurements today.
ASTM D 4428/D 4428M, Cross-Hole Seismic Testing, describes the
details of this test.

In the down-hole method the sensors are placed at

various depths in the boring and the source of energy is above
the sensors - usually at the surface. A source rich in S-waves
should be used. This technique does not require as many borings
as the cross-hole method, but the waves travel through several
layers from the source to the sensors. Thus, the measured travel
time reflects the cumulative travel through layers with different
wave velocities, and interpreting the data requires sorting out
the contribution of the layers. The seismocone version of the
cone penetration test is one example of the down-hole method.

In the up-hole method the source of the energy is deep

in the boring and the sensors are above it - usually at the
surface.

A recently developed technique that does not require

borings is the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW). This
technique uses sensors that are spread out along a line at the
surface, and the source of energy is a hammer or tamper also at
the surface. The surface excitation generates surface waves, in
particular Rayleigh waves. These are waves that occur because of
the difference in stiffness between the soil and the overlying
air. The particles move in retrograde ellipses whose amplitudes
decay from the surface. The test results are interpreted by
recording the signals at each of the receiving stations and using
a computer program to perform a spectral analysis of the data.
Computer programs have been developed that will determine the
shear wave velocities from the results of the spectral analysis.

The SASW method is most effective for determining

properties near the surface. To increase the depth of the
measurements the energy at the source must be increased.
Measurements for the few feet below the surface, which may be

adequate for evaluating pavements, can be accomplished with a

sledge hammer as a source of energy, but measurements several
tens of feet deep require track-mounted seismic “pingers.” The
SASW method works best in cases where the stiffness of the soils
14
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3
and rocks increases with depth. If there are soft layers lying
under stiff ones, the interpretation may be ambiguous. A soft
layer lying between stiff ones can cause problems for the cross-
hole method as well because the waves will travel fastest through
the stiff layers and the soft layer may be masked.

The cross-hole, down-hole, and up-hole methods may not

work well very near the surface, where the complications due to
surface effects may affect the readings. This is the region
where the SASW method should provide the best result. The cross-
hole technique employs waves with horizontal particle motion, the
down-hole and up-hole methods use waves whose particle motions
are vertical or nearly so, and the surface waves in the SASW
method have particle motions in all sensors. Therefore, a
combination of these techniques can be expected to give a more
reliable picture of the shear modulus than any one used alone.

1.3.3.2 Laboratory Measurement of Dynamic Soil Properties.

Laboratory measurements of soil properties can be used to
supplement or confirm the results of field measurements. They
can also be necessary to establish values of damping and modulus
at strains larger than those that can be attained in the field or
to measure the properties of materials that do not now exist in
the field, such as soils to be compacted.

A large number of laboratory tests for dynamic purposes

have been developed, and research continues in this area. These
tests can generally be classified into two groups: those that
apply dynamic loads and those that apply loads that are cyclic
but slow enough that inertial effects do not occur.

The most widely used of the laboratory tests that apply

dynamic loads is the resonant-column method, described by ASTM D
4015, Modulus and Damping of Soils by the Resonant-Column Method.
In this test a column of soil is subjected to an oscillating
longitudinal or torsional load. The frequency is varied until
resonance occur. From the frequency and amplitude

15
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

at resonance the modulus and damping of the soil can be

calculated. A further measure of the damping can be obtained by
observing the decay of oscillations when the load is cut off.

ASTM D 4015 describes only one type of resonant-column

device, but there are several types that have been developed.
These devices provide measurements of both modulus and damping at
low strain levels. Although the strains can sometimes be raised
a few percent, they remain essentially low strain devices. The
torsional devices give measurements on shear behavior, and the
longitudinal devices give measurements pertaining to extension
and compression behavior.

The most widely used of the cyclic loading laboratory

tests is the cyclic triaxial test, described in ASTM D 3999,
Determination of the Modulus and Damping Properties of Soils
Using the Cyclic Triaxial Apparatus. In this test a cyclic load
is applied to a column of soil over a number of cycles slowly
enough that inertial effects do not occur. The response at one
amplitude of load is observed, and the test is repeated at a
higher load. Figure 3 (A) shows the typical pattern of stress
and strain, expressed as shear stress and shear strain. The
shear modulus is the slope of the secant line inside the loop.
The critical damping ratio, D, is:
Ai
D =
4  AT
where: Ai = area of the loop

AT = shaded area

Other types of cyclic loading devices also exist,

including cyclic simple shear devices. Their results are
interpreted similarly. These devices load the sample to levels
of strain much larger than those attainable in the resonant-
column devices. A major problem in both resonant-column and
cyclic devices is the difficulty of obtaining undisturbed
samples. This is especially true for small-strain data because
the effects of sample disturbance are particularly apparent at
small strains.

16
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

The results of laboratory tests are often presented in

a form similar to Figure 3 (B-1 and B-2). In Figure 3 (B-1) the
ordinate is the secant modulus divided by the modulus at small
strains. In Figure 3 (B-2) the ordinate is the value of the
initial damping ratio. Both are plotted against the logarithm of
the cyclic strain level.

17
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 3
Laboratory Measurement of Dynamic Soil Properties
18
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.4 MACHINE FOUNDATIONS

1.4.1 Analysis of Foundation Vibration. Types of foundation

vibration are given below.

1.4.1.1 Machine Foundations. Operation of machinery can cause

vibratory motions in the foundations and soils. The pattern of
the applied load versus time will be repeated for many cycles.
Figure 4 shows wave forms of vibrations generated from rotating
and impact machinery. The vibration may be irregular as shown
in Figure 4 (A). In this case, it is often idealized into a
simple form as shown in Figure 4 (B). These loads are generally
assumed to persist during the design life of the structure.

1.4.1.2 Impact Loadings. Impact loading is generally

transient. Typical examples are those generated by pile driving,
heavy tamping, and blasting. Figure 4 (C) shows impact generated
wave form. Criteria for blast loadings on structures are covered
in NAVFAC P-397.

1.4.1.3 Characteristics of Oscillating Loads. Although there

is a transient portion of the response as an oscillating load
starts, the most important response to oscillating loads usually
occurs when the load is maintained at steady state. As discussed
in par. 2.3, there are two basic types of oscillating loads. In
the first, the load is a sinusoidal function at constant
amplitude with an amplitude that is independent of frequency. In
the second, the load is a sinusoidal function, but the amplitude
depends on frequency. The latter is the case for rotating
machinery, where the load is proportional to the eccentric mass,
the moment arm of the eccentric mass, and the frequency of
operation. Figure 5 shows an example of impact and rotating
machinery vibration forces.

1.4.1.4 Method of Analysis. Machine induced foundation

vibrations are analyzed as follows:

a) Simplify the actual foundation geometry and soil

properties into an SDOF system, involving a spring constant K and
damping ratio D. Compute spring constant K and damping ratio D
for anticipated modes of vibration. Figure 6 shows examples of
modes of vibration.
19
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 4
Wave Forms of Vibrations Generated From Rotating and
Impact Machinery

20
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Definitions:

Az = Vibration amplitude
  = Poissons Ratio
m = Mass of Foundation and Machine


 = Foundation mass density = t
g
L
ro = Effective Radius = B. for vertical or horizontal translation


1
2
3
L
= B. for rocking
3. 
1
2
2 2
B L
= B. L. for torsion
6. 

B = Width of foundation (along axis of rotation for case of rocking)

L = Length of foundation (in plane of rotation or rocking)
I = Mass moment of inertia around axis of rotation for rocking


I
= Mass moment of inertia around axis of rotation for torsion
G = Dynamic shear modulus

= Frequency of forced vibration (radians/sec)
Figure 5
Frequency Dependent and Constant Amplitude Exciting Forces
21
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3



 
     
   

    D
C











Km


 B
1 . m 3.4 . ( ro ) 2 . . 0.425 K
4. G. ro
z C G D
4 . ( ro ) 3 z 1

z
Bz
z 1 


  (7 8.
) . m 4.6 . ( ro )
2
.
0.288 Kx
32. ( 1  ) .G. ro
Bx . G Dx
 
Cx
32. ( 1
) . ( ro ) 3 2
7 8. 
Bx

  3. ( 1  ) .  C

0.8 . ( ro ) 4 . . G 0.15 8. G. ( ro ) 3

 (1  ) . ( 1 
) D


4 . ( ro )
5 3. ( 1  )
(1 
) . 


  

4 .  . . D
0.5 16.G. ( ro )
3
C G 

. ( ro ) 5 1 2 .  1 2.  3

Figure 6
Modes of Vibration

22
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

b) Specify the type of exciting force. For a constant

amplitude exciting force the load is expressed by:

F = Fo sin(
t) or M = Mo sin(
t)

where:
= operating frequency (rad/sec) = 2f

f = operating frequency (cycle/sec)

Fo or Mo = amplitude of exciting force or

moment (constant)

F or M = exciting force or moment

t = time

The exciting force F or moment M may depend on the

frequency,
, and the eccentric mass. In this case:

Fo = me e
2 or Fo = me e
2 L

where: me = eccentric mass

e = eccentric radius from center of rotation to center

of gravity

L = moment arm

c) Compute the undamped natural frequency, fn, in

cycles/second or
n in rad/second.

fn = (1/2)(k/m)1/2 or fn = (1/2)(k/I)1/2

n = (k/m)1/2 or (k/m)1/2

where: K = kz for vertical mode, kx for horizontal mode, ky for

rocking mode and kq for torsional mode

M = mass of foundation and equipment for vertical and

horizontal modes

23
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Iy = mass moment of inertia around axis of rotation in

rocking modes

Iq = mass moment of inertia around axis of rotation in

torsional modes.

thus for vertical mode fn = (1/2)(kz/m)1/2

for horizontal mode fn = (1/2)(kx/m)1/2

for torsional (yawing) mode fn = (1/2)(kq/Iq)1/2

for rocking mode fn = (1/2)(ky/Iy)1/2

d) Compute the mass ratio B and damping ratio D for

modes analyzed using the formulas in Figure 6. Note that the
damping terms are functions of mass and geometry - not of
internal damping in the soil. This damping is called radiation
damping and represents the fact that energy is transmitted away
from the foundation toward the distant boundaries of the soil.

e) Calculate static displacement amplitude, As

As = Fo/k

or calculate the static relation as:

s = Mo/k

f) Compute the ratio f/fn (same as
/
n).

g) Calculate magnification factor M =Amax/As or max/ s

from Figure 7.

h) Calculate maximum amplitude Amax = M As.

i) If the amplitudes are not acceptable, modify design

and repeat Steps c) through h).

j) Figure 8 illustrates the calculation of vertical

amplitude, horizontal amplitude alone, and rocking amplitude
alone. When these analyses are performed, particular attention
must be paid to keeping track of the units.

24
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 7
Response Curves for Single-Degree-of-Freedom
System With a Viscous Damping

25
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3
A. VIBRATION IN VERTICAL MODE

Fo = 4000 lb
f = 1250 rpm

Wo=300,000 lb

14 ft 18 ft
Equipment Data
Given a high speed generator with a frequency dependent amplitude
F o 4000 . lb
Weight of vibrating equipment and foundation block Wo=300,000lb
1
Operating frequency f=1250 rpm f 20.83 . sec cycles/sec;

f. 2 . 
= 130.879 sec 1
rad/sec; Dimension: B 18 . ft L 14 . ft
Soil Properties
lb
Total unit weight
t 120 . Poisson's ratio
0.35 ;
3
ft
lb
Shear Modulus G 6700 .
2
in
Equivalent Radius Spring Constant
B. L 4 . G. r 0
r0 r 0 = 8.956 K z K z = 5.318

1

Mass Ratio
 W o (1 ).m

t
m B z
ft ft 4 . . r 0
3
32.2 . 32.2 .
2 2
sec sec

= 3.727 m = 9.317 B z = 0.565
Damping Ratio Static Amplitude Natural Frequency
F o K z
D z
0.425
A s
n
K z m
B z
4 1
D z = 0.565 A s = 9.027 10 in 
n = 75.548 sec rad/sec
Dynamic Amplitude



n = 1.732 Then from Figure 7 (B) and for D = 0.56 M 1.1

4
A max A s.M Maximum dynamic amplitude
A max = 9.929 10 in
Figure 8
Example Calculation of Vertical, Horizontal, and Rocking Motions

26
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

B. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION AND ROCKING

Fo Center Line

8’



18’
14’

Equipment Data
Assume constant amplitude F o 300. lb Dimensions B 18 . ft L 14 . ft
Weight of foundation and machinery W 400000 . lb
Mass Moment of Inertia around axis of rotation I
400000. lb . ft . sec 2
Operating Frequency f=350 rpm 5.8 . sec
1
cycles/sec
f. 2 . 


f
= 36.442 rad/sec

Soil Properties
Total Unit Weight  t 120 .
lb
3
Poisson's Ratio
0.35
ft
Shear Modulus G 6700 . lb
2
in
HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION ONLY
Equivalent Radius Spring Constant
B. L 32. ( 1  ) . G. r
0
r0 Kx

7 8. 
r 0 = 8.956 K x = 4.279
Mass Ratio
lb
120.
3
400000. lb ft 7 8.
. m
m
Bx
ft ft 32 . ( 1
)  . r 3
32.2. 32.2. 0
2 2
sec sec
m = 1.242
= 3.727 B x = 0.937
Damping Ratio Static Displacement Natural Frequency
0.288 Fo Kx
D x A s
n
K x m
B x
D x = 0.298 A s = 8.413
n = 58.693 rad/sec
Figure 8 (Continued)
Example Calculation of Vertical, Horizontal, and Rocking Motions
27
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Dynamic Amplitude



n = 0.621 From Figure 7 (A), M 1.4

A max A s.M
A max = 1.178 Maximum Horizontal Movement

ROCKING ALONE
1

3 4
B. L 3. ( 1 ) I
r0 B . F0 ( 300. lb ) . ( 8. ft )
3.
8 . r
5
0
r 0 = 8.508 B
= 0.454 F 0 = 2.88

Spring Constant Damping Ratio Natural Frequency

3
8. G. r 0 0.15 K
K D  n
3. ( 1 ) I
1 B . B
K
= 2.926 lb*in/rad D
= 0.153
n = 78.07

Static Rotation
F0
A
K
A
= 9.844 radians

Dynamic Amplitude

131 . sec 1 From Figure 7 (A), M 0.4

Machine Centerline

n
= 1.678 Maximum Rocking Movement Horizontal Motion At

A
.max A
. M Movement A
.max . ( 8 . ft )

A  .max = 3.938 Movement = 3.15 radians

NOTE:
Above analysis is approximate since horizontal and rocking modes are coupled.

A lower bound estimate of first mode frequency may be calculated based on natural frequency
wn for rocking mode alone, and horizontal translation mode alone.

Figure 8 (Continued)
Example Calculation of Vertical, Horizontal, and Rocking Motion

28
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.4.1.5 Dynamic Soil Properties. Guidance on dynamic soil

properties and their determination is given in Sections 2 and 3.

There are several interrelated criteria for design of

foundations for machinery. The most fundamental is that the
vibratory movement be held to a level below that which could
damage the machinery or cause settlement of loose soils. In many
cases there are too many unknowns to solve this problem. The
other criterion is to proportion the foundation such that
resonance with the operating frequency of the machine is avoided.
For high frequency machines (say over 1000 rpm) it is common to
“low tune” the foundation, so that the foundation frequency is
less than half the operating frequency. For low frequency
machines (say under 300 rpm) it is common to “high tune” the
foundation, so that the fundamental frequency is at least twice
the operating frequency.

1.4.2 Design to Avoid Resonance. Settlements from vibratory

loads and displacements of the machinery itself in all directions
are accentuated if imposed vibrations are resonant with the
natural frequency of the foundation soil system. Both the
amplitude of foundation motion and the unbalanced exciting force
are increased at resonance. Compact cohesionless soils will be
densified to some degree with accompanying settlement. Avoidance
of resonance is particularly important in cohesionless materials,
but should be considered for all soils. To avoid resonance, the
following guidelines may be considered for initial design to be
verified by the previous methods.

1.4.2.1 High-Speed Machinery. For machinery with operating

speeds exceeding about 1000 rpm, provide a foundation with
natural frequency no higher than one-half of the operating value,
as follows:

a) Decrease natural frequency by increasing the weight

of foundation block, analyze vibrations in accordance with the
methods discussed.

b) During starting and stopping the machine will

operate briefly at the resonant frequency of the foundation.
Compute probable amplitudes at both resonant and operating

29
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

frequencies, and compare them with allowable values to determine

if the foundation arrangement must be altered.

1.4.2.2 Low-Speed Machinery. For machinery operating at a

speed less than about 300 rpm, provide a foundation with a
natural frequency at least twice the operating speed, by one of
the following:

a) For spread foundations, increase the natural

frequency by increasing base area or reducing total static
weight.

b) Increase modulus or shear rigidity of the

foundation soil by compaction or other means of stabilization.
Refer to NAVFAC DM-7.02, Chapter 2.

c) Consider the use of piles to provide the required

foundation stiffness. See example in Figure 9.

1.4.2.3 Coupled Vibrations. Vibrations are coupled when their

modes are not independent but influence one another. A mode of
vibration is a characteristic pattern assumed by the system in
which the motion of each particle is simple harmonic with the
same frequency. In most practical problems, the vertical and
torsional modes can be assumed to be uncoupled (i.e., independent
of each other). However, coupling effects between the horizontal
and rocking modes can be significant depending on the distance
between the center of gravity of the footing and the base of the
footing. The analysis for this case is complicated and time
consuming.

A lower bound estimate of the first mode, fo, of

coupled rocking and horizontal vibration can be obtained from:

1/fo2 = 1/fx2 + 1/fy2

fx and fy are the undamped natural frequencies in the horizontal

and rocking modes respectively. For further guidance refer to
Vibrations of Soils and Foundations, by Richart, et al., 1970,
and Coupled Horizontal and Rocking Vibrations of Embedded
Footings, by Beredugo and Novak, 1972.

30
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 9
Natural Undamped Frequency of Point Bearing Piles on Rigid Rock
31
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.4.2.4 Effect of Embedment. Stiffness and damping are

generally increased with embedment. However, analytical results
(especially for damping) are sensitive to the conditions of the
backfill (properties, contact with the footings, etc.). For
footings embedded in a uniform soil with a Poisson's ratio of
0.4, the modified stiffness parameters are approximated as
follows (Stiffness and Damping Coefficients of Foundations,
Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations, Analytical Aspects,
Roesset, 1980):

(kz)d
kz[1+ 0.4(d/ro)]

(kx)d
kx[1+ 0.8(d/ro)]

(ky)d
ky[1+ 0.6(d/ro)+0.3(d/ro)3]

(kq)d
kq[1+ 2.4(d/ro)]

(kz)d, (kx)d, (ky)d, and (kq)d , are spring constants for depth of
embedment d.

Increases in embedment d will cause an increase in

damping, but the increase in damping is believed to be sensitive
to the condition of backfill. For footings embedded in a uniform
soil, the approximate modifications for damping coefficient C
(in Figure 6) are:

(Cz)d
Cz[1+ 1.2(d/ro)]

(C
)d
ro4(G)1/2[0.7+ 5.4(d/ro)]

where (Cz)d and (C
)d are the damping coefficients in vertical and
torsion modes for embedments d.

1.4.2.5 Proximity of a Rigid Layer. A relatively thin layer of

soil over rigid bedrock may cause serious magnification of all
amplitudes of vibration. In general, the spring constants
increase with decreasing thickness of soil while damping
coefficients decrease sharply for the vertical modes and to a
lesser extent for horizontal and rocking modes. Use the

32
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

following approximate relation for adjusting stiffness and

damping to account for presence of a rigid layer (Dynamic
Stiffness of Circular Foundations, Kausel and Roesset, 1975):

(Kz)L = Kz (1+ ro /H ), ro /H < 1/2

(Kx)L = Kx [1+ 1/2(ro /H)], ro /H < 1/2

(Ky)L = Ky [1+ 1/6(ro/H)], ro /H < 1/2

where (Kz)L,(Kx)L,(Ky)L are stiffness parameters in case a rigid

layer exists at depth H below a footing with radius ro.

The damping ratio parameter D is reduced by the presence of

a rigid layer at depth H. The modified damping coefficient (Dz)
is 1.0 Dz for H/ro = , and approximately 0.31 Dz, 0.16 Dz, 0.09
Dz, and 0.044 Dz for H/ro = 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively (Soil
Structural Interaction, Richart, 1977).

1.4.2.6 Vibration for Pile Supported Machine Foundation. For

piles bearing on rigid rock with negligible side friction, use
Figure 9 for establishing the natural frequency of the pile soil
system. Tip deflection and lateral stiffness can have a
significant effect on natural frequency of the pile soil system
(Response of Piles to Vibratory Loads, Owies, 1977). Solution
for simple but practical cases for stiffness and damping
coefficients are presented by Impedance Function of Piles in
Layered Media, Novak and Aboul-Ella, 1978. Alternatively, and
for important installations, such coefficients can be evaluated
from field pile load tests.

1.4.3 Bearing Capacity and Settlements. Vibration tends to

densify loose nonplastic soils, causing settlement. The greatest
effect occurs in loose, coarse-grained sands and gravels. These
materials must be stabilized by compaction or other means to
support spread foundations for vibrating equipment; refer to
methods of NAVFAC DM-7.02, Chapter 2. Shock or vibrations near a
foundation on loose, saturated nonplastic silt, or silty fine
sands, may produce a quick condition and partial loss of bearing
capacity. In these cases, bearing

33
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

intensities should be less than those normally used for static

loads. For severe vibration conditions, reduce the bearing
pressures to one-half allowable static values.

In most applications, a relative density of 70 percent

to 75 percent in the foundation soil is satisfactory to preclude
significant compaction settlement beneath the vibratory
equipment. However, for heavy machinery, higher relative
densities may be required. The following procedure may be used
to estimate the compaction settlement under operating machinery.

The critical acceleration of machine foundations, (a)crit,

above which compaction is likely to occur, may be estimated
(Dynamics of Bases and Foundation, Barkan, 1962) based on:

(a)crit = -ln[1-(Dr)0 /100]/ 

where: (a)crit = critical acceleration expressed in g's

(Dr)o = initial (in situ) relative density at zero

acceleration expressed in percent.

 = coefficient of vibratory compaction, a parameter

depending on moisture content; varies from about
0.8 for dry sand down to 0.2 for low moisture
contents (about 5 percent). It increases to a
maximum value of about 0.88 at about 18 percent
moisture content. Thereafter, it decreases.

When densification occurs as a result of vibrations there

will be an increase in relative density Dr, and for a sand layer
with a thickness H, the settlement would be H. The strain H/H
can be expressed in terms of Dr as:

H/H = 0.0025( Dr%/100)do

where: do = the initial dry density of the sand layer

(lb/cu. ft)

The above equation is based on the range of maximum and minimum

dry densities for sands (Burmister, 1962). The change in
relative density Dr due to vibration is defined as:
34
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Dr = (Dr)f - (Dr)o

where: (Dr)o = initial in-situ relative density which may

be estimated from the standard penetration
resistance (refer to NAVFAC DM-7.01,
Chapter 2)

(Dr)f = final relative density, which may be

conservatively estimated based on:

(Dr)f = 100{1-exp[(-)[(ai)crit +ai]]} for ai>(ai)crit

(Dr)f = (Dr)o for ai<(ai)crit

where: ai = acceleration expressed in g's

The above equation is based on the work reported in Barkan, 1962.

In the above equation (ai)crit and (ai) are the critical
acceleration and acceleration produced by equipment in each layer
i. The acceleration ai produced by equipment may be approximated
using the following:

ai = ao(ro/d)1/2 for d>ro

ai = ao for d<ro

where: ao = acceleration of vibration in g's at

foundation level

d = distance from base of foundation to mid point

of soil layer

ro = equivalent radius of foundation

If maximum displacement, Amax, and frequency of

vibration,
rad/sec), are known at base of foundation then:

ao =
2 Amax

An example illustrating the use of the above principles

is shown in Figure 10.

35
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3
Vibration Footing Radius
r0=10 ft

Layer 1 rdo1=95 pcf

Dr1o = 65 % H1=10 ft

Layer 2 Dr2o = 70 % rdo2=100 pcf H2=10 ft

Layer 3 Dr3o = 60 % rdo3=90 pcf H3=10 ft

Incompressible Layer
GIVEN: Soil profile as shown:
Footing with radius ro 10.ft subjected to a vibratory load causing a peak dynamic displacement
A max 0.007 . in
1
Operating frequency f 2500. min (rev/min). Moisture content of soil is 16%. Use  0.88
2
.A max
f. 2.
= 26 (rad/sec) ao a o = 1.2 g
ft
32.2.
2
sec
LAYER 1
Depth to mid layer d 5. ft d< r o Therefore use ai ao
Dr1 o
ln 1
100
Critical Acceleration a crit a crit = 1.1 g a i> a crit

3
ft .  Dr .
D rf 100. 1 exp (  ) . a crit a i  Dr D rf Dr1 o H 0.0025.  do1 .H 1
lb 100
D rf = 88.26 %
Dr = 23.2 %
H = 6.63

LAYER 2 LAYER 3
d midlayer 15.ft d 25. ft
Dr2 o Dr3 o
ln 1 ln 1
ro 100 ro 100
ai a o. a crit ai a o. a crit
d midlayer  d 

a i = 0.785 g a crit = 1.368 g a i = 0.785 g a crit = 1.368 g

a i< a crit a i< a crit
D rf Dr2 o No significant compaction settlement
is likely.
No significant compaction
settlement is likely.

Anticipated Compaction Settlement = 6.6 in. Increase relative density of top layer to 70 percent or greater.

Figure 10
Example Calculation for Vibration Induced Compaction
Settlement Under Operating Machinery

36
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.4.4 Vibration Transmission, Isolation, and Monitoring.

For Vibration transmission, isolation, and monitoring the
following guidance is provided.

1.4.4.1 Vibration Transmission. Transmission of vibrations

from outside a structure or from machinery within the structure
may be annoying to occupants and damaging to the structure.
Vibration transmission may also interfere with the operation of
sensitive instruments. See Figure 11 for the effects of
vibration amplitude and frequency. Tolerable vibration amplitude
decreases as frequency increases. For approximate estimates of
vibration amplitude transmitted away from the source use the
following relationship:

A2 = A1 (r1/r2)1/2e-(r2-r1)

Where: A1 = computed or measured amplitude at distance r1

from vibration source.

A2 = amplitudes at distance r2, r2>r1

 = coefficient of attenuation depending on soil

properties and frequency. Use Table 1.

Table 1
Attenuation Coefficient for Earth Materials

Materials * (1/ft)
@50 Hertz**

Sand Loose, fine 0.06

Dense, fine 0.02

Clay Silty (loess) 0.06

Dense, dry 0.003

Rock Weathered volcanic 0.002

Competent marble 0.00004
*  is a function of frequency.
For other frequencies, f, compute f = (f/50)50
** Hertz - cycles per second.

37
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 11
Allowable Amplitude of Vertical Vibrations

38
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.4.4.2 Vibration and Shock Isolation. For vibration and shock

isolation see the following methods.

a) General Methods. For general methods of isolating

vibrating equipment or insulating a structure from vibration
transmission, refer to paragraph 2.7. These methods include physical
separation of the vibrating unit from the structure, or interposition
of an isolator between the vibrating equipment and foundation or
between the structure foundation and an outside vibration source.
Vibration isolating mediums include resilient materials such as metal
springs, or pads of rubber, or cork and felt in combination.

b) Other Methods. Additional methods available include

the installation of open or slurry-filled trenches, sheet pile walls,
or concrete walls. These techniques have been applied with mixed
results. Analytical results suggest that for trenches to be
effective, the depth of the trench should be 0.67L or larger, where L
is wave length for a Rayleigh wave and is approximately equal to
Vs/
; when
is the angular velocity of vibration in radian/sec, Vs
is the shear wave velocity of the soil. Concrete walls may have
isolating efficiency depending on the thickness, length, and rigidity
(Isolation of Vibrations by Concrete Core Walls, Haupt, 1977).

1.4.4.3 Vibration Monitoring. Control of ground vibrations is

necessary to ensure that the acceptable levels of amplitudes for
structural safety are not exceeded. The sources of vibrations that
may affect nearby structures are blasting, pile driving, or
machinery. Acceptable vibration amplitudes are usually selected
based on conditions of the structure, sensitivity of equipment within
the structure, or human tolerance. Refer to NAVFAC DM-7.02, Chapter
1 for selection of blasting criteria in terms of peak particle
velocity to avoid damage to structures.

For structures which may be affected by nearby sources of

vibrations (e.g., blasting, pile driving, etc.) seismographs are
usually installed at one or more floors to monitor the effect and
maintain records if site vibration limits are exceeded. A
seismograph usually consists of one or more transducers which are
either embedded, attached, or resting on the vibrating structure,
element, or soil and connected by a cable to the recording unit. The
recording medium may be an oscilloscope or a magnetic tape. Most
modern seismographs use digital technology, which provides records
that can be processed readily. The actual details of installation
depend on the type of equipment, nature of vibration surface, and
expected amplitudes of motion.

39
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.5 DYNAMIC AND VIBRATORY COMPACTION

1.5.1 Soil Densification. Dynamic and vibratory methods are

often very effective in densifying soil to increase strength, reduce
settlements, or lessen the potential for liquefaction. There are
several different methods. Some are proprietary, and most
contractors prefer to use one method because they have experience
with it and have invested in the equipment. Each method works best
in certain soils and poorly in others. Therefore, no one method can
be used in all circumstances.

1.5.2 Vibro-Densification. Stabilization by densifying in-place

soil with vibro-densification is used primarily for granular soils
where excess pore water may drain rapidly. It is effective when the
relative density is less than about 70 percent. At higher densities,
additional compaction may not be needed and may even be difficult to
achieve. Through proper treatment, the density of in-place soil can
be increased considerably to a sufficient depth so that most types of
structures can be supported safely without undergoing unexpected
settlements. Figure 12 shows the range of grain size distribution
for soils amendable to vibro densification. Effectiveness is greatly
reduced in partly saturated soils in which 20 percent or more of the
material passes a No. 200 sieve.

1.5.3 Dynamic Compaction. The use of high-energy impact to

densify loose granular soils in situ has increased over the years.
This soil improvement technique, commonly known as dynamic compaction
has become a well established method for treating loose granular
soils due to its simplicity and cost effectiveness.

A heavy weight (10 to 40 tons or more) is dropped from a

height of 50 to 130 feet at points spaced 15 to 30 feet apart over
the area to be densified to apply a total energy of 2 to 3 blows per
square yard. In saturated granular soils the impact energy will
cause liquefaction followed by settlement as the water drains.
Radial fissures that form around the impact points will facilitate
drainage. The method may be used to treat soils both above and below
the water table. In granular soils the effectiveness is controlled
mainly by the energy per drop. Use the following relationship to
estimate effective depth of influence on compaction:

D = 1/2(Wh)

where: D = depth of influence, in feet

W = falling weight in tons
h = height of drop in feet
40
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 12
Grain Size Ranges Considered for Vibro-Densification

41
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Relative densities of 70 to 90 percent can be obtained.

Bearing capacity increases of 200 to 400 percent can usually be
obtained for sands. A minimum treatment area of 4 to 8 acres is
necessary for economical use of this method. Currently this
method is considered experimental for saturated clays. Because
of the high-amplitude, low-frequency vibrations (1 to 12Hz), it
is necessary to maintain minimum distances from adjacent
facilities as follows:

Piles or bridge abutment 15 to 20 feet

Liquid storage tanks 30 feet
Reinforced concrete building 50 feet
Dwellings 100 feet
Computers (not isolated) 300 feet

Table 2 summarizes the procedures and applicability of the most

commonly used in-place densification methods.

Table 2
Dynamic Compaction
Method Procedure Used Application Modification
Limitation of Soil
Properties
Dynamic Heavy weights Can be used both Relative
Compac- (typically 10-40 above and below the density may be
tion tons are dropped ground-water level. increased to
repeatedly from In granular soils 70 to 90
height of 50 to 130 high energy impact percent.
ft on points 15 to causes partial Relatively
30 ft apart. liquefaction. uniform
Tamper weight(tons) Generates low increase in
times the height of frequency vibrations density
fall (ft) should be that make this method throughout
greater than the less desirable in effective
layer to be urban areas and near depth.
densified. A total existing structures. Maximum depth
energy of 2 to 3 Not a proven of improvement
blows per square technique in about 90 feet.
yard is considered saturated fine-
adequate. grained soils.

42
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.5.4 Applications of Vibroflotation. Vibroflotation is used

to densify granular soils. A crane-suspended cylindrical
penetrator about 16 inches in diameter and 6 feet long, called a
vibroflot, is attached to an adapter section containing lead
wires and hoses. Electrically driven vibrators have RPM's in the
order of 1800 to 3000. Hydraulically driven vibrators have
variable frequencies. Total weight is generally about two tons.
Power ranges between 30 and 134 Hp are available with
corresponding centrifugal force ranging from 10 to 31 tons with
peak-to-peak amplitudes ranging from 3 to 10 inches.

To sink the vibroflot to the desired treatment depth, a

water jet at the tip is opened and acts in conjunction with the
vibrations so that a hole can be advanced at a rate of 18 inches
per minute. The bottom jet is then closed and the vibroflot is
withdrawn at a rate of about one ft/min for 30 Hp vibroflots and
approximately twice that rate for vibroflots over 100 Hp.
Concurrently, a sand or gravel backfill is dumped in from the
ground surface and densified. Backfill consumption is at a rate
of about 0.5 to 1.5 cubic yards per minute. In partially
saturated sands, water jets at the top of the vibroflot can be
opened to facilitate liquefaction and densification of the
surrounding ground. Most of the compaction takes place within
the first 2 to 5 minutes at any elevation.

See Figure 13 for guidance on the relationship between

vibration center spacing versus relative density. For guidance
on the relationship between spacing and allowable bearing
pressure with respect to settlement, refer to Reference 1.5.4.
Equilateral grid probe patterns are best for compacting large
areas, while square and triangular patterns are used for
compacting soils for isolated footings. See Table 3 as a guide
for patterns and spacings required for an allowable pressure of 3
tsf under square footings using a 30 Hp unit.

1.5.5 Compaction Grout. Compaction grouting, which is

defined as the staged injection of low slump (less than 3 inches)
mortar-type grout into soils at high pressures (500 to 600 pounds
per square inch), is used to densify loose granular soils. At
each grout location a casing is drilled to the bottom of a
previously specified soil target zone. Compaction grout is

43
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

then pumped into the casing at increments of one lineal foot.

When previously determined criteria are met such as volume,
pressure, and heave, pumping will be terminated and the casing
will be withdrawn. The casing will be continuously withdrawn by
one foot when it meets previously determined criteria until the
hole is filled.

To detect when the grout criteria have been met it is

useful to have a strip chart recorder attached to the grout line.
A strip chart recorder produces a pressure versus time plot.
Such a record, coupled with a known volume of grout delivered per
pump piston stroke, can serve as a flow meter. In addition, the
pressures versus time plot indicates a pattern in the development
of the grout pressures.

Table 3
Examples of Vibroflotation Patterns and Spacings for Footings

Desired Allowable Bearing Pressure = 3 TSF

Square Footing Number of C-C Spacing Pattern

(size - ft) Vibroflotation (feet)
Points

<4 1 --- ---

4.5 - 5.5 2 6 Line

6 - 7 3 7.5 Triangle

7.5 - 9.5 4 6 Square

10 - 11.5 5 7.5 Square plus

one @ center

44
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 13
Relative Density vs. Probe Spacing for Soil Densification

45
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Based on evaluation of subsurface data and proposed

structure stresses, areas requiring compaction grouting can be
identified, and minimum ground improvement criteria can be
established. Ground improvement criteria can be determined based
on settlement and bearing capacity analyses. A grouting
injection point grid and construction sequence can be formulated
once the ground improvement criteria are known. Typically, the
grouting points are injected from the perimeter of a grid towards
the center.

1.5.6 Selecting A Method. There are many combinations and

variations of the vibratory compaction and vibro-replacement
methods. These have been developed by different organizations
using various configurations of equipment and procedures. Each
method will work well in some circumstances and poorly in others.
In some cases it may be possible to eliminate several techniques
on the basis of the soil type and conditions, but there will
usually be several candidate methods remaining.

When selecting a method of dynamic or vibratory

compaction, the engineer should bear in mind that, in addition to
the usual factors of cost and time to complete the work, the
success of the jobs will depend on how effective is the chosen
method. In many cases this will only become evident when an
effective technique is employed at the actual site. In some
cases techniques that seemed to be suitable have proven
ineffective in practice. The engineer should plan for this
contingency. For a large project, a test section may be a wise
investment.

46
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.6 PILE DRIVING RESPONSE

1.6.1 Wave Equation Analysis. The wave equation analysis

that models the dynamics of hammer-pile-soil interaction uses
computer programs to evaluate the pile driving response. The
wave equation analysis is used to evaluate: (1) pile capacity,
(2) equipment compatibility, and (3) driving stresses. In a wave
equation analysis, the hammer, helmet, and pile are modeled by a
series of masses connected by weightless springs. The soil
resistances along the embedded portion of the pile and at the
pile toe consists of both static and dynamic components. A
formulation of the dynamic model, representing hammer-pile-soil
system, to solve the wave equation is shown in Figure 14.

The required input data are as follows:

a) Height of fall for the ram and its weight or a

numerical description or energy supplied by the hammer versus
time;

b) Weight of pile cap, capblock, pile segments,

driving shoe, and modulus of elasticity of the pile;

c) Values of capblock and pile-cushion spring

constants;

d) Soil properties: quake (elastic compression of

soil), side damping, and point damping;

e) Estimate of percent of the ultimate load carried by

the pile point.

1.6.2 Wave Propagation in Piles. A longitudinal wave

propagates along the pile axis when a hammer applies an impact
load to a pile. As the ram impact occurs, a force pulse is
developed. The amplitude and duration of the force pulse depend
on the properties of the hammer-pile-soil system. The force
pulse in the pile travels downward toward the pile toe at a
constant velocity, which depends on the wave speed of the pile
material. When the force pulse reaches the portion of the pile
embedded in soil, its amplitude is reduced due to static and

47
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 14
Formulation of Pile into a Dynamic Model
to Solve the Wave Equation

48
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

dynamic soil resistance forces along the pile. The force pulse
reaching the pile toe will generate a reflected force pulse
(tension or compression) governed by the soil resistance at the
pile toe. The pile will penetrate into the soil and have a
permanent set when the peak force generated by the ram impact
exceeds the combined static and dynamic resistance at the pile
toe.

1.6.3 Wave Equation Application. The wave equation analysis

provides two types of information: (1) relationship between
ultimate capacity and driving resistance, and (2) relationship
between driving stresses in the pile and pile driving resistance.

The wave equation analysis develops curves of capacity

versus driving resistance for different pile lengths. These can
be used in the field to determine when the pile has been driven
sufficiently to develop the required capacity.

In the design stage, the wave equation analysis is used

to: (1) design the pile section for driveability to the required
depth and/or capacity, and (2) determine required pile material
properties to be specified based on probable driving stresses in
reaching penetration and/or capacity requirements.

In the construction stage, the wave equation analysis

is used by: (1) construction engineers for hammer approval; and
(2) contractors to select the right combination of driving
equipment to minimize driving costs.

1.6.4. Dynamic Testing of Piles. A method (ASTM D 4945,

High-Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles) of computing driving
resistance from field instrumentation, named CAPWAP, using wave
equation analysis has been described by Wave Equation Analysis of
Pile Driving, Goble and Rausche, 1960. Accelerometers and strain
transducers are fitted near to the head of a pile and the
readings from these during the course of a hammer blow are
processed to give plots of force and velocity versus time as
shown in Figure 15. The second stage of the method involves
running a wave equation analysis, but with the pile modeled only
from the instrument location downward. Values of soil

49
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 15
Example of Force and Velocity Near to Head of Pile During Driving

50
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

resistance, quake, and damping are assigned, and the recorded

time varying velocity is applied as the boundary condition at the
top of the pile model. The analysis will generate a force-time
plot for the instrument location, and this is compared with the
recorded force-time plot. Adjustments are made to the values of
resistance, quake, and damping, and further analysis run until
agreement between the computed and recorded force-time plot is
acceptable. At this stage the total soil resistance assigned in
the analysis can be taken to be the resistance at time of
driving.

1.6.5 Results From Dynamic Testing. The main objectives of

dynamic pile testing are:

a) Assess bearing capacity at the time of test

driving. For the prediction of a pile’s long term bearing
capacity, measurements are taken during restriking after soil has
been set up around test pile.

b) Monitor dynamic pile stress during pile driving.

To limit the possibility of pile damage, stresses must be kept
within certain bounds. For concrete piles both tension and
compression stresses are important.

c) Check pile integrity both during and after pile

installation.

d) Check hammer performance for productivity and

construction control.

1.6.6 Pile Dynamic Measurement. A device called the pile

driving analyzer (PDA) which uses electronic measurements and
the wave equation analysis method has been developed by Goble
Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. (GRL). The basis for the
results calculated by the PDA are pile top force and velocity
signals, obtained using piezoelectric accelerometers and bolt-on
strain transducers attached to the pile near its top. The PDA
conditions and calibrates these signals and immediately computes
average pile force and velocity.

51
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

1.6.7 Applications. This test method is used to provide

data on strain or force and acceleration, displacement, and
velocity of a pile under impact force. The data may be used to
estimate the bearing capacity and the integrity of the pile, as
well as hammer performance, pile stresses, and soil dynamics
characteristics, such as soil damping coefficients and quake
values.

1.6.7.1 Apparatus for Applying Impact Force. Before the start

of pile driving, the user carefully selects the pile driving
hammer that is capable of driving the pile to produce measurable
pile displacements in subsequent restriking. Too small a
hammer, even though it may be able to drive the pile to required
embedment initially, may not be able to overcome the soil
resistance upon restriking even if the pile is just over the
design capacity. Too large a hammer may damage the pile by
exceeding allowable compression or tension stresses. The wave
equation analysis gives the tensile stresses generated by the
hammer. If necessary, the pile prestress level can be adjusted
if the anticipated tension stress exceeds the allowable stress.

Among other uses, the PDA can be employed for a quick

check for pile bearing capacity, but not to replace pile load
testing entirely. Restriking the pile provides a bearing
capacity check when pore water pressure and soil conditions have
stabilized after initial driving.

1.6.7.2 Impact Force Application. The impact force is

applied axially and uniformly. The system should use a suitable
pile helmet and thickness of pile cushion to protect pile head
and preclude excessive tensile stress during the initial
driving. During pile driving, the engineers continue to use PDA
and monitor the behavior of the pile, hammer, stresses, and soil
resistance. Accurate blow count records are kept. PDA will not
provide blow count records automatically. Accurate distance
markers must be kept for blow count purposes. In the inch-pound
system, every foot (or every inch if number of blows per inch is
important) should be accurately kept for blow count records. In
SI metric units, every 250 mm and meter are marked. Every 25 mm
or every 5 blows per set recording is marked. For a blow vs.
set recording, paper is attached to the pile face and a

52
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

horizontal line drawn before and after each blow, for example by
sliding a pencil across the paper. The pencil can be attached
to the end of a long handle and a smooth horizontal lumber used
as guide.

The test pile is struck with the PDA setup to check

the pile bearing capacities after the pile has been installed
for a sufficient amount of time.

1.6.7.3 Apparatus for Obtaining Dynamic Measurement. The

apparatus includes transducers, which are capable of
independently measuring strain and acceleration versus time at a
specific location along the pile axis during the impact event.
Two of these devices are attached on opposite sides of the pile.
The measured strain is converted to force using the pile cross-
section area and dynamic modulus of elasticity at the measuring
location.

1.6.7.4 Signal Transmission. The system use cables that will

limit electronic or other interference to less than 2 percent of
the maximum signal expected. The signal arriving at the
apparatus will be linearly proportional to the measurement at
the pile over the frequency range of equipment.

1.6.7.5 Apparatus for Recording, Reducing, and Displaying

Data. The apparatus for recording, reducing, and displaying
data during the impact event includes an oscilloscope or
oscillograph for displaying the force and velocity traces, a
tape recorder or equivalent for obtaining a record for future
analysis, and a means to reduce the data.

Information is displayed through an oscilloscope or

oscillograph on which the resulting force and velocity versus
time can be observed for each hammer blow. The apparatus should
be adjustable to reproduce a signal having a range of duration
between 5 and 160 ms. Both the force and velocity data can be
reproduced for each blow and the apparatus should be capable of
holding and displaying the signal from each selected blow for a
minimum period of 30 seconds.

53
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Section 2: EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

2.1 EARTHQUAKE, WAVES, AND RESPONSE SPECTRA

2.1.1 Earthquake Mechanisms. Earthquake engineering deals

with a complex problem, and it has been advanced by study of
earthquake induced failures. The most important earthquakes are
of tectonic origin associated with large-scale strain in the
crust of the earth. Tectonic earthquakes are caused by slip
along geologic faults.

Although other mechanisms such as volcanic eruptions

may cause earthquakes, the overwhelming majority of earthquakes
of engineering significance are generated by strain rebound
associated with fault movement caused by tectonic processes. As
the different plates that comprise the earth’s surface move past
or over and under each other, the rocks on opposite sides of the
fault do not initially move past each other but instead deform,
developing shear strains. Eventually the shear forces on the
fault become too large for the fault to carry, and a sudden
slippage occurs, releasing the built-up shear strains. The
sudden release of strain energy is perceived as an earthquake.

Earthquakes can originate from motion in any direction

on many different types of faults. Some involve primarily
strike-slip movement. Other earthquakes may involve up-dip
movement on reverse or thrusts faults or down-dip movement on
normal faults. In many cases there are combination of different
types of movements. The different patterns of stress and strain
release associated with the various types of movements cause
different patterns of acceleration with time. The study of the
ground motions associated with different patterns of fault
movement and the prediction of these motions for a given fault
movement are subjects of ongoing research.

When the patterns of faulting that can cause

earthquakes are well known, seismologists can make estimates of
the motions to be expected at a given site. This situation is
most likely to exist in areas of frequent seismicity where the
geology and historical seismicity are well known. The region in
the United States west of the Rocky Mountains, in particular, is
one such area.
54
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

In most other areas the historical record is much more

sparse, and the mechanisms are not well understood. Since the
earthquakes cannot be related to known tectonic features, design
earthquake motions have to be combinations of several recorded
motions or generalized and idealized motions that are designed
to cover the range of accelerations and frequencies expected.

2.1.2 Wave Propagation. An earthquake source produces two

types of waves: body and surface waves. The body waves, which
travel through the body of the soil or rock, can be divided into
P-waves and S-waves. In P-waves the particle motion is in the
direction of propagation of the wave; in S-waves the particle
motion is transverse to the direction of propagation. Surface
waves occur at the surface of a material or at the interface
between materials of different properties. A typical earthquake
accelerogram contains three main groups of waves: P, or
primary; S, or secondary; L, or surface waves.

The fastest moving of the waves are the P-waves (P for

primary). In these waves the particles move back and forth in
the direction of propagation, so the wave consists of alternate
compression and extension. In a medium of mass density  with
shear modulus G and Poisson’s ratio , the speed of propagation
Vp is:

Vp = [2G(1-)/(1-2)]

The second type of wave is the S-wave (S for

secondary). In these waves the particle motion is transverse to
the direction of propagation, so these waves are also called
shear waves. The velocity of propagation Vs is:

Vs = (G/)1/2

The ratio of Vp to Vs is

Vp/Vs = [2(1-)/(1-2)]1/2

which is always greater than 1.0 for realistic values of

Poisson’s ratio. When Poisson’s ratio is 0.25, this ratio
becomes 1.73, a number that is frequently cited as typical of
the ratio of the two velocities.
55
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

In an S-wave the particle motions can be in any

direction in a plane perpendicular to the direction of
propagation. It is often convenient to divide this motion into
two components: one in which all the particle motion is
horizontal, and the other containing the remaining portion of
the motion. Because the particles move horizontally, the first
is called an SH wave. In addition, the particle may have some
vertical motion in the second component, it is called an SV
wave. Note that an SV wave usually has some horizontal motion
as well as vertical.

Stress waves obey Snell’s Laws of reflection and

refraction. An upwardly propagating SH wave impinging on a
horizontal surface will generate a refracted SH wave above the
surface and a reflected SH wave below it. If the upper material
is not as stiff as the lower material, the direction propagation
will be closer to the vertical in the upper material. SV and P
waves are similarly refracted and reflected. In addition SV
waves will generate refracted and reflected P waves, and P waves
will generate refracted and reflected SV waves. Once a wave
train has passed through several interfaces, the pattern can
become very complex.

In addition to the body waves, stress waves occur at

the surface of an elastic medium. The most important of these
are the Rayleigh waves. In these waves the particle motion
describes an ellipse whose horizontal axis is in the direction
of propagation. The motions are retrograde; that is, the
particle motions are opposite to the type of motion in a
breaking ocean wave. The amplitude of motion in Rayleigh waves
decreases with depth. The velocity of propagation is a function
of Poisson’s ratio, but it is approximately 90 percent of the
shear wave velocity.

2.1.3 The Response Spectrum. The frequency content of the

earthquake record is an important feature of seismic motion. A
Fourier analysis, transforming the time-based data into the
frequency domain, provides useful information on the frequency-
dependent energy distribution.

The time history of ground motion is usually a

complicated function that reflects the interaction of many waves
56
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

generated from different parts of the causative fault and

refracted through several geologic strata. While such strong
motion time histories can be used directly in computerized
engineering computations, a useful simplification is the
response spectrum.

The response spectrum is generated by assuming a

series of SDOF systems with different resonant frequencies and
the same critical damping ratio. The time history of motion is
used as base motion for the model of each SDOF system. The
response is expressed in terms of the relative displacement
between the base and vibrating mass, and the maximum value of
the relative displacement Sd for each frequency of SDOF system.
The plot of Sd versus frequency f or versus the period T, which
is the inverse of f, is called the response spectrum for a given
value of critical damping ratio.

If the motion lasts long enough, it can be assumed

that the mass is moving in simple harmonic motion at a frequency
f. Then the amplitude of the absolute velocity Sv will be:

Sv = 2f Sd

and the amplitude of the absolute acceleration Sa will be:

Sa = 42f2 Sd

Thus, the response spectrum in terms of Sd also yield the spectra

for Sv and Sa without further response analyses.

A convenient way to present these results is the

tripartite plot shown by Figure 16. In this plot, because Sa
and Sv can be computed directly from Sd and f, all the results
are represented by one point in the log-log plot. For example,
suppose f = 2 Hz (T = 1/f = 0.5) and Sd = 2 in (5.1 cm). Then:

Sv = (2)(2)(2) = 25.1 in/sec = 63.8 cm/sec

Sa = (42)(2)2(2)[2.54/980] = 0.82g

57
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

This point is identified as Point A in the figure. The

tripartite plot is often drawn with period T as the horizontal
axis instead of frequency f. In many cases response spectra are
plotted for different values of D on the same plot. Another
common practice is to combine the response spectra from
different time histories to obtain a representative spectrum for
design purposes.

To use the response spectrum, the engineer must first

calculate the resonant frequency (or period) of the facility to
be analyzed and estimate its internal damping ratio. The
related displacement, absolute velocity, and absolute
acceleration of the mass can be found directly from the response
spectrum.

Figure 16 shows the 5 percent damped response spectrum

for an indicated earthquake at a site for 10 percent exceedance
in 100 years (950-year average return period). Table 4 shows
the computation of the 5 percent spectral damping.

58
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 16
Tripartite Diagram of Response Spectra - 5 Percent Dumping

59
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Table 4
Spectral Ordinates - 5 Percent Damping

No. Period Frequency Sa Sv Sv Sd Sd

(s) (Hz) (g) (cm/s) (in/s) (cm) (in)

1 0.030 33.33 0.609 2.85 1.12 0.014 0.005

2 0.100 10.00 1.170 18.28 7.20 0.291 0.115
3 0.200 5.00 1.604 50.11 19.73 1.595 0.628
4 0.300 3.33 1.659 77.74 30.61 3.712 1.461
5 0.500 2.00 1.388 108.41 42.68 8.627 3.396
6 1.000 1.00 0.785 122.62 48.28 19.516 7.683
7 2.000 0.50 0.373 116.53 45.88 37.092 14.603

Two points related to the response spectrum should be

noted. First, the method is derived for an SDOF and should be
applied to SDOF systems. When multiple degrees of freedom
occur, more advanced techniques should be used. Second, the
method gives the maximum response but provides no information on
when that response occurs. All data on time and phasing are
lost in developing the response spectrum.

60
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.2 SITE SEISMICITY

2.2.1 Site Seismicity Study. The objective of a seismicity

study is to quantify the level and characteristics of ground
motion shaking that pose a risk to a site of interest. A
seismicity study starts with detailed examination of available
geological, historical, and seismological data to establish
patterns of seismicity and to locate possible sources of
earthquakes and their associated mechanisms. The site
seismicity study produces a description of the earthquake for
which facilities must be designed. In many cases, this will
take the form of a probability distribution of expected site
acceleration (or other measurements of ground motion) for a
given exposure period and also give an indication of the
frequency content of that motion. In some cases typical ground
motion time histories called scenario earthquakes are developed.
One approach is to use the historical epicenter database in
conjunction with available geological data to form a best
estimate regarding the probability of site ground motion.

Figure 17 explains some terms that are commonly used

in seismic hazard analysis. The “hypocenter” or “focus” is the
point at which the motions originated. This is usually the
point on the causative fault at which the first sliding occurs.
It is not necessarily the point from which greatest energy is
propagated. The “epicenter” is the point on the ground surface
that lies directly above the focus. The “focal depth” is the
depth of the focus below the ground surface. The “epicentral
distance” is the distance from the epicenter to the point of
interest on the surface of the earth.

As a part of the Navy's Seismic Hazard Mitigation

Program, procedures were developed in the form of a computer
program (named SEISMIC, NAVFACENGCOM Technical Report
TR-2016-SHR, Procedures for Computing Site Seismicity, and
Acceleration in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United
States, Schnabel and Seed, 1973) designed to run on standard
desktop DOS-based computers. The procedures consist of:

a) Evaluating tectonics and geologic settings,

b) Specifying faulting sources,

61
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 17
Definition of Earthquake Terms

62
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

c) Determining site soil conditions,

d) Determining the geologic slip rate data,

e) Specifying the epicenter search area and search of

database,

f) Specifying and formulating the site seismicity

model,

g) Developing the recurrence model,

h) Determining the maximum source events,

i) Selecting the motion attenuation relationship,

j) Computing individual fault/source seismic,

contributions,

k) Summing the effects of the sources,

l) Determining the site matched spectra for causative

events.

2.2.2 Ground Motion Estimates. Ground motion attenuation

equations are used to determine the level of acceleration as a
function of distance from the source and magnitude of the
earthquake. Correlations have been made between peak
acceleration and other descriptions of ground motion with
distance for various events. These equations allow the
engineers to estimate both the ground motions at a site from a
specified event and the uncertainty associated with the
estimate. There are a number of attenuation equations that have
been developed by various researchers. Donovan and Bornstein,
1978, developed the following equation for peak horizontal
acceleration from the Western United States data.

Y = a exp(b M)(r + 25)d

a = 2,154,000(r)-2.10

b = 0.046 + 0.445 log(r)

d = 2.515 + 0.486 log(r)

63
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

where: Y = peak horizontal acceleration (gal)

(one gal = 1 cm/sec2)

M = earthquake magnitude

r = distance (km) to the energy center, default

at a depth of 5 km

2.2.3 Analysis Techniques. NAVFAC P-355.1, Seismic Design

Guidelines for Essential Buildings provides instructions for
site seismicity studies for determining ground motion and
response spectra. An automated procedure has been developed by
NFESC (Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center) to perform a
seismic analysis using available historic and geological data to
compute the probability of occurrence of acceleration at the
site. A regional study is first performed in which all of the
historic epicenters are used with an attenuation relationship to
compute site acceleration for all historic earthquakes. A
regression analysis is performed to obtain regional recurrence
coefficients, and a map of epicenters is plotted. Confidence
bounds are given on the site acceleration as a function of
probability of exceedance.

An example of a site specific study is given in

paragraph 2.4.2, Figure 21.

64
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.3 SEISMIC SOIL RESPONSE

2.3.1 Seismic Response of Horizontally Layered Soil

Deposits. Several methods for evaluating the effect of local
soil conditions on ground response during earthquakes are now
available. Most of these methods are based on the assumption
that the main responses in a soil deposit are caused by the
upward propagation of horizontally polarized shear waves (SH
waves) from the underlying rock formation. Analytical procedures
based on this concept incorporating linear approximation to
nonlinear soil behavior, have been shown to give results in fair
agreement with field observations in a number of cases.
Accordingly, engineers are finding increasing use in earthquake
engineering for predicting response within soil deposits and the
characteristics of ground surface motions.

2.3.2 Evaluation Procedure. The analytical procedure

generally involves the following steps:

a) Determine the characteristics of the motions

likely to develop in the rock formation underlying the site, and
select an accelerogram with these characteristics for use in the
analysis. The maximum acceleration, predominant period, and
effective duration are the most important parameters of an
earthquake motion. Empirical relationships between these
parameters and the distance from the causative fault to the site
have been established for earthquakes of different magnitudes.
A design motion with the desired characteristics can be selected
from the strong motion accelerograms that have been recorded
during previous earthquakes or from artificially generated
accelerograms.

b) Determine the dynamic properties of the soil

deposit. Average relationships between the dynamic shear moduli
and damping ratios of soils, as functions of shear strain and
static properties, have been established for various soil types
(Hardin and Drnevich, 1970, Seed and Idriss, 1970). Thus a
testing program to obtain the static properties for use in these
relationships will often serve to establish the dynamic
properties with a sufficient degree of accuracy. However more
elaborate dynamic testing procedures are required for special
problems and for cases involving soil types for which empirical
relationships with static properties have not been established.

65
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

c) Compute the response of the soil deposit to the

base rock motions. A one-dimensional method of analysis can be
used if the soil structure is essentially horizontal. Computer
programs developed for performing this analysis are generally
based on either the solution to the wave equation or on a lumped
mass simulation. More irregular soil deposits may require a
finite element analysis.

2.3.3 Analysis Using Computer Program. A computer program,

SHAKE (Schnabel et al. 1971), which is based on the one-
dimensional wave propagation method is available. The program
can compute the responses for a design motion given anywhere in
the system. Thus acceleration obtained from instruments on soil
deposits can be used to generate new rock motions which, in
turn, can be used as design motion for other soil deposits.
Figure 18 shows schematic representation of the procedure for
computing effects of local soil conditions on ground motions.
If the ground motions are known or specified at Point A, the
SHAKE program can be used to compute the motion to the base of
the soil column. That is, the program finds the base rock
motion that causes the motion at Point A. The program can then
find what the motion would be at a rock outcrop if the base rock
motion had been propagated upward through rock instead of soil.
This rock outcrop motion is then used as input to an
amplification analysis, yielding the motion at Point B, which is
the top of another soil column.

The program also incorporates a linear approximation

to nonlinear soil behavior, the effect of the elasticity of the
base rock, and systems with different values of damping and
modulus in different layers. Other versions of the same sort
of analysis, often incorporating other useful features, are also
available and may be superior to the original version of SHAKE.
A NAVFAC sponsored MSHAKE microcomputer program was developed in
1994. The MSHAKE is a user friendly implementation of the
SHAKE91 program which is a modified version of the original
computer program SHAKE.

66
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 18
Schematic Representation of Procedure for Computing
Effects of Local Soil Conditions on Ground Motions

67
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.4 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE

2.4.1 Design Parameters. In evaluating the soil behavior

under earthquake motion, it is necessary to know the magnitude
of the earthquake and to describe the ground motion in terms
that can be used for further engineering analysis.
Historically, design earthquake waves were specified in terms of
the peak acceleration, but more modern techniques use the
response spectrum or one or more time histories of motion. The
most reliable method for accomplishing this is to base the
studies on data obtained at the site. A second choice is to
find another site similar in geologic and seismic setting where
ground motion was measured during a design level magnitude
earthquake. However, this will usually not be possible, and
estimates of ground motion based on correlations and geologic
and seismologic evidence for the specific site become necessary.

2.4.1.1 Factors Affecting Ground Motion. Factors that affect

strong ground motion include:

a) Wave types - S and P waves that travel through the

earth, and surface waves that propagate along the surfaces or
interfaces.

b) Earthquake magnitude - There are several magnitude

scales. Even a small magnitude event may produce large
accelerations in the near field, and a wide variety of
acceleration for the same magnitude may be expected.

c) Distance from epicenter or center of energy

release.

d) Site conditions.

e) Fault type, depth, and recurrence interval.

2.4.1.2 Ground Motion Parameters. Ground motion parameters

have been correlated with magnitude and distance by several
investigators. The correlation in Figure 19 (Schnabel and Seed,
1973), is based on ground motion records from the Western United
States and is believed more applicable to small and moderate
earthquakes (magnitudes 5.5 and 6.5) for rock. This correlation
is also statistically applicable for stiff soil sites (e.g.,
where overburden is of stiff clays and dense sands less than 150
68
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

feet thick). For other site conditions, motion may occur as

illustrated in Figure 20 (Relationship Between Maximum
Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance From Source and Local
Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquake, Seed, Murnaka,
Lysmer, and Idris, 1975).

2.4.2 Site Specific Studies. In areas where faults are

reasonably mapped and studied, site specific investigations can
verify if such faults are trending towards the site or if the
facility is on an active fault. Studies may involve trenching
and mapping, geophysical measurements, and other investigation
techniques. The extent of the area to be investigated depends
on geology and the type and use of the structure. In some
localities, state, or local building codes establish minimum
setback distances from active faults. Unless other critical
conditions demand differently, provide 300 feet minimum distance
from an active fault. For essential facilities the distance
should be increased appropriately.

In seismically active areas where faults are not well

mapped, site specific investigations may be required. Regional
investigations may also be required. Other hazards to be
considered in a site investigation include the potential for
liquefaction and sliding.

Site studies are now being made for naval activities

located in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. These studies in conjunction
with the soil data for the project should generally be adequate
to assess the seismic hazard. An example of total probability
of site acceleration made for North Island, San Diego,
California is shown in Figure 21. Individual studies have been
made for existing hospitals and drydocks located in Seismic
Zones 3 and 4. A site study may occasionally be warranted for
essential facilities to be located in Seismic Zone 2, if the
mission is sensitive to earthquake damage. A critical structure
(where earthquake damage could create a life endangering,
secondary hazard) requires special consideration in all
earthquake zones.

2.4.3 Earthquake Magnitude. Design earthquake magnitude and

selection of magnitude level are discussed below.

69
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 19
Example of Attenuation Relationships in Rock
70
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 20
Approximate Relationship for Maximum Acceleration in
Various Soil Conditions Knowing Maximum Acceleration in Rock
71
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

North Island, San Diego, California

Figure 21
Example Probability of Site Acceleration
72
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.4.3.1 Design Earthquake Magnitude. Engineers can define a

design earthquake for a site in terms of the earthquake
magnitude, M, and the strength of ground motion. Factors that
influence the selection of a design earthquake are the length of
geologic fault structures, relationship between the fault and
the regional tectonic structure, the rate of displacement across
the fault, the geologic history of displacement along the
structure, and the seismic history of the region.

The design earthquake in engineering terms is a

specification of levels of ground motion that the structure is
required to survive successfully with no loss of life,
acceptable damage, or no loss of service. A design earthquake
on a statistical basis considers the probability of the
recurrence of a historical event.

Earthquake magnitudes can be specified in terms of a

design level earthquake that can reasonably be expected to occur
during the life of the structure. As such, this represents a
service load that the structure must withstand without
significant structural damage or interruption of a required
operation. A second level of earthquake magnitude is a maximum
credible event for which the structure must not collapse;
however, significant structural damage can occur. The inelastic
behavior of the structure must be limited to ensure the
prevention of collapse and catastrophic loss of life.

2.4.3.2 Selection of Design Earthquake. The selection of a

design earthquake may be based on:

a) Known design-level and maximum credible earthquake

magnitudes associated with a fault whose seismicity has been
estimated.

b) Specification of probability of occurrence for a

given life of the structure (such as having a 10 percent chance
of being exceeded in 50 years).

c) Specification of a required level of ground motion

as in a code provision.

d) Fault length empirical relationships.

The original magnitude scale proposed by Gutenburg and

73
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Richter is calculated from a standard earthquake, one which

provides a maximum trace amplitude of 1 mm on a standard Wood-
Anders on torsion seismograph at a distance of 100 km.
Magnitude is the log10 of the ratio of the amplitude of any
earthquake at the standard distance to that of the standard
earthquake. Each full integer step in the scale (two to three,
for example) represents an energy increase of about 32 times.

Because of the history of seismology, there are

actually several magnitude scales. Modern earthquakes are
described by the moment magnitude, Mw. Earlier events may be
described by any of a number of other scales. Fortunately, the
numerical values are usually within 0.2 to 0.3 magnitude units
for magnitudes up to about 7.5. For larger events the values
deviate significantly.

2.4.4 Intensity. In areas where instrumental records are

not available the strength of an earthquake has usually been
estimated on the basis of the modified Mercalli (MM) intensity
scale. The MM scale is a number based mostly on subjective
description of the effects of earthquakes on structures and
people. Intensity is a very qualitative measure of local
effects of an earthquake. Magnitude is a quantitative measure
of the size of the earthquake at its source. The MM intensity
scale has been correlated with peak horizontal ground
acceleration by several investigators, as illustrated in Figure
22.

2.4.5 Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration. NAVFAC has

conducted seismic investigations of activities located in
Seismic Zones 3 and 4. These seismic investigations include a
site seismicity study. Where such studies have been completed,
they provide to determine the peak horizontal ground
acceleration. Where a site seismicity study has not yet been
completed, it may be warranted in connection with the design and
construction of an important new facility. Consult NAVFAC for
the status of site seismicity investigations. In connection
with soil related calculations, the peak horizontal ground
acceleration for Seismic Zone 2 may be taken as 0.17g and for
Seismic Zone 1 as 0.1g. Locations of Seismic Zones 1 through 4
are given in NAVFAC P-355.1.

74
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 22
Approximate Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration and
Modified Mercalli Intensity

2.4.6 Seismic Coefficients. The values of seismic ground

75
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

acceleration can be determined from Table 5 based on soil types

defined as follows:

a) Rock with 2500 ft/sec<Vs<5000 ft/sec (760

m/sec<Vs<1520 m/sec)

b) Very dense soil and soft rock with 1200

ft/sec<Vs<2500 ft/sec (360 m/sec<s<760 m/sec)

c) Stiff soil with 600 ft/sec<s<1200 ft/sec (183

m/sec<s <365 m/sec)

d) A soil profile with s<600 ft/sec (183 m/sec) or

any profile with more than 10 ft (3 m) of soft clay defined as
soil with PI>20, w>40 percent, and su500 psf(24 kpa)

The parameter Aa is the ground acceleration for rock

with no soil.

Table 5
Peak Ground Acceleration Modified for Soil Conditions

Soil Type Aa=0.10g Aa=0.20g Aa=0.30g Aa=0.40g Aa=0.50g

A 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

B 0.12 0.24 0.33 0.40 0.50

C 0.16 0.28 0.36 0.44 0.50

D 0.25 0.34 0.36 0.46 SI

Aa = Effective peak acceleration

SI = Site specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic
site response analyses are performed.
Note: Use straight line interpolation for intermediate
values of Aa.

2.4.7 Magnitude and Intensity Relationships. For purposes

of engineering analysis it may be necessary to convert the
maximum MM intensity of the earthquake to magnitude. The most
commonly used formula is:
2
76
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

M = 1 + IMM
3

The above formula was derived to fit a limited

database primarily composed of Western United States
earthquakes. It does not account for the difference in geologic
structures or for depth of earthquakes, which may be important
in the magnitude-intensity relationship.

2.4.8 Reduction of Foundation Vulnerability to Seismic

Loads. In cases where potential for soil failure is not a
factor, foundation ties, and special pile requirements can be
incorporated into the design to reduce the vulnerability to
seismic loads. Details on these are given in NAVFAC P-355.1.
In cases where there is a likelihood for soil failure (e.g.,
liquefaction), the engineer should consider employing one of the
soil improvement techniques covered in Section 5 and Section 17
this handbook.

77
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.5 SEISMIC LOADS ON STRUCTURES

2.5.1 Earthquake Induced Loads. Earthquake loads resulting

from ground shaking primarily depend on the ground motion and
lateral resistance of the structure. Basic criteria for
structures at risk to earthquake induced loads are given in
NAVFAC P-355.1. In a few cases, it may be appropriate to
investigate dynamic soil-structure interaction. For highway
bridge and waterfront structures, AASHTO design criteria and
procedures may apply.

2.5.2 Foundation Loads. The allowable soil pressures due to

combined static and seismic loads can usually exceed the normal
allowable pressure for static loads by 1/3. However, as
explained in NAVFAC P-355.1, the various types of soils react
differently to shorter term seismic loading, and any increase
over normal allowable static loading is to be confirmed by soil
analysis. In many cases, soil analysis is desirable where
foundation soils consist of loose sands and sensitive clays. In
addition to static stresses existing prior to earthquake motion,
random dynamic stresses are exerted on the foundation soils.
The shear strength of some saturated sensitive clays may be
reduced under dynamic stresses, and loose to medium dense
saturated granular soils may experience a substantial reduction
in volume and strength during an earthquake. Special
consideration should be given to the potential loss of bearing
capacity or settlement of foundations on loose granular soil or
highly sensitive clay.

2.5.3 Wall Loads. Refer to NAVFAC DM-7.02, Chapter 3 for

analysis of wall pressures to account for earthquake loading.
Allowable stresses in walls or retaining structures are
increased for transient shocks in accordance with the NAVFAC
DM-2 series. Seismic design of flexible anchored sheetpile
walls is covered in Section 16.

2.5.4 Base Shear. For most buildings, seismic design loads

use equivalent static lateral force. The base shear (V), the
total lateral force on the building, is found from the following
equations (NAVFAC P-355).

V = Cs x W

Cs = (ZC/Rw)I
78
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

C = 1.25 S/T2/3

where: Cs = design base shear coefficient

W = weight of the building

ZC = site spectrum

Z = zone factor

Seismic Zone: 1 2 3 4
---- --- --- ---
Z factor 3/16 3/6 3/4 1

S = site soil factor (not less than 1.0 but not

greater than 1.5)

T = building period = 0.10N

N = number of stories above the base

Rw = response modification factor

I = importance factor

Type of Occupancy I
----
Essential Facilities 1.50
High Risk Facilities 1.25
All Others 1.00

79
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.6 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING

2.6.1 Liquefaction Considerations. In many cases damage to

buildings on soft or loose soils have not been caused by
inertial building loads but by differential settlement of the
foundations caused by ground shaking combined with the natural
variability of subsoils. Considerable damage of this sort may
also occur to buildings located on fills. In seismically active
regions, every effort should be made to compact any fills used
for structural foundation support.

In saturated loose to medium compact granular soils

seismic shocks may produce unacceptable shear strains. These
strains may be the result of shear stresses exceeding the
strength of a soil that softens beyond peak shear strength. The
high shear deformations and decreased shear strength may also be
a consequence of the progressive buildup of high pore pressures
generated by seismic shaking. With no or limited drainage,
cyclic shear stresses can produce a progressive buildup of pore
water pressures that significantly reduce the effective stress,
which controls the strength. For practical purposes, the
effective stress after several cycles of shear straining may
ultimately be reduced to zero, leading to liquefaction. The
progressive weakening before total liquefaction is called cyclic
mobility.

2.6.2 Factors Affecting Liquefaction. The character of

ground motion, soil type, and in situ stress conditions are the
three primary factors controlling the development of cyclic
mobility or liquefaction.

The character of ground motion (acceleration and

frequency content) controls the development of shear strains
that cause liquefaction. For the same acceleration, higher
magnitude earthquakes are more damaging because of the higher
number of applications of cyclic strain.

Relatively free draining soils such as GW, GP are much

less likely to liquefy than SW, SP, or SM. Dense granular soils
are less likely to liquefy than looser soils. Granular soils
under higher initial effective confining pressures (e.g., lower
water table beneath surface, deeper soils), are less likely to
liquefy. Case histories indicate that liquefaction usually
occurs within a depth of 50 feet or less.
80
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Liquefaction is more likely to occur in clean granular

soils. Soils with significant contents of fines (<200 sieve)
are less likely to liquefy, especially when the fines are clays.

2.6.3 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential. Liquefaction

susceptibility at a site is commonly expressed in terms of a
factor of safety versus the occurrence of liquefaction. This
factor is defined as the ratio between available soil resistance
to liquefaction, expressed in terms of the cyclic stresses
required to cause soil liquefaction, and the cyclic stresses
generated by the design earthquake. Both of these parameters
are commonly normalized with respect to the effective overburden
stress at the depth in question. Because of difficulties in
analytically modeling soil conditions at liquefiable sites, the
use of empirical methods has become a standard procedure in
routine engineering practice.

With the present state of knowledge the prediction of

liquefaction is an approximation. However, there is general
agreement that the current procedures work well for ground that
is level or nearly level. The analysis for steeply sloping
ground is less certain. Two basic approaches are used: one
based on standard penetration tests (SPT) and the other on the
cone penetration test (CPT). Although the curves drawn by Seed
and others (1985) envelope most of the plotted data for
liquefied sites, it is possible that liquefaction may have
occurred beyond the enveloped data, but was not detected at
ground surface. Consequently, a safety factor 1.2 is
appropriate in engineering design. The factor to be used is
based on engineering judgment with appropriate consideration
given to type and importance of structure and the potential for
ground deformation.

2.6.3.1 Simplified Empirical Methods. The term “simplified

procedure” which was developed over the past 25 years has become
the standard of practice in the United States and throughout
much of the world. These methods are based on evaluation of
liquefaction case histories and in situ strength characteristics
such as that measured by the SPT, N values, and the CPT, qc data.
For most empirical analysis, the average earthquake-induced
cyclic shear stress is estimated either from the simplified
empirical equation given below or from dynamic response analysis
using a computer program such as SHAKE.

81
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

a) The SPT Method. The procedure for using SPT

values is as follows:

(1) Compute the cyclic stress ratio, CSR, which

is related to the peak acceleration at ground surface during the
design earthquake:

av
CSR = = 0.65(amax/g)(o/o’)rd
o’,’

where: av = average cyclic shear stress induced by design

ground motion

o’ = initial static effective overburden stress on

sand layer under consideration

o = initial total overburden stress on sand layer

under consideration

amax = peak horizontal acceleration in g's

rd = a stress reduction factor varying from a value of

1.0 at ground surface to a value of 0.9 at a
depth of about 30 feet. If stresses and
accelerations are computed directly in an
amplification analysis, rd is ignored or set to
1.0.

(2) Correction of STP values. For STP values,

correct N for overburden using Figure 23:

N1 = CN × N

This is the value of N that would have been measured

if the effective overburden stress had been 1.0 tons/sq. ft.
The value CN is a correction factor based on the effective
overburden stress. Since N is also sensitive to the energy
supplied by the equipment, N1 is further corrected to the value
at 60 percent of the input energy, (N1)60. The combined
correction is:

(N1)60 = CN ERm N/60

where: ERm = corresponding energy ratio in percent.

82
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Table 6 shows the energy ratio for SPT procedures

(National Research Council (NRC), Liquefaction of Soils During
Earthquake, 1985).

(3) Knowing the normalized blow count, (N1)60,

from Figure 24 estimate the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)
required to cause liquefaction for clean sands under level
ground conditions based on SPT values. Note that this curve
applies for earthquake magnitudes 7.5.

(4) Calculate the factor of safety against

liquefaction Fs for each layer, to obtain an appropriate factor
of safety compatible with the type of structure.

CRR
Fs =
CSR

where: CRR = Cyclic resistance ratio required to cause

liquefaction (obtained from figure given).

CSR = Cyclic stress ratio generated by the design

earthquake.

b) The CPT Method. The procedure of using CPT data

is as follows:

(1) Compute CSR as in the SPT method.

(2) Use Figure 25 to determine cyclic resistance

ratio (CRR) from corrected CPT data. This chart is valid for
magnitude 7.5 earthquake and clean sandy materials. The
bounding curve between liquefiable and non-liquefiable materials
is characterized by the following equation:

83
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 23
Correlation Between CN and Effective Overburden Pressure

84
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Table 6
Energy Ratio for SPT Procedures

Hammer Estimated Correction

Country Type Hammer Release Rod Energy Factor for 60%
(%) Rod Energy
Japan Donut Free-fall 78 78/60=1.30
Donut Rope & Pulley 67 67/60=1.12
with Special
throw release
U.S.A. Safety Rope & Pully 60 60/60=1.00
Donut Rope & Pully 45 45/60=0.75

Argentina Donut Rope & Pully 45 45/60=0.75

China Donut Free-fall 60 60/60=1.00

Donut Rope and Pully 50 50/60=0.83

CRR7.5 = 93[(qc1N)cs/1000]3 + 0,08

qc1N = (qc/Pa)CQ

CQ = (Pa/vo’)0.5

Where: (qc1N)cs = equivalent clean sand cone penetration

resistance normalized one atmosphere of
pressure (approximately 1 tsf)

CQ = factor to correct measured penetration resistance

to one atmosphere of pressure

qc = measured cone penetration resistance

Pa = atmospheric pressure in the same unit as cone

penetration resistance and overburden pressure

vo’= vertical effective stress existing before the

imposition of cyclic loading

(3) Calculate the factor of safety, Fs, as

described for using SPT method.

85
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 24
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) for Clean Sands
Under Level Ground Conditions Based on SPT
(After Robertson and Fear, 1996)
86
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 25
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) for Clean Sands
Under Level Ground Conditions Based on CPT

87
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

c) Correction for Fine Content. To correct for the

materials with fines contents (FC) greater than 5 percent, the
curve in Figure 26 can be used. To apply this correction, an
increment of synthetic penetration resistance, q1cN, or (N1)60,
is added to the calculated normalized resistance q1cN. This
increment accounts for the combined influences of fines content
on penetration resistance as a function of FC.

For FC35% q1cN=60 (N1)60=7.2

For FC5% q1cN=0 (N1)60=0
For 5%FC35% q1cN=2(FC-5) (N1)60=(1.2/5)(FC-5)

d) Correction for Different Earthquake Magnitudes.

To adjust CRR to magnitudes other than 7.5, the calculated CRR7.5
is multiplied by the magnitude scaling factor for the particular
magnitude required. The same magnitude scaling factors are used
with cone penetration data as for standard penetration data.
Figure 27 can be used for the correction of different earthquake
magnitudes.

e) Correction of CPT for Thin Soil Layers. This

correction applies only to thin stiff layers embedded within
thick soft layers. Figure 28 can be used to correct CPT data.
The equation for evaluating the correction factor, Kc, is:

Kc = 0.5[(H/1,000) - 1.45]2 + 1.0

where: H = thickness of the interbedded layer in mm.

For conservative correction use qcA/qcB = 2 (Soil

Liquefaction and Its Evaluation Based on SPT and CPT, Robertson
and Fear, 1996), where qcA and qcB are cone penetration
resistances of the stiff and soft layers, respectively.

f) Plastic Fines. For soils with plastic fines, the

so-called Chinese criteria should be applied for assessing
liquefiability (Seed and Idriss, 1982). These criteria are that
liquefaction can only occur if all three of the following
conditions are met:

(1) Clay content (particle smaller then 5)

< 15 percent

(2) Liquid limit < 35 percent

88
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 26
Correction to SPT and CPT Values for Fine Contents
89
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 27
Range of Magnitude Scaling Factors for
Correction of Earthquake Magnitudes

90
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

c) Natural moisture content > 0.9 times the liquid

limit

2.6.4 Peak Horizontal Acceleration. The maximum

acceleration, amax, commonly used in liquefaction analysis is the
peak horizontal acceleration that would occur at the site in the
absence of liquefaction. Thus, the amax used in equation for CSR
is the estimated rock-outcrop acceleration corrected for local
soil response, but without consideration of excess pore-water
pressures that might develop.

Methods commonly used to estimate amax include:

a) Estimates from standard peak acceleration

attenuation curves valid for comparable soil conditions;

b) Estimates from standard peak acceleration

attenuation curves for bedrock sites, with correction of amax for
local site effects using standard site amplification curves,
such as those given by Seed et al., or more preferably, using
computerized site response analysis; and

c) From probabilistic maps of amax, with or without

correction for site amplification or attenuation depending on
the rock or soil conditions used to generate the maps.

A microcomputer program, named LIQUFAC, was developed

by NAVFAC to evaluate the safety factor against liquefaction for
each soil layer during an earthquake. It also estimates the
associated dynamic settlement. The program is used in assessing
the earthquake hazard to the Navy's sites located in seismic
zone areas. An example output of this computer program is given
in Appendix A.

Consult NAVFAC, Office of the Chief Engineer, for

appropriate factors of safety for design of essential
facilities. Use of the above procedure may be considered
satisfactory for sand deposits up to 50 feet. For depths
greater than 50 feet, it is recommended that this procedure be
supplemented by laboratory tests and the site response method
described below.

91
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 28
Correction (Kc) to CPT Penetration Resistance
in Thin Sand Layers

92
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.6.5 Laboratory Tests and Site Response Method. These

procedures evaluate cyclic stress conditions likely to develop
in the soil under a selected design earthquake and compare these
stresses with those observed to cause liquefaction of
representative samples in the laboratory (i.e., CRR).
Laboratory test results should be corrected for the difference
between laboratory and field conditions.

2.6.6 Slopes. Relatively few massive slope failures have

occurred during earthquakes, but there have been some. On the
other hand, many superficial (shallow) slides have been induced
by seismic loads. The performance of earth slopes or
embankments subjected to strong ground shaking is best measured
in terms of deformation (Makdisi and Seed, 1978). Saturated
loose to medium dense cohesionless soils are subject to
liquefaction and these soils deserve special consideration in
design. Sensitive clays also require special treatment.

2.6.6.1 Pseudostatic Design. Refer to NAVFAC DM-7.01, Chapter

7 for procedure. Pseudostatic design, including a lateral force
acting through the center of gravity of the sliding mass
continues to be used in practice today. Acceptable factors of
safety against sliding generally range from 1.0 to 1.5 according
to different codes and regulations. The most important and most
difficult question in this type of analysis deals with the shear
resistance of the soil. In many cases, the dynamic shear
resistance of the soil are assumed equal to the static shear
strength, prior to the earthquake. This would not be a
conservative assumption for saturated loose to medium dense
cohesionless soils. In cases of high embankments where failure
may cause major damage or loss of life, the pseudostatic design
should be verified by detailed dynamic analysis (Seed, et al,
1975). Another issue to be addressed in this type of design is
the magnitude and location of the pseudostatic force. The
current practice is to compute a weighted average of the
amplified horizontal accelerations throughout the sliding mass
and to apply it at the center of the mass. Vertical seismic
forces are usually not applied along with the horizontal seismic
forces.

2.6.6.2 Strain Potential Design. The strain which occurs in

triaxial compression tests during undrained cyclic shear has
also been used for analysis and design, especially for earth
dams. The strain potential is only a measure of field
93
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

performance and is not assumed to represent permanent

deformations. A two-dimensional finite element model is
normally used to calculate seismic stress histories. These
stresses are then simulated, as well as possible, using existing
cyclic shear equipment in the laboratory.

2.6.7 Lateral Spreading from Liquefaction. Lateral

deformation induced by earthquakes is discussed below.

2.6.7.1 Lateral Deformation. The occurrence of liquefaction

and its associated loss of soil strength can cause large
horizontal deformations. These deformations may cause failure
of buildings, sever pipelines, buckle bridges, and topple
retaining walls. The Navy sponsored research to develop
procedures for quantification of lateral deformation (Youd,
1993).

Three types of ground failure are possible. Flow

failures may occur on steep slopes. Lateral spread may occur on
gentle slopes. The third type of failure involves ground
oscillation on flat ground with liquefaction at depth decoupling
surface layers. This decoupling allows rather large transient
ground oscillation or ground waves.

2.6.7.2 Evaluation Procedure. Youd developed two independent

models: a free-face model for areas near steep banks, and a
ground-slope model for areas with gently sloping terrain. The
equations are:

For the free-face model;

Log DH = -16.3658 + 1.178 M - 0.9275 Log R - 0.0133 R

+0.6572 Log W + 0.3483 Log T
+4.5270 Log(100-F15) - 0.9224 D5015

For the ground slope model;

Log DH = -15.7870 + 1.1782 M - 0.9275 Log R - 0.0133 R

+0.4293 Log S + 0.3483 Log T15
+4.5270 Log(100-F15) - 0.9224 D5015

where: DH = Estimated lateral ground displacement in meters.

D5015 = Average mean grain size in granular layers

94
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

included in T15, in millimeters

F15 = Average fines content (fraction of sediment

sample passing a No. 200 sieve) for granular
layers included in T15, in percent.

M = Earthquake magnitude (moment magnitude).

R = Horizontal distance from the seismic energy

source, in kilometers.

S = Ground slope, in percent.

T15 = Cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers

with corrected blow counts, (N1)60, less than
15, in meters.

W = Ratio of the height (H) of the free face to the

distance (L) from the base of the free face to
the point in question, in percent.

To show the predictive performance of the above

equations, Bartlett and Youd plotted predicted displacement
against measured displacements recorded in the observational
database and found that the equations correspond well with
observation (Bartlett and Youd, 1992). The above two equations
are generally valid for stiff soil sites in the Western U.S. or
within 30 km of the seismic source in Japan, i.e., the
localities from which the case history data were collected.

2.6.7.3 Application. Liquefaction of saturated granular soils

and consequent ground deformation have been major causes of
damage to constructed work during past earthquakes. Loss of
bearing strength, differential settlement, and horizontal
displacement due to lateral spread are the major types of ground
deformation beneath level to gently sloping sites. This design
guide provides procedures including equations, tables, and
charts required to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility beneath
level or gently sloping sites and to estimate probable free-
field lateral displacement at those sites. Free-field ground
displacements are those that are not impeded by structural
resistance, ground modification, or a natural boundary.

These procedures may be used for assessment of

95
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

liquefaction-induced lateral ground displacements. The results

may be used for preliminary assessment of ground-failure hazard
to constructed or planned facilities, for initial lateral
displacement design criteria (although structural impedance may
prevent development of full free-field displacements), and for
delineation of areas where liquefaction-induced earthquake
damage might be expected.

A microcomputer program, named LATDER2, was developed

to allow rapid computation of lateral spread resulting from
liquefaction for a site. This program, with an example
computation, is described in Appendix A.

96
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

2.7 FOUNDATION BASE ISOLATION

2.7.1 Seismic Isolation Systems. New technologies are

becoming more prevalent in the seismic design of building
structures. These technologies usually involve the use of
special details or specific devices to alter or control the
dynamic behavior of buildings. The technologies can be broadly
categorized as passive, active, or hybrid control systems.

Candidate structures for base isolation should meet

the following criteria:

a) The site be located in a zone of high seismic

hazard.

b) The structure not be founded on soft soil.

c) The building be low to medium height.

d) The building have a relatively low shape

factor(H/L1).

e) The contents of the building be sensitive to high

frequency vibration.

f) The lateral load resisting system make the

building a rigid structure.

2.7.2 System Definitions. Generally there are three types

of seismic control systems: passive control systems, active
control systems, and hybrid control systems.

2.7.2.1 Passive Control Systems. These systems are designed

to dissipate a large portion of the earthquake input energy in
specialized devices or special connection details which deform
or yield during an earthquake. These systems are passive in
that they do not require any additional energy source to operate
and are activated by the earthquake input motion. Seismic
isolation and passive energy dissipation are both examples of
passive control systems.

2.7.2.2 Active Control Systems. These systems provide seismic

protection by imposing forces on a structure that counterbalance
the earthquake induced forces. These systems are active in that
97
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

they require an energy source and computer-controlled actuators

to operate special braces of tuned-mass dampers located
throughout the building. Active systems are more complex than
passive systems since they rely on computer control, motion
sensors, feedback mechanisms, and moving parts which may require
service or maintenance. These systems need an emergency power
source to ensure that they will be operable during a major
earthquake and any immediate aftershocks.

2.7.2.3 Hybrid Control Systems. These systems combine

features of both passive and active control systems. In
general, they have reduced power demands, improved reliability,
and reduced cost when compared to fully active systems.

2.7.3 Mechanical Engineering Applications. It is important

to note that the passive energy dissipation systems described
here are "new" technologies when applied to civil engineering
structures, but they have been used in mechanical engineering
applications for many years. There are numerous situations
where dampers, springs, torsion bars, or elastomeric bearings
have been used to control vibration or alter the dynamic
behavior of mechanical systems. Several examples include
vehicular shock absorbers or spring mounts that provide vertical
vibration isolation for military hardware.

2.7.4 Historical Overview of Building Applications. Several

types of isolation and supplemental damping systems have
previously been used in building structures to solve problems
related to vertical vibrations or wind loading. For example,
the World Trade Center Towers in New York City were built with a
system of viscoelastic dampers to alleviate human discomfort due
to wind loading. The use of passive energy dissipation systems
for seismic design is a relatively recent development, although
there are now examples of these systems throughout the world.
Base isolation is an expensive way to mitigate the effects of
earthquake. Therefore, it has not been used widely for new
construction. However, it has been used effectively in cases of
important older structures, that have not been adequately
designed to resist earthquakes. Putting base isolation under
the building can conserve the architecture and protect the
building.

2.7.5 Design Concept. The design of a seismic isolation

system depends on many factors including the period of the
98
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

fixed-base structure, the period of the isolated structure, the

dynamic characteristics of the soil at the site, the shape of
the input response spectrum, and the force-deformation
relationship for the particular isolation device. The primary
objective of the design is to obtain a structure such that the
isolated periods of the building are sufficiently longer than
both the fixed-base periods of the building, i.e., the period of
the superstructure, and the predominant period of the soil at
the site. In this way, the superstructure can be decoupled from
the maximum earthquake input energy. The spectral accelerations
at the isolated period of the building are significantly reduced
from those at the fixed-base period. The resultant forces on
structural and nonstructural elements of the superstructure will
be significantly reduced when compared with conventional fixed-
base construction.

2.7.6 Device Description. A number of seismic isolation

devices are currently in use or proposed for use in the United
States. Although the specific properties vary, they are all
designed to support vertical dead loads and to undergo large
lateral deformation during a major earthquake. Some of these
systems use elastomeric bearings; others use sliding systems
which rely on frictional resistance. A number of these systems
are listed below along with the vendor name of patented systems.

2.7.6.1 Elastometer Systems

a) High-damping rubber bearing (HDR), non-proprietary

b) Lead rubber bearing (LRB), DIS

2.7.6.2 Sliding System

a) Earthquake Barrier System(EBS), M.S. Caspe

b) Friction-Pendulum System (FPS), EPS

c) Resilient frictional base isolation (RFBI),

N. Mostaghel

2.7.6.3 Hybrid Systems

a) Combined Rubber-Slider-Restainer System, Fyfe

Associates
99
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

b) Zoltan Isolator, Lorant Group

c) GERB Steel Springs, GERB

2.7.6.4 Applications. While base isolation is an excellent

solution for some building structures, it may be entirely
inappropriate for others. Since the objective of isolation
design is to separate the response of the fixed-base structure
from the predominant period of the underlying soil, it is most
effective when these two periods coincide. In cases where they
are already widely separated, base isolation may increase the
response of the structure rather than reduce it. For instance,
a very stiff structure on very soft soil would be a poor
candidate, as would a very soft structure on very stiff soil.
The damping of the isolation device may serve to further reduce
the response of the building. However, for the sake of
simplicity, the effect of damping is not included in the
following examples.

2.7.7 Examples of Applications. Base isolated structures

require lighter structural members than nonisolated structures.
In addition, nonstructural components (utilities, partitions,
parapets, suspended ceiling, equipments, etc.) are less likely
to be damaged in a base isolated structure. Isolation from
ground motion is produced by the low horizontal stiffness of the
bearings. This substantially reduces the frequency of the
predominant horizontal mode of the structure vibration,
typically lower than 1.0 hertz. Most earthquake ground motions
have predominant frequencies in the 3 to 10 hertz range and are,
therefore, effectively filtered by the isolation system,
allowing only relatively small accelerations to be imported to
the structure. The general principles are illustrated in Figure
29 and Figure 30 from Vaidya et al. (NCEL N-1827, An Analysis of
Base Isolation Design Issues for Navy Essential Construction,
1991), (Vaidya, 1988).

100
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 29
The Base Isolation System

101
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 30
The Acceleration Spectrum Showing Period Shift

102
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Section 3: SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS

3.1 SEISMIC DESIGN OF ANCHORED SHEET PILE WALLS

3.1.1 Design of Sheet Pile Walls for Earthquake. The design

of anchored sheet pile walls subjected to seismic loading may use
the free earth support method. Figure 31 shows the measured
distribution of bending moment in three model tests on anchored
bulkheads. The design methods and an example computation are
given below.

3.1.2 Design Procedures. The design procedures are described

by 10 steps (NCEL TR-939, The Seismic Design of Waterfront
Retaining Structures, Ebeling and Morrison, 1992).

a) Step 1: Evaluate potential for liquefaction or

excessive deformation of the structure.

b) Step 2: Perform static design. Provide initial

depth of penetration required using the free earth support
method.

c) Step 3: Determine the average site specific

acceleration for wall design.

d) Step 4: Compute dynamic earth pressure forces and

water pressure forces. (Refer to NAVFAC DM-7.02, Earthquake
Loading, Chapter 3, Analysis of Walls and Retaining Structures.)

e) Step 5: Sum the moments due to the driving forces

and the resisting forces about the tie rod elevation.

f) Step 6: Alter the depth of penetration and repeat

steps 4 and 5 until moment equilibrium is achieved. The minimum
depth of embedment has been computed when moment equilibrium is
satisfied.

g) Sum horizontal forces to compute the tie rod force

(per foot of wall).

h) Compute the maximum bending moment, apply Rowe's

moment reduction factor (NAVFAC DM-7.02) and size the flexible
wall (if applicable).

103
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 31
Measured Distributions of Bending Moment
in Three Model Tests on Anchored Bulkhead

104
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

j) Step 10: Design and site the anchorage. The

anchor should be located far enough from the wall such that the
active wedge from the wall (starting at the bottom of the wall)
and the passive wedge from the anchor do not intersect.

3.1.3 Example Computation. An example computation of

anchored sheet pile wall subjected to seismic load is given in
Figure 32. The example computation follows 10 steps described by
the above design procedures.

a) This example assumes that the results of a

liquefaction analysis (refer to Section 13 of this handbook)
indicate the site will not liquefy under the design earthquake
load.

b) From the static loading design, the computation

indicates the depth of sheet pile penetration, D, requires 10.02
ft. For seismic loading, a larger D value is needed. For the
first trial computation, use D = 20 ft.

c) For seismic coefficients, assume horizontal seismic

coefficient Kh = 0.2, and vertical seismic coefficient Kv = 0.1.

d) Dynamic active earth pressure, Pae.

2
Pae = Kae(½)[e(1-Kv)]H = 46,160 lb/ft

(Paex = Pae(cos) = 44,020 lb/ft per foot of wall

Hydrodynamic water pressure force, Pwd.

Pwd = (7/12)Kh w(Hw) = 2912 lb/ft

2

e) Compute unbalanced moment about the elevation of

the tie rod, Mb.

Mb = -153,400 lb-ft

Too large for Mb value (Mb value should approach

zero).

f) Reduce sheet pile embedment length and recompute

unbalanced moment Mb . In this example, for D = 16 ft, the moment
equilibrium is satisfied.
105
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

g) Compute tie rod force, T.

T = Paa + Paex +Pwd = 31,730 lb/ft

h) Compute design moment, Mallow.

2
Mallow = S(0.9)yield = 30.2(9)(36000) lb/in
2
= 140,900,000 lb/ft

i) Design tie rods. Assume tie rod spacing is 6 ft.

Tdesign = 1.3 T = 1.3(31,730) = 41,250 lb/ft

2 2
A = 6 Tdesign/allow = 0.053 ft = 7.63 in
1/2
d = [4 A/] = 3.12 inches

j) Design of anchorage. See anchorage system

discussed below.

3.1.4 Anchorage System. Most of the difficulties with

anchored bulkheads are caused by their anchorage. A tieback may
be carried to a buried deadman anchorage, to pile anchorage,
parallel wall anchorage, or it may be a drilled and grouted
ground anchor. For a deadman anchorage, refer to NAVFAC DM-7.02,
Chapter 3, Section 4, Figure 20, Design Criteria for Deadman
Anchorage.

3.1.5 Ground Anchors. There are two types of anchors: (1)

soil anchors, and (2) rock anchors. Ground anchors transfer load
from tendon to grout then from grout to soil or rock. Load
transfer is by either friction along a straight shaft or by
bearing against an underreamed bell or both. Figure 33 shows
basic components of ground anchors. Figure 34 shows estimate of
anchor capacity which provides empirical ultimate capacity of
anchors in granular soils. Table 7 provides types of soil
anchors.

106
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 32
Example of Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Design
107
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3
1. Check Site Liquefaction Potential
.
Use LIQUFAC computer program to compute liquefaction
potential analysis. Densify the soils behind the sheet pile
if liquefaction will occur at the design earthquake load.

2. From static design, calculate depth of sheet pile

penetration below dredge level, D.

From
MT = 0
E idi - Ptoedtoe = 0 Obtain D = 10.02 ft.

3. Determine Horizontal and Vertical Seismic Coefficients

Consider average peak ground acceleration a ( max ) 0.3

Assume displacement is less than 1.0 inch
2.
Kh a( max ) Kh = 0.2 Kv 0.1 ( Kv=0.1, 0, or -0.1)
3
Equivalent horizontal seismic coefficient for the backfill
lb
t 120 . lb . ft
3

w 62.4.
b
t
w
3
ft
3

b = 57.6 lb ft
lb . t.
e t 62.4 . 1.4
e = 80.64 lb ft
3
Khe Kh Khe = 0.298
ft
3 e
Seismic inertia angle for soils

atan
Khe

= 18.298 deg
1 Kv

4. Determine Dynamic Pressure

Dynamic active earth pressure


 35 . deg
 17.5. deg
2
2
cos ( 
)
Kae Kae = 0.509
2
sin (   ) . sin ( 
)
cos (
) . cos (
 ). 1
cos ( 
)
Ht1 7. ft Ht2 3. ft Hw 20. ft

D=10.24 ft was found not be stable under earthquake loading.

Use D 20.24. ft in this computation

H Ht1 Ht2 Hw D H = 50.24 ft

1 2 4 1
Pae Kae . . (
e . ( 1 Kv ) ) . H Pae = 4.66 10 lb ft
2
4 1
Paex Pae . cos (
) Paex = 4.445 10 lb ft per foot of wall
Figure 32 (Continued)
Example of Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Design
108
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Horizontal static active earth pressure component of Pae

0. deg  0. deg
2
cos (  )
Kap
2
2. sin(   ) . sin(  )
cos (  ) cos (   ). 1
cos (   ) . cos ( )

Kap = 0.704 cos (  ) = 0.954 Kap. cos (  ) = 0.671

Horizontal Force Distance to Pile Tip

1 2 1.
E1 Kap . cos (  ) . .  t . ( Ht1 Ht2 ) d1 ( Ht1 Ht2 ) Hw D
2 3
3 1
E1 = 4.026 10 lb ft d1 = 43.573 ft

1 1.
E2 Kap . cos (  ) . .  t . ( Ht1 Ht2 ) . Hw d2 Hw D
2 2
3 1
E2 = 8.052 10 lb ft d2 = 30.24 ft

1 1.
Kap . cos (  ) . .  b . Hw
2
E3 d3 Hw D
2 3
3 1
E3 = 7.73 10 lb ft d3 = 26.907 ft

1.
E4 Kap . cos (  ) . (  t . ( Ht1 Ht2 )  b . Hw ) . D d4 D
2
4 1
E4 = 3.194 10 lb ft d4 = 10.12 ft

1 2 1.
E5 Kap . cos (  ) . .  b . D d5 D
2 3
3 1
E5 = 7.917 10 lb ft d5 = 6.747 ft

1 2 2.
Ptoe Kap . cos (  ) . .
b . D dtoe Ht2 Hw D
2 3
3 1
Ptoe = 7.917 10 lb ft dtoe = 36.493 ft

4 1
Pax E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Pax = 5.967 10 lb ft

E1. d1 E2. d2 E3. d3 E4. d4 E5. d5

Ypa Ypa = 16.82 ft
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5

Figure 32 (Continued)
Example of Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Design
109
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Horizontal component of the incremental dynamic active earth pressure

force

4 1
 Paex Paex Pax  Paex = 1.522 10 lb ft

Y
Pae 0.6 . H Y Pae = 30.144 ft

Pax. Ypa  Paex. Y Pae

Ypae Ypae 23.78 . ft
Paex

Equivalent horizontal seismic coefficient used in front of wall

t .
Khew Kh Khew = 0.417
b

Seismic inertia angle used in front of wall

Khew
 ew atan  ew = 24.842 deg
1 Kv

Horizontal dynamic passive earth pressure force, Ppe

 e 30.3. deg t 14.7. deg  24.84. deg

2
cos (  e
)
Kpe
2

cos (
) . cos (
t ). 1 sin (  e t ) . sin (  e
)

cos (  t
)

Kpe = 2.852

1 4 1
Kpe . cos (  t ) . . (  b . ( 1
2
Ppex Kv ) ) . D Ppex = 2.929 10 lb ft
2

1.
Ype D Ype = 6.747 ft
3

Hydrodynamic water pressure force, Pwd

3

w 62.4 . lb . ft

7. . . 2 3 1
Pwd Kh
w Hw Pwd = 2.912 10 lb ft
12

Ypwd 0.4 . Hw Ypwd = 8 ft

Figure 32 (Continued)
Example of Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Design
110
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

5. Compute Moments about the Elevation of the Tie Rod

D = 20.24 ft Ypae 23.87. ft b 1 . ft

Mccw Paex. ( Ht2 Hw D Ypae ) . b Pwd. ( Ht2 Hw 0.4. Hw ) . b

5
Mccw = 9.046 10 lb ft

6
Mcw Ppex. ( Ht2 Hw D Ype ) . b Mcw = 1.069 10 lb ft

5
Unbalance moment Mb Mccw Mcw Mb = 1.644 10 lb ft

Too large, reduce D value

6. Alter the Depth, D, until Equilibrium is Satisfied

For D=15 ft Mb=16,620 lb.ft Use D=16 ft

lb lb
D 16. ft  Paex 12750 . Pax 50010 .
ft ft

7. Compute Tie Rod Force

4 1
T Paex Pwd Ppex T = 1.807 10 lb ft

8. Compute Maximum Moment

 Paex . . ft 2 3
y 15.32 . ft
t 1.6. y 559.2lb 9.8. lb. ft . y
H

1. 1
 Paex (
t
y ) . ( 10. ft y)  Paex = 38.145 lb ft
2

7 .
Kh .  w . y
2
Pwd
12

T Pax  Paex Pwd

4 1
T = 5.176 10 lb ft

Moment of force acting above y=15.32 ft below the water table,

and the force act about the Tie Rod

Figure 32 (Continued)
Example of Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Design

111
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Horizontal Force Lever Arm

3 1 1.
E1 = 4.026 10 lb ft d1t Ht2 ( Ht1 Ht2 )
3
d1t = 0.333 ft
1.
E2x Kap. cos (  ) .
t. ( Ht1 Ht2) . y d2t Ht2 y
2
4 1
E2x = 1.234 10 lb ft d2t = 10.66 ft
1 2 2.
E3x Kap. cos (  ) . .  b . y d3t Ht2 y
2 3
3 1
E3x = 4.536 10 lb ft d3t = 13.213 ft

. . ft 1
 Paex 13499lb
Paex . 1
.lbft
13499

1
Pwd 1709. lb. ft dwt Ht2 0.6. y
dwt = 12.192 ft

dwt = 12.192 ft
5
Mf = 2.741 10 lb ft

9. Compute Design Moment

2 .
d3t Ht2 y
3

 allow 0.9 .  yield Section S (sec. modulus)

E3x Kap . cos (
) . 1 .

b .y 2
PZ22 18.1 in3
2
PZ27 30.2
S 30.2 in3 Use PZ27 PZ35 48.5
PZ40 60.7
8 2
Mallow S.  allow Mallow = 1.526 10 lb ft

10. Design Tie Rods

4 1
Tdesign 1.3. T Tdesign = 6.728 10 lb ft
Assume 6 ft spacing to compute minimum area of rod Sp 6. ft

Sp. Tdesign 2
A A = 0.08 ft

allow

A
d 4. d = 3.827 in

11. Design of Anchorage System

Refer to paragraph 3.1.4 entitled "Anchorage System" of this handbook

and/or NAVFAC DM 7.02, Chapter 3, Section 3, "Rigid Retaining Walls"

Figure 32 (Continued)
Example of Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Design
112
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 33
Basic Components of Ground Anchors

113
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 34
Estimate of Anchor Capacity

114
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 34 (Continued)
Estimate of Anchor Capacity

115
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Table 7
Types of Soil Anchors

Grout
Shaft Bell Gravity Pressur Suitable Load
Method Type Type Concret e Soils for Transfer
e Anchorage Mechanism
(1)
(psi)
1. LOW Very stiff to
PRESSURE hard clays. Friction
12-24" NA A NA Dense
Straight cohesive
Shaft sands
Friction
Very stiff to Friction
6-18" NA NA 30-150 hard clay.
Straight Dense
Shaft cohesive
Friction sands.
(Hollow Stem Loose to
auger) dense sands
Very stiff to Friction
12-18" 30- A NA hard cohesive and
Underreamed 42" soils bearing.
Single Bell at Dense
Bottom cohesive
sands.
Soft rock.
Very stiff to Friction
4 - 8" 8- A NA hard cohesive and
Underreamed 24" soils. Dense bearing
Multi-bell cohesive
sands
Soft rock
2. HIGH Hard clays. Friction
PRESSURE 3 - 6" NA NA 150 Sands or
Sand-gravel friction
SMALL formations and
DIAMETER Glacial till bearing
or hardpan in
Non- permeable
soils
Same soils as Friction
(3) 3 - 8" NA NA 200-500 for non- and
Regroutable regroutable bearing
anchors plus:
(a) Stiff to
very
stiff
clay.
(b) Varied
and
difficult
(1) Grout pressures are typical.
(2) Friction from compacted zone having locked in stress. Mass
penetration of grout in highly pervious sand/gravel forms
"bulb" anchor.
(3) Local penetration of grout will form bulbs which act in
bearing or increase effective diameter.
A - Applicable
NA - Not Applicable

116
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

3.1.6 Displacement of Sheet Pile Walls. Damage to anchored

sheet pile walls during earthquakes is known to be a function of
the movement of the top of the sheet piles during the earthquake.
Table 8 exhibits five categories of sheet pile damage levels
reported in Ref. 3.2.6 (Kitajima and Uwabe, 1979). It shows that
for sheet pile wall displacements of 4 inches (10 cm) or less,
there was little or no damage to the waterfront structures as a
result of the earthquake shaking. The level of damage to the
waterfront structures increased in proportion to the magnitude of
the displacements above 4 inches. Analysis of the information
reported by the survey, the simplified theories, and the free earth
support method of analysis, showed post-earthquake displacement at
the top of the sheet pile wall is correlated to:

a) The depth of sheet pile embedment below the dredge

level,

b) The distance between the anchor and the sheet pile.

Two anchored bulkheads were in place in the harbor of San

Antonio, Chile, during the very high magnitude earthquake of 1985.
A peak horizontal acceleration of about 0.6g was recorded within
3.2 miles (2 km) of the site. One anchored bulkhead experienced a
permanent displacement of about 3 ft, and use of the bulkhead was
severely restricted. There was evidence of liquefaction or at
least poor compaction of the backfill, and tie rods may not have
been preloaded. The second bulkhead developed a permanent
displacement of only 6 inches, and the quay remained functional
after the earthquake. This example gives evidence that anchored
sheet pile walls can be designed to withstand large earthquakes.

117
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Table 8
Description of the Reported Degree of Damage for Sheet Pile Wall

Permanent Displacement at
Degree of Description of Damage the Top of Sheet Pile
Damage (Inches) (Cm)

0 No damage <1 <2

Negligible damage to the

wall itself; noticeable 4 10
1 damage to related
structures (concrete
apron)

2 Noticeable damage to 12 30
walls
General shape of anchored
3 sheet pile preserved, but 24 60
significantly damaged
Complete destruction, no
4 recognizable shapes of 48 120
wall

118
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

3.2 STONE COLUMNS AND DISPLACEMENT PILES

3.2.1 Installation of Stone Columns. One of the most

dramatic causes of damage to engineering structures from
earthquakes has been the development of soil liquefaction beneath
and around structures. The phenomenon is associated primarily,
but not exclusively, with saturated cohesionless soils
(Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquake, NRC, 1985).

The purpose of an effective soil improvement program is

to mitigate the potential for liquefaction and minimize damaging
settlement in the soil. Methods to achieve mitigation include:
increase of material stiffness by intrusion of grout, chemicals,
or stone columns and control or prevention of pore pressure
development. Proper installation of stone columns by vibro-
replacement mitigates the potential for liquefaction by
increasing the density of the surrounding soil, increasing
lateral stresses on the surrounding soil, providing drainage for
the control of pore water pressures, and introducing a stiff
element (stone column) which can potentially carry higher shear
stress levels (Priebe, 1989). Since the first of these is very
important, stone column should be placed by methods that increase
the density of the surrounding soil.

The three most common methods of stone column

installation are, top feed (gravel fed around surface annulus),
bottom feed (gravel fed from tip of vibrator), and auger-casting
with an internal gravel feeding system. The first two systems,
commonly called vibro-replacement, involve the use of electrical
vibrators employed to help advance the hole and densify the
surrounding soil. The vibro-replacement process generally
involves advancing the hole by means of water or air jets to a
specified depth, feeding stone (gravel) into the hole, then
beginning a series of lifting and lowering action of the vibrator
(30 Hz) as the gravel is being added to densify the gravel and
surrounding soil. Figure 35 (Quantitative Evaluation of Stone
Column Techniques for Earthquake Liquefaction Mitigation, Baez
and Martin, 1992) shows the top-fed method of installation.
Figure 36 shows the typical range of soils densifiable by vibro-
replacement and range of soils with potential for liquefaction.

119
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 35
Installation of Stone Columns
120
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 36
Typical Range of Soils Densifiable by Vibro-Replacement

121
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

3.2.2 Parameters Affecting Design Consideration. Parameters

affecting the stone column performance include ground motion
characteristics such as peak acceleration, frequency, and
duration, and the properties of the soil stone column system.
These involve degree of densification, shear moduli,
compressibility, permeability, and the geometry of the system.
The following parameters affect stone column response.

3.2.2.1 Soil Density. Pore pressure generation in a dense soil

occurs more slowly than in a loose sand and hence liquefaction
potential will be less. For loose sands once the state of
initial liquefaction is reached, large ground deformations may
occur. However, in dense sands, in the event that peak pore
pressure value becomes equal to the initial confining pressure,
the large shear strains cause significant dilation of the sand
structure thereby maintaining significant residual stiffness and
strength (NRC, 1985).

3.2.2.2 Coefficient of Permeability. To avoid significant

generation of pore water pressure within the stone column, Seed
and Booker (1976) specify that the permeability of the stone
column should be at least two orders of magnitude larger than the
surrounding soil.

3.2.2.3 Coefficient of Volume Compressibility. If the stone

columns can be designed so that maximum pore pressure ratios
(excess pore pressure to effective stress) are maintained below
0.5, the use of a constant coefficient of volume compressibility
would be appropriate for dissipation analysis and the potential
for settlement would be reduced.

3.2.2.4 Selection of Gravel Material. The U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (1974), has set standards for filters used in road
and embankment construction. Gradation requirements based on
particle size passing No. 15 and No. 50 sieves in a grain size
analysis are combined to obtain a suitable filter that prevents
pore pressure buildup and erosion.

Saito et al. (1987) report a similar principle but

suggest a different equation for the selection of the stone
column material. Based on experimental data they proposed a
formula based on the grain size distribution of the stone column
and the surrounding soil to ensure maximum permeability and
prevent erosion on the soil:
122
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

20Ds15 < DG15 < 9DS85

where Ds15 is diameter (mm) of soil particles which 15 percent is

finer, DG15 is the diameter of gravel (stone) passing 15 percent,
and DS85 is the diameter of soil passing 85 percent in a grain
size analysis test.

3.2.3 Vibro-Replacement (Stone Columns). The vibro-

replacement method is a modification of the vibroflotation method
for use in soft cohesive soils.

Use a vibroflot, cylindrical, vertical hole to cut to

the desired depth by jetting, and 0.5 to 1 cubic yard of coarse
granular backfill (well graded between 1/2 and 3 inches) is
dumped in. The vibroflot is allowed to compact the gravel
vertically and radially into the surrounding soft soil. The
process of backfilling and compaction by vibration continues
until the densified stone column reaches the surface. The
diameter of the resulting column will range from about 2 feet for
stiffer clays (undrained shear strength greater than 0.5 tsf) to
3.5 feet for very soft clays (undrained shear strength less than
0.2 tsf). Stone columns are spaced at 3 to 9 feet, on centers,
in square or triangular grid patterns under mat foundations.
Cover the entire foundation area with a blanket of sand or gravel
at least one foot thick to help distribute loads and to
facilitate drainage. The allowable stress on a stone column qa
can be found from:

25su
qa =
Fs
where: su = undrained shear strength of surrounding soil

Fs = factor of safety

A factor of safety of 3.0 is recommended.

3.2.4 Vibroflotation and Vibro-Replacement. Where both

cohesive and granular soils exist, vibro-compaction is combined
with vibro-replacement using granular fill (1/2 to 2 inches). In
addition to compaction of natural soil between probe positions, a
stone column will also be formed at points of

123
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

penetration. This method is useful where layered sands and silts

exist. Table 9 indicates the procedures and applications of the
stone column methods.

Table 9
Vibro-Replacement for Stone Column

Method Procedure Used Application Modification of Soil

Limitation Properties

Vibro- Holes are jetted Used in soft fine Increased allowable

Replace- into the soil grained soils bearing capacity and
ment using water or (clays and reduced settlement.
Stone air, and silts). Faster Maximum depth of
Column backfilled with than preloading. improvement about 65
densely compacted ft. The properties
coarse gravel. of soil are
relatively
unchanged.

124
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

3.3 DYNAMIC SLOPE STABILITY AND DEFORMATIONS

3.3.1 Slope Stability Under Seismic Loading. Well compacted

cohesionless embankments or reasonably flat slopes in insensitive
clay that are safe under static conditions are unlikely to fail
under moderate seismic shocks (up to 0.15 g or 0.20 g
acceleration). Embankment slopes made up of insensitive cohesive
soils founded on cohesive soil or rock can withstand higher
seismic shocks. For earth embankments in seismic regions,
provide internal drainage and select core material suited to
resist cracking. In regions where embankments are made up of
saturated cohesionless soil, the likelihood for liquefaction
should be evaluated using detailed dynamic analysis (refer to
Simplified Procedures for Estimating Dam and Embankment
Earthquake Induced Deformations, Makdisi and Seed, 1978).

3.3.2 Seismically Induced Displacement. Computation of slope

displacement induced by earthquakes requires dynamic analysis. A
simplified computation procedure was pioneered by Newmark in 1965
using acceleration data.

3.3.3 Slopes Vulnerable to Earthquakes. Slope materials

vulnerable to earthquake shocks are:

a) Very steep slopes of weak, fractured, and brittle

rocks or unsaturated loess are vulnerable to transient shocks
that are likely to induce the opening of tension cracks.

b) Loose, saturated sand may be liquefied by shocks

that may resist sudden collapse of structure and flow slides.

c) Similar effects as subpar. b) are possible in

sensitive cohesive soils with natural moisture exceeding the
liquid limit.

d) Dry cohesionless material on a slope at the angle

of repose will respond to seismic shock by shallow sloughing and
slight flattening of the slope.

Seismically induced displacement of a slope in earth

structures, such as dams or earth retaining structures can be
computed using the Newmark method. The potential sliding blocks
are identified using slope stability analysis.

125
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

3.3.4 Deformation Prediction From Acceleration Data. The

earthquake induced displacement of a potential slope sliding
block can be estimated from acceleration data using the Newmark
method of prediction of embankment deformation induced by
earthquake.

3.3.4.1 Computation Method. Deformation of slope caused by

earthquake can be estimated from the following four steps. These
steps are shown in Figure 37.

a) Identify a critical potential sliding block, using

slope stability program to find the yielding coefficient of
earthquake loading, Ky, required to cause failure.

b) Obtain an input earthquake motion appropriate for

the specific sites.

c) Find the average acceleration, Kt, from the

acceleration time history of the site using seismic response
analysis, MSHAKE, or other equivalent linear analysis. The yield
coefficient is calculated from the average acceleration time
history.

d) Calculate the seismically induced displacement of

the potential sliding block by double integrating the potential
of Kt exceeding Ky.

3.3.4.2 Sliding Block Analogy. Figure 38 depicts the

principal components of the sliding block analysis (Earthquake
Resistance of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams Permanent Displacements of
Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding Block Analysis, Franklin and
Chang, 1977). The potential sliding mass in Figure 38A is
assumed to be in a condition of impending (limiting equilibrium)
failure, so that the factor of safety equals unity. This
condition is caused by acceleration of both the base and the mass
toward the left of the sketch with an acceleration of Ng.
Acceleration of the mass is limited to this value by the limit of
shear stresses that can be exerted across the idealized sliding
contact, so that if base acceleration were to increase, the mass
would move downhill relative to the base. By D’Alembert’s
principle, the limiting acceleration is represented by an inertia
force NW applied pseudostatically to the mass in a direction
opposite to acceleration and at the same angle . Figure 38B

126
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 37
Prediction of Embankment Deformation Induced by Earthquake

127
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Figure 38
Principle Components of the Sliding Block Analysis

128
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

shows the balanced force polygon for the situation. The angle of
inclination of the inertia force may be found as the angle that
is most critical; i.e., the angle that minimizes N. Its value is
usually within a few degrees of zero, and since the results of
the analysis are not sensitive to it, the vertical component can
generally be ignored or, equivalently, can be zero. The angle
 is the direction of the resultant S of the shear stresses on
the interface and is determined by the limit equilibrium
stability analysis. The same force polygon applied to the model
of a sliding block on a plane inclined at an angle model is used
to represent the sliding mass at an angle  to the horizontal
(Figure 38C). Hence, the sliding block model is used to
represent the sliding mass in an embankment.

The force-displacement relation diagrammed in Figure

38D is assumed to apply to this sliding block system. The force
in this diagram is the inertia force associated with the
instantaneous acceleration of the block, and the displacement is
the sliding displacement of the block relative to the base. It
is usually assumed that resistance to uphill sliding is large
enough that all displaced are downhill. If the base is subjected
to a sequence of acceleration pulses (the earthquake) large
enough to induce sliding of the block, the block will come to
rest at some displaced position down the slope after the motion
has ceased. The amount of permanent displacement, u, can be
computed by using Newton’s second law of motion, F = ma, to write
the equation of motion for the sliding block relative to the
base, and then numerically or graphically integrating (twice) to
obtain the resultant displacement. During the time intervals
when relative motion is occurring, the acceleration of the block
relative to the base is given by:

u = arel = (abase - N)[cos(- -)/cos]

= (abase - N)

where arel = relative acceleration between the block and the

inclined plane

abase= acceleration of the inclined plane, a function of

time

N = critical acceleration level at which sliding begins

129
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

 = direction of the resultant shear force and

displacement, and the inclination of the plane

= direction of the acceleration, measured from the

horizontal

 = friction angle between the block and the plane

The acceleration abase is the earthquake acceleration

acting at the level of the sliding mass in the embankment. It is
assumed to be equal to the bedrock acceleration multiplied by an
amplification factor that accounts for the quasi-elastic response
of the embankment.

The amount of permanent displacement is determined by

twice integrating the relative accelerations over the total
duration of the earthquake record. It is assumed that , , and
do not change with time; thus, the coefficient  is constant
and is not involved in the integration. In the final stage of
analysis, the result of the integration are multiplied by the
coefficient , the determination of which requires knowledge of
embankment properties and the results of the pseudostatic
stability analysis. For most practical problems, the coefficient
 may be assumed a value of unity, as it generally differs from
unity by less than 15 percent.

The second step of acceleration integration is

illustrated by the plot of base velocity versus time in Figure 38
E. Since the slope of the velocity curve is the acceleration,
the limiting acceleration Ng of the block defines the velocity
curve for the block by straight lines in those parts of the plot
where the critical acceleration has been exceeded in the base.
The area between the curves gives the relative displacement.
Note that the block continues to move relative to the underlying
slope even when abase has fallen below N. The absolute velocity
of the block continues to change linearly with time until the
velocities of the block and the ground are the same. In effect,
the friction between the block and the ground continues to act on
the block until the ground catches up with it.

130
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Computer programs are available to compute the

cumulative displacement of the sliding block. The work of
Franklin and Chang, 1977 and of others has demonstrated that the
cumulative displacements calculated by the sliding block method
increase as the ratio N/abase decrease and tend to become
significant when the ratio falls below 0.5.

131
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

APPENDIX A

COMPUTER PROGRAMS

A.1 Scope. This appendix lists computer programs which

will be available on the NAVFAC Criteria Office Homepage and
from the Construction Criteria Base (CCB), issued by the
National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC, and.
The computer programs that will be available are:

A.1.1 LIQUFAC. A microcomputer program to evaluate soil

liquefaction potential for sites located in a seismic zone area.
For the liquefiable soil, the probable one dimensional
compression settlement due to earthquake induced liquefaction is
estimated. The results of analysis are summarized by a output
and a graphic plot. Figure A-1 shows a result of computer
output. Figure A-2 shows a graphic plot of the computer output
results. The graphic plot also includes the settlement of the
soil layers induced by the liquefaction. The plot also
indicates the minimum standard penetration resistances required
to avoid liquefaction of the site which was given design
earthquake characteristics.

A.1.2 LATDEF2. A microcomputer program to evaluate

liquefaction-induced lateral spread displacement. It uses two
models in a seismic zone area. A free-face model for area near
steep banks, and a ground-slope model for areas with gently
sloping terrain. Figure A-3 exhibits the program data input
screen. The program calculates lateral spread for each soil
layer. After all soil layer data has been entered into the
program, a total lateral displacement for all soil layers can be
calculated.

132
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

APPENDIX A (Continued)
LIQUFAC
-- Liquefaction Potential Analysis --
by NAVFAC/IDI/PEI
Project Title: Homeport Construction
Project Site: San Diego, CA
Proposed Structure: Dike and Wharf
Date: 5/20/1995
Computed By: AHW
========================== Factor of Safety ============================
No. SPT Soil Elev. % Cyclic Stress Ratio Fs N Req'd
------------ ------------------- Against----------
N N(60) N1(60) (ft) Fines Ri(Design) Rf(Liquef) Liquef Fs = 1.0
1 100.0 (CSR) (CRR)
1 12 12.0 19.2 97.0
1 11 11.0 15.6 92.0
1 17.38 SM 15.0 0.303 N/A N/A 10.90
2 90.0
2 10 10.0 11.9 87.0
2 9 9.0 9.7 82.0
2 9 9.0 9.1 78.0
2 8 8.0 7.5 72.0
2 9.55 SM 20.0 0.391 0.187 0.480 19.66
3 70.0
3 8 8.0 7.1 67.0
3 7 7.0 5.9 62.0
3 7 7.0 5.6 57.0
3 6 6.0 4.6 52.0
3 5.81 SM 25.0 0.434 0.146 0.335 25.36
50.0

Elev. of Ground Water Level = 90.0 ft.

Not corrected by the energy delivered by sampler.

===================== Dynamic Properties ===========================

Layer Unit Vertical Stress Shear Wave Shear
No. Weight Total Effective Velocity Modulus
(pcf) (psf) (psf) (fps) (ksf)
1 125.0 625.0 625.0 N/A N/A
2 120.0 2450.0 1826.0 486.5 882.16
3 115.0 4800.0 2928.0 560.6 1122.29

Max. Surf. Acc., a(max) = 0.47 g Earthquake Mag., M = 6.5

======================= Settlement =================================

Layer G/Gmax PI Cyclic Volumetric Settlement
No. Shear Strain(%) Strain(%) (in.)
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 0.0880 15.0 1.4142 1.0750 2.5800
3 0.0100 20.0 17.4258 2.7057 6.4938

Figure A-1
Example of Liquefaction Potential Analysis Output
133
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

APPENDIX A (Continued)

Figure A-2
Example of LIQUFAC Analysis Graphic Plot
134
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

APPENDIX A (Continued)

Bartlett/Youd Lateral Spread NCEL JMF 3-93

Distance to energy Moment Magnitude

10 7.5
source, km 6.0 < M < 8.0

This height saturated D50 15 Average D50 for

cohesionless layer, m T15 0.2
1.5
0.3m < T < 12m 0.1mm < D50 < 1mm

F15 Average fines

S slope %
content (<0.075mm) in 25 2.5
0.1% < S < 6%
T15,% 0% < F <50%

Lateral spread, m
3.350357 Compute
for layer
Equation
( ) Free Face PrevioLus ayer 1 Next Layer
( ) Slope
Total spread, m
3.350357 Done
for N layers

Figure A-3
Example of LATDEF2 Data Input Screen

135
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

APPENDIX B

SYMBOLS

Symbol Designation

A Cross-sectional area; also amplitude.

B,b Width in general, or narrow dimension of a
foundation unit.
Ca Unit adhesion between soil and pile surface or
surface of some other foundation material.
Cu Coefficient of uniformity of grain size curve.
Ca Coefficient of secondary compression.
c Cohesion intercept for Mohr's envelope of shear
strength based on total stresses.
c' Cohesion intercept for Mohr's envelope of shear
strength based on effective stresses.
CSR Cyclic stress ratio.
CRR Cyclic resistance ratio.
D,d Depth, diameter, or distance; also damping
coefficient.
DR Relative density.
D5, D60,D85 Grain size division of a soil sample, percent of
dry weight smaller than this grain size is
indicated by subscript.
E Modulus of elasticity of structural material.
Es Modulus of elasticity or "modulus of deformation"
of soil.
e Void ratio.
Fs Safety factor in stability or shear strength
analysis.
f Frequency.
G Shear modulus.
H,h In general, height or thickness.
I Moment of inertia.
k Coefficient of permeability in general.
ksf Kips per square foot pressure intensity.
ksi Kips per square inch pressure intensity.
L,l Length in general or longest dimension of
foundation unit.
pcf Density in pounds per cubic foot.
Po Existing effective overburden pressure acting at a
specific height in the soil profile or on a soil
sample.
136
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

APPENDIX B (Continued)

Symbol Designation

p Intensity of applied load.

q Intensity of vertical load applied to foundation
unit.
qu Unconfined compressive strength of soil sample.
R,r Radius of pile, caisson, well, or other right
circular cylinder.
S Percent saturation of soil mass.
s Shear strength of soil for a specific stress or
condition in situ, used instead of strength
parameters c and f.
T Thickness of soil stratum, or relative stiffness
factor of soil and pile in analysis of laterally
loaded piles.
tsf Tons per square foot pressure intensity.
W Moisture content of soil.
D Dry unit weight of soil.
SUB,B Submerged (buoyant) unit weight of soil mass.
w Unit weight of water, vary from 62.4 pcf for fresh
water to 64 pcf for sea water.
 Unit strain in general.
,v,c Magnitude of settlement for various conditions.
 Foundation mass density.
1 Total major principal stress.
3 Total minor principal stress.
1’ Effective major principal stress.
3’ Effective minor principal stress.
x,y,z Normal stresses in coordinate directions.
 Poisson’s ratio.
 Intensity of shear stress.
max Intensity of maximum shear stress.
t,t1,t2,tn Time intervals from start of loading to the points
1, 2, or n.
 Angle of internal friction or "angle of shearing
resistance," obtained from Mohr's failure envelope
for shear strength.

137
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

REFERENCES

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING REFERENCED DOCUMENTS FORM A PART OF THIS

HANDBOOK TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED HEREIN. USERS OF THIS HANDBOOK
SHOULD REFER TO THE LATEST REVISIONS OF CITED DOCUMENTS UNLESS
OTHERWISE DIRECTED.

FEDERAL/MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS, BULLETINS, HANDBOOKS,

NAVFAC GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS, DESIGN MANUALS, AND P-PUBLICATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from the Defense

Printing Service Detachment Office (DPSDO), Standardization
Document Order Desk, Building 4D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia,
PA 19111-5094.

DESIGN MANUALS

DM-7.01 Soil Mechanics.

DM-7.02 Foundations and Earth Structures.

P-PUBLICATIONS

P-355 Seismic Design for Buildings.

P-397 Structures to Resist the Effects of

Accidental Explosions.

OTHER GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS:

ARMY PUBLICATIONS

TM 5-890-10-1 Seismic Design Guidelines for Essential

Buildings.

Miscellaneous Earthquake Resistance of Earth and

Paper S-171-17, Rock-Fill Dams Permanent Displacements
Report 5 of Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding
Block Analysis, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterway Experiment Station, EC,
Vicksburg, MS, A. G. Franklin and
F. K. Chang, 1977.

138
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

(Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from the Defense

Printing Service Detachment Office (DPSDO), Standardization
Document Order Desk, Building 4D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia,
PA 19111-5094.)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving, Vol. 1, G. G. Goble

and F. Rausche, 1976.

(Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from the Federal

Highway Administration, Washington, DC.)

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER

NCEL N-1827 An Analysis of Base Isolation Design

Issues for Navy Essential Construction,
J. Ferritto, 1991.

NCEL TR-939/ Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining

ITL-92-11 Structures.

TR-2016-SHR Procedures for Computing Site Seismicity.

(Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from the Naval

Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC), 1100 23rd Avenue,
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370.)

NON-GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS:

Baez, J. I. and Martin, G. R., Quantitative Evaluation of

Stone Column Techniques for Earthquake Liquefaction Mitigation,
Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference, 1992.

Barken, D. D., Dynamics of Bases of Foundation, McGraw Hill

Book Company, Inc., 1962.

Bereduqo, Y. O. and Novak, M., Coupled Horizontal and Rocking

Vibrations of Embedded Footings, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 9, No. 4, 1972.

Haupt, W. A., Isolation of Vibrations by Concrete Core Walls,

Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, Tokyo, 1977.

139
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Kausel, E. and Roesset, J. M., Dynamic Stiffness of Circular

Foundations, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Vol.
101, No. EM6, 1975.

Richart, F. E., Soil Structural Interaction, Proceedings of

the Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 2, Tokyo, 1977.

Richart, F. E., Jr., Hall, S. R., and Woods, R. D., Vibrations

of Soils and Foundations, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Robertson, P. K. and Fear, C. E., Soil Liquefaction and Its

Evaluation Based on SPT and CPT, Proceedings Workshop on Evaluation
of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1996.

Schnabel, P. B. and Seed, H. B., Acceleration in Rock for

Earthquakes in the Western United States, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 2, 1973.

Seed, H. B., Murnaka, R., Lysmer, J., and Idris, I.,

Relationship Between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity,
Distance From Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately
Strong Earthquake, EERC 75-17, University of California, Berkley,
1975.

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM)

ASTM D 3999 Determination of Modulus and Damping

Properties of Soils Using the Cyclic
Triaxial Apparatus

ASTM D 4015 Modulus and Damping of Soils by the

Resonant-Column Method.

ASTM D 4428/ Cross-Hole Seismic Testing.

D 4428M

ASTM D 4945 High-Strain Dynamic Testing of Piles.

(Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.)

140
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE)

7-95 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings,

Section 4, Earthquake Loads.

Makdisi, F. I. and Seed, H. B., Simplified Procedures for

Estimating Dam and Embankment Earthquake Induced Deformations,
Journal of the Geotechnical Division, Vol. 104, No. GT7, 1978.

Novak, M. and Aboul-Ella, M., Impedance Function of Piles in

Layered Media, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Vol.
104, 1978.

Owies, I. S., Response of Piles to Vibratory Loads, Journal of

the Geotechnical Division, Vol. 103, 1977.

Richart, F. E., Jr., Foundation Vibrations, Journal of Soil

Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 86, No. SM4, 1960.

Roesset, J. R., Stiffness and Damping Coefficients of

Foundations, Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations, Analytical
Aspects, 1980.

(Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from American

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 345 East 47th Street, New York,
NY 10017.)

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

(AASHTO)

AASHTO Standard Specification for Magnesium-Alloy Forgings.

(Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from American

Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 444
N. Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001.)

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC)

Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquake.

(Unless otherwise indicated, copies are available from National

Academy Press, Washington, DC.)

141
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

GLOSSARY

ACRONYMS

AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Official

ASTM. American Association for Testing and Materials.

CPT. Cone penetration test.

CRR. Cyclcic resistance ratio.

CSR. Cyclic stress ratio.

EBS. Earthquake Barrier System.

FC. Fine content.

FPS. Friction-Pendulum System.

HDR. High-damping rubber bearing.

LRB. Lead rubber bearing.

MM. Modified Mercalli.

NFESC. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center.

NRC. National Research Council.

PDA. Pile driving analyzer.

RFBI. Resilient frictional base isolation.

SASW. Spectral analysis of surface waves.

SDOF. Single-degree-of-freedom.

SPT. Standard penetration test

142
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

DEFINITIONS

Dynamic Compaction. The use of high-energy impact to densify

loose granular soils in situ.

Liquefaction. The sudden, large decrease of shear strength of a

cohesionless soil caused by collapse of the soil structure,
produced by shock or small shear strains, associated with sudden
but temporary increase of pore water pressure.

Machine Foundation. A foundation that receive regular or

irregular vibratory loads that are generated from rotating or
impact machinery.

Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). The PDA uses electronic measurements

and the wave equation analysis method to immediately compute
average pile force and velocity.

Response Spectrum. Useful information regarding frequency-

dependent energy distribution of an earthquake derived from
Fourier analysis.

State-of-the-Art. The scientific and technical level attained at

a given time.

Tolerable Vibration. The level of vibration magnitude, ranging

from “not noticeable to persons” to “danger to structures” that a
structure is designed.

Vibroflot. A crane-suspended cylindrical penetrator with a water

jet at the tip that is opened and acts in conjunction with
vibrations to dig a hole.

Vibroflotation. A method to densify granular soils using a

vibroflot to dig a hole and then backfilled with sand or gravel
that is dumped in from the surface and densified.

143
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3

Vibrodensification. The densification or compaction of

cohesionless soils by imparting wave energy to the soil mass so as
to rearrange soil particles resulting in less voids in the overall
mass.

CUSTODIAN PREPARING ACTIVITY

NAVY - YD2 NAVY - YD2

PROJECT NO.
FACR-1159

144
 STANDARDIZATION DOCUMENT IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL
INSTRUCTIONS

1. The preparing activity must complete blocks 1, 2, 3, and 8. In block 1, both

the document number and revision letter should be given.

2. The submitter of this form must complete blocks 4, 5, 6, and 7.

3. The preparing activity must provide a reply within 30 days from receipt of the
form.

NOTE: This form may not be used to request copies of documents, nor to request
waivers, or clarification of requirements on current contracts. Comments submitted
on this form do not constitute or imply authorization to waive any portion of the
referenced document(s) or to amend contractual requirements.
1. DOCUMENT NUMBER 2. DOCUMENT DATE (YYMMDD)
I RECOMMEND A CHANGE:
MIL-HDBK-1007/3 971115
3. DOCUMENT TITLE SOIL DYNAMICS AND SPECIAL DESIGN ASPECTS
4. NATURE OF CHANGE (identify paragraph number and include proposed rewrite, if possible. Attach extra sheets as needed.)

5. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

6. SUBMITTER
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial) b. ORGANIZATION
c. ADDRESS (Include Zip Code) d. TELEPHONE (Include Area 7. DATE SUBMITTED:
Code) (YYMMDD)
(1) Commercial
(2) DSN
(If applicable)

8. PREPARING ACTIVITY
a. NAME COMMANDER b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (1) Commercial (2) DSN
CRITERIA OFFICE
(757) 322-4203 262-4203
c. ADDRESS (Include Zip Code)
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A REPLY WITHIN 45
1510 GILBERT STREET DAYS, CONTACT:
NORFOLK, VA 23511-2699 Defense Quality and Standardization Office
5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1403,
Falls Church, VA 22041-3466
Telephone (703) 756-2340 DSN 289-2340
DD Form 1426, OCT 89
Previous editions are 198/290
obsolete.