Vibrations of Machine Foundations: Richard P. Ray, PH.D., P.E

Vibrations
of
Machine Foundations
Richard P. Ray, Ph.D., P.E.

Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of South Carolina
USC
Thanks To:
Prof. Richard D. Woods, Notre Dame Univ.
Prof. F.E. Richart, Jr.
USC
Topics for Today
 Fundamentals
 Modeling
 Properties
 Performance
USC
Foundation Movement
Z
Y
θ
φ
X
ψ
Fundamentals-Modeling-Properties-Performance USC
Design Questions (1/4)
 How Does It Fail?
 Static Settlement
 Dynamic Motion Too Large (0.02 mm is large)
 Settlements Caused By Dynamic Motion
 Liquefaction
 What Are Maximum Values of Failure?
(Acceleration, Velocity, Displacement)
Fundamentals-Modeling-Properties-Design-Performance USC
Velocity Requirements
Massarch (2004) "Mitigation of Traffic-Induced Ground Vibrations"
 What Are Relations Between Loads And
Failure Quantities
 Loading -Machine (Periodic), Impluse, Natural
 Relations Between Load, Structure, Foundation,
Soil, Neighboring Structures
 Generate Model: Deterministic or Probabilistic
 How Do We Measure What Is Necessary?
 Full Scale Tests
 Prototype Tests
 Small Scale Tests (Centrifuge)
 Laboratory Tests (Specific Parameters)
 Numerical Simulation
USC
 What Factor of Safety Do We Use?
 Does FOS Have Meaning
 What Happens After There Is Failure
 Loss of Life
 Loss of Property
 Loss of Production
 Purpose of Project, Design Life, Value
r -2 r -2 r -0.5
+
Rayleigh wave
+ Vertical Horizontal
component component
Shear Relative
- + wave + - amplitude
r -1
+
+
r
Shear r -1
Wave Type Percentage of
window
Total Energy
Rayleigh 67
Waves Shear 26
Compression 7
Modeling Foundations
 Lumped Parameter (m,c,k) Block System
 Parameters Constant, Layer, Special
 Impedance Functions
 Function of Frequency (ω), Layers
 Boundary Elements (BEM)
 Infinite Boundary, Interactions, Layers
 Finite Element/Hybrid (FEM, FEM-BEM)
 Complex Geometry, Non-linear Soil
Lumped Parameter
P  Po sin( t )
r
m m
c k
Gνρ
mz  cz  kz  P0 sin(t )
SDOF
Adynamic
Mag 
Astatic
1

2 2
    
2
1      2 D 
  n    n 
Lumped Parameter System
Z mz z  cz z  k z z  P0 sin( t )
k
n 
Cz Kz m
Kx
Iψ m X
ψ
Cx
Kψ D  c ccr ccr  2 k m
Cψ/2 Cψ/2
Lumped Parameter Values
Mode Vertical Horizontal Rocking Torsion
Stiffness 4Gr 8Gr 8Gr 3 16Gr 3

k 1  2  3(1   ) 3
Mass Ratio m(1   ) m( 2   ) 3I (1   ) I
mm̂ 4 r 3 8 r 3 8r 5 r 5
Damping 0.425 0.288 0.15 0.50
Ratio, D mˆ 1 / 2 mˆ 1/ 2 (1  mˆ )mˆ 1/ 2 1  2m̂
Fictitious 0.27 m 0.095m 0.24 I x 0.24 I z
Mass mˆ mˆ mˆ mˆ
D=c/ccr G=Shear Modulus ν=Poisson's Ratio r=Radius
ρ=Mass Density Iψ,Iθ=Mass Moment of Inertia
Mass Ratio
Design Example 1
VERTICAL COMPRESSOR
Unbalanced Forces
•Vertical Primanry = 7720 lb
•Vertical Secondary = 1886 lb
•Horzontal Primary = 104 lb
•Horizontal Secondary = 0 lb
Operating Speed = 450 rpm
Soil Properties
Wt Machine + Motor = 10 900 lb
Shear Wave Velocity Vs = 680 ft/sec
DESIGN CRITERION:
Smooth Operation At Speed Shear Modulus, G = 11 000 psi
Velocity <0.10 in/sec Density, γ = 110 lb/ft3
Displacement < 0.002 in Poisson's Ratio, ν = 0.33
Jump to Chart
Q0 (1  )Q0 0.667(7720  1885)
Azs   0.002"  
kz 4Gr 4  11 000  r
r  72.8"  6.07'
Try a 15 x 8 x 3 foundation block, Area = 120 ft2 and r = 6.18 ft
Weight = 54,000 lb Total Weight = 54 000 + 10 900 = 64 900
(1  ) W g 0.67  64 900
mˆ    0.42
4r g  4  110  6.18
3 3
0.425  1 
D  0.66 M z  1.0   Jump to Figure
mˆ  2D 
Az dynamic  Az static  0.002"
Design Example - Table Top
18'
W=550 000 lb
Q0=400 lb
Iψ=2.88 x 106 ft-lb-sec2
34' DESIGN CRITERION

18' ψ 0.20 in/sec Horizontal Motion at
11'
Machine Centerline
Ax = 0.0015 in. from combined
Soil Properties rocking and sliding
Shear Wave Velocity Vs = 770 ft/sec Speed = 160 rpm
Shear Modulus, G = 14 000 psi Slower speeds, Ax can be larger
Density, γ = 110 lb/ft3
Poisson's Ratio, ν = 0.33
Horizontal Translation Only
4cd 4 18  34 2  m
Equivanlen t r   13.96 ft mˆ   0.38
  8 r 3
0.288 Q Q 2 
D  1/ 2  0.465  Mag x  1.0 Ax static  0  0  3.0 105 in
mˆ kx 8 Gr
Rocking About Point "O"

16cd 3
16  17  9 3
Equivalent r  4 4  12.0 ft   120 rpm  12.5 rad / sec
3 3
8Gr 8  (14 000 144) 12.04 k 2.90  108
k    2.90 10 lb / ft n 
8
  10 rad / sec
2  2  0.33 I 2.88 10 6
3(1  ) I 3(0.67) 2.88 106

mˆ     0.83
8 r 5 8 110
(12.04) 5
32.2
0.15
D   0.09  Mag  5.6 Static Moment  M o  400 18  7200 ft  lbs.
(1  mˆ  ) mˆ 
M o 7200  3(0.67) 0.50
Static Angular Deflection   s    6 rad
k 2.9 10 8
10
0.50
Horizontal Motion  Axs   s  h  6
( 18  12 )  1.0  10 4
in
10
At Resonance  5.6(1.0  10  4 )  5.6 10  4 in.
Impedance Methods
 Based on Elasto-Dynamic Solutions
 Compute Frequency-Dependent Impedance
Values (Complex-Valued)
 Solved By Boundary Integral Methods
 Require Uniform, Single Layer or Special Soil
Property Distribution
 Solved For Many Foundation Types
Impedance Functions
P  Poeit  Po  cos( t )  i sin( t ) 
Sz
Rz  2K 
Sz   K  i C   K STATIC  k ( )   i  C  DSOIL 
Az   
Soil Damping
Radiation Damping
Jump Wave
Impedance Functions
 r
a0   r 
G Vs
Luco and Westmann (1970)
Layer
Effects
Impedance Functions
Boundary Element
Stehmeyer and Rizos, 2006
B-Spline Impulse Response Approach
 M z   K  z   p eit  z   Z eit then
 K     M  Z  p
2
Finite/Hybrid
Model

G*  G 1  2 2  2i 1   2 
Dynamic p-y Curves
Tahghighi and Tonagi 2007
Soil Properties
 Shear Modulus, G and Damping Ratio, D
 Soil Type
 Confining Stress
 Void Ratio
 Strain Level
 Field: Cross-Hole, Down-Hole, Surface
Analysis of Seismic Waves SASW
 Laboratory: Resonant Column, Torsional
Simple Shear, Bender Elements
Oscilloscope
Crosshole Testing
ASTM D 4428
Pump
t
Shear Wave Velocity:
Vs = x/t
Downhole
Hammer
(Source) Velocity
Test Transducer
Depth (Geophone
Receiver)
packer
x
Slope Slope
Note: Verticality of casing Inclinometer Inclinometer
must be established by
slope inclinometers to correct PVC-cased PVC-cased
distances x with depth. USC
Borehole Borehole
Resonant Column Test
G, D for Different γ
Torsional Shear Test
Schematic Stress-Strain
Hollow Cylinder RC-TOSS
TOSS Test Results
Steam Turbine-Generator
(Moreschi and Farzam, 2003)
Machine Foundation Design Criteria
 Deflection criteria: maintain turbine-generator
alignment during machine operating conditions
 Dynamic criteria: ensure that no resonance
condition is encountered during machine
operating conditions Jump to Resonance
 Strength criteria: reinforced concrete design
STG Pedestal Structure
Vibration Properties Evaluation
 Identification of the foundation natural
frequencies for the dominant modes
 Frequency exclusion zones for the natural
frequencies of the foundation system and

individual structural members (±20%)
 Eigenvalue analysis: natural frequencies,
mode shapes, and mass participation

factors
Finite Element Model
Structure and Base
Z
Y X
Low Frequency Modes
1st mode
6.5 Hz
95 % m.p.f.
2nd mode
7.2 Hz
76 % m.p.f
High Frequency Modes
28th mode 42nd mode

46.3 Hz 64.6 Hz
0.3% m.p.f 0.03% m.p.f
Excitation frequency: 50-60 Hz
Local Vibration Modes
 Identification of natural
frequencies for individual
structural members
 Quantification of changes
on vibration properties due
to foundation modifications
ATST Telescope and FE Model
Assumptions in FE analyses
 Optics Lab mass/Instrument weight = 228 tons
 Wind mean force = 75 N, RMS = 89 N
 Ground base excitation PSD = 0.004 g2/hz
 Concrete Pier
 High Strength Concrete (E=3.11010 N/m2, =0.15)
 Soil Stiffness, k
 Four different values using Arya & O’Neil’s
formula based on the site test data (Shear
modulus:30~75ksi, Poisson’s ratio:0.35~0.45)
Frequency vs Soil Stiffness
Stiffness units = SI, frequency mode (hz)
Stiffness min m in+33.3% m in+66.6% max
Kx 1.19E+10 1.83E+10 2.48E+10 3.12E+10
Ky 1.19E+10 1.83E+10 2.48E+10 3.12E+10
Kz 1.48E+10 2.45E+10 3.41E+10 4.38E+10
Krx 1.34E+12 2.21E+12 3.09E+12 3.96E+12
Kry 1.34E+12 2.21E+12 3.09E+12 3.96E+12
MODE Krz 1.74E+12 2.61E+12 3.49E+12 4.36E+12
1 6.3 7.0 7.4 7.5
2 6.4 7.1 7.5 7.7
3 9.4 9.7 9.9 10
4 9.4 10.3 11.1 11.8
5 10.4 11.9 12.6 13.3
6 11.2 13.0 13.6 13.7
• Soil property range: Shear modulus (30~75ksi), Poisson’s ratio (0.35~0.45)
• Pier Footing: Diameter (23.3m)
• “min” for shear modulus of 30 ksi; “max” for 75 ksi
Summary and Conclusions (Cho, 2005)
1. High fidelity FE models were created
2. Relative mirror motions from zenith to horizon pointing: about 400 m in
translation and 60 rad in rotation.
3. Natural frequency changes by 2 hz as height changes by 10m.
4. Wind buffeting effects caused by dynamic portion (fluctuation) of wind
5. Modal responses sensitive to stiffness of bearings and drive disks
6. Soil characteristics were the dominant influences in modal
behavior of the telescopes.
7. Fundamental Frequency (for a lowest soil stiffness):
OSS=20.5hz; OSS+base=9.9hz; SS+base+Coude+soil=6.3hz
8. A seismic analysis was made with a sample PSD
9. ATST structure assembly is adequately designed:
1. Capable of supporting the OSS
2. Dynamically stiff enough to hold the optics stable
3. Not significantly vulnerable to wind loadings
Free-Field Analytical Solutions
  L0V  2 r 
u z (r , ,0)  i  3  RV (a0 ) H 0  
ur  2    CR 
uz
  M 0V  2 r 
ur (r , ,0)  i   RV (a0 ) H1  
 2  3
   CR 
Trench
Isolation
Karlstrom and Bostrom 2007

Chehab and Nagger 2003
Celibi et al (in press)
USC
Thank-you
 Questions?
USC
r -2 r -2 r -0.5
+
Rayleigh wave
+ Vertical Horizontal
component component
Shear Relative
- + wave + - amplitude
r -1
+
+
r
Shear r -1
window Wave Type Percentage of
Total Energy
Rayleigh 67
Shear 26
Compression 7
USC
Waves
Rayleigh, R
Surface
Shear,S
Secondary
Compression, P
Primary
USC
Machine Performance Chart
Performance Zones
A=No Faults, New
B=Minor Faults,
Good Condition
C = Faulty, Correct
In 10 Days To Save
0.002 $$
D = Failure Is Near,
Correct In 2 Days
E = Stop Now
450
USC

Vibrations of Machine Foundations: Richard P. Ray, PH.D., P.E

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vibrations of Machine Foundations: Richard P. Ray, PH.D., P.E

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vibrations

Richard P. Ray, Ph.D., P.E.

Massarch (2004) "Mitigation of Traffic-Induced Ground Vibrations"

 Purpose of Project, Design Life, Value

Stiffness 4Gr 8Gr 8Gr 3 16Gr 3

34' DESIGN CRITERION

Rocking About Point "O"

3(1  ) I 3(0.67) 2.88 106

Luco and Westmann (1970)

Stehmeyer and Rizos, 2006

Tahghighi and Tonagi 2007

 Strength criteria: reinforced concrete design

frequencies of the foundation system and

mode shapes, and mass participation

28th mode 42nd mode

Karlstrom and Bostrom 2007

You might also like